PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2017-02-21, 20:59:44
News: A feature is available which provides a place all members can chat, either publicly or privately.
There is also a "Shout" feature on each page. Only available to members.

Pages: 1 [2] 3
Author Topic: The Moon Landings  (Read 11851 times)

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2883
tExB=qr
is there a Santa Claus?
   

Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 1852
Thought question:  

looking at the footage of the astronauts jumping around on the moon and even contacting the surface with one leg, do you think it's possible to jump that high and that fast?
   Hmmmmm....????

No, higher and slower.

Aren't you missing something?


---------------------------
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." - Einstein

"What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." - Werner Heisenberg
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2883
tExB=qr
Appears that NASA is/was interested in putting a base on the moon.

http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/studies/final_report/921Buhler.pdf

(Yep, got the power plant, the warp drive, and looking for the shielding now - just need the finding...LOL!)

This is mentioned in the reprot above: Spaceport Technology Development Contract (USTDC) Web site: http://ustdc.com/niac_cp_04_01.cfm

Interesting...

EDIT:
More here: http://www.adl.gatech.edu/research/tff/

   
Group: Guest
I was premature in my comments for sure.  Suppose that with the suit the astronaut's mass doubles.  Then after the push off, assuming the legs output a fixed amount of energy, your initial post-push velocity with the suit on will be about 0.7 the velocity without the suit.   Then you "launch" into 1/6th of a G.  So it makes sense that you can still jump higher as compared to on earth.

The problem is that the question is loaded.  You simply can't assume that the clips of astronauts jumping represent their maximum push, nobody knows that.  I don't think the astronauts would be inclined to do that.  So the question is flawed, and you simply can't draw any conclusions.

The video footage from the moon looks real, all the way.  You can see how it is a reduced-bandwidth signal consistent with the communications and camera technology of the era.  What else can you say?  If I am not pushing up daisies by the time they go back it will be awesome to see the live HD feeds from the moon.

And for what it's worth, a few months ago one of the new imaging satellites in orbit around the moon is in the process of lowering its orbit.  But already from the higher orbit it has imaged some of the moon landing sites to higher resolution than ever before.  You can see the LEM descent stages and see footprint trails.  When it settles into a final low orbit the images should be fantastic.  Or, you can say the whole thing is being faked.  So easy to do in this day and age.

MileHigh
   

Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 1852
I'll not quote because I'm not going to dig the book out of ?, I don't know where right now.

During one interview Neil was asked how high did he jump. The answer was something about going high enough to get the job done not wanting to take any chances. On the other hand, Buzz mentioned bouncing high enough he started to worry about loosing stability. The numbers he spoke of were several steps of five feet high or more before he stopped playing around. I can't imagine calling this guy a liar to his face, even now :)

The above is useless for a debate but everything I've seen and heard 'fit'.

As for calculating changes in weight, no change in mass and a maximum strength jump, etc. I look at it this way:

The moon has 1/6th our gravity. The effect of his maximum strength jump will have roughly 6 times the result in height, distance and time.

Since I couldn't have jumped any height on Earth with their gear I have a */ by zero error and would have been left there  :o
I wouldn't need the training to make reserved movements, either  :D

Why didn't they jump higher? I'm sure the only valid answer is - They were pros. They didn't have the need.


---------------------------
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." - Einstein

"What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." - Werner Heisenberg
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2883
tExB=qr
Did NASA ever report any damage or problems from the radiation?

