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.

 

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

page: 10
114
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Moon Storms

That's what I said... Moon Storms
Big nasty ones that follow the terminator in a long line of moving dust...

Hey don't shoot the messenger... I am only telling you what your favorite space agency says... well at least what they say today... they DO have a tendancy to change their tune a lot



December 7, 2005: Every lunar morning, when the sun first peeks over the dusty soil of the moon after two weeks of frigid lunar night, a strange storm stirs the surface.

The next time you see the moon, trace your finger along the terminator, the dividing line between lunar night and day. That's where the storm is. It's a long and skinny dust storm, stretching all the way from the north pole to the south pole, swirling across the surface, following the terminator as sunrise ceaselessly sweeps around the moon.

Never heard of it? Few have. But scientists are increasingly confident that the storm is real.


Now you can call me Mike and John nut cases all you want, but what are ya gonna do when NASA backs us up?



science.nasa.gov...




posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 09:17 PM
link   
aww geez...........Im becoming this HUGE 'Zorgon groupey'........

I think I am going to get me a T-shirt printed up with his avatar on the front



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by theRiverGoddess


Actually we were thinking of this one designed by Teracoma...




posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 09:31 PM
link   
Recently the ESA Lunar Probe Smart 1 impacted on the Lunar surface, raising a plume of dust high into the atmosphere... Atmosphere?

The event was captured on film by several sources and does indeed clearly show a plume of dust, and both NASA and ESA call it a "plume", despite what we have been told about the density of the atmosphere.

Impact Dust Cloud
Smart 1 Impact Raises Dust Plume




FULL SIZE

The rectangles above are 2 meters by 3 meters square... and taken several minutes apart...

Caption from ESA website...

This mosaic was built with infrared images taken by the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope (CFHT) 3 September 2006, and shows the flash and the dust cloud that followed the SMART-1 impact. The 15 exposures that make up the mosaic start with the one taken at the time of the flash. Courtesy of ESA/CFHT. ID number: SEM3353VRRE

ESA Impact Dust Cloud

Notice the dispersal pattern over the 6 sq km area...

Here it is in animation... Flash and Burn






[edit on 12-9-2008 by zorgon]



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 10:51 PM
link   
Wow, Zorgon! your posts were pretty eye opening! But try selling this to the die hards!


But hey, their teachers with short frocks taught them something different a decade back! You see, they've learned everything that has to be ever learned and there's nothing more left! Remember someone half a century ago calculated with lengthy equations that it was impossible to send anything out in space? Oh well!
Nuff said!



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Nice, I remember that, just never seen any pictures of it. One thing I find interesting is:



The SMART-1 impact took place on the near side of the Moon, in a dark area just near the terminator (the line separating the day side from the night side), at a grazing angle of about one degree and a speed of about 2 kilometres per second.

sci.esa.int...

At that angle, with a dense atmosphere, would it not just skip off and head into space ?
At that speed, how far could the ejected debri travel with or without wind resistance, and to what elevation ?
The intervals of the clips would suggest some major hang-time on the dust. I'm not sure if this would mean atmosphere or extreme elevation of dust due to the violent impact.

I'm not saying there is NO atmosphere, I just think that it would not have a high density with a lower gravity, as compared to earth.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh
Wow, Zorgon! your posts were pretty eye opening! But try selling this to the die hards!


I don't have to Mike...

THIS time it's NASA itself that is doing the talking... Its gonna put the debunkers in a quandry... no matter what they will have to admit to CLOUDS on the MOON... either that or tell us NASA is lying...



I was saving this for the right occasion


[edit on 12-9-2008 by zorgon]



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grayarea
At that angle, with a dense atmosphere, would it not just skip off and head into space ?


You are making a mistake here... not even John has ever said DENSE atmosphere... we are talking a very thin atmosphere with no water vapour and breathable at ground level for a very short period... no higher than a few thousand feet and denser in the craters on farside

Just to be clear...



Not fair to debate when you don't know what he says



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Grayarea
At that angle, with a dense atmosphere, would it not just skip off and head into space ?


You are making a mistake here... not even John has ever said DENSE atmosphere... we are talking a very thin atmosphere with no water vapour and breathable at ground level for a very short period... no higher than a few thousand feet and denser in the craters on farside

Just to be clear...



