Thread Closed

moon landing

 
Share Thread Thread Tools
Jul14-04, 03:23 PM   #137
 
Wink

moon landing


[QUOTE When some reason is found, then start sending humans.....
So mere curiosity is not enough then?

I doubt that any real reason for Humans in space will ever be found....
Ever?????? Oh ye unimaginative one....!

Though a low gravity resort on the moon would be a very interesting change of pace for the rich and famous.
I note a not so subtle dig at those who are richer and more success ful than yourself?
[/QUOTE]
Jul19-04, 10:42 PM   #138
 
mm no posts for this in last few days is this the end, well all good things come to an end I guess.
Jul23-04, 03:25 AM   #139
 
Quote by bozo the clown
mm no posts for this in last few days is this the end, well all good things come to an end I guess.
I just skimmed through this thread and it appears no one really knows why Buzz Aldrins hearbeat went to 160 beats per second, while collecting 4pounds of rocks in real weight. The reason contains the mystery, why we went to the moon.

I just consulted google. There use to be one realestate selling land on the moon now there is a whole bunch of them. The first link was the first.
http://www.moonshop.com/
http://www.buylandonthemoon.com/
http://www.moonestates.com/index.asp
http://www.planetaryinvestments.com/
http://www.lunarlandowner.com/
Jul23-04, 08:15 AM   #140
 
Recognitions:
Gold Membership Gold Member
Science Advisor Science Advisor
Retired Staff Staff Emeritus
And if you think thats a good investment, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you!

Pan Am offered payed flights to the moon in 1970. Several hundred people spent tens of thousands of dollars each for the opportunity. They're still waiting for a ticket...
Jul23-04, 01:23 PM   #141
 
Quote by enigma
And if you think thats a good investment, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you!
If its the Brooklyn Bridge I might be interested. Does the title search show, that it free of all encumbrances and have a legal deed for at least 100 years? You may laugh my friend but realestate of any kind is the best long term investment.

How come nobody wants to know why Buzz has a bad heart?
Aug2-04, 11:41 AM   #142
 
Recognitions:
Gold Membership Gold Member
Science Advisor Science Advisor
Retired Staff Staff Emeritus
Quote by Rader
How come nobody wants to know why Buzz has a bad heart?
Alright, I'll bite. What are you talking about? This? Why is this significant?

from http://www.solarviews.com/eng/apo11.htm
What was probably the least efficient work that either Armstrong or Aldrin did came during the final minutes when Armstrong used a piece of equipment called the Lunar Equipment Conveyor or LEC to get the rock box up to Aldrin in the cabin. Essentially, it was a clothesline. After Aldrin hooked the LEC to a pulley in the cabin, Armstrong hooked the rock box to the LEC, backed away from the LM to make the line taut, and then pulled hand-over-hand as the box bounced its way up to Aldrin. It was hard work. At the start of the EVA, Armstrong's heart rate had been about 120 beats per minute and it had declined more or less steadily toward a low of about 80 as he took pictures at the rim of the crater east of the spacecraft. With time running short, he began a hurried collection of rocks and soil and his heart rate climbed to the 120-140 beat range. And then, while he was using the LEC, his heart rate shot up to 160 beats per minute and Houston had to call for a short rest. Other Apollo Commanders didn't have to work quite so hard when they were using the LEC. The excitement of the moment and the rush of collecting the bulk sample surely were contributing factors in Armstrong's case. But the LEC was an inefficient tool and, beginning with Apollo 14, the astronauts started carrying at least some of their gear up to the cabin by hand. The 16 and 17 crews did away with the clothesline LEC entirely - having decided that it was more trouble than it was worth - and hand carried everything except a bag containing their camera. That bag they raised and lowered with a hook and lanyard, a humble rope that somehow managed to inherit the LEC's name.
Aug2-04, 03:30 PM   #143
 
Quote by Phobos
Alright, I'll bite. What are you talking about? This? Why is this significant?
from http://www.solarviews.com/eng/apo11.htm
I read your link and specifically what I enquire about below.

01-There is no mention of how many pounds of rocks the two astronauts collected. From my information discounting the low gravity on the Moon. Armstrong and Aldrin collected 4 pounds of rocks each, although that was probably around 48 pounds between them both, in Earth weight. Why would that make two mens heart in good condition, reach 160 beats per minute?

02-Have you ever heard real audio tranmissions from Armstrong and Aldrin upon leaving the LM, looking towards Moltke Crater. How about this one. Armstrong, Oh my God what is that? Houston, Go the other way we know about that. Go the other way.

03-There was a 14 minute video that Armstrong and Aldrin took near Moltke Crater, have you seen it?

04-From the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. Reproduced with the permission of Journal editor Eric M. Jones. Nato security?

05-There was a documentary special on Apollo 11, on these matters. The programing was going on for weeks prior and was scheduled to go for many weeks more. It was shut down after this documentary on Apollo 11.

06-The 14 minute video showed in great detail, structures on the moon that were not natural nor manmade. A structure 30X60X9 meters. Why would a Hoax be put on a documentary?

What was probably the least efficient work that either Armstrong or Aldrin did came during the final minutes when Armstrong used a piece of equipment called the Lunar Equipment Conveyor or LEC to get the rock box up to Aldrin in the cabin. Essentially, it was a clothesline. After Aldrin hooked the LEC to a pulley in the cabin, Armstrong hooked the rock box to the LEC, backed away from the LM to make the line taut, and then pulled hand-over-hand as the box bounced its way up to Aldrin. It was hard work. At the start of the EVA, Armstrong's heart rate had been about 120 beats per minute and it had declined more or less steadily toward a low of about 80 as he took pictures at the rim of the crater east of the spacecraft. With time running short, he began a hurried collection of rocks and soil and his heart rate climbed to the 120-140 beat range. And then, while he was using the LEC, his heart rate shot up to 160 beats per minute and Houston had to call for a short rest. Other Apollo Commanders didn't have to work quite so hard when they were using the LEC. The excitement of the moment and the rush of collecting the bulk sample surely were contributing factors in Armstrong's case. But the LEC was an inefficient tool and, beginning with Apollo 14, the astronauts started carrying at least some of their gear up to the cabin by hand. The 16 and 17 crews did away with the clothesline LEC entirely - having decided that it was more trouble than it was worth - and hand carried everything except a bag containing their camera. That bag they raised and lowered with a hook and lanyard, a humble rope that somehow managed to inherit the LEC's name.
Aug2-04, 04:45 PM   #144
 
Mentor
Oh, you're looking for conspiracy theory. Wrong forum, but to put a fine point on it, the various moon conspiracy theories are absurdly false.
Aug2-04, 05:21 PM   #145
 
Im posting this after reading on the 1st and second comment of this thread. Too much reading to do to see where this discussion has progressed to.

Anyways, this is a short little comment.

I heard that they found the Specific Element Helium-3(which is extremely rare on Earth), on the Moon. In fact I heard Helium-3 was extremely abundant on the Moon. This may possibly lead to more Missions to the Moon to Mine this Rare Isotope of Helium.

http://english.mn.ru/english/issue.php?2004-3-11

Click on the Link, very interesting if you havn't read it. It talks about this rare Isotope as being used for Fuel.

Edit Message: I changed the site to a different site, the site above is better then the last site I had on there.
Aug2-04, 08:39 PM   #146
 
Helium-3 (aka Tritium).
Aug2-04, 11:31 PM   #147
 
Quote by Entropy
Helium-3 (aka Tritium).
http://www.triumf.ca/safety/rpt/rpt_8/node8.html

Tritium is an isotope of Hydrogen, it is not Helium-3. Helium-3 is the decay product of Tritium.
Aug3-04, 05:42 AM   #148
 
Quote by russ_watters
Oh, you're looking for conspiracy theory. Wrong forum, but to put a fine point on it, the various moon conspiracy theories are absurdly false.
No not a wrong forum, wrong assumption, on your part. I am asking a serious question. Why does hauling 4 pounds of rocks make a, in condition astronauts heartbeat go to 160 beats per minute? My question is logical, if you can give me a logical answer, I will listen. There could have been many reasons why we went to the moon, scientific, political but here is not the place to ask them as you said. I am not interested in conspiracy theories, I have better things to do. If no one knows the answer here, I will ask it in maybe the biology forum. I figured there would be a scientific reason how this could happen, thats what I want to know. All the rest could be crap, only if my first question can be answered. Armstrong and Aldrins hearbeat was registered and it is recorded history. Astronauts have trained in dive suits in water. The gravity situation, in water, is similar to the surface of the Moon.
My fit in my dive suite, that I bought at age 17, is no less restrictive than a astronauts space suite, I still use the same one at 51 years of age. Do you have any idea what it takes to raise your hearbeat to 160 when you are in excellent condition as they were and I am. There is only one thing besides very heavy physical activity that can raise a heart beat of a in conditon human body. What do you think that might be?
Aug3-04, 10:07 AM   #149
 
Mentor
Quote by Rader
No not a wrong forum, wrong assumption, on your part. I am asking a serious question. Why does hauling 4 pounds of rocks make a, in condition astronauts heartbeat go to 160 beats per minute? My question is logical, if you can give me a logical answer, I will listen....

There is only one thing besides very heavy physical activity that can raise a heart beat of a in conditon human body. What do you think that might be?
Excitement or fear can raise the heart rate.
I figured there would be a scientific reason how this could happen, thats what I want to know.
That's not what you implied in your previous posts. You clearly have an explanation in mind. So lets have it: What do you think the explanation is?

