NASA's 30 Billion Dollar Scam

[sts60]

I am reading about multi layer insulation in wikipedia

That's nice.  Understanding spacecraft thermal management is part of what I do for a living.

and it says :
More layers can be added to reduce the loss further. The blanket can be further improved by making the outside surfaces highly reflective to thermal radiation,
That blue paper does not seem to be highly reflective.  It just looks like paper and not reflective at all.

1. It's not paper.  You can look at the information already handed to you.  In case it's not already been cited, Grumman LMA790-3-LM 10 and Subsequent, Apollo Operations Handbook, Lunar Module, LM 10 and Subsequent, vol. 1, Subsystems Data also has a good description.
2. Thermal control depends on more than what you perceive to be "shiny".
3. Different parts of the vehicle will have different thermal shielding depending on the operational requirements and mission profile.

And that picture of the satellite with a golden surface, that is a highly reflective surface and not like the one of the lander, which is a non reflective blue paper.

Not paper, and different spacecraft having different missions willl have different thermal coatings and shieldings.  That is how actual spacecraft - not Hollywood versions - are made.

Not very good for reflecting thermal radiation

How would you know?  That's not a rhetorical question.  On what basis of actual spacecraft engineering experience do you base your opinion? 

You are certainly not required to be an aerospace engineer to participate in the discussion.  But if you make such claims, you must be prepared to cite facts - not just your opinion or your "common sense" - and demonstrate some understanding of what you're talking about if you want to be taken seriously.

So how about it?  Do you want to just echo the bilge spewed by the likes of Jack White, or do you want to learn something?

[sts60]

I really hate when people think "it looks like" is a reasonable explanation when they don't have enough information to know why it looks like that or what it should look like.  I started calling it "look at the picture" science, and it is not a compliment.  Most of the most laughable beliefs I've encountered started with "look at the picture" science.

I've mentioned it already, but it bears repeating:

I do not say to folks like Eternidad195, "I work in this field and you don't, therefore I can dismiss anything you say."

If Eternidad195 can cite facts or come up with a legitimate problem with the Apollo record, it doesn't matter what education, job, etc. she has.  If I say something wrong, I'm wrong - and several folks here know more about a lot of things Apollo then I do, and the same rule applies to them.  (There is a reason that the "I corrected JayUtah" shirt exists, rare items that they may be.)

But if Eternidad195 just renders her personal opinion, without anything to back it up, then I most certainly will consult my own training and experience.  And making claims like "paper and Scotch tape" that are so easily debunked shows a priori that her opinion is likely to be wrong.  It's even worse when the opinions are just plagiarized from spectacularly incompetent crackpots like Jack White; that's crossing over from "uninformed" to "ignorant and intellectually lazy".

It's been a rough ride for Eternidad195, but I genuinely hope that she decides it's more important to learn than to cling to her belief in the face of rather stinging criticism.  Part of that tone is my responsibility, I admit, but I'm trying to be blunt enough to administer a wake-up call without simply being rude.

[ka9q]

Anybody want to know the exact external surfaces on LM-5 (Eagle, Apollo 11's LM)? Here you go:

http://home.earthlink.net/~pfjeld/lmdata/index.html

[Jason Thompson]

Here is another picture of the module

http://strangeapollo2.blogspot.co.uk/

Um, nope. That's the command module. If you can't tell the difference between the lunar module and the command module this will be a very one-sided discussion...

[ka9q]

I certainly don't see any blue on the LM, except in the US flag. Perhaps he's referring to the black areas. I checked and found that they are generally Pyromark-painted Inconel foil. They were used primarily as protection from the RCS exhaust plumes. It was found before Apollo 11 that this wouldn't be sufficient protection so the plume deflectors you see on Eagle were added almost at the last minute while it was on the launch pad.

Inconel is one of a set of nickel-chromium alloys designed for high temperature applications. (Another such alloy, nichrome, is widely used in electrical heating elements).

Pyromark is a heat-resistant paint specifically designed to protect exposed metal surfaces on spacecraft. It has an absorptivity of 0.95, making it almost completely black. You can buy it here: http://www.tempil.com/products/pyromark/

Since the LM thermal design is to isolate the spacecraft from the outside as much as possible, I presume the Pyromark/Inconel was backed by the usual multilayer insulation blankets. The Inconel would get hot in the sun, but the heat wouldn't conduct in. That would be especially important on Quad 3 shown in AS11-40-5922 as it contained the supercritical helium tank. You can see it bulging out in the middle of the cover.

[Jason Thompson]

I am reading about multi layer insulation in wikipedia

When wikipedia is the ultimate online educational resource, we'll give you a call.

Try to grasp that there are people on this thread who do this stuff for a living. They don't need to check wikipedia for information on thermal control because they studied it and practice it now.

That blue paper does not seem to be highly reflective.

And why do you assume it would need to be reflective all over? Thermal control is a complex discipline, not a simple 'cover it in foil and everything's done' business. Different parts of the spacecraft need different levels of control, hence will need different surface coverings.

[cjameshuff]

Another issue is that the appearance of some of these materials is dominated by specular (mirror-like) reflections of the surroundings, which are generally a brightly lit room in photos taken here on Earth and largely a black sky in space. From some angles you'll get reflections of the sun, lunar surface, Earth, or other parts of the spacecraft. From others you don't get a reflection of anything, and see only the small amount of diffusely scattered light that normally gets overwhelmed by the specular reflection. Sometimes, familiar things in an unfamiliar environment just look odd.

[gillianren]

I'm changing my mind about HBs after seeing some recent behaviour on here. I used to think that some HBs were just misinformed. I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that most of them are just bone-idle lazy.

Now, now.  The two aren't mutually exclusive.

[nomuse]

This picture of the lunar lander by NASA is made up of paper, and cardboard, stuck up with Scotch tape.
The question is: Why do they have this picture of the lander, if it is a faked one?
I did get permission to publish Mr. White’s pictures

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5922HR.jpg

If they publish a faked lander as the real one, how many more things are they faking?

Having a lunar lander made up of cardboard and Scotch tape is not an idiotic thing, is a funny thing.  Can you drive a car made up of cardboard and stuck together with Scotch paper?
The answer is no.

So do not try to convince me that that thing landed on the moon.

No, the question is why it looks to you like it is cardboard and scotch tape.

This is not the BBC.  Please, cast your mind back.  Think of every big budget science fiction movie you have seen (NASA had, after all, billions of dollars to make this look right).  How many of those movies looked like cardboard and scotch tape?

In reality, a great many movies are done with the equivalents of cardboard and scotch tape.  But filmmakers are quite good at making them look like rock and steel. 

Did the ships from "2001" look like cardboard and scotch tape?

Please explain to me why a billion-dollar project with lives and careers on the line can't make (according to you) a space-ship as good as those from a movie that opened a year before Apollo 11 flew.

[raven]

Not to mention that, if compartmentalization was in-effect as often claimed by conspiracy theorists, the engineers and scientists would be doing their darndest to make something that could actually go to the moon. Which raises the question of, if they had the hardware, why didn't NASA just go?

[Glom]

Eternidad, your argument isn't even consistent with itself.

Why would an entity trying to fool people use such shoddy workmanship?  That doesn't make sense according to your own conspiracy theory.

Far more likely that you are just mistaken in your impressions.  It may look like something, but that doesn't mean it is.

Are you open to the possibility that your interpretation of what you're seeing might be wrong?

[JayUtah]

I am reading about multi layer insulation in wikipedia...

That's cute.  I also build and operate spacecraft for a living, in part.  How many spacecraft have you personally designed and built?

Or maybe the right answer is that you don't know what you're talking about and thousands of professional engineers do.

[Eternidad195]

I have just come back from my job.
That picture that you posted is beautiful and it really looks like whatever it's supposed to be.  A satellite?

But the two pictures I posted of the lunar module are absolutely different.
One looks like a proper module and the other one is shabby and has Scotch tape all over the place.  You have not proven anything to me.

Anyway I want to tell something to all of you.

I’m not some kind of hoax fanatic, and I’m willing to accept defeat if proven wrong, so I have decided to do a proper investigation into everything to do with the Apollo missions to the moon.

I will be using some of Jack White’s findings but I will look into them carefully and taking into account the laws of physics, unchangeable wherever you are in this reality, even on the moon.

I will be not coming back to the forum, until I have everything I have collected in another internet page, and as I said before, I’m willing to change my mind if proven wrong.

You have not proven anything to me yet, even if you posted that beautiful picture of the satellite but that proves nothing.

As I said before, I won't be coming back until I have researched the Apollo missions properlly, so don't keep on saying why I'm not back.
It could take a few weeks or months, because I'm busy during the day with my family and my job.

So bye for the moment

[AtomicDog]

That is the most elegant flounce I have ever read.

[Mag40]

As I said before, I won't be coming back until I have researched the Apollo missions properlly, so don't keep on saying why I'm not back.
It could take a few weeks or months, because I'm busy during the day with my family and my job.

Many have been going over Apollo stuff for years and still have plenty to learn.