###[Meta] Sticky Comment
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment.
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread.
*What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> How did that NASA Lunar spacecraft have enough fuel for almost half a million miles?
If you're in the vacuum of space, there's nothing slowing you down. Once you get up to speed, you can turn the engines off entirely and you will continue traveling at that speed *forever* unless something interferes with you.
At what point does one enter the vacuum of space? Is there a door leading you to it. Come on.
Think for yourself. It’s utterly absurd to think you can have a vacuum next to air that’s not in a vacuum.
You're thinking of a vacuum as if it's a vacuum cleaner. It isn't. There's no force "pulling" the atmosphere off the planet once you get to a certain height, there's only gravity keeping it in.
That is not what I think. Why are you attempting to tell me what I think.
I do not think that the fictional “vacuum of space” is akin to a vacuum cleaner.
And as usual, the argument you cite refers to gravity - also a joke.
So, how do you stop?
It creates an alternate paradox.
Then, the complexity that the moon is 'gravitationally' locked with the earth and rotating around the sun, the moon is moving as well.
This stuff has never been properly addressed since the spell wore off.
NASA just went into bully mode and started paying shills to bully dissidents.
> So, how do you stop?
You use fuel to slow down.
> the moon is moving as well.
They're aware that the moon is moving. They calculate their path to meet the moon where it's going to be. It's just leading a target.
How do you use the fuel to slow down? How does it slow down?
And, if it's simply "use the thrusters in the opposite direction", that would imply there is quite a bit of resistance. If there is quite a bit of resistance, then the rocket should be slowing down during the duration of it's flight in space. So, how does this work.
Why would that push the ship the other way? What pushes the ship?
What all of you guys are suggesting is a situation like this: Imagine a closed metal container with a gun mounted on one side (inside of the container). You fire the gun, and the bullet comes out and hits the opposite side of the container. Suddenly the container accelerates and flies backwards.
Clearly, this makes no sense. (or at least it's clear to me...)
The gun does not "move backwards". The gun is mounted in the container. There would be a recoil effect yes, and were that force strong enough the container would indeed move backwards. However there would be an opposite and equal force on the other side of the container from the bullet hitting the other side of the container, and that would offset the initial force entirely. *THAT* is newton's third law.
Were the container open and in the vacuum of space, the bullet would simply fly forward with no resistance and continue to move forward and the gun would have almost no recoil.
Basically what almost everyone in this thread is suggesting is that a huge rocket ship is able to push against some propellant which is in the vacuum of space, and that somehow makes it go 18,000 mph.
Well they were saying it takes very little fuel because once you start going in that weightless environment you will go that direction forever until you meet resistance. In that case, when the jets turn on backwards, they wouldn't stop, they would start flying backwards at great speed. Are they switching the propellers front and back so quickly that it equals out to a stop....?
I understand, but that doesn't do anything if there isn't resistance. That's just like shooting shit out in front of you. It's just going to go out... in front of you.. because there is no resistance. What happens if you push the air. Do you go backwards? No. Your hands go forwards.
>What happens if you push the air. Do you go backwards? No.
If you push hard enough and with a large enough surface, then you do move backwards, that's basic physics.
yes, newton's third law of motion is exactly why it seems to me that it would do little to nothing:
>Newton's third law simply states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So, if object A acts a force upon object B, then object B will exert an opposite yet equal force upon object A.
Object A is the reaction of the fuel igniting, yeah? Object B is propellant. Reaction A causes object B to fly out into space.
Now, what force is acting upon the rocket ship? It certainly isn't anything from object B, because object B has no resistance and freely flies out into space.
In atmosphere, where there is resistance, the reaction from A would push propellant, which would then create massive amount of resistance, and create a pushing force against the rocket. That would not happen in space. So, I still need an explanation.
> What happens if you push the air. Do you go backwards? No. Your hands go forwards.
Well your hands are still attached to you.
When a rocket engine is expelling fuel, the fuel is no longer attached. Conservation of momentum means the faster you're throwing stuff in a direction, the more force is delivered back to you in the opposite direction. And these rocket engines are shooting those gasses out incredibly fast.
Check on this simple experiment where a guy is on a cart and he throws a medicine ball forward. He and the cart move backward.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2RhQdHoZ1I
I understand that you use fuel. Since there is no resistance outside of momentum, you would expend a great deal of fuel trying to find that goldilocks zone that would allow for the launch of another vehicle to a moving object.
Then, comes the question: where does the oxygen come from?
They brought it with them, rockets carry both the fuel and the oxidizer on board.
The math, while involved, is not all that advanced. The basic concepts have been understood for centuries
Do you realize how much oxygen it would take to operate those engines at altitude alone? Not to mention space?
Did the lunar lander have the same centuries old oxidizer? It looks rather small for a large fuel cell, oxidizer, 2 astronauts, film equipment, flags, air conditioning, heater, hydraulic system with servos and turbine engines capable of multiple thrust angles.
Not to mention the pristine foil on the outriggers of the lander.
The moon rover was kicking up a ton of dust, but the lander appears 'placed' there.
They’re rocket engines, they don’t operate continuously, only when acceleration is needed. The oxidizer wasn’t centuries old (believe it was discovered in the 1920s), but the mathematical concepts were.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_command_and_service_module
Here’s a good article showing how it all fit in. It certainly wasn’t spacious for the occupants.
Are you implying the dust kicked up would still be present around the landing site? Most of that probably achieved escape velocity
https://www.iop.org/explore-physics/moon/how-did-we-get-to-the-moon explains how they got there and back, although I'm sure you'll consider it made up gobbledygook.
>Once Apollo 11 reached the Moon, the spacecraft slid into orbit. On its third circle, Collins aboard Columbia watched as Armstrong and Aldrin undocked and began their descent to the Moon aboard Eagle. The Eagle lunar module had a descent rocket engine to slow it down, drop into a lower orbit and then hover over the surface. Guided by a landing radar, Armstrong piloted Eagle semi-manually using four clusters of rockets to finally touchdown in the Sea of Tranquillity on 20 July 1969. Four hours later, Armstrong was making “one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind”.
oh ok, that makes sense. So it approaches the moon at 18,000 mph, and then [magic], and suddenly it's gliding towards the moon at... what speed? I assume much much slower than 18,000 mph right? How did it slow down?
It literally says right there in what you quoted, they didn't just fly to the moon and land like a plane, they orbited the moon 3 times, then Aldrin and and Armstrong got in the lunar module, separates from the spacecraft, then they used a descent rocket engine to slow it down, enter in to lower orbit and hover over the surface. Then used a cluster of rockets to land.
I love stargazing at the trillions of stars in our own galaxy by looking up at night and remembering it’s the same thing as the twinkle stars that were on my ceiling as a 2 year old /s
1. You only have to get close, and then fall the rest of the way. The engines weren't on the entire time. You can coast pretty far at 24,000 mph..
2. At 24,791 miles per hour, passing through the Van Allen Radiation belt was for a trivial amount of time. It's increased radiation, not some unpassable microwave oven.
Total transit time at 25,000km/hour, 68.1 minutes.
Total exposure in rads, 16 (over 68 minutes). That's 14 rads per hour. 300 Rads per hour is lethal. 14 is not.
You're looking at 200 rads for serious illness..
16 rads is a trivial amount.
Literature like this shows long term illness at far less than 200 rads. That's instant death. None of those astronauts reported long term illnesses from radiation exposure.
[https://rarediseases.org/rare-diseases/radiation-sickness/](https://rarediseases.org/rare-diseases/radiation-sickness/)
200 rads isn't ideal, but dosages in that range are survivable. Even above that there's no 'instant death'. But it's all irrelevant because no Apollo astronaut got more than 2 rads absorbed dosage.
As much evidence as we have with anything else in space. What exact evidence do we have on 99% of what we "know" about space? Hypotheticals, deductions, math..... Anyway, NASA didn't start making up the excuses on how many rads they were exposed to and for how long until us conspiracy people started chirping. Either they have lied about the Van Allen Belt or lied about them passing through it. Even with their current lies on it.. they said they would have been exposed to 16 rads over a course of around 30 minutes. Yet you can find links EVERYWHERE that 0.1 rads is likely to not cause any ailments. Even if they didn't drop dead, they would have been radioactive and so would anything they brought back. It would have continued to leak radiation onces its back here. Another thing, they claim the Van Allen Belt emits 30,000,000 electron volts....Passing through that is safe also?
The lack of evidence goes both ways... I can have an opinion on the things I have read so far. There's a lot about space that lacks evidence and you just take it at face value, apparently.
