ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: DAKDAK on April 29, 2012, 11:06:18 PM
-
I don't know if man went to the moon in the sixties or not, but the record of the Apollo missions seems to be completely false
Here are some of the reasons I believe this
1. The Command Module being only 210 cubic feet would not fit (3) men all the food, water, air, spacesuits, boots, helmets, cameras film and equipment needed for up to 10-11 days in space. The usual reply is that these items were in the Lem or the service module, but that would be very unsafe (not to mention bringing back hundreds of pounds of moon rocks)
2. Back in the Apollo days we (the public) were told that the Moon was an Extremely Hot, Dry, and geologically dead place with no atmosphere. Now according to the NASA Lunar Science Institute the moon is an extremely Cold, Wet geologically active place with an atmosphere that extends all the way to earth. Just the opposite of what we were told.
3. The trajectory of the Apollo missions is nothing like spacecraft go to the moon today. Today spacecraft going to the moon make several increasingly large earth orbits not a crazy “8” trajectory.
4. Regardless of popular belief computer and communication technology were not sufficient in the sixties (slide rules were the norm in the sixties)
5. Several of the Apollo mission especially AP17 supposedly went to the moon when the moon was nearly full. If the moon puts out enough light that I can easily see the settings on my telescope and camera in Florida, over 200 thousand miles away don't you think that the light would blind the astronauts if they were actually on the moon
6. Several people note that the lighting wasn't right in the lunar pictures and that they did not bring any lights with them Why not? It would take at least 3 additional cameramen to take all the lunar footage not Ed Fendell from Houston with a remote control
7. Since the spacesuits were supposedly cooled by water the astronaut's would have instantly frozen on Eva's and on the surface of the moon in the shade
8. The Lem was made of Tin foil, Mylar and tape the abort procedure was to bail out in space
9. Any glass in the command module would melt upon reentry killing anyone inside
10. There is no way the record of the Apollo missions is accurate.
[Post restored by LunarOrbit]
-
What are your sources for these claims?
-
8. The Lem [sic] was made of Tin foil, Mylar and tape the abort procedure was to bail out in space.
You're only referring to the skin of the LM. Do you really think the entire craft was made out of foil? How much research have you done on the LM?
-
t
-
4. Regardless of popular belief computer and communication technology were not sufficient in the sixties (slide rules were the norm in the sixties)
What do you say to this? Some might consider it better evidence than "your own memory."
http://www.clavius.org/techcomp.html (http://www.clavius.org/techcomp.html)
-
glass melts around 700 degrees Fahrenheit
Lots of misconceptions going on here, but if you're truly interested, here's a link to a pdf of a fascinating NASA document:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/documents/apolloSpacecraftWindows.pdf (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/documents/apolloSpacecraftWindows.pdf), "Apollo Experience Report: Spacecraft Structural Windows" [NASA TN D-4739], which details the design and qualification requirements of both the interior (pressure vessel) and exterior (heat shield) windows. One relevant statement:
The analytical and test-temperature differentials between the inner and outer surfaces of the heat-shield window were 1600°, 930", and 1130" F for the hatch, rendezvous, and side windows, respectively
Note that the quoted temperatures are for the tested inner/outer surface differentials. Sounds like sturdy stuff, to me.
-
I don't know if man went to the moon in the sixties or not, but the record of the Apollo missions seems to be completely false
Here are some of the reasons I believe this
1. The Command Module being only 210 cubic feet would not fit (3) men all the food, water, air, spacesuits, boots, helmets, cameras film and equipment needed for up to 10-11 days in space. The usual reply is that these items were in the Lem or the service module, but that would be very unsafe (not to mention bringing back hundreds of pounds of moon rocks)
2. Back in the Apollo days we (the public) were told that the Moon was an Extremely Hot, Dry, and geologically dead place with no atmosphere. Now according to the NASA Lunar Science Institute the moon is an extremely Cold, Wet geologically active place with an atmosphere that extends all the way to earth. Just the opposite of what we were told.
3. The trajectory of the Apollo missions is nothing like spacecraft go to the moon today. Today spacecraft going to the moon make several increasingly large earth orbits not a crazy “8” trajectory.
4. Regardless of popular belief computer and communication technology were not sufficient in the sixties (slide rules were the norm in the sixties)
5. Several of the Apollo mission especially AP17 supposedly went to the moon when the moon was nearly full. If the moon puts out enough light that I can easily see the settings on my telescope and camera in Florida, over 200 thousand miles away don't you think that the light would blind the astronauts if they were actually on the moon
6. Several people note that the lighting wasn't right in the lunar pictures and that they did not bring any lights with them Why not? It would take at least 3 additional cameramen to take all the lunar footage not Ed Fendell from Houston with a remote control
7. Since the spacesuits were supposedly cooled by water the astronaut's would have instantly frozen on Eva's and on the surface of the moon in the shade
8. The Lem was made of Tin foil, Mylar and tape the abort procedure was to bail out in space
9. Any glass in the command module would melt upon reentry killing anyone inside
10. There is no way the record of the Apollo missions is accurate.
Your post is full of inaccuracies. If you are truly interested in learning, please start by doing some reading here http://www.clavius.org/ . That site is owned, written, and edited by an actual aerospace engineer named Jay Windley, who posts here as JayUtah. There are other engineers who post here as well (I'm personally just an interested amateur). I recommend you read through Jay's site, then if you have any questions I'm sure people here will be more than happy to answer them.
The Apollo landings are historical fact, as hopefully you'll soon realize :)
-
I don't know if man went to the moon in the sixties or not, but the record of the Apollo missions seems to be completely false
Here are some of the reasons I believe this
1. The Command Module being only 210 cubic feet
That was the habitable volume, i.e. the volume available for the astronauts to move around. The CM was 12.8' in diameter and 11.4' in height. A simple cone of those dimensions has a volume of about 490 cubic feet.
would not fit (3) men all the food,
How much volume would the food occupy?
water,
Oxygen and hydrogen were combined in a fuel cell to generate electricity; the by-product was water. So the drinking water they needed wasn't brought with them; it was made en route. The water was stored in the Service Module.
air,
Apollo was a single gas environment. Except for a small supply used during re-entry the oxygen was stored in the SM.
spacesuits, boots, helmets, cameras film and equipment needed
Please provide a source for the volume occupied by those items.
for up to 10-11 days in space. The usual reply is that these items were in the Lem or the service module, but that would be very unsafe (not to mention bringing back hundreds of pounds of moon rocks)
Unsafe according to whom?
2. Back in the Apollo days we (the public) were told that the Moon was an Extremely Hot, Dry, and geologically dead place with no atmosphere. Now according to the NASA Lunar Science Institute the moon is an extremely Cold, Wet geologically active place with an atmosphere that extends all the way to earth. Just the opposite of what we were told.
You were never told that. You are misconstruing what you have heard.
3. The trajectory of the Apollo missions is nothing like spacecraft go to the moon today.
Wrong. But so what?
Today spacecraft going to the moon make several increasingly large earth orbits not a crazy “8” trajectory.
Why do you assume a figure "8" trajectory is crazy? Do you know how to compute a simple Hohmann transfer orbit?
4. Regardless of popular belief computer and communication technology were not sufficient in the sixties (slide rules were the norm in the sixties)
Apollo was anything but "the norm".
5. Several of the Apollo mission especially AP17 supposedly went to the moon when the moon was nearly full.
No mission landed when the Moon was full. All the missions landed early in the lunar morning.
If the moon puts out enough light that I can easily see the settings on my telescope and camera in Florida, over 200 thousand miles away don't you think that the light would blind the astronauts if they were actually on the moon
No one has ever said it wasn't bright on the Moon. What's your point?
6. Several people note that the lighting wasn't right in the lunar pictures
Those people have repeatedly been proven wrong.
and that they did not bring any lights with them Why not?
Because, as you've already said, the Moon was bright.
It would take at least 3 additional cameramen to take all the lunar footage not Ed Fendell from Houston with a remote control
You are confusing the live video feed with the long debunked canard about too many photos were taken.
7. Since the spacesuits were supposedly cooled by water the astronaut's would have instantly frozen on Eva's and on the surface of the moon in the shade
How did you figure that out?
8. The Lem was made of Tin foil, Mylar and tape the abort procedure was to bail out in space
There was no "bail out" procedure during any portion of the mission.
9. Any glass in the command module would melt upon reentry killing anyone inside
Glass has a higher melting point than aluminum.
10. There is no way the record of the Apollo missions is accurate.
So far your attempts to prove that have fallen far short.
-
9. Any glass in the command module would melt upon reentry killing anyone inside.
The Shuttle has (had :( ) more and larger windows. Were all of its missions faked, too?
Come to think of it, Not only the Shuttle and Apollo, but also Mercury, Gemini, Vostok, Voskhod, Soyuz, Buran and Shenzhou all had windows. So either the entire 51-year history of manned space flight is wrong...
...or you are wrong.
Which do you think is more likely?
-
1. The Command Module being only 210 cubic feet would not fit (3) men all the food, water, air, spacesuits, boots, helmets, cameras film and equipment needed for up to 10-11 days in space. The usual reply is that these items were in the Lem or the service module, but that would be very unsafe (not to mention bringing back hundreds of pounds of moon rocks)
What would be unsafe about keeping the helmets, boots and backpacks needed for the lunar surface activity in the LM? Or keeping water and oxygen in a tank that is not in the habitable volume of the LM? The locations of all these items have been public knowledge for decades now, and no-one who knows anything about space travel finds anything odd about them.
2. Back in the Apollo days we (the public) were told that the Moon was an Extremely Hot, Dry, and geologically dead place with no atmosphere. Now according to the NASA Lunar Science Institute the moon is an extremely Cold, Wet geologically active place with an atmosphere that extends all the way to earth. Just the opposite of what we were told.
So scientific knowledge develops after years of research. That's normal. It's how our understanding develops. The moon is not considered a 'wet' place by any means. The water that has been found is bound into the rocks, not sitting around making everything wet. There is a large amount of water in most of the food you eat, but i doubt you'd consider biscuits or crisps 'wet' would you?
3. The trajectory of the Apollo missions is nothing like spacecraft go to the moon today. Today spacecraft going to the moon make several increasingly large earth orbits not a crazy “8” trajectory.
That's because they are unmanned and can happily get away with using lower energy transfer orbits that take months to get there. The very first probes to the Moon all used the 'crazy' trajectory you describe. Were all lunar shots by everyone faked until we started using the longer, lower energy transfer orbits?
4. Regardless of popular belief computer and communication technology were not sufficient in the sixties (slide rules were the norm in the sixties)
And your evidence for this is what? Slide rules can be used to do all the mathematics needed for a flight to the Moon. Pencil and paper can be used by a half decent mathematician. What was so inadequate about computer technology in that time period?
5. Several of the Apollo mission especially AP17 supposedly went to the moon when the moon was nearly full. If the moon puts out enough light that I can easily see the settings on my telescope and camera in Florida, over 200 thousand miles away don't you think that the light would blind the astronauts if they were actually on the moon
Apollo 17 went to the moon when it was a thin waxing crescent. In any case, why would the light on the Moon blind the astronauts? The moon is lit by the Sun just as the Earth is, so if you don't get blinded by sunlight on a clear day here, why would you on the Moon? Your eye has a huge dynamic range, and humans can see if remarkably low light given time to adapt.
6. Several people note that the lighting wasn't right in the lunar pictures and that they did not bring any lights with them Why not? It would take at least 3 additional cameramen to take all the lunar footage not Ed Fendell from Houston with a remote control
Have you seen all of that footage? I have. It is perfectly consistent with one camera per mission being operated by remote control.
7. Since the spacesuits were supposedly cooled by water the astronaut's would have instantly frozen on Eva's and on the surface of the moon in the shade
Lack of understanding of thermal tranfer noted. If you can touch the outisde of your oven without being burned and the outside of your freezer without being frozen, do you really think they'd have trouble with thermal control in space? What about being on the Moon makes a water-cooled space suit any less effective than being anywhere else in space?
8. The Lem was made of Tin foil, Mylar and tape the abort procedure was to bail out in space
Simply rubbish. The LM was made of aluminium, with an outer layer of mylar and tape for thermal control purposes. It was quite a sturdy spacecraft. And the abort procedure certainly did not involve bailing out.
9. Any glass in the command module would melt upon reentry killing anyone inside
Would it? Why?
10. There is no way the record of the Apollo missions is accurate.
Circular reasoning noted. You presented this as a list of reasons why the Apollo record is false. You can't use 'because it was false' as a reason to justify that!
-
the fact that water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit
So why would water inside a spacesuit under several layers of various insulating materials instantly freeze in the shade on the moon? It has to lose all the heat it already has in order to freeze.
and glass melts around 700 degrees Fahrenheit is common knowledge
What kind of glass? I work in a lab and I can use a bunsen burner to melt glass pipettes to extrude them to make fine glass fibres, or I can use a bunsen burner to boil up solutions in a glass tube that does not melt when I put it in the flame. Heat-resistant glass has been around for decades.
my source on computer and communication technology is not backed up by anything except for my own memory
Then we may dismiss it for lack of evidence, since your memory likely does not go back to the sixties, and in any case very likely did not involve the application of computer technology to the problems of lunar flight.
-
6. Several people note that the lighting wasn't right in the lunar pictures and that they did not bring any lights with them Why not? It would take at least 3 additional cameramen to take all the lunar footage not Ed Fendell from Houston with a remote control
The single TV camera, single TV feed footage could easily be controlled via remote control. The unbroken GCTA video easily debunks this. As does any basic level photography/video theory with regards to lighting with regards to the "wrong lighting" claim.
-
I don't know if man went to the moon in the sixties or not, but the record of the Apollo missions seems to be completely false
Given the depth of your misunderstanding of the historical events, the construction of the vehicles, the lunar environment and the relevant sciences, it is not surprising that you think it is a hoax.
5. Several of the Apollo mission especially AP17 supposedly went to the moon when the moon was nearly full. If the moon puts out enough light that I can easily see the settings on my telescope and camera in Florida, over 200 thousand miles away don't you think that the light would blind the astronauts if they were actually on the moon
You seem to be implying that the moon would somehow be so bright that it would be impossible to be on the surface. Yet the moon is lit by the same source as the earth, the sun, and both are practically the same distance from the sun. So why would it be significantly brighter than say a desert on earth? Please clarify this for us.
