New Bill Directs NASA Back to the Moon By 2022, With Permanent Habitation In Mind

Spoiler: it is not going to happen. But the Pentagon will have a lot more weapons by 2022.

It probably won't happen when NASA does it alone, but if everyone pitches in, even with just a teeny moon mission, it'll be done quicker. Personally, I think all of our money should be pointed more in the direction of space instead of weaponry. But maybe we should keep some weapons in case we get attacked by some angry conspiracy mobs.

If NASA can't be put on a path to do something worthwhile with measurable results, it should be nixed entirely. Humanity needs to exploit every foothold in space it can, and not only is the Moon one such foothold, it is one with known resources that is located conveniently nearby.

How is NASA going to do anything worthwhile when they are given a "new direction" every 2-4 years? Long term planning is hopeless as long as Congress continues to change its mind after every election.

@trireme +1

I think the moon would be a valuable rescource, and you'd think it would pay for itself in time.

Here's an idea. How about another ISS but for the moon? Make it the IMS - International Moon Station.

It would cost a ridiculous amount of money to maintain living people on the moon. We can barely fund a space station in orbit. A Moon base would consume all funds intended for Mars. It is not a “Stepping Stone” and we wouldn’t stop there on the way to Mars or anywhere else. Historically, there is a difference between a base and an outpost.

What would they do there, walk around and explore? We’ve done that. There is nothing there so valuable that it would be worth blasting off from the surface to bring back to earth to sell.

The best way to develop technologies for going to Mars is to go to Mars, not someplace else.

The moon is the right choice. It is close enough to become economically self significant. It has abundant mineral wealth and life supporting elements. If your goal for mars is a one time Apollo on steroids like Zubrin campaigns for than yes the moon is a distraction. But if your goal is to colonies mars and the rest of the solar system than the moon is a required steeping stone and an immensely fortuitous resource.

@PhilInYork yes paying $1b per shuttle mission and $63m per seat with Russia we can just barely afford to maintain the ISS with the alloted funds. But with the cost to orbit about to drop under $1k/kg and $20m per seat on a lunar capable capsule we will soon be able to forge ahead with lunar development with little or no increase in allotment.

Our sister planet we will soon live on your surface and share in the bounty you have to offer life's blossoming expansion into the universe.

lol

Even though NASA alone won't be able to go anywhere anymore, it needs a clear path ahead, to let companies know, which technologies are required in the next few years. You need different rockets to start from Earth - huge gravity, atmosphere - compared to Moon. It may not be the most valuable for resources, but it is necessary to build a launchpad up there.

a permanent moon base is the first step for humanity to eventually leave earth, this is essential for humanities long term survival, NASA is doing great things helping private space flight to get off and running, NASA is here to stay, contrary to the NASA bashers, NASA and companies like SpaceX are working together now and will be for the forseable future, instead of bashing NASA how about reading up on all the good things they have done, are doing and will be doing, politics are the problem, not NASA

Now that the congress has got our attention again let’s see if they follow through with this.

@ PhillnYork…There is plenty of money to be dolled out by the Senate Appropriations Committee. The question is how much is going to be given for this project? The U.S. military budget for 2010 alone was 663.8 billion.

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

If this project was funded at 5 billion a year that would only be 0.75% of the military budget for 2010…not even 1%.

I think if you gave Bigelow Aerospace the contract for the lunar housing units and Space X the transportation contract they could do quite a bit with 5 billion dollars a year.

We as a planet need another "Space Race". Competition always spurs advancements. Let us have another Kennedy moment and claim that we will be the 1st to have a moon base, and then let the chips fall where they may.

Without proper motivation, nobody will step up.

Lets get the ball moving, or in this case, the rockets rocking...

competition in private industry is the key, no need for a space race between nations, the global economy will do the trick in the long term

I would like everyone to pause and take a long look at this photo. Notice the shadows. The shadow coming from the Lander rises gently up to the right. The shadow from the astronaut falls slightly downward. With the sun being the source of light being the source and one point of light, it does not make sense. Now I am not saying we did not travel to the moon and his photo is fake and staged. No, I really believe we landed on the moon. For one simple reason, if we had faked everything, all the other countries in the world would of called “FOUL” and it would be known. My question is how is it possible that these shadows go into different directions? There must be a logical explanation.

If you think of the billions of dollars wasted on three ongoing wars(Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya) and then add in the so-called war on drugs and the billions that is wasted there. We could not only easily fund a base on the moon, but we could have people on Mars as well.

We could also, have better infrastructure, better healthcare system for all and many more things.

Also notice the rock, stone below the astronaut. The top of the shadow goes downward and the bottom part of the shadow goes straight back. Base upon these 3 objects. I have to say a very small point source of light was center left of this picture. Now how could that be?

Curious, where in the background are the stars. There is no atmosphere. The back ground should be overwhelmed with bright stars. Anyone who has been on a ship in the middle of the oceans knows the sky is overwhelming bright with abundance of stars. Being on the moon, the effect would even be greater. I do not even see ONE star in the background. How odd. How could this be? Nothing? This is not a black and white photo. It does have the colors of the flag too.

I am just looking for a logical professional scientific explanation from an experience photographer; that’s all. I am not trying to cause a lot of ranting. I just really want to understand how this photo is possible.

FYI: The American Flag and its pole produce no shadow, nothing, none, zip.

"There is plenty of money to be dolled out by the Senate Appropriations Committee."

The United States is $14 trillion in debt.... comments like that quoted above amount to whistling passed the graveyard.

Only anime... but the future's already been predicted in part thanks to human nature.

