On Friday, February 1, 2013 8:23:24 AM UTC-5, Brad Guth wrote:
On Jan 31, 5:19*am, Dean wrote:

On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 5:02:35 PM UTC-5, Brad Guth wrote:

On Jan 30, 5:32*am, Jeff Findley wrote:



In article 88cd94a3-ee17-467b-8ac2-b2b489452627



@u1g2000yql.googlegroups.com, says...



On Jan 29, 4:55*pm, Brad Guth wrote:



Body heat of 450 watts plus full sunlight always on half of the craft



in addition to the secondary influx of moon IR as well as the



unavoidable planetshine IR, is simply not going to provide any



freezing cold cabin environment unless their HVAC system was blasting



away with cold air.



You're quite wrong. *"Space is cold", especially when you're beyond LEO



and don't have the heat of the earth aimed at half your ship.



the side of the vehicle in darness radiates the body heat fast. the



LMs walls were paper thin and not well insulated due to weight



constraints



Thermal design of the LEM is far more complicated than your gross



oversimplification.



Jeff



--



"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would



magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper



than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in



and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer



At 1 AU the solar influx is the same, and the matter of getting rid of



surplus heat from any spacecraft that's not specifically configured



for such, is downright difficult. *It's worse when there's 1220 w/m2



coming off the illuminated surface of our physically dark moon, in



addition to the planetshine influx contributing a bit more IR. *All



three influx sources of energy added to the internal 450+ watts of



heat from three humans is going to make their cabin interior anything



but cold.



And there it is: *Our resident conspirowhacko chimes in with his infamous "physically dark moon" catchphrase.



What would you call a surface albedo that visibly averages 7%?



Are you saying there's no paramagnetic basalt, carbonado or any other

dark minerals or any raw carbon on the moon?

http://the-moon.wikispaces.com/Albedo

"The overall albedo of the Moon is frequently quoted as being about

7%. This is actually the so-called Bond albedo at visible wavelengths,

which refers to the fraction of the total energy impinging on a

surface that is reflected in all directions. It is a concept which is

useful in studies of planetary enegy balance, but has little relevance

to perceived brightness, which depend entirely on the intensity

reflected in a specific direction."



Of course adding in the secondary/recoil of IR makes the moon a whole

lot more reflective, not to mention what secondary/recoils UV photons

have to offer, plus X-rays and gamma that always tend to brighten

things up.



Are you suggesting that captured meteors and whatever space dust isn't

physically dark?

No, what I am suggesting is you are a conspirowhacko who manipulates words to suit yourself. Your statement about IR and X-rays brightening things up is complete nonsense.