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: 20
29
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer68

The maximum temperature of the surface of the moon at noon on a typical lunar day is 395 degrees Kelvin or 251.6 degrees farenheight (by actual measurement) and the minimum temperature reached at night is 95 degrees Kelvin or minus 288.4 degrees farenheight (by actual measurement). One meter below the surface of the Moon the temperature remains at a constant 210 degrees Kelvin or minus 81.4 degrees farenheight (by actual measurement). As you can see from the above information, heat convection does happen, it is just a slow process. Heat radiation also happens.

[edit on 17-10-2005 by Astronomer68]


How was this actual measurement done, and who did it? Do you know that? Sorry to be so persistent. I really want to know this and I haven't been able to find this out for myself. If you know the answer, I'd appreciate it. Are you saying somebody actually took a thermometer and stuck it in the surface of the moon? My flagstones get a lot hotter than whatever the temperature of the day is. And they are only in the sun for a short while and the air absorbs a lot of that heat. So if the surface of the moon is absorbing heat but has no atmosphere to suck it away and if that surface keeps facing the sun for 14 days, not 10 or 12 hours at a time like here on earth, how can you be so sure the surface gets no hotter than the rays hitting it? You say noon on the moon. Does that mean the portion of the moon that has been in the sun steadily for 14 days straight? For example, the part of the moon that has just come into the sun and has only been in the sun for one day will not be as hot as the portions of the moon that have been baking steadily for two weeks. So what do you mean exactly by "noon?"
Thanks.




posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
Howard. I still don't have my answer. You said:


OK. Lets go over this carefully. There are three ways for an object on earth to dissipate heat.


I'm not concerned with how earth dissipates heat; I want to know about the moon. They are two different places with two entirely different set of circumstances.


No, the same physical laws that operate on Earth operate on the moon. There are no differences in the physics of the situation.



Originally posted by resistance
For example, here on Planet Earth I have an air conditioner, and it works because there is an atmosphere to throw the heat out into. If there were no atmosphere, the air conditioner would not work.


For your typical Carrier air conditioner this would be true. But it is perfectly possible to build an air conditioner that dissipates heat into a solid material (i.e. a heat sink) The CPUs on many computers use heat sinks to keep them within certain temperature parameters.

It is also possible to build an air conditioner that dissipates heat by melting ice. When ice melts, it absorbs a certain amount of heat energy. This is called the latent heat of fusion. The same thing happens when water evaporates. The "extra" energy needed to cause liquid water to turn into water vapor is called the latent heat of vaporization.

These are two very important terms to understand. They drive a lot of natural and technological processes in todays world.


Originally posted by resistance
Ergo, since the moon has no atmosphere, where did the astroNOTs send the heat from their "cooling packs."

The cooling pack relied on sublimation to remove waste heat. Sublimation is when a solid changes directly to a gas. In this case, ice changed from a solid to water vapor. According to Hess's law the heat of sublimation is the net change of the enthalpy of the system, in other words, it is the sum of both the heat of fusion and the heat of vaporization. No atmosphere required.



Originally posted by resistance
And furthermore, if the moon stays in the sun for two weeks (which it does because it does not turn around once a day like the earth does) and if there is no atmosphere, seems to me there are places where the moon gets quite sizzling hot.

To a point. When the heat loss through blackbody radiation equals the heat gain from the sun, the temperature will stabilize. No atmosphere also means that heat is not retained by an insulating layer.


Originally posted by resistance
I'm willing to see the light here if somebody will show it to me. I'm just stuck on this idea of the moon being really, really hot in places. I assume you are considering the fact that a moon's day is 28 of ours, so any part of the moon is in the sun's rays for at least two weeks. And with a vacuum that means the only way the moon has to cool itself is a small amount of radiation and by the heat spreading outward throughout the surrounding moon surface.


The heat loss from re-radiation is not "small" by any means. Furthermore what difference does it make if the surface of the moon is 300 degrees or so? The Apollo suit boots would have been capable of insulating the astronaut from that heat.



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
how can you be so sure the surface gets no hotter than the rays hitting it?


Because it goes against everything that we know about physics, what you're basically implying is the ability to generate a greater amount of energy from a lesser source.
Energy can only be converted, not amplified in some way I believe, I think it's one of the fundamental rules of standard physics.
Read what Astronomer and Howard have said too and read the links I posted earlier, they should help you understand better.

And if you're interested in methods used to find out the temperature, then these articles may help:

www.monstein.de...

coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu...

coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu...

I'm sorry I get quite angry sometimes, it's not your fault - it's just annoying to see one of our greatest achievments being belittled and ridiculed purely due to the lack of a good education system. Education seems to deteriorate every year and so many people don't have a basic understanding of things - if they did then they would know a lot of these 'controversial' claims made are nonsense. I also blame the people behind them that take advantage of people's ignorance and the 'rebel' in all of us to try and sell a TV show or some books, or maybe just feel important - who knows..

[edit on 18-10-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 03:49 AM
link   
Resistance, why don't you use the following link to answer many of your arguments about the Moon landings being a hoax:

www.braeunig.us...



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 06:47 AM
link   
Well Gee-Wizz Astronomer68, if that link would have been posted on page one of this thread I wouldn't have wasted the last 3 hours trying to figure it all out piece by piece, thanks bro.

peace



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Hey Resistance
have you watched the video "a funny thing happened o nthe way to the moon" that you linked once in this thread? If so, what was the most convincing thing?
thnx



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 08:44 PM
link   
BTW Resistance, the astronauts took those temperature readings and left equipment on the moon to continue taking readings for quite a while after they were gone.



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wind
Hey Resistance
have you watched the video "a funny thing happened o nthe way to the moon" that you linked once in this thread? If so, what was the most convincing thing?
thnx


Hi, Wind. Where have you been?
The most convincing thing I saw on the video was the press conference with the astroNOTs. I know guilty people when I see them.

Also Buzz Aldrin's lame excuses to Bart were pretty hilarious. These guys sure don't look or act like heros to me -- but rather phony balony astroNOTs.

What was most convincing to you?

Agent Smith: You said:

Energy can only be converted, not amplified in some way I believe, I think it's one of the fundamental rules of standard physics.
I'm not talking about amplifying the energy. I'm talking about storing it. I wonder just how hot certain parts of the moon are able to get in that constant sun with no atmosphere to diffuse any of the heat, and the vacuum to lock it all in. (A vacuum is a perfect insulator) And I want to know a bit more about those cooling packs the astroNOTs were wearing. Something really hokey about those things. I don't see how they could keep them cool. I don't even see how they could keep them pressurized properly. They are the hokiest things I've ever seen, about as hokey as their plastic model spaceships they have in their hands for the astroNOTs photo gallery on the NASA website.



[edit on 18-10-2005 by resistance]



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
I'm not talking about amplifying the energy. I'm talking about storing it. I wonder just how hot certain parts of the moon are able to get in that constant sun with no atmosphere to diffuse any of the heat, and the vacuum to lock it all in. (A vacuum is a perfect insulator) And I want to know a bit more about those cooling packs the astroNOTs were wearing. Something really hokey about those things. I don't see how they could keep them cool. I don't even see how they could keep them pressurized properly. They are the hokiest things I've ever seen, about as hokey as their plastic model spaceships they have in their hands for the astroNOTs photo gallery on the NASA website.


Do you have more than one person using your account? Or did you just not bother reading what Me, Howard and Astronomer told you?
Don't really see why we should repeat ourselves, so why don't you jump a few posts back and start reading again, read the whole link that Astronomer links to as well.


I'll explain again simply for you, get someone to read it out if you have difficulty, I'm sorry but I have little time for people that can't be bothered to read what they are told when they pretend they are actually interested:

A vacuum won't allow heat to dissipate through convection, but it will still dissipate through conduction. Now this is the point you seem to be stopping because it also radiates through radiation - Infra Red..

You know those videos they have of the cops chasing crims in a chopper and everything is in black and white with people showing up bright white - that camera is looking in IR and people are glowing because they are radiating heat.
The moon dissipates heat by re-radiating it as IR like anything else.

