| THEORIES WITH PROBLEMS - MOON LANDINGS -> battery of the lunar rover | Start A New Topic | CLOSED |
| Post Info | TOPIC: battery of the lunar rover |
| Posted By: john Posted On: Jul 21, 2009 Views: 2716 | battery of the lunar rover does anybody know where was the battery of the lunar rover on its way to the moon? it looks like it was on the rover, that is "outside", so that the chemical components of the battery were exposed to the extreme temperatures. would it work after that? more i read about the mission, more simple questions like this i have. |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jul 21, 2009 Views: 2712 | RE: RE: battery of the lunar rover "simple" being the operative word. Instead of asking basic questions like this why don´t you look it up and find out for yourself, and that goes for any of your other "simple questions". It is so easy to find out these things. I just Googled it and was given a choice of sites, two of which I give below: Moon Rover batteries For a fuller explanation, including where the rover was stored, visit Wikipedia, Moon Rover Why is it hoax believers have to ask and do not do their own research? I thought anyone on the Internet could use a search engine! It took like a couple of seconds to find out about the batteries. |
| Posted By: john Posted On: Jul 22, 2009 Views: 2704 | RE: battery of the lunar rover hi keith, thank you for answering my "simple question". i understood that the rover was kept outside the lunar module, so that it was exposed to the extreme conditions of the outer space (so it was on the moon too). ok, they could use the lamp technology for the electronics (as they did in the famous 60's guitar amplifiers, right :-), but for the battery "the potassium hydroxide electrolyte" was used. how this electrolyte survived -270C in the outer space? you probably know what may happen to your car's battery in the winter. i put this "simple question" just as an example. i am not a hoax believer, i am scientist, but i see a consequent lack of information in the apollo project. it could be explained by the secrecy of the cold war era, but now nasa wants to repeat the project and it seems they need to start it all over, as if this technology is a secret for them too. it's great that you have this nice webpage allowing people to communicate on this fascinating subject! |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jul 22, 2009 Views: 2695 | RE: battery of the lunar rover Your remark that you are a scientist made me smile, I have never, in all my years, ever met or corresponded with anyone who called themselves a scientist. People tend to refer to themselves by what they do, particle physicists, theoretical physicists, cosmologists, astronomers, microbiologists, etc. etc. "Scientists" tend to refer to 1950´s black & white films about "mad scientists". Is this your way of saying you are nuts? So what do you do, park the cars at Cal-Tech? Anyway, regarding batteries. I cannot relate the Lunar Rover batteries, two 36-volt silver-zinc potassium hydroxide non-rechargeable batteries with a capacity of 121 A·h, to the wet chemical corroded rechargeable lump in my 1969 era car. Two very different beasts, my car would have been rubbish on the moon, it was rubbish here! My current car couldn't care how cold it gets, it will start anyway. That´s progress for you. |
| Posted By: john Posted On: Jul 22, 2009 Views: 2693 | RE: battery of the lunar rover hi, you might be surprised, but i am not only a scientist but a relatively well-known one. you should be more careful with your guests; you never know who is visiting under the nickname. anyway, we know that the probes (even the very first russian sputnik, mariners etc) had special temperature control systems and the silver-zinc batteries were kept inside the controlled areas. i simply say it is unknown if there was any place like this in the lunar rover. this what i call "the lack of information". unfortunately, this situation is on all levels of the project. and believe "electorlyte" is the liquid, the batteries are not dry.i hope they had invented something ingeneous to keep those batteries running in the extreme temperature changes from -200C to +200C. |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jul 22, 2009 Views: 2684 | RE: RE: battery of the lunar rover Wow! a semi-famous "scientist"! (Prostrates himself on ground in supreme humbleness). Never mind all that, let´s move on. You say that there is not much info released about the rovers but I have found absolutely tons of it, right down to typewritten reports. There is a mass of stuff out there if you only put the right questions to Google. This one explains about the batteries and should answer your question. Apollo 16 Rover Anomaly Report The lunar surface temperature ranges from a daytime 107C to 123 C, not too much to handle for a thermally protected battery. At night (they never of course went at night) it is minus 153C to minus 181C. All temperatures given are for typical non-polar sites. The rovers were folded and stored in the Lunar Module quad bay. As a "scientist" why haven´t you looked this up yourself? |
| Posted By: john Posted On: Jul 23, 2009 Views: 2681 | RE: battery of the lunar rover hi, i see you still try to get a bit personal on me. i guess, you got used to a bitter fight with the "hoax believers" :-) i have to admit that i m not an astronomer or a space engineer, but one of our projects required some info on the apollo mission. we noticed that it is not easy to recover it via any official path, including the patent office. for instance, there are no patents on that battery and its thermal protection in the outer space. all that temperature business was not properly documented at all. what you give to me is the "surface temperatures" on the moon. they are not necessary the temperatures near the surface in the vacuum. my main question was how the battery survived the trip to the moon being outside the temperature-controlled area. my only answer can be that because of the constant rotation of the spacecraft a mean temperature level was sustained there. but we do not know for sure. btw, i saw on the other topics of your website that you discussed what could be "the final proof". i want to believe that apollo missions were a scientific experiment rather then a politically-based pr action. for any scientific experiment two things hold as a "final proof": a) reproducibility b)independent verification. on the basis of our current knowledge we cannot say for 100% that both criteria were met in the apollo experiment. this leads to some common distrust in the results of the experiment, which is, by the way, a very normal thing in science. |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jul 23, 2009 Views: 2678 | RE: battery of the lunar rover Okay, I give up, I am not going to pursue this any further, what you say makes no sense! 1) "what you give to me is the "surface temperatures" on the moon. they are not necessary the temperatures near the surface in the vacuum." That is exactly what they are, the temperatures recorded ON the lunar surface, such as an astronaut or a lunar rover would experience. They are not the temperature OF the surface. Of course it´s in a vacuum. 2) "my only answer can be that because of the constant rotation of the spacecraft a mean temperature level was sustained there. but we do not know for sure." But we do. It´s a well documented fact that the craft were subject to slow rotation to even out the temperature differences on opposite sides of the ship. 3)"for any scientific experiment two things hold as a "final proof": a) reproducibility b)independent verification. on the basis of our current knowledge we cannot say for 100% that both criteria were met in the apollo experiment. this leads to some common distrust in the results of the experiment, which is, by the way, a very normal thing in science." What a load of utter crap! You are talking about reproducing results in a lab that prove a hypothesis. The Apollo missions are a historical fact, not a lab result. Using your wacky thought processes we cannot be sure that World War Two took place because it hasn´t been reproduced! If you are a "scientist" I am Stephen Hawking. Go away and do your pretend stuff somewhere else, like a kiddies site. You are being very silly and I am just not interested. Goodbye. |
| Posted By: john Posted On: Jul 23, 2009 Views: 2672 | RE: battery of the lunar rover i appreciate your enthusiasm in answering me, though you always do it a bit too emotional,,, 1)it is unclear with the temperatures: in vacuum you measure only the temperature of objects, which is different for an object exposed to radiation and an object "in the shade". this is one of many unanswered questions of the apollo mission. a simple one: what was the temperature of the surface of the lunar module in the shade? 2) it's funny how you talk to me about the ww2 example. i do recognize that the apollo missions were the historical facts. but there are two sides of any "historical" event: ideological and material (scientific/technical in this case). the ideological one can be twisted (some people in eastern europe have doubts now who and how won the ww2). the ideological side always gives us the basis for our myths. in fact, history=myth, in a sense. continuing your metaphor i can say: imagine ww2 has happened, but all its material results (including inventions of all those machinery and rockets, btw) have disappeared and cannot be repeated. such a situation we have with the apollo project: a great ideological impact, but very limited if any, technical/scientific one. examples? think of the lunar module, its earth model never worked well; no vertically ascending aircraft was built on it (only 6 real tests were made in the gravity conditions -- all succesfull -- on the moon itself, but no more continuation). the same about the lunar rover. the same about the von braun rocket engines -- no one can build them anymore. technical results for nasa? nasa purchases now russian rocket engines and went to participate in what was the russian project of space stations. the apollo project seems now like an isolated artifact. it will become (if not already) a pure myth pretty soon. 3) your attitude to me when i said i am a scientist says me a lot about your real attitude to the subject. i know well how scientists think and talk. you are on the side of the ideology, not science. |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jul 24, 2009 Views: 2666 | RE: RE: RE: battery of the lunar rover For the benefit of others I will answer all the points raised by "scientist" John (AKA Idiot). 1) "what was the temperature of the surface of the lunar module in the shade?" About minus 153 C 2a) "think of the lunar module, its earth model never worked well; no vertically ascending aircraft was built on it" Why would it? What use would it be? It was only designed to land on the Moon, it was LANDER! (We know how to land on Earth) The Earth model did not work well because it had to be tested on Earth in gravity six times stronger than the Moon. The model therefore had to be a great deal sturdier and heavier and required an additional complicated jet engine to try and reduce the pull of gravity so it imitated lunar gravity. We have the Harrier vertical take-off jet (British) and that is perfectly suited for the Earth and combat missions. 2b) "the same about the lunar rover." Same applies. What use it would be on Earth. (Doh!) We have every conceivable type of car, SUV, quad bike, etc. 2c)"the same about the von braun rocket engines -- no one can build them anymore." Oh really. I wonder what they launch all those satellites with then? Giant catapults? Rocket engines and guidance systems have come a long way since Von Braun´s day! 2d)"nasa purchases now russian rocket engines" The Space Shuttle engines are built by Rocketdyne, an American Company! 3) "your attitude to me when i said i am a scientist" Like I said, if you are a "scientist" - whatever you mean by that - then I am Stephen Hawking. You spout absolute nonsense. Every daft question and point you raised is easily found by using any search engine. Scientist! YOU ARE AN IDIOT! |