Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by ppk55



[off-topic comments removed]

You tried to discredit Apollo (failed, yet again) by comparing Lunar surface EVA times, on certain Apollo missions, to modern ISS EVA times. Again, the components and capacities of the various equipment that provide life support differ. You do understand WHY, correct? (Do you know why some passenger airplanes, for example, have more seats and longer range than others?? If not, then I can't help you ...)

Apollo PLSS design improvements, for the missions after Apollo 11, 12, 14 etc....

PLSS Improvements

As experience and confidence grew after the first few missions, it became apparent that longer duration EVAs could be accommodated. EVAs for Apollo 11 through 14 were limited to 4 hours. To support the more ambitious exploration plans for Apollo 15 through 17, the PLSS operational lifetime was doubled to 8 hours. The changes made to the PLSS were:

Oxygen capacity: Pressure in the primary oxygen bottles was increased to 1430 PSIA from 1020 PSIA
Feedwater for cooling: Increased to 11.5 pounds (about 5.2 liters) from 8.5 pounds (about 3.9 liters)

Battery: Capacity increased to 390 watt-hours from 279 watt-hours

Lithium hydroxide: canister increased to hold 3.12 pounds of LiOH, up from 3.0 pounds.

www.hq.nasa.gov...

I realize that for some people, such technical details may be difficult to wrap one's head around. Fortunately, there ARE very, very smart people in the world who do it for you......


AS TO more modern-era "spacewalks" (EVAs), I initially just surmised at shorter-durations because of sizing differences, and need. Meaning, on Apollo they had to take EVERYTHING with them, and made the most of what technology they could carry, and make it compact, yet ueseful.

Today, they can ferry equipment up to the ISS, carry it on the Shuttle, whatever....AND store it, have it handy....they have the option for multiple, multiple EVAs, with breaks in between, and time to re-charge the PLSSs as needed. Over and over again. The Moon has no such facilities, no "spare parts", no "storage", etc.

HOWEVER, during the very in-depth research conducted by PPK, apparently THIS was overlooked:

The longest spacewalk was performed on March 11, 2001, when STS-102 crew members Susan J. Helms and James S. Voss conducted a full spacewalk, and then returned to the airlock, but remained in their suits ready to exit the airlock again in case the robotics operations ran into problems. The total time for that spacewalk was eight hours and fifty-six minutes.

A list of ISS spacewalks.

I am sure that further research will uncover more glaring errors made (assumed, incorrectly) by PPK.

Still, sure is wonderful how EACH AND EVERY TIME a "claim" such as this is made, it is refuted with facts and historical records and data that show, beyond ANY doubt, the truth and reality of Apollo, and the rest of the Space Program too....... Good work!!!

reply to post by weedwhacker


I don't see how any of what you posted even remotely related to what I posted.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

To keep it simple,

On the recent STS-130 US astronaut Behnken had to recharge his oxygen supply during a 6.5 hour spacewalk because he was exerting himself a little too much in low earth orbit.

While working on Tranquility, Behnken was told by Mission Control to slow his pace, apparently in response to his higher rate of consuming oxygen, leading to the unplanned recharge.www.collectspace.com...

So it seems in 2010 (nearly 2011) an astronaut can't even manage 6.5 hours of external oxygen without having to recharge when things get a little too strenuous.

HOWEVER, in 1972, during the alleged apollo 17 mission they managed 7.5 hours (without an oxygen recharge)

So the obvious question is ... why can't we improve on what we did in 1972?
Not just improve, exceed. The astronauts today based on 1972 figures should at least have 24 hours of oxygen available .. or did something happen in those 40 years of life support development that meant everything stays the same ?

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by nataylor

It's mostly obscured by the rickshaw, but you can see his boot (red arrow) and the shadow from his leg (green arrow):

So if that his foot, whats on it? A rock?

No, it's on the ground.

reply to post by ppk55


You didn't even read my post???

...why can't we improve on what we did in 1972?
Not just improve, exceed.

STS-102 A nearly nine-hour uninterrupted EVA.

LONGER than ANY Apollo moon surface EVA!!!

The PLSS used, for each mission profile, will be tailored as required, for the expected durations!!!!

How hard is this to comprehend???

(Have you ever gone SCUBA diving?? Gee, living where you do, you ought to out and get certified!! It is an oversimplified comparison of course, but when you over-exert on a given tank of SCUBA air --- usually charged to 1500 PSI --- you consume the air faster than when you are less active. I don't know why this puzzles you, it's perfectly understandable to most people....)

reply to post by ppk55

Not just improve, exceed. The astronauts today based on 1972 figures should at least have 24 hours of oxygen available .

And you base this definitive conclusion on..? What is the basis of this statement? Forty years ago man was able to run a mile in three minutes, therefore man should now be able to run a mile in six seconds, or it's a lie? Is that how you reason?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM

 

So if that his foot, whats on it? A rock?

I wold venture a guess that nataylor is slightly off, with the arrow indicating the boot.

That looks to me more like a boot PRINT....with the actual lower leg and boot to the viewer's right, from that spot...it is obscured behind that equipment. See the computer ribbon cable, where it loops down, and back up?

The lower leg and boot are behind that part were the ribbon cable is entering, in the photo. Remember, this is a two-dimensional image of a three-dimensional event. Also, if I'm not mistaken, a portion of the knee is visible....and it all is in an anatomically correct position.

At first glance, I thought that was a boot print. But upon closer examination, I'm quite sure that's the toe of his boot. Take a look at the boots they wore:

Notice how the ridging consists of narrow indentations and wide ridges. You can also see the boot print in that photo, and there the indentations and ridges are about equal in width. I think it's pretty clear what I pointed to is the toe of the boot.

Looking even closer, you can even see the buckle:

reply to post by nataylor


Oh, I see the perspective better, now...easy to get fooled, especially when it's zoomed in, and detail gets lost.

The toe, and especially the vertical part, is indicated by the small shadow.

I think maybe why "Foos" thought was a "rock" on top of the boot is the cloth material (per the example photo of the boot itself) with a lot of regolith collected in it.

(Of course, it COULD also be a rock too! Wouldn't be unusual, standing there, paying attention to his task, shifting around...won't feel everything, through all that suit material and the layers, and the lighter weights of objects on the Moon. Besides, it isn't a problem anyway, having a small rock on the instep of your foot....shake it off, next time you move your leg, is all ....)

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM

 

Wow, what a nice, clear defined photo. NO shadow problems with that, looks exactly as it should.

Man, you could use that for your wallpaper....(I prefer the one I have, "Red Moon Desert".....a picture of the Earth's desert, but looks red like Mars). Filters, setting Sun, etc....so artfull.

Oh really...

The issue is this photo...



...is a fake. Made by the USGS

"cement" model of Mt. Hadley (a) (inserted into an actual Apollo 15 surface photograph)

Oh really...

This photo is labelled as real:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c7a1e7bdf5bb.gif[/atsimg]

The original photograph of Mt. Hadley taken by the Apollo 15 crew while on the surface at the Hadley Rille Site; both USGS photographs show remarkably similar "layers" sloping from the upper right to the lower left. This comparison convinced nearly everyone that the "layers" were in fact lighting artifacts, perhaps unique to the lunar surface.

Oh really...

Maybe the are both just photos of models. Both are cement versions of Hadley Rille. I mean how can you tell which is which?


How do we know this is real:



When we have NASA or the USGS doing this:






libraryphoto.cr.usgs.gov...

reply to post by FoosM


Oh, for GAWD sakes!!!

Will this ignorance know no bounds???

READ this:

adsabs.harvard.edu...

CLICK where it says "Next Article Page". Do that EIGHT times, until you get to PAGE 23.

READ IT!!!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Edit...OK, fess up!! YOU! Out there!! WHO gave that star to FoosM!!! Come out, come out, wherever you are.........

Originally posted by FoosM
Maybe the are both just photos of models. Both are cement versions of Hadley Rille. I mean how can you tell which is which?

I'd say the one with the black cloth backdrop is most likely to be the model.

Originally posted by FoosM


The issue is this photo...



...is a fake. Made by the USGS

"cement" model of Mt. Hadley (a) (inserted into an actual Apollo 15 surface photograph)

It isn't a photo, it is a composite. As pointed out in the bolded text. The foreground that looks so real, IS REAL. The fake looking backgound with the tablecloth hung behind it, IS FAKE.

You're doing this just to make Jarrah look good, aren't you?

Somebody call 'the young Aussie genius' and tell him to read tonights paper. I would love to see his face when he sees the picture. Bon voyage, lil' buddy.

reply to post by dillweed


Which newspaper?

Links would be nice.

(I tried checking Sydney's two major papers...but don't wish to hunt the entire world.....)

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
Maybe the are both just photos of models. Both are cement versions of Hadley Rille. I mean how can you tell which is which?

I'd say the one with the black cloth backdrop is most likely to be the model.

What are the chances that they lit the model of hadley the same as the Apollo picture?
How come both mountains look like they are made from concrete?

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
Maybe the are both just photos of models. Both are cement versions of Hadley Rille. I mean how can you tell which is which?

I'd say the one with the black cloth backdrop is most likely to be the model.

What are the chances that they lit the model of hadley the same as the Apollo picture?
How come both mountains look like they are made from concrete?

Well, considering their goal was to build a model a that looked just like the Apollo picture, if they were skilled model makers, I'd assume their chances were pretty good.

reply to post by FoosM


Foos, "cement" isn't the same thing as "concrete".

I don't think you read the article I linked??

Concrete powder was used, to "model" Mt. Hadley. Then, they lit it as near exactly as they could, using the ACTUAL PHOTO FROM APOLLO 15 as a guide!!!!

"cement" (as in Portland, types of gypsum, etc) only sets (and some cases, depending on the chemistry of the mix), becomes "concrete" after interacting with water. And after all the chemical reactions are finished (when it's "dried"...)

Really...science is your friend!! No need to run away from it.....

I'm curious.

1. Does anyone know why a cement model was made of Mount Hadley?

2. When was this picture first shown?

3. When was it first officially acknowledged that this was a model?

Originally posted by Kailassa
I'm curious.

1. Does anyone know why a cement model was made of Mount Hadley?

2. When was this picture first shown?

3. When was it first officially acknowledged that this was a model?

Weedwhacker already gave a link to the article that describes the entire experiment, along with the picture. The year was 1972.

Originally posted by Kailassa
I'm curious.

1. Does anyone know why a cement model was made of Mount Hadley?

2. When was this picture first shown?

3. When was it first officially acknowledged that this was a model?

It's a model covered in cement dust. It was made to see if they could some up with an explanation of the apparent "layering" seen on the mountain. It was believed it was an artifact of the lunar lighting, and they set up the model to verify that.

From the report The U.S. Geological Survey, Branch of Astrogeology—A Chronology of Activities from Conception through the End of Project Apollo (1960-1973):

Starting on 1 November 1971, geologist Ed Wolfe (Branch of Surface Planetary Exploration in Flagstaff) wanted to pursue Keith Howard’s earlier idea (see September 1971 above) questioning the “reality’ of the so-called “lunar grid” and perhaps try to prove that it might be an artifact of the unique lunar solar illumination. With significant help from Red Bailey they traced the lineaments on surface photographs taken both from orbit (Apollo 15 Metric Camera) and from the lunar surface near Mt. Hadley by the Apollo 15 crew (Scott and Irwin). They decided to make a model of Mt. Hadley using cement powder (best material they could find at the time with similar photometric properties of the lunar soil). They photographed the model in black and white at different low-lighting angles. They then decided to model Mt. Hadley in 3-D and to photograph that model, eventually using collimated light (like lunar Sunlight).

The resulting “cement” Mt. Hadley created quite a stir (Fig. 91). When the proper “solar illumination angle’ was used, there appeared the almost identical “layers” that were observed and photographed by the crew of Apollo 15. Figure 91 compares the cement Mt. Hadley (inserted into an actual Apollo 15 surface photograph) with the original photograph of Mt. Hadley. Both show remarkably similar “layers” sloping from the upper right to the lower left. This comparison convinced nearly everyone who says that the “layers” were in fact lighting artifacts, perhaps unique to the lunar surface.

The picture was probably first shown in a USGS report by the geologists involved. Since the purpose was to build a model to simulate the observations on the moon, it would have been immediately acknowledged as a model.

reply to post by weedwhacker

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Concrete powder was used...

Too late to edit, as I see I misspoke (typed?) there, in the highlighted word. I meant to say "cement", especially in view of the disticnction I am making regarding the difference. It was an oversight, sorry if it seems confusing. Typing, glancing at it, spell-checking and moving on in too much haste.....