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/online/818/lost-moon-landing-tapes-discovered?page=0%2C1
Quote
On Apollo 11, the dust detector was attached to the seismometer unit. O'Brien's Lunar Dust Detector Experiment (also called the Dust, Thermal and Radiation Engineering Measurements Package) was designed to assess long term effects of the lunar surface environment on silicon solar cells used on the Apollo missions

http://web.eps.utk.edu/faculty/taylor/pubs/Miller-radiation%20measurement.pdf   (this one is pretty interesting - examines use of moon soil for shielding)

http://news.discovery.com/space/moon-radiation-gamma-rays.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories  (intersting rebutal of some arguments)

Ionizing radiation and heat
1. The astronauts could not have survived the trip because of exposure to radiation from the Van Allen radiation belt and galactic ambient radiation (see radiation poisoning). Some hoax theorists have suggested that Starfish Prime (high altitude nuclear testing in 1962) was a failed attempt to disrupt the Van Allen belts.

The spacecraft moved through the belts in about four hours, and the astronauts were protected from the ionizing radiation by the aluminium hulls of the spacecraft. In addition, the orbital transfer trajectory from the Earth to the Moon through the belts was selected to minimize radiation exposure. Even Dr. James Van Allen, the discoverer of the Van Allen radiation belts, rebutted the claims that radiation levels were too dangerous for the Apollo missions.[108] Plait cited an average dose of less than 1 rem, which is equivalent to the ambient radiation received by living at sea level for three years.[109] The spacecraft passed through the intense inner belt and the low-energy outer belt. The astronauts were mostly shielded from the radiation by the spacecraft. The total radiation received on the trip was about the same as allowed for workers in the nuclear energy field for a year.[110]
The radiation is actually evidence that the astronauts went to the Moon. Irene Schneider reports that thirty-three of the thirty-six Apollo astronauts involved in the nine Apollo missions to leave Earth orbit have developed early stage cataracts that have been shown to be caused by radiation exposure to cosmic rays during their trip.[111] However, only twenty-seven astronauts left Earth orbit. At least thirty-nine former astronauts have developed cataracts. Thirty-six of those were involved in high-radiation missions such as the Apollo lunar missions.[112]
2. Film in the cameras would have been fogged by this radiation.

The film was kept in metal containers that prevented radiation from fogging the film's emulsion.[113] In addition, film carried by unmanned lunar probes such as the Lunar Orbiter and Luna 3 (which used on-board film development processes) was not fogged.
3. The Moon's surface during the daytime is so hot that camera film would have melted.

There is no atmosphere to efficiently couple lunar surface heat to devices such as cameras not in direct contact with it. In a vacuum, only radiation remains as a heat transfer mechanism. The physics of radiative heat transfer are thoroughly understood, and the proper use of passive optical coatings and paints was adequate to control the temperature of the film within the cameras; lunar module temperatures were controlled with similar coatings that gave it its gold color. Also, while the Moon's surface does get very hot at lunar noon, every Apollo landing was made shortly after lunar sunrise at the landing site. During the longer stays, the astronauts did notice increased cooling loads on their spacesuits as the sun continued to rise and the surface temperature increased, but the effect was easily countered by the passive and active cooling systems.[114] The film was not in direct sunlight, so it wasn't overheated.[115]
Note: all of the lunar landings occurred during the lunar daytime. The Moon's day is approximately 29½ days long, and as a consequence a single lunar day (dawn to dusk) lasts nearly fifteen days. As such there was no sunrise or sunset while the astronauts were on the surface. Most lunar missions occurred during the first few Earth days of the lunar day.
4. The Apollo 16 crew should not have survived a big solar flare firing out when they were on their way to the Moon. They should have been fried.

No large solar flare occurred during the flight of Apollo 16. There were large solar flares in August 1972, after Apollo 16 returned to Earth and before the flight of Apollo 17.[116][117]
   
Group: Guest
Grumpy:

Great info there.  It's what I would have guessed.  Once they discovered the Van Allen radiation belts, they quickly realized what they were.  I have not really read up on this but perhaps they were even predicted to exist ahead of time.  Then they sent up many little early 60s satellites to study the radiation belts.

So the whole radiation argument is a garden path.  Interestingly enough, the astronauts saw regular random flashes in their eyes.  This was when high energy particles would collide with their retinas.