“Narrator: With high expectations, human beings leave Earth to begin a new life in space colonies. However, the United Earth Sphere Alliance gains great military powers and soon seizes control of one colony after another in the name of *justice* and *peace.* The year is After Colony 195.” ~ Gundam Wing

Bubba, the photo was exposed for the bright surface of the moon, not the pitch blackness of space... haven't you ever used a camera? You expose for shadows, or highlights, but not both. Both would require multiple exposures. There are 'no' stars in the image because the stars are much less bright, overall, than the surface is. If you exposed for the stars, the foreground itself would likely expose the entire sheet of film, or overexpose the sensor.

Mythbusters already disproved all claims that the photos were faked.

They showed how shadow deflection happens and makes the light source seem wrong, they explained how the flag waved with no wind, they explained the footprints. And to cap it all off, and not many people know this, but the lander module has a special reflector built into it, when hit with a large laser, you get a pulse back, which they showed.

So all the "we didn't go it was faked" bs can stop.

Also, just remember that the photo tech 40+ years ago sucked compaired to day's tech.

Photo tech may have sucked, but film worked the same, and still does.

@CodeZero
And to complement your comment, here is a site that debunks all hoax claims.
http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

I know from taking a photo of a friend on earth at night, the shutter speed is fast to make a clear picture and the film is slow, typically leaving out stars.
I was not trying to debunk the moon landing. But I did want a good explanation of this picture. I do assume NASA has a better camera than me and film.
Like I first said early on, if landing on the moon was faked, the all the other countries of the world would cry "FOUL".
Also none of us really know the shape of the land and this can cause an optical allusion in shadows.
This is just a very odd looking picture. But being on the moon too, is a very odd place to be taking a picture. Being a earthling, I naturally try to apply earth perceptions to a non earth place, so the picture seems naturally seems odd.

@shutterpod, sorry dude, but that's not 100% true, photography as a whole has changed. Both in film and camera techs. I assume with a name like shutterpod, that you are a photography fan in some nature, you can't sit there and tell me that the equipment is the same then as it is now. Everything from manufacturing to processing film based photography has advanced since the above photo was captured and you know it.

@bubba, you are correct in that the shadow fall is odd, but it's an easily explainable and duplicatable on earth.
just do a search for "Mythbusters moon landing" and you'll see the video/images where they duplicate the odd lighting with a single light.

But I expect taking a picture on the moon and being on the moon to be odd; wouldn't ya think!

NASA doesn't really need to get into orbit on its own now - just contract Space X to get that far. Then NASA can focus on transpo to the moon and the lunar landing/construction technology. I mean, NASA doesn't build and maintain it's own fleet of airplanes to travel to and from Washington, right? That's gotta account for a huge reduction in the cost of a moon mission.

@Shutterpod

The government is going to spend money ( have a budget) regardless if the country is in debt or not. Perhaps I was not quite clear at what I was suggesting. I am not saying that more debt should be created for such a project but rather money should be taken FROM the military budget and applied to the moon base project. Thus the comparison that 5 billion dollars is 0.75% of the 2010 U.S. military budget.

The N.A.S.A total budget for 2010 was 18,6 billion

www.nasa.gov/pdf/344612main_Agency_Summary_Final_updates_5_6_09_R2.pdf

So the military budget is 645.2 billion dollars larger than what NASA is getting

I myself would rather see this discrepancy be reduced and the money be spent on building something for the future rather than blowing up things that are not really a threat to us.

Establishing a moon base would be great practice for mars (yes we need practice).
Baby steps. The moon is approximately one weeks travel away and is accessible daily. Mars is months away and is accessible every two years. We should perfect our techniques and technology going to the moon first.
By the way, if you believe the moon landings were faked, you’re an idiot.

I'm sure we could manage to add another trillion or so to our debt, space is the future.

About the moon landings, if you doubt it why don't you google "Mythbusters Moon episode."

@bubbagump all those pictures are fake. Even if NASA went to the moon with 1960's technology. The pictures are fakes for P.R reasons. That's why there are a ton of anomalies...the mythbusters did not speak to the fact that the crosshairs in some pictures are completely overlapped by some images...that is an impossibility and is only the result of "touch ups". I wasn't even going to bother and post on this cause there's a ton of backlash. Much less the hotspots in pictures that could have only come from another lighting source...these scientific minds on here are pointing to mythbusters, who, if you saw the episode might as well be an arm of nassa (they were wearing nassa spacesuits, flying in the nassa zerog plane etc)
In 2011 it might be plausible to land a man on the moon and bring them back safely...that's with all of our supercomputers...meta-materials, new propulsion etc...in 1969...no way...it didn't happen.
You might ask "Why didn't the Russians call them on it".
Because the Russians lied about sending an man around the moon (we could not leave the van allen belts)...NASA just took the lie one step further.
One thing that is telling is that NASA claims that they "lost" all original footage of the first moonlanding as well as thousands of original pictures. Okay, the biggest moment in human history thus far, and NASA LOSES the footage? HUH??...does anyone else find that strange?
Anyways...no point in arguing with me, I'm just replying to bubbagumps post.

The Moon has H3 and H20 so yeah there's a ton of money up there...but as far as a base, Mars would be much safer as it has some atmosphere.

for all of those saying "strip the military of funding" do you realize how much they spend on technology development? Millions of dollars. Do you you know how many people are employed by the DOD? Millions!! strip them of funding and you see the largest number of employed people ever! even the great depression. Its going to be hard to launch rockets from cape canaveral when we are invaded by Iran/North Korea/ and FL next door naighbor Cuba/Venezuala. Military defense is the staple of a strong federal government. Without it there would be no USA, and no space program. Is there waste in the DOD probably, but stripping it outright is a terrible idea. always think of the consequences, rather than just the gains.

@ Lanredneck

Yes I realize that the military is one of the largest (if not the largest) employer in America and how much they spend on technology. I would say they spend in billions and not millions though.

I suggested a 5 billion dollar shift in funding a year. As I wrote, that is 0.75% of the overall budget. I really do not think that amount will threaten the readiness of the armed forces. Also, jobs and research will not be eliminated just switched around from military application to civilian.

