Moon landing hoax

bytey · 16-02-2010 03:39PM

As you said the radiation consists of mostly electrons and ionized protons and some higher charged particles too. Now to your Bremsstrahlung radiation. Heavy metal sheilding such as lead would cause more of that radiation. The lower the atomic number of the metal one uses the less bremsstrahlung created. Aluminium is better than steel as an example. Plus the lunar CM had insulation that acted as sheilding. Plus they flew through the tinnest part of the belts, backwards with the engine and CM support bit into the "current".

LOL

Bremsstrahlung radiation is the lethal product of high energy raidtion interaction with metals .

it is only less lethal than the source - so if they have no lead , they get fried by the source particles / radiation .

if they do have lead they get fried by the less lethal - but still lethal Bremsstrahlung radiation .

either way - they get fried

do you seriouly think an aluminium tin can is going to sheiled you from the suns radiation over a full7 days ?

I think not .

from the Liers own site

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/aeronautics/features/airline-radiation.html

and

http://www.avweb.com/news/aeromed/181873-1.html

if you fly IN A PLANE INSIDE EARTHS PROTECTION
you get toasted if you do it long enough

imagine what happens to you over 7 days in deep space ,
and a few hours inside concentrated BELTS of radiation .( van allen )

mrplop · 16-02-2010 04:19PM

bytey wrote: »

radio hams picked up faked transmission from a delayed relaying satellite .

astonomers only captured appollo in earth orbit , not lunar orbit

yes , that was all faked as well

Try not to be so unequivocal, it's your opinion but it isn't a fact.
How do you explain observations made by radio telescopes?

mrplop · 16-02-2010 04:41PM

I'm curious to know how NASA replicated 1/6th gravity so perfectly, look at the Mythbusters Vomit Comet segment.

Also look the 3D generated terrain made using the SELENE mission data.
Compare it to the Apollo 15 images;

Apparently NASA really did it's homework when it came to "faking" their landing site in area 51.

As far as the Van Allen belt theory you should take a look at this passage from Clavius.org;

The Van Allen belts are full of deadly radiation, and anyone passing through them would be fried.

Needless to say this is a very simplistic statement. Yes, there is deadly radiation in the Van Allen belts, but the nature of that radiation was known to the Apollo engineers and they were able to make suitable preparations. The principle danger of the Van Allen belts is high-energy protons, which are not that difficult to shield against. And the Apollo navigators plotted a course through the thinnest parts of the belts and arranged for the spacecraft to pass through them quickly, limiting the exposure.

The Van Allen belts span only about forty degrees of earth's latitude -- twenty degrees above and below the magnetic equator. The diagrams of Apollo's translunar trajectory printed in various press releases are not entirely accurate. They tend to show only a two-dimensional version of the actual trajectory. The actual trajectory was three-dimensional. The highly technical reports of Apollo, accessible to but not generally understood by the public, give the three-dimensional details of the translunar trajectory.

Each mission flew a slightly different trajectory in order to access its landing site, but the orbital inclination of the translunar coast trajectory was always in the neighborhood of 30°. Stated another way, the geometric plane containing the translunar trajectory was inclined to the earth's equator by about 30°. A spacecraft following that trajectory would bypass all but the edges of the Van Allen belts.

This is not to dispute that passage through the Van Allen belts would be dangerous. But NASA conducted a series of experiments designed to investigate the nature of the Van Allen belts, culminating in the repeated traversal of the Southern Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly (an intense, low-hanging patch of Van Allen belt) by the Gemini 10 astronauts.

The "six feet of lead" statistic appears in many conspiracist charges, but no one has yet owned up to being the definitive source of that figure. In fact, six feet (2 m) of lead would probably shield against a very large atomic explosion, far in excess of the normal radiation encountered in space or in the Van Allen belts.

While such drastic measures are needed to shield against intense, high-frequency electromagnetic radiation, that is not the nature of the radiation in the Van Allen belts. In fact, because the Van Allen belts are composed of high-energy protons and high-energy electrons, metal shielding is actually counterproductive because of the Bremsstrahlung that would be induced.

