LOVE THIS MOON PHOTO BECAUSE ...

^This x10000!

It´s funny that while the astronauts always are pictured in broad daylight, the surroundings often seems like evening or nighttime. That 'Sun' should spread its light equally in all directions?

Lens flare. Period.

Gotta love the NonPanoramaTards.

I have a question. How is the temperature on the moon's surface changing(during day and night), if there's no atmosphere and it stays in pure vacuum?

:lovesmile27:
:spacesmile77:

On the Earth, the sky is blue because of atmosphere, without atmosphere the sky stay black.

Radiative heating and cooling.

How is the radiation transferred through the vacuum in space?

Photons of light.

It breaks my heart to see people trying to debunk the beauty of our accomplishments. Going to the moon was one of the most amazing moments of my life. Ok, I was only going on 3, but I remember it. I kept getting pissed that it was taking so long to launch the rocket. Poor mom and dad They were trying so hard to keep me occupied that day so I didn't sit in front of the TV waiting. I was so afraid I'd miss it. When the rocket did finally launch, I ran outside to see it and was perplexed as to why I could not. Damn curvature of the earth :D

Anyway. Space has always been my greatest love. For me, it holds all of the clues, secrets, and explanations for why I am here, who I am, and why I am. I wish that just for a moment I could let people see space through my eyes. How glorious and terrifying it must have been for the handful of men that were able to walk on a new world and behold the earth from afar.

There's no air to scatter the light.
All there is is direct sunlight and reflected sunlight.

It's an alien environment. Things behave and look different than your common experience tells you things should.



Heat energy can be transported by electro-magnetic radiation, and conduction: it is transferred to matter the object actually touches.
Convection is a special case of conduction that occurs in liquids and gasses.

The surface is heated up by sunlight. At right angle with the Sun that would be about 1.4 kW of solar energy per square metre.
It loses its heat by radiating infra-red into space (everything that has a temperature radiates) and by conducting it to the lower cooler layers.

If the surface gets more energy from the Sun than it loses it warms up, if it gets less energy from the Sun than it loses (like at night) it cools down.

Thermodynamics 101.

What Earth's atmosphere does is transport energy around and reduce how fast heat is radiated into space.
It works like a blanket, so to speak.* Without it average temps would be lower.
Heat loss is of course not completely eliminated, Earth would be a molten blob if that were the case.
It still gets cold during the night.


*The atmosphere is less transparent for the wavelengths in which the Earth radiates than for the wavelengths the Sun's radiation is strongest.
This causes the so called Greenhouse Effect.

(For basic science Wikipedia is actually a good starting point.)

Last Edited by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on 12/17/2012 05:52 AM

Have you seen In the Shadow of the Moon? I think you would love it. One of my favorite documentaries of all time. Really gives you an inside look at how the astronauts perceived the missions.

That means the Sun may be cold and still providing heat. How do we know the sun is hot?

No I haven't, but I will :) Thank you!!

Because it is a very good black body radiator and the peak of its radiation curve shows that it is hot.

Are you sure?
[link to www.michaelbach.de]

Pray tell, what do optical illusions have to do with spectography?

And pray tell, with what mechanism could a cold body produce zillions of Watts of blackbody radiation?

moon landing = hoax.

1. Just want to say that nothing is what it seems!
2. Photons = pure energy! You don't even need the word "watts". It's just a word.

derp x10000
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]
102:45:17 Aldrin: 40 feet, down 2 1/2. Picking up some dust.

[Armstrong, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "I first noticed that we were, in fact, disturbing the dust on the surface when we were something less than 100 feet; we were beginning to get a transparent sheet of moving dust that obscured visibility a little bit. As we got lower, the visibility continued to decrease. I don't think that the (visual) altitude determination was severely hurt by this blowing dust; but the thing that was confusing to me was that it was hard to pick out what your lateral and downrange velocities were, because you were seeing a lot of moving dust that you had to look through to pick up the stationary rocks and base your translational velocity decisions on that. I found that to be quite difficult. I spent more time trying to arrest translational velocity than I thought would be necessary."]

It's a friking PANORAMA photo, is that so hard to understand, yes the shadows do not fit in line if it was a straight photo, but if you look around you can make up a PANORAMA so the shadows are in their correct places, on the left side the shadows go left, in the middle the are towards the camera and on the right the shadows go right.

If you would print the photo and stick the left and right sides to each other then you have the photo as how its meant to be viewed..

Last Edited by Dutchguy on 12/17/2012 06:56 AM

102:46:xx Armstrong (onboard): Both (garbled) vent.

[Aldrin, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "We had a little right drift and, then, I guess just before touchdown, we drifted left."]

[Armstrong, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "I think I was probably over controlling a little bit in lateral. I was confused somewhat in that I couldn't really determine what my lateral velocities were due to the dust obscuration of the surface. I could see rocks and craters through this blowing dust. It was my intention to try and pick up a landing spot prior to the 100-foot mark and then pick out an area just beyond it such that I could keep my eyes on that all the way down through the descent and final touchdown. I wouldn't, in fact, be looking at the place (where) I was going to land; I would be looking at a place just (out) in front of it. That worked pretty well, but I was surprised that I had as much trouble as I did in determining translational velocities. I don't think I did a very good job of flying the vehicle smoothly in that period of time. I felt I was a little bit erratic."]

Complete and utter BULLSHIT, read my previous comment and you will understand this photo.!!! What you bring up is a load of imaginary hogwash.

Has nothing to do with what weasel was talking about. He was talking about dust on the tops of the footpads. It didn't billow and come to rest on the foot pads the way it would if there were an atmosphere.

Dr. Astro, did you just give me a bad karma?

so it was kicking up dust at 100 feet elevation,
but the magic dust, because there is no atmosphere, fell quickly to the ground,and I'm assuming randomly everywhere except the landers legs.

NASA says there was lots of dust, are you saying they are wrong?