Why ISS does not lost the pressure when the crew go outside during spacewalk

  • 83 Replies
  • 3175 Views
*

fjr66

  • 123
It is obviuous that the air go from one place with high pressure to other place with low pressure, thats make the wind in the earth. In aeroplane they install oxygen mask so when cabin lost the pressure  when something hapened and make leakage in the cabin (the air go to the lower pressure at the outside when the higher latitude the lower the pressure) we  can still breath.

But why during ISS spacewalk, the crew fix something at the outside, and they open the chamber, they (the people left in the inside) can still breath without using the oxygen mask. Whereas at the outside it is a vacuum, so the air go to the outside suddenly to equalize the pressure and it is impossible for them to breath.

« Last Edit: June 22, 2019, 06:26:53 PM by fjr66 »

*

Mikey T.

  • 2419
Air... Lock

*

Macarios

  • 2028
It is obviuous that the air go from one place with high pressure to other place with low pressure, thats make the wind in the earth. In aeroplane they install oxygen mask so when cabin lost the pressure  when something hapened and make leakage in the cabin (the air go to the lower pressure at the outside when the higher latitude the lower the pressure) we  can still breath.

But why during ISS spacewalk, the crew fix something at the outside, and they open the chamber, they (the people left in the inside) can still breath without using the oxygen mask. Whereas at the outside it is a vacuum, so the air go to the outside suddenly to equalize the pressure and it is impossible for them to breath.

1. put on your space suit.
2. enter small chamber through the door "A".
3. close the door "A".
4. pump takes out the air from the small chamber.
5. open the door "B" towards Space.
6. step outside through the door "B", do a spacewalk, external repairs and adjustments.
7. step back into the small chamber.
8. close the door "B".
9. air is allowed back to the smal chamber.
10. open the door "A" and step through it. You are back in the ISS.
11. take off your space suit.
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

You seem to like posting a question, then running away when you get answers.
Why?

They don't just open up the ISS and let the atmosphere vent to space.
Whenever people go in/out, they use an airlock.
This is a small, airtight room with 2 doors. One to the inside of the ISS and one to space.
Only 1 of these doors is open at a time.
This prevents a direct connection between the ISS and space, so all the air can't just leak out.
To further save air, before they go outside (or before they open the external door) the air pressure is lowered using pumps on board the station with only a small portion vented to space, and they have gas cylinders to replenish the gas.

So the people inside should still be able to breathe just fine.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39551
It is obviuous that the air go from one place with high pressure to other place with low pressure, thats make the wind in the earth. In aeroplane they install oxygen mask so when cabin lost the pressure  when something hapened and make leakage in the cabin (the air go to the lower pressure at the outside when the higher latitude the lower the pressure) we  can still breath.

But why during ISS spacewalk, the crew fix something at the outside, and they open the chamber, they (the people left in the inside) can still breath without using the oxygen mask. Whereas at the outside it is a vacuum, so the air go to the outside suddenly to equalize the pressure and it is impossible for them to breath.

1. enter small chamber through the door "A".
2. close the door "A".
3. put on your space suit.
4. pump takes out the air from the small chamber.
5. open the door "B" towards Space.
6. step float outside through the door "B", do a spacewalk, external repairs and adjustments.
7. step float back into the small chamber.
8. close the door "B".
9. air is allowed back to the smal chamber.
10. take off your space suit.
11. open the door "A" and step float through it. You are back in the ISS.
Fixed.  For a little more detail: https://science.howstuffworks.com/spacewalk3.htm
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
There would be absolutely no need for a pump to get rid of air from inside to outside in  this storyline environment, because the need to open a valve would allow the air to naturally escape on it's own against zero resistance in this fictional scenario.

Also, does anyone know where this airlock room is so they can go supposed spacewalking?

Imagine getting into a suit then going into an airlock in that suit, naturally tanked and masked up...but tanked up and masked up to 14.7 psi environment and then whacked straight against a vacuum as they tell us.
Just like that?

Does anyone know of any test in a supposed space environment on Earth that these suits have been tested in?
Does anyone know of a human entering a supposed vacuum chamber in one of these suits for a few hours?

I've seen no so called astronaut suit in any environment like this apart from the one we are shown of supposed space and the supposed vehicles in it.


There's a reason why this happens.


And this is the atmosphere crushing this heavy steel tanker from outside.
All you're doing in supposed space would be reversing this and putting the 14.7 psi inside against zero psi resistance.
Imagine what would really happen to a skin that is not anywhere near the thickness of this tanker.

Of course I'm sure people will tell me the so called space station is strong steel and what not but we know the little pretend micrometeorites seem to penetrate it where it can be patched up with vinegar and brown paper.  ;D


There would be absolutely no need for a pump to get rid of air from inside to outside in  this storyline environment, because the need to open a valve would allow the air to naturally escape on it's own
We aren't talking about your pathetic story. We are talking about reality.
In reality, letting all that air go out to space is a massive waste as you will need to replenish the air from the ground.
It is much more economical to have a pump which transfers the air back into the station (or into a vessel to store it) such that most of the air is kept.

If you want to waste all the air, you go make your own space station.

but tanked up and masked up to 14.7 psi environment and then whacked straight against a vacuum as they tell us.
Just like that?
No. Not just like that. Nothing like that at all.
Again, the air is pumped out of the airlock, with the remaining vented before the door is open. They don't just throw you straight into a vacuum.
Also, the suit isn't pressurised to 14.7 psi.

There's a reason why this happens.
And good job showing your ignorance/dishonesty yet again.
Go look up buckling instability as has been explained to you already.
It is quite difficult to maintain a vacuum inside a container. It is much easier to contain pressure inside it.
If you have a higher pressure inside, the container needs to literally be torn apart to allow the gas to escape.
But if you have a higher pressure on the inside, the container just needs to deform.

Again, if you would like a simple example, go get a drink can (like a can of coke). They can withstand a very large pressure inside the can, but easily collapse with minimal pressure from the outside (note: this needs to be greater than the pressure inside).
Another simple example is a sheet of paper.
Go and tape some weights to a sheet of paper and try to hold it up, with the weights at the bottom. You will find the paper can easily handle the weight.
But now try with the weights at the top with you holding the paper at the bottom and the paper just falls over.

You being wilfully ignorant of how deformation works doesn't make a valid argument.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
And good job showing your ignorance/dishonesty yet again.
Go look up buckling instability as has been explained to you already.
It is quite difficult to maintain a vacuum inside a container. It is much easier to contain pressure inside it.
If you have a higher pressure inside, the container needs to literally be torn apart to allow the gas to escape.
But if you have a higher pressure on the inside, the container just needs to deform.

Again, if you would like a simple example, go get a drink can (like a can of coke). They can withstand a very large pressure inside the can, but easily collapse with minimal pressure from the outside (note: this needs to be greater than the pressure inside).

The sprite station.


No dishonesty here, just observation and common sense against the fictional films/stories we're coaxed into believing.
The trouble is, people love a good film and story and especially fictional space one's.

The sprite station.
Yes, a great example of your blatant dishonesty or wilful ignorance.
Notice how it went just fine with the first test.
But like I said, minimal force from the outside can deform it.

No dishonesty here, just observation and common sense
It is either blatant dishonesty or wilful ignorance. There is no common sense in there at all.
Again a simple piece of paper shows you are wrong, as does a soft drink can.

You are yet to show any problem or any reason to think this reality that you are so bent on rejecting is fictional.
Why should any sane person take you seriously?

But why during ISS spacewalk, the crew fix something at the outside, and they open the chamber, they (the people left in the inside) can still breath without using the oxygen mask. Whereas at the outside it is a vacuum, so the air go to the outside suddenly to equalize the pressure and it is impossible for them to breath.

Hahaha, oh wow, is this really a question? You don't even have any idea how to go and Google for this?

Thank you at least for entertaining me :)
The Universal Accelerator is a constant farce.

Flattery will get you nowhere.

From the FAQ - "In general, we at the Flat Earth Society do not lend much credibility to photographic evidence."

*

rabinoz

  • 26295
  • Real Earth Believer
There would be absolutely no need for a pump to get rid of air from inside to outside in  this storyline environment, because the need to open a valve would allow the air to naturally escape on it's own against zero resistance in this fictional scenario.
They could but they don't want to waste the air.

Quote from: sceptimatic
Also, does anyone know where this airlock room is so they can go supposed spacewalking?
Sure, read it for yourself in: Quest Joint Airlock

Quote from: sceptimatic
Imagine getting into a suit then going into an airlock in that suit, naturally tanked and masked up...but tanked up and masked up to 14.7 psi environment and then whacked straight against a vacuum as they tell us.
Just like that?
Why imagine it?
They do not go from a "14.7 psi environment and then" get "whacked straight against a vacuum".
So why do you claim "as they tell us"? Because "they" do not tell us that! What "they" do tell us is:
Quote
Camp-out procedure   
Quest provides an environment where astronauts can "camp out" before a spacewalk in a reduced-nitrogen atmosphere to purge nitrogen from their bloodstream and avoid decompression sickness in the low-pressure (4.3 psi, 30 kPa) pure-oxygen atmosphere of the spacesuit.
So the astronauts go from a 4.3 psi environment in the vacuum of space in a suit designed for that purpose!

Quote from: sceptimatic
Does anyone know of any test in a supposed space environment on Earth that these suits have been tested in?
Does anyone know of a human entering a supposed vacuum chamber in one of these suits for a few hours?
They are tested in a vacuum chamber, of course!

Space Suit Testing


Quote from: sceptimatic
I've seen no so called astronaut suit in any environment like this apart from the one we are shown of supposed space and the supposed vehicles in it.
I couldn't care less what you haven't seen!

Quote from: sceptimatic
There's a reason why this happens.

And this is the atmosphere crushing this heavy steel tanker from outside.
All you're doing in supposed space would be reversing this and putting the 14.7 psi inside against zero psi resistance.
That is totally irrelevant because the steel of that tanker does not rupture or break but just bends and crumples.
A Pepsi can withstand far more pressure than needed to retain full atmospheric pressure!
Quote from: Kimmey, R. Pepsi Brooklyn Bottling Center
At 60 F, the gauge pressure in the container is approximately 40 psi.

Quote from: sceptimatic
Imagine what would really happen to a skin that is not anywhere near the thickness of this tanker.
Sure, even if the pressure inside were far higher than 14.7 psi absolutely nothing will happen because even the thin skin of a drink can and does withstand up to about 80 psi of pressure.
Clearly you have never learned anything about engineering!

Quote from: sceptimatic
Of course I'm sure people will tell me the so called space station is strong steel
No they won't because the pressure hull of the space station is not strong steel! Weight is crucial!
Quote
Because each of the aluminum-can shaped components of the Station has to be lifted into orbit, minimizing weight is crucial. Lightweight aluminum, rather than steel, comprises most of the outer shell for the modules.

Quote from: sceptimatic
and what not but we know the little pretend micrometeorites seem to penetrate it where it can be patched up with vinegar and brown paper.
Nobody pretends any such thing! Though tiny holes can be easily sealed.
The pressure difference between the inside and outside of a car tyre is commonly more than twice the pressure difference between the inside and outside of the ISS!
And you can hold the air in a car tyre with just your finger over the valve opening.

But tiny meteoroids are a danger that was considered long before you turned up!
Quote
This shell must also provide protection from impacts by tiny meteoroids and man-made debris. Because the ISS zips through space at about 27,000 km/h, even dust-sized grains present a considerable danger. Man-made debris, a drifting legacy of past space exploration, poses an even greater threat.