Also, I was in the military as a tanker in the 1980´s (L troop, 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment)and stationed in Germany right on East/West German boarder …the Iron curtain. Our adversary was the Soviet Union at that time. Not only could the Warsaw Pact forces be a serious contender in a ground war in Europe but the Soviets had enough nuclear firepower to torch America and the missile technology to get it there…THAT is a threat. Iran, North Korea, Cuba and any other country that one can name today is no kind of REAL threat to America. These people are seriously outgunned and would be absolutely foolish to attempt a direct confrontation.

That is why I see a shift of 0.75% of the military budget to a moon base as not detrimental to national security or the employment situation.

What's wrong with all the Apollo gear? I mean, with technology now, we can probably recreate those shuttles and rovers with left over iphone parts, and it would be extremely cheap to accomplish.

Oh wait...that's right, the gear doesn't work outside of the movie set.

NASA, your BS is starting to show.

How old are you people, 12? All of you are acting like idiots. Do you think NASA would exist if they wanted to fake everything? Why don't you guys build your own space corporations and prove NASA wrong by going to the moon yourselves and have everyone else think it's fake? You guys, to me, are pussies hiding behind your damn computer screens yelling your words out to people who don't care. When will you pathetic losers get a life?

Here is a verifiable quote on the effect ofo the Van Allen belts.
'a typical satellite passing the radiation belts (elliptic orbit, 200 miles to 20000 miles) and the radiation dosage per year is about 2500 rem, assuming one is shielded by 1 gr/cm-square of aluminum (about 1/8" thick plate) almost all of it while passing the inner belt.'

I looked up how much radiation that would be. A very conservative dangerous dose is about 100 rem. So it would appear that the typical satelite would receive 25 times the dangerous dose. I have no doubt that that wouldn't be a good thing.
But, this satelite is receiving the dose over a period of a year, and passing through the Van Allen belts many hundreds of times. The Apollo spacecraft, and the earlier Russian's, would only have been in the belt for a tiny fraction of that time. But let's say that they spent 3 days in an orbit similar to the satelite. That is less than 1/100th of a year, so they would have received 1/100th the dose, so that would be 25 rem.
That is an acceptable radiation dose, and the Appolo craft didn't spend any where near the three days in this orbit.

Actually I am pretty good at taking pictures, not that anyone cares really, but film works pretty much the same now as it always has, concessions made for better overall contrast in emulsions notwithstanding...

You open a shutter, and either you expose for the bright, or you expose for the dark, and without a filter of some sort you can't do both at the same time. Pictures that combine both exposures are considered HDR. That's how I meant it's the same.... nitpicking hairs just wastes time and confuses things.

www.panoramio.com/user/48858

Anyone who believes the moon landing was faked is a moron. You might as well continue believing the Sun is the center of the universe and the Earth is flat because you are no smarter than an idiot who believes either of those things. Frankly I'm surprised you have enough intelligence to avoid suffocating in your pillow when you sleep at night.

@BubbaGump. I will reply to your post because you seem reasonable. I do have some limited experience with astro-photography. On the photo being fake:

No stars in photo: What @shutterpod said is correct. If you want to prove it to yourself, go out on a clear night when there is a full moon with your best camera and take a picture of the moon. You will get one of two results: If you can see the surface details on the moon, you will see no stars. If you can see stars, the moon will be overexposed (a white blur). Hollywood has created the expectation of bright vivid stars in space because it is more visually interesting.

If you don’t have a camera, try this: On a clear night, after spending some time in a fully lit room, walk outside. Stars will not be immediately visible. It takes time for your eyes to adjust to the dark. There is actually a chemical change going on in your eyes to make them more sensitive to light. You will not be able to see stars until this chemical change has taken place. You will be able to see the brightest stars within minutes, but your eyes don’t become fully acclimated for about 30 min.

The Shadows: The moon is not perfectly flat. There are hills and valleys. Shadows will not converge as they should. The shadow of the LEM is sloping up hill. The shadow of the astronaut’s legs is sloping downhill. Ditto for the rock shadow.

The flag poll’s shadow is too narrow to resolve. The shadow of the flag is out of the frame to the right.

Conspiracy theorists like @Aldrons Last Hope: there is no point responding to their posts because they are not persuaded by facts or evidence. They only believe what supports their theory. Trying to convince them otherwise only fuels their delusion: You become a part of the conspiracy in their mind.

A perfect example:

@Aldrons Last Hope: “...these scientific minds on here are pointing to mythbusters, who, if you saw the episode might as well be an arm of nassa (they were wearing nassa spacesuits, flying in the nassa zerog plane etc)”.

Of course, mythbusters is on the NASA payroll. They are part of the global conspiracy.

wow. im pretty sure that we did land on the moon. but stopped going back when we figured out that the aliens didnt want us there. i heard that there was a battle on the moon that resulted in the death of 50 humans(25 russian cosmonauts and 25 astranuts) and 20 aliens.

The best way to prove these conspiracy clowns wrong is to take a bunch of them up to the moon on the next mission.
Since it's fake, they can walk home. They won't need space suits since it's all a fake.

Here are the reasons we should go back to the moon.

Why –

1.It is close enough that we can develop a real relationship and perhaps even tourism and industry in the foreseeable future. Mars is just too far away to develop that kind of relationship.

2.Luna has raw materials that we need on Earth, possibly Helium 3.

3.Luna also has materials such as metals that we need to build new vehicles for space exploration. It is where we will build our future space ships. Why would you want to build them in Earth’s gravity well?

4. Luna is an ideal space observatory creating incredible possibilities for future telescopes that can open up the universe as never before and also give us much better advance warning of potential collisions with space objects.

5. As the Space Station is teaching us how to function in space, a base on Luna will let us learn how to function on other moons and planets. It is critical that we learn how to search for and extract water (which also gives us oxygen & hydrogen) in these early years of space exploration.

