But neither does anyone else and I think that's unacceptable. A faith-based space program during this great age of the scientific method is unnecessary and absurd. It's way past time for NASA to be scientifically accountable.
After my painful 2003 epiphany regarding 9-11
Photos? Video? Could be fake.
Narrative? Could be lies.
Launches? Yes, but what happened after they went into orbit out of sight? Did they really go to the moon? Do they really go to the space station or is just a lighted orbiting umannned and possibly inflatable prop? Did they really repair a Hubble telescope?
What about the flag waving? I don't know and there's nothing we can prove about it on Earth.
What about the shadows? I don't know and there's nothing we can prove about them on Earth.
What about the Lunar laser reflector? I don't know and who knows how it got there even if it's actually there.
But then I stumbled upon the spacesuit ice sublimators....
Naturally, I wanted to learn more. What does a spacesuit sublimator look like? Specifications? Procedures? Video of one being tested? Photographs? Technical discussions in heat transfer or thermodynamics books? I searched. Strangely and absurdly, I found almost nothing. I received almost nothing.
Absurdly, there were no photographs.
Absurdly, there was no video of spacesuits with ice sublimators being tested.
Absurdly, my Congressional representatives in two states, California's and Washington's Feinstein, Boxer, Cantwell, Murray, Capps and Hastings, stonewalled me also when I requested their assistance acquiring accountability from NASA.
But voila! The good news was that I had stumbled upon the way to PROVE whether the NASA space program was a hoax.
NASA must publicly demonstrate, before independent witnesses, a spacesuit with ice sublimator cooling system in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit.
Please tell them that you want to see a spacesuit with ice sublimator work in a high vacuum chamber on Earth.
My contention is that most of the NASA space program is probably a hoax. I say "probably" because I don't know. But neither does anyone else and I think that's unacceptable. A faith-based space program during this great age of the scientific method is unnecessary and absurd. It's way past time for NASA to be scientifically accountable.And you would be flat out wrong. On all counts.
After my painful 2003 epiphany regarding 9-11, I gained the courage to confront my mythological beliefs about the space program and other things. I was confronted with the difficult question, "How do we PROVE we went to the moon?"CTists almost always find that once they swallow one load of hogwash, the next load of hogwash is easier to swallow no matter it's size.
Photos? Video? Could be fake.Thousands of photos and countless hours of video all faked in the largest vacuum chamber ever created which conveniently disappeared without trace. Sorry. Your claim, your burden of proof. How could they be faked?
Narrative? Could be lies.Not much point in that since they actually went.
Launches? Yes, but what happened after they went into orbit out of sight? Did they really go to the moon?They were independantly tracked all the way there and all the way back.
Do they really go to the space station or is just a lighted orbiting umannned and possibly inflatable prop?So now the US is in cahoots with the Russians, all of Europe, the Indians, the chinese in fact pretty much everyone to haox the ISS. Are you the only one who is not "in on it"?
Did they really repair a Hubble telescope?It was broken. Now it is fixed. Seems pretty clear that they did fix it, no?
What about the flag waving?What about it? It "waves" when the astronauts interact with it and at no other time.
I don't know and there's nothing we can prove about it on Earth.Wrong.
What about the shadows? I don't know and there's nothing we can prove about them on Earth.Wrong. There is nothing unusual about the shadows. All of their effects can be demonstrated on Earth in sunlight.
What about the Lunar laser reflector? I don't know and who knows how it got there even if it's actually there.Of course it's there. Anyone can point a laser at it and measure the response and they do. It is used to measure the precise rate of recession of the Moon. They were placed there by the Apollo astronauts.
But then I stumbled upon the spacesuit ice sublimators. Being in either the vacuum of orbit or the vacuum of the moon, heat transfer is a difficult engineering challenge. There's nothing cool to conduct heat to, there's no atmosphere so there's nothing to convect heat to and a radiator would be huge and ungainly so NASA describes the clever and exotic technique of using nickel porous plate ice sublimators to explain how heat was allegedly transferred from the spacesuits and the Lunar Modules(LM).All of those sources are publicly available on the internet. Your inability to find them is your problem and nobody elses.
A primary closed loop of water circulates around the heat source, either a human body or the Lunar Module, through a nickel porous plate heat exchanger. The secondary side of the heat exchanger is open to the vacuum of space through many small pores. Water passes into the heat exchanger, receives the heat of the closed primary loop and then, because it's exposed to vacuum, phase changes from liquid to ice and sublimates into space transferring heat with it. Very neat and ingenious. Naturally, I wanted to learn more. What does a spacesuit sublimator look like? Specifications? Procedures? Video of one being tested? Photographs? Technical discussions in heat transfer or thermodynamics books? I searched. Strangely and absurdly, I found almost nothing. I received almost nothing.
I got stonewalled when I appealed for information. Absurdly, there were no photographs. Absurdly, there was no video of spacesuits with ice sublimators being tested. Most absurdly, there was no information in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics books. Absurdly, the alleged manufacturer, Hamilton Sunstrand of United Technologies would only release very elementary information. Absurdly, NASA's Johnson Space Center refused to provide video or photos and stonewalled me instead. Absurdly, the Rice University Department of Mechanical Engineering, most closely associated with Houston's Johnson Space Center refused to comment. Absurdly, my Congressional representatives in two states, California's and Washington's Feinstein, Boxer, Cantwell, Murray, Capps and Hastings, stonewalled me also when I requested their assistance acquiring accountability from NASA.Do you think they waste their time answering every moon hoax crank question, or do you suppose that they simply file such requests under T for Trash?
But voila! The good news was that I had stumbled upon the way to PROVE whether the NASA space program was a hoax. The lack of information and evasion regarding spacesuits with sublimators represents a huge anomaly upon which attention should be focused. NASA must publicly demonstrate, before independent witnesses, a spacesuit with ice sublimator cooling system in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit. NASA refuses to be accountable. It's unacceptable. We can PROVE today on Earth if the NASA space program is a hoax. For independent witnesses I recommend retired Army General Antonio Taguba, retired Navy Admiral William Fallon and me.That would be part of the test schedule for EVERY space suit, so it has been done countless times already. Why would one more repetition be somehow "special"? Why should a "special" test be set up just for you? Are you going to foot the bill?
Please demand NASA accountability from your respective Congressional representatives.As President Ronald Reagan said in his Farewell Address, "We the PEOPLE tell the government what to do; it doesn't tell us." Please tell them that you want to see a spacesuit with ice sublimator work in a high vacuum chamber on Earth.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yNoOYjR0_g Orlan suit vacuum test. I'm sure your sooper resurch skillz can find more.
Thank you.
I say "probably" because I don't know. But neither does anyone else and I think that's unacceptable.
What does a spacesuit sublimator look like? Specifications? Procedures? Video of one being tested? Photographs? Technical discussions in heat transfer or thermodynamics books? I searched. Strangely and absurdly, I found almost nothing. I received almost nothing.
I got stonewalled when I appealed for information.
The lack of information and evasion regarding spacesuits with sublimators represents a huge anomaly upon which attention should be focused.
NASA must publicly demonstrate, before independent witnesses, a spacesuit with ice sublimator cooling system in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit.
Please demand NASA accountability from your respective Congressional representatives.
Let's see your detailed analysis of this document. With calculations please.
http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19720005423
What does a spacesuit sublimator look like?
A close up view of the heat-exchanger/sublimator (silver cutaway structure), radio module (gold), and the lithium hydroxide (background, in green/white). The Remote Control Unit (RCU), in the foreground, is mounted on the crewmember's chest.(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/plss100.jpg)
The sublimator and heat exchanger are part of the "return circuit" of the PLSS. Oxygen, warmed by the heat generated by the astronaut's body, is cooled in the heat exchanger before being passed through the lithium hydroxide canister to eliminate exhaled carbon dioxide. Water circulated through the Liquid Cooling Garment (LCG) also flows through the heat exchanger where it gives up heat to a separate supply of cooling feedwater. The feedwater flows into the sublimator, where it is added to a layer of ice and, ultimately evaporates and carries away excess heat. In the foreground, the controls of the chest-mounted RCU are visible. The gold rotary switch selects the radio transmission mode. To the our right of the switch is the oxygen pressure gauge. Five windows on the right display caution and warning flags that alert the astronaut to problems with the PLSS. The guarded switch controls operation of the PLSS fan which moves oxygen out of the PLSS and into the suit.
The lack of information and evasion regarding spacesuits with sublimators represents a huge anomaly upon which attention should be focused. NASA must publicly demonstrate, before independent witnesses, a spacesuit with ice sublimator cooling system in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit.Oh my. Anyone can see the International Space Station with the naked eye. It required a lot of the spacewalks you don't believe in to construct. Amateur astronomers these days can get detailed pictures of the station and have recorded the way it has been added to over the years. They have even observed astronauts working outside the station, so the demonstration you demand has already taken place.
Let's see your detailed analysis of this document. With calculations please.
http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19720005423
Here are a couple more documents:
http://www.google.com/patents/US3170303
https://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/handle/1911/14662/7023573.PDF?sequence=1
Yet, within minutes you, I and others can find such information.
It's hard to maintain for years the claim that no relevant information is available when other people seem to find it so easily.
Hence rather than look at the massive and nearly undeniable consilience of evidence for Apollo's authenticity culled from dozens of avenues of evidence, Baker drills down to literally one single component in the entire $23 billion decade-long engineering project and declares that unless certain specific forms of documentation are provided for certain specific modes of testing it, he is justified in declaring the whole project a fraud.
The photograph of the ice sublimator that is presented is able to be presented because of me. I'm confident, it was my steady agitation that caused it to finally appear on the Internet.
I've gone through the responses so far and I'm simultaneously impressed and disappointed. I concede I'd appreciate instruction on how Bob B located the rice.edu source on sublimators.
The photograph of the ice sublimator that is presented is able to be presented because of me. I'm confident, it was my steady agitation that caused it to finally appear on the Internet. As I said in my original posting, when I first searched for information, there was no photograph. I chatted once with Harold McCann, one of the coauthors of "U.S. Spacesuits" and he sent a couple more. But the fact remains, it was not there when I first became aware of ice sublimators.
And although there is plenty of video of spacesuits in swimming pools there's none of spacesuits with sublimators in vacuum chambers. There is, however, a video on YouTube from 1966 of a spacesuit without sublimator failing in a vacuum chamber resulting in a near fatality.
But the question remains, "Can we PROVE we went to the moon?"
And the answer is "Yes, publicly demonstrate before independent witnesses a spacesuit with ice sublimator cooling system in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit."
I've gone through the responses so far and I'm simultaneously impressed and disappointed.
The photograph of the ice sublimator that is presented is able to be presented because of me. I'm confident, it was my steady agitation that caused it to finally appear on the Internet. As I said in my original posting, when I first searched for information, there was no photograph.Wow. Just wow. Do you really believe that???
But the fact remains, it was not there when I first became aware of ice sublimators.
But the question remains, "Can we PROVE we went to the moon?"
And the answer is "Yes, publicly demonstrate before independent witnesses a spacesuit with ice sublimator cooling system in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit."
But they refuse...
I understand the passion and pride involved in this subject.
The temptation is to take the easy route and dismiss and discredit the assertion.
I've heard it all.
An anomaly has been presented to you. Disparaging responses will not suffice.
If you're satisfied to continue accepting your faith-based space program, then you either do nothing or continue jabbering with lame links and empty opinions.
Let's see your detailed analysis of this document. With calculations please.
http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19720005423
Here are a couple more documents:
http://www.google.com/patents/US3170303
https://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/handle/1911/14662/7023573.PDF?sequence=1
Strange, isn't it? A bloke pops up and claims that his searches for information have been "stonewalled". That there were "no photographs". All this despite, allegedly, many attempts to find such information. Yet, within minutes you, I and others can find such information.
I guess it must be our special NASA shill internet access and enhanced Google-fu
Mr Baker, let me help you. CLICK HERE (http://bfy.tw/1UHw)
::)
I've gone through the responses so far and I'm simultaneously impressed and disappointed. I concede I'd appreciate instruction on how Bob B located the rice.edu source on sublimators.FTFY
The photograph of the ice sublimator that is presented is able to be presentedbecausein spite of me. I'm confident, it was my steady agitation that caused it to finally appear on the Internet. As I said in my original posting, when I first searched for information, there was no photograph. I chatted once with Harold McCann, one of the coauthors of "U.S. Spacesuits" and he sent a couple more. But the fact remains, it was not there when I first became aware of ice sublimators.
And what other mechanism doesn't fail from time to time?
And although there is plenty of video of spacesuits in swimming pools there's none of spacesuits with sublimators in vacuum chambers. There is, however, a video on YouTube from 1966 of a spacesuit without sublimator failing in a vacuum chamber resulting in a near fatality.
Been there done that
But the question remains, "Can we PROVE we went to the moon?"
And the answer is "Yes, publicly demonstrate before independent witnesses a spacesuit with ice sublimator cooling system in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit."
If NASA truly used spacesuits on the moon and in orbit as it alleges then it also regularly tests those suits on Earth in high vacuum chambers as it also alleges it does. It should cost nothing extra and impose little inconvenience to allow independent witnesses to observe. But they refuse which is an anomaly that must be addressed.
YOU MAY HAVE HEARD, BUT YOU DIDN'T LISTEN AND LEARN
I understand the passion and pride involved in this subject. It's not pleasant to contemplate the possibility of losing your moon. Law enforcement officials report that they suspect the crime of fraud is most often unreported for the fear people have of appearing to be victims. The temptation is to take the easy route and dismiss and discredit the assertion. To disparage. I've heard it all.
Most of the scientific and engineering work has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is rather up to you to disprove the evidence. And not by claiming "I don't understand, therefore it must be false". Show some scientific or engineering work that the PLSS didn't work in a vacuum.
We enjoy great fortune to live in the Age of the Scientific Method. An anomaly has been presented to you. Disparaging responses will not suffice. The challenge of a scientific response is being given. If you're satisfied to continue accepting your faith-based space program, then you either do nothing or continue jabbering with lame links and empty opinions. The only solution is to PROVE the spacesuits with an appropriate demonstration before independent witnesses. We don't have to believe; we can KNOW. After hundreds of billions of dollars, we deserve to KNOW.
As I said in my original posting, when I first searched for information, there was no photograph.
But the fact remains, it was not there when I first became aware of ice sublimators.
And although there is plenty of video of spacesuits in swimming pools there's none of spacesuits with sublimators in vacuum chambers.
But the question remains, "Can we PROVE we went to the moon?"
And the answer is "Yes, publicly demonstrate before independent witnesses a spacesuit with ice sublimator cooling system in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit."
If NASA truly used spacesuits on the moon and in orbit as it alleges then it also regularly tests those suits on Earth in high vacuum chambers as it also alleges it does. It should cost nothing extra and impose little inconvenience to allow independent witnesses to observe.
But they refuse which is an anomaly that must be addressed.
I understand the passion and pride involved in this subject. It's not pleasant to contemplate the possibility of losing your moon. Law enforcement officials report that they suspect the crime of fraud is most often unreported for the fear people have of appearing to be victims.
The temptation is to take the easy route and dismiss and discredit the assertion.
Disparaging responses will not suffice.
The only solution is to PROVE the spacesuits with an appropriate demonstration before independent witnesses.
No, the only solution that will satisfy you is for NASA to let you in to watch it being done, and even then we have no reason to believe you would actually have sufficient understanding or interest to accept what you were being shown.As if NASA were to spend money, time and effort to disprove CT's beliefs. Rather like designing a lunar rover to fly to the moon and drive around previous landing sites. CT's would claim that those procedures were faked.
Unless you can explain how they faked every visual record of the spacesuits being used in space there is no reason to assume they are anything other than genuine examples of a spacesuit working in space as designed. Can you?
Do you think they waste their time answering every moon hoax crank question, or do you suppose that they simply file such requests under T for Trash?
You think that image is on the web because of you?His browser broke? ::)
I hate to break it to you, but that image was available at the latest in 1997, when the Internet Archive archived it (https://web.archive.org/web/19970617055401/http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/plss.html).
I got stonewalled when I appealed for information. Absurdly, there were no photographs. Absurdly, there was no video of spacesuits with ice sublimators being tested. Most absurdly, there was no information in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics books. Absurdly, the alleged manufacturer, Hamilton Sunstrand of United Technologies would only release very elementary information. Absurdly, NASA's Johnson Space Center refused to provide video or photos and stonewalled me instead.
Why do it on the ground, when it can be done in orbit? Or is it your assertion that the ISS, MIR, Skylab did not happen?
I see you've been banging this same drum since at least 2011, and you've already been provided with the evidence of suit testing many times over. You simply refuse to accept it.Try 2008
That would be quite a feat in itself, sending up and inflating such a large, complex structure in orbit. Who built this alleged structure, Neil Baker? Who were the engineers and scientists involved? Can you name even one?QuoteWhy do it on the ground, when it can be done in orbit? Or is it your assertion that the ISS, MIR, Skylab did not happen?
As Jay pointed out, this guy has been at it for years. He has stated numerous times that the ISS and all the Shuttle eva's are all faked. When it's pointed out to him that the ISS can be seen by eye, he just brushes if off with the ridiculous claim it's nothing more then an uninhabited inflatable.
Try 2008Why is that CT's always refer to their "critical thinking" when they don't realize the true meaning?
http://www.amazon.com/review/R1B2DMX4O95EQH/ref=cm_cd_pg_prev?ie=UTF8&asin=075662858X&cdForum=Fx2B4PDRF5MYYAO&cdPage=1&cdThread=Tx1NBQTDQ8WTG0M&store=books#wasThisHelpful
and from the replies it is clear he had prior form.
Good Heavens!! I have a wee sleep and next thing, there's a three-pager
...
... I don't see any spacesuits being tested in vacuum chambers.
It's very odd. If NASA went to all of that trouble to manufacture fake video and photos of spacewalks and moonwalks, why didn't they manufacture fake video of spacesuits being tested in vacuum chambers?
Why did MythBusters acquire access to a NASA spacesuit and show a vacuum chamber but fail to enter the chamber wearing the suit?
And then me, the person that pointed out the anomalies regarding the spacesuit ice sublimators.
The NASA spacesuits are allegedly used and tested but no scientific validation exists that they are. The good news is that we're just a simple demonstration away from the scientifically validated TRUTH.
By the way, I hope my suspicions are wrong. I hope we went to the moon and all the rest.
He works for you.
The NASA spacesuits are allegedly used and tested but no scientific validation exists that they are.
The good news is that we're just a simple demonstration away from the scientifically validated TRUTH.
Very disappointing
1964 December 9 - .
• Effects of radiation and vacuum on the materials of space suits - . Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: A7L. Summary: Avco Corporation was under a 10-month contract amounting to $124,578 to MSC to study the effects of solar radiation and ultra-high vacuum on the materials and components of space suits. Testing would be performed in the Avco space environment chamber.
1965 November 11 - .
• Apollo manned lunar mission metabolic profile test run - . Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: Apollo LM; A7L; LM Electrical. A manned lunar mission metabolic profile test was run in the Hamilton Standard Division altitude chamber using the development liquid-cooled portable life support system (PLSS). The system was started at a chamber altitude of over 60,906 m (200,000 ft), and the subject adjusted the liquid bypass valve to accommodate the programmed metabolic rates which were achieved by use of a treadmill. Oxygen was supplied from an external source through the PLSS bottle and oxygen regulation system. This procedure was used because bottle qualification was not complete, so pressure was limited to 2,068 kilonewtons per sq m (300 psig). An external battery was used for power because the new batteries that were required by the change to the all-battery LEM were not yet available. The thermal transport system including the porous plate sublimator was completely self-contained in the PLSS. All systems operated within specification requirements and the test was considered an unqualified success.
1965 December 5 - .
• Hamilton Standard tested Apollo life support back pack - . Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: A7L. Hamilton Standard successfully tested a life-support back pack designed to meet requirements of the lunar surface suit. The system functioned as planned for more than three hours inside a vacuum chamber, while the test subject walked on a treadmill to simulate the metabolic load of an astronaut on the lunar terrain. The 29.48-kg (65-lb) portable life support system supplied oxygen, pressurized to a minimum 25,510 newtons per sq m (3.7 lbs psi), controlled its temperature and relative humidity, and circulated it through the suit and helmet. The pack pumped cooled water through the tubing of the undergarment for cooling inside the pressure suit. A canister of lithium hydroxide trapped carbon dioxide and other air contaminants to purify the oxygen for reuse.
1968 November 22 - .
• Astronaut training runs with the Apollo extravehicular mobility unit - . Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: A7L. In a memorandum for the record, ASPO Manager George M. Low summarized results of November 19 and 22 meetings on procedures for astronaut training runs with the Apollo extravehicular mobility unit (EMU) under simulated space conditions. The runs would be in the two vacuum test chambers of the Center's Space Environment Simulation Laboratory. MSC Director Robert R. Gilruth had attended the meetings. Training runs were always to be preceded by a run also under altitude conditions and using a gas umbilical from the life support system of the facility itself. Although connected to the crewman, the facility umbilical would not be used as a gas supply under normal test conditions. For the final training run, the astronaut would wear a complete flight-configured EMU without any other link with the facility. Although several participants objected that training runs using the EMU alone ran greater risk than normal in chamber tests, the decision to conduct the exercises using the all-up flight configuration was reaffirmed.
1969 March 6 - . 16:45 GMT - .
• EVA Apollo 9-1 - . Crew: Schweickart; Scott. EVA Type: Stand-Up External Vehicular Activity. EVA Duration: 0.0319 days. Nation: USA. Related Persons: Schweickart; Scott. Program: Apollo. Class: Moon. Type: Manned lunar lander. Flight: Apollo 9. Spacecraft: Apollo LM; A7L. Summary: Tested Apollo spacesuit.
After my painful 2003 epiphany regarding 9-11, I gained the courage to confront my mythological beliefs about the space program and other things. I was confronted with the difficult question, "How do we PROVE we went to the moon?"
But then I stumbled upon the spacesuit ice sublimators.
Strangely and absurdly, I found almost nothing. I received almost nothing.
I got stonewalled when I appealed for information. Absurdly, there were no photographs. Absurdly, there was no video of spacesuits with ice sublimators being tested. Most absurdly, there was no information in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics books.
Very disappointing.I'm sure that you are used to that feeling....
and yet I don't see any spacesuits being tested in vacuum chambers.
As Jay pointed out, this guy has been at it for years. He has stated numerous times that the ISS and all the Shuttle eva's are all faked. When it's pointed out to him that the ISS can be seen by eye, he just brushes if off with the ridiculous claim it's nothing more then an uninhabited inflatable.
Not even new claims, new hoax approaches. There is still the refusal to look and learn, but that isn't new either.
....you get to find out new information (not from them, I hasten to add!)
The most disappointing are the ones asserting that the information I seek has been presented and yet I don't see any spacesuits being tested in vacuum chambers.
It's very odd. If NASA went to all of that trouble to manufacture fake video and photos of spacewalks and moonwalks, why didn't they manufacture fake video of spacesuits being tested in vacuum chambers?
Why release video of spacesuits in swimming pools but none in vacuum chambers?
Why did MythBusters acquire access to a NASA spacesuit and show a vacuum chamber but fail to enter the chamber wearing the suit?
And so many posts as expected want, so quickly, to get metaphysical.
I don't expect anyone to believe me alone.
I suggest three independent witnesses...
Whether you like it or not, the anomaly has been described.
The NASA spacesuits are allegedly used and tested but no scientific validation exists that they are.
Now, if only we can get NASA to be scientifically accountable.
By the way, I hope my suspicions are wrong. I hope we went to the moon and all the rest.
Raul Blanco is allegedly in charge of NASA spacesuit testing at the Johnson Space Center in Houston. I've chatted with him. He once promised video and photos but reneged.
Holding him accountable is not inappropriate.
Why do it on the ground, when it can be done in orbit? Or is it your assertion that the ISS, MIR, Skylab did not happen?
The photograph of the ice sublimator that is presented is able to be presented because of me. I'm confident, it was my steady agitation that caused it to finally appear on the Internet.
Why do it on the ground, when it can be done in orbit? Or is it your assertion that the ISS, MIR, Skylab did not happen?
That is exactly what he claimed... then it got awkward when it was pointed out that you could see the ISS with your own eyes.
Great images, but he will no doubt claim everyone is on the payroll. ::)
He'll hate this then....
http://spaceweathergallery.com/indiv_upload.php?upload_id=116657
and this:
http://www.astrophoto.fr/STS-133.html
which shows (shock! horror!) a working spacesuit, imaged from the ground by an amateur*, using amateur gear**
Even without super-duper gear, this type of image is possible:
(http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/files/2011/02/robbullen_iss_discovery.jpg)
Which was taken from the UK, with a 200mm Newtonian. That was hand-guided (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/02/28/ridiculously-awesome-pic-of-discovery-and-the-iss-taken-from-the-ground/#.Vd46AfSIlZh) at the time by Rob Bullen.
*a very, very skilled amateur,
**and not even that exceptional gear (http://www.astrophoto.fr/info.html). A Takahashi mount and a 14" Edge SCT scope. Not entry level stuff admittedly, but not that high end.
That doesnt looks like a balloon at all.Why do it on the ground, when it can be done in orbit? Or is it your assertion that the ISS, MIR, Skylab did not happen?
That is exactly what he claimed... then it got awkward when it was pointed out that you could see the ISS with your own eyes.
He'll hate this then....
http://spaceweathergallery.com/indiv_upload.php?upload_id=116657
and this:
http://www.astrophoto.fr/STS-133.html
which shows (shock! horror!) a working spacesuit, imaged from the ground by an amateur*, using amateur gear**
Even without super-duper gear, this type of image is possible:
(http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/files/2011/02/robbullen_iss_discovery.jpg)
Which was taken from the UK, with a 200mm Newtonian. That was hand-guided (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/02/28/ridiculously-awesome-pic-of-discovery-and-the-iss-taken-from-the-ground/#.Vd46AfSIlZh) at the time by Rob Bullen.
*a very, very skilled amateur,
**and not even that exceptional gear (http://www.astrophoto.fr/info.html). A Takahashi mount and a 14" Edge SCT scope. Not entry level stuff admittedly, but not that high end.
Great images, but he will no doubt claim everyone is on the payroll. ::)
Here's another shot, but this might take some special hardware.The interested looking cows in the last picture are actually NASA agents in disguise, watching for any funny business from someone on their payroll.
http://www.astrosurf.com/legault/iss_atlantis_transit.html
He'll hate this then....
It wasn't a functioning NASA spacesuit. It was replica of an Apollo spacesuit used, I think, in the miniseries "From the Earth to the Moon".
You may be confusing the Mythbusters demonstration with the one from The Truth Behind.... The latter used a space suit replica made by Global Effects for From the Earth to the Moon.
My contention is that most of the NASA space program is probably a hoax. I say "probably" because I don't know.
But neither does anyone else and I think that's unacceptable.
A faith-based space program during this great age of the scientific method is unnecessary and absurd. It's way past time for NASA to be scientifically accountable.
After my painful 2003 epiphany regarding 9-11, I gained the courage to confront my mythological beliefs about the space program and other things. I was confronted with the difficult question, "How do we PROVE we went to the moon?"
Photos? Video? Could be fake. Narrative? Could be lies. Launches? Yes, but what happened after they went into orbit out of sight? Did they really go to the moon? Do they really go to the space station or is just a lighted orbiting umannned and possibly inflatable prop? Did they really repair a Hubble telescope? What about the flag waving? I don't know and there's nothing we can prove about it on Earth. What about the shadows? I don't know and there's nothing we can prove about them on Earth.
What about the Lunar laser reflector? I don't know and who knows how it got there even if it's actually there.
But then I stumbled upon the spacesuit ice sublimators. Being in either the vacuum of orbit or the vacuum of the moon
heat transfer is a difficult engineering challenge.
There's nothing cool to conduct heat to
there's no atmosphere so there's nothing to convect heat to
and a radiator would be huge and ungainly so NASA describes the clever and exotic technique of using nickel porous plate ice sublimators to explain how heat was allegedly transferred from the spacesuits and the Lunar Modules(LM).
there's no atmosphere so there's nothing to convect heat to
I'm sure if you ask them, they will be happy supply all the technical specifications and information they have on the PLSS and the ice-sublimation cooling system.
I contend that the water vapor is an atmosphere. No need for a natural atmosphere when we can create our own.
Of course it is a never ending job with everyone on the payroll. No wonder the national debt is so large.
The interested looking cows in the last picture are actually NASA agents in disguise, watching for any funny business from someone on their payroll.
Sincerely,
E
So all you want is a demonstration of a spacesuit in a vacuum chamber? Are you sure? If after seeing what you want to see and seeing that the spacesuits work in vacuum would you be done with this obsession? Didn't you obsess for the longest time about the LRO being the only lunar orbiter with a camera powerful enough to resolve Apollo remnants. Something about no independent verification when the Japanese should have sent the correct camera. And remember when you were ranting about the pressure seal on the Gemini helmet visor and the shoe lace covers? And let's not forget your long exploration of the difference between a 5psi difference between 15psi and 10psi versus 5 psi and 0 psi. 5psi difference is 5psi difference! All that baloney about counting gas molecules using the Kinetic Particle Theory of Pressure made me think you were losing it.
I'm worried about you roommate. You're clean and pay the rent on time but can't you admit that you've almost completely obliterated your life? Twice arrested, once committed. A felony for a broken window. Yes, I know you did it for 9-11 truth but so what. Where did it get you? No, I won't break the second window and I've got bad news for you. Nobody will. They got away with it. 3000 murdered in our faces to send thousands more to death in rotten wars and, yes, they got away with it. It's the way it is. Move on. Get a girlfriend. Play golf. Finish that book. Anything! But stop it with the conspiracy theories. Please.
Sincerely,
E
Here's another shot, but this might take some special hardware.
My contention is that most of the NASA space program is probably a hoax. I say "probably" because I don't know. But neither does anyone else and I think that's unacceptable. A faith-based space program during this great age of the scientific method is unnecessary and absurd. It's way past time for NASA to be scientifically accountable.
[SNIP] "How do we PROVE we went to the moon?"
Photos? Video? Could be fake. Narrative? Could be lies. Launches? Yes, but what happened after they went into orbit out of sight? Did they really go to the moon? Do they really go to the space station or is just a lighted orbiting umannned and possibly inflatable prop? Did they really repair a Hubble telescope? What about the flag waving? I don't know and there's nothing we can prove about it on Earth. What about the shadows? I don't know and there's nothing we can prove about them on Earth.What about the Lunar laser reflector? I don't know and who knows how it got there even if it's actually there.
But then I stumbled upon the spacesuit ice sublimators.
[SNIP]
For independent witnesses I recommend retired Army General Antonio Taguba, retired Navy Admiral William Fallon and me.
Sincerely,
E
I guess I was thinking of not staring into the sun through a telescope. Cameras if they have proper settings obviously can take pictures as you have linked.Here's another shot, but this might take some special hardware.
Just a simple white-light filter over the front of the 'scope. The ones taken with a hydrogen-alpha solarscope are a bit more special
Click Here (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ISS+transit+hydrogen-alpha&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CCEQsARqFQoTCLLjraTUyMcCFUnXFAoddxcEgw&biw=1920&bih=947#imgrc=_)
Neil,This has the makings of fish in the household trash for three days.
...
Sincerely,
E
Yo, Dwight
Roomie here. Rather than speak to you in person I thought I'd write you on Apollo Hoax. Those books you wrote about NASA's TV development are awesome. I think you should tell your friends on AH how much of a legend you are. Maybe they will buy some copies.
Anyway keep up the good work but for heaven's sake put the toilet seat down and take the dog for a walk.
F
That would be quite a feat in itself, sending up and inflating such a large, complex structure in orbit. Who built this alleged structure, Neil Baker? Who were the engineers and scientists involved? Can you name even one?
I think it might have been...
Neil, let me ask you a two-part hypothetical question. Let us say, for some reason, NASA decided to arrange a special demonstration - just for you and some other observers - just like you request to show off the spacesuit working in a vacuum chamber.
Would this actually convince you?
If so, WHY would it actually convince you? You've posited some insanely complicated acts of deceit on behalf of NASA. According to you, they've somehow gotten an inflatable object into orbit around the planet at a speed of over 17,000 miles per hour.
Do you have the experience and knowledge to positively identify an in-use vacuum chamber? Could you tell if it was being faked?
Magicians manage to convince live audiences of amazing feats of illusion. David Copperfield arranged an illusion that tricked his audience into thinking he'd made the Statue of Liberty vanish. Do you really think they couldn't manage something as simple as a fake vacuum chamber?
So again, why would this specific demonstration convince you? It is no less "fakeable" than all the other evidence that is available.
I think it might have been...
So no, you can't.
It would have to be fakeable to more than just me. I expect at least two other independent witnesses on hand. I also expect to be allowed to hook up our own pirani and hot cathode ionization gauges. I'm confident that my level of experience with vacuum systems is sufficient. Personally, I doubt they'll be able to get anywhere near orbital vacuum of ~1e-6 Torr if the sublimator works as they allege. But maybe they have some huge vacuum pumps to compensate for the sublimator sublimating.I'm curious, please list all/any of your qualifications to judge how sublimation PLSS work
It would have to be fakeable to more than just me. I expect at least two other independent witnesses on hand.
I also expect to be allowed to hook up our own pirani and hot cathode ionization gauges.
I'm confident that my level of experience with vacuum systems is sufficient. ... But maybe they have some huge vacuum pumps to compensate for the sublimator sublimating.
I'm curious, please list all/any of your qualifications to judge how sublimation PLSS work
Best flounce ever? Or a long suffering room-mate (room-mate? What age is he- 19???). Or a bad case of MPD where we will see a full blown argument all conducted under the same login?
Yes, it's pure speculation like everything else. I have PROOF of nothing. But neither do you.
I thought he asked if I was qualified to understand how a vacuum system works.
As far as how a PLSS works, I've probably read most of the same propaganda as you.
...Of course the former Soviet Union was being paid by NASA to fake its space program to justify the massive budgets in the 60's. ::)
Neil -- I watched Sputnik 1 pass over New Zealand at 8:06pm NZST on Wednesday 9 October 1959. Do you claim that was a balloon put up by NASA too? And if so, how did Ham radio people, here and in other countries, detect its bleeper?
I find it rather amusing that you tell us to demand accountability from NASA, when members who posted in this thread from Australia, Germany, the UK and New Zealand.
Here's a good photo of that thing that Neil claims is a balloon -- the International Space Station -- plus two astronauts using the type of suit-cooling he claims doesn't work, plus a highly detailed background of central New Zealand showing the very clear sky that day above the Manawatu, where I live.
Seconds that question, again.I thought he asked if I was qualified to understand how a vacuum system works.
Since your allegedly expert judgment is central to your argument on many points, please list all your relevant qualifications.
QuoteAs far as how a PLSS works, I've probably read most of the same propaganda as you.
But earlier you insinuated there existed no sufficient material for such judgment to be made. Now you're saying you've read enough to determine that it's "propaganda." Please reconcile your arguments.
Nice fake photo of a nice prop with fake spacesuits over fake background. Probably. I love Photoshop.
Nice fake photo of a nice prop with fake spacesuits over fake background. Probably. I love Photoshop.
Yes, it's pure speculation like everything else. I have PROOF of nothing. But neither do you.
You're the one claiming, among other things, that the ISS is just a big balloon. Your claim; your burden of proof. My disbelief of your claim doesn't obligate me to assertively disprove it. You admit you have no evidence. Claims made without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
Yes, it's pure speculation like everything else. I have PROOF of nothing. But neither do you.
You're the one claiming, among other things, that the ISS is just a big balloon. Your claim; your burden of proof. My disbelief of your claim doesn't obligate me to assertively disprove it. You admit you have no evidence. Claims made without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
No, I didn't say that.
I said I had no proof. Neither do you.
We both have plenty of evidence. I'm shown evidence of a photo of ISS and I show evidence of a photo of a huge preposterous factory owned by Bigelow.
That which makes my argument unique, and the reason you should support it, is that I describe something that can be scientifically validated on Earth today. Flags and shadows can be argued forever but the spacesuits are here and nobody has to go to the moon or orbit to PROVE them in a vacuum chamber.
This is a direct claim that the photo has been faked, the ISS is a nice prop and the spacesuits are fake with a fake back ground.Here's a good photo of that thing that Neil claims is a balloon -- the International Space Station -- plus two astronauts using the type of suit-cooling he claims doesn't work, plus a highly detailed background of central New Zealand showing the very clear sky that day above the Manawatu, where I live.
Nice fake photo of a nice prop with fake spacesuits over fake background. Probably. I love Photoshop.
Nice fake photo of a nice prop with fake spacesuits over fake background. Probably. I love Photoshop.
What's your evidence that it's fake? It's not enough to just keep saying it.
Yes, it's pure speculation like everything else. I have PROOF of nothing. But neither do you.
You're the one claiming, among other things, that the ISS is just a big balloon. Your claim; your burden of proof. My disbelief of your claim doesn't obligate me to assertively disprove it. You admit you have no evidence. Claims made without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
No, I didn't say that.
I said I had no proof. Neither do you.
We both have plenty of evidence. I'm shown evidence of a photo of ISS and I show evidence of a photo of a huge preposterous factory owned by Bigelow.
That which makes my argument unique, and the reason you should support it, is that I describe something that can be scientifically validated on Earth today. Flags and shadows can be argued forever but the spacesuits are here and nobody has to go to the moon or orbit to PROVE them in a vacuum chamber.
This is a direct claim that the photo has been faked, the ISS is a nice prop and the spacesuits are fake with a fake back ground.Here's a good photo of that thing that Neil claims is a balloon -- the International Space Station -- plus two astronauts using the type of suit-cooling he claims doesn't work, plus a highly detailed background of central New Zealand showing the very clear sky that day above the Manawatu, where I live.
Nice fake photo of a nice prop with fake spacesuits over fake background. Probably. I love Photoshop.
This is a direct claim that the photo has been faked, the ISS is a nice prop and the spacesuits are fake with a fake back ground.
Slippery aren't you, but again please list your qualifications, if any, to satisfy my curiosity. Your qualifications are at the heart of this whole discussion.This is a direct claim that the photo has been faked, the ISS is a nice prop and the spacesuits are fake with a fake back ground.
Probably
I thought he asked if I was qualified to understand how a vacuum system works. As far as how a PLSS works, I've probably read most of the same propaganda as you.
No, I didn't say that.
I said I had no proof. Neither do you.
We both have plenty of evidence.
That which makes my argument unique, and the reason you should support it, is that I describe something that can be scientifically validated on Earth today.
This is a direct claim that the photo has been faked, the ISS is a nice prop and the spacesuits are fake with a fake back ground.
Probably
Except that such tests have been performed and you have been provided with the very video and photographic evidence you demanded.
My evidence is that the spacesuits shown have never in their over 50 years of alleged use been publicly demonstrated by NASA to work in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit.
Only until recently after my agitation could a photograph of a spacesuit ice sublimator be seen on the Internet.You have been demonstrated to be completely wrong on this. You have been provided with evidence which predates your "agitation". It is nobodies fault but yours that you are an incompetent researcher.
And despite representing one of the most interesting and exotic heat transfer devices ever contrived,There is nothing exotic about sublimation, nor it's principles, nor it's scientific provenance, nor the devices used to implement it as a cooling system. Just because you are ignorant of such things does not perforce mean that everyone else must be.
no spacesuit ice sublimator is mentioned in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics book.Funny how it was covered in thermodynamics 101 in my first year uni text books 25 years ago. How do you explain that?
It's evidence of anomalous spacesuits.No, it is evidence that you know nothing Neil Baker.
You think that image is on the web because of you?
I hate to break it to you, but that image was available at the latest in 1997, when the Internet Archive archived it (https://web.archive.org/web/19970617055401/http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/plss.html).
no spacesuit ice sublimator is mentioned in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics book. It's evidence of anomalous spacesuits.
OK, evidence? Bigelow sent up a couple inflatable satellites as proof of concept for their inflatable module design, but they are far simpler than the ISS complex's shape, seen in the photos anyone with access to the right consumer level hardware. Besides, one could 'think' and 'suspect' anything, I could 'say' it was Tiny, world's largest circus clown and I could 'suspect' it was done with Santa Claus' help, and we'd both be on equal footing evidence-wise.
That would be quite a feat in itself, sending up and inflating such a large, complex structure in orbit. Who built this alleged structure, Neil Baker? Who were the engineers and scientists involved? Can you name even one?
I think it might have been Bigelow Aerospace in Las Vegas. The website says they've been around since 99 but I suspect much longer probably as a black ops. 1999 was probably the year they came out of stealth mode after building the ISS balloons. Pretty impressive operation for a company that hasn't sold anything.
And I said, I have no burden to produce any in order to question your claim. You seem to be arguing that we are on equal footing, or in some sort of standoff or stalemate. Not true, as regards your claim. You have the burden to prove it. If you say you cannot, it fails forthwith.
Weasel words. Either the photo is genuine and provides evidence your theory does not account for or it is fake, as you have suggested. The only way this evidence does not defeat your claim is if you can prove your accusation that it's fake.
I say PROVE it.You were provided with photos of the ISS taken by amateurs and their telescopes.
My evidence is that the spacesuits shown have never in their over 50 years of alleged use been publicly demonstrated by NASA to work in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit.
Only until recently after my agitation could a photograph of a spacesuit ice sublimator be seen on the Internet.
And despite representing one of the most interesting and exotic heat transfer devices ever contrived...
...no spacesuit ice sublimator is mentioned in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics book.
It's evidence of anomalous spacesuits.
Did you notice that particular post (reply 27 on page 2)? The link proves the photo you claim recent responsibility for, was actually on the internet back on 17 June 1997, at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journals.
It has been done, you have been shown technical documents, pictures and videos, all of which you were unable to find on your own, all of which were spoon fed to you, all of which you ignore in favour of stamping your feet and demanding that a "special" demonstration be undertaken just for you. Because you are "special".And I said, I have no burden to produce any in order to question your claim. You seem to be arguing that we are on equal footing, or in some sort of standoff or stalemate. Not true, as regards your claim. You have the burden to prove it. If you say you cannot, it fails forthwith.
Yes you do. You claim there's a manned ISS and spacewalks and moonwalks were made.
I say PROVE it.
Yes, I accept a burden of proof also but, unfortunately, I'm still seeking the required assistance from NASA.
We both have burdens of proof and, fortunately, we can both use the same method of PROOF---public demonstration before independent witnesses of a NASA spacesuit with sublimator in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit.
...no spacesuit ice sublimator is mentioned in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics book.
But It was there regardless of your observation.Did you notice that particular post (reply 27 on page 2)? The link proves the photo you claim recent responsibility for, was actually on the internet back on 17 June 1997, at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journals.
I saw it and I believe you. I imagine it was buried in cyberspace somewhere. But it didn't appear to me and others until much later.
QuoteI say PROVE it.You were provided with photos of the ISS taken by amateurs and their telescopes.
Its up to you to prove that such aerodynamical shape can fly over the skies at high speed
...no spacesuit ice sublimator is mentioned in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics book.
Here a text book titled Advanced Heat and Mass Transfer that asks its students a question about porous plate sublimators (question #4.2.1).
https://books.google.com/books?id=yxMnotbAAz4C&pg=PA436#v=onepage&q&f=false
Yes you do. You claim there's a manned ISS and spacewalks and moonwalks were made.
I say PROVE it.
Yes, I accept a burden of proof also but, unfortunately, I'm still seeking the required assistance from NASA.
We both have burdens of proof...
Those photos could be fake and even if they're not, the thing photographed could be fake.
As for ISS spacewalks, they have been observed from earth using backyard telescopes by amateurs.
No, it wasn't "buried in cyberspace somewhere". It was on the internet in the exact same place it is still to be found today.Did you notice that particular post (reply 27 on page 2)? The link proves the photo you claim recent responsibility for, was actually on the internet back on 17 June 1997, at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journals.
I saw it and I believe you. I imagine it was buried in cyberspace somewhere. But it didn't appear to me and others until much later.
Again, to even consider it could be fake, you must list a couple of reasons for that. You said it is an inflatable balloon when such aerodynamical shape dont allows it to fly at high speeds.QuoteI say PROVE it.You were provided with photos of the ISS taken by amateurs and their telescopes.
Its up to you to prove that such aerodynamical shape can fly over the skies at high speed
That's not proof. That's evidence. Those photos could be fake and even if they're not, the thing photographed could be fake.
I saw it and I believe you. I imagine it was buried in cyberspace somewhere. But it didn't appear to me and others until much later.
Oh bull!
As for ISS spacewalks, they have been observed from earth using backyard telescopes by amateurs.
Oh bull!
So, your also saying that the Hubble repair eva's were all faked as well. Can you explain why it would be in NASA's best interest to display images from it and state that they were not of the quality they were expecting? Then go to enormous effort to fake the repair videos so that they could claim that the images were now meeting their expectations. This level of duplicity seems plausible to you does it?
...no spacesuit ice sublimator is mentioned in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics book.
Here a text book titled Advanced Heat and Mass Transfer that asks its students a question about porous plate sublimators (question #4.2.1).
https://books.google.com/books?id=yxMnotbAAz4C&pg=PA436#v=onepage&q&f=false
Yes, published in 2010 long after I began publicly disputing the ice sublimators in 2007
I speculate it's all about stealing money.
http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/666/how-powerful-a-telescope-would-allow-me-to-view-the-astronauts-aboard-iss-do-a-s
Who cares when it was published? You claimed no texts books mention it and that claim is false.
I admit it's pure speculation but that's the best I can do absent any responsible scientific accountability from NASA.
Does this level of duplicity seem plausible?
For someone like me, no. But after confronting 9-11, I'm astounded at the evil of media-controlling Zionists.
Why? Is that yet another thing your bumbling efforts at research failed to find?
As for ISS spacewalks, they have been observed from earth using backyard telescopes by amateurs.
Oh bull!
http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/666/how-powerful-a-telescope-would-allow-me-to-view-the-astronauts-aboard-iss-do-a-s
Oh please!
Who cares when it was published?
Here's the US patent that discusses ice sublimation. Note the filing date Neil, well before you raised your concerns about their existence.
http://www.google.ca/patents/US3613775
Now, it you claim that this was filed during the Apollo missions so was too late for the Apollo missions, you clearly do not know a lot about patents OR have read through this patent which discusses previous sublimation systems. So, it would appear that a patent existed for ice sublimators well before your objections.
Your move.
But, once Neil raised it, the whole scientific community had to rush out and make sure it was covered by filling in the gaps. I think that is what he is suggesting. :o
Heat and Mass Transfer - Anthony Mills - 1995 - ISBN 0256114439...no spacesuit ice sublimator is mentioned in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics book.
Here a text book titled Advanced Heat and Mass Transfer that asks its students a question about porous plate sublimators (question #4.2.1).
https://books.google.com/books?id=yxMnotbAAz4C&pg=PA436#v=onepage&q&f=false
Yes, published in 2010 long after I began publicly disputing the ice sublimators in 2007
http://www.google.com/patents/US3170303
Please list any your relevant qualifications.
Just in case you missed the question in all the posts.
Think hard. I'm sure you can figure this one out by yourself.
Why? Is that yet another thing your bumbling efforts at research failed to find?
Think hard. I'm sure you can figure this one out by yourself.
Including, I suppose, time-traveling back to the 1980s and planting one in the Smithsonian, where and when I first saw a sublimator in person.
There is a veritable pile of evidence that all of these missions are real.Why? Is that yet another thing your bumbling efforts at research failed to find?
Hoaxers love blurry photos.
Okay, throw it in the pile with your other so-called evidence.
Heat and Mass Transfer - Anthony Mills - 1995 - ISBN 0256114439...no spacesuit ice sublimator is mentioned in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics book.
Here a text book titled Advanced Heat and Mass Transfer that asks its students a question about porous plate sublimators (question #4.2.1).
https://books.google.com/books?id=yxMnotbAAz4C&pg=PA436#v=onepage&q&f=false
Yes, published in 2010 long after I began publicly disputing the ice sublimators in 2007
You were saying?
There is a veritable pile of evidence that all of these missions are real.Why? Is that yet another thing your bumbling efforts at research failed to find?
Hoaxers love blurry photos.
Okay, throw it in the pile with your other so-called evidence.
You, OTOH, have no evidence at all for any of your wild, fanciful claims. None, Nada. Zero. Zilch. SFA.
That would be the publication date.Heat and Mass Transfer - Anthony Mills - 1995 - ISBN 0256114439...no spacesuit ice sublimator is mentioned in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics book.
Here a text book titled Advanced Heat and Mass Transfer that asks its students a question about porous plate sublimators (question #4.2.1).
https://books.google.com/books?id=yxMnotbAAz4C&pg=PA436#v=onepage&q&f=false
Yes, published in 2010 long after I began publicly disputing the ice sublimators in 2007
You were saying?
Where's the 1995 date?
Yes. You said. The tests you demand have been done countless times. You are not a special snowflake that gets to demand that said tests be repeated just for you.There is a veritable pile of evidence that all of these missions are real.Why? Is that yet another thing your bumbling efforts at research failed to find?
Hoaxers love blurry photos.
Okay, throw it in the pile with your other so-called evidence.
You, OTOH, have no evidence at all for any of your wild, fanciful claims. None, Nada. Zero. Zilch. SFA.
Too bad you don't have proof.
By the way, I have a way you can PROVE it. On Earth. Today.
That would be the publication date.
Are you really that useless at looking things up?
Too bad you don't have proof.
By the way, I have a way you can PROVE it. On Earth. Today.
That would be the publication date.
Well, that looks to me rather at odds with your earlier:Did you notice that particular post (reply 27 on page 2)? The link proves the photo you claim recent responsibility for, was actually on the internet back on 17 June 1997, at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journals.
I saw it and I believe you. I imagine it was buried in cyberspace somewhere. But it didn't appear to me and others until much later.
The photograph of the ice sublimator that is presented is able to be presented because of me. I'm confident, it was my steady agitation that caused it to finally appear on the Internet.[bolded for emphases]
I don't see how he could conflate the two books. Different titles, different authors, different publication dates and different ISBNs.That would be the publication date.
I think Baker legitimately believed the ISBN was meant to refer to the book found at the link. It does not; they are two separate books.
Neil, let me ask you a two-part hypothetical question. Let us say, for some reason, NASA decided to arrange a special demonstration - just for you and some other observers - just like you request to show off the spacesuit working in a vacuum chamber.
Would this actually convince you?
If so, WHY would it actually convince you? You've posited some insanely complicated acts of deceit on behalf of NASA. According to you, they've somehow gotten an inflatable object into orbit around the planet at a speed of over 17,000 miles per hour.
Do you have the experience and knowledge to positively identify an in-use vacuum chamber? Could you tell if it was being faked?
Magicians manage to convince live audiences of amazing feats of illusion. David Copperfield arranged an illusion that tricked his audience into thinking he'd made the Statue of Liberty vanish. Do you really think they couldn't manage something as simple as a fake vacuum chamber?
So again, why would this specific demonstration convince you? It is no less "fakeable" than all the other evidence that is available.
It would have to be fakeable to more than just me. I expect at least two other independent witnesses on hand. I also expect to be allowed to hook up our own pirani and hot cathode ionization gauges. I'm confident that my level of experience with vacuum systems is sufficient. Personally, I doubt they'll be able to get anywhere near orbital vacuum of ~1e-6 Torr if the sublimator works as they allege. But maybe they have some huge vacuum pumps to compensate for the sublimator sublimating.
Unless we are proposing to add poor reading comprehension to his repertoire of bumbling around the webernets.
Please list any your relevant qualifications.
Just in case you missed the question in all the posts.
Here's his resume from when he was running for governor back in 2002:
http://web.archive.org/web/20031224132630/www.oceanchinampa.com/BakerResume.pdf
And I said, I have no burden to produce any in order to question your claim. You seem to be arguing that we are on equal footing, or in some sort of standoff or stalemate. Not true, as regards your claim. You have the burden to prove it. If you say you cannot, it fails forthwith.
Yes you do. You claim there's a manned ISS and spacewalks and moonwalks were made.
I say PROVE it.
So now you are calling people like Thierry Legault liars and frauds? As well as people that I personally know? You are incorrect and woefully ignorant.
As for ISS spacewalks, they have been observed from earth using backyard telescopes by amateurs.
Oh bull!
I guess I was thinking of not staring into the sun through a telescope. Cameras if they have proper settings obviously can take pictures as you have linked.
It was a few months ago, I believe, when someone pointed out that NASA would likely never allow someone arrested for bomb threatsintonear any of their facilities.
It would have to be fakeable to more than just me. I expect at least two other independent witnesses on hand. I also expect to be allowed to hook up our own pirani and hot cathode ionization gauges. I'm confident that my level of experience with vacuum systems is sufficient. Personally, I doubt they'll be able to get anywhere near orbital vacuum of ~1e-6 Torr if the sublimator works as they allege. But maybe they have some huge vacuum pumps to compensate for the sublimator sublimating.Chamber B
It was a few months ago, I believe, when someone pointed out that NASA would likely never allow someone arrested for bomb threatsintonear any of their facilities.
As capital, critical assets, NASA vacuum test chambers have armed guards. Further, Baker's experience with law enforcement might provide the world with a different reason why NASA ignores him.
If he got close it might be a Red alert.It was a few months ago, I believe, when someone pointed out that NASA would likely never allow someone arrested for bomb threatsintonear any of their facilities.
As capital, critical assets, NASA vacuum test chambers have armed guards. Further, Baker's experience with law enforcement might provide the world with a different reason why NASA ignores him.
Unless we are proposing to add poor reading comprehension to his repertoire of bumbling around the webernets.
Look at his level of attention here and elsewhere he has debated. I believe he simply doesn't read any of the posts here except to latch onto some tidbit he can use to prolong the debate and increase the attention paid to him.
In the true tradition of the circular firing squad, all spaceflight is fake, therefore the samples are fake and since the samples are fake all spaceflight is fake.
This is just a Heiwa-clone thread. I am baffled at the behaviour of these people, it happens so often one could be mistaken for thinking it was the same person. Did I miss his explanation for how we obtained the lunar samples?
By a convoluted route that the Apollo's PLSS could/did not work, because he doesn't understand how it works.
This is just a Heiwa-clone thread. I am baffled at the behaviour of these people, it happens so often one could be mistaken for thinking it was the same person. Did I miss his explanation for how we obtained the lunar samples?
If he got close it might be a Red alert.It was a few months ago, I believe, when someone pointed out that NASA would likely never allow someone arrested for bomb threatsintonear any of their facilities.
As capital, critical assets, NASA vacuum test chambers have armed guards. Further, Baker's experience with law enforcement might provide the world with a different reason why NASA ignores him.
I predict that will rise like a 2m lead balloon.
Well Neil, maybe it's time to recruit some big guns to help you out. I'm sure Jarrah White would be more then willing to step up to the plate for you and straighten everybody out over here. I suggest you try contacting him and see if he'd be willing to convince NASA about the importance of this test.
I predict that will rise like a 2m lead balloon.
Looked a bit bigger than 2 meters (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZSkM-QEeUg) though.I predict that will rise like a 2m lead balloon.
The Mythbusters got that to happen.
Looked a bit bigger than 2 meters though.I predict that will rise like a 2m lead balloon.
The Mythbusters got that to happen.
That's, really, just really cool. ;DLooked a bit bigger than 2 meters though.I predict that will rise like a 2m lead balloon.
The Mythbusters got that to happen.
For what it's worth, I might actually be the person responsible for getting them to test that myth. I submitted the idea to them along with some calculations showing that it was feasibly possible. About a year later it made it into the show.
For what it's worth, I might actually be the person responsible for getting them to test that myth. I submitted the idea to them along with some calculations showing that it was feasibly possible. About a year later it made it into the show.
Adam said that the lead balloon episode was his all-time favorite.
A couple years after the original airing of that episode, the Mythbusters did a special in which they revisited some of their prior myths. Adam said that the lead balloon episode was his all-time favorite.
I actually meant a 2 m thick balloon,if that is what they did.I predict that will rise like a 2m lead balloon.
The Mythbusters got that to happen.
So...just to be clear. You claim is that almost the entire space programs of multiple countries are a hoax. The most elaborate hoax ever in human history. Which has successfully fooled millions of people, including thousands of direct observers. Which has super-secret special effects technology decades ahead of their time and can spend millions of dollars on developing and launching completely non-functional space station duplicates.Neil, let me ask you a two-part hypothetical question. Let us say, for some reason, NASA decided to arrange a special demonstration - just for you and some other observers - just like you request to show off the spacesuit working in a vacuum chamber.
Would this actually convince you?
If so, WHY would it actually convince you? You've posited some insanely complicated acts of deceit on behalf of NASA. According to you, they've somehow gotten an inflatable object into orbit around the planet at a speed of over 17,000 miles per hour.
Do you have the experience and knowledge to positively identify an in-use vacuum chamber? Could you tell if it was being faked?
Magicians manage to convince live audiences of amazing feats of illusion. David Copperfield arranged an illusion that tricked his audience into thinking he'd made the Statue of Liberty vanish. Do you really think they couldn't manage something as simple as a fake vacuum chamber?
So again, why would this specific demonstration convince you? It is no less "fakeable" than all the other evidence that is available.
It would have to be fakeable to more than just me. I expect at least two other independent witnesses on hand. I also expect to be allowed to hook up our own pirani and hot cathode ionization gauges. I'm confident that my level of experience with vacuum systems is sufficient. Personally, I doubt they'll be able to get anywhere near orbital vacuum of ~1e-6 Torr if the sublimator works as they allege. But maybe they have some huge vacuum pumps to compensate for the sublimator sublimating.
But they couldn't manage to fool three people in an indoor demonstration?
But they couldn't manage to fool three people in an indoor demonstration?
I actually meant a 2 m thick balloon,if that is what they did.
I was aiming that comment to the blunder down under. With his "complete " understanding of radiation.I actually meant a 2 m thick balloon,if that is what they did.
They made it out of a thin lead foil. Adam devised a pretty neat way of arranging the sheets in such a way that it could be constructed with everything laid out flat on the floor. When it was inflated, the sheets unfolded in just the right way to make nice balloon. The biggest problem they had was that the foil was so soft that it would easily tear. They had to keep patching it while it was inflating. Nonetheless, it worked.
I suggested the use of lead foil, but my idea was to construct it like a dirigible with a lightweight wire frame. The calculations showed that it definitely would have enough buoyancy to work. In fact, the Mythbusters design has so buoyant that they got it to rise used a mixing of helium and air. My calculations were based on pure helium.
But to summarise this dscussion, everything about anything about space is fake, photos that were on the internet and published elsewhere even before 2010 were only released because he agitated for them in 2010, and the only way to prove it all is true is for NASA to do something no organisation in its right mind would do and let a man with a dubious police record into their facilities and fiddle around with their equipment. Right....
Given that his materials engineering degree is valid, it seems odd that he does not understand the sublimation chacterists of the Apollo PLSS. With all the "Engineering" jobs held, it seems to me that he should be able to understand the chacterists. Curious indeed.Please list any your relevant qualifications.
Just in case you missed the question in all the posts.
Here's his resume from when he was running for governor back in 2002:
http://web.archive.org/web/20031224132630/www.oceanchinampa.com/BakerResume.pdf
Given that his materials engineering degree is valid, it seems odd that he does not understand the sublimation chacterists of the Apollo PLSS. With all the "Engineering" jobs held, it seems to me that he should be able to understand the chacterists. Curious indeed.Please list any your relevant qualifications.
Just in case you missed the question in all the posts.
Here's his resume from when he was running for governor back in 2002:
http://web.archive.org/web/20031224132630/www.oceanchinampa.com/BakerResume.pdf
EDIT: Change engineering degree to match his resume.
Because your bs ranting is about as gratifying as a 1khz tone at 150dB. Time is money.
My contention is that most of the NASA space program is probably a hoax. I say "probably" because I don't know. But neither does anyone else ...
