OFFICIAL NASA VIDEO ADMITS To NEVER SENDING PEOPLE TO THE MOON

IDW, I'm sure you took into account the fact that the shadowed side of the LM was "cold", and that there were fans available to circulate the air in the cabin? I recollect some astronaut comments about the cabin being cool during their rest periods on the surface.

I suspect the designers thought about this issue...like they thought about everything else.

Hells bells, just because they were given the go for the burn doesn't mean they immediately fired the engine....that just set them up to finish configuring for the burn, which they were now cleared for...it was a step by step process.

Wrong. There is no "cold side", there's no air on the moon. The shaded side would be in an approximate equilibrium with as much heat being absorbed as was being radiated.

You're ignorant, please do yourself a favor and let those who know what they're talking about speak.

The surface of the moon during the Apollo missions would have been close to 180F. In fact we have some NASA data to back this up, it's not really in question.

Now keep in mind, the angle of incidence was similar to what would be seen on Earth at around 9:30 - 10:30 AM local time.

Anything less than 45 degrees means a more problematic angle of incidence as it relates to the LEM, as with A-11. We know the two sides it presented to the Suns direct rays , and there is no reflective material involved, though there appears to be paper taped on to cover the area that contained the heat exchanger for the electronics. I believe this area would have been at least as hot as the surface of the moon, probbaly hotter. Why? Well,why wouldn't it be?



Since we can safely assume the angle of incidence was at least as "bad" as what the lunar surface was "experiencing", we can assume the input of energy per cm^2 would be similar (or greater) on the metallic LEM ascent stage than with the lunar surface itself. The aluminum structure of the ascent stage does not appear to have any significant amounts of reflective materials or paint.


The minerals of the lunar surface have a considerably greater ability to radiate heat than aluminum.

While I don't claim to be able to "calculate" an exact temperature the interior of the LEM would reach, I can safely estimate it would be AT LEAST as high as the lunar surface, and a very optimistic erring on the side of wishful thinking, maybe 120 -130 degrees F, at the very least.

There is no evidence any effective form of passive (or active) cooling was actually used on the upper stage, and while insulation could slow heat conduction from the outer layer of paper, the heat exchanger is located in that area covered by dark colored paper.


My conclusion is as follows:

Whoever thought this out did not take into consideration the possibility that it would eventually become known that there was no way to actually actively cool the LEM. They were operating under the notion that by the time we figured it out,it wouldn't matter. Like the radiation.

I'm telling you this, it's a lie. If you'd placed astronauts in that small volume of oxygen in that ascent stage in those conditions , they would not have survived it. The most workable solution would actually be an unpressurized cabin and using the suits inside the LEM. It is also beyond belief that a sun shield was not erected PREVENTING SUnlight from reaching the LEM ascent stage a few feet in front of it... a few pounds of weight and a major problem could have been solved.

That's how I would have done it, anyway, but then I'm not a NASA contractor.

"Over a point northeast of Australia, Ground Co ntrol gave them "go" for insertion into their translunar course. Re-firing the third stage engine increased velocity to roughly 24,200 mph "

Well, maybe the guy who wrote this dribble was a fuckin' Moran, it's certainly possible, but why write it this way? You're speculating and I am simply relating what is there. I doubt anyone who reads this would conclude anything other than the go ahead was given and the engines were fired NE of Australia

.

What would be heating the shadowed side of the LM, aside from mechanical conduction of the LM structure, and sunlight reflected from somewhat distant sunlit lunar surfaces?

Thermal radiation from the 180+ degree lunar surface, conduction of the artificial atmosphere inside, conduction from the top and sides. thermal radiation from equipment and astronauts. The sunlit side would be hot enough to cook on, and that heat energy would be conducted by both the "air" inside and the structure itself. .

Thermal radiation....how is this surface heat getting into the LM?

The entire ascent stage was not pressurized, a good part of it wasn't...requiring only conduction by the (minimal)structure to transfer the heat to the crew cabin.