As to the cooling of the space suits, Howard already told you it was through Sublimation, see the link below for more info:


The Apollo space suits were the first to use liquid cooling garments with a separate ventilation garment. The cooling and ventilation system was drastically improved because the astronauts would be doing a great amount of physical activity exploring the moon therefore producing more body heat and perspiration. The astronaut would first dawn the liquid cooling garment, which was long underwear with poly-vinyl tubing sewn in it. This water was cooled in the PLSS and returned to the tubes to cool the astronaut. The ventilation garment was the inner most layer of the pressure garment. This ventilation garment used nylon fabric ducts to circulate the air inside the suit in order to remove carbon dioxide as well as perspiration. This system is very close to the current system in its design because they both use the PLSS to provide cool water and ventilation and their actual construction is very similar. These same Apollo suits were again used in the Apollo-Soyuz missions but relied on an umbilical tether to the spacecraft for air and water. The case was the same for the Skylab missions as well. ILC Dover manufactured and designed both of the suits. ILC Dover manufactures LCVG's for the current space shuttle suit.
ssoar.org...


The stuff looks 'hokey' because everything is covered in special materials to reflect back radiation, it's flimsy stuff covering the solid equipment underneath, like the LM.

Oh and it's spelt Astronaut by the way


[edit on 19-10-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance

Originally posted by Wind
Hey Resistance
have you watched the video "a funny thing happened o nthe way to the moon" that you linked once in this thread? If so, what was the most convincing thing?
thnx


Hi, Wind. Where have you been?
The most convincing thing I saw on the video was the press conference with the astroNOTs. I know guilty people when I see them.

Also Buzz Aldrin's lame excuses to Bart were pretty hilarious. These guys sure don't look or act like heros to me -- but rather phony balony astroNOTs.

What was most convincing to you?



Hi resistance. I haven't watched the video yet, but read the site tha you posted. I want to ask you about the unedited film that shows astronauts "training" on using the equipment. When was it dated, if you still remember. (i.e prior or after the take off)? thanks



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 07:10 AM
link   
Are you actually interested in the subject Res, or are you one of the people that likes living in laalaa land and ignores anything that doesn't go along with your thoughts?
For someone that seems to so strongly believe that they didn't go, you actually demonstrate very little knowledge on the whole subject, I'm curious how you came about your conclusions when you obviously do not understand any aspect of physics, you don't understand space travel and you seem to specifically know little about the moon landings.
It's easy to repeat like a parrot what you read or hear, but do you actually understand what you're talking about (that was a rhetorical question
), or are you one of these guys that believes everything you read or hear, especially when it's 'against the system'?
It's increasingly tiresome hearing people prat on about something they think they know about when they have no knowledge of even the basics and the apparant inability or willingness to learn. How the hell someone can keep arguing a point when they are shown to be wrong is beyond me.. And I'm not talking about the event as a whole, I mean each individual 'flaw' that people try and point out that is easily and quickly proven to be an incorrect assumption.

[edit on 19-10-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Are you actually interested in the subject Res, or are you one of the people that likes living in laalaa land and ignores anything that doesn't go along with your thoughts?


I don't live in la la land. I'm actually a stranger in a strange land.



For someone that seems to so strongly believe that they didn't go, you actually demonstrate very little knowledge on the whole subject, I'm curious how you came about your conclusions when you obviously do not understand any aspect of physics, you don't understand space travel and you seem to specifically know little about the moon landings.


I don't know all or most of the minutiae but I got a good view of the big picture. And I have a plumbline that works really great. I almost never find myself on the wrong side of an argument. When I do, I jump ship real quick.



It's easy to repeat like a parrot what you read or hear, but do you actually understand what you're talking about (that was a rhetorical question
), or are you one of these guys that believes everything you read or hear, especially when it's 'against the system'?
It's increasingly tiresome hearing people prat on about something they think they know about when they have no knowledge of even the basics and the apparant inability or willingness to learn. How the hell someone can keep arguing a point when they are shown to be wrong is beyond me.. And I'm not talking about the event as a whole, I mean each individual 'flaw' that people try and point out that is easily and quickly proven to be an incorrect assumption.

[edit on 19-10-2005 by AgentSmith]


People have answers. They ARE answers. Sometimes they just aren't very plausible ones. And there's just TOO many questions. If the astroNOTs really did what we've been told, why don't they ACT like the heros they supposedly are? Why haven't we been BACK?

Thanks for the link on the spacesuits. I just know what I know that I know. I don't believe much of anything anybody tells me. I kind of go with my gut. I like to be right. I'm not interested in winning a debate here to prove something that's WRONG. If I'm not right, I'll be the first to admit it. But since I don't think I'm wrong at all, I'm going to keep asking questions and trying to get to the bottom. For example, your link spoke about "lifelines" from the cooling pack to the spaceship for non-moon-landing missions. Well, if they needed to be hooked up to the mother ship to get their water for cooling, my question is, where were the astroNOTs getting THEIR water?

Based on what I've read and what my gut tells me, the moon was a whole lot hotter where the astroNOTs were supposed to have been on their landings than we might believe. And those hokey spacesuits could not keep them cool for five minutes, let alone a whole day while they played golf, ran around on their moon buggies collecting rocks, etcetera.

So I appreciate the link you gave me on how the spacesuits were supposed to have worked. And I am well aware and have been well aware that heat is dissipated on the moon by two ways -- radiation and conduction. Those are the only ways. AND the conduction is only from the surface outwards because the vacuum precludes dissipation through any atmosphere. The heat dissipation through radiation from what I've read is minimal. The surface of the moon will be absorbing and retaining heat for a period of time until it finally turns away from the sun, and during that time it will increasingly heat up. How high that heat actually gets is what I'm trying to figure out. As to any temperature readings by the astroNOTs obviously I don't consider that
any kind of a scientific answer to my question since I don't believe they were ever there.



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Come on gang! Let's all go to the....






posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 09:00 AM
link   
Yeah sorry.

Anyway it does dissipate the heat through radiation, that's how it works - think about it, the Earth is the same distance and it might convey heat about itself through the atmosphere but it still has to re-radiate out into space and it does it the same way as the Moon. Otherwise we would be living in a furnace.

Anyway, they knew what the temperature of the Moon was before they went there by monitoring the IR and using radio waves somehow - that's what the links I gave you were about. They needed to know before they got there for a start. On the page about calculating the Black body temperature it has the formulas so you can work it out yourself.

You can cut out the 'AstroNOTs' crap too if you like, it makes you look a little childish, when you obviously arn't. It creates a bad impression and is very annoying, if you want to be annoying try and find a more intellectual way to do it, some cutting sarcasm maybe? It sounds like something my mate's 4 year old daughter would come up with.
To be honest I kind of started to forget you weren't the kid on that page you posted earlier doing it, which was part of the reason I was getting so agitated with you.

They did behave like the hero's they are anyway, you can't really judge them by some carefully edited footage from someone who is obivously biased against them. You can portray the picture of anything you want depending how you do it. If you look on Ebaum's world there's a goof Cine trailer for 'The Shining' using just actual footage from the film. They make it look like a romantic feel good movie which if you have seen it you will know is far from the truth. Point is you can put across any message you want depending on how you present it.

[edit on 19-10-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Res, You continue to talk about heat build-up and still say that a vacuum is a perfect insulator, (which it is in an atmosphere).

If it is as good an insulator as you say it is then how the hell does ANYTHING get heated by the sun?
Find the answer and you might just understand what I and others have been trying to tell you.

250 degrees is the point at which the amount of radiative heat recived from the sun is equal to the radiative heat given off because of the high temperature of the surface. You seemt o have a counter productive opinion. You think that the sun can give off heat in a vacuum but other objects cannot. see the problem with that?



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Something else I should have said, though it is not just to you specifically Res, is that just because you or anyone else doesn't understand something does not mean it can't be or hasn't been done.
It is quite insulting for the people that have spent their lives studying and working hard, that some people think that they know everything when they obviously do not have a particularly high standard of education and have no experience in the subject at hand - and yet are suddenly self proclaimed experts to the level they actually believe they can debunk the subject in question.

That's what makes me especially annoyed with you, when you demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge in basic physics (which is fine), yet appear to believe that you have the experience and knowledge to conclusively say wherever or not we went to the Moon (which is not fine) and use petty and insulting names (AstroNOTs) for, until proven otherwise, some of the greatest men in history.


[edit on 19-10-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Halfofone
Res, You continue to talk about heat build-up and still say that a vacuum is a perfect insulator, (which it is in an atmosphere).

