The Big NASA-Military Cover-up On Gravity And Atmosphere On The Moon!

Originally posted by mikesingh

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Now, just thinking off the top of my head, a smaller diameter "inner tube", for want of a better term, could have been INSIDE the wire mesh, as a support. It would be light, and flexible when deflated. AND it would not have to be inflated to any great PSI level....heck, the humans in their EVA suits operate at just over 3 PSI. (Remember, 100% O2....well, some water vapor and any CO2 that isn't 'scrubbed' out yet)

What say you?

Right!

Elementary, Dr Watson!!

But you're correct about the psi part. Frankly, with nitrogen, I really don't know what the expansion coefficient would be under zero pressure! What's it? We can then check if it would 'explode' the buggy's (errr...I mean LRV!!

) tires on the Moon or not!

Cheers!

Gaseous Nitrogen vs our Nitrogen/Oxygen mixture (with trace gases) that we currently breath...not a heck of a lot of difference. Remember (take a deep breath!) you are already breathing about 78% Nitrogen. It is inert.

That is why there is a term called 'partial pressure' of Oxygen. It relates to the pressure of the gaseous mix you are breathing. The relative composition of the various gases in Earth's atmosphere don't change with altitude...but the pressure does. For instance, at 18,000 feet ASL the atmospheric pressure here on Earth is approximately one-half what it is at sea level. Still, most humans can survive, if they're healthy and when acclimated, they can even function quite well.

For pilots, the standard (when unpressurized) is a maximum of 30 minutes without supplemental oxygen between 10000 and 14000 feet. Beyond that limit, O2 must be supplied.

In airline operations, we learn about something called 'time of useful consciousness'....this, measured in seconds, will vary in an explosive decompression, depending on altitude. Generally, up to about FL420, the 'quick-donning' oxygen masks we have are sufficient, and they can be donned in under 30 seconds. They are checked during pre-flight, and set to 100% O2, under pressure.

Military pilots know this information, as well....

Now, I've gone on and on, haven't I? Why? Because it is important to educate, and thusly, 'deny ignorance'. I have stated it before, the term 'ignorant' isn't a pejorative. It simply is a lack of knowledge. Adding knowledge, helps to deny ignorance.

This DOES come around, if you've stayed with me....a rubber bladder filled to, say 5 PSI, would still be viable, even in a vaccum environment.

AND, it would be quite stiff!!! Perhaps I should have brought up another aviation term, that we encounter in pressurized jets. It is 'PSID'.

This is, PSI 'differential'. Most of the Boeings that I flew had a maximum PSID of about 8.0....that's a MAX, though...preferably it was kept at a nominal 6.7 to 6.9

Big passenger jets have something called a 'positive pressure relief valve'. (there may be more than one) This, so if there's a problem with the auto pressurization controls that goes unnoticed, the pressure vessel doesn't suffer some catastrophic failure. There is also a 'negative pressure relief valve', but not important right now.

OK, said enough, prolly confused some people....but, hope to have opened a few minds, at least.

Carry on!

Edit: First part deleted to avoid confusion!

WW, now regarding gravitational anomalies on the far and near side of the Moon, you may find this interesting...

JAXA announced a new finding of a gravity anomaly for both the near side and far side of the Moon by using 4-way Doppler observation data from the RSTAR (OKINA) with the main orbiter, the KAGUYA.

Until now, the gravity anomaly of the far side of the Moon has not been understood well. The gravity anomaly, which was obscure before, has been clearly revealed through observations by the Kaguya mission.

For instance, the gravity anomaly of a basin on the far side is found to be characterized by a negative anomaly in a ring like the Apollo basin. On the other hand, the gravity anomaly of the basin on the near side is uniformly positive over the region such as with the Mare Serenitatis.

Thus, the clear difference in gravity anomaly on the near side and the far side has been newly discovered and this fact brings a different story about the structure of the underground and the history of the evolution of the far side and near side of the Moon.