6. We need something now. The quest for a lunar base will focus sharply all the energy and science and technology from the space-faring nations into fast-forwarding cheap and easy access to space. A little tension and competition is a good thing. No one will want to be left behind. There could even be a lot of cooperation on developing the first or second outpost.

7. It will reinvigorate the dream of space exploration to youth who will see that they can actually participate in an active ongoing program that produces new knowledge every day. Just going back and forth to the Space Station or waiting 15 to 20 years for a single Mars mission with nothing else in between does not do that.

How –
1. Obama wasn’t wrong in focusing on getting cheaper access to earth orbit. That is absolutely critical in our future space exploration. It is an essential first step in getting back to Luna economically and creating some economies in deeper space exploration. It is the biggest hurdle. Capitalism doesn’t work for everything, but it is time for competition to create cheaper access to space. NASA can focus on the big picture.

2. With cheap access to orbit and the Space Station we can transfer crew and materials to vehicles that only live in space to go back and forth to Luna. They might have detachable landers or be able to do so themselves. Advancements in space-only vehicles will lead to whole new technologies and ways of operating in space.

3. The Lunar base must be self-sustaining as soon as possible after its initial creation. It is too expensive to cart all water and building materials up there even with our cheaper space access. Solar power is abundant and will supply the energy. Water at the poles will sustain human life and provide fuels. Developing the resources of this nearby foreign body will advance our capabilities for all space missions.

4.Commercial benefits from cheap and easy access to orbit are already real. Commercial viability will spread, either slowly or quickly to the Lunar region. Until then we need the combination of government and business.

5. This should not rule out Mars. Both programs should be advanced at the same time, feeding synergistically off their advances. Probably, our first Mars mission(s) will not be launched from Luna but if we ever want visits to our near neighbors to become commonplace, we need the resources that we are so lucky to have so close by. ‘Venusians’ aren’t so lucky.

@democedes...what about the missing tapes...NASA has no original footage of the the 1st apollo mission....care to explian that?

You have the mindeset of a sheep....can't you see that it was imposible in 1969 to go to the moon?

..also, I’m not saying they “were on the NASA payroll”, small minded people that can’t comprehend, like to put words in people’s mouth.

I was implying that the mythbusters were not objective, they entered that whole exercise by trying to disprove the truth movement and even used the term “conspiracy theorists” which is a phrase placed in your brainwashed mind by Hollywood. The mythbusters were out to prove that the fantasy of a moon landing was real…that was their whole goal and agenda…they were not objective. And did not touch on the footage where the astronauts are in earth orbit 2 days into the mission…that footage is real...you probably haven’t seen or heard about that…go look it up.

Also go ahead and doubt my intelligence all you want…but you are reading what I am writing and it’s more coherent than the insults you spew..so take a look in the I.Q mirror buddy. (talking to ultra)

I don’t doubt anyone’s intelligence, but your consciousness and common sense is non-existent if you think that man walked and played golf on the moon in 1969 LMAO…how can people be so unaware? Take a step outside of your ego…you are not God, you are merely a man, American Government is taking a page straight from the pimps handbook…FAKE IT ‘TILL YOU MAKE IT.

Wake up and stop being whored out.

i hate feeding trolls but i can't stop myself, it causes me physical harm to do this but, Aldrons Last Hope, The Van Allen belt thing is wrong, if you look at a diagram of the belt there are weak points, and the radiation fluctuates and is fairly predictable. The Nasa eng. new about and planned accordingly, plus with additional shielding it is possible that they went through the belt, which is only a third of the distance at the moons closest point, so two thirds of the distance of the trip was otuside of the belt, and if you only think that the haul on a space craft is an 1/8th of inch think aluminum your bonkers, find how thick the glass on the ports are, 1/8th think aluminuma and that thick glass do not have the same tencile strength, so obviously more material was need which further decreased the effectiveness of the radiation, which by the way is not your normal, nuclear explosion radiation, but charged proton/electron radiation, which is very different characteristics. SOrry debunked. And again to all, Sorry for feeding the troll, but the truth had to be told.

@Aldrons Last Hope: “what about the missing tapes...NASA has no original footage of the the 1st apollo mission....care to explian that?”

Of all the evidence that has been presented thus far to prove the landings were faked, I find it humorous that you use this little nugget to hang your hat on. Your house of cards has fallen down. And this is all you are left with. Yet you still are unwilling to even consider what is obvious to the rest of us.

Here is the bottom line. And this is the fallacy that is used to prop up all conspiracy theories. Discrepancies are not proof of conspiracy. Missing footage is not proof of conspiracy. Inconsistencies in the chronology of camera footage are not proof of conspiracy.

Your movement has lost all credibility. If you truly want to convince reasonable people of the truth of your beliefs, you have to come up with some actual proof. Or perhaps, even some strong evidence. Calling non-believers sheep is not going to convince anyone.

Now to be reasonable, I've seen rocket lauches suggested from a moon base, but they've been just that, straight rocket launches. From a traditional launch pad.

However, we also know that the moon has less gravity and a lack of atmosphere, correct? We also have plans for a viable mass driver on a larger scale.

With a fuel cell power system (assuming a large enough one could be built on the moon,) would it not be more prudent to use a magnetically assited launch (use the driver like the first stage of a traditionall rocket,) to conserve fuel on the craft for maneuvering en route to, or power generation once it reaches it's destination? (For those who don't know, the shuttles right now use a hydrogen-oxygen mix for their main engines, and it works just as well in a fuel cell as it does out of a rocket.)

And if a launch like this were done, would it be possible to use the destination's own gravity well (assuming it has one) as a giant "catcher's mitt" for the craft itself? If so, would it save enough fuel to possibly open up new destinations that might not have worked with traditional launches?

