Hop! Hammer Time!

Awe come on, use your foot to scoop it up. It works on Earth, it should definitely work on the moon. OR lay forward, grab it, then do a push up to push yourself back to your feet. Less gravity makes you lighter. It makes sense that it would work, even though I've never been on the Moon and have no idea what I'm talking about as far as practical experience goes.

All astronauts should carry a magnet on a string.

*science

Adding video to channels (Science) - requested by ant.

Yeah, why wouldn't he just get into the pushup position, grab it then push hard to upright himself. Gravity on the moon is only 1/6 that of earth.

I'll tell you why... cause it's FAKE! He's in a movie studio in a heavy suit so hasn't the strength to be able to push himself upright.

I think they don't want to get dust in their more sensitive components. Moon dust is a pain.
And quick google search gave me this: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080924191552.htm

So they probably don't want to roll around in that stuff.

The suit is "armored" and inflated, so he has to "bounce" because his range of motion is limited by air pressure and the rigidity of the material required to block the sun's radiation. So, if he laid down, not only would moon dust screw up stuff as @AnomalousDatum says, it would be harder to get up, as the suit wouldn't allow for typical bending of knees and arms, and almost no hip movement at all.

There's also the fact that his inertia is exactly the same. Pushing up his 200+ lbs, and the mass of the suit, would still be very difficult.

Maybe, just maybe because he has a huge camera fixed on his chest, that is about as long as his arms and would touch the surface, damaging it or at least making the lens unusable until cleaned inside the capsule...

In Russia they fixed this by having all cosmonauts carry a second hammer in their gear.

And, of course, a sickle.

Were you not paying attention in physics class the day they explained the difference between mass and weight? As @Payback pointed out the energy required to overcome inertia is the same no matter what the gravity, low gravity simply allows you to "spread the duration" of the force like a fulcrum.

I.e. it would be easier than on earth but you still have to apply enough force to move 2-300kg of mass, you just have the option of doing so less rapidly (making it easier but not easy).

Even if this were not the case your argument still makes no sense. If it was indeed faked then surely they were on wires anyway? How else are you proposing they replicated the effects of low gravity?

The fact your comment got 3 likes is rather depressing. As someone who makes researching conspiracy theories a borderline obsessive hobby I can say with some confidence that the whole faked moon landing thing is about the most debunk-able one ever conceived. It is an insult to the very term "conspiracy theory" and helps give the rest of us a bad name .

Radiation belt? = 7 mins of expertly calculated exposure, there is a 1000ish page NASA manual on how they did this.

Cameras? = they had about 20 DIFFERENT cameras & much like anyone else would the crappy poorly framed or exposed shots weren't used for publicity

Multiple light sources? = The surface of the moon is both highly reflective and uneven. (mythbusters did the shit out of that one)

Most complicated machine ever built? = Actually launched, several times, to the freaking moon and back!

Waving flag? = Funny how every single shot of the flag waving is when someone is holding/touching it eh? (& what kind of retard leaves evidence of wind in the most expensive coverup of all time?)

The Russian space programme? = They just turned a blind eye to their arch rivals lauding it over them? They were in on it? You have to get really paranoid before that one starts to make any sense whatsoever.

etc. etc. etc.

I have a lot of time for conspiracy theories and I'm happy to speculate with the best of them but I've yet to find a single good argument for the landing not happening. I can maybe work with the possibility that some things were omitted/covered up (Monoliths etc.) because this could not be conclusively refuted by empirical facts. Suggesting that it never happened however is so easy to disprove it blows my mind that people still have time for the idea.

For your own sake try looking into the opposing arguments. There are plenty people with PHD's and direct experience who are happy to take you through the counters to all this stuff. And they back it up with actual evidence and experiments rather than conjecture and selective information. Your mind will thank you for it

So you're saying on Jupiter or any other super-giant planet, we should have no problem walking about, lifting the usual things such as hammers, etc with no problem because the mass is the same as Earth?
Hmm, didn't think gravity worked like that. I always read in text books that on the moon, you should be able to jump higher because gravity was less than earth... but you say no.
Damn scientists always trying to confuse us...
(Pssst... weight and mass are different things. Weight measures gravitational force... the force that you have to overcome to lift something... less gravity = less force to overcome)

As for the conspiracy thing... you do know we already have bases on the dark side of the moon and Mars right? Look up Alternative 3...

