Like Columbo, taking a puff on his cigar, I have a few nagging questions about the moon landings. I'm sure someone out there can enlighten me. Since Ken's thread is not available for posting, here goes:
How was the film used in the Haselblad 500EL cameras able to withstand the extreme temperatures on the moon (+250 in the sun, -378 in the shadows). We know the types of film used was:
* Ektachrome EF film SO168
* Ektachrome MS film SO368 35mm film used in the stereo
* Panatomic-X recording film - this was specially developed for use on the moon
These films were used in three forms 16mm motion pictures, 70mm stills, and 35mm in the stereo close-up camera. The 70mm still film had a special thin-based and thin emulsion double perforated film that was able to capture 160 color pictures or 200 black and white pictures.
We know that the cameras were modified with special lubricants to withstand the temperature range of +/- 250 F and prevent evaporation due to the the vacuum on the moon.
The cameras did not have any type of cooling system or shielding against cosmic rays, or radiation from solar flares, which happened to be at a peak period during the missions, or radiation from the VanAllen radiation belts, all of which which would fog film, making the images quite unusable. (see NasaCr188427)
Why were all of the shots superb with not even the slightest fogging or radiation exposures that we would expect to see in the black areas of the film (specks)
We know that no special shielding was used on the camera or film cannisters.
On the moon, radiation from solar flares and cosmic rays ranges from 10 to 100 roentgens/hr.
Since the Moon has no magnetic field, it is subjected to a steady flux of galactic cosmic radiation (GCR) and low energy solar wind particles. The radiation levels are normally low enough (on the order of 1 to 2.5 particles per square cm per second) that people can carry on surface activities without any protection beyond what is offered by the space suits. However, during periods of high solar activity, it sometimes happens that the Sun ejects high energy particles and radiation in the direction of the Moon that can be lethal to anyone on the surface within just a few minutes of exposure.
Solar protons pose a significant risk to inadequately shielded crewmembers. Very large energetic particle events, which can cause acute radiation effects, occur at intervals of 7 to 10 years. Intermediate events, which can limit mission activities, occur several times each year. For nominal flares, build-up to peak radiation intensity occurs within a few hours or less. Monitoring of X-ray precursors may provide 30 minutes to one hour of additional warning.
Regarding Solar Flare, Cosmic and Van Allen Radiation:
Hoyt and his fellow researchers point out that energetic particles will steadily degrade electronics, optics, solar panels and other critical systems by breaking chemical bonds, disrupting crystalline and molecular structures, and by causing localized charge effects.
Higher energy particles in solar events and cosmic rays cause single-event disruptions or damage to electronics. At present, spacecraft systems operating in Earth orbit must be hardened to withstand this radiation environment.
As for humans, radiation particles pose a significant threat, Hoyt said. Zipping through tissue, radiation particles can deposit their energy by ionizing water and proteins, causing cellular damage, modifying DNA, RNA, and proteins in ways that can lead to cancers, immune system disorders, and other maladies, he said.
What type of cooling / heating system was used to protect the astronauts from the extreme cold and heat of the vacuum of space on the moon. We know that there was a nylon undergarment that circulated water for cooling or heating but there is little to no information on the mechanism used to produce the cooling or heating as required to stabilize the extreme temperatures, which could cover the rang of +253F to -378F.
Since there is a near perfect vacuum on the moon, conduction and convection can be ruled out as there is no atmosphere to exchange the heat to. The backpacks look to be sealed with no evidence of cooling fins etc. which would be useless anyway. The only mechanisms left are evaporation and radiation, but we see no evidence of any gases emanating from the backpacks that could carry away heat. The internal drawings of the backpacks show a H2O sublimation plate which would somewhat answer the cooling issue, but again we never see any evidence of outgassing. There is also no evidence of radiation e.g. pumping to a higher energy state than the surroundings and allowing it to radiate into space.
The same questions apply to the lunar landing module, which had to survive up to three days in blistering 250F heat. The all aluminum tin can construction of the lunar lander would have posed enormous problems of heat conduction to the interior.
When questioned on this Alan Bean, briefly hesitated like a deer in the headlights then said batteries were used for the cooling (yeah that's it...batteries). This is absurd as anyone who has worked in thermodynamics knows you cannot pack that much power into batteries to provide the tonnage of air conditioning required over three days.
