The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: sceptimatic on June 17, 2021, 05:07:45 AM

Title: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 17, 2021, 05:07:45 AM
Apparently there were no airlocks in the supposed LM's on the moon.
I am told they didn't need them.

I looked at these questions and answers.


Take the following question from Gianni Berati in Italy, who writes: "I have read that [Apollo 11 astronauts] Armstrong and Aldrin, after their extravehicular activities on the moon, had to throw off everything superfluous onto the lunar surface, even the lunar suits, in order to get the lunar module (LM) lighter. Is that true? How could they do that without a depressurized LM cabin?"

Answer: Berati is correct—the LM cabin did not have a safe area where unclad astronauts could seek refuge from the vacuum when they opened the hatch. Before going outside, they had to first put on spacesuits, then depressurize the entire landing craft. After a moonwalk they reversed the process, only taking off their suits when the LM pressure had been brought back up to normal.

The next generation of moon lander will rectify this, adding an airlock as a "mud room" where astronauts can enter and exit while others lounge unprotected inside the craft.

Question:
So how did the Apollo astronauts manage to throw their spacesuits overboard?



For an answer, the good folks at NASA's history office directed me to the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, which explains in detail the unceremonious discarding of equipment onto the lunar surface. It turns out Berati is only partly right. The lunar explorers did not ditch the suits themselves, but rather the 84-pound Portable Life Support Systems (PLSS). The PLSS units, worn like backpacks, supplied enough air for four hours on the surface.

Armstrong, standing inside the LM in his space suit, opened two valves to bring the cabin pressure down to zero, then opened the hatch to the outside. The astronauts took the boxy PLSS packages, which they'd detached from their suits, and pitched them out the door with gloved hands (later lunar explorers found it more effective to use their feet).

This is the beauty of a story. You can make anything up to play make believe and this stuff is no exception, in my honest opinion.






Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: NotSoSkeptical on June 17, 2021, 06:36:38 AM
They didn't as their space suits are in museums on Earth.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Unconvinced on June 17, 2021, 06:53:16 AM
So someone thought they found a problem with what we are told happened.  But checking with the actual mission documents from the time shows that it was based on incorrect information and there was no problem after all.


This is the beauty of a story. You can make anything up to play make believe and this stuff is no exception, in my honest opinion.

Seems NASA (and all their contractors) thought of everything in advance.  They did all the calculations, designed the spacecraft, wrote all the procedures, the manuals, the training documents, the computer code, etc. for this fake so well that no one has ever found a real problem with any of it in 50 years.

Unlike your make-believe which is very obviously nonsense.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Velocio on June 17, 2021, 07:44:19 AM
What exactly makes you believe that this story is made up? Do you have any other evidence except your ignorance? Which by definition is no evidence at all. And more important - how this particular "problem" proves any of your claims?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Mikey T. on June 17, 2021, 09:42:39 AM
Explained a dozen times over, the backpacks were discarded, not the suits.  But you were told this and when it didn't agree with your fantasy or rather FE programming, you claimed that only the part your indoctrination disagrees with was a lie.  Amazing how the brainwashed mind can make such dishonest leaps. 
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: JackBlack on June 17, 2021, 01:51:38 PM
Yes, that is the beauty of FE, even when there is no problem, you can still pretend there is.

Can you show any actual problem? No.
All you can do is make believe and pretend that they needed an airlock.

If instead of making up stories to invent problems, you just honestly analysed it, you would realise there was no need for an airlock at all.
Then when the obvious is pointed out to you, you just claim people are making things up to fit to pretend your question wasn't completely baseless.


What will your next question be? Why don't airlocks have airlocks?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Themightykabool on June 17, 2021, 02:24:14 PM
Better question is what is the massive tilt.
Should be an easy one to solve.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 17, 2021, 09:04:02 PM
"We didn't have any problems," Aldrin recalled during a technical debriefing. "I didn't notice you (Neil) had any difficulty giving the packages the heave-ho. I think each PLSS bounced once on the porch before it went down." (The "porch" was a lip of the LM jutting out just outside the hatch.)

Seismic sensors left on the surface by the astronauts even recorded the thumps of the gear hitting the moon. As Mission Control radioed to the two explorers: "We observed your equipment jettison on the TV, and the passive seismic experiment recorded shocks when each PLSS hit the surface" Armstrong responded, "You can't get away with anything anymore, can you?"

 ::)

When you can smell it, you can smell it.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 17, 2021, 09:20:55 PM
Sooo, anyway, back to my questions and points.

They take off their back packs after depressurising the LM and it suddenly made their suits fine and dandy with no so called cooling system left running for that particular time.
They just sat in the open LM with their suit and helmets on whilst Neil threw out the back packs and they were fine in that apparent vacuum.

Does nobody see any issue with this? Of course not because I'm only dealing with the usual suspects.

Let's try and make it a bit clearer before I move on.

If anyone has ever broken off a nib of a thermos flask, you know what happens. A quick split second whoosh and the thermos cavity is refilled with air pressure. Anyone tried it apart from the usual suspects who obviously won't have or theirs didn't act like that?

I know I know...but this is a vacuum in a spacecraft . it's the opposite of down here on Earth, I can hear some of the usual suspects reason.

That's the entire point.
If they took their back packs off then all the air in their suits gets lost to the supposed vacuum because there's absolutely no resistance to arrest it.

So they spend the amount of time it takes to get those back packs off and depressurise the cabin and rid the cabin of those bulky back packs.

It's not a case of holding your breath or anything in this scenario we've been given.


Go and observe evacuation chambers on good old Earth and see what happens to stuff that's depressurised.

I'd love to see an answer for how they got by this.

Also remember there's now no supposed coolant running around their suits.
But it was only for a few minutes...right?

Like I said. It's not like holding your breath in that scenario we're given. It's not about "ahhhh it's only a few minutes against that vacuum...like they said, they didn't have any problems."

They sure didn't...but they would have if they were really in that environment.
Luckily for them it was just a cheap stunt on a movie set.


All those people with real and genuine thinking minds, pay attention to all this and you'll see it for what it was, which was the opposite of real.


I have more queries/questions.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: faded mike on June 17, 2021, 09:28:01 PM
So someone thought they found a problem with what we are told happened.  But checking with the actual mission documents from the time shows that it was based on incorrect information and there was no problem after all.


This is the beauty of a story. You can make anything up to play make believe and this stuff is no exception, in my honest opinion.

Seems NASA (and all their contractors) thought of everything in advance.  They did all the calculations, designed the spacecraft, wrote all the procedures, the manuals, the training documents, the computer code, etc. for this fake so well that no one has ever found a real problem with any of it in 50 years.

Unlike your make-believe which is very obviously nonsense.
I heard the space suited astronot with backpack would not fit into the doorway. From a suppressed inventions book.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: faded mike on June 17, 2021, 09:57:52 PM
To be fair, I possibly rememberred it incorrectly but a good possible point of enquiry.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: faded mike on June 17, 2021, 10:10:52 PM
"With the backpacks on, the astronauts would need about 35 inches of clearance to crawl through the 30-inch hatch on the LEM (lunar [excursion] module) in the manner claimed by NASA. Awful tight fit! "

- from section - "Never a Straight Answer, A book review of "NASA Mooned America"", from th book "Supressed Inventions and Other Discoveries" by Johnathan Eisen.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Gumwars on June 17, 2021, 10:54:12 PM
Scepti, because you enjoy finding controversy where none exists, did it ever cross your mind that the LM had a life support system too?  That the crew members could easily plug their suits into the LM, depressurize the cabin, doff the two PLSS units, and then pressurize the cabin once that operation was over? (source: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20090015393/downloads/20090015393.pdf)

You'll note on page 4 of that presentation that the LM ECS has a port for recharging the PLSS and another that plugs directly into the spacesuit.  The LM ECS had the capability to interface directly with the suits or provide environmental control to the entire cabin. 
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Gumwars on June 17, 2021, 11:06:06 PM
"With the backpacks on, the astronauts would need about 35 inches of clearance to crawl through the 30-inch hatch on the LEM (lunar [excursion] module) in the manner claimed by NASA. Awful tight fit! "

- from section - "Never a Straight Answer, A book review of "NASA Mooned America"", from th book "Supressed Inventions and Other Discoveries" by Johnathan Eisen.

The book you are actually quoting is called Moongate and was written by William Brian II.  In it, Brian claims the moon has an atmosphere and gravity closer to Earth's, so NASA actually concealed an advanced antigravity propulsion project that powered the Apollo missions. 

Further, the LM forward hatch is actually 32", square.  (source: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LM04_Lunar_Module_ppLV1-17.pdf check page 4)

Each astronaut's suit is custom made for each of them, meaning the dimensions would vary slightly from person to person.  I highly doubt the claims of Mr. Eisen (who was quoted by Brian) or Brian.  Making sure the astronauts could get out of the LM would have been a fundamental requirement. 
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 17, 2021, 11:48:42 PM
Scepti, because you enjoy finding controversy where none exists, did it ever cross your mind that the LM had a life support system too?  That the crew members could easily plug their suits into the LM, depressurize the cabin, doff the two PLSS units, and then pressurize the cabin once that operation was over? (source: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20090015393/downloads/20090015393.pdf)

You'll note on page 4 of that presentation that the LM ECS has a port for recharging the PLSS and another that plugs directly into the spacesuit.  The LM ECS had the capability to interface directly with the suits or provide environmental control to the entire cabin.
What am I looking at?
I can't see anywhere where they say anything like you said.
Copy and paste it.

Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Unconvinced on June 18, 2021, 12:10:09 AM
"With the backpacks on, the astronauts would need about 35 inches of clearance to crawl through the 30-inch hatch on the LEM (lunar [excursion] module) in the manner claimed by NASA. Awful tight fit! "

- from section - "Never a Straight Answer, A book review of "NASA Mooned America"", from th book "Supressed Inventions and Other Discoveries" by Johnathan Eisen.

http://www.moonhoaxdebunked.com/2017/07/814-wasnt-lunar-module-hatch-too-narrow.html?m=1
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Velocio on June 18, 2021, 12:21:55 AM
Scepti, because you enjoy finding controversy where none exists, ...
What am I looking at?...

Sorry for the diversion, but I just couldn't stand it. In my native language there is a proverb - "Seeking for a calf under the ox". That is exactly what Sceptimatic is looking for.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: JackBlack on June 18, 2021, 01:20:30 AM
When you can smell it, you can smell it.
We can certainly smell you are just pretending there are problems when you can't actually show any.

Does nobody see any issue with this?
No, because we don't have a paranoid hatred of the RE and science, and thus wont just have an issue with anything that comes from it.

That's the entire point.
If they took their back packs off then all the air in their suits gets lost to the supposed vacuum because there's absolutely no resistance to arrest it.
So your entire point is your standard wilful ignorance of how air works?

Their suit provides that needed "resistance".
Just why should all the air be magically lost?

It's not a case of holding your breath or anything in this scenario we've been given.
That's right, because the suit itself has a limited supply of air inside it, which would give you more, and because the LM itself can provide air.
After all, if the PLSS can only provide air for a few hours, and they were there for a lot more, they would need another source of air.

All those people with real and genuine thinking minds
All the people with real and genuine thinking minds see you are just spouting a bunch of garbage to pretend there is a problem.

Again, you cannot show any actual problems. Instead you can just make crap up and ask questions pretending they cause a massive problem.

You'll note on page 4 of that presentation that the LM ECS has a port for recharging the PLSS and another that plugs directly into the spacesuit.
What am I looking at?
I can't see anywhere where they say anything like you said.
Copy and paste it.
Perhaps you should try looking where he said.
On page 4 there is a simple image showing some key parts of the setup.
It is quite obvious for any honest person to find.

Does this help you:
(https://i.imgur.com/KB0HfEs.png)

Notice the part that says "To suit loop", nicely emphasised for you?
That connects from the LM to the suit. This allows the LM to directly provide oxygen to the suit.
So they don't need to hold their breath, or have the PLSS attached.

If you were honest and actually cared about this rather than just wanting to pretend there is a problem, you would look more, and on page 10 find more discussion about the line from the LM to the suit, allowing the LM to provide oxygen directly to the suit.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Gumwars on June 18, 2021, 01:21:23 AM
Sorry for the diversion, but I just couldn't stand it. In my native language there is a proverb - "Seeking for a calf under the ox". That is exactly what Sceptimatic is looking for.

I am definitely writing that one down!
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 18, 2021, 03:18:19 AM

After all, if the PLSS can only provide air for a few hours, and they were there for a lot more, they would need another source of air.

Does this help you:
(https://i.imgur.com/KB0HfEs.png)

Notice the part that says "To suit loop", nicely emphasised for you?
That connects from the LM to the suit. This allows the LM to directly provide oxygen to the suit.
So they don't need to hold their breath, or have the PLSS attached.

If you were honest and actually cared about this rather than just wanting to pretend there is a problem, you would look more, and on page 10 find more discussion about the line from the LM to the suit, allowing the LM to provide oxygen directly to the suit.
And where is the oxygen stored to keep pressurising this cabin and also their suits packs with 4 hours worth of breathable oxygen?
I can see it on the diagram but where on that LM would it be?

where does it cater for two men and their back packs as well as for the cabin for two men?


Now let's make it a bit clearer.

You have two men breathing this from the supposed command module to the supposed LM to the moon, on the moon and then doing their bit , supposedly on the moon, then lift off and rendezvous back with the supposed command module again.

Where would the tanks be to cater for all that for two men?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: JackBlack on June 18, 2021, 03:42:59 AM
And where is the oxygen stored to keep pressurising this cabin and also their suits packs with 4 hours worth of breathable oxygen?
I can see it on the diagram but where on that LM would it be?

where does it cater for two men and their back packs as well as for the cabin for two men?


Now let's make it a bit clearer.

You have two men breathing this from the supposed command module to the supposed LM to the moon, on the moon and then doing their bit , supposedly on the moon, then lift off and rendezvous back with the supposed command module again.

Where would the tanks be to cater for all that for two men?
Again, no actual problem with the LM, just questions to pretend there is a problem.
Do accept that there is no basis to think there is a problem?

Or do you still want to pretend these questions show the missions need to be fake?

If you want to pretend it is all fake, start justifying it rather than just asking questions which anyone who honestly looks into it could easily answer. (especially as you already know that gas can be pressurised, and in your magic fantasy land, there should be no limit to how much it can be, as that limit comes from the actual physical size of the molecules, which you want to pretend instead just magically expand and contract)
If you want to ask such questions, cut out all that "supposedly" garbage and stop pretending it was all fake.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Velocio on June 18, 2021, 05:08:38 AM

And where is the oxygen stored to keep pressurising this cabin and also their suits packs with 4 hours worth of breathable oxygen?
I can see it on the diagram but where on that LM would it be?

where does it cater for two men and their back packs as well as for the cabin for two men?


Now let's make it a bit clearer.

You have two men breathing this from the supposed command module to the supposed LM to the moon, on the moon and then doing their bit , supposedly on the moon, then lift off and rendezvous back with the supposed command module again.

Where would the tanks be to cater for all that for two men?

Now that the "issue" with the life support system is resolved, you jump to another one. How convenient! Better try to educate yourself, may be there is no issue at all. Or stop pretending there is any issue.

Do you have any idea how much oxygen is needed? Do you have any idea to what extent a gaseous oxygen can be pressurised? Reading your "competent" questions one may be led to think you know nothing about it. Please, do dispel these doubts by answering your questions yourself first.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Unconvinced on June 18, 2021, 07:16:44 AM

You have two men breathing this from the supposed command module to the supposed LM to the moon, on the moon and then doing their bit , supposedly on the moon, then lift off and rendezvous back with the supposed command module again.

Where would the tanks be to cater for all that for two men?

On the command module and lunar module obviously.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Mikey T. on June 18, 2021, 07:47:10 AM
I'm not sure anyone has explained the difference in consumption need of humans from a pressurized source of oxygen to scepti.  If I knew it off the top of my head I would, but right now I'm on my phone.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sobchak on June 18, 2021, 08:19:02 AM
I'm not sure anyone has explained the difference in consumption need of humans from a pressurized source of oxygen to scepti.  If I knew it off the top of my head I would, but right now I'm on my phone.

About 800 g of oxygen is needed per person per day to survive   Specific gravity of liquid oxygen is 1.14 g/ cm3 so about one liter of liquid oxygen per person per day. 
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: markjo on June 18, 2021, 09:38:45 AM
I heard the space suited astronot with backpack would not fit into the doorway. From a suppressed inventions book.
Some of the early mock ups of the lunar module had a round main hatch, but they found out fairly quickly that square backpacks don't fit through round hatches.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/6c/c1/64/6cc164a830a52b9b46beb1d86c5ce4a7.jpg)
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Stash on June 18, 2021, 09:39:41 AM
And where is the oxygen stored to keep pressurising this cabin and also their suits packs with 4 hours worth of breathable oxygen?
I can see it on the diagram but where on that LM would it be?

where does it cater for two men and their back packs as well as for the cabin for two men?

Now let's make it a bit clearer.

You have two men breathing this from the supposed command module to the supposed LM to the moon, on the moon and then doing their bit , supposedly on the moon, then lift off and rendezvous back with the supposed command module again.

Where would the tanks be to cater for all that for two men?

Pretty simple really, you just need to do a little reading and all of your questions will be answered. Here's a good source which I think has been referenced already:

"A scuba diver uses a tank of air in 60 minutes; in Apollo an equivalent amount of oxygen lasted 15 hours. Oxygen was not simply inhaled once and then discarded: the exhaled gas was scrubbed to eliminate its CO2 recycled, and reused.
Like a plumber's dream, the LM's environmental control system nestled in a corner of the ascent stage. Those hoses provided pure oxygen to two astronauts at a pressure one-third that of normal atmosphere, and at a comfortable temperature. The unit recirculated the gas, scrubbed out CO2 and moisture exhaled, and replenished oxygen as it was used up."

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-350/ch-4-3.html

Not so much of a mystery.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Unconvinced on June 18, 2021, 10:48:25 AM
And where is the oxygen stored to keep pressurising this cabin and also their suits packs with 4 hours worth of breathable oxygen?
I can see it on the diagram but where on that LM would it be?

where does it cater for two men and their back packs as well as for the cabin for two men?

Now let's make it a bit clearer.

You have two men breathing this from the supposed command module to the supposed LM to the moon, on the moon and then doing their bit , supposedly on the moon, then lift off and rendezvous back with the supposed command module again.

Where would the tanks be to cater for all that for two men?

Pretty simple really, you just need to do a little reading and all of your questions will be answered. Here's a good source which I think has been referenced already:

"A scuba diver uses a tank of air in 60 minutes; in Apollo an equivalent amount of oxygen lasted 15 hours. Oxygen was not simply inhaled once and then discarded: the exhaled gas was scrubbed to eliminate its CO2 recycled, and reused.
Like a plumber's dream, the LM's environmental control system nestled in a corner of the ascent stage. Those hoses provided pure oxygen to two astronauts at a pressure one-third that of normal atmosphere, and at a comfortable temperature. The unit recirculated the gas, scrubbed out CO2 and moisture exhaled, and replenished oxygen as it was used up."

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-350/ch-4-3.html

Not so much of a mystery.

Scuba gear also has to match the pressure at whatever depth you are diving, so you get through a tank pretty quick.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Timeisup on June 18, 2021, 11:42:12 PM

After all, if the PLSS can only provide air for a few hours, and they were there for a lot more, they would need another source of air.

Does this help you:
(https://i.imgur.com/KB0HfEs.png)

Notice the part that says "To suit loop", nicely emphasised for you?
That connects from the LM to the suit. This allows the LM to directly provide oxygen to the suit.
So they don't need to hold their breath, or have the PLSS attached.

If you were honest and actually cared about this rather than just wanting to pretend there is a problem, you would look more, and on page 10 find more discussion about the line from the LM to the suit, allowing the LM to provide oxygen directly to the suit.
And where is the oxygen stored to keep pressurising this cabin and also their suits packs with 4 hours worth of breathable oxygen?
I can see it on the diagram but where on that LM would it be?

where does it cater for two men and their back packs as well as for the cabin for two men?


Now let's make it a bit clearer.

You have two men breathing this from the supposed command module to the supposed LM to the moon, on the moon and then doing their bit , supposedly on the moon, then lift off and rendezvous back with the supposed command module again.

Where would the tanks be to cater for all that for two men?

If only you devoted the same degree of scrutiny to your own beliefs as you do to the Apollo landings.

How about you spend some time probing your own belief of your magic molecules or offer some proof about how air molecules magically permeate metals and how pressurised containers stay pressurised under your system.
That would be time well spent.

It’s funny how you pour over the details of things like the Apollo mission and give yourself a totally free ride. Typical  flat earth believer demanding answers about this that and everything while unwilling and unable to supply any supporting information on any aspect of their own beliefs.

How about some balance Sceptimatic, how about being sceptical about what you believe?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 19, 2021, 12:12:30 AM

Again, no actual problem with the LM, just questions to pretend there is a problem.
Do accept that there is no basis to think there is a problem?
I believe there's many many problems.
I absolutely know there will be answers.....but....it's about how those answers marry up as the questions go on.

Quote from: JackBlack
Or do you still want to pretend these questions show the missions need to be fake?
It's not a case of pretending. It's a case of using the questions as a sceptical set of queries to gain an insight.
You're under no obligation to answer the questions but I will certainly be adding them in and going through my own process regardless.
This is why I put this topic up.

Quote from: JackBlack
If you want to pretend it is all fake, start justifying it rather than just asking questions which anyone who honestly looks into it could easily answer. (especially as you already know that gas can be pressurised, and in your magic fantasy land, there should be no limit to how much it can be, as that limit comes from the actual physical size of the molecules, which you want to pretend instead just magically expand and contract)
Justifying it is exactly what I'm going to do. Not for you, for me. Not for you, for those who have the ability to want to think on it.


And as far as molecular expansion just magically expanding and contracting. You still took no notice after all this time.
If you want to come back to it and understand it you need to go to the topic on it.
This one is for the  supposed LM on a supposed moon.


Quote from: JackBlack

If you want to ask such questions, cut out all that "supposedly" garbage and stop pretending it was all fake.
No.
I'll use stuff like, supposedly because I don't accept the storyline and will be throwing questions up for my own and other people's mindsets who also question the supposed moon stuff.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 19, 2021, 12:21:14 AM
Now that the "issue" with the life support system is resolved, you jump to another one.
It hasn't been resolved, at all. In no way shape or form.


Quote from: Velocio
Do you have any idea how much oxygen is needed? Do you have any idea to what extent a gaseous oxygen can be pressurised? Reading your "competent" questions one may be led to think you know nothing about it. Please, do dispel these doubts by answering your questions yourself first.
Do you have any idea about extreme low pressure, or the supposed vacuum in your space?

You are arguing for stuff happening in a normal environment.
This is in a supposed vacuum where these things are supposed to work without fault.

Also breathing pure oxygen for lengths of time is harmful.
It's not like those so called astronauts could add in normal atmosphere with a sniff of pure oxygen.

I'd also like to know how those back packs recycled their oxygen.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 19, 2021, 12:37:43 AM
And where is the oxygen stored to keep pressurising this cabin and also their suits packs with 4 hours worth of breathable oxygen?
I can see it on the diagram but where on that LM would it be?

where does it cater for two men and their back packs as well as for the cabin for two men?

Now let's make it a bit clearer.

You have two men breathing this from the supposed command module to the supposed LM to the moon, on the moon and then doing their bit , supposedly on the moon, then lift off and rendezvous back with the supposed command module again.

Where would the tanks be to cater for all that for two men?

Pretty simple really, you just need to do a little reading and all of your questions will be answered. Here's a good source which I think has been referenced already:

"A scuba diver uses a tank of air in 60 minutes; in Apollo an equivalent amount of oxygen lasted 15 hours. Oxygen was not simply inhaled once and then discarded: the exhaled gas was scrubbed to eliminate its CO2 recycled, and reused.
Like a plumber's dream, the LM's environmental control system nestled in a corner of the ascent stage. Those hoses provided pure oxygen to two astronauts at a pressure one-third that of normal atmosphere, and at a comfortable temperature. The unit recirculated the gas, scrubbed out CO2 and moisture exhaled, and replenished oxygen as it was used up."

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-350/ch-4-3.html

Not so much of a mystery.
If you were to fill those tanks with liquid oxygen, how would you do it?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 19, 2021, 12:40:12 AM

After all, if the PLSS can only provide air for a few hours, and they were there for a lot more, they would need another source of air.

Does this help you:
(https://i.imgur.com/KB0HfEs.png)

Notice the part that says "To suit loop", nicely emphasised for you?
That connects from the LM to the suit. This allows the LM to directly provide oxygen to the suit.
So they don't need to hold their breath, or have the PLSS attached.

If you were honest and actually cared about this rather than just wanting to pretend there is a problem, you would look more, and on page 10 find more discussion about the line from the LM to the suit, allowing the LM to provide oxygen directly to the suit.
And where is the oxygen stored to keep pressurising this cabin and also their suits packs with 4 hours worth of breathable oxygen?
I can see it on the diagram but where on that LM would it be?

where does it cater for two men and their back packs as well as for the cabin for two men?


Now let's make it a bit clearer.

You have two men breathing this from the supposed command module to the supposed LM to the moon, on the moon and then doing their bit , supposedly on the moon, then lift off and rendezvous back with the supposed command module again.

Where would the tanks be to cater for all that for two men?

If only you devoted the same degree of scrutiny to your own beliefs as you do to the Apollo landings.

How about you spend some time probing your own belief of your magic molecules or offer some proof about how air molecules magically permeate metals and how pressurised containers stay pressurised under your system.
That would be time well spent.

It’s funny how you pour over the details of things like the Apollo mission and give yourself a totally free ride. Typical  flat earth believer demanding answers about this that and everything while unwilling and unable to supply any supporting information on any aspect of their own beliefs.

How about some balance Sceptimatic, how about being sceptical about what you believe?
I'm dealing with the questions on the supposed LM.
I'll continue to ask them and look up answers if nobody has any on here.

Join in if you want.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Velocio on June 19, 2021, 01:29:30 AM
Now that the "issue" with the life support system is resolved, you jump to another one.
It hasn't been resolved, at all. In no way shape or form.


Quote from: Velocio
Do you have any idea how much oxygen is needed? Do you have any idea to what extent a gaseous oxygen can be pressurised? Reading your "competent" questions one may be led to think you know nothing about it. Please, do dispel these doubts by answering your questions yourself first.
Do you have any idea about extreme low pressure, or the supposed vacuum in your space?

You are arguing for stuff happening in a normal environment.
This is in a supposed vacuum where these things are supposed to work without fault.

Also breathing pure oxygen for lengths of time is harmful.
It's not like those so called astronauts could add in normal atmosphere with a sniff of pure oxygen.

I'd also like to know how those back packs recycled their oxygen.
In fact I am not arguing. All those questions of yours, that supposedly put doubt on the lunar landings, are easily answered. It is just a matter of some effort. Effort that you are unwilling to make and educate yourself or you are just trolling.

I believe there's many many problems.
I absolutely know there will be answers.....but....it's about how those answers marry up as the questions go on.


If you know those answers don't marry up, show it. Analyze it. Give the answers and show how they don't match. Otherwise you are just throwing out some unsubstantiated stuff.

You have already been given some answers, that perfectly match. Pretty enough to use them as a starting point for your own inquiry.

Once again, educate yourself, find the answers and come back with your analysis!
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 19, 2021, 01:47:23 AM
Imagine the size of the oxygen tank that has to be capable of providing the so called astronauts with their oxygen from the supposed CM to the moon and to land then depressurise to allow the so called astronauts to leave, then refill their tanks and also repressurise and then lift off and rendezvous back with the supposed CM.

Fantasy stories are all well and good as long as they're told for what they are.

Anyone know the size of this liquid oxygen tank and how so called astronauts managed to survive in it without harm?

There's just lots of questions.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Timeisup on June 19, 2021, 02:00:27 AM
Imagine the size of the oxygen tank that has to be capable of providing the so called astronauts with their oxygen from the supposed CM to the moon and to land then depressurise to allow the so called astronauts to leave, then refill their tanks and also repressurise and then lift off and rendezvous back with the supposed CM.

Fantasy stories are all well and good as long as they're told for what they are.

Anyone know the size of this liquid oxygen tank and how so called astronauts managed to survive in it without harm?

There's just lots of questions.

It all comes down to you not understanding how the real world works along with the laws that govern it.

It’s hardly surprising given the unsupported views you promote on this site.

How about you explain how you see the magic molecules that you claim exist that can permeate solid materials. As is always the case you ask lots of question but provide no answers. Let’s all remember the answers to all the questions you ask are freely available unlike answers to you your beliefs that have none.

How about coming clean and explain to everyone just how you see these magic molecules you claim exist.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 19, 2021, 02:20:50 AM
Imagine the size of the oxygen tank that has to be capable of providing the so called astronauts with their oxygen from the supposed CM to the moon and to land then depressurise to allow the so called astronauts to leave, then refill their tanks and also repressurise and then lift off and rendezvous back with the supposed CM.

Fantasy stories are all well and good as long as they're told for what they are.

Anyone know the size of this liquid oxygen tank and how so called astronauts managed to survive in it without harm?

There's just lots of questions.

It all comes down to you not understanding how the real world works along with the laws that govern it.

It’s hardly surprising given the unsupported views you promote on this site.

How about you explain how you see the magic molecules that you claim exist that can permeate solid materials. As is always the case you ask lots of question but provide no answers. Let’s all remember the answers to all the questions you ask are freely available unlike answers to you your beliefs that have none.

How about coming clean and explain to everyone just how you see these magic molecules you claim exist.
It all comes down to you believing n space vacuums and little LM effigies you think landed on a space rock where so called astronauts could breathe nice liquid oxygen for days and days on end without any issue and also no issue with storage of it and of water, etc, plus battery power.

That's not me not understanding the real world, that's me trying to understand the fantasy of space and how this fantasy works if it were supposed real life.

You have the issue, not me.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Timeisup on June 19, 2021, 02:51:30 AM
Imagine the size of the oxygen tank that has to be capable of providing the so called astronauts with their oxygen from the supposed CM to the moon and to land then depressurise to allow the so called astronauts to leave, then refill their tanks and also repressurise and then lift off and rendezvous back with the supposed CM.

Fantasy stories are all well and good as long as they're told for what they are.

Anyone know the size of this liquid oxygen tank and how so called astronauts managed to survive in it without harm?

There's just lots of questions.

It all comes down to you not understanding how the real world works along with the laws that govern it.

It’s hardly surprising given the unsupported views you promote on this site.

How about you explain how you see the magic molecules that you claim exist that can permeate solid materials. As is always the case you ask lots of question but provide no answers. Let’s all remember the answers to all the questions you ask are freely available unlike answers to you your beliefs that have none.

How about coming clean and explain to everyone just how you see these magic molecules you claim exist.
It all comes down to you believing n space vacuums and little LM effigies you think landed on a space rock where so called astronauts could breathe nice liquid oxygen for days and days on end without any issue and also no issue with storage of it and of water, etc, plus battery power.

That's not me not understanding the real world, that's me trying to understand the fantasy of space and how this fantasy works if it were supposed real life.

You have the issue, not me.

Imagine the size of the oxygen tank that has to be capable of providing the so called astronauts with their oxygen from the supposed CM to the moon and to land then depressurise to allow the so called astronauts to leave, then refill their tanks and also repressurise and then lift off and rendezvous back with the supposed CM.

Fantasy stories are all well and good as long as they're told for what they are.

Anyone know the size of this liquid oxygen tank and how so called astronauts managed to survive in it without harm?

There's just lots of questions.

It all comes down to you not understanding how the real world works along with the laws that govern it.

It’s hardly surprising given the unsupported views you promote on this site.

How about you explain how you see the magic molecules that you claim exist that can permeate solid materials. As is always the case you ask lots of question but provide no answers. Let’s all remember the answers to all the questions you ask are freely available unlike answers to you your beliefs that have none.

How about coming clean and explain to everyone just how you see these magic molecules you claim exist.
It all comes down to you believing n space vacuums and little LM effigies you think landed on a space rock where so called astronauts could breathe nice liquid oxygen for days and days on end without any issue and also no issue with storage of it and of water, etc, plus battery power.

That's not me not understanding the real world, that's me trying to understand the fantasy of space and how this fantasy works if it were supposed real life.

You have the issue, not me.

I’ll tell you what the difference is and that’s there is all the information one would ever want about every aspect of all the moon missions along with objects left on the moon plus photographs of the landing sites. None of which you appear to accept.

On the other hand what you believe in had no supporting evidence not even the tiniest scrap! Yet you choose to believe in something that has no evidence, yet rail against something that had mountains of evidence!

Where is the logic in your thinking?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Timeisup on June 19, 2021, 02:58:41 AM
What Sceptimatic never addresses is his own position which is:-

He disagrees with every scientist in the world along with all the accumulated evidence that supports what the scientists believe in. That of course covers all aspects of space and space flight.

He then decides to accepts beliefs that only he believes in none of which have any evidence. His strange beliefs about gasses, his beliefs about the sun etc. Let’s remember none of his beliefs are supported by any research or data they are all just what he has decided to believe.

On the one hand he complains about science and all its facts and accumulated knowledge and rejects it in favour of stuff he has made up!

Spot the logic if you can.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Gumwars on June 19, 2021, 05:18:20 AM
Imagine the size of the oxygen tank that has to be capable of providing the so called astronauts with their oxygen from the supposed CM to the moon and to land then depressurise to allow the so called astronauts to leave, then refill their tanks and also repressurise and then lift off and rendezvous back with the supposed CM.

Fantasy stories are all well and good as long as they're told for what they are.

Anyone know the size of this liquid oxygen tank and how so called astronauts managed to survive in it without harm?

There's just lots of questions.

What's the issue with the tank size?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 19, 2021, 07:03:48 AM
Imagine the size of the oxygen tank that has to be capable of providing the so called astronauts with their oxygen from the supposed CM to the moon and to land then depressurise to allow the so called astronauts to leave, then refill their tanks and also repressurise and then lift off and rendezvous back with the supposed CM.

Fantasy stories are all well and good as long as they're told for what they are.

Anyone know the size of this liquid oxygen tank and how so called astronauts managed to survive in it without harm?

There's just lots of questions.

What's the issue with the tank size?
Any idea how big the tanks were in those supposed LM's?
Any idea how much liquid oxygen they held?
Any idea how they kept them stable in supposed minus 250 to plus 250 supposed vacuum cold and heat?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Mikey T. on June 19, 2021, 07:59:39 AM
Enough to cover 1 liter per day per human for the duration minus what the CO2 scrubbers can put back in plus some as an emergency measure. 
Pressurized tank.
Cold and heat radiation in a near vacuum works differently, much like how the Thermos company uses a near vacuum as an insulator for the hot and cold beverages in their metal tumblers.  I used to, back in the mid nineties work at a Thermos factory that made them.  Inner metal container separated from outer metal container by a very low pressure.  Great insulator.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 19, 2021, 08:11:45 AM
Enough to cover 1 liter per day per human for the duration minus what the CO2 scrubbers can put back in plus some as an emergency measure. 
Pressurized tank.
Cold and heat radiation in a near vacuum works differently, much like how the Thermos company uses a near vacuum as an insulator for the hot and cold beverages in their metal tumblers.  I used to, back in the mid nineties work at a Thermos factory that made them.  Inner metal container separated from outer metal container by a very low pressure.  Great insulator.
1 litre per day?
You have to fill up both back packs and also depressurise and repressurise this so called LM.
So how do they fill up those backpacks from the tank and how much does the tank hold and how big is that tank?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Stash on June 19, 2021, 09:11:03 AM
Enough to cover 1 liter per day per human for the duration minus what the CO2 scrubbers can put back in plus some as an emergency measure. 
Pressurized tank.
Cold and heat radiation in a near vacuum works differently, much like how the Thermos company uses a near vacuum as an insulator for the hot and cold beverages in their metal tumblers.  I used to, back in the mid nineties work at a Thermos factory that made them.  Inner metal container separated from outer metal container by a very low pressure.  Great insulator.
1 litre per day?
You have to fill up both back packs and also depressurise and repressurise this so called LM.
So how do they fill up those backpacks from the tank and how much does the tank hold and how big is that tank?

To get you started on your journey of understanding and just how intense the engineering effort was (is):

LEM Overview:

Lunar Module Spacecraft and Subsystems
The lunar module was a two-stage vehicle designed for space operations near and on the Moon. The spacecraft mass of 15103 kg was the total mass of the LM ascent and descent stages including propellants (fuel and oxidizer). The dry mass of the ascent stage was 2445 kg and it held 2376 kg of propellant. The descent stage dry mass (including stowed surface equipment) was 2034 kg and 8248 kg of propellant were onboard initially. The ascent and descent stages of the LM operated as a unit until staging, when the ascent stage functioned as a single spacecraft for rendezvous and docking with the command and service module (CSM). The descent stage comprised the lower part of the spacecraft and was an octagonal prism 4.2 meters across and 1.7 m thick. Four landing legs with round footpads were mounted on the sides of the descent stage and held the bottom of the stage 1.5 m above the surface. The distance between the ends of the footpads on opposite landing legs was 9.4 m. One of the legs had a small astronaut egress platform and ladder. A one meter long conical descent engine skirt protruded from the bottom of the stage. The descent stage contained the landing rocket, two tanks of aerozine 50 fuel, two tanks of nitrogen tetroxide oxidizer, water, oxygen and helium tanks and storage space for the lunar equipment and experiments, and in the case of Apollo 15, 16, and 17, the lunar rover. The descent stage served as a platform for launching the ascent stage and was left behind on the Moon.

The ascent stage was an irregularly shaped unit approximately 2.8 m high and 4.0 by 4.3 meters in width mounted on top of the descent stage. The ascent stage housed the astronauts in a pressurized crew compartment with a volume of 6.65 cubic meters which functioned as the base of operations for lunar operations. There was an ingress-egress hatch in one side and a docking hatch for connecting to the CSM on top. Also mounted along the top were a parabolic rendezvous radar antenna, a steerable parabolic S-band antenna, and 2 in-flight VHF antennas. Two triangular windows were above and to either side of the egress hatch and four thrust chamber assemblies were mounted around the sides. At the base of the assembly was the ascent engine. The stage also contained an aerozine 50 fuel and an oxidizer tank, and helium, liquid oxygen, gaseous oxygen, and reaction control fuel tanks. There were no seats in the LM. A control console was mounted in the front of the crew compartment above the ingress-egress hatch and between the windows and two more control panels mounted on the side walls. The ascent stage was launched from the Moon at the end of lunar surface operations and returned the astronauts to the CSM.

The descent engine was a deep-throttling ablative rocket with a maximum thrust of about 45,000 N mounted on a gimbal ring in the center of the descent stage. The ascent engine was a fixed, constant-thrust rocket with a thrust of about 15,000 N. Maneuvering was achieved via the reaction control system, which consisted of the four thrust modules, each one composed of four 450 N thrust chambers and nozzles pointing in different directions. Telemetry, TV, voice, and range communications with Earth were all via the S-band antenna. VHF was used for communications between the astronauts and the LM, and the LM and orbiting CSM. There were redundant tranceivers and equipment for both S-band and VHF. An environmental control system recycled oxygen and maintained temperature in the electronics and cabin. Power was provided by 6 silver-zinc batteries. Guidance and navigation control were provided by a radar ranging system, an inertial measurement unit consisting of gyroscopes and accelerometers, and the Apollo guidance computer.

https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraft/display.action?id=1969-059C

(https://i.imgur.com/rb6A5aj.gif)
(https://i.imgur.com/46YgBaN.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/EE7ftIT.jpg)

The interior of the Apollo PLSS (Potable Life Support System):
(https://i.imgur.com/KgONoH9.jpg)

Diagram of the A7L PLSS and OPS, with interfaces to the astronaut and the Lunar Module cabin:
(https://i.imgur.com/ck6G87q.jpg)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_life_support_system

"Like a plumber's dream, the LM's environmental control system nestled in a corner of the ascent stage. Those hoses provided pure oxygen to two astronauts at a pressure one-third that of normal atmosphere, and at a comfortable temperature. The unit recirculated the gas, scrubbed out CO2 and moisture exhaled, and replenished oxygen as it was used up”:
(https://i.imgur.com/iHH4iIa.jpg)
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-350/ch-4-3.html
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Mikey T. on June 19, 2021, 12:02:47 PM
Enough to cover 1 liter per day per human for the duration minus what the CO2 scrubbers can put back in plus some as an emergency measure. 
Pressurized tank.
Cold and heat radiation in a near vacuum works differently, much like how the Thermos company uses a near vacuum as an insulator for the hot and cold beverages in their metal tumblers.  I used to, back in the mid nineties work at a Thermos factory that made them.  Inner metal container separated from outer metal container by a very low pressure.  Great insulator.
1 litre per day?
You have to fill up both back packs and also depressurise and repressurise this so called LM.
So how do they fill up those backpacks from the tank and how much does the tank hold and how big is that tank?
Yes 1 liter of compressed/liquid oxygen is enough for 1 human to breath for 1 day.  Plus they had CO2 scrubbers that would take CO2, remove the carbon (C) and exhaust oxygen (O2).  This accounted for some of the oxygen needed so less of the 1 liter of liquid was needed.  Plants on Earth do the CO2 scrubbing for us here, a chemical solution, usually soda lime, that the carbon dioxide is pumped through does a somewhat passable job in the absence of a large quantity of plants.  As for the size of the tanks, I do not know exactly what was used, but with say a 5 gallon pressurized vessel like a common propane tank people use on their backyard grills, would hold enough for 18 humans for 1 day, 2 humans for 9 days, with about 0.9 liters left over.  Those are pretty small. 
As for pressurizing and depressurizing, the vast majority of that atmosphere is recaptured, to my knowledge, using pumps, compressors, and a pressure vessel.  I could be wrong.  Also 6.7 cubic meters of gas (volume of the interior of the LM) at the 5 psi that was used in the LM at near 100% oxygen content(roughly 1/3 atm) is not much when compressed to liquid.  I believe I read that at 1 atm pure oxygen would expand 860:1 giving 860 liters of gas at 15ish psi for each liter of liquid.  So for 5 psi it would be 3 times that ratio, so 2580 liters of gas at 5 psi, or 2.5 cu meters per liter.  So if they lost all of it every time they opened the door they would need a little over 2 liters of liquid oxygen to replace it.  Seems like a waste when they could just pump as much as possible into a holding container.  Still though, if they had 10 gal sized pressure containers, that's like 37.8 liters of liquid oxygen to work with. 
So if we setup a mathematical thought experiment and we say 2 humans spent 5 days on the moon, they have a 10 gallon/37.8 liter pressure tank of liquid oxygen.  They are operating at 100% oxygen at 5psi to breath, how many times could they depressurize and pressurize while losing everything in that 6 cubic meter area.  I am using 6m instead of 6.7 since there are things like chairs, food, and other equipment also taking up that volume and it is easier to calculate.  6 cu meters equates to 6000 liters of gas molecules.  1 liter liquid oxygen converted to 5 psi of gas will fill 2580 liters.  6000/2580 =  2.3, so every time the ship is depressurized if all  gas is lost uses up 2.3 liters of oxygen.  so 1 human would use 5 liters over the 5 days, 2 would use 10.  37.8 - 10 = 27.8.  So now 27.8/2.3 = 12.  So they could open the door and depressurize everything 12 times before they ran out of enough oxygen to pressurize and/or suffocate over those 5 days.  This is without CO2 scrubbers or trying to recapture any gaseous oxygen. 
Title: Re: Airlocks in the Real LM's.
Post by: JackBlack on June 19, 2021, 02:42:10 PM
I believe there's many many problems.
Then try to provide one.
Stop just asking dumb questions which don't show any problem at all.

Provide what you think is the actual problem.

I'll use stuff like, supposedly
And if you want to do that, actually show a problem.

If you don't want to actually show a problem, and instead want to just ask questions about the very real mission, stop pretending it is all pretend.

Do you have any idea about extreme low pressure, or the supposed vacuum in your space?

You are arguing for stuff happening in a normal environment.
No, he isn't.
He was simply asking if you have any idea at all what the body actually needs.
Rather than just pretending it is all fake.

Also breathing pure oxygen for lengths of time is harmful.
Do you have any idea about extreme low pressure, or the supposed vacuum in your space?

You are arguing for stuff happening in a normal environment.

Pure oxygen at atmospheric pressure is harmful.
If you actually understood how gasses work, you would realise that breathing the same amount of oxygen as is in normal air, but without the rest of that normal air, is no more harmful than breathing that normal air.

Imagine the size of the oxygen tank that has to be capable of providing the so called astronauts with their oxygen from the supposed CM to the moon and to land then depressurise to allow the so called astronauts to leave, then refill their tanks and also repressurise and then lift off and rendezvous back with the supposed CM.
Sure, imagine it.
Just how big do you think it needs to be?
After all, if you really think these questions show a problem, you should already know the answer.
So why not just tell us?

Do you know why I ask you the simple questions in the other thread? Because I have already provided the logical arguments, which you cannot refute, which show your claims are BS. I then ask the trivial questions to get you to admit to the logical argument piece by piece, until you flee and start ignoring trivial questions because you know you cannot escape from their inevitable conclusion, that you are wrong.

Fantasy stories are all well and good as long as they're told for what they are.
So stop pretending your fantasy is a reality.

There's just lots of questions.
And that is all you seem to have.
No problems, just a bunch of questions that anyone with a genuine interest in honestly trying to show it is fake would already know the answer to and realise don't pose a problem.

That's not me not understanding the real world
It most certainly is. It is you failing to understand reality and trying to substitute reality with your pure fantasy which doesn't work at all.
The problem is most certainly you, not us.

Stop just asking dumb questions, and start trying to actually demonstrate a problem.

If you think the tanks were too small, clearly explain why you think that, with actual math to show just how large they would need to be.
If you can't, then that is not a reason for you to think it is fake.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Gumwars on June 19, 2021, 05:36:03 PM
Any idea how big the tanks were in those supposed LM's?
Any idea how much liquid oxygen they held?
Any idea how they kept them stable in supposed minus 250 to plus 250 supposed vacuum cold and heat?

Liquid oxygen wasn't used for breathing in the LM ascent or descent stages.  It was pressurized O2 weighing 96 lbs total in two 48 lbs tanks.  Each tank was pressurized to 2690 psi, meaning each tank held roughly 2500 liters of O2.  That was for the descent stage.  The ascent stage had two smaller tanks, each only holding 2.7 lbs.  The tanks were very well insulated and not prone to leaking unless damaged. 

I'm looking for sources that corroborate this, but these are the rough capacities and how they were kept stable.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 20, 2021, 02:52:50 AM
Enough to cover 1 liter per day per human for the duration minus what the CO2 scrubbers can put back in plus some as an emergency measure. 
Pressurized tank.
Cold and heat radiation in a near vacuum works differently, much like how the Thermos company uses a near vacuum as an insulator for the hot and cold beverages in their metal tumblers.  I used to, back in the mid nineties work at a Thermos factory that made them.  Inner metal container separated from outer metal container by a very low pressure.  Great insulator.
1 litre per day?
You have to fill up both back packs and also depressurise and repressurise this so called LM.
So how do they fill up those backpacks from the tank and how much does the tank hold and how big is that tank?

To get you started on your journey of understanding and just how intense the engineering effort was (is):

LEM Overview:

Lunar Module Spacecraft and Subsystems
The lunar module was a two-stage vehicle designed for space operations near and on the Moon. The spacecraft mass of 15103 kg was the total mass of the LM ascent and descent stages including propellants (fuel and oxidizer). The dry mass of the ascent stage was 2445 kg and it held 2376 kg of propellant. The descent stage dry mass (including stowed surface equipment) was 2034 kg and 8248 kg of propellant were onboard initially. The ascent and descent stages of the LM operated as a unit until staging, when the ascent stage functioned as a single spacecraft for rendezvous and docking with the command and service module (CSM). The descent stage comprised the lower part of the spacecraft and was an octagonal prism 4.2 meters across and 1.7 m thick. Four landing legs with round footpads were mounted on the sides of the descent stage and held the bottom of the stage 1.5 m above the surface. The distance between the ends of the footpads on opposite landing legs was 9.4 m. One of the legs had a small astronaut egress platform and ladder. A one meter long conical descent engine skirt protruded from the bottom of the stage. The descent stage contained the landing rocket, two tanks of aerozine 50 fuel, two tanks of nitrogen tetroxide oxidizer, water, oxygen and helium tanks and storage space for the lunar equipment and experiments, and in the case of Apollo 15, 16, and 17, the lunar rover. The descent stage served as a platform for launching the ascent stage and was left behind on the Moon.

The ascent stage was an irregularly shaped unit approximately 2.8 m high and 4.0 by 4.3 meters in width mounted on top of the descent stage. The ascent stage housed the astronauts in a pressurized crew compartment with a volume of 6.65 cubic meters which functioned as the base of operations for lunar operations. There was an ingress-egress hatch in one side and a docking hatch for connecting to the CSM on top. Also mounted along the top were a parabolic rendezvous radar antenna, a steerable parabolic S-band antenna, and 2 in-flight VHF antennas. Two triangular windows were above and to either side of the egress hatch and four thrust chamber assemblies were mounted around the sides. At the base of the assembly was the ascent engine. The stage also contained an aerozine 50 fuel and an oxidizer tank, and helium, liquid oxygen, gaseous oxygen, and reaction control fuel tanks. There were no seats in the LM. A control console was mounted in the front of the crew compartment above the ingress-egress hatch and between the windows and two more control panels mounted on the side walls. The ascent stage was launched from the Moon at the end of lunar surface operations and returned the astronauts to the CSM.

The descent engine was a deep-throttling ablative rocket with a maximum thrust of about 45,000 N mounted on a gimbal ring in the center of the descent stage. The ascent engine was a fixed, constant-thrust rocket with a thrust of about 15,000 N. Maneuvering was achieved via the reaction control system, which consisted of the four thrust modules, each one composed of four 450 N thrust chambers and nozzles pointing in different directions. Telemetry, TV, voice, and range communications with Earth were all via the S-band antenna. VHF was used for communications between the astronauts and the LM, and the LM and orbiting CSM. There were redundant tranceivers and equipment for both S-band and VHF. An environmental control system recycled oxygen and maintained temperature in the electronics and cabin. Power was provided by 6 silver-zinc batteries. Guidance and navigation control were provided by a radar ranging system, an inertial measurement unit consisting of gyroscopes and accelerometers, and the Apollo guidance computer.

https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraft/display.action?id=1969-059C

(https://i.imgur.com/rb6A5aj.gif)
(https://i.imgur.com/46YgBaN.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/EE7ftIT.jpg)

The interior of the Apollo PLSS (Potable Life Support System):
(https://i.imgur.com/KgONoH9.jpg)

Diagram of the A7L PLSS and OPS, with interfaces to the astronaut and the Lunar Module cabin:
(https://i.imgur.com/ck6G87q.jpg)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_life_support_system

"Like a plumber's dream, the LM's environmental control system nestled in a corner of the ascent stage. Those hoses provided pure oxygen to two astronauts at a pressure one-third that of normal atmosphere, and at a comfortable temperature. The unit recirculated the gas, scrubbed out CO2 and moisture exhaled, and replenished oxygen as it was used up”:
(https://i.imgur.com/iHH4iIa.jpg)
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-350/ch-4-3.html
Thanks for going to the trouble of finding and putting all that up.

Do you know how much oxygen they had onboard the LM and also how did they manage to reuse the oxygen they were breathing?
Basically how was it stored and by what, to re-use?

You're under no obligation to answer and I'm asking questions to get a full insight into all this.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: JackBlack on June 20, 2021, 03:43:31 AM
I'm asking questions to get a full insight into all this.
So not to try to show a problem?
Does that mean you accept you have no basis to claim that it is fake?

Or are you still asking these questions to pretend there is a problem?
Because if it was for genuine interest you would have noticed the posts of others who already answered some of those questions:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=88640.msg2323545#msg2323545
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=88640.msg2323575#msg2323575

And even just looking at that provided by Stash you would see an answer as well.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Gumwars on June 20, 2021, 08:34:08 AM
Thanks for going to the trouble of finding and putting all that up.

Do you know how much oxygen they had onboard the LM and also how did they manage to reuse the oxygen they were breathing?
Basically how was it stored and by what, to re-use?

You're under no obligation to answer and I'm asking questions to get a full insight into all this.

The descent stage had two gaseous oxygen tanks each with 46.9 lbs of gaseous O2, for a total of 93.8 lbs.  This was used during the lunar surface phase of the mission.  The ascent module had two gaseous oxygen tanks each with 2.4 lbs of gaseous O2, for a total of 4.8 lbs.  This was used for the return to the CM in orbit.  (source: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/SNA-8-D-027III-Rev2-CsmLmSpacecraftOperationalDataBook-Volume3-MassProperties.pdf see page 959 for quantities listed as "GOX")

How the O2 was reused is a bit long-winded, so please bear with me.  Regular breathing air is about 20% oxygen, of which we use about 5% per breath.  The approach with the Apollo mission was to provide a 100% O2 environment and use a carbon dioxide sequestration system to remove the CO2 that was exhaled and reuse the O2 wasn't consumed.  They did this through a series of scrubbers and filters in the LM/CM ECS systems. 

The GOX was stored in four tanks in the LM, and in two tanks in the CSM.  The CSM tanks were much larger than the LM's tanks, each holding 326 lbs of flux phase O2 (in a partial gaseous/liquid state).  These tanks were all designed to withstand extreme pressures at very low temperatures.  Oxygen becomes liquid at -296F at a pressure of about 350 psig. 
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 20, 2021, 09:14:54 PM
Enough to cover 1 liter per day per human for the duration minus what the CO2 scrubbers can put back in plus some as an emergency measure. 
Pressurized tank.
Cold and heat radiation in a near vacuum works differently, much like how the Thermos company uses a near vacuum as an insulator for the hot and cold beverages in their metal tumblers.  I used to, back in the mid nineties work at a Thermos factory that made them.  Inner metal container separated from outer metal container by a very low pressure.  Great insulator.
1 litre per day?
You have to fill up both back packs and also depressurise and repressurise this so called LM.
So how do they fill up those backpacks from the tank and how much does the tank hold and how big is that tank?
Yes 1 liter of compressed/liquid oxygen is enough for 1 human to breath for 1 day.  Plus they had CO2 scrubbers that would take CO2, remove the carbon (C) and exhaust oxygen (O2).  This accounted for some of the oxygen needed so less of the 1 liter of liquid was needed.  Plants on Earth do the CO2 scrubbing for us here, a chemical solution, usually soda lime, that the carbon dioxide is pumped through does a somewhat passable job in the absence of a large quantity of plants.  As for the size of the tanks, I do not know exactly what was used, but with say a 5 gallon pressurized vessel like a common propane tank people use on their backyard grills, would hold enough for 18 humans for 1 day, 2 humans for 9 days, with about 0.9 liters left over.  Those are pretty small. 
As for pressurizing and depressurizing, the vast majority of that atmosphere is recaptured, to my knowledge, using pumps, compressors, and a pressure vessel.  I could be wrong.  Also 6.7 cubic meters of gas (volume of the interior of the LM) at the 5 psi that was used in the LM at near 100% oxygen content(roughly 1/3 atm) is not much when compressed to liquid.  I believe I read that at 1 atm pure oxygen would expand 860:1 giving 860 liters of gas at 15ish psi for each liter of liquid.  So for 5 psi it would be 3 times that ratio, so 2580 liters of gas at 5 psi, or 2.5 cu meters per liter.  So if they lost all of it every time they opened the door they would need a little over 2 liters of liquid oxygen to replace it.  Seems like a waste when they could just pump as much as possible into a holding container.  Still though, if they had 10 gal sized pressure containers, that's like 37.8 liters of liquid oxygen to work with. 
So if we setup a mathematical thought experiment and we say 2 humans spent 5 days on the moon, they have a 10 gallon/37.8 liter pressure tank of liquid oxygen.  They are operating at 100% oxygen at 5psi to breath, how many times could they depressurize and pressurize while losing everything in that 6 cubic meter area.  I am using 6m instead of 6.7 since there are things like chairs, food, and other equipment also taking up that volume and it is easier to calculate.  6 cu meters equates to 6000 liters of gas molecules.  1 liter liquid oxygen converted to 5 psi of gas will fill 2580 liters.  6000/2580 =  2.3, so every time the ship is depressurized if all  gas is lost uses up 2.3 liters of oxygen.  so 1 human would use 5 liters over the 5 days, 2 would use 10.  37.8 - 10 = 27.8.  So now 27.8/2.3 = 12.  So they could open the door and depressurize everything 12 times before they ran out of enough oxygen to pressurize and/or suffocate over those 5 days.  This is without CO2 scrubbers or trying to recapture any gaseous oxygen.
Ok fair enough. Thanks for putting the effort in.

You see I'm looking at the last so called moon landing  with Apollo 17, basically.

75 hours on the moon. 4 hours per back pack.

Aside from undocking from the CM (all supposedly to save saying supposedly) to going round the moon to landing on it and staying on it for 75 hours, having to refill their backpacks every 4 hours, meaning they get back into the LM and repressurise that every 4 hours as well as refilling their back packs.

Doing this for 75 hours, minus maybe 18 for sleeping.

around 57 hours divided by 4 is a case of refilling their back packs 28 times....14 each, as well as depressurising the LM around 14 times and repressurising it around 14 times.

This on top of the time spent sleeping and breathing the oxygen from CM depart to sleep to ascent and dock with the CM.

Not only this but the entire time spent breathing in pure oxygen should've killed those men.


And....on top of this, the water needed for those back packs and for drinking, as well as their space suit nappies...but that's going off on one.


Add the batteries and power needed for all that stuff and you can easily see why this alone casts massive doubt on the set up...for me, regardless of what they pretend the LM was capable of.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 20, 2021, 09:18:57 PM
Thanks for going to the trouble of finding and putting all that up.

Do you know how much oxygen they had onboard the LM and also how did they manage to reuse the oxygen they were breathing?
Basically how was it stored and by what, to re-use?

You're under no obligation to answer and I'm asking questions to get a full insight into all this.

The descent stage had two gaseous oxygen tanks each with 46.9 lbs of gaseous O2, for a total of 93.8 lbs.  This was used during the lunar surface phase of the mission.  The ascent module had two gaseous oxygen tanks each with 2.4 lbs of gaseous O2, for a total of 4.8 lbs.  This was used for the return to the CM in orbit.  (source: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/SNA-8-D-027III-Rev2-CsmLmSpacecraftOperationalDataBook-Volume3-MassProperties.pdf see page 959 for quantities listed as "GOX")

How the O2 was reused is a bit long-winded, so please bear with me.  Regular breathing air is about 20% oxygen, of which we use about 5% per breath.  The approach with the Apollo mission was to provide a 100% O2 environment and use a carbon dioxide sequestration system to remove the CO2 that was exhaled and reuse the O2 wasn't consumed.  They did this through a series of scrubbers and filters in the LM/CM ECS systems. 

The GOX was stored in four tanks in the LM, and in two tanks in the CSM.  The CSM tanks were much larger than the LM's tanks, each holding 326 lbs of flux phase O2 (in a partial gaseous/liquid state).  These tanks were all designed to withstand extreme pressures at very low temperatures.  Oxygen becomes liquid at -296F at a pressure of about 350 psig.
So none of it could ever become a gas in that environment.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Stash on June 20, 2021, 09:22:31 PM
So none of it could ever become a gas in that environment.
[/quote]

What do you mean? Explain further and be as detailed as everyone else has.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 20, 2021, 09:31:11 PM


What do you mean? Explain further and be as detailed as everyone else has.
You only have to read what's been said.
It's in s supposed vacuum and at supposed temperatures of minus to plus 250 degrees.

They simply couldn't survive it.
Not only that, the LM walls were so thin they wouldn't even hold the pressure so we have a whole host of massive issues.
If it was a reality, I mean.
Obviously there's no issues in a fantasy as they can be all overcome by simply explaining everything with anything.

Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Themightykabool on June 20, 2021, 09:32:14 PM
Enough to cover 1 liter per day per human for the duration minus what the CO2 scrubbers can put back in plus some as an emergency measure. 
Pressurized tank.
Cold and heat radiation in a near vacuum works differently, much like how the Thermos company uses a near vacuum as an insulator for the hot and cold beverages in their metal tumblers.  I used to, back in the mid nineties work at a Thermos factory that made them.  Inner metal container separated from outer metal container by a very low pressure.  Great insulator.
1 litre per day?
You have to fill up both back packs and also depressurise and repressurise this so called LM.
So how do they fill up those backpacks from the tank and how much does the tank hold and how big is that tank?
Yes 1 liter of compressed/liquid oxygen is enough for 1 human to breath for 1 day.  Plus they had CO2 scrubbers that would take CO2, remove the carbon (C) and exhaust oxygen (O2).  This accounted for some of the oxygen needed so less of the 1 liter of liquid was needed.  Plants on Earth do the CO2 scrubbing for us here, a chemical solution, usually soda lime, that the carbon dioxide is pumped through does a somewhat passable job in the absence of a large quantity of plants.  As for the size of the tanks, I do not know exactly what was used, but with say a 5 gallon pressurized vessel like a common propane tank people use on their backyard grills, would hold enough for 18 humans for 1 day, 2 humans for 9 days, with about 0.9 liters left over.  Those are pretty small. 
As for pressurizing and depressurizing, the vast majority of that atmosphere is recaptured, to my knowledge, using pumps, compressors, and a pressure vessel.  I could be wrong.  Also 6.7 cubic meters of gas (volume of the interior of the LM) at the 5 psi that was used in the LM at near 100% oxygen content(roughly 1/3 atm) is not much when compressed to liquid.  I believe I read that at 1 atm pure oxygen would expand 860:1 giving 860 liters of gas at 15ish psi for each liter of liquid.  So for 5 psi it would be 3 times that ratio, so 2580 liters of gas at 5 psi, or 2.5 cu meters per liter.  So if they lost all of it every time they opened the door they would need a little over 2 liters of liquid oxygen to replace it.  Seems like a waste when they could just pump as much as possible into a holding container.  Still though, if they had 10 gal sized pressure containers, that's like 37.8 liters of liquid oxygen to work with. 
So if we setup a mathematical thought experiment and we say 2 humans spent 5 days on the moon, they have a 10 gallon/37.8 liter pressure tank of liquid oxygen.  They are operating at 100% oxygen at 5psi to breath, how many times could they depressurize and pressurize while losing everything in that 6 cubic meter area.  I am using 6m instead of 6.7 since there are things like chairs, food, and other equipment also taking up that volume and it is easier to calculate.  6 cu meters equates to 6000 liters of gas molecules.  1 liter liquid oxygen converted to 5 psi of gas will fill 2580 liters.  6000/2580 =  2.3, so every time the ship is depressurized if all  gas is lost uses up 2.3 liters of oxygen.  so 1 human would use 5 liters over the 5 days, 2 would use 10.  37.8 - 10 = 27.8.  So now 27.8/2.3 = 12.  So they could open the door and depressurize everything 12 times before they ran out of enough oxygen to pressurize and/or suffocate over those 5 days.  This is without CO2 scrubbers or trying to recapture any gaseous oxygen.
Ok fair enough. Thanks for putting the effort in.

You see I'm looking at the last so called moon landing  with Apollo 17, basically.

75 hours on the moon. 4 hours per back pack.

Aside from undocking from the CM (all supposedly to save saying supposedly) to going round the moon to landing on it and staying on it for 75 hours, having to refill their backpacks every 4 hours, meaning they get back into the LM and repressurise that every 4 hours as well as refilling their back packs.

Doing this for 75 hours, minus maybe 18 for sleeping.

around 57 hours divided by 4 is a case of refilling their back packs 28 times....14 each, as well as depressurising the LM around 14 times and repressurising it around 14 times.

This on top of the time spent sleeping and breathing the oxygen from CM depart to sleep to ascent and dock with the CM.

Not only this but the entire time spent breathing in pure oxygen should've killed those men.


And....on top of this, the water needed for those back packs and for drinking, as well as their space suit nappies...but that's going off on one.


Add the batteries and power needed for all that stuff and you can easily see why this alone casts massive doubt on the set up...for me, regardless of what they pretend the LM was capable of.


Apparently its much easier to hide a conspiracy spanning decades, 1000s people, multi national efforts, multi industries, and... on and on.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Stash on June 20, 2021, 11:25:51 PM


What do you mean? Explain further and be as detailed as everyone else has.
You only have to read what's been said.
It's in s supposed vacuum and at supposed temperatures of minus to plus 250 degrees.

They simply couldn't survive it.
Not only that, the LM walls were so thin they wouldn't even hold the pressure so we have a whole host of massive issues.
If it was a reality, I mean.
Obviously there's no issues in a fantasy as they can be all overcome by simply explaining everything with anything.

They were definitely massive issues to solve and solve they did. That's what engineering and technology does. Just look at everything around you and ask, how did someone solve that massive issue...It applies to everything we use today...The device you're typing on, for one...

Here's pretty much everything you could ever want to know regarding how the 7 different versions of the Apollo Portable Life Support System (PLSS) worked. The Apollo 17 PLSS version (#7) could go 8 hours, not just 4. Everything from heating, cooling, pressurization, O2, schematics, etc is all included here. Enjoy:

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/ALSJ-FlightPLSS.pdf

Regarding the strength/durability of the LEM, a 1 minute search from around the web:

The LEM only had to hold 5 PSI. For comparison, an ordinary soda can holds six times that pressure.
But the whole question is misleading, because the LM was not an aluminium can. Yes in some spots, its skin was as thin as 0.006 inches (1.524 mm). That’s 1.5 times the thickness of a modern soda can, or about the thickness of contemporary cans. However, the LM was not merely a paper-thin aluminium sheet.

The LM was made of grid-like trusses of metal skin with welded-on ribs to create strong, rigid bulkheads. The panels were also chemically etched so that the skin between the ribs tapered toward the middle (the space between ribs) so as not to contain more material than needed mechanically.
The LM wasn’t made of the cheap, soft 3000-series aluminium alloy we are familiar with from our kitchens. The LM was made mostly from heat-treated 2219 and 7075 aluminium alloys. 2219 was used in areas where high strength and fracture resistance were required. 7075 (which was developed during WWII by Japan and used in naval aviation toward the end of the war), was used for its exceptional tensile strength—comparable to steel. Both were (and are) expensive and difficult to fabricate.

After the bulkheads were welded together, the LM was surrounded by a system of struts that further increased rigidity (much like the stiffening wires in a biplane) and provided attachments for the micrometeorite shields:


(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-eb24429c4489a17fa4664c4fdb2fbba3)

Those shields were also aluminium (mostly), along with multi-layer blankets of aluminized plastic, and of course, certain high temperature or high strength components were made of magnesium alloy or titanium.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Velocio on June 21, 2021, 12:47:43 AM

...Not only this but the entire time spent breathing in pure oxygen should've killed those men...


Finally, we are informed (from a very thrustworthy source) why so many people suffering from COVID 19 and treated with pure oxygen in hospitals around the world have died. We are yet to be informed why the others, treated in the same way, somehow survived.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: JackBlack on June 21, 2021, 12:56:22 AM
Aside from undocking from the CM (all supposedly to save saying supposedly) to going round the moon to landing on it and staying on it for 75 hours, having to refill their backpacks every 4 hours, meaning they get back into the LM and repressurise that every 4 hours as well as refilling their back packs.
What makes you think they would need to repressurise the LM to refill their packs?

You aren't showing any problem at all with the amount of oxygen needed. If you think you are, do the math entirely to get to just how much O2 was needed.

Not only this but the entire time spent breathing in pure oxygen should've killed those men.
Why?
You previously implied this before, but you are yet to justify it.
Again, if you actually understood how gasses work at all, rather than just spouting the same old nonsense, you would know it is not the purity that matters, but the pressure.
Breathing oxygen at a pressure of 1 atm, i.e. 1 atm of pure oxygen, is dangerous.
Breaking oxygen at a pressure of 0.3 atm, is not.

Add the batteries and power needed for all that stuff and you can easily see why this alone casts massive doubt on the set up...for me
No, we can't.
We can't see why it would cast doubt for any one.
None of this casts doubt for you, as you have already concluded it must be fake before you even started to consider it. So there was no starting to doubt for you.
For rational people, they just see your repeated irrational attacks completely lacking any substance.

Again, if you want to show a problem, then show it. Stop just pretending.

So none of it could ever become a gas in that environment.
Why?
What is there to stop it from becoming a gas?

You only have to read what's been said.
Your baseless assertion doesn't make it true.
You need to explain and justify it.

It's in s supposed vacuum and at supposed temperatures of minus to plus 250 degrees.
No, it is in a compressed, temperature controlled tank. Try again.
Try to actually make a coherent argument this time.

They simply couldn't survive it.
That is your baseless assertion you cannot justify at all.

Not only that, the LM walls were so thin they wouldn't even hold the pressure so we have a whole host of massive issues.
Really?
How thick were the walls? What pressure could those walls sustain? How thick would the walls need to be to sustain the ~ 0.3 atm of pressure?
Note that this is pressure trying to push it out, effectively trying to rip the container apart. This is quite different to the pressure being on the outside trying to crush it.
Also note that for comparison a coke can can hold several atm of pressure before breaking.

Do you have the answers to any of that? Or is this simply you irrationally attacking and rejecting reality yet again.

You not liking reality doesn't magically make it a fantasy.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 21, 2021, 12:56:36 AM


What do you mean? Explain further and be as detailed as everyone else has.
You only have to read what's been said.
It's in s supposed vacuum and at supposed temperatures of minus to plus 250 degrees.

They simply couldn't survive it.
Not only that, the LM walls were so thin they wouldn't even hold the pressure so we have a whole host of massive issues.
If it was a reality, I mean.
Obviously there's no issues in a fantasy as they can be all overcome by simply explaining everything with anything.

They were definitely massive issues to solve and solve they did. That's what engineering and technology does. Just look at everything around you and ask, how did someone solve that massive issue...It applies to everything we use today...The device you're typing on, for one...

Here's pretty much everything you could ever want to know regarding how the 7 different versions of the Apollo Portable Life Support System (PLSS) worked. The Apollo 17 PLSS version (#7) could go 8 hours, not just 4. Everything from heating, cooling, pressurization, O2, schematics, etc is all included here. Enjoy:

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/ALSJ-FlightPLSS.pdf

Regarding the strength/durability of the LEM, a 1 minute search from around the web:

The LEM only had to hold 5 PSI. For comparison, an ordinary soda can holds six times that pressure.
But the whole question is misleading, because the LM was not an aluminium can. Yes in some spots, its skin was as thin as 0.006 inches (1.524 mm). That’s 1.5 times the thickness of a modern soda can, or about the thickness of contemporary cans. However, the LM was not merely a paper-thin aluminium sheet.

The LM was made of grid-like trusses of metal skin with welded-on ribs to create strong, rigid bulkheads. The panels were also chemically etched so that the skin between the ribs tapered toward the middle (the space between ribs) so as not to contain more material than needed mechanically.
The LM wasn’t made of the cheap, soft 3000-series aluminium alloy we are familiar with from our kitchens. The LM was made mostly from heat-treated 2219 and 7075 aluminium alloys. 2219 was used in areas where high strength and fracture resistance were required. 7075 (which was developed during WWII by Japan and used in naval aviation toward the end of the war), was used for its exceptional tensile strength—comparable to steel. Both were (and are) expensive and difficult to fabricate.

After the bulkheads were welded together, the LM was surrounded by a system of struts that further increased rigidity (much like the stiffening wires in a biplane) and provided attachments for the micrometeorite shields:


(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-eb24429c4489a17fa4664c4fdb2fbba3)

Those shields were also aluminium (mostly), along with multi-layer blankets of aluminized plastic, and of course, certain high temperature or high strength components were made of magnesium alloy or titanium.
Ok thanks again for the effort put in to get this. Much appreciated.

I obviously still don't buy into it but at least it's showing explanations, however ridiculous they are.


Not your fault by the way, you're just the messenger who happens to believe it all, which is fine by me, just as you accept that I absolutely do not.


Those fuel tanks seem pretty triny when you consider what they supposedly had to do, don't you think?

I'm sure there'll be an explanation but the tanks to land must be the same as the tanks to ascend...right?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 21, 2021, 12:59:05 AM

...Not only this but the entire time spent breathing in pure oxygen should've killed those men...


Finally, we are informed (from a very thrustworthy source) why so many people suffering from COVID 19 and treated with pure oxygen in hospitals around the world have died. We are yet to be informed why the others, treated in the same way, somehow survived.
A relative of mine was taking n pure oxygen. But guess what?
My relative was doing it through a tube up the nose, aided by the atmosphere.

So called astronauts are apparently on it for days and dys from Earth lift off all the way to the so called moon then back.

No issues were had because in fantasy world you can achieve anything.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: JackBlack on June 21, 2021, 01:00:41 AM
I obviously still don't buy into it but at least it's showing explanations, however ridiculous they are.
You mean how ridiculous you and your pathetic dismissal is.

You are yet to show any problem at all, you are yet to show how any of it is ridiculous.
You just continually dismiss it as nonsense/ridiculous, because you refuse to accept reality.

Again, try to show an actual problem.

Those fuel tanks seem pretty triny when you consider what they supposedly had to do, don't you think?
No.
Again, provide the math to show a problem.
Stop just asserting there is one.

I'm sure there'll be an explanation but the tanks to land must be the same as the tanks to ascend...right?
You would have to be pretty foolish to think that.
They were performing fundamentally different tasks, with fundamentally different masses.
In case you forgot, there were 2 stages for a reason, the entirety of the descent stage was left behind, with only the ascent stage going back up.
That should already be a massive indication of a different requirment.

But of course, because you have no rational objection, you just come up with whatever nonsense you can to pretend there is a problem.

No issues were had because
Because of how gases actually work.
Again, if you want to claim there is a problem, prove it, stop just asserting it.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 21, 2021, 01:02:44 AM

What makes you think they would need to repressurise the LM to refill their packs?

(All supposed).

So how do they fill their back packs and add water and new batteries and such in the LM if it's open to the vacuum?
Do divers come out of water and hook up to a refill then dive again?

Do you have an explanation?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 21, 2021, 01:03:55 AM
You mean how ridiculous you and your pathetic dismissal is.

You're off again, aren't you?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Stash on June 21, 2021, 01:04:31 AM

...Not only this but the entire time spent breathing in pure oxygen should've killed those men...


Finally, we are informed (from a very thrustworthy source) why so many people suffering from COVID 19 and treated with pure oxygen in hospitals around the world have died. We are yet to be informed why the others, treated in the same way, somehow survived.
A relative of mine was taking n pure oxygen. But guess what?
My relative was doing it through a tube up the nose, aided by the atmosphere.

So called astronauts are apparently on it for days and dys from Earth lift off all the way to the so called moon then back.

No issues were had because in fantasy world you can achieve anything.

It's not fantasy, it's actually science. A quick poke around and you'll find perfectly reasonable explanations as to how Oxygen and pressure work. Being that you're all about pressure, you should know this. Ask any scuba diver and they can explain this as well:

"The oxygen that astronauts breathe in space is at a lower pressure than air pressure on earth. Apparently it is the pressure that would cause the problem rather than the concentration. The same applies to some deep sea divers.

The thing about oxygen toxicity is that it's exposure to a high partial pressure of O2 that is dangerous, not a high percentage. Similarly, you need a minimum partial pressure, not a minimum percentage. If you breathe a very low percentage oxygen gas at a very high pressure, your body still gets the correct amount of oxygen. If you breathe a very high percentage of oxygen at a very low pressure, you again get the correct amount of oxygen.

Some spacecraft, and most spacesuits, operate on pure O2 at a lower pressure than sea level. Because the astronaut is breathing a low pressure gas, their total exposure to Oxygen is not at a dangerous level.
"
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Stash on June 21, 2021, 01:14:43 AM

What makes you think they would need to repressurise the LM to refill their packs?

(All supposed).

So how do they fill their back packs and add water and new batteries and such in the LM if it's open to the vacuum?
Do divers come out of water and hook up to a refill then dive again?

Do you have an explanation?

Apollo 17 EVA's:

"Approximately 47 minutes later, the powered descent to the lunar surface began. Landing occurred at 7:54:57 p.m. Dec. 11, at lunar latitude 20 degrees, 10 minutes north, and longitude 30 degrees 46 minutes east. Apollo 17 was the last lunar landing mission. Three extravehicular activities, or EVAs, lasted a total of 22 hours, four minutes on the lunar surface.
- EVA No. 1 began at 11:54:49 p.m. Dec. 11, with Eugene Cernan egressing at 12:01 a.m. Dec. 12. The first EVA was seven hours, 12 minutes long and was completed at 7:06:42 a.m. Dec. 12.
- The second EVA began at 11:28:06 p.m. Dec. 12, and lasted seven hours, 37 minutes, ending at at 7:05:02 a.m. Dec. 13.
- The final EVA began at 10:25:48 p.m. Dec. 13, and ended at 5:40:56 a.m. Dec. 14.
"
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 21, 2021, 01:16:52 AM

...Not only this but the entire time spent breathing in pure oxygen should've killed those men...


Finally, we are informed (from a very thrustworthy source) why so many people suffering from COVID 19 and treated with pure oxygen in hospitals around the world have died. We are yet to be informed why the others, treated in the same way, somehow survived.
A relative of mine was taking n pure oxygen. But guess what?
My relative was doing it through a tube up the nose, aided by the atmosphere.

So called astronauts are apparently on it for days and dys from Earth lift off all the way to the so called moon then back.

No issues were had because in fantasy world you can achieve anything.

It's not fantasy, it's actually science. A quick poke around and you'll find perfectly reasonable explanations as to how Oxygen and pressure work. Being that you're all about pressure, you should know this. Ask any scuba diver and they can explain this as well:

"The oxygen that astronauts breathe in space is at a lower pressure than air pressure on earth. Apparently it is the pressure that would cause the problem rather than the concentration. The same applies to some deep sea divers.

The thing about oxygen toxicity is that it's exposure to a high partial pressure of O2 that is dangerous, not a high percentage. Similarly, you need a minimum partial pressure, not a minimum percentage. If you breathe a very low percentage oxygen gas at a very high pressure, your body still gets the correct amount of oxygen. If you breathe a very high percentage of oxygen at a very low pressure, you again get the correct amount of oxygen.

Some spacecraft, and most spacesuits, operate on pure O2 at a lower pressure than sea level. Because the astronaut is breathing a low pressure gas, their total exposure to Oxygen is not at a dangerous level.
"
Of course you're going to get your oxygen...but, it's still dangerous and toxic in thats et up.

Any idea how Apollo 17 managed their oxy tank fills and depressurisations/repressurisations in the amount they needed?
Also whilst they're still doing this there's their spacesuits require the equalisation to the pressures because it all seems separate.

Any idea if they took off their space suits every time they entered the LM?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 21, 2021, 01:18:10 AM

What makes you think they would need to repressurise the LM to refill their packs?

(All supposed).

So how do they fill their back packs and add water and new batteries and such in the LM if it's open to the vacuum?
Do divers come out of water and hook up to a refill then dive again?

Do you have an explanation?

Apollo 17 EVA's:

"Approximately 47 minutes later, the powered descent to the lunar surface began. Landing occurred at 7:54:57 p.m. Dec. 11, at lunar latitude 20 degrees, 10 minutes north, and longitude 30 degrees 46 minutes east. Apollo 17 was the last lunar landing mission. Three extravehicular activities, or EVAs, lasted a total of 22 hours, four minutes on the lunar surface.
- EVA No. 1 began at 11:54:49 p.m. Dec. 11, with Eugene Cernan egressing at 12:01 a.m. Dec. 12. The first EVA was seven hours, 12 minutes long and was completed at 7:06:42 a.m. Dec. 12.
- The second EVA began at 11:28:06 p.m. Dec. 12, and lasted seven hours, 37 minutes, ending at at 7:05:02 a.m. Dec. 13.
- The final EVA began at 10:25:48 p.m. Dec. 13, and ended at 5:40:56 a.m. Dec. 14.
"
So their tanks went from 4 hours to 8 hours?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Velocio on June 21, 2021, 01:39:28 AM
Any idea how big the tanks were in those supposed LM's?
Any idea how much liquid oxygen they held?
Any idea how they kept them stable in supposed minus 250 to plus 250 supposed vacuum cold and heat?

Finally, I got where Scepty is pushing us. And I give him credit for that. Obviously, the astronauts have not been breathing pure oxygen. They have been breathing AIR. Air, that has permeated all the stuff in the LM, including the walls, and being extracted when needed. So, they didn't need any containers.

In addition, this way the denpressure is reduced and the liftoff from the lunar surface is much easier. Two problems solved at one go. Amirite?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Stash on June 21, 2021, 01:47:09 AM

What makes you think they would need to repressurise the LM to refill their packs?

(All supposed).

So how do they fill their back packs and add water and new batteries and such in the LM if it's open to the vacuum?
Do divers come out of water and hook up to a refill then dive again?

Do you have an explanation?

Apollo 17 EVA's:

"Approximately 47 minutes later, the powered descent to the lunar surface began. Landing occurred at 7:54:57 p.m. Dec. 11, at lunar latitude 20 degrees, 10 minutes north, and longitude 30 degrees 46 minutes east. Apollo 17 was the last lunar landing mission. Three extravehicular activities, or EVAs, lasted a total of 22 hours, four minutes on the lunar surface.
- EVA No. 1 began at 11:54:49 p.m. Dec. 11, with Eugene Cernan egressing at 12:01 a.m. Dec. 12. The first EVA was seven hours, 12 minutes long and was completed at 7:06:42 a.m. Dec. 12.
- The second EVA began at 11:28:06 p.m. Dec. 12, and lasted seven hours, 37 minutes, ending at at 7:05:02 a.m. Dec. 13.
- The final EVA began at 10:25:48 p.m. Dec. 13, and ended at 5:40:56 a.m. Dec. 14.
"
So their tanks went from 4 hours to 8 hours?

Read the document regarding the evolution of the PLSS that I posted earlier. It's all in there, tech specs, schematics, heating, cooling, O2, water, etc., with the technology evolution of the 7 iterations of the Apollo PLSS. That's the funny thing about technology/engineering, it keeps on advancing as time and efforts go on. Crazy, I know.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Mikey T. on June 21, 2021, 05:12:40 AM

...Not only this but the entire time spent breathing in pure oxygen should've killed those men...


Finally, we are informed (from a very thrustworthy source) why so many people suffering from COVID 19 and treated with pure oxygen in hospitals around the world have died. We are yet to be informed why the others, treated in the same way, somehow survived.
A relative of mine was taking n pure oxygen. But guess what?
My relative was doing it through a tube up the nose, aided by the atmosphere.

So called astronauts are apparently on it for days and dys from Earth lift off all the way to the so called moon then back.

No issues were had because in fantasy world you can achieve anything.

It's not fantasy, it's actually science. A quick poke around and you'll find perfectly reasonable explanations as to how Oxygen and pressure work. Being that you're all about pressure, you should know this. Ask any scuba diver and they can explain this as well:

"The oxygen that astronauts breathe in space is at a lower pressure than air pressure on earth. Apparently it is the pressure that would cause the problem rather than the concentration. The same applies to some deep sea divers.

The thing about oxygen toxicity is that it's exposure to a high partial pressure of O2 that is dangerous, not a high percentage. Similarly, you need a minimum partial pressure, not a minimum percentage. If you breathe a very low percentage oxygen gas at a very high pressure, your body still gets the correct amount of oxygen. If you breathe a very high percentage of oxygen at a very low pressure, you again get the correct amount of oxygen.

Some spacecraft, and most spacesuits, operate on pure O2 at a lower pressure than sea level. Because the astronaut is breathing a low pressure gas, their total exposure to Oxygen is not at a dangerous level.
"
Of course you're going to get your oxygen...but, it's still dangerous and toxic in thats et up.

Any idea how Apollo 17 managed their oxy tank fills and depressurisations/repressurisations in the amount they needed?
Also whilst they're still doing this there's their spacesuits require the equalisation to the pressures because it all seems separate.

Any idea if they took off their space suits every time they entered the LM?
Various pressurized tubing.  Regulators, valves, tanks, and pumps are a thing.
Suits are contained environments, they have connections for external oxygen/water/etc when needed. 
Their suits, no, their EVA backpacks, yes.
Pure oxygen at 5 psi is not toxic to breath. 
Where is the problem?  I thought you were asking to understand and not to point out your own incredulity about things you do not understand.  I guess that was BS huh.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: rvlvr on June 21, 2021, 07:59:21 AM
Has scepti at any stage here provided a problem with actual numbers or something concrete? Is it always ”seems fishy to me” or ”don’t you think that is a bit odd, hmm”?

Seems the person lacks basic knowledge of basically anything to discuss it in detail with someone who knows even a tad.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: JackBlack on June 21, 2021, 02:07:26 PM
What makes you think they would need to repressurise the LM to refill their packs?
(All supposed).

So how do they fill their back packs and add water and new batteries and such in the LM if it's open to the vacuum?
Do divers come out of water and hook up to a refill then dive again?

Do you have an explanation?
And that supposition of yours is wrong.
Again, you are inventing problems where none exist, all so you can continue your irrational attack.

For the simplest option which you would already know if you approached this subject honestly; remember the first issue, of how the astronauts could breath with the LM depressurised? That could be applied here, using the LM for an oxygen supply while the PLSS is refilled. But even that isn't needed.

They are not simply carrying around air tanks, like scuba divers do. Instead they are carrying around a more complex system with built in regulators.
Again, if you were actually honest and paying attention to what has already been provided you would see in this post:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=88640.msg2323538#msg2323538 (which you clearly didn't pay attention to and instead just said thanks and asked a new question) that the PLSS has a point to connect it to the LM, BEFORE the regulator.
i.e. the LM can be connected to the tank in the PLSS to refill it while the PLSS continues to provide air for the astronaut.


Again, if you were honestly examining this, you would see no problem here.
But because you WANT there to be a problem, you make a bunch of suppositions to create problems where none exist.

You mean how ridiculous you and your pathetic dismissal is.
You're off again, aren't you?
Do you mean physically? If so, I didn't hang around for your answer.
If you mean mentally, no; like normally, that would be you, with your continued pathetic dismal and invention of problems to try to pretend everything that shows your fantasy is wrong is fantasy itself.
Again, don't just assert things are ridiculous, explain why. That sure seems to be something you struggle with.
If that means claiming something is too small, show it is too small by doing the math (I know, you hate it because it keeps showing you are wrong).

If you want to claim there is not enough oxygen, provide the math to prove it, along with a clear statement of anything that is assumed.

Of course you're going to get your oxygen...but, it's still dangerous and toxic in thats et up.
That still remains your baseless claim that you are yet to prove.
Stop just asserting the same blatant lie and either justify it or admit you have no basis to think it is a problem.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Themightykabool on June 21, 2021, 02:39:38 PM
Has scepti at any stage here provided a problem with actual numbers or something concrete? Is it always ”seems fishy to me” or ”don’t you think that is a bit odd, hmm”?

Seems the person lacks basic knowledge of basically anything to discuss it in detail with someone who knows even a tad.



no
and he is yet to provide a circle and the value of the massive tilt.
so basic.
a circle and a triangle sceppy
let's have it!
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: hoppy on June 22, 2021, 03:21:12 AM
Skeppy, there is no way these brainwashed stooges and paid shills will ever not believe evverything NASA has told them. No matter how ridiculous the story, they just believe like little children. Of course there are so many problems with the whole story of traveling and living in a vacuum.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: JackBlack on June 22, 2021, 03:24:29 AM
Skeppy, there is no way these brainwashed stooges and paid shills will ever not believe evverything NASA has told them. No matter how ridiculous the story, they just believe like little children. Of course there are so many problems with the whole story of traveling and living in a vacuum.
So many problems, yet you can't show any.
Try coming up with something less ridiculous, then we might believe you.
Until then, we aren't foolish enough to accept your irrational dismissal.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Mikey T. on June 22, 2021, 04:37:01 AM
Skeppy, there is no way these brainwashed stooges and paid shills will ever not believe evverything NASA has told them. No matter how ridiculous the story, they just believe like little children. Of course there are so many problems with the whole story of traveling and living in a vacuum.
Another nuh uhh drive by.  Do you have anything, anything at all to add to the discussion?  What problems specifically?  Or is it all incredulity arising from your intentionally limited knowledge?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Unconvinced on June 22, 2021, 06:19:19 AM
Skeppy, there is no way these brainwashed stooges and paid shills will ever not believe evverything NASA has told them. No matter how ridiculous the story, they just believe like little children. Of course there are so many problems with the whole story of traveling and living in a vacuum.

Wow.  It’s like an AI scanned a million YouTube flat earth comments in order to find the most clichéd generic response possible that says absolutely nothing.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: hoppy on June 22, 2021, 05:06:30 PM
Skeppy, there is no way these brainwashed stooges and paid shills will ever not believe evverything NASA has told them. No matter how ridiculous the story, they just believe like little children. Of course there are so many problems with the whole story of traveling and living in a vacuum.

Wow.  It’s like an AI scanned a million YouTube flat earth comments in order to find the most clichéd generic response possible that says absolutely nothing.
Wrong, it says it all. Brainwashed stooges and paid shills will backup NASA fairy tales always.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: JJA on June 22, 2021, 05:27:18 PM
Skeppy, there is no way these brainwashed stooges and paid shills will ever not believe evverything NASA has told them. No matter how ridiculous the story, they just believe like little children. Of course there are so many problems with the whole story of traveling and living in a vacuum.

Wow.  It’s like an AI scanned a million YouTube flat earth comments in order to find the most clichéd generic response possible that says absolutely nothing.
Wrong, it says it all. Brainwashed stooges and paid shills will backup NASA fairy tales always.

I wish I knew who to talk to so I could get my paycheck.

You ever actually SEE one of these supposed NASA paychecks for spreading 'fairy tales'? Or are you just brainwashed into believing it with zero evidence?

I've photographed the space station many times, and I'm very sure NASA didn't pay me to fake my own personal observations.  ::)
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Mikey T. on June 22, 2021, 06:01:11 PM
Skeppy, there is no way these brainwashed stooges and paid shills will ever not believe evverything NASA has told them. No matter how ridiculous the story, they just believe like little children. Of course there are so many problems with the whole story of traveling and living in a vacuum.

Wow.  It’s like an AI scanned a million YouTube flat earth comments in order to find the most clichéd generic response possible that says absolutely nothing.
Wrong, it says it all. Brainwashed stooges and paid shills will backup NASA fairy tales always.
Funny coming from the FE NPC who parrots FE scriptures pretty much exclusively now.  What happened to you, did you get tired of constantly getting shown to be so wrong that you now only come in from time to time to spout the same tired FE talking points?  The "woo hoo 1000 mph rotation is sooooooo fast guy" is back yet again guys, super. 
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: JackBlack on June 23, 2021, 02:42:10 AM
Wrong, it says it all.
Yes it does, at least in the subtext.
FEers have no ability to rationally defend their claims, so they just resort to insults and ridicule; even so desperate that they need to lie and pretend anyone who doesn't accept their BS are paid shills.

If your position was actually based upon rational thought and evidence, you would try to justify it, rather than just insults those who don't buy your lies.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Timeisup on June 23, 2021, 05:05:00 AM
Skeppy, there is no way these brainwashed stooges and paid shills will ever not believe evverything NASA has told them. No matter how ridiculous the story, they just believe like little children. Of course there are so many problems with the whole story of traveling and living in a vacuum.

Wow.  It’s like an AI scanned a million YouTube flat earth comments in order to find the most clichéd generic response possible that says absolutely nothing.
Wrong, it says it all. Brainwashed stooges and paid shills will backup NASA fairy tales always.

Who says that FE believers never resort to the good old cliche!
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 24, 2021, 12:14:28 AM
Any idea how big the tanks were in those supposed LM's?
Any idea how much liquid oxygen they held?
Any idea how they kept them stable in supposed minus 250 to plus 250 supposed vacuum cold and heat?

Finally, I got where Scepty is pushing us. And I give him credit for that. Obviously, the astronauts have not been breathing pure oxygen. They have been breathing AIR. Air, that has permeated all the stuff in the LM, including the walls, and being extracted when needed. So, they didn't need any containers.

In addition, this way the denpressure is reduced and the liftoff from the lunar surface is much easier. Two problems solved at one go. Amirite?

(All supposed).
So they're not breathing pure oxygen and are breathing normal air at one third norml Earth pressure?

How is this air managed from the lox tanks?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 24, 2021, 12:18:04 AM


Read the document regarding the evolution of the PLSS that I posted earlier. It's all in there, tech specs, schematics, heating, cooling, O2, water, etc., with the technology evolution of the 7 iterations of the Apollo PLSS. That's the funny thing about technology/engineering, it keeps on advancing as time and efforts go on. Crazy, I know.
I have no issue with technology advancing.
I do have many issues with this moon stuff so I'm going to pose questions.
I'm well aware they will be answered. It's just a case of, how and why those answers come to be and whether they seem plausible.

