NASA not responding to FOIA about atypical size and luminisioty of Apollo moon "sun" photos

Originally posted by franspeakfree

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Is anyone seriously that ill-informed that they don't know that this a craft designed to work outside of any atmosphere? That thermal/radiation shielding is meant to be effective, not pretty?

Well, I for one am. I have never seen this photo before and I do not know anything about this craft, let alone its use, therefore, its impossible for me to make an assumption without studying the FACTS. Which I am hoping someone can present me in a fundamental comprehensive manner, without prejudice. Is this possible?

Sure. Just ask nicely, as you have. Here's a quote from Grumman (the makers of the LM), in Apollo Lunar Module Operations Handbook, Vol 1, April 1971:

The entire ascent stage structure is enveloped with a thermal and micrometeoroid shield, which combines a blanket of multiple layers of aluminized polyimide sheet (Kapton H-film) and aluminized polyester sheet (mylar) with a sandwich of Inconel skin, Inconel mesh and nickel foil or a polyimide blanket with a single sheet of aluminum skin. The blanket panels, formed in various shapes and sizes, consist (outboard to inboard) of 15 layers of 0.0005-inch-thick H-film. In a few ascent stage areas that have different thermal-protection requirements, the number of layers in a blanket panel varies slightly. Outboard to inboard, the the sandwich comprises a 0.0015-inch-thick Inconel skin and one or more layers of Inconel mesh alternated with 0.0005-inch-thick nickel foil. the number of Inconel mesh and nickel foil layers in a sandwich and the thickness of the aluminum skin vary considerably at different areas of the vehicle, depending on the duration and intensity of RCS thruster plume impingement at those areas. The combined thermal and micrometeoroid shield is mounted on low-thermal-conductive supports (standoffs), which keep it at least 2 inches from the main structure... The aluminum or Inconel skin (the outermost material) serves as a micrometoroid bumper; the sandwich and blanket material serve as thermal shielding...

The aluminized Mylar blankets insulate the structure against temperatures up to +350 (deg) F. On the TCA support truss members, which are subjected to temperatures in excess of +350 (deg) F due to engine radiation, an additional 20 layers of H-film are installed. H-film has an insulating capability up to +1,000 (deg) F. Additional H-film blankets are also used in other areas of the ascent stage that will be subjected to temperatures in excess of +350 (deg) F.:

And just for a little twist, here's a rather cute link from a modelmaker, who offers help explaining about the different colours and materials for those who like to build accurate models..
home.earthlink.net...

You could research further by using terms like "apollo lm kapton thermal shielding", and find out just how unlike paper and foil those materials really are, and why each type was used. Loose (often deliberately crumpled) foils are exceptionally effective for the type of shielding needed, and in a vacuum, such materials are entirely appropriate, if not very aesthetic.

As an aside, I watched (and lived) every moment of the Apollo missions as an extremely excited (nerdy-sciency-type) 12-year old, and even at that age, I fully understood why the LM's looked so gawky, and had that 'foil stuff' plastered all over them. This is NOT a vehicle designed to cater for earthly perceptions - it was designed to perform ONLY on the Moon in an airless 1/6G environment, and it did that extraordinarily well.

Can you upload the images to the media here and post them? The links to your pics do not work.

reply to post by CHRLZ
Thank you for your last post.

Very informative. That micrometeroid shielding sounds like some danged expensive 'paper'.

Can those proposing other fake photos please post which ones they claim are fake and their supporting evidence? (Preferably in another thread, but it seems hijacking is OK around here, so what the heck..)

And could those repeating the LONG deBUNKed crater blast stuff, please read this link thoroughly?
www.clavius.org...

If not, some things to think about:
* Have you seen a crater underneath a Harrier?
* The Moon has 1/6 gravity - not much thrust was required to land.
* It's an airless environment - dust can only be disturbed by being hit by propellant or other moving dust particles, and once it does move, it falls very quickly. On earth the air around the exhaust gets caught up in eddies and causes secondary effects. It also provides much more moving material (air molecules) to disturb and throw up dust, which will then billow and hang.

