Moon buugy footage question

Bare with me, I may be missing a crucial point here, but...

Just watched some footage of the moon buggy driving along, and something jumped out at me. If there is low gravity on the moon, when the off-road type tyres dig into the rocky surface and they throw the rocks/stones into the air, wouldn't they float back down slowly rather than immediately like in our gravitation?

Or am I being completely stupid?

reply to post by Upyerheart


I am in agreement with you. The dust should disperse into the air in a slow moving cloud like dust partials hitting water. I think the video was slowed down to give the illusion of low gravity.

Originally posted by fisheye
reply to post by Upyerheart

 

I am in agreement with you. The dust should disperse into the air in a slow moving cloud like dust partials hitting water. I think the video was slowed down to give the illusion of low gravity.

Air?

Have you guys seen this???



Yep... all the moon landing footage is fake...

reply to post by Blarneystoner


I have always wondered about the hammer and feather video. I would think the feather would still be falling.

If the gravity is stronger than the earth’s gravity I could see the feather falling faster or if the atmosphere was in a vacuum. But, when Buzz nearly fell he didn’t drop like a hammer, he was able to recover.

that vid looks good for hammeraction falling, but it could have been balsa wood...
i wonder......ahammer to the moon?...they needed it?...

The vid demonstrates what Gallileo discovered about gravity: no matter how much something weighs it will fall to the earth (or the moon) at the same rate. He actually dropped two ball bearings from the leaning tower of Pisa to test his theory.

Without any atmosphere on the moon to slow down the feather, they both hit the ground at the same time. Wouldn't make any difference what size the objects are or their density.

Check it out here: Wiki

Gonna go look for some buggy footage..

reply to post by Blarneystoner


You made a good point, the moon does not have an atmosphere so gravity does not come into play here.

reply to post by Upyerheart


You are onto something.

Don't let people fool you with slight of hand tricks because they want it both ways.

On one hand the people who believe that we actually went to the moon will say that no blast crater was left or any footprints from the lander were visible because of the lack of moisture on the surface of the moon, but on the other hand they will tell you that the footprints of the astronauts were visible.

So now the old hammer and feather is brought out, and we are lead to think that everything will accelerate at the terminal velocity of gravity on the moon, or that the moon has so little gravity that it does not matter.
What these folks will conveniently tell you, when it suits their argument, is that the moon has gravity and an atmosphere.
Granted, it is much less than Earth's. (the gravity is one sixth that of earth and the atmosphere is mostly the result of radioactive decay).
Does a parachute and a hammer fall at the same rate?

I would also suggest looking at the amount of surface radiation on the moon.
The LRO just started mapping the surface radiation on the moon in 1999.

And it was discovered to be 30 to 40 percent higher than previously thought.

That means we took a HUGE chance sending our "best" and "brightest" up in an aluminum can.
I could bring up so many more anomalies, but I have spent endless hours arguing with people at ATS and the one thing that no one can refute is the radiation.

We have a hard time getting people into low earth orbit, but the moon. Piece of cake.

We nailed that %$#@ every time.

Because we are America. Hell yeah.

For all of those "moon landers" out there....
Keep holding your breath until another HUMAN steps foot on the moon.

Seriously .... Just keep holding your breath. Hopefully it will be a good way to fleece the herd of the less than desirable.

reply to post by Josephus23


Interesting response. Your question tells me that your knowledge of the subject is extremely limited.

post by Upyerheart

 

"Does a parachute and a hammer fall at the same rate?"

The answer is "yes". If there is no air to provide resistance than both a parachute and a hammer will fall at the same rate.

NO... the moon has no atmosphere. While there are trace amounts of Radon and other intert gases present, the moon's low gravity and lack of a magnetic field prevent the moon from "holding on to" any sort of atmosphere. Solar winds effectively strip any gasses which may be the product of radiation within the Moon's soils.

You said:

"I would also suggest looking at the amount of surface radiation on the moon.
The LRO just started mapping the surface radiation on the moon in 1999.

And it was discovered to be 30 to 40 percent higher than previously thought."

Yes, yes... we know... but exposure was minimal.

You said:

"We have a hard time getting people into low earth orbit, but the moon. Piece of cake."

Since when have we had a "hard time" putting people into low Earth orbit? 1960? lol.... comon bro... you're gonna have to do better than that.


You said:

"Because we are America. Hell yeah."

That's right b*tches!! Jealous much?

You said:

For all of those "moon landers" out there....
Keep holding your breath until another HUMAN steps foot on the moon.

Seriously .... Just keep holding your breath. Hopefully it will be a good way to fleece the herd of the less than desirable.

