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.
Originally posted by Phage
That's really interesting.
But the problem is not a charge from the Moon's surface. The problem is the astronauts themselves (and their machines) building up a charge of their own by moving around in their spacesuits and rolling over the surface (just like scuffing your shoes on a carpet).
Static electricity ignition hazards in the Apollo spacecraft were studied. Sparks with energies up to 2 millijoules can be generated by a space-suited man. This amount is sufficient to ignite flammable gas vapors and mists, but is not sufficient to ignite flammable solids such as logbook paper and cotton cloth present in the Apollo spacecraft. Biomedical sensors were used to ground the space-suited man to the spacecraft and eliminate static electricity ignition hazards. Temporary interference with cardiac readings from the biomedical sensors occurred during static charge drainage. This interference was minimized by adding a 0. 1- to 1-megohm resistor in parallel to the ground circuit. Insulating fabrics used for the couch covers became electrified during use. The electrostatic charge on the couch covers was minimized by installing a grounded metal screen underneath the couch cover fabric.
Storage lockers on the spacecraft floor and lithium hydroxide canisters stowed in the storage lockers were capable of accumulating several millijoules of electric energy before they were grounded to the spacecraft structure. No evidence existed of static electricity interference with the operation of the communications system of the portable life support system.
If we really did go to the moon, then why has human space travel stagnated, did you realise how far technology has come in 40 years for Christ sake.
Originally posted by TamtammyMacx
Static charge isn't dependant on having or not having the cabin filled with 100% pure oxygen. Inside the LEM while they were getting out the rocks and looking at them and putting them in storage boxes weren't they aware of the static discharge that may have been with the rocks. Maybe we can find some literature from NASA about this procedure in the LEM with 100% pure O2.
Originally posted by expat2368
You can get zapped with thousands of volts of static electricity and suffer no harm.
4500 volts with no amperage to speak of would be less than a minor irritation.
That being said, anyone who denies that we ever landed on the moon has been seriously drinking their bathwater.
Originally posted by Korg Trinity
If we really did go to the moon, then why has human space travel stagnated, did you realise how far technology has come in 40 years for Christ sake.
Christ mars gets plenty of rovers? why not one or two on the moon???
If we really went to the moon, then trust me in 40 years we would have been back.
I do agree that we should have continued to go to the Moon at some point during the past 40 years, but things don't always work out the way we'd like.
Originally posted by jra
Look at NASA's budget over the past 40 years and that should clue you in as to why we've never gone back. The level of technology we're at has little to no effect on human space travel.
en.wikipedia.org...
If there's no money, no political will, or no public interest then there's no mission to the Moon. I don't know why this needs to be explained so often.
One could make similar arguments for other events. The Trieste for example. Which went to the deepest part of our ocean in the Mariana trench back in 1960. It was done only once 50 years ago and no manned vessel has gone that deep again. You would think with our technology today we would have gone back...
I do agree that we should have continued to go to the Moon at some point during the past 40 years, but things don't always work out the way we'd like.
So you are trying to say that 17 billion dollars annual budget is not enough to get a rover on the moon?
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Korg Trinity
It is very hard to explain to you, isn't it?
Is that the current NASA budget, in 2010 dollars?
You need to look into the PERCENTAGE of budget, of NASA, compared to the overall USA budget.
Originally posted by Korg Trinity
So you are trying to say that 17 billion dollars annual budget is not enough to get a rover on the moon?
There has been plenty of activity in the Trieste though, We have had remotely operated subs down their twice in the last 15 years.
As I have pointed out earlier, we could have even made it profitable to go back.
I'm investigating the reasons we have not been back is because of the actuality of doing so would be far too dangerous....
yet they said the Apollo missions never experienced any danger.