Freedomain Radio

ribuck:

 

As for the water in their spacesuits boiling at 300 degrees, they did not use water for cooling, but a water-glycol mixture that remains liquid within the entire range of temperatures encountered on the lunar mission. Heat pipes containing water-glycol were also used to move heat around the lunar module, to the ice sublimators.

"Pardon my lack of understanding of physics and all that fancy scientific stuff". Hmm. Without physics, your only chance of disproving the lunar landing is to expose the process of the fraud. It's intellectually unreasonable of you to raise scientific objections if you don't understand science.

As far as temperature is concerned, remember that the interior of spacesuits are built to mimic Earth's atmosphere. It really doesn't get easier. Oh, the spacesuit is also insulated, to combat the fierce temperature gradient experienced in Space when so near to the Sun. Only now in recent times are spacesuits water cooled, I haven't done the research on craft cooling itself. Exterior cooling pertaining to the entering and exiting of the lunar atmosphere would be minimal if not nonexistent; there is hardly any atmosphere on the Moon to speak of. Speaking of, thrust required to take off from the lunar surface would be minimal, considering a spaceman could jump with their might out of the Moon's orbit.

Jax:

That's a great picture.

Anyways, here's some stuff on the environmental control systems of the Apollo spacecraft. I was looking for this to add to the thread, but now I'm just getting interested in how this thing worked.

http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/s6ch5.htm

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20080031131_2008026503.pdf

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/379068main_Temperature_of_Space.pdf

It seems that the challenge is to keep the vehicles cool, and not to try and warm them up. I wonder if that's because all the electiricy and chemical reactions provide ambient heating, in addition to the sun?

Apparently "A day on the Moon lasts 29.5 of our Earth days." From (http://www.universetoday.com/20524/how-long-is-a-day-on-the-moon/) Which itself answers a lot of questions about how the lunar module stayed warm during the night on the moon....it never saw it. Apollo 17 was on the surface of the moon for only 3 Earth days. Random sources on the internet report that it takes 2 hours for the Command Module to orbit the moon, which wouldn't give much time for drastic heating/cooling of the spacecraft.

/hijack

pretzelogik:

Oh and check for and type of propellent cratering under your posted picture of that LEM.  Oh, yeah...

I'm not sure what you're looking for. What kind of crater do you expect? I'm not sure you've thought this one through. Let's look at some numbers. The Descent Engine was 59 inches in diameter at the nozzle. I've actually read elsewhere that it was 54 inches or 63 inches. The best I can come up with is a PDF on the engine itself, so let's use that figure. The maximum mass of any Lunar Module at the time of landing was Apollo 17 at 18,305 lbs. Using certain advanced math, we can come up with the following equations:

The area of the exhaust nozzle at the exit = 3.14159 x (59inches/2)^2 = 2,274 square inches

The mass of the LM in lunar gravity at touchdown = 18,305lbs/6 = 3,051 lbs

Remember, the maximum thrust that has to be provided by the descent engine in the final approach is approximately equal to the mass of the LM. Using the above figures, we can determine the required pressure at the nozzle.

 3,051 lbs / 2,274 square inches = 1.34 pounds per square inch of exhaust pressure at the nozzle exit.

What kind of crater do you expect from 1.34 psi? Wouldn't you expect something like the following, where the smallest particles have been blown away but not much else?

There is more math that can be done to look at this further (for instance, a more detailed examination of the numbers), but suffice it to say that the crater issue is dealt with. Don't you agree?

ribuck:

"Sure looks bright for the shady side"? I tell you what, pretzelogic, why not re-read my posts. It is the airtight CREW CABIN that was on the shady side of the LUNAR LANDER. The part you are looking at is an EQUIPMENT BAY on the sunny side that's not supposed to be airtight. You do realize that what you are seeing in the photo is not the exterior of an air-filled cabin? The crew cabin is not visible in that photo, and is only a small part of the lunar module.

Of course you would not buy windows from Home Depot like that. But if you just wanted to keep the sun off your fuel can it might do the job, even in a Florida summer.

As for the water in their spacesuits boiling at 300 degrees, they did not use water for cooling, but a water-glycol mixture that remains liquid within the entire range of temperatures encountered on the lunar mission. Heat pipes containing water-glycol were also used to move heat around the lunar module, to the ice sublimators.

