Airlocks in the supposed LM's.

  • 405 Replies
  • 25171 Views
*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28515
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #210 on: June 28, 2021, 10:48:29 PM »
Sceptimatic, why do you think the tank can't hold more than 30 minutes worth of oxygen?
The size of it.
Okay! So, how much oxygen do you think it holds, and how much bigger would it need to be? And again: why do you think it is too small, what do you compare it to?
Not 4 hours worth and certainly not 8.

I don't understand why you stated not 4 hours and certainly not 8 hours worth of oxygen? The plss units are much larger than an air tank worn by a scuba diver that can last an hour. But we aren't talking about a compressed air tank, we are talking about compressed oxygen tanks. Big difference. A diver is constantly expelling carbon dioxide into the water, whereas the astronauts are constantly expelling carbon dioxide into their suits.


PLSS units might be larger but the PLSS units are a big back pack incorporating a small tank, as shown.
They would not hold enough oxygen for 4 hours never mind 8 and also the so called astronauts would be dead with breathing pure oxygen for the amount of time we're told.

It's all nonsense and it's pretty plain to see from my side.
Naturally you believe the fantasy so it's all hunky dory for people like yourself who obviously enjoy sci-fi as reality.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28515
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #211 on: June 28, 2021, 10:51:16 PM »
Your problem is, you're thinking an oxy tube up the nostrils accompanied by natural 14.5 psi of  external air gives you 24 hours.
We aren't talking about that, are we?
We're talking about these so called astronauts breathing only that in their suits.

Try again.
No I am not.  I am talking about what 1 liter of liquid oxygen will boil off to in relation to how much a human needs to survive.  That gaseous volume at 5 psi is enough for 1 human to survive on for at least 24 hours.  Nothing to do with an oxygen tube.  Where did I ever claim that?
Both my Mother in law and Father had COPD and I did help with their oxygen.  They used way less oxygen directly from a tank than 1 liter per day, they don't normally use LOX anyway. 
And we aren't even talking about CO2 scrubbers in the suit extending that time yet. 
So why is it not enough?
First of all nobody is surviving to do any tasks for any length of time under 5 psi and certainly not under 5 psi of pure oxygen.

Getting in and out of suits and repressurising a LM with pure oxygen is nonsense.

There's so much wrong with the reality but nothing wrong with the sci-fi of it all.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28515
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #212 on: June 28, 2021, 10:53:03 PM »
Based on what?

You just say things without any justification. You can't defend your position in any way.
Pretty easy to defend when you look from a realistic point of view, like on Earth.

But this is so called space and it's all different...right?
Pfffffftttt.
Yes, things can be quite different when you only need 1/3 normal atmospheric pressure.
You're getting nowhere under 1/3 or atmospheric pressure. You're in serious trouble.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28515
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #213 on: June 28, 2021, 10:56:57 PM »

How much oxygen could that tank hold? Not as a time based unit, but either as pressure and volume, or mass (and show all working).
How much oxygen does a human need every hour?


I'd guess that tank, if it were a real tank would hold about 8 litres, judging by the small size of it.
As for oxygen. Maybe 3000 litres an hour...maybe.

Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #214 on: June 28, 2021, 11:45:26 PM »
Sceptimatic, why do you think the tank can't hold more than 30 minutes worth of oxygen?
The size of it.
Okay! So, how much oxygen do you think it holds, and how much bigger would it need to be? And again: why do you think it is too small, what do you compare it to?
Not 4 hours worth and certainly not 8.

I don't understand why you stated not 4 hours and certainly not 8 hours worth of oxygen? The plss units are much larger than an air tank worn by a scuba diver that can last an hour. But we aren't talking about a compressed air tank, we are talking about compressed oxygen tanks. Big difference. A diver is constantly expelling carbon dioxide into the water, whereas the astronauts are constantly expelling carbon dioxide into their suits.


PLSS units might be larger but the PLSS units are a big back pack incorporating a small tank, as shown.
They would not hold enough oxygen for 4 hours never mind 8 and also the so called astronauts would be dead with breathing pure oxygen for the amount of time we're told.

It's all nonsense and it's pretty plain to see from my side.
Naturally you believe the fantasy so it's all hunky dory for people like yourself who obviously enjoy sci-fi as reality.

I thought we had covered this ground and moved on? Everybody knows breathing pure oxygen is a killer, and that's not what the astronauts were doing.

The oxygen was slowly mixing with carbon dioxide, nitrogen, oxygen, and other compounds in the respective air of the LM and the plss. Remember, us humans breathe out in our breath 78% nitrogen, 16% oxygen, 4% carbon dioxide, and 0.09% argon. When we breathe in, we absorb around 4% of the oxygen in the air, of a single inward breath.

The atmosphere in the astronauts suits and in the LM was still around 20% oxygen, as it is here on earth, for reasons already discussed. The biggest danger with using pure oxygen, is it's highly explosive. Unfortunately, 4 astronauts before Apollo 11 learnt that the hard way.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28515
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #215 on: June 29, 2021, 12:04:03 AM »


I thought we had covered this ground and moved on? Everybody knows breathing pure oxygen is a killer, and that's not what the astronauts were doing.
Apparently that's exactly what they were doing, supposedly, as we were told.

Quote from: Smoke Machine
The oxygen was slowly mixing with carbon dioxide, nitrogen, oxygen, and other compounds in the respective air of the LM and the plss.
Slowly mixing, how?

Quote from: Smoke Machine
Remember, us humans breathe out in our breath 78% nitrogen, 16% oxygen, 4% carbon dioxide, and 0.09% argon. When we breathe in, we absorb around 4% of the oxygen in the air, of a single inward breath.
On Earth, yes. Not in the space they tell us about.

 
Quote from: Smoke Machine
The atmosphere in the astronauts suits and in the LM was still around 20% oxygen, as it is here on earth, for reasons already discussed.
Nope. It makes no sense and actually destroys the storage pretence.


Quote from: Smoke Machine
The biggest danger with using pure oxygen, is it's highly explosive. Unfortunately, 4 astronauts before Apollo 11 learnt that the hard way.
Yep, we know it's highly explosive and we're led to believe those boffins hadn't a clue about it when they filled a cabin full of it, apparently.


Utter nonsense.

*

JackBlack

  • 18611
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #216 on: June 29, 2021, 01:45:57 AM »
I'd guess that tank, if it were a real tank would hold about 8 litres, judging by the small size of it.
As for oxygen. Maybe 3000 litres an hour...maybe.
There you go dodging simple questions.
8 litres is not enough. 8 litres under what pressure? Or is it 8 l of liquid oxygen?

As for needing 3000 l an hour, again, under what pressure, and what is your basis for that?
After all, according to literature (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK541029/#:~:text=Lung%20capacity%20or%20total%20lung,capacity%20is%20about%206%20liters.), the human lung capacity is roughly 6 l. That 3000 l an hour of oxygen (not air, oxygen) would require around 2400 complete cylces of emptying your lungs and refilling it (this number may appear wrong as 3000 / 6 = 500, but you need to remember that air is not pure oxygen, it is ~21% oxygen, so you need to multiply that number by roughly 5). That is around 40 a minute or almost 1 per second.
Humans do not normally completely empty their lungs and refill them each second.
And when we do breathe, we typically exhale a lot of oxygen.
So being generous, and assuming we breath once every 5 s, using our entire lung volume and consuming ~5% of that volume as oxygen, that amounts to 0.3 l of pure oxygen at 1 atm per breath, which is ~3.6 l per minute, or ~216 l per hour. Much less than your 3000 l per hour which is quite clearly nonsense.

Again, it seems like you are just making up numbers to pretend there is a problem.

So tell me how the batteries withstand the 250 degree cold in the shade, as we're told.
Or how about you tell us why they wouldn't.
You can start with a simple explanation of heat transfer which leads very quickly to the conclusion that it wont actually freeze the battery.

Insulation was mentioned....but what does insulation do in a vacuum of your space? And what is the insulation?
Prevent the transfer of heat, meaning even when the outside is exposed to that cold -250 C, it wont actually cool the battery to that temperature.
Part of the insulation is the vacuum of space.

They would not hold enough oxygen for 4 hours
Stop just asserting the same BS. If you want to claim it wouldn't hold enough for 4 hours, PROVE IT!
Do the math to show it wouldn't.

It's all nonsense and it's pretty plain to see from my side.
Naturally you believe the fantasy so it's all hunky dory for people like yourself who obviously enjoy sci-fi as reality.
No, naturally you want it to be fantasy so you dismiss it as fantasy and nonsense.
If it was actually pretty plain to see you would actually justify your BS, rather than just continually assert the same BS.

First of all nobody is surviving to do any tasks for any length of time under 5 psi and certainly not under 5 psi of pure oxygen.
Again, on what basis do you make this claim?
Yet again, it is jut another blatant lie from you to reject reality.
Yet again, you have no justification at all.

If there was actually anything wrong, you would be able to explain it and justify your claims instead of just continually asserting blatant lies.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2021, 01:52:22 AM by JackBlack »

*

JackBlack

  • 18611
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #217 on: June 29, 2021, 01:53:49 AM »
I thought we had covered this ground and moved on? Everybody knows breathing pure oxygen is a killer, and that's not what the astronauts were doing.
I thought it was covered and we moved on as well.
Pure oxygen is not a killer.
High pressure oxygen, regardless of if that is due to increasing the concentration at normal pressure, or simply increasing the overall pressure while keeping the concentration the same, is the killer.
(Other than the actual pressure being different) pure oxygen at 0.21 atm is the same as 21% at 1 atm.
Pure oxygen at reduced pressure is not lethal in any way.

At most of the danger from it comes from flammability issues.

The atmosphere in the astronauts suits and in the LM was still around 20% oxygen, as it is here on earth, for reasons already discussed. The biggest danger with using pure oxygen, is it's highly explosive. Unfortunately, 4 astronauts before Apollo 11 learnt that the hard way.
Where are you getting this from?
What what I can tell, it was pure oxygen at roughly 3.75 psi, or 0.26 atm.

*

Mikey T.

  • 3416
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #218 on: June 29, 2021, 04:48:44 AM »


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.
Yes, they increased the pressure, meaning they had more gaseous oxygen in the same volume.  Volume is something you intentionally lie about. 
Yes they took more batteries.  Planning ahead to increase useful EVA time is not a difficult concept to grasp. 
I explained before how a vacuum is excellent insulation.  Your incredulity over the big temperature numbers means nothing.
Why is there an issue for water if they planned ahead? 

Why do you think there is only 30 minutes of oxygen in the tanks?  Just your gut feeling about it I guess.  Incredulity is not evidence. 

I'll live in the real world, you can call it fantasy all you like.  The more you blatantly put your indoctrination on display, have nothing to base your outlandish claims on, and keep claiming everything you don't understand is fantasy, the more naive people get turned away from FE before they get brainwashed.  Please continue being this transparently indoctrinated.
A vacuum is excellent insulation against, what?
Thermal transfer, sound, friction, compression waves, etc.  An... insulator.
So tell me how the batteries withstand the 250 degree cold in the shade, as we're told.

Insulation was mentioned....but what does insulation do in a vacuum of your space? And what is the insulation?
So you have no idea what insulation is then. 
Heat is energy, for heat to move from something, there needs to be a way for it to do it.  Either by energy radiation or by direct thermal transfer.  A vacuum is a very good insulator against thermal transfer.  The shiny foil you see on many space vehicles is a good insulator against radiation.  The batteries do not radiate their heat, they would need direct thermal transfer to lose heat. 
As long as the batteries are protected from the massive amount of radiative energy, the near vacuum itself doesn't really allow for any thermal transfer.
 What is the problem, oh wait, are you one of those the moon emits cold folks?  Do you believe Cold is something different than just the loss of energy via thermal transfer?

Again why will the tanks only hold 30 minutes?  Why will the batteries have problems?  What mechanism would be in play to disrupt the batteries operation?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28515
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #219 on: June 29, 2021, 05:13:21 AM »
I'd guess that tank, if it were a real tank would hold about 8 litres, judging by the small size of it.
As for oxygen. Maybe 3000 litres an hour...maybe.
There you go dodging simple questions.
8 litres is not enough. 8 litres under what pressure? Or is it 8 l of liquid oxygen?

As for needing 3000 l an hour, again, under what pressure, and what is your basis for that?
After all, according to literature (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK541029/#:~:text=Lung%20capacity%20or%20total%20lung,capacity%20is%20about%206%20liters.), the human lung capacity is roughly 6 l. That 3000 l an hour of oxygen (not air, oxygen) would require around 2400 complete cylces of emptying your lungs and refilling it (this number may appear wrong as 3000 / 6 = 500, but you need to remember that air is not pure oxygen, it is ~21% oxygen, so you need to multiply that number by roughly 5). That is around 40 a minute or almost 1 per second.
Humans do not normally completely empty their lungs and refill them each second.
And when we do breathe, we typically exhale a lot of oxygen.
So being generous, and assuming we breath once every 5 s, using our entire lung volume and consuming ~5% of that volume as oxygen, that amounts to 0.3 l of pure oxygen at 1 atm per breath, which is ~3.6 l per minute, or ~216 l per hour. Much less than your 3000 l per hour which is quite clearly nonsense.

Again, it seems like you are just making up numbers to pretend there is a problem.

Sooooo, is it pure oxygen in their backpack tank or not?
Are they also aided by another vessel full of atmosphere to go with it?

You would use the small amount of oxy you mention if you were getting it slowl fed into the nose whilst also taking in full on atmospheric pressure.

Sooo, unless someone is throwing in atmospheric pressure to aid the so called astronauts, then we're back to the massive issues I mentioned, no matter how desperate you are to try and dress it all up.






Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #220 on: June 29, 2021, 05:15:24 AM »


I thought we had covered this ground and moved on? Everybody knows breathing pure oxygen is a killer, and that's not what the astronauts were doing.
Apparently that's exactly what they were doing, supposedly, as we were told.

Quote from: Smoke Machine
The oxygen was slowly mixing with carbon dioxide, nitrogen, oxygen, and other compounds in the respective air of the LM and the plss.
Slowly mixing, how?

Quote from: Smoke Machine
Remember, us humans breathe out in our breath 78% nitrogen, 16% oxygen, 4% carbon dioxide, and 0.09% argon. When we breathe in, we absorb around 4% of the oxygen in the air, of a single inward breath.
On Earth, yes. Not in the space they tell us about.

 
Quote from: Smoke Machine
The atmosphere in the astronauts suits and in the LM was still around 20% oxygen, as it is here on earth, for reasons already discussed.
Nope. It makes no sense and actually destroys the storage pretence.


Quote from: Smoke Machine
The biggest danger with using pure oxygen, is it's highly explosive. Unfortunately, 4 astronauts before Apollo 11 learnt that the hard way.
Yep, we know it's highly explosive and we're led to believe those boffins hadn't a clue about it when they filled a cabin full of it, apparently.


Utter nonsense.

Could it be true? Are you British? In what country outside of Britain does one utter, "utter nonsense"? Well, it's safe to say neither you nor your ancestors, worked for Scotland Yard.

This may come as a surprise to one with your intellect, but humans thriving in a comfortable atmosphere of 20% oxygen on Earth, is also true for humans in outer space and the moon.

While highly explosive, pure oxygen is lighter and more compact than storing compressed air. It's the logical choice for a mission to the moon which includes getting there, staying there 3 days, and returning home. 

You haven't come up with any logical reasons for doubting the official narrative so far. What's your next issue?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28515
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #221 on: June 29, 2021, 05:33:07 AM »


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.
Yes, they increased the pressure, meaning they had more gaseous oxygen in the same volume.  Volume is something you intentionally lie about. 
Yes they took more batteries.  Planning ahead to increase useful EVA time is not a difficult concept to grasp. 
I explained before how a vacuum is excellent insulation.  Your incredulity over the big temperature numbers means nothing.
Why is there an issue for water if they planned ahead? 

