Moon Walkers.

[tinman]

Tinman,


PW

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.

The quote from my opening thread.
I would hope that(although you have the right to disagree with other's)out right abuse of other members that post on this thread is avoided.
You once again made an incorrect judgement about me PW,as it clearly states!!other members!. You only feel i am scoffing at NASA because i do not agree with you or believe what NASA tells us.
Maybe go back,and re read the thread,and it will become apparent that you were actually the first to start throwing insults toward me. Thing's like-you think im delusional ,and i dont do any research before i make comment's--like the flag thing for instance,only to find out(once you did some research of your own) that i was right. This happens time and time again in many thread's,as it is here--just because i do not believe in what you believe in.

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.

The power of observation,research,using information available,and a bit of common sense,go's a long way. From this we can start to determine the thermal properties on the moon surface and surrounding environment. Now we know that the flags were !off the shelf! nylon flags(much to MH dismay),and not some sort of aluminum composite material,we then only have to find out as to what temperatures the nylon material can endure. As it turns out,not very much at all before it starts to shrivel up and melt.The link below seem'd fitting
http://homeguides.sfgate.com/properly-wash-nylon-flags-washing-machine-24900.html

You will note it quote's --but direct heat can cause it to melt. Nylon flags are usually machine washable, but care must be taken to prevent the colors from bleeding and to avoid heat damage.

From the information provided from NASA,we know that those flags were in direct sun light for many days. So if these !off the shelf! nylon flags have a very low tolerance to heat,how can they survive for days on the moon,if the temperature of objects in direct sun light rises above 150*C ?

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

.

But we already have these answers PW-NASA has provided them. They had to go as far as putting cooling systems in the space suit's,to keep the astronauts cool. Even the batteries in the lunar modules had insulation covering them to try and keep the heat down. Page after page on the net tells us that objects in direct sun light on the moon will see temperatures of 150* plus--but the nylon flag survives for days--even the dark blue square in the corner,and we know dark colors do not reflect heat very well,and that is the reason the astronauts suits are white.

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.

Some time's i get a lot of time to research and post my finding's,as well as ask questions. And some times i do not. So i make the best of it while i have the time to do so.

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.

Yes PW-i know how a vacuum thermos works. The combination of the vacuum and reflective surface of the inner liner of the flask ,eliminates the 3 ways heat can be transfer'd from the source to the sink.

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.

I am well aware that the higher the reflectivity of the surface,the less the amount of heat it receives
or absorbs from the sun. I was more interested in your comment about the rotating of the space craft to aid in the cooling of that space craft.

Brad

[tinman]

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.

MH
Your idiotic posts are increasing daily.
You say things like this when you have no explanation to questions asked by others-->you are starting to make your self look silly

In stead of just rambling on about nothing,and posting idiotic post like the above ,have the balls to answer the questions.

So here are my questions to you MH,as it seems that you would like to be an active member in this thread.
1- Why dose the flag start waving around when the astronaut bounce past it,and it clearly being seen that he is to far away from it for any physical contact.
2- How is it that the !off the shelf! nylon flag can endure such extreme temperature on the moon for days on end,when you cannot even wash them in hot water.
3- How are the flag's blown over by the jet thrust from the ascent module,and yet no blast crater from the decent module. Just in case you missed it,i totally agree with the reasons given as to why there is no blast crater<-- just so as you know,and dont go making a fool of your self again.
4- I provided the link where careful calculations were made to explain as to why there is no blast  crater (which i am quite happy with),and during those calculation,he was able to determine how much soil/sharp jagged rock's,and dust was ejected out from under the rockets nozzle. He was also
able to determine the speed at which that ejected matter was traveling,which was around 3600KPH. So knowing this,can you explain as to why no damage from these high speed particles is seen on the landers foot pad's and leg's?. And why are the bowl shaped foot pads spotlessly clean--not a sign of dust,dirt or small rocks to be seen in the foot bowls at all.

Im guessing that you will not attempt to answer the question's,but more so just carry on as you did above. The need to believe is strong in you MH One must put aside the books in situations like this-right?.

Brad

[conradelektro]

Now I got it, finally I am convinced. They have done it, the clever ones who look through the moon hoax, the even more clever ones, who know that free energy exists but is forbidden by the bad ones. They have provided so many clever arguments that I have to run over to their side of reality.

And now that I am saved from the evil of the world, the good things will start. The clever ones will teach me the real science, they will give me free energy, the aliens and knowledge beyond my wildest dreams.