Cheers!

www.jaxa.jp...




[edit on 13-9-2008 by mikesingh]

reply to post by mikesingh


OK....finally, something I can get my teeth into!

My trusty calculator says that 14 24-hour days (what we're used to here on the Blue Planet) equals 336 hours.

SO....the short visit of Apollo Lunar EVAs lasted, what? Less than 36 hours....total?

At most?

This can be researched....

So.....temperatures varied by, what? A few percent?

I really want all readers to begin to think OUTSIDE their earthly biases and familiar experiences.

IF you could live on the 'equator' of the Moon, you would experience about 14 'earth' days of light, and 14 'earth' days of dark....give or take.

Put another way, from 'dawn' to 'sunset' would take a full two weeks. Same with 'sunset' to 'dawn'. Another 14 days.

Seems this is so 'alien' to people's experience, it causes incredible confusion, and it is SO difficult to convey here, in print. A picture (or a video) really IS worth a thousand words.

Let me ask everyone to think in another paradigm....say you have the opportunity to go aboard the ISS. As this station orbits the Earth, it completes each pass in about 90 minutes....or so. That means, if you sat there and looked out the porthole, you'd see the Sun rise every hour and a half. AND, sunset as well...(behind you) but only if you're looking in the right direction.

NOW...I am just, so far, replying to the OP's last post....to hopefully add some clarity.

The big question, still to hand is: the Moon's gravity and atmosphere.

I've resisted so far, LOL! Pointing out the Op's avatar, and suggesting that would be the result if he unsealed his helmet visor on the moon....!!

Having written that, I have seen very good posts by others, about what is termed the 'neutral point', or NP. I was quite taken with the assertion that since the Earth-Moon system is dynamic, and not static, that the OP's calculations were not relevant. Other point to remember, in these calculations, is that a TLI burn from LEO is meant to aim at a place where the Moon is 'calculated' to be, (and, mid-course corrections happen as well) in a future time...so, the NP could cause some misunderstanding....but, only if you think of two bodies, not moving....

reply to post by mikesingh


sorry mike, can't pull a selected quote....what is 'negative differential'??

It's mentioned at the top of your post, that i reference.

Did you mean the valves I referred to, in jets that will pop in case the outflow valve doesn't open, and to equalize the cabin pressure to the outside pressure?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by mikesingh

 

SO....the short visit of Apollo Lunar EVAs lasted, what? Less than 36 hours....total?

Apollo 11: Lunar surface stay time 21.6 hours. One EVA of 2 hours, 31 minutes
Apollo 12: Lunar surface stay-time 31.5 hours. Two EVAs of 7 hours, 45 minutes
Apollo 14: Lunar surface stay-time 33.5 hours. Two EVAs of 9 hours, 25 minutes
Apollo 15: Lunar surface stay-time 66.9 hours. Three EVAs of 10 hours, 36 minutes
Apollo 16: Lunar surface stay-time 71 hours. Three EVAs of 20 hours, 14 minutes
Apollo 17: Lunar surface stay-time 75 hours. Three EVAs of 22 hours, 4 minutes

Source:
www.nasm.si.edu...

Edited because I forgot to include the spesific EVA durations the first time!




[edit on 13-9-2008 by ziggystar60]

reply to post by Nohup


what do you do in Physics class? memorise what you are told and confirm previous experiments using the same rules.

not picking on Physics, its the same for any subject, there is a very small percentage of actual true experimentation compared to teh actual accepted holy grails so to speak.

Physics class is irrelevant and regurgitation IMHO

reply to post by mikesingh


Even the Goodyear radials on my car would survive the 14psi pressure differential between sea level pressure and a total vacuum (if there were such a thing).

If you still are insisting that pneumatic tires would burst in a vacuum you're wrong. If all you're doing is arguing about the construction of the tires used that's another matter. If you have to use the "dog ate my homework" defense about missing documents, well, I guess you gotta do what you gotta do.

[edit on 13-9-2008 by Phage]

There are a few problems with your theory....well factual errors that you have drawn on.

Just off the top of my head:

1. Astronauts where wearing LEAD weighted boots and the suits themselves where very heavy. You need to recalulate your "Why couldnt they jump higher theory" on the proper weight of the astronauts.

2. AHahhahahhaha....sorry.... Ahem. The lunar rovers did NOT have air filled tires. They are made of "wire mesh" as can be easily seen in one of your supporting pictures of the fender repair on the buggy.

There where a few other factual errors but these where the two that struck out the most.

Good try tho.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Ain't I an idiot? Of course a lunar day is not the same as an Earth day!!

Ok, that said, what time of the day do you think this photograph was taken?


Courtesy: NASA

Check out the astronaut's shadow. The sun seems to be at 11 O'clock high! If so, what would the temperature be? I would think around 120 deg C!! Cool huh?

Cheers!

Originally posted by mikesingh

Thus, the clear difference in gravity anomaly on the near side and the far side has been newly discovered and this fact brings a different story about the structure of the underground and the history of the evolution of the far side and near side of the Moon.

Cheers!

www.jaxa.jp...

You know, I never thought about that before, but it does seem to make sense if you consider that the same side of the moon is always facing the earth.
I believe the way they justified this was that there is a leading edge bulge that causes the moon to rotate at the same rate it orbits the earth. On the earth, the bulge on the surface created by the moon's gravitational pull creates the drag that further stabilizes the moon in it's orbit. I believe it's something like that, but the point I am working towards here has more to do with the shifting of the moon's internal structure over time.
What if the heavier elements have gradually worked their way to the side facing the earth, or if not that, then the material itself has been gravitationally or magnetically altered in such a way to create these anomalies?

Using what we know, it's gotta be mass or magnetically related to create these anomalies. Beyond that, we're talking about some other way to artificially influence gravitational fields.

reply to post by mikesingh


Ummmkay....I'll bite!

(stole that bit from South Park, I did!)

Problem is....yes, I see the length of shadow.....but I also see NOTHING that looks anything like an Apollo EVA suit. What my eyes discern is a possible training exercise....right here on the good ole' Earth.

I'd prefer to direct attention to just every one of the six Apollo landing missions, and notice the shadows that are consistent each time....and I'd invite more erudite members to consider the proposed landing site, and Lunar time of Apollo 13, had not the accident in the SM occured, thus, aborting the mission.

Not difficult to research, not at all.

Originally posted by Phage
If you still are insisting that pneumatic tires would burst in a vacuum you're wrong. If all you're doing is arguing about the construction of the tires used that's another matter.

If you had read one of my posts which seems to have been lost in the labyrinths of this thread, I had clearly mentioned that they probably would OR would not.

For another, on the one hand you contend that they couldn't be anything but solid tires because of the low gravity and pressure conditions, and on the other say that pneumatic tires would NOT burst in a vacuum, so then what's the big deal if the buggies had pneumatic tires in the first place? There's a war going on on this aspect, for heaven's sake!

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Problem is....yes, I see the length of shadow.....but I also see NOTHING that looks anything like an Apollo EVA suit. What my eyes discern is a possible training exercise....right here on the good ole' Earth.

Nope! It says, "Astronaut John Young photographed collecting lunar samples."

It's from here..science.ksc.nasa.gov...

And the pic is the first one (AS-16) here...

science.ksc.nasa.gov...

Cheers!



[edit on 13-9-2008 by mikesingh]

reply to post by 4N6310


4N6....see, that's the dilemma!

Some people claim that the CG (centre of gravity) is actually on the farsaide of our Moon.

But, of course, these same (usually the same) people also claim the Moon is hollow, because it is an artificial construct, and it's a Space Ship....then there are those who claim the Earth herself is also hollow, and reptilian aliens live below....

