FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Moon Landing Hoax
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
je-demande



Joined: 26 Mar 2015
Posts: 157
Location: London

PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2017 3:57 pm    Post subject: Re: The heat of the moment... Reply with quote

ManAtTheWindow wrote:

Quite. A thing from school physics lessons that's always stuck with me - there's more heat in an cube than there is in the flame of a cigarette lighter.


Did you mean ice cube?


Ok while I'm attempting to enhance my awareness(imagining)of the subject matter I think its too easy to jump to conclusions but I feel my summary is.....

Whilst certain minor methods of cooling may occur....
objects will overheat in space sunlight beyond human tolerance because there is no convective cooling in a Vacuum.

_________________
Vaut mieux prévenir que guérir.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ManAtTheWindow



Joined: 29 Oct 2007
Posts: 216
Location: Inverness, Scotland

PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 6:29 pm    Post subject: Re: The heat of the moment... Reply with quote

je-demande wrote:
ManAtTheWindow wrote:

Quite. A thing from school physics lessons that's always stuck with me - there's more heat in an cube than there is in the flame of a cigarette lighter.


Did you mean ice cube?


Yeah, ice cube. Ha ha. Sorry. Embarassed

_________________
My real name is Gerry.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ManAtTheWindow



Joined: 29 Oct 2007
Posts: 216
Location: Inverness, Scotland

PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 8:58 pm    Post subject: Re: The heat of the moment... Reply with quote

je-demande wrote:

Ok while I'm attempting to enhance my awareness(imagining)of the subject matter I think its too easy to jump to conclusions but I feel my summary is.....

Whilst certain minor methods of cooling may occur....
objects will overheat in space sunlight beyond human tolerance because there is no convective cooling in a Vacuum.


Okay, I get that and to be honest it's something that I also struggled with for a long time before I felt I had a better understanding of it. The best way to resolve it would be to take the relevant numbers and do all the mathematical calculations. But I don't have the chops for that now without doing a lot of revision of school stuff from forty years ago! Laughing

I do however have a few friends who have doctorates in physics and I specifically discussed this kind of thing with one of them a few years ago. I was satisfied with the way he explained it to me and although I can't remember the details, the thrust of it was that laymen tend not to have a good working knowledge of the mechanics of energy transfer in a vacuum (true!); similarly, we struggle to appreciate the reality of the extreme conditions in space because they're so unlike what we experience on Earth (true again, I'd say); and that, when it comes to radiation in general, the average layman is hopelessly confused by myths and misunderstandings.

What it ultimately comes down to is that, yes, there certainly are problems involved with maintaining a comfortable environment within the space capsule or space suit but they're problems which have been addressed and solutions have been found. I tend to accept that there are some really clever, creative and highly competent people out there who can come up with things that are beyond me and if some of them spend years working on a specific problem, I'm inclined to think that they may well solve it.
I can't even fix my car or my laptop beyond some pretty basic problems so I have respect for those that can do it for me and I'm inclined to take the same attitude towards engineers who are way beyond the ability of my local garage mechanic.

The short version is that
(a) we're looking for an environment that's somewhere in the region of 5° to 25° Celsius, i.e. 278 to 298 Kelvin
(b) the sunlit side of the craft could potentially become as hot as 200°C (473K)
(c) the temperature of the space on the dark, unlit side is only about three or four degrees above absolute zero, i.e. 4K or minus 270°C.

So, whatever heat is generated on the bright side by the radiation from the sun gets conducted quickly around the whole shell and radiates away again on the dark side.
Now I may be missing something here but is there any reason that energy shouldn't radiate from the dark half into the vacuum with more or less the same efficiency as the energy arrives at the bright half through the vacuum? In both cases it's a relatively inefficient process (compared to convection and conduction) but the significant thing is that the (in)efficiency is much the same.
It seems to me that if the bright side is potentially up to about 200K above the survivable temperature range while the dark side is nearly 300K below it, the greater danger - and I think there are accounts which suggest this - would be freezing to death rather than frying. Unless there's a reason to believe that heat can't be radiated from a warmer body into a vacuum which is at nearly absolute zero ... but I'm not aware of one and there's plenty to indicate the opposite. (For example, the temperature on surface of the moon drops by hundreds of degrees when it passes from its daytime into night. That can only be by radiating.)

To me, the process seems like trying to fill a colander with water. The water (heat) is certainly present but it's moving through rather than accumulating.

_________________
My real name is Gerry.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Southpark Fan



Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Posts: 1359
Location: The Caribbean of Canada

PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 8:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The space shuttle goes up 200 miles.

