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.
Yes it is. The way the shadows change as the astronauts move over the surface in the film footage is precisely what would be expected from undulating terrain with a low sun angle.
With regards to the main topic, nobody has given any sort of scientific explanation to the questions I have asked.
Yes, they have. The problem is that you don't understand the science on which your argument is based. It is therefore impossible to answer your question scientifically unless you concede that your whole understanding is wrong in the first place. We know full well from previous experience you are unwilling to do that, so I ask again, why are you here?
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.
Nope, they were entirely unpressurised and shaded within the spacecraft, so according to your argument they should not work.
And in terms of dust, apparently there is a dust cloud circling the moon.
A very tenuous one, and again it is not floating in any sense. This is a cloud of dust so thin you can stand in it and not see it.
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.
They were concerned, and they had various means for cleaning the dust off the suits which were a lot lighter than fitting an airlock. Do you think we have all forgotten that you argued about the added weight of the plume deflectors in your earier threads? Now you are arguing for a much heavier and more complex addition of weight to the spacecraft. Further evidence you are not remotely interested in actually learning, and frankly I am not convinced you even believe your own words at this point.
And the LM windows? They were in shade. The DAC footage shows that as the sun is low and from behind.
Go back and re-read my comment about the LM windows. I know they didn't get direct sunlight, but they got a lot of reflected.
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.
Can you get it into your head that that will ONLY apply to a completely passive object not generating its own heat? The LM interior is ALWAYS shaded. It only ever has the light and heat from the Sun coming into the cabin through the windows. And yet inside when it was pressurised it still generated so much heat from its own internal equipment that it had to have a coolant system to carry that heat away to prevent it overheating. This still applies even when the cabin is depressurised. The LM was not switched off during the EVA, so all its systems were still generating heat. Further, the LM is only shaded by itself. It is sitting in full sun, with a surface reflecting solar radiation back at it. The -200 degree temperature so often quoted about the lunar surface only happens when there is NO sulight AT ALL in the equation. It does not apply here.
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?
When my car has been sat outside in sub zero temperatures, the heating system in it can warm the cabin to such extremes that I will be sweating within ten minutes. How long was it between entering the cabin and the astronauts removing their suits? You keep saying it was quick but have given no numbers to back this up.
