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.

 

Atmosphere on the moon?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 03:07 AM
link   
India to launch Chandrayaan-1 moon mission in October


The spacecraft is scheduled for launch on October 22, five years after the Indian government cleared the project. It will make an entry into the lunar atmosphere for a two-year mission.


Did I just read that right? Maybe it's a translation error or maybe it's a telling slip of the tongue!




posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 03:10 AM
link   
. It seems like they made a big mistake. Or someone's trying to tell the world there's atmosphere on the Moon?



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 04:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Shere Khaan
 


Of course the moon has a limited atmosphere, it always has. Any body large enough to exert gravitational influence has an atmosphere of some description. I wouldn't recommend going outside in it though as it is extremely thin.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 04:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Shere Khaan
 


The moon has a limited atmosphere. All large bodies capable of sustaining gravity also have limited atmospheres (this might be just a few molecules per metre but its still classed as atmosphere.)



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Kryties
 


Maybe they meant the "heavily laden with conspiracy" atmosphere that surrounds the moon?



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 04:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Shere Khaan
 


There is a very slight atmosphere on the moon- nothing substantial or else we wouldn't be able to see the mountains and craters as clearly as we do- a thick lunar atmosphere would distort them!



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 04:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Shere Khaan
 


This will be a great addition to mikesingh's thread

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

[edit on 26-9-2008 by Deaf Alien]



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 09:31 AM
link   
It's a translation error, most likely. It's a Chinese-language site, translated into English. Read some of the other stories on the site and notice the odd grammar and word choice.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Yep their sure is one up there.



Elsmore points out that the moon's gravitation is too feeble to hold comparatively light gases like the oxygen and nitrogen in the earth's atmosphere. Any gas molecules that hang around the moon for long must be much heavier. But the moon may have in addition a temporary atmosphere made of helium and argon given off by radioactivity in the moon's rocks and of other light gases escaping from the moon's interior or contributed by the vaporization of meteors hitting the surface. Elsmore figures that if the moon's atmosphere is half permanent (heavy) and half temporary (light), it will be something like one five-trillionth (2 x 10¯¹³) as dense as the earth's atmosphere.


www.time.com...

More there



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by timelike
reply to post by Shere Khaan
 


There is a very slight atmosphere on the moon- nothing substantial or else we wouldn't be able to see the mountains and craters as clearly as we do- a thick lunar atmosphere would distort them!


I don't know. Earth's atmosphere is pretty thick, yet we can make out all kinds of stuff on earth pretty clearly from space.

Edit to add: This brings up another point I've just thought about. Why, when you view videos shot from space, of the dark side of the earth, don't lights on earth "twinkle" like the stars do? You would think that the "twinkle" would work both ways, if it was due to atmospheric distortion.

[edit on 26-9-2008 by sir_chancealot]



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 


I think theres a strong possibility that the link you provided fits the case better, which would actually make the moons atmosphere 2/3 of ours. I don't believe its breathable as Mr. Lear maintains however, there is a notable lack of water and plant life. I also do not concur with his current credo that the Apollo landing was a hoax, as due to the atmosphere, they didn't have enough fuel for the return trip. There was no reason to hoax this, no one twisted their arms to actually set foot on the moon, but depending on what was on the moon, there are many reasons to hide the truth.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by sir_chancealot
I don't know. Earth's atmosphere is pretty thick, yet we can make out all kinds of stuff on earth pretty clearly from space.

You can also easily spot earth's atmosphere when looking at the earth's limb from space. The blue haze of the atmosphere at the edge of the earth's image is unmistakable, in fact.
www2.jpl.nasa.gov...
www.selvet.dk...
It becomes even more obvious at modest magnifications:
lpc1.clpccd.cc.ca.us...
science.nationalgeographic.com...
So the question I must ask anyone who thinks the moon has an atmosphere is this; where is it? It does not show up in any high resolution photos at all. There's no haze, there's nothing at all to indicate the presence of a lunar atmosphere. If there were anything there at any reasonable fraction of earth's atmosphere we should see something.
www.astronomycameras.com...
i.pbase.com...


Edit to add: This brings up another point I've just thought about. Why, when you view videos shot from space, of the dark side of the earth, don't lights on earth "twinkle" like the stars do?

Because lights on earth are nowhere close to being point light sources as viewed from earth orbit - light from cities tends to clump together. Even lit street lights clump together as seen from space. Therefore, we shouldn't expect them to twinkle any more than we expect planets to twinkle.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by mystiq
 


I also do not concur with his current credo that the Apollo landing was a hoax, as due to the atmosphere, they didn't have enough fuel for the return trip. Im not quite sure I understand that part of your post.. which trip to the moon are you talking about that didnt have enough fuel for the return trip.. as far as I know.. they went to the moon nine times.. there was one trip.. where they had to turn back.. because they were running low on oxygen to breath.. they made a movie about it.. .. is that the one you meant??



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 11:03 PM
link   
What he's saying now is that due to the atmosphere existing the moonlanding was a hoax, because this changes fuel consumption and therefore they wouldn't have enough for the return trip home. On both the Open Mind forums and Project Avalon. No matter how they do the math, they had no reason to hoax this event, the human race wasn't expecting it to happen at that moment. They have far more incentive behind spreading these rumors to protect their secrets obtained at the expense of the paying public. When everyone is expecting disclosure and truth to occur this direction is more than an insult, but its outrageous. They really believe they are all that, and more, and may grind humanity under their heels and treat us as brainless slaves. This new talk of atmosphere, which should lead to more discoveries, instead is a tool suddenly being used to seal the truth off from us forever.

[edit on 26-9-2008 by mystiq]



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by mystiq
No matter how they do the math, they had no reason to hoax this event, the human race wasn't expecting it to happen at that moment. They have far more incentive behind spreading these rumors to protect their secrets obtained at the expense of the paying public. When everyone is expecting disclosure and truth to occur this direction is more than an insult, but its outrageous. They really believe they are all that, and more, and may grind humanity under their heels and treat us as brainless slaves. This new talk of atmosphere, which should lead to more discoveries, instead is a tool suddenly being used to seal the truth off from us forever.

[edit on 26-9-2008 by mystiq]
I guess your losing me.. ??? who are they.. ?? and what are they hiding???



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 11:47 PM
link   
They are the PTB, Nasa, and in this case this sudden trickle of new knowledge. Project Camelot presents a platform of many disclosures, that could be altruistic, or serve to trickle out whatever new paradigm "they've" decided to present gradually. When information is suddenly reversed, by one of their contributors, and a new agenda emerges, my bulls**t meter goes off in overdrive! I head the opposite direction really fast.



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by sir_chancealot

I don't know. Earth's atmosphere is pretty thick, yet we can make out all kinds of stuff on earth pretty clearly from space.


Have you ever looked through a telescope? The images even on a good night are far from crystal clear even from the tops of mountains. The earths thick atmosphere distorts planetary surfaces and deep sky objects etc. Also from space the Earth's atmosphere is visible as a 'halo' around the Earth.

Now, if the Moon had a substantial atmosphere the craters and mountains would show erosion and changes, dust storms and clouds would blow up. Indeed the whole surface would change and we would have to draw up revised Moon maps. The fact is we don't, the maps of the Moon made in the 1800s are just as valid today because the lack of atmosphere means that the Moons surface never changes- don't forget Mars has a very small atmosphere but we can see the dramatic changes from here on Earth with small telescopes even at this distance! Imagine the changes we would see on the Moon this close!

If the Moon had even a slightly substantial atmosphere it would be obvious, epsecially during an eclipse- as the Moon passed in fron of the sun it would illuminate the lunar atmosphere creating a halo effect around the Moon. Again, this doesn't happen as there is no substantial atmosphere.


Originally posted by sir_chancealot
Edit to add: This brings up another point I've just thought about. Why, when you view videos shot from space, of the dark side of the earth, don't lights on earth "twinkle" like the stars do? You would think that the "twinkle" would work both ways, if it was due to atmospheric distortion.
[edit on 26-9-2008 by sir_chancealot]


That's the quality of the video- they do twinkle slightly but not as much. Don't forget stars are much more powerful! Moreover they are a long way away. Not all stars twinkle the same amount either- stars high up in the sky hardly twinkle at all while the ones low and the horizon really sparkle- this id due to the fact that starts lower on the horizon are passing through more of the Earth's atmosphere and their light gets refracted more than than the stars overhead. So, lights from cities are like the stars overhead only a small amount of refraction. If you were to see them on the earths 'horizon' in space I think they would twinkle much more.

Hope this helps! I should steer clear of the Moon has a thick atmosphere nonsense if I were you- it's just not borne out in reality!

Timelike

[edit on 27-9-2008 by timelike]




top topics



 
0

log in

join