- This topic has 6,416 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 1 week, 4 days ago by
.
- Posts
It looks like you are saying that to hold pressure the container must be robust!
I wonder how a few sheets of aluminum foil would hold up?
By the way, I looked up the thickness of the walls on the lunar lander and basically it was about the thickness of a coke can, about 0.3 mm. But they brought a roll of duct tape!
https://www.quora.com/How-thin-were-the-walls-of-the-Apollo-Lunar-Lander
This is an excerpt from The Sunday Times Magazine interview with Buzz Aldrin, Charlie Duke, and Harrison Schmitt published on Sunday 09 April 2017:
Sleeping baffles me. In my mind, you’d have to have dangerously high levels of the right stuff to doze off in a tiny pressurised can on the moon. They all tell me about the alarmingly delicate skin of the lander when unpressurised — “It had a beer-can feel to it,” says Duke. When pressurised, it becomes taut and hard — but still, it’s not a very sedative thought that this paper-thin sheet was the only thing between you and the vacuum of space. Duke’s partner, John Young, had no problems on their first night, but Duke did.
Okay. By that reasoning I could say this.
That the difference between an inflated car tyre and sea level is about double. Likewise, the difference between space and a region of the atmosphere with 2 molecules is double. Of course two is not double zero, so let’s put it another way. A band of the atmosphere containing only the outermost molecule is double that of a slightly extended band that contains the 2 most outer molecules. Can that then equate to the difference between seal level and a car tyre. No friggin way.
It still stands. There is greater pressure between sea level and a car tyre than space and sea level.
And for all those imploding examples that Mike posts, these are opposite examples where the higher pressure is much larger in area rather than the smaller container having the higher pressure, but the reality of space is the exact opposite of that. Think of this.
Which is worse, a small submarine with lower pressure at the bottom of the vast ocean where the pressure is greater or the opposite where you are in an aircraft where the pressure is greater than the vast surrounding lighter atmosphere? The latter seems a lot safer because the air pressure is pushing outward, but he pressure is not that great because the area is small, where as the former example where the pressure of the ocean is pressing around sub is greater. The latter example is closer to the ISS in space and the imploding tanks are closer to the former example because the surrounding air around these tanks the air pressure is not only greater but vast in area.
It looks like you are saying that to hold pressure the container must be robust!
I wonder how a few sheets of aluminum foil would hold up?
If an aircraft can do it, then a rocket can too. Yes it has to be stronger, but we already knew that. And a submarine is different again because the difference is explosion versus implosion and you cannot make one example match the other which Mike is doing. Submarines are a better example of what Mike is pointing out with imploding tankers because they are designed to resist external pressure trying to crush it. In space, you have to worry about the opposite problem. All the pressure is inside, trying to get out. And the ocean with higher pressure than the submarine or the pressure at sea level vs a low pressure tank are both the same in that the higher pressure area is far greater in size than the lower pressure one.
The ISS with higher pressure is far smaller in size than space.
If we can make a submarine, then we can make a space station. Further, when the ISS moves in space it has less friction than a submarine under the ocean.
It should also be noted that some of the craft that landed on the moon has to withstand much less gravity and friction than if they were on Earth.
T8: That the difference between an inflated car tyre and sea level is about double.
That would be true.
T8: Likewise, the difference between space and a region of the atmosphere with 2 molecules is double.
A cubic meter only having 2 molecules in it would be better described as “space” rather than an atmosphere. Remember that our atmosphere at sea level has 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules per cubic meter!
T8: There is greater pressure between sea level and a car tyre than space and sea level.
As you stated there is approximately double the pressure in a car tire as that of the outside pressure. Now the question to you is rather easy, which is more – double, or 10 septillion to 2? Obviously the greater difference is 10 septillion to 2. The equivalent equation to “double” would be 10 septillion to 5 septillion, but it is not, it is 10 septillion to 2. That is an astronomical difference!
If you can understand this difference then you might grasp why the vacuum of space would be a very dangerous area.
T8: If an aircraft can do it, then a rocket can too.
The pressure at about 35,000 ft. is about 3.47 psia (psi absolute) or 3.7 lbs. per square inch. The pressure at 60,000 ft. is only 1.05 psia. The pressure at 100,000 is 0.162 psia. The pressure at 150,000 is 2.1 x 10-3 psia! See the trend?
An aircraft would collapse at the higher elevations! Look at the chart below and see how exponentially the pressure is reduced the higher you go!
https://www.avs.org/AVS/files/c7/c7edaedb-95b2-438f-adfb-36de54f87b9e.pdf
https://www.setra.com/blog/the-difference-between-psi-psia-psig/2015/03/12
T8: And a submarine is different again because the difference is explosion versus implosion and you cannot make one example match the other which Mike is doing.
Why would you assume that? In fact it would seem that it would be easier to build for outward pressure as in the case of the submarine rather than inside pressure as the case for a spacecraft. You could use cross beams for outside pressure where you could not with inside pressure.
T8: The ISS with higher pressure is far smaller in size than space.
That would seem to make the problem more pronounced rather than reduce it but it’s probably irrelevant. Here’s one point, the lunar lander was built with thinner walls than an airplane. But an airplane cannot go into the upper atmosphere because of the reduced pressure. What makes you think that the lunar lander could resist the vacuum of space when a stronger airplane could not?
T8: If we can make a submarine, then we can make a space station.
And if the space station was built half as strong as a submarine it may be more believable.
T8: It should also be noted that some of the craft that landed on the moon has to withstand much less gravity and friction than if they were on Earth.
Friction and gravity are irrelavant, we are talking about pressure differences.
Im still waiting for an answer to which is the greater difference: double or 10 septillion to 2. (Here’s a hint, double and 4 to 2 would be equal – now is 10 septillion greater than 4?) Which is the greater difference? If you can answer that honestly then we can have a reasoned debate. If not then you’re just wasting time.
D4T: By the way, I looked up the thickness of the walls on the lunar lander and basically it was about the thickness of a coke can, about 0.3 mm.
Did somebody say coke can? 🙂
This vacuum chamber can’t come anywhere close to the imagined vacuum of the imaginary outer space – yet we see what happens to the coke can, right? As for the submarine comparison, this is from Wiki:
A submarine maintaining an internal pressure of 1 atmosphere submerged to a depth of 10 atmospheres (98 metres; a 9.8 metre column of seawater has the equivalent weight of 1 atm) is effectively a vacuum chamber keeping out the crushing exterior water pressures, though the 1 atm inside the submarine would not normally be considered a vacuum.
The point is that it’s the DIFFERENTIAL in pressure that counts – not whether the pressure is on the inside or the outside. T8, you keep referencing the car tire – even though it is not a valid comparison. But let’s use it anyway. Imagine the ISS actors doing a space walk in an inflated tire. If you had a pressurized tire fitted around your hand as a glove, would you be able to twist a nut off a bolt? Would you be able to manipulate your hands around a power tool? Come on, man. Just keep asking yourself why NASA’s most powerful vacuum chamber has to have 8 feet thick concrete and steel walls, while the ISS is as thick as a coke can. If you keep thinking on it, maybe it will eventually dawn on you how ridiculous this really is.
On the moon, there’s no air to breathe, no breezes to make the flags planted there by the Apollo astronauts flutter. However, there is a very, very thin layer of gases on the lunar surface that can almost be called an atmosphere. Technically, it’s considered an exosphere.
In an exosphere, the gases are so spread out that they rarely collide with one another. They are rather like microscopic cannon balls flying unimpeded on curved, ballistic trajectories and bouncing across the lunar surface. In the moon’s atmosphere, there are only 100 molecules per cubic centimeter. In comparison, Earth’s atmosphere at sea level has about 100 billion billion molecules per cubic centimeter. The total mass of these lunar gases is about 55,000 pounds (25,000 kilograms), about the same weight as a loaded dump truck. Every night, the cold temperatures mean the atmosphere falls to the ground, only to be kicked up by the solar wind the following days.
(100 to 1 as opposed to 100 billion billion to 1)
Which is greater [100 to 1] or [100 billion billion to 1]? Can you answer that t8? Simple question, which is greater?
https://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-deepest-depth-a-submarine-can-go.htm
A small submarine, the bathyscape Trieste, made it to 10,916 meters (35,813 feet) below sea level in the deepest point in the ocean, the Challenger Deep in the Marianas Trench, a few hundred miles east of the Philippines. This part of the ocean is 11,034 m (36,200 ft) deep, so it seems that a submarine can make it as deep as it’s theoretically possible to go. The water pressure at this depth is over 1000 atmospheres. Life does exist here, as well as a carpet of diatomaceous material that covers all the ocean floors of the world.
Trieste was manned by two people and funded by the United States Navy. The pressure sphere used was 2.16 m (6.5 ft) across, with steel walls 12.7 cm (5 inches) thick, able to withstand 1.25 metric tons per cm2 (110 MPa) of pressure. The pressure sphere of Trieste, which weighed 8 metric tons in water, was not neutrally-buoyant because the steel had to be so thick for a 2 m-sized sphere at that depth to withstand the pressure that it would have sunk like a rock on its own. Therefore Trieste’s pressure sphere had to be attached to a series of gasoline floats, accompanied by iron pellets for weight.
Only 6 1/2 feet across and 5 inch thick steel walls! That’s stout!
