Moon Landing Hoax - The Space Suit

reply to post by FoosM

Ok, question about the sublimation process.

Fire away.

Im assuming that the astronauts had de-pressurized their cabins prior to
leaving the LM because the cooling system of the suits don't work in a pressurized cabin, correct?

Wrong. They still work, but thermal conduction plays a larger role.

So, they are standing there, with these big suits on and their large PLSSs getting warm, with hardly no "space" in the LM to climb out. (Now, I don't believe it was really possible to climb out the way they did, but thats for another thread)

No, they're not getting warm. You yourself have posted photos of the astronauts training in full suits in the desert. If you want to start another thread about how it's impossible to crawl through a hatch, please do. Thank you for sticking to the space suit issue on this thread, BTW.

From what people had posted, when water gets exposed to a vacuum it first gets hot. It boils.
And for it to get cold enough to freeze, it takes awhile. So, what Im asking, did the cooling water first get hot, before it froze, and if so, did that initially warm the astronauts?

"Boiling" is not the same thing as "getting hot." Dry ice can cause water to "boil," although it is actually very cold. Sublimation occurs at the "triple point." Water goes directly from being liquid to a cold gas... because there is no atmosphere to conduct heat, there is, in effect, no temperature. (Yes, the water molecules have kinetic energy, but those of you who know what I mean, know what I mean. You know what I mean?) So no, it does not get hot, nor did the astronauts. (Technically, I suppose it would take a while for the water to circulate through the tubing when the astronauts first don the system, but that has nothing to do with the refrigeration system in the PLSS.)

Originally posted by Illustronic

Imagine if the other 99% of the US Budget was invested as wisely and provided as many stunning results. Where we would be today?

And Tang

Just as lost as ever....

Deut 28:15 But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee:
Deut 28:16 Cursed shalt thou be in the city, and cursed shalt thou be in the field.

That about sums up the world today.....NASA or no NASA.....there is only one way out...seek ye out of the book of the LORD and read....

reply to post by DissentFromDayOne

Go to the Air and Space Museum in DC and you can see a "lunar" module (assuming it is still on display). They had to miniaturize the "astronaut" dummy because anyone with two eyes could see a normal man in a spacesuit wasn't getting through the module door.

You have stumbled upon one of NASA's dark secrets: all of the early astronauts, America's larger than life heroes, were short little dudes:

The top age for candidate Mercury astronauts was set at 40, the maximum height at 5 ft 11 in (1.80 m), and the maximum weight at 180 lb (81.6 kg).

www.daviddarling.info...

Neil Armstrong towered over 5'7" Gus Grissom at 5'11".

So basically the OP is stating that we have never launched anything into orbit?? So please explain Google Earth then...

reply to post by DissentFromDayOne

That about sums up the world today.....NASA or no NASA.....there is only one way out...seek ye out of the book of the LORD and read....

is this the same William cooper that was murdered way back in 2001?

The suit worked.

Originally posted by DissentFromDayOne
Go to the Air and Space Museum in DC and you can see a "lunar" module (assuming it is still on display). They had to miniaturize the "astronaut" dummy because anyone with two eyes could see a normal man in a spacesuit wasn't getting through the module door. When I first saw it I thought it looked strange but when you are deceived you will talk yourself into any alternate reality (aka, a lie) rather than tax your brain and senses. That is what I did at that time. No more.

reply to post by Ove38


WHAT a shame (again)....but a BEAUTIFUL photo from the NASM:........

,,,,,,by the way, "NASM" = the www.nasm.si.edu...


PLEASE...people!!!!
GO!!
Get Educauted!!!!!

And to add: Ove38 is trying to FOOL everyone by using that photo!!!!! IT is a WELL KNOWN image (just use "tineye.com").....it is FROM a MUSEUM....the aforementioned 'NASM' above.....my gosh I HAVE BEEN THERE!!!!! Many times!!!!)

Point is......the display at the NASM is a REAL (and not flown) Lunar Module and the REAL (after they landed) space suit of Neil Armstrong......yeah, the ACTUAL suit.....and (no, he is not in it, in the museum.....).....anyone who thinks he "has to be in it"??...well.........

Originally posted by DJW001
You see, this is where the Moon Hoax always falls apart. In order to make the "scam" work, NASA had to hire real engineers to build and launch a rocket capable of delivering a payload to the Moon. It had to be the size of a thirty six story building and actually fly. Millions of people would watch it live, so you couldn't fake it with a model on a wire. Same thing for the spacecraft. The people at Grumman would get suspicious if they were asked to make the LM out of plywood. The Command Modules are now all on public display; if you've ever seen one, you would know they are not made out of cardboard. Everything had to really work. Now, I ask you, why would anyone spend all that time and money on a complicated system that could actually fly people to the Moon, then not use it for its intended purpose? Well?

To make the world believe they can put a man on the moon and bring him back. It's that simple !

reply to post by Ove38


AND (of course) the POINT is....the EVA suits from the Apollo era are BASICALLY THE SAME ever since!!!!

Even now, in 2012!!!

TRY to understand this......it is not "rocket science" (this time)......

reply to post by Ove38


TRY reading THIS:

www.astronautix.com...

Granted I wasn't wearing a space suit (though I was bundled up for the cold Kansas weather), and granted that this is actually the earlier version of the lunar module hatch before they changed the design to larger square hatch, but I could see no reason why I wouldn't be able to fit through it even if I did have a space suit on:
i319.photobucket.com...

The suit and door opening is just regurgitation from a conspiracy site, and not factual. One can see the PSLL is 20.5 inches wide not 32.

To be more accurate, Collier measured the hatch of a full-size mockup, LTA-8A, not a lunar module. LTA-8A was never intended to fly in space. It's now on display at Space Center Houston suspended several meters above visitors' heads. Collier took special note of the curator's reaction when Collier asked him to provide a means of reaching the display. (Apparently we're supposed to believe that the curator was upset at having the hoax found out, not merely upset about some journalist wanting to crawl all over his irreplaceable specimen.) Measurements taken of the forward hatch of LM-13 (which was intended to fly) confirm that the typical LM forward hatch is 32 inches square.

Collier's choice of mockup turned out to be fortuitous. Not only is LTA-8A's forward hatch the right size, one of LTA-8A's jobs in Houston was to train astronauts for ingress and egress. To do this, the entire mockup was placed in a vacuum chamber. Astronauts donned space suits and backpacks and practiced going in and out of the hatch. Apollo 15 astronaut Jim Irwin recalled his training on LTA-8A:

"I'm wondering if we ever did any ingress training at one-sixth g. I don't think we did. I was just surprised that I had such difficulty [with LM egress and ingress on the moon], because I'd done a lot of practice in one g with the backpack on because, originally, in the LTA-8 tests -- for the thermal vacuum chamber -- they were going to use the PLSS under one-g conditions. You know, climb the ladder and go through the hatch, just like we do on the Moon. I'd done that several times and had no difficulty. But you wouldn't have any difficulty in one g because the weight of the PLSS on your back [is] so great and the suit, itself, (also) compresses." (Comments to Eric Jones, ALSJ)
NASA retirees inform us that these vacuum chamber tests involved many people working around the clock in three shifts. There are ample witnesses to the ability of an astronaut to get through the forward hatch of LTA-8A fully suited.
Astronauts aren't the only people who participated in LM egress/ingress testing. Grumman engineers fine-tuned their LM design in their own vacuum chambers using space-suited volunteers. Simply too many people saw space-suited astronauts go in and out of the LM forward hatch for there to be any credibility to the claim that it was too small.

Bear in mind that Collier never actually tried to fit a space suit through the hatch. He relied strictly on tape measurements both of the hatch and of the suit.

Mary Bennett and David Percy (Dark Moon, p. 341) make the same argument. They didn't test-fit a suit either. They used only tape measurements, just as Collier did. Based on their measurements they say egress would be "very difficult" and "rather a challenge." Then a paragraph later -- without providing any additional evidence -- they call the task "clearly impossible."