...I was confronted with the difficult question, "How do we PROVE we went to the moon?"
...Could be fake... Could be lies. Launches? ...Did they really...? Do they really...? Did they really...? ...I don't know... I don't know...
But then I stumbled upon the spacesuit ice sublimators... the clever and exotic technique of using nickel porous plate ice sublimators...
Naturally, I wanted to learn more. What does a spacesuit sublimator look like? Specifications? Procedures? Video of one being tested? Photographs? Technical discussions in heat transfer or thermodynamics books? I searched. Strangely and absurdly, I found almost nothing. I received almost nothing.
...Absurdly, there were no photographs.
Absurdly, there was no video of spacesuits with ice sublimators being tested.
Most absurdly, there was no information in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics books.
Absurdly, the alleged manufacturer, Hamilton Sunstrand [sic] of United Technologies would only release very elementary information.
Absurdly, NASA's Johnson Space Center refused to provide video or photos and stonewalled me instead.
Absurdly, the Rice University Department of Mechanical Engineering, most closely associated with Houston's Johnson Space Center refused to comment.
Absurdly, my Congressional representatives in two states, California's and Washington's Feinstein, Boxer, Cantwell, Murray, Capps and Hastings, stonewalled me also when I requested their assistance acquiring accountability from NASA.
But voila! The good news was that I had stumbled upon the way to PROVE whether the NASA space program was a hoax. The lack of information and evasion regarding spacesuits with sublimators represents a huge anomaly upon which attention should be focused.
NASA must publicly demonstrate, before independent witnesses,...
retired Army General Antonio Taguba, retired Navy Admiral William Fallon and me.
Please demand NASA accountability...
I'm curious, please list all/any of your qualifications to judge how sublimation PLSS work
I thought he asked if I was qualified to understand how a vacuum system works.
As far as how a PLSS works, I've probably read most of the same propaganda as you.
I think Baker legitimately believed the ISBN was meant to refer to the book found at the link. It does not; they are two separate books.
Is it my imagination, or do an increasing number of HBs believe that all manned (and sometimes even all unmanned) space flights are fake?
I don't really want to scan the whole book.
For independent witnesses I recommend retired Army General Antonio Taguba, retired Navy Admiral William Fallon and me.
I don't really want to scan the whole book. Is it there or not?
I concede, you're much better at Internet searching than I am.
Second, you seem to have great faith in military people. If these two men said "Yep, sublimators work as advertised," would you accept that, or believe that they had been compromised due to their association with the government? If you would believe them if they disagreed with you, why are these men different than the thousands who worked on the space program?
It was a few months ago, I believe, when someone pointed out that NASA would likely never allow someone arrested for bomb threatsintonear any of their facilities.
As capital, critical assets, NASA vacuum test chambers have armed guards. Further, Baker's experience with law enforcement might provide the world with a different reason why NASA ignores him.
Only until recently after my agitation could a photograph of a spacesuit ice sublimator be seen on the Internet.
The old whistle blowers!
Second, you seem to have great faith in military people. If these two men said "Yep, sublimators work as advertised," would you accept that, or believe that they had been compromised due to their association with the government? If you would believe them if they disagreed with you, why are these men different than the thousands who worked on the space program?
They're a specific type of military person. Google their names, you'll see why he wants them.
...BaHaHa you want a criminal to admit wrong doing? Didn't you realize that everyone in prison is innocent
You never did answer me about if your actions that led to your arrest in 2010 were justifiable?
A rubber duck is better at searching the internet than you. You couldn't even find a reference that has been in the very same place on the internet since 1997, for pete's sake. To which one might add your bizarre expectation that ALL data must be on the internet else it does not exist. Whence you derive such a notion is anyone's guess, but derive it you have. This begs the question: How do you suppose any research occurred before the internet?I think Baker legitimately believed the ISBN was meant to refer to the book found at the link. It does not; they are two separate books.
Thank you. I was confused. I found the book and I have scanned the Table of Contents and I don't see the part about a spacesuit ice sublimator or anything about sublimation in general. I don't really want to scan the whole book. Is it there or not? I concede, you're much better at Internet searching than I am.
A rubber duck is better at searching the internet than you. You couldn't even find a reference that has been in the very same place on the internet since 1997, for pete's sake. To which one might add your bizarre expectation that ALL data must be on the internet else it does not exist. Whence you derive such a notion is anyone's guess, but derive it you have. This begs the question: How do you suppose any research occurred before the internet?What do you mean, "Go to the library and thumb through index cards to find several references?" :)
...BaHaHa you want a criminal to admit wrong doing? Didn't you realize that everyone in prison is innocent
You never did answer me about if your actions that led to your arrest in 2010 were justifiable?
What do you mean, "Go to the library and thumb through index cards to find several references?" :)
I'm still looking for the evidence that NASA tested a spacesuit with sublimator in a vacuum chamber.
Anybody?
The good news is that we're all a simple NASA demonstration away from the long coveted TRUTH! And yet, strangely, you all want to evade the Scientific Method and rely on questionable evidence.
I'm still looking for the evidence that NASA tested a spacesuit with sublimator in a vacuum chamber.
Anybody?
The good news is that we're all a simple NASA demonstration away from the long coveted TRUTH! And yet, strangely, you all want to evade the Scientific Method and rely on questionable evidence.
Heaven forefend! Surely not a Dewey Decimal System? Surely you cannot expect one to interact with treeware? Surely you cannot expect one to open an actual "book"? (Do such things still exist? Did they ever exist?)A rubber duck is better at searching the internet than you. You couldn't even find a reference that has been in the very same place on the internet since 1997, for pete's sake. To which one might add your bizarre expectation that ALL data must be on the internet else it does not exist. Whence you derive such a notion is anyone's guess, but derive it you have. This begs the question: How do you suppose any research occurred before the internet?What do you mean, "Go to the library and thumb through index cards to find several references?" :)
I'm still looking for the evidence that NASA tested a spacesuit with sublimator in a vacuum chamber.Why yes! Quite a few have handed you exactly that. What is your problem? You got pictures, videos, technical documentation and so forth. Why are you pretending that you did not when it is plain in this very thread that you bloody well did?
Anybody?
The good news is that we're all a simple NASA demonstration away from the long coveted TRUTH! And yet, strangely, you all want to evade the Scientific Method and rely on questionable evidence.No. The good news is that it has been dne countless times already. The further good news is that this has been presented to you and all and sundry in this very thread.
I'm still looking for the evidence that NASA tested a spacesuit with sublimator in a vacuum chamber.
I'm still looking for the evidence that NASA tested a spacesuit with sublimator in a vacuum chamber.
Anybody?
The good news is that we're all a simple NASA demonstration away from the long coveted TRUTH! And yet, strangely, you all want to evade the Scientific Method and rely on questionable evidence.
You will never be allowed near a NASA vacuum test facility because of your criminal actions. How much more do you want to ruin your life for something that's never going to happen?
However, I sure would like to hear from Neil why he felt a bomb threat seemed like a reasonable course of action to him.
I'm still looking for the evidence that NASA tested a spacesuit with sublimator in a vacuum chamber.
Because he is a "special" snowflake, and a custom demo must be arranged for him and him alone according to whatever impossible criteria he may choose to attempt to impose.I'm still looking for the evidence that NASA tested a spacesuit with sublimator in a vacuum chamber.
Why are published accounts of the tests and photos of the tests not evidence?
Don't tell a bunch of scientists what the scientific method is. It doesn't involve staging random demonstrations at the whim of a layman who can't even manage basic research, for starters.
I'm on 3 years probation now after 4 months jail for felony vandalism for breaking a window demanding an Independent 9-11 Investigation.
This is all I want to say on the subject except don't believe everything you read on the Internet.
Cheap shot and a cop out.
The best thing NASA could do is allow the validation of its claim.
Now please explain to us all why you think a sublimator does not work in a vacuum.
Cheap shot and a cop out. The best thing NASA could do is allow the validation of its claim.
How is this relevant except to establish that you have prior form for really odd notions?However, I sure would like to hear from Neil why he felt a bomb threat seemed like a reasonable course of action to him.
No bomb threat.
Trumped up charge.
Ten days in jail.
Twelve days in a mental hospital.
Evaluated by three psychs, no mental illness, no personality disorders, no required meds, I doubt most could pass the test.
Discovery revealed two additional quiet charges, "threat to incite strike" and "threat to accuse of a crime." No threats, I did incite and I did accuse, both legal.
Theft (seizure) of my rifle.
Bogus charges dismissed a day before scheduled trial.
Lots of stories about my arrest, few if any about dismissal.
I'm on 3 years probation now after 4 months jail for felony vandalism for breaking a window demanding an Independent 9-11 Investigation.
I signed a gag order as part of my probation agreement the violation of which would probably result in 4 years prison.
This is all I want to say on the subject except don't believe everything you read on the Internet.
Thank you.
Repeating your claims anew does not unwind the previous 15 pages of discussion.
I thought that this was a more mature crowd, a better crowd.
As far as I can tell, it's the last time NASA ever attempted performing vacuum chamber tests of spacesuits.
Nope. It is not a cheap shot. You failed to find data that has been on-line for decades. You fail at research.Don't tell a bunch of scientists what the scientific method is. It doesn't involve staging random demonstrations at the whim of a layman who can't even manage basic research, for starters.Cheap shot and a cop out. The best thing NASA could do is allow the validation of its claim.
However, I sure would like to hear from Neil why he felt a bomb threat seemed like a reasonable course of action to him.
No bomb threat.
Trumped up charge.
Ten days in jail.
Twelve days in a mental hospital.
Evaluated by three psychs, no mental illness, no personality disorders, no required meds, I doubt most could pass the test.
Discovery revealed two additional quiet charges, "threat to incite strike" and "threat to accuse of a crime." No threats, I did incite and I did accuse, both legal.
Theft (seizure) of my rifle.
Bogus charges dismissed a day before scheduled trial.
Lots of stories about my arrest, few if any about dismissal.
I'm on 3 years probation now after 4 months jail for felony vandalism for breaking a window demanding an Independent 9-11 Investigation.
I signed a gag order as part of my probation agreement the violation of which would probably result in 4 years prison.
This is all I want to say on the subject except don't believe everything you read on the Internet.
Thank you.
How is this relevant except to establish that you have prior form for really odd notions?
I have never threatened anyone with anything, never been psych evaluated, nor spent time in jail, nor mental hospital and so forth.
But it does emphasize that nobody has answered the challenge.
Even if you believe the spacesuits and sublimators work as claimed, you should want the demonstration I describe so that you can KNOW they work as claimed.
I'm puzzled by everyone's reluctance to demand a demo.
Is believing you're right so much better than knowing the truth?
Cheap shot and a cop out.
The best thing NASA could do is allow the validation of its claim.
I can't believe you posted it. Honestly, I was about to tell everyone not to post that 1966 video but then I thought that this was a more mature crowd, a better crowd.
It's a spacesuit without sublimator. It has an umbilical. It's a failure. Someone almost died. As far as I can tell, it's the last time NASA ever attempted performing vacuum chamber tests of spacesuits.
Still wondering why you continue to pursue this to such extreme unreasonable lengths when anybody can see that a test of this sort will never satisfy you despite what you say.
"derelict and complicit." in what exactly?
How is this relevant except to establish that you have prior form for really odd notions?
Mako asked about it.
I have never threatened anyone with anything, never been psych evaluated, nor spent time in jail, nor mental hospital and so forth.
And you've never done your duty either. You're derelict and complicit.
I'm bewildered by the level of resistance from educated men. It's a simple thing. A validation.
You offer no truth. By your own admission you offer only speculation, and you are unable to reconcile that speculation with the evidentiary record except by more speculation. Since you offer no reason to reject the null hypothesis, it remains the presumption.
Still wondering why you continue to pursue this to such extreme unreasonable lengths when anybody can see that a test of this sort will never satisfy you despite what you say.
I think or at least used to think that it was the quick route to the much more important Independent 9-11 investigation.
I'm bewildered by the level of resistance from educated men. It's a simple thing. A validation.
Although I understand the fear that NASA can't validate its claim.
And that's what would lead to 9-11 truth.
If it was revealed that the government lied big about NASA, people would be more agreeable to confronting the harder truth about 9-11.
And you're wrong. The test before independent witnesses would satisfy me. I'm sick of this subject and want it settled.
It's already been done. The fact that you or I weren't a witness to it does pain me in the least.
And you've never done your duty either. You're derelict and complicit.
It's a spacesuit without sublimator. It has an umbilical. It's a failure. Someone almost died. As far as I can tell, it's the last time NASA ever attempted performing vacuum chamber tests of spacesuits.
I think or at least used to think that it was the quick route to the much more important Independent 9-11 investigation.Off topic. Your crackpottery on other notions is irrelevant to Apollo. Although equally bovine.
I'm bewildered by the level of resistance from educated men. It's a simple thing. A validation.That is your failing, and yours alone. Do not attempt to project your lack upon others.
Although I understand the fear that NASA can't validate its claim.Validate in full with evidence aplenty. Your lack of comprehension is your problem.
And that's what would lead to 9-11 truth.Off topic. Please desist from this uber Gish Gallop.
If it was revealed that the government lied big about NASA, people would be more agreeable to confronting the harder truth about 9-11.Yet more off topic babble.
And you're wrong. The test before independent witnesses would satisfy me. I'm sick of this subject and want it settled.And such tests have been performed again and again and again. Why are those test invalid, yet you special snowflake test is somehow more valid than any other?
I don't have the truth to offer.
I don't know the truth.
I do know the anomaly and fortunately its examination provides the way to the truth.
You have nothing to offer.
I don't have the truth to offer.
I don't know the truth.You know nothing, Neil Baker.
I do know the anomaly and fortunately its examination provides the way to the truth.Which so-called "anomaly" has been copiously addressed.
Well, I guess you best get used to that feeling because there's no way it's going to happen. You can't see for one second the can of worms this would open if NASA did the test? Everybody with some type of ax to grind will demand similar demos as proof. You can't comprehend that at all?
Still wondering why you continue to pursue this to such extreme unreasonable lengths when anybody can see that a test of this sort will never satisfy you despite what you say.
I think or at least used to think that it was the quick route to the much more important Independent 9-11 investigation.
I'm bewildered by the level of resistance from educated men. It's a simple thing. A validation.
Although I understand the fear that NASA can't validate its claim.
And that's what would lead to 9-11 truth.
If it was revealed that the government lied big about NASA, people would be more agreeable to confronting the harder truth about 9-11.
And you're wrong. The test before independent witnesses would satisfy me. I'm sick of this subject and want it settled.
It has already been done multiple times. That opportunity, as you term it is a de riguer component of space suit testing. Somehow, you seem surprised that an invitation was not extended to you, an internet nobody, to attend and witness such tests. Congratulations on your own overblown sense of your own importance, but the reality is that you are an internet crank with a terrorist record. Personally, I wouldn't let you within sight of a simple pencil.
Well, I guess you best get used to that feeling because there's no way it's going to happen. You can't see for one second the can of worms this would open if NASA did the test? Everybody with some type of ax to grind will demand similar demos as proof. You can't comprehend that at all?
That's the beauty of the spacesuits and ice sublimators. I can't think of another anomaly that can be investigated on Earth to the level of PROOF. It's a great opportunity. NASA slipped up. Accountability is due.
I don't have the truth to offer.
I don't know the truth.
I do know the anomaly and fortunately its examination provides the way to the truth.
It's already been done. The fact that you or I weren't a witness to it doesn't pain me in the least.
Hah!
I do know the anomaly ...
I can't think of another anomaly that can be investigated on Earth to the level of PROOF.
It's a great opportunity.
NASA slipped up. Accountability is due.
It's a simple thing. A validation.
Your actions aren't those one would expect from a learned individual.
You can't seem to grasp the concept that thousands and thousands of engineers and scientists routinely USE the very technology you claim don't work.
heat exchangers and water flow had been mastered many years ago. Even the first steam engines had them.
...That is one of the best description of the services provided by the collective group that belong to this forum.
I defend Apollo to stop a great achievement being denigrated by morons and idiots. I defend it because I know it is a genuine historical event, and I know it because I have put the hours in doing my own research and validating evidence, and because I can see that every piece of information about the programme presents a coherent and consistent narrative supported by scientific fact.
What have you done apart from bluster and sneer?
Where is your empirically proven scientifically validated evidence that a sublimator will not cool a space suit?
Off topic, but one of the highlights of reading through these pages and learning a new word!!Heaven forefend! Surely not a Dewey Decimal System? Surely you cannot expect one to interact with treeware? Surely you cannot expect one to open an actual "book"? (Do such things still exist? Did they ever exist?)A rubber duck is better at searching the internet than you. You couldn't even find a reference that has been in the very same place on the internet since 1997, for pete's sake. To which one might add your bizarre expectation that ALL data must be on the internet else it does not exist. Whence you derive such a notion is anyone's guess, but derive it you have. This begs the question: How do you suppose any research occurred before the internet?What do you mean, "Go to the library and thumb through index cards to find several references?" :)
Admit it. The entire universe did not exist before there was an internet and therefore, anything which does not exist on the intertubes or webernets does not really exist at all.
Or so the various Crank McBullplops would have you believe.
It is not of my coining, more is the pity. Nevertheless, it is a term that is sufficiently descriptive that I like it.Off topic, but one of the highlights of reading through these pages and learning a new word!!Heaven forefend! Surely not a Dewey Decimal System? Surely you cannot expect one to interact with treeware? Surely you cannot expect one to open an actual "book"? (Do such things still exist? Did they ever exist?)A rubber duck is better at searching the internet than you. You couldn't even find a reference that has been in the very same place on the internet since 1997, for pete's sake. To which one might add your bizarre expectation that ALL data must be on the internet else it does not exist. Whence you derive such a notion is anyone's guess, but derive it you have. This begs the question: How do you suppose any research occurred before the internet?What do you mean, "Go to the library and thumb through index cards to find several references?" :)
Admit it. The entire universe did not exist before there was an internet and therefore, anything which does not exist on the intertubes or webernets does not really exist at all.
Or so the various Crank McBullplops would have you believe.
Neil, as I've tried to discuss earlier, even if, for some reason, I didn't think spacesuits worked, I wouldn't find the demo you described remotely convincing, and I'm baffled* as to why you would.Repeating your claims anew does not unwind the previous 15 pages of discussion.
But it does emphasize that nobody has answered the challenge.
Even if you believe the spacesuits and sublimators work as claimed, you should want the demonstration I describe so that you can KNOW they work as claimed.
I'm puzzled by everyone's reluctance to demand a demo.
Is believing you're right so much better than knowing the truth?
"In a single test, three independent viewers agreed this worked!" is NOT convincing proof.
Or if he required access to papers about current models, would they not be protected by company policy against industrial espionage?
The PLSS, however, has undergone more than 148 hours of simulated us in NASA and Hamilton-Standard test facilities.
Now I believe I read somewhere that the PLSS would only work in a vacuum. If this were accurate then these tests had to be conducted in a vacuum chamber. Now whether or not there is a video(s) of the tests only NASA and Hamilton-Standard would know. But it seems pretty clear that it was tested before ever flown by Apollo crews.
I found a newspaper article concerning A11:
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2209&dat=19690716&id=D4pjAAAAIBAJ&sjid=EnoNAAAAIBAJ&pg=5510,1683661&hl=en
In the articleQuoteThe PLSS, however, has undergone more than 148 hours of simulated us in NASA and Hamilton-Standard test facilities.
Now I believe I read somewhere that the PLSS would only work in a vacuum. If this were accurate then these tests had to be conducted in a vacuum chamber. Now whether or not there is a video(s) of the tests only NASA and Hamilton-Standard would know. But it seems pretty clear that it was tested before ever flown by Apollo crews.
...and since the evidence in fields I do know something about, like geology, politics, and history, holds up to scrutiny at the level at which I am capable of scrutinizing--...Slight hijack, so if I asked you what a Andesite was you could quickly comeback with the correct answer?
I found a newspaper article concerning A11:Of course it was, and there are reports discussing such testing that can be found on the Web without any real effort.
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2209&dat=19690716&id=D4pjAAAAIBAJ&sjid=EnoNAAAAIBAJ&pg=5510,1683661&hl=en
In the articleQuoteThe PLSS, however, has undergone more than 148 hours of simulated us in NASA and Hamilton-Standard test facilities.Now I believe I read somewhere that the PLSS would only work in a vacuum. If this were accurate then these tests had to be conducted in a vacuum chamber. Now whether or not there is a video(s) of the tests only NASA and Hamilton-Standard would know. But it seems pretty clear that it was tested before ever flown by Apollo crews.
Of course it was, and there are reports discussing such testing that can be found on the Web without any real effort.I realize that there was testing, I was looking for a video to submit and I found that article.
There's a lot more detail out there that may require a little effort, or purchasing an article from a journal or conference proceedings. And then, of course, there's more at NASA centers and technical libraries and, of course, the nitty-gritty of technical memorandums and progress reports and such that reside at the National Archives; they measure them by the foot. (Anybody live near Fort Worth?)
In any case, though, you really don't need to leave your keyboard to find plenty of detail about design and performance for the sublimator, or about any other piece of Apollo technology.
I'm curious, please list all/any of your qualifications to judge how sublimation PLSS work
I thought he asked if I was qualified to understand how a vacuum system works. As far as how a PLSS works, I've probably read most of the same propaganda as you.
True story--I work for a jeweler three weekends a year at a Renaissance faire. Once, a long time ago, when I worked for him more regularly, a customer held up a piece. She was standing maybe fifteen or twenty feet away. She said, "What stone is this?"I didn't want this to be a test nor embarrass you, sorry if I came out that way. I had to take a lot of Geology courses in school, so I know a bit of the science. And I didn't remember what carnelian was, if I ever had it in Mineralogy class. :)
I squinted. "It's a form of quartz," I said.
"Oh, thanks." Beat. "Wait a minute!"
Turns out she was actually a geologist and therefore knew that "a form of quartz" is a safe bet when it comes to semiprecious stones. (Something like ninety percent of them are forms of quartz.) However, since I'd said it with such confidence, she just went along with it. As it happens, it was carnelian, indeed a form of quartz.
Short answer, no, I didn't remember what andesite was. But when I looked it up, I understood all the words in the Wikipedia article enough so that I do now.
I realize that there was testing, I was looking for a video to submit and I found that article.Oh sure, I knew you knew that. Didn't you know? :-)
Not only has testing been done, but many hours of usage during the last 45 years.
My contention is that most of the NASA space program is probably a hoax. I say "probably" because I don't know. But neither does anyone else and I think that's unacceptable. A faith-based space program during this great age of the scientific method is unnecessary and absurd. It's way past time for NASA to be scientifically accountable.
[SNIP] "How do we PROVE we went to the moon?"
Photos? Video? Could be fake. Narrative? Could be lies. Launches? Yes, but what happened after they went into orbit out of sight? Did they really go to the moon? Do they really go to the space station or is just a lighted orbiting umannned and possibly inflatable prop? Did they really repair a Hubble telescope? What about the flag waving? I don't know and there's nothing we can prove about it on Earth. What about the shadows? I don't know and there's nothing we can prove about them on Earth.What about the Lunar laser reflector? I don't know and who knows how it got there even if it's actually there.
But then I stumbled upon the spacesuit ice sublimators.
[SNIP]
Well, I stumbled onto the rocks - the 380-odd kilograms of rocks brought back by the Apollo missions. (If metric values are unfamiliar to you, I'm sure you can work out how many pounds that is.)
Anyway, where did these rocks come from?
1. We know they're not Earth rocks. Their mineral composition, while broadly similar to Earth rocks, includes several distinct differences which have never been observed in Earth rocks. For example, they contain significantly less volatile elements and compounds than equivalent Earth rocks, and they also show signs of millions of years of exposure to solar radiation, which doesn't happen to Earth rocks. So that's why they're not Earth rocks.
2. We know they're not lunar meteorites. Sometimes meteor impacts on the Moon blast rocks off the Moon's surface and into space, and some of those rocks make it to the Earth. Lunar meteorites, like other meteorites, show signs of alteration by atmospheric heating - from passing through the Earth's atmosphere at speeds of several kilometres per second. The Apollo rocks show no such signs. Instead, they show signs of being bombarded by tiny dust particles themselves travelling at tens of kilometres per second. This is only possible to rocks sitting on the surface of the Moon, not on the surface of the Earth. So that's why the Apollo rocks are not lunar meteorites.
3. We know they're not Moon rocks collected by unmanned sample retriever missions. The Apollo rocks include quite a few rocks weighing more than a kilogram each, as well as core samples up to two metres long, and also clods of lunar soil. There is no evidence that NASA ever had the technology to build unmanned sample retriever spacecraft capable of collecting such samples; in fact there isn't even any evidence that these sorts of things could be done today, more than 40 years later. What we do have is photos of astronauts standing near rocks which now sit in storage facilities.
So what that leave is the only possible explanation: Those rocks, which are clearly from the Moon, and which clearly came to the Earth not in high-speed contact with the Earth's atmosphere, and which clearly were not collected by unmanned spacecraft, must have been collected by humans walking on the Moon.
Now if you have some alternative explanation for these rocks, I'm all ears. But in the interim I'm going to stick with the explanation that spacesuit sublimators must have worked, allowing those astronauts to walk on the Moon and retrieve those rocks.QuoteFor independent witnesses I recommend retired Army General Antonio Taguba, retired Navy Admiral William Fallon and me.
Is this some new meaning of the word "independent"?
Just to be clear - you're making the assertion that NASA faked Apollo. So you have a dog in the fight. So by any normal meaning of the word "independent", that means you're not independent.
Plus, out of interest, do Taguba and Fallon have any understanding of the physics behind spacesuit sublimators? If not, what's the point of having them investigate any demonstration?
"Rusty" Schweickart testing the suit and PLSS in vacuum chamber A (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/engineering/integrated_environments/altitude_environmental/chamber_A/index.html) in Building 32 in 19
https://archive.org/download/S68-55391/S68-55391.tif
And just before entering the vacuum chamber
https://archive.org/download/S68-55983/S68-55983.tif
Wait a minute. What makes you think he's in vacuum.
I still have trouble believing a high vacuum could be attained with a sublimator leaking water vapor into the chamber.
Also that 1995 book. Where is the mention of spacesuit ice sublimators in it?
Maybe they just continue to run the pumps while the tests are running? Now, I am not nearly so educated as many of the fine folks here, and I don't claim to be, but that would keep it from building up at least, yes?
"Rusty" Schweickart testing the suit and PLSS in vacuum chamber A (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/engineering/integrated_environments/altitude_environmental/chamber_A/index.html) in Building 32 in 19
https://archive.org/download/S68-55391/S68-55391.tif
And just before entering the vacuum chamber
https://archive.org/download/S68-55983/S68-55983.tif
Wait a minute. What makes you think he's in vacuum. He might be in a vacuum chamber but how can you tell he's in a vacuum? According to the link you provide, that chamber is 65 feet in diameter, 120 feet high and takes 12 hours to pump down to low earth orbit conditions.
I still have trouble believing a high vacuum could be attained with a sublimator leaking water vapor into the chamber.
Well, I stumbled onto the rocks - the 380-odd kilograms of rocks brought back by the Apollo missions. (If metric values are unfamiliar to you, I'm sure you can work out how many pounds that is.)
Anyway, where did these rocks come from?
1. We know they're not Earth rocks. Their mineral composition, while broadly similar to Earth rocks, includes several distinct differences which have never been observed in Earth rocks. For example, they contain significantly less volatile elements and compounds than equivalent Earth rocks, and they also show signs of millions of years of exposure to solar radiation, which doesn't happen to Earth rocks. So that's why they're not Earth rocks.
2. We know they're not lunar meteorites. Sometimes meteor impacts on the Moon blast rocks off the Moon's surface and into space, and some of those rocks make it to the Earth. Lunar meteorites, like other meteorites, show signs of alteration by atmospheric heating - from passing through the Earth's atmosphere at speeds of several kilometres per second. The Apollo rocks show no such signs. Instead, they show signs of being bombarded by tiny dust particles themselves travelling at tens of kilometres per second. This is only possible to rocks sitting on the surface of the Moon, not on the surface of the Earth. So that's why the Apollo rocks are not lunar meteorites.
3. We know they're not Moon rocks collected by unmanned sample retriever missions. The Apollo rocks include quite a few rocks weighing more than a kilogram each, as well as core samples up to two metres long, and also clods of lunar soil. There is no evidence that NASA ever had the technology to build unmanned sample retriever spacecraft capable of collecting such samples; in fact there isn't even any evidence that these sorts of things could be done today, more than 40 years later. What we do have is photos of astronauts standing near rocks which now sit in storage facilities.
So what that leave is the only possible explanation: Those rocks, which are clearly from the Moon, and which clearly came to the Earth not in high-speed contact with the Earth's atmosphere, and which clearly were not collected by unmanned spacecraft, must have been collected by humans walking on the Moon.
Now if you have some alternative explanation for these rocks, I'm all ears. But in the interim I'm going to stick with the explanation that spacesuit sublimators must have worked, allowing those astronauts to walk on the Moon and retrieve those rocks.QuoteFor independent witnesses I recommend retired Army General Antonio Taguba, retired Navy Admiral William Fallon and me.
Is this some new meaning of the word "independent"?
Just to be clear - you're making the assertion that NASA faked Apollo. So you have a dog in the fight. So by any normal meaning of the word "independent", that means you're not independent.
Plus, out of interest, do Taguba and Fallon have any understanding of the physics behind spacesuit sublimators? If not, what's the point of having them investigate any demonstration?
I don't know about rocks.
Yes, it's pure speculation but...
Taguba and Fallon are recommended due to their gravitas and exemplary integrity at a time when it's apparent that it's extremely rare.
They are well educated and I'm confident they would be capable of quickly acquiring the requisite knowledge...
Besides, it's expected that one or more other independent witnesses with engineering backgrounds would be present.
Maybe they just continue to run the pumps while the tests are running? Now, I am not nearly so educated as many of the fine folks here, and I don't claim to be, but that would keep it from building up at least, yes?
Many tests of the sublimator process have already been conducted under the supervision of qualified engineers. You have no problem calling all of them liars, so explain why you would suddenly respect the engineers observing new tests.
I doubt this test can be done in a vacuum chamber on Earth.
If they wanted to simulate real moon surface conditions, they'd have to illuminate the spacesuit with enough light that on the moon brings the surface temperature up to about 240 degrees F.
Raul Blanco at NASA's Johnson Space Center, a salt of the Earth sounding guy...
He also assured me there's nothing classified about a spacesuit or it's cooling system.
Allegedly.
Nobody has called anyone a liar.
Please behave.
Whom you have no problem calling a liar.
No, I said he reneged on a promise. Liar is your word. Again, please behave.He says that they regularly test sublimators in vacuum chambers and they work, you are contending that sublimators do not work in vacuum, therefore you saying that he is telling a lie which would make him a liar.
No, I said he reneged on a promise. Liar is your word.
Again, please behave.
NASA allegedly sent five lunar orbiters in 66 and 67 and they took photos of the Earth from moon orbit. Why didn't they release them to the public in 1966? Were they holding them so they could say the astronauts faking the Apollo 8 mission took them in 1968?
The NASA lunar surveyor program allegedly sent seven landers to the moon between 1966 and 1968. Could they have been used to retrieve rocks robotically so it could be claimed later that astronauts gathered them?
Quote...Neil Baker, I'd be grateful if you could respond to this email from page 5 of the thread.
Thank you.
I don't know about rocks. But I will say this. I was ten years old when the Apollo 8 Christmas mission took place. It was spectacular. The first ever photos were taken of the Earth from the orbit of the moon or so I thought. I wonder if you had to be alive then to understand how radical those photos were. In my memory, Apollo 8 was more exciting than Apollo 11. They were the first to get close. There had been nothing like it. But there had. NASA allegedly sent five lunar orbiters in 66 and 67 and they took photos of the Earth from moon orbit. Why didn't they release them to the public in 1966? Were they holding them so they could say the astronauts faking the Apollo 8 mission took them in 1968?
"NASA took the image and they created a poster of it which was given as gifts to everybody," said Friedlander. "Senators and congressmen would give it out as presents to constituents and visiting dignitaries."
The NASA lunar surveyor program allegedly sent seven landers to the moon between 1966 and 1968. Could they have been used to retrieve rocks robotically so it could be claimed later that astronauts gathered them?
We know they're not Moon rocks collected by unmanned sample retriever missions. The Apollo rocks include quite a few rocks weighing more than a kilogram each, as well as core samples up to two metres long, and also clods of lunar soil. There is no evidence that NASA ever had the technology to build unmanned sample retriever spacecraft capable of collecting such samples; in fact there isn't even any evidence that these sorts of things could be done today, more than 40 years later. What we do have is photos of astronauts standing near rocks which now sit in storage facilities.
Yes, it's pure speculation but if it's all a hoax, would they have gone to such a length to make the hoax convincing? If it's a hoax, it wouldn't be surprising that black ops came into play at some time during the prelude to the alleged landings.
Even if it turns out that it was hoax, what a spectacular hoax! Legendary!
Taguba and Fallon are recommended due to their gravitas and exemplary integrity at a time when it's apparent that it's extremely rare.
They are well educated and I'm confident they would be capable of quickly acquiring the requisite knowledge to understand what they needed to observe. Besides, it's expected that one or more other independent witnesses with engineering backgrounds would be present.
I don't know about rocks. But I will say this. I was ten years old when the Apollo 8 Christmas mission took place. It was spectacular. The first ever photos were taken of the Earth from the orbit of the moon or so I thought. I wonder if you had to be alive then to understand how radical those photos were. In my memory, Apollo 8 was more exciting than Apollo 11. They were the first to get close. There had been nothing like it. But there had. NASA allegedly sent five lunar orbiters in 66 and 67 and they took photos of the Earth from moon orbit. Why didn't they release them to the public in 1966? Were they holding them so they could say the astronauts faking the Apollo 8 mission took them in 1968?
The NASA lunar surveyor program allegedly sent seven landers to the moon between 1966 and 1968. Could they have been used to retrieve rocks robotically so it could be claimed later that astronauts gathered them?
Yes, it's pure speculation
Taguba and Fallon are recommended due to their gravitas and exemplary integrity at a time when it's apparent that it's extremely rare.
Let's do the maths. The Apollo rocks total ~380 kilograms. With seven landers that would require each to return an average of about 55 kilograms of material. Now, the Surveyor spacecraft were launched using Atlas rockets. Perhaps you might like to calculate whether an Atlas rocket could launch a spacecraft large enough to itself launch 55 kilograms of material off the surface of the Moon in a container which could itself survive re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere.
For comparison, we know the Soviets brought back ~400 grams of material on three sample return missions. In other words, enough to fill a can of soup - in three missions. And you're suggesting NASA could return nearly a thousand times the mass on seven spacecraft. NASA might be good, but I don't think they're that good.
Here's two (https://books.google.ca/books?id=BlMEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA48-IA2&dq=%22lunar+orbiter%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAWoVChMI3rPmyJHLxwIVz3-SCh2FWAu1#v=onepage&q=%22lunar%20orbiter%22&f=false) more (https://books.google.ca/books?id=BlMEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA48-IA2&dq=%22lunar+orbiter%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAWoVChMI3rPmyJHLxwIVz3-SCh2FWAu1#v=onepage&q=%22lunar%20orbiter%22&f=false) examples of Lunar Orbiter photos released before Apollo 8.
Wow! I'm glad you got it, but wow!Here's two (https://books.google.ca/books?id=BlMEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA48-IA2&dq=%22lunar+orbiter%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAWoVChMI3rPmyJHLxwIVz3-SCh2FWAu1#v=onepage&q=%22lunar%20orbiter%22&f=false) more (https://books.google.ca/books?id=BlMEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA48-IA2&dq=%22lunar+orbiter%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAWoVChMI3rPmyJHLxwIVz3-SCh2FWAu1#v=onepage&q=%22lunar%20orbiter%22&f=false) examples of Lunar Orbiter photos released before Apollo 8.
I have an A2 size copy of that Copernicus image, and one taken from above - it's amazing. It's mounted on a board and was part of a set sold to Universities. It was being thrown away!
Wait a minute. What makes you think he's in vacuum. He might be in a vacuum chamber but how can you tell he's in a vacuum?
I still have trouble believing a high vacuum could be attained with a sublimator leaking water vapor into the chamber.
...Once low earth vacuum was reached the sublimator could be turned on but that would probably result in an immediate loss of vacuum. I doubt this test can be done in a vacuum chamber on Earth...
QuoteTaguba and Fallon are recommended due to their gravitas and exemplary integrity at a time when it's apparent that it's extremely rare.
No - you picked them because you think they share your values and because they have been critical of aspects of US foreign policy that you also criticise. Don't insult our intelligence by claiming you believe them to be neutral.
Who here remembers when the hoax brigade actually cared about their arguments and didnt use things that could be easily proved false?
So, even if we assume that every last bit of cooling water was sublimed (which it wasn't as some of it was in a closed loop), if a vacuum pump can successfully evacuate the vast majority of 13,500kg of air from that chamber, would an additional 3.9kg of water vapour really a) pose a challenge for the pump, or b) make so much difference to the pressure in the chamber once it has been evacuated to render the cooling sublimator unable to function?
I still have trouble believing a high vacuum could be attained with a sublimator leaking water vapor into the chamber.
No, I said he reneged on a promise. Liar is your word. Again, please behave.
To keep things on the up and up, I realize now I linked to the same page twice on my earlier 'Lunar Orbiter pics from before 1968' post. Here (https://books.google.ca/books?id=21UEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA33-IA4&dq=%22lunar%20orbiter%22&pg=PA33-IA4#v=onepage&q=%22lunar%20orbiter%22&f=false) is the second example I found, also from LIFE. Here's some (https://books.google.ca/books?id=ASoDAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA85&dq=%22lunar%20orbiter%22&pg=PA84#v=onepage&q=%22lunar%20orbiter%22&f=false) more (https://books.google.ca/books?id=wioDAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA90&dq=%22lunar%20orbiter%22&pg=PA90#v=onepage&q=%22lunar%20orbiter%22&f=false), this time from Popular Science.
QuoteFor independent witnesses I recommend retired Army General Antonio Taguba, retired Navy Admiral WilliamIt is becoming rather clear you don't know much about anything you present in this thread.
I don't know about rocks.QuoteBut I will say this. I was ten years old when the Apollo 8 Christmas mission took place. It was spectacular. The first ever photos were taken of the Earth from the orbit of the moon or so I thought. I wonder if you had to be alive then to understand how radical those photos were. In my memory, Apollo 8 was more exciting than Apollo 11. They were the first to get close. There had been nothing like it. But there had. NASA allegedly sent five lunar orbiters in 66 and 67 and they took photos of the Earth from moon orbit. Why didn't they release them to the public in 1966? Were they holding them so they could say the astronauts faking the Apollo 8 mission took them in 1968? {/quote]Quit waving your hands in the air and start reading the material posted to you and figure out that the sublimator worked back in the late 60's and continue to work up to current space operations of the ISS.
The orbiter photos were released you just had to ask for them as the internet wasn't quite developed at that time.QuoteOk, lets do a little math, there were five successful Surveyor landings weighing about 1000 lbs each at launch. Now for a return of 380 pounds of rocks, one needs much more than 6 x 1000 lbs of fuel to return them. Really bad argument totally dismissed.
The NASA lunar surveyor program allegedly sent seven landers to the moon between 1966 and 1968. Could they have been used to retrieve rocks robotically so it could be claimed later that astronauts gathered them?
Yes, it's pure speculation but if it's all a hoax, would they have gone to such a length to make the hoax convincing?
If it's a hoax, it wouldn't be surprising that black ops came into play at some time during the prelude to the alleged landings.
Even if it turns out that it was hoax, what a spectacular hoax! Legendary!QuoteSo you are saying that all the commanders that did not disagree with the Bush Administration are without integrity?
Taguba and Fallon are recommended due to their gravitas and exemplary integrity at a time when it's apparent that it's extremely rare.
They are well educated and I'm confident they would be capable of quickly acquiring the requisite knowledge to understand what they needed to observe. Besides, it's expected that one or more other independent witnesses with engineering backgrounds would be present.
I thought you would reply to the comment about the rocks, and I agree with the proposition of lack of fuel to launch the rocks. Have you computed the fuel necessary for the return of the rocks plus some modest containers?Let's do the maths. The Apollo rocks total ~380 kilograms. With seven landers that would require each to return an average of about 55 kilograms of material. Now, the Surveyor spacecraft were launched using Atlas rockets. Perhaps you might like to calculate whether an Atlas rocket could launch a spacecraft large enough to itself launch 55 kilograms of material off the surface of the Moon in a container which could itself survive re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere.
For comparison, we know the Soviets brought back ~400 grams of material on three sample return missions. In other words, enough to fill a can of soup - in three missions. And you're suggesting NASA could return nearly a thousand times the mass on seven spacecraft. NASA might be good, but I don't think they're that good.
The entire Surveyor spacecraft had a launch mass of about 1000 kg, which was near the limit of what the Atlas-Centaur launch vehicle could deliver to the moon. It's mathematically impossible to land on the moon and return to Earth 55 kg of samples with a craft that small.
The Soviet landers that returned about 100 grams of material each had a launch mass of 5600 kg. They were also launched on Proton rockets, which are 5 times more massive than the Atlas-Centaur.
HOWEVER - that's pretty darn fast for an inflatable, wouldn't you say? How do you think the folks get an inflatable to go that fast, considering a 747 cruises at below 1000 mph ..... ?
And have it travel in an environment that has no air.
HOWEVER - that's pretty darn fast for an inflatable, wouldn't you say? How do you think the folks get an inflatable to go that fast, considering a 747 cruises at below 1000 mph ..... ?
Of course it can go that fast - you just have to let the air out! :)
Anyone got any suggestion why my estimate of ISS speed was so overstated? Have I missed some obvious assumption, or is it merely because I've assumed it to pass directly over, when it's some 50 degrees south and west of me?I'd investigate the accuracy of the 5.5 minutes figure. How did you measure that? What relative error is in that measurement?
Anyone got any suggestion why my estimate of ISS speed was so overstated? Have I missed some obvious assumption, or is it merely because I've assumed it to pass directly over, when it's some 50 degrees south and west of me?I'd investigate the accuracy of the 5.5 minutes figure. How did you measure that? What relative error is in that measurement?
I've never timed a satellite traveling horizon to horizon, but would think there are a few factors that might get in the way (systematic errors, as a physicist would call them). Atmospheric diffraction is especially large near the horizon. Also, both points on the horizon should be near sea level. If there are hills and mountains, other errors are introduced.
Anyone got any suggestion why my estimate of ISS speed was so overstated? Have I missed some obvious assumption, or is it merely because I've assumed it to pass directly over, when it's some 50 degrees south and west of me?
Anyone got any suggestion why my estimate of ISS speed was so overstated? Have I missed some obvious assumption, or is it merely because I've assumed it to pass directly over, when it's some 50 degrees south and west of me?
International Space Station tonight 10 July 2015
The ISS crosses central New Zealand tonight, northwest to southeast and offshore from Taranaki and Wanganui, then directly above the southern Manawatu and Wairarapa.
Easily visible (if skies are clear) from between lines from Auckland to East Cape and Hokitika to Christchurch, and low in the sky from further away.
The sky might be too light to see the ISS when it's low in the NW, but if so, it should be visible higher up and in darker sky around 5:51:00 to 5:52:30,
5:52:50 pm onward, passes along and above the Taranaki Bight, just offshore from Opunake, Hawera, Patea, Waverly, Wanganui and Ratana.
5:53:14 passes above and between Himatangi and Foxton on the Manawatu coast.
5:53:27 crosses the Wairarapa coast near Castlepoint.
5:56:15 pm – Enters Earth's shadow E of Clutha, SE of the Chatham Islands.
Figures for Manawatu
5:47:52 pm – Rises (not visible yet) – NW – 2,315 km distant
5:49:56 pm – Reaches altitude 10° (becoming visible) – NW – 1,463 km distant
5:53:12 pm – Maximum altitude 85° – SW – 415 km distant
5:56:15 pm – Enters Earth's shadow, altitude 12° – SE – 1,361 km distant
One thing I’ve noticed about many hoax theorists is that they attack us, the defenders of Apollo, and they attack NASA as an organization, but they tend to hesitate personally attacking any of the high-profile individuals at NASA. Of course by making the claims that they do, and by going after NASA, they are by extension attacking the astronauts and all the people who were part of Apollo. When we point that fact out, the HB will often start backpedaling. They’ll sometimes say something like the astronauts were forced into it, or they we just doing what their country asked of them, etc. I guess some HBs just don’t have the guts to put a name and a face to the people they are calling criminals. Instead they blame the namely and faceless “powers that be”.
Figures for Manawatu
5:47:52 pm – Rises (not visible yet) – NW – 2,315 km distant
5:49:56 pm – Reaches altitude 10° (becoming visible) – NW – 1,463 km distant
5:53:12 pm – Maximum altitude 85° – SW – 415 km distant
5:56:15 pm – Enters Earth's shadow, altitude 12° – SE – 1,361 km distant
Still wondering why you continue to pursue this to such extreme unreasonable lengths when anybody can see that a test of this sort will never satisfy you despite what you say.
I think or at least used to think that it was the quick route to the much more important Independent 9-11 investigation.
I'm bewildered by the level of resistance from educated men. It's a simple thing. A validation.
Although I understand the fear that NASA can't validate its claim.
And that's what would lead to 9-11 truth.
If it was revealed that the government lied big about NASA, people would be more agreeable to confronting the harder truth about 9-11.
And you're wrong. The test before independent witnesses would satisfy me. I'm sick of this subject and want it settled.
Your ultimate goal is to get 9/11 investigated and you somehow got in your head that this is the way to make it happen.
And you're wrong. The test before independent witnesses would satisfy me. I'm sick of this subject and want it settled.
Once low earth vacuum was reached the sublimator could be turned on but that would probably result in an immediate loss of vacuum. I doubt this test can be done in a vacuum chamber on Earth.
A big thank you to Zakalwe for posting this: https://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/handle/1911/14662/7023573.PDF?sequence=1
Bravo! Good stuff.
But I'm still looking for a book published before 2007 that mentions spacesuit ice sublimators. Abaddon gave Heat and Mass Transfer - Anthony Mills - 1995 - ISBN 0256114439 but I don't see anything about spacesuit ice sublimators.
Also, I know there's contention about the photograph of an ice sublimator with some claiming it was available since 1997 and my saying I couldn't find it in 2007. I'm sure there are tricks I don't know for bringing buried stuff to the surface of the Internet. Please indulge with instruction on how to find a second photograph of a spacesuit ice sublimator. Currently only one shows when you do the Google Image search. Please educate me in how to bring the others to the surface.
Why is James Philip Shero not an independent witness? Remember him? He's the guy from Rice University who, in 1969, wrote his doctoral thesis "Porous Plate Sublimator Analysis". I linked to his paper way back on page 1, post 7. In case you've forgot, here's the link again:
https://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/handle/1911/14662/7023573.PDF?sequence=1
Dr. Shero ran experimental tests in a vacuum on several different porous plates. He not only proved that they work, but he computed their effectiveness.
Why do you ignore that this independent researcher performed and documented exactly what you've been asking for?
I picked the timing from in-the-sky.org for my location. I didn't time it myself, but 5.5mins seems fairly accurate from watching experience. Fairly close to sea level at observation point, but land rises both at the point where it enters my view and where it departs.
Consider him ignored no longer. I think he would be an excellent addition to the independent witness group.
But I'm still looking for a book published before 2007...
...I don't see anything about spacesuit ice sublimators.
I'm sure there are tricks I don't know for bringing buried stuff to the surface of the Internet.
Consider him ignored no longer. I think he would be an excellent addition to the independent witness group.
The goalpost nearly hit me. Thanks for stating it before me. :)
Careful with those goalposts, they could hurt someone if you move them too quickly.
Prepared to retract your BS about Lunar Orbiter yet?
Why is James Philip Shero not an independent witness? Remember him? He's the guy from Rice University who, in 1969, wrote his doctoral thesis "Porous Plate Sublimator Analysis". I linked to his paper way back on page 1, post 7. In case you've forgot, here's the link again:
https://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/handle/1911/14662/7023573.PDF?sequence=1
Dr. Shero ran experimental tests in a vacuum on several different porous plates. He not only proved that they work, but he computed their effectiveness.
Why do you ignore that this independent researcher performed and documented exactly what you've been asking for?
Consider him ignored no longer. I think he would be an excellent addition to the independent witness group.
Damn the bad luck. http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/OBITUARIES/2008-06/1212306659
But he'd allegedly be in a hermetically sealed suit for more than twelve hours requiring sublimator cooling at vacuum and other cooling on the way to vacuum. He'd need an umbilical to augment the sublimator. Once low earth vacuum was reached the sublimator could be turned on but that would probably result in an immediate loss of vacuum.
I doubt this test can be done in a vacuum chamber on Earth.
If they wanted to simulate real moon surface conditions, they'd have to illuminate the spacesuit with enough light that on the moon brings the surface temperature up to about 240 degrees F.Which they did (surely you don't believe that they would send an untested suit into space, now do you??). Read the quotation that I linked to, "...I'm the little thing at the bottom in a cage of heaters, testing and checking out the spacesuit, stepping up and down on the step to put a controlled heat input into the suit"
Let's see your detailed analysis of this document. With calculations please.
http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19720005423
Have you ever tried to look at the ISS through a small telescope? It's not that hard...transit times are publicly available from a myriad of sources.
www.heavens-above.com
He already performed the test you say never happened.
Consider him ignored no longer. I think he would be an excellent addition to the independent witness group.
Damn the bad luck. http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/OBITUARIES/2008-06/1212306659
A big thank you to Zakalwe for posting this: https://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/handle/1911/14662/7023573.PDF?sequence=1That was published in November, 1969. What more do you want?
Bravo! Good stuff.
But I'm still looking for a book published before 2007 that mentions spacesuit ice sublimators.
Abaddon gave Heat and Mass Transfer - Anthony Mills - 1995 - ISBN 0256114439 but I don't see anything about spacesuit ice sublimators.Did you buy the book or not? Or did you simply view the few excerpts available online and give up?
Also, I know there's contention about the photograph of an ice sublimator with some claiming it was available since 1997 and my saying I couldn't find it in 2007.Once again, your abject failures do not apply to everyone else. They are your failures and yours alone.
I'm sure there are tricks I don't know for bringing buried stuff to the surface of the Internet.I am sure you are incapable of finding your butt with both hands when it comes to research. You have demonstrated such right here.
Please indulge with instruction on how to find a second photograph of a spacesuit ice sublimator.I will indulge you if you will honour the invoice for your education.
Currently only one shows when you do the Google Image search.Then you are doing it wrong. You have been provided with copious images, videos and technical documentation gratis. All of which are freely available on the webernets, all of which you could have googled all on your lonesome.
Please educate me in how to bring the others to the surface.Will you accept and honour the invoice for such an expenditure of time and effort? I ask because so far, you seem to be reluctant to acquire any learning at all, and given that, I would be reluctant to impart any education which will fall upon deaf feet of clay.
Please educate me in how to bring the others to the surface.QuoteWill you accept and honour the invoice for such an expenditure of time and effort? I ask because so far, you seem to be reluctant to acquire any learning at all, and given that, I would be reluctant to impart any education which will fall upon deaf feet of clay.
Make sure the currency is deposited and cleared for the proper time before spending your time and effort. ;D
Scathing Abaddon - but fair :)
Scathing Abaddon - but fair :)Commercial reality. All of the products that my company produces have a hari-kiri routine built in. You no pay? Software no work anymore. It is pure self defense against those who attempt to score a freebie.
Consider him ignored no longer. I think he would be an excellent addition to the independent witness group.
Damn the bad luck. http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/OBITUARIES/2008-06/1212306659
Figures for Manawatu
5:47:52 pm – Rises (not visible yet) – NW – 2,315 km distant
5:49:56 pm – Reaches altitude 10° (becoming visible) – NW – 1,463 km distant
5:53:12 pm – Maximum altitude 85° – SW – 415 km distant
5:56:15 pm – Enters Earth's shadow, altitude 12° – SE – 1,361 km distant
I agree with those figures so we are left with (20/360)*26500=1458 miles. 1458 m/(5 min/60 min/hr) results in 17496 mph. I believe the right triangle Apollo 957 is not as he stated. Now all these figures are average and precise calculations would refine the answers down to less errors.
I'm sick of this subject and want it settled.
A big thank you toZakalweBob B. for posting this: https://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/handle/1911/14662/7023573.PDF?sequence=1
Bravo! Good stuff.
But I'm still looking for a book published before 2007 that mentions spacesuit ice sublimators.
A big thank you toZakalweBob B. for posting this: https://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/handle/1911/14662/7023573.PDF?sequence=1
Bravo! Good stuff.
You're welcome. Can I assume that Dr. Shero's analysis satisfies all your doubts about porous plate sublimators? His methods seem quite thorough and his results convincing.But I'm still looking for a book published before 2007 that mentions spacesuit ice sublimators.
Since you are still making the claim in 2015, 2007 is irrelevant. Nonetheless, here are a few publications that I found with a couple minutes of looking.
ASHRAE Handbook & Product Directory, The Society, 1978 (https://books.google.com/books?id=wTlSAAAAMAAJ&q=porous+plate+sublimator&dq=porous+plate+sublimator&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAmoVChMI4YOY7MnMxwIVhJQeCh0hEQrN)
Control of Thermal Balance by a Liquid Circulating Garment Based on a Mathematical Representation of the Human Thermoregulatory System, University of California, Berkeley, 1975 (https://books.google.com/books?id=FbhHUi5wDQ8C&q=porous+plate+sublimator&dq=porous+plate+sublimator&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CC8Q6AEwADgUahUKEwi2xfjKzMzHAhWKpB4KHRjkBTs)
A Collection of Technical Papers: AIAA Crew Equipment Systems Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, November 7-9, 1973 (https://books.google.com/books?id=sEUNAQAAMAAJ&q=porous+plate+sublimator&dq=porous+plate+sublimator&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEAQ6AEwA2oVChMIzYzo5cvMxwIVAXYeCh2duAY8)
The term sublimator has been defined in the Clavius glossary since 2002.
But I'm still looking for a book published before 2007 that mentions spacesuit ice sublimators
Thanks for doing this Bob.
I limited my selection to non-NASA sources.
Ironically, it came out of a vacuum in the first place, practically ex nihilo, pulled out of thin . . . not even air.I limited my selection to non-NASA sources.
Wise in the circumstances.
ETA: In fact Neil, are you aware of Google Scholar. Type porous plate sublimator into the search bar, and your before 2007 argument evaporates into thin air, or should I say sublimates into the vacuum. ;D
ETA: In fact Neil, are you aware of Google Scholar. Type porous plate sublimator into the search bar, and your before 2007 argument evaporates into thin air, or should I say sublimates into the vacuum. ;D
But I'm still looking for a book published before 2007 that mentions spacesuit ice sublimators.
Why? Would these things suddenly start working on their own after 2007 and not before?Apparently that is when Neil started looking for them causing NASA to plant info about them in books and on the web or something
Why? Would these things suddenly start working on their own after 2007 and not before?
Baker claims that until he personally started researching sublimators in 2007 there was insufficient material available to determine whether they existed and worked as claimed.
He changed horses though, and switched to demanding a video demonstrating that the PLSS sublimator works in a vacuum. When provided with a photo he asked how that proves the PLSS is in a vacuum. So, how do we prove that the video is in a vacuum? I would imagine if he was shown footage of the vacuum gauge this would not be enough either. I woke this morning to find he had jumped back on the pre-2007 evidence horse.Rather like pushing against a puddle of mercury.
Rather like pushing against apuddlemound ofmercurybullshit.
and especially this one...
1965 - https://www.google.com/patents/US3170303
Which contains a detailed & comprehensive description of how the porous plate sublimator works...complete with cutaway diagrams
Ok I can accept that correction, poor janitors around here.Rather like pushing against apuddlemound ofmercurybullshit.
There, corrected that for you ;)
When he finds out that the books written after 2007 refer to material written before 2007 it's really going to mess his mind up.
That patent was linked to on page 1 of the thread just over an hour after Baker's opening post. Along with Dr. Shero's thesis.
When he finds out that the books written after 2007 refer to material written before 2007 it's really going to mess his mind up.His assertion will be all of this material was post written because he agitated for the information.
Can we have a vacuum chamber big enough to fit a CSM in as well, to test the evaporative cooling systems on that?
Can we have a vacuum chamber big enough to fit a CSM in as well, to test the evaporative cooling systems on that?
Is this the Chamber B or is there another one around somewhere?Can we have a vacuum chamber big enough to fit a CSM in as well, to test the evaporative cooling systems on that?
Yes, that was done. And we still do it today, in much the same way. The spacecraft is wheeled into the altitude test chamber and the pressure brought down to the appropriate vacuum. Then radiant heat is applied, and the thermal control systems allowed to come to equilibrium. Lots of telemetry ensues. In fact, individual spacecraft generally must pass a round of these kinds of tests as part of customer acceptance.
That patent was linked to on page 1 of the thread just over an hour after Baker's opening post. Along with Dr. Shero's thesis.
Stop making stuff up. You are just wildly thrashing about now. I showed you two images that you clearly had never seen before. One was an astronaut inside the test chamber- the other was as he was about to enter. Or are you that ignorant of things that you never heard of an airlock???
Here's a quote from Schweikart "I remember standing at the bottom of the huge altitude test chamber A in Houston-this thing something like one hundred and twenty feet high and eighty feet in diameter [...] testing and checking out the spacesuit. [....] Not only did I have all of the systems of the systems in the suit which could fail, and the backpack which could fail, but I had all of the failure modes of the test chamber, which could also kill me" http://librarun.org/book/51138/371
The backpack didn't fail and it didn't kill him, ergo, it worked.
Of course, you'll just handwave this away or just ignore it. Again.
Actually, I'd seen those photos before. But so long ago that I forgot about them. The one photo with the radiative heaters? on is interesting because they apparently have bars blocking the direct radiation. The size of the chamber sure seems like overkill but then again with a sublimator sublimating maybe it's necessary.Your doubt is based on your ignorance of the test. Doubt and ignorance does not mean that something didn't happen. Again, I have shown you the test images and provided a quotation from the man that carried out the test. A normal person would change their view, but you aren't normal, are you Mr Baker? (https://web.archive.org/web/20070126172014/http://www.dailynexus.com/article.php?a=12946)
I am very ignorant. I don't KNOW anything about the sublimators. I can only believe. I haven't witnessed PROOF of anything.
Unlike most of you, I'm also scientifically honest. NASA has not been accountable.Which they did (surely you don't believe that they would send an untested suit into space, now do you?Which is the basis of this discussion. Of course they wouldn't send an untested suit. So where's the video of one being tested. Oh sure, they tested them and tested them for more than 50 years but not a single video. Plenty of video of spacesuits in swimming pools but none in a vacuum chamber down the hall. Anomaly. Focus.By the way, I'm still waiting for your analysis of the document that I showed you here:Let's see your detailed analysis of this document. With calculations please.
http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19720005423
It's an interesting document and thank you again for posting it. It's interesting how they say they did the sublimator test. They put the sublimator in a vacuum chamber without putting the astronaut inside. Something is very suspicious about that but I need to think about it a bit longer. What calculations are you expecting? Don't hold your breath waiting.I'm also waiting for you to acknowledge this:Have you ever tried to look at the ISS through a small telescope? It's not that hard...transit times are publicly available from a myriad of sources.
www.heavens-above.com
No, but I have watched with the naked eye what NASA says is a manned ISS passing by overhead. How do you KNOW there are people aboard?
He changed horses though, and switched to demanding...
Maybe they just continue to run the pumps while the tests are running? Now, I am not nearly so educated as many of the fine folks here, and I don't claim to be, but that would keep it from building up at least, yes?