Whatever bud... come up with some sound arguments backed up by some actual formal research and I'll entertain your thoughts but until then your just pissing into the wind...

reply to post by Blarneystoner


Hahahaha....
Another one who wishes to engage me in this conversation.

NO... the moon has no atmosphere. While there are trace amounts of Radon and other intert gases present, the moon's low gravity and lack of a magnetic field prevent the moon from "holding on to" any sort of atmosphere. Solar winds effectively strip any gasses which may be the product of radiation within the Moon's soils.

This is a link to the wikipedia article "Atmosphere of the moon"

Please notice that the atmosphere is mostly the result of decaying surface radiation.

Like I said.... You can't have it both ways. It has an atmosphere, but the atmosphere is not comparable to the Earth.
Remember that this is in comparison to the Earth.
And that is why people are so confused as is noted in the OP.

Yes, yes... we know... but exposure was minimal.

According to whom?

Let me guess.... According to NASA?
According to the same agency that I am saying falsified the moon landings?

This is circular reasoning.
You are essentially saying that NASA went to the moon because NASA said so.

Sorry, but that doesn't fly when put up to the logical fallacy test.
The radiation is huge, but no one talks about it.
Why do you think that NASA wrote an article that I have linked too many times to count that states explicitly that the best way to prevent radiation is with concrete, but we can't build spaceships out of concrete.

And of course I save the best for last.

Since when have we had a "hard time" putting people into low Earth orbit? 1960? lol.... comon bro... you're gonna have to do better than that.

Two space shuttles come to mind.

Ok guys, I didn't want a mass debate (woo hoo) with you about whether or not the whole thing was fake or not etc. I just want to know about the science. When you watch a sci-fi movie and people are walking around on the moon or whatever, things tend to float around. Now maybe I was being confused with being out in space, or on a planet. But when I watched some footage (similar to this) on TV earlier today the close up of the wheel/tyre just looked wrong to me. Now, like I said I'm no expert, but my impressions (built up by watching too much star trek as a kid maybe) were different to what I saw. To me it "just looked wrong", not what I expected.

So is this normal, or would the dust and rocks actually hover for a while before they fell back down?

Would the buggy even be able to get any traction on the moon? Just a Q never realy thought about it before.

By the way good question OP.

reply to post by Josephus23


Nice... your argument for the moon having an atmosphere is based upon the Wiki article which clearly states in the first line of the article:

For most practical purposes, the Moon is considered to be surrounded by vacuum. The elevated presence of atomic and molecular particles in its vicinity (compared to interplanetary medium), referred to as 'lunar atmosphere' for scientific objectives is negligible in comparison with gaseous envelope surrounding Earth and most planets of the Solar system - less than one hundred trillionth of Earth's atmospheric density at sea level.

You should read that first line over and over until it sinks in. Do you understand what a vacuum is?

Vacuum is a volume of space that is essentially empty of matter, such that its gaseous pressure is much less than atmospheric pressure.

Wiki - Vacuum

I suppose you'll have some "logical" expalination for this as well but it's all the proof I need:






You know what that is right? maybe? No?

It's a reflector placed on the moon during the Apollo missions.

The ongoing Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment measures the distance between the Earth and the Moon using laser ranging. Lasers on Earth are aimed at retroreflectors planted on the moon during the Apollo program and the time delay for the reflected light to return is determined. Because the speed of light is known with a high degree of precision, the distance to the Moon can be calculated using this simple equation:

Wiki - Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment

Still believe that no man stepped foot on the moon? And you think that NASA is the perpetrator of the biggest hoax ever played on mankind? How about these other institutions which have all pointed their lasers at the reflector?

~ Massachusetts Institute of Technology
~ a Soviet team at the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory - I guess the Russians are in on the hoax too?
~ Côte d'Azur Observatory in Grasse, France
~ Apache Point Observatory Lunar Laser-ranging Operation (APOLLO) at the Apache Point Observatory in New Mexico

Honestly bro, You should make efforts to further your education regarding physics and astronomy instead of wasting your time trying to debunk the moon landings.

Speaking of logic fallacies: do you realize that your premise: "The radiation is huge, but no one talks about it." actually provides supporting evidence that the USA (heck yeah!) did go to the moon?

thirty-three of the thirty-six Apollo astronauts involved in the nine Apollo missions to leave Earth orbit have developed early stage cataracts that have been shown to be caused by radiation exposure to cosmic rays during their trip

You should read what Wiki says about it....
Source: Wiki - Ionizing_radiation_and_heat

Oh... but you forgot to mention the heat argument too so let me provide another excerpt from the all mighty Wiki:

There is no atmosphere to efficiently couple lunar surface heat to devices such as cameras not in direct contact with it. In a vacuum, only radiation remains as a heat transfer mechanism.

