Let's get live video footage from the moon - on the moon

Originally posted by r2d246
So for the 100 billion that went missing you get a two bit basement job of a website that some 12 year old kid could built for free.

The budget of the Apollo program has nothing to do with this website. The website was put together back in the late 90's. But the dated web design is irrelevant, it's the content within it that you should be focusing on.

With a bunch of fake lunar landing videos on it that were doing in a studio?

This question makes no grammatical sense.

You obviously dont care at all that 100 billion went missing for this 5 hours grainy movie you're getting which could easily have been done for a few million dollars.

The budget for the Apollo program is all accounted for. Please cite any evidence of it having gone missing please.

The 5 hours of video is just for the first EVA of Apollo 17, there are still two other EVA's with about 5 to 6 hours of video each, plus the all the video from the other 5 missions. The video quality on that website isn't the best, but it's still watchable. It's pretty clear you'd prefer to make a bunch of lame excuses not to watch any of it though. Well the link is there for you or anyone else to watch and see through your lies and disinformation.

But anyway, back on topic. It looks as if several Canadian companies are developing Rovers of various sizes for both Lunar and Mars exploration. I don't know if they will be available to private organizations or just space agencies like the CSA and NASA etc. But if they are made available for anyone who can afford them, and then just add your own cameras and other instrumentation, that could be worth while.

Canadian Space Agency unveils prototype fleet of rovers

Originally posted by LifeIsPeculiar
reply to post by XaniMatriX

 

All i am pointing out is, even if you are right in front of the sun in space, you would't burn up like a match stick, or freeze to death also if you are in the abyss of space

So, how does heat get from the sun to the Earth?

As a matter of proven fact, you will get VERY HOT in space just because the sun shines on you. Space suits are pure white just to reflect as much sunlight as they can. This is not theory at all; and, it was proven LONG before there were missions in space.


The sun gives off radient energy across a wide spectrum; and that reaches earth to warm it. If you were in space, that very same radiation (light, IR,gamma,etc) would impinge upon you, causing YOUR MOLECULES to vibrate at a higher rate, which is what happens in hot substances.

You are proposing that only molecules of a gas are subject to the heating affects of radiant energy. That is simply not the case; for, even solids get hot from radient heat. Case in point: Leave a black cast iron fry pan in the sun. After it soaks awhile, measure its temperature. It will be a great deal hotter than the ambient air ... so, where did its heat come from? Answer: The fry pan soaked up some of the radiant energy that was not absorbed by the atmosphere.

Case two: Do you get a sunburn from the air or the sunlight itself? Answer: The sunlight itself!

Cheers!

Heat doesn't travel from the sun throughout space, the energy the sun gives off does (which is not temperature)
Also most of the heat comes from within the planet after the energy has made contact with the planet, for example aurora lights, they come from within the planet not the sun.

"Case in point: Leave a black cast iron fry pan in the sun. After it soaks awhile, measure its temperature. It will be a great deal hotter than the ambient air"

If that Iron pan is on this planet then yes, why do you think they cannot just take a thermometer out into space in order to measure the temperature? because it would have no effect on it what's so ever, directed at the sun or not. That is why i was proposing a test flight to deny or confirm these beliefs.

Again a sunburn ON THE PLANET, we are discussing SPACE. The atmosphere doesn't absorb the heat, the energy makes the molecules in the atmosphere at all lvl's vibrate faster creating the feeling of heat. If the sun were to burn people in space, then the higher you get in altitude the hotter it should get no?

reply to post by XaniMatriX


If you take a thermometer into space, it will tell you the temperature of the thermometer. If you hold it in sunlight, it will heat up. If the surface of the thermometer is highly reflective, it will heat-up more slowly and won't get as hot overall. If its surface is dark, it will heat up more quickly and will get hotter. If you put it in shade it will cool off, and so on. These are examples of radiative heat transfer.

One of the more important instruments on Apollo was the Heat Flow Experiment. The astronauts drilled holes into the lunar surface and planted long probes with sensors along their length to measure how the temperature of the lunar regolith changes with depth (this tells us a lot about the material and how it is packed. This will be important when we build colonies on the Moon). Note that the sensors could only measure the material with which they were in direct contact. This is an example of conductive heat transfer.

There is a third type of heat transfer, convective heat transfer, but you only find this in the presence of a gas or fluid (i.e. not in a vacuum). For example, your household furnace heats air, the air travels through the house and warms you up.

For further information on temperature control in space, read this post.

Hope this helps.

reply to post by XaniMatriX


I don't know how much more simple it could be described. The energy from the Sun travels through vacuum, and when it hits any atoms, they absorb some of that energy, becoming warmer. I'll repeat, any atoms. A thermometer, a spacesuit, a spaceship, a frying pan in space, and of course the Earth.

Actually, the Earth's atmosphere is mostly transparent to the Sun's energy and doesn't get heated by it much (which is why it's so cold in the high altitudes). Instead, the Sun heats the ground, the ground heats the air directly above it, and the war air rises up.

This is some of the most basic physics.

