Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax

Let's not forget the relative importance of the temperature of the lunar regolith itself in all of this, though.

What part of an astronaut is actually in contact with that surface? His boots. (And his body on those times he takes a spill!) So perhaps we need to inquire about the thermal properties of the EVA overboots!

(I don't actually see this as a problem. I've seen steel mill workers. I've personally stood on glacial ice in a still-air temperature of -50 F (and it wasn't still air, either!) Boot technology is up to the task of largely insulating one from those extremes.)

A more important factor might be the thermal radiation from the warmed surface. I'm not sure I'd want to be on the surface of the Moon at lunar noon. But the thermal radiation worries me less than reflected light, and reflected light worries me less than direct light.

When you get right down to it, the largest external thermal threat is that active fusion reactor on the horizon. And that same source of dangerously strong radiative heat is less escapable in low Earth orbit (where workers crawl about the outside of the ISS), and in the higher orbits where commercial satellites attempt to keep their electronics cool (and if you think that electronics can survive thermal extremes without qualm, try covering the vents on your PC for a few hours and see how long you remain on line and posting!)

...thank you....I get it now....appreciated....^^

ps: I've been out of school now for 40 years lol....

Last Edited by ZIPUX on 02/28/2012 01:03 PM

Yet you don't read the reply.
[link to www.godlikeproductions.com]

The Moon does not have an atmosphere. ????

Are you sure about that ????

atmosphere of the moon

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

From that link:

"For most practical purposes, the Moon is considered to be surrounded by vacuum."

"For most practical purposes, the Moon is considered to be surrounded by vacuum."
That would include what we're talking about here.

yeah the practical purpose of convincing people that the apollo hoax was real.

the moon has one sixth the gravity of earth.

if it has gravity it has atmosphere.

simple !

true, but that is called science.

No, the practical purpose of discussing atmospheric attenuation of the sun's light versus solar incidence angle. Are you here for a serious discussion or are you just here to troll?

Last Edited by Astromut on 02/28/2012 01:45 PM

No blast craters under the Lunar Landers: Game Over.

There shouldn't be a blast crater under the lander any more than there should be a blast crater under a harrier. The LM weighed 2,634 lbs on the moon at touchdown, having spent nearly all the descent stage fuel. Slightly less than that is what is needed for thrust to land the vehicle at terminal approach. By comparison a harrier uses ten times as much thrust to lift off. The full 10,000 lb thrust of the LM's engine was only needed at the start of the descent high above the moon in order to decelerate from lunar orbital velocity.

No prob. I appreciate skeptical inquiry. And I love to learn so much I can't understand why everyone doesn't want to, too.

My fascination with the Apollo Hoax theory is largely because discussion of it opens up so much interesting science and engineering. Regardless of your stance on the subject, there is just so much fun -- and often non-intuitive -- stuff to get into.

Bullshit. The dust is not even disturbed and the landing pads are clean. Game Over Rover.

Actually it's completely true.

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]
lol

Of course they are; they landed in a vacuum. Dust won't billow and collect on the landing pads like it would in an atmosphere. Thanks, you just added more proof that we went.

It's actually quite tricky.

The Moon probably had an atmosphere at one point.

Even more interestingly, if you pumped in a bunch of air to the current-day moon -- enough to be able to walk around on the surface without a pressure suit -- it would linger for thousands of years.

The Moon has been without for billions of years, however. The problems start with the low gravity, but things got much worse for the Moon when it cooled from the residual heat of formation sufficiently to lose the ability to generate a magnetic field.

Our own magnetic field, as weak as it is, deflects a large proportion of the solar wind. This same constant stream of charged particles from the Sun still manages to get through and strip a small amount of our atmosphere away every year -- which is then replenished (largely from volcanic outgassing).

The Moon is no longer geologically active (mostly!) so it pretty much lacks that mechanism of replenishment. And the lower gravity meant the lunar atmosphere was more spread out; the upper layers deeper and more tenuous. This made it even easier for the solar wind to boost some of these molecules of lunar air to escape velocity. And slowly, over time, the atmosphere was depleted to essentially nothing.

Even then, the Moon is not without some interesting "atmospheric" effects. Electrostatically levitated dust, for one. For another, the energetic solar wind smashes molecules and strips atoms down to ions, but those ions still flit about the surface. Some of them actually combine with the particles that did the original damage; between the two of them, they form both a small amount of ordinary water (which is then vaporized, smashed, and accelerated back to escape velocity for all but a few bits hidden in the deep shadows), and a smaller amount of rather extra-ordinary helium-3.



Something I've been meaning to look up, though, is the history of lunar occultation and what observations were made at what times showing the limits of lunar atmosphere. I do know that it was understood quite early on that lunar atmosphere was scarce. I do not know such things, however, as if it is possible to observe what little there is from Earth, and if this has been done.

I thought Astromut was the know all guy about space it's amusing watching him defend NASA when the evidence is so obvious.

google as11-40-5926hr

[link to 4.bp.blogspot.com]

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]
What about it?

You can't see what is wrong with that photo ???

OMG are you like twelve or something ?

Someone forgot the photography rules.
[link to gawno.com]

There's nothing wrong with the photo, stop trolling.

Not Directed at AM..this is for the AC..

The ISS is well below the V.A Belts and orbits in 'Near Space' - The Inner V.A Belt begins around 1800 Miles Height and the Outer around 12,000 - 24,000 Miles Height,though it is thought that the Inner Belt(incorrect term as they do merge)during Geo-Storms can be compressed to as low as a Few Hundred Kms above the Earth.

Britannica Link: [link to www.britannica.com]

The ISS Orbits at between 300-400 Kms Height which would place it inside the so called Inner V.A Belt during an Geo-Storm for short periods of time.

Though this Information is still not complete regarding the true extent of the Belts as well as the Anti-Proton Belt.

Last Edited by Spittin'Cesium on 02/28/2012 02:34 PM

magic markers.

1/6th the Gravity but only 1/4 the diameter of Earth.

Make of that what you will : )

'Considered'.

Different from 'Is'.

Just thought I'd point that out.

if that thing really landed on the moon the foot pad would be covered in dust and clearly their is none

not even one speck

how about this amazing photo

[link to 4.bp.blogspot.com]

you can see the light glinting off his boot = STAGED

I make of it that the moon has a density of 3.346 g/cm^3, consistent with the density of volcanic basalts and a close second behind Io at 3.528 g/cm^3, which is the densest known moon in the solar system. Earth, on the other hand, has a density of 5.515 g/cm^3.