US fails to land on the Moon

[AliHajiSheik]

Thanks for admitting its part of the command module, which is what I said. Your silly debate strategy of arguing about semantics is asinine.

I'm not debating, I'm pointing out your mistake. Your reaction is asinine.

Link

 

[PoS]

I'm not debating, I'm pointing out your mistake. Your reaction is asinine.

Link

I didnt make a mistake. You admitted its part of the same module, which proves me right and you wrong, as always. Your self ownage is hilarious.

 

[Divine_Wind]

"Moon rocks" is pretty old rhetoric. Some Americans opposed the Apollo program you know.

Ironically, they were mostly left wingers, who considered landing people on the Moon to be nationalistic posturing, when the money could better be spent on social programs. I wonder if @RetiredUSN used to be one of them ...

Agreed on LW anti-space exploration. They were focused more on giving cheese to the poor instead of exploring space. What they didn't see is that technological advances help create jobs, improve quality of life and keep the US competitive on the global market.

23 Great NASA Spin-off Technologies

Since its foundation in 1958, NASA has been pushing the limits of our understanding of technology. Some of their many innovations have even trickled down into our everyday lives and are now improving our standard of living.

interestingengineering.com

Everywhere you look your life has been touched by NASA space technology. Since 1976, there have been more than 1,500 documented NASA technologies that have improved our quality of lives and created many new industries.

According to NASA, the Space Shuttle Program alone has generated more than 100 technology spin-offs.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

I didnt make a mistake. You admitted its part of the same module, which proves me right and you wrong, as always. Your self ownage is hilarious.

You did, enjoy the parade, no one is watching.

 

[beefheart]

So now your having delusions of conversations that never happened. This is all indicative of the symptoms of a mental disorder, common among leftists who have lost touch with reality. Why is it that leftists are always so eager to demonstrate just how little they know? Tell us about this solar cycle conspiracy of yours. Or are you one of those leftist science deniers who think the Earth is flat and NASA is making everything up?

And then, on another thread, you continue the lie.

I never denied we talked before. I denied ever being wrong. You simply can't read, as usual.

Will you stop lying, and stop making personal attacks.

Man up and apologize.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Since you are lacking the education, I will provide some: Earth's magnetosphere on the day-side (the side facing the sun, in case "day side" was not clear enough) extends between 6 and 10 Earth radius, or between 23,753 and 39,588 miles from Earth's surface. The moon is located, on average, 238,885 miles from Earth's surface, or more than 60 Earth radius. Since you clearly need the obvious pointed out to you, 60 is greater than 6. Earth's magnetosphere does not come anywhere close to encompassing the moon.

You mention the "average distance" of the moon, but you're not considering that the crewed part of the mission could take place while the moon is on the far side of the Earth from the Sun. The heliosphere is much further away on the lee side: NASA estimates 1000 Earth radii.

Artemis 3 (the first human landing one) takes 2.4 to 4 days each way, plus about a week on the surface. It could simply be done around Full Moon.

Apollo btw, typically landed around lunar dawn. This was because they needed eyes on the craters. Now that the surface of the moon is thoroughly mapped and we have much better computers, it's no longer necessary to do that. Payload on the lander is much more too, so I expect they will have radar for landing.

 

[Glitch]

You mention the "average distance" of the moon, but you're not considering that the crewed part of the mission could take place while the moon is on the far side of the Earth from the Sun. The heliosphere is much further away on the lee side: NASA estimates 1000 Earth radii.

Artemis 3 (the first human landing one) takes 2.4 to 4 days each way, plus about a week on the surface. It could simply be done around Full Moon.

Apollo btw, typically landed around lunar dawn. This was because they needed eyes on the craters. Now that the surface of the moon is thoroughly mapped and we have much better computers, it's no longer necessary to do that. Payload on the lander is much more too, so I expect they will have radar for landing.

You are absolutely correct. The magnetosphere is shaped like a drop of water, with the tail-end of the drop facing away from the sun. When the moon is behind the Earth the magnetosphere fully encompasses the moon.



If there was a manned-mission to the moon during a lunar eclipse, then the astronauts would have similar protection as the astronauts aboard the ISS. However, with an orbit of only 27.32 days they would have to have a mission duration of 6.83 days or less before the moon leaves the protection of the magnetosphere. Regardless of the duration of the mission, a lunar eclipse would certainly be the best time for such a mission. If they want to spend a week on the moon, then they had better arrange it during a lunar eclipse.

The Apollo 11 astronauts were extremely lucky. Had they launched just two weeks later on August 5, 1969, they would have experienced an X1.6-class solar flare that would have killed them instantly had they been on the moon's surface. They would have been dead before they even hit the ground.

 

[PoS]

You did, enjoy the parade, no one is watching.

LOL well youre watching, and are obviously worked up about it. I love it when people like you get their own comeuppance.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

LOL well youre watching, and are obviously worked up about it. I love it when people like you get their own comeuppance.

You are still mistaken and apparently taking that fact very badly. Oh well, you do you.

The picture above shows the Apollo 13 Service Module after it was released from the Command Module and set adrift in space about 4 hours before re-entry of the CM into the Earth's atmosphere. "There's one whole side of that spacecraft missing", Jim Lovell said as the Apollo 13 astronauts got their first view of the damage that had been caused by the explosion. This blurry photo taken by the astronauts shows the extent of the injury to the Apollo 13 spacecraft, which exposed most of the inside of the service module to space. The Service Module was towed all the way back to Earth after the explosion in order to protect the Command Module heat shield. Another view is shown below.

[Bolded in case the obvious is missed again].
Link from NASA

Some topics are more relevant and/or interesting than others.

 

[Mircea]

No where in my statement was a direct comment on, nor even a hint that, this was the "first attempt in human history to launch something into Space."

Yet you act like it was.

No matter how much we put this on NASA, or outside groups, or some combination of my comment was about learning from mistakes made and trying again.

You missed the point entirely.

How many launches of manned and unmanned vehicles has NASA made?

And they can't get it right? Are you kidding me? The problem with NASA is the culture which wastes a lot of money stupid stuff for political reasons and that is the crux of the matter.

When NASA was a science agency with scientists and engineers they did great things.

When NASA became politicized and just another run-of-the-mill bureaucracy its performance has ranged from dismal to totally sucking.

 

[Mircea]

That is the assessment i would expect from the general public.

Then NASA needs to start doing it bigger and better than the next guy.

I can only say I'm glad NASA didn't have a hand in our nuclear weapons programs or we'd all be dead.

 

[Mircea]

They couldnt because it costs money, which is something you cant grasp. lol

It doesn't cost that much money.

In the first place, NASA should already have a vacuum chamber. So your claim that it costs money fails.

But, what NASA really needs is a cryogenic vacuum chamber. Once it's built, that's it.

It only costs a few $100 to maintain the vacuum pump which will function for several 100 hours before needing any maintenance.

They can use liquid Nitrogen. Why don't you google so's you can understand that it's only $1.78 per gallon.

And to simulate cosmic radiation, they can use Plutonium-241 or Plutonium-242 and don't insult us by claiming NASA doesn't have access because they do.

If you knew anything you'd know Plutonium-242 was the power source on the Cassini probe.

So it's you who can't grasp the fact that it'd only cost a few $100 to run a 7-day test.

 

[PoS]

You are still mistaken and apparently taking that fact very badly. Oh well, you do you.



[Bolded in case the obvious is missed again].
Link from NASA

Some topics are more relevant and/or interesting than others.

LOL well youre watching, and are obviously worked up about it. I love it when people like you get their own comeuppance.

It doesn't cost that much money.

LOl yes it does.

 

[Mircea]

LOl yes it does.

No, it doesn't.

If a couple $1,000 to build a cryogenic vacuum chamber and literally a few $100 to maintain it is gonna break the bank, then NASA should get out of the business.

 

[PoS]

No, it doesn't.

If a couple $1,000 to build a cryogenic vacuum chamber and literally a few $100 to maintain it is gonna break the bank, then NASA should get out of the business.

If it doesnt cost anything then you build it.

 

[rhinefire]

It landed but fell over but is still sending data.

 

[Glitch]

It landed but fell over but is still sending data.

It was a remarkable feat of navigation. Their lander got within 100m of their intended landing zone - before it fell over. They did far better than we did during our Pioneer Project missions. We managed to miss the moon completely on one mission. However, that was 60+ years ago, before the pocket calculator or the first integrated circuit was invented.