Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by ppk55
As it already shows very, very clearly that there is no air, but instead a vacuum on the Moon...it is evident by the behavior of the feather.

I think we all know there is no air on the moon.

What I can't work out is why the feather bounces when it hits the ground, and then why it rolls over.

Feathers don't just roll over when they hit the ground in 1/6 gravity.

Originally posted by ppk55
What I can't work out is why the feather bounces when it hits the ground, and then why it rolls over.

It's not surprising really, as the simple answer to your question when you asked it earlier was the written word and not presented as a YT video.

I refer you to Phage's post on the previous page:

Originally posted by Phage
Because it falls faster than it would in atmosphere, it builds up more momentum which allows it to rebound. Drop a pin. It weighs less than a good sized feather. Does it bounce?

If you still don't understand, I suggest you get cracking with the videos at the link I posted a couple of posts ago for Foos, who I trust it busy commencing his study so he can join in at an equal level to the rest of us.

What would have been impressive is if the feather had moved when he moved due to air turbulence. Unsurprisingly, it doesn't.

If the feather bounced, why didn't the hammer ?

If the hammer is in 1/6 gravity as well, shouldn't it have done a little bounce and perhaps rolled over like the feather did ?

Regardless of a vacuum, it almost looks like that 'feather' might have stirred up some dust the way it hit the ground and then rolled over.

If this video was in high definition I think we might have seem some dust stirred up. Who would have thought, a feather gently dropping in 1/6 gravity stirring up dust. ha.

reply to post by ppk55

If the feather bounced, why didn't the hammer ?

Mass End of line
Second verse, same as the first.

Edit to add hyperlink for the hearing impaired.

[edit on 12-8-2010 by Smack]

reply to post by ppk55


Oh, for Pete's sake!

The hammer DOES 'bounce'! Watch again. See it? No?

Well...because it's "rebound" is very, very minor....but, Newton's Laws apply, whether on the Moon, or on Earth. You can see the hammer's reaction, though, from the kinetic energy as it stops its motion, upon striking the ground. See?? It wants to "bounce", but its mass is a bit too great to make a large, obvious "bounce"....

You do understand the concept of mass, though.....correct? The hammer is more massive, of course. Does that ring any bells, form science class?

There is also a factor of the variability of the materials that comprise the objects...sheesh, this is so basic, I am surprised the question is even asked....I mean, even real-world experience should be able to be applied here, in understanding?? I shudder at this, because it's just hard to realize there is this depth of the lack of understanding....it IS this sort of thing that causes these Moon "hoax" morons to continue, as they get attention by the gullible who don't think it through properly. Some people are just lazy, I guess.

Let's get back to mass --- and "bouncing".

You can do this at home. Find a ball made of rubber (a well-known very 'elastic' material, right?) Find another ball, of the same mass made of something else...a metal perhaps.

Drop them, and watch their reactions.

Keep experimenting, and use a large variety of different materials, and combinations of masses. (Try to use objects, since you're in an atmosphere on Earth, that aren't going to be greatly affected by air resistance when falling).

One more thing to point out....the hammer? WHERE was its center of gravity? (C/G). What was its attitude and orientation on impact with the surface? What was the EXACT composition of the surface it struck, and was it any different AT ALL with the area where the feather struck? (OK...we cannot determine that, don't have enough info. It is likely a very minor point, but I bring it up for a reason...because ALL possibilities must be considered).

Finally --- the feather itself. A "falcon" feather. A REAL one. Ever held a feather? It is flexible, no? The quill has certain properties of flexibility...compared to the HANDLE of the hammer..and its head, too. HARD material, different composition, etc, etc.

Getting it yet?













[edit on 12 August 2010 by weedwhacker]

Short answer: the flexibility of the feather allows it to store the energy of the impact mechanically. In order to assume the lowest state of potential energy, it releases this energy by "springing."

Originally posted by ppk55

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by ppk55
As it already shows very, very clearly that there is no air, but instead a vacuum on the Moon...it is evident by the behavior of the feather.

