It can have a detrimental effect depending on the flux density. In the current space enviroment , it would be a significant factor.

[QUOTE=JayUtah;1041975]
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.
[/QUOTE}

I made no such claim! I simply asked some questions.

Electronic and mechanical devices are much more robust in that human beings. They can survive extreme temperatues that would quickly kill an astronaut, This is a weak areguement.
[QUOTE=JayUtah;1041975]

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.
[ /QUOTE]

SO you're saying they turned the engine of the CM towards the Sun?

Impact from high energy particles imparts heating. SImple physics, Again, the effects would be determined by flux density and velocities.

This is interesting, just my observation...
IDW, you came aboard (with a reputation I don't know), and made the contention that the Apollo spacecraft could not be adequately cooled in space. This included a curiosity as to why the virtually unpowered Apollo 13 stack got cold.
Since then, you have been presented with specific information as to the EMR environment in space, and the specific Apollo systems designed and employed to manage the on-board environment for both systems and human occupants in space. Much of this data came from people who "do" space for a living, designing systems to work in the unique environment. This expert input cannot be just "brushed off" as inapplicable to the argument. The tone of the posts are not an issue, painful as it may be.
Now you are digging for data, for numbers, to support your original contention. It would seem that you perhaps made a conclusion before really understanding everything about the situation. You made a claim based on insufficient data.
If the criticism of your position seems harsh, it is because of your false claim, and the inadequate supporting data. You say that NASA was completely negligent in designing a system with the very basics of thermal control completely inadequate to the task. The evidence clearly shows that the planners and designers understood the problems, and the inadequacies in early designs, and pressed forward to improve the systems to address the issues. This is very clear in the documentation.
The Apollo hardware was up to the task in it's design as flown. The systems were designed for it. They worked, with more than adequate capacity, and system redundancy.
You claim this is an untruth, but are just now digging for the numbers to support this, under withering assualt by real experts. No surprise here

You came to this discussion unprepared, sir...I am a school bus driver (ret USAF), with some formal space systems education. My textbooks neatly match the data I find online, and here, about the Apollo ECS design, and the environment it was designed for. Known problem, and known solution options.
Space system engineering at work, not magic. NASA's not stupid, nor were the astronauts.

Present your evidence...as I understand it, scientists who present contraversial ideas to their peers in a open forum are subject to rather bad manners by their peer skeptics...if your data is strong, you will prevail. If not...it may not be pretty. It's all about evidence, numbers. The moderators will call bad punches on all sides.

Dave...not a scientist, but open to learning more. G'night...

Moderators are well-versed in logic and logical fallacies, common and uncommon. We are quite capable of making up our own minds, and will call it, both ways, when we see it, thank you

Looking at your next post, in the context of your previous posts, you seem most concerned with scoring points against the (admittedly prestigious) Jay. If that is the case, you are failing. However, if you continue this pattern, I will simply close this thread. Please demonstrate a genuine desire to either refute or learn, or the thread closes. This is not a duel.

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

I used the car as an example of a lifetime of similar experience.
What you're doing here is dishonest, and I think you realize it.

I havent made a single 'presumptive leap'. thats not how I operate, in life in general or on this board.


Jay, there are very few people reading this board. We are talking to each other.

[QUOTE=JayUtah;1041934]
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.
[/QUOTE}
Show me where I mentioned the cars interior. Sounds like a "shoe bomb" to me, if you get my drift.


[QUOTE=JayUtah;1041934]
...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.
[/QUOTE}
You continually claim I said things I didn't. That is a poor refection on your character and your personal integity, and believe me , it shows.

WHat claim?
I think your comment is argumentative and a personally deraugatory comment. WHy are you allowed this libery, wheras I am chastised and warned for the same offence? I think we all know, but the question needs to be asked.
How is testing the reflectivity and equilibrium temperatures of various metal structures in sunlight INCORRECT?
I am not a laymen, for your information. I find it personally provoctative on your part making such an implication. Why are you doing this, because you know you cannot win if I can concentrate on the problem at hand?

I will not make similar personal attacks because I know that's your main mode of operation in silencing your opposition here.

Go ahead and cancel my membership, I have all I need.
Thank you

What is your evidence that particle radiation would have a significant effect on Apollo CSM internal temperature? This is an extraordinary claim.

Then what is your claim? Why is this in "Conspiracy Theories" if you are only asking questions?

Just what are you claiming about the temperature of unmanned spacecraft?


No, that's unnecessary, though it is true that geometry relative to the sun can affect how much sunlight strikes the craft. But a key point is that there will always be deep space that at least one of radiators can be facing, and therefore can work very efficiently. In LEO, it is harder to direct the radiator because there is a big planet on one side.

