Apollo 17 Astronauts Shocked by UFO flying overhead during EVA-1! Original NASA Footage.

Originally posted by SecretKnowledge
at 1:45 you can hear

" roger 17. John says that it flew up on his mission as well"

so if it happened on a previous mission, then there's no way its gonna happen again.
if it was styrofoam that is. nasa would have corrected the problem after the first time.

edit on 15/8/13 by SecretKnowledge because: (no reason given)

+1 on this thought.no doubt.

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly

well...debunkers also ask for such proof of all UFO sightings...and no one seems too bothered by that. They want extraordinary proof for extraordinary claims...it works both ways.

So...something flying over our heads...with great speed. A mundane explanation would be...it's some sort of vehicle. The extraordinary claim here...is that it's styrofoam...please provide the usual debunkers extraordinary proof of that.

styrofoam is 95% air.. exploding styrofoam caused by trapped gases was the explaination.. when gases are heated up by direct sunlight it will expand and when it expands in a confined area it it will eventually explode..

i dont see how it being styrofoam is the extraordinary claim here??

Originally posted by fotsyfots

Originally posted by SecretKnowledge
at 1:45 you can hear

" roger 17. John says that it flew up on his mission as well"

so if it happened on a previous mission, then there's no way its gonna happen again.
if it was styrofoam that is. nasa would have corrected the problem after the first time.

edit on 15/8/13 by SecretKnowledge because: (no reason given)

+1 on this thought.no doubt.

that would require changing the entire technique of how styrofoam is manufactured.. the costs of doing so will far outweigh the benefits.. exploding styrofoam from trapped gasses inside styrofoam is a very very small force.

reply to post by choos


you don't eh?

But of course...no doubt about the composition of styrofoam...how it would actually behave in an airless vacuum...is up for speculation. Unless, you have some links with experiments done ?

Do share...

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly

.how it would actually behave in an airless vacuum...is up for speculation.

It wasn't the airless vacuum that caused the problem it was the heating and expansion of gasses within the Styrofoam from hours of being sat in the sunlight .

Originally posted by gortex
reply to post by MarioOnTheFly

 

.how it would actually behave in an airless vacuum...is up for speculation.

It wasn't the airless vacuum that caused the problem it was the heating and expansion of gasses within the Styrofoam from hours of being sat in the sunlight .

Maybe we can use that "tech" as means of propulsion next time.../end sarc

Originally posted by choos

Originally posted by fotsyfots

Originally posted by SecretKnowledge
at 1:45 you can hear

" roger 17. John says that it flew up on his mission as well"

so if it happened on a previous mission, then there's no way its gonna happen again.
if it was styrofoam that is. nasa would have corrected the problem after the first time.

edit on 15/8/13 by SecretKnowledge because: (no reason given)

+1 on this thought.no doubt.

that would require changing the entire technique of how styrofoam is manufactured.. the costs of doing so will far outweigh the benefits.. exploding styrofoam from trapped gasses inside styrofoam is a very very small force.

I appreciate your posts so far but that explanation seems absolutely ludicrous to me. This stuff is liable to "explode" - potentially damaging vital equipment and/or harming the astronauts themselves - and you're suggesting that it's not really an issue?

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by choos

 

you don't eh?

But of course...no doubt about the composition of styrofoam...how it would actually behave in an airless vacuum...is up for speculation. Unless, you have some links with experiments done ?

Do share...

You never did the "feather falling in a vacuum" experiment in elementary school? When you remove the resistance caused by an atmosphere (IE, in a vacuum), less dense objects will fall and travel like much denser objects.

This is 5th grade science class type stuff, nothing extra-ordinary at all.

Seems odd that the first astronaut would have gotten so excited at something like that happening, exploding styrofoam; and also odd that the second guy was scrambling to explain what happened and stumbling over the description of it.

