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: 7
114
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Thanks, Phage, for making it better. THAT is what I was trying to say!

I'm just a little rusty on the details, that's all.

WW!




posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 12:46 AM
link   
Another fine (and kind of awesome) point to realize:

Once the LM left Earth orbit and until it entered Lunar orbit, it was orbiting only the sun, all by its lonesome.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Nice ! What is that called ? I bet it's good for causing some major brain drain.

I think calculators have caused people to forget how to think, they are a great improvement in complex calculations but take away the thinking part to a certain degree.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Grayarea
 


It's called.... (are you ready?)

A circular slide rule!



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Thank you, I have never seen one before now.

Guess that's why I like ATS, always something new to learn



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Nope.

The force is proportional to the product of their masses.


That's old school
You need to read "Gravitational Forces of the Sun" by Pari Spolter



And I still have my circular slide rule



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Phage....HUH!?!

The LM was orbiting the Moon, as the entire Earth-Moon system (with the tiny LM orbiting the Moon) was orbiting the Sun!

All the while, our entire Solar System was orbiting about something else, MAYBE the center of the Galaxy?

The 'dance' is indeed complex, but on a Galactic Scale outside the realm of Human comprehension.

Flow back to our own Solar System, the one we've been observing for millenia....now it becomes familiar again.

While the LM is orbiting the Moon at about 5,200 mph, it stays in orbit. Stays long enough to settle down, after settling in....after LOS, on the Farside, until telemetry is re-acquired.

If the TLI was wrong, the Apollos would have done a 'sling-shot' around the 'farside' of the Moon, and would not have had sufficient fuel to course-correct their trajectory back to Earth.

The other 'nightmare scenario' would have been a trajectory (the 'TLI'...or, 'Trans-Lunar Insertion' trajectory) that would have resulted in a spiralling, destructive collison course with the Moon.

So, if the gravity of the Moon isn't what's expected, then calculations would be off so much, if you are using celestial mechanics as your means...and don't have some sort of 'secret' propulsion engiines.....you'd be dead. Crashed on the surface, no survivors. Or, spun out of the Earth-Mon system, no way home....not enough fuel to alter your trajectory....UNLESS you have this alien tech, which is not yet been established to exist on Apollo.

Whew!! OK, Ball is in the next court!!



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
However, now it gets complicated....the Earth/Moon 'system' (almost could be considered a double planet) could be simultaneously influenced by the Sun's gravity....hence, the uncertainty of the Moon's orbit, in the next five Billion years.



So as an alleged pilot... you are now suddenly an expert on orbital mechanics?

Oh wait I got it... You stayed at a Holiday Inn




posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Z, I have a circular slide-rule too....obsolete, it is.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


No, it was a 'Holiday Inn EXPRESS!'

Just tryin' to say, for the record: WHO, hereon ATS, has disproved Copernicus, or Brahe? Or Galileo?

Please, I will willingly become a convert, if you show how planetary orbits and motions, after centuries of observations, can be shown to be wrong.

I'm talking about Mercury, Venus, Mars and Jupiter....(possibbly Satrun as well).

Centuries of observations, by people starting with Copernicus, Brahe, Galileo.....and now, modern Astronomy to help refine the observations of the 'founders'....not to refute what they observed, but to make their obsvervations ever more accurate, using the increasingly more precise technology that is being developed every decade.

ADD to this modern spectroposcacy (sp?) The ability to discern the atmospheric composition of a planet's atmosphere, from a distance, by examining, with a spectrograph, how the various elements in the atmosphere can be measured as a star, with a known spectrograph from previous observation, is eclipsed by the planet being studied.

Thus, an approximation of the planet's atmosphere can be determined.

I'm sorry...science trumps belief.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 01:38 AM
link   
To the OP

While you seem to have done quite a bit of research, a couple of questions and possible flaws.

With respect to the lack of an atmosphere, it is known there is an atomsphere, it is just slight and constantly decreasing due to solar winds and being replinshed by the moon itself(gas from rocks). It does have an atmosphere it is just not breathable or even useful.

source

www.sciencedaily.com...