But several people have measured the space suits and found them to be 32 or so inches wide. How could that fit through a 32-inch door?

Sometimes readers misinterpret this to mean the PLSS is too wide. According to drawings we obtained from Hamilton-Standard, the company that designed it, the PLSS was only 19 inches wide. Frank O'Brien, a restorer at the Cradle of Aviation Museum, measured a Beta-cloth PLSS cover in their collection; it's 20 inches wide -- just about right to fit over a 19-inch PLSS. That easily fits through a 32-inch opening.

The conspiracist authors chiefly refer to the width of the suit itself. They're careful to remind you that the suit is deflated for their measurements; an inflated suit must be larger. The conspiracists don't tell you about the restraint layer that keeps the suit from bulging uncontrollably.

Apollo PLSS


Hoaxers grasping at straws or just taking to fact without confirming research.

In all of logic how could NASA let something like that get by, especially while displaying them in several museums, really has to bring into the fact conspiracists believe they posses some intellect beyond the world's scientist, called delusions of grandeur.

reply to post by Ove38


If that's the case they got one over on Russian scientists then. Of course you are smarter huh.

Originally posted by strafgod
Reply to post by toocoolnc

 

"This requires a medium of molecules which can absorb and transfer the heat such as an atmosphere or water."

This is an interesting thought, but (thinking this over) can not be right. Sorry, didn't read the whole thread now.

Because, even in a vacuum, heat HAS to be dispersed somehow, it cannot simply be retained indefinitely due to lack of molecules. In other words, if i throw any hot item into the vacuum of space, it sooner or later has to cool off since it's physically not really possible that it would retain its heat.

My common assumption is that "in space" there is near absolute zero temperature, and i can for the heck of it not imagine that, say, an astronaut would be in space and be totally unaffected by it "simply because there are no molecules which would transfer the heat away"

Can anyone shed a light on the physics there involved?

Originally posted by flexy123

Originally posted by strafgod
Reply to post by toocoolnc

 

"This requires a medium of molecules which can absorb and transfer the heat such as an atmosphere or water."

This is an interesting thought, but (thinking this over) can not be right. Sorry, didn't read the whole thread now.

Because, even in a vacuum, heat HAS to be dispersed somehow, it cannot simply be retained indefinitely due to lack of molecules. In other words, if i throw any hot item into the vacuum of space, it sooner or later has to cool off since it's physically not really possible that it would retain its heat.

My common assumption is that "in space" there is near absolute zero temperature, and i can for the heck of it not imagine that, say, an astronaut would be in space and be totally unaffected by it "simply because there are no molecules which would transfer the heat away"

Can anyone shed a light on the physics there involved?

from what i understand the water absorbs the heat from the astronaut. the water can than be exposed to the vacuum of space, within the confines of a vacuum water will evaporate. im thinking that is how they remove the excess heat. i havent read the process, its too long and its late. maybe someone else can confirm how its done.

reply to post by Ove38


I stand corrected, it was late I screwed up the translation but the image speaks for itself.

reply to post by Ove38


HUH????

So, Apollo 11 had a unmanned lunar rover.

PLEASE....explain.....

reply to post by choos


A PLSS pressure regulator. A closed system reaches an equilibrium of gas and liquid states of water.

Vapor Pressure

If a volatile liquid is open to the atmosphere, it will vaporize until none of the liquid is left. If a volatile liquid is in a closed container, only some of the liquid will vaporize. The vapor molecules have a kinetic energy distribution with some of the molecules lower in energy than the average. In a closed container, vapor molecules striking the surface of the liquid can become trapped by intermolecular attractions, if their kinetic energy happens to be low enough. The rate at which these molecules condense increases as the amount of vapor increases. Eventually an equilibrium in which a molecule condenses for every molecule that evaporates. The air in the container is said to be saturated with vapor. The pressure this vapor exerts is called vapor pressure.

Chem Professor.