"Pardon my lack of understanding of physics and all that fancy scientific stuff". Hmm. Without physics, your only chance of disproving the lunar landing is to expose the process of the fraud. It's intellectually unreasonable of you to raise scientific objections if you don't understand science.

Well, as you can tell by me getting called out for breathing WATER, my understanding of the elements is limited;. It just makes sense to me that a space worthy craft should look more robust than my tool shed.  I understand there are no takers on that.  No one has mentioned the overlay pic that shows a plastic lego substitution in the video for the static photo if the lunar stage prop.  But since we are still on the science, you said we are looking at the flimsy equipment bay, on the other side of that airtight cabin, which is safe from the vacuum, which will implode a hollow tin can, according to the inventor of the vacuum tube.  So, this airtight cabin was contained within and airtight rocket, and was released into lunar orbit,with no breach of air locks in order to maintain an environmentally hospitable atmosphere and it navigated without pinwheeling, all the while managing to keep the 'naughts on the shady side for the ice sublimation to keep the cabin cool?  Or does the airtight business matter?  Maybe in a vacuum the heat doesn't matter, because at 300* even a few seconds of exposure would cause 3rd degree burns.  But, I thought the atmosphere was what protected us from the heat and radiation, what with the ozone layer warnings and all.  Not to mention the global warming dangers, but that's way scientific for me.  I understand the glycol not vaporizing in the heat, or turning solid in the cold but what maintained the temperature?  A battery operated radiator/AC heat pump type of thing?  Powered with back pack batteries?  Like I said before, we have established my lack of scientific understanding, maybe you could just step m through it in layman's terms.  I am familiar with sublimated memories, but not ice.  And let's not forget that NASA still has a contest going on for anyone that can successfully launch AND land a single engine rocket craft, the prize for which has never been claimed (or accomplished on earth).  Of course, they managed this on the moon with no problem, which must have been very easy for them considering they had absolutely no way of predicting how matter would behave on the lunar surface.  And they got the environmental stuff right too,including showers I guess,  just look at how fresh the 'naughts look on re-entry of the Apollo 17 mission:

Those ice-sublimated glycol-cooled, 60s era battery-driven space suits sure were easy on the hair, especially after a hard day of lunar golf...

nvgasso:

 Speaking of, thrust required to take off from the lunar surface would be minimal, considering a spaceman could jump with their might out of the Moon's orbit.

LIke in the movie The Matrix?

I am not convinced of the 1/6th gravity thing, common as people think it is to accept this, but I will hand it to the white lab coat wearing guy with the horned rim glasses.

I am such a technical illiterate, I can't get a Youtube video to show up here, but here is the link for a 500 lb single engine rocket leaving smoking craters in concrete here on earth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mHuhtS3658o#!

I guess the exceptionally light touch of the navigation skills of Neil Armstrong, obviously substantially refined from the picture taken a year prior (see above) to the first landing allowed for the ever so graceful touchdown of the lander that didn't disturb the grayscale compsositing Hopi desert backdrop, er, I mean lunar surface

So many strawmen in this thread. If there were any more I'd be rolling in hay.

Examples? I mean who doesn't enjoy a good roll in the hay?

pretzelogik:

nvgasso:

 Speaking of, thrust required to take off from the lunar surface would be minimal, considering a spaceman could jump with their might out of the Moon's orbit.

LIke in the movie The Matrix?

That's one.

That was more of a joke than a straw man argument.  But I do think that to imagine "spacemen jumping with their might" out of the moon's 69 mile (minimum) orbit, invites opportunities for poking a bit of fun, or rolling in the hay, as it were.

pretzelogik:

Well, as you can tell by me getting called out for breathing WATER, my understanding of the elements is limited;. It just makes sense to me that a space worthy craft should look more robust than my tool shed.

What basis do you have for thinking this? Doesn't it make sense that a craft designed to operate in a vacuum at very low gravity and with a massive premium on weight would be flimsy looking?

No one has mentioned the overlay pic that shows a plastic lego substitution in the video for the static photo if the lunar stage prop.

That's because nobody even knows what that was supposed to be showing. I still have no idea what the point of that gif is.

which is safe from the vacuum, which will implode a hollow tin can, according to the inventor of the vacuum tube.

You have this backward. A vacuum INSIDE a container will cause an implosion due to a negative pressure differential. A vacuum OUTSIDE a pressurized container is a much more stable situation. The LM crew compartment was pressurized to 5psi. Sea level airpressure is about 15psi. A can of soda can withstand approximately 90psi so that gives you an idea of what kind of strength is required to maintain the crew cabin. Not much, is it?

So, this airtight cabin was contained within and airtight rocket

Nothing airtight about the rocket. Just the cabin. 

and was released into lunar orbit,with no breach of air locks in order to maintain an environmentally hospitable atmosphere and it navigated without pinwheeling, all the while managing to keep the 'naughts on the shady side for the ice sublimation to keep the cabin cool? Or does the airtight business matter?  Maybe in a vacuum the heat doesn't matter, because at 300* even a few seconds of exposure would cause 3rd degree burns.

I think you are really underestimating some things here. For instance, the ability to compensate for temperature. I can turn my oven on to 500 degrees and come back a few hours later and put my hand right on the outside of the oven door without getting burned, but inside, just a few inches away, it's a burning inferno. Insulation deals with the temperature issue. They didn't have to be on the shady side of the LM all the time, the thing was insulated and had no problem with a few hours in sunlight.

I understand the glycol not vaporizing in the heat, or turning solid in the cold but what maintained the temperature?  A battery operated radiator/AC heat pump type of thing?  Powered with back pack batteries?

These questions are easily answered using Google. 

Like I said before, we have established my lack of scientific understanding

So why are you still objecting on scientific grounds?

And let's not forget that NASA still has a contest going on for anyone that can successfully launch AND land a single engine rocket craft, the prize for which has never been claimed (or accomplished on earth).

Do you mean the prize awarded to two different companies in 2009 after they successfully completed the requirements?

Of course, they managed this on the moon with no problem, which must have been very easy for them considering they had absolutely no way of predicting how matter would behave on the lunar surface.

If it was no problem why did it take a decade and several billion dollars? Also, the Apollo missions were completely different than the X prize requirements. Those companies had to do it on a *single* engine. The Saturn V rocket which blasted the Apollo missions into space had 11 engines, the Service Module had 1 main engine plus 16 thrusters, the Command Module had 12 thrusters, the Lunar Module had a descent engine, an ascent engine, and 16 thrusters. It was a completely different approach to the issue. Furthermore, the fact that I sometimes pay a restaurant to make food for me says nothing about my own ability to make food. The same goes here. 

And they got the environmental stuff right too,including showers I guess

Sponge baths and special shampoo.

I am not convinced of the 1/6th gravity thing, common as people think it is to accept this

Every scientist in the field is convinced. The approximate mass of the moon can be empirically determined from the Earth. It has been confirmed exactly by modern moon orbiters, some of which belong to countries such as Japan and China. There is absolutely no basis for doubting this fact. 

I guess the exceptionally light touch of the navigation skills of Neil Armstrong, obviously substantially refined from the picture taken a year prior (see above) to the first landing allowed for the ever so graceful touchdown of the lander

You didn't read that detailed explanation I linked to of the math involved, did you? Please do.

So every concern of yours has been addressed. Please stop making objections based on science, as you cannot trust your own understanding of science. Somehow I doubt you will do this.

Jax:

pretzelogik:

Well, as you can tell by me getting called out for breathing WATER, my understanding of the elements is limited;. It just makes sense to me that a space worthy craft should look more robust than my tool shed.

What basis do you have for thinking this? Doesn't it make sense that a craft designed to operate in a vacuum at very low gravity and with a massive premium on weight would be flimsy looking?

I dunno, shouldn't a deepspace worthy craft look just a bit more substantial than this?

No one has mentioned the overlay pic that shows a plastic lego substitution in the video for the static photo if the lunar stage prop.

 

That's because nobody even knows what that was supposed to be showing. I still have no idea what the point of that gif is.

The movie is fake, that's the point.  Compare the static shot to the lego model.

which is safe from the vacuum, which will implode a hollow tin can, according to the inventor of the vacuum tube.

You have this backward. A vacuum INSIDE a container will cause an implosion due to a negative pressure differential. A vacuum OUTSIDE a pressurized container is a much more stable situation. The LM crew compartment was pressurized to 5psi. Sea level airpressure is about 15psi. A can of soda can withstand approximately 90psi so that gives you an idea of what kind of strength is required to maintain the crew cabin. Not much, is it?

So, this airtight cabin was contained within and airtight rocket

 

Nothing airtight about the rocket. Just the cabin. 

All that cardboard and foil maybe conceals the secret airtight stuff.

and was released into lunar orbit,with no breach of air locks in order to maintain an environmentally hospitable atmosphere and it navigated without pinwheeling, all the while managing to keep the 'naughts on the shady side for the ice sublimation to keep the cabin cool? Or does the airtight business matter?  Maybe in a vacuum the heat doesn't matter, because at 300* even a few seconds of exposure would cause 3rd degree burns.

I think you are really underestimating some things here. For instance, the ability to compensate for temperature. I can turn my oven on to 500 degrees and come back a few hours later and put my hand right on the outside of the oven door without getting burned, but inside, just a few inches away, it's a burning inferno. Insulation deals with the temperature issue. They didn't have to be on the shady side of the LM all the time, the thing was insulated and had no problem with a few hours in sunlight.

Or the stated 72 hours of lunar surface exposure.  Like your magically insulated hand inside your oven for 3 days.

I understand the glycol not vaporizing in the heat, or turning solid in the cold but what maintained the temperature?  A battery operated radiator/AC heat pump type of thing?  Powered with back pack batteries?

These questions are easily answered using Google. 

Not so much Google just leads to more questions without any answers, That's why I ask the science experts like yourself to put into layman's terms and break it down a bit.

 

Like I said before, we have established my lack of scientific understanding

So why are you still objecting on scientific grounds?

 

Not Scientific, but where is all this stuff today if it worked so well back then? grounds

And let's not forget that NASA still has a contest going on for anyone that can successfully launch AND land a single engine rocket craft, the prize for which has never been claimed (or accomplished on earth).

Do you mean the prize awarded to two different companies in 2009 after they successfully completed the requirements?

Oh, like someone has finally claimed prize money for reaching the level two stage of keeping a rocket that could carry a small dog or hamster aloft for 180 seconds?  At this rate, we should be able to get back to 1969, by the year 2045 or so, if we are lucky.

Of course, they managed this on the moon with no problem, which must have been very easy for them considering they had absolutely no way of predicting how matter would behave on the lunar surface.

If it was no problem why did it take a decade and several billion dollars? Also, the Apollo missions were completely different than the X prize requirements. Those companies had to do it on a *single* engine. The Saturn V rocket which blasted the Apollo missions into space had 11 engines, the Service Module had 1 main engine plus 16 thrusters, the Command Module had 12 thrusters, the Lunar Module had a descent engine, an ascent engine, and 16 thrusters. It was a completely different approach to the issue. Furthermore, the fact that I sometimes pay a restaurant to make food for me says nothing about my own ability to make food. The same goes here.

I see one, untarnished unblemished exhaust flu.  Where are the thrusters exactly? Oh you mean these? :

 

 

And they got the environmental stuff right too,including showers I guess

Sponge baths and special shampoo.

I am not convinced of the 1/6th gravity thing, common as people think it is to accept this

Every scientist in the field is convinced. The approximate mass of the moon can be empirically determined from the Earth. It has been confirmed exactly by modern moon orbiters, some of which belong to countries such as Japan and China. There is absolutely no basis for doubting this fact. 

I guess the exceptionally light touch of the navigation skills of Neil Armstrong, obviously substantially refined from the picture taken a year prior (see above) to the first landing allowed for the ever so graceful touchdown of the lander

You didn't read that detailed explanation I linked to of the math involved, did you? Please do.

No, I looked at the smoking wreck of what the math said was not supposed to happen and I have doubts that they worked it out in a completely untested environment 6 times in a row without similar results only one year later.

 

So every concern of yours has been addressed. Please stop making objections based on science, as you cannot trust your own understanding of science. Somehow I doubt you will do this.

I suppose if you want to call all this evasiveness addressed.  Somehow I doubt all the believers will ever look at these ridiculous images and ask whether they look like anything other than stage props.

pretzelogik:

I guess the exceptionally light touch of the navigation skills of Neil Armstrong, obviously substantially refined from the picture taken a year prior (see above) to the first landing allowed for the ever so graceful touchdown of the lander

Now we're making progress. From the above comment, it seems that you are no longer claiming that the lunar module worked perfectly first time with absolutely no testing at all.

You posted a picture of Neil Armstrong after he ejected from an earth-based test of a lunar module concept. It was quite an interesting test. To allow for the fact that the moon's gravity is one-sixth that of the earth, some payload was replaced by a helper engine that provided five-sixths of the thrust. The remaining one-sixth was provided by the prototype engine that was being tested.

But there was a limit to how much testing could be done in earth gravity. After the earthbound tests, a lunar module was tested in earth orbit on the Apollo 5 mission (with no-one aboard the LM). On the Apollo 9 mission they again tested it in earth orbit, this time with crew aboard. They did all the rocket firing and docking that would be required for landing on the moon, taking off again, and docking with the command module.

For Apollo 10, the LM was tested in lunar orbit. They separated from the command module, then flew it down to 50,000 feet, then jettisoned the descent stage and used the ascent stage to rejoin the command module. Incidentally, they jettisoned this lunar module ascent stage into a stable orbit around the sun, where it can still be found today.

By the way, if you're not convinced about the lunar gravity being approx. one-sixth that of the earth's gravity, I think you'll gain much more pleasure from taking an introductory physics course than from continuing to post unfounded assertions here for us to discuss. There are fascinating, simple experiments that can be done in the lab to demonstrate the equations of gravity.

With that, I'm leaving this discussion. Thanks for the fish.

pretzelogik:

Jax:

pretzelogik:

Well, as you can tell by me getting called out for breathing WATER, my understanding of the elements is limited;. It just makes sense to me that a space worthy craft should look more robust than my tool shed.

What basis do you have for thinking this? Doesn't it make sense that a craft designed to operate in a vacuum at very low gravity and with a massive premium on weight would be flimsy looking?

I dunno, shouldn't a deepspace worthy craft look just a bit more substantial than this?

I ask why a spacecraft should look very different than expected given the mission requirements and you come up with "I dunno"? Also, earlier you used the word "interstellar" to describe the conditions under which the LM was operating. What do you think interstellar means? What do you think "deep space" means? Are you aware that the LM flew to the moon while connected to the CSM? Can you give me an example of what you would expect a "real" lunar module to look like? And what of the ISS? It contains many of the same design features of the LM, including foil, plates, flimsyness, etc. Is that a hoax as well? 

And let's not forget that NASA still has a contest going on for anyone that can successfully launch AND land a single engine rocket craft, the prize for which has never been claimed (or accomplished on earth).

Do you mean the prize awarded to two different companies in 2009 after they successfully completed the requirements?

Oh, like someone has finally claimed prize money for reaching the level two stage of keeping a rocket that could carry a small dog or hamster aloft for 180 seconds?  At this rate, we should be able to get back to 1969, by the year 2045 or so, if we are lucky.

This I find interesting. You brought up something. I showed that you were mistaken. Instead of saying something like "You're right, I was being irrational. I now see that the X Prize requirements are very specific and that someone has indeed met them," you moved the goal posts and became very sarcastic. Why do you think this is?

I understand your leaving, this thread is a bit long in the tooth.  Claiming skepticism is not the same as unfounded assertation.  My point is this:  when you make a claim of the moon having a 1:6 ratio to the earth's gravitaional field, then the claim is that if I have a structural support that will not  handle one ounce more that 1 pound, I can take it to the moon and set a 6 pound weight on it and it will absolutley hold.  Since, my claim is that no one has direct experience of the lunar environment, to make such a claim is an educated guess at best.  I understand that this can likely be extrapolated from triangulation to judge distance and size relative to the earth, but I imagine there is a mass quotient involved, as well as atmospheric conditions and perhaps the effect of the earth's gravitational pull etc.  I find the claim to be a bit specious, due to lack of empiricism, but as I said I will trust the scientists to have worked this out on paper.  What I don't trust is the fact that these lunar landers were not successfully tested on earth, yet were claimed to have done the job on the moon 6 times in a row.  Of course, these claims can only be verified by the words of NASA, regarding all your comments about earth orbit testing, 50,000 foot descents and the like, i.e., NASA said it, therefore it is true.  Or the bible says god exists, which is true because the bible is the inerrant word of god.

Give a man a fish......