The basis of your claim that the moon seems to have 2/3 Earth Gravity (EG) is that the NP changes from 24000 to 38000 over a total distance of 250000. (These numbers are rounded slightly for ease calcs later) If you claim an increase of 400% (1/6 EG to 2/3 or 4/6 EG) then the NP would not move so slightly. The NP as per your defintion is the point where Earth and the moon act upon another object(The Lander) equally. Since we are trying to find the point of equal force then all the variables in the equation for gravity cancel out execpt for the Mass and Distance of the Earth and Moon relative to the object.

For comparison if you have to large equal mass objects on either side of an object then the NP would be Dead center.

Now when you increase the Moon Mass by 400% you have changed the distance by about 150% to previous (38000/24000). Or less then 6% of the total Distance being discussed (14000/250000). For the Mass to increase to 2/3 EG the NP would move a lot more then the descrepency being discussed.

Also, as you stated they do not fly a straight line, however gravity does work on a straight line. Your NP is based on staight line. Since the path is not a line the forces of gravity would form a triangle with the NP straight line and therefore cause the Lander to be affected at a greater distance then it seems it should, due to the nonlinear path.

While I recognize the effort put into your post there are some definite flaws in the math.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


WW, my bad! The wheel wells of the shuttle ain't pressurized but remember that those wheels cannot be compared to those on the buggy. For one they are inflated to 300 psi with a cushion of 14 psi to cater for the orbital altitude which is between 250-300km.

Now where the altitude is concerned, remember the shuttles are in LEO. We're talking about the buggy in deep space with zero pressure. And the wheels of the buggy aren't solid wire mesh. They're inflated with Nitrogen. But yes, they have a covering of a flexible mesh shown below:



Would this prevent the tires from exploding in deep space? Probably. Probably not!

Cheers!



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


My tire pressure on my car (if I'm paying attention) = 30psi
Atmospheric pressure at sea level = 14 psi (+/-)
Atmospheric pressure in space = 0 psi
Pressure differential between space and my house: 14 - 0 = 14 psi
My tire pressure in space: 30 + 14 = 44psi

Give me a break, I've accidentally gone up to 60 psi and my tire held. 14 psi differential is peanuts.

If my tires pop at 44 psi I'm going to be really, angry. I will stomp my feet. I will jump up and down. Luckily, I will still be on Earth so I won't hit the ceiling.

[edit on 12-9-2008 by Phage]



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


Mike....yup!

I am not computer savvy enough to pull a link from a certain Wikipedia article paragraph....but when I read it, it said something about a .003 inch diameter steel wire, encased in something, woven into the shape of a tyre, with titanium pieces to help with the traction (those are the things you see in pictures, look like chevrons) ...the steel wire, as I said, was covered with something. I DO remember that the fully expanded diameter of all the wheels was 32 inches...see, they were collapsible, to be able to be stored in the descent module...

There was a 'spun aluminum hub'....that likely attached to the drive shaft of each electric motor, that powered each wheel. The 'tread' was provided by the re-inforced steel wire, with the added titanium traction pieces....titanium, strong yet light!!! Also, an internal support of some sort is mentioned, but it is NOT an inner tube!!

This may seem a bit off-topic, but the idea of electrically controlling a wheel was not new, even back in the early 1970s.

I'm a bit of a train buff, besides my aeronautical and aerospace knowledge, such as it is.

Modern 'diesel' locomotives actually use the diesel engine to power electrical systems to drive ELECTRIC motors at each wheel.

If you study modern diesel locos, you will see some that are adapted with what's called 'dynamic braking'. They generally are used on routes with steep grades. There are extra 'heat sinks' on the top of the 'main body'...to help dissipate the heat....the excess heat generated as the electric motors, instead of 'pulling', have to act as brakes, on steep declines. The excess heat must be dissipated....manual brakes would wear out too easily.

Anyhow....this, though it is an engineering aspect, does apply....because whether it's a train or a spacecraft, using engineering principles that we all should understand, there is no free ride.

HOWEVER, as I've said before....If Mike Singh is correct, the our entire paradigm MUST shift!

Personally....I hope Mike is right. I WANT to see Star Trek technology....or, at least, the beginnings of ST tech...anything, to whet my appetite.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 02:34 AM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


Mike....I've flown commercial jets for almost 22 years.. Guess what? Our tyres are also filled with nitrogen!

My automobile tyres, yes....regular air, of course.

I used to have a bicycle....didn't have access to pure nitrogen, so I used air...

Commercial jet tyres...I've been down on the ramp, seen the maintenance facilities, seen the warning signs....they 'build up' wheels, and store them in racks, in case a quick change is needed.

The Mechanics can get a jack under (tell us to release the Parking Brake...they assure us we are fully chocked...and they can remove and replace a wheel/tyre in under 30 minutes)

Depending on whether fueiling is going on, they may have to wait....but that is their business, not ours.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by mikesingh
 


My tire pressure on my car (if I'm paying attention) = 30psi
Atmospheric pressure at sea level = 14 psi (+/-)
Atmospheric pressure in space = 0 psi
Pressure differential between space and my house: 14 - 0 = 14 psi
My tire pressure in space: 30 + 14 = 44psi

Give me a break, I've accidentally gone up to 60 psi and my tire held. 14 psi differential is peanuts.

If my tires pop at 44 psi I'm going to be really, angry. I will stomp my feet. I will jump up and down. Luckily, I will still be on Earth so I won't hit the ceiling.

[edit on 12-9-2008 by Phage]


You are partly correct, just add the ultra-high vacuum of space to the formula(vacuum increases with distance from earth) and I'm sure you could design a tire for space.

I can see the nitrogen being used because it's inert, less chance of corrosion. It's commonly used when storing pressure vessls for long periods, it prevents internal corrosion.

The pressure/vacuum calculation have been around for some time now so it's not hard to design for space, which is classed as a partial vacuum. The space suits are designed for this, why not the tires ?



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grayarea

You are partly correct, just add the ultra-high vacuum of space to the formula(vacuum increases with distance from earth) and I'm sure you could design a tire for space.



An ultra-high vacuum has a pressure of less than zero? I'm afraid I'm not following you.

The difference in pressure between sea level pressure and a total vacuum (if there were such a thing) is 14 psi.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra
What kind of "extraordinary feats" are you looking for?

I’m not looking for extraordinary feats. I’m looking for ordinary feats that would be expected on a celestial body with near zero atmos and 16% the gravity of earth.

Jumping high? They did that. Armstrong jumped up from the ground to the third step of the LM ladder. That's about 5 to 6 feet.

Unless we secretly sent Michael Jordan in place of Armstrong, that’s incredibly unlikely. I doubt that Armstrong’s vertical jump is anywhere near 32-37 inches. Which is what he would have needed to perform a jump like this without the space suite!

An astronaut on a different mission (I forget which one at the moment) did some free standing jumps. He got up to about 4 feet, but again, due to the PLSS on his back which affects ones center of mass. He tipped over and landed on his back. He was very lucky that no damage happened to his PLSS.

Sounds right


Also, astronauts weighed more than 180lbs. With a fully loaded space suit they were about 300lbs which is about 50lbs on the Moon.

Their weight is of no consequence in correlation to their ability to jump high. Shaquille O’neal can jump 3 inches more off the ground than I can. And he’s double my weight.

And don't forget that they still have 300lbs of mass regardless of the amount of gravity.

This would have cut their possible moon vertical in half, so they would be able to jump roughly 2 and half feet off the ground. This contradicts your other claim that Armstrong jumped 5 to 6 feet up a ladder.

And when you're comparing how high some one jumps on Earth to that of the astronauts on the Moon. Are you comparing it to some one wearing the same space suit on Earth? It would only be fair, since those suits are heavy, bulky and stiff.

Yes I am.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

What leads you to believe that the plumes should have been 60 feet high? What calculations lead you to that conclusion?

Lack of atmospheric inertia would suggest that the plumes of dust should have reached considerable heights in contrast to the footage. What heights exactly, I do not know. But they should be higher than that expected on earth. Much higher.

The fact that the dust returned to the ground shows that there is indeed no atmosphere (or not enough of one) to affect the particles of dust.

Sounds logical


If there were an atmosphere, the dust would have remained suspended in it, like it would on Earth. But it all falls with no atmospheric resistance. The dust "waves" have nothing to do with an atmosphere. They're caused by the rover bouncing up and down as it drives over the bumpy surface.
The problem I have with this, is that it doesn’t appear to be dust devoid of moisture; if it is in fact dust. I’m more inclined to guess that the particles being dispersed by the rover are more to the likeness of fine clay.

You can clearly see that the rover is bouncing as it's moving and the tires kick up more dust when they dig into the ground more, creating "waves". Have you ever witnessed a car driving down a dirt road? The dust clouds and billows and remains suspended in the air for a while. It looks nothing like what's shown in the video of the Rover.
Yes, but in the absence of an atmosphere and in low gravity conditions, you would expect the “dust” to be propelled further and faster into the “air”.


Thanks for your insight on the space suites


[edit on 9/12/2008 by JPhish]



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 03:50 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


JP....you tore apart jra....and I do not ever do that, I really am appalled when people take a selected quote, then respond....

However....there is one point that should be clarified, and I think it lends confusion to the entire issue.

It is about Armstrong's testing as to whether he could climb back aboard the Lander, after he had already dropped down to the Pad.

He was ALREADY on the pad, ladies and gentlemen!!! IF he could not have gotten back up the ladder, then we would have a memorial to dead Neil Armstrong, on the Moon....and Aldrin would not have come out!!!

Armstrong knew he could get back up....at least, in the simulations on Earth. AND, it wasn't (sorry jra) just about jumping....he had his HANDS on the ladder, folks!!! Sheesh!! If you 'weighed' about 65 pounds, couldn't you pull yourself up a little bit?

(This is one/sixth of the estimated weight of Neil, plus his EVA suit...and I rounded UP!)

So, next sillly argument?



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by JPhish
 


JP....you tore apart jra....and I do not ever do that, I really am appalled when people take a selected quote, then respond....

I’m sorry, I tend to be a bit caustic; but it was not my intention. Jra and I have had civilized discussions in the past, which normally lead to me agreeing with him. I’m sure he understands that I’m just applying my laymen’s logic in an attempt to understand a complicated scenario without blindly accepting information.

I didn’t select quotes. I quote things in sections to be more precise when asking and answering particular questions so that it is easier to read in sequence. I quoted his entire post and even agreed with him on several points made . . . The only thing I didn’t quote was his information on the spacesuit temperature conditioning systems. But I thanked him for the information in accordance! I was not being sarcastic when I gave him a “thumb up” . . .

For future reference, when I’m being sarcastic. I use tildes

“I’m being sarcastic~”


Armstrong knew he could get back up....at least, in the simulations on Earth. AND, it wasn't (sorry jra) just about jumping....he had his HANDS on the ladder, folks!!! Sheesh!! If you 'weighed' about 65 pounds, couldn't you pull yourself up a little bit?
I assumed he had his hands on the ladder, because that’s the only way it would make sense. I didn’t want to jump
to conclusions in opposed to what Jra was saying though, because I’ve not actually seen that video.

However; if Armstrong is 5’11’’ and has an average wingspan, when his arms are stretched upwards he can grab something up to 7 feet high with his hands. It does not seem there would be jumping required at all if the ladder was any less than 7 feet tall.


So, next sillly argument?

Silly argument? You pretty much proved my point . . . the point that Armstrong jumping 6 feet high onto a ladder is inaccurate. More so, I’ve demonstrated that he may have not even needed to jump at all if the figures you’ve given me are accurate. Jra was using this as evidence that Armstrong jumped high up the ladder. The data shows otherwise for me at the moment.

I await jras return because he seems well versed on these matters, while I am not.

[edit on 9/12/2008 by JPhish]



new topics

top topics



 
114
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join