CathInfo.com

Stanley:
After the explosion on Apollo 13, they used the LM, but they didn't have the heat incoming from the moon surface (whatever amount that would be), or from the rockets, and they turned off a lot of the equipment so it was not generating heat either.

You lost me. The Apollo 13 astronauts approached the Moon’s surface, I guess. One oxygen tank blew up. They aborted the actual moon landing and started to whiz back home pronto. That meant having to negotiate 200,000 return miles plus in deep space. We’re not talking now about heat generated near or on the Moon, but heat in deep space on the return journey. How much of that distance was spent on the CM before the astronauts decided to climb into the LM, I don’t know. Do you? I assume that much of it was on the LM, that leggy, thinly covered contraption, which they could never operate successfully during simulations on earth, but which seemed to work just fine on the Moon.

Aside from radiation hazards, what was the temperature of deep space during LM’s flight home? Was it, as Project Mgr Gene Kranz supposed, 34 degrees F? Or was it a roaring 250 degrees F as Alan Bean suggested it might be? (I know that you think Bean was talking about the LM on the moon. I don’t think so)
In any case, did the LM have sophisticated climate control capabilities designed to handle both extremes in temperature? Again, I don’t think so, because the astronauts were not planning to spend much time aboard it.

 
But I’m asking you, Stanley, since you imply that you’re in possession of knowledge about things that the average Youtube conspiracy theorist would not have.

But manned flight to the moon? How that helps militarily seems rather more indirect.

Sigh.  You've goaded me into a spoiler on my own history project (or should I call it a preview?) ^[♣]:

The Soviet military had little enthusiasm (even that perhaps an overstatement) for manned space-flight, whether to the moon or not, for exactly such reasons: Did it help them close their ICBM "missile gap" ^[#] relative to the U.S.A.?  No. On the contrary, it diverted the attention of skilled--or even brilliant--rocket-developers (notably posthumously famous "Chief Designer" Sergei P. Korolev) from military rockets.  They considered rocketry components (e.g. engines) manufactured for the "Space Race" to be more important to be used in military rockets to grow their ICBM stockpile, except that some of those components had design criteria that conflicted with criteria for quantity-oriented manufacturing of ICBMs.  Important perspective is provided by where the Soviet manned-spaceflight program fit into the Soviet government: It was merely an R&D program in the Soviet Strategic Rocket Forces, which was under the command of the Chief Marshall of Artillery.

Soviet political support was provided by the autocratic Premier Nikita Khruschev, mostly because he was happy to announce accomplishments that had propaganda value, and by Korolev's design bureau, who were interested in manned exploration of space, competition or not.  The Soviet interest in propaganda wasn't so much how it was received in the U.S.A., but the impression it made on more-or-less unaligned 3rd-World countries (esp. those situated in strategic places ^[@],  or possessing strategic natural resources).  Korolev was also politicaly influential enough to secure support for the manned-spaceflight program from Leonid Brezhnev, who had had less interest in it than Khruschev ^[☭].  It was under Brezhnev that the Soviet Union closed the "missile gap".  After that was accomplished, he preferred to spend the Soviet military budget on expanding conventional (i.e., nonnuclear) forces, notably including the Soviet navy.

-------
Note ♣: AlligatorDicax: "Happy 50th Anniversary! /Re:  Moon Landings - No Hard Science [...] ".  Reply #19 [p. 2] on: July 21, 2019 at 00:58:41.  <https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/we-never-went-to-the-moon-proof/msg660216/#msg660216> (topic of actual posting, contrary to what would be expected from the subject text following the ‘/’.

Note #: Contrary to the charges levelled by 1960 presidential candidate John Kennedy against then-V.P. Richard Nixon, it was not the U.S. that was risking its Atomic-Age military security by tolerating an alleged ICBM "missile gap" relative to the Soviet Union, but the Soviets who were actually far behind.  Soviet leaders knew better to believe Kennedy-campaign rhetoric; they were painfully aware that it was they who were far behind.  And they knew that U.S. leaders knew that while Kennedy, Khruschev, et. al., were trying to negotiate a mutually tolerable resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis (Oct. 1962).

Note ☭: Khruschev (1953--1964) was overthrown in Oct. 1964.  He was considered increasingly erratic; his Cuban adventure was a contributing factor.  He was especially noteworthy as the 1st more-or-less sovereign leader of the Soviet Union who lived to tell about it.  He was provided with a pension and 2 homes.  His power was originally divided into a "collective leadership" of 5 high-ranking leaders, but it was eventually consolidated by Leonid Brezhnev (1964--1982), whose ruled until his own death, holding onto sovereign power despite developing increasingly obvious physical/medical infirmities.

Note @: "Strategic places" are those with potential military importance (e.g., being alongside or astride narrow shipping lanes) that's independent of strategic natural resources.  Even more appealing are those among them that have forms of government that're vulnerable to Marxist agitation, puppetry, or outright take-over, notably monarchies.