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:
Question #1
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.
Question #2
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.
Question #3
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.
Question #4
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.
Question #5
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.
Question #6
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.
Question #7
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.
What are possible motives for faking the moon landings?
Cold War Politics?
I think that to go to the moon, you need a level of technology that the US is not willing to admit that they have, much less prove it.
There is still talk of what the astronaughts saw when they flew around the back side of the moon. Supposedly there are "structures".
It gets better than that G theres a rumour there was an Apollo 20 mission to a ship
http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/walkaboutmoon.htm
but come on they either faked it or didnt LOL, if they faked it how come a mission 20, although i do wonder if upto apollo 14 they were un manned because the new pictures only show foot prints on 14
maybe because of the Cold War they had no choice but to launch 11 without a person because the tech was not perfected until 14, after all 13 was nearly a disaster.
beats me how they could launch a saturn V without anyone noticing though
Well, do we have the technology to walk on the moon or not?
Looking at space suits, using air to control temperature sucked so they use liquid body liners. Now if it is cold outside, you can pump the liquid to the outer region of the suit to cool it since the outside fo the suit is cold. What about when it is hot outside the suit? How do you cool yourself off and get rid of the heat? You can only carry a small amount of air to vent to the outside. Even soild to gas production means doesn't sound too good.
Here's what is said about the suit
* The cooling units could only work in a vacuum. Water from a tank in the backpack flowed out through tiny pores in a metal sublimator plate where it quickly vaporized into space. The loss of the heat of vaporization froze the remaining water, forming a layer of ice on the outside of the plate that also sublimated into space (turning from a solid directly into a gas). A separate water loop flowed through the LCG (Liquid Cooling Garment) worn by the astronaut, carrying his metabolic waste heat through the sublimator plate where it was cooled and returned to the LCG. Twelve pounds [5.4 kg] of feedwater provided some eight hours of cooling; because of its bulk, it was often the limiting consumable on the length of an EVA. Because this system could not work in an atmosphere, the astronauts required large external chillers to keep them comfortable during Earth training.
* Radiative cooling would have avoided the need to consume water, but it could not operate below body temperature in such a small volume. The radioisotope thermoelectric generators, could use radiative cooling fins to permit indefinite operation because they operated at much higher temperatures.
Is there any means to keep him warm when it is -250f on the moon?
Not sure G a moon night is probably a lot less than on earth so i guess they stay inside at night and rest
oops well i got that wrong
Average length of lunar day (days) 29.53059
so i doubt they even had to worry about a night when timed correctly
There is a lot of talk about going to Mars. Wemight want to hit the moon first and check things out. It is a lot closer.
I really thing that if mankind is going to get off this rock, then we have to share some of that covert stuff that we keep so secret. Public technology is a century behind and doesn't fit the bill. Mars isn't exactly "next door". Anything could go wrong and the cost is exorbitant.
Did I ever tell you guys that I invented warp drive? Yeah, no shite. Couldn't get the funding though...(joking)
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.08.05, 22:20:39
Did I ever tell you guys that I invented warp drive? Yeah, no shite. Couldn't get the funding though...(joking)
I'm not so sure about that being a joke ;D
BTW: It isn't a century for most tech. It is between 25 and 40 years on non-computer related stuff, about 15 years on computer stuff, last I heard ;)
Nice exposé ION ;)
Some very pointed questions. If it smells like a skunk...
Or as Judge Judy says..."if it doesn't make sense, then it must not be true".
Anyway, either NASA was far more advanced in 1969 than they wanted to appear and they really did get to the moon and back, or it was all faked.
I suspect we may not know the truth of the matter for a very long time.
.99
ION,
I appreciate your objective approach to this. Such questions would make many think there was a chance of fakery.
I have watched this trend grow on disbelief of the Apollo missions. In every case of face to face conversation about these thoughts the other person didn't experience that time, didn't have the ability or knowledge to prove or disprove to themselves, or may have had political roots in their disbelief.
There have never been any doubts for me. When that first footprint was made I was timing the delay between the actual unencrypted radio transmissions and the live TV broadcast. I don't remember the details but the delay between the two was only a few seconds. That delay only accounted for transmission time between ground control and that huge 27" B/W TV we all shared in the school auditorium.
