Just like any other HBer who posts here.

__________________
If it's just us, it seems like an awful waste of space.
Contact Carl Sagan

http://davidsuniverse.wordpress.com/

He has acknowledged a couple of points made, to his credit. (BPC for one) Basic stuff, but can't fault him for recognizing his misunderstanding.
Small steps...

Heh. I've done the same thing. I'll submit a post only to find someone said something very similar. Sometimes the posts will have identical time stamps, but other times there's a substantial lag because I had done something else before posting. Anyway, I've been known to yell, "GET OUT OF MY MIND!" on occasion when that happens.

It isn't really that surprising that this comes up regularly. If someone makes a logical error, or makes a mistake in evidence, it is likely that more than one person will see it.

Not a problem, but thanks.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Of course, the BPC is irrelevant to the original question, so it's easy to acknowledge. That's why I specified relevant posts

I will say he is being nice and calm and basically avoiding standard HB behavior, but he is still bypassing the important points and handwaving direct refutations.

__________________
I was just sitting here contemplating the immortal words of Socrates who said, "I drank what?"

"Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot." --Carl Sagan "Pale Blue Dot"

The point of course that metal objects left in intense sunlight heat up nomatter how polished they are.

No, the point is that your car got hot. You can't presumptively generalize that observation to anything but your car. You can't assume that your belief about how it got that way is the right answer. That's not how investigation works.

And when other people notice that you're making these vast presumptive leaps, you can't expect them to follow you. You might listen to their reasons for disputing you and consider that they might be actually be well-informed and right.

Again, this is only personal experience and hardly 'evidence' of anything, except of course to myself!

But you have to separate your observation from your interpretation and assumptions. Observing that your car's interior got hot is not proof of your notion of how it got that way. Nor is it proof of some hasty generalization you might make from it. If you agree that your personal experience is not proof, then I hope that's the last we hear of the "hot car" hypothesis.

...but aluminum objects heat up too.

But how much? You imply it will heat up a lot -- so hot that astronauts in an aluminum spacecraft would roast. You imply that surface optical properties don't change the answer much. Those are testable questions. You say the only "real" way is to test empirically, and imply that a real-world test would vindicate you over simple math. But in turn you have no proof of that either. Pure supposition from beginning to end.

You can't keep pushing off forever your responsibility to actually demonstrate some meaningful test of your claim.

Try it.

Boeing pays me to try it every day. Please don't assume we're ignorant just because we don't accept your inapt comparisons. You don't seem to understand that there are people here who understand these things not as a matter of abstract, interesting physics, but as a matter of their daily work. You can't bluff these people. You can't handwave through a fundamentally wrong presentation and pretend it must still somehow work out in your favor.

It's an easy experiment to do to prove it to yourself.

The question is not whether the experiment is easy. The question is whether it's correct. I know why your example doesn't work. Do you?

Conditions in space are harsher.

No, conditions in space are different. The layman waves his hands about how "harsh" things are while the engineer simply applies a different set of numbers to his problem and continues on. The layman's approach is based on uncertainty and fear that derive from a flawed or missing understanding of the problem. The engineer's is based on a dispassionate, quantitative understanding of the problem's abstract, fundamental nature. That's why people keep asking you to actually run the numbers. Heat transfer is often counterintuitive. Comparative thinking is not helpful.

Passive control of absorption by varying optical properties of surfaces is the bread and butter of spacecraft thermal design. That's a firm, unshakable fact no matter how hot your car gets.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

That simple statement alone needed to be repeated. Those without direct, working knowledge of heat transfer in practical applications can't appreciate how accurate the above statement is, trust me.

Very different indeed, I quite agree. For one thing there is no atmosphere or geomagnetosphere to mitigate solar energy, and there is very little matter to
carry heat away. That's what I meant about 'harsher', and claiming otherwise on your part would simply betray your own ignorance in the matter. Though I do not have a degree in astrophysics, I have studied it intesively in the past 7 years and I am educated on the subject, regardless of my academic credentials.


In space there is no matter between the Sun and the spacecraft, there is no 'natural' mitigation of any kind like there is on the surface of this planet.
What this means from a logical standpoint, without really knowing the specifics is that heating from the Sun would be greater and much
harder to mitigate.

removed, duplicate post

EMR of a specfic frequency has precisely the same characteristics in space that it does on this planets' surface. The only difference is of course that on the planets surface a large fraction of this energy is blocked , reflected or otherwise mitigated before it reaches the planets' surface,

