Would the Apollo Moon astronauts have been frozen then cooked like chicken-in-a-bag - One Star Warrior unveiled - page 28

Great work, K Hall! Keep it up.

hmmm... well, i was looking at this site:
[link to apolloscam.atspace.co.uk]
and i decided to post a link on twitter, but, for some reason, they would not let me. that was tremendously suspicious. i wasn't really that into this stuff, but i've gotten more interested as there seems to be shenanigans going on. i assumed K Hall was a Russian posing as an American (with a British flag in his avatar LOL). But now i assume he is an american disinfo guy. sorry i haven't read all of the thread.

i'm still puzzled as to how the surface of the moon is 100 degrees and people can stand around on it. why would NASA fake a moon landing on such an inhospitable terrain. that just boggles the mind. didn't they know the moon surface is 100 degrees centigrade? how could they not know that back in the 60s?

Anyone else find it kind of funny that Ks calling a sock puppet conspiracy on a conspiracy site?

I lold. Hes crossreferencing everyone who disagrees with him.

K Hall is an English guy with a British flag who posts whatever he feels like.



They did know, you can tell the temperature remotely with a bit of astronomy ( albedo measurement ) and some maths. Now faking a manned landing on Venus, that really would be a give away.

K

just give me a link to read about the space suits, how they were cooled, and, especially, how hot it gets on the moon.

i'll read through these.

Here is something on how the astronaut was cooled i.e. how the heat generated inside the suit by the astronaut and the electrical systems was removed by sublimating water ice.

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov (secure)]

The highest recorded ( you can choose yourself if it happened ) and my very similar calculated temperatures are here.

Thread: Would the Apollo Moon astronauts have been frozen then cooked like chicken-in-a-bag - One Star Warrior unveiled - page 28 (Page 7)

The highest value was at the end of Apollo 15 EVA 3, Apollo 16 EVA 3 may have finished at a higher temperature ( +5 degrees maybe ) but I don't have a figure for that.

You can read about the A7l spacesuit here.

[link to www.astronautix.com]

Don't worry about IDW, he is a crazy guy who is incredibly buthurt about being shown for a fool here and is now sock-puppeting like crazy. The thing is he always gives himself away in a hilariously obvious fashion.

K

It's not a conspiracy , it's IDW, it could only be a conspiracy if it was more than one person doing it. You can tell it's IDW because 1. the user ID is only ever used for posts posted in quick succession on this thread. 2 He uses IDW language and idioms. 3 He used the same IDW smiley every post until I pointed it out to him. 4 He makes the same basic mistakes and brings up issues that no one else following the thread cares about or believes in. 5 He keeps forgetting to be in character to launch attacks on 74444 or me using his favorite insults. I think it's funny anyway.

K

If you are thinking about the soles of the boots and insulation, that is a good question I can look into. There is some information here

[link to www.satra.co.uk]

and here.

[link to er.jsc.nasa.gov]

So I will look at the conduction through the boot.

K

K Hall, the reason why i assumed you were Russian was that in your initial few posts on this thread you used the word 'insolation', which i thought was a misspelling of 'insulation'- an easy mistake to make by one who isn't well versed in this area, as the talk was of 'insulating' the astronauts from the harsh elements of the moon. Further, i was reading the other site- the one which shall not be named (wink, wink), and that struck me as a Russian expose, for the english on that, here and there, definitely gave it away as a non-native english speaker; although, i must admit, the english was surprisingly good, though at times some odd, unusual mistakes would be made that struck me as odd. So perhaps someone has rush-job corrected the site and missed a few errors or something. All the same, i came onto GLP, thinking the local 'tard-istan' population might be onto something regarding that site, when, lo and behold, i find the chicken-in-a-bag thread- one i had come across before though dismissed, largely because of its technico-specific nature. I look at the thread, and what do i find? A, what i assumed to be, Russian poster pretending to be American, with a British flag in his avatar- exposing the moon landing as fake- all deduced by the misspelling of 'insulation' as 'insolation', which, subsequently, i have found out actually is a word LOL. So there you have it, how far one's assumptions can go just based on a couple of letters: insulation/insolation.
unfortunately, this brings no one any closer to answering the question; however, it's, i think, pivotal because plenty of people must have made such a mistake. I might not be reading carefully enough; although, on a 'conspiracy' website, one tends to be more cynical and sceptical than most, which can be a recipe for lunacy.

