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.

 

Vast Static Charge on the Moon...

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 09:31 AM
link   

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).


Thank you Phage for at least adding something here, this thread is filled with people who don't appreciate the problem.

Although I know you don't agree with me about the Apollo missions, at least you at least understand the issue with static charge on the moon.

Cheers,

Korg.

And yeah Korg Trinity is indeed an awsome synth workstation.




posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Right, and the LEM was a 100% oxygen atmospere. Isn't that dangerous enough. How did they eliminate the static charge while entering the LEM and how about discharging the static from all of the moon rocks? Was this not an issue back in the 60's and 70's?



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by TamtammyMacx
 

There was no air (or oxygen) in the LM (not LEM) when the astronauts entered or left it.

Though the astronauts reported no static sparking, any discharge would have occurred when they touched the lander ladder while outside.

[edit on 4/29/2010 by Phage]



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   
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.



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by TamtammyMacx
 

It wasn't a problem. They engineered for it.


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.

ntrs.nasa.gov...

[edit on 4/29/2010 by Phage]



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post 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.


Actually, rocket technology has not come far at all, we are still using the same principles, with a few added bells and whistles. There wasnt any superheavy lift rocket built since Apollo (except for the shuttle, which is a totaly different thing). A teraflop computer is not of much use for launching things to orbit.



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   

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.


You DO know that "100% pure oxygen" doesn't burn, right? Nor explode? Can't be ignited with a spark?

Given a sufficiently energetic spark, you would be able to ignite something flammable in an oxygen rich atmosphere more easily than in a standard 21% mix, but the oxygen itself will not ignite. Ever.



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   

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.


I don't know man... When my wife get's frisky and starts rubbing her feet across the rug to build up a small static charge to shock me with, the zap I get isn't all too pleasant. I'm willing to bet that a few hundred thousand volts would really suck, unless my wife can somehow increase the amperage herself.

IDK, I don't know a whole hell of a lot about static electricity beyond getting zapped and sticking balloons to walls. lol


jra

posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 10:21 PM
link   

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.


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...


Christ mars gets plenty of rovers? why not one or two on the moon???


I agree. Some Lunar rovers would be nice, but there is only so much funding to go around. Mars is just considered to be more interesting I guess. However there are some Lunar rover projects happening now from other space agencies.

For example, Russia and India are working together to send a rover to the Moon with Chandrayaan-2 mission.


If we really went to the moon, then trust me in 40 years we would have been back.


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.

[edit on 30-4-2010 by jra]



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by jra
 



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.


I believe this to be well said,
jra.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 08:22 AM
link   

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...


So you are trying to say that 17 billion dollars annual budget is not enough to get a rover on the moon? so in ten years the NASA budget was on average 170,000,000,000 or one hundred and seventy thousand million dollars.... in just ten years...

And that is not enough to go to the moon??? Not even put a rover on the moon???


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.


I think there is plenty of all the above... Political will is difficult one because if the moon landings were faked then it would be logical that there would be negative interest from political side of things. They want to keep their secret.


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...


There has been plenty of activity in the Trieste though, We have had remotely operated subs down their twice in the last 15 years.


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.


Precisely my point, we should have gone back, there was more than just to say we have been to go back for.

As I have pointed out earlier, we could have even made it profitable to go back.

So there is a big
about why we haven't been 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.... (if you don't take into account Apollo 13's technical problems etc..)

Korg.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


It is very hard to explain to you, isn't it?


So you are trying to say that 17 billion dollars annual budget is not enough to get a rover on the moon?


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.

For instance, in 1961 the ENTIRE federal budget in the USA was $94 Billion.

James Webb, early NASA adminstrator, told Kennedy that he'd expect it to cost ('IT' being the entire space program to the Moon, Mercury, Gemini and Apollo) about $20 Billion. Spread out over the 8-9 years, until the end of the decade.

His UPPER level, he thought at the time, would be about $40 Billion. These are 1961 dollars, NOT adjusted for inflation.

Did I mention the 1961 fiscal year budget was a whopping $94 Billion?

Using those estimates, averaging the $20B over eight years, and using the ~$100B (just to fudge the numbers) the NASA budget was about 2 1/2 %of the entire United States federal budget.

(The entire Moon endeavor cost a LOT more than that $20 Billion, BTW).

NOW...even IF (I haven't looked it up yet) the NASA budget right now is $17B, what is that in percentage to the entire U.S. federal budget today?

Remember that "i" word? Inflation....

I just finished reading "Dark Side Of The Moon" by a scottish writer named Gerard J. DeGroot.

He's not even a bloody American, and even HE realizes that the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo missions were all real.

His perspective, and raison d'etre for the book, is (and he makes my blood boil) that the entire thing was a 'fleecing' of the American taxpayers. NOT because it was 'faked', but because the whole thing (manned landing on the Moon) was hyped to the max, in his opinion --- long on symbolism, short on scientific value.

I completely disagree with that aspect of his book, but I have to grudingly concede that the POLITICS of the era, and of the "space race", in the context of the Cold War, and Soviet taunting (they were appearing to be the "first" at a lot of things in space, but most of it was bluff and theatrics) made Kennedy's challenge become (after he died, especially) something to acheive at all costs.

