Moon Hoax Proof: There is NOT a Single Photo of the First Step on the Moon.

the rover was stored, folded up, on the outside of the LM. No ramp needed. Here is a video of the rover being deployed.



The model did change. IIRC the later models had more fuel.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]


Planets are typically found using the change in brightness when the planet passes in front of its parent star or measuring the wobble of the star caused by the planet orbiting it. They aren't directly imaged. We can't see the Apollo remnants because they are far too small to be seen with any current telescope (except for the LRO currently in orbit around the Moon) A telescope on Earth or in orbit would have to have a lens or mirror about as wide as a football field to resolve th objects left on the Moon. Look up the Dawes' limit for more info.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]

Last Edited by LHP598 on 12/27/2012 09:04 PM

Another point is the oxygene consumption of the 2 astronauts:

Human adult lungs are in about 2 liters in volume by average. The average breath rate is 12 breaths per minute. Commonly a typical oxygen consumption is in about 1 to 1.5 lt. / minute. That is the only gas needed by the diver so its for the astronauts. So almost 10.000 lt. were needed.

Where was stored all that oxygen?



/

Last Edited by IWASTHERE on 12/27/2012 09:06 PM

10,000 liters for how long?

[link to health.howstuffworks.com]
The average adult at rest inhales and exhales something like 7 or 8 liters (about one-fourth of a cubic foot) of air per minute. That totals something like 11,000 liters of air (388 cubic feet) in a day.

The air that is inhaled is about 20-percent oxygen, and the air that is exhaled is about 15-percent oxygen, so about 5-percent of the volume of air is consumed in each breath and converted to carbon dioxide. Therefore, a human being uses about 550 liters of pure oxygen (19 cubic feet) per day.

And again, oxygen is compressible and the carbon dioxide is scrubbed. The same method they use for the ISS and space travel. At about 550 liters of oxygen per day, times two astronauts, that still gives you over 9 days for 10,000 liters. None of the missions had the LM separated from the CSM for that long and there was more oxygen in the service module.

Last Edited by LHP598 on 12/27/2012 09:21 PM

I am trying to put things in perspective as what should be visible with current technology. Wouldn't the ability to see galaxies not previously seen before Hubble was used require more effort than viewing a body 250,000 miles away with no atmosphere?

Many of the galaxies seen are actually quite wide in the sky but extremely faint. Hubble's talent is focusing on one area for an extreme length of time to gather more light. Galaxies also have the benefit of being relatively bright (still faint but brighter than darkness) against a dark background.

Last Edited by LHP598 on 12/27/2012 09:27 PM

I mean almost 10.000 liters per day in total, so its 30.000 liters for 3 days mission. You folks have to consider that 1.000 litres of oxygen are needed to fill just 1 LEM meters cubed at no pressure. So its almost 1.000 x 7 = 7.000 liters just for fill up the cabin.



/

Last Edited by IWASTHERE on 12/27/2012 09:38 PM

So they're going to fill the LM (not LEM) with oxygen they won't consume? Again the LM was only filled to a partial pressure. It won't take 7,000 liters to fill. And You'll have to show your figures for 7 cubic meters of unoccupied space in the LM. At the very least there is space taken up by the astronauts and their suits. I'm willing to bet that 7 cubic meters is the volume of the space BEFORE filled with instruments, people, spacesuits, consumables, etc. The volume of air to fill it will therefore be less.

Last Edited by LHP598 on 12/27/2012 09:42 PM

Ok 3,5 psi SO its not 7000, its in about 7000/3 >> 2.400 liters per day just for filling up the cabin.



/

Last Edited by IWASTHERE on 12/27/2012 09:53 PM

3.5 is closer to 1/4 of 14.7 (standard pressure) so it would be 1750 to fill the cabin and again that is only with absolutely nothing in the cabin (I've read 6.5 cubic meters for cabin volume but I'll give you 7). There is still room taken up by people, instruments, equipment, consumables, etc. With all the stuff taking up space it is probably closer to 1200 liters (or less, likely less) to fill the cabin (that's a WAG but probably close).

