|
|
Post by fiveonit on Apr 2, 2009 19:35:26 GMT -4
Comment if you wish, this is posted more for your enjoyment. Arguing with yet another hoaxer on youtube who swears that the Apollo Astronauts should have been cooked alive on the moon's surface (not that we haven't heard that before). What is hilarious is his logic. Where do they come up with this stuff?? I had to edit out some of his filthy mouth... nothing new.
hoaxer: There is no atmosphere on the moon. Therefore the morning sun is as hot as the midday sun. Sunlight is hot, no sunlight is cold.
Funding my arse. The fact is- WE CANT GET THERE
me: HA!! That's quite comical! Deduced with all the logic of an 8 year old.
hoaxer: Okay clever co**, tell me how the morning sun on the moon is colder than the midday sun. There is no air, therefore sunlight is sunlight. The only way to measure fluctuations is by measuring ground temerature. On the ground the temp will variate but standing on the moon, as soon as the light hits you, you would feel its full temp- ****ing goon
me: Clever co**? ****ing Goon? Wow, it's no wonder you use the logic of an 8-year-old as you seem to posses the maturity level of one!
I have no idea where you took your basic Earth Science classes (if any), but where I went we were taught that the reason the Equator is warmer than the poles is that the Sun's Rays shine more directly on the equator than the poles and therefore, more of the Sun's energy hits there, and, Ta da.. warmer temperatures!
also...
if you compare a beam of light, at a right angle to a surface and shining directly at it, to a beam that is at 60 degrees to the surface, you effectively spread the same energy over twice the surface. So in effect what you have done is dropped the amount of energy hitting any particular point on that surface by roughly half.
Try it yourself! Get a flashlight first shine it directly at the ground, then point it away from you on an angle. Which looks brighter?
Hoaxer: Yes, very true. Cant argue with that, but remember clever co**, That is on earth and the sun has to go through an atmosphere. That temperature is measured as air temperature. On the moon it cannot be measured in the same way so is measured on a ground temp basis. The ground temp fluctuates greatly between very cold and very hot but when the sun hits an astronaut (not that we were ever there) the sun would be 123 celsius. Do you understand clever co**
When the sun hits a man standing on the moon (not that it has happened) he is in direct sunlight. The ground he is standing on will warm up depending on the position of the sun. Its called shade and direct light. The temp fluctuates immediatly because there is no air for it to warm up. Are you getting this yet clever co** or do I need to draw you a picture
me: More name calling from the eight year old. No surprise there. Fetish of yours?
It has nothing to do with the Atmosphere, and it has everything to do with the amount of energy hitting the surface of the moon, or any surface for that matter.
On top of that, they weren't standing there stark naked on the moon's surface. They were wearing protective suits which contained a cooling system. Duh!
|
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Apr 2, 2009 20:54:15 GMT -4
Hoaxer: That is on earth and the sun has to go through an atmosphere. That temperature is measured as air temperature. On the moon it cannot be measured in the same way so is measured on a ground temp basis. The ground temp fluctuates greatly between very cold and very hot...
To his credit, he is the first HB I've ever seen get this right.
...but when the sun hits an astronaut (not that we were ever there) the sun would be 123 celsius.
Gronk. The temperature would depend on how much the material absorbs and reflects light. A black object, face-on to the sun, would absorb a lot, and might heat-up to >100C. A light/white object would reflect more, absorb less, and therefore not heat-up as much. Guess what color astronaut spacesuits are? Remind him that astronaut doing EVA on the International Space Station are the same distance from the Sun that the Moonwalkers were.
The ground he is standing on will warm up depending on the position of the sun. Its called shade and direct light.
Correct.
The temp fluctuates immediatly because there is no air for it to warm up.
Wrong. Absorptivity, emmisivity and thermal inertia, anyone?
|
|
|
|
Post by fiveonit on Apr 2, 2009 22:28:30 GMT -4
To his credit, he is the first HB I've ever seen get this right. And I agree. You can't measure the temp of space since it is basically *nothingness*?? Still, the amount of the sun's energy falling on the moon's surface would be lessened during the morning hours as opposed to midday. Would that not affect the amount of radiant heat coming off the surface they would have to deal with? It was my understanding that was the whole reason NASA scheduled the missions during early lunar days. Am I wrong about this? If so, I guess I'll have to tell him is correct in that matter. |
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Apr 2, 2009 22:55:24 GMT -4
There was a similar allegation from Milton William Cooper about how the Russians tried to send some cosmonauts (although he called them astronauts, terminology issue) into a high earth orbit and the radiation "literally cooked" them. Of course, the cosmonaut deaths in the 1960s and early 70s had nothing to do with radiation exposure, but this claim was widely repeated anyway.  |
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Apr 2, 2009 23:02:10 GMT -4
That, I am given to understand, was one of them. No reason to put your system through a tougher challenge then it needs to. I have heard reports that the astronauts on the later missiosn reported that the moon suits got hotter as the mission progressed. The thorough dusting with decidedly less reflective material of lunar dust was likely also a factor.