That's not what I was saying at all though perhaps I explained poorly.

So imagine you are in a 0 gravity environment. You have 2 balls (lol) one has a mass of 1 kg the other a mass of 100kg. You throw both equally hard. What happens?

One ball travels away from you at 100x less the velocity of the other. This is intertia, it is an effect of mass not gravity. Gravity is an additional force but it's absence would not change the fact that a big heavy space suit requires a significant force to move at a usefully velocity in the 1st place.

It was perhaps misleading to use the example of a fulcrum (lever) but in this context it's quite illustrative. If it was 0 gravity you could apply a tiny force to a massive object and just wait however long it takes to get it where you want (like an infinitely long lever). When gravity becomes a factor duration becomes more and more of a concern (like the fulcrum of the lever gets shorter and shorter).

Concequence: the lower the gravity the easier (less work/deltaV) it is to move an object. However a massive object still requires a proportional large force to move in a useful way (in this case fast enough to overcome 0.16g for long enough to get upright).

I'm not saying gravity has no effect (quite the opposite) I'm saying big heavy thing requires big heavy force to shift even in reduced gravity environments.


As for bases on the moon, mars, stargates, ueo's, void whales, phobos being hollow (phobos is some crazy shit), hexagon on Saturn etc. Etc. I'm not outright dismissive, but to treat it as anything but food for thought/entertainment is a little worrying to say the least. What do you have to go on there other than the testimony of other people who claim to have been involved or whatever?

There's no hard data avaliable to the likes of you and I on such things. Many of these ideas cannot be entirely refuted, but nor can they be confirmed either. That puts us squarely in the realm of superstition and religion.

I'm a part time discordian/khaos magus/git wizard so I do have more time than most for superstition and flights of fantasy but I steer well clear of treating any of that kind of think as objective fact.

The realms of materialism and idealism should stay entirely separate except when they converge and compliment each other e.g. If I can imagine a black swan and then go out and find one (after performing the necessary experiments to disprove any other possible explanations for why it might seem black) then I can tell others that black swans are definitely a real thing. The same cannot be said for say the flying spaghetti monster or the chocolate tea pot orbiting the sun even though believing in such things makes my life more interesting under certain circumstances (and such liberated thought processes can eventually lead to as yet undiscovered ideas which may indeed prove to be "true" or helpful).

"Given all theories of the universe are absurd, it is better to speak in the language of one which Is patently absurd so as to mortify the metaphysical man." -Alaistair Crowley

Translation: if your going to indulge stuff like this don't take it or yourself too seriously or you will go mental!

Praise be to pope Bob!
23

If the flying spaghetti monster isn't real then why does DNA look like fusilli?

Atheism - 0 FSM - 1

Take that empiricism!

Just looked up alternative 3. touche' lol
(assuming that was indeed a joke on your part)

If your original comment was supposed to be sarcastic then it got lost in the emotionless void that is text only communication sorry (there is a sarcasm tick box to avoid exactly this kind of misunderstanding mind you). If you were however seriously suggesting the moon landing was a hoax then see above. (this is the internet after all, people that genuinely believe this stuff are all over the place)

I have a degree in physics. I'm guessing that English is maybe a 2nd language for you? Your explanation of mass and weight is a little confusing. With regards to our astronaut on the moon, it's the difference in weight that matters. He should be able to (approximately) lift six times the weight he could on earth.
(Sidebar: It's often been said that Olympics on the moon would be fantastic because a man who could high-jump 7 feet high on earth would be able to high-jump 42 feet high (7x6) on the moon. In fact, he would only be able to jump about half that. Do you know why? I'll leave that with you as a challenge.)

Insofar as faked moon landings, I'm 90 % sure we went to the moon. However, bear in mind that Americans didn't know their own government was spying extensively on them til last year. It's the old joke... "Just because your paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't watching you..."

Alternative 3 is an interesting study of conspiracy dynamics. I first heard of it 30 years ago. It started as an April Fools joke in Britain on a science news TV show. It was brilliant in it's conception...

Short version:
1. Global warming will lead to total collapse of earth's eco-systems in two centuries or less.
2. Global governments are co-operating to move the cream of earth's leaders, scientists, etc to bases that have been established for decades on the far side of the moon and on Mars. (Alternative 3. Alternative 1 was huge underground bunkers, Alternative 2 was huge geo-synchronous cities... both were deemed too impractical to carry out.)
3. Mars is actually very liveable. We landed there in the 60s, established bases, using flying saucer technology developed here on earth by scientists.
4. The general population is being kept ignorant of the impending disaster, our advanced technology, the true state of Mars, etc. Governments worldwide are co-operating at the highest levels to perpetuate the myth that our progress in space is a slow, laborious process. (Which explains why the Soviet Union did not expose the Apollo programs as fake...) They don't want to cause a panic while they advance their agenda.
5. They have even developed psychic assassins capable of killing with their minds via spontaneous human combustion.

Due to TV schedule changes it was shown at a later date convincing the general public there that it was the real deal. (You can actually see the original show on YouTube... you'll even recognize some of the 'real scientists' etc as British character actors if you're old enough.)

It's a long convoluted story but thanks to a couple of follow up books and the Internet which gave it new life it has now 'morphed' into this vast conspiracy that involves alien / government co-operation at the highest levels à la X-Files. (The original conspiracy did not involve aliens...)

Adding to the fun and mystery is that some real world events -- too complicated to explain here -- later played right into details of the conspiracy.

I always thought it would make for a brilliant Hollywood movie -- the original version, not the 'updated' version.

Actually I'm about as English as they come but crucially I spent my advanced academic career studying Philosophy and rhetoric (lamentably only to Hons. due to laziness) and consequently have an ingrained habit of arguing around a problem rather than relying on established parameters (not always entirely helpful when discussing more day to day matters as I'm sure you've by now gathered but it is essential to working with advanced epistemological problems and so serves me well none the less). I'm also prone to poor punctuation and odd patterns of grammar when I'm not going back over everything I write with a fine tooth comb which has likely not helped. (A consequence of learning to describe tangent after tangent when trying to thoroughly encapsulate some conceptual problems with language alone)

That said, while I may have gone around the houses so to speak I think my conclusion is entirely compatible with what I now understand your own to be.

I didn't want to describe my original counter-point by simply working with the idea that weight is lower on the moon relative to the earth (though I did not try to refute this either) because that would not illustrate why a 2-300kg man in a space suit still takes some shifting (relatively speaking) even if there were no gravity at all. (Would have been faster to just crunch some numbers but that's not what I specialise in)

Sure you could move anything with any force in 0G (which I do understand is technically relative as every object in the universe with mass exerts gravitational forces proportionately (and inversely proportional to the distance between)) but the resulting velocity is directly proportional to mass vs force applied. Weight here then, can be seen as another competing force in the equation rather than the whole thing which it can be convenient to treat it as for a simple calculation (which is what I think you are doing).

To put that another way I was applying a different/deeper linguistic/descriptive paradigm to the same objective facts because that's what we philosophers do. Single paradigm approaches to any subject have a dangerous habit of making one believe one possess such a thing as truly objective facts rather than interpretations only (which are all that truly exist).


In other terms weight alone isn't the whole story (as I assume you well know). Overcoming inertia due to mass scales up all by itself, then gravity comes along and complicates matters. This is why rocket scientists measure potential thrust in DeltaV rather than Watts, Joules etc. right? The mass of the object dictates how much velocity a given input/output of energy would equal.