Metals can be used to shield against particle radiation, but they are not the ideal substance. Polyethylene is the choice of particle shielding today, and various substances were available to the Apollo engineers to absorb Van Allen radiation. The fibrous insulation between the inner and outer hulls of the command module was likely the most effective form of radiation shielding. When metals must be used in spacecraft (e.g., for structural strength) then a lighter metal such as aluminum is better than heavier metals such as steel or lead. The lower the atomic number, the less Bremsstrahlung.

The notion that only vast amounts of a very heavy metal could shield against Van Allen belt radiation is a good indicator of how poorly though out the conspiracist radiation case is. What the conspiracists say is the only way of shielding against the Van Allen belt radiation turns out to be the worst way to attempt to do it!

Wibbs · 16-02-2010 04:52PM

bytey wrote: »

LOL

Bremsstrahlung radiation is the lethal product of high energy raidtion interaction with metals .

it is only less lethal than the source - so if they have no lead , they get fried by the source particles / radiation .

if they do have lead they get fried by the less lethal - but still lethal Bremsstrahlung radiation .

either way - they get fried

Ah jeez. Look there are different forms of radiation and each form requires a different approach. Read what I wrote again. Having a thick metal shield would increase the secondary radiation into a more lethal form. The protons and electrons are much easier to stop. OK example closer to home. An old stylee cathode ray tube TV is firing excited electrons at a glass screen to make up the picture. How many died from electron radiation watching their telly? A few mm of glass stopped it.

Like the example I gave earlier of radium. Radium is highly radioactive. I would not have a lump of it sitting naked on my shelf. On the dial of a wristwatch? No real issue. I have such watches. I've pointed a gieger counter at them. With the glass off the counter goes pretty ape. Glass back on and it registers yes, but much much lower. Through the back of the watch? Mere mm from the source? Nada or damn close to background.

do you seriouly think an aluminium tin can is going to sheiled you from the suns radiation over a full7 days ?

Yes. Better than a steel one would or a metal of higher atomic number. Read up on bremsstrahlung radiation and how it works. Do you know what is one of the best shields available? Polyethylene http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyethylene the bag made of same stuff you put your groceries in. http://www.marshield.com/page/3/59/ Not thick or heavy.

from the Liers own site

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/aeronautics/features/airline-radiation.html

and

http://www.avweb.com/news/aeromed/181873-1.html

You should really read your own links. OK breaking it down; radiation effect is dose over time. Living on the moon = more shielding. Ditto for mars and a mars shot. Flying to the moon = not nearly as much sheilding.

OK practical example. UV light on earth causes sunburn and is linked to certain cancers*. Walk a mile on a beach for 20 minutes fully clothed and you may get a little red on the nose if you're sensitive. Lie on a beach for two hours in a pair of trunks and unless youre an african lad with built in factor 20, you're going to burn. A layer of opaque fabric can stop the suns UV radiation dead.

if you fly IN A PLANE INSIDE EARTHS PROTECTION
you get toasted if you do it long enough

If you do it long enough. How long? A working lifetime as cabin crew? 20-30 years? There are pilots who have been flying commercially for 40+ years. Are they dropping like flies? That's forty years. Now compare that to 7 days in space.

imagine what happens to you over 7 days in deep space ,
and a few hours inside concentrated BELTS of radiation .( van allen )

God look its not hours inside concentrated belts. The Van allen belts vary in intensity depending where you fly through them. Like the airline example here on earth. Going over the poles offers less protection than the equator. Similar happens in the VA belts. Its not uniform. NASA did not go through the densest part of it. They dont park satellites in the densest part of it, just in case. Even still there are satellites with very sensitive electronics on board that have gone up there and into deep space. Sensitive electronics dont like excited electrons or protons. Yet they dont encase them in a metre of lead, do they?

* I have a CT of my own on the positive link between sun and skin cancer. another time maybe....

Wibbs · 16-02-2010 05:05PM

mrplop wrote: »

Try not to be so unequivocal, it's your opinion but it isn't a fact.

Opinion is easier. On both sides too.