Did you really file a FOIA request? What do you expect them to do? Send you the original negatives of the film? They probably have no idea what you expect from them. Neither do I, actually.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by CHRLZ

 

Thank you for your last post.

Very informative. That micrometeroid shielding sounds like some danged expensive 'paper'.

My pleasure. Yep, I think the budget for just that 'tinfoil' was probably more than my yearly salary (not that that is saying much..).

Funnily enough, for reasons only a psychiatrist could explain, I've always wanted to have a souvenir of that stuff. Even more than I'd want a moon rock. But of course none of it ever came back... Yes, a little 'tinfoil' that has been to the moon would be cool. Oh, and maybe one of the many discarded Hasselblads, too....



May I say I particularly enjoyed your posts, even though your humour was missed by some .. there was one that was very deep on the last page, about this funny old world.. Spot on.

reply to post by CHRLZ

You believe because you want to believe and that's fine. But just like 9/11, when one takes the time to impartially examine the evidence -- both pro and con -- there are enough anomalies and ridiculous explanations to fly a 767 through.

I'm glad you're able to justify a papier mache looking spacecraft that's flown a quarter million miles and lands on the moon looking like new, without a smudge or speck of dust and without disturbing a pebble beneath it. This is just one of a zillion anomalies that sites like Clavius claim to have debunked, but they haven't.

BTW, anyone find those 13,000 "missing" Apollo tapes yet?

Also, why are foreigners on this board the staunchest defenders of U.S. government official stories? I guess you have to live in the States to understand the massive lies and deceptions that take place on a regular basis here.


[edit on 3/16/2010 by GoldenFleece]

As far as the look of the exterior of the lander is concerned, it was the 60's. Scientists used pencil and paper to make important calculations at mission control and technicians strapped insulation to the craft in a rough manner using heat resistant tape. Nowadays we have special polymers(glue) to adhere the insulating foil but it still looks pretty rough. Check these out:

upload.wikimedia.org...

hubblesite.org...

www.launchphotography.com...

www2.jpl.nasa.gov...

www2.jpl.nasa.gov...

www2.jpl.nasa.gov...

blogs.jpl.nasa.gov...

faculty.fortlewis.edu...

science.gsfc.nasa.gov...


[edit on 16-3-2010 by mrwiffler]

reply to post by bochen181


I looked at the bottom pictures on this page
jayweidner.com...
to see if I could find some on NASAs homepage that showed this


Apollo 17...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Apollo 15
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Apollo 14...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...

After looking at these pictures, Jay Weidner is right. They were inside a studio.

The famous jump salute, this has strange shadows, and the mountain should be far away, but appears to be close
www.hq.nasa.gov...



[edit on 16-3-2010 by conar]

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
You believe because you want to believe and that's fine. But just like 9/11, when one takes the time to impartially examine the evidence -- both pro and con -- there are enough anomalies and ridiculous explanations to fly a 767 through.

I'm glad you're able to justify a papier mache looking spacecraft that's flown a quarter million miles and lands on the moon looking like new, without a smudge or speck of dust and without disturbing a pebble beneath it. This is just one of a zillion anomalies that sites like Clavius claim to have debunked, but they haven't.

BTW, anyone find those 13,000 "missing" Apollo tapes yet?

Avoidance of all FACTS noted, as is the introduction of irrelevant new issues (the classic tinfoilhatter 'scattergun' approach). Yeah, 911 has everything to do with it.

And seriously, are you that lacking in comprehension that you don't understand the very simple concept that on landing in an airless environment, the chance of any dust particles whatsoever 'billowing' up to get on the lander is almost zero. This is unbelievably BASIC stuff, but I guess nothing embarrasses you...

Why didn't you address any of the issues raised?? (rhetorical question)

And what is it about the images that show the disturbed areas under the LM exhaust that you don't get? You can even see it in the shots posted.. if only you had observation skills.


Anyone found those Library of Alexandria scrolls yet?

reply to post by CHRLZ

My comprehension is just fine, thank you.

