ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: miker on November 07, 2016, 04:54:41 PM
-
I wouldn't be writing this if I didn't need a big distraction after burying my most favorite dog ever this morning. I've never been on a discussion site before.
I came to this site looking for an intelligent conversation. Let me beat a couple of you in saying that if you want an intelligent conversation, first you have to be intelligent yourself. There, I beat you to it. Only about 20% of Americans believe the moon landing was hoaxed, but I believe that there are intelligent people on both sides of the debate.
I watched several videos that tried to prove we went to the moon and several that tried to prove the moon hoax true. I personally don't like to make decisions based on what people say, but I try to prove them for myself. My education, work experience, hobbies and interests are all mechanical or mechanically related. After watching all the video several times I picked out 3 points to do experiments on to prove for myself who was lying. Of the three experiments I did, all said that NASA, the news media and the government were lying.
I use information from the NASA site that I printed out in 1969 but I don't know if it's still there.
Let me explain a little about the spacesuit. It had 11 layers including a water cooling garment and a layer of aluminized mylar or BoPET which is known for its high tensile strength and thermal stability. The spacesuit was 3/16 inch thick and pressurized to 8.3 psi or 16.9 in. of Hg.
It's all about the pressure differential from the inside of the suit to the outside of the suit.
This is the experiment that influenced me the most. I wanted to know what it felt like to be in space inside of a spacesuit. I built a vacuum chamber out of six-inch PVC tube, 2 end caps and on one of the end caps I machined it flat and added a bolting device to clamp a long armed plastic with cloth reinforcement glove. I also added piping to connect a in. of Hg. vacuum gauge, a shutoff valve and a fitting to connect my vacuum pump to.
I started drawing a vacuum inside the chamber and felt I had to stop at 6 in. of Hg or blow the glove up. I stuck my hand and arm inside the glove and I could move my fingers easily but with the inside of the wall less than 2 inches from my hand it was impossible to touch the wall no matter how hard I tried. That's only about 35% of what they experienced in a spacesuit. NASA claims they put bearings in several places in the suit to make it easier to move but I know a lot about bearings and I know the one piece mylar layer still had to be dealt with and that wouldn't be very easy to do.
In comparing what I learned about being in a vacuum compared to the hammering on the moon that I seen, it makes it MORE than ridiculous to believe that they were on the moon. Go to I couldn't find a video of the one I wanted to but that one will do. If that doesn't create a shortcut do a search for "hammering on the moon"at YouTube. Or better yet – build your own vacuum chamber to prove that I'm a liar.
Maybe you'll see that I did do my homework prior or maybe not.
-
... but I believe that there are intelligent people on both sides of the debate.
There aren't. It's not a thing one "believes," one either understands it or not.
Sorry about your dog.
-
... but I believe that there are intelligent people on both sides of the debate.
There aren't. It's not a thing one "believes," one either understands it or not.
alright, now I'm going to brag. In my younger years I had an IQ of 146--I know I'm a liar- and I don't care whatsoever what you think
-
... but I believe that there are intelligent people on both sides of the debate.
There aren't. It's not a thing one "believes," one either understands it or not.
alright, now I'm going to brag. In my younger years I had an IQ of 146--I know I'm a liar- and I don't care whatsoever what you think
I'm not interested in dissuading you or anybody else from their religious beliefs.
There are facts about Apollo you apparently do not understand.
That has nothing to do with what I "think."
-
I don't supposed it occurred to you to record your experiment on video or in photographs?
You might also want to clarify the "NASA site that I printed out in 1969" bit, because if you're claiming exactly what it says then the meds are wearing off. The Apollo EMU data is freely available and not hard to find, so hopefully you'll have no trouble identifying where you got your numbers from - especially that psi value.
Like you it isn't what I believe, it's what I can prove. I've proven it to my own satisfaction many times over. see the link in my sig. It's where I've shown my working, which is what you should do.
Oh, and IQ of 160 in my younger years. Means jack if you don't know what to do with it.
-
-
First off - right there is a crucial mistake. The spacesuits weren't pressurized to 8 psi, but only about HALF that. Pure oxygen so that was all they needed.
Also, the ENTIRE astronauts was inside the spacesuit. Not just the hand. The joints were "constant-volume"-joints with BELLOWS, not BEARINGS, so they were able to move without fighting the airpressure.
-
With some modifications, the A7L spacesuit was also used on Skylab missions, which included several EVA, including to repair the space station to liveable, operating conditions.
Was Skylab a hoax too? It fell out of the sky over Australia (http://www.space.com/21092-skylab-space-station-debris-photos.html), with much debris found and identified.
-
Perhaps a picture of an A7L suit without the outer layer would be enlightening https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/S71-24537-A7L_without_outerlayer.jpg which shows the constant volume joints quite nicely
Also consider this Miker, all the manned space programs have included spacewalks, are they all hoaxes? They all use gloves of a similar design to the ones used in Apollo
-
(https://femuscleblog.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/pwned.jpg)
-
I've never seen that suit and I doubt that it was the suit used on the moon. I don't understand what the constant volume would gain them in movability. The problem with moon suits was the thickness, the layer of mylar and its 8.3 psi according to what I printed off from the NASA website 10 years ago. The earlier space station space walks had much more movement as compared to the ones now- there is hardly any movement now, so I guess I'm saying that I'm sure the space station most certainly exist, I think the space walks could be and probably are faked.
Thanks for the info and common decency-that's pretty rare here.
-
The Shuttle and ISS EMU is a quite a bit heavier than the Apollo and Skylab spacesuits. While things might be weightless in orbit, they still have mass, which means they take more force to start and and stop, like how a fully laden shopping cart takes a lot of effort to start, turn and stop. So movements are going to be slower and more careful.
Moreover, can you scan or photograph or in any way produce said printouts?
Because the archived version of this site (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s6ch6.htm) (see table 1) from 10 years ago does not say 8.3 psi. (http://web.archive.org/web/20061004005821/http://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s6ch6.htm) Nor does the oldest version archived (http://web.archive.org/web/20030503050459/http://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s6ch6.htm).
It's possible some other sub-site said so, typos happen.
However, your lack of understanding of constant volume joints does not change how they work.
Watch this video. (https://youtu.be/fJbztthNrVQ?t=539) from here (8:59) I recommend the whole thing, it talks about the Apollo suit's history and development from the perspective of the people building it. but that part describes constant volume joints and why they help, referring to them as convolutes.
-
But it was NOT 8.3 psi. It appears you don't read information contrary to your belief. Also, what you "doubt" is of no concern, because people who work in space disagree with you.
The constant-volume joints increased the mobility of the spacesuit because it did not alter the volume of tjhe interior of the suit when they flexted their arms or legs. Otherwise, they would work against the pressure of the suit - just like bending a balloon to make a balloon animal.
-
I've never seen that suit and I doubt that it was the suit used on the moon. I don't understand what the constant volume would gain them in movability. The problem with moon suits was the thickness, the layer of mylar and its 8.3 psi according to what I printed off from the NASA website 10 years ago. The earlier space station space walks had much more movement as compared to the ones now- there is hardly any movement now, so I guess I'm saying that I'm sure the space station most certainly exist, I think the space walks could be and probably are faked.
Thanks for the info and common decency-that's pretty rare here.
The fact you have said you have said you have never seen that suit shows you haven't done any serious research on the subject.
The fact that you don't understand constant volume joints shows you do not have a basic understanding of how a pressure suit works.
The fact that you seems to have taken evidence that contradicts your assumptions and just simply dismissed them as "probably fakes" shows a disturbing willingness to remain with your own beliefs regardless of proof otherwise.
If you want to really prove something, then give serious effort and SCIENTIFIC proof.
If you think you have given proof and do not understand why others say you are wrong, then listen to what they have to say, investigate it for yourself (i.e. check the sources and verify their validity), ask questions in areas you don't understand or disagree with, and admit when you are wrong.
If you think a number of us are being arrogant or big-headed, ask yourself this question: would so many people post such detailed evidence if they weren't 100% sure that it was verifiable? That is to say, would they really post something if they weren't an engineer or rocket scientist or chemist themselves, if they weren't really confident that someone would back up the figures?
That leads me onto my next point: if you don't believe the scientific proof and you aren't a scientist yourself... that's okay. If you want a serious discussion however, you have to take the figures or data and show them to someone who IS qualified and get them to tell you if it is right or wrong. Even then, I would go to at least three different sources.
You have to remember that some of us here live - and are experts in - the various aspects of aeronautics.
Lastly, you have to beware of claiming that something was changed since the original data was published. You haven't done that but you said you "... printed off from the NASA website 10 years ago...". That kinda implied that something might have been "changed". Many of us have archives going back further than that, some with original documents from the 1960's and 70's.
So I say again - if you want to be taken seriously, then act seriously.
-
I've never seen that suit and I doubt that it was the suit used on the moon.
Then you need to do more research, that is one of the Apollo suits, just without the outer layers. You might find this NASA document useful as it goes into considerable detail about the suits http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-EMU1.pdf
-
With some modifications, the A7L spacesuit was also used on Skylab missions, which included several EVA, including to repair the space station to liveable, operating conditions.
Was Skylab a hoax too? It fell out of the sky over Australia (http://www.space.com/21092-skylab-space-station-debris-photos.html), with much debris found and identified.
Oooh, that explains it then.
Some of the debris must have fallen on Jarrah White's head, and turned him into The Blunder.
-
miker
I you really want to understand about Space Suits. then this site is one of the best I have seen
http://strangeblue.iwarp.com/spacesuits/design.html
It gives the maths, engineering and science behind space suits in a simple, easy to understand form
For example, here is a simple explanation of the reasoning behind how a constant volume joint works...
"The simpler the better, so lets make our space suit out of fabric cylinders. As the astronaut bends a suit joint, the fabric cylinder will develop folds on the inner side of the bend. The outer side will remain the same length as it started out. this will cause the volume of the joint to decrease. The work to operate this joint will be the force required to it multiplied by the distance (d) through which this force acts. The work can also be viewed as the work required to decrease the volume plus the work required to bend the fabric (which is a insignificant force)."
-
I use information from the NASA site that I printed out in 1969 but I don't know if it's still there.
...according to what I printed off from the NASA website 10 years ago.
Miker, this is a little confusing. Which is it? 1969 (47 years ago) or 2006 (10 years ago)? Or are you talking about two different lots of information?
Off the topic, if you did indeed get the information in 1969, does that mean you watched Sputnik 1 in 1959? I saw it at 8:06 pm on Wednesday 9 October 1969 NZST. New Zealand HAM radio operators picked up its signal a few days before, but the skies were too cloudy to see it in my area prior to the 9th. Besides, I now know that it's more likely we saw the rocket that put it up and not the little satellite, which was in a highly elliptical orbit.
-
I watched several videos
Might I suggest text-based information?
Of the three experiments I did, all said that NASA, the news media and the government were lying.
You know the drill: Pics or it didn't happen!
I use information from the NASA site that I printed out in 1969
You might want to rephrase that, because how it is stated now is impossible.
No websites in 1969.
NASA claims they put bearings in several places in the suit
See? That's why I advise using text-based information.
cloth reinforcement glove
Which is not a spacesuit glove and therefor can't tell you much about the behaviour of spacesuit gloves.
Maybe you'll see that I did do my homework prior or maybe not.
Considering your misunderstandings I'd say not.
I've never seen that suit and I doubt that it was the suit used on the moon.
Your lack of information and your personal doubts and incredulity do not constitute evidence in any way, shape, or form.
-
Hi, Miker. Let me be one of the first to call bullshit on the lot of it.
Do you think no-one notices that you made several statements about how good a learner you were and that you would now go back and address ALL of your MANY errors before Gish Galloping onto new crap?
And here you are, a day or so later, NOT doing that and Gish Galloping onto new, equally ill-informed hogwash.. Just like all the tinfoilhatters and trolls before you.
I don't buy the dog excuse either. You are either a troll or a coward who cannot and will not admit his errors. Incapable of learning, closed mind - lost cause.
Go on, ask me what I really think...
-
The spacesuit was 3/16 inch thick and pressurized to 8.3 psi or 16.9 in. of Hg.
Where did you get this bit of incorrect information? The suit pressure was designed to operate at 3.5 psi.
http://www.armaghplanet.com/blog/15-questions-about-the-moon-landings.html
Your experiment reminds me of Rene's flawed attempt to model glove function on the Moon. There is a rather large differential between negative 14.7 and negative 3.5.
Maybe you'll see that I did do my homework prior or maybe not.
No, you haven't done your homework. You really need to learn some basic physics and then the scientific method of proofs before posting nonsense like this in the future.
-
Hi, Miker. Let me be one of the first to call bullshit on the lot of it.
First to call it, not the first to think it ;)
-
Miker, did the glove in your experiment look likes these (with the bulbous constant pressure joints)...
(http://www.collectspace.com//review/cosmosphere_armstronggloves.jpg)
If not, then your experiment isn't valid because it tested just some random glove and not the actual equipment used (or a facsimile thereof).
Furthermore, I strongly urge that you return to the other thread that you started and respond to the many replies that you received.
