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: 133
377
<< 130  131  132    134  135  136 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 

Yes. It would be nice to not have to haul that extra water. But it does work.
Quoting this doesn't seem to help your case much.

While the sublimation process provides the amount of heat removal required, it has several drawbacks:


The Apollo PLSS cooling system was more than adequate for the job. The system in use today is more than adequate for the job.




posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   
MAN TO THE MOON

Issue: Aug, 1964
Source: Popular Science


three men lie breathing quick in concentration as earth and rocket begin to cast off lines. In the last second a hundred switches clatter, fires are kindled, valves open, flames belch and cough smokily. Long, slow vibrations run upward through the rocket to jostle the crew, then begin smoothing away as the launch pad’s hold-down clamps fall. The Saturn poises, struggling against earth’s gravity and an atmosphere clinging like glue to its sides. It rises in a thunderous stroke to stage-one burnout at 150 seconds and 36 miles. …

The million-pound thrust of the second stage cuts in to spiral the astronauts outward toward their parking orbit, where the third stage burns briefly, circularizing their elliptical path.

For an hour and a half the craft drifts around its orbit. The computer muses on radar data coming up from earth and resets verity into the inertial-guidance system, whose delicate sense of direction has been a little addled by the stresses of the last few minutes. Finally, while the craft passes over that side of earth most distant from the moon, the third stage fires once more. Their radiation counters crackle warningly as they soar into the inner Van Allen belt, then diminish. They have 30 minutes between the belts to tend to the LEM, to fit it tip-to-tip to the Apollo capsule.


Note: this is very important for when anybody starts talking about the length of stay in the VA belts. They TLI happened at the backside of the Earth, it wasnt like they zipped straight out of their orbit to the moon. Their orbit expanded!

Never heard that before... they have 30 minutes between the Belts to tend to the LEM, what does that mean, and why cant they tend to the LEM while they are passing through the belts! Astonishing information.



LANDING ON THE MOON Faint, steady noises accompany them: the whir of gyros, a tiny hum of inverters converting fuel-cell electricity into alternating current, a hiss of air in the pilot’s spacesuit. Periodically, a pump whines, a valve or relay clucks to itself, a control jet moans. Every few minutes, earth breaks in on the loudspeaker with a message, a query, or a time check but already earth is only a mildly interesting “they” and the astronauts are “we.”

They cross past the moon’s dark western limb and brake into an orbit girdling the lunar equator. After long minutes of drifting through the darkness beside the moon, cut off from contact with the earth, the spacemen come in sight of the sun again, and shortly cross the terminator the moon’s sunrise line. The commander and systems manager don their pressure suits and pull themselves into the bug the LENT ( Lunar Excursion Module)for good. Finally, in the eightieth hour of their voyage, another countdown begins during which they open the latches on the docking attachment that has clamped the two capsules together. A brief squirt from the bug’s thrusters and the two craft drift apart.

The bug tumbles over to point its engines forward along their flight path. The mains roar terrifyingly for 400 seconds, killing their orbital speed and allowing the moon’s gravity to take hold and start them downward. The craft slows rapidly to a near halt. As they tilt downward, they reduce the thrust until the rocket is roaring gently, and they are sliding along 200 feet above the moon.

Their descent is made as quickly as possible and with a slight forward movement to keep them clear of the dust that begins to fountain up far below from the invisible bite of their rocket’s blast. Moving along, they write the signature of their path with an increasingly denser rooster tail of dust,


Has anybody ever seen that in photos or videos?


until, abruptly, some 15 feet above the moon’s surface, they cut their engines and plop into the enveloping dust of the Oceanus Procellarum.


Apollo 11 sure didnt do that, so why wasnt it buried in crater?



THE RETURN FLIGHT The returning explorer sticks his head in through the bug’s snoutlike front hatch. He places the last labeled bag of geological samples and the photographic film on the cockpit floor and finishes hoisting himself in.

The crew grinds through its last cheek-out. Now, exactly on schedule, the whine of the mother ships radio beacon comes up over the low hills to the east. As the bug climbs within three degrees of the zenith, its takeoff rocket blasts ostentatiously as it parcels out precious velocity toward careful ends. The lunar scene disappears behind a curtain of dust and fire, and the bobtailed remnant of the bug rises off its spider-legged pedestal pedestal whose descendants could become as commonplace on celestial bodies touched by man as his 55-gallon drums have become in all the distant corners of the earth. Whirring downward from the moon, systems ticking through the 80 hours of cislunar space, Apollo winds out the final movements of the clockwork that was set in motion the instant it left earth a week before.


An amazing feat, to leave the lunar influence of gravity and dock time and time again successfully with a CM that was traveling how fast?


The plan is for the craft to enter the atmosphere 400,000 feet above the Pacific, skidding on its bottom, to plunge in and briefly sample the maximum of 10 Gs and 500 degrees permitted, then to skip out to the cool of space and weightlessness before making the final plunge. In the course of that plunge, Apollo’s skin will be seared, charred, and melted, and it will emerge looking like a burned popover.

Hopefully, at the right moment the slowed and sizzling capsule will tumble into the skies over the United States. At somewhere around 15,000 feet, like a whipped-cream topping, first a stabilizing drogue chute; and then the three main, slow-opening parachutes will bloom. Billowing parachutes are the happiest sight of all in the astronaut trade.


So ends the greatest show on Earth



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by FoosM
 

Yes. It would be nice to not have to haul that extra water. But it does work.
Quoting this doesn't seem to help your case much.

While the sublimation process provides the amount of heat removal required, it has several drawbacks:


The Apollo PLSS cooling system was more than adequate for the job. The system in use today is more than adequate for the job.


Of course NASA is going to claim it worked good enough. I wouldnt expect otherwise, so the statement is meaningless, prove it was adequate for the job. Did NASA leave enough schematics of the PLSS for people to make their own conclusions?



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 

Did you look for them? Did Rene?



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Eh, the article you quoted from was written in 1964, a few years BEFORE Apollo 11... It is basically just a work of fiction, speculating what the first trip to the Moon will be like. It's not excactly a scientific report...

And since you didn't provide a link to your source, I will do it for you:
blog.modernmechanix.com...



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
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?


Is that what you really think he meant?

A constant, called Stefan's constant, is also necessary to produce numerically correct
answers. The Stefan-Bolzmann formula produces numerical answers in watts. It can con-
verted to calories, a heat unit we're more familiar with, by multiplying the watts by 860.
The Sun's surface temperature is estimated at 6000° K. 4 The radiant energy at this
extremely high temperature is truly awesome. By using Stefan-Bolzmann's law we find that
73,487,090 watts per-square-meter is transmitted into space. After it has traveled 93 million
miles to the Earth, this figure has been reduced to an average of 1353 watts per square meter



wiki

The calorie is a pre-SI metric unit of energy based on the specific heat capacity of water. Definitions vary according to the mass of water used and the precise thermodynamic conditions considered.

The gram calorie, defined as the amount of energy required to heat one gram of water by one degree Celsius, is approximately 4.2 joules. The kilogram calorie, based on the kilogram, is equal to one thousand gram calories. A hybrid metric-avoirdupois pound calorie has also been used.

The unit was first defined by Nicolas Clément in 1824 as a unit of heat.


Im telling you, people criticize him but I doubt any of them actually read his book fully.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Once again. Rene thinks the cooling is accomplished by the freezing of water. He also thinks the sunlight was striking the astronauts at 90º, all the time. He also thinks the heat absorbed penetrates the insulated suits. He is wrong. Just wrong.


[edit on 7/8/2010 by Phage]



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ziggystar60
reply to post by FoosM
 


Eh, the article you quoted from was written in 1964, a few years BEFORE Apollo 11... It is basically just a work of fiction, speculating what the first trip to the Moon will be like. It's not excactly a scientific report...

And since you didn't provide a link to your source, I will do it for you:
blog.modernmechanix.com...



Why thank you but what was the point of linking to the source when I basically included 99% of the article? Was there something left out that was pertinent?

And thank you for pointing out the obvious that it was written in 1964 when I already had stated that. I think most readers figured out what kind of article it was. Regardless, it is based on NASA info, it pretty much describes exactly what happened.
And what should have happened.

We are investigating the reality of Apollo, in order to do that you have research what has happened before, during and after Apollo.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by FoosM
 


Once again. Rene thinks the cooling is accomplished by the freezing of water. He also thinks the sunlight was striking the astronauts at 90º, all the time. He also thinks the heat absorbed penetrates the insulated suits. He is wrong. Just wrong.


[edit on 7/8/2010 by Phage]


Once again prove Ralph wrong.
You are only proving that you havent read or understood his material on the subject.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55

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.




Yes of course it would.
Maybe we should focus on stating surface temperature of the Astronauts and LM vs saying surface temperature of the moon. Ive been trying to point this out constantly but people keep posting info that we already know about thinking that is somehow going to solve the problem. Its like if were investigating a possible crime scene of a drowned person and the only statements offered to the investigation by the local cops is "water is wet"



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Why thank you but what was the point of linking to the source when I basically included 99% of the article? Was there something left out that was pertinent?


You are most welcome, it took me just a few seconds to link to your source and do your job for you.

Anyway, the article itself was not really pertinent at all, since it IS a work of fiction. Doesn't matter if it is based on information from NASA, it is still fiction, speculating about a future event, it is NOT a scientific report. And no, nothing was left out that was "pertinent" in what you quoted. But there was no way of knowing any of that for sure without checking your source, was there?

This is not difficult to understand: When you post something, ALWAYS link to your sources so people can check for yourself that you haven't taken things completely out of context or even made up things yourself. It is called showing intellectual honesty in a discussion.

Best of luck to you in learning the habit of always linking to your sources! A little practice will do the trick, I'm sure.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 

I did prove Rene wrong. But, of course, you ignored it. He lies about the conditions the astronauts were exposed to. He makes false assumptions in his calculations. He does not understand how the cooling system of the PLSS operates. He never did any research on how the suit operates.

He says:

The Sun drives the temperature of the Moon's surface up to 243° F. and it would do the same to an astronaut.

False. The astronauts were not at the hottest locations of the Moon. The astronauts were not on the surface at lunar noon. The Sun would not heat the astronauts to 243º.

He assumes that the astronauts were standing stock still and that the solar radiation was striking them with an angle of 90º. False. The astronauts were moving, exposing different parts of their suits to different angles of incidence and varying amounts of exposure to sunlight.

He says that the insulation of the suit does not prevent the heat from penetrating to the astronaut. How rediculous. If that were the case, why insulate the suit at all? He talks about putting your hand (in an oven mitt) into an oven to demonstrate. The surface of the Moon is not an oven. Once again, he is either displaying his stupidity or intentionally using misdirection. In an oven the mitt is surrounded by hot air, it is not being heated by radiation. A better example would be, instead of putting your hand in an oven, use two hands (with mitts) and pick up a hot pan. Transfer that pan from hand to hand. You can do that until the pan cools down and your hand won't get hot. On the surface of the Moon, while exposed to sunlight, portions of the outside of the suit would gradually heat up. But as soon as the astronaut changed position and that portion was shadowed by other parts of his body, the surface of the suit would immediately begin to cool down. The astronauts' bodies were not exposed to 243º temperatures inside their suits. Nor did all of the heat absorbed by the surface of their suits penetrate to their bodies.

He only considers the heat transfer involved with turning ice into liquid water, he ignores the phase change to water vapor. He seems to believe that the ice melts and the water just sits there at 32º and that's the end of it. As I said before, the vaporized water takes all (well, very nearly) of the heat contained in it away. So how much heat is that? Well let's look at the heat capacity of ice. It takes .5 calories to heat 1 gram of ice one degree C. Water freezes at 0ºC, which is 273º above absolute zero so that 1 gram of ice (at 0º) contains 136 calories. We add the 188 calories given up to freezing the liquid water and we get 254 calories. So, even if his figure of 1,720,000 calories were correct (it isn't). The amount of water required to carry it all away would be 6771 grams, less than half of what he calculated. For example, on Apollo 14 Shepard used 1,950 grams on EVA 1 which lasted 4:47.
history.nasa.gov...

[edit on 7/8/2010 by Phage]



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Further, upon reading (from the FoosM misdirections/misunderstandings --- likely instigated and germinated from the idiocy that Ralph Rene' spouted, over and over...) and to expand on what Phage so properly pointed out....

...what was missing, continually, in this "243 degrees F" claim by Ralph Rene' is that is what the SURFACE temp might eventually reach after the FULL 14 DAYS of exposure to the sunlight that comprise one "lunar day".

