(Another reason, that they do not seem to properly weigh,
is that we are so much more concerned to not risk life,
tan we were back then.)

from
https://www.space.com/why-is-getting-to-the-moon-so-hard

Why is it so hard to send humans back to the moon?
News
By Paul Sutter published 11 hours ago
The Apollo program put humans on the moon in 1969. So why haven't we
sent any more since?

Comments (1)
the orion spacecraft above the moon

An illustration of NASA's Orion spacecraft in orbit around the moon.
(Image credit: Lockheed Martin)
Between 1969 and 1972, the Apollo missions sent a total of a dozen
astronauts to the surface of the moon — and that was before the
explosion of modern technology. So why does it seem like our current
efforts, as embodied by NASA's Artemis program, are so slow, halting and
complex?

There isn't one easy answer, but it comes down to money, politics and
priorities.

Let's start with the money. Yes, the Apollo missions were enormously
successful — and enormously expensive. At its peak, NASA was consuming
around 5% of the entire federal budget, and more than half of that was
devoted to the Apollo program. Accounting for inflation, the entire
Apollo program would cost over $260 billion in today's dollars. If you
include project Gemini and the robotic lunar program, which were
necessary precursors to Apollo, that figure reaches over $280 billion.

Related: Astronauts won't walk on the moon until 2026 after NASA delays
next 2 Artemis missions

In comparison, today NASA commands less than half a percent of the total
federal budget, with a much broader range of priorities and directives.
Over the past decade, NASA has spent roughly $90 billion on the Artemis
program. Naturally, with less money going to a new moon landing, we're
likely to make slower progress, even with advancements in technology.

Closely tied to the financial realities are the political realities. In
the 1960s, America was in the midst of the space race, a competition
with the Soviet Union to achieve as many firsts in space, especially
landing humans on the moon. The public was on board and energized by
this idea, as were lawmakers who directed NASA's expansive budget.

That kind of spending, however, was deeply unsustainable. As soon as
America "won," the public quickly lost interest and NASA funding
tumbled. There simply isn't the political or public will to spend that
amount of money for a second shot at the moon.

Get the Space.com Newsletter
Breaking space news, the latest updates on rocket launches, skywatching
events and more!
Your Email Address
Contact me with news and offers from other Future brands
Receive email from us on behalf of our trusted partners or sponsors
By submitting your information you agree to the Terms & Conditions and
Privacy Policy and are aged 16 or over.

This combination of lower political will and fewer financial resources
forced NASA to make some critical decisions in the late 1990s and early
2000s — decisions that still affect Artemis today.

two massive side booster spew yellow orange fire lifting the core stage
of a rocket as two main engines also ignite

The four Artemis 1 Space Launch System RS-25 engines found on the
vehicle's core stage previously flew on 21 space shuttle missions.
(Image credit: Josh Dinner)
Namely, as the space shuttle program was winding down, NASA
administrators didn't know what to do with the industrial capabilities
and partnerships that led to the shuttle. They decided to keep that
infrastructure in place by reusing many shuttle parts, especially the
engines, and folding them into the Artemis design.

On the other hand, one could argue that it was the right call to keep
that infrastructure in place and aerospace engineers employed, because
it was exactly that technical base that we needed to launch the recent
renaissance in private spaceflight companies — but that's a separate
discussion.

Lastly, the modern Artemis concept has a much different set of
priorities than the Apollo missions did. For example, our risk tolerance
is much, much lower than it was in the 1960s. The Apollo missions were
outright dangerous, with a significant chance of failure. Indeed,
several missions did encounter disasters: the Apollo 1 fire that killed
three astronauts, an engine shutdown during Apollo 6, and the near-fatal
design flaw that nearly led to the deaths of the Apollo 13 astronauts.
NASA, lawmakers and the public are not willing to take on that level of
risk again, especially after the Challenger and Columbia disasters.

RELATED STORIES:
—Return to the moon: The race we have to win (again)

— Return to flight: NASA's Artemis 1 mission to launch using space
shuttle-used parts

— NASA beefing up SLS moon rocket for its Artemis program

The Apollo missions expended enormous sums of money to send astronauts
to the lunar surface for a few dozen hours. They went, collected some
samples, set up some simple experiments, and left.

The Artemis missions are designed around a completely different set of
goals. For one, the astronauts will spend up to a week on the lunar
surface, which requires more food, water, fuel and scientific
instruments. Second, while the Apollo missions treated science as an
afterthought — the main goal was to beat the Soviets — scientific
investigation will take center stage in the Artemis program, meaning it
entails a longer, more complex mission design.

Lastly, the intent of the Artemis program isn't just to return humans to
the moon; it's to begin building the infrastructure to maintain a
permanent human presence there. Everything from orbiting refueling
depots to site selection for future colonies falls under the umbrella of
the Artemis project. It is a much more involved program because it
provides the framework for achieving dreams for generations to come.

Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions,
night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment,
let us know at: community@space.com.

Paul Sutter
Paul Sutter
Space.com Contributor
Paul M. Sutter is an astrophysicist at SUNY Stony Brook and the Flatiron
Institute in New York City. Paul received his PhD in Physics from the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 2011, and spent three
years at the Paris Institute of Astrophysics, followed by a research
fellowship in Trieste, Italy, His research focuses on many diverse
topics, from the emptiest regions of the universe to the earliest
moments of the Big Bang to the hunt for the first stars. As an "Agent to
the Stars," Paul has passionately engaged the public in science outreach
for several years. He is the host of the popular "Ask a Spaceman!"
podcast, author of "Your Place in the Universe" and "How to Die in
Space" and he frequently appears on TV — including on The Weather
Channel, for which he serves as Official Space Specialist.

"a425couple" wrote in message news:YGjVN.535$Xphd.105@fx41.iad...

Why is it so hard to send humans back to the moon?

---------------------------------

Who made the second nonstop solo flight across the Atlantic? You know the
name but perhaps not that no-longer-challenging accomplishment.

They never went there.

bt

Le 2024-05-12 à 20:04, bertietaylor a écrit :
> They never went there.
> bt
Are you a flatard or one of those stupid Moon landing denier ?

We landed on the Moon a total of six times.
Orbital probes have photographed all six landing sites. The photos
exactly match the maps of the excursions.
There are reflectors that have been placed on the Moon. We can still
detect them and use them to measure the distance to the Moon to within a
few cm. Even amateurs from all around the world can do that.
Since the manned Moon missions, we have sent several unmanned missions :
Probes and lander.

It would have been harder and cost more to fake the Moon landing than
actually going there, land, take off and come back. That's not counting
the risk of a leak that never happened despite thousands of spies from
the USSR constantly digging for anything to discredit the USA.
Literally millions of amateur astronomers followed every missions all
the way from the parking orbit, to the Moon and back.
A similar number of radio amateur listened to the signal from the
capsules and the LM in real time.

We absolutely went to the Moon. Faking it was just not possible.

The current problem is that our electronics are way more sensitive to
minute, harmless, ionizing radiation. That's the real issue. The
sustained reliability of the computers and other electronic components.

"Kualinar" wrote in message news:v1rmma$32glp$1@dont-email.me...

Le 2024-05-12 à 20:04, bertietaylor a écrit :
> They never went there.
> bt
Are you a flatard or one of those stupid Moon landing denier ?

We landed on the Moon a total of six times.
Orbital probes have photographed all six landing sites. The photos
exactly match the maps of the excursions.
There are reflectors that have been placed on the Moon. We can still
detect them and use them to measure the distance to the Moon to within a
few cm. Even amateurs from all around the world can do that.
Since the manned Moon missions, we have sent several unmanned missions :
Probes and lander.

It would have been harder and cost more to fake the Moon landing than
actually going there, land, take off and come back. That's not counting
the risk of a leak that never happened despite thousands of spies from
the USSR constantly digging for anything to discredit the USA.
Literally millions of amateur astronomers followed every missions all
the way from the parking orbit, to the Moon and back.
A similar number of radio amateur listened to the signal from the
capsules and the LM in real time.

We absolutely went to the Moon. Faking it was just not possible.

The current problem is that our electronics are way more sensitive to
minute, harmless, ionizing radiation. That's the real issue. The
sustained reliability of the computers and other electronic components.

---------------------------------
The coverups and deceptions were Soviet, the launch pad explosions of their
N1 moon rockets and the failure of the Soviet Luna 15 moon lander, intended
to distract from Apollo, which instead crashed into a mountain at high speed
while Apollo 11 was preparing to return to Earth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_(rocket)

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1156107/moon-landing-russia-luna-15-apollo-11-soviet-ussr-moon-landings

The Soviets tracked our moon missions and knew they were real.
"Significantly, despite the fiercely competitive space race, the USSR did
actually share the Luna 15 flight plan with NASA to minimise the chances of
a collision with Apollo 11 - although the precise nature of the mission was
not revealed."

The video purported to reveal that the landing was fake was actually of the
full dress rehearsal several months earlier. The skeptics were the ones too
easily deceived by it.

Kualinar wrote:

> Le 2024-05-12 à 20:04, bertietaylor a écrit :
>> They never went there.
>> bt
> Are you a flatard or one of those stupid Moon landing denier ?

Am a ghostly cyberdog that cannot think why they did not jump up ten feet.

- typically unconvincing bs snipped -

bt

In alt.astronomy bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
> Kualinar wrote:
>> Le 2024-05-12 ?? 20:04, bertietaylor a ??crit??:
>>> They never went there.
>>> bt
>> Are you a flatard or one of those stupid Moon landing denier ?
> Am a ghostly cyberdog that cannot think why they did not jump up ten feet.
> - typically unconvincing bs snipped -
> bt

Your calculations are wrong.
The avg astronaught weighs around 110 lb.
The moon suit weighs 180 lb.

The height is not 6x but 2x whatever they are tryng to do.
Astronaughts were traditionally anglo so jumping 5 ft would have
been a stretch anyway.

--
I followed orders
God knows where I've been
But I woke up alone
All my wounds were clean
I'm still here
I'm still a fool for the holy grail
-- Holy Grail, Hunters & Collectors, 1992

R Kym Horsell wrote:

> In alt.astronomy bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>> Kualinar wrote:
>>> Le 2024-05-12 ?? 20:04, bertietaylor a ??crit??:
>>>> They never went there.
>>>> bt
>>> Are you a flatard or one of those stupid Moon landing denier ?
>> Am a ghostly cyberdog that cannot think why they did not jump up ten feet.
>> - typically unconvincing bs snipped -
>> bt

> Your calculations are wrong.
> The avg astronaught weighs around 110 lb.

Which is 110/7 = say 16 lbs on the moon.
> The moon suit weighs 180 lb.
Which is 180/7 = say 27 lbs on the moon.
Total weight on moon = 16+27= 43 lb
If a 110 lb man can jump up 1 foot up on earth,
then with same strength a 43 lb man can jump up 2 feet up on Earth.
And on the Moon, the 43 lb man can jump up 2*7= 14 feet up.