How do you explain observations made by radio telescopes?

Or various stages of the apollo/saturn V itself. Most recently one of the stages of apollo 12 in loose orbit around the moon. Now I'll give the benefit of the doubt here and say they fired them up unmanned to add to the story, but it seems a bit, well OTT.

OK lets recap.

Photos on the moon. Some issues there, but some say explainable some dont.

Lack of blast crater. I still say if they've gone to the trouble of faking 1/6th gravity and faking it so well and building huge launch vehicles, then surely they would fake something everyone expected to see, including them. If not why the hell did they draw attention to it so many times.

Lunar rover still stowed but tracks visible. That ones dead. misunderstanding over where it was stowed. Simple as.

Ballooning space suits. Well the STS ones arent ballooned and in the arms and legs look pretty identical to the lunar ones. The early EVA suit and was used only once because of its bad design. ditto for the USSR one.

Radiation. The jury is out, but I suspect a majority vote will find in favour of the we went side.

Moon rocks. OK could have been collected by probes, but they would have needed a lot of probes.

Faking 1/6th gravity. Show me one, just one scene from any movie ever, that looks real. Slow mo doesnt cut it. In scenes where they're bouncing around objects they carry show normal speed. Better yet. one Hoax youtube vid claims that an object dropped by one guy falls too fast for it to be 1/6th gravity, yet the same guy reckons harnesses and slow mo. Cant be both folks.

They couldnt do it now, yet did it then? Concorde. The Viking missions to mars with a powered descent to the surface. Now they rely on balloons and parachutes.

squod · 16-02-2010 09:00PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Little obvious diff to a pressurised one. Why? Because they learned after the early ones how to layer them so ballooning would be far far less of a problem. Indeed by your logic the current STS photos must be fake too as they show far less ballooning than Whites early EVA suit.

I'm posting up two more videos to address the differences, which I feel are fairly obvious. I don't know if you can't see what I'm on about. I'm guessing that you won't agree with me. Do these suits look to be inflated to 4.5psi and placed inside a vacuum?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C5_dOEyAfk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efzYblYVUFk

Another issue many conspiracy theorists have is with the gloves used in the apollo missions. People would love to put them to the test. Inflated to 4psi and then stuck into a vacuum they likely be near unusable.

Wibbs · 16-02-2010 09:34PM

squod wrote: »

I'm posting up two more videos to address the differences, which I feel are fairly obvious. I don't know if you can't see what I'm on about. I'm guessing that you won't agree with me. Do these suits look to be inflated to 4.5psi and placed inside a vacuum?

Do the shuttle EVA suits look to be inflated with 5 PSI and placed in vacuum?

Lets revisit Ed White's and NASA'a first EVA in a trial suit.

Yes there was some ballooning but still have creases. The ballooning was mostly in the arse leg area and the arms as he had great difficulty using his fingers as the sleeves lengthened.

Then we have the lunar suit. Unpressurised first.

Pressurised

STS EVA suit unpressurised

Pressurised

Oh and look, visor up and no white stick and labrador in sight.

Spot the lack of difference between the unpressurised and pressurised suits. Fine if you believe all eva's including whites were faked.

Another issue many conspiracy theorists have is with the gloves used in the apollo missions. People would love to put them to the test. Inflated to 4psi and then stuck into a vacuum they likely be near unusable.

They were hard to move yes. All astronauts and cosmonauts say the same thing about all EVA gloves. They really hit the forearms. A few of the lunar guys and others even tore their fingernails clean off using them. You forget that yes its a vacuum, but the pressure inside the suit was low. 4 psi as you state. Not that big a disparity. There are vacuum chambers on earth that have gloves built in to manipulate experiments and they're usable and thats at full atmospheric pressure.

squod · 16-02-2010 09:48PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Do the shuttle EVA suits look to be inflated with 5 PSI and placed in vacuum?

Uh huh. That's my argument. There's a noticeable difference between the aastonaughts in the videos posted earlier and the pictures taken from the shuttle.