8. The Lem
This is, by itself, a dead giveaway that you have been reading the typical and long ago discredited writings of hoax promoters. So please either speak for yourself and document your sources or provide us with the origins of your beliefs. Otherwise you will have nothing better to support your position that personal incredulity. Is that what you really want to stand on?
-
What are your sources for these claims?
Probably here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Grand_Day_Out
:o ;D
-
1. The Command Module being only 210 cubic feet would not fit (3) men all the food, water, air, spacesuits, boots, helmets, cameras film and equipment needed for up to 10-11 days in space.
What volume do you think was required? There is no questioning that it was not a comfortable environment.
The usual reply is that these items were in the Lem or the service module, but that would be very unsafe (not to mention bringing back hundreds of pounds of moon rocks)
How so? Because that's where the lunar extravehicular mobility units were stored. The pressure garment assemblies used for the launch were stored in the CM of course.
2. Back in the Apollo days we (the public) were told that the Moon was an Extremely Hot, Dry, and geologically dead place with no atmosphere. Now according to the NASA Lunar Science Institute the moon is an extremely Cold, Wet geologically active place with an atmosphere that extends all the way to earth. Just the opposite of what we were told.
That's no description of the Moon I recognise.
3. The trajectory of the Apollo missions is nothing like spacecraft go to the moon today. Today spacecraft going to the moon make several increasingly large earth orbits not a crazy “8” trajectory.
The typical Hohman transfer orbit is still used. It's just that other spacraft, which don't need to worry about life support, choose to use a lower energy transfer.
4. Regardless of popular belief computer and communication technology were not sufficient in the sixties (slide rules were the norm in the sixties)
How much computing power do you think is required for such a task?
5. Several of the Apollo mission especially AP17 supposedly went to the moon when the moon was nearly full. If the moon puts out enough light that I can easily see the settings on my telescope and camera in Florida, over 200 thousand miles away don't you think that the light would blind the astronauts if they were actually on the moon
The full moon is pretty bright. But guess what is even brighter. Earth. We're still seeing.
The phase of the Moon was different for each mission so your original assertion is wrong. To compound your error, Apollo 17 went at the thinest crescent of any of them.
6. Several people note that the lighting wasn't right in the lunar pictures and that they did not bring any lights with them Why not?
Why would they need lights? You just pointed out in your very last point that the lunar surface should have been really bright. Which is it? Is the Moon blindingly bright or is it so dark you'd need artificial lights?
It would take at least 3 additional cameramen to take all the lunar footage not Ed Fendell from Houston with a remote control
Why? There was a tv camera plonked on a rover. Why does that need a dedicated camera man nevermind three?
7. Since the spacesuits were supposedly cooled by water the astronaut's would have instantly frozen on Eva's and on the surface of the moon in the shade
And how would the water have shed all that latent heat?
8. The Lem was made of Tin foil, Mylar and tape the abort procedure was to bail out in space
Some of the layers were that but the structure of the LM has more than one layer to it.
There was no bailout contingency. I have no idea where you got that from.
9. Any glass in the command module would melt upon reentry killing anyone inside
How hot do you think the glass became?
-
...The Command Module being only 210 cubic feet would not fit (3) men all the food, water, air, spacesuits, boots, helmets, cameras film and equipment needed for up to 10-11 days in space.
Good thing that they had the service module...eh?
The usual reply is that these items were in the Lem or the service module, but that would be very unsafe...
Why?...why would it be "unsafe"? What "skill sets" did you employ to determine it to be "unsafe"??
...with an atmosphere that extends all the way to earth.
I simply do not understand what you are trhying to say....could you repeat, and clarify??
I'm going to skip #3 through #9 as I don't have the patience this morning to say wrong as many times as would be needed.
There is no way the record of the Apollo missions is accurate.
Your opinion is irrelevant...please provide evidence for that claim, or retract your claim.
-
This is, by itself, a dead giveaway that you have been reading the typical and long ago discredited writings of hoax promoters.
Yep...the ONLY people that refer to the LM as the "LEM" are hoax believers.
A very "rookie" mistake on DAKDAK's part.
-
5. Several of the Apollo mission especially AP17 supposedly went to the moon when the moon was nearly full.
Why are you supposing anything when you can look it up?
9. Any glass in the command module would melt upon reentry killing
Do you realize that the windows were on the trailing side of the CM as it reentered?
-
I don't know if man went to the moon in the sixties or not, but the record of the Apollo missions seems to be completely false
As has been said, a few of us are engineers and this is our profession.
1. The Command Module being only 210 cubic feet would not fit (3) men all the food, water, air, spacesuits, boots, helmets, cameras film and equipment needed for up to 10-11 days in space.
That's why most of that equipment was stored outside the habitable volume in modules specially designed for those tasks.
The usual reply is that these items were in the Lem or the service module, but that would be very unsafe...
What's so unsafe about it? The Russians have been using an identical design safely for decades. We just imitated their design for Apollo. And SpaceX is imitating the same design for the next generation. We use it because it works very well and has proven to be enormously safe. It was this design, for example, that allowed Apollo 13 to be a survivable event rather than an instantly-fatal event.
I can talk for hours on the subject of decoupling in design engineering. Want me to?
2. Back in the Apollo days we (the public) were told that the Moon was an Extremely Hot, Dry, and geologically dead place with no atmosphere. Now according to the NASA Lunar Science Institute the moon is an extremely Cold, Wet geologically active place with an atmosphere that extends all the way to earth. Just the opposite of what we were told.
No, this is a gross oversimplification of the available information, as well as a pretty silly argument in favor of a hoax.
First, NASA has never been the only source of information about the Moon. In fact, as our nearest neighbor, it's the most accessible for private interests. NASA, in existence only since the late 1950s, was at the time a relative newcomer to planetary study. That's why Apollo had to bring in academics from outside institutions to train their Apollo people, who at the time were long on engineering expertise and short on astronomy and planetary science.
Second, why would NASA make up a whole different story that, to you, sounds suspicious if they were intent on faking Moon missions? Wouldn't it make more sense to adopt a low profile and confirm what everyone else already knew? That's like casing a bank for a robbery while wearing a clown suit; the aim of crime is to get away with it, not draw attention to yourself.
3. The trajectory of the Apollo missions is nothing like spacecraft go to the moon today. Today spacecraft going to the moon make several increasingly large earth orbits not a crazy “8” trajectory.
There is more than one way to get to the Moon. The low-energy orbits take weeks or months to get to the Moon. This is obviously unacceptable in terms of crew expendables. The lunar transfer orbits used by Apollo and all the other missions are widely published and well understood. It's not as if the industry has suspicions about Apollo orbits.
4. Regardless of popular belief computer and communication technology were not sufficient in the sixties (slide rules were the norm in the sixties)
Nonsense, digital computers were well established in the 1960s. The notion that technology of the 1960s was insufficient to implement Apollo is, on the contrary, the popular belief. It is incorrect; the well-informed professional believe among aerospace engineers is that there is absolutely no reason Apollo could not have succeeded as described. There is a wealth of design information available, and several people have succeeded in rebuilding the computers (or emulators for them) today.
5. Several of the Apollo mission especially AP17 supposedly went to the moon when the moon was nearly full. If the moon puts out enough light that I can easily see the settings on my telescope and camera in Florida, over 200 thousand miles away don't you think that the light would blind the astronauts if they were actually on the moon.
Subjective human-eye impressions are a poor measure of luminous intensity. The Moon does not emit light; it reflects it just as does the Earth. The solar influx is a well-known value. The Moon's geometric albedo is measurable from Earth, as is the same value for various places on Earth. The Moon's albedo varies from 4-12 percent on the maria to 20-25 percent in the highlands. This is generally dimmer than Earth's albedo variance, so your argument holds to the effect that we should be more blinded on Earth that if we were on the Moon.
Yes, there are places on Earth such as in the Sahara desert (where I've been) and flying above the Earth's cloud cover (which accounts for the lion's share of Earth's albedo) where the reflected sunlight is uncomfortably bright. In both those places I wear sunglasses, just as the astronauts did. We have pictures of the Earth-Moon system taken from departing planetary spacecraft that show the Earth as the "bright blue marble" in space while the Moon (in this case taken with the same camera exposure setting) is a dull brown blob. We see the Moon as "bright" only because it's in the context of the nighttime sky. A candle in a dark room is pretty darn (subjectively) bright, but it's only "one" candela.
6. Several people note that the lighting wasn't right in the lunar pictures and that they did not bring any lights with them...
Those people are right when they say no lights were taken. Other than that, they don't know what they're talking about. Regardless of their handwaving, they aren't "photographic analysts" or "investigative journalists." Real photo experts have no problem with the Apollo photos.
It would take at least 3 additional cameramen to take all the lunar footage not Ed Fendell from Houston with a remote control
You seem to have confused two different conspiracy-theory claims. Ed Fendell operated the remote-control television camera from Mission Control, but on the J-missions only. The "too many photographs" argument is aimed at the 70mm still photography, which was taken by the astronauts themselves.
7. Since the spacesuits were supposedly cooled by water the astronaut's would have instantly frozen on Eva's and on the surface of the moon in the shade
I'm an engineer. Show me the heat-transfer computations that prove this.
8. The Lem was made of Tin foil...
Nope. The structural elements were made of aerospace-grade aluminum, just like the airliners we fly in every day.
Mylar...
The outer covering was aluminized films, yes. It's the stuff we still use for covering spacecraft for thermal protection. It's wonderful material. I also use it on the ground for thermal protection.
...and tape
Show me a better technique for laying up polyamide blankets. Seriously, I'm an engineer and this is what I do. Show me a better way and prove to me that it's better.
...the abort procedure was to bail out in space
Nonsense. The LM abort procedure during landing and ascent was to ride the spacecraft to orbit and dock as usual, possibly with the CSM having to perform one of several contingency rendezvous maneuvers. The contingency docking-failure procedure was to transfer in space in suits. I'm not sure why this would be a problem in your book.
9. Any glass in the command module would melt upon reentry killing anyone inside.
The glass was the same as used in Corning cookware, which is good to several hundred degrees. The windows on the CM were on the lee side of the re-entry vectors, meaning they didn't get directly heated by the re-entry dynamics. All subsequent spacecraft use these same techniques and manage to survive re-entry just fine. Why is Apollo different?
10. There is no way the record of the Apollo missions is accurate.
Tautology.
-
DAKDAK
OK, so you think the moon missions were faked. Tell us which crewed NASA space flights you accept as real? Mercury, Gemini, the non-landing Apollo flights - 7,8 ,9 & 10, the ASTP, Skylab, the space shuttle are all candidates.
-
<snip utter bovine fecal matter>
Yeah lots of folks got here before me.
Suffice it to say that if you are unable to provide any actual evidence, I and other experts here will bury you.
You have no idea how wrong you are.
-
I have researched the Command module in much greater detail than the Lem information on the Lem is very hard to find,since it supposedly did not come back...
I've been able to find copious materials on the design and operation of the Apollo lunar module. It takes up about three feet of shelf space in my office. Most of the ones built for flight did not come back. But that doesn't stop us from knowing about them.
but my sources on the command module is the Smithsonian where some of the command modules are currently kept.
LM-2 is also kept in the Smithsonian. And you can't actually get inside any of the CMs in the Smithsonian. I've been inside one Apollo CM post-flight, and several Apollo CM boilerplates. I don't really find them as cramped as they're made out to be by conspiracy theorists. I'd gladly agree to spend 10 days in one in return for the chance to fly in space and explore another world.
210 cubic feet is extremely small
Compared to what? In logical terms what you're doing is called "begging the question." You're giving your opinion and simply asking people to agree with it. You need to tell us why this is necessarily too small a space.
my source on the lunar atmosphere is http://nightsky.jpl.nasa.gov/download-view.cfm?Doc_ID=483
I see; I may have misunderstood what you were trying to claim earlier. You're saying that if NASA had really been to the Moon, we should have seen these results earlier.
You need to do some more research. The Preliminary Science Report and other official scientific findings from NASA indeed describe the thermal environment of the lunar surface. We've always known it to be hot when the sunlight strikes and cold otherwise. I'm not sure where you understood otherwise. We've always known the Moon had an almost-negligible atmosphere, but Apollo had the ability to study it only as it was constituted at the lunar surface. For most other purposes, the Moon's atmosphere is non-existent. It certainly has no fluid-dynamics properties at any place.
my source on the light coming off the moon is my own eyes
How accurate is the human eye at measuring luminous intensity? Again, this is begging the question. Without even discussing Apollo-specific materials, we can prove your belief wrong. All we need is properties of the Earth, Moon, and Sun that have been observed and measured for more than 100 years by almost every relevant scientist. That's how we know an astronaut wouldn't be instantly blinded on the Moon, but he will want to take sunglasses because it will be uncomfortably (but not injuriously) bright.
If you're a Mythbusters fan, you know that they consult with many outside experts to get their demonstrations as physically and scientifically accurate as their format allows. Guess which expert they consulted to get the brightness of the lunar surface right for their lighting tests?
and the fact that water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit and glass melts around 700 degrees Fahrenheit is common knowledge...
Does water always freeze at 32 F? Or does that temperature actually vary according to other properties? How does vacuum or being kept under pressure in a tank affect that phenomenon? What if water is allowed to seep very slowly through a porous plate in a vacuum, in the shade. How will that affect the problem.
The human body produces between 85-120 watts of metabolic heat. How is that heat rejected on Earth? How would it be rejected in space? What if that body were encased in a very good insulator; what would happen to that heat?
Here's another clue: the last time I was at the Air & Space Museum, the guide demonstrating space suits had a hard time answering that question. With his permission, I answered the question satisfactorily for the tour group, using modern ILC space suit materials as an illustration.
So if you trust the Smithsonian to get the right information, and they trust me to give them the right information, whom should you be listening to?
my source on the trajectories is from current moon missions...
Without knowing what specific missions you mean, I can still probably stipulate that it's good information and probably reasonably accurate information. But you have to understand it in the context of orbital dynamics, which is a big whole science of its own. Every trajectory between Earth and Moon is some kind of orbit, which is to say it will obey the mathematics of orbital mechanics. But not every trajectory shares the same properties in terms of geometry or the fuel it takes to achieve. They're all valid, but not every orbit is suitable for every mission. Mission design isn't just a matter of pointing the rocket at the Moon and lighting the fuse.
I can send an automobile-sized spacecraft to the Moon from Earth orbit using only about 30 gallons of fuel. But it will take 18 months to get there. If my mission doesn't allow for that kind of patience, I'll have to spring for a higher-energy orbit. But that means more fuel, since the initial impulse will have to be greater. And that means either less mission payload, or a more expensive launch vehicle.
my source on computer and communication technology is not backed up by anything except for my own memory
Did you work as an engineer in the 1960s?
-
Hi, DAKDAK. Welcome to the board.
I don't know if man went to the moon in the sixties or not, but the record of the Apollo missions seems to be completely false
Sounds like you've made up your mind already.
By the way, men went to the Moon in the '60s and '70s. Apollo 8 orbited the Moon. Apollo 10 orbited the Moon and performed a descent and ascent in the LM (not "LEM", which was an earlier designation). Apollo 11 actually landed on the Moon, and was basically the final test flight. Apollo 13 went around the Moon in a gravitational assist abort. Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17 landed on the Moon and peformed increasingly sophisticated scientific missions.
Here are some of the reasons I believe this
Others have already picked over this, so I'll only add a couple of comments.
3. The trajectory of the Apollo missions is nothing like spacecraft go to the moon today. Today spacecraft going to the moon make several increasingly large earth orbits not a crazy “8” trajectory.
Clementine did, for various reasons, but Lunar Prospector did not, so your claim is incorrect. But aside from that, why exactly is the trajectory "crazy"? It was designed to offer maximum protection from Van Allen Belt radiation and flexibility for translunar abort - which came in handy on Apollo 13. Why would you expect a manned Apollo trajectory to look like that for an unmanned probe?
4. Regardless of popular belief computer and communication technology were not sufficient in the sixties (slide rules were the norm in the sixties)
Slide rules were used in the '60s. So were general-purpose digital computers, like those in the MCC, and those aboard Apollo. (In fact, a modified Apollo Guidance Computer was used to control the first fly-by-wire aircraft, an F-8 Crusader which had no other means of control.)
I would like you to explain exactly why computer technology was insufficient for the task. Please bear in mind that I have coded for and operated spacecraft computers.
8. The Lem was made of Tin foil, Mylar and tape
Over an aluminum skin, over aluminum structural members.
the abort procedure was to bail out in space
No, it wasn't.
9. Any glass in the command module would melt upon reentry killing anyone inside
What kind of "glass" do you think was used in the CM? And please explain exactly how you decided the temperature, and more generally the thermal loading, on the trailing surface exceeded the design rating of said windows? Please bear in mind that I used to work for the guys who designed the CM, so I will pay close attention to your answer.
10. There is no way the record of the Apollo missions is accurate.
This is a statement of opinion. Would you care to cite your credentials that lend weight to your opinion?
Also, regarding your opinion, in your next post you said
information on the Lem is very hard to find.
Really? Typing "Apollo Lunar Module" into the NASA Technical Reports Server (http://ntrs.nasa.gov) returned hundreds of reports and analyses, along with many more images and follow-on studies. Even typing the same into Google will place you two clicks away from thousands of pages of design information, development histories, and so on.
Look, collectively this group here has a lot of knowledge related to Apollo. You have two choices as to how to proceed:
1. Dig in stubbornly and defend your misconceptions
2. Learn about Apollo, and spaceflight in general, and possibly reexamine your initial premise.
-
DAKDAK,
Many people have already corrected you on the LEM versus LM thing, so I’d just like to elaborate a bit. Early in its development the module that was to land on the moon was called the Lunar Excursion Module, abbreviated LEM. However, during the LEM’s development NASA decided it wanted to procure separate funding to develop a means of motorized mobility for the astronauts while on the surface of the moon. NASA was afraid that having the word “excursion” in the name of the LEM may imply to some that it already had mobile capability, which it did not. To avoid a misunderstanding that could possibly jeopardize approval for a motorized surface vehicle (if the LEM already had excursion capability, then a separate vehicle would be redundant), NASA dropped the word “excursion” and changed it simply to Lunar Module, abbreviated LM. However, by the time this change came about, everyone had already gotten use to pronouncing the name “lem,” so the pronunciation stuck even though the official designation, and the one we should strive to use, is LM. Lunar surface mobility was eventually realized with the development of the Lunar Roving Vehicle, or LRV (often simply called Rover).
edit spelling
-
Learnt something new today.
I always thought the Excursion was dropped because some PR type felt it sounded to frivolous.
Excursions is something you have with your school class.
-
I'm nowhere near an expert, but the figure-8 trajectory never struck me as "crazy," but a very elegant solution to going from one gravitational pull to another. Perhaps DAKDAK will explain what exactly was crazy about it, and why going in an ever-increasing spiral is preferable?
-
Look, collectively this group here has a lot of knowledge related to Apollo. You have two choices as to how to proceed:
1. Dig in stubbornly and defend your misconceptions
2. Learn about Apollo, and spaceflight in general, and possibly reexamine your initial premise.
It would make all of us very happy if you would do the latter. I think most of us would rather educate than argue with the intractable.
-
Simply rubbish. The LM was made of aluminium, with an outer layer of mylar and tape for thermal control purposes.
The external thermal blankets on the LM descent stage were all Kapton, not Mylar. Kapton has a characteristic orangish color. It was fabricated as sheets of various thicknesses with a very thin layer of metallic aluminum on the rear surface; these different thicknesses account for the different shades of red, yellow and gold one sees on the LM.
I believe Mylar may have been used in some of the internal thermal blankets on the ascent stage. They were all hidden behind thin sheets of metal that acted as part of a Whipple-type micrometeoroid shield as well as controlling the thermal properties.
-
Slide rules can be used to do all the mathematics needed for a flight to the Moon.
That's actually not true. Lunar flight requires a lot of calculations that can't be done on a slide rule.
Differential equations are central to orbital mechanics and space flight. While the "2-body problem" (one heavy planet and a spacecraft) has an "analytical" solution, meaning that there are formulas into which you can plug your parameters and quickly get your answers, there is no analytic solution for the general case of 3 or more bodies. Earth-moon travel is the classic example of a 3-body problem (earth, moon and spacecraft).
Numerical integration is the only alternative; it's an almost "brute force" way to solve an arbitrary set of differential equations that involves repeated computation, the output from each step serving as the input to the next. This can't be practically done on a slide rule when the operations are repeated thousands or millions of times.
Some integrations can also be done on analog computers (indeed that was their primary function) but analog computers have some very definite limitations. They've been obsolete for decades, replaced with digital computing. Apollo began this transition with a vengeance.
So computers were critical to Apollo. The development of special purpose onboard computers and their software was a major part of the program, and they proved up to the job. They also represented a significant contribution to the state of the art; the onboard Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC) was the first computer made entirely of integrated circuits.
The AGC performed quite a bit of numerical integration as it updated state vectors and executed digital autopilot algorithms. These were relatively simple operations that could be done easily even by those relatively limited computers.
Apollo's real number crunching was done on the ground by a room of IBM mainframe computers in Houston called the Real Time Computing Complex (RTCC). This primarily consisted of maneuver planning, which also involves numerical integration. What makes maneuver planning more computationally intensive than updating a state vector is that it's an iterative process that must run much faster than real time; you make a little change to the burn, propagate it out to see where that takes you after several days or whatever, and then go back and change the burn some more until it takes you where you want to go.
The results of these runs were read up to the crews vocally, who wrote them down for later use. Some of the maneuvers were for planned procedures such as lunar orbit insertion or trans-earth injection, but most were abort contingencies, ways for the crew to get home on their own at any point in the mission in the event of a communications loss.
The Saturn V Instrument Unit (IU) contained its own digital guidance computer, an IBM design very different from the AGC called, naturally enough, the Launch Vehicle Digital Computer (LVDC).
So while Apollo needed computers, and the computers of the 1960s were very limited compared to today, they were definitely up to the job.
-
I'm nowhere near an expert, but the figure-8 trajectory never struck me as "crazy," but a very elegant solution to going from one gravitational pull to another. Perhaps DAKDAK will explain what exactly was crazy about it, and why going in an ever-increasing spiral is preferable?
Indeed it was very elegant. The "free return trajectory" that relied on that figure-8 was probably the single most elegant orbital mechanics concept in the entire Apollo program. If the Service Propulsion System engine on the CSM failed after translunar injection onto a free return trajectory, the crew would not be lost in space; they would return home automatically.
There are spacecraft that use ever-increasing spirals to go to the moon or even to high earth orbit. Those would be the ones using ion engines. Ion engines have the singular advantage of extremely high specific impulses, which means they can achieve the same impulse (thrust force times time) with a much lower mass of propellant than conventional chemical rockets.
Unfortunately, ion engines also have the singular disadvantage of very low thrust, which means it takes a long time to get to where you're going -- far too long for a human mission that must carry consumables like food, oxygen and water to keep the crew alive in the meantime. So they're used only on robotic spacecraft where it's acceptable to take months instead of just 3 days to go to the moon.
-
Re "crazy 8", I had assumed he was referring to some kind of aerobatic maneuver. Can't think which one even though I've done a bit of the sport. I do knoc Cuban 8 though.
-
The first probe to hit the Moon (Luna 2 (http://www.astronautix.com/craft/lunae1a.htm), on September 13th, 1959) took an even straighter trajectory and hit the moon just 33.5 hours (less than a day and a half) after launch.
-
Has DAKDAK even replied once beyond the first post? ???
-
Has DAKDAK even replied once beyond the first post? ???
Yes... Post #3, 25 minutes after his first post.
-
Ah, my mistake.
-
Still the odds of DAKDAK being a seagull poster are getting shorter every minute.
-
Still the odds of DAKDAK being a seagull poster are getting shorter every minute.
I think you're probably right. I have wonder how many seagulls even bother to come back and read the responses to their posts.
-
The first probe to hit the Moon (Luna 2 (http://www.astronautix.com/craft/lunae1a.htm), on September 13th, 1959) took an even straighter trajectory and hit the moon just 33.5 hours (less than a day and a half) after launch.
This is fine when you only intend to hit the moon. It's possible to get there even faster; the fastest launch ever conducted, the New Horizons probe to Pluto, crossed the moon's orbit only 10 hours after launch.
But if you want to soft land or decelerate into orbit around the moon, you have to use a less energetic (and more time-consuming) orbit or you'll have a lot of excess velocity to get rid of with your lunar landing or orbit insertion burn.
Apollo's lunar trajectory, besides being designed to provide a free return, was a compromise between the propellant required both for TLI and LOI and the consumables required to sustain the crew in the meantime. You can get there faster (and save consumables) by spending more propellant. Or you can save propellant by taking longer (and using more consumables) but only to a point; if you take too long, you'll never reach the moon at all, but fall back to earth before reaching it.
It's a common misconception that TLI injected Apollo into an earth escape trajectory. It actually went into a highly elliptical earth orbit with an eccentricity of about 0.97. (Escape would be 1.0 or more.) It had its apogee beyond (but not too far beyond) the moon's orbit, meaning it couldn't have taken too much longer than it did or it never would have gotten there at all.
-
Re "crazy 8", I had assumed he was referring to some kind of aerobatic maneuver. Can't think which one even though I've done a bit of the sport. I do knoc Cuban 8 though.
Look at the Apollo 8 mission patch; it showed the Earth-Moon-Earth trajectory pretty well.
-
Apollo's lunar trajectory, besides being designed to provide a free return, was a compromise between the propellant required both for TLI and LOI and the consumables required to sustain the crew in the meantime. You can get there faster (and save consumables) by spending more propellant. Or you can save propellant by taking longer (and using more consumables)
Of particular note is the fact that Apollo used fuel cells for electrical power. Since fuel cells consume reactant (oxygen and hydrogen), they are only practical for short duration missions, otherwise the mass of the reactant required to keep them running the whole time becomes prohibitive. Long duration missions use solar cells, where sunlight is abundant, or RTGs (radioisotope thermoelectric generators). The mass of solar cells and RTGs are fixed regardless of the mission duration.
edit spelling
-
I've been inside one Apollo CM post-flight, and several Apollo CM boilerplates. I don't really find them as cramped as they're made out to be by conspiracy theorists. I'd gladly agree to spend 10 days in one in return for the chance to fly in space and explore another world.
I can confirm this. I've been in ground training articles for Mercury, Gemini and Apollo. Gemini was the most cramped, about the same as the front seats of a car, but the Gemini 7 crew managed to put up with it for 14 days. Apollo was very roomy, you could get out of your seat and move around, which was impossible for Mercury and Gemini.
-
I've been inside one Apollo CM post-flight, and several Apollo CM boilerplates. I don't really find them as cramped as they're made out to be by conspiracy theorists. I'd gladly agree to spend 10 days in one in return for the chance to fly in space and explore another world.
I can confirm this. I've been in ground training articles for Mercury, Gemini and Apollo. Gemini was the most cramped, about the same as the front seats of a car, but the Gemini 7 crew managed to put up with it for 14 days. Apollo was very roomy, you could get out of your seat and move around, which was impossible for Mercury and Gemini.
On Gemini 7, Borman got out of his spacesuit. Even in free-fall that's quite a feat for such cramped quarters.
All the extra room of Apollo came at a price, however, with the first cases of space adaptation sickness.
-
Ya know why my post count around here is still in the single digits?
People like DAKDAK. I get really tired of people wandering into various fora and boldly stating wrong things.
-
Apollo was very roomy, you could get out of your seat and move around, which was impossible for Mercury and Gemini.
Especially in 0-g; practically every astronaut commented on how much roomier the thing became in space. It was common for one of the astronauts to sleep floating up in the tunnel.
-
Of particular note is the fact that Apollo used fuel cells for electrical power.
Yeah, but fuel cells still have a higher mass energy density than batteries. That's why they were used despite their enormously greater complexity and hassles. A few offhand: they operated at hundreds of degrees C with a corrosive KOH electrolyte; they had a fairly tight operating power range: a minimum needed to keep the electrolyte molten as well as a maximum that wasn't enough for peak demands; they were very easily damaged; they required constant monitoring and frequent maintenance, such as purging trace inert gases from the reactant supply; they required a hydrogen supply and a small nitrogen supply as well as the supply of oxygen that would be needed in any event for breathing.
On the other hand, fuel cells produced drinking water that would have to be carried anyway. On the other other hand, they produced so much water that the excess had to be dumped.
I've always thought it interesting that Soyuz has long used a solar panel while the US never seems to use solar power for manned missions except for space stations like Skylab and the ISS. Did the Russians never develop fuel cells? They were a major pacing technology item for NASA in the 60s.
-
Still the odds of DAKDAK being a seagull poster are getting shorter every minute.
I think you're probably right. I have wonder how many seagulls even bother to come back and read the responses to their posts.
Could be true. But its only been a few days. I'd wait a week before making a judgement. Not everyone checks for a frequently like we do.
-
Apollo was very roomy, you could get out of your seat and move around, which was impossible for Mercury and Gemini.
Especially in 0-g; practically every astronaut commented on how much roomier the thing became in space. It was common for one of the astronauts to sleep floating up in the tunnel.
I can see how that works. My 11m² room would be a lot spacy when I could just as easily move around in the third dimension.
-
On the other hand, fuel cells produced drinking water that would have to be carried anyway. On the other other hand, they produced so much water that the excess had to be dumped.
IIRC, the Shuttle produced more than enough fuel cell waste water to keep the ISS supplied. (Disclaimer: I heard this before the Columbia disaster, when the station was much more incomplete, the crew smaller, and shuttle flights to the station more regular.)
-
Ya know why my post count around here is still in the single digits?
People like DAKDAK. I get really tired of people wandering into various fora and boldly stating wrong things.
I hear you, but on the plus side his drive by did get a bit of discussion going.
-
I hear you, but on the plus side his drive by did get a bit of discussion going.
That's why I hang around. There's not much to learn from the deniers, but I've learned a lot by researching rebuttals and reading those others have written.
-
That's why I hang around. There's not much to learn from the deniers, but I've learned a lot by researching rebuttals and reading those others have written.
This is what I can't get the stubborn folk over at BAUT to understand: some people find that a debate framework is more effective at conveying and exploring important information. They don't want to read a dry presentation; they want to watch people answer questions, challenge, and be challenged.
-
That's why I hang around. There's not much to learn from the deniers, but I've learned a lot by researching rebuttals and reading those others have written.
This is what I can't get the stubborn folk over at BAUT to understand: some people find that a debate framework is more effective at conveying and exploring important information. They don't want to read a dry presentation; they want to watch people answer questions, challenge, and be challenged.
I personally find this format a great way of learning new stuff. The detail that some of you guys know is staggering, and seeing it applied to "real-world" scenarios is fascinating and very educational.
-
This is what I can't get the stubborn folk over at BAUT to understand: some people find that a debate framework is more effective at conveying and exploring important information. They don't want to read a dry presentation; they want to watch people answer questions, challenge, and be challenged.
It paradoxical to me that people would follow a thread for so long only to start complaining that is not getting anywhere, when the probability of the hoax proponent changing his mind is still the same as it was at the time of the first post. Namely zero. Online debate can be a great sport a for spectators and one that lets novices and pros to play in the same game.
-
Online debate can be a great sport a for spectators and one that lets novices and pros to play in the same game.
Not only that, but to be perfectly fair, at the core of most every Apollo hoax claim is actually the kernel of a good question. Why don't the stars appear in the Apollo pictures? Why didn't their suits puff up like Gemini's, and how did they operate their cameras while wearing them? Why do the distant lunar mountains look so close?
The deniers may not accept that perfectly good answers exist to all of these questions, but those who do can learn quite a bit. I often describe deniers as people who use questions as weapons, not as tools for learning answers.
-
Let's examine the Apollo Command Module
please correct me if I claim anything that is not correct
The apollo command modules were the same size on all Apollo
missions
now I am only refering to the actual Command Module not the
Service module or the tower
please correct me if I claim anything that is not correct
[Post restored by LunarOrbit]
-
If anybody disagrees with these numbers please let me know
I am not sure how you figure the cubic feet in a cone that is 154 inches wide and 127 inches tall. I asked one of the people that replied to my post screen name Chew He replied that he was not going to teach me GOOGLE “cube volume”
I am pretty sure this is a cone not a cube. The math is something like
(Radius( x) pie squared)times the height, this gives you a cylinder you divide that in half this gives you a cone.
The Smithsonian Institute says this comes out to 210 cubic feet.
DOES ANYBODY DISAGREE WITH THESE FIGURES???
[Post restored by LunarOrbit]
-
SEE ATTACHMENT
[Post restored by LunarOrbit]
-
Okay, so Google cone volume. And remember that internal and external dimensions will not be the same thing.
-
Dak, what makes you think you can simply ignore the problems and errors already pointed out to you, and move on?
-
LAST ATTACHED
-
Dak, what makes you think you can simply ignore the problems and errors already pointed out to you, and move on?
I am not moving on the number #1 reason I think that the record of the Apollo missions was fabricated is that all the items that supposedly came back from the moon would not fit in the space that was available. like I said in the subject I dint know if man went to the moon in the sixties or not,but the official record of Apollo is obviously NOT TRUE
[Post restored by LunarOrbit]
-
That was the habitable volume, i.e. the volume available for the astronauts to move around. The CM was 12.8' in diameter and 11.4' in height. A simple cone of those dimensions has a volume of about 490 cubic feet.
I am still coming up ith 210 cubic feet not 490 Maybe you should check your math
[Post restored by LunarOrbit]
-
So scientific knowledge develops after years of research. That's normal. It's how our understanding develops. The moon is not considered a 'wet' place by any means. The water that has been found is bound into the rocks, not sitting around making everything wet. There is a large amount of water in most of the food you eat, but i doubt you'd consider biscuits or crisps 'wet' would you?
Do you hear yourself water bound in rocks??
That is just more of the same old song and dances in my opinion The moon is a type of water tank and fills up every month,by some form of snow.
The brilliant scientist in the sixties did not notice this then and it took 50 years and dozens of supposedly maned and unmanned missions to figure this out
And of course food is wet maybe not biscuits or crisps but maybe stew or soup
[Post restored by LunarOrbit]
-
The Moon does not emit light; it reflects it just as does the Earth. The solar influx is a well-known value. The Moon's geometric albedo is measurable from Earth, as is the same value for various places on Earth. The Moon's albedo varies from 4-12 percent on the maria to 20-25 percent in the highlands. This is generally dimmer than Earth's albedo variance, so your argument holds to the effect that we should be more blinded on Earth that if we were on the Moon.
I do not agree you see the moon unlike the earth does Emmit lot and lots oflight when The moon is full. Albedo is not measured by percent Actually the lower the albedo the more light is being emitted I attached a real picture of the moon it is definitely emitting light
[Post restored by LunarOrbit]
-
That was the habitable volume, i.e. the volume available for the astronauts to move around. The CM was 12.8' in diameter and 11.4' in height. A simple cone of those dimensions has a volume of about 490 cubic feet.
I am still coming up ith 210 cubic feet not 490 Maybe you should check your math
Could you please quote the message you are replying to, at the moment your posts are potentially confusing. Unless of course that is your intention.
-
That was the habitable volume, i.e. the volume available for the astronauts to move around. The CM was 12.8' in diameter and 11.4' in height. A simple cone of those dimensions has a volume of about 490 cubic feet.
I am still coming up ith 210 cubic feet not 490 Maybe you should check your math
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=cone+12.8%27+diameter+11.4%27+in+height
volume 489 ft^3
Perhaps you might like to show your work instead.
-
Why do hoax believers always seem to rely on Youtube videos, rather than sitting down, thinking through what they want to investigate and working it out. Then, if they don't understand something, they could either research it, or ask a SENSIBLE question. Then again, I suppose that if they did that, they wouldn't be HBs.
I don't understand the reference to the parachutes. Yes, they are big (wouldn't be much use if they weren't!), but the material from which they are constructed is THIN. Each 'chute had a surface area of about .5 acre, and there was 1.5 miles of suspension cords per 'chute. Parachutes pack up into small dimensions (or are skydivers also the figment of a government conspiracy?). The Apollo 'chutes were packed using hydraulic rams, and when packed had the density of maple wood. When they were packed they were not contained in the habitable space.
DakDak: Have a read of this document: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730062665_1973062665.pdf
When you've read it and digested it, then perhaps you might care to point out any "anomalies" that you find?
-
Why do hoax believers always seem to rely on Youtube videos, rather than sitting down, thinking through what they want to investigate and working it out. Then, if they don't understand something, they could either research it, or ask a SENSIBLE question. Then again, I suppose that if they did that, they wouldn't be HBs.
As the video in question has a view count in single figures, I suspect it may have been produced by the OP.
-
I do not agree you see the moon unlike the earth does Emmit lot and lots oflight when The moon is full.
No, it does not emit light, it reflects sunlight. Earth reflects sunlight a lot better than the moon. Albedo is not measured by percent
It's presented as a fraction, or a percent. The same way as you can say that the probability of getting heads when flipping a coin is 50 %, or 0.50. Actually the lower the albedo the more light is being emitted
No, albedo does not measure emitted light. What's your source for this claim? I attached a real picture of the moon it is definitely emitting light
No, it's reflecting sunlight. What process would make the moon to emit light?
-
I do not agree you see the moon unlike the earth does Emmit lot and lots oflight when The moon is full. Albedo is not measured by percent Actually the lower the albedo the more light is being emitted I attached a real picture of the moon it is definitely emitting light
The Moon does not emit light...it only reflects it. The image that you attached is interesting, as it shows "Earthshine". The brighter part of the image is sunlight being reflected off the Moon's surface towards Earth. The dimmer portion of the Lunar surface is illuminated by Earthshine, that is, sunlight being reflected off the Earth to the Moon and the same light being reflected back to Earth.
As to the Moon being too bright to work on, well that is ridiculous. For one, the landings took place in the early Lunar morning. Secondly, the astronauts wore a piece of equipment called the LEVA (Lunar Extra Vehicular Assembly (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-LEVA.html)) which had sunscreens and gold-plated visors to allow the astronaut to work in bright sunlight.
It's ironic that another HB recently claimed that the moon landings were faked as there were no images of the astronauts on the moon with their visors up (a claim that was roundly debunked on here). Now you are hear saying that the Moon landings were faked because the surface was too bright to work on. I do wish that the HB community would at least agree on one story.....
-
... I attached a real picture of the moon it is definitely emitting light
Reflecting light.
The bright over exposed area is where sunlight is being reflected, the far darker area is lit by reflected earthshine.
Albedo is not measured by percent
From wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo
"It is defined as the ratio of reflected radiation from the surface to incident radiation upon it. Being a dimensionless fraction, it may also be expressed as a percentage"
-
I'm sorry DAKDAK but you are so very very wrong. I suggest you sink your teeth into this website. Who knows, you might learn something...
http://www.revisionism.nl/Moon/The-Mad-Revisionist.htm
I'm convinced after just reading the main page.
-
DAKDAK, please address your errors which I pointed out in this post (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=77.msg1353#msg1353).
-
Do you hear yourself water bound in rocks??
That is just more of the same old song and dances in my opinion The moon is a type of water tank and fills up every month,by some form of snow.
DAKDAK, are you trolling? Because this is so patently ridiculous it sounds like you are pulling our legs.
The brilliant scientist in the sixties did not notice this then and it took 50 years and dozens of supposedly maned and unmanned missions to figure this out
Factually incorrect. The Moon has not been "figure[d] out" to be a "water tank" by scientists. It is currently understood to be a rocky, virtually airless body which has some water ice (deposited by comets) at some polar areas which never receive sunlight.
Your understanding of the Moon's character is completely contrary to scientific consensus. What does that tell you about your claims?
-
I do not agree you see the moon unlike the earth does Emmit lot and lots oflight when The moon is full.
Wrong. The Moon reflects a lot of light when full. Emitting light means it would glow by itself.
Albedo is not measured by percent
Wrong.
Actually the lower the albedo the more light is being emitted
Wrong. Exactly backwards, in fact.
I attached a real picture of the moon it is definitely emitting light
No. The lunar limb (the thin crescent) is reflecting light from the Sun. The rest of the Moon is reflecting light from the Earth, which at this point would appear nearly full as seen from the Moon, and is itself reflecting light from the Sun.
Maybe there's a language issue here? "Emit" means generating light on its own, like the Sun or a searchlight. It specifically does not refer to reflecting light generated by another object. Thus, the Moon (and the Earth) does not "emit" visible light.
Also, please address your errors which I discussed in post 1353 (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=77.msg1353#msg1353).
-
I am baffled as to where the 210 cubic feet comes from.
DakDak's dimensions given in inches I get about 450 cubic feet and using the feet dimensions, I get 489
Can someone explain to me?
Pete
-
The math is something like
(Radius( x) pie squared)times the height, this gives you a cylinder you divide that in half this gives you a cone.
Something like that, but that's not it.
The Smithsonian Institute says this comes out to 210 cubic feet.
No they don't. All sources say the CM's habitable volume was 210 cubic feet. This is the volume left over after you subtract for all the stuff you said wouldn't fit.
DOES ANYBODY DISAGREE WITH THESE FIGURES???
Yes
I am still coming up ith 210 cubic feet not 490 Maybe you should check your math
No, you need to check your math.
Someone said the CM was 11.4’ high, but this includes the boost protective cover, which is jettisoned during launch. Without the cover, the CM was essentially two attached geometric shapes – a truncated cone and a dished bottom. The truncated cone was 12.8333’ diameter at the base and 6.75’ high (not including the docking probe sticking out the top), with a sidewall slope of 32.5 degrees. The dished bottom also had a diameter of 12.8333’ and its height was 2.0833’.
The volume of a truncated cone is,
V = pi*H/3 * (R2 + Rr + r2)
Where H is the height, R is the radius of the bottom, and r is the radius of the top. We have H = 6.75’, R = 12.8333/2 = 6.4167’, and r = 6.4167–6.75*tan(32.5) = 2.1165’. Therefore,
V = pi*6.75/3 * (6.41672 + 6.4167*2.1165 + 2.11652) = 418.7 ft3
The volume of the dished base is more complicated to calculate, but we can simplify by assuming it is half of an oblate spheroid. The volume of a spheroid is,
V = 4*pi/3 * a * b * c
Where a, b and c are the radii in each of the three axes. In our case, a = b = 12.8333/2 = 6.4167’, and c = 2.0833’. Therefore, a half spheroid with our dimensions has the volume
V = 4*pi/3 * 6.41672 * 2.0833 * ½ = 179.7 ft3
Thus, the total volume of the CM is approximately
V = 418.7 + 179.7 = 598 ft3
-
I am baffled as to where the 210 cubic feet comes from.
DakDak's dimensions given in inches I get about 450 cubic feet and using the feet dimensions, I get 489
Can someone explain to me?
Pete
210 cubic feet is the published number for the habitable volume of the CM. The habitable volume is essentially the empty space in the middle of the CM in which the astronauts moved around.
DAKDAK writes "I am still coming up ith(sic) 210 cubic feet" as if he calculated it, but I'm sure that's a lie. All indications are he doesn't know how to calculate it, as is evident by the incorrect formula he gives in post #55. I'm sure he just read the 210 number and repeated it. It's also pretty clear he doesn't know what it means.
-
Let's examine the Apollo Command Module
please correct me if I claim anything that is not correct
The apollo command modules were the same size on all Apollo
missions
now I am only refering to the actual Command Module not the
Service module or the tower
please correct me if I claim anything that is not correct
You claim all the listed components could not have fit inside the CM yet you make no attempt to provide the volume of each component nor do you tabulate the total volume of all the components. Your argument is a classic example of the argument from personal incredulity.
You show a quote that states the CM had 15 miles of wiring. Have you calculated the volume of 15 miles of wire?
-
This is confusing. Its a like a spinning top with theories flying off at all angles.
-
This is confusing. Its a like a spinning top with theories flying off at all angles.
Or a nauseous child on playground roundabout.
-
26 AWG, with insulation as thick as the wire itself, 15 miles long, occupies about 1/10 the volume I intuitively thought it would.
-
Just to clarify my previous calculation, the 598 ft3 is the total volume based on the overall outside dimensions of the CM. This includes the structure itself as well as unpressurized spaces. According to this source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Command/Service_Module), the pressurized volume was 366 ft3. I've done my own back of the envelope calculation from a scale drawing and the 366 ft3 figure looks to be about right (I actually estimated about 400 ft3). The same source lists the "living space" as 218 ft3, though I've seen 210 ft3 given in other sources.
To summarize, we have
Total volume = 598 ft3
Pressurized volume = 366 ft3
Habitable volume = 210 ft3
The difference between the total and pressurized volumes, 232 ft3, included the spacecraft structure, forward tunnel, thermal protection system, parachutes and other recovery equipment, reaction control system including propellant tanks, and all other equipment not housed within the pressurized hull.
The difference between the pressurized and habitable volumes, 156 ft3, included the control panels, interior electronics and equipment, and the storage lockers. I don't know exactly how the habitable volume was calculated, but my guess is that things like the crew couches are included within this space.
-
Do you hear yourself water bound in rocks??
Ah, the last refuge of the ignorant: sheer disbelief. Well, you are welcome to believe and disbelieve what you like, but it is a FACT that water does indeed get chemically bound into minerals. Look up what 'hydrated' means for starters.
The moon is a type of water tank and fills up every month,by some form of snow.
And your evidence for this conclusion is what, exactly? For that matter, your qualifications in the relevant fields are what?
And of course food is wet maybe not biscuits or crisps but maybe stew or soup
Those biscuits and crisps still contain a significant percentage of water, which is still higher than the percentage of water found in any of the lunar samples.
-
I do not agree you see the moon unlike the earth does Emmit lot and lots oflight when The moon is full.
Your agreement or lack of it is irrelevant. The Moon does not emit its own light at all. It reflects sunlights. That is why we have phases of the Moon in the first place.
Albedo is not measured by percent Actually the lower the albedo the more light is being emitted
Where do you get this idea from?
I attached a real picture of the moon it is definitely emitting light
No, it is reflecting light, which comes from the Sun just as the light we get here on Earth does.
Do you actually know anything about any science relevant to the arguments you are making?
[/quote]
-
Everything I can add to this conversation has been said, and said better, by others, so I just I wish I had a dozen more sets of hands so I could facepalm more.
-
Everything I can add to this conversation has been said, and said better, by others, so I just I wish I had a dozen more sets of hands so I could facepalm more.
It's nearing MoonMan (of "alleged vacuum (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/34711-I-Will-Prove-The-Moon-Landings-Were-Hoaxed?p=600377#post600377)" fame) levels of ignorance, inability, and misinformation. Monthly snow on the moon?
-
I don't know if man went to the moon in the sixties or not, but the record of the Apollo missions seems to be completely false
Sorry, but all your claims have been refuted here by qualified people who DO know what they're talking about. I find it hard to believe you actually have read all their posts and comments.
Google Moon Base Clavius. Please. And enjoy the feeling of educating yourself.
-
This is developing into a full blown Gish Gallop.
Is there any chance of dealing with one claim at a time?
-
DAK, another "thinkabout"...the amount of "trash" was lessened during the mission. Some was jettisoned from the LM during EVA (they talk about the "jettison bag"). Also, the LM was loaded with trash and unneeded items before jettison in lunar orbit before TEI. This also saved fuel and cleaned the cockpit up some.
-
Everything I can add to this conversation has been said, and said better, by others, so I just I wish I had a dozen more sets of hands so I could facepalm more.
I'm pretty much there myself. I can't usually refute Moon hoax arguments, because I am not an expert in the various scientific and technical fields. When I can, it's usually a sign that the person making the arguments doesn't know any science whatsoever.
-
I'm pretty much there myself. I can't usually refute Moon hoax arguments, because I am not an expert in the various scientific and technical fields. When I can, it's usually a sign that the person making the arguments doesn't know any science whatsoever.
(Un)luckily for us, that is generally the case. :P
-
Everything I can add to this conversation has been said, and said better, by others, so I just I wish I had a dozen more sets of hands so I could facepalm more.
This may help. (http://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&hl=en&source=hp&biw=1043&bih=981&q=facepalm&gbv=2&oq=facepalm&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&gs_l=img.3..0l10.993.2558.0.2943.8.6.0.2.2.0.149.856.0j6.6.0...0.0.GgTWBdR__Qo)
Fred
-
I do not agree you see the moon unlike the earth does Emmit lot and lots oflight when The moon is full. Albedo is not measured by percent Actually the lower the albedo the more light is being emitted I attached a real picture of the moon it is definitely emitting light
Did you recently attend a lecture by Bill Nye in Waco, Texas, DAKDAK?
Bill Nye - "The Science Guy" - booed in Texas for saying the moon reflects the sun (http://randyreport.blogspot.ca/2012/05/bill-nye-science-guy-booed-in-texas-for.html)
Nye somehow managed to offend a group of adults in Waco when he suggested that the moon does not emit light, but instead reflects the light of the sun.
As even most elementary-school graduates know, the moon reflects the light of the sun but produces no light of its own.
But don't tell that to the good people of Waco, who were "visibly angered by what some perceived as irreverence," according to the Waco Tribune.
Nye got people riled up when he brought up Genesis 1:16, which reads: "God made two great lights -- the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars."
The lesser light he pointed out, is not a light at all, but only a reflector.
At this point, several people in the audience stormed out in fury. One woman yelled "We believe in God!" and left with three children...
And by the way, DAKDAK, if you're going to flood the forum with attachments perhaps you'd like to help pay for the forums hosting and bandwidth?
-
That is just more of the same old song and dances in my opinion The moon is a type of water tank and fills up every month,by some form of snow.
The part of me that loves the ridiculous really hopes that DAKDAK will expalin that this "monthly fill-up" is the cause of the phases of the Moon.
-
Thanks Bob for all of your knowledge and patience
dakdak: Thank Bob for all of his knowledge and patience
Pete
-
I wonder if Bill Nye would have got a better reaction if he'd not framed the point by referencing the Bible. Still seems funny and stupid and depressing though.
-
Did you recently attend a lecture by Bill Nye in Waco, Texas, DAKDAK?
Bill Nye - "The Science Guy" - booed in Texas for saying the moon reflects the sun (http://randyreport.blogspot.ca/2012/05/bill-nye-science-guy-booed-in-texas-for.html)
Well, not that recently, as that's a story from 2006, resurfacing in 2009, and now re-resurfacing in 2012 :D
-
The CM was 12.8' in diameter and 11.4' in height. A simple cone of those dimensions has a volume of about 490 cubic feet.
I am still coming up ith 210 cubic feet not 490 Maybe you should check your math
Volume of cone = 1/3 * pi * radius^2 * height
The dimensions given by Chew:
Radius = 6.4'
Height = 11.4'
6.4^2 = 40.96
40.96 * 11.4 = 466.944
466.944 * pi ~= 1466.948
1466.948 / 3 = 488.982
So Chew rounded up. DAK, please present your calculations which result in 210 ft^3 from the given dimensions.
[Edit: After reading DAK's needless PDF attachment "cm debate 6A"]
Even though this diagram was switched to inches you can easily see that the
width is 154 inches or 12feet 10 inches wide
After taking off for the service module and the Lunar Module you are left
with 127 inches or 10 feet 7 inches tall
Using those dimensions:
Radius ~= 6.417'
Height ~= 10.583'
6.417^2 ~= 41.178
41.178 * 10.583 ~= 435.787
435.787 * pi ~= 1369.065
1369.065 ~= 456.355
Again, nowhere close to 210 ft^3.
-
Did you recently attend a lecture by Bill Nye in Waco, Texas, DAKDAK?
Perhaps not, but he did apparently obtain that image of Jupiter and the moon (without attribution) from a 2010 Christian Science Monitor article (http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2010/0509/Jupiter-and-the-moon-put-on-a-show-for-Mother-s-Day).
-
all the items that supposedly came back from the moon would not fit in the space that was available.
We have already demonstrated that you don't know how to even estimate how much space was available, so please show us how you calculated.. or even estimated... the volume of "all the items that supposedly came back from the moon." Your needless PDF attachment "CM DEBATE 3 PG 2" consists of a photo of Michael Collins, Buzz Aldrin, Neil Armstrong, Gunter Wendt and several technicians in the whiteroom (through which the CM was entered before launch), the text "2. (FIVE ) VERY LARGE PARACHUTES," "THREE FOR SPLASH DOWN AND TWO FOR LAUNCH ABORT" and 2 photos of Apollo parachutes. Are you claiming there is not enough space in the CM for these chutes? What is the volume of these chutes when folded? Please show your calculations.
-
The CM was 12.8' in diameter and 11.4' in height. A simple cone of those dimensions has a volume of about 490 cubic feet.
I am still coming up ith 210 cubic feet not 490 Maybe you should check your math
Volume of cone = 1/3 * pi * radius^2 * height
The dimensions given by Chew:
Radius = 6.4'
Height = 11.4'
6.4^2 = 40.96
40.96 * 11.4 = 466.944
466.944 * pi ~= 1466.948
1466.948 / 3 = 488.982
So Chew rounded up. DAK, please present your calculations which result in 210 ft^3 from the given dimensions.
[Edit: After reading DAK's needless PDF attachment "cm debate 6A"]
Even though this diagram was switched to inches you can easily see that the
width is 154 inches or 12feet 10 inches wide
After taking off for the service module and the Lunar Module you are left
with 127 inches or 10 feet 7 inches tall
Using those dimensions:
Radius ~= 6.417'
Height ~= 10.583'
6.417^2 ~= 41.178
41.178 * 10.583 ~= 435.787
435.787 * pi ~= 1369.065
1369.065 ~= 456.355
Again, nowhere close to 210 ft^3.
Also note that if we use DAKDAK's incorrect formula given in reply #55, we still don't get 210 ft3. The formula given was...
The math is something like
(Radius( x) pie squared)times the height, this gives you a cylinder you divide that in half this gives you a cone.
Applying DAKDAK's formula to DAKDAK's dimensions we get,
V = r * pi2 * h / 2
V = 6.417 * pi2 * 10.583 / 2 = 335 ft2
So I too would like to know by what method DAKDAK is "still coming up with 210 cubic feet."
By the way, DAKDAK, pie is a tasty baked dish, not a mathematical constant.
-
]I do not agree you see the moon unlike the earth does Emmit lot and lots oflight when The moon is full.
No, that's reflected light. Please look up the difference between reflection and emission.
Albedo is not measured by percent
Albedo is a fraction, a reflectivity coefficient. As such it can be expressed in any form that is appropriate to a fraction, percentage being the most common.
Actually the lower the albedo the more light is being emitted
Albedo has nothing to do with emission. However the greater the albedo, the more light is reflected.
I attached a real picture of the moon it is definitely emitting light
You attached a picture of the Moon reflecting light. The visibility of the "dark" portion is caused by Earthshine: light reflected from Earth to the Moon, then back to Earth.
If you believe the Moon emits light, please fill us in on what chemical, mechanical, or energetic process you think produces that light.
-
Did you recently attend a lecture by Bill Nye in Waco, Texas, DAKDAK?
Bill Nye - "The Science Guy" - booed in Texas for saying the moon reflects the sun (http://randyreport.blogspot.ca/2012/05/bill-nye-science-guy-booed-in-texas-for.html)
Well, not that recently, as that's a story from 2006, resurfacing in 2009, and now re-resurfacing in 2012 :D
Doh. I hate when that happens. ;)
-
If you believe the Moon emits light, please fill us in on what chemical, mechanical, or energetic process you think produces that light.
I'd still like to know how the lunar "tank" fills up every month with "some sort of snow".
Is the tank the whole Moon? That's a heck of a lot of snow to fill it up. Where does this "snow" come from? Why can't we see the clouds that create it? Where does all this water go every month after the tank fills? (Please, no "retaining water" jokes.)
These are things I'd like to hear from DAKDAK.
-
Where does this "snow" come from? Why can't we see the clouds that create it? Where does all this water go every month after the tank fills? (Please, no "retaining water" jokes.)
These are things I'd like to hear from DAKDAK.