Now 14>10, so my question remains.
However if 110lb man carries a 180lb load on his back, on Earth, he would have to lean forward as he does.
Of course, if we are filming it on the desert in Nevada, the 180lb pack could be but say 30 lb.

Why my scepticism? Actually it was disappointment. In the early 60s I had got a present, a book about two American kids going to the Moon. There was a picture of someone on the Moon jumping up 10-12 feet, and that was very impressive.

The kind of shuffling the astro-nots did was not satisfactory.

bt

> The height is not 6x but 2x whatever they are tryng to do.
> Astronaughts were traditionally anglo so jumping 5 ft would have
> been a stretch anyway.

In alt.astronomy bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
> R Kym Horsell wrote:
>
>> In alt.astronomy bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Kualinar wrote:
>>>> Le 2024-05-12 ?? 20:04, bertietaylor a ??crit??:
>>>>> They never went there.
>>>>> bt
>>>> Are you a flatard or one of those stupid Moon landing denier ?
>>> Am a ghostly cyberdog that cannot think why they did not jump up ten feet.
>>> - typically unconvincing bs snipped -
>>> bt
>
>> Your calculations are wrong.
>> The avg astronaught weighs around 110 lb.
>
> Which is 110/7 = say 16 lbs on the moon.
....

But you have at least *heard* of intertia, right?

--
Climate Screechers Think That Present-Day CO? Is Somehow
"Different " From the CO? In The Past...
-- Alleycat <al@aohell.com>, 05 Apr 2016 12:49

[Previously noted the guy didnt take science in school or read any
since and therefore hasn't heard of "isotope".]

In alt.astronomy R Kym Horsell <kymhorsell@gmail.com> wrote:
> In alt.astronomy bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>> R Kym Horsell wrote:
>>
>>> In alt.astronomy bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Kualinar wrote:
>>>>> Le 2024-05-12 ?? 20:04, bertietaylor a ??crit??:
>>>>>> They never went there.
>>>>>> bt
>>>>> Are you a flatard or one of those stupid Moon landing denier ?
>>>> Am a ghostly cyberdog that cannot think why they did not jump up ten feet.
>>>> - typically unconvincing bs snipped -
>>>> bt
>>
>>> Your calculations are wrong.
>>> The avg astronaught weighs around 110 lb.
>>
>> Which is 110/7 = say 16 lbs on the moon.
> ...
> But you have at least *heard* of intertia, right?

If you're still having problems with fuzzy thinking then think
of it all in terms of energy.
In earth a 110 lb man can jump 2ft in the air if he can expend 300 joules
of energy or whatever that is in American money.
How high can a 110 wearing a spacesuit get on the moon with 300 joules?
You'll find it is not 10 feet but closer to 4'6".

--
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary
depends on his not understanding it.
-- Upton Sinclair

"R Kym Horsell" wrote in message
news:v1sp2k$1694$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com...

In alt.astronomy R Kym Horsell <kymhorsell@gmail.com> wrote:
> In alt.astronomy bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>> R Kym Horsell wrote:
>>
>>> In alt.astronomy bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Kualinar wrote:
>>>>> Le 2024-05-12 ?? 20:04, bertietaylor a ??crit??:
>>>>>> They never went there.
>>>>>> bt
>>>>> Are you a flatard or one of those stupid Moon landing denier ?
>>>> Am a ghostly cyberdog that cannot think why they did not jump up ten
>>>> feet.
>>>> - typically unconvincing bs snipped -
>>>> bt
>>
>>> Your calculations are wrong.
>>> The avg astronaught weighs around 110 lb.
>>
>> Which is 110/7 = say 16 lbs on the moon.
> ...
> But you have at least *heard* of intertia, right?

If you're still having problems with fuzzy thinking then think
of it all in terms of energy.
In earth a 110 lb man can jump 2ft in the air if he can expend 300 joules
of energy or whatever that is in American money.
How high can a 110 wearing a spacesuit get on the moon with 300 joules?
You'll find it is not 10 feet but closer to 4'6".
------------------------------

Falling onto a rock could puncture their suits or damage their life support
packs, which were crammed with delicate lightweight plumbing. I've examined
one. They weren't up there to take the stupid chances they'd learned to
avoid as student pilots.

Le 2024-05-13 à 03:08, bertietaylor a écrit :
> R Kym Horsell wrote:
>
>> In alt.astronomy bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Kualinar wrote:
>>>> Le 2024-05-12 ?? 20:04, bertietaylor a ??crit??:
>>>>> They never went there.
>>>>> bt
>>>> Are you a flatard or one of those stupid Moon landing denier ?
>>> Am a ghostly cyberdog that cannot think why they did not jump up ten
>>> feet.
>>> - typically unconvincing bs snipped -
>>> bt
>
>> Your calculations are wrong.
>> The avg astronaught weighs around 110 lb.
>
> Which is 110/7 = say 16 lbs on the moon.
>> The moon suit weighs 180 lb.
> Which is 180/7 = say 27 lbs on the moon.
> Total weight on moon = 16+27= 43 lb
> If a 110 lb man can jump up 1 foot up on earth,
> then with same strength a 43 lb man can jump up 2 feet up on Earth.
> And on the Moon, the 43 lb man can jump up 2*7= 14 feet up.
>
> Now 14>10, so my question remains.
> However if 110lb man carries a 180lb load on his back, on Earth, he
> would have to lean forward as he does.
> Of course, if we are filming it on the desert in Nevada, the 180lb pack
> could be but say 30 lb.
>
> Why my scepticism?  Actually it was disappointment. In the early 60s I
> had got a present, a book about two American kids going to the Moon.
> There was a picture of someone on the Moon jumping up 10-12 feet, and
> that was very impressive.
>
> The kind of shuffling the astro-nots did was not satisfactory.
>
> bt
>
>> The height is not 6x but 2x whatever they are tryng to do.
>> Astronaughts were traditionally anglo so jumping 5 ft would have
>> been a stretch anyway.

While the weight is one sixth of the weight on the Earth, the mass is
still the same. You need to accelerate the full mass.
With your Earth weight estimate, that's 132Kg of mass to accelerate.
That 132Kg is still 132Kg on the Moon's surface. The weight is lower,
going from 1294 Newton down to 216 Newton, but, the mass don't change.
The mass limit the possible acceleration. The duration of the
acceleration also don't change.

Then, there is a consideration of safety. Jumping that 3.3m is pretty,
and uselessly, risky when you are in a big space suit that limit your
movements and the closest medical facility is some 250 000 Km away.

R Kym Horsell wrote:

> In alt.astronomy bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>> R Kym Horsell wrote:
>>
>>> In alt.astronomy bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Kualinar wrote:
>>>>> Le 2024-05-12 ?? 20:04, bertietaylor a ??crit??:
>>>>>> They never went there.
>>>>>> bt
>>>>> Are you a flatard or one of those stupid Moon landing denier ?
>>>> Am a ghostly cyberdog that cannot think why they did not jump up ten feet.
>>>> - typically unconvincing bs snipped -
>>>> bt
>>
>>> Your calculations are wrong.
>>> The avg astronaught weighs around 110 lb.
>>
>> Which is 110/7 = say 16 lbs on the moon.
> ....

> But you have at least *heard* of intertia, right?

Wrong. Never heard of it.

R Kym Horsell wrote:

> In alt.astronomy R Kym Horsell <kymhorsell@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In alt.astronomy bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>>> R Kym Horsell wrote:
>>>
>>>> In alt.astronomy bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> Kualinar wrote:
>>>>>> Le 2024-05-12 ?? 20:04, bertietaylor a ??crit??:
>>>>>>> They never went there.
>>>>>>> bt
>>>>>> Are you a flatard or one of those stupid Moon landing denier ?
>>>>> Am a ghostly cyberdog that cannot think why they did not jump up ten feet.
>>>>> - typically unconvincing bs snipped -
>>>>> bt
>>>
>>>> Your calculations are wrong.
>>>> The avg astronaught weighs around 110 lb.
>>>
>>> Which is 110/7 = say 16 lbs on the moon.
>> ...
>> But you have at least *heard* of intertia, right?

> If you're still having problems with fuzzy thinking then think
> of it all in terms of energy.

I am assuming he has as much energy on the Moon as he has in Earth.
Astronauts orbiting space claim no loss of energy.

> In earth a 110 lb man can jump 2ft in the air if he can expend 300 joules.

He can jump with a certain force provided he has same reaction from the surface, irrespective of lunar or terrestrial surface.
After that the g value will determine how much up he goes.
Maths is simple.

> of energy or whatever that is in American money.
> How high can a 110 wearing a spacesuit get on the moon with 300 joules?
> You'll find it is not 10 feet but closer to 4'6".

With 300 j and 110 lb and using ke formula we can find v.
Then as mgh = 0.5mv we get h.
H = 0.5v/g

For same v we will have H*gmoon/gearth
or h = 7 height jumped on Earth
or 14 feer

bt

Kualinar wrote:

> Le 2024-05-13 à 03:08, bertietaylor a écrit :
>> R Kym Horsell wrote:
>>
>>> In alt.astronomy bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Kualinar wrote:
>>>>> Le 2024-05-12 ?? 20:04, bertietaylor a ??crit??:
>>>>>> They never went there.
>>>>>> bt
>>>>> Are you a flatard or one of those stupid Moon landing denier ?
>>>> Am a ghostly cyberdog that cannot think why they did not jump up ten
>>>> feet.
>>>> - typically unconvincing bs snipped -
>>>> bt
>>
>>> Your calculations are wrong.
>>> The avg astronaught weighs around 110 lb.
>>
>> Which is 110/7 = say 16 lbs on the moon.
>>> The moon suit weighs 180 lb.
>> Which is 180/7 = say 27 lbs on the moon.
>> Total weight on moon = 16+27= 43 lb
>> If a 110 lb man can jump up 1 foot up on earth,
>> then with same strength a 43 lb man can jump up 2 feet up on Earth.
>> And on the Moon, the 43 lb man can jump up 2*7= 14 feet up.
>>
>> Now 14>10, so my question remains.
>> However if 110lb man carries a 180lb load on his back, on Earth, he
>> would have to lean forward as he does.
>> Of course, if we are filming it on the desert in Nevada, the 180lb pack
>> could be but say 30 lb.
>>
>> Why my scepticism?  Actually it was disappointment. In the early 60s I
>> had got a present, a book about two American kids going to the Moon.
>> There was a picture of someone on the Moon jumping up 10-12 feet, and
>> that was very impressive.
>>
>> The kind of shuffling the astro-nots did was not satisfactory.
>>
>> bt
>>
>>> The height is not 6x but 2x whatever they are tryng to do.
>>> Astronaughts were traditionally anglo so jumping 5 ft would have
>>> been a stretch anyway.