Yes, and you would have to demonstrate the flux density was relevant to heating.

__________________
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

As far as I know there simply arent any books published on the subject of spacecraft thermodynamics.

Are you suggesting that there aren't any, or admitting that you haven't looked for any?

My training in 'that field' is simply a knowledge of physics.

Do you claim that a "knowledge of physics" is sufficient to criticize the work of people trained and experienced in a particular specialized field?

That is why I am getting the information from you that I do not know...

I am not responsible for educating you to the point of being able to support your claims. You must do your own work.

Personal attack on my integrity....

Not intended as such. I apologize for any hurt feelings.

I simply haven't seen you demonstrate any special skill at reasoning about thermodynamics. You may indeed be skilled, but until you demonstrate that skill in some way we have no obligation to acknowledge it. I and others have asked you repeatedly to reason quantitatively about these thermal issues, but have received only excuses why you cannot.

Like what?

I have posted more than 6,000 times to this forum alone in which I often describe my various engineering activities as a background for whatever topic is at hand. Sts60, Nicholas, Bob B. and Jrkeller are engineers or have expertise in engineering and may be consulted to vouch for my demonstrations of expertise. Most recently I completed work on the Boeing 787 Dreamliner project where I worked with Boeing's shared computing services.

we've already had this arguement and I won.

What is your evidence that the Apollo development process was compartmentalized?

It is simple logic that not every enginner knew every detail of the project!

Straw man. Compartmentalization is the intentional withholding of information from one functional group to another in order to contain knowledge of certain details, or to preclude a confident inference of a big picture from a sample of details. That is a fundamentally different condition than the natural inability of a human to keep in mind all the details of a large project, or than the natural consequence of division of labor. The key to the difference is whether knowledge can be known.

Do you argue that Apollo development was intentionally compartmentalized? Or do you accept that an Apollo engineer could reasonably get access to any information pertaining to the project that he wished?

It was highly compartmentalized, as all private sector development is..

Begging the question. I don't recognize you as qualified to characterize "all private sector development." On what basis do you imply that Apollo development was the same as Bullwinkle development? In what ways have you considered (and eliminated) that they may be different?

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

No. You said it was a simple problem that required only elementary physics and did not require a detailed knowledge of Apollo systems.

If it is a simple question, then I ask you to answer it. If it doesn't require detailed knowlege of Apollo, then stop saying you're waiting on me to provide it.

You must admit you know I dont have enough information as of yet to make a sceintific conclusion complete with evidenciary material

If you say you don't have enough information to support your assertions, then I will accept that admission and expect you withdraw your claims until such time as you feel you do.

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

I believe I am entitled to make a closing statement.
This board is not dedicated to facts, it is dedicated to concieling them. I already knew that when I registered here, this is no secret to any of you.

This posts on this thread are clear evidence of a conspiracy to cover up a fraudulent porkbarrel program. I am not the only one who thinks so, either.

I meant what I said about cancelling my membership here.
I know the 'moderators' are reading this thread, but I can still post. Why is that?

I guess you're not even going to comply with that request.

I don't wish to be listed as a member of such a forum.

Because I have no desire to "conceal the truth", to "silence your voice", or any other such HB nonsense. My only desire is that you participate in the debate in a proper, logical manner, that engages and acknowledges the entire community.

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

It can have a detrimental effect depending on the flux density.

What is your evidence that the Apollo spacecraft was exposed or expected to be exposed to a flux density sufficient to warrant inclusion of those effects in the thermal design?

In the current space enviroment , it would be a significant factor.

In the Apollo environment, what is the numerical magnitude of that factor compared to other thermal factors? Please given the numbers and I'll exercise my own judgment on its significance.

I made no such claim! I simply asked some questions.

No. In my post about ten hours ago I listed several statements you had made, phrased as allegations of fact, and asked you to reconcile them. Since you ignored them, they stand as allegations of fact. If you wish to withdraw them, now is the time.

This is a weak areguement.

It was designed to discover whether you believed thermal control for Apollo was impossible because engineers didn't know the environment, or because heat dissipation was not achievable in that environment. Upon further consideration, I don't believe I need to ask that explicitly. I believe you agree the engineers would have known what the design factors were.

SO you're saying they turned the engine of the CM towards the Sun?

No.

Impact from high energy particles imparts heating.

How much?

Again, the effects would be determined by flux density and velocities.

And again, to what extent was that significant for Apollo?

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

This is your contention. This is a spacecraft, in space. Using established thermal control technology of the day. Knowledege of the thermal environment, and thermal mitigation technologies of the day, well known.
The numbers then match the numbers now, the issues were understood.
What's the problem you see...specifically?
Best as I can tell, vaccuum radiational cooling works, at well established rates. If it's insufficient for the heat load, other means are available to augment it.
If the numbers established are wrong, what do you have to counter them?

