The Moon Mission

[Jim H]

Eric Mc said:

Jim H said:

Hi Eric. I hope you are ok.

I posted in the lounge originally ( as you know) Because I wasn’t being entirely serious.I’d never insult anyone in the science section.

I'm fine.

I was thinking that if you were after sensible answers to sensible questions, the Science Forum would be the best place. The problem is that the loons followed the topic over here.

If you genuinely want to learn about Apollo, this is the right place to be.

I have given a number of public talks on various aspects of Apollo (and the related parallel; programmes (Mercury, Gemini, Lunar Orbiter, Lunar Surveyor) so, even if I say so myself, I have a pretty good understanding and background knowledge of most aspects of the American space programme from 1958 (the formation of NASA) right through to today.

‘The loons’

[MikeM6]

smn159 said:

If your definition of intelligence includes an ability to arrive at evidence based conclusions, including evaluating the validity of the sources that you're using, then some posters are clearly very lacking.

Jumping through hoops to try and justify irrational beliefs is not a sign of a great intellect iIMO

You can be very intelligent and very wrong, especially if you use the wrong source data.

If you don't know physics at all, but are very clever, you can come up with all sorts of hypothesis to explain things that appear to make some sense, but are ultimately still quite incorrect.

I'll say it again, calling people stupid is not persuasive. If the aim is to increase scientific understanding, then we need to be more persuasive.

[Nova Gyna]

Eric Mc said:

I think, as punishment, Jim H needs to stand in the corner and learn, off by heart, the crew names of all the Apollo moon missions i.e.

Apollo 8,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 and 17.
I'll cut him a break by not forcing him to learn the names of the crews who didn't fly to the moon i.e. -

Apollo 7 - Schirra, Cunningham, Eisle
Apollo 9 - Scott, Schweickart, McDivitt

(I'm ignoring Skylab and ASTP).

He’d benefit from familiarising himself with the posting guidelines on PH as well, especially the section concerning trolling.

[Eric Mc]

MikeM6 said:

I'll say it again, calling people stupid is not persuasive. If the aim is to increase scientific understanding, then we need to be more persuasive.

Being clever without being knowledgeable is a dangerous combination.

THINKING you are clever without being knowledgeable is even worse.

Some people are very good with use of words - which can make them sound clever. But in all other respects they can be as thick as mince. Boris Johnson is a classic example of this type of person.

And, to be honest, I don't feel like I want to waste energy trying to be persuasive to people who are being deliberately obtuse.

[Simir]

Eric Mc said:

Simir said:

Thanks Eric, I greatly appreciate you taking the time to explain this.

I can believe that it's probably a trick of the camera given the low resolution. I thought there may be a more intriguing answer given the flag is still and then waves after the astronaut passes by - perhaps something I didn't understand about vibrations in space as the footage from 2:36 from 2:39 is fascinating and I can't stop watching it.

Newton said an object stays at rest unless it is acted on by a force.

The surface of the moon is effectively almost pure vacuum - as ably demonstrated by David Scott in the video I posted the link too. So the only natural forces acting on any material sitting on the surface would be -

gravitational
electromagnetic
solar wind particles
micrometeorite impacts

Gravity is the most important one of these - at least of the ones that we can see in action in real time.

The flag would move under gravity. Say if the wire support was removed. It would immediately fall limply to hang draped alongside the flag staff. It would wave about for a couple of seconds until the motion damped out.

It MIGHT move if acted on by some sort of electromagnetic field, especially if it had picked up some sort of a static charge. The flags were made of nylon so they could very well pick up a charge. However, the moon has no strong magnetic field like the earth's (the moons core is not as magnetised as the earth's is due to it being smaller, cooler and the moon not rotating at the speed the earth does) so movement due to some magnetic interaction is low.

The solar wind (high velocity particles shooting out from the sun) impacts directly on the lunar surface. This has noticeable effects over long periods of time but the particles exert a very low force due to their very low mass. They are therefore not strong enough to cause a heavy (in comparison) flag to move.

Over the 4.5 billion year history of the moon it has been bombarded by meteorites ranging in size from almost planetary size to microscopic. The craters of the moon and the powdery texture of the upper two inches of the surface (the regolith) are direct evidence of this constant and long history of bombardment. There is a remote chance that the flag might have been hit by a micrometeorite just at the moment it was in camera view - but I doubt it.

On a bit of a side note, when humans manage to visit the old Apollo sites - which I fully expect to happen in the next 10 to 15 years - the state of the flags will be of extreme interest to many. The flags will have been on the moon over 60 years by then and they will have deteriorated to a large extent - mainly due to the effects of the extremely strong sunlight and massive temperature changes and I expect some, if not all, of the flags will exhibit some damage due to micrometeorite impacts.

We do know for sure that the Apollo 11 flag is lying face down in the dust because it was seen to fall over due to the exhaust blast from the Lunar Module's ascent engine during lift off.

Thank you Eric for so a detailed explanation for the range of possibilities

[Eric Mc]

Simir said:

Thank you Eric for so a detailed explanation for the range of possibilities

My pleasure.

In fact, the most likely reason why the flag appeared to move as an astronaut walked past is that they brushed it with their shoulder.

Those EVA suits were big, stiff and bulky and walking on the moon, in 1/6 Earth's gravity, whilst trying to keep one's balance, was quite difficult. Lots of the moon walkers fell over lots of times. So, brushing the flag as you walked past it would be very easy to do.

