The Absence of Airlocks

[onebigmonkey]

"Stop the dust floating around from entering"?

Really?

Really??

[onebigmonkey]

Correct me if I am wrong,

We are doing, but there are only so many hours in a day.

[ApolloEnthusiast]

The question is how did they do that?

Instead of the bizarre fantasy land you've portrayed, they performed every mission in the actual universe, where essentially none of the things you described would happen. 

 

[Ranb]

Shutting the door would not have stopped the vacuum of space from entering but it would have stopped any potential harmful dust floating around from entering the cabin.

Surely you understand that dust does not float in a vacuum in any place with gravity?  When the dust is kicked up by engines, spinning wheels or boots, it moves in the same manner as if it is a rock tossed into the area above the ground.

On a planet with an atmosphere, dust will be suspended in the air.  In a vacuum dust moves in an arc then falls to the ground like heavier particles

Ranb

[onebigmonkey]

During the A11 EVA, it filmed perhaps the most iconic footage of all the missions as Neil and Buzz planted the American flag for the first time. See below 17:52 to 21:30 of the video (as an aside, check out the 20:23 mark and shadows of the two astronauts. According to their bios, they are suppose to be same height. Yet the shadow of the right astronaut is 33 percent longer)

Firstly, they aren't the same height. Granted it's only about an inch, but one number is different to the other = not the same. Nitpicking? Yes. That height difference will produce a small different length of shadow, especially with a low sun in the sky.

Secondly, why pick that specific time when the astronauts are some distance apart on ground at different elevations with the shadows falling over ground that undulates? Why not pick a time when they are stood next to each other?



Still an obvious difference?

Speaking of shadows, notice how they they are parallel. Why not try a few experiments at home and see if you can recreate a parallel set of shadows like that from a light source that is relatively close. Let us know how you get on.

Thirdly, if you're going to look at shadows, why not examine how the shadows move over time during Apollo 11 in a way entirely consistent with the position of the sun over the course of the mission:

http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/shadows/shadowa11.html

The question you have to ask, is how this footage was possible given the cabin was in the shaded vacuum of space? First off, the lens should have probably cracked. Coldness doesn't necessarily break glass, but quick extreme temp swings will.

Probably? Probably isn't definitely, so don't try and present this as an absolute. A common misconception amongst the scientifically illiterate is that the temperature change between, eg dark and light in a vacuum is somehow instant. It is not.  Extreme temperature swings don't necessarily break glass, and you haven't demonstrated that there was, or would be, such an extreme temperature swing, or that it would have compromised the DAC. How could the lens have stayed intact in Earth orbit in the DACs or the Hasselblads? How did the camera lenses in the Lunar Orbiter probes not fracture? Or any other lens in any other camera in space?

Like many other hoax proponents before you, you have taken what you think is an important small detail and inflated it into something else, forgetting the bigger picture. You are unable to see the wood for the trees: by trying to suggest the DAC camera could not have worked you have overlooked the fact that a) it very obviously did and b) it produced film showing details that could not have been reproduced on Earth.

[BertieSlack]

Another simple example was the DAC camera mounted in the window. During the A11 EVA, it filmed perhaps the most iconic footage of all the missions as Neil and Buzz planted the American flag for the first time. See below 17:52 to 21:30 of the video (as an aside, check out the 20:23 mark and shadows of the two astronauts. According to their bios, they are suppose to be same height. Yet the shadow of the right astronaut is 33 percent longer

The shadow of the left astronaut is further away from the camera, and appears smaller due to perspective. It also appears shorter because it is falling on the upslope of the small ridge on the left side of the frame whereas the shadow of the right astronaut is falling on flatter ground.
I presume you're parroting a long-debunked claim of the clown David Percy who put forward the idea that different apparent shadow lengths imply a nearby light source. He was spectacularly wrong for the very simple reason that the shadow of the astronaut closer to a nearby light source (the one on the right, obviously) would be SHORTER not longer. Draw yourself a diagram if you're having trouble with this very simple concept.