Also, the moon is simply frightfully monochromatic, and nearer to noon the lessening of shadows makes navigation for landing much more difficult. The longer shadows of morning make the the landmarks easier to distinguish.
|
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Apr 2, 2009 23:12:55 GMT -4
To his credit, he is the first HB I've ever seen get this right. And I agree. You can't measure the temp of space since it is basically *nothingness*?? Still, the amount of the sun's energy falling on the moon's surface would be lessened during the morning hours as opposed to midday. Would that not affect the amount of radiant heat coming off the surface they would have to deal with? It was my understanding that was the whole reason NASA scheduled the missions during early lunar days. Am I wrong about this? If so, I guess I'll have to tell him is correct in that matter. No, you have it pretty much right. The insolation is less during the morning. The lunar surface is cold at dawn, and while it heats up as the day progresses, it has not reached its highest temperature. The LM thermal budget was designed for this time of day, after all. Lighting was also a consideration. I'm with a group working on power systems for the lunar surface, and we have to understand the surface temperature profile for the things to work. The temperature simply doesn't "fluctuate immediately" up to its maximum at sunrise. That's nonsense, and not just in theory; we've measured the surface temperature directly. |
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Apr 2, 2009 23:21:53 GMT -4
I understand what the HB is saying and I believe he has a point. The amount of energy an astronaut receives from being in direct sunlight is essentially the same regardless of whether it is morning or otherwise. However, the amount of sunlight reflecting off the ground is greater at midday. A warmer midday ground will also radiant more heat. This makes the total thermal load on the astronaut greater at midday than during morning.
Furthermore, the HB is apparently assuming the only reason the landings were made during lunar morning was because it was “cooler”. Morning was the ideal time for a landing because it placed the Sun at the astronauts back and produced prominent shadows.
|
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 2, 2009 23:31:03 GMT -4
I'm with a group working on power systems for the lunar surface . . . . , I love it here! |
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Apr 3, 2009 2:22:43 GMT -4
Furthermore, the HB is apparently assuming the only reason the landings were made during lunar morning was because it was “cooler”. Morning was the ideal time for a landing because it placed the Sun at the astronauts back and produced prominent shadows. In addition to strong shadows of the terrain (to help the crew find a smooth spot), the early morning landing time also put the shadow of the LM in front of the lander, where the commander could see it. The cratered lunar surface really doesn't have easily reconizable features for eyeballing distance. A 10-foot crater from 100 feet up looks pretty much like 100-foot crater from 1000 feet up. Having the LM's shadow (which was of a known size) gave the man at the controls a ready reference for gauging his height-above-ground. At high altitude, the shadow appeared small and far away. As the LM descended, the shadow apeared to grow larger and came closer. At touchdown, the shadow of the footpads touched the pads themselves. This footage of the Apollo 16 landing (8.7 MB quicktime movie) shows the shadow approaching in the distance, and then closer as they approach touchdown.  |
|
|
|
Post by AstroSmurf on Apr 3, 2009 4:20:23 GMT -4
Just a question - as seen in the A11 pictures, the porch was in shadow. Was the trajectory designed to approach the landing site on purpose to make this happen? After all, you'd hardly want to be rotating as you set down with everything else going on.
I can't remember if there are pictures with the porch in sunlight. Were they all set down with the porch in the shade and rear towards up-sun? That would make all their trajectories be east-to-west ones, which makes sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 3, 2009 4:42:56 GMT -4
All of the LM's were landed so the porch was opposite the sun for thrermal reasons with the LM design.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Apr 3, 2009 8:06:48 GMT -4
In addition to strong shadows of the terrain (to help the crew find a smooth spot), the early morning landing time also put the shadow of the LM in front of the lander, where the commander could see it... Having the LM's shadow (which was of a known size) gave the man at the controls a ready reference for gauging his height-above-ground. Duke: Okay. (Pause) Okay, fuel is good: 10 percent. There comes the (LM) shadow. [According to the Mission Report, "At about 450 feet altitude, the Lunar Module Pilot observed the Lunar Module's shadow from his window. At an altitude below 200 feet, as the Commander yawed the vehicle toward the right (that is, rotated right around the now-vertical thrust axis), he also noticed the shadow."] [Young, from the 1972 Technical Debrief - "When we redesignated to the south, we must have had 30 degrees of (left) yaw and took it back out. At that Sun angle, we could see the rocks (through the dust) all the way to the ground and I think that was a great help. From 200 feet down, I never looked in the cockpit. It was just like flying the LLTV (Lunar Landing Training Vehicle); your reference is to the ground outside. You had another thing that nobody has ever remarked about before, and that was the shadow. I really didn't have any doubt in my mind how far above the ground we were with that shadow coming down (that is, getting closer to them as they approach the surface). I had no scale of reference to the holes; but, with the shadow out there in front of you and coming down, it really takes all of the guesswork out of it. For that kind of Sun angle, if the radar had crumped, I don't think you'd have had a bit of trouble in just going right in and landing just like a helicopter. First, we could see the thing (rocks and other surface features) all the way to the ground; second, the shadow was right there to help you with the rate of descent. When Charlie says 'you stopped and you're hovering', there wasn't any doubt in my mind that I was hovering. I could look out the window and see that we're hovering just like a helicopter. We were well into the dust - maybe 40 or 50 feet off the ground - when we were doing that."] The Apollo 17 landing film is good to watch for shadow effects. The LM's shadow is visible coming though Camelot crater. In the movie Apollo 17: On the Shoulders of Giants the landing film starts about 6-1/2 minutes into the movie. Camelot is the biggest crater visible, and when Schmitt says, "2500 feet, 52 degrees" the LM's shadow is just visible in the bright spot on the far rim of Camelot. After coming trough the crater, the shadow gets bigger until it is almost recognisable, but unfortunately it disappears off the top of the screeen due to the LM pitching forward toward vertical and the camera pointing down, but the shadow can be glimpsed twice more before touchdown. |
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Apr 3, 2009 8:50:07 GMT -4
HA!! That's quite comical! Deduced with all the logic of an 8 year old. ...Wow, it's no wonder you use the logic of an 8-year-old as you seem to posses the maturity level of one! ...I have no idea where you took your basic Earth Science classes (if any)... ...More name calling from the eight year old. No surprise there. Fetish of yours? ...Duh! Fiveonit, why not avoid saying this sort of thing altogether? Doing so makes you far more respectable and therefore worth paying attention to in other people's eyes, whereas commenting in a derogatory manner is stooping down toward the same level as the other poster. Removing those comments raises your argument a notch or two. It's a simple matter of taking a deep breath, counting to ten, avoiding posting when angry, resolving that you're not going to play silly games, and insisting that you are going to behave like a genuine ambassador for the truth -- with maturity, decency, intelligence and good sense. In rugby terms, playing the ball and not the man. I have occasionally felt embarrassed and ashamed at how some members of BAUT and ApolloHoax (where insults are not allowed) have so rudely flamed HBs in other forums. They should take a leaf out of JayUtah's book. They should know better -- that it accomplishes nothing and makes them look foolish. I have often asked myself, "Does behaving like that really make them feel good about themselves?" The best response to flaming is none at all. Just ignore it and carry on as if it didn't exist, tackling only the pertinent points of the debate. You will look far more respectable and convincing by staying unruffled and you will convince people by your behaviour that you know what you're talking about and that you have integrity. Above all, look on debunking as not being your task to reform the HB but to convince the fence-sitters and the lurkers of your correctness. Politeness will accomplish that. |
|
|
|
Post by fiveonit on Apr 3, 2009 10:28:38 GMT -4
Kiwi...
Yes you have a point. Truth be told I'm not half as bad as I used to be. After posting here, I did notice that my initial comments were somewhat harsh. That being said you have to realize a few things...
1: If you notice, I began by commenting by saying he was *using* the logic of an 8-year-old, not that he was acting like one. Although as soon as I said that, he began to!
2: The comments I posted were literally taken (cut and pasted) out of context. My tone wasn't derived from just his comments on lunar surface temperatures, but also comments he made to others and me not only in that thread, but others as well.
3: Yes - It's mostly me. I tend to have a very sarcastic sense of humor. You mention Jay, and I have seen how he responds to others. No, he doesn't go for character assignations but I would classify a lot of his comments as *sarcastic* as well. Not that it's bad but I do tend to like his style! I don't remember where it was (perhaps this forum?) but he was replying to a hoaxer that said he was of royal descent and a certified welder. The way Jay responded to him had me laughing out load!
But yes... It probably would benefit me to *cool off* a tad before posting. Agreed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Apr 3, 2009 11:45:56 GMT -4
hoaxer: [...]standing on the moon, as soon as the light hits you, you would feel its full temp- Ask him if this also applies to EVA-suited astronauts in Earth orbit, who also have no atmosphere around them to "warm up." Excellent point about shade. Ask him what the temperature of the shaded side of the man standing on the moon (when it did happen) was. Why would the astronaut "cook" if only half of him was in direct sunlight? Wouldn't half of him also freeze? Ask him if evacuating the air from an electric oven will enable it to immediately cook a 20lb turkey. The apparent logic is that air can only slow down heat transfer. Ergo, remove the air and heat transfer becomes instantaneous throughout the mass of whatever the heat is being applied to. |
|
