Space Thread!

mindphuk

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
I have never encountered a hot day that ran off battery power.

As to the original question, my answer would be primitively simple ... dump the heat out the Lem's shaded side. Its equilibrium temp was minus two hundred. It worked a treat for the CSM ... in fact they had a slow-rotating "spit roast" mode to keep the temp in the spacecraft uniform and comfy. cncn
Click to expand...
The mistake is thinking there is a light side and dark side. From earth perspective the moon has a near and a far side and the far side is perpetually facing away from us but the moon still gets a day and a night, each lasting over 14 earth days. When the astronauts get to the moon, they do so in early lunar morning when the sun was only 10 degrees or so above the horizon and when they left 3 days later on the longest missions, it was still early in the lunar morning and the sun wasn't even half way up in the sky yet. The low angle of the sun at that time in the lunar morning only heats up the surface to about 100F. Therefore the entire claim that the landing module had to dissipate 250F heat for 3 earth days is just wrong. That's also the job of the reflective material, if the majority of the EM energy was reflected, the surfaces below the reflective material would not need to be cooled significantly.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Lol, Mindphuk, I didn't even consider that because the moon always has a lighted side, except for the one hour in ten thousand when it's eclipsed.
I do remember that they chose early lunar morning for heat management reasons. Heat management was essentially radiative ... no convection in a vacuum, and conduction through the landing gear was effectively zero. They used several layers of that gilded wrap to contain/reject radiant heat.

Fun lunar factette: the sun moves in a diurnal track that lasts the month, but the earth stays in the same patch of lunar sky, give or take a few degrees.
cn
 
ismokealotofpot

ismokealotofpot

New Member
cannabineer said:
What would be the point? Optic resolution knows an absolute limit: diffraction. For Hubble, the geometric linmit is about 0.05 arcsecond, and the practical limit has proven to be 0.1 arcsecond. (The optics were polished to such near-perfection.) At lunar distances, 0.1 arcsecond converts to a minimum feature size of about six hundred feet. The Lem main stage is about twenty feet across, so you'd need to orbit an optically near-perfect mirror (to Hubble spec, but scaled up) close to 300 feet in diameter! just to see the Lem as a barely-resolved smudge.
They sent imaging orbiters to the Moon since Apollo. Clementine was cheap and dirty, and when it was pointed at the Apollo 15 landing site, it saw this.
http://stupendous.rit.edu/richmond/answers/lunar_lander.html#clem
To get an equivalent photo quality from earth, you'd need an optical mirror bigger than Arecibo, placed above the atmosphere.

Other, better imagers have been sent since, such as LRO, the lunar reconnaissance orbiter. Better resolution; correspondingly better results.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html

I canot believe that this thread has deteriorated into a tin-hat snowball fight. cn
Click to expand...
you can see other galaxies with the hubble why couldn't you see the moon?
 
ismokealotofpot

ismokealotofpot

New Member
mindphuk said:
The mistake is thinking there is a light side and dark side. From earth perspective the moon has a near and a far side and the far side is perpetually facing away from us but the moon still gets a day and a night, each lasting over 14 earth days. When the astronauts get to the moon, they do so in early lunar morning when the sun was only 10 degrees or so above the horizon and when they left 3 days later on the longest missions, it was still early in the lunar morning and the sun wasn't even half way up in the sky yet. The low angle of the sun at that time in the lunar morning only heats up the surface to about 100F. Therefore the entire claim that the landing module had to dissipate 250F heat for 3 earth days is just wrong. That's also the job of the reflective material, if the majority of the EM energy was reflected, the surfaces below the reflective material would not need to be cooled significantly.
Click to expand...
that does make sense
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
ismokealotofpot said:
you can see other galaxies with the hubble why couldn't you see the moon?
Click to expand...
You can see the moon down to a feature size of 200 meters. Not enough to resolve the landing sites.
Those other galaxies are arcminutes across! Even the extremely distant ones subtend several arcseconds. cn
 
ismokealotofpot

ismokealotofpot

New Member
Look all im saying is you can point out little specs and say this is where all day long but nothing is clear. you can see anything from those photos.
 
ismokealotofpot

ismokealotofpot

New Member
Well if IFOs are what you want to talk about, what is two car lengths long, one car length wide, makes zero noise,built in triangular panels, bright spot lights in the front,red slow blinking light in the back,and oh ya it can read your mind? ok I wont stomp on your thread. Its not that I'm not interested because if I wasn't than I wouldn't have posted.
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
ismokealotofpot said:
Well if IFOs are what you want to talk about, what is two car lengths long, one car length wide, makes zero noise,built in triangular panels, bright spot lights in the front,red slow blinking light in the back,and oh ya it can read your mind? ok I wont stomp on your thread. Its not that I'm not interested because if I wasn't than I wouldn't have posted.
Click to expand...
santa smoking a cigar while rudolf pulls him thru the air while checking to see who should be on his naughty list?
 
marcopolo123

marcopolo123

Member
ismokealotofpot said:
I dont think we have been to the moon.if you look at the pictures of the lem the area under the main thruster is undisturbed. even at 1700 pounds it would still weigh 170 or so. how could you set it down so nicely without breaking something or disturbing the fine moon dust?infact under the lem from the front leg back seems to be distorted you cant make anything out. you see what looks like small craters but its clearly a copied and repetitive image. and I also think the wtc was imploded if you look at the videos close up you can see the demo charges going off in sequence all the way up the building. plus by looking at the rubble you can see the main beams have been gut close to a 45 degree angle. it fell exactly how the demo team planned it. and what happened to the 30 tucks full of gold? they only found one .
Click to expand...

dude your awsome!!!


they cut those columns at 45 degrees to make the building "walk" as those controlled demo guys say, so it implodes into itself not outside of its footing :)
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
marcopolo123 said:
dude your awsome!!!


they cut those columns at 45 degrees to make the building "walk" as those controlled demo guys say, so it implodes into itself not outside of its footing :)
Click to expand...
now your just embarrassing yourselves
the image your talking about

now if you'd bothered researching even a tiny bit you would have found this

now i know you guys think youtube is best place for research so a tiny bit of looking you would have found this (you'l want to watch till the end for best bit...)
[youtube]ySHgiUxnLC0[/youtube]
then if you used a tiny bit of common sense you would have realised that neither of the towers actually fell into its own footprint as all the surrounding building had extensive damage from being hit by falling skyscraper


now once you 2 stop patting yourselves on each others backs for your shared delusion why dont you take talk of 911 out of a SPACE THREAD

theres plenty of threads for 911 like this one [thread]461713[/thread]
 
OnlyDopesSmokeDope

OnlyDopesSmokeDope

Member
i got one for you ufo nutjobs. you think aliens have been to earth, to do this they will need to be very advanced yes! so my question is this. why would they need lights? we have infrared cameras.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
OnlyDopesSmokeDope said:
i got one for you ufo nutjobs. you think aliens have been to earth, to do this they will need to be very advanced yes! so my question is this. why would they need lights? we have infrared cameras.
Click to expand...
Maybe they have a life cycle like moths ... and they do seem to cluster near Vegas.
The hole in that beery theory is not enough Flying saucerses being pulled up in the nets of the Japanese night-fishing fleets. cn
 
ismokealotofpot

ismokealotofpot

New Member
OnlyDopesSmokeDope said:
i got one for you ufo nutjobs. you think aliens have been to earth, to do this they will need to be very advanced yes! so my question is this. why would they need lights? we have infrared cameras.
Click to expand...
to look out for trees to shine in your eyes so you cant see it. I know of at least 5 people that have seen one real close.
 
mindphuk

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
ismokealotofpot said:
sorry cannabineer I have to defend myself from trolls. much respect to you sir. this is my last post on your thread ill start one of my own. watch this u tube. look close at the sand falling off the astronauts boots it falls faster than the man himself. not to mention the wires holding them up.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE
Click to expand...
Funny how you accuse others of being trolls then immediately post a controversial video with problems with it's claims but then mention you won't post any more here. That, my friend, is acting like a troll.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top