[bitchstewie]

One little thing that the doubters and conspiracy theorists might like to keep in mind is that I believe the lunar ascent module engine was a very crude very basic hypergolic engine - which as I understand it means you mix two components and it should work as it's about as simple as it gets - but if it doesn't you're stuck on the moon.

Stop and think about that and ask yourself if you'd sign up for that trip?

Because it seems incredibly disrespectful to dismiss those who did as being part of a hoax.

[Eric Mc]

For those who are GENUINELY interested in Apollo and would like to learn more about the whole programme, there are hundreds of books out there that are well worth reading. Books are a much better source of knowledge than randomly searching on Google or You Tube (although, if you are discerning, there is lots of good Apollo stuff to be found on the internet).

Here are some books worth getting your hands on -
















Biographies are worth reading too -

I'd recommend these ones for starters -











and I particularly like this book which wqs published in 1975 not long after Apollo had come to an end -



I've read all these books over the years and I have most of them in my library.

[TGCOTF-dewey]

Eric Mc said:

I think, as punishment, Jim H needs to stand in the corner and learn, off by heart, the crew names of all the Apollo moon missions i.e.

Apollo 8,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 and 17.
I'll cut him a break by not forcing him to learn the names of the crews who didn't fly to the moon i.e. -

Apollo 7 - Schirra, Cunningham, Eisle
Apollo 9 - Scott, Schweickart, McDivitt

(I'm ignoring Skylab and ASTP).

You forgot missions 18. The one they covered up due to what they found.

ALL THESE WORLDS ARE YOURS, EXCEPT EUROPA.
ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE.
USE THEM TOGETHER. USE THEM IN PEACE

[blackmme]

Great list above.

The Andrew Chaikin book ‘A Man on the Moon’ is absolutely brilliant and formed the basis of the HBO miniseries “From the Earth to the Moon” which I can’t recommend highly enough to anyone interested in the subject.

[Countdown]

Arrivalist said:

I think this is just a simple case of Jim getting his spelling all wrong.

It’s not ‘physicist’, it’s ’psychic’.

Makes perfect sense now

Or "psychopathic"

[Eric Mc]

Sounds like the intro for the song "Greased Lightning" from "Grease".

[Eric Mc]

blackmme said:

Great list above.

The Andrew Chaikin book ‘A Man on the Moon’ is absolutely brilliant and formed the basis of the HBO miniseries “From the Earth to the Moon” which I can’t recommend highly enough to anyone interested in the subject.

I love "From the Earth to the Moon" (of course).

Highly recommended for anybody who wants an entertaining way to learn about what happened over the years 1961 to 1972.

Also, I would also highly recommend two BBC documentaries that were shown back to back on the night of 21 July 1979 on the 10th Anniversary of the first moon landings. They are both available to watch on You Tube. The recording is a bit ropey but the interviews in both programmes are very revealing. And of course, very few of those who were interviewed are still alive today.

Added bonus is that the presenter and narrator is the inimitable James Burke.

The second one is the more interesting as it interviews some of the top decision makers during the Apollo era, including two former NASA administrators (James Webb and Thomas O Paine) as well as some other key individuals.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWZupDRI0ss&t=...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puWbQ1b-ljU

[fatbutt]

I take it everyone is aware of the time a moon landing denier took on Buzz Aldrin?

[Skeptisk]

fatbutt said:

I take it everyone is aware of the time a moon landing denier took on Buzz Aldrin?

No. Links?

[Mr E]

Skeptisk said:

No. Links?

Buzz doesn’t suffer fools lightly.
I guess he knew people of were killed making it happen, so to tell him “it’s a conspiracy man” when he actually walked on the moon elicits a reaction.

[fatbutt]

Buzz punched the guy in the face

[Killer2005]

Mr E said:

Skeptisk said:

No. Links?

Buzz doesn’t suffer fools lightly.
I guess he knew people of were killed making it happen, so to tell him “it’s a conspiracy man” when he actually walked on the moon elicits a reaction.

Bit more than that, he called him a liar and a coward

https://repo.library.stonybrook.edu/xmlui/handle/1...

[andyeds1234]

MikeM6 said:

I'll say it again, calling people stupid is not persuasive. If the aim is to increase scientific understanding, then we need to be more persuasive.

I’d suggest you may not have encountered a genuine conspiracy theorist, if you believe that they can be persuaded.
It’s like Roger Federer playing tennis against a wall. The wall has no training, knowledge or skill, but see who runs out of patience first.
A CT also has about much interest in genuinely understanding, as the wall has, in winning Wimbledon.

[Jim H]

Eric Mc said:

I think, as punishment, Jim H needs to stand in the corner and learn, off by heart, the crew names of all the Apollo moon missions i.e.

Apollo 8,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 and 17.
I'll cut him a break by not forcing him to learn the names of the crews who didn't fly to the moon i.e. -

Apollo 7 - Schirra, Cunningham, Eisle
Apollo 9 - Scott, Schweickart, McDivitt

(I'm ignoring Skylab and ASTP).

Eric,

I think that’s absolutely brilliant.

I’ve got some swatting up to do haven’t I ?
When is the exam?

Good night fella. And again, thank you ever so much for the fascinating information you posted.

You took the time and effort - huge respect to you.