Your mistake is not googling the term "insolation."
[link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)]

It is a technical term, and the appropriate one, for the amount of sunlight that hits a surface.
That it does not mean insulation could have been easily determined from context.


ETA: You got quite a lot of conspiracy-mileage out off a single tiny piece of ignorance.

Last Edited by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on 04/10/2015 10:01 AM

Back on track!

The guy is straight up nuts.

He needs a check up from the neck up.

Don't look too closely at my stuff because it is usually full of spellung and grammar mistooks, typos and auto-co-wrecks, especially when I am replying in a hurry.



Well all the threads I do are sort of entertainment ( for me anyway ) often with silly titles. BTW didn't GLP's disclaimer use to say it was an entertainment site?

[link to www.godlikeproductions.com]

Thread: Super Pi moment * Four mysterious numbers and the most beautiful equation *

Thread: Schumann will go crazy ..** Get Ready** ITEOTWAWKI(AIFF) - You vitriolic, patriotic, slam fight, bright light

Thread: In 1967 an extra-terrestrial signal was received, here is the story of the plan to cover it up.

Thread: ** Help save Earth by finding Killer Asteroids ** Mystery minor planet X found ? ** BBC Fail to disclose information ** Zooniverse needs you ! .

Thread: The Wrong Stuff - American space tourists too fat and mutinous says top space boffin

I guess it looks odd making maths models for fun and relaxation but I never said I was normal.



Yes I got some red from people who think I am a dyed in the wool hoaxtard, IDW says I work for NASA, so I think that's what you call fair and balanced, lol.



There won't be any definitive answers here, all that I might find is that things look either feasible or unlikely based on what I can work out, it's all about the journey, not the destination :)

K

While I remember, although this document

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov (secure)]

Talks about descent stage tanks, and "(each tank)" I believe this was a mistake by the author of the document and there was in fact one tank in the descent stage as we can see from the original Grumman engineering drawings.

[link to www.ehartwell.com]

So the revised numbers are,

Total amount of water available for all purposes including cooling is 190 kg
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov (secure)]

If the astronauts drink 3 litres a day that is 18 litres removed from the total. 4kg of unrecoverable water will be left in the tanks.

If all of the remaining available water ~( it won't be ) was used for cooling, then it could remove 186 litres * 2450 KJ = 456 MJ

The total electrical energy available from the batteries is
[link to www.braeunig.us]
77 kWh = 277 MJ, will all of the heat need to be removed by the sublimators, I don't know yet.

The LM had to provide all of the water for the PLSSs so it had to take care of the astronauts cooling needs inside and out of the LM. Apollo 17 LM was occupied for 3 days and 2 hours, there were 22 hours of EVAs [link to en.wikipedia.org] and they spent at total of 24 hours sleeping or trying to sleep, The rest of the time they would spend in moderate or sedentary activity.

using the EVA estimate we have a total heat production of -> 2 * 250W * 22 hours = 79 MJ
awake in the LM -> 2 * 126W * 28 hours = 25.4 MJ
sleeping -> 2 * 86W * 24 hours = 14.8 MJ

Giving a total metabolic heat output of 119.2 MJ

Put together with the possible total heat output of the electrical systems
277 + 119.2 = 396.2 MJ

So that's a smaller number than the 456 MJ of potential cooling capacity, sufficient providing there is no net large heat inflow to the LM from the environment.

That's a lot closer to the amount of water needed for cooling. It makes more sense as the weight was critical for the LM. I am still open to suggestions for the metabolic output of the astronauts inside the LM, here is a resource to help.

[link to www.engineeringtoolbox.com]

K

Your "calculations" are way off, and just to prove to you that I am not of your stripe and not trying to cook the books like I believe you are, I am going post my calculations as they appear in the unedited version of my own technical analysis of the thermal issues involved with Apollo. I will post the correct computations as K Hall, goes, correcting him as we go until he reaches a "conclusion"

[begin snip]
Human bodies generate heat because they are homiothermic or "warm blooded" animals. The rate at which heat is produced depends mainly on metabolic rate, and can vary greatly.

Metabolic rates vary mainly with muscular activity, but other things can affect it as well, like thermal extremes, excitation or disease.. Some percentage of energy generated by muscular activity will be used for actual work and the excess energy will be dissipated as heat.

Met units are a measure of heat output , and the average sedentary human radiates 1 met unit at rest/hr.
The met unit is a measure of heat energy in watts radiated per square meter.

1 met = 58.2 watts/meter2 = 18.5 Btu/hour/foot2

1 watt-hour = 3.423 Btu/h

1 Btu = amount of heat energy required to raise the temperature of 1 pound of water by 1 DEGREE F


The surface area of skin of an average adult is 1.8 meters squared ,or approximately 19.5 square feet .So the heat produced by the average person at rest per hour is 58.2 watts x 1.8 meters squared = 105 watts (18.5 btu/hr x 19.5 square feet = 356.37 = 356 Btu's per hour).

So heat output of a body at rest of average adult male size is 356 Btu's , or 105 watts. Astronauts are probably a bit over average sized for an adult male, so using the average is probably fine.

Metabolic Rates vary with activity!

Sleeping or laid down reclining produces @ 0.8 met, sitting 1 met, standing 1.2 met Light activity 1.8 met and
Medium activity while standing is 2.0 met and high activity 3.0 met

I think we can assume astronauts in full gear with the normal excitation factor that would be expected, standing most of the time and carrying out moderately strenuous activities would be between 2.5 and 3 met and during periods of rest, 1 met.So lets go with 2.5 met while at work and 1 met while attempting to rest in what would undoubtedly be emotionally exciting circumstances would be around 1 met
-> Eva : 2.5 met X 22hrs X 2meters squared x 58.2 watts= 64020 watt/hrs or 23047200 joules or 23.05 mj
-> Sleep/rest: 1met X 24 hrs X 2 meters squared X 58.2 watts= 10057320 joules or 10.05 mj
--> Sedentary/moderate/low activity: 1.5met X 28 hrs X 2 meters squared X 58.2 watts =17539200 joules or 17.54mj
So the total heat energy produced by the astronauts during the entire Apollo 17 mission, which was the longest, was 51,000,000joules or 51mj

In my next post I will compute the heat energy produced by the electronics using accurate approximations of solid state efficiency coefficients and the power consumption of the LEMs electronics. Then we need to determine whether or not the Lem actually had a sublimation system or a heat exchanger. According to the blueprints coolant from the electronics cold plates was circulated through a heat exchanger.
I'm not sure K Hall can actually prove there was a sublimation system, and as he is already discovering, values seem to morph over time and between NASA documents making it very difficult to pin anything down to an exact number. For instance the amount of water available seems to be a fluid value, dependent on which NASA document one is reading, and to my knowledge no mention of a sublimation system aboard the LEM or CM/SM DID NOT exist before 2005.

BTW, the only reason your numbers are different than mine is because you clearly DO NOT know how to work out a simple calculation and how to go about it,which is ironic considering your status as a self proclaimed expert. You can remove my posts if you want to, but it's not going to change the fact that you're wrong. As you will see, I have Apollo soundly debunked, and I used pure science and logic to do it.

