Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by Komodo

ahh.. so they boiled the LO2 ... if so .. that would be interesting to see the technical details of that little process.. sounds kinda dangerous ..

Guess what Komodo............leaving Earth's atmosphere and travelling in space is "dangerous".

If todays' "Health and Safety" officers were in charge of the space program..........we would STILL be wondering whether we could send a man beyond Earth's orbit.

Originally posted by Komodo

sure.. show me where and how they converted this LOX to O2? in detail .. i'd be really untested to find you pull up .. because I can't get details on the process.. how NASA did it for 12days in space.

Originally posted by Komodo

ahh.. so they boiled the LO2 ... if so .. that would be interesting to see the technical details of that little process.. sounds kinda dangerous ..

Well, I'm no expert on the subject, but off the top of my head I would assume you just,...open the valve. Simple as that. Nothing very technical or dangerous about the process unless you let it out too rapidly (e.g. explosion). LO2 at 1 atmosphere boils at -297.F, and I'm sure the temperature in the cabin was at least 60.F, so that would allow for the LO2 to boil quite rapidly don't you think? Also, like people have already mentioned, they used filters to scrub the carbon dioxide out of the air so they could re-use the oxygen, sort of like the Dräger closed circuit re-breather the Navy SEAL's use. This allows them to carry much less oxygen on board.

Not sure where you're going with this. The only technical or dangerous part of the whole process would be storing the LO2 under pressure(and stirring the tanks, lol), but that's inherently dangerous whether you're in space or not.

Originally posted by Komodo
reply to post by ignorant_ape

 

kk.. and that's 45,329.xxxx US gals of LOX, divided by 5000 gal tanks, is 9 tanks...



I just don't see where they had space on the CM, LEM or CC to put all these tanks at in these diagrams .. and i can't find any other better details on the net either.. that actually SHOWS the tanks, i guess it's assumed that there 'just there' .. ?

project Apollo

the point I'm making is the space needed to house all this LOX, i just don't see it..

5,000gals =668.40 Cubit ft

A cubic meter is a measurement of volume, that takes your ocean freight shipment, and is equal to space of one meter wide, one meter long, and one meter high.

One metric meter = aprx. 3.28 metric feet
ONE CUBIC METER = aprx. 35 CUBIC FEET
source

If if it is compressed, wouldn't that mean the tanks needed to be heavier to withstand the pressure; which would mean thicker walled tanks =more weight...

anyways .. the entire Apollo diagrams just don't show the space used and complete detail..

Wow Komodo, your investigations have revealed the truth at last! Those silly engineers forgot to design in storage space for the LOX, well done you cracked the Apollo hoax!! You're on the wrong team Komodo, you should send a CV to NASA, they obviously have been lacking the caliber of your technical skills for 50 years.

When/if somebody does go to the trouble of trying to enlighten you, what avenue of inquiry will you choose next?

Look, it's pretty safe to assume that even if, somehow, this were a hoax, the engineers who designed the spacecraft covered all the bases, after all the crux of the hoax theory is that they(the designers) weren't in on the 'truth'. Even if they were do you honestly think they would overlook something like this??? All you are doing is wasting peoples time, really. Even that pesky little Australian wouldn't chase this one.

Originally posted by FoosM
Can you say you see the same thing happened in any of the ascent videos? Either from hitting the lower LM stage, or even the ground? And if not, why dont you think this happened?

Of course it does. Just watch any of the ascent videos, be it from the on board DAC footage or video from the rovers on Apollo's 15 - 17. You can see dust and debris get blown all over the place.

Well, thats the whole point, I do see the small glowing dot, but I expect to see a brightly hot glowing dot.

How bright should it be then exactly?

reply to post by wmd_2008

Sorry I have to disagree there have been many things posted on this thread that are 100% accurate first of all many of the statements re the photographic process that JW and Foosm seemed to be confused with.

Of course some have got single points maybe 100% accurate..
I'm saying I doubt anyone here has been 100% accurate with ALL their posts and points..

reply to post by JohnnySasaki

Yea, that's what I thought little girl. I just called you a little girl. Are you going to cry to mommy and conveniently disregard my entire post like you have been doing ever since our argument got started? Probably.

All you are doing is proving my point...

Have fun with that, oh and maybe even come up with your own questions someday that haven't already been addressed.

That is if you study enough to realize that the moon landings are NOT visible from earth as you believed.

reply to post by backinblack


Just have to ask something, here......regarding this comment:

That is if you study enough to realize that the moon landings are NOT visible from earth as you believed.

It is a fact that our Moon always presents the same hemisphere (slightly more than 50% of it) towards the Earth at all times. Tidally locked, and all.....

It is also a fact that all six manned landings took place in that same hemisphere. In other words, no manned landings have every occurred on the far side of the Moon.

So, in reality....your comment is in error. Unless you were referring to the well-known reality of telescope optics limitations? And resolutions? Of course, there are other ways employed, even back in the 1960s and early 1970s, to monitor progress of the Apollo missions, besides optically and visually......

reply to post by JohnnySasaki

Well, I'm no expert on the subject, but off the top of my head I would assume you just,...open the valve. Simple as that. Nothing very technical or dangerous about the process unless you let it out too rapidly (e.g. explosion). LO2 at 1 atmosphere boils at -297.F, and I'm sure the temperature in the cabin was at least 60.F, so that would allow for the LO2 to boil quite rapidly don't you think?

You think the cabin was fully heated at all times?
I doubt that when they were in their suits they wasted energy on heating the cabin..
Gets very COLD out in space, and just a small point.

The LOX tanks were NOT carried inside the nicely heated cabin anyway.

BTW, Komoda is barking up the wrong tree thinking this proves any hoax.
Experts have gone over the majority of these and other similar technical points and found nothing much amiss...

reply to post by backinblack

You think the cabin was fully heated at all times?

Yes, it was. The regular electronics provided a great deal of heat.....that was the majority of what kept the temperature tolerable.

reply to post by ProudBird

So, in reality....your comment is in error. Unless you were referring to the well-known reality of telescope optics limitations? And resolutions? Of course, there are other ways employed, even back in the 1960s and early 1970s, to monitor progress of the Apollo missions, besides optically and visually......

Bird, I'm pretty sure you knew exactly what I meant and am really amused at your odd response..

If you paid attention to the thread you would have seen that the person I was addressing had posted a picture taken by LROC and had believed that to be taken from the Earths surface..

Does that settle your query?

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by backinblack

 

You think the cabin was fully heated at all times?

Yes, it was. The regular electronics provided a great deal of heat.....that was the majority of what kept the temperature tolerable.

Really?
Care to tell me what the temp was??

reply to post by backinblack


Spacecraft Thermal Control Systems

Active Thermal Control System (ATCS) items include:

thermostatically controlled resistive electric heaters to keep the equipment temperature above its lower limit during the mission cold phases

fluid loops to transfer the heat dissipated by equipment to the radiators. They can be:
.........

single-phase loops, controlled by a pump
..........

two-phase loops, composed of heat pipes (HP), loop heat pipes (LHP) or capillary pumped loops (CPL)

louvers (which change the heat rejection capability to space as a function of temperature)

thermoelectric coolers

IN fact, the excess heat generated from the electronic components was moderated, lest it got too hot in the cabin areas.

This is similar to modern commercial jets.....the avionics and electronics components put out a lot of heat...and they require constant cooling airflow, or else they can overheat, and fail. It can be quite serious, when cooling is disrupted for any reason. Large jets have dedicated cooling fans, and also back-up contingencies, in case the primary fans fail for any reason.....many of the engineering solutions already utilized in aviation designs were used as well, in spacecraft design.


For example:

Boeing 767 Equipment Cooling

reply to post by ProudBird


I had read about the electronic equipment giving off heat, especially the older equipment such as was used in Apollo..
I hadn't heard that it gave off so much heat that it was actually too hot though..

Also, a lot of times the cabin was not pressurized which would make heat flow very hard being that this would not be radiant heat..

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by backinblack

 

You think the cabin was fully heated at all times?

Yes, it was. The regular electronics provided a great deal of heat.....that was the majority of what kept the temperature tolerable.

Is this going to lead into a discussion about how cold it actually got on Apollo 13?

reply to post by backinblack

Also, a lot of times the cabin was not pressurized....

In terms of the CM....this would only have been the case for the 'J' missions, IIRC....on the coast back after the TEI burn, leaving Lunar orbit. This, to retrieve the film canisters from the cameras in the Service Module bays. One Astronaut (he poor slob who didn't get to land on the Moon) would perform that task, in a 'space-walk'.

Of course, no room for an airlock, so the entire cabin was de-pressurized, and the other two remained inside, all in EVA suits.


Regarding the LM, then also of course, that living space was de-pressurized just for egress, until they re-entered and the re-pressurized. The electronics stayed on, of course...even with the interior of the LM in a vacuum, there would have been minimal heat loss. The components that were active would stay warm. After re-pressurizing, that small confined space would heat rather quickly, and there was time as they doffed the EVA suits.

If you just rent the movie "Apollo 13", many aspects of the reality of the Apollo living conditions are answered....especially since they had to de-power the CM to conserve its batteries, and take refuge in the LM for the return coast home. The CM got very cold inside, when power was shut down.

Originally posted by ProudBird

If you just rent the movie "Apollo 13", many aspects of the reality of the Apollo living conditions are answered....especially since they had to de-power the CM to conserve its batteries, and take refuge in the LM for the return coast home. The CM got very cold inside, when power was shut down.

How cold did it get?

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

When the electrical systems were turned off, the spacecraft lost and important source of heat. The temperature dropped to 38 F and condensation formed on all the walls.

Apollo-13


THIS chart.......



The chart posted above --- note the location listed for the temperature readings (**). Then, learn about how the systems were designed, and how temperature readings can vary depending on the location that are measured, in any vehicle.

(**)....it says, "Measured at the Inlet to the Heat Exchanger (See Text)"

I note that the text that accompanies that chart is not included in the original post made by you.

Check the schematics for better comprehension.

reply to post by ProudBird


You will have to do better than that PB.

The un-powered CM got so cold that water began to condense on solid surfaces, causing concern that this might damage electrical systems when it was reactivated. This turned out not to be a problem, partly because of the extensive electrical insulation improvements instituted after the Apollo 1 fire.

Source en.wikipedia.org...

Both Apollo 11 and Apollo 16 were "colder" than Apollo 13.
You might also want to elaborate how the 100% oxygen atmosphere in the Apollo 13 rescue ship creates water condensation on solid surfaces.

Apollo 11 and 16 are both colder than 13. Are there any instances of water condensation on solid surfaces for A11 or A16?