Actually, I'd seen those photos before. But so long ago that I forgot about them.
How convenient.
The one photo with the radiative heaters? on is interesting because they apparently have bars blocking the direct radiation. The size of the chamber sure seems like overkill but then again with a sublimator sublimating maybe it's necessary.
So, one one hand you say (in an earlier post) that using a sublimator would destroy the vacuum (how, exactly?), now the chamber is too big. However, you don't appear to have a problem with the fact that there WAS a spacesuit test that took place in a vacuum chamber, so that must infer that you acknowledge that the spacesuit worked, as designed.
I am very ignorant. I don't KNOW anything about the sublimators. I can only believe. I haven't witnessed PROOF of anything.
Well, perhaps you could start with reading the copious information that you have been presented with? Then you might learn something about the very items that you are claiming that do not work. You could also withdraw this claim:
Naturally, I wanted to learn more. What does a spacesuit sublimator look like? Specifications? Procedures? Video of one being tested? Photographs? Technical discussions in heat transfer or thermodynamics books? I searched. Strangely and absurdly, I found almost nothing. I received almost nothing.
I got stonewalled when I appealed for information. Absurdly, there were no photographs. Absurdly, there was no video of spacesuits with ice sublimators being tested. Most absurdly, there was no information in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics books. Absurdly, the alleged manufacturer, Hamilton Sunstrand of United Technologies would only release very elementary information. Absurdly, NASA's Johnson Space Center refused to provide video or photos and stonewalled me instead. Absurdly, the Rice University Department of Mechanical Engineering, most closely associated with Houston's Johnson Space Center refused to comment. Absurdly, my Congressional representatives in two states, California's and Washington's Feinstein, Boxer, Cantwell, Murray, Capps and Hastings, stonewalled me also when I requested their assistance acquiring accountability from NASA.
In fact, I
insist on it. As you have now been provided with and acknowledged copious sources your claims that there "there was no information in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics books" have now shown to be incorrect. Do yourself a favour, try and regain a shred of decency and withdraw this claim.
I'm also scientifically honest.
No you're not. But if you were then you would withdraw the claim above. Lets see you do this.
Which is the basis of this discussion. Of course they wouldn't send an untested suit. So where's the video of one being tested. Oh sure, they tested them and tested them for more than 50 years but not a single video. Plenty of video of spacesuits in swimming pools but none in a vacuum chamber down the hall. Anomaly. Focus.
Why the obsession on a video? Why would a video suddenly make the copious documents that you have been supplied with suddenly conclusive? Either they are or they are not. Or are you saying that only a video of a suited person in a high vacuum is a suitable proof?
If that is the case, then why is a still photo not conclusive? After all, a video is nothing more than a series of stills.
If your obsession demands a video, then how can you handwave away the many tens of hours of video that is freely available (assuming you can search them out- a subject that you so far have failed to demonstrate ANY particular skill in) of suits using sublimators in a vacuum environment?
Of course, we all know the answer to this. Your obsession is similar to Anders Bjorkmann's obsession with a $1Million test. You have constructed a test that is impossible to be carried out, and you then you have convinced yourself that that is the only proof that can possible apply. It isn't. Your test will never happen for many reasons. Why would you expect NASA to waste taxpayer's money on a ridiculous test for the benefit of one deranged obsessionist? Why would NASA allow a convicted felon into a critical installation? Why would your so-called witnesses want to be associated with a convicted felon's obsession?
However, your obsession with this ridiculous test is nothing more than that- an obsession. It does not remove the fact that sublimators have been shown to work, by many different nations,for over 50 years.
Let's see your detailed analysis of this document. With calculations please.
http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19720005423
It's an interesting document and thank you again for posting it. It's interesting how they say they did the sublimator test. They put the sublimator in a vacuum chamber without putting the astronaut inside. Something is very suspicious about that but I need to think about it a bit longer. What calculations are you expecting? Don't hold your breath waiting.
Think away. When you have finished thinking then feel free to come back and either acknowledge that it works as described OR provide evidence to the contrary. With calculations and test results to back up your findings.
As you say though, I won't hold my breath....
No, but I have watched with the naked eye what NASA says is a manned ISS passing by overhead. How do you KNOW there are people aboard?
Well try it with a small telescope. Or even a pair of binoculars. Then you will find that it fits the description of the ISS. And not an inflated construction.
Finally, can you please make an effort to work out how this forum uses quotations? It's very simple and it makes seeing where you have made comments much easier. It's a small detail, but a little courtesy would go a long way.
