SAMU: I was hoping to avoid this because a simple explanation of a complex subject is open to multitudes of oppositions.

Why do you think you have to provide a simple explanation? Your whole problem is exactly that you're trying to simplify what is really a complext situation.

SAMU: in hopes of clarifying my resistance to albedo measurment as a strategy for measuring the heat absorbtion of Apollo

The only thing you should be resisting is the improper usage of the word "albedo". We got stuck on this term because we brought lunar surface temperatures into the discussion early on. It's common to use "albedo" when discussing the thermal steady state of an entire planetoid. Engineers use terms like "reflectivity" or "emissivity" when discussing radiative heat transfer in constructed objects. These are related to albedo, but of course not identical to it.

There is an inverse relationship between absorption and reflection. Increase one and you lower the other. Since albedo is one way of measuring reflection, it can be considered an inverse quantity to absorption.

SAMU: ... looking towards the other simpler strategies as more fruitfull.

No. Your problem is precisely that you think this question has an answer that can be arrived at simply. You don't seem to understand the effect of surface reflectivity and emissivity on the thermal properties of an object heated and cooled primarily through radiation.

SAMU: Albedo is a more complex subject than it would appear to the layman.

Many of us aren't laymen.

SAMU: Why don?t you try to explain it in laymans terms 300 words or less?

Easy. The amount of reflected light depends on the amount of incoming light. It depends on the angle at which the light hits the surface. It also depends on what color the light is versus what color the surface is, and what that surface is made of.

SAMU: A full understanding to use it as a tool for this purpose requires an understanding of trigonometry, calculus. electromagnetics, chemistry and subatomic physics.

True. Why don't you come back when you can incorporate these various disciplines into an argument in favor of your hypothesis.

SAMU: Measurement of reflected energy in terms of albedo can be misunderstood as a simple procsess because the simple definition misleads the layman that the solution is simple.

True, but are you not the one who wants us to throw out all discussion of light-surface interaction and rely on "simple" comparative methods? Are you not the one who argued, without justification, that all objects in cislunar space arrive at the same steady state temperature regardless of material?

You just got done showing us how complicated and potentially chaotic these models are. Now you want to argue that you can just throw together a comparative solution that ignores thermodynamics and, on that basis, claim Apollo 13 was fraudulent.

Pardon me while I laugh.

SAMU: Thus albedo is inaplicable to measure the energy absorbed and active as heat from sunlight by Apollo when simple comparasons to similar structures and environments are available.

Hogwash. The model is either complex and potentially chaotic, or it is not.

"Albedo" isn't generally an engineering term. Or rather, it applies to radiative heat transfer but in a different capacity. I fear we may have confused you by migrating from a discussion of planetary albedo to a discussion of reflectivity and such, without the necessary intervening change of vocabulary.

But that's not the issue. You still maintain, despite lots of valid objections for which you have provided only vague handwaving answers, that you can just compute some kind of numerical average based on whatever spacecraft you choose ad hoc, and that will give you a answer reliable enough to support an accusation of falsification.

SAMU: Especialy when very different structures in similar environments arrive at similar heat levels.

What environments are you talking about?

You've already agreed that cislunar space and low earth orbit are not similar environments, especially for solar heating. At best low earth orbit would provide only a lower bound for estimates of steady state temperature in cislunar space.

Which structures do you refer to, those that are diversely constructed yet achieve identical steady states in space? Is this due entirely to radiative effects?

Upon what basis can you argue that a spacecraft designed thermally for low earth orbit is identical or even qualitatively comparable to a spacecraft designed for cislunar space?

I'm speaking from the point of view of someone who holds a degree in engineering and who has worked in the field of design engineering for aerospace for a number of years. Perhaps you can explain why the Grumman engineers believe they could significantly alter the steady state temperature of portions of the lunar module by covering with materials of varying reflectivity.

Perhaps you can explain why the suits used by firemen in areas of great radiant heat are silver, just like the command module.

Perhaps you can explain why United Air Lines, whose airplanes are dark gray, have to run their A/C packs at high capacity on the ground in my desert city, while Delta airplanes which are white can run them at a lower setting, and American Airlines, whose planes are silver, can sometimes get by just running one pack?

Perhaps you can explain why the radiative heat transfer module on TMG's thermal modeling software, a standard throughout the industry, lets me select the reflectivity of the materials involved.

SAMU: Albedo is most often and applicably used as a tool to determine chemical composition...

No, it's most commonly used in heat transfer models belonging to meteorology. You're talking about spectroscopy.