ApolloHoax.net

Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: jr Knowing on September 06, 2019, 08:08:00 PM

Title: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: jr Knowing on September 06, 2019, 08:08:00 PM
Hi everyone,

One of the things that has always bothered me and cast doubt in my mind about the Apollo missions was the absence of airlocks in both the lunar and command modules. NASA goes to great lengths (at least according to them) to insulate the exterior of these crafts to protect the interior from outer space's harsh environment. Yet, on occasion, they allowed the vacuum of space into the interior of these crafts for sometimes hours on end. The two occasions that really stand out in which the interior was exposed to the vacuum of space for long periods of time was the A17 command module space walk and the A11 EVA from the lunar module. In both cases, the hatch is wide open and there is no airlock. In fact, the A11 lunar module hatch door doesn't even have an outside door handle to shut the door. What sort of planning is this? Shutting the door would not have stopped the vacuum of space from entering but it would have stopped any potential harmful dust floating around from entering the cabin.

What is clear with the absence of an airlock, the interior/cabin of these modules would be subjected to the harsh cold temperatures of outer space. Given the interiors are shaded and insulated from the sun's radiation, everything within the interior would fall to an unimaginable cold temperature very quickly. We are talking upwards of 200 Celsius drop or more from depressurization. How did many of the interior components not fail? Some many argue that all these components were designed to operate in extreme cold temperatures. This is simply not true. By NASA's own admission, many components such as batteries, glass, operating boards, water etc would fail even under much much 'warmer' temps. One just has to look at the water gun line to see it is not insulated to withstand extreme cold temperatures. Another simple example was the DAC camera mounted in the window. During the A11 EVA, it filmed perhaps the most iconic footage of all the missions as Neil and Buzz planted the American flag for the first time. See below 17:52 to 21:30 of the video (as an aside, check out the 20:23 mark and shadows of the two astronauts. According to their bios, they are suppose to be same height. Yet the shadow of the right astronaut is 33 percent longer)



The question you have to ask, is how this footage was possible given the cabin was in the shaded vacuum of space? First off, the lens should have probably cracked. Coldness doesn't necessarily break glass, but quick extreme temp swings will. And even if the lens didn't crack, what about the batteries? It used nickel-cadmium batteries (like the Hasselblad). Even today they don't function below -25 C. So how did the DAC function? You can ask the same question regarding the Hasselblad. Even better, how about the Lunar Rover? NASA's own documentation states the battery will not "survive" below -40 C. Yet that battery worked like a champ in all conditions, uncovered to the sun's radiation (heat is actually worse) to being covered (shaded) in the cold of outer space. But for us, 50 years later it is still a coin flip to get a car battery to start in even -35 C weather. (Talk to Telsa and their issues with batteries and cold). In any event, I guess one could argue that the Rover and Hasselblad had exposure to the sun's radiation while on EVA's to moderate temps, the same can't be said about this DAC and its A11 EVA footage. It was filming in the shaded cold vacuum of space. How was that done?

Even if none of the components of the interior failed from the exposure of the vacuum of space, there is a second problem I think is very hard to overcome. After A11 EVA ended, for instance, the astronauts returned to the cabin, jettisoned their PLSS's, re-introduced oxygen into the interior and then were seen in t-shirts/helmet off, glove less  in what appeared to be "room" temperatures. The question is how did they do that? More specifically, how did they 'reheat', for lack of a better term, all the components inside the interior quickly and safely. This had to have been done prior to the introduction of oxygen/air into the interior. Otherwise it would make the situation even worse. So in the vacuum of space, what scientific process will pull the temperature of all these interior 'shaded' components up an incredible 200 Celsius, fast, efficiently and not destroy anything so the astronauts can be helmet less and be able eat and drink at leisure a short time later? Is it radiation? It is conduction? Is it magic? (ok just kidding) Is it convection? And is there schematic NASA documentation on how this would work and how it would not affect the astronauts even if they are suited? Thanks.


Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: Mag40 on September 06, 2019, 08:35:28 PM
Hi everyone,

One of the things that has always bothered me and cast doubt in my mind about the Apollo missions was the absence of airlocks in both the lunar and command modules. NASA goes to great lengths (at least according to them) to insulate the exterior of these crafts to protect the interior from outer space's harsh environment. Yet, on occasion, they allowed the vacuum of space into the interior of these crafts for sometimes hours on end. The two occasions that really stand out in which the interior was exposed to the vacuum of space for long periods of time was the A17 command module space walk and the A11 EVA from the lunar module. In both cases, the hatch is wide open and there is no airlock. In fact, the A11 lunar module hatch door doesn't even have an outside door handle to shut the door. What sort of planning is this? Shutting the door would not have stopped the vacuum of space from entering but it would have stopped any potential harmful dust floating around from entering the cabin.

What is clear with the absence of an airlock, the interior/cabin of these modules would be subjected to the harsh cold temperatures of outer space. Given the interiors are shaded and insulated from the sun's radiation, everything within the interior would fall to an unimaginable cold temperature very quickly. We are talking upwards of 200 Celsius drop or more from depressurization. How did many of the interior components not fail? Some many argue that all these components were designed to operate in extreme cold temperatures. This is simply not true. By NASA's own admission, many components such as batteries, glass, operating boards, water etc would fail even under much much 'warmer' temps. One just has to look at the water gun line to see it is not insulated to withstand extreme cold temperatures. Another simple example was the DAC camera mounted in the window. During the A11 EVA, it filmed perhaps the most iconic footage of all the missions as Neil and Buzz planted the American flag for the first time. See below 17:52 to 21:30 of the video (as an aside, check out the 20:23 mark and shadows of the two astronauts. According to their bios, they are suppose to be same height. Yet the shadow of the right astronaut is 33 percent longer)

The question you have to ask, is how this footage was possible given the cabin was in the shaded vacuum of space? First off, the lens should have probably cracked. Coldness doesn't necessarily break glass, but quick extreme temp swings will. And even if the lens didn't crack, what about the batteries? It used nickel-cadmium batteries (like the Hasselblad). Even today they don't function below -25 C. So how did the DAC function? You can ask the same question regarding the Hasselblad. Even better, how about the Lunar Rover? NASA's own documentation states the battery will not "survive" below -40 C. Yet that battery worked like a champ in all conditions, uncovered to the sun's radiation (heat is actually worse) to being covered (shaded) in the cold of outer space. But for us, 50 years later it is still a coin flip to get a car battery to start in even -35 C weather. (Talk to Telsa and their issues with batteries and cold). In any event, I guess one could argue that the Rover and Hasselblad had exposure to the sun's radiation while on EVA's to moderate temps, the same can't be said about this DAC and its A11 EVA footage. It was filming in the shaded cold vacuum of space. How was that done?

Even if none of the components of the interior failed from the exposure of the vacuum of space, there is a second problem I think is very hard to overcome. After A11 EVA ended, for instance, the astronauts returned to the cabin, jettisoned their PLSS's, re-introduced oxygen into the interior and then were seen in t-shirts/helmet off, glove less  in what appeared to be "room" temperatures. The question is how did they do that? More specifically, how did they 'reheat', for lack of a better term, all the components inside the interior quickly and safely. This had to have been done prior to the introduction of oxygen/air into the interior. Otherwise it would make the situation even worse. So in the vacuum of space, what scientific process will pull the temperature of all these interior 'shaded' components up an incredible 200 Celsius, fast, efficiently and not destroy anything so the astronauts can be helmet less and be able eat and drink at leisure a short time later? Is it radiation? It is conduction? Is it magic? (ok just kidding) Is it convection? And is there schematic NASA documentation on how this would work and how it would not affect the astronauts even if they are suited? Thanks.

Did you ever consider that your understanding of science is woeful?
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: AtomicDog on September 06, 2019, 09:57:28 PM
Gemini didn't have airlocks, either.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: Von_Smith on September 06, 2019, 10:11:51 PM
Atomic Dog beat me to the point about Gemini. 

Also, you need to get your understanding of thermodynamics from something other than Hollywood.  Things in space don't instantly freeze as if they were dipped in liquid nitrogen.  In a vacuum, the only method of heat loss is radiation, which can take some time. 

Finally, why do you assume the equipment inside the cabin would fail?  Did you know that there are satellites and space probes that work just fine for years in the marauding vacuum of space?  If NASA knew ahead of time that the mission would call for periodic depressurization of the cabin (which of course they did), don't you think they would ensure the machines onboard would work in that environment?
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: AtomicDog on September 06, 2019, 10:17:52 PM
If only NASA had giant vacuum chambers to test their spacecraft in...if only...
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: Von_Smith on September 06, 2019, 10:18:58 PM
If only NASA had giant vacuum chambers to test their spacecraft in...if only...

They had to use those to fake the moon landings, though.  They were too booked to test their equipment.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: jr Knowing on September 06, 2019, 11:02:27 PM
Hi Von Smith,

You do realize one of the EVA's for A17 was about 8 hours long. Are you saying the interior components of the Module would not be -150- 200 Celsius or greater after 8 hours? And if we use your logic regarding temperature transfer in a vacuum can take time, then how did all these components revert back in a vacuum to a 'livable' temp for the astronauts sans gear so quickly after reentering the cabin?
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: AtomicDog on September 06, 2019, 11:09:52 PM
Hi Von Smith,

You do realize one of the EVA's for A17 was about 8 hours long. Are you saying the interior components of the Module would not be -150- 200 Celsius or greater after 8 hours? And if we use your logic regarding temperature transfer in a vacuum can take time, then how did all these components revert back in a vacuum to a 'livable' temp for the astronauts sans gear so quickly after reentering the cabin?


Electronic components generate heat. That's why the Apollo 13 CM got so cold - forced to cut power to a minimum, the electronics couldn't maintain cabin temperature.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: jr Knowing on September 06, 2019, 11:25:30 PM
Hi Atomic Dog,

Correct me if I am wrong, but the thermo vacuum testing of the modules you allude to was to ensure the cabin maintained the proper environment for the crew and equipment against the vacuum space and extremes of temperatures. I have never seen any documentation of them testing the interior components against the harshness of the vacuum of space. Like I pointed out originally, NASA insulated the exterior to protect the interior because of their concerns for that equipment. Just show me one of the batteries in the cabin that could withstand the cold vacuum of space?

To put things in perspective, only this year have they got a battery to work to -70 C. See link below, it even talks about outer space and how difficult an environment it is for batteries. Yet astronauts 50 years ago were walking around the moon with Hasselblads taking pictures and driving rovers no problem.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180228131132.htm
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: JayUtah on September 06, 2019, 11:55:12 PM
Since you've been wrong about all the engineering to date, what steps did you take to make sure you weren't wrong about this one?  Do you have any qualifications in the thermal design of spacecraft?
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: JayUtah on September 06, 2019, 11:58:18 PM
Correct me if I am wrong...

You're wrong.

Quote
Like I pointed out originally, NASA insulated the exterior to protect the interior because of their concerns for that equipment.

No.

Quote
Just show me one of the batteries in the cabin that could withstand the cold vacuum of space?

What makes you think the batteries were in the cabin?

Quote
To put things in perspective, only this year have they got a battery to work to -70 C. See link below, it even talks about outer space and how difficult an environment it is for batteries. Yet astronauts 50 years ago were walking around the moon with Hasselblads taking pictures and driving rovers no problem.

Do you have the numbers yourself?  Or are you just ignorantly trying to stir up trouble as before?
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: Von_Smith on September 07, 2019, 12:02:02 AM
Hi Von Smith,

You do realize one of the EVA's for A17 was about 8 hours long. Are you saying the interior components of the Module would not be -150- 200 Celsius or greater after 8 hours?

Yes, I am saying that.  The cabin's equilibrium temperature is pretty much the same with or without air in it, and that temperature isn't -200 Celsius unless the LM is completely in darkness and powered down.  The only thing air in the cabin does is slow heat loss down somewhat.

Quote
And if we use your logic regarding temperature transfer in a vacuum can take time, then how did all these components revert back in a vacuum to a 'livable' temp for the astronauts sans gear so quickly after reentering the cabin?

Again, the temperature wouldn't have changed as much as you think. 
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: Von_Smith on September 07, 2019, 12:07:05 AM
Hi Atomic Dog,

Correct me if I am wrong, but the thermo vacuum testing of the modules you allude to was to ensure the cabin maintained the proper environment for the crew and equipment against the vacuum space and extremes of temperatures. I have never seen any documentation of them testing the interior components against the harshness of the vacuum of space. Like I pointed out originally, NASA insulated the exterior to protect the interior because of their concerns for that equipment. Just show me one of the batteries in the cabin that could withstand the cold vacuum of space?

To put things in perspective, only this year have they got a battery to work to -70 C. See link below, it even talks about outer space and how difficult an environment it is for batteries. Yet astronauts 50 years ago were walking around the moon with Hasselblads taking pictures and driving rovers no problem.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180228131132.htm

Are you saying that batteries don't work in space?  Or that machines do not work in space?  Because if so, that would commit you to the position that not only the moon landings, but *all* space flight must be fake.  Or are you not aware that lots of spacecraft (including the Hubble Telescope) use batteries?
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: Allan F on September 07, 2019, 12:41:14 AM
I have never seen any documentation of them testing the interior components against the harshness of the vacuum of space.

Where did you search for that documentation?
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: Obviousman on September 07, 2019, 01:42:07 AM
Do you have the numbers yourself?  Or are you just ignorantly trying to stir up trouble as before?

Lock it in, Eddie!

(You'd have to be Australian to understand this reference)
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: onebigmonkey on September 07, 2019, 02:14:26 AM
"Stop the dust floating around from entering"?

Really?

Really??
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: onebigmonkey on September 07, 2019, 02:15:41 AM

Correct me if I am wrong,

We are doing, but there are only so many hours in a day.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: ApolloEnthusiast on September 07, 2019, 02:32:17 AM
The question is how did they do that?
Instead of the bizarre fantasy land you've portrayed, they performed every mission in the actual universe, where essentially none of the things you described would happen. 

 
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: Ranb on September 07, 2019, 02:36:50 AM
Shutting the door would not have stopped the vacuum of space from entering but it would have stopped any potential harmful dust floating around from entering the cabin.
Surely you understand that dust does not float in a vacuum in any place with gravity?  When the dust is kicked up by engines, spinning wheels or boots, it moves in the same manner as if it is a rock tossed into the area above the ground.

On a planet with an atmosphere, dust will be suspended in the air.  In a vacuum dust moves in an arc then falls to the ground like heavier particles

Ranb
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: onebigmonkey on September 07, 2019, 02:47:07 AM
During the A11 EVA, it filmed perhaps the most iconic footage of all the missions as Neil and Buzz planted the American flag for the first time. See below 17:52 to 21:30 of the video (as an aside, check out the 20:23 mark and shadows of the two astronauts. According to their bios, they are suppose to be same height. Yet the shadow of the right astronaut is 33 percent longer)


Firstly, they aren't the same height. Granted it's only about an inch, but one number is different to the other = not the same. Nitpicking? Yes. That height difference will produce a small different length of shadow, especially with a low sun in the sky.

Secondly, why pick that specific time when the astronauts are some distance apart on ground at different elevations with the shadows falling over ground that undulates? Why not pick a time when they are stood next to each other?

(https://i.imgur.com/YUT1Xnv.png)

Still an obvious difference?

Speaking of shadows, notice how they they are parallel. Why not try a few experiments at home and see if you can recreate a parallel set of shadows like that from a light source that is relatively close. Let us know how you get on.

Thirdly, if you're going to look at shadows, why not examine how the shadows move over time during Apollo 11 in a way entirely consistent with the position of the sun over the course of the mission:

http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/shadows/shadowa11.html



Quote
The question you have to ask, is how this footage was possible given the cabin was in the shaded vacuum of space? First off, the lens should have probably cracked. Coldness doesn't necessarily break glass, but quick extreme temp swings will.

Probably? Probably isn't definitely, so don't try and present this as an absolute. A common misconception amongst the scientifically illiterate is that the temperature change between, eg dark and light in a vacuum is somehow instant. It is not.  Extreme temperature swings don't necessarily break glass, and you haven't demonstrated that there was, or would be, such an extreme temperature swing, or that it would have compromised the DAC. How could the lens have stayed intact in Earth orbit in the DACs or the Hasselblads? How did the camera lenses in the Lunar Orbiter probes not fracture? Or any other lens in any other camera in space?

Like many other hoax proponents before you, you have taken what you think is an important small detail and inflated it into something else, forgetting the bigger picture. You are unable to see the wood for the trees: by trying to suggest the DAC camera could not have worked you have overlooked the fact that a) it very obviously did and b) it produced film showing details that could not have been reproduced on Earth.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: BertieSlack on September 07, 2019, 03:02:29 AM
Another simple example was the DAC camera mounted in the window. During the A11 EVA, it filmed perhaps the most iconic footage of all the missions as Neil and Buzz planted the American flag for the first time. See below 17:52 to 21:30 of the video (as an aside, check out the 20:23 mark and shadows of the two astronauts. According to their bios, they are suppose to be same height. Yet the shadow of the right astronaut is 33 percent longer


The shadow of the left astronaut is further away from the camera, and appears smaller due to perspective. It also appears shorter because it is falling on the upslope of the small ridge on the left side of the frame whereas the shadow of the right astronaut is falling on flatter ground.
I presume you're parroting a long-debunked claim of the clown David Percy who put forward the idea that different apparent shadow lengths imply a nearby light source. He was spectacularly wrong for the very simple reason that the shadow of the astronaut closer to a nearby light source (the one on the right, obviously) would be SHORTER not longer. Draw yourself a diagram if you're having trouble with this very simple concept.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: Trebor on September 07, 2019, 04:00:24 AM
Gemini didn't have airlocks, either.

Slightly offtopic, but the Voskhod did have an airlock because all the avionics were air-cooled and this nearly killed Aleksei Leonov.
Were the Gemini electronics liquid cooled? I've been looking but not found any info with my vague google searches.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: Jason Thompson on September 07, 2019, 06:11:02 AM
Hi everyone,

One of the things that has always bothered me and cast doubt in my mind about the Apollo missions was the absence of airlocks in both the lunar and command modules.

Oh look, you've come back with a new 'argument' expecting us all to forget the ones you abandoned before. Why exactly are you here? You are clearly not here to learn.

TO start with, are you going to address your LM instability issue where you brought a memo to the table as if it supported your argument when in fact it did exactly the opposite?

Quote
Yet, on occasion, they allowed the vacuum of space into the interior of these crafts for sometimes hours on end.

A vacuum does not enter. A vacuum is an absence of matter.

Quote
The two occasions that really stand out in which the interior was exposed to the vacuum of space for long periods of time was the A17 command module space walk and the A11 EVA from the lunar module.

Really? Why those two in particular?

Quote
In both cases, the hatch is wide open and there is no airlock. In fact, the A11 lunar module hatch door doesn't even have an outside door handle to shut the door. What sort of planning is this?

Again, argument from incredulity. NASA is under no obigation to plan and execute missions to meet your expectations, especially given how abundantly clear it is that your expectations are woefully ill-informed.

Quote
Shutting the door would not have stopped the vacuum of space from entering but it would have stopped any potential harmful dust floating around from entering the cabin.

Dust does not 'float' in a vacuum. And evenif it was, any random dust that enters during the EVA will be nothing compared to the dust they bring in on their suits at the end of it, so why bother? As it happens the LM door was pulled almost all the way closed during the EVA. Aldrin and Armstrong comment on it specifically as Aldrin is leaving the Eagle.

Quote
What is clear with the absence of an airlock, the interior/cabin of these modules would be subjected to the harsh cold temperatures of outer space.

Nope. Thermal transfer is a complex business and it's not instantly freezing once you are exposed to a vacuum. Especilly for electronics that generate their own heat.

Quote
Given the interiors are shaded and insulated from the sun's radiation, everything within the interior would fall to an unimaginable cold temperature very quickly.

Nope.

Quote
The question you have to ask, is how this footage was possible given the cabin was in the shaded vacuum of space? First off, the lens should have probably cracked. Coldness doesn't necessarily break glass, but quick extreme temp swings will.

How rapid? And what kind of glass? Your ansurd oversimplification does not equate to a vaid argument.