Also seems odd that a multi-billion dollar space program would use materials that would be adversely affected by the extreme temperature swings on the moon; if it broke or 'exploded' first time around, wouldn't they have changed out the material for the next trip, especially since even small bloopers can be life and mission-threatening?

As far as the 'did we go to the moon' question, it's just my opinion that while we did go, Stanley Kubrick was hired to film set shots on earth to provide spectacular photos for the magazine trade (the LIFE photos published at the time were jaw-droppingly crisp and professional compared to the mushy tv shots and seemed to show no radiation damage as would be expected from film done on the moon and brought twice through the Van Allen belts) and in case there was a disaster to perhaps provide coverage to the public, lest the government have to explain how our brave astronauts would forever be dead in space orbiting either the moon or earth, or stuck somewhere in between.

There was just something so wrong about the way the three Apollo 11 astronauts acted at their press conference and how Neil Armstrong hid from the public afterwards. There was also the question about why they didn't see stars from the moon or mention the beauty of the sky; I can understand sun glare and those gold-colored helmet shields they wore blocking out the stars but the view should have been utterly spectacular from inside the landing module and yet no one ever mentioned it. How can you go to the moon and not notice the stars???

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by choos

 

you don't eh?

But of course...no doubt about the composition of styrofoam...how it would actually behave in an airless vacuum...is up for speculation. Unless, you have some links with experiments done ?

Do share...

You never did the "feather falling in a vacuum" experiment in elementary school? When you remove the resistance caused by an atmosphere (IE, in a vacuum), less dense objects will fall and travel like much denser objects.

This is 5th grade science class type stuff, nothing extra-ordinary at all.

What does that have to do with exploding styrofoam ?

I listened to it slowed down and he clearly says "John said it BLEW up on his mission as well". He says it twice. Listen to it again.

You can see the object is angular and tumbling as it comes overhead and is gold in color also. Same color as the insulation for the Apollo mission. Unless people now think UFOs are made of gold and tumble instead of spin, float, or whatever the latest belief is. It looks like insulation.

ALUMINIZED PLASTIC FILM
Not metal foil, these plastic films are thinly coated with aluminum, which reflects the sun's heat and insulates the spacecraft. The thin, gold-colored films are used in "blankets" of up to 25 layers. All of the plastic films protect the spacecraft from micrometeoroids.

(Link)




At the very beginning, it also says this was a video of the unloading of the rover:

Originally posted by Son of Will

Originally posted by choos

Originally posted by fotsyfots

Originally posted by SecretKnowledge
at 1:45 you can hear

" roger 17. John says that it flew up on his mission as well"

so if it happened on a previous mission, then there's no way its gonna happen again.
if it was styrofoam that is. nasa would have corrected the problem after the first time.

edit on 15/8/13 by SecretKnowledge because: (no reason given)

+1 on this thought.no doubt.

that would require changing the entire technique of how styrofoam is manufactured.. the costs of doing so will far outweigh the benefits.. exploding styrofoam from trapped gasses inside styrofoam is a very very small force.

I appreciate your posts so far but that explanation seems absolutely ludicrous to me. This stuff is liable to "explode" - potentially damaging vital equipment and/or harming the astronauts themselves - and you're suggesting that it's not really an issue?

i think you are focusing on the word "explode" too much and relating it to your experience and expectations of what an explosion is.

honestly its styrofoam being broken apart from the rising internal pressure of trapped gasses within the styrofoam.. its not really an explosion. it doesnt take much effort to break styrofoam.

the styrofoam at moment of the "explosion" was estimated to be about 15.6metres/second and styrofoam's mass is quite low already, so its kinectic energy is quite low. it would be a different case if the speed was magnitudes higher though, but for trapped gasses inside styrofoam the pressure would never reach high enough styrofoam just is not strong enough to contain such dangerous pressure.

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by choos

 

you don't eh?

But of course...no doubt about the composition of styrofoam...how it would actually behave in an airless vacuum...is up for speculation. Unless, you have some links with experiments done ?