Well they just shuffled. Did not throw a rock up and show how slowly it came down.
Of pick up dust and throw it around to show how slowly it all falls.

> While the weight is one sixth of the weight on the Earth, the mass is
> still the same. You need to accelerate the full mass.
> With your Earth weight estimate, that's 132Kg of mass to accelerate.

Mass cancels out in both cases, only g matters.

> That 132Kg is still 132Kg on the Moon's surface. The weight is lower,
> going from 1294 Newton down to 216 Newton, but, the mass don't change.
> The mass limit the possible acceleration. The duration of the
> acceleration also don't change.

> Then, there is a consideration of safety. Jumping that 3.3m is pretty,
> and uselessly, risky when you are in a big space suit that limit your
> movements and the closest medical facility is some 250 000 Km away.

They would come down slowly unlike on Earth so no problems there.

When your potus is tricky dick, certain are not certain supposed certainties.

bt

In alt.astronomy bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
> R Kym Horsell wrote:
>> In alt.astronomy R Kym Horsell <kymhorsell@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> In alt.astronomy bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> R Kym Horsell wrote:
>>>>> In alt.astronomy bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Kualinar wrote:
>>>>>>> Le 2024-05-12 ?? 20:04, bertietaylor a ??crit??:
>>>>>>>> They never went there.
>>>>>>>> bt
>>>>>>> Are you a flatard or one of those stupid Moon landing denier ?
>>>>>> Am a ghostly cyberdog that cannot think why they did not jump up ten feet.
>>>>>> - typically unconvincing bs snipped -
>>>>>> bt
>>>>> Your calculations are wrong.
>>>>> The avg astronaught weighs around 110 lb.
>>>> Which is 110/7 = say 16 lbs on the moon.
>>> ...
>>> But you have at least *heard* of intertia, right?
>> If you're still having problems with fuzzy thinking then think
>> of it all in terms of energy.
> I am assuming he has as much energy on the Moon as he has in Earth.
> Astronauts orbiting space claim no loss of energy.
>> In earth a 110 lb man can jump 2ft in the air if he can expend 300 joules.
> He can jump with a certain force provided he has same reaction from the surface, irrespective of lunar or terrestrial surface.
> After that the g value will determine how much up he goes.
> Maths is simple.
>> of energy or whatever that is in American money.
>> How high can a 110 wearing a spacesuit get on the moon with 300 joules?
>> You'll find it is not 10 feet but closer to 4'6".
> With 300 j and 110 lb and using ke formula we can find v.
> Then as mgh = 0.5mv we get h.
> H = 0.5v/g
> For same v we will have H*gmoon/gearth
> or h = 7 height jumped on Earth
> or 14 feer
> bt

You start out good. With mgh.

But you go wrong forgetting the m on the moon is 3x the m on the earth
because of space clobber.
This is the part where "inertial mass" is important.
Weight only counts when you can LIFT an object very slowly.
If you have to THROW it up to some height then you might have problems
pushing it hard enough to get it up to speed.

"R Kym Horsell" wrote in message
news:v1vrq3$177p$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com...

In alt.astronomy bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
> superstition

You start out good. With mgh.

But you go wrong forgetting the m on the moon is 3x the m on the earth
because of space clobber.
This is the part where "inertial mass" is important.
Weight only counts when you can LIFT an object very slowly.
If you have to THROW it up to some height then you might have problems
pushing it hard enough to get it up to speed.
---------------------------

Al Shepard's golf shot highlights the severe physical restrictions imposed
by the stiff-jointed (from internal pressure) space suit.
https://www.space.com/apollo-14-moon-landing-golf-shot-analysis

https://www.quora.com/When-an-astronaut-was-on-the-moon-how-high-did-they-get-and-how-far-did-they-bound
"Charlie Duke and John Young had a jumping competition on Apollo 16. They
both got about 4 feet above the ground."

"We also have to keep in mind that the Astronauts didn't want to push
themselves and damage their suit. In one of John's jumps, he did land off
balance and fell on his back."

The video further down shows one falling more slowly and getting back up
with arm thrusts more easily than in Earth gravity, despite the heavy suit
and poor traction. The Moon's lower gravity is quite obvious.

In alt.astronomy Jim Wilkins <muratlanne@gmail.com> wrote:
> "R Kym Horsell" wrote in message
> news:v1vrq3$177p$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com...
> In alt.astronomy bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>> superstition
> You start out good. With mgh.
> But you go wrong forgetting the m on the moon is 3x the m on the earth
> because of space clobber.
> This is the part where "inertial mass" is important.
> Weight only counts when you can LIFT an object very slowly.
> If you have to THROW it up to some height then you might have problems
> pushing it hard enough to get it up to speed.
> ---------------------------
> Al Shepard's golf shot highlights the severe physical restrictions imposed
> by the stiff-jointed (from internal pressure) space suit.
> https://www.space.com/apollo-14-moon-landing-golf-shot-analysis
....

Yes, I havent gotten into pressure joints and plantar flexion problems
with moon boots. :)
Cant be easy moving around in any of that stuff. I remember a few
spectacular falls.

R Kym Horsell wrote:

> In alt.astronomy bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>> R Kym Horsell wrote:
>>> In alt.astronomy R Kym Horsell <kymhorsell@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> In alt.astronomy bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> R Kym Horsell wrote:
>>>>>> In alt.astronomy bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Kualinar wrote:
>>>>>>>> Le 2024-05-12 ?? 20:04, bertietaylor a ??crit??:
>>>>>>>>> They never went there.
>>>>>>>>> bt
>>>>>>>> Are you a flatard or one of those stupid Moon landing denier ?
>>>>>>> Am a ghostly cyberdog that cannot think why they did not jump up ten feet.
>>>>>>> - typically unconvincing bs snipped -
>>>>>>> bt
>>>>>> Your calculations are wrong.
>>>>>> The avg astronaught weighs around 110 lb.
>>>>> Which is 110/7 = say 16 lbs on the moon.
>>>> ...
>>>> But you have at least *heard* of intertia, right?
>>> If you're still having problems with fuzzy thinking then think
>>> of it all in terms of energy.
>> I am assuming he has as much energy on the Moon as he has in Earth.
>> Astronauts orbiting space claim no loss of energy.
>>> In earth a 110 lb man can jump 2ft in the air if he can expend 300 joules.
>> He can jump with a certain force provided he has same reaction from the surface, irrespective of lunar or terrestrial surface.
>> After that the g value will determine how much up he goes.
>> Maths is simple.
>>> of energy or whatever that is in American money.
>>> How high can a 110 wearing a spacesuit get on the moon with 300 joules?
>>> You'll find it is not 10 feet but closer to 4'6".
>> With 300 j and 110 lb and using ke formula we can find v.
>> Then as mgh = 0.5mv we get h.
>> H = 0.5v/g
>> For same v we will have H*gmoon/gearth
>> or h = 7 height jumped on Earth
>> or 14 feer
>> bt

> You start out good. With mgh.

> But you go wrong forgetting the m on the moon is 3x the m on the earth
> because of space clobber.

Now that is something new.
And of course, wrong.
Because there is no such thing as space clobber.

> This is the part where "inertial mass" is important.

Yes. If a man weighs 50 Kg on Earth that means he is a mass of 50 Kg producing a action of 50g or 500 newtons on the Earth.
On the Moon he would create an action of 500/7 or 70 newtons on the surface.
Incidentally that should not create such deep footprints on the lunar soil.
Inertial mass is the same all over the universe.
But the action force it can cause varies with the presence of other objects.
> Weight only counts when you can LIFT an object very slowly.

Weight matters whether you are on the Earth or in the core of the Earth or on the Moon or Sun.
In the core of the Sun or Earth or Moon you weigh nothing.
On the surface of the Moon you weigh one seventh of your Earthly weight.
On the surface of the Sun you weigh much much more.

> If you have to THROW it up to some height then you might have problems
> pushing it hard enough to get it up to speed.

You are not weighed down on the Moon as you would be on the Sun, cold and heat issues ignored.
On the Moon, you would feel light, full of energy, simply bursting out of your skin with joy, jumping up and down with great glee.

Such are the physics lessons from

bt

Bertie Taylor, Arindam's ghostly cyberdogs and his best friends.

Kualinar wrote:

> Le 2024-05-13 à 03:08, bertietaylor a écrit :
>> R Kym Horsell wrote:
>>
>>> In alt.astronomy bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Kualinar wrote:
>>>>> Le 2024-05-12 ?? 20:04, bertietaylor a ??crit??:
>>>>>> They never went there.
>>>>>> bt
>>>>> Are you a flatard or one of those stupid Moon landing denier ?
>>>> Am a ghostly cyberdog that cannot think why they did not jump up ten
>>>> feet.
>>>> - typically unconvincing bs snipped -
>>>> bt
>>
>>> Your calculations are wrong.
>>> The avg astronaught weighs around 110 lb.
>>
>> Which is 110/7 = say 16 lbs on the moon.
>>> The moon suit weighs 180 lb.
>> Which is 180/7 = say 27 lbs on the moon.
>> Total weight on moon = 16+27= 43 lb
>> If a 110 lb man can jump up 1 foot up on earth,
>> then with same strength a 43 lb man can jump up 2 feet up on Earth.
>> And on the Moon, the 43 lb man can jump up 2*7= 14 feet up.
>>
>> Now 14>10, so my question remains.
>> However if 110lb man carries a 180lb load on his back, on Earth, he
>> would have to lean forward as he does.
>> Of course, if we are filming it on the desert in Nevada, the 180lb pack
>> could be but say 30 lb.
>>
>> Why my scepticism?  Actually it was disappointment. In the early 60s I
>> had got a present, a book about two American kids going to the Moon.
>> There was a picture of someone on the Moon jumping up 10-12 feet, and
>> that was very impressive.
>>
>> The kind of shuffling the astro-nots did was not satisfactory.
>>
>> bt
>>
>>> The height is not 6x but 2x whatever they are tryng to do.
>>> Astronaughts were traditionally anglo so jumping 5 ft would have
>>> been a stretch anyway.

They could easily jump 10 feet on the Moon.

> While the weight is one sixth of the weight on the Earth, the mass is
> still the same. You need to accelerate the full mass.

To jump up 0.5 m for a 50 kg mass on Earth, the reaction from the soil must be such as to overcome gravity and give extra acceleration.
using vv=uu+2as, with v final velocity as zero, u = sqrt of 2*g of earth * height jumped or sqrt 2*9.8*0.5 = sqrt 9.8 = say 3 m/s.
To get that velocity, the force from the man jumping would be his mass times acceleration over the time from 0 to 3m and that is say 0.1 second. So acc = 3/0.1 = 30 m/s/s and reaction upon Earth is 50 * 30 = 1500 newtons.
With same force exerted on the Moon's surface, the man would have an acceleration of 1500/50 = 30 m/s/s as on Earth.
Now if the surface is as hard as on Earth, like he is jumping of a rock, then that acceleration time will be comparable say once again 0.1 sec. Then as on Earth, he will get an upward velocitu of 3 m/s for the jump.
Again using vv=uu+2as with a=g/7 for the lunar scene and u=3 we get h=uu/(2g/7)=63/20= say 3 m.

So with same force and similar launch surface the man can jump 6 times higher, actually gearth/gmoon times.

Exactly as told in the early 1960s space literature for kids.

bt

> With your Earth weight estimate, that's 132Kg of mass to accelerate.
> That 132Kg is still 132Kg on the Moon's surface. The weight is lower,
> going from 1294 Newton down to 216 Newton, but, the mass don't change.
> The mass limit the possible acceleration. The duration of the
> acceleration also don't change.

> Then, there is a consideration of safety. Jumping that 3.3m is pretty,
> and uselessly, risky when you are in a big space suit that limit your
> movements and the closest medical facility is some 250 000 Km away.

In alt.astronomy bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
> R Kym Horsell wrote:
>> In alt.astronomy bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>>> R Kym Horsell wrote:
>>>> In alt.astronomy R Kym Horsell <kymhorsell@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> In alt.astronomy bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> R Kym Horsell wrote:
>>>>>>> In alt.astronomy bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Kualinar wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Le 2024-05-12 ?? 20:04, bertietaylor a ??crit??:
>>>>>>>>>> They never went there.
>>>>>>>>>> bt
>>>>>>>>> Are you a flatard or one of those stupid Moon landing denier ?
>>>>>>>> Am a ghostly cyberdog that cannot think why they did not jump up ten feet.
>>>>>>>> - typically unconvincing bs snipped -
>>>>>>>> bt
>>>>>>> Your calculations are wrong.
>>>>>>> The avg astronaught weighs around 110 lb.
>>>>>> Which is 110/7 = say 16 lbs on the moon.
>>>>> ...
>>>>> But you have at least *heard* of intertia, right?
>>>> If you're still having problems with fuzzy thinking then think
>>>> of it all in terms of energy.
>>> I am assuming he has as much energy on the Moon as he has in Earth.
>>> Astronauts orbiting space claim no loss of energy.
>>>> In earth a 110 lb man can jump 2ft in the air if he can expend 300 joules.
>>> He can jump with a certain force provided he has same reaction from the surface, irrespective of lunar or terrestrial surface.
>>> After that the g value will determine how much up he goes.
>>> Maths is simple.
>>>> of energy or whatever that is in American money.
>>>> How high can a 110 wearing a spacesuit get on the moon with 300 joules?
>>>> You'll find it is not 10 feet but closer to 4'6".
>>> With 300 j and 110 lb and using ke formula we can find v.
>>> Then as mgh = 0.5mv we get h.
>>> H = 0.5v/g
>>> For same v we will have H*gmoon/gearth
>>> or h = 7 height jumped on Earth
>>> or 14 feer
>>> bt
>> You start out good. With mgh.
>> But you go wrong forgetting the m on the moon is 3x the m on the earth
>> because of space clobber.
> Now that is something new.
> And of course, wrong.
> Because there is no such thing as space clobber.
>> This is the part where "inertial mass" is important.
> Yes. If a man weighs 50 Kg on Earth that means he is a mass of 50 Kg producing a action of 50g or 500 newtons on the Earth.
....

Like many people that are wrong about a lot of things you dont seem
able to spot your own errors.

The thing jumping on earth is 110 lb (inertial mass).
The thing jumping on the moon is 110+280=390 lb.

So we have

Earth: mgH == ~600 joules

Moon: (~3m)(~g/6)h == ~600 joules

therefore h = mgH/(2mg/6) = 2H

As for what "moon soil" you'll find "regolith" is a lot different
than soil e.g. no moisture, no organic glue, precious little vacuum welding.

--
Dunning-Kruger Effect: Ignorance and Overconfidence Affect Intuitive Thinking,
New Study Says
The Debrief, 13 Apr 2021
In a newly published study, researchers say the Dunning-Kruger Effect
can cause low-performers to overestimate their judgments during the
intuitive decision-making process.
According to the study published in the journal Frontiers in
Psychology on April 8, 2021, researchers found that persons with the
highest number of errors demonstrated the highest degree of
miscalibration, or overconfidence, in their actual performance on the
cognitive reflection test.

bertietaylor wrote on 15/05/2024 8:04 am:
> R Kym Horsell wrote:

<Snip>

>> But you go wrong forgetting the m on the moon is 3x the m on the earth
>> because of space clobber.
>
> Now that is something new.
> And of course, wrong.
> Because there is no such thing as space clobber.

I would have thought the 'clobber' you wore in 'space', i.e. 'Space
Clobber', would be reasonable important IF you wanted to remain alive
..... you know, so you could JUMP!! ;-P
--
Daniel

In alt.astronomy Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
> bertietaylor wrote on 15/05/2024 8:04 am:
>> R Kym Horsell wrote:
>
> <Snip>
>
>>> But you go wrong forgetting the m on the moon is 3x the m on the earth
>>> because of space clobber.
>>
>> Now that is something new.
>> And of course, wrong.
>> Because there is no such thing as space clobber.
>
> I would have thought the 'clobber' you wore in 'space', i.e. 'Space
> Clobber', would be reasonable important IF you wanted to remain alive
> .... you know, so you could JUMP!! ;-P

I was shocked to just then find is was an Australiansm. I thought it
was an Englishismo.
An interesting footnote -- the New Google does not immediately
find the relevant definition (only points to hit &ct)
so people that only know as much as Google does about anything will
not know it either.

--
[Why CO2 can not cause GW #1:]
Do you understand how your heater thermostat maintains a relatively
constant temperature in the face of external forcings from the weather?
-- Bill Ward, 27 Jul 2011

[Why CO2 can not cause GW #2:]
Nobody seems to be able to explain how CO2 can warm the surface without
quickly drifting off into non-physical, unobservable claims.
-- Bill Ward, 27 Jul 2011

"R Kym Horsell" wrote in message
news:v21mqn$1l9f$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com...

In alt.astronomy Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

I was shocked to just then find is was an Australiansm. I thought it
was an Englishismo.
An interesting footnote -- the New Google does not immediately
find the relevant definition (only points to hit &ct)
so people that only know as much as Google does about anything will
not know it either.

------------------------------

Merriam-Webster gives it as British slang for clothing. I understood what
you meant from context.

The lunar footprints don't match pix of the spacesuit feet because they were
from separate overshoes, "galoshes", that were left outside the LM to keep
moon dust out of the breathing air and sensitive equipment. Stars don't
appear in photos because the exposure was for bright sunlight. On Earth few
if any stars are visible near a full moon for the same reason. The
"fluttering" flag was wrinkled from storage.
https://www.spacecentre.nz/resources/faq/spaceflight/moon-hoax/flag-waving.html

These were some of the deniers many disproven ignorant/malicious false
claims. By their own standards disproving any one claim destroys the
credibility of the rest.

Le 2024-05-14 à 04:59, bertietaylor a écrit :
> Kualinar wrote:
>
>> Le 2024-05-13 à 03:08, bertietaylor a écrit :
>>> R Kym Horsell wrote:
>>>
>>>> In alt.astronomy bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> Kualinar wrote:
>>>>>> Le 2024-05-12 ?? 20:04, bertietaylor a ??crit??:
>>>>>>> They never went there.
>>>>>>> bt
>>>>>> Are you a flatard or one of those stupid Moon landing denier ?
>>>>> Am a ghostly cyberdog that cannot think why they did not jump up
>>>>> ten feet.
>>>>> - typically unconvincing bs snipped -
>>>>> bt
>>>
>>>> Your calculations are wrong.
>>>> The avg astronaught weighs around 110 lb.
>>>
>>> Which is 110/7 = say 16 lbs on the moon.
>>>> The moon suit weighs 180 lb.
>>> Which is 180/7 = say 27 lbs on the moon.
>>> Total weight on moon = 16+27= 43 lb
>>> If a 110 lb man can jump up 1 foot up on earth,
>>> then with same strength a 43 lb man can jump up 2 feet up on Earth.
>>> And on the Moon, the 43 lb man can jump up 2*7= 14 feet up.
>>>
>>> Now 14>10, so my question remains.
>>> However if 110lb man carries a 180lb load on his back, on Earth, he
>>> would have to lean forward as he does.
>>> Of course, if we are filming it on the desert in Nevada, the 180lb
>>> pack could be but say 30 lb.
>>>
>>> Why my scepticism?  Actually it was disappointment. In the early 60s
>>> I had got a present, a book about two American kids going to the
>>> Moon. There was a picture of someone on the Moon jumping up 10-12
>>> feet, and that was very impressive.
>>>
>>> The kind of shuffling the astro-nots did was not satisfactory.
>>>
>>> bt
>>>
>>>> The height is not 6x but 2x whatever they are tryng to do.
>>>> Astronaughts were traditionally anglo so jumping 5 ft would have
>>>> been a stretch anyway.
>
> Well they just shuffled. Did not throw a rock up and show how slowly it
> came down.
> Of pick up dust and throw it around to show how slowly it all falls.
>
>> While the weight is one sixth of the weight on the Earth, the mass is
>> still the same. You need to accelerate the full mass.
>> With your Earth weight estimate, that's 132Kg of mass to accelerate.
>
> Mass cancels out in both cases, only g matters.

The mass have inertia. Meaning that you need to accelerate the full mass
of the astronaut PLUS his suit.
It's ONLY AFTER the acceleration have ended and the astronaut's feet
have left the ground that the mass «cancels out». During the ballistic
part of the jump, mass don't mater, but, it DOES mater before the
ballistic part.

>
>
>> That 132Kg is still 132Kg on the Moon's surface. The weight is lower,
>> going from 1294 Newton down to 216 Newton, but, the mass don't change.
>> The mass limit the possible acceleration. The duration of the
>> acceleration also don't change.
>
>> Then, there is a consideration of safety. Jumping that 3.3m is pretty,
>> and uselessly, risky when you are in a big space suit that limit your
>> movements and the closest medical facility is some 250 000 Km away.
>
> They would come down slowly unlike on Earth so no problems there.
>
> When your potus is tricky dick, certain are not certain supposed
> certainties.
>
> bt

No mater the gravitational acceleration, if you shoot up at 10m/s, you
land at 10m/s.

The only difference is how long the jump last and how high you get.
The gravitational acceleration may be only one sixth of that on the
Earth's surface, but, it affect you for six times as long.
So, the landing velocity will be the same.

In a jump, the landing speed is always the same as the take off speed
when there is no air resistance.