I guess the clouds must form over the dark side of the moon because it's colder there. 8)
-
I wonder if Bill Nye would have got a better reaction if he'd not framed the point by referencing the Bible. Still seems funny and stupid and depressing though.
Unfortunately I can't find an original article, so it is unclear to me what he may actually have said. Any book calling something "a light" in the sense it is used in Genesis does not require debunking, it is perfectly good use of the word. The moon does in fact light up the night even if it reflects rather than emits light. It is actually more descriptive than the phrase, "the dark side of the moon," when referring to the far side of the moon. OTOH, anyone that does think the moon emits light because of a reference in Genesis needs to have both their literary and scientific understanding examined. And we know that there are plenty of people that could apply to.
-
I was wrong to go with the short odds, and I'll happily payup.
-
And its not unknown for engineers to make cost cutting measures like that. God may have decided it was cheaper to make the Moon reflect sunlight than emit its own.
-
And its not unknown for engineers to make cost cutting measures like that. God may have decided it was cheaper to make the Moon reflect sunlight than emit its own.
It is certainly more consistent with the other laws of physics, and everyone knows special cases within a system always cost more.
-
Forget the emitting of light, how is the Moon emitting all that water it collects every month? Is that what causes rain on earth, in DAKDAK's view?
-
Forget the emitting of light, how is the Moon emitting all that water it collects every month? Is that what causes rain on earth, in DAKDAK's view?
Magic space bees! They collect the snow and turn it into magic space bee honey, their hive which is actually Venus. All that evaporating water is why Venus is always cloudy.
-
"2. (FIVE ) VERY LARGE PARACHUTES," "THREE FOR SPLASH DOWN AND TWO FOR LAUNCH ABORT"
Sigh. Where do people get this stuff?
A launch abort would still have been followed by a splashdown. There were no special parachutes for launch abort. There were two small drogue chutes that were deployed first to stabilize the capsule and to slow it down somewhat. Then they were cut away and the three large main chutes were deployed, only two of which were necessary for a safe landing.
I'd have to check if the drogue chutes would have been used during every abort. It might have depended on exactly where the abort occurred and how fast it was moving.
-
IIRC, the drogues were not used in any of the low-altitude abort modes; the mains were simply reefed in.
-
IIRC, the drogues were not used in any [all] of the low-altitude abort modes; the mains were simply reefed in.
Strike that; my buddy from ATK got back to me immediately with the authoritative scoop from the original ELS/LES design documents. The LES controller deploys the drogues in all Saturn V abort modes.
There is, however, a small parachute attached to the apex shield that pulls it free of the wake behind the CM. This would be a sixth parachute aside from the three mains and two drogues, but its only job is to ensure clean separation of the apex heat shield.
-
So do you get your own T-shirt?
-
That's up to whoever's now in charge of handing out the T-shirts.
-
So I too would like to know by what method DAKDAK is "still coming up with 210 cubic feet."
By repeatedly reading the Wikipedia article, which describes the interior volume of the cabin as 210 cubic feet. In other words, despite the numerous diagrams and clear terminology, DAKDAK is incapable of grasping the difference between the total volume taken up by the entirety of the command module and the interior habitable volume of the cabin.
-
Somebody should find him a good cutaway view of the CM showing the inner and outer hulls plus the rather thick heatshield that covered the entire spacecraft, not just the bottom. Unlike the outer hull, the inner hull wasn't even conical; it left quite a bit of unpressurized volume for the parachutes on top and for the RCS tanks and thrusters around the bottom edge.
-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27417638@N07/6160030585/lightbox/
from Scott Sullivan's Virtual Apollo. This depicts the pressurized volume. The habitable volume is the portion excluding the dark green equipment bays and their equipment.
-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27417638@N07/6160030585/lightbox/
from Scott Sullivan's Virtual Apollo. This depicts the pressurized volume. The habitable volume is the portion excluding the dark green equipment bays and their equipment.
I love virtual Apollo and its cousin virtual LM. I'd look at my copy if I was at home. I wonder if dakdak had read it.
-
I talked with Scott a few years ago. One of his motivations for putting those books together was the oft-repeated hoax claim that no suitable documentation existed for the Apollo hardware. He set out to prove that it was possible essentially to reverse engineer at least the mechanical design of the Apollo spacecraft using only publicly available materials. I really love his work.
-
Anybody who repeats that myth of "no Apollo documentation" gets grabbed by the shoulders and told about the NASA Technical Reports Server (ntrs.nasa.gov). Some will complain that it still doesn't contain every Apollo document. Others just stare back blankly. Trying to inform and reason with these people is an exercise in futility.
-
That's up to whoever's now in charge of handing out the T-shirts.
I have been waiting so long for mine that I forgot what I corrected Jay about. All I remember was that it had something to do with radiation.
I think I will make my own. Anyone have ideas for a simple design that I can bring to the local T-shirt shop?
Ranb
-
That's up to whoever's now in charge of handing out the T-shirts.
I have been waiting so long for mine that I forgot what I corrected Jay about. All I remember was that it had something to do with radiation.
I think I will make my own. Anyone have ideas for a simple design that I can bring to the local T-shirt shop?
Ranb
On the front it has the photo of Jay in his acting role, wearing the wig, placed over an outline map of Utah. Above the image it says "I corrected" and on the back it says "and all I got was this lousy T-shirt." Underneath in smaller letters is added "And I had to pay for it myself."
-
Oh, thought I posted a reply a few days ago. Went along the lines of asking DAKDAK why the issue with the parachute size and going on about air bags and spinnakers and how they are packed down along with the humble parachute used to stop humans going "squish".
Oh well.
-
It would take at least 3 additional cameramen to take all the lunar footage not Ed Fendell from Houston with a remote control
DAKDAK, next time you're here, would you please explain why these additional cameramen would have been needed?
-
It would take at least 3 additional cameramen to take all the lunar footage not Ed Fendell from Houston with a remote control
DAKDAK, next time you're here, would you please explain why these additional cameramen would have been needed?
Well it could be said they did have 3 other "camera men" besides Fendell; the commander and LM pilot on the surface and the CM pilot in orbit. If DAKDAK actually looked at the photo, film, and video record, I think he/she would see the imagery is all consistent with the "official story".
-
Anybody who repeats that myth of "no Apollo documentation" gets grabbed by the shoulders and told about the NASA Technical Reports Server (ntrs.nasa.gov). Some will complain that it still doesn't contain every Apollo document. Others just stare back blankly. Trying to inform and reason with these people is an exercise in futility.
A search there using "Apollo" only gave me 29,494 hits! ;)
-
You reckon that's bad. Try doing a search on the JSC History Portal. If you want to know who made the cable that connected the Skylab TV camera to the breakout boxes located throughout the station, that is where you'll get the answer - and then some.
-
And by the way, DAKDAK, if you're going to flood the forum with attachments perhaps you'd like to help pay for the forums hosting and bandwidth?
I do apologize. I did not realize I was costing anyone money, and will not attach things in the future.
[Post restored by LunarOrbit]
-
You didn't answer my question about the three additional cameramen, DAKDAK.
-
And by the way, DAKDAK, if you're going to flood the forum with attachments perhaps you'd like to help pay for the forums hosting and bandwidth?
I do apologize. I did not realize I was costing anyone money, and will not attach things in the future.
While you're at it perhaps you could learn the finer points of using the "quote" tags?
Protip: click the "quote" button on a post and the forum software does it for you! If quoting a badly formatted post (like yours above) you may need to ADD a quote tag.
Hint: they come in pairs, before and after the quoted text!
-
Dak, what makes you think you can simply ignore the problems and errors already pointed out to you, and move on?
This is the first time I ever went on a site like this I really dont have any rebuttals I think the replies were excellent and maybe I am completely wrong about Apollo,but I still have serious doubts.Is there anything else I need to reply too that you know of?? I will be happy to try.
[Post restored by LunarOrbit]
-
Bit of careful reading and careful replies. Look back through your posts.
What I love about this site is the questions get asked are usually answered frankly. I think I know a little bit, then the more knowledgeable demonstrate what I know is a drop. Ask carefully and digest the replies.
So am I swallowing what is provided here as I accuse the hoax believer? No, I can look elsewhere and check it up and whilst some replies are way above me but you can follow it, others are a kick start to the old noggin back into gear. Some of the information might be more technical library but you can do enough research to have an understanding.
I find the imagery issues interesting in that is not hard get your head around, same for the filming and other such things people think are involved (issues as in people doggedly hanging onto it like a dog with a mangy bone).
-
I really dont have any rebuttals
...but I still have serious doubts.
Is there anything else I need to reply too that you know of??
I'd simply like to know why, if you have no rebuttals or arguments with what has been presented to you, you still have serious doubts? That makes no sense to me.
Do you just love conspiracies?
Do you have a hatred for the USA?
Do you have a hatred for any government or semi-government authority?
Do you have a cynicism for any claim of high achievement?
Are you unhappy because you weren't alive to see the Apollo project unfold and succeed?
And may I ask, who would you regard as a trusted authority? (My answer would be something like a university professor of engineering or aeronautics) If you took any of these hoax claims to a person like that, what responses do you think you would get? Any different to what you got here?
Finally, if there is anything that you still regard as a 'smoking gun', then say what it is and precisely WHY you still have doubts.
-
Where does this "snow" come from? Why can't we see the clouds that create it? Where does all this water go every month after the tank fills? (Please, no "retaining water" jokes.)
These are things I'd like to hear from DAKDAK.
I guess the clouds must form over the dark side of the moon because it's colder there.
I believe that the earth's moon behaves in a similar way to Saturn's moon Enceladus. I believe that the way the water gets to the moon is along Electra magnetic field lines and through sprites, and eddies. I also believe this is what causes the moon to emit light. I think that when earth is between the moon and the sun the earth basically produces a comet like tail, which fills up the moon. I believe that when the moon is between earth and the sun the moon also generates a comet like tail due to the solar wind and the charged hydrogen or MOON WATER gently flows down to earth.
I am not the only person who thinks this is true. Some of the top lunar scientists also believe this. There is a great lecture on this it is called Exploring the Lunar Atmosphere with Brian Day of the NASA Lunar Science Institute. I think that this MIGHT be where plankton comes from which is of course the beginning of the earths food chain. Below are 3 links to illustrate this if you are interested. you have to listen to the audio while you watch the powerpoint. It gets very interesting on slide #19 I think that the reason this is not seen easily on earth is due to the fact that the moon is out during our day when the solar wind basically empties the moon.
This is one of my main reasons for my thinking that the record of the Apollo missions was faked. How could such smart people as the Apollo scientist miss a lunar water cycle!!
http://nightsky.jpl.nasa.gov/download-view.cfm?Doc_ID=483
LUNAR WATER CYCLE remember when he says glowing dust I beleive that he should say SNOW,and when he says Lobate scarps I think he should say Ice Glaciers.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110726101729.htm
Enceladus
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/GLAST/news/fermi-thunderstorms.html
How I beleive the moon fills up if you notice on the video the red dots and the magnetic feild lines correspond with the moons orbit
[Post restored by LunarOrbit]
-
You really should check your sources first. The presentation doesn't mention the Earth supplying water to the moon. They didn't observe any such flow of water between the two bodies.
Your second link says: "There is no analogy to this behaviour on Earth," says Paul Hartogh, Max-Planck-Institut für Sonnensystemforschung, Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany, who led the collaboration on the analysis of these results. "No significant quantities of water enter our atmosphere from space. This is unique to Saturn."
"Charged hydrogen" (by which you probably mean protons) is in no way "MOON WATER".
The last link is about thunderstorms ejecting antimatter from out atmosphere. It's not water.
This is one of my main reasons for my thinking that the record of the Apollo missions was faked. How could such smart people as the Apollo scientist miss a lunar water cycle!!
Could that be because no such thing exists?
-
I also believe this is what causes the moon to emit light.
How many more times do we have to have this discussion, DAKDAK? The Moon does not emit light. It reflects light from the Sun. This is why we see phases of the Moon, and this is why eclipses happen when Earth casts its shadow on the Moon. Please will you explain why you think the Moon is emitting light and not reflecting it, as everyone else knows it to?
charged hydrogen or MOON WATER gently flows down to earth.
Charged hydrogen is not Moon water. Water is hydrogen plus oxygen. Charged hydrogen is a proton.
LUNAR WATER CYCLE remember when he says glowing dust I beleive that he should say SNOW,and when he says Lobate scarps I think he should say Ice Glaciers.
DAK, your credibility loses points heavily when you link to a source and then suggest that that source means something other than what it says...
-
OK, you believe that the Moon "emits light".
Can you explain:
1. Why half of the Moon at any given time does NOT emit light?
2. Why we can see shadows on the surface of the Moon, such as would be caused by sunlight hitting an otherwise unlit surface?
-
...maybe I am completely wrong about Apollo...
Pretty much, yes.
I still have serious doubts.Is there anything else I need to reply too that you know of?? I will be happy to try.
Your serious doubts are entirely prejudicial, deriving most likely from your Fundamentalist faith which teaches you to eschew "secular" science and everything associated with it. You won't achieve any sort of useful understanding so long as you believe science is of the Devil.
My recommendation is to attend a few non-Fundamentalist churches (e.g., the Episcopalians) and learn from them how you can have both faith and science. They aren't mutually exclusive, despite what your religious indoctrination has suggested. Nothing about faith requires you to be a Luddite.
-
I think that the reason this is not seen easily on earth is due to the fact that the moon is out during our day when the solar wind basically empties the moon.
Of all the non sequiturs in your post, this is the one that is the most puzzling to me.
In saying that "moon is out during our day" are you saying that it is not emitting light during the daytime? Or does the solar wind only empty the moon while it is the daytime sky on earth? Please clarify because this really makes no sense at all to those that do not share your personal view of physics.
-
...this is why eclipses happen when Earth casts its shadow on the Moon.
Which I'll be observing this weekend from the teeming metropolis of Kanarrahville, Utah.
DAK, your credibility loses points heavily when you link to a source and then suggest that that source means something other than what it says...
This is what Fundamentalists do. The Bible says the Moon emits light, so that's the basis of the belief, and it cannot be questioned. However, many Fundamentalists scour the annals of science for findings that seem to support that belief, no matter how tortuously those findings must be interpreted to do so. They believe that science may ultimately vindicate all their biblical beliefs, but until they do so -- and if science disagrees -- then scientists are to be considered enemies of the faith.