[Trebor]

Gemini didn't have airlocks, either.

Slightly offtopic, but the Voskhod did have an airlock because all the avionics were air-cooled and this nearly killed Aleksei Leonov.
Were the Gemini electronics liquid cooled? I've been looking but not found any info with my vague google searches.

[Jason Thompson]

Hi everyone,

One of the things that has always bothered me and cast doubt in my mind about the Apollo missions was the absence of airlocks in both the lunar and command modules.

Oh look, you've come back with a new 'argument' expecting us all to forget the ones you abandoned before. Why exactly are you here? You are clearly not here to learn.

TO start with, are you going to address your LM instability issue where you brought a memo to the table as if it supported your argument when in fact it did exactly the opposite?

Yet, on occasion, they allowed the vacuum of space into the interior of these crafts for sometimes hours on end.

A vacuum does not enter. A vacuum is an absence of matter.

The two occasions that really stand out in which the interior was exposed to the vacuum of space for long periods of time was the A17 command module space walk and the A11 EVA from the lunar module.

Really? Why those two in particular?

In both cases, the hatch is wide open and there is no airlock. In fact, the A11 lunar module hatch door doesn't even have an outside door handle to shut the door. What sort of planning is this?

Again, argument from incredulity. NASA is under no obigation to plan and execute missions to meet your expectations, especially given how abundantly clear it is that your expectations are woefully ill-informed.

Shutting the door would not have stopped the vacuum of space from entering but it would have stopped any potential harmful dust floating around from entering the cabin.

Dust does not 'float' in a vacuum. And evenif it was, any random dust that enters during the EVA will be nothing compared to the dust they bring in on their suits at the end of it, so why bother? As it happens the LM door was pulled almost all the way closed during the EVA. Aldrin and Armstrong comment on it specifically as Aldrin is leaving the Eagle.

What is clear with the absence of an airlock, the interior/cabin of these modules would be subjected to the harsh cold temperatures of outer space.

Nope. Thermal transfer is a complex business and it's not instantly freezing once you are exposed to a vacuum. Especilly for electronics that generate their own heat.

Given the interiors are shaded and insulated from the sun's radiation, everything within the interior would fall to an unimaginable cold temperature very quickly.

Nope.

The question you have to ask, is how this footage was possible given the cabin was in the shaded vacuum of space? First off, the lens should have probably cracked. Coldness doesn't necessarily break glass, but quick extreme temp swings will.

How rapid? And what kind of glass? Your ansurd oversimplification does not equate to a vaid argument.

Even better, how about the Lunar Rover? NASA's own documentation states the battery will not "survive" below -40 C. Yet that battery worked like a champ in all conditions, uncovered to the sun's radiation (heat is actually worse) to being covered (shaded) in the cold of outer space.

Here's a fun fact you clearly are not aware of: the rover had a means of monitoring the battery temperatures. THe batteries were covered and uncovered repeatedly on the missions depending on those readouts.

After A11 EVA ended, for instance, the astronauts returned to the cabin, jettisoned their PLSS's, re-introduced oxygen into the interior and then were seen in t-shirts/helmet off, glove less  in what appeared to be "room" temperatures. The question is how did they do that? More specifically, how did they 'reheat', for lack of a better term, all the components inside the interior quickly and safely. This had to have been done prior to the introduction of oxygen/air into the interior. Otherwise it would make the situation even worse. So in the vacuum of space, what scientific process will pull the temperature of all these interior 'shaded' components up an incredible 200 Celsius, fast, efficiently and not destroy anything so the astronauts can be helmet less and be able eat and drink at leisure a short time later? Is it radiation? It is conduction? Is it magic? (ok just kidding) Is it convection? And is there schematic NASA documentation on how this would work and how it would not affect the astronauts even if they are suited? Thanks.

Since this is just as ass-pull argment based on nothing but your own ill-informed guessowrk on how temperature actually works, how do you expect it to be answered?