Not fair to debate when you don't know what he says


Sorry, I'm not saying anyone said it was dense, just that if it was, would it not skip off.



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Grayarea

Yes if it was dense it might bounce off



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Retseh
I checked just one "fact" at random from this entire ramble.
The author states that the Moon Buggy had nitrogen inflated tires which would have exploded in a vacuum.

One small problem - the tires are solid:
=====================================
From wiki

The wheels consisted of a spun aluminum hub and a 32 inch diameter, 9 inch wide tire made of zinc coated woven 0.033 inch diameter steel strands attached to the rim and discs of formed aluminum. Titanium chevrons covered 50 percent of the contact area to provide traction. Inside the tire was a 25.5 inch diameter bump stop frame to protect the hub.

So you've finished your ramble too? Ok. Now get a load of this..

You are probably aware that Nitrogen is used in commercial and military aircraft; military vehicles; heavy off-road construction equipment; and the Space Shuttle? The Moon Buggy had its tires inflated with nitrogen too. I suggest you read the details in the manuals provided by the companies that have provided the wherewithal for the Moon buggies! Kreska Tech will probably tell you more!

Testing was conducted in desert areas where the buggy encountered a great deal of cactus and mesquite thorns, resulting in many flats and costly delays in the scheduled test program. NASA purchased Ultraseal for the Lunar Moon Buggy's pneumatic test tires during R&D testing on Earth. If non pneumatic solid mesh tires were used on the Moon, then why weren’t these used during the tests? Why nitrogen filled pneumatic tires? Doesn’t add up what?

And then, why did the blueprints and plans for the Lunar Module and Moon Buggies which were used during Apollo 15-17 destroyed if this was one of History's greatest accomplishments? What did they want to hide?

Now it's your turn to ramble. But keep Wiki out of this as it depends on official handouts dished out by NASA.

Cheers!



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 05:41 AM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


Oh dear, oh dear....I'm gonna get a flaming, since this wasn't directed towards me...but I have insomnia, so here goes:

The entire LRV had to folded in order to fit into the compartment in the descent stage. Unless, Mike, you wish to imply that ALL of the LMs were faked?

Anyway, it seems apparent to me that those wheels collapsed, or better said, could be collapsed flat to facilitate the storage. Ain't gonna happen with four 32" diameter nitrogen-inflated rubber tyres.

Besides, a rubber tyre is far, far more heavy than a wire mesh.

As to the testing? I would venture one guess....the actual design of the wheels was still to be determined. Lilkely you might be focusing on ONE aspect of early testing, to demonstrate viability of, say, the electric motors that drive the wheels, the batteries, etc. Substituting regualar rubber tyres seems infinitely cheaper, and easier, than using the real wheels, at least in early stages. AND....not sure the actual wheels used on the Lunar surface were sufficiently strong in Earth's gravity....ever think of that?



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Anyway, it seems apparent to me that those wheels collapsed, or better said, could be collapsed flat to facilitate the storage. Ain't gonna happen with four 32" diameter nitrogen-inflated rubber tyres.

Oh yes! With auto CO2 actuators/inflators! You know how those darn things work!
So that answers your question of storage!


Besides, a rubber tyre is far, far more heavy than a wire mesh.

Well, that depends upon a number of factors like composition, thickness, etc.


As to the testing? I would venture one guess....the actual design of the wheels was still to be determined. Lilkely you might be focusing on ONE aspect of early testing, to demonstrate viability of, say, the electric motors that drive the wheels, the batteries..


Viability of a system test is validated using the same type of equipment you are finally going to use. I mean, you can't test a system as a whole having different parameters! Electric motors required to test power weight ratios would vary considerably in different configurations with results of little or no consequence to the end product!


The Moon Buggy had its tires inflated with nitrogen.
By The Tire Retread Information Bureau
Publication: Construction Bulletin
Date: Friday, December 16 2005


These were made by Goodyear. Have a look at them at the Akron, Ohio - Goodyear World of Rubber Museum. Now I'm not for a moment contending that the tires were solid rubber. The wheels consisted of a spun aluminum hub and tire made of zinc coated steel strands attached to the rim. Titanium chevrons covered 50 percent of the contact area to provide traction. All this covered a thin rubber tube that was inflated with Nitrogen.

Cheers!


[edit on 13-9-2008 by mikesingh]



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 06:49 AM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


hello,

Not really as this could have been done if the moon once HAD but now hasn't

Also, and i m no scientist so im only posing a question

what about solar radiation, solar winds etc? would these have an effect on the landscape?

david



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 07:00 AM
link   
reply to post by adrenochrome
 


why do you need an atmosphere for gravity? surely gravity can exists without one, cant it?



david



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


Ah....so you're jumping from CO2 cartridges, to nitrogen? In one post?

I'll admit, the GoodYear link is interesting....and I'll check it out...so riddle me this: Why confuse the issue with the discussion about getting flats whilst testing in the deserts of Earth?

We can certainly agree, no? that the main structure, the actual tread surface of the wheels is metal. (this would be the titanium pieces, angled as they are seen in the photo). This light-weight mesh had to be supported somehow, and attached in some way to the spun aluminum hubs, which were then attached to the axles...which are really the shafts of the electric motors.

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

What say you?

edit for text, spelling

[edit on 9/13/0808 by weedwhacker]

UPDATE...tried linking to the Goodyear Museum website....darned if they didn't also use that apalling term 'Moon Buggy'! But, alas, no pictures, and no mention. (For clarity's sake, its designation is the LRV)

Did find a site of interest....astronautix.com





[edit on 9/13/0808 by weedwhacker]



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by drevill
What about solar radiation, solar winds etc? would these have an effect on the landscape?
david


Yep! They would have fried your butt if there was no atmosphere on the Moon!


Without some atmosphere the surface of the Moon would be baldly exposed to cosmic rays and solar flares, and some of that radiation is very hard to stop with shielding. Furthermore, when cosmic rays hit the ground, they produce a dangerous spray of secondary particles. All this radiation penetrating human flesh can damage DNA, boosting the risk of cancer and other maladies.

So to what lengths did NASA take to shield the astronauts against the radiation? The pressure suits may have helped protect the astronauts against heat or micro meteorites, but certainly would not have given any radiation protection.

And to add fuel to the fire, the years 1969 to 1970 were one of the worst to be on the Moon, as this was the time when solar radiation was at its peak.

But the astronauts were having a ball on their buggy, zipping around as though they were in Monte Carlo!


Cheers!


www.hq.nasa.gov...



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 07:54 AM
link   

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

What say you?


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

Cheers!



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


Mike, remember, please....without more obfuscation...Apollo Lunar landings were timed for early local 'morning'.

This, so the surface hadn't had a chance to heat up TOO much from the 14 days of night (is that an oxymoron?) and, since you know there's an atmosphere (!!) just as we cannot get a sunburn in early morning, that 'atmosphere' would have protected them.

I know, I'm a little tongue-in-cheek here, sorry.

BUT, for extended-stay operations, yes there is a danger of prolonged...and I mean PROLONGED exposure. That is likely why the South Pole of the Moon is the best place for a base. Not only is there a sign of water in that location, but it avoids most of the direct sunlight.

The radiation argument has been done to death, hasn't it? YES it's a factor for long-term deep space flight. This is going to be a problem for manned Mars missions.

There are designs I've seen to have some sort of plasma 'shield' for a Mars vehicle....but I digress. Apollo were outside the 'protection' of the VA Belts for just a matter of days...exposures were insignificant, people who spend years working in a hospital near an X-Ray facility probably receive just about the same. Sitting here at my computer I'm being bombarded with untold numbers of particles, the ones that slip through.

But, anyway....we hear there may be a huge gravitational anomaly regarding the Moon...that its centre of gravity is skewed towards the Farside, hence more atmosphere can be retained there. OK, let's think about this one. The Farside is NOT always dark, I think we all realize that. It still is subjected to a 14-day Lunar 'day'. Doesn't the incredible blazing heat of the Sun for those 14 days affect the "atmosphere"? This is a puzzlement.

Secondly, IF the centre of gravity of Luna is offset....then one would think it would have a tendency to cause the Moon to alter its rotation, to settle the "heavier" side nearer the Earth, due to gravitational forces. The Earth is the closest body to the Moon, the Sun exerts some influence, but Earth trumps the Sun.



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


what effect would these things be on non lunar external materials?

how hot would the duck tap get before it combusted for instance?

david



new topics

top topics



 
114
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join