I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  





rss

friendsmore friends | add your site
Asylum

Holy Taco

Funny Videos

BuzzFeed

NothingToxic

Oddee

Mousebreaker

Online Games

Eat Liver

Online Games

Gorilla Mask

Full Downloads

Norway Games

Damn Cool Pics

Kontraband

Extreme Humor

X Hollywood

I Dont Like You

123 Games

Hollywoodtuna

Funny Games

Cool Stuff

Viva La Games

X - Vids

Smit Happens

Funny Videos

Funny Stuff

ebaumsworld



Back to Listing

Do NASA Pics Prove Moon Landing Was Fake? [Pic+]

Hits: 24769 | Rating: (1.6) | Category: Science | Added by: fancylad
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 11050 Posts
Thursday, March 15, 2012 8:15:02 PM
Hummm, a really quick look at Wiki suggests 1600w at the top but around 200w at sea level. Not sure if that's the same as what we're talking about though.


No, it isn't. That graph shows the different energy levels of different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation from the sun.

The key word to look for is "insolation", but note what units you're looking at. Some sources quote watts per hour per square meter (either peak, i.e. midday on midsummer's day with a clear sky, or averaged over some period of time, usually a month), some sources quote watt-hours per square meter per day.

Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 10210 Posts
Thursday, March 15, 2012 11:22:02 AM
Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous (NEAR):



Yes near Earth as in one that isn't located in the asteroid belt and would take tremendous thrust to redirect towards Earth. So that's very significant asterisk you have there.

Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 10210 Posts
Thursday, March 15, 2012 10:50:34 AM
Proffessor D.J. Scheers & Apollo 9 Astronaut R.L Schweickart


Just found the paper, it's called "Mechanics of Moving Asteroids" one of the assumptions they made is that they would deflect a Near Earth Asteroid expected collide in 10 years.

MeGrendel
Male, 40-49, Southern US
 4186 Posts
Thursday, March 15, 2012 9:47:18 AM
Cajun247-"On top of which you're suggesting hitting a penny (or dust spore more likely) instead of a bowling ball from miles away."

Well, seeing as we've already landed craft on asteroids*, getting to one has proven possible.

*Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous (NEAR): launched in 1996, landed on Asteroid 433 Eros 2/12/2001. Hayabusa: launched 2003, landed on asteroid Itokawa 2005,

Moving one is just a matter of physics. There have been several theorys, including:
-using a 'tug' vehicle pulling the rock via a cable connected at the rotational pole,
-de-spinning a rock, attaching a thrusting engine situated so that it thrusts through the center of mass and is gimbled to control the rock's orientation. (both of these were researched by Proffessor D.J. Scheers & Apollo 9 Astronaut R.L Schweickart in 2004 and found viable).

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 24195 Posts
Thursday, March 15, 2012 8:19:10 AM
By mistake or on purpose (I think it was a mistake) THIS thread was more fun that the origional would have been!

Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 10210 Posts
Thursday, March 15, 2012 7:37:13 AM
Ah, yes, "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress " scenario.


They used a rail gun in that book. With that weapon you don't need a months-long journey to divert an asteroid. The real question then is keeping it secret, and as I said earlier a Saturn V + bunker buster would be enough to put it out of operation.

Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 10210 Posts
Thursday, March 15, 2012 7:19:46 AM
I'd believe that Crakr if it weren't for the fact that truTV hasn't even produced that episode, not yet anyways. Just did a Google search myself, two seasons already finished they're gearing up for another one this year and nothing about a moon landing.

CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 16738 Posts
Thursday, March 15, 2012 3:56:38 AM
Cajun: I don't believe Fancylad 'rick roll'd' us, at least not on purpose.

Chances are the link got messed up with another TruTV show called 'Conspiracy Theory', the one with Jesse Ventura.

Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 10210 Posts
Thursday, March 15, 2012 12:46:23 AM
Once you're out of the Earth's gravity well, the fuel expendiature goes down dramatically. Intra-system movement includes a lot of coasting.


Coasting which has to be initiated precisely and adjusted for variances departure velocity along the way. On top of which you're suggesting hitting a penny (or dust spore more likely) instead of a bowling ball from miles away. Since asteroids aren't known for their neat symmetry vectoring the initial thrust presents its own challenge.

Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 10210 Posts
Thursday, March 15, 2012 12:36:02 AM
CrakrJak: For one thing, Fancy deliberately mislabels Asian-related material on a regular basis (my pet peeve), and now he has the brazenness to rock-roll per se with some lame ass booze-cruise video. It really is a new low for Fancy.

MeGrendel
Male, 40-49, Southern US
 4186 Posts
Wednesday, March 14, 2012 9:41:35 PM
5Cats-"a moon-base would be more vulnerable to Earth tossing rocks at it: no atmosphere"

I'd argue that pont. Above a certain size of the rock in question, the effects of the atmosphere is negligible. On the other hand, current rail-gun technology would allow you to shoot a sizable rock off the surface of a moon (a small gravity-well) with an escape velocity to reach the Earth. You could also just strap a slow-burn rocket to a chunk in space and stear it to the Earths' (huge) gravity-well. To get a rock off of Earth requires attaining ~6 times the escape velocity than that of the moon (11.2 km/s vs. 2.0 km/s).

The MAIN point is it's easier to hit the Earth from the Moon. Of two men rolling bowling balls at each other, the man on top of the hill has an advantage over the one at the bottom...BUT, give the man on the bottom a rifle and you have a different story.

MeGrendel
Male, 40-49, Southern US
 4186 Posts
Wednesday, March 14, 2012 9:39:37 PM
Cajun247-"and ultimately it would take months, plenty of rocket fuel, and luck as chances of success are half and half."

Dude, we're talking about a colony on the moon, (and technically, a story line from a novel that's already been written). Certain things are theory and/or parts of the novel, such as an existing trade of asteroid mining.

Once you're out of the Earth's gravity well, the fuel expendiature goes down dramatically. Intra-system movement includes a lot of coasting.

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 24195 Posts
Wednesday, March 14, 2012 7:38:19 PM
You just noticed that @Crakr? lolz!

That's probably it @Angilion, plus some space-panels are in the sun 24 hours a day too.

Hummm, a really quick look at Wiki suggests 1600w at the top but around 200w at sea level. Not sure if that's the same as what we're talking about though.

CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 16738 Posts
Wednesday, March 14, 2012 7:15:33 PM
Ok, how the hell did this so off topic that now it's about nuking a rebel moon colony ?

Boredom does weird things here at IAB.

Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 11050 Posts
Wednesday, March 14, 2012 7:13:58 PM
iirc, space-based panels are 3-4 times as effecient


Hmm...where are those panels in space and what part of Earth are they being compared with?

The usual figure for solar irradiance at the outer edge of the Earth's atmosphere is 1367W/m^2. You can get 1000W/m^2 on the surface.

3-4 times the average for the whole of the Earth over a whole year, maybe?

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 24195 Posts
Wednesday, March 14, 2012 6:56:36 PM
I don't think it's all that much.

@Angilion: iirc, space-based panels are 3-4 times as effecient, and not prone to dust or clouds. Anyhow, a LOT of the Sun's energy is deflected/absorbed before it gets to the ground.

Yeah, a Lunar Rebellion would most likely be settled by the diplomats. But that's what SciFi is for! The 'what if'!

Now when the Martian Colonies try to break away... whooo doggie!

Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 11050 Posts
Wednesday, March 14, 2012 6:20:45 PM
Oh come on, if there's one important lesson from the Cold War is that no government is going to sit on their hands while they wait for their assets (the nation they govern) to be obliterated.


And they're not going to start a M.A.D. war over resources from a rebellious colony, or over prices from the newly independent ex-colony.

Revolutions often have extremists. Maybe extremists extreme enough to press the big red button anyway.

You've convinced me that it's much less of a potential issue than I had thought, though. A threat to enable a bloodless revolt and independence, yes. An actual attack, very unlikely.

Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 10210 Posts
Wednesday, March 14, 2012 6:20:41 PM
As to the colony part there are far more practical ways of doing damage to oppressor would-be Earth than huge rocks which would require fuel.

Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 10210 Posts
Wednesday, March 14, 2012 6:13:23 PM
Colonies have been known to value independence above economics.


When their government treats them like a pawn, yes. In our case Britain didn't bother to learn a lesson from Roman times.

Finding rock on the moon is as easy as finding it on Earth - you'd be standing on it.


Forgive me but from what I remember the moon's surface is comprised of small jagged and abrasive particulates. But if you're referring to a small boulder that would burn up in Earth's atmosphere.

TheShgn2
Male, 13-17, Southern US
 631 Posts
Wednesday, March 14, 2012 6:10:58 PM
I might be wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure the moon has lots of Helium-3, and that happens to be rare on earth, but can power clean energy. So, unless I'm totally wrong, whoever can claim the moon first gets to be the richest person on Earth?

Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 11050 Posts
Wednesday, March 14, 2012 6:03:38 PM
On top of which they'd be hurting their biggest customer (whom supposedly has space elevators and He-3 fusion reactors) and supplier, thus themselves in the process.


Colonies have been known to value independence above economics.

Secondly where do you get this rock from?


The moon is a rocky body and there's quite a lot of it. Finding rock on the moon is as easy as finding it on Earth - you'd be standing on it.

Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 11050 Posts
Wednesday, March 14, 2012 6:00:14 PM
Some people have said we would have power problems, but they forget that solar panels work better in outer space and the moon than on earth, much better in fact.


How much better? The difference in distance would be negligable, so it's down to how much light (you state "panels", so you must be talking about photovoltaic solar power) is blocked by the Earth's atmosphere.

I don't think it's all that much.

Of course, with the moon you do have the huge advantage of a lot of bugger all. Build a solar power station covering a thousand square miles - nobody there to care, no ecosystem there for anyone to care about.

I agree that powering a lunar settlement would not be a problem if you could build solar power stations that would work on the surface of the moon (you couldn't just use ones developed for Earth because too many conditions are too different).

Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 10210 Posts
Wednesday, March 14, 2012 5:54:46 PM
That's enough to ensure a full-on war would be very bad news.


Oh come on, if there's one important lesson from the Cold War is that no government is going to sit on their hands while they wait for their assets (the nation they govern) to be obliterated.

Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 10210 Posts
Wednesday, March 14, 2012 5:52:14 PM
I said they could destroy cities on Earth.


I've just pointed out, as a rocket scientist, how such a scheme would be incredibly impractical. On top of that you're steering an asteroid something that's not known for its symmetry meaning rotational dynamics would be huge problem when trying to maneuver the thing.

Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 11050 Posts
Wednesday, March 14, 2012 5:46:49 PM
Angilion: There is definitely evidence for rare earth elements, on the moon, that we need for future technology.


There are some useful resources on the moon, but are you arguing that it was technologically feasible, politically advisable and economically sensible for the USA to mine them on the moon in the early 1970s? Did anyone even know the stuff was there at that time?

I didn't say there would never be anything useful for people to do on the moon in the future. I said there was nothing useful for people to do on the moon in the early 1970s, hence the ending of the manned mission program after it achieved its purpose (showing that the USA could put people on the moon any time it wanted to).

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account
 

Back to Listing ^top


Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |
© 2014 Demand Media, Inc. All rights reserved.