TRUMP SCIENCE ADVISOR DENIES APOLLO MOON LANDINGS EVER HAPPENED

Holy crap! A link to the same response doesn't make it less wrong. And to a thread where you get your backside kicked once again:-

I am moving an object no less than 8 inches away from the cloth. Since you claim the astronaut didn't strike the flag and post a video showing him taking a path more than a foot away from it, you are extremely dishonest to complain about it. My other video shows what happens when a very wide book approaches a very flimsy easily moved object!



The direction of the airflow is the experiment! In terms of the direction it makes no difference vertical or horizontal. A hanging cloth does not duplicate a balanced flag on a pole and support. Running in a room doesn't duplicate running outside as there are internal air currents and flat reflective surfaces.

Translation: My claim is hogwash and I will make up any complaint to avoid admitting it.

But you said trotting by your stupid cloth duplicates it! Jarrah White did a reasonable facsimile of the Apollo 15 flag and failed at every avenue.

Debating you is like speaking with a child. You keep reiterating the same claim without acknowledging the rebuttal. Having the flag straight on compared to angled away, increases the chance of it moving by a considerable amount. You playing dumb, or being dumb, doesn't make that "go away".

Translation: I know it billows but I daren't admit it because it closes the case.

The second one is caused by his elbow. It is moot because you are too entrenched to admit it. Jarrah White showed quite clearly that the astronaut's path took him into the edge of the flag. Your blatant dishonesty is appalling.

Translation: The Apollo 15 flag clearly does not billow but I cannot admit it because it closes the case.

It's hard to tell? Yet you claim to be able to see it in one pass whilst trotting by a cloth? Liar! It is easy to tell. Frame grabs show it doesn't move until he is level with it.

Translation: I know it doesn't move until he is level with it, but I daren't admit it!

He walks past a hanging cloth! My god but you are full of it.

Translation: No it doesn't move but I cannot admit it because it proves my cloth trotting hogwash is a lie.

So the four questions were all avoided and you once again avoid the major requests:-
Explain with citations how air moves something a few feet in front of it. Explain properly how the wind tunnel doesn't explain exactly how air movement works.

 

Sorry, but slow-motion shows that it had already started moving when he got close enough to touch it. This anomaly is simply too clear to obfuscate.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...obviously-in-a-studio.362999/#post-1064028972




More here.
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=993.15
(reply #21)

 

No it does not.

The only visible movement in slow mo or any other view is after he brushes it.

the only one obfuscating is you as you willfully ignore absolute evidence proving you wrong.

it was not in a studio the landings were real and you have presented no evidence to the contrary

 

You sure are right about that, Scott. It is frustrating trying to convince the inconvincible, but have some pity; 50 years of brainwashing doesn't go away overnight...

 

Frustrating? You two pathetic people are impossible to reach. You are both as clueless as each other, both use the same evasion and both of you dishonest.

Now once again troll, get rid of that "frustration" and try to convince me of your straw man , nothing to do with reality since the cooling system did not break down!

The points you are afraid to address:-

1.Tell us all how a supposedly 250F crumpled layer of Mylar or Kapton, emitting 0.05 of its heat, manages to bring up the layer next to it, to a similar temperature. Then add the required number of more layers as per the specification.
2.The LM had cooling and it did not fail, why is your straw man even relevant?
3. Point me to Al Bean's thermal engineering training in a 1955 degree.
4. How long exactly are you claiming it will be before the oxygen interior reaches maximum temperature? Provide figures,
5. How do unmanned satellites and other vehicles keep cool in space for years?

Cornered, awaiting answers to simple points, that for some reason you can't supply.

 

I think they know the missions were faked as well as the hoax-believers do.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-ever-happened.512081/page-16#post-1068040729

 

As opinions go yours is as useless aa they come. What you think carries no weight at all. In fact based on your evasion of the mission evidence and inability to respond to the rebuttal that tears you apart - it is clearly apparent that you know none of it was faked. After all, only very ignorant fools think such extensively documented events could be faked.

 

Scott is right about the flag. Don't you remember the long detailed discussion we had about this? You lost that debate too.

That debate started about here:

 

Too late to stop the jewish octopuss. They been at it since Nimrod and it is finally coming to fruition. Thanks Mom!

 

For some strange reason, the boasting troll is unable to answer some simple points.

It is impossible to lose a debate with the serial forum spammer, his ammunition consists of blanks!

 

I already addressed that question to some extent here:

First of all, the air would be sucked out of the mylar sandwich and the layers would be drawn together, so conduction would negate any insulating effect. This "sandwich" was not the high tech material used in satellites today. They just layed the mylar layers together realizing that some type of insulation was necessary to reduce the heating from the solar radiation. This insulation would not have worked well because of too much contacting area causing conduction of the energy.

 

Wow, so you think you know more about it than all the Grumman engineers who vacuum and heat tested these machines. You cowardly avoid the question and the other ones.

Cornered.

 

Just to prove that this "sandwich" nonsense is pure ignorance, here is a large excerpt from the Grumman LM documentation:-

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LM04_Lunar_Module_ppLV1-17.pdf

"After the LM is removed from the spacecraft Lunar Module adapter (SLA), it is exposed to micrometeoroids and solar radiation. To protect the LM astronauts and equipment from temperature extremes, active and passive thermal control is used. Active thermal control is provided by the ECS. Passive thermal control isolates the vehicle interior structure and equipment from its external environment to sustain acceptable temperature limits throughout the lunar mission. The entire ascent stage structure is enclosed within a thermal blanket and a micrometeoroid shield. Glass fiber standoffs, of low thermal conductivity, hold the blanket away from the structural skin. Aluminum frames around the propellant tanks prevent contact between tanks and blanket. The thermal blanket consists of multiple-layered (at least 25 layers) of aluminized sheet (mylar or H-film). Each layer is only 0.00015 inch thick and is coated on one side with a microinch thickness of aluminum. To make an even more effective insulation, the polymide sheets are hand crinkled before blanket fabrication. This crinkling provides a path for venting, and minimizes contact conductance between the layers. Structures with a high thermal conductivity, such as antenna supports and landing gear members, that pass through the thermal blanket also have thermal protection. Individual blanket layers are overlapped and sealed with a continuous strip of H-film tape. To join the multilayered sections, the blanket edges are secured with grommet type fasteners, then the seam is folded and sealed with a continuous strip of tape. Mylar sheets are used predominantly in those areas where temperatures do not exceed 300° F. In areas where higher temperatures are sustained, additional layers of H-film are added to the mylar sheets. H-film can withstand temperatures up to 1000° F, but, because it is a heavier material, it is used only where absolutely necessary. Certain areas of the ascent stage are subjected to temperatures as high
as 1800° F due to CSM and LM RCS plume impingement. These areas are thermally controlled by a sandwich material of thin nickel foil (0.0005 inch) interleaved with lnconel wire mesh and lnconel sheet. Finally, the highly reflective surfaces of the shades provided for the front and docking windows reduce heat absorption."



Now, answer the questions/statements properly. Or shall I post the vacuum/thermal testing results for you to squirm and bluster about?

1.Tell us all how a supposedly 250F crumpled layer of Mylar or Kapton, emitting 0.05 of its heat, manages to bring up the layer next to it, to a similar temperature. Then add the required number of more layers as per the specification.
2.The LM had cooling and it did not fail, why is your straw man even relevant?
3. Point me to Al Bean's thermal engineering training in a 1955 degree.
4. How long exactly are you claiming it will be before the oxygen interior reaches maximum temperature? Provide figures,
5. How do unmanned satellites and other vehicles keep cool in space for years?

Cornered.

 

Wow, do you think you know more than Alan Bean?

Alan Bean: If the lunar module is sitting in the sun, which it always is, then slowly but surely that temperature inside is going to go up to 250 degrees fahrenheit, and you aint going to make it, because you're going to cook long before that.

BTW - Where are you getting this 0.05 emissivity value? I am seeing 0.25 in the infrared for aluminized mylar/kapton - add some electrostatic lunar dust and the absorptivity could be as high as 0.50

 

Absolutely on that point. What a dreadful coward you are, so pathetic and predictable - you quoted one line from that large post! More avoidance and bluster to misdirect where your "sandwich" claim is shown to be hogwash.

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong? It takes seconds to find this information!

