Godlike Productions - Discussion Forum
Users Online Now: 2,182 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 950,345
Pageviews Today: 1,772,752Threads Today: 868Posts Today: 15,433
07:41 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Was the moon landing faked? Poll

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 80330925
United States
07/15/2021 05:16 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Was the moon landing faked? Poll
The collective consciousness at work - The moon has been on GLP’s mind lately...
74444

User ID: 74444
United States
07/15/2021 11:47 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Was the moon landing faked? Poll
...


"The Van Allen belts are most intense over the Equator and are effectively absent above the poles. No real gap exists between the two zones; they actually merge gradually, with the flux of charged particles showing two regions of maximum density..."

It's interesting that you chose to leave out this paragraph which precedes the one you copied and pasted and details how these belts are "effectively absent above the poles."

That being said, I misspoke regarding wavelength. It has been years since I even thought about this aspect of the moon landing denying nonsense. The hull of the craft was designed specifically to reflect and/or absorb the high energy particles (depending on what layer you're talking about). Still, the width of certain of these layers is important because when, for example, high energy electrons hit certain materials the impact can give off high energy wavelengths (ionizing radiation) that would have been dangerous. So having very thin layers of such materials was an advantage.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 78185584


Yes, the LM had a "thin skin", about the thickness of three layers of Reynold's Wrap.

It was pressurized to 4.8 PSI, pure oxygen internal atmosphere.

Why didn't it explode, when sitting on the Moon in a HARD VACUUM?

drevil
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 79301316


What you’ve “been hearing” illustrates the problems that can arise from explaining complex topics to a lay audience through oversimplification—then repeating the oversimplification ad nauseum because it’s pithy.

First, the LEM only held a third of an atmosphere (of 100% oxygen), and it was only rated for a small number of pressurization cycles. For comparison, an ordinary soda can holds six times that pressure.

But the whole question is misleading, because the LM was not an aluminium can. Yes in some spots, its skin was as thin as 0.006 inches (1.524 mm). That’s 1.5 times the thickness of a modern soda can, or about the thickness of contemporary cans. However, the LM was not merely a paper-thin aluminium sheet.

[link to qph.fs.quoracdn.net (secure)]

The LM was made of grid-like trusses of metal skin with welded-on ribs to create strong, rigid bulkheads. The panels were also chemically etched so that the skin between the ribs tapered toward the middle (the space between ribs) so as not to contain more material than needed mechanically. This is where the thin stuff was—just a few strips and patches equidistant between ribs. This is the only place the skin was thin enough to puncture with a screwdriver, though even doing that by mistake would have taken a feat of bad luck.

And for the record, I’ve only ever seen documentation for parts of the descent stage being only 0.006 inches thick. The ascent stage bulkhead might well have been thicker, though I do know they were thin enough to “oil can” or pop as temperatures changed while the astronauts slept.

Regardless, that’s all misleading. The LM wasn’t made of the cheap, soft 3000-series aluminium alloy we are familiar with from our kitchens. The LM was made mostly from heat-treated 2219 and 7075 aluminium alloys. 2219 was used in areas where high strength and fracture resistance were required. 7075 (which was developed during WWII by Japan and used in naval aviation toward the end of the war), was used for its exceptional tensile strength—comparable to steel. Both were (and are) expensive and difficult to fabricate.

After the bulkheads were welded together, the LM was surrounded by a system of struts that further increased rigidity (much like the stiffening wires in a biplane) and provided attachments for the micrometeorite shields

[link to qph.fs.quoracdn.net (secure)]


Those shields were also aluminium (mostly), along with multi-layer blankets of aluminized plastic, and of course, certain high temperature or high strength components were made of magnesium alloy or titanium.

[link to www.quora.com (secure)]
 Quoting: 74444


Wall of copy-pasted text without clear meaning. Important one sentence explaining radiation shielding mechanism is missing.
lolzer
 Quoting: TSPNS


I can only lead the horse to water. [link to 171.67.100.116]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 77901654
United States
07/16/2021 12:56 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Was the moon landing faked? Poll
...