Last Edited by LHP598 on 12/27/2012 09:57 PM

ok 1.200 liters per day + 600 x 2 atronauts per day

>> we got 2400 liters per day >>> x 3 days mission >>

in about 7.200 liters in total.

And? compressed it will take up much less space. Seems quite doable to me.

If the tank were at a pressure of 140 bar then a 50 liter tank did the job.


/

LEM CONFIGURATION >>>> [link to abyss.uoregon.edu] [link to abyss.uoregon.edu]



Last Edited by IWASTHERE on 12/27/2012 10:50 PM

SATURN V STAGE 1

Designation: Saturn 1C
Engines: five Rocketdyne F-1 liquid bipropellant; four outboard engines are gimbaled for steering
Length: 42.07 m
Diameter: 10.06 m
Dry mass: 130,570 kg dry
Oxidizer: liquid oxygen
Fuel: RP-1 hydrocarbon
Propellant mass: 2,149,500 kg
Other mass: 2,450 kg
Thrust: 33,362 kN SL; later uprated to 33,851 kN SL
Burn time: about 162 s for outboard engines, center engine cutoff at 135.5 s (velocity at burnout ~9,900 km/h, altitude 67 km)
Separation: jettison 0.6 s after engine cutoff by eight 394 kN solid motors firing for 2/3 s
Pressurization: RP-1 tank by 288 kg (3,510 liters) of gaseous helium at 211 atm; LOX tank by gaseous oxygen converted from 2,880 kg of LOX by the engines; control system by 36 liters of gaseous nitrogen at 221 atm
Hydraulic system: power primarily for engine start and for gimballing of four outboard engines
Electrical system: two 28 VDC batteries, basic power for all electrical functions
Instrumentation: handles ~900 measurements
Tracking: ODOP transponder
Environmental control: a ground-operated environmental control system protects stage equipment from temperature extremes in both the forward skirt and thrust structure areas and provides a nitrogen purge during prefiring and firing operations


[link to upload.wikimedia.org]

/

Last Edited by IWASTHERE on 12/27/2012 11:08 PM

And...?

While we are using the SWAG methodology, try a different way of looking at it.

Assume the cabin of the LM is 7 cubic meters and has to be filled three times at 4.5 psi.

Dive cylinders are rated for 2,900 to 4,400 psi. We can pretty safely assume that NASA can get a decent pressurized tank, at least as good as your average SCUBA diver. 4.5/4,400 is roughly a factor of 1,000. That's 7 LITERS per flush. So all told, assuming this large empty volume and that NASA doesn't have the kind of pressurization available in, say, the cryonic fuel tanks (roughly 100x the above, given both the lower storage pressure and the over 1:800 expansion ratio), this still ends up being the equivalent of 5 gallons -- the size of a typical paint bucket.

This is the LOX tank. Any clues about the dimensions? >>> [link to mix.msfc.nasa.gov]

Anyone here got the link of the Saturns V RP-1 tank?

Here's a Saturn V diagram >>> [link to history.nasa.gov]


/

Last Edited by IWASTHERE on 12/28/2012 05:46 AM

Since we don't know how Jetson's tech works, and since you obviously don't know how Apollo tech works, that is a meaningless statement.


The ladder was an integral part of the lander.

Why don't you know that?


The first astronaut to egress pulled a lanyard to open the MESA door.
The camera was attached to the inside of that door.

Why don't you know that?

Why are hoaxies always utterly ignorant about Apollo?


Better to act like a rational person and research the facts.



Maybe in your mind.

The rest of us know they weren't scuba diving.
Same pressure in the suits as the cabin, so no need for decompression or pre-breathing.

You have yet to proof your first assertion.
Why do you keep piling B.S. on top of B.S.?
That only creates a big stink.


Don't you think you should research these things before making accusations?

You are basing an opinion on not-facts.
That's stupid, that's lame, that's the way of the loser.

And it's LM, btw.



If you so eager to see that, why don't you go look?


If you so eager to know that, why don't you go look it up?

All that stuff is only a few clicks away.
You live in the magical age of the internet.
Learn to use it.


