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

  • 83 Replies
  • 3174 Views
?

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.
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.
When people can survive inside a suit inside a low pressure chamber for a few hours, let me know and we can have another look at this so called space station and it's spacewalking stuff and see how it fares up, eh?

When people can survive inside a suit inside a low pressure chamber for a few hours
Already done with plenty of them in space.
You cannot use an absence of you having evidence as an argument.
As I said, your wilful ignorance is not an argument against reality.

Again, the video you provided shows your argument to be pure garbage.
Even a normal can just sitting there pressurised shows your argument to be pure garbage.
You have been unable to show a single problem with a chamber withstand pressure on the inside and vacuum on the outside.
Instead all you have done is shown that if the pressure differential is great enough (many atmospheres for the example you provided) then it can cause the container to fail.
All that shows is that if you were to pressurise the ISS to many atmospheres it will likely fail.
But the ISS isn't pressurised to many atmospheres, so that gives no reason for it to fail.

let me know and we can have another look at this so called space station and it's spacewalking stuff and see how it fares up, eh?
Fine then, run along and never come back to this topic until you have found that piece of evidence.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
When people can survive inside a suit inside a low pressure chamber for a few hours
Already done with plenty of them in space.
You cannot use an absence of you having evidence as an argument.
As I said, your wilful ignorance is not an argument against reality.

Again, the video you provided shows your argument to be pure garbage.
Even a normal can just sitting there pressurised shows your argument to be pure garbage.
You have been unable to show a single problem with a chamber withstand pressure on the inside and vacuum on the outside.
Instead all you have done is shown that if the pressure differential is great enough (many atmospheres for the example you provided) then it can cause the container to fail.
All that shows is that if you were to pressurise the ISS to many atmospheres it will likely fail.
But the ISS isn't pressurised to many atmospheres, so that gives no reason for it to fail.

let me know and we can have another look at this so called space station and it's spacewalking stuff and see how it fares up, eh?
Fine then, run along and never come back to this topic until you have found that piece of evidence.
As I say. When a so called spacesuit like they supposedly wear on this so called space station is tested inside an extreme low pressure chamber on Earth for a few hours where the occupant of that suit can carry on as normal, doing tasks and such, then we can talk further on this supposed space station.

Until then people need to use their logic and ask why this is never shown and why it seems to have never been tested except for small dodgy minutes of people struggling in some kind of suit.

All this footage of so called spacewalks and moonwalks, etc and none of those very same suits inside a chamber.

Pfffffft.

As I say.
You mean as you just directly contradicted yourself.
If you wish to remain wilfully ignorant and not discuss the issue until your wilful ignornce is gone, go ahead. Run away and never come back to the topic until you have found your evidence

If you wish to continue discussing it, then deal with the problems raised by your "arguments" instead of repeatedly appealing to your wilful ignorance.

Until then people need to use their logic and ask why this is never shown
Again, using actual logic shows your claims to be pure garbage.
When you have the option of watching people in space vs watching people in a vacuum chamber, which would most people choose?
Watching people in space.
And guess, what? YOU CAN!
If you want video of someone inside a space suit in a artificial vacuum chamber, you go make one.

why it seems to have never been tested
And that is just your baseless assertion.

Just because something has been tested doesn't mean there is video footage of it.
Considering suits are already operating in space, just what benefit is there in wasting time and money at a large vacuum chamber to have someone sit inside the suit?

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
When you have the option of watching people in space vs watching people in a vacuum chamber, which would most people choose?
Watching people in space.
And guess, what? YOU CAN!
If you want video of someone inside a space suit in a artificial vacuum chamber, you go make one.
I don't need to make one. I want to see people inside these suits in a chamber that supposedly mimics a so called space vacuum as we are told, even if it's only as close as they can apparently get.

Quote from: JackBlack
why it seems to have never been tested
And that is just your baseless assertion.
Just because something has been tested doesn't mean there is video footage of it.
Considering suits are already operating in space, just what benefit is there in wasting time and money at a large vacuum chamber to have someone sit inside the suit?
;D
Yeah, I mean why would anyone bother to test out a so called space suit in a chamber to see if it would work in so called space. How silly, eh?

What an absolute joke.

When people can survive inside a suit inside a low pressure chamber for a few hours
Already done with plenty of them in space.
You cannot use an absence of you having evidence as an argument.
As I said, your wilful ignorance is not an argument against reality.

Again, the video you provided shows your argument to be pure garbage.
Even a normal can just sitting there pressurised shows your argument to be pure garbage.
You have been unable to show a single problem with a chamber withstand pressure on the inside and vacuum on the outside.
Instead all you have done is shown that if the pressure differential is great enough (many atmospheres for the example you provided) then it can cause the container to fail.
All that shows is that if you were to pressurise the ISS to many atmospheres it will likely fail.
But the ISS isn't pressurised to many atmospheres, so that gives no reason for it to fail.

let me know and we can have another look at this so called space station and it's spacewalking stuff and see how it fares up, eh?
Fine then, run along and never come back to this topic until you have found that piece of evidence.
As I say. When a so called spacesuit like they supposedly wear on this so called space station is tested inside an extreme low pressure chamber on Earth for a few hours where the occupant of that suit can carry on as normal, doing tasks and such, then we can talk further on this supposed space station.

Until then people need to use their logic and ask why this is never shown and why it seems to have never been tested except for small dodgy minutes of people struggling in some kind of suit.

All this footage of so called spacewalks and moonwalks, etc and none of those very same suits inside a chamber.

Pfffffft.
.
Erm, why would you have a problem with space suits? It's not like they're using particularly hi-tech materials.

To be honest, going after space suits sounds like desperation.
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
Yeah, I mean why would anyone bother to test out a so called space suit in a chamber to see if it would work in so called space. How silly, eh?
Why silly?
Because, as you've told and shown, they do test space suits in vacuum chambers. Are you capable of learning anything?

*

fjr66

  • 123
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!


Pressure inside a tire bike can up to 130 psi. But that is not against the vacuum.
If we place a tire bike with 130 psi in vacuum it will explode.

*

Stash

  • 4857
When you have the option of watching people in space vs watching people in a vacuum chamber, which would most people choose?
Watching people in space.
And guess, what? YOU CAN!
If you want video of someone inside a space suit in a artificial vacuum chamber, you go make one.
I don't need to make one. I want to see people inside these suits in a chamber that supposedly mimics a so called space vacuum as we are told, even if it's only as close as they can apparently get.

Quote from: JackBlack
why it seems to have never been tested
And that is just your baseless assertion.
Just because something has been tested doesn't mean there is video footage of it.
Considering suits are already operating in space, just what benefit is there in wasting time and money at a large vacuum chamber to have someone sit inside the suit?
;D
Yeah, I mean why would anyone bother to test out a so called space suit in a chamber to see if it would work in so called space. How silly, eh?

What an absolute joke.

Well, the absolute joke really is that your soda can analogy has been thoroughly debunked. And maybe in the process you've learned something about how important the pressure differential is. It's nice to learn something new, isn't it?

So since it's been shown how the ISS handles the extremes of LEO and you thus far have zero evidence as to why it wouldn't, you've now moved back to space suits since your ISS 'logic' was crushed like the soda can. Here's one quick video of a test. And if go running around with your hair on fire yelling, "I want to see them in there for hours...", why would that matter? As long as you have the pressurized suit and life support, you could stay in the environment for days.



But it doesn't really matter. As has been shown, as long as the pressure differential is low enough, we could stick you inside of a football with some oxygen and you could float around in space in that. Again, it's called science!
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

*

Bullwinkle

  • Flat Earth Curator
  • 18433
  • Thread Janitor
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!


Pressure inside a tire bike can up to 130 psi. But that is not against the vacuum.
If we place a tire bike with 130 psi in vacuum it will explode.

Not if it is designed for that pressure differential.

*

Stash

  • 4857
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!


Pressure inside a tire bike can up to 130 psi. But that is not against the vacuum.
If we place a tire bike with 130 psi in vacuum it will explode.

Not if it is designed for that pressure differential.

Correct, note to self, do not get inside of a bicycle tire, pump it up to 130 psi and roll into a vacuum chamber.
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

*

fjr66

  • 123
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.
If we fill the the balloon with the air and bring it inside of water then the pressure difference between the air in the ballon with the water increase 14.7 psi every 10 meters. So in 100 meters depth, the pressure difference is 140 psi. But the balloon can withstand against the water. But when we place the ballon against vacuum (zero psi), the balloon explode, whereas the pressure difference just 14.7 psi.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2019, 05:13:05 PM by fjr66 »

*

Bullwinkle

  • Flat Earth Curator
  • 18433
  • Thread Janitor
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.
If we fill the the balloon with the air and bring it inside of water then the pressure difference between the air in the ballon with the water increase 14.7 psi every 10 meters. So in 100 meters depth, the pressure difference is 140 psi. But the balloon can withstand against the water. But when we place the ballon against vacuum (zero psi), the balloon explode, whereas the pressure difference just 14.7 psi.


Lucky thing the ISS isn't a balloon.

*

rabinoz

  • 26295
  • Real Earth Believer
Pressure inside a tire bike can up to 130 psi. But that is not against the vacuum.
If we place a tire bike with 130 psi in vacuum it will explode.
Why would that bike tyre with only 130 psia explode in a vacuum? That would still make the pressure difference only about 145 psi?

It will depend on the quality and condition of the tyre, tube (if tubed) and fitting but a good quality tyre should handle more than that before exploding.

Look at this video where a newly fitted tyre dpesn't explode until 220 psig.

See at 2:25 KHE tyre exploding... by flatnatics

*

fjr66

  • 123
Sceptimatic - the difference in a pressure gradient pushing from the inside of a tube to that pushing from the outside is immense.
Not necessarily make the tube break. When the tube deformed it is enough to make ISS not working properly.
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.
We can also deformed the soda can from the inside too. In water tank experiment, they just deformed the tank, not break it apart.

Deformation is enough to make something like ISS not working properly. And thats what the air pressure do to the water tank as well as on ISS wall. The ISS will be deformed from inside not necessarily to break apart.

*

Bullwinkle

  • Flat Earth Curator
  • 18433
  • Thread Janitor

Deformation is enough to make something like ISS not working properly. And thats what the air pressure do to the water tank as well as on ISS wall. The ISS will be deformed from inside not necessarily to break apart.


People said the same thing about choo-choo trains.

*

Stash

  • 4857
The ISS will be deformed from inside not necessarily to break apart.

Or not deformed at all...As has been pointed out if something is designed not to deform or break apart in a given environment it tends not to deform or break apart in that given environment. Though sometimes shit happens.
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

*

rabinoz

  • 26295
  • Real Earth Believer
Sceptimatic - the difference in a pressure gradient pushing from the inside of a tube to that pushing from the outside is immense.
Not necessarily make the tube break. When the tube deformed it is enough to make ISS not working properly.
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.
We can also deformed the soda can from the inside too. In water tank experiment, they just deformed the tank, not break it apart.

Deformation is enough to make something like ISS not working properly. And thats what the air pressure do to the water tank as well as on ISS wall. The ISS will be deformed from inside not necessarily to break apart.

That is why experienced structural engineers design this sort of thing and not people like you and sceptimatic. Have a look at,
Quote
Home, Space Home: On the ground, the International Space Station would be an odd looking building -- but space is an odd place to live!
     

Titanium, Kevlar, and high-grade steel are common materials in the ISS. Engineers had to use these materials to make the structure lightweight yet strong and puncture-resistant.

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.

     

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. (Kevlar is the material used in the bullet-proof vests used by police officers.)





      Designers had to leave a few holes in this armor so the crew could occasionally enjoy the spectacular view.

A typical window for a house on Earth has 2 panes of glass, each about 1/16 inch thick. In contrast, the ISS windows each have 4 panes of glass ranging from 1/2 to 1-1/4 inches thick. An exterior aluminum shutter provides extra protection when the windows are not in use.

The glass in these windows is subject to strict quality control, because even minute flaws would increase the chance that a micro-meteoroid could cause a fracture.

In orbit, a major force is the pressure of the air inside the ISS, which presses on each square inch of the modules' interior with almost 15 pounds of force. (Homes on Earth also have this internal pressure, but the external pressure of the atmosphere balances it out.)

But even before reaching orbit these modules must also hold up to the massive stresses of launch.

"The structure has to withstand the loading it will see while being transported to orbit, which is a pretty intense environment," Nagy said.

As the Shuttle climbs toward the edge of space, every piece of the ISS module inside will "weigh" three times normal. The structure of the modules must handle both this loading along the long axis during launch and the internal air pressure while in orbit.

The US-designed Common Berthing Mechanism (or CBM) links together the modules. To ensure a good seal, the CBM has an automatic latching mechanism that pulls the two modules together and tightens 16 connecting bolts with a force of 19,000 pounds each! This huge force is needed to counteract the tendency of the internal air pressure to push the modules apart and to ensure a good air-tight seal.

"A lot of development work, a lot of testing, and a lot of certification went into the CBM to be able to achieve that reliable seal," Nagy said. "So far it's worked well."
These things don't just happen. They are carefully designed, constructed and tested under vacuum in many cases.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789

.
Erm, why would you have a problem with space suits? It's not like they're using particularly hi-tech materials.

To be honest, going after space suits sounds like desperation.
Desperation?
I have zero need to be desperate about any of this but when I can use a simple starting example of why something would be needed and would need thorough testing and should be in our face tested in the so called near copy cat environment they tell us they're sending people, then it's absolutely pertinent.
The desperation appears to be people like you trying to deflect it and brush it off as being trivial.

Let's put it simply.
They enjoy showing us little films of supposed spacewalks at every opportunity.
Let's see them show the testing on Earth that allows this.
They seem quite happy to show suits in deep water and what not, so let's see the supposed real environment they tell us those so called astronauts are in.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2019, 11:11:22 PM by sceptimatic »

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Yeah, I mean why would anyone bother to test out a so called space suit in a chamber to see if it would work in so called space. How silly, eh?
Why silly?
Because, as you've told and shown, they do test space suits in vacuum chambers. Are you capable of learning anything?
Show me them testing the spacesuits they use for spacewalks as we are shown time and time again.

Yeah, I mean why would anyone bother to test out a so called space suit in a chamber to see if it would work in so called space. How silly, eh?
Why silly?
Because, as you've told and shown, they do test space suits in vacuum chambers. Are you capable of learning anything?
Show me them testing the spacesuits they use for spacewalks as we are shown time and time again.
Look it up, details online if you are interested.

*

Stash

  • 4857
Yeah, I mean why would anyone bother to test out a so called space suit in a chamber to see if it would work in so called space. How silly, eh?
Why silly?
Because, as you've told and shown, they do test space suits in vacuum chambers. Are you capable of learning anything?
Show me them testing the spacesuits they use for spacewalks as we are shown time and time again.

Already showed you one with a guy in it.

Your sense of logic on this matter is severely flawed.

For 1, it's not the fact so much that space is a vacuum as to why it would be hard to do spacewalks, with mobility issues, turning cranks, screwing screws or whatever you do on an EVA, it's the working in a zero G environment. The working in vacuum bit is all about pressurization, oxygen, and temperature management.

For 2, they test the suits in vacuums ad nausea, just not always with a human inside. You know, in case something goes wrong, a human dies, the suit does not. And they have had 2 major accidents in testing humans-in suits-in vacuums, 3 died, 1 almost did.

For 3, back to 1, in the neutral buoyancy tanks, they can test on full scale mock-ups with relative safety, the pressurization, temperature, breath ability, and mobility of the suits in a zero G like environment.

Four 4, every EVA in space is literally like testing the suits. Much like when a test pilot tests a prototype flying machine here closer to earth. Not that every engineering and safety and feasibility issue hasn't been thought through prior to, it's still a test. And they have had issues, fortunately not resulting in death.

Four 5, you can find this stuff just as easily as anyone else can. But you choose not to educate yourself on anything that may not fit into your personal party line belief system. We've already seen that your soda can example was irrelevant. Why don't you come up with another 'well researched' example to show why space suits don't work instead of just stomping your feet like a toddler yelling "No! Cuz I said so!".
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789


Already showed you one with a guy in it.

Your sense of logic on this matter is severely flawed.
My sense of logic could very well be flawed but as of yet I certainly don't see it as being anything other than sound based on not being shown a physical truth that should be readily available, yet is hidden, time and time and time again.

Quote from: Stash
For 1, it's not the fact so much that space is a vacuum as to why it would be hard to do spacewalks, with mobility issues, turning cranks, screwing screws or whatever you do on an EVA, it's the working in a zero G environment. The working in vacuum bit is all about pressurization, oxygen, and temperature management.
They apparently built a big so called space station with seemingly no issues but never documented anything for us all to see in action as to how great those so called spacesuits were at handling everything.
And yet nothing was shown of any of that being tested inside a big chamber of super low pressure where you would expect those suits to be ultimately tested, not just in a large pool of water which mimics absolutely nothing of what we're told space is.
That's as simple as it comes.

Quote from: Stash
For 2, they test the suits in vacuums ad nausea, just not always with a human inside. You know, in case something goes wrong, a human dies, the suit does not. And they have had 2 major accidents in testing humans-in suits-in vacuums, 3 died, 1 almost did.
When you throw humans into so called space and have every Tom, Dick and Harriet doing so called spacewalks and using tools, etc, then you would be testing those suits with humans inside them with those very same humans knowing the risks on Earth in an extreme low pressure being in as much danger as up in so called space.
This would be tested ad nausea and documented for the public to see in action, yet we get odd footage of the odd person standing or sitting inside a chamber for minutes or less and under massive duress, yet supposedly float about in space as if it's nothing....which it is nothing because it's simply not happening as we are told, in my honest opinion.

Quote from: Stash
For 3, back to 1, in the neutral buoyancy tanks, they can test on full scale mock-ups with relative safety, the pressurization, temperature, breath ability, and mobility of the suits in a zero G like environment.
Forget the neutral buoyancy tanks. They're immersed in water and that water is the absolute exact opposite of what they tell us space is. It's absolutely pathetic to even think people would train in an environment that is absolutely chalk and cheese to what we're coaxed into believing.


Quote from: Stash
Four 4, every EVA in space is literally like testing the suits. Much like when a test pilot tests a prototype flying machine here closer to earth. Not that every engineering and safety and feasibility issue hasn't been thought through prior to, it's still a test. And they have had issues, fortunately not resulting in death.
Nobody in their right mind would test anything out in a so called hostile environment if they could test it out in a controlled environment before they attempted it.
Saying every EVA in space is like testing the suits is a joke and you know it.
Since the 50's this has been going on with this space carry on and spacesuit nonsense.

The tests would have been then and documented just as all the so called space stuff was put out to us, yet the best we got was some bloke dying a death inside a chamber under lower pressure until he was rescued.




Quote from: Stash
Four 5, you can find this stuff just as easily as anyone else can. But you choose not to educate yourself on anything that may not fit into your personal party line belief system. We've already seen that your soda can example was irrelevant.
When things fit into my belief system I'll be sure to add them.
None of this stuff goes anywhere near it and your attempts to convince me fail at every level.

As for finding this stuff. That's for you to do because you're the one that's sticking to whatever story that appears official. It's a comfort blanket for you. It makes things easier to argue for you.
You can reference anything you want to, because it's all at your fingertips. You don't even have to think.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2019, 12:43:29 AM by sceptimatic »

Yeah, I mean why would anyone bother to test out a so called space suit in a chamber to see if it would work in so called space. How silly, eh?
Why silly?
Because, as you've told and shown, they do test space suits in vacuum chambers. Are you capable of learning anything?
Show me them testing the spacesuits they use for spacewalks as we are shown time and time again.

Already showed you one with a guy in it.

Your sense of logic on this matter is severely flawed.

For 1, it's not the fact so much that space is a vacuum as to why it would be hard to do spacewalks, with mobility issues, turning cranks, screwing screws or whatever you do on an EVA, it's the working in a zero G environment. The working in vacuum bit is all about pressurization, oxygen, and temperature management.

For 2, they test the suits in vacuums ad nausea, just not always with a human inside. You know, in case something goes wrong, a human dies, the suit does not. And they have had 2 major accidents in testing humans-in suits-in vacuums, 3 died, 1 almost did.

For 3, back to 1, in the neutral buoyancy tanks, they can test on full scale mock-ups with relative safety, the pressurization, temperature, breath ability, and mobility of the suits in a zero G like environment.

Four 4, every EVA in space is literally like testing the suits. Much like when a test pilot tests a prototype flying machine here closer to earth. Not that every engineering and safety and feasibility issue hasn't been thought through prior to, it's still a test. And they have had issues, fortunately not resulting in death.

Four 5, you can find this stuff just as easily as anyone else can. But you choose not to educate yourself on anything that may not fit into your personal party line belief system. We've already seen that your soda can example was irrelevant. Why don't you come up with another 'well researched' example to show why space suits don't work instead of just stomping your feet like a toddler yelling "No! Cuz I said so!".

Hes a troll.
You show him and then he waves it off.

Scepti quote

When things fit into my belief system I'll be sure to add them.
None of this stuff goes anywhere near it and your attempts to convince me fail at every level.



And here s to the point, self admitted.

*

rabinoz

  • 26295
  • Real Earth Believer
Yeah, I mean why would anyone bother to test out a so called space suit in a chamber to see if it would work in so called space. How silly, eh?
Why silly?
Because, as you've told and shown, they do test space suits in vacuum chambers. Are you capable of learning anything?
Show me them testing the spacesuits they use for spacewalks as we are shown time and time again.
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


Spacesuit training in a vacuum chamber at NASA Johnson (360 View)
I hope you can play 360 pan videos.


Cosmonaut training in the vacuum chamber



James May steps into a vacuum chamber - James May at the Edge of Space - BBC

Note that James May is only at the "Edge of Space" but even at 70,000 feet it's still deadly with no pressure suit.
Quote
Between 62,000 and 63,500 feet (18,900 and 19,350 meters) blood begins to boil at body temperature. This altitude, referred to as the Armstrong limit, is generally considered to be the absolute limit compatible with life. At this point, humans cannot survive without pressurization measures.
The atmospheric pressure at 70,000 feet is about 0.651 psi, around 1/22.6 that at sea level.

I don't need to make one. I want to see people inside these suits in a chamber that supposedly mimics a so called space vacuum as we are told, even if it's only as close as they can apparently get.
And no one is obligated to provide you with such a thing (especially as you would likely dismiss it as fake anyway). So if you want it, go get it yourself.
If you want to discuss the topic, stop appealing to your wilful ignorance.

Yeah, I mean why would anyone bother to test out a so called space suit in a chamber to see if it would work in so called space. How silly, eh?
Yes, how silly of you to completely ignore what you asked for and what I actually said.
The main test of a vacuum chamber would be testing the ability of the suit to hold pressure.
That really only needs testing of the individual components of the suit (such as fabric, potentially seems, and so on) and at most a suit.
That test doesn't even need to be done in a vacuum.
If you have the entire suit it is much easier to pressurise the suit and check for leaks than to try and evacuate around the suit.

But most importantly, that testing doesn't need a person inside.
If they were unsure if the suit would withstand the pressure differential, it would be very reckless to put a person inside it.
By the time they confirm that it is safe enough for testing by putting a person inside it inside a vacuum chamber, there is no need to do it.

Just what do you think testing with people inside rather than just testing the suit materials can withstand pressure would do?

I have zero need to be desperate about any of this
Your need is irrelevant.
That doesn't magically make you not desperate. It just raises the question of why are you so desperate if you don't need to be?

when I can use a simple starting example
Then go find one and provide it. You are yet to give us any.

When things fit into my belief system I'll be sure to add them.
And that is the big issue with you.
Your position isn't one based upon reason or evidence (or even the lack of evidence).
It is based upon dogmatic adherence to your ridiculous belief system.
If something goes against your belief system you deem it to be wrong regardless of the rationality of doing so or the evidence supporting it.

Now do you have anything rational to add, or just more appeals to your wilful ignorance?

Pressure inside a tire bike can up to 130 psi. But that is not against the vacuum.
If we place a tire bike with 130 psi in vacuum it will explode.
That fundamentally depends upon the tire.
If the tire is rated to roughly 130 psi so 140 psi will cause it to rupture, then putting it in a vacuum while it is at 130 psi inside (which is really more likely to be 145 psi, as most pressure is measured relative to ambient) then it will rupture.
However if you inflate it to 115 psi (so the absolute pressure inside is 130 psi) and then put it inside it will be fine.

What matters is the pressure differential.
If the pressure inside is greater than the outside by 130 psi and it doesn't rupture, it doesn't matter what the outside pressure is, unless you get to a pressure which results in the material the tire is made of undergoing a phase transformation.

If we fill the the balloon with the air and bring it inside of water then the pressure difference between the air in the ballon with the water increase 14.7 psi every 10 meters.
No it won't.
The balloon is not rigid and can withstand virtually no external pressure.
Instead the balloon will be crushed by the external pressure of the water until the air inside the balloon achieves the same pressure (technically a slightly higher pressure inside due to the tension of the wall).
So even at 100 m depth, there is still basically no pressure differential because the balloon has been crushed to eliminate it.
So rather than showing that you can withstand more crushing pressure you have shown quite the opposite. The balloon can withstand any and is just crushed by even small amounts of external pressure.

We can also deformed the soda can from the inside too.
Yes, with enough force/pressure you can deform it. This is most easily seen when you freeze the contents of the can with the tremendous pressure of the ice causing the can to rupture.

Deformation is enough to make something like ISS not working properly.
Why?
If the connections between the modules remain rigid or expand equally (due to the materials they are made of) why would the walls bulging slightly make the ISS not work?
If the walls of a water tank bulge slightly does it magically stop working and all the water magically phases through the wall?
No.
Slight deformation due to the vacuum (which likely would have been part of the design specifications) would not stop the ISS working.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1281.html

Does this thing test space vehicles and spacesuits?
What exactly does it test?
A ball and feather dropping?

Imagine what you could do in this if it was real.
Imagine if space was real with space vehicles.
You could put them all in here and properly test them all out.
Do they do that?
Do they hell.


Why?

Use your own logical minds.

Imagine what you could do in this if it was real.
Imagine if space was real with space vehicles.
No need to imagine. They are real.

Now do you actually have anything on topic, or just more wilful ignorance?