You see I could ask how the starship enterprise works and some ardent fan of the sci-fi series would happily tell me everything they have read up on.

Do you see what I mean?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 24, 2021, 12:21:51 AM

...Not only this but the entire time spent breathing in pure oxygen should've killed those men...


Finally, we are informed (from a very thrustworthy source) why so many people suffering from COVID 19 and treated with pure oxygen in hospitals around the world have died. We are yet to be informed why the others, treated in the same way, somehow survived.
A relative of mine was taking n pure oxygen. But guess what?
My relative was doing it through a tube up the nose, aided by the atmosphere.

So called astronauts are apparently on it for days and dys from Earth lift off all the way to the so called moon then back.

No issues were had because in fantasy world you can achieve anything.

It's not fantasy, it's actually science. A quick poke around and you'll find perfectly reasonable explanations as to how Oxygen and pressure work. Being that you're all about pressure, you should know this. Ask any scuba diver and they can explain this as well:

"The oxygen that astronauts breathe in space is at a lower pressure than air pressure on earth. Apparently it is the pressure that would cause the problem rather than the concentration. The same applies to some deep sea divers.

The thing about oxygen toxicity is that it's exposure to a high partial pressure of O2 that is dangerous, not a high percentage. Similarly, you need a minimum partial pressure, not a minimum percentage. If you breathe a very low percentage oxygen gas at a very high pressure, your body still gets the correct amount of oxygen. If you breathe a very high percentage of oxygen at a very low pressure, you again get the correct amount of oxygen.

Some spacecraft, and most spacesuits, operate on pure O2 at a lower pressure than sea level. Because the astronaut is breathing a low pressure gas, their total exposure to Oxygen is not at a dangerous level.
"
Of course you're going to get your oxygen...but, it's still dangerous and toxic in thats et up.

Any idea how Apollo 17 managed their oxy tank fills and depressurisations/repressurisations in the amount they needed?
Also whilst they're still doing this there's their spacesuits require the equalisation to the pressures because it all seems separate.

Any idea if they took off their space suits every time they entered the LM?
Various pressurized tubing.  Regulators, valves, tanks, and pumps are a thing.
Suits are contained environments, they have connections for external oxygen/water/etc when needed. 
Their suits, no, their EVA backpacks, yes.
Pure oxygen at 5 psi is not toxic to breath. 
Where is the problem?  I thought you were asking to understand and not to point out your own incredulity about things you do not understand.  I guess that was BS huh.
(All supposedly).

The 5 psi is a major major major problem on its own.

Are the back packs refilled with pure oxygen and refilled with water for their coolant?
Is the LM pure oxygen filled?

I have to keep asking the questions and see what answers you people come up with.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 24, 2021, 12:26:32 AM

i.e. the LM can be connected to the tank in the PLSS to refill it while the PLSS continues to provide air for the astronaut.
Again, if you were honestly examining this, you would see no problem here.
But because you WANT there to be a problem, you make a bunch of suppositions to create problems where none exist.


(All supposed).

Ok, so the PLSS is refilled while they wear it.

Soooo, are the PLSS refilled externally from the LM?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 24, 2021, 12:28:35 AM
Skeppy, there is no way these brainwashed stooges and paid shills will ever not believe evverything NASA has told them. No matter how ridiculous the story, they just believe like little children. Of course there are so many problems with the whole story of traveling and living in a vacuum.
I absolutely agree with you, 100%.
The thing is I do like to question and see the answers from each individual to see how they interpret everything.

I'm fully aware that it's a case of following a pied piper.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 24, 2021, 12:31:01 AM


I wish I knew who to talk to so I could get my paycheck.

You ever actually SEE one of these supposed NASA paychecks for spreading 'fairy tales'? Or are you just brainwashed into believing it with zero evidence?

I've photographed the space station many times, and I'm very sure NASA didn't pay me to fake my own personal observations.  ::)
You don't need a pay cheque. It's just a case of looking up official lines of reading when questions are asked, critically.
The answers are all there on a plate for you people. You simply follow them to the letter and have no reason to question.

I get that and I accept that.........but...like hoppy said......
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: JackBlack on June 24, 2021, 01:38:07 AM
(All supposed).
So they're not breathing pure oxygen and are breathing normal air at one third norml Earth pressure?

How is this air managed from the lox tanks?
You didn't detect his sarcasm?

I do have many issues with this moon stuff so I'm going to pose questions.
Yet you can't demonstrate a single actual issue with it.

Do you see what I mean?
Yes, as you can't show any genuine issue, you need to continually appeal to ridicule instead.

(All supposedly).
You mean you suppose there is a problem.
It is not all supposedly.

Again, if you want to pretend it is fake and never happened, PROVE IT!
Show an actual issue.
Otherwise, cut out all this "supposedly" BS.

The 5 psi is a major major major problem on its own.
And yet another baseless assertion from you.
Why is 5 psi a major problem?
Do you think it is too much or too little?
Can you articulate why you think it is a problem at all?
Or is it just another one of your blatant lies pretending there is a problem when there is none?

I have to keep asking the questions
Only because you can't actually show any problem.

(All supposed).

Ok, so the PLSS is refilled while they wear it.

Soooo, are the PLSS refilled externally from the LM?
Again, if you want to ask a question, stop saying it is all supposed, stop claiming its fake.
If you want to claim a problem, them demonstrate it.
It has been shown that your latest attempt at inventing a problem is pure nonsense.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Themightykabool on June 24, 2021, 03:13:16 AM
Breathing pure oxygen?
Hahaha
Aside from the ship exploding, you would die from trying to breathe it.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: JJA on June 24, 2021, 03:29:17 AM


I wish I knew who to talk to so I could get my paycheck.

You ever actually SEE one of these supposed NASA paychecks for spreading 'fairy tales'? Or are you just brainwashed into believing it with zero evidence?

I've photographed the space station many times, and I'm very sure NASA didn't pay me to fake my own personal observations.  ::)
You don't need a pay cheque. It's just a case of looking up official lines of reading when questions are asked, critically.
The answers are all there on a plate for you people. You simply follow them to the letter and have no reason to question.

I get that and I accept that.........but...like hoppy said......

No, hoppy claimed NASA is paying people to spread their lies. I just want to know why I never get paid, and where he gets his evidence. You've shown zero evidence anything he said is true.

I have seen evidence of NASAs accomplishments with my own eyes, I know NASA isn't lying about what I see with my own eyes, they don't have microchips in my brain or whatever crazy fantasy you have today. Nor are they paying me or others to spread lies. I question everything, but I also verify it. Something you are incapable of doing.

Have you seen the space station through a telescope? Taken photographs of it? Simulated it's orbit? Checked your predictions with observations? Just because YOU are incapable of any of that doesn't mean others aren't.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Velocio on June 24, 2021, 03:30:48 AM
Any idea how big the tanks were in those supposed LM's?
Any idea how much liquid oxygen they held?
Any idea how they kept them stable in supposed minus 250 to plus 250 supposed vacuum cold and heat?

Finally, I got where Scepty is pushing us. And I give him credit for that. Obviously, the astronauts have not been breathing pure oxygen. They have been breathing AIR. Air, that has permeated all the stuff in the LM, including the walls, and being extracted when needed. So, they didn't need any containers.

In addition, this way the denpressure is reduced and the liftoff from the lunar surface is much easier. Two problems solved at one go. Amirite?

(All supposed).
So they're not breathing pure oxygen and are breathing normal air at one third norml Earth pressure?

How is this air managed from the lox tanks?

Sad. This is very sad. :( :'( You didn't recognise my attempt to promote your own denpressure theory. How disappointing! :'( :'( :'(
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: rvlvr on June 24, 2021, 03:48:36 AM
Breathing pure oxygen?
Hahaha
Aside from the ship exploding, you would die from trying to breathe it.

https://science.howstuffworks.com/question493.htm

The astronauts in the Gemini and Apollo programs breathed 100 percent oxygen at reduced pressure for up to two weeks with no problems. In contrast, when 100 percent oxygen is breathed under high pressure (more than four times that of atmospheric pressure), acute oxygen poisoning can occur with these symptoms:

-Nausea
- Dizziness
- Muscle twitches
- Blurred vision
- Seizures/convulsions

Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Unconvinced on June 24, 2021, 05:01:11 AM
You don't need a pay cheque. It's just a case of looking up official lines of reading when questions are asked, critically.
The answers are all there on a plate for you people. You simply follow them to the letter and have no reason to question.

I get that and I accept that.........but...like hoppy said......

That’s right, the answers are all there.

How else is anyone supposed to answer your questions?

Eg.  When you ask how big the oxygen tanks on the LM were, people give the answer taken from the official specs.  As that is the only valid number to use (unless someone had a very good reason to think the specs are wrong).   

Do you think it’s somehow better if people just pull numbers out of their arse? 
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: JackBlack on June 24, 2021, 05:21:07 AM
Breathing pure oxygen?
Hahaha
Aside from the ship exploding, you would die from trying to breathe it.
Just to clarify, are you being sarcastic or serious, it can be hard to tell?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Wolvaccine on June 24, 2021, 06:04:39 AM
100% oxygen can cause blindness and damage to organs, fats and proteins. You wont die immediately of it but only a fool would inhale 100% oxygen

Like these morons
https://www.uhms.org/images/Safety-Articles/hyperbaric_and_hypobaric_cha.pdf

Who thought it would be a great idea to immerse themselves in pure oxygen environments and not give a thought about electrical safety. The consequences of which were easy to foresee

Even an unavoidable static electricity discharge could lead you to a fiery death. To hell with that (literally). But a pure oxygen environment with lots of electronics abound? C'mon!
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Themightykabool on June 24, 2021, 06:07:58 AM
Breathing pure oxygen?
Hahaha
Aside from the ship exploding, you would die from trying to breathe it.
Just to clarify, are you being sarcastic or serious, it can be hard to tell?

serious
you would die.
the ship would explode.
no?


yes ok - clarification - hydrogen pops, oxygen flames.
the ship would still explode being it has other fuels on board.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Unconvinced on June 24, 2021, 06:50:10 AM
100% oxygen can cause blindness and damage to organs, fats and proteins. You wont die immediately of it but only a fool would inhale 100% oxygen

Like these morons
https://www.uhms.org/images/Safety-Articles/hyperbaric_and_hypobaric_cha.pdf

Who thought it would be a great idea to immerse themselves in pure oxygen environments and not give a thought about electrical safety. The consequences of which were easy to foresee

Even an unavoidable static electricity discharge could lead you to a fiery death. To hell with that (literally). But a pure oxygen environment with lots of electronics abound? C'mon!

Do we need to explain how fire works now?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Wolvaccine on June 24, 2021, 07:33:25 AM
100% oxygen can cause blindness and damage to organs, fats and proteins. You wont die immediately of it but only a fool would inhale 100% oxygen

Like these morons
https://www.uhms.org/images/Safety-Articles/hyperbaric_and_hypobaric_cha.pdf

Who thought it would be a great idea to immerse themselves in pure oxygen environments and not give a thought about electrical safety. The consequences of which were easy to foresee

Even an unavoidable static electricity discharge could lead you to a fiery death. To hell with that (literally). But a pure oxygen environment with lots of electronics abound? C'mon!

Do we need to explain how fire works now?

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/Fire_triangle.svg/1200px-Fire_triangle.svg.png)
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Themightykabool on June 24, 2021, 08:32:51 AM
i'm with shifter on this one
electrical doohickies would ignite 100%oxygen air
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: NotSoSkeptical on June 24, 2021, 08:36:31 AM
i'm with shifter on this one
electrical doohickies would ignite 100%oxygen air

Oxygen makes other things ignite at a lower temperature, and burn hotter and faster. But oxygen itself does not catch fire

So no electrical doohickies would not ignite 100% oxygen as oxygen itself is not flammable.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Wolvaccine on June 24, 2021, 08:49:19 AM
i'm with shifter on this one
electrical doohickies would ignite 100%oxygen air

Oxygen makes other things ignite at a lower temperature, and burn hotter and faster. But oxygen itself does not catch fire

So no electrical doohickies would not ignite 100% oxygen as oxygen itself is not flammable.

Sure but the environment is not devoid of anything else. The humans inside make good combustible fuel sources. Also static electricity discharge is difficult to avoid especially with humans moving around
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: rvlvr on June 24, 2021, 08:53:24 AM
Appears to me the damn thing did not burn. So I guess they managed.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Themightykabool on June 24, 2021, 09:05:42 AM
CH2+O2 = heat + H2O + CO
oxygen doesn't burn.




well it didnt burn because obivuolsy it wasn't 100% (or high) oxygen.

Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: markjo on June 24, 2021, 09:20:48 AM
The humans inside make good combustible fuel sources.
Not really.  Too much water in the human body.

Also static electricity discharge is difficult to avoid especially with humans moving around
A lot of that depends on the humidity in the air, among other things.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Themightykabool on June 24, 2021, 09:30:00 AM
i'd imagine space is pretty dry.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Smoke Machine on June 24, 2021, 09:41:10 AM


Read the document regarding the evolution of the PLSS that I posted earlier. It's all in there, tech specs, schematics, heating, cooling, O2, water, etc., with the technology evolution of the 7 iterations of the Apollo PLSS. That's the funny thing about technology/engineering, it keeps on advancing as time and efforts go on. Crazy, I know.
I have no issue with technology advancing.
I do have many issues with this moon stuff so I'm going to pose questions.
I'm well aware they will be answered. It's just a case of, how and why those answers come to be and whether they seem plausible.

You see I could ask how the starship enterprise works and some ardent fan of the sci-fi series would happily tell me everything they have read up on.

Do you see what I mean?

Why don't you number your first ten questions from 1 to 10, to make it easier for members to answer?

You do understand, your questions will just lead people to look for the answers in information on the internet, in books, or in magazines and science journals? It's just a matter of who can gain access to the most relevant information to your questions, as to who provides the most comprehensive answers.

Why don't you just set for us all, 1000 word assignments for each of your questions? Fully referenced ofcourse in the Harvard style.......
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: JackBlack on June 24, 2021, 03:09:49 PM
100% oxygen can cause blindness and damage to organs
At what pressure?
Gas doesn't really give a damn about purity. What matters is the partial pressure of it.

For example, one key part of oxygen toxicity is it absorbing into you, with that being an equilibrium based upon the partial pressure of O2.
The purity of the gas doesn't matter, what does is the partial pressure of O2 in that gas.

Like these morons
https://www.uhms.org/images/Safety-Articles/hyperbaric_and_hypobaric_cha.pdf
Using high pressure oxygen. Do you have an example with low pressure oxygen?

serious
you would die.
the ship would explode.
no?
No.
Gas does not give a damn about the purity.
What it cares about is the pressure.
Oxygen at 1 atm, regardless of if it is pure oxygen at 1 atm, or if it was 20 % oxygen in a mixture of gas which had a total pressure of 5 atm, would have the same issues, with lots of things not flammable at 0.21 atm oxygen being flammable.
Conversely pure oxygen at 0.21 atm, would only have the same flammability issues as normal air.

The main location for an issue with the oxygen would be the oxygen tanks, which have oxygen at a high pressure (or liquid oxygen), making it much more likely to burn there. (Look at Apollo 13 for an example of that).
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Themightykabool on June 24, 2021, 03:35:55 PM
Caveat that the air pressure is at some reasonable room pressure so that people dont explode.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: JackBlack on June 24, 2021, 04:35:54 PM
Caveat that the air pressure is at some reasonable room pressure so that people dont explode.
That "reasonable" pressure can be quite low. Including to the point of having pure oxygen at the same partial pressure as normal atmosphere.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sokarul on June 24, 2021, 05:24:13 PM
As we saw in history 100 percent oxygen can be bad.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_1

If USSR had not hid their 100 percent oxygen fire the US might have done things differently.

But 100 percent environment can be controlled as others like have said.

Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Themightykabool on June 24, 2021, 05:53:54 PM
Holy crap    pure oxygen.
Well what do i know... nothing!
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 24, 2021, 09:35:17 PM


Why don't you number your first ten questions from 1 to 10, to make it easier for members to answer?

You do understand, your questions will just lead people to look for the answers in information on the internet, in books, or in magazines and science journals? It's just a matter of who can gain access to the most relevant information to your questions, as to who provides the most comprehensive answers.


Of course people will do that. That's basically all people can do.

The bigger issue is in how a person thinks about that information and whether they think the answer to a question by use of that information, rings true or does it appear to be far fetched.


Naturally people like yourself will accept what you read if it comes from what you believe and accept as your official source. Your authority.



(All supposed)
Going back to the Apollo 17 carry on, I've seen the diagram of the oxy tanks and I'm trying to figure out how the environment was inside the cabin and also inside the spacesuit.
I'm getting conflicting answers from 100% pure oxygen to normal air.

It makes no sense.


Also what makes no sense is the refilling. 4 hours for each back pack and apparently it's so sketchy about the refill happening inside the LM without the repressurising of the cabin.


It's so vague. It makes little to no sense.

I'd also love to know how the tanks were refilled, using what power?

There's a good few things for you to get your teeth into, if you can.

Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Unconvinced on June 24, 2021, 10:57:37 PM
Of course people will do that. That's basically all people can do.

The bigger issue is in how a person thinks about that information and whether they think the answer to a question by use of that information, rings true or does it appear to be far fetched.


Naturally people like yourself will accept what you read if it comes from what you believe and accept as your official source. Your authority.



(All supposed)
Going back to the Apollo 17 carry on, I've seen the diagram of the oxy tanks and I'm trying to figure out how the environment was inside the cabin and also inside the spacesuit.
I'm getting conflicting answers from 100% pure oxygen to normal air.

It makes no sense.


Also what makes no sense is the refilling. 4 hours for each back pack and apparently it's so sketchy about the refill happening inside the LM without the repressurising of the cabin.


It's so vague. It makes little to no sense.

I'd also love to know how the tanks were refilled, using what power?

There's a good few things for you to get your teeth into, if you can.

Pick a lane, Scepti.  Either you think it’s all just fantasy nonsense like Star Trek, or you have serious  questions about whether the the spacecraft and equipment could do the job they were supposed to do.   

We can recharge the PLSS if we reverse the Tachyon flux by matching shield harmonics to the warp core, Captain!
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 24, 2021, 11:15:27 PM


Pick a lane, Scepti.  Either you think it’s all just fantasy nonsense like Star Trek, or you have serious  questions about whether the the spacecraft and equipment could do the job they were supposed to do.   

We can recharge the PLSS if we reverse the Tachyon flux by matching shield harmonics to the warp core, Captain!
Do you have any idea how it was achieved?
You seem to have star trek sorted, so what about Apollo, or is that star trek answer a covering for the Apollo?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sokarul on June 24, 2021, 11:53:55 PM
Why dont you seek out the answers yourself? Nothing says we have all the answers to events which took place around 50 years ago. We use the same google you do.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: JackBlack on June 25, 2021, 12:29:51 AM
The bigger issue is in how a person thinks about that information and whether they think the answer to a question by use of that information, rings true or does it appear to be far fetched.
No, the bigger issue is why they think it is true or far fetched.
You simply dismiss it all as far fetched because you don't like it.

I'm getting conflicting answers from 100% pure oxygen to normal air.
No, you got a sarcastic comment indicating normal air.

It makes no sense.
It all makes perfect sense, you just don't like it.

Again, if you want to claim it doesn't make sense, clearly show why.

There's a good few things for you to get your teeth into, if you can.
Yet still no problem has been pointed out by you.

It seems all you can do is continually ask dumb questions to pretend there is a problem and waste time, while being completely incapable of clearly explaining any alleged problem, or why anyone should think it is fake.

Stop asking the dumb questions, stop just dismissing it as nonsense, and clearly explain just what problem you think there is and why.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Themightykabool on June 25, 2021, 02:02:08 AM
You, sceppy, habe now been given the big startrek LM tour.
So heres one back to you then.

Tell us how the 100,000s of people across many dofferent industries and countries are all in it together to trick us into thinking space isnt real?

Plan it out layer by layer.
Go for it.

Lower levels are "duped".
Got it.
What about next layer?
The ones who made the computer systems to trick lower levels into thinking theyre seeing data from space.
How does that work?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 25, 2021, 06:35:17 AM
No, hoppy claimed NASA is paying people to spread their lies. I just want to know why I never get paid, and where he gets his evidence. You've shown zero evidence anything he said is true.

Anyone that questions the nonsense of space gets my vote.

Quote from: JJA
I have seen evidence of NASAs accomplishments with my own eyes, I know NASA isn't lying about what I see with my own eyes, they don't have microchips in my brain or whatever crazy fantasy you have today. Nor are they paying me or others to spread lies.
No need to pay people like yourself. You do it for free just by accepting official lines and parroting them whenever the occasion suits.
Most people do it.


Quote from: JJA
I question everything, but I also verify it. Something you are incapable of doing.
I have a hard time accepting that you question everything and then verifying it all.




Quote from: JJA
Have you seen the space station through a telescope? Taken photographs of it? Simulated it's orbit? Checked your predictions with observations? Just because YOU are incapable of any of that doesn't mean others aren't.
No, I've never seen a space station through a telescope and I don't believe you have, either.
I don't believe you've taken photo's of it and I don't believe you've simulated its orbit.

I do suspect you've followed the accepted line of reasoning for all of the above and just went with it.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 25, 2021, 06:37:04 AM
Why dont you seek out the answers yourself? Nothing says we have all the answers to events which took place around 50 years ago. We use the same google you do.
It's a forum for involvement. Join in if you want.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 25, 2021, 06:38:30 AM
The bigger issue is in how a person thinks about that information and whether they think the answer to a question by use of that information, rings true or does it appear to be far fetched.
No, the bigger issue is why they think it is true or far fetched.
You simply dismiss it all as far fetched because you don't like it.

I'm getting conflicting answers from 100% pure oxygen to normal air.
No, you got a sarcastic comment indicating normal air.

It makes no sense.
It all makes perfect sense, you just don't like it.

Again, if you want to claim it doesn't make sense, clearly show why.

There's a good few things for you to get your teeth into, if you can.
Yet still no problem has been pointed out by you.

It seems all you can do is continually ask dumb questions to pretend there is a problem and waste time, while being completely incapable of clearly explaining any alleged problem, or why anyone should think it is fake.

Stop asking the dumb questions, stop just dismissing it as nonsense, and clearly explain just what problem you think there is and why.
(All supposedly)

Do you have any answers for Apollo 17 and it's numerous refills of oxygen and how it was achieved?

Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Unconvinced on June 25, 2021, 08:08:03 AM
Do you have any answers for Apollo 17 and it's numerous refills of oxygen and how it was achieved?

With a length of hose from big tank to little tank probably.

What exactly is so hard to believe about it?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Themightykabool on June 25, 2021, 08:48:47 AM
All waved away by sceppys magic wand.

Care reciprocate and explain how the conspircacy hierachy works?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Stash on June 25, 2021, 09:14:07 AM
Do you have any answers for Apollo 17 and it's numerous refills of oxygen and how it was achieved?

Like I wrote before:

"Here's pretty much everything you could ever want to know regarding how the 7 different versions of the Apollo Portable Life Support System (PLSS) worked. The Apollo 17 PLSS version (#7) could go 8 hours, not just 4. Everything from heating, cooling, pressurization, O2, schematics, etc is all included here. Enjoy:

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/ALSJ-FlightPLSS.pdf”

By iteration 7 for Apollo 17, the duration of an EVA had advanced to 8 hours of O2 supply (From the original 4). Technology advancements.

For even more info on the PLSS all the way down to the valve-level schematics, check this out. Tons of info as to exactly how the suits worked:

Apollo Operations Handbook Extravehicular Mobility Unit, March 1971
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/documents/NASA%20TM-X-69516.pdf

As for Apollo 17 O2 refills between EVA’'s, according to the log I already posted...

Apollo 17 EVA's:

"Approximately 47 minutes later, the powered descent to the lunar surface began. Landing occurred at 7:54:57 p.m. Dec. 11, at lunar latitude 20 degrees, 10 minutes north, and longitude 30 degrees 46 minutes east. Apollo 17 was the last lunar landing mission. Three extravehicular activities, or EVAs, lasted a total of 22 hours, four minutes on the lunar surface.
- EVA No. 1 began at 11:54:49 p.m. Dec. 11, with Eugene Cernan egressing at 12:01 a.m. Dec. 12. The first EVA was seven hours, 12 minutes long and was completed at 7:06:42 a.m. Dec. 12.
- The second EVA began at 11:28:06 p.m. Dec. 12, and lasted seven hours, 37 minutes, ending at at 7:05:02 a.m. Dec. 13.
- The final EVA began at 10:25:48 p.m. Dec. 13, and ended at 5:40:56 a.m. Dec. 14.
"

They had three EVA’s, each lasting 7 hours+, with about 17-18 hours in between. I haven’t specifically found the refill instructions, but my guess is that with 18 hours in-between EVA’s, they represurized the module, hung out inside and refilled the PLSS, among other things, most likely some eating and sleeping.
However, I think they had the ability replenish the suits without depressurizing the module, but there apparently wasn’t a need to do so.

Read through the documents and see if anything peaks your interest.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: JackBlack on June 25, 2021, 04:01:43 PM
Anyone that questions the nonsense of space gets my vote.
And that is the problem.
You don't care about reason or evidence.
As long as they go along with your fantasy of space being nonsense, you happily accept whatever BS they say.

(All supposedly)

Do you have any answers for Apollo 17 and it's numerous refills of oxygen and how it was achieved?
No, not all supposedly, it actually happened.
If you want to claim it is fake PROVE IT!
If you want to genuinely question it, stop claiming it is supposed or fake or any other BS like that.

While you are just claiming it is all fake and supposed, you are showing you have no interest in any of the answers. This was clearly shown when you basically just moved on after being provided an answer without even processing it at all. Instead you were unable to show a fault so you just moved on to something to waste more time. You then completely ignored the answer when you made more baseless claims; whereas if you were actually genuinely interested in the answers, you would have read them and not just ignored them to make more baseless claims of problems.

Now either stop asking dumb questions intended to just waste time and pretend there is a problem where non exists, and instead actually show a problem; or accept that the moon landings were real, and that you have no justification to claim they were fake, and then ask these simple questions.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Smoke Machine on June 25, 2021, 10:41:18 PM
The bigger issue is in how a person thinks about that information and whether they think the answer to a question by use of that information, rings true or does it appear to be far fetched.
No, the bigger issue is why they think it is true or far fetched.
You simply dismiss it all as far fetched because you don't like it.

I'm getting conflicting answers from 100% pure oxygen to normal air.
No, you got a sarcastic comment indicating normal air.

It makes no sense.
It all makes perfect sense, you just don't like it.

Again, if you want to claim it doesn't make sense, clearly show why.

There's a good few things for you to get your teeth into, if you can.
Yet still no problem has been pointed out by you.

It seems all you can do is continually ask dumb questions to pretend there is a problem and waste time, while being completely incapable of clearly explaining any alleged problem, or why anyone should think it is fake.

Stop asking the dumb questions, stop just dismissing it as nonsense, and clearly explain just what problem you think there is and why.
(All supposedly)

Do you have any answers for Apollo 17 and it's numerous refills of oxygen and how it was achieved?

I don't see any need for any scepticism over the oxygen system in Apollo 17. It all seems very straight forward.

From what I've read, there were no refills. The oxygen was pure and stored at set pressures in canisters and released. You forget the astronauts were breathing out carbon dioxide into the air around them, so that the air they were breathing, was never at any time 100% oxygen. Here on earth, the level of oxygen is about 19% in the air around us.

Apollo 17 used two lithium hydroxide canisters in the oxygen system at all times, and were alternatively replaced every 12 hours. The lithium hydroxide absorbed carbon dioxide, the charcoal eliminated odors, and felt trapped particles and debris.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: JJA on June 26, 2021, 06:45:31 AM
No, hoppy claimed NASA is paying people to spread their lies. I just want to know why I never get paid, and where he gets his evidence. You've shown zero evidence anything he said is true.

Anyone that questions the nonsense of space gets my vote.

Got to see you admitting your complete and total bias. You believe whoever agrees with you and ignore any facts. Nice. ;D

Quote from: JJA
I have seen evidence of NASAs accomplishments with my own eyes, I know NASA isn't lying about what I see with my own eyes, they don't have microchips in my brain or whatever crazy fantasy you have today. Nor are they paying me or others to spread lies.
No need to pay people like yourself. You do it for free just by accepting official lines and parroting them whenever the occasion suits.
Most people do it.

So Hoppy is wrong that NASA is paying people to spread lies, because now you claim they don't do it? So which is it, does NASA pay me or do I do it for free? Why would I do it for free if NASA will pay me? I want to know who to ask NASA for my paycheck, maybe Hoppy knows?

Hoppy... who told you the get paid by NASA? Can you get me in touch with them, I want to get paid too! Then I could quit my job and make a living posting on Flat Earth forums! Awesome!

Quote from: JJA
I question everything, but I also verify it. Something you are incapable of doing.
I have a hard time accepting that you question everything and then verifying it all.

You can't accept anything so that is hardly surprising.  I don't verify everything, nobody can, but I verify enough to know that NASA isn't just making it all up. They can't fake what I see with my own eyes after all. You could see too, if you tried.

Quote from: JJA
Have you seen the space station through a telescope? Taken photographs of it? Simulated it's orbit? Checked your predictions with observations? Just because YOU are incapable of any of that doesn't mean others aren't.
No, I've never seen a space station through a telescope and I don't believe you have, either.
I don't believe you've taken photo's of it and I don't believe you've simulated its orbit.

I do suspect you've followed the accepted line of reasoning for all of the above and just went with it.

Yes, yes, back to your old boring claims that everyone is lying to you.  I suspect you think everyone is lying about actually performing experiments and taking observations because you're so confused and incapable of doing it yourself you can't imagine anyone else can do it.

I could post ISS photos here, but you would just call them lies. The only way to prove it would be for you to do it yourself, but you clearly aren't capable so you will just have to continue to live in your massive pit of ignorance. Looks comfy in there, I can see why you don't want to leave.

The math isn't hard. It's all out there, as is the ephemeris data for the ISS. Anyone who knows what they are doing could do what I did.

If you want to accuse someone of just accepting lines of reasoning without any evidence or checking on their own, look in the mirror.

Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 26, 2021, 11:51:59 PM
Do you have any answers for Apollo 17 and it's numerous refills of oxygen and how it was achieved?

Like I wrote before:

"Here's pretty much everything you could ever want to know regarding how the 7 different versions of the Apollo Portable Life Support System (PLSS) worked. The Apollo 17 PLSS version (#7) could go 8 hours, not just 4. Everything from heating, cooling, pressurization, O2, schematics, etc is all included here. Enjoy:

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/ALSJ-FlightPLSS.pdf”

By iteration 7 for Apollo 17, the duration of an EVA had advanced to 8 hours of O2 supply (From the original 4). Technology advancements.

For even more info on the PLSS all the way down to the valve-level schematics, check this out. Tons of info as to exactly how the suits worked:

Apollo Operations Handbook Extravehicular Mobility Unit, March 1971
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/documents/NASA%20TM-X-69516.pdf

As for Apollo 17 O2 refills between EVA’'s, according to the log I already posted...

Apollo 17 EVA's:

"Approximately 47 minutes later, the powered descent to the lunar surface began. Landing occurred at 7:54:57 p.m. Dec. 11, at lunar latitude 20 degrees, 10 minutes north, and longitude 30 degrees 46 minutes east. Apollo 17 was the last lunar landing mission. Three extravehicular activities, or EVAs, lasted a total of 22 hours, four minutes on the lunar surface.
- EVA No. 1 began at 11:54:49 p.m. Dec. 11, with Eugene Cernan egressing at 12:01 a.m. Dec. 12. The first EVA was seven hours, 12 minutes long and was completed at 7:06:42 a.m. Dec. 12.
- The second EVA began at 11:28:06 p.m. Dec. 12, and lasted seven hours, 37 minutes, ending at at 7:05:02 a.m. Dec. 13.
- The final EVA began at 10:25:48 p.m. Dec. 13, and ended at 5:40:56 a.m. Dec. 14.
"

They had three EVA’s, each lasting 7 hours+, with about 17-18 hours in between. I haven’t specifically found the refill instructions, but my guess is that with 18 hours in-between EVA’s, they represurized the module, hung out inside and refilled the PLSS, among other things, most likely some eating and sleeping.
However, I think they had the ability replenish the suits without depressurizing the module, but there apparently wasn’t a need to do so.

Read through the documents and see if anything peaks your interest.
Thanks for getting all that. It is appreciated even if I do question it all and am as scetical as all hell about it all.


Does it not seem odd to you that they managed to ramp up everything in those PLSS back packs, in just 2 years?
A tank that now holds 8 hours pure oxygen and enough water for 8 hours, rather than 4 hours.

Not to mention battery life...etc.
Naturally I do think it's all absolute and utter hogwash....but questioning it seems to bring it much clearer for me when I see the answers.


You see, I can well understand they will have an answer for everything because those answers never have to be shown, hysically to work, only shown to work in a storyline after the supposed fact (fiction).

Lots of stuff makes no sense.

You see, by looking at things in life, here on Earth and how they react in extreme low pressure environments, it's clear that these suit would not work for varying reasons.

However I'll get to that after I've got through this oxygen carry on.

How do they transfer oxygen from the LM to the suits?
What system is used to refill those back packs?

Also I wonder how the oxygen and water, etc remained stable in supposed temperatures of minus and plus 250 degrees.


How has any battery managed to run those suits for 8 hours?
Same back packs but double the amount of everything in the space of two years.

Hmmmm.

And back to the LM. I'm still trying to find out where they refill those back packs and how it works.
I'd still like to know how they breathed 100% oxygen for the duration of the supposed mission.



Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 26, 2021, 11:54:57 PM
Anyone that questions the nonsense of space gets my vote.
And that is the problem.
You don't care about reason or evidence.
As long as they go along with your fantasy of space being nonsense, you happily accept whatever BS they say.

Nahhhh. It's not about going along with anything I think. Most absolutely do not.
However, people get my vote for questioning stories told to them and the stories told are what I believe to be nonsense.

Basically not blindly accepting them like people like you do.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 27, 2021, 12:05:36 AM
I don't see any need for any scepticism over the oxygen system in Apollo 17. It all seems very straight forward.
From what I've read, there were no refills. The oxygen was pure and stored at set pressures in canisters and released.
Ahhh, so they simply unscrewed their oxygen tanks and replaced the tanks, then unscrewed their scrubbers and replaced them. Did they also unscrew their water tanks and replace them or did they simply turn on a tap?

Imagine having to do all of that inside a cramped LM where there is only standing room.
All that stored stuff in canisters.
I wonder how many spare batteries they had for each back pack operation?

All straightforward, you say?

12 hours per canister of C02 scrubbing?

Pure oxygen breathing throughout. Hmmmm.





Quote from: Smoke Machine
You forget the astronauts were breathing out carbon dioxide into the air around them, so that the air they were breathing, was never at any time 100% oxygen. Here on earth, the level of oxygen is about 19% in the air around us.
Ok, so carbon dioxide was breathed into the LM air which made the oxygen not 100%.


But now it's pure oxygen with C02 building until scrubbed from the LM.
Hmmmmmm.



Quote from: Smoke Machine
Apollo 17 used two lithium hydroxide canisters in the oxygen system at all times, and were alternatively replaced every 12 hours. The lithium hydroxide absorbed carbon dioxide, the charcoal eliminated odors, and felt trapped particles and debris.
They supposedly had back packs with 8 hours function. How they did that only the story tellers know.


Anyone can make up anything if it can't be tested by the ordinary Joe.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: JackBlack on June 27, 2021, 12:15:01 AM
Thanks for getting all that. It is appreciated even if I do question it all and am as scetical as all hell about it all.
It sure doesn't seem appreciated, given you completely ignored what was said in one to pretend there was an issue later.

It seems you are just doing it to waste time.

Lots of stuff makes no sense.
Stop just asserting the same blatant lie.

If you want to claim it doesn't make sense, PROVE IT!

it's clear that these suit would not work for varying reasons.
Yet you cannot provide a single reason.
It seems far more likely that you are just continually making up excuses.

However I'll get to that after I've got through this oxygen carry on.
And maybe people would be more willing to answer your questions when you show you actually give a damn rather than just wanting to dismiss it all as hogwash.
You said yourself that you think it is all a story. So what is the point in providing any answers to your dumb questions?

If you think there is a problem, show the problem.
If you can't, stop pretending.
If you actually want answers, stop claiming it is all fake.

Basically not blindly accepting them like people like you do.
"Us people" don't just blindly accept.
That would be you.
You blindly accept anything that goes along with your preconceived ideas and outright reject everything else, again, blindly.
Completely incapable of providing any reasoning to justify any of your claims.


Again, can you show any problem, or are you only capable of asking dumb questions to pretend there is a problem when in fact there is none?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 27, 2021, 12:38:55 AM
No, hoppy claimed NASA is paying people to spread their lies. I just want to know why I never get paid, and where he gets his evidence. You've shown zero evidence anything he said is true.

Anyone that questions the nonsense of space gets my vote.

Got to see you admitting your complete and total bias. You believe whoever agrees with you and ignore any facts. Nice. ;D
Not at all. I never ignore facts. If facts are presented then I would have no need to question.
You are not presenting any facts, you are presenting (like many) what you believe to be facts by adhering to official lines, almost unconditionally.



Quote from: JJA
Quote from: JJA
I have seen evidence of NASAs accomplishments with my own eyes, I know NASA isn't lying about what I see with my own eyes, they don't have microchips in my brain or whatever crazy fantasy you have today. Nor are they paying me or others to spread lies.
No need to pay people like yourself. You do it for free just by accepting official lines and parroting them whenever the occasion suits.
Most people do it.

So Hoppy is wrong that NASA is paying people to spread lies, because now you claim they don't do it?
I never claimed anything of the sort.
Playing on words will do nothing for you except gain answers like this.

Quote from: JJA
So which is it, does NASA pay me or do I do it for free?
I personally believe you do not get paid to type what you do in this forum.

Quote from: JJA
Why would I do it for free if NASA will pay me?
I don't believe you have anything to do with the NASA.
I simply believe you just parrot what you see coming from the NASA and whatever other storylines that are officially put out.


Quote from: JJA
I want to know who to ask NASA for my paycheck, maybe Hoppy knows?
The way you act on here would give many a sceptic a mind to think you were part of something that spreads misinfo. If hoppy thinks you're being paid then hoppy has his reasons.
I personally don't think anyone would pay you for simply parroting....but, I could be wrong and hoppy may well be right.

I doubt I'd ever know and quite frankly, do not care. None of it changes my thoughts.

Quote from: JJA
Quote from: JJA
I question everything, but I also verify it. Something you are incapable of doing.
I have a hard time accepting that you question everything and then verifying it all.

You can't accept anything so that is hardly surprising.  I don't verify everything, nobody can, but I verify enough to know that NASA isn't just making it all up. They can't fake what I see with my own eyes after all. You could see too, if you tried.
You don't verify anything to be factual in what we're arguing.
You simply look up stuff and reel off the answers as if you've personally verified a truth.
All you've done is parrot what I'm arguing against.



Quote from: JJA
Quote from: JJA
Have you seen the space station through a telescope? Taken photographs of it? Simulated it's orbit? Checked your predictions with observations? Just because YOU are incapable of any of that doesn't mean others aren't.
No, I've never seen a space station through a telescope and I don't believe you have, either.
I don't believe you've taken photo's of it and I don't believe you've simulated its orbit.

I do suspect you've followed the accepted line of reasoning for all of the above and just went with it.

Yes, yes, back to your old boring claims that everyone is lying to you.
 I suspect you think everyone is lying about actually performing experiments and taking observations because you're so confused and incapable of doing it yourself you can't imagine anyone else can do it.
Same old thing. You go into raptures about me thinking everyone is lying to me.
I simply question the stuff that I do not think is wholly truthful. Most of it is with the stuff we argue about on here....not everything.

I accept a lot of stuff and don't have the mind to question. It doesn't mean I blindly believe any of it but it does mean I can go along with it until such time (if ever) something peaks my interest in it.

Simple as that so don't you be boring and claim this all of the time when you can't find a way to argue your side.


Quote from: JJA
I could post ISS photos here, but you would just call them lies. The only way to prove it would be for you to do it yourself, but you clearly aren't capable so you will just have to continue to live in your massive pit of ignorance. Looks comfy in there, I can see why you don't want to leave.

I can post all kinds of stuff what is supposedly an ISS.
I can post all kinds of stuff about people supposedly floating about in what is supposedly an ISS......etc.


What does this prove?


Quote from: JJA
The math isn't hard. It's all out there, as is the ephemeris data for the ISS. Anyone who knows what they are doing could do what I did.
What math? For what?


Quote from: JJA
If you want to accuse someone of just accepting lines of reasoning without any evidence or checking on their own, look in the mirror.
I don't accept lines without reasoning. I question everything that I can't get clear facts on and I accept anything that actually has decent reasoning. It may turn out that some of it is not strictly true....but, until that time comes, I'll accept it for the reasoning given.


None of it includes space or the shape of the Earth as we are officially told.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 27, 2021, 12:56:20 AM
Thanks for getting all that. It is appreciated even if I do question it all and am as scetical as all hell about it all.
It sure doesn't seem appreciated, given you completely ignored what was said in one to pretend there was an issue later.

It seems you are just doing it to waste time.
Waste whose time? Your time?

Nobody's time is wasted. They're on here typing and using their time for whatever reasons.


Quote from: JackBlack

Lots of stuff makes no sense.
Stop just asserting the same blatant lie.

If you want to claim it doesn't make sense, PROVE IT!
That's just the issue. I can't prove it because it's all hidden/cloaked in secrecy.
That's the beauty about those who write the stories and make the films...etc.




Quote from: JackBlack

it's clear that these suit would not work for varying reasons.
Yet you cannot provide a single reason.
It seems far more likely that you are just continually making up excuses.
I've provided many a reason as to why I think it's all bull. You don't accept any of them like many...and....you...are....entitled....to....that.
But you are in he other boat of having no proof of facts.


Quote from: JackBlack

However I'll get to that after I've got through this oxygen carry on.
And maybe people would be more willing to answer your questions when you show you actually give a damn rather than just wanting to dismiss it all as hogwash.
You said yourself that you think it is all a story. So what is the point in providing any answers to your dumb questions?
People can ignore me anytime they wish.
Nobody is compelled to answer anything from my side.
After this post you see if you can ignore anything I say and ask others to do as you do, then see if any of it has any effect on my thoughts.


The topic is there for those who wish to participate. Do so or don't. It's no skin off my nose.




Quote from: JackBlack

If you think there is a problem, show the problem.
If you can't, stop pretending.
If you actually want answers, stop claiming it is all fake.
I'll stop claiming it's fake and questioning it all when I receive factual answers by people who are in possession of them.
This does not include you, unless you show me that you are in possession of the facts.


Quote from: JackBlack

Basically not blindly accepting them like people like you do.
"Us people" don't just blindly accept.
That would be you.
You blindly accept anything that goes along with your preconceived ideas and outright reject everything else, again, blindly.
Completely incapable of providing any reasoning to justify any of your claims.


Again, can you show any problem, or are you only capable of asking dumb questions to pretend there is a problem when in fact there is none?
There's plenty of reasoning to be sceptical. Plenty.

You don't believe so because you are not geared to questioning the stuff you are officially told as a truth.

The difference between me and you is, you can be sold a story....something like, scientists have managed to test out a sugar like cube in a vacuum and found that a human who ingests it can breathe on the moon for up to 8 hours without the use of breathing apparatus.
They could tell you how it works and show a film of someone walking on a supposed moon, proclaiming it to be a massive stride in space exploration and ease of doing so.


You could be shown a sugar lump but never touch it, except read the paper beside the exhibit....if that.
You would argue till you're blue in the face of its legitimacy.
Why?
Because, why would they lie......right?


I'd question it and I would be the tin foil hat arrogant nutter who has no clue about the sugar lump effigy and can't prove it doesn't work.


This is how all this gunk goes...and I do believe wholeheartedly that this space stuff in how we're told, is all utter gunk.




I would tell you that I think it's bull and you will spend all your time arguing for it, like you do.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: JackBlack on June 27, 2021, 01:35:23 AM
Not at all. I never ignore facts. If facts are presented then I would have no need to question.
You ignore facts all the time, dismissing them as fiction because they don't fit your fantasy.
That is still ignoring facts.

I never claimed anything of the sort.
No, Hoppy did, and you agreed with him 100%:
Skeppy, there is no way these brainwashed stooges and paid shills will ever not believe evverything NASA has told them. No matter how ridiculous the story, they just believe like little children. Of course there are so many problems with the whole story of traveling and living in a vacuum.
I absolutely agree with you, 100%.
So do you now state you don't agree with him and that there aren't paid shills here?

None of it changes my thoughts.
It seems nothing ever will.
Not even facts and irrefutable logical arguments.
Instead you will just keep on beleiving your fantasy, even though you cannot justify it at all.

Simple as that so don't you be boring and claim this all of the time when you can't find a way to argue your side.
You are the one failing to argue your side.
You are claiming the lunar landings were faked, and have offered NOTHING to support it.
Instead you continually assert it makes no sense and is all fake, and continually ask dumb questions as if merely being able to ask a question magically makes it all fake.

How about you stop with all that and start trying to actually argue your side?
How about you start actually trying to put forward an argument to show they were faked?

I question everything that I can't get clear facts on and I accept anything that actually has decent reasoning.
Pure BS!
You happily accept ANYTHING that agrees with your delusional nonsense, regardless of how little evidence or reasoning you have for it.
Likewise you reject EVERYTHING that shows you are wrong, regardless of how much evidence and reasoning there is backing it up.
You have shown that you don't care about reason and evidence. All you care about is if it matches your fantasy or not.

That's just the issue. I can't prove it because it's all hidden/cloaked in secrecy.
So what you are saying is you have absolutely no justification for concluding it is fake at all.
That you claiming it is fake is not based upon reason and instead is based upon paranoia or rejecting anything that doesn't go along with your fantasy.
That all your claims of it being fake or it not making sense are nothing more than outright lies.

There is plenty that can be shown to be fiction and make no sense about actual sci-fi.

I've provided many a reason as to why I think it's all bull.
No, you haven't.
All you have done is assert it doesn't make sense.
If you actually had a reason you would have provided it.

After this post you see if you can ignore anything I say
No thanks, I will continue to object to your lies.

The topic is there for those who wish to participate.
The topic is your claim that the lunar landings were fake, something you are yet to substantiate in any way.

I'll stop claiming it's fake and questioning it all when I receive factual answers by people who are in possession of them.
You have shown that isn't the case at all.
You will simply continue to dismiss it as a story.
You have shown you have no interest in accepting it as real.
It doesn't matter how many answers you are provided, you will continue to claim it is all just stories.

There's plenty of reasoning to be sceptical. Plenty.
You aren't being sceptical.
You are simply dismissing reality and replacing it with pure fantasy. That is not being sceptical.

The difference between me and you is I actually care about what I believe being true, it matching reality, it being supported by evidence.
You do not. All you care about is if it matches your fantasy or not.

The difference between me and you is, you can be sold a story....something like, scientists have managed to test out a sugar like cube in a vacuum and found that a human who ingests it can breathe on the moon for up to 8 hours without the use of breathing apparatus.
And there you go with more pathetic strawmen.
That is nothing like what I accept.
If someone actually suggested that I would call BS, just like I call BS on so many things promoted these days like solar roadways (which while being possible is extremely impractical and far too overpriced) and so much of Musk's BS.

What is required for the moon is nothing extraordinary.
The lunar landings used a breathing apparatus.
There is no magic required for it.

But of course, because you can't show any problem at all with it, you resort to these pathetic strawmen to ridicule it and ridicule those who object to your BS.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Themightykabool on June 27, 2021, 03:34:44 AM
Great - its gunk.
Youve been given lengthy explainations of how the gunk works.

Can you describe how the conspiracy works?
Like after the first duped layer is fed false data.
Who makes the data?
The data must be meticulously planned and coordianted.
Detail how the duping machine works.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Solarwind on June 27, 2021, 08:55:34 AM
Quote
No, I've never seen a space station through a telescope and I don't believe you have, either.
I don't believe you've taken photo's of it and I don't believe you've simulated its orbit.

I do suspect you've followed the accepted line of reasoning for all of the above and just went with it.
You don't even need a telescope to see the ISS. You can see the basic and familiar shape of the ISS through a simple pair of £50 ($70/58EUR) binoculars.  Have you got binoculars to hand?  If not I'm sure you could afford a pair. Great thing about binoculars of course is that they are not just useful for observing the sky but can be used for a wide range of outdoor activities. 

Next use any one of the many websites or apps which are freely available which will tell you when the next pass occurs visible from your location and then aim your binocs at the very bright star (about on par with Venus which makes it magnitude -4 at max for those familiar with the astronomical magnitude system) moving from west to east. A decent pass will take around 10 minutes.  You will see the solar panels and basic shape of the space station quite easily.  No navigation lights of course and the solar panels have a bronze tint to them.

Sometimes the ISS does not make a complete pass but seems to vanish or suddenly 'switch off' part way across the sky.  Why could that possibly be I wonder?!?

Quote
I do suspect you've followed the accepted line of reasoning for all of the above and just went with it.
What...  even when you can see it with your own eyes?

I suspect that if I told you that the ISS was a real space vehicle which was the collaboration between several countries and is now the largest man-made object put into space orbiting Earth every 90 minutes at an average height of 400km you would say 'absolute nonsense'.  But if I said the ISS was some sort of projected image or hologram onto your dome you would quite happily go with it simply because the latter is more compatible with what you would prefer to believe. 

 
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Smoke Machine on June 27, 2021, 12:01:11 PM
I don't see any need for any scepticism over the oxygen system in Apollo 17. It all seems very straight forward.
From what I've read, there were no refills. The oxygen was pure and stored at set pressures in canisters and released.
Ahhh, so they simply unscrewed their oxygen tanks and replaced the tanks, then unscrewed their scrubbers and replaced them. Did they also unscrew their water tanks and replace them or did they simply turn on a tap?

Imagine having to do all of that inside a cramped LM where there is only standing room.
All that stored stuff in canisters.
I wonder how many spare batteries they had for each back pack operation?

All straightforward, you say?

12 hours per canister of C02 scrubbing?

Pure oxygen breathing throughout. Hmmmm.





Quote from: Smoke Machine
You forget the astronauts were breathing out carbon dioxide into the air around them, so that the air they were breathing, was never at any time 100% oxygen. Here on earth, the level of oxygen is about 19% in the air around us.
Ok, so carbon dioxide was breathed into the LM air which made the oxygen not 100%.


But now it's pure oxygen with C02 building until scrubbed from the LM.
Hmmmmmm.



Quote from: Smoke Machine
Apollo 17 used two lithium hydroxide canisters in the oxygen system at all times, and were alternatively replaced every 12 hours. The lithium hydroxide absorbed carbon dioxide, the charcoal eliminated odors, and felt trapped particles and debris.
They supposedly had back packs with 8 hours function. How they did that only the story tellers know.


Anyone can make up anything if it can't be tested by the ordinary Joe.

I'm still not seeing any problems whatsoever.

They depressurized the cabin once they were all wearing their space suits, to go outside. They repressurized the cabin once they were back in from their spacewalks, and closed the hatch, which was after they discarded their detached plss units from their backs onto the lunar surface.

They didn't refill or replace anything. They used and stored or used and discarded.

What did they need spare batteries for in their backpacks?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: JackBlack on June 27, 2021, 03:17:49 PM
They depressurized the cabin once they were all wearing their space suits, to go outside. They repressurized the cabin once they were back in from their spacewalks, and closed the hatch, which was after they discarded their detached plss units from their backs onto the lunar surface.

They didn't refill or replace anything. They used and stored or used and discarded.

What did they need spare batteries for in their backpacks?
For refill he is specifically referring to the oxygen tank in the PLSS.
It is my understanding (which could be wrong) that they were refilled from the oxygen tanks in the LM.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: markjo on June 27, 2021, 07:47:18 PM
They depressurized the cabin once they were all wearing their space suits, to go outside. They repressurized the cabin once they were back in from their spacewalks, and closed the hatch, which was after they discarded their detached plss units from their backs onto the lunar surface.

They didn't refill or replace anything. They used and stored or used and discarded.

What did they need spare batteries for in their backpacks?
For refill he is specifically referring to the oxygen tank in the PLSS.
It is my understanding (which could be wrong) that they were refilled from the oxygen tanks in the LM.

Quote from: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/plss.html
Fully charged PLSSs were loaded onto the LM before launch, which saved considerable time before the first EVA. For subsequent EVAs, the crews retrieved fresh batteries and lithium hydroxide canisters during EVA close-out activities for use the next day. Recharging the PLSS was a six-step process. Usually done as part of the EVA prep, a few crews used spare time at the end of their workday to replenish the PLSS consumables. The process took about 30 minutes for each suit, and each crewmember worked on their own equipment. By staggering tasks, the entire process took less than an hour.

First, the battery and the lithium hydroxide canister were exchanged for fresh units. Used batteries and canisters were stored in large bags that were thrown under the descent stage at the beginning of the next day's EVA, or jettisoned out the front hatch after the last EVA of the mission. Next, oxygen cylinders in the PLSSs were charged from the descent stage high-pressure oxygen supply in a two step process. First, a charge that filled the PLSS O2 cylinders to about 90% capacity was performed. After a few minutes (to allow the cylinders to cool), the O2 supply was "topped off" to about 95% to 98%. Finally, a three-step procedure was used to service the water management system. Step 1 was to recharge the cooling water supply. Draining the waste water was the second step, and the third step was to vent out the excess gas from the cooling water system. Bubbles formed by such gas could interfere with the flow of cooling water in the suit.

Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 27, 2021, 09:17:25 PM
Do you have any answers for Apollo 17 and it's numerous refills of oxygen and how it was achieved?

With a length of hose from big tank to little tank probably.

What exactly is so hard to believe about it?
Just like that, eh?
A length of hose from a large tank to a small tank.
Tell me how that works then.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 27, 2021, 09:21:05 PM
Quote
No, I've never seen a space station through a telescope and I don't believe you have, either.
I don't believe you've taken photo's of it and I don't believe you've simulated its orbit.

I do suspect you've followed the accepted line of reasoning for all of the above and just went with it.
You don't even need a telescope to see the ISS. You can see the basic and familiar shape of the ISS through a simple pair of £50 ($70/58EUR) binoculars.  Have you got binoculars to hand?  If not I'm sure you could afford a pair. Great thing about binoculars of course is that they are not just useful for observing the sky but can be used for a wide range of outdoor activities. 

Next use any one of the many websites or apps which are freely available which will tell you when the next pass occurs visible from your location and then aim your binocs at the very bright star (about on par with Venus which makes it magnitude -4 at max for those familiar with the astronomical magnitude system) moving from west to east. A decent pass will take around 10 minutes.  You will see the solar panels and basic shape of the space station quite easily.  No navigation lights of course and the solar panels have a bronze tint to them.

Sometimes the ISS does not make a complete pass but seems to vanish or suddenly 'switch off' part way across the sky.  Why could that possibly be I wonder?!?

Quote
I do suspect you've followed the accepted line of reasoning for all of the above and just went with it.
What...  even when you can see it with your own eyes?

I suspect that if I told you that the ISS was a real space vehicle which was the collaboration between several countries and is now the largest man-made object put into space orbiting Earth every 90 minutes at an average height of 400km you would say 'absolute nonsense'.  But if I said the ISS was some sort of projected image or hologram onto your dome you would quite happily go with it simply because the latter is more compatible with what you would prefer to believe.
You are not looking at any space station, in my honest opinion.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 27, 2021, 09:26:51 PM


I'm still not seeing any problems whatsoever.

They depressurized the cabin once they were all wearing their space suits, to go outside. They repressurized the cabin once they were back in from their spacewalks, and closed the hatch, which was after they discarded their detached plss units from their backs onto the lunar surface.

They didn't refill or replace anything. They used and stored or used and discarded.

What did they need spare batteries for in their backpacks?
Apparently those astronauts were on the moon for 75 hours.
Are you telling me they just took their back packs apart and replaced oxy tanks and water tanks at the ready rather than refill.

Are you telling me the batteries in those back packs just worked and worked and worked and never needed replacing?

And they also managed to double up on each back pack in the space of 2 years in terms of what they supposedly held. Nahhh, no issues for people like yourself.

If you were told those back packs held a decade worth of oxygen and water, etc, you'd find nothing amiss, is my guess.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 27, 2021, 09:40:11 PM
And those tanks inside those backpacks do not look like they would support anyone for more than 30 minutes and I think I'm being over generous..
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: rvlvr on June 27, 2021, 09:57:27 PM
And those tanks inside those backpacks do not look like they would support anyone for more than 30 minutes and I think I'm being over generous..
Yeah. Well, that really is your problem.

Just admit it goes over your head, and that is the reason it is so difficult for you. What you think is not exactly something anyone needs to worry about, as what you think is based on what you know — which is not a lot.

Your opinion is worth nothing as it is based on nothing.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 27, 2021, 10:45:35 PM
And those tanks inside those backpacks do not look like they would support anyone for more than 30 minutes and I think I'm being over generous..
Yeah. Well, that really is your problem.

Just admit it goes over your head, and that is the reason it is so difficult for you. What you think is not exactly something anyone needs to worry about, as what you think is based on what you know — which is not a lot.

Your opinion is worth nothing as it is based on nothing.
I don't think it goes over my head.
The size of those tanks would hardly give anyone more than 30 mins in reality.
Obviously in your space they can run for 4 hours and with a bit of speedy tweaking, 8 hours two years later.

Magical things they are.


I'm still waiting to see how they refill those tanks.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Smoke Machine on June 27, 2021, 10:57:13 PM


I'm still not seeing any problems whatsoever.

They depressurized the cabin once they were all wearing their space suits, to go outside. They repressurized the cabin once they were back in from their spacewalks, and closed the hatch, which was after they discarded their detached plss units from their backs onto the lunar surface.

They didn't refill or replace anything. They used and stored or used and discarded.

What did they need spare batteries for in their backpacks?
Apparently those astronauts were on the moon for 75 hours.
Are you telling me they just took their back packs apart and replaced oxy tanks and water tanks at the ready rather than refill.

Are you telling me the batteries in those back packs just worked and worked and worked and never needed replacing?

And they also managed to double up on each back pack in the space of 2 years in terms of what they supposedly held. Nahhh, no issues for people like yourself.

If you were told those back packs held a decade worth of oxygen and water, etc, you'd find nothing amiss, is my guess.

You're right! No issues for people like myself, whatsoever. Absolutely none.

All they did was increase the oxygen pressure levels in the canisters they took on the Apollo 17 mission, enabling the astronauts to have more oxygen in their personal life support systems, as well as inside the LM. They had extra batteries because they were staying an extra day. The plss packs enabled 7 hours of extravehicular activity, depending on the user's metabolic rate, and the tank was replenished from the LM oxygen supply.

Now, why would they need a decade worth of oxygen and water for a three day stay?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: rvlvr on June 27, 2021, 11:14:46 PM
The size of those tanks would hardly give anyone more than 30 mins in reality.

What do you base that claim on? Ignorance?

"1 liter per day per human for the duration minus what the CO2 scrubbers can put back in plus some as an emergency measure."

Do you even know how much is one litre?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Themightykabool on June 27, 2021, 11:19:46 PM
And those tanks inside those backpacks do not look like they would support anyone for more than 30 minutes and I think I'm being over generous..
Yeah. Well, that really is your problem.

Just admit it goes over your head, and that is the reason it is so difficult for you. What you think is not exactly something anyone needs to worry about, as what you think is based on what you know — which is not a lot.

Your opinion is worth nothing as it is based on nothing.
I don't think it goes over my head.
The size of those tanks would hardly give anyone more than 30 mins in reality.
Obviously in your space they can run for 4 hours and with a bit of speedy tweaking, 8 hours two years later.

Magical things they are.


I'm still waiting to see how they refill those tanks.

Forget them then.
Lets focus on dxpmaining how the conspiracy works.
How do the upper levels manage to create data to send to the duped lower levels?
How do they control the flow of information?

That is clearly more important as to break the hold on humanity and give freedom and knowledge to everyone.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 27, 2021, 11:41:55 PM


All they did was increase the oxygen pressure levels in the canisters they took on the Apollo 17 mission, enabling the astronauts to have more oxygen in their personal life support systems, as well as inside the LM. They had extra batteries because they were staying an extra day. The plss packs enabled 7 hours of extravehicular activity, depending on the user's metabolic rate, and the tank was replenished from the LM oxygen supply.


Of course they did.
They just doubled the pressure, no problem.
They just flung in a few extra batteries. No problem.

 Minus 250 in the shade and plus 250 in sunlight.

No issue for water or oxygen or batteries.

All magically fantastic and works every time no matter what.

You're welcome to your fantasy.

Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: rvlvr on June 27, 2021, 11:54:39 PM
“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
-Arthur C. Clarke

Fits you quite well.

You still haven't been able to show any concrete problems. Everything is just based on what you do not know, or can't understand.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 28, 2021, 12:30:29 AM
“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
-Arthur C. Clarke

Fits you quite well.

You still haven't been able to show any concrete problems. Everything is just based on what you do not know, or can't understand.
It fits the space shenanigans quite well by having a sci-fi writer basically start telling the truth in a roundabout way after the very same sci-fi writer invented satellites out of his aris which became the very thing he stated.

It's indistinguishable from magic because it's advanced sci-fi magical thoughts, nothing more than that.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: rvlvr on June 28, 2021, 12:40:44 AM
Present the problems with something more than your spurious musings.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Smoke Machine on June 28, 2021, 12:41:25 AM


All they did was increase the oxygen pressure levels in the canisters they took on the Apollo 17 mission, enabling the astronauts to have more oxygen in their personal life support systems, as well as inside the LM. They had extra batteries because they were staying an extra day. The plss packs enabled 7 hours of extravehicular activity, depending on the user's metabolic rate, and the tank was replenished from the LM oxygen supply.


Of course they did.
They just doubled the pressure, no problem.
They just flung in a few extra batteries. No problem.

 Minus 250 in the shade and plus 250 in sunlight.

No issue for water or oxygen or batteries.

All magically fantastic and works every time no matter what.

You're welcome to your fantasy.

No magic or fantasy from me. The plss units only had to work for three days and each personal life support system had an emergency back-up system. Would it help your understanding if I uploaded a colour photo of the insides of one of the packs, and a few diagrams?

Now for your concerns about minus 250 in the shade and plus 250 in the sunlight - those are moon temperature extremes.  For starters, the spacesuits they wore, as well as the LM, were all insulated.

But more importantly, all missions to the moon landed at their chosen moon areas at lunar dawn. This means those areas weren't at their absolute coldest, and hadn't heated up to the maximum temperatures. You have to remember that a full lunar day is 29.5 Earth days long, or 708 hours long.

So, you wouldn't really want to spend longer than 3 days or 72 hours, on the moon surface in lunar dawn, for that reason. It would start getting uncomfortably hot.

The mission for Apollo 17 was for a three day visit, so, everything still checks out. Any other issues you need ironing out?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 28, 2021, 12:41:49 AM
Present the problems with something more than your spurious musings.
Already have.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 28, 2021, 12:52:38 AM
No magic or fantasy from me. The plss units only had to work for three days and each personal life support system had an emergency back-up system. Would it help your understanding if I uploaded a colour photo of the insides of one of the packs, and a few diagrams?

Yeah, let's see them in their naked glory.
 
Quote from: Smoke Machine
Now for your concerns about minus 250 in the shade and plus 250 in the sunlight - those are the extremes.  For starters, the spacesuits they wore, as well as the LM, were all insulated.
Insulated?
What good is insulation in a vacuum, as we're told space is?



Quote from: Smoke Machine
But more importantly, all missions to the moon landed at their chosen moon areas at lunar dawn. This means those areas weren't at their absolute coldest, and hadn't heated up to the maximum temperatures. You have to remember that a full lunar day is 29.5 Earth days long, or 708 hours long.
Any idea what the average temperature supposedly was for those so called astronauts?



Quote from: Smoke Machine
So, you wouldn't really want to spend longer than 3 days or 72 hours, on the moon surface in lunar dawn, for that reason. It would start getting uncomfortably hot.
I'm talking about the shade as well as the sun.
I'm not interested in a supposed moon day against Earth's.


 
Quote from: Smoke Machine
The mission for Apollo 17 was for a three day visit, so, everything still checks out. Any other issues you need ironing out?
Nothing checks out. It is ridiculous.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: rvlvr on June 28, 2021, 12:55:42 AM
Present the problems with something more than your spurious musings.
Already have.

And those tanks inside those backpacks do not look like they would support anyone for more than 30 minutes and I think I'm being over generous..
Yes. You think. Mighty fine way to present a problem.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Unconvinced on June 28, 2021, 12:58:32 AM
Do you have any answers for Apollo 17 and it's numerous refills of oxygen and how it was achieved?

With a length of hose from big tank to little tank probably.

What exactly is so hard to believe about it?
Just like that, eh?
A length of hose from a large tank to a small tank.
Tell me how that works then.

It’s flexible tubing that allow fluids to go from one place to another.  Have you heard of garden hose?

I understand that to someone who has no idea how anything in the world works, such advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Solarwind on June 28, 2021, 01:19:51 AM
Quote
You are not looking at any space station, in my honest opinion.
Of course you would say that because the very existence of the ISS is incompatible with what you would like to believe. 

But you can see what I recognise as the ISS pass over where ever you live just as easily as I can.  If you have a pair of binoculars just aim them at that bright star in the sky as it moves across the sky and you will see exactly what I do.  Obviously you can accept that it is the ISS or not as you wish.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 28, 2021, 02:09:10 AM

Yes. You think. Mighty fine way to present a problem.
Yep, I do think. And yep, I do question. And yep, I don't believe any of it until I see some facts.

You do not possess them and neither does those who are arguing them.


What you do possess is the ability to go and find stuff related to the argument, which is fine and can be used to argue a point but it does not hand you a fact unless you absolutely know it to be a afct, which you do not.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 28, 2021, 02:11:23 AM
Do you have any answers for Apollo 17 and it's numerous refills of oxygen and how it was achieved?

With a length of hose from big tank to little tank probably.

What exactly is so hard to believe about it?
Just like that, eh?
A length of hose from a large tank to a small tank.
Tell me how that works then.

It’s flexible tubing that allow fluids to go from one place to another.  Have you heard of garden hose?

I understand that to someone who has no idea how anything in the world works, such advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Ok a flexible hose in a vacuum going from one tank to another. Is this what you're saying? Like a garden hose...right?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 28, 2021, 02:13:21 AM
Quote
You are not looking at any space station, in my honest opinion.
Of course you would say that because the very existence of the ISS is incompatible with what you would like to believe. 

But you can see what I recognise as the ISS pass over where ever you live just as easily as I can.  If you have a pair of binoculars just aim them at that bright star in the sky as it moves across the sky and you will see exactly what I do.  Obviously you can accept that it is the ISS or not as you wish.
There's something moving up there but it's not in space and it is not a shape other than a blob of light.

Rather than argue it I'll just say to you, whatever it is, it's not in space and it is not manned.

You cannot prove anything to the contrary.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Themightykabool on June 28, 2021, 02:46:33 AM
You guys are asking all the wrong questions.
Consider the nasa duping is real.
Now sceppy must justify its conspircacy.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Unconvinced on June 28, 2021, 02:53:33 AM
Do you have any answers for Apollo 17 and it's numerous refills of oxygen and how it was achieved?

With a length of hose from big tank to little tank probably.

What exactly is so hard to believe about it?
Just like that, eh?
A length of hose from a large tank to a small tank.
Tell me how that works then.

It’s flexible tubing that allow fluids to go from one place to another.  Have you heard of garden hose?

I understand that to someone who has no idea how anything in the world works, such advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Ok a flexible hose in a vacuum going from one tank to another. Is this what you're saying? Like a garden hose...right?

Sci-fi magic space technology.  You wouldn’t understand.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: JackBlack on June 28, 2021, 03:26:28 AM
A length of hose from a large tank to a small tank.
Tell me how that works then.
It is quite simple physics, which anyone with a basic understanding of how gasses work would understand.
Again, stop asking dumb questions and start trying to show an issue.

If you were told those back packs held a decade worth of oxygen and water, etc, you'd find nothing amiss, is my guess.
You mean is your blatant misrepresentation because you can't actually show any fault.

And those tanks inside those backpacks do not look like they would support anyone for more than 30 minutes and I think I'm being over generous..
For you they would "look like" they wouldn't support anyone for any extent of time. Because you want it to all be fake.
For rational people, they would want more than just your pathetic ridicule.
Can you provide any math to show they couldn't support people for more than 30 minutes?
Or do you only have pathetic ridicule?

The size of those tanks would hardly give anyone more than 30 mins in reality.
Is that a claimed statement of fact, or just your baseless opinion?

If you want to claim it as a fact, you need to prove it.
Do you have anything at all to justify your claim? Or again, is it just pathetic ridicule?

I'm still waiting to see how they refill those tanks.
Showing yet again that you don't give a damn about the answers that are provided.
Or did you miss this:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=88640.msg2324437#msg2324437

Meanwhile, we are still waiting for you to even attempt to show a problem with the lunar landings.

No issue
That's right, no issue.
If you think there is one, clearly prove it. So far all you have done is appealed to your own fantasy of reality being fantasy.
But you not liking reality and wanting to replace it with a fantasy doesn't magically make it fantasy.

Present the problems with something more than your spurious musings.
Already have.
Only dumb questions which don't help you at all.
You are yet to present anything even resembling an argument to show a problem.
Instead you just continually assert it is fantasy with no justification at all.

Yes. You think. Mighty fine way to present a problem.
Yep, I do think. And yep, I do question. And yep, I don't believe any of it until I see some facts.
But you do, you believe/think that they wont support anyone for more than 30 minutes, even though you have no facts at all to support that baseless garbage of yours.
You quite happily believe all sorts of pure BS, without any facts at all to back it up.
Meanwhile you outright reject facts which show you are wrong.

Again, the problem with your statement is that you THINK, you don't know and you don't have anything to support that baseless thought of yours.

Rather than argue it I'll just say to you, whatever it is, it's not in space and it is not manned.
You cannot prove anything to the contrary.
The distinction is evidence. There is plenty of evidence supporting the fact that the ISS exists and is a manned spacecraft in LEO.
Conversely you have NOTHING to support your baseless garbage.

If you want to assert it is fake, when people take pictures of it and so much other evidence, you need more than just your baseless assertion.

Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: rvlvr on June 28, 2021, 03:36:06 AM
Sceptimatic, why do you think the tank can't hold more than 30 minutes worth of oxygen?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 28, 2021, 04:21:05 AM


Sci-fi magic space technology.  You wouldn’t understand.
It's like a nightmare, isn't it? It just keeps getting worse and worse.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 28, 2021, 04:22:57 AM
Sceptimatic, why do you think the tank can't hold more than 30 minutes worth of oxygen?
The size of it.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Solarwind on June 28, 2021, 04:26:17 AM
Quote
There's something moving up there but it's not in space and it is not a shape other than a blob of light.

Rather than argue it I'll just say to you, whatever it is, it's not in space and it is not manned.

You cannot prove anything to the contrary.
So you obviously haven't looked at the ISS through binoculars then?  Because then you could see for yourself that it is more than just the blob of light you think it is. 

I don't need to argue anything because I've seen it for myself.  You could as well if you could be bothered.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Smoke Machine on June 28, 2021, 04:30:51 AM
Quote
You are not looking at any space station, in my honest opinion.
Of course you would say that because the very existence of the ISS is incompatible with what you would like to believe. 

But you can see what I recognise as the ISS pass over where ever you live just as easily as I can.  If you have a pair of binoculars just aim them at that bright star in the sky as it moves across the sky and you will see exactly what I do.  Obviously you can accept that it is the ISS or not as you wish.
There's something moving up there but it's not in space and it is not a shape other than a blob of light.

Rather than argue it I'll just say to you, whatever it is, it's not in space and it is not manned.

You cannot prove anything to the contrary.

A friend of mine who is an amateur astronomer, recently showed me some great photos he'd taken using his telescope, from his backyard. He showed me a photo he'd taken of Saturn clearly showing the rings of Saturn. He then showed me a photo he'd taken of moon craters on the moon, which were incredibly detailed. Another guy I know, who is a professional astronomer, showed me photos he'd taken of the planet Jupiter through his telescope.

Have you ever owned a telescope, sceptimatic, that you pointed at the night sky and not just your neighbour's bedroom window?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Unconvinced on June 28, 2021, 04:32:21 AM


Sci-fi magic space technology.  You wouldn’t understand.
It's like a nightmare, isn't it? It just keeps getting worse and worse.

Don’t even get me started on people who believe in other sci-fi nonsense like valves and regulators.  Clearly all fake.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 28, 2021, 04:33:19 AM
Quote
There's something moving up there but it's not in space and it is not a shape other than a blob of light.

Rather than argue it I'll just say to you, whatever it is, it's not in space and it is not manned.

You cannot prove anything to the contrary.
So you obviously haven't looked at the ISS through binoculars then?  Because then you could see for yourself that it is more than just the blob of light you think it is. 

I don't need to argue anything because I've seen it for myself.  You could as well if you could be bothered.
Good, leave it at that because I absolutely do not believe you.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 28, 2021, 04:34:50 AM


Have you ever owned a telescope, sceptimatic
Yes.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 28, 2021, 04:35:42 AM


Sci-fi magic space technology.  You wouldn’t understand.
It's like a nightmare, isn't it? It just keeps getting worse and worse.

Don’t even get me started on people who believe in other sci-fi nonsense like valves and regulators.  Clearly all fake.
In so called space, yes they are.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Solarwind on June 28, 2021, 04:50:03 AM
Ok so you absolutely don't believe you can see the outline of the ISS through a simple pair of binoculars.

Try it for yourself and you will find that you can. It's not a case of believing. It's a fact. I've seen it dozens of times myself through my own binoculars (15x70s) and so could you if you own a pair.

And of course if you could be bothered to try but you won't will you because your own binoculars would show you you are wrong. So you'd rather just plead ignorant instead and carry on with your beliefs regardless instead of facing reality.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Mikey T. on June 28, 2021, 04:55:37 AM


All they did was increase the oxygen pressure levels in the canisters they took on the Apollo 17 mission, enabling the astronauts to have more oxygen in their personal life support systems, as well as inside the LM. They had extra batteries because they were staying an extra day. The plss packs enabled 7 hours of extravehicular activity, depending on the user's metabolic rate, and the tank was replenished from the LM oxygen supply.


Of course they did.
They just doubled the pressure, no problem.
They just flung in a few extra batteries. No problem.

 Minus 250 in the shade and plus 250 in sunlight.

No issue for water or oxygen or batteries.

All magically fantastic and works every time no matter what.

You're welcome to your fantasy.
Yes, they increased the pressure, meaning they had more gaseous oxygen in the same volume.  Volume is something you intentionally lie about. 
Yes they took more batteries.  Planning ahead to increase useful EVA time is not a difficult concept to grasp. 
I explained before how a vacuum is excellent insulation.  Your incredulity over the big temperature numbers means nothing.
Why is there an issue for water if they planned ahead? 

Why do you think there is only 30 minutes of oxygen in the tanks?  Just your gut feeling about it I guess.  Incredulity is not evidence. 

I'll live in the real world, you can call it fantasy all you like.  The more you blatantly put your indoctrination on display, have nothing to base your outlandish claims on, and keep claiming everything you don't understand is fantasy, the more naive people get turned away from FE before they get brainwashed.  Please continue being this transparently indoctrinated. 
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Mikey T. on June 28, 2021, 04:59:42 AM
Quote
There's something moving up there but it's not in space and it is not a shape other than a blob of light.

Rather than argue it I'll just say to you, whatever it is, it's not in space and it is not manned.

You cannot prove anything to the contrary.
So you obviously haven't looked at the ISS through binoculars then?  Because then you could see for yourself that it is more than just the blob of light you think it is. 

I don't need to argue anything because I've seen it for myself.  You could as well if you could be bothered.
Good, leave it at that because I absolutely do not believe you.
Again, no one cares if you believe, we want to highlight the mental damage caused by conspiratorial indoctrination to warn others off.  You are a great exhibition.  Please continue.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 28, 2021, 05:20:25 AM


All they did was increase the oxygen pressure levels in the canisters they took on the Apollo 17 mission, enabling the astronauts to have more oxygen in their personal life support systems, as well as inside the LM. They had extra batteries because they were staying an extra day. The plss packs enabled 7 hours of extravehicular activity, depending on the user's metabolic rate, and the tank was replenished from the LM oxygen supply.


Of course they did.
They just doubled the pressure, no problem.
They just flung in a few extra batteries. No problem.

 Minus 250 in the shade and plus 250 in sunlight.

No issue for water or oxygen or batteries.

All magically fantastic and works every time no matter what.

You're welcome to your fantasy.
Yes, they increased the pressure, meaning they had more gaseous oxygen in the same volume.  Volume is something you intentionally lie about. 
Yes they took more batteries.  Planning ahead to increase useful EVA time is not a difficult concept to grasp. 
I explained before how a vacuum is excellent insulation.  Your incredulity over the big temperature numbers means nothing.
Why is there an issue for water if they planned ahead? 

Why do you think there is only 30 minutes of oxygen in the tanks?  Just your gut feeling about it I guess.  Incredulity is not evidence. 

I'll live in the real world, you can call it fantasy all you like.  The more you blatantly put your indoctrination on display, have nothing to base your outlandish claims on, and keep claiming everything you don't understand is fantasy, the more naive people get turned away from FE before they get brainwashed.  Please continue being this transparently indoctrinated.
A vacuum is excellent insulation against, what?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 28, 2021, 05:21:15 AM

Again, no one cares if you believe, we want to highlight the mental damage caused by conspiratorial indoctrination to warn others off.  You are a great exhibition.  Please continue.
I fully intend to.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Themightykabool on June 28, 2021, 05:48:54 AM


Sci-fi magic space technology.  You wouldn’t understand.
It's like a nightmare, isn't it? It just keeps getting worse and worse.

Whos i  charge of putti g the narative together?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: rvlvr on June 28, 2021, 05:52:24 AM
Sceptimatic, why do you think the tank can't hold more than 30 minutes worth of oxygen?
The size of it.
Okay! So, how much oxygen do you think it holds, and how much bigger would it need to be? And again: why do you think it is too small, what do you compare it to?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Mikey T. on June 28, 2021, 07:11:36 AM


All they did was increase the oxygen pressure levels in the canisters they took on the Apollo 17 mission, enabling the astronauts to have more oxygen in their personal life support systems, as well as inside the LM. They had extra batteries because they were staying an extra day. The plss packs enabled 7 hours of extravehicular activity, depending on the user's metabolic rate, and the tank was replenished from the LM oxygen supply.


Of course they did.
They just doubled the pressure, no problem.
They just flung in a few extra batteries. No problem.

 Minus 250 in the shade and plus 250 in sunlight.

No issue for water or oxygen or batteries.

All magically fantastic and works every time no matter what.

You're welcome to your fantasy.
Yes, they increased the pressure, meaning they had more gaseous oxygen in the same volume.  Volume is something you intentionally lie about. 
Yes they took more batteries.  Planning ahead to increase useful EVA time is not a difficult concept to grasp. 
I explained before how a vacuum is excellent insulation.  Your incredulity over the big temperature numbers means nothing.
Why is there an issue for water if they planned ahead? 

Why do you think there is only 30 minutes of oxygen in the tanks?  Just your gut feeling about it I guess.  Incredulity is not evidence. 

I'll live in the real world, you can call it fantasy all you like.  The more you blatantly put your indoctrination on display, have nothing to base your outlandish claims on, and keep claiming everything you don't understand is fantasy, the more naive people get turned away from FE before they get brainwashed.  Please continue being this transparently indoctrinated.
A vacuum is excellent insulation against, what?
Thermal transfer, sound, friction, compression waves, etc.  An... insulator.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Mikey T. on June 28, 2021, 07:17:20 AM
Sceptimatic, why do you think the tank can't hold more than 30 minutes worth of oxygen?
The size of it.
Why?  How much oxygen is crammed into that volume?  What psi is in the tank?  How much compressed psi when transferred through a regulator to breathing level psi would it take?  Do you understand how pressurized gas works?  Or are you just going to be incredulous?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: NotSoSkeptical on June 28, 2021, 08:54:49 AM

Yes. You think. Mighty fine way to present a problem.
Yep, I do think. And yep, I do question. And yep, I don't believe any of it until I see some facts.

You do not possess them and neither does those who are arguing them.


What you do possess is the ability to go and find stuff related to the argument, which is fine and can be used to argue a point but it does not hand you a fact unless you absolutely know it to be a afct, which you do not.

And who possesses these facts?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 28, 2021, 09:07:12 AM
Sceptimatic, why do you think the tank can't hold more than 30 minutes worth of oxygen?
The size of it.
Okay! So, how much oxygen do you think it holds, and how much bigger would it need to be? And again: why do you think it is too small, what do you compare it to?
Not 4 hours worth and certainly not 8.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: rvlvr on June 28, 2021, 09:15:55 AM
Based on what?

You just say things without any justification. You can't defend your position in any way.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Mikey T. on June 28, 2021, 09:25:56 AM
Sceptimatic, why do you think the tank can't hold more than 30 minutes worth of oxygen?
The size of it.
Okay! So, how much oxygen do you think it holds, and how much bigger would it need to be? And again: why do you think it is too small, what do you compare it to?
Not 4 hours worth and certainly not 8.
You specifically claimed 30 minutes before.  So is it 30 minutes, nearly 4 hours, what and why.  Do you have anything other than nuh uhh.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Unconvinced on June 28, 2021, 09:27:14 AM
Do you understand how pressurized gas works? 

You’re asking the person who claims gas pressure causes things to have weight.  So obviously not.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: NotSoSkeptical on June 28, 2021, 09:29:55 AM
Do you understand how pressurized gas works? 

You’re asking the person who claims gas pressure causes things to have weight.  So obviously not.

If scepti were a truck driver, he would flatten his tires before goings on to the scales so as to significantly reduce the weight of his load.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 28, 2021, 09:30:57 AM
Based on what?

You just say things without any justification. You can't defend your position in any way.
Pretty easy to defend when you look from a realistic point of view, like on Earth.

But this is so called space and it's all different...right?
Pfffffftttt.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Mikey T. on June 28, 2021, 09:32:15 AM
Based on what?

You just say things without any justification. You can't defend your position in any way.
Pretty easy to defend when you look from a realistic point of view, like on Earth.

But this is so called space and it's all different...right?
Pfffffftttt.
How is it different when talking about volume? 
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 28, 2021, 09:33:08 AM
Do you understand how pressurized gas works? 

You’re asking the person who claims gas pressure causes things to have weight.  So obviously not.

If scepti were a truck driver, he would flatten his tires before goings on to the scales so as to significantly reduce the weight of his load.
Totally way out with your thought.
This is why I know you people have no clue about my process...but I won't argue that on here.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 28, 2021, 09:34:57 AM
Based on what?

You just say things without any justification. You can't defend your position in any way.
Pretty easy to defend when you look from a realistic point of view, like on Earth.

But this is so called space and it's all different...right?
Pfffffftttt.
How is it different when talking about volume?
You'll only get so much liquid oxy litreage in those small tanks, no matter how much you try to dress it up.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: rvlvr on June 28, 2021, 09:37:23 AM
Based on what?

You just say things without any justification. You can't defend your position in any way.
Pretty easy to defend when you look from a realistic point of view, like on Earth.

But this is so called space and it's all different...right?
Pfffffftttt.
All this means only that you have exactly nothing to base your claim on.

Can't you see how pathetic that is? Are you really that oblivious? Why would anyone believe you when you cannot even say how you've come to the conclusion?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Mikey T. on June 28, 2021, 09:38:17 AM
Do you understand how pressurized gas works? 

You’re asking the person who claims gas pressure causes things to have weight.  So obviously not.

If scepti were a truck driver, he would flatten his tires before goings on to the scales so as to significantly reduce the weight of his load.
Totally way out with your thought.
This is why I know you people have no clue about my process...but I won't argue that on here.
Process?  You have no process.  You have basic nuh uhh responses, a bit more imagination than the average FE since you do espouse a slightly different model than most but you never justify any claims.  Never do anything but argue from a position of nothing.  No justification for baseless claims, nothing but BS.  But I like it. 
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Mikey T. on June 28, 2021, 09:39:44 AM
Based on what?

You just say things without any justification. You can't defend your position in any way.
Pretty easy to defend when you look from a realistic point of view, like on Earth.

But this is so called space and it's all different...right?
Pfffffftttt.
How is it different when talking about volume?
You'll only get so much liquid oxy litreage in those small tanks, no matter how much you try to dress it up.
If it is liquid oxygen, then 1 liter boiled off to a 5 psi gas is more than enough for 1 human for 1 24 hour period.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 28, 2021, 09:41:32 AM
Based on what?

You just say things without any justification. You can't defend your position in any way.
Pretty easy to defend when you look from a realistic point of view, like on Earth.

But this is so called space and it's all different...right?
Pfffffftttt.
All this means only that you have exactly nothing to base your claim on.

Can't you see how pathetic that is? Are you really that oblivious? Why would anyone believe you when you cannot even say how you've come to the conclusion?
You have absolutely nothing to base against what I'm saying, other than adherence to magical space oddities.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 28, 2021, 09:42:09 AM
Based on what?

You just say things without any justification. You can't defend your position in any way.
Pretty easy to defend when you look from a realistic point of view, like on Earth.

But this is so called space and it's all different...right?
Pfffffftttt.
How is it different when talking about volume?
You'll only get so much liquid oxy litreage in those small tanks, no matter how much you try to dress it up.
If it is liquid oxygen, then 1 liter boiled off to a 5 psi gas is more than enough for 1 human for 1 24 hour period.
Not a chance.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 28, 2021, 09:44:12 AM
Your problem is, you're thinking an oxy tube up the nostrils accompanied by natural 14.5 psi of  external air gives you 24 hours.
We aren't talking about that, are we?
We're talking about these so called astronauts breathing only that in their suits.

Try again.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: rvlvr on June 28, 2021, 10:07:45 AM
*We need a new login system for this game."
"It can't be done."
"What do you mean? It takes too much time, we haven't got the people?"
"It can't be done"
"..."

"We managed, I have it here. Want to see?"
"No it's not. It can't be done."
"It is here, it is live."
"No it's not."
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Mikey T. on June 28, 2021, 10:12:07 AM
Based on what?

You just say things without any justification. You can't defend your position in any way.
Pretty easy to defend when you look from a realistic point of view, like on Earth.

But this is so called space and it's all different...right?
Pfffffftttt.
How is it different when talking about volume?
You'll only get so much liquid oxy litreage in those small tanks, no matter how much you try to dress it up.
If it is liquid oxygen, then 1 liter boiled off to a 5 psi gas is more than enough for 1 human for 1 24 hour period.
Not a chance.
Why not, explain. 
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Smoke Machine on June 28, 2021, 10:13:32 AM
Sceptimatic, why do you think the tank can't hold more than 30 minutes worth of oxygen?
The size of it.
Okay! So, how much oxygen do you think it holds, and how much bigger would it need to be? And again: why do you think it is too small, what do you compare it to?
Not 4 hours worth and certainly not 8.

I don't understand why you stated not 4 hours and certainly not 8 hours worth of oxygen? The plss units are much larger than an air tank worn by a scuba diver that can last an hour. But we aren't talking about a compressed air tank, we are talking about compressed oxygen tanks. Big difference. A diver is constantly expelling carbon dioxide into the water, whereas the astronauts are constantly expelling carbon dioxide into their suits.

So, when you used a telescope to look up at the night sky, let me guess, you only chose to look at Uranus?  :D
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Mikey T. on June 28, 2021, 10:15:04 AM
Your problem is, you're thinking an oxy tube up the nostrils accompanied by natural 14.5 psi of  external air gives you 24 hours.
We aren't talking about that, are we?
We're talking about these so called astronauts breathing only that in their suits.

Try again.
No I am not.  I am talking about what 1 liter of liquid oxygen will boil off to in relation to how much a human needs to survive.  That gaseous volume at 5 psi is enough for 1 human to survive on for at least 24 hours.  Nothing to do with an oxygen tube.  Where did I ever claim that?
Both my Mother in law and Father had COPD and I did help with their oxygen.  They used way less oxygen directly from a tank than 1 liter per day, they don't normally use LOX anyway. 
And we aren't even talking about CO2 scrubbers in the suit extending that time yet. 
So why is it not enough?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Themightykabool on June 28, 2021, 10:23:35 AM
sceppy isn't going to explain the conspiracy?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Mikey T. on June 28, 2021, 10:24:59 AM
Not asking him about the conspiracy, or circles, or tube vision in this thread.  I just want some justification for the baseless claims.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Themightykabool on June 28, 2021, 10:57:21 AM
all your long winded answers are waved away as startrek.
his reason is that it's a conspiracy.
so now he has to explain the conspiracy.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: markjo on June 28, 2021, 12:10:08 PM
Based on what?

You just say things without any justification. You can't defend your position in any way.
Pretty easy to defend when you look from a realistic point of view, like on Earth.

But this is so called space and it's all different...right?
Pfffffftttt.
Yes, things can be quite different when you only need 1/3 normal atmospheric pressure.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: JackBlack on June 28, 2021, 02:45:20 PM
Sceptimatic, why do you think the tank can't hold more than 30 minutes worth of oxygen?
The size of it.
Not enough.
Do the math. Show it should only support people for 30 minutes.
Because so far all you have is your pathetic claim to go against reality.
If they said it would only hold 30 minutes of oxygen you would likely object and claim it only held 5 minutes, because you make up whatever BS you can to pretend it doesn't work, to pretend there is a problem, because you can't actually show any problem.

Now, can you clearly explain why it should only work for 30 minutes, or can you just continue to ridicule?

Pretty easy to defend when you look from a realistic point of view, like on Earth.
It is pretty easy to defend against your nonsense.
Again, you never make any actual arguments to support your BS.
All you do is spout a bunch of baseless claims. It is trivial to defend against those baseless claims, by merely pointing they are baseless.

Conversely you basically never defend your BS; because you can't.

If it was actually easy to defend you would have started to defend it already.

You'll only get so much liquid oxy litreage in those small tanks, no matter how much you try to dress it up.
So prove you only get 30 minutes worth.

Otherwise, how do we know this little amount wont be 30 days worth?

Again, if you want to assert such utter BS you need more than just your baseless allegation.
Prove it would only last 30 minutes, otherwise you are just blatantly lying to everyone to try to dismiss reality.

That involves actual math.
That involves showing what is the maximum amount of oxygen that could be stored in the tank, and then by using that and how much people need per unit time, how long it could last for.
And when doing that you need to account for the compression into the tank and decompression when it leaves the tank.

But we both know you have no interest in actually doing that, because if you did, you would show quite clearly that you were wrong, and that it would last more than 30 minutes.
So instead you just continually the same pathetic claims, with no justification or defense at all.

So perhaps time for some simple questions for you:
How much oxygen could that tank hold? Not as a time based unit, but either as pressure and volume, or mass (and show all working).
How much oxygen does a human need every hour?

If you can't answer those trivial question, you have no basis for your outright lie that the tank would only last 30 minutes.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 28, 2021, 09:33:47 PM


All they did was increase the oxygen pressure levels in the canisters they took on the Apollo 17 mission, enabling the astronauts to have more oxygen in their personal life support systems, as well as inside the LM. They had extra batteries because they were staying an extra day. The plss packs enabled 7 hours of extravehicular activity, depending on the user's metabolic rate, and the tank was replenished from the LM oxygen supply.


Of course they did.
They just doubled the pressure, no problem.
They just flung in a few extra batteries. No problem.

 Minus 250 in the shade and plus 250 in sunlight.

No issue for water or oxygen or batteries.

All magically fantastic and works every time no matter what.

You're welcome to your fantasy.
Yes, they increased the pressure, meaning they had more gaseous oxygen in the same volume.  Volume is something you intentionally lie about. 
Yes they took more batteries.  Planning ahead to increase useful EVA time is not a difficult concept to grasp. 
I explained before how a vacuum is excellent insulation.  Your incredulity over the big temperature numbers means nothing.
Why is there an issue for water if they planned ahead? 

Why do you think there is only 30 minutes of oxygen in the tanks?  Just your gut feeling about it I guess.  Incredulity is not evidence. 

I'll live in the real world, you can call it fantasy all you like.  The more you blatantly put your indoctrination on display, have nothing to base your outlandish claims on, and keep claiming everything you don't understand is fantasy, the more naive people get turned away from FE before they get brainwashed.  Please continue being this transparently indoctrinated.
A vacuum is excellent insulation against, what?
Thermal transfer, sound, friction, compression waves, etc.  An... insulator.
So tell me how the batteries withstand the 250 degree cold in the shade, as we're told.