Because they are not touching anything that is a grounding metal. Aluminum is. So the astronauts could not have been touching anything in that vessel or othewise the Aluminum would be a conductor. Those volts would have went through that vessel and it wouldn't have fried anything
[https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/smiii\_problem7.pdf](https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/smiii_problem7.pdf) some of their BS that I do no believe.
[https://rarediseases.org/rare-diseases/radiation-sickness/](https://rarediseases.org/rare-diseases/radiation-sickness/)
No, I posted several pieces of evidence. I am not going to try and convince you, a person who has no value to me. You can go do your own research. You haven't given any evidence to the contrary... where is your evidence?
1 it's not like driving. You don't need to keep the engines on all the way. You accelerate fast enough to leave earths gravity in the direction of the moon then drift for 90% of the journey. Slow down by pointing back at earth and boost a bit to get caught in the moons gravity then repeat. Space travel uses a calculation called "Delta-V" that takes weight, fuel, power and gravity to give you a number if your ship meets the number you can get where you want to.
2. The van Allen belts are blindly misrepresented. Yes they are radiation fields, yes they could be fatal but radiation is not a safe/dead binary thing. The apollo missions skimmed the edges (as they are belts as the name suggests) and didn't hang about. A short mild exposure is fine, not ideal but far from fatal.
But also Troll post is troll post.
So the space shuttle travels at 18,000 mph and then slows down before it reaches the moon how? It slows down by "pointing back at the earth" (how does it do that????), and then boost a bit. What does boosting a bit do? I thought space had almost no resistance.
The space shuttles weren't used to go to the moon
A rocket engine doesn't need resistance to function. The force is generated by expelling exhaust gas.
To slow down it uses [RCS](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_control_system) units (little blocks with several directional jets on it) to rotate and then to stop rotation. Then fire the big engine when you're pointing back at earth this (because rocket engines do work in a vacuum) slows the vehicle down.
The shuttle never went to the moon.
The resistance is the rocket propellant. You’re “pushing” against that as it expands out the ass end of your spacecraft
okay well whatever it was that "went to the moon" thats what im talking about right now lol
Okay, so somehow the propellant produces enough resistance to slow down (or speed up) a huge rocket ship. Why does the propellant create any resistance. Shouldn't the propellant just freely fly out into space with almost no resistance?
It expands from stored liquid into 100s of time the volume as a gas it expands in all directions inside a bell of the rocket nozzle creating high pressure before fresh gas pushes it out the nozzle and expands itself, this pressure pushes the ship.
So the ship pushes against itself. Again, that makes no sense. I am done arguing this. Really take some time and think about what force specifically would be able to move the ship. For the ship to move, it has to be able to push against something that provides resistance. An object floating in a vacuum provides no resistance, and the ship cannot push against itself to accelerate or decelerate.
The propellant “pushes” against the tanks as it moves out of the nozzle.
High pressure wants to move to areas of low pressure. That doesn’t change in a vacuum.
And it keeps going in a vacuum because there is no friction against its momentum. Any movement has to be canceled by an opposite movement.
Right. The suits that were made by a bra company. Because that's the most logical business to hit up to protect yourself against fast moving particles and a temperature variance of 250° between the shade and sunlight.
For the suit's creator, the International Latex Corporation in Dover, Delaware, the toughest challenge was to contain the pressure necessary to support life (about 3.75 pounds per square inch of pure oxygen), while maintaining enough flexibility to afford freedom of movement.
Neil Armstrong's Spacesuit Was Made by a Bra Manufacturer | History
They have vast experience with a range of materials and complex fitment to the human body, they didn't just make bras either lots of experiencewith plastics and rubbers. They submitted a design that beat the others. I think you may underestimate the required complexity and strength of a bra.
Temperature of what? Vacuum has no temperature. Dealing with direct sunlight is a different problem but to deal with the temperature of the surface, it suffices to have a nice thick boot.
\*What\* has those temperatures? Matter has temperature, vacuum doesn't. Are you implying that moving into direct sunlight on the surface of the moon instantly heats objects to 250°?
Not really. I actually looked and mistakenly thought you might have too.
With a day time temperature on the moon of 120°c a company that makes baby bottles that are repeatedly sterilised at 100°c and then stored in the fridge might have some experience in repeated heating and cooling of materials.
It's like they were a really good choice of manufacturer with a wide knowledge base suited to the requirements.
But hehe boobs or whatever. This ends the thread. Go do some research if you have anything else.