Structural isolation...

"Sir" Patrick Moore?

He siad you were full of shit too?



You're the batshit crazy scientifically illiterate "moon hoaxer", fuckwad.


You've made four statements about science and every one of them was completely incorrect/.

Thermal radiation....how is this surface heat getting into the LM?

[link to www.ehartwell.com]

You are a scientifically illiterate, delusional nutbag who hasn't provided one single piece of evidence to support your claims.

None. Nada. Zilch.

You don't even understand the accusations you are making.

You are beyond daft.

Meds, you need them.

...which shows that the pressurized areas of the LM were the crew stations, and a small area above the engine...

He can't answer that because he doesn't understand how a vacuum works.

It is certainly strange to think about these conditions. The vacuum will not transfer heat which is molecules interacting but it will transmit light, infrared being a type of light. The entire sunlit surface is being heated by infrared radiation and is then becoming an emitter of that radiation. So even those points seemingly in shadow are being irradiated by ir and therefore absorbing and heating up if they are not shielded from ir. I am sure this is what all the mylar and coverings was meant to somewhat accomplish. It really seems like you would need some "magnificent thing" to use sandy hook carver methodolgy but some kind of sun shield for the entire landing area.

Here are photos of the LEM "on the moon" showing orientation of crew cabin in relation incidence of sunlight:

A-12:
[link to www.apolloarchive.com]

A-14:
[link to www.astronautix.com]

A-15:
[link to en.wikipedia.org]

A-16:
[link to www.spacefacts.de]

A-17:
[link to www.ehartwell.com]

These photographs all show a pattern that was inherent in the flight plan, to land with the hatch in the "shade".

By carefully examining these photos it is possible to get a good feeling for how much of the surface of the ascent stage was exposed to direct sunlight, and how much of it was actually made of non reflective aluminum.

Actually the best solution would be to erect a small 10ft X 10ft sunshade between the Sun and the ascent stage of the LEM using two thin rods mounted to the LEM, anchor the other ends to the lunar surface, insulate the interior with Styrofoam or something similar and work from there.

It would only take a small amount of heat, like from the electronics to make it comfortable inside.

Actually the best solution would be to erect a small 10ft X 10ft sunshade between the Sun and the ascent stage of the LEM using two thin rods mounted to the LEM, anchor the other ends to the lunar surface, insulate the interior with Styrofoam or something similar and work from there.

It would only take a small amount of heat, like from the electronics to make it comfortable inside.

It's apparent that the majority of the crew cabin was shaded, the fuel tanks to the side were in unpressurized areas. The aft equipment bay was outside the pressure vessel. The structure of the crew cabin was isolated from the external skin for the most part. I'll look for a diagram of the pressure vessel, it's a lot smaller than the whole ascent stage.
The sun reflecting into/onto the cabin through the "front" might add some, along with structural heat transfer from the rear, but it wouldn't be much.
I really think you're picking at straws here...

With the size of those crew compartments I would think they would get pretty toasty with body heat.

Yeah, I think my main point is by bringing an extra 3 pounds of weight a major problem could be completely solved, and it wasn't done. which indicates to me there was no real attempt to and not much creative thinking in the process.

They had other things to worry about like how they would explain their probe rover tracks all around the "landing" sites. Um. "the space jeep is born. We'll just strap this sucker to the side and tell the rubes whatever. . rocks, that's it, they'll eat it up."

To me the moon buggies just seemed like overkill, like they went to far IMO. .

They also increased the odds of a serious accident or being stranded too far from the LEM to make it back, the logical method being to land near to geological features you wanted to explore and walk, not bringing a dune buggy along.

This is one of the things that really got me to thinking when I was a kid, it just seemed like to me some arrogant but not to particularly smart men were calling the shots because they were showing off.

It reminds me of the old redneck adage, bad things always happen right after someone says "hey, watch THIS!"

.