@democedes So you do admit it's inconsistent that NASA has no original footage of the original false step. Okay now we're getting somewhere. I too agree it's very inconsistent that an agency that claims to have made mans greatest accomplishment can't even catalog the event. In fact they said they "taped over it".

"Objects which are heated cannot be cooled by space. In order for an object to cool it must first be removed from direct sunlight. Objects which are in the shadow of another object will eventually cool but not because space is "cold". Space is not cold. Hot and cold do not exist in the vacuum of space. Objects cool because the laws of motion dictate that the molecules of the object will slow down due to the resistance resulting from striking other molecules until eventually all motion will stop provided the object is sheltered from the direct and/or indirect radiation of the sun and that there is no other source of heat. Since the vacuum of space is the perfect insulator objects take a very long time to cool even when removed from all sources of heat, radiated or otherwise.

NASA insists the space suits the astronauts supposedly wore on the lunar surface were air conditioned. An air conditioner cannot, and will not work without a heat exchanger. A heat exchanger simply takes heat gathered in a medium such as freon from one place and transfers it to another place. This requires a medium of molecules which can absorb and transfer the heat such as an atmosphere or water. An air conditioner will not and cannot work in a vacuum. A space suit surrounded by a vacuum cannot transfer heat from the inside of the suit to any other place. The vacuum, remember, is a perfect insulator. A man would roast in his suit in such a circumstance.

NASA claims the spacesuits were cooled by a water system which was piped around the body, then through a system of coils sheltered from the sun in the backpack. NASA claims that water was sprayed on the coils causing a coating of ice to form. The ice then supposedly absorbed the tremendous heat collected in the water and evaporated into space. There are two problems with this that cannot be explained away. 1) The amount of water needed to be carried by the astronauts in order to make this work for even a very small length of time in the direct 55 degrees over the boiling point of water (210 degrees F at sea level on Earth) heat of the sun could not have possibly been carried by the astronauts. 2) NASA has since claimed that they found ice in moon craters. NASA claims that ice sheltered from the direct rays of the sun will NOT evaporate destroying their own bogus "air conditioning" explanation. "

Debunk that!

@ianredneck you are a troll...also you just said you can't help hurting yourself...issues?

Here is some footage from Apollo 11 that was leaked a few years ago. Please debunk this too...cause you're good at it.

This footage shows Apollo in earth orbit two days into the mission and even Armstrong lying to the public.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_9gMn1OYPw&feature=related

So there you go...liars...all of them.

And again can someone explain to me how heat exchangers work in a vacuum? (trick question,they can't)

Heat can be "transported" by three mechanisms:

1) Convection
2) Conduction
3) Radiation

We have all experienced convection by standing in front of a warm air blower…a warm mass is moved into a cooler area

The conduction mechanism can be illustrated with house insulation. A house is insulated to stop the flow of heat from hot to cold through the walls.

The first two methods need a medium the third does not

Radiation…the transfer of energy (Heat in this case) through electromagnetic waves. Wien’s displacement law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien's_displacement_law

allows one to calculate the amount of energy radiated per unit area for a given temperature of an object. A French Fry warming lamp (or any other lamp for that matter) will produce this effect.

By combining these three methods, heat can be transferred (exchanged) in any medium.

A thermos bottle will stop convection and conduction but not radiation

@Aldrons Last Hope: “So you do admit it's inconsistent that NASA has no original footage of the original false step.”

Not really, I have no idea if NASA did or did not lose footage. My point is that it is immaterial to the issue at hand. Even if NASA did lose footage, typical government incompetence is a much more likely cause than conspiracy. Again, losing/taping over footage is not proof of conspiracy.

@Aldrons Last Hope: “Objects which are heated cannot be cooled by space”
Somewhere there is a science teacher crying. Any high school physics student could debunk your “proof”. See post from @matsci1 above for explanation. Or alternately Google “heat transfer” and educate yourself.

@Aldrons Last Hope: “An air conditioner will not and cannot work in a vacuum.”
Space walks are common place, well documented. If air conditioning is not possible in space, why don’t they “roast” as you put it? Are these faked as well? How do they keep the international space station cool without air conditioning?

Do you even pause for a second when your “proof” is so thoroughly debunked? You don’t even acknowledge it. You just move on to the next “What about this!” or “Debunk that!” How much of your “proof” do we have to debunk before you question your assumptions?

@matsci thanks...so basically you conclude that nasa has an apparatus in the space suits that took the direct heat from the sum, transferred it to the water, which then in turn powered some kind of power supply, which then in turn heated an element (like the element in a light bulb)...which transferred the heat to the vacuum via radiation?

Problem with this is that the AstroNots did not have anything on their suits that radiated heat away from the suit...also have you seen the tubes of water running through the suits...they are about 1/2 inch diameter at the most...so there wasn't enough water in the suits to act as a medium to transfer heat to the fictitious radiators. Another problem with this is that the astronauts would be carrying around a dynamo that was heated to 200 plus degrees...which in space would transfer more heat to the astronauts via conduction than to the vacuum around it. Put your hand in front of a fry lamp...then touch the lamp...which one is hotter?

And for anyone that thinks the solar winds suddenly stop after you leave the van allen belts...the opposite is true...after leaving the safety of our beautiful magnetosphere which makes life possible on earth...the solar wind becomes very dangerous and in direct sunlight would heat the capsule to over 200 degrees....and there was no air conditioning or cooling system on the appollo 11 capsule...so I guess 1/8 inches of aluminum was enough to protect the astronauts for 6 days in space.

Also remember this was done with 1960's technology.

@Aldrons Last Hope: “This footage shows Apollo in earth orbit two days into the mission and even Armstrong lying to the public.”
Seriously? You believe it because the lady on YouTube said so? This is only proof of your willingness to believe anything so long as it fits your pre conception. Her explanations do not hold water.

