What I did say is that that process alone could not shed the heat produced by the equipment, the astonauts themselves and the effects of solar energy being absorbed by the spacecraft.
Can you show computations that prove that?
Remember, we are talking about a wide spectrum of energy coming from the Sun, reflective material is not sufficient to prevent heating.
Can you describe the "elementary physics" that proves the ineffectiveness of optical surfacing in thermal design? Can you attach actual numbers to the energy, reflection, and resultant heating?
...there is no escaping that a buildup of heat energy would occur that some process would be required to mitigate.
The basic nature of radiative heat transfer, especially as it relates absorption to emission, says otherwise. Heat does not continue to "build up" indefinitely.
I would also request he source his information, if possible, so a detailed review of it can be made.
You first.
One thing that has never been explained to me as of yet is why A13 would be cold when we all see a cooling apparatus was required during normal operation.
Because "normal operation" included the energization of electrical equipment, some of whose waste heat was introduced to the cabin. When that operation ceased on Apollo 13 because of the power-conservation measures, the existing heat in the cabin eventually radiated away into space and was not replaced.
How much heat did the electrical circuits that were lost or deactivated contribute to the overall heat budget of the spacecraft?
In terms of the ECS heat rejection capacity, the substantial majority of the heat load came from electronic equipment. In terms of heating cabin air, the primary source was waste heat tapped from the radiator inlet leg of he primary water-glycol coolant loop. Secondary sources included metabolic heat and direct solar heating of cabin surfaces.
Why would there be excessive heat from properly wired and installed electronics?
Why do you say the heat load from electronic equipment is "excessive?" What, in terms of numbers, is an appropriate heat load from 1960s/1970s electronic equipment of aerospace design? How did you compute or estimate it?
I know there would be a very minimal amount of heat produced, but it seems irrelevant in the overall heat budget.
How do you know that?
What we need to determine...
Shouldn't you have already done that before reaching a conclusion? There is no "we" on that question. You have the burden to prove your statement that the CSM thermal design would not have worked. You have made a number of specific (and often quantitative) claims with no supporting arguments. Until you supply the argument, no one is obliged to do your homework for you.
It is my contention that an object in space this near the Sun nomatter how well insulated internally will eventually heat up to an very uncomfortable level...
And it has been explained to you why that contention is not based on physical law. You now have the onus either to reconcile your claims with basic physics or to amend or withdraw them.
In my experience radiators work by circulating a coolant such as propylene glycol anti freeze mixed with water through the object to be cooled, and then through a radiator, which removes heat from the coolant when air passes over it.
The difference between an automotive "radiator" and a real radiator such as used in spacecraft has already been discussed.
|