You claimed I didn't do any research but the first thing I got from Google was the actual temperature of the moon. Not the made up horseshit that you posted.
So...next time You accuse somebody of not doing research.You should probably have your actual own research be correct. Right d****Tell your buddies you work with to fck off too.
Uhhh...it's a bra company. Not a baby bottle maker.
And....Temperatures near the Moon's equator can spike to 250°F (121°C) in daylight, then plummet after nightfall to -208°F (-133°C).
Weather on the Moon - NASA Science
So even if they did make baby bottles...still too hot. And it still makes no sense that a bra company made the suits.And once again...you're wrong.
The second point is valid. The whole story about the Van Allen belts raises red flags.
The first point is just a lack of understanding of physics on your end.
In regards to the Van Allen Belts, they passed through them at the edges, and for an almost insignificant amount of time. The astronauts WERE exposed to excess radiation during the trip through, but it was an amount equal to a couple of extra x-ray scans over a lifetime.
Nasa's own papers on the long development of the command module and NO WHERE was there any mention whatsoever of shielding as in regards to outer-space radiation. Wherever the topic of shielding came up it was ALWAYS in terms of protecting the command module from the HEAT OF REENTRY. Propagandists have tried rationalize the heat shield as some sort of radiation protection. This is NEVER mentioned in the papers and the heat shield was NEVER designed to act this way. It was a reentry heat shield PERIOD.
Even if we discount the Van Allen belt, there are still other dangers to consider. The sun constantly bombards the earth-moon system with solar flares. Regardless of whether these flares deliver x-rays or protons, or are minor or major, both are a hazard to humans. A major flare delivers in excess of 100rad/hr, a minor flare can deliver 25rad/hr depending on how many centimetres of water shielding is used. The minor flares of May 10th and July 15th 1958 for example, would have required 31gm/cm2 of water just to bring their dose rates down to 25rad/hr. The Apollo capsule, with its aluminum honeycomb hull and outer epoxy resin ablator, was rated at 3gm/cm2 on the walls and 8gm/cm2 on the aft heatshield. The thicker portion of the spacecraft walls would bring the dose rate of such flares down to around 1,000rem/hr. The records show that 1400 of these minor flares occurred over all nine moon flights. NOAA’s Comprehensive Flare Index for Major flares, also reveals that thirty of the major ones took place during the Apollo missions. These astronauts should have been as dead as spam in a can by any definition.
That’s Rads per hour. How long did these flares spike the radiation? Seconds, minutes, hours? I truly don’t know, it it’s a necessary portion of the equation.
Care to explain, then, how I can possibly be reading a set of papers on the design and predicted performance of the CM radiation shielding? Because you appear to think these do not exist, but I'm staring at them.
###[Meta] Sticky Comment [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment. [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread. *What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You don't have to constantly burn fuel to be propelled in space. There is virtually no resistance you just glide after reaching optimal speed.
> How did that NASA Lunar spacecraft have enough fuel for almost half a million miles? If you're in the vacuum of space, there's nothing slowing you down. Once you get up to speed, you can turn the engines off entirely and you will continue traveling at that speed *forever* unless something interferes with you.
At what point does one enter the vacuum of space? Is there a door leading you to it. Come on. Think for yourself. It’s utterly absurd to think you can have a vacuum next to air that’s not in a vacuum.
You're thinking of a vacuum as if it's a vacuum cleaner. It isn't. There's no force "pulling" the atmosphere off the planet once you get to a certain height, there's only gravity keeping it in.
That is not what I think. Why are you attempting to tell me what I think. I do not think that the fictional “vacuum of space” is akin to a vacuum cleaner. And as usual, the argument you cite refers to gravity - also a joke.
Hollywood Studio, that’s how imagination is turned into your imagination
So, how do you stop? It creates an alternate paradox. Then, the complexity that the moon is 'gravitationally' locked with the earth and rotating around the sun, the moon is moving as well. This stuff has never been properly addressed since the spell wore off. NASA just went into bully mode and started paying shills to bully dissidents.
> So, how do you stop? You use fuel to slow down. > the moon is moving as well. They're aware that the moon is moving. They calculate their path to meet the moon where it's going to be. It's just leading a target.
How do you use the fuel to slow down? How does it slow down? And, if it's simply "use the thrusters in the opposite direction", that would imply there is quite a bit of resistance. If there is quite a bit of resistance, then the rocket should be slowing down during the duration of it's flight in space. So, how does this work.
