It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

page: 132
377
<< 129  130  131    133  134  135 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   



Originally posted by Phage
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".



Ok, lets put it this way.
Whether the temperature was 200F or 250F does it really matter for the suit?
Wasnt it designed to withstand 250º F? And so calculations can be made for the worst case scenario on the moon? Right?
Didnt the Astros do a deepspace walk?
Were they not exposed to the sun in space?
And anyway, where was he wrong about the temperature being able to go up to 243 degrees?




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.



Ok, so the water evaporates... How does the water get replenished?
They way you are making it sound is like the astronauts are loosing water.
And if they were evaporating water why didnt ice collect on the outside of the PLSS under that protective layer?

[edit on 6-7-2010 by FoosM]




posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 

You're right, the surface temperature does not matter to the suit. Why would Rene mention 243º if not to imply that was the temperature that the astronauts were exposed to?

The water isn't replenished. That's the point, it is released so that it can take the heat contained within it (the astronauts' body heat) with it. On Apollo 11, 12, and 14 the EVAs were limited to 4 hours and the PLSS carried 3.9 liters. For Apollo 15, 16, and 17 the capacity was increased to 5.2 liters because of the extended EVA times.

Ice did collect...for while. That's a neat thing about the way the system worked. When first released, the water would vaporize and cool the metal of the heat exchanger. When the evaporator got cold enough, the water would freeze and plug the tiny holes and no more water could escape. Because it was exposed to vacuum, ice would sublimate after a while, clearing the holes, and the water would once again be able to escape, continuing the whole process.

Rene did no research. He does not understand the system.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Talk about off topic!

I'll throw in out of touch, off base and out to lunch, as well....


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.



Please cite ANY instance of my "defending" Werner von Braun?? OR, anyone else....doing so.

What an incredible leap you just took...it's dazzling in its immensity.

But, this...this is most amazing too:


...but attack another who simply has other views on science and happens to disagree with you on a matter of history.


"attack"?
Who? YOU? Ralph??

Should be painfully obvious that all I brought were facts --- facts that showed Ralph Rene' to be completely clueless. Read his bio...the one HE apparently wrote (or at least approved) where it seems to 'revel' in the fact that he is ---- AHEM ---- 'self-taught'


He (Rene') and his "other views" on science show clearly show that he had not a wit of understanding. Pure naked hubris (and likely a bit of mental derangement) led him to claim otherwise.

As to "disagree"ing with a matter of history...huh? History isn't something you "disagree" with. It is when those attempt to re-write it, and get called out, that is what needs to be pointed to...and the Apollo Moon landing "hoax" clalims are all, to a claim, false. Demonstrably so.

Ever see the video of Rene's "demonstration" where he claims that the gloves wouldn't work in a vacuum?? (Forgetting, for a moment, that TODAY there are astronauts using gloves in a vacuum, during EVAs...that seems to be ignored by Rene').

If you can watch his "demonstration" and believe it, without seeing just WHY he is wrong, because of the mistakes in set-up he made...then I fear there is no hope.

How about his ridiculous "demo", using an electric leaf-blower, to "prove" there should have been a 'crater' under the LM's descent engine nozzle? Seen that one? Know WHY it's baloney?

I bet you didn't read the entire link I provided...this is, unfortunately, typical of those who defiantly cling to these half-baked ideas (like "Jarrah White"...and many others...) without full comprehension, of science and mechanical principles.



Its pathetic.


Indeed...it IS, when there are people who believe the crap put out by the likes of "JW" --- who is merely repeating what (to him seems new), but has been thoroughly trashed form amny years, by many knowledgable people.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


As Phage already pointed out, the temperature on the Moon's surface, as stated by Ralph Rene' is important to consider in context...both the context that Ralph Rene's used (incorrectly, and disingenuously) and just some everyday rational real-life experience, to sit and think about it.


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?



The way Ralph attempted to ridicule the Moon landings, and EVAs, was by using the maximum possible temperatures that could be expected. This is like saying that the maximum temperature on Earth is 136 degrees F (58C) [I found that was an actual recorded temp, at El Azizia, Libya in 1922] --- THEN claiming that being 'out' on the Earth's surface in , say...Sydney...would be equally as hot. At ten o'clock in the morning. After a VERY cold night.


You see, don't you, why Ralph Rene's claims are bogus? He exagerrates; and apparently in his world paradigm, it was all perfectly reasonable --- his skewed and poorly educated world view.

One more attempt --- Approximately fourteen Earth days' time elapses during the Lunar 'night'. With no sun to heat the surface, the warmth dissipates. Hence, the measurements posted about how COLD it gets during the hours of darkness, on the surface.

After that near fortnight of time, it is again Lunar 'dawn'...and the surface begins its heating up cycle once more. This is not instantaneous...compare to experience on Earth, with the desert environment. (Ignore for the moment the mitigating effects of our atmosphere..)

Not only are the maximum temperatures going to occur well AFTER the morning, they will continue to rise even after the Sun has passed the zenith in the "sky".

THIS IS WHY the Apollo landings...ALL of them...were planned to occur during the Moon's 'morning'. You can look that up.

Having a low angle of sunlight helped with shadows, and depth perception (especially with the alien landscapes) so, all things being equal (if temperature could be ignored) then landings might have been scheduled for the late 'afternoon'...except, after the full many days of continued sun exposure, it would have been a bit hotter. The ground, the rocks (those in direct sunlight), etc.

Additionally, there is the factor of proximity to (or distance from) the Moon's equator, and the angle of incidence of the Sun, as it strikes the globe of the Moon. There is a REASON it is colder at the poles.....



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 03:38 AM
link   
Forgive me buttin' in here, but I would just like to re-inforce the importance of two VERY important factors that are often ignored or not even considered by those with a limited grasp of science...

1. Temperature and HEAT are two very different things.

2. The Moon has no atmosphere - it's a VACUUM.

As earthlings, living on a planet with a thick, gaseous atmosphere, we have little or no concept of the difference between heat and temperature. We speak of 'temperature' - as in how 'hot' it is on a given day, by MEASURING THE ATMOSPHERE. It is that temperature of all the air around us that governs our comfort level, as it is conduction of heat that is the main factor in how hot or cold we feel. Radiant heat is a factor, but it is nowhere near as important to your comfort as is the temperature of the air - just ask any motorcyclist or mountaineer/explorer about wind chill...

And in regard to that radiant heat from the Sun, please remember it is exactly the same Sun beating down on the Moon. On earth, our atmosphere doesn't reduce the radiant heat that signficantly (it has more effect on UV and higher frequency radiation, but I'll be covering that later..). People are talking about it as if the Sun is a huge nearby ball of fire beating down upon the Moon... It's the same old Sun, same distance. This is Earth's Moon, not Mercury! So the solar heat radiation on the Moon is not that different to a bright sunny day here, except there is no air to get hot... Those temperatures sound scary, but OF COURSE the lunar surface will eventually get hot under the full overhead Sun - it does exactly the same thing here, but nobody seems to die from it. How hot do you think asphalt gets at midday in summer on Earth...?

On the Moon there is no atmosphere, so the only temperatures you can measure are of other THINGS like the surface dirt... A vacuum has NO temperature. It is neither hot nor cold - it is NOTHING. It is also an excellent insulator, as anyone with a vacuum flask knows.. - so things warm up and cool down VERY slowly. There is NO conduction or convection of heat!! - only radiation (in or out), and that is SLOW. And if you use reflective surfaces (guess why the suits were silver-white, the cameras silver, the LM covered in lots of reflective crumpled foil (the crumpling helps to reduce conduction)), the problem becomes almost insignificant.

The scientists and engineers who designed the equipment to be taken there understood this - it's a pity that others can't release themselves from earthly thinking... Things are different on the Moon - if they cannot think beyond their own limited experience then it's no wonder these deniers are getting out of their depth...


Oh, and the Sun never got higher than 49° during any Apollo eva. In earth-day terms, that means they were out of the Sun well before 10 am...


(Edited to try to clarify my ramblings a little..)


[edit on 7-7-2010 by CHRLZ]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 11:13 PM
link   
I have always believed the moon videos were faked. This does not mean that we didn't go there.

1. I believe we used a SECRET space program possibly with antigravity technology. The radiation from the Van Allen Belts would have little affect on the astronauts if they were using a spacecraft that could travel very fast.

2. Sgt. Karl Wolf claims to have seen photos of bases and structures on the moon.

3. Hundreds of NASA photos are doctored (smudges, false horizons, etc...) Watch videos from LunaCognita on youtube
Proof of image tampering --> www.youtube.com...

Why doctor legit photos if there is nothing to hide?