But he'd allegedly be in a hermetically sealed suit for more than twelve hours requiring sublimator cooling at vacuum and other cooling on the way to vacuum. He'd need an umbilical to augment the sublimator. Once low earth vacuum was reached the sublimator could be turned on but that would probably result in an immediate loss of vacuum. I doubt this test can be done in a vacuum chamber on Earth. If they wanted to simulate real moon surface conditions, they'd have to illuminate the spacesuit with enough light that on the moon brings the surface temperature up to about 240 degrees F.
Raul Blanco at NASA's Johnson Space Center, a salt of the Earth sounding guy, assured me they test the spacesuits with sublimators in vacuum chambers regularly. He also assured me there's nothing classified about a spacesuit or it's cooling system.
I am very ignorant. I don't KNOW anything about the sublimators. I can only believe. I haven't witnessed PROOF of anything.
Unlike most of you, I'm also scientifically honest. NASA has not been accountable.
That patent was linked to on page 1 of the thread just over an hour after Baker's opening post. Along with Dr. Shero's thesis.
And Baker ignored them then, just as he has largely ignored them now.
I am very ignorant. I don't KNOW anything about the sublimators.
I haven't witnessed PROOF of anything.
Unlike most of you, I'm also scientifically honest.
NASA has not been accountable.
So where's the video of one being tested. Oh sure, they tested them and tested them for more than 50 years but not a single video.
It's an interesting document and thank you again for posting it. It's interesting how they say they did the sublimator test. They put the sublimator in a vacuum chamber without putting the astronaut inside.
Something is very suspicious about that but I need to think about it a bit longer.
What calculations are you expecting? Don't hold your breath waiting.
No, but I have watched with the naked eye what NASA says is a manned ISS passing by overhead. How do you KNOW there are people aboard?
A big thank you to Zakalwe for posting this: https://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/handle/1911/14662/7023573.PDF?sequence=1
Bravo! Good stuff.
But I'm still looking for a book published before 2007 that mentions spacesuit ice sublimators. Abaddon gave Heat and Mass Transfer - Anthony Mills - 1995 - ISBN 0256114439 but I don't see anything about spacesuit ice sublimators.
Also, I know there's contention about the photograph of an ice sublimator with some claiming it was available since 1997 and my saying I couldn't find it in 2007. I'm sure there are tricks I don't know for bringing buried stuff to the surface of the Internet. Please indulge with instruction on how to find a second photograph of a spacesuit ice sublimator. Currently only one shows when you do the Google Image search. Please educate me in how to bring the others to the surface.
His assertion will be all of this material was post written because he agitated for the information.
I have listened to that video on the past and finally make the connection, thanks.That patent was linked to on page 1 of the thread just over an hour after Baker's opening post. Along with Dr. Shero's thesis.
And Baker ignored them then, just as he has largely ignored them now.
He specialises in that.
... if you have the time and the patience to count the number of threads where I challenged him and his wild-ass theories, and it went eerily silent....
His assertion will be all of this material was post written because he agitated for the information.
That's the nice thing about delusions, there's no limit to the possibilities.
His assertion will be all of this material was post written because he agitated for the information.
Actually, I'd seen those photos before. But so long ago that I forgot about them.
The one photo with the radiative heaters? on is interesting because they apparently have bars blocking the direct radiation. The size of the chamber sure seems like overkill but then again with a sublimator sublimating maybe it's necessary.So, one one hand you say (in an earlier post) that using a sublimator would destroy the vacuum (how, exactly?), now the chamber is too big. However, you don't appear to have a problem with the fact that there WAS a spacesuit test that took place in a vacuum chamber, so that must infer that you acknowledge that the spacesuit worked, as designed.
I am very ignorant. I don't KNOW anything about the sublimators. I can only believe. I haven't witnessed PROOF of anything.Well, perhaps you could start with reading the copious information that you have been presented with? Then you might learn something about the very items that you are claiming that do not work. You could also withdraw this claim:
Naturally, I wanted to learn more. What does a spacesuit sublimator look like? Specifications? Procedures? Video of one being tested? Photographs? Technical discussions in heat transfer or thermodynamics books? I searched. Strangely and absurdly, I found almost nothing. I received almost nothing.In fact, I insist on it. As you have now been provided with and acknowledged copious sources your claims that there "there was no information in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics books" have now shown to be incorrect. Do yourself a favour, try and regain a shred of decency and withdraw this claim.
I got stonewalled when I appealed for information. Absurdly, there were no photographs. Absurdly, there was no video of spacesuits with ice sublimators being tested. Most absurdly, there was no information in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics books. Absurdly, the alleged manufacturer, Hamilton Sunstrand of United Technologies would only release very elementary information. Absurdly, NASA's Johnson Space Center refused to provide video or photos and stonewalled me instead. Absurdly, the Rice University Department of Mechanical Engineering, most closely associated with Houston's Johnson Space Center refused to comment. Absurdly, my Congressional representatives in two states, California's and Washington's Feinstein, Boxer, Cantwell, Murray, Capps and Hastings, stonewalled me also when I requested their assistance acquiring accountability from NASA.
I'm also scientifically honest.
Which is the basis of this discussion. Of course they wouldn't send an untested suit. So where's the video of one being tested. Oh sure, they tested them and tested them for more than 50 years but not a single video. Plenty of video of spacesuits in swimming pools but none in a vacuum chamber down the hall. Anomaly. Focus.
Think away. When you have finished thinking then feel free to come back and either acknowledge that it works as described OR provide evidence to the contrary. With calculations and test results to back up your findings.Let's see your detailed analysis of this document. With calculations please.
http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19720005423
It's an interesting document and thank you again for posting it. It's interesting how they say they did the sublimator test. They put the sublimator in a vacuum chamber without putting the astronaut inside. Something is very suspicious about that but I need to think about it a bit longer. What calculations are you expecting? Don't hold your breath waiting.
No, but I have watched with the naked eye what NASA says is a manned ISS passing by overhead. How do you KNOW there are people aboard?Well try it with a small telescope. Or even a pair of binoculars. Then you will find that it fits the description of the ISS. And not an inflated construction.
Is this the Chamber B or is there another one around somewhere?Can we have a vacuum chamber big enough to fit a CSM in as well, to test the evaporative cooling systems on that?
Yes, that was done. And we still do it today, in much the same way. The spacecraft is wheeled into the altitude test chamber and the pressure brought down to the appropriate vacuum. Then radiant heat is applied, and the thermal control systems allowed to come to equilibrium. Lots of telemetry ensues. In fact, individual spacecraft generally must pass a round of these kinds of tests as part of customer acceptance.
Most absurdly, there was no information in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics books. Absurdly, the alleged manufacturer, Hamilton Sunstrand of United Technologies would only release very elementary information. Absurdly, NASA's Johnson Space Center refused to provide video or photos and stonewalled me instead. Absurdly, the Rice University Department of Mechanical Engineering, most closely associated with Houston's Johnson Space Center refused to comment.
Baker:It is utterly amazing what information is available IF one looks. Those silly boys at NASA did so much work to fabricate a hoax. ::)
NASA Technical Note D-8093
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19760003073.pdf
The Apollo Experience Report-The Development of the Extravehicular Mobility Unit.
Published Nov 1975 (this blows your ridiculous 2007 argument into the weeds)
Pages 34-44 shows the development of the PLSS and OPS systems. Full schematics are included
Pages 45-59 details the development of the PLSS. Refer to pages 48-50. This details the change from the original design of the PLSS which incorporated a wick-filled water boiler to remove metabolic heat to a porous-plate sublimator. A sectional view shows the construction of the sublimator.
Pages 62-64 details the qualification testing of the PLSS:
"The PLSS was subjected to a total of 20 thermal-vacuum lunar mission profiles, each lasting 3 or 4 hours. Test conditions simulated lunar day, lunar night, and LM cabin temperatures and pressures as well as crewman heat loads and contaminant level inputs. The total PLSS functional performance was evaluated for the three possible startup conditions: after a cold soak (116-K (-250" F) chamber wall temperature for 2 hours), after a hot soak (366-K (200" F) chamber wall temperature for 2 hours), and at ambient conditions."
Baker- please acknowledge that you have read this document. Recognise the publication date- how come your research did not include this?
Unlike most of you, I'm also scientifically honest.
My educated guess is that this is one reason why thermal vacuum chambers have plates cooled by liquid nitrogen. Several volatiles (water, carbon dioxide) would freeze out on such plates, making the job easier for the vacuum pumps.
IHaving worked with UHV systems, water has a very nasty habit of sticking to the walls of vacuum systems. It's a real pain to remove from UHV systems
Yes, that was done. And we still do it today, in much the same way. The spacecraft is wheeled into the altitude test chamber and the pressure brought down to the appropriate vacuum. Then radiant heat is applied, and the thermal control systems allowed to come to equilibrium. Lots of telemetry ensues.My understanding is that thermal vacuum tests, at least for communications satellites, rarely involve solar simulation. It can be done, but is expensive. The spacecraft is powered and operated through hardlines that go through the chamber walls. Usually the walls of the chamber have lines through which coolant at various temperatures can be circulated. The spacecraft is allowed to come to radiative equilibrium with the walls and its correct operation at that temperature is verified. From memory, the range might be -25 C to +50 C, with one of the most severe tests being a power-up at the lowest temperature to see if the crystal oscillators start.
My understanding is that thermal vacuum tests, at least for communications satellites, rarely involve solar simulation.
The fact is, you are a liar!
...NASA has not been accountable...
Of course they wouldn't send an untested suit. So where's the video of one being tested. Oh sure, they tested them and tested them for more than 50 years but not a single video. Plenty of video of spacesuits in swimming pools but none in a vacuum chamber down the hall. Anomaly. Focus.
They put the sublimator in a vacuum chamber without putting the astronaut inside. Something is very suspicious about that but I need to think about it a bit longer...
I have watched with the naked eye what NASA says is a manned ISS passing by overhead. How do you KNOW there are people aboard?
Because countries other than the USA send astronauts to the ISS. What do the Russians, Canadians and miscellaneous Europeans get out of hoaxing the ISS?Not to mention some of the wealthiest (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_tourism#List_of_flown_space_tourists)people on the planet. How would you feel, if you were the kind of person who can spend 25 million or so on a vacation, specifically to spend it on the ISS, only to find you have to spend those couple of weeks cramped up in the Soyuz capsule and then, then find out you have to lie about it and say you spent it in the far roomier ISS. Remember, these are people who are wealthy beyond most of our realistic dreams, powerful individuals who are probably used to getting things their way.
If it's all as suspicious as you say, why didn't the Soviets say anything at the time? Or were they in on the hoax?
The design of the sublimator/CHX for heat and humidity removal was proven in the spacesuit programmes of the USA and USSR and was also selected for breadboarding the ESSS project. The design consisted of a stainless steel heat exchanger core with nickel fins and a sublimator porous plate built up of several layers of wire meshes rolled together (Figure 11.2.18). The breadboard model of an all-European-manufactured sublimator/CHX proved the design worked, but heat removal capacity was lower than predicted. Detailed analyses of the test results revealed the likely cause of reduced heat removal, and the unit was modified to give improved performance.
He'll probably quit posting soon. 2 or 3 weeks from now he'll be back starting a new thread about all the absurdities and how the only way to prove the landings were real is with the demo and act like none of the past few days has even happened. Standard procedure for him over at his usual hang-out, the Michio Kaku video.
Why this obsession with video? CT-ers seem to expect everything to be on the internet in the form of a video. I don't think any lab work I have ever done has ever been videoed - the recording took the form of my lab books & write-ups. Okay, so my specialism isn't engineering, but is video really a "scientifically honest" method of "proof" (proofs are only for mathematicians, Neil!) as Neil insists? I don't think so.
Furthermore, what would Neil expect to see when watching the equipment working in a vacuum chamber, on video or in real life? How would he know it was working? My guess is it would be handwaved away...
My educated guess is that this is one reason why thermal vacuum chambers have plates cooled by liquid nitrogen. Several volatiles (water, carbon dioxide) would freeze out on such plates, making the job easier for the vacuum pumps.
If schadenfreude is truly the (made-up?) German word for taking pleasure at others' misfortunes, I may have to coin 'bakerwhippenassenkickenfreude' for the drubbing he's been receiving here.....Schadenfreude is not made-up. It's not even specific to German as many other languages have a word meaning exactly the same. Would you believe it, the ancient Greeks called it ἐπιχαιρεκακία (epichairekakía), and, I'm told, epicaricacy is an English word.
...Bakerwhippenasskickenfreude...
Of course they had to be in on the hoax. Their spacesuits use porous plate sublimators too. ::)That book includes numerous other mentions of sublimation coolers, used from the early space station missions in the 1970s and still in use for EVAs from the Russian segment of the International Space Station. It also includes several photos of test subjects wearing the suits inside thermal vacuum chambers.
Russian Spacesuits, Isaak P. Abramov and A. Ingemar Skoog, 2003 (https://books.google.com/books?id=f7pZosHqkbEC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false)
...why would me make fun of otherwise ill people who ruined most of their life with an Idée fixe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id%C3%A9e_fixe_%28psychology%29)?
Okay, so my specialism isn't engineering, but is video really a "scientifically honest" method of "proof" (proofs are only for mathematicians, Neil!) as Neil insists? I don't think so.As an aerospace engineer occasionally involved with analysing flight tests, I can say that moving pictures are not normally a part of the process. There are some types of test, such as the release of what are generally known as "stores" from military aircraft, where you want to see where the store goes after release to make sure it doesn't come too close to the aircraft, but in general the data comes from the normal flight instruments and extra sensors where needed.
Okay, so my specialism isn't engineering, but is video really a "scientifically honest" method of "proof" (proofs are only for mathematicians, Neil!) as Neil insists? I don't think so.As an aerospace engineer occasionally involved with analysing flight tests, I can say that moving pictures are not normally a part of the process. There are some types of test, such as the release of what are generally known as "stores" from military aircraft, where you want to see where the store goes after release to make sure it doesn't come too close to the aircraft, but in general the data comes from the normal flight instruments and extra sensors where needed.
...why would me make fun of otherwise ill people who ruined most of their life with an Idée fixe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id%C3%A9e_fixe_%28psychology%29)?
I have never seen that term before although the link is broken is broken for me. I've fixed it for you in this post, hope you don't mind?
If schadenfreude is truly the (made-up?) German word for taking pleasure at others' misfortunes, I may have to coin 'bakerwhippenassenkickenfreude' for the drubbing he's been receiving here.....
If I may, a suggestion for the newly coined word: since in German, -en indicates the infinitive of a verb, I'd remove it from the "assen" part, leaving (note capitalization) Bakerwhippenasskickenfreude.
Why this obsession with video? CT-ers seem to expect everything to be on the internet in the form of a video. I don't think any lab work I have ever done has ever been videoed - the recording took the form of my lab books & write-ups. Okay, so my specialism isn't engineering, but is video really a "scientifically honest" method of "proof" (proofs are only for mathematicians, Neil!) as Neil insists? I don't think so.Videos are the easiest way to get a conception. No long time spent reading, just ten minutes of your life. Society has become accustomed to ease of the internet, the privacy, the anonymity that it provides. In my later years, I too have spent far too long on the net. It can be rewarding as well as alluring.
Furthermore, what would Neil expect to see when watching the equipment working in a vacuum chamber, on video or in real life? How would he know it was working? My guess is it would be handwaved away...
Okay, so my specialism isn't engineering, but is video really a "scientifically honest" method of "proof" (proofs are only for mathematicians, Neil!) as Neil insists? I don't think so.As an aerospace engineer occasionally involved with analysing flight tests, I can say that moving pictures are not normally a part of the process. There are some types of test, such as the release of what are generally known as "stores" from military aircraft, where you want to see where the store goes after release to make sure it doesn't come too close to the aircraft, but in general the data comes from the normal flight instruments and extra sensors where needed.
That's the thing - a video might show that something happens, but that's it. For science, you need to have numbers attached to that - which won't be shown on a video without further analysis anyway. A video will, to give a simple example, show that a ball thrown up will eventually fall back down. But what good is that? To gain anything useful & scientific, you need to know how long it took to fall down/how high it went/where it landed etc etc. The exact stuff which Neil is dismissing...
For science, you need to have numbers attached to that - which won't be shown on a video without further analysis anyway.That involved at least two cine cameras and, in the days before digital images, a lot of measuring of the position within each frame of film of several points on the object you were interested in, so as to reconstruct the trajectory and a record of how the attitude was changing.
Why this obsession with video? CT-ers seem to expect everything to be on the internet in the form of a video. I don't think any lab work I have ever done has ever been videoed - the recording took the form of my lab books & write-ups.
Furthermore, what would Neil expect to see when watching the equipment working in a vacuum chamber, on video or in real life? How would he know it was working? My guess is it would be handwaved away...
I remember reading somewhere that the German engineers who designed and tested the V-2 would crowd around displays during a test, groups of them each recording what he saw on a given dial over time. After the test results would then be collated. Apparently for all their rock-solid engineering smarts, they never thought to point a camera at a dial to record what was happening.
Because they don't have to think as hard.I saw one video on YT that presented similar material of videos inside the CSM. The proponent, I don't remember his handle, believed that all the zero G shots were less than maybe 21 seconds, the amount of time the vomit comet simulates zero G. Therein lies his proof that all the interior videos were filmed in a studio here on Earth, or in the vomit comet.
There is a similar discussion over at ATS involving turbonium, well known to many here, who is demanding video footage of the testing of Apollo suit gloves to prove they were capable of being pressurised and then function properly. It's mostly a diversion from having his ass handed to him for posting one of archangel4mike's stupid videos about John Young not wearing gloves.
It's exactly the same premise as the tactic being employed here: find a topic for which the HB believes there is no evidence and keep gnawing at it in the hope that your detractors will go away. He can't prove that the gloves don't work, but he can prove that there is no video of them being tested (or believes he can). It's a scam to try and accumulate a series of small 'victories' and "A-ha! So you admit..." moments that they hope will add up to some sort of aggregate proof.
Another poster there had a similar thing over photos of crew members in the CSM in Apollo 12. He found that there were none, and decided that was all the proof he needed. The fact that 16mm footage of the crew in the CSM in zero G was available, as well as reflections of crew members in the window while filming the moon, was not of interest to him: there were no tourist "Hey ma look at me" images, ergo proof.
They don't want an answer, they want there not to be an answer. As with our OP here, they don't necessarily believe the argument, they believe that the other person can't provide a counter.
The veil of secrecy that helps hide the very large Hoax. ::)
Aaah so that's why NASA never filmed anything ;)
The proponent, I don't remember his handle, believed that all the zero G shots were less than maybe 21 seconds, the amount of time the vomit comet simulates zero G.Even if that were true, the reason would be more likely a finite supply of cine film. This was always a limiting factor, and the reason why slow frame rates were often used, eg the Apollo 11 crew on the lunar surface. The TV record certainly contains very long sequences.
Why this obsession with video? CT-ers seem to expect everything to be on the internet in the form of a video. I don't think any lab work I have ever done has ever been videoed - the recording took the form of my lab books & write-ups. Okay, so my specialism isn't engineering, but is video really a "scientifically honest" method of "proof" (proofs are only for mathematicians, Neil!) as Neil insists? I don't think so.
Furthermore, what would Neil expect to see when watching the equipment working in a vacuum chamber, on video or in real life? How would he know it was working? My guess is it would be handwaved away...
Wait you are applying logic and thinking to your post, surely you don't expect THAT BEHAVIOR from a Hoaxer? ::)
Even if that were true, the reason would be more likely a finite supply of cine film. This was always a limiting factor, and the reason why slow frame rates were often used, eg the Apollo 11 crew on the lunar surface. The TV record certainly contains very long sequences.
Because video is so easy to do nowadays. Every cellphone/smartphone has a HQ video camera built in, home video cameras are relatively cheap. Even digital still cameras have had basic video capability going back to the mid 2000s, and then video tape cameras before that.Are you suggesting that there was activities prior to the advent of the internet? We all have Al Gore to thank for this. ::) :o
It simply does no occur to them that back in the 1960's, making a movie was not a trivial task. A simple 16 minute video about Lunar Spacesuits like the one I posted earlier would not have been cheap to produce. A 1964 Arriflex IIC shooting at 25 frames/sec will use about 123 feet of film every minute. A 16 minute production will use nearly 2000 feet of film.... that was very expensive back in the day.
I saw one video on YT that presented similar material of videos inside the CSM. The proponent, I don't remember his handle, believed that all the zero G shots were less than maybe 21 seconds, the amount of time the vomit comet simulates zero G. Therein lies his proof that all the interior videos were filmed in a studio here on Earth, or in the vomit comet.
It may well have been him, but maybe someone else. Since my semi-retirement I watched a lot on YT, trying to find new proposals or new evidence. I didn't record any links(in retrospect probably a bad judgment on my part) for future reference. I would just have to go back over them to find the one I wanted to link and ask a question. One particular was a parallax issue that I didn't understand, and started a thread here. Jay and others quickly brought me up on the learning curve quickly.
I'm confident that was Blunder from Down Under.
...I know there's contention about the photograph of an ice sublimator with some claiming it was available since 1997 and my saying I couldn't find it in 2007. I'm sure there are tricks I don't know for bringing buried stuff to the surface of the Internet. Please indulge with instruction on how to find a second photograph of a spacesuit ice sublimator. Currently only one shows when you do the Google Image search. Please educate me in how to bring the others to the surface.
If you're satisfied to continue accepting your faith-based space program, then you either do nothing or continue jabbering with lame links and empty opinions.
Only until recently after my agitation could a photograph of a spacesuit ice sublimator be seen on the Internet. And despite representing one of the most interesting and exotic heat transfer devices ever contrived, no spacesuit ice sublimator is mentioned in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics book.
These photos are cutaway views of a full-scale, engineering model of the Portable Life Support System (PLSS). The colors of the internal components are used to enhance the identification of critical components only. Production models were not color coded.
...All these photographs were taken the Journal Editor, Eric Jones, and were scanned by Frank O'Brien. Our thanks to Joe Kosmo at the NASA Johnson Space Center for providing access to the PLSS model.
Since my semi-retirementI watched a lot on YT,trying to find new proposals or new evidence. I didn't record any links (in retrospect probably a bad judgment on my part) for future reference. I would just have to go back over them to find the one I wanted to link and ask a question. One particular [question] was anparallax issueeffective exhaust velocity problem that I didn't understand, and started a thread here. Jay and others quickly brought me up on the learning curve quickly.
I never pursued any of that series whether blunder or not. I have only contributed to a few on YT quite ineffectively at either obtaining a convert or comment about the HB proposal being wrong. The only conclusive blunder thread was the disgusting series on Apollo 1 fire, that was the last video I've watched or will ever from him.
I've scrubbed out the bits that do not apply to me and added my journey to here. You can see the parallels with my introduction to AH.net. There is far much more fun gained from the reality of Apollo than the hoax.
I pretty much ignored Jarrah's 'short segment film' claim as another absurd bare assertion on his part. I think he arrived at a figure of 30 s being the maximum zero-g film length. I never really pursued it here, and whether there are longer sections. I kind of dismissed it out of hand and didn't want to waste people's time.
Heiwa does exactly the same. he created a preposterous $1Milion dollar challenge-
It's similar to the American euphemism "bathroom" that is used when the speaker actually means toilet, lavatory, dunny, thunderbox etcetera. If anyone ever comes to my place and asks for directions to the bathroom, they will be given them, and if they return and explain that they actually wanted that "other room", they might be loudly asked why they didn't have the good sense say so in the first place.
Heiwa does exactly the same. he created a preposterous $1Milion dollar challenge-
For the record, it's one million euro.
Besides many but not all contain a shower/tub in the same room.
Because it's a perfectly legitimate word and all those other terms are euphemisms, too?
Evasive goal changing M. O. I suspect, to protect "No one has proven me wrong".
Thanks for the correction.
It could be one million Koh-i-Noors as the chances of Bjorkman actually having it, or him declaring that anyone has won it are zero. ;)
Besides many but not all contain a shower/tub in the same room.
Because it's a perfectly legitimate word and all those other terms are euphemisms, too?
I bet that would go as well as stampeding cattle through the Vatican.Kinky...!
I have experience in, among other things, spacecraft integration and test, and vacuum chamber systems -ultra-high vacuum, or UHV as Luke mentioned, to be precise (10-6 torr is a crappy vacuum). If someone asked me to film a test of a sublimator, my first question would be "Why?" It just sits there. It's like proving software works by filming a microprocessor.I believe you have correctly described Mr. Baker.
While there might be movies of sublimators, the idea that it is some sort of vital evidence is laughable - only an ignoramus would make such a silly claim. Moreover, only an ignoramus who is determined to remain ignorant, rather than actually think about the issue.
If someone asked me to film a test of a sublimator, my first question would be "Why?" It just sits there.
It's like proving software works by filming a microprocessor.
Moreover, only an ignoramus who is determined to remain ignorant...
I have experience in, among other things, spacecraft integration and test
Did Apollo undergo integration tests prior to Apollo 11?
The reason I ask is that it occurs to me such a test would have picked up the problem with the 1201 and 1202 alarms caused by the AGC running out of resources when the LM's rendezvous radar was left switched on.
Would an integration test for that scenario have picked up the non-interchangeability of the Lithium Hydroxide cartridges?
With regard to Apollo 13, I read somewhere that using the LM as a lifeboat was something that had been considered well in advance of the launch, and that they knew if they were going to do have to that, they would have problems with the carbon dioxide build up. Would an integration test for that scenario have picked up the non-interchangeability of the Lithium Hydroxide cartridges?
Given that this was the case, why not start studying how to solve the problem in advance of when the CO2 partial pressure began to be a problem? They might have instituted the corrective measures before the event actually happened?
The LM LiHO cartridges were annular, like some older car air filters. The inlet supplied air to the outer perimeter, and the discharge was at the center. This best fit the form factor of the LM ECS, tacked onto the bulkhead on the LMP's side. The CM LiHO were straightforward axial filters. The need to use one filter in the other system was considered, but not deemed sufficiently important to warrant attempting an extensive redesign of either ECS system.
Given that this was the case, why not start studying how to solve the problem in advance of when the CO2 partial pressure began to be a problem? They might have instituted the corrective measures before the event actually happened?
I agree with crew safety concerns were paramount in the initial stages of the event. And I agree with studying a design to be used by someone else especially when you are only talking to them about the procedure by voice. I wasn't really referring to the movie when asked the question, rather since we have a situation like they were faced with do some problem solving (after the initial crew safety issues) into what more COULD happen. I know that is how "we" react to situations where I work, identify the problem, solutions to fix/abate the problem and what more could happen with the given set of circumstances. But that is the engineer in me talking, not the engineers at MCC.
There was just too much to think about in the reactive mode. The Apollo 13 incident is one of the most widely studied incidents in failure analysis, not only from the technical standpoint but from the psychological standpoint. Engineers ironically have to study a lot of pyschology if they build systems that rely on human operators. And the ground teams were focused first on how to save the mission, and thereafter on how to save the crew based on the failures that had already occurred. The movie Apollo 13 overdramatizes it a little, but the CO2 problem wasn't considered crucial until the telemetry made the ground controllers take notice.
Engineers responding to a failure generally think first about how to drive the system to a stable state in order to buy time to fully analyze various solutions. Hence with the crew "safely" in the LM it wasn't immediately apparent that they would overtax the LM's ECS.
If someone asked me to film a test of a sublimator, my first question would be "Why?" It just sits there. It's like proving software works by filming a microprocessor.
If someone asked me to film a test of a sublimator, my first question would be "Why?" It just sits there. It's like proving software works by filming a microprocessor.
Quite. Ralph Rene wrote about the PLSS sublimator and asked why water vapour/ice crystals were not seen being ejected into space from the 'blow-hole' of the PLSS.
I won't labour the reasons for that here, but Neil's demand for a video had me think about Ralph's claim. The reality is that we would not see a thing from the sublimator. That's why I think many of use want him to explain what sublimation means (with or without a phase diagram). One could film a vacuum needle showing a system is being pumped and just sit an unconneted sublimator in the vacuum and it would give the same visual result as the PLSS sublimator operating.
What is Neil expecting? Ralph Rene's venting blow hole? As Andromeda said, the video will show nothing, it is the data obtained that shows the effectiveness.
The decision to leave it switched on was a late change, after integration testing. The phase lock protocol between the redundant radar power supplies wasn't considered a critical factor (or even, at the time, well publicized). Hence it was written off as "no big deal."
Apollo was before the days of optical shaft encoders so the rendezvous radar adapted an device called a Synchro (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchro) that had been widely used during WW2 in naval fire control systems. An actual synchro motor was used on the antenna and a "virtual" one was used on the computer to produce angle information for the A/D converters.
I've read that before I believe, and it raises, yet again, a question us non-techy types can ask: Why, in all heck, would NASA pretend to make mistakes like this that would make them and their contractors look bad? It's not quite on the level of proof, or anything more than circumstantial evidence, but it's a good question nonetheless, I think.
I believe that Dr. Patrick's narrative is incorrect. According to the post flight report http://history.nasa.gov/ap08fj/pdf/a08-missionreport.pdf page 175
The late Dr. Patrick claimed that NASA put mistakes in the "narrative" and even faked Borman's illness to increase the drama or something like that. I'm not digging through hundreds of pages of threads to get his exact words on the subject.
During the 6.l-day lunar orbital flight, the three crewmen accumulated
441 man-hours of space flight experience. For the first time in
the space program, the crew reported symptoms of motion sickness during
the adaptation phase of the intravehicular activity.
I believe that Dr. Patrick's narrative is incorrect. According to the post flight report http://history.nasa.gov/ap08fj/pdf/a08-missionreport.pdf page 175QuoteDuring the 6.l-day lunar orbital flight, the three crewmen accumulated
441 man-hours of space flight experience. For the first time in
the space program, the crew reported symptoms of motion sickness during
the adaptation phase of the intravehicular activity.
Ah ok, I thought that might have been someone who knew something.
Saying Patrick Tekel AKA, DR T, fattydash, Patrick1000 and numerous sock puppets was incorrect is a lot like saying the Pacific Ocean has water in it.
Ah ok, I thought that might have been someone who knew something.
Ah ok, I thought that might have been someone who knew something.
Saying Patrick Tekel AKA, DR T, fattydash, Patrick1000 and numerous sock puppets was incorrect is a lot like saying the Pacific Ocean has water in it.
Ah ok, I thought that might have been someone who knew something.
Saying Patrick Tekel AKA, DR T, fattydash, Patrick1000 and numerous sock puppets was incorrect is a lot like saying the Pacific Ocean has water in it.
I don't dispute that he must have known something, but nothing relevant.
My dad had a selsyn synchro motor system to drive his 20m band cubical quad.Sure it was a Selsyn? They were generally rather low torque, much too low to drive a large HF antenna.
My dad had a selsyn synchro motor system to drive his 20m band cubical quad.Sure it was a Selsyn? They were generally rather low torque, much too low to drive a large HF antenna.
Antenna rotors are common, and virtually all use AC (some use DC) motors to drive gears that turn the antenna. A potentiometer detects mast angle, and this is sent back to the control box where it drives the indicator and stops rotation when it reaches the desired spot.
Anyway, although I now know much more about the sublimators, I still have doubts that astronauts have performed EVAs in the vacuum of space.
Testimony of Independent witnesses observing a spacesuit with sublimator operating in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit is not, in my opinion, an unreasonable request.
I still have doubts that astronauts have performed EVAs in the vacuum of space.Why exactly?
Why is this surprising? The sublimators in the vacuum chamber worked as expected cooling the individual on the tread mill. Only your narrow perspective of how a test should be conducted is in question by all of us.
Reading many of the links provided, it was surprising to learn that none of the test reports indicated that an astronaut was in the vacuum chamber at the same time the sublimator was being tested. They would place the sublimator in a vacuum chamber with a suited astronaut outside on a treadmill. The Rice University tests used an electric heater to supply the heat load for the sublimator in a vacuum chamber. I didn't understand the units he used to describe vacuum chamber pressure.
It is when you are the only one asking for the test, when it has been made abundantly clear they work as advertised in a vacuum. You are holed up in your opinion of yourself and refuse to learn what has been presented.
Anyway, although I now know much more about the sublimators, I still have doubts that astronauts have performed EVAs in the vacuum of space. Testimony of Independent witnesses observing a spacesuit with sublimator operating in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit is not, in my opinion, an unreasonable request.
The only validation is in your mind, the rest of the world accepts that they work, and even has imagery of them working at various locations. These locations you also refuse to acknowledge even though one of them you can see with the naked eye.
If NASA is using those spacesuit for EVAs as they allege then they've been regularly testing them for more than 50 years as they also allege. It should cost nothing extra and pose little inconvenience to allow independent observers. Plus it would add validation to NASA's Citizen supported activity.
I still have doubts that astronauts have performed EVAs in the vacuum of space.Why exactly?
Trebor--I have no reason why it wouldn't be a suitable way to remove heat.So what is the problem exactly?
So what is the problem exactly?
Jay--Well, the fact remains...
As for the no textbook...
But even you should confess that it is strange.
And still, having read what I've read, I'm still a bit confused. None of the test reports indicate that any human in a spacesuit...
your dedicated enthusiasm for Apollo has blinded...
...this area of the technology was not adequately documented to avoid suspicion.
..it was when I went to learn more and found so little of what I expected to find that I started to doubt.
bknight--would you go into space to perform an EVA without having donned that suit and sublimator and tested them in a high vacuum chamber on Earth first?
And except for that one 1966 video of a spacesuit without sublimator failing with a near-fatality, I can't find any others. I've read the comments and I agree that there would be little to see if a vacuum chamber were filmed and little could be proven by it but considering the crucial nature of those tests and the unique nature of the heat transfer device, I'm surprised more public attention wasn't focused on the sublimators.More Orlan vacuum chamber testing
When I went to find more information about them in 2007, I couldn't find a photograph, or a video or a citation in any academic-level book.
I can't understand why they aren't more appreciated.
So what is the problem exactly?
When I went to find more information about them in 2007, I couldn't find a photograph, or a video or a citation in any academic-level book.
.. it's far less than what I expected considering that spacesuit ice sublimators are one of the most exotic heat transfer devices ever developed.
I can't understand why they aren't more appreciated.Probably because there is nothing 'exotic' about them, it is a basic behaviour of water in a vacuum.
I found this book published in 1993 that mentions spacesuit ice sublimators.
https://books.google.com/books?id=fb4QAQAAMAAJ&q=spacesuit+ice+sublimator&dq=spacesuit+ice+sublimator&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDYQ6AEwBDgKahUKEwjty7GimNLHAhXVKYgKHZUTC2k
I searched hard for a second Internet photo of a spacesuit ice sublimator with no success but in 2007 Harold McCann, coauthor of U.S. Spacesuits
http://www.amazon.com/Spacesuits-Springer-Praxis-Books-Exploration/dp/144199565X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1440988637&sr=8-1&keywords=u.S.+spacesuits
sent me two additional photos of ice sublimators from his private collection so I know they exist even though they weren't on the Internet.
And except for that one 1966 video of a spacesuit without sublimator failing with a near-fatality, I can't find any others.
I've read the comments and I agree that there would be little to see if a vacuum chamber were filmed and little could be proven by it...
...but considering the crucial nature of those tests and the unique nature of the heat transfer device, I'm surprised more public attention wasn't focused on the sublimators.
Reading many of the links provided, it was surprising to learn that none of the test reports indicated that an astronaut was in the vacuum chamber at the same time the sublimator was being tested. They would place the sublimator in a vacuum chamber with a suited astronaut outside on a treadmill. The Rice University tests used an electric heater to supply the heat load for the sublimator in a vacuum chamber. I didn't understand the units he used to describe vacuum chamber pressure.
Anyway, although I now know much more about the sublimators, I still have doubts that astronauts have performed EVAs in the vacuum of space. Testimony of Independent witnesses observing a spacesuit with sublimator operating in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit is not, in my opinion, an unreasonable request.
If NASA is using those spacesuit for EVAs as they allege then they've been regularly testing them for more than 50 years as they also allege. It should cost nothing extra and pose little inconvenience to allow independent observers. Plus it would add validation to NASA's Citizen supported activity.
bknight--would you go into space to perform an EVA without having donned that suit and sublimator and tested them in a high vacuum chamber on Earth first?
Is my perspective really that narrow?
It is very puzzling to me why it's only me, especially among this very smart crowd, that is asking for the test.
I have learned what is presented and it's not clear at all that they work as advertised.
The problem is that there's any number of people with similar "perfectly reasonable" requests, and if NASA was to meet your request they'd have to meet everyone else's too. NASA would be left with no money to actually do what the US Congress wants it to.
If I had a freshman thermo class, the question I'd ask them in the course is, how would you cool a spacesuit in the vacuum of space if you had nothing to conduct to, nothing to convect to and no radiator?
What about this page: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/plss.htmlQuote
That's the same photo. Absurdly, the only photo on the Internet. (I possess two others not on the Internet)Do you realise how tight NASA's budget is? You may think your request is perfectly reasonable. The problem is that there's any number of people with similar "perfectly reasonable" requests, and if NASA was to meet your request they'd have to meet everyone else's too. NASA would be left with no money to actually do what the US Congress wants it to.Quote
I suspect I'm the only person that has called NASA asking to witness a spacesuit in a vacuum chamber test. And it wouldn't cost them anything extra.The Soviets/Russians have been using similar techniques for years. Why don't you ask them? Or do you think they've been faking their space record too? Please answer this question as I've now asked it three times.
I don't speak or read Russian, I don't know who to contact. I don't know if they're faking it just like I don't know if we're faking it. I have my doubts because I don't have scientific validation. Neither do you but that hasn't kept you from saying you know something that there's no way for you to know. The best we can do is believe and that's unacceptable.
If I had a freshman thermo class, the question I'd ask them in the course is, how would you cool a spacesuit in the vacuum of space if you had nothing to conduct to, nothing to convect to and no radiator?
No radiator? Isn't that what a sublimator is? A device to radiate heat?
How can you say a spacesuit with a sublimator has no radiator?
here:
That's the same photo. Absurdly, the only photo on the Internet. (I possess two others not on the Internet)
I suspect I'm the only person that has called NASA asking to witness a spacesuit in a vacuum chamber test. And it wouldn't cost them anything extra.
I don't speak or read Russian, I don't know who to contact. I don't know if they're faking it just like I don't know if we're faking it. I have my doubts because I don't have scientific validation. Neither do you but that hasn't kept you from saying you know something that there's no way for you to know. The best we can do is believe and that's unacceptable.
I suspect I'm the only person that has called NASA asking to witness a spacesuit in a vacuum chamber test.
And it wouldn't cost them anything extra.
I don't speak or read Russian,
...I don't have scientific validation. Neither do you...
PeterB--one of the things I learned in heat transfer class was that there are only three modes of heat transfer--conduction, convection and radiation. I haven't been able decide which mode is represented by an ice sublimator.
I haven't been able decide which mode is represented by an ice sublimator.
Trebor--Sublimation should work but that's not the issue. The issue is the validation that it works.
Jay--I'd enjoy a discussion with you but if you're going to hurl hard names and insults at me, I'll just ignore you.
The issue is the validation that it works.
What about this page: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/plss.html
That's the same photo. Absurdly, the only photo on the Internet. (I possess two others not on the Internet)
Do you realise how tight NASA's budget is? You may think your request is perfectly reasonable. The problem is that there's any number of people with similar "perfectly reasonable" requests, and if NASA was to meet your request they'd have to meet everyone else's too. NASA would be left with no money to actually do what the US Congress wants it to.
I suspect I'm the only person that has called NASA asking to witness a spacesuit in a vacuum chamber test. And it wouldn't cost them anything extra.
The Soviets/Russians have been using similar techniques for years. Why don't you ask them? Or do you think they've been faking their space record too? Please answer this question as I've now asked it three times.I don't speak or read Russian, I don't know who to contact. I don't know if they're faking it just like I don't know if we're faking it. I have my doubts because I don't have scientific validation. Neither do you but that hasn't kept you from saying you know something that there's no way for you to know. The best we can do is believe and that's unacceptable.
If you were to tell me that you didn't trust the way I calculated your pay and you wanted to sit with me while I calculated your payroll individually (as opposed to the other few hundred people I'm responsible for), all the while questioning every calculation I did, I'd be getting my time for that job charged back to your work area. I wonder how long your boss would put up with that expense, along with your unproductive time watching me?
Astronaut to LGC: conductive.And "working substance to space" is arguably convection.
LGC to sublimator: convective.
Sublimator secondary to primary: conductive
Sublimator primary to working substance: conductive
f I had a freshman thermo class, the question I'd ask them in the course is, how would you cool a spacesuit in the vacuum of space if you had nothing to conduct to, nothing to convect to and no radiator?
A sublimator liberates heat by facilitating the phase change of ice directly to steam.
Abaddon--I'm sorry but I'm looking for a second photo of a sublimator.
I still have doubts that astronauts have performed EVAs in the vacuum of space. Testimony of Independent witnesses observing a spacesuit with sublimator operating in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit is not, in my opinion, an unreasonable request.
Jay--Well, the fact remains that the photo of the ice sublimator didn't appear in 2007 when I searched. Harold McCann looked also and couldn't find the photo. Also, I was able to make the claim that no photo existed on the Internet until only recently. I don't know exactly when it appeared. It may very well have been there buried deep and we didn't use the correct description to bring it up but it didn't come up when "spacesuit ice sublimator" was typed in the Google search engine.
None of the test reports indicate that any human in a spacesuit ever entered a vacuum chamber that was pumped down to high vacuum conditions. Something is very wrong with the picture and I'm wondering if your dedicated enthusiasm for Apollo has blinded you to the possibility that this area of the technology was not adequately documented to avoid suspicion.
would you go into space to perform an EVA without having donned that suit and sublimator and tested them in a high vacuum chamber on Earth first? Is my perspective really that narrow? I think it should represent common sense of any reasonably responsible astronaut that the answer is no.
So what is the problem exactly?
When I went to find more information about them in 2007, I couldn't find a photograph, or a video or a citation in any academic-level book.
I don't speak or read Russian, I don't know who to contact. I don't know if they're faking it just like I don't know if we're faking it. I have my doubts because I don't have scientific validation. Neither do you but that hasn't kept you from saying you know something that there's no way for you to know. The best we can do is believe and that's unacceptable.
Abaddon--I'm sorry but I'm looking for a second photo of a sublimator.
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTT1Fqkun-qpbbPxfR2dfG3OJ5h7NZbjER9eYLFrJ9iguU-mPyN
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSxGWG8dqlw4MBN-OvLl4kNVhC2aFD_SMDYL8fzbFjOsbcGAdy6
http://enu.kz/repository/2011/AIAA-2011-5187.pdf
And?
Jay--I'd enjoy a discussion with you but if you're going to hurl hard names and insults at me, I'll just ignore you. Please behave. You're very bright.
Jay--Well, the fact remains that the photo of the ice sublimator didn't appear in 2007 when I searched. Harold McCann looked also and couldn't find the photo. Also, I was able to make the claim that no photo existed on the Internet until only recently. I don't know exactly when it appeared. It may very well have been there buried deep and we didn't use the correct description to bring it up but it didn't come up when "spacesuit ice sublimator" was typed in the Google search engine.You continue this line of thought, why? Posters have spoon fed you multiple images and documents that pre-date 2007. I believe you are either inept at researching or too dumb/lazy to do it.
You were given two links of patents that occurred prior to 1993, again you are a poor researcher at best.
As for the no textbook mentioning ice sublimators, I'm not sure the Chinese publication in 2010 was not instigated by my dispute regarding the subject of ice sublimators since I was disputing them in 2007 in many places and nobody presented me with any evidence to the contrary. The Chinese performed a spacewalk in suits that I suspect they say they cooled with sublimators and so might have thought they needed to cover that base. But still, 1993 is the earliest I can find and that's odd too since they've allegedly been using them since at least 1969. But it just might be that I haven't located the book yet. It might be there from 1968. I'll keep searching.
One or a thousand, what difference does that make?
But even you should confess that it is strange. Despite being one of the most interesting heat transfer devices, so little visual information is given regarding them. Except for the one photo and some different line drawings, there's nothing. Yes, video of the tests might not show much but they could have shown the experiment setups with treadmill and suited subject outside the vacuum chamber. Roughing pumps, turbo pumps, gauges. It is an interesting, potentially dangerous and very crucial aspect of the testing program and so, if only from a PR perspective, it is expected that NASA would cover it. If not then, then now when they've finally been challenged to do so.
As my previous post indicated the sublimator was in the vacuum chamber connected by hoses to the individual on the tread mill. Why does this invalidate the test? Your immature obsession with this test is really poorly build.
And still, having read what I've read, I'm still a bit confused. None of the test reports indicate that any human in a spacesuit ever entered a vacuum chamber that was pumped down to high vacuum conditions. Something is very wrong with the picture and I'm wondering if your dedicated enthusiasm for Apollo has blinded you to the possibility that this area of the technology was not adequately documented to avoid suspicion.
All in all of your posts you continue circling around this specific test when similar tests information have been spoon fed. I gave you the benefit of doubt in the beginning, but your continued refusal to comprehend the data and literature linked to you covering well over 50 years and present days usage change that benefit to definitely negative.
Trebor--I have no reason why it wouldn't be a suitable way to remove heat. It sounds cool (no pun intended). I was fascinated when I first learned about it but like I described in my first post, it was when I went to learn more and found so little of what I expected to find that I started to doubt.
PeterB--one of the things I learned in heat transfer class was that there are only three modes of heat transfer--conduction, convection and radiation. I haven't been able decide which mode is represented by an ice sublimator.
A radiator is not a sublimator nor vice versa.
A radiator radiates heat.
A sublimator liberates heat by facilitating the phase change of ice directly to steam.
bknight--would you go into space to perform an EVA without having donned that suit and sublimator and tested them in a high vacuum chamber on Earth first? Is my perspective really that narrow? I think it should represent common sense of any reasonably responsible astronaut that the answer is no.
And this pertains to what portion of the information linked to you many times? Your inability to understand prevents your brain from accepting the obvious.
I've heard the Latin word for truth is veritas. It's where we get the word verify. In a way, from a semantics perspective, the Scientific Method is older than we ever thought although Francis Bacon is supposed to have formalized the procedure.
Trebor--Sublimation should work but that's not the issue. The issue is the validation that it works.
Testimony of Independent witnesses observing a spacesuit with sublimator operating in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit is not, in my opinion, an unreasonable request.
It should cost nothing extra and pose little inconvenience to allow independent observers.
Jay--I'd enjoy a discussion with you....
...but if you're going to hurl hard names and insults at me, I'll just ignore you.
There are any amount of related papers on the subject on that site alone.
Abaddon--I'm sorry but I'm looking for a second photo of a sublimator.
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTT1Fqkun-qpbbPxfR2dfG3OJ5h7NZbjER9eYLFrJ9iguU-mPyN
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSxGWG8dqlw4MBN-OvLl4kNVhC2aFD_SMDYL8fzbFjOsbcGAdy6
http://enu.kz/repository/2011/AIAA-2011-5187.pdf
And?
Out of interest, I had a look at the article at the last link.
At the end of the article were three referenced articles. I Googled the last and got this:
http://papers.sae.org/1999-01-2004/
Only an abstract. But I'm sure that if Mr Baker is serious about getting to the bottom of this issue he shouldn't have a problem spending $25 to buy the full article which, I note, was published in 1999.
And frankly, you sound like someone looking at a platypus swimming around, and saying that because it isn't a mammal (because it lays eggs) and isn't a reptile (because it has fur) then it can't possibly exist.
If I was expected to provide demonstrations of the technology I work on to 'independent observers' on request I would have no time to do the work I am actually paid for in developing that technology.
It's more like someone banging on the door of the Westminster clock tower demanding to take the innards of the clock apart because he doesn't believe in pendulums.
Given the scale of the Apollo project, there's other, far more significant aspects that the astronauts could have taken issue with, but remember they were experienced test pilots, and they were used to placing their trust in their designers and builders.
I'm not trained in any of those sciences/technologies so no problem here. I'm interested in learning from those on the board of a passionate belief.
The pharmaceutical industry would be crippled if they had to meet Neil's acid test for each drug they produce. Of course, the real issue here is that Neil believes he and the PLSS sublimator are special cases. He only makes this demand for the PLSS sublimator, where he has chosen a small piece of technology that he thinks does not work because he unable to carry out basic research (as shown by the record here). He thought he had all the aces up his sleeve. In his own words, if he can prove Apollo was hoaxed, maybe his 9-11 claims would be taken more seriously. Sadly for Neil, no one will ever take him seriously now, because we can point to the record here and show that he is a useless researcher that jumps horses and moves goalposts in an attempt to save face.
Neil - Having read Jason's two posts, he does know what he is talking about where biology and human science is concerned. He is also a keen Apollo enthusiast and that is evident from his postings at this forum and the old pro-boards. In as much as Jay and sts60 know about aerospace engineering, and ka9q/smartcooky know about communication systems, and RAF knows about flight systems, and andromeda knows about physics, and OBM/Kiwi know about photography and its analysis. Sorry for those that I have not mentioned (Bob/Raven/AllanF/gwiz/peter/bknight/Apollo957/trebor/gillianren et al)
Neil, the people here know their stuff, and if we don't we tend not to comment and leave it to others with the expertise and knowledge. That's how this forum works, and that's because all of us know how science/engineering works. You do not. For the record, I know how to tie my shoelaces ;)
Funny you should mention the Westminster Clock.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-34051053
Although BBC sometimes insist on referring to the clock as Big Ben.
He only makes this demand for the PLSS sublimator, where he has chosen a small piece of technology that he thinks does not work because he unable to carry out basic research (as shown by the record here).When I asked him earlier he said he saw no reason why it would not work. Which is what I find especially puzzling.
When I asked him earlier he said he saw no reason why it would not work. Which is what I find especially puzzling.
During my stay in London I was properly schooled that Big Ben is not the tower, not the clock, but the 13-ton bell that strikes the hour -- named for Sir Benjamin Hall, the commissioner of works when the clock was installed.
When I asked him earlier he said he saw no reason why it would not work. Which is what I find especially puzzling.
Despite his Latin lesson, Baker mistakes "validation" for verification." In the world of engineering test, those mean entirely different things.)
Indeed in other forums he has made it plain that he doesn't disagree with the physics or the engineering -- only the testing. It shouldn't puzzle you if you remember how conspiracists work. They don't focus so much on stuff that can be independently or factually verified. Having found his McGuffin, Baker settles in for a long goalpost-shifting, nit-picking, quibble over what constitutes a proper, scientifically acceptable test for validation. (Despite his Latin lesson, Baker mistakes "validation" for verification." In the world of engineering test, those mean entirely different things.)
It is very puzzling to me why it's only me, especially among this very smart crowd, that is asking for the test.
I must admit that although I have no sympathy for this approach by Neil, but as an engineer I have an empathy for administering my own tests to a problem. In telecommunications, when a new network is brought into service, it goes through a process of NVQ or Network validation. I was the technical project manager for the first (Pan-european) STM64 Fiber Optic network and was in charge of the testing process. In my mind however the NVQ was written by our manufacturer (Nortel, now long gone), this was tantamount to them sitting an exam, where they not only wrote the questions but marked the exam paper. The arguments I had when elements failed because I introduced my own tests, they called them invalid tests, but I only went down "plausible" paths. I think the end product was a "more" robust network.
In the case of the PLSS testing however, the tests carried out were sufficient and the results are there for people to see. The fact that it did/does work should be sufficient for anybody who does not have a separate agenda for disagreeing with the process.
Baker- what exactly would you expect to see if (and it's a massive "if") yo ruled the world and were able to get NASA to test a suit? A big chamber gets evacuated -how would you verify the vacuum?
...In addition to the cost of the test itself, which I'm sure would be hundreds of thousands of dollars of NASA's budget.
The notion that Baker or his delegates can just show up on the morning of the test with a suitcase full of test equipment, and be allowed to participate, is so ludicrously naive as to merit only laughter. There has to be engineering integration exercises for that type of observation, as well as approvals from the engineering, management, test, and legal representatives of both NASA and the manufacturers involved. Contrary to Baker's naive assurances, his request would add tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs to the test. Baker simply has no accurate idea whatsoever what is involved in aerospace test involving human subjects.
...In addition to the cost of the test itself, which I'm sure would be hundreds of thousands of dollars of NASA's budget.
The notion that Baker or his delegates can just show up on the morning of the test with a suitcase full of test equipment, and be allowed to participate, is so ludicrously naive as to merit only laughter. There has to be engineering integration exercises for that type of observation, as well as approvals from the engineering, management, test, and legal representatives of both NASA and the manufacturers involved. Contrary to Baker's naive assurances, his request would add tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs to the test. Baker simply has no accurate idea whatsoever what is involved in aerospace test involving human subjects.
Naivety is a gross exaggeration, IMHO. :)
I assume Mr Baker was planning on piggy-backing on a test which NASA was going to conduct anyway, thus his naive assumption of no additional costs...
And still, having read what I've read, I'm still a bit confused. None of the test reports indicate that any human in a spacesuit ever entered a vacuum chamber that was pumped down to high vacuum conditions. Something is very wrong with the picture and I'm wondering if your dedicated enthusiasm for Apollo has blinded you to the possibility that this area of the technology was not adequately documented to avoid suspicion.
As my previous post indicated the sublimator was in the vacuum chamber connected by hoses to the individual on the tread mill. Why does this invalidate the test? Your immature obsession with this test is really poorly build.
The thing is, Baker already has an image of Schweickart testing the suit AND a direct quotation from the man himself. So he is basically calling him a flat out liar.
The thing is, Baker already has an image of Schweickart testing the suit AND a direct quotation from the man himself. So he is basically calling him a flat out liar.Maybe Neil should stalk Rusty and jump out with a Bible and...
I worked in the pre-Apollo space program helping to develop testing and verification procedures on-site for Atlas and Titan booster systems (at VAFB and DMAFB).
Believe me, extensive testing and verification was critical to anything space-related, especially to systems used both as our last line of defense and to boost humans into orbit. But then, that's no surprise to everyone here except one.
The thing is, Baker already has an image of Schweickart testing the suit AND a direct quotation from the man himself. So he is basically calling him a flat out liar.
I'm not trained in any of those sciences/technologies so no problem here. I'm interested in learning from those on the board of a passionate belief.
The pharmaceutical industry would be crippled if they had to meet Neil's acid test for each drug they produce. Of course, the real issue here is that Neil believes he and the PLSS sublimator are special cases. He only makes this demand for the PLSS sublimator, where he has chosen a small piece of technology that he thinks does not work because he unable to carry out basic research (as shown by the record here). He thought he had all the aces up his sleeve. In his own words, if he can prove Apollo was hoaxed, maybe his 9-11 claims would be taken more seriously. Sadly for Neil, no one will ever take him seriously now, because we can point to the record here and show that he is a useless researcher that jumps horses and moves goalposts in an attempt to save face.
Neil - Having read Jason's two posts, he does know what he is talking about where biology and human science is concerned. He is also a keen Apollo enthusiast and that is evident from his postings at this forum and the old pro-boards. In as much as Jay and sts60 know about aerospace engineering, and ka9q/smartcooky know about communication systems, and RAF knows about flight systems, and andromeda knows about physics, and OBM/Kiwi know about photography and its analysis. Sorry for those that I have not mentioned (Bob/Raven/AllanF/gwiz/peter/bknight/Apollo957/trebor/gillianren et al)
Neil, the people here know their stuff, and if we don't we tend not to comment and leave it to others with the expertise and knowledge. That's how this forum works, and that's because all of us know how science/engineering works. You do not. For the record, I know how to tie my shoelaces ;)
There was even a contingency plan where he could turn off his oxygen loop heater and let the oxygen come from the cryogenic tank as a very cool gas.Oxygen was stored in both the PLSS and OPS tanks at ambient temperature under high pressure. The OPS provided cooling by letting the oxygen flow once through the suit and out to space through a purge valve. It could provide only 30 or 60 minutes of operation even though the OPS bottles contained considerably more oxygen than the PLSS.
And this does not surprise me in any way after 37 pages of going around and around. He gets shown almost 100% of what he seeks and still does not accept the facts. It seems obvious to me that he doesn't really want the sublimator test, it is in operation on a routine basis on a space station he does not acknowledge.
I'm not trained in them, either, but it's astonishing to discover that I actually understand sublimation better than Neil.
...
...I'm utterly flabbergasted by your stating the obvious. But the volunteers work in spacesuits cooled by the very device you ask. You have been shown many images and yet you fail to connect the obvious to the test you so blatantly ask, which by the way will not ever happen.
If somehow the witnessed test that I want was ordered, I doubt they'd find any volunteers to wear the suit inside while the chamber got pumped down to high vacuum. I'm still doubting. I lean even a bit more toward hoax.
The last thing I read on this site last night was someone telling me that testing a spacesuit with an astronaut in it was immoral.Oh, goody. Reading comprehension fail.
When I was in the Navy I had to attend firefighting school three times where they would make us don an oxygen breathing apparatus (OBA) and enter a steel compartment on land modeled after the compartment of a ship that was engulfed in flames with smoke pouring out of it to put out the fire. It was seriously dangerous. People would sometimes get hurt. It was scary. But it was a tremendous confidence booster. We had fire drills twice a day on the carrier I was stationed aboard and we once had a bad fire in a paint locker that we had to extinguish. After the USS Forrestal fire, nobody could serve aboard ship without having gone through firefighting school. The entire crew, from the highest ranking officer to the lowest enlisted, consisted of trained firefighters that had experienced fighting fires in smoke-filled fire-engulged rooms while wearing an OBA.So what? NASA is not a military outfit, different health and safety rules apply, and it would add nothing to test a sublimator with an actual live astronaut present. The sublimator simply deals with a heat load. Whence that heat load originates is irrelevant. If you are going to claim that it does, then you are faced with the inevitable consequence that you must perforce claim that the sublimator is able to distinguish between human body heat and other sources of heat, by magic. You must claim that there are different and identifiable characteristics to heat energy all of which are detected by a sublimator and that such data is used by the sublimator to modulate it's behaviour.
In boot camp we had to enter a teargas-filled room wearing a gas mask and then take off the mask before rushing out of the room suffering the expected horrible symptoms.
So this situation where it appears due to alleged morality reasons that no spacesuit has been tested in a high vacuum chamber with a person in it just makes the alarms in my head go off even louder. It's like saying it would be immoral to fight a fire in a compartment on land because it's dangerous; let's wait until we have a fire on a ship to fight one.You have been provided with such. Stop pretending you have not.
I think it's common sense. If I'm going to the ISS to perform an EVA, I first don the spacesuit and enter the high vacuum chamber on Earth and pump down to 1e-6 torr. I probably want to do it many times. While I'm in there they shut off the sublimator to perform the recovery drill. They drill other stuff too, loss of electricity, loss of air, loss of spacesuit integrity. I'd probably want to go in with another astronaut to practice the buddy system of PLSS troubleshooting and emergency procedures. And while we're in there we want the whole thing video recorded for replay and post-test analysis.And they do those very things. You are labouring under the delusion that all data must be uploaded to the internet, even though it plainly is not, and that your established ineptitude at finding that which has been uploaded is probative of anything other than your incompetence.
There's nothing immoral about it. It's very moral. There's not a single NASA astrounaut that has trained for an EVA that shouldn't have some test video. It's absurd that it doesn't exist.It is immoral to exposed people to insane and pointless risk.
If somehow the witnessed test that I want was ordered, I doubt they'd find any volunteers to wear the suit inside while the chamber got pumped down to high vacuum. I'm still doubting. I lean even a bit more toward hoax.Yet that is exactly what is done. You have been provided with photographic, video, scientific and witness evidence that you claim does not exist. You have demonstrated your ineptitude at research to the point where you had to beg "How did you find that?" like a plaintive child.
There's not a single NASA astrounaut that has trained for an EVA that shouldn't have some test video. It's absurd that it doesn't exist.
If somehow the witnessed test that I want was ordered, I doubt they'd find any volunteers to wear the suit inside while the chamber got pumped down to high vacuum. I'm still doubting. I lean even a bit more toward hoax.