We are being hit by high-energy buckshot on the surface of the earth also.  When you fly the flux is much higher.  Bubble chamber anyone?

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
On the topic of disappointment with the slow pace of space technology, perhaps some of you saw 2001 when you were kids.  That was considered to be a realistic vision of the future from the perspective of 1968.

The space station was amazing in that movie.  We are still in the "bunch of tin cans in space" era.  And it's 2010!

Next stop the space elevator!  It's doable right now!!!  (Almost, I don't think they can manufacture the carbon nanotube threads in the required quantities.)

MileHigh
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 15
A space elevator would of course be ideal for getting off this rock, but in the mean time there are exciting things afoot.

Have a look at Bigelow's inflatable modules:
 http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/
He already has two prototypes up there, launched in 2006 and 2007. All he's waiting for before launching the final orbital complex is a man rated capsule to get people up there. I guess he doesn't want to use the Soyuz and of course the shuttle's on its way out. So the wait is for Boeing to have theirs ready around 2014. Alternatively there's Spacex's Dragon capsule to be launched on their new Falcon 9 rocket, which should be ready around the same time:
 http://www.spacex.com/
Bigelow also keeps showing his modules as being used as living quarters for spacecraft (for travelling in space, not too space) and as habitats on the moon.

Let's hope this time around it works out.

Funny you should mention space elevator. I just started reading Charles Sheffield's "The Web Between the Worlds" which I think is supposed to be about a space elevator. I read Clarke's Fountain's of Paradise a long time ago which was also about a space elevator. And there are actually space elevator games which aim to someday making a space elevator:
 http://www.spaceelevatorgames.org
-Steve
http://rimstar.org   http://wsminfo.org
   
Group: Guest
The $40 Documentary, A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon, ABSOLUTELY PROVES they NEVER went to the moon.  LOL.
You can watch it free on YouTube.

Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9gdJzEnUlc

Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA0D6vZuQ6Y&feature=related

Part 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhrrO_q_0bg&feature=related

Part 4:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_9gMn1OYPw&feature=related

Part 5:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqSXTO-LhMo&feature=related

.
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 2794
It's turtles all the way down
Today I had the opportunity to spend a long 6 hour lunch with a Ph.D physicist and mathematician that was inducted into the aerospace industry as a research scientist  shortly after "Sputnik" was launched and the US frenzy to conquer space was initiated. He spent a few years with TRW before joining Jet Propulsion Labs to work on Apollo related programs.

We had a lot of pleasant conversation before I began to slip in some of the questions I started this thread with.

I was surprised that he was not able to answer many of them to any level of satisfaction and seemed to be probing his own mind for explanations. Wish I had tape recorded the question-answer process.

I will try to recall and write up some of his answers at some point...for now it's time to turn in.

Interesting synchronicity.


---------------------------
Just because it has a patent application or is patented does not always mean it really works.
   

Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 1852
Had a comment about that movie. Can't do it without voicing my opinion. Not a good thing, because when you argue, more will come.

I need to forget this xxxxxx and confirm something about induction on my bench.


---------------------------
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." - Einstein

"What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." - Werner Heisenberg
   

Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 1852
That damned Cold War never ended.

Now, those Vets knew how to make use of video and audio. Propaganda was the job for the other side or The State Department. The first job was to collect every possible, and factual detail from all available evidence. Making evidence was part of the job.

The only thing I find interesting or 'new' in the 4th section is it clearly demonstrates why the use of video, audio, photos and second hand accounts cannot be used to verify or replicate anything. People attach meanings and explanations where the data doesn't fit into their understanding.

It is the same as trying to replicate one of the famous coils from the 19th century. Folks saw the words 'magnet wire' and happily grabbed magnet wire from RS. No one else looked to find that 'magnet wire' hadn't been invented when the patent was written.

