It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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: 134
377
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 01:57 PM

Originally posted 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]

Ok, good you are making an attempt to show Rene's faults.
You have demonstrated that you know how much calories are required to
evaporate water.

But I find the rest of your analysis a bit lacking.
What Im missing is the amount of heat generated by the astronaut, the equipment, including any additional effects of the Sun. In other words, how hot did it get in the suit and the PLSS? Then a calculation of the the water required to maintain a sustainable environment in the suit and PLSS.

[edit on 9-7-2010 by FoosM]

posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 02:40 PM

No. It is not missing. I provided that information.

For example, on Apollo 14 Shepard used 1,950 grams on EVA 1 which lasted 4:47.
If you had bothered to check the link I provided, you would have also learned this:

Based on metabolic determination from oxygen consumption, feedwater usage and thermal balance, the CDR worked at an average rate of 750 BTU/hr while the LMP worked at 900 btu/hr during this EVA.

history.nasa.gov...

From the above source:

Both crewmen maintained a comfortable temperature and only the LMP had to change diverter valve positions.

The CDR keep his suit at minimum cooling (water temperature, 75º to 80º). That tells me the temperature inside the suit would have been close to 80º. The LMP, because he was producing more heat, kicked it up a notch to the intermediate setting for a while, at which setting the water temperature was between 60º and 65º.

See what a little research can accomplish, rather than just making claims based on ignorance and faulty assumptions?

[edit on 7/9/2010 by Phage]

posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 05:39 PM

Foosm you have shown without doubt that you cannot read anything posted! Do you try to act like such a fool?

WELL?

You use Jarrah Whiteas a source. His videos have been totally dismantled.

You then use Ralph Rene, which is possible even worse than your LAST SOURCE.

Yet you say this:

But I find the rest of your analysis a bit lacking.

You have never done any analysis of YOUR OWN ON THIS ENTIRE THREAD!

But now you say that someone else material is lacking?

You have to stop this IGNORANCE!! This is beginning to be a crime seriously you cannot even supply your own thoughts to the thread.

My my :shk: Very sad indeed!

How can you even talk about Apollo Missions to the Moon when you never read anything about the missions?

[edit on 9-7-2010 by theability]

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 01:02 AM

Originally posted by CHRLZ

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.

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

It actually doesn't matter what the alleged astronauts were doing. Either way, more surface area of their suit or PLSS would be struck by the sun at a low angle than at 'noon', thereby increasing the temperature.

So the whole theory of 'oh, but they were never out in the hot 'noon' conditions' does not apply.

edit: it's actually the reverse.

[edit on 10-7-2010 by ppk55]

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 01:10 AM

Originally posted by ppk55

Originally posted by CHRLZ

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.

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

It actually doesn't matter what the alleged astronauts were doing. Either way, more surface area of their suit or PLSS would be struck by the sun at a low angle than at 'noon', thereby increasing the temperature.

So the whole theory of 'oh, but they were never out in the hot 'noon' conditions' does not apply.

What I wouldn't give to live in your world....

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 03:50 AM

Originally posted by Phage

No. It is not missing. I provided that information.

For example, on Apollo 14 Shepard used 1,950 grams on EVA 1 which lasted 4:47.
If you had bothered to check the link I provided, you would have also learned this:

Based on metabolic determination from oxygen consumption, feedwater usage and thermal balance, the CDR worked at an average rate of 750 BTU/hr while the LMP worked at 900 btu/hr during this EVA.

history.nasa.gov...

From the above source:

Both crewmen maintained a comfortable temperature and only the LMP had to change diverter valve positions.

The CDR keep his suit at minimum cooling (water temperature, 75º to 80º). That tells me the temperature inside the suit would have been close to 80º. The LMP, because he was producing more heat, kicked it up a notch to the intermediate setting for a while, at which setting the water temperature was between 60º and 65º.

See what a little research can accomplish, rather than just making claims based on ignorance and faulty assumptions?

[edit on 7/9/2010 by Phage]

Oh come on, its not about repeating NASA info, its about doing it yourself.
Look what you posted:

Based on metabolic determination from oxygen consumption, feedwater usage and thermal balance, the CDR worked at an average rate of 750 BTU/hr...

Thats not exploring the facts.
You cant say, 'well because they say it worked it must have worked.'
No, we are investigating whether or not fraud has been committed.

750 BTU/hr is considered light work.
I know in 1/6 gravity it doesnt take much to move around,
but it does take a lot of physical exertion to move around in pressurized suit.

So do the numbers make sense?

Without the Earth's atmosphere to filter the sunlight, the side of the suit facing the Sun may be heated to a temperature as high as 120 degrees C; the other side, exposed to darkness of deep space, may get as cold as -160 degrees C. Paradoxically, the suit's life support system has to remove the heat and moisture generated by the sweaty working astronaut. This is usually accomplished by circulating cool water through an undergarment worn next to the astronaut's skin. Heat overload of space suits caused several crises on the first space walks in the Voskhod and Gemini programs.

www.astronautix.com...

[edit on 10-7-2010 by FoosM]

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 04:14 AM

Are you kidding? You've got a lot of gall. Tell you what, why don't you try to do what Rene did. You prove that the suits were insufficient to keep the astronauts alive. Only instead of doing what Rene did, you use real numbers and real physics.

I demonstrated that Rene's claims, assumptions, and calculations are wrong. I demonstrated that even if his claims of the amount of heat which had to be removed were correct (they are not, since he believes that insulation is useless and the albedo of a white spacesuit is closer to 1 than .8), the PLSS carried enough water to handle the job.

[edit on 7/10/2010 by Phage]

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 04:19 AM

My question though, to those who feel the moon landing was somehow hoaxed, is rather straight forward: How?

How can something watched by millions of people, including intelligence agencies - rival intelligence agencies, who would like NOTHING more than to show this as a sham, be faked, and not be debunked? We are talking about the real world now, not the NWO Illumanti Reptillian Neo-Templars with their mind wipe-ray superpowers. We are talking about a government who can barely keep a hotel break-in and a sex scandal under wraps for more then a few days, perpetrating the largest hoax the world has ever seen, under the noses of everybody: Scientists, intelligence agencies, world governments, journalists - everybody.

How can this occur? Unless you are all suggesting that the entire world, even those who wanted nothing more than to destroy the US in the space race, were complacent with this lie.

Occams razor should apply in this situation. Is it more reasonable that the entire globe was in on the most massive hoax in US history and had not a SINGLE notable leak? Or that we managed to do something incredibly dangerous and stupid?

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 04:35 AM

Originally posted by Phage

Are you kidding? You've got a lot of gall.

You know what phage .. you have 'a lot of gall.' Considering what you posted above is wrong.

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".

More surface area of their suit or PLSS would be struck by the sun at a low angle than at 'noon', thereby increasing the temperature.

So the whole theory of 'oh, but they were never out in the hot 'noon' conditions' does not apply.

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 04:48 AM

Wrong? What's wrong with that statement? Which mission occurred at lunar noon...at the equator?

Or are you saying that the astronauts were exposed to sunlight at 90º (which Rene's calculations assume...he ignored the angle of incidence)? Wouldn't that mean that the Sun was at the horizon? Are you saying that a fixed area of their space suits was exposed to that sunlight long enough to transfer that heat through the insulation to the astronaut?

But maybe you didn't notice that even if that were true, assuming that Rene's calculations of the amount of heat required to be removed were correct (they aren't), since he ignored the heat of vaporization his conclusion is incorrect. There was enough water to remove even his inflated amount of heat. But maybe I made a mistake (even the second time through it). Why don't you tell me where.

[edit on 7/10/2010 by Phage]

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 10:24 AM

Originally posted by ppk55
It actually doesn't matter what the alleged astronauts were doing.

That statement is sheer and utter ignorance, and it alone destroys your entire argument.

Tell me, ppk55, how much time did the astronauts spend with their backs to the sun? How much time facing it? How much time in the LM shadow?

Then, tell us what was the ratio of the thermal radiation out of the suit/plss when it was facing away, versus the thermal radiation into the suit when it was facing towards the Sun?

Can you, with a straight face, tell us that stuff isn't important?

How could someone be so ill-informed,and so ignorant of applying even basic logic as you are, unless deliberately trying to mislead? I find it absolutely ASTONISHING that someone could seriously suggest such rubbish, and not even consider the basic requirements for properly conducting a heat load analysis using *real* thermodynamic principles, applied sensibly.

You are so far out of your depth, I think only FoosM and Jarrah White could possibly be worse...... You know, Jarrah White, from Sydney Australia.....

More timewasting garbage.

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 10:36 AM

Originally posted by WolfofWar

My question though, to those who feel the moon landing was somehow hoaxed, is rather straight forward: How?

How can something watched by millions of people, including intelligence agencies - rival intelligence agencies, who would like NOTHING more than to show this as a sham, be faked, and not be debunked? We are talking about the real world now, not the NWO Illumanti Reptillian Neo-Templars with their mind wipe-ray superpowers. We are talking about a government who can barely keep a hotel break-in and a sex scandal under wraps for more then a few days, perpetrating the largest hoax the world has ever seen, under the noses of everybody: Scientists, intelligence agencies, world governments, journalists - everybody.

How can this occur? Unless you are all suggesting that the entire world, even those who wanted nothing more than to destroy the US in the space race, were complacent with this lie.

Occams razor should apply in this situation. Is it more reasonable that the entire globe was in on the most massive hoax in US history and had not a SINGLE notable leak? Or that we managed to do something incredibly dangerous and stupid?

Nice post, WoW. The only bit I disagree with is the 'incredibly' and the 'stupid'. Dangerous, yes, to an extent. But the risks were pretty well known and managed, and you need to remember that this was the 60's. Things were different then - test pilots were expendable! I'm serious - there was a palpable sense that 'hey the first go might fail, but we'll learn enough to get it right on try 2 or 3...' And maybe it looks stupid now, but I can vouch that back in the 60's, at least here in Australia as we watched on, nobody was saying it was stupid.

And may I congratulate you on having the intestinal fortitude to admit you may not know enough to argue the science/tech/engineering/photography aspects. That is refreshing honesty, and a few folk here should learn from it.

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 11:35 AM

Foosm Again you have proven your ignorance!!!

750 BTU/hr is considered light work.
I know in 1/6 gravity it doesn't take much to move around,
but it does take a lot of physical exertion to move around in pressurized suit.

Man you have no idea what you are saying at anytime!

Shouldn't you have said: "It does take a lot to move around in a pressurized suit, that is in once sixth gravity!"

[edit on 10-7-2010 by theability]

[edit on 10-7-2010 by theability]

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 11:37 AM

More surface area of their suit or PLSS would be struck by the sun at a low angle than at 'noon', thereby increasing the temperature.

So the whole theory of 'oh, but they were never out in the hot 'noon' conditions' does not apply.

Could you please share with the rest of us:

How a LOW sun angle is Hotter and has more exposure than a HIGH sun angle?

I would really like to see your position on this, PLUS LOGIC ALSO!

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 11:47 AM

A bit of clarity....

It does take a lot to move around in a pressurized suit, that is in once sixth gravity!

In the sense of the 'gravity' it isn't pertinent at all.

You should read up on the Gemini "spacewalk" EVAs. Especially Gene Cernan's experience.

The suits required a great deal of effort to manipulate, from within, when pressurized and in a vacuum environment.

It took muscles to move arms, legs, fingers, etc...against the constant force of the suit to return to a 'default' position.

In other words....a human in the EVA suit who merely relaxed, would assume a certain posture, and his limbs would be at a certain angle. Any movements away from that 'default' setting that the suit tended to take required muscle expenditure, and a constant force against the resistance.

We aren't talking a LOT of pressure, and forces here. Still. it had to be exhausting, after a long 'day' of exertion. And, when you read the personal accounts and recollections, it was.

Read "The Last Man on the Moon", by Gene Cernan. Has a lot of insight. More than can be offered up, here, in an online posting.

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 12:27 PM

Weedwhacker I think you missed the point of my post.

post by FoosM

Maybe that would clarify what I said.

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 01:23 PM

Originally posted by WolfofWar

My question though, to those who feel the moon landing was somehow hoaxed, is rather straight forward: How?

How can something watched by millions of people, including intelligence agencies - rival intelligence agencies, who would like NOTHING more than to show this as a sham, be faked, and not be debunked? We are talking about the real world now, not the NWO Illumanti Reptillian Neo-Templars with their mind wipe-ray superpowers. We are talking about a government who can barely keep a hotel break-in and a sex scandal under wraps for more then a few days, perpetrating the largest hoax the world has ever seen, under the noses of everybody: Scientists, intelligence agencies, world governments, journalists - everybody.

How can this occur? Unless you are all suggesting that the entire world, even those who wanted nothing more than to destroy the US in the space race, were complacent with this lie.

Occams razor should apply in this situation. Is it more reasonable that the entire globe was in on the most massive hoax in US history and had not a SINGLE notable leak? Or that we managed to do something incredibly dangerous and stupid?

Its quite simple really.
When it happened, how many people do you think were thinking its fake?
Why would it be? Where were people getting information from?
Thats right NASA, was there any other opposing voice?
Did you read the article that I posted describing how it would go?
NASA has till this day a powerful PR department.

The other issue:
Distraction. People were worried about Vietnam, Civil Rights, they were recovering from assassinated leaders, there was the red scare. You think the
average man was keeping up with details coming out of NASA?
No.

And, NASA was offering the US new jobs, stimulated the imagination of young minds, and offered a reason to be proud of one's country.

As for intelligence agencies... name the ones you think were on any level decent enough to infiltrate the US? Which foreign spy agency outed project MOL? Or Keyhole? Or any of the other DoD secret space missions?

The Soviets? The Soviets lied about their missions too, and the US knew it
And who in the west would believe the USSR anyway if they called fake?
People forget that information on the US side was and is controlled. And dont tell me its not.

Did you know that:

4 December 1968 - Soviets judge that Apollo 8 has only a 25% chance of success... Kamanin judges that the Apollo 8 mission is only being flown to give US President Lyndon Johnson a triumph before he leaves office. He judges the mission has only a 25% chance of success.

So either the mighty and advanced USSR knew the flight was just a stunt, or they knew nothing of NASA advances in technology. And couldnt know how NASA managed to solve the radiation issue.

[edit on 10-7-2010 by FoosM]

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 01:32 PM

Selective internet Googling is NOT research.

Pretty pathetic.

Get out from under your nonsense 'beliefs' and try using some actual experience and physics and science, for a change......

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 04:23 PM

Originally posted by theability

More surface area of their suit or PLSS would be struck by the sun at a low angle than at 'noon', thereby increasing the temperature.

So the whole theory of 'oh, but they were never out in the hot 'noon' conditions' does not apply.

Could you please share with the rest of us:

How a LOW sun angle is Hotter and has more exposure than a HIGH sun angle?

I would really like to see your position on this, PLUS LOGIC ALSO!

What is diffusing solar radiation while being on the moon's surface?
You dont know?
Well I dont know either.
So, being on the moon is no different than floating in space when it
comes to being hit directly by the sun.

So if the sun is hitting the entire side of an astronaut, it is heating the entire surface of that area. And plenty of photos and videos show the astronauts being from tip to toe exposed to the sun.

The lunar thermal environment has posed a variety of problems in selecting space suit materials and in system design. The external surface of the extravehicular mobility unit may vary in temperature from 250 F in the lunar day to -250 F in the lunar night. Lunar day solar heat flux has been calcu­
lated as 440 Btu/hr/ft 2 or a total of 10 000 Btu/hr. A super-insulation mater­ ial has thus been developed which will limit this heat leak into the suit to approximately 250 Btu/hr during lunar day, and 350 Btu/hr out of the suit during lunar night.

The only factor the moon itself has is SECONDARY. In other words if the astronaut is walking on a sun heated surface, or picking up stones heated by the sun. And lets not forget ionizing radiation from the moon's surface.

The radiation environment on the surface of the Moon presents a new source of particles resulting from the interaction of incoming solar protons and galactic cosmic rays with the lunar regolith. Here we present a study of the fluence profile of primary and secondary particles on the top 1 m layer of lunar regolith for the spectrum of one of the hardest spectrum solar event, that of February 1956. Different regolith compositions and their influence in proton and neutron production and backscattering is considered, as well as the nature of the backscattered radiation. Simple geometry Monte Carlo simulations have been used also for calculating regolith shielding properties, and it is shown that a layer of at least 50 cm regolith is needed for significantly reducing the dose levels received by astronauts in a hypothetical lunar habitat.

[edit on 10-7-2010 by FoosM]

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 06:13 PM

Originally posted by FoosM
Its quite simple really.

I'm not really interested in this debate as much any more but I'd rather not have someone have to dig through FoosM's posts to try and read 'how it was possible' - FoosM you forget this thread is heading towards 150 pages long.

I'll try to be as objective as possible.

FoosM believes that the moon was surveyed around 1967 to get the correct dimensions. He then believes that a film crew run by director Stanley Kubrick created a fake moon landing using a combination of built objects and front screen projection. The astronauts were then made mobile using a collection of techniques such as wire work and possibly slow motion.

FoosM and supporters believe this would have been easy to conceal and the astronauts were not taking the mission seriously when communicating on the moon about it.

Others believe too many people would need to be involved. That certain key post technologies weren't available. That front screen projection has several severe draw backs preventing it from being used without being detected.

FoosM also believes that the 'black' back ground would make the wires etc easier to conceal using film painting techniques.

I'll state, however that I don't think FoosM has any form of qualification in the VFX or film industry and isn't really qualified to make these statements. I only say this since I'm mostly cataloging FoosM's beliefs and without some kind of balancing statement they might look convincing at least by themselves. There are technical issues I don't have time to go into regarding front screen projection and other proposed techniques.

Originally posted by FoosM
The other issue:
Distraction. People were worried about Vietnam, Civil Rights, they were recovering from assassinated leaders, there was the red scare. You think the
average man was keeping up with details coming out of NASA?
No.

As for intelligence agencies... name the ones you think were on any level decent enough to infiltrate the US? Which foreign spy agency outed project MOL? Or Keyhole? Or any of the other DoD secret space missions?

The Soviets? The Soviets lied about their missions too, and the US knew it
And who in the west would believe the USSR anyway if they called fake?
People forget that information on the US side was and is controlled. And dont tell me its not.

On a side note ... People didn't have time to follow the moon landing?! This was before the internet and it was one of the biggest events of the time?! I know you tend to cover all possibilities FoosM (or hit from all angles as you put it) but please this point is really leaning towards wasting people's time to refute. The red scare etc ... didn't incapacitate the collective populations of all the countries receiving information about the moon landing.

I'll also point out that even to a lay person like me - the 60s weren't exactly a golden age of national security by any stretch. The fact that you know the names of certain projects that allegedly existed would kind of go against your own examples.

new topics

top topics

377