See where I'm going with this?

Too many incongruent claims. AND, most of them fly in the face of established mathematics, and physics....disciplines that have been around for many centuries!

A skeptic can be convinced, but he would need a whole lot of actual evidence to make him change his mind.

Ancient peoples thought, well, it was 'obvious', the World is flat, and the 'Heavens' rotate above us! How could anything else be true???

reply to post by mikesingh


Nope, sorry....went to look at that photo again....the PLSS is all wrong, as is the helmet and visor. It is most likely a photo of the astronaut 'training' in a simulated environment, here on Earth. Could actually be John Young, but it is 'training'...not a real picture from the surface of the Moon.

Hey! Mike, do you know how to fly? 'cause I'd like to rent a simulator, already told Zorgon....then we could bury this once and for all, about my abilities versus....well....amateur pilots, for want of a better term.

edit....OK....it is linked from an 'official' NASA photo database, assuming Apollo 16, based on the coding. Let's just say, I've never seen that particular EVA suit configuration before, especially the stuff on top of the PLSS. AND what look like 'blinders' on the side of the helmet.

Almost looks like they put a sample container....'basket'...up there on top of the PLSS. I can see his knees are bent, more than say....Apollo 11-14....because, as I've pointed out, there was a new EVA suit designed to allow the Astronauts to sit on the LRV, and it required more bending at the hips, and the knees.

Looks like a real Lunar photo, and not merely a training exercise, more I look at it. But, archival, and there for folks like you to dig up, because, welll....it just isn't pretty enough to publish, and make money with, now is it?

Don't know if you noticed, a while back, the photo of the LRV fender repair....I actually saw the wheel track, where it was claimed there was none.

But, I see a face on Mars at Cydonia too....so I'm not all that reliable, I suppose....


(still can't see the Pope in the pizza....and those derned 3-D pictures? Nope!)


[edit on 9/13/0808 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by mikesingh

If you had read one of my posts which seems to have been lost in the labyrinths of this thread, I had clearly mentioned that they probably would OR would not.

Sorry I must have missed it. So if it could have been either, what's the point? Why bring it up?

For another, on the one hand you contend that they couldn't be anything but solid tires because of the low gravity and pressure conditions, and on the other say that pneumatic tires would NOT burst in a vacuum, so then what's the big deal if the buggies had pneumatic tires in the first place? There's a war going on on this aspect, for heaven's sake!

I haven't said anything about how the actual tires were constructed. It was your contention in the OP that they were pneumatic and if there were an insubstantial atmosphere on the moon, pre-inflated tires would have burst. Why even mention it at all if your contention is the tires were inflated on site? What a silly piece of misdirection. Just another piece in your blitz of "evidence"? Confuse 'em with "facts"?

[edit on 13-9-2008 by Phage]

There's a problem with your 2/3rds gravity calculation. The moon has a diameter of roughly 1/3rd of the earth's. For it to have 2/3rds of the gravity would mean that the average density of the moon would have to be significantly higher than the earth when all results from analysis of moon rocks suggest the exact opposite. In the book Who Built the Moon?, the authors make reference to statements by NASA scientists that the moon's gravity is uneven and that was what was screwing up the early space probes. Apparently the uneven gravity seems to be shaped like a barbell with two dense masses on each end and much less mass in the middle. That could neatly explain why the Moon always keeps the same side facing the earth ie. that half is denser than the other half so the densest half is attracted to the Earth more than than the lighter half. One theory for the moon's uneven gravity is that it's hollow. Carl Sagan described this theory as disturbing because the conventional wisdom is that a hollow planetary body cannot occur naturally. The theory that the moon is artificial in the above book is well reasoned and the authors make a very convincing case. Their theory of WHO built it ties in very neatly with the idea put forward by Dan Barish that ET's are actually evolved humans from our future or one of our possible futures.

I believe John Lear is right to a certain extent, that there has to be an atmosphere of sorts. But its not breathable. Whether it could be improved with plants and trees is another story.
But earth was turned into a wasteland with no rain forests or plant life, we would be without a breathable atmosphere as well.
But on his other main forum he has actually said that due to the atmosphere on the moon we didn't go to the moon and it was hoaxed. He said there wouldn't have been enough fuel taking the atmosphere into account in the equation. Personally I do not believe this to be the case at all! So why is he suddenly disinforming people. I really admired him, watched all is interview from project camelot, but suddenly I'm wondering what to think. I'm not even going there with the whole moon hoax thing. The elite really really think people are mentally deficient and they have no clue. They gear certain televsion shows to this low level commercial soap box mentality, without having an understanding that while a light diversion after a long day working (either in the work force, or with family) being tired and having their light crap shoved at us, and having a laugh or two doesn't equate us at that level. They have no understanding of the intelligence and mistrust of the average person. If anything, we blow them out of the water as a race! I can't help but feel there is going to be some kind of new dumbing down program enacted.

Originally posted by 4N6310
You know, I never thought about that before, but it does seem to make sense if you consider that the same side of the moon is always facing the earth.

Well thank you for noticing...

It seems Weedwacker and Phage are intent on obfuscating the issue with page after page of tires and COMPLETELY IGNORING the fact that NASA talks about STORMS OF DUST CLOUDS on the Moon and JAXA confirms what John has been saying about the gravity discrepancies... In Fact NASA is spending money on STILL ANOTHER MISSION to specifically study the gravity problems.

So thank you WW and Phage for your diligent work in avoiding the real facts... (and I am still waiting for our weatherman to answer my questions on the sunset rays on the moon)

You are doing a bang up job 'denying ignorance'

I will leave you all with one final note Again from NASA... in the hopes that at least the 'silent watchers' will at least get an education

NASA is drawing up plans to probe the secrets of moon dust using a small orbiter that will ride piggyback on another spacecraft's rocket.

The $80-million LADEE spacecraft is slated to launch alongside a lunar gravity-mapping probe in 2011 on a 100-day mission to study the moon's wisp-thin atmosphere and ever-present dust, the agency said Thursday. A clear understanding of the moon's atmosphere and its clingy dust will be vital for NASA as it moves forward with plans to return astronauts to the lunar surface aboard its Altair lander by 2020.

So while you professional 'debunkers' are filling the threads with bunk... NASA is exploring the Lunar Atmosphere with YOUR tax dollars

LADEE - short for Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer

How about that huh?

Of course you two will bury this with more tire nonsense but what the heck... who cares about truth around here anyway?

The LADEE orbiter is expected to ride in the back seat of an unmanned Delta 2 rocket behind NASA's Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory (GRAIL), a $375-million orbiter designed to parse out the mysteries of the moon's gravitational field. The two spacecraft will separate only after they are en route to the moon, with LADEE expected to take about five months to enter orbit and check its systems.

$375-million orbiter to study the gravity issues

But wait!!! I thought NASA and all you 'experts' here knew all about the gravity on the Moon?

Maybe its changed since they were there last?



Unless of course.... nah...



[edit on 13-9-2008 by zorgon]

Originally posted by mystiq
But earth was turned into a wasteland with no rain forests or plant life, we would be without a breathable atmosphere as well.

What is happening to the rainforests is bad because of the discoveries yet to be made for medicines... but mankind has always stripped forests to make room for farmland... and living space so we can hardly blame them for doing what we did and still do..

However since 80% 0f the worlds oxygen is created by algae we don't really need to be concerned...

This is also an important consideration in teraforming... because desert lychens that are part dry algae are very hardy, can thrive on Mars even in the harsh temperatures and start working on that CO2 atmosphere and produce a lot of oxygen in a relatively short time frame

Since the DoD has announced that there is a lake 100sq km and 50 feet deep frozen at the lunar south pole... many possibilities present themselves