I need to mention that the values listed above were for each Lunar landing astronaut. The total heat radiated by both astronauts would be approximately double the above value in total, for a grand total of 102,000,000 joules, or 102 mj. While it might not appear K Hall's values are *that* much different than my own, what is obvious is that his "equations" are not in any logical format and the units are not clear. To be honest, I can't see exactly what he is doing, as is the case with all of his computations.

I personally believe that the only values we need to actually consider as far as water consumption is concerned are those which include times astronauts spent in their suits, because to be perfectly clear there is a lot of evidence indicating a simple radiator was used to cool the LEMS electronics and to remove the heat the astronauts produced. This heat sink/radiator was located on the rear of the ascent stage beneath what appears to be cardboard in photographs{the side opposite the hatch facing the Sun] I have a statement from Jay Windley claiming this, and the blue prints from Grumman confirm it. I thought this arrangement to be illogical, but it's obvious whatever cooling system had to be located there because there is no other place to put it. Blueprints clearly show a system of tubing and plates closely resembling a radiator.

Nope, I just accidentally doubled the EVA number by counting the astronauts twice.

The numbers are

using the EVA estimate we have a total heat production of -> 2 * 250W * 22 hours = 39.6 MJ
awake in the LM -> 2 * 126W * 28 hours = 25.4 MJ
sleeping -> 2 * 86W * 24 hours = 14.8 MJ

Giving a total metabolic heat output of 79.8 MJ

Put together with the possible total heat output of the electrical systems
277 + 79.8 = 356.8 MJ

K

So you made a mistake? A critical mistake than in a life or death situation like this would be untenable?

Should I crow like you did about the irrelevant cube insolation problem? Should I put ALL of your mistakes on a list? At any rate, you so as you choose, but remember, actions have consequences and bad actions have bad consequences.



What you do is not my style. If you want to continue to ban me and denigrate me, by all means continue. Our relative honesty and competence is obvious TO YOU, and that it all that really matters to me. I already know Apollo was a hoax, and I proved it with pure science, not bullshit.
-----------------------------------------------------





The solid state electronics convert approximately 50-90% of the electricity consumed into heat energy depending on component, which is mostly removed by plates or heat sinks with coolant flowing through channels in them. This coolant is then circulated through what I believe to be a simple radiator, which in my opinion if properly oriented woudl work fine. the question is though, how well could it work where it was? if you were using sublimation, i can assure you freezing of water in that location would be a hell of a trick. A sublimation cooling system is dependent on keeping the porous plate below 0C. Heat input to it is of course form the coolant and from the sun itself as well as the lunar surface. A sublimation system on the lunar surface would be unreliable. You're assuming a 100% efficiency in calculating the amount of heat every gallon of water could remove, which of course is unrealistic.

Threads on GLP are not life or death situations.


You definitely should, if I had insisted I was right for a week without checking over my numbers again and calling you every name under the Sun while I waited.


You can if you want.


If you could behave like a reasonable person you wouldn't be banned. Anyway I thought you said you were done with this thread?


Pretty much the only energy from the batteries that doesn't end up as heat inside the LM is the few watts of power that leaves the LM as radio transmission.


Just from the coolant, the Sun does not shine onto the sublimator , it is inside the LM and vents through the small vent 419 on the diagram.


We have steam exit temperatures for the sublimator and they look good. Sublimators are much more reliable than you think. A couple of the problems recently on the ISS that were originally though to be sublimators were from, a leaking drinks bottle, coolant loop and once from turning on the circulation pump too soon. The sublimators themselves don't break that easily.

K

This is not true. some of the energy is used to create mechanical motion, as with fans and pumps and this represents a fairly large percentage of the electrical energy consumed. A radio transmitter is about 20% efficient in transmit mode depending on several factors that are variable, for every watt-hour it transmits it produces 5 watt hours in heat. An electric motor can be very efficient depending on how far you want to go in trying to make it so, but the motors used on Apollo were essentially identical to what you would see in an automobile, using standard designs like carbon brushes and copper wound amateurs , and peak out at about 50% efficiency, that is for every watt-hour they used to create mechanical energy, they produce a watt hour of heat. Normal incandescent lights are about 15% efficient, but the light they produce is of course absorbed and converted to heat, so you can say an incandescent light is totally inefficient. every watt hour consumed is a watt-hour of heat produced. A radio in receive mode uses less than 5% of it's power consumption to produce actual mechanical sound energy in the speakers, the rest is radiated as heat. As you can see every component has a different percentage of electrical energy converted to heat, so the computations are very complex. It is probably reasonable to assume about ten percent of the electrical energy consumed was used to create mechanical motion, like with fans ,pumps and speakers, , and the rest emitted as heat. There were several transceivers involved, and their efficiency would average 10%.

But you can't just assume the batteries were completely discharged. It is unlikely they were allowed to drain past 50% capacity because voltage drops off, and dead batteries would be , well, let's just say a bad situation all around.

Again, we are left with a variable that is impossible to pin down exactly, power consumption woudl be variable as would relative efficiency.

If i were you I would assume 50% of the capacity of the batteries was drained and 90% emitted as heat inside the LEM as heat energy, so say 45% of the batteries capacity was heat the LEM had to shed.
The electronics were mostly contained within the same compartment as the astronauts, which has always confused me as to why.

.

I have not seen your diagram, but I have seen the original blueprints, which I have managed to scarf from where I would rather not say at this "juncture" in our "relationship", let's just say there were people involved who were extremely 'nostalgic" about the parts of the project they worked on.
According to these blueprints and several diagrams I have seen which are on the internet, the LEM did not use a sublimation cooling system, it used a large radiator aft of the exit hatch, which in the blueprint is completely exposed, but in photographs appears to be covered in lightweight materials like cardboard. The sublimation plate could not function if actually inside the LEM itself, it needs to be in a vacuum, so I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "inside the LEM", but I assure you this cannot be true.





We have steam exit temperatures for the sublimator and they look good. Sublimators are much more reliable than you think. A couple of the problems recently on the ISS that were originally though to be sublimators were from, a leaking drinks bottle, coolant loop and once from turning on the circulation pump too soon. The sublimators themselves don't break that easily.

K

The problem is the delicate balance. Too cold, and water can't flow through the porous plate, and two hot, it can't freeze and would just vaporize without freezing onto the surface of the porous plate.

I have not seen your diagram, but I have seen the original blueprints, which I have managed to scarf from where I would rather not say at this "juncture" in our "relationship", let's just say there were people involved who were extremely 'nostalgic" about the parts of the project they worked on.
According to these blueprints and several diagrams I have seen which are on the internet, the LEM did not use a sublimation cooling system, it used a large radiator aft of the exit hatch, which in the blueprint is completely exposed, but in photographs appears to be covered in lightweight materials like cardboard. The sublimation plate could not function if actually inside the LEM itself, it needs to be in a vacuum, so I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "inside the LEM", but I assure you this cannot be true.





The problem is the delicate balance. Too cold, and water can't flow through the porous plate, and two hot, it can't freeze and would just vaporize without freezing onto the surface of the porous plate.

**I managed to botch the quotations again somehow

The actual film itself seems to be good to over 110C, probbaly higher.

The problem is this film is not just a piece of plastic, it's a piece of plastic with chemical compounds fixed into place by a gelatin base material, these compounds and gelatin being exposed to a vacuum.

It is sad that so much information was either ignored or deleted here because what has been proved is that it is unlikely film would have survived in anything nearing a completely undamaged state. There were three main factors, heat, vacuum and radiation.

The effects of a vacuum on chemicals is a much lower vaporization temperature, and I have presented information that proves the gelatin base is liquified at temperatures of as low as 45C. This is why professional photographers carefully control the temperature of film.

What this means is even if the chemicals didn't vaporize(which they likely would to some degree), the gelatin base would liquify, distorting any image contained in the photochemical based image recorded when the shutter was open. When film was wound the gelatin would "squash" between it's surface and the back of the film wound over it.
If you want to see what it really looks like when someone tries to take a photograph in space in a vacuum, look at some of the Russian spacewalk photography. You CAN take photographs, but the quality is so piss poor it is nearly pointless to.

given that there is dissension within the anglo-sphere (US, UK), perhaps leave it up to an independent third party with experience in this area: Russian? :D That way, humanity can be served, for when the ruskies find out the truth, they can on-lend their expertise to the chinese- the ones who will truly get there first LOL.

it's obvious the US didn't get there. they weren't to know during the 60s that technology would develop as it has, where people can know sit around nit-picking the technical aspects of the hardware in a way the original progam was not designed to be analysed. think of it this way: commit a murder in 1969. but by 1999 DNA analysis is sophisticated enough to analyse the samples left at the crime, a development that cooks your goose (fried-astronaut pun unintentional :p ). what did good ol' donald Rumsfeld call this? the unknown unknowns. it's fitting that don's wisdom comes into this b/c he was the one (wasn't he?) who appeared in that curiously realistic french mockumentary mocking moon-landing mock-ups. wow! how many m's can one fit into a sentence! haha.

do you foresee something like this happening: the USA will claim alien contact, which helped them land on the moon- using covert technology that they didn't want to reveal at the time to keep a technological edge over their cold war competitors. thus, what see see in the public domain relating to moon landings is hardware obviously incapable of the tasks it was purportedly designed for. this provides the US with a great outlet. they can then stop spendig money on disinfo regarding the technical hardware- leaving more funds to correct the photographs, for it is the photographs which are a real problem, for if others land on the moon and their photographs are markedly different to the US ones, then the US is cooked. but, the US could claim their 'alien' technology made it such that their photographs were just different back then ROFLMAO! i'm amazed as the resourcefulness of this alien hypothesis; it is exhaustive. it reminds me of another theory-of-everything that is generously and enthusiastically thrown around in the US: religion. i think NASA has their answers right here :)

I grabbed this response to a person who had posted a thread exploring the thermal issues involved with the LEM. This is Jay Windley, a man who is known to be abusive ,condescending, and confrontational. Typically ,when confronted with questions he can't answer, his tactic is to attack on a personal level, insulting the individual who is asking the embarrassing questions. Since Windley routinely insists on opponents being banned when he is outmaneuvered and exposed as a liar, i decided to post a link to a thread where a very polite individual was systematically chastised and abused simply for asking a question, a question which was never answered. NASA must be aware of this mans activities, after all he represents them on globally televised programs. Of course this individual was banned when he exposed Windley as a poser and a liar. I am going to respond to a post he made there, here on this forum and see what happens.



This is incorrect. All materials DO obey Kirchoffs law of thermal radiation, when we discuss "laws" in physics we are referring to criteria WHICH ALWAYS APPLY, on every scale and every situation! Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation refers to frequency/wavelength/energy level-specific electromagnetic radiation emissivity and absorptivity by a body in "thermodynamic equilibrium", including radiative exchange.

An object at any temperature radiates electromagnetic energy, regardless of temperature of the surrounding media. A so called perfect black body in thermal equilibrium absorbs all electromagnetic energy that strikes it, and radiates thermal radiation according to a distinct law of radiative emissivity power for a given temperature , universal for all perfect black bodies. Kirchhoff's law says basically that an object made of any material, emitting and absorbing electromagnetic radiation at every wavelength in thermal or thermodynamic equilibrium, the ratio of its emissivity power to its coefficient of absorption is equal according to a more or less universal function of a given radiation wavelength and body temperature.

Kirchhoff's law states that for any body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is always equal to the absorptivity.

Emissivity cannot exceed a ratio of 1/1 with absorptivity, and it is obviously not possible to thermally radiate more energy than a perfect black body in thermal equilibrium.

A good "absorber" of electromagnetic thermal radiation is an equally good emitter. A material which has a low absorptivity that is good reflector must have a poor emissivity that is directly proportional, precisely, to it's absorptivity.







This is not physically possible and violates the second law of thermodynamics as well as Kirchoffs law of thermal radiation.





Here Windley uses two terms THAT DO NOT EXIST, "absorptance" and "emittance". While this may seem to be nit picking, it is generally indicative of ignorance.The proper terms are of course "emissivity" and "absorptivity", and it is highly unlikely a person actually trained in physics or even a physics student of average abilities would make these kinds of errors in nomenclature.

Yes, absorptivity and emissivity DO vary by wavelength, but this is irrelevant and you cannot have a majic paint which violates the basic premise of Kirchoffs law and the second law of thermodynamics. You CAN reflect visible light while allowing thermal radiation to pass outward , but "everything equals out" because emissivity is as I have repeatedly pointed out is specifically dependent on and precisely equal to absorptivity at thermal equilibrium at any wavelength. If you are allowing heat to radiate efficiently, you are allowing it to be absorbed equally efficiently. What this translates into is regardless of what color you paint an object and with what, the effects it has on absorption of heat will have an equal effect on emission of heat. Again, as I pointed out earlier with little success in getting my point across, if you paint an object with paint that reflects visible light, it will also inhibit the radiative process. With aluminum , this is already very poor. What this translates into is high thermal equilibrium temperatures.To put it into the most simplistic of terms possible, a piece of aluminum painted white or silver will get almost equally as hot as piece of bare aluminum, unpolished which is exposed to the same enviroment. The best color to paint something that is expected to get hot by producing excessive heat is of curse black, "no color" emits heat better and this is why high performance exhausts and cylinder heads for air cooled engines are always painted black. What it all boils down to is that if you pain an object with reflective paint, you inhibit emissivity.







Here we see what I can best describe as an oxymoronic statement. He's basically saying his majic paint has a high emissivity in the IR spectrum while at the same time it must have a low absorptivity in the IR band. This is impossible and violates Kirchoffs law (and common sense).





"Emission" is not a law, nor a "fourth power law". I don't have any idea exactly what he's trying to say. My guess is, neither does he. He seems to be saying black paint will produce a higher equilibrium temperature because it's emissivity is lower than it's absorptivity, again this is not possible. Black pain will produce a higher equilibrium temperature only because it does not reflect wavelengths that when absorbed produce heat. Obviously, the equilibrium temperature is unlikely to be high enough to produce light in the visible spectrum, so the unreflected light must be radiated in IR frequencies.
So the question seems to be, can a surface exist that reflects light and allows thermal radiation to pass efficiently? Sure it can. But unfortunately it will also be an equally good absorber of heat. The total energy in is decreased by reflecting the short wavelength spectrum and allowing the long wavelengths to pass efficiently, and this is how thermal control paint actually works.


ALL electromagnetic radiation produces thermal energy upon absorption. If an object is around 300k, it can radiate this absorbed energy ONLY as a long wavelength IR, but I assure you the total "in" will be equal to the total "out" in thermal equilibrium, and even in the best possible scenario in a vacuum in unabated sunlight, even a highly reflective object which is made of aluminum will have a high equilibrium temperature. Aluminum itself is a poor emitter or radiator, and no matter what color you paint it it's going to get hot. If you doubt this, do some simple experiments. Cut a sheet of aluminum into similar sized squares and paint one flat black, polish another, and paint another white. While the white will be "coolest", it will still reach an uncomfortable temperature at direct angles of incidence. It will surprise you to see the brightly polished and "highly reflective" aluminum gets EXTREMELY HOT compared to the white, and the black will be moderately cooler than the polished.

The easy and obvious solution to the thermal problems that would be expected on the moon and in cislunar space was not employed, which is what clued me that the problems were never actually attempted to be solved. The simple solution of course is doing the same thing we do here on Earth to be comfortable in the Sun, we get in the shade. Is your car more comfortable when you park it under a tree, or leave it in the direct sunlight?

The fact that the LEM was not shaded by a sheet of reflective plastic 10ft X 10ft that would have weighed less than a half a pound and could have been deployed in a matter of a few minutes PROVES to me that no competent engineers were involved in the process and the problems were not approached logically, which translates into they never were solved logically, or at all.













OVERALL EMISSIVITY TO ABSORPTIVITY IS ALWAYS EQUAL IN EQUILIBRIUM. Aluminum is about the worst choice, and painting it can only accomplish so much.




What he SEEMS to be saying is heat is conducted to the surface of the Teflon paint from the underlying aluminum and radiated efficiently from the Teflon. The problem is, while Teflon has excellent conductivity, it has an even worst emissivity than Aluminum, so there is a basic flaw in that theory. he also claims IR passes through the Teflon and is radiated by the polished aluminum below it. Wrong. Polished aluminum absorbs IR INSANELY efficiently.

Jay Windley is not this stupid, but he's also not actually a competent engineer or a knowledgeably scientist. IN other words, he is lying through his teeth.


UV radiation in space is very high and UV is more energetic than visible or IR, meaning if it is being absorbed, it is being converted to thermal energy. What gives you a sunburn is ultraviolet light< and this is because it is the most energetic spectrum you are exposed to in appreciable levels. Visible and infared produces heat upon absorption, but infrared produces MORE HEAT AT LOWER FLUX LEVELS.


In a spacecraft application, it would be far better to allow the lower range of the spectrum to penetrate and concentrate on reflecting the higher frequencies. Again, Windley shows a lack of insight and an inability to think logically. He talks a good game, but his word salads don't make any real sense when critically analyzed. he is very good ay malign it seem like he knows what he is talking about to a laymen not educated or knowledgeable, as he did by implying polished aluminum would be highly reflective to thermal radiation. This is not true.
.



Anodized aluminum is actually just a plain aluminum alloy etched with acid. It's not going to have any better effect than polishing it would. Anodizing is simply a way of controlling oxidation while allowing for high visible spectrum reflectivity. Anodized aluminum is not a solution for thermal control in spacecraft, and NASA most certainly did not pioneer the process. IF YOU INCREASE EMISSIVITY, YOU INCREASE ABSORPTIVITY AND VICE VERSA. Don't let this shill con man bamboozle you.

Exactly, and this is EXACTLY why you see such tactics and we see being employed here, such as death threats, censorship, and paid propagandists slinging shit a ton a second. I've actually recorded at least 60 specific instances where information was altered when a specific aspect was debunked, like for instance the LEM now has a sublimation system and a shit ton more water than it did in 2004

If I were an astronaut in the 1970's there is no way I would agree to haul a dune buggy with me.

All that added weight of a stupid dune buggy would increase my odds for failure to such a degree that I would not take. I think most sane men would choose to hoof it once they got there.

If by chance I did make it all the way to the moon, I would have a camera trained on me to throw an object, a large rock I picked up or whatever, as far into the air for the cameras as I could, and watch it spin like crazy in 1/6 g. (that never happened)

I would also try to jump at least three feet in the air, knowing that I could probably get six to ten feet of air if I really tried, even with all that weight on my back. (that never happened)

I would want to prove I was there.

Guess these asstronauts didn't really care about proving anything, but wanted to take a wild ride in a dune buggy up on the moon. It was worth risking your life to tow the silly dune buggy up there and really "burn rubber." (Something any asshole could do in the sands of the Nevada desert)

Woo-hoo!