Oh forgot about the friction in a vacuum
little known fact but space has the consistency of treacle.
Moon landing pictures question
- Thread starter G-MAN2004
- Start date
little known fact but space has the consistency of treacle.
tbh I can't see much difference... I think the extremely close bit of the 'horizon' is probably just a local variation, and probably not the same distance the horizon would be if the surface were a perfect sphere of the same radius. I think it's the same in the picture of earth as well.
But yes, if both earth and the moon were perfect spheres, then the horizon would be 'closer' on the moon.
But yes, if both earth and the moon were perfect spheres, then the horizon would be 'closer' on the moon.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 6,767
- Location
- Orsett, Essex
little known fact but space has the consistency of treacle.
The space between my ear maybe, But up there I doubt it
The space between my ear maybe, But up there I doubt it
why do you think it's black!!!
Bist my site www.treacletruth.com for more info!
What you'd find if you had done any research is that NASA uses technology which has been proven for many years on Earth (you don't want something just suddenly not working out there). So for example I believe on the shuttle they are running IBM processors (3 for redundancy running exactly the same code at the same time), that are more than 20 years old. They certainly don't use sandy bridge the moment they are released
Heres a nice interesting bit of information (you'll have to excuse me I've only skimmed the first page, the supercomputer is complaining about my calculations...)
http://www.silicon.com/management/p...at-power-mans-conquest-of-the-stars-39746245/
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 11,255
- Location
- Newbury
Simple answer.
7.5 million pounds of thrust + mavity....
Or perhaps you mean how did they power the electrics of the machines?
Pretty common knowledge they used Hydrogen fuel cells. It's the oxygen tank from one that went pop on Apollo 13.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_fuel_cells#History
Last edited:
Grey cheese with holes! Told you it was hollow!!!111!one!
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Dec 2004
- Posts
- 4,681
- Location
- Bromley, Kent
There is no sense of scale which is the the thing that makes it seem that. One of those rocks at the back could be the size of a house and you couldn't tell as there's nothing to compare it against.
- Pea0n
- Pea0n
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 4,255
- Location
- North Sea
It's funny. In 1969 The US was locked in a global willy-waving contest with these guys called the "Soviet Union" who had beef with one another over the way they did business. A period you may recognise from "Hi-story" books available in your local library as the "Cold-War". Now you may think, that had the US faked the landings, then Comrade Brezhnev, the then Soviet leader would have been all over it like a rash, not passing up the opportunity to humiliate the Imperialist-Capitalist Yankee-Pig-Dogs on the World Stage for all to see. But not a peep!
Well fiddle-dee-dee!
Well fiddle-dee-dee!
Common sense and a solid grasp of the facts has no place here in GD, you should know that by now!
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 13,300
- Location
- Near Winchester
hows that? authentic moon suface behind.
It's a shop!
The main reason the horizon looks closer isn't because the moon is smaller - although that will have some effect. For a 2m person, the visible horizon will be a bit less than 3km away.
The big thing is that there's no air. Look in the OP at the mountains in the distance. They are hazy because of the atmosphere of the earth. Our eyes are used to things in the distance being hazed up by the air.
On the moon, there is no air. The horizon in the distance in the OP is nearly 2 miles away, but it's just as crystal clear as the rocks in the foreground, and so messes up your depth perception.
Simples
The big thing is that there's no air. Look in the OP at the mountains in the distance. They are hazy because of the atmosphere of the earth. Our eyes are used to things in the distance being hazed up by the air.
On the moon, there is no air. The horizon in the distance in the OP is nearly 2 miles away, but it's just as crystal clear as the rocks in the foreground, and so messes up your depth perception.
Simples
The power wasn't a problem - electrical power can be provided by either batteries or more basic chemical reactions.
Submarines had been using such batteries for 40-50 years years prior to that, requiring much greater amounts of power (having to drive a very large metal object through the water whilst providing power for life support - in comparison the moon landers would be a doddle to provide electrical power for as it was mainly needed to power light/heating/cooling and a very basic electrical items for 3-5 people).
Oxygen regeneration was largely done via simple chemical processes, of a type used in submarines, rebreather units and demonstrated for decades in schools...
Propulsion was relatively simple - you don't need or want thrust all the way, instead once you get into earth orbit the amount of thrust required to reach the moon is largely a matter of how fast you want to get there (basic physics, once something starts moving it tends not to stop unless there is a force working against it - on earth that's mainly mavity, friction and air resistance - not much of those between earth orbit and the moon).
It also doesn't take much computing power at all - it's very basic physics and fairly simple matt not much different to what was used since the start of the first artillery needed to be aimed accurately, or the first time a ship needed to navigate the ocean reasonably accurately out of sight of land.
A trained human with an abacus or slide rule (hell even pen and paper) could do most of them, just not fast enough to be usable. Even the most basic calculator could do them fast enough for the job.
Much of it was stuff that had been proven in other fields for decades, if not hundreds of years in areas such as ships navigation, military use, basic chemistry.
The thing that always amuses me about conspiracy theorists is that they don't pick up on the real problems that the space programme had (things like the weight vs strength and QC issues they had, which resulted in new methods of using/welding metals that are in use today all round the world), but instead on things that simply weren't major problems at the time except in implementation due to weight restrictions.
A lot of the "problems" that "prove" the moon landing are a sign of the ignorance of the person believing it.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Jul 2008
- Posts
- 235
and you are trying to tell me that you know more about the historic effect of a unionised workforce in health and safety and workforce relations....
when you are really a nut?
do you have the proof?
i think buzz was right to punch that imbicile. i also think his rap was brilliant
Last edited:
What's worse, I find, is that people are unwilling to even consider the facts of the argument. They'll just keep on wailing about things and claiming everyone else is wrong! Seems to be quite a popular way of thinking in GD.