It is transparently obvious that I am one man being engaged by at least 10 different individuals (I havent counted), and that no one here is representing my position , except myself. That being said I will not coware from the battle regardless, but I find it hard to get my point accross with people making statements like some I have seen here, suggesting responses to questions which arent asked but implied. And example is where one individual stated that his car got cold when the air was cold and that heat in the atmosphere adds to the heat of a parked vehicle. ALL of us here on a scisnce board should see the rediculous nature of such an assumption, it's just 7th grade science.
SO long as the atmosphere is cooler than the metal, it will cool the metal, not add to its heating like this person suggested. Why let falsehoods cloud the issue?
You accuse me of making a personal attack on Jay, and warned me about it. Let me bring to your attention the post he made I was responding to, then perhaps you can explain why no similar warning was given him.:

Yesterday, 03:51 PM
JayUtah
Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 6,528



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I neither want this nor agree that it is the right approach. This is not a one-on-one debate; it is a public debate. This is not (nor is it ever) a case of "Jay knows best." I do not represent anyone but myself. I am not anyone special.

IDW is not anyone special. I'm not sure how he has managed to create the expectation that he should be coddled or treated differently than any other hoax proponent, but I do not accept those implied ground rules. If we propose that our rules effectively ensure fair debate and equitably protect the interests of minority opinions and individual proponents, then we should not do anything differently in this thread than is done elsewhere on the board.

There is already a thread discussing rules of engagement, therefore I will post there if this matter needs to be discussed further.

I will deal with the additional on-topic content in this thread presently.
__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

But since we do know the specifics, we don't have to rely on generalizations, do we?

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

Moderator: I feel that saying someone isn't special is in itself a personal attack. If I take it as a personal attack and Jay knew I would, then it is, would you not agree? It's a means of personally demeaning someone without technically breaking your rules, especially someone with my egocentric nature..
The fact is I am special and he knows it. We are all special, none of us simply a number or a domesticated animal. I disagree adamantly.
Also, I feel his implication that I wanted coddling was the same attack I made against him. In my opinion he IS being coddled and protected here, and he was a bit 'whiny' when I challenged him, at least thats the way it came across. I sure as **** ain't coddled here!

We may, but I don't have all the specifics. There are variable factors and technical details as yet undiscovered on my part. I am working on it here. I know the individuals postin here have excellent resources and I am attempting to utilize them.

That's what I meant about 'harsher', and claiming otherwise on your part would simply betray your own ignorance in the matter.

Argumentative. How would anyone know what you intended?

Have you ever read a book on the thermal design of spacecraft? Yes or no.

I have studied it intesively in the past 7 years...

I've been a practicing engineer for almost 20, and have actually done thermal designs. From that experiential basis I am urging you to perform the computations that would confirm or dispute your claim so that you can see how counterintuitive the science is. Why won't you?

What this means from a logical standpoint, without really knowing the specifics is that heating from the Sun would be greater and much
harder to mitigate.

Unfortunately it means something different from the heat-transfer standpoint.

You are erroneously fixated on the notion that the only role of air in earthbound heat transfer is to carry heat away from objects. The differential gear casing of your Delorean, which is perpetually in nearly complete shade, is not freezing cold largely because heat from the air transfers to it, not away from it. And in a situation were all transfer modes are present, you cannot so simplistically separate their effects. Thermodynamics and heat transfer is primary about interactions.

Further, in an Earth environment the sunlit sky represents a surrounding gray-body emitter. Heat dissipation via radiation is inhibited; it is a function of the net difference in absolute temperature. In space, it is very easy to have a view factor to an almost perfect radiative heat sink, increasing the dissipation rate.

In sum, radiative heat transfer dissipates heat more effectively in space than on Earth. And in space, imperfectly lit parts of objects are not otherwise heated convectively by the ambient medium. They don't get as hot as they would on Earth, and they can even act as conductive heat sinks.

I do know the specifics, and you're wrong.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

If you think no real debate is going on here, perhaps you are simply describing your own contribution. If you are, I quite agree. You haven't added anything of substance. I am not attacking you, i want to make that clear, I am simply pointing out a fact that is relevant to my response to your negative comments directed towards myself..

I find it hard to get my point accross...

I suggest you make fewer points. That will give you the time you need to support each one. You said in the beginning you would focus on one issue at a time. Instead you're all over the map, alternately asserting and withdrawing various statements. You have no one to blame but yourself.

When your request for special ground rules was denied, you went ahead and posted anyway to the forum. By doing so, you gave your informed consent to the public-debate ground rules that prevail here. Those rules require you to support the points you make. Those rules are designed to preclude the bobbing, weaving, and burden-shifting that experience has shown characterize conspiracy theorists' presentation.

Why let falsehoods cloud the issue?

It's not a falsehood until you show it to be. You're simply repeating your simplistic statements and ignoring the responses that try to introduce an appropriate level of understanding. You may not continue to beg the question when people's reasons for disputing it have been given. You must address them in a more substantial way than calling them ignorant.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I see this post and I'd like to repeat my question to IDW from post 114.

__________________
See? Because of me, now there's a warning. -Homer Simpson

EMR of a specfic frequency has precisely the same characteristics in space that it does on this planets' surface.

The electromagnetic radiation itself is not different. But how you think about its role in the overal heat-transfer picture for an object on Earth versus in space is indeed materially different. Some of what you say on that point has been correct, but you're missing big pieces of understanding.

The only difference is of course that on the planets surface a large fraction of this energy is blocked

And what "large fraction" would that be? Please state a number and explain where the number came from. By "this energy" I assume you mean EM radiation of heat-carrying wavelength. Please confirm.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

jay, you're starting to sound like a defense attorney.

No, I haven't , and they're not easy to come by! Perhaps you can suggest a few titles.
I have 35 years experience , and I am 10 years your senior. As for the 'computations;, I'll get to them, but I must have all of the neccessary information and variables to do so.
To leave out or misrepresent a major or even minor factor would not only negate my conclusions, it would open me up to ridicule. WE ARE MAKING PROGRESS!
Well of course it does, the differential is not heated by the Sun directly, and is COLDER than the air.
The principal is quite simple , cooler air than the object being acted upon takes heat away, and warmer air warms objects colder than it. This is a BASIC law of thermodynamics. Why punk me? You know my abilities. Who are you talking to?


I understand this concept, actually thermodynamics is one of my strong points. It is not totally irrelevant in a discussion of thermodynamic principals of course, but it certainly isn't crucial to the discussion we are having here.


You know some of the specifics , Jay. You're not one of the engineers that worked on the project and even if you were the development process was compartmentalized, as engineering a project of the complexity always is.
This is a complicated problem, but it IS one we can reach a conclusion on if we ALL try.

How is the magnetic field relevant to heat transfer? But yes, the conditions are different. There is no atmosphere to transfer heat to the object by convection despite a reflective surface, or limit the effectiveness of a radiator versus one facing deep space in a vacuum.

Then show the evidence and calculations to support your argument. We're waiting.

If you have a spacecraft in space away from a planet, one side will be facing the sun and can be made highly reflective. The other will be facing deep space, allowing for efficient radiation. For a fairly wide range of temperatures, the internal temperature can be designed for.

You have not, in any way, demonstrated why it would not be within the scope of '60s engineering to design a spacecraft that could maintain a shirtsleeve environment during travel to and from the moon. Nor have you shown what is exceptional about the Apollo spacecraft versus the many others that have been flown.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Surely the Moon itself, with it's surface temperature variations (night and day) is a good example of how well radiative heat loss works?

__________________
Reality moves at the speed of light.
If the text of this post is blue, it's a "Moderator comment".
[ The RULES of the Forum ] [ Forum FAQs ] [ Conspiracy Theory advice ] [ Alternate Theory Advice ]
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team - use the /!\ icon at the top-right of the post.

. I suggest taking a look at Patrick Minnis' "thermal budget' program. It has all the information you think I don't have. Regardless, it's totally irrelevant other than for comparitive purposes, we are not talking about the planets surface .

No, I haven't

Then what qualifies you to comment on the thermal design of spacecraft? What is your training in that field? What thermal designs have you done in a commercial setting?

As for the 'computations;, I'll get to them...

When?

but I must have all of the neccessary information and variables to do so.

Then I suggest you locate them. You are responsible for providing the information that supports your claim.

I understand this concept, actually thermodynamics is one of my strong points.

I've seen no evidence that it is.

You're not one of the engineers that worked on the project...

I've worked on similar projects. There are other engineers here who will vouch for my having demonstrated knowledge and expertise commensurate with my claims.

...the development process was compartmentalized

What is your evidence that the Apollo development process was "compartmentalized?" The PDF file to which you have been referred contains descriptions of cross-discipline collaboration. The familiarization manual to which I referred you for an explanation of the ECS was a textbook for cross-training exercises among engineers.

...as engineering a project of the complexity always is.

What specific large-scale engineering projects have you worked on that would enable you to make that observation?

This is a complicated problem...

No, you said it was a simple one. I demand to see your simple answer immediately, complete with the thermodynamics computations that prove it. You said that was your strong point. I require a demonstration.

...but it IS one we can reach a conclusion on if we ALL try.

This is not a group effort. You are responsible to support the claims you make.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

The magnetic field blocks protons and electrons, making the earth enviroment much freindlier to metal objects.


So do you think I have all the information I need to do so yet? Not hardly.


That is true to a certain extent. Radiative forcing has limits, though. The question is does the heat energy input exceed the spacecraft designs capability to dispate heat to maintain a livable level. As heat increases a state of equilibrium will EVENTUALLU be reached, butt he question remains AT WHAT TEMPERATURE WOULD RADIATIVE FORCING=HEAT ENERGY INPUT~

You should research the Sun observing satelites.
Not yet. The Apollo spacecraft was different than every other manned mission in one respect, it left Earth orbit. this means it would be continously illuminated by the Sun and outside the magnetoshphere, making it vulnerable to proton bombardment as well as high energy electrons.

I suggest taking a look at Patrick Minnis' "thermal budget' program.

Dr. Minnis studies climatology in the large scale over long periods of time, specially including cloud masking and the mean absorptive effects of aerosols. That has very little to do with the conditions that apply on a single day to your car.

Regardless, it's totally irrelevant other than for comparitive purposes...

The please provide a relevant reference.

How much attenuation does the atmosphere provide to solar heating on the days your car was hot? Does your car get as hot on the cloudy or partly-cloudy days that Dr. Minnis' work alludes to?

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

As far as I know there simply arent any books published on the subject of spacecraft thermodynamics. My training in 'that field' is simply a knowledge of physics.
When I have all the technical details I need to do so.
but I must have all of the neccessary information and variables to do so.
That is why I am getting the information from you that I do not know, so that later you will not simply say my source was 'bogus'. We all are familiar with that tactic.One of you actually quoted Wkipedia, which I find laughable if I am allowed that liberty here.
Personal attack on my integrity....

Like what?
[QUOTE=JayUtah;1041968]

...the development process was compartmentalized

What is your evidence that the Apollo development process was "compartmentalized?" The PDF file to which you have been referred contains descriptions of cross-discipline collaboration. The familiarization manual to which I referred you for an explanation of the ECS was a textbook for cross-training exercises among engineers.
[/QUOTE}
we've already had this arguement and I won. It is simple logic that not every enginner knew every detail of the project!
The Bullwinkle platform, for one example of a 3 billion dollar project. It was highly compartmentalized, as all private sector development is..

[QUOTE=JayUtah;1041968]

This is a complicated problem...

No, you said it was a simple one. I demand to see your simple answer immediately, complete with the thermodynamics computations that prove it. You said that was your strong point. I require a demonstration.
[/QUOTE}

Simple in the respect that it is easy to see there is a proble with your version of reality.

ANd I intend to do so. IMHO, I have answered every critical comment made successfully. You must admit you know I dont have enough information as of yet to make a sceintific conclusion complete with evidenciary material

This looks like a misconception that should be discussed separately. It is not relevant to heat transfer.

So, is your answer to the question, "I don't know"? If so, perhaps it is time to move on to your next claim.

Research what about sun observing satellites? What is the relevance?

It is generally easier to reject heat away from a large, warm world. It's easier to have radiators facing deep space, for one thing.

As for particle radiation, again that isn't relevant to the heat transfer issue.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

The magnetic field blocks protons and electrons, making the earth enviroment much freindlier to metal objects.

How does that affect the temperature of those objects? Do you assert that the absorption of protons or electrons has a significant thermal effect?

The question is does the heat energy input exceed the spacecraft designs capability to dispate heat to maintain a livable level.

Yes, that is the question that pertains to your claims. You claim that the spacecraft would have become uncomfortably hot for the astronauts. I suggest you support that claim by answering that question in a way that does not involve comparing it to your car.

The Apollo spacecraft was different than every other manned mission in one respect, it left Earth orbit.

But it was not different in that respect than several prior unmanned spacecraft that also had to be designed according to thermal principles. Are you claiming that engineers would not know the problems of the cislunar environment, or simply that they were at a loss to solve them?

this means it would be continously illuminated by the Sun...

Agreed. It also means it's free from the light reflected by the nearby Earth. In Earth orbit, on the sun side, you'll likely have a view factor either to the Sun or to the Earth from all points on the spacecraft. In cislunar space it's easier to arrange for a view factor to empty space. That provides a much more attractive condition for radiative heat dissipation.

and outside the magnetoshphere, making it vulnerable to proton bombardment as well as high energy electrons.

What does that have to do with the spacecraft's temperature?

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

ATTENTION MODERATORS:
ARGUEMENTATIVE! Actually I don't mind, but let's face it, this dialogue is just that.

It is obvious one man cannot field questions and deragatory comments comming from ten individuals simulataneously, but I ask you, what is being porved by this tactic?
I would just ignore the comments made for that purpose but doing so I risk further criticiam that I did not address them. You ust agree that it is impressive how well I do. No arguement goes unaddressed.
That has always been my policy on these board. It sometimes requires quick thinking that leads to demonstrable mistakes, something I am not willing to allow at this time, so forgive me if I dont respond to all of you now.