Insulation was mentioned....but what does insulation do in a vacuum of your space? And what is the insulation?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: rvlvr on June 28, 2021, 10:01:56 PM
So you have nothing on even the oxygen tanks.

Just inane question after inane question, moving to another topic when you are shown to be completely incapable of providing any evidence that’d actually give you a reason to spout the stuff you do.

”I am of the opinion X due to Y.”

You happily omit the ”due to” part. In your world that is not required.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 28, 2021, 10:42:11 PM
So you have nothing on even the oxygen tanks.

Just inane question after inane question, moving to another topic when you are shown to be completely incapable of providing any evidence that’d actually give you a reason to spout the stuff you do.

”I am of the opinion X due to Y.”

You happily omit the ”due to” part. In your world that is not required.
You are not obliged to respond to me. You are not obliged to offer any found info. You are free to go and do your own thing.

Don't mind me, just ignore me.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 28, 2021, 10:48:29 PM
Sceptimatic, why do you think the tank can't hold more than 30 minutes worth of oxygen?
The size of it.
Okay! So, how much oxygen do you think it holds, and how much bigger would it need to be? And again: why do you think it is too small, what do you compare it to?
Not 4 hours worth and certainly not 8.

I don't understand why you stated not 4 hours and certainly not 8 hours worth of oxygen? The plss units are much larger than an air tank worn by a scuba diver that can last an hour. But we aren't talking about a compressed air tank, we are talking about compressed oxygen tanks. Big difference. A diver is constantly expelling carbon dioxide into the water, whereas the astronauts are constantly expelling carbon dioxide into their suits.


PLSS units might be larger but the PLSS units are a big back pack incorporating a small tank, as shown.
They would not hold enough oxygen for 4 hours never mind 8 and also the so called astronauts would be dead with breathing pure oxygen for the amount of time we're told.

It's all nonsense and it's pretty plain to see from my side.
Naturally you believe the fantasy so it's all hunky dory for people like yourself who obviously enjoy sci-fi as reality.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 28, 2021, 10:51:16 PM
Your problem is, you're thinking an oxy tube up the nostrils accompanied by natural 14.5 psi of  external air gives you 24 hours.
We aren't talking about that, are we?
We're talking about these so called astronauts breathing only that in their suits.

Try again.
No I am not.  I am talking about what 1 liter of liquid oxygen will boil off to in relation to how much a human needs to survive.  That gaseous volume at 5 psi is enough for 1 human to survive on for at least 24 hours.  Nothing to do with an oxygen tube.  Where did I ever claim that?
Both my Mother in law and Father had COPD and I did help with their oxygen.  They used way less oxygen directly from a tank than 1 liter per day, they don't normally use LOX anyway. 
And we aren't even talking about CO2 scrubbers in the suit extending that time yet. 
So why is it not enough?
First of all nobody is surviving to do any tasks for any length of time under 5 psi and certainly not under 5 psi of pure oxygen.

Getting in and out of suits and repressurising a LM with pure oxygen is nonsense.

There's so much wrong with the reality but nothing wrong with the sci-fi of it all.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 28, 2021, 10:53:03 PM
Based on what?

You just say things without any justification. You can't defend your position in any way.
Pretty easy to defend when you look from a realistic point of view, like on Earth.

But this is so called space and it's all different...right?
Pfffffftttt.
Yes, things can be quite different when you only need 1/3 normal atmospheric pressure.
You're getting nowhere under 1/3 or atmospheric pressure. You're in serious trouble.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 28, 2021, 10:56:57 PM

How much oxygen could that tank hold? Not as a time based unit, but either as pressure and volume, or mass (and show all working).
How much oxygen does a human need every hour?


I'd guess that tank, if it were a real tank would hold about 8 litres, judging by the small size of it.
As for oxygen. Maybe 3000 litres an hour...maybe.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Smoke Machine on June 28, 2021, 11:45:26 PM
Sceptimatic, why do you think the tank can't hold more than 30 minutes worth of oxygen?
The size of it.
Okay! So, how much oxygen do you think it holds, and how much bigger would it need to be? And again: why do you think it is too small, what do you compare it to?
Not 4 hours worth and certainly not 8.

I don't understand why you stated not 4 hours and certainly not 8 hours worth of oxygen? The plss units are much larger than an air tank worn by a scuba diver that can last an hour. But we aren't talking about a compressed air tank, we are talking about compressed oxygen tanks. Big difference. A diver is constantly expelling carbon dioxide into the water, whereas the astronauts are constantly expelling carbon dioxide into their suits.


PLSS units might be larger but the PLSS units are a big back pack incorporating a small tank, as shown.
They would not hold enough oxygen for 4 hours never mind 8 and also the so called astronauts would be dead with breathing pure oxygen for the amount of time we're told.

It's all nonsense and it's pretty plain to see from my side.
Naturally you believe the fantasy so it's all hunky dory for people like yourself who obviously enjoy sci-fi as reality.

I thought we had covered this ground and moved on? Everybody knows breathing pure oxygen is a killer, and that's not what the astronauts were doing.

The oxygen was slowly mixing with carbon dioxide, nitrogen, oxygen, and other compounds in the respective air of the LM and the plss. Remember, us humans breathe out in our breath 78% nitrogen, 16% oxygen, 4% carbon dioxide, and 0.09% argon. When we breathe in, we absorb around 4% of the oxygen in the air, of a single inward breath.

The atmosphere in the astronauts suits and in the LM was still around 20% oxygen, as it is here on earth, for reasons already discussed. The biggest danger with using pure oxygen, is it's highly explosive. Unfortunately, 4 astronauts before Apollo 11 learnt that the hard way.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 29, 2021, 12:04:03 AM


I thought we had covered this ground and moved on? Everybody knows breathing pure oxygen is a killer, and that's not what the astronauts were doing.
Apparently that's exactly what they were doing, supposedly, as we were told.

Quote from: Smoke Machine
The oxygen was slowly mixing with carbon dioxide, nitrogen, oxygen, and other compounds in the respective air of the LM and the plss.
Slowly mixing, how?

Quote from: Smoke Machine
Remember, us humans breathe out in our breath 78% nitrogen, 16% oxygen, 4% carbon dioxide, and 0.09% argon. When we breathe in, we absorb around 4% of the oxygen in the air, of a single inward breath.
On Earth, yes. Not in the space they tell us about.

 
Quote from: Smoke Machine
The atmosphere in the astronauts suits and in the LM was still around 20% oxygen, as it is here on earth, for reasons already discussed.
Nope. It makes no sense and actually destroys the storage pretence.


Quote from: Smoke Machine
The biggest danger with using pure oxygen, is it's highly explosive. Unfortunately, 4 astronauts before Apollo 11 learnt that the hard way.
Yep, we know it's highly explosive and we're led to believe those boffins hadn't a clue about it when they filled a cabin full of it, apparently.


Utter nonsense.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: JackBlack on June 29, 2021, 01:45:57 AM
I'd guess that tank, if it were a real tank would hold about 8 litres, judging by the small size of it.
As for oxygen. Maybe 3000 litres an hour...maybe.
There you go dodging simple questions.
8 litres is not enough. 8 litres under what pressure? Or is it 8 l of liquid oxygen?

As for needing 3000 l an hour, again, under what pressure, and what is your basis for that?
After all, according to literature (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK541029/#:~:text=Lung%20capacity%20or%20total%20lung,capacity%20is%20about%206%20liters.), the human lung capacity is roughly 6 l. That 3000 l an hour of oxygen (not air, oxygen) would require around 2400 complete cylces of emptying your lungs and refilling it (this number may appear wrong as 3000 / 6 = 500, but you need to remember that air is not pure oxygen, it is ~21% oxygen, so you need to multiply that number by roughly 5). That is around 40 a minute or almost 1 per second.
Humans do not normally completely empty their lungs and refill them each second.
And when we do breathe, we typically exhale a lot of oxygen.
So being generous, and assuming we breath once every 5 s, using our entire lung volume and consuming ~5% of that volume as oxygen, that amounts to 0.3 l of pure oxygen at 1 atm per breath, which is ~3.6 l per minute, or ~216 l per hour. Much less than your 3000 l per hour which is quite clearly nonsense.

Again, it seems like you are just making up numbers to pretend there is a problem.

So tell me how the batteries withstand the 250 degree cold in the shade, as we're told.
Or how about you tell us why they wouldn't.
You can start with a simple explanation of heat transfer which leads very quickly to the conclusion that it wont actually freeze the battery.

Insulation was mentioned....but what does insulation do in a vacuum of your space? And what is the insulation?
Prevent the transfer of heat, meaning even when the outside is exposed to that cold -250 C, it wont actually cool the battery to that temperature.
Part of the insulation is the vacuum of space.

They would not hold enough oxygen for 4 hours
Stop just asserting the same BS. If you want to claim it wouldn't hold enough for 4 hours, PROVE IT!
Do the math to show it wouldn't.

It's all nonsense and it's pretty plain to see from my side.
Naturally you believe the fantasy so it's all hunky dory for people like yourself who obviously enjoy sci-fi as reality.
No, naturally you want it to be fantasy so you dismiss it as fantasy and nonsense.
If it was actually pretty plain to see you would actually justify your BS, rather than just continually assert the same BS.

First of all nobody is surviving to do any tasks for any length of time under 5 psi and certainly not under 5 psi of pure oxygen.
Again, on what basis do you make this claim?
Yet again, it is jut another blatant lie from you to reject reality.
Yet again, you have no justification at all.

If there was actually anything wrong, you would be able to explain it and justify your claims instead of just continually asserting blatant lies.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: JackBlack on June 29, 2021, 01:53:49 AM
I thought we had covered this ground and moved on? Everybody knows breathing pure oxygen is a killer, and that's not what the astronauts were doing.
I thought it was covered and we moved on as well.
Pure oxygen is not a killer.
High pressure oxygen, regardless of if that is due to increasing the concentration at normal pressure, or simply increasing the overall pressure while keeping the concentration the same, is the killer.
(Other than the actual pressure being different) pure oxygen at 0.21 atm is the same as 21% at 1 atm.
Pure oxygen at reduced pressure is not lethal in any way.

At most of the danger from it comes from flammability issues.

The atmosphere in the astronauts suits and in the LM was still around 20% oxygen, as it is here on earth, for reasons already discussed. The biggest danger with using pure oxygen, is it's highly explosive. Unfortunately, 4 astronauts before Apollo 11 learnt that the hard way.
Where are you getting this from?
What what I can tell, it was pure oxygen at roughly 3.75 psi, or 0.26 atm.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Mikey T. on June 29, 2021, 04:48:44 AM


All they did was increase the oxygen pressure levels in the canisters they took on the Apollo 17 mission, enabling the astronauts to have more oxygen in their personal life support systems, as well as inside the LM. They had extra batteries because they were staying an extra day. The plss packs enabled 7 hours of extravehicular activity, depending on the user's metabolic rate, and the tank was replenished from the LM oxygen supply.


Of course they did.
They just doubled the pressure, no problem.
They just flung in a few extra batteries. No problem.

 Minus 250 in the shade and plus 250 in sunlight.

No issue for water or oxygen or batteries.

All magically fantastic and works every time no matter what.

You're welcome to your fantasy.
Yes, they increased the pressure, meaning they had more gaseous oxygen in the same volume.  Volume is something you intentionally lie about. 
Yes they took more batteries.  Planning ahead to increase useful EVA time is not a difficult concept to grasp. 
I explained before how a vacuum is excellent insulation.  Your incredulity over the big temperature numbers means nothing.
Why is there an issue for water if they planned ahead? 

Why do you think there is only 30 minutes of oxygen in the tanks?  Just your gut feeling about it I guess.  Incredulity is not evidence. 

I'll live in the real world, you can call it fantasy all you like.  The more you blatantly put your indoctrination on display, have nothing to base your outlandish claims on, and keep claiming everything you don't understand is fantasy, the more naive people get turned away from FE before they get brainwashed.  Please continue being this transparently indoctrinated.
A vacuum is excellent insulation against, what?
Thermal transfer, sound, friction, compression waves, etc.  An... insulator.
So tell me how the batteries withstand the 250 degree cold in the shade, as we're told.

Insulation was mentioned....but what does insulation do in a vacuum of your space? And what is the insulation?
So you have no idea what insulation is then. 
Heat is energy, for heat to move from something, there needs to be a way for it to do it.  Either by energy radiation or by direct thermal transfer.  A vacuum is a very good insulator against thermal transfer.  The shiny foil you see on many space vehicles is a good insulator against radiation.  The batteries do not radiate their heat, they would need direct thermal transfer to lose heat. 
As long as the batteries are protected from the massive amount of radiative energy, the near vacuum itself doesn't really allow for any thermal transfer.
 What is the problem, oh wait, are you one of those the moon emits cold folks?  Do you believe Cold is something different than just the loss of energy via thermal transfer?

Again why will the tanks only hold 30 minutes?  Why will the batteries have problems?  What mechanism would be in play to disrupt the batteries operation?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 29, 2021, 05:13:21 AM
I'd guess that tank, if it were a real tank would hold about 8 litres, judging by the small size of it.
As for oxygen. Maybe 3000 litres an hour...maybe.
There you go dodging simple questions.
8 litres is not enough. 8 litres under what pressure? Or is it 8 l of liquid oxygen?

As for needing 3000 l an hour, again, under what pressure, and what is your basis for that?
After all, according to literature (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK541029/#:~:text=Lung%20capacity%20or%20total%20lung,capacity%20is%20about%206%20liters.), the human lung capacity is roughly 6 l. That 3000 l an hour of oxygen (not air, oxygen) would require around 2400 complete cylces of emptying your lungs and refilling it (this number may appear wrong as 3000 / 6 = 500, but you need to remember that air is not pure oxygen, it is ~21% oxygen, so you need to multiply that number by roughly 5). That is around 40 a minute or almost 1 per second.
Humans do not normally completely empty their lungs and refill them each second.
And when we do breathe, we typically exhale a lot of oxygen.
So being generous, and assuming we breath once every 5 s, using our entire lung volume and consuming ~5% of that volume as oxygen, that amounts to 0.3 l of pure oxygen at 1 atm per breath, which is ~3.6 l per minute, or ~216 l per hour. Much less than your 3000 l per hour which is quite clearly nonsense.

Again, it seems like you are just making up numbers to pretend there is a problem.

Sooooo, is it pure oxygen in their backpack tank or not?
Are they also aided by another vessel full of atmosphere to go with it?

You would use the small amount of oxy you mention if you were getting it slowl fed into the nose whilst also taking in full on atmospheric pressure.

Sooo, unless someone is throwing in atmospheric pressure to aid the so called astronauts, then we're back to the massive issues I mentioned, no matter how desperate you are to try and dress it all up.





Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Smoke Machine on June 29, 2021, 05:15:24 AM


I thought we had covered this ground and moved on? Everybody knows breathing pure oxygen is a killer, and that's not what the astronauts were doing.
Apparently that's exactly what they were doing, supposedly, as we were told.

Quote from: Smoke Machine
The oxygen was slowly mixing with carbon dioxide, nitrogen, oxygen, and other compounds in the respective air of the LM and the plss.
Slowly mixing, how?

Quote from: Smoke Machine
Remember, us humans breathe out in our breath 78% nitrogen, 16% oxygen, 4% carbon dioxide, and 0.09% argon. When we breathe in, we absorb around 4% of the oxygen in the air, of a single inward breath.
On Earth, yes. Not in the space they tell us about.

 
Quote from: Smoke Machine
The atmosphere in the astronauts suits and in the LM was still around 20% oxygen, as it is here on earth, for reasons already discussed.
Nope. It makes no sense and actually destroys the storage pretence.


Quote from: Smoke Machine
The biggest danger with using pure oxygen, is it's highly explosive. Unfortunately, 4 astronauts before Apollo 11 learnt that the hard way.
Yep, we know it's highly explosive and we're led to believe those boffins hadn't a clue about it when they filled a cabin full of it, apparently.


Utter nonsense.

Could it be true? Are you British? In what country outside of Britain does one utter, "utter nonsense"? Well, it's safe to say neither you nor your ancestors, worked for Scotland Yard.

This may come as a surprise to one with your intellect, but humans thriving in a comfortable atmosphere of 20% oxygen on Earth, is also true for humans in outer space and the moon.

While highly explosive, pure oxygen is lighter and more compact than storing compressed air. It's the logical choice for a mission to the moon which includes getting there, staying there 3 days, and returning home. 

You haven't come up with any logical reasons for doubting the official narrative so far. What's your next issue?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 29, 2021, 05:33:07 AM


All they did was increase the oxygen pressure levels in the canisters they took on the Apollo 17 mission, enabling the astronauts to have more oxygen in their personal life support systems, as well as inside the LM. They had extra batteries because they were staying an extra day. The plss packs enabled 7 hours of extravehicular activity, depending on the user's metabolic rate, and the tank was replenished from the LM oxygen supply.


Of course they did.
They just doubled the pressure, no problem.
They just flung in a few extra batteries. No problem.

 Minus 250 in the shade and plus 250 in sunlight.

No issue for water or oxygen or batteries.

All magically fantastic and works every time no matter what.

You're welcome to your fantasy.
Yes, they increased the pressure, meaning they had more gaseous oxygen in the same volume.  Volume is something you intentionally lie about. 
Yes they took more batteries.  Planning ahead to increase useful EVA time is not a difficult concept to grasp. 
I explained before how a vacuum is excellent insulation.  Your incredulity over the big temperature numbers means nothing.
Why is there an issue for water if they planned ahead? 

Why do you think there is only 30 minutes of oxygen in the tanks?  Just your gut feeling about it I guess.  Incredulity is not evidence. 

I'll live in the real world, you can call it fantasy all you like.  The more you blatantly put your indoctrination on display, have nothing to base your outlandish claims on, and keep claiming everything you don't understand is fantasy, the more naive people get turned away from FE before they get brainwashed.  Please continue being this transparently indoctrinated.
A vacuum is excellent insulation against, what?
Thermal transfer, sound, friction, compression waves, etc.  An... insulator.
So tell me how the batteries withstand the 250 degree cold in the shade, as we're told.

Insulation was mentioned....but what does insulation do in a vacuum of your space? And what is the insulation?
So you have no idea what insulation is then. 
Heat is energy, for heat to move from something, there needs to be a way for it to do it.  Either by energy radiation or by direct thermal transfer.  A vacuum is a very good insulator against thermal transfer.  The shiny foil you see on many space vehicles is a good insulator against radiation.  The batteries do not radiate their heat, they would need direct thermal transfer to lose heat. 
As long as the batteries are protected from the massive amount of radiative energy, the near vacuum itself doesn't really allow for any thermal transfer.
 What is the problem, oh wait, are you one of those the moon emits cold folks?  Do you believe Cold is something different than just the loss of energy via thermal transfer?

Again why will the tanks only hold 30 minutes?  Why will the batteries have problems?  What mechanism would be in play to disrupt the batteries operation?
You can dance about giving it this and that all you want.

Maybe you can explain plus and minus 250 in the heat sun and shadow.

Is minus 250 a cold or not a cold?

Here's something for you.
In -50 degrees  a car battery would be dead and buried in terms of function and that's a new one.

So tell me how the LM batteries managed to work?
Tin foil?
Did tin foil act as insulation?

I'd also like to know how the oxygen didn't freeze in -250.


I'd also like to know how they transferred the oxygen from the LM to the PLSS back pack tank.
I was told it was something like a water hose.
Hmmmm.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 29, 2021, 05:38:59 AM

This may come as a surprise to one with your intellect, but humans thriving in a comfortable atmosphere of 20% oxygen on Earth, is also true for humans in outer space and the moon.
Really?
So you think humans breathed only 20% oxygen.
Where was the rest of the 80% of other gases stored?
Remember your men are on your moon. No helmet off and taking in moon atmosphere coupled with a few nose sniffs of trickling oxy.


Quote from: Smoke Machine
While highly explosive, pure oxygen is lighter and more compact than storing compressed air. It's the logical choice for a mission to the moon which includes getting there, staying there 3 days, and returning home.
So they decided to pack a load of containers with 205 oxy in rather than one to keep refilling. Hmmmmmm. Sounds nuts.
Nuts I tell you.
 
Quote from: Smoke Machine
You haven't come up with any logical reasons for doubting the official narrative so far. What's your next issue?
I think  have. I think I'm well onto it all.
I think it's the likes of you that are scraping your moon barrel.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Mikey T. on June 29, 2021, 09:02:19 AM


All they did was increase the oxygen pressure levels in the canisters they took on the Apollo 17 mission, enabling the astronauts to have more oxygen in their personal life support systems, as well as inside the LM. They had extra batteries because they were staying an extra day. The plss packs enabled 7 hours of extravehicular activity, depending on the user's metabolic rate, and the tank was replenished from the LM oxygen supply.


Of course they did.
They just doubled the pressure, no problem.
They just flung in a few extra batteries. No problem.

 Minus 250 in the shade and plus 250 in sunlight.

No issue for water or oxygen or batteries.

All magically fantastic and works every time no matter what.

You're welcome to your fantasy.
Yes, they increased the pressure, meaning they had more gaseous oxygen in the same volume.  Volume is something you intentionally lie about. 
Yes they took more batteries.  Planning ahead to increase useful EVA time is not a difficult concept to grasp. 
I explained before how a vacuum is excellent insulation.  Your incredulity over the big temperature numbers means nothing.
Why is there an issue for water if they planned ahead? 

Why do you think there is only 30 minutes of oxygen in the tanks?  Just your gut feeling about it I guess.  Incredulity is not evidence. 

I'll live in the real world, you can call it fantasy all you like.  The more you blatantly put your indoctrination on display, have nothing to base your outlandish claims on, and keep claiming everything you don't understand is fantasy, the more naive people get turned away from FE before they get brainwashed.  Please continue being this transparently indoctrinated.
A vacuum is excellent insulation against, what?
Thermal transfer, sound, friction, compression waves, etc.  An... insulator.
So tell me how the batteries withstand the 250 degree cold in the shade, as we're told.

Insulation was mentioned....but what does insulation do in a vacuum of your space? And what is the insulation?
So you have no idea what insulation is then. 
Heat is energy, for heat to move from something, there needs to be a way for it to do it.  Either by energy radiation or by direct thermal transfer.  A vacuum is a very good insulator against thermal transfer.  The shiny foil you see on many space vehicles is a good insulator against radiation.  The batteries do not radiate their heat, they would need direct thermal transfer to lose heat. 
As long as the batteries are protected from the massive amount of radiative energy, the near vacuum itself doesn't really allow for any thermal transfer.
 What is the problem, oh wait, are you one of those the moon emits cold folks?  Do you believe Cold is something different than just the loss of energy via thermal transfer?

Again why will the tanks only hold 30 minutes?  Why will the batteries have problems?  What mechanism would be in play to disrupt the batteries operation?
You can dance about giving it this and that all you want.

Maybe you can explain plus and minus 250 in the heat sun and shadow.

Is minus 250 a cold or not a cold?

Here's something for you.
In -50 degrees  a car battery would be dead and buried in terms of function and that's a new one.

So tell me how the LM batteries managed to work?
Tin foil?
Did tin foil act as insulation?

I'd also like to know how the oxygen didn't freeze in -250.


I'd also like to know how they transferred the oxygen from the LM to the PLSS back pack tank.
I was told it was something like a water hose.
Hmmmm.

Again: 
1) Vacuum makes a very good insulator against direct thermal transfer.  Hence the use of near vacuum for insulating beverage containers, near vacuum used between panes of glass (usually filled with a very very low pressure of something like argon).
2) Cold is the reduction of energy from a system through direct thermal transfer.  If there is no medium to transfer the heat energy through using direct thermal transfer, how does it get cold? 

What is the problem with transferring oxygen via tubing?  not a water hose, but whatever.  Where is there a problem.  That's right you have no idea, you just want your fantasy to be real at any cost.  How very indoctrinated of you to throw out anything that disagrees with your beliefs. 

Still waiting on your justifications for your fantastical claims.  No hand waving, give us some logical reasoning. 
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Smoke Machine on June 29, 2021, 11:45:50 AM

This may come as a surprise to one with your intellect, but humans thriving in a comfortable atmosphere of 20% oxygen on Earth, is also true for humans in outer space and the moon.
Really?
So you think humans breathed only 20% oxygen.
Where was the rest of the 80% of other gases stored?
Remember your men are on your moon. No helmet off and taking in moon atmosphere coupled with a few nose sniffs of trickling oxy.


Quote from: Smoke Machine
While highly explosive, pure oxygen is lighter and more compact than storing compressed air. It's the logical choice for a mission to the moon which includes getting there, staying there 3 days, and returning home.
So they decided to pack a load of containers with 205 oxy in rather than one to keep refilling. Hmmmmmm. Sounds nuts.
Nuts I tell you.
 
Quote from: Smoke Machine
You haven't come up with any logical reasons for doubting the official narrative so far. What's your next issue?
I think  have. I think I'm well onto it all.
I think it's the likes of you that are scraping your moon barrel.

Ok. You were right. I was wrong. There was no storage of the other 80% of gases in the Apollo missions. It was just pure oxygen.

An oxygen and nitrogen mix was the preferred initial gas system for the astronauts, to mimic our atmosphere here on earth, but to save on weight and amount of pay load to get into space, they eventually settled on oxygen only, at an exceedingly low pressure.

Don't shoot the messenger, but apparently, oxygen at a very low pressure will not hurt a human's body when breathing. I know, I know, it confused me at first, also.

NASA found that a dual gas system in regulating the gas percentages, was more dangerous in causing the astronauts to lose consciousness if there was a malfunction in the mixing.

Also, at an extremely low pressure, the oxygen is not very explosive. So, the canisters would have remained highly explosive, but not the cabin or the plss units. To be safe, all flammable materials were removed from the cabin.

On the launch pad, on earth, the cabin was a nitrogen and oxygen mix, where the nitrogen was slowly bled out during the course of the mission. I hope that clarifies things.....

Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: markjo on June 29, 2021, 12:20:06 PM
Based on what?

You just say things without any justification. You can't defend your position in any way.
Pretty easy to defend when you look from a realistic point of view, like on Earth.

But this is so called space and it's all different...right?
Pfffffftttt.
Yes, things can be quite different when you only need 1/3 normal atmospheric pressure.
You're getting nowhere under 1/3 or atmospheric pressure. You're in serious trouble.
The top of Mt Everest is about 1/3 normal atmospheric pressure and there have been people who have made it to the top without supplemental oxygen.  Just imagine how much easier the climb would be if that 1/3 atmospheric pressure was pure oxygen.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: markjo on June 29, 2021, 12:27:58 PM
Maybe you can explain plus and minus 250 in the heat sun and shadow.

Is minus 250 a cold or not a cold?
Yes, -250 degrees is very cold, but it can also be a bit misleading.  Since there is no -250 degree air on the moon, there really isn't anything to actively cool things.  That -250 degrees in the shade refers to the temperature that an object would reach after all of its stored heat radiates away.  Properly insulated, it could take quite a while for an object to lose that much heat.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Unconvinced on June 29, 2021, 12:29:13 PM
The top of Mt Everest is about 1/3 normal atmospheric pressure and there have been people who have made it to the top without supplemental oxygen.  Just imagine how much easier the climb would be if that 1/3 atmospheric pressure was pure oxygen.

So they weigh 1/3 as much as they do at sea level, right?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: markjo on June 29, 2021, 12:39:30 PM
The top of Mt Everest is about 1/3 normal atmospheric pressure and there have been people who have made it to the top without supplemental oxygen.  Just imagine how much easier the climb would be if that 1/3 atmospheric pressure was pure oxygen.

So they weigh 1/3 as much as they do at sea level, right?
Well, you do have to wear 3 times as many clothes to stay warm, so it all averages out.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on June 29, 2021, 02:17:09 PM
The top of Mt Everest is about 1/3 normal atmospheric pressure and there have been people who have made it to the top without supplemental oxygen.  Just imagine how much easier the climb would be if that 1/3 atmospheric pressure was pure oxygen.

So they weigh 1/3 as much as they do at sea level, right?
Ah, yes, we've ridden in that rodeo before.  Scepti resorted to his normal denialism and conspiracy nonsense.  Yes, you guessed it:  nobody has actually climbed Everest (or presumably any other big mountain) and the photos, books, films, accounts etc are all fake.  Yes, really, he went there.   :P

I did point out that you can easily drive to around 3,400m in Spain - where your weight should be around two thirds, according to denpressure..... he didn't quite deny that you could this but said he "would look into it".   ;)

The fact is you don't get lighter as you climb a mountain, despite the air pressure lowering.  Totally debunks his nonsense by itself, without the need for 200 page threads.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: JackBlack on June 29, 2021, 02:32:24 PM
Sooooo, is it pure oxygen in their backpack tank or not?
Are they also aided by another vessel full of atmosphere to go with it?

You would use the small amount of oxy you mention if you were getting it slowl fed into the nose whilst also taking in full on atmospheric pressure.
No, you would use the small amount of oxygen I calculated REGARDLESS!
The only way to use vastly more is if you just expel that oxygen and it goes to waste.

So no, you have no massive issues, just a bunch of baseless claims you refuse to justify, no matter how desperate you are to try and dress it all up.


Again, why should the tanks only last 30 minutes?
You claimed they hold 8 l, but 8 l of what? Liquid oxygen? Gaseous oxygen at some pressure? What pressure?

You claim humans need 3000 l of oxygen per hour, which I have demonstrated is pure BS, even with massive simplifications in your favour.
So try coming up with an actual justification, or admitting your claim was BS.

You can dance about giving it this and that all you want.
That seems to be all you ever do.
Dance around claiming there is an issue and always refuse to justify it.

Here's something for you.
In -50 degrees  a car battery would be dead and buried in terms of function and that's a new one.
No, when a car battery has its temperature fall to -50 it is dead.
That is not simply it being in a -50 environment.

So tell us, how does the LM batteries get that cold?

As something for you, I can get boiling water, put it in a thermos, which has a vacuum as insulation, and place it in a -50 environment for hours, and while the water will no longer be boiling, it will still be very hot.

Quote from: Smoke Machine
You haven't come up with any logical reasons for doubting the official narrative so far. What's your next issue?
I think  have. I think I'm well onto it all.
I like so many other things you "think", that is completely wrong.
All you have done is made baseless claims you are yet to justify in any sane way. That means you do not have any logical reasons for doubting it.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: rvlvr on June 29, 2021, 10:09:46 PM
Yes, you guessed it:  nobody has actually climbed Everest (or presumably any other big mountain) and the photos, books, films, accounts etc are all fake.  Yes, really, he went there.   :P

I did point out that you can easily drive to around 3,400m in Spain - where your weight should be around two thirds, according to denpressure..... he didn't quite deny that you could this but said he "would look into it".   ;)

This is pretty awesome, I have to say. Did not know this.

It is a strange belief system.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 29, 2021, 10:18:30 PM

Again: 
1) Vacuum makes a very good insulator against direct thermal transfer.  Hence the use of near vacuum for insulating beverage containers, near vacuum used between panes of glass (usually filled with a very very low pressure of something like argon).
2) Cold is the reduction of energy from a system through direct thermal transfer.  If there is no medium to transfer the heat energy through using direct thermal transfer, how does it get cold? 

What is the problem with transferring oxygen via tubing?  not a water hose, but whatever.  Where is there a problem.  That's right you have no idea, you just want your fantasy to be real at any cost.  How very indoctrinated of you to throw out anything that disagrees with your beliefs. 

Still waiting on your justifications for your fantastical claims.  No hand waving, give us some logical reasoning.
Pressure evacuation makes a good insulator on Earth.
We are dealing with your space and moon with a supposed real vacuum.

So tell me how the oxygen doesn't freeze and also how the batteries do not die.


Explain how water can flow, also?

Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 29, 2021, 10:21:33 PM

This may come as a surprise to one with your intellect, but humans thriving in a comfortable atmosphere of 20% oxygen on Earth, is also true for humans in outer space and the moon.
Really?
So you think humans breathed only 20% oxygen.
Where was the rest of the 80% of other gases stored?
Remember your men are on your moon. No helmet off and taking in moon atmosphere coupled with a few nose sniffs of trickling oxy.


Quote from: Smoke Machine
While highly explosive, pure oxygen is lighter and more compact than storing compressed air. It's the logical choice for a mission to the moon which includes getting there, staying there 3 days, and returning home.
So they decided to pack a load of containers with 205 oxy in rather than one to keep refilling. Hmmmmmm. Sounds nuts.
Nuts I tell you.
 
Quote from: Smoke Machine
You haven't come up with any logical reasons for doubting the official narrative so far. What's your next issue?
I think  have. I think I'm well onto it all.
I think it's the likes of you that are scraping your moon barrel.

Ok. You were right. I was wrong. There was no storage of the other 80% of gases in the Apollo missions. It was just pure oxygen.

An oxygen and nitrogen mix was the preferred initial gas system for the astronauts, to mimic our atmosphere here on earth, but to save on weight and amount of pay load to get into space, they eventually settled on oxygen only, at an exceedingly low pressure.

Don't shoot the messenger, but apparently, oxygen at a very low pressure will not hurt a human's body when breathing. I know, I know, it confused me at first, also.

NASA found that a dual gas system in regulating the gas percentages, was more dangerous in causing the astronauts to lose consciousness if there was a malfunction in the mixing.

Also, at an extremely low pressure, the oxygen is not very explosive. So, the canisters would have remained highly explosive, but not the cabin or the plss units. To be safe, all flammable materials were removed from the cabin.

On the launch pad, on earth, the cabin was a nitrogen and oxygen mix, where the nitrogen was slowly bled out during the course of the mission. I hope that clarifies things.....
Clarifies things?
You had it all at your fingertips and still didn't know the set up.


Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 29, 2021, 10:26:37 PM
Maybe you can explain plus and minus 250 in the heat sun and shadow.

Is minus 250 a cold or not a cold?
Yes, -250 degrees is very cold, but it can also be a bit misleading.  Since there is no -250 degree air on the moon, there really isn't anything to actively cool things.  That -250 degrees in the shade refers to the temperature that an object would reach after all of its stored heat radiates away.  Properly insulated, it could take quite a while for an object to lose that much heat.
Explain the insulating then.


They are saying they transferred oxygen to the back packs via a tube from the LM.
Why didn't it freeze?
How did the batteries not die in minus 250 or even plus 250?

Are you saying tinfoil just insulated everything, plus and minus?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 29, 2021, 10:32:43 PM
Sooooo, is it pure oxygen in their backpack tank or not?
Are they also aided by another vessel full of atmosphere to go with it?

You would use the small amount of oxy you mention if you were getting it slowly fed into the nose whilst also taking in full on atmospheric pressure.
No, you would use the small amount of oxygen I calculated REGARDLESS!
The only way to use vastly more is if you just expel that oxygen and it goes to waste.

It does go to waste.
You are trying to argue for someone taking in small amounts of regulated oxygen up their nose whilst breathing normal atmospheric air. That oxy is just an enriched supplement and will last in the litreage you mention.

But we aren't talking about supplements, we are talking one tank to cater for the entire breathing of one person, without any external aid of atmosphere, on your moon.


There's so many things wrong with it all as to be unfeasible and the fantasy it quite clearly is.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: JackBlack on June 30, 2021, 12:12:13 AM
It does go to waste.
There you go showing you don't care about any of the answers already provided.
It isn't going to waste. It is remaining in the suit, with only the amount they consume being replaced.

It is wasted in normal atmosphere, not in the Apollo suits.

In normal atmosphere you would need more as it goes to waste when it is exhaled into the atmosphere.
The same happens with divers when they breathe out and have the oxygen go into the water, which is why rebreathers were made which recirculate the exhaled gas (after scrubbing away the CO2) which gives a much longer duration.

So the Apollo suits would use far less oxygen per hour than someone in a hospital.

You are trying to argue for someone taking in small amounts of regulated oxygen up their nose whilst breathing normal atmospheric air. That oxy is just an enriched supplement and will last in the litreage you mention.
No, that is what you are trying to argue for. I am arguing for a far more efficient use of that oxygen.
The "literage" I calculated (which is still very generous for you), is far less than what would be needed for a hospital situation if they were trying to get people to breathe pure oxygen without any rebreather.

Meanwhile, the "literage" you claimed, is quite clearly pure fantasy.

There's so many things wrong with it all as to be unfeasible and the fantasy it quite clearly is.
You mean your baseless claims you are yet to justify at all?
Yes, there are quite a lot of things wrong with it, which is likely why you don't even attempt to actually justify it and instead just continue to spout pathetic BS.

Again:
How much oxygen could that tank hold? Not as a time based unit, but either as pressure and volume, or mass (and show all working).
How much oxygen does a human need every hour, and what is your justification for this number?

Pressure evacuation makes a good insulator on Earth.
Not just on Earth, it is a good insulator EVERYWHERE!

It is easier to understand the other way around, putting matter there will allow a much greater rate of heat conduction.
Without the matter there, the heat has no where to go.

So tell me how the oxygen doesn't freeze and also how the batteries do not die.
You have already been told. Stop playing dumb.
If you want to claim it will freeze, you tell us all how it magically freezes. Tell us where all the thermal energy goes.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 30, 2021, 01:13:31 AM
It does go to waste.
There you go showing you don't care about any of the answers already provided.
It isn't going to waste. It is remaining in the suit, with only the amount they consume being replaced.

It is wasted in normal atmosphere, not in the Apollo suits.
No venting, no life. Simple as that.
Don't give the the old gunk that they stored it in their suits after breathing.


Quote from: JackBlack
In normal atmosphere you would need more as it goes to waste when it is exhaled into the atmosphere.
In normal atmosphere you wouldn't need it and if you did you would be on a trickle of it under the nose as simple enrichment for the lungs.
That's why the tanks last a long time and only that reason.
You don;t have any of that on your moon.


Quote from: JackBlack
The same happens with divers when they breathe out and have the oxygen go into the water, which is why rebreathers were made which recirculate the exhaled gas (after scrubbing away the CO2) which gives a much longer duration.
How much longer?


Quote from: JackBlack
So the Apollo suits would use far less oxygen per hour than someone in a hospital.
Not a chance in hell.


Quote from: JackBlack
You are trying to argue for someone taking in small amounts of regulated oxygen up their nose whilst breathing normal atmospheric air. That oxy is just an enriched supplement and will last in the litreage you mention.
No, that is what you are trying to argue for. I am arguing for a far more efficient use of that oxygen.
The "literage" I calculated (which is still very generous for you), is far less than what would be needed for a hospital situation if they were trying to get people to breathe pure oxygen without any rebreather.

Meanwhile, the "literage" you claimed, is quite clearly pure fantasy.


Again:
How much oxygen could that tank hold? Not as a time based unit, but either as pressure and volume, or mass (and show all working).
How much oxygen does a human need every hour, and what is your justification for this number?
I think I gave you a lesser litreage just to play safe.

You now have to get past it.
300 litres per hour.



Quote from: JackBlack
Pressure evacuation makes a good insulator on Earth.
Not just on Earth, it is a good insulator EVERYWHERE!

It is easier to understand the other way around, putting matter there will allow a much greater rate of heat conduction.
Without the matter there, the heat has no where to go.
Exactly.
Nowhere to go.
Your Apollo moon carry on is a dead stick.


Quote from: JackBlack
So tell me how the oxygen doesn't freeze and also how the batteries do not die.
You have already been told. Stop playing dumb.
If you want to claim it will freeze, you tell us all how it magically freezes. Tell us where all the thermal energy goes.
I think you can clearly see how it would freeze.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Smoke Machine on June 30, 2021, 01:25:36 AM

This may come as a surprise to one with your intellect, but humans thriving in a comfortable atmosphere of 20% oxygen on Earth, is also true for humans in outer space and the moon.
Really?
So you think humans breathed only 20% oxygen.
Where was the rest of the 80% of other gases stored?
Remember your men are on your moon. No helmet off and taking in moon atmosphere coupled with a few nose sniffs of trickling oxy.


Quote from: Smoke Machine
While highly explosive, pure oxygen is lighter and more compact than storing compressed air. It's the logical choice for a mission to the moon which includes getting there, staying there 3 days, and returning home.
So they decided to pack a load of containers with 205 oxy in rather than one to keep refilling. Hmmmmmm. Sounds nuts.
Nuts I tell you.
 
Quote from: Smoke Machine
You haven't come up with any logical reasons for doubting the official narrative so far. What's your next issue?
I think  have. I think I'm well onto it all.
I think it's the likes of you that are scraping your moon barrel.

Ok. You were right. I was wrong. There was no storage of the other 80% of gases in the Apollo missions. It was just pure oxygen.

An oxygen and nitrogen mix was the preferred initial gas system for the astronauts, to mimic our atmosphere here on earth, but to save on weight and amount of pay load to get into space, they eventually settled on oxygen only, at an exceedingly low pressure.

Don't shoot the messenger, but apparently, oxygen at a very low pressure will not hurt a human's body when breathing. I know, I know, it confused me at first, also.

NASA found that a dual gas system in regulating the gas percentages, was more dangerous in causing the astronauts to lose consciousness if there was a malfunction in the mixing.

Also, at an extremely low pressure, the oxygen is not very explosive. So, the canisters would have remained highly explosive, but not the cabin or the plss units. To be safe, all flammable materials were removed from the cabin.

On the launch pad, on earth, the cabin was a nitrogen and oxygen mix, where the nitrogen was slowly bled out during the course of the mission. I hope that clarifies things.....
Clarifies things?
You had it all at your fingertips and still didn't know the set up.

Hey, buddy! !!!!!News flash!!!! It's all at your fingertips too.

You're still glossing over and cherry picking things that to the layman at first glance, seem implausible, but as demonstrated, are all plausible.

There is a film by Todd Douglas Miller, which is basically a documentary, called, "Apollo 11". Watch it, so we can discuss your issues with it.

Oh, and for your information, the average human only needs 34 grams of pure oxygen an hour to survive. The actual entire spacesuit was pressurised with the oxygen. In the backpack was 1.4kg of lithium hydroxide, 3.9 litres of cooling water, and a 279 watt an hour battery.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: JackBlack on June 30, 2021, 02:50:46 AM
No venting, no life. Simple as that.
And there you go with more baseless garbage.

Again, quit with all the BS and answer the questions.

I think I gave you a lesser litreage just to play safe.
No, you gave a number which is pure BS.
A number you could not justify at all.

Again:
How much oxygen could that tank hold? Not as a time based unit, but either as pressure and volume, or mass (and show all working).
How much oxygen does a human need every hour, and what is your justification for this number?

Don't just pull a number out of your ass, actually justify it.

Until you do, your claim that it wouldn't last is just a pathetic lie.

Quote from: JackBlack
Pressure evacuation makes a good insulator on Earth.
Not just on Earth, it is a good insulator EVERYWHERE!

It is easier to understand the other way around, putting matter there will allow a much greater rate of heat conduction.
Without the matter there, the heat has no where to go.
Exactly.
Nowhere to go.
And do you know what that means?
It means the battery wont freeze and your argument is pure BS.


I think you can clearly see how it would freeze.
Why?
You just said there is no where for the heat to go.
If there is no where for the heat to go it can't cool down, it can't freeze.
So you have just told us that it can't freeze.
So how could anyone possibly clearly see how it would freeze?

Again, if you want to claim it freezes you need to tell us where the heat goes.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on June 30, 2021, 02:56:20 AM
Yes, you guessed it:  nobody has actually climbed Everest (or presumably any other big mountain) and the photos, books, films, accounts etc are all fake.  Yes, really, he went there.   :P

I did point out that you can easily drive to around 3,400m in Spain - where your weight should be around two thirds, according to denpressure..... he didn't quite deny that you could this but said he "would look into it".   ;)

This is pretty awesome, I have to say. Did not know this.

It is a strange belief system.
It's not really a belief system.  He just gets trapped in corners, so has to invent new systems and conspiracies and adds them to the already hot mess.

I bet before it was pointed out that your weight would just be one third up Everest according to "denpressure" he would never have claimed people climbing the mountain was "fake" or a "con".    It's just another ad hoc to add to the steaming pile.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 30, 2021, 03:53:40 AM
Hey, buddy! !!!!!News flash!!!! It's all at your fingertips too.
What is? The moon story?


Quote from: Smoke Machine
You're still glossing over and cherry picking things that to the layman at first glance, seem implausible, but as demonstrated, are all plausible.
Demonstrated, where? On your moon?


Quote from: Smoke Machine
There is a film by Todd Douglas Miller, which is basically a documentary, called, "Apollo 11". Watch it, so we can discuss your issues with it.
I don't need to see a film to discuss issues. I'm doing that right now.


Quote from: Smoke Machine
Oh, and for your information, the average human only needs 34 grams of pure oxygen an hour to survive.
On Earth or on your moon?

Quote from: Smoke Machine
The actual entire spacesuit was pressurised with the oxygen.
The inner suit or the external suit?
The helmet as well, as one unit or separate?
How did the oxygen actually flow as the so called astronaut breathed?Because you mentioned it was stored in the suit and none of it was vented externally.

Do you have any idea?


Quote from: Smoke Machine
In the backpack was 1.4kg of lithium hydroxide
What did they use that for?

Quote from: Smoke Machine
, 3.9 litres of cooling water
How did the cooling water freeze without venting heat to circulate to coll the body??

Quote from: Smoke Machine
, and a 279 watt an hour battery.
Soooo, basically a battery that managed to give out 2.2 kw of energy over the 8 hour so called moon walk?

Did they plug into the moon?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: JackBlack on June 30, 2021, 04:01:47 AM
Again:
How much oxygen could that tank hold? Not as a time based unit, but either as pressure and volume, or mass (and show all working).
How much oxygen does a human need every hour, and what is your justification for this number?

I don't need to see a film to discuss issues. I'm doing that right now.
No, you're not.
You are just continually spouting garbage and asking dumb questions and ignoring the answers.
Discussing would actually require you to engage, honestly.

Quote from: Smoke Machine
In the backpack was 1.4kg of lithium hydroxide
What did they use that for?
Yet again you demonstrate that you don't bother reading what has been said.
If you did, you would know that lithium hydroxide is a CO2 scrubber.
It reacts with CO2 to remove it from the gas phase.

How did the cooling water freeze without venting heat to circulate to coll the body??
And again you show you don't pay attention.
That was one thing which was vented to space.
If you looked at what was presented you would already know that.

Soooo, basically a battery that managed to give out 2.2 kw of energy over the 8 hour so called moon walk?
No. It gave it 0.22 kW over the 8 hours. Or don't you understand how units work either?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Mikey T. on June 30, 2021, 04:23:19 AM

Again: 
1) Vacuum makes a very good insulator against direct thermal transfer.  Hence the use of near vacuum for insulating beverage containers, near vacuum used between panes of glass (usually filled with a very very low pressure of something like argon).
2) Cold is the reduction of energy from a system through direct thermal transfer.  If there is no medium to transfer the heat energy through using direct thermal transfer, how does it get cold? 

What is the problem with transferring oxygen via tubing?  not a water hose, but whatever.  Where is there a problem.  That's right you have no idea, you just want your fantasy to be real at any cost.  How very indoctrinated of you to throw out anything that disagrees with your beliefs. 

Still waiting on your justifications for your fantastical claims.  No hand waving, give us some logical reasoning.
Pressure evacuation makes a good insulator on Earth.
We are dealing with your space and moon with a supposed real vacuum.

So tell me how the oxygen doesn't freeze and also how the batteries do not die.


Explain how water can flow, also?
Why is it different?  Vacuum insulation isn't due to "pressure evacuation", it's very little matter in an area.  Nothing to transfer the heat energy to. 
Again, cold is just the reduction of heat energy, if you could perfectly insulate the item from the area that has less heat energy then you can't transfer the item's heat energy away from via direct thermal transfer.  A perfect vacuum(no such thing) would be a perfect insulator. 
Why, explain why, the physics should be wildly different?  Why wouldn't water flow if insulated and pressurized, or oxygen, or why would the batteries die if the can't readily lose their heat via direct thermal transfer? 
Stop just hand waving.
Explain why.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 30, 2021, 04:32:54 AM
How did the cooling water freeze without venting heat to circulate to coll the body??
And again you show you don't pay attention.
That was one thing which was vented to space.
If you looked at what was presented you would already know that.

How would it be possible to vent water vapour into space in a so called vacuum?
From  a tap?
Spray?
What rids the suit of water in this vacuum?
How does it travel?
How does it not freeze?


Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 30, 2021, 04:42:20 AM


Soooo, basically a battery that managed to give out 2.2 kw of energy over the 8 hour so called moon walk?
No. It gave it 0.22 kW over the 8 hours. Or don't you understand how units work either?
I don't think you understand.

Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Mikey T. on June 30, 2021, 04:43:06 AM
How did the cooling water freeze without venting heat to circulate to coll the body??
And again you show you don't pay attention.
That was one thing which was vented to space.
If you looked at what was presented you would already know that.

How would it be possible to vent water vapour into space in a so called vacuum?
From  a tap?
Spray?
What rids the suit of water in this vacuum?
How does it travel?
How does it not freeze?
High pressure, aka many atoms in a given volume, allowed to move to a low pressure.  And it does freeze when this happens.  It's called sublimation.  It's due to rapid expansion of the distance between the individual atoms.  It's how your freezer works in a way.  Compressing something increases the apparent heat, decompressing it decreases the apparent heat due to more space between the atoms so they don't bump into each other as much.  Which is also why a near vacuum makes a good thermal/sound insulator.  Very little opportunity for individual atoms to directly affect each other so they maintain their energy.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: rvlvr on June 30, 2021, 04:44:31 AM
The porous plate sublimator had a metal plate with microscopic pores sized just right so that if the water flowing under the plate warmed to more than a user-comfortable level, frozen water in the plate would thaw, flow through the plate, and boil to the vacuum of space, taking away heat in the process. Once the water under the plate cooled to a user-comfortable temperature, the water in the plate would re-freeze, sealing the plate and stopping the cooling process. Thus, heat rejection with automatic temperature control was accomplished with no sensors or moving parts to malfunction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo/Skylab_space_suit#Liquid_Cooling_Garment
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Mikey T. on June 30, 2021, 04:45:17 AM


Soooo, basically a battery that managed to give out 2.2 kw of energy over the 8 hour so called moon walk?
No. It gave it 0.22 kW over the 8 hours. Or don't you understand how units work either?
I don't think you understand.
What did he not understand?  Explain, no hand waving.  Oh I would love to see your explanation of how electricity works. 
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 30, 2021, 04:45:49 AM

Again: 
1) Vacuum makes a very good insulator against direct thermal transfer.  Hence the use of near vacuum for insulating beverage containers, near vacuum used between panes of glass (usually filled with a very very low pressure of something like argon).
2) Cold is the reduction of energy from a system through direct thermal transfer.  If there is no medium to transfer the heat energy through using direct thermal transfer, how does it get cold? 

What is the problem with transferring oxygen via tubing?  not a water hose, but whatever.  Where is there a problem.  That's right you have no idea, you just want your fantasy to be real at any cost.  How very indoctrinated of you to throw out anything that disagrees with your beliefs. 

Still waiting on your justifications for your fantastical claims.  No hand waving, give us some logical reasoning.
Pressure evacuation makes a good insulator on Earth.
We are dealing with your space and moon with a supposed real vacuum.

So tell me how the oxygen doesn't freeze and also how the batteries do not die.


Explain how water can flow, also?
Why is it different?  Vacuum insulation isn't due to "pressure evacuation", it's very little matter in an area.  Nothing to transfer the heat energy to. 
Again, cold is just the reduction of heat energy, if you could perfectly insulate the item from the area that has less heat energy then you can't transfer the item's heat energy away from via direct thermal transfer.  A perfect vacuum(no such thing) would be a perfect insulator. 
Why, explain why, the physics should be wildly different?  Why wouldn't water flow if insulated and pressurized, or oxygen, or why would the batteries die if the can't readily lose their heat via direct thermal transfer? 
Stop just hand waving.
Explain why.
Have you ever seen a container of water in a chamber which has evacuated a lot of pressure?

Your moon is jch much worse than this by how it's explained.
Your water, batteries and oxy issues are ridiculously  wrecked. It's a no go and only fantasy keeps it as some kind of working pretence.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 30, 2021, 04:50:28 AM
The porous plate sublimator had a metal plate with microscopic pores sized just right so that if the water flowing under the plate warmed to more than a user-comfortable level, frozen water in the plate would thaw, flow through the plate, and boil to the vacuum of space, taking away heat in the process. Once the water under the plate cooled to a user-comfortable temperature, the water in the plate would re-freeze, sealing the plate and stopping the cooling process. Thus, heat rejection with automatic temperature control was accomplished with no sensors or moving parts to malfunction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo/Skylab_space_suit#Liquid_Cooling_Garment
You cannot boil to the vacuum of your space without having some kind of medium for it to boil off into.
Your moon has no such thing.

It's not like opening a fizzy pop bottle on Earth.

To make ice in the suit would be to make the suit act like a home freezer unit. It means it would need a compressor and a heat exchanger which requires venting.

You're getting no venting on your moon.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 30, 2021, 04:51:07 AM


Soooo, basically a battery that managed to give out 2.2 kw of energy over the 8 hour so called moon walk?
No. It gave it 0.22 kW over the 8 hours. Or don't you understand how units work either?
I don't think you understand.
What did he not understand?  Explain, no hand waving.  Oh I would love to see your explanation of how electricity works.
You don't have anything, do you?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sobchak on June 30, 2021, 06:19:26 AM
Yes, you guessed it:  nobody has actually climbed Everest (or presumably any other big mountain) and the photos, books, films, accounts etc are all fake.  Yes, really, he went there.   :P

I did point out that you can easily drive to around 3,400m in Spain - where your weight should be around two thirds, according to denpressure..... he didn't quite deny that you could this but said he "would look into it".   ;)

This is pretty awesome, I have to say. Did not know this.

It is a strange belief system.
It's not really a belief system.  He just gets trapped in corners, so has to invent new systems and conspiracies and adds them to the already hot mess.

I bet before it was pointed out that your weight would just be one third up Everest according to "denpressure" he would never have claimed people climbing the mountain was "fake" or a "con".    It's just another ad hoc to add to the steaming pile.

Lol.  I'll second the awesomeness of this.  The conspiracy just gets bigger and bigger.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: markjo on June 30, 2021, 06:42:53 AM
Explain the insulating then.
Do you not understand how insulation works? ???


They are saying they transferred oxygen to the back packs via a tube from the LM.
Why didn't it freeze?
Because the freezing point of oxygen is -362 degrees.  Oh, and the boiling point of liquid oxygen is -297 degrees, so I'm not really sure why you think that -250 degrees is a problem for oxygen gas transfer.

How did the batteries not die in minus 250 or even plus 250?
Have you ever heard of thermal mass (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_mass)?  You may want to look into it.

Are you saying tinfoil just insulated everything, plus and minus?
No, that is not what I'm saying.  I'm saying that multiple layers of beta cloth make for pretty decent insulation.
Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_cloth
Beta cloth is a type of fireproof silica fiber cloth used in the manufacture of Apollo/Skylab A7L space suits, the Apollo Thermal Micrometeoroid Garment, the McDivitt Purse,[1] and in other specialized applications.

Beta cloth consists of fine woven silica fiber, similar to fiberglass. The resulting fabric does not burn, and melts only at temperatures exceeding 650 °C (1,200 °F)
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Mikey T. on June 30, 2021, 06:45:56 AM

Again: 
1) Vacuum makes a very good insulator against direct thermal transfer.  Hence the use of near vacuum for insulating beverage containers, near vacuum used between panes of glass (usually filled with a very very low pressure of something like argon).
2) Cold is the reduction of energy from a system through direct thermal transfer.  If there is no medium to transfer the heat energy through using direct thermal transfer, how does it get cold? 

What is the problem with transferring oxygen via tubing?  not a water hose, but whatever.  Where is there a problem.  That's right you have no idea, you just want your fantasy to be real at any cost.  How very indoctrinated of you to throw out anything that disagrees with your beliefs. 

Still waiting on your justifications for your fantastical claims.  No hand waving, give us some logical reasoning.
Pressure evacuation makes a good insulator on Earth.
We are dealing with your space and moon with a supposed real vacuum.

So tell me how the oxygen doesn't freeze and also how the batteries do not die.


Explain how water can flow, also?
Why is it different?  Vacuum insulation isn't due to "pressure evacuation", it's very little matter in an area.  Nothing to transfer the heat energy to. 
Again, cold is just the reduction of heat energy, if you could perfectly insulate the item from the area that has less heat energy then you can't transfer the item's heat energy away from via direct thermal transfer.  A perfect vacuum(no such thing) would be a perfect insulator. 
Why, explain why, the physics should be wildly different?  Why wouldn't water flow if insulated and pressurized, or oxygen, or why would the batteries die if the can't readily lose their heat via direct thermal transfer? 
Stop just hand waving.
Explain why.
Have you ever seen a container of water in a chamber which has evacuated a lot of pressure?

Your moon is jch much worse than this by how it's explained.
Your water, batteries and oxy issues are ridiculously  wrecked. It's a no go and only fantasy keeps it as some kind of working pretence.
Yes, I have done it myself.  The water will boil.  Do you know why?  I thought not.  Have you even put a sealed pressure container of water in a vacuum chamber?  Do you know what will happen to it?  I do. 
I have given you the information, it is up to you to understand it.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Mikey T. on June 30, 2021, 06:52:45 AM
The porous plate sublimator had a metal plate with microscopic pores sized just right so that if the water flowing under the plate warmed to more than a user-comfortable level, frozen water in the plate would thaw, flow through the plate, and boil to the vacuum of space, taking away heat in the process. Once the water under the plate cooled to a user-comfortable temperature, the water in the plate would re-freeze, sealing the plate and stopping the cooling process. Thus, heat rejection with automatic temperature control was accomplished with no sensors or moving parts to malfunction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo/Skylab_space_suit#Liquid_Cooling_Garment
You cannot boil to the vacuum of your space without having some kind of medium for it to boil off into.
Your moon has no such thing.

It's not like opening a fizzy pop bottle on Earth.

To make ice in the suit would be to make the suit act like a home freezer unit. It means it would need a compressor and a heat exchanger which requires venting.

You're getting no venting on your moon.
Why can't you boil off into a vacuum?  What medium are you talking about? Why would it need a compressor and heat exchanger if the pressure is already there and the low pressure is already there?  Please explain the actual mechanism of a home freezer, the physics behind it, not just more insulting behaviour and hand waving.

So we can add pressure differential to the long list of things you have no idea about.  Funny that the denpressure guy has no clue about pressure, volume, insulation, etc. 
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 30, 2021, 08:41:02 AM
Explain the insulating then.
Do you not understand how insulation works? ???
Yep and it would not work on the so called moon vacuum.



Quote from: markjo
They are saying they transferred oxygen to the back packs via a tube from the LM.
Why didn't it freeze?
Because the freezing point of oxygen is -362 degrees.  Oh, and the boiling point of liquid oxygen is -297 degrees, so I'm not really sure why you think that -250 degrees is a problem for oxygen gas transfer.

Because the 250 was C not F.
I clearly remember many years ago being told this.
Now it's all changed and it does not surprise me.

Quote from: markjo
How did the batteries not die in minus 250 or even plus 250?
Have you ever heard of thermal mass (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_mass)?  You may want to look into it.

(All supposedly.)
It says Apollo 15 to 17 increased their batteries to 390 watt hours from the 276 they supposedly had.

I can't find what ampere they were supposedly operating under and what voltage.
Any idea?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: markjo on June 30, 2021, 08:59:53 AM
Explain the insulating then.
Do you not understand how insulation works? ???
Yep and it would not work on the so called moon vacuum.
Then you don't understand insulation, or heat transfer in general, as well as you think you do.


Quote from: markjo
They are saying they transferred oxygen to the back packs via a tube from the LM.
Why didn't it freeze?
Because the freezing point of oxygen is -362 degrees.  Oh, and the boiling point of liquid oxygen is -297 degrees, so I'm not really sure why you think that -250 degrees is a problem for oxygen gas transfer.

Because the 250 was C not F.
I clearly remember many years ago being told this.
Now it's all changed and it does not surprise me.
Still doesn't matter because all of the moon landings happened during lunar daylight, so keeping the LEM and astronauts from overheating was the bigger concern.

Quote from: markjo
How did the batteries not die in minus 250 or even plus 250?
Have you ever heard of thermal mass (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_mass)?  You may want to look into it.

(All supposedly.)
There is no supposedly about thermal mass.  It's why brick buildings take a while to heat up in the sunlight and stay warm long after the sun goes down.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 30, 2021, 09:06:29 AM
Explain the insulating then.
Do you not understand how insulation works? ???
Yep and it would not work on the so called moon vacuum.
Then you don't understand insulation, or heat transfer in general, as well as you think you do.
Or maybe you don't.



Quote from: markjo
Quote from: markjo
They are saying they transferred oxygen to the back packs via a tube from the LM.
Why didn't it freeze?
Because the freezing point of oxygen is -362 degrees.  Oh, and the boiling point of liquid oxygen is -297 degrees, so I'm not really sure why you think that -250 degrees is a problem for oxygen gas transfer.

Because the 250 was C not F.
I clearly remember many years ago being told this.
Now it's all changed and it does not surprise me.
Still doesn't matter because all of the moon landings happened during lunar daylight, so keeping the LEM and astronauts from overheating was the bigger concern.
Lunar daylight. Take a look at the pictures and tell me it's daylight.

Take a look in the sky and see it lit up like a beacon.



Quote from: markjo
Quote from: markjo
How did the batteries not die in minus 250 or even plus 250?
Have you ever heard of thermal mass (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_mass)?  You may want to look into it.

(All supposedly.)
There is no supposedly about thermal mass.  It's why brick buildings take a while to heat up in the sunlight and stay warm long after the sun goes down.
No brick buildings and in a vacuum as we're told.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Mikey T. on June 30, 2021, 09:47:51 AM
Explain the insulating then.
Do you not understand how insulation works? ???
Yep and it would not work on the so called moon vacuum.
Then you don't understand insulation, or heat transfer in general, as well as you think you do.
Or maybe you don't.



Quote from: markjo
Quote from: markjo
They are saying they transferred oxygen to the back packs via a tube from the LM.
Why didn't it freeze?
Because the freezing point of oxygen is -362 degrees.  Oh, and the boiling point of liquid oxygen is -297 degrees, so I'm not really sure why you think that -250 degrees is a problem for oxygen gas transfer.

Because the 250 was C not F.
I clearly remember many years ago being told this.
Now it's all changed and it does not surprise me.
Still doesn't matter because all of the moon landings happened during lunar daylight, so keeping the LEM and astronauts from overheating was the bigger concern.
Lunar daylight. Take a look at the pictures and tell me it's daylight.

Take a look in the sky and see it lit up like a beacon.



Quote from: markjo
Quote from: markjo
How did the batteries not die in minus 250 or even plus 250?
Have you ever heard of thermal mass (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_mass)?  You may want to look into it.

(All supposedly.)
There is no supposedly about thermal mass.  It's why brick buildings take a while to heat up in the sunlight and stay warm long after the sun goes down.
No brick buildings and in a vacuum as we're told.
I can't speak for Mark, but you clearly do not understand insulation.  Why would the physics of thermal transfer change on the Moon?

Pretty bright out, no atmosphere means no blue sky.  Why do you think it wasn't?  Also with thermal transfer via direct means doesn't really work too well in a near vacuum the thing to insulate against is radiative heat transfer which can be achieved easily with rather thin reflective foil.  Still no answer as to why heat would magically work different on the Moon. 

So he uses brick buildings as an analog to explain thermal mass, but you don't get analogies.  So why would thermal mass not work on the Moon? 

All this hand waving, no explanations, typical. 
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Smoke Machine on June 30, 2021, 02:45:11 PM
Hey, buddy! !!!!!News flash!!!! It's all at your fingertips too.
What is? The moon story?


Quote from: Smoke Machine
You're still glossing over and cherry picking things that to the layman at first glance, seem implausible, but as demonstrated, are all plausible.
Demonstrated, where? On your moon?


Quote from: Smoke Machine
There is a film by Todd Douglas Miller, which is basically a documentary, called, "Apollo 11". Watch it, so we can discuss your issues with it.
I don't need to see a film to discuss issues. I'm doing that right now.


Quote from: Smoke Machine
Oh, and for your information, the average human only needs 34 grams of pure oxygen an hour to survive.
On Earth or on your moon?

Quote from: Smoke Machine
The actual entire spacesuit was pressurised with the oxygen.
The inner suit or the external suit?
The helmet as well, as one unit or separate?
How did the oxygen actually flow as the so called astronaut breathed?Because you mentioned it was stored in the suit and none of it was vented externally.

Do you have any idea?


Quote from: Smoke Machine
In the backpack was 1.4kg of lithium hydroxide
What did they use that for?

Quote from: Smoke Machine
, 3.9 litres of cooling water
How did the cooling water freeze without venting heat to circulate to coll the body??

Quote from: Smoke Machine
, and a 279 watt an hour battery.
Soooo, basically a battery that managed to give out 2.2 kw of energy over the 8 hour so called moon walk?

Did they plug into the moon?

They plugged into the LM, dumb dumb. Your flat earth priests would frown upon you watching that suggested documentary, and might compromise them paying you as a shill. So, best you don't.

The suit itself was pressurised with pure oxygen from a canister in the plss. The astronaut also wore liquid cooling and ventilation garments. The battery powered a ventilation fan inside the suit to circulate the oxygen and move the carbon dioxide towards the lithium hydroxide inside the contamination removal canister.

Water was vaporized from the suit externally, to the vacuum of space, to remove thermal energy and to prevent the astronaut from drowning inside the suit. It was vaporized using the plss water boiler and porous plate sublimator.

As a person who liked inventing, you should be excited by the technology employed in these suits to keep a person inside, alive.

Have you been vaccinated for covid-19 yet, sceptimatic?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: JackBlack on June 30, 2021, 03:33:25 PM
How would it be possible to vent water vapour into space in a so called vacuum?
By exposing it to space.
All provided in the schematics.

Again, if you want to ask questions, stop claiming its fake, and admit that you have no reason to believe it is fake.

Otherwise, justify your outright lies against it.

Once more:
How much oxygen could that tank hold? Not as a time based unit, but either as pressure and volume, or mass (and show all working).
How much oxygen does a human need every hour, and what is your justification for this number?


So far the closest you have come to addressing this is providing a useless 8 litres, with no indication of if that is 8 litres at normal atmospheric pressure, or 1000 atm, or as liquid. (And you also provided no justification for the claim of 8 l)
And for the second question, the closest you have come is a BS lie of 3000 l per hour which is easily shown to be pure garbage.


I don't think you understand.
Do you mean understand that you need to continually lie as you can't justify your claims? I understand that quite well.
Or did you mean understand you have no idea at all how units work? Because that seems apparent.

kW is not a unit of energy, it is power, it is a rate of energy transfer.
It doesn't matter if you have 1 kW for 1 hour, or for 100 hours. It is still 1 kW.
What you are thinking of are kWhr or J (noting there is a conversion factor of 3600 to go between those).

Your water, batteries and oxy issues are ridiculously  wrecked. It's a no go and only fantasy keeps it as some kind of working pretence.
No, they are pathetically dismissed by you, with no justification at all.
That is not "wrecked".
You are the one promoting fantasy, not us.
You are the one rejecting reality, trying to pretend it is fantasy because you have no rational arguments against it.

You cannot boil to the vacuum of your space without having some kind of medium for it to boil off into.
And yet again you show you have no idea how basically anything works.

You do not need any medium at all to vent.
If you understood how gas actually works, instead of continually dismissing it with your fantasy, you would understand quite well that no medium is needed.
All that is needed for water to boil off is for the water molecule to have enough energy to leave the bulk. The only bearing the medium has is that if it contains some of the molecules it will be colliding with the bulk and potentially being stuck.

If you want to disagree, feel free to try justifying why boiling should magically require a medium.

You don't have anything, do you?
No, that would be you.
You have nothing to justify your claims. All you have are pathetic lies and dumb questions.

Do you not understand how insulation works? ???
Yep and it would not work on the so called moon vacuum.
Why?
What magically stops it?
Take a look in the sky and see it lit up like a beacon.
Do you mean the night sky, where it is basically main source of light and your eyes have adjusted to darkness?
Or during the day where it is faint and almost blends into the sky?
Try being in a nice dark room, then stepping out to bright daylight, and see the ground lit up like a beacon.

No brick buildings and in a vacuum as we're told.
There you go ignoring the point again.

The point is not that there are bricks, it is that all objects have a thermal mass.
Things don't instantly change temperature.
In order to cool down, they need to dissipate heat. That thermal energy needs to leave the object and go somewhere else.
In order to heat up, it needs to absorb thermal energy from somewhere else.

On the moon, there is negligible thermal mass (other than the moon itself). That means there isn't really anywhere for the heat to go. Again, you have already admitted that. And that means that things wont just magically freeze.
The main way to cool things down would be evaporative cooling or radiative cooling.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: markjo on June 30, 2021, 05:05:55 PM
Lunar daylight. Take a look at the pictures and tell me it's daylight.
Sorry, I meant lunar daytime, but the point still stands. 

The entire scene is well lit and objects are casting shadows.  Looks like daytime to me.
(https://m.wsj.net/video/20160414/041316apollo15zeiss/041316apollo15zeiss_960x540.jpg)
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 30, 2021, 09:51:41 PM

I can't speak for Mark, but you clearly do not understand insulation.  Why would the physics of thermal transfer change on the Moon?

Pretty bright out, no atmosphere means no blue sky.  Why do you think it wasn't?  Also with thermal transfer via direct means doesn't really work too well in a near vacuum the thing to insulate against is radiative heat transfer which can be achieved easily with rather thin reflective foil.  Still no answer as to why heat would magically work different on the Moon. 

So he uses brick buildings as an analog to explain thermal mass, but you don't get analogies.  So why would thermal mass not work on the Moon? 

All this hand waving, no explanations, typical.
Maybe ask yourself how humans get hot on Earth and get cold.

Once you understand that you'll understand that your moon will offer nothing of the sort for any of what you're saying, including insulation.

The trouble is your story books offer you the fantasy and you take it with gusto.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 30, 2021, 10:03:29 PM
They plugged into the LM, dumb dumb. Your flat earth priests would frown upon you watching that suggested documentary, and might compromise them paying you as a shill. So, best you don't.
Plugged in, eh?
Quote from: Smoke Machine
The suit itself was pressurised with pure oxygen from a canister in the plss.
Do you mean like a balloon is inflated?
Does the canister inflate the suit to a set pressure and the suit holds that like a balloon as if the knot's tied?

Quote from: Smoke Machine
The astronaut also wore liquid cooling and ventilation garments.
Ventilation garments?
How does that work?

Quote from: Smoke Machine
The battery powered a ventilation fan inside the suit to circulate the oxygen and move the carbon dioxide towards the lithium hydroxide inside the contamination removal canister.
Sooo, the suit is pressurised and somewhere in that suit is a fan that somehow circulates the pressurised oxygen around it.
Sort of like me putting a box over my head with a fan inside and sealing it around my neck to circulate the air inside the box....right?



Quote from: Smoke Machine
Water was vaporized from the suit externally, to the vacuum of space, to remove thermal energy and to prevent the astronaut from drowning inside the suit. It was vaporized using the plss water boiler and porous plate sublimator.
Vaporised from the suit?
To vaporise you need something to vaporise into. A medium.
Your moon provides none of it because it's a vacuum as you people say.
This means that any liquid in whatever form, could not be expelled from the suit. It would instantly freeze at the exit to the so called vacuum.
Major problems here.

Quote from: Smoke Machine
As a person who liked inventing, you should be excited by the technology employed in these suits to keep a person inside, alive.
I love real inventions.
Unfortunately none of this applies to moon shenanigans.

Quote from: Smoke Machine
Have you been vaccinated for covid-19 yet, sceptimatic?
Are you getting desperate?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 30, 2021, 10:05:31 PM
How would it be possible to vent water vapour into space in a so called vacuum?
By exposing it to space.

Not happening I'm afraid.

As I explained to smokey.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 30, 2021, 10:09:26 PM
Lunar daylight. Take a look at the pictures and tell me it's daylight.
Sorry, I meant lunar daytime, but the point still stands. 

The entire scene is well lit and objects are casting shadows.  Looks like daytime to me.
(https://m.wsj.net/video/20160414/041316apollo15zeiss/041316apollo15zeiss_960x540.jpg)
Take a look at the moon one night and you'l notice it's lit up like a beacon.
You must understand and see that it is lit up like a beacon...right?
It's right there in your face....right?


So, if your moon is what you think it is and you believe men walked upon it, then don't try and argue for daylight on it by showing darkness with a spotlight on a grey surface when you can clearly see with your own eyes what's in that sky as a bright.....yes, bright circle of illuminated light that you call the moon.


This is why people need to use their own logic instead of reading fairly stories and accepting them as truth.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Mikey T. on June 30, 2021, 10:18:48 PM

I can't speak for Mark, but you clearly do not understand insulation.  Why would the physics of thermal transfer change on the Moon?

Pretty bright out, no atmosphere means no blue sky.  Why do you think it wasn't?  Also with thermal transfer via direct means doesn't really work too well in a near vacuum the thing to insulate against is radiative heat transfer which can be achieved easily with rather thin reflective foil.  Still no answer as to why heat would magically work different on the Moon. 

So he uses brick buildings as an analog to explain thermal mass, but you don't get analogies.  So why would thermal mass not work on the Moon? 

All this hand waving, no explanations, typical.
Maybe ask yourself how humans get hot on Earth and get cold.

Once you understand that you'll understand that your moon will offer nothing of the sort for any of what you're saying, including insulation.

The trouble is your story books offer you the fantasy and you take it with gusto.
I understand what thermal energy is, you do not.  With a lot of atmosphere to be able to transfer heat to the things it is in contact with.  Pretty easy stuff.  A near vacuum being devoid of most matter to be able to transfer thermal energy via contact, then anything "hot" would retain that thermal mass for a very long time.  So the dumb "ooh scary cold" portion is dealt with.  Then with reflective foil being demonstrably good at blocking radiative energy and there being a near vacuum to pretty much not have any way of contacting an item to heat it up does away with the dumb "ooh scary hot" garbage. 
Other ways like sublimation plates to assist in bleeding off heat building in the suits requires a very low external pressure to work very well.  Yet another point for near vacuum.
You just saying "nuh uhh" means nothing. 
So, again, why do physics magically change for the moon? 
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Mikey T. on June 30, 2021, 10:27:47 PM
Lunar daylight. Take a look at the pictures and tell me it's daylight.
Sorry, I meant lunar daytime, but the point still stands. 

The entire scene is well lit and objects are casting shadows.  Looks like daytime to me.
(https://m.wsj.net/video/20160414/041316apollo15zeiss/041316apollo15zeiss_960x540.jpg)
Take a look at the moon one night and you'l notice it's lit up like a beacon.
You must understand and see that it is lit up like a beacon...right?
It's right there in your face....right?


So, if your moon is what you think it is and you believe men walked upon it, then don't try and argue for daylight on it by showing darkness with a spotlight on a grey surface when you can clearly see with your own eyes what's in that sky as a bright.....yes, bright circle of illuminated light that you call the moon.


This is why people need to use their own logic instead of reading fairly stories and accepting them as truth.
Get a telescope, look at the moon. 
The moon reflects light, it doesn't make light.  The moon has no real atmosphere, why would you see a bright sky? 
Why do you consistently lie?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 30, 2021, 10:36:35 PM

I can't speak for Mark, but you clearly do not understand insulation.  Why would the physics of thermal transfer change on the Moon?

Pretty bright out, no atmosphere means no blue sky.  Why do you think it wasn't?  Also with thermal transfer via direct means doesn't really work too well in a near vacuum the thing to insulate against is radiative heat transfer which can be achieved easily with rather thin reflective foil.  Still no answer as to why heat would magically work different on the Moon. 

So he uses brick buildings as an analog to explain thermal mass, but you don't get analogies.  So why would thermal mass not work on the Moon? 

All this hand waving, no explanations, typical.
Maybe ask yourself how humans get hot on Earth and get cold.

Once you understand that you'll understand that your moon will offer nothing of the sort for any of what you're saying, including insulation.

The trouble is your story books offer you the fantasy and you take it with gusto.
I understand what thermal energy is, you do not.  With a lot of atmosphere to be able to transfer heat to the things it is in contact with.  Pretty easy stuff.  A near vacuum being devoid of most matter to be able to transfer thermal energy via contact, then anything "hot" would retain that thermal mass for a very long time.  So the dumb "ooh scary cold" portion is dealt with.  Then with reflective foil being demonstrably good at blocking radiative energy and there being a near vacuum to pretty much not have any way of contacting an item to heat it up does away with the dumb "ooh scary hot" garbage. 
Other ways like sublimation plates to assist in bleeding off heat building in the suits requires a very low external pressure to work very well.  Yet another point for near vacuum.
You just saying "nuh uhh" means nothing. 
So, again, why do physics magically change for the moon?
Absolute utter nonsense.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 30, 2021, 10:40:17 PM

Get a telescope, look at the moon. 
The moon reflects light, it doesn't make light.  The moon has no real atmosphere, why would you see a bright sky? 
Why do you consistently lie?
I don't need a telescope to see the so called moon lit up like a beacon.
If the moon reflects light then it's not going to reflect it from a cement like powder as we were consistently shown in the early days of the moon gunk.

Trying to twist it by saying the moon doesn't make light is pointless.
I never mentioned the moon making any light.
I said it was lit up like a beacon and that light in the sky is lit up like a beacon.

Keep trying.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Mikey T. on June 30, 2021, 11:06:19 PM

Get a telescope, look at the moon. 
The moon reflects light, it doesn't make light.  The moon has no real atmosphere, why would you see a bright sky? 
Why do you consistently lie?
I don't need a telescope to see the so called moon lit up like a beacon.
If the moon reflects light then it's not going to reflect it from a cement like powder as we were consistently shown in the early days of the moon gunk.

Trying to twist it by saying the moon doesn't make light is pointless.
I never mentioned the moon making any light.
I said it was lit up like a beacon and that light in the sky is lit up like a beacon.

Keep trying.

So you've never seen a concrete building with spot lights on it from a far distance, then got close to it?  Amazing that it doesn't blind you. 
And you just refuse to try looking at the moon with a telescope.  If you zoom in 9n it, it doesn't appear so bright.  But hey keep lying about things, it just makes it easier to discredit you to anyone who may get caught in the FE scam.
So you understand it's reflected light then, next time be more specific. 
Still waiting on your explanations. 
Aka keep trying.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Stash on June 30, 2021, 11:10:56 PM
I don't need a telescope to see the so called moon lit up like a beacon.
If the moon reflects light then it's not going to reflect it from a cement like powder as we were consistently shown in the early days of the moon gunk.

Why not?  What does powder have to do with it? Is a white sandy beach more reflective than a black sandy beach?

Concrete Shines as Solar Reflectance Material
"Concrete does a very good job of reflecting solar energy. That is the finding from a Portland Cement Association (PCA) study which measured the solar reflectance index (SRI) of 45 concrete mixes."
https://www.cement.org/learn/concrete-technology/concrete-construction/concrete-as-solar-reflectance-material
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on June 30, 2021, 11:23:10 PM
I don't need a telescope to see the so called moon lit up like a beacon.
If the moon reflects light then it's not going to reflect it from a cement like powder as we were consistently shown in the early days of the moon gunk.

Why not?  What does powder have to do with it? Is a white sandy beach more reflective than a black sandy beach?

Concrete Shines as Solar Reflectance Material
"Concrete does a very good job of reflecting solar energy. That is the finding from a Portland Cement Association (PCA) study which measured the solar reflectance index (SRI) of 45 concrete mixes."
https://www.cement.org/learn/concrete-technology/concrete-construction/concrete-as-solar-reflectance-material
Let me make myself more clear. Not that I need to because I'm 1005 sure you people know.


When you look at your moon from  your Earth, no matter what you think Earth is or the moon is, you see a bright illuminated light like a beacon in that sky.


Your men who you believe walked upon that bright light in the sky are plunged into darkness as the pictures show when in reality they should be lit up with your moon in pictures, if it was a reality.


There's absolutely no need to argue for a vacuum being the reason for a spotlight so called sun when your very own eyes can see the reality of a illuminated in the sky does not match the pictures or photo's taken of a supposed illuminated light in the sky.


It beggars belief to think people still fall for this gunk.

Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Mikey T. on June 30, 2021, 11:42:58 PM
Again, not a light.  Reflected light, I thought you got this already. 
What does vacuum have to do with reflected light from the moon?

Still waiting for explanations of the crazy claims, still only getting hissy fit like hand waving from you.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Stash on July 01, 2021, 12:12:47 AM
I don't need a telescope to see the so called moon lit up like a beacon.
If the moon reflects light then it's not going to reflect it from a cement like powder as we were consistently shown in the early days of the moon gunk.

Why not?  What does powder have to do with it? Is a white sandy beach more reflective than a black sandy beach?

Concrete Shines as Solar Reflectance Material
"Concrete does a very good job of reflecting solar energy. That is the finding from a Portland Cement Association (PCA) study which measured the solar reflectance index (SRI) of 45 concrete mixes."
https://www.cement.org/learn/concrete-technology/concrete-construction/concrete-as-solar-reflectance-material
Let me make myself more clear. Not that I need to because I'm 1005 sure you people know.


When you look at your moon from  your Earth, no matter what you think Earth is or the moon is, you see a bright illuminated light like a beacon in that sky.

No I don't, not always. Neither do you. There are phases of the moon. Sometimes it looks like this - Hardly a "Beacon":

(https://imgix.gizmodo.com.au/content/uploads/sites/2/2016/10/01/akutrmtk8u6frcejadnf.jpg?ar=16%3A9&auto=format&fit=crop&q=65&w=1280)

Does your carbonite powered holographic projected moon not have phases?

Your men who you believe walked upon that bright light in the sky are plunged into darkness as the pictures show when in reality they should be lit up with your moon in pictures, if it was a reality.

I'm sorry, I must of missed something here. What pictures show my men plunged into darkness? I have no idea what you're talking about.

There's absolutely no need to argue for a vacuum being the reason for a spotlight so called sun when your very own eyes can see the reality of a illuminated in the sky does not match the pictures or photo's taken of a supposed illuminated light in the sky.

It beggars belief to think people still fall for this gunk.

I don't know what you're talking about here either. What "sky" should be illuminated?  You mean the background? aka, space? If so, what would you expect the daytime Moon sky to look like and why?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on July 01, 2021, 12:21:20 AM


(https://imgix.gizmodo.com.au/content/uploads/sites/2/2016/10/01/akutrmtk8u6frcejadnf.jpg?ar=16%3A9&auto=format&fit=crop&q=65&w=1280)

Does your carbonite powered holographic projected moon not have phases?


Ahhh right, so  your men on your moon were in darkness and not lit up except for a spotlight. Is this right?

Considering we see a full moon all the time on Earth...lit up like a beacon but the men on your moon were not on the beacon lit side, they were around the back.......is this right?


So basically it's not your sun illuminating your moon as we see it, right?
The sun can only make spotlight illuminations on your moon but we see it lit up like a beacon.

Does Earth shine your moon up like a beacon if it's not your sun?


Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on July 01, 2021, 12:23:06 AM
Again, not a light.  Reflected light, I thought you got this already. 
Isn't light always reflected?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Stash on July 01, 2021, 12:29:22 AM


(https://imgix.gizmodo.com.au/content/uploads/sites/2/2016/10/01/akutrmtk8u6frcejadnf.jpg?ar=16%3A9&auto=format&fit=crop&q=65&w=1280)

Does your carbonite powered holographic projected moon not have phases?


Ahhh right, so  your men on your moon were in darkness and not lit up except for a spotlight. Is this right?

Considering we see a full moon all the time on Earth...lit up like a beacon but the men on your moon were not on the beacon lit side, they were around the back.......is this right?


So basically it's not your sun illuminating your moon as we see it, right?
The sun can only make spotlight illuminations on your moon but we see it lit up like a beacon.

Does Earth shine your moon up like a beacon if it's not your sun?

What in the world are you going on about? We see a full moon all of the time? So your carbonite powered holographic projected moon does not have phases? But the rest of us see the phases of the moon? How does that work?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on July 01, 2021, 12:33:46 AM


(https://imgix.gizmodo.com.au/content/uploads/sites/2/2016/10/01/akutrmtk8u6frcejadnf.jpg?ar=16%3A9&auto=format&fit=crop&q=65&w=1280)

Does your carbonite powered holographic projected moon not have phases?


Ahhh right, so  your men on your moon were in darkness and not lit up except for a spotlight. Is this right?

Considering we see a full moon all the time on Earth...lit up like a beacon but the men on your moon were not on the beacon lit side, they were around the back.......is this right?


So basically it's not your sun illuminating your moon as we see it, right?
The sun can only make spotlight illuminations on your moon but we see it lit up like a beacon.

Does Earth shine your moon up like a beacon if it's not your sun?

What in the world are you going on about? We see a full moon all of the time? So your carbonite powered holographic projected moon does not have phases? But the rest of us see the phases of the moon? How does that work?
People on Earth see a full moon all of the time.

You know fine well what I'm going on about.
The phases are only related to where a person is stood when the moonlight is obscured from their position, after full moon.

You know fine well what I'm saying.

Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: JackBlack on July 01, 2021, 01:26:43 AM
As I explained to smokey.
You mean as you baselessly asserted with no justification nor explanation, again carrying on with the fantasy that things just magically freeze, even though there is no where for the heat to go.

And yet again you avoid the simple questions which show you are spouting pure BS:
How much oxygen could that tank hold? Not as a time based unit, but either as pressure and volume, or mass (and show all working).
How much oxygen does a human need every hour, and what is your justification for this number?


Maybe ask yourself how humans get hot on Earth and get cold.
By exchanging heat with their surroundings, all that air around them.
People stay warm in winter by putting up barriers to that air to make the heat move into the air more slowly.

Once you understand that you will understand that the temperatures you are quoting have no impact.

That air is the very thing missing on the moon.
So just how are things meant to magically freeze?
Again, you have already admitted there is no where for the heat to go.
So again, how is meant to cool?
How are the batteries meant to freeze?

Sort of like me putting a box over my head with a fan inside and sealing it around my neck to circulate the air inside the box....right?
The important part you are missing in that analogy is a supply of oxygen and a way to remove the moisture and CO2.

To vaporise you need something to vaporise into. A medium.
You have already tried that lie.
If you wish to assert such BS, you will need more than just your assertion.

It would instantly freeze at the exit to the so called vacuum.
You are aware it takes quite some time for it to freeze?
It only freezes because enough water boils away.

Take a look at the moon one night and you'l notice it's lit up like a beacon.
Because your eyes are adjusted to the dark.
Again, go stand in a dark room with no significant light at all, similar to night time, then go step out into a the mid-day sun, preferably onto white concrete.
You will then observe the Earth lit up like a beacon.

Again, sane people realise how bright things appear is based upon their surroundings and how your eyes are adjusted.
Just like if you look at the moon during the day and see that it isn't that bright at all.

The surface of the moon has a similar brightness to the surface of Earth.

If you used logic and actually wanted to argue against the RE model you would note the the moon is not self-illuminated, and instead is merely lit up by the sun. Thus when it is a similar distance away from the sun as Earth, it will be a similar brightness to Earth.

But of course, you don't want to use logic. You just want to use whatever dishonest BS you can to pretend it is fake.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Stash on July 01, 2021, 01:51:46 AM


(https://imgix.gizmodo.com.au/content/uploads/sites/2/2016/10/01/akutrmtk8u6frcejadnf.jpg?ar=16%3A9&auto=format&fit=crop&q=65&w=1280)

Does your carbonite powered holographic projected moon not have phases?


Ahhh right, so  your men on your moon were in darkness and not lit up except for a spotlight. Is this right?

Considering we see a full moon all the time on Earth...lit up like a beacon but the men on your moon were not on the beacon lit side, they were around the back.......is this right?


So basically it's not your sun illuminating your moon as we see it, right?
The sun can only make spotlight illuminations on your moon but we see it lit up like a beacon.

Does Earth shine your moon up like a beacon if it's not your sun?

What in the world are you going on about? We see a full moon all of the time? So your carbonite powered holographic projected moon does not have phases? But the rest of us see the phases of the moon? How does that work?
People on Earth see a full moon all of the time.

You know fine well what I'm going on about.
The phases are only related to where a person is stood when the moonlight is obscured from their position, after full moon.

You know fine well what I'm saying.

No, I don’t know what you’re saying. People on earth don’t see a full moon all of the time. Only when it’s a full moon. Which is not all of the time.

Are you now saying that you and I see different phases at the same time depending upon where we are standing? If so, around 7+ billion people disagree. How does that work?

And why can’t light reflect off the moon?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Smoke Machine on July 01, 2021, 02:02:37 AM


(https://imgix.gizmodo.com.au/content/uploads/sites/2/2016/10/01/akutrmtk8u6frcejadnf.jpg?ar=16%3A9&auto=format&fit=crop&q=65&w=1280)

Does your carbonite powered holographic projected moon not have phases?


Ahhh right, so  your men on your moon were in darkness and not lit up except for a spotlight. Is this right?

Considering we see a full moon all the time on Earth...lit up like a beacon but the men on your moon were not on the beacon lit side, they were around the back.......is this right?


So basically it's not your sun illuminating your moon as we see it, right?
The sun can only make spotlight illuminations on your moon but we see it lit up like a beacon.

Does Earth shine your moon up like a beacon if it's not your sun?

What in the world are you going on about? We see a full moon all of the time? So your carbonite powered holographic projected moon does not have phases? But the rest of us see the phases of the moon? How does that work?
People on Earth see a full moon all of the time.

You know fine well what I'm going on about.
The phases are only related to where a person is stood when the moonlight is obscured from their position, after full moon.

You know fine well what I'm saying.

I know you're only joking around. If I'm looking at a waning moon tonight, then everyone everywhere else in the world is also seeing a waning moon.

Like I said, the apollo astronauts landed on the moon at solar dawn. So, look at the curved edge of a waxing or waning moon, truncating the full circle appearance of the rest of the moon, and that's the area they landed.

That's why in the photos, the shadows are so long. It's like shadows being so long here on earth at dawn.

The reason the moon reflects so much light from the sun at night, is because the regalith on the moon surface is so reflective. If you don't believe me, check out the reflective index of regalith samples the apollo astronauts brought back to Earth.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Mikey T. on July 01, 2021, 05:11:14 AM
Again, not a light.  Reflected light, I thought you got this already. 
Isn't light always reflected?
Excuse me?  So where does light come from?  When you say it's a light, that implies source.  Now you are saying all light is reflected light.  Choose your words more carefully. 

Go look at the Moon through a telescope.  Does it blind you?  Or does it resemble something being lit up by the Sun.

Still waiting for an explanation.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: markjo on July 01, 2021, 11:12:21 AM
Take a look at the moon one night and you'l notice it's lit up like a beacon.
You must understand and see that it is lit up like a beacon...right?
It's right there in your face....right?
Yes, the moon is illuminated by sunlight.  You do understand that the length of a day on earth is different than a day on the moon, don't you?  Also, if you were to look at the moon right now, about 1/3 of the disc would be illuminated.

So, if your moon is what you think it is and you believe men walked upon it, then don't try and argue for daylight on it by showing darkness with a spotlight on a grey surface when you can clearly see with your own eyes what's in that sky as a bright.....yes, bright circle of illuminated light that you call the moon.
What is daytime supposed to look like when you're standing on the moon?  No atmosphere means no blue sky.

This is why people need to use their own logic instead of reading fairly stories and accepting them as truth.
I think that you're mistaking intuition for logic.  If you were trying to make a logical argument, then you would lay out your reasoning step by step and in detail.  Instead, you're just saying that it doesn't look right to you so it can't be right.  That isn't logic, that's incredulity.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Themightykabool on July 01, 2021, 12:10:05 PM
So when i go out in the day time, and people and trees and cars and buildings are all oit up like beacons, does that mean they all supply their own light source?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on July 02, 2021, 02:01:11 AM
As I explained to smokey.
You mean as you baselessly asserted with no justification nor explanation, again carrying on with the fantasy that things just magically freeze, even though there is no where for the heat to go.

Your vacuum would offer zero resistance to an expelled water/oxygen/co2...etc from your so called astronauts suit/backpack.

In normal thought process you would think it would offer an immediate way out for the gases/liquids.
It would but it would not vent into your space, it would immediately freeze upon release.
It would just dissipate into the vacuum like you think it would.

If it were possible to survive in a suit in that set up you would end up literally being a michelin man as your gases expand into the suit.
Heat is expansion of matter due to friction.

If it's not released to dissipate, you're gone.

If released into your vacuum it would immediately free at the exit which would immediately block any remaining gases/liquids in that suit from escaping.

A now win and for good reason. The moon stuff is fantasy.



Quote from: JackBlack
And yet again you avoid the simple questions which show you are spouting pure BS:
How much oxygen could that tank hold? Not as a time based unit, but either as pressure and volume, or mass (and show all working).
Judging by that tank I'd hazard a guess at 10 litres just to make it a rounded figure.


Quote from: JackBlack
How much oxygen does a human need every hour, and what is your justification for this number?[/b]
About 3000 litres....unless you're on about liquid oxygen from a tank and underwater. What?


Quote from: JackBlack
Maybe ask yourself how humans get hot on Earth and get cold.
By exchanging heat with their surroundings, all that air around them.
Friction and molecular expansion for heat to less friction and less molecular expansion for the feeling of cold.
Internal and external.

Your moon fantasy offers no escape route.

Quote from: JackBlack
People stay warm in winter by putting up barriers to that air to make the heat move into the air more slowly.
Yep which makes the body's own friction heating and external cooling to be rebounded back onto them due to the insulation of clothing...etc.
Your moon does not provide any of this.


Quote from: JackBlack
Once you understand that you will understand that the temperatures you are quoting have no impact.
I beg to differ.


Quote from: JackBlack
That air is the very thing missing on the moon.
So just how are things meant to magically freeze?
Rapid expansion against no resistance.



Quote from: JackBlack
Again, you have already admitted there is no where for the heat to go.
So again, how is meant to cool?
It cools because it rapidly expands, meaning no friction left to do anything because there's no medium to travel in.

Quote from: JackBlack
How are the batteries meant to freeze?
No chemical conversion.

Quote from: JackBlack
Sort of like me putting a box over my head with a fan inside and sealing it around my neck to circulate the air inside the box....right?
The important part you are missing in that analogy is a supply of oxygen and a way to remove the moisture and CO2.
Explain the fan and how it works inside the suit?


Quote from: JackBlack
To vaporise you need something to vaporise into. A medium.
You have already tried that lie.
If you wish to assert such BS, you will need more than just your assertion.

That's all I have until you can show me it all working in your moon vacuum.

Quote from: JackBlack
It would instantly freeze at the exit to the so called vacuum.
You are aware it takes quite some time for it to freeze?
It only freezes because enough water boils away.

It will only boil away if there's an outlet that has a medium to travel, otherwise no boiling ( massive expansion)

Quote from: JackBlack
Take a look at the moon one night and you'l notice it's lit up like a beacon.
Because your eyes are adjusted to the dark.
Again, go stand in a dark room with no significant light at all, similar to night time, then go step out into a the mid-day sun, preferably onto white concrete.
You will then observe the Earth lit up like a beacon.
Absolutely nothing like it.


Quote from: JackBlack
Again, sane people realise how bright things appear is based upon their surroundings and how your eyes are adjusted.
Just like if you look at the moon during the day and see that it isn't that bright at all.

If that's the case then you wouldn't be seeing it at all at the distance you people think it's at.

Quote from: JackBlack
The surface of the moon has a similar brightness to the surface of Earth.
Not judging by the pictures/video we are all shown. Absolute utter nonsense.


Quote from: JackBlack
If you used logic and actually wanted to argue against the RE model you would note the the moon is not self-illuminated, and instead is merely lit up by the sun.
I never said it was self illuminated so don't waste your time going down that route.


Quote from: JackBlack
Thus when it is a similar distance away from the sun as Earth, it will be a similar brightness to Earth.
And yet we see it lit up like a beacon all over known Earth but the so called astronauts always look like they're poncing around on the beach at night with a pal leaving the car headlights on.


Quote from: JackBlack
But of course, you don't want to use logic. You just want to use whatever dishonest BS you can to pretend it is fake.
That's just what I think about what you're doing.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on July 02, 2021, 02:03:12 AM


(https://imgix.gizmodo.com.au/content/uploads/sites/2/2016/10/01/akutrmtk8u6frcejadnf.jpg?ar=16%3A9&auto=format&fit=crop&q=65&w=1280)

Does your carbonite powered holographic projected moon not have phases?


Ahhh right, so  your men on your moon were in darkness and not lit up except for a spotlight. Is this right?

Considering we see a full moon all the time on Earth...lit up like a beacon but the men on your moon were not on the beacon lit side, they were around the back.......is this right?


So basically it's not your sun illuminating your moon as we see it, right?
The sun can only make spotlight illuminations on your moon but we see it lit up like a beacon.

Does Earth shine your moon up like a beacon if it's not your sun?

What in the world are you going on about? We see a full moon all of the time? So your carbonite powered holographic projected moon does not have phases? But the rest of us see the phases of the moon? How does that work?
People on Earth see a full moon all of the time.

You know fine well what I'm going on about.
The phases are only related to where a person is stood when the moonlight is obscured from their position, after full moon.

You know fine well what I'm saying.

No, I don’t know what you’re saying. People on earth don’t see a full moon all of the time. Only when it’s a full moon. Which is not all of the time.

Are you now saying that you and I see different phases at the same time depending upon where we are standing? If so, around 7+ billion people disagree. How does that work?

And why can’t light reflect off the moon?
At some stage all people see a full moon somewhere on Earth.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on July 02, 2021, 02:04:41 AM


I know you're only joking around. If I'm looking at a waning moon tonight, then everyone everywhere else in the world is also seeing a waning moon.

Absolutely not.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on July 02, 2021, 02:06:28 AM

What is daytime supposed to look like when you're standing on the moon?  No atmosphere means no blue sky.


It would also mean no moon vision...but there it is.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Solarwind on July 02, 2021, 02:18:27 AM
Quote
How much oxygen does a human need every hour, and what is your justification for this number?[/b]
About 3000 litres....unless you're on about liquid oxygen from a tank and underwater. What?
Where do you get 3000 litres per hour from?!? The average human being consumes 11,000 litres per day and clearly 11,000 / 24 does not equal 3000 does it.
Actual amounts obviously vary according to activity rates but hourly rate is typically 300-400 litres per hour. 

Quote
It would also mean no moon vision...but there it is.
If you were standing on the Moon then yes I think you would be able to see it.  At least a very small part of it within direct visible range.  You would also see the Sun and stars in a black sky. As markjo correctly says.

Obviously not in your world Scepti because in your world there is no such thing as space, the Moon does not exist as a physical body and so no one could ever stand on your Moon.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sobchak on July 02, 2021, 03:24:59 AM


I know you're only joking around. If I'm looking at a waning moon tonight, then everyone everywhere else in the world is also seeing a waning moon.

Absolutely not.

Wait, what? 

Sceptimatic, do you imagine that two people looking at the holographic moon projection at the same time from two different parts of the world can see different phases of the moon? 

Could I see a half moon and someone else be seeing a full moon?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on July 02, 2021, 03:39:56 AM


I know you're only joking around. If I'm looking at a waning moon tonight, then everyone everywhere else in the world is also seeing a waning moon.

Absolutely not.

Wait, what? 

Sceptimatic, do you imagine that two people looking at the holographic moon projection at the same time from two different parts of the world can see different phases of the moon? 

Could I see a half moon and someone else be seeing a full moon?
Absolutely if you're on different parts of the Earth.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on July 02, 2021, 03:43:54 AM
Quote
How much oxygen does a human need every hour, and what is your justification for this number?[/b]
About 3000 litres....unless you're on about liquid oxygen from a tank and underwater. What?
Where do you get 3000 litres per hour from?!? The average human being consumes 11,000 litres per day and clearly 11,000 / 24 does not equal 3000 does it.
Actual amounts obviously vary according to activity rates but hourly rate is typically 300-400 litres per hour. 

Quote
It would also mean no moon vision...but there it is.
If you were standing on the Moon then yes I think you would be able to see it.  At least a very small part of it within direct visible range.  You would also see the Sun and stars in a black sky. As markjo correctly says.

Obviously not in your world Scepti because in your world there is no such thing as space, the Moon does not exist as a physical body and so no one could ever stand on your Moon.
I'm like lt being pretty conservative about the 3000. I gave that as a bottom end figure just to be easy going.

It seems you're trying to help your moon fantasy walkers.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sobchak on July 02, 2021, 03:52:47 AM


I know you're only joking around. If I'm looking at a waning moon tonight, then everyone everywhere else in the world is also seeing a waning moon.

Absolutely not.

Wait, what? 

Sceptimatic, do you imagine that two people looking at the holographic moon projection at the same time from two different parts of the world can see different phases of the moon? 

Could I see a half moon and someone else be seeing a full moon?
Absolutely if you're on different parts of the Earth.

Wow, that would be cool. 

Do you have anything besides your imagination to go on for this?

Is there any way we could test this?

Could you be wrong?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Solarwind on July 02, 2021, 03:59:58 AM
I just wondered where you got the figure of 3000 litres an hour from because all the websites I checked out seemed to be pretty consistent with 300-400 litres per hour.  Your claim is an order of magnitude more so bit of a difference!  Or did you just conjure up 3000 off the top of your head?

Nah not trying to help anyone really.  I don't think they need it. 
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Smoke Machine on July 02, 2021, 04:12:05 AM


I know you're only joking around. If I'm looking at a waning moon tonight, then everyone everywhere else in the world is also seeing a waning moon.

Absolutely not.

Wait, what? 

Sceptimatic, do you imagine that two people looking at the holographic moon projection at the same time from two different parts of the world can see different phases of the moon? 

Could I see a half moon and someone else be seeing a full moon?
Absolutely if you're on different parts of the Earth.

Wait, what?

Was it the swinging gate experiment which led you to this conclusion?

Oh, and the excessive heat and water was boiled out of the astronaut's spacesuits into the moon atmosphere.

Perhaps you should go and visit the British National Space Centre and get schooled up?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: JackBlack on July 02, 2021, 04:36:58 AM
Your vacuum would offer zero resistance to an expelled water/oxygen/co2...etc from your so called astronauts suit/backpack.
Yet before you said it would magically be stopped.
You really need to try to make up your mind and stick to it.

Heat is expansion of matter due to friction.
If it's not released to dissipate, you're gone.
So now you have switched from everything meant to be freezing to the heat not getting out.

See, if you had a normal thought process you wouldn't be repeatedly contradicting yourself.

If released into your vacuum it would immediately free at the exit which would immediately block any remaining gases/liquids in that suit from escaping.
And yet again, you contradict yourself.
Just where is the heat going to allow it to freeze?

The moon stuff is fantasy.
The only fantasy here is your fantasy about all the alleged problems.

Quote from: JackBlack
And yet again you avoid the simple questions which show you are spouting pure BS:
How much oxygen could that tank hold? Not as a time based unit, but either as pressure and volume, or mass (and show all working).
Judging by that tank I'd hazard a guess at 10 litres just to make it a rounded figure.
Again, ANSWER THE ACTUAL QUESTION!
Not the question you want it to be, but the actual question asked.
10 l is a useless number. It does tell anyone how much oxygen that tank can hold.
If you want to use a volume, you need to include a pressure with it. Otherwise it is useless.

Quote from: JackBlack
How much oxygen does a human need every hour, and what is your justification for this number?[/b]
About 3000 litres
That number was already shown to be pure BS.
Why repeat it?
And again, where is your justification?

It seems all you can do to attack the reality of the moon landings is spout pure fantasy.


Your moon fantasy offers no escape route.
Again, MAKE UP YOUR MIND!
Previously you were saying the batteries would magically freeze.
Now you are saying there is no escape route for the heat, which means they couldn't possibly freeze.

Quote from: JackBlack
Once you understand that you will understand that the temperatures you are quoting have no impact.
I beg to differ.
Don't just beg, try to present an actual argument.

Quote from: JackBlack
That air is the very thing missing on the moon.
So just how are things meant to magically freeze?
Rapid expansion against no resistance.
Like the controlled release of the water from the suit?

You are now showing there is no problem at all regarding controlling temperature on the moon, and that the batteries wouldn't freeze or superheat.

Quote from: JackBlack
How are the batteries meant to freeze?
No chemical conversion.
That does not cause them to freeze. Try again.
You need to tell us where the heat goes.
If there is no where for the heat to go, the batteries can't freeze.

Explain the fan and how it works inside the suit?
No. Stop asking dumb questions, show a problem and deal with the refutations of your prior claims.

Quote from: JackBlack
To vaporise you need something to vaporise into. A medium.
You have already tried that lie.
If you wish to assert such BS, you will need more than just your assertion.
That's all I have
If all you have is a pathetic lie, then you have nothing.
Especially as you have already contradicted that lie of yours.

Quote from: JackBlack
Take a look at the moon one night and you'l notice it's lit up like a beacon.
Because your eyes are adjusted to the dark.
Again, go stand in a dark room with no significant light at all, similar to night time, then go step out into a the mid-day sun, preferably onto white concrete.
You will then observe the Earth lit up like a beacon.
Absolutely nothing like it.
That wasn't a question, it was a simple statement. Denying it is just further rejection of reality.
If you get your eyes adjusted to a dark room and go straight out into a very bright day looking at Earth, it will appear extremely bright, far brighter than the full moon at night.

Quote from: JackBlack
Again, sane people realise how bright things appear is based upon their surroundings and how your eyes are adjusted.
Just like if you look at the moon during the day and see that it isn't that bright at all.
If that's the case then you wouldn't be seeing it at all at the distance you people think it's at.
Why?
There you go spouting pure BS with no justification yet again.

Quote from: JackBlack
The surface of the moon has a similar brightness to the surface of Earth.
Not judging by the pictures/video we are all shown. Absolute utter nonsense.
Do you mean the pictures which clearly show the moon well resolved and well within the brightness range of the camera, just like Earth.

Quote from: JackBlack
If you used logic and actually wanted to argue against the RE model you would note the the moon is not self-illuminated, and instead is merely lit up by the sun.
I never said it was self illuminated so don't waste your time going down that route.
If you aren't going to claim it is self-illuminated, just what magic should make it so much brighter? Just what do you think is lighting up the moon?
And why does this light up the moon so well but not light up Earth?

Quote from: JackBlack
Thus when it is a similar distance away from the sun as Earth, it will be a similar brightness to Earth.
And yet we see it lit up like a beacon
No, we don't.
We see it lit up, like Earth.

I'm like lt being pretty conservative about the 3000. I gave that as a bottom end figure just to be easy going.
You might want to pretend that, but it is still pure BS.
Your "bottom end" figure is massively above the upper limit.
You gave it as an insane number to pretend there is a problem where there is none.
And yet again you refuse to provide any justification for your fantasy.

If you were actually going "easy" you would provide a justification for this lower bound. But we both know that will never happen as you just made it up.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Solarwind on July 02, 2021, 06:00:33 AM
Quote
Quote from: JackBlack
The surface of the moon has a similar brightness to the surface of Earth.
Not judging by the pictures/video we are all shown. Absolute utter nonsense.
How are we making the comparison here?  The apparent 'brightness' of the surface is given by the geometric albedo, i.e. percentage of incident light which is reflected. In which case Moon = 12%, Earth = 39% (remember the Vangelis Album 'Albedo = 0.39') while Venus is almost 70%.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: markjo on July 02, 2021, 06:44:36 AM
At some stage all people see a full moon somewhere on Earth.
Yes, for one day out of 28.


What is daytime supposed to look like when you're standing on the moon?  No atmosphere means no blue sky.
It would also mean no moon vision...but there it is.
What is "moon vision"? ???
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Stash on July 02, 2021, 09:09:04 AM


(https://imgix.gizmodo.com.au/content/uploads/sites/2/2016/10/01/akutrmtk8u6frcejadnf.jpg?ar=16%3A9&auto=format&fit=crop&q=65&w=1280)

Does your carbonite powered holographic projected moon not have phases?


Ahhh right, so  your men on your moon were in darkness and not lit up except for a spotlight. Is this right?

Considering we see a full moon all the time on Earth...lit up like a beacon but the men on your moon were not on the beacon lit side, they were around the back.......is this right?


So basically it's not your sun illuminating your moon as we see it, right?
The sun can only make spotlight illuminations on your moon but we see it lit up like a beacon.

Does Earth shine your moon up like a beacon if it's not your sun?

What in the world are you going on about? We see a full moon all of the time? So your carbonite powered holographic projected moon does not have phases? But the rest of us see the phases of the moon? How does that work?
People on Earth see a full moon all of the time.

You know fine well what I'm going on about.
The phases are only related to where a person is stood when the moonlight is obscured from their position, after full moon.

You know fine well what I'm saying.

No, I don’t know what you’re saying. People on earth don’t see a full moon all of the time. Only when it’s a full moon. Which is not all of the time.

Are you now saying that you and I see different phases at the same time depending upon where we are standing? If so, around 7+ billion people disagree. How does that work?

And why can’t light reflect off the moon?
At some stage all people see a full moon somewhere on Earth.

Let's be super clear here. Are you saying:

A) That depending upon where someone is, let's say 1 person in the Northern Hemisphere & 1 person in the Southern Hemisphere at the same time will see the exact same phase but just a different orientation. Ex.:

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

OR

B) That depending upon where someone is, let's say 1 person in the Northern Hemisphere & 1 person in the Southern Hemisphere at the same time will see different phases, regardless of orientation. Ex., 1 person sees a full moon and 1 person sees a crescent moon.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Mikey T. on July 02, 2021, 10:59:35 AM
Did you account for "Moon visionTM"?




*  Moon vision is a trademark of Scepti.FE.Denpressure.  No attempts of definition of said term are allowed.   Single use authorized in limited instances.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: JackBlack on July 02, 2021, 02:00:39 PM
Quote
Quote from: JackBlack
The surface of the moon has a similar brightness to the surface of Earth.
Not judging by the pictures/video we are all shown. Absolute utter nonsense.
How are we making the comparison here?  The apparent 'brightness' of the surface is given by the geometric albedo, i.e. percentage of incident light which is reflected. In which case Moon = 12%, Earth = 39% (remember the Vangelis Album 'Albedo = 0.39') while Venus is almost 70%.
Rough comparison based upon similar distance to the sun and similar albedo, noting that the albedo on Earth varies quite a lot (from almost 0 to almost 1) depending on what you are looking at.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on July 03, 2021, 12:02:44 AM

Oh, and the excessive heat and water was boiled out of the astronaut's spacesuits into the moon atmosphere.

Your moon doesn't have an atmosphere.

Have another go.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on July 03, 2021, 12:04:24 AM
Your vacuum would offer zero resistance to an expelled water/oxygen/co2...etc from your so called astronauts suit/backpack.
Yet before you said it would magically be stopped.

I didn't say magically stopped. I said it would simply freeze at the exit and block the rest in that scenario.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on July 03, 2021, 12:05:09 AM
I just wondered where you got the figure of 3000 litres an hour from because all the websites I checked out seemed to be pretty consistent with 300-400 litres per hour.  Your claim is an order of magnitude more so bit of a difference!  Or did you just conjure up 3000 off the top of your head?

Nah not trying to help anyone really.  I don't think they need it.
Same type of places you got yours from.
I wonder which one's are correct?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on July 03, 2021, 12:07:12 AM


I know you're only joking around. If I'm looking at a waning moon tonight, then everyone everywhere else in the world is also seeing a waning moon.

Absolutely not.

Wait, what? 

Sceptimatic, do you imagine that two people looking at the holographic moon projection at the same time from two different parts of the world can see different phases of the moon? 

Could I see a half moon and someone else be seeing a full moon?
The simple answer is......yes.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on July 03, 2021, 12:10:38 AM

What is "moon vision"? ???
It means, if you're arguing for a vacuum of space around your moon then your moon would never be seen.

Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on July 03, 2021, 12:13:00 AM


(https://imgix.gizmodo.com.au/content/uploads/sites/2/2016/10/01/akutrmtk8u6frcejadnf.jpg?ar=16%3A9&auto=format&fit=crop&q=65&w=1280)

Does your carbonite powered holographic projected moon not have phases?


Ahhh right, so  your men on your moon were in darkness and not lit up except for a spotlight. Is this right?

Considering we see a full moon all the time on Earth...lit up like a beacon but the men on your moon were not on the beacon lit side, they were around the back.......is this right?


So basically it's not your sun illuminating your moon as we see it, right?
The sun can only make spotlight illuminations on your moon but we see it lit up like a beacon.

Does Earth shine your moon up like a beacon if it's not your sun?

What in the world are you going on about? We see a full moon all of the time? So your carbonite powered holographic projected moon does not have phases? But the rest of us see the phases of the moon? How does that work?
People on Earth see a full moon all of the time.

You know fine well what I'm going on about.
The phases are only related to where a person is stood when the moonlight is obscured from their position, after full moon.

You know fine well what I'm saying.

No, I don’t know what you’re saying. People on earth don’t see a full moon all of the time. Only when it’s a full moon. Which is not all of the time.

Are you now saying that you and I see different phases at the same time depending upon where we are standing? If so, around 7+ billion people disagree. How does that work?

And why can’t light reflect off the moon?
At some stage all people see a full moon somewhere on Earth.

Let's be super clear here. Are you saying:

A) That depending upon where someone is, let's say 1 person in the Northern Hemisphere & 1 person in the Southern Hemisphere at the same time will see the exact same phase but just a different orientation. Ex.:

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

OR

B) That depending upon where someone is, let's say 1 person in the Northern Hemisphere & 1 person in the Southern Hemisphere at the same time will see different phases, regardless of orientation. Ex., 1 person sees a full moon and 1 person sees a crescent moon.
I don't recognise northern and southern hemispheres.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Stash on July 03, 2021, 12:50:55 AM


(https://imgix.gizmodo.com.au/content/uploads/sites/2/2016/10/01/akutrmtk8u6frcejadnf.jpg?ar=16%3A9&auto=format&fit=crop&q=65&w=1280)

Does your carbonite powered holographic projected moon not have phases?


Ahhh right, so  your men on your moon were in darkness and not lit up except for a spotlight. Is this right?

Considering we see a full moon all the time on Earth...lit up like a beacon but the men on your moon were not on the beacon lit side, they were around the back.......is this right?


So basically it's not your sun illuminating your moon as we see it, right?
The sun can only make spotlight illuminations on your moon but we see it lit up like a beacon.

Does Earth shine your moon up like a beacon if it's not your sun?

What in the world are you going on about? We see a full moon all of the time? So your carbonite powered holographic projected moon does not have phases? But the rest of us see the phases of the moon? How does that work?
People on Earth see a full moon all of the time.

You know fine well what I'm going on about.
The phases are only related to where a person is stood when the moonlight is obscured from their position, after full moon.

You know fine well what I'm saying.

No, I don’t know what you’re saying. People on earth don’t see a full moon all of the time. Only when it’s a full moon. Which is not all of the time.

Are you now saying that you and I see different phases at the same time depending upon where we are standing? If so, around 7+ billion people disagree. How does that work?

And why can’t light reflect off the moon?
At some stage all people see a full moon somewhere on Earth.

Let's be super clear here. Are you saying:

A) That depending upon where someone is, let's say 1 person in the Northern Hemisphere & 1 person in the Southern Hemisphere at the same time will see the exact same phase but just a different orientation. Ex.:

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

OR

B) That depending upon where someone is, let's say 1 person in the Northern Hemisphere & 1 person in the Southern Hemisphere at the same time will see different phases, regardless of orientation. Ex., 1 person sees a full moon and 1 person sees a crescent moon.
I don't recognise northern and southern hemispheres.

Understood. And nice deflection. So let me re-phrase:

Let's be super clear here. Are you saying:

A) That depending upon where someone is, let's say 1 person in London & 1 person in Sydney, at the same time, will see the exact same phase but just a different orientation. Ex.:

(https://i.imgur.com/E87t6JZ.jpg)

OR

B) That depending upon where someone is, let's say 1 person in London & 1 person in Sydney, at the same time, will see different phases, regardless of orientation. Ex., 1 person sees a full moon and 1 person sees a crescent moon, at the same time.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Themightykabool on July 03, 2021, 02:17:17 AM

I don't recognise northern and southern hemispheres.


Do yoh recognize the equator?
That something differnetly happens to the sky on either side?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: JackBlack on July 03, 2021, 03:17:21 AM
I didn't say magically stopped. I said it would simply freeze at the exit and block the rest in that scenario.
While you didn't use the word magic, your claim requires magic.

And yet again you contradict yourself, and ignore the simple questions you cannot answer.

Once more, make up your mind, will the water just fly off into space and expand? Or will it freeze?

If it freezes, where does all the heat go?

And once more:
How much oxygen is in the tank? Again, litres is a useless measurement unless you give a pressure or specify that it is liquid oxygen.
And how much oxygen is needed to breathe? Not your pure BS 3000 l/hr, which is clearly pure BS, but an actual justified number.


It means, if you're arguing for a vacuum of space around your moon then your moon would never be seen.
Why?
Do you have any justification at all?

Could I see a half moon and someone else be seeing a full moon?
The simple answer is......yes.
Unless you are appealing to people not on Earth, that "simple answer" is pure BS.

You can look up the reported phase of the moon all around the globe, and it never happens that people see different phases of the moon so one sees a full moon while the other sees a half moon.

So there you go with more wilful rejection of reality.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on July 03, 2021, 05:19:48 AM
Understood. And nice deflection. So let me re-phrase:

Let's be super clear here. Are you saying:

A) That depending upon where someone is, let's say 1 person in London & 1 person in Sydney, at the same time, will see the exact same phase but just a different orientation. Ex.:

(https://i.imgur.com/E87t6JZ.jpg)

OR

B) That depending upon where someone is, let's say 1 person in London & 1 person in Sydney, at the same time, will see different phases, regardless of orientation. Ex., 1 person sees a full moon and 1 person sees a crescent moon, at the same time.
No, none of those.

What I am saying is, at any one time someone somewhere over the world will be seeing a full moon.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on July 03, 2021, 05:20:46 AM

I don't recognise northern and southern hemispheres.


Do yoh recognize the equator?
That something differnetly happens to the sky on either side?
There's always something different happening the the sky all over the world.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on July 03, 2021, 05:21:39 AM

While you didn't use the word magic, your claim requires magic.

Magic does not exist and anything.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: JackBlack on July 03, 2021, 05:39:27 AM
While you didn't use the word magic, your claim requires magic.
Magic does not exist and anything.
And that is the problem for your claim. Your claim requires magic. Magic doesn't exist. That makes your claim impossible.

Again, if you want to claim that the water will magically freeze and block the exit, you need to use magic.
If you don't want to use magic you need to explain where the heat goes to allow the water to freeze.

And again you flee from the trivial questions which expose your lies:
How much oxygen is in the tank? Again, litres is a useless measurement unless you give a pressure or specify that it is liquid oxygen.
And how much oxygen is needed to breathe? Not your pure BS 3000 l/hr, which is clearly pure BS, but an actual justified number.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Smoke Machine on July 03, 2021, 06:10:45 AM

Oh, and the excessive heat and water was boiled out of the astronaut's spacesuits into the moon atmosphere.

Your moon doesn't have an atmosphere.

Have another go.

Are you sure? Your moon may be made of luminous cheese, but from what I've read, the moon has an atmosphere.

The moon's atmosphere contains neon, helium, and hydrogen. It also contains argon-40, methane, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, sodium, potassium, ammonia, radon, and polonium. It's virtually devoid of oxygen.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: NotSoSkeptical on July 03, 2021, 06:36:18 AM
Understood. And nice deflection. So let me re-phrase:

Let's be super clear here. Are you saying:

A) That depending upon where someone is, let's say 1 person in London & 1 person in Sydney, at the same time, will see the exact same phase but just a different orientation. Ex.:

(https://i.imgur.com/E87t6JZ.jpg)

OR

B) That depending upon where someone is, let's say 1 person in London & 1 person in Sydney, at the same time, will see different phases, regardless of orientation. Ex., 1 person sees a full moon and 1 person sees a crescent moon, at the same time.
No, none of those.

What I am saying is, at any one time someone somewhere over the world will be seeing a full moon.

Did you read B?

You literally said neither A or B and then said exactly what B said.

Your willful ignorance is astounding.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on July 03, 2021, 06:38:43 AM

Oh, and the excessive heat and water was boiled out of the astronaut's spacesuits into the moon atmosphere.

Your moon doesn't have an atmosphere.

Have another go.

Are you sure? Your moon may be made of luminous cheese, but from what I've read, the moon has an atmosphere.

The moon's atmosphere contains neon, helium, and hydrogen. It also contains argon-40, methane, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, sodium, potassium, ammonia, radon, and polonium. It's virtually devoid of oxygen.
Keep reading those books to make you book smarter for regurgitation.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on July 03, 2021, 06:40:07 AM

And that is the problem for your claim.
I  don't have a problem with it.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on July 03, 2021, 06:41:37 AM


Your willful ignorance is astounding.
So is yours.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Themightykabool on July 03, 2021, 07:06:53 AM

I don't recognise northern and southern hemispheres.


Do yoh recognize the equator?
That something differnetly happens to the sky on either side?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on July 03, 2021, 07:11:02 AM

I don't recognise northern and southern hemispheres.


Do yoh recognize the equator?
That something differnetly happens to the sky on either side?
Explain yourself. Tell me where you were stood and what you observed?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Themightykabool on July 03, 2021, 07:17:36 AM
Deflect away.
What do you think?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on July 03, 2021, 07:19:31 AM
Deflect away.
What do you think?
Explain yourself. Tell me where you were stood and what you observed?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Themightykabool on July 03, 2021, 07:58:33 AM
i follow the indoctrined

your turn
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sobchak on July 03, 2021, 08:00:27 AM


I know you're only joking around. If I'm looking at a waning moon tonight, then everyone everywhere else in the world is also seeing a waning moon.

Absolutely not.

Wait, what? 

Sceptimatic, do you imagine that two people looking at the holographic moon projection at the same time from two different parts of the world can see different phases of the moon? 

Could I see a half moon and someone else be seeing a full moon?
The simple answer is......yes.

That would be cool. 

This is just how you imagine it to be in your fantasy world though, right?  You dont have any personal knowledge that this is the case though?

Is it just another thing you made up?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Mikey T. on July 03, 2021, 08:39:42 AM

What is "moon vision"? ???
It means, if you're arguing for a vacuum of space around your moon then your moon would never be seen.
Wait, what?  Vacuum blocks light now?  I must add this to the book. 
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Stash on July 03, 2021, 11:53:59 AM
Understood. And nice deflection. So let me re-phrase:

Let's be super clear here. Are you saying:

A) That depending upon where someone is, let's say 1 person in London & 1 person in Sydney, at the same time, will see the exact same phase but just a different orientation. Ex.:

(https://i.imgur.com/E87t6JZ.jpg)

OR

B) That depending upon where someone is, let's say 1 person in London & 1 person in Sydney, at the same time, will see different phases, regardless of orientation. Ex., 1 person sees a full moon and 1 person sees a crescent moon, at the same time.
No, none of those.

What I am saying is, at any one time someone somewhere over the world will be seeing a full moon.

So that would be B, right? How is "at any one time someone somewhere over the world will be seeing a full moon." different than my B example of "Ex., 1 person sees a full moon and 1 person sees a crescent moon, at the same time."?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: markjo on July 03, 2021, 01:40:40 PM
What is "moon vision"? ???
It means, if you're arguing for a vacuum of space around your moon then your moon would never be seen.
*sigh* I think that you're mistaking luminiferous aether for air.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: JackBlack on July 03, 2021, 03:17:52 PM
I  don't have a problem with it.
Of course YOU don't have a problem with it.
You are perfectly fine rejecting reality and replacing it with fantasy.
You are perfectly fine repeatedly contradicting yourself.

But others actually care about reality and about having beliefs which are consistent with each other.
To those people, it is a massive problem.
They notice the lack of air means there is no where for the heat to go, which means things don't just spontaneously freeze. They recognise that the effectively 0 thermal mass means the temperatures quoted are irrelevant.
What matters is managing any heat that is generated.
They do this by venting water to space, where it needs to boil before it vents, and it boiling cools the rest down.

Likewise, others would want claims about the oxygen tank to be consistent and make sense.
That means they wouldn't just want 8 l as the tank capacity as it doesn't tell you how much oxygen. Instead they would want something like 8 l at 100 atm.
Likewise, they wouldn't want 3000 l/hour as the amount of oxygen needed, as it is pure BS with no justification at all.
If it is meant to be pure oxygen at 1 atm, that an insane amount, requiring you to empty and refill your lungs once a second, and use all the oxygen in them. No one is doing that.

And if you want more reasons why that is pure BS:
3000 L equates to ~123 mols of O2. (multiply by 1 atm and divide by the gas constant and 25 C converted to K).
That equates to ~2900 mol per day.
But each mol of oxygen you use is combined with carbon to produce carbon dioxide.
If you ignore the other things combine with the carbon (typically oxygen and hydrogen to make water) that equates to over 35 kg.
That means if you didn't eat, you would lose 35 kg each day.
It also means if you tried to feed yourself just using sugar, you would need to eat ~88 kg of sugar.

How many people do you know of eating 88 kg of sugar each day?

So again, your number is pure BS.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Smoke Machine on July 03, 2021, 05:09:45 PM

Oh, and the excessive heat and water was boiled out of the astronaut's spacesuits into the moon atmosphere.

Your moon doesn't have an atmosphere.

Have another go.

Are you sure? Your moon may be made of luminous cheese, but from what I've read, the moon has an atmosphere.

The moon's atmosphere contains neon, helium, and hydrogen. It also contains argon-40, methane, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, sodium, potassium, ammonia, radon, and polonium. It's virtually devoid of oxygen.
Keep reading those books to make you book smarter for regurgitation.

Where did you read that the moon doesn't have an atmosphere? It doesn't have a breathable atmosphere for humans.

We're all regurgitating what we've read, and it doesn't make any of us look smarter. There are no original ideas or original information being typed into this thread, just regurgitation. I'm regurgitating from science sources while you're regurgitating from Zetetic Astronomy - Earth not a globe by Samuel Rowbotham.

Does the moon even control the tides on your flat earth model, sceptimatic? If so, please explain how.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on July 04, 2021, 01:36:27 AM
What is "moon vision"? ???
It means, if you're arguing for a vacuum of space around your moon then your moon would never be seen.
*sigh* I think that you're mistaking luminiferous aether for air.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether
Nahhh, there's no istake.
Remember I'm arguing the fantasy handed to you people.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: JackBlack on July 04, 2021, 02:08:34 AM
Nahhh, there's no istake.
So you are intentionally misrepresenting everything.

Remember I'm arguing the fantasy handed to you people.
No, you aren't.
You are spouting your own fantasy to try to attack reality.

It has been shown quite well that so many of your claims are pure fantasy.
Like your claim of 3000 l per hour.
It is pure nonsense.

So either it is a massive mistake from you, or it is you intentionally lying to pretend there is a problem when there is none.

Again, can you justify your 3000 l per hour claim at all?

And can you provide the missing details for the "8 l" tank?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Solarwind on July 04, 2021, 08:43:42 AM
Quote
Same type of places you got yours from.
I wonder which one's are correct?
So how come your figure is an order of 10 larger than any of the website (places) I got my 300-400 litres per hour from?

BTW have you ever noticed where the Sun is in relation to the Moon in the sky every time you see a full Moon? What does that tell you about the full Moon?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on July 04, 2021, 08:46:34 AM

So you are intentionally misrepresenting everything.


No.
More like you intentionally twist everything.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: markjo on July 04, 2021, 11:39:53 AM
What is "moon vision"? ???
It means, if you're arguing for a vacuum of space around your moon then your moon would never be seen.
*sigh* I think that you're mistaking luminiferous aether for air.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether
Nahhh, there's no istake.
Remember I'm arguing the fantasy handed to you people.
As opposed to the fantasy that you created for yourself?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Themightykabool on July 04, 2021, 01:57:13 PM
What is "moon vision"? ???
It means, if you're arguing for a vacuum of space around your moon then your moon would never be seen.
*sigh* I think that you're mistaking luminiferous aether for air.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether
Nahhh, there's no istake.
Remember I'm arguing the fantasy handed to you people.

So argue it.
So far its "nuh uhs".

Whats the massive tilt?
Whats the equator?
Why does mercator even exist?
How does the conspiracy work in the upper levels?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: frenat on July 04, 2021, 02:11:56 PM


I know you're only joking around. If I'm looking at a waning moon tonight, then everyone everywhere else in the world is also seeing a waning moon.

Absolutely not.

Wait, what? 

Sceptimatic, do you imagine that two people looking at the holographic moon projection at the same time from two different parts of the world can see different phases of the moon? 

Could I see a half moon and someone else be seeing a full moon?
The simple answer is......yes.
Well that's clearly bullshit. IF you were correct then you should be able to provide Moon phase tables that are specific to a region. In the real world however, everyone sees the same phase at the same time and phase tables work regardless of location.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: JackBlack on July 04, 2021, 03:21:43 PM
More like you intentionally twist everything.
No, that would be you.
You will happily twist any part of reality to pretend it is nonsense, and those you can't you will just blatantly lie about.

Again, your claim of the water magically freezing and blocking the exit has been shown to be nonsense as you have no where for the heat to go.
Your claim of the battery magically freezing has been shown to be nonsense as you have no where for the heat to go.
Your claim of 3000 l/hr has been shown to be pure BS, a number you have just spouted with no justification which is in no way comparable to reality. It is off by more than an order of magnitude.
And your claim of the tank only holding 8 l has been shown to be meaningless as you refuse to indicate what pressure that is at, or if it is liquid or what.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Solarwind on July 04, 2021, 03:39:04 PM
Quote
YourThe moon doesn't have an atmosphere.
For once I agree with Sceptimatic on that one.

Quote
Could I see a half moon and someone else be seeing a full moon?
The simple answer is......yes.

Quote
Well that's clearly bullshit. IF you were correct then you should be able to provide Moon phase tables that are specific to a region. In the real world however, everyone sees the same phase at the same time and phase tables work regardless of location.
As someone who has lived in the UK all my life I used to subscribe to two US based astronomy magazines.  In every edition I received the pages that showed the Moons phases for each day of the month (as seen from all over the US) were identical to the phase that I saw here in the UK.

My partners brother lives in Australia.  He also sees the same Moon phase that I do on any given day.  Only difference is that compared to what I see, he sees the Moon inverted. He also sees the Moon transit his north meridian whereas for me I see it transit through my south meridian. We both see the Moon rise in the east and set in the west.

So that is the same Moon phase on any given day as seen from the UK, the US and Australia .  I'd say that's pretty conclusive wouldn't you? If Sceptimatic somehow knows of a place on Earth where the Moon shows a different phase from anywhere else on Earth then he had better be able to present us with some evidence. Simply what he believes or thinks does not qualify as evidence.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: hoppy on July 04, 2021, 04:31:54 PM
And those tanks inside those backpacks do not look like they would support anyone for more than 30 minutes and I think I'm being over generous..
Yeah. Well, that really is your problem.

Just admit it goes over your head, and that is the reason it is so difficult for you. What you think is not exactly something anyone needs to worry about, as what you think is based on what you know — which is not a lot.

Your opinion is worth nothing as it is based on nothing.
I don't think it goes over my head.
The size of those tanks would hardly give anyone more than 30 mins in reality.
Obviously in your space they can run for 4 hours and with a bit of speedy tweaking, 8 hours two years later.

Magical things they are.


I'm still waiting to see how they refill those tanks.
I thinks they refill them with farts, magical farts if course.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Smoke Machine on July 04, 2021, 04:53:45 PM
And those tanks inside those backpacks do not look like they would support anyone for more than 30 minutes and I think I'm being over generous..
Yeah. Well, that really is your problem.

Just admit it goes over your head, and that is the reason it is so difficult for you. What you think is not exactly something anyone needs to worry about, as what you think is based on what you know — which is not a lot.

Your opinion is worth nothing as it is based on nothing.
I don't think it goes over my head.
The size of those tanks would hardly give anyone more than 30 mins in reality.
Obviously in your space they can run for 4 hours and with a bit of speedy tweaking, 8 hours two years later.

Magical things they are.


I'm still waiting to see how they refill those tanks.
I thinks they refill them with farts, magical farts if course.

Why don't you go take a big fart powered hop off the edge of your magically flat earth. Sceptimatic doesn't understand the difference between pressurised oxygen and pressurised air. He's probably never even tried scuba diving. No wonder he's a flat earther.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Themightykabool on July 04, 2021, 07:18:49 PM
Compressed and decompressed sponges.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on July 04, 2021, 11:12:16 PM

As opposed to the fantasy that you created for yourself?
I don't pass mine off as fact. You people pass off your accepted stories as fact without knowing the facts.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on July 04, 2021, 11:14:09 PM


I know you're only joking around. If I'm looking at a waning moon tonight, then everyone everywhere else in the world is also seeing a waning moon.

Absolutely not.

Wait, what? 

Sceptimatic, do you imagine that two people looking at the holographic moon projection at the same time from two different parts of the world can see different phases of the moon? 

Could I see a half moon and someone else be seeing a full moon?
The simple answer is......yes.
Well that's clearly bullshit. IF you were correct then you should be able to provide Moon phase tables that are specific to a region. In the real world however, everyone sees the same phase at the same time and phase tables work regardless of location.
How come you people cannot grasp what's been said?
Surely it can't be a coincidence.

Can any rational person see what I'm saying about someone somewhere on Earth will always see a full moon?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on July 04, 2021, 11:14:52 PM

You will happily twist any part of reality to pretend it is nonsense, and those you can't you will just blatantly lie about.

So you keep telling me.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on July 04, 2021, 11:17:18 PM
And those tanks inside those backpacks do not look like they would support anyone for more than 30 minutes and I think I'm being over generous..
Yeah. Well, that really is your problem.

Just admit it goes over your head, and that is the reason it is so difficult for you. What you think is not exactly something anyone needs to worry about, as what you think is based on what you know — which is not a lot.

Your opinion is worth nothing as it is based on nothing.
I don't think it goes over my head.
The size of those tanks would hardly give anyone more than 30 mins in reality.
Obviously in your space they can run for 4 hours and with a bit of speedy tweaking, 8 hours two years later.

Magical things they are.


I'm still waiting to see how they refill those tanks.
I thinks they refill them with farts, magical farts if course.

Why don't you go take a big fart powered hop off the edge of your magically flat earth. Sceptimatic doesn't understand the difference between pressurised oxygen and pressurised air. He's probably never even tried scuba diving. No wonder he's a flat earther.
Compressed air or liquid oxygen.

Yeah I know the difference.

The issue still stands.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: rvlvr on July 04, 2021, 11:20:21 PM
Yet you can’t specify it, hmmm?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sobchak on July 05, 2021, 12:13:25 AM

Can any rational person see what I'm saying about someone somewhere on Earth will always see a full moon?

Of course we see what you are saying.  It is just another thing you have made up that believe is true, added to the long long long list of other things you have made up and believe are true. 
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Smoke Machine on July 05, 2021, 12:19:04 AM


I know you're only joking around. If I'm looking at a waning moon tonight, then everyone everywhere else in the world is also seeing a waning moon.

Absolutely not.

Wait, what? 

Sceptimatic, do you imagine that two people looking at the holographic moon projection at the same time from two different parts of the world can see different phases of the moon? 

Could I see a half moon and someone else be seeing a full moon?
The simple answer is......yes.
Well that's clearly bullshit. IF you were correct then you should be able to provide Moon phase tables that are specific to a region. In the real world however, everyone sees the same phase at the same time and phase tables work regardless of location.
How come you people cannot grasp what's been said?
Surely it can't be a coincidence.

Can any rational person see what I'm saying about someone somewhere on Earth will always see a full moon?

Yeah, on your flat earth, which exists in your mind. Sure. Throw some flying dragons and unicorns into the flat earth sky while you're at it.

I don't see what you're saying about someone somewhere on actual earth will always see a full moon, because that isn't true.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Smoke Machine on July 05, 2021, 12:22:16 AM
And those tanks inside those backpacks do not look like they would support anyone for more than 30 minutes and I think I'm being over generous..
Yeah. Well, that really is your problem.

Just admit it goes over your head, and that is the reason it is so difficult for you. What you think is not exactly something anyone needs to worry about, as what you think is based on what you know — which is not a lot.

Your opinion is worth nothing as it is based on nothing.
I don't think it goes over my head.
The size of those tanks would hardly give anyone more than 30 mins in reality.
Obviously in your space they can run for 4 hours and with a bit of speedy tweaking, 8 hours two years later.

Magical things they are.


I'm still waiting to see how they refill those tanks.
I thinks they refill them with farts, magical farts if course.

Why don't you go take a big fart powered hop off the edge of your magically flat earth. Sceptimatic doesn't understand the difference between pressurised oxygen and pressurised air. He's probably never even tried scuba diving. No wonder he's a flat earther.
Compressed air or liquid oxygen.

Yeah I know the difference.

The issue still stands.

So, what's the difference? If you say an air tank would need to be five times larger than a straight oxygen tank to contain the same oxygen, you would be correct. So, that's how the oxygen tanks can be so much smaller than an air tank.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on July 05, 2021, 12:39:48 AM


So, what's the difference? If you say an air tank would need to be five times larger than a straight oxygen tank to contain the same oxygen, you would be correct. So, that's how the oxygen tanks can be so much smaller than an air tank.
Yes smaller because they can hold it as liquid.
They can still only hold a small amount of litreage in those little canisters on their backpacks as we are shown.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Solarwind on July 05, 2021, 01:30:33 AM
Quote
Can any rational person see what I'm saying about someone somewhere on Earth will always see a full moon?
Probably not because any rational person will realise that we only see a full Moon once a month. Or very occasionally twice - hence the term 'once in a blue Moon' because the second consecutive full Moon in the same month is called a blue Moon.  If what you say is true actually was true then that would immediately render this term meaningless for obvious reasons.  As you probably know the full Moon of each month has its own name - e.g. harvest Moon, hunters Moon, strawberry Moon etc.

Obviously you have your own explanations for how the Moons phases work so in your world I have no idea how that would work.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Stash on July 05, 2021, 02:22:46 AM

I know you're only joking around. If I'm looking at a waning moon tonight, then everyone everywhere else in the world is also seeing a waning moon.

Absolutely not.

Wait, what? 

Sceptimatic, do you imagine that two people looking at the holographic moon projection at the same time from two different parts of the world can see different phases of the moon? 

Could I see a half moon and someone else be seeing a full moon?
The simple answer is......yes.
Well that's clearly bullshit. IF you were correct then you should be able to provide Moon phase tables that are specific to a region. In the real world however, everyone sees the same phase at the same time and phase tables work regardless of location.
How come you people cannot grasp what's been said?
Surely it can't be a coincidence.

Can any rational person see what I'm saying about someone somewhere on Earth will always see a full moon?

Like I said, your position is B:

B) That depending upon where someone is, let's say 1 person in London & 1 person in Sydney, at the same time, will see different phases, regardless of orientation. Ex., 1 person sees a full moon and 1 person sees a crescent moon, at the same time.

And no, no rational person could agree. Because it's so bloody simple to refute your notion or whatever delusion it is. As Frenat pointed out, as well as others, there are moon phase charts/calendars accessible to everyone on the planet. Literally no one has ever looked at one and said, "Hey, the Moon phase calendar shows today is a waxing cresent but I see a full moon..." No one.

Here's 2021:

(https://i.imgur.com/Ctx5GTj.png)

Just so happens I was was up north in California camping recently and got some cool Moon shots. (I live in a city, light pollution is terrible for astrophotography, but being up in the wilds, the sky was like ink.) I shot the Moon on Friday-Saturday, June 25th/26th.
Look at the 2021 calendar above - June 25th was the day after the Full Moon. Here's my pic (It's not great, but kinda psyched about it because it was the first time I truly got to test out my Celestron C90 spotting scope lens on my Canon 5D):

(https://i.imgur.com/8R6LAIg.jpg)

Notice anything? It's exactly the same phase as what the calendar presents. Why would my random location exactly correspond to some random Moon phase calendar? I mean exactly.

If you really want to double down on your absurd notion that someone on the disc is seeing a different Moon phase than I am at the same time, we've got enough people from the 4 corners of the world here on the forum to do a test.

But really, absurd isn't even strong enough to describe what you're saying. It's so easily dispensed with you really, desperately, need to backtrack on it. Because its downright embarrassing how easily your B is completely and utterly nullified.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: JackBlack on July 05, 2021, 02:28:07 AM
As opposed to the fantasy that you created for yourself?
I don't pass mine off as fact.
You repeatedly pass your fantasy off as fact, like your fantasy that the tank couldn't possibly support people for more than 30 minutes, and your fantasy that the battery would magically freeze, and your fantasy that a human needs to consume 3000 l of oxygen per hour.

Again, where is your justification for any of that? Or do you admit it is just your fantasy?

How come you people cannot grasp what's been said?
We can. The problem is that what you said is pure BS.
You claimed 2 people in different locations on Earth would see different phases of the moon at the same time.

Quite clear with this post of yours:
Sceptimatic, do you imagine that two people looking at the holographic moon projection at the same time from two different parts of the world can see different phases of the moon? 
Could I see a half moon and someone else be seeing a full moon?
The simple answer is......yes.
There is no ambiguity.
But because it is pure BS, you now flee from it and pretend you meant something else.

Yes smaller because they can hold it as liquid.
They can still only hold a small amount of litreage in those little canisters on their backpacks as we are shown.
So you are saying 8 l of liquid oxygen?
Do you know how many l of gaseous oxygen that amounts to (at 1 atm and 25 C)?

That is quite a lot. Enough to last hours.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: frenat on July 05, 2021, 06:05:58 AM


I know you're only joking around. If I'm looking at a waning moon tonight, then everyone everywhere else in the world is also seeing a waning moon.

Absolutely not.

Wait, what? 

Sceptimatic, do you imagine that two people looking at the holographic moon projection at the same time from two different parts of the world can see different phases of the moon? 

Could I see a half moon and someone else be seeing a full moon?
The simple answer is......yes.
Well that's clearly bullshit. IF you were correct then you should be able to provide Moon phase tables that are specific to a region. In the real world however, everyone sees the same phase at the same time and phase tables work regardless of location.
How come you people cannot grasp what's been said?
Surely it can't be a coincidence.

Can any rational person see what I'm saying about someone somewhere on Earth will always see a full moon?
Since it isn't true and it is well known that everyone on Earth sees the same phase, no, nobody is going to agree with you.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on July 05, 2021, 07:18:04 AM
Quote
Can any rational person see what I'm saying about someone somewhere on Earth will always see a full moon?
Probably not because any rational person will realise that we only see a full Moon once a month. Or very occasionally twice - hence the term 'once in a blue Moon' because the second consecutive full Moon in the same month is called a blue Moon.  If what you say is true actually was true then that would immediately render this term meaningless for obvious reasons.  As you probably know the full Moon of each month has its own name - e.g. harvest Moon, hunters Moon, strawberry Moon etc.

Obviously you have your own explanations for how the Moons phases work so in your world I have no idea how that would work.
No way can you all be missing the point. Not a chance.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on July 05, 2021, 07:19:10 AM

I know you're only joking around. If I'm looking at a waning moon tonight, then everyone everywhere else in the world is also seeing a waning moon.

Absolutely not.

Wait, what? 

Sceptimatic, do you imagine that two people looking at the holographic moon projection at the same time from two different parts of the world can see different phases of the moon? 

Could I see a half moon and someone else be seeing a full moon?
The simple answer is......yes.
Well that's clearly bullshit. IF you were correct then you should be able to provide Moon phase tables that are specific to a region. In the real world however, everyone sees the same phase at the same time and phase tables work regardless of location.
How come you people cannot grasp what's been said?
Surely it can't be a coincidence.

Can any rational person see what I'm saying about someone somewhere on Earth will always see a full moon?

Like I said, your position is B:

B) That depending upon where someone is, let's say 1 person in London & 1 person in Sydney, at the same time, will see different phases, regardless of orientation. Ex., 1 person sees a full moon and 1 person sees a crescent moon, at the same time.

And no, no rational person could agree. Because it's so bloody simple to refute your notion or whatever delusion it is. As Frenat pointed out, as well as others, there are moon phase charts/calendars accessible to everyone on the planet. Literally no one has ever looked at one and said, "Hey, the Moon phase calendar shows today is a waxing cresent but I see a full moon..." No one.

Here's 2021:

(https://i.imgur.com/Ctx5GTj.png)

Just so happens I was was up north in California camping recently and got some cool Moon shots. (I live in a city, light pollution is terrible for astrophotography, but being up in the wilds, the sky was like ink.) I shot the Moon on Friday-Saturday, June 25th/26th.
Look at the 2021 calendar above - June 25th was the day after the Full Moon. Here's my pic (It's not great, but kinda psyched about it because it was the first time I truly got to test out my Celestron C90 spotting scope lens on my Canon 5D):

(https://i.imgur.com/8R6LAIg.jpg)

Notice anything? It's exactly the same phase as what the calendar presents. Why would my random location exactly correspond to some random Moon phase calendar? I mean exactly.

If you really want to double down on your absurd notion that someone on the disc is seeing a different Moon phase than I am at the same time, we've got enough people from the 4 corners of the world here on the forum to do a test.

But really, absurd isn't even strong enough to describe what you're saying. It's so easily dispensed with you really, desperately, need to backtrack on it. Because its downright embarrassing how easily your B is completely and utterly nullified.
It might be wise that you people go back and read what I said.

Anyone care to help these people out by actually reading what I said?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on July 05, 2021, 07:19:44 AM

You repeatedly pass your fantasy off as fact, like your fantasy that the tank couldn't possibly support people for
I actually believe that comes from you people.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on July 05, 2021, 07:22:58 AM

Since it isn't true and it is well known that everyone on Earth sees the same phase, no, nobody is going to agree with you.
Every person sees a full moon somewhere on Earth, at all times.
If I see a full moon then the full moon moves away from me, someone else sees a full moon.
Someone is always seeing a full moon.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: markjo on July 05, 2021, 09:54:58 AM
Can any rational person see what I'm saying about someone somewhere on Earth will always see a full moon?
Can you tell me where on earth the full moon will be visible within the next 7 days?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Stash on July 05, 2021, 10:03:22 AM

I know you're only joking around. If I'm looking at a waning moon tonight, then everyone everywhere else in the world is also seeing a waning moon.

Absolutely not.

Wait, what? 

Sceptimatic, do you imagine that two people looking at the holographic moon projection at the same time from two different parts of the world can see different phases of the moon? 

Could I see a half moon and someone else be seeing a full moon?
The simple answer is......yes.
Well that's clearly bullshit. IF you were correct then you should be able to provide Moon phase tables that are specific to a region. In the real world however, everyone sees the same phase at the same time and phase tables work regardless of location.
How come you people cannot grasp what's been said?
Surely it can't be a coincidence.

Can any rational person see what I'm saying about someone somewhere on Earth will always see a full moon?

Like I said, your position is B:

B) That depending upon where someone is, let's say 1 person in London & 1 person in Sydney, at the same time, will see different phases, regardless of orientation. Ex., 1 person sees a full moon and 1 person sees a crescent moon, at the same time.

And no, no rational person could agree. Because it's so bloody simple to refute your notion or whatever delusion it is. As Frenat pointed out, as well as others, there are moon phase charts/calendars accessible to everyone on the planet. Literally no one has ever looked at one and said, "Hey, the Moon phase calendar shows today is a waxing cresent but I see a full moon..." No one.

Here's 2021:

(https://i.imgur.com/Ctx5GTj.png)

Just so happens I was was up north in California camping recently and got some cool Moon shots. (I live in a city, light pollution is terrible for astrophotography, but being up in the wilds, the sky was like ink.) I shot the Moon on Friday-Saturday, June 25th/26th.
Look at the 2021 calendar above - June 25th was the day after the Full Moon. Here's my pic (It's not great, but kinda psyched about it because it was the first time I truly got to test out my Celestron C90 spotting scope lens on my Canon 5D):

(https://i.imgur.com/8R6LAIg.jpg)

Notice anything? It's exactly the same phase as what the calendar presents. Why would my random location exactly correspond to some random Moon phase calendar? I mean exactly.

If you really want to double down on your absurd notion that someone on the disc is seeing a different Moon phase than I am at the same time, we've got enough people from the 4 corners of the world here on the forum to do a test.

But really, absurd isn't even strong enough to describe what you're saying. It's so easily dispensed with you really, desperately, need to backtrack on it. Because its downright embarrassing how easily your B is completely and utterly nullified.
It might be wise that you people go back and read what I said.

Anyone care to help these people out by actually reading what I said?

You said here:



I know you're only joking around. If I'm looking at a waning moon tonight, then everyone everywhere else in the world is also seeing a waning moon.

Absolutely not.

Wait, what? 

Sceptimatic, do you imagine that two people looking at the holographic moon projection at the same time from two different parts of the world can see different phases of the moon? 

Could I see a half moon and someone else be seeing a full moon?
The simple answer is......yes.

Which is B:

B) That depending upon where someone is, let's say 1 person in London & 1 person in the Sydney, at the same time, will see different phases, regardless of orientation. Ex., 1 person sees a full moon and 1 person sees a crescent moon.

If it’s somehow all of a sudden not B (And not A), what is it? Be super clear. Do you believe that 1 person at one location sees a completely different Moon phase than another person at another location all at the same time?

What is this, "Someone is always seeing a full moon.”? What does that mean?  Can I be looking at a half Moon, right now, today, and someone somewhere else at the exact same time, see a full Moon?

Be super, super, super clear.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Solarwind on July 05, 2021, 11:32:51 AM
Quote
Every person sees a full moon somewhere on Earth, at all times.
If I see a full moon then the full moon moves away from me, someone else sees a full moon.
Someone is always seeing a full moon.
Within a single 24 hour period each month, everyone on Earth sees a full Moon.  But only within that 24 hour period each month while the Moon is opposite the Sun in the sky.  That is why we see a full Moon.  Because the Earth facing part of the Moons disk is entirely illuminated by the Sun at that time.

A week beforehand within a 24 hour period, everyone sees a first quarter Moon.  No one will see a full Moon when there is only a 90 degee angle between the Sun, Earth and Moon.  It is physically impossible. You will never see a first quarter Moon in the morning sky just as you will never see a last quarter Moon in the evening sky.

The only time we don't see a Moon in the sky is at or very near to new Moon when the Moon lies directly between the Sun and the Earth.  Again we cannot see a full Moon because the sunlit part of the Moon is facing directly away from Earth.

That is not just 'what we are told. The evidence is up there in the sky for us all to see.   It ain't hard!  It is directly observable evidence for the fact that the Moon orbits the Earth once a month.

If you want to conjure up some other explanation because you believe we are all being misled by those in 'power' then that's up to you but I like to keep things simple and to explain the Moons phases as I have described above is logical, simple and it works!

You can argue about this as much as you like and you no doubt will because you want your beliefs to be right and all of us to be wrong.  But quite obviously it is your beliefs about the Moons phases that are wrong in this case.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: JackBlack on July 05, 2021, 02:15:05 PM
No way can you all be missing the point. Not a chance.
We get the point.
You made a blatantly false claim, which is trivial to show is wrong, and now are trying to hide from it.

It all started because you wanted to claim the moon should be super super bright, even though evidence shows otherwise.
It only easy to be fooled into thinking it is massively bright during a full moon, when you have the moon quite well illuminated by the sun (like daytime on Earth), and it is the brightest thing in the dark night sky. With that, and your eyes adjusting for the darkness, it appears quite bright. Unlike say a half moon which is also visible during the day, when your eyes are adjusted for seeing the daylit Earth, and the moon almost blends in to the sky due to just how dull it is.

This particular tangent all started with you claiming:
People on Earth see a full moon all of the time.
The phases are only related to where a person is stood when the moonlight is obscured from their position, after full moon.
A factually incorrect statement, trivial to disprove and a vague one where you don't make it clear if it is related to their position relative to the moon (reality, where everyone sees the same phase at a particular time, assuming they could see the moon), or relative to Earth (fantasy, where different people seeing the moon at the same time see a different phase)

You then changed it to a factually correct but vague statement of:
At some stage all people see a full moon somewhere on Earth.
This could mean over time people will see a full moon, as at some point in time, there will be a full moon and everyone can see it.
Or, it could mean that over time, the full moon will be visible to a different region of Earth as the phases change based upon position.

You really should have just left it at that vague statement.

But you couldn't help yourself. That was because someone called what you claimed nonsense and you responded with this:
I know you're only joking around. If I'm looking at a waning moon tonight, then everyone everywhere else in the world is also seeing a waning moon.
Absolutely not.
Which while technically correct, as Earth gets in the way for some people resulting in them not seeing the moon at all, and other people would be inside unable to see and so on, but the point conveyed was that these other people would see a different phase.

This was clarified:
Sceptimatic, do you imagine that two people looking at the holographic moon projection at the same time from two different parts of the world can see different phases of the moon?
Could I see a half moon and someone else be seeing a full moon?
Absolutely if you're on different parts of the Earth.
Where you agree that the phases of the moon depend on where on Earth you are standing.

So it is quite clear what you are claiming.
That the phase of the moon varies with location on Earth. That 2 people in different locations on Earth, both with a clear view of the moon, can be seeing fundamentally different phases, where for example, one person sees a full moon while another sees a half moon.

You even further emphasise this with this claim of yours:
Every person sees a full moon somewhere on Earth, at all times.
If I see a full moon then the full moon moves away from me, someone else sees a full moon.
Someone is always seeing a full moon.
Again, this is factually incorrect.

Currently the phase of the moon is a waning Crescent.
Just where on Earth can anyone see a full moon?

Here is a rare photo of a full moon from when everyone on Earth had a new moon:
https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/epic-galleries/2015/lunar_transit/full/197_2015197222104.png
(due to the way in which the picture is taken, taking the separate colour images in sequence, there is significant chromatic distortions, with the moon moving while the picture was being taken)
This is also a strange full moon as it shows the far side of the moon, rather than the near side we are all familiar with.

And because the camera is adjusted for taking images of Earth brightly lit up by the sun, the moon doesn't really appear bright at all.

But if you are on Earth, EVERYONE who can see the moon, sees the same phase at the same time.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: JackBlack on July 05, 2021, 02:38:29 PM
I actually believe that comes from you people.
Of course you would, as you are replacing reality with fantasy, and dismissing reality as fantasy. So when people provide reality, you believe they are providing fantasy.

But the big distinction is we can show your claims are fantasy. But all you can do is dismiss reality with blatant lies.
Lies like claiming people need 3000 l or oxygen per hour, which would require them in the simplest case to be consuming around 80 kg of sugar per day (if instead you wanted food which contained more than just sugar, something like steak, you are looking at several hundred kg, possibly even several thousand).

That means your claim of 3000 l per hour, is pure fantasy.
A lie you made to pretend that the tanks on the PLSS could only last 30 minutes.
A lie you stated it as a fact.

That means you are the one presenting fantasy as fact.

And to further this you avoid trivial questions which expose that fantasy, like an explanation of how you reached that 3000 l per hour.

And how you continually acted like "8 l" was a valid answer to how much oxygen the tank contained, without explaining what pressure.

But you then indicated, it could be liquid oxygen (it isn't by the way. Boiling off the liquid oxygen would require a lot of heat. It is much simpler to just have a pressurised tank).
I don't think you realised just how much oxygen 8 l of liquid oxygen is.
If you took 1 l of liquid oxygen, and let it boil and reach STP, it would become roughly 800 l.
That would mean those 8 l, becomes over 6000 l. (roughly 6400 l).
That means even with your ridiculous 3000 l per hour, it would last the astronauts 2 hours.
Not the 30 minutes you claim it would.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on July 05, 2021, 10:38:36 PM
Can any rational person see what I'm saying about someone somewhere on Earth will always see a full moon?
Can you tell me where on earth the full moon will be visible within the next 7 days?
Somewhere and that's the entire point.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on July 05, 2021, 10:39:52 PM

I know you're only joking around. If I'm looking at a waning moon tonight, then everyone everywhere else in the world is also seeing a waning moon.

Absolutely not.

Wait, what? 

Sceptimatic, do you imagine that two people looking at the holographic moon projection at the same time from two different parts of the world can see different phases of the moon? 

Could I see a half moon and someone else be seeing a full moon?
The simple answer is......yes.
Well that's clearly bullshit. IF you were correct then you should be able to provide Moon phase tables that are specific to a region. In the real world however, everyone sees the same phase at the same time and phase tables work regardless of location.
How come you people cannot grasp what's been said?
Surely it can't be a coincidence.

Can any rational person see what I'm saying about someone somewhere on Earth will always see a full moon?

Like I said, your position is B:

B) That depending upon where someone is, let's say 1 person in London & 1 person in Sydney, at the same time, will see different phases, regardless of orientation. Ex., 1 person sees a full moon and 1 person sees a crescent moon, at the same time.

And no, no rational person could agree. Because it's so bloody simple to refute your notion or whatever delusion it is. As Frenat pointed out, as well as others, there are moon phase charts/calendars accessible to everyone on the planet. Literally no one has ever looked at one and said, "Hey, the Moon phase calendar shows today is a waxing cresent but I see a full moon..." No one.

Here's 2021:

(https://i.imgur.com/Ctx5GTj.png)

Just so happens I was was up north in California camping recently and got some cool Moon shots. (I live in a city, light pollution is terrible for astrophotography, but being up in the wilds, the sky was like ink.) I shot the Moon on Friday-Saturday, June 25th/26th.
Look at the 2021 calendar above - June 25th was the day after the Full Moon. Here's my pic (It's not great, but kinda psyched about it because it was the first time I truly got to test out my Celestron C90 spotting scope lens on my Canon 5D):

(https://i.imgur.com/8R6LAIg.jpg)

Notice anything? It's exactly the same phase as what the calendar presents. Why would my random location exactly correspond to some random Moon phase calendar? I mean exactly.

If you really want to double down on your absurd notion that someone on the disc is seeing a different Moon phase than I am at the same time, we've got enough people from the 4 corners of the world here on the forum to do a test.

But really, absurd isn't even strong enough to describe what you're saying. It's so easily dispensed with you really, desperately, need to backtrack on it. Because its downright embarrassing how easily your B is completely and utterly nullified.
It might be wise that you people go back and read what I said.

Anyone care to help these people out by actually reading what I said?

You said here:



I know you're only joking around. If I'm looking at a waning moon tonight, then everyone everywhere else in the world is also seeing a waning moon.

Absolutely not.

Wait, what? 

Sceptimatic, do you imagine that two people looking at the holographic moon projection at the same time from two different parts of the world can see different phases of the moon? 

Could I see a half moon and someone else be seeing a full moon?
The simple answer is......yes.

Which is B:

B) That depending upon where someone is, let's say 1 person in London & 1 person in the Sydney, at the same time, will see different phases, regardless of orientation. Ex., 1 person sees a full moon and 1 person sees a crescent moon.

If it’s somehow all of a sudden not B (And not A), what is it? Be super clear. Do you believe that 1 person at one location sees a completely different Moon phase than another person at another location all at the same time?

What is this, "Someone is always seeing a full moon.”? What does that mean?  Can I be looking at a half Moon, right now, today, and someone somewhere else at the exact same time, see a full Moon?

Be super, super, super clear.
I have been super clear but you people go into moon phase raptures when that is not what I was suggesting.

Pay closer attention to what I did say.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Themightykabool on July 05, 2021, 11:49:15 PM
Can any rational person see what I'm saying about someone somewhere on Earth will always see a full moon?
Can you tell me where on earth the full moon will be visible within the next 7 days?
Somewhere and that's the entire point.

"Super clear" indeed.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: rvlvr on July 05, 2021, 11:57:42 PM
Having people run circles trying to figure out what the syntax mess spouted means is scepti’s way of asserting dominance. It sure as hell isn’t the brilliant use of logic or show of knowledge.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sobchak on July 06, 2021, 12:00:48 AM
Can any rational person see what I'm saying about someone somewhere on Earth will always see a full moon?
Can you tell me where on earth the full moon will be visible within the next 7 days?
Somewhere and that's the entire point.

Sceptimatic, I know you believe this and you are entitled to your beliefs, but I am genuinely interested in why you believe this. 

I mean - you have no knowledge of what phases of the moon the rest of the world sees, so you cant know that somewhere someone is now seeing a full moon.

And it doesn't even seem to be important to your worldview, if the moon is just a reflection against a flat dome, there is no need for people to see different reflections dependent on where they are, right?

So it seems strange that you are so adamant that your imagination is correct here, can I ask why you made this up and why you need to believe that it is true?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Stash on July 06, 2021, 12:02:59 AM

I know you're only joking around. If I'm looking at a waning moon tonight, then everyone everywhere else in the world is also seeing a waning moon.

Absolutely not.

Wait, what? 

Sceptimatic, do you imagine that two people looking at the holographic moon projection at the same time from two different parts of the world can see different phases of the moon? 

Could I see a half moon and someone else be seeing a full moon?
The simple answer is......yes.
Well that's clearly bullshit. IF you were correct then you should be able to provide Moon phase tables that are specific to a region. In the real world however, everyone sees the same phase at the same time and phase tables work regardless of location.
How come you people cannot grasp what's been said?
Surely it can't be a coincidence.

Can any rational person see what I'm saying about someone somewhere on Earth will always see a full moon?

Like I said, your position is B:

B) That depending upon where someone is, let's say 1 person in London & 1 person in Sydney, at the same time, will see different phases, regardless of orientation. Ex., 1 person sees a full moon and 1 person sees a crescent moon, at the same time.

And no, no rational person could agree. Because it's so bloody simple to refute your notion or whatever delusion it is. As Frenat pointed out, as well as others, there are moon phase charts/calendars accessible to everyone on the planet. Literally no one has ever looked at one and said, "Hey, the Moon phase calendar shows today is a waxing cresent but I see a full moon..." No one.

Here's 2021:

(https://i.imgur.com/Ctx5GTj.png)

Just so happens I was was up north in California camping recently and got some cool Moon shots. (I live in a city, light pollution is terrible for astrophotography, but being up in the wilds, the sky was like ink.) I shot the Moon on Friday-Saturday, June 25th/26th.
Look at the 2021 calendar above - June 25th was the day after the Full Moon. Here's my pic (It's not great, but kinda psyched about it because it was the first time I truly got to test out my Celestron C90 spotting scope lens on my Canon 5D):

(https://i.imgur.com/8R6LAIg.jpg)

Notice anything? It's exactly the same phase as what the calendar presents. Why would my random location exactly correspond to some random Moon phase calendar? I mean exactly.

If you really want to double down on your absurd notion that someone on the disc is seeing a different Moon phase than I am at the same time, we've got enough people from the 4 corners of the world here on the forum to do a test.

But really, absurd isn't even strong enough to describe what you're saying. It's so easily dispensed with you really, desperately, need to backtrack on it. Because its downright embarrassing how easily your B is completely and utterly nullified.
It might be wise that you people go back and read what I said.

Anyone care to help these people out by actually reading what I said?

You said here:



I know you're only joking around. If I'm looking at a waning moon tonight, then everyone everywhere else in the world is also seeing a waning moon.

Absolutely not.

Wait, what? 

Sceptimatic, do you imagine that two people looking at the holographic moon projection at the same time from two different parts of the world can see different phases of the moon? 

Could I see a half moon and someone else be seeing a full moon?
The simple answer is......yes.

Which is B:

B) That depending upon where someone is, let's say 1 person in London & 1 person in the Sydney, at the same time, will see different phases, regardless of orientation. Ex., 1 person sees a full moon and 1 person sees a crescent moon.

If it’s somehow all of a sudden not B (And not A), what is it? Be super clear. Do you believe that 1 person at one location sees a completely different Moon phase than another person at another location all at the same time?

What is this, "Someone is always seeing a full moon.”? What does that mean?  Can I be looking at a half Moon, right now, today, and someone somewhere else at the exact same time, see a full Moon?

Be super, super, super clear.
I have been super clear but you people go into moon phase raptures when that is not what I was suggesting.

Pay closer attention to what I did say.

The point is you're not being clear at all. You just answered Markjo that there will be a full moon visible to someone on earth in the next 7 days. The thing is, there won't be one visible to someone on earth in the next 7 days - The next visible full moon will be on July 23rd. That would be 18 days from now.

So be clear. Here's a simple yes or no question:

Do you believe that within the next 7 days someone on the planet will be able to see a Full Moon?

Yes or No
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Unconvinced on July 06, 2021, 12:10:37 AM
I have been super clear but you people go into moon phase raptures when that is not what I was suggesting.

Raptures, hahaha!  Checking the phase of the moon is a very simple observation that anyone in the world can make, with no equipment and no relying on anyone else.  The kind of zetetic observation that Flat Earthers claim to be all about. 

Quote
Pay closer attention to what I did say.

OK, like this:

Can any rational person see what I'm saying about someone somewhere on Earth will always see a full moon?
Can you tell me where on earth the full moon will be visible within the next 7 days?
Somewhere and that's the entire point.

You say somewhere, thousands of years of astronomy say nowhere. 

So why don’t you test this?  Really, find out if the things you think make sense match reality or
not. 

The question is do you actually want to know the truth?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: JackBlack on July 06, 2021, 12:49:18 AM
Can any rational person see what I'm saying about someone somewhere on Earth will always see a full moon?
Can you tell me where on earth the full moon will be visible within the next 7 days?
Somewhere and that's the entire point.
The point is it is nowhere on Earth.
That is why you likely can't answer.
If you want to see a full moon on Earth you will need to wait until ~July 23rd (depending on timezone).

You cannot see a full moon ANYWHERE on Earth over the next 7 days.

If you want to claim we can see the full moon somewhere on Earth over the next 7 days, tell us where.

And again, where is your justification for 3000 l/hr?

And are you going to acknowledge that even with the insane numbers you provided, they would still get 2 hours out of that tank?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Solarwind on July 06, 2021, 12:49:37 AM
Quote
Somewhere and that's the entire point.
And exactly where is 'somewhere' (as in somewhere on Earth) given that the current Moon phase from where I am is waning crescent? I saw the Moon just a couple of days ago and so my own eyes confirmed it.  I didn't need to be told that.

https://heavens-above.com/moon.aspx?lat=0&lng=0&loc=Unspecified&alt=0&tz=UCT

Notice the above link is generic.  I.e. not specific to any particular location.  It doesn't need to be since at any particular moment the visible phase of the Moon, as seen from anywhere in the world, is the same.  Just to make absolutely sure, try adding some different and random figures for latitude and longitude and see if the displayed visible phase of the Moon ever changes to full Moon.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Themightykabool on July 06, 2021, 02:30:55 AM
I have been super clear but you people go into moon phase raptures when that is not what I was suggesting.

Raptures, hahaha!  Checking the phase of the moon is a very simple observation that anyone in the world can make, with no equipment and no relying on anyone else.  The kind of zetetic observation that Flat Earthers claim to be all about. 

Quote
Pay closer attention to what I did say.

OK, like this:

Can any rational person see what I'm saying about someone somewhere on Earth will always see a full moon?
Can you tell me where on earth the full moon will be visible within the next 7 days?
Somewhere and that's the entire point.

You say somewhere, thousands of years of astronomy say nowhere. 

So why don’t you test this?  Really, find out if the things you think make sense match reality or
not. 

The question is do you actually want to know the truth?

well you willl have to coorborate with someone at the different location of what they're seeing.
at some point there should be a trust.
will scepy trust someone?
o rwill the trust only go to the point of "it doesn't follow my beliefs therefore indoctrined!"?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Smoke Machine on July 06, 2021, 03:10:26 AM

Since it isn't true and it is well known that everyone on Earth sees the same phase, no, nobody is going to agree with you.
Every person sees a full moon somewhere on Earth, at all times.
If I see a full moon then the full moon moves away from me, someone else sees a full moon.
Someone is always seeing a full moon.

Do you mean, in a 48 hour period? If I see a new moon tonight and my location rotates away from it's view, someone else rotates into it's view. Same with the full moon.

Come on, man. Am I missing something in your post? I can't believe with all your posts, you slip up with the moon and fall in the drink.

Be a good sport, what's going on?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on July 06, 2021, 03:34:03 AM

Since it isn't true and it is well known that everyone on Earth sees the same phase, no, nobody is going to agree with you.
Every person sees a full moon somewhere on Earth, at all times.
If I see a full moon then the full moon moves away from me, someone else sees a full moon.
Someone is always seeing a full moon.

Do you mean, in a 48 hour period? If I see a new moon tonight and my location rotates away from it's view, someone else rotates into it's view. Same with the full moon.

Come on, man. Am I missing something in your post? I can't believe with all your posts, you slip up with the moon and fall in the drink.

Be a good sport, what's going on?
There's nothing going on. You just answered it.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Themightykabool on July 06, 2021, 03:40:54 AM
So you have all the information apparently.
Care to draw up a model?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on July 06, 2021, 04:22:20 AM

Since it isn't true and it is well known that everyone on Earth sees the same phase, no, nobody is going to agree with you.
Every person sees a full moon somewhere on Earth, at all times.
If I see a full moon then the full moon moves away from me, someone else sees a full moon.
Someone is always seeing a full moon.

Do you mean, in a 48 hour period? If I see a new moon tonight and my location rotates away from it's view, someone else rotates into it's view. Same with the full moon.

Come on, man. Am I missing something in your post? I can't believe with all your posts, you slip up with the moon and fall in the drink.

Be a good sport, what's going on?
There's nothing going on. You just answered it.
So where will a full moon be seen in the next 7 days?  Just name one place.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: JackBlack on July 06, 2021, 04:23:22 AM
Do you mean, in a 48 hour period? If I see a new moon tonight and my location rotates away from it's view, someone else rotates into it's view. Same with the full moon.

Come on, man. Am I missing something in your post? I can't believe with all your posts, you slip up with the moon and fall in the drink.

Be a good sport, what's going on?
There's nothing going on. You just answered it.
No, he just explained how your claim is wrong.
When it is a full moon, ~everyone can see it within a 24 hour period.
But when it isn't the full moon, such as today, no one on Earth can see a full moon within that 24 hour period.

And again, where is your justification for 3000 l/hr?

And are you going to acknowledge that even with the insane numbers you provided, they would still get 2 hours out of that tank?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Solarwind on July 06, 2021, 07:15:59 AM
Quote
Every person sees a full moon somewhere on Earth, at all times.
Correct. Incorrect.
Quote
If I see a full moon then the full moon moves away from me, someone else sees a full moon.
Yes when you see  a full Moon that's because the Moon is full on that particular day. On that day astronomers could say the Moon is at opposition.  In so far as it rises as the Sun sets.  Hence the Moon is on the opposite side of the sky to the Sun.  Sun-Moon elongation = 180 degrees. As it sets from your location it is rising as the full Moon from somewhere west of you.

Quote
Someone is always seeing a full moon.
Not true.  We only see a full Moon on one day (or possibly two) days each month.

If you want to be pedantic about all this you could say that the full disk of the Earth facing side of the Moon is always visible to us. Hence when we see a crescent Moon we can also often see the outline of the full Moon due to Earth shine on the part of the Moons disk which is not in sunlight. But it is only fully illuminated (by the Sun) for one day each month.  The term 'full Moon' though relates purely to the phase cycle (as does first quarter, last quarter, new etc) and so it would be wrong to say that we always see a 'full moon'.

If your insistence that someone on Earth can always see a full Moon somewhere on Earth then that would immediately make every Moon phase timetable ever published wrong because they only ever specify full Moon on a particular day (or two) each month. Here are three examples...which all seem to agree with each other when you compare the phases and the dates each month.

https://www.timeanddate.com/moon/phases/

https://www.mooninfo.org/moon-phases/2021.html

https://www.calendar-365.com/moon-calendar/2021/July.html

So which would you go for?  You are wrong or the timetables are wrong?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: NotSoSkeptical on July 06, 2021, 08:18:14 AM
I have a suspicion here.

Scepti, can you define what you mean by Full Moon?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on July 06, 2021, 08:30:09 AM
I have a suspicion here.

Scepti, can you define what you mean by Full Moon?
Being able to see a full moon face. The circle of what people know as, the moon.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on July 06, 2021, 09:34:33 AM
I have a suspicion here.

Scepti, can you define what you mean by Full Moon?
Being able to see a full moon face. The circle of what people know as, the moon.
So where will someone be able to see a full moon today?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: NotSoSkeptical on July 06, 2021, 09:44:29 AM
I have a suspicion here.

Scepti, can you define what you mean by Full Moon?
Being able to see a full moon face. The circle of what people know as, the moon.
So where will someone be able to see a full moon today?

Full moon for scepti is the entire moon face regardless of it the shadow or illuminated areas.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on July 06, 2021, 10:01:00 AM
I have a suspicion here.

Scepti, can you define what you mean by Full Moon?
Being able to see a full moon face. The circle of what people know as, the moon.
So where will someone be able to see a full moon today?

Full moon for scepti is the entire moon face regardless of it the shadow or illuminated areas.
I think he means a complete circle is visible.    That is

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/10/Supermoon_Nov-14-2016-minneapolis.jpg/1200px-Supermoon_Nov-14-2016-minneapolis.jpg)


He may be playing games, but don't think he's playing that one.  Maybe he can confirm and tell us where on the planet we can see such a sight in the next week?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Stash on July 06, 2021, 10:03:02 AM
I have a suspicion here.

Scepti, can you define what you mean by Full Moon?
Being able to see a full moon face. The circle of what people know as, the moon.
So where will someone be able to see a full moon today?

Full moon for scepti is the entire moon face regardless of it the shadow or illuminated areas.

So in essence he is just ignoring the word "phase"? And "Full Moon" to him just means "The Moon"? And "Crescent Moon" just means "The Moon" and so on?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Solarwind on July 06, 2021, 10:23:40 AM
By making up his own definition of what he calls the 'full Moon' Sceptimatic seems to think that he can automatically lay claim to being right. It's a bit sad though when you are so committed in your beliefs that you have to resort to making up your own definitions in order to make it seem like you are right in what you believe.

To everyone else I have ever met the term 'full Moon' means we can see the whole of the Moons Earth facing side illuminated by reflected sunlight. Sceptimatic though seems to be redefining 'full Moon' as meaning something different.  When I see an evening crescent Moon re-appear in the western sky a few days after new Moon I can see the faint outline of the unlit portion of the disk as well.  But that doesn't make it a 'full Moon'. It is still a crescent Moon.

I'm still intrigued though how this phase cycle can happen if the Moon was some sort of reflected image of a hologram.  I guess Sceptimatic is the only person who can explain that!
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: JackBlack on July 06, 2021, 02:10:21 PM
I have a suspicion here.
Scepti, can you define what you mean by Full Moon?
Being able to see a full moon face. The circle of what people know as, the moon.
Do you mean the full face lit up ("like a beacon" as you would say) or do you just mean the ability to see the moon?

After all, this did all start when someone showed the moon as a tiny crescent with you claiming someone can always see the full moon. That would imply the former, which is obviously false.

And again, where is your justification for 3000 l/hr?

And are you going to acknowledge that even with the insane numbers you provided, they would still get 2 hours out of that tank?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on July 06, 2021, 10:23:52 PM


To everyone else I have ever met the term 'full Moon' means we can see the whole of the Moons Earth facing side illuminated by reflected sunlight. Sceptimatic though seems to be redefining 'full Moon' as meaning something different.  When I see an evening crescent Moon re-appear in the western sky a few days after new Moon I can see the faint outline of the unlit portion of the disk as well.  But that doesn't make it a 'full Moon'. It is still a crescent Moon.


Nope.
A crescent moon would imply the moon is simply a piece of your rock.
Unless you mean a more illuminated are of the circle.

Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on July 06, 2021, 10:24:52 PM
I have a suspicion here.
Scepti, can you define what you mean by Full Moon?
Being able to see a full moon face. The circle of what people know as, the moon.
Do you mean the full face lit up ("like a beacon" as you would say) or do you just mean the ability to see the moon?

After all, this did all start when someone showed the moon as a tiny crescent with you claiming someone can always see the full moon. That would imply the former, which is obviously false.

And again, where is your justification for 3000 l/hr?

And are you going to acknowledge that even with the insane numbers you provided, they would still get 2 hours out of that tank?
You people are the supposed geniuses. Figure it out.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Stash on July 06, 2021, 11:32:56 PM


To everyone else I have ever met the term 'full Moon' means we can see the whole of the Moons Earth facing side illuminated by reflected sunlight. Sceptimatic though seems to be redefining 'full Moon' as meaning something different.  When I see an evening crescent Moon re-appear in the western sky a few days after new Moon I can see the faint outline of the unlit portion of the disk as well.  But that doesn't make it a 'full Moon'. It is still a crescent Moon.


Nope.
A crescent moon would imply the moon is simply a piece of your rock.
Unless you mean a more illuminated are of the circle.

Ummm, yeah, that's what we've been meaning all along, the latter. Hence the word "Phase". And images of "phases" presented.

Phase, in astronomy, any of the varying appearances of a celestial body as different amounts of its disk are seen (from Earth, ordinarily) to be illuminated by the Sun.

Thanks for trolling and playing stupid over the last bunches of pages.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on July 07, 2021, 12:24:18 AM


To everyone else I have ever met the term 'full Moon' means we can see the whole of the Moons Earth facing side illuminated by reflected sunlight. Sceptimatic though seems to be redefining 'full Moon' as meaning something different.  When I see an evening crescent Moon re-appear in the western sky a few days after new Moon I can see the faint outline of the unlit portion of the disk as well.  But that doesn't make it a 'full Moon'. It is still a crescent Moon.


Nope.
A crescent moon would imply the moon is simply a piece of your rock.
Unless you mean a more illuminated are of the circle.

Ummm, yeah, that's what we've been meaning all along, the latter. Hence the word "Phase". And images of "phases" presented.

Phase, in astronomy, any of the varying appearances of a celestial body as different amounts of its disk are seen (from Earth, ordinarily) to be illuminated by the Sun.

Thanks for trolling and playing stupid over the last bunches of pages.
I don't think I was trolling. I'm merely giving out what you people give out.

I stand by what I've said.
You may not like it and that's fair enough but you people don't get to have it all your way en masse.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Stash on July 07, 2021, 12:33:17 AM


To everyone else I have ever met the term 'full Moon' means we can see the whole of the Moons Earth facing side illuminated by reflected sunlight. Sceptimatic though seems to be redefining 'full Moon' as meaning something different.  When I see an evening crescent Moon re-appear in the western sky a few days after new Moon I can see the faint outline of the unlit portion of the disk as well.  But that doesn't make it a 'full Moon'. It is still a crescent Moon.


Nope.
A crescent moon would imply the moon is simply a piece of your rock.
Unless you mean a more illuminated are of the circle.

Ummm, yeah, that's what we've been meaning all along, the latter. Hence the word "Phase". And images of "phases" presented.

Phase, in astronomy, any of the varying appearances of a celestial body as different amounts of its disk are seen (from Earth, ordinarily) to be illuminated by the Sun.

Thanks for trolling and playing stupid over the last bunches of pages.
I don't think I was trolling. I'm merely giving out what you people give out.

I stand by what I've said.
You may not like it and that's fair enough but you people don't get to have it all your way en masse.

No, it was abundantly clear everyone was talking about moon "phases". Everyone. Pictures and such were presented regarding "phases" - Meaning and showing where light shines on the moon at different times of a month.

But you had to troll it up by being vague and really meaning non-phase moon. Quit playing games and be crystal clear in the future. You're only sullying your arguments and credibility by being willfully obtuse.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Solarwind on July 07, 2021, 01:07:57 AM
It seems that some people (no names obviously) want to interchange the meanings of words like 'phase' and 'in direct line of sight' just to satisfy their constant need to believe they are right.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: JackBlack on July 07, 2021, 01:11:30 AM
A crescent moon would imply the moon is simply a piece of your rock.
Unless you mean a more illuminated are of the circle.
No, a crescent moon implies that only a portion of the visible portion of the moon is illuminated.

I have a suspicion here.
Scepti, can you define what you mean by Full Moon?
Being able to see a full moon face. The circle of what people know as, the moon.
Do you mean the full face lit up ("like a beacon" as you would say) or do you just mean the ability to see the moon?

After all, this did all start when someone showed the moon as a tiny crescent with you claiming someone can always see the full moon. That would imply the former, which is obviously false.

And again, where is your justification for 3000 l/hr?

And are you going to acknowledge that even with the insane numbers you provided, they would still get 2 hours out of that tank?
You people are the supposed geniuses. Figure it out.
I already have figured it out. You screwed up big time, but you need it, because you need the moon to always be full to pretend it should always be massively bright, to pretend the photos couldn't possibly have been taken on the moon.

Just like you need your ridiculous 3000 l/hr to pretend the tank couldn't last 30 minutes, even though if it was filled with liquid oxygen like you implied, it would last over 2 hours with that ridiculous 3000 l/hr.

And because you can't justify your lies, you just deflect.


I don't think I was trolling. I'm merely giving out what you people give out.
No you're not. We give out rational arguments, evidence and simple questions to show you are wrong (after already explaining why you are wrong).
You give out delusional BS and pathetic deflection.

And you most certainly appear to be trolling.
This deflection onto the ability to see the full moon started here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=88640.msg2324784#msg2324784

You claimed it was always lit up like a beacon, and in response an image of a crescent moon was provided, where one entire face of the moon was visible, but only a sliver illuminated.
That led you to claiming that we see a full moon all the time on Earth.

So no, it is quite clear you meant that you see the entire full moon lit up, as in the moon with the phase of a full moon.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sobchak on July 07, 2021, 01:49:53 AM

I stand by what I've said.


Lol, sure you do -



Sceptimatic:  Different people on different parts of the earth can respectively see a half moon and full moon at the same time.

Everyone in the world:  Really????

Sceptimatic:  EVERYONE ALWAYS SEES A FULL MOON!

Everyone in the world:  What????

Sceptimatic:  I stand by what I said. 



Trolling or just ridiculously incoherent.  It is still great.   :)



Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Solarwind on July 07, 2021, 03:51:12 AM
@Sobchak

Just to provoke an argument with everyone else in the world and feed our egos we could equally say from now on that we are going to call what everyone else calls green, blue and vice versa.  So according to us, everywhere in the world everyone sees the sky as green and the grass and trees etc as blue .  To everyone else that sounds completely ludicrous but to you and me we are entirely correct and of course we will stand by what we say.

It's up to Sceptimatic to re-define what 'full Moon' means if he so chooses.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sobchak on July 07, 2021, 04:11:05 AM
@Sobchak

Just to provoke an argument with everyone else in the world we could equally say from now on that we are going to call what everyone else calls green, blue and vice versa.  So according to us, everywhere in the world everyone sees the sky as green and the grass and trees etc as blue .  To everyone else that sounds completely ludicrous but to you and me we are entirely correct and of course we will stand by what we say.

It's up to Sceptimatic to define a new labelling system for the phases of the Moon if he so chooses.

A "half moon" is when you close one eye when you are looking at it perhaps?

Im never totally sure if he is just trolling, I generally have it at about a 90% chance, but it could be that he is not. 

In which case he actually thought that people saw different phases of the moon based on where they were in the world!!!  Seems he is retreating from this now, so maybe he actually learned something?
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: Solarwind on July 07, 2021, 04:18:06 AM
Quote
A "half moon" is when you close one eye when you are looking at it perhaps?
Love it!
Quote
In which case he actually thought that people saw different phases of the moon based on where they were in the world!!!  Seems he is retreating from this now, so maybe he actually learned something?
We can live in hope!  I wonder what he will come up with next?!?

I actually tested this with my partners brother who lives near Sydney in Australia and with a friend who lives in Texas.  We all took photos of the Moon within a few hours of each other and shared them with each other.  Not surprisingly all showed the same 'phase' of the Moon!  Of course the one taken in Australia was upside down compared to those that I took and the one taken from the States.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: markjo on July 07, 2021, 08:11:44 AM
Can any rational person see what I'm saying about someone somewhere on Earth will always see a full moon?
Can you tell me where on earth the full moon will be visible within the next 7 days?
Somewhere and that's the entire point.
No, the point is that you can't (or won't) prove it with an actual observation.  Sure, you can probably see the full disc of the moon on any given day, but a full moon is defined as when the disc of the moon is fully illuminated, and that only happens on day out of 28.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on July 08, 2021, 08:50:45 AM


No, it was abundantly clear everyone was talking about moon "phases". Everyone. Pictures and such were presented regarding "phases" - Meaning and showing where light shines on the moon at different times of a month.

But you had to troll it up by being vague and really meaning non-phase moon. Quit playing games and be crystal clear in the future. You're only sullying your arguments and credibility by being willfully obtuse.
I have no credibility on these forums, in case you didn't notice.
Also I'd suggest you take a leaf out of your own book.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on July 08, 2021, 08:51:20 AM
It seems that some people (no names obviously) want to interchange the meanings of words like 'phase' and 'in direct line of sight' just to satisfy their constant need to believe they are right.
Just like you people do.
Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: sceptimatic on July 08, 2021, 09:03:58 AM
Can any rational person see what I'm saying about someone somewhere on Earth will always see a full moon?
Can you tell me where on earth the full moon will be visible within the next 7 days?
Somewhere and that's the entire point.
No, the point is that you can't (or won't) prove it with an actual observation.  Sure, you can probably see the full disc of the moon on any given day, but a full moon is defined as when the disc of the moon is fully illuminated, and that only happens on day out of 28.
No.
If you can see it all it is illuminated or you wouldn't see it all.

Title: Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
Post by: markjo on July 08, 2021, 09:14:56 AM
If you can see it all it is illuminated or you wouldn't see it all.
When it comes to the phases of the moon, they are defined by the amount brightly lit area illuminated by sunshine, not the barely visible area illuminated by earthshine.