Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing

[Jason Thompson]

I told him about the lunar orbiters, landers and impactors that landed/photographed/crashed the moon prior to Apollo.

Gaia denies all of them because space travel is a physical impossibility according to him.

 In fact, in his words he 'knowns' space travel, manned or unmanned, is impossible.

Which rather makes all his other arguments pointless. If space travel is impossible then ass his arguments about moving on the Moon and not having a geologist on the first landing become moot. It's a pretty good indicator he is only trying to look smart by having all these arguments ready to use.

What, according to him, renders all space travel impossible?

[onebigmonkey]

I thought better of my original concluding comment "Gaia is an idiot" and deleted it.

I needn't have bothered.

[ka9q]

Ditto thermal issues, radiation issues, and so forth.

I disagree that the thermal issues were already known. The thermal environment on the moon is quite different from low earth orbit.

The two are the same in that approximately one hemisphere is black sky, which is essentially at absolute zero, with a 0.5 degree diameter ~6000K sun (sometimes) illuminating you. But the other hemispheres are vastly different. In earth orbit, you're exposed to an earth with a relatively uniform (day and night) effective temperature of 255 K. On the moon, you're exposed to a surface with a huge temperature range, from extremely cold (~95K) in shadowed areas prior to sunrise to ~390K (120C+) in areas normal to the sun. This was a significant design consideration for the CSM, which had to radiate the right amount of heat above lunar surfaces at all local times of day.

The suits were designed to insulate the wearer from as much of this as possible, but they weren't perfect. I know the Apollo 12 astronauts, at the least, remarked that they felt warmer on their second EVA than their first. They couldn't understand why this should be so, so this argues that their perceptions were real.

As for radiation, it was closely watched at least during the Apollo 11 EVA. A conversation on the flight loop (surgeon?) asks for more frequent dosimeter readings so they could establish a dose rate, since they didn't have a rate meter. The numbers were too low, though.

[bknight]

Ditto thermal issues, radiation issues, and so forth.

I disagree that the thermal issues were already known. The thermal environment on the moon is quite different from low earth orbit.

The two are the same in that approximately one hemisphere is black sky, which is essentially at absolute zero, with a 0.5 degree diameter ~6000K sun (sometimes) illuminating you. But the other hemispheres are vastly different. In earth orbit, you're exposed to an earth with a relatively uniform (day and night) effective temperature of 255 K. On the moon, you're exposed to a surface with a huge temperature range, from extremely cold (~95K) in shadowed areas prior to sunrise to ~390K (120C+) in areas normal to the sun. This was a significant design consideration for the CSM, which had to radiate the right amount of heat above lunar surfaces at all local times of day.

The suits were designed to insulate the wearer from as much of this as possible, but they weren't perfect. I know the Apollo 12 astronauts, at the least, remarked that they felt warmer on their second EVA than their first. They couldn't understand why this should be so, so this argues that their perceptions were real.

As for radiation, it was closely watched at least during the Apollo 11 EVA. A conversation on the flight loop (surgeon?) asks for more frequent dosimeter readings so they could establish a dose rate, since they didn't have a rate meter. The numbers were too low, though.

Just like it took them 30 minutes to "discover" that the whole Surveyor 3 was covered with dust. 

[JayUtah]

Gaia denies all of them because space travel is a physical impossibility according to him.

What great disdain he seems to have for his betters.  Geology is not a licensed profession.  There is no consequence for being wrong.  Engineering, including aeronautical engineering, is a licensed profession.  There is a 13-hour exam to qualify in most states of the United States, and one is legally liable for the correctness of his findings thereafter.  From that position I assert not only that space travel is physical possible, it's a thriving industry.

Gaia is an insult to science.  His degrees, such as they may be, should be withdrawn.

[Ranb]

If someone is going to claim that space travel is impossible, then why bother with all of the other "evidence"?

[Dalhousie]

Gaia denies all of them because space travel is a physical impossibility according to him.

Geology is not a licensed profession. 

Your degree from a recognised institution is considered a licence.  Some specialisations, such as ore reserve estimation, require membership of a specific professional society.

Nor is licensing necessarily a better assurance of technical competence than the above.  Hence the number of licenced professionals who still do questionable work.

There is no consequence for being wrong.

You mean, other than being fired, sued, losing credibility, or being hauled before an official inquiry? 

Please research a bit deeper before criticising someone else's profession.

[JayUtah]

Please research a bit deeper before criticising someone else's profession.

You're right, I apologize.  My criticism was unfair and inaccurate.  I was attempting to criticize an individual and his individual behavior.  Somehow that morphed into criticizing an entire profession, which was not my intent.  There's no part of that post I think merits any attempt at explanation or rehabilitation.  I withdraw it entirely.

[JayUtah]

I disagree that the thermal issues were already known. The thermal environment on the moon is quite different from low earth orbit.

Different, yes, but not unknown.  The way I phrased it may have been unclear.  When talking strictly of vacuum, we don't distinguish between vacuum near an object and vacuum elsewhere.  When dealing with thermal issues, we do include the environs.  But those issues are not unknown or unknowable, and that was my point -- what I meant by "ditto." The LM designers, for example, knew that some radiators could not have a prolonged view factor that included the lunar surface because they knew the radiative properties and accounted for them.  Less ditto with Ionizing radiation and other design factorrs because the models weren't as well developed as for heat transfer.  But they were reasonably predictive.  That makes the the problem knowable enough to work out a short-term solution.  And then yes, as you mention, you measure scrupulously to make sure the statistical confidence you relied on for planning translates to operational confidence.

[raven]

Also, NASA did have direct experience with the lunar  environment with the Ranger, Surveyor and prosaically named Lunar Orbiter series before Apollo, so most surprises could have been sussed out that way.

[ka9q]

Different, yes, but not unknown.  The way I phrased it may have been unclear.  When talking strictly of vacuum, we don't distinguish between vacuum near an object and vacuum elsewhere.  When dealing with thermal issues, we do include the environs.  But those issues are not unknown or unknowable, and that was my point -- what I meant by "ditto."

While some of the thermal properties of the lunar surface were known from Lunar Orbiter and Surveyor, not all were. In particular, it was not known until the Apollo surface missions just how pernicious the lunar dust can be from a thermal standpoint. It sticks to everything, and even a small amount on a radiator significantly reduces its effectiveness.

The ALSEP reports show significantly higher than expected temperatures for many of the experiments, especially at the J-mission landing sites where the radiators viewed the surrounding mountains.

[JayUtah]

While some of the thermal properties of the lunar surface were known from Lunar Orbiter and Surveyor, not all were.

Granted.  But the concept I'm rebutting is that the Moon was a "completely unknown environment" (emphasis added).  In doing so I'm not trying to argue that it was a completely known environment.  If we agree that truth lies somewhere between those two extremes, then we could probably quibble endlessly (but nevertheless interestingly) over the propriety of design and operation.  And in the process we could probably find some legitimate design errors.

The syllogism I see at fault here is, "The Moon was a completely unknown environment, therefore it was dangerous for them not to have sent a geologist to land on it first."  One of the myriad things I find wrong with that argument is that the people who planned the missions and designed the equipment are seen to have had enough reliable knowledge of the environment in order to achieve success, where "success" allows for unforeseen detriments that could have been accommodated through conservative design and operation.

The ALSEP reports show significantly higher than expected temperatures for many of the experiments, especially at the J-mission landing sites where the radiators viewed the surrounding mountains.

Indeed, we've had this discussion before.  https://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=151.15  That includes me having recalled incorrectly then as now which equipment was in jeopardy, and you having corrected me to remind me it was the ALSEP radiators.  I should probably write that down somewhere, or at least compensate you for repeated fact-checking.  In any case, I interpreted that to mean the designers knew they needed a clear view of open sky in order for the radiators to work effectively and designed it ostensibly to provide that.  Do you interpret it instead to mean they weren't fully aware of the potential adverse effects of the environment?

[ka9q]

The designers certainly knew the radiators needed a view of dark sky. They did not need to avoid the sun, as they were second-surface mirrors with low absorptivity (high visible/near IR reflectivity). But a radiator must have high emissivity to function as a radiator, which means it will just as efficiently absorb far IR as radiate it. (An optical diode at a single wavelength, could be used to violate the second law of thermodynamics. Ergo, single-wavelength optical diodes don't exist. But nothing says you can't have a material absorb at one wavelength and reflect at another. That's the definition of a colored object.)

This property of radiators (direct sun OK, direct lunar surface exposure not OK) is one of those counter-intuitive yet factual things that trips up a lot of hoaxers and others who substitute their "common sense" for the laws of physics.

What the designers didn't know was just how much of a thermal problem lunar dust would be. That's my only point. Even Surveyor couldn't be expected to provide that information, but the Apollo astronauts discovered it pretty quickly.

[JayUtah]

What the designers didn't know was just how much of a thermal problem lunar dust would be. That's my only point. Even Surveyor couldn't be expected to provide that information, but the Apollo astronauts discovered it pretty quickly.

Okay, I think we agree.  So let's say the various effects of dust constituted an unforeseen hazard.  It was unforeseen by all the experts who contributed to Apollo mission planning, which included a fair number of top geologists.  Can you think of any reason why having a geologist onsite would have made the initial lunar missions safer with respect to dust behavior?  I'm struggling to come up with any.

[Glom]

I think Dalhousie gets the coveted "I corrected JayUtah" fleece. That's one better than the T-shirt.