Do share...

i dont have any links to experiments but i dont know it seems so simple to me.

consider a gas inside an enclosed space.

what would happen to the pressure inside the enclosed space when you heat the gas up? even if outside of the enclosed space is a vacuum it wont change the behaviour of the gas inside the enclosed space.

reply to post by bhornbuckle75

Fantastic!
I wonder if they film the practice sessions at astronaut school.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by choos

 

you don't eh?

But of course...no doubt about the composition of styrofoam...how it would actually behave in an airless vacuum...is up for speculation. Unless, you have some links with experiments done ?

Do share...

You never did the "feather falling in a vacuum" experiment in elementary school? When you remove the resistance caused by an atmosphere (IE, in a vacuum), less dense objects will fall and travel like much denser objects.

This is 5th grade science class type stuff, nothing extra-ordinary at all.

Why would they use it a second time if it exploded on another mission.

Originally posted by gortex
Here's a transcript of the event and NASA's explanation .

Evidently, some of the interior voids in the Styrofoam were still filled with gas, despite many days of exposure to vacuum during the trip out from Earth. Alternatively, the voids may have been filling with gases released from the foam matrix during the six hours or so that it has been lying out in the sunlight. In either case, solar heating has raised the pressure of the trapped gases. The fact that several fragments can be seen - coupled with Gene's use of the word "exploded" and John Young's phrase "blew up" - indicates an explosive disintegration of a piece of foam. Such explosions would propel fragments over considerable distances. For example, if a piece was launched at a 45 degree angle at a speed of 15.6 meters per second, it would come down 150 meters from the LM after a 13.6 second flight. It is also possible that the piece Gene picked up at the SEP site got there in several hops, each the result of a separate explosion or of a non-explosive venting episode.]
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Then why the hell do we use booster rockets to navigate in space? Wouldn't it be cheaper to keep styrofoam in your pocket and stick to the side of you ship when you need a boost.

HEY NASA, STOP WASTING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON FUEL!

It's funny how the great threads like this get buried fast, and yet completely brain-dead ones like one recent one contrasting the usage of two prejudicial vulgarities keep appearing over and over again.

It's times like these I feel the technique of "forum-sliding" is alive and well on ATS.

Keep up the good fight Arken and the rest of you who are not sock-puppets/disinfo agents.

And as for the ludicrous explanation of Styrofoam expanding, yes, for starters, if it acted like that it would have been exploding all over the cabin as well, secondly, if it were outside the cabin and just floating before it exploded, most of us are aware of Newton's 2nd law, and makes this movement improbably in an almost vacuum unless that piece was balanced in the opposite direction of a piece of a similar size - highly unlikely.

Sounds like a typical disinfo grasping argument.

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
It's funny how the great threads like this get buried fast, and yet completely brain-dead ones like one recent one contrasting the usage of two prejudicial vulgarities keep appearing over and over again.

I have seen the title you allude to but dared not click it's link. I fear that even placing my eyes on the thread somehow gives it relevance.

Originally posted by signalfire

Also seems odd that a multi-billion dollar space program would use materials that would be adversely affected by the extreme temperature swings on the moon; if it broke or 'exploded' first time around, wouldn't they have changed out the material for the next trip, especially since even small bloopers can be life and mission-threatening?

Why is that so hard to believe? Not saying that is what was seen and discussed on video but if we take you scenario above....

We have a multi-billion dollar fracking company that injects chemicals into the ground knowing it will contaminate ground water and drinnking wells which potentially kill residents in that area that drink the water. Ends justify the means eh?

We have Japanese officals desperately trying to reactive their nuclear power plants even after they just cancer-bombed their entire population.

We have the oil industry setting off oil volcano's in the Gulf.

We have governments kill and maim people for oil and golbal positioning.

We have cigerette companies increasing nicotine levels year over year, killing millions of people for profit.

What's so hard to believe we would risk the lives of astronauts if the end justified the means?