One Small Step For A Man

I was born just three months after Alan Sheppard's 1961 sub-orbital Mercury flight, and six months before John Glenn's orbital flight in 1962.

Due to Cold War propaganda, I knew precious little about Yuri Gagarin, who became the first human to orbit the Earth a full three months before Sheppard's ballistic shot.  Nor was I aware of Alexei Leonov's historic EVA in 1965, until years later.

I was born with the Space Age and my life and hobbies have been intricately tied to this epoch in history.  I have fostered a life-long interest in astronomy and aerospace, studying the topics both independently and at university.  I can recite facts and figures about the Universe that would induce narcolepsy in most normal humans.

During the Apollo 11 mission, I absorbed every second of broadcast time, getting exhilarated every time I saw fellow Houstonian Walter Cronkite's visage appear on the fuzzy black-and-white cathode-ray tube, futzing with the rabbit ears to draw in the clearest possible picture of the events as they unfolded.  It was a very rare occasion that my strict parents let me stay up late, glued to the TeeVee (but not too close as it would ruin my eyes).

Perhaps it was my youthful naivete, or my willing suspension of disbelief, or my indoctrination into the Cult of American Greatness, or perhaps a bit of all three that led me to unquestioningly accept everything I saw.  It would be decades until I started critically examining the Moon landings.

Being an expert in optics, lighting, set construction, special effects, and film production in general, I take most of the photographic theories with a grain of salt.  I think Stanley Kubrick was far too careful to make simple mistakes (wink).  I do think a good number of the iconic Moon photos were staged, but that does not a priori rule out actual landings.

My suspicions are centered much more on the technology.  There are some serious and fact-based questions that have never been adequately addressed by NASA, nor satisfactorily answered by Apollogists (pun intended).

There are two issues in particular that have long puzzled me, and the NASA documentation is vague and dodgy.  There have never been any clear explanations for these two issues and some of the design data are still classified.  The first is how the astronauts' backpacks exchanged heat in a vacuum, and the other is the Aerozine 50 fuel used in the descent and ascent stages of the Landing Module (LM).

The first of these mysteries is the Primary Life Support System, or PLSS, which are the bulky backpacks worn by the moon-walking astronauts.  Among the many functions of a PLSS - radio, CO2 scrubbers, micro-meteor protection, insulation, humidity control, etc. - was the removal of internal and external heat and exchange it with the environment.

One may think this is a simple and straightforward process, and inside an atmosphere, one would be right.  We must recall, however, that the Moon has no atmosphere.  We are told repeatedly by NASA and other agencies that the surface is a perfect vacuum in which the entire Universe sucks on any object exposed to it.  While this presents a number of issues with the moonsuits and lander construction, we will focus on the heat exchange.

Anyone familiar with the function of a Thermos will instantly appreciate the problem of exchanging heat with a vacuum.  In a Thermos, an inner glass container is held in a vacuum enclosed by an outer container, which prevents heat from being lost to the surrounding environment.  Because there is no medium of transfer, i.e. air, to dissipate heat to the environment, hot liquids inside the Thermos retain heat.  Simple concept, but presents unique challenges for astronauts on the Moon.

Not only is the astronaut's body generating heat, which gets uncomfortable rather quickly if not vented, the astronaut would quick cook when exposed to direct sunlight on the Moon.  Any surface on the Moon reaches up to 250F in direct contact with sunlight on the Moon.  The moonsuits are not immune to this, even given the bright white reflective materials.  Inside, the astronaut is generating heat, both at rest and especially when working.

The solution was a form-fitting body stocking (LCVG) infused with tiny capillaries circulating cool water to a heat collector inside the backpack.  The heat exchangers then "vent" the heat into the vacuum by sublimation.  This presents a number of major issues.

The astronauts must carry to the Moon a large amount of water to be wasted by sublimating the waste water.  This process will take some time inside the PLSS endangering electronic systems, or it must be sprayed directly into the environment creating clouds of ice crystals and/or steam that can blind the astronauts' visors (among other problems).

Sublimation is the process of a solid converting directly to gas without a liquid state.  To watch sublimation at home, get a piece of dry ice and place it on the kitchen counter.  Note the time and watch how long it takes for the ice to sublimate.