« Last Edit: 2010-08-09, 12:34:32 by WaveWatcher »


---------------------------
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." - Einstein

"What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." - Werner Heisenberg
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 2794
It's turtles all the way down
                                       A  Little Perspective In Scale

You must actually do this to get the "picture"

Take an 8.5 x11 sheet of paper.

Diameter of earth is estimated at 7900 miles so we will let 1" =1000 miles

Take a compass and draw a circle with a diameter of 7.9 inches
 
Draw another circle concentric to the first at 7.95 inches. This is approximately the lowest space shuttle orbit at 50 miles (approx) above earth.

About four times the distance of the lowest orbit is the space station (approx 200 Mi) above earth. Draw a concentric circle representing a location for the space station at 8.10 inches.

Do the same at 8.15 inches. This concentric circle represents the average orbit of 250 miles above Earth surface (approx) for the space shuttle.

Do another at 8.3 inches. This concentric circle represents the highest space shuttle mission of 400 miles (approx.) above the earth's surface.

Take a good look at what you have drawn and it is immediatly apparent we are not going very high off the earth compared to the diameter of the earth. (less than 1/20 the earth diameter)

Now put the paper down and measure off approx 240 inches representing the distance to the moon. It will be 20 feet away.

If you have a really long tape measure, count off 34,175 inches or 2487.9 feet....a little under half a mile. This is distance to the planet Mars when it's orbit is nearest Earth.

Get the picture yet? For the last 40 years we have been doing low earth orbit of manned vehicles.

Most people go further by automobile horizontally on the planet on typical summer vacation than the vertical distance of the vehicles "exploring space"

Does this mean the space shuttle has no value? No it has been extremely valuable in putting objects into low orbit, such as the Hubble and many military satellites.

Many will say "what is your point"? ......I just get a little bugged when the media presents the space shuttle missions as "space exploration"....... maybe it should be renamed the "low earth orbit projectile".......or maybe I should take that "chill pill" LOL
« Last Edit: 2010-08-09, 23:19:25 by ION »


---------------------------
Just because it has a patent application or is patented does not always mean it really works.
   

Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 1852
ION,

Your exercise in perspective does remind me how thin the atmosphere is. Other than that, how big outer space is   :)


---------------------------
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." - Einstein

"What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." - Werner Heisenberg
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2883
tExB=qr
Sounds like we need advanced tech to really get out there and do something.  If they do have it, they are not admitting it.
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 2794
It's turtles all the way down
regarding the moon stuff....someone asked why I bothered to bring it up.

I just wanted people to muse on why technology may seemingly have hit a brick wall in manned space flight......and a few other areas.

One possible scenario is that we had advanced antigravity technology right after WWII and Roswell was a psy-op to divert attention to "aliens and alien technology"

with antigravity possibly comes free energy.....this also could be a suppressed science......think of the ramifications if these technologies were released to the human worker bee farm....the majority of bees would leave the hive...forever!

Here is  a short story that might be of interest. Back in the mid 80's I was doing some consulting work in addition to my normal day job. I was asked to design a controller for a particular hi tech xxxxx by the president of the xxxxx company. He came to my house one evening to discuss the specifications for the design. When we had everything worked out to our satisfaction we kicked back with a glass of wine. At that point , and out of the blue he told me this story:

He had been summoned to a military base on the US-Canadian border because one of his special xxxx devices had been malfunctioning. His was a small company and since he was intimate with the design,  he decided to go himself.

The base was heavily guarded with at least three layers of barbed wire and MP's all over. He was escorted into a building and down a few levels into the lowest level where the xxxx was. An MP was with him at all times as well as one of the technical people. After an hour or so, he had corrected the problem, and he was escorted up and out of the building. As he came out of the building he clearly witnessed a large disc-like object hovering silently in the air. The MP quickly turned him away and said to him sternly: You did not see that!

