Author Topic: The Absence of Airlocks  (Read 4407 times)

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3180
    • Clavius
Re: The Absence of Airlocks
« Reply #30 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.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2019, 02:25:28 PM by JayUtah »
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline jr Knowing

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 127
Re: The Absence of Airlocks
« Reply #31 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?

Offline Allan F

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 896
Re: The Absence of Airlocks
« Reply #32 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?
Well, it is like this: The truth doesn't need insults. Insults are the refuge of a darkened mind, a mind that refuses to open and see. Foul language can't outcompete knowledge. And knowledge is the result of education. Education is the result of the wish to know more, not less.

Offline Allan F

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 896
Re: The Absence of Airlocks
« Reply #33 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.
Well, it is like this: The truth doesn't need insults. Insults are the refuge of a darkened mind, a mind that refuses to open and see. Foul language can't outcompete knowledge. And knowledge is the result of education. Education is the result of the wish to know more, not less.

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3180
    • Clavius
Re: The Absence of Airlocks
« Reply #34 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.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline jr Knowing

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 127
Re: The Absence of Airlocks
« Reply #35 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

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3180
    • Clavius
Re: The Absence of Airlocks
« Reply #36 on: September 07, 2019, 02:46:16 PM »
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline jr Knowing

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 127
Re: The Absence of Airlocks
« Reply #37 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.

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3180
    • Clavius
Re: The Absence of Airlocks
« Reply #38 on: September 07, 2019, 03:34:41 PM »
Pg 39.

Why are you dodging my questions?
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline apollo16uvc

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 239
  • Where no telescope has gone before.
    • Apollo 16 UVC
Re: The Absence of Airlocks
« Reply #39 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.
Ultraviolet light photography rules!
Apollo 16
Skylab

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1507
Re: The Absence of Airlocks
« Reply #40 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.
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1507
Re: The Absence of Airlocks
« Reply #41 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.
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3180
    • Clavius
Re: The Absence of Airlocks
« Reply #42 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.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1507
Re: The Absence of Airlocks
« Reply #43 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?
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3180
    • Clavius
Re: The Absence of Airlocks
« Reply #44 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.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams