Airlocks in the supposed LM's.

  • 405 Replies
  • 23929 Views
*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28497
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #30 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.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28497
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #31 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?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28497
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #32 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:


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.

Itís 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.

Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #33 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!

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28497
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #34 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.

*

Timeisup

  • 3110
  • You still think that?
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #35 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.

Itís 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. Letís 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.
What a laugh!!!

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28497
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #36 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.

Itís 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. Letís 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.

*

Timeisup

  • 3110
  • You still think that?
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #37 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.

Itís 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. Letís 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.

Itís 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. Letís 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.

Iíll tell you what the difference is and thatís 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?
What a laugh!!!

*

Timeisup

  • 3110
  • You still think that?
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #38 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. Letís 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.
What a laugh!!!

*

Gumwars

  • 793
  • A poke in your eye good sir...
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #39 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?
Quote from: Carl Sagan
We should endeavor to always keep an open mind, but not so open your brain falls out.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28497
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #40 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?

*

Mikey T.

  • 3388
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #41 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.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28497
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #42 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?

*

Stash

  • 11527
  • I am car!
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #43 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





The interior of the Apollo PLSS (Potable Life Support System):


Diagram of the A7L PLSS and OPS, with interfaces to the astronaut and the Lunar Module cabin:

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 upĒ:

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-350/ch-4-3.html
I claim nobody has gone to Chile from Australia. So somebody is killing passangers.

*

Mikey T.

  • 3388
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #44 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. 

*

JackBlack

  • 18131
Re: Airlocks in the Real LM's.
« Reply #45 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.

*

Gumwars

  • 793
  • A poke in your eye good sir...
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #46 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.
Quote from: Carl Sagan
We should endeavor to always keep an open mind, but not so open your brain falls out.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28497
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #47 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





The interior of the Apollo PLSS (Potable Life Support System):


Diagram of the A7L PLSS and OPS, with interfaces to the astronaut and the Lunar Module cabin:

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 upĒ:

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.

*

JackBlack

  • 18131
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #48 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.

*

Gumwars

  • 793
  • A poke in your eye good sir...
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #49 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. 
Quote from: Carl Sagan
We should endeavor to always keep an open mind, but not so open your brain falls out.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28497
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #50 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.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28497
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #51 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.

*

Stash

  • 11527
  • I am car!
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #52 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.
I claim nobody has gone to Chile from Australia. So somebody is killing passangers.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28497
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #53 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.


Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #54 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.

*

Stash

  • 11527
  • I am car!
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #55 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). Thatís 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 wasnít 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 strengthócomparable 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:




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.
I claim nobody has gone to Chile from Australia. So somebody is killing passangers.

Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #56 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.

*

JackBlack

  • 18131
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #57 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.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28497
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #58 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). Thatís 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 wasnít 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 strengthócomparable 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:




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?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28497
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #59 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.