Airlocks in the supposed LM's.

Quote from: JJA on June 22, 2021, 05:27:18 PM

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......

Quote from: Velocio on June 21, 2021, 01:39:28 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 19, 2021, 07:03:48 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?

Breathing pure oxygen?
Hahaha
Aside from the ship exploding, you would die from trying to breathe it.

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......

Breathing pure oxygen?
Hahaha
Aside from the ship exploding, you would die from trying to breathe it.

Quote from: Themightykabool on June 24, 2021, 03:13:16 AM

Breathing pure oxygen?
Hahaha
Aside from the ship exploding, you would die from trying to breathe it.

Just to clarify, are you being sarcastic or serious, it can be hard to tell?

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: Shifter 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!

Do we need to explain how fire works now?

i'm with shifter on this one
electrical doohickies would ignite 100%oxygen air

Quote from: Themightykabool on June 24, 2021, 08:32:51 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.

The humans inside make good combustible fuel sources.

Also static electricity discharge is difficult to avoid especially with humans moving around

Quote from: Stash on June 21, 2021, 01:47:09 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?

100% oxygen can cause blindness and damage to organs

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

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

Caveat that the air pressure is at some reasonable room pressure so that people dont explode.

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.

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

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

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.

I'm getting conflicting answers from 100% pure oxygen to normal air.

It makes no sense.

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

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.

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.