P.S. the first picture in this article shows what happens to the Sun's energy when it reaches the Earth. Most of it is absorbed by the ground. www.windows2universe.org...

reply to post by wildespace

Since you yourself are not made of vacuum, you will get hot.

You are singing to the choir.

reply to post by XaniMatriX

If that Iron pan is on this planet then yes, why do you think they cannot just take a thermometer out into space in order to measure the temperature? because it would have no effect on it what's so ever, directed at the sun or not. That is why i was proposing a test flight to deny or confirm these beliefs.

You are just plain mistaken in your beliefs. The fry pan WILL get hot in space when exposed to the sun. Gases are not the only types of molecules that absorb radient energy. Space suits are white for that reason; and, the enormous backpack associated with them is mostly a cooling system.

If a thermometer were taken into space, it would indeed get hot when exposed to the sun. Why do you suppose the "official" thermometers for the weather surface must be shaded? Why did they put reflective sheilding around the lander, just to mess with YOUR head? (They didn't even know you were going to be born.) Why is sand on the beach a great deal hotter than the ambient air?

If you stand in the sun, you feel hot on the sunward side. If you get a sunburn, you get one only on the sunward side, right? If the sunburn came from the heated air, you would be burned even on your shaded side.

The presence of an atmosphere does not cause radient warming. All matter including solids, liquids, or gases will absorb radiant energy to get hot. Black objects will heat more quickly.

Do you think that X-rays will hurt you only when you are on a planet with an atmosphere? Bear in mind that the only difference between X-rays and Infrared heat is the wavelength.

I beleive that YOU could conduct any experiment and reject the results. Did you try the belljar experiment yet?

reply to post by XaniMatriX

If the sun were to burn people in space, then the higher you get in altitude the hotter it should get no?

Once you leave the atmosphere you will find yourself burning to a crisp on the sunward side and freezing solid on the shaded side. You will absorb radiant enery on the sunward side, and radiate heat away on the shaded side. This is why the spacecraft are continuously rolled. You can also assume that you will gather heat faster than you can get rid of it.
Did you ever read about commets or asteroids vaporizing when they come near to the sun? Those objects do not have an atmosphere, yet they never reach the sun. They get hot from the radiant energy, vaporize, and then those gass molecules generally drop to the sun due to the sun's gravity. The solid bodies rarely make it all the way to the sun's surface. (Vacuum, no atmosphere)

reply to post by XaniMatriX

Also most of the heat comes from within the planet after the energy has made contact with the planet.

This is not true. The heat deep in the earth comes from pressure, residual heat from the formation of the planet, and perhaps nuclear activity. Have you ever been in a cave? Caves are a great deal cooler than the surface of the planet. It stays that way until you get deep enough to be affected by heat conduction from the magma layers. If heat were coming from the earth there would be no polar ice caps.

On the other hand, we have polar ice caps because the incident energy from the sun strikes at an oblique angle, which serves to reduce the affective area exposed to sunlight.

So, assuming you still haven't "seen the light", what makes planetary molecules special? Why does radiation from the sun impart heat only dirt, water, and air molecules and not spacecraft of frying pan molecules? This is key to convincing me that you are correct. (Which you are not, by the way.)

reply to post by druid1

Would it not be possible to launch a small rocket from a balloon like mr baumgartner. Surely once you are up there it would take less power to achieve orbit.

It doesn't make any difference where you start. The "little" rocket must accelerate itself and the payload to something like 17,450 mph in order to acheive an low earth orbit. It must accelerate to 25,000 miles per hour in order to start toward the moon.

The trick is, it will eventually begin to fall to the moon. The rocket must be turned around and fired again in order to bring the speed down to an orbital velocity for the moon. Of course, it will have to be fired again (or longer) in order to leave the lunar orbit for a landing. Did I mention guidance? You have to steer accurately or you'll just end up orbiting the sun or drilling a hole in the moon. The trick is to "miss" the moon by the height of the orbit for which the orbital velocity was computed. Well, sort of. If you want a circular orbit the rocket motor must be fired again at the point of the closest pass.

This means that the "little rocket" must accompany the payload all the way to the moon in order to keep from augering into the moon or missing it altogether. That combined mass is always going to be a lot larger than the payload. Did I mention guidance? The rocket navigation and control instruments make the rovers look like child's play.

It turns out that the height of a ballon launch won't help you very much, especially since the rocket has to be pretty big in the first place.

This is a great idea and one of the main reasons that I think they are hiding something.

In this day and age we should have live streams from the moon the iss and mars (not sure if mars is possible but we should see what they see)

There is a blatant cover up, we pay for this stuff and should demand access to it.

reply to post by PrestonSpace

There is a blatant cover up,

No, there isn't. There isn't much happening on the moon except occasional meteor impacts. The scenery hasn't changed for millions of years, so streaming video would look just like still photograpy. Well, you could pan and tilt about the never-changing 360 degree view. It just isn't worth the money to monitor that. On the other hand, there are orbiting instruments that map the moon, measure magnetic anomolies. There are seismographs on the moon that watch for tremors.

Have you considered the distance between the earth and the moon? You will need a very high-powered transmitter or a big dish antenna to pick up any signals. You probably couldn't get high bit-rate images in a streaing fashion because you'd have to slow down the bit rate in order to reliably receive them.

Just go find the reports regarding the moon. A great deal of information is in the public domain. Your money has made a lot of information available to you. Just because it is boring doesn't mean that NASA has covered up the good stuff. There just isn't any "good stuff" save what is interesting to hard core scientists.

Money would be better spent going to Mars. Oddly enough, there are active Mars exploration programs.

But, hey, a few juveniles get caught up with the idea that NASA is holding onto secrets of the moon; and, other juveniles disregard all of scientific evidence to the contray. That is so much more exciting than reality, isn't it?

reply to post by r2d246

The computers they had at that time had so little computing power!!!!

Thanks for the opportunity to dig into my mountain of NASA documentation. I have rediscovered how those very incapable digital computers on the Apollo were able to perform navigation and control. The key turns out to be simply that those computers did NOT perform system control and navigation. All that computer did was to run the displays in the command module! It was also capable of writing "setpoints" for control override and course corrections. The navigation and control was performed entirely by ANALOG computers! The outputs from the inertial platform, rate gyros, and the accelorometers were all DC signals that were applied to the inputs of the analog computer. The outputs from the analog computer were wired directly to the servos that gimbled the rocket motors. There were scads of registers in the digital/analog interface that could capture digital values from the onboard computer or the radio uplink de-framer. Those registers were the front ends of digital-to-analog converters that present analog setpoints to the analog computer.

Telemetery to the ground did not go through the digital computer either. Important analog signals were tapped and routed to an analog multiplexer, which had multiple paths to a small number of analog-to-digital converters. There was a hardware device that ran a digital clock that issued digital controls to the multiplexer and the "framer". The framer was a hardware shift register that accepted parallel digital data from the ADCs and the digital switch contact monitors and then shifted that stuff serially into the radio down-link transmitter. The framer added a preamble an postamble to the frame that included a hardware generated CRC.

I found it interesting that the framer's sequencer loaded critical information into every frame while other information was selected into the framer on a round-robin basis according to a revolving schedule they called a "carousel ".

The digital computer was used to load the digital timer with engine burn durations.

So, the onboard computers were merely operating console controllers. If the pilot took control with the joystick, the analog computer was disconnected from the gimbal servos and then joystick provided analog signals directly to the engine gimbals.

In case you are not familiar with analog computers, those things are made with numerous "operational amplifiers". Those are connected with resistors, capacitors, and diodes so that individual amplifiers can add, subtract, multiply, divide, and take roots --- on the DC signals that pass through as fast as the amplifiers can slew.

Aha! The rocket's attitude and guidance was performed in real time faster that even the digital computers of today can manage.

Digital computers that are tightly coupled to analog computers are known as "hybrid" computers. I worked on SEL 810s and SEL 840s when I was in Huntsville. Those were 24-bit word digital computers tightly coupled to an analog computer that was programmed with "patch bays". Those were plugboards that looked exactly like the unit record data processing machinery that preceded digital computers.

My idea is as follows:

A ball within an egg.

Here's my thinking: An egg isn't easily crushed unless you direct pressure into one spot. I'd then place a ball within the lower end of the egg (the biggest part) and have a camera inside the ball which stays upright using a counterweight. Within the area of the counterweight, you could have various electronics and batteries needed to keep the "camera ball" upright and sending video. The ball itself would be made out of a strong plexiglass like material. The egg itself would break away in the atmosphere (or on the ground, whatever) giving the ball free roam to roll around.

Here's a quick mockup I made in Photoshop:



Strap it to the top of a rocket and let it rip.

reply to post by Auricom


Neat concept for a rover. Kind of like a robotic hamster-ball,

Your landing system "needs work". Parachutes don't work in a vacuum. Without rockets to slow it down, the probe will impact the Moon at over 4,000 miles per hour.

reply to post by Auricom

A parachute wouldn't be of much use in a lunar landing but that's a pretty neat idea.

reply to post by LifeIsPeculiar

It seems that the younger generation forgets that man has been navigating for hundreds of years before GPS.
Even before clocks.
Even before Lunar tables.

"Parachutes don't work in a vacuum". Point taken.

Then replace the parachute with rocket engines that stick out over the side to slow the descent. At a few feet/meters above ground, the bottom of the egg can open allowing the ball to fall.

America could be the first with a live streaming robot hamster in a wheel on the moon.

reply to post by Auricom

America could be the first with a live streaming robot hamster in a wheel on the moon.

The Soviets did that twice in the 70's.
One traveled 23 miles.
The longest lasted 10 months.
Even they decided it was a waste of funds.

reply to post by Auricom

The ball itself would be made out of a strong plexiglass like material. The egg itself would break away in the atmosphere (or on the ground, whatever) giving the ball free roam to roll around.

One thing that the Apollo astronauts noticed is that the dust from the surface stuck to eveything due to static electricity. That nice plexiglass ball would be totally covered in dust once it made a single revolution.

Research is your friend.

reply to post by samkent


Well at least I'm trying to bring something to the table, I'm not a rocket scientist nor am I NASA. So I'm just throwing my layman ideas out there.