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: 478
377
<< 475  476  477    479  480  481 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


The rotation rate was around one every 12 minutes. And maybe the sun was warm, but it wasn't enough to make much difference.




posted on May, 30 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Ah, here we go. Apparently, they did use the sun to warm up a little. From the transcript:


05 13 23 15 CC That's affirm, Jim. You could maneuver to burn attitude, or you could maneuver to an attitude
which should put the Sun in the windows to warm the place up.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor
reply to post by FoosM
 


On Apollo 11, they stayed in their suits while in the LM, just taking off their helmets and gloves. Since the suits were well insulated, they would have gotten too hot inside them without cooling.

While inside the LM in their suits, they were not wearing the PLSSs, though. Those were only for use outside. Inside the LM, they could hook their suits into the LM's cooling system. Thus, their cooling would come from the LM's sublimators, not the PLSS's.


The LM's cooling system?
How did that work, did water from the LM run through their suits?
Did that come from the Water tank?

Because I as I had read, the water tank was only big enough to keep the electronics cool and for drinking water.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


No, there was a heat exchanger that used the LM's water/glycol coolant loop to cool water for the suit loop.

From the Lunar Module Handbook:








posted on May, 31 2011 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by backinblack
 


details please


It's in the thread somewhere...



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 04:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor
reply to post by FoosM
 


Ah, here we go. Apparently, they did use the sun to warm up a little. From the transcript:


05 13 23 15 CC That's affirm, Jim. You could maneuver to burn attitude, or you could maneuver to an attitude
which should put the Sun in the windows to warm the place up.




So they had the choice, interesting.
But its your contention that sunlight coming through the various windows could not keep an insulated craft from getting cold.
edit on 31-5-2011 by FoosM because: text



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 04:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor
reply to post by FoosM
 


On Apollo 11, they stayed in their suits while in the LM, just taking off their helmets and gloves. Since the suits were well insulated, they would have gotten too hot inside them without cooling.

While inside the LM in their suits, they were not wearing the PLSSs, though. Those were only for use outside. Inside the LM, they could hook their suits into the LM's cooling system. Thus, their cooling would come from the LM's sublimators, not the PLSS's.


So we are led to believe that basically for 21+ hours on the surface of the moon neither found the need to defecate?



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 05:36 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Sigh.

Their suits had toilets in them, of a sort. I knew that from when I was a kid. You know how? I read Calvin and Hobbes. I doubt it's especially comfortable, and nowadays they wear what are basically diapers. Here's the Apollo info, in entirely unnecessary detail, straight from NASA's mouth.


During lunar surface activity and free space extravehicular activity, the use of the bag fecal collection system was not feasible. Should it have become impossible for a crew man to have prevented defecation during these activity periods, the fecal containment system — a pair of undershorts with layers of absorbent material — would serve to contain any excreta.


Incidentally, Alan Shepard ended up peeing himself because he drank too much coffee, during the Mercury missions, which was depicted in "The Right Stuff". I think that would've alerted NASA to the need to do something about the issue.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 06:28 AM
link   
The Apollo LM had an atmosphere at 100% oxygen at 4.8 psi (33 kPa).

Materials in that environment can become life threatening, materials such as velcro.


Perhaps the most interesting reference to Velcro is the fact that it's often blamed for the deaths of astronauts Gus Grissom, Edward White II, and Roger Chaffee during a test of the Apollo 1 spacecraft. Engineers had warned that Velcro, while extremely handy in space for keeping objects from floating around, was also dangerously flammable in an oxygen rich atmosphere. The Apollo 1 spacecraft contained a 100% oxygen atmosphere.


Yet...


Those engineers recommended no more than 500 square inches be installed but Velcro was so useful that the spacecraft ended out with ten times that much! In any case, it was the excessive use of Velcro along with the increased flammability of everything else in a pure oxygen atmosphere plus a spark from an electrical problem that cause the deaths. Velcro's inherent flammability was only a small part of the problem.


Velcro was used throughout the space-craft and even on the suits during Apollo.




www.mostoftenasked.com...



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by 000063
Sigh.

Their suits had toilets in them, of a sort.


During lunar surface activity and free space extravehicular activity, the use of the bag fecal collection system was not feasible. Should it have become impossible for a crew man to have prevented defecation during these activity periods, the fecal containment system — a pair of undershorts with layers of absorbent material — would serve to contain any excreta.



Sigh indeed.

Thats no different than you choosing to relieve yourself in your pants and sitting in that mess for hours on end, than going to the trouble of using the toilette. What you describe is not a good alternative but an emergency option.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


No, my contention was that a windos with its shade off that did not have sun coming through it would just be another vector for heat to radiate out of the craft.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Those engineers recommended no more than 500 square inches be installed but Velcro was so useful that the spacecraft ended out with ten times that much! In any case, it was the excessive use of Velcro along with the increased flammability of everything else in a pure oxygen atmosphere plus a spark from an electrical problem that cause the deaths. Velcro's inherent flammability was only a small part of the problem[/COLOR].
I shifted the color over a little, to highlight a bit or two you seem to have missed. Those are called "qualifiers".

Incidentally, they abandoned a pure O2 atmo after Apollo 1. You seem to have misinterpreted whatever website you got that fact from from.

reply to post by FoosM
 

Look, they were willing to risk their lives to get to the moon. I think sitting in poopy-pants for a while is a small price to pay. Similar devices are used for people on the Space Shuttle today.

You implied that they would've had to scramble back to the potty every time. I provided evidence that they had admittedly uncomfortable in-suit measures. Now all you have is just opinions, not facts, that it would've been too disgusting to bear. They could either go back to the bathroom, or poop in their suits. They chose to poop in their suits. What you may or may not have chosen is irrelevant.
edit on 2011/5/31 by 000063 because: +



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


The problem with Apollo 1 was that it was at 100% oxygen at 16.7 psi. At 5 psi, things do not burn with the same intensity in 100% oxygen. After Apollo 1, they did extensive flammability tests. The results showed that at the lower pressure, the 100% oxygen environment was acceptably safe. From the Apollo Command Module Mockup Flammability Tests report:



So 34 of the 37 test fires at 6.2 psi went out on their own.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by FoosM

Those engineers recommended no more than 500 square inches be installed but Velcro was so useful that the spacecraft ended out with ten times that much! In any case, it was the excessive use of Velcro along with the increased flammability of everything else in a pure oxygen atmosphere plus a spark from an electrical problem that cause the deaths. Velcro's inherent flammability was only a small part of the problem[/COLOR].
I shifted the color over a little, to highlight a bit or two you seem to have missed. Those are called "qualifiers".

Incidentally, they abandoned a pure O2 atmo after Apollo 1. You seem to have misinterpreted whatever website you got that fact from from.


Oh really? Show me the evidence. And I dont know if you want to use a conspiracy site for it.





reply to post by FoosM
 

Look, they were willing to risk their lives to get to the moon. I think sitting in poopy-pants for a while is a small price to pay. Similar devices are used for people on the Space Shuttle today.

You implied that they would've had to scramble back to the potty every time.


Scrambled to the potty every time?
Scramble from where?
And sitting in your own poopy-pants is a health hazard.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor
reply to post by FoosM
 


The problem with Apollo 1 was that it was at 100% oxygen at 16.7 psi. At 5 psi, things do not burn with the same intensity in 100% oxygen. After Apollo 1, they did extensive flammability tests. The results showed that at the lower pressure, the 100% oxygen environment was acceptably safe. From the Apollo Command Module Mockup Flammability Tests report:



So 34 of the 37 test fires at 6.2 psi went out on their own.


Yes thank you for that information
I know the pressures were different, but as I understood it,
The 16.7 pressure was the start pressure for lift-off.
But maybe that had changed.

At any rate, the fact that no fires occurred in all the missions.
Considering the dust, rocks, brought in from the moon, and simply
just doing the EVA.



Static discharge is merely annoying to anyone on Earth living where winters have exceptionally low humidity. But to astronauts on the Moon or on Mars, static discharge could be real trouble.



Here on Earth, the air around us and the clothes we wear usually have enough humidity to be decent electrical conductors, so any charges separated by walking or rubbing have a ready path to ground. Electrons bleed off into the ground instead of accumulating on your body.
But when air and materials are extraordinarily dry, such as on a dry winter's day, they are excellent insulators, so there is no ready pathway to ground. Your body can accumulate negative charges, possibly up to an amazing 20 thousand volts. If you touch a conductor, such as a metal doorknob, then - ZAP! - all the accumulated electrons discharge at once.


www.firstscience.com...



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Yes, the lift-off pressure was around 16.7 psi. After Apollo 1, they changed the atmosphere while the vehicle was on the pad to include nitrogen. As the rocket ascended, the pressure inside the cabin dropped by bleed-off from a relief valve. Since the resupply was 100% oxygen, that means the oxygen content slowly went up as the rocket increased in altitude and the cabin pressure lowered, eventually reaching 100% with the cabin pressure at 5 psi while in space.

A simple spark isn't enough to set off a fire in a 100% oxygen atmosphere at 5 psi. The atmosphere itself isn't flammable, say as you might get in an atmosphere that is a mix of oxygen and hydrogen. In addition to a spark that's hot enough and of long enough duration, you need a fuel source that the spark can heat to the point of ignition. So the spark would have to occur across something flammable. A spark from static electricity is unlikely to be long enough, hot enough, and occur over a fuel source. The more likely ignition source would be an electrical short of some sort. Static electric discharges can be damaging to electronic equipment, which is a separate danger, of course.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Hi all,
Check out this interview with Jarrah White, the world's leading expert on the Moon Hoax Theory. It's 2 hours long but you can see how Jarrah has mastered the debate. He knows thousands of arguments both for and against the Moon Hoax Theory and seems to have memorized them all to the point where he can easily pull out the cards the refute any opposing arguments. The guy is brilliant and when you listen to him, you will not imagine anyone who knows more about this debate than him. He's studied it more than anyone else has, considering that he has now made over 300 high quality videos about the Moon Hoax Theory since 2006, which is more than anyone ever has.

Here is his recent interview.

YouTube version:

Part 1 of 10

www.youtube.com...

Download here:

binnallofamerica.com...

Jarrah also has a new website he is working on which he announced in the interview. It is not ready yet, but you can bookmark it for now and check back later. The URl is:

www.moonfaker.com...

He is also a contributing editor on www.moonmovie.com...



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by WWu777
 


Hi wwu777. Just wanted to say thanks for starting this epic thread... bet you didn't think it would become this big! You got me into young Jarrah and I agree he's doing an amazing ammount of research and putting a load of passion into this subject which he obviously cares a lot about.

Foos actually posted up all those interview links some pages back and deserves a pat on the back for continuing to fight the fight against a whole body of NASA os believers who have swarmed here to pat each other on the back.

The NASA lovers have only got to pop up here, say that Jarrah is a dishonest liar, call me and anyone who disagrees with the OS a liar and he gets 5 stars. The NASA lovers must be very proud of themselves and their ability to be downright rude and uncharitable.

I think Jarrah is doing an awesome job and I can't wait for his moon rock series. When he releases those I suggest starting another thread as this one is a bit mentally long... lots has been covered here but the info is near on impossible to find unless one has hours and hours. This gives Weed, DJ and others the excuse to say .. "Everything Jarrah has said has been proved wrong... its in this thread..find it." That is a crock of BS and they know it. Jarrah has acknowledged his mistakes, apologised, made corrections and moved on. The NASA lovers never acknowledge making mistakes, never apologise and are stuck in the same groove... refusing to even entertain the idea that NASA might not be right all the time.

Anways... I'll probably get shot down for writing this too. Lucky I have a thick skin. Anyway... thanks again wwu777. Good to see you poping in.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by WWu777
 


Shame.

You should actually read THIS thread, instead of merely doing the fly-by, and drop a load routine....like seagulls, at the seashore.

You "genius" (cough, cough) has been exposed for the hack, liar, and generally know-nothing fraud that he is, and always was.......



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by WWu777
 


Thanks for the spam, it was hilarious! Check this out:


He is a native of Australia who debunks the Apollo Hoax debunkers, both in forums and through film

www.moonfaker.com...

Really? Then why does he never never set foot on this thread? When you google "Jarrah White," this thread is usually the first thing to come up! (He also doesn't seem to understand the huge difference between film and video. No surprise there, I guess,) It looks like he's taking out a domain of his own so he'll have a place to post when he finally gets banned from YouTube.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 475  476  477    479  480  481 >>

log in

join