Moon Landing

[Century 25]

Quote by: Chris Thanks nose and welcome to the boards. And we do need to get back to the "the moon landing was faked" discussion.

Yes.. and everything in the universe has motion.. relative to one body or another.

On topic, if the USA didn't land men on the moon.. why would Russia have thrown in the towel..?? Simple. They followed each mission to the moon & back on radar.. and knew they had.. "lost" the so-called space-race.

It just isn't that "hard" - technically, to visit the moon. It was quite a tour-de-force back in those days.. but not out of reach for anyone willing to invest the $$$..

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Chris The moon does not spin on its own axis like the earth. (like I have said from the very beginning of this stupid argument.

Let's try it this way:

Hold the one ball in your fingers and move it around the 8 ball. Notice that as you move it, your fingers are rotating it. At the end of one orbit of the 8 ball, your fingers have rotated the 1 ball once.

Aside from the fact that earth makes 365 revolutions in one orbit of the sun, and the moon makes 1 revolution in an orbit of the earth, I don't see any difference.

[Nono]

Forgive me if this point has already been made, but if the moon landings were faked (which would have been a hugely extravagant operation with thousands of people in the know) where did those unique rocks come from?

[Scribbler1]

Walmart. What, you never saw a gas grill lava rock before?

[Chris]

Quote by: Zeebadee Aside from the fact that earth makes 365 revolutions in one orbit of the sun, and the moon makes 1 revolution in an orbit of the earth, I don't see any difference.

Aside from the difference that the earth rotates 365.25 revolutions in one orbit of the sun and the moon has one revolution for every orbit of the earth... You dont see any difference? Forgive me but that is one hell of a difference.

That difference mentioned above is the only difference I was referring to when I said "the moon doesn't spin on its axis like earth does"

Does this finally put this argument to bed now?:rolleyes:

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Chris Aside from the difference that the earth rotates 365.25 revolutions in one orbit of the sun and the moon has one revolution for every orbit of the earth... You dont see any difference? Forgive me but that is one hell of a difference. That difference mentioned above is the only difference I was referring to when I said "the moon doesn't spin on its axis like earth does" Does this finally put this argument to bed now?:rolleyes:

Excuse me, but what you said was:

Quote by: Chris Relative to earth, as the earth is relative to our sun, the moon does not spin on its axis.

And:

Quote by: Chris The moon will not spin on an axis. It will only revolve around the earth. The moon does do a complete 360 relative to the sun but not relative to its revolution around the earth like the earth does. JUST as I said to begin with. Which of course was not wrong.

Which, of course, is wrong.

And, yes, I think this should complete this particular argument.

[Nono]

Quote by: Scribs You never saw a gas grill lava rock before?

Thems is all Nasa surplus.

[Century 25]

Back to topic.. whatcha gonna do when the Japanese (or Google).. bring back some artifacts from 1969.. ? Then too.. there is a moon buggy or two.. maybe three, sitting there..? They were from the later flights.

Japan has a small probe on the way: SPACE.com -- Japan Launches Kaguya Probe on Moon Mission

And Google has this: SPACE.com -- Google to Sponsor $30 Million Lunar X Prize

When I call Japan's craft "small" - it is.. compared to the 50 tons dispatched with Apollo flights. The Saturn V booster had 7.5 million lbs of thrust. I saw some articles where Von Braun had a 9 million lb thrust booster for the later.. more ambitious expeditions..

[Scribbler1]

That depends on if they send this probe to the same locations the Apollo missions went to. I don't know anything about this probe, but considering the enormous cost of sending ANYTHING to the Moon it doesn't make too much sense to hit the same spot again.

As for regular expeditions to the Moon, I would think there would be a point where they start sending the vehicles from orbit and just send the crew up to fly it. I see no reason to not make the ISS bigger (or a different orbiting facility entirely) and assembling the vehicles in space.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Scribbler1 As for regular expeditions to the Moon, I would think there would be a point where they start sending the vehicles from orbit and just send the crew up to fly it. I see no reason to not make the ISS bigger (or a different orbiting facility entirely) and assembling the vehicles in space.

Why would we need regular expeditions to the moon?

[Scribbler1]

A colony, and probably a mining colony to boot. I saw a Science Channel program some time ago that did a story about something called Helium-3. It's considered to be just about the perfect fusion fuel source and the Moon is full of the stuff.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Scribbler1 A colony, and probably a mining colony to boot. I saw a Science Channel program some time ago that did a story about something called Helium-3. It's considered to be just about the perfect fusion fuel source and the Moon is full of the stuff.

