Jump to content

Moon landings


peter
 Share

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, Puzzle said:

Do we underlings even know what NASA is or just what we've been told? It doesn't appear to be anything to do with space, the moon or anything to do with rockets. Just seems a place that garners shit loads of money and tinkers with things it ought not to.

 

Your attention to detail and attempt at responding to the question posed in the OP is a little, how do I put it.....vague. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mr. Nice said:

 

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.

 

Mmmm, you have used trolling a lot so far, could be a Freudian slip, but never mind, on Earth it takes at least an inch worth lead in thickness to successfully stop Gamma radiation. UV is just one aspect, once outside of the magnetic field of the Earth you have no protection at all, and it's made worse by the Van Allen belts as they behave rather like the Tokamak fusion reactors that are still in testing, and intensifies the radiation experienced, but lets be clear the radiation experienced is incomprehensible to imagine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, sock muppet said:

 

So lets back track for a mo, you say tinfoil can stop intense radiation is this correct?

 

12 minutes ago, Mr. Nice said:

 

Let's examine that statement. There is no intense radiation and they didn't use tinfoil.

Very risky play lying about something that anyone can find from the nasa site.

 

Here is a close-up of the tin foil used on the model that you still believe flew through space, faster than sound and landed men on the moon...

image.png.e418d56397db3fa8c9e22cf73a336d47.png

The drywall, cardboard and construction paper wasn't obvious enough?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, sock muppet said:

on Earth it takes at least an inch worth lead in thickness to successfully stop Gamma radiation

 

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.

 

Just now, sock muppet said:

UV is just one aspect,

 

Listen, just stop with the UV crap ok? It isn't dangerous with a helmet on. It isn't dangerous through the hull. 

 

Just now, sock muppet said:

once outside of the magnetic field of the Earth you have no protection at all, 

 

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.

 

Just now, sock muppet said:

and it's made worse by the Van Allen belts as they behave rather like the Tokamak fusion reactors that are still in testing, and intensifies the radiation experienced

 

Made up crap. I already explained that the craft took a wide elliptical orbit through weaker areas. Did you understand that?

 

Just now, sock muppet said:

but lets be clear the radiation experienced is incomprehensible to imagine.

 

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, endfreemasonscum said:

Very risky play lying about something that anyone can find from the nasa site.

 

Go fetch. Unlike you I already read it all and understand it.

 

9 minutes ago, endfreemasonscum said:

Here is a close-up of the tin foil used on the model that you still believe flew through space, faster than sound and landed men on the moon...

The drywall, cardboard and construction paper wasn't obvious enough?

 

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:

A few months before flight, shock tunnel tests using a new thruster duty cycle revealed that the Pyromark painted Inconel lay-ups on the upper sides of the Descent Stage quads would not be sufficient protection against the hot plumes. A crash program to design a fix resulted in "coal chute" plume deflectors mounted below the down-firing jets. These were installed on LM 5 while it was on the pad, just before launch.

Another last minute thermal fix added 39 pounds of Kapton and Pyromark painted Inconel to the landing gear, pads and probe. One of the reasons for this added weight was a crew request(!) that they be allowed to keep the engine on past probe contact to pad touchdown. This would result in greater heating from the engine plume as it reflected off the lunar surface past the gear.

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:

To make an even more effective insulation, the polymide sheets are hand crinkled before blanket fabrication. This crinkling provides a path for venting, and minimizes contact conductance between the layers.

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:

Apollo 11 lunar lander

This photo of an LM test article shows the sturdy underlying aluminum and titanium structure pretty clearly:

"naked" LM test article from the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum

And a quote from the book Chariots of Apollo available on the NASA website's History section:

By the end of 1965, Scrape and SWIP had pruned away 1,100 kilograms, providing a comfortable margin below the control weight limit. One of the more striking changes to come from this drive for a lighter spacecraft was the substitution of aluminum-mylar foil thermal blankets for rigid heatshields. The gold wrapping characteristic of the lander's exterior saved 50 kilograms. Many of these weight-reducing changes made the lander so difficult to fabricate, so fragile and vulnerable to damage, that it demanded great care and skill by assembly and checkout technicians. Structural components took on strange and complex shapes, requiring careful machining to remove any excess metal

'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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mr. Nice said:

Listen, just stop with the UV crap ok? It isn't dangerous with a helmet on. It isn't dangerous through the hull

 It is in space where the intensity is far higher than on Earth, don't forget it takes ozone and sixty miles of atmosphere to reduce its power to manageable levels and people still get skin cancer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, sock muppet said:

And the Sun is that solar event happening all the time not just CME's.

 

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, sock muppet said:

 It is in space where the intensity is far higher than on Earth, don't forget it takes ozone and sixty miles of atmosphere to reduce its power to manageable levels and people still get skin cancer.

 

Sigh. Details please, explain why you think it would penetrate aluminium(sniffles guffaw).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr. Nice said:

 

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!

 

First of all it is not a solar wind, that is a nasa term to make it seem all nice and fluffy and space loves you, it does not, it wants to kill you, it is deadly to be in the path of a radiant sun, which radiates deadly radiation all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't you trust NASA?

 

Well as they cannot keep any historical information without overwriting it .... and seem to lose 'old' technology .... I think that I would sack them all if they worked for me!

 

I wouldn't trust incompetence :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, sock muppet said:

 

First of all it is not a solar wind, that is a nasa term to make it seem all nice and fluffy and space loves you, it does not, it wants to kill you, it is deadly to be in the path of a radiant sun, which radiates deadly radiation all the time.

 

Noise. Prove your crap. NASA didn't name anything. Duh.

 

https://news.uchicago.edu/explainer/what-is-solar-wind

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sock muppet said:

It's radiation

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sock muppet said:

 

Is a nasa term.

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr. Nice said:

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

 

So i am not going to post any relevant material for you to read, because i suspect it to be a waste of time but answer me this, and you should know this, why do people that go into low Earth orbit always say about flashes of light perceived in the eye?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sock muppet said:

So i am not going to post any relevant material for you to read, because i suspect it to be a waste of time 

 

Failure to back up your claims noted. Though it may be a waste of time in that I've read quite a lot of it!

 

1 minute ago, sock muppet said:

why do people that go into low Earth orbit always say about flashes of light perceived in the eye?

 

Charged particles striking the retina. And?

Edited by Mr. Nice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sock muppet said:

that's the corona sphere, not the so called wind.

 

You keep making these statements and fail every time to back them up. It says the solar wind is visible. Not what it is!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Guest locked this topic
21 minutes ago, ink said:

Why don't you trust NASA?

 

Well as they cannot keep any historical information without overwriting it .... and seem to lose 'old' technology .... I think that I would sack them all if they worked for me!

 

I wouldn't trust incompetence :) 

 

What "historical information" has been overwritten and how do you know? 

 

What old technology was lost that should have been kept and what does that have to do with trust?

 

What incompetence do you mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, alexa said:

If you believe this rubbish, well, what can I say ? :classic_rolleyes:

 

 

 

I asked specifically for evidence and you dump your bare assertion appeal to incredulity on this thread? I find it almost impossible to contemplate anyone being dumb enough to watch that and think is is fake. The film Gravity took months and months to assemble just short sequences and to map them together. It used actual space footage as a model. This stuff comes out every other day when they are busy and there was a 24/7 feed running that only somebody who knows zero about the process could claim it was CGI.

Edited by Mr. Nice
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Guest locked this topic
  • Guest unlocked and unlocked this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...