I think we all know there is no air on the moon.

What I can't work out is why the feather bounces when it hits the ground, and then why it rolls over.

Feathers don't just roll over when they hit the ground in 1/6 gravity.

ppk50, you may have to defer on this one.


watch 02:43

That said, considering NASA had a vacuum chamber that could fit a LM and included a moonscape. It could have well been performed here on Earth.

Foos desperately tries to change the subject....

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM



12 hours notice for what? Solar Flares? Not likely.
They are unpredictable.
Plus radiation comes from all sides, so no, repositioning the craft will do no good.

Well, this quote proves beyond a shadow of a doubt you do not know a thing about radiation, and the differing types that are present in space.

The radiation from a solar flare comes from only ONE direction. I'll let you use your imagination to figure out what direction that is.

If you don't understand that simple, basic fact, you know nothing about radiation, and any further writings by you can be summarily dismissed.

I would encourage everyone to save that clueless statement and repost it as a response everytime Foos tries to expound on the "dangers of radiation".

Thank you TOM, I appreciate your efforts, and to anyone who wants to save my statement for future responses, please make sure to include this as well:

Two types of radiation are particularly significant: solar flare protons, and high-energy galactic cosmic rays (GCR). Solar flare protons come in bursts, lasting a day or so, following an energetic solar event. The proton flux is omnidirectional; although the source of the radiation is solar, the actual radiation comes from all directions, and

hence the spacecraft must be shielded in all directions, and not just in the direction of the sun.

In the absence of shielding, a single large solar flare would likely be fatal to the crew, either immediately or as a result of cancers induced by the radiation dose. Cosmic rays are a continuous background consisting of extremely high energy heavy nuclei, and are also omnidirectional.

www.islandone.org...

Now, maybe your interpretation of 'omni-directional' is different than mine, and if it is, we will just have to agree to disagree. Maybe you and others also want claim that solar flares are not deadly to astronauts without sufficient shielding. Then you and I will have to agree to disagree on the definition of 'fatal'.

I will cover some other points brought up earlier later... I need to take care of some deadlines.

reply to post by FoosM

Once again. The CM was shielded. Even the windows if you don't ignore the heat shield pane as you did.

An Apollo command module with its aluminum hull would have attenuated the 1972 storm from 400 rem to less than 35 rem at the astronaut's blood-forming organs. That's the difference between needing a bone marrow transplant or just a headache pill.

Modern spaceships are even safer. "We measure the shielding of our ships in units of areal density--or grams per centimeter-squared," says Cucinotta. Big numbers, which represent thick hulls, are better:

The hull of an Apollo command module rated 7 to 8 g/cm2.

science.nasa.gov...

You seem to think that solar radiation is instantly lethal (probably because JW claims it is). Had there been a major flare the astronauts would not have left the CM. With a very serious flare, the mission would have been aborted. Appropriate measures.

From your source:

On the Apollo missions, the approach to crew protection was simple: on notification of a large solar flare, the mission would be aborted to Earth. Since the missions were short, the cumulative fluence of galactic cosmic rays was not significant.

www.islandone.org...


[edit on 8/12/2010 by Phage]

The level of intellectual dishonesty by some of the members here is astonishing. You know, the polite thing to do when you're wrong is to graciously concede that point. Some here would rather press on, ignoring simple facts that no reasonable person would dispute. The operative word here is "reasonable".

Rambling on as if you are impervious to reason and logic does not make a good argument. We are all human and prone to error. If someone wants to seriously explore the issues, one must be open to the possibility that they might be wrong. This thread is feeling more like a contest, a battle of the witless, rather than a reasoned discussion.

Originally posted by FoosM

Two types of radiation are particularly significant: solar flare protons, and high-energy galactic cosmic rays (GCR). Solar flare protons come in bursts, lasting a day or so, following an energetic solar event. The proton flux is omnidirectional; although the source of the radiation is solar, the actual radiation comes from all directions, and

hence the spacecraft must be shielded in all directions, and not just in the direction of the sun.