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Dear JFK: I watched a little of that video. No proof. Those images were taken from a website that had retouched them and weren't the originals. Also the whole question "where is the stars?" is stupid because of the exposure used to take those images. If you'd see stars then you'd know those were tampered.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 12:38 AM
link   
LOL Jarrah is winning the good fight. bless his soul.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 03:14 AM
link   
The question at hand here is whether or not
the PLSS was actually able to keep our astronauts alive
on the hostile environment of the moon.

Not if the moon gets as hot as 243 degrees or 250 degrees.
And so far, after posting Rene's calculations on the subject, I
dont see anybody really attempting to prove him wrong.

I dont want to hear that he is wrong, I want somebody to show us
he is wrong and how. Because people are making assumptions about
him and havent read his book.


The back pack is called a PLSS. This follows NASA's
strange compulsion to make abbreviations of everything. It stands for "Portable Life Support
System." A PLSS ready to use weighs 84 pounds on Earth, 14 pounds on the Moon, stands
26 inches high, 18 inches wide and 10 inches thick. 1 The pack has a total volume of only 2.7
cubic feet, but NASA claimed it provided total life support for four long hours. The back
pack holds an oxygen bottle, a carbon dioxide scrubber, a dehumidifier, a water bladder for
the cooling circuit, another bladder water to be ejected, a heat exchanger, a radio that
monitors bodily function, a communications radio with power enough to reach Houston, and
4 liters of water. To top that off, it also contains a battery large enough to power everything in that pack.


Ralph estimates that:

we must make enough ice to carry off 430,000
calories per hour. " In 4 hours that adds up to 1,720,000 calories.


So in the end they would need


This is 14.6 liters (of water), which equals .514 cubic feet. 14 That
would take up 1/4 of the PLSS's volume. 15 The weight of this is 32 pounds on Earth, which is or 38 % of the total claimed weight.


So Rene claims there was not enough water... or
Nathan Jones claims there (possibly) was not a large enough plate, or number of plates to cool the water fast enough:


They had backpacks which dissipated heat via the sublimation of ice from a porous plate located inside their backpack which, presumably, because it would have been in the shade and out of the sunlight would have been very cold. The trouble with this is that we now know that ice deposits have been found on the Moon's surface on the permanently shady side of some polar craters. So, water ice either "evaporates" away or it doesn't. Which is it? Actually if we study the phase diagram for water we discover that water does actually exist as both solid and vapour below it's freezing point. Not only that but that it (water ice) exerts a vapour pressure from its solid form (of which there are several) and it is this which carries away the heat load produced by the astronaut as he toils on the Lunar surface. Just like we lose heat by water evaporation from our bodies when we are hot the porous plate in the backpack dissipates heat generated by the astronaut which would make it unbearable inside the space suit otherwise.

The trouble with this is that the vapour pressure of solid ice decreases rapidly with temperature and below zero degrees Celsius it is a small fraction of what it is at room temperature. And at very low temperatures like -200F it is quite negligible. In basic terms what this means is that there is not enough water vapour emitted (sublimated) by the solid ice on the plate to cool the astronaut fast enough.

Not unless he has a porous plate with maybe 4 times or more the surface area of the human body. And that is at the melting point not -200F where something the size of a football field will be required. So, the temperature of the plate if it is a small one will have to rise significantly in order to increase vapour pressure as it inadequately tries to dissipate the heat generated by the astronauts metabolism and in a short time it will have melted all the ice on the plate. Thereafter huge coolant water losses ensue as the liquid water practically explodes out of the plate and into the vaccuum but the plate cannot cool down with this expansion because the astronaut is heating it to this point. Liquid coolant water loss ensues. How much and at what rate depends on the size and properties of the porous plate of course.

The astronauts backpack would have to have housed many porous plates in order to have provided sufficient vapour pressure in order to provide sufficient cooling of the astronaut but there is no mention of multiple plates just "a porous plate". Not only that but the backpack would have to have been continuously vented to prevent heat build up and "melt-down" but the backpacks appeared to be closed.

Postulating that they had a small aparture for water vapour to escape from would still cause heat build up in the interior of the backpack as the warm vapour touched the insides of the backpack. Any usefullness provided by insulating the insides of the backpack from solar radiation would have rapidly been lost and the temperature inside the backpack where the plates were would have risen untill it reached "melt-down" and liquid water loss ensued. The porous plates should have been located outside in free space and shaded from direct sunlight in order for the system to work correctly.


They both seem to agree upon some serious venting should have been occurring.

Even NASA is looking for a PLSS that requires no venting:
Space suit cooling apparatus


Current space suits remove the heat energy generated therein by sublimation. Sublimation occurs when a solid vaporizes without the intermediate formation of a liquid. Water from a separate storage tank is sublimated by exposing it to the vacuum of space. The water is exposed to the vacuum by means of a porous plate which forms part of a heat exchanger. The porous plate traps and freezes the water. The cooling medium, meanwhile, circulates through separate passages within the heat exchanger. The heat energy of the cooling medium sublimates the thin layer of ice producing a small cloud of water vapor. The heating load absorbed by the cooling medium is effectively rejected from the suit thereby. The resulting water vapor is vented to the environment.

While the sublimation process provides the amount of heat removal required, it has several drawbacks: the cost of hauling water into space is prohibitive; the water vapor may condense on mirrors or other sensitive instruments and degrade their performance; and, the water vapor may absorb infrared radiation.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 04:27 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Hey Foos,

Have you ever heard the theory that the plss packs were responsible for that flag waving scene? I wonder if the Apollo believers have pulled that one out yet....

*Hey, these things must have vented invisibly because I have never viewed and video or images where venting or evidence of can be seen. Have you?



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by FoosM
 


Hey Foos,

Have you ever heard the theory that the plss packs were responsible for that flag waving scene? I wonder if the Apollo believers have pulled that one out yet....

*Hey, these things must have vented invisibly because I have never viewed and video or images where venting or evidence of can be seen. Have you?




I have not seen any evidence of any venting from the PLSS.
Before reading about it, I assumed it wasnt necessary, that everything was
recirculated and reused. Like a rebreather.

The only venting I have scene is from astronauts is from the movie ALIEN when they enter the derelict ship. Looks like NASA was more advanced. LOL.


148:57:15 Scott: Yeah. We think it's pretty nice, too. (Long Pause)

[Dave crosses in front of the TV, headed for the LM.]
[Note the slight motion of the lower righthand corner of the flag after Dave passes. Journal Contributors have suggested a number of possible causes: (1) Dave could have brushed against the flag with his left arm as he went by; (2) he could have kicked some dirt with his boot that hit the bottom of the flag; (3) he could have pushed a mound of soil sideways with his boot that pushed against the flagstaff ; (4) the impact of his boots on the ground as he ran past could have shaken the flagstaff; (5) he might have been carrying a static charge which attracted the flag material; (6) the flag could have been disturbed by emissions from the backpack.]

[In thinking about these possibilities, numbers 5 and 6 are very unlikely, since there is no evidence of similar flag motions during the Apollo 14, 16, and 17 deployments for which we have good video or - in the case of Apollo 14 - film coverage. With regard to foot impacts, we can certainly see the ground move when flagstaffs and cores are hammered into the ground, but the motions extend only a few centimeters outward and, because the Apollo 14 flag points at the LRV TV camera, Dave problably doesn't get close enough to the flagstaff for his footfalls to have any noticeable effect. Similarly, it doesn't seem likely that he got close enough to the flagstaff to have moved it with a displaced mound of dirt.]

www.hq.nasa.gov...

Well NASA doesnt think it was the backpack





posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Ralph estimates that:
we must make enough ice to carry off 430,000
calories per hour. " In 4 hours that adds up to 1,720,000 calories.


What is that in cheeseburgers? Ralph seems to think that the astronauts were burning up 430.000 calories per hour. How many cheeseburgers did they have to eat to burn up 430.000 calories per hour?



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
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".


Isn't the angle of incidence the problem? The sun at a low angle would strike more of the surface area of the PLSS than at noon.

This means more of the internal parts would radiate heat throughout the internal structure, affecting the production of ice.

edit: it would also strike more surface area of the astronauts suits.

[edit on 8-7-2010 by ppk55]



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


More Ralph Rene' woo-hoo hokum??? Really, IF you're going to go that route, and rely on him (an individual who, by HIS OWN ADMISSION, HAD NO EDUCATION IN SCIENCE!!!)...good luck with that. Ermmmm....yeah, well....'luck'.

Let me repeat what was bolded above....he was 'proud' (?) of the fact that he was "self-taught"!!

(Makes me wonder whether Jarrah White is skipping school....because from what he spouts in HIS videos, it appears he is equally clueless).

But, back to the PLSS....you honestly, seriously are questioning whether or not they worked???

In case you don't see the ILLOGIC in that....the only way for your "opinion" to have a shred of validity is IF you also didn't believe that astronauts have, since the 1970s onward, been conducting EVAs in low earth orbit too.

And, despite your colorful turn of phrase, (
sad, so sad....Run, run away from the hyperbole!!!) the environment on orbit is NO LESS harsh than on the Moon's surface!!!

A vacuum is a vacuum....dangerous to unprotected human bodies.

FoosM, why are continuing with this?

Does it amuse you? Getting some perverted 'kicks' from playing these games? Because, ( although you seem to have a "fan" --- 'dragnet51'
), everyone else just LAUGHS at you. YOU!

Whatever "kicks" you think you're enjoying, it has only the effect of making YOU look bad.

~
If, on the otherhand, you actually believe the ridiculous crap put out by Ralph Rene', and "Jarrah White", et al...IF you exist in such a delusional state of mind that it is your world view paradigm....then, I just feel very, very sorry for you.

It is never proper to make fun of a person for having mental illnesses...or learning disabilities. Only to have compassion, and to hope they can eventually be rehabilitated in some way, so as to be able to function in normal society in some way.....


[edit on 8 July 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
everyone else just LAUGHS at you. YOU!
Whatever "kicks" you think you're enjoying, it has only the effect of making YOU look bad.


When the personal attacks start, that's a worry.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


Tell us....this will be similar to the message for FoosM...if the SUN is such a problem, then how do Astronauts routinely conduct EVAS on orbit, whether working outside the Shuttle, or the ISS?

Constant sunlight for 90 minutes, minimum, on orbit.

And, they have NO problems with overheating of their suits, NOR their PLSSs.

You guys, so focused on "Apollo", nit-picking attempts galore (and ALL failures)....have lost all sense of perspective. Stunning. :shk:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Edit for your personal attack:

THAT was a suggestion and observation. A 'personal attack' isn't made by merely mentioning that he is being laughed at....making fun of his walk, or style of dress...THAT would be a personal attack.

(Oh...can't see him...well, making fun of spelling and grammar, that ALSO would be 'personal'. Pointing out the humor in vapid, clueless posts isn't an 'attack'. Just a fact).

It's important to note that hundreds of posts have been devoted, so far, to a sort of FREE education in the sciences and concepts and history and FACTS of Apollo, here on this thread. FREE.

When certain individuals REFUSE to understand (or at least appear not to) then there is a point of ridiculousness, and there SHOULD be a consequence imposed, eventually, by those in the wrong. A little ridicule is warranted, by this stage...IF (as some suspect) it is a 'game' being waged --- the "playing dumb" game.

IF, on the otherhand, there is a real mental issue at work??? Well, who can judge from an online forum, behind a computer screen?



[edit on 8 July 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


The real question is at what temperature did he work his calculations at NO DOUBT it will be 243-250 f which the astronauts were never out in.

For all the Moon HOAX believers here some videos for you to watch.
Many more on this guys youtube site to make you lot think!

Jump Height Calc
www.youtube.com...

Apollo 15 Flag Waving
www.youtube.com...

Perspective info
www.youtube.com...



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
The real question is at what temperature did he work his calculations at NO DOUBT it will be 243-250 f which the astronauts were never out in.


In my reply to Phages' post above, wouldn't the low angle sun they were exposed to actually pose more of a heating problem, as it would strike more of the astronauts suit, and their PLSS ?

How a layer of ice designed to cool them was maintained for hours upon hours in these conditions is interesting.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


If you would read the response from Phage again, it will answer your question. Seems you missed the importance of it, first time, so here is the gist, again:


Originally posted by Phage
Ice did collect...for while. That's a neat thing about the way the system worked. When first released, the water would vaporize and cool the metal of the heat exchanger. When the evaporator got cold enough, the water would freeze and plug the tiny holes and no more water could escape. Because it was exposed to vacuum, ice would sublimate after a while, clearing the holes, and the water would once again be able to escape, continuing the whole process.


There was no need for a "constant layer of ice"... not then, and not today either.

A longer session of classroom study and learning might be required before full comprehension is achieved. This will be outside the purview of an Internet forum post, however.

Perhaps an online University??



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


May I suggest you go back to here and have a good read

www.abovetopsecret.com...

OH and by the way NO answer to my question yet are you just avoiding it!



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 129  130  131    133  134  135 >>

log in

join