Yes, the LM had a "thin skin", about the thickness of three layers of Reynold's Wrap.

It was pressurized to 4.8 PSI, pure oxygen internal atmosphere.

Why didn't it explode, when sitting on the Moon in a HARD VACUUM?

drevil
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 79301316


What you’ve “been hearing” illustrates the problems that can arise from explaining complex topics to a lay audience through oversimplification—then repeating the oversimplification ad nauseum because it’s pithy.

First, the LEM only held a third of an atmosphere (of 100% oxygen), and it was only rated for a small number of pressurization cycles. For comparison, an ordinary soda can holds six times that pressure.

But the whole question is misleading, because the LM was not an aluminium can. Yes in some spots, its skin was as thin as 0.006 inches (1.524 mm). That’s 1.5 times the thickness of a modern soda can, or about the thickness of contemporary cans. However, the LM was not merely a paper-thin aluminium sheet.

[link to qph.fs.quoracdn.net (secure)]

The LM was made of grid-like trusses of metal skin with welded-on ribs to create strong, rigid bulkheads. The panels were also chemically etched so that the skin between the ribs tapered toward the middle (the space between ribs) so as not to contain more material than needed mechanically. This is where the thin stuff was—just a few strips and patches equidistant between ribs. This is the only place the skin was thin enough to puncture with a screwdriver, though even doing that by mistake would have taken a feat of bad luck.

And for the record, I’ve only ever seen documentation for parts of the descent stage being only 0.006 inches thick. The ascent stage bulkhead might well have been thicker, though I do know they were thin enough to “oil can” or pop as temperatures changed while the astronauts slept.

Regardless, that’s all misleading. The LM wasn’t made of the cheap, soft 3000-series aluminium alloy we are familiar with from our kitchens. The LM was made mostly from heat-treated 2219 and 7075 aluminium alloys. 2219 was used in areas where high strength and fracture resistance were required. 7075 (which was developed during WWII by Japan and used in naval aviation toward the end of the war), was used for its exceptional tensile strength—comparable to steel. Both were (and are) expensive and difficult to fabricate.

After the bulkheads were welded together, the LM was surrounded by a system of struts that further increased rigidity (much like the stiffening wires in a biplane) and provided attachments for the micrometeorite shields

[link to qph.fs.quoracdn.net (secure)]


Those shields were also aluminium (mostly), along with multi-layer blankets of aluminized plastic, and of course, certain high temperature or high strength components were made of magnesium alloy or titanium.

[link to www.quora.com (secure)]
 Quoting: 74444


Wall of copy-pasted text without clear meaning. Important one sentence explaining radiation shielding mechanism is missing.
:lolzer:
 Quoting: TSPNS


I can only lead the horse to water. [link to 171.67.100.116]
 Quoting: 74444


Measurements within geomagnetic field are not enough to conclude about radiation intensity outside the field and on the moon.

" Ever since, scientists have had to estimate the radiation doses of crews bounding around on the lunar surface “from extrapolation and modeling,” says physicist Robert Wimmer-Schweingruber of the University of Kiel, a co-author of the study. “We’ve never actually measured them exclusively on the Moon.”"

[link to www.sciencemag.org (secure)]

But there is renewed interest in taking such measurements, with NASA’s Artemis program intending to land crews for long-term stays by 2024 and the China National Space Administration eying human missions sometime in the 2030s. The robotic Chang’e 4 made history last year when it touched down in Von Kármán crater on the Moon’s far side, bringing a suite of instruments along for the ride.

One of these was a new dosimeter operated by Wimmer-Schweingruber and his colleagues in Germany and China. The device measured hourly radiation rates and found that astronauts would be exposed to roughly 200 times the radiation levels as people on Earth, they report today in Science Advances. The dosimeter’s placement inside the Chang’e 4 probe provides partial shielding, much as an astronaut’s spacesuit would to their body, so the findings are quite applicable to human explorers, Wimmer-Schweingruber says.

It's too early to conclude that it is safe to cross radiation belt with existing technology.





GLP