Wibbs · 16-02-2010 10:05PM

Eh where? Again Shuttle suit

Moon suit

Hey even lets go with a hoaxers fave

Where's the diff? Both are bulky suits. Both are rounded. Both have creases.

This is also comparing different design suits separated by 20 years in design and advancement of materials.

Hell heres a russian suit in EVA. entirely different design(and close to their moon suit if they had gone).
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-22/hires/iss022e025646.jpg
I'll not post it directly as its huge. Full of detail, creasing and no ballooning. And oh look hes' gonna be blinded by UV too. Then again the russians are hard as nails.

EDIT another example from the russian side.

Modern russian eva suit.

Now lets compare to alexei leonov and the first EVA in space.

Look at his gloves. You wanna talk ballooning? Looks like a bunch of bananas and it nearly killed him. Is the recent russian shot a fake?

Going on the fruit theme, you're still comparing apples and oranges here.

I gotta say the ballooning suit theory is not exactly rock solid. Indeed on a slippery slope to feck all IMH.

squod · 16-02-2010 11:00PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh where? Again Shuttle suit

Moon suit

Hey even lets go with a hoaxers fave

Where's the diff? Both are bulky suits. Both are rounded. Both have creases.

This is also comparing different design suits separated by 20 years in design and advancement of materials.

Hell heres a russian suit in EVA. entirely different design(and close to their moon suit if they had gone).
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-22/hires/iss022e025646.jpg
I'll not post it directly as its huge. Full of detail, creasing and no ballooning. And oh look hes' gonna be blinded by UV too. Then again the russians are hard as nails.

EDIT another example from the russian side.

Modern russian eva suit.

Now lets compare to alexei leonov and the first EVA in space.

Look at his gloves. You wanna talk ballooning? Looks like a bunch of bananas and it nearly killed him. Is the recent russian shot a fake?

Going on the fruit theme, you're still comparing apples and oranges here.

I gotta say the ballooning suit theory is not exactly rock solid. Indeed on a slippery slope to feck all IMH.

Have you looked at the videos at all? Is your argument that the videos and photos were shot at the same time? Or does your argument need the reader to wear these.........

Wibbs · 16-02-2010 11:30PM

Obviously my contention is that the videos show the same things as the stills. Just taking your side of the debate and examining it. You spoke of "ballooning" and I'm showing the evolution of the space suit and how you're not comparing like with like and not understanding the basic differences between the early suits and the apollo and later suits. And showing you in high definition still images the differences. Of course this doesnt fit with your hard won theory so must of course be dismissed as blinkered thinking on my part.

OK video you say? Cool. Here's an STS vid of men and women in pressurised suits in a vacuum seemingly oblivious to this ballooning notion doing very delicate work. Moving their fingers to boot. Much more delicate work than the apollo guys ever had to do.

Yet Ed White in the example you gave earlier could barely get back into his spacecraft and was in danger of being lost in the attempt. Ditto with Leonov on his first EVA. But the suits must be the same? Eh no.

Your goalposts are shifting so fast here, that Pele at his best would have no hope of scoring.

Simple questions then. Have the suits evolved? Could White or Leonov have attempted to repair the Hubble in 8 hour excursions with power tools in their original suits?

Game over for the ballooning suit theory.

squod · 16-02-2010 11:49PM

My argument is obviously that the videos and photos where staged at seperate times. The video you posted is a good example of what I mean. To me the suits look more inflated in that video.

Also the astronaughts in the shuttle bay are having trouble handling slim/thin objects around them in the newer suits. Imagine then the difficulty in taking pictures with a hasselblad and straightening the corners on the US flag using the unevolved gloves from the apollo missions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeiMHK8Jom4

Wibbs · 16-02-2010 11:55PM

Goalpost shift again. The camera you picture is not the adapted camera the Apollo guys used. Again apples and oranges.

The gloves on the shuttle are near complete copies of what they learned from apollo. The USSR didnt even have apollo and by the end of the 60's into the 70's had evolved their own gloves along similar lines.

As for the difficulty of handling small items on the STS missions. The crews servicing the hubble did incredibly delicate tasks.

