Moon Walkers.

[MileHigh]

Oh please (http://overunity.com/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)
Is that the best you have MH ?.
Did you forget something MH?--How much did they weigh on the moon again? Didnt think that one through to well-did you. I will do the calculations for you,so as you do not have to think to hard.
170lb + 120lb x 16.5% = 47.85lb. How is your earth quake man looking now?
Now how is your power of observation MH?. Do you see the vertical or horizontal poles moving ,due to your earth quake man bouncing on past?
Poor effort MH--epic fail.

I forgot nothing.

This is another one of those "pregnant pause" moments of ignorance on your part.  I was quoting the weights of the astronaut and the suit in a purely colloquial sense.  You ran with that and took it to it's absurd literal end and used the moon's gravitational acceleration - as if that had anything to do with it - which it doesn't.   What's the "m" in f = ma?

So the epic fail is on your side.  The only real issue is this:  The astronaut and space suit with a combined mass of about 130 kilograms hitting the ground from a jump will impart an impulse of a certain amount of energy into the ground.  How much energy is irrelevant, the only thing that counts is that that impulse of energy traveled through the lunar surface and made the pole and the flag attached to the pole shake.  It's staring you in the face.

So, for starters you never even considered this.  Then, after you were informed of it, you decided that you were "sure" that this wasn't the case.  One more time, without any evidence that the pole didn't shake from the astronaut's jump, you have "decided" that it's not the case.  It's the only logical and common sense explanation for the flag waving and your behaviour is baffling.

Who needs the dummies book now MH?

Read above.

PW posted the link that confirmed that the flag's are an !off the shelf! item,so go have this argument with him. Once your done there,go try and buy an !off the shelf! nylon flag that will survive in temperatures higher than 90*C. And of course you can get expensive high temperature nylon,but that is not what !off the shelf! flags are made from.

You are making the claims and I am just responding to them.  You are supposed to do the work if you make the claim.  Fortunately PW is doing the digging, and I can see it was very easy digging at that.

From PW's link:  The 428 °F (220 °C) melting point of nylon 6 is lower than the 509 °F (265 °C) melting point of nylon 66.

I don't have to second-guess what the NASA engineers did because I have great respect for them and confidence in them.  Clearly you put your foot in your mouth again.

So no,i didnt blindly assume anything MH. I made an observation from a high resolution picture,and after PW did a bit of research for him self,he found that my observation was indeed correct.

Your observation of a high-resolution picture to determine what materials you are looking at isn't worth squat as PW already pointed out to you.  That's an example of how disconnected you are.  You simply can't look at a picture of something and be sure of what it's made out of.  Then some digging shows that it is indeed what you said it was made out of and you claim "victory" as if you were right.  No victory to claim, it was just pure dumb luck.

Do you see any damage or dust in the foot bowls,or on the legs MH in the HD pics below?.

The scanned in pictures are inferior to the negatives.  Then they are displayed on your monitor.  High resolution or not, in that multi-generation image transmission chain there is a certain limit to the resolving power in the final image that your eyeballs were looking at.  There is a chance that there is moon dust that you can't see because it is not resolved in the image.  And yet you insist that you are sure of yourself and correct!  It's the pulse motor times 100!  You would not make for a good scientist at all.

The only bullshit is you believing that none of the ejecta is going to hit the legs or foot pads of the lunar lander without doing any damage to either,and without any of that ejecta falling into the bowl shaped foot pads--thats BS right there MH.

I don't have nearly enough information to make any kind of call on that one way or the other.  I simply stated that the material would presumably be ejected in a radial laminar flow.  For sure a small rock could hit a big rock and bounce back and hit the LEM, I DON'T KNOW.   Just like I don't know if there could have been very fine moon dust in the pictures where you are "sure" there is no fine dust.  I can only go with my common sense and what I see in the pictures.  Is it reasonable to assume that the lander legs and pads were almost or completely unscathed by moon ejecta?  I would say YES.

And yet all the evidence above says you cannot make simple or accurate judgments based on accurate information supplied.

Look in the mirror.

m calling you on this one MH,as this is an outright lie.
Please make reference to this bullshit you just posted.

For starters you asked about how hot the LEM would be for the astronauts "at night" when there was no "night" because I think most of the missions lasted a week or less.  You clearly thought that there was a 24-hour day/night cycle on the moon which was a pregnant gaffe.

I will skim through and see if I can find some more, you asked for it.  But I am not going to read the thread verbatim.

[MileHigh]

Here you go, statements by you that are either out of kilter to say the least, or nonsensical to say the most:

Being that the vehicle will weigh 1/6th of that that it would here on earth,and the lunar terrain is an unknown,then i would use a negative up-positive down adjustable shock absorber.
Maybe we could start with the Van Allen belt's ?,only problem there is,in 1969 NASA (or anyone else) had no accurate information about the belt's,and how deadly they !may! be to human's.
That information in it self raises some interesting question's--like how did the astronauts stay warm at night?
With this,we can carry out many test to confirm what dose and dose not happen in a vacuum. One of the test i cant wait to carry out,is to see if any blast crater is created when a rocket engine gets close to a dusty dry surface in a vacuum.
Well if a picture and plastic bag can survive those temperatures,then how can you say that thermal control is an issue.
Square cut unfinished corners of sheet metal--the flooring base looks like corrugated zincalume sheeting from some farmers hay shed--all the seems are coming apart-->i mean,just look at the wrecks.
The second pic is taken from a further distance--notice any thing missing in the second picture.
Oh,and check out the plastic/nylon flag's in HD. Some say they were an aluminum foil,but as you can see--good old nylon/plastic material,with standard stitching. They seem to hold up well to the extreme temperature's
Im more interested in what the differential pressure was between the inside and outside of the space suits. Looking at the first image,it would appear as though there was none--note all the wrinkles in the suit.
So how is the heat collected from the sun dissipated from the space craft PW ?. We know here on earth that the heat would be dissipated by way of convection due to our atmosphere,but how is it dissipated in the vacuum of space where there would be no convection dissipation ?
You asked me how i was going to keep the electric motors cool,and my response was in regard to this,and i was talking about dissipating the heat from the motors through the !all metal! wheels to the moon's surface
Both convection and radiation of heat are by way of transfer by mass motion of a fluid such as air or water when the heated fluid is caused to move away from the source of heat, carrying energy with it.
Then we can also try and work out as to why the space suits do not puff up like the Michelin man.
PW,if you cant tell the types and see the difference in different types of simple/everyday materials,then perhaps some glasses to improve your vision?
So they say that the flags red and blue colors would have bleached in no time,just because it was now lying on the surface of the moon,and not standing up. So,dose an object receive more heat energy standing up and receiving direct sun light,or more heat energy lying down on the surface of the moon (which is now shaded by the flag it self),and out of direct sun light?
how was there enough thrust/force placed upon the flags from the escape modules rocket engine to knock over the flags,where that flag is a greater distance away from the rocket nozzle of the escape module,than the lunar surface was away from the lander nozzle at shut down,and yet no crater was produced by the landers engine?.
in regards to how would i get rid of the heat from the drive motors. Heat from the wheel motors(by way of conduction) could be dissipated through the aluminum,stainless steel,titanium wheels to the moons surface.
We also know that there is no atmosphere on the moon,and that means that the flags should not be disturbed by an astronaut bouncing past the flag without physical contact.
ou 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.
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 ?
170lb + 120lb x 16.5% = 47.85lb. How is your earth quake man looking now?
Once your done there,go try and buy an !off the shelf! nylon flag that will survive in temperatures higher than 90*C.
We can safely assume that some of the ejected mass(small sharp jagged rocks traveling in excess of 3600KPH) would hit the foot pads and legs that are in this straight laminar flow in a radial pattern you mention.

Statements like the above make it very challenging to have a debate.

Honourable mentions:

No,the earth is not in orbit !around! the sun.
Here is todays cost of 1x lunar rover--> $61,353,174.39,__and that is for 1 lunar rover.
Or perhaps it is you PW that needs to do a little more scientific research into dissipating heat in a vacuum ?
What's mars got to do with the thermal values of the vacuum of space?
In fact,you cant even get a simple thing like how much a person and his space suit weighs on the moon correct.

Man landed on the moon multiple times.  That's what happened, there is no government conspiracy.

[picowatt]

What exactly did Mars have to do with this thread?

Indeed....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCf23ZTFaDM

[picowatt]

Lest we not forget, as our mortality brings about "changes" and we find our "circuits dead",

We must "turn and face the strain" with the grins of all things past:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_M3uw29U1U

[tinman]

   

I forgot nothing.

This is another one of those "pregnant pause" moments of ignorance on your part.  I was quoting the weights of the astronaut and the suit in a purely colloquial sense.

What a bunch of crap MH. You quoted that weight to make your stupid assumption look a little better than it would have if you posted the correct weigh--stop trying to save face. You slipped up,and you know it.\

You ran with that and took it to it's absurd literal end and used the moon's gravitational acceleration - as if that had anything to do with it - which it doesn't.

I did not run with it-->i did what you do every time you spend your time looking for other peoples mistakes, i corrected your incorrect attempt at explaining as to why the flag wavered. To say that the moons gravitational acceleration has nothing to do with it--well that just go's to show how stupid you can be some times. If it was the same sort of thing in a different situation,you would tear strips of those trying to peddle such rubbish. But as it is to do with the moon landing's that you firmly believe in,all your sense of reality has been put aside,and you now resort to idiotic explanations to try and justify the impossible <--this can be clearly seen,and hence my saying-the need to believe out weighs the need to know the truth.

So the epic fail is on your side.  The only real issue is this:  The astronaut and space suit with a combined mass of about 130 kilograms hitting the ground from a jump will impart an impulse of a certain amount of energy into the ground.  How much energy is irrelevant, the only thing that counts is that that impulse of energy traveled through the lunar surface and made the pole and the flag attached to the pole shake.  It's staring you in the face.

Absolute rubbish MH,and you know it. Anyone with half a brain can clearly see that your talking crap. So now it is up to you to prove your theory. Now you need to go and find on the world wide web,proof of your ridiculous claim. Go watch the video again MH,and point out the pole moving. You will not find one shred of evidence to back up your stupid claim,just like there is no evidence to back up NASA's and the governments claim that man walked on the moon.

So, for starters you never even considered this.  Then, after you were informed of it, you decided that you were "sure" that this wasn't the case.

The reason i did not consider it MH,is because out side of your fantasy land it is in no way plausible--in fact,it is ridiculous.

One more time, without any evidence that the pole didn't shake from the astronaut's jump, you have "decided" that it's not the case.

Did the pole shake when the astronaut was bouncing on behind it MH?--did,or can you see the pole shake enough to make the flag flap?. That would be a big fat no in both cases.

It's the only logical and common sense explanation for the flag waving and your behaviour is baffling.

No it's not MH,it only makes sense to the believers,as they do not wish the entertain the fact that the movie was shot here on earth,which would explain the flag wavering with 100% accuracy.
It is your behaviour that is-not baffling,but expected. Now do you see where the bias thing is coming into play MH. You would not be so stupid if it was to do with anything else.

You are making the claims and I am just responding to them.  You are supposed to do the work if you make the claim.  Fortunately PW is doing the digging, and I can see it was very easy digging at that

Yes,i made the claim about the flag being nylon through the power of observation,and common sense. PW then did some research,and found that i was correct--those are the facts MH-it's all here on the thread for all to see. You are now making a claim that is well beyond reasonable,so now you have to do some digging of your own,and back up your claim with evidence MH--evidence

From PW's link:  The 428 °F (220 °C) melting point of nylon 6 is lower than the 509 °F (265 °C) melting point of nylon 66.

To bad the flag's were not made from nylon 6 MH--another misdirection.
Quote:  Dennis Lacarrubba, whose New Jersey-based company, Annin, made the flag and sold it to NASA for $5.50 in 1969, considers what might happen to an ordinary nylon flag left outside for 39 years on Earth, let alone on the moon. He thinks for a few seconds. "I can't believe there would be anything left," he concludes. "I gotta be honest with you. It's gonna be ashes."
Quote: For forty-odd years, the flags have been exposed to the full fury of the Moon's environment – alternating 14 days of searing sunlight and 100° C heat with 14 days of numbing

Go buy an off the shelf nylon flag MH,and place it in your over set to the lower temperature of 100*C,and see how long it last--i dare ya.

I don't have to second-guess what the NASA engineers did because I have great respect for them and confidence in them.  Clearly you put your foot in your mouth again.

Unfortuately MH,it is all here on this thread,and it is clear that it is you that has been putting both feet in there mouth.

Your observation of a high-resolution picture to determine what materials you are looking at isn't worth squat as PW already pointed out to you.  That's an example of how disconnected you are.  You simply can't look at a picture of something and be sure of what it's made out of.  Then some digging shows that it is indeed what you said it was made out of and you claim "victory" as if you were right.  No victory to claim, it was just pure dumb luck.

MH-if you cant tell what that type of nylon material looks like when it's right in your face,then you need an optical check. But im guessing you did not use the link i provided,or did any research of your own to check out other close up shot's of the flag. You would have done the opposite to what you are telling me to do,and just sat in your rocking chair,and waited for others to do the work for you.

The scanned in pictures are inferior to the negatives.  Then they are displayed on your monitor.  High resolution or not, in that multi-generation image transmission chain there is a certain limit to the resolving power in the final image that your eyeballs were looking at.  There is a chance that there is moon dust that you can't see because it is not resolved in the image.  And yet you insist that you are sure of yourself and correct!  It's the pulse motor times 100!  You would not make for a good scientist at all.

A bad scientist is like the many we have to day--dare not step out of the field of science into the realm of reality. A bad scientist is one that is bias as to what he thinks is correct,and what actually is correct. Have you not ever bought an off the shelf nylon flag MH? How is the resolution of the pic below?--meet your need's MH. And wait until you get a gander at the next set of pics MH--im guessing you will not see the very obvious duct tape plastered all over the CSM-the space craft that is suppose to have carried man to the moon and back,and then survive the extreme heat of re entry.

I don't have nearly enough information to make any kind of call on that one way or the other.  I simply stated that the material would presumably be ejected in a radial laminar flow.  For sure a small rock could hit a big rock and bounce back and hit the LEM, I DON'T KNOW.   Just like I don't know if there could have been very fine moon dust in the pictures where you are "sure" there is no fine dust.  I can only go with my common sense and what I see in the pictures.  Is it reasonable to assume that the lander legs and pads were almost or completely unscathed by moon ejecta?  I would say YES.

It is far from reasonable to assume that at all,and could never be a reality.

Look in the mirror.

Yes MH,have a !good! look in the mirror.

I will skim through and see if I can find some more, you asked for it.  But I am not going to read the thread verbatim.

Of course you wont read the thread verbatim,and that is why you make continual mistakes.