It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

page: 18
29
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Look at the side of the LM. It's made up of sheets of thin metal pop rivetted together, or possibly cardboard held together with double sided tape. Even the joints are not seated flat, but buckle out in all directions. The under side looks like corrugated sheet, and even that does not mate correctly with the vertical panels. If this is supposed to be top quality engineering for such an important mission/task, then I'm a bannana.
www.geocities.com...


Well, the guy is a banana, if he had bothered to do some research then he would have understood what he was looking at. I really wish people would do some research of their own before following these fools, it really drags the level of average intelligence down.


NICKEL-STEEL ALLOY
The black materials on parts of the LM are heat-resistant nickel-steel alloy, 0.0021072 millimeters (0.0000833 inches) thick. The black sheets absorb heat when exposed to the Sun and radiate to the blackness of deep space.

ALUMINIZED PLASTIC FILM
Not metal foil, these plastic films are thinly coated with aluminum, which reflects the sun’s heat and insulates the spacecraft. The thin, gold-colored films are used in "blankets" of up to 25 layers. All of the plastic films protect the spacecraft from micrometeoroids.
www.nasm.si.edu...


Don't forget that though it looks white or silver due to the intensity of the light and exposure time, it is infact black the top section

grin.hq.nasa.gov...

That outerskin bulges because it has very little structural integrity, remember it does not have to stand up to any severe impacts or resistance from air, water or anything.
It is simply the covering over a layer of insulation, the strong part inside all of that. I'm suprised about the remarks in reference to the 'foil' seeing as it is still used now if you watch how they build satellites and such, no one complains then.

And yes, things do look like that in real life, crappy isn't it?
Have you seen the space shuttle close up, or a jumbo jet? Military hardware? anything? It all looks crappy and almost disappointing when you see it up close. I often wonder how some of these things get off the ground.

I especially liked the starting comment with the picture of the Lunar Rover:


Hello, hello, what's this then? A picture of the lunar rover in
some sought of studio set up, (most likely LRC), and fake
backdrop taken from fake Apollo 17 photograph archive.


Need I say more.


Amusing that he stole the actual image from the National Air and Space Museum.

www.nasm.si.edu...

Need I say more..


[edit on 15-10-2005 by AgentSmith]




posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
While us Westerners might be 'blind sheep' that don't want to believe it to be untrue, I'm sure the USSR, China, Korea, etc would all have been more than happy to point out these flaws. You can also bet that the USSR at least would have been independantly monitoring the proceedings with their array of telescopes and receiving equipment and would have cried out if they had suspected that it was not occuring.

[edit on 15-10-2005 by AgentSmith]


These pics weren't put together until the '90s. NASA didn't have any pics and had to get some together for the Net. Russia is long since a moot point. It's NWO on the agenda now, and none of these people have any allegiance to their own countries -- only the NWO. Bush, Putin, Blair, the whole lot of them are best of buddies. Who listens to China anyway?

You said:

Amusing that he stole the actual image from the National Air and Space Museum.


What about all the images taken (or stolen as you say) at Langley? What we have here is NASA admitting they faked all the pics, that all these pics NASA has up on the Web are staged pics. They may want to call them "recreations" -- but nevertheless they are all fakes. Fakes are fakes.

The original televised "moon landings" were fakes.

The pics of the "moon landings" are "recreations" of the original fake moon landing.

At least admit that the color photos are fakes even if you want to cling to the idea that the televised missions were not.

[edit on 15-10-2005 by resistance]



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
You said:

Amusing that he stole the actual image from the National Air and Space Museum.


What about all the images taken (or stolen as you say) at Langley? What we have here is NASA admitting they faked all the pics, that all these pics NASA has up on the Web are staged pics. They may want to call them "recreations" -- but nevertheless they are all fakes. Fakes are fakes.


I'd have to see them in their original context, it could have been a film set for a movie or simply some form of training, a museum exhibit maybe?
I can't take the word of the illiterate, ignorant child that put together that site on anything, and nor should anyone else with an ounce of sense.


jra

posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Originally posted by resistance
You said:

Amusing that he stole the actual image from the National Air and Space Museum.


What about all the images taken (or stolen as you say) at Langley? What we have here is NASA admitting they faked all the pics, that all these pics NASA has up on the Web are staged pics. They may want to call them "recreations" -- but nevertheless they are all fakes. Fakes are fakes.


I'd have to see them in their original context, it could have been a film set for a movie or simply some form of training, a museum exhibit maybe?
I can't take the word of the illiterate, ignorant child that put together that site on anything, and nor should anyone else with an ounce of sense.


The LRC was used for simulating the moon landings. They needed a way to practice before they did the real thing. Just like pilots train and fly in simulators before they do the real thing. The LRC was also used for wind tunnel tests of aircraft and has been since 1915 or so.


jra

posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
These pics weren't put together until the '90s. NASA didn't have any pics and had to get some together for the Net.


What an utterly rediculous statement. I was only born in 1980, but hopefully some one who was alive at the time of the lunar landings can step in here and shoot this claim down. I have found a list of books that were published in the 60's and 70's. I obviously haven't seen all these books, but I know one called "This Island Earth", published in 1970 has photos from the Apollo 12 mission showing the astronauts visiting the Surveyor 3. I would imagine a lot of those other books include photos as well.


Russia is long since a moot point. It's NWO on the agenda now, and none of these people have any allegiance to their own countries -- only the NWO. Bush, Putin, Blair, the whole lot of them are best of buddies.


Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Besides, if the U.S.S.R. was in on it. Why didn't they fake there own Moon landings too? They could have faked their Lunar base, but no, they did nothing of the sort. Why is that? Maybe because it really happened and that the U.S.S.R. couldn't afford to go to the Moon?


Who listens to China anyway?


I'd imagine a lot of people do. Especially the 1 billion or so Chinese.


What about all the images taken (or stolen as you say) at Langley? What we have here is NASA admitting they faked all the pics, that all these pics NASA has up on the Web are staged pics. They may want to call them "recreations" -- but nevertheless they are all fakes. Fakes are fakes.


Got any links showing NASA saying the pics at LRC were staged? It was a simulator for practicing the Moon landings. Nothing more, nothing less.


The original televised "moon landings" were fakes.

The pics of the "moon landings" are "recreations" of the original fake moon landing.

At least admit that the color photos are fakes even if you want to cling to the idea that the televised missions were not.


Saying it's fake doesn't make it so. And why would the colour photos be fake? I am assuming you believe that there was no colour film back then? Colour film has been around since the early 20th century. But there have even been colour photos as early as 1860. Although they used a differnt method to get the colours back then. For example, here is a colour photo from 1910 of the Emir of Bukhara Very rich colours. Unless I miss understood, there is no reason to believe the colour photos to be fakes.

EDIT:

Well I want to cover more about the Lunar Module and I don't want to make a 3rd post in a row, so I'll just add to this one.

I know AgentSmith covered a bit about it, but I'd like to add some more myself.

When ever the hoax believers talk about the LM. They seem to be under the impression that it's just a bunch of thin metal pannels and foil stuck together and nothing more. That's the impression I get anyway. It's really a lot more then that. Here are some photos that show what's underneath all that. It's really a sturdy craft.

Here is part of the Decent stage while under construction

Another shot of the Decent stage

Both the Decent and Ascent stage being put together

The LM put together without the outer insulating layer

Here's a shot of the Ascent stage partly covered up

[edit on 15-10-2005 by jra]



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 06:38 PM
link   
jra says:


What an utterly rediculous statement. I was only born in 1980, but hopefully some one who was alive at the time of the lunar landings can step in here and shoot this claim down.


I was born in 1944; this December I will be 61.

In 1969 I was employed as a mainframe operator by IBM Federal Systems Division in Gaithersburg, Maryland, and, during the tail end of the Gemini Program and Apollo up until 7, I actually worked in one of the backup centers (in Greenbelt, MD) during most of the launches. I was no longer involved in the space program during Apollo 11, but still followed it eagerly.

Understand that all of the space program's computers -- primitive as we might think of them today -- were built for NASA by IBM-FSD.

The entire period, from July 16 to July 24, my three friends and I -- who were working second shift at the time -- were either working, sleeping, or glued to the TV. We saw it all. We cheered when the Saturn lifted off, high-fived when orbit and lunar insertion was achieved, grinned stupidly at th landing, and held our breath when the upper stage of the LM blasted off fom the moon.

And when, after that lo-o-o-o-o-ng period of radio silence as the capsule ablated through the upper atmosphere, we saw, bouncing madly through the ultra telephoto lens on the TV cameras on the Hornet, three huge orange parachutes.

And we all uncontrollably burst into tears.

Jra, you being a young punk kid of 25, take some advice from your old Uncle Street:

You're going to find frightened people out there -- spiritual descendants of the ones who said "If man was meant to fly, God would've given him wings" -- whose eyes and hearts are too small to see the glories of the universe and the spirit of mankind who use their God-given minds and courage to go over the next hill and then the next and then the next.

These peoples' self-hate leads to self-species hate, and the belief that we humans aren't good enough to do great deeds, so we have to either fake it or have some deus ex machina such as the Little Green Men from Arcturus help us.

jra, do not waste your time with these little people. Listen to these:

Virgil Grissom.
Edward White.
Roger Chaffee.
Vladimir Komarov.
Georgy Dobrovolsky.
Victor Patsayev.
Vladislav Volkov.
Francis Scobee.
Michael Smith.
Judith Resnik.
Ellison Onizuka.
Ronald McNair.
Gregory Jarvis.
Christa McAuliffe.
Rick Husband.
William McCool.
Kalpana Chawla.
Michael Anderson.
David Brown.
Laurel Clark.
Ilan Ramon.

Listen carefully, jra. They're talking to you -- and me.



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 07:33 PM
link   


Comment: So what the heck is an 8x10 Photo doing on the Apollo 15 LM landing pod? Why would an 8x10 photo of an Apollo 11 astronaut survive the extreme temperatures of the Apollo 15 mission? This is a moon mission photo from NASA perhaps another "whistle-blower," as the author surmises, leaving clues much as Hansel and Gretel.

See also the highly interesting link cited earlier by another person:

Apollo Investigation

The author presents the anamoles, but leaves it to the audience and readers to decide. The gist of what he says is that many people who worked for NASA are so heavily invested emotionally that they will not look at anything. It seems that if we did in fact go to the moon, at least some of the stated lunar photographs were done here on earth in a studio. Redundancy was built into Apollo, extra Saturn V rockets, any other things designed to insure at least one mission would succeed in a given time frame. Given the idea of an insurance policy faking what they needed to, and doing what the mission was designed to do, may not be implausible. That is especially true given the public relations pressures of presenting the United States as for once being the best, the brightest and the first during the cold war. Some of all this must involve psyops, facing the Soviet Union.

Please excuse me if anyone else previously posted the above photo page, as I have not had time yet to read everything.

[edit on 15-10-2005 by SkipShipman]



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Was it Halfo or Bode that had mentioned NASA's fake HOAX sites they put up? Then when people go to them they can easily refute their own phony hoax set ups.

Several months ago I was surfing NASA's website and wandered into their own links to the HOAX sites. One site had a warning by NASA,You really don't want to go in here. We're warning you. Well, I went in anyway and was reading the site when all of a sudden my computer started making all kinds of whirring and chugging noises. I ignored it and kept reading. When I came out of the site, I found I could not navigate at all, and found my computer had been sabotaged. I had to wipe everything off the hard drive and reformat the whole thing.

This is what NASA does with our tax dollars, hires hackers to devise viruses and worms to crash people's computers who go reading stuff NASA doesn't want them to be reading. And if NASA is so all-fired heroic and brave and honorable and decent -- why would they need to put up fake hoax sites so they could debunk their own hoax sites? This shows they are not honest, not decent, and not to be trusted.

Sometimes the little things tell the biggest story of all.

BTW, jra, you say you don't work for NASA. I'm curious if you are getting any paycheck at all from NASA or from one of its agencies. I know you live in Canada but are you affiliated with NASA in ANY WAY AT ALL? How is it that you are available to jump on any post anybody puts up here with some kind of an explanation or graph or chart or link. You would make a darned good damage control spokesman for NASA. If you're not getting paid, you should be. Fact is, you have an answer for everything, but having an answer doesn't mean it's the right answer.

NASA has lots of answers too. But to me most of their "answers" are more like lame excuses.

Flight vehicles are tested and retested and tested again, over and over. You don't send men to the moon six times, with moon buggies and command ships circling above without ever once testing, send man to a place where we have no idea what it's like as far as radiation (just now NASA claims to be PLANNING an expedition to figure out the radiation on the moon. Kinda late, wouldn't you say?)

Oh, no, our government would never dream of lying to the Americans or anybody else, would it? Pearl Harbor, JFK, Oklahoma, 911, Katrina, on and on and on. You really truly trust the American government?

JRA, if you're from Canada, why are you so vociferous about defending the American space agency? Huh?


