Your vacuum would offer zero resistance to an expelled water/oxygen/co2...etc from your so called astronauts suit/backpack.
Yet before you said it would magically be stopped.
You really need to try to make up your mind and stick to it.
Heat is expansion of matter due to friction.
If it's not released to dissipate, you're gone.
So now you have switched from everything meant to be freezing to the heat not getting out.
See, if you had a normal thought process you wouldn't be repeatedly contradicting yourself.
If released into your vacuum it would immediately free at the exit which would immediately block any remaining gases/liquids in that suit from escaping.
And yet again, you contradict yourself.
Just where is the heat going to allow it to freeze?
The moon stuff is fantasy.
The only fantasy here is your fantasy about all the alleged problems.
And yet again you avoid the simple questions which show you are spouting pure BS:
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).
Judging by that tank I'd hazard a guess at 10 litres just to make it a rounded figure.
Again, ANSWER THE ACTUAL QUESTION!
Not the question you want it to be, but the actual question asked.
10 l is a useless number. It does tell anyone how much oxygen that tank can hold.
If you want to use a volume, you need to include a pressure with it. Otherwise it is useless.
How much oxygen does a human need every hour, and what is your justification for this number?[/b]
About 3000 litres
That number was already shown to be pure BS.
Why repeat it?
And again, where is your justification?
It seems all you can do to attack the reality of the moon landings is spout pure fantasy.
Your moon fantasy offers no escape route.
Again, MAKE UP YOUR MIND!
Previously you were saying the batteries would magically freeze.
Now you are saying there is no escape route for the heat, which means they couldn't possibly freeze.
Once you understand that you will understand that the temperatures you are quoting have no impact.
I beg to differ.
Don't just beg, try to present an actual argument.
That air is the very thing missing on the moon.
So just how are things meant to magically freeze?
Rapid expansion against no resistance.
Like the controlled release of the water from the suit?
You are now showing there is no problem at all regarding controlling temperature on the moon, and that the batteries wouldn't freeze or superheat.
How are the batteries meant to freeze?
No chemical conversion.
That does not cause them to freeze. Try again.
You need to tell us where the heat goes.
If there is no where for the heat to go, the batteries can't freeze.
Explain the fan and how it works inside the suit?
No. Stop asking dumb questions, show a problem and deal with the refutations of your prior claims.
To vaporise you need something to vaporise into. A medium.
You have already tried that lie.
If you wish to assert such BS, you will need more than just your assertion.
That's all I have
If all you have is a pathetic lie, then you have nothing.
Especially as you have already contradicted that lie of yours.
Take a look at the moon one night and you'l notice it's lit up like a beacon.
Because your eyes are adjusted to the dark.
Again, go stand in a dark room with no significant light at all, similar to night time, then go step out into a the mid-day sun, preferably onto white concrete.
You will then observe the Earth lit up like a beacon.
Absolutely nothing like it.
That wasn't a question, it was a simple statement. Denying it is just further rejection of reality.
If you get your eyes adjusted to a dark room and go straight out into a very bright day looking at Earth, it will appear extremely bright, far brighter than the full moon at night.
Again, sane people realise how bright things appear is based upon their surroundings and how your eyes are adjusted.
Just like if you look at the moon during the day and see that it isn't that bright at all.
If that's the case then you wouldn't be seeing it at all at the distance you people think it's at.
Why?
There you go spouting pure BS with no justification yet again.
The surface of the moon has a similar brightness to the surface of Earth.
Not judging by the pictures/video we are all shown. Absolute utter nonsense.
Do you mean the pictures which clearly show the moon well resolved and well within the brightness range of the camera, just like Earth.
If you used logic and actually wanted to argue against the RE model you would note the the moon is not self-illuminated, and instead is merely lit up by the sun.
I never said it was self illuminated so don't waste your time going down that route.
If you aren't going to claim it is self-illuminated, just what magic should make it so much brighter? Just what do you think is lighting up the moon?
And why does this light up the moon so well but not light up Earth?
Thus when it is a similar distance away from the sun as Earth, it will be a similar brightness to Earth.
And yet we see it lit up like a beacon
No, we don't.
We see it lit up, like Earth.
I'm like lt being pretty conservative about the 3000. I gave that as a bottom end figure just to be easy going.
You might want to pretend that, but it is still pure BS.
Your "bottom end" figure is massively above the upper limit.
You gave it as an insane number to pretend there is a problem where there is none.
And yet again you refuse to provide any justification for your fantasy.
If you were actually going "easy" you would provide a justification for this lower bound. But we both know that will never happen as you just made it up.