-
I have had a chance to review Brian Day's 'lunar atmosphere' telecon, and can safely say that DAKDAK has no clue what he is talking about. Firstly, Day's talk uses Apollo data as supporting evidence for the phenomena he describes, and secondly Day refers to water molecules, not snowflakes made of billions of the things. It makes it very clear why we are only now detecting the 'lunar water cycle', and includes LRO images of Apollo landing sites. So in no way can it be considered evidence that Apollo was faked.
Oh, and with regard to the article about Enceladus raining water down onto Saturn, I feel obliged to point out that, unlike our Moon, Enceladus is largely made of water ice, so has a plentiful supply of the stuff.
-
I believe that the earth's moon behaves in a similar way to Saturn's moon Enceladus.
But from Earth, using only telescopes, we can determine that our moon and Enceladus are differently composed.
I believe that the way the water gets to the moon is along Electra magnetic field lines...
I assume you mean "electromagnetic." Electra is either Carmen's last name, or the model of Lockheed airplane that Amelia Earhart flew. It doesn't help your credibility that you use technical terms incorrectly. Magnetic fields have no effect on water. We can determine this on Earth using simple experiments.
...and through sprites, and eddies.
Eddies in what? You're talking about a fluid dynamics effect in an area of space in which there provably exists no fluid.
I also believe this is what causes the moon to emit light.
How would water on the Moon, regardless of how it may have gotten there, cause the Moon to emit light? Water doesn't emit light any more than rock does.
I think that when earth is between the moon and the sun the earth basically produces a comet like tail...
Wow! After starting another thread with a lengthy laundry list of phenomena you insisted we "couldn't" know, you fire off a whopper like this?
Okay, I'll bite. In all your lengthy observation and "common sense" analysis using your little backyard telescope, what data did you collect to confirm this hypothesis? Is this something you observed, or something you inferred from how you believe comet tails operate? If an inference, what mental exercise did you undertake to see how planets are different from comets? If a comet had a strong magnetic field (which they don't), how would that affect whether the solar wind were able to form a tail? If the comet's tail is composed of matter, how would the very much stronger gravity of, say, a planet affect whether the solar wind were able to "blow" matter away from it?
the charged hydrogen or MOON WATER...
No such thing as "Moon water," neither in chemistry nor in the Bible. Charged hydrogen is just a proton, as has been explained. And since the solar wind itself contains those protons, we don't need the Moon to be there in order to get a "shower" of protons.
...gently flows down to earth.
Hogwash. The Earth provably generates a magnetic field such that incoming protons, and anything those protons might conceivably somehow entrain, are deflected either around the Earth or into toroidal flow patterns along isomagnetic lines. They never get to Earth's atmosphere, except at the poles occasionally as the Northern lights. Can you think of an experiment to determine whether the aurora borealis contains entrained "moon water?"
I am not the only person who thinks this is true. Some of the top lunar scientists also believe this.
You name only one person, then misrepresent his results badly. Sorry, you are alone in thinking this. And in order for your belief to be true, several well-known and easily-testable properties of the physical world would have to be different than how we observe them to be. Therefore your theory fails most miserably.
This is one of my main reasons for my thinking that the record of the Apollo missions was faked. How could such smart people as the Apollo scientist miss a lunar water cycle!!
But they didn't miss it! Where do you think your expert got the data to confirm his findings? This is how science works. We collected huge amounts of specimens and data during Apollo's operational phase. The analysis phase for significant scientific research is an ongoing process, and it's not uncommon for it to take decades to develop. Your expert is able to publish his findings only because Apollo was real and produced consistently and widely useful results. Do you really think that science can only form valid conclusions if those conclusions arise simultaneously with data collection? You know very little about how science produces the results that you depend on in your daily life.
Further your expert has never been to Enceladus or to Earth's moon. Yet you ask us to trust his findings (or at least your mangled interpretation of them) based in part on such things as remote-sensing techniques. Yet when I propose to use those same techniques, you tell me that I can't possibly know what I say I know, and that all of us appropriately educated people simply rely blindly on the unproven "book learning" you despised in your youth and continue to despise. Therefore your opinion on the value of science aligns closely with whether you think that science supports your religious beliefs. When others propose to know something that contradicts those beliefs, then scientists suddenly become a bunch of hapless know-nothings who fly in the face of "common sense."
LUNAR WATER CYCLE remember when he says glowing dust I beleive that he should say SNOW,and when he says Lobate scarps I think he should say Ice Glaciers.
How presumptuous of you to change the key words in your quoted expert's findings so that they match your theory instead of his! That's blatantly cheating. Please stop trying to shoehorn legitimate science into your predetermined beliefs. It only makes you look silly.
-
I believe that the earth's moon behaves in a similar way to Saturn's moon Enceladus. I believe that the way the water gets to the moon is along Electra magnetic field lines and through sprites, and eddies. I also believe this is what causes the moon to emit light. I think that when earth is between the moon and the sun the earth basically produces a comet like tail, which fills up the moon. I believe that when the moon is between earth and the sun the moon also generates a comet like tail due to the solar wind and the charged hydrogen or MOON WATER gently flows down to earth....
DAKDAK, let's put aside for the moment that you got basically every single thing wrong in what you said; that you completely misunderstood and misrepresented your reference; and that your reference used experiments placed by, and lunar samples returned by, Apollo astronauts.
Let's consider just what it would take to "fill up" the Moon from Earth's water.
The volume of all the water on Earth is about 1.3 billion cubic kilometers. This estimate is supported by direct observation.
The volume of the Moon is about 21.9 billion cubic kilometers. This estimate is also supported by direct observation. It does not require leaving the Earth. It only requires very simple trigonometry and a few observations.
If the Moon "filled up" from Earth's water, all the oceans, lakes, and rivers on Earth would disappear every month, and still get nowhere near "filling" the Moon - not by an order of magnitude.
No advanced education needed; no taking NASA's word for it needed. Just common sense, really.
Do you even think before you post? At all?
-
Eddies in what?
The space-time continuum. Although it is still unclear who, exactly, Eddy is.
-
Eddies in what?
The space-time continuum. Although it is still unclear who, exactly, Eddy is.
This is Eddy, and the space-time continuum has left him a little worse for wear.
(http://images.wikia.com/ed/images/2/2b/Eddy.jpg)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed,_Edd_n_Eddy
-
[
-
In response to your PDF. Yes, it was a tight fit.
But you still present no reason why the equipment was impossibly too large to fit in the capsule. And while you are at it, tell us why the engineers that designed the capsules and the workers that assembled were fooled by this.
-
Below find a link to a 27 minute movie filmed before opening the hatch to the Lunar Module showing the three astronauts without there spacesuits helmets boots backpacks on and they are not in site.This could not possibly have been filmed in the small cramped CM named columbia
like I said from the begining I dont know if we went to the moon in the sxties but the record is not factual!!
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/81600210/drouge%20removal%20122.wmv
The lunar surface suits and PLU's were stowed in the LM. So no, they would not have been visible within the CM. The launch suits and bubble helmets were stowed. Why do you think it is important that you don't see them? If you do not believe this video was shot in space, where do you propose it was made and how do you explain the evidence that it was taken in a zero G environment?
-
Dakdak have you tried looking at any of the numerous cutaways and diagrams showing the actual internal arrangement of the Apollo CM rather than just making wild guesses about it? For example a search for "Apollo command module cutaway (https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&hl=en&source=hp&biw=1280&bih=879&q=Apollo+command+module+cutaway&gbv=2&oq=Apollo+command+module+cutaway&aq=f&aqi=g-S1&aql=&gs_l=img.3..0i24.6200.14558.0.22200.29.6.0.0.0.0.5471.8963.1j5-1j2j1j0j1.6.0...0.0.r_YxVvz3MNQ)" finds literally thousands of images far better than your attempt at a diagram of it.
-
...He is my hand wrtten argument color coded
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/81600210/color.pdf
First of all, your entire document is an appeal to incredulity: "Look at all this stuff that has to be in there! There's no way it could fit!" You have no idea how large the accomodations actually are, nor any idea how much room everything should take up. So your argument is unsubstantiated. Just because you don't believe it - that doesn't prove anything. Do you have any idea how much room the contents actually required vs. how much they actually had?
Second of all, the answer to your question "where is the solid rocket fuel" for this and that motor is, of course, in the engines themselves. Where else would it be? Are you trying to say there is something wrong about the various solid motors? What, exactly, is your claim, and on what basis do you make it? Hint: I work in this business. Don't try to bluff or handwave your way.
Third, your triangular sketch at the bottom makes no sense. What is the inner triangle susposed to represent? On what basis did you draw your horizontal sectioning other than your own guess? And do you now officially retract your claim that the CM is about "6x6x6"?
-
So, DAKDAK, how much volume do the parachutes and fuel take up? How much volume is required by each component? Where are your quantitative analyses? Where does your figure of 100 gallons of fuel for the command module RCS system come from?
Oh, and to answer a question on your handwritten sheets, the fuel for the solid rocket motor on the launch escape system is in the launch escape tower.
So far your 'proof' seems to reside solely in your incredulity that so many things fit inside such a small volume. Do you actually have any numbers to back that up?
-
Below find a link to a 27 minute movie filmed before opening the hatch to the Lunar Module showing the three astronauts without there spacesuits helmets boots backpacks on and they are not in site.
Why would you expect to be able to see them? The spacesuits and helmets were stowed. The backpacks and boots were stowed in the LM, so of course they are nowhere in sight.
And just to add to that, the place where the spacesuits were stowed is NOT included in the 210 cubic feet habitable volume of the crew comaprtment. It's a stowage locker.
DAKDAK, have you grasped the difference between total volume and habitable volume yet?
-
Forward compartment
In this compartment there was supposedly (3) huge Parachutes and rigging and (2) smallParachute, 2 thrust engines the huge orange ball seen after ocean landing and the 19 inchin diameter Drouge to attach to the Lunar module
Tell us the individual volumes of each of these items and the total volume of the forward compartment.
The Aft compartment
In this compartment there was supposedly 100 gallons of highly toxic fuel but no mention of the oxidizer this fuel required there was supposedly water and helium tanks (10)thruster engines CSM umbilical cord and all the wire and connectors.
Tell us the individual volumes of each of these items and the total volume of the aft compartment.
The crew department
In this compartment there was supposedly Crew accommodations controls and displays a
periscope type sextant I fully digital computer with less than a 100kib of memory that
could monitor all systems link with Mission Control keep track of guidance auto operate
any of the systems There was also was (3) men with large spacesuits boots gloves and
backpacks
Wrong. The PLSS backpacks were only for use on the lunar surface, and as such, were stowed in the LM not the CM. Tell us the individual volumes of each of these items and the total volume of the crew "department."
-
Were there three spacesuits?
-
Were there three spacesuits?
Suitable for intravehicular activity in the event of cabin depressurization, yes, but not the full suit and PLSS I believe.
Someone correct me if I am wrong.
-
Three suits, but only 2-each PLSS backpacks, LEVA helmet covers, pairs of overshoes and pairs of gauntlets, all stored in the LM.
-
He is my hand wrtten argument color coded
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/81600210/color.pdf
This isn't much of an "argument".
The solid fuel escape rockets, with propellant, were contained within the launch escape tower. This tower was mounted on top of a "boost protective cover" that fit over the CM. All were entirely external to the CM, taking up no room inside it.
The launch escape tower and rockets could quickly pull the CM (and its 3-man crew inside) away from the Saturn rocket in any serious emergency. It could be used prior to launch, during first stage flight, and for the first minute or so of second stage flight.
The boost protective cover protected the CM from rain while on the pad and from aerodynamic heating during flight. The rocket accelerated very quickly, reaching the speed of sound in about a minute. Without the cover, air friction would burn away the mirror-like coating on the CM needed to protect it from the sun in space. The boost cover protected it until the rocket climbed above most of the atmosphere. Then the launch escape rocket pulled it off the CM when the two were jettisoned about a minute into second stage flight.
You asked about the oxidizer for the fuel for the CM's reaction control systems. Separate tanks for fuel and oxidizer, and the helium used to pressurize them, were all mounted in the aft compartment at the base of the CM, outside the pressurized compartment containing the crew.
-
Were there three spacesuits?
Suitable for intravehicular activity in the event of cabin depressurization, yes, but not the full suit and PLSS I believe.
Someone correct me if I am wrong.
Depends on the mission. Every Apollo crewmember always wore a suit at launch, but there were two suit models, one for the Commander and Lunar Module Pilot and another for the Command Module Pilot. From Apollo 7 through 14, the CDR and LMP wore lunar EVA suits with two sets of gas connectors while the CMP wore a simplified non-EVA suit with less insulation and only one set of gas connectors. The EVA model needed one set of gas connectors for the PLSS and another for the Oxygen Purge System (OPS, a backup O2 supply). You can easily see these differences in the crew photos when they posed in their suits. These two suit types were flown even on Apollos 7 and 8 (with no LM and no EVAs) and Apollo 10 (no planned landing and no EVAs).
The lunar EVA suits were redesigned for Apollo 15 for greater flexibility, rearranging the gas connectors. Also starting with Apollo 15, the CMP performed a deep space EVA to recover exposed film from the SIM bay in the service module, so he also needed an EVA suit with two sets of gas connectors: one for an umbilical from the CM (rather than the PLSS used on the moon) and the other for an OPS brought back from the moon for use as an emergency backup. Interestingly the arrangement of the gas connectors on the CMP EVA suit matched that of the earlier (pre-Apollo-15) lunar EVA suit; apparently the greater flexibility of the redesigned lunar EVA suit wasn't needed for an EVA in zero gravity.
-
Three suits, but only 2-each PLSS backpacks, LEVA helmet covers, pairs of overshoes and pairs of gauntlets, all stored in the LM.
The LM also carried two OPS (Oxygen Purge System) units. During lunar EVA, these were placed atop the PLSS as emergency backups. Although the used PLSSes were jettisoned on the lunar surface, the OPS were carried back to orbit in case they were needed for an emergency spacewalk from the LM back to the CM. They also carried the LEVAs back for the same reason.