The flag raising, a simple procedure took two of them much longer than it would have done if your theory is correct.

squod · 17-02-2010 01:19AM

Wibbs wrote: »

As for the difficulty of handling small items on the STS missions. The crews servicing the hubble did incredibly delicate tasks.

The mission was intensive, especially considering almost all of the repairs that were performed during a series of TK spacewalks were on parts that were never intended to be serviced by astronauts in space. Equally intense (and beautiful) are the 180 tools NASA employed for the job--with 116 of them created specifically for this mission.

http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-amp-space/article/2009-05/look-inside-nasas-custom-hubble-repair-toolkit

FYI they used tools.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/science/space/17hubble.html

Article on how difficult it was to fix hubble with space gloves. The following video demonstrates the ease with which the apollo aastronaughts handle slim/thin objects compared with your earlier video and the NY Times article's account of how difficult the gloves were to use while fixing hubble.

Zooming in on this image we can clearly see Scott swishing it (the falcon feather) around between his thumb and index finger.
So we know he has a tight grip on it........

Edit; about 5 mins in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nC0Y4hBvAcw

Wibbs · 17-02-2010 10:21AM

I know they used tools. Many of the pics and vids I put up of the STS suits show such tools. Tools or not they were able to make precision movements, enough to fix a complex piece of kit. A piece of kit that hadnt been designed for in flight maintenance. In the face of that do you still think holding a falcon feather was beyond the apollo guys?

Even ed white in that first primitive eva was able to hold and utilise his attitude adjuster. Indeed his co pilot McDivitt was able to operate an adapted camera to take the shots of his EVA. In the same clumsy suit. And get good well exposed shots too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemini_4#Extra-vehicular_activity_.28EVA.29 So if you believe this wasnt faked, then the inability to take a picture on the moon argument goes right out the window.

squod · 17-02-2010 11:48AM

Wibbs wrote: »

I know they used tools. Many of the pics and vids I put up of the STS suits show such tools. Tools or not they were able to make precision movements, enough to fix a complex piece of kit. A piece of kit that hadnt been designed for in flight maintenance. In the face of that do you still think holding a falcon feather was beyond the apollo guys?

Even ed white in that first primitive eva was able to hold and utilise his attitude adjuster. Indeed his co pilot McDivitt was able to operate an adapted camera to take the shots of his EVA. In the same clumsy suit. And get good well exposed shots too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemini_4#Extra-vehicular_activity_.28EVA.29 So if you believe this wasnt faked, then the inability to take a picture on the moon argument goes right out the window.

This further supports my argument. The tools listed earlier were specially designed, the camera was adapted. No doubt that swishing an eagle feather is now proved even harder to do. In many accounts of these space walks astronaughts have lost nails had cramp etc.

The fakery of the hammer & feather experiment is further endorsed. Edit: Also that pic is a particularly good example of how these (Whites) presurised suits look in a vacuum.

Wibbs · 17-02-2010 12:12PM

Nope holding a feather requires a simple thumb and forefinger grip or a hamfisted grip. Look at the sts vids to see them do this multiple times.

Are you saying the above action is easier than holding a feather?

Look again at this picture

A woman with generally lower grip strength than a man in gloves in a vacuum chamber with atmospheric pressure in the glove holding a small object in her left hand

And again youre repeating the mantra of the ed white suit, which is a different suit and less efficient design from later suits. Even so he can hold things and his copilot can take photos for the first time on an eva in space.

squod · 17-02-2010 02:01PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Nope holding a feather requires a simple thumb and forefinger grip or a hamfisted grip. Look at the sts vids to see them do this multiple times.

Are you saying the above action is easier than holding a feather?

Uh-huh. Or twiddling it.

Wibbs wrote: »

Look again at this picture

A woman with generally lower grip strength than a man in gloves in a vacuum chamber with atmospheric pressure in the glove holding a small object in her left hand

The object is considerably larger than a feather neither is she twiddling it. According to you then the hundreds of new tools didn't need inventing. The screwbox for example ( a plastic jig for holding small screws while replacing/removing them) didn't need inventing. And the many articles published on these difficulties in using pressurised gloves in a vacuum while fixing hubble were simply false?