It's a similar problem with water ice in the PLSS on the Moon.  For one thing, a large chunk of ice must be stored somewhere while it sublimates.  There's an additional problem in that water ice at temperatures below -200F is as hard as rock and apparently does not sublimate quickly, since Mars has large amounts of water all over the place, and a number of moons in the solar system are composed entirely of water ice.

If the water ice in the PLSS is not thrown away somehow, then it will melt (presumably) inside the PLSS and the LM, causing all sorts of issues with the electronics, not to mention a slip-and-fall hazard.  Since we never saw the astronauts helping each other get rid of ice balls in their packs, we must assume sublimation was not the means by which waste heat was expelled.

Since footage from the Moon never showed clouds of vapor spraying into the environment from the suits, and any collected inside the PLSSs would melt and cause problems inside the LM, we cannot fathom how the heat was exchanged with the environment.  After all, a vacuum is a critical component of a Thermos, which retains heat.  All of the available documentation either leads the reader in a circular argument, or waves the problems away with vague statements.

The second problem concerning the fuel for the descent and ascent stages of the LM is even bigger.  There is no dodging the issue with hand-waving and circular arguments.  The available documentation simply ignores this issue altogether.

The LM used a hypergolic binary fuel (self-oxydizing and ignites the moment to two liquids come in contact with each other) called Aerozine 50.  There are so many problems with this fuel that it is almost never used for human spaceflight.  In fact, the Apollo program is the only one I can find that used it for a manned mission.

Correction 27 July 2019 - Aerozine 50 was used on the Titan GLV rockets in the Gemini program that preceded Apollo.  A number of modifications were made to make it human-rated.  This fact, however, does not change the concerns and issues mentioned here.

Aerozine 50 combines a form of hydrazine with dinitrogentetroxide as an oxydizer to create a highly explosive fuel with a very high specific impulse.  An accident in 1980 punctured a hydrazine tank on an ICBM missile and the explosion lifted a 750-ton silo door right off, while launching the second stage and nuclear warhead out of the silo.

In addition, hydrazine freezes at 38F/2C, and the shade on the Moon is -250F.  None of the available specifications mention the ability to lower the freezing point to -250F.  Aerozine 50 is a special mixture that does lower the freezing point a bit, but certainly not anywhere near the temperatures found in space or on the Moon.

Hydrazine is highly caustic and will eat through many common materials, such as mylar sheeting, Kevlar spacesuits, etc.  The descent would have spewed vast amounts of highly caustic and poisonous exhaust  all over the landing sites.  This not only would have contaminated any rock and soil samples they collected making them scientifically useless, but would have been carried inside the LM, thus poisoning the astronauts and eating away at the electronics and air scrubbers if it didn't eat through the suits first.

While all of these issues are problematic, at best, the most obvious problem is that burning Aerozine 50 creates thick clouds of red smoke and bright flame, even in a vacuum (self-oxydizing).  In an airless environment like the Moon, this smoke would completely surround the landing sites and take a significant amount of time to dissipate.

To sum all this up, the Aerozine 50 fuel used to land and take off from the Moon placed two astronauts on top of highly caustic and explosive liquids that would have required very intricate heating systems to stay liquid.  The landing would have created a thick cloud of smoke that should have taken days or more to dissipate, leaving the astronauts blind visually and photographically.

Finally, the specific impulse of the Aerozine 50 means that the astronauts would have been pinned to the floor of the LM on launch (they were free-standing) for at least several seconds until acceleration peaked.

It should be noted that there is some discussion whether the ascent engine was powerful enough to lift the weight of the craft, men and samples.  These arguments are generally inconclusive because the weight data is not consistent or not complete, and in some cases, the specifications of the engine are in doubt.

The PLSS cooling system and Aerozine 50 fuel not only have a number of direct issues, there are dozens if not hundreds of ancillary and corollary problems introduced by these two things alone.

If we assume, as I do, that humans have indeed walked on the Moon, then we are faced with either or both of two possibilities: 1) the events did not occur as publicly acknowledged, and/or 2) technologies were employed that are not public knowledge.

These are just two of a number of glaring problems with the Apollo missions.  Other include the vacuum on the Moon and the construction of the LM and moonsuits, micro-meteor bombardment, weight of supplies and equipment versus the power of engine designs, and many more.

All of these issues are highlighted by the fact that humans have not (publicly) returned to the Moon in 50 years and apparently lack of engineering capability at NASA and other agencies to overcome the inherent problems of a return trip to the Moon.

While I have no desire to diminish the achievements of gutsy and talented individuals, there is some underlying reason why America has not be back to the Moon for 50 years, and why the Soviet Union (and later Russia) abruptly cancelled its plans after achieving nearly 90% of the tasks to get there.

History tells us that humans do not suddenly abandon or "lose" radical new technologies without compelling reasons.  It is not a "conspiracy theory" to question the existing facts.  Something has stopped humanity from following in those tentative first steps, at least openly.  Those of us who paid for those steps certainly deserve more than we have received.

One other solution presents itself: everything we have been told about the Moon's environment is false.
============================================================
Update 28 July 2019 (Anonymous Comment)
 With regard to IR radiation being the means by which heat is released into a vacuum, this is true HOWEVER:

The heated surfaces must be exposed to the vacuum in order for the heat to radiate away.  The astronauts and their PLSSs were highly insulated internally and externally.  Since they were not wearing mirrors, they were not perfect reflectors, therefore the amount of heat put into the system was over unity with the amount released through IR.

Diagrams of the PLSS show it being entirely enclosed, thus the IR would build up inside and damage critical circuits and machinery, thus killing the astronaut.  Furthermore, the sweat collected off the astronaut would have to be stored somehow, or released somehow.  There is no evidence of either solution being used.  AND the circulated cooling water would have to BE COOLED somehow, which comes right back to the heat release mechanism.  As I mentioned, the whole thing is a circular argument with dozens of corollary and ancillary issues.

No matter how you slice this problem, you always end up with more heat in the system than it can radiate away, especially considering all possible outlets for IR were insulted and unable to radiate heat away.

With regard to local time on the Moon, the Apollo missions were timed to land in the Moon's local morning, which may reduce heat problems, but increased cold problems.  No matter how you frame this argument, you end up with dead astronauts - whether by boiling or freezing.

As for thermal camera images, I have never found any from the Apollo landings, so difficult for either side to cite such things.  In any event, the IR reflected off of exposed surfaces would make the thermal images useless in this argument.

If water ice sublimates at extremely low temperatures, why aren't Europa, Callisto, Ganymede, Pluto, Charon, and other bodies composed of water ice not sublimating away - even in direct sunlight, and in some cases inside the highly radioactive magnetic field of Jupiter? After billions of years (theoretically), these primarily water ice bodies should be nothing but tiny balls of rock.  These moons and planets should be shrouded in steam as the surface ice sublimates.

Sublimation is sublimation, whether it's dry ice or water ice at 1,013.25 mbars and 25C, or more, or less.  That was the point, not whether or when CO2 exists as a liquid.

As for specific impulse, yes it is similar to octane ratings, but not exactly the same.  Regardless, if you are standing in the back of a pickup with nothing to hold on to and the driver floors the accelerator, does it really matter how much octane the fuel has when you fly out the back end and hit the tarmac?

Hypergolic fuel was ostensibly used because the engines are simple and reliable, but that does not address ANY of the other problems caused by using it.  One tiny pin-prick in the hydrazine tank - with micro-meteor threat and hypersonic dust particles accelerated by the exhaust - and there wouldn't be much left to collect in a bread box.  This is a huge amount of risk to take on a program that was so vital to US propaganda efforts.

Furthermore, this does not address the fact that the hydrazine would be frozen solid at -250F,thus useless as a propellant without a whole infrastructure to heat the tanks that would suck valuable battery life away from all the other critical systems.  Even if Aerozine 50's freezing point were magically lowered to -100F (which it wasn't), one is STILL 150F below that.  Again, a circular argument with no published sufficient remedies.

All of these issues get exponentially more problematic as surface times increase from hours to days in subsequent missions.  To put it as simply as possible, no amount of hand-waving and conditional language eliminates all of the problems.  Yes, they COULD have done a lot of things, but the available documentation is insufficient to answer the questions raised.