Our project was to record the time delay of the echos heard in the transmissions from both sides. We used the TV as the source for ground control transmissions and the echo of that transmission keying the astronaut's mic as heard directly from the moon orbit. The receiving antenna array was made for 432mHz moon bounce HAM experiments. We could hear the ship transmissions whenever the moon was above the horizon. We had to track the antenna on the moon manually to keep the signals.
The delay of the signals was exactly as it should have been. At the time, I doubt we could have varied the speed of a radio transmission through space. Why bother? All it took was guts, determination to beat the Soviets and oodles of money, and several lives.
That was the most technical project I had participated in, at that point. It was a big year for me and radio. Got my Novice ticket just before the moon landing. Since then, I have spoken directly with later Apollo and space shuttle missions. The last good HAM to Space HAM conversation I had was with a crewmember of Mir. Quite sometime after that I watch the live slow-scan Amateur TV transmission of the inside of the control cabin until the Mir antenna burned in reentry.
Doubts? Like quite a few, I was there. I participated in it all, in my small way. The signals were from where they should have been, at the expected strengths or the expected attenuation and the expected delays. I mourned the deaths then watched the skies for 13 whenever I had a chance just like the rest of the world when the crew was limping home in that tin can with almost no chance of survival.
The crew of 13 survived for the same reasons other missions were completed. Maybe we should have waited but we didn't. Did we have technology unknown to the public? I am very sure of that.
Why were the astronauts well guarded and sometimes apprehensive? They were loud mouths that knew too many secrets during heights of the cold war.
I have looked at the evidence. I have no doubt we went to the moon.
Hi Wavewatcher
I appreciate your point of view and your right to your beliefs. I also appreciate greatly your very intelligent posts on this forum. I was 22 years of age and an avid electronic experimenter at the time of the first "supposed" moon landings.
I was not caught up in the ra-ra backslapping of the good old US of A mainly because I did not appreciate the death of several friends in the Vietnam debacle..... it left a bad taste in my mouth and I was not much of a USA cheerleader at that time.
I had learned of the corruption and moneymaking of the "military industrial complex" in that war, not to mention the war atrocities and outright lies by the government. Shall we talk about "torture"?.
A government that nearly continually lies to it's citizens soon loses it's credibility to any thinking person. When huge sums of money are to be made by faking or not delivering the goods why would anyone not think this would be an easy path to take?
QuoteThe delay of the signals was exactly as it should have been. At the time, I doubt we could have varied the speed of a radio transmission through space.
As for the time delayed signals, NASA launched a relay satellite just before the missions to mimic precisely transmissions and make them appear to be coming from the moon.... proper delays and signal strengths and fadeouts.
"There is much trickery in the business world"
It is quite possible however that more advanced technology has already bee discovered than the classic chemical rocketry.
If you think about it, an antigravity device would have to be the most closely guarded secret, one that would be agreed to keep under wraps by all the governments because it would allow the elite parasites to lose control of the human worker bee farm if it's secret were revealed into the public domain.
With understanding of antigravity possibly comes a source of free and unlimited energy....this also would have serious implications for loss of control and dominance of the human herd.
Science fiction has predicted many modern inventions and we have actually gone far beyond the predictions of science fiction (cellphones, computers flatscreen TV's, etc) in many areas except for two: antigravity craft and a high energy source. One should ask why we have we seemingly hit a brick wall in these areas?
So perhaps the moon landings were a psy-op to keep us in a Buck Rogers chemical rocketry mindset for the next few decades while far more exotic military NWO adventures are clandestinely executed.
There are a ton of other questions I did not include but would be happy to raise if anyone is interested.
Thank you again for your input.
The advanced tech had been developed and even leaked to the USSR by this time.
Hard to justify going in a chemical rocket when you can hop in the sportster for a quick jaunt.
We have probably been to the moon and other places, though probably not the way we are told.
Even if the pictures that we all see are fake and were created here, we may have gone and couldn't get good pictures. Thinking that no one will believe it without pictures, we make a few. This way the answer lies between the lines and everything is right and wrong depending on perspective.
