Moon Walkers.

[MileHigh]

At 2:35 when the astronaut bounces past the flag,and clearly at some distance away from the flag so as no physical contact is made,you can clearly see the flag being pulled toward the astronaut,and this clearly shows a vacuum/pressure drop being created behind the astronaut-the same effect you would see in an environment that has an atmosphere.
How dose this happen in the vacuum environment of the moon?.

It's the old cliche that common sense is not so common.

The moon conspiracy theorists get in a tizzy about there not being a blast crater because there is "supposed" to be a blast crater.  The problem is that they don't even think about the issue, all that they say is that there is "supposed" to be a blast crater without properly analyzing the situation.  One of the many reasons for sending probes to the moon before the Apollo landings was to specifically check into the nature of the surface to make sure that manned landing craft would have a firm footing and not sink into a 15-foot-deep layer of fluffy dust.

Then a flag that is standing up vertically bends in the force of the exhaust gasses when the upper stage blasts off?  Horror of horrors!  This must be true:  Bending flag pole = blast crater, bending flag pole = blast crater.  Don't think!  Just repeat it over and over, "Bending flag pole = blast crater."  WHERE IS THE BLAST CRATER THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE THERE?

Why did the flag waver starting at 2:35?   Why why why why why?   Flag waver = Hollywood stage, flag waver = Hollywood stage.  Don't think!  Just repeat it over and over, "Flag waver = Hollywood stage."

I am just flabbergasted at your display of lack of common sense.  Don't think, just say whatever you want to say to force your square truth into a round hole.  Welcome to North Korea.  DON'T THINK.

[picowatt]

We know that at the earths surface,we get around 1320 watts per square meter of solar radiation energy,so how much per square meter would we see in space of solar energy hitting a solid object? I am unable to find a conclusive answer,as viewing many sites,i found many answers. NASA and wiki seem to both lean toward the earths surface receiving around 67% of the solar energy from the sun,due to the rest being deflected by both the atmosphere,and reflected by earth it self. But it would be safe to assume that there is more solar energy per meter square hitting an object in space,than there is hitting the earths surface. Knowing that,we can also assume that any object in space/or the part there of facing direct sunlight, would heat up far quicker than the same object/or part there of,facing the sun,here on earth. The question at hand now is-can that amount of heat be radiated away by means of radiation in space? We know it cannot be dissipated by means of induction or convection,so that leaves us with radiation. If radiation is so effective in the vacuum of space,then why dose a vacuum flask keep our coffee water so hot for so long?. I know you are going to make reference to the fact that it is the shiny reflective walls of the thermos that reduces the heat being radiated away from the water,but as i stated,my cheap vacuum flask with the black inner plastic shell still keeps my water hot for a long period of time. So this is telling us that the amount of heat that can be removed by way of radiation is very little in this case,and we also know that the value of the vacuum in the vacuum thermos is not going to be anywhere near the value of the vacuum of space.

We then have to ask what kind of temperature drop's would our space craft experience when on the shaded/shadowed side of the earth during it's orbit around the earth?. The temperature drop during night would be far more extreme on the moon-would it not?. But lets stick to the temperatures/thermal problem during the day on the moon.

Tinman,

You stated that we were to keep it civil on the first page of this thread.  It did not take long for you to turn this thread into an opportunity for you to just insult all things NASA.  If you wish to discuss some point relevant to the topic, I will try to do so as I have time, but I will not participate in a thread whose purpose it is to just scoff at and make fun of the hard work of a lot scientists, engineers, and technicians, particularly when those doing so do not understand the function or engineering of what it is they are making fun of.

I am not an expert on Apollo, spaceflight, image analysis, or thermodynamics.  I have not, and would not, ever claim to be.  My knowledge on those subject matters is quite basic and only skims the surface.  However, having worked in aerospace and defense, I do know a few things from having "rubbed shoulders" with engineers and scientists proficient in those fields.

