We Probably Never Made it to the Moon

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: NorthOfStuff

I lean more towards us going to the moon but I still have questions.

Refrigeration in the near vacuum of space is a bit of a puzzle to me.

I have a basic background in earthly refrigeration. I’ve always wondered how, in a sealed system, the heat is dumped to space.

In an open refrigeration system more refrigerant would need to be used than could be carried.

Any ideas?

Apollo spacecraft had radiators to vent excess heat into space

ntrs.nasa.gov...

On the lunar surface the astronaut spacesuit backpacks were cooled by using water in what is called an ice sublimator

The cooling of the circulating oxygen and water is accomplished by leading it past a sublimator: a device consisting out of porous plates through which water is being forced. Upon contact with the vacuum of space, the water freezes into ice, after which it sublimates from this solid phase into gas. This endothermic process causes the sintered nickel plates of the sublimator to become very cold, cooling any oxygen and water that is led over it.

The sublimating process is self-regulating, in that the rate of vapor formation depends on the amount of heat that is applied to the device. The pressure that forces the feed water into the sublimator’s plates is provided by the squeezing of the feed water bladder that’s placed between the PLLS and the user’s back. Though fairly compact, this sublimator can dissipate over 2 MJ (2,000 BTU) peak, making it the equivalent of an air conditioning unit sized for a bedroom. This allows a human in the full heat of a Moon day to stay nice and cool.

Each spacesuit had a supply of water which was refilled after each trip out on the lunar surface

Thanks that answered a lot.

I still have questions about the heat transfer but it did clear some things up.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

That’s not what’s happening in these frames and you know it.

To added to my earlier post, as an explanatory illustration:



If someone standing at Point A in the image below took a picture of the mountain, then took another picture from Point B of the Mountain and overlayed the two pictures, the mountain in the background would look virtually identical in both pictures, but the foregrounds would be totally different.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Virtually identical. The photos I provided you have identical background outlines.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Show me an example of two photos taken miles apart with identical backgrounds.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

If it’s so obvious you should be able to provide a relevant example. Which you can’t.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

To added to my earlier post, as an explanatory illustration:

If someone standing at Point A in the image below took a picture of the mountain, then took another picture from Point B of the Mountain and overlayed the two pictures, the mountain in the background would look virtually identical in both pictures, but the foregrounds would be totally different.

I see what you're saying but the background is in the exact frame, they are perfectly overlappable, which would be a hallmark of a green screen in a movie studio:




Different foreground, same exact green screen background.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Show me an example of two photos taken miles apart with identical backgrounds.

According to a post I made some years ago on another forum, the locations from where those two photos were taken are some 200 metres apart and the hill on the background is 7 km away.
Now I don't have the time to show how I got to those values, I'll do it as soon as I can.

originally posted by: cooperton
I see what you're saying but the background is in the exact frame, they are perfectly overlappable, which would be a hallmark of a green screen in a movie studio

They are not, you can see that the areas closer to the camera change, as expected.

Also, photos taken 200 metres of a hill 7 km away would not show much parallax.

a reply to: ArMaP

Based on this post i've just calculated ALSEP and LM are around 300m apart.

The original source of these images miscalculated the ranges.



You're correct, parallax can explain this overlap. Calculation of the distances between the two locations required a bit of research however i'm happy to re-assess my opinions when confronted with evidence.

We can cram 300+ humans in a tube, fly them 1/2 way around the globe, provide in flight movies, WiFi, meals and land this tube safely. Thousands and thousands of times a day, for decades.

And someone thinks sending 3 people to the moon had to be faked?

Or, are the transcontinental flights are hoaxes too?

a reply to: PilSungMtnMan

Poor analogy.

The propulsion, medium, distances, technology and complexity of space travel bears no resemblance to air travel other than they transport humans from one point to another.

Look at air travel from 1970 then compare it to today. Clear progression in the technology. Yet 50 years since the last manned mission to the moon and we haven’t been, nor do we have the technology to go back.

Considering the budget of NASA it’s unfathomable that space travel would regress, probably the only human technology to ever do so. We tend to go further and faster, pushing the frontier.

IMO NASA is a front, used to placate the public and hide the real space program. I think we’ve been to the moon and beyond, just not with the Apollo program.

Does it seem strange to anyone that out of 15,000+ photos and countless hours of film from the moon that we have a grand total of 1 picture of the Earth from the lunar surface. The largest and most beautiful object in the sky, our home world shining in the darkness and the astronauts never thought to point the camera at it. Nope, 1000s of images of rocks and dust, featureless landscapes and boot prints but 1 measly picture of our home world which is a clear cut and paste.

Please someone point me in the direction of the countless photos that must exist of the Earth from the lunar surface or even small cameos in the background, maybe a quick glimpse over the horizon in one of the videos.

The Apollo spacecraft passed through the thinnest part of the belts on Earth's night side where the radiation intensity is lower. The astronauts received about the same amount of radiation as a chest x-ray.

How Did Apollo Astronauts Get Through The Van Allen Belts?

a reply to: cooperton

Late to this one but compelled to respond.

Please don't taint my aeronautical/space science with your myopic religiousity.

Seems to hinge on the Van Allen Belts. I guess if someone in a video said it once...

I once read that NASA learned that the dose received from 54 minutes of exposure in even an unshielded craft was still only 12 rads, 88 below the low end of even being harmful. They were considered and easily conquered. Only Apollo 14 passed through the inner belt on moon missions.

Here is some better science on that

You mock the achievement of several space agencies.

Actually, as a species, we have landed lots of places. Here is a list starting closest to the Sun in order of first landing. Only successful landings counted.


Venus

Vanera 7 (USSR)
Vanera 8 (USSR)
Vanera 9 (USSR)
Vanera 10 (USSR)
Pioneer (USA)
Vanera 11 (USSR)
Vanera 12 (USSR)
Vanera 13 (USSR)
Vanera 14 (USSR)
Vega 1 (USSR)
Vega 2 (USSR)


Moon

* Human landing

Luna 9 (USSR)
Surveyor 1 (USA)
Luna 13 (USSR)
Surveyor 3 (USA)
Surveyor 5 (USA)
Surveyor 6 (USA)
Surveyor 7 (USA)
Apollo 11 (USA) *
Apollo 12 (USA) *
Luna 16 (USSR)
Luna 17 (USSR)
Apollo 14 (USA) *
Apollo 15 (USA) *
Luna 20 (USSR)
Apollo 16 (USA) *
Apollo 17 (USA) *
Luna 23 (USSR)
Luna 24 (USSR)
Chang'e 3 (China)
Chang'e 4 (China)
Chang'e 5 (China)


Mars

Mars 3 (USSR)
Viking 1 (USA)
Viking 2 (USA)
Pathfinder (USA)
Beagle 2 (UK/ESA)
Spirit (USA)
Opportunity (USA)
Phoenix (USA)
Curiosity (USA)
InSight (USA)
Perseverance/Ingenuity (USA)
Tianwen 1 (China)


Saturn's Moon Titan

Huygens Probe (ESA) - personal favorite


Asteroid Eros

NEAR Shoemaker (USA)


Asteroid Itokowa

Hayabusa (Japan)


Asteroid Ryugu

Hayabusa 2 Mission (Japan, France, Germany)
• Minerva 2 (Japan)
• Mascot (France, Germany)
• Hayabusa 2 main lander, first landing (Japan)
• Hayabusa 2 main lander, second landing (Japan)


Asteroid Bennu

OsirisRex (USA)

Comet 67P

Rosetta (ESA)

Seems like a lot of money to spend on a 65 year lie held up the world over...

originally posted by: Grenade
Does it seem strange to anyone that out of 15,000+ photos and countless hours of film from the moon that we have a grand total of 1 picture of the Earth from the lunar surface. The largest and most beautiful object in the sky, our home world shining in the darkness and the astronauts never thought to point the camera at it. Nope, 1000s of images of rocks and dust, featureless landscapes and boot prints but 1 measly picture of our home world which is a clear cut and paste.

Please someone point me in the direction of the countless photos that must exist of the Earth from the lunar surface or even small cameos in the background, maybe a quick glimpse over the horizon in one of the videos.

There are a couple, but they of course didn't travel all that way to start taking pictures of something we already knew .

e.g. Apollo 11
live.staticflickr.com...
live.staticflickr.com...

and there are more to find for each mission. However you have to keep in mind that the Earth was pretty high up in the sky. Besides that there are many photos of the earth while in transit.

a reply to: MissVocalcord

That’s the worst quality Apollo photo I’ve ever seen. Load it up in photoshop, adjust the levels and tell me what you see.

Ive raised all the points I wanted to, you can believe whatever you want, clearly nothing will ever change that opinion short of NASA holding up their hands.

Tell me, can you see stars from space or the moon? Seems NASA aren’t sure and astronauts don’t know how eyes work.



Which one of them is right? Can’t have it both ways.

Also, how did they already know what the Earth looked like from the Lunar surface? An object 4x the size of the moon in the night sky would certainly have fascinated me enough to point the camera at it. At least a few times while I took THOUSANDS of photographs.

Bye thread.

a reply to: Degradation33

This thread is about the manned Apollo missions. Your post is totally irrelevant.

originally posted by: Grenade
That’s the worst quality Apollo photo I’ve ever seen. Load it up in photoshop, adjust the levels and tell me what you see.

Ah moving the goalposts. You claimed:

a grand total of 1 picture of the Earth from the lunar surface.

It took me under a minute to find those two photos from Apollo 11 (and there are more also from the other missions), but now the quality isn't good enough for you. If you think there is something wrong with the photos just tell.

Tell me, can you see stars from space or the moon? Seems NASA aren’t sure and astronauts don’t know how eyes work.

For example depending on how much sunlight there is:

It is a common misconception that the Apollo astronauts didn't see any stars. While stars don't show up in the pictures from the Apollo missions, that's because the camera exposures were set to allow for good images of the bright sunlit lunar surface, which included astronauts in bright white space suits and shiny spacecraft. Apollo astronauts reported they could see the brighter stars if they stood in the shadow of the Lunar Module, and also they saw stars while orbiting the far side of the Moon. Al Worden from Apollo 15 has said the sky was "awash with stars" in the view from the far side of the Moon that was not in daylight.
...
The cool thing about being in the ISS is that astronauts experience nighttime 16 times a day (in 45 minute intervals) as they orbit the Earth every 90 minutes, and can have extremely dark skies when they are on the "dark" side of Earth.

phys.org...

Which one of them is right? Can’t have it both ways.

I can't see any stars right now if I look up into the sky, I can in about 12 hours. You're telling I can't.
But this is all really basic stuff.

At least a few times while I took THOUSANDS of photographs.

And that is just what they did.
Again; there are tens of pictures of earth while in transit, way better and closer then possible from the moon surface. Also the way the camera was mounted on the space suits might have caused a bit of trouble for shooting a lot of those images.

a reply to: MissVocalcord

Neil Armstrong states he never saw stars either on the way to the moon or from the lunar surface, several astronauts say the same thing. Yet, must have been an update to the press release as now modern astronauts can see endless stars. You can't see stars during the day due to light scattering through our atmosphere. Newsflash, there's no atmosphere in space. You've cleverly dodged the astronaut testimony by hiding behind camera optics. Human eyes worked the same way in 1970 as they do now.

You failed to address that point because it's inconvenient.

There's artefacts suggesting photo editing all over those images you provided. You must be a complete novice in graphic design if you can't see that. In which case why would i waste my time debating someone who can't see the obvious. As for the pictures of Earth on the way to the moon, there's video of them faking those shots.

a reply to: cooperton

Why dont you get it... Everybody with any say about what happened in 1969 says we went to the Moon. So ..believe it or not ...we went to the Moon. Despite all the scientific evidence and hard facts....and the people who died becouse they could convince the public we didnt go...we did visit the Moon. But thank you for the effort showing us that we did not go..