Since we don't currently have the technology to control fusion, there's no need at the present to go to the moon for helium-3. Instead of moon trips and useless (for the time being) lunar colonies, I think it's a much better idea to spend the money to develop an alternative to the chemical rockets that make space travel so expensive and slow. In addition, we could continue to develop the means to use fusion power.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Zeebadee Since we don't currently have the technology to control fusion, there's no need at the present to go to the moon for helium-3. Instead of moon trips and useless (for the time being) lunar colonies, I think it's a much better idea to spend the money to develop an alternative to the chemical rockets that make space travel so expensive and slow. In addition, we could continue to develop the means to use fusion power.

Actually, we can build fusion plants. There's a prototype under construction in France already:

ITER - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Century 25]

Quote by: Scribbler1 That depends on if they send this probe to the same locations the Apollo missions went to. I don't know anything about this probe, but considering the enormous cost of sending ANYTHING to the Moon it doesn't make too much sense to hit the same spot again. As for regular expeditions to the Moon, I would think there would be a point where they start sending the vehicles from orbit and just send the crew up to fly it. I see no reason to not make the ISS bigger (or a different orbiting facility entirely) and assembling the vehicles in space.

True. However.. there may be advantages to going back to a previously visited site. It depends on what was discovered at those places.

The cost of getting there & back can be drastically reduced, simply by using a shuttle that runs between earth orbit & lunar orbit. That vehicle need never be built to withstand the stress of leaving our atmosphere.. or blasting back through on return.. so the craft can be box shaped (if needed) - or any economical configuration of shapes.. no air friction problems..

Also, any loads leaving the moon could be launched into lunar orbit via an electrically powered (solar maybe?) "railroad" that is built along a correctly sloping hill.. it only takes about 3,600 mph to depart the moon.. no big deal really.. especially since there is no atmosphere to contend with. It could even send a load to earth orbit.

As for fusion power.. yes.. fusion is the way to the future. The moon is a good place.. a very good place for developing advanced technologies. Low grav, nearly perfect vacuum.. probably water (ice) at poles.. or under the surface. With fusion technology.. the planets will be very much easier to reach, and speed is the key. With cheap & basically unlimited amounts of energy.. it will be a breeze.

[5010]

Quote by: Zeebadee Which, of course, is wrong.

How about a thought experiment?

There are 2 merry-go-rounds attached by a belt so that they always spin in sync. There is a tree nearby.

Two kids arrive and one steps on a merry-go-round. The 2nd kid pushes one and they both start spinning.

Now, according to your semantics, relative to a kid on a merry-go-round the other merry-go-round is swinging around him but not spinning even though different facings become visible as it swings around. Relative to the kid on the merry-go-round, the tree is swinging around him and spinning at the same rate even though the same side is facing at all times.

According to your semantics, every time I turn, the whole universe spins, then stops spinning relative to me.

But others prefer a different semantics. When I turn, I say the universe swings around me but doesn't spin. I say something spins if different faces of it become visible to me.

Semantics are matters of opinion. Neither opinion is right or wrong. We can agree or disagree, but we get bogged down in semantics when we get on the high horse of our chosen semantics instead of trying out the paradigm of the opponent to see if it is at least consistent within their semantics.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Zeebadee Since we don't currently have the technology to control fusion, there's no need at the present to go to the moon for helium-3. Instead of moon trips and useless (for the time being) lunar colonies, I think it's a much better idea to spend the money to develop an alternative to the chemical rockets that make space travel so expensive and slow. In addition, we could continue to develop the means to use fusion power.

Are you sure you're not thinking of COLD fusion? That's the tough one, but fusion power is doable. The problem with that is the containment vessels erode over a short span of years. It has something to do with excess neutrons beating on the walls. Apparently Helium3 does away with that problem.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: 5010 How about a thought experiment? There are 2 merry-go-rounds attached by a belt so that they always spin in sync. There is a tree nearby. Two kids arrive and one steps on a merry-go-round. The 2nd kid pushes one and they both start spinning. Now, according to your semantics, relative to a kid on a merry-go-round the other merry-go-round is swinging around him but not spinning even though different facings become visible as it swings around. Relative to the kid on the merry-go-round, the tree is swinging around him and spinning at the same rate even though the same side is facing at all times.

I'm not sure I know what you mean here. If both m-g-r's spin in sync, why would they also be swinging around each other?

Quote by: 5010 According to your semantics, every time I turn, the whole universe spins, then stops spinning relative to me.

This makes no sense whatsoever. Why would it start and then stop spinning?

Quote by: 5010 But others prefer a different semantics. When I turn, I say the universe swings around me but doesn't spin. I say something spins if different faces of it become visible to me. Semantics are matters of opinion. Neither opinion is right or wrong. We can agree or disagree, but we get bogged down in semantics when we get on the high horse of our chosen semantics instead of trying out the paradigm of the opponent to see if it is at least consistent within their semantics.

I don't understand what it is that you're trying to get across.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Scribbler1 Are you sure you're not thinking of COLD fusion? That's the tough one, but fusion power is doable. The problem with that is the containment vessels erode over a short span of years. It has something to do with excess neutrons beating on the walls. Apparently Helium3 does away with that problem.

Fusion power is years away, if we in fact ever get it running.

"Even nuclear fusion’s staunchest advocates admit a power-producing fusion plant is still decades away at best, despite forty years of hard work and well over $20 billion spent on the research.

<snip>

But Porkolab concedes that a functioning power-producing fusion reactor is probably 50 years off, and that is too far in the future for any reasonable conclusions to be drawn on its economic viability."
No future for fusion power, says top scientist - fundamentals - 09 March 2006 - New Scientist

Much more info is here:
Fusion power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote by: Century 25 Also, any loads leaving the moon could be launched into lunar orbit via an electrically powered (solar maybe?) "railroad" that is built along a correctly sloping hill.. it only takes about 3,600 mph to depart the moon.. no big deal really.. especially since there is no atmosphere to contend with. It could even send a load to earth orbit.

Yet getting usable amounts of any "loads" of lunar material back to earth will be difficult and expensive. Re-entry problems will only multiply when the mass of a vehicle is increased.

Quote by: Century 25 As for fusion power.. yes.. fusion is the way to the future. The moon is a good place.. a very good place for developing advanced technologies. Low grav, nearly perfect vacuum.. probably water (ice) at poles.. or under the surface. With fusion technology.. the planets will be very much easier to reach, and speed is the key. With cheap & basically unlimited amounts of energy.. it will be a breeze.

Sure, a breeze. Fusion power alone isn't going to make "the planets will be very much easier to reach" a viable statement. Also, "cheap & basically unlimited amounts of energy" on the moon isn't going to be much good for those of us on the earth.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Zeebadee Fusion power is years away, if we in fact ever get it running.

That's my point. They already have gotten it running. Of course, it was a test reactor, but it worked. LINK

The Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) operated at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) from 1982 to 1997. TFTR set a number of world records, including a plasma temperature of 510 million degrees centigrade -- the highest ever produced in a laboratory, and well beyond the 100 million degrees required for commercial fusion. In addition to meeting its physics objectives, TFTR achieved all of its hardware design goals, thus making substantial contributions in many areas of fusion technology development. In December, 1993, TFTR became the world's first magnetic fusion device to perform extensive experiments with plasmas composed of 50/50 deuterium/tritium -- the fuel mix required for practical fusion power production. Consequently, in 1994, TFTR produced a world-record 10.7 million watts of controlled fusion power, enough to meet the needs of more than 3,000 homes. These experiments also emphasized studies of behavior of alpha particles produced in the deuterium-tritium reactions. The extent to which the alpha particles pass their energy to the plasma is critical to the eventual attainment of sustained fusion.

As I said, there are practical problems which keep it from becoming a common power source, which is why I mentioned the promise of Helium3.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Scribbler1 That's my point. They already have gotten it running. Of course, it was a test reactor, but it worked. LINKAs I said, there are practical problems which keep it from becoming a common power source, which is why I mentioned the promise of Helium3.

Very misleading, as the confinement time was .21 seconds, and the required input power was 39.5 megawatts. 39 megawatts in to get 10.7 out is not good business. There is no fusion source that's commercially viable now.

"Although most fusion researchers agree that the reactor will probably be able to generate more power than it consumes, there are some who believe it may struggle to produce as much energy as predicted, or to hold the plasma stable for as long as hoped."
Fusion energy Just around the corner : Nature

Edit to add: Note that my link is for a different, newer reactor, and the date is more than 10 years after your link date.