That is ~336 hours.

Compare to the TOTAL time of exposure for the Astronauts, for each EVA they made.

Not only were they, as pointed out, constantly in motion, wearing garments specifically designed to be reflective and insulative as possible, they were NOT out and exposed for the vast length of time required for the full effects of radiant heating to reach full force....

,,,in a VACUUM!!! This is critical to the understanding (such as it is) of these concepts....



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ziggystar60


Anyway, the article itself was not really pertinent at all, since it IS a work of fiction. Doesn't matter if it is based on information from NASA, it is still fiction, speculating about a future event, it is NOT a scientific report. And no, nothing was left out that was "pertinent" in what you quoted. But there was no way of knowing any of that for sure without checking your source, was there?



Ahhh so when NASA made plans, drawings, made predictions and speculations about what would happen going to to the moon they were all just making a work of fiction? It wasn't scientific, just fantasy? So going to the moon was actually based on fiction and fantasy.

Well l agree, Apollo was fiction and fantasy.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
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.


Tragic.

ppk, before leaping in and posting the first things that pop into your head, perhaps it might pay to learn a little about the topic, and also...
.. just *think*.

I'll offer a couple of tiny hints here, because if you kept getting spoonfed, you will NEVER improve.

1. Were the astronauts stationary? Did they ever turn around, perhaps? How does that affect your assertion?

2. Do you actually understand how the angle of incidence *spreads* the light/heat over an area? Now, were all surfaces of the PLSS facing the sun at 90°? Refer back to Q.1.


THIS is the reason that people get fed up with the simplistic, uneducated rubbish being presented here. Rene's 'analysis' of thermodynamics in his feeble attempt to prove the PLSS was inadequate is completely HOPELESS. It assumes that the only factors are the astronaut's calorie output (which is ridiculously exaggerated), and then he makes up figures (where are the equations????) that seem to suggest that the only cooling factor is the 'production of ice' from the PLSS system. But how efficient is that system, really, in a vacuum? How large is the radiator, and what additional cooling effect does that area have on the contained water? Where is the sun loading on the suit, the radiative cooling on the shadow side, taken into account? The insulative effects of the suit materials? The start temperature of those materials? The ACTUAL full thermodynamic analysis of the PLSS system, taking ALL issues into account?

To cover this properly would take MANY pages. The criticism now will be "well, why don't you do that, and answer the claims and post the real anlaysis?", as if it is up to US to tear these stupid claims down piece by piece.

But it is up the claimant, and if the claimant is shown not to have even thought about the most basic considerations ad refuses to show their calculations and equations - game over. It's the modus operandi of the deniers, post simplistic RUBBISH and claim it proves something... because they know if you throw enough ^&^& around, the casual reader may be taken in. It's all part of the game.

But most importantly, these blatantly obvious errors and omissions, along with the tragic lack of even the most basic application of logic or thought, shows just how little of these topics are understood by the purveyors, let alone the believers of these moronic claims.

Deniers, there is a REASON why you aren't working in the sciences, and instead sit there hammering away on your keyboards pretending to be investigative heroes. And that reason is reinforced with every haphazard, thoughtless, uninformed post like the ones above.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Foosm :shk: I leave for a few days and your at it again.

When have you been right yet about Apollo?? Now your trying to use Ralph Rene to support your stance?

Like the Jarrah White video's were nothing of spamming ATS over an over again. Most individuals would see defeat, yet you continue to burn in flames.

Such shame.

This time, research before you post.

Then come back and state something useful and worthy.

Reading is apart of this ATS thing.


edit to Add:

FoosM do you know what a calorie is without looking it up on Wikipedia?

I have a bet, you don't!




[edit on 8-7-2010 by theability]



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 

Damn. I knew I overlooked something. My figures are wrong. I was sloppy.

Phase changes, be it from ice to water, or water to vapor, or ice to vapor requires additional heat, more than is required to simply raise the temperature of water remaining in a single phase. I didn't know the value of the latent heat of vaporization and mistakenly assumed it was at least similar to that of freezing (80 cal/gram). It isn't.

Some of the water released by the PLSS instantly vaporizes. Depending on its temperature it takes between 597 calories (at 0ºC) and 540 calories (at 100º) per gram to vaporize water. At the "minimum" setting on the PLSS the water would be at about 80ºF so it would consume about 560 calories per gram. Now, these figures are for an atmospheric pressure of 1 bar. At lower pressures more heat is consumed, the lowest reference I could find is for .02 bar and is 588 calories (at 100º).

The water that did not vaporize became frozen on the surface of the sublimator. The heat absorbed by this process of freezing and subsequent sublimation is greater. It requires the 80 calories to required to freeze it, plus the 560 calories required to evaporate it, for a total of 640 calories per gram.

I undershot...big time. So, using Rene's silly figure of 1,720,000 calories, less than 3,000 grams would be required. The suits had plenty of reserve capacity.

www.engineeringtoolbox.com...
daphne.palomar.edu...


[edit on 7/8/2010 by Phage]



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by ziggystar60


Anyway, the article itself was not really pertinent at all, since it IS a work of fiction. Doesn't matter if it is based on information from NASA, it is still fiction, speculating about a future event, it is NOT a scientific report. And no, nothing was left out that was "pertinent" in what you quoted. But there was no way of knowing any of that for sure without checking your source, was there?



Ahhh so when NASA made plans, drawings, made predictions and speculations about what would happen going to to the moon they were all just making a work of fiction? It wasn't scientific, just fantasy? So going to the moon was actually based on fiction and fantasy.

Well l agree, Apollo was fiction and fantasy.





You just can't resist a cheap shot, can you? The article you quoted was not written by anyone at NASA. It was written by a reporter who probably mostly reviewed automobiles. He laced his account, which was based on preliminary plans from NASA with purple passages about thundering rockets and so forth. It owes as much to the writer's ill informed imagination as it does to NASA. It does undercut the Moon Hoaxer camp, however. It lists all the expectations that lay people had about space exploration. Deadly radiation, roaring rocket flames in space, billowing dust... if Apollo were faked, all of these special effects would have been included, wouldn't they? Give the people what they want is the first rule of confidence tricksters.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 02:04 AM
link   
Didn't find these videos as enlightening as I had hoped. I felt the Disclosure Project witness videos shed more light on the moon landing.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ
THIS is the reason that people get fed up with the simplistic, uneducated rubbish being presented here.


Whilst everyone is getting a bit edgy and sharp on this topic ... I can feel CHRLZ's pain here for sure.

A basic flow chart:

Moon Hoax Theory made from random observation ------> A4 post refuting/questioning said observation --------------> half paragraph referring to some small detail or part of A4 post that was missing/not in leather bound text book detail -------------> A4 post re-explaining -------------> random joke remark about unicorns -----------------> A4 post of information from third party hoax believer copied and pasted with commentary (no real research and complete subject change)

I think the only way forward for a thread such as this is to compile each theory one by one with for and against information. Perhaps then with suggestions of what research and information still needs to be provided for both sides of the argument. Then this topic may get somewhere though its highly likely to remain a never ending side show.


This will require a tonne of work by the hoaxers though. I know this is going to be dismissed as common sense, but its not enough to say, "hey, horses don't exist, now prove me wrong! LOL WoW those farmers are so stupid! Western movies are just guys crawling around in suits! It isn't possible for an animal to digest food with a long body like that! Prove it!"

Even to prove something as silly as that wrong requires a whole tonne of writing, diagrams, possibly films, and a small autopsy done by an independent body. (This is assuming horses aren't immediately accessible to all just like the moon)

Really a 'hoax point' has to be chosen and stuck to, well researched and presented, with maths and proper expert sources consulted then discussed by both sides and the results cataloged for review to get everyone 'closer to the truth'. Bit like a political debate.

Unfortunately it all sounds a bit like writing a 200, 000 text word book and, though I'm incredibly surprised (impressed also!) at people's tenacity with the subject, I don't think this will ever happen. I'm sure if someone volunteered to host such a debate with proper rules ATS wouldn't have a problem? I don't know, I'm new.

I find the topic interesting, but in its current form its just too big, messy and unreadable to digest.

I fear if there ever was a hoax it's lost amongst people point out anything that has a 0.001% chance of being evidence.


[edit on 9-7-2010 by Pinke]



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 130  131  132    134  135  136 >>

log in

join