The clever ones, who look through all hoaxes and bad things the government or the illuminate do, will set me free in a new world, where the truth will prevail, where the good knowledge will feed me and warm me in the winter.

With the so far suppressed knowledge of the clever ones we will travel to the stars and solve the problems on earth which are of course caused by the ones who do not believe in the clever ones.

The clever ones do not study science, they see the truth of the universe just by sucking their fingers and toes, it comes to them easily. Only dumb ones have to work hard to understand nature.

Wow, I have missed the good life which will now begin. Thank you clever ones for enlightening me.

In awe, Conrad

[MileHigh]

I guess the satire is flying over your head just like many technical elements of the moon shot that you attempted to discuss flew over your head due to abject ignorance coupled with a double-shot of hubris and failure to think past one step.

You want an explanation for the "moved" or "missing" lunar module in that two picture set you posted?  The two pictures were taken from two different positions and the mountains off in the distance were far enough away to be at "infinity" such that they will not appreciably change between the two pictures.  The lunar module did not move, the photographer moved.  You have to be a rocket scientist and have the good common sense wits of a 12-year-old to figure that one out.  But not the poor moon conspiracy theorists, they can't even figure out the shadows in some pictures or account for the high-reflectivity white space suits or the extra illumination coming from the reflections off of the lunar soil.  It makes you think that there should be a "dummies book," - "Common Sense Physics and Logical Thought Processes for Moon Conspiracy Theorist Dummies."

1- Why dose the flag start waving around when the astronaut bounce past it,and it clearly being seen that he is to far away from it for any physical contact.

Because the 170-pound astronaut and the 120-pound space suit form a 290-pound "ground thumper" that hits the ground for every bounce.  That makes the ground shake, a small portion of the energy from the bounce makes the flag pole rattle.

And the frustrating part is that you never even considered this possibility, just like many of the other poor hapless moon conspiracy theorists.  They desperately need that "dummies" book.

The answer to that one is staring you in the face.  BTW, it's "does" and "too."

2- How is it that the !off the shelf! nylon flag can endure such extreme temperature on the moon for days on end,when you cannot even wash them in hot water.

How do you know it's off-the-shelf?  You don't.  You are failing to think past one step.  Are you an expert on nylon and other plastics when it comes to heat resistance and melting point?  No?  I didn't think so.  Neither am I.  Are there different formulations of nylon that have different properties including the melting point?  You don't know?  I don't know myself either.

So we choose to be stupid and just blindly assume that regular vanilla run of the mill nylon was used for the flag.  That makes us comfortably numb.  It adds to the moon conspiracy.   Stay away from that "dummies" book!  We only have to think one step, and then we can just go back to sleep.

Funny though, the I have heard the term "high temperature resistance plastic" before.  Hmmmm.... makes you think, but only if your mind is capable of thinking past one step.

3- How are the flag's blown over by the jet thrust from the ascent module,and yet no blast crater from the decent module. Just in case you missed it,i totally agree with the reasons given as to why there is no blast crater<-- just so as you know,and dont go making a fool of your self again.

Well, you are making a fool of yourself by contradicting yourself in the question.

The question itself is a retarded moon conspiracy theorist question.  This is a failure to think:  If the flag is blown over then the descent stage must have created a blast crater.  There is no relationship at all between the flag blowing over and a possible blast crater, NONE.  Hence my satire.

4- I provided the link where careful calculations were made to explain as to why there is no blast  crater (which i am quite happy with),and during those calculation,he was able to determine how much soil/sharp jagged rock's,and dust was ejected out from under the rockets nozzle. He was also
able to determine the speed at which that ejected matter was traveling,which was around 3600KPH. So knowing this,can you explain as to why no damage from these high speed particles is seen on the landers foot pad's and leg's?. And why are the bowl shaped foot pads spotlessly clean--not a sign of dust,dirt or small rocks to be seen in the foot bowls at all.

For starters you don't know if there was or was not a fine layer of dust or fine damage on the foot pads and legs.  More importantly, there was no atmosphere, and no interaction between the exhaust gasses and an atmosphere which would create an opportunity for gaseous swirls and eddies carrying moon dust and rocks back to the legs and foot pads.  The exhaust gasses just spread out in all directions in the vacuum with no dust kick-back at all.  Everything just spread out in all directions in something akin to a nearly straight laminar flow in a radial pattern.

One more time we are back to the moon conspiracy theorists' failure to think past one step.  "There is supposed to be dust on the landing pads because that's how rockets act on Earth."  One more time, this is on the level of the common sense of an astute 15-year-old that understands that the LEM is landing in a vacuum.  You can even see it when Neil Armstrong says, "kicking up some dist," all of the dust is shooting straight away in a nearly straight laminar flow.

Im guessing that you will not attempt to answer the question's,but more so just carry on as you did above.

Well I'm calling BS on that.

I will tell you what else is a double-dose of BS:  "Somebody that disagrees with me is biased and therefore their opinions don't count."  That is a retarded statement.

You have tripped up half a dozen times in your debate with PW, really "pregnant pause" displays of ignorance.  Instead of acknowledging your mistakes and/or ignorance, you just soldier on and absorb the new enlightening information without saying anything.  You may think that is the best course of action but it's not at all and just hurts your credibility.

I saw the moon landings as a kid and the physics and geopolitics all make sense.  The "fake moon landings" is just another conspiracy cult by people that seemingly lack common sense or they suspend their common sense because they want to spin their tale because they have an agenda.  There is a conspiracy theorist cottage industry, and you can milk some decent money from the moon conspiracy.

MileHigh

[picowatt]

The quote from my opening thread.
I would hope that(although you have the right to disagree with other's)out right abuse of other members that post on this thread is avoided.

Excuse my paraphrase of your comment, but I will also not participate or condone derogatory remarks toward LRO or NASA engineers who are not here to defend themselves.

You once again made an incorrect judgement about me PW,as it clearly states!!other members!. You only feel i am scoffing at NASA because i do not agree with you or believe what NASA tells us.
Maybe go back,and re read the thread,and it will become apparent that you were actually the first to start throwing insults toward me. Thing's like-you think im delusional ,and i dont do any research before i make comment's--like the flag thing for instance,only to find out(once you did some research of your own) that i was right. This happens time and time again in many thread's,as it is here--just because i do not believe in what you believe in.

I will not bother to quote the derogatory comments you have made regarding the hard work of many NASA or NASA subcontractor engineers.  Suffice to say you were doing so.  You apparently believe yourself expert enough to analyze all things NASA and prove fraud, as of course one must be to do so, so when questions are made in an accusing manner regarding lunar night, non-inflated spacesuits, or comments deriding the LEM's construction, it does not show off the degree of expertise one would have expected.

I apologize for losing my cool, but I am not here for and will not condone an all out NASA bashing, particularly with regard to the extreme efforts of those involved in the project. Even now, using US citizen tax dollars, NASA is openly providing data from satellites that are doing pure science.  Unless we are to believe that all the planetary missions and exploration satellites are as well fake, NASA, and the US taxpayers should be given some credit for the advancement of science, and the expertise achieved in spaceflight.

From the information provided from NASA,we know that those flags were in direct sun light for many days. So if these !off the shelf! nylon flags have a very low tolerance to heat,how can they survive for days on the moon,if the temperature of objects in direct sun light rises above 150*C ?

We do not know what temperature the flags reach.  Determining that would in itself be a complicated calculation requiring a thermodynamic engineer.  The direct flux, the indirect flux, the reflectivity and absorption characteristics of the flag at various wavelengths are some of the variables involved.  In reality, we have no way of knowing what temperature the flags reach during lunar day without knowing the variables and performing the analysis.  We are likely better suited to determine the minimum temperature reached during lunar night.

With regard to the survival of the flags, more concerning is the extreme UV flux they have been exposed to.  But again, we need to know the absorption/reflectance properties of the flag with regard to UV to make a model or discuss the issue with any degree of certainty.

Surely at the least they have become very brittle, which may also affect their response to temperature extremes. 

But we already have these answers PW-NASA has provided them. They had to go as far as putting cooling systems in the space suit's,to keep the astronauts cool. Even the batteries in the lunar modules had insulation covering them to try and keep the heat down. Page after page on the net tells us that objects in direct sun light on the moon will see temperatures of 150* plus--but the nylon flag survives for days--even the dark blue square in the corner,and we know dark colors do not reflect heat very well,and that is the reason the astronauts suits are white.

While I agree that dark colored objects generally absorb more heat than lighter colored objects, what the flags look like in visible light is not necessarily how they may appear when viewed at IR and UV wavelengths.

Also, do not forget that the astronauts themselves are a heat source.  Even here on Earth and inside air conditioned test facilities, the astronauts would overheat in the well insulated suits requiring an umbilical for connection to a cooling unit.  They also had to use portable cooling/breathing systems while being transported to the pad prior to launch.