Airlocks in the supposed LM's.

  • 405 Replies
  • 25158 Views
*

JJA

  • 6705
  • Math is math!
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #90 on: June 24, 2021, 03:29:17 AM »


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

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

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

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

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

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

Have you seen the space station through a telescope? Taken photographs of it? Simulated it's orbit? Checked your predictions with observations? Just because YOU are incapable of any of that doesn't mean others aren't.

Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #91 on: June 24, 2021, 03:30:48 AM »
Any idea how big the tanks were in those supposed LM's?
Any idea how much liquid oxygen they held?
Any idea how they kept them stable in supposed minus 250 to plus 250 supposed vacuum cold and heat?

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

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

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

How is this air managed from the lox tanks?

Sad. This is very sad. :( :'( You didn't recognise my attempt to promote your own denpressure theory. How disappointing! :'( :'( :'(

*

rvlvr

  • 2148
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #92 on: June 24, 2021, 03:48:36 AM »
Breathing pure oxygen?
Hahaha
Aside from the ship exploding, you would die from trying to breathe it.

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

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

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


Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #93 on: June 24, 2021, 05:01:11 AM »
You don't need a pay cheque. It's just a case of looking up official lines of reading when questions are asked, critically.
The answers are all there on a plate for you people. You simply follow them to the letter and have no reason to question.

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

Thatís right, the answers are all there.

How else is anyone supposed to answer your questions?

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

Do you think itís somehow better if people just pull numbers out of their arse? 

*

JackBlack

  • 18611
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #94 on: June 24, 2021, 05:21:07 AM »
Breathing pure oxygen?
Hahaha
Aside from the ship exploding, you would die from trying to breathe it.
Just to clarify, are you being sarcastic or serious, it can be hard to tell?

*

Wolvaccine

  • EXTRA SPICY MODE
  • 25246
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #95 on: June 24, 2021, 06:04:39 AM »
100% oxygen can cause blindness and damage to organs, fats and proteins. You wont die immediately of it but only a fool would inhale 100% oxygen

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

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

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

Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #96 on: June 24, 2021, 06:07:58 AM »
Breathing pure oxygen?
Hahaha
Aside from the ship exploding, you would die from trying to breathe it.
Just to clarify, are you being sarcastic or serious, it can be hard to tell?

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


yes ok - clarification - hydrogen pops, oxygen flames.
the ship would still explode being it has other fuels on board.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2021, 07:32:05 AM by Themightykabool »

Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #97 on: June 24, 2021, 06:50:10 AM »
100% oxygen can cause blindness and damage to organs, fats and proteins. You wont die immediately of it but only a fool would inhale 100% oxygen

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

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

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

Do we need to explain how fire works now?

*

Wolvaccine

  • EXTRA SPICY MODE
  • 25246
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #98 on: June 24, 2021, 07:33:25 AM »
100% oxygen can cause blindness and damage to organs, fats and proteins. You wont die immediately of it but only a fool would inhale 100% oxygen

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

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

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

Do we need to explain how fire works now?


Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #99 on: June 24, 2021, 08:32:51 AM »
i'm with shifter on this one
electrical doohickies would ignite 100%oxygen air

*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 8119
  • Flatness as in the shape of a water droplet.
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #100 on: June 24, 2021, 08:36:31 AM »
i'm with shifter on this one
electrical doohickies would ignite 100%oxygen air

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

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

*

Wolvaccine

  • EXTRA SPICY MODE
  • 25246
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #101 on: June 24, 2021, 08:49:19 AM »
i'm with shifter on this one
electrical doohickies would ignite 100%oxygen air

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

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

Sure but the environment is not devoid of anything else. The humans inside make good combustible fuel sources. Also static electricity discharge is difficult to avoid especially with humans moving around

Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

*

rvlvr

  • 2148
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #102 on: June 24, 2021, 08:53:24 AM »
Appears to me the damn thing did not burn. So I guess they managed.

Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #103 on: June 24, 2021, 09:05:42 AM »
CH2+O2 = heat + H2O + CO
oxygen doesn't burn.




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


*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42468
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #104 on: June 24, 2021, 09:20:48 AM »
The humans inside make good combustible fuel sources.
Not really.  Too much water in the human body.

Also static electricity discharge is difficult to avoid especially with humans moving around
A lot of that depends on the humidity in the air, among other things.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #105 on: June 24, 2021, 09:30:00 AM »
i'd imagine space is pretty dry.

Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #106 on: June 24, 2021, 09:41:10 AM »


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

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

Do you see what I mean?

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

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

Why don't you just set for us all, 1000 word assignments for each of your questions? Fully referenced ofcourse in the Harvard style.......

*

JackBlack

  • 18611
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #107 on: June 24, 2021, 03:09:49 PM »
100% oxygen can cause blindness and damage to organs
At what pressure?
Gas doesn't really give a damn about purity. What matters is the partial pressure of it.

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

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

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

The main location for an issue with the oxygen would be the oxygen tanks, which have oxygen at a high pressure (or liquid oxygen), making it much more likely to burn there. (Look at Apollo 13 for an example of that).

Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #108 on: June 24, 2021, 03:35:55 PM »
Caveat that the air pressure is at some reasonable room pressure so that people dont explode.

*

JackBlack

  • 18611
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #109 on: June 24, 2021, 04:35:54 PM »
Caveat that the air pressure is at some reasonable room pressure so that people dont explode.
That "reasonable" pressure can be quite low. Including to the point of having pure oxygen at the same partial pressure as normal atmosphere.

*

sokarul

  • 19277
  • Extra Racist
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #110 on: June 24, 2021, 05:24:13 PM »
As we saw in history 100 percent oxygen can be bad.

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

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

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

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #111 on: June 24, 2021, 05:53:54 PM »
Holy crap    pure oxygen.
Well what do i know... nothing!

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28515
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #112 on: June 24, 2021, 09:35:17 PM »


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

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


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

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


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



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

It makes no sense.


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


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

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

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


Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #113 on: June 24, 2021, 10:57:37 PM »
Of course people will do that. That's basically all people can do.

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


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



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

It makes no sense.


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


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

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

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

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

We can recharge the PLSS if we reverse the Tachyon flux by matching shield harmonics to the warp core, Captain!

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28515
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #114 on: June 24, 2021, 11:15:27 PM »


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

We can recharge the PLSS if we reverse the Tachyon flux by matching shield harmonics to the warp core, Captain!
Do you have any idea how it was achieved?
You seem to have star trek sorted, so what about Apollo, or is that star trek answer a covering for the Apollo?

*

sokarul

  • 19277
  • Extra Racist
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #115 on: June 24, 2021, 11:53:55 PM »
Why dont you seek out the answers yourself? Nothing says we have all the answers to events which took place around 50 years ago. We use the same google you do.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

JackBlack

  • 18611
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #116 on: June 25, 2021, 12:29:51 AM »
The bigger issue is in how a person thinks about that information and whether they think the answer to a question by use of that information, rings true or does it appear to be far fetched.
No, the bigger issue is why they think it is true or far fetched.
You simply dismiss it all as far fetched because you don't like it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #117 on: June 25, 2021, 02:02:08 AM »
You, sceppy, habe now been given the big startrek LM tour.
So heres one back to you then.

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

Plan it out layer by layer.
Go for it.

Lower levels are "duped".
Got it.
What about next layer?
The ones who made the computer systems to trick lower levels into thinking theyre seeing data from space.
How does that work?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28515
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #118 on: June 25, 2021, 06:35:17 AM »
No, hoppy claimed NASA is paying people to spread their lies. I just want to know why I never get paid, and where he gets his evidence. You've shown zero evidence anything he said is true.

Anyone that questions the nonsense of space gets my vote.

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


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




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

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

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28515
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #119 on: June 25, 2021, 06:37:04 AM »
Why dont you seek out the answers yourself? Nothing says we have all the answers to events which took place around 50 years ago. We use the same google you do.
It's a forum for involvement. Join in if you want.