Here you'll see the jigs used for replacing small screws, turning bolts etc.... all done here on earth. Bear in mind the NY Times article again which tells of the difficulties associated with the hubble repair in space.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqXWXuqn1Sk

Wibbs · 17-02-2010 03:13PM

squod wrote: »

The object is considerably larger than a feather neither is she twiddling it. According to you then the hundreds of new tools didn't need inventing. The screwbox for example ( a plastic jig for holding small screws while replacing/removing them) didn't need inventing. And the many articles published on these difficulties in using pressurised gloves in a vacuum while fixing hubble were simply false?

And yet again the goalposts are shifting and words are put in my mouth. A couple of posts ago you were saying putting up a simple flag was clearly fake yet, but when this is explained away as pretty simple a task we're onto the feather. Then when the ballooning thing comes up and how could they operate a camera(even show a pic of same, but the wrong model), I point out that even with the crappy gloves of the Ed White mission they clearly could.

Here you'll see the jigs used for replacing small screws, turning bolts etc.... all done here on earth. Bear in mind the NY Times article again which tells of the difficulties associated with the hubble repair in space.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqXWXuqn1Sk

OK look at your video. Look at the second tool they show mere seconds in. A screwdriver of sorts. Now look at the precision grip required in the bulky gloves. Look at some of the other tools. Cleary they can move their thumb and forefinger together in the gloves in a vacuum. You raise a further interesting point. You are fine with the fact that for the STS missions they adapted tools for use in space, yet the adapted camera for apollo(and earlier missions) is ignored.

The moonfaker video you linked too and the vacuum glove experiment by the pro hoaxer guy is clearly not even within spitting distance of an actual moon glove or any EVA glove. His contentions about strength and thickness are so wild as to be laughable. EG a glove made of aramid fibre matting is several orders of magnitude stronger than say a leather glove but the leather is far stiffer. Indeed if you consider that chaps "proof" as valid then the STS missions which you seem to believe werent fake couldnt have happened, no matter what tools you invented. Can you explain that one?

squod · 17-02-2010 06:59PM

Wibbs wrote: »

OK look at your video. Look at the second tool they show mere seconds in. A screwdriver of sorts. Now look at the precision grip required in the bulky gloves.

A precision grip is not required. As you can see. The tool's head is roughly about the size recommended by the bloke on the video. You've stated earlier how difficult these gloves are when pressurised and operating in a vacuum.

Wibbs wrote: »

They were hard to move yes. All astronauts and cosmonauts say the same thing about all EVA gloves. They really hit the forearms. A few of the lunar guys and others even tore their fingernails clean off using them.

The evidence shows the hammer & feather video is a fake. Do you seriously expect me to believe that the aastronaught was twiddling a falcon feather between his index finger and thumb, while wearing thick pressurised gloves in a vacuum? I'm defo not convinced.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nC0Y4hBvAcw

Wibbs · 18-02-2010 09:31AM

squod wrote: »

A precision grip is not required. As you can see. The tool's head is roughly about the size recommended by the bloke on the video.

That is a precision grip though and even yesterday when they attached the cupola to the ISS they used many more. Hey maybe the ISS is faked too. Look at your video about fixing the hubble in space. The woman demonstrating the screw assembly yoke says at one point "then the screw drops down into the pocket". There's no down in zero G. If that was an apollo video the CT's would be all over it. One slip of the tongue and a theory is born. Hey I noted it.

You've stated earlier how difficult these gloves are when pressurised and operating in a vacuum.

Yes it is potentially dangerous, strenuous work. Requiring very fit highly trained people. Astronauts basically. The apollo guys are on record as saying forearm exercises were a large part of their fitness routine.

The evidence shows the hammer & feather video is a fake. Do you seriously expect me to believe that the aastronaught was twiddling a falcon feather between his index finger and thumb, while wearing thick pressurised gloves in a vacuum? I'm defo not convinced.

