Comments by "MRA" (@yassassin6425) on "How accurate is 'First Man?' We asked Neil Armstrong's son" video.

  1. Congratulations... https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority
    3
  2.  @erickaminski1472  Vladimir Putin?
    1
  3. Oh ffs - come back when you understand Bremsstrahlung you worthless piece of human excrement.
    1
  4. Or instead invest your time in a more meaningful and productive activity such as sorting a sock drawer.
    1
  5.  @Dave.S.TT600  Why the abuse? Can't you debate or attempt to refute his points instead. Of course you can't, because your regurgitated online conspiracy nonsense didn't tell you that part. Actually, 280 F (138 C) - which may be the temperature of the lunar surface material at equilibrium in full sunlight, but it's not necessarily the temperature of any object in a similar situation. Objects will be heated to that temperature only if they absorb the same amount of sunlight as lunar surface material, and also radiate it at the same rate. More reflective objects absorb less light and are heated less. Less reflective items may be heated even hotter. The temperature of the lunar surface (i.e., rocks and dust) as quoted by NASA has nothing to do with the equilibrium temperature reached by other objects exposed to sunlight in the lunar environment. Objects will slowly approach this from emission and absorbtion of radiation. All the Apollo missions to the Moon’s surface were carefully planned for lunar dawn, to ensure the surface hadn’t had time to heat up fully to its daytime temperature. Bear in mind here that the lunar day is just under 700 hours long. In addition to this, the angle of insolation ensured that the sunlight was not too strong. There are three ways heat can transfer and only two are possible on the Moon. The first is radiation, both directly from the Sun and from the albedo on the surface. The astronauts’ spacesuits were designed to reflect almost 90% of the light that reaches it, so very little heat would have transferred to the astronauts. The second is by conduction from the direct contact their feet had with the surface. This is also an ineffective process as regolith on the lunar surface doesn’t conduct heat well and the astronauts’ boots were insulated, slowing down conduction even further. As you correctly said, the moon has no atmosphere. The normal kind of thermal transfer we see on Earth requires matter for the heat to transfer to. With no air, heat has no immediate way to escape a body. and so in respect of convection - the most efficient process of heat transfer - there is no medium for this to take place. Body heat of the astronauts was carried away from the water-cooled undergarment and in waste air, both of which passed through the PLSS (Personal Life Support System) backpack, where they were cooled by a water ice sublimator. Several gallons of water was contained in a pair of flexible reservoirs inside the backpack for this purpose. Astronauts could control the operation of the sublimator, and so the amount of cooling. No heat was ever needed, as the human body cranks out as much heat as an incandescent light bulb. All very basic thermodynamics. Do you wish to dispute that too?
    1
  6.  @Dave.S.TT600  That's you reply is it "All of that did not happen in practice"? Your comments on this thread are a product of your personal incredulity, but in the main, gullibly lapping up and regurgitating junk conspiracy theories. All of your comments have been comprehensively and addressed and because your posts consist of badly parroted second hand conspiratorial nonsense as opposed to your own individual thoughts you are completely unable to respond to or refute the replies. You simply trot out more obligatory rote learned conspiracy theory that you don't understand. The main problem with this post-truth era and advent of internet access is that it offers a platform to those devoid of an individual thought process and a voice to individuals with nothing worthwhile to say...as you are ample testimony to.
    1
  7.  @Dave.S.TT600  No, you did nothing of the sort. Your observations aren't your own, they are simply regurgitated nonsense, uncritically lapped up from cherry picking conspiracy sites about subjects that you are demonstrably completely ignorant about. When your preconceptions are challenged and personal incredulity exposed, you simply ignore it and parrot the next line of your obligatory conspiratorial claptrap.
    1
  8.  @Dave.S.TT600  "i said : i started with observing the tv apollo footage" No you didn't - you started by 'observing' junk online conspiracy videos - that much is abundantly clear. "mate, your responses here are the 'claptrap'. Just absolute shit. Stop talking shit." I am irrelevant - your dispute lies not with me but with independently verifiable science which is governed by physical laws and axioms thereby has a voice of its own. To remind you, your OP stated the following... "What is the surface temperature on The Moon's sunny side? (over 200 celsius/392Fh)" My response - which you were completely incapable of addressing - was intended to dispel your incredulity. Now, for the benefit of anyone reading this I am challenging you to demonstrate that my reply is "absolute shit." - No use saying it. Go ahead then, refute it on a point by point basis. I'll be waiting. "ANYONE..that looks at the basics with their unbias eyeballs, like i did, will think the footage and other basic observations look fake and silly." You can't even successfully coordinate a caps lock key. What 'you think' - as incapable of the original thought process as you demonstrably are - is not only irrelevant, but is simply regurgitated conspiratorial nonsense and bad science mindlessly parroted over the comments section of a video entertainment platform. Your illusory superiority and your gross affliction of the Dunning Kruger effect renders you incapable of challenging your own preconceptions and recognising your innate cognitive bias. "Forget about your elaborate responses you Dick." You mean those replies that you conveniently 'forgot' because you were unable to respond to them? "Goodbye idiot, beleive what you want, you Sap." Known science is not about 'belief' - that would be baseless online conspiracy theory. Quick tip before you go though; if you really must insist on branding people idiots over the internet, you'll find that its more effective if you learn to spell first.
    1