Again with the lunar lander we are faced with the same problem i.e. how was the cooling performed, as normal air conditioning requires an atmosphere to conduct or convect heat away.
The gravity of the moon is 1/6 that of earth. The backpacks were 180 lbs earth weight, 30 lbs moon weight. The muscles in the astronauts legs were strong enough to jump maybe up to two feet in earth gravity without a backpack. Lets say an astronaut weighed 180 lbs on earth. He would weigh 30 lbs on the moon plus 30 lbs for the backpack. This is a total of say 60 lbs.
We never see an astronaut jump more than 6 inches (the jumping salute to the flag) yet he should have been able to easily jump several feet.
Upon close examination of the videos there are several places where the astronauts seem to be dangling from something. There are many cases where they are way off balance and should have fallen backwards, but are always magically up righted again by some means defying our visual sensibilities. In one case an astronaut that falls onto his back is mysteriously uprighted, hinging up on his heels as he is brought to an upright position defying the 1/6 gravity of the moon.
Why were there no unmanned tests flights of the hardware required to send men to the moon. Logic would presume that unmanned tests of all hardware should have preceeded an actual manned flight.
Yet the lunar lander crashed and burned on testing and the pilots had to eject to save ther lives. Still this was used to supposedly land men on the moon without a single actual test flight to the lunar surface. The lunar lander was tested with a jet engine, not a rocket engine, and failed to be stable, crashed and burned. No tests were performed with the rocket engine supposedly used. Additionally, there have never been any successful testing of rocket powered soft landing vehicles as it poses extremely different problems than rocket takeoff. The amount of shrapnel in the form of rocks etc. kicked up from the lunar surface could have severely damaged the landing vehicle. Recall that the rocket would have produced 10,000 pounds of thrust and produced an eight foot deep crater under the craft. All of the ejected material from the crater would have bombarded the craft, possibly creating great damage. Note that rocket tackeoffs on sandy, rocky surfaces are far different than with controlled steel or refractory surfaces. Attempting a soft landing of a rocket on an undefined surface is extremely risky if not impossible. It may have looked possible for Buck Rogers, but in reality poses many insurmountable problems. Note that none of the photos of the lunar landing vehicle show anything like a crater under the craft, rather there is a surface much like the area surrounding the vehicle.
Why has no one returned to the moon in the 40 years since this was last done. Many countries have technology that equals or exceeds that of the late 60's. Yet no one, not even the U.S.A. has ventured back. This is extremely strange as typically, once something is achieved technically it gets easier with the passage of time and as the technology advances. The lunar missions were abruptly halted, being replaced with space shuttle flights that never exceeded 400 miles above earth and more typically were in the range of 50 to 250 miles above earth. Compare this to the lunar missions which travelled in excess of the 240,000 miles earth-moon distance. Consider also that the space station is only 100 miles vertical from the earth. This is not deep space exploration, yet is touted in the media as if we were really exploring space. Considering the farthest space shuttle flights, they were only 1/600 of the distance to the moon, typical flights are 1/4800 the distance to the moon.
Why do interviews and press conferences show the astronauts being extremely guarded and careful about what they say. They rarely look joyful in these interviews, rather they seem to respond to questions by looking at each other in a worried way, to make sure they are all in agreement before answering. Their body language demonstrates a detectable tension and anxiety.
Consider for a moment what a huge embarrassment it would have been for the US if there was a failure that stranded the astronauts on the moon. They would have died a slow horrible death, cooked by the extreme moon temperature. Future people looking at the moon would no longer think of it as an object to inspire love and love songs, but rather a constant reminder of the horrible death of the astronauts. Would the US have taken this chance considering the calculated odds of reaching the moon and returning safely were something like 0.017%. It is one thing to lose astronauts into the void of space as with some of the space shuttle missions, but to have their deaths forever associated with the moon would be a huge black eye to the US.,
I would heavily discount propagandists such as Myth Busters. Their rebuttals are full of holes. I tend not to believe a lot of the moon hoax videos, as they really don't address the fine technical points needed to be discussed.
I'm on the fence on this issue, after countless hours of investigation, still puffing that cigar and asking a few questions.
« Last Edit: 2012-08-28, 00:54:05 by ION »
Just because it has a patent application or is patented does not always mean it really works.