Photos from Apollo 11 film footage

[Bob B.]

with a 200-250 degree radiant heat source?

The power of a heat source is not measured by temperature.

On the other hand what would convince you that the landings were faked?

Incontrovertible evidence.  And I mean real evidence, not the kind of Mickey Mouse evidence the conspiracy theorists toss about.  I would also need a plausible explanation for how the seemingly unfakable was faked.

Would you even admit that if NASA was forced to fake the moon landings they could have done so?

I’m convinced that NASA could not have faked the moon landings as we know them.  They might have been able to fake a moon landing, but they would have had to go about it in a much different way.  I find no plausible explanation for much of the evidence other than the moon landings being authentic.  And I find no evidence of fraud.

[profmunkin]

Peering in the direction of the late day Sun on Earth is even difficult. NASA implies the Sun visor was essential, but movie of activity shows this not to be the case. Was the Sun visor more of a prop to hide astronauts scraggly faces in photo ops?
Exposure to Sun light would cause an immediate rise in skin temperature. The level of UV light is also increased dramatically, yet it did not have any apparent affect in causing burns?

Is it being implied that the astronaut oxygen supply was temperature controlled?

Was the oxygen container temperature controlled?
Was there a compressor to recycle the used oxygen back into the pressurized oxygen tank?

[JayUtah]

Peering in the direction of the late day Sun on Earth is even difficult.

Yet it is done all the time, and you suggest that what Aldrin was doing did not cause him difficulty.  I live in a desert and I typically wear sunglasses.  However, there are times when I need to see clearly, such as to read a polarized equipment display.  I momentarily remove my sunglasses and then replace them.  It's slightly uncomfortable, but necessary. I don't see what the big deal is.

NASA implies the Sun visor was essential...

[citation needed]

Was the Sun visor more of a prop to hide astronauts scraggly faces in photo ops?

The LEVA features were to be used at the astronauts' discretion, based on their comfort and needs.

Exposure to Sun light would cause an immediate rise in skin temperature.

Compute how much and how fast.  I'm an engineer and I'll be checking your work.

The level of UV light is also increased dramatically...

No.  Clear Lexan is naturally opaque to UV.

Is it being implied that the astronaut oxygen supply was temperature controlled?

The astronaut's oxygen supply is temperature controlled, but you overstate the degree to which sun exposure would cause heat stress.

Was the oxygen container temperature controlled?

Yes.

Was there a compressor to recycle the used oxygen back into the pressurized oxygen tank?

No.  You're making assumptions about how the space suit oxygen circuit worked.

[JayUtah]

On the other hand what would convince you that the landings were faked?

I've given my answer to this question many times in different forums.  But you are the hook to defend your standard of proof for the moment.  Turnabout doesn't work here.

Would you even admit that if NASA was forced to fake the moon landings they could have done so?

I've also answered this question many times, and I'll answer it again.  But you owe us your answers first.

[JayUtah]

The photo evidence for Apollo 11 technically supports moon scenes. I do not know about the other Apollo mission photos.

No, let's be absolutely clear about what happened.  You tried to "analyze" the photos using the same ignorant, homegrown techniques that all Apollo conspiracy theorists have used.  And you got caught.

Admitting that your conclusion was poorly founded is the proper first step to recovering from that mistake.  But what's happening here is that you're unabashedly making up new "sciences" as you go in the attempt to show some objective reason to believe in a hoax theory.  What this says to me is that you've already decided for other reasons that the Apollo missions are fake and now you're trying to come up with a sciency-sounding explanation that will convince others that your belief may not be wholly crackpot.

Was the Sun visor only necessary for photo ops?

The sun visor was needed only when the astronaut felt he needed it.  You're trying to make up a new rule for astronauts to follow, just so you can try to call them fake for not following it.  The world doesn't work that way.

How long would it take to heat a face, inside a bubble, with a 200-250 degree radiant heat source?

This question doesn't even make sense.  Read a book on heat transfer and try again.

Any signs of burned faces when they returned?

No.

In Cancun, at noon, in direct sun, laying down, face up, even with eyes closed, heat and light can be intolerable.

And if that had anything to do with the astronaut's condition, you might have a point.

[sts60]

Peering in the direction of the late day Sun on Earth is even difficult. NASA implies the Sun visor was essential,

Where exactly is it stated that continuous use of the Sun visor was essential?

but movie of activity shows this not to be the case.

I grew up in the American Southwest.  I could operate just fine without sunglasses, and the intensity of the the full Sun in visible light is not that much greater in space.  Anyway, in addition to the Sun visor, the Apollo helmets had adjustable internal sunshades as well.

Was the Sun visor more of a prop to hide astronauts scraggly faces in photo ops?

This makes no sense whatsoever, as we have plenty of images of the crew's faces before and after EVAs, and their scruffy faces were photographed and publicized after splashdown as well.

Exposure to Sun light would cause an immediate rise in skin temperature. The level of UV light is also increased dramatically, yet it did not have any apparent affect in causing burns?

Both the inner visor and Sun visor rejected much of the infrared and ultraviolet light.  I refer you to NASA TN-D-8093, Apollo Experience Report - Development of the Extravehicular Mobility Unit.

Is it being implied that the astronaut oxygen supply was temperature controlled?...

Of course the suits were temperature controlled; they provided active cooling through vacuum sublimation.

Edit: fixed typo.

[sts60]

On the other hand what would convince you that the landings were faked?
Would you even admit that if NASA was forced to fake the moon landings they could have done so?

Clear evidence that the technology would not have worked.   In the course of my work as a practicing space engineer, I have not only never seen such evidence, but I have seen plenty of evidence that validates Apollo technology and techniques.

Now, kindly answer the question that was asked of you: What exactly would convince you that Apollo was real?

[cjameshuff]

Peering in the direction of the late day Sun on Earth is even difficult. NASA implies the Sun visor was essential, but movie of activity shows this not to be the case. Was the Sun visor more of a prop to hide astronauts scraggly faces in photo ops?
Exposure to Sun light would cause an immediate rise in skin temperature. The level of UV light is also increased dramatically, yet it did not have any apparent affect in causing burns?

A tint is not necessary to block UV. Even common automobile windows are designed to block UV. UV protection was not the purpose of the tinted visor, they were simply for comfort in bright sunlight. That they weren't always lowered means only that they were not always needed, nothing else.

Is it being implied that the astronaut oxygen supply was temperature controlled?

I'm not implying anything, I'm stating a documented fact. Detailed technical descriptions of the cooling system are widely available.

Was the oxygen container temperature controlled?
Was there a compressor to recycle the used oxygen back into the pressurized oxygen tank?

Yes, the oxygen tank was temperature controlled. And no, "used oxygen" was never compressed and put back into the tank...why would they ever do such a thing?

More, why didn't you do any research into such basic functionality of their suits before deciding they were inadequate?

[sts60]

Like I said on the old forum: I love the sound of batting practice on a nice ~spring day.

[Glom]

So I take it profmunkin that you haven't found any further inconsistencies with the 20,000 photographs since now you're on to begging the question with the LEMU.

[scooter]

Profmunkin,

In case you don't realize it yet, you are on a site populated by folks very knowledgable on Apollo, and spaceflight engineering in general. Several do it for a living. The rest of us are still learning...and that's the operative word here...."learning".

When on the Moon, many Earthbound paradigms no longer apply. There are also many assumptions made about the space/lunar environment which aren't understood using these paradigms. The sunlight on the Moon isn't instantly blinding nor incinerating. The surface doesn't immediately go from -250 to +250F in a matter of hours after lunar sunrise.

Do yourself a favor an read what you're being told, and ask real, un-leading questions. It's a fascinating field of science, with a lot of seeming contradictions with "common sense". Open your brain, you'll be the better for it. Get out of the hoax mindset, and learn what many thousands of folks depend on in their day-to-day jobs.

[ka9q]

The answers to many of the questions you ask are in the NASA technical literature. Go have a look at it; it's vast. (Would an organization trying to protect a massive hoax release so much data?)

The site is the NASA Technical Reports Service, http://ntrs.nasa.gov/

You will have to know what you're doing and what you're looking for; most of these documents were written by working scientists and engineers for other scientists and engineers, not the general public.

Among the most interesting (IMHO) of the Apollo documents is the series of Apollo Experience Reports put out toward the end of the program. To this engineer, at least, they are surprisingly readable and give a lot of useful advice to anyone contemplating doing it all over again. (I'm sure they were required reading for engineers working on the Constellation program).

In Apollo Experience Report - Development of the Extravehicular Mobility Unit, NASA TN D-8093, on page 20, is a table showing all of the relevant thermal and optical properties of each layer in the LEVA, the Lunar EVA Visor Assembly (?). The astronauts put them over their pressure helmets during EVA to shade the sun, block harmful ultraviolet (UV) light, cut glare, and reduce the external heat load on the life support system. Cooling was provided by evaporating a limited supply of water into space, so conservation was important.

Rather than just retype all the numbers here, I'll discuss a few that may be of interest.

Under the LEVA was the pressure helmet, the same one worn inside the spacecraft when needed. It was obviously not removed during EVA. It was made of Lexan (polycarbonate) plastic. It is practically transparent to visible light (92%), moderately transparent to near infrared (68%), completely opaque in the far infrared (0%), and dark but not opaque in ultraviolet light (18%).

The impact protective visor, worn over the bubble helmet, transmitted 63% of visible light, 37% of near infrared, but no UV or far IR at all. Because it completely blocked UV, this visor was always in place during an EVA to prevent sunburn and eye damage ("snow blindness").

The impact protective visor was still fairly transparent to visible light so you could see in shadow without too much trouble. But for the same reason there might be too much glare in sunlit areas so an outer "sun" visor was also provided. This is the gold one most famously seen on the astronauts on the moon. It transmitted only 19% of the visible light and even less (12%) of near infrared so it kept a lot of the sun's heat out of your face and the cooling system.

The gold visor was just like a pair of sunglasses, up to the wearer to use or not. Many astronauts lifted it to see in the shade, as the Apollo 11 astronauts did in the LM's shadow, and then dropped it when going back out into sunlight.

Remember that even with this gold visor up, the inner visor and the helmet still provided excellent protection against ultraviolet sunburn and eye damage.

On some of the later missions, especially Apollo 17, the visors quickly became badly scratched by the highly abrasive lunar dust. On TV we can often see Jack Schmitt, especially, often raising his visor while in sunlight simply to be able to see clearly.

[ka9q]

Is it being implied that the astronaut oxygen supply was temperature controlled?

You don't need to tease out "implications" when the detailed designs, specifications and even the users' manuals are all available to you through the NTRS.

But yes, the oxygen supply was temperature controlled. It absolutely had to be, because the design philosphy was to make the suit as good an insulator as it could possibly be. This kept sunlight and the moon's thermal radiation from leaking into the suit, and it retained the astronaut's heat from being radiated to deep space when in shadow. But this also trapped the astronaut's own metabolic heat even when you didn't want it. Imagine wrapping yourself up tightly in the best sleeping bag you've ever had and then going out in the desert sun on a geology field trip. You wouldn't last long.

This waste heat was dumped to space through a "sublimator", an ingeniously simple device that evaporated water to space, carrying waste heat with it. Yes, water is a pretty precious commodity on the moon but the Apollo astronauts were there for only a few days so this was an appropriate method.

Originally the plan was to simply cool the oxygen that recirculated through the suit, but studies found that the metabolic rates on the moon were likely to be too high for this to work efficiently. The blower would be too loud and take too much power. The astronaut also wore a "liquid cooling garmet", basically long underwear into which small water tubes were embedded. The life support system circulated water through this to remove body heat, dumping it into space via the same "sublimator" used to cool the oxygen.

By all accounts the portable life support systems operated magnificently. None ever failed in flight (though it had an emergency backup, the Oxygen Purge System). The astronauts were given a 3-position switch to control the cooling, and most of them rarely went past the lowest level most of the time.

Was the oxygen container temperature controlled?

The container didn't have to be temperature controlled; it simply supplied fresh oxygen to a fan-driven recirculation loop that went through the suit and backpack.

Was there a compressor to recycle the used oxygen back into the pressurized oxygen tank?

"Used" oxygen is known as carbon dioxide.  You would definitely not want to put this back into your oxygen tank. The backpack removed the CO₂ with LiOH canisters, miscellaneous gases with charcoal, and humidity by condensation and separation as it passed through the sublimator.

A very accurate way to think of the PLSS is as a diving rebreather -- almost all the major components are the same. Rebreathers are famous for allowing very long dives because they use oxygen so efficiently.

The OPS could be thought of as SCUBA backup; far simpler than the PLSS (or a diving rebreather) but far less efficient with oxygen. The PLSS on the later missions carried about 8 hours of all consumables. The OPS contained substantially more oxygen than the PLSS, but had it been needed it would only have lasted 30-60 minutes because the gas would have flowed just once through the suit and out into space, just as the gas from a scuba diver's tank is exhaled as bubbles after being breathed only once, still containing a lot of oxygen.

[Jason Thompson]

On the other hand what would convince you that the landings were faked?
Would you even admit that if NASA was forced to fake the moon landings they could have done so?

No, you were asked the question first. Answer it, don't turn it back on the askers.

[Jason Thompson]

The level of UV light is also increased dramatically, yet it did not have any apparent affect in causing burns?

It is a very easily verifiable fact that the clear lexan (polycarbonate) material that the bubble helmet was made of is opaque to UV.

Is it being implied that the astronaut oxygen supply was temperature controlled?

There is no implication. The temperature control of the suit is very well documented and, incidentally, the same method is still used in spacesuits today.