Why do you think there is only 30 minutes of oxygen in the tanks?  Just your gut feeling about it I guess.  Incredulity is not evidence. 

I'll live in the real world, you can call it fantasy all you like.  The more you blatantly put your indoctrination on display, have nothing to base your outlandish claims on, and keep claiming everything you don't understand is fantasy, the more naive people get turned away from FE before they get brainwashed.  Please continue being this transparently indoctrinated.
A vacuum is excellent insulation against, what?
Thermal transfer, sound, friction, compression waves, etc.  An... insulator.
So tell me how the batteries withstand the 250 degree cold in the shade, as we're told.

Insulation was mentioned....but what does insulation do in a vacuum of your space? And what is the insulation?
So you have no idea what insulation is then. 
Heat is energy, for heat to move from something, there needs to be a way for it to do it.  Either by energy radiation or by direct thermal transfer.  A vacuum is a very good insulator against thermal transfer.  The shiny foil you see on many space vehicles is a good insulator against radiation.  The batteries do not radiate their heat, they would need direct thermal transfer to lose heat. 
As long as the batteries are protected from the massive amount of radiative energy, the near vacuum itself doesn't really allow for any thermal transfer.
 What is the problem, oh wait, are you one of those the moon emits cold folks?  Do you believe Cold is something different than just the loss of energy via thermal transfer?

Again why will the tanks only hold 30 minutes?  Why will the batteries have problems?  What mechanism would be in play to disrupt the batteries operation?
You can dance about giving it this and that all you want.

Maybe you can explain plus and minus 250 in the heat sun and shadow.

Is minus 250 a cold or not a cold?

Here's something for you.
In -50 degrees  a car battery would be dead and buried in terms of function and that's a new one.

So tell me how the LM batteries managed to work?
Tin foil?
Did tin foil act as insulation?

I'd also like to know how the oxygen didn't freeze in -250.


I'd also like to know how they transferred the oxygen from the LM to the PLSS back pack tank.
I was told it was something like a water hose.
Hmmmm.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28515
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #222 on: June 29, 2021, 05:38:59 AM »

This may come as a surprise to one with your intellect, but humans thriving in a comfortable atmosphere of 20% oxygen on Earth, is also true for humans in outer space and the moon.
Really?
So you think humans breathed only 20% oxygen.
Where was the rest of the 80% of other gases stored?
Remember your men are on your moon. No helmet off and taking in moon atmosphere coupled with a few nose sniffs of trickling oxy.


Quote from: Smoke Machine
While highly explosive, pure oxygen is lighter and more compact than storing compressed air. It's the logical choice for a mission to the moon which includes getting there, staying there 3 days, and returning home.
So they decided to pack a load of containers with 205 oxy in rather than one to keep refilling. Hmmmmmm. Sounds nuts.
Nuts I tell you.
 
Quote from: Smoke Machine
You haven't come up with any logical reasons for doubting the official narrative so far. What's your next issue?
I think  have. I think I'm well onto it all.
I think it's the likes of you that are scraping your moon barrel.

*

Mikey T.

  • 3416
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #223 on: June 29, 2021, 09:02:19 AM »


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.
Yes, they increased the pressure, meaning they had more gaseous oxygen in the same volume.  Volume is something you intentionally lie about. 
Yes they took more batteries.  Planning ahead to increase useful EVA time is not a difficult concept to grasp. 
I explained before how a vacuum is excellent insulation.  Your incredulity over the big temperature numbers means nothing.
Why is there an issue for water if they planned ahead? 

Why do you think there is only 30 minutes of oxygen in the tanks?  Just your gut feeling about it I guess.  Incredulity is not evidence. 

I'll live in the real world, you can call it fantasy all you like.  The more you blatantly put your indoctrination on display, have nothing to base your outlandish claims on, and keep claiming everything you don't understand is fantasy, the more naive people get turned away from FE before they get brainwashed.  Please continue being this transparently indoctrinated.
A vacuum is excellent insulation against, what?
Thermal transfer, sound, friction, compression waves, etc.  An... insulator.
So tell me how the batteries withstand the 250 degree cold in the shade, as we're told.

Insulation was mentioned....but what does insulation do in a vacuum of your space? And what is the insulation?
So you have no idea what insulation is then. 
Heat is energy, for heat to move from something, there needs to be a way for it to do it.  Either by energy radiation or by direct thermal transfer.  A vacuum is a very good insulator against thermal transfer.  The shiny foil you see on many space vehicles is a good insulator against radiation.  The batteries do not radiate their heat, they would need direct thermal transfer to lose heat. 
As long as the batteries are protected from the massive amount of radiative energy, the near vacuum itself doesn't really allow for any thermal transfer.
 What is the problem, oh wait, are you one of those the moon emits cold folks?  Do you believe Cold is something different than just the loss of energy via thermal transfer?

Again why will the tanks only hold 30 minutes?  Why will the batteries have problems?  What mechanism would be in play to disrupt the batteries operation?
You can dance about giving it this and that all you want.

Maybe you can explain plus and minus 250 in the heat sun and shadow.

Is minus 250 a cold or not a cold?

Here's something for you.
In -50 degrees  a car battery would be dead and buried in terms of function and that's a new one.

So tell me how the LM batteries managed to work?
Tin foil?
Did tin foil act as insulation?

I'd also like to know how the oxygen didn't freeze in -250.


I'd also like to know how they transferred the oxygen from the LM to the PLSS back pack tank.
I was told it was something like a water hose.
Hmmmm.

Again: 
1) Vacuum makes a very good insulator against direct thermal transfer.  Hence the use of near vacuum for insulating beverage containers, near vacuum used between panes of glass (usually filled with a very very low pressure of something like argon).
2) Cold is the reduction of energy from a system through direct thermal transfer.  If there is no medium to transfer the heat energy through using direct thermal transfer, how does it get cold? 

What is the problem with transferring oxygen via tubing?  not a water hose, but whatever.  Where is there a problem.  That's right you have no idea, you just want your fantasy to be real at any cost.  How very indoctrinated of you to throw out anything that disagrees with your beliefs. 

Still waiting on your justifications for your fantastical claims.  No hand waving, give us some logical reasoning. 

Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #224 on: June 29, 2021, 11:45:50 AM »

This may come as a surprise to one with your intellect, but humans thriving in a comfortable atmosphere of 20% oxygen on Earth, is also true for humans in outer space and the moon.
Really?
So you think humans breathed only 20% oxygen.
Where was the rest of the 80% of other gases stored?
Remember your men are on your moon. No helmet off and taking in moon atmosphere coupled with a few nose sniffs of trickling oxy.


Quote from: Smoke Machine
While highly explosive, pure oxygen is lighter and more compact than storing compressed air. It's the logical choice for a mission to the moon which includes getting there, staying there 3 days, and returning home.
So they decided to pack a load of containers with 205 oxy in rather than one to keep refilling. Hmmmmmm. Sounds nuts.
Nuts I tell you.
 
Quote from: Smoke Machine
You haven't come up with any logical reasons for doubting the official narrative so far. What's your next issue?
I think  have. I think I'm well onto it all.
I think it's the likes of you that are scraping your moon barrel.

Ok. You were right. I was wrong. There was no storage of the other 80% of gases in the Apollo missions. It was just pure oxygen.

An oxygen and nitrogen mix was the preferred initial gas system for the astronauts, to mimic our atmosphere here on earth, but to save on weight and amount of pay load to get into space, they eventually settled on oxygen only, at an exceedingly low pressure.

Don't shoot the messenger, but apparently, oxygen at a very low pressure will not hurt a human's body when breathing. I know, I know, it confused me at first, also.

NASA found that a dual gas system in regulating the gas percentages, was more dangerous in causing the astronauts to lose consciousness if there was a malfunction in the mixing.

Also, at an extremely low pressure, the oxygen is not very explosive. So, the canisters would have remained highly explosive, but not the cabin or the plss units. To be safe, all flammable materials were removed from the cabin.

On the launch pad, on earth, the cabin was a nitrogen and oxygen mix, where the nitrogen was slowly bled out during the course of the mission. I hope that clarifies things.....


*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42468
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #225 on: June 29, 2021, 12:20:06 PM »
Based on what?

You just say things without any justification. You can't defend your position in any way.
Pretty easy to defend when you look from a realistic point of view, like on Earth.

But this is so called space and it's all different...right?
Pfffffftttt.
Yes, things can be quite different when you only need 1/3 normal atmospheric pressure.
You're getting nowhere under 1/3 or atmospheric pressure. You're in serious trouble.
The top of Mt Everest is about 1/3 normal atmospheric pressure and there have been people who have made it to the top without supplemental oxygen.  Just imagine how much easier the climb would be if that 1/3 atmospheric pressure was pure oxygen.
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.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42468
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #226 on: June 29, 2021, 12:27:58 PM »
Maybe you can explain plus and minus 250 in the heat sun and shadow.

Is minus 250 a cold or not a cold?
Yes, -250 degrees is very cold, but it can also be a bit misleading.  Since there is no -250 degree air on the moon, there really isn't anything to actively cool things.  That -250 degrees in the shade refers to the temperature that an object would reach after all of its stored heat radiates away.  Properly insulated, it could take quite a while for an object to lose that much heat.
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 #227 on: June 29, 2021, 12:29:13 PM »
The top of Mt Everest is about 1/3 normal atmospheric pressure and there have been people who have made it to the top without supplemental oxygen.  Just imagine how much easier the climb would be if that 1/3 atmospheric pressure was pure oxygen.

So they weigh 1/3 as much as they do at sea level, right?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42468
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #228 on: June 29, 2021, 12:39:30 PM »
The top of Mt Everest is about 1/3 normal atmospheric pressure and there have been people who have made it to the top without supplemental oxygen.  Just imagine how much easier the climb would be if that 1/3 atmospheric pressure was pure oxygen.

So they weigh 1/3 as much as they do at sea level, right?
Well, you do have to wear 3 times as many clothes to stay warm, so it all averages out.
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 #229 on: June 29, 2021, 02:17:09 PM »
The top of Mt Everest is about 1/3 normal atmospheric pressure and there have been people who have made it to the top without supplemental oxygen.  Just imagine how much easier the climb would be if that 1/3 atmospheric pressure was pure oxygen.

So they weigh 1/3 as much as they do at sea level, right?
Ah, yes, we've ridden in that rodeo before.  Scepti resorted to his normal denialism and conspiracy nonsense.  Yes, you guessed it:  nobody has actually climbed Everest (or presumably any other big mountain) and the photos, books, films, accounts etc are all fake.  Yes, really, he went there.   :P

I did point out that you can easily drive to around 3,400m in Spain - where your weight should be around two thirds, according to denpressure..... he didn't quite deny that you could this but said he "would look into it".   ;)

The fact is you don't get lighter as you climb a mountain, despite the air pressure lowering.  Totally debunks his nonsense by itself, without the need for 200 page threads.
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

JackBlack

  • 18611
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #230 on: June 29, 2021, 02:32:24 PM »
Sooooo, is it pure oxygen in their backpack tank or not?
Are they also aided by another vessel full of atmosphere to go with it?

You would use the small amount of oxy you mention if you were getting it slowl fed into the nose whilst also taking in full on atmospheric pressure.
No, you would use the small amount of oxygen I calculated REGARDLESS!
The only way to use vastly more is if you just expel that oxygen and it goes to waste.

So no, you have no massive issues, just a bunch of baseless claims you refuse to justify, no matter how desperate you are to try and dress it all up.


Again, why should the tanks only last 30 minutes?
You claimed they hold 8 l, but 8 l of what? Liquid oxygen? Gaseous oxygen at some pressure? What pressure?

You claim humans need 3000 l of oxygen per hour, which I have demonstrated is pure BS, even with massive simplifications in your favour.
So try coming up with an actual justification, or admitting your claim was BS.

You can dance about giving it this and that all you want.
That seems to be all you ever do.
Dance around claiming there is an issue and always refuse to justify it.

Here's something for you.
In -50 degrees  a car battery would be dead and buried in terms of function and that's a new one.
No, when a car battery has its temperature fall to -50 it is dead.
That is not simply it being in a -50 environment.

So tell us, how does the LM batteries get that cold?

As something for you, I can get boiling water, put it in a thermos, which has a vacuum as insulation, and place it in a -50 environment for hours, and while the water will no longer be boiling, it will still be very hot.

Quote from: Smoke Machine
You haven't come up with any logical reasons for doubting the official narrative so far. What's your next issue?
I think  have. I think I'm well onto it all.
I like so many other things you "think", that is completely wrong.
All you have done is made baseless claims you are yet to justify in any sane way. That means you do not have any logical reasons for doubting it.

*

rvlvr

  • 2148
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #231 on: June 29, 2021, 10:09:46 PM »
Yes, you guessed it:  nobody has actually climbed Everest (or presumably any other big mountain) and the photos, books, films, accounts etc are all fake.  Yes, really, he went there.   :P

I did point out that you can easily drive to around 3,400m in Spain - where your weight should be around two thirds, according to denpressure..... he didn't quite deny that you could this but said he "would look into it".   ;)

This is pretty awesome, I have to say. Did not know this.

It is a strange belief system.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28515
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #232 on: June 29, 2021, 10:18:30 PM »

Again: 
1) Vacuum makes a very good insulator against direct thermal transfer.  Hence the use of near vacuum for insulating beverage containers, near vacuum used between panes of glass (usually filled with a very very low pressure of something like argon).
2) Cold is the reduction of energy from a system through direct thermal transfer.  If there is no medium to transfer the heat energy through using direct thermal transfer, how does it get cold? 

What is the problem with transferring oxygen via tubing?  not a water hose, but whatever.  Where is there a problem.  That's right you have no idea, you just want your fantasy to be real at any cost.  How very indoctrinated of you to throw out anything that disagrees with your beliefs. 

Still waiting on your justifications for your fantastical claims.  No hand waving, give us some logical reasoning.
Pressure evacuation makes a good insulator on Earth.
We are dealing with your space and moon with a supposed real vacuum.

So tell me how the oxygen doesn't freeze and also how the batteries do not die.


Explain how water can flow, also?


*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28515
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #233 on: June 29, 2021, 10:21:33 PM »

This may come as a surprise to one with your intellect, but humans thriving in a comfortable atmosphere of 20% oxygen on Earth, is also true for humans in outer space and the moon.
Really?
So you think humans breathed only 20% oxygen.
Where was the rest of the 80% of other gases stored?
Remember your men are on your moon. No helmet off and taking in moon atmosphere coupled with a few nose sniffs of trickling oxy.


Quote from: Smoke Machine
While highly explosive, pure oxygen is lighter and more compact than storing compressed air. It's the logical choice for a mission to the moon which includes getting there, staying there 3 days, and returning home.
So they decided to pack a load of containers with 205 oxy in rather than one to keep refilling. Hmmmmmm. Sounds nuts.
Nuts I tell you.
 
Quote from: Smoke Machine
You haven't come up with any logical reasons for doubting the official narrative so far. What's your next issue?
I think  have. I think I'm well onto it all.
I think it's the likes of you that are scraping your moon barrel.

Ok. You were right. I was wrong. There was no storage of the other 80% of gases in the Apollo missions. It was just pure oxygen.

An oxygen and nitrogen mix was the preferred initial gas system for the astronauts, to mimic our atmosphere here on earth, but to save on weight and amount of pay load to get into space, they eventually settled on oxygen only, at an exceedingly low pressure.

Don't shoot the messenger, but apparently, oxygen at a very low pressure will not hurt a human's body when breathing. I know, I know, it confused me at first, also.

NASA found that a dual gas system in regulating the gas percentages, was more dangerous in causing the astronauts to lose consciousness if there was a malfunction in the mixing.

Also, at an extremely low pressure, the oxygen is not very explosive. So, the canisters would have remained highly explosive, but not the cabin or the plss units. To be safe, all flammable materials were removed from the cabin.

On the launch pad, on earth, the cabin was a nitrogen and oxygen mix, where the nitrogen was slowly bled out during the course of the mission. I hope that clarifies things.....
Clarifies things?
You had it all at your fingertips and still didn't know the set up.



*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28515
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #234 on: June 29, 2021, 10:26:37 PM »
Maybe you can explain plus and minus 250 in the heat sun and shadow.

Is minus 250 a cold or not a cold?
Yes, -250 degrees is very cold, but it can also be a bit misleading.  Since there is no -250 degree air on the moon, there really isn't anything to actively cool things.  That -250 degrees in the shade refers to the temperature that an object would reach after all of its stored heat radiates away.  Properly insulated, it could take quite a while for an object to lose that much heat.
Explain the insulating then.


They are saying they transferred oxygen to the back packs via a tube from the LM.
Why didn't it freeze?
How did the batteries not die in minus 250 or even plus 250?

Are you saying tinfoil just insulated everything, plus and minus?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28515
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #235 on: June 29, 2021, 10:32:43 PM »
Sooooo, is it pure oxygen in their backpack tank or not?
Are they also aided by another vessel full of atmosphere to go with it?

You would use the small amount of oxy you mention if you were getting it slowly fed into the nose whilst also taking in full on atmospheric pressure.
No, you would use the small amount of oxygen I calculated REGARDLESS!
The only way to use vastly more is if you just expel that oxygen and it goes to waste.

It does go to waste.
You are trying to argue for someone taking in small amounts of regulated oxygen up their nose whilst breathing normal atmospheric air. That oxy is just an enriched supplement and will last in the litreage you mention.

But we aren't talking about supplements, we are talking one tank to cater for the entire breathing of one person, without any external aid of atmosphere, on your moon.


There's so many things wrong with it all as to be unfeasible and the fantasy it quite clearly is.

*

JackBlack

  • 18611
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #236 on: June 30, 2021, 12:12:13 AM »
It does go to waste.
There you go showing you don't care about any of the answers already provided.
It isn't going to waste. It is remaining in the suit, with only the amount they consume being replaced.

It is wasted in normal atmosphere, not in the Apollo suits.

In normal atmosphere you would need more as it goes to waste when it is exhaled into the atmosphere.
The same happens with divers when they breathe out and have the oxygen go into the water, which is why rebreathers were made which recirculate the exhaled gas (after scrubbing away the CO2) which gives a much longer duration.

So the Apollo suits would use far less oxygen per hour than someone in a hospital.

You are trying to argue for someone taking in small amounts of regulated oxygen up their nose whilst breathing normal atmospheric air. That oxy is just an enriched supplement and will last in the litreage you mention.
No, that is what you are trying to argue for. I am arguing for a far more efficient use of that oxygen.
The "literage" I calculated (which is still very generous for you), is far less than what would be needed for a hospital situation if they were trying to get people to breathe pure oxygen without any rebreather.

Meanwhile, the "literage" you claimed, is quite clearly pure fantasy.

There's so many things wrong with it all as to be unfeasible and the fantasy it quite clearly is.
You mean your baseless claims you are yet to justify at all?
Yes, there are quite a lot of things wrong with it, which is likely why you don't even attempt to actually justify it and instead just continue to spout pathetic BS.

Again:
How much oxygen could that tank hold? Not as a time based unit, but either as pressure and volume, or mass (and show all working).
How much oxygen does a human need every hour, and what is your justification for this number?

Pressure evacuation makes a good insulator on Earth.
Not just on Earth, it is a good insulator EVERYWHERE!

It is easier to understand the other way around, putting matter there will allow a much greater rate of heat conduction.
Without the matter there, the heat has no where to go.

So tell me how the oxygen doesn't freeze and also how the batteries do not die.
You have already been told. Stop playing dumb.
If you want to claim it will freeze, you tell us all how it magically freezes. Tell us where all the thermal energy goes.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28515
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #237 on: June 30, 2021, 01:13:31 AM »
It does go to waste.
There you go showing you don't care about any of the answers already provided.
It isn't going to waste. It is remaining in the suit, with only the amount they consume being replaced.

It is wasted in normal atmosphere, not in the Apollo suits.
No venting, no life. Simple as that.
Don't give the the old gunk that they stored it in their suits after breathing.


Quote from: JackBlack
In normal atmosphere you would need more as it goes to waste when it is exhaled into the atmosphere.
In normal atmosphere you wouldn't need it and if you did you would be on a trickle of it under the nose as simple enrichment for the lungs.
That's why the tanks last a long time and only that reason.
You don;t have any of that on your moon.


Quote from: JackBlack
The same happens with divers when they breathe out and have the oxygen go into the water, which is why rebreathers were made which recirculate the exhaled gas (after scrubbing away the CO2) which gives a much longer duration.
How much longer?


Quote from: JackBlack
So the Apollo suits would use far less oxygen per hour than someone in a hospital.
Not a chance in hell.


Quote from: JackBlack
You are trying to argue for someone taking in small amounts of regulated oxygen up their nose whilst breathing normal atmospheric air. That oxy is just an enriched supplement and will last in the litreage you mention.
No, that is what you are trying to argue for. I am arguing for a far more efficient use of that oxygen.
The "literage" I calculated (which is still very generous for you), is far less than what would be needed for a hospital situation if they were trying to get people to breathe pure oxygen without any rebreather.

Meanwhile, the "literage" you claimed, is quite clearly pure fantasy.


Again:
How much oxygen could that tank hold? Not as a time based unit, but either as pressure and volume, or mass (and show all working).
How much oxygen does a human need every hour, and what is your justification for this number?
I think I gave you a lesser litreage just to play safe.

You now have to get past it.
300 litres per hour.



Quote from: JackBlack
Pressure evacuation makes a good insulator on Earth.
Not just on Earth, it is a good insulator EVERYWHERE!

It is easier to understand the other way around, putting matter there will allow a much greater rate of heat conduction.
Without the matter there, the heat has no where to go.
Exactly.
Nowhere to go.
Your Apollo moon carry on is a dead stick.


Quote from: JackBlack
So tell me how the oxygen doesn't freeze and also how the batteries do not die.
You have already been told. Stop playing dumb.
If you want to claim it will freeze, you tell us all how it magically freezes. Tell us where all the thermal energy goes.
I think you can clearly see how it would freeze.

Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #238 on: June 30, 2021, 01:25:36 AM »

This may come as a surprise to one with your intellect, but humans thriving in a comfortable atmosphere of 20% oxygen on Earth, is also true for humans in outer space and the moon.
Really?
So you think humans breathed only 20% oxygen.
Where was the rest of the 80% of other gases stored?
Remember your men are on your moon. No helmet off and taking in moon atmosphere coupled with a few nose sniffs of trickling oxy.


Quote from: Smoke Machine
While highly explosive, pure oxygen is lighter and more compact than storing compressed air. It's the logical choice for a mission to the moon which includes getting there, staying there 3 days, and returning home.
So they decided to pack a load of containers with 205 oxy in rather than one to keep refilling. Hmmmmmm. Sounds nuts.
Nuts I tell you.
 
Quote from: Smoke Machine
You haven't come up with any logical reasons for doubting the official narrative so far. What's your next issue?
I think  have. I think I'm well onto it all.
I think it's the likes of you that are scraping your moon barrel.

Ok. You were right. I was wrong. There was no storage of the other 80% of gases in the Apollo missions. It was just pure oxygen.

An oxygen and nitrogen mix was the preferred initial gas system for the astronauts, to mimic our atmosphere here on earth, but to save on weight and amount of pay load to get into space, they eventually settled on oxygen only, at an exceedingly low pressure.

Don't shoot the messenger, but apparently, oxygen at a very low pressure will not hurt a human's body when breathing. I know, I know, it confused me at first, also.

NASA found that a dual gas system in regulating the gas percentages, was more dangerous in causing the astronauts to lose consciousness if there was a malfunction in the mixing.

Also, at an extremely low pressure, the oxygen is not very explosive. So, the canisters would have remained highly explosive, but not the cabin or the plss units. To be safe, all flammable materials were removed from the cabin.

On the launch pad, on earth, the cabin was a nitrogen and oxygen mix, where the nitrogen was slowly bled out during the course of the mission. I hope that clarifies things.....
Clarifies things?
You had it all at your fingertips and still didn't know the set up.

Hey, buddy! !!!!!News flash!!!! It's all at your fingertips too.

You're still glossing over and cherry picking things that to the layman at first glance, seem implausible, but as demonstrated, are all plausible.

There is a film by Todd Douglas Miller, which is basically a documentary, called, "Apollo 11". Watch it, so we can discuss your issues with it.

Oh, and for your information, the average human only needs 34 grams of pure oxygen an hour to survive. The actual entire spacesuit was pressurised with the oxygen. In the backpack was 1.4kg of lithium hydroxide, 3.9 litres of cooling water, and a 279 watt an hour battery.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2021, 02:01:11 AM by Smoke Machine »

*

JackBlack

  • 18611
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #239 on: June 30, 2021, 02:50:46 AM »
No venting, no life. Simple as that.
And there you go with more baseless garbage.

Again, quit with all the BS and answer the questions.

I think I gave you a lesser litreage just to play safe.
No, you gave a number which is pure BS.
A number you could not justify at all.

Again:
How much oxygen could that tank hold? Not as a time based unit, but either as pressure and volume, or mass (and show all working).
How much oxygen does a human need every hour, and what is your justification for this number?

Don't just pull a number out of your ass, actually justify it.

Until you do, your claim that it wouldn't last is just a pathetic lie.

Quote from: JackBlack
Pressure evacuation makes a good insulator on Earth.
Not just on Earth, it is a good insulator EVERYWHERE!

It is easier to understand the other way around, putting matter there will allow a much greater rate of heat conduction.
Without the matter there, the heat has no where to go.
Exactly.
Nowhere to go.
And do you know what that means?
It means the battery wont freeze and your argument is pure BS.


I think you can clearly see how it would freeze.
Why?
You just said there is no where for the heat to go.
If there is no where for the heat to go it can't cool down, it can't freeze.
So you have just told us that it can't freeze.
So how could anyone possibly clearly see how it would freeze?

Again, if you want to claim it freezes you need to tell us where the heat goes.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2021, 02:57:58 AM by JackBlack »