Quote
Even better, how about the Lunar Rover? NASA's own documentation states the battery will not "survive" below -40 C. Yet that battery worked like a champ in all conditions, uncovered to the sun's radiation (heat is actually worse) to being covered (shaded) in the cold of outer space.

Here's a fun fact you clearly are not aware of: the rover had a means of monitoring the battery temperatures. THe batteries were covered and uncovered repeatedly on the missions depending on those readouts.

Quote
After A11 EVA ended, for instance, the astronauts returned to the cabin, jettisoned their PLSS's, re-introduced oxygen into the interior and then were seen in t-shirts/helmet off, glove less  in what appeared to be "room" temperatures. The question is how did they do that? More specifically, how did they 'reheat', for lack of a better term, all the components inside the interior quickly and safely. This had to have been done prior to the introduction of oxygen/air into the interior. Otherwise it would make the situation even worse. So in the vacuum of space, what scientific process will pull the temperature of all these interior 'shaded' components up an incredible 200 Celsius, fast, efficiently and not destroy anything so the astronauts can be helmet less and be able eat and drink at leisure a short time later? Is it radiation? It is conduction? Is it magic? (ok just kidding) Is it convection? And is there schematic NASA documentation on how this would work and how it would not affect the astronauts even if they are suited? Thanks.

Since this is just as ass-pull argment based on nothing but your own ill-informed guessowrk on how temperature actually works, how do you expect it to be answered?

Any chance of addressing your other claims?
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: Jason Thompson on September 07, 2019, 06:24:50 AM
Hi Von Smith,

You do realize one of the EVA's for A17 was about 8 hours long. Are you saying the interior components of the Module would not be -150- 200 Celsius or greater after 8 hours?

Yes. For many reasons. One is that it takes everything time to cool. Another is that the interior is not in total darkness as it has two windows letting in the reflected radiation from the lunar surface (and since the lunar soil preferentially reflects light back the way it came, which is why the full Moon is much brighter than any other phase, and the LM was facing down-sun, it got quite a lot of reflected radiation through its windows), and for another thing the electronics generate their own heat. That's why the spacecraft has a coolant system running through its electronics. The interior of the spacecraft (any manned spacecraft) when the door is open is not just suddenly an empty space that will lose all its heat, it is generating a fair bit of its own anyway.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: Donnie B. on September 07, 2019, 08:50:27 AM
Quote
they allowed the vacuum of space into the interior of these crafts

I literally laughed out loud when I read this.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: Von_Smith on September 07, 2019, 10:21:13 AM
Quote
they allowed the vacuum of space into the interior of these crafts

I literally laughed out loud when I read this.

Hey, that space vacuum is no joke.  It gets in everything, don't you know.  And the astronauts wouldn't have been able to get it out because they didn't bring a vacuum cleaner.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: JayUtah on September 07, 2019, 11:11:39 AM
...and for another thing the electronics generate their own heat.

Quite a lot of it, in fact.  Which is why many  of the modules had to be mounted on cold rails in the aft equipment bay, instead of in the cabin.  (Well, for space and layout reasons too, but the point is still valid.)

The most temperature-sensitive non-human component of the landing mission was the ascent fuel.  It had to be kept liquid, which means keeping it at around 20 C.  That's why the outer skin of the ascent stage had panels of varying absorptive properties.  In the extreme case, the AEB is full on to the sun in the landed position.  It gets a maximum of solar heating.  The AEB cover plates were coated, so it's not just bare aluminum facing the heat.

The Apollo lunar module design made history at the time, I believe, for being the largest, most complete design for which a digital radiant heat transfer model was made.  It had 13 elements.  (Today's models have up to millions.)  Great attention was paid to how the sun would heat the structures.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: JayUtah on September 07, 2019, 11:13:01 AM
Hey, that space vacuum is no joke.  It gets in everything, don't you know.  And the astronauts wouldn't have been able to get it out because they didn't bring a vacuum cleaner.

Actually there was a vacuum cleaner for attempting to clean the dust off the space suits.  And  whatever dust floated in.  ;D
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: jr Knowing on September 07, 2019, 01:00:15 PM
Hi Everyone,

First, with regards to the different length shadows of the astronauts in the EVA A11 DAC footage, posters are correct that perspective, distance and elevation can create the appearance of distorted shadows. But this isn't the case here. The land is relatively flat (TV footage from the camera placed 100 feet from he LM shows this) and the footage is only 15 feet away and taken from above which is actually a better perspective. (This really wasn't the topic of the post so I don't want to muddy the post with side topics (since everyone gets upset when this happens)). And to be quite honest the only reason I brought it up in the first place is because I use the Apollo flickr albums all the time and this shadow difference is the first thing you see when you visit the site.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/

With regards to the main topic, nobody has given any sort of scientific explanation to the questions I have asked. People point out correctly that other spacecraft have carried the same technology, batteries etc. What they are ignoring is the fact is these components were insulated from the harshness of space. And in terms of dust, apparently there is a dust cloud circling the moon. (plus micrometorites hitting the surface constantly) And even ignoring that, as someone pointed out, they should have been more concerned about the dust on their suits. Another significant reason they should have had a airlock. And the LM windows? They were in shade. The DAC footage shows that as the sun is low and from behind.

Jay. You asked me what batteries are in the cabin. My original post pointed out the DAC camera for instance. It had two batteries that fail below -30 Celsius.  Only one posters has attempted to answer the DAC issue. OneBigMonkey said  "a) it very obviously did and b) it produced film showing details that could not have been reproduced on Earth." It obviously did? That's not an answer. And footage that could not be produced on earth. Of all the footage, this DAC A11 footage seems the most "earthlike" of any footage. Very short strides, easy arm movements etc. And you say that footage can't be replicated on earth?

In any event, somebody show me how hours of exposure to the vacuum of space away from the sun's radiation will not drop the temperature of objects drastically. Further, what scientific process will bring these object back up in temp, fast, efficiently and safely, to environmental temperatures humans can operate in without any aids?
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: Abaddon on September 07, 2019, 01:48:29 PM
Hi Everyone,

First, with regards to the different length shadows of the astronauts in the EVA A11 DAC footage, posters are correct that perspective, distance and elevation can create the appearance of distorted shadows. But this isn't the case here. The land is relatively flat (TV footage from the camera placed 100 feet from he LM shows this) and the footage is only 15 feet away and taken from above which is actually a better perspective. (This really wasn't the topic of the post so I don't want to muddy the post with side topics (since everyone gets upset when this happens)). And to be quite honest the only reason I brought it up in the first place is because I use the Apollo flickr albums all the time and this shadow difference is the first thing you see when you visit the site.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/
Oh FFS. According to you, these posts cannot be real because of their shadows not matching. They are not even the same height in your wacky universe.

(https://i.imgur.com/fyiPrQ4.jpg)

Grow up.

With regards to the main topic, nobody has given any sort of scientific explanation to the questions I have asked.
Sure they have. As usual, you simply ignored it.

People point out correctly that other spacecraft have carried the same technology, batteries etc. What they are ignoring is the fact is these components were insulated from the harshness of space.
And you are wrong. Again. All of those satellites in orbit maintain no pressure vessel. The Voyagers? Nope not them either.

And in terms of dust, apparently there is a dust cloud circling the moon.
Dust in orbit /
= dust on surface.

(plus micrometorites hitting the surface constantly) And even ignoring that, as someone pointed out, they should have been more concerned about the dust on their suits.
And they were. As even a brief perusal of the documentation would instruct you. But NO! You won't even undertake that brief effort.

Another significant reason they should have had a airlock. And the LM windows? They were in shade. The DAC footage shows that as the sun is low and from behind.
Well, clearly, thermodynamics is a far distant country to your brain. Nobody can help you if you refuse such assistance.

Jay. You asked me what batteries are in the cabin. My original post pointed out the DAC camera for instance. It had two batteries that fail below -30 Celsius.
And there are very obvious reasons why you are flat out wrong. For example, the Lunar landings occured in the lunar morning when things were heating up on the surface. Or are you claiming that "vacuum" itself has a temperature? That would be a spectacularly idiotic claim to make. Do you know why?



Only one posters has attempted to answer the DAC issue. OneBigMonkey said  "a) it very obviously did and b) it produced film showing details that could not have been reproduced on Earth." It obviously did? That's not an answer. And footage that could not be produced on earth. Of all the footage, this DAC A11 footage seems the most "earthlike" of any footage. Very short strides, easy arm movements etc. And you say that footage can't be replicated on earth?
It can't. Disagree? Off you go and replicate it. If you are so convinced it should be a trivial matter for you to do so. <foot tapping>

In any event, somebody show me how hours of exposure to the vacuum of space away from the sun's radiation will not drop the temperature of objects drastically.
Will it? How? Convection is out right away as a mode of heat transfer/loss. So is conduction since the only point of contact is the spindly pads. All you are left with is radiative heat. Interestingly, that was an issue in the design of the craft. Not how to keep it warm, but how to get rid of the excess heat generated by the spacraft itself. That you are totally unaware of this calls into question your understanding of any of this. They were not trying to keep warm. They were trying to get rid of the heat they did not want.

Further, what scientific process will bring these object back up in temp, fast, efficiently and safely, to environmental temperatures humans can operate in without any aids?
Bloody hell. That is so colossally ignorant of science it is scary to me. You are claiming that you know of no technology that can regulate the temperature of an enclosed space. Jeez, even cavemen built fires in front of their cave. But you can't figure that out?
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: JayUtah on September 07, 2019, 02:23:39 PM
With regards to the main topic, nobody has given any sort of scientific explanation to the questions I have asked.

Nonsense.  They have correctly pointed out that -- as usual -- you are entirely ignorant of the sciences that pertain to your questions, which then are based entirely on misconceptions.  You don't get to skip over the part where you're ignorant yet demand that everyone must take your claims at face value and explain a solution that fits them.  You have a long history of ignoring any explanations given to you, only to have you slink away without admitting your error, withdrawing your accusations, or correcting your misconceptions.

I'm not playing your game.  Have you ever done an actual thermal analysis of an actual spacecraft and had the results adjudicated?  Yes or no.  We're going no further until you own your ignorance.

Quote
And even ignoring that, as someone pointed out, they should have been more concerned about the dust on their suits. Another significant reason they should have had a airlock.

That was me.  Instead of an airlock, they sent a much simpler, much safer, much lighter solution:  a vacuum cleaner.  Again, how many spacecraft have you designed?

Quote
And the LM windows? They were in shade. The DAC footage shows that as the sun is low and from behind.

The light reflected from the lunar surface passes through them into the cabin.  This has a considerable heating effect as it strikes the interior surfaces of the cabin.  Further, the front face of the LM cabin itself absorbs reflected heat.

Quote
It had two batteries that fail below -30 Celsius.

Prove your claim for the battery's temperature.  Show your work, including the heat-transfer equations.  Do it, or no further discussion.

Quote
In any event, somebody show me how hours of exposure to the vacuum of space away from the sun's radiation will not drop the temperature of objects drastically.

Shifting the burden of proof.  Admit that you have no qualification in the thermal design of spacecraft.  I will not indulge your arrogant ignorance until you stop pretending to be something you're not.

Quote
Further, what scientific process will bring these object back up in temp, fast, efficiently and safely, to environmental temperatures humans can operate in without any aids?

Clearly a process you have no understanding of, but which I and many others here do because it's a course second-year engineers come to fear.  First you have to prove the temperatures dropped as much as you say.  Then you can demand answers for consequences of that proposition.  Logically we call this "subversion of support."  Of course you won't do that.  You lack the skill to do it, so you want to pretend your layman's frantic handwaving suffices.  Second, you won't do it because you've proven time and again you're an intellectual coward.

Ball's in your court, bub.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: jr Knowing on September 07, 2019, 02:34:06 PM
Hi Abaddon,
I tried to be respectful to others. I don’t think you have to be disrespectful to get your point across.

With regards to your picture of shadows, you are using perspective and distance to create distortion.  You do realize the A11 photo not only is the picture centred from above, the shadow of the right astronaut crosses back over the Center of the photo and is still bigger than the more “centered” astronaut.

With all do respect, I don’t think you understand the dynamics of the vacuum of space correctly. Why do you think the lunar morning would impact the shaded insulated interior of the Lunar module? Further, your answer to how they would reheat the cabin escapes me. What radiant heat source are they using in the vacuum to bring temperatures back up. You seem to be confusing things when you talk about cavemen and problems of overheating. In both cases, there is atmosphere. Here there is not.  So what are they using for radiant heat?
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: Allan F on September 07, 2019, 02:35:05 PM
Just a question: Would the repressurization of the spacecraft not actually COOL it further, due to the expansion cooling of the oxygen used?
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: Allan F on September 07, 2019, 02:38:26 PM
Hi Abaddon,
I tried to be respectful to others. I don’t think you have to be disrespectful to get your point across.

With regards to your picture of shadows, you are using perspective and distance to create distortion.  You do realize the A11 photo not only is the picture centred from above, the shadow of the right astronaut crosses back over the Center of the photo and is still bigger than the more “centered” astronaut.

With all do respect, I don’t think you understand the dynamics of the vacuum of space correctly. Why do you think the lunar morning would impact the shaded insulated interior of the Lunar module? Further, your answer to how they would reheat the cabin escapes me. What radiant heat source are they using in the vacuum to bring temperatures back up. You seem to be confusing things when you talk about cavemen and problems of overheating. In both cases, there is atmosphere. Here there is not.  So what are they using for radiant heat?

The cabin would NOT be cold - there is no mechanism to carry the thermal energy away. But there were electronics heating the cabin and reflected sunlight streaming in through the windows.

The interior would radiate infrared - but it would radiate it to other parts of the interior. Only the very small hatch and the windows would allow any IR to escape the craft. But the hatch and windows let more IR IN than OUT.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: JayUtah on September 07, 2019, 02:38:49 PM
I tried to be respectful to others.

Bollocks.  You have been given correct responses to all the other topics you've brought up.  Instead of admitting your errors, you slink away and pretend they don't exist.  That is not only disrespectful, it rather absolves anyone else from playing your games.

Quote
With all do respect, I don’t think you understand the dynamics of the vacuum of space correctly.

That's rich.  I'm professionally qualified and licensed to do it, and have done it for actual spacecraft.  This is the part where you are highly disrespectful to your critics.

Do you have any formal, adjudicated training in the thermal design of spacecraft?  Yes or no, please.

Quote
So what are they using for radiant heat?

The Sun.  Define "radiant heat transfer" in your own words.  Put up or shut up.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: jr Knowing on September 07, 2019, 02:45:11 PM
Hi Jay,

Here is something I dug up quickly on the fly about battery survival in the Apollo mission. (I am on my phone).This is for the Rover.  Go to pg 39. As you can see, according to NASA themselves, battery “survival is -15 f. Also check out all the other components, virtually all the components won’t even survive the ‘mundane’ cold temps we have on earth. Balls in your court, bub.  :)

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/documents/NTRS/collection2/NASA_TM_X_66816.pdf
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: JayUtah on September 07, 2019, 02:46:16 PM
Hi Jay

You didn't answer my questions.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: jr Knowing on September 07, 2019, 03:29:38 PM
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/documents/NTRS/collection2/NASA_TM_X_66816.pdf

Pg 39. The DCE and SPU, the on-board electronics can’t even “survive” a cold day in Canada or a hot day in the Sahara. Yet it managed to work just fine in the harsh vacuum of space. This is not me saying this. This is NASA’s words. I guess they thought they were landing in New York City on a nice fall day.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: JayUtah on September 07, 2019, 03:34:41 PM
Pg 39.

Why are you dodging my questions?
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: apollo16uvc on September 07, 2019, 03:44:52 PM
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/documents/NTRS/collection2/NASA_TM_X_66816.pdf

Pg 39. The DCE and SPU, the on-board electronics can’t even “survive” a cold day in Canada or a hot day in the Sahara. Yet it managed to work just fine in the harsh vacuum of space. This is not me saying this. This is NASA’s words. I guess they thought they were landing in New York City on a nice fall day.
Why do you believe you can directly compare heat transfer through an atmosphere at Canada or the Sahara to radiant heat transfer in space?

They obviously transfer heat in different ways and at different rates.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: Jason Thompson on September 07, 2019, 03:53:15 PM
Hi Everyone,

First, with regards to the different length shadows of the astronauts in the EVA A11 DAC footage, posters are correct that perspective, distance and elevation can create the appearance of distorted shadows. But this isn't the case here.

Yes it is. The way the shadows change as the astronauts move over the surface in the film footage is precisely what would be expected from undulating terrain with a low sun angle.

Quote
With regards to the main topic, nobody has given any sort of scientific explanation to the questions I have asked.

Yes, they have. The problem is that you don't understand the science on which your argument is based. It is therefore impossible to answer your question scientifically unless you concede that your whole understanding is wrong in the first place. We know full well from previous experience you are unwilling to do that, so I ask again, why are you here?

Quote
People point out correctly that other spacecraft have carried the same technology, batteries etc. What they are ignoring is the fact is these components were insulated from the harshness of space.

Nope, they were entirely unpressurised and shaded within the spacecraft, so according to your argument they should not work.

Quote
And in terms of dust, apparently there is a dust cloud circling the moon.

A very tenuous one, and again it is not floating in any sense. This is a cloud of dust so thin you can stand in it and not see it.

Quote
And even ignoring that, as someone pointed out, they should have been more concerned about the dust on their suits. Another significant reason they should have had a airlock.

They were concerned, and they had various means for cleaning the dust off the suits which were a lot lighter than fitting an airlock. Do you think we have all forgotten that you argued about the added weight of the plume deflectors in your earier threads? Now you are arguing for a much heavier and more complex addition of weight to the spacecraft. Further evidence you are not remotely interested in actually learning, and frankly I am not convinced you even believe your own words at this point.

Quote
And the LM windows? They were in shade. The DAC footage shows that as the sun is low and from behind.

Go back and re-read my comment about the LM windows. I know they didn't get direct sunlight, but they got a lot of reflected.

Quote
In any event, somebody show me how hours of exposure to the vacuum of space away from the sun's radiation will not drop the temperature of objects drastically.

Can you get it into your head that that will ONLY apply to a completely passive object not generating its own heat? The LM interior is ALWAYS shaded. It only ever has the light and heat from the Sun coming into the cabin through the windows. And yet inside when it was pressurised it still generated so much heat from its own internal equipment that it had to have a coolant system to carry that heat away to prevent it overheating. This still applies even when the cabin is depressurised. The LM was not switched off during the EVA, so all its systems were still generating heat. Further, the LM is only shaded by itself. It is sitting in full sun, with a surface reflecting solar radiation back at it. The -200 degree temperature so often quoted about the lunar surface only happens when there is NO sulight AT ALL in the equation. It does not apply here.

Quote
Further, what scientific process will bring these object back up in temp, fast, efficiently and safely, to environmental temperatures humans can operate in without any aids?

When my car has been sat outside in sub zero temperatures, the heating system in it can warm the cabin to such extremes that I will be sweating within ten minutes. How long was it between entering the cabin and the astronauts removing their suits? You keep saying it was quick but have given no numbers to back this up.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: Jason Thompson on September 07, 2019, 03:55:30 PM
With all do respect, I don’t think you understand the dynamics of the vacuum of space correctly.

You definitely do not understand it.

Quote
So what are they using for radiant heat?

Literally every single electronic component in the LM generates radiant heat.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: JayUtah on September 07, 2019, 03:55:50 PM
They obviously transfer heat in different ways and at different rates.

Hence why I keep asking what adjudicated training or experience he's had in those different ways and rates.  He keeps comparing things to meteorological temperatures because the answer to my question is almost certainly "none."  And he doesn't want anyone to know that because his argument fails forthwith.  The reason engineering students have such a hard time with heat transfer is because they've lived an ordinary life up to that point in which heat transfer was an informal concept fraught with assumptions and biases learned in the "standard" environment.  More so that in many other engineering classes, we have to compel the students to unlearn informal concepts picked up through ordinary experience.

Jr Knowing's argument has two premises.  One is that equipment won't operate when the equipment itself falls below a certain temperature.  The other is that these minima were exceeded on the lunar surface in the LM.  Because he knows he's bluffing, he's trying very hard to pretend that establishing the first premise is all he needs.  He's begging the second premise because he has no clue how it works.  Since that's clearly the weakest part of his argument, that's where I'm focusing my efforts.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: Jason Thompson on September 07, 2019, 03:58:23 PM
Hi Jay,

Here is something I dug up quickly on the fly about battery survival in the Apollo mission. (I am on my phone).This is for the Rover.  Go to pg 39. As you can see, according to NASA themselves, battery “survival is -15 f. Also check out all the other components, virtually all the components won’t even survive the ‘mundane’ cold temps we have on earth. Balls in your court, bub.  :)

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/documents/NTRS/collection2/NASA_TM_X_66816.pdf

As I pointed out earlier, the rover batteries had temperature monitors on them. Prove that they ever got to those temperatures by using the available data from the Apollo missions and you might have a point. Do you think it might just be possible that the testing you have linked to, and the information about temperature effects on the battery life, might just have been used to set limits for the temperature of the batteries in use so that they could tell when they needed to be warmed in the sun or cooled in the shade?
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: JayUtah on September 07, 2019, 04:01:31 PM
You definitely do not understand it.

Agreed.  What's more, he's trying to tell others they don't, while at the same time giving his standard protests about how respectful he's being.  The arrogant bluffery tries my patience.

Quote
Literally every single electronic component in the LM generates radiant heat.

Correct.  Every energized electronic component generates heat.  That heat transfers conductively to anything with which it is in direct contact.  It also transfers radiatively to anything that has a view factor to it.

And as I mentioned before, the AEB cover has a completely favorable view factor to the sun, as do many other parts of the ascent stage structure -- many, such as the covers on the fuel tanks, intentionally so.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: LunarOrbit on September 07, 2019, 04:33:42 PM
Hi Jay

You didn't answer my questions.

Answering people's questions was one of the conditions I placed on Jr Knowing when he requested that I remove the posting restrictions I had placed on his account. I am beginning to regret lifting the restrictions.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: Von_Smith on September 07, 2019, 05:22:37 PM


With regards to the main topic, nobody has given any sort of scientific explanation to the questions I have asked. People point out correctly that other spacecraft have carried the same technology, batteries etc. What they are ignoring is the fact is these components were insulated from the harshness of space.

So, as you yourself pointed out in the OP, were the Apollo spacecraft. 

You have this bizarre conceit that once the air in the cabin was evacuated and the hatch opened, that the insulative properties of the LM would have been instantly, drastically and irrevocably compromised, as if the cabin were suddenly flooded with liquid nitrogen or something.  That's not how thermodynamics works.  Vacuum and cold aren't substances.  They don't come rushing in; heat escapes.  And for the LM on the moon, the only significant method by which heat escapes is radiation, which takes time, and which may or may not even be faster than the rate at which the LM produces heat or absorbs it from sunlight.  Evacuating the air in the cabin loses some heat capacity; leaving the hatch open changes the radiative properties somewhat.  I'll defer to Jay and others on the particulars.

Once the hatch is reclosed, though, the LM cabin would be just as spaceworthy as any satellite or space probe, with or without air.  There is no reason to think otherwise.

Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: raven on September 07, 2019, 05:39:26 PM
Here's a question for the ages, jr Knowing. If someone like you could 'figure out' an airlock would be needed, why didn't the folks at Grumman? Even if it was a hoax, these folks would still be doing their darndest to design and build a functional Lunar Module, right?
NASA contracting isn't simply them handing the contractor a set of blueprints and saying 'build this'.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: JayUtah on September 07, 2019, 06:18:47 PM
They don't come rushing in; heat escapes.

A more accurate picture of what's happening is to consider the mass of the escaping air -- which is very, very small.  The landed mass of the lunar module is still thousands of kilograms.  The air portion of that is negligible.  Having it suddenly go away changes the thermal picture of the LM very little.

Quote
[R}adiation ... takes time, and ... may or may not even be faster than the rate at which the LM produces heat or absorbs it from sunlight.  Evacuating the air in the cabin loses some heat capacity; leaving the hatch open changes the radiative properties somewhat.  I'll defer to Jay and others on the particulars.

I'd rather go the other direction.  In a phrase:  differential equations.  The rate at which heat radiates affects, and is affected by, the temperature of the object, among many other things.  The math to work out that behavior in the particulars of some given design makes strong men cry.  But the important answer to your question is that objects attain a thermal equilibrium in which they are absorbing as much heat as they are rejecting.  This means their temperature remains constant so long as the conditions remain constant.  How long it takes a system to reach that equilibrium depends on factors that are highly specific to each individual configuration.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: ApolloEnthusiast on September 07, 2019, 07:17:42 PM
A more accurate picture of what's happening is to consider the mass of the escaping air -- which is very, very small.  The landed mass of the lunar module is still thousands of kilograms.  The air portion of that is negligible.  Having it suddenly go away changes the thermal picture of the LM very little.
But once you let the air out, isn't the LM vulnerable to the "harsh vacuum" oozing into the cabin and putting cold all over everything?

There's basically no point in even discussing this with him until he can demonstrate willingness to get even a basic understanding of the science involved.  I know you mentioned the math behind this "makes strong men cry", but no math is required to understand that vacuum doesn't have a temperature.  No math is required to understand conceptually that there is no meaningful comparison between air temperature at any location on Earth and the fail temperatures of equipment in a vacuum. 

I tried to be respectful to others.
It is not even remotely respectful to enter into a discussion like this without even a basic understanding of the science involved, let alone to presume to tell others they don't understand something when it is painfully obvious you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. 

Not knowing something is fine, everybody has a vast multitude of things they don't know.  Expounding on these things as though you are an expert and demanding proof that you're wrong is completely unacceptable behavior.  If you ever grow up enough to do a small amount of study in these topics, you will probably discover for yourself, without need of anyone else's explanation, why things don't work the way you currently assume they work.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: smartcooky on September 07, 2019, 09:44:41 PM
Hi Jay,

Here is something I dug up quickly on the fly about battery survival in the Apollo mission. (I am on my phone).This is for the Rover.  Go to pg 39. As you can see, according to NASA themselves, battery “survival is -15 f. Also check out all the other components, virtually all the components won’t even survive the ‘mundane’ cold temps we have on earth. Balls in your court, bub.  :)

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/documents/NTRS/collection2/NASA_TM_X_66816.pdf

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/documents/NTRS/collection2/NASA_TM_X_66816.pdf

Pg 39. The DCE and SPU, the on-board electronics can’t even “survive” a cold day in Canada or a hot day in the Sahara. Yet it managed to work just fine in the harsh vacuum of space. This is not me saying this. This is NASA’s words. I guess they thought they were landing in New York City on a nice fall day.


OK, so where do I begin? How about this....

Understanding of of the difference between "Convective heat transfer, Conductive heat transfer and Radiative heat transfer"

(https://www.dropbox.com/s/g1exm11ocy5sw3z/FailedStamp.png?raw=1)

Here's a primer for you on heat transfer in space.

http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/thermal/2-does-heat-move-differently-in-space.html

Now go read it and come back when (if) you understand what it means, and how it applies to your failure here today.

Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: mako88sb on September 08, 2019, 01:21:21 AM
Just curious JK, what would it take to convince you that the Apollo manned landings on the Moon were real and happened as historically documented? From my many hours debating with hoax believers on youtube, the one thing I can say with absolute certainty is the vast majority of them would rather cut their tongues out before admitting they were wrong about anything. I think you could take most of them to the moon and show them everything left behind including the Apollo 16 UV telescope, LR tracks & astronaut footprints, LR's parked were they were left and the LM ascent stage impact sites and they would still say they weren't convinced. 
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: BertieSlack on September 08, 2019, 01:44:47 AM
with regards to the different length shadows of the astronauts in the EVA A11 DAC footage

Explain how you think the astronaut closer to the light source can cast a longer shadow.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: ka9q on September 08, 2019, 03:12:08 AM
Knowing's ignorance of the Apollo systems, as well as of heat transfer physics, is pretty amusing. Here are just a few of the many things he seems not to know:

1. As explained by others, there is only one form of heat transfer in a vacuum: radiation. However, the LM external environment wasn't a total vacuum in one very important respect: steam (gaseous water) was continuously vented from the LM sublimator to space whenever the LM was powered up (as it was during its entire solo flight and lunar stay). E.g., convective heat transfer to the environment was also significant.

2. The sublimator rejected heat that had been collected from the LM systems with a closed loop of glycol/water coolant (essentially radiator antifreeze) that circulated through a set of "cold plates" to which the various pieces of equipment were mounted. This liquid cooling system was actively controlled with thermostats and pumps to maintain everything at the desired temperature. Some of these cold plates were inside the crew compartment, while others were in unpressurized areas (everything outside the crew compartment).

3. None of the LM's batteries were inside the crew compartment. The batteries all operated in vacuum. There were four (five on Apollos 15-17) large batteries in the descent stage plus two smaller ones in the aft equipment bay of the ascent stage. All were mounted to the aforementioned cold plates through which liquid coolant was circulated. The batteries were in fact among the larger point sources of waste heat that had to be actively removed. They were in no danger of freezing.

4. The entire LM was well insulated against radiative heat transfer with thermal blankets, layers of aluminized Mylar and Kapton alternating with Dacron fabric to space them apart and minimize conduction. They were extremely effective. Perhaps he's heard of "space blankets" sold for camping and survival use and wondered where that term came from.

5. Every lunar landing occurred during early morning at the landing site when the lunar surface temperatures were quite modest. To the extent that the thermal blankets didn't totally block all radiative heat transfer between the LM and the sun, deep space and the lunar surface, the equilibrium temperatures were quite tolerable. Indeed, the excellent thermal insulation created a problem of how to get rid of the excess heat generated by the LM systems and crew metabolism (when the astronauts were inside). That's the reason for the liquid coolant loop and the sublimator.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: jfb on September 08, 2019, 09:40:27 AM
In a vacuum, the only methods of heat transfer are conduction and radiation.  Since the crew cabin was fairly well isolated from the lunar surface, I think we can ignore conduction and focus solely on radiation. 

[At this point I have to rely on external sources - I’m a code monkey, not an engineer or physicist]

This page (http://"hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/cootime.html#c1") shows how to compute the rate radiative heat loss using the Stefan-Boltzmann law.  With some rearranging and integrating, you can compute the rough amount of time it takes for an object to cool down from a high temperature to a lower one.

Keeping things “simple”, a solid block of unpolished aluminum (emissivity 0.09) just 10 cm on a side will take around 8 hours to go from 300 K (about 80 deg F) to 255 K (just under 0 deg F).  That’s...not that cold. To cool down to 100 K (roughly -280 deg F) would take around 13 days.  And that’s assuming there’s nothing heating that aluminum block (internal electronics or the Sun). 

IOW, this ain’t Hollywood.  Things and people don’t immediately freeze upon exposure to space.  It takes nontrivial amounts of time for objects to lose heat strictly through radiation.

Now, the crew cabin isn’t a solid block of commercial sheet aluminum 10 cm on a side - there are a bunch of different materials with different emissivities, densities, etc., and most of it’s built in thin sheets.  It’s also full of electronics and heaters to maintain stable temperatures, and it’s standing in the Sun the whole time. 

So evacuating the cabin for a few hours is simply not a big deal from a thermal management perspective.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: Von_Smith on September 08, 2019, 11:03:48 AM
They don't come rushing in; heat escapes.

A more accurate picture of what's happening is to consider the mass of the escaping air -- which is very, very small.  The landed mass of the lunar module is still thousands of kilograms.  The air portion of that is negligible.  Having it suddenly go away changes the thermal picture of the LM very little.

Quote
[R}adiation ... takes time, and ... may or may not even be faster than the rate at which the LM produces heat or absorbs it from sunlight.  Evacuating the air in the cabin loses some heat capacity; leaving the hatch open changes the radiative properties somewhat.  I'll defer to Jay and others on the particulars.

I'd rather go the other direction.  In a phrase:  differential equations.  The rate at which heat radiates affects, and is affected by, the temperature of the object, among many other things.  The math to work out that behavior in the particulars of some given design makes strong men cry.  But the important answer to your question is that objects attain a thermal equilibrium in which they are absorbing as much heat as they are rejecting.  This means their temperature remains constant so long as the conditions remain constant.  How long it takes a system to reach that equilibrium depends on factors that are highly specific to each individual configuration.

My stepfather was a nuclear physicist, and he failed diff eq the first time he took it.  Anyway, thanks for this.  And thanks also for pointing out that the LM actually *did* have a vacuum cleaner (even if it spoiled my joke a bit). 
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: gillianren on September 08, 2019, 11:35:57 AM
My understanding is that he claims he'd believe it wasn't a hoax if some other country reproduced a Moon landing.  Why that's his standard for this piece of history and how we know he wouldn't claim it was a hoax as well--after all, other countries' agencies have done science that relies on Apollo and proves its validity, but there it is--gets left unanswered, of course.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: mako88sb on September 08, 2019, 01:52:34 PM
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/documents/NTRS/collection2/NASA_TM_X_66816.pdf

Pg 39. The DCE and SPU, the on-board electronics can’t even “survive” a cold day in Canada or a hot day in the Sahara. Yet it managed to work just fine in the harsh vacuum of space. This is not me saying this. This is NASA’s words. I guess they thought they were landing in New York City on a nice fall day.

Here's a pdf you should find interesting:

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/creel_lrv_experiences_alsj.pdf
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: JayUtah on September 08, 2019, 02:26:21 PM
The entire LM was well insulated against radiative heat transfer with thermal blankets, layers of aluminized Mylar and Kapton alternating with Dacron fabric to space them apart and minimize conduction.

This needs to be emphasized.  While the Apollo LM incorporated a number of passive thermal control elements, a more straightforward approach is generally to insulate completely from the environment, preventing as much heat transfer as possible in either direction, and then  to use active controls to manage temperature.  From the engineer's perspective, this achieves a more controllable system that is more resilient to unforeseen conditions.  This was the overarching guiding principle in designing all the manned spacecraft and the space suits.  Then Apollo 13 pointed out the vulnerability of the key presumption in that approach:  that there will always be a source of heat somewhere in the system.

The space suits were almost completely insulated from the thermal effects of their environment, preventing heat flow in either direction.  The astronaut's metabolic heat was the presumptive heat source.  And you can imagine how hot you'd get in a suit that let very little heat pass through to the environment.  Then the LCG and sublimator were operated to reject unneeded heat.  That system was sized to reject either no heat, or a phenomenal amount of it, enough that the astronauts could get very cold if it were operated at full blast.  This is considered a safer design than trying to manage the heat flux across the suit boundary by largely passive means.  That doesn't mean the space suit doesn't use passive heat rejection methods -- a bright shiny outer layer of Beta cloth.  But the passive methods were aimed solely at rejecting heat, not absorbing a measured amount of it to maintain an internal temperature.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: Abaddon on September 09, 2019, 04:35:58 PM
Hi Abaddon,
I tried to be respectful to others.
Nope

I don’t think you have to be disrespectful to get your point across.
Not my problem if confrontation is all that provokes you to respond. YOU initiated that paradigm and only you.

With regards to your picture of shadows, you are using perspective and distance to create distortion.
All photographs have perspective and distortion. It could not be otherwise.

You do realize the A11 photo not only is the picture centred from above, the shadow of the right astronaut crosses back over the Center of the photo and is still bigger than the more “centered” astronaut.
QED.

With all do respect,
It's "due". Learn the word.
I don’t think you understand the dynamics of the vacuum of space correctly.
ORLY? Let's see your corrections shall we?

Why do you think the lunar morning would impact the shaded insulated interior of the Lunar module?
It's called angle of incidence. Go "research" that.

Further, your answer to how they would reheat the cabin escapes me.
The CM and the LM had to get rid of heat not retain it. This illustrates how disconnected from reality you are.

What radiant heat source are they using in the vacuum to bring temperatures back up.
None. The machinery generated far more heat than they needed, hence the use of porous plate sublimators to shed the excess heat.

You seem to be confusing things when you talk about cavemen and problems of overheating.
Nope. CSM and LM in operation generated far more heat that necessary for thermal requirements hence the had radiators to get rid of the excess heat.

In both cases, there is atmosphere. Here there is not.  So what are they using for radiant heat?
The spaceships. They generate heat all of their lonesome simply by dint of operating. The thermal problem for apollo was not keeping things warm, it was getting rid of the excess heat.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: bobdude11 on September 09, 2019, 05:40:11 PM
Shutting the door would not have stopped the vacuum of space from entering but it would have stopped any potential harmful dust floating around from entering the cabin.
Surely you understand that dust does not float in a vacuum in any place with gravity?  When the dust is kicked up by engines, spinning wheels or boots, it moves in the same manner as if it is a rock tossed into the area above the ground.

On a planet with an atmosphere, dust will be suspended in the air.  In a vacuum dust moves in an arc then falls to the ground like heavier particles

Ranb

Not to mention, the hatch DOES stop the vacuum of space from entering - or the astronauts would have been dead.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: bobdude11 on September 09, 2019, 05:53:13 PM


With regards to the main topic, nobody has given any sort of scientific explanation to the questions I have asked. People point out correctly that other spacecraft have carried the same technology, batteries etc. What they are ignoring is the fact is these components were insulated from the harshness of space. And in terms of dust, apparently there is a dust cloud circling the moon. (plus micrometorites hitting the surface constantly) And even ignoring that, as someone pointed out, they should have been more concerned about the dust on their suits. Another significant reason they should have had a airlock. And the LM windows? They were in shade. The DAC footage shows that as the sun is low and from behind.

Jay. You asked me what batteries are in the cabin. My original post pointed out the DAC camera for instance. It had two batteries that fail below -30 Celsius.  Only one posters has attempted to answer the DAC issue. OneBigMonkey said  "a) it very obviously did and b) it produced film showing details that could not have been reproduced on Earth." It obviously did? That's not an answer. And footage that could not be produced on earth. Of all the footage, this DAC A11 footage seems the most "earthlike" of any footage. Very short strides, easy arm movements etc. And you say that footage can't be replicated on earth?

In any event, somebody show me how hours of exposure to the vacuum of space away from the sun's radiation will not drop the temperature of objects drastically. Further, what scientific process will bring these object back up in temp, fast, efficiently and safely, to environmental temperatures humans can operate in without any aids?

But they have given scientific answers (albeit, much simplified for folks like me that wouldn't understand all the maths) - you choose to ignore those and post another rant.

You have been on here previously, posting things showing your lack of a basic understanding of the engineering involved (or anything else related to Apollo for that matter). you have demonstrated an inability to learn, much less understand.

Why do you NEED Apollo to be fake, so bad? What is your goal here?

Also, to be clear, I believe that Apollo 11 was landed during Lunar noon (or something of that nature) so there were no serious temperature swings (I am attempting to recall this from some other threads I read on here). The end result being: They (and the LM) were NOT exposed to +200 to -200 C temperatures that you allude to.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: raven on September 09, 2019, 07:08:58 PM
Actually, Apollo landed in the lunar morning, for two reasons I can think of off the top of my head. One, the surface is not as hot, and two, the longer shadows made navigation easier. At least this is my understanding. The engineers in the crowd are more than welcome to explain how I am wrong, and I, in fact, encourage it.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: sts60 on September 09, 2019, 07:13:56 PM
I’m late to the party, but bobdude11 has a good point:the LM was sitting on a warm surface during each mission (I have figures somewhere, and other people have posted them previously too).  Basically half of what the LM saw was warm Moon.  Roughly half the LM saw hot Sun. The LM also saw cold space.  The properties of the LM exterior were designed to manage this radiative environment.

The interior of the LM saw a little warm Moon and cold space, but was mostly insulated from the outside by vacuum.  jr Knowing’s understanding is exactly backward.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: jfb on September 09, 2019, 07:33:25 PM
In a vacuum, the only methods of heat transfer are conduction and radiation.  Since the crew cabin was fairly well isolated from the lunar surface, I think we can ignore conduction and focus solely on radiation. 

[At this point I have to rely on external sources - I’m a code monkey, not an engineer or physicist]

This page (http://"hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/cootime.html#c1") shows how to compute the rate radiative heat loss using the Stefan-Boltzmann law.  With some rearranging and integrating, you can compute the rough amount of time it takes for an object to cool down from a high temperature to a lower one.

Keeping things “simple”, a solid block of unpolished aluminum (emissivity 0.09) just 10 cm on a side will take around 8 hours to go from 300 K (about 80 deg F) to 255 K (just under 0 deg F).  That’s...not that cold. To cool down to 100 K (roughly -280 deg F) would take around 13 days.  And that’s assuming there’s nothing heating that aluminum block (internal electronics or the Sun). 

IOW, this ain’t Hollywood.  Things and people don’t immediately freeze upon exposure to space.  It takes nontrivial amounts of time for objects to lose heat strictly through radiation.

Now, the crew cabin isn’t a solid block of commercial sheet aluminum 10 cm on a side - there are a bunch of different materials with different emissivities, densities, etc., and most of it’s built in thin sheets.  It’s also full of electronics and heaters to maintain stable temperatures, and it’s standing in the Sun the whole time. 

So evacuating the cabin for a few hours is simply not a big deal from a thermal management perspective.

I realized it would help to show the work (I typed the above from an iPad without a keyboard, which got ... frustrating when I tried to add the math):

We start with the Stefan-Boltzmann law as described here (http://"http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/cootime.html#c1"):

    P = dE/dt = emissivity * sigma * surface area * ( T4hot - T4ambient )

where

   P is the total power emitted in Watts
   E is the energy of the system in Joules (power is energy change over time)
   emissivity is the effectiveness of emitting radiation (between 0 and 1, where 1 is an ideal emitter)
   sigma is the Stefan-Boltzman constant 5.670374419 x 10-8 W m-2 K-4
   surface area is in m2
   T is the temperature of the object in Kelvin

With some rearranging and integrating (see the page linked above for details), we get

    t = (Nk / (2 * emissivity * sigma * surface area) ) * ( T-3ambient - T-3hot )

where

   t is cooling time in seconds
   N is the number of particles in the system (atoms, molecules, etc.)
   k is the Boltzmann constant 1.380649 x 10-23 J/K
   
For my example, I computed the number of atoms in a 10 cm3 block of aluminum by first computing it's mass (assuming density of 2.7 g/cm^3, that's 2700 g or 2.7 kg), multiplied that by Avogadro's number, then divided by the molar mass of aluminum (29.98 g/mol), giving me an N of 6.03 x 1025.  I picked an emissivity of 0.09 for unpolished aluminum from here (http://"https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/emissivity-coefficients-d_447.html"). Plugging that into the above formula gave me

    (6.03E25 * 1.380649E-23)/(2 * 0.09 * 5.670374419E-8 * 0.06)(255-3 - 300-3)

which gave me around 3.16 x 104 seconds, or 8.78 hours.  Note that this is the minimum, ideal cooling time - it will be longer in the real world. 

This is consistent with the calculator on that page which uses a sphere, rather than a block, and the numbers are close enough for me to be confident I'm doing it right. 

So you can play around with this - pick different materials, different geometries, etc., and compute how long it would take for those items to radiate away all their heat. 

And remember, a vacuum isn't cold or hot - the concept of temperature doesn't really apply to a vacuum.  Things will get cold in space if they radiate away all their heat and there's nothing to warm them up again.  But the mere absence of an atmosphere by itself doesn't make things cold (otherwise Thermos bottles wouldn't work very well). 
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: JayUtah on September 09, 2019, 08:00:05 PM
I realized it would help to show the work...

And well done.

Quote
Things will get cold in space if they radiate away all their heat and there's nothing to warm them up again.

That's where the math makes you cry, because practical solutions require adjusting the single-surface computations to accommodate incoming radiation from other sources, including heat radiated from portions of a convoluted surface (belonging to the same object) that can "see" each other.  This is what the 13-element model for the LM was meant to accomplish.  The student might ask, "Do those effects matter?"  The answer in many cases is, "Yes, they do."  Portions of the LM radiated away their heat in directions that other parts of the LM could see and receive energy from.  This affects how rapidly they themselves cool by radiation, because Thot is not a simple value.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: jr Knowing on September 09, 2019, 08:05:35 PM
Hi Everyone,

First off, Mako88sb asks what it will take to convince me the Apollo missions were legit. To be clear, I am not 100 percent convinced they were hoaxed. As I have pointed out in the past, I believe the visuals, ie photos and films were faked. I am confident in my mind they were faked (and I am pretty certain of who some of the individuals that were involved). But fake photos don't necessarily mean the missions were faked. My stance currently is the photos/films are fake but I am unsure whether the missions actually took place. It is a bit of a stupid stance given if the pictures were faked, odds are the missions were faked too. But I have doubts. Some of the answers on this forum, for instance, have at least shown a plausibility of some things I thought were dubious. I think what is important here, people need to respect the thoughts of others, how much you may disagree with them. As far as I know, no one has a monopoly on truth.

Case in point, many of you guys profess to know everything about these missions and their scientific underpinnings. Well here is Jeff Bezos, who clearly knows, I would think, more about the complexities and issues of putting a man on the moon then anyone here, looking straight into Michael Collins eyes telling him the Apollo missions should have been impossible. He says it to him three times in two minutes. (he starts by clearing his throat at the .15 second mark. lol ) He then follows that up by saying even today we still haven't figured out many of the processes to get a man to the moon.  But instead of saying the missions didn't occur, he comes up with some bizarre gibberish to rationalize the missions occurred. He literally argues the Apollo missions were in some time warp in which the Apollo program was able to jump forward in time, use future technology, jettison the technology, and then go back in time. Absolute nonsense. But this is how he rationalizes the missions occurred. (This is not unlike astronaut Don Pettit (longest serving US astronaut) rationalization that "NASA destroyed all the technology".) Why? Because, given his intimate knowledge of the subject, he can't come up with a logical coherent explanation on how NASA accomplished those missions 50 years ago.  He literally says "we have to wait for technology to catch up". WTF? This from the man spending billions to put a man on the moon. These comments should be very sobering to everyone who thinks thinks they understand what happen in these Apollo missions. People should really take a step back and digest what he is saying. The only way he felt these missions occurred is because they were in a time warp. Tell me. What is more ridiculous? The Apollo missions were faked or the Apollo program was in a time warp and really traveled into the future?   

Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: raven on September 09, 2019, 08:14:52 PM
Objection, Your Honour.  Opposing council needs to demonstrate relevance.
Though one thing is clear. You can't even answer a simple question by a non-engineer (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1702.msg51769#msg51769), why wouldn't  Grumman engineers wouldn't have added an airlock to the design if it was so necessary  as you so insist, even in the event of a hoax, so, instead, you turn to subjective, wishy washy 'evidence'.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: sts60 on September 09, 2019, 08:29:10 PM
...Case in point, many of you guys profess to know everything about these missions and their scientific underpinnings. Well here is Jeff Bezos, who clearly knows, I would think, more about the complexities and issues of putting a man on the moon then anyone here, ...

I’ve been in aerospace for almost three decades.  And I’m not the most knowledgeable poster here.  Please don’t project your ignorance onto others.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: JayUtah on September 09, 2019, 08:36:15 PM
I think what is important here, people need to respect the thoughts of others,

No.  If you base your accusations on ignorant rubbish, it will be called out as ignorant rubbish.  Stop whining about how badly you think you've been treated.  Ignorance is not a point of view, and your ham-fisted forays into social engineering have never worked.  It's not a matter of "disagreement."  When it comes to heat transfer, you are simply wrong.  Being wrong has consequences.

Quote
Case in point...

No, it's not a "case in point."  It's a feeble attempt at distraction after having your head handed to you once again.  You're not an engineer.  You don't know how engineering works, or how space works.  And you won't give any respect to those who do.  I don't see you apologizing for foisting layman's misconceptions about heat transfer and expecting people to take them at face value.  No, you dishonestly run frantically away from your glaring errors and pivot quickly to some other argument.  You even smugly tried to claim you knew the subject better than others.

Quote
Well here is Jeff Bezos, who clearly knows, I would think, more about the complexities and issues of putting a man on the moon then anyone here...

No.  He's a guy with piles of money who attracts media attention.  He hires people like me and some of our other regulars to work out the actual technology.  Your "argument" is nothing more than you pretending you know why people in a YouTube video are acting the way they do.  It's wholesale speculation.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: JayUtah on September 09, 2019, 08:44:28 PM
He literally argues the Apollo missions were in some time warp in which the Apollo program was able to jump forward in time, use future technology, jettison the technology, and then go back in time.

No, that is literally not his argument.

Quote
The Apollo missions were faked or the Apollo program was in a time warp and really traveled into the future?

Wow.  It's been a long time since I've seen someone so desperate to stretch another person's words into the realm of the absurd.  Are you actually trying to say that Bezos was referring -- literally -- to time-travel?
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: jr Knowing on September 09, 2019, 09:00:16 PM
Hi Jay,

Actually Bezos is saying that we used technology in Apollo missions from the future. Plain and simple. You have the right to disagree.

But I need to point out something. Are you a linguistics PHD? Why is it everyone is allowed to express their opinion sans credentials when it suits you? But if someone's opinion doesn't suit yours, you demand to see their PHd in Thermodynamics, rocket science etc. Reflect on your previous posts, and you will see that.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: JayUtah on September 09, 2019, 09:11:17 PM
Actually Bezos is saying that we used technology in Apollo missions from the future.

No, he isn't.  He's merely claiming that it was an anachronistic leap.  Nowhere does he mention time travel.  That's entirely made up.  By you.

Quote
You have the right to disagree.

I do, and I do.  But claiming that Bezos is talking about literal time travel is absurd on its face.  You don't have the right to demand respect for patently absurd interpretations of other people's statements.

Quote
Are you a linguistics PHD?

No, and neither are you.  Gleaning the proper understanding of sentences spoken in a common language is within the layman's ken.  In this particular case, Bezos is talking about the industry I work in, so I will claim a greater ability than yours to put those comments in a useful perspective.

Quote
But if someone's opinion doesn't suit yours, you demand to see their PHd in Thermodynamics, rocket science etc.

Thermodynamics, heat transfer, and all the other engineering topics you've pretended to understand are not matters of opinion.  They are matters of fact.  You got the facts wrong, and you're pulling out all the stops to avoid having to pay the consequences for that.  You are not entitled to have your ignorance respected.

Quote
Reflect on your previous posts, and you will see that.

Kindly don't talk down to me.  You are not some zen master.  You're just the same run-of-the-mill sort of charlatan that wants credit for things he hasn't earned, and wants to pretend he's some otherwise deep thinker.  Get over yourself.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: jr Knowing on September 09, 2019, 09:17:26 PM
Hi Jay,

Again. You read what you want to read. I said time warp.

Time Warp:A hypothetical discontinuity in the flow of time that would move events from one time period to another
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: JayUtah on September 09, 2019, 09:19:38 PM
Again. You read what you want to read. I said time warp.

And Bezos did not.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: jr Knowing on September 09, 2019, 09:33:32 PM
Hi Jay,

Bezos says, "we as humanity, pulled that moon landing way forward, out of sequence, from where it should have been" (0:20 -0:30 of the video)

Time Warp:A hypothetical discontinuity in the flow of time that would move events from one time period to another.

Textbook. Plain and simple. And absolute nonsense to explain the legitimacy of the moon missions.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: JayUtah on September 09, 2019, 09:34:59 PM
...instead, you turn to subjective, wishy washy 'evidence'.

Indeed, he's in hog heaven now that he can discuss something that's a matter of opinion instead of something that requires him to know the material.  I'm pretty sure I know what Jeff Bezos is saying, and I agree with his sentiment in the way I think it applies to our industry.  But as long as Jr Knowing gets to say, as a matter of his irrefutable opinion, that Bezos is claiming Apollo had to have been the product of some freak time warp, he gets to avoid having his head handed to him, as usual, over the facts.  If he wants to argue that way, it's his business.  But where it really hits the skids is where he assiduously avoids admitting he simply got the facts wrong.  That's what reveals it as nothing but a shameful ego-reinforcement exercise.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: Von_Smith on September 09, 2019, 09:38:36 PM
Hi Everyone,

First off, Mako88sb asks what it will take to convince me the Apollo missions were legit. To be clear, I am not 100 percent convinced they were hoaxed. As I have pointed out in the past, I believe the visuals, ie photos and films were faked. I am confident in my mind they were faked (and I am pretty certain of who some of the individuals that were involved). But fake photos don't necessarily mean the missions were faked. My stance currently is the photos/films are fake but I am unsure whether the missions actually took place. It is a bit of a stupid stance given if the pictures were faked, odds are the missions were faked too. But I have doubts. Some of the answers on this forum, for instance, have at least shown a plausibility of some things I thought were dubious. I think what is important here, people need to respect the thoughts of others, how much you may disagree with them. As far as I know, no one has a monopoly on truth.

Case in point, many of you guys profess to know everything about these missions and their scientific underpinnings. Well here is Jeff Bezos, who clearly knows, I would think, more about the complexities and issues of putting a man on the moon then anyone here, looking straight into Michael Collins eyes telling him the Apollo missions should have been impossible. He says it to him three times in two minutes. (he starts by clearing his throat at the .15 second mark. lol ) He then follows that up by saying even today we still haven't figured out many of the processes to get a man to the moon.  But instead of saying the missions didn't occur, he comes up with some bizarre gibberish to rationalize the missions occurred. He literally argues the Apollo missions were in some time warp in which the Apollo program was able to jump forward in time, use future technology, jettison the technology, and then go back in time. Absolute nonsense. But this is how he rationalizes the missions occurred. (This is not unlike astronaut Don Pettit (longest serving US astronaut) rationalization that "NASA destroyed all the technology".) Why? Because, given his intimate knowledge of the subject, he can't come up with a logical coherent explanation on how NASA accomplished those missions 50 years ago.  He literally says "we have to wait for technology to catch up". WTF? This from the man spending billions to put a man on the moon. These comments should be very sobering to everyone who thinks thinks they understand what happen in these Apollo missions. People should really take a step back and digest what he is saying. The only way he felt these missions occurred is because they were in a time warp. Tell me. What is more ridiculous? The Apollo missions were faked or the Apollo program was in a time warp and really traveled into the future?   



Does Jeff Bezos think the Apollo missions were faked?  Because unless he does, I don't see your point here.

Also, why are you changing the subject?
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: JayUtah on September 09, 2019, 09:41:10 PM
Bezos says, "we as humanity, pulled that moon landing way forward, out of sequence, from where it should have been"

Yes.  He's saying Apollo was an anachronism, and explains how.  He's not saying the only way it could have happened for real is if we had pulled technology literally out of the future.  In fact, he explicitly says near the end of the video that we are still basing much of what we do in space engineering on technology that NASA invented in the 1960s, but we get to use it in a more refined form.  Do more than cherry-pick.

Quote
Textbook. Plain and simple.  And absolute nonsense to explain the legitimacy of the moon missions.

Because you need it to seem like absolute nonsense so that your claims of fraud aren't so ridiculous in contrast.  Again, I've never seen someone go to such absurd lengths to foist an interpretation onto someone else.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: JayUtah on September 09, 2019, 09:43:31 PM
Also, why are you changing the subject?

Obviously to distract from the abject and arrogant ignorance he displayed when trying to discuss heat transfer.  Most conspiracy theorists will bluff what facts they can.  But when that doesn't work, they pivot the discussion to something that is either entirely a matter of opinion or judgment, or to allegations of fact that can never be ascertained.  This is so they can pretend that their position has some sort of intellectual merit.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: jr Knowing on September 09, 2019, 09:50:48 PM
Hi Von Smith,

I am not quite sure if he thinks it is faked or not. But the rational he uses to suggest they were real is nonsensical. The question is why he uses this rational. He is not some guy off the street. He is intimately acquainted with the issues of getting a man to the moon. For him to say, we have been "waiting for technology to catch up" because the missions took place "out of sequence" in man's evolution is bizarre to say the least. If it was some guy posting that on this forum he would be labeled a crank at the very least. But this is the guy behind perhaps the next mission (or first :)  ) to the moon.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: AtomicDog on September 09, 2019, 09:52:54 PM
Hi Von Smith,

I am not quite sure if he thinks it is faked or not. But the rational he uses to suggest they were real is nonsensical. The question is why he uses this rational. He is not some guy off the street. He is intimately acquainted with the issues of getting a man to the moon. For him to say, we have been "waiting for technology to catch up" because the missions took place "out of sequence" in man's evolution is bizarre to say the least. If it was some guy posting that on this forum he would be labeled a crank at the very least. But this is the guy behind perhaps the next mission (or first :)  ) to the moon.

I thought you were arguing about airlocks and vacuum?
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: JayUtah on September 09, 2019, 09:59:11 PM
I am not quite sure if he thinks it is faked or not.

Since he concedes he bases his endeavors on what NASA did in the 1960s, what would a reasonable conclusion be?

Quote
But the rational he uses to suggest they were real is nonsensical.

The word is "rationale," and it's not his rationale.  It's yours.  You've taken what he's said and applied a bizarre, overly literal interpretation to it.  No, I'm not a linguist.  But my spouse is a lawyer, a profession driven by properly construing statements.  And yes, jurisprudence has guidelines for interpreting statements in just such occasions as this, contained in books right here on our bookshelf.  One of the guidelines is that if both a literal and a figurative interpretation are possible, and the literal interpretation is absurd on its face, the figurative interpretation was probably intended.

Quote
The question is why he uses this rational.

No, that is not the question because it's not his rationale.  Just like you wanted "scientific" answers to your questions that were based on nonsensical pidgin-scientific assertions, you now want us to jump over the fact that you're pasting an interpretation onto Bezos' statements for the sole purpose of pretending they're nonsensical, then demand that we explain it without questioning your premises.  You aren't even willing to entertain the possibility that he's not talking about literal time travel.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: JayUtah on September 09, 2019, 10:01:37 PM
I thought you were arguing about airlocks and vacuum?

He was.  And before starting a new subject, it would have been appropriate for him to say, "I see I was wrong about how vacuum would have affected the cooling of the LM and the camera batteries."  But we get no such honesty.  He's desperately trying to pivot to a "soft" topic that doesn't have any ascertainable facts he can trip over.  Pure distraction.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: jr Knowing on September 09, 2019, 10:10:38 PM
Hi Jay and Atomic Dog,

Actually I was hoping somebody would ask me about the Apollo photos and who did them :) . (ok just kidding)

With regards to heat transferr, thanks to jfb and Bertie for taking a stab at things. Believe it or not, us non phd's do know about black-body radiation and the S-B law. And while some of the assumptions they use are different from mine, they have demonstrated it would take longer to reach extreme cold than I thought. Having said that, 2 things. 1)Many things within the cabin did not have to reach extreme temperatures to not function. According to NASA docs, for instances, many of the electronic components needed 30 F to function. (and max temp of only of 120F) 2) Many of the posters argue that it wasn't cold that was the worry but rather heat. (Which I knew many would argue prior to posting my questions.) Fair enough. But what about A13? They felt things getting colder not hotter. So either posters here are correct, and the astronauts were lying. Or the A13 Astronauts are correct and the posters here are wrong? Which is it?
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: Von_Smith on September 09, 2019, 10:23:56 PM
Hi Von Smith,

I am not quite sure if he thinks it is faked or not. But the rational he uses to suggest they were real is nonsensical. The question is why he uses this rational. He is not some guy off the street. He is intimately acquainted with the issues of getting a man to the moon. For him to say, we have been "waiting for technology to catch up" because the missions took place "out of sequence" in man's evolution is bizarre to say the least. If it was some guy posting that on this forum he would be labeled a crank at the very least. But this is the guy behind perhaps the next mission (or first :)  ) to the moon.

You introduce Bezos as a guy who knows what he's talking about, and then turn around and insist he's talking rubbish.  Which one is it?  You can't have it both ways.

If the notion that time travel was somehow involved in Apollo technology is preposterous, then anybody who suggests it, no matter how famous or esteemed otherwise, is wrong.  So the only conclusion I could draw from your argument, even if I granted your characterization of what Bezos says in this clip, is that he doesn't actually know how NASA did it.  Which is not an argument that the missions were fake.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: JayUtah on September 09, 2019, 10:28:31 PM
Believe it or not, us non phd's do know about black-body radiation and the S-B law.

Now, perhaps, after having been spoon-fed those concepts by people here.  Earlier you were trying to compare temperatures of objects in space to temperatures in the meteorological sense, as of some congruence could be expected.  That is a tell-tale rookie mistake.  I've used and taught these concepts literally for decades.  I'm quite familiar with the misconceptions newcomers bring to the table.

Quote
Many things within the cabin did not have to reach extreme temperatures to not function.

But you've provided no justification for the premise that anything in LM would reach any specific temperature.  You've just given the layman's wrong-headed impression that vacuum would "rush in," and that this vacuum would be icy cold.

Quote
According to NASA docs, for instances, many of the electronic components needed 30 F to function.

This just commits the same error as your prior argument.  Yes, it is generally possible to discover the lowest temperature at which various Apollo equipment was expected to function.  You focus on that premise and leave alone entirely the premise that any part of the LM got to temperatures that made those limits an issue.  You know your argument is weak on that point, so you hammer the other one distractively.

Further, it has been stated several times that electronic components generate heat simply by the fact that they are passing current.  You're still arguing as if you believe there is some ambient that has an extremely low temperature, and that these components are soaking in it.  As I mentioned at least twice, the temperature-sensitive equipment can be mounted in the AEB, where it receives the full force of the sun.

Quote
Which I knew many would argue prior to posting my questions.

No, you didn't.

Quote
But what about A13? They felt things getting colder not hotter.

Because the CM is an aerodynamic vehicle, its thermal design is less forgiving.  It cannot eliminate all the conduction paths to the skin.  But more importantly, the thermal design of all the Apollo spacecraft presumed that there would be a source of heat.  I already explained this earlier, in my lengthier presentation on thermal design.  You obviously didn't read it.  There was no flight scenario contemplated in which all the spacecraft electronics would be shut off, depriving the cabin of its source of heat.  Hence the thermal design presumed that heat source as part of computing its equilibrium temperature.

As a matter of historical fact, the cabin temperature was reasonable until the astronauts covered the windows to block the sun while they slept.  Then it dropped to near freezing.  Why?  Because the solar influx was enough to maintain the temperature using the residual heat from before, when the electronics were operating.  With the windows blocked, the equilibrium of the interior surfaces was disrupted, and that affects the rate of heat flow.  The difference between influx to maintain a temperature and influx to raise to a temperature is one of the many counterintuitive things about heat transfer, and why it takes an expert to understand it properly.

Quote
So either posters here are correct, and the astronauts were lying. Or the A13 Astronauts are correct and the posters here are wrong? Which is it?

Or the ubiquitous third option:  once again you don't know what you're talking about, and are manufacturing dilemmas out of your copious ignorance.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: Von_Smith on September 09, 2019, 10:28:37 PM
Hi Jay and Atomic Dog,

Actually I was hoping somebody would ask me about the Apollo photos and who did them :) . (ok just kidding)

With regards to heat transferr, thanks to jfb and Bertie for taking a stab at things. Believe it or not, us non phd's do know about black-body radiation and the S-B law. And while some of the assumptions they use are different from mine, they have demonstrated it would take longer to reach extreme cold than I thought. Having said that, 2 things. 1)Many things within the cabin did not have to reach extreme temperatures to not function. According to NASA docs, for instances, many of the electronic components needed 30 F to function. (and max temp of only of 120F) 2) Many of the posters argue that it wasn't cold that was the worry but rather heat. (Which I knew many would argue prior to posting my questions.) Fair enough. But what about A13? They felt things getting colder not hotter. So either posters here are correct, and the astronauts were lying. Or the A13 Astronauts are correct and the posters here are wrong? Which is it?

Apollo 13 wasn't running on anything near full power, so it wasn't generating as much heat as it would on a normal mission. I find it hard to believe you could dig up the factoids above and not know that.  Are you *trying* to be disingenuous? 
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: jfb on September 09, 2019, 10:36:41 PM
Well here is Jeff Bezos, who clearly knows, I would think, more about the complexities and issues of putting a man on the moon then anyone here, looking straight into Michael Collins eyes telling him the Apollo missions should have been impossible. He says it to him three times in two minutes. (he starts by clearing his throat at the .15 second mark. lol ) He then follows that up by saying even today we still haven't figured out many of the processes to get a man to the moon.  But instead of saying the missions didn't occur, he comes up with some bizarre gibberish to rationalize the missions occurred. He literally argues the Apollo missions were in some time warp in which the Apollo program was able to jump forward in time, use future technology, jettison the technology, and then go back in time.

This is an entirely serious question - is English not your first language?  Because that’s not what Bezos is saying at all.

Quote
...in many ways it should have been impossible and they pulled it off with, you know, barely any computational power, they were still using slide rules, they couldn’t numerically model in computers a lot of these important processes like combustion inside a rocket engine which is still hard today but we can do it a little bit they didn’t have computational fluid dynamics to really [???]  to be done in a wind tunnel nothing could be done on computer so I think the reason we’ve sort of taken a hiatus maybe in part at least because we did we pulled that forward from a time when it should have been impossible and then once it was done kinda had to wait and let technology catch up...

That should be enough to get the point across.

He’s saying that what NASA managed to do was pretty incredible for the time, that they managed to do it without the tools we assume would be necessary, that they did it with slide rules and computers that were barely up to the task.  They did it by marshaling a lot of very smart people who knew how to get the most out of the tools they had, building lots and lots and lots of physical prototypes, testing the hell out of them, gathering data, building more prototypes, etc.  The reason we didn’t continue that effort is because it was very difficult and expensive - we took a break to let the technology catch up so we didn’t have to do it the hard way anymore.  It’s the same reason it took well over a decade for a GUI-driven personal computer systems to get from the Xerox Parc to the first Macintosh - the technology wasn’t quite ready yet. 

HE IS MOST EMPHATICALLY NOT TALKING ABOUT TIME TRAVEL

Just like aeronautical engineers of the 1930s and 1940s were able to make incredible advances in aviation (the Douglas DC-3, the Lockheed P-38 Lightning, the Heinkel He 178) with no computers or advanced numerical modeling.  Slide rules, scale models, wind tunnels, engine test stands, and armies of engineers can go a long way. 
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: JayUtah on September 09, 2019, 10:39:07 PM
You introduce Bezos as a guy who knows what he's talking about...

More accurately, he introduces Bezos as a guy who should know what he's talking about.  But I think that was mostly just so Jr Knowing could follow that up with the sentiment that we should be humble because we're not as smart as we think, and certainly not as smart as Jeff Bezos.  It does, however, establish a premise for the more relevant claim.

Quote
...and then turn around and insist he's talking rubbish.

Yeah, it's not clear whether the claim is that Bezos really believes time travel was used, or whether that's the best explanation Bezos could come up with rather than admit Apollo was fake.  This is the sort of nonsense you get when the desperation to form any sort of mud-slinging argument takes over.

Quote
If the notion that time travel was somehow involved in Apollo technology is preposterous, then anybody who suggests it, no matter how famous or esteemed otherwise, is wrong.

Jr Knowing is trying to pit Time-Travel Apollo against Fake Apollo and point out that Fake Apollo is more plausible.  He seems to like these false-dilemma arguments.  The obvious third alternative is that Apollo was real, and that Bezos is simply pointing out that it's an anachronism in the context of what he thinks the aerospace industry could have done absent the special impetus.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: Glom on September 09, 2019, 10:41:36 PM
Bezos is a bookshop owner. He's not an expert on space technology. He merely uses his bookshop wealth to pay experts to develop spacecraft. And god bless him for it.

But his philosophical musings can't be taken a expert testimony on the credibility of Apollo technology.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: JayUtah on September 09, 2019, 10:48:11 PM
Just like aeronautical engineers of the 1930s and 1940s were able to make incredible advances in aviation (the Douglas DC-3, the Lockheed P-38 Lightning, the Heinkel He 178) with no computers or advanced numerical modeling.  Slide rules, scale models, wind tunnels, engine test stands, and armies of engineers can go a long way.

Any who are interested, go hunt down Catechism of the Locomotive.  It's a treatise from Victorian times on how to design and build a steam locomotive.  The degree of sophistication is surprising.  There are simple phase diagrams for laying out the valve gear and to establish the lap and lead on the valves, all rigorously mathematical in their underpinnings but rendered in geometry that is simple and intuitive.  It's correct, simple, and elegant.

Among the points Bezos makes is that we simply do things differently these days.  And it's common to believe that there were no previous methods or tools to accomplish the same goals.  There were.  The anachronism that Bezos speaks of is not that Apollo engineers did things that would only have been possible with computational finite-element methods or other advanced tools.  It's that they were motivated to go above and beyond their baseline capability with the tools they had.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: jfb on September 09, 2019, 10:50:32 PM
I realized it would help to show the work...

And well done.

Quote
Things will get cold in space if they radiate away all their heat and there's nothing to warm them up again.

That's where the math makes you cry, because practical solutions require adjusting the single-surface computations to accommodate incoming radiation from other sources, including heat radiated from portions of a convoluted surface (belonging to the same object) that can "see" each other.  This is what the 13-element model for the LM was meant to accomplish.  The student might ask, "Do those effects matter?"  The answer in many cases is, "Yes, they do."  Portions of the LM radiated away their heat in directions that other parts of the LM could see and receive energy from.  This affects how rapidly they themselves cool by radiation, because Thot is not a simple value.

Which is why I stuck with a solid block of aluminum.  I know my limits.  I made it through DE with a D for “Done” and am thankful on a daily basis I don’t need to use anything more advanced than basic algebra. 

But when Jr or cambo start making quantitative arguments, I feel like that needs to be met head-on with actual numbers.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: NthBrick on September 09, 2019, 11:15:57 PM

Any who are interested, go hunt down Catechism of the Locomotive.  It's a treatise from Victorian times on how to design and build a steam locomotive.  The degree of sophistication is surprising.  There are simple phase diagrams for laying out the valve gear and to establish the lap and lead on the valves, all rigorously mathematical in their underpinnings but rendered in geometry that is simple and intuitive.  It's correct, simple, and elegant.

Through the wonders of the World Wide Web, that was easy: http://ibls.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Catechism_of_the_Locomotive

There is decidedly a certain joy in reading about how engineers in the past approached problems. And, for what it's worth, there's a part of me that prefers the very clear, spartan, no-nonsense style of old textbooks to that of new ones. I've had the fortune of inheriting a lot of my grandfather's old undergraduate engineering books, and they are eminently straightforward.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: jr Knowing on September 09, 2019, 11:18:58 PM
Blue Origin Board of Directors Meeting

Book Shop Owner - "Well we have been in business nearly 20 years now. I am spending a billion dollars a year to finance this endeavor, where are we at? How far off earth have we got?

CEO- "60"

Bookshop owner- "60,000 miles. Wonderful."

CEO- "No 60 miles"

Bookshop owner - "60 miles? In 20 years? Wtf. NASA put six craft on the moon 240000 miles away after only 5 or 6 years of development 50 years ago. Are you saying we can't even do a quick 2 hour 10000 mile joyride into space and back?"

CEO- "Yup, Didn't you get the memo? Something about a time warp. And all the technology was destroyed.  And blueprints? Apparently they have been misplaced. Here I will let Don Petitt, US's longest serving astronaut explain it to you"



Bookshop Owner- "Ahhh... that explains it. Here's another cheque for a billion. Promise me we can get to at least 100 miles up before I run out of Amazon stock."
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: JayUtah on September 09, 2019, 11:22:13 PM
Which is why I stuck with a solid block of aluminum.  I know my limits.

Or rather, the reasonable limits that apply to an academic exercise.  This is a problem we run into in engineering education, and in other fields.  "Jay, can you work problem number two from the homework?"  "No."  "Why not?"  "Because it will take about six hours to solve by hand."  We tend to stick to the toy problems for classroom exercises and trust that the concepts will scale in the face of homework and, later, real-world problems.

Quote
But when Jr or cambo start making quantitative arguments, I feel like that needs to be met head-on with actual numbers.

Yes, that's a strong, valid rebuttal.  I don't disagree, but I feel that the burden-of-proof principle should get some air time too.  When a claimant makes quantitative assertions, I feel that they need to be backed up with quantitative rationales before there is an obligation to rebut at length.  In my younger days I provided detailed, documented rebuttals to many claimants, only to have them ignored.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: JayUtah on September 09, 2019, 11:28:08 PM
Blue Origin Board of Directors Meeting

Sorry to interrupt your rampant fantasization, but the adults are trying to test your claims.  Nobody is buying your ludicrous attempt to twist Jeff Bezos' statements into something that argues for time travel as the only means to bring about Apollo.  Drop it.  It didn't work.

Quote
[Pettit video]

If you had any experience in the aerospace industry, you'd be able to put Pettit's statements in their proper context.  Do you concede that there's an interpretation of his statement that that allows the technology once to have existed?  Or is this another case of you demanding -- "Textbook.  Simple." -- that you can't possibly be reading into a statement something its speaker didn't intend?
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: Abaddon on September 09, 2019, 11:37:38 PM

CEO- "Yup, Didn't you get the memo? Something about a time warp. And all the technology was destroyed.  And blueprints? Apparently they have been misplaced.
You are going with the lost blueprints narrative? We already know that is baloney.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: jr Knowing on September 09, 2019, 11:38:04 PM
Hi Jay,

Petitt is making a rationalization. He knows the technology doesn't exist now but because he believes or assumes the Apollo missions were real, so he is suggesting it once existed. But he also says it is a painful process to rebuild it. Why? It only took 5 years of development 50 years ago to put a man on the moon. Surely, with all of man's advances since then, it should be easier and a shorter time frame now. Do you not agree?
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: jr Knowing on September 09, 2019, 11:43:22 PM
Hi Abaddon,

The lack of blueprints is not baloney. The only thing out there, (for the most part) are dumb downed diagrams intended for media use.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: JayUtah on September 09, 2019, 11:58:46 PM
But he also says it is a painful process to rebuild it. Why?

Because today there is no political will to do it, no vision for it galvanized by a dead beloved President and a politically-savvy NASA administrator, and inconsistent funding.  And also because the aerospace industry today is no longer exotic and therefore no longer exempt from regulations and practices that were either not in place or not enforced in the 1960s.  It would be illegal, for example, to fly a Saturn V today because it does not meet international standards for launch vehicle design.

Quote
It only took 5 years of development 50 years ago to put a man on the moon.

How are you reckoning those five years?  Starting when and ending when?

Quote
Surely, with all of man's advances since then, it should be easier and a shorter time frame now. Do you not agree?

I do not agree.  The argument in favor of your expectations is just vague handwaving.  Instead of grand gesticulations toward "all of man's advances," describe in detail what you think some of the modern advantages are and specifically how they help.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: JayUtah on September 09, 2019, 11:59:29 PM
The lack of blueprints is not baloney. The only thing out there, (for the most part) are dumb downed diagrams intended for media use.

Where have you personally looked?  How do you know what's available?
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: jfb on September 10, 2019, 12:01:25 AM
CEO- "Yup, Didn't you get the memo? Something about a time warp. And all the technology was destroyed.  And blueprints? Apparently they have been misplaced. Here I will let Don Petitt, US's longest serving astronaut explain it to you"



Bookshop Owner- "Ahhh... that explains it. Here's another cheque for a billion. Promise me we can get to at least 100 miles up before I run out of Amazon stock."

Oh for God’s sake, this nonsense again.  Look, we know you’re just a dishonest troll who really needs a better hobby (I recommend guitar) but when you pretend to be this dumb it just makes it harder to play along.

You and your fellow HB weenies are deliberately misrepresenting Petit’s statement.  We didn’t lose or misplace anything.  We chose to stop building the Apollo hardware and scrapped the tooling in favor of STS.  What he’s saying is we don’t have anything we can just pull off the shelf, dust off, and fly to the Moon today.  We have to build new vehicles, new spacecraft, new infrastructure, etc.  Which we are doing - it’s just taking a lot more time and money than it reasonably should. 
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: Obviousman on September 10, 2019, 12:12:16 AM
According to jr's reasoning, Concorde was a hoax.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: jr Knowing on September 10, 2019, 12:14:22 AM
Hi Jay and jfb,

Sorry, I should have said 7 years of development (from 1961-1968 Apollo8)

Jfb, I think you can interpret Petitt's comments as you suggest. It still doesn't change the fact (or why) after 50 years they have not used "this technology" on one vehicle, one craft, or one program in which man has left earth's orbit. Even for a quick test joyride.  And you suggest they are doing it now? They have been saying that for years. Kicking the can and changing the goalposts all the time. Trump says we are going to the moon just recently. Then someone "kicked" him and now we are instead going to Mars. That should buy another 20 years of time.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: LunarOrbit on September 10, 2019, 12:14:40 AM
Hi Jay,

Petitt is making a rationalization. He knows the technology doesn't exist now but because he believes or assumes the Apollo missions were real, so he is suggesting it once existed. But he also says it is a painful process to rebuild it. Why? It only took 5 years of development 50 years ago to put a man on the moon. Surely, with all of man's advances since then, it should be easier and a shorter time frame now. Do you not agree?
Go ask Ford to build a brand new 1969 Mustang. They could do it 50 years ago, so why can't they quickly do it again today with all of our advances?

Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk

Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: sts60 on September 10, 2019, 12:20:28 AM
...Believe it or not, us non phd's do know about black-body radiation and the S-B law.

You may be aware of the existence of these topics now that they have been explained to you, but you are entirely ignorant of how heat transfer takes place in reality.  You made that abundantly clear with your whopping mistakes in your claims about the LM on the lunar surface.

And while some of the assumptions they use are different from mine, they have demonstrated it would take longer to reach extreme cold than I thought. Having said that, 2 things. 1)Many things within the cabin did not have to reach extreme temperatures to not function. According to NASA docs, for instances, many of the electronic components needed 30 F to function. (and max temp of only of 120F)

...and you don’t understand the actual conditions in which these systems operated, and showed you had no idea whatsoever how temperatures were controlled throughout the spacecraft.

2) Many of the posters argue that it wasn't cold that was the worry but rather heat.

The fact you don’t understand that different configurations and environmental conditions lead to different thermal concerns is your problem, not ours.  The real problem, though, is that you are refusing to learn.

(Which I knew many would argue prior to posting my questions.)

You came to a forum peopled with engineers and knowledgeable laymen, and are spouting ignorant nonsense.  Of course people are disagreeing with you, but they’re also trying to help you learn. 

...But what about A13? They felt things getting colder not hotter. So either posters here are correct, and the astronauts were lying. Or the A13 Astronauts are correct and the posters here are wrong? Which is it?

The correct answer is neither, but instead that you don’t understand why this happened.  The problem is that you refuse to learn anything, but that’s your problem, not ours.  However, should you decide determined ignorance is no longer a good look, we’ll be happy to help you.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: ApolloEnthusiast on September 10, 2019, 12:21:28 AM
Sorry, I should have said 7 years of development (from 1961-1968 Apollo8)
So space travel development begins with a fully functional, man rated Redstone rocket for Al Shepard to ride?  No development was necessary to get to that point?  They just popped a Mercury Capsule off the shelf that also apparently required no development time...

Claiming 7 years is not much less ridiculous than your 5 year claim earlier. 

Accurately assessing the actual development time to take people to the Moon for the first time isn't something that requires any technical knowledge.  You have no excuse for coming into a discussion like this with preformed conclusions and little to no actual knowledge to support those conclusions.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: JayUtah on September 10, 2019, 12:23:20 AM
It still doesn't change the fact (or why) after 50 years they have not used "this technology" on one vehicle, one craft, or one program in which man has left earth's orbit.

Because "technology" is not just some magically fungible quantity.  And because there's no consistent mandate to do so.  As you have been told, manned space flight capability is not just something that you can keep in the attic and dust off with minimal effort when you decide you want to use it again.

Quote
Trump says we are going to the moon just recently. Then someone "kicked" him and now we are instead going to Mars. That should buy another 20 years of time.

That sort of thing is part of the problem.  Developing a system to go to the Moon is not the same as developing a system to go to Mars.  When political directives and funding changes with each new administration or Congress, or even more frequently, programs that take several years to accomplish cannot proceed.  If, two years into a 10-year development plan, a new goal is set that requires a different 10-year development effort, you don't get to apply the two years you already spent trying to achieve some different goal.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: sts60 on September 10, 2019, 12:25:45 AM
Recommendation: Let’s not indulge jr Knowing’s latest gish gallops until he addresses his errors about the LM on the lunar surface.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: ApolloEnthusiast on September 10, 2019, 12:32:49 AM
Recommendation: Let’s not indulge jr Knowing’s latest gish gallops until he addresses his errors about the LM on the lunar surface.
Sorry, I'm very pessimistic about him addressing any errors in this thread when he hasn't acknowledged his errors regarding regolith from March, or his errors regarding plume deflectors in his thread from last December...
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: jr Knowing on September 10, 2019, 12:54:09 AM
Hi LunarOrbit,

At the risk of offending a fellow Canadian who happens to be the administrator :) , I will tread lightly.

I think you are incorrect in your analogy. I believe Ford could do a one off 1969 Mustang in a week if they wanted. And they could retool a production plant in 6 months for an assembly line production car if they wanted. Toyota just down the road from me did that just last year. They changed the line from a car to a truck.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: JayUtah on September 10, 2019, 12:58:14 AM
And they could retool a production plant in 6 months for an assembly line production car if they wanted.

How long do you think tool design and retooling takes in aerospace?
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: jr Knowing on September 10, 2019, 01:05:14 AM
Hi Lunar Orbit,

To take your analogy one step further. Ask somebody to build a handheld calculator in 1970 and now 50 years later. In 1970 (or 1975) , TI would build some monster hand held that had little computing power. Today, some company in some offshore country is pumping out calculators for 3 dollars that is infinitely more powerful (and smaller) than 50 years ago. The point is, once the technology exists, it advances and flourishes. Apollo Technology, on the other hand, seems to have entered a black hole from which no man has left earth's orbit since.  Sure you could argue that America has no political will, but there sure others, state and private, who do. Yet no one has even gone for a "spin" 10000 miles out.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: sts60 on September 10, 2019, 01:05:43 AM
Hi LunarOrbit,

At the risk of offending a fellow Canadian who happens to be the administrator :) , I will tread lightly..

When will you address your mistaken claims about the LM on the lunar surface? 
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: AtomicDog on September 10, 2019, 01:06:07 AM
Hi LunarOrbit,

At the risk of offending a fellow Canadian who happens to be the administrator :) , I will tread lightly.

I think you are incorrect in your analogy. I believe Ford could do a one off 1969 Mustang in a week if they wanted. And they could retool a production plant in 6 months for an assembly line production car if they wanted. Toyota just down the road from me did that just last year. They changed the line from a car to a truck.

So, with the demand for a classic car like the 1969 Mustang, why hasn't Ford started the production line for such an easy task? Think carefully before you answer.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: JayUtah on September 10, 2019, 01:09:37 AM
The point is, once the technology exists, it advances and flourishes.

"Technology" is not a magically fungible thing.

Quote
Apollo Technology, on the other hand, seems to have entered a black hole from which no man has left earth's orbit since.

What is your rationale for concluding that manufacturing mass-produced consumer electronics is on the same footing as small-batch manned spacecraft?

Quote
Sure you could argue that America has no political will, but there sure others, state and private, who do.

Such as?

Quote
Yet no one has even gone for a "spin" 10000 miles out.

What makes you think your goals are their goals?
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: AtomicDog on September 10, 2019, 01:10:56 AM
Yet no one has even gone for a "spin" 10000 miles out.

Name the purpose for taking a crewed vehicle 10,000 miles out that cannot be accomplished in low earth orbit.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: jr Knowing on September 10, 2019, 01:15:18 AM
Hi Jay,

How long do you think it takes to re-tool right through to final production? Well given they already produced this and have the technology/blueprints, clearly a lot shorter time than it took in the 60's. Again, I am not even talking about the moon per se. For instance, if the plan over the years has been to go back to the moon, or now Mars, you would think that they would love to do some testing in outer space near earth just to understand the environment better. But no, nothing, nada. In 50 years. Does that make sense to you?
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: jr Knowing on September 10, 2019, 01:23:44 AM
Hi Atomic Dog

Why go out 10000 miles? Test steering in a vacuum for one. 
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: JayUtah on September 10, 2019, 01:26:43 AM
Well given they already produced this...

Doesn't mean they retained the tooling.  It takes 270,000 distinct tools to produce a Boeing 747, almost none of which are applicable to any other airframe.  Some of the tools incorporate expensive elements that will be recovered and reused if the company decides to stop producing the 747.  Nobody keeps tooling around for things they stop building.  It would take up a factory-sized amount of space.

In contrast, the manufacture of consumer electronics involves very little specialized tooling.  Putting components on a printed circuit board and soldering them in place has been a thoroughly generalized manufacturing technique for decades.

Quote
...and have the technology...

"Technology" is not a magically fungible concept.

Quote
...blueprints...

Why do you think blueprints automatically result in tooling?

Quote
...clearly a lot shorter time than it took in the 60's.

That wasn't my question.  I didn't ask you to reaffirm your assumption.  I asked you to supply, if possible, the facts that relate to your claims.  You don't know those facts, do you?

Quote
For instance, if the plan over the years has been to go back to the moon, or now Mars, you would think...

Who specifically would think this?  Why should your goals be the goals of people actually doing the thing?

Quote
...that they would love to do some testing in outer space near earth just to understand the environment better.

What specifically about "the environment" requires understanding in the form of building spacecraft in the manner you suggest?

Quote
Does that make sense to you?

Your attempts to describe what goes on in my industry make absolutely no sense to me.  Think about that.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: JayUtah on September 10, 2019, 01:27:30 AM
Why go out 10000 miles? Test steering in a vacuum for one.

Why can't that be done in low Earth orbit?
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: ApolloEnthusiast on September 10, 2019, 01:27:40 AM
For instance, if the plan over the years has been to go back to the moon, or now Mars, you would think that they would love to do some testing in outer space near earth just to understand the environment better. But no, nothing, nada. In 50 years. Does that make sense to you?
The US did 3 Skylab missions, Apollo-Soyuz, 135 Space Shuttle missions, and the ISS has been continuously occupied for nearly 20 years...

If you add that up, check my math here, it is a number much higher than 0.

Once again, you prove yourself to be laughably uniformed.

Unless you believe there is some magical operational difference between being in Low Earth Orbit vs. High Earth Orbit, in which case again, you are laughably ignorant.

I listed just the manned missions, by the way.  This says nothing about all of the space operations involving robotic explorers, Earth orbiting satellites, Moon orbiting satellites, satellites of other planets and their moons, space telescopes, etc...

Just stop while you're way behind and acknowledge your mistakes before making brand new ones.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: AtomicDog on September 10, 2019, 01:29:49 AM
Hi Atomic Dog

Why go out 10000 miles? Test steering in a vacuum for one. 

That can be, and has been done, in LEO by every manned craft ever made.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: JayUtah on September 10, 2019, 01:32:58 AM
That can be, and has been done, in LEO by every manned craft ever made.

...and unmanned.  The "steering in a vacuum" problem has been well solved for decades.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: sts60 on September 10, 2019, 02:06:41 AM
Hi Jay,

How long do you think it takes to...
Hi Atomic Dog

Why go out 10000 miles?... 

No gish gallop for you.

You need to address the comically inept claims you made about the LM on the lunar surface before we talk about your comically inept claims about “blueprints” and “10000 miles”.

Well, before I talk about them anyway.   Other folks enjoy the batting practice too much.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: raven on September 10, 2019, 02:18:54 AM
It took longer than since Apollo before anyone returned to the deepest part of the ocean, first braved by the Bathyscaphe Trieste, and that is a much simpler engineering problem than going to the moon. In the end, all it took was the resources of a film director's money and influence to do so. It wasn't impossible in that time in-between, no one going before then didn't prove Trieste a hoax, just there was no motivation by others to  put forward the money and manpower to do.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: sts60 on September 10, 2019, 02:19:18 AM
jr Knowing, why are you so determined not to learn anything?  If I went on a medical forum populated by nurses and doctors and educated laymen, and claimed that the spleen was responsible for CO2 exchange, the resulting responses would make me think, “Wow, was I way off!  I think I’d better try to understand this better!”  What I wouldn’t do is try to change the subject to a surgeons’ conspiracy to cover up that trepanation and vanilla extract are a sure cure for osteoporosis.

Why try to change the subject with more ignorant claims rather than understand your misconceptions?  Why not learn something instead?
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: BertieSlack on September 10, 2019, 02:46:45 AM
The only thing out there, (for the most part) are dumb downed diagrams.

Why don't you show us a diagram showing how (as you claim) a person standing closer to a light source throws a longer shadow than a person standing further away. Remember - you claimed that the shadow is actually longer (not just appears longer) and you have already dismissed terrain variations and perspective foreshortening as explanations as to why the farther shadow might appear shorter.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: Zakalwe on September 10, 2019, 03:18:31 AM
Without a shadow of a doubt, jr knowing's nonsense and his attempts to gish-gallop are the best description of pigeon chess that I've seen displayed for quite a while. Chapeau, jr knowing! We've had some weapons-grade idiocy on this board before and youve managed to make the grade along with some of the finest idiots that we've had.  :D

(https://www.snopes.com/tachyon/images/politics/graphics/pigeon.jpg)
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: Jason Thompson on September 10, 2019, 03:54:42 AM
But what about A13? They felt things getting colder not hotter. So either posters here are correct, and the astronauts were lying. Or the A13 Astronauts are correct and the posters here are wrong? Which is it?

False dilemma. It is not hard to figure out why Apollo 13 differs from all the other planned EVA scenarios as it is a matter of public record that, in order to conserve the resources in the spacecraft, they shut down the command module completely and powered down the LM to minimal requirements. They deliberately removed the main source of heat from the system. Jim Lovell also recalls that they 'made a mistake' in putting up the window blinds to stop the sunlight disrupting their sleep, because that also removed a source of heat from the interior of the spacecraft: solar radiation coming in through the windows. None of these conditions apply to planned EVA activities where the hatch is open but everything inside is still operating.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: Jason Thompson on September 10, 2019, 04:00:14 AM
Hi Abaddon,

The lack of blueprints is not baloney. The only thing out there, (for the most part) are dumb downed diagrams intended for media use.

This is, simply, horse shit. There is a lot of technical information available, some has been published. I have numerous books on my shelf at home that include some original Apollo drawings. Not having a full set of construction blueprints for every little detail is not the same as losing them all.

And you are still trying to deflect attention from your original argument. I repeat my question: why are you here?
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: Zakalwe on September 10, 2019, 05:42:35 AM
Hi Abaddon,

The lack of blueprints is not baloney. The only thing out there, (for the most part) are dumb downed diagrams intended for media use.

You have no idea (as per usual) of what's retained in the corporate histories of the various contractors. Hell, there's even a stock of unused F-1 engines in storage.

The blueprints are of limited value anyway as if we were to build a Saturn V equivalent then we would use completely different materials, construction techniques and designs (https://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/how-nasa-brought-the-monstrous-f-1-moon-rocket-back-to-life/).

Or, is it your contention, that the only way to get to the moon is to blindly reproduce the vehicles and techniques that were state-of-the-art 50 years ago? If it is, then you are making yourself appear dumber than a rock.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: Halcyon Dayz, FCD on September 10, 2019, 05:52:31 AM
Why go out 10000 miles? Test steering in a vacuum for one.

Why can't that be done in low Earth orbit?
The vacuum at 10,000 miles must be denser...

 :o
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: Trebor on September 10, 2019, 06:21:45 AM
Why go out 10000 miles? Test steering in a vacuum for one.

Why can't that be done in low Earth orbit?
The vacuum at 10,000 miles must be denser...

 :o

This 'space' thing sounds perilous, you get out too far and all this super dense vacuum rushes in and freezes you solid...
Or is it supposed to burn you up? I lose track.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: Count Zero on September 10, 2019, 07:00:34 AM
That reminds me of the infamous and legendary "Moonman" asking questions like, "At what altitude above the Moon's surface does this alleged vacuum begin?" and "What is it about our atmosphere that keeps the vacuum out?"

Bonus quote:  "[In the video,] the top part of the LM took off like a rocket."
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: jfb on September 10, 2019, 07:57:14 AM
Hi Atomic Dog

Why go out 10000 miles? Test steering in a vacuum for one.

You can do that 200 miles up.  And, we already know how to do that.  How do you think we sent unmanned probes to every other planet in the solar system?

We haven’t sent people beyond LEO in the last 50 years because there hasn’t been a mandate to do so.  Period.  End of story.  It’s not about the technology, it’s not about capability, it’s not about anything but desire.  We chose to stop going to the moon because it was seen as a waste of money.  Even though NASA has been working on a new booster (SLS) for the last 8 years and spacecraft (Orion) for the last 15, there’s been no actual exploration program tasked specifically with sending people to the Moon or anywhere else.  SLS’ primary purpose is to send federal dollars to the states and districts of powerful Senators and Congressmen, not to actually launch things in orbit.

No, I don’t count Trump’s Artemis program as a serious attempt.  Good on Brindenstine for lighting a fire under NASA’s and Boeing’s asses to get the goddamned SLS flying already, but I don’t trust Congress or the President to follow through.

Meanwhile, SpaceX just tested a new engine and fuel combination on a water tower built out in the open on a beach in south Texas and are building two orbital prototypes for spacecraft that could potentially send people to Mars or beyond.  That may or may not happen, but it’s fun to watch them try.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: Glom on September 10, 2019, 08:59:03 AM
Interesting point about a less wild west regulatory environment today. What about the Saturn V wouldn't have made regulatory compliancy today?
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: JayUtah on September 10, 2019, 09:15:16 AM
What about the Saturn V wouldn't have made regulatory compliancy today?

I was specifically thinking of captures for the stage separation hardware.  You aren't allowed to fill space will little bits of material from frangible or explosive fasteners.  They have to be built in a way that the pieces are captured and contained.  At one time I had whole list, but that's what I can remember off the top of my head.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: JayUtah on September 10, 2019, 09:32:41 AM
I don’t trust Congress or the President to follow through.

Nor should you, nor would it matter if this Congress or this President did.  NASA's budget is, as you say, a quagmire of federal boondoggle, and has been for quite a long time.  A clear mission and stable funding for a decade would be a good start.

Publicly held aerospace companies have little incentive to do anything more than incremental improvements to support their ongoing or projected revenue streams.  No public company will be able to convince its shareholders to use their investments to build infrastructure for joyrides at 10,000 nm that have no commercial application.  Space exploration doesn't pay the bills.  This is why we look to privately held companies to forge a bold path, which they can do because they don't have to sell out to various other interests in order to capitalize their efforts, and because they have long-term leadership with plenipotentiary power to set the direction and keep it there.  Regardless of whether people like Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos ultimately succeed, they have made space cool again.  This is something the aerospace establishment never deemed necessary.

Quote
That may or may not happen, but it’s fun to watch them try.

And this they can do because the funding to do it is not tied to commercial or government contracts that limit what can be done.  Or worse -- that mandate what should be done.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: Zakalwe on September 10, 2019, 09:46:17 AM

No, I don’t count Trump’s Artemis program as a serious attempt.  Good on Brindenstine for lighting a fire under NASA’s and Boeing’s asses to get the goddamned SLS flying already, but I don’t trust Congress or the President to follow through.

It'll never fly. At best, it might fly once just to show that it can. Conservative estimates put a single launch at somewhere between $1.5-2.5 billion. Who in their right mind are going to do that when SpaceX (and possibly Blue Origin) will do it at a fraction of the cost, and sooner? Hell, NASA spent more refurbishing one of the test stands that *may yet not be needed* than SpaceX spent developing the Falcon Heavy. ::)

It's also nothing short of a crime that the reusable and beautifully designed RS-25 engines will be tossed into the sea after a single launch. :(
SLS is nothing more than a boondoggle to keep the dollars flowing into Shelby's state. It's pork-barrel politics at it's seediest.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: LunarOrbit on September 10, 2019, 09:48:32 AM
At the risk of offending a fellow Canadian who happens to be the administrator :) , I will tread lightly.

Why start now? You've already violated the conditions I set when I removed the restrictions from your account, so you are on extremely thin ice.

Quote
I think you are incorrect in your analogy. I believe Ford could do a one off 1969 Mustang in a week if they wanted.

You live in fantasy land. You think just because you can imagine something happening one way, that that is how it would actually happen.

Building a new 1969 Mustang from scratch today would be a pretty large undertaking. Not only are their factories not setup to build that car, all of the people who were involved in building it 50 years ago have long since retired or died. Machines aren't just built from blueprints, they are built from the knowledge and experience of the people building them. When those people are gone much of their knowledge goes with them. Anyone trying to recreate the 1969 Mustang today would have to spend a lot of time learning about the car and how it was built.

Likewise, the Apollo rockets and spacecraft etc. are not just blueprints. They are the works of people who are no longer around. Knowledge has been lost, so any attempts to recreate Apollo will involve re-learning how to do things. Can it be done? Sure, but it won't be easy. NASA is also operating under much smaller budgets than they had with Apollo, so that slows things down.

We have Apollo hardware in museums that could be torn down and reverse engineered if we absolutely had to rely on them to regain that knowledge. But NASA won't be recreating 1960s hardware, they will be building something entirely new. So the Apollo blueprints etc. would only have limited value anyway.

Quote
And they could retool a production plant

And what would that cost?

Quote
Toyota just down the road from me did that just last year. They changed the line from a car to a truck.

And I'm sure they just snapped their fingers and it happened in an instant, right? And it didn't even cost them a penny? And none of their employees had to undergo training to learn how to build the new trucks?

But do you know what they didn't do? They didn't take a factory that had been gone for 50 years and start it up again with entirely new people who had never built a car before. That's what returning to the Moon is like... restarting something that hasn't been done for 50 years, with people who weren't even born the last time it was done.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: LunarOrbit on September 10, 2019, 09:51:04 AM

No, I don’t count Trump’s Artemis program as a serious attempt.  Good on Brindenstine for lighting a fire under NASA’s and Boeing’s asses to get the goddamned SLS flying already, but I don’t trust Congress or the President to follow through.

It'll never fly. At best, it might fly once just to show that it can. Conservative estimates put a single launch at somewhere between $1.5-2.5 billion. Who in their right mind are going to do that when SpaceX (and possibly Blue Origin) will do it at a fraction of the cost, and sooner? Hell, NASA spent more refurbishing one of the test stands that *may yet not be needed* than SpaceX spent developing the Falcon Heavy. ::)

I don't want to let the thread go even further off topic, but this is a good discussion to have so let's take it to the General Discussion area.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: mako88sb on September 10, 2019, 11:10:56 AM
Hi Jay and jfb,

Sorry, I should have said 7 years of development (from 1961-1968 Apollo8)

Jfb, I think you can interpret Petitt's comments as you suggest. It still doesn't change the fact (or why) after 50 years they have not used "this technology" on one vehicle, one craft, or one program in which man has left earth's orbit. Even for a quick test joyride.  And you suggest they are doing it now? They have been saying that for years. Kicking the can and changing the goalposts all the time. Trump says we are going to the moon just recently. Then someone "kicked" him and now we are instead going to Mars. That should buy another 20 years of time.

With the retirement of the space shuttle we no longer have the capability to capture satellites and repair them in orbit or in rare instances, return them to Earth. I doubt we will have a reusable shuttle for many decades, if ever. I believe, others will correct me if I'm wrong, that the crew losses from the Challenger & Columbia disasters will make any future shuttle programs require a better system to ensure that the crew has a better survivability prospect then what the previous shuttle design had. I know some sort of separating crew compartment system was contemplated for the shuttle early in the design but dropped due to the extra mass involved. At any rate, if ever they come up with a new reusable shuttle, how much of the old design do you think will be incorporated into a new design? Satellites are an important part of our lives and much easier to deal with compared to manned landings on the moon yet we've lost the ability to repair them in orbit or retrieve them. Wouldn't be much of a stretch for people with similar arguments that you are bring up about the Apollo landings to come to the conclusion that the shuttle missions were all hoaxed. I mean some people already claim that but they all fall into the flat-Earth or "rockets can't work in space" category. 
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: gillianren on September 10, 2019, 11:14:06 AM
That reminds me of the infamous and legendary "Moonman" asking questions like, "At what altitude above the Moon's surface does this alleged vacuum begin?" and "What is it about our atmosphere that keeps the vacuum out?"

Bonus quote:  "[In the video,] the top part of the LM took off like a rocket."

I quoted Moonman to a friend who hadn't heard of him yet recently, and I could hear his facepalm from here.  He lives diagonally across the US from me.  The friends I had at the time still quote him, and they never even read the thread.  Amazing how often these people think everyone secretly believes them and will rise up in support of their obvious brilliance, but even people not really interested in this sort of thing are laughing at them.  Those same friends refer to "solid solar surface" now and again, too.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: mako88sb on September 10, 2019, 11:41:19 AM
Hi Everyone,

 As I have pointed out in the past, I believe the visuals, ie photos and films were faked. I am confident in my mind they were faked (and I am pretty certain of who some of the individuals that were involved). But fake photos don't necessarily mean the missions were faked. My stance currently is the photos/films are fake but I am unsure whether the missions actually took place. It is a bit of a stupid stance given if the pictures were faked, odds are the missions were faked too.

Well, I haven't read everything you've posted so this is the first I've seen of your opinion about faked photos and film. I take it you also believe the live TV broadcasts of all the lunar EVA's were faked as well? Is that correct?
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: jfb on September 10, 2019, 11:42:43 AM
It doesn't matter if the blueprints are still around or not, because many of the components that the Saturn launch vehicle and the spacecraft were designed around are no longer manufactured (rope core memory is no longer a thing, for example).  Modern electronics are lighter and use less power (although would require more shielding from the odd cosmic ray hit), there are better ways to manufacture the engines using lighter materials, the tanks could be made lighter, etc.  You'd have to extensively modify the design to account for different mass and different power draw, enough so that you might as well start over with a clean sheet (like the SpaceX Starship/Superheavy design). 

And besides, it's not just a matter of rebuilding the vehicles, even if you could. 

The VAB has been gutted and reconfigured twice since Apollo - it's no longer set up to stack the Saturn.  You'd have to gut and reconfigure it again to support the Saturn. 

All the ground infrastructure to support a Saturn launch is gone and would have to be rebuilt.  39A is no longer accessible via the crawlerway.
 The mobile launch platforms for Saturn are gone and would have to be rebuilt.  And it's not going to happen because a) we're already building a new BEO launch vehicle and everything's been reconfigured to support it and b) there's no point in recreating 50-year old technology

The SLS is a mistake, but it's a (somewhat) technologically current mistake.  The SpaceX Falcon rockets are significantly advanced compared to the Saturn booster.  The SpaceX Starship/Superheavy vehicles are going to be amazing if they get built.  The Crew Dragon spacecraft is an incredible leap forward in design.  Nobody's going to waste their time sourcing EOL'd 50-year-old components to build a vehicle that has no launch infrastructure. 

The make the point again, some more - the only reason we (meaning the US, anyway) haven't gone back to the moon is a lack of desire to do so.  We did it to beat the Soviets, and once that was accomplished we stopped caring.  We still have the capability; we just don't have hardware that's ready to go right now

Find a new equine carcass to beat - this one's down to a few bits of hide. 

And wasn't this garbage fire of a thread supposed to be about thermal management in the LM cabin in a vacuum?  How everything would have suddenly frozen solid as soon as they opened the hatch?  Remember that?  How you already know about Stefan-Boltzmann and radiative transfer (which is an absolute crock otherwise you wouldn't have made such a ridiculous claim in the first place)? 

Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: JayUtah on September 10, 2019, 11:59:15 AM
Building a new 1969 Mustang from scratch today would be a pretty large undertaking.

Yes, but in this case there are still a lot of 1969 Mustangs on the road.  It's not a good example because it's not truly a dead design.  There are still machinists and fabricators who can make new parts, and some of the manufactured components (e.g., oil filters) are still available because there's enough market to have retained manufacturing capacity.  But the question subtly shifted to "Build a 1969 Mustang as a one-off."  It was originally, "Have Ford build you a new 1969 Mustang."  The whole point was that they would have to do it as a one-off -- at great and uncommon expense and effort.  The only reason to do it would be to have a nostalgic car, whatever the cost.  That's not the same proposition as, "Give me a colon-rumbling muscle car."  Jr Knowing is equivocating around, "They had 'the technology' back then, so why not now."  This is why he refuses to specify "the technology."

Quote
Not only are their factories not setup to build that car, all of the people who were involved in building it 50 years ago have long since retired or died. Machines aren't just built from blueprints, they are built from the knowledge and experience of the people building them. When those people are gone much of their knowledge goes with them.

This is supremely important in aerospace.  Paradoxically, some parts of the LM had to be hand-build and hand-assembled, and other parts could not be hand-built.  Grumman's proprietary method of chemical milling was used to produce the parts of the pressure vessel with their integrated stringers.  That's not a hand process.  You need all the infrastructure.  It's not something you buy at the hardware store.  It's stuff that Grumman literally invented, and ever only existed in their plants.  And you had to have the people who operated it.  It's not something you can read in a manual or learn at the community college because, again, Grumman literally invented it and the only people who ever knew how to make it work were the people at Grumman.  One of my customers has a need to wrap large containers with Kevlar fibers.  The machine that does this is literally the only machine in the world that can do it.  They invented it, designed it, and built it.  And the guy who designed it is the guy who operates it.  While he has trained others, he is still the guy who has to be called in to diagnose and fix the problems with it.  Getting back to Grumman, the chem-milling process they developed was superseded first by improvements in five-axis machining, and later by additive manufacturing.  "They had the technology back then" doesn't mean they still have it, need it, or use it today.  And the harsh realities of aerospace manufacturing mean that you don't waste the space keeping around obsolete tools for obsolete processes.  The LM pressure vessel panels were designed knowing they'd be manufactured using that process.  For at least some of those panels, additive machine could reproduce the shape, but not necessarily all the structural properties that were needed.  That is, you can't assume a metal part built up additively will have the same structural strength as the equivalent shape created by subtractive methods.  This is, in fact, why we machine parts for aerospace that would be created by shaping or forging processes in other industries where weight is less a premium.

Frank Pullo tells of problems in the ascent-stage fit-up.  They had plywood fixtures and so forth that would keep the components aligned, but none of those setups would fit into Grumman's automatic welding and drilling machines.  This was especially a problem around the struts for the propellant tanks, which interfered with the fit of the pressure-vessel panels to the structural framing.  By the time you got everything aligned properly, there was no way to get the automatic fastening machines in there.  So the assembly line workers just did it by hand, because they were that good.  There were, at the time, people who could drill a hole with a hand drill to a tolerance of just a few mils from where it needed to be.  That's not to say such skill doesn't exist today.  But it's to say that the design of the machine depended very much on the idiosyncratic capabilities of who was going to make it.

Quote
Likewise, the Apollo rockets and spacecraft etc. are not just blueprints. They are the works of people who are no longer around. Knowledge has been lost, so any attempts to recreate Apollo will involve re-learning how to do things.

Yes.  Conspiracy theorists, none of whom has been within ten miles of an actual aerospace project, seem to think they can simply remove the human element from the design and manufacturing process.  This is not how aerospace works.  It's not how it has ever worked.  There is no set of documents that would ever fully capture the expertise of building something.

Quote
Can it be done? Sure, but it won't be easy.

Or cheap, or ultimately effective.  Yes, some clever engineering firm could figure out how to manufacture, via some new process, the panels that Grumman chem-milled.  Or some other clever firm could spend years re-inventing Grumman's chem-milling processes, possibly with the help of ex-Grummans who haven't passed on.  But it would not be a shortcut to success today.  And that's the claim.  It should be easier now, they say, because we did all the hard work decades ago.   They don't understand the whole process of high-stakes engineering and manufacture.

Quote
We have Apollo hardware in museums that could be torn down and reverse engineered if we absolutely had to rely on them to regain that knowledge.

I think Adam Savage and his colleagues just rebuilt the CM door.  I got to play with a Block II CM door last month, in California.  I've always appreciated some of the ingenious elements of that mechanism.  The Orion capsule hatch works according to the same basic mechanical principles, but has additional constraints for usability and safety that weren't required for Apollo.  So while the Apollo side hatch informs the design, it doesn't provide the design.  The adaptation is still a new design.

Similarly I watched people consulting the Apollo LES design documents to inform the design of Orion LES.  The "blueprints" (nitpick: Apollo drawings were reproduced using the diazo process) were life-size drawings of the assemblies, tacked up on the walls of the bullpen.  They extended floor to ceiling and were several meters long.  This is not the sort of thing you can Google for.  But it exists, and it can be consulted.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: JayUtah on September 10, 2019, 12:05:11 PM
And wasn't this garbage fire of a thread supposed to be about thermal management in the LM cabin in a vacuum?  How everything would have suddenly frozen solid as soon as they opened the hatch?  Remember that?

That clearly went to the same topic graveyard as LM maneuverability.  His bluff was called.  So now he wants desperately to pretend that topic never existed.  It's a show, an act.  When he doesn't get applause for his clearly superior intellect and out-of-the-box thinking, he quickly sends out another act.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: JayUtah on September 10, 2019, 12:37:25 PM
You'd have to extensively modify the design to account for different mass and different power draw, enough so that you might as well start over with a clean sheet (like the SpaceX Starship/Superheavy design).

The bottom line being, as we've belabored, that the existence of highly specialized designs to do a thing 50 years ago does not provide a shortcut to doing them same thing now or in the future.  Vague, handwaving references to "the technology" simply ignore how aerospace (or any specialized field of engineering and manufacturing) works.

Cars and consumer electronics are poor examples because these days their production and assembly lines are designed to be easily reconfigurable.  Agile manufacturing requires it, and that's part of being competitive these days.  The electronics production line at my brother's work can literally repurpose the line in 15 minutes to start producing a product.  Keep in mind that the line is composed of general-purpose machines that have dies, parts bins, and software loads that have been prepared ahead of time.  That takes weeks or months.  But "retooling" in some production contexts is much easier than it is in aerospace.  In aerospace there just isn't enough commonality between product designs to make this sort of production process practicable.  And that's just for building, say, different airframes that superficially resemble each other.  The 737-MAX assembly line can't be instantly, cheaply, or easily converted to make the 747.  It's all specialized tooling that's part of an overall high-level system design for the manufacturing process.

When you get to entirely unique designs like manned spacecraft, there's no commonality between them, or between any example of one and any other sort of product.  There's no toehold for general-purpose methods or machinery that can be gently rearranged in six months from having previously done other things.

Quote
All the ground infrastructure to support a Saturn launch is gone and would have to be rebuilt.

And a lot of that would not be up to code today, if we simply followed the original designs.  Even more of it wouldn't be considered "best practice."  The specific Apollo designs are not really a shortcut to accomplishing equivalent tasks today.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: JayUtah on September 10, 2019, 01:01:12 PM
With the retirement of the space shuttle...

Oh, lordy, there's a blueprint nightmare.  Paper drawings are bulky, and time-consuming to produce.  But they have the advantage of requiring only eyeballs to read them.  Computer-aided design is ostensibly a time-saver, but the progression of incompatible CAD technologies throughout the lifespan of the STS system resulted in no universal, comprehensive, correct set of design documents.  According to some engineers, the only definitive reference was literally to go out to the OPF and visually examine the orbiter in question.  The shuttle unquestionably existed and unquestionably flew.  The difficulty in amassing comprehensive design documentation for it does not undermine that.

Conspiracy theorists seem to insist on a rosy view of any prior effort.  They don't appreciate that one of the consequences of constantly working at the leading edge of technology is that we often have to say, "Yeah, if I had it to do over again I would do it differently."  A project can achieve its objectives, yet still leave behind a trail of processes and methods that turned out to be more trouble than they were worth.  The industry has to be allowed to correct its mistakes.

Quote
I know some sort of separating crew compartment system was contemplated for the shuttle early in the design but dropped due to the extra mass involved. At any rate, if ever they come up with a new reusable shuttle, how much of the old design do you think will be incorporated into a new design?

Not nearly as much as the layman probably guesses.  First, we know the design was oversold by starry-eyed officials.  So yes, any new design would have to be safer and more cost-effective.  That means throwing out quite a lot of shortcuts that STS took.  But also, the STS design was muddied by imposed requirements in the early stages.  A lot of these were later dropped, either too late in the design process or well into the operational phase.  This left the shuttle hobbled by things such as cross-range landing capability for secret payloads, which then makes the common-case mission more problematic.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: Glom on September 10, 2019, 01:46:36 PM
What about the Saturn V wouldn't have made regulatory compliancy today?

I was specifically thinking of captures for the stage separation hardware.  You aren't allowed to fill space will little bits of material from frangible or explosive fasteners.  They have to be built in a way that the pieces are captured and contained.  At one time I had whole list, but that's what I can remember off the top of my head.
Ah yes. The Attenborough plastic crisis of space. They were quite the litterbugs on the Moon too, though that's no potentially lethal litter.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: Von_Smith on September 10, 2019, 03:48:42 PM
When he doesn't get applause for his clearly superior intellect and out-of-the-box thinking, he quickly sends out another act.

I am now picturing jr Knowing hastily rushing out dancers in spacesuits to the tune of "Galop Infernal".

This thread should be renamed "The Presence of Bollocks"
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: sts60 on September 10, 2019, 04:44:51 PM
Regarding SLS and infrastructure, SLS, and Orion, and the supporting ground segment are being built, and SLS will fly in (probably) 2021.  People are working furiously on all three segments of this human-rated super-heavy-lift capability.  SLS will fly before before Elon Musk’s gleaming next-gen idea will, and it will be by quite a bit the most powerful launch vehicle in the world.

This is just a reality check.  SLS does suffer from all the managerial and political issues mentioned, and it is guaranteed to be hideously expensive and set up for failure as an ongoing operational program.  But it’s fantasy to claim that Starship will render SLS obsolete before SLS flies, because designs and prototypes don’t trump actual  flying hardware, and SLS/Orion/KSC ground segment are much closer to reality, like it or not.  Hardware is already being produced for the 2nd SLS and Orion flights, and the VAB and Crawler and Mobile Launcher are already configured and being tested for SLS/Orion even though development is not complete.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: Abaddon on September 10, 2019, 05:20:50 PM
Hi Abaddon,

The lack of blueprints is not baloney. The only thing out there, (for the most part) are dumb downed diagrams intended for media use.
Classic argument from ignorance. You can't find it therefore it does not exist. Did it never occur to you that such blueprints are not NASA's but are proprietary company information and are not on the internet anyway? Of course not. Because you simply don't think.

Furthermore, why on earth would we build a brand new spacecraft using archaic 60's technology? That would be a stupid plan.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: Abaddon on September 10, 2019, 05:27:52 PM
Hi Atomic Dog

Why go out 10000 miles? Test steering in a vacuum for one. 
(https://i.imgur.com/V097MA8.jpg)

Earth's atmosphere extends out 10,000 miles?

Quit trolling.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: ineluki on September 12, 2019, 07:23:11 AM
Here's a question for the ages, jr Knowing. If someone like you could 'figure out' an airlock would be needed, why didn't the folks at Grumman? Even if it was a hoax, these folks would still be doing their darndest to design and build a functional Lunar Module, right?

Leaving aside all science... this is something i would like for jr to adress...   




Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: Jason Thompson on September 12, 2019, 07:36:45 AM
So, jr, since you are supposedly familiar with the problems of black body radiation and associated equations, do you still contest that a fully powered up LM sitting in the sun should have frozen a frozen interior within seconds or minutes of opening the hatch?
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: ka9q on September 12, 2019, 09:47:39 AM
I was specifically thinking of captures for the stage separation hardware.  You aren't allowed to fill space will little bits of material from frangible or explosive fasteners.  They have to be built in a way that the pieces are captured and contained.  At one time I had whole list, but that's what I can remember off the top of my head.
Space debris is indeed a serious problem, but I don't see a big debris problem with the Saturn V. All the stage separations occur before reaching orbit, so any debris generated during them is a non-problem. A more interesting question is what happens to S-IVB/Apollo separation debris on a lunar mission. If the TLI burn is for a free return trajectory, then (assuming small relative velocities) any separation debris (e.g., the LM adapter panels) will loop around the moon, return to earth and burn up. Other TLIs might be into trajectories that loop around the moon and escape, go into high earth orbits that aren't a problem, or maybe even impact the moon.

Even incidental debris generated during the parking orbit phase isn't likely to be a problem because those orbits were so low for performance (especially for the J missions) that any debris would have a very short orbital lifetime assuming it leaves at low relative velocity.

My big problem with the Saturn V is the enormous amount of helium it expends on every launch. There's finally a growing awareness of how limited and precious a resource that is. I would give serious consideration to alternate ways to pressurize tanks and operate valves. I believe the Saturn already did some of that (e.g., using gaseous oxygen to pressurize the LOX tanks) but I'm not sure what you'd use to pressurize an RP-1 tank. Hydrogen? Nitrogen and argon are probably too heavy.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: sts60 on September 12, 2019, 10:24:31 AM
Well, I can tell you SLS will still use a bunch of helium.  So nothing new there.  The conserving factor is that there may not be more than a few SLS launches the way things are going.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: JayUtah on September 12, 2019, 11:51:28 AM
Even incidental debris generated during the parking orbit phase isn't likely to be a problem because those orbits were so low for performance (especially for the J missions) that any debris would have a very short orbital lifetime assuming it leaves at low relative velocity.

Right, it's not likely to be a practical problem.  But rather than wonder about the effects of payload separation debris, the agreement is simply not to generate it at all.  I guess if we're talking about the limited case of simply reproducing Apollo missions, right down to the orbits, then we could probably get a Saturn V flight grandfathered due to the altitude.  I was thinking about the case where we might extend the Apollo mission profile, or conceivably resurrect the Saturn V as a general purpose heavy lift booster.  But then again, the overriding point was to emphasize the common argument that once we've accepted that we have to update the Saturn V design to be able to build and fly it in modern times, we have to consider whether the cost and effort to do that erodes the supposed shortcut.

Quote
My big problem with the Saturn V is the enormous amount of helium it expends on every launch. There's finally a growing awareness of how limited and precious a resource that is.

Yeah, environment responsibility is part of the new spacescape.  When I talked about aerospace being "exotic," what I meant was that in the 1960s the excitement over space exploration outweighed the adverse effects the industry had, or was likely to have.  Toxic fuels, expensive and irreplaceable consumables, etc.  In many ways, space engineering has become a victim of its own success.  Access to space is so straightforward that the relevant industries are now regulated just as any other sector of commerce.  That filters down even to things like labor relations.  Kennedy's challenge to get to the Moon before the end of the decade might have once been enough to get people to work 18 hours a day, seven days a week, for years on end.  But today you would run afoul of UAW and just the normal expectations of how to treat labor.

The point being that going to the Moon today, using the same technology, infrastructure, and practices, would mean in many cases reverting back to various conditions and practicalities that existed at the time.  That makes it all not quite the shortcut other people claim it would be.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: ka9q on September 12, 2019, 11:56:06 AM
The point being that going to the Moon today, using the same technology, infrastructure, and practices, would mean in many cases reverting back to various conditions and practicalities that existed at the time.  That makes it all not quite the shortcut other people claim it would be.
Oh, absolutely no argument there.

The Apollo oral histories are replete with examples of marriages breaking up because of the long hours put in by many Apollo workers. People who would take great offense at claims it was all a scam.

Probably nothing captures the essence of these people than the saying "If it fails, it won't be because of me." Think about how remarkable a thing to say that was for a large government project.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: NthBrick on September 12, 2019, 12:06:08 PM
Here's a question for the ages, jr Knowing. If someone like you could 'figure out' an airlock would be needed, why didn't the folks at Grumman? Even if it was a hoax, these folks would still be doing their darndest to design and build a functional Lunar Module, right?

Leaving aside all science... this is something i would like for jr to adress...
I'll just slap an agreement on here, too. Engineers aren't idiots -- if you're attempting to hoax something, but need to put up a front of legitimacy, the last thing you want to do is have engineers build something that they know won't work. Otherwise, you're needlessly increasing the number of people who have to know about the conspiracy.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: bknight on September 12, 2019, 12:36:22 PM
Here's a question for the ages, jr Knowing. If someone like you could 'figure out' an airlock would be needed, why didn't the folks at Grumman? Even if it was a hoax, these folks would still be doing their darndest to design and build a functional Lunar Module, right?

Leaving aside all science... this is something i would like for jr to adress...
I'll just slap an agreement on here, too. Engineers aren't idiots -- if you're attempting to hoax something, but need to put up a front of legitimacy, the last thing you want to do is have engineers build something that they know won't work. Otherwise, you're needlessly increasing the number of people who have to know about the conspiracy.

Conversely why would one design and build something that would work and not use it.  This was one of the arguments that our recent poster Derek K Willis proposed.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: JayUtah on September 12, 2019, 01:10:30 PM
So, jr, since you are supposedly familiar with the problems of black body radiation and associated equations, do you still contest that a fully powered up LM sitting in the sun should have frozen a frozen interior within seconds or minutes of opening the hatch?

Yeah, we need to underscore this.  It's the SM RCS and fluid dynamics all over again.  To refresh memory, Jr claimed the SM RCS were in danger of damage from the slipstream of the ascending Saturn V.  I pointed out boundary layer separation, and went into some detail about why it was occurring there, and what the mitigating effects would be.  Only after I brought all that up did Jr Knowing claim competence in fluid dynamics.  But then he refused to employ that competence to show how my explanation was wrong.  Or, in the alternative, to reconcile his earlier claim with the known realities of the science.

So here we are again.  After someone valiantly goes through the effort to explain the science of radiative heat transfer in more detail and to work a problem, then -- and only then, after someone else's explanation -- does Jr Knowing regurgitate what others have explained and assure us he knows all about it.  But he refuses to apply that claimed understanding either to give a substantive rebuttal to his critics or to reconcile this newly professed knowledge with his earlier claims.  Let's be absolutely clear:  one cannot claim simultaneously a suitable knowledge of radiative heat transfer and also a factually-supported belief that the LM would have necessarily cooled rapidly to a point unsuitable for the equipment on board.  Belatedly saying, "Yes, I know all about thermal radiation" doesn't erase that the premise of the former argument was not only ignorant of thermal radiation, but following a fairly common layman's misconception of it.  Claiming per dicta that one knew it all along doesn't rebut evidence from before that one clearly didn't know it all along.

In both cases Jr Knowing adamantly insisted that our belief in his ignorance wasn't well founded.  But he declined on both cases to remedy the previous claim, or to mount a substantial rebuttal.  He wanted to make sure he portrayed himself as competent, but couldn't pony up the evidence of that newly claimed competence.  It's all face-saving, not science-making.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: gillianren on September 12, 2019, 01:37:47 PM
I have yet to see any subject about which he hasn't demonstrated ignorance.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: NthBrick on September 12, 2019, 04:37:46 PM
Here's a question for the ages, jr Knowing. If someone like you could 'figure out' an airlock would be needed, why didn't the folks at Grumman? Even if it was a hoax, these folks would still be doing their darndest to design and build a functional Lunar Module, right?

Leaving aside all science... this is something i would like for jr to adress...
I'll just slap an agreement on here, too. Engineers aren't idiots -- if you're attempting to hoax something, but need to put up a front of legitimacy, the last thing you want to do is have engineers build something that they know won't work. Otherwise, you're needlessly increasing the number of people who have to know about the conspiracy.

Conversely why would one design and build something that would work and not use it.  This was one of the arguments that our recent poster Derek K Willis proposed.
It sort of gets down to the root of the issue -- what exactly was stopping the Apollo missions from being possible? Radiation? No, James Van Allen debunked that himself. Technology? The Saturn V was clearly able to launch and the engineers involved haven't voiced any doubts about it's capabilities -- heck, it was designed specifically to go to the moon, it isn't as if it was hacked together from a bunch of junk laying around and the engineers were praying it could get to the corner store and back.

Unless you're, I dunno, a flat earther, I can't see any actually impenetrable barriers to the whole system working as advertised. Just engineering challenges to work out.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: Allan F on September 12, 2019, 06:53:42 PM
The hoax believers NEED it to not work, because their worldview and their sense of self is centered around themselves having superior knowledge - themselves being special, worth something. Therefore they will dismiss evidence which shows them their worldview is wrong. They may actually be unable to see it.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: bknight on September 13, 2019, 12:38:30 PM
The hoax believers NEED it to not work, because their worldview and their sense of self is centered around themselves having superior knowledge - themselves being special, worth something. Therefore they will dismiss evidence which shows them their worldview is wrong. They may actually be unable to see it.

Narcissistic behavior of always being "right".
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: NthBrick on September 13, 2019, 04:49:37 PM
The hoax believers NEED it to not work, because their worldview and their sense of self is centered around themselves having superior knowledge - themselves being special, worth something. Therefore they will dismiss evidence which shows them their worldview is wrong. They may actually be unable to see it.
I typically try and take a more gracious position with respect to your average hoax nut, i.e. they may be well-meaning but mistaken, but am slowly becoming convinced that it all boils down to a self-centered desire to be right when everyone else is "deceived". Just the way some that I've interacted with recently respond to pretty basic corrections, and questioning of their conclusions doesn't make me think they're horribly genuine.

Not that I've interacted one-on-one with either, but jr knowing and cambo's behavior is basically hoax nut 101 -- they all follow very similar strategies.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: Britmax on January 02, 2020, 08:17:01 AM
So they said, what about the airlock? Well, we'll need the chamber, and two hatches instead of one, and the weight will be off centred, and we'll need another pump which may or may not be more complicated than multitasking an existing pump. Then we'll have to put both astronauts through it, a process that will take about half an hour minimum. But they are both going outside, so they will have their suits on anyway. So why not just look at the suits as their airlock and evacuate the LM? They are both going out so there is no-one in the LM who needs to breathe.

And, what kind of planning is not having a handle on the outside?  I'll give you a hint. It's really embarrassing to lock yourself out of your RV at the beach. Now do it 250,000 miles from the nearest AA van....!?
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: Peter B on January 02, 2020, 08:29:08 AM
So they said, what about the airlock? Well, we'll need the chamber, and two hatches instead of one, and the weight will be off centred, and we'll need another pump which may or may not be more complicated than multitasking an existing pump. Then we'll have to put both astronauts through it, a process that will take about half an hour minimum. But they are both going outside, so they will have their suits on anyway. So why not just look at the suits as their airlock and evacuate the LM? They are both going out so there is no-one in the LM who needs to breathe.

And, what kind of planning is not having a handle on the outside?  I'll give you a hint. It's really embarrassing to lock yourself out of your RV at the beach. Now do it 250,000 miles from the nearest AA van....!?

Hello Britmax, and welcome to the forum.

It's weight-saving planning. When grams (or ouncey things) matter, why install a device with a measurable weight to manage a potential problem which can be...er...handled procedurally (don't shut the hatch on the way out).
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 02, 2020, 09:23:02 AM

It's weight-saving planning. When grams (or ouncey things) matter, why install a device with a measurable weight to manage a potential problem which can be...er...handled procedurally (don't shut the hatch on the way out).

Acknowledging that I am no engineer, and am basing this entirely on lay observation, was there even a mechanical issue to be solved? Or even, was the mechanical issue actually solved by not having a handle on the outside?

We are used to a world where most doors latch automatically when they close, so you have only to pull or push them closed and *click*, you can't get the door open without operating a handle. Hence people shut themselves out of their houses or cars. The lunar module hatch 'handle', as far as I can see, has a locked and an unlocked position. In other words, it only locks or unlocks the hatch, it doesn't disengage a sprung latch that holds the hatch closed when you push it all the way home. If there is no sprung latch involved then it won't matter if the hatch is closed all the way, you'd still be able to open it just by pushing it open from the outside provided the handle is in the 'unlocked' position. Since it can't be moved to the locked position from the outside, there is no problem.

Without a handle on the outside it a) is not possible for the astronaut to close the hatch all the way (you can't pull it flush with the frame if you have to have your fingers hooked around the edge of the hatch to pull it closed from the outside), and b) avoids the issue of the hatch being closed and locked from the outside and then the handle jamming or breaking.

To me it seems that having no exterior handle on the hatch is actually the best option as it in fact renders it impossible for the astronauts to accidentally shut themselves out of the LM while on the lunar surface.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: ApolloEnthusiast on January 02, 2020, 11:59:00 AM
It's weight-saving planning. When grams (or ouncey things) matter, why install a device with a measurable weight to manage a potential problem which can be...er...handled procedurally (don't shut the hatch on the way out).
Sure, but leaving the hatch open for the whole EVA means there are hours of vacuum seeping into the craft and getting all over the place.  The last thing you want after returning home from a long day of walking on the moon is discovering you've left the door open and everything is just covered in vacuum.  ::)

Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: gillianren on January 02, 2020, 01:17:50 PM
So run a vacuum cleaner?
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: Abaddon on January 02, 2020, 02:26:59 PM
So run a vacuum cleaner?
LOL, very good.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: Allan F on January 02, 2020, 03:04:16 PM
So they said, what about the airlock? Well, we'll need the chamber, and two hatches instead of one, and the weight will be off centred, and we'll need another pump which may or may not be more complicated than multitasking an existing pump. Then we'll have to put both astronauts through it, a process that will take about half an hour minimum. But they are both going outside, so they will have their suits on anyway. So why not just look at the suits as their airlock and evacuate the LM? They are both going out so there is no-one in the LM who needs to breathe.

And, what kind of planning is not having a handle on the outside?  I'll give you a hint. It's really embarrassing to lock yourself out of your RV at the beach. Now do it 250,000 miles from the nearest AA van....!?

There was no pump. They shut off the life support system, and opened a valve in the hatch, which bled the cabin air out to space in a matter of minutes.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 02, 2020, 03:11:17 PM
So run a vacuum cleaner?

 ;D
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: Obviousman on January 02, 2020, 03:11:56 PM
I my be missing something here but the LM did have an exterior hatch operating mechanism.

(http://www.ninfinger.org/models/Yahoo%20photos/__hr_LM%20hatch%20details%20color%20diagram.jpg)


Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: Britmax on January 03, 2020, 08:14:23 AM
So they said, what about the airlock? Well, we'll need the chamber, and two hatches instead of one, and the weight will be off centred, and we'll need another pump which may or may not be more complicated than multitasking an existing pump. Then we'll have to put both astronauts through it, a process that will take about half an hour minimum. But they are both going outside, so they will have their suits on anyway. So why not just look at the suits as their airlock and evacuate the LM? They are both going out so there is no-one in the LM who needs to breathe.

And, what kind of planning is not having a handle on the outside?  I'll give you a hint. It's really embarrassing to lock yourself out of your RV at the beach. Now do it 250,000 miles from the nearest AA van....!?

There was no pump. They shut off the life support system, and opened a valve in the hatch, which bled the cabin air out to space in a matter of minutes.


I know that. But if they had used an airlock they would have needed one, and added to the weight. Another reason they didn't use  one.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 03, 2020, 08:43:56 AM
I know that. But if they had used an airlock they would have needed one, and added to the weight. Another reason they didn't use  one.

Why would they need a pump? An airlock between atmosphere inside and vacuum outside only requires valves. When leaving the ship the airlock starts full of air and opening a valve to the outside will cause it to bleed out. When re-entering the airlock starts in vacuum and opening a valve to the inside will cause it to fill with air from inside the ship. The ambient pressure differences on either side of the doors will serve the function perfectly well without any active pumping of gas.

You only need a pump if there is something other than a vacuum on the other side and you need to exchange one atmosphere for another, or the ambient pressure outside your tiny ship is significantly greater than that inside, where just opening the valves will fill your ship with whatever is outside at similar pressure. So in a submarine you'd need an active pump to remove the water prior to opening the interior door, or if you were on Venus, for example. The only reason for having a pump on a spacecraft would be to avoid losing precious oxygen to the outside, by pumping it back into the cabin from the airlock, but it's more likely to be considered OK to lose that volume of gaseous oxygen a few times than add the complexity of a pump where one is not needed for normal airlock operation.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: JayUtah on January 03, 2020, 09:53:06 AM
If one of the reasons you want an airlock is to recover the gas in the lock by pumping it down to vacuum and storing it for later use, then you have to consider that a vacuum pump and its related plumbing and wiring would cost more mass than the equivalent additional volume of atmospheric gases required for several full recharges of the LM interior.  And it's a lot less complex that way.  In contrast, if you're willing to waste the gas in the airlock by venting it to space, then you have to consider that an appropriately sized airlock wouldn't be a significant savings of that gas over simply venting the entire volume.  In order for that to look attractive to engineers, the airlock would have to be an order of magnitude smaller than the volume whose atmosphere you're trying to preserve.  The only reason to require an airlock in such a scenario is if you need to preserve a shirtsleeve environment for people not ingressing or egressing.  That's not a requirement for Apollo.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: Britmax on January 03, 2020, 10:06:51 AM
And once you realise that this is the only reason you'd have a pump, and there is no way the net saving of atmosphere will make up for the weight penalty incurred by fitting an eccentrically mounted walk in fridge, the case for an airlock really disappears over the horizon, does it not? 
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: JayUtah on January 03, 2020, 10:12:21 AM
It does.  There's really no engineering reason to even attempt to fit an airlock to the Apollo LM.  For that design, it's universally easier to provide a different solution for problems you think an airlock would solve.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: HyperOreo on January 03, 2020, 05:23:04 PM
It has always amazed me why a conspiracy theorist would pose a genuine question when they are convinced they already have the answer.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: Allan F on January 03, 2020, 06:15:00 PM
It has always amazed me why a conspiracy theorist would pose a genuine question when they are convinced they already have the answer.

Because that is how they make themselves feel smart. It gives them the warm fuzzy feeling inside. To show all the eggheads with their edjukasjon how stupid they are.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: smartcooky on January 04, 2020, 12:55:27 AM
It has always amazed me why a conspiracy theorist would pose a genuine question when they are convinced they already have the answer.

I think its an attempt to try to show how "superior"TM they are, and how they "know"TM the "truth"TM and have "special knowledge"TM that the rest of us sheeple and shills don't.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: JayUtah on January 04, 2020, 01:07:57 PM
Yes, there's at least one neuroscientist out there who's studying the electrochemical payoff that happens when someone believes he has hidden knowledge.  It's pure ego reinforcement.  The Powers That Be have taken great pains to keep something hidden, but the conspiracy theorist is so smart to have figured it all out anyway, and to have had the open mind and imagination to have considered conspiracy and hoax in the first place.  This is what I believe Jr Knowing is trying to accomplish.  He wants to be given credit for being "woke," but with this crowd he can't make his alleged wokenness (sorry, Gillianren) take the place of actual knowledge of the events, the relevant sciences, and the specific engineering solutions.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 05, 2020, 06:22:52 AM
And once you realise that this is the only reason you'd have a pump, and there is no way the net saving of atmosphere will make up for the weight penalty incurred by fitting an eccentrically mounted walk in fridge, the case for an airlock really disappears over the horizon, does it not? 

Indeed, whistling merrily and arm in arm with a whole bunch of other 'common sense' engineering 'solutions' held up by conspiracy theorists as being necessary for a successful lunar mission.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: gillianren on January 05, 2020, 12:53:34 PM
Yes, there's at least one neuroscientist out there who's studying the electrochemical payoff that happens when someone believes he has hidden knowledge.  It's pure ego reinforcement.  The Powers That Be have taken great pains to keep something hidden, but the conspiracy theorist is so smart to have figured it all out anyway, and to have had the open mind and imagination to have considered conspiracy and hoax in the first place.  This is what I believe Jr Knowing is trying to accomplish.  He wants to be given credit for being "woke," but with this crowd he can't make his alleged wokenness (sorry, Gillianren) take the place of actual knowledge of the events, the relevant sciences, and the specific engineering solutions.

You should be sorry!  There should be only one "n" in "wokeness," in my opinion.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: bknight on January 06, 2020, 10:40:26 AM
If one of the reasons you want an airlock is to recover the gas in the lock by pumping it down to vacuum and storing it for later use, then you have to consider that a vacuum pump and its related plumbing and wiring would cost more mass than the equivalent additional volume of atmospheric gases required for several full recharges of the LM interior.  And it's a lot less complex that way.  In contrast, if you're willing to waste the gas in the airlock by venting it to space, then you have to consider that an appropriately sized airlock wouldn't be a significant savings of that gas over simply venting the entire volume.  In order for that to look attractive to engineers, the airlock would have to be an order of magnitude smaller than the volume whose atmosphere you're trying to preserve.  The only reason to require an airlock in such a scenario is if you need to preserve a shirtsleeve environment for people not ingressing or egressing.  That's not a requirement for Apollo.

Indeed as you point out that the system dumped the oxygen in the LM to the Lunar atmosphere and thereby negated a reason to have an airlock.  Plus nobody was left inside to be in a shirtsleeve environment.  :)
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: Britmax on January 07, 2020, 04:30:27 AM
Two more things occur to me. Firstly, as the windows on the LM are positioned to enable the pilot to see when landing, and watch the command module through the window, any airlock would probably impinge on the vision when docking and undocking. But also, what exactly happens to it on takeoff from the moon? Do you carry the extra weight, which means a bigger engine and more fuel use, or do you jettison it, whether separately or part of the descent stage, either of which need guillotines and additional seals which are a further complication and more weight?   
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: Abaddon on January 09, 2020, 06:31:55 PM
Two more things occur to me. Firstly, as the windows on the LM are positioned to enable the pilot to see when landing, and watch the command module through the window, any airlock would probably impinge on the vision when docking and undocking. But also, what exactly happens to it on takeoff from the moon? Do you carry the extra weight, which means a bigger engine and more fuel use, or do you jettison it, whether separately or part of the descent stage, either of which need guillotines and additional seals which are a further complication and more weight?   

Putting on an engineers hat...

One could, I suppose, include an airlock in the LM, but why? What benefit would there be to maintaining an atmosphere in the LM? There are no people there. There are no systems there dependent on an atmosphere. (beyond things like scrubbers, which are redundant if nobody is there) so why exactly would one desire to maintain a breathable atmosphere in the LM when there is nothing in it that breathes?

Perhaps a safe haven in the event of an unexpected suit puncture by some misadventure? That dog don't hunt. Astronaut be dead long before returning and cycling an airlock.

Maybe a minor leak? Well, pressurising the LM would take the same or less time than cycling an airlock, no?

In a way, the LM itself IS the airlock. All that has happened is an elegant economy of design. The suit itself is, in effect, a spacecraft in its own right. Suit and LM form together a rather efficient airlock. Why add a load of clunky hardware to that? Not to mention the weight cost.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: Obviousman on January 09, 2020, 08:39:40 PM
In a way, the LM itself IS the airlock.

I like that.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: Abaddon on January 09, 2020, 09:45:01 PM
In a way, the LM itself IS the airlock.

I like that.
So do I. One can run it on to lunar rendezvous with the CM. Once again the LM is the airlock. The simple engineering elegance is a joy.

Weellll. I say simple in a relative sense, but you catch my drift.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: smartcooky on January 10, 2020, 01:12:24 AM
In a way, the LM itself IS the airlock.

I like that.
So do I. One can run it on to lunar rendezvous with the CM. Once again the LM is the airlock. The simple engineering elegance is a joy.

Weellll. I say simple in a relative sense, but you catch my drift.

And it wasn't a new idea. The same concept was used in Ed White's 1965 Gemini 4 spacewalk. Both astronauts wore spacesuits, and the whole crew cabin was depressurized before White exited the capsule.
Title: Re: The Absence of Airlocks
Post by: raven on January 10, 2020, 11:31:47 PM
In my opinion, a better system than the LOK/LK would have had to face, with the cosmonaut needing to do a spacewalk with whatever samples they collected and film shot to the Earth returning LOK.