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1210.0
-
Oops, error in reply # 17, final paragraph. The correct year for Sputnik 1 was 1957, not 1959 and 1969. I saw it on 9 October 1957.
Horrors! Oldfartitis strikes again.
-
Horrors! Oldfartitis strikes again.
Been there and done that.
-
Miker, did the glove in your experiment look likes these (with the bulbous constant pressure joints)...
(http://www.collectspace.com//review/cosmosphere_armstronggloves.jpg)
If not, then your experiment isn't valid because it tested just some random glove and not the actual equipment used (or a facsimile thereof).
Furthermore, I strongly urge that you return to the other thread that you started and respond to the many replies that you received.
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1210.0
Great picture! Notice the straps that wrap around the hand and between the digits. That'd keep the pressurized rubber from expanding off of the astronaut's hand & fingers. Leonov sure could have used those on his spacewalk!
-
No reply from miker?
-
Maybe you'll see that I did do my homework prior or maybe not.
You haven't done your homework.
-
Hoax claimants tend to err in choosing which bit of technology they should attack as purportedly implausible. Over at International Skeptics Forum there's a guy who wants to say the heat shield didn't work. He has a lot of cobbled-up pseudo-physics that allegedly proves this. But his biggest error is in realizing the Apollo thermal protection system wasn't invented for Apollo. It was already old technology, having been invented for ICBM warheads, the re-entry vehicle. The Apollo engineers had a choice of several existing methods.
Similarly, it's not as if pressure garments were suddenly and newly invented for Apollo. The articulated pressure suit dates back to the 1930s. By the 1950s the full pressure suit had arrived at a form Apollo engineers would recognize. On this point too, Apollo did not invent radically new technology that is somehow suspect; it simply adapted existing technology that was not especially mysterious.
-
...
On this point too, Apollo did not invent radically new technology that is somehow suspect; it simply adapted existing technology that was not especially mysterious.
This is a point that a lot of HB's make, technology in the 60's limitations and it is difficult to get them off of those points. I suspect that many not all are very young who are near sighted on what went on during the Apollo years. If only they would watch a few of the documentaries that discuss the planning and execution that occurred to get to the Moon.
-
No reply from miker?
He is probably busy trying to decide which old nonsense he is going to "investigate" next...
-
I'm still trying to figure out how someone who says he eats, breathes, and sleeps mechanics would characterize the joints in a space suit as "bearings."
-
Maybe his first language isn't english, and he misunderstood "bellows" as meaning the same thing?
-
Or better yet – build your own vacuum chamber to prove that I'm a liar.
Been there, done that. My very first project in aerospace, while still an engineering student, was a proposal for the gloves that STS astronauts would use while operating the MMU. Remember the iconic pictures of Bruce McCandless floating untethered above the Earth? Yeah, what he's wearing on his hands is a descendent of work I did, including vacuum chamber testing. And not a crude one hacked together out of PVC and shop odds and ends. As you discovered, grasping things in space is a problem for a glove that's simply a boundary-offset model of a human hand like the ones you used. It's a good thing the gloves we developed there were much more than that, as were the Apollo lunar EVA gloves. It's too bad your professed love of mechanics doesn't pique the interest in discovering how constant-volume joints work. You seem to want to use your talents only to cast doubt.
-
So Miker, if you believe the problem you describe is technically insurmountable then does that mean that all spacewalks have been hoaxes?
-
So Miker, if you believe the problem you describe is technically insurmountable then does that mean that all spacewalks have been hoaxes?
Something tells me you are not going to get any response.
-
So Miker, if you believe the problem you describe is technically insurmountable then does that mean that all spacewalks have been hoaxes?
Something tells me you are not going to get any response.
Quite.
He's lurked for a two or so after his last post. I have no doubt that he'll follow the standard MO now that he realises that his belief systems are thinner than tissue paper and that this place is not YouTube and is actually populated by people who know what they are talking about. So he'll either come back with a gish-gallop which will result in an im/explosion and banning; or he'll initiate a stealth-flounce back into the ooze.
I call the latter.
(https://imagemacros.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/flounce2.jpg)
-
I'm still rather astounded at the concept of "I use information from the NASA site that I printed out in 1969."
It sounds like miker probably is too young to remember 1969, because in those days no one "printed off" information from a website. You might be able to photocopy things from books, but finding a copier could be tricky. In the 1960s I recall schoolteachers providing mimeographed exams with their weird chemical smell, not copied ones.
For people who grew up with the internet, the idea of having to go to libraries or write away to agencies for information is rather mindblowing. Nearly as mindblowing as the thought that NASA could change all their written documentation in all the libraries around the world.
Perhaps miker will tell us stories about dancing in the rain at Woodstock, and taking selfies on his phone?
-
I'm still rather astounded at the concept of "I use information from the NASA site that I printed out in 1969."
It sounds like miker probably is too young to remember 1969, because in those days no one "printed off" information from a website. You might be able to photocopy things from books, but finding a copier could be tricky. In the 1960s I recall schoolteachers providing mimeographed exams with their weird chemical smell, not copied ones.
For people who grew up with the internet, the idea of having to go to libraries or write away to agencies for information is rather mindblowing. Nearly as mindblowing as the thought that NASA could change all their written documentation in all the libraries around the world.
Perhaps miker will tell us stories about dancing in the rain at Woodstock, and taking selfies on his phone?
Don't forget referencing articles/books with those index cards, then going to find the citations in each. I'm thinking the same thing as you miker is young
-
By happy coincidence, a photo on ebay of Charles Duke being fitted out for his suit:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/like/371785760661?dest=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.co.uk%2Fitm%2F371785760661
-
As a matter of curiosity, what is the zig zaggy part just under the knee joint bellows for?
-
Horrors! Oldfartitis strikes again.
Been there and done that.
I know! Done there and been that.
-
As a matter of curiosity, what is the zig zaggy part just under the knee joint bellows for?
Laces, for restraining the length to which the leg envelope may expand.
-
Laces, for restraining the length to which the leg envelope may expand.
Neat; thanks. :)
-
Laces, for restraining the length to which the leg envelope may expand.
Pete Conrad had an issue during the rest period with the suit length being fractionally too short and "Al did an outstanding job on letting my legs out for me, which took him about an hour.".
A comment in the ALSJ (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/a12.posteva1.html) says "Conrad: ... So, there was a cable and we had laces (at the ankle) you could adjust (to lengthen or shorten the leg)... The laces went all the way around..."
Do we think these are the same laces? Perhaps the "at the ankle" editorial comment is wrong.
-
I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in the development of suits.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Spacesuits-Smithsonian-National-Collection-2009-05-05/dp/B01FGJMQDS/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8
It's contents are beautifully photographed and the section on the preservation of the Moon suits is very interesting.
-
I'm still rather astounded at the concept of "I use information from the NASA site that I printed out in 1969."
It sounds like miker probably is too young to remember 1969, because in those days no one "printed off" information from a website. You might be able to photocopy things from books, but finding a copier could be tricky.
In my job I often have to go through personnel files to do service audits (changes from full-time to part-time, periods of leave without pay, stuff like that). Sometimes the files include old CVs or old duty statements. From reading what some people did early in their careers it's apparent that at least as late as the 1970s it was common for Australian Public Service departments to have a photocopying room: if you needed a book or document photocopied you took it to the photocopy room where the photocopy ladies (always women, never men) would do the photocopying for you (and possibly even keep a record of what they'd copied. So while I suppose it was possible to "do" some photocopying in 1969, it was more likely given to someone else to "do" (and they'd make a note of what you'd had copied).
In the 1960s I recall schoolteachers providing mimeographed exams with their weird chemical smell, not copied ones.
Yep. I remember those at school in the 1970s too. Everyone always inhaled deeply...
-
Those are undoubtedly the laces to which Conrad refers.
-
Those are undoubtedly the laces to which Conrad refers.
I'm curious, and you probably don't know the reason, why didn't Pete realize the length was too short during the initial suit up?
-
Those are undoubtedly the laces to which Conrad refers.
I'm curious, and you probably don't know the reason, why didn't Pete realize the length was too short during the initial suit up?
Reduced gravity gave him longer legs.
-
Those are undoubtedly the laces to which Conrad refers.
I'm curious, and you probably don't know the reason, why didn't Pete realize the length was too short during the initial suit up?
The initial suit up would have been in Lunar orbit, correct?
Reduced gravity gave him longer legs.
-
why didn't Pete realize the length was too short during the initial suit up?
Conrad explains it in the technical debrief (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/a12-techdebrief.pdf) and in discussion in the ALSJ (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/a12.posteva1.html).
Conrad (Technical Debrief): I made a technical error before I left when the suits were sent back to ILC and the boots were put on. We knew that we had to refit the suits, and I let myself get conned into refitting my suit in long underwear and not with the LCG because the flight LCG was PIAed. ( PIA = Preinstallation Acceptance. ) That was a mistake. I wound up with the legs being too tight. I realized this prior to lift-off while staying in the suit for a long time. I had spent only about an hour or so before in it fitting it in my long underwear, but it became unbearable that night. It spoiled my rest period. I did not want to take the suit off so I stayed that way all night. I slept only about 4 hours, and it was mainly because of suit discomfort on my shoulders. The next morning, Al did an outstanding job on letting my legs out for me, which took him about an hour.
Bean - ALSJ: You think it was because the suit was adjusted wrong or because you grew in space? Or both?
Conrad - ALSJ: No. You don't remember what happened to my prime suit when they went to check it out prior to the flight. This was like three days before the flight. They did a suit check. And that suit, which had hardly been worn, had a leak in one of the boots. I don't remember which one, now. I think it was probably the left side. And I remember they told me 'your prime suit has a leak.' And they flew it by Lear Jet all the way up to ILC in Dover (Delaware), and the little old ladies put a new boot on the suit. And then they sent it back. Now, the normal way we fit the suit was to wear our LCG but, by the time they got the suit back that had already been packed in the spacecraft. And they wouldn't let me in the suit unless it was flight underwear (that is, either the flight LCG or flight longjohns). So I fitted again with my cotton (long underwear) for the Command Module. And I didn't guess right on the left boot. So it wasn't until we put on the LCGs in flight (that I realized) it was too short. And there's no way you can shorten your body. No matter what you do, the distance from your feet to your shoulders is the same. That's the way it was. So, there was a cable and we had laces (at the ankle) you could adjust (to lengthen or shorten the leg)... The laces went all the way around...
Bean - ALSJ: There were two sets, because everything was redundant. And they knotted the shit out of those things.
-
OK, a misjudgment due to the absent LCG; coupled with the drive to get the mission on the way.
-
Conrad explains it in the technical debrief (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/a12-techdebrief.pdf) and in discussion in the ALSJ (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/a12.posteva1.html).
Conrad (Technical Debrief):No matter what you do, the distance from your feet to your shoulders is the same.
Well he got that bit wrong. http://www.space.com/19116-astronauts-taller-space-spines.html
I wonder if the effects of microgravity also played a part? These effects were possibly unknown during Apollo?
-
Conrad explains it in the technical debrief (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/a12-techdebrief.pdf) and in discussion in the ALSJ (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/a12.posteva1.html).
Conrad (Technical Debrief):No matter what you do, the distance from your feet to your shoulders is the same.
Well he got that bit wrong. http://www.space.com/19116-astronauts-taller-space-spines.html
I wonder if the effects of microgravity also played a part? These effects were possibly unknown during Apollo?
This effect is noted with long duration mission on the ISS. I doubt that there would have been much difference in bone/spine lengthening during an Apollo mission.
-
This effect is noted with long duration mission on the ISS. I doubt that there would have been much difference in bone/spine lengthening during an Apollo mission.
There has been some studies done using a head-down position in a tilted bed (HDT). Traction was also used to simulate the effects of microgravity. The report found that "Heights increased 2.1 ± 0.5 cm by Day 3 of HDT and remained at that level until the end of the HDT period."* So it looks like the majority of the increase in height occurred within the first few days exposure. The mechanism for this was a decrease in spinal curvature and the disc decompressing in the spine.
*Source: Back pain during 6° head-down tilt approximates that during actual microgravity. Hutchinson, Karen J.; Watenpaugh, Donald E.; Murthy, Gita; Convertino, Victor A.; Hargens, A. R. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, Vol 66(3), Mar 1995, 256-259.
-
Here's an interesting photo of Cernan during a final flight suit fit check at ILC showing a lot of hanging laces.
(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/ap17-72-H-251.jpg)
-
I'm still rather astounded at the concept of "I use information from the NASA site that I printed out in 1969."
It sounds like miker probably is too young to remember 1969, because in those days no one "printed off" information from a website.
I wondered if it was a typo for "1996".
1969 was the early days of ARPANET, and from a brief bit of research it doesn't look like NASA were involved in any way at that time. You didn't have "sites" then anyway. As far as I can tell, NASA probably hooked into the network in the mid 70's.
I do have fond memories (well, maybe "fond" isn't the word) of acoustic couplers, 300 baud connections, BBS's, FTP etc. It seemed amazing back then to be downloading file from half way round the world. :D