Enough to note the ridiculousness of NASA's inability to design an adequate heat shield and/or sufficiently powerful and vibration-free launch vehicle 40 years later. As the GAO noted:

"We do not know yet whether the architecture and design solutions selected by NASA will work as intended," says the 20-page report, obtained Wednesday by the Orlando Sentinel. It will be presented today at a congressional hearing that is taking a critical look at NASA's plan to return astronauts to the moon by 2020.

The GAO identified several areas that could delay Constellation:

*The Orion crew capsule is too heavy for Ares' lifting capacity. "Both the Orion and Ares I vehicles have a history of weight and mass growth," the report says.

*Ares is subject to excessive vibration, called thrust oscillation, which has the potential of shaking the spacecraft to pieces, killing anyone aboard. NASA claims to have a fix for this problem, which was previously reported.

*So far, no company is capable of producing a heat shield big enough to protect the Orion capsule when it re-enters Earth's atmosphere. Proposals to use thermal tiles like the ones on the shuttle are still in the design stage.

*"According to NASA, at this time, existing test facilities are insufficient to adequately test the Ares I and Orion systems."

And yes, 9/11 has everything to do with it. Our criminal government lies about everything, from Vietnam to JFK to 9/11. Fortunately, the American public is waking up.

Comments made by the ignorant who have no knowledge of the design of the lander and why it was constructed in this way. It wasn't intended to look good, it was designed to perform a very specific function with a minimum of extraneous weight.

Its called focal length and a narrowing of the angle of view.

Originally posted by ararisq
Its called focal length and a narrowing of the angle of view.

This is not the same, you are only showing 1/4 of the picture here, while on the Moon the Sun was huge in the full picture.
Or you zoomed in

[edit on 16-3-2010 by conar]

reply to post by Phage


Thanks Phage!!

I now how some awsome wallpapers for my suppa duppa new laptop

Cheers,

Korg,

I dont know what your point is here sir. But you might actually got proof of that actually the "buzz aldrin" episode on Cnn wasnt a mistake.

You see good ol buzz was on Cnn talking about the moon ect. He might be old, but that doesnt fool me, buzz is still a very upgoing and intelligent man. And you know what buzz said when he were going to say Moon.. He said MARS 3 times with no hessitation.

So if this moon picture actually is AT MARS, it actually explains the picture

Case solved

On the high rez picture from nasa, I wasn't looking much at the light so much as the shadows on the tiny rocks on the ground in the source.

I am not a moon hoax believer, however I do find it curious that the shadows of the rocks on the left of the picture tend to shoot to the left, the ones in the center below the light come towards the camera, and the ones on the right tend to start shooting in the right direction.

I took into account that terrain would cause some illusions, so I made sure to look at several rocks and such and all seem to be consistant with the shadows moving based on the source light is.

I am probably mistaken, or lack some lighting expertise...can anyone confirm what I am seeing? Also, where is the shadow of the satellite dish? (I think that could be covered by the hill, but then where is the shadow of the hill?)

Again, not a moon hoax believer, but wont simply dismiss it either. Sorry of this has already been addressed, I am guilty of not reading the whole thread before posting...

I'm astounded...

I think that although there is definatly lense flair in this picture, this is certainly not how the sun should look even if zoomed in on or with a long focal lengh.

I'm going to search light and stage...

look at these..




[img]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/72cf88f836bd.jpg[img]


Sorry about the size of the pics, haven't got the time now to resize...

Here is the source..

A AMERICAN SEARCHLIGHTS "We Light Up the Night"

All the best,

Korg.

I believe we went to the Moon. I also believe that many of the photos were staged.

Originally posted by ablue07
I believe we went to the Moon. I also believe that many of the photos were staged.

Well, if we did go to the moon as your believe why would there be the need to stage photos?

There are way too many things wrong with the story of we went to the moon.

Radiation, Static charge build up on the surface, equipment substandard for the environment, the fact that no one lost their lives in space...

Then there is the photos...

See why people have a hard time believing?

Peace out,

korg.