Airlocks in the supposed LM's.

  • 405 Replies
  • 25292 Views
*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28515
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #120 on: June 25, 2021, 06:38:30 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.
(All supposedly)

Do you have any answers for Apollo 17 and it's numerous refills of oxygen and how it was achieved?


Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #121 on: June 25, 2021, 08:08:03 AM »
Do you have any answers for Apollo 17 and it's numerous refills of oxygen and how it was achieved?

With a length of hose from big tank to little tank probably.

What exactly is so hard to believe about it?

Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #122 on: June 25, 2021, 08:48:47 AM »
All waved away by sceppys magic wand.

Care reciprocate and explain how the conspircacy hierachy works?

*

Stash

  • 12500
  • I am car!
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #123 on: June 25, 2021, 09:14:07 AM »
Do you have any answers for Apollo 17 and it's numerous refills of oxygen and how it was achieved?

Like I wrote before:

"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

By iteration 7 for Apollo 17, the duration of an EVA had advanced to 8 hours of O2 supply (From the original 4). Technology advancements.

For even more info on the PLSS all the way down to the valve-level schematics, check this out. Tons of info as to exactly how the suits worked:

Apollo Operations Handbook Extravehicular Mobility Unit, March 1971
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/documents/NASA%20TM-X-69516.pdf

As for Apollo 17 O2 refills between EVA’'s, according to the log I already posted...

Apollo 17 EVA's:

"Approximately 47 minutes later, the powered descent to the lunar surface began. Landing occurred at 7:54:57 p.m. Dec. 11, at lunar latitude 20 degrees, 10 minutes north, and longitude 30 degrees 46 minutes east. Apollo 17 was the last lunar landing mission. Three extravehicular activities, or EVAs, lasted a total of 22 hours, four minutes on the lunar surface.
- EVA No. 1 began at 11:54:49 p.m. Dec. 11, with Eugene Cernan egressing at 12:01 a.m. Dec. 12. The first EVA was seven hours, 12 minutes long and was completed at 7:06:42 a.m. Dec. 12.
- The second EVA began at 11:28:06 p.m. Dec. 12, and lasted seven hours, 37 minutes, ending at at 7:05:02 a.m. Dec. 13.
- The final EVA began at 10:25:48 p.m. Dec. 13, and ended at 5:40:56 a.m. Dec. 14.
"

They had three EVA’s, each lasting 7 hours+, with about 17-18 hours in between. I haven’t specifically found the refill instructions, but my guess is that with 18 hours in-between EVA’s, they represurized the module, hung out inside and refilled the PLSS, among other things, most likely some eating and sleeping.
However, I think they had the ability replenish the suits without depressurizing the module, but there apparently wasn’t a need to do so.

Read through the documents and see if anything peaks your interest.
Yes Stash.

I am clearly the product of castrated machine learning.

You are quite obviously, human.

*

JackBlack

  • 18630
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #124 on: June 25, 2021, 04:01:43 PM »
Anyone that questions the nonsense of space gets my vote.
And that is the problem.
You don't care about reason or evidence.
As long as they go along with your fantasy of space being nonsense, you happily accept whatever BS they say.

(All supposedly)

Do you have any answers for Apollo 17 and it's numerous refills of oxygen and how it was achieved?
No, not all supposedly, it actually happened.
If you want to claim it is fake PROVE IT!
If you want to genuinely question it, stop claiming it is supposed or fake or any other BS like that.

While you are just claiming it is all fake and supposed, you are showing you have no interest in any of the answers. This was clearly shown when you basically just moved on after being provided an answer without even processing it at all. Instead you were unable to show a fault so you just moved on to something to waste more time. You then completely ignored the answer when you made more baseless claims; whereas if you were actually genuinely interested in the answers, you would have read them and not just ignored them to make more baseless claims of problems.

Now either stop asking dumb questions intended to just waste time and pretend there is a problem where non exists, and instead actually show a problem; or accept that the moon landings were real, and that you have no justification to claim they were fake, and then ask these simple questions.

Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #125 on: June 25, 2021, 10:41:18 PM »
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.
(All supposedly)

Do you have any answers for Apollo 17 and it's numerous refills of oxygen and how it was achieved?

I don't see any need for any scepticism over the oxygen system in Apollo 17. It all seems very straight forward.

From what I've read, there were no refills. The oxygen was pure and stored at set pressures in canisters and released. You forget the astronauts were breathing out carbon dioxide into the air around them, so that the air they were breathing, was never at any time 100% oxygen. Here on earth, the level of oxygen is about 19% in the air around us.

Apollo 17 used two lithium hydroxide canisters in the oxygen system at all times, and were alternatively replaced every 12 hours. The lithium hydroxide absorbed carbon dioxide, the charcoal eliminated odors, and felt trapped particles and debris.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2021, 11:36:13 PM by Smoke Machine »

*

JJA

  • 6705
  • Math is math!
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #126 on: June 26, 2021, 06:45:31 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.

Got to see you admitting your complete and total bias. You believe whoever agrees with you and ignore any facts. Nice. ;D

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.

So Hoppy is wrong that NASA is paying people to spread lies, because now you claim they don't do it? So which is it, does NASA pay me or do I do it for free? Why would I do it for free if NASA will pay me? I want to know who to ask NASA for my paycheck, maybe Hoppy knows?

Hoppy... who told you the get paid by NASA? Can you get me in touch with them, I want to get paid too! Then I could quit my job and make a living posting on Flat Earth forums! Awesome!

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.

You can't accept anything so that is hardly surprising.  I don't verify everything, nobody can, but I verify enough to know that NASA isn't just making it all up. They can't fake what I see with my own eyes after all. You could see too, if you tried.

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.

Yes, yes, back to your old boring claims that everyone is lying to you.  I suspect you think everyone is lying about actually performing experiments and taking observations because you're so confused and incapable of doing it yourself you can't imagine anyone else can do it.

I could post ISS photos here, but you would just call them lies. The only way to prove it would be for you to do it yourself, but you clearly aren't capable so you will just have to continue to live in your massive pit of ignorance. Looks comfy in there, I can see why you don't want to leave.

The math isn't hard. It's all out there, as is the ephemeris data for the ISS. Anyone who knows what they are doing could do what I did.

If you want to accuse someone of just accepting lines of reasoning without any evidence or checking on their own, look in the mirror.


*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28515
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #127 on: June 26, 2021, 11:51:59 PM »
Do you have any answers for Apollo 17 and it's numerous refills of oxygen and how it was achieved?

Like I wrote before:

"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

By iteration 7 for Apollo 17, the duration of an EVA had advanced to 8 hours of O2 supply (From the original 4). Technology advancements.

For even more info on the PLSS all the way down to the valve-level schematics, check this out. Tons of info as to exactly how the suits worked:

Apollo Operations Handbook Extravehicular Mobility Unit, March 1971
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/documents/NASA%20TM-X-69516.pdf

As for Apollo 17 O2 refills between EVA’'s, according to the log I already posted...

Apollo 17 EVA's:

"Approximately 47 minutes later, the powered descent to the lunar surface began. Landing occurred at 7:54:57 p.m. Dec. 11, at lunar latitude 20 degrees, 10 minutes north, and longitude 30 degrees 46 minutes east. Apollo 17 was the last lunar landing mission. Three extravehicular activities, or EVAs, lasted a total of 22 hours, four minutes on the lunar surface.
- EVA No. 1 began at 11:54:49 p.m. Dec. 11, with Eugene Cernan egressing at 12:01 a.m. Dec. 12. The first EVA was seven hours, 12 minutes long and was completed at 7:06:42 a.m. Dec. 12.
- The second EVA began at 11:28:06 p.m. Dec. 12, and lasted seven hours, 37 minutes, ending at at 7:05:02 a.m. Dec. 13.
- The final EVA began at 10:25:48 p.m. Dec. 13, and ended at 5:40:56 a.m. Dec. 14.
"

They had three EVA’s, each lasting 7 hours+, with about 17-18 hours in between. I haven’t specifically found the refill instructions, but my guess is that with 18 hours in-between EVA’s, they represurized the module, hung out inside and refilled the PLSS, among other things, most likely some eating and sleeping.
However, I think they had the ability replenish the suits without depressurizing the module, but there apparently wasn’t a need to do so.

Read through the documents and see if anything peaks your interest.
Thanks for getting all that. It is appreciated even if I do question it all and am as scetical as all hell about it all.


Does it not seem odd to you that they managed to ramp up everything in those PLSS back packs, in just 2 years?
A tank that now holds 8 hours pure oxygen and enough water for 8 hours, rather than 4 hours.

Not to mention battery life...etc.
Naturally I do think it's all absolute and utter hogwash....but questioning it seems to bring it much clearer for me when I see the answers.


You see, I can well understand they will have an answer for everything because those answers never have to be shown, hysically to work, only shown to work in a storyline after the supposed fact (fiction).

Lots of stuff makes no sense.

You see, by looking at things in life, here on Earth and how they react in extreme low pressure environments, it's clear that these suit would not work for varying reasons.

However I'll get to that after I've got through this oxygen carry on.

How do they transfer oxygen from the LM to the suits?
What system is used to refill those back packs?

Also I wonder how the oxygen and water, etc remained stable in supposed temperatures of minus and plus 250 degrees.


How has any battery managed to run those suits for 8 hours?
Same back packs but double the amount of everything in the space of two years.

Hmmmm.

And back to the LM. I'm still trying to find out where they refill those back packs and how it works.
I'd still like to know how they breathed 100% oxygen for the duration of the supposed mission.




*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28515
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #128 on: June 26, 2021, 11:54:57 PM »
Anyone that questions the nonsense of space gets my vote.
And that is the problem.
You don't care about reason or evidence.
As long as they go along with your fantasy of space being nonsense, you happily accept whatever BS they say.

Nahhhh. It's not about going along with anything I think. Most absolutely do not.
However, people get my vote for questioning stories told to them and the stories told are what I believe to be nonsense.

Basically not blindly accepting them like people like you do.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28515
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #129 on: June 27, 2021, 12:05:36 AM »
I don't see any need for any scepticism over the oxygen system in Apollo 17. It all seems very straight forward.
From what I've read, there were no refills. The oxygen was pure and stored at set pressures in canisters and released.
Ahhh, so they simply unscrewed their oxygen tanks and replaced the tanks, then unscrewed their scrubbers and replaced them. Did they also unscrew their water tanks and replace them or did they simply turn on a tap?

Imagine having to do all of that inside a cramped LM where there is only standing room.
All that stored stuff in canisters.
I wonder how many spare batteries they had for each back pack operation?

All straightforward, you say?

12 hours per canister of C02 scrubbing?

Pure oxygen breathing throughout. Hmmmm.





Quote from: Smoke Machine
You forget the astronauts were breathing out carbon dioxide into the air around them, so that the air they were breathing, was never at any time 100% oxygen. Here on earth, the level of oxygen is about 19% in the air around us.
Ok, so carbon dioxide was breathed into the LM air which made the oxygen not 100%.


But now it's pure oxygen with C02 building until scrubbed from the LM.
Hmmmmmm.



Quote from: Smoke Machine
Apollo 17 used two lithium hydroxide canisters in the oxygen system at all times, and were alternatively replaced every 12 hours. The lithium hydroxide absorbed carbon dioxide, the charcoal eliminated odors, and felt trapped particles and debris.
They supposedly had back packs with 8 hours function. How they did that only the story tellers know.


Anyone can make up anything if it can't be tested by the ordinary Joe.

*

JackBlack

  • 18630
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #130 on: June 27, 2021, 12:15:01 AM »
Thanks for getting all that. It is appreciated even if I do question it all and am as scetical as all hell about it all.
It sure doesn't seem appreciated, given you completely ignored what was said in one to pretend there was an issue later.

It seems you are just doing it to waste time.

Lots of stuff makes no sense.
Stop just asserting the same blatant lie.

If you want to claim it doesn't make sense, PROVE IT!

it's clear that these suit would not work for varying reasons.
Yet you cannot provide a single reason.
It seems far more likely that you are just continually making up excuses.

However I'll get to that after I've got through this oxygen carry on.
And maybe people would be more willing to answer your questions when you show you actually give a damn rather than just wanting to dismiss it all as hogwash.
You said yourself that you think it is all a story. So what is the point in providing any answers to your dumb questions?

If you think there is a problem, show the problem.
If you can't, stop pretending.
If you actually want answers, stop claiming it is all fake.

Basically not blindly accepting them like people like you do.
"Us people" don't just blindly accept.
That would be you.
You blindly accept anything that goes along with your preconceived ideas and outright reject everything else, again, blindly.
Completely incapable of providing any reasoning to justify any of your claims.


Again, can you show any problem, or are you only capable of asking dumb questions to pretend there is a problem when in fact there is none?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28515
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #131 on: June 27, 2021, 12:38:55 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.

Got to see you admitting your complete and total bias. You believe whoever agrees with you and ignore any facts. Nice. ;D
Not at all. I never ignore facts. If facts are presented then I would have no need to question.
You are not presenting any facts, you are presenting (like many) what you believe to be facts by adhering to official lines, almost unconditionally.



Quote from: JJA
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.

So Hoppy is wrong that NASA is paying people to spread lies, because now you claim they don't do it?
I never claimed anything of the sort.
Playing on words will do nothing for you except gain answers like this.

Quote from: JJA
So which is it, does NASA pay me or do I do it for free?
I personally believe you do not get paid to type what you do in this forum.

Quote from: JJA
Why would I do it for free if NASA will pay me?
I don't believe you have anything to do with the NASA.
I simply believe you just parrot what you see coming from the NASA and whatever other storylines that are officially put out.


Quote from: JJA
I want to know who to ask NASA for my paycheck, maybe Hoppy knows?
The way you act on here would give many a sceptic a mind to think you were part of something that spreads misinfo. If hoppy thinks you're being paid then hoppy has his reasons.
I personally don't think anyone would pay you for simply parroting....but, I could be wrong and hoppy may well be right.

I doubt I'd ever know and quite frankly, do not care. None of it changes my thoughts.

Quote from: JJA
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.

You can't accept anything so that is hardly surprising.  I don't verify everything, nobody can, but I verify enough to know that NASA isn't just making it all up. They can't fake what I see with my own eyes after all. You could see too, if you tried.
You don't verify anything to be factual in what we're arguing.
You simply look up stuff and reel off the answers as if you've personally verified a truth.
All you've done is parrot what I'm arguing against.



Quote from: JJA
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.

Yes, yes, back to your old boring claims that everyone is lying to you.
 I suspect you think everyone is lying about actually performing experiments and taking observations because you're so confused and incapable of doing it yourself you can't imagine anyone else can do it.
Same old thing. You go into raptures about me thinking everyone is lying to me.
I simply question the stuff that I do not think is wholly truthful. Most of it is with the stuff we argue about on here....not everything.

I accept a lot of stuff and don't have the mind to question. It doesn't mean I blindly believe any of it but it does mean I can go along with it until such time (if ever) something peaks my interest in it.

Simple as that so don't you be boring and claim this all of the time when you can't find a way to argue your side.


Quote from: JJA
I could post ISS photos here, but you would just call them lies. The only way to prove it would be for you to do it yourself, but you clearly aren't capable so you will just have to continue to live in your massive pit of ignorance. Looks comfy in there, I can see why you don't want to leave.

I can post all kinds of stuff what is supposedly an ISS.
I can post all kinds of stuff about people supposedly floating about in what is supposedly an ISS......etc.


What does this prove?


Quote from: JJA
The math isn't hard. It's all out there, as is the ephemeris data for the ISS. Anyone who knows what they are doing could do what I did.
What math? For what?


Quote from: JJA
If you want to accuse someone of just accepting lines of reasoning without any evidence or checking on their own, look in the mirror.
I don't accept lines without reasoning. I question everything that I can't get clear facts on and I accept anything that actually has decent reasoning. It may turn out that some of it is not strictly true....but, until that time comes, I'll accept it for the reasoning given.


None of it includes space or the shape of the Earth as we are officially told.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28515
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #132 on: June 27, 2021, 12:56:20 AM »
Thanks for getting all that. It is appreciated even if I do question it all and am as scetical as all hell about it all.
It sure doesn't seem appreciated, given you completely ignored what was said in one to pretend there was an issue later.

It seems you are just doing it to waste time.
Waste whose time? Your time?

Nobody's time is wasted. They're on here typing and using their time for whatever reasons.


Quote from: JackBlack

Lots of stuff makes no sense.
Stop just asserting the same blatant lie.

If you want to claim it doesn't make sense, PROVE IT!
That's just the issue. I can't prove it because it's all hidden/cloaked in secrecy.
That's the beauty about those who write the stories and make the films...etc.




Quote from: JackBlack

it's clear that these suit would not work for varying reasons.
Yet you cannot provide a single reason.
It seems far more likely that you are just continually making up excuses.
I've provided many a reason as to why I think it's all bull. You don't accept any of them like many...and....you...are....entitled....to....that.
But you are in he other boat of having no proof of facts.


Quote from: JackBlack

However I'll get to that after I've got through this oxygen carry on.
And maybe people would be more willing to answer your questions when you show you actually give a damn rather than just wanting to dismiss it all as hogwash.
You said yourself that you think it is all a story. So what is the point in providing any answers to your dumb questions?
People can ignore me anytime they wish.
Nobody is compelled to answer anything from my side.
After this post you see if you can ignore anything I say and ask others to do as you do, then see if any of it has any effect on my thoughts.


The topic is there for those who wish to participate. Do so or don't. It's no skin off my nose.




Quote from: JackBlack

If you think there is a problem, show the problem.
If you can't, stop pretending.
If you actually want answers, stop claiming it is all fake.
I'll stop claiming it's fake and questioning it all when I receive factual answers by people who are in possession of them.
This does not include you, unless you show me that you are in possession of the facts.


Quote from: JackBlack

Basically not blindly accepting them like people like you do.
"Us people" don't just blindly accept.
That would be you.
You blindly accept anything that goes along with your preconceived ideas and outright reject everything else, again, blindly.
Completely incapable of providing any reasoning to justify any of your claims.


Again, can you show any problem, or are you only capable of asking dumb questions to pretend there is a problem when in fact there is none?
There's plenty of reasoning to be sceptical. Plenty.

You don't believe so because you are not geared to questioning the stuff you are officially told as a truth.

The difference between me and you is, you can be sold a story....something like, scientists have managed to test out a sugar like cube in a vacuum and found that a human who ingests it can breathe on the moon for up to 8 hours without the use of breathing apparatus.
They could tell you how it works and show a film of someone walking on a supposed moon, proclaiming it to be a massive stride in space exploration and ease of doing so.


You could be shown a sugar lump but never touch it, except read the paper beside the exhibit....if that.
You would argue till you're blue in the face of its legitimacy.
Why?
Because, why would they lie......right?


I'd question it and I would be the tin foil hat arrogant nutter who has no clue about the sugar lump effigy and can't prove it doesn't work.


This is how all this gunk goes...and I do believe wholeheartedly that this space stuff in how we're told, is all utter gunk.




I would tell you that I think it's bull and you will spend all your time arguing for it, like you do.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2021, 01:12:36 AM by sceptimatic »

*

JackBlack

  • 18630
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #133 on: June 27, 2021, 01:35:23 AM »
Not at all. I never ignore facts. If facts are presented then I would have no need to question.
You ignore facts all the time, dismissing them as fiction because they don't fit your fantasy.
That is still ignoring facts.

I never claimed anything of the sort.
No, Hoppy did, and you agreed with him 100%:
Skeppy, there is no way these brainwashed stooges and paid shills will ever not believe evverything NASA has told them. No matter how ridiculous the story, they just believe like little children. Of course there are so many problems with the whole story of traveling and living in a vacuum.
I absolutely agree with you, 100%.
So do you now state you don't agree with him and that there aren't paid shills here?

None of it changes my thoughts.
It seems nothing ever will.
Not even facts and irrefutable logical arguments.
Instead you will just keep on beleiving your fantasy, even though you cannot justify it at all.

Simple as that so don't you be boring and claim this all of the time when you can't find a way to argue your side.
You are the one failing to argue your side.
You are claiming the lunar landings were faked, and have offered NOTHING to support it.
Instead you continually assert it makes no sense and is all fake, and continually ask dumb questions as if merely being able to ask a question magically makes it all fake.

How about you stop with all that and start trying to actually argue your side?
How about you start actually trying to put forward an argument to show they were faked?

I question everything that I can't get clear facts on and I accept anything that actually has decent reasoning.
Pure BS!
You happily accept ANYTHING that agrees with your delusional nonsense, regardless of how little evidence or reasoning you have for it.
Likewise you reject EVERYTHING that shows you are wrong, regardless of how much evidence and reasoning there is backing it up.
You have shown that you don't care about reason and evidence. All you care about is if it matches your fantasy or not.

That's just the issue. I can't prove it because it's all hidden/cloaked in secrecy.
So what you are saying is you have absolutely no justification for concluding it is fake at all.
That you claiming it is fake is not based upon reason and instead is based upon paranoia or rejecting anything that doesn't go along with your fantasy.
That all your claims of it being fake or it not making sense are nothing more than outright lies.

There is plenty that can be shown to be fiction and make no sense about actual sci-fi.

I've provided many a reason as to why I think it's all bull.
No, you haven't.
All you have done is assert it doesn't make sense.
If you actually had a reason you would have provided it.

After this post you see if you can ignore anything I say
No thanks, I will continue to object to your lies.

The topic is there for those who wish to participate.
The topic is your claim that the lunar landings were fake, something you are yet to substantiate in any way.

I'll stop claiming it's fake and questioning it all when I receive factual answers by people who are in possession of them.
You have shown that isn't the case at all.
You will simply continue to dismiss it as a story.
You have shown you have no interest in accepting it as real.
It doesn't matter how many answers you are provided, you will continue to claim it is all just stories.

There's plenty of reasoning to be sceptical. Plenty.
You aren't being sceptical.
You are simply dismissing reality and replacing it with pure fantasy. That is not being sceptical.

The difference between me and you is I actually care about what I believe being true, it matching reality, it being supported by evidence.
You do not. All you care about is if it matches your fantasy or not.

The difference between me and you is, you can be sold a story....something like, scientists have managed to test out a sugar like cube in a vacuum and found that a human who ingests it can breathe on the moon for up to 8 hours without the use of breathing apparatus.
And there you go with more pathetic strawmen.
That is nothing like what I accept.
If someone actually suggested that I would call BS, just like I call BS on so many things promoted these days like solar roadways (which while being possible is extremely impractical and far too overpriced) and so much of Musk's BS.

What is required for the moon is nothing extraordinary.
The lunar landings used a breathing apparatus.
There is no magic required for it.

But of course, because you can't show any problem at all with it, you resort to these pathetic strawmen to ridicule it and ridicule those who object to your BS.

Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #134 on: June 27, 2021, 03:34:44 AM »
Great - its gunk.
Youve been given lengthy explainations of how the gunk works.

Can you describe how the conspiracy works?
Like after the first duped layer is fed false data.
Who makes the data?
The data must be meticulously planned and coordianted.
Detail how the duping machine works.

Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #135 on: June 27, 2021, 08:55:34 AM »
Quote
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.
You don't even need a telescope to see the ISS. You can see the basic and familiar shape of the ISS through a simple pair of £50 ($70/58EUR) binoculars.  Have you got binoculars to hand?  If not I'm sure you could afford a pair. Great thing about binoculars of course is that they are not just useful for observing the sky but can be used for a wide range of outdoor activities. 

Next use any one of the many websites or apps which are freely available which will tell you when the next pass occurs visible from your location and then aim your binocs at the very bright star (about on par with Venus which makes it magnitude -4 at max for those familiar with the astronomical magnitude system) moving from west to east. A decent pass will take around 10 minutes.  You will see the solar panels and basic shape of the space station quite easily.  No navigation lights of course and the solar panels have a bronze tint to them.

Sometimes the ISS does not make a complete pass but seems to vanish or suddenly 'switch off' part way across the sky.  Why could that possibly be I wonder?!?

Quote
I do suspect you've followed the accepted line of reasoning for all of the above and just went with it.
What...  even when you can see it with your own eyes?

I suspect that if I told you that the ISS was a real space vehicle which was the collaboration between several countries and is now the largest man-made object put into space orbiting Earth every 90 minutes at an average height of 400km you would say 'absolute nonsense'.  But if I said the ISS was some sort of projected image or hologram onto your dome you would quite happily go with it simply because the latter is more compatible with what you would prefer to believe. 

 
« Last Edit: June 27, 2021, 03:32:07 PM by Solarwind »

Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #136 on: June 27, 2021, 12:01:11 PM »
I don't see any need for any scepticism over the oxygen system in Apollo 17. It all seems very straight forward.
From what I've read, there were no refills. The oxygen was pure and stored at set pressures in canisters and released.
Ahhh, so they simply unscrewed their oxygen tanks and replaced the tanks, then unscrewed their scrubbers and replaced them. Did they also unscrew their water tanks and replace them or did they simply turn on a tap?

Imagine having to do all of that inside a cramped LM where there is only standing room.
All that stored stuff in canisters.
I wonder how many spare batteries they had for each back pack operation?

All straightforward, you say?

12 hours per canister of C02 scrubbing?

Pure oxygen breathing throughout. Hmmmm.





Quote from: Smoke Machine
You forget the astronauts were breathing out carbon dioxide into the air around them, so that the air they were breathing, was never at any time 100% oxygen. Here on earth, the level of oxygen is about 19% in the air around us.
Ok, so carbon dioxide was breathed into the LM air which made the oxygen not 100%.


But now it's pure oxygen with C02 building until scrubbed from the LM.
Hmmmmmm.



Quote from: Smoke Machine
Apollo 17 used two lithium hydroxide canisters in the oxygen system at all times, and were alternatively replaced every 12 hours. The lithium hydroxide absorbed carbon dioxide, the charcoal eliminated odors, and felt trapped particles and debris.
They supposedly had back packs with 8 hours function. How they did that only the story tellers know.


Anyone can make up anything if it can't be tested by the ordinary Joe.

I'm still not seeing any problems whatsoever.

They depressurized the cabin once they were all wearing their space suits, to go outside. They repressurized the cabin once they were back in from their spacewalks, and closed the hatch, which was after they discarded their detached plss units from their backs onto the lunar surface.

They didn't refill or replace anything. They used and stored or used and discarded.

What did they need spare batteries for in their backpacks?
« Last Edit: June 27, 2021, 01:20:46 PM by Smoke Machine »

*

JackBlack

  • 18630
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #137 on: June 27, 2021, 03:17:49 PM »
They depressurized the cabin once they were all wearing their space suits, to go outside. They repressurized the cabin once they were back in from their spacewalks, and closed the hatch, which was after they discarded their detached plss units from their backs onto the lunar surface.

They didn't refill or replace anything. They used and stored or used and discarded.

What did they need spare batteries for in their backpacks?
For refill he is specifically referring to the oxygen tank in the PLSS.
It is my understanding (which could be wrong) that they were refilled from the oxygen tanks in the LM.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42471
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #138 on: June 27, 2021, 07:47:18 PM »
They depressurized the cabin once they were all wearing their space suits, to go outside. They repressurized the cabin once they were back in from their spacewalks, and closed the hatch, which was after they discarded their detached plss units from their backs onto the lunar surface.

They didn't refill or replace anything. They used and stored or used and discarded.

What did they need spare batteries for in their backpacks?
For refill he is specifically referring to the oxygen tank in the PLSS.
It is my understanding (which could be wrong) that they were refilled from the oxygen tanks in the LM.

Fully charged PLSSs were loaded onto the LM before launch, which saved considerable time before the first EVA. For subsequent EVAs, the crews retrieved fresh batteries and lithium hydroxide canisters during EVA close-out activities for use the next day. Recharging the PLSS was a six-step process. Usually done as part of the EVA prep, a few crews used spare time at the end of their workday to replenish the PLSS consumables. The process took about 30 minutes for each suit, and each crewmember worked on their own equipment. By staggering tasks, the entire process took less than an hour.

First, the battery and the lithium hydroxide canister were exchanged for fresh units. Used batteries and canisters were stored in large bags that were thrown under the descent stage at the beginning of the next day's EVA, or jettisoned out the front hatch after the last EVA of the mission. Next, oxygen cylinders in the PLSSs were charged from the descent stage high-pressure oxygen supply in a two step process. First, a charge that filled the PLSS O2 cylinders to about 90% capacity was performed. After a few minutes (to allow the cylinders to cool), the O2 supply was "topped off" to about 95% to 98%. Finally, a three-step procedure was used to service the water management system. Step 1 was to recharge the cooling water supply. Draining the waste water was the second step, and the third step was to vent out the excess gas from the cooling water system. Bubbles formed by such gas could interfere with the flow of cooling water in the suit.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28515
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #139 on: June 27, 2021, 09:17:25 PM »
Do you have any answers for Apollo 17 and it's numerous refills of oxygen and how it was achieved?

With a length of hose from big tank to little tank probably.

What exactly is so hard to believe about it?
Just like that, eh?
A length of hose from a large tank to a small tank.
Tell me how that works then.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28515
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #140 on: June 27, 2021, 09:21:05 PM »
Quote
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.
You don't even need a telescope to see the ISS. You can see the basic and familiar shape of the ISS through a simple pair of £50 ($70/58EUR) binoculars.  Have you got binoculars to hand?  If not I'm sure you could afford a pair. Great thing about binoculars of course is that they are not just useful for observing the sky but can be used for a wide range of outdoor activities. 

Next use any one of the many websites or apps which are freely available which will tell you when the next pass occurs visible from your location and then aim your binocs at the very bright star (about on par with Venus which makes it magnitude -4 at max for those familiar with the astronomical magnitude system) moving from west to east. A decent pass will take around 10 minutes.  You will see the solar panels and basic shape of the space station quite easily.  No navigation lights of course and the solar panels have a bronze tint to them.

Sometimes the ISS does not make a complete pass but seems to vanish or suddenly 'switch off' part way across the sky.  Why could that possibly be I wonder?!?

Quote
I do suspect you've followed the accepted line of reasoning for all of the above and just went with it.
What...  even when you can see it with your own eyes?

I suspect that if I told you that the ISS was a real space vehicle which was the collaboration between several countries and is now the largest man-made object put into space orbiting Earth every 90 minutes at an average height of 400km you would say 'absolute nonsense'.  But if I said the ISS was some sort of projected image or hologram onto your dome you would quite happily go with it simply because the latter is more compatible with what you would prefer to believe.
You are not looking at any space station, in my honest opinion.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28515
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #141 on: June 27, 2021, 09:26:51 PM »


I'm still not seeing any problems whatsoever.

They depressurized the cabin once they were all wearing their space suits, to go outside. They repressurized the cabin once they were back in from their spacewalks, and closed the hatch, which was after they discarded their detached plss units from their backs onto the lunar surface.

They didn't refill or replace anything. They used and stored or used and discarded.

What did they need spare batteries for in their backpacks?
Apparently those astronauts were on the moon for 75 hours.
Are you telling me they just took their back packs apart and replaced oxy tanks and water tanks at the ready rather than refill.

Are you telling me the batteries in those back packs just worked and worked and worked and never needed replacing?

And they also managed to double up on each back pack in the space of 2 years in terms of what they supposedly held. Nahhh, no issues for people like yourself.

If you were told those back packs held a decade worth of oxygen and water, etc, you'd find nothing amiss, is my guess.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28515
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #142 on: June 27, 2021, 09:40:11 PM »
And those tanks inside those backpacks do not look like they would support anyone for more than 30 minutes and I think I'm being over generous..

*

rvlvr

  • 2148
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #143 on: June 27, 2021, 09:57:27 PM »
And those tanks inside those backpacks do not look like they would support anyone for more than 30 minutes and I think I'm being over generous..
Yeah. Well, that really is your problem.

Just admit it goes over your head, and that is the reason it is so difficult for you. What you think is not exactly something anyone needs to worry about, as what you think is based on what you know — which is not a lot.

Your opinion is worth nothing as it is based on nothing.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2021, 10:22:16 PM by rvlvr »

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28515
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #144 on: June 27, 2021, 10:45:35 PM »
And those tanks inside those backpacks do not look like they would support anyone for more than 30 minutes and I think I'm being over generous..
Yeah. Well, that really is your problem.

Just admit it goes over your head, and that is the reason it is so difficult for you. What you think is not exactly something anyone needs to worry about, as what you think is based on what you know — which is not a lot.

Your opinion is worth nothing as it is based on nothing.
I don't think it goes over my head.
The size of those tanks would hardly give anyone more than 30 mins in reality.
Obviously in your space they can run for 4 hours and with a bit of speedy tweaking, 8 hours two years later.

Magical things they are.


I'm still waiting to see how they refill those tanks.

Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #145 on: June 27, 2021, 10:57:13 PM »


I'm still not seeing any problems whatsoever.

They depressurized the cabin once they were all wearing their space suits, to go outside. They repressurized the cabin once they were back in from their spacewalks, and closed the hatch, which was after they discarded their detached plss units from their backs onto the lunar surface.

They didn't refill or replace anything. They used and stored or used and discarded.

What did they need spare batteries for in their backpacks?
Apparently those astronauts were on the moon for 75 hours.
Are you telling me they just took their back packs apart and replaced oxy tanks and water tanks at the ready rather than refill.

Are you telling me the batteries in those back packs just worked and worked and worked and never needed replacing?

And they also managed to double up on each back pack in the space of 2 years in terms of what they supposedly held. Nahhh, no issues for people like yourself.

If you were told those back packs held a decade worth of oxygen and water, etc, you'd find nothing amiss, is my guess.

You're right! No issues for people like myself, whatsoever. Absolutely none.

All they did was increase the oxygen pressure levels in the canisters they took on the Apollo 17 mission, enabling the astronauts to have more oxygen in their personal life support systems, as well as inside the LM. They had extra batteries because they were staying an extra day. The plss packs enabled 7 hours of extravehicular activity, depending on the user's metabolic rate, and the tank was replenished from the LM oxygen supply.

Now, why would they need a decade worth of oxygen and water for a three day stay?

*

rvlvr

  • 2148
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #146 on: June 27, 2021, 11:14:46 PM »
The size of those tanks would hardly give anyone more than 30 mins in reality.

What do you base that claim on? Ignorance?

"1 liter per day per human for the duration minus what the CO2 scrubbers can put back in plus some as an emergency measure."

Do you even know how much is one litre?
« Last Edit: June 27, 2021, 11:18:41 PM by rvlvr »

Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #147 on: June 27, 2021, 11:19:46 PM »
And those tanks inside those backpacks do not look like they would support anyone for more than 30 minutes and I think I'm being over generous..
Yeah. Well, that really is your problem.

Just admit it goes over your head, and that is the reason it is so difficult for you. What you think is not exactly something anyone needs to worry about, as what you think is based on what you know — which is not a lot.

Your opinion is worth nothing as it is based on nothing.
I don't think it goes over my head.
The size of those tanks would hardly give anyone more than 30 mins in reality.
Obviously in your space they can run for 4 hours and with a bit of speedy tweaking, 8 hours two years later.

Magical things they are.


I'm still waiting to see how they refill those tanks.

Forget them then.
Lets focus on dxpmaining how the conspiracy works.
How do the upper levels manage to create data to send to the duped lower levels?
How do they control the flow of information?

That is clearly more important as to break the hold on humanity and give freedom and knowledge to everyone.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28515
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #148 on: June 27, 2021, 11:41:55 PM »


All they did was increase the oxygen pressure levels in the canisters they took on the Apollo 17 mission, enabling the astronauts to have more oxygen in their personal life support systems, as well as inside the LM. They had extra batteries because they were staying an extra day. The plss packs enabled 7 hours of extravehicular activity, depending on the user's metabolic rate, and the tank was replenished from the LM oxygen supply.


Of course they did.
They just doubled the pressure, no problem.
They just flung in a few extra batteries. No problem.

 Minus 250 in the shade and plus 250 in sunlight.

No issue for water or oxygen or batteries.

All magically fantastic and works every time no matter what.

You're welcome to your fantasy.


*

rvlvr

  • 2148
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #149 on: June 27, 2021, 11:54:39 PM »
“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
-Arthur C. Clarke

Fits you quite well.

You still haven't been able to show any concrete problems. Everything is just based on what you do not know, or can't understand.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2021, 11:56:28 PM by rvlvr »