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.

Help ATS via PayPal:

# Moon Landing Hoax - The Space Suit

page: 3
64
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 06:12 AM

Originally posted by moebius
Actually space has a temperature. You can calculate it from the background radiation spectrum. It is 2.725K.

posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 06:17 AM
Originally posted by totalperdition

So where the heck does the thin sheet of ice come from?
It says it is formed by a separate feed water source. How?????????????????

It's typically sprayed on, or they use drip nozzles milled into the sublimator

How does the ice form in the first place?

Evaporative cooling.

Ice is formed by cooling water, but in the vacuum of space the water would sublimate before turning to ice.

Not at all. It boils, then freezes.

Furthermore, how the heck would the water be cooled enough to turn to ice in the first place? If there is something that can cool the water down enough to form ice, then what's the point of the sublimator in the first place?

All you need's a vacuum. The loss of partial pressure above the water drops the boiling temperature of the water down to the triple point. The water boils, losing all the molecules that are warmer than freezing to evaporation, leaving ice.

Stand by, I'll go see if I can find you some pictures/video.

edit on 6-4-2012 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 06:25 AM

Behold.

posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 06:33 AM
I am no believer in NASA, but if a vacuum is a perfect insulator then I could put a big ice cube in my space-suit backpack and put a fan on it to keep me cool.
I'm perfectly insulated living in a sealed-off environment with its own pressure and air. Regulating the temperature is not hard.
That suit could have been cooled (and/or heated) any number of ways including the provided explanation.

posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 06:58 AM

Star for this, and exactly my question out of MANY I've had, to include the amount of oxygen needed for the entire trip

A crewmember of typical size requires approximately 5 kg (total) of food, water, and oxygen per day to perform the standard activities on a space mission, and outputs a similar amount in the form of waste solids, waste liquids, and carbon dioxide.[3] The mass breakdown of these metabolic parameters is as follows: 0.84 kg of oxygen, 0.62 kg of food, and 3.52 kg of water consumed, converted through the body's physiological processes to 0.11 kg of solid wastes, 3.87 kg of liquid wastes, and 1.00 kg of carbon dioxide produced...

en.wikipedia.org...

For a crew of three on a two week trip to the Moon, that works out to about 42 kilograms (about 92 pounds) of oxygen for the entire trip. The water was produced by the fuel cells that produced electricity for the spacecraft. These cells produced more water than was necessary, and the excess was dumped.

The oxygen subsystem was supplied from the Service Module cryogenic storage tanks and controlled the distribution of oxygen within the Command Module. It stored a reserve supply of oxygen, regulated several levels of supplied oxygen pressure, controlled cabin pressure in normal and emergency modes, and provided for purging of the pressure suit circuit.

lsda.jsc.nasa.gov...

The oxygen was stored in liquid form in the cryogenic tanks in the Service Module, as shown above. Any further questions?

posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 07:07 AM

Originally posted by jazzguy
dont forget that people have measured the space suits and found them to be 32 or so inches wide.

You mean dishonest people who measured the suit with no one in it and flattened out so that it was wider than it actually is when it is worn.

posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 07:11 AM

Well, if you want to be exact. You and the original poster have been talking about space. Not some theoretically perfect vacuum devoid of any matter and radiation.

posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 07:13 AM

Well if what you state is true then the earth would bake....but it doesn't. It radiates heat from the upper atmosphere back into space as IR radiation.

A vacuum insulates against conductive heat not radiated heat. So a heat exchanger based on radiated heat would work in space.

posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 07:19 AM

Originally posted by JayDub113
That suit could have been cooled (and/or heated) any number of ways including the provided explanation.

If yer usin' LOX for yer suit O2 you can cool with the phase change from liquid to gaseous O2. If you've got a s---heap of tankage, you can arrange for the air flow to enter at the head and exit at the feet and cool the astronaut by natural evaporation of sweat. There's been a few other ways pitched.

posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 07:24 AM

Originally posted by OccamAssassin
Wow.....It seems that no one has even come close to investigating this for themselves and will gladly form their own view of reality based on a post in a conspiracy forum.

The space suits cooling system is fluid based. It requires no atmosphere to work as it cools the liquid in the shade created by the backpack enclosure on the space suits.

This is pretty well documented and if you check out the system used by the Russians.....you will find their system to be almost identical in principle.

Not only is the system identical to what the Russians use, but it's also identical to what the astronauts used during the shuttle program. The exterior temperatures of the hull of ISS were every bit as extreme as the moon, yet because they were well insulated and had the same ice sublimation system for cooling, the astronauts had no problem working on the station structure for many hours at a time. If Apollo was a hoax because of the spacesuits, then so was the shuttle and so is ISS.

posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 07:25 AM

Originally posted by moebius

Well, if you want to be exact. You and the original poster have been talking about space. Not some theoretically perfect vacuum devoid of any matter and radiation.

Near Earth, free space particle temperatures are typically pretty hot - maybe 100000 K. There's just not so many of them that it matters.

posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 08:20 AM
All this fuss over a silly spacesuit ... haven't you heard? You don't actually need one on the moon.

Where did that PLSS life supporting backpack go again?

source: history.nasa.gov...
AS17-141-21608HR
edit on 6-4-2012 by ppk55 because: Where did that PLSS life supporting backpack go again?

posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 08:33 AM

Originally posted by ppk55
All this fuss over a silly spacesuit ... haven't you heard? You don't actually need one on the moon.