Also, your scuba analogy is flawed. The problem is that the amount of oxygen available with each breath from a scuba tank is many times larger than what an astronaut gets from his tank. As a result, its much more tiring working on the moon.
Aug3-04, 02:34 PM   #150
 
Quote by russ_watters
Excitement or fear can raise the heart rate. That's not what you implied in your previous posts. You clearly have an explanation in mind. So lets have it: What do you think the explanation is?
Your correct, so why does moving 4 pounds of rocks make your hearbeat reach 160? I think it was Armstrong, who flew 160 combat missions and had nerves of steel. Was the excitement or fear of walking on the Moon, greater than a combat mission? I could carry 4 pounds of rocks around all day and my hearbeat would not reach 160. My implication is only stated facts from the documentary, nothing more.The documentary gave the explanation not me, I want to know if it is a hoax and you do not convince me yet.

Also, your scuba analogy is flawed. The problem is that the amount of oxygen available with each breath from a scuba tank is many times larger than what an astronaut gets from his tank. As a result, its much more tiring working on the moon.
Why, my regulator gives me the same amount of oxigen at any depth I go. Yes the volumn intake is greater the deeper you go but your absorbtion through your lungs is proportional to how much work you do. So if you were sitting on the bottom resting you would exhale more oxygen than carbon dioxide, than if you were working.

Are you telling me that the equipment the atronauts used, was equivelent to breathing, climbing over the top of K2 8,000 feet altitude? I would think that Nasa would have developed equipment to breathe normally on the surface of the Moon and take that into consideration for duration of stay.
Aug3-04, 03:07 PM   #151
 
Are you telling me that the equipment the atronauts used, was equivelent to breathing, climbing over the top of K2 8,000 feet altitude? I would think that Nasa would have developed equipment to breathe normally on the surface of the Moon and take that into consideration for duration of stay.
Well you are in the vaccum of space. The difference in pressure is greater if you have air at ATP. Maybe the space suit can't handle that pressure???
Aug4-04, 04:11 AM   #152
 
Quote by Entropy
Well you are in the vaccum of space. The difference in pressure is greater if you have air at ATP. Maybe the space suit can't handle that pressure???
In vaccum of space, there is no pressure, there is nothing to press. If there was a whole in a spacesuite it would empty it quickly. We breathe at 14.7 pounds a square inch at sea level. Although at 8,000 feet above sea level the pressure might be half that. I do not think it is reasonble to believe Nasa would design a spacesuite for astronauts to only fill to 7 pounds per square inch and as a result, make the astronauts work hard and breath at marathon heartbeat levels.

Up till now there is two reasons given. One by you that maybe the ambient air pressure we breath on Earth is set at a lower level in spacesuites and the other by Russ that its harder working on the Moon with one sixth gravity of Earth. Another reason is constrition of movement in spacesuites. None give a logical explanation where a hearbeat could go to 160 doing normal work in a spacesuite, maybe all three combined could with adrenal emotion adding to the factors.

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/Num...he_vicnity.htm

http://www.vibrationdata.com/space/suit.htm

http://braindex.com/products/technol.../spacesuit.htm

http://www.universetoday.com/html/sp...spacesuit.html

This last link may solve the mystery to this problem. Modern suits are filled to 3.7 pounds per square inch.
http://www.space.com/businesstechnol...it_991110.html

http://www.fi.edu/pieces/hiley/history.htm
Aug4-04, 08:30 AM   #153
 
Recognitions:
Gold Membership Gold Member
Retired Staff Staff Emeritus
Quote by Rader
In vaccum of space, there is no pressure, there is nothing to press. If there was a whole in a spacesuite it would empty it quickly. We breathe at 14.7 pounds a square inch at sea level. Although at 8,000 feet above sea level the pressure might be half that. I do not think it is reasonble to believe Nasa would design a spacesuite for astronauts to only fill to 7 pounds per square inch and as a result, make the astronauts work hard and breath at marathon heartbeat levels.
You misunderstood Entropy's post. The pressure difference, between the inside of the suit and the outside, is what is important. The outside pressure is 0 as you say. If the inside were 14.7 psi the suit would be very hard to design. The problem they had was that the suit wants to blow up rigidly, like a balloon. To keep the astronauts from being as rigid as gingerbread men, they put ingenious valves in the joints, and in order to make this work better, they lowered the pressure inside the suit. They did a lot of research beforehand, on mountain climbers, for example, to decide how low they could make it and still allow the astronauts to do somple work, like carrying a few pounds of rocks.
Thread Closed
Thread Tools


Similar Threads for: moon landing
Thread Forum Replies
Was the Moon Landing a Hoax? General Discussion 18
Landing on the moon General Discussion 22
faked moon landing (again...) General Discussion 0
moon landing General Discussion 9
Was the first moon landing a fake? General Astronomy 15