On the J missions (Apollos 15-17), the CMP used an OPS and a LEVA, carried back from the moon, during his own deep space EVA to retrieve exposed film from the SIM bay in the service module.
By themselves the OPS and LEVA could easily fit through the hatch and tunnel between the LM and CM. The OPS were tested before lunar liftoff, and had one or both failed the PLSSes would have been brought back instead. So they too could pass between the LM and CM.
-
As I have said oodles of times before, I love this forum. :)
-
As a comparison figure, the manned version of the new Dragon capsule that is under development will carry a crew of seven in a volume similar to the Apollo CM's.
Pressurised volume is quoted at 350 cubic feet, compared with 366 for Apollo.
http://www.spacex.com/downloads/dragonlab-datasheet.pdf
-
As I have said oodles of times before, I love this forum. :)
So do I.
(http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a376/smileywoman/Group252520Hug252520Smiley.png)
-
He is my hand wrtten argument color coded
Practically none of it is factually correct. For someone who claims he has studied Apollo 11 thoroughly, you haven't managed to get anything right. Go back and try again.
Below find a link to a 27 minute movie filmed before opening the hatch to the Lunar Module showing the three astronauts without there spacesuits helmets boots backpacks on
They didn't wear backpacks in the command module. They didn't wear the lunar surface gear in the command module. Only the pressure garment and integrated insulation garment would ever have been worn in the command module, and then only under contingency flight-plan rules that applied in the unlikely event of total cabin depressurization.
You didn't do your homework. But of course, you haven't done any homework since before 9th grade, and it shows.
This could not possibly have been filmed in the small cramped CM named columbia
Begging the question. Argument rejected.
-
Could it have fit in a small cramped CM named something else?
-
Could it have fit in a small cramped CM named something else?
LOL
-
[
-
Please ask the moderator to delete
Topic: Videos of the vehicle that took (supposedly) took Apollo 11 to the moon
And any and all things posted by DAKDAK
Please ask the moderator too ban DAKDAK
-
Please ask the moderator to delete
Topic: Videos of the vehicle that took (supposedly) took Apollo 11 to the moon
And any and all things posted by DAKDAK
Please ask the moderator too ban DAKDAK
-
Please ask the moderator to delete
Topic: Videos of the vehicle that took (supposedly) took Apollo 11 to the moon
And any and all things posted by DAKDAK
Please ask the moderator too ban DAKDAK
-
Please ask the moderator to delete
Topic: Videos of the vehicle that took (supposedly) took Apollo 11 to the moon
And any and all things posted by DAKDAK
Please ask the moderator too ban DAKDAK
-
Please ask the moderator to delete
Topic: Videos of the vehicle that took (supposedly) took Apollo 11 to the moon
And any and all things posted by DAKDAK
Please ask the moderator too ban DAKDAK
-
Please ask the moderator to delete
Topic: Videos of the vehicle that took (supposedly) took Apollo 11 to the moon
And any and all things posted by DAKDAK
Please ask the moderator too ban DAKDAK
No, I consider it far more informative to leave your ignorance on display for all to see.
-
Speaking to DakDak at the start of this tread
Otherwise you will have nothing better to support your position that personal incredulity. Is that what you really want to stand on?
Personal incredulity was ultimately all he had to stand on and when he realized the gravity of his mistake he saw no option but to try and cover it up by deleting his posts. Perhaps he learned something along the way.
-
Here is DAKDAK's original post as titled in this thread. I just lifted this from BazBear's quote on the first page.
******
I don't know if man went to the moon in the sixties or not, but the record of the Apollo missions seems to be completely false
Here are some of the reasons I believe this
1. The Command Module being only 210 cubic feet would not fit (3) men all the food, water, air, spacesuits, boots, helmets, cameras film and equipment needed for up to 10-11 days in space. The usual reply is that these items were in the Lem or the service module, but that would be very unsafe (not to mention bringing back hundreds of pounds of moon rocks)
2. Back in the Apollo days we (the public) were told that the Moon was an Extremely Hot, Dry, and geologically dead place with no atmosphere. Now according to the NASA Lunar Science Institute the moon is an extremely Cold, Wet geologically active place with an atmosphere that extends all the way to earth. Just the opposite of what we were told.
3. The trajectory of the Apollo missions is nothing like spacecraft go to the moon today. Today spacecraft going to the moon make several increasingly large earth orbits not a crazy “8” trajectory.
4. Regardless of popular belief computer and communication technology were not sufficient in the sixties (slide rules were the norm in the sixties)
5. Several of the Apollo mission especially AP17 supposedly went to the moon when the moon was nearly full. If the moon puts out enough light that I can easily see the settings on my telescope and camera in Florida, over 200 thousand miles away don't you think that the light would blind the astronauts if they were actually on the moon
6. Several people note that the lighting wasn't right in the lunar pictures and that they did not bring any lights with them Why not? It would take at least 3 additional cameramen to take all the lunar footage not Ed Fendell from Houston with a remote control
7. Since the spacesuits were supposedly cooled by water the astronaut's would have instantly frozen on Eva's and on the surface of the moon in the shade
8. The Lem was made of Tin foil, Mylar and tape the abort procedure was to bail out in space
9. Any glass in the command module would melt upon reentry killing anyone inside
10. There is no way the record of the Apollo missions is accurate.
-
Is it possible to restore everything he redacted?
-
It looks like his posts are still in Googles cache so I'm going to try to copy & paste them when I get home work tonight.
-
I may have his pdf rant in my download folder. I'll post it later if someone else doesn't
-
I may have his pdf rant in my download folder. I'll post it later if someone else doesn't
Apparently even the computer rejected DAKDAK's incomprehensible rant.
-
3. The trajectory of the Apollo missions is nothing like spacecraft go to the moon today. Today spacecraft going to the moon make several increasingly large earth orbits not a crazy “8” trajectory.
I would cover everything you posted, but I think everyone else already did this. Since Orbital Mechanics has lately been my really big interest in spaceflight, I can handle this one. haha.
Actually, the most efficient Lunar Orbit Rendezvous pattern would be this "figure 8" which you speak of. Basically, the spacecraft is in what is called a "parking orbit" around Earth. It is basically sitting there to await what's called a Hohmann Transfer, or, in this case, "Trans Lunar Injection". The burn is a prograde burn that usually is fairly long. Someone here might be able to give you the exact TLI burn time. What it means is to burn in the direction of travel, adding velocity. For Apollo, it was 25,000fps to 35,000 fps (feet per second). So, about 1,000 feet per second of Delta-V. Pretty big burn, actually.
Anyway, when you add velocity to an orbit, you boost into a higher Apogee. To entertain hoaxers, yes, Apollo was actually in Earth Orbit (technically) the entire time!
Once you've done this, the further you get from Earth, you slow down. With the trajectory sent out beyond the Moon's orbital altitude, you basically just coast along until you get pulled in my the moon's gravity, or, enter it's SOI (sphere of influence).
Then, you'd make two more burns. LOI1 and LOI2 (Collins). They "drop" you into Lunar Orbit. Once there, after the desired orbits, you make another burn called T.E.I., or TRANS-EARTH injection.
The whole flight plan looks like a figure 8 on paper, although it is a little more complex than that.
I would say that this is the most efficient way to go to the moon (at least for lunar orbital missions.) So, I don't know where you got your information in the OP.
-
8. The Lem was made of Tin foil, Mylar and tape the abort procedure was to bail out in space
It was actually the "LM". The word "excursion" was dropped before the LM every even flew. Anyway, onto your point. The Lunar Module was not made of tin-foil. In fact, you used the word in your post. It was made (the skin and thermal protection at least) of MYLAR. It's a much more heavy duty material that offers great thermal protection. The entire LM was not made of it, though, just the covering on the outside. Any tape you may have seen was actually "engineering" tape. The LM didn't have to be as stable as the Saturn V. It was designed ONLY for flight in space.
Oh, by the way, here's some heavy aluminum tape that was used to fix an airplane.
(http://static.relax.com.sg/site/servlet/linkableblob/relax/389384/topImage/Photos_of_plane_fixed_with_tape_arouse_concern-topImage.jpg)
Is that faked, too?
If by "Abort Procedure", you meant the abort during landing, you're incorrect. The abort procedure for the Lunar Module was to do a "fire in the hole" abort. Basically, the ascent stage ignited the engine and blasts away from the descending DPS before it even gets close enough to touchdown. During a flight, however, there were only two methods of abort.
1.) Direct Abort - CSM fires the engine retrograde mid-course to take the spacecraft(s) back to Earth.
2.) Free Return Abort - The Spacecraft(s) fly all the way around the moon, using its gravity as a slingshot to get back to Earth. [This method was used on Apollo 13].
Apollo was real.
-
Good illustration, Vince! <right-click aaand save>
As you've probably already figured-out by now, Dakdak has gone bye-bye. As he was running for it, he tried to edit all of his posts to erase the copious evidence of his idiocy. Fortunately, some bright sparks were able to reconstruct most of his post and LO restored them for posterity.
Don't be late for the party, next time! :)
-
As you've probably already figured-out by now, Dakdak has gone bye-bye. As he was running for it, he tried to edit all of his posts to erase the copious evidence of his idiocy. Fortunately, some bright sparks were able to reconstruct most of his post and LO restored them for posterity.
Don't be late for the party, next time! :)
Darn! Yeah, I came to lurk today since I didn't know my account was actually active. I tried logging in and it just worked. I'm glad to be back and I've learned A LOT since my last visit. I guess I'll have to wait for the next hoaxer to come around.
-
Actually, the most efficient Lunar Orbit Rendezvous pattern would be this "figure 8" which you speak of. Basically, the spacecraft is in what is called a "parking orbit" around Earth. It is basically sitting there to await what's called a Hohmann Transfer...
Actually, there are multiple meanings of "most efficient" here. Engineering is all about making tradeoffs. Everything depends on how you define "optimum".
Any lunar mission needs propellant to get there. Within limits you can get there faster by burning more propellant, or you can save propellant by taking a more leisurely trip. But a manned lunar mission has other constraints: it has to carry substantial amounts of food, LiOH, water, hydrogen and oxygen to keep the crew alive, and the longer the trip the more of these consumables you'll need. The increase can easily cut deep into your propellant mass savings from going more slowly.
Unmanned missions have considerably more flexibility because crew consumables (and boredom) aren't issues. So a Hohmann transfer isn't necessarily the cheapest possible way to get to the moon. If somebody could find a cheaper way that takes months instead of days, that would be a non-starter for a human flight but entirely practical for a robot.
Such a way has been found: the use of ion rockets.
Ion drives achieve extremely high Isps compared to chemical rockets, but they have an Achilles heel: very low thrust. You can't use them in conventional bang-bang (impulsive) maneuvers like a Hohmann transfer. You have to spiral your way out with lots of long (often continuous) burns that actually require more total delta-V than the Hohmann impulses, but the ion engine can easily provide that extra delta-V and more. But it'll still take you months to get there, and that just ain't acceptable for a human crew.
So "efficiency" is highly context-dependent.
-
I was talking about a manned LOR profile. A Hohmann transfer is also a fairly basic approach, but like you said, mass and things matter.
-
Since Orbital Mechanics has lately been my really big interest in spaceflight, I can handle this one. haha.
That is one of my primary interests as well.
It is basically sitting there to await what's called a Hohmann Transfer, or, in this case, "Trans Lunar Injection".
Apollo actually used what is called a one-tangent burn (http://www.braeunig.us/space/orbmech.htm#maneuver), which is a faster trajectory than Hohmann transfer. A Hohmann transfer to the Moon would take about ten days to get there. Surprisingly, the extra delta-V needed to cut the journey down from 10 days to 3 days is only about 20-25 m/s.
-
Ah yes, I see the difference there. Nice website, Bob.
-
Yes, that's an excellent page, Bob.
I think you're off by a factor of two on your transfer time. 10 days would be the time for a full orbit in the transfer ellipse, but you only take half an orbit to get there.
If we approximate the moon as having no mass and a circular 384,400 km orbit (its semi-major axis), a transfer orbit with a perigee altitude of 150 km (about as low as you could possibly go) and an apogee radius of 384,400 km would have a semi-major axis of (384,400 + 6378 + 150)/2 = 195,464 km. That has a mean motion of
n = 2*pi*sqrt(GMe/a3)
= 2*pi*sqrt(398,600.4418 / 195,4643) rev/sec
= ...
= 860,025 seconds/orbit (9.95 days). Half that is 4.98 days.
That fits with Kepler's 3rd law; the transfer orbit has roughly half the semi-major axis of the moon, so its period would be (1/2)3/2 that of the moon (27.8 days), or about 9.83 days, close to my 9.95. (Besides the perigee altitude, another difference is that the relevant gravitational parameter for the moon's period is the sum of the gravitational parameters for the earth and moon, since they orbit their common barycenter.)
BTW, you should probably clarify on your page that your formula for mean motion, n = sqrt(mu/a3), is in radians/unit time, not revolutions/unit time as usually given. So you have to multiply by 2 pi to get revolutions.
-
I think you're off by a factor of two on your transfer time. 10 days would be the time for a full orbit in the transfer ellipse, but you only take half an orbit to get there.
You are correct. I calculated the period and then forgot to divide by two.
-
You are correct. I calculated the period and then forgot to divide by two.
Ah ha! I knew that a small increase in delta-V beyond a minimum-energy Hohmann transfer could shave off quite a bit of transfer time, but I didn't think the effect was as great as reducing 10 days to 3!
Apollo lunar trajectories are easy to understand compared to some that have more recently become routine with unmanned probes. One of my favorite examples is the STEREO mission. Two spacecraft, launched on the same launcher, are now on opposite sides of the sun in very different orbits (one moving ahead of the earth, one falling behind) because they followed slightly different trajectories on their first lunar flybys. One passed close enough to be immediately slingshotted into an earth/moon escape trajectory and heliocentric orbit; the other remained in earth orbit for some time until a subsequent lunar flyby slingshotted it to escape in the opposite direction.
An even better example was the repurposing of the Themis B and C satellites as Artemis P1 and P2 by using the earth/moon L2 Lagrange point.
It's quite literally "applied chaos", as in chaos theory. This is arguably the only real fