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: 472
377
<< 469  470  471    473  474  475 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo
no the question is was asking was .. How can the temperature in space be cold and on the moon be scoring ??


Well, what's different between the two situations?

One is a spacecraft without people in it, with all the equipment shut down.

The other is spacecraft with people in it, with all kinds of constantly-running equipment.

The heat they have to get rid of isn't from the sun. It's the heat generated *inside* the spacecraft they have to get rid of.




posted on May, 27 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM
 


PROOF, positive.....


Yet no evidence of venting, evaporation in photos or videos.


...that someone needs a better foundation in science education, before spouting off about things he/she doesn't fully comprehend......


Explain, why would we not see visible evidence of sublimation?


What visible evidence of a diffuse colorless gas would you expect to see, exactly?


Well wouldn't crystallize in space?



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by Komodo
no the question is was asking was .. How can the temperature in space be cold and on the moon be scoring ??


Well, what's different between the two situations?

One is a spacecraft without people in it, with all the equipment shut down.

The other is spacecraft with people in it, with all kinds of constantly-running equipment.

The heat they have to get rid of isn't from the sun. It's the heat generated *inside* the spacecraft they have to get rid of.


NASA claims the heat from the electronics was negligible.
Plus, the LM was turned on, otherwise how were they communicating?
How were they steering the ship?



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by FoosM




And as we have shown in this thread: Major Solar Flares, Majore SPEs all occurred during Apollo.
And we also know, they dont like talking about it with the general public.
I think I missed that post, could you give me a link, please?

www.abovetopsecret.com...
That seems to have promptly turned into a debate too complicated for me to follow, so I'll let it lie.


Wait a second.
Do you admit that there were major solar flares recorded during Apollo missions?
And for the sake of our discussion, Apollo 13, while the astronauts were sitting in the LM?
I admit I don't understand what that thread turned into, and I don't see the point in retreading points which have been hashed out already. Radiation discussion, evidence, people accusing other people of "scattergunning", all these things have happened before and will happen again.


You dont see the point?
You brought it up.
So I gave you evidence, you still want to deny a major solar flare occurred during Apollo?



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM
 


PROOF, positive.....


Yet no evidence of venting, evaporation in photos or videos.


...that someone needs a better foundation in science education, before spouting off about things he/she doesn't fully comprehend......


Explain, why would we not see visible evidence of sublimation?


What visible evidence of a diffuse colorless gas would you expect to see, exactly?


Well wouldn't crystallize in space?

It would have to radiate its heat away before it would become cool enough to turn back into ice. But as a gas in a vacuum, it would spread over a very large area very quickly.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by Komodo
no the question is was asking was .. How can the temperature in space be cold and on the moon be scoring ??


Well, what's different between the two situations?

One is a spacecraft without people in it, with all the equipment shut down.

The other is spacecraft with people in it, with all kinds of constantly-running equipment.

The heat they have to get rid of isn't from the sun. It's the heat generated *inside* the spacecraft they have to get rid of.


NASA claims the heat from the electronics was negligible.
Plus, the LM was turned on, otherwise how were they communicating?
How were they steering the ship?
Do you have a source for the claim that the electronics contributed a negligible amount to the heat radiated by the cooling system?

Yes, the LM was turned on. Hence, the LM was warmer. The CM was turned off, and it was much colder than the LM.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Note the location of the flares, N10 W50 for the first flare. The second flare was at N15 W85.

Let's look at where those are on the sun:

N10 W50:


N15 W85:


Both happened near the edge of the sun. Since the particle flow is directed perpendicular to the surface of the sun, the particles from these events posed no threat to Earth, and hence, the astronauts.


Well Nat something managed to hit the Earth because there was a SID measured.
Are SIDs not dangerous outside of the Magnetosphere?



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by Komodo
no the question is was asking was .. How can the temperature in space be cold and on the moon be scoring ??


Well, what's different between the two situations?

One is a spacecraft without people in it, with all the equipment shut down.

The other is spacecraft with people in it, with all kinds of constantly-running equipment.

The heat they have to get rid of isn't from the sun. It's the heat generated *inside* the spacecraft they have to get rid of.


NASA claims the heat from the electronics was negligible.
Plus, the LM was turned on, otherwise how were they communicating?
How were they steering the ship?
Do you have a source for the claim that the electronics contributed a negligible amount to the heat radiated by the cooling system?

Yes, the LM was turned on. Hence, the LM was warmer. The CM was turned off, and it was much colder than the LM.


No, I was doing it from memory.
I could be wrong, but I thought I read that the heat from the electronics was negligible, probably in comparison to the sun.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM
 


PROOF, positive.....


Yet no evidence of venting, evaporation in photos or videos.


...that someone needs a better foundation in science education, before spouting off about things he/she doesn't fully comprehend......


Explain, why would we not see visible evidence of sublimation?


What visible evidence of a diffuse colorless gas would you expect to see, exactly?


Well wouldn't crystallize in space?

It would have to radiate its heat away before it would become cool enough to turn back into ice. But as a gas in a vacuum, it would spread over a very large area very quickly.


Ok, but the PLSS were covered.
What exactly occurred under those coverings?



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by Komodo
no the question is was asking was .. How can the temperature in space be cold and on the moon be scoring ??


Well, what's different between the two situations?

One is a spacecraft without people in it, with all the equipment shut down.

The other is spacecraft with people in it, with all kinds of constantly-running equipment.

The heat they have to get rid of isn't from the sun. It's the heat generated *inside* the spacecraft they have to get rid of.


RIGHT and how can they do that with all the equipment shut down.????



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM
 


PROOF, positive.....


Yet no evidence of venting, evaporation in photos or videos.


...that someone needs a better foundation in science education, before spouting off about things he/she doesn't fully comprehend......


Explain, why would we not see visible evidence of sublimation?


What visible evidence of a diffuse colorless gas would you expect to see, exactly?


Well wouldn't crystallize in space?


is should since space is freezing cold.. right ??



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


How many "quotes" can we "quote"??

Turns into a work of art.....


OK...back to topic.....huh?

It is very, very simple.....sublimation of H2O into a gas, when it occurs in a vacuum, is INVISIBLE to the naked eye (or, by default, to a camera....which records visuals to be SEEN by the same naked, Human eye....).

Same science....water vapor, is INVISIBLE.....it is all around you...RIGHT NOW!! You are breathing it in, even as you live....!!!! Invisible water vapor....yes, even in air....it is invisible, to your eye....this is why, many of us implore people to please, please take some science studies...or, if appropriate (based on each individual) ...

Stay In School....!



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by Komodo
no the question is was asking was .. How can the temperature in space be cold and on the moon be scoring ??


Well, what's different between the two situations?

One is a spacecraft without people in it, with all the equipment shut down.

The other is spacecraft with people in it, with all kinds of constantly-running equipment.

The heat they have to get rid of isn't from the sun. It's the heat generated *inside* the spacecraft they have to get rid of.


NASA claims the heat from the electronics was negligible.
Plus, the LM was turned on, otherwise how were they communicating?
How were they steering the ship?


this is something i also noticed, so they had a dual back up system in the LM?? (which if they did, it would be the FIRST time ever I heard of this) which could auto-link ALL the hydro-electric hoses and mechanisms that would pilot the CM and not to mention, the nav system which was only designed for Landing and jettisoning off the moon to 'hook' up with
the CM in orbit.....which is a whole other ball of wax.. but saving for later..



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Well Nat something managed to hit the Earth because there was a SID measured.
Are SIDs not dangerous outside of the Magnetosphere?
Yes, the electromagnetic radiation hit earth. This is much less dangerous than particle radiation.

And the magnetosphere has nothing to do with SIDs, because they are the result of electromagnetic radiation, which is not deflected by the magnetosphere. Only charged particles are affected by the magnetosphere.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
No, I was doing it from memory.
I could be wrong, but I thought I read that the heat from the electronics was negligible, probably in comparison to the sun.
The whole idea of insulating the spacecraft is to keep the heat of the sun out. The side effect of that is it bottles in any heat generated inside the craft, so the thermal systems must be able to get rid of that.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Ok, but the PLSS were covered.
What exactly occurred under those coverings?


www.hq.nasa.gov...




The liquid transport loop (fig. 36) is the primary means of thermal control of the crewman. Water from the LCG enters the loop through the multiple water connector and passes into a gas separator, where a 400-mesh semipermeable screen traps any free gas in the water to avoid cavitation in the pump. Excess separated gas can be bled through a manually operated gas bleed port. From the gas separator, the water flows to the pump motor assembly, which creates a minimum pressure rise of 18. 5 kN/m^2 (2.68 psi). The pump forces water through the transport water loop at a minimum flow rate of 1.72 kg/min (3.8 lb/min). In the sublimator, heat is transferred by the heat exchanger fins from the liquid transport loop to the feedwater loop. After passing through the sublimator, the cooled water circulates around the fan motor to cool the motor electronics. A check valve located between the feedwater loop and the liquid transport loop maintains a constant operating pressure on the pump. The coolant flow rate through the sublimator is regulated by the PLSS water diverter valve, which, in the minimum position, diverts the flow, allowing most of the water to bypass the sublimator before returning to the LCG. In the maximum valve position, all transport water flows through the sublimator; the intermediate position is a midpoint between the two extremes. The temperature difference between the water entering and leaving the water transport loop is sensed by a differential temperature transducer, and the output signal is telemetered. The actual temperature of the water leaving the PLSS is sensed by the LCG inlet temperature sensor and is carried on telemetry. The cooled water is finally returned to the LCG through the multiple water connector.





With the change to higher metabolic loads and the water-cooled concept, it was decided to change from the water boiler concept to the sublimator to take advantage of its improved performance. Developmental work on this new type of space heat exchanger had shown improvements over the water boiler of approximately 30 percent in heat rejection per 0. 45 kilogram (1 pound) of equipment and approximately 40 percent in heat rejection per unit of volume. As designed for the PLSS, the sublimator (fig. 45) contains flow paths for both the ventilating gas and the transport water. Adjacent to the plates that form the walls of these passages are sintered nickel plates having
micrometer-size pores. One side of the porous plate is exposed to vacuum; the cavity between the other side of the porous plate and the transport fluid passage plate is filled with water under slight pressure. The slight pressurization is derived from the internal suit pressure. This "feedwater" is carried in a reservoir in sufficient quantity to satisfy all heat rejection requirements. As the feedwater exudes through the pores of the sintered plate, it freezes on the vacuum side and forms, in effect, a seal against feedwater loss. Heat transferred from the gas path or from the transport water path is carried through fins and through the feedwater to the porous metal plate. The rate of sublimation of the ice formed on the porous plate is a direct function of the amount of heat carried to the sublimator by the transport fluids. Entirely self- regulating, this system requires no valving to control the amount of feedwater admitted to the sublimator section, nor does it require a temperature- sensitive or pressure-sensitive valve to maintain a controlled pressure in the boiling chamber for temperature control.

edit on 27-5-2011 by nataylor because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by Komodo
no the question is was asking was .. How can the temperature in space be cold and on the moon be scoring ??


Well, what's different between the two situations?

One is a spacecraft without people in it, with all the equipment shut down.

The other is spacecraft with people in it, with all kinds of constantly-running equipment.

The heat they have to get rid of isn't from the sun. It's the heat generated *inside* the spacecraft they have to get rid of.


RIGHT and how can they do that with all the equipment shut down.????


How can they do what? The only way for heat to transfer from the LM to the shut-down CM was through conduction through the docking mechanism where the two vehicles were touching or by convection of warmer air from the LM to the CM. Both would be pretty inefficient methods of transferring heat. Hence, the CM got much colder than the LM.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
Ok, but the PLSS were covered.
What exactly occurred under those coverings?


www.hq.nasa.gov...




The liquid transport loop (fig. 36) is the primary means of thermal control of the crewman. Water from the LCG enters the loop through the multiple water connector and passes into a gas separator, where a 400-mesh semipermeable screen traps any free gas in the water to avoid cavitation in the pump. Excess separated gas can be bled through a manually operated gas bleed port. From the gas separator, the water flows to the pump motor assembly, which creates a minimum pressure rise of 18. 5 kN/m^2 (2.68 psi). The pump forces water through the transport water loop at a minimum flow rate of 1.72 kg/min (3.8 lb/min). In the sublimator, heat is transferred by the heat exchanger fins from the liquid transport loop to the feedwater loop. After passing through the sublimator, the cooled water circulates around the fan motor to cool the motor electronics. A check valve located between the feedwater loop and the liquid transport loop maintains a constant operating pressure on the pump. The coolant flow rate through the sublimator is regulated by the PLSS water diverter valve, which, in the minimum position, diverts the flow, allowing most of the water to bypass the sublimator before returning to the LCG. In the maximum valve position, all transport water flows through the sublimator; the intermediate position is a midpoint between the two extremes. The temperature difference between the water entering and leaving the water transport loop is sensed by a differential temperature transducer, and the output signal is telemetered. The actual temperature of the water leaving the PLSS is sensed by the LCG inlet temperature sensor and is carried on telemetry. The cooled water is finally returned to the LCG through the multiple water connector.





With the change to higher metabolic loads and the water-cooled concept, it was decided to change from the water boiler concept to the sublimator to take advantage of its improved performance. Developmental work on this new type of space heat exchanger had shown improvements over the water boiler of approximately 30 percent in heat rejection per 0. 45 kilogram (1 pound) of equipment and approximately 40 percent in heat rejection per unit of volume. As designed for the PLSS, the sublimator (fig. 45) contains flow paths for both the ventilating gas and the transport water. Adjacent to the plates that form the walls of these passages are sintered nickel plates having
micrometer-size pores. One side of the porous plate is exposed to vacuum; the cavity between the other side of the porous plate and the transport fluid passage plate is filled with water under slight pressure.


Ok, whats that "Steam to Vacuum"?
Is that steam leaving the plate?
If so, I ask again, what happens under the covering of the PLSS?


edit on 27-5-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM
 


PROOF, positive.....


Yet no evidence of venting, evaporation in photos or videos.


...that someone needs a better foundation in science education, before spouting off about things he/she doesn't fully comprehend......


Explain, why would we not see visible evidence of sublimation?


What visible evidence of a diffuse colorless gas would you expect to see, exactly?


Well wouldn't crystallize in space?

FoosM, are you saying the gas would crystallize in space?



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
You dont see the point?
You brought it up.
So I gave you evidence, you still want to deny a major solar flare occurred during Apollo?
I'm saying I can't adequately comprehend the evidence you've presented in order to make a claim one way or another.

I know how much you hate grey areas, FoosM, but I just don't understand it.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 469  470  471    473  474  475 >>

log in

join