Where did that PLSS life supporting backpack go again?

source: history.nasa.gov...
AS17-141-21608HR
edit on 6-4-2012 by ppk55 because: Where did that PLSS life supporting backpack go again?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Remember now?

posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 08:41 AM

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85

Originally posted by CynicalWabbit

What temp is space then if it's not cold ?

Room temperature, doesn't matter how hot or cold it is, its always at room temperature.

edit on 6-4-2012 by Qumulys because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 09:27 AM

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85
Just seems like there is too many fragile parts in there that if one thing went wrong the astronaut could die.

That's exactly why early astronauts came from the test pilot pool, they had to have balls of steel. They were hurled into space on piles of unproven parts while wearing suits that were one tiny error away from suffocating them. You may not believe it possible, but there ARE people brave enough to accept such a challenge. And just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I guess the question I'm asked the most often is: "When you were sitting in that capsule listening to the count-down, how did you feel?" Well, the answer to that one is easy. I felt exactly how you would feel if you were getting ready to launch and knew you were sitting on top of two million parts -- all built by the lowest bidder on a government contract.

John Glenn quote to press from just after his 1997 retirement speech

posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 09:39 AM
According to the logic in the OP, a spaceship in deep space would not require an internal heat source for life support because the warmth in it can not be cooled down by the surrounding vacuum.

Heat means fluctuating molecules. The faster the fluctuation, the hotter the temperature, and the desire of the substance to change its aggregate state, e.g. from solid to liquid and then to gaseous. Now imagine a spaceship. There's air inside, and a metal hull surrounding it ( simplified of course ). Surrounding the metal hull you have a vacuum close to absolute zero. This will quickly bring the atoms of the metal hull to almost stand-still, simply because nothing in the vacuum induces energy into the hull that would sustain the movement of the atoms. Now the air molecules inside the space ship bounce against the metal hull, each time they do that, energy is transfered from the air molecule to the metal atom, slowing down the air molecule, and moving the metal atom a little bit faster again, slightly warming the metal from the inside.

If you have no heat source in the space ship to give energy back to the air molecules, the air inside the space ship will reach the same temperature as the surrounding vacuum over time. There is no condensation involved at any point.

posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 10:19 AM

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by OccamAssassin
Wow.....It seems that no one has even come close to investigating this for themselves and will gladly form their own view of reality based on a post in a conspiracy forum.

The space suits cooling system is fluid based. It requires no atmosphere to work as it cools the liquid in the shade created by the backpack enclosure on the space suits.

This is pretty well documented and if you check out the system used by the Russians.....you will find their system to be almost identical in principle.

Not only is the system identical to what the Russians use, but it's also identical to what the astronauts used during the shuttle program. The exterior temperatures of the hull of ISS were every bit as extreme as the moon, yet because they were well insulated and had the same ice sublimation system for cooling, the astronauts had no problem working on the station structure for many hours at a time. If Apollo was a hoax because of the spacesuits, then so was the shuttle and so is ISS.

Oo! Oo!
ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

(Russians What?) The Yuri Gagarin Hoax

The Moon Hoax

This is conclusive evidence.

posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 10:19 AM

Me, if you mean, then I have no reason to doubt it. None. Cui bono? All that effort in hoaxing it, all the people silenced... so much energy in faking something that has absolutely no impact on anyone. Cui bono?

Okay, I can now start to understand how the water cooling system works. Thank you and to everyone else that has helped my understanding.

Although, you say all the effort in hoaxing it and all the people silenced? so much energy in faking something that has absolutely no impact on anyone?

If the moon landing was a hoax then it would have an impact in many areas regarding political, social, monetary, scientific and many other aspects.

From the NASA website itself:

First, and perhaps most important: it was realized at the time of President Kennedy’s 1961 proposal that the primary motivation for sending a man to the Moon was political, not scientific. The Soviet Union at the time had a commanding lead in space flight, and was a belligerent and expansive power in the Cold War. Did Apollo end the Cold War? Of course it didn’t. But no less than Nobel laureate Andrei Sakharov and two colleagues issued an open letter to the Soviet government in 1970, calling for democratization of the USSR, specifically citing the American Moon landing as evidence of the superiority of democracy. The Soviet Union did have a lunar program intended to put a man on the Moon, but as the world saw, the United States won the race.

And over 50 years later and we still have not returned:

American plans now call for a return of humans to the Moon by around 2020. What can we hope to gain from such a program? It will be helpful to look back at our first lunar program, Apollo, and ask what we got from it, beside some 850 pounds of rock and soil – fascinating to geologists, but perhaps not to all taxpayers.

In 1970 \$30 billion would have been a significant amount of money

The several sub-programs mentioned cost a total of about \$30 billion by the end of Fiscal Year 1975.

www.nasa.gov... ogram.html

Death of numerous NASA Personel during the time of the spaceflight programme. I know this information is from wikipedia, regardless; we are not judging the source, rather the information:

NASA Personel Deaths

Elders Of Zion: Masonic Moon

posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 10:23 AM
So basically... we never went to the moon? That's what you guys are saying?

Thats... pretty ridiculous...

posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 10:29 AM

From the information available, I conclude that publicly we have not been to the moon. Although I assume that there have been secret missions to the moon after the hoaxed moon landing. Once they can successfully send man to the moon (In secret) they will apply the technology for future missions and from then forth, the mission will not have to be faked as they would have the technology.

top topics

64