air in space i just seen a bbc newsround report

Originally posted by rich23
Backtoreality... I hope this question doesn't drag this fascinating thread too much off-topic, but I was wondering if you had any inside knowledge on that well-known occasion when an Apollo 8 astronaut gave the game away to children of all ages when, emerging from the dark side of the moon, he gave the cryptic comment, "Please be informed that there is a Santa Claus."

Now there are dull souls out there who take the view that this is merely a coded attempt to imply an alien base on the far side of the moon. Do you have any inside skinny on this fascinating, yet elusive topic?

I do know that astronauts have a firm grasp of the English language and are aware of the voculary word "alien" as well as the less-popular "base" and were fully capable of putting the two together, as well as placing them into a complete sentence. The truth is, as they were 'rounding the opposite face of the moon (dark side of the moon isn't very accurate if we really think about it, eh?) and out of radio contact, they had lots and lots of time to talk--"goof off" if you will--and were touching shoulders the whole time while staring at an odd-shaped conical wall 3ft in front of them. There is little doubt that in order to escape the homosexual nature of the arrangement the astronauts turned to humor to lighten the mood. The broadcast that reached the Earth shortly after coming into radio contact again was the result of a lengthy conversation (awkard at best) as to what should be said once the communications were established. Meaningless as it may have seemed to the now comfortably heterosexual astronauts, it was blown (no pun intended) up to have a much more significant meaning than intended.

I feel sure that the real, unvarnished truth behind the years of speculation is much simpler.

"You are correct, sir!!" - in the words of Ed McMann.

You sure it doesn't have more to do with physically climbing a MOUNTAIN?

Athletes(track) don't go climbing mountains,they train at higher altitudes.

HIGH ALTITUDE and ATHLETIC TRAINING


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The underlying problem with high altitude (>2000 m) is that there is less oxygen and while this may not be that threatening to individuals at rest it does pose a challenge to athletes. Of course for the pure anaerobic events no adaptation is required so this discussion is necessarily focused on endurance training and competition. In general the higher the altitude the longer it takes to adapt. Understanding the adaptation process and the things that you can do to aid it will make for a less taxing transition. A number of physiologic changes occur to allow for acclimatization at high altitude. These can be divided into immediate, which take place over several days, and long term which requires weeks to a few months.

The first thing that happens is your respiratory rate and heart rates speed up. This occurs both at rest and during sub-max. exercise. This helps offset the lower partial pressure of oxygen. You will not be able to reach your max VO2 so don't get frustrated. The faster breathing rate changes your acid-base balance and this takes a little longer to correct.

The longer term changes are

1.a decrease in maximum cardiac output a decreased maximum heart rate
2.an increased number of red blood cells
3.excretion of base via the kidneys to restore acid-base balance. (Unfortunately, the net result is that you have less tolerance for lactic acid.)
4.a chemical change within red blood cells that makes them more efficient at unloading oxygen to the tissues.
5.an increase in the number of mitochondria and oxidative enzymes.
www.rice.edu...

]Originally posted by backtoreality
You are sorely mistaken my friend. The title of this tread is actually air in space i just seen a bbc newsround report. The difference is, quite simply, huge. Absolutely, incomprehendably unimaginable. With such a concise, eloquent display of English grammar

With the amount of ridiculous claims you have made such as...

Originally posted by backtoreality
Again, I didn't claim the air was "better", I stated it was denser.

Originally posted by backtoreality
Yes, there is in fact breathable air in space. It is a little known fact, but astronauts on the International Space Station have been breathing outside air for some time. NASA hooked up some random filter to make it look official, but in fact they have a direct vent to the outside.

Your education of grammar has not been a major benefit to your intelligence,and although i`m poorly educated does`nt mean i`m an idiot.