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/135901979190127N

Emissivity of aluminized mylar

Abstract
Commercially-available aluminized Mylar, 6 ωm thick, is a useful material for reducing heat losses by thermal radiation in some calorimeters, such as those constructed of graphite or A-150 plastic. The present experiment shows that clean aluminized layers have a thermal emissivity near 0.044.

http://sti.srs.gov/fulltext/ms2000921/ms2000921.html

Aluminized Mylar tarps offer the opportunity of providing a target with low emissivity (0.04).

 

It is not my "sandwich" claim - it is the claim of an engineer who actually worked on the project:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/6861117148

EDN Magazine interviewed Grumman’s Ross Bracco, one of 25 engineers who began development of the LEM, as it was first called:
“Still another major challenge Bracco and his team faced was the fact that the LEM was expected to land on the sunny side of the lunar surface, which meant an environmental temperature of 250°F and a shade temperature of -250°F. A low-cost technique was needed to insulate and protect the LEM's structural materials, including the landing feet. The team decided to use 12 to 18 layers of Kapton or aluminized Mylar material sandwiched together in a 70°F earth clean room and trap the air with a special sealing tape. This trapped air remained permanently at 70°F and was used in many areas of the LEM, including the cupped landing feet. The ‘foil’ around much of the LEM was made with 2- and 5-mil aluminized Kapton film.”

Your diagram looks like a "sandwich" to me...

 

I suppose it's to be expected. The poor troll finds the simple picture hard to decipher.

YOUR claim was that the layer referred to in the early development was the bulk of the Ascent stage insulation. Quite clearly from the diagram there are 3 outer merged micro-meteorite layers, an aluminum layer, followed by multiple layers of H-film BEFORE we even get to the multiple layers of aluminized Mylar! Then we have the highly reflective hull. In the meantime you dishonestly avoid responding to the emissivity point you blundered on.

If you continue to avoid answering those points, I will continue to repost them until you do!

1. Tell us all how a supposedly 250F crumpled layer of Mylar or Kapton, emitting 0.05 of its heat, manages to bring up the layer next to it, to a similar temperature. Then add the required number of more layers as per the specification. Update Explain how 4 single layers in, plus 1 multi layer outside of it, it even gets to that temperature.
2.The LM had cooling and it did not fail, why is your straw man even relevant?
3. Point me to Al Bean's thermal engineering training in a 1955 degree.
4. How long exactly are you claiming it will be before the oxygen interior reaches maximum temperature? Provide figures,
5. How do unmanned satellites and other vehicles keep cool in space for years?

Cornered.

 

In tests done in a 1885 report on materials for use in aluminized coatings for firefighters protective clothing performed by the Navy Clothing and Textile Research Facility, Natick, Massachusetts:
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a157056.pdf

Aluminized Kapton does not perform as highly as you suggest - in fact, in a direct measurement of reflectivity it tested at 64 % - not quite the 96 % you claim.

What is interesting about this report is that we see that as late as 1985 there is no mention of super high tech multi-layered materials. In fact, here is an excerpt from the report:

B. NASA COATED ALUMINIZED KAPTON
We tested samples of this material, which were supplied by National
Metallized Co., for abrasion and IR resistance. The coatings and the
underlying aluminum layer wore off the Kapton film in the specified
Wyzenbeck test. After the abrasion test they failed badly in the IR
test; that is, the test blotter ignited and burned.

THE NASA KAPTON WAS NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR A FIREFIGHTER SUIT!

I suppose you should expect that from a government contract low-bidder!

 

I think you are one of the most ignorant people I've come across. To start with, I have been consistently quoting you the emissivity factor of predominantly Mylar, which is the amount of RADIATED thermal energy. You then blunder in with a fire test with flames and 400F+ temperatures, conduction, convection and radiant heat. But most telling of all you fail to even read the report you cite!!

From that report:-
"A half-mil Kapton film was aluminized by Metallized Products with the request to produce as few "windows" as possible in the aluminized layer. This company was chosen because of its reputation and because its off-the-shelf samples showed a minimum of pinholes. Unfortunately, the roll furnished us had numerous pinholes which undoubtedly detracts from performance of the material."

What a crock!

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740012430.pdf

It wasn't supplied by NASA. NASA used Kapton supplied by the makers Dupont.

"B. NASA COATED ALUMINIZED KAPTON
We tested samples of this material, which were supplied by National Metallized Co., for abrasion and IR resistance. The coatings and the underlying aluminum layer wore off the Kapton film in the specified Wyzenbeck test. After the abrasion test they failed badly in the IR test; that is, the test blotter ignited and burned."

Your obfuscation and frantic blundering are all done to actually avoid the points raised. Also, these materials were many layers in on the LM, so identify exactly how they get covered in dust!

If you continue to avoid answering those points, I will continue to repost them until you do!

1. Tell us all how a supposedly 250F crumpled layer of Mylar or Kapton, emitting 0.05 of its heat, manages to bring up the layer next to it, to a similar temperature. Then add the required number of more layers as per the specification. Update Explain how 4 single layers in, plus 1 multi layer outside of it, it even gets to that temperature.
2.The LM had cooling and it did not fail, why is your straw man even relevant?
3. Point me to Al Bean's thermal engineering training in a 1955 degree.
4. How long exactly are you claiming it will be before the oxygen interior reaches maximum temperature? Provide figures,
5. How do unmanned satellites and other vehicles keep cool in space for years?

Cornered.

 

Here's a link to it.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-apollo-15-flag.438617/page-5#post-1065732533

 

You appalling spammer. You spend your sad free time posting duplicate post after duplicate post. The post you quoted already had a link to that thread.

Do something amazing, do something new!

Explain with citations how air moves something a few feet in front of it. Explain properly how the wind tunnel doesn't explain exactly how air movement works. Video yourself trotting by a flag.

Jarrah White already did it. His flag billowed, the Apollo 15 flag on the Moon did not. His stopped rapidly and nothing like the gentle oscillation from the one on the Moon. His flag moved only when he was level with it.

 

In science we have this thing called "the law of conservation of energy" - and this means that if you have any reflection (an emissivity of less than 1), then:

Qincoming = Qabsorbed + Qreflected​

Also, since what is absorbed must also be emitted (at equilibrium)

Qemitted = Qabsorbed = e'Qincoming where e'= emissivity (0-1)​

substituting into our first equation we have:

Qreflected = Qincoming - Qemitted​

So, 4 % emitted is the same as 96 % reflected

While we're at it, let's continue our discussion
the Stefan-Boltzmann law is:

Qemitted = e'sT^4​

and from previous we know that:

Qemitted = Qabsorbed = e'Qincoming = e'sT^4 so,
e'Qincoming = e'sT^4​

We can factor out the e' (emissivity) and we are left with:

Qincoming = sT^4​

Now, you have gone on and on in this thread about how I didn't factor in the emissivity into my Stefan-Boltzmann calculations - but as we can see - I didn't need to because the e' (emissivity) is not a factor at all!

 

What is it with you? Do you really have issues with reading simple statements?! Your whole post is just another straw man within a straw man. An irrelevant cut and paste. You understand none of it.

The emissivity is most certainly a factor, because the whole major issue is not how hot the outside gets, but how hot the oxygen in the cabin gets. Or are you so confused about your own stupid argument that you have forgotten.

The emissivity that needs factoring in is encapsulated in the point number1 in the list of points you keep running away from!

1. . Tell us all how a supposedly 250F crumpled layer of Mylar or Kapton, emitting 0.05 of its heat, manages to bring up the layer next to it, to a similar temperature. Then add the required number of more layers as per the specification.Update Explain how 4 single layers in, plus 1 multi layer outside of it, it even gets to that temperature.
2.The LM had cooling and it did not fail, why is your straw man even relevant?
3. Point me to Al Bean's thermal engineering training in a 1955 degree.
4. How long exactly are you claiming it will be before the oxygen interior reaches maximum temperature? Provide figures,
5. How do unmanned satellites and othervehicles keep cool in space for years?

Cornered.

 

What is all that gold colored stuff on the LM anyway?

 

It's only on the outside of the descent stage. The diagram a few posts vack shows where it is on the well insulated ascent stage. Well away from the Sun!

https://www.quora.com/Apollo-Progra...ge-on-the-lunar-module-It-looks-like-tin-foil