Rehashing moon mentalness

a reply to: wildespace

You are using images produced by NASA.

a reply to: toysforadults

They are talking about the new Orion capsule. The Apollo capsules were much less computerized, and flew through different parts of the Van Allen Belts, making fast transits. The Orion, depending on the mission, will have to go through the more active parts of the Belts, and is entirely computerized. They won't know how it will handle the radiation, until they actually send one through them on a test flight.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Ok. I can see that. That may be true.

a reply to: toysforadults

Yes, we actually landed on the Moon.

Unedited audio.

a reply to: toysforadults

Those images come from NASA.

I know.

a reply to: ParasuvO

Look fake as well..and are a disgrace being presented as evidentiary pieces.

NASA lies right ?

originally posted by: ParasuvO
a reply to: gortex

Those pics show nothing sorry.

How do they show nothing? I've never seen anything like that in a natural terrain, without the involvement of humans. If the Apollo program never happened (like, if it never existed at all) and I saw these images, I would instantly conclude that either humans have been to the Moon secretly, or it's the sign of aliens. In either case, those objects (some of which glint in the Sun in some of the images) and tracks cannot be part of natural terrain.

a reply to: wildespace

Can you download those images directly from NASA and what is the link?

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: wildespace

Can you download those images directly from NASA and what is the link?

You can access them at www.lroc.asu.edu... and also at wms.lroc.asu.edu... and target.lroc.asu.edu...

a reply to: wildespace

Are these images doctored/ edited in anyway??

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: ZIPMATT

How does combustion work in a vacuum?

Is that your question?

What ? No it was

DID ANYONE COME BACK FROM THE MOON ?

And yours was :

did the moon landings actually happen ?

You need to comprehend how very unlikely it is that the little tinfoil-clad lander could ever reconnect with the orbiting module which would fly them home .

Landing there is one thing - the thing which people get stuck on . getting back from there is an entirely more complex issue , don't you get this concept ?

a reply to: ZIPMATT

don't you get this concept ?

Why don't you actually explain what your talking about and being less vague so I can understand please.

a reply to: toysforadults

No , I give up . Good luck in life

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: wildespace

Are these images doctored/ edited in anyway??

Not to my knowledge. By the way, although it's a NASA spacecraft, the data and images are handled by Arizona State University.

Take a look at one of the images: wms.lroc.asu.edu...

From what I hear, if someone messed around with an image (such as blurring or cloning), you can detect that. All LRO images I've seen look absolutely normal to me.

originally posted by: Bhadhidar

Or perhaps It is the fact that my father was one of the thousands in the aerospace industry who designed built, and launched the very rockets that took us first to LEO and then to the Moon itself.

Mine as well (not the overall design and building), but we all had to move to Houston, Texas, for the program.
As a kid, all of the neighborhood families had something to do within the effort at that time.
The stories we would hear as kids of uses for items and newly invented items etc.
Mostly I recall the BBQ's and the celebrations after successful launches and landings; and all the talk about the next.

The sheer scale of the endeavor is completely misunderstood and lost by far too many person today.

The USA went to the Moon and more than once.

Not to mention, other nations have placed rovers...not just the USA.


mg

originally posted by: ZIPMATT

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: ZIPMATT

How does combustion work in a vacuum?

Is that your question?

You need to comprehend how very unlikely it is that the little tinfoil-clad lander could ever reconnect with the orbiting module which would fly them home.

Why wouldn't it be able to reconnect with the command module? It was all done in vacuum, and the Moon has only 1/6th of Earth's gravity.

The "tinfoil" was just thermal insulation, the LM itself was quite sturdy. Here it is without the "tinfoil":

Its quite funny actually how people who have no idea about engineering, look at a drawing of the LM and say "Impossible! its made of paper" The truth is quite the opposite as you point out

The LM was quite sturdy and was basically a pressure vessel designed for 1 bar, you know, that isn't actually a difficult thing to build. To be fair by the look of the thickness of the material, it could probably take much greater differential than 1 bar.

As for the space suit comments, its just hilarious how little people understand physics and heat transfer. Temperature in a vacuum is somewhat abstract. On Earth we think of heat and temperature as the same thing because basically we are swimming in atmosphere, if something is at a high temperature, everything around it gets hot. In space this is not quite the same thing.

The whole 'In the sun it is 200C and in shade -200' is extremely misleading. The issue is that heat transfer in vacuum is done entirely via radiation. Which is extremely inefficient. People seem to believe that if you are in a suit, rotating, your body should feel really hot on the sun side and super frozen on the opposite side. The truth is that you'd basically not be able to really tell. The purpose of the space suit is to reflect as much sunlight as possible and insulate the body, while allowing enough heat out of the suit to stop you overheating from your own heat production. Hence the suit being bulky as hell and containing its own cooling units.

People who don't understand this, generally also believe in the whole, if you are unexposed in space you will instantly freeze... which is also not true, you have a few hours before you freeze...again due to the inability to radiate heat away fast enough.

a reply to: ErosA433

How does combustion work in space?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: toysforadults

I am flattered that you used my expression.

Imitation is the most sincere form. I also laughed, as I had just finished reading that thread and starring your comment there.
The debate itself is laughable and the evidence is undeniable to most people. The actual Moon rocks leave me with no doubt. The big Moon debate should be something like... *Hands mic to John Lear...

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: ErosA433

How does combustion work in space?

Because a rocket has its own supply of FUEL AND OXYGEN

Maybe learn how combustion works on Earth before asking how it works in space

en.wikipedia.org...

How do you think the Sun works in space ?

a reply to: toysforadults
as Discotech said, but broken down a little bit so people can read... sometimes i feel like following the trend here and just posting youtube videos for all answers lol

Rocket technology comes in a few different forms but in basic it is explained below :

Combustion is an explosive chemical reaction, all rocket technology use an explosive reactant and a supply of oxygen. This can be in the form of a chemical that explosively decomposes when it heated via an ignition source, or via an oxygen source such as liquid oxygen.
In the case of a dual propellent rocket, you pre-mix oxygen (from liquid oxygen storage tanks) with your liquid fuel (assuming it is a liquid fuel rocket) and you then ignite it in a combustion chamber.

The combustion chamber is shaped such that the expansion of the combusting propellent push against the rocket and are ejected from a specially shaped cone. Being in space you are required to carry your own fuel and oxygen source for combustion to work.

An example of a self reactive propellent that does not require oxygen is Hydrazine, N2H4 and Hydrogen Peroxide which will react with a combustion source (such as a simple heat source) and produce energy.

Not sure exactly why this is a point of contention, all you need burn something is a reactive fuel as iv said. Doesn't even have to be oxygen combustion but in the case that it is, you just need fuel,mix with the oxygen and ignite with a hot resistive stick or even arc source (which requires some gas, but hey thats fine, because remember? you just made a mix of fuel and gas that you can arc through)