I`m still unsure if your playing this topic as a complete joke to all of us here or are you being serious?

````````````````
Attempted to fix confusing quotes
Hope I got it right
U2U me if otherwise


[edit on 1/2/07 by masqua]

OK BTR..you're definitely joking...

Not that I'm one to knock on a bee hive but I've followed this thread from the beginning and I'm confused.....you will be surprised to hear, i'm sure!

Could someone please help clear something up for me, thanks in advance...

I thought the subject was air in space, so discussions about air getting thinner with altitude are not relevant are they? Aircraft fly in the "bubble" of our atmosphere but there is a point where our atmosphere ends and the vacuum of space begins so the two are seperated. No? The atmosphere is our protection from the temperatures and radiations etc of space.

At least this is my current perception. Being a layman, I honestly don't know if the temperature IS absolute zero, the radiation is X level. Presumably, the available data is only that that has been collated by the likes of NASA. Are there any other 'proofs' of these things?

So the aircraft issues, I am struggling with unless someone can explain why being inside the earths atmosphere is proof of what it is like outside of the atmosphere.

Also, no one responded this question from the previous page...

If there is air in space, why does our planet have an atmosphere. If the air in space was dense enough, wouldn't the atmosphere of a planet just drift off and disperse???

Originally posted by backtoreality

Question: if there is air in space...where does the air form Earth ends and where the air from, lets say, Mars starts? And it is an abrupt transition from the earth's air to that of mars or not?

You are a worthy foe, Mpass. Frankly, I am surprised this question has not come up long before now. There is no easy explanation to your question, but I will do my best to answer in a concise, but complete way.

I asked more or less the same thing, if the air reaches other astronomical bodies, like the Sun, but as my posts remain invisible, it is normal that you say something like that.

I will grab this opportunity to ask once more:
Can you show us the formula to calculate the Luminosity of the stars that takes into account "the breathable air in space and the effect it has on light from distance stars"?

Originally posted by Prote
I thought the subject was air in space, so discussions about air getting thinner with altitude are not relevant are they? Aircraft fly in the "bubble" of our atmosphere but there is a point where our atmosphere ends and the vacuum of space begins so the two are seperated. No? The atmosphere is our protection from the temperatures and radiations etc of space.

I think that the idea of using the "thinner atmosphere with higher altitude" argument is to consider altitude as the distance something has between itself and the Earth.

In that case, when in space, we could consider any distance from the Earth as being at that altitude, and we could compare the density of the atmosphere at known altitudes to find the density of the atmosphere at that distance.

For example, and not using any real calculations, if the atmosphere at an altitude of 10Km is half the density of the atmosphere at 5Km, then we may think that the density at 10.000Km is only a 1/1000 of the density at 10Km.

I hope that helps.

If there is air in space, why does our planet have an atmosphere. If the air in space was dense enough, wouldn't the atmosphere of a planet just drift off and disperse???

That is something that someone who believes in the existence of air in space has to answer, if our atmosphere is only "our" share of a global atmosphere that envelopes all the Solar system, or our galaxy or all the Universe.

Originally posted by ArMaP

If there is air in space, why does our planet have an atmosphere. If the air in space was dense enough, wouldn't the atmosphere of a planet just drift off and disperse???

That is something that someone who believes in the existence of air in space has to answer, if our atmosphere is only "our" share of a global atmosphere that envelopes all the Solar system, or our galaxy or all the Universe.

I'll take a shot at this one...

Though sarcastic, the comments above are roughly accurate--perfectly illustrating the fact that you should have an idea of what you are talking about before making sarcastic comments. But I digress...

Quite simply, it is all a matter of terminology. The Earth's atmosphere merges with the solar heliopause, which in term merges with the intergalatic medium/pressue/"air"/etc.

But you didn't need to consult someone who believes in the existence of air in space, just someone with some knowledge about space in general.

if there was breathable air in space surely celestial bodies such as asterois and meteors and comets (some going as fast as 40 miles per second) would burn up in their orbital plane. In much the way they do when entering our atmosphere. furthermore. Sound waves, (unlike waves of electromagnetic radiation such as visible light, radio, infra red, ultraviolet, gamma rays, and x, rays) need a medium in which to propogate which is why an explosion in space is.......dramatic pause.......... SILENT!!!!!!!

NEXT THREAD PLEEEEEEEEASE

If youre wondering where I got this info I was talking to god last week on a communicator I got from Captain Piccard. But thats an entirely different 42 day thread.

Originally posted by Iwasneverhere
if there was breathable air in space surely celestial bodies such as asterois and meteors and comets (some going as fast as 40 miles per second) would burn up in their orbital plane. In much the way they do when entering our atmosphere.

Add this to the list backtoreality.

Iwasneverhere for someone who was never here,you have already contributed more reality than someone who`s supposed to be back to reality

How does that work?

Oh and welcome to ATS

[edit on 2-2-2007 by gps777]

Originally posted by leejonesabout astranorts doing odd jobs on the space staion, and in the report thay showed the part off the space staion it was blowing around like a ballon ? not by the engines.how come we never see any stars in video reports and we onley see parts where the earth is and not a 360 turn ? i smell a news cover up is there air in space

OMG. This could be the silliest thread I've read in a while. I hope this has been addressed by other posters but I can't be bothered to read the whole thread.

No stars - covered

Air in space - As you go higher and higher there is less and less air. In low earth orbit, where the ISS is, there is still some air. It's more accurately described as lone gas molecules with vacuum between them. The effect of these lone molecules is actually pretty substantial. They cause drag on the ISS, making it slow down and thus drop in altitude, requiring it to be boosted to a higher orbit several times per year. The impinging gas molecules also effect the ISS' orientation. Anything asymmetrical (like the solar arrays at this stage in assembly) will tend to "weather wane" just like an airplane or a, well, weather wane. As such the ISS usually flies at a "crooked" attitude which compensates for the asymmetry (and for the gravity gradient but that's out of scope here). That attitude is called the TEA (Torque Equilibrium Attitude).

There is no cover up. All there is is your lack of understanding.

[edit on 2-2-2007 by Space Guy]

Need I remind you people......

If there aint no air in space, then why is there an Air in Space Museum???

Simple logic people

RO420

Originally posted by gps777

Originally posted by Iwasneverhere
if there was breathable air in space surely celestial bodies such as asterois and meteors and comets (some going as fast as 40 miles per second) would burn up in their orbital plane. In much the way they do when entering our atmosphere.

Add this to the list backtoreality.

Iwasneverhere for someone who was never here,you have already contributed more reality than someone who`s supposed to be back to reality

How does that work?

Oh and welcome to ATS

[edit on 2-2-2007 by gps777]

thanks. I have been here a while but I usually just sit back and read.

backtoreality

If you are referring to my comments as sarcastic, it was not my intention, but as this has happened before in other threads, I think I must be more careful with the way I post.

I know that I am too persistent about it, but now that you are back, can you show us the formula to calculate the Luminosity of the stars that takes into account "the breathable air in space and the effect it has on light from distance stars"?

I haven't found it yet, but truth be told I did not search for too long.


[edit on 2/2/2007 by ArMaP]

Where did everyone go? I was hoping to hear some sort of rebuttle from backtoreality...

Above 25K you do not need oxygen. it merely lowers the elevation by about 1k however above 25k you will die if you stay there to long and moutnain climbers suffer vast effects to there bodys when they stay there to long

Oh and if there is air in space than how come gas from stars hasn't choked me to death yet

PS I am talking about feet here

I know that there is oxygen in space but, it's not breathable per say. Breathable air in space (interplanetary or interstellar)? I'm sorry but I definately have to wave the BS flag on this one. (unless you have some shocking proof that is)

[edit on 3-2-2007 by ShAuNmAn-X]

I was wondering if this BTR goof is going to be banned for violating T&C's policy on knowingly posting false information.

The reason I really dislike this is because there are many intellectuals on this board that set a precedence for others that seek stimulating knowledge. When an author posts knowingly false information, relentless in his debate, it brings the curve of brilliance down and it shouldn't be tolerated.

I am all for the ban on this dude.

AAC

Yall still haven't addressed the issue of the air in space museum