Charlie Duke Family Photo

[Luke Pemberton]

There are perfectly legitimate reasons for still living with one's parents into adulthood.  Someone I know is living in his in-laws' basement right now, because he was recently fired.  Other people I know take care of parents with serious health problems.  The issue with these people is not that they live in their parents' basements.  It's that they're willfully ignorant.  You can do that just fine living on your own.

I feel slightly singled out by this reply. I have to admit. I was certainly not deriding anyone for living with their parents into adulthood, if that is indeed what you were inferring about me. I would like you to explain how and where I have even suggested that I have no compassion/understanding for those that live with parents for care reasons or personal reasons, if that is indeed what you were inferring. If it was a more general response to the phrase, then I'll sit with that and feel less singled out. However:

The word living invokes a slight subtlety into that figure of speech, namely individuals that live fairly solitary lives and spend inordinate amounts of time living in a basement in front of the internet.

I'm guessing that your friend does not live in their parents basement, but rather sleeps there and during the day is trying to gain a job and rebuild their life.

In fact I am acutely aware of the impact that caring for parents has on people, especially teenagers. I've worked with many teenagers and young adults that suffer with depression because they are parent carers, and will probably remain with their parents well into their 20s and 30s.

[bknight]

There]'s no convective heating on the moon, so we cannot compare the situation to an oven.

But that's exactly what David Groves did to test the durability of film in space.  And he has a PhD in physics, so you're wrong.   

Shoot I have been looking into the wrong direction, the photographs and plastic bags.  Andrew Johnson in a RichPlanet.net video did the same trick.

[mako88sb]

"ok, have you tried putting a photograph inside of a polythene bag, and put it in the oven at its highest temperature yet, for just a minute or less, do this and tell me what happens please. we can go through many of the tests if you like together if you like.
cheers"

The old 'the Moon's surface is a searing hotplate' argument. They landed during the lunar dawn did they not? An oven also heats by convection, and is very good at it. In fact, anyone who has switched to a fan oven will know the effectiveness of forced current heating. I do, because I found it took about 40 minutes of the cooking time of a 3 lb chicken. There's no convective heating on the moon, so we cannot compare the situation to an oven.

That only leaves radiation and conduction. I assume that the back of the photograph is white, so it will reflect IR from the Moon's surface reasonably well. this leaves conduction. Two things (a) how good it the thermal contact between the regolith and bag? (b) regolith is a poor conductor of heat.

http://www.spaceanswers.com/space-exploration/how-did-lunar-astronauts-survive-the-extreme-temperatures-on-the-moon/

Yes, I was going to point out the temperature when eva-3 finished was not close to the max temp possible but this guy would probably go on about how Charlie would know that temp would be reached in a few days so why trust a family photo to a plastic bag.

I know when I was in air cadets back in the early 70's, we had these military ration packs during some of our camping excursions that included plastic bags that you added boiling hot water to some of the meals and I found an article that mentions slow cooking of food with heat safe bags started in 1974. I think just pointing out that some plastic can resist higher temps then the 120 C max of the moon plus the conduction explanation you mention should hopefully do it.


 

[Luke Pemberton]

Yes, I was going to point out the temperature when eva-3 finished was not close to the max temp possible but this guy would probably go on about how Charlie would know that temp would be reached in a few days so why trust a family photo to a plastic bag.

The man has just journeyed 250 000 miles to be one of 12 people to walk on the surface of the Moon. He's got a photo from the Moon showing three human beings that he would probably die protecting. I don't think that he's going to be bothered about it burning up on the Moon's surface (if that is what it did). Let's face it, does the fate of the photo really matter in this situation? He's never going to see it again, he's not going to be able to go back and get it. He knew that when he made the conscious decision to leave it on the Lunar surface. In Charlie's mind is the act that he took a memento of something that he cherished (his off spring and wife) and left it on the Moon, and has evidence that he did that.

Does the guy actually understand the act embodied in the photo of the photo. I really don't see his beef. Try the line I have tried here with him, and if he does not understand then he really should get out of the basement in which he lives.

As an aside, others might be able to save me some research. Were the astronauts allowed to take personal items, and if so what were they limited to in terms of mass and objects? Did Buzz sneak the small amount of wine onto Apollo 11?

ETA: And does the CT know the circumstances behind the photo left on the Moon's photo. Who knows, maybe Charlie had it specially taken for the mission and his family agreed that it could be left behind. The picture was taken by a 'NASA guy' was it taken on a film that NASA bought? In that case NASA officially owned it and might have suggested to Charlie that he leave it, all part of the PR and the embodiment of the American dream with his family, you know, motherhood and apple pie. There are so many human factors going on here that the guy really is scraping the barrel to make anything from this.

[Luke Pemberton]

But that's exactly what David Groves did to test the durability of film in space.  And he has a PhD in physics, so you're wrong.   

Ah well, I guess I defer to Dr Groves and his PhD in physics... but my PhD in physics tells me different, so which of the two PhDs is correct?  is there a Schrodinger thought experiment going on here.  Both the Apollogist and CT are correct, but we don't know which one until we look inside the box.

[bknight]

But that's exactly what David Groves did to test the durability of film in space.  And he has a PhD in physics, so you're wrong.   

Ah well, I guess I defer to Dr Groves and his PhD in physics... but my PhD in physics tells me different, so which of the two PhDs is correct?  is there a Schrodinger thought experiment going on here.  Both the Apollogist and CT are correct, but we don't know which one until we look inside the box.

I think you may be more correct his degrees are:
PhD - BSc (Hons) Class I/Applied Physics.
PhD in Holographic Computer Measurement.

http://www.moontruth.org/activists/DrDavidGroves/index.htm

But IMO he did not do well in Applied Physics as his demonstration of the film in the microwave or in the oven show.

[mako88sb]

Yes, I was going to point out the temperature when eva-3 finished was not close to the max temp possible but this guy would probably go on about how Charlie would know that temp would be reached in a few days so why trust a family photo to a plastic bag.

The man has just journeyed 250 000 miles to be one of 12 people to walk on the surface of the Moon. He's got a photo from the Moon showing three human beings that he would probably die protecting. I don't think that he's going to be bothered about it burning up on the Moon's surface (if that is what it did). Let's face it, does the fate of the photo really matter in this situation? He's never going to see it again, he's not going to be able to go back and get it. He knew that when he made the conscious decision to leave it on the Lunar surface. In Charlie's mind is the act that he took a memento of something that he cherished (his off spring and wife) and left it on the Moon, and has evidence that he did that.

Does the guy actually understand the act embodied in the photo of the photo. I really don't see his beef. Try the line I have tried here with him, and if he does not understand then he really should get out of the basement in which he lives.

As an aside, others might be able to save me some research. Were the astronauts allowed to take personal items, and if so what were they limited to in terms of mass and objects? Did Buzz sneak the small amount of wine onto Apollo 11?

Well, it think the people complaining about this issue seem to think that the guys leaving memento's such as these, Jim Irwin & Charlie Duke with the family pictures, expected them to last a fairly long time. Like I said, I remember reading about one astronaut looking for a spot that wouldn't receive direct sunlight so I'm assuming it was Irwin. If so, then it does look like he hoped for it to last for quite awhile. That Charlie didn't bother to worry about direct sunlight confirms what you say about the action of leaving it meaning more then how long it will last. I know I never thought to question his motives but seems like some people will go to any lengths when it comes to supposed hoaxes.

As for PPKs, this article should help:

http://spaceflownartifacts.com/flown_ppks.html

From what I've read, Aldrin got approval for the wine but was told to do the ceremony in private since NASA did get a fair bit of backlash from the Apollo 8 reading of Genesis.

[mako88sb]

..and there may well have been some impact from exposure to the sun.

Here's a better quality version that I've cropped:



Look on the ground to the right of the right hand edge - looks a little like where the photograph landed initially and then perhaps curled a little.

 

The person making the claim would also do well to look at all the other photographs in that magazine

Thanks! I missed your post somehow. It does look like it's been affected already.

[darren r]

Perhaps he put the photo in the bag to stop it getting creased, marked or stained on the journey and just didn't see the point of taking it out when he arrived. I know I do the same when I'm carrying documents or photos from one place to another. I doubt Duke expected the picture to survive. If he wanted that, he could have just put a rock on top of it.

[mako88sb]

...

He also mentioned that Irwin did the same on Apollo 15, which I didn't know

Wait a moment, this guy Irwin who was allegedly going to Bill Kaysing "to spill the beans" left a photo on the Moon?  Too bad this information didn't come to Kaysing's or Blunder's attention.

Something else about Jim Irwin mentioned in his book related to the final jettisoning of the lunar module ascent stage. As you probably know, the final scientific bit of information that the lunar module ascent stages provided was to have them impact the moon so that their known mass and velocity could be used to calibrate the seismic detectors left behind. That went as planned but as the crew was preparing for the journey home, Dave Scott and Jim Irwin realized that in the rush to meet the LM separation from the CM at the right time, they had each assumed that their PPk's had been transferred by the other guy but sadly they had been missed. Aside from family mementos that were now in a man-made crater on the moon, Jim Irwin's had his best friends wedding ring inside as well. Imagine trying to explain to your best buddy about why he needs to get a new wedding ring.

[Abaddon]

As an aside, others might be able to save me some research. Were the astronauts allowed to take personal items, and if so what were they limited to in terms of mass and objects? Did Buzz sneak the small amount of wine onto Apollo 11?

They all had a small allowance for personal items, hence Buzz's bread and wine, the photograph and a golf club (head only). NASA did not consider the astronauts to be robots, but men, with all the human needs pertaining thereto.

[ka9q]

If the photo stayed in that position when the LM left (which is questionable) it wouldn't exchange much if any heat with the lunar surface since it's facing up. But to know how hot it got, we'd have to know the infrared properties of the plastic enclosing it -- was it opaque at longwave IR? If so, then it might get very hot due to a greenhouse effect. If the plastic was clear at longwave IR, then it would probably be cooler than the lunar surface because of the picture's higher average albedo.

Also, whether the plastic transmits UV would be very important too.

But we can be sure that it got quite cold at night.

[nomuse]

"ok, have you tried putting a photograph inside of a polythene bag, and put it in the oven at its highest temperature yet, for just a minute or less, do this and tell me what happens please. we can go through many of the tests if you like together if you like.
cheers"

The old 'the Moon's surface is a searing hotplate' argument. They landed during the lunar dawn did they not? An oven also heats by convection, and is very good at it. In fact, anyone who has switched to a fan oven will know the effectiveness of forced current heating. I do, because I found it took about 40 minutes of the cooking time of a 3 lb chicken. There's no convective heating on the moon, so we cannot compare the situation to an oven.

That only leaves radiation and conduction. I assume that the back of the photograph is white, so it will reflect IR from the Moon's surface reasonably well. this leaves conduction. Two things (a) how good it the thermal contact between the regolith and bag? (b) regolith is a poor conductor of heat.

http://www.spaceanswers.com/space-exploration/how-did-lunar-astronauts-survive-the-extreme-temperatures-on-the-moon/

Yes, I was going to point out the temperature when eva-3 finished was not close to the max temp possible but this guy would probably go on about how Charlie would know that temp would be reached in a few days so why trust a family photo to a plastic bag.

I know when I was in air cadets back in the early 70's, we had these military ration packs during some of our camping excursions that included plastic bags that you added boiling hot water to some of the meals and I found an article that mentions slow cooking of food with heat safe bags started in 1974. I think just pointing out that some plastic can resist higher temps then the 120 C max of the moon plus the conduction explanation you mention should hopefully do it.

Wait...you brought LURPS to the field? Intentionally?

I only had to depend on them once; when I was out at "Fort Wentwrong" in Alaska doing what they charitably called Winter Training. So basically you cut open this thick plastic bag full of cold, dry something-or-other, poured in hot water, waited twenty minutes...and proceeded to eat lukewarm, still dry, something-or-other.

[gillianren]

I feel slightly singled out by this reply. I have to admit. I was certainly not deriding anyone for living with their parents into adulthood, if that is indeed what you were inferring about me. I would like you to explain how and where I have even suggested that I have no compassion/understanding for those that live with parents for care reasons or personal reasons, if that is indeed what you were inferring. If it was a more general response to the phrase, then I'll sit with that and feel less singled out. However:

It was a more general response; I've started getting really irritated by the idea that my various friends who reside with their parents are made pathetic by that simple act.  My younger sister, who actually moved to another state to keep living with my mother?  That's one thing.  She's lived less than a year of her life under a different roof than my mother, and there's no real reason for it.  She just doesn't seem to want to grow up.  But a lot of people live with their parents for legitimate reasons and need to stop being shamed by society for it.

The word living invokes a slight subtlety into that figure of speech, namely individuals that live fairly solitary lives and spend inordinate amounts of time living in a basement in front of the internet.

I'm guessing that your friend does not live in their parents basement, but rather sleeps there and during the day is trying to gain a job and rebuild their life.

Really?  Because I tell people that I live with my boyfriend.  Before, I've told people that I lived with roommates.  To me, "I live with [person]" says absolutely nothing about what that life entails, just a mere fact of residence.  As it happens, my acquaintance certainly does live in his in-laws' basement by any reasonable standards.  That's where he resides.  That's where he keeps his stuff.  That's where he takes care of his own child and spends time with his wife.  Heck, because he's a freelance writer, that's even where he works.  Now, to be fair, I've never asked Nathan what he thinks about conspiracism.  However, from what I've read, he looks at it as something more to make jokes about.  And it's not just any loser who lives in his in-laws' basement that makes the front page of the Today website and the Oxford dictionaries (for coining the phrase "manic pixie dream girl") in the same month!

[bknight]

Wait...you brought LERPS to the field? Intentionally?

I only had to depend on them once; when I was out at "Fort Wentwrong" in Alaska doing what they charitably called Winter Training. So basically you cut open this thick plastic bag full of cold, dry something-or-other, poured in hot water, waited twenty minutes...and proceeded to eat lukewarm, still dry, something-or-other.

FTFY
Gawk, don't use that term, it brought back memories that should be forever forgotten.  I've been told the newer models have better taste.  But then you should have tried the Korean War leftovers.
EDIT correcting meal names