Hello,
I couldn't post before hand as my account had never been authorised so I am here as a noob and first time poster.
Speaking as a relative n00b myself, wilkommen, bienvenue, c'mon in...
Funny thing is I have found the opposite in the sense that I have found truther's to make fake accounts to make out as though there are more believers or promoting the same so called evidence or confirmation.
For example? Which accounts do you believe are sockpuppets? How would you prove it?
I have found quite a few people that are believers that just make up stories left and right that go against the transcripts as well as equipment lists provided by NASA and easily found from the NASA site.
On this site? Who are not themselves conspiracy theorists?
I also see a lot of SPECIAL being flouted by believers with no link to what the SPECIAL is.
Made up stories about SPECIAL battery packs, where as the truth is as explained by NASA of the shelf technology was used where ever possible and batteries were one of the off the shelf items used.
And you have links or copies of documentation for this assertion? I can't think of much OTS tech used in the Apollo program - it was almost all custom built. The tooling to build that custom equipment was custom built, that's part of why the program cost so damned much.
Every truther makes out they know for fact how temperatures work in space and on the Moon, yet NASA states complete opposite views as they seem to have results from experiments done in space and on the Moon showing temperatures.
Remember that "temperature" and "heat" are not the same thing. You can stick your hand in a 100C oven for several seconds and nothing bad will happen; your hand will get warm, but not much more than that. Stick your hand in a 100C pot of water and you'll be severely burned. There's more
heat in the pot of water than in the oven, even though they have the same
temperature. The concept of "temperature" doesn't really apply to a vacuum, but "heat" does (technically, "heat" is the
flow of thermal energy from a hotter to cooler system).
Yes, any object on the lunar surface (or in orbit) will have a temperature - during the lunar "day" it's absorbing heat radiated from the Sun and warming up, while during a lunar "night" it's radiating that heat back out to space and cooling down. In a vacuum, you don't have conduction to move heat around, so things will heat up and cool down more slowly than they would in air or water.
Ask any truther and temperature works like magic in space and on the Moon,
More like, it works the way we expect it to work anywhere else; you just don't have convection to move heat around as effectively as you would on Earth.
NASA states below 56C in the shade which would make any Film unusable but of course Silver Anodising stops anything from getting hot or cold as truthers will say.
So much garbled information in such few words.
The film used on the Moon was
designed for use in a vacuum with extremes of temperature. Instead of using the usual acetate base (which would have warped), it used a polyester base that could tolerate wide temperature swings.
Storing the film in highly reflective magazines reduced the amount of
heat that the film was exposed to. Again, in a vacuum, you don't have convection moving things around. As the rolls were kept in protective magazines (which themselves weren't constantly exposed to the Sun), they didn't get anywhere near as hot as anything left out on the surface.
Leave an item on the Moon in the shade for 8 hours and truthers say no problems it won't get to cold, what temperature it does get none of them say but it's not bad as otherwise it would go against the possibility of certain things being possible.
In a vacuum, the only ways for an object to cool off are through radiation and conduction via the surface it's on. That's slower than if you have convection working for you. The exact rates of cooling will depend on the material, the surface area, its starting temperature, etc. Shiny objects will cool off more slowly than black objects, stuff with lots of surface area to volume will cool off more quickly than cubes or spheres, etc.
NASA states 123C in the Sun on the Moon at the minimum because of the time they landed.
Funny thing is from all scientific sites I could find once the Sun shines on anything in space and on the Moon it doesn't matter what time of day it is as there is no atmosphere for the Sun to go through to lesson it's effects.
The angle of the Sun relative to the surface
absolutely makes a difference. Morning is cooler than midday which is warmer than evening. The Apollo missions landed in the lunar "morning".
Any object in direct Sun can reach a temperature of 250C which is what happens and again proof from ISS
Astronauts and Shuttle crew explaining the problems they have whilst outside in space with tools getting so hot they need to use insulation wraps or blankets.
Yup. Insulation, wraps, reflectors, shades, active cooling, etc. All of which were used on Apollo.
This was easily found by a couple Google checks from NASA missions from the ISS and Shuttle Crew.
Yet when it comes to the Moon it's all SPECIAL no metal objects get to hot or too cold, must have been the Goldilocks time of day on the Moon each time.
Or, more likely, the equipment was designed to account for those temperature extremes.
Not one of you people look at the video and see them moving in slow motion and have one problem with it, all you get is well they wouldn't move fast as the ground has sharp rocks and they could cut their suit or something similar, yet truth shows them falling let right and centre doing weird movements to get back up, not once do you hear any of them talking as though at any second they could die.
1/6th gravity means you don't hit the ground as hard. And the suits were pretty robust (had to be).
First people on the Moon never done before never landed a manned vehicle on the Moon all first time events as none of the equipment they used had ever been tested in a Lunar environment.
First, that's not true. Apollo 9 and 10 were flown to shake out the LM both in Earth and Lunar orbit. By the time Neil and Buzz flew the Eagle, its performance characteristics in a lunar environment were pretty well known.
Secondly, they
simulated the hell of out landing, both in ground simulators and the LLRV. The wonderful thing about physics is that it works the same no matter where you are, and you can
predict how things will perform ahead of time.
Apollo 11 wasn't the first thing we landed on the Moon, either; a number of unmanned probes preceded it and helped characterize the lunar surface environment. They weren't flying blind. They knew (largely) what to expect (the boulder field that Neil had to fly past was a bit of a surprise).
Yet they went from a less than 60% success rate to a 100% for every man1ned mission.
Apollo 13 was a loss of mission (LOM) - they didn't land on the Moon. They managed not to lose the crew (LOC) or the vehicle (LOV), but it was a failed mission, putting the success rate at 8/9, or about 88%. If we count Apollo 1 (LOC/LOV), then the success rate goes down to 80%.
Years later they couldn't get close to this with the Shuttle missions.
Shuttle flew 135 missions with 3 losses. STS-51-F aborted to orbit for LOM, STS-51-L resulted in the destruction of
Challenger on launch for LOM and LOC/LOV, and STS-107 resulted in the destruction of
Columbia on re-entry for LOC/LOV. That gives the STS program a success rate of 132/135, or about 98%.
