Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by ppk55


RE: The PLSS operation ---

Your link, at the bottom of the post, pretty much answers all of your questions. It describes in quite a bit of detail the process. Perhaps you are not familiar with such descriptions of complex machinery, and the inter-action of the various systems.

Sometimes schematic drawings and diagrams help...especially animated ones. Perhaps if you search harder there will be some sources posted on the Internet that feature the more modern versions of the PLSS (such as used today, for EVA on orbit). These will be essentially the same in process, just may incorporte some enhancements, or miniaturizations that weren't possible 30-40 years ago.

If you were a pilot I'd say you could compare to how the air conditioning/pressurization "packs" on a modern jetliner operate...the basic designs from the earliest jets of the 1960s are still used today, but the intricate details have been refined, with ever-increasing technology and experience in their use.

As to:

With the sun hitting their PLSS's, temperatures were very high.

That was the one purpose for the covering. The outer casing covered and protected any fragile components inside, and acted as a thermal barrier. They were white for this reason, as were the outer layers of hte EVA suits. (Just like today's).

Heat/cold will NOT be transmitted through a vacuum. The InfraRed radiation (heat) from the Sun would only affect the outer portions, and even then the heating was not very pronounced.

Do not be confused by the need for the "cooling garment" --- it wasn't because the human body would get hot in the Sun; It is the confined space of the garment itself that will cause a body heat rise. Recall how our bodies normally maintain their internal temeperature?

If our skin cannot sufficiently perspire, and use the cooling effects of the moisture evaporation that we have evolved to require, then an alternate means is needed.

This will be the case whether in a space suit in a vacuum, or in a diving suit under heavy pressure of water. There still has to be some form of heat exhanging capability. Especially when the body generates excess heat, through exertion and activity.

Originally posted by DJW001
Essentially, the vacuum of space froze the water of the system into ice. Since the heat exchanger was inside the PLSS it was not directly exposed to solar rays.

So you're saying the vacuum of space was inside the PLSS?

edit: and if so, wouldn't the sun hitting the PLSS make it just a bit to extremely hot and subsequently affect the ice production ?

edit: just came across this ...

Obama's NASA Chief : America Can't Leave Lower Earth Orbit Alone (didn't we go to the moon?)



It's interesting, the part where he gets most passionate is when he says no single entity can escape low earth orbit.

My prediction: this is the first step towards acknowledging the moon landing was a hoax.

[edit on 6-7-2010 by ppk55]

reply to post by ppk55

So you're saying the vacuum of space was inside the PLSS?

Of course. The outer protective covering was not sealed --- it did not need to be pressurized.

... and if so, wouldn't the sun hitting the PLSS make it just a bit to extremely hot and subsequently affect the ice production ?

No, I've expalined that.

Heat will only 'flow' by being conducted. (Except for the infrared radiation waves themselves, of course...but that's a physics/cosmology question, not relevant here).

For all practical purposes, something "in the shade" in a vacuum will NOT heat up, not unless it's in direct sunlight ( then it wouldn't be in 'shade' ).

The speed of conduction of heat is very, very different in different materials, too. You can agree that metals conduct heat rather quickly? (Comnpared to, say...fabrics...)... yet, you can take a long metal rod, and hold one end whilst heating the other with a flame...will take quite a while for the end you're holding (depending on distance, and the metal) to gt too hot to hold.

I thought this would be common experience and understanding?

As to ice production...they aren't talking about a Coleman cooler chest full of ice!! Just a thin coating....


Now, this was in the media recently, and looks like you're taking it out of context (again):

Obama's NASA Chief : America Can't Leave Lower Earth Orbit Alone (didn't we go to the moon?)

This is the latest imbroglio of embarassing moments for the Obama administration. The context of that is the story of NASA's new "focus" (??? I don't get it either...) of some sort of "Muslim" involvement. It's a mixed message, and I think the NASA administrator is soon to be on his way out....

Anyway, all he is referring to is the need for committing the MONEY and resources to projects that involve long-duration manned space missions.

Seems that he's recognizing the realities of the modern era, and the political climate --- absent some sort of incredible urge (such as Kennedy's challenge, post humously as in the 1960s...) the 'taste' for the public, and their willingness to sit idly by and allow the sorts of incredibly expensive projects be supported by one nation alone is just not likely. AND, as the public goes, so go the politicians....THEY won't jeopardize their re-election potentials by climbing aboard on unpopular endeavours.

There is a great deal more technological expertise in other nations, besides the US, than there was in the 1960s era. I remember, in that decade, the phrase "Made In Japan" meant that something was cheap, or shoddily built --- unreliable. Now, that opinion applies more to the "Made In China" labels, but for different reasons today...it's the mass-producing of crap that China has become rich, by producing. They have some fairly good technological skills, too.


It is a simple fact that just about EVERYTHING you use today is built by components from a multi-national contribution. Look at how many parts and sections for a Boeing airliner come from abroad, for instance.

Future manned space missions will require enormous sums of capitol, and NO one nation is going to make that financial risk, not in today's current climate.

Originally posted by ppk55
Hello, I have a quick question about the PLSS (the backpack) and how it supposedly cooled them.

Well your bringing up an issue that was of great importance to Ralph Rene.
Did you read his book on the subject?

Here are his observations concering the LM

Let's review what NASA claims:
1. On the pad, the entire ship is air-conditioned by conventional air-conditioning powered from the ground at Kennedy.
2. The entire ship is air-conditioned in space, powered by fuel cells, until you lose power to run the air-conditioning system because the Sun is heating the whole ship.
3. Because you turned off the air-conditioner the ship gets colder.
4. The LEM had no air-conditioning so it got even colder.

The lesson to be learned here is that the next time your air-conditioner is losing the battle with a summer heat wave you can make the house cooler by turning it off. All you have to watch out for then, according to NASA, is getting too cold if the heat wave persists. Conversely, if you feel cold next winter turn off the heat and open the windows. Makes sense in a NASA sort of way.

About the suit

Blowholes — A nostril at the highest point in the head of cetaceans. A vent to permit the
escape of a gas.

In 1969 nobody talked about cooling the air, and it was in my head that the suits needed heat not air conditioning. After all, didn't space age electric heated gloves and socks make their way onto the market about that time? Had the problem been one of cold it would have been easily resolved by the application of small electric resistance heaters in the suit. With all the insulation in that suit a tiny heater would have been quite sufficient. However, as I watched their Moon prance I still thought about the cold of space. I finally realized that the temperature of the Moon during the lunar day is hotter than boiling water so I knew the real problem had to be cooling. The Sun drives the temperature of the Moon's surface up to 243° F. and it would do the same to an astronaut. Insulation does not stop the transfer of heat or cold. It just slows it down. No matter the thickness of the oven-mitt on your hand, if you keep it in a 243° F oven for a few moments your hand will begin to feel very hot.

Hot air in the suit, generated by the astronauts metabolic process, is
apparently fanned across the water-filled tubing. The water is then pumped into a plastic heat exchanger in the PLSS. When the suit begins to heat up, the astronauts turn up the control which ejects the dump water from their blowhole over the heat exchanger. "The water was forced outside the suit, turned to ice and vaporized."

Just to keep NASA honest, let's calculate
the water required to do the job. The silhouette of an astronaut covers about 3/4 square meters. Using an absorption/emissivity coefficient of .2, the solar radiation absorbed would be 203 watts.
According to the authors of First On The Moon each PLSS, "was built to catch and
disperse metabolic heat generated by the astronaut at an average rate of sixteen hundred British Thermal Units an hour --". Since a BTU equals .2928 watts we have a total of 368 watts. This should be added to the Sun's heat value for a total heat input of 571 watts.

However we should calculate the heat radiated by the shady side of the suit. Before
proceeding we must determine a temperature for the air in the suit. The higher the temperature, the easier it is for the air cooler to do the job. Let's assume that their suits stayed at 100° F. Looking back to the Temperature Conversion chart we see that this temperature is 311° Kelvin which we need to know in order to use the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation equation.

We must invert the original formula to look like this.
I(watts)=K4 x(Axexa)

Thus we find that there are 80 watts being radiated. This must be subtracted from the 571 total watts, which leaves us with 491 watts. To round out the numbers we add 9 watts for radios, pump heat, etc. for a total of 500 watts. Since there are 860 calories per watt and, assuming we can work at 100% efficiency we must make enough ice to carry off 430,000 calories per hour. " In 4 hours that adds up to 1,720,000 calories. 12 To lower the temperature of one gram of water one degree C requires the loss of one calorie of heat. Upon the formation of ice, a gram of water loses 80 calories. Therefore a temperature drop from 100° F (38° C) down to freezing (0° C) entails the transfer of 38 calories, and when that gram freezes it absorbs another 80 calories for a total of 118 calories per gram vented out the blowhole. If we divide that 1,720,000 calories by 118 we get 14,576 gms of water that we must eject. This is 14.6 liters, which equals .514 cubic feet. That would take up 1/4 of the PLSS's volume. The weight of this is 32 pounds on Earth, which is or 38 % of the total claimed weight.

So let's take off the kid-skin gloves and get realistic. Using an efficiency of 40 %, which
is still high compared to most mechanisms, and a suit temperature of 80° F, we find that 23.78 liters of throw away water is needed. This is 52.3 pounds on Earth, 62 % of the PLSS's total weight and .839 cubic feet which is 40 % of the unit's volume.

If we divide the 23,788 gms of water by 240-minutes we get 100 grams a minute being
spewed out the blow hole. At an efficiency of 40 %, 60 grams a minute of frozen vapor
would escape the heat exchanger, making quite a whoosh as it ejected. Did anyone hear the astronauts make any whale jokes about their blow holes? When the other guy's suit vented, did any body ever shout? "Thar she blows!" Or is it that any type of venting simply not done in public?

NASA claims that rotation kept the command ship cool. Maybe the astronauts should
have pirouetted like ballerinas as they went their merry way. But then would this have
seemed less than masculine? In the end the only thing that could have preserved their lives for all those hours in that Sun was air-conditioning, which they didn't have. If they had really had suit air-conditioners that worked, every time the suit was vented into the high vacuum of space the rocket-effect should have been spectacular. A rapidly expanding fog of ice crystals would have reflected the brilliant unfiltered sun light; spraying millions of tiny diamond-like crystals about and producing a brilliant, dazzling and unforgettable display.

reply to post by FoosM

Never mind that Rene doesn't really understand the PLSS function or usage, where did he come up with that 243º figure?

As seen in Fig. 1, temperatures of the lunar surface and the very shallow (< ~0.5-m depth) subsurface are dominated by the diurnal solar radiation cycle. At the Apollo 15 site, surface temperature reaches ~360 K at lunar noon and falls to ~80 K before dawn.

www.lpi.usra.edu...

So, after being exposed to sunlight for 14 days. The surface at the Apollo 15 landing site reached 188º. Scary. Oh, but wait, they weren't there at noon. The astronauts had the cooling set to "minimum" nearly the entire time they were on the surface. It wasn't outside "temperatures" that they were worried about.


[edit on 7/6/2010 by Phage]

Originally posted by CHRLZ
It's really quite simple, CN.

FoosM first of all REFUSED to cite the quote, and then made a song and dance implying how stupid we were for not knowing where it came from.

----
Where did I refuse to cite a quote?

WE COULDN'T FIND IT BECAUSE IT WASN'T A QUOTE. The key words had been changed, and an adjective added, so there was no chance you could find those words, except of course at Wisnewski's site.

----
Who is we who couldnt find it?
I found it. As a matter of fact, to check Wisneweski's claim I found it in the Lunar Journal. It was easy because Wisnewski cited the time period it happened. So you look in that general time and area and *presto* its there. Or simply do a search using keywords and *bam* its highlighted.

You seem pissed because it wasnt easy to find for you, and so you seem to assume it would be hard for others as well?

That's not appropriate, and it's just stupid game-playing. He's done it before, and I'm heartily sick of it.
Also, the quote is clearly amidst a long conversation about comm's quality, and it is NOT at the end of the mission, as he claimed.

----
Who claimed?
I thought we went over this.
Are you not reading my posts?

I'm also annoyed by the way FoosM refuses to engage in any discussion of the flaws in his claims, but instead immediately jumps to a 'new', but previously debunked claim. I understand it may seem like a personal attack, but like I said, I'm heartily sick of this type of tactic.

----
Seem? There is no seem about it. But thats OK, because I was forewarned that Apollo believers tend to be very rude when things dont go their way.

Do you know the actual definition of debunk? You want to have a civil discussion or debate but you use the word debunk. How does that make any sense?

People are offering their opposing opinions. One persons opinion over another should not warrant a debunk. And pointing out a mistake should not warrant a debunk I have made several mistakes that I have admitted to. And usually it helps when the person pointing it out is not trying to debunk, but in calm manner pointing out the inconsistency.

And if I bring up claims that you find are already well explained, good for you. You dont have to include yourself in all the posts being made here. Obviously either I am not aware of some of the new findings regarding anomalies, or I simply dont believe the explanations are good enough. And thats what I have been pointing out. Many explanations are simply excuses.

You see you believe Apollo happened, so you dont need to investigate, or reinvestigate the Apollo record, whereas I dont believe it happened, and I, as well as many others, have to review information taught to us with a new mindset, turn over all the stones to find clues on how the lie was constructed. This was a crime, and we are Columbo. We know who did it, we got to figure out how they did it. We may run into dead ends occasionally, but we are opening up a lot of closed doors.

As a matter of fact just recently:

NASA tells us they had 3 stations Spain, Australia and in the USA?
NASA did not know about this base in Morocco?
Google Earth
34 16'36.09 N
06 17'29.53 W
And
34 09'07.05 N
06 38'37.45 W
This fields are still active but the sat. dishes I can not find, maybe they are removed by the US navy?
If anyone finds pictures or information about this sat. dishes please send me a pm.

If anyone wants to take up his 'issues' in a reasonable fashion, I'll happily engage with them. But I'm through with him.

Good cause more issues are coming right up!

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by FoosM

 

Never mind that Rene doesn't really understand the PLSS function or usage, where did he come up with that 243º figure?

As seen in Fig. 1, temperatures of the lunar surface and the very shallow (< ~0.5-m depth) subsurface are dominated by the diurnal solar radiation cycle. At the Apollo 15 site, surface temperature reaches ~360 K at lunar noon and falls to ~80 K before dawn.

www.lpi.usra.edu...

So, after being exposed to sunlight for 14 days. The surface at the Apollo 15 landing site reached 188º. Scary. Oh, but wait, they weren't there at noon. The astronauts had the cooling set to "minimum" nearly the entire time they were on the surface. It wasn't outside "temperatures" that they were worried about.


[edit on 7/6/2010 by Phage]

Doesnt really matter how hot the moon's surface gets, the Sun directly hits the Astronauts and their equipment. So with no Atmosphere, or negligible atmosphere, the astronauts are basically in Space. So if the Sun is out the Sun is out. Now what would the surface temperature of the LM and the suits be exposed to the Sun?

Originally posted by ppk55

edit: just came across this ...

Obama's NASA Chief : America Can't Leave Lower Earth Orbit Alone (didn't we go to the moon?)

It's interesting, the part where he gets most passionate is when he says no single entity can escape low earth orbit.

My prediction: this is the first step towards acknowledging the moon landing was a hoax.

[edit on 6-7-2010 by ppk55]

Wow, what can you say about that.
This is going to have a rippling effect.
No matter how this gets spun, it wont look good.

Either its
We could do it then, but we cant do it now. Public: WHY!?
or
We didnt do it then, and cant do it now. Public: WHAT!?

Oh this is going to be an interesting year for sure.

reply to post by FoosM




What? You think that sunlight does not "directly hit" the lunar surface? What's more direct than the Sun straight overhead at "noon"?

Since the lunar surface is not as reflective as the suits, it gets warmer than the suits would.

The Sun drives the temperature of the Moon's surface up to 243° F.

False. Rene is wrong.


[edit on 7/6/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by FoosM


Let's try an earthly example: ever go cross country skiing or moutaineering? It can be twenty degrees below zero, but your exertions can cause you to sweat so hard that you end up taking off your outer layers and skiing in your T-shirt. The air conditioning was designed to cool excessive body heat. The outer layer of the EVA suit was a reflective material designed shield them from the Sun's heat. Different substances have different thermal conductivities... that's why you can put your hand in a hot oven and touch the baking bread without burning yourself, but you'll burn your hand if you touch the metal pan. Vacuum has no thermal conductivity... all the external heat would be due to insolation, which the outer layer, as I said, was designed to minimize.

reply to post by FoosM

Either its
We could do it then, but we cant do it now. Public: WHY!?
or
We didnt do it then, and cant do it now. Public: WHAT!?

Oh this is going to be an interesting year for sure.

As for the current capacities of NASA reflecting on its prior abilities: did you know that it was once possible for the entire US Navy to cross the Atlantic without using a single gallon of fuel? It was! Why can't we do that now? Because we abandoned sail for steam in the 19th century, then steam for diesel in the 20th. Does that mean we couldn't do it in 1800? No. Could we do it now if we needed to? Of course, but we'd have to start from scratch, and it might be hard to explain to the taxpayers why we need to build a fleet of fiberglass hulled automated sail powered frigates!

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by FoosM

 

What? You think that sunlight does not "directly hit" the lunar surface? What's more direct than the Sun straight overhead at "noon"?

Since the lunar surface is not as reflective as the suits, it gets warmer than the suits would.

The Sun drives the temperature of the Moon's surface up to 243° F.

False. Rene is wrong.



[edit on 7/6/2010 by Phage]

Wrong as in he should have said up to 250 ?


[edit on 6-7-2010 by FoosM]

reply to post by FoosM

Wrong in using that figure to represent the surface temperatures which the astronauts were exposed to.

Also wrong in his understanding of how the cooling system worked.


[edit on 7/6/2010 by Phage]

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

Either its
We could do it then, but we cant do it now. Public: WHY!?
or
We didnt do it then, and cant do it now. Public: WHAT!?

Oh this is going to be an interesting year for sure.

As for the current capacities of NASA reflecting on its prior abilities: did you know that it was once possible for the entire US Navy to cross the Atlantic without using a single gallon of fuel? It was! Why can't we do that now? Because we abandoned sail for steam in the 19th century, then steam for diesel in the 20th. Does that mean we couldn't do it in 1800? No. Could we do it now if we needed to? Of course, but we'd have to start from scratch, and it might be hard to explain to the taxpayers why we need to build a fleet of fiberglass hulled automated sail powered frigates!

I understand what your trying to say, but that doesnt work in this case, because
the US had a new manned lunar program in development. In other words, your tax dollars were being invested and have been spent. Are you not at all expecting to see results? Are you not pissed that the money is gone and there is no program? I dont understand why people give NASA so much slack. A lot of money has been invested into the space program since Apollo. And I just find it strange that people make excuses for them like they are some kind of lame child.

reply to post by FoosM


Really....FoosM, you keep pulling these goofs...need a 'mulligan'?

Here:

Protecting Against Temperature Extremes

Temperatures on the moon range from -233 F to 212 F, with an average surface temperature of -9 F.

Admittedly, a little bit 'dumbed down' for the masses at large, but it's information you can use SOURCE.

Oh, and HINT: "212F" is the same as 100C. Remember? Can't even bake a cake, at those temps....


More stats, 'nother source:

Mean surface temperature (day) 107°C
Mean surface temperature (night) -153°C
Maximum surface temperature 123°C (**)

(**) Note, the 'maximum' there? Will depend on WHERE one is, on the Moon, latitude-wise...just as on the Earth, you don't hit the "maximum" temps at the higher latitudes...

Ralph Rene' (besides being a bit dotty) was over-stating...it's called 'exagerrating'....

Minimum surface temperature -233°C

How about reading this whole SOURCE in order to learn something?



[edit on 6 July 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by FoosM

 

Wrong in using that figure to represent the surface temperatures which the astronauts were exposed to.

Also wrong in his understanding of how the cooling system worked.


[edit on 7/6/2010 by Phage]

Ok, you seem very sure that he was wrong.
Its easy just to say someone is wrong.
So why dont you show us how he was wrong so we can agree with you being right.

reply to post by FoosM


Problem for you (and for "Jarrah White") is: Ralph Rene' was batspit nuts!! A crackpot. Had a few screws loose. A few forks shy of a full place setting....

And, "Jarrah White" apparently has been AWOL during school...

THIS is the guy "JW" has hitched his wagon train to??

Ralph Rene' on:

Relativity

René claimed that he had reduced Einstein's relativity to an absurdity, yet he manages to contradict himself by applying the results of the Special Theory to another of his own absurd ideas. Ralph makes this statement on his website:

'A decade back, astronomical gas bags claimed that exploding stars oscillate between a football shape and a pancake while they collapse and explode at the same time. I tested this lie against Einstein's statement that nothing can move faster than the speed of light. The star would have to be very tiny and the oscillation very slow in order not to have its surface mass exceed the speed of light.'

Understanding the source of Ralph's claims was difficult, but Jarrah White explained that:

'While Ralph did not disagree with relativistic theory, he doubted the time dilation aspects of the theory [sic].'

This encapsulates Ralph's understanding of Relativity as being very weak. Relativity is a framework that describes the laws of physics so they are invariant under the transformation of velocity, and fundamental to this framework is philosophy of measurement, and central to this philosophy are the concepts of time and position. Einstein's relativity was a response to the laws of electromagnetism being variant for the Galilean framework. Einstein brought together the concepts of time and space into a single framework - spacetime - and provided a means to describe the laws of physics for all inertial observers. The theory is considered a central tenet of physics and underpins many modern theories.

It was also discovered that Ralph thought that the Hafele and Keating experiment was sloppy, because the clocks that were used to measure time dilation were inaccurate and the aeroplanes had to stop; therefore physicists could not be justified in accepting the Theory of Relativity as a law. It seems that Ralph did not understand that relativity had been tested by many other means, and to very high precision in many cases. Ralph even proposed his own test, placing an atomic clock at the North Pole and a clock on a geostationary satellite. It was proposed that the clock on the satellite would be in continuous motion and could be measured a year later to provide an exact measure of time dilation, and therefore prove relativity. Of course, Ralph did not state how he would overcome the errors or the clocks, as all clocks have an inherent error, or how this improved on the tests of Hafele and Keating. More fundamentally, had Ralph even managed the most precursory research, he would have found that the clocks in GPS satellites have to be adjusted according to predictions made by relativity.

Further investigation strongly indicates that Ralph probably plagiarised the ideas of Dr A.G. Kelly, and did not plagiarise them well. His works mirrors that of A.G. Kelly very strongly, but when discussing the issue, Ralph presented solely on Special Relativity how he would test it by his atmoic clock in a satellite arrangement. He made no mention of General Relativity.

When seeking to understand exactly how much Jarrah White placed his trust in Ralph René's credentials, Jarrah was asked if he believed in nuclear energy or not. The rationale being that the dynamic results of relativity are very evident for all to see, so how can anyone doubt the theory. Jarrah argued that because nuclear processes are due to Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) and Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD), and since Quantum Mechanics has not been reconciled with Relativistic Mechanics, then nuclear energy has nothing to do with relativity. Jarrah is incorrect on five counts:

Special Relativity has been reconciled with Quantum Mechanics, it is General Theory that has no Quantum Theory.
The mass of fission products is less than the initial products. During fission, mass is transformed to energy in accordance with Einstein's famous formula.
QED describes the electromagnetic force and is not resposible for nuclear binding.
QCD describes the fundamental strong force, not the residual strong force responsible for nuclear binding.
QCD and QED are both relativistic Quantum Field Theories.

BOTH those guys are loons --- sorry.

Extra! Extra! Read all about it!


And, here...since the OP (Winston Wu - or whatever alias he's using lately) thinks "Jarrah White" is some flippin' "genius", because of YouTube videos (face/palm) here is a......>gasp

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM

 

Really....FoosM, you keep pulling these goofs...need a 'mulligan'?

Here:

Protecting Against Temperature Extremes

Temperatures on the moon range from -233 F to 212 F, with an average surface temperature of -9 F.

Admittedly, a little bit 'dumbed down' for the masses at large, but it's information you can use SOURCE.

Oh, and HINT: "212F" is the same as 100C. Remember? Can't even bake a cake, at those temps....


[edit on 6 July 2010 by weedwhacker]

The temperature at the lunar equator ranges from extremely low to extremely high -- from about -280 degrees F (-173 degrees C) at night to +260 degrees F (+127 degrees C) in the daytime. In some deep craters near the moon's poles, the temperature is always near -400 degrees F (-240 degrees C).

www.nasa.gov...

So thats a 260 F

Mean surface temperature (day) 107°C (225 F)
Maximum surface temperature 123°C (253 F)

www.solarviews.com...

So thats a 253 F

Thats two sources above 250.
What are you exactly nitpicking about?
This thread is full of open issues that nobody seems to want to touch.
And you want to make an issue about surface temp on the moon?

reply to post by FoosM

Rene is wrong about the temperatures the astronauts were exposed to. The highest temperatures found on the Moon approach 250º F...at "noon". None of the missions occured at "noon". None of the mission occurred in those locations. He neglects the angle of incidence of sunlight in his "calculations".

Rene is wrong about how the cooling system functioned. The cooling was not a result of turning water into ice, it was the result of water evaporating when exposed to vacuum. The water takes all of the heat contained in it away, all of the calories, not 1 calorie per gram.


[edit on 7/6/2010 by Phage]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM

 

Problem for you (and for "Jarrah White") is: Ralph Rene' was batspit nuts!! A crackpot. Had a few screws loose. A few forks shy of a full place setting....

[edit on 6 July 2010 by weedwhacker]

You know, I knew somebody was going to offer a hit piece on Ralph Rene when I mentioned him. And true to form here comes weedwhacker...

Well I tell you what, its hypocritical. Its hypocritical to defend a man like von Braun a high ranking Nazi officer who ran basically a death camp where people starved and died making weapons of mass destruction, but attack another who simply has other views on science and happens to disagree with you on a matter of history. Its pathetic. And you guys do it all the time like clockwork. And Im not saying you personally defend von Braun weedwhacker, but many people do.

But your post about Rene is completely off topic.
Dont you have any... any rebuttal to his Apollo analysis?
To what I posted about the PLSS and LM?