No one doubts the we do go into space, and we did orbit the moon and earth.
Some may recall that there were a handful of companies that existed around the time of the moon landing and a couple of decades before the had names that sounded as if they did force field research.
I'll respect your opinion as I wish for my own but this....
Quote from: ION on 2010.08.06, 12:21:27
As for the time delayed signals, NASA launched a relay satellite just before the missions to mimic precisely transmissions and make them appear to be coming from the moon.... proper delays and signal strengths and fadeouts.
I am well known for hot air. Here's a little more...
When I was monitoring those signals I wasn't incredibly well versed in the magic of radio, nor did I have the best test equipment, even for the time. My timing device was a mechanical pocket watch. Even as kids we knew we needed an average so a few of us timed and then we averaged. The worst we could have been off was calculated less than 100k miles(memory isn't real good now). Even figuring the worst that means this faker satellite had to be half way between us and the moon.
Now for the hot air:
Since that time my radio career grew a bit. Much of my time(actually out of uniform) was as a SIGINT operative. Google it. I have awards and diplomas to prove it should someone show up demanding proof. One of the awards is for 'Unspecified' Special Accomplishment in Wave Propagation Analysis.
You guessed it. The Soviets tried the trick you mentioned many times. It doesn't work. Quite frankly, I would have caught the same thing when I was a kid.
Now, if you want to throw in things like time travel, warped space, gravity control it might have been possible. Human control of those is just more BS for the compost pile.
When I had keys to the vault there were many interesting toys. I used a lot of them daily. The majority aren't on the public market yet. Many will never be seen. I've only been able to account for a few showing up since then.
Can they do what you suggest now? Sure, but not in '69.
I have read some pretty well though out scientific format papers that show the theory and the math to prove it was possible in '69. The fact is, when you have the radio in one hand and you are pointing the antenna with the other, there is no doubt as long as you understand how these things work.
I am always curious how one may consider OU possible and not a manned shot to the moon. Maybe their minds are more open but too much?
You won't see me in this thread again as the last time it all came to ASCII blows and private insults because the line was crossed. The folks that died to protect our right to argue and died to break the limits that earned so much knowledge were being slammed. Since I also suffered those times AND saw the reality AND lost good friends AND received the INSULTS just for returning alive - I get agitated when apparently unscarred fully complete bodies speak (discontinue the thought...)
So let's agree to disagree.
Until then, I'll continue checking on the latest 'proof' there was no moon landing. Sometimes I just need a good chuckle :)
Anyway, if I'm not here, I won't be part of it.
There is no doubt that man landed on the moon. I remember the whole thing as a kid. The physics are all simple and doable, and it's neat that the Apollo command module and lunar module had less computing power than a modern cellphone and yet they did it.
It's simply impossible to hide such an allegedly huge conspiracy nor does it make any sense to contract out tens of thousands of jobs to companies only to launch a rocket into orbit and fake the rest.
If you don't believe that man landed on the moon then why believe in the FDA or any other big government agency that is supposed to exist to support the common good? You may as well pack it all in.
I have looked at pictures that some people allege are fake and it's clear that they simply can't understand how the shadows are cast relative to the camera angle and lens focal length and the position of the sun .
In can be argued that the "real conspiracy" is with the faked-moon-landing crowd. They want to sell you books and DVDs.
No doubt that Apollo 8 went around the moon because of Cold War politics. There is a great documentary about the whole thing. We beat the Commies and twenty years later the Commies imploded.
I saw Buzz Aldrin deliver a keynote speech once and I like that clip where he punches that moon-conspiracy guy in the face.
Remember the "Face on Mars?" For 20+ years wankers went off freaking out over a 1976 photo. When a better image scan was done many years later, there was nothing, just some hills. In the interim many many books were sold where people obsessively examined the geometry of all of the other landmarks in the area and thought that they were looking at special signs. Or did they really obsessively examine the geometry of the landmarks in the area? Perhaps they just manufactured that analysis to fill the pages of their pulp books.