Any chance of addressing your other claims?

[Jason Thompson]

Hi Von Smith,

You do realize one of the EVA's for A17 was about 8 hours long. Are you saying the interior components of the Module would not be -150- 200 Celsius or greater after 8 hours?

Yes. For many reasons. One is that it takes everything time to cool. Another is that the interior is not in total darkness as it has two windows letting in the reflected radiation from the lunar surface (and since the lunar soil preferentially reflects light back the way it came, which is why the full Moon is much brighter than any other phase, and the LM was facing down-sun, it got quite a lot of reflected radiation through its windows), and for another thing the electronics generate their own heat. That's why the spacecraft has a coolant system running through its electronics. The interior of the spacecraft (any manned spacecraft) when the door is open is not just suddenly an empty space that will lose all its heat, it is generating a fair bit of its own anyway.

[Donnie B.]

they allowed the vacuum of space into the interior of these crafts

I literally laughed out loud when I read this.

[Von_Smith]

they allowed the vacuum of space into the interior of these crafts

I literally laughed out loud when I read this.

Hey, that space vacuum is no joke.  It gets in everything, don't you know.  And the astronauts wouldn't have been able to get it out because they didn't bring a vacuum cleaner.

[JayUtah]

...and for another thing the electronics generate their own heat.

Quite a lot of it, in fact.  Which is why many  of the modules had to be mounted on cold rails in the aft equipment bay, instead of in the cabin.  (Well, for space and layout reasons too, but the point is still valid.)

The most temperature-sensitive non-human component of the landing mission was the ascent fuel.  It had to be kept liquid, which means keeping it at around 20 C.  That's why the outer skin of the ascent stage had panels of varying absorptive properties.  In the extreme case, the AEB is full on to the sun in the landed position.  It gets a maximum of solar heating.  The AEB cover plates were coated, so it's not just bare aluminum facing the heat.

The Apollo lunar module design made history at the time, I believe, for being the largest, most complete design for which a digital radiant heat transfer model was made.  It had 13 elements.  (Today's models have up to millions.)  Great attention was paid to how the sun would heat the structures.

[JayUtah]

Hey, that space vacuum is no joke.  It gets in everything, don't you know.  And the astronauts wouldn't have been able to get it out because they didn't bring a vacuum cleaner.

Actually there was a vacuum cleaner for attempting to clean the dust off the space suits.  And  whatever dust floated in. 

[jr Knowing]

Hi Everyone,

First, with regards to the different length shadows of the astronauts in the EVA A11 DAC footage, posters are correct that perspective, distance and elevation can create the appearance of distorted shadows. But this isn't the case here. The land is relatively flat (TV footage from the camera placed 100 feet from he LM shows this) and the footage is only 15 feet away and taken from above which is actually a better perspective. (This really wasn't the topic of the post so I don't want to muddy the post with side topics (since everyone gets upset when this happens)). And to be quite honest the only reason I brought it up in the first place is because I use the Apollo flickr albums all the time and this shadow difference is the first thing you see when you visit the site.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/

With regards to the main topic, nobody has given any sort of scientific explanation to the questions I have asked. People point out correctly that other spacecraft have carried the same technology, batteries etc. What they are ignoring is the fact is these components were insulated from the harshness of space. And in terms of dust, apparently there is a dust cloud circling the moon. (plus micrometorites hitting the surface constantly) And even ignoring that, as someone pointed out, they should have been more concerned about the dust on their suits. Another significant reason they should have had a airlock. And the LM windows? They were in shade. The DAC footage shows that as the sun is low and from behind.

Jay. You asked me what batteries are in the cabin. My original post pointed out the DAC camera for instance. It had two batteries that fail below -30 Celsius.  Only one posters has attempted to answer the DAC issue. OneBigMonkey said  "a) it very obviously did and b) it produced film showing details that could not have been reproduced on Earth." It obviously did? That's not an answer. And footage that could not be produced on earth. Of all the footage, this DAC A11 footage seems the most "earthlike" of any footage. Very short strides, easy arm movements etc. And you say that footage can't be replicated on earth?

In any event, somebody show me how hours of exposure to the vacuum of space away from the sun's radiation will not drop the temperature of objects drastically. Further, what scientific process will bring these object back up in temp, fast, efficiently and safely, to environmental temperatures humans can operate in without any aids?

[Abaddon]

Hi Everyone,

First, with regards to the different length shadows of the astronauts in the EVA A11 DAC footage, posters are correct that perspective, distance and elevation can create the appearance of distorted shadows. But this isn't the case here. The land is relatively flat (TV footage from the camera placed 100 feet from he LM shows this) and the footage is only 15 feet away and taken from above which is actually a better perspective. (This really wasn't the topic of the post so I don't want to muddy the post with side topics (since everyone gets upset when this happens)). And to be quite honest the only reason I brought it up in the first place is because I use the Apollo flickr albums all the time and this shadow difference is the first thing you see when you visit the site.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/

Oh FFS. According to you, these posts cannot be real because of their shadows not matching. They are not even the same height in your wacky universe.



Grow up.

With regards to the main topic, nobody has given any sort of scientific explanation to the questions I have asked.

Sure they have. As usual, you simply ignored it.

People point out correctly that other spacecraft have carried the same technology, batteries etc. What they are ignoring is the fact is these components were insulated from the harshness of space.

And you are wrong. Again. All of those satellites in orbit maintain no pressure vessel. The Voyagers? Nope not them either.

And in terms of dust, apparently there is a dust cloud circling the moon.

Dust in orbit /
= dust on surface.

(plus micrometorites hitting the surface constantly) And even ignoring that, as someone pointed out, they should have been more concerned about the dust on their suits.

And they were. As even a brief perusal of the documentation would instruct you. But NO! You won't even undertake that brief effort.

Another significant reason they should have had a airlock. And the LM windows? They were in shade. The DAC footage shows that as the sun is low and from behind.

Well, clearly, thermodynamics is a far distant country to your brain. Nobody can help you if you refuse such assistance.

Jay. You asked me what batteries are in the cabin. My original post pointed out the DAC camera for instance. It had two batteries that fail below -30 Celsius.

And there are very obvious reasons why you are flat out wrong. For example, the Lunar landings occured in the lunar morning when things were heating up on the surface. Or are you claiming that "vacuum" itself has a temperature? That would be a spectacularly idiotic claim to make. Do you know why?

Only one posters has attempted to answer the DAC issue. OneBigMonkey said  "a) it very obviously did and b) it produced film showing details that could not have been reproduced on Earth." It obviously did? That's not an answer. And footage that could not be produced on earth. Of all the footage, this DAC A11 footage seems the most "earthlike" of any footage. Very short strides, easy arm movements etc. And you say that footage can't be replicated on earth?

It can't. Disagree? Off you go and replicate it. If you are so convinced it should be a trivial matter for you to do so. <foot tapping>

In any event, somebody show me how hours of exposure to the vacuum of space away from the sun's radiation will not drop the temperature of objects drastically.

Will it? How? Convection is out right away as a mode of heat transfer/loss. So is conduction since the only point of contact is the spindly pads. All you are left with is radiative heat. Interestingly, that was an issue in the design of the craft. Not how to keep it warm, but how to get rid of the excess heat generated by the spacraft itself. That you are totally unaware of this calls into question your understanding of any of this. They were not trying to keep warm. They were trying to get rid of the heat they did not want.

Further, what scientific process will bring these object back up in temp, fast, efficiently and safely, to environmental temperatures humans can operate in without any aids?

Bloody hell. That is so colossally ignorant of science it is scary to me. You are claiming that you know of no technology that can regulate the temperature of an enclosed space. Jeez, even cavemen built fires in front of their cave. But you can't figure that out?