The moon is 275 000miles away at it's farthest point. Their little Saturn V's never had enough fuel to get anywhere. Plus ya gotta get back right for that glorious press conference. So well over 540 000mile trip? Wha? Bullshit.

The moon is 1375 X farther away. Think how big a fuel supply you would need; thinking of the space shuttle solid fuel booster sizes. You would need fuel tanks the size of Mt Everest.

You can bend and twist physics anyway you want...point is the bus couldn't get ya there regardless.

6 µSv: Typical radiation from a dentist's X-ray

10 μSv: Average daily natural radiation

40 μSv: Radiation from flying from New York to Los Angeles

100 µSv: Radiation from a 10-hour flight across the North Atlantic

2,100 µSv: Annual radiation of a typical person in Europe

3,000 μSv: Radiation from a mammogram

3,600 μSv: Average annual radiation of a US citizen

50,000 μSv: Maximum allowable yearly occupational dose in the US

100,000 μSv: Lowest yearly dose linked to increased risk of cancer

2,000,000 μSv: Severe and potentially fatal

Temperatures on the moon are extreme, ranging from boiling hot to freezing cold depending on where the sun is shining. There is no significant atmosphere on the moon, so it cannot trap heat or insulate the surface.

The moon rotates on its axis in about 27 days. Daytime on one side of the moon lasts about 13 and a half days, followed by 13 and a half nights of darkness. When sunlight hits the moon's surface, the temperature can reach 253 degrees F (123 C). The "dark side of the moon" can have temperatures dipping to minus 243 F (minus 153 C). Death zone in minutes. Equipment would fail in minutes.


Manned Mars - baaahahahahha

But if you check out rocket prototypes for this bogus taxpayer money grab; they all have huge fuel tanks attached for SPACE flight. The same theory of fuel need exists for the fantasy trip to the moon. The space shuttle rocket/fuel supply is just to get to 200 miles up.

_________________
"Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend." - Bruce Lee
"Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth." - Buddha
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
je-demande



Joined: 26 Mar 2015
Posts: 157
Location: London

PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 2:31 pm    Post subject: Re: The heat of the moment... Reply with quote

ManAtTheWindow wrote:
je-demande wrote:

Ok while I'm attempting to enhance my awareness(imagining)of the subject matter I think its too easy to jump to conclusions but I feel my summary is.....

Whilst certain minor methods of cooling may occur....
objects will overheat in space sunlight beyond human tolerance because there is no convective cooling in a Vacuum.


Okay, I get that and to be honest it's something that I also struggled with for a long time before I felt I had a better understanding of it. The best way to resolve it would be to take the relevant numbers and do all the mathematical calculations. But I don't have the chops for that now without doing a lot of revision of school stuff from forty years ago! Laughing

I do however have a few friends who have doctorates in physics and I specifically discussed this kind of thing with one of them a few years ago. I was satisfied with the way he explained it to me and although I can't remember the details, the thrust of it was that laymen tend not to have a good working knowledge of the mechanics of energy transfer in a vacuum (true!); similarly, we struggle to appreciate the reality of the extreme conditions in space because they're so unlike what we experience on Earth (true again, I'd say); and that, when it comes to radiation in general, the average layman is hopelessly confused by myths and misunderstandings.

What it ultimately comes down to is that, yes, there certainly are problems involved with maintaining a comfortable environment within the space capsule or space suit but they're problems which have been addressed and solutions have been found. I tend to accept that there are some really clever, creative and highly competent people out there who can come up with things that are beyond me and if some of them spend years working on a specific problem, I'm inclined to think that they may well solve it.
I can't even fix my car or my laptop beyond some pretty basic problems so I have respect for those that can do it for me and I'm inclined to take the same attitude towards engineers who are way beyond the ability of my local garage mechanic.

The short version is that
(a) we're looking for an environment that's somewhere in the region of 5° to 25° Celsius, i.e. 278 to 298 Kelvin
(b) the sunlit side of the craft could potentially become as hot as 200°C (473K)
(c) the temperature of the space on the dark, unlit side is only about three or four degrees above absolute zero, i.e. 4K or minus 270°C.

So, whatever heat is generated on the bright side by the radiation from the sun gets conducted quickly around the whole shell and radiates away again on the dark side.
Now I may be missing something here but is there any reason that energy shouldn't radiate from the dark half into the vacuum with more or less the same efficiency as the energy arrives at the bright half through the vacuum? In both cases it's a relatively inefficient process (compared to convection and conduction) but the significant thing is that the (in)efficiency is much the same.
It seems to me that if the bright side is potentially up to about 200K above the survivable temperature range while the dark side is nearly 300K below it, the greater danger - and I think there are accounts which suggest this - would be freezing to death rather than frying. Unless there's a reason to believe that heat can't be radiated from a warmer body into a vacuum which is at nearly absolute zero ... but I'm not aware of one and there's plenty to indicate the opposite. (For example, the temperature on surface of the moon drops by hundreds of degrees when it passes from its daytime into night. That can only be by radiating.)

To me, the process seems like trying to fill a colander with water. The water (heat) is certainly present but it's moving through rather than accumulating.

Seems you're conflating. I am talking specifically about a tin can in the sunlight in space without convective heatloss.

_________________
Vaut mieux prévenir que guérir.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
je-demande



Joined: 26 Mar 2015
Posts: 157
Location: London

PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 2:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Southpark Fan wrote:
The space shuttle goes up 200 miles.

The moon is 275 000miles away at it's farthest point. Their little Saturn V's never had enough fuel to get anywhere. Plus ya gotta get back right for that glorious press conference. So well over 540 000mile trip? Wha? Bullshit.

The moon is 1375 X farther away. Think how big a fuel supply you would need; thinking of the space shuttle solid fuel booster sizes. You would need fuel tanks the size of Mt Everest.

You can bend and twist physics anyway you want...point is the bus couldn't get ya there regardless.

6 µSv: Typical radiation from a dentist's X-ray

10 μSv: Average daily natural radiation

40 μSv: Radiation from flying from New York to Los Angeles

100 µSv: Radiation from a 10-hour flight across the North Atlantic

2,100 µSv: Annual radiation of a typical person in Europe

3,000 μSv: Radiation from a mammogram

3,600 μSv: Average annual radiation of a US citizen

50,000 μSv: Maximum allowable yearly occupational dose in the US

100,000 μSv: Lowest yearly dose linked to increased risk of cancer

2,000,000 μSv: Severe and potentially fatal

Temperatures on the moon are extreme, ranging from boiling hot to freezing cold depending on where the sun is shining. There is no significant atmosphere on the moon, so it cannot trap heat or insulate the surface.

The moon rotates on its axis in about 27 days. Daytime on one side of the moon lasts about 13 and a half days, followed by 13 and a half nights of darkness. When sunlight hits the moon's surface, the temperature can reach 253 degrees F (123 C). The "dark side of the moon" can have temperatures dipping to minus 243 F (minus 153 C). Death zone in minutes. Equipment would fail in minutes.


Manned Mars - baaahahahahha

But if you check out rocket prototypes for this bogus taxpayer money grab; they all have huge fuel tanks attached for SPACE flight. The same theory of fuel need exists for the fantasy trip to the moon. The space shuttle rocket/fuel supply is just to get to 200 miles up.


I agree. But I think the Heat is the first hurdle they couldn't get over.

I think during the Gemini Missions they were testing Animals higher and Higher and after a certain point they all came back dead(cooked)

then there was a news blackout........ then after a few big meetings there was a change of plan, which is probably why I find the heat interesting.

Beat before they started really....

_________________
Vaut mieux prévenir que guérir.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ManAtTheWindow



Joined: 29 Oct 2007
Posts: 216
Location: Inverness, Scotland

PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2017 8:22 pm    Post subject: Re: The heat of the moment... Reply with quote

je-demande wrote:
ManAtTheWindow wrote:
je-demande wrote:

Ok while I'm attempting to enhance my awareness(imagining)of the subject matter I think its too easy to jump to conclusions but I feel my summary is.....

Whilst certain minor methods of cooling may occur....
objects will overheat in space sunlight beyond human tolerance because there is no convective cooling in a Vacuum.


Okay, I get that and to be honest it's something that I also struggled with for a long time before I felt I had a better understanding of it. The best way to resolve it would be to take the relevant numbers and do all the mathematical calculations. But I don't have the chops for that now without doing a lot of revision of school stuff from forty years ago! Laughing

I do however have a few friends who have doctorates in physics and I specifically discussed this kind of thing with one of them a few years ago. I was satisfied with the way he explained it to me and although I can't remember the details, the thrust of it was that laymen tend not to have a good working knowledge of the mechanics of energy transfer in a vacuum (true!); similarly, we struggle to appreciate the reality of the extreme conditions in space because they're so unlike what we experience on Earth (true again, I'd say); and that, when it comes to radiation in general, the average layman is hopelessly confused by myths and misunderstandings.

What it ultimately comes down to is that, yes, there certainly are problems involved with maintaining a comfortable environment within the space capsule or space suit but they're problems which have been addressed and solutions have been found. I tend to accept that there are some really clever, creative and highly competent people out there who can come up with things that are beyond me and if some of them spend years working on a specific problem, I'm inclined to think that they may well solve it.
I can't even fix my car or my laptop beyond some pretty basic problems so I have respect for those that can do it for me and I'm inclined to take the same attitude towards engineers who are way beyond the ability of my local garage mechanic.

The short version is that
(a) we're looking for an environment that's somewhere in the region of 5° to 25° Celsius, i.e. 278 to 298 Kelvin
(b) the sunlit side of the craft could potentially become as hot as 200°C (473K)
(c) the temperature of the space on the dark, unlit side is only about three or four degrees above absolute zero, i.e. 4K or minus 270°C.

So, whatever heat is generated on the bright side by the radiation from the sun gets conducted quickly around the whole shell and radiates away again on the dark side.
Now I may be missing something here but is there any reason that energy shouldn't radiate from the dark half into the vacuum with more or less the same efficiency as the energy arrives at the bright half through the vacuum? In both cases it's a relatively inefficient process (compared to convection and conduction) but the significant thing is that the (in)efficiency is much the same.
It seems to me that if the bright side is potentially up to about 200K above the survivable temperature range while the dark side is nearly 300K below it, the greater danger - and I think there are accounts which suggest this - would be freezing to death rather than frying. Unless there's a reason to believe that heat can't be radiated from a warmer body into a vacuum which is at nearly absolute zero ... but I'm not aware of one and there's plenty to indicate the opposite. (For example, the temperature on surface of the moon drops by hundreds of degrees when it passes from its daytime into night. That can only be by radiating.)

To me, the process seems like trying to fill a colander with water. The water (heat) is certainly present but it's moving through rather than accumulating.

Seems you're conflating. I am talking specifically about a tin can in the sunlight in space without convective heatloss.


What am I supposedly conflating? I've specifically addressed your points and you've completely ignored everything that doesn't fit with your preconceptions.
It very much appears to me now that you've started with a conclusion and you're determined not to change it, regardless of what anyone says.

You've asserted that heat has "nowhere to go" in a vacuum. I'll put the ball back into your court now.
Answer this - how does the heat get out of the sun?
How does the heat travel through a vacuum to arrive at a spaceship 95,000,000 miles away?

After you've answered those, you can deal with these:
Why stop at 200 degrees? If the spaceship is constantly being exposed to a heat source and the heat has "nowhere to go", why doesn't the temperature keep going up and up and up?
For that matter, why hasn't the Moon melted then vapourised? The sun has been shining on it for billions of years and the heat has "nowhere to go" (according to you) "without convective heatloss".
Why is the dark side of the moon four hundred degrees colder today than it was a fortnight ago? Where did the heat go?

You don't even need to know anything about physics or thermodynamics to understand this. It's straightforward logic.
Over to you.

_________________
My real name is Gerry.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ManAtTheWindow



Joined: 29 Oct 2007
Posts: 216
Location: Inverness, Scotland

PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2017 8:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

je-demande wrote:
Heat....... They say its 250 in the Sun and minus similar in the Shade as if those two equal themselves out.

OK ...... Problem is Space is like a massive thermos flask thats right "a huge vacuum" So if we have a piece of metal in space it almost imediately goes to 250 degrees with no way of cooling down because it is in a Vacuum.. ...

dare I say game over je m' demande?


This bit which I've highlighted in bold simply isn't true, by the way.
If you can prove that it is true, do bring forward the evidence.

_________________
My real name is Gerry.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
je-demande



Joined: 26 Mar 2015
Posts: 157
Location: London

PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 3:30 am    Post subject: Re: The heat of the moment... Reply with quote

ManAtTheWindow wrote:

You've asserted that heat has "nowhere to go" in a vacuum. I'll put the ball back into your court now.
Answer this - how does the heat get out of the sun?
How does the heat travel through a vacuum to arrive at a spaceship 95,000,000 miles away?


The Sun is a massive source of heat/energy source at the centre of our solar system and the reason we exist. It transfers energy etc to other objects in our solar system via Sunlight and various waves.

My point is there is no Ball of Ice sending off negative energy in our solar system.

ManAtTheWindow wrote:

Why stop at 200 degrees? If the spaceship is constantly being exposed to a heat source and the heat has "nowhere to go", why doesn't the temperature keep going up and up and up?


Why stop at Waterloo - Because I prefer modern history its easier understood.

ManAtTheWindow wrote:

For that matter, why hasn't the Moon melted then vapourised? The sun has been shining on it for billions of years and the heat has "nowhere to go" (according to you) "without convective heatloss".


We are talking about a Box measured in Kilograms yet you now want to include the moon which is about 7.35x10^22 kg.


ManAtTheWindow wrote:

You don't even need to know anything about physics or thermodynamics to understand this. It's straightforward logic.
Over to you.


"Understand what"?

There is a massive heat source we call the sun giving objects in space heat without any convective heat loss comparable to the same object in the sunshine on Earth. Of cource the object will radiate heat in space but not at a rate any where near the rate of convective heatloss it would experience on Earth in an atmosphere.

_________________
Vaut mieux prévenir que guérir.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Peter



Joined: 26 Jun 2007
Posts: 2382
Location: The Canadian shield

PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 2:07 pm    Post subject: Sunglasses at night? Reply with quote

All the satellites (gps, direcTV, spy etc.) must also require YUGE radiators or shades perhaps?
_________________
The grand design, reflected in the face of Chaos.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
ManAtTheWindow



Joined: 29 Oct 2007
Posts: 216
Location: Inverness, Scotland

PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 9:18 pm    Post subject: Re: The heat of the moment... Reply with quote

The Sun is a massive source of heat/energy source at the centre of our solar system and the reason we exist.
True but not really relevant.

It transfers energy etc to other objects in our solar system via Sunlight and various waves.
Correct. It transmits electromagnetic energy through a vacuum. So we've established that energy can travel through a vacuum. Which means that a hot body (i.e., a body within which there's an appreciable amount of kinetic energy at the molecular level) can radiate energy into a vacuum. Without convection. So there's somewhere for the kinetic energy (heat) to go after all.

My point is there is no Ball of Ice sending off negative energy in our solar system.
No one has claimed otherwise.


Why stop at Waterloo - Because I prefer modern history its easier understood.
That is a complete non sequitur. You've simply failed - or refused - to answer the question.


We are talking about a Box measured in Kilograms yet you now want to include the moon which is about 7.35x10^22 kg.
Because the principle is exactly the same.
Both are bodies in space. Both receive energy from the sun on their bright side. Both radiate energy (lose heat) from their dark side. Into a vacuum. Without convection.
The only material difference between them is that the surface of the spaceship conducts heat quickly from its bright side to its dark side where it radiates away again. Without convection.
The moon's surface doesn't conduct efficiently so there is a gradual build-up of energy (heat) on the surface during the moon's day followed by a huge loss of energy (heat) - without convection - at night. The energy radiates away from the surface into the vacuum of space. Without convection. The temperature of the surface drops by 400 degrees Celsius as the energy radiates away (without convection).
You failed to answer the question. Again.


"Understand what"?
The questions to which you've been unable to give a straight answer, for a start. Non sequiturs about Waterloo don't count as answers. Nor do strawmen about negative energy from a Ball of Ice.

There is a massive heat source we call the sun giving objects in space heat without any convective heat loss comparable to the same object in the sunshine on Earth.
Nor is there any convective heat gain by the objects. No energy at all is transmitted through convection. Convection doesn't come into it at all. The only transmission of energy is by radiation. Without convection.
Conditions in space are not the same as conditions on Earth so it's pointless to compare them.


Of course the object will radiate heat in space but not at a rate any where near the rate of convective heat loss it would experience on Earth in an atmosphere.
Aye, we know that. But what values have you calculated for the amount of energy which the spaceship absorbs from the sun per second, the rate of transmission of that energy around the conductive surface of that spaceship and the amount of energy which is radiated from the spaceship per second? What value have you assigned to the albedo of the spaceship's surface for your calculations? What percentage of the incoming electromagnetic energy is reflected directly back into space and not absorbed? Have you taken into account the orientation of the spaceship with respect to the sun and whether or not the craft is rotating on an axis?
Or are you content to keep on making unsubstantiated assertions while refusing to consider evidence which exposes the deficiencies in your Physics By Fiat?

_________________
My real name is Gerry.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ManAtTheWindow



Joined: 29 Oct 2007
Posts: 216
Location: Inverness, Scotland

PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 9:37 pm    Post subject: Re: Sunglasses at night? Reply with quote

Peter wrote:
All the satellites (gps, direcTV, spy etc.) must also require YUGE radiators or shades perhaps?


I'll bet the technicians and engineers are all kicking themselves now for overlooking that. Laughing

_________________
My real name is Gerry.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 8 of 9

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.