In the absence of shielding, a single large solar flare would likely be fatal to the crew, either immediately or as a result of cancers induced by the radiation dose. Cosmic rays are a continuous background consisting of extremely high energy heavy nuclei, and are also omnidirectional.

www.islandone.org...

Now, maybe your interpretation of 'omni-directional' is different than mine, and if it is, we will just have to agree to disagree. Maybe you and others also want claim that solar flares are not deadly to astronauts without sufficient shielding. Then you and I will have to agree to disagree on the definition of 'fatal'.

What, precisely, are the energies of the directional protons vs. the "omnidirectional" protons?

And since your source also says this:

On the Apollo missions, the approach to crew protection was simple: on notification of a large solar flare, the mission would be aborted to Earth. Since the missions were short, the cumulative fluence of galactic cosmic rays was not significant.

Are you finally prepared to admit that solar flares did not prevent the Apollo missions?

Remember, this is your own source saying that.

reply to post by Chadwickus

Originally posted by Chadwickus

Analysis of the dark basalt material indicated a close resemblance to soil recovered by the American Apollo 12 mission. [Wikipedia, no external reference]

So we have a Russian probe that returned soil samples from the moon, these samples have a close resemblance to soil samples brought back from Luna 12.

reply to post by Chadwickus

Originally posted by Chadwickus
So we have samples returned by Apollo 12 that are nearly identical to samples returned by Soviet Luna 16.

reply to post by Chadwickus

Originally posted by Chadwickus
Soviet Luna 16 soil samples that were returned to earth and the fact that those samples were almost identical to the samples returned by Apollo 12.

Your samples are getting more and more identical as long you keep posting?

reply to post by bokonon2010


I gather English is not your native tongue???

In English, "nearly" and "almost", when used in casual references, are close enough to be "nearly" and "almost" the same.

Unless your above post had some other point, that I missed??

(I suppose....in a purely semantic argument, it could be said by language "purists" that the term 'identical' has only one meaning, and should not be modified with adjectives....and there probably are English teachers out in the world who would agree with that. However, as an idiomatic "turn of phrase", its point is quite obvious --- and if the only last ditch effort, here, is to criticize someone's grammar? With the hoped-for effect of somehow impugning the post he made??? Then, there really is NO valid 'argument' regarding the veracity of Apollo....since this sort of tactic is pitiful).

he isnt aussie, lol he sounds like little lord fauntleroy. he's as english as they come. But keep going mate, yr doing an excellent job.

Originally posted by cluelessnoob
he isnt aussie, lol he sounds like little lord fauntleroy. he's as english as they come. But keep going mate, yr doing an excellent job.

Are you referring to Jarrah White?

If so, he is quite Australian.

“Space radiation has been called the only showstopper for the crewed exploration of space,” says Ruth Bamford of RAL

I wanted to get back to this issue:

Originally posted by Phage

The fringe of the Van Allen Belt was traversed. Exposure was limited and at acceptable levels.

Where has NASA ever said that this happened and when?
Because NASA has been very vague about how long it took to go through the belts, and how the Astros went through it. For example:

Apollo astronauts, however, were forced to traverse the most intense regions of the Belts in their journey to the Moon. Fortunately, the travel time was only about 30 minutes so their exposures were not much more than the total dose received by Space Shuttle astronauts (TBD).

image.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Say what you want about the web page, it is part of NASA's website. Why would they say that there? And say that the trip only took 30 minutes. Thats insane! I have already demonstrated would take much longer than that.

And actually, I think it has been apollo defenders who first came up with the traversing through the less intense regions explanation and possibly NASA spokespersons have parroted it. And thats why I want to know, who said what first

There were no proton events. Had there been, appropriate measures would have been taken (as pointed out). It was a calculated risk.

What would have been appropriate measures while in the LM or on the Moon? And as I have posted, radiation comes from all sides so what could they really do in the CM?

And please explain how JW and others come up with these numbers:





What people fail to understand is that prediction methods for Solar Flares were archaic at best back in the 60's.
They had to make a decision probably around 1965-7 to create a simulation as an option to for faking the missions by 1969.
Because they knew that the solar max was approaching, and they had no idea if it was going to be worse than the prior solar max activity.

Solar cycle 19 1954 to 1964 which recorded the larges amount of sunspots
Solar cycle 20 1966 to 1976 what could they expect by 1969?

The odd numbered cycles tend to be more intense than their preceding even numbered cycles, and the general trend of cycle amplitudes was increasing up to cycle #23. For this reason, many researchers thought that cycle#23 might have exceeded cycle 22, the third largest in recorded history, which peaked in 1989, and could have been larger than cycle #19, which was the largest in recorded history and which peaked in 1957-8...

www.lunarplanner.com...

So it would have been very logical for NASA to assume the worst for cycle 20. And of course, there was that famous 1972 flare.

And i wouldnt have it past NASA to underreport the Solar activity for cycle 20, since 20 was lower than expected than 19,
And 21 was predicted to be lower, because of the decrease in 20, but ended up being higher:
books.google.nl...=onepage&q=solar%20cycle%2019%20prediction&f =false

Galactic cosmic rays are of high energy but low intensity. The level of exposure was acceptable.

Sure, by themselves, but not if you ADD flares and VAB exposures. Its cumulative. Its not one or the other.

All of this has been gone through. More than once, but you're hung up on the windows. Since you provided this as a source (which you did not credit), I'm sure you are aware that the CM windows had an outer heat shield pane. Why didn't you mention it? Never mind, let's have a look. These were made of fused amorphous silica, 0.7" thick.
0.7" = 17.78mm
Let's add the inner panes. We'll use the thinnest ones.
17.78 + 5.08 + 5.08 = 27.94mm
That's a lot of glass.

Point for you Phage for pointing out that I overlooked the heat shield glass.
Like you said, its a lot of glass, but it appears to be a lot of glass for nothing when it comes to blocking radiation.

Because a heat shield glass doesnt necessarily mean its also a radiation shield.

Lets review my post on the subject

The X-rays (for example) are absorbed by glass with minimum amounts of heavy oxides (lead, barium or strontium).

The presence of lead is used in glasses absorbing gamma radiation and X-ray

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now lets take a looks at this heat shield, does it have any heavy oxides?

Fused silica is the only one of the six categories that contains a single composition. This glass consists simply of silica (silicon dioxide) in the noncrystalline, or amorphous, state. Fused silica, most expensive of all glasses, offers the maximum resistance to thermal shock as well as the highest permissible operating temperature (900°C for extended periods, to 1,200°C for short periods). It also has maximum transmission in the ultraviolet range...

machinedesign.com...

Nope. Unless you can show that silica is a heavy oxide.
Now allowing UV to be transmitted, would that mean ionized radiation could also pass through that glass with ease?

So now tell me truthfully, would you or anyone else here, be willing to use 17.78 mm, little under an inch, of that glass
as shield for when you get a chest X-ray? Or would you prefer the lead?



Do you really think it was safe for the Astros to bath themselves in that "blue light" coming from the sun through the windows?



I mean... its a different sun out there than the one we experience in our deserts, its worse. A Constant, unrelenting, force of nature spewing radiation of all kinds.

Which also doesnt explain how the Hasselblad glass protected the photos, not to mention how they dealt with the effect GCR.

So this issue still stands:

“the windows installed on the spacecraft would provide the astronauts basically no protection against the deep space deadly radiation and any attempt to travel beyond earth’s inner orbit would mean instant death for the astronauts.”

www.newscientist.com...

reply to post by FoosM

Re: Van Allen Belts.
The webpage is not correct, exactly. The Apollo missions did enter the outer belt, which is the more intense region. However they did not enter the most intense part of the outer belt. That region lies above the equatorial region. Because the Apollo spacecraft were in high inclination orbits, they traversed the fringe of the outer belt where the radiation is not as intense. The data on the TLI orbit is readily available.

Re: appropriate measures
If there had been a threat of an intense flare (intense sunspot activity, multiple low level flares), the astronauts would not have entered the LM. The high energy particles which follow a solar flare take time to reach the Moon, they do not travel at the speed of light. Had an intense flare happened there would have been hours to respond. If the astronauts had been in the LM but not on the surface they would have returned to the CM. If the astronauts were on the surface they would have returned to the CM as soon as they could have. In the CM they were protected, not completely, but enough to minimize the effects of even a very intense flare.

Why don't you explain where JW came up with those numbers. Calculating estimated radiation doses is not a trivial matter.

Re: Solar cycles.
You are talking about sunspot numbers. Sunspot numbers are not an indication of the intensity of solar flares produced. We are not much more able to predict solar flares now than were were 40 years ago. But even at solar maximum, intense solar flares are not a common occurrence (remember, .3%?). It was a calculated risk. An acceptable risk. Space exploration is risky.

Re: Cumulative effects.
There were no flares. The CM offered very good protection. The actual radiation doses received were low.

Re: Glass.
There is no such thing as "ionized radiation" but if you are talking about high energy radiation like xrays and gamma rays, fused silica glass is opaque to those wavelengths. As you said, it does transmit some ultraviolet but shorter wavelengths are absorbed. And you are now ignoring the inner panes. I would have no problem standing behind more than 1 inch of glass in an xray room.

Re; The windows "issue".
That quote is nonsense. The windows provide just as much, if not more radiation shielding that the other parts of the spacecraft. "Instant death". Right. Why do you refer to sources about long term exposure? It doesn't help your stance.

Six months' exposure to the wind of high-energy particles streaming from the sun could indeed prove deadly.

www.newscientist.com...

Nothing about "instant death", is there?

[edit on 8/13/2010 by Phage]

I called it, a mega-dump from Foos trying to completely change the subject.

Answer the question Foos, the source you previously quoted concerning proton flux states radiation was not a severe problem for Apollo and the missions were not in jeopardy.

Do you withdraw that source or stand by it?

reply to post by FoosM


Up to your same old tricks again (still) I see....

Your record of deception, and deceptive mining of quotes and passages from sources has been noted....very, very often. BUT, this is possibly a NEW LOW!!!:

Originally posted by FoosM
So this issue still stands:

“the windows installed on the spacecraft would provide the astronauts basically no protection against the deep space deadly radiation and any attempt to travel beyond earth’s inner orbit would mean instant death for the astronauts.”


www.newscientist.com...

Two points, before I continue: I intentionally did NOT boost the segment you copy/pasted (without proper BBcode tags, BTW) into the font 'size' as you did....congrats, though Jarrah....er, I mean *cough, cough*, "FoosMasoos" ( yeah, right ) on learning so deftly how to use BBcode.

Second, the link? No need to repeat it in url hyper link, people can go there themselves....

ANYWAY, guess what one finds when they follow the "newscientist" link??

Yup!! The site is a bit more difficult to enter, one has to take the extra steps to "join"...sure, it's free***, but it's an impediment for the casual reader, isn't it? (edit: ***I looked again...might be wrong, I don't think it is "free"!!!)

AND, is that, or is that not intentional on FoosM's part???

We will let the general audience judge, and decide.

Who (because I know FoosM won't) would care to follow the link, and then put that segment that is 'quoted' into proper context???

(HINT: The article is about a long, EXTENDED mission to MARS!

Missions that, as has been pointed out countless times to FoosM, will last a very, very much longer time than the Apollo round-trips to the Moon.

BUT....this poster continues to attempt the same (failed) strategy of deceive, deceive, deflect, deceive....and lie. (Is "lie" too harsh a term to describe it???)






[edit on 13 August 2010 by weedwhacker]