Quite often the greatest mistakes one makes is believing that they have all the answers, seeing only what they believe to be obvious, and not seeking out those with more expertise regarding a given task or solution.  For example, as I have previously stated, if you want to know what the exact temperature of a given object is in either space or on the surface of the moon, the answer involves many variables and requires a lot of calculations, and I would refer you to a qualified thermodynamic engineer for that answer.

Also, I am not going to have the time to read thru pages of rambling posts with red highlights at the rate you apparently want to do so all of a sudden.  Please try to be a bit more succinct and ask a specific question.

For example, in the above post of yours, you seem to be asking and answering your own questions so I really don't know what, if anything, that it is you are asking.  Do you or do you not know how a vacuum thermos works?  From your post I cannot tell and will attempt to explain it to you if you do not.

As well, you discuss spacecraft in space and seem to be attempting to arrive at the amount of heat received by the craft  using solar flux per square meter or something.  The amount of heat received by any object in the vacuum of space, its temperature rise, and its ability to radiate away heat, depend as much or more so on the properties of the object upon which any solar flux impinges.

From your above post, I am unsure what it is you are asking or stating regarding the solar flux and spacecraft.

PW

[Johan_1955]

Horizontal moving like a aerial tram:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTBIr65cL_E

[Johan_1955]

It's the old cliche that common sense is not so common.

The moon conspiracy theorists get in a tizzy about there not being a blast crater because there is "supposed" to be a blast crater.  The problem is that they don't even think about the issue, all that they say is that there is "supposed" to be a blast crater without properly analyzing the situation.  One of the many reasons for sending probes to the moon before the Apollo landings was to specifically check into the nature of the surface to make sure that manned landing craft would have a firm footing and not sink into a 15-foot-deep layer of fluffy dust.

Then a flag that is standing up vertically bends in the force of the exhaust gasses when the upper stage blasts off?  Horror of horrors!  This must be true:  Bending flag pole = blast crater, bending flag pole = blast crater.  Don't think!  Just repeat it over and over, "Bending flag pole = blast crater."  WHERE IS THE BLAST CRATER THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE THERE?

Why did the flag waver starting at 2:35?   Why why why why why?   Flag waver = Hollywood stage, flag waver = Hollywood stage.  Don't think!  Just repeat it over and over, "Flag waver = Hollywood stage."

I am just flabbergasted at your display of lack of common sense.  Don't think, just say whatever you want to say to force your square truth into a round hole.  Welcome to North Korea.  DON'T THINK.

DON'T THINK, keeping my job from your TAX! ;-))

[picowatt]

It is good to see some true experts in the field of physics and photography are analyzing the photograph.
The picture in question regarding the hot spot from artificial lighting attached.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYnIvrDlhb4

I watched the first part of the analysis, up to where the analyst states that the light source was likely 9.4 to 14 inches to the right of the camera, "an ideal position for an artificial light source" he says and then switching to the shows announcer who states something like, there's your proof.....

Here is a description of the image:

"AS11-40-5866 (20 July 1969) --- Astronaut Edwin E. Aldrin Jr., lunar module pilot, egresses the Lunar Module (LM) "Eagle" and begins to descend the steps of the LM ladder as he prepares to walk on the moon. This photograph was taken by astronaut Neil A. Armstrong, commander, with a 70mm lunar surface camera during the Apollo 11 extravehicular activity (EVA). While astronauts Armstrong and Aldrin descended in the LM "Eagle" to explore the moon, astronaut Michael Collins, command module pilot, remained with the Command and Service Modules (CSM) "Columbia" in lunar orbit. Photo credit: NASA"

So, an astronaut wearing a very reflective white spacesuit is holding a camera and snaps a picture.  An image expert says there is a light source 9-14 inches to the right of the the camera.  Considering the width of the spacesuits, it is very likely that the light source was reflected light from Armstrong's suit.