There is really nothing left to discuss. Apparently I cannot cancel my own membership here, so I am making a simple request on my own behalf for you to remove my ID from the listing and cancel my membership.

This thread appears to be getting bogged down in "he said, she said" -- and the addition of inconsistent quoting is making for posts that are painfully difficult to follow.

Would it possible to come back a little towards basics?


I would assume we can all accept that a closed system can come to a thermal equilibrium comfortable to human life. The Earth is a (mostly) closed system, sitting in direct sunlight, and is on average temperate on the surface (and in the extremes still survivable).

Gemini, Skylab, Mir, so on and so forth also appear to have managed this task. Would IDW be willing to let stand for the purposes of argument that such thermal control is both theoretically possible and historically proven for other projects?

I am particularly concerned that the digression into the thermal contribution of charged particles not sidetrack the discussion. Will IDW accept that the plausibility or implausibility of Apollo Program thermal control can be adequately calculated without invoking particles or forces outside the EM spectrum?

If not, is IDW willing to postulate that such particles or forces are so significant as to render discussion without them meaningless? If so, I believe discussion is stalled until the question of what these particles and forces are, and what there impact is, has been satisfactorily resolved.

I am not a moderator, and I don't even expect much agreement from other members here on what I say. I am merely trying to make some suggestions to put off the seemingly inevitable train wreck for as long as possible.

__________________
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Ad-hominem in poor taste.

As the above example should demonstrate, I am being particularly lenient in the hopes that you are unusually upset and will soon return to a more balanced temper. You are "getting away" with some shots yourself, IDW, although perhaps not for much longer, if you are truly sincere in not wanting to be a member here. I do, however, hope you take a deep breath and change your mind. I encourage all members to stay, and abide by the same rules that bind us

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

IDW,
I hope you will support your contention with data, and be strong enough to know when you are wrong. If you are correct, you will be globally famous and we will be the dupes. If not, then maybe you have learned something new, like so may of us here. No life ending event there.
Your determined departure seems premature, presuming your expertise.

Please post any evidence you have that points to this conclusion. If not, it will be considered as withdrawn, along with the points Jay, VanRijn, and others have made.

It appears to me that, as usual, once proven wrong, you are falling back to the "disinfo", "dedicated to concealment" mumbo-jumbo. Translated into AOL-kiddiespeak, "ZOMG I juzt got pwnt LOL haxxorz". Translated into a more mature language, "My claims have all been refuted, the knowledge I claimed to be extensive and bullet-proof has been found sorely lacking, the quirks I stated would be simple to prove have been torn to shreds by the light of reason. I have 2 choices - admit I was wrong, or accuse them of being Super-Duper Secret Agents Commited to the Great Gubmint Lie (tm)".

Of course, how you handle it is entirely up to you. I hope you at least take the high road

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

Being rigid in ones thinking and adherding to poor decisions out of anger or pride is not what I am doing. This is not such a decision.
I have simply obtained the desired information I required and want my membership here canceled. This is not an emotional response at all.
In case you haven't noticed, it is Jay who is intitating the attacks like he always does. I am simply doing what I always do, responding effectively enough to be seen as a "problem" to your agenda here, which is apparent to me anyway.
There are representaives here from various Apollo contractors defending a lie. That is all I have to say on this board from this point henchforth. If it is required that I commit some act of disobedience that causes my banishment here and the removal of my registration information, that is what I will do.
I am am man of integity, convictions and principals that I will not compromise in a **** slinging contest with the 'superstar' propagandist Jay and his cohorts here. Most of them are woefully ignorant, by the way, and do not belong on science board. This isn't really a science board though, is it?.

Okay. If such is your sincere wish, and you are threatening a bannable offence simply to be granted, consider yourself banned, and enjoy your martyrdom badge on your other websites. However, I will not "erase" your membership or your posts - your "arguments" will remain archived for antiquity.

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

Because Jay, in his sometimes impersonal way, demands answers to unsubstantiated claims, you feel somehow abused?
Consider your claims, in a big picture...we are all dupes, or outright liars in the Apollo picture. Our numbers and evidence are lies, as is the evidence we present.
And you present...allegations. No numbers to compare with the "establihsed" data, no firm information. Suggestions...
You are presented with real information (were you able to read Van Rijn's .pdf?) and didn't answer the information presented.
If you really seek a truth, you don't just bail out...regardless of the adversarial environment.
(edit ,,Dang...I want a paycheck from an Apollo contractor...if there are any still readily identifiable...ok, Boeing will do...)

I used the car as an example of a lifetime of similar experience.

The number of times your experience was repeated has nothing to do with its applicability to some other problem, nor the correctness of the generalization you propose to make from it. One correctly interpreted experience is worth more than any number of improperly interpreted ones.

You are trying to make this an emotional, personal question. It is not. You seem to want us to take this example as evidence of what would occur in the space environment. You have the burden to show the applicability of the experience. I don't see that you're listening to the reasons we're giving why it's not applicable.

I havent made a single 'presumptive leap'.

It's not uncommon for people to be unaware of the presumptions they make. That's why we test our ideas on others. In this case you presume that you have done everything necessary to equate your car example with the Apollo spacecraft.

Show me where I mentioned the cars interior.

In post #170. You said the car was "too hot to sit in." In post #168 I had asked what part of the Delorean you referred to.

Now I wanted to focus on the car's interior for a reason; I wanted to draw a parallel between a car interior and the interior of the CM for Apollo 13 and point out that certain thermal controls worked similarly in both cases. I don't claim the example is identical in all important respects. But I wanted to point out some things you had previously had questions about.

I did not intend to limit the discussion to the car interior, as my comments in post #168 should illustrate.

You continually claim I said things I didn't.

Post #72Post #82I can't immediately find the post in which you suggested that only actual empirical testing would tell us for sure, but there was significant discussion on the point including examples of empirical testing for Apollo. And I indeed said you implied that the results would differ materially from our ballpark estimates, meaning that's what I believe you inteded to convey by the statement.

In a recent post I listed these and several other statements you made phrased as allegations of fact and asked you explicitly to confirm whether you intended them as such. You did not respond. I did this specifically to avoid holding you accountable for statements you did not actually intend to stand as contended propositions. I am attempting to be fair, but it requires your cooperation.

How is testing the reflectivity and equilibrium temperatures of various metal structures in sunlight INCORRECT?

It's incorrect when only assumption is used to attempt to control for all the other variables that affect the test. It's less correct when only the assumptions that improve the outcome for you are considered. It's even less correct when the assumptions themselves aren't especially true.

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

The old Earthbound paradigm prevails yet again...it seems HBs lack imagination, and more.
Imagine space...odd gravities, and vaccuum...

Jay's probably tired of it by now, but I still get a kick when I'm accused of being a "Super-Duper Secret Agent" dealing in disinformation. Heh. It's just so absurd.

Ah, well. Perhaps it is time to close this thread, now that he's out of here?

__________________
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

Heh, yeah. Between my own medical problems, working myself to death, caring for a mother, in my off-time, who is recovering from a stroke, and trying to fit family somewhere in there, I somehow manage to be a master government disinfo agent at the same time. And amazingly, despite the gigantic payoffs I must be getting from NASA and the private sector, I STILL must work 70ish hours a week to make ends meet. I don't know where I'm going wrong...

But yes, I imagine it's time to close the thread. He can't respond to anything. Thread closed.

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

Thread unlocked to allow continuing community discussion. Please keep in mind that IDW is banned and unable to respond to any posts

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

Wow, I go away to a family reunion for a while and miss out on all the excitement!

I gotta step out of the shadows and commend all you regular posters on your professionalism and pertinent information during this discussion. I'm sure I speak for a lot of the lurkers here that your knowledge is being used at a far greater rate than you may imagine.

BTW, my cousin at the reunion suggested the very bright, reddish-colored star beneath Jupiter was some secret US government satellite used to spy on us common folk. Wouldn't you know, a little research later, it was just Antares!

__________________
End of line.

You should have told him that for the "satellite" to remain stationary (like stars pretty much do) the orbit of the satellite would have to be beyond Jupiter and of course orbiting the sun. And it would have to be almost as large as Jupiter to seem that bright.

Well, first matter of business I think should be to link to topic Thermal Control of Spacecraft, that arose because this thread was locked. For those interested in the topic:

I think its contents should be moved here, but linking (well... and asking) is all that is within my power.

There. I feel relieved.

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

One issue we didn't get into too much was the thermal environment in LEO (or in lunar orbit for that matter) versus conditions further away from the planet. A spacecraft can both gain heat from a nearby warm world (Earth, Moon, etc.) and it can be harder to radiate heat away, because radiators work best facing deep space.

There is also the amount of time (or fraction of time) a spacecraft might be in sunlight. Spacecraft in high inclination orbits can get a lot of sunlight. Does anyone have figures handy for the average time the ISS is in sunlight versus darkness and the maximum length of time it has been in sunlight at one time?

__________________
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

I know I missed the fun (actually hid from it, I was in the last round with IDW on GLP and didn't feel like doing it again,) but I found this book on Thermal Control in Spacecraft in about 30 seconds. I guess that goes to show that one should really just try Google before making statments like "As far as I know there simply arent any books published on the subject of spacecraft thermodynamics."

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran