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.

 

Moon Landing Hoax - The Space Suit

page: 21
65
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 02:51 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 





BTW, the PLSS for the Apollo excursions, and used on the ISS/Shuttle is not the same system.


I don't think that anyone has said that there were identical, but the cooling system is pretty much the same.

Liquid Cooling and Ventilation Garment


Because the space environment is essentially a vacuum, heat cannot be lost through heat convection, and can only be directly dissipated through thermal radiation, a much slower process. Thus, even though the environment of space can be extremely cold, excessive heat build-up is inevitable. Without an LCVG, there would be no means by which to expel this heat, and it would affect not only EVA performance, but the health of the suit occupant as well. The LCVG used with the Apollo/Skylab A7L suit could remove heat at a rate of approximately 586 watts.





These A/C units were only needed on the earth to keep the astronauts from sweating in their suits.


Hmmm....your viewpoint seems to have changed?


Learning is fun.




posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 03:21 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by OccamAssassin
Why is there a cooling system built into the walls of the ISS?

There is no A/C system on the ISS or the shuttle, they used radiators:
Staying Cool on the ISS
The ISS is heavily insulated to keep out the “nothing”(aka cold), but this can also cause them to retain too much heat from the wattage of its own equipment. Also the ISS is much larger then the Apollo capsules, and remains in low earth orbit. When in orbit, the ISS and Shuttle are prone to radiated heat from the planet below itself.

MIT: Spacecraft Thermal Control

the temperature in orbit around the planet Earth, is higher then the temperature in the space between the earth and the moon. The Earth itself heats space in orbit by heat that is radiated out from the planet.
This is called “orbit temperature”.


Originally posted by OccamAssassin

These A/C units were only needed on the earth to keep the astronauts from sweating in their suits.

Hmmm....your viewpoint seems to have changed?

Learning is fun.

Not at all...
The Apollo personal A/C units were not used on the spacecraft, as a matter of fact, heat was used. There was nothing in the OP asking what happens on the ISS or shuttle, anyway those are in orbit and dealing with different conditions. The shuttles and ISS use radiators, not air conditioning. Additionally, there was nothing in the OP asking about the lunar excursion.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 03:33 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamAssassin
 
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


You're trying to blur the line between what was asked with technicalities.
There are radiators used on space craft to disperse heat from equipment, but that is not the same thing as air conditioning. In your personal car, you don't use the radiator from the engine to cool the cabin of your car, you use it to dissipate heat from the engine. That's why your car has a separate air conditioning and radiator. There is no “air conditioner” on the Apollo command capsule, so as I stated there was no air conditioning used in space after astronauts and the ship was taken off ground air conditioning here on earth.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 03:42 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


I'll quote you again as you seem to have a short memory.



Space is freezing cold, A/C is not needed in space


Now lets analyse your statement.

"Air Conditioning is not needed in space".

Are you having a hard time seeing what is wrong with this statement?

Air Conditioning is not just the act of removing heat in air.

Air conditioning is - broadly speaking - changing the air in some way. e.g. heating, cooling, humidifying, drying, etc.

Just the act of removing carbon dioxide is a form of air conditioning.

Do you still stand by the statement.....



With that said, none of what I stated above is incorrect in anyway, as a matter of fact, its dead on right when talking about the conditions in the vacuum of actual space.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamAssassin
 

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

I don't know where you live, but here Air Conditioning refers ONLY to cooling air through an air conditioner (freon, or whatever they use today), or a "heat pump". If it provides heat then its either a “heat pump”, a heater, a boiler, or a radiator. If it changes the humidity its called a (de)humidifier. Removal of Co2 is called a scrubber. These are all normally provided by different pieces of equipment.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



edit on 4/10/2012 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by OccamAssassin
 

You're trying to blur the line between what was asked with technicalities.


No.

You blew in here on your Mod chariot..ready to save us all from ignorance....threw your weight around like a moron and made some stupid statements that were OT to the subject at hand.

If you had bothered to read the thread at all, you would probably not have bothered to post at all.

Someone should remind you of T&C



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
A lack of heat, or “nothing” as you call it, is by definition “cold”. Cold is "a lack of heat", heat being a radiated energy.


Heat can be radiated, or received by radiative transfer. But it doesn't have to be. An object can have any temperature without any radiative transfer happening.

Temperature is an attribute of matter or radiation. Vacuum fails - it's not matter so it can't have an inherent heat, and the only radiation in space is the microwave background at about 3K. (edit to add - not counting what you get from the Sun)

Space doesn't "lack heat", it isn't anything. It has no temperature at all.

Although the vacuum of space has no temperature, objects traveling through space do.

space, (insofar as it is nothing!), does not have a temperature at all -- only matter and radiation can be described by temperature

Therefore it is not true that – as Spencer suggests in his little model – outer vacuum
space, surrounding our earth’s atmosphere, is 0°F (= - 17.7°C) cold, or it is “cold” in
general (whatever temperature could be suggested).
The atmospheric “model” which Spencer proposed makes no sense at all, because the
main concept on which it leans is wrong: outer vacuum space is not “cold” in itself.


One doesn't determine the temperature of a vacuum. Just as 'nothingness' has no color, taste, smell, etc. it also has no temperature.

The problem comes when you try to define the temperature of vacuum. Temperature is defined as the average kinetic energy of a substance's particles.

Temperature is a measurement of the average kinetic energy of the molecules in an object or system

No particles, no temperature. Vacuum doesn't have a temperature at all, not hot, not cold. It won't transfer energy to something, or accept heat energy from something.

In a vacuum, you can heat from internal energy, or from radiative transfer, and you can lose heat by radiative transfer. But you don't transfer heat to or from the vacuum itself, since there's nothing there to transfer to.

At one time, I could link to physics books on Amazon, but now you have to log in first. Alas.
edit on 10-4-2012 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 04:32 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamAssassin
 
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

I posted a polite explanation as to the fact that there was no air conditioning used once taken off ground AC, and that there is no AC on the spacecraft. This was met with instant insults and abuse from you. I guess I didn't realize that this was your personal thread, you were the expert here, and that no one else was allowed to post in it.

I guess I also missed the part where I was throwing my weight around, or violated any of the T&C.
Now, you on the other hand...


16) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive, libelous, defamatory, hateful, intolerant, bigoted and/or racist manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.


As to being off topic...
from the OP:

Originally posted by toocoolnc
A simple explanation of how NASA contradicted themselves: Air conditioning does not work in the vacuum of space.



A vacuum is a condition of nothingness where there are no molecules. Vacuums exist in degrees. Some scientists tell us that there is no such thing as an absolute vacuum. Space is the closest thing to an absolute vacuum that is known to us. There are so few molecules present in most areas of what we know as "space" that any concept of "hot" or "cold" is impossible to measure. A vacuum is a perfect insulator. That is why a "Thermos" or vacuum bottle is used to store hot or cold liquids in order to maintain the temperature for the longest time possible without re-heating or re-cooling.

I see nothing here about the ISS, or the shuttle, which was all brought up by yourself.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 





I posted a polite explanation as to the fact that there was no air conditioning used once taken off ground AC, and that there is no AC on the spacecraft.



The Portable Life Support System used in the Apollo lunar landing missions used lithium hydroxide to remove the carbon dioxide from the breathing air, and circulated water in an open loop through a Liquid Cooled Garment, expelling the water into space, where it turned to ice crystals. Some of the water was also used to remove excess heat from the astronaut's breathing air, and collected for dumping into the spacecraft's wastewater tank after an EVA.


Didn't you stipulate that an "air conditioner" removed heat from air?



Do yourself a favour and go back and read the whole thread.


This was met with instant insults and abuse from you.

Did I? Can you quote where?


I guess I didn't realize that this was your personal thread, you were the expert here, and that no one else was allowed to post in it.


I hadn't posted in here in pages, but after seeing your contribution, I thought it might be pertinent to point out that this is one of those threads that you should really see as a whole.

But I suppose that your too good for that....being a mod and all.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 04:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

First off, space is not a complete vacuum, but its as close to it as we will ever find. If space were a completely true vacuum, that would be VERY bad for us:


The possibility that we are living in a false vacuum is only a possibility, and Chaotic Inflation theory suggests that the universe may be in either a false vacuum or a true vacuum state. If a bubble of lower-energy vacuum were nucleated, it would expand, approaching at nearly the speed of light and destroying the Earth instantaneously, without any forewarning.[1] Thus, this vacuum metastability event is a theoretical doomsday event. This was used in a science-fiction story in 1988 by Geoffrey A. Landis,[2] in 2000 by Stephen Baxter,[3] and in 2002 by Greg Egan.

Anyway though, we are getting into a “if a tree fell in the woods” argument here.
Basically its sort of a conudrum that even the experts don't seem to have a good grasp on. On one had they are saying a vacuum doesn't have a temerature, which is true, but on the other hand lack of a temperature means that by default its cold.

Its the same with light. There are light waves that travel through the vacuum, but there is nothing to reflect that light, so is space dark or light? Again with the tree, if it falls it generates soundwaves, but if there is nothing to recieve them does it make a sound? Yet by definition, lack of light is dark, and lack of heat is cold.

I think that one problem here is that space and vacuum are not nessicarily the same thing.
You should start another thread on this topic, it could be argued endlessly.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 05:11 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by OccamAssassin


I posted a polite explanation as to the fact that there was no air conditioning used once taken off ground AC, and that there is no AC on the spacecraft.



The Portable Life Support System used in the Apollo lunar landing missions used lithium hydroxide to remove the carbon dioxide from the breathing air, and circulated water in an open loop through a Liquid Cooled Garment, expelling the water into space, where it turned to ice crystals. Some of the water was also used to remove excess heat from the astronaut's breathing air, and collected for dumping into the spacecraft's wastewater tank after an EVA.

Didn't you stipulate that an "air conditioner" removed heat from air?

Sorry, I guess I didn't realize that the Apollo SPACECRAFT used the astronauts personal BACKPACKS cooling system...
So how exactly did they fit the backpacks on the spacecraft anyway? Did they have a special extra-wide harness built for it?


Originally posted by OccamAssassin
But I suppose that your too good for that....being a mod and all.

You certainly seem to have a problem with my being a mod for some reason, you've been griping about it since your first post to me. I wonder why that would be?


Originally posted by OccamAssassin
Did I? Can you quote where?

Go back and read your posts to me starting with the bottom of the very first one. You obviously got upset because I didn't read your little pearls of wisdom, and put in my two cents on a topic that you felt you had already answered.
Yep...

Originally posted by OccamAssassin
Do yourself a favour and go back and read the whole thread.


I hadn't posted in here in pages, but after seeing your contribution, I thought it might be pertinent to point out that this is one of those threads that you should really see as a whole.


Now lets drop this off topic line of conversation. If you care to continue it, then please send me a personal U2U, or submit a complaint to the rest of the staff.

Thank you...


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit on 4/10/2012 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 05:23 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 



You certainly seem to have a problem with my being a mod for some reason, you've been griping about it since your first post to me. I wonder why that would be?


Your a mod.

You should be setting an example for the other users.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 05:53 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamAssassin
 
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


I guess I missed the part of the terms and conditions that state that you have to read every post in a long thread before replying to the OP. Can you show me where the T&C states this please:
Terms and Conditions
I freely admitted that I didn't have time to read the whole thread, I am busy doing several things here at once.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

I think that one problem here is that space and vacuum are not nessicarily the same thing.
You should start another thread on this topic, it could be argued endlessly.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.




Around Earth, the particle temperature is pretty high. Like 100,000K. Outside the solar system, it's a lot lower on average. Either way there's not so many of them that there's any real heat to it. 20 hot particles per cubic meter isn't enough to mean much.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by defcon5
A lack of heat, or “nothing” as you call it, is by definition “cold”. Cold is "a lack of heat", heat being a radiated energy.


Heat can be radiated, or received by radiative transfer. But it doesn't have to be. An object can have any temperature without any radiative transfer happening.

Temperature is an attribute of matter or radiation. Vacuum fails - it's not matter so it can't have an inherent heat, and the only radiation in space is the microwave background at about 3K. (edit to add - not counting what you get from the Sun)

Space doesn't "lack heat", it isn't anything. It has no temperature at all.

Although the vacuum of space has no temperature, objects traveling through space do.

space, (insofar as it is nothing!), does not have a temperature at all -- only matter and radiation can be described by temperature

Therefore it is not true that – as Spencer suggests in his little model – outer vacuum
space, surrounding our earth’s atmosphere, is 0°F (= - 17.7°C) cold, or it is “cold” in
general (whatever temperature could be suggested).
The atmospheric “model” which Spencer proposed makes no sense at all, because the
main concept on which it leans is wrong: outer vacuum space is not “cold” in itself.


One doesn't determine the temperature of a vacuum. Just as 'nothingness' has no color, taste, smell, etc. it also has no temperature.

The problem comes when you try to define the temperature of vacuum. Temperature is defined as the average kinetic energy of a substance's particles.

Temperature is a measurement of the average kinetic energy of the molecules in an object or system

No particles, no temperature. Vacuum doesn't have a temperature at all, not hot, not cold. It won't transfer energy to something, or accept heat energy from something.

In a vacuum, you can heat from internal energy, or from radiative transfer, and you can lose heat by radiative transfer. But you don't transfer heat to or from the vacuum itself, since there's nothing there to transfer to.

At one time, I could link to physics books on Amazon, but now you have to log in first. Alas.
edit on 10-4-2012 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)


Hi bed
Try getting back from outer space and on the moon where there is a mass 25 % the size of earth.
A mass that contains H20 to boot. Anything here that does not concern the MOON is off topic.
See those suits over there with the HOAX tags on them



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   
How fishy is this?

Nasa pulls moon hoax book (BBC NEWS)

news.bbc.co.uk...

Ive never come across this before. This article had come out in 2002. Nasa funded Jim Oberg for the job on a fee of $15,000. The US space agency (Nasa) has cancelled the book intended to challenge the conspiracy theorists who claim the Moon landings were a hoax.

Nasa declined to comment specifically on the reasons for dropping the publication, but it is understood the decision resulted from the bad publicity that followed the announcement of the project.

Is NASA actually giving a certain credibility to the hoax theory?

Also why would Presedent Bill clinton cast doubts on the credibility of the moon landings?



American President Bill Clinton in his 2004 autobiography, My Life, states (on page 156): "Just a month before, Apollo 11 astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong had left their colleague, Michael Collins, aboard spaceship Columbia and walked on the Moon...The old carpenter asked me if I really believed it happened. I said sure, I saw it on television. He disagreed; he said that he didn't believe it for a minute, that 'them television fellers' could make things look real that weren't. Back then, I thought he was a crank. During my eight years in Washington, I saw some things on TV that made me wonder if he wasn't ahead of his time."



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by toocoolnc
 

Hi to
You gotta hand it to those carpenters.
They SAW things that others did not.
Nice catch tocool
ljb
PS and Willy was good at knowing what was untrue or spin to the MAX.
lol lol lol



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 


Its not really about what the carpenter says. Its what Bill Clinton says:


During my eight years in Washington, I saw some things on TV that made me wonder if he wasn't ahead of his time."



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by toocoolnc
How fishy is this?

Is NASA actually giving a certain credibility to the hoax theory?


That is shallow thinking. Here's what your link levelheadedly concluded with;

Some commentators had said that in making the Oberg book an official Nasa publication, the agency was actually giving a certain credibility to the hoax theory.


Same can be said about Clinton, until forced to discuss Monica Lewinsky.


"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."

Bill Clinton really is a guy who's willing to think carefully about "what the meaning of the word 'is' is." This is way beyond slick. Perhaps we should start calling him, "Existential Willie."



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by OccamAssassin
 
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


I guess I missed the part of the terms and conditions that state that you have to read every post in a long thread before replying to the OP. Can you show me where the T&C states this please:
Terms and Conditions
I freely admitted that I didn't have time to read the whole thread, I am busy doing several things here at once.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


Hi def,
I have read alot of your recent posts and they are informatively, arguementive of the Astonaut wanttabe's points. Bravo!
But what I have been looking for here is your cant as to whether you think there is a conspiracy here or not. Man on the moon? or desert film only??
thanks ljb



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
65
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join