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.

 

Another Piece of Proof Why We Never Made It To The Moon!

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:
jra

posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
NASA says: “But to astronauts on the Moon or on Mars, static discharge could be real trouble.”
You say: “Because the Apollo astronauts didn't experience any static discharge,…”


Great job on not quoting me completely.
Did you read the rest of my post or just that line? I'll quote from the article again.


On the Moon, "Apollo astronauts never reported being zapped by electrostatic discharges," notes Calle. "However, future lunar missions using large excavation equipment to move lots of dry dirt and dust could produce electrostatic fields. Because there's no atmosphere on the Moon, the fields could grow quite strong. Eventually, discharges could occur in vacuum."


Did the Apollo astronauts use excavation equipment to move around lots of dirt and dust? No they did not.


Now who are we supposed to believe, you or NASA? If the astronauts hadn’t noticed any electrical charge build-up in 1969 why would NASA consider it a potential problem now


Firstly the scientists say that they think there could be a chance of something happening, but they don't know yet. That's why they are looking into it more. The Apollo astronauts didn't experience any static build up. I'm not saying that it couldn't happen, but they didn't really do anything that could have caused a large amount of static to build up as far as I understand from reading the article.




posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Slightly off topic but in the same vein, With the concern for electro static build up, would it be possible to tap this as an energy source?


jra

posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedangler
um there are some pictures with the earth in the background my only problem with the pictures is that the earth is way to small in the phots.


How big should the Earth be in the photos? And what size of lens was used to take those photos? Because the type of lens can make a huge difference. I've taken photos with a 28mm lens and the moon is nothing but a tiny speck in the photo. You can barely see it. Were as taking a photo of of the Moon with a telephoto lens with some foreground will make the Moon look huge.


Edn

posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Wizard_In_The_Woods your comparing technology of now with technology of 40 years ago, NASA don't even know if they will get any static on the Moon.

Re read the article you picking pieces from it to suit what you want to believe instead of understanding everything there saying.


In simulations the Mars rover generated static electricity on Mars conditions.

Astronauts on the Moon (40 odd years ago) did not report producing any static

NASA believe that static could be a problem on Mars and the Moon if the Moon does indeed produce static on modern equipment


Ive said it twice ill say it again and again until you respond, you have the ability to prove/dis-prove the Moon landings now, run a test using a moon rover on Moon simulated conditions, if you get static then the Moon landing were indeed faked if you don't get static then they weren't fake.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedangler
um there are some pictures with the earth in the background my only problem with the pictures is that the earth is way to small in the phots.

[edit on 13-12-2006 by thedangler]



Way too small? I can't find one single picture of an Astronaut with the Earth in the backdrop. Plenty of moon lander pics with a big giant earth beaming in the backdrop though.

earth from moon pics


If you can find any pics of Astronauts with the Earth in the backdrop I'd be very pleased to see them, no matter how small the Earth is in them.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by jraGreat job on not quoting me completely.
Did you read the rest of my post or just that line? I'll quote from the article again.
Did the Apollo astronauts use excavation equipment to move around lots of dirt and dust? No they did not.


Dear jra:

Yes, I read your entire post. I’m just trying to go “easy” on you here. But I’ll gladly elaborate further.

What will build up static electricity on the moon is — MOVEMENT. And the astronauts did plenty of that. As we can recall, they were hopping and jumping-jacking and practically running around all over the lunar landscape. And they were speeding around in their moon rover at ten miles per hour — which in space surface vehicle terms qualifies as “racing”. The mars sojourner did an ass-hauling 80feet per hour and NASA was highly concerned about its electrostatic accumulation potential.

This is what NASA says: “On the Moon and on Mars, conditions are ideal for triboelectric charging. The soil is drier than desert sand on Earth. That makes it an excellent electrical insulator. Moreover, the soil and most materials used in spacesuits and spacecraft (e.g., aluminized mylar, neoprene-coated nylon, Dacron, urethane-coated nylon, tricot, and stainless steel) are completely unlike each other. When astronauts walk or rovers roll across the ground, their boots or wheels gather electrons as they rub through the gravel and dust. Because the soil is insulating, providing no path to ground, a space suit or rover can build up tremendous triboelectric charge, whose magnitude is yet unknown. And when the astronaut or vehicle gets back to base and touches metal--ZAP! The lights in the base may go out, or worse.”

Well there you have it. ZAP! They’re worried about the LIGHTS AT THE (future) BASE GOING OUT, OR WORSE.

There’s nothing ambiguous about that statement as far as I can tell. Unless you think they’re joking or exaggerating or something. But that would be very unlike NASA. It’s up to you — the readers — to decide.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 08:16 PM
link   
They didn't worry much about static discharges on the Apollo missions because they didn't really worry much about static electricity at all in the late 1960's early 1970's.
The electronic components at that time weren't very susceptible to damage from static electricity, and the ones that were were heavily shielded in lead cases on any space destined vehicles.

I don't have anything to back this up aside from my experience working on old TV's and radios from that time. The thought of wearing a static wrist strap never crossed my mind back then.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 08:25 PM
link   


If you can find any pics of Astronauts with the Earth in the backdrop I'd be very pleased to see them, no matter how small the Earth is in them.


Here's one... www.answers.com...

Found by refining your Google search string...
images.google.com...
...and scrolling to the third result page.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nemithesis


If you can find any pics of Astronauts with the Earth in the backdrop I'd be very pleased to see them, no matter how small the Earth is in them.

Here's one... www.answers.com...


And the official NASA version... www.hq.nasa.gov...

While on this slight tangent to the OP, I can't help but note the radius of the horizon in that photo. It sure doesn't seem even possible when in comparison with pretty much any other Apollo moon photo ever taken.

And another version on wikipedia... en.wikipedia.org...:Apollo17.jpg

There is no way on earth or in space that he's standing on the surface of the moon in that photo! Yet there is a shadow of the flag on the moon....

[edit on 13-12-2006 by Nemithesis]



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nemithesis


If you can find any pics of Astronauts with the Earth in the backdrop I'd be very pleased to see them, no matter how small the Earth is in them.


Here's one... www.answers.com...

Found by refining your Google search string...
images.google.com...
...and scrolling to the third result page.



Thank you. I couldn't have looked hard enough.


apc

posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 08:48 PM
link   
Uggggg.... [insert TOS violating statement here].

Simply moving around does not build up a very strong static charge. You need friction to strip electrons from an insulator giving it a strong positive charge relative to a neutral or negatively charged conductor. The amount of charge that is built up depends entirely on the materials used in the insulating surfaces and whatever is touching them. And even more factors determine how much voltage is generated. Anything under 4 or 5,000 volts is usually not noticable to flesh, so you can imagine what effect it would have on a big metal buggy (hint: not much).

As to the woulda coulda shoulda... Holy Freakin' God.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nemithesis
They didn't worry much about static discharges on the Apollo missions because they didn't really worry much about static electricity at all in the late 1960's early 1970's.
The electronic components at that time weren't very susceptible to damage from static electricity, and the ones that were were heavily shielded in lead cases on any space destined vehicles.

I don't have anything to back this up aside from my experience working on old TV's and radios from that time. The thought of wearing a static wrist strap never crossed my mind back then.

Dear Nemithesis:

NASA on 10-Aug-2005: “a space suit or rover can build up tremendous triboelectric charge, whose magnitude is yet unknown.”

My question here is, how can the magnitude of the “triboelectric” charge buildup be still unknown if we’ve already been to the moon with astronauts and a giant rover (sized only a step-down from a “Hemi”). That flatly doesn’t make any sense. To send equipment and men to the moon — and then worry about possible problems nearly forty years later. That’s absurd. If electronics were more shock proof back in the sixties, NASA would have made that the issue. In no case could they — after already having been there — claim the electrostatic-generating conditions on the Moon as indeterminable.

But in closing I have to re-emphasize my respect and admiration for NASA. I’m almost tempted to as a moderator to close this thread, for fear of it being counter-productive. It’s not NASA’s fault that they were assigned unrealizable goals. They were truly given a “mission impossible”. NASA scientists are our best. And they work their “behinds” off. The demands placed on astronauts are inhuman. They are expected to have multiple advanced degrees with perfect grades and scores. They virtually risk their lives for laughable pay. They joke about this — but would you want to ride on top of a rocket (essentially a giant bomb) built by the “lowest bidder”? I feel for those guys, I really do. I for one wouldn’t ride the space shuttle, not for all the tea in China. Private corporations make lots of money supplying NASA and I’m not so sure they’re adequately concerned about the safety of the astronauts versus their profitability interests.

So, I want my admiration for NASA to be fully understood here. In my opinion we should swap its funding with our defense budget. That is my position.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 12/13/2006 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods

Dear Nemithesis:

NASA on 10-Aug-2005: “a space suit or rover can build up tremendous triboelectric charge, whose magnitude is yet unknown.”

My question here is, how can the magnitude of the “triboelectric” charge buildup be still unknown if we’ve already been to the moon with astronauts and a giant rover (sized only a step-down from a “Hemi”). That flatly doesn’t make any sense. To send equipment and men to the moon — and then worry about possible problems nearly forty years later. That’s absurd. If electronics were more shock proof back in the sixties, NASA would have made that the issue. In no case could they — after already having been there — claim the electrostatic-generating conditions on the Moon as indeterminable.


I understand the point, or error rather, that you are trying to make, but to directly answer your question (that doesn't have a question mark): The triboelectric charge was not measured in the Apollo days because there was no reason to measure it.

They never thought to measure automobile exhaust emissions back then either, but it sure is a big deal today!

[edit on 13-12-2006 by Nemithesis]



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 09:10 PM
link   
I think everyone has missed a subtle, yet obvious point. The article states that “The soil is drier than desert sand on Earth”

Ok, then how do you explain the famous astronaut “boot print” picture. They claim that the original astronauts boot prints are still on the moon to this day, given there is no atmosphere (thus no weather to erode the footprints).

But to make a lasting clear boot print, the soils MUST contain some moisture. In fact, have a look at this so called boot print on the moon –it looks like dry cement or coloured talcum powder!

Boot Print

So who do we believe? If the moon soil is dryer than a desert, then there is no way you could leave a boot print.

But if the boot print is real, then that blows the whole static electricity theory.

For me, the boot prints are FAKE.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 09:17 PM
link   
here are some links I found trying to search for more than a few photos of them taking soil samples from the moon and the last one has mpeg videos of neil a. putting up the flag!
nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...
www.psrd.hawaii.edu...
planetaryprotection.nasa.gov...
spaceflight.nasa.gov...

I couldnt find many photos which they say every sample they took pictures for reference, but there is lots of soil and the soil is expensive maybe they can test their static chargeusing some of those.
I don't know but I thought this might help



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Your article is a very good find! Alas, I haven't any links to give you for positive proof, but when I was fourteen, I and several other of my classmates, used a telescope and observed the landing on the moon in '69! One of my classmate's father's had a very powerful telescope,(powerful at the the time,LOL!), and was a bit of a geek. He set it up and we all took turns observing. Just my 2cents!


jra

posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by WatchNLearn
But to make a lasting clear boot print, the soils MUST contain some moisture. In fact, have a look at this so called boot print on the moon –it looks like dry cement or coloured talcum powder!

For me, the boot prints are FAKE.


Have you ever seen flour that's used for baking? Have you ever tried taking something like say a cup and pressed it into a bowl of flour? If so, you'll notice that it holds the shape without being wet at all. The lunar dust is a very fine but rough powder that sticks together. Unlike sand at the beach or in the desert that is more smooth and rounded from being weathered.

Go get some flour and a bowl and go play with it, seriously. You can make all sorts of imprints that will hold there shape as long as they aren't disturbed. No water needed.

apc: Well said. The Apollo astronauts could have built up a bit of a charge, but not enough to do any harm. As the article states:


Because the soil is insulating, providing no path to ground, a space suit or rover can build up tremendous triboelectric charge, whose magnitude is yet unknown.


Merely hopping and driving around on the surface doesn't create nearly as much friction as digging and excavating would.

[edit on 13-12-2006 by jra]



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by WatchNLearn
If the moon soil is dryer than a desert, then there is no way you could leave a boot print.


Why not?



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by NemithesisI understand the point, or error rather, that you are trying to make, but to directly answer your question (that doesn't have a question mark): The triboelectric charge was not measured in the Apollo days because there was no reason to measure it.


Dear Nemithesis:

O.k. — if back in the Apollo days the triboelectric charge was not measured because as you say “there was no reason to measure it” — then why not “play it safe” and go back to the moon with the exact same shock and static proof equipment used back then?

NASA could do this at least for the “next” mission just to be on the cautious side. They could bring all the necessary equipment with them to then measure — for the first time! — the actual electrostatic charge accumulation scenarios. Hey, there’s no need for NASA to take unnecessary chances. Let's fire up the Saturn 5. What are we waiting for!

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



[edit on 12/13/2006 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods

Dear Nemithesis:

O.k. — if back in the Apollo days the triboelectric charge was not measured because as you say “there was no reason to measure it” — then why not “play it safe” and go back to the moon with the exact same shock and static proof equipment used back then?


For the same reason that Ford is not going to make another 1969 Ford Torino-Talladega.
To make a car like that today would cost a fortune, who could afford it?
Not to mention that it would be hard to find engineers that can duplicate the technology of that time period.

I'm not disputing whether or not we actually sent a man to the moon, in fact I'm leaning towards a complete fabrication of the entire event. I'm merely pointing out that some of these "proof" arguments are not scientifically backed up.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join