I still think there were scientific pluses, but he's right -- manned space travel is wicked expensive. However, IF we didn't do it then, and don't do it now, then when? Sure, it isn't quite the same as Magellan discovering new lands, so as to colonize easily...BUT, we only have this one planet, so far, to live on --- and that's dangerous to the survival of our species, in the long term.

Discovering the 'Americas' brought instant riches, in the form of valuable resources, to the Old World. Space is going to be much harder to "mine", but eventually there is profit to be made, out there....



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


It is very hard to explain to you, isn't it?


I find you very holier than thou.. Not a quality that wins friends. Starting a post with such a comment doesn't make me want to read the rest.


Is that the current NASA budget, in 2010 dollars?


You can't be bothered to read the posts above??



You need to look into the PERCENTAGE of budget, of NASA, compared to the overall USA budget.


What complete rubbish you spout.

What bearing can the total budget have on the nasa budget? 17,000,000,000 is still 17,000,000,000 regardless of the overall USA budget.

btw 17,000,000,000 is far more than you would need to get to the moon. The mars rover for instance only cost around 2 billion....

Where do these people come from??


Korg

[edit on 30-4-2010 by Korg Trinity]



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


Personally I'd be happy even with something like sending a manned flight a little beyond a Low Earth Orbit. I think that would be in the interest of science and exploration. Surely.
I often wonder if i'll be pondering the same question in another 40 years.


jra

posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 11:51 PM
link   

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?


That $17 billion gets divided up for all the programs that are currently going on or in development already. Of course NASA could afford to send a rover to the Moon. But some one needs to propose a mission to do so first. For example, the New Frontiers program takes various proposals and chooses one. Here are the top three last year (link) One of them is a Lunar sample return mission. There may have been many Lunar missions proposed before, it's just a matter of one getting selected.


There has been plenty of activity in the Trieste though, We have had remotely operated subs down their twice in the last 15 years.


I said there has been no manned mission since then. I was making a comparison to your argument about Apollo.


As I have pointed out earlier, we could have even made it profitable to go back.


By mining Helium 3? There is absolutely no profit in that what so ever right now. Not until we get Fusion power plants up and running. And that won't be happening any time soon.


I'm investigating the reasons we have not been back is because of the actuality of doing so would be far too dangerous....


Many of the missions ran into various problems. Apollo 13 being the worst. Yes it's dangerous, no one is denying that. But don't forget that most of these guys were test pilots. They've put there lives on the line so many times it's ridiculous.


yet they said the Apollo missions never experienced any danger.


And who are "they"?



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


Plug earth into the moon. Free energy, wa la.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


I have to type in haste, and scan the threads. SO, I miss some details, big whoop!

I am still amazed (and, don't take this personally...ooops, too late...) at the fact that people just don't understand.

Specifically, you mentioned the full NASA budget of $17B. Yeah, just tossing around that figure, sounds like a lot of money. BUT, until you study it, and determine how all the funds are allocated, to which programs, and factor in the standard continuing overhead expenses just to RUN NASA daily, annually, you are just blowing hot wind.

(Please note the pronoun "you" up above is NOT the specific individual 'you', but the general, plural "you"....as in "you guys", etc).

BUT....the point (and I missed mentioning it, in my haste and description of reality up above) about some "Rovers", and whether they could (should) be sent to the Moon?

Yes, certainly. NASA could do that, the technology is there, they know a whole LOT about the details now, since (1) they've been there, and (2) it is far easier to study, as it is relatively close by, compared to the other objects in our Solar System.

But....WHY? What purpose would a "Rover" on the Moon serve?

Six landings, over 860 pounds of Lunar samples, plenty of active experiments still "up" there, and functioning, gathering data. One big question (answered) was to verify, was already assumed but needed verification, fact of water ice. The poles were most likely areas, since they aren't subjected to the weekly/monthly direct heating effects from the Sun. LCROSS did that, and the LRO component of that mission also accomplished other tasks...a BY PRODUCT of which was some really good images of the Apollo landing sites.

NASA is already scrimping and cutting programs, BECAUSE even the $17B isn't enough to do all they wish.

Exploring other planets has far more potentiqal to reap more information, and is more expensive and technologically challenging.

Ya know, I can remember, even after Apollo 11 landed, there were STILL people whining and complaining. NOT that it was "faked"...oh, no....this sort of garbage is an outgrowth of a generation either in diapers in 1969, or not yet born. "Kids" who are easily fooled by the "Hoax" con-artists.

No, the whining that went on throughout Apollo (and Gemini, and to some extent Mercury) was almost always the same, with only minor variations: "Why spend all of that money in space when we have so many problems here on Earth?"

Whine, whine, "can't-see-the-forest-for-the-trees" mentality, with a bit of the "money-can-fix-everything" delusion thrown in.




This whole "Moon Hoax" nonsense is becoming a bit like the Loch Ness Monster legend. Only, in reverse. Some believe in the fantastical "Nessie", although there is no proof at all --- and Moon "Hoax" believers ignore the vast mountans of scientific proof of manned missions to the Moon, in favor of their fantasies.....



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join