Again that video is so full of glaring errors its simply not plausible either. The vacuum glove box guy purports to be an expert on materials yet the glove he uses is of a different material and construction. For a start it's cotton not nylon fibres in his glove. It's not shaped and it doesnt have the restraint layers on top. Nor does it have other fetaures of the apollo glove. The nasa gloves he compares his to in many of the shots(the black fingered ones) are not the EVA gloves, but the internal spacecraft gloves. http://www.myspacemuseum.com/emudescript.htm#Gloves

His glove looks more like a heavy duty rubber glove you can buy in any hardware shop. A thicker marigold basically.

Again as is so often the case in this like is not compared with like. The cameras another example.

uprising2 · 19-02-2010 02:13AM

Not really going to get back involved for now, but here's a site with lots of information, worth a look.

http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/atmosphaerenfahrt/22_moon-fotos-without-moon-photographer-foto-compositions-ENGL.html

From NASSA

The outer surface of the 500EL data camera was colored silver to help maintain more uniform internal temperatures in the violent extremes of heat and cold encountered on the lunar surface. Lubricants used in the camera mechanisms had to either be eliminated or replaced because conventional lubricants would boil off in the vacuum and potentially could condense on the optical surfaces of the lenses, Reseau plate, and film.
Two film magazines for the lunar surface Hasselblad 500EL data camera were carried for use on the Moon's surface. Thirty-three rolls of the same film types as used on the earlier missions were carried on the Apollo 11 mission. The film used for Apollo 11 was loaded and several test shots exposed prior to flight. When the film magazines were returned for processing after the mission, the test shots were cut off and processed first. These were compared against accurate color charts to ensure that there would be no defects in processing the remainder of the film and that the colors would be most accurate.
http://history.nasa.gov/apollo_photo.html

The oils would boil off in the heat

AND

They took test shots on earth before flight to calibrate colour so they didn't think the film was going to work any differently than it does on earth.

The shots as they say they were taken are 100% impossible, another small fact I havent said is film "ektachrome" should be stored in a fridge, how the heat could possibly boil the oil inside the camera and leave the film undamaged is impossible, and thats without ANY radiation.
Them photo's were not taken on the moon.

thecommander · 19-02-2010 08:24AM

uprising2 wrote: »

another small fact I havent said is film "ektachrome" should be stored in a fridge, how the heat could possibly boil the oil inside the camera and leave the film undamaged is impossible, and thats without ANY radiation.
Them photo's were not taken on the moon.

Noone said heat boiled the oil. The lack of pressure in a vaccum lowers the boiling point of any liquid, thats why it boils, not because of heat. At least get the simple mechanics of space right.

Ping Chow Chi · 19-02-2010 10:23AM

This has been an interesting thread thread and I would like like to thank Wibbs in particular for some very detailed and well researched replies

uprising2 · 19-02-2010 10:28AM

thecommander wrote: »

Noone said heat boiled the oil. The lack of pressure in a vaccum lowers the boiling point of any liquid, thats why it boils, not because of heat. At least get the simple mechanics of space right.

The outer surface of the 500EL data camera was colored silver to help maintain more uniform internal temperatures in the violent extremes of heat and cold encountered on the lunar surface. Lubricants used in the camera mechanisms had to either be eliminated or replaced because conventional lubricants would boil off in the vacuum.
http://history.nasa.gov/apollo_photo.html

So what are the violent extremes?, what temperatures are they talking about?, whats the boiling temp on the moon?

EDIT:
And the photo's are still 100% impossible. Can you deny that?, or are you so deluded by the whole scam that you can easily explain away anything and expect it believed?

thecommander · 19-02-2010 10:39AM

uprising2 wrote: »

The outer surface of the 500EL data camera was colored silver to help maintain more uniform internal temperatures in the violent extremes of heat and cold encountered on the lunar surface. Lubricants used in the camera mechanisms had to either be eliminated or replaced because conventional lubricants would boil off in the vacuum.
http://history.nasa.gov/apollo_photo.html

So what are the violent extremes?, what temperatures are they talking about?, whats the boiling temp on the moon?

You're missing the point. The liquid boils due to the lack of pressure, not an extreme of temperature.

Water in a vacuum boils instantly as there is no pressure to keep the molecules together.

uprising2 · 19-02-2010 11:04AM

thecommander wrote: »

You're missing the point. The liquid boils due to the lack of pressure, not an extreme of temperature.

Water in a vacuum boils instantly as there is no pressure to keep the molecules together.

Yea but I asked what are the violent extremes NASA are talking about?.
And is it actually "boiling"? or are you mistaken?
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem03/chem03925.htm

And please tell me the violent extremes NASA are talking about.

thecommander · 19-02-2010 12:47PM

uprising2 wrote: »

Yea but I asked what are the violent extremes NASA are talking about?.
And is it actually "boiling"? or are you mistaken?
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem03/chem03925.htm

And please tell me the violent extremes NASA are talking about.

For one I would consider a vacuum a violent extreme when compared with our atmophere. What are you trying to get at?

uprising2 · 19-02-2010 12:59PM

thecommander wrote: »

For one I would consider a vacuum a violent extreme when compared with our atmophere. What are you trying to get at?

What am I trying to get at?, I'm trying to get a straight answer from you, I'm asking what violent extreme temperatures were NASA talking about?, remember you said it wasn't heat but a vacuum that boiled the water, I'm asking if you know what the "violent extremes" are in the link I posted and are you 100% sure about the vacuum boiling the oil and it has nothing to do with the heat involved, or just go back to your first post today and take it from there.

Wibbs · 20-02-2010 01:06PM

Its a similar argument to the one earlier about the moon being like an oven or a fridge. People are forgetting about the properties of heat transfer in a vacuum. The only way heat can be transferred in a vacuum is by radiation(or direct contact between two bodies). A vacuum is a very efficient "insulator" for want of a better word.

Practical example? You have a vacuum flask to keep hot things hot and cold things cold. Look inside one and you'll see the inner surface is silvered to reflect the infra red(radiation). So a silvered camera or bright white clothing will reflect the vast majority of the IR/heat. So a lot less issue with overheating the film.

Plus the simple fact that even the CT'rs acknowledge is that film cameras including movie film cameras have been used in a vacuum in zero g in earth orbit. The physics of those conditions dont change on the moon, except for more gravity. Indeed it should be easier on the moon.

Secondly the "boiling" part. Boiling is just the point where a liquid changes into a gas. It's the relationship between heat and pressure that's important. A fellow irishman got into all that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyle%27s_law Water boils at sea level pressure at 100 C. Top of everest more like 40 C. Tepid cup of tea ahoy, so bring whiskey to celebrate if you ever climb same(good rule anyway

)

The other problem is hollywood and previous notions of what happens to say the human body in a vacuum. One of your links, the vacuum rubber glove box guy, refers to holes in gloves being fatal etc. He bases this on a book written in the early 60's and intercuts with an info film of the same time. It doesnt quite work like that.

http://www.geoffreylandis.com/vacuum.html

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970603.html

There have been a number of accidents were men were exposed to a hard vacuum in earth bound vacuum chambers. Contrary to popular belief your eyes dont pop, your blood doesnt boil and you dont die instantly. Nor do you feel cold or hot(actually heat build up would be a problem if you did stay conscious as your body could only radiate heat as explained before).

These accidents showed you stayed conscious for anything up to 15 seconds. The lips and eyes went dry and cold as the moisture "boiled" off, but you didnt go pop like a balloon. You would die from simple suffocation/heart attack.

That scene in 2001 a space Odyssey where the guy has to jump from the pod into the ship without a helmet could be done. The only mistake they made was that he held his breath. You would have to hyperventilate then expel all the air from your lungs.

So if you did spring a leak increasing the flow pressure in your suit would buy you time and either patching the suit(gaffa tape would likely work) or getting the f*** outa dodge would sort you. Further to that, a leak in a glove would be even less of an issue as the suits have a rubber internal seal at the wrist forearm area. You could puncture the glove and so long as some air was flowing may not even notice until you went back inside. As appears to have happened in the above cases. Plus we dont know if the puncture went all the way through the various layers.

Moon landing hoax

Comments