MileHigh
EMdevices:
Your link makes me laugh and cry. I read the first page and looked at the photographs. Those photographs are all related to the simulator setups for training the astronauts. Before aircraft simulators used computer graphics for the cockpit displays, they used miniature scenes videoed with moving cameras to generate the cockpit view. The camera movement was controlled by computers that were linked into the cockpit controls and the modeling of the aircraft in flight. That was the technology of the day. The same thing was done for simulating the lunar landing.
So the whole thing is garbage. Sorry for the strong words, but you are looking at the honest hard work of scientists and engineers doing their part in the moon program, and people are twisting that into nonsense for the "fun" of making that web site. Perhaps they are deluded and believe it themselves, who knows? My bet is on some person or persons that are doing it for the mental masturbation they get from it.
The bottom line: The people that worked on those simulators are the good guys, the heros. The people that put up that web page are the bad guys.
MileHigh
Great link EM.
I've been laughing for the last 20 minutes.
What a bunch of dipsticks!
The flaming idiot web author actually thinks there are two astronauts in this picture....
This is were the majority of this cult falls down. They interpret pictures far beyond reality. They do a really bad job at doctoring other evidence. Then attribute flaming lies (most really stupid) to history.
These people are no different than many spending so much time on the web. They just want a big hug or to feel needed or want to see they have some control. I have the perfect solution for them. REALITY
Yep! a bit of reality will do them some good. I think it is time to fire up the Selective Service ;D I really wish it could be made far more selective, first.
-----------------
I just realized something....
It is very unlikely anyone would spend NASA-like efforts, as depicted by the Apollo scam wannabees, to make weird science experimenters simply waste time and money.
It seems far more plausible that similar lamers, like the Apollo scam wannabees, would get their jollies from hacking, inventing, misrepresenting, and lying about any real facts they may know about experiments that have our interests.
I hope these types don't cross the lines between 'Apollo scam wannabee' and 'weird science experimenter'. Somehow I think many of the same traits are required. I certainly have all the traits :D
Its important to distinguish between "Not going to the Moon" and "Reality of the photos".
I am sure they went to the moon, but many of the photos are amateurish fakes; very
amateurish fakes. I suspect that a lot of film was ruined, if not most of it.
It's a sad thing when one is painted, tarred and feathered with a wide brush and more or less cast into the same lot as the Richard Hoagland face on Mars crowd and other so named "wankers" and "idiots".
I don't believe most...probably 99% of the typical "conspiracy theories" but one would be wise who examines how that "catch all" phrase was slipped into the public media and the reasons thereof. Ever heard of poisoning the well? No one will drink from it.
When one throws a little stone over the wall and is met with a barrage of emotionalism, what returns can be extremely revealing....it is a vetting or discovery process....testing the grapevine if you will.
The words used and how they are used...phrases....key words.... speak volumes of the individuals that within themselves contain such an emotional charge.
In the mid-60's I worked in Valley Forge at a company that built supplied navigational computer equipment to the NASA Apollo project......therefore....... we must have walked on the moon?
I also have an EE friend from the Aerospace industry that knows and worked with Dr. so and so who came up the key navigational plan and formula for the Apollo space mission......therefore we must have done it?
I'll know better than to be throwing any little stones over the wall on this thread. I asked a few honest questions and learned volumes about a few individuals by the responses, none of which answered any of the questions posed.
To bad there is not a more gentlemanly approach to honest inquiry...we might learn a lot more.
My emotional fog is lifting. No need to go into the trigger.
I found myself on the other side of the fence. That being the so-called 'established, published and well proven' fact side. Unfamiliar territory for me. I thought I was always the one needing more proof of some fact or physical law. When doubting the fed data, the arrows were fired at me.
The moon landings or Einstein's Theory. They are the same. Many, many reasons to agree with either or both. The problems are in the inconsistencies, as little or scarce as they might be.
I had no right to respond as I did.
I shouldn't have responded at all since such topics always seem to lead to my sore spots.
(Grumpy wheels in a keg of beer and starts pouring - he does not plan to stop - ever!)
What if it was faked. Why?
How does it effect us now, 40+ years later? - still stuck on this rock, still stuck on the oil tit, and still suffering.
Ion:
Forgive the expression, but you need to take a "chill pill." What I am going to say may surprise you.
It's nice to be be able to say what you think. Certainly personal attacks are to be avoided, but attacking ideas and having a spirited debate are things that we have the right to do if we want to do so. That's what freedom of thought and freedom of speech is all about. It's healthy to be able to say what you want to say. By the same token you are not allowed to yell out "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
In your posting you can feel your disappointment in what I said in my postings about this subject. Fine, you don't like what I said or the way I said it. But if you go back and read your posting over a few times, what comes across is not particularly positive. You drop a few few critical keywords in your prose that are the familiar lightning bolts that I think we have all read before on these types of forums. You may not be aware of it but your posting is actually very oppressive and stifling. It's an attempt to censor speech and mold it in a way that you feel it should be molded, especially when the ideas are ones that you are not comfortable with.
What if you turn the tables, and you say that every "crazy" idea should not be stated unless you can back it up with references and logical explanations? Then you start to feel the censorship from the "other side" and may be tempted to cry foul.
So your posting is talking more about yourself and less about me than you think. Please think about that.
Sometimes I make reference to the "pulp press" and I have done so in this thread. I find it interesting how that angle is almost never discussed on forums like this. The notion that there are people that take advantage of the free market and sell stuff that is of questionable veracity and value just because they can. It's not illegal, but it's not particularly nice. And sometimes quite honestly it's an insult to others, the vast majority of whom are not even aware that it exists.
I think there was a book that came out in 1980 called "The Soul of the Machine" or something like that. It's a book about the Motorola team that developed the 68000 microprocessor. There is an intangible heart and soul that goes into developing technology, the sweat and late nights and the stress and all the work that people do to make something happen and do something good. Look at any mature computer operating system, it represents tens of millions of man-hours of work. Windows may "suck" but there is probably a billion dollars worth of labour that has been invested in creating it.
Anyway, sorry but I have to brush off what you said and just be me, warts and all. I am not a bad guy, just expressing what I think and feel. It's sometimes too much work to write politically correct prose all the time. I hope that you understand that.
MileHigh
Ion:
Let me answer one of your questions:
QuoteQuestion #3
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.
That's 30 pounds of moon weight when you put the backpack on a scale on the surface of the moon. Let's assume that an astronaut weighs 170 pounds. So the total "earth weight" is (170 + 180) = 350 pounds. What you are missing is that's still 350 pounds of
mass on the moon. When the astronaut goes to jump, he is trying to accelerate most of his mass and the mass of the backpack. He will feel the same resistance in his legs when trying to accelerate that mass (not weight) on the moon or on the earth. Hence he can only jump up about six inches.
MileHigh
"Question #4
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."
I'll be glad to take this on as I answered the first part when gaining interest during a chat about 10 years ago. In the clips used as reference for every mention of this problem, that I have read, The shiny short streak seemingly attached to the top center on the 'backpack' is a whip antenna. Usually, this question is posed by someone of a very recent generation. Whip antennas have been slowly disappearing for many years now.
As for the strange recovery from an overbalance situation.... again, mass not weight. To recover from the same situation on this planet you shift your weight to change your center of gravity, change your stance, etc. All your mass is there with you. In a low gravity environment the hard part would be to avoid shifting too much of your mass too fast. If your swung your arms forward to avoid falling backward like you would on Earth, you would wind up on your face. Very little movement of your mass would be needed to make large balance adjustments.
The part of your question about when an astronaut falls on his back is beyond me. I have seen some video from the web showing this. I discounted it because it was so clearly edited, even beyond possible NASA fakes.
As you watch the clips of the Astronauts moving around the moon surface watch how reserved their movements are. They spent a lot of time training for zero and low G, using different methods. The clips tell me all the training was needed. Without it they may not have survived the trip - or wound up crawling back to the LEM.
(On the bobbing up and down speed..... I saw the whole thing live. The speed was natural then)
Here is the only part MI is not quite correct: "Hence he can only jump up about six inches."
If you have read some of the books authored by the astronauts you'll see references to worries about 'the boys' going overboard and winding up in short-hop flight. They were trained to make very reserved movements. Some of the footage will show they had some trouble following instruction, initially. After all, they were mostly hot-head test pilots.
The danger was once you got the mass going, it took just as much energy to stop it.
is there a Santa Claus?
Quote from: EMdevices on 2010.08.08, 05:33:14
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?
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/
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
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.
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
QuoteOn 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]
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
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
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
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
.
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.
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.
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.
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
ION,
Your exercise in perspective does remind me how thin the atmosphere is. Other than that, how big outer space is :)
Sounds like we need advanced tech to really get out there and do something. If they do have it, they are not admitting it.
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
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.
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.
QuoteMark 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.
Quote from: ION on 2010.08.10, 03:21:12
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.
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...
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.
Here's what I've got on the subject
http://www.youtube.com/user/AlienScientist#p/a/u/0/Rr_s28wIOzQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xnh5Nd4DzM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJJ-4lnwrck&feature=related
This may provide an idea of what NASA thinks is possible...
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20050170447_2005172301.pdf
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2010.08.11, 21:49:41
This may provide an idea of what NASA thinks is possible...
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20050170447_2005172301.pdf
Section 5.5, I believe, is referring to the technology discussed in the video links in my previous post
Interesting to see some of the names of the researchers whose work we're studying in that NASA document... EV Gray, Lindemann, Steinmentz, Konstantin Meyl, Tesla of course... Interesting to see them talk about ZPE
Regarding the MOL program for those who think it is not possible to compartmentalize to the point where only a few have the "big picture" chew on this quote:
"It was almost impossible to find out what another office was doing. No one ever seemed to know the 'big picture" of what was going on. A lot of people knew a great deal about what was happening in their particular offices, but the only person who ever understood everything that was going on in the entire MOL program, in my opinion, was Sam Tennant." ...Joe Wambolt
The MOL was supposed to fly in NEO.... near earth orbit. I cannot find a satisfactory definition for NEO but it is probably well above LEO. "The laboratory would be attached to a modified Gemini capsule and boosted into near-Earth orbit by an upgraded Titan III."
Perhaps the MOL program was cancelled because of a nagging problem: Van Allen radiation belts.
Bear in mind that all shuttle launches and space stations are at the very bottom of low earth orbit (LEO)
None have even come close to the upper end of LEO, let alone made it to medium earth orbit (MEO)
Various earth orbits to scale; Cyan represents low earth orbit.
Even Van Allen said the radiation hazards during a month stay was less than most get with medical Xrays in a year's time. NEO was an area between LEO and geosyncronous.
Hmmm...and they are talking about going to Mars now...
Have we ever put anything into an orbit around the sun rather than the earth?
QuoteEven Van Allen said the radiation hazards during a month stay was less than most get with medical Xrays in a year's time.
This has to be qualified as to which layer of the belts he was referring to. Their are several belts with different energies and differing particles e.g.
"The inner Van Allen Belt extends from an altitude of 100–10,000 km [6] (0.01 to 1.5 Earth radii) above the Earth's surface, and contains high concentrations of energetic protons with energies exceeding 100 MeV and electrons in the range of hundreds of keV, trapped by the strong (relative to the outer belts) magnetic fields in the region".
"The proton belts contain protons with kinetic energies ranging from about 100 keV (which can penetrate 0.6 mm of lead) to over 400 MeV (which can penetrate 143 mm of lead)."
"The region between two to three earth radii lies between the two radiation belts and is sometimes referred to as the "
safe zone"
Safe Zone Orbits: http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003000/a003052/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt
143mm of lead is quite thick.
Passing through the belts is quite different than spending a lot of time (months) in a really "hot" region.
I would like to see the context in which Van Allens statement was made as it is too general.
Naturally this can all be argued ad infinitum. don't want to do that.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt
QuoteMissions beyond low earth orbit leave the protection of the geomagnetic field, and transit the Van Allen belts. Thus they may need to be shielded against exposure to cosmic rays, Van Allen radiation, or solar flares. The region between two to three earth radii lies between the two radiation belts and is sometimes referred to as the "safe zone".
"divert all power to shields"We probably have shield technology, but we aren'y about to admit it.
Grumpy:
Wasn't it you that linked to some pdfs about developing shielding technology for any potential moon-base? It was stuff based on high-voltage Van der Graaf spheres or wire grids carrying current and stuff like that. It was kind of like mimicking what the earth does. So you could do that for a space station in the radiation belts. It's all boring stuff again, just the application of conventional electromagnetics.
For the International Space Station, the orbit is low for several reasons. The main reason is that a lower orbit allows rockets going to the station to have higher payloads. As long as you have your near-zero-g environment, you are happy and can grow crystals and all that stuff.
Perhaps the first paying industrial proposition for space manufacture will be for computer processing chips. A "wafer fab" in space might allow for the cost-effective production of a 32-core microprocessor with unbelievably small semiconductor geometries. It would cost a zillion dollars to build. It would be kind of cool to know the chip in your home PC was manufactured in space. I suppose we will figure out what to do with all of that computing power. The next generation of HDTV might need it, or your kitchen recipe card index! lol
MileHigh
Yep. That was my link.
What about non-conventional means? Any thoughts?
Sorry, no real thoughts right now Grumpy. I am not good nor do I like too much to stick my neck out for stuff like that so I stay quiet. I have sat in classes where the derivation of both forms of Maxwell's equations are done step by step and all that. And I went over all of the fundamentals. It was such a long time ago that I would have to relearn it to be able to say something with confidence.
MileHigh
Well, it seems obvious that we don't have the necessary technology in the public sector to explore space, physically, beyond LEO.
Our means of propulsion are meager at best. http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/1998/tm-1998-208400.pdf
Radiation shielding is inadequate. http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/radiation_protection/doc/publication/140.pdf
The only adequate power sources are nuclear. http://www.ne.doe.gov/space/neSpace2a.html
Looking at the shielding issue: What sort of force field, hypothetically speaking, is required to shield radiation?
EDIT:
Can we somehow direct the high enrgy particles around the space craft?
Can we somehow reduce the energy of the particles before the reach the space craft?
velocity in empty space is related to permittivity & permeability:
velocity = 1 / sqrt (permittivity x permeability)
So, if Imake the permeability and/or permittivity very high, the particles slow down.
QuoteSo, if Imake the permeability and/or permittivity very high, the particles slow down.
That's what a glass prism does, the speed of light inside the glass is slower. The same thing applies to the speed of signal propagation along the trace of a PCB, which is also slower than the speed of light in free space.
The partial reflection in a pane of glass is due to the discontinuity at the air/glass boundary. That causes a partial reflection off light off the surface of the glass because of the impedance mismatch between the EM impedance of the air and the EM impedance of the glass.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.08.18, 20:45:51
That's what a glass prism does, the speed of light inside the glass is slower. The same thing applies to the speed of signal propagation along the trace of a PCB, which is also slower than the speed of light in free space.
The partial reflection in a pane of glass is due to the discontinuity at the air/glass boundary. That causes a partial reflection off light off the surface of the glass because of the impedance mismatch between the EM impedance of the air and the EM impedance of the glass.
How high would the permittivity and/or permeability have to be to reduce radiation levels in space to safe levels?
Grumpy:
Your question presupposes that increasing permittivity and/or permeability will reduce the radiation levels in space but that's not he case. You can't change either factor, space is space. The characteristic impedance of free space is 377 ohms. It's just another way to describe the relation between the permittivity and permeability.
So the solution is to use reflecting foil for protection from the EM radiation for spacecraft. For less weight sensitive applications you see things wrapped with special multi-layer white blankets, like the Canadian robotic arms. In other words, mirrors. The permittivity and permeability of the surface of a mirror is so radically different from 377 ohms that most EM radiation gets reflected away because of the impedance discontinuity.
That only works for EM radiation. For high-speed alpha particles, bullets in space, you need lead shielding and stuff like that.
I am basically a layperson here.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.08.18, 21:40:37
Grumpy:
Your question presupposes that increasing permittivity and/or permeability will reduce the radiation levels in space but that's not he case. You can't change either factor, space is space. The characteristic impedance of free space is 377 ohms. It's just another way to describe the relation between the permittivity and permeability.
So the solution is to use reflecting foil for protection from the EM radiation for spacecraft. For less weight sensitive applications you see things wrapped with special multi-layer white blankets, like the Canadian robotic arms. In other words, mirrors. The permittivity and permeability of the surface of a mirror is so radically different from 377 ohms that most EM radiation gets reflected away because of the impedance discontinuity.
That only works for EM radiation. For high-speed alpha particles, bullets in space, you need lead shielding and stuff like that.
I am basically a layperson here.
MileHigh
Humor me and let's say that we can change these properties of space. What sort of values are required?
Grumpy:
I'll take a crack, but like I said I am not too comfortable. For starters, like I alluded to before, EM radiation can still travel inside an imaginary volume if the permittivity and permeability are different inside that volume. If the source of radiation "lives" inside the imaginary volume, and you live inside the imaginary volume, then you are back at square one and the only recourse is to get mirrors again.
On the other hand, if your imaginary volume is in orbit around the earth, and you are living inside of it, then you are looking at a partial or near 100% mirror effect again at the boundaries between the imaginary volume and normal space. So if you look up "electromagnetic wave reflection at impedance discontinuities" on Google, you might be off on your way.
This is probably not what you are looking for but that's all I've got.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.08.18, 22:02:32
Grumpy:
I'll take a crack, but like I said I am not too comfortable. For starters, like I alluded to before, EM radiation can still travel inside an imaginary volume if the permittivity and permeability are different inside that volume. If the source of radiation "lives" inside the imaginary volume, and you live inside the imaginary volume, then you are back at square one and the only recourse is to get mirrors again.
On the other hand, if your imaginary volume is in orbit around the earth, and you are living inside of it, then you are looking at a partial or near 100% mirror effect again at the boundaries between the imaginary volume and normal space. So if you look up "electromagnetic wave reflection at impedance discontinuities" on Google, you might be off on your way.
This is probably not what you are looking for but that's all I've got.
MileHigh
That is exactly what I was looking for and sheds some light on why objects within the field of altered space appear as if they are in a fog - partial reflection perhaps as complete reflection would result in invisibility as the light never hits the object but is reflected at the field edge.
what properties would a region of vacuum with "negative" permittivity and permeability have?
http://www-physics.ucsd.edu/lhmedia/whatis.html
Grumpy:
I'm no expert in this either but my my reading of it is the danger is the bullets
(as MileHigh) put it and not EM waves: high speed particles from the sun or
from outside our solar system. I don't know why they refer to it as radiation
in the same sentence they say it's particles since when I hear radiation I
think of X and gamma rays which are EM waves.
From my reading and viewing, polyethylene is supposed to help with the
cosmic rays (high speed particles from outside the solar system) and
water or lead (though lead is too heavy to use) is supposed to help with
the particles from the sun. This seems to be an area of ongoing research
though. Polyethylene is used for the sleeping compartments in the ISS
for this reason. The document you linked to, 140.pdf, does mention
polyethylene. Here's a video that talks about these issues, even using
electric fields and magnetic fields to redirect particles away, parts 2, 3
and 4 in particular:
http://www.youtube.com/user/synteticboy#p/c/23FC6C0288281BBA
NASA's Space Radiation Laboratory studies these issues:
http://spaceradiation.usra.edu/
As well as humans, the electronics also needs to be hardened.
As for propulsion there's a new ion engine technology that's supposed
to be a game changer (so not use usual puny amount of thrust over
a long period of time.) It's already working on the ground and it'll be
tested on the space station around 2013 for reboosting. After that
they'll work on a version for a full scale rocket. They say it should be
able to use it to get to Mars in 39 days by thrusting the entire time
(same or less amount of fuel, just shoving it out the back faster):
http://www.nautel.com/rocketscience/
http://watch.ctv.ca/news/#clip225583
So stuff's happening in the public world.
-Steve
http://rimstar.org http://wsminfo.org
Statism is Dead: Part 3 - The Matrix
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P772Eb63qIY