I have little reason to doubt his story, as he was not the type that was given to telling tall tales.

note: xxxx to preserve the anonymity of the man and his company



---------------------------
Just because it has a patent application or is patented does not always mean it really works.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2883
tExB=qr
There are more tales of aliens than technology recovered during WWII and devloped tech put together.

SM, as MM (Mercury Molina or something like that) emailed several people and said that the US Navy had a similar device since the 1950's and this time frame is similar to that stated by a man in Ohio that wrote several letters to Lester Hendershot.  This person in Ohio was pert of a group of individuals working on a device that used an "ether vortex" to create electricity.  Rather uncanny isn't it?  He said it was very different than Hendershots device and they wondered how he got rotation.

Mark Snoswell periodically visits a group in Mexico with a device the puts out AC current, with no input.  Review of Mark Hendershot's compilation of notes on the device indicates that Lester Hendershot went to Mexico and taught a group of people how to build his device.  Uncanny again.


The only publically released device that we have been given enough instructions fto build is Spherics' tetrahedral device.  I am going to start a thread on this now as I have learned enough to have a good chance at getting it to work as claimed.  Any else who is game can join the fun.

Sidenote:  I worked with a man about 20 years ago that had worked at area 51.  He was recruited for his idea when he was about 15 - worked with missile systems.  Anyway, I of course asked if he ever saw "aliens".  He said he had not, but he had seen things that we can not make here.
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 2794
It's turtles all the way down
Maybe this will shed some light on reasons the human farm must not have advanced technology. I believe it is a video by Stefan Molyneux.

I uploaded it as a .torrent extension.  Plug it into your torrent engine. The download is a .wmv file about 100 megabytes.

A little lesson on statism.

Poynt99 Edit: Added torrent extension capability on site, and added file here.
« Last Edit: 2010-08-10, 04:56:36 by poynt99 »


---------------------------
Just because it has a patent application or is patented does not always mean it really works.
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 2794
It's turtles all the way down
Quote
Mark Snoswell periodically visits a group in Mexico with a device the puts out AC current, with no input.  Review of Mark Hendershot's compilation of notes on the device indicates that Lester Hendershot went to Mexico and taught a group of people how to build his device.  Uncanny again.

Has Mark Snoswell shared any of his observations on this device anywhere? I already have all of the available info by Mark Hendershot.


---------------------------
Just because it has a patent application or is patented does not always mean it really works.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2883
tExB=qr
Has Mark Snoswell shared any of his observations on this device anywhere? I already have all of the available info by Mark Hendershot.

From what I recall, they would not tell how it worked and I'm not sure that he even got to see it, but I do recall that the output is AC and I know Hendershot shared his tech with a group in rural southern Mexico and that is where this group is located.
   
Group: Guest
Speaking of moon landings...

What is this???

(youll need to save the attachment, and zoom in just to the right of the 2 large craters in the center of the image. You are looking at the large cigar shaped object)

This is an image of the far side of the moon near 'delporte crater' the image comes from the apollo image atlas - it is from apollo 15. The image ID is AS15 P 9625

RE: Apollo 20,
The allogation is that investigating this thing was the object of that mission...
« Last Edit: 2010-08-10, 10:40:35 by Phantasm »
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2883
tExB=qr
OK.  So we sort of hit a plateau for propulsion technology.  Anyone with the tech ain't sharing.

So, as a collective group of intelligent individuals, what can we do about this?

Anyone got the scoop on non-fuel-based propulsion?

Say, hypothetically speaking, that I have this "force field" that can pull space towards itself.  So, it compresses a region of space.  How can I use this to produce thrust?  Pulling space towards and object is equal force in all directions. If I shaped it like a cone, one end would pull much more than the other.
   
Group: Guest
   

Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 1852
This may provide an idea of what NASA thinks is possible...

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20050170447_2005172301.pdf


---------------------------
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." - Einstein

"What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." - Werner Heisenberg
   
Pages: 1 [2] 3
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2017-02-21, 20:59:44