To ensure the safety of the crew, the Space Station wears a "bullet-proof vest." Layers of Kevlar, ceramic fabrics, and other advanced materials form a blanket up to 10 cm thick around each module's aluminum shell.
So rather than heavy steel far lighter and more effective Kevlar etc is used.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
So, for all you logical thinking people out there who are sensible enough to ride past the frenzied answers from a few globalists, have a real think about all of this stuff and you'll soon realise how silly this space stuff is.

*

rabinoz

  • 26295
  • Real Earth Believer
The sprite station.


No dishonesty here, just observation and common sense against the fictional films/stories we're coaxed into believing.
The trouble is, people love a good film and story and especially fictional space one's.
I hope you did note that to make the Sprite can explode he had to heat it, increasing the pressure inside, than take it to near vacuum.
Even then the can itself did not rupture but the weakened part tore out - as would be expected.

*

rabinoz

  • 26295
  • Real Earth Believer
So, for all you logical thinking people out there who are sensible enough to ride past the frenzied answers from a few globalists, have a real think about all of this stuff and you'll soon realise how silly this space stuff is.
So you are unwilling to admit your total ignorance when it comes to the design of the ISS, etc yet you seem to class yourself as one of these "logical thinking people".

What a joke!

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
The sprite station.


No dishonesty here, just observation and common sense against the fictional films/stories we're coaxed into believing.
The trouble is, people love a good film and story and especially fictional space one's.
I hope you did note that to make the Sprite can explode he had to heat it, increasing the pressure inside, than take it to near vacuum.
Even then the can itself did not rupture but the weakened part tore out - as would be expected.
Warm it.
Guess what Rab?
Your space station is also heated, as we are told. Nice and toasty warm, eh?
T-shirt environment as we are shown and told.
A big set of sprite cans fixed together, as it would be if it was a reality, which we all know it isn't...not as we are told, anyway.

Oh, and as far as ruptures go, guess what exploded out of the  can?
If that's not a rupture then I wonder what is.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
So, for all you logical thinking people out there who are sensible enough to ride past the frenzied answers from a few globalists, have a real think about all of this stuff and you'll soon realise how silly this space stuff is.
So you are unwilling to admit your total ignorance when it comes to the design of the ISS, etc yet you seem to class yourself as one of these "logical thinking people".

What a joke!
I'll admit my ignorance when you admit your ignorance for thinking it's real in the first place.
Until then I'll show logically how this supposed big space tin can is nothing other than a gimmick by simply bringing up the nonsense we are told is legitimate.

*

rabinoz

  • 26295
  • Real Earth Believer
I hope you did note that to make the Sprite can explode he had to heat it, increasing the pressure inside, than take it to near vacuum.
Even then the can itself did not rupture but the weakened part tore out - as would be expected.
Warm it.
Guess what Rab?
Your space station is also heated, as we are told. Nice and toasty warm, eh?
T-shirt environment as we are shown and told.
So what? I thought that YOU were the one who claimed to be able to think things through logically.

The pressure in a Sprite can increases considerably when is heated:
Quote
what is the average pressure in a 12 oz. soda can?
To give you a quick example, let's say that the soda was carbonated to 3.0 volumes of CO2 and it has been sitting in your refrigerator so it's around 40 degrees F. 
The pressure inside the can will be roughly 17 psig (pounds per square inch, gauge) above atmospheric pressure. 
If you let the can warm up on the counter so its temperature increases to 70 F or so, the pressure inside the can will have increased to about 36 psig.
That's well over twice 14.7 psig above atmospheric pressure just warming a can to room temperature - and you wouldn't want all your cans exploding then!

But, you, yourself, noted that the ISS was kept at 14.7 psia so whether it's toasty warm of freezing cold is quite irrelevant!

Read this:
Quote
The surprising science behind the aluminum soda can.
Most of us interact with soda cans every day, so it's easy to forget that their design is the result of brilliant engineering and manufacturing carefully honed over decades. The modern soda can can hold beverages at pressures up to six atmospheres, yet is less than a tenth of a millimeter thick.

Quote from: sceptimatic
A big set of sprite cans fixed together, as it would be if it was a reality, which we all know it isn't...not as we are told, anyway.
The sections do look something that before assembly but are, of course, of much thicker material and with a solid framework.

Quote from: sceptimatic
Oh, and as far as ruptures go, guess what exploded out of the can?
If that's not a rupture then I wonder what is.
The can itself did not rupture, just the weakened lever-open section.

And the ISS in constructed out of far thicker material than a soda can. It had to be to withstand the 3G acceleration during launch.

*

rabinoz

  • 26295
  • Real Earth Believer
So, for all you logical thinking people out there who are sensible enough to ride past the frenzied answers from a few globalists, have a real think about all of this stuff and you'll soon realise how silly this space stuff is.
So you are unwilling to admit your total ignorance when it comes to the design of the ISS, etc yet you seem to class yourself as one of these "logical thinking people".

What a joke!
I'll admit my ignorance when you admit your ignorance for thinking it's real in the first place.
Until then I'll show logically how this supposed big space tin can is nothing other than a gimmick by simply bringing up the nonsense we are told is legitimate.
Why would I "admit my ignorance for thinking it's real in the first place" when I can show quite logically that there is no reason to believe that it's not real?

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789

Why would I "admit my ignorance for thinking it's real in the first place" when I can show quite logically that there is no reason to believe that it's not real?
Then don't admit your ignorance. Keep believing it is real and keep the ready made answers to questions at your fingertips if this floats your boat or spaceship, depending.
How about showing me a diagram and telling me where this airlock is for spacewalks then.

*

rabinoz

  • 26295
  • Real Earth Believer

Why would I "admit my ignorance for thinking it's real in the first place" when I can show quite logically that there is no reason to believe that it's not real?
Then don't admit your ignorance. Keep believing it is real and keep the ready made answers to questions at your fingertips if this floats your boat or spaceship, depending.
How about showing me a diagram and telling me where this airlock is for spacewalks then.

How about you look at the information that I already gave you. I didn't design the space station so get the information from those that did.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789

Why would I "admit my ignorance for thinking it's real in the first place" when I can show quite logically that there is no reason to believe that it's not real?
Then don't admit your ignorance. Keep believing it is real and keep the ready made answers to questions at your fingertips if this floats your boat or spaceship, depending.
How about showing me a diagram and telling me where this airlock is for spacewalks then.

How about you look at the information that I already gave you. I didn't design the space station so get the information from those that did.
You didn't design the starship enterprise and I can get the info from those who did. The problem we have is, is it a model or is it a real starship enterprise in space?

Sceptimatic - the difference in a pressure gradient pushing from the inside of a tube to that pushing from the outside is immense.

Pushing from the outside will test the tubes compressive strength and stiffness. Pushing from the inside will test the tubes tensile strength. The difference between the two can be orders of magnitude.

Try it for yourself. Take a tube of pretty much any material, toilet roll, thin plastic, metal etc. Try to crush the tube will your fist and you should manage fairly easily. Now try and break the tube from the inside. It is far more difficult to break the tube from the inside.

And there is the difference between your steel rail car crushed by atmospheric pressure and the ISS containing atmospheric pressure.

This is the most basic fundamentals of materials science and mechanical engineering. .
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

Another engineering principle Scepi seems to not understand is a little thing we like to call ďdesign specificationĒ.

Pretty much everything is ideally designed to be only as strong as it needs to be (including a safety factor to account for unforeseen circumstances).

A soda can isnít designed to be in a vacuum.  Why would it be?

A train carriage for transporting liquids (or maybe gas) isnít designed to be a vacuum chamber.  Who needs to deliver a vacuum anywhere?

The ISS is designed to hold a breathable atmosphere in space.

Most pressure vessels are cylindrical, as itís the most efficient shape that isnít a complete pain in the arse to manufacture.  See also compressed gas cylinders, fire extinguishers, divers air tanks, etc, etc.  These are all designed to take pressures far in excess of 1 atmosphere.

Expecting a soda can to have the same requirements as modules on the ISS is as daft as expecting a cardbox box to withstand the same weight as a rectangular apartment block.


Why would I "admit my ignorance for thinking it's real in the first place" when I can show quite logically that there is no reason to believe that it's not real?
Then don't admit your ignorance. Keep believing it is real and keep the ready made answers to questions at your fingertips if this floats your boat or spaceship, depending.
How about showing me a diagram and telling me where this airlock is for spacewalks then.

The airlock is in the middle of the diagram

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ISS_configuration_2018-04_en.jpg

It's just unfortunate for you that you live so far north or south of the equator that you have never seen it fly over you.
The Universal Accelerator is a constant farce.

Flattery will get you nowhere.

From the FAQ - "In general, we at the Flat Earth Society do not lend much credibility to photographic evidence."

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39551
How about showing me a diagram and telling me where this airlock is for spacewalks then.
*sigh*
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Scpeti previously disputed the existence of vacuum chambers.
Now he uses one as a proof.

Fantastic.
Space suits dont exist because air cant be contained.
So what about all pressure tanks used for bbq, welding, oxygen masks, helium baloons etcetc.
All adds to sceptis list of fake news.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Sceptimatic - the difference in a pressure gradient pushing from the inside of a tube to that pushing from the outside is immense.

Pushing from the outside will test the tubes compressive strength and stiffness. Pushing from the inside will test the tubes tensile strength. The difference between the two can be orders of magnitude.

Try it for yourself. Take a tube of pretty much any material, toilet roll, thin plastic, metal etc. Try to crush the tube will your fist and you should manage fairly easily. Now try and break the tube from the inside. It is far more difficult to break the tube from the inside.

And there is the difference between your steel rail car crushed by atmospheric pressure and the ISS containing atmospheric pressure.

This is the most basic fundamentals of materials science and mechanical engineering. .
I would certainly agree with that, except you're dealing with zero resistance to the external from a 14.7 psi push from internal, as we are led to believe.

The soda can against a low external pressure proves what I'm saying.

Sceptimatic - the difference in a pressure gradient pushing from the inside of a tube to that pushing from the outside is immense.

Pushing from the outside will test the tubes compressive strength and stiffness. Pushing from the inside will test the tubes tensile strength. The difference between the two can be orders of magnitude.

Try it for yourself. Take a tube of pretty much any material, toilet roll, thin plastic, metal etc. Try to crush the tube will your fist and you should manage fairly easily. Now try and break the tube from the inside. It is far more difficult to break the tube from the inside.

And there is the difference between your steel rail car crushed by atmospheric pressure and the ISS containing atmospheric pressure.

This is the most basic fundamentals of materials science and mechanical engineering. .
I would certainly agree with that, except you're dealing with zero resistance to the external from a 14.7 psi push from internal, as we are led to believe.

The soda can against a low external pressure proves what I'm saying.

A difference of 14.7 psi inside and zero outside is not as much as the difference between inside a coke can (up to 90 psi) and the 14.7 psi outside or the 3000 psi inside a divers air tank and the 14.7 psi outside.
The Universal Accelerator is a constant farce.

Flattery will get you nowhere.

From the FAQ - "In general, we at the Flat Earth Society do not lend much credibility to photographic evidence."

*

Stash

  • 4857
Sceptimatic - the difference in a pressure gradient pushing from the inside of a tube to that pushing from the outside is immense.

Pushing from the outside will test the tubes compressive strength and stiffness. Pushing from the inside will test the tubes tensile strength. The difference between the two can be orders of magnitude.

Try it for yourself. Take a tube of pretty much any material, toilet roll, thin plastic, metal etc. Try to crush the tube will your fist and you should manage fairly easily. Now try and break the tube from the inside. It is far more difficult to break the tube from the inside.

And there is the difference between your steel rail car crushed by atmospheric pressure and the ISS containing atmospheric pressure.

This is the most basic fundamentals of materials science and mechanical engineering. .
I would certainly agree with that, except you're dealing with zero resistance to the external from a 14.7 psi push from internal, as we are led to believe.

The soda can against a low external pressure proves what I'm saying.

No, the soda can does not. It's a valid question, but one that can be answered and demonstrated. Answered by what Turtles and others have said above and demonstrated by the following, this from reddit:

"Why does a pressurized spacecraft not explode when it enters the vacuum of space?
Physics

My younger brother is on a "flat earth" phase; he mostly just distrusts most mainstream science (and has been watching too much David Icke) and is overly skeptical, which I can't discourage; but he argues that it should be impossible for humans to travel into space because of the vacuum problem stated in the title and the intense temperature fluctuations in the thermosphere."


Skepti, do you have an older brother?  ;)

Here's an answer that got me thinking:

"The only thing that matter pressure wise is the pressure difference. The vacuum of space is effectively at 0 bar (0 psi). On earth the atmospheric pressure at sea level is about 1 bar (14.5 psi). So the pressure difference the capsule has to hold is around 1 bar.

This is not very much, to give some example this is about the same pressure difference an American football ball is holding. Car tires are around 2 to 3 times that. Scuba tanks can go up to 5000 psi (350 times the atmospheric pressure!).

However to make spacecrafts and space suits lighter the pressure is often lowered a bit. Human can live OK at 3000 to 4000 m altitude where the pressure is about 60% of sea level. If you want to cut down further you can increase the oxygen concentration. With 100% oxygen human can breath normally at only 0.3 bars (4.3 psi). This is what is used in the american space suits. However it is dangerous, at 100% oxygen a lot of things can catch fire very easily. That was one of the reason of the Apollo 1 accident."


So that got me thinking about the football analogy and I found this:



You see, the pressure differential makes all the difference between your soda can, a football and an ISS. It's science.

No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

So, for all you logical thinking people out there who are sensible enough to ride past the frenzied answers from a few globalists, have a real think about all of this stuff and you'll soon realise how silly this space stuff is.
No they wont.
If they (or you), had a real think about it, and actually tried to understand rather than continually appealed to pathetic strawmen, they would realise your claims amount to nothing more than childish garbage built upon religious rejection of reality to cling to a delusional fantasy.

Your space station is also heated, as we are told. Nice and toasty warm, eh?
Yes, nothing like the heated sprite can.
The important part isn't the heat, it is the pressure.
A soft drink can, even when cold, is at greater than atmospheric pressure.
Heating it will cause the pressure to rise even more.

So the video is a good demonstration of objects withstanding high pressures inside.
To complete it you would want to empty the can and then evacuate that against the atmosphere and see how well it stands up.
Doing so would show your claims to be pure garbage.

I'll admit my ignorance when you admit your ignorance for thinking it's real in the first place.
So you will only admit your ignorance after we blatantly lie to pander to your delusions?
Part of your wilful ignorance is your continued rejection of it being real.

Until then I'll show logically how this supposed big space tin can is nothing other than a gimmick
What do you mean until then?
You are yet to even start.
Nothing that you have provided is logical.
It is irrational garbage filled with a bunch of irrational comparisons.

If you actually used logic you would realise your claims are garbage.

I would certainly agree with that, except you're dealing with zero resistance to the external from a 14.7 psi push from internal
No we are not.
The tensile strength of the material resists it.

The soda can against a low external pressure proves what I'm saying.
No, it refutes what you are saying.
It clearly demonstrated that that the can can happily withstand this vacuum environment even at pressures above ambient. It requires a much greater pressure to rupture a weakened portion of it.
This easily shows that objects can be easily made to with stand a vacuum. There is no massive difficulty about it.
If what you were saying was true, the sprite can would have blown itself apart, without any vacuum at all due to the higher pressure inside.

Repeatedly ignoring this fact, and what the video you provided clearly shows, just shows everyone who wilfully ignorant you are and how your position is an entirely religious one, built upon wilful ignorance rather than evidence and rational thought.