[edit on 15-10-2005 by resistance]



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 10:47 PM
link   
so you read the warning on the Nasa site, yet ignore it, then blame Nasa for infecting your computer with a virus when it was caused by a site, THEY WANRED YOU NOT TO GO TO.

Might as well ignore the sign that says "Bridge out" and when you crash your car in the ravine you blame the sign manufacture for decieving you.

jra, the LRM was tested many times. The Rover was tested many times. The Module was tested many times. But one of the bigger concerns was that there wasn't going ot be a solid surface to land on. There was no way of figuring that out, except the expense to send a probe and even then the probe might not actaully give the best answers.

No offense jra, but there were many many many more eggheads under NASA's employ thinking of all these thigns and coming up with solutions and contigancies they you will ever be able to figure out or understand. ANd from what I have read, even if you could understand you wouldn't belive it



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 11:04 PM
link   
If you can't believe a muti-billion dollar effort to the moon.

Then of course you don't believe in the Panama canal, the Hoover dam, the Grand Cooley, and the Saint Lawrence Seaway. All of these were bigger accomplishments.


jra

posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
BTW, jra, you say you don't work for NASA. I'm curious if you are getting any paycheck at all from NASA or from one of its agencies. I know you live in Canada but are you affiliated with NASA in ANY WAY AT ALL?


No paycheck, but that would be nice
Not affiliated either. Being the sci-fi nerd that I am. I'm really just into all things related to space science and exporation and all that.


How is it that you are available to jump on any post anybody puts up here with some kind of an explanation or graph or chart or link.


It's called research. Generally I'll have 10 differnt pages with various bits of info. Checking facts and all that stuff. Plus I have lots of bookmarked pages, so it doesn't always take too long to look up things.


You would make a darned good damage control spokesman for NASA. If you're not getting paid, you should be. Fact is, you have an answer for everything, but having an answer doesn't mean it's the right answer.


No, I'll admit that my info isn't 100%, but I try the best I can.


JRA, if you're from Canada, why are you so vociferous about defending the American space agency? Huh?


Like I said, I'm into space science and exploration. I don't care what country is doing it. If it was the USSR I'd still be interested. If and when China goes to the Moon, I'll be just as interested.


Originally posted by Jehosephat
jra, the LRM was tested many times. The Rover was tested many times. The Module was tested many times. But one of the bigger concerns was that there wasn't going ot be a solid surface to land on. There was no way of figuring that out, except the expense to send a probe and even then the probe might not actaully give the best answers.

No offense jra, but there were many many many more eggheads under NASA's employ thinking of all these thigns and coming up with solutions and contigancies they you will ever be able to figure out or understand. ANd from what I have read, even if you could understand you wouldn't belive it


Did you mean for this to be directed at resistance and not me?

[edit on 16-10-2005 by jra]



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkipShipman


Comment: So what the heck is an 8x10 Photo doing on the Apollo 15 LM landing pod? Why would an 8x10 photo of an Apollo 11 astronaut survive the extreme temperatures of the Apollo 15 mission? This is a moon mission photo from NASA perhaps another "whistle-blower," as the author surmises, leaving clues much as Hansel and Gretel.


Well fortunately you can get higer resolution copies of that image which haven't had the levels adjusted to 'emphasise' what the author wants you to see.

If we look at a close up of a larger and less compressed version:


www.spacearchive.net...

Please also note the piece of gold covering which was partially cropped out of the offending picture, removing the true context of there having been damage to the covering.

Of course, it is much clearer to see in this photograph that the covering has come loose and is bent over, showing it's aluminium coated 'silver' side and reflecting the lunar surface like a mirror. I imagine another reason the piece that was loose on the ground was cropped out was becasue you can clearly see that the covering is silver coloured on the underside and would have made it too obvious what the truth of the matter was.

Also note how he has cleverly made it look like it is something lying flat on the pad and disguised the fact that it is a piece of material curling away from the leg. Also note how he has cropped the closeup to remove the shadow it is casting.

Assuming the guy actually did email NASA, would anyone be surprised they couldn't be bothered to respond? The guy is either fraudulent or mentally challenged.

Look I can be an idiot too!:



I wonder how many people would become followers of my work if I started up a crappy website and spouted drivel on it.

[edit on 16-10-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance

There was no moon landing. And there are NO aliens. The earth is the only place in the universe with life.