Access: a) 12.2 m (40 ft) diameter side-hinged door[bolded for emphases]
b) Dual crewlocks at floor level and 9.4 m (31 ft) level, measuring 2.4 m high, 3.4 m wide, and 3.9m long (8 x 11 x 12.8 ft)
c) 13.7 m (45 ft) diameter (180( rotating floor
d) Door at 18.9 m (62 ft) level
e) Catwalk platform at 9.4 m (31 ft) and 18.9 m (62 ft) levels
Now it appears they've never tested a spacesuited astronaut while in a vacuum chamber at all except for that last documented test way back in 1966 when the suit failed causing a near fatality.
the only way your going to get your test is to become President.
The last thing I read on this site last night was someone telling me that testing a spacesuit with an astronaut in it was immoral.
And then we'd have an Independent Holocaust Investigation.
And then we'd have an Independent Holocaust Investigation.
[SNIP]Funnily enough, a week ago I had never even heard of a sublimator. Now I know a fair bit about them, and have a ton of sources I could easily pursue to learn more were I so inclined.
I am very ignorant. I don't KNOW anything about the sublimators.
[SNIP]
We have other places on this forum if you wish to discuss such conjectures, Neil Baker.
And then we'd have an Independent Holocaust Investigation.
Wow. Just. Wow.
And then we'd have an Independent Holocaust Investigation.
Wow. Just. Wow.
The last thing I read on this site last night was someone telling me that testing a spacesuit with an astronaut in it was immoral.
Nope they didn't say immoral.
NASA has never publicly demonstrated before independent witnesses a spacesuit with ice sublimator cooling system in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit.
Now it appears they've never tested a spacesuited astronaut while in a vacuum chamber at all except for that last documented test way back in 1966 when the suit failed causing a near fatality.
I'm puzzled more why they won't even show a video of an ice sublimator in a vacuum chamber with the astronaut outside running on the treadmill.
Funnily enough, a week ago I had never even heard of a sublimator. Now I know a fair bit about them, and have a ton of sources I could easily pursue to learn more were I so inclined.
A government you tried to get elected to be part of . . .
Funnily enough, a week ago I had never even heard of a sublimator. Now I know a fair bit about them, and have a ton of sources I could easily pursue to learn more were I so inclined.
Funny? You think that's funny? It's not funny. It's the anomaly that could, if more of the engineers here would demonstrate courage, bring down the government of the First Republic of the United States.
And then we'd have an Independent Holocaust Investigation.
Wow. Just. Wow.
It's worse than NASA.
No documented gas chambers.
Nowhere near enough ovens.
Lice insecticide, Zyklon B, still manufactured as Uragan D2 with the charges that it was used as an agent of mass murder scoffed at by its Czech Republic manufacturers.
Worst, outrageous thought crime laws in 14 nations prohibiting the questioning or investigation of the holocaust.
GOD bless America!
An International group of forensic experts could make quick work of this hoax if they were allowed in.
I recommend this website to deprogram yourself from the holocaust garbage they fed you in public school.
http:// [LINK REMOVED] /
NASA has never publicly demonstrated before independent witnesses a spacesuit with ice sublimator cooling system in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit.
And you seem to be the only person on the face of the planet that gives a crap. They tested it. It works. A public demonstration with independent witnesses is unnecessary.Now it appears they've never tested a spacesuited astronaut while in a vacuum chamber at all except for that last documented test way back in 1966 when the suit failed causing a near fatality.
How did you come up with this?I'm puzzled more why they won't even show a video of an ice sublimator in a vacuum chamber with the astronaut outside running on the treadmill.
You mean, why isn't there a video posted on the Internet that I can easily find? How do you know that there's not a can of film sitting around somewhere on a dusty shelf that shows this? It could be that nobody thinks it's interesting or important enough to go find it, convert it to video, and post it on the web.
And then we'd have an Independent Holocaust Investigation.
Wow. Just. Wow.
It's worse than NASA.
No documented gas chambers.
Nowhere near enough ovens.
Lice insecticide, Zyklon B, still manufactured as Uragan D2 with the charges that it was used as an agent of mass murder scoffed at by its Czech Republic manufacturers.
Worst, outrageous thought crime laws in 14 nations prohibiting the questioning or investigation of the holocaust.
GOD bless America!
An International group of forensic experts could make quick work of this hoax if they were allowed in.
I recommend this website to deprogram yourself from the holocaust garbage they fed you in public school.
http:// [LINK REMOVED] /
A government you tried to get elected to be part of . . .
Funnily enough, a week ago I had never even heard of a sublimator. Now I know a fair bit about them, and have a ton of sources I could easily pursue to learn more were I so inclined.
Funny? You think that's funny? It's not funny. It's the anomaly that could, if more of the engineers here would demonstrate courage, bring down the government of the First Republic of the United States.
NASA has never publicly demonstrated before independent witnesses a spacesuit with ice sublimator cooling system in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit.Such has been spoonfed to you, yet you continue to lie about it.
Now it appears they've never tested a spacesuited astronaut while in a vacuum chamber at all except for that last documented test way back in 1966 when the suit failed causing a near fatality.Another lie. Is there no end to your duplicity?
I'm puzzled more why they won't even show a video of an ice sublimator in a vacuum chamber with the astronaut outside running on the treadmill.And this would be evidence of what, exactly?
Our space program is currently a mythological faith-based thing. You insist upon it remaining so."Our space program"? Really? ESA, Roscosmos, China, India, Pakistan and so forth might be tapping on your shoulder.
Oh brother, here we go again. They said immoral.
And then we'd have an Independent Holocaust Investigation.
Wow. Just. Wow.
It's worse than NASA.
No documented gas chambers.
Nowhere near enough ovens.
Lice insecticide, Zyklon B, still manufactured as Uragan D2 with the charges that it was used as an agent of mass murder scoffed at by its Czech Republic manufacturers.
Worst, outrageous thought crime laws in 14 nations prohibiting the questioning or investigation of the holocaust.
GOD bless America!
An International group of forensic experts could make quick work of this hoax if they were allowed in.
I recommend this website to deprogram yourself from the holocaust garbage they fed you in public school.
http:// [LINK REMOVED] /
My contempt just turned to loathing and disgust. If I posted what I think about you and your ilk I would be banned from the forum.
You aren't worth the effort.
Sweet nobshabkemming help us. Are you now claiming NASA did 911 or is in any way related to 911? I might be true on planet sausage perhaps, but not in the real world.the only way your going to get your test is to become President.
If I were President, I'd bypass NASA and go straight for the jugular by ordering the establishment of an Independent, fully funded and fully empowered 9-11 investigation.
And then we'd have an Independent Holocaust Investigation.
And then we'd have NASA perform a demo.
I think I got zero votes (except mine of course )and Arnold's vision won. Cruz Bustamante came in second. Poor California.
Oh brother, here we go again. They said immoral.
I read the post, and in context it would be unethical which would lead to it being immoral. There is a distinct difference. Ethical pertains to professional practice, moral pertains to society. The two are intrinsically linked.
If I were to gas animals with HCN to find out if they would die, then that would be unethical. We know from research and toxicology that HCN kills, there is no need to carry out that test. Society would then seek my punishment for my immorality.
In any case, you ignored all of my well thought out post about why scientists do not always carry out tests with humans. I asked you a question, why would you carry out a test on a PLSS sublimator with humans when you can carry out bench tests using a simulated metabolic load? Why do you need to go to the expense and trouble of human trials? Why would you not follow scientific practices that are well recognised?
And then we'd have an Independent Holocaust Investigation.
It's worse than NASA.
No documented gas chambers.
Nowhere near enough ovens.
Lice insecticide, Zyklon B, still manufactured as Uragan D2 with the charges that it was used as an agent of mass murder scoffed at by its Czech Republic manufacturers.
Worst, outrageous thought crime laws in 14 nations prohibiting the questioning or investigation of the holocaust.
GOD bless America!
An International group of forensic experts could make quick work of this hoax if they were allowed in.
I recommend this website to deprogram yourself from the holocaust garbage they fed you in public school.
http:// [LINK REMOVED] /
Again, Neil, we do have a sub forum (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?board=7.0) for this kind of bullshit. Dump it and yourself there if you want, I am sure some members will be willing to disprove your claims, but this is not the place.I agree with all that have posted this proposition, Neil DISCONTINUE any posting that is not closely associated with the sublimator.
Terribly sorry old chap, but your expectation of what is or is not loaded on the internet is baseless. Not everything is uploaded to the internet and nobody is under any obligation to do so. You should know this since you claim professional credentials.NASA has never publicly demonstrated before independent witnesses a spacesuit with ice sublimator cooling system in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit.
And you seem to be the only person on the face of the planet that gives a crap. They tested it. It works. A public demonstration with independent witnesses is unnecessary.Now it appears they've never tested a spacesuited astronaut while in a vacuum chamber at all except for that last documented test way back in 1966 when the suit failed causing a near fatality.
How did you come up with this?I'm puzzled more why they won't even show a video of an ice sublimator in a vacuum chamber with the astronaut outside running on the treadmill.
You mean, why isn't there a video posted on the Internet that I can easily find? How do you know that there's not a can of film sitting around somewhere on a dusty shelf that shows this? It could be that nobody thinks it's interesting or important enough to go find it, convert it to video, and post it on the web.
Because NASA alleges they've been testing them for more than fifty years.
NASA alleges they test them now.
An astronaut would be a fool not to test them under conditions as realistic to being at the ISS as possible. There shouldn't be no video. There shouldn't be only one video. There shouldn't be only ten videos. There should be post test videos for every vacuum chamber simulated-EVA.
Actually, I think the post of interest was removed or altered. Perhaps it sounded just too foolish to he who wrote it.
The last thing I read on this site last night was someone telling me that testing a spacesuit with an astronaut in it was immoral.
When I was in the Navy I had to attend firefighting school...
There's not a single NASA astrounaut that has trained for an EVA that shouldn't have some test video. It's absurd that it doesn't exist.
It is funny. You think I give a rats butt about the US gubbmint? Don't live there, not a citizen, have no interest in living in a land which gives rise to cranks like you.
Funnily enough, a week ago I had never even heard of a sublimator. Now I know a fair bit about them, and have a ton of sources I could easily pursue to learn more were I so inclined.
Funny? You think that's funny? It's not funny. It's the anomaly that could, if more of the engineers here would demonstrate courage, bring down the government of the First Republic of the United States.
The TRUTH shall set ye free but first it shall make ye miserable.
Dare to be miserable.
Dare to be free.
The misery is temporary. With eternal diligence, the freedom is forever.
The last thing I read on this site last night was someone telling me that testing a spacesuit with an astronaut in it was immoral.
Hogwash. You said you wanted your witnesses to be able to integrate their own monitoring equipment into the test. Why do you think that wouldn't cost NASA extra? NASA doesn't test every individual sublimator in an all-up test in a full-scale, high-vacuum test with a human subject. Why? Because it's not necessary, and to do so would be unnecessary, immoral, and inefficient. Hence the next vacuum-chamber test of a sublimator is likely to be well into the future, when new sublimator designs require it.
I presume you are ready to retract tis comment?
Actually, I think the post of interest was removed or altered. Perhaps it sounded just too foolish to he who wrote it.
An astronaut would be a fool not to test them under conditions as realistic to being at the ISS as possible.
There should be post test videos for every vacuum chamber simulated-EVA.
Exactly my thoughts, as a fellow engineer, you Jay, it is too embarrassing to call Neil a fellow engineer.
You misunderstand. When NASA tests sublimators, they don't test them using human subjects. They don't run all-up EVA tests in vacuum chambers, with the highly trained astronauts, just to validate equipment.
You really have absolutely no clue whatsoever what is involved in engineering test. How did you manage to get a degree?
How did you manage to get a degree?
And were I so inclined, I could shred him on history, too, but since he isn't responding to me, either, why should I bother?
<snigger>And were I so inclined, I could shred him on history, too, but since he isn't responding to me, either, why should I bother?
We'd better stop contributing, the threads getting long now, and they mostly respond to Jay... mostly.
Well, I tried that forum again to see if he's posted anything there, but, nope, nothing. I guess he isn't so interested after all.Again, Neil, we do have a sub forum (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?board=7.0) for this kind of bullshit. Dump it and yourself there if you want, I am sure some members will be willing to disprove your claims, but this is not the place.I agree with all that have posted this proposition, Neil DISCONTINUE any posting that is not closely associated with the sublimator.
IF you have anything to post on any other subject start a new thread.
But I doubt you will do any better there than you have demonstrated in this thread.
And were I so inclined, I could shred him on history, too, but since he isn't responding to me, either, why should I bother?
We'd better stop contributing, the threads getting long now, and they mostly respond to Jay... mostly.
Our space program is currently a mythological faith-based thing.
I miss any connection Allan. :-[
Newt?
Newt?
Yup.And were I so inclined, I could shred him on history, too, but since he isn't responding to me, either, why should I bother?
We'd better stop contributing, the threads getting long now, and they mostly respond to Jay... mostly.
Newt?
Although, with respect to our current protagonist, perhaps a better one would be...Newt?
You've got it.
Although, with respect to our current protagonist, perhaps a better one would be...Newt?
You've got it.
"Game over, man. Game over."
I'm still lost, this one zinged over my head.Although, with respect to our current protagonist, perhaps a better one would be...Newt?
You've got it.
"Game over, man. Game over."
"I got better!"Although, with respect to our current protagonist, perhaps a better one would be...Newt?
You've got it.
"Game over, man. Game over."
I was thinking more "Did IQs drop sharply while I was away?"
NASA alleges they've been testing them for more than fifty years.
NASA alleges they test them now.
NASA alleges they've been testing them for more than fifty years.
NASA alleges they test them now.
NASA and others have been seen, by the whole wide world, to have been USING them, in the environment for which they were intended, for the last 50 years or so.
You'd have to be a half-blind wombat not to have seen this. There's been live broadcasts, there's been film, video, stills, and a raft of accounts of their activities from the astronauts concerned.
Which bit of this did you miss?
The Orlan is a beautiful piece of engineering, from its easy 'open the back and climb in' entry to its ingenious 'sunroof' porthole in the top of the helmet.NASA alleges they've been testing them for more than fifty years.
NASA alleges they test them now.
NASA and others have been seen, by the whole wide world, to have been USING them, in the environment for which they were intended, for the last 50 years or so.
You'd have to be a half-blind wombat not to have seen this. There's been live broadcasts, there's been film, video, stills, and a raft of accounts of their activities from the astronauts concerned.
Which bit of this did you miss?
Not to mention Russian (which have been in use just as long and more recently Chinese space suits.
Exactly my thoughts, as a fellow engineer, you Jay, it is too embarrassing to call Neil a fellow engineer.
You misunderstand. When NASA tests sublimators, they don't test them using human subjects. They don't run all-up EVA tests in vacuum chambers, with the highly trained astronauts, just to validate equipment.
You really have absolutely no clue whatsoever what is involved in engineering test. How did you manage to get a degree?
Although, with respect to our current protagonist, perhaps a better one would be...Newt?
You've got it.
"Game over, man. Game over."
I was thinking more "Did IQs drop sharply while I was away?"
Funny? You think that's funny? It's not funny. It's the anomaly that could, if more of the engineers here would demonstrate courage, bring down the government of the First Republic of the United States.
QuoteWhen I was in the Navy I had to attend firefighting school...Yes, that's to train you to do something. You can't do that without some risk to a human. I would have thought the difference would be obvious. At least in real life engineering the difference is obvious.
We'd better stop contributing, the threads getting long now, and they mostly respond to Jay... mostly.
You know, you've made so many delusional statements, like a picture available since at least 1997 online is only online and/or available because of your agitation in the mid-late 2000's, it's hard to tell if you don't think your election to Governor of California is enough to make that change.A government you tried to get elected to be part of . . .
Funnily enough, a week ago I had never even heard of a sublimator. Now I know a fair bit about them, and have a ton of sources I could easily pursue to learn more were I so inclined.
Funny? You think that's funny? It's not funny. It's the anomaly that could, if more of the engineers here would demonstrate courage, bring down the government of the First Republic of the United States.
The end of the First, the beginning of the Second.
France is on their Fifth.
To finish the thought, astronauts do train extensively for space walks, and some of the training can be dangerous. Just like it was worthwhile to train firefighters in a potentially dangerous way to improve the chances that they would be successful in a life-threatening emergency.
In Neil's world, the infantry would undergo FIBUA training using fragmentation grenades and live round ammunition and cavalry training would use HESH and sabot rounds. :oCrawling through mud beneath barb wired with live fire above was a close simulation.
And then we'd have an Independent Holocaust Investigation.
Wow. Just. Wow.
It's worse than NASA.
No documented gas chambers.
Nowhere near enough ovens.
Lice insecticide, Zyklon B, still manufactured as Uragan D2 with the charges that it was used as an agent of mass murder scoffed at by its Czech Republic manufacturers.
Worst, outrageous thought crime laws in 14 nations prohibiting the questioning or investigation of the holocaust.
GOD bless America!
An International group of forensic experts could make quick work of this hoax if they were allowed in.
I recommend this website to deprogram yourself from the holocaust garbage they fed you in public school.
http:// [LINK REMOVED] /
And then we'd have an Independent Holocaust Investigation.My contempt just turned to loathing and disgust. If I posted what I think about you and your ilk I would be banned from the forum.
His true colors became vivid this afternoon.And then we'd have an Independent Holocaust Investigation.My contempt just turned to loathing and disgust. If I posted what I think about you and your ilk I would be banned from the forum.
I'll defend a Apollo hoax believer if I believe they are being treated unfairly... but I won't defend a holocaust denying scumbag. They're fair game.
And then we'd have an Independent Holocaust Investigation.My contempt just turned to loathing and disgust. If I posted what I think about you and your ilk I would be banned from the forum.
I'll defend a Apollo hoax believer if I believe they are being treated unfairly... but I won't defend a holocaust denying scumbag. They're fair game.
The last thing I read on this site last night was someone telling me that testing a spacesuit with an astronaut in it was immoral.
When I was in the Navy I had to attend firefighting school three times where they would make us don an oxygen breathing apparatus (OBA) and enter a steel compartment on land modeled after the compartment of a ship that was engulfed in flames with smoke pouring out of it to put out the fire. It was seriously dangerous. People would sometimes get hurt. It was scary. But it was a tremendous confidence booster. We had fire drills twice a day on the carrier I was stationed aboard and we once had a bad fire in a paint locker that we had to extinguish. After the USS Forrestal fire, nobody could serve aboard ship without having gone through firefighting school. The entire crew, from the highest ranking officer to the lowest enlisted, consisted of trained firefighters that had experienced fighting fires in smoke-filled fire-engulged rooms while wearing an OBA.
In boot camp we had to enter a teargas-filled room wearing a gas mask and then take off the mask before rushing out of the room suffering the expected horrible symptoms.
So this situation where it appears due to alleged morality reasons that no spacesuit has been tested in a high vacuum chamber with a person in it just makes the alarms in my head go off even louder. It's like saying it would be immoral to fight a fire in a compartment on land because it's dangerous; let's wait until we have a fire on a ship to fight one.
I think it's common sense. If I'm going to the ISS to perform an EVA, I first don the spacesuit and enter the high vacuum chamber on Earth and pump down to 1e-6 torr. I probably want to do it many times. While I'm in there they shut off the sublimator to perform the recovery drill. They drill other stuff too, loss of electricity, loss of air, loss of spacesuit integrity. I'd probably want to go in with another astronaut to practice the buddy system of PLSS troubleshooting and emergency procedures. And while we're in there we want the whole thing video recorded for replay and post-test analysis.
There's nothing immoral about it. It's very moral. There's not a single NASA astrounaut that has trained for an EVA that shouldn't have some test video. It's absurd that it doesn't exist.
If somehow the witnessed test that I want was ordered, I doubt they'd find any volunteers to wear the suit inside while the chamber got pumped down to high vacuum. I'm still doubting. I lean even a bit more toward hoax.
[SNIP]
If somehow the witnessed test that I want was ordered, I doubt they'd find any volunteers to wear the suit inside while the chamber got pumped down to high vacuum. I'm still doubting. I lean even a bit more toward hoax.
NASA has never publicly demonstrated before independent witnesses a spacesuit with ice sublimator cooling system in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit.
Now it appears they've never tested a spacesuited astronaut while in a vacuum chamber at all except for that last documented test way back in 1966 when the suit failed causing a near fatality.
I'm puzzled more why they won't even show a video of an ice sublimator in a vacuum chamber with the astronaut outside running on the treadmill.
Our space program is currently a mythological faith-based thing. You insist upon it remaining so.
Anyone that would have knowledge of his irrational behavior and illogical thought processes would back away from working for/with him.
Once again reminding you of what I asked in Reply #535:
Neil Baker
I'd be grateful if you could answer the following questions:
1. Is personal validation the only way you verify facts? If not, who do you trust to give you reliable information about subjects you're personally unfamiliar with and how do you verify their reliability? What's to stop you from using this process with people testing PLSSs?
2. If NASA faked Apollo because the spacesuit sublimators didn't or couldn't work, don't you think the Soviets would have been smart enough to work this out? Or do you think they were in on the hoax? If so, why would they go along with something which provided a propaganda victory to the USA at the height of the Cold War?
[SNIP]
I think I got zero votes (except mine of course )and Arnold's vision won. Cruz Bustamante came in second. Poor California.
Funnily enough, a week ago I had never even heard of a sublimator. Now I know a fair bit about them, and have a ton of sources I could easily pursue to learn more were I so inclined.
Funny? You think that's funny? It's not funny. It's the anomaly that could, if more of the engineers here would demonstrate courage, bring down the government of the First Republic of the United States.
Now that I've calmed down from the shock and awe of this and one other post.
It's worse than NASA.
No documented gas chambers.
Nowhere near enough ovens.
Lice insecticide, Zyklon B, still manufactured as Uragan D2 with the charges that it was used as an agent of mass murder scoffed at by its Czech Republic manufacturers.
Worst, outrageous thought crime laws in 14 nations prohibiting the questioning or investigation of the holocaust.
GOD bless America!
An International group of forensic experts could make quick work of this hoax if they were allowed in.
I recommend this website to deprogram yourself from the holocaust garbage they fed you in public school.
http:// [LINK REMOVED] /
Crawling through mud beneath barb wired with live fire above was a close simulation.But at least you weren't doing it to test the barbed wire.
The Orlan is a beautiful piece of engineering, from its easy 'open the back and climb in' entry to its ingenious 'sunroof' porthole in the top of the helmet.NASA alleges they've been testing them for more than fifty years.
NASA alleges they test them now.
NASA and others have been seen, by the whole wide world, to have been USING them, in the environment for which they were intended, for the last 50 years or so.
You'd have to be a half-blind wombat not to have seen this. There's been live broadcasts, there's been film, video, stills, and a raft of accounts of their activities from the astronauts concerned.
Which bit of this did you miss?
Not to mention Russian (which have been in use just as long and more recently Chinese space suits.
I'll defend a Apollo hoax believer if I believe they are being treated unfairly... but I won't defend a holocaust denying scumbag. They're fair game.
And then we'd have an Independent Holocaust Investigation.
Wow. Just. Wow.
It's worse than NASA.
No documented gas chambers.
Nowhere near enough ovens.
Lice insecticide, Zyklon B, still manufactured as Uragan D2 with the charges that it was used as an agent of mass murder scoffed at by its Czech Republic manufacturers.
Worst, outrageous thought crime laws in 14 nations prohibiting the questioning or investigation of the holocaust.
GOD bless America!
An International group of forensic experts could make quick work of this hoax if they were allowed in.
I recommend this website to deprogram yourself from the holocaust garbage they fed you in public school.
http:// [LINK REMOVED] /
So sure, the sublimator and suit get vacuum should be tested unmanned first. Then they should test them with a human subject. Are you saying it's only moral to wear them when you're already traveling 17,000 mph in an orbit about 250 miles high? I say any responsible and reasonable astronaut strengthens and demonstrates their confidence by donning the suit with sublimator and using them in a high vacuum chamber on Earth prior to launch. Several times to perform several drills sometimes with another donned astronaut practicing buddy system troubleshooting. And they play the game film after exiting the vacuum chamber for game critique. There should be astronauts in vacuum chamber testing video coming out of our ears. But, strangely, just that one from 1966. And a failure at that. Near fatality. Bizarre.
Yes, this is an absurd anomaly.
Immoral? Unbelievable.
Would you don a spacesuit at the ISS to perform an EVA in orbit if you hadn't already donned that suit on Earth for an excursion in a high vacuum chamber on Earth?
NASA has never publicly demonstrated before independent witnesses a spacesuit with ice sublimator cooling system in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit.
Now it appears they've never tested a spacesuited astronaut while in a vacuum chamber at all except for that last documented test way back in 1966 when the suit failed causing a near fatality.
I'm puzzled more why they won't even show a video of an ice sublimator in a vacuum chamber with the astronaut outside running on the treadmill.
Our space program is currently a mythological faith-based thing. You insist upon it remaining so.
So sure, the sublimator and suit get vacuum should be tested unmanned first. Then they should test them with a human subject. Are you saying it's only moral to wear them when you're already traveling 17,000 mph in an orbit about 250 miles high? I say any responsible and reasonable astronaut strengthens and demonstrates their confidence by donning the suit with sublimator and using them in a high vacuum chamber on Earth prior to launch. Several times to perform several drills sometimes with another donned astronaut practicing buddy system troubleshooting. And they play the game film after exiting the vacuum chamber for game critique. There should be astronauts in vacuum chamber testing video coming out of our ears. But, strangely, just that one from 1966. And a failure at that. Near fatality. Bizarre.
Yes, this is an absurd anomaly.
Immoral? Unbelievable.
Would you don a spacesuit at the ISS to perform an EVA in orbit if you hadn't already donned that suit on Earth for an excursion in a high vacuum chamber on Earth?
the only way your going to get your test is to become President.
If I were President, I'd bypass NASA and go straight for the jugular by ordering the establishment of an Independent, fully funded and fully empowered 9-11 investigation.
And then we'd have an Independent Holocaust Investigation.
And then we'd have NASA perform a demo.
I think I got zero votes (except mine of course )and Arnold's vision won. Cruz Bustamante came in second. Poor California.
I'll defend a Apollo hoax believer if I believe they are being treated unfairly... but I won't defend a holocaust denying scumbag. They're fair game.
Do you want to discuss it or not?
It's your site. I'll follow the rules.
If you want to discuss it, please start the Holocuast thread.
2. If NASA faked Apollo because the spacesuit sublimators didn't or couldn't work, don't you think the Soviets would have been smart enough to work this out? Or do you think they were in on the hoax? If so, why would they go along with something which provided a propaganda victory to the USA at the height of the Cold War?
I say any responsible and reasonable astronaut strengthens and demonstrates their confidence by donning the suit with sublimator and using them in a high vacuum chamber on Earth prior to launch.
There should be astronauts in vacuum chamber testing video coming out of our ears.
Would you don a spacesuit at the ISS to perform an EVA in orbit if you hadn't already donned that suit on Earth for an excursion in a high vacuum chamber on Earth?
The whole training vs. testing discussion got me to thinking.
I teach people to fly. Often, under controlled circumstances, I put them in what could be hazardous situations if I weren't there, much as Jay described firefighter trainees have experienced firefighters standing by to guide and protect the inexperienced. I can talk all day long about an aerodynamic stall, but, until you experience one, particularly if it departs into a spin, you don't really know.
This is vs. an aircraft like the Cirrus, which has a ballistic recovery system. I've seen the films, I've read the training material, and I know where the handle is, but it is not a good idea, both for safety and economic reasons, to actually fire the thing off as a training exercise.
NASA Technical Note D-8093
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19760003073.pdf
The Apollo Experience Report-The Development of the Extravehicular Mobility Unit.
Published Nov 1975 (this blows your ridiculous 2007 argument into the weeds)
Pages 34-44 shows the development of the PLSS and OPS systems. Full schematics are included
Pages 45-59 details the development of the PLSS. Refer to pages 48-50. This details the change from the original design of the PLSS which incorporated a wick-filled water boiler to remove metabolic heat to a porous-plate sublimator. A sectional view shows the construction of the sublimator.
Pages 62-64 details the qualification testing of the PLSS:
"The PLSS was subjected to a total of 20 thermal-vacuum lunar mission profiles, each lasting 3 or 4 hours. Test conditions simulated lunar day, lunar night, and LM cabin temperatures and pressures as well as crewman heat loads and contaminant level inputs. The total PLSS functional performance was evaluated for the three possible startup conditions: after a cold soak (116-K (-250" F) chamber wall temperature for 2 hours), after a hot soak (366-K (200" F) chamber wall temperature for 2 hours), and at ambient conditions."
Baker- please acknowledge that you have read this document. Recognise the publication date- how come your research did not include this?
By this logic, every astronaut should test fly their vehicle into orbit (or beyond). . . before they fly it.
How that is supposed to work?! :o
When I was in the Navy I had to attend firefighting school three times where they would make us don an oxygen breathing apparatus (OBA) and enter a steel compartment on land modeled after the compartment of a ship that was engulfed in flames with smoke pouring out of it to put out the fire. It was seriously dangerous. People would sometimes get hurt. It was scary. But it was a tremendous confidence booster. We had fire drills twice a day on the carrier I was stationed aboard and we once had a bad fire in a paint locker that we had to extinguish. After the USS Forrestal fire, nobody could serve aboard ship without having gone through firefighting school. The entire crew, from the highest ranking officer to the lowest enlisted, consisted of trained firefighters that had experienced fighting fires in smoke-filled fire-engulged rooms while wearing an OBA...
So this situation where it appears due to alleged morality reasons that no spacesuit has been tested in a high vacuum chamber with a person in it just makes the alarms in my head go off even louder. It's like saying it would be immoral to fight a fire in a compartment on land because it's dangerous; let's wait until we have a fire on a ship to fight one.
I think it's common sense. If I'm going to the ISS to perform an EVA, I first don the spacesuit and enter the high vacuum chamber on Earth and pump down to 1e-6 torr. I probably want to do it many times. While I'm in there they shut off the sublimator to perform the recovery drill. They drill other stuff too, loss of electricity, loss of air, loss of spacesuit integrity. I'd probably want to go in with another astronaut to practice the buddy system of PLSS troubleshooting and emergency procedures. And while we're in there we want the whole thing video recorded for replay and post-test analysis...
Would you don a spacesuit at the ISS to perform an EVA in orbit if you hadn't already donned that suit on Earth for an excursion in a high vacuum chamber on Earth?
So that's between 60 and 80 hours testing in hard vacuum conditions. Exactly the conditions that he is looking for. So, again Mr. Baker, why the insistence on a video?
Do you want to discuss it or not?
It's your site. I'll follow the rules.
If you want to discuss it, please start the Holocuast thread.
This is off topic and not welcome in my forum. Start your own forum if you want to discuss things like that. This is your only warning.
Would you don a spacesuit at the ISS to perform an EVA in orbit if you hadn't already donned that suit on Earth for an excursion in a high vacuum chamber on Earth?
http://calcoastnews.com/2010/02/ex-ucsb-emgineer-arrested-for-school-death-threats-2/
Nor the mud, but what was bring tested was keeping your butt down while crawling.Crawling through mud beneath barb wired with live fire above was a close simulation.But at least you weren't doing it to test the barbed wire.
So sure, the sublimator and suit get vacuum should be tested unmanned first. Then they should test them with a human subject. Are you saying it's only moral to wear them when you're already traveling 17,000 mph in an orbit about 250 miles high? I say any responsible and reasonable astronaut strengthens and demonstrates their confidence by donning the suit with sublimator and using them in a high vacuum chamber on Earth prior to launch. Several times to perform several drills sometimes with another donned astronaut practicing buddy system troubleshooting. And they play the game film after exiting the vacuum chamber for game critique. There should be astronauts in vacuum chamber testing video coming out of our ears. But, strangely, just that one from 1966. And a failure at that. Near fatality. Bizarre.You still don't get what the test you propose would really test. The sublimator would get tested as it only works in a vacuum. The other part that is tested would be suit/connections/hoses to ensure that all don't have a leak.
Yes, this is an absurd anomaly.
Immoral? Unbelievable.
Would you don a spacesuit at the ISS to perform an EVA in orbit if you hadn't already donned that suit on Earth for an excursion in a high vacuum chamber on Earth?
That is interesting since I was an instructor 40 years ago and we still taught emergency ascents. But the instructors were always above the student to interject our bodies and stop/prevent improper ascent.
I dive, and learned nearly 30 years ago. In those days they trained us to do emergency ascents. A few years later that was abandoned, as it was considered too risky, although the theory was given.
The NASA lunar surveyor program allegedly sent seven landers to the moon between 1966 and 1968. Could they have been used to retrieve rocks robotically so it could be claimed later that astronauts gathered them?
Yes, it's pure speculation but if it's all a hoax, would they have gone to such a length to make the hoax convincing?
...If you are able to get close enough, please take some pictures and post them. Have fun on your trip.
ETA: Off topic, but I'm off for a two day trip in London. I understand that the Apollo 10 CM is on display at the Science Museum and have been egging to go for some time, so I should have some nice pictures. :) I'm going to the Tower too. All the best dealing with Baker. I cannot say it has been fun with the Holohoax turn of events.
Many HB's make this claim, but have no idea what is required to return sample in respect to fuel/launch vehicle to accomplish the return. Especially the cores, yes one could design a robot to drill cores but the mechanical devices to drill 6' and then disassemble/pack/store the tubes would be a real engineering problem.
Please explain what sort of unmanned spacecraft would be capable of collecting rocks up to 10+ kilograms (including rocks chipped off larger rocks), fragile clods of regolith breccia and 2+ metre long core samples and returning them to Earth, given the total mass of material returned from the Moon is around 380 kilograms.
Please provide evidence for the development, construction, launch and operation of this/these spacecraft.
As we know for a fact these samples came from the Moon, please explain the existence of photos which show these samples in situ which also show astronauts: as the photos must have been taken on the Moon, then the astronauts must have been there too, working sublimators or not.
If you are able to get close enough, please take some pictures and post them. Have fun on your trip.
...If you are able to get close enough, please take some pictures and post them. Have fun on your trip.
ETA: Off topic, but I'm off for a two day trip in London. I understand that the Apollo 10 CM is on display at the Science Museum and have been egging to go for some time, so I should have some nice pictures. :) I'm going to the Tower too. All the best dealing with Baker. I cannot say it has been fun with the Holohoax turn of events.
FYI - Tour of the Command Module from 1989
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p009xq93
FYI - Tour of the Command Module from 1989
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p009xq93
Thanks, I really like the enthusiasm of James Burke.
That is interesting since I was an instructor 40 years ago and we still taught emergency ascents. But the instructors were always above the student to interject our bodies and stop/prevent improper ascent.
I dive, and learned nearly 30 years ago. In those days they trained us to do emergency ascents. A few years later that was abandoned, as it was considered too risky, although the theory was given.
All those type videos a really cool. I wish I were in one of them in the late 60's early 70's.
FYI - Tour of the Command Module from 1989
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p009xq93
Many HB's make this claim, but have no idea what is required to return sample in respect to fuel/launch vehicle to accomplish the return. Especially the cores, yes one could design a robot to drill cores but the mechanical devices to drill 6' and then disassemble/pack/store the tubes would be a real engineering problem.
Please explain what sort of unmanned spacecraft would be capable of collecting rocks up to 10+ kilograms (including rocks chipped off larger rocks), fragile clods of regolith breccia and 2+ metre long core samples and returning them to Earth, given the total mass of material returned from the Moon is around 380 kilograms.
Please provide evidence for the development, construction, launch and operation of this/these spacecraft.
As we know for a fact these samples came from the Moon, please explain the existence of photos which show these samples in situ which also show astronauts: as the photos must have been taken on the Moon, then the astronauts must have been there too, working sublimators or not.
Knowing the possible effects of an improper ascent, I could testify about the risk for sure. From an overall standpoint the calculation may indeed give results that the training risks outweigh the benefits of the training, but what happens in a real emergency though? I'm not arguing with you just letting my experience speak. :)That is interesting since I was an instructor 40 years ago and we still taught emergency ascents. But the instructors were always above the student to interject our bodies and stop/prevent improper ascent.
I dive, and learned nearly 30 years ago. In those days they trained us to do emergency ascents. A few years later that was abandoned, as it was considered too risky, although the theory was given.
I think someone did a calculation of the aggregate risk from everyone doing this during training was greater than someone getting it wrong in a real emergency.
Knowing the possible effects of an improper ascent, I could testify about the risk for sure. From an overall standpoint the calculation may indeed give results that the training risks outweigh the benefits of the training, but what happens in a real emergency though? I'm not arguing with you just letting my experience speak. :)That is interesting since I was an instructor 40 years ago and we still taught emergency ascents. But the instructors were always above the student to interject our bodies and stop/prevent improper ascent.
I dive, and learned nearly 30 years ago. In those days they trained us to do emergency ascents. A few years later that was abandoned, as it was considered too risky, although the theory was given.
I think someone did a calculation of the aggregate risk from everyone doing this during training was greater than someone getting it wrong in a real emergency.
It has been done - Luna 16, 20,24. But Peter B's point is that the diversity of samples is the problem. It's a major challenge to built a machine to do one of these tasks, let alone all of them. There were drill cores, push/hammer cores, rake samples o larger regolith fragments, scoop samples of bulk regolith, small rocks, larger rocks (the largest larger than the aggregate mass of all samples returned by unmanned missions), and solar wind samples on foil collectors. Plus one sampling method - hammering pieces off larger rocks - makes sense only with astronauts. There is no way someone would choose this method with an unmanned mission.
Our senior instructor had a rather oddly bent arm from JUST a bends issue. So I have the same thought!
Me neither - I am glad I did it!
It has been done - Luna 16, 20,24. But Peter B's point is that the diversity of samples is the problem. It's a major challenge to built a machine to do one of these tasks, let alone all of them. There were drill cores, push/hammer cores, rake samples o larger regolith fragments, scoop samples of bulk regolith, small rocks, larger rocks (the largest larger than the aggregate mass of all samples returned by unmanned missions), and solar wind samples on foil collectors. Plus one sampling method - hammering pieces off larger rocks - makes sense only with astronauts. There is no way someone would choose this method with an unmanned mission.
Yes it has been done with the result of .326 kg of samples versus the 380 kg returned by Apollo. That was the rocket/fuel size I was referring. Now the methods are another side of the problem with the claim. :)
Many HB's make this claim, but have no idea what is required to return sample in respect to fuel/launch vehicle to accomplish the return. Especially the cores, yes one could design a robot to drill cores but the mechanical devices to drill 6' and then disassemble/pack/store the tubes would be a real engineering problem.
Many HB's make this claim, but have no idea what is required to return sample in respect to fuel/launch vehicle to accomplish the return. Especially the cores, yes one could design a robot to drill cores but the mechanical devices to drill 6' and then disassemble/pack/store the tubes would be a real engineering problem.
It would be a real problem with today's robotic technology, with the technology available in 1969, it would be impossible.
I didn't know they used a flexible core tube. One learns new information here all the time.
Which is why Luna 16, 20 and 24 used a flexible core tube which was coiled up in the return capsule. The proposed partial sample return mission (2020 rover) will retrieve short cores only.
By this logic, every astronaut should test fly their vehicle into orbit (or beyond). . . before they fly it.
How that is supposed to work?! :o
Yup.
Neil has managed to exceed the usual hoaxie requirement to make a complete test flight before making a test flight...but he has added the willingness to risk a test pilot in order to make that test flight! It just can't be an actual space missions; that pilot can volunteer for a test that is even riskier than going to space, but they can't actually, you know, go to space.
Its essentially the same as the Mitchell and Web sketch. It's just as difficult to test to his standards as just doing it....
So sure, the sublimator and suit get vacuum should be tested unmanned first. Then they should test them with a human subject.
Are you saying it's only moral to wear them when you're already traveling 17,000 mph in an orbit about 250 miles high?
I say any responsible and reasonable astronaut strengthens and demonstrates their confidence by donning the suit with sublimator and using them in a high vacuum chamber on Earth prior to launch.
Yes, this is an absurd anomaly.
Would you don a spacesuit at the ISS to perform an EVA in orbit if you hadn't already donned that suit on Earth for an excursion in a high vacuum chamber on Earth?
Why should LunarOrbit have to start the thread? You started this one. Why don't you start a Holocaust thread?
Now that I've calmed down from the shock and awe of this and one other post.
It's worse than NASA.Nowhere near enough ovens.
Lice insecticide, Zyklon B, still manufactured as Uragan D2 with the charges that it was used as an
No documented gas chambers.
agent of mass murder scoffed at by its Czech Republic manufacturers.
Worst, outrageous thought crime laws in 14 nations prohibiting the questioning or investigation of the holocaust.
GOD bless America!
An International group of forensic experts could make quick work of this hoax if they were allowed in.
I recommend this website to deprogram yourself from the holocaust garbage they fed you in public school.
http:// [LINK REMOVED] /
This is precisely why Eisenhower ordered filming of the death camps and all associated mechanism, ordered townspeople to parade through them, just so history could not ever come up with a story line that this was all fabricated.
Cleaning coffee spew off monitor, ok you got me there!Now that I've calmed down from the shock and awe of this and one other post.
It's worse than NASA.Nowhere near enough ovens.
Lice insecticide, Zyklon B, still manufactured as Uragan D2 with the charges that it was used as an
No documented gas chambers.
agent of mass murder scoffed at by its Czech Republic manufacturers.
Worst, outrageous thought crime laws in 14 nations prohibiting the questioning or investigation of the holocaust.
GOD bless America!
An International group of forensic experts could make quick work of this hoax if they were allowed in.
I recommend this website to deprogram yourself from the holocaust garbage they fed you in public school.
http:// [LINK REMOVED] /
This is precisely why Eisenhower ordered filming of the death camps and all associated mechanism, ordered townspeople to parade through them, just so history could not ever come up with a story line that this was all fabricated.
Eisenhower underestimated idiots.
Only Luna 24 and the unsuccessful Luna 23 had the flexible core, in order to get a longer sample than the earlier Lunas.
Which is why Luna 16, 20 and 24 used a flexible core tube which was coiled up in the return capsule. The proposed partial sample return mission (2020 rover) will retrieve short cores only.
I didn't know they used a flexible core tube. One learns new information here all the time.
Sounds like the Irish match factory (or Polish if you're American...Or in Kerry if you're Irish.
OR shown that document X actually exists, just jump right over it as it never happened and start right over again.
The last thing I read on this site last night was someone telling me that testing a spacesuit with an astronaut in it was immoral.Neil, a very simple question:
The last thing I read on this site last night was someone telling me that testing a spacesuit with an astronaut in it was immoral.Neil, a very simple question:
What law(s) of physics would the Apollo PLSS sublimator violate?
If none, why do you doubt its operation?
He is rather like an owl, the more light you shine on him the less he sees.The last thing I read on this site last night was someone telling me that testing a spacesuit with an astronaut in it was immoral.Neil, a very simple question:
What law(s) of physics would the Apollo PLSS sublimator violate?
If none, why do you doubt its operation?
He's been asked that numerous times at the discussion area of the Michio Kaku video. As far as I know, he's never responded. How about now Neil?
...the more holes [Baker] digs and the less consistent his protests become.
I think there ought to be a rule put in place for every HB, CT, and AA who posts on this forum.
"You will answer all questions put to you by the members, or your posting privileges will be moderated, and you will be given a written reminder of the pending question, until you do."
Think that can be fitted into the ToS ?
Neil, a very simple question:
What law(s) of physics would the Apollo PLSS sublimator violate?
If none, why do you doubt its operation?
OR shown that document X actually exists, just jump right over it as it never happened and start right over again.
Indeed. Everything Neil demands for the Holocaust has already been shown, too, and he's wrong there, of course. I'd also like to point out that it isn't just the 6 million Jews who died, either; estimates include about 6.5 million gentiles of various types--Gypsies, homosexuals, Communists, and so forth--who were also killed in the camps. Probably including some of my own relatives, though tracing that branch of the family has proved difficult.
OR shown that document X actually exists, just jump right over it as it never happened and start right over again.
Indeed. Everything Neil demands for the Holocaust has already been shown, too, and he's wrong there, of course. I'd also like to point out that it isn't just the 6 million Jews who died, either; estimates include about 6.5 million gentiles of various types--Gypsies, homosexuals, Communists, and so forth--who were also killed in the camps. Probably including some of my own relatives, though tracing that branch of the family has proved difficult.
Is it just me who's not allowed to talk about the holocaust or should everyone be threatened about it?
You're inability to do even minor research has been proven many times in this thread.Neil, a very simple question:
What law(s) of physics would the Apollo PLSS sublimator violate?
If none, why do you doubt its operation?
I've answered this question already but I'm happy to answer again.
None.
I doubt it's operation because when in 2007 I asked myself the question, "How can we prove we went to the moon?", I stumbled upon the spacesuit cooling system. I discovered that they allegedly cooled the suits using ice sublimators. Initially, I was amazed and fascinated. But then I sought more information, specs, procedures, photos, video and although I found some stuff like a patent, line drawings and some elementary information sent to me by the alleged manufacturer Hamilton Sunstrand, little of the abundance of information expected could be found by me. No photo (although there's one now) and still there's absurdly only one. And most absurdly, no video. Plus, calls to NASA and Hamilton Sunstrand resulted in no additional information despite promises made by NASA to do so. I also failed to find any academic-level book mentioning them but have since after a better search identified one published in 1993 that does.
What is preposterous is your inability to recognize the fact that they have been used on a routine basis for the last +40 years.
Now, it's revealed in the technical information about sublimators shared on this thread that only sublimators and not manned spacesuits are placed in vacuum chambers during their test. This has led to the discussion and speculation about whether any manned spacesuit is ever brought under high vacuum prior to actual ISS EVA. I argue that it's preposterous to expect an astronaut to wait until they're at the ISS before experiencing high vacuum in a spacesuit and many of the Antagonists on the site argue that it would be "immoral" to do so because it would unnecessarily jeopardize the lives of the astronauts.
Why would NASA waste part of its budget on a device that has been proven to work?
My response is that if it's immoral to practice wearing the suit in high vacuum on Earth in a vacuum chamber, it's even more immoral during an ISS EVA where nothing of vital importance is being performed. Better to deconstruct or deflate a basically worse than worthless liability than it is to risk a single life performing experiments of highly questionable value. (There I go kicking the hornets nest again)
Plus it's just absolutely absurd to think that NASA would have so little confidence in their spacesuits that they wouldn't allow astronauts to use them in high vacuum chambers but would allow them to be used on an ISS EVA.
Your are the one stumbling on the ropes because of the consent pressure by the members ridiculing your adolescent requests.
I'll admit that this whole "immoral" argument has taken me by surprise. For a while during this debate, I metaphorically felt like I was on the ropes being pummeled. But then all of the sudden my opposition, in a surreal fashion, backed off to the center of the ring and started pummeling themselves bloody with a laughable argument. And on top of it, even if you believe NASA tested the sublimators in a vacuum chamber attached to a man wearing a spacesuit outside the vacuum chamber running on a treadmill, where's the video? Where's the photo.
Again you obviously don't read responses, Jay gave a very good dissertation that the test would not be cheap nor easy since it would require a complete test schedule.
One person argues that video recording is too expensive and although that may have once been true it certainly isn't true now. I probably have one of the cheapest cellphones on the market and it takes great photos and video.
NASA is accountable every time an astronaut goes outside a habitable atmosphere into the vacuum of space, why can't you see that?
And why are we having this debate. Fundamentally, it's because NASA refuses to be accountable. As a government agency making certain claims of achievement to taxpayers that fund them, there is nothing inappropriate about asking questions and receiving answers, requesting video and getting video, and most of all allowing independent witnesses to observe spacesuit with ice sublimator testing or training in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit.
No photo (although there's one now) and still there's absurdly only one.
most absurdly, no video.
I argue that it's preposterous to expect an astronaut to wait until they're at the ISS before experiencing high vacuum in a spacesuit and many of the Antagonists on the site argue that it would be "immoral" to do so because it would unnecessarily jeopardize the lives of the astronauts.
I'll admit that this whole "immoral" argument has taken me by surprise.
OR shown that document X actually exists, just jump right over it as it never happened and start right over again.
Indeed. Everything Neil demands for the Holocaust has already been shown, too, and he's wrong there, of course. I'd also like to point out that it isn't just the 6 million Jews who died, either; estimates include about 6.5 million gentiles of various types--Gypsies, homosexuals, Communists, and so forth--who were also killed in the camps. Probably including some of my own relatives, though tracing that branch of the family has proved difficult.
Is it just me who's not allowed to talk about the holocaust or should everyone be threatened about it?
Is it just me who's not allowed to talk about the holocaust or should everyone be threatened about it?You have been informed by the owner of this site that said aforementioned topic is inappropriate for this thread and not allowed on this site anyway.
I doubt it's operation because when in 2007 I asked myself...
I argue that it's preposterous to expect an astronaut to wait...
I'll admit that this whole "immoral" argument has taken me by surprise.
I probably have one of the cheapest cellphones on the market and it takes great photos and video.
And why are we having this debate?
Fundamentally, it's because NASA refuses to be accountable.
...and most of all allowing independent witnesses to observe spacesuit with ice sublimator testing or training in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit.
One person argues that video recording is too expensive and although that may have once been true it certainly isn't true now. I probably have one of the cheapest cellphones on the market and it takes great photos and video.
Do you go to the doctor every morning to get a check-up to make sure you're in fit health?
Obviously! ;DDo you go to the doctor every morning to get a check-up to make sure you're in fit health?
....and video the doctor doing the check-up for later analysis?
Do you go to the doctor every morning to get a check-up to make sure you're in fit health?
Do you go to the doctor every morning to get a check-up to make sure you're in fit health?
I've answered this question already but I'm happy to answer again.Oh goody. Now you admit there is now reason the sublimator would not work as advertised, yet...
None.
I doubt it's operation becauseWait a minute, you just admitted that there is no physical reason to doubt it's operation. WTF?
when in 2007 I asked myself the question, "How can we prove we went to the moon?", I stumbled upon the spacesuit cooling system. I discovered that they allegedly cooled the suits using ice sublimators. Initially, I was amazed and fascinated. But then I sought more information, specs, procedures, photos, video and although I found some stuff like a patent, line drawings andAnd you discovered that you are really rubbish at any research, even the most basic, as has been demonstrated in this very thread. Not only has it been demonstrated, you have posted plaintive "How did you find that?" posts illustrating how utterly useless you are.
some elementary information sent to me by the alleged manufacturer Hamilton Sunstrand,Which company was formed in 1999 some thirty plus years after Apollo. Is there anything you can get right?
little of the abundance of information expected could be found by me.Because you are an incompetent researcher.
No photo (although there's one now) and still there's absurdly only one.You have been providede with many in this very thread. Why must you lie?
And most absurdly, no video.You have been provided with many in this very thread. Why must you lie?
Plus, calls to NASA and Hamilton Sunstrand resulted in no additional information despite promises made by NASA to do so.Crank callers tend to be treated thusly. You have only yourself and your reputation to blame.
I also failed to find any academic-level book mentioning them but have since after a better search identified one published in 1993 that does.You were provided with many in this very thread. Why must you continue to lie?
Now, it's revealed in the technical information about sublimators shared on this thread that only sublimators and not manned spacesuits are placed in vacuum chambers during their test.Except that manned test have been performed and you have been provided with that data. Why must you continue to lie about this?
This has led to the discussion and speculation about whether any manned spacesuit is ever brought under high vacuum prior to actual ISS EVA. I argue that it's preposterous to expect an astronaut to wait until they're at the ISS before experiencing high vacuum in a spacesuit and many of the Antagonists on the site argue that it would be "immoral" to do so because it would unnecessarily jeopardize the lives of the astronauts.Reading comprehension fail. I can only assume it is intentional given the preceding 48 pages.
My response is that if it's immoral to practice wearing the suit in high vacuum on Earth in a vacuum chamber, it's even more immoral during an ISS EVA where nothing of vital importance is being performed. Better to deconstruct or deflate a basically worse than worthless liability than it is to risk a single life performing experiments of highly questionable value. (There I go kicking the hornets nest again)Nope. There you go making crap up again.
Plus it's just absolutely absurd to think that NASA would have so little confidence in their spacesuits that they wouldn't allow astronauts to use them in high vacuum chambers but would allow them to be used on an ISS EVA.Full up test of the sort you demand have been performed. You have been provided with photo evidence, video evidence, documentary evidence, Peer reviewed scientific evidence, eyewitness evidence, qualified engineers evidence, what the hell more could you want?
I'll admit that this whole "immoral" argument has taken me by surprise. For a while during this debate, I metaphorically felt like I was on the ropes being pummeled. But then all of the sudden my opposition, in a surreal fashion, backed off to the center of the ring and started pummeling themselves bloody with a laughable argument. And on top of it, even if you believe NASA tested the sublimators in a vacuum chamber attached to a man wearing a spacesuit outside the vacuum chamber running on a treadmill, where's the video? Where's the photo?I find this unsurprising. Given your history, you are not an individual who demonstrates any moral awareness whatsoever.
One person argues that video recording is too expensive and although that may have once been true it certainly isn't true now. I probably have one of the cheapest cellphones on the market and it takes great photos and video.Does it have a vacuum chamber?
And why are we having this debate? Fundamentally, it's because NASA refuses to be accountable.Because you are too dense to read responses. That's why.
As a government agency making certain claims of achievement to taxpayers that fund them, there is nothing inappropriate about asking questions and receiving answers, requesting video and getting video, and most of all allowing independent witnesses to observe spacesuit with ice sublimator testing or training in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit.Whose government? Roscosmos had no issue demonstrating it's suits, nor did ESA, nor did NASA for that matter. Just because you paid no attention doesn't mean diddly squat. Just because you have some crackpot gripe with your government does not mean anything. Your government represents a mere sub 5% of humanity. Your government is not my government.
What level of trust do you have in technology?
. . . On yourself. Filmed.Do you go to the doctor every morning to get a check-up to make sure you're in fit health?
...and insist that the prescribed drugs are tested?
...in a double blind trial.. . . On yourself. Filmed.Do you go to the doctor every morning to get a check-up to make sure you're in fit health?
...and insist that the prescribed drugs are tested?
Also, I think the discussion about spacesuits and sublimators has become almost unbelievably ridiculous since it's taken such a huge metaphysical direction.
Immoral? Please!
Neil, there is video of a PSS with a sublimator in it working in a vacuum. On the Moon. That video is replete with evidence of a vacuum, so why do you restrict yourself to video of use of a vacuum chamber when there is video of a spacesuited astronaut using the PLSS in a vacuum freely available?How many times have you asked this question? :'(
That's not the correct question. The correct question is "What level of trust do you have in the government?"
I have just as little trust for most others in my engineering profession...
Also, I think the discussion about spacesuits and sublimators has become almost unbelievably ridiculous since it's taken such a huge metaphysical direction.
Immoral? Please!
Why should LunarOrbit have to start the thread? You started this one. Why don't you start a Holocaust thread?
I read LunarOrbit's warning as being clear Baker would have to start his own forum for that. Hence I doubt he'd allow such a thread anywhere on the forum no matter who started it, and I would endorse such a rule.
Once again, which government? Are you so naive to think there is only one?
What level of trust do you have in technology?
That's not the correct question. The correct question is "What level of trust do you have in the government?"
And the answer to that is very little especially after 9/11 when 3000 Americans were murdered in our faces to manipulate Americans into sending about 7000 service members to their tragic deaths in illegal preemptive wars and a preponderance of evidence indicates that it was a Zionist job.Off topic nonsense.
http://bollyn.com/solving-9-11-the-book/
I have just as little trust for most others in my engineering profession (and other professions) who went wretchedly silent even though World Trade Center forensic crime scene evidence was illegally removed and criminally destroyed and an official designated liar MIT professor of welding Thomas Eagar was trotted out after 9-11 to publicly pontificate on PBS NOVA about Structural Engineering that he wasn't an expert in, a clear violation of the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Engineers. I'm also disappointed that MythBusters and National Geographic have any credibility left after the superb Materials Engineer Jonathan Cole made them look like absolute tools with this most important video.More off topic nonsense.
Also, I think the discussion about spacesuits and sublimators has become almost unbelievably ridiculous since it's taken such a huge metaphysical direction.Yes. It has become ridiculous. Every single crackpot point you have feebly attempted to make has been copiously refuted. This is why you try to introduce unrelated buffoonery to distract from your paucity of evidence.
Immoral? Please!
Neil, a very simple question:
What law(s) of physics would the Apollo PLSS sublimator violate?
If none, why do you doubt its operation?
I've answered this question already but I'm happy to answer again.
None.
I doubt it's operation because when in 2007 I asked myself the question, "How can we prove we went to the moon?", I stumbled upon the spacesuit cooling system. I discovered that they allegedly cooled the suits using ice sublimators. Initially, I was amazed and fascinated. But then I sought more information, specs, procedures, photos, video and although I found some stuff like a patent, line drawings and some elementary information sent to me by the alleged manufacturer Hamilton Sunstrand, little of the abundance of information expected could be found by me. No photo (although there's one now) and still there's absurdly only one. And most absurdly, no video. Plus, calls to NASA and Hamilton Sunstrand resulted in no additional information despite promises made by NASA to do so. I also failed to find any academic-level book mentioning them but have since after a better search identified one published in 1993 that does.
Now, it's revealed in the technical information about sublimators shared on this thread that only sublimators and not manned spacesuits are placed in vacuum chambers during their test. This has led to the discussion and speculation about whether any manned spacesuit is ever brought under high vacuum prior to actual ISS EVA. I argue that it's preposterous to expect an astronaut to wait until they're at the ISS before experiencing high vacuum in a spacesuit and many of the Antagonists on the site argue that it would be "immoral" to do so because it would unnecessarily jeopardize the lives of the astronauts.
My response is that if it's immoral to practice wearing the suit in high vacuum on Earth in a vacuum chamber, it's even more immoral during an ISS EVA where nothing of vital importance is being performed. Better to deconstruct or deflate a basically worse than worthless liability than it is to risk a single life performing experiments of highly questionable value. (There I go kicking the hornets nest again)
Plus it's just absolutely absurd to think that NASA would have so little confidence in their spacesuits that they wouldn't allow astronauts to use them in high vacuum chambers but would allow them to be used on an ISS EVA.
I'll admit that this whole "immoral" argument has taken me by surprise. For a while during this debate, I metaphorically felt like I was on the ropes being pummeled. But then all of the sudden my opposition, in a surreal fashion, backed off to the center of the ring and started pummeling themselves bloody with a laughable argument. And on top of it, even if you believe NASA tested the sublimators in a vacuum chamber attached to a man wearing a spacesuit outside the vacuum chamber running on a treadmill, where's the video? Where's the photo?
One person argues that video recording is too expensive and although that may have once been true it certainly isn't true now. I probably have one of the cheapest cellphones on the market and it takes great photos and video.
And why are we having this debate? Fundamentally, it's because NASA refuses to be accountable. As a government agency making certain claims of achievement to taxpayers that fund them, there is nothing inappropriate about asking questions and receiving answers, requesting video and getting video, and most of all allowing independent witnesses to observe spacesuit with ice sublimator testing or training in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit.
Is it just me who's not allowed to talk about the holocaust or should everyone be threatened about it?
http://calcoastnews.com/2010/02/ex-ucsb-emgineer-arrested-for-school-death-threats-2/
Repeat offender, as shown by the public record.
http://www.police.ucsb.edu/files/docs/130820.pdf
Maybe he should contact convicted criminal Bart Sibrel and compare notes.
Only Luna 24 and the unsuccessful Luna 23 had the flexible core, in order to get a longer sample than the earlier Lunas.
That is interesting since I was an instructor 40 years ago and we still taught emergency ascents. But the instructors were always above the student to interject our bodies and stop/prevent improper ascent.
I dive, and learned nearly 30 years ago. In those days they trained us to do emergency ascents. A few years later that was abandoned, as it was considered too risky, although the theory was given.
For a moment I read that as "emergency accents" -- which is a lot more interesting a concept then anything Baker has put forward here.
Neil, there is video of a PSS with a sublimator in it working in a vacuum. On the Moon. That video is replete with evidence of a vacuum, so why do you restrict yourself to video of use of a vacuum chamber when there is video of a spacesuited astronaut using the PLSS in a vacuum freely available?
That's not the correct question. The correct question is "What level of trust do you have in the government?"
Neil, a very simple question:
What law(s) of physics would the Apollo PLSS sublimator violate?
If none, why do you doubt its operation?
I've answered this question already but I'm happy to answer again.
None.
I doubt it's operation because when in 2007 I asked myself the question, "How can we prove we went to the moon?", I stumbled upon the spacesuit cooling system. I discovered that they allegedly cooled the suits using ice sublimators. Initially, I was amazed and fascinated. But then I sought more information, specs, procedures, photos, video and although I found some stuff like a patent, line drawings and some elementary information sent to me by the alleged manufacturer Hamilton Sunstrand, little of the abundance of information expected could be found by me. No photo (although there's one now) and still there's absurdly only one. And most absurdly, no video. Plus, calls to NASA and Hamilton Sunstrand resulted in no additional information despite promises made by NASA to do so. I also failed to find any academic-level book mentioning them but have since after a better search identified one published in 1993 that does.
Now, it's revealed in the technical information about sublimators shared on this thread that only sublimators and not manned spacesuits are placed in vacuum chambers during their test. This has led to the discussion and speculation about whether any manned spacesuit is ever brought under high vacuum prior to actual ISS EVA. I argue that it's preposterous to expect an astronaut to wait until they're at the ISS before experiencing high vacuum in a spacesuit and many of the Antagonists on the site argue that it would be "immoral" to do so because it would unnecessarily jeopardize the lives of the astronauts.
My response is that if it's immoral to practice wearing the suit in high vacuum on Earth in a vacuum chamber, it's even more immoral during an ISS EVA where nothing of vital importance is being performed. Better to deconstruct or deflate a basically worse than worthless liability than it is to risk a single life performing experiments of highly questionable value. (There I go kicking the hornets nest again)
Plus it's just absolutely absurd to think that NASA would have so little confidence in their spacesuits that they wouldn't allow astronauts to use them in high vacuum chambers but would allow them to be used on an ISS EVA.
I'll admit that this whole "immoral" argument has taken me by surprise. For a while during this debate, I metaphorically felt like I was on the ropes being pummeled. But then all of the sudden my opposition, in a surreal fashion, backed off to the center of the ring and started pummeling themselves bloody with a laughable argument. And on top of it, even if you believe NASA tested the sublimators in a vacuum chamber attached to a man wearing a spacesuit outside the vacuum chamber running on a treadmill, where's the video? Where's the photo?
One person argues that video recording is too expensive and although that may have once been true it certainly isn't true now. I probably have one of the cheapest cellphones on the market and it takes great photos and video.
And why are we having this debate? Fundamentally, it's because NASA refuses to be accountable. As a government agency making certain claims of achievement to taxpayers that fund them, there is nothing inappropriate about asking questions and receiving answers, requesting video and getting video, and most of all allowing independent witnesses to observe spacesuit with ice sublimator testing or training in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit.
Especially true, given that the US must perforce rent seat space on russian launchers right now. And return to earth on russian Soyuz re-entry vehicles. The inevitable consequence of Neil's position is that they must be in on it. And ESA. And..Well the only one who isn't in on it is Neil.That's not the correct question. The correct question is "What level of trust do you have in the government?"
Whose Government? Remember, the ISS is an INTERNATIONAL concern, and it's not just Americans who do spacewalks there....
What level of trust do you have in technology?
That's not the correct question. The correct question is "What level of trust do you have in the government?"
And the answer to that is very little especially after 9/11 when 3000 Americans were murdered in our faces to manipulate Americans into sending about 7000 service members to their tragic deaths in illegal preemptive wars and a preponderance of evidence indicates that it was a Zionist job.
http://bollyn.com/solving-9-11-the-book/
I have just as little trust for most others in my engineering profession (and other professions) who went wretchedly silent even though World Trade Center forensic crime scene evidence was illegally removed and criminally destroyed and an official designated liar MIT professor of welding Thomas Eagar was trotted out after 9-11 to publicly pontificate on PBS NOVA about Structural Engineering that he wasn't an expert in, a clear violation of the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Engineers. I'm also disappointed that MythBusters and National Geographic have any credibility left after the superb Materials Engineer Jonathan Cole made them look like absolute tools with this most important video.
Also, I think the discussion about spacesuits and sublimators has become almost unbelievably ridiculous since it's taken such a huge metaphysical direction.
Immoral? Please!
Your inability to read and comprehend posts leads you to the metaphysical direction. Had you firstly done a better job at research you wouldn't have had much to say in this thread. You have been shown and yet you refuse to acknowledge a nickel porous plate sublimator attached to a space suit works in a vacuum, whether it has been tested to your standards. Your real purpose for this has been exposed and then you start with the 9/11 investigation. This is off topic, I suggest you start a thread in the "Other Conspiracy" area and leave the comment towards the sublimator here.
Also, I think the discussion about spacesuits and sublimators has become almost unbelievably ridiculous since it's taken such a huge metaphysical direction.
Immoral? Please!
Especially true, given that the US must perforce rent seat space on russian launchers right now. And return to earth on russian Soyuz re-entry vehicles. The inevitable consequence of Neil's position is that they must be in on it. And ESA. And..Well the only one who isn't in on it is Neil.I don't think Neil is in on anything remotely connected to anything that encompasses technology, with the exception of bomb making perhaps.
Prediction: He will ignore all of that in favour of garnering the HB badge of honour, a ban from a skeptic site. That is clearly what he seeks. he has already flagrantly broken the site rules, ignored admin directives, and willfully ignored site admin directives. Will there be any other inevitable result from such bizarre behaviour? Nope. He wants a ban.Your inability to read and comprehend posts leads you to the metaphysical direction. Had you firstly done a better job at research you wouldn't have had much to say in this thread. You have been shown and yet you refuse to acknowledge a nickel porous plate sublimator attached to a space suit works in a vacuum, whether it has been tested to your standards. Your real purpose for this has been exposed and then you start with the 9/11 investigation. This is off topic, I suggest you start a thread in the "Other Conspiracy" area and leave the comment towards the sublimator here.
Also, I think the discussion about spacesuits and sublimators has become almost unbelievably ridiculous since it's taken such a huge metaphysical direction.
Immoral? Please!
LO hands out badges also? ::)
Prediction: He will ignore all of that in favour of garnering the HB badge of honour, a ban from a skeptic site. That is clearly what he seeks. he has already flagrantly broken the site rules, ignored admin directives, and willfully ignored site admin directives. Will there be any other inevitable result from such bizarre behaviour? Nope. He wants a ban.
Perhaps he should.LO hands out badges also? ::)
Prediction: He will ignore all of that in favour of garnering the HB badge of honour, a ban from a skeptic site. That is clearly what he seeks. he has already flagrantly broken the site rules, ignored admin directives, and willfully ignored site admin directives. Will there be any other inevitable result from such bizarre behaviour? Nope. He wants a ban.
I agree he hasn't listened or comprehended anything that has been spoon fed. He lacks the ability for any rationale behavior, here or in real life.He has been handed everything he demanded, yet immediately moved his goalposts, go figure.
Rather like a dog chasing his tail.Perhaps he should.LO hands out badges also? ::)
Prediction: He will ignore all of that in favour of garnering the HB badge of honour, a ban from a skeptic site. That is clearly what he seeks. he has already flagrantly broken the site rules, ignored admin directives, and willfully ignored site admin directives. Will there be any other inevitable result from such bizarre behaviour? Nope. He wants a ban.I agree he hasn't listened or comprehended anything that has been spoon fed. He lacks the ability for any rationale behavior, here or in real life.He has been handed everything he demanded, yet immediately moved his goalposts, go figure.
Especially true, given that the US must perforce rent seat space on russian launchers right now. And return to earth on russian Soyuz re-entry vehicles. The inevitable consequence of Neil's position is that they must be in on it. And ESA. And..Well the only one who isn't in on it is Neil.
. . . incredibly wealthy private citizens . . .Especially true, given that the US must perforce rent seat space on russian launchers right now. And return to earth on russian Soyuz re-entry vehicles. The inevitable consequence of Neil's position is that they must be in on it. And ESA. And..Well the only one who isn't in on it is Neil.
Also Japan, Canada, Brazil, China......
. . . incredibly wealthy private citizens . . .Especially true, given that the US must perforce rent seat space on russian launchers right now. And return to earth on russian Soyuz re-entry vehicles. The inevitable consequence of Neil's position is that they must be in on it. And ESA. And..Well the only one who isn't in on it is Neil.
Also Japan, Canada, Brazil, China......
South Korea!
That would be an experience, unfortunately I don't have the cash nor the friends.
. . . incredibly wealthy private citizens . . .
Friend of mine mused that here you are, incredibly wealthy, used to getting your own way, you paid an amazing amount of money to go into space...then some CIA guys come up to you at Baikonur or whatever and say, "Sorry, you aren't actually going to space today. Nobody can, nobody ever has. And no, you aren't getting your money back. We will ask you, however, to lie to everyone who ever asks and act enthusiastic about how great it felt to fly in space. Okay?"Yes but we have to pay off Neil so he won't blab. ::)
So, then we're done?Neil, a very simple question:
What law(s) of physics would the Apollo PLSS sublimator violate?
If none, why do you doubt its operation?
I've answered this question already but I'm happy to answer again.
None.
Friend of mine mused that here you are, incredibly wealthy, used to getting your own way, you paid an amazing amount of money to go into space...then some CIA guys come up to you at Baikonur or whatever and say, "Sorry, you aren't actually going to space today. Nobody can, nobody ever has. And no, you aren't getting your money back. We will ask you, however, to lie to everyone who ever asks and act enthusiastic about how great it felt to fly in space. Okay?"I made a very similar point back on page 27 (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=945.msg31554#msg31554). As far as I've been able to tell, Neil did not reply, but maybe it's been hidden in cyberspace, awaiting my agitation.
The return capsule diameter was 50 cm. The cutaway drawing of the Luna 16/20 return capsule shows the soil container is straight. Here's a good article with lots of references:Only Luna 24 and the unsuccessful Luna 23 had the flexible core, in order to get a longer sample than the earlier Lunas.
Do you have a source for that? The Luna 16 core was 35 cm long and had to fit in a 25 cm return capsule. Photos of the core suggest also a flexible core tube. Luna 20 returned 25 cm of core. Luna 23 and 24 had the ability to drill much deeper than the earlier Lunas, 2 m as opposed to 38 cm.
So start agitating and recover it from black hole it went.Friend of mine mused that here you are, incredibly wealthy, used to getting your own way, you paid an amazing amount of money to go into space...then some CIA guys come up to you at Baikonur or whatever and say, "Sorry, you aren't actually going to space today. Nobody can, nobody ever has. And no, you aren't getting your money back. We will ask you, however, to lie to everyone who ever asks and act enthusiastic about how great it felt to fly in space. Okay?"I made a very similar point back on page 27 (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=945.msg31554#msg31554). As far as I've been able to tell, Neil did not reply, but maybe it's been hidden in cyberspace, awaiting my agitation.
Seems likely that some of the cored material may have dropped out since it only returned about 70 more than Luna 16. But the engineering is good.The return capsule diameter was 50 cm. The cutaway drawing of the Luna 16/20 return capsule shows the soil container is straight. Here's a good article with lots of references:Only Luna 24 and the unsuccessful Luna 23 had the flexible core, in order to get a longer sample than the earlier Lunas.
Do you have a source for that? The Luna 16 core was 35 cm long and had to fit in a 25 cm return capsule. Photos of the core suggest also a flexible core tube. Luna 20 returned 25 cm of core. Luna 23 and 24 had the ability to drill much deeper than the earlier Lunas, 2 m as opposed to 38 cm.
http://shvachko.net/teller/?p=1362
So, then we're done?
Thursday, November 12, 2009
The airport is the worst and it's mostly men that are so rude. I have a whole series of rehearsed fake phone conversations that I use when I'm around obnoxious phone talkers. I start loudly spewing the rudest most offensive politically incorrect opinions to an imaginary person on the other end of the conversation. It's a way to be on a soapbox disguised as someone talking on the phone. I talk about how the Taleban had nothing to do with 9/11. How 9/11 was a Zionist job. How the holocaust was a hoax. How we never landed on the moon. etc. I get strange looks but so what; I'll be anonymously seated in a separate airplane from most of them within a short time and I have the benefit of knowing none of them has a weapon.
It's really just a way of annoying people and getting a seat to himself:Clearly a deranged individual. Its of little wonder that UCSB that him under surveillance.
From this marvellous website detailing his insane ramblings:
http://www.edhat.com/site/tidbit.cfm?id=3603
I particularly like the one where wants people committing suicide to send him money so he can build his own Tracey Island.
Clearly a deranged individual.
From your extensive debates with the HB's Neil's behavior is atypical then?
Which is only relevant to this discussion because he sets up his personal judgment as the standard. If it were a matter strictly of fact or logic, his mental state would be irrelevant. Even hard-core schizophrenics are able to do proper logical analysis. So if he says "I can't find any information on sublimators, therefore they don't work." that's immediately rejectable as an argument from silence. We don't even have to accuse him of slothful research; the reason why he doesn't have information doesn't bear on the lack of sustenance in the conclusion. But if his argument is, "I don't think sublimators have been adequately tested, or the tests documented properly," then some subject-matter judgment comes into play. The proponent's level of understanding and possible biases must then be examined. You then cross over very quickly from subject-matter expertise (i.e., engineering testing) into matters of general judgment: the ability to weigh variables in conflict and arrive at a "satisficial" ("satisfactory" + "sacrificial") solution. (Author Henry Petroski coined the term "satisfice" to describe engineering reasoning among conflicting interests.)
Neil understands the science full well, and the scientific method, and how to report scientifically. He is choosing not to in order to pursue what he sees as a righteous crusade.
I've been at this for over ten years, and I'm not entirely convinced there's any such thing as a "typical" HB. They all have the same basic disdain for science, usually without knowing they do, and they generally have a disdain for the US government--often with the subtext that there is no other government, even when that's logically inconsistent with their other stances--but the way they go about it varies pretty wildly.Don't forget the strangely frequent trait of being unable to use the "quote" function.
I think I understand why most engineers lack integrity or courage. It’s difficult, can cost you your job or career and, consequently, much money. And also, they might just be rotten people inside (I've met a few of those).
It doesn’t necessarily require silent complicity with something big like a 9-11 or a fraudulent space program for cowardice to be exhibited; some level of engineering cowardice is demonstrated by the majority of engineers on a daily basis.
Yadda Yadda, until only the last para is on-topic ...
Stop trying to win so much and focus on the truth. You don’t KNOW anything that I don’t KNOW and I don’t KNOW anything. A faith-based space program is unacceptable. Repent for your engineering sins; demand NASA be accountable and stop it with the ridiculous morality deception.
You don’t KNOW anything that I don’t KNOW and I don’t KNOW anything.
Neil, there is evidence, on video and film, of a PLSS with sublimator (several PLSSs, in fact) working in what is clearly a vacuum on the Moon. This is the fifth time of asking and I am anticipating the fifth time of you ignoring it.
I read your responses here to there being nothing that could reasonably convince any responsible engineer that a spacesuit or sublimator had ever been in a vacuum chamber since 1966 and I’m creeped out even more. Stop trying to win so much and focus on the truth. You don’t KNOW anything that I don’t KNOW and I don’t KNOW anything. A faith-based space program is unacceptable. Repent for your engineering sins; demand NASA be accountable and stop it with the ridiculous morality deception.
...You don't know more than I. You may claim that you don't know anything. It is more an inability of reasonableness in engineering anticipate results versus anticipated costs. As I am others have stated the only difference of a space suit with an individual in a vacuum, versus the working end of the sublimator, is nothing more than hoses. That is all your testing verify, that the hoses don't leak.
I read your responses here to there being nothing that could reasonably convince any responsible engineer that a spacesuit or sublimator had ever been in a vacuum chamber since 1966 and I’m creeped out even more. Stop trying to win so much and focus on the truth. You don’t KNOW anything that I don’t KNOW and I don’t KNOW anything. A faith-based space program is unacceptable. Repent for your engineering sins; demand NASA be accountable and stop it with the ridiculous morality deception.
Indeed as the record has clearly indicated.
There is nothing faith-based about it. The evidence that sublimators work is undeniable. Only a pigheaded fool would doubt it.
Since he should be competent to understand the physics, how can he choose to mentally "look away" when he writes his nonsense? How and why can he be so dishonest to himself? And why does he see dishonesty as the way to gain "the truth" on 9/11?
Don't forget the strangely frequent trait of being unable to use the "quote" function.
What is up with that? Can they just not accept repeating someone else's words without being able to twist them or take them out of context?
[SNIP]Just to state the obvious, no one has said that. What people have said, just to be totally clear, is that:
I read your responses here to there being nothing that could reasonably convince any responsible engineer that a spacesuit or sublimator had ever been in a vacuum chamber since 1966 and I’m creeped out even more.
I think I understand why most engineers lack integrity or courage.
...
It can be observed in this thread with most resorting to the desperate measures of name calling...
I read your responses here to there being nothing that could reasonably convince any responsible engineer...
You don’t KNOW anything that I don’t KNOW and I don’t KNOW anything.
A faith-based space program is unacceptable.
Repent for your engineering sins; demand NASA be accountable and stop it with the ridiculous morality deception.
_____ then it would be so simple for them to fake the vacuum chamber test that you describe that it wouldn't be worth actually bothering with, because obviously they would just fake it and you would never know the difference.
Neil understands the science full well, and the scientific method, and how to report scientifically. He is choosing not to in order to pursue what he sees as a righteous crusade.
Correct. He has said his objection is not on physical science grounds. He does not doubt the physics of phase-change cooling, or even the engineering of how to build one (which is rather non-trivial as it requires precise control over the sintering processes that create the porous plate). The only thing he says he doubts is whether they were suitability tested and the tests suitably documented. That moves the argument entirely out of science and technology, so he can safely sidestep the notion of whether it would work or not. Of course he still slips in his various comments about all NASA manned space exploration being fake, and therefore obviating the need for working spacesuits. But his focus is on something he can argue incessantly regardless of what's said to him, because it's policy and not science. His evidence that NASA fakes manned space operations is not necessarily that the equipment doesn't work, but that NASA cannot document "proper" testing of equipment it says is required.
Still, that raises the question of what a "proper" test would uncover and why NASA is allegedly so fearful to conduct it. It's not as if Baker's argument is particularly cogent or consistent. But he's fastened on a little corner of the overall enterprise of space engineering and dug himself in to have a nice long discussion of the policy that applies to it.
I think I understand why most engineers lack integrity or courage... And also, they might just be rotten people inside (I've met a few of those)...
It can be observed in this thread with most resorting to the desperate measures of name calling, insults and attempted defamation of character after retreating into a metaphysical black hole of self-delusion about “morality” of all things...
One of the Professional Obligations listed in the Code of Ethics of the National Society of Professional Engineers is: ...
I read your responses here to there being nothing that could reasonably convince any responsible engineer that a spacesuit or sublimator had ever been in a vacuum chamber since 1966 and I’m creeped out even more. Stop trying to win so much and focus on the truth. You don’t KNOW anything that I don’t KNOW and I don’t KNOW anything. A faith-based space program is unacceptable. Repent for your engineering sins; demand NASA be accountable...
Frankly, I couldn't give a rats posterior about whatever dispute he might have with his former employ. It's not relevant to Apollo, and is off topic.
However, I do object to the direct accusations levelled against the engineering community as a body.
Your claims are abject nonsense. Every single one. Consider that a professional assessment.
[SNIP]
I read your responses here to there being nothing that could reasonably convince any responsible engineer that a spacesuit or sublimator had ever been in a vacuum chamber since 1966 and I’m creeped out even more. Stop trying to win so much and focus on the truth. You don’t KNOW anything that I don’t KNOW and I don’t KNOW anything. A faith-based space program is unacceptable. Repent for your engineering sins; demand NASA be accountable and stop it with the ridiculous morality deception.
The return capsule diameter was 50 cm. The cutaway drawing of the Luna 16/20 return capsule shows the soil container is straight. Here's a good article with lots of references:Only Luna 24 and the unsuccessful Luna 23 had the flexible core, in order to get a longer sample than the earlier Lunas.
Do you have a source for that? The Luna 16 core was 35 cm long and had to fit in a 25 cm return capsule. Photos of the core suggest also a flexible core tube. Luna 20 returned 25 cm of core. Luna 23 and 24 had the ability to drill much deeper than the earlier Lunas, 2 m as opposed to 38 cm.
http://shvachko.net/teller/?p=1362
I seriously doubt he will turn himself in, his disillusion prevents him from believing there is any wrong doing.One of the Professional Obligations listed in the Code of Ethics of the National Society of Professional Engineers is: ...
I'm glad you see fit to quote from this Code. And because I'm an engineer, and you keep proclaiming your superiority to the other engineers you claim to be lackeys and sellouts and whatnot, I will tell you what your real problem is in engineering terms. From the NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers (http://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics):
II.3. Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.
b. Engineers may express publicly technical opinions that are founded upon knowledge of the facts and competence in the subject matter
Your real problem here, right here in this thread and captured for whoever cares to read it, is that you represent yourself as an engineer on a topic in which you are not competent.
Are you a registered professional engineer? Because if so, you are in direct violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics. Will you self-report, or do we need to do it for you?
A corollary problem is that you keep trying to extrapolate your personal incompetence to others:
1. Is personal validation the only way you verify facts? If not, who do you trust to give you reliable information about subjects you're personally unfamiliar with and how do you verify their reliability? What's to stop you from using this process with people testing PLSSs?
2. If NASA faked Apollo because the spacesuit sublimators didn't or couldn't work, don't you think the Soviets would have been smart enough to work this out? Or do you think they were in on the hoax? If so, why would they go along with something which provided a propaganda victory to the USA at the height of the Cold War?
3. Could you please explain what sort of unmanned spacecraft would be capable of collecting rocks up to 10+ kilograms (including rocks chipped off larger rocks), fragile clods of regolith breccia and 2+ metre long core samples and returning them to Earth, given the total mass of material returned from the Moon is around 380 kilograms? Could you please provide evidence for the development, construction, launch and operation of this/these spacecraft? Could you please explain the existence of photos which show these samples in situ which also show astronauts: as the photos must have been taken on the Moon, then the astronauts must have been there too, working sublimators or not.
Are you a registered professional engineer?
"You're not competent to do this one simple task, but you think you know enough to overturn the work of hundreds if not thousands of qualified people?"
Hey, Neil--what would a video of a sublimator test show that would be different from not having a sublimator in there at all?Hopefully, it would have shown the elusive sublimator. Usually there's a vacuum chamber sight glass that would allow it's viewing. According to the test procedure from the seventies, the astronaut is in the suit attached to the sublimator in a vacuum chamber via an umbilical. That would be interesting video. Also, it would be interesting if the sublimator could be positioned in the vacuum chamber in a way that allowed viewing of the pores and any ice surface extruding from them. Vacuum gauge readings would be important to show. A quick video scan of the equipment would be good, what type roughing pumps and what type high vacuum pumps.
Well, excuse me. It's just that I'm not in the habit of using HTML. I think I'm getting the hang of it. Please be patient. Also, please don't exaggerate the numbers. Compartmentalization of information would vastly reduce the number of people that have anything to do with high vacuum testing.
Hopefully, it would have shown the elusive sublimator. Usually there's a vacuum chamber sight glass that would allow it's viewing. According to the test procedure from the seventies, the astronaut is in the suit attached to the sublimator in a vacuum chamber via an umbilical. That would be interesting video. Also, it would be interesting if the sublimator could be positioned in the vacuum chamber in a way that allowed viewing of the pores and any ice surface extruding from them. Vacuum gauge readings would be important to show. A quick video scan of the equipment would be good, what type roughing pumps and what type high vacuum pumps.
Neil, there is evidence, on video and film, of a PLSS with sublimator (several PLSSs, in fact) working in what is clearly a vacuum on the Moon. This is the fifth time of asking and I am anticipating the fifth time of you ignoring it.
As I've said to Neil, over at YouTube, and here; The Whole Wide World has watched these PLSSs and sublimators in use, in the environment for which they were intended, for 50 years or so.
He ignores it every time. You going to ignore it again, Neil? Or are you going to suggest every spacewalk, moon EVA, etc. was carried out in front of a 'green screen'?
...I don't think any astronaut in their right mind would wait until they're in orbit before donning the suit for a high vacuum experience.
If they faked the moonwalks, then obviously the video is fake. It would be pure speculation on my part as to why or how they faked it. My position is that if the spacesuits and sublimators weren't operated in high vacuum on Earth with an astronaut wearing the suit (and that seems to be the consensus with many suggesting it would be immoral to do so), then it's probably a hoax because I don't think any astronaut in their right mind would wait until they're in orbit before donning the suit for a high vacuum experience.
That's all for today. Good night.
If they faked the moonwalks, then obviously the video is fake.
I don't think any astronaut in their right mind would wait until they're in orbit before donning the suit for a high vacuum experience.
Now, just going to drive my immorally tested automobile and hope I do not crash and burn.
A faith-based space program is unacceptable.
It would be pure speculation on my part as to why NASA would fake Apollo.
It would be pure speculation on my part as to why or how they faked it [video footage].
I don't know of any reason the spacesuit sublimators wouldn't work. I've never made the claim that they wouldn't.
...it would require pure speculation on my part to answer why the Soviets would go along with the hoax.
I don't know [how unmanned sample retriever missions would have worked] and you already know I don't have any way to acquire that information.All this evidence discarded because you’re unsatisfied with how spacesuit sublimators were tested on Earth.
I often wonder if there's a power on Earth greater than nations.
<potential explanation for mental breakdown snipped>You've been shown images of the suit being tested in a vacuum chamber in 1968. In addition, you have the personal testimony of Russell Schweickart. Finally, you've been given the Apollo Experience report which detailed the design and development of the sublimator, including the 60-80 hours of vacuum testing to simulate lunar conditions.
I read your responses here to there being nothing that could reasonably convince any responsible engineer that a spacesuit or sublimator had ever been in a vacuum chamber since 1966 and I’m creeped out even more.
I was over looking at the site rules and it indeed says that I'm supposed to answer every question posed to me in a timely manner.
.
.
I'll give it a go
Baker, 55, was arrested in August for felony vandalism and misdemeanor trespassing after he was caught damaging windows at the Engineering Science Building at UCSB. The court granted a temporary restraining order against Baker in August, specifying he was to remain at least 100 yards away from the campus.
Baker left his position as a senior development engineer at UCSB in 2004 and relocated to Washington. He was arrested in 2010 in Washington after he posted bomb threats and attacks against UCSB employees on Craigslist and Facebook, causing the university to go on high alert and warn people to immediately contact authorities if they saw Baker on campus.
I was over looking at the site rules and it indeed says that I'm supposed to answer every question posed to me in a timely manner. Wow! No wonder you have so few protagonists. Seems kinda unfair to me.
Neil, there is evidence, on video and film, of a PLSS with sublimator (several PLSSs, in fact) working in what is clearly a vacuum on the Moon. This is the fifth time of asking and I am anticipating the fifth time of you ignoring it.
As I've said to Neil, over at YouTube, and here; The Whole Wide World has watched these PLSSs and sublimators in use, in the environment for which they were intended, for 50 years or so.
He ignores it every time. You going to ignore it again, Neil? Or are you going to suggest every spacewalk, moon EVA, etc. was carried out in front of a 'green screen'?
If they faked the moonwalks, then obviously the video is fake. It would be pure speculation on my part as to why or how they faked it. My position is that if .... then it's probably a hoax
If they faked the moonwalks, then obviously the video is fake. It would be pure speculation on my part as to why or how they faked it.
We will ask you, however, to lie to everyone who ever asks and act enthusiastic about how great it felt to fly in space. Okay?"
I think that Collins did a great job at debunking the video aspects of HB's. And then there was the direct debunk of the Blunders video where the Blunder attempted to indicate that Collins didn't have correct information.
Not that you will take any notice, but you might want to spend a little time watching this video. Its by a film maker who has no opinion on whether NASA went to the moon, i.e. he doesn't care whether they did or not. He can, however, categorically prove that the video could not have been faked with the technology available at the time.
By this logic even your test could be faked even the witnesses you propose could lie to you. It is a circular proposition that has no resolution, but then that is one of you behaviors.
If they faked the moonwalks, then obviously the video is fake. It would be pure speculation on my part as to why or how they faked it. My position is that if the spacesuits and sublimators weren't operated in high vacuum on Earth with an astronaut wearing the suit (and that seems to be the consensus with many suggesting it would be immoral to do so), then it's probably a hoax because I don't think any astronaut in their right mind would wait until they're in orbit before donning the suit for a high vacuum experience.
That's all for today. Good night.
Perhaps 50 years ago prior to literally thousand of hours and being the first few to use it, I might like a functionality test, similar to the one you suggested took place with me on a tread mill and the sublimator in a vacuum. The two difference are the length of hoses and me not in the vacuum chamber. Yes, that test would suffice any lingering doubt that it would work.
Where did you get the crackpot notion that astronauts do not don their suits until in orbit?Neil, there is evidence, on video and film, of a PLSS with sublimator (several PLSSs, in fact) working in what is clearly a vacuum on the Moon. This is the fifth time of asking and I am anticipating the fifth time of you ignoring it.
As I've said to Neil, over at YouTube, and here; The Whole Wide World has watched these PLSSs and sublimators in use, in the environment for which they were intended, for 50 years or so.
He ignores it every time. You going to ignore it again, Neil? Or are you going to suggest every spacewalk, moon EVA, etc. was carried out in front of a 'green screen'?
If they faked the moonwalks, then obviously the video is fake. It would be pure speculation on my part as to why or how they faked it. My position is that if the spacesuits and sublimators weren't operated in high vacuum on Earth with an astronaut wearing the suit (and that seems to be the consensus with many suggesting it would be immoral to do so), then it's probably a hoax because I don't think any astronaut in their right mind would wait until they're in orbit before donning the suit for a high vacuum experience.
That's all for today. Good night.
Where did you get the crackpot notion that astronauts do not don their suits until in orbit?
Where did you get the crackpot notion that astronauts do not don their suits until in orbit?
From a misreading of the statement that NASA does not test sublimators by using human subjects in spacesuits.
<potential explanation for mental breakdown snipped>You've been shown images of the suit being tested in a vacuum chamber in 1968. In addition, you have the personal testimony of Russell Schweickart. Finally, you've been given the Apollo Experience report which detailed the design and development of the sublimator, including the 60-80 hours of vacuum testing to simulate lunar conditions.
I read your responses here to there being nothing that could reasonably convince any responsible engineer that a spacesuit or sublimator had ever been in a vacuum chamber since 1966 and I’m creeped out even more.
Why then the insistence that "nothing that could reasonably convince any responsible engineer that a spacesuit or sublimator had ever been in a vacuum chamber since 1966"?
and/or confusion over whether or not failure of suit or sublimator constitutes a life-threatening event....
No, I am not a registered professional engineer and I have not worked in any capacity as an engineer since January 2006. I was interviewed by Yale University in late 2006 and was anticipating an offer when I discovered that I had been blacklisted, defamed and sabotaged by a very powerful former employer for having blown the whistle regarding illegal activity and challenging its technicians, engineers and scientists to exhibit a spine regarding the criminal destruction of World Trade Center forensic crime scene evidence. I regrettably but legally ranted on the Internet instead of pursuing legal representation.
That too. It isn't life-threatening. Sublimator operation is loosely coupled to astronaut comfort and even more loosely coupled to astronaut safety. Plus, they're highly reliable. It's a very simple device in which very little can go wrong. In the Apollo design there was a backup procedure in case the suit cooling failed.Right, and it involved two simple steps:
#1: You've candidly admitted that the higher purpose in your assault on NASA's credibility is to later use any perceived evidence of misconduct as a means to buttress your arguments for a 9/11 conspiracy. If your positions on 9/11 have merit, why would they require the support of a guilt by association claim? Would they not stand on their own?
#2: Given your criminal history, to what extremes would you go in order to defend ideologies you deem important? You appear to have no reservations about destruction of private property, threats of physical violence and cyber stalking. Would arson or murder be acts you might find justifiable under a given set of circumstances?
Baker, 55, was arrested in August for felony vandalism and misdemeanor trespassing after he was caught damaging windows at the Engineering Science Building at UCSB. The court granted a temporary restraining order against Baker in August, specifying he was to remain at least 100 yards away from the campus.
Baker left his position as a senior development engineer at UCSB in 2004 and relocated to Washington. He was arrested in 2010 in Washington after he posted bomb threats and attacks against UCSB employees on Craigslist and Facebook, causing the university to go on high alert and warn people to immediately contact authorities if they saw Baker on campus.
Good question and I think the major problem we're having in this country...
...the astronauts reported the PLSS actually made them too cold at times,(or was that the LM cooling system)?
It was the PLSS.
Sorry, but 9/11 is off-topic in this thread. Furthermore, it has nothing to do with the Apollo program.Indeed and if Neil wishes to start a thread in other conspiracy concerning the alleged 9-11 conspiracy he should do so.
Please stay on topic.
With the longer Lunar stays the flow was increased to cool the ever increasing Sun angle also....the astronauts reported the PLSS actually made them too cold at times,(or was that the LM cooling system)?
It was the PLSS.
Where did you get the crackpot notion that astronauts do not don their suits until in orbit?
Indeed and if Neil wishes to start a thread in other conspiracy concerning the alleged 9-11 conspiracy he should do so.
From his lack of presenting facts, understanding material presented and lack off research, I suspect he would do no better in that attempt.
I think the major problem we're having in this country is the inability of the majority of its Citizens to confront the possibility that the government is sensationally corrupt to the point of deceiving them about
...the majority here contend that it would be immoral for an astronaut to do on Earth what they're scheduled to do in orbit.
In addition to the absurdity of there not being any video or photos of spacesuit in vacuum tests for the past 50 years, it's just as absurd that nothing updated about the written test documentation seems to have been updated for the 21st century.
At what point is the death to be treated with contempt? One death, 10,000 or 12,000,000? The all have the similar if not quantitate results.
I personally think 9-11 should be treated with the same contempt as Holocaust revision, and banned from the forum. JFK and Apollo Hoax conspiracy are one thing, but 9-11 and revisionism show utter contempt for those that died. I'm not just referring to the 3000 people killed on 9-11, but those that were caught up in the two wars that followed (both service personnel and the innocent victims of Iraq and Afghanistan).
Why does any suit test require a living human to be inside the suit? What would it add to the test?
Where did you get the crackpot notion that astronauts do not don their suits until in orbit?
Earlier, someone presented a test description from the early seventies that the sublimators were tested in a vacuum chamber while an astronaut wearing a spacesuit ran on a treadmill outside of the vacuum chamber.
I never said they didn't don their suits until orbit.
The gathered information indicates that astronauts never enter vacuum on Earth prior to entering the vacuum of orbit.
I claim it's ridiculous while the majority here contend that it would be immoral for an astronaut to do on Earth what they're scheduled to do in orbit.
Is it like a Diver scheduled to perform a deep dive but all he's allowed to do prior is don his scuba tank, wearing mask, snorkel and fins while posing in front of the pool because it would be immoral for him to dive to the bottom of the deep end?
A test plan? A test procedure? A test description? A test video? A test photo? In addition to the absurdity of there not being any video or photos of spacesuit in vacuum tests for the past 50 years, it's just as absurd that nothing updated about the written test documentation seems to have been updated for the 21st century.
At what point is the death to be treated with contempt? One death, 10,000 or 12,000,000? The all have the similar if not quantitate results.Contempt is deserved for any claim that exploits (or denies) human suffering with a clear disregard for the facts and for cynical political or ideological purposes. In this way, claiming the Holocaust was fake is essentially the same as claiming 9/11 was an inside job, which is essentially the same as claiming the Apollo 1 fire was intentional murder (see, there's an Apollo connection).
I thought it might be better to ease them into a confrontation with their self-delusion by exposing something less difficult, like the possible Apollo moon landing hoax.
I agree with both you and Luke, and was trying to indicate that by that measure none of the conspiracies that would include death would/should not be started.
Contempt is deserved for any claim that exploits (or denies) human suffering with a clear disregard for the facts and for cynical political or ideological purposes. In this way, claiming the Holocaust was fake is essentially the same as claiming 9/11 was an inside job, which is essentially the same as claiming the Apollo 1 fire was intentional murder (see, there's an Apollo connection).
At what point is the death to be treated with contempt? One death, 10,000 or 12,000,000? The all have the similar if not quantitate results.Contempt is deserved for any claim that exploits (or denies) human suffering with a clear disregard for the facts and for cynical political or ideological purposes. In this way, claiming the Holocaust was fake is essentially the same as claiming 9/11 was an inside job, which is essentially the same as claiming the Apollo 1 fire was intentional murder (see, there's an Apollo connection).
The gathered information indicates that astronauts never enter vacuum on Earth prior to entering the vacuum of orbit.
I claim it's ridiculous while the majority here contend that it would be immoral for an astronaut to do on Earth what they're scheduled to do in orbit.
Neil, my IFR flight students have to know how to handle an airplane if they fly into a thunderstorm inadvertently, particularly in knowing how not to over stress the airframe. Are you suggesting that I should fly them into a storm to prove the techniques work?
...Off topic, please confine your comments to pours plate sublimators or related comments
By the way, do you believe the story about JFK jr. stalling his plane? I had the meager hood training for a private pilots license and I'm confident I could have kept that plane on the straight and level using instruments in those conditions. I believe he was working on his Instrument rating and already had many hours of hood time.
By the way, do you believe the story about JFK jr. stalling his plane? I had the meager hood training for a private pilots license and I'm confident I could have kept that plane on the straight and level using instruments in those conditions. I believe he was working on his Instrument rating and already had many hours of hood time.
...they didn't perform the necessary requisite hood training before the mission because it was construed as being immoral...
Do you understand that there is a difference between testing equipment and training people, and that testing equipment in a way that puts people at risk when better and safer alternative methods exist?
You're still conflating testing with training. Sus_pilot mentioned the danger of airframe overstress. Would you conduct mechanical stress tests of an airframe with a pilot and passengers on board? Or would you use crash-test dummies or other simulacra?
Do you understand that there is a difference between testing equipment and training people, and that testing equipment in a way that puts people at risk when better and safer alternative methods exist?
Do you contend that astronaut training should include putting the entire spacecraft into a vacuum chamber and having the crew operate it under vacuum conditions to make sure it won't fail in space? If not, why not?The way they allegedly sequentially constructed ISS would make it difficult to place the entire ISS into a vacuum chamber. But yes, the individual components should be vacuum tested prior to assembly. I would assume they are. I think operational training performed in swimming pools is the closest that they can reasonably achieve on Earth as I think its more a factor of simulated weightlessness at that stage. I suppose it would be possible at astronomical cost to build a huge vacuum chamber the size of the ISS but there would be no way to simulate weightlessness. An astronaut wearing a spacesuit can't be in the pool and vacuum chamber simultaneously. I expect that the astronauts in tested spacesuits in vacuum chambers would mainly do range of motion tests, practice emergency procedures, practice ingress and egress procedures and gain the indispensable confidence in their equipment at vacuum to perform EVA without being overwhelmed by fear of equipment failure.
Neil Armstrong came close to death while using the LM trainer.
...they didn't perform the necessary requisite hood training before the mission because it was construed as being immoral...
You're still conflating testing with training. Sus_pilot mentioned the danger of airframe overstress. Would you conduct mechanical stress tests of an airframe with a pilot and passengers on board? Or would you use crash-test dummies or other simulacra?
Neil Armstrong came close to death while using the LM trainer.
I'm not sure if it was Armstrong's incident or someone else's but NASA wanted to cancel the use of the LM trainer due to safety concerns. However, the astronauts insisted it be kept since they all felt it was the best method for learning that last stage of final descent to actual landing. I'm sure your aware of this but maybe Neil isn't.
How did your trip to London go? I hope someday I get a chance to view some Apollo hardware.
I don't' see anything about airframe overstress in her question. What are you talking about?
Neil, my IFR flight students have to know how to handle an airplane if they fly into a thunderstorm inadvertently, particularly in knowing how not to over stress the airframe. Are you suggesting that I should fly them into a storm to prove the techniques work?
But no, I would not conduct mechanical stress tests of an airframe with a pilot and passengers on board.
I do think it important that astronauts wearing tested spacesuits with sublimators enter high vacuum on Earth prior to orbit for the last step of testing and training.
I didn't go to London. What are you talking about? Besides, it's off topic.
I'm not sure if it was Armstrong's incident or someone else's but NASA wanted to cancel the use of the LM trainer due to safety concerns. However, the astronauts insisted it be kept since they all felt it was the best method for learning that last stage of final descent to actual landing. I'm sure your aware of this but maybe Neil isn't.
How did your trip to London go? I hope someday I get a chance to view some Apollo hardware.
The same thing would happen with spacesuits with sublimators. Various components would be tested individually and then in an integrated configuration to mitigate the risk when a human occupied the spacesuit during training under high vacuum on Earth prior to the highest risk activity of performing in orbit at 17,000 mph, 249 miles high....
I expect that the astronauts in tested spacesuits in vacuum chambers would mainly do range of motion tests, practice emergency procedures, practice ingress and egress procedures and gain the indispensable confidence in their equipment at vacuum to perform EVA without being overwhelmed by fear of equipment failure.
Yes, I understand the difference between testing equipment and training people.You clearly do not.
You're not very coherent with the second part of your questionThat's precious, coming from you.
but I think you were asking "Is testing equipment in a way that puts people at risk better when safer alternatives exist? Yes, testing, if possible, should be performed in a way that doesn't risk people but some things like airplane testing require a gradual increase in the level of risk until full blown performance testing is reached. The risk is mitigated.So what?
The same thing would happen with spacesuits with sublimators. Various components would be tested individually and then in an integrated configuration to mitigate the risk when a human occupied the spacesuit during training under high vacuum on EarthWhat exactly is it about the sublimators which requires a human guinea pig? Any heat source would do for testing purposes. A sublimator does not care whence the heat originates.
prior to the highest risk activity of performing in orbit at 17,000 mph, 249 miles high.What difference, in your opinion does the velocity and altitude make? How would those numbers influence the operation of a sublimator in any way? What is the sublimator were at 25,000 mph and 250,000 miles high? Would that make the sublimator operate in any different manner?
The way they allegedly sequentially constructed ISS would make it difficult to place the entire ISS into a vacuum chamber.No *** Sherlock.
But yes, the individual components should be vacuum tested prior to assembly. I would assume they are.Why? Why would you not check rather than assume?
I think operational training performed in swimming pools is the closest that they can reasonably achieve on Earth as I think its more a factor of simulated weightlessness at that stage.That's procedural training. It has little to do with space suit integrity.
I suppose it would be possible at astronomical cost to build a huge vacuum chamber the size of the ISS but there would be no way to simulate weightlessness.Once again, no **** Sherlock.
An astronaut wearing a spacesuit can't be in the pool and vacuum chamber simultaneously.Once again, I grant you a third no **** Sherlock.
I expect that the astronauts in tested spacesuits in vacuum chambers would mainly do range of motion tests, practice emergency procedures, practice ingress and egress procedures and gain the indispensable confidence in their equipmentWhich they do.
at vacuum to perform EVA without being overwhelmed by fear of equipment failure."at vacuum" does not add some special ingredient and a sublimator failure would not be critical. How many times must this be explained to you before it sinks in?
I didn't go to London. What are you talking about?
So is 911, JFK, JFK junior etc. but that did not stop you lobbing in those red herring off topic balls of crap. Not even a moderator warning stopped you.Neil Armstrong came close to death while using the LM trainer.
I'm not sure if it was Armstrong's incident or someone else's but NASA wanted to cancel the use of the LM trainer due to safety concerns. However, the astronauts insisted it be kept since they all felt it was the best method for learning that last stage of final descent to actual landing. I'm sure your aware of this but maybe Neil isn't.
How did your trip to London go? I hope someday I get a chance to view some Apollo hardware.
I didn't go to London. What are you talking about? Besides, it's off topic.
But no, I would not conduct mechanical stress tests of an airframe with a pilot and passengers on board.
But eventually, that plane is going to have to be flown by a test pilot to its specified parameters, probably beyond.
What exactly is it about the sublimators which requires a human guinea pig? Any heat source would do for testing purposes. A sublimator does not care whence the heat originates.
Really? That's YOUR country's 'major problem'? (Note - it's not THIS country, it's just A country, as far as the rest of us are concerned....)
Not the drought in California? The lack of free healthcare for your citizens? The rampant gun crime? etc etc
No, I didn't know that for the LLRV, but I've certainly heard the astronauts talk about how the training prepared them for the missions and how it had to be as close as to the forthcoming events, in particular the geology training they received.
Amazing to see Charlie Brown close up. I've taken some pictures of the heat shield (what's left of it anyway). For those that are UK based, the Science Museum has a Cosmonaut Exhibition opening in a couple of weeks.
But why are you asking me off-topic questions?
whence? Are you from UK? Whence and whilst, like fingernails on a chalkboard.
What exactly is it about the sublimators which requires a human guinea pig? Any heat source would do for testing purposes. A sublimator does not care whence the heat originates.
Neil, care to answer this question. Why not use a heated mannequin that produced the same heat output as a human. We can find the metabolic loads for humans quite easily, they are well documented?The mannequin doesn't have the capacity for fear.
{I asked a similar question a long time ago, and received no answer}Oh dear.
Yes, except for the last step which mainly tests the astronauts reaction to the high stress of possible suit or sublimator failure.
The mannequin doesn't have the capacity for fear.
As for you Neil, how about explaining why, if the landings were faked, NASA would go to all the trouble of faking the Apollo 12 recovery of Surveyor 3 components when any future visit to the Surveyor 3 site would bust the hoax wide open?
... except for the last step which mainly tests the astronauts reaction to the high stress of possible suit or sublimator failure.
The mannequin doesn't have the capacity for fear.
I don't' see anything about airframe overstress in her question. What are you talking about?The bit where he talked about airframe stresses in his post that you declined to read.
But no, I would not conduct mechanical stress tests of an airframe with a pilot and passengers on board.But you would with astronauts and space suits. Nice double standard you have going there.
I don't think it would be important to the test to have dummies on board.Except forensic aircrash researchers do. Have a nice documentary about it...
But eventually, that plane is going to have to be flown by a test pilot to its specified parameters, probably beyond.Why yes. Some crazy test pilot had to climb into the very first Boeing 747 which had never left the ground before and fly it for the very first time without knowing if it would work at all and also while having no effective means of bailing out and surviving if things went wrong.
I do think it important that astronauts wearing tested spacesuits with sublimators enter high vacuum on Earth prior to orbit for the last step of testing and training.But you cannot say WHY you think that and you have been provided with ample reasons to NOT think that.
Of course it is.... except for the last step which mainly tests the astronauts reaction to the high stress of possible suit or sublimator failure.
The mannequin doesn't have the capacity for fear.
Wow. The purpose of the testing is to scare the sh*t out of the astronaut? Really?
They might have known there was no such site. If the moon landings were a hoax, then the Surveyor 3 was probably a hoax too. They knew nobody would visit it in the future because they knew it didn't exist. Any future unmanned rover will probably head straight for the alleged Apollo 11 site where the hoax would probably bust open. Surveyor 3 would be a footnote.
In fact, go a little further back to the 707 and you find that test pilot Tex Johnson inverted a frakkin 707 to impress potential customers.
Only 1 min 44 of your time.
They might have known there was no such site. If the moon landings were a hoax, then the Surveyor 3 was probably a hoax too. They knew nobody would visit it in the future because they knew it didn't exist. Any future unmanned rover will probably head straight for the alleged Apollo 11 site where the hoax would probably bust open. Surveyor 3 would be a footnote.
If, probably, maybe, supposedly .....
You got no proof.
whence? Are you from UK? Whence and whilst, like fingernails on a chalkboard.
Yes, except for the last step which mainly tests the astronauts reaction to the high stress of possible suit or sublimator failure.
The mannequin doesn't have the capacity for fear.
Oh dear
Irrelevant quibble noted, but remains irrelevant.
Actually, he was flying a Boeing 367-80. Better known as the Dash 80, it was prototype for the 707.
But what does this have to do with spacesuits, sublimators or Apollo.It illustrates that test pilots are willing to accept a level of risk as stated in the part of my post that you oh so conveniently snipped. That is known as being economical with the truth or lying by omission.
Why are you off-topic?I'm not. In fact it is difficult to keep you on-topic with your incessant gish gallops and red herrings.
Aren't you a moderator?And yet more evidence of your reading comprehension difficulties. I am not a moderator. You have already been informed that LO is the sole moderator here. Yet another reply you didn't read.
whence? Are you from UK? Whence and whilst, like fingernails on a chalkboard.
You cannot attribute whence to me, it was in the post I quoted. Pay attention. In any case, I have no issue with it use in the context used. I believe it was the correct grammar, but others may correct me.QuoteYes, except for the last step which mainly tests the astronauts reaction to the high stress of possible suit or sublimator failure.
Define stress in this context please?QuoteThe mannequin doesn't have the capacity for fear.
Agreed, but the sublimator rejects heat energy to space. What's the fear of the astronaut got to do with the price of apples?QuoteOh dear
Oh dear me all you like, the fact remains. You did not answer my question. Now you have, and it would appear to confirm what we have learned so far
Neither do you.Wrong. As demonstrated by all of the replies you didn't read containing all of the data you choose to ignore.
But we could PROVE it.We already did. You are not a special snowflake that gets to demand special treatment.
On Earth.Done.
Today.Done for the last 50+ years.
Would you volunteer to wear the spacesuit in a vacuum chamber?Absolutely.
Neither do you.
Would you volunteer to wear the spacesuit in a vacuum chamber?
I know this is off-topic but you might want to change your avatar because every time I read your comments I read them as if Butters were reading them. It's hilarious.
As for the definition of stress in the context in which it was used, I mean psychological stress of being in a potentially dangerous environment.
Would you volunteer to wear the spacesuit in a vacuum chamber?
Cool. Not having visited on, is the hatch covered by Plexiglas and the interior viewed through it?
Amazing to see Charlie Brown close up. I've taken some pictures of the heat shield (what's left of it anyway). For those that are UK based, the Science Museum has a Cosmonaut Exhibition opening in a couple of weeks.
If some can PM me the code to display the images at the correct width, I'll save them as JPEG and load them to the Reality of Apollo section. Thanks in advance.
The mannequin doesn't have the capacity for fear.What does fear have to do with testing any equipment? You aren't very coherent this afternoon.
So now all of NASA is a hoax? Care to provide some proof of this allegation?
They might have known there was no such site. If the moon landings were a hoax, then the Surveyor 3 was probably a hoax too. They knew nobody would visit it in the future because they knew it didn't exist. Any future unmanned rover will probably head straight for the alleged Apollo 11 site where the hoax would probably bust open. Surveyor 3 would be a footnote.
Here's a video of a UK TV presenter/journalist going into a vacuum chamber.
Neither do you.
But we could PROVE it.
On Earth.
Today.
Would you volunteer to wear the spacesuit in a vacuum chamber?
I know this is off-topicYes. Yes it is indeed off topic. It is becoming you signature pattern. Keep it up and members will start reporting you to the mod.
but you might want to change your avatar because every time I read your comments I read them as if Butters were reading them. It's hilarious.So? Every time I see yours I think "Oh, this crackpot".
As for the definition of stress in the context in which it was used, I mean psychological stress of being in a potentially dangerous environment.That is what test pilots do for a living. What of it?
I suspect pulse and rate of breathing would be monitored.Wait...WHAT? They were continuously monitored. IT was the Flight Surgeons frakkin job to monitor that data. How in seven hells do you not know this?
Hyperventilation while in orbit and possibly passing out would probably be very bad in orbit.Why? Once you have established orbit, you can go for a nap if you like because Newton is in the driving seat. Or loose consciousness if you prefer, Newton is still in the driving seat. You seem to have some fantasy concept that they had to fly seat of the pants, teeth gritted with sweaty brow, grimly clasping a joystick whilst their life depended upon not a moments inattention. Twasn't so, m'laddie buck. On Apollo, they pretty much kept the same schedule with all three astronauts sleeping at the same time.
Best to test and train for it in a vacuum chamber on Earth first.Apart from critical phases they spent the vast majority of their time in shirt sleeves and zero G. How a vacuum chamber on Earth might be useful is anyones guess.
Ain't no 9-11 in orbit.Off topic red herring. You really like those.
Why yes I can prove that parts of Surveyor were returned after photography of the lander.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor_3
Here's a video of a UK TV presenter/journalist going into a vacuum chamber.
That's great. I like the part with the water. What do you think to that Neil? Let's recall, one of your original claims was testing a sublimator would destroy the integrity of the vacuum, but yet we demonstrably observe in this video that the 'vacuum' was maintained despite the 'boiling' water. Such is this gish gallop, Neil has changed horses with his ideas of testing the PLSS in a vacuum.
Original horse: A sublimator test would put strain on the vacuum pumps.
New horse: The PLSS and sublimator should have been tested in a vacuum.
It is becoming you signature pattern. Keep it up and members will start reporting you to the mod.
So? Every time I see yours I think "Oh, this crackpot".
I suspect pulse and rate of breathing would be monitored.Wait...WHAT? They were continuously monitored. IT was the Flight Surgeons frakkin job to monitor that data. How in seven hells do you not know this?
On Apollo, they pretty much kept the same schedule with all three astronauts sleeping at the same time.
Why yes I can prove that parts of Surveyor were returned after photography of the lander.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor_3
Returned from where? And how do you know from where they were returned?
Here's a video of a UK TV presenter/journalist going into a vacuum chamber.
That's great. I like the part with the water. What do you think to that Neil? Let's recall, one of your original claims was testing a sublimator would destroy the integrity of the vacuum, but yet we demonstrably observe in this video that the 'vacuum' was maintained despite the 'boiling' water. Such is this gish gallop, Neil has changed horses with his ideas of testing the PLSS in a vacuum.
Original horse: A sublimator test would put strain on the vacuum pumps.
New horse: The PLSS and sublimator should have been tested in a vacuum.
It's obviously not high vacuum.
Notice the attendants with eyes and skin exposed.
Better luck next time.
Well flight and telemetry data indicate the vehicle travelled to the Moon and landed, three times if you read the article, took images of the surrounding area and sample the soil strength leading to manned landings on the Moon. Then Apollo 12 followed some three years later. http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_12/
Returned from where? And how do you know from where they were returned?
It's obviously not high vacuum.Airlocks. What are they for?
Notice the attendants with eyes and skin exposed.Still haven't figured out the concept of airlocks, I see. The clue is in the name.
Better luck next time.Try reading the material provided next time.
But we could PROVE it.
On Earth.
Newton is still in the driving seat.
Indeed.Newton is still in the driving seat.
I like that line in Apollo 13. It really sums up orbital mechanics. So many CTs think it is like driving a car.
There are many hoax luddites who really believe that it was necessary to blast the engines at full throttle all the way to the moon, therefore it must be a hoax as it is not possible to carry so much fuel. I kid you not. Some people really think that it was necessary to burn the whole way to the moon and back
Cool. Not having visited on, is the hatch covered by Plexiglas and the interior viewed through it?
Amazing to see Charlie Brown close up. I've taken some pictures of the heat shield (what's left of it anyway). For those that are UK based, the Science Museum has a Cosmonaut Exhibition opening in a couple of weeks.
If some can PM me the code to display the images at the correct width, I'll save them as JPEG and load them to the Reality of Apollo section. Thanks in advance.
Did he retract that video or at least modify it?
...and of course Jarrah with his theory that Apollo 13 didn't have enough fuel to return to Earth until it was pointed out to him that it didn't need to burn the same amount of fuel as the other Apollo missions, as it was on a FRT and not required to enter lunar orbit (I'm not referring to the Mod).
Cool. Not having visited on, is the hatch covered by Plexiglas and the interior viewed through it?
Did he retract that video or at least modify it?
Well those NASA boys never thought about the correct testing procedures for anything. ::)
Yes, but I couldn't make out much of the inside. Still, seeing something that had traveled through searing radiation hell without being test in a vacuum beforehand was quite incredible. I think it was fake though, as the shadows in the Science Museum were not parallel and I noticed a letter J on the floor.
Gotcha
Jarrah retract a video? Hang on, a flock of uni-corned pigs have flow past my window with pots of gold they found at the end of a rainbow. They're being chased by leprechauns flying on magic carpets.
The way they allegedly sequentially constructed ISS would make it difficult to place the entire ISS into a vacuum chamber. But yes, the individual components should be vacuum tested prior to assembly. I would assume they are.
If the moon landings were a hoax, then the Surveyor 3 was probably a hoax too.
Neither do you.
But we could PROVE it.
On Earth.
Today.
Would you volunteer to wear the spacesuit in a vacuum chamber?
Why yes I can prove that parts of Surveyor were returned after photography of the lander.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor_3 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor_3)
I expect that the astronauts in tested spacesuits in vacuum chambers would mainly do range of motion tests, practice emergency procedures, practice ingress and egress procedures and gain the indispensable confidence in their equipment at vacuum to perform EVA without being overwhelmed by fear of equipment failure.Can you articulate why this training would have to be done in a vacuum chamber? Can you think of any alternate methods that would provide the same experience with less hazard to the astronaut?
Is it like a Diver scheduled to perform a deep dive but all he's allowed to do prior is don his scuba tank, wearing mask, snorkel and fins while posing in front of the pool because it would be immoral for him to dive to the bottom of the deep end?
Good question and I think the major problem we're having in this country is the inability of the majority of its Citizens to confront the possibility that the government is sensationally corrupt to the point of deceiving them about murdering 3000 Americans in their faces on 9-11 and then blaming it on 19 Arabs with boxcutters.
I personally think 9-11 should be treated with the same contempt as Holocaust revision, and banned from the forum.
it was on a FRT and not required to enter lunar orbit (I'm not referring to the Mod).
...seeing something that had traveled through searing radiation hell without being test in a vacuum beforehand was quite incredible. I think it was fake though, as the shadows in the Science Museum were not parallel and I noticed a letter J on the floor.
it was on a FRT and not required to enter lunar orbit (I'm not referring to the Mod).
I clearly should have given my name some more thought all those years ago... ;)
Neil, my IFR flight students have to know how to handle an airplane if they fly into a thunderstorm inadvertently, particularly in knowing how not to over stress the airframe. Are you suggesting that I should fly them into a storm to prove the techniques work?
Excellent example. No, I'm not suggesting you fly them into a thunderstorm. I am suggesting that you place them under the hood for many hours as pilot in command during cross country flights, the closest condition you can get to the risk without actually taking the risk of flying into a thunderstorm. Now if the pilot's military mission was to fly through a thunderstorm to reach their target and they didn't perform the necessary requisite hood training before the mission because it was construed as being immoral because it was potentially dangerous, then I would say that was ridiculous.
By the way, do you believe the story about JFK jr. stalling his plane? I had the meager hood training for a private pilots license and I'm confident I could have kept that plane on the straight and level using instruments in those conditions. I believe he was working on his Instrument rating and already had many hours of hood time.
You mean the attendants outside the chamber? Or those going in and out when preparing for the test, or escorting the subject out after it's completed?
I seriously doubt...
It's too bad we don't have photos, video or specs in more than 50 years to help determine how they allegedly did it.
Well flight and telemetry data indicate the vehicle travelled to the Moon and landed, three times if you read the article, took images of the surrounding area and sample the soil strength leading to manned landings on the Moon. Then Apollo 12 followed some three years later. http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_12/
Returned from where? And how do you know from where they were returned?
As witnesses, I have no particular names but several including myself watched the Saturn V lift the craft into LEO. The mission included a more precise landing than A11, which was accomplished near the Surveyor crater. Images came be found at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html. Pete and Alan used their sublimators on two EVA's, one to the Surveyor 3 site, at which photos were taken. Upon lift off Intrepid rendezvous with Yankee Clipper rock samples and Surveyor parts are transferred to the CSM. The CSM returns to the earth where the samples end up at JSC. You may view all the flight paths of the mission, the images and the transcripts all at the linked site.
Good question and I think the major problem we're having in this country is the inability of the majority of its Citizens to confront the possibility that the government is sensationally corrupt to the point of deceiving them about murdering 3000 Americans in their faces on 9-11 and then blaming it on 19 Arabs with boxcutters.
The 9/11 attacks have absolutely nothing to do with Apollo and are therefore off topic in this section of the forum. Any further discussion should be taken to the "Other Conspiracy Theories" section. Ignoring this request will result in you being placed under moderation, which means your posts will require my approval before appearing in the forum.
And by the way, if someone lies about one thing, it doesn't mean they have lied about everything. You don't distrust everything your parents say just because they lied about Santa Claus when you were a kid.
Why do you assume ISS parts were vacuum tested but not the sublimators? Why do you accept one scenario (ISS parts) without any evidence, but are unwilling to accept the other scenario (sublimators) after much documentation detailing their testing has been presented? Why so selective?
Earlier you suggested that Surveyor may have been used to collect and return rock and soil samples from the moon. Do you now reject your earlier hypothesis?That was purely speculative mind wandering and hardly a hypothesis. I don't know anything about the rocks.
Here's a video of a UK TV presenter/journalist going into a vacuum chamber.
That's great. I like the part with the water. What do you think to that Neil? Let's recall, one of your original claims was testing a sublimator would destroy the integrity of the vacuum, but yet we demonstrably observe in this video that the 'vacuum' was maintained despite the 'boiling' water. Such is this gish gallop, Neil has changed horses with his ideas of testing the PLSS in a vacuum.
Original horse: A sublimator test would put strain on the vacuum pumps.
New horse: The PLSS and sublimator should have been tested in a vacuum.
It's obviously not high vacuum.
Notice the attendants with eyes and skin exposed.
Better luck next time.
Neil Baker, direct question, if the air evacuation systems could remove the air down to LEO test conditions from a 55ft diameter by 90 ft tall in twelve hours, a time you have not disputed (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=945.msg31409;topicseen#msg31409), why could they not keep up with the water vapour from a couple kilograms of water over a few hours?
As for 9/11, as I, and others, have said before, we have a place for such claims. (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?board=7.0) Make one there, unless you are too cowardly to put your evidence on open display in a proper forum of discussion.I was responding to the moderator's comment about 9-11. Why don't you direct him to the proper board?
We focus on the anomaly...
We can end the controversy.
I honestly can't figure you folks out.
If the government lies, they're committing a crime.
That was purely speculative mind wandering and hardly a hypothesis. I don't know anything about the rocks.
Good question and I think the major problem we're having in this country is the inability of the majority of its Citizens to confront the possibility that the government is sensationally corrupt to the point of deceiving them about murdering 3000 Americans in their faces on 9-11 and then blaming it on 19 Arabs with boxcutters.
The 9/11 attacks have absolutely nothing to do with Apollo and are therefore off topic in this section of the forum. Any further discussion should be taken to the "Other Conspiracy Theories" section. Ignoring this request will result in you being placed under moderation, which means your posts will require my approval before appearing in the forum.
And by the way, if someone lies about one thing, it doesn't mean they have lied about everything. You don't distrust everything your parents say just because they lied about Santa Claus when you were a kid.
I disagree, the 9-11 attacks have lots to do with Apollo if both are deceptions aimed at the American People to manipulate their thoughts. The question that I was answering regarded how revelation of an Apollo hoax could ease Americans into a greater confrontation with 9-11 lies.
Neil Baker, direct question, if the air evacuation systems could remove the air down to LEO test conditions from a 55ft diameter by 90 ft tall in twelve hours, a time you have not disputed (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=945.msg31409;topicseen#msg31409), why could they not keep up with the water vapour from a couple kilograms of water over a few hours?
You're assuming they used that vacuum chamber. This article shows a much smaller chamber and describes pumping down the chamber with her wearing the suit but without specifying to what pressure. The boiling water trick again.
http://am.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/02/counting-down-cady/QuoteAnd your basis they couldn't keep up in that one is . . . what, exactly? Even if, if mind, why not use the bigger one?Because he was responding to your claims. You're the one who brought it up in the first place on, oh, the first post.As for 9/11, as I, and others, have said before, we have a place for such claims. (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?board=7.0) Make one there, unless you are too cowardly to put your evidence on open display in a proper forum of discussion.I was responding to the moderator's comment about 9-11. Why don't you direct him to the proper board?
Im fortunate enough to know Col. Richard Graham. He's told me about the pressure suit confidence demos, and the water really does boil at room temperature, and the room does stay at roughly 90k feet.
Apollo really happened, just as advertised. There are mountains upon mountains of evidence that proves conclusively, not just beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond ANY doubt whatsoever that during the period 1969 to 1972, 12 Americans walked on the Moon. Anyone who thinks otherwise has rocks in their head where their brains ought to be.
As for 9/11, it was planned by a group of Arab extremists under the auspices of Al Qaeda, and executed by 19 of them. The US Government had nothing whatsoever to do with the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks, nor did they have anything to do with the towers coming down. The only way that the US Government were at all complicit is in acting incompetently when there were warning signs. There were Arab students who were flight training in the USA, and who had reportedly said they were not interested in landing or taking off, only in flying. This was a colossal red flag. The fact that certain members of the FBI knew this and chose to do nothing about it was unforgivable.
The only thing that Apollo and 9/11 have in common that the Hoax Believers and Twoofers both have the same kinds of rocks in their heads where their brains are supposed to be. They are two groups of people, like you, where The Stupid is very strong, and who share a similarly distorted and completely whacko worldview
BTW, I have a training technique that I virtually guarantee is one where you'll put yourself in the graveyard spiral, even if you're a multi-thousand hour IFR pilot, within about 90 seconds. The longest I've seen someone last is about 150 seconds. I got it from a very wise pilot examiner and use it as an object lesson about how unreliable seat-of-the-pants piloting is.
ETA and back on subject: If I know the airplane has been tested at the factory, been properly maintained, know the G-load and V-speed limits, and have learned the techniques for flying an aircraft in an inadvertent thunderstorm encounter, then there's no good reason to actually go into a cell. But your logic says my training and the testing of the aircraft is only valid if I do so.
Now, that usually a self-induced emergency, so it doesn't match up precisely with the spacesuit/sublimator issue. But take icing as an example. I have flown light GA airplanes with known icing equipment, notably the Diamond DA-42 with a "weeping wing". I've read the approved flight manual, know how the system works, read the relevant training material from the FAA, Jeppesen, ASA, ad infinitum. Because of this training, I know how to fly the airplane in icing conditions. Never happened, because, even when conditions were favorable, I never was '"lucky" enough to pick up ice in the airplane (oddly enough, I picked up a boatload of ice in Cherokee when it was supposed to be too warm, but I digress). Yet, even though I never had the experience of flying in ice I knew the system (not that particular aircraft) had been tested and approved, both at the component level and as an integrated whole. Thus, I had confidence in it and did not have to take the plane to a full scale icing tunnel to test it before I flew it.So you actually wanted icing because you were trained to deal with it? If you had gotten icing and dealt with it, would you have more or less confidence the next time you got it? If you could simulate icing under controlled conditions and train your students under those conditions, would you do so?
No, evidence, even a mountain of evidence is not necessarily proof. You have no PROOF. That's why there's a controversy.
The radical thing that I present to the argument is that I've delivered the anomaly that could allow PROOF today on Earth to very conveniently happen. But only if people are willing to risk being wrong and only if NASA is accountable.
No, evidence, even a mountain of evidence is not necessarily proof. You have no PROOF. That's why there's a controversy.
The radical thing that I present to the argument is that I've delivered the anomaly...
I don't. I believe (but don't KNOW) that ISS is an unmanned prop possibly an inflatable. If any testing was performed it was probably minimal.
That was purely speculative mind wandering and hardly a hypothesis. I don't know anything about the rocks.
Any future unmanned rover will probably head straight for the alleged Apollo 11 site where the hoax would probably bust open. Surveyor 3 would be a footnote.
I don't know anything about the rocks.
You don't distrust everything your parents say just because they lied about Santa Claus when you were a kid.
The radical thing that I present to the argument is that I've delivered the anomaly that could allow PROOF today on Earth to very conveniently happen.
These men were test pilots who voluntarily got into new aircraft and flew them to the limits. People who were not sure when they got up in the air if they would come to Earth in a controlled landing or if they'd have to eject from a disintegrating airframe or a nosedive into the desert floor.
Men who voluntarily got into a rocket containing millions of pounds of explosive rocket fuel and rode it into space. And you think they'd be paralysed by fear of their spacesuit failing if they didn't test it personally in a vacuum chamber first?
I disagree, the 9-11 attacks have lots to do with Apollo if both are deceptions aimed at the American People to manipulate their thoughts. The question that I was answering regarded how revelation of an Apollo hoax could ease Americans into a greater confrontation with 9-11 lies.
If the government lies, they're committing a crime.
Nice presentation but possibly fake. Evidence but no proof.
I presume Mr Baker is ignorant of the development series of the suits, from Mercury onwards? The difference between various types of suits (e.g. pressure and partial pressure)?
I believe (but don't KNOW) that ISS is an unmanned prop possibly an inflatable.
I don't. I believe (but don't KNOW) that ISS is an unmanned prop possibly an inflatable.
If any testing was performed it was probably minimal.And you know that, how? And please don't retreat into solipism...that's the last refuge of the scoundrel.
I don't know anything about the rocks.Added to the list of stuff that you know nothing about. Yet, you are quite happy to handwave away the evidence from people that DO know about rocks. And sublimators. And testing. And evidence.
Images came be found at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html. Pete and Alan used their sublimators on two EVA's, one to the Surveyor 3 site, at which photos were taken. Upon lift off Intrepid rendezvous with Yankee Clipper rock samples and Surveyor parts are transferred to the CSM.
Returned from where? And how do you know from where they were returned?
Nice presentation but possibly fake. Evidence but no proof.
ONLY you think it is an anomaly. ONLY you think there is a controversy.Well flight and telemetry data indicate the vehicle travelled to the Moon and landed, three times if you read the article, took images of the surrounding area and sample the soil strength leading to manned landings on the Moon. Then Apollo 12 followed some three years later. http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_12/
Returned from where? And how do you know from where they were returned?
As witnesses, I have no particular names but several including myself watched the Saturn V lift the craft into LEO. The mission included a more precise landing than A11, which was accomplished near the Surveyor crater. Images came be found at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html. Pete and Alan used their sublimators on two EVA's, one to the Surveyor 3 site, at which photos were taken. Upon lift off Intrepid rendezvous with Yankee Clipper rock samples and Surveyor parts are transferred to the CSM. The CSM returns to the earth where the samples end up at JSC. You may view all the flight paths of the mission, the images and the transcripts all at the linked site.
Nice presentation but possibly fake. Evidence but no proof.
How do we PROVE or DISPROVE we went to the moon?
We focus on the anomaly that can be PROVEN on Earth today.
NASA allegedly has the spacesuits, sublimators and vacuum chamber. Volunteers are plentiful. Let's pump someone down wearing a suit and sublimator and PROVE that astronauts can perform EVAs and walk on the moon.
It's simple. We can end the controversy. I honestly can't figure you folks out.
...and of course Jarrah with his theory that Apollo 13 didn't have enough fuel to return to Earth until it was pointed out to him that it didn't need to burn the same amount of fuel as the other Apollo missions, as it was on a FRT and not required to enter lunar orbit (I'm not referring to the Mod).
Let's pump someone down wearing a suit and sublimator and PROVE that astronauts can perform EVAs and walk on the moon.
We have proved the result, you are blindly brushing aside the obvious results. We have listed facts, you have wave your hand around, "I don't understand, therefore it didn't happen".
Nice presentation but possibly fake. Evidence but no proof.
How do we PROVE or DISPROVE we went to the moon?
We focus on the anomaly that can be PROVEN on Earth today.
NASA allegedly has the spacesuits, sublimators and vacuum chamber. Volunteers are plentiful. Let's pump someone down wearing a suit and sublimator and PROVE that astronauts can perform EVAs and walk on the moon.
It's simple. We can end the controversy. I honestly can't figure you folks out.
My bolding.
I don't. I believe (but don't KNOW) that ISS is an unmanned prop possibly an inflatable. If any testing was performed it was probably minimal.
That was purely speculative mind wandering and hardly a hypothesis. I don't know anything about the rocks.
No proof according to you with your blinders, the rest of us have the data that you purposely deny. BTW denial is not a river in Egypt.
No, evidence, even a mountain of evidence is not necessarily proof. You have no PROOF. That's why there's a controversy.
The radical thing that I present to the argument is that I've delivered the anomaly that could allow PROOF today on Earth to very conveniently happen. But only if people are willing to risk being wrong and only if NASA is accountable.
Because NASA has formed a no-fly/no trespass area around Apollo 11 and Apollo 17, there may be no re-visits to those sites. However the other sites aren't surrounded by this plan, so when they are visited again there will be {b]MORE[/b] evidence of the landings.
They might have known there was no such site. If the moon landings were a hoax, then the Surveyor 3 was probably a hoax too. They knew nobody would visit it in the future because they knew it didn't exist. Any future unmanned rover will probably head straight for the alleged Apollo 11 site where the hoax would probably bust open. Surveyor 3 would be a footnote.
Indeed as Gemini demonstrated that rendezvous and docking, integral in the Apollo missions, was possible.
Or the problem that Alexi Leonov faced, and how this provided lessons learned. Gemini and Mercury were the forerunners for Apollo. Grissom, Armstrong, Collins and Aldrin are on record speaking about Gemini and Mercury and it's impact on Apollo's success, as much to say that without the earlier space programs Apollo might not have been successful. Apollo wasn't just switched like a tap, Mercury and Gemini were the stepping stones. I've taken this line with CT line that 'NASA managed to go from nowhere to the Moon in 10 years makes it all look dubious.'
Heiwa, the self-appointed space travel safety consultant, was equally ignorant of free return trajectory, and I'm not sure he ever figured it out despite multiple attempts to explain it to him.
He won't ever agree that the proof has been submitted, there will always be a slight error in the presentation. I doubt he has the money anyway, my speculation.Heiwa, the self-appointed space travel safety consultant, was equally ignorant of free return trajectory, and I'm not sure he ever figured it out despite multiple attempts to explain it to him.
Nope, he still hasn't figured it out. I doubt he ever will. If he did, no one would pay attention to him.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62555.0#.VemHA_-FO00
Phil
He won't ever agree that the proof has been submitted, there will always be a slight error in the presentation. I doubt he has the money anyway, my speculation.Heiwa, the self-appointed space travel safety consultant, was equally ignorant of free return trajectory, and I'm not sure he ever figured it out despite multiple attempts to explain it to him.
Nope, he still hasn't figured it out. I doubt he ever will. If he did, no one would pay attention to him.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62555.0#.VemHA_-FO00
Phil
Apollo wasn't just switched like a tap, Mercury and Gemini were the stepping stones.
Could you please explain what sort of unmanned spacecraft would be capable of collecting rocks up to 10+ kilograms (including rocks chipped off larger rocks), fragile clods of regolith breccia and 2+ metre long core samples and returning them to Earth, given the total mass of material returned from the Moon is around 380 kilograms? Could you please provide evidence for the development, construction, launch and operation of this/these spacecraft? Could you please explain the existence of photos which show these samples in situ which also show astronauts: as the photos must have been taken on the Moon, then the astronauts must have been there too, working sublimators or not.
I don't know and you already know I don't have any way to acquire that information.
I do know that when a moon rock was put on display in my town back when I was a kid in the early seventies, it seemed like practically the whole town came out to look at it. I remember then wondering why NASA had to send us such a small rock about one-half inch x one inch x a quarter-inch.
Do they have the rocks or not and why didn't they wow us with some big ones? It's not like we didn't pay for them.
Sure, sure, the geologists were studying them. But how about now?
Let's see them now.
The geologists must be done by now.
And how would I or any other nongeologist specializing in moon rocks know the difference?
Why would I trust NASA when they refuse to be accountable with any independent oversight? Why do you trust them?
They are part of a government that has repeatedly lied to its Citizens and it's part of a government that probably recently murdered 3000 of its Citizens.
Your insistence that there is no proof of anything is known in philosophy as solipsism. Basically, I cannot prove to you that I exist, or even that anything outside your own mind is real ("I think, therefore I am", or perhaps "you think, therefore you are"). Every teenager comes up with this idea (I certainly did) and it is indeed impossible to refute.QuoteYou got no proof.
Neither do you.
I don't. I believe (but don't KNOW) that ISS is an unmanned prop possibly an inflatable.
Your insistence that there is no proof of anything is known in philosophy as solipsism. ....QuoteYou got no proof.
Neither do you.
I missed Neil's response quoted here, so I'll repeat, for the third time, I think -For him to accept any proof that Apollo missions were flown as described would remove his blanket of security that the US Government is by enlarge lying to the general population.
"Neil - At what point does the accumulation of evidence become the proof?"
For I can cite reams of evidence which I, and I'm sure many here, will accept as a proof. But you 'probably' won't. 'Probably' because you don't want to confront the possibility that you're barking up the wrong tree, and 'probably' because you won't be able to associate Apollo with (and at this point you'll have to all forgive my European approach) 11/9 any more ....
I don't. I believe (but don't KNOW) that ISS is an unmanned prop possibly an inflatable.
I think no one has pointed it out yet, this requires the cooperation of (based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_International_Space_Station_visitors ) and that's just the nations that had their own Astronauts on the ISS
Russia
Japan
Canada
Italy
France
Germany
Belgium
Netherlands
Sweden
Brazil
Malaysia
South Africa
South Korea
Spain
.
I believe (but don't KNOW) that ISS is an unmanned prop possibly an inflatable.
That can be easily disproved with your hallowed 'scientific method'. Observe it for yourself. Time it crossing the sky, and calculate its velocity for yourself. I showed you how to do this earlier here, and in the YouTube thread.
You'll come up with a figure faster than a cruising 747. Inflatable? Harumph.
I think no one has pointed it out yet, this requires the cooperation of (based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_International_Space_Station_visitors ) and that's just the nations that had their own Astronauts on the ISS
Russia
Japan
Canada
Italy
France
Germany
Belgium
Netherlands
Sweden
Brazil
Malaysia
South Africa
South Korea
Spain
.
You could argue that Michael Foale counts as half for Britain...As does Mark Shuttleworth, both with dual nationality, and possibly UK-born but now US citizens Piers Sellars and Nicholas Patrick.
Who else but Americans matter?
So only the Americans have been deceived, and everyone else in the world has been excluded, and therefore 'knows the truth'?
You do realise that contributors to this forum come from all parts of the world, don't you?Yes, and I wish they would identify themselves so I can ignore them. Which American CIA controlled country are you from?
Who else but Americans matter?
So only the Americans have been deceived, and everyone else in the world has been excluded, and therefore 'knows the truth'?You do realise that contributors to this forum come from all parts of the world, don't you?Yes, and I wish they would identify themselves so I can ignore them. Which American CIA controlled country are you from?
So when is a vacuum good enough?
Who else but Americans matter?
So only the Americans have been deceived, and everyone else in the world has been excluded, and therefore 'knows the truth'?You do realise that contributors to this forum come from all parts of the world, don't you?Yes, and I wish they would identify themselves so I can ignore them. Which American CIA controlled country are you from?
Who else but Americans matter?
So only the Americans have been deceived, and everyone else in the world has been excluded, and therefore 'knows the truth'?You do realise that contributors to this forum come from all parts of the world, don't you?Yes, and I wish they would identify themselves so I can ignore them. Which American CIA controlled country are you from?
Pressure at Low Earth Orbit is high vacuum at about 1x10-6 Torr.
Who else but Americans matter?Everyone else. Americans represent 5% of humanity, are an abject minority and have to rent seats on Russian spacecraft just to put men in orbit. This is not a slur on Americans, though. It is a slur on Luddites like yourself who do everything in their power to drag all of America down to your level of ignorance.
Yes, and I wish they would identify themselves so I can ignore them. Which American CIA controlled country are you from?Lovely. Everyone in the other 95% of the world is thought controlled by the CIA. You will shortly be presenting evidence for this, no?
You do realise that contributors to this forum come from all parts of the world, don't you?Yes, and I wish they would identify themselves so I can ignore them. Which American CIA controlled country are you from?
"Neil - At what point does the accumulation of evidence become the proof?"
For I can cite reams of evidence which I, and I'm sure many here, will accept as a proof. But you 'probably' won't. 'Probably' because you don't want to confront the possibility that you're barking up the wrong tree, and 'probably' because you won't be able to associate Apollo with (and at this point you'll have to all forgive my European approach) 11/9 any more ....
I am an American but this comment is so arrogant, it goes beyond belief.
Who else but Americans matter?
No have such a narrow focus on life in general. The world does not revolve around the US. Open up to the accomplishments of the rest of the world.
Yes, and I wish they would identify themselves so I can ignore them. Which American CIA controlled country are you from?
I'm no Galileo....
Accumulation of evidence is never a substitute for proof.
proof
/pro͞of/
noun
noun: proof; plural noun: proofs
1. evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
Pressure at Low Earth Orbit is high vacuum at about 1x10-6 Torr.
Why do you think a pressure that low is necessary to test a sublimator? Pressure just needs to be below the triple point for sublimation to occur.
Chamber B. You don't even know what that is, do you?So when is a vacuum good enough?
Pressure at Low Earth Orbit is high vacuum at about 1x10-6 Torr.
According to only you apparently.
Accumulation of evidence is never a substitute for proof.
Proof can render worthless even the biggest mountain of evidence.
As has been pointed out to you and you are clearly not understanding, there is NO ANOMALY .
The dispute here is that I say there's a demonstration that can be performed to PROVE whether or not Apollo was a hoax.
It focuses on the evidence of an anomaly indicated by a conspicuous absence of information about spacesuits with ice sublimators.
NASA has demonstrated that space suits with sublimators work, you choose to ignore the facts.
Rather than a support for the Scientific Method, I've gotten beaucoup unexepected arguments ranging from morality to trumped up costs to, the worst, it's already been proven--plenty of video shows the suits operating in the environment they were designed for. Duh.
Galileo begged his inquisitors to peer through his telescope to KNOW the truth.
I'm no Galileo but I'm saying let's have NASA demonstrate the spacesuits with sublimators in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit so we too can KNOW the TRUTH rather than having to believe a faith-based space program.
If they were testing sublimators, they would want to test them at the parameters they were expected to operate in orbit.
So a sublimator might work at low vacuum and let's say you tested it at low vacuum to save money. When you got to orbit and exposed the sublimator to high vacuum something bad happened to cause the sublmator to fail in some catastrophic fashion that cascaded into failure of other systems and before you knew it the astronaut was dead and his buddy that tried to save him also had his equipment damaged in the process and he too died.
Best to test it where you expect it will be operated to minimize the possibility of any surprises later on.
If they were testing sublimators, they would want to test them at the parameters they were expected to operate in orbit.
So a sublimator might work at low vacuum and let's say you tested it at low vacuum to save money. When you got to orbit and exposed the sublimator to high vacuum something bad happened to cause the sublmator to fail in some catastrophic fashion that cascaded into failure of other systems and before you knew it the astronaut was dead and his buddy that tried to save him also had his equipment damaged in the process and he too died.
Best to test it where you expect it will be operated to minimize the possibility of any surprises later on.
Oh for the love of... go and look at a phase diagram for water to see how absurdly incorrect you are. This has to be the most ignorant example of pseudo-physics that I have every seen. You don't get to wave hands and make stuff up.
Proof is evidence.
But is evidence proof?
Never.
If they were testing sublimators, they would want to test them at the parameters they were expected to operate in orbit.Sure. They did. and your point is ...what?
So a sublimator might work at low vacuum and let's say you tested it at low vacuum to save money.Speculation devoid of evidence and thus dismissed because Chamber B 10-6 torr.
When you got to orbit and exposed the sublimator to high vacuum something bad happened to cause the sublmator to fail in some catastrophic fashion that cascaded into failure of other systems and before you knew it the astronaut was dead and his buddy that tried to save him also had his equipment damaged in the process and he too died.Fantasy. Sublimator failure would only cause discomfort.
Best to test it where you expect it will be operated to minimize the possibility of any surprises later on.Which they did. You simply ignore that fact. That makes you ignorant of the facts. Quelle surprise.
Who else but Americans matter?
So only the Americans have been deceived, and everyone else in the world has been excluded, and therefore 'knows the truth'?You do realise that contributors to this forum come from all parts of the world, don't you?Yes, and I wish they would identify themselves so I can ignore them. Which American CIA controlled country are you from?
Proof is evidence.
But is evidence proof?
Never.
Proof is evidence.
But is evidence proof?
Never.
Proof is evidence.Why would you say that since you have no evidence at all, let alone proof?
But is evidence proof?
Never.
Neil does not speak for me.
Hiya! I'm one of those people who don't matter. But since I don't "know the truth" (as Neil Baker sees it) I guess I'm CIA-controlled?
Sure. But he thinks he does.Neil does not speak for me.
Hiya! I'm one of those people who don't matter. But since I don't "know the truth" (as Neil Baker sees it) I guess I'm CIA-controlled?
That belief makes America not appreciated in many minds of the rest of the world. I have travelled on my job and many asinine activities of the US are looked at with humor by the rest of the world.
Sure. But he thinks he does.
To invoke the Gallileo defence, you have to be right, you know.
Who else but Americans matter?
Yes, and I wish they would identify themselves so I can ignore them. Which American CIA controlled country are you from?
I'm not an anti-Semite, Nazi, skin-head or racist. If they appeared I would expect you to ban them.::) ::) ::) ::)
(http://capreform.eu/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/crystal_ball.jpg)
I'm seeing a ban or a flounce in your short-term future Mr Baker.....
I've never heard of the Gallileo Defense
I've never heard of the Gallileo Defense but you don't have to be right to invoke the Scientific Method.
The Scientific Method is the solution to the Apollo controversy today on Earth.
Unfortunately and very strangely, I'm the only one advocating it while the rest of you desperately grovel in subjective metaphysics.
To invoke the Gallileo defence, you have to be right, you know.
I've never heard of the Gallileo Defense but you don't have to be right to invoke the Scientific Method.
The Scientific Method is the solution to the Apollo controversy today on Earth.
Unfortunately and very strangely, I'm the only one advocating it while the rest of you desperately grovel in subjective metaphysics.
Neil, what is the difference between a fairly good vacuum as can be created here on Earth and the vacuum of space? What forces are noticeably different? And how much different?
I'm the only one advocating it while the rest of you desperately grovel in subjective metaphysics.
While I realize the likely outcome of this...
Neil, would you please explain what, in your world, "proof" means? What is your definition of proof? How does it differ from evidence?
Proof is evidence.
But is evidence proof?
Never.
Accumulation of evidence is never a substitute for proof.
The dispute here is that I say there's a demonstration that can be performed to PROVE whether or not Apollo was a hoax.
It focuses on the evidence of an anomaly indicated by a conspicuous absence of information about spacesuits with ice sublimators.
Rather than a support for the Scientific Method, I've gotten beaucoup unexepected arguments ranging from morality to trumped up costs...
Galileo begged his inquisitors to peer through his telescope to KNOW the truth.
I'm no Galileo...
but I'm saying let's have NASA demonstrate the spacesuits with sublimators in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit so we too can KNOW the TRUTH rather than having to believe a faith-based space program.
Proof is truth.
Evidence is belief.
To invoke the Gallileo defence, you have to be right, you know.
I've never heard of the Gallileo Defense but you don't have to be right to invoke the Scientific Method.
The Scientific Method is the solution to the Apollo controversy today on Earth.
Unfortunately and very strangely, I'm the only one advocating it while the rest of you desperately grovel in subjective metaphysics.
You should be forcibly committed to a mental institution.
I have been. Twice.
...
I've been evaluated by four psychiatrists and two psychologists.
All reached the same diagnosis, no mental illness, no personality disorders, no required medication.
I don't think most could pass the test.
All reached the same diagnosis, no mental illness, no personality disorders, no required medication.
One of the psychiatrist's reports stated that he thought I was a bit narcissistic but then added, "but these days, who isn't?"
You should be forcibly committed to a mental institution.
I have been. Twice.
The first time for inciting a strike demanding an Independent, fully funded and fully empowered 9-11 Investigation and the second time for breaking a window demanding an Independent, fully funded and fully empowered 9-11 Investigation.
I've been evaluated by four psychiatrists and two psychologists.
All reached the same diagnosis, no mental illness, no personality disorders, no required medication.
One of the psychiatrist's reports stated that he thought I was a bit narcissistic but then added, "but these days, who isn't?"
I don't think most could pass the test.
I've never heard of the Gallileo DefenseYet we seem to be discovering the multitudinous things you know nothing about. Like everything.
but you don't have to be right to invoke the Scientific Method.But once you invoke the scientific method one has to be prepared to acknowledge that one might very well be flat out wrong.
The Scientific Method is the solution to the Apollo controversy today on Earth.Yes. All the evidence says it happened and none says it did not. Where does that leave you?
Unfortunately and very strangely, I'm the only one advocating it while the rest of you desperately grovel in subjective metaphysics.Nope. You have been provided with the videos and photos and technical papers on the internet which you claim do not exist on the internet. You have demonstrated and admitted that you are utterly useless at finding anything on the internet and have even plaintively asked "How did you find that?" Whaen you have been taken to task.
While I realize the likely outcome of this...
Neil, would you please explain what, in your world, "proof" means? What is your definition of proof? How does it differ from evidence?
Proof is truth.
Evidence is belief.
BTW, I have a training technique that I virtually guarantee is one where you'll put yourself in the graveyard spiral, even if you're a multi-thousand hour IFR pilot, within about 90 seconds. The longest I've seen someone last is about 150 seconds. I got it from a very wise pilot examiner and use it as an object lesson about how unreliable seat-of-the-pants piloting is.
I'm all ears or all eyes. Can you describe it?
ETA and back on subject: If I know the airplane has been tested at the factory, been properly maintained, know the G-load and V-speed limits, and have learned the techniques for flying an aircraft in an inadvertent thunderstorm encounter, then there's no good reason to actually go into a cell. But your logic says my training and the testing of the aircraft is only valid if I do so.
Did my logic actually say that? I thought we agreed not to fly into the thunderstorm.
Now, that usually a self-induced emergency, so it doesn't match up precisely with the spacesuit/sublimator issue. But take icing as an example. I have flown light GA airplanes with known icing equipment, notably the Diamond DA-42 with a "weeping wing". I've read the approved flight manual, know how the system works, read the relevant training material from the FAA, Jeppesen, ASA, ad infinitum. Because of this training, I know how to fly the airplane in icing conditions. Never happened, because, even when conditions were favorable, I never was '"lucky" enough to pick up ice in the airplane (oddly enough, I picked up a boatload of ice in Cherokee when it was supposed to be too warm, but I digress). Yet, even though I never had the experience of flying in ice I knew the system (not that particular aircraft) had been tested and approved, both at the component level and as an integrated whole. Thus, I had confidence in it and did not have to take the plane to a full scale icing tunnel to test it before I flew it.So you actually wanted icing because you were trained to deal with it? If you had gotten icing and dealt with it, would you have more or less confidence the next time you got it? If you could simulate icing under controlled conditions and train your students under those conditions, would you do so?
Does this self admitted fact not give you pause for thought?
I have been. Twice.
Well flight and telemetry data indicate the vehicle travelled to the Moon and landed, three times if you read the article, took images of the surrounding area and sample the soil strength leading to manned landings on the Moon. Then Apollo 12 followed some three years later. http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_12/
Returned from where? And how do you know from where they were returned?
As witnesses, I have no particular names but several including myself watched the Saturn V lift the craft into LEO. The mission included a more precise landing than A11, which was accomplished near the Surveyor crater. Images came be found at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html. Pete and Alan used their sublimators on two EVA's, one to the Surveyor 3 site, at which photos were taken. Upon lift off Intrepid rendezvous with Yankee Clipper rock samples and Surveyor parts are transferred to the CSM. The CSM returns to the earth where the samples end up at JSC. You may view all the flight paths of the mission, the images and the transcripts all at the linked site.
Nice presentation but possibly fake. Evidence but no proof.
One would think that was reasonable. Sadly that ship has sailed long since. Neil has been presented with copious rebuttals for at least a decade, yet he stubbornly clings to his nonsense like a child's security blanket.Well flight and telemetry data indicate the vehicle travelled to the Moon and landed, three times if you read the article, took images of the surrounding area and sample the soil strength leading to manned landings on the Moon. Then Apollo 12 followed some three years later. http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_12/
Returned from where? And how do you know from where they were returned?
As witnesses, I have no particular names but several including myself watched the Saturn V lift the craft into LEO. The mission included a more precise landing than A11, which was accomplished near the Surveyor crater. Images came be found at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html. Pete and Alan used their sublimators on two EVA's, one to the Surveyor 3 site, at which photos were taken. Upon lift off Intrepid rendezvous with Yankee Clipper rock samples and Surveyor parts are transferred to the CSM. The CSM returns to the earth where the samples end up at JSC. You may view all the flight paths of the mission, the images and the transcripts all at the linked site.
Nice presentation but possibly fake. Evidence but no proof.
Since you are supposedly an engineer, I believe you should be held to a higher standard then the typical hoax believer that usually has little understanding of engineering or science. You wanting to wave this report off as possibly fake is not good enough. Read through it and bring forth points that you can prove are inconsistent or outright faulty. Otherwise retract your claim as anybody with a proper moral standard would willingly do.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19720019081.pdf
Since you are supposedly an engineer, I believe you should be held to a higher standard then the typical hoax believer that usually has little understanding of engineering or science. You wanting to wave this report off as possibly fake is not good enough. Read through it and bring forth points that you can prove are inconsistent or outright faulty. Otherwise retract your claim as anybody with a proper moral standard would willingly do.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19720019081.pdf
Micrometeorite Impact AnalysesPerhaps Jay may discuss the flux rate of hypervelocity micrometeorite the Lunar surface that was expected prior to the mission. I also find it interesting that evidence of impacts from the descent stage about 145m from the landing site. Maybe the lower elevation "allowed" the regolith to travel that far.
A major effort in the analysis of Surveyor 3
parts has been the search for hypervelocity impact
features-an effort roughly analogous to
the search for the needle in the haystack. A great
number of low-velocity features exist that were
caused by lunar particles striking the surfaces
due to Surveyor and Apollo landing events,
handling of the material, and natural phenomena.
The 1- to 4.5-pm size of the surface
features prohibited the effective use of optical
instruments. However, all participating investigators
concluded that no material or surface
features were found that definitely could be
stated to be meteoritic in origin. Consequently,
determinations of the flux rate of hypervelocity
particles at the Surveyor 3 site were based on the
absence of diagnostic features; as such, the flux
rates represent upper limits only. In each instance,
the determinations were in general agreement
with those obtained from Pioneers 8 and 9,
Cosmos 163, Pegasus satellites, and others.
I'm guessing people are aware, but he is under moderation now. A few of us have shown some mean spirits, me included, but I believe that comes with the heat of debate. May I suggest that we wait to see whether future posts make their way through moderation before adding to the thread, as continuing to post is a bit like beating on the small kid once he has been kicked to the floor. I think this approach also paints us in a better light.Good thought.
It also gives Neil a little chance to work out the reason for his moderation and for LO to explain why, as LO was using Tapatalk when he was moderated. Further, there is the small possibility that Neil might read through the thread while waiting for moderated posts to be published, and this gives him chance to present new material.
The Scientific Method is the solution to the Apollo controversy today on Earth.There is no controversy among people who actually understand the subject. You manifestly don't, yet you prattle on about it despite injunctions against doing so by the very same code of ethics you quoted from for your own argument.
Unfortunately and very strangely, I'm the only one advocating it while the rest of you desperately grovel in subjective metaphysics.
I'm guessing people are aware, but he is under moderation now. A few of us have shown some mean spirits, me included, but I believe that comes with the heat of debate. May I suggest that we wait to see whether future posts make their way through moderation before adding to the thread, as continuing to post is a bit like beating on the small kid once he has been kicked to the floor. I think this approach also paints us in a better light.I have little sympathy. Neil chose quite intentionally to paint himself into a corner of crankery. It was inevitable that he would end up on moderation, but it is a situation entirely of his own creation.
It also gives Neil a little chance to work out the reason for his moderation and for LO to explain why, as LO was using Tapatalk when he was moderated. Further, there is the small possibility that Neil might read through the thread while waiting for moderated posts to be published, and this gives him chance to present new material.
While I realize the likely outcome of this...
Neil, would you please explain what, in your world, "proof" means? What is your definition of proof? How does it differ from evidence?
Proof is truth.
Evidence is belief.
Did you or was the cheese tested prior to eating? If you don't have video proof, I don't believe this story. ::)
This makes no sense, or displays a very poor knowledge of word meanings.
Something can be absolutely true, and yet not proved. (I had a cheese sandwich for supper last night. True, but what proof is there?)
Evidence has nothing to do with "belief". Evidence is the body of facts (individual pieces of "truth") that go towards proving something.
I think Neil's thesis is that if something is "true" (in his eyes), then it is, in his definition, "proved". No evidence is required, because he *knows* it to be true. Evidence, that annoying collection of facts that don't fit in his truth, does not appeal to him.
This is the very definition of "faith-based," but Neil will reject the idea, because it is not true to him, and therefore he will consider it proven wrong.
Did you or was the cheese tested prior to eating? If you don't have video proof, I don't believe this story. ::)I'd like to confirm these statements, but NASA rejected my proposal to test grilled cheese in a vacuum chamber. They didn't even care whether it was cheddar or swiss. Conspiracy proved!
Did you or was the cheese tested prior to eating? If you don't have video proof, I don't believe this story. ::)I'd like to confirm these statements, but NASA rejected my proposal to test grilled cheese in a vacuum chamber. They didn't even care whether it was cheddar or swiss. Conspiracy proved!
Did you or was the cheese tested prior to eating? If you don't have video proof, I don't believe this story. ::)I'd like to confirm these statements, but NASA rejected my proposal to test grilled cheese in a vacuum chamber. They didn't even care whether it was cheddar or swiss. Conspiracy proved!
There is a hole in that theory.
This thread follows the same pattern as most CT threads. What at first sight is an innocent discussion becomes a gish gallop of contradicting statements, spirals into the bizarre, insults are passed. the ignored ones become sarcastic, extreme views are expressed, challenges are made to LO (at announcements thread) as though the OP is demanding a ban to escape.Yep...the inevitable is either a ban, a flounce or an implosion. Baker is fishing for a ban- then eh can justify it in his head that Apollohoax couldn't contain his truth and he had to be banned.
September 4, 1968....Three United States Air Force officers (Majors Alfred Davidson, Turnage Lindsey & Lloyd Reeder) assigned to the Flight Crew Suport Division at NASA's Johnson Space Center begin the final manned test of the Command Module in a vacuum chamber that would last 125 hours. They would simulate living conditions in the CM, depressurize/repressurize the crew compartment, simulate an EVA and more importantly test the new lightweight hatch redesigned after the Apollo 1 fire
You should be forcibly committed to a mental institution.
I have been. Twice.
I say there's a demonstration that can be performed to PROVE whether or not Apollo was a hoax.
You should be forcibly committed to a mental institution.
I have been. Twice.
The first time for inciting a strike demanding an Independent, fully funded and fully empowered 9-11 Investigation and the second time for breaking a window demanding an Independent, fully funded and fully empowered 9-11 Investigation.
I've been evaluated by four psychiatrists and two psychologists.
All reached the same diagnosis, no mental illness, no personality disorders, no required medication.
One of the psychiatrist's reports stated that he thought I was a bit narcissistic but then added, "but these days, who isn't?"
I don't think most could pass the test.
It is also not a bad thing in and of itself to need medication... The goal of medication is to prevent things like delusions, so saying someone is medicated is, perhaps ironically, a way of crediting the reasonability of their thinking.
My guess would be not very many.I say there's a demonstration that can be performed to PROVE whether or not Apollo was a hoax.
To the satisfaction of all hoax believers, or you alone?
By your estimation, what percentage of HB's know what a sublimator is?
Who else but Americans matter?
This reminds me of every old movie/TV show/cartoon that depicted a person wearing thick glasses as having difficulty seeing. If the prescription is right, they should see just fine.Met him while working at Hangar S (where Mercury spacecraft and their crews had been prepared for flight). Sat in that seat (well, its successor) while stacked at 39B. Used to work for one of his CAPCOMs on that flight.
(http://public.media.smithsonianmag.com/legacy_blog/John-Young-glasses-400.jpg)
OK, now I'm just being a jerk.
OK, now I'm just being a jerk.
I could always tell you about going inside the Apollo 9 CM before it was moved to San Diego.
Sat in that seat (well, its successor) while stacked at 39B. Used to work for one of his CAPCOMs on that flight.
I could always tell you about going inside the Apollo 9 CM before it was moved to San Diego.
Yes, and I wish they would identify themselves so I can ignore them.
Yes, and I wish they would identify themselves so I can ignore them.
Would you like us to tattoo our national/religious emblems on our arms to make it easier for you? Do you know who else requested that?
Fortunately Neil is not in a position to impose his wishes on others.
Sent from my SM-N920W8 using Tapatalk
Galileo begged his inquisitors to peer through his telescope to KNOW the truth.
... let's have NASA demonstrate the spacesuits with sublimators in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit so we too can KNOW the TRUTH rather than having to believe a faith-based space program.
So when is a vacuum good enough?
Pressure at Low Earth Orbit is high vacuum at about 1x10-6 Torr.
Pressure at Low Earth Orbit is high vacuum at about 1x10-6 Torr.
Why do you think a pressure that low is necessary to test a sublimator? Pressure just needs to be below the triple point for sublimation to occur.
If they were testing sublimators, they would want to test them at the parameters they were expected to operate in orbit.
So a sublimator might work at low vacuum and let's say you tested it at low vacuum to save money. When you got to orbit and exposed the sublimator to high vacuum something bad happened to cause the sublmator to fail in some catastrophic fashion that cascaded into failure of other systems and before you knew it the astronaut was dead and his buddy that tried to save him also had his equipment damaged in the process and he too died.
Best to test it where you expect it will be operated to minimize the possibility of any surprises later on.
Best to test it where you expect it will be operated to minimize the possibility of any surprises later on.
Many times to point of nausea.
I expect it will be operated in space, so maybe I'll arrange a test of the system in space. Maybe I'll arrange a test that involves one of the crew putting on the PLSS, opening the hatch and standing outside the spacecraft in orbit, tethered, while his buddy inside the spacecraft has his suit connected up to the spacecraft cooling system. That way, if the PLSS fails and the guy outside is gets into difficulty, the guy inside can pull him back in, close the hatch and repressurise, saving his buddy's life.
Yeah, that sounds like a plan. Anyone know of any mission where this might have been done, perhaps one that has already been mentioned in this very thread?
Look at it this way: at least Mr Baker has gone a step above Turbonium's insistence on testing the LM by landing on the Earth. At least the sublimator test would be a test in the sort of environment in which it would be operated...
(I know, I know...)
He's better than Turbonium? Wow, THAT'S a ringing endorsement. [/sarcasm]
Forcibly committed twice you say? Ah, well...third time lucky!Oy, LO already said to knock off the mental health cracks. Plenty of us here either have issues, so, please, out of respect for the rest of us, if not Neil Baker, lay off, please.
:-)
I wonder if Mr Baker is aware that the LM (and some other spacecraft) also use sublimators for cooling.Like the CSM. Radiators were primary, but water boilers were backup. Not sure why they weren't called "sublimators" but the overall phase change (liquid->gas) was the same.
But were they tested in a vacuum chamber and videoed?
Like the CSM. Radiators were primary, but water boilers were backup. Not sure why they weren't called "sublimators" but the overall phase change (liquid->gas) was the same.
I wonder if Mr Baker is aware that the LM (and some other spacecraft) also use sublimators for cooling.Like the CSM. Radiators were primary, but water boilers were backup. Not sure why they weren't called "sublimators" but the overall phase change (liquid->gas) was the same.
Galileo begged his inquisitors to peer through his telescope to KNOW the truth.I realize that I'm a little late on commenting on this, but I'm still boggling at the sheer irony of Neil making this comment on a thread in which he was literally told to just look through a telescope (at the ISS).
Galileo begged his inquisitors to peer through his telescope to KNOW the truth.I realize that I'm a little on commenting on this, but I'm still boggling at the sheer irony of Neil making this comment on a thread in which he was literally told to just look through a telescope (at the ISS).
Fair point. I missed that one. By his argument, we might as easily claim that Jupiter and the Galilean moons are inflatables.Galileo begged his inquisitors to peer through his telescope to KNOW the truth.I realize that I'm a little on commenting on this, but I'm still boggling at the sheer irony of Neil making this comment on a thread in which he was literally told to just look through a telescope (at the ISS).
Fair point. I missed that one. By his argument, we might as easily claim that Jupiter and the Galilean moons are inflatables.
Sublimation implies that the phase chance is ice > gas. Remember the PLSS originally had a boiler and then changed to a sublimator.Yes, but that ice first has to freeze from the liquid phase. That releases heat of its own that must be rejected by some of the vapor leaving the sublimator. I suspect the overall effect is the same as simply boiling the liquid directly, i.e., heat of boiling = heat of sublimation - heat of fusion.
I wonder what factors drive the choice between a radiator and a boiler/sublimator. Off the top of my head boiling/sublimation being perhaps more efficient and lighter in the short term, but not so in the longer term. The Shuttle seems to have used a third variant of the process, a flash evaporator.It's probably practicality. The porous-plate sublimator has a nifty self-regulating feature. When the ice forms, it blocks the supply of feed water. As it sublimates, it reopens those pores and allows fresh feedwater to flow and freeze.
Sorry, I have said to much. Forget everything. Some well built gentlemen will be calling to your door. Do as they say and all will be well. Maybe.Fair point. I missed that one. By his argument, we might as easily claim that Jupiter and the Galilean moons are inflatables.
You mean they aren't? ::)
The porous-plate sublimator has a nifty self-regulating feature. When the ice forms, it blocks the supply of feed water. As it sublimates, it reopens those pores and allows fresh feedwater to flow and freeze.
Are you referring to spacecraft systems?The porous-plate sublimator has a nifty self-regulating feature. When the ice forms, it blocks the supply of feed water. As it sublimates, it reopens those pores and allows fresh feedwater to flow and freeze.
And to clarify, a practical sublimator is composed of many such elements. Each element goes through its own individual feed-freeze-sublimate cycle, and will not perform its heat-rejection duties as effectively during the feed-sublimation step. However, the elements are not in synch and therefore perform this cycle independently each at its own natural interval. The overall cooling effect of the sublimator assembly is the cumulative effect of each of these elements, some of which are regenerating at any given instant.
Sorry, I have said to much. Forget everything. Some well built gentlemen will be calling to your door. Do as they say and all will be well. Maybe.Fair point. I missed that one. By his argument, we might as easily claim that Jupiter and the Galilean moons are inflatables.
You mean they aren't? ::)
;D ;D ;D ;D
Mr Baker seems to have given us up as beyond hope....
Here's a nice picture of the ISS "balloon" across the Sun.
http://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/international-space-station-transits-the-sun
A slap at Neil's absurd claim, of course.
Yes, quite effective, the way this 'lighted inflatable' goes dark when it transits the sun....
Yes, quite effective, the way this 'lighted inflatable' goes dark when it transits the sun....
Yes, quite effective, the way this 'lighted inflatable' goes dark when it transits the sun....
While I'm all for treating the idea of the ISS being inflatable with all the scorn it deserves, I think we should ensure the arguments are sound.
Fair enough. In that vein, can I suggest considering the transit across the sun in tandem with a separate transit across the moon, and point out that the size of the ISS, when you consider that the Moon almost covers the Sun exactly in a solar eclipse, is remarkably consistent between the two - indicating that its height is consistent between the two series, and reinforcing the viewpoint that it's in a broadly fixed-height orbit above us.Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but I had the impression that Neil thought the ISS was an inflatable object, but was fully the size of the ISS and in the same orbit. Just, ya know, inflatable. So it should behave in most ways like the ISS.
Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but I had the impression that Neil thought the ISS was an inflatable object, but was fully the size of the ISS and in the same orbit. Just, ya know, inflatable. So it should behave in most ways like the ISS.Just like NASA did in 1960. The first man made orbiting satellite that could be viewed with the eyes
Of course, it is utterly baffling to me why he thinks we could put a giant inflatable device in orbit but not could possibly put an actual space station there.
And while I don't know exactly what, I'd be willing to bet there are quite a few engineering problems that could be solved or assisted if we COULD built giant inflatable devices capable of going in a stable orbit with less effort than it takes to launch a solid object.
Nope. You did not imagine it. That is indeed his claim. His only wiggle room is how big and how high the ethereal dirigible might be.Fair enough. In that vein, can I suggest considering the transit across the sun in tandem with a separate transit across the moon, and point out that the size of the ISS, when you consider that the Moon almost covers the Sun exactly in a solar eclipse, is remarkably consistent between the two - indicating that its height is consistent between the two series, and reinforcing the viewpoint that it's in a broadly fixed-height orbit above us.Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but I had the impression that Neil thought the ISS was an inflatable object, but was fully the size of the ISS and in the same orbit. Just, ya know, inflatable. So it should behave in most ways like the ISS.
Of course, it is utterly baffling to me why he thinks we could put a giant inflatable device in orbit but not could possibly put an actual space station there.I am minded of Moon Man's plaintive cry for an answer as to at what altitude above the moon's surface did the vacuum start and how did it extend all the way to Earth, and how far did this supposed vacuum extend. Those were actual questions asked.
And while I don't know exactly what, I'd be willing to bet there are quite a few engineering problems that could be solved or assisted if we COULD built giant inflatable devices capable of going in a stable orbit with less effort than it takes to launch a solid object.I suppose you could do it were you willing to exercise some imagination. Still, it will require a pool of designers, test articles, test facilities, Engineers of various flavours, mission controllers, telemetry through various nation states, maintenance because no matter what you do it will leak some and require replenishment so multiply that by every ISS resupply mission, then you need the engineering and production to produce the gear to repressurise the blimp, not to mention the the various sub blimp modules which must be added over time, the hours of footage which must be faked, and on and on...
Of course, it is utterly baffling to me why he thinks we could put a giant inflatable device in orbit but not could possibly put an actual space station there.
Just like NASA did in 1960. The first man made orbiting satellite that could be viewed with the eyes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Echo
I think you are correct about the rocket, not the satellite, it was too small to see with magnification.Just like NASA did in 1960. The first man made orbiting satellite that could be viewed with the eyes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Echo
That's not right. I was just one of probably tens of thousands worldwide who watched Sputnik I. For me, 8:06pm on 9 October 1957 NZST. Although its more likely we saw the rocket that put the tiny satellite up.
I am minded of Moon Man's plaintive cry for an answer as to at what altitude above the moon's surface did the vacuum start and how did it extend all the way to Earth, and how far did this supposed vacuum extend. Those were actual questions asked.
For most intents and purposes the ISS is a balloon. An inhabited balloon made of aluminum.Great allegory, Jay. :)
Fair enough. In that vein, can I suggest considering the transit across the sun in tandem with a separate transit across the moon, and point out that the size of the ISS, when you consider that the Moon almost covers the Sun exactly in a solar eclipse, is remarkably consistent between the two - indicating that its height is consistent between the two series, and reinforcing the viewpoint that it's in a broadly fixed-height orbit above us.Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but I had the impression that Neil thought the ISS was an inflatable object, but was fully the size of the ISS and in the same orbit. Just, ya know, inflatable. So it should behave in most ways like the ISS.
Of course, it is utterly baffling to me why he thinks we could put a giant inflatable device in orbit but not could possibly put an actual space station there.
And while I don't know exactly what, I'd be willing to bet there are quite a few engineering problems that could be solved or assisted if we COULD built giant inflatable devices capable of going in a stable orbit with less effort than it takes to launch a solid object.
And this leads right back to the inconsistent HB claim. The EBIL GUBBMINT is simultaneously so supremely powerful that it can silence any whistle blower by blandishment or assassination as required but at the very same time puts the evidence of their conspiracy on the intertubes for any moron to find.
Riddle me that.
He asserted, of course without evidence, they were involved somehow, claiming they were involved in black ops of some nebulous, nefarious nature.Fair enough. In that vein, can I suggest considering the transit across the sun in tandem with a separate transit across the moon, and point out that the size of the ISS, when you consider that the Moon almost covers the Sun exactly in a solar eclipse, is remarkably consistent between the two - indicating that its height is consistent between the two series, and reinforcing the viewpoint that it's in a broadly fixed-height orbit above us.Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but I had the impression that Neil thought the ISS was an inflatable object, but was fully the size of the ISS and in the same orbit. Just, ya know, inflatable. So it should behave in most ways like the ISS.
Of course, it is utterly baffling to me why he thinks we could put a giant inflatable device in orbit but not could possibly put an actual space station there.
And while I don't know exactly what, I'd be willing to bet there are quite a few engineering problems that could be solved or assisted if we COULD built giant inflatable devices capable of going in a stable orbit with less effort than it takes to launch a solid object.
Bigelow?
I'd recognize that do from a mile away
My kid brother is a Bigfoot/Alien conspiracist. He really believes all that stuff. His hero is Georgio Tsoukalis. I am convinced that he also doesn't think Apollo happened as the historical record portrays, but knows to keep his tongue around me.
I finally shut him up years ago with this:
All of the lunar landings occurred during the Nixon Administration. If Nixon couldn't keep a burglary done by three guys a secret, how in the hell do you think he could keep secret a lunar landing fake when the program had over 400,000 people working on it?
Hasn't said a word about it since.
Oh well, at least he isn't claiming David Niven's autobiography is an example of Hollywood whistleblowing. ::)
(Quite a fun read by the way. Well worth picking up.)
Yay shared reference getting! (Seriously, there needs to be a word for that.)Oh well, at least he isn't claiming David Niven's autobiography is an example of Hollywood whistleblowing. ::)
(Quite a fun read by the way. Well worth picking up.)
I didn't even have to look that up to get a laugh!!!
Oh well, at least he isn't claiming David Niven's autobiography is an example of Hollywood whistleblowing. ::)
(Quite a fun read by the way. Well worth picking up.)
I didn't even have to look that up to get a laugh!!!
All of the lunar landings occurred during the Nixon Administration. If Nixon couldn't keep a burglary done by three guys a secret, how in the hell do you think he could keep secret a lunar landing fake when the program had over 400,000 people working on it?
The whole secret is one of the fabrics that hold the HB's argument together. Same goes for alien landings/scientific accomplishments that the government holds at Area 51. Of course the secret government work at Area 51 helps promote this secret. Now if the government can keep secrets at Area 51 then the HB's cling to hope.All of the lunar landings occurred during the Nixon Administration. If Nixon couldn't keep a burglary done by three guys a secret, how in the hell do you think he could keep secret a lunar landing fake when the program had over 400,000 people working on it?
Nail
Head.
Heck...Clinton couldn't keep his, erm, cigar antics quiet and there was only two people present at the time! As Michael Collins stated- most Americans couldn't keep a secret for a weekend, never mind for 40 years!
The whole secret is one of the fabrics that hold the HB's argument together. Same goes for alien landings/scientific accomplishments that the government holds at Area 51. Of course the secret government work at Area 51 helps promote this secret. Now if the government can keep secrets at Area 51 then the HB's cling to hope.
There were sightings/photos of these objects and one would assume that something was being tested, but the exact information at least wasn't readily available to the general public. Perhaps the KBG or the Stasi knew about them, but they weren't going to spill the beans to the population. Rather like when the British broke the Enigma code, they has to keep that secret as well.
But could they?
For years, people who observed the goings on at Area 51/Groom Lake reported seeing black triangular shaped "UFO's" coming and going at night.
(http://www.aviationspectator.com/files/images/Lockheed-SR-71-Blackbird-116.preview.jpg)
(http://xmedia.nguoiduatin.vn/thumb_x500x/100/2013/06/08/F-117A.jpg)
(http://toranji.ir/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/2.00B-2_Spirit.jpg)
Thing is, if you are interested in aircraft and/or the military, the chances are you would assume that things coming out of a top secret military installation are military aircraft.
If you are pre-disposed to believing in UFOs and are fully engaged with the mythology of Area 51, you are going to be inclined to interpret things differently.
Our erstwhile OP has adopted a mindset that is convinced of government shenanigans. Ergo anything remotely government is suspect. It's the "Governments lie, therefore everything governments say is a lie" angle.
The fact that even the smallest Government half-truth is swiftly exposed as such is irrelevant to the HB mindset. All it needs is a dedicated enough bedroom keyboard warrior...
One of the aspects of both were their disagreement with the Bush administration concerning current policy, but as many have posted even if the test were done and if his witnesses were present, the test would not have been enough. The purpose was to present that government has lied therefore other activities of the government are drawn into question.
Not only that, but the two independent witnesses he names in the very first post as being acceptable are (former?) soldiers, and thus (former?) government employees, and thus suspect by his very own standards.
I looked up once how long Watergate and Iran-Contra had been kept secret, and neither one lasted more than I think eighteen months. They were on a lot smaller scale than Apollo, too.
Conspiracy theorist: Those were just coverups, man, for the Man's real deal, man.I looked up once how long Watergate and Iran-Contra had been kept secret, and neither one lasted more than I think eighteen months. They were on a lot smaller scale than Apollo, too.
Exactly, I've cited those two events too.
Conspiracy theorist: Those were just coverups, man, for the Man's real deal, man.I looked up once how long Watergate and Iran-Contra had been kept secret, and neither one lasted more than I think eighteen months. They were on a lot smaller scale than Apollo, too.
Exactly, I've cited those two events too.
Yeah, they kept the bomb secret too. It was compartmentalised, Apollo was too man.
There were sightings/photos of these objects and one would assume that something was being tested, but the exact information at least wasn't readily available to the general public. Perhaps the KBG or the Stasi knew about them, but they weren't going to spill the beans to the population. Rather like when the British broke the Enigma code, they has to keep that secret as well.
Overall I do think it was/is an impossibility to keep a NASA fraud from being uncovered by some investigative reporter at sometime in the last 45+ years.
The leading edge of the Vulcan got altered early on in its career; I had believed this was an aerodynamic decision but perhaps it affected its RCS?
One of the aspects of both were their disagreement with the Bush administration concerning current policy...
...but as many have posted even if the test were done and if his witnesses were present, the test would not have been enough. The purpose was to present that government has lied therefore other activities of the government are drawn into question.
I think Christopher Hitchens said it about as well as anyone. Please take the time to listen.
I've been lurking this thread for a while now, and while I understand the justification for making it clear why Baker has it very wrong (on far too many levels), I can honestly say that this has been another one of those "no point...he's just going to shift the goalposts again...and again...and again...etc" situations.Don't be a stranger. Baker may have baked his own noodle, but that's on him.
The way I see it, if Baker got his wish (you know, in that alternate-universe where stupid rules the roost?) and he managed to get his perfect vacuum chamber, with the instrumentation he wants, observed by his preferred "observers", and they test the sublimator under his perfect conditions, I think we're all aware of the final outcome...
His "observers" (if actually honest) would look at him and say, "Yup, no question: the Sublimator works as advertised." At which point he'd simply claim that the infamous NASA DEATH SQUADS had obviously gotten to his observers to keep them from confirming his idea.
Conjures up guys toting Thompson sub machine guns, silencing those who blab.
His "observers" (if actually honest) would look at him and say, "Yup, no question: the Sublimator works as advertised." At which point he'd simply claim that the infamous NASA DEATH SQUADS had obviously gotten to his observers to keep them from confirming his idea.
I still can't figure out what he thinks he'd see. It's got to be something visible, because otherwise, what's the point of video?I would have to go look it up to confirm, but I think it was Ralph Rene who first claimed that there should be visible puffs of steam coming from the PLSS periodically.
I still can't figure out what he thinks he'd see. It's got to be something visible, because otherwise, what's the point of video?I would have to go look it up to confirm, but I think it was Ralph Rene who first claimed that there should be visible puffs of steam coming from the PLSS periodically.
I still can't figure out what he thinks he'd see. It's got to be something visible, because otherwise, what's the point of video?I would have to go look it up to confirm, but I think it was Ralph Rene who first claimed that there should be visible puffs of steam coming from the PLSS periodically.
I still can't figure out what he thinks he'd see. It's got to be something visible, because otherwise, what's the point of video?I would have to go look it up to confirm, but I think it was Ralph Rene who first claimed that there should be visible puffs of steam coming from the PLSS periodically.
I'm pretty sure "Cosmic" Dave Cosnette made a similar claim on his page of claims, though he may have got it from Rene.
P102 of Rene's bookI still can't figure out what he thinks he'd see. It's got to be something visible, because otherwise, what's the point of video?I would have to go look it up to confirm, but I think it was Ralph Rene who first claimed that there should be visible puffs of steam coming from the PLSS periodically.I still can't figure out what he thinks he'd see. It's got to be something visible, because otherwise, what's the point of video?I would have to go look it up to confirm, but I think it was Ralph Rene who first claimed that there should be visible puffs of steam coming from the PLSS periodically.
I'm pretty sure "Cosmic" Dave Cosnette made a similar claim on his page of claims, though he may have got it from Rene.
Did either of them say why they expected to see puffs of steam?
P102 of Rene's bookIt is clear that Rene did not understand the physics of the sublimators either. But then I'm not surprised as everything I have read/seen concerning the "self" taught engineer is wrong. Perhaps he should have invested a few thousand dollars to get some real education.
"NASA claims that rotation kept the command ship cool. Maybe the astronauts should
have pirouetted like ballerinas as they went their merry way. But then would this have
seemed less than masculine? In the end the only thing that could have preserved their lives
for all those hours in that Sun was air-conditioning, which they didn't have. If they had really
had suit air-conditioners that worked, every time the suit was vented into the high vacuum of
space the rocket-effect should have been spectacular. A rapidly expanding fog of ice crystals
would have reflected the brilliant unfiltered sun light; spraying millions of tiny diamond-like
crystals about and producing a brilliant, dazzling and unforgettable display.
We can be sure our astronauts never released water in this manner, since, not one of the
thousands of pictures taken on the Moon, or during the space walks, has ever shown such a
display. NASA would hardly pass up a spectacular photo opportunity like that!"
Although the antipodean who shall not be named is still selling it on Rene's site, the PDF is freely available.
http://www.checktheevidence.com/pdf/Ralph%20Rene%20-%20NASA_mooned_america.pdf
Al's picture of Pete taking Al's picture. Pete is holding the extension handle in his left hand.
I don't know if this is the image you are referring, from A12.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-48-7071HR.jpgQuoteAl's picture of Pete taking Al's picture. Pete is holding the extension handle in his left hand.
I was thinking lens flare myself, but it fit the general description.I don't know if this is the image you are referring, from A12.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-48-7071HR.jpgQuoteAl's picture of Pete taking Al's picture. Pete is holding the extension handle in his left hand.
Looks more like the lens was hit by direct sunlight.
Dr Joe Kerwin and Vance Brand talk while they and Joe Engle spend 177 hours locked inside a Command Module that's placed in a vacuum chamber to qualify the newly redesigned Block II Cm rated to carry astronauts and go into space.
On topic post alert:
The top post on the Project Apollo facebook page has a picture with the following caption:QuoteDr Joe Kerwin and Vance Brand talk while they and Joe Engle spend 177 hours locked inside a Command Module that's placed in a vacuum chamber to qualify the newly redesigned Block II Cm rated to carry astronauts and go into space.
I'll try and post the photo later, but I am firewalled by work!
Here you go:
Here you go:FTFY, All of the above are in play.
(https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/11986609_736525526457429_8633931572934807109_n.jpg?oh=24a20b4f071f27e3e41be4cefcb0f37d&oe=56AAC841)
Baker would just claim:
"I didn't see the test, so it didn't happen"
"Yeah, but they are not wearing a spacesuit"
"La La La, I'm not listening"
(delete as applicable)
Speaking of Baker, has he finally stealth-flounced? He hasn't logged in since September 13th.
Thought you folks might appreciate a little diversion;I saw that yesterday, very very cool.
The solar system to scale, with the Earth represented by a marble ...
Thought you folks might appreciate a little diversion;Cool but all fake, you know that the planets and the sun all orbit the flat Earth. ::)
The solar system to scale, with the Earth represented by a marble ...
Then, only then, will they be allowed to take office.
Surely you jest. :)Then, only then, will they be allowed to take office.
And they have to pass a high school civics exam.
And they have to pass a high school civics exam.And science. Including biology.
So we can get it, some of us who are non-Americans need to be told what a high school civics exam is...Rather like understanding how people should act with/around government(s). What are the responsibilities/privileges of being a citizen.
Also, remedial maths. And ethics.[dissolution] You want them to be knowable, public servants and have ethics? Like that is going to happen.[/dissolution]
More specifically, high school is the last four years of secondary education in the US. (Usually. Sometimes, it's the last three.) When I was in high school, we were required to take a one-semester class called government in order to graduate. It's been over twenty years since I took it, so I can't tell you exactly what I learned from that class versus all the stuff that I learned other places, but it's a lot of information about the structure of the US government and so forth. Things like the so-called "balance of power," where each of our three main branches of government has abilities and restrictions assigned by the Constitution, and the case of Marbury v. Madison, which over two hundred years ago established the concept of "judicial review," which means that the Supreme Court has the authority to throw out laws as being unconstitutional.I can beat you on time, since it's thirty years ago, but both here and in the UK that used to be called "Civics" and it was a fancy pants name for a doss class. It counted for nothing and had no exams or scores associated. Now that I have my own kids, it turns out that it has been renamed, as if that makes a difference, yet retains the same bovine content as it did when I was a kid. Sure, such humdrum things have an importance. Not to a teenager.
See yours and raise twenty, I didn't bring up the government role in civics, since that my/not be different than other countries. Yes, our three branches pass laws(Congress) and funding, execute those laws(Executive), and rule on the legality versus what the Constitution (Judical) says/does not say. The Judicial can over time change its collective mind on what the Constitution means.More specifically, high school is the last four years of secondary education in the US. (Usually. Sometimes, it's the last three.) When I was in high school, we were required to take a one-semester class called government in order to graduate. It's been over twenty years since I took it, so I can't tell you exactly what I learned from that class versus all the stuff that I learned other places, but it's a lot of information about the structure of the US government and so forth. Things like the so-called "balance of power," where each of our three main branches of government has abilities and restrictions assigned by the Constitution, and the case of Marbury v. Madison, which over two hundred years ago established the concept of "judicial review," which means that the Supreme Court has the authority to throw out laws as being unconstitutional.I can beat you on time, since it's thirty years ago, but both here and in the UK that used to be called "Civics" and it was a fancy pants name for a doss class. It counted for nothing and had no exams or scores associated. Now that I have my own kids, it turns out that it has been renamed, as if that makes a difference, yet retains the same bovine content as it did when I was a kid. Sure, such humdrum things have an importance. Not to a teenager.
I know you are a relatively new mother and everything is pink and happy, but be warned, the time passes quickly and suddenly you will find yourself confronted with a poorly dressed teen saying "Your old, what the hell do you know about anything?" followed by "Don't answer me, you are judging me" all of which makes you pause and realise "Wait. My parents were right, I really was a dick as a teen".
Que sera sera.
I can beat you on time, since it's thirty years ago, but both here and in the UK that used to be called "Civics" and it was a fancy pants name for a doss class. It counted for nothing and had no exams or scores associated. Now that I have my own kids, it turns out that it has been renamed, as if that makes a difference, yet retains the same bovine content as it did when I was a kid. Sure, such humdrum things have an importance. Not to a teenager.
I know you are a relatively new mother and everything is pink and happy, but be warned, the time passes quickly and suddenly you will find yourself confronted with a poorly dressed teen saying "Your old, what the hell do you know about anything?" followed by "Don't answer me, you are judging me" all of which makes you pause and realise "Wait. My parents were right, I really was a dick as a teen".
...here and in the UK that used to be called "Civics" and it was a fancy pants name for a doss class. It counted for nothing and had no exams or scores associated.
A good example is passing laws that they(Congressmen) are exempt.
...The bottom line is that so very few state and local legislators seem to understand such basic concepts as the separation of powers ordained by America's founders. And I hear this also from some of the legislators of my state, who are sometimes guests in my home. (I'm good friends with their campaign managers.) What they call the activity of government I call politics.
Question
How many times does the International Space Station orbit the earth in one day?Hypothesis
I think that the space station will go around the earth 7 or 8 times a day because it seemed to be traveling extremely fast when I saw it.Method
To time the passes of the space station I needed to set up a datum line that could be used to watch when it passed.
To do this I have found a simple method using a bike wheel on a pole and a stop watch.
Step 1 - I removed the front wheel from a bike and remove the tyre.
Step 2 - I constructed a frame to attach the wheel to that can be adjusted to different vertical and horizontal angles, and attached the wheel to it.
Step 3 - I attached the frame to the top of a solid vertical pole that had a clear view to the sky.
Step 4 - I aligned the axle so that it points to the celestial South Pole. The rim of the wheel will now be closely aligned with the earth’s celestial equator. The space station will pass over this line. The celestial South Pole can be found by extending the vertical line of the Southern Cross and intersecting it with a line perpendicular from the midpoint between the Pointers. This is the position of which all of the stars appear to revolve around in the night sky.
Step 5 - By looking through the plane created by the bike wheel you are able to observe when the space station passes this plane, this can be used to accurately time when the space station passes the same projected plane in the sky.
Step 6 - With my mobile phone logged in to the international atomic clock, I recorded the time that the space station passed through the plane created by the bike wheel. I recorded this time in my log book.
Step 7 - I repeated steps 5 and 6 several times over a number of nights.
Step 8 - I can now use the times to calculate the number of passes between each reading, the average orbit period and calculate the number of orbits in a day.Fair Testing
1 - I used the International Atomic Clock each time to make sure the timing was accurate.
2 - I made sure that the wheel was protected from bumps and stayed stationary to ensure the timing was accurate.
3 - We aligned the wheel accurately with the Celestial South Pole to be sure that the space station would pass it each time.
4 - I checked the alignment of the wheel with the Celestial South Pole before each pass of the Space Station was timed.
5 - I used two spotters to ensure we identified the space station in the sky with plenty of time to prepare for it passing the wheel.
6 - I used two spotters to accurately identify when the space station crossed the plane of the wheel.
7 - I did multiple time tests over a long period of time so that we could average out the results and reduce errors.Conclusion
I was really surprised at how close the recorded times were to each other, even with using a basic method to time the space station passes. My testing showed that the International Space Station makes one orbit of the earth every 92 minutes and 32 seconds. This equates to orbiting the earth 15.56 times a day which is many more times than I expected. It must be travelling extremely fast – a lot faster than I thought.Discussion
I was surprised that the method I used to time the space station passes provided such accurate and consistent results. Measuring the results over a longer period of time gives a longer sample period which helps to reduce differences and the size of errors between individual results. Being able to time at least one set of consecutive passes was critical to the experiment working.
I was also surprised at how fast the space station is travelling. It needs to travel this fast so that as it is falling to earth it is also travelling past earth and never actually gets closer to the earth’s surface.
The method I used can be used to time any satellite that orbits the earth more than once a day – there are thousands of them out there!Further Learning
I have found out that you can calculate the orbit radius of a satellite from a formula based on Johannes Kepler’s 3rd law which he published in 1619. Using an online calculator the orbit radius for the space station works out at 6777km from the earth's centre. The earth has an average radius of 6371km which means that the space station is 406km high.
You can also work out the speed of the space station using the orbit period and orbit radius. The speed calculates at 7.67 km per second.
All satellites are in orbit around earth’s centre but not all rotate around the earth surface. These satellites appear to be stationary in relation to earth and they need to be a lot further away (thousands of kilometres) so that they are not affected as much by earth’s gravity. The satellite that SKY TV comes from is like this.BibliographyKepler’s Third law (on line orbit calculator):
http://www.1728.org/kepler3a.htm
Heavens above (satellite prediction tables):
http://www.heavens-above.com/
Atomic Clock Time (timing space station passes)
http://www.timeanddate.com/time/internatio
nal-atomic-time.html
<snip>
<snip>
^Best post ever^
This young girl will probably go on to a very successful career somewhere. More power to her.
Indirectly, this also goes someway to explaining why the best and brightest work work in places like Google, NASA and so-on, whereas the hoaxie world appears filled with people will serious personality problems (Heiwa, Neil Baker, The Blunder) or the plain "thick as two short planks" (Tindarwhatisface, Dak Dak, Allan Weisbecker).
There's a bloke that comes to my house once a month to wash the windows. He is a conspiracy theory nutjob-he once proudly told me that Security ejected him from Kennedy Space Centre as he was being disruptive. I guess this explains why he goes up and down ladders for a living, whilst NASA/Space X and others go up and down into space....
A clever experiment to come up with, and superbly executed.
Perhaps you could pass on our congratulations.
Third. ;D We need more critical thinkers like her on this rock.A clever experiment to come up with, and superbly executed.
Perhaps you could pass on our congratulations.
I second that proposal
I'll third that proposal.A clever experiment to come up with, and superbly executed.
Perhaps you could pass on our congratulations.
I second that proposal
"I think that the space station will go around the earth 7 or 8 times a day because it seemed to be travelling extremely fast when I saw it."
"the International Space Station makes one orbit of the earth every 92 minutes and 32 seconds. This equates to orbiting the earth 15.56 times a day which is many more times than I expected. It must be travelling extremely fast – a lot faster than I thought."
I will pass on your congratulations to her.No they mak up more observations to "prove" their case, or move the goalposts They can NEVER be wrong. Presenting debunking, you may get "you are naïve", or that cannot be because the debunker doesn't see it correctly
I would like to point out that she did something that HBs and CTs in general are utterly incapable of (apart from the obvious; clear critical thinking and using scientific methods to get answers).Quote"I think that the space station will go around the earth 7 or 8 times a day because it seemed to be travelling extremely fast when I saw it."Quote"the International Space Station makes one orbit of the earth every 92 minutes and 32 seconds. This equates to orbiting the earth 15.56 times a day which is many more times than I expected. It must be travelling extremely fast – a lot faster than I thought."
When the results didn't match her opinion, she changed her opinion!! This does not even enter into HB/CT thinking!
they (Hoax Believers and/or Conspiracy Theorists) make up more observations to "prove" their case, or move the goalposts They can NEVER be wrong. Presenting debunking, you may get "you are naïve", or that cannot be because the debunker doesn't see it correctly
Those also I'll be critical of the foul language, shouldn't be necessary to talk like an adolescent.they (Hoax Believers and/or Conspiracy Theorists) make up more observations to "prove" their case, or move the goalposts They can NEVER be wrong. Presenting debunking, you may get "you are naïve", or that cannot be because the debunker doesn't see it correctly
There are a few stock responses on YouTube when debunking a HB/CT; the most common are;
1. The HB/CT ignores the debunking, and hops to a different topic
2. The HB/CT accuses the debunker of being a 'shill' or 'on the NASA/Government payroll'
3. The HB/CT resorts to childish insult, foul language, and/or abuse.
Closely followed by;
4. Divert the conversation by dragging in 11/9 (WTC attacks), JFK, Sandy Hook, or any other conspiracy theory.....
For the benefit of those outwith the UK, there was a prime-time 'moon hoax/conspiracy' documentary on the TV the other night. An hour long, they interviewed Bart Sibrel, Marcus Allen, and oddly, a couple of folks at....
So, we're into November, one week since the last post here, and Mr Baker is conspicuous by his absence.Was there any non HB that refuted their claims or just the group showing their anomalies?
A Tarkus-like 'flounce', maybe?
For the benefit of those outwith the UK, there was a prime-time 'moon hoax/conspiracy' documentary on the TV the other night. An hour long, they interviewed Bart Sibrel, Marcus Allen, and oddly, a couple of folks at the tail end about Gubments having 'alien technology', which I thought was a bit out of place.
http://www.channel5.com/shows/conspiracy/episodes/episode-9-433
There was footage of Sibrel following astronauts around with a bible, and oh, how I laughed when one of them gave Sibrel a kick up the a*se to get him on his way, and when Aldrin delivered the famous punch......
Both Sibrel and Allen were very, very careful to lace everything they said with "if this..." and "could have done that ..." with very few, if any, definites in the conversation.
Was there any non HB that refuted their claims or just the group showing their anomalies?
So, we're into November, one week since the last post here, and Mr Baker is conspicuous by his absence.
I guess he was not willing or able to write anything that would pass his moderated status...
I guess he was not willing or able to write anything that would pass his moderated status...
Just had an exchange with someone in the Mars Society FB page, he too brought up space suit cooling. Which I thought odd, maybe it's the new waving flag of CTs.Maybe just a troll?
He also raised the usual Van Allen Belt issues, nobody having been above 300 (but insinuated that the ISS is an optical defect and that all EVA video is faked). Claimed to have been educated as an engineer (but refused to say if he had graduated), went on about the illuminati, refused to give a specific example of what would make him change his mind (other than something verifiable).
Soon resorted to insults and flounced.
You have to wonder what makes someone like that join the Mars Society group, given it is all about the past, present and future exploration of Mars!
Just had an exchange with someone in the Mars Society FB page, he too brought up space suit cooling. Which I thought odd, maybe it's the new waving flag of CTs.Maybe just a troll?
He also raised the usual Van Allen Belt issues, nobody having been above 300 (but insinuated that the ISS is an optical defect and that all EVA video is faked). Claimed to have been educated as an engineer (but refused to say if he had graduated), went on about the illuminati, refused to give a specific example of what would make him change his mind (other than something verifiable).
Soon resorted to insults and flounced.
You have to wonder what makes someone like that join the Mars Society group, given it is all about the past, present and future exploration of Mars!
Actually, I've been curious about spacesuit cooling on Mars. The porous plate sublimators on on current & past EVA suits rely on vacuum to operate. Is Mars' atmosphere thin enough to allow them to work, or will we have to find a different way to keep the would-be "Martians" cool while they work?
The pressure over large areas of Mars are below the triple point, so some kind of flash evaporator or sublimator would work.Even if it works, it would consume a lot of very precious water.
Also the insolation is much lower, so cool requirements will not be as stringent as on the Moon.Yes, but a pressure suit has to protect you from both temperature extremes. The usual approach is to insulate you as much as possible, then use active cooling to get rid of the waste heat from astronaut metabolism and PLSS operation. It would be quite a challenge to design a suit that could eliminate waste heat passively while still protecting you from the rather wide temperature swings on Mars.
Given the higher gravity of Mars compared to the moon, a heavier suit is much more of a burden. Mechanical counter-pressure suits might win out.Counter pressure?
Instead of using a layer of air, using the pressure of a tight fitting garment. Also known as a space activity suit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_activity_suit).Given the higher gravity of Mars compared to the moon, a heavier suit is much more of a burden. Mechanical counter-pressure suits might win out.Counter pressure?
Given the higher gravity of Mars compared to the moon, a heavier suit is much more of a burden. Mechanical counter-pressure suits might win out.
The pressure over large areas of Mars are below the triple point, so some kind of flash evaporator or sublimator would work.Even if it works, it would consume a lot of very precious water.
QuoteAlso the insolation is much lower, so cool requirements will not be as stringent as on the Moon.Yes, but a pressure suit has to protect you from both temperature extremes. The usual approach is to insulate you as much as possible, then use active cooling to get rid of the waste heat from astronaut metabolism and PLSS operation. It would be quite a challenge to design a suit that could eliminate waste heat passively while still protecting you from the rather wide temperature swings on Mars.
Also, the fact that Mars has a (thin) atmosphere may interfere with the thermal blankets used as suit insulation. A typical example consists of alternating layers of aluminized Mylar and a Dacron netting. They work in a vacuum much as a Thermos bottle does, with radiation barriers of reflective metals alternating with vacuum gaps to stop convection.
One of the more interesting suit cooling systems I've seen proposed is based on hydride compounds. They usually produce heat when absorbing hydrogen and absorb heat when losing hydrogen, but different alloys do so at different temperatures. The idea is to use one hydride to absorb suit heat at a suitable temperature (e.g., 10C) while absorbing the liberated hydrogen in another material that does so at ambient temperature. You can control the cooling level by regulating the hydrogen flow between them. After the EVA, you heat the second hydride container and cool the first, driving the hydrogen back the other way and regenerating the cooling unit.
Neil has poked his head above the parapet at YouTube again; apparently, what happened over here wasCensorship/moderation is in the eye of the beholder. Put a message that he was moderated for far different reasons than he listed
"I got censored.
Apollo Hoax and the cowards lurking there don't dare discuss the subject on a level playing field.
First they threatened to ban me if I didn't respond to each and every one of their lame long winded posts.
Then, when I responded they threatened me with expulsion if I dared discuss the motivations for seeking NASA truth.
Then, they baited me by discussing off topic subjects and when I responded to their off topic subject I got censored, not them."
Make of that what you will.....
Neil has poked his head above the parapet at YouTube again; apparently, what happened over here wasCensorship/moderation is in the eye of the beholder. Put a message that he was moderated for far different reasons than he listed
"I got censored.
Apollo Hoax and the cowards lurking there don't dare discuss the subject on a level playing field.
First they threatened to ban me if I didn't respond to each and every one of their lame long winded posts.
Then, when I responded they threatened me with expulsion if I dared discuss the motivations for seeking NASA truth.
Then, they baited me by discussing off topic subjects and when I responded to their off topic subject I got censored, not them."
Make of that what you will.....
"I got censored.
Apollo Hoax and the cowards lurking there don't dare discuss the subject on a level playing field.
First they threatened to ban me if I didn't respond to each and every one of their lame long winded posts.
Then, when I responded they threatened me with expulsion if I dared discuss the motivations for seeking NASA truth.
Then, they baited me by discussing off topic subjects and when I responded to their off topic subject I got censored, not them."
I'd be happy to do that if someone would tell me where to find that post...
I can't stand people who ignore the evidence.
I will go back through this entire thread, and list every single question to which he failed to respond, and list every single instance where he completely ignored the evidence presented him, followed by his off-topic rantings.
You did an adequate job, but probably lost on most of them. I enjoyed the lawyers take on the video.
I'd be happy to do that if someone would tell me where to find that post...
I can't stand people who ignore the evidence.
I will go back through this entire thread, and list every single question to which he failed to respond, and list every single instance where he completely ignored the evidence presented him, followed by his off-topic rantings.
Sort the comments by Newest First, and it's within the last couple of days or so. Same ID as I have here. Thread started by oliver hernandez
You'll need a google account to post.
Indeed, Baker's particular criminal history and attendant paranoia fairly ensured his outcome here would not be favorable. There's no need or use to try to salvage the situation here. Neil Baker is a demonstrably disturbed individual, and his rants here are the product of that disturbance.In addition to his inability to differentiate facts from fiction.
I'd be happy to do that if someone would tell me where to find that post...
I can't stand people who ignore the evidence.
I will go back through this entire thread, and list every single question to which he failed to respond, and list every single instance where he completely ignored the evidence presented him, followed by his off-topic rantings.
Sort the comments by Newest First, and it's within the last couple of days or so. Same ID as I have here. Thread started by oliver hernandez
You'll need a google account to post.
I'm hard to shock, but the clown who thinks that clouds go behind the sun and moon!
:o
I'm hard to shock, but the clown who thinks that clouds go behind the sun and moon!
:o
Oh, there's loads of them over at YouTube.... plus the ones who think the Earth is flat, that there's no such thing as satellites, that GPS works as a land-based 'cell tower' system, that the Moon's a hologram, etc etc
To be fair, it's hard to tell a genuine claim from those who are simply trolling for kicks and giggles.You have more faith than I do,I think they believe what they are posting.
It's sad, no, when the option that says people are lying for fun is the one that displays more faith in humanity.To be fair, it's hard to tell a genuine claim from those who are simply trolling for kicks and giggles.You have more faith than I do,I think they believe what they are posting.
It's sad, no, when the option that says people are lying for fun is the one that displays more faith in humanity.To be fair, it's hard to tell a genuine claim from those who are simply trolling for kicks and giggles.You have more faith than I do,I think they believe what they are posting.
From many of my conversations on YT many have a belief that science/government (NASA) lies and defend it vigourslyIt's sad, no, when the option that says people are lying for fun is the one that displays more faith in humanity.To be fair, it's hard to tell a genuine claim from those who are simply trolling for kicks and giggles.You have more faith than I do,I think they believe what they are posting.
From many of my conversations on YT many have a belief that science/government (NASA) lies and defend it vigoursly
Yes not much in the way of proof, but that doesn't stop them from posting their idiotic viewpoints.From many of my conversations on YT many have a belief that science/government (NASA) lies and defend it vigoursly
...and when asked 'Which Government' it transpires they're referring to the USA, or the stock answer comes back that they're 'all in it together', but there's never any proof of what 'it' is.
It's sad, no, when the option that says people are lying for fun is the one that displays more faith in humanity.To be fair, it's hard to tell a genuine claim from those who are simply trolling for kicks and giggles.You have more faith than I do,I think they believe what they are posting.
Very well put.
As for other replies, it is simply staggering not just how much plain and utter stupid is out there, but how much raging angry stupid there is out there, spewing ignorant nonsense in any receptacle they can find.
The source of that rage and anger is as baffling as the level of stupid given that most of them went through the same level of education as I did and probably have similar backgrounds. Apparently, everyone else is to blame for their failings in life, for some reason particularly NASA, and their stunning lack of achievement is nothing at all with their avoiding making any effort in their existence or making use of the opportunities given to them on a plate.
That is certainly a human trait.
For some I think the best way to justify their own lack of meaningful achievement is to try and show thatother's achievement is not genuine.
Meanwhile, over at YouTube, Baker has descended into arguing that there 'should have been a blast crater' under the LM, and 'why wasn't there any 'dust' on the footpads' .....
Sheesh.
It is a full moon also.Meanwhile, over at YouTube, Baker has descended into arguing that there 'should have been a blast crater' under the LM, and 'why wasn't there any 'dust' on the footpads' .....
Sheesh.
It's Groundhog Day!
Instead of using a layer of air, using the pressure of a tight fitting garment. Also known as a space activity suit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_activity_suit).Given the higher gravity of Mars compared to the moon, a heavier suit is much more of a burden. Mechanical counter-pressure suits might win out.Counter pressure?
Instead of using a layer of air, using the pressure of a tight fitting garment. Also known as a space activity suit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_activity_suit).Given the higher gravity of Mars compared to the moon, a heavier suit is much more of a burden. Mechanical counter-pressure suits might win out.Counter pressure?
Isn't that how Apollo suits worked anyway?
The biggest concern I have about the cooling of the space suits is the battery technology to operate it.Basically you have a lot of argument from incredulity and not much else.
Alan Bean was interviewed and when asked what cooled the module and space suits he said battery packs. Of course he also wasn't aware he went through the Van Allen radiation belts. lol
Sorry, but batteries are extremely inefficient and I'm pretty sure there were no solar chargers. Also battery technology would have been extremely heavy and bulky and most definitely could not have lasted long in +/- 200F temperatures.
I think the sublimator is a neat parlor trick by NASA but you can't get there from here on the power to run this fictitious piece of cooling equipment.
The biggest concern I have about the cooling of the space suits is the battery technology to operate it.Could this be a sock??
Alan Bean was interviewed and when asked what cooled the module and space suits he said battery packs. Of course he also wasn't aware he went through the Van Allen radiation belts. lol
Sorry, but batteries are extremely inefficient and I'm pretty sure there were no solar chargers. Also battery technology would have been extremely heavy and bulky and most definitely could not have lasted long in +/- 200F temperatures.
I think the sublimator is a neat parlor trick by NASA but you can't get there from here on the power to run this fictitious piece of cooling equipment.
The biggest concern I have about the cooling of the space suits is the battery technology to operate it.
Alan Bean was interviewed and when asked what cooled the module and space suits he said battery packs. Of course he also wasn't aware he went through the Van Allen radiation belts. lol
Sorry, but batteries are extremely inefficient and I'm pretty sure there were no solar chargers. Also battery technology would have been extremely heavy and bulky and most definitely could not have lasted long in +/- 200F temperatures.
I think the sublimator is a neat parlor trick by NASA but you can't get there from here on the power to run this fictitious piece of cooling equipment.
I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for his "evidence".The biggest concern I have about the cooling of the space suits is the battery technology to operate it.
Alan Bean was interviewed and when asked what cooled the module and space suits he said battery packs. Of course he also wasn't aware he went through the Van Allen radiation belts. lol
Sorry, but batteries are extremely inefficient and I'm pretty sure there were no solar chargers. Also battery technology would have been extremely heavy and bulky and most definitely could not have lasted long in +/- 200F temperatures.
I think the sublimator is a neat parlor trick by NASA but you can't get there from here on the power to run this fictitious piece of cooling equipment.
Do feel free to provide absolutely any evidence whatsoever to support anything you've just posted.
Basically you have a lot of argument from incredulity and not much else.If the Van Allen belts are so insignificant why is NASA trying to figure out how to get through them on their supposed planned trip to Mars?
they did use batteries, the specs of which are available if you look and you can see there WAS enough power for what they needed to do.
As for the Van Allen belts, why should he remember an insignificant part of the trip multiple years later when they were on a preplanned trajectory that took them AROUND the belts anyway?
According to NASA, the batteries during in the Apollo moon vacation (no qty given on their sight) were 3" x 2 3/4" x 6.78" and weighed 135 lbs. My car battery is much bigger and weighs less than 30 lbs. I guess 1960's technology was way more advanced than today. LOL.The biggest concern I have about the cooling of the space suits is the battery technology to operate it.
Alan Bean was interviewed and when asked what cooled the module and space suits he said battery packs. Of course he also wasn't aware he went through the Van Allen radiation belts. lol
Sorry, but batteries are extremely inefficient and I'm pretty sure there were no solar chargers. Also battery technology would have been extremely heavy and bulky and most definitely could not have lasted long in +/- 200F temperatures.
I think the sublimator is a neat parlor trick by NASA but you can't get there from here on the power to run this fictitious piece of cooling equipment.
Do feel free to provide absolutely any evidence whatsoever to support anything you've just posted.
You misunderstood Mr. Smith's video. THE VARB have always been a concern for NS not the impediment you suggest.
If the Van Allen belts are so insignificant why is NASA trying to figure out how to get through them on their supposed planned trip to Mars?
Is not that Van Allen Belts are dangerous, its the interplanetary space. Orion will need to travel for months in that place opposed to Apollo.Basically you have a lot of argument from incredulity and not much else.If the Van Allen belts are so insignificant why is NASA trying to figure out how to get through them on their supposed planned trip to Mars?
they did use batteries, the specs of which are available if you look and you can see there WAS enough power for what they needed to do.
As for the Van Allen belts, why should he remember an insignificant part of the trip multiple years later when they were on a preplanned trajectory that took them AROUND the belts anyway?
You display very poor to nonexistent amount of research on the matter, the batteries you describe were for the LM not the PLSS.
According to NASA, the batteries during in the Apollo moon vacation (no qty given on their sight) were 3" x 2 3/4" x 6.78" and weighed 135 lbs. My car battery is much bigger and weighs less than 30 lbs. I guess 1960's technology was way more advanced than today. LOL.
Again, i ask the nasa fanbase what powered the sublimator to heat and cool the suits and module in extreme temperatures using 1960's technology?
The biggest concern I have about the cooling of the space suits is the battery technology to operate it.
Alan Bean was interviewed and when asked what cooled the module and space suits he said battery packs. Of course he also wasn't aware he went through the Van Allen radiation belts. lol
Sorry, but batteries are extremely inefficient and I'm pretty sure there were no solar chargers. Also battery technology would have been extremely heavy and bulky and most definitely could not have lasted long in +/- 200F temperatures.
I think the sublimator is a neat parlor trick by NASA but you can't get there from here on the power to run this fictitious piece of cooling equipment.
That part has been clipped out so it is out of context also. I haven't heard the original video where the Skylab question was asked, thanks for the info.
What you either don't know or are ignoring is Al Bean was discussing the Skylab mission when the question of the Van Allen Belts came up. Taking a quote out of context is a poor way to get answers.
According to NASA
If you don't know the specs of the batteries, then how can you claim that they weren't sufficient? You claim that they batteries weren't capable, then please show how you came to that conclusion.
Again, i ask the nasa fanbase what powered the sublimator to heat and cool the suits and module in extreme temperatures using 1960's technology?
Of course he also wasn't aware he went through the Van Allen radiation belts. lol
Also battery technology would have been extremely heavy and bulky and most definitely could not have lasted long in +/- 200F temperatures.
I think the sublimator is a neat parlor trick by NASA but you can't get there from here on the power to run this fictitious piece of cooling equipment.
I didn't say they were insignificant. Please read what I wrote, not what you wish I wrote. I said it was an insignificant part of the trip because they used a trajectory that took them around the belts.Basically you have a lot of argument from incredulity and not much else.If the Van Allen belts are so insignificant why is NASA trying to figure out how to get through them on their supposed planned trip to Mars?
they did use batteries, the specs of which are available if you look and you can see there WAS enough power for what they needed to do.
As for the Van Allen belts, why should he remember an insignificant part of the trip multiple years later when they were on a preplanned trajectory that took them AROUND the belts anyway?
Your car battery is a lead acid battery used because it can support a lot of discharge/recharge cycles but NOT because it is particularly efficient. Apollo used IIRC silver zinc batteries which, though expensive, have a better power efficiency than lithium batteries.According to NASA, the batteries during in the Apollo moon vacation (no qty given on their sight) were 3" x 2 3/4" x 6.78" and weighed 135 lbs. My car battery is much bigger and weighs less than 30 lbs. I guess 1960's technology was way more advanced than today. LOL.The biggest concern I have about the cooling of the space suits is the battery technology to operate it.
Alan Bean was interviewed and when asked what cooled the module and space suits he said battery packs. Of course he also wasn't aware he went through the Van Allen radiation belts. lol
Sorry, but batteries are extremely inefficient and I'm pretty sure there were no solar chargers. Also battery technology would have been extremely heavy and bulky and most definitely could not have lasted long in +/- 200F temperatures.
I think the sublimator is a neat parlor trick by NASA but you can't get there from here on the power to run this fictitious piece of cooling equipment.
Do feel free to provide absolutely any evidence whatsoever to support anything you've just posted.
Again, i ask the nasa fanbase what powered the sublimator to heat and cool the suits and module in extreme temperatures using 1960's technology?
Another Apollo defender posted a clip of the actual question and answer on Youtube, but unfortunately I failed to save it anywhere and I cannot remember who it was who posted it. I'm afraid it's just my word on that until and unless I can find the clip, so take it with the appropriate grain of salt.That part has been clipped out so it is out of context also. I haven't heard the original video where the Skylab question was asked, thanks for the info.
What you either don't know or are ignoring is Al Bean was discussing the Skylab mission when the question of the Van Allen Belts came up. Taking a quote out of context is a poor way to get answers.
It sounds about correct, for the HB's to take a comment out of context and present it to bolster their point. I shall look for it also, if it hasn't been pulled.Another Apollo defender posted a clip of the actual question and answer on Youtube, but unfortunately I failed to save it anywhere and I cannot remember who it was who posted it. I'm afraid it's just my word on that until and unless I can find the clip, so take it with the appropriate grain of salt.That part has been clipped out so it is out of context also. I haven't heard the original video where the Skylab question was asked, thanks for the info.
What you either don't know or are ignoring is Al Bean was discussing the Skylab mission when the question of the Van Allen Belts came up. Taking a quote out of context is a poor way to get answers.
According to NASA, the batteries during in the Apollo moon vacation (no qty given on their sight) were 3" x 2 3/4" x 6.78" and weighed 135 lbs. My car battery is much bigger and weighs less than 30 lbs.
I guess 1960's technology was way more advanced than today. LOL.
i ask the nasa fanbase what powered the sublimator to heat and cool the suits and module in extreme temperatures using 1960's technology?
The biggest concern I have about the cooling of the space suits is the battery technology to operate it.
Alan Bean was interviewed and when asked what cooled the module and space suits he said battery packs. Of course he also wasn't aware he went through the Van Allen radiation belts. lol
Sorry, but batteries are extremely inefficient and I'm pretty sure there were no solar chargers. Also battery technology would have been extremely heavy and bulky and most definitely could not have lasted long in +/- 200F temperatures.
I think the sublimator is a neat parlor trick by NASA but you can't get there from here on the power to run this fictitious piece of cooling equipment.
The biggest concern I have about the cooling of the space suits is the battery technology to operate it.
Also battery technology would have been extremely heavy and bulky and most definitely could not have lasted long in +/- 200F temperatures.
I think the sublimator is a neat parlor trick by NASA but you can't get there from here on the power to run this fictitious piece of cooling equipment.
I remember looking up the power density at one of those battery comparison charts after seeing on something from NASA what the battery chemistry was on the rover. I imagine it wouldn't be difficult to do the same for the PLSS.
What would make a more intriguing problem is figuring out if there is sufficient battery life there. Tradosaurus seems to be assuming an electrically powered refrigeration cycle -- a Carnot heat engine, do I have the term right? Of course the sublimator isn't a closed-cycle unit; the work is derived from the reservoir of working fluid, and the limiting factor is the amount of water carried in the first place.
But...locally cooling just the back of your neck is probably not the most effective, so there is need to push cold water through the loops of the thermal undergarment to get it to where it is most wanted. And it might be fun to work out a rough approximation of what kind of power that might take.
I remember looking up the power density at one of those battery comparison charts after seeing on something from NASA what the battery chemistry was on the rover. I imagine it wouldn't be difficult to do the same for the PLSS.
What would make a more intriguing problem is figuring out if there is sufficient battery life there. Tradosaurus seems to be assuming an electrically powered refrigeration cycle -- a Carnot heat engine, do I have the term right? Of course the sublimator isn't a closed-cycle unit; the work is derived from the reservoir of working fluid, and the limiting factor is the amount of water carried in the first place.
But...locally cooling just the back of your neck is probably not the most effective, so there is need to push cold water through the loops of the thermal undergarment to get it to where it is most wanted. And it might be fun to work out a rough approximation of what kind of power that might take.
The easiest way to do that would be to look up the pumps and use their powr consumption data as basis.
NASA. Now that is clever. Right when I thought I had seen all the great one liners, I am reduced to tears and fits of laughter by this stunning display of comic wit.
Honestly, I've started to believe that any and all insults of that kind should result in having your posts edited by LO. It's childish and petty, and it's certainly not persuasive.
LM and EMU batteries were contained inside structure. What makes you think there would be any thermal fluctuations there?Especially since the LM batteries were mounted on cold plates through which coolant was circulated that passed through a sublimator working on exactly the same principle as the one in the PLSS.
The LM had approximately 1600 A h of batteries, of the then-exotic silver-zinc type. These were the forerunners of today's quite ubiquitous high energy density batteries. Exotic then, yes, but certainly not unheard of in the literature.And they're still exotic. Perhaps the name is a clue as to why.
According to NASA, the batteries during in the Apollo moon vacation (no qty given on their sight) were 3" x 2 3/4" x 6.78" and weighed 135 lbs.An object 3" x 2.75" x 6.78" and weighing 135 lbm has a density of 66.8 g/cc. Water is 1 g/cc and uranium is 19.1 g/cc. Perhaps you should take more care when transcribing figures.
My car battery is much bigger and weighs less than 30 lbs. I guess 1960's technology was way more advanced than today. LOL.Perhaps you should investigate the various battery chemistries and why each might be preferred for a given application. Hint: look up the prices of the raw materials involved.
Again, i ask the nasa fanbase what powered the sublimator to heat and cool the suits and module in extreme temperatures using 1960's technology?Asked and answered, but I do congratulate you on correctly spelling the acronym of the US space agency. The sublimator required no electrical power, but it did require a feedwater supply and a source of pressure. The coolant circulating pumps did require electrical power, about 30 watts total for each PLSS.
NASA. Now that is clever. Right when I thought I had seen all the great one liners, I am reduced to tears and fits of laughter by this stunning display of comic wit.
You nasa fan boys need to get on the same page. I've read many articles that state that the Apollo missions went through the Van Allen belts.Of course he also wasn't aware he went through the Van Allen radiation belts. lol
That's because he didn't.QuoteAlso battery technology would have been extremely heavy and bulky and most definitely could not have lasted long in +/- 200F temperatures.
LM and EMU batteries were contained inside structure. What makes you think there would be any thermal fluctuations there?
The LM had approximately 1600 A h of batteries, of the then-exotic silver-zinc type. These were the forerunners of today's quite ubiquitous high energy density batteries. Exotic then, yes, but certainly not unheard of in the literature.QuoteI think the sublimator is a neat parlor trick by NASA but you can't get there from here on the power to run this fictitious piece of cooling equipment.
Sublimators are fictitious? Sublimators are NASA-only technology? And you claim to be an engineer?
You nasa fan boys need to get on the same page. I've read many articles that state that the Apollo missions went through the Van Allen belts.Of course he also wasn't aware he went through the Van Allen radiation belts. lol
That's because he didn't.QuoteAlso battery technology would have been extremely heavy and bulky and most definitely could not have lasted long in +/- 200F temperatures.
LM and EMU batteries were contained inside structure. What makes you think there would be any thermal fluctuations there?
The LM had approximately 1600 A h of batteries, of the then-exotic silver-zinc type. These were the forerunners of today's quite ubiquitous high energy density batteries. Exotic then, yes, but certainly not unheard of in the literature.QuoteI think the sublimator is a neat parlor trick by NASA but you can't get there from here on the power to run this fictitious piece of cooling equipment.
Sublimators are fictitious? Sublimators are NASA-only technology? And you claim to be an engineer?
http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/apollo-rocketed-through-van-allen-belts (http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/apollo-rocketed-through-van-allen-belts)
Also NASA is still trying figure out the radiation belts for the future and fictitious Mars mission. Why not just use the data from the 1960's technology that the Apollo missions use to navigate the belts? Or did NASA lose that also?
and while the Apollo missions did go through the belts, they went on a trajectory through the thinner out edges.You nasa fan boys need to get on the same page. I've read many articles that state that the Apollo missions went through the Van Allen belts.Of course he also wasn't aware he went through the Van Allen radiation belts. lol
That's because he didn't.QuoteAlso battery technology would have been extremely heavy and bulky and most definitely could not have lasted long in +/- 200F temperatures.
LM and EMU batteries were contained inside structure. What makes you think there would be any thermal fluctuations there?
The LM had approximately 1600 A h of batteries, of the then-exotic silver-zinc type. These were the forerunners of today's quite ubiquitous high energy density batteries. Exotic then, yes, but certainly not unheard of in the literature.QuoteI think the sublimator is a neat parlor trick by NASA but you can't get there from here on the power to run this fictitious piece of cooling equipment.
Sublimators are fictitious? Sublimators are NASA-only technology? And you claim to be an engineer?
http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/apollo-rocketed-through-van-allen-belts (http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/apollo-rocketed-through-van-allen-belts)
Also NASA is still trying figure out the radiation belts for the future and fictitious Mars mission. Why not just use the data from the 1960's technology that the Apollo missions use to navigate the belts? Or did NASA lose that also?
Jay's comment was concerning Alan's SpaceLab mission that did not go through the VARB, the video comment has been taken out of context. Get your facts straight.
You nasa fan boys need to get on the same page. I've read many articles that state that the Apollo missions went through the Van Allen belts.
Also NASA is still trying figure out the radiation belts for the future and fictitious Mars mission. Why not just use the data from the 1960's technology that the Apollo missions use to navigate the belts? Or did NASA lose that also?
It would have been great to visit with such great personalities! :)You nasa fan boys need to get on the same page. I've read many articles that state that the Apollo missions went through the Van Allen belts.
And while you're frantically Googling the popular literature that simplifies the issue, many of the rest of us are quite capable of plotting the actual orbit. I even spoke to Dr. Van Allen about it, before he passed away.
...
Two of the objects I mentioned earlier traversed the Van Allen belts, and others I've worked on tangentially operate continuously in them. These are projects with billion-dollar budgets, made for private customers. We guaranteed our work, and everyone involved took out enormous insurance policies that would pay out for early failure.
One thing I keep meaning to ask that I've been curious about since watching one of the James Burke episodes were he mentioned the 99.99992% reliability standard every component was built to for the Apollo missions. What kind of standard is set for commercial satellites and NASA unmanned missions? There must be some kind of sliding scale depending on how expensive the mission or satellite is but were would it start at? 95% for a relatively cheap satellite for example? I imagine that reliability figure must make a difference with the insurance premiums as well.
One thing I keep meaning to ask that I've been curious about since watching one of the James Burke episodes were he mentioned the 99.99992% reliability standard every component was built to for the Apollo missions. What kind of standard is set for commercial satellites and NASA unmanned missions? There must be some kind of sliding scale depending on how expensive the mission or satellite is but were would it start at? 95% for a relatively cheap satellite for example? I imagine that reliability figure must make a difference with the insurance premiums as well.
That's a hornet's nest of a question because system reliability and component reliability are different things. You build components to a certain number of "nines" of reliability because the way they combine into a system invokes statistical computations to determine the statistical reliability of assemblies, subsystems, and entire systems for the span of a given mission. I mentioned I worked (in the early phase) on the Antares rocket, which was originally in a class of rockets generally considered to have only 1-2 "nines" overall. A 1 in 20 failure rate is acceptable for some applications, especially when a goal is to reduce cost per launch. But in order to get even that amount, several of the components have to be built to 3-4 "nines" (i.e., probability of success during a mission > 0.9995).
Here's a simple example. Let's say your car has four tires and each tire is built to two nines, or probability of "mission" success for each tire is 0.99. But all four tires have to work, so you multiply them together to get the overall reliability for the tire "subsystem" -- algebraically, psys = pcnc where c denotes a component. You end up with 0.96. By needing four of the components in order for the system to work, you lose almost half a "nine" in the tires' contribution to overall trip success.
Conversely you can design things so that component reliability works in your favor. If you really need a rocket engine to fire, you can have two parallel (i.e., redundant) fuel paths, each with its own inlet valve. The idea is that only one of them has to operate in order for the engine to fire. If you want 4 nines for that engine then the combinatorial math works the other direction. It means you can tolerate a p <= 0.0001 probability of failure, which means that's the probability of both inlet valves failing. That involves the nth root, n = 2, and thus acceptable component failure is p <= 0.01. You only need two nines of reliability on the valves by arranging them redundantly.
Doing this for an entire design, using appropriately sophisticated statistical methods, complexity analysis, and criticality analysis, you come up with reliability budgets at different scopes of examination in the design. And unfortunately for component-level designers, this often means that critical components need to be built to unbelievably high reliability factors.
Read Van Allen's article on the radiation belts in the 1959 Scientific American. If you believe that rockets can operate in a vacuum then this article talks about measurements taken of the radiation levels in the belts. Supposedly they were extremely high and dangerous to any humans.Another Apollo defender posted a clip of the actual question and answer on Youtube, but unfortunately I failed to save it anywhere and I cannot remember who it was who posted it. I'm afraid it's just my word on that until and unless I can find the clip, so take it with the appropriate grain of salt.That part has been clipped out so it is out of context also. I haven't heard the original video where the Skylab question was asked, thanks for the info.
What you either don't know or are ignoring is Al Bean was discussing the Skylab mission when the question of the Van Allen Belts came up. Taking a quote out of context is a poor way to get answers.
Read Van Allen's article on the radiation belts in the 1959 Scientific American. If you believe that rockets can operate in a vacuum then this article talks about measurements taken of the radiation levels in the belts. Supposedly they were extremely high and dangerous to any humans.Another Apollo defender posted a clip of the actual question and answer on Youtube, but unfortunately I failed to save it anywhere and I cannot remember who it was who posted it. I'm afraid it's just my word on that until and unless I can find the clip, so take it with the appropriate grain of salt.That part has been clipped out so it is out of context also. I haven't heard the original video where the Skylab question was asked, thanks for the info.
What you either don't know or are ignoring is Al Bean was discussing the Skylab mission when the question of the Van Allen Belts came up. Taking a quote out of context is a poor way to get answers.
https://www.testofbelievers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/VanAllenBelts-SciAm-Mar1959.pdf (https://www.testofbelievers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/VanAllenBelts-SciAm-Mar1959.pdf)
I don't know how the clip of Alan Bean was taken out of context.
You can watch the lies from Mr. Bean start here and I believe you can see it all in the same context. https://youtu.be/LAbpWaDL4Zc?t=10m15s (https://youtu.be/LAbpWaDL4Zc?t=10m15s)
I'm really surprised at the lengths the NASA fan base will go to defend inconsistencies and fabrications from NASA.
Dr. Van Allen did indeed state that in 1959, however, these comments were directed to plans for an orbiting space station at 1000 miles, one of the proposals at the time, and indeed without a great deal of protection those astronauts would be in danger, in fact when the ISS travels through the South Atlantic Anomaly, the astronauts need to go to a more safe portion of the ISS to have time to regenerate.Read Van Allen's article on the radiation belts in the 1959 Scientific American. If you believe that rockets can operate in a vacuum then this article talks about measurements taken of the radiation levels in the belts. Supposedly they were extremely high and dangerous to any humans.Another Apollo defender posted a clip of the actual question and answer on Youtube, but unfortunately I failed to save it anywhere and I cannot remember who it was who posted it. I'm afraid it's just my word on that until and unless I can find the clip, so take it with the appropriate grain of salt.That part has been clipped out so it is out of context also. I haven't heard the original video where the Skylab question was asked, thanks for the info.
What you either don't know or are ignoring is Al Bean was discussing the Skylab mission when the question of the Van Allen Belts came up. Taking a quote out of context is a poor way to get answers.
https://www.testofbelievers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/VanAllenBelts-SciAm-Mar1959.pdf (https://www.testofbelievers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/VanAllenBelts-SciAm-Mar1959.pdf)
I don't know how the clip of Alan Bean was taken out of context.
You can watch the lies from Mr. Bean start here and I believe you can see it all in the same context. https://youtu.be/LAbpWaDL4Zc?t=10m15s (https://youtu.be/LAbpWaDL4Zc?t=10m15s)
I'm really surprised at the lengths the NASA fan base will go to defend inconsistencies and fabrications from NASA.
Is not that Van Allen Belts are dangerous, its the interplanetary space. Orion will need to travel for months in that place opposed to Apollo.Basically you have a lot of argument from incredulity and not much else.If the Van Allen belts are so insignificant why is NASA trying to figure out how to get through them on their supposed planned trip to Mars?
they did use batteries, the specs of which are available if you look and you can see there WAS enough power for what they needed to do.
As for the Van Allen belts, why should he remember an insignificant part of the trip multiple years later when they were on a preplanned trajectory that took them AROUND the belts anyway?
Read Van Allen's article on the radiation belts in the 1959 Scientific American. If you believe that rockets can operate in a vacuum then this article talks about measurements taken of the radiation levels in the belts. Supposedly they were extremely high and dangerous to any humans.Another Apollo defender posted a clip of the actual question and answer on Youtube, but unfortunately I failed to save it anywhere and I cannot remember who it was who posted it. I'm afraid it's just my word on that until and unless I can find the clip, so take it with the appropriate grain of salt.That part has been clipped out so it is out of context also. I haven't heard the original video where the Skylab question was asked, thanks for the info.
What you either don't know or are ignoring is Al Bean was discussing the Skylab mission when the question of the Van Allen Belts came up. Taking a quote out of context is a poor way to get answers.
https://www.testofbelievers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/VanAllenBelts-SciAm-Mar1959.pdf (https://www.testofbelievers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/VanAllenBelts-SciAm-Mar1959.pdf)
I don't know how the clip of Alan Bean was taken out of context.
You can watch the lies from Mr. Bean start here and I believe you can see it all in the same context. https://youtu.be/LAbpWaDL4Zc?t=10m15s (https://youtu.be/LAbpWaDL4Zc?t=10m15s)
I'm really surprised at the lengths the NASA fan base will go to defend inconsistencies and fabrications from NASA.
It's all old debunked nonsense. Bean was talking about his Skylab tour. The 1959 study was later refined and is now the basis for all space activity radiation consideration.
Dr. Van Allen did indeed state that in 1959, however, these comments were directed to plans for an orbiting space station at 1000 miles, one of the proposals at the time, and indeed without a great deal of protection those astronauts would be in danger, in fact when the ISS travels through the South Atlantic Anomaly, the astronauts need to go to a more safe portion of the ISS to have time to regenerate.Read Van Allen's article on the radiation belts in the 1959 Scientific American. If you believe that rockets can operate in a vacuum then this article talks about measurements taken of the radiation levels in the belts. Supposedly they were extremely high and dangerous to any humans.Another Apollo defender posted a clip of the actual question and answer on Youtube, but unfortunately I failed to save it anywhere and I cannot remember who it was who posted it. I'm afraid it's just my word on that until and unless I can find the clip, so take it with the appropriate grain of salt.That part has been clipped out so it is out of context also. I haven't heard the original video where the Skylab question was asked, thanks for the info.
What you either don't know or are ignoring is Al Bean was discussing the Skylab mission when the question of the Van Allen Belts came up. Taking a quote out of context is a poor way to get answers.
https://www.testofbelievers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/VanAllenBelts-SciAm-Mar1959.pdf (https://www.testofbelievers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/VanAllenBelts-SciAm-Mar1959.pdf)
I don't know how the clip of Alan Bean was taken out of context.
You can watch the lies from Mr. Bean start here and I believe you can see it all in the same context. https://youtu.be/LAbpWaDL4Zc?t=10m15s (https://youtu.be/LAbpWaDL4Zc?t=10m15s)
I'm really surprised at the lengths the NASA fan base will go to defend inconsistencies and fabrications from NASA.
Now when Apollo flew to the moon the trajectory was through the less dense portions of the belts and since exposure is related to flux and exposure time the dose was very small.
Here is a post with a letter from him.
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-3885.html
in addition since you are an "Engineer" you should be able to compute the radiation amounts using
http://spacemath.gsfc.NASA.gov/Algebra1/3Page7.pdf
No mysterier no lies no fabrications, just years of study and real Engineers working the problems.
Nowhere in that video does Mr. Smith state that NASA hasn't/can't get through the VARB. The Orion capsule uses much radiation damage prone electronics, not the RTL very stable electronics of Apollo for a 14 day mission. Orion is being designed for much longer flights perhaps years.Is not that Van Allen Belts are dangerous, its the interplanetary space. Orion will need to travel for months in that place opposed to Apollo.Basically you have a lot of argument from incredulity and not much else.If the Van Allen belts are so insignificant why is NASA trying to figure out how to get through them on their supposed planned trip to Mars?
they did use batteries, the specs of which are available if you look and you can see there WAS enough power for what they needed to do.
As for the Van Allen belts, why should he remember an insignificant part of the trip multiple years later when they were on a preplanned trajectory that took them AROUND the belts anyway?
https://youtu.be/NlXG0REiVzE
(https://youtu.be/NlXG0REiVzE)
The video of the NASA engineer admitting they don't know how to get through the belts. Also this engineer states that "just as it [orion] passes over the Indian ocean we lose all communication". LOL. What happened to the 20,000+ satellites in orbit? Why can't Orion stay in communication?
This guy certainly received his B.S in engineering but the B.S. doesn't mean bachelor of science.
If you want to see a better space actor and egomaniac watch the conference with Adam Steltzner talking about the rover that landed on Mars. When asked about the image file type use to capture the image from Mars he states "Unfortunately I cannot" and then asked about the landing coordinates had a perplexed look on his face and stated "I can't confirm that" lol
Good question, why can't it stay in communications? If the world was flat, no satellite would ever be out of line of sight from Earth unless it dipped around the underside, but if the world is round, it could go 'behind the horizon' and be blocked by the curvature of the Earth and all that dirt and rock.Is not that Van Allen Belts are dangerous, its the interplanetary space. Orion will need to travel for months in that place opposed to Apollo.Basically you have a lot of argument from incredulity and not much else.If the Van Allen belts are so insignificant why is NASA trying to figure out how to get through them on their supposed planned trip to Mars?
they did use batteries, the specs of which are available if you look and you can see there WAS enough power for what they needed to do.
As for the Van Allen belts, why should he remember an insignificant part of the trip multiple years later when they were on a preplanned trajectory that took them AROUND the belts anyway?
https://youtu.be/NlXG0REiVzE
(https://youtu.be/NlXG0REiVzE)
The video of the NASA engineer admitting they don't know how to get through the belts. Also this engineer states that "just as it [orion] passes over the Indian ocean we lose all communication". LOL. What happened to the 20,000+ satellites in orbit? Why can't Orion stay in communication?
Did you look at the links or just hand wave them away, troll.QuoteDr. Van Allen did indeed state that in 1959, however, these comments were directed to plans for an orbiting space station at 1000 miles, one of the proposals at the time, and indeed without a great deal of protection those astronauts would be in danger, in fact when the ISS travels through the South Atlantic Anomaly, the astronauts need to go to a more safe portion of the ISS to have time to regenerate.
Now when Apollo flew to the moon the trajectory was through the less dense portions of the belts and since exposure is related to flux and exposure time the dose was very small.
Here is a post with a letter from him.
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-3885.html
in addition since you are an "Engineer" you should be able to compute the radiation amounts using
http://spacemath.gsfc.NASA.gov/Algebra1/3Page7.pdf
No mysterier no lies no fabrications, just years of study and real Engineers working the problems.
You just make this stuff up as you go don't you or you are parroting what NASA is feeding you. Again it all boils down to I believe what someone else tells me to believe which proves that modern day science is a religion.
I see "two zones of high-energyparticles, against which space travelers will have to be shielded"Read Van Allen's article on the radiation belts in the 1959 Scientific American. If you believe that rockets can operate in a vacuum then this article talks about measurements taken of the radiation levels in the belts. Supposedly they were extremely high and dangerous to any humans.Another Apollo defender posted a clip of the actual question and answer on Youtube, but unfortunately I failed to save it anywhere and I cannot remember who it was who posted it. I'm afraid it's just my word on that until and unless I can find the clip, so take it with the appropriate grain of salt.That part has been clipped out so it is out of context also. I haven't heard the original video where the Skylab question was asked, thanks for the info.
What you either don't know or are ignoring is Al Bean was discussing the Skylab mission when the question of the Van Allen Belts came up. Taking a quote out of context is a poor way to get answers.
https://www.testofbelievers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/VanAllenBelts-SciAm-Mar1959.pdf (https://www.testofbelievers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/VanAllenBelts-SciAm-Mar1959.pdf)
I don't know how the clip of Alan Bean was taken out of context.Because that is what hoaxies do?
I'm really surprised at the lengths the NASA fan base will go to defend inconsistencies and fabrications from NASA.Were you going to come up with any inconsistencies and fabrications? Because so far all we've got is hoaxie lies and deliberate misinterpretations.
And again he was talking about testing the electronics.Is not that Van Allen Belts are dangerous, its the interplanetary space. Orion will need to travel for months in that place opposed to Apollo.Basically you have a lot of argument from incredulity and not much else.If the Van Allen belts are so insignificant why is NASA trying to figure out how to get through them on their supposed planned trip to Mars?
they did use batteries, the specs of which are available if you look and you can see there WAS enough power for what they needed to do.
As for the Van Allen belts, why should he remember an insignificant part of the trip multiple years later when they were on a preplanned trajectory that took them AROUND the belts anyway?
https://youtu.be/NlXG0REiVzE
(https://youtu.be/NlXG0REiVzE)
The video of the NASA engineer admitting they don't know how to get through the belts. Also this engineer states that "just as it [orion] passes over the Indian ocean we lose all communication". LOL. What happened to the 20,000+ satellites in orbit? Why can't Orion stay in communication?
This guy certainly received his B.S in engineering but the B.S. doesn't mean bachelor of science.
If you want to see a better space actor and egomaniac watch the conference with Adam Steltzner talking about the rover that landed on Mars. When asked about the image file type use to capture the image from Mars he states "Unfortunately I cannot" and then asked about the landing coordinates had a perplexed look on his face and stated "I can't confirm that" lol
Dr. Van Allen did indeed state that in 1959, however, these comments were directed to plans for an orbiting space station at 1000 miles, one of the proposals at the time, and indeed without a great deal of protection those astronauts would be in danger, in fact when the ISS travels through the South Atlantic Anomaly, the astronauts need to go to a more safe portion of the ISS to have time to regenerate.Read Van Allen's article on the radiation belts in the 1959 Scientific American. If you believe that rockets can operate in a vacuum then this article talks about measurements taken of the radiation levels in the belts. Supposedly they were extremely high and dangerous to any humans.Another Apollo defender posted a clip of the actual question and answer on Youtube, but unfortunately I failed to save it anywhere and I cannot remember who it was who posted it. I'm afraid it's just my word on that until and unless I can find the clip, so take it with the appropriate grain of salt.That part has been clipped out so it is out of context also. I haven't heard the original video where the Skylab question was asked, thanks for the info.
What you either don't know or are ignoring is Al Bean was discussing the Skylab mission when the question of the Van Allen Belts came up. Taking a quote out of context is a poor way to get answers.
https://www.testofbelievers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/VanAllenBelts-SciAm-Mar1959.pdf (https://www.testofbelievers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/VanAllenBelts-SciAm-Mar1959.pdf)
I don't know how the clip of Alan Bean was taken out of context.
You can watch the lies from Mr. Bean start here and I believe you can see it all in the same context. https://youtu.be/LAbpWaDL4Zc?t=10m15s (https://youtu.be/LAbpWaDL4Zc?t=10m15s)
I'm really surprised at the lengths the NASA fan base will go to defend inconsistencies and fabrications from NASA.
Now when Apollo flew to the moon the trajectory was through the less dense portions of the belts and since exposure is related to flux and exposure time the dose was very small.
Here is a post with a letter from him.
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-3885.html
in addition since you are an "Engineer" you should be able to compute the radiation amounts using
http://spacemath.gsfc.NASA.gov/Algebra1/3Page7.pdf
No mysterier no lies no fabrications, just years of study and real Engineers working the problems.
You just make this stuff up as you go don't you or you are parroting what NASA is feeding you. Again it all boils down to I believe what someone else tells me to believe which proves that modern day science is a religion.
Read Van Allen's article on the radiation belts in the 1959 Scientific American.
I'm really surprised at the lengths the NASA fan base will go to defend inconsistencies and fabrications from NASA.
You just make this stuff up as you go don't you or you are parroting what NASA is feeding you.
You just make this stuff up as you go don't you or you are parroting what NASA is feeding you. Again it all boils down to I believe what someone else tells me to believe which proves that modern day science is a religion.
I have to say that's rich coming from someone whose comments about Flat Earth are copied and pasted...
And doesn't he literally claim religious motivation for various of his beliefs?
...and, naturally, the irony and ridiculousness of someone declaring that satellites do not exist whilst simultaneously using a compute that connects to a world-wide network of computers, all connected by links that use timing signals from satellites will be totally lost on him.Picking and choosing which data might support his position even though those data points destroy his position and beliefs, go figure.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35491962
Read Van Allen's article on the radiation belts in the 1959 Scientific American.
The video of the NASA engineer admitting they don't know how to get through the belts. Also this engineer states that "just as it [orion] passes over the Indian ocean we lose all communication". LOL. What happened to the 20,000+ satellites in orbit? Why can't Orion stay in communication?
Read Van Allen's article on the radiation belts in the 1959 Scientific American. If you believe that rockets can operate in a vacuum then this article talks about measurements taken of the radiation levels in the belts. Supposedly they were extremely high and dangerous to any humans.
https://www.testofbelievers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/VanAllenBelts-SciAm-Mar1959.pdf (https://www.testofbelievers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/VanAllenBelts-SciAm-Mar1959.pdf)
If you believe that rockets can operate in a vacuum then this article talks about measurements taken of the radiation levels in the belts.
Irony meter seems to be pegging out.If you believe that rockets can operate in a vacuum then this article talks about measurements taken of the radiation levels in the belts.
(Bolding mine). I assume, from the way that you have phrased this, that you have another crank-magnetism belief that rockets can't operate in a vacuum? If that's the case, then how can you use an article that used information gained by flying a rocket through the VA belts as evidence???
So go on, enlighten us.
Irony meter seems to be pegging out.If you believe that rockets can operate in a vacuum then this article talks about measurements taken of the radiation levels in the belts.
(Bolding mine). I assume, from the way that you have phrased this, that you have another crank-magnetism belief that rockets can't operate in a vacuum? If that's the case, then how can you use an article that used information gained by flying a rocket through the VA belts as evidence???
So go on, enlighten us.
Hey, tradosaurus, just what powers your little sun, making it shine, let alone follow that odd circular path over the Earth that animation showed?
I'm just using someone (Van Allen) that NASA fan boys find credible. I don't believe we really know what is beyond the "dome" of earth. I also think Van Allen is bought and paid for by NASA. I just find it humorous that the fanbase picks and chooses what it wants to hear because it validates their globe earth religion.If you believe that rockets can operate in a vacuum then this article talks about measurements taken of the radiation levels in the belts.
(Bolding mine). I assume, from the way that you have phrased this, that you have another crank-magnetism belief that rockets can't operate in a vacuum? If that's the case, then how can you use an article that used information gained by flying a rocket through the VA belts as evidence???
So go on, enlighten us.
The video of the NASA engineer admitting they don't know how to get through the belts. Also this engineer states that "just as it [orion] passes over the Indian ocean we lose all communication". LOL. What happened to the 20,000+ satellites in orbit? Why can't Orion stay in communication?
You don't REALLY think that every satellite in orbit is set up to enable NASA communications between their latest craft and home base, do you?
There are domestic satellite TV, communications, weather, and (believe it or not) mobile fleet tracking satellites, amongst others. They have other functions. You can't press them into service to do just what you want.
There are no satellites. If there were I'm sure the ISS station would have filmed plenty of them or when I google satellite I would see literally thousands of real pictures of satellites.
You don't look very carefully as I see plenty of images of the ISS, Troll.The video of the NASA engineer admitting they don't know how to get through the belts. Also this engineer states that "just as it [orion] passes over the Indian ocean we lose all communication". LOL. What happened to the 20,000+ satellites in orbit? Why can't Orion stay in communication?
You don't REALLY think that every satellite in orbit is set up to enable NASA communications between their latest craft and home base, do you?
There are domestic satellite TV, communications, weather, and (believe it or not) mobile fleet tracking satellites, amongst others. They have other functions. You can't press them into service to do just what you want.
There are no satellites. If there were I'm sure the ISS station would have filmed plenty of them or when I google satellite I would see literally thousands of real pictures of satellites.
I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies in the globe earth religion.
Hey, tradosaurus, just what powers your little sun, making it shine, let alone follow that odd circular path over the Earth that animation showed?
God.
I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies in the globe earth religion.
You don't look very carefully as I see plenty of images of the ISS, Troll.The video of the NASA engineer admitting they don't know how to get through the belts. Also this engineer states that "just as it [orion] passes over the Indian ocean we lose all communication". LOL. What happened to the 20,000+ satellites in orbit? Why can't Orion stay in communication?
You don't REALLY think that every satellite in orbit is set up to enable NASA communications between their latest craft and home base, do you?
There are domestic satellite TV, communications, weather, and (believe it or not) mobile fleet tracking satellites, amongst others. They have other functions. You can't press them into service to do just what you want.
There are no satellites. If there were I'm sure the ISS station would have filmed plenty of them or when I google satellite I would see literally thousands of real pictures of satellites.
I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies in the globe earth religion.
The question was why no images of satellites, and I provided you with a bunch.You don't look very carefully as I see plenty of images of the ISS, Troll.The video of the NASA engineer admitting they don't know how to get through the belts. Also this engineer states that "just as it [orion] passes over the Indian ocean we lose all communication". LOL. What happened to the 20,000+ satellites in orbit? Why can't Orion stay in communication?
You don't REALLY think that every satellite in orbit is set up to enable NASA communications between their latest craft and home base, do you?
There are domestic satellite TV, communications, weather, and (believe it or not) mobile fleet tracking satellites, amongst others. They have other functions. You can't press them into service to do just what you want.
There are no satellites. If there were I'm sure the ISS station would have filmed plenty of them or when I google satellite I would see literally thousands of real pictures of satellites.
I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies in the globe earth religion.
So name calling is all you have left? lol
here is a picture of an astronaut entering into the station.
Real or not real?
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/n0pd8qsxzet24l2msllb.jpg)
God.My God invented nuclear fusion, so They don't have to fiddle around with the Universe all the time to make it work. How does yours do it?
Who or what created your universe?
Again, you have a person, Van Allen, would be respected by NASA saying there is too much radiation in the belts
and then you have NASA stating they don't know how to get through them to get to Mars
Hey, tradosaurus, just what powers your little sun, making it shine, let alone follow that odd circular path over the Earth that animation showed?
God.
Who or what created your universe?
'm just using someone (Van Allen) that NASA fan boys find credible.
I also think Van Allen is bought and paid for by NASA.
Again, you have a person, Van Allen, would be respected by NASA saying there is too much radiation in the belts...
NASA stating they don't know how to get through them to get to Mars yet...
And then the NASA apologists will "but......but...but...." to soothe their own conscience.
Yes, it was Jay I think.
Again, you have a person, Van Allen, would be respected by NASA saying there is too much radiation in the belts
There are no satellites. If there were I'm sure the ISS station would have filmed plenty of them or when I google satellite I would see literally thousands of real pictures of satellites.
There are no satellites. If there were I'm sure the ISS station would have filmed plenty of them or when I google satellite I would see literally thousands of real pictures of satellites.
Hey, tradosaurus, just what powers your little sun, making it shine, let alone follow that odd circular path over the Earth that animation showed?
God.
There are no satellites.
Why would you think you'd have film of them from the ISS? The total space up there is multiple times the size of the surface of the Earth. Satellites are set up in orbits that don't intersect so they don't have to worry about them running into each other. Then there's the fact that most of them are smaller than a small car. Far from pointing out any incosistencies, you've only pointed out that YOU haven't put any thought into the subject.The video of the NASA engineer admitting they don't know how to get through the belts. Also this engineer states that "just as it [orion] passes over the Indian ocean we lose all communication". LOL. What happened to the 20,000+ satellites in orbit? Why can't Orion stay in communication?
You don't REALLY think that every satellite in orbit is set up to enable NASA communications between their latest craft and home base, do you?
There are domestic satellite TV, communications, weather, and (believe it or not) mobile fleet tracking satellites, amongst others. They have other functions. You can't press them into service to do just what you want.
There are no satellites. If there were I'm sure the ISS station would have filmed plenty of them or when I google satellite I would see literally thousands of real pictures of satellites.
I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies in the globe earth religion.
And then you have you ignoring the fact that Van Allen was talking about the center of the belts, which Apollo didn't go through as they went through the edge, and how shielding was needed, which they used. Then you also ignore that the guy speaking for NASA was talking about testing the electronics. All you've proven is you can cherry-pick and not even do that very well.I'm just using someone (Van Allen) that NASA fan boys find credible. I don't believe we really know what is beyond the "dome" of earth. I also think Van Allen is bought and paid for by NASA. I just find it humorous that the fanbase picks and chooses what it wants to hear because it validates their globe earth religion.If you believe that rockets can operate in a vacuum then this article talks about measurements taken of the radiation levels in the belts.
(Bolding mine). I assume, from the way that you have phrased this, that you have another crank-magnetism belief that rockets can't operate in a vacuum? If that's the case, then how can you use an article that used information gained by flying a rocket through the VA belts as evidence???
So go on, enlighten us.
Again, you have a person, Van Allen, would be respected by NASA saying there is too much radiation in the belts and then you have NASA stating they don't know how to get through them to get to Mars yet, even though its been supposedly done 7 times. LOL.
And then the NASA apologists will "but......but...but...." to soothe their own conscience.
From the movie Gravity. I'll bet you didn't know that you can search directly for images in Chrome just by right-clicking on them, did you?You don't look very carefully as I see plenty of images of the ISS, Troll.The video of the NASA engineer admitting they don't know how to get through the belts. Also this engineer states that "just as it [orion] passes over the Indian ocean we lose all communication". LOL. What happened to the 20,000+ satellites in orbit? Why can't Orion stay in communication?
You don't REALLY think that every satellite in orbit is set up to enable NASA communications between their latest craft and home base, do you?
There are domestic satellite TV, communications, weather, and (believe it or not) mobile fleet tracking satellites, amongst others. They have other functions. You can't press them into service to do just what you want.
There are no satellites. If there were I'm sure the ISS station would have filmed plenty of them or when I google satellite I would see literally thousands of real pictures of satellites.
I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies in the globe earth religion.
So name calling is all you have left? lol
here is a picture of an astronaut entering into the station.
Real or not real?
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/n0pd8qsxzet24l2msllb.jpg)
Why would you think you'd have film of them from the ISS? The total space up there is multiple times the size of the surface of the Earth. Satellites are set up in orbits that don't intersect so they don't have to worry about them running into each other.
I did the arithmetic once, on the basis that all 20,000 satellites are in orbit at the same height as the ISS, and concluded there'd be one every 10,000 square miles or so...
Get the Sputnick! app. It's free. It will give you ISS passes and Iridium flare predictions up to a week in advance. Find a convenient pass or flare and go outside and look and when you see it, come back here and try to tell us all how they faked it.
I did the arithmetic once, on the basis that all 20,000 satellites are in orbit at the same height as the ISS, and concluded there'd be one every 10,000 square miles or so...
By international agreement satellites in the geostationary belt must be at least 1,000 nautical miles apart. Even spacecraft at the "same" longitude are widely separated.
Why would you think you'd have film of them from the ISS? The total space up there is multiple times the size of the surface of the Earth. Satellites are set up in orbits that don't intersect so they don't have to worry about them running into each other.
Exactly. It just shows that the deniers that claim there should be pics taken from other satellites really haven't put any thought into what they're asking.
I did the arithmetic once, on the basis that all 20,000 satellites are in orbit at the same height as the ISS, and concluded there'd be one every 10,000 square miles or so...
Hey, tradosaurus, just what powers your little sun, making it shine, let alone follow that odd circular path over the Earth that animation showed?
God.
Who or what created your universe?
Get the Sputnick! app. It's free. It will give you ISS passes and Iridium flare predictions up to a week in advance. Find a convenient pass or flare and go outside and look and when you see it, come back here and try to tell us all how they faked it.
Just go outside on a clear day at dusk or dawn and look up. Scan the sky for a while and there's a good chance you might see one. At that time of day the sun has already set on the ground while the satellites high overhead are still in sunlight (because of the curved earth thing), making them easy to spot. When I was a frequent stargazer, I'd regularly see satellites passing overhead.
I generally don't get overtly religious on these forums, but He created mine, too. Sadly, you've decided to neglect/disrespect the coolest stuff He created, particularly mankind's ability to create and think, such as being able to travel in space and go to the moon (and even further someday, I hope).Hey, tradosaurus, just what powers your little sun, making it shine, let alone follow that odd circular path over the Earth that animation showed?
God.
Who or what created your universe?
I like that!God.My God invented nuclear fusion, so They don't have to fiddle around with the Universe all the time to make it work. How does yours do it?
Who or what created your universe?
God.My God was smart enough to make it all work with round planets and gravity so that every observation can be explained and no magic is needed like in the flat nonsensical Earth. Too bad yours isn't too bright.
Who or what created your universe?
Heh, thanks!I like that!God.My God invented nuclear fusion, so They don't have to fiddle around with the Universe all the time to make it work. How does yours do it?
Who or what created your universe?
There are no satellites. If there were I'm sure the ISS station would have filmed plenty of them or when I google satellite I would see literally thousands of real pictures of satellites.
I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies in the globe earth religion.
Since he doesn't believe in gravity . . . .
Still, since when was consistency part of tradosaurus's belief . . . ?I hesitate to say 'structure' or even 'system', as it's just a disorganized mess, from what we've seen.Since he doesn't believe in gravity . . . .
True, but whatever force he thinks keeps us stuck to the ground clearly isn't operating in that video...
Especially since most of those 20,000 "satellites" are actually bits of debris. About 41,000 objects ~10cm and larger, from all countries, in earth orbit have been cataloged by NORAD since the Sputnik 1 launch; over half have since decayed.What happened to the 20,000+ satellites in orbit? Why can't Orion stay in communication?You don't REALLY think that every satellite in orbit is set up to enable NASA communications between their latest craft and home base, do you?
Do you know a link to possible/probable re-entry dates of the larger pieces? i.e. the Centaur stage that lifter the military GPS satellite yesterdayEspecially since most of those 20,000 "satellites" are actually bits of debris. About 41,000 objects ~10cm and larger, from all countries, in earth orbit have been cataloged by NORAD since the Sputnik 1 launch; over half have since decayed.What happened to the 20,000+ satellites in orbit? Why can't Orion stay in communication?You don't REALLY think that every satellite in orbit is set up to enable NASA communications between their latest craft and home base, do you?
Of the ~17,500 (not 20,000) cataloged objects still in orbit only ~4,100 are payloads, and of those payloads only ~1,500 are still active. The rest are spent launch vehicles, random bits of loose hardware, and debris from explosions and collisions -- the most disturbing being deliberate explosions and collisions from antisatellite weapons tests. The Chinese ASAT test in 2007 created over 2,300 cataloged bits of debris. The accidental collision between Iridium 33 and Cosmos 2251 in 2009 created > 2,000 cataloged bits of debris.
There are probably hundreds of thousands of bits of orbital debris too small to catalog.
An accretion of stupidities?
Do you know a link to possible/probable re-entry dates of the larger pieces? i.e. the Centaur stage that lifter the military GPS satellite yesterdayPredicting orbital decays is a bit of a black art. Or, to use my own favorite analogy, it's like predicting the outcome of a roulette wheel. As it gets closer you can begin to predict when, but exactly where is almost always a guess.
There are no satellites. If there were I'm sure the ISS station would have filmed plenty of them or when I google satellite I would see literally thousands of real pictures of satellites.
I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies in the globe earth religion.
If there are no satellites, then how was this video recorded:
The longest single take on that video is about 5 minutes long, during which time: Williams talks almost constantly; she moves around in all directions through the air within limited space; her hair remains sprayed outwards; her necklace constantly bounces around rather than sitting against her chest.
The footage can't have been recorded on a Vomit Comet as the longest take is much longer than the maximum amount of time weightlessness can be maintained on such an aircraft.
The footage can't be spliced together from multiple Vomit Comet parabolas as the footage is a single take with no cuts.
The footage can't be faked in normal gravity as Williams floats in all directions and her necklace bounces around.
The footage can't be being replayed in slow motion as she's constantly speaking and her lips synchronise to her speech.
Williams can't be suspended from wires as the rooms she moves through provide no room for the necessary rigs, particularly when she turns around within the sleeping quarters.
Williams's hair is not being held in place with hair spray because she brushes it heavily enough to press it down against her head and the hair springs back into its original shape.
The only explanation which makes sense is that she's in freefall around the Earth.
(I excluded the possibility of anti-gravity machines because I assume you'd reject such devices as even more outlandish than space travel, but please let me know if that assumption is wrong.)
The first obvious sign that it is fake is the woman's hair is sprayed with some hair spray to hold it in place. If you look in the "vomit comet" scenes women's hair doesn't do that.He just said that wasn't the case because of what she does with it, but let's set that aside.
Since he doesn't believe in gravity . . . .
True, but whatever force he thinks keeps us stuck to the ground clearly isn't operating in that video...
The first obvious sign that it is fake is the woman's hair is sprayed with some hair spray to hold it in place. If you look in the "vomit comet" scenes women's hair doesn't do that.He just said that wasn't the case because of what she does with it, but let's set that aside.
You made a claim. Prove it. Find a woman with similar hair, apply some hair spray, and have her recreate that scene. While you're at it, have her float around the room and do all the other things you see in that ISS video.
You have to test your claims. That's called "science".
The test of women in the vomit comet and women in the ISS with hair spray should resolve the issue of a real iss to anybody of good will.Your reading comprehension could stand some improvement.
Do you see any wires holding up Sandra Bullock in the movie Gravity?No. I also saw many, many violations of the laws of physics in that movie that I don't see in real-life space flights such as the ISS. In fact, that movie drove me nuts when I saw it because of all the inaccuracies.
Indeed I saw many inconsistencies with real actions in the movie, I was no impressed and really didn't care for it.QuoteDo you see any wires holding up Sandra Bullock in the movie Gravity?No. I also saw many, many violations of the laws of physics in that movie that I don't see in real-life space flights such as the ISS. In fact, that movie drove me nuts when I saw it because of all the inaccuracies.
Maybe you should try to understand them.
The test of women in the vomit comet and women in the ISS with hair spray should resolve the issue of a real iss to anybody of good will.Your reading comprehension could stand some improvement.
It was just explained to you that the "vomit comet" (or any other synthetic freefall) can only be maintained for a short time. About 20 seconds, in fact. Perhaps you can guess what would happen if an airplane tried to maintain it much longer. Videos from the ISS regularly last for hours.QuoteDo you see any wires holding up Sandra Bullock in the movie Gravity?No. I also saw many, many violations of the laws of physics in that movie that I don't see in real-life space flights such as the ISS. In fact, that movie drove me nuts when I saw it because of all the inaccuracies.
Maybe you should try to understand them.
Do you know a link to possible/probable re-entry dates of the larger pieces? i.e. the Centaur stage that lifter the military GPS satellite yesterdayHere are the TLEs (Three-Line Element sets) from www.celestrak.com for this most recent GPS launch:
Indeed I saw many inconsistencies with real actions in the movie, I was no impressed and really didn't care for it.On the other hand, the visuals were gorgeous, even if a little inaccurate.
The test of women in the vomit comet and women in the ISS with hair spray should resolve the issue of a real iss to anybody of good will.Your reading comprehension could stand some improvement.
It was just explained to you that the "vomit comet" (or any other synthetic freefall) can only be maintained for a short time. About 20 seconds, in fact. Perhaps you can guess what would happen if an airplane tried to maintain it much longer. Videos from the ISS regularly last for hours.QuoteDo you see any wires holding up Sandra Bullock in the movie Gravity?No. I also saw many, many violations of the laws of physics in that movie that I don't see in real-life space flights such as the ISS. In fact, that movie drove me nuts when I saw it because of all the inaccuracies.
Maybe you should try to understand them.
Indeed I saw many inconsistencies with real actions in the movie, I was no impressed and really didn't care for it.On the other hand, the visuals were gorgeous, even if a little inaccurate.
The CGI people have something called the "uncanny valley" for computer-generated humans, and I think there's something like it for science fiction -- especially space travel. When you get the visuals as good as Gravity got them, then the remaining errors (notably those in physics) become far more glaringly obvious.
I can make up a bowl of popcorn and enjoy Star Wars and Star Trek as much as anybody because there's no pretense of realism. But Gravity drove me nuts because it did pretend. But not only did it get the physics very wrong, it also had actors who behaved nothing like real astronauts.
Yeah, but she was in her skivvies!!
OK, I'll stop now, lol!
No argument from me.
Yeah, but she was in her skivvies!!
OK, I'll stop now, lol!
[sidetrack alert]
But Sigourney Weaver in Aliens was way better IMO[/sidetrack alert]
So tell me what "laws" of physics were violated in the movie? Because it looks like a typical movie production from NASA.Just one among many: she points a Soyuz spacecraft at a Chinese space station (which conveniently is in the same orbit plane), pushes the button and goes there.
Learn why your god is called gravity, Could the letter "G" in the masonic symbol stand for gravity? Is it a coincidence that quite a few of the astronauts were masons?
Typical elitist response from a globe earth cult member. So tell me what "laws" of physics were violated in the movie? Because it looks like a typical movie production from NASA.
That is simply not how orbital mechanics works.
...because all you've done so far is post adolescent sneers and proclaim your own genius.
Amen, brother....because all you've done so far is post adolescent sneers and proclaim your own genius.
Which is why LunarOrbit banned him. And good riddance.
So why I wonder does The Martian seem to get a pass?I wouldn't say I gave it a pass, but I do give him a lot of credit for trying.
Spoiler warning.Since I am hard of hearing, I missed the origin of the debris field that the hit them.
A few fantastical elements in Gravity were perfectly fine as dramatic license, e.g., Clooney's temporary reappearance in the Soyuz. That simply showed her state of mind, i.e., that she was hallucinating.
But the orbital mechanics was just plain terrible. So was much of the behavior and dialogue of the astronauts.
And don't get me started on the orbital debris. It's far less dense and moving far faster, usually many times the speed of a rifle bullet, which means a single tiny object is enough to kill you; you don't need the huge swarms depicted. You generally don't see a rifle bullet coming either.
I know some people might feel that I took too long to ban him, but I try to find the right balance between "insta-ban" and "all the other members are getting angry because I haven't banned him yet".No complaints from me.
I'm not going to ban someone the instant they post something that might be considered troll-like. There can be a fine line between a sincere belief and a phoney belief that is only intended to provoke anger. I am still not sure whether he really believes that the Earth is flat or not, and if he was actually willing to discuss it properly I would be more than willing to allow it.
Spoiler warning.
A few fantastical elements in Gravity were perfectly fine as dramatic license, e.g., Clooney's temporary reappearance in the Soyuz. That simply showed her state of mind, i.e., that she was hallucinating.
But the orbital mechanics was just plain terrible. So was much of the behavior and dialogue of the astronauts.
And don't get me started on the orbital debris. It's far less dense and moving far faster, usually many times the speed of a rifle bullet, which means a single tiny object is enough to kill you; you don't need the huge swarms depicted. You generally don't see a rifle bullet coming either.
I know some people might feel that I took too long to ban him, but I try to find the right balance between "insta-ban" and "all the other members are getting angry because I haven't banned him yet".
I know some people might feel that I took too long to ban him, but I try to find the right balance between "insta-ban" and "all the other members are getting angry because I haven't banned him yet".
And good job, too. Don't interpret my "good riddance" as criticism of your timing or method. I just mean he was given more than a fair chance to be something other than a shrill attention-seeker, and he demonstrated no interest.
No, I've got no complaints how he was handled here. He was given every opportunity, yet he continued to simply troll away with reckless abandon.Give them enough rope, and they'll hang themselves. In his case, he braided it and tied the knots!
I fully agree with not swinging the ban hammer right off the bat.
It was only a matter of time before he was banned. He can slip back into the ooze from whence he came.Commenting on his FE threads about how he was banned for attempting to reveal the "truth"
You should point out his lies about only believing for a year only to have a thread of his from several years ago, if you have not already.It was only a matter of time before he was banned. He can slip back into the ooze from whence he came.Commenting on his FE threads about how he was banned for attempting to reveal the "truth"
I don't go to those types of forums, YT is as far up on the stupidity scale as I go. :)You should point out his lies about only believing for a year only to have a thread of his from several years ago, if you have not already.It was only a matter of time before he was banned. He can slip back into the ooze from whence he came.Commenting on his FE threads about how he was banned for attempting to reveal the "truth"
Ooh, gotcha. Your wording made it sound like you were, but I see my mistake now. Thanks. :)I don't go to those types of forums, YT is as far up on the stupidity scale as I go. :)You should point out his lies about only believing for a year only to have a thread of his from several years ago, if you have not already.It was only a matter of time before he was banned. He can slip back into the ooze from whence he came.Commenting on his FE threads about how he was banned for attempting to reveal the "truth"
You should point out his lies about only believing for a year only to have a thread of his from several years ago, if you have not already.
OK, fair point.You should point out his lies about only believing for a year only to have a thread of his from several years ago, if you have not already.
Technically, that prior post only showed a belief in a fixed Earth rather than a flat one. He could have been advocating a round fixed Earth at that point.
Since I am hard of hearing, I missed the origin of the debris field that the hit them.It was said to be from the Kessler Syndrome, which is a real concept: as we reach a critical density of debris in orbit, collisions will become more frequent, generating even more debris that generates even more collisions. Whole regions of orbit could become almost unusable because of the debris hazard.
Ok, but why a field of "debris" at 800 Km? I wasn't aware of that many satellites and upper stages in that orbit. Seems like there would be a lot in geostationary or at ~400 Km(or whatever the ISS median is).Since I am hard of hearing, I missed the origin of the debris field that the hit them.It was said to be from the Kessler Syndrome, which is a real concept: as we reach a critical density of debris in orbit, collisions will become more frequent, generating even more debris that generates even more collisions. Whole regions of orbit could become almost unusable because of the debris hazard.
But it doesn't happen that fast. It develops over years, especially after rare but spectacular collisions like that between Iridium 33 and Cosmos 2251 generate large amounts of debris. But the debris is mostly small and spreads out along the orbit; it doesn't travel in close groups of big visible chunks as depicted in the film. If one ever hit, it would be as if somebody shot you with a very high powered sniper rifle with (most likely) a very tiny bullet. And you wouldn't see it coming.
There are arguments that a Kessler Syndrome has already started in certain low-earth orbits, particularly around 800 km. The one in Gravity was said to originate in geostationary orbit (I think - somebody correct me) which is far less likely, would not develop as quickly as depicted, and would not send debris so low.
And you wouldn't see it coming, at least not in the way depicted. You might have warning of the larger chunks since they can be tracked and cataloged on the ground, and the ISS astronauts routinely dodge these things (if they have time) or hide out in the Soyuz (if they can't). But most of the objects are too small to be seen with current sensors, and that's what people are most worried about.
As an analogy, you wouldn't say the volume of space including an active battlefield is "crowded" with bullets in the sense that they mostly fill the available volume, nor are you likely to see any of those bullets in flight with your own eyes. But you sure wouldn't want to travel through there.
Ok, but why a field of "debris" at 800 Km? I wasn't aware of that many satellites and upper stages in that orbit. Seems like there would be a lot in geostationary or at ~400 Km(or whatever the ISS median is).Low earth orbit is actually very heavily used. We fly lots of earth observation satellites in polar orbits in that altitude range: earth resources, weather, spy, etc. The Russians also put a lot of stuff there, and because their satellites tended to have short service lives, they replaced them frequently. Besides the usual weather and spy satellites they flew nuclear-powered radars to follow US Navy warships. Radars are subject to the 1/r4 law so you want them in as low an orbit as possible -- and that means short-lived. But after a few of their reactors came down in places like Canada and Australia, the Russians began to separate the nuclear reactors at end of life so they could be moved to higher "disposal" orbits while the main part of the spacecraft decayed.
Ok, but why a field of "debris" at 800 Km? I wasn't aware of that many satellites and upper stages in that orbit. Seems like there would be a lot in geostationary or at ~400 Km(or whatever the ISS median is).It's a typical altitude for weather and resource survey satellites, including the one the Chinese used for target practice. There have also been a number of explosions of used upper-stage rockets at that altitude or close above it, also several satellites have suffered battery explosions. Current practice is to have upper stages burn to depletion after deploying payloads, which should reduce the problem.
Neil has been active at YouTube recently, with this gem posted today;I would say stupidest maximus
"The entire world as we currently know it teeters on a spacesuit with sublimator demonstrated in a high vacuum chamber. The consequences of admitting that NASA lied would be too horrendous to Zionism."
Wow. Megalomania rules large with this one.
Neil has been active at YouTube recently, with this gem posted today;
"The entire world as we currently know it teeters on a spacesuit with sublimator demonstrated in a high vacuum chamber. The consequences of admitting that NASA lied would be too horrendous to Zionism."
Wow. Megalomania rules large with this one.
Ok, but why a field of "debris" at 800 Km? I wasn't aware of that many satellites and upper stages in that orbit. Seems like there would be a lot in geostationary or at ~400 Km(or whatever the ISS median is).It's a typical altitude for weather and resource survey satellites, including the one the Chinese used for target practice. There have also been a number of explosions of used upper-stage rockets at that altitude or close above it, also several satellites have suffered battery explosions. Current practice is to have upper stages burn to depletion after deploying payloads, which should reduce the problem.
Neil has been active at YouTube recently, with this gem posted today;I would say stupidest maximus
"The entire world as we currently know it teeters on a spacesuit with sublimator demonstrated in a high vacuum chamber. The consequences of admitting that NASA lied would be too horrendous to Zionism."
Wow. Megalomania rules large with this one.
Don't encourage him.Neil has been active at YouTube recently, with this gem posted today;I would say stupidest maximus
"The entire world as we currently know it teeters on a spacesuit with sublimator demonstrated in a high vacuum chamber. The consequences of admitting that NASA lied would be too horrendous to Zionism."
Wow. Megalomania rules large with this one.
Or Biggus Dickus!
Make of that what you will ...
if he was actually willing to discuss it properly
Well so far my post has demonstrated to me that NASA space is a religion.
Apparently his local newspaper, the Santa Barbara Independent, is "Zionist Controlled "
Make of that what you will ...
Apparently his local newspaper, the Santa Barbara Independent, is "Zionist Controlled "
Make of that what you will ...
He's clearly not the sharpest tool in the shed.....
More realistically he (Neil Baker) was clearly once a well educated engineer with a track record in various high-tech employments. Something then happened, either gradually or quickly that caused him to decline into what we now see. I'd be guessing at to what caused it, but it could be many things. Alcohol/substance abuse, psychological or emotional trauma or a physical problem (tumour? early onset Alzheimers? (http://www.alz.org/alzheimers_disease_early_onset.asp)) are all possibilities. Whatever it was, it did for what appeared to be a successful individual and that I find particularly sad, especially if the root cause was something treatable.
I'm assuming that Tradosasurus was a sock-puppet of Baker? If not, and if his claim to be a degreed engineer is true, then it looks like he has undergone a similar process.
The mind is a terrible thing to lose.
Apparently his local newspaper, the Santa Barbara Independent, is "Zionist Controlled "
Make of that what you will ...
He's clearly not the sharpest tool in the shed.....
More realistically he (Neil Baker) was clearly once a well educated engineer with a track record in various high-tech employments. Something then happened, either gradually or quickly that caused him to decline into what we now see. I'd be guessing at to what caused it, but it could be many things. Alcohol/substance abuse, psychological or emotional trauma or a physical problem (tumour? early onset Alzheimers? (http://www.alz.org/alzheimers_disease_early_onset.asp)) are all possibilities. Whatever it was, it did for what appeared to be a successful individual and that I find particularly sad, especially if the root cause was something treatable.
I'm assuming that Tradosasurus was a sock-puppet of Baker? If not, and if his claim to be a degreed engineer is true, then it looks like he has undergone a similar process.
The mind is a terrible thing to lose.
I don't think Neil has ever said anything in favor of the flat Earth nonsense.
I don't think Neil has ever said anything in favor of the flat Earth nonsense.
I don't think Neil has ever said anything in favor of the flat Earth nonsense.
That's true, but Traddy-boy did hint at believing that the sublimators didn't work. Now that's a fairly rare belief and one that's almost a "trade-mark" of Neil Baker. However, Tradosaurus also had a bad case of crank-magnetism (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Crank_magnetism), so he could have picked that up on his travels through the mire.
I don't think Neil has ever said anything in favor of the flat Earth nonsense.
That's true, but Traddy-boy did hint at believing that the sublimators didn't work. Now that's a fairly rare belief and one that's almost a "trade-mark" of Neil Baker. However, Tradosaurus also had a bad case of crank-magnetism (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Crank_magnetism), so he could have picked that up on his travels through the mire.
If we are talking about Neil Baker, then I believe he is enough of a wind-up merchant to go the flat earth route even if be didn't beleive in it, for no other reason than to troll here.
He has his own basket of issues.Apparently his local newspaper, the Santa Barbara Independent, is "Zionist Controlled "
Make of that what you will ...
He's clearly not the sharpest tool in the shed.....
More realistically he (Neil Baker) was clearly once a well educated engineer with a track record in various high-tech employments. Something then happened, either gradually or quickly that caused him to decline into what we now see. I'd be guessing at to what caused it, but it could be many things. Alcohol/substance abuse, psychological or emotional trauma or a physical problem (tumour? early onset Alzheimers? (http://www.alz.org/alzheimers_disease_early_onset.asp)) are all possibilities. Whatever it was, it did for what appeared to be a successful individual and that I find particularly sad, especially if the root cause was something treatable.
I'm assuming that Tradosasurus was a sock-puppet of Baker? If not, and if his claim to be a degreed engineer is true, then it looks like he has undergone a similar process.
The mind is a terrible thing to lose.
I don't think Neil has ever said anything in favor of the flat Earth nonsense.
That's true, but Traddy-boy did hint at believing that the sublimators didn't work. Now that's a fairly rare belief and one that's almost a "trade-mark" of Neil Baker. However, Tradosaurus also had a bad case of crank-magnetism (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Crank_magnetism), so he could have picked that up on his travels through the mire.
True and thank goodness. I was very weary of looking at trad's consistent and purposeful misspelling. Thanks LO! :)
That's true, but Traddy-boy did hint at believing that the sublimators didn't work. Now that's a fairly rare belief and one that's almost a "trade-mark" of Neil Baker. However, Tradosaurus also had a bad case of crank-magnetism (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Crank_magnetism), so he could have picked that up on his travels through the mire.
He would have picked that up by reading Baker's first post in this thread. He would have ignored subsequent replies as being "NASA propaganda." He would have spelled NASA with a Z but the forum software not longer allows that.
:o I've been away from you guys for a while, but, well, but... daaaaaaaamn! :o
Wow, and back to Mercury status to prove it, too.
Talk about the thread that wouldn't die. Fuelled with stupid with life support from retarded.
I haven't yet ploughed through all of this monster of a thread to get up to date, but it has had its lighter moments: the ISS is an inflatable? That brightened my mood, I can tell you.
I didn't know stupid came in jumbo economy family-sized packs.
Especially with the internet driven "critical thinkers"
"The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity."
Ironically, the next ISS module will be inflatable.Neil would start foaming at the mouth if he saw this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigelow_Expandable_Activity_Module
Speaking of which, here is the ISS from my garden last night :)
(http://i63.tinypic.com/10ht8ad.jpg)
Welcome back, Dragonblaster. Yeah, we've had some 'good' times here.
Stupid comes in every size, variety, quantity and packaging you could possibly imagine.
Never forget the immortal words of Albert Einstein...
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
nor those of the well known science fiction writer Harlan Ellison...
"The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity."
Ironically, the next ISS module will be inflatable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigelow_Expandable_Activity_Module
Speaking of which, here is the ISS from my garden last night :)
(http://i63.tinypic.com/10ht8ad.jpg)
the ISS is an inflatable?I don't remember who made this claim and in what context. Was it somebody claiming that rockets don't work in vacuum so it's impossible to put anything into orbit outside the atmosphere?
IIRC it was Neil commenting on the ISS being a balloon, not a metallic satellite.the ISS is an inflatable?I don't remember who made this claim and in what context. Was it somebody claiming that rockets don't work in vacuum so it's impossible to put anything into orbit outside the atmosphere?
If so, it would be amusing to estimate the ballistic coefficient of an "inflatable ISS", and how many milliseconds such an object moving at the observed velocity within the atmosphere would take to completely vaporize.
(The ballistic coefficient of an object is the ratio of its mass to its cross sectional area times its drag coefficient. I.e., a balloon would have a low mass and a high cross sectional area, so it would have an extremely low ballistic coefficient. It would therefore decelerate very quickly in an atmosphere.)
IIRC it was Neil commenting on the ISS being a balloon, not a metallic satellite.I forget -- did Neil believe rockets couldn't work in space, or was that somebody else?
Not going back into the thread, I don't believe he thought rockets wouldn't work, just that manned work outside a vehicle, thereby construction the ISS.IIRC it was Neil commenting on the ISS being a balloon, not a metallic satellite.I forget -- did Neil believe rockets couldn't work in space, or was that somebody else?
There are so many whackjobs out there with so many off-the-wall beliefs that it's getting hard to tell them apart without a scorecard. It used to be (so it seemed) that all we ran into were people who thought Apollo was faked, but that space flight was otherwise real.
But all of a sudden there seems to be a big influx of people who insist rocket engines can't work in space where there's no air to push on, and of the even-farther-gone flat earthers.
So many of these "independent critical thinkers" repeat so many of the same talking points that either there are a lot of sock puppets out there, or (more likely, I think) some nutjob's book or website suddenly got a lot of attention from a lot of like-minded people who are now merely repeating the same claims.
But all of a sudden there seems to be a big influx of people who insist rocket engines can't work in space where there's no air to push on, and of the even-farther-gone flat earthers.
Then you've got Heiwa you believes unmanned spaceflight is possible, but not manned because safe atmospheric reentry is impossible. I think he got banned from some ultra-nutty forum for promoting the mainstream lie that rockets work in a vacuum.
LOL ;D That is a refuge for the clueless.
Then you've got Heiwa you believes unmanned spaceflight is possible, but not manned because safe atmospheric reentry is impossible. I think he got banned from some ultra-nutty forum for promoting the mainstream lie that rockets work in a vacuum.
Wasn't that Cluesforum? You know you are in the company of complete nutters when Bjorkmann appears to be the most sensible of them all!
Wasn't that Cluesforum? You know you are in the company of complete nutters when Bjorkmann appears to be the most sensible of them all!
Then you've got Heiwa you believes unmanned spaceflight is possible, but not manned because safe atmospheric reentry is impossible. I think he got banned from some ultra-nutty forum for promoting the mainstream lie that rockets work in a vacuum.
Wasn't that Cluesforum? You know you are in the company of complete nutters when Bjorkmann appears to be the most sensible of them all!
This place makes GLP seem like it's populated by geniuses.True, but I think the troll content is higher than GLP there. Most of the flat earthers there don't really believe it and are just trolling. Even a few of the moderators fall into that category. While there are trolls at GLP, there are far more that truly believe the crap they post.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?board=20.0
Phil
Why do you believe that "Most of the flat earthers there don't really believe it and are just trolling"? I find it hard to decipher whether they are or aren't.This place makes GLP seem like it's populated by geniuses.True, but I think the troll content is higher than GLP there. Most of the flat earthers there don't really believe it and are just trolling. Even a few of the moderators fall into that category. While there are trolls at GLP, there are far more that truly believe the crap they post.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?board=20.0
Phil
Hang around long enough and you'll see many are not consistent.Why do you believe that "Most of the flat earthers there don't really believe it and are just trolling"? I find it hard to decipher whether they are or aren't.This place makes GLP seem like it's populated by geniuses.True, but I think the troll content is higher than GLP there. Most of the flat earthers there don't really believe it and are just trolling. Even a few of the moderators fall into that category. While there are trolls at GLP, there are far more that truly believe the crap they post.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?board=20.0
Phil
That hardly proves they're trolls though. ;)Hang around long enough and you'll see many are not consistent.Why do you believe that "Most of the flat earthers there don't really believe it and are just trolling"? I find it hard to decipher whether they are or aren't.This place makes GLP seem like it's populated by geniuses.True, but I think the troll content is higher than GLP there. Most of the flat earthers there don't really believe it and are just trolling. Even a few of the moderators fall into that category. While there are trolls at GLP, there are far more that truly believe the crap they post.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?board=20.0
Phil
This place makes GLP seem like it's populated by geniuses.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?board=20.0
Phil
This place makes GLP seem like it's populated by geniuses.At this point in time, everything is out of stock.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?board=20.0
Phil
You do realise that the site is actually a Poe?
The people who started it were on the wind up; they created a one-stop-shop where flat earthers could make public fools of themselves, while the site owners cashed in on sales of coffee cups, T-Shirts and other accessories to the delusional disciples.
At this point in time, everything is out of stock.This place makes GLP seem like it's populated by geniuses.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?board=20.0
Phil
You do realise that the site is actually a Poe?
The people who started it were on the wind up; they created a one-stop-shop where flat earthers could make public fools of themselves, while the site owners cashed in on sales of coffee cups, T-Shirts and other accessories to the delusional disciples.
This place makes GLP seem like it's populated by geniuses.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?board=20.0
Phil
This place makes GLP seem like it's populated by geniuses.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?board=20.0
Phil
2 minutes in the chemtrail section was enough! It's like being curious about that seedy little bar in the unincorporated part of town...
All the items for sale are out of stock, not very businesslike.This place makes GLP seem like it's populated by geniuses.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?board=20.0
Phil
You do realise that the site is actually a Poe?
The people who started it were on the wind up; they created a one-stop-shop where flat earthers could make public fools of themselves, while the site owners cashed in on sales of coffee cups, T-Shirts and other accessories to the delusional disciples.
I haven't been to the site to read through that thread, but I have seen a YT where some guy "proved" that rockets don't work in space. The same tired "logic", nothing to push against. His head might be full of hot air with no science remembering or learning.This place makes GLP seem like it's populated by geniuses.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?board=20.0
Phil
2 minutes in the chemtrail section was enough! It's like being curious about that seedy little bar in the unincorporated part of town...
Followed the rockets don't work in a vacuum thread for a few pages. I need to go and lay down for a couple of hours, my head hurts.
A couple of people on that thread mentioned the experiment of sitting on a wheeled chair and throwing a ball.
A modification of that experiment can PROVE that the air has nothing to do with the propulsive force. If you have two objects, A heavy medicine ball and an equally sized balloon and throw each in turn from the chair. IF pushing against air is what is causing the reaction, then objects of the same volume will cause the chair to move the same distance. BUT if mass is the prime agent, then you will move further throwing the medicine ball. A simple experiment for the doubters.
Mythbusters have proved that rockets work in a vacuum, by actually firing one in a home made vacuum chamber...I have never thought of bottle rockets containing an oxidizer.
... of course, none of this will convince the membership of The Stupidati, who will declare the experiment fake and the Mythbusters paid NASA shills
Did you post there? What was your username?This place makes GLP seem like it's populated by geniuses.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?board=20.0
Phil
2 minutes in the chemtrail section was enough! It's like being curious about that seedy little bar in the unincorporated part of town...
Did you post there? What was your username?This place makes GLP seem like it's populated by geniuses.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?board=20.0
Phil
2 minutes in the chemtrail section was enough! It's like being curious about that seedy little bar in the unincorporated part of town...
Mythbusters have proved that rockets work in a vacuum, by actually firing one in a home made vacuum chamber...The nutjobs are very familiar with that clip, and of course they have plenty of excuses:
I think a lot of the so-called flat-earthers don't actually believe it but pursue the idea as a kind of pseudo-intellectual exercise to prove how clever they are and how poor they believe conventional science is. It's a way of proving not so much that the earth is flat but that it revolves around them, which is where tradosaurus came in.
I think a lot of the so-called flat-earthers don't actually believe it but pursue the idea as a kind of pseudo-intellectual exercise to prove how clever they are and how poor they believe conventional science is. It's a way of proving not so much that the earth is flat but that it revolves around them, which is where tradosaurus came in.
I think you're spot on with that assessment.
I think a lot of the so-called flat-earthers don't actually believe it but pursue the idea as a kind of pseudo-intellectual exercise to prove how clever they are and how poor they believe conventional science is. It's a way of proving not so much that the earth is flat but that it revolves around them, which is where tradosaurus came in.
I think you're spot on with that assessment.
A lot of the Moon Hoax old guard (Jarrah included) believe that Flat-Earthers are trying to make the "Moon Hoax" cause, a laughing stock and that NASA (or the CIA, or the Government, or whoever) is behind it all. :D
The proof is in the dust.http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/proof-we-landed-moon-dustIt is interesting that hunchbacked recently published a video that he contends the dust movement "proves" the exact opposite. I didn't buy into his argument, as I see dust behaving as it likely should in a near zero atmosphere.
My contention is that most of the NASA space program is probably a hoax. I say "probably" because I don't know. But neither does anyone else and I think that's unacceptable. A faith-based space program during this great age of the scientific method is unnecessary and absurd. It's way past time for NASA to be scientifically accountable.In the case of apollo,millions of professionals around the world would all have to be part of a elaborate fraud,the suit was pressurized,the internal liquid cooling was not taking place in in the vacuum of space,so i don't understand what exactly it is your claiming.The only heat they had to worry about was reflected solar radiation [heat]for which the lightly covered material of the suit reflected 90 percent of it away,with no conduction of heat,other than the ground,which was insulated away by GE made silicone over boots,cooling was not a problem,both in the LEM and during the EVA's at lunar dawn[much cooler]
After my painful 2003 epiphany regarding 9-11, I gained the courage to confront my mythological beliefs about the space program and other things. I was confronted with the difficult question, "How do we PROVE we went to the moon?"
Photos? Video? Could be fake. Narrative? Could be lies. Launches? Yes, but what happened after they went into orbit out of sight? Did they really go to the moon? Do they really go to the space station or is just a lighted orbiting umannned and possibly inflatable prop? Did they really repair a Hubble telescope? What about the flag waving? I don't know and there's nothing we can prove about it on Earth. What about the shadows? I don't know and there's nothing we can prove about them on Earth.What about the Lunar laser reflector? I don't know and who knows how it got there even if it's actually there.
But then I stumbled upon the spacesuit ice sublimators. Being in either the vacuum of orbit or the vacuum of the moon, heat transfer is a difficult engineering challenge. There's nothing cool to conduct heat to, there's no atmosphere so there's nothing to convect heat to and a radiator would be huge and ungainly so NASA describes the clever and exotic technique of using nickel porous plate ice sublimators to explain how heat was allegedly transferred from the spacesuits and the Lunar Modules(LM).
A primary closed loop of water circulates around the heat source, either a human body or the Lunar Module, through a nickel porous plate heat exchanger. The secondary side of the heat exchanger is open to the vacuum of space through many small pores. Water passes into the heat exchanger, receives the heat of the closed primary loop and then, because it's exposed to vacuum, phase changes from liquid to ice and sublimates into space transferring heat with it. Very neat and ingenious. Naturally, I wanted to learn more. What does a spacesuit sublimator look like? Specifications? Procedures? Video of one being tested? Photographs? Technical discussions in heat transfer or thermodynamics books? I searched. Strangely and absurdly, I found almost nothing. I received almost nothing.
I got stonewalled when I appealed for information. Absurdly, there were no photographs. Absurdly, there was no video of spacesuits with ice sublimators being tested. Most absurdly, there was no information in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics books. Absurdly, the alleged manufacturer, Hamilton Sunstrand of United Technologies would only release very elementary information. Absurdly, NASA's Johnson Space Center refused to provide video or photos and stonewalled me instead. Absurdly, the Rice University Department of Mechanical Engineering, most closely associated with Houston's Johnson Space Center refused to comment. Absurdly, my Congressional representatives in two states, California's and Washington's Feinstein, Boxer, Cantwell, Murray, Capps and Hastings, stonewalled me also when I requested their assistance acquiring accountability from NASA.
But voila! The good news was that I had stumbled upon the way to PROVE whether the NASA space program was a hoax. The lack of information and evasion regarding spacesuits with sublimators represents a huge anomaly upon which attention should be focused. NASA must publicly demonstrate, before independent witnesses, a spacesuit with ice sublimator cooling system in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit. NASA refuses to be accountable. It's unacceptable. We can PROVE today on Earth if the NASA space program is a hoax. For independent witnesses I recommend retired Army General Antonio Taguba, retired Navy Admiral William Fallon and me.
Please demand NASA accountability from your respective Congressional representatives.As President Ronald Reagan said in his Farewell Address, "We the PEOPLE tell the government what to do; it doesn't tell us." Please tell them that you want to see a spacesuit with ice sublimator work in a high vacuum chamber on Earth.
Thank you.
Not much logic in that statement,your don't know,so its probrally a hoax,why don't you know ?,research it Neil.You should be asking ?why would millions of professionals from around the world,who are part of the world wide science community lie and make up false stories,documents,how could they have faked thousands of high res photos,film,without neither the processing power ,nor the imaging software,why would they fake 9 manned flights to the moon and 6 landings,why so many flights ?why would India,Japan and other nations send spacecraft to the moon to do science and mapping,then post fake images and scans of Apollo landing sites? how could a phd,geologist not know the difference between a moon rock and a piece of petrified wood? Why would Jodrell Bank Observatory in the UK and other tracking station's around the world claim to have tracked Apollo spacecraft to the surface of the moon multiple times?,JB even made a graph of Neils incredible decent,avoiding a debris field at the last few seconds ?Why hasn't a anyone connected to the Apollo program, or even one of the 400,000 workers hired by NASA,ever come forward,with evidence of a fraud,why hasn't anyone proven any of the hoax claims,all have been refuted 100's of times? hundreds of thousands of people watched the Saturn V launches ,a 360 foot monster rocket,why would NASA,use a 7.5 million pound thrust rocket to lift nothing and do it over and over ?How can anyone just flat out claim everyone and everything connected to apollo is fake without a single piece of evidence ? A moving flag ?how about applying a little logic?it was bumped out of the camera's view by the astronaut ?.Ignorance ? Which is more likely,a fan,a gust of wind [we see nothing else blow around or move] or the astronaut bumping it? The Van Allen Belts?Dr.James Van Allen has explained it over and over,the belts were the least of Apollo's risks,they were of little danger to the crews,all the data on the radiation is available to read,but people are still saying,they could not of made it through safely,so again Dr.James Van Allen's life's work is fraudulent,he's just a big fake?which is more likely?I say he's telling the truth reason being,we can look at all the data from multiple sources. .Bottomline,all the hoax claims are easily refuted,usually with a simple search online or a trip to the library. The documentation is all there and available to anyone, all for free.NASA doesn't charge you a penny,while all the hoax believer's have a dollar sign on NASA's free information,a book,movie or magazine is always for sale,funny how it that goes.A) Paragraphs are your friend, they make text far more readable than dumping huge walls of it
C) Put a space after every comma, period, question mark, etc. Do not put a space before a comma, period, question mark, etc.Not much logic in that statement,your don't know,so its probrally a hoax,why don't you know ?,research it Neil.You should be asking ?why would millions of professionals from around the world,who are part of the world wide science community lie and make up false stories,documents,how could they have faked thousands of high res photos,film,without neither the processing power ,nor the imaging software,why would they fake 9 manned flights to the moon and 6 landings,why so many flights ?why would India,Japan and other nations send spacecraft to the moon to do science and mapping,then post fake images and scans of Apollo landing sites? how could a phd,geologist not know the difference between a moon rock and a piece of petrified wood? Why would Jodrell Bank Observatory in the UK and other tracking station's around the world claim to have tracked Apollo spacecraft to the surface of the moon multiple times?,JB even made a graph of Neils incredible decent,avoiding a debris field at the last few seconds ?Why hasn't a anyone connected to the Apollo program, or even one of the 400,000 workers hired by NASA,ever come forward,with evidence of a fraud,why hasn't anyone proven any of the hoax claims,all have been refuted 100's of times? hundreds of thousands of people watched the Saturn V launches ,a 360 foot monster rocket,why would NASA,use a 7.5 million pound thrust rocket to lift nothing and do it over and over ?How can anyone just flat out claim everyone and everything connected to apollo is fake without a single piece of evidence ? A moving flag ?how about applying a little logic?it was bumped out of the camera's view by the astronaut ?.Ignorance ? Which is more likely,a fan,a gust of wind [we see nothing else blow around or move] or the astronaut bumping it? The Van Allen Belts?Dr.James Van Allen has explained it over and over,the belts were the least of Apollo's risks,they were of little danger to the crews,all the data on the radiation is available to read,but people are still saying,they could not of made it through safely,so again Dr.James Van Allen's life's work is fraudulent,he's just a big fake?which is more likely?I say he's telling the truth reason being,we can look at all the data from multiple sources. .Bottomline,all the hoax claims are easily refuted,usually with a simple search online or a trip to the library. The documentation is all there and available to anyone, all for free.NASA doesn't charge you a penny,while all the hoax believer's have a dollar sign on NASA's free information,a book,movie or magazine is always for sale,funny how it that goes.A) Paragraphs are your friend, they make text far more readable than dumping huge walls of it
B) Neil Barker hasn't been active since last year so you aren't likely to be getting a reply
Sorry guys, I meant to edit it.Hope I'm not in trouble.C) Put a space after every comma, period, question mark, etc. Do not put a space before a comma, period, question mark, etc.Not much logic in that statement,your don't know,so its probrally a hoax,why don't you know ?,research it Neil.You should be asking ?why would millions of professionals from around the world,who are part of the world wide science community lie and make up false stories,documents,how could they have faked thousands of high res photos,film,without neither the processing power ,nor the imaging software,why would they fake 9 manned flights to the moon and 6 landings,why so many flights ?why would India,Japan and other nations send spacecraft to the moon to do science and mapping,then post fake images and scans of Apollo landing sites? how could a phd,geologist not know the difference between a moon rock and a piece of petrified wood? Why would Jodrell Bank Observatory in the UK and other tracking station's around the world claim to have tracked Apollo spacecraft to the surface of the moon multiple times?,JB even made a graph of Neils incredible decent,avoiding a debris field at the last few seconds ?Why hasn't a anyone connected to the Apollo program, or even one of the 400,000 workers hired by NASA,ever come forward,with evidence of a fraud,why hasn't anyone proven any of the hoax claims,all have been refuted 100's of times? hundreds of thousands of people watched the Saturn V launches ,a 360 foot monster rocket,why would NASA,use a 7.5 million pound thrust rocket to lift nothing and do it over and over ?How can anyone just flat out claim everyone and everything connected to apollo is fake without a single piece of evidence ? A moving flag ?how about applying a little logic?it was bumped out of the camera's view by the astronaut ?.Ignorance ? Which is more likely,a fan,a gust of wind [we see nothing else blow around or move] or the astronaut bumping it? The Van Allen Belts?Dr.James Van Allen has explained it over and over,the belts were the least of Apollo's risks,they were of little danger to the crews,all the data on the radiation is available to read,but people are still saying,they could not of made it through safely,so again Dr.James Van Allen's life's work is fraudulent,he's just a big fake?which is more likely?I say he's telling the truth reason being,we can look at all the data from multiple sources. .Bottomline,all the hoax claims are easily refuted,usually with a simple search online or a trip to the library. The documentation is all there and available to anyone, all for free.NASA doesn't charge you a penny,while all the hoax believer's have a dollar sign on NASA's free information,a book,movie or magazine is always for sale,funny how it that goes.A) Paragraphs are your friend, they make text far more readable than dumping huge walls of it
B) Neil Barker hasn't been active since last year so you aren't likely to be getting a reply
Fred
A lot of the Moon Hoax old guard (Jarrah included) believe that Flat-Earthers are trying to make the "Moon Hoax" cause, a laughing stock and that NASA (or the CIA, or the Government, or whoever) is behind it all. :DIn a moment of boredom I visited a certain, well-known, three-letter forum the other day, and it was full of flat earth threads. I succumbed to temptation to try to argue with them, but I doubt any rational explanations will get through :D
However, there was a bit of a furore, as apparently the logged IP of one flat-earth proponent was from a US government department! I expect it was probably someone having a lunch-time browse, and either he did believe the idea, or was just trolling for laughs, but it did raise a lot of questions, and doubts about whether the government is deliberately spreading the flat earth meme to discredit other conspiracies.I post at work sometimes, at the Puget Sound Shipyard, through their firewall. Anything I post will show up as from a government website. A wide variety of people work for the US government with most them not allowed to represent the government views on any certain topic. There are bound to be tin foil hatters of all kinds posting on the WWW using government computers.