Moon Walkers.

[tinman]

Brad:



I am willing to bet you that nylon, rayon, cotton, or woven plastic fabric, or woven metal fabric would all look essentially identical in a photograph.  But that's something that you seemingly can't grasp or will refuse to acknowledge.  I have done my fair share of work and if anybody wants to cut corners and not do research take a look in the mirror because you do that quite often when you do an experiment.

You definitely need to step into the realm of reality.  Horror of horrors, "duct tape."  Note you are saying "obvious duct tape" because you are falling into your trap again.  You are cutting corners and saying it is "duct tape" without actually knowing what it really is.  It's the heat shield that has to survive the extreme heat of reentry, not the duct tape.

If I make a mistake I'll acknowledge it.  If you make a mistake you turn blue, and there have been many.

MileHigh

The moon's gravity has "nothing to do with it" because you can ignore it and still make a valid case.  Even if there is no gravity, if a 130 kg mass hits the ground at a certain speed there will be a big thud.  I am intentionally simplifying because you can in this case.  I am ignoring the astronaut's legs acting as a spring.  I will repeat to you that you bringing up the equivalent weight of the astronaut in the moon's gravitational field is ridiculous because the important thing to realize is that it's the combined mass of the astronaut and his space suit that counts and not his weight.  If you can't acknowledge this then you are just being ridiculous.

What is ridiculous MH is the fact that you think there is no difference between a mass 1/6th that of a second mass impacting the ground with an acceleration of G that is also 1/6th that of earth.
Do you know how to work out the impact energy difference between what that impact would be here on earth,and what it would be on the moon MH?.
Now-who is being ridiculous?.

I wasn't aware that the space suit was giving off gas to keep the astronaut cool like PW explained.  I have to admit that I never thought about how the space suit disposed of excess heat even though I knew that there was a water lining up against the astronaut's skin to remove heat and prevent him from sweating.  There are only so many things that you can ponder.
Now that I know that the space suit was off-gassing by sublimating ice to remove heat, I am going to drop my explanation and go with PW's explanation.  I was hedging my bets by going with the "ground thump" explanation because that's the only one that I was aware of that solved the mystery.

LOL.
Puppets on string's MH
So you have decided to drop your ridiculous explanation,and head off and join the gang that you deem has a better explanation. But you were so sure your explanation was the only possible explanation MH--it's right here on the thread.
You just jumped out of the pot,and into the fire--to blindly go where many have been before.
First,not enough force from a 2000lb thrust from a rocket engine to make a crater in the moons surface,because the vacuum of space dissipates the gasses to quickly,but a small !puff! of ejected water from a space suit manages to maintain a concentrated jet stream over some distance that has enough force to make a flag waver
Lol,you guys just crack me up. I am guessing that both of you know what happens to water as soon as it is subjected to an extreme vacuum as would be encountered on the moon.?.
And you say that im clutching at straw's lol.

See, it's not that hard to admit that you are wrong.   Are you up to the challenge?

And for you MH,it dose not seem that hard for you to disregard something you believe in ,to run off and join the camp that seems to have greener pastures. Like i have said before--the self aclaimed guru's always stick together--even if it means disregarding your own beliefs to goin the !seemingly! winning camp. There are only a couple of you that stand alone here,and your not one of them MH--your a puppet on a string.

There is still some merit to what I said and even though I am now siding with PW's explanation, you can't be 100% sure.  There is nothing for me to prove.  I don't know the geology of the moon's surface.  I know they did these types of tests, I believe most moon missions left seismographs in place.  You seem to be arguing that what is essentially a sound wave traveling through the upper surface of the moon's crust is "absolute rubbish."  Have you ever experienced an earthquake or do you believe that's all Hollywood special effects?  One more time, your line of "anti-reasoning" is baffling.

Lol-still trying to peddle that one MH?
What makes 100% sense,it the air disturbance made by the passing astronaut being the cause for the wavering flag. We can replicate that with ease here on earth,and see that it is the most logical explanation there is--and the only one that is plausible.

I don't even know what kind of point you are trying to make here.  I think it boils down to this:  A nylon flag was planted on the moon.  It looked fine for the week or less that the astronauts where there, but over an extended period of time the sun's rays, especially the UV rays, degraded the flag and washed out the colours.  Big deal.

My point is this.
PW seems to think that heat was going to be a very big issue when i claimed that i could build a lunar rover that was twice the machine ,at half the cost.
Now heat dose not seem to be an issue,as a bloody nylon flag was able to withstand this heat with no problem at all.
So what;s it going to be--is there an extreme heat issue with the sun striking objects on the moon-or not?. The !off the shelf! nylon flag seems to hold up to the task quite well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeZ_F1op9N8&list=FLsLiBC2cL5GsZGLcj2rm-4w


Brad

[TinselKoala]

Do you even bother to check the references I provide for you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTL86Ua8UAM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6dZVM1UuwQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmVxSFnjYCA&list=PLMu_JGF2rQtd7QSZwWBz_pNzThMg2_E0_

etc. etc.

[MileHigh]

What is ridiculous MH is the fact that you think there is no difference between a mass 1/6th that of a second mass impacting the ground with an acceleration of G that is also 1/6th that of earth.
Do you know how to work out the impact energy difference between what that impact would be here on earth,and what it would be on the moon MH?.
Now-who is being ridiculous?.

The short answer is the impact energy would be the same.   You clearly haven't read or understood what I said and you are still hooked up on the moon's gravity.  But what you really need to do is unscramble what you are saying above and restate it in a coherent way that makes sense.

LOL.
Puppets on string's MH
So you have decided to drop your ridiculous explanation,and head off and join the gang that you deem has a better explanation. But you were so sure your explanation was the only possible explanation MH--it's right here on the thread.
You just jumped out of the pot,and into the fire--to blindly go where many have been before.
First,not enough force from a 2000lb thrust from a rocket engine to make a crater in the moons surface,because the vacuum of space dissipates the gasses to quickly,but a small !puff! of ejected water from a space suit manages to maintain a concentrated jet stream over some distance that has enough force to make a flag waver
Lol,you guys just crack me up. I am guessing that both of you know what happens to water as soon as it is subjected to an extreme vacuum as would be encountered on the moon.?.
And you say that im clutching at straw's lol.

Off-gassing from the space suit and a small localized moon tremor from the astronaut's impact on the lunar surface are two perfectly reasonable explanations for the waving flag.  I learned something the other day and changed my view and you seem to think there is something wrong with that.  You don't dare touch PW's explanation because you were ignorant of it just like me, and that probably applies to 100% of the moon conspiracy theorists when discussing the flag.  You are making yourself look like a fool when you flat-out deny the possibility of a localized moon tremor.

First,not enough force from a 2000lb thrust from a rocket engine to make a crater in the moons surface,because the vacuum of space dissipates the gasses to quickly,but a small !puff! of ejected water from a space suit manages to maintain a concentrated jet stream over some distance that has enough force to make a flag wave

The above is a ridiculous comparison that is completely invalid and makes no sense.  It's just another item to add to that list that I posted of crazy things that you said.

There are only a couple of you that stand alone here,and your not one of them MH--your a puppet on a string.

It's laughable that you accuse me of being a puppet on a string because I learned something new and adapted my views.

My point is this.
PW seems to think that heat was going to be a very big issue when i claimed that i could build a lunar rover that was twice the machine ,at half the cost.
Now heat dose not seem to be an issue,as a bloody nylon flag was able to withstand this heat with no problem at all.
So what;s it going to be--is there an extreme heat issue with the sun striking objects on the moon-or not?. The !off the shelf! nylon flag seems to hold up to the task quite well.

The above is a ridiculous comparison that is completely invalid and makes no sense.  It's just another item to add to that list that I posted of crazy things that you said.

[Nink]

Do you even bother to check the references I provide for you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTL86Ua8UAM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6dZVM1UuwQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmVxSFnjYCA&list=PLMu_JGF2rQtd7QSZwWBz_pNzThMg2_E0_

etc. etc.

Hi TK
Is there a specific fact you are focusing on with this collection of videos.  I could point to 100+ videos saying we faked the moon landings but I think it would be more logical if we focus on a specific piece of evidence.

It would probably make more sense if we treated this like a legal case, Tinman versus NASA. The accusation "NASA lied when they said they walked on the moon." 

This way Tinman who is making the accusation or others you support this position can present a piece of evidence saying this proves we could not have gone to the moon because of XXXXXX.  They can then prove their point with the supporting facts and data.  The defense can then state sorry you are wrong here is our counter evidence and prove their point, with facts and data. We can then move onto the next point.

I think if we keep this at a point by point bases observers can then make an informed opinion using an evidence based reasoning approach.

[picowatt]

Tinman,

I have the answers to the questions you posed regarding the discrepancies in the images you noted.

The outer wall of the command module is made up of three major heat shields.  The aft heat shield is the rear most disc shaped heat shield that most people are familiar with.  The other two heat shields are the "crew compartment" and "upper" heat shields, which is pretty much everything in front of the aft heat shield.  Those two heat shields are made of a phenolic composite material.  This is somewhat similar to the material used in the old brown colored PCB's before FR4 became more common.  The heat of re-entry would melt most metals so phenolic was used.  Although being what most consider a type of plastic or epoxy like resin, phenolic does not burn or melt.  When heated, phenolic will get white hot, char (turn to ash), and then shed the charred material.  This process insulates, sinks, and removes heat.  Of course, if the heat is applied long enough or the phenolic is thin enough, extreme heat will eventually wear (not burn) thru the material.  The thickness required is therefore determined by the expected heat and duration.  This type of heat shield is called an "ablative" heat shield because the material "ablates" or is "destroyed" as it shields from heat.  The aft heat shield is also an ablative heat shield but is constructed somewhat differently.

Anyway, exclusive of the aft heat shield, the phenolic material used for the CM 's varied in color from an ugly gray to orange brown color.  Some of the early Bloc-1 CM's were painted white.  The Bloc-2 Cm's however, instead of being painted white, were covered with very thin aluminized Mylar (PET) tape, which gave them their shiny appearance.  When looking at the Mylar tape covered CM's under most lighting conditions and/or from a distance, they appear uniformly shiny as if constructed from or covered in metal.  But, under certain lighting angles, the individual runs of tape, and any nicked areas patched with smaller pieces of tape, become quite visible (as evidenced by your images).  This is a mostly optical phenomenon due to the tape being so thin.

Regarding your "cracked window frame", a somewhat makeshift attempt at adding a glare shield to the edge of those windows was made using the Mylar tape.  Although, as you have noticed, the tape tore at the edges, the remaining flap did cut down on glare caused by light striking the .7" thick fused silicon outer window at a shallow angle.

Excluding the launch vehicle, in an earlier post I stated that Apollo consisted of three sections, the SM, CM, and LM.  However, an often overlooked section is the Launch Escape System (LES).  This attached to the top of the CM using 4 legs attached with explosive (frangible) bolts.  Besides pulling the CM away from the rocket during an emergency, the LES had a tightly fitting cork and fiberglass shell that covered most of the CM.  The shell of the LES saw the bulk of the aerodynamic forces during launch and protected the CM (and tape) from those forces as well as from the launch heat generated by air friction, which could reach 1200F. 

If you go to your flickr site and look at images toward the end of AS17 cassette 145, you will see the CM in a few different lighting angles where you can see the long runs of Mylar tape used to cover the bulk of the two heat shields.  Perusing other cassettes and images will provide you with additional evidence in support of this explanation.

PW