If it is as good an insulator as you say it is then how the hell does ANYTHING get heated by the sun?
Find the answer and you might just understand what I and others have been trying to tell you.

250 degrees is the point at which the amount of radiative heat recived from the sun is equal to the radiative heat given off because of the high temperature of the surface. You seemt o have a counter productive opinion. You think that the sun can give off heat in a vacuum but other objects cannot. see the problem with that?


Halfo -- The sun gives off radiative heat and so does the moon (reflected heat from the sun). However, the moon also heats up. The vacuum which is the atmosphere around the moon keeps much of the heat that's not radiated out stored up in the surface. The surface heats spreads out throughout the surface of the moon. I'm wanting to know the maximum temperature PARTS of the moon get to be, not the average temperature of the whole moon or the average temperature of half of the moon, whatever. Length of time in the sun is a factor that has to be considered in this equation, along with distance from the sun and atmosphere.

Also, as I said, why are the cool packs of astroNOTs on the shuttle hooked to the mother ship, but the astroNOTs could run around the moon for hours on end with no hookup to their cool packs? Hmmm?

As I say, my flagstones heat up really hot just from being in the sun for a few hours, and there is no vacuum here on Earth to seal in the heat as there is on the moon. Most of the heat from the flagstones is dissipated into the atomosphere, not from radiating the light out. Same with the moon. Most of the heat does not get radiated away.

Wind, I've not seen Bart Sibrel's entire film. I'm thinking I may order it along with Ralph Rene's stuff.



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
Halfo -- The sun gives off radiative heat and so does the moon (reflected heat from the sun). However, the moon also heats up. The vacuum which is the atmosphere around the moon keeps much of the heat that's not radiated out stored up in the surface.


Not it isn't and no it doesn't, the heat is given off as radiation. Think o fthe Earth and it's atmosphere as one object, it too radiates heat like the Moon. Going by your theory we would also keep heating up much more than we do.



The surface heats spreads out throughout the surface of the moon. I'm wanting to know the maximum temperature PARTS of the moon get to be, not the average temperature of the whole moon or the average temperature of half of the moon, whatever. Length of time in the sun is a factor that has to be considered in this equation, along with distance from the sun and atmosphere.


I already gave you the information to work that out above, here it is again -

www.ldeo.columbia.edu...




Also, as I said, why are the cool packs of astroNOTs on the shuttle hooked to the mother ship, but the astroNOTs could run around the moon for hours on end with no hookup to their cool packs? Hmmm?


Don't know much do you? I see your still using the your kiddy name for the astronauts too... Oh well, kids will be kids..



Backdropped against clouds 130 nautical miles below, astronaut Mark C. Lee floats freely without tethers as he tests the new Simplified Aid for EVA Rescue (SAFER) system.
grin.hq.nasa.gov...




As I say, my flagstones heat up really hot just from being in the sun for a few hours, and there is no vacuum here on Earth to seal in the heat as there is on the moon. Most of the heat from the flagstones is dissipated into the atomosphere, not from radiating the light out. Same with the moon. Most of the heat does not get radiated away.


It's still not that hot in this example in the 'desert sun' on tarmac (which would absorb the heat better being black):


"The surface temperature was about 140 degrees on the tarmac."
www.washingtontechnology.com...


So what's your point? Looking at those figures I think the temperature of the Lunar surface in the day quoted by you as being 250 deg F to be highly reasonable..
They weren't going barefoot you know




Wind, I've not seen Bart Sibrel's entire film. I'm thinking I may order it along with Ralph Rene's stuff.


You have to pay for it? Enough said..


[edit on 19-10-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Resistance you keep going on about a vacuum being an insulator and I've told you more than once it isn't. The reason they use vacuum in something like a thermos is to keep the thermos contents from coming into a rapid heat exchange condition with air--well, the outer vacuum container is also restricted in its physical contact with the inner container so as not to allow a large pathway through the contact points to conduct heat away. Anyway, the vacuum is only to keep air away from the walls of the inner container. In and of itself the vacuum doesn't do anything else.



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Astronomer -- Why is it that modern spacemen, when they are in space doing repairs and such and wearing their spacesuits, need to be hooked up to the mother ship when they are in space in order to keep their coolpacks working, but the astroNOTs on the moon didn't?



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join