First, sunlight reflected off of the ocean always creates a bright spot as sunlight is reflected off the ocean’s surface like a mirror. Look at any picture of earth’s ocean from space and you will see it. If the shot was created by “cropping” a view of the earth in near earth orbit using a cut out as the narrator claims, this spot would be larger than the cut out itself. Sunlight reflecting off the ocean can clearly be seen at proportions that correlate with a picture taken at significant distance from earth. The position of the spot also correlates with the position of the sun and terminator.

Secondly, you can clearly see how the clouds wrap around the surface at the edges of the earth. You can’t fake that with a cut out.

Third, you clearly see how the light fades across the terminator. Again this could not be faked by a simple cut out.

Fourth, the camera is constantly moving in all directions, panning and being bumped about by the astronaut holding it. If a cut out was being healed in front of the camera, you would be able to see Earth’s features shift or pan relative to the cut out, breaking the illusion. Earth’s features hold their position rock solid throughout the footage.

Finally, at the end of film, the window is opened and the interior of the capsule is visible. The camera has to adjust to correctly expose the dim capsule interior and the earth becomes overexposed as a result. When an object is overexposed it becomes blurred and appears much larger than it truly is. This is why the Earth suddenly appears to fill the window. Example: www-personal.umich.edu/~dgs/alway/solsys.htm

This is the weakest proof of fakery yet. What else you got?

lol nice one Aldrons Last Hope but.
But on your rebuttal. Did you miss what i wrote about radiation shielding for high energy proton/electrons, the shielding is minimal, actaully, heavy metals like lead are counter intuitive to this type of shielding, because polyethelyline(sp?) is actaully a better shielding which is lighter. So them being in that area is not that big of a problem for 2 days.

Please reference this website

http://www.clavius.org/envradintro.html

Yes the person/people who created this website aren't scientifically reputable, but they do document there work and all of it is cross checkable.

@Aldrons Last Hope: “@matsci thanks...so basically you conclude that nasa has an apparatus in the space suits that took the direct heat from the sum, transferred it to the water, which then in turn powered some kind of power supply, which then in turn heated an element (like the element in a light bulb)...which transferred the heat to the vacuum via radiation?”

I saw nothing in @matsci1’s post that vaguely resembles the conclusion you made for him/her.

@Aldrons Last Hope: “...the solar wind becomes very dangerous and in direct sunlight would heat the capsule to over 200 degrees”

Where does this 200+ degree figure come from? Please show your math or site your source.

@democedes please educate, or I should say re-educate yourself to what is reality and what is Disney World. Okay you wanted to know how the space station keeps cool?

Advanced space aged materials such as mylar and MLI wrap the space station and reflects most of heat that is generated by the sun (this would not work outside the van allen belts, because it would not repel radiation). Also there are two radiators that run the length of the solar panels that dissipate heat. The radiators are cooled with ammonia, not water.

AstroNots did not have these advanced materials in 1969, the radiators on the ISS are many meters (75 ft is a guesstimate)....so where on the Apollo space suits were these advanced / huge radiators placed? Also they used water not ammonia…nasa wasn’t smart back then.

Next!! You and I are not looking on the same video. The camera doesn't adjust to the lighting in the capsule....after the transmission is over the lights in the capsule are turned on, and the transparency removed....you see the earth full up the window. I can't believe you say that is really the image of the whole earth? Where are the continents?? I repeat..where are the continents? All I see is a planet that looks like it has nothing but ocean and cloud...this probably fooled people in 1969 but this is 2011 and you are still falling for this?

The moon mission has become dogma, a religion to you, and no matter what proof I bring to the table...it will either be dismissed as coincidence, incompetence, inconsistency, or just a plain lie. There are holes in the NASA story big enough to drive a semi trough.

In a court of law, all of the circumstantial evidence I have provided would be enough to place a reasonable doubt in any reasonable mind.

You question if I belevie a woman on youtube? That footage is original NASA footage. And w/o any narration would prove my point. The fact that it has been posted on youtube does not discredit it....William and Kate's wedding is on youtube...does not mean it didn't happen?

Logic...look into it.

@democedes...are you serious?? You are questioning that the moon is over 200 degrees in direct sunlight....this is kids stuff..so I will give you a kids link

http://lunarscience.nasa.gov/kids/moon_temperature

@Aldrons Last Hope: “...the solar wind becomes very dangerous and in direct sunlight would heat the capsule to over 200 degrees”

@Aldrons Last Hope: "You are questioning that the moon is over 200 degrees in direct sunlight....this is kids stuff..so I will give you a kids link"

It is the capsule's temperature that is in question, not the moon's. So you assume a capsule near the moon would be the same temperature as the moon? Again, show me the math or site your source. Because your scientific WAG doesn't cut it. Especially after your awkward and incomplete summary of how objects cool in space.

@Aldrons Last Hope: "so where on the Apollo space suits were these advanced / huge radiators placed?"

If such a thing is required for space walks, where are the radiators on the space suits they use for space walks today?

@Aldrons Last Hope: "The camera doesn't adjust to the lighting in the capsule....after the transmission is over the lights in the capsule are turned on, and the transparency removed"

Even the narrator specifically states that the "iris is opened up". Which one of the few facts that comes out of her mouth. You do know what an iris on a camera does don't you?

@Aldrons Last Hope: "you see the earth full up the window. I can't believe you say that is really the image of the whole earth? Where are the continents??"

Perhaps you should take a look at a globe. 3/4 of the earth's surface is covered in water... For example:

earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Water/

In this picture you can see a little hint of N America in the top left, just like in the video.

Again the video looks totally authentic to me. None of the narrator's claims hold water, as detailed in my previous post.

@Aldrons Last Hope: “In a court of law, all of the circumstantial evidence I have provided would be enough to place a reasonable doubt in any reasonable mind.”

You need more than reasonable doubt to prove something true. You have two competing theories. Only one can be true. Even if you could achieve reasonable doubt (which you have not) that does not prove the moon landings were faked.