But the difference they had to compensate for was only 1,000 atmospheres. How many atmospheres do you think a lunar lander would have to compensate for? Would you guess 10,000, 100,000, 10,000,000? Anyone good at math?
Obviously we have to go negative since we are starting with 1,000 positive atmospheres and subtracting. Hope that doesn’t freak anyone out! It’s just math. We can’t just stop at zero because math doesn’t stop for anyone. (Not even you t8) ; )
14.7 x 1,000 = 14,700 (That’s 1 atmosphere at 14.7 psi x 1,000)
But is the vacuum of space stronger? That’s the question isn’t it?
Let’s take the easy route and say that it is equal. (seriously, unless anyone is good with math), The lunar surface is a negitive amount of the depth of the ocean, which it isn’t but for now let’s play along. That would mean that the negative pressure would be -14,700 psi. OK, negative fourteen thousand seven hundred psi. What’s the point?
The point is that if it were even equal the lunar lander would need to be 5 inches thick to survive! Not a beer can! If the vacuum were a million times stronger then abandon all hope.
https://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-deepest-depth-a-submarine-can-go.htm
100 molecules per cubic centimeter or 100 billion billion molecules per cubic centimeter, which is greater and is it greater than “twice” or “two to one”?
In other words, is it “100 molecules to 200 molecules” or “100 molecules to 100 billion billion molecules“?
Forget the tire t8, it’s not a pretty sight to cling to something that is demonstrably false.
Mike: If you had a pressurized tire fitted around your hand as a glove, would you be able to twist a nut off a bolt? Would you be able to manipulate your hands around a power tool? Come on, man. Just keep asking yourself why NASA’s most powerful vacuum chamber has to have 8 feet thick concrete and steel walls, while the ISS is as thick as a coke can. If you keep thinking on it, maybe it will eventually dawn on you how ridiculous this really is.
Exactly! A car tire for a glove and that’s putting it mildly! But a beer can to survive the massive vacuum of space? All I can say is – it ain’t happening.
I don’t see what is wrong with the difference in air pressure being about the same as space and sea level vs seal level and a car tyre. We are talking about 15 to 18 PSI or thereabouts. All these gazillion molecules you talk about don’t matter. Both examples I give are about 18 or so pounds per square inch, that is what matters I think.
I could for example say that there are zero atoms in space and 2.06*1025 atoms a human hand. And then I could say that there is double that in both hands. But then you could argue as you guys do that the difference between space and a human hand is 2.06*1025 atoms which is not the same as comparing one human hand vs two. So I’m going to call bull on you air pressure argument.
T8, “all these molecules” is what makes the pressure so they DO matter. It is the amount of molecules that gives you the psi.
You might as well say that “all those dollars don’t matter with how much money you have”.
It is not “our” air pressure argument. It is science, globe earth science too.
So you have decided that air pressure differences stop at twice the pressure between two areas – no matter what. Nope, not going any higher, could get scary!
I noticed you didn’t answer my simple question, again. Not the best way to debate, ignore the facts and don’t answer any questions. But it may be the only way you can stay in the game.
T8, why does NASA’s vacuum chamber need 8 foot thick steel and concrete walls?
My latest video. Flat earth observational evidence..
Hey Mike, I heard that NASA was going to switch from the 8 foot thick concrete and steel wall to the same stuff a car tire is made out of. 😂 You know because pressure can only double and a car tire can easily handle that. 😳
Lol. It’s not that the amount of molecules don’t matter, it’s just that it is double. Are you saying it is like the richer scale where a 7. 0 quake is double compared to a 6.8? In other words not an even incremental increase.
The Christchurch shooting wasn’t a false flag. We know a guy that was killed or should I say know of him. He was a football player and Futsal player for NZ. His coach, coaches both my sons who are avid football players. Training was even cancelled so people could mourn his death. Neither the shooter nor most of the victims were born here. Sad that the world’s problems are here now too.
Slam Dunk for Team Globe
The points made in these videos completely debunks the Flat Earth. There is no come back from here for Team Flat Earth. Team Globe wins.
All the other points about a gazillion molecules blah blah blah prove nothing. These are all simply misunderstandings from Team Flat Earth.
I have just watched 2 & 3 and they are excellent. I assume 1 & 4 will also be as good if not better, although I think I may have watched 1 in the past.
The great thing is I will be able to use the info in these videos to simply debunk most points made by Flat Earthers. This will be a great time saver. They also contain animations that I can draw upon.
Hopefully Team Flat Earth will not use any so-called evidence that is already debunked in these videos. It would just be a time waster for all as I would have to find the exact point in the video with the answer.
Enjoy.
1) The Horizon
2) The Stars
3) The Moon
4) Easy Experiments
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