Damnit!! Another confirmation that the moon has no atmosphere. I'm betting you would rather just ignore that. So let's move on.

Yes... let's move on to rocks... my favorite subject. Did you know that 840lbs of rock were brought back from the Moon's surface? Oh wait.. probably not since you think that all 6 Moon landings were faked.

The Apollo Program collected a total of 382 kilograms (840 lb) of Moon rocks during the Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17 missions. Analyses by scientists worldwide all agree that these rocks came from the Moon — no published accounts in peer-reviewed scientific journals exist that dispute this claim.

Wiki - Moon rocks

You know what peer reviewed is right?

OK... I'm sure you can provide some overwhelming evidence, creditable sources and highly pursuasive arguments to counter my debate so bring it on oh keeper of the eternal truth!! and debunker of moon shots... hehehe...

Originally posted by Upyerheart
Ok guys, I didn't want a mass debate (woo hoo) with you about whether or not the whole thing was fake or not etc. I just want to know about the science. When you watch a sci-fi movie and people are walking around on the moon or whatever, things tend to float around. Now maybe I was being confused with being out in space, or on a planet. But when I watched some footage (similar to this) on TV earlier today the close up of the wheel/tyre just looked wrong to me. Now, like I said I'm no expert, but my impressions (built up by watching too much star trek as a kid maybe) were different to what I saw. To me it "just looked wrong", not what I expected.

So is this normal, or would the dust and rocks actually hover for a while before they fell back down?

edit on 20-12-2010 by Upyerheart because: (no reason given)

yep... it's normal. The gravity of the moon is much weaker than the Earth's but it's still there.

The way the dust and rock behaves looks funny to me as well but I think it's because there is no atmosphere to provide resistance to the falling dust. On earth, when dust is kicked up, it will hang or hover because of the resistance provided by the air. On the moon it just falls back immediatly, as you described in the OP. So, to my mind, the dust is behaving exactly as it should in a vacuum.

Ok, thanks for your input. I couldn't say WHY I thought it looked odd. I just noticed that it wasn't what I consider normal. Thanks

reply to post by Blarneystoner
actually it is a myth that gallileo dropped 2 different sized balls from the tower. what he did was to roll different sized balls down an inclined plane, but the point is proven either way.

reply to post by Blarneystoner
of course you are correct but there are numerous photos from moon landings which blatently contradict known laws of physics and photography and are not so easily explained away..

reply to post by Blarneystoner

You said:
"I would also suggest looking at the amount of surface radiation on the moon.
The LRO just started mapping the surface radiation on the moon in 1999.

And it was discovered to be 30 to 40 percent higher than previously thought."

Yes, yes... we know... but exposure was minimal.

Back up...So you agree with this??
Didn't the Apollo crews all wear radiation detection gear??
So how come 30 years later we find out we were off by 30-40% ???
That doesn't seem right..

Those videos of the moon buggy in action on location (the moon) look exactly as I'd expect them to look in a place void of atmosphere with a gravitational acceleration about 1/6th of what we're used to here on the earth.

earth's gravity of 9.8m/S^2 / 6 = 1.6m/S^2 on the moon
So for the dust to fall from a height of 3m would take roughly 1.9 seconds with no air to carry off the finer stuff. Note how it all comes back to the surface within about 2 seconds max regardless of particle size (no I didn't get a chance to use a micrometer on it )

Originally posted by pshea38
reply to post by Blarneystoner

 

of course you are correct but there are numerous photos from moon landings which blatently contradict known laws of physics and photography and are not so easily explained away..

I'm willing to entertain any evidence you care to put forth but it will have to be overwhelmingly convincing because I am a firm believer that the moon landings were not hoaxed.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Blarneystoner

 

You said:
"I would also suggest looking at the amount of surface radiation on the moon.
The LRO just started mapping the surface radiation on the moon in 1999.

And it was discovered to be 30 to 40 percent higher than previously thought."

Yes, yes... we know... but exposure was minimal.

Back up...So you agree with this??
Didn't the Apollo crews all wear radiation detection gear??
So how come 30 years later we find out we were off by 30-40% ???
That doesn't seem right..

edit on 21-12-2010 by backinblack because: (no reason given)

Well... honestly I don't really buy it. I've tried to find out where this claim comes from since the debunker didn't provide any sources. I haven't been able to find anything. When I responded to the claim, I did so with the knowledge that neutron radiation mapping of the moon was done back in '98/'99 and there were several "hot spots" found. This is the LRO mission that was cited. However, I can't find any mention of a 30-40% increase in radioactive levels in the reports.

Radioactive Moon