NASA has hundreds if not thousands of highly respected witness to these events. They have physical artifacts. They have video evidence. They have pictures.
What do you have? No witnesses. No physical artifacts. Only circumstantial evidence that doesn’t bear scrutiny.

And you expect us to believe you over them?

I have no dog in this fight. I couldn’t care less if the moon landings were faked. It certainly makes for an entertaining story. If you have proof, bring it. I have not seen any proof thus far. I have not seen any strong evidence. I have not even seen weak evidence. All I have seen is Bad Science (BS). I hate BS.
What about you. Why are you so unwilling to even considering it is possible that man traveled to the moon? You seem very emotionally invested in this theory. Is this YOUR religion? You bring up God an awful lot. “…you are not God” you said. What was that supposed to mean? Only God can go to the moon?

Moonbase all the way!!!

WARNING: Aldrons Last Hope IS A TROLL. "DON'T FEED THE TROLLS"

“The engineer has been, and is, a maker of history”

@Aldrons Last Hope

Aldrons Last Hope JUST ADMIT THAT YOU ARE WRONG AND DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. EVERYTHING THAT YOU OFFER TO DISCREDIT THE MOON LANDINGS HAS BEEN SHOWN TO BE FALSE.

NOTE: DOCUMENTARY'S MADE BY TINFOIL HAT CONSPIRACY THEORIST ON YOUTUBE DON'T COUNT AS PROVE.SO STFU U ANNOYING PRICK!!!

“The engineer has been, and is, a maker of history”

@ Alderons Last Hope

@matsci thanks...so basically you conclude that nasa has an apparatus in the space suits that took the direct heat from the sum, transferred it to the water, which then in turn powered some kind of power supply, which then in turn heated an element (like the element in a light bulb)...which transferred the heat to the vacuum via radiation?

How did you draw that conclusion? I never said anything to do with how the space suit cooling is accomplished. I just stated how physics works.

But…since you have turned my interest to the subject…
I see no reason that it should be impossible to maintain comfortable climate in a space suit

Here are some links to the working of a space suit.

//science.howstuffworks.com/space-suit3.htm

www.hightechscience.org/portable_cooling_unit.htm

In the second link it is stated that liquid oxygen is used as a cooling medium. Liquid oxygen boils at -297°F and then also has the advantage of being breathable for the wearer of the suit. It also seems that these types of cooling units are quite common and not a just laboratory wizardry.

Here is also a link where a liquid oxygen unit is made available to patients that need a portable source of oxygen.

//news.thomasnet.com/fullstory/Portable-Liquid-Oxygen-Unit-offers-multiple-flow-settings-459806

this unit is not used for cooling but it shows that liquid oxygen technology is common enough to not just be for NASA.

@democedes as to why the capsule would become heated in the presence of direct sunlight with no cooling apparatus.

http://www.physicsplanet.com/articles/three-laws-of-thermodynamics

I don't have a dog in this fight either, I would prefer to believe we did go the moon though. But here is my biggest bone of contention.

We have not been back since 1972. This does not make any sense. We went to the moon in 1969-1972 6 times and in 2012 we will need the russians to go into space? I don't believe the ufo conspiracy so the only other option is that we didn't go. It was an elaborate hoax.

Space Adventures says they can send people around the moon with 1970's russian technology...for 300 million. The nasa budget since the 70's has been over 300 billion dollars. Every 5 years I hear "we will be going back to the moon in 5 years". If we went to the moon, we would have bases there and a tourism, mining industry there by now. But all we have are empty promises.....all we have to do is wait for another 5 years.

The reason i said "you are not God" is because as humans we have the urge to conquer nature...so it's in our nature to want to believe we walked on the moon. Walking on the moon is a big boost to the to the ego, that's why people are inclined to believe it. I know we will one day walk on the moon, not just Luna, but Io, Europa and beyond. In 1969 we didn't.

I am willing to consider that the Apollo story is real. I'd say it has a 30% chance of being real. But that's not taking into consideration the background of C. Fred Kleinknect, as well as the backgrounds of the Apollo "B" crew. The original crew were killed a year earlier.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/27/newsid_3392000/3392419.stm

Ed white the 1st American to space walk was convinced they could not make it to the moon in 1 year. And he was part of the Apollo mission from inception.

@matsci1 thanks for the links, I found them interesting. However nothing in the suits composition lead me to believe the astronauts were safe from radiation OUTSIDE the magnetosphere.

* A water-cooled nylon undergarment
* A multi-layered pressure suit
o inside layer - lightweight nylon with fabric vents
o middle layer - neoprene-coated nylon to hold pressure
o outer layer - nylon to restrain the pressurized layers beneath
* Five layers of aluminized Mylar interwoven with four layers of Dacron for heat protection
* Two layers of Kapton for additional heat protection
* A layer of Teflon-coated cloth (nonflammable) for protection from scrapes
* A layer of white Teflon cloth (nonflammable)

@engineer1 you are a troll with a caps lock problem.
at least 6% of Americans are convinced that the moon landings did not occur..this biased article is forced to admit that...but doesn't go into the much higher percentage that is uncertain.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/science/space/14hoax.html

This scientific poll suggests that 25% of Britons do not believe the moon hoax is real

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/5851435/Apollo-11-hoax-one-in-four-people-do-not-believe-in-moon-landing.html

So there you have over 40 million in 2 countries
population of U.S 308 million * 6% = 18.5 million
population of U.K 51 million *25% = 12.7 million
that do not believe what you believe and "STFU" is how you choose to interface with them? I'm assuming STFU is not and acronym for engineering jargon? I suggest you learn how to interact with people if you don not want to be put in your place.

@Alderons Last Hope: “@democedes as to why the capsule would become heated in the presence of direct sunlight with no cooling apparatus. www.physicsplanet.com/articles/three-laws-of-thermodynamics”

So you want me to do the math for you? From the lack of a real answer, I assume you pulled the 200 degree figure out of your ass, just like the rest of your “scientific proof”. And you still haven’t answered my question:

@Aldrons Last Hope: "so where on the Apollo space suits were these advanced / huge radiators placed?"

If such a thing is required for space walks, where are the radiators on the space suits they use for space walks today?

@Alderons Last Hope: “But here is my biggest bone of contention. We have not been back since 1972. This does not make any sense.”

This is your new “smoking gun”. Sad really. You clearly have no clue how things work in the real world. Politics drive NASA’s budget. They don’t spend money on a whim. Their budget is set by congress. Programs that are fundend and programs that are defunded change with the political winds.

@Alderons Last Hope: “Space Adventures says they can send people around the moon with 1970's russian technology...for 300 million.”

There is a big difference between shooting two passengers past the moon on a free return trajectory, and parking a huge LEM and command module in orbit, traveling to the moon’s surface and returning to lunar orbit and then going back to earth. There is a huge difference in the size of the payload and fuel required for these two missions, making your comparison worthless.

@Alderons Last Hope: “This scientific poll suggests that 25% of Britons do not believe the moon hoax is real”

If 99% of Britons believed the world was flat does that make it true?

@Aldrons Last Hope

"@matsci1 thanks for the links, I found them interesting. However nothing in the suits composition lead me to believe the astronauts were safe from radiation OUTSIDE the magnetosphere"

The radiation exposure was not part of the topic that was being addressed. The the subject of the discussion was is it possible to maintain an comfortable environment in a space suit in a vacuum.

In provious post you said a heat exchanger would not work in a vacumm:

"And again can someone explain to me how heat exchangers work in a vacuum? (trick question,they can't)"

the laws of physics say it can work.

Then you made a reference as to how the space suites were cooled. I think those websites I cited very clearly explain the principle of how this is done.

In view of the references that have been given, do you still say it is not possible to maintain a comfortable climate in a space suit in a vacuum?

@democedes...I had a little respect for you, but now it's all gone again:-( ....you are asking if I know how politics work? I know America does what it wants too. eg. Bush's 1.st presidential election he stole from gore.
The Illegal Iraq war,
lies about anthrax & WMD's,
the TRILLION dollar banker bailout,
(this should be history but sheep like you can't comprehend it). The U.S govt. does what it wants...if they could go to the moon there would be a permanent human presence on the moon. But they can't...go look at your history books, the elite do what they want to and when they want to. Space is for the elite right now..(hence the million$ price tag to go there). They wish they could build bases on Mars and the Moon...but they can't, underground will have to do for now.

@matsci yes, I can admit that it was proven that heat exchangers can work in a vacuum as long as it's a COMBINATION of conduction and Radiation, however this does not address the radiation encountered outside the magnetosphere.

@ Aldrons Last Hope
No response? I was hoping there would be more on this? let me know when your ready for the rebutal!

James Clare

How did these nuts take over these comments? It's like a bunch of birthers. We landed men on the moon, not once, but six times. Can we not talk about important things about the future of the U.S. in space? No one even responded to my comments about whether we should have a moon base. If you can't accept reality, how can you speak about the future?

@ Aldrons Last Hope.

“@matsci yes, I can admit that it was proven that heat exchangers can work in a vacuum as long as it's a COMBINATION of conduction and Radiation, however this does not address the radiation encountered outside the magnetosphere”

This is the positive side of discussions. A sharing of knowledge that each individual has and then (hopefully) the group as a whole is more proficient in the subject at the end.

The radiation question that you pose:

It seems that this is a well researched subject with many resources available to those who wish to inquire into it. A few I found are listed below:

First: a bit about the different types of radiation

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionizing_radiation

Next a Radiation unit conversion table because the units that are discussed in the articles are not ones that are encountered in normal day to day conversation

//www.stevequayle.com/ARAN/rad.conversion.html

The next paper does the analysis for a trip to Mars and the protection that is necessary for the crew.

//www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/ASC/DATA/bibliography/ICRC2005/usa-mewaldt-RA-abs1-sh35-oral.pdf

In the next paper from the Proceedings of Third European IRPA Congress 2010 June 14−16, Helsinki, Finland entitled “Radiation exposure of space and aircrew”, the safety limits of radiation exposure are discussed. On page 5 the upper limit of radiation exposure for a person is listed

//www.irpa2010europe.com/proceedings/R/R13.pdf
“The Russian Federal Space Agency Roscosmos allows an annual limit of 500 mSv, and—in agreement with the Canadian Space Agency (CSA)—a career limit of 1 Sv, both independent of age and gender,”

Finally in this paper entitled “ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION DOSE ON THE MOON”
The dosage of radition on the lunar surface is discussed
//villaolmo.mib.infn.it/ICATPP10th_2007/Software%20Applications/HayatsuK.pdf

“The ambient dose equivalents on the lunar surface are shown in Table 2
under the condition of the solar minimum, average and maximum in highland region and of the solar average in mare region. An annual dose equivalent to the
human is about 225 mSv/yr on the lunar surface at the solar average,”

Combining the discussion of the last two papers, a 500 mSv yearly limit and 225mSv/yr influx rate, it would seem that an astronaut that is on the surface of the moon going about his business for a couple of days would not even be close to the maximum limit of exposure.

@Aldrons Last Hope
I think i covered the ration bit.

excuse me radiation and i think Matsci did a great job as well

Thank you Lanredneck

The only destination that makes since is a small Asteroid. The Moon is too big and has too much gravity. Landing and taking off the surface will be costly unless the plan is to send a few people in a small lander to collect some rocks and come home. Sound familiar ? The Moon is just a big dust ball.

It will easy to land on an Asteroid because it small. They are believed to posses all or more of the materials and water that the moon may have, and much easier to obtain.