Gravity and thus the force in newtons it induces (weight) in these terms is an additional force which depending upon the direction in which it is acting multiplies the required DeltaV to achieve the same effect. Moreover when concerning a force of inconstant nature (such as pushing up/jumping or a brief burn of an engine) brings duration into play also. (the foundations of why rocket science gets its fearsome reputation for complexity in its calculations)


Man on the moon lies on the ground and pushes off to try and stand back up.
This push must impart enough DeltaV to his body to produce a sufficient velocity and duration to travel the 2 meters or so needed to get upright so he can then balance the downward gravitational force with his legs&back and successfully convert the chemical/kinetic energy from his arms into potential energy as weight (the energy he uses to stand up is the same energy that would drag him down again right?).

One could practically speaking reduce this to a simple calculation of weight and thrust if all one wanted was a number. Weight would be the only number we need here as it incorporates the mass in it's own calculation (weight = mass x gravity)

But where's the fun in that? My way let's one go round all the houses see how the other bits of the paradigm that support this basic isolated equation function and inter-relate.

Plus (and probably more accurately) I've been playing loads of Kerbal Space Programme lately and have ended up conditioning myself to think in terms of rocketry and thus massively overcomplicated everything here for basically my own amusement/fascination.


Basically few things are more verbose and self indulgent than a bored Philosopher, sorry .


Re: Your challenge. (And I'm just guessing here) something to do with your leg muscles not being able to deliver the energy fast/efficiently enough? (as your feet would leave the ground faster/at a lower level of force?). This is the only thing I can think of as it's easier to push away from things underwater and it certainly looks difficult to push away hard from things when people are floating in 0g.

So lower resistance from gravity = less force to push against the floor with?

Warm? Even in the Ballpark? (Regardless I'm really pleased to discover you weren't the nut I originally thought you to be! (though I imagine you now have some idea what a nut I am))


If I got any of that wrong I'd be happy for you to explain to me why and where (assuming you can keep up with my slightly mad approach to syntax in the 1st place). I'm an armchair physicist (not that I haven't studied it in my time but I'm far from PHD) I'm always happy to learn and improve.

In this case, it is. Lift a 1 kg(mass) on earth 2 metres and drop it. If will hit the earth with a force of 9.8 Newtons. (F=m x a) That's its weight though we tend to use the kg instead of Newtons to express weight. To lift that mass, you would have to exert 9.8 newtons of force.

On the moon where acceleration due to gravity is 1/6 that of earth, that 1 kg mass would only weigh about 1.8 (9.8/6) Newtons. So it would take correspondingly less force to lift it.

So our astronaut should be able to easily push himself upright in theory.

The real reason he can't do it probably has more to do with the design of the suit (top heavy, not very flexible) and the loosely packed surface composition of the moon. Like trying to right yourself while wearing an inflatable sumo outfit in a McDonald's ballpit.

The high jump answer... when a high jumper clears 7 feet he is really just lifting his centre of gravity about 3-4 feet. He just twists his body horizontal to get his legs and feet over.

On the moon then, he would only lift his CofG about 18-24 feet (plus say 3 feet for his legs). So his record jump would be less impressive than you might intuitively think.

@MichaelL

And this calculation exists in complete isolation from the rest of the universe and laws of physics? That was the angle I was coming from and I did explain several times how it was indeed unnecessary and self indulgent of me to do so.

Just because a simple weight/force calculation was all we needed practically didn't mean that the rest of the universe just disappeared. We can just conveniently ignore it.
I didn't because I was A. bored and B. had rocketry on the brain from playing too much KSP.

This is what I meant by not the whole story. Your not wrong but that does not necessarily preclude what I was waffling on about.

Though while were at it if that astronaut and suit weight say 100kg then that'd be 180N of force right? So that's like lifting a 18kg object on earth? I don't know about you but 18kilos would take some shifting for me, especially if I was trying to throw it vertically. Doable but not what I'd call easy. (& naturally throw in the cumbersome suit and its a total pain in the arse)


And goddamit the whole Fosbury flop thing flashed into my head but I dismissed it. Never occurred to me that that extra meter or so would have such a profound effect when you introduce a multiplier like gravity. Great example!

No need to go through the whole Newtons things... easier to keep it all in kg since that's how we think anyway. So on the moon, astronaut + suit = 100/6 = 17 kg. Only about 40 lbs... So an astronaut should have no problem doing a pushup there.

As I said, probably more to due with the awkward, pressurized suits.

However, the jumping part... well, that's a puzzle to me why they aren't able to jump higher since I don't see any mechanical disadvantage. It's one of the arguments for the 'fake moon landing' thing.

However, if the moon surface were 'spongy' then it would be like trying to jump out of a barrel of mud.

Re: conspiracy thing... Alternative 3 claims that Apollo astronauts went to the moon, but discovered the bases that had already been there and were threatened/sworn to silence. Curiously, Neil Armstrong became a public recluse after his career as an astronaut, rarely giving interviews or talking about his experience.

However, if you believe the 'we never went to the moon at all' version, the claim is that NASA hired Stanley Kubrick to film the fake moon landing thing based on his realistic looking 2001.

That's almost exactly what I just said 17-18kg in earth terms. Do you think laid on your back you could easily throw a 17kg object 1.5-2m upwards?

He's not doing a push up he's trying to jump upright. Launching nearly 20kg of weight far enough to get to your feet would take some doing that way I'd say. Just lifting 20kg with the arms alone is an effort never mind throwing it which is effectively what's happening here.

This is part of the reason I defaulted to thinking in terms of rocketry as it's not as simple as just someone trying to lift something, they are trying to propel themselves 1-2m upwards with only a thrust from the arms. Much better to wiggle around/push up to get to your knees so one could bring one's legs muscles to bear (made very difficult by hard to bend suit).

Frankly I think it would be a total pain in the arse getting back upright. If it weren't for the suit you could easily push up to your knees and then straighten your legs but the inflation is going to make that very hard work (but doable after a struggle to one knee as other video footage proves).

The alternative however which sparked this whole argument i.e. lay on your front and push off with your arms. That I think would be considerably harder than you are making out. Throwing a 17kg weight with only your arms over 1m in height is not what I'd call effortless.

My old CRT monitor probably weighs about 20kg, it'd take everything I had to throw that over 1m up into the air. Without the power of your thigh muscles and the rigidity of your spine 20kg is quite a lot really.

How high can you "jump" with only your arms? (like those super push-ups where you clap your hands in between to show off) maybe a foot or two if your really really strong? So with the extra weight of a suit and reduced gravity multiplying the result by 6 under lunar gravity, 6feet is probably just about attainable for someone in peak physical shape. But it's defiantly not what I'd call easy!


Re: conspiracies The only one I really take at all seriously any more is the idea that 2001 (esp the book) was perhaps (very) loosely based on actual events. I have time for it simply because of Arthur C. Clarke himself who was going to give an interview (which he rarely does) on Project Camelot of all things but died about 2 weeks before it happened. If you know anything about project camelot you'll know whatever he had to say was going to be mental but then again he was very old and eccentric and plenty other people involved in the space program have "jumped the shark" so to speak. (Edgar Mitchell talks about aliens on a regualr basis, Buzz Aldrin has spoken about monoliths on Phobos, pilots being followed by "Foofighters" in WW2 etc. etc.)

But it's basically wishful thinking on my part, the story and implications are remarkably plausible for what they are but that is all they are. Combined with the whole Jack Parsons/Alastair Crowley connection to the JPL my creative juices start flowing. However the obvious counter argument i.e. that the world is largely run by genuine lunatics is never far from my mind either (look at the whole "men who stare at goats" thing).

I'll listen to anyone and some I'm even prepared to believe on their own terms but I have to defer to actual evidence where it exists (or does not exist). Consequently while I'll listen to someone like John Leer talking about stuff that would seem outlandish even in a science fiction story, people why claim the moon landing was a hoax tend to get the cold shoulder as it's pretty demonstrably not true/hard to believe.

I realise that's kind of backwards but willing suspension of disbelief is a lot easier when there's really no tangible evidence either way. (why I suspect huge incomprehensible delusions like those espoused by many religions get so much traction. It's easier to believe the big lie than the small one)

Jolly entertaining though regardless

I fucking love videosift!

You post a funny little clip, a friendly comment-war starts and everyone learns something in the process.

It´s the reddit of videos!