Space suits... the "nail" in the coffin?

[miamited]

Well, firstly, it's not "my" model. Its the one that is believed to be the real earth by the FE crowe. They are all over the internet.. Think of this: (with the leaves at the edge being ice)

Here is another:

Hi jack,

Right! If someone walks due east for however many miles it would be from where they are now to that edge where the ice is, the horizon would begin to appear closer as he got closer to that edge. Furthermore, as I stated about the sun, if the sun were directly overhead of where you have that cloud in the center of your disc, the entire earth would be in sunlight. Since light rays travel in straight line radiance from its source even if the sun were pretty much anywhere where it could be seen by anyone on the top side of the earth, then the sun's light could be seen all over the earth. You do understand that that isn't the case, right. I mean I remember watching live footage of the Iraq war and some of the Olympics coverage and it was daylight where I was and night time where they were or vice a versa.

Futher, let's just for laughs assume that your GIZ asks disc is a correct representation of the earth...what's on the other side? Have we not yet been able to figure out how to get a camera over the edge to see it? How thick is that edge band of ice?

Anyway, one must go with what they believe to be the truth.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Aldebaran]

Hi jack,

Right! If someone walks due east for however many miles it would be from where they are now to that edge where the ice is, the horizon would begin to appear closer as he got closer to that edge. Furthermore, as I stated about the sun, if the sun were directly overhead of where you have that cloud in the center of your disc, the entire earth would be in sunlight. Since light rays travel in straight line radiance from its source even if the sun were pretty much anywhere where it could be seen by anyone on the top side of the earth, then the sun's light could be seen all over the earth. You do understand that that isn't the case, right. I mean I remember watching live footage of the Iraq war and some of the Olympics coverage and it was daylight where I was and night time where they were or vice a versa.

Futher, let's just for laughs assume that your GIZ asks disc is a correct representation of the earth...what's on the other side? Have we not yet been able to figure out how to get a camera over the edge to see it? How thick is that edge band of ice?

Anyway, one must go with what they believe to be the truth.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

The FE model says that there is no way to know since "the government" won't let anyone go that far.

 

[JacksBratt]

Hi jack,

Right! If someone walks due east for however many miles it would be from where they are now to that edge where the ice is, the horizon would begin to appear closer as he got closer to that edge. Furthermore, as I stated about the sun, if the sun were directly overhead of where you have that cloud in the center of your disc, the entire earth would be in sunlight. Since light rays travel in straight line radiance from its source even if the sun were pretty much anywhere where it could be seen by anyone on the top side of the earth, then the sun's light could be seen all over the earth. You do understand that that isn't the case, right. I mean I remember watching live footage of the Iraq war and some of the Olympics coverage and it was daylight where I was and night time where they were or vice a versa.

Futher, let's just for laughs assume that your GIZ asks disc is a correct representation of the earth...what's on the other side? Have we not yet been able to figure out how to get a camera over the edge to see it? How thick is that edge band of ice?

Anyway, one must go with what they believe to be the truth.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Sorry Ted, but I have not got the time to explain their concepts. You need to read a bit more on this, or not. It's up to you. Some people could care less.

I am trying to keep this thread on track with the integrity of the space suit and it's formidable impact on the whole space story.

Others, in this thread, are getting off on tangents that are discussed in other threads, or could have new ones opened up.

Suffice to say that both the FE model and the globe model, for me, have flaws.

Your statements have excellent explanations, if you want to go there. I can tell that you are new to the FE model and it's best for you to research that on your own.

 

[miamited]

Hi jack,

You responded:

Your statements have excellent explanations, if you want to go there. I can tell that you are new to the FE model and it's best for you to research that on your own.

I would go so far as to say that I am totally ignorant of the FE model so far as having spent anytime researching it's fundamentals. Thanks for the dialog. I knew there was a reason that I generally stay away from the 'conspiracy theories' boards.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[miamited]

The FE model says that there is no way to know since "the government" won't let anyone go that far.

Hi aldebaran,

Oh! Well, there you go, the same reason we can't get any data from the 'edge' of the earth is the same reason we can't test the space suits in a vacuum. The government won't let us. I find it sad that there are actually people who believe such things about a government. Surely there's a medication for that today.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[JacksBratt]

Liquid Cooling and Ventilation Garment - Wikipedia

Space suits are water-cooled. Rather, the astronaut is water-cooled. When the suit is connected by umbilical to a ship or station, the water is routed to the ship's heat exchanger with its larger radiation fins. If the suit is operating independently, the water is sublimated into space.

Sorry, but I do understand that there can be heat lost to a vacuum. However.... you do remember why "Thermos" made vacuum bottles to keep our drinks cold or hot... right?
I still stand on my view that the space suit would not cool the person inside. Not enough to live for three days in 253 degree environment.

To add to this... this aspect of the suit is only one of many issues.

 

[Kaon]

For anyone, how to really know with certainty...

By looking for yourself first hand.

This is what it comes down to - especially in context of faith.

In fact, scientific method is supposed to be accessible to a layperson for the purposes of verification. Your records should be so clear so that a layperson can follow your experimental procedures, and reproduce the exact same results (or not.) That accessibility to the layperson has been weeded out by depending on million dollar budgeted experiments - so you (the layperson) must have faith in your institution, or enough money to reproduce the experiment.

 

[JacksBratt]

Hi jack,

You responded:


I would go so far as to say that I am totally ignorant of the FE model so far as having spent anytime researching it's fundamentals. Thanks for the dialog. I knew there was a reason that I generally stay away from the 'conspiracy theories' boards.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Well, thanks for dropping in. Going down a rabbit hole, such as this, is not for everybody.

I am still searching and researching. I do, however, totally believe that we have been sold a pack of goods on many concepts and "facts" about this world that we live in.

So, when someone says "how come we don't fall off the edge" or "take a picture of the edge" or "the earth is a ball because we can circumnavigate it"... well, I have to step in and let them in on the fact that these things are all covered with very simple answers.

We as people living on this earth, cannot go outside and say "wow, it's a ball" or "what ya know... it's flat". If we read God's word, on the other hand... it describes a flat earth.... or... I should say... it never gives any indication that we are a globe, spinning on an axis of 23 degrees, orbiting our sun and the whole package is hurling through a the vast emptiness of space.

If we read the bible, with the FE in mind... there are no indications of contradictions.

So.... it became one thing that fascinates me.. Along with ancient ruins and their evidence of the crazy world that existed pre flood and the times after that.

It's not for everyone and some people refuse to see that things are not always as we have been told.

 

[RDKirk]

Sorry, but I do understand that there can be heat lost to a vacuum. However.... you do remember why "Thermos" made vacuum bottles to keep our drinks cold or hot... right?

And you realize that vacuum bottles don't keep anything hot or cold forever, right? Heat loss by radiation continues.

I still stand on my view that the space suit would not cool the person inside. Not enough to live for three days in 253 degree environment.

That's because you don't know all the details of time, temperature, and construction, and apparently feel comfortable asserting an opinion out of a condition of ignorance.

For instance, the temperature within the suit (or the lunar lander) never reached 253 degrees. It might have--if its surface was flat black or it was made of glass. But it wasn't.

 

[JacksBratt]

And you realize that vacuum bottles don't keep anything hot or cold forever, right? Heat loss by radiation continues.


That's because you don't know all the details of time, temperature, and construction, and apparently feel comfortable asserting an opinion out of a condition of ignorance.

For instance, the temperature within the suit (or the lunar lander) never reached 253 degrees. It might have--if its surface was flat black or it was made of glass. But it wasn't.

LOL the thing was a tin can.....period. Tell me that they don't heat up when sitting in the sunlight.

All of this talk of radiant heat and color of the vehicle.... it's all differences of negligent values.
Yes, heat can be removed by radiation..but not near fast enough.
Yes, the lunar lander being flat black would have made it heat up more.. .but more...only more..the thing was already a shiny piece of steal sitting on the moon, in the sunlight... in a vacuum...at temperatures way above any desert on earth.... Try putting some worms in a tin can, in the sun for just a couple of hours.

 

[majj27]

LOL the thing was a tin can.....period. Tell me that they don't heat up when sitting in the sunlight.

All of this talk of radiant heat and color of the vehicle.... it's all differences of negligent values.
Yes, heat can be removed by radiation..but not near fast enough.
Yes, the lunar lander being flat black would have made it heat up more.. .but more...only more..the thing was already a shiny piece of steal sitting on the moon, in the sunlight... in a vacuum...at temperatures way above any desert on earth.... Try putting some worms in a tin can, in the sun for just a couple of hours.

Very good point, because everyone knows the LEM had no sort of environmental heating/cooling system whatsoever like some sort of Heat Transfer System.

Oh wait. They did. Even called it the Heat Transfer System. How 'bout that.

 

[majj27]

If we read the bible, with the FE in mind... there are no indications of contradictions.

Except for the relatively minor fact that a flat earth cannot be factual without bending reality to the point it screams.

Southern Cross.
Longitude.
Solar illumination pattern.
Navigational impossibilities.
Angular measurements of sun.
Speed differences in the orbit of microstar.
Orbit changes of microstar.

I suppose you can choose to ignore all that just so you can believe that the earth is flat, but if your proposed solution works WORSE than the current one, it seems silly to think it is actually somehow BETTER.

 

[RDKirk]

LOL the thing was a tin can.....period. Tell me that they don't heat up when sitting in the sunlight.

All of this talk of radiant heat and color of the vehicle.... it's all differences of negligent values.
Yes, heat can be removed by radiation..but not near fast enough.
Yes, the lunar lander being flat black would have made it heat up more.. .but more...only more..the thing was already a shiny piece of steal sitting on the moon, in the sunlight... in a vacuum...at temperatures way above any desert on earth.... Try putting some worms in a tin can, in the sun for just a couple of hours.

Actually, no, there was no general "temperature." There would have been only the temperatures that specific substances were heated to by the sun's radiation--a factor of both the color of the substance and the substance itself.

First, the landings were set to coincide with the lunar dawn and to spend as little time as possible in the full lunar daylight--specifically to avoid heating.

The space suits and the lander had a "cladding" layer over the environmental suit itself. The cladding reflected 90% of the sun's radiation. The lander as well had a cladding layer reflecting 90% of the radiation.

 

[JacksBratt]

Except for the relatively minor fact that a flat earth cannot be factual without bending reality to the point it screams.

Southern Cross.
Longitude.
Solar illumination pattern.
Navigational impossibilities.
Angular measurements of sun.
Speed differences in the orbit of microstar.
Orbit changes of microstar.

I suppose you can choose to ignore all that just so you can believe that the earth is flat, but if your proposed solution works WORSE than the current one, it seems silly to think it is actually somehow BETTER.

It would help if you gave some explanation with your points.

I have my own points that keep me hanging on to the globe. I also have some questions that make me doubt it.

If we are going to take all the "things of Man" and believe all of "Mans Wisdom" we must remember what God says about it.....

 

[JacksBratt]

Actually, no, there was no general "temperature." There would have been only the temperatures that specific substances were heated to by the sun's radiation--a factor of both the color of the substance and the substance itself.

First, the landings were set to coincide with the lunar dawn and to spend as little time as possible in the full lunar daylight--specifically to avoid heating.

The space suits and the lander had a "cladding" layer over the environmental suit itself. The cladding reflected 90% of the sun's radiation. The lander as well had a cladding layer reflecting 90% of the radiation.

It is obvious that you know enough about this material to understand the problems of their operation in a total vacuum at temperatures around 200 degrees Fahrenheit in a vacuum.

You basically have humans, in an environment that is the equivalent temperature of boiling water and they are trying to cool themselves... continually, and keep hydrated, while they are working and creating even more internal heat all the while a vacuum is extremely inefficient in dissipation of heat.

I get heat stroke in 32 degree (C) weather when it is high humidity and the air around me cannot evaporate my sweat.... I know, I'm an exception... but I'm not in the same heat that they are... not even close.

Then, they go into the equivalence of a shiny tin can....There is just no way around this.

Don't even get me started on how this tin can held enough rocket fuel and engines to land, without a parachute and then blast off again to break the moons gravitational pull... All the while they have to land with a parachute on earth and they needed a Saturn V rocket to get them off the earth..

Do you not see any thing here that doesn't add up?

 

[majj27]

It would help if you gave some explanation with your points.

I'm tired of doing this over and over again, but I'll give you two.

1) Flatearthers claim the earth is flat and the stars are fixed to a rotating dome. Since the earth is assumed to be flat, all parts of that dome would by definition be above the plane of the earth. Therefore you'd be able to see the constellation of the Southern Cross from anywhere where it is night.

