Jump to content

Mr. Nice

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Mr. Nice

  1. Noise again, no citations just you huffing and puffing. https://news.uchicago.edu/explainer/what-is-solar-wind First proposed in the 1950s by University of Chicago physicist Eugene Parker, the solar wind is visible in the halo around the sun during an eclipse and sometimes when the particles hit the Earth's atmosphere—as the aurora borealis, or northern lights.
  2. It's ignorance of the highest order. Now once again, quote me a source for your made up crap. UV light does not penetrate aluminium or triple layer helmets.
  3. Noise. Prove your crap. NASA didn't name anything. Duh. https://news.uchicago.edu/explainer/what-is-solar-wind
  4. Sigh. Details please, explain why you think it would penetrate aluminium(sniffles guffaw).
  5. Details please and then explain why the CSM or LM would not attenuate the solar wind. Try not to cite studies about long term exposure in space!
  6. Go fetch. Unlike you I already read it all and understand it. That is not tin are you really THAT clueless? Your noise continues, even though I gave you a good answer that you ignored. Here's a more detailed one: https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/5899/why-does-the-ascent-stage-of-apollo-11s-lunar-module-look-like-its-made-of-pap Like everything else, the ascent and descent stages were built to be as light as possible. But because they knew they would operate only in a vacuum, many things really didn't need to be sturdy, nor did the shape of it matter. It would never have to deal with aerodynamic drag. In fact, the descent stage was designed to buckle in the right places upon landing, that was how it absorbed the impact. It was only going to be used once, this was the most weight-efficient method of handling the shock of landing. Also, the complex insulation blankets covering the module had many layers, and contact points between the layers needed to be minimized so that heat wouldn't be passed through them by conduction. The black material is where thin Inconel sheets formed the outer layer of the insulation blanket, and they were painted matte black with Pyromark paint to improve their heat emission properties, so they would cool off quickly. (Black material both absorbs and emits heat better than material of other colors.) Beneath the black layer were reflective layers to prevent the heat of the black layer penetrating into the module. This treatment was done where the exhaust of the reaction control thrusters heated the lunar modules. It had a tendency to crinkle, and on this particular module, that may have been accentuated by the fact it was in fact installed at the last minute, as were the chutes under the thrusters. From the Lunar Module Coatings Page: Considering the vast ambition of going to the Moon for the first time, it isn't surprising some fixes were last-minute. The foil is Kapton MLI (multi-layer insulation) blankets, and it is actually pretty complex. In the places on the lunar modules that only needed to be a heat barrier to sunlight, high reflectivity was the most efffective approach, and those places are the shiny amber color of the Kapton. As there is no air in space to pass heat by convection, if you lower absorption of heat radiation by making surfaces that are highly reflective or emissive, and there are few contact points to pass heat by conduction, insulation can be highly effective. With the Kapton foil blankets, the contact points were reduced by hand-crinkling an inner layer of the blanket. From the Apollo News Reference: So, this is bound to make the outer layer rather uneven. All the other covering material you see is also just there to protect whatever is underneath from the effects of sunlight. Perhaps they were also thinking a bit about keeping dust out. That is all it has to do, and it was made merely sufficient for that job. Weight savings were more important than looks. The fancy stuff is underneath all those bare-bones panels. I found a different photo of the lander that gives a better sense of the complexity of it. The photo shows the Ascent Stage in the process of assembly, before the heat shielding had been put on it: This photo of an LM test article shows the sturdy underlying aluminum and titanium structure pretty clearly: And a quote from the book Chariots of Apollo available on the NASA website's History section: 'Scrape' and 'SWIP' were both programs Grumman, the company that fabricated the Lunar Module, instituted specifically to reduce the weight of the LM. I found both things on a great thread on the topic at CosmoQuest You can pore over the LM Apollo Operations Handbook for a great deal of technical information on the spacecraft, for more evidence.
  7. So what does that tell you? We Earthlings are getting hit by it on a daily basis and for our entire lives. Those in the arctics, who have far less protection from the magnetosphere don't appear to be dropping dead. The atmosphere attenuates gamma to a certain extent but for the most part it hits us. This is where you explain why you think it would be so deadly over the course of two weeks in space compared to 70 years on Earth living in Alaska for example. Listen, just stop with the UV crap ok? It isn't dangerous with a helmet on. It isn't dangerous through the hull. That's bullshit. They were in an 8 gm^2 rated Command Module with a Service module running the entire length of their backs. This is where you quantify your appeal to incredulity and explain exactly what the levels they faced and how the machinery used didn't attenuate any of it. Otherwise you are just blowing air out of your bottom. Made up crap. I already explained that the craft took a wide elliptical orbit through weaker areas. Did you understand that? We don't need to imagine it. The doses were calculated based on dozens of unmanned probes. Conspiracy theorists like to think they know what they are talking about and conflate the danger through sheer ignorance.
  8. Your attention to detail and attempt at responding to the question posed in the OP is a little, how do I put it.....vague.
  9. This is just trolling. Apollo shielding on the LM was Kapton / Mylar and micro-meteorite shielding. No tin. That is the kind of thing claimed by people ignorant of the design. As for intense space radiation, that only occurs when there are major solar events. None occurred during any Apollo mission.
  10. Let's examine that statement. There is no intense radiation and they didn't use tinfoil.
  11. What has been presented that I haven't refuted?
  12. You appear to be just trolling. Make your case, but use things you don't appear to be aware off like facts and citations. What do I actually need to say in response to somebody just attention seeking.
  13. Is this what you are going to do? Answer the post or choose a subject you know something about.
  14. Or you could go and read up on the matter and actually learn why you have been suckered.
  15. Ultra violet? Lol, seriously? Attenuated by the hull, you think it goes through aluminium and steel? Is this ireally your level of understanding on space radiation ?
  16. Noise. Urinate or vacate the pot.
  17. They went, brought back 842lbs of samples that cannot be faked. What intense radiation bullshit is this? Van Allen belt? They skirted the weaker areas on a 30 degree elevated trajectory that when incorporating the tilt of the Earth bypassed the more denser areas. Otherwise they would have had bad dose and been ill for a few days. What have you got on the matter? Some made up shite from a hoax film? Did you read about this on some hoax believer's blog? What bloody atmosphere? It's as strong as flea's fart! Just because it puzzles YOU, doesn't mean it puzzled the smart people who put it down. Conspiracy guff. If you want some education on Apollo, I can recommend some websites for you or you can post your cut and paste hoax-by-numbers here and I'll show you why it's all bollocks.
  18. Whoah there. I didn't Say Petit was accurate. I just took him literally in the same way as the daft conspiracy claimant and explained the situation. Now if he had said, we don't have the hardware anymore, THAT would be more accurate. Our survey says uuuu-uuurghh. Saying the technology used in 1969 was outdated doesn't mean we have purpose built, tested crafts to fly and land there already built right now. Sure it would be easier now, with the right investment. All the hard work was done in 1969 and much of the basis for today's methodology was established then. Orion was built fairly quickly and seems to be uo for the job but a new lander needs some work. Of course we could loosely model the new stuff on Apollo, but what are we trying to do? Repeat it? What for? Better it, needs some work. Don Petit isn't the spokesperson for the situation. They have better potential, but your inaccurate claim that they already have it is nonsense. Yes, redevelop NEW machinery. You take the old and create a newer version of it, once that works better and safer. The statement "the statement is meaningless" is actually meaningless. 0/10 Looks like some pretty off topic irrelevant guff there old boy. Don't try harder, just give up - we went.
  19. No. YOUR bare assertions and seriously odd observations are of no substance. I don't even know what you are referring to just above. This thread is about the Apollo Moon landings.
  20. Baffling. The "we destroyed the technology" line is correctly interpreted is it? Did you even read my full reply. What are you even talking about...dead astronauts on the Moon?
  21. I read it a few times and missed anything of substance. Thanks for sharing your rather unusual observations though.
  22. Um? We used to have the technology. That is all the necessary equipment. Amazing how you can take that statement and fail to understand it. What shocking and awful truth? This whole hogwash claim suggests Petit is saying we didn't go because of some crazy contrived interpretation of his meaning. Why? You wanna debate this?
  23. No they didn't. Grissom hung a lemon on the Command Module simulator because it was experiencing a whole range of issues, not least communications and also keeping it in sync with latest updates being done. They simply later worked through them all. We have footage in space showing the Command Module working as designed, with weightless experiments, so your argument, as always , is a lot of conspiracy guff. NASA - soopah secret meeting: Evil overlord Nazi baby eater boss: Hey, that Grissom criticised Boeing's craft Subservient Nazi: Yes, shall we take him off the program Evil overlord Nazi baby eater boss: No kill him and his crew. Subservient Nazi: Ye sir, we will arrange for a mishap. Evil overlord Nazi baby eater boss: No! Set fire to the Command Module! Subservient Nazi: But that will set us back years and the program might get cut. Evil overlord Nazi baby eater boss: Bwahahahahaha On a personal note, don't you think it a little cowardly to ignore where you are getting an arse kicking? How sad.
  24. That is a really clueless circular argument. The reason Lake Ljssel (ALLEGEDLY!) showed zero curvature and I have no reason to dispute it is that the laser diverged, struck the surface, curved with air density and was also influenced by heat variances. The experiment given to you deliberately uses a medium (affected with sugar) to exaggerate the effect of refraction. It does this so that it can show it in action within a much smaller space! The laser did not travel straight. It was refracted, diverged and also susceptoble to bounce off of the surface. Yes they are. You lose every time and every time are afraid to admit it. Tell us about the obvious curvature of Lake Minnewanka....and your incredibly evasive made up reply. Explain with a light diagram showing the Sun on the horizon (at the equator) with your insane 30 degrees to claim.
  25. Lighten up, it was only meant in fun. If it bothers you, sorry. You may as well say forget about the force exerted. 100% correct. You would still be doing the same RPM though. Remember where I said this: Anyway the roundabout is now doing a revolution every 2 seconds. That is 30 rpm. 1800 per hour and 43,200 per day. That roundabout, whether it is 12ft wide or suddenly elongated to 8,000 miles wide, is still doing 43,200 revolutions per day. I'm going to stick to round numbers (close enough): 1. The Earth doing 43,200 Revs per day is most certainly going vastly faster than the roundabout of 12ft. 2. It does a revolution in the same time as the roundabout of once every 2 seconds. 3. Circumference - 25,000 - It does 12,500 miles per second. You work out how fast that is in miles per hour! 4. The Real Earth does that distance in 12hrs.
  • Create New...