[link to www.youtube.com]

Man-made hardware on the Moon is very small, exoplanets are far away but also big and shiny.

Another thing for you to research would be 'Dawes limit'.

Few exoplanets have been actually imaged, btw.

[link to xkcd.com]

Astronauts suit relative pressures were in about 5 psi when the LM cabin pressure was 3.5 psi..

Now, anyone knows what is the min pressure required by a human for keeping the stuff alive/healty?


/

Last Edited by IWASTHERE on 12/28/2012 07:40 AM

No, that doesn't sound right.

A7L was run at 3.7 psia. LM cabin was normally pressurized to 4.8 psia. But during exit, they ran the A7's up above 4.7 first (since they started at cabin pressure). Dump took a couple of minutes.

In any case, the reason you need to flush your lungs before EVA from the ISS is that the latter is a mixed-gas system. If you aren't breathing in any nitrogen, you aren't going to have a problem with nitrogen bubbles.

(A few psi either way isn't going to do it, either -- otherwise everyone that took a commercial airliner would be worrying about getting the bends.)


As per the other question, the rule of thumb is within 50% of sea-level partial pressure of oxygen. Since oxygen is about 20% of our ordinary atmosphere, a pure oxygen mix at 1/5 sea level is equivalent. There's a couple other factors -- water vapor pressure for one -- but it works out that 1/3 atmosphere at 100% oxygen is about equivalent to being at mild altitude (aka, like Denver).

Has DUC had a change of heart and is debating rather than calling others shills etc...?!?!?!

My IQ has dropped about 30 points just reading his comments in this thread...

But I feel alot better about myself, knowing that it could be worse, and I could have to have his brain forever.

Hei HispánicoTard, you have only to

Err..I meant 1/4 atmosphere. 3.7 psia is about 1/4 sea level, and as WET pure oxygen (aka a healthy humidity, not dry gas) put about the same partial pressure of O2 across the aveoli of the lungs as the air inside the cabin of a commercial airliner.

Other useful info here>

The spacesuit tech info:

---------------------------------------

Weight - 127 kg on Earth
Thinkness - 0.48 cm, 13 layers
Atmosphere - 0.29 atm of pure oxygen so in about 4.5 psi > 1/3 earth sea level pressure
Volume - .125 to .153 m3

It contains the oxygen tanks (0.54 kg at 518 atm tank pressure).

source > [link to library.thinkquest.org]

---------------------------------------

Now, oxygen is in about 1,4 gram per liter, so 540 grams / 1,4 >> 385 liters of oxygen were stored in a astronaut tank.

Another related question is:

1> was the astronauts oxygen tank recharged during the 3 days moon landing mission / entire mission?


Entire Mission Duration: 195 hr. 18 min. 35 sec.

Time on Lunar Surface: 21 hours, 38 minutes, 21 seconds


Note: The early americain ships, Freedom, Gemini and Apollo all used pure O2 at 5 psi, the shuttle uses air at 14 psi, the russians also used O2 in thier early ships but use air now.

[link to www.kansas.com]

APOLLO SM FLIGHT-QUALIFIED FUEL TANK.
Positive expulsion titanium fuel tank. Approximately 25 inches tall and 12 inches in diameter. A metal ID tag reads: ìBell Aerosystems Company, Division of Bell Aerospace Corporation. Item Name: Tank (N2H4, UDMH) Positive Expulsion Ö Manufacturing Date: 12-15-65, Contract No. - NAS9-150.fail The tag also has additional identification, pressure ratings and control numbers.

A flight-qualified tank designed to supply fuel to the attitude control rockets which were mounted on the exterior of the Service Module (SM). The SM reaction control system had four sets of four rocket engines that used hypergolic propellants. This is one of eight tanks designed to supply Unsymmetrical DiMethyl Hydrazine (UDMH) fuel for those engines. During flight operations, a teflon bladder inside the tank would be pressurized with helium to force the UDMH contained inside the tank out to the rocket engines. This was required due to the weightless conditions of space flight. With a copy of an Bell Aerospace description of these tanks. >>> [link to 1.bp.blogspot.com]

/

Last Edited by IWASTHERE on 12/29/2012 11:16 AM

Why do you keep switching back and forth between oxygen and oxidizer? The way the propellant is tanked is not a particularly good guide to the way the life support for EVA is tanked.

And why do you continue to use liters as if that had any meaning for A PRESSURIZED GAS? Which in some systems is also used in MORE THAN ONE PHASE?

Use mass. Mass is the most useful measure for anything that is going to be used around a spacecraft.


Oh...I know the PLSS were recharged and cleaned between EVAs (on those missions with multiple EVAs). I don't know off-hand what operations were performed and how -- if, for instance, batteries and LiOH were discarded, or if they could be recharged.

There are plenty of pubs available if you want to read up.

this looks fake as shit, nice cable pulling the lander in the air

Now proof that it IS what you think it looks like.

How something "looks like" to you is by itself insufficient as evidence for anything.
For starters you need to explain what it exactly is that makes you think so.
What are the differences you imagine to exist between the real thing and a fake?

At touchdown wouldn't the dirt be shifted to a craterlike appearance with a singed look? I would think an object with a gravitational pull that affects our ocean tides would have an indention in its surface from the Lunar Module's thrusters in resistance. The pictures and films I have seen show touchdown areas with basically no disturbance.
Thanks for you plausible debate and answers Weasel Turbine. One observation and question. The method of external transport of the Lunar Rover appears flimsy and precarious for a lunar mission. It didn't appear it took much effort to dislodge this when the downward force of one man in moon weight would not be that much. Also, if outer space is a vacuum, and you apply the Newtonian physics law of for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction, then what did the space vehicles push off from in thrust going to and from the Moon? As for this nederland ass, I can only assume it is their normal demeanor and not a disappointment on Christmas Day.

It is.

A better question would be "how DEEP a crater, and what KIND of oxidation is going to take place without, you know, oxidizer (aka an atmosphere)."

A man can fly around on a backpack rocket and he neither blows a crater in the ground, or burns a hole in it (although he does bleach what's under him something fierce!)

A Harrier jump jet can land and take off from grass and neither burn off the grass nor uproot it with the force of the blast. And both examples are under 6x the gravity, and at least one of them is denser than the LM to boot.



What do tides have to do with this?

The Sun creates tides. If you landed a spacecraft on the Sun, would it leave a crater?

The Earth creates tidal force on the Moon (enough to make the poor thing rather egg-shaped). Does that mean if you land a spacecraft on "the Earth" (any place, pick a random place), it will leave a crater?



Bolding mine.

Yes, the surface is disturbed. It is disturbed in very specific ways, ways that are tell-tale signs of a rocket-propelled craft descending on it.

The onus is on you to show that these signs should be different; larger, differently shaped, smaller, a different color, etc.

If you can't even describe precisely what it is you expect (better yet, be able to characterize it numerically), how can you know that what you observe "isn't right?"



The Moon is 1/6 gravity. The LM is descending very slowly, gingerly. The expanding cloud of propellant gases from the LM isn't a constrained blast like a blowtorch; it expands RAPIDLY in as close to a spherical form as the engine bell will allow, and by simple ideal gas law cools quite rapidly as well. The result is a lot less like aiming a jet engine at the ground, and a lot more like popping a really big balloon over it.

The lunar surface is fine, jagged particles that are except for the top few millimeters locked together mechanically (via settling) and vacuum welded. It isn't a bottomless pit of talcum powder. It is more like a hard-packed dirt runway with a thin coating of dust. The astronauts could kick the top layers free with a boot, but by the time they drove a flagpole or a sampling tube more than a few centimeters, it was so hard they had to hit it with a hammer (indeed, they gave up the effort on Apollo 11; so shallowly was the flagpole driven into that rock-hard underlying soil, it fell over during lift-off).





Apparently Murphy Beds don't exist.

Besides, there was a latch.



Nonono. Nononono. I'm not ready for this one. Go ask Woody Woodpecker.

Or go ask Newton. Re-read his laws again. Maybe this time they'll make sense to you.

Come on! Everybody knows that photo!

If it's real or not, that's another story.