The Southern Cross is not visible from south of 25 degrees north of the equator. The model fails.

2) Flatearthers claim the sun is approximately 4800 km in altitude above a flat plane. At noon during the summer solstice, standing on the equator, the sun would be 4800 km above. At sundown, the sun would be 14,934 km away, because it would be a quarter of the way around the plate.

This would make the sun at noon look over three times as large. This doesn't happen. The model fails.

3) And hey, a bonus! Put a person at the southern tips of South America, Australia, and Africa. Have them look due south. The will see the same stars clustered around the Southern Celestial Pole.

On a flat earth, they would, all of them, be looking in entirely different directions, and would be unable to see the same stars as one another. The model fails.

And NASA has zero to do with any of these failures. Reality, on the other hand, disagrees vehemently with the Flearth Model.

 

[majj27]

Don't even get me started on how this tin can held enough rocket fuel and engines to land, without a parachute and then blast off again to break the moons gravitational pull... All the while they have to land with a parachute on earth and they needed a Saturn V rocket to get them off the earth..

Do you not see any thing here that doesn't add up?

Yes I do. What doesn't add up is your comparison. You're comparing the mass of an earth-escape system in earth gravity with the LEM in lunar gravity. It's the same as saying that a since a Ford Model T can't go faster than 45 mph or so, that a Corvette cannot possibly get a speeding ticket on the highway for doing over 65mph.

The LEM would never be able to land safely in 1G, nor would the ascent stage be able to take off again. And it didn't need to, because it was a LUNAR excursion module.

 

[RDKirk]

It is obvious that you know enough about this material to understand the problems of their operation in a total vacuum at temperatures around 200 degrees Fahrenheit in a vacuum.

Vacuum has no temperature.

You basically have humans, in an environment that is the equivalent temperature of boiling water and they are trying to cool themselves... continually, and keep hydrated, while they are working and creating even more internal heat all the while a vacuum is extremely inefficient in dissipation of heat.

Vacuum has no temperature. Objects irradiated by the sun in vacuum will have a temperature. But if the object is shadowed from the sun, it will have only its internal temperature--in shade, protected from the radiation of the sun, it will not gain a single degree.

The astronauts were "shaded"--protected by cladding that reflected 90% of heating radiation--which meant the cladding itself only heated very, very slowly. Moreover, there was space--vacuum--between the cladding and the environmental suits. The environmental suits were effectively shaded.

I've already explained how the environmental suits "kept their cool."

Don't even get me started on how this tin can held enough rocket fuel and engines to land, without a parachute and then blast off again to break the moons gravitational pull... All the while they have to land with a parachute on earth and they needed a Saturn V rocket to get them off the earth.

You realize that they had a solar gravity of only 1/16th earth's gravity to deal with, right?

 

[Aldebaran]

Yes I do. What doesn't add up is your comparison. You're comparing the mass of an earth-escape system in earth gravity with the LEM in lunar gravity. It's the same as saying that a since a Ford Model T can't go faster than 45 mph or so, that a Corvette cannot possibly get a speeding ticket on the highway for doing over 65mph.

The LEM would never be able to land safely in 1G, nor would the ascent stage be able to take off again. And it didn't need to, because it was a LUNAR excursion module.

I remember addressing this same issue some time ago. The question just seems to keep coming back, along with all the others.

 

[majj27]

I remember addressing this same issue some time ago. The question just seems to keep coming back, along with all the others.

I know.

The LEM (total takeoff weight) was 33,500 lbs. The decent engine was rated at a max of 10,125 thrust lbs. of force. In an earth gravitational well, it would drop like a rock even at full power. In the moon's gravity well, the LEM weighed 5,695 lbs. That engine was more than strong enough to slow the descent.

Also, the ascent module weighed 10,300 lbs. fully loaded, or 1,751 lbs. on the moon. The ascent-stage engine produced 3,500 lbs. thrust force. On earth, that engine would do zilch. On the moon, it was more than enough to boost into orbit.

We were pretty clever in that we put the heaviest part of the lander in a separate module which would vastly decrease return ascent thrust requirements. Once you take off, you don't need the landing gear, scientific equipment, heavy batteries, descent motor, fuel tanks for the descent motor, etc. All you need is the crew, some rocks, and enough fuel to get you back to the CM.