There absolutely, positively was a moon landing. And I don't know if there are any aliens or if the Earth is only place in the universe with life. However, I do know that the ingredients for life are commonplace throughout the visible universe. And I do know that life seems to spring up in the most bizzare places, places where we never thought it could be. I therefore have every confidence that somewhere out there in the universe there is life and that life is probably ubiquitious.



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
]
Actually, nobody's disputing there are hills and valleys and things that cast shadows. The question here is about shadows that aren't running in the same direction, since supposedly there is only one light source -- the sun. So when you have shadows that are pointing all over in all directions, that tells you there's MORE THAN ONE LIGHT SOURCE-- like they have at Disney studios when they make make believe movies?


The shadows in the two pics where I'm quoting this from are not divergent. The apparent angular differences are caused by the various angles of the objects causing the shadows combined with their varying differences in horizontal thickness (from the viewpoint of the camera) and the curvature of the surface over which the shadow is cast. The shadows are all running in the same direction and are all caused by the same light source.



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 04:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance

If you put a rock in a glass, sucked out all the air so it was a perfect vacuum and shone a light equal to 250 degrees on the rock for two weeks, what would it do?


It would reach a temperature of 250 degrees and remain at that temperature. It would not "get hotter and hotter".



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
[
So if you're correct that this is the only way to diffuse heat on the moon is through radiation, then it must be extremely radioactive there.


Radioactivity refers to the particles which are emitted from nuclei as a result of nuclear instability. Because the nucleus experiences the intense conflict between the two strongest forces in nature, it should not be surprising that there are many nuclear isotopes which are unstable and emit some kind of radiation. The most common types of radiation are called alpha, beta, and gamma radiation, but there are several other varieties of radioactive decay.

Natural radiation is more properly called electromagnetic radiation and happens over a broad band of frequencies ranging from essentially zero hertz to well over 1,000,000,000,000 hertz. Your eyes are adapted to view some of this radiation as light; however, your eyes can only see in a very narrow band of frequencies. Other frequencies are invisible to you but extend both upwards and downwards. Heat is emitted as infrared radiation (the name we have given to a band of frequencies lower that what our eyes can see).



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jehosephat
so you read the warning on the Nasa site, yet ignore it, then blame Nasa for infecting your computer with a virus when it was caused by a site, THEY WANRED YOU NOT TO GO TO.

Might as well ignore the sign that says "Bridge out" and when you crash your car in the ravine you blame the sign manufacture for decieving you.


No, it wasn't the site. It was the link TO the site. There's nothing wrong with the site as long as it's not linked to NASA. And even if it was the site (which it wasn't) if NASA knew it had a nasty virus triggered to blow up your hard drive, why did they have it hooked up with a warning? THAT'S how arrogant they are, that they would do this to one of the citizens who helps pay for their stupid spaceships roaring around ruining our atmosphere and destroying the earth.

I notice you have an answer to everything, but I've decided I'm not buying any of your answers anymore. I think they're just lame excuses, just like the ones NASA offers. You think because they warned me that it's MY fault. Wouldn't any sane person think NASA was warning not to go in the site because they disagreed with the CONTENT of it, not because it was triggered with a LAND MINE?


jra, the LRM was tested many times. The Rover was tested many times. The Module was tested many times. But one of the bigger concerns was that there wasn't going ot be a solid surface to land on. There was no way of figuring that out, except the expense to send a probe and even then the probe might not actaully give the best answers.

No offense jra, but there were many many many more eggheads under NASA's employ thinking of all these thigns and coming up with solutions and contigancies they you will ever be able to figure out or understand. ANd from what I have read, even if you could understand you wouldn't belive it


Jehosephat -- I think you mean Resistance not jra. We all know what a big bearocracy NASA is -- which is another reason they could not send a man to the moon. They can't even get an unmanned probe to Mars most of the time. They can't even keep the space station going. Any poor sap who goes there spends his whole time in terror trying to keep the contraption running. Hubble is a piece of junk. The shuttles are useless pieces of junk ruing the Earth's atmosphere and using a lot of fuel and sucking up the taxpayers' money for naught.

I wouldn't mind learning about the other planets, sending some unmanned satellites there, IF it was feasible to do so and we could actually land them or get any useful information. Three-quaraters of the time these things don't do what they're supposed to or they just crash. Very seldom are we able to land anything. I have my doubts NASA is even sending any satellites since I know them to be such fakes and liars. People will do anything for money. They just talk themselves into what they are doing that somehow they are helping the people to be more patriotic and supportive of our government, whatever.



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra

The LRC was used for simulating the moon landings. They needed a way to practice before they did the real thing. Just like pilots train and fly in simulators before they do the real thing. The LRC was also used for wind tunnel tests of aircraft and has been since 1915 or so.


You don't need fake backdrops and stage props for flight simulation. NASA isn't even trying to HIDE the fact that all its Apollo pics on the web are fakes, recreations in a studio.


"If some of the film was spoiled, it's remotely possible they [NASA] may have shot some scenes in a studio environment to avoid embarrassment."

Dr Brian O'Leary, astronaut


They KNOW FULL WELL that people are waking up to the fact that it is difficult if not impossible to go to the moon or WE WOULD HAVE DONE IT ALREADY. Once the cat got out of the bag all NASA can do is try to cushion the shock when people start putting two and two together. The photos on their website were supposed to deflect things for awhile, distract people from their films and the obvious fact that it's become apparent after 36 years that nobody went to the moon and nobody is ever probably GOING to the moon. People were already crying foul before NASA put up all its new pics they made in the '90s. The pics were made in an attempt to stall things off a bit and provide a cushion so they could first admit to putting in fake studio photos on their website but it was only because they forgot to take pics on the moon or whatever and just had the fuzzy film and so they needed to "fix" it.

So now it's out in front of the people and they can continue on with their hoax without having to worry about a big secret getting out. This is how the Illuminati always works -- lies, confusion. Clinton was a master. Put the story out first, a low-level version of it, and then when the real truth comes out people won't care. It will be "old news."

Meantime NASA is setting us up for another huge hoax. This time it will be an alien invasion. NASA is working with Walt Disney at this moment to produce a $150 million movie about Mars that will claim it is inhabited.

And for the record, any beings living on any of the planets are not evolved humaniod creatures. They would be fallen angels, otherwise known as demons. NASA is trafficking in demonology. NASA is Illuminati. They are liars and incredibly evil.



[edit on 16-10-2005 by resistance]



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer68

Originally posted by resistance

If you put a rock in a glass, sucked out all the air so it was a perfect vacuum and shone a light equal to 250 degrees on the rock for two weeks, what would it do?


It would reach a temperature of 250 degrees and remain at that temperature. It would not "get hotter and hotter".


How so? You don't think the stones can absorb heat? Why is it that my flagstones get much hotter than the temperature of the sun beating down on them? They get so hot you can't walk on them barefoot. And there's no vacuum to hold the heat in on earth. On the moon there's a vacuum to keep all the heat in. Rocks have a way of capturing heat and holding it. If you have any links to augment your opinion about the temperature of rocks heated in a vacuum I'd appreciate you pointing me to that. Thanks.



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer68

Originally posted by resistance
[
So if you're correct that this is the only way to diffuse heat on the moon is through radiation, then it must be extremely radioactive there.


Radioactivity refers to the particles which are emitted from nuclei as a result of nuclear instability. Because the nucleus experiences the intense conflict between the two strongest forces in nature, it should not be surprising that there are many nuclear isotopes which are unstable and emit some kind of radiation. The most common types of radiation are called alpha, beta, and gamma radiation, but there are several other varieties of radioactive decay.

Natural radiation is more properly called electromagnetic radiation and happens over a broad band of frequencies ranging from essentially zero hertz to well over 1,000,000,000,000 hertz. Your eyes are adapted to view some of this radiation as light; however, your eyes can only see in a very narrow band of frequencies. Other frequencies are invisible to you but extend both upwards and downwards. Heat is emitted as infrared radiation (the name we have given to a band of frequencies lower that what our eyes can see).


None of this information is to the point. I don't need a lesson in x-rays. I want to know how much heat comes off the moon and how much stays during the two-week time any one part of the moon is in full sunlight with no atmosphere to block the rays and no atmosphere to absorb the heat of the moon once the rays strike the surface. You have sun rays striking the moon, and immediately the molecules start to vibrate (heat). As the rocks heat up there is no place for the heat to go except to spread out to the rest of the moon. A little bit of heat is reflected or radiated out from the moon, but most of it stays right where it is with pretty much no way to cool itself except to spread out. Why doesn't NASA have any information on this? You would think they could at least be able to tell us some useful information like how hot the moon actually does get.

NASA is useless. All they are good for is pretty pictures and fairy tales and spending people's money on make believe.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join