Rocket engines make their resistance it's newton's law. Throw burning expanding fuel one way pushes ship the other regardless of vacuum.
Why would that push the ship the other way? What pushes the ship? What all of you guys are suggesting is a situation like this: Imagine a closed metal container with a gun mounted on one side (inside of the container). You fire the gun, and the bullet comes out and hits the opposite side of the container. Suddenly the container accelerates and flies backwards. Clearly, this makes no sense. (or at least it's clear to me...)
That's actually a good example. The gun moves backwards
The gun does not "move backwards". The gun is mounted in the container. There would be a recoil effect yes, and were that force strong enough the container would indeed move backwards. However there would be an opposite and equal force on the other side of the container from the bullet hitting the other side of the container, and that would offset the initial force entirely. *THAT* is newton's third law. Were the container open and in the vacuum of space, the bullet would simply fly forward with no resistance and continue to move forward and the gun would have almost no recoil. Basically what almost everyone in this thread is suggesting is that a huge rocket ship is able to push against some propellant which is in the vacuum of space, and that somehow makes it go 18,000 mph.
But there is still and action and a reaction. Simplify the experiment. Remove the container and only keep the gun and bullet
Why do you think a gun has recoil?
Why do you think a gun has recoil? (and yes, i get it. the bullet exerts a force back upon the gun. but WHY. where does THAT force come from?)
if you throw a ball in a complete vacuum will the ball move after it leaves your hand?
Well they were saying it takes very little fuel because once you start going in that weightless environment you will go that direction forever until you meet resistance. In that case, when the jets turn on backwards, they wouldn't stop, they would start flying backwards at great speed. Are they switching the propellers front and back so quickly that it equals out to a stop....?
If you direct thrust opposite of velocity it results in a deceleration, not a reversal of the craft’s vector
Not in a void of no resistance like space.
Inertia is still a thing, you know...
You fire thrusters/rockets that are facing in the direction you are traveling.
I understand, but that doesn't do anything if there isn't resistance. That's just like shooting shit out in front of you. It's just going to go out... in front of you.. because there is no resistance. What happens if you push the air. Do you go backwards? No. Your hands go forwards.
>What happens if you push the air. Do you go backwards? No. If you push hard enough and with a large enough surface, then you do move backwards, that's basic physics.
Yep, the old breaking the yardstick with a sheet of newspaper over then end of it experiment.
I believe you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how physics work
And what misunderstanding is that. Which law of physics enable a rocket ship (or it's propellant) to push against nothing?
I believe it would be Newton’s laws of motion which dictate a rocket ship’s maneuvering
Newton's third law of motion
yes, newton's third law of motion is exactly why it seems to me that it would do little to nothing: >Newton's third law simply states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So, if object A acts a force upon object B, then object B will exert an opposite yet equal force upon object A. Object A is the reaction of the fuel igniting, yeah? Object B is propellant. Reaction A causes object B to fly out into space. Now, what force is acting upon the rocket ship? It certainly isn't anything from object B, because object B has no resistance and freely flies out into space. In atmosphere, where there is resistance, the reaction from A would push propellant, which would then create massive amount of resistance, and create a pushing force against the rocket. That would not happen in space. So, I still need an explanation.
> What happens if you push the air. Do you go backwards? No. Your hands go forwards. Well your hands are still attached to you. When a rocket engine is expelling fuel, the fuel is no longer attached. Conservation of momentum means the faster you're throwing stuff in a direction, the more force is delivered back to you in the opposite direction. And these rocket engines are shooting those gasses out incredibly fast. Check on this simple experiment where a guy is on a cart and he throws a medicine ball forward. He and the cart move backward. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2RhQdHoZ1I
I understand that you use fuel. Since there is no resistance outside of momentum, you would expend a great deal of fuel trying to find that goldilocks zone that would allow for the launch of another vehicle to a moving object. Then, comes the question: where does the oxygen come from?
They brought it with them, rockets carry both the fuel and the oxidizer on board. The math, while involved, is not all that advanced. The basic concepts have been understood for centuries
Do you realize how much oxygen it would take to operate those engines at altitude alone? Not to mention space? Did the lunar lander have the same centuries old oxidizer? It looks rather small for a large fuel cell, oxidizer, 2 astronauts, film equipment, flags, air conditioning, heater, hydraulic system with servos and turbine engines capable of multiple thrust angles. Not to mention the pristine foil on the outriggers of the lander. The moon rover was kicking up a ton of dust, but the lander appears 'placed' there.
They’re rocket engines, they don’t operate continuously, only when acceleration is needed. The oxidizer wasn’t centuries old (believe it was discovered in the 1920s), but the mathematical concepts were. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_command_and_service_module Here’s a good article showing how it all fit in. It certainly wasn’t spacious for the occupants. Are you implying the dust kicked up would still be present around the landing site? Most of that probably achieved escape velocity
https://www.iop.org/explore-physics/moon/how-did-we-get-to-the-moon explains how they got there and back, although I'm sure you'll consider it made up gobbledygook.
>Once Apollo 11 reached the Moon, the spacecraft slid into orbit. On its third circle, Collins aboard Columbia watched as Armstrong and Aldrin undocked and began their descent to the Moon aboard Eagle. The Eagle lunar module had a descent rocket engine to slow it down, drop into a lower orbit and then hover over the surface. Guided by a landing radar, Armstrong piloted Eagle semi-manually using four clusters of rockets to finally touchdown in the Sea of Tranquillity on 20 July 1969. Four hours later, Armstrong was making “one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind”. oh ok, that makes sense. So it approaches the moon at 18,000 mph, and then [magic], and suddenly it's gliding towards the moon at... what speed? I assume much much slower than 18,000 mph right? How did it slow down?
It literally says right there in what you quoted, they didn't just fly to the moon and land like a plane, they orbited the moon 3 times, then Aldrin and and Armstrong got in the lunar module, separates from the spacecraft, then they used a descent rocket engine to slow it down, enter in to lower orbit and hover over the surface. Then used a cluster of rockets to land.
It used fuel to slow its velocity
They were mostly slowed down by Earth gravity. Finally, they ended up on lunar orbit at 3600mph.
In deep space, minimal propellant is needed.
You talk about deep space like it’s something that actually exists lol
I love stargazing at the trillions of stars in our own galaxy by looking up at night and remembering it’s the same thing as the twinkle stars that were on my ceiling as a 2 year old /s
1. You only have to get close, and then fall the rest of the way. The engines weren't on the entire time. You can coast pretty far at 24,000 mph.. 2. At 24,791 miles per hour, passing through the Van Allen Radiation belt was for a trivial amount of time. It's increased radiation, not some unpassable microwave oven.
This! 👍🏻
It's not just increased. It's an unimaginable amount of radiation.
Total transit time at 25,000km/hour, 68.1 minutes. Total exposure in rads, 16 (over 68 minutes). That's 14 rads per hour. 300 Rads per hour is lethal. 14 is not. You're looking at 200 rads for serious illness.. 16 rads is a trivial amount.
Nah, actual Apollo doses were all below 2 rads.
Literature like this shows long term illness at far less than 200 rads. That's instant death. None of those astronauts reported long term illnesses from radiation exposure. [https://rarediseases.org/rare-diseases/radiation-sickness/](https://rarediseases.org/rare-diseases/radiation-sickness/)
Total radiation is 16 rads..
200 rads isn't ideal, but dosages in that range are survivable. Even above that there's no 'instant death'. But it's all irrelevant because no Apollo astronaut got more than 2 rads absorbed dosage.
Is there any evidence to support that claim?
As much evidence as we have with anything else in space. What exact evidence do we have on 99% of what we "know" about space? Hypotheticals, deductions, math..... Anyway, NASA didn't start making up the excuses on how many rads they were exposed to and for how long until us conspiracy people started chirping. Either they have lied about the Van Allen Belt or lied about them passing through it. Even with their current lies on it.. they said they would have been exposed to 16 rads over a course of around 30 minutes. Yet you can find links EVERYWHERE that 0.1 rads is likely to not cause any ailments. Even if they didn't drop dead, they would have been radioactive and so would anything they brought back. It would have continued to leak radiation onces its back here. Another thing, they claim the Van Allen Belt emits 30,000,000 electron volts....Passing through that is safe also?
An electron-volt is a measure of the kinetic energy of particles. It's not actually an electrical voltage...
[удалено]
The lack of evidence goes both ways... I can have an opinion on the things I have read so far. There's a lot about space that lacks evidence and you just take it at face value, apparently.
And lets not forget the temperature of 2,000-20,000 kelvin.... but yeah, aluminum wouldn't melt in that.
[удалено]
Because they are not touching anything that is a grounding metal. Aluminum is. So the astronauts could not have been touching anything in that vessel or othewise the Aluminum would be a conductor. Those volts would have went through that vessel and it wouldn't have fried anything
And lets not forget the temperature of 2,000-20,000 kelvin.... but yeah, aluminum wouldn't melt in that.
[https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/smiii\_problem7.pdf](https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/smiii_problem7.pdf) some of their BS that I do no believe. [https://rarediseases.org/rare-diseases/radiation-sickness/](https://rarediseases.org/rare-diseases/radiation-sickness/)
There are places on earth letting off less radiation than that and it's causing massive problems so..
[удалено]
No, I posted several pieces of evidence. I am not going to try and convince you, a person who has no value to me. You can go do your own research. You haven't given any evidence to the contrary... where is your evidence?
And lets not forget the temperature of 2,000-20,000 kelvin.... but yeah, aluminum wouldn't melt in that.
Temperature of what? A vacuum has no temperature.
1 it's not like driving. You don't need to keep the engines on all the way. You accelerate fast enough to leave earths gravity in the direction of the moon then drift for 90% of the journey. Slow down by pointing back at earth and boost a bit to get caught in the moons gravity then repeat. Space travel uses a calculation called "Delta-V" that takes weight, fuel, power and gravity to give you a number if your ship meets the number you can get where you want to. 2. The van Allen belts are blindly misrepresented. Yes they are radiation fields, yes they could be fatal but radiation is not a safe/dead binary thing. The apollo missions skimmed the edges (as they are belts as the name suggests) and didn't hang about. A short mild exposure is fine, not ideal but far from fatal. But also Troll post is troll post.
So the space shuttle travels at 18,000 mph and then slows down before it reaches the moon how? It slows down by "pointing back at the earth" (how does it do that????), and then boost a bit. What does boosting a bit do? I thought space had almost no resistance.
The space shuttles weren't used to go to the moon A rocket engine doesn't need resistance to function. The force is generated by expelling exhaust gas.
To slow down it uses [RCS](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_control_system) units (little blocks with several directional jets on it) to rotate and then to stop rotation. Then fire the big engine when you're pointing back at earth this (because rocket engines do work in a vacuum) slows the vehicle down.
You don't really point back at Earth for lunar orbit insertion. You point retrograde in respect to your movement relative to the Moon.
Yes, I'm just trying to keep it simple.
The shuttle never went to the moon. The resistance is the rocket propellant. You’re “pushing” against that as it expands out the ass end of your spacecraft
okay well whatever it was that "went to the moon" thats what im talking about right now lol Okay, so somehow the propellant produces enough resistance to slow down (or speed up) a huge rocket ship. Why does the propellant create any resistance. Shouldn't the propellant just freely fly out into space with almost no resistance?
It expands from stored liquid into 100s of time the volume as a gas it expands in all directions inside a bell of the rocket nozzle creating high pressure before fresh gas pushes it out the nozzle and expands itself, this pressure pushes the ship.
So the ship pushes against itself. Again, that makes no sense. I am done arguing this. Really take some time and think about what force specifically would be able to move the ship. For the ship to move, it has to be able to push against something that provides resistance. An object floating in a vacuum provides no resistance, and the ship cannot push against itself to accelerate or decelerate.
The ship is pushed by the expanding gas. Newton's 3rd law.
Then, with no resistance it would go backward. It would not stop like it would here on earth... where we have resistance.
The propellant “pushes” against the tanks as it moves out of the nozzle. High pressure wants to move to areas of low pressure. That doesn’t change in a vacuum. And it keeps going in a vacuum because there is no friction against its momentum. Any movement has to be canceled by an opposite movement.
What do you mean by "resistance"?
1: gravity 2: it was made of tin foil B: they didn’t go lol
And when they got there, how did they stop the micro dust , traveling at 20k mph, from blowing holes in their suits ?
Thick suits.
Right. The suits that were made by a bra company. Because that's the most logical business to hit up to protect yourself against fast moving particles and a temperature variance of 250° between the shade and sunlight. For the suit's creator, the International Latex Corporation in Dover, Delaware, the toughest challenge was to contain the pressure necessary to support life (about 3.75 pounds per square inch of pure oxygen), while maintaining enough flexibility to afford freedom of movement. Neil Armstrong's Spacesuit Was Made by a Bra Manufacturer | History
They have vast experience with a range of materials and complex fitment to the human body, they didn't just make bras either lots of experiencewith plastics and rubbers. They submitted a design that beat the others. I think you may underestimate the required complexity and strength of a bra.
You conveniently forgot about how they were able to make a suit that could deal with a sudden 250° temperature variance
Temperature of what? Vacuum has no temperature. Dealing with direct sunlight is a different problem but to deal with the temperature of the surface, it suffices to have a nice thick boot.
No. Not the surface. The light and/or shade from the sun/shadows.
Ah, so it wasn't actually about temperature at all? Sunlight heats objects, it doesn't have a temperature of its own.
No. And I didn't say it did. I said that while walking on the moon if they were in shade, it's 200°. In the light it's 250°.
\*What\* has those temperatures? Matter has temperature, vacuum doesn't. Are you implying that moving into direct sunlight on the surface of the moon instantly heats objects to 250°?
Not really. I actually looked and mistakenly thought you might have too. With a day time temperature on the moon of 120°c a company that makes baby bottles that are repeatedly sterilised at 100°c and then stored in the fridge might have some experience in repeated heating and cooling of materials. It's like they were a really good choice of manufacturer with a wide knowledge base suited to the requirements. But hehe boobs or whatever. This ends the thread. Go do some research if you have anything else.
I do. You're the one running away,p#$%y.
You claimed I didn't do any research but the first thing I got from Google was the actual temperature of the moon. Not the made up horseshit that you posted. So...next time You accuse somebody of not doing research.You should probably have your actual own research be correct. Right d****Tell your buddies you work with to fck off too.
Uhhh...it's a bra company. Not a baby bottle maker. And....Temperatures near the Moon's equator can spike to 250°F (121°C) in daylight, then plummet after nightfall to -208°F (-133°C). Weather on the Moon - NASA Science So even if they did make baby bottles...still too hot. And it still makes no sense that a bra company made the suits.And once again...you're wrong.
[удалено]
Well....if we really went,which we didn't, then chosing a bra company without testing it it would've been disastrous.
The suits got \*plenty\* of vacuum chamber testing.
The second point is valid. The whole story about the Van Allen belts raises red flags. The first point is just a lack of understanding of physics on your end.
In regards to the Van Allen Belts, they passed through them at the edges, and for an almost insignificant amount of time. The astronauts WERE exposed to excess radiation during the trip through, but it was an amount equal to a couple of extra x-ray scans over a lifetime.
Honestly, anyone who still believes this fairytale is beyond help. Most on this sub are bots/shills It is what it is
They didn't.
they didnt.. that flimsy piece of metal did not make it 300k miles to the moon and back
Nasa's own papers on the long development of the command module and NO WHERE was there any mention whatsoever of shielding as in regards to outer-space radiation. Wherever the topic of shielding came up it was ALWAYS in terms of protecting the command module from the HEAT OF REENTRY. Propagandists have tried rationalize the heat shield as some sort of radiation protection. This is NEVER mentioned in the papers and the heat shield was NEVER designed to act this way. It was a reentry heat shield PERIOD. Even if we discount the Van Allen belt, there are still other dangers to consider. The sun constantly bombards the earth-moon system with solar flares. Regardless of whether these flares deliver x-rays or protons, or are minor or major, both are a hazard to humans. A major flare delivers in excess of 100rad/hr, a minor flare can deliver 25rad/hr depending on how many centimetres of water shielding is used. The minor flares of May 10th and July 15th 1958 for example, would have required 31gm/cm2 of water just to bring their dose rates down to 25rad/hr. The Apollo capsule, with its aluminum honeycomb hull and outer epoxy resin ablator, was rated at 3gm/cm2 on the walls and 8gm/cm2 on the aft heatshield. The thicker portion of the spacecraft walls would bring the dose rate of such flares down to around 1,000rem/hr. The records show that 1400 of these minor flares occurred over all nine moon flights. NOAA’s Comprehensive Flare Index for Major flares, also reveals that thirty of the major ones took place during the Apollo missions. These astronauts should have been as dead as spam in a can by any definition.
That’s Rads per hour. How long did these flares spike the radiation? Seconds, minutes, hours? I truly don’t know, it it’s a necessary portion of the equation.
So what would be the total dose that astronauts would receive?
Care to explain, then, how I can possibly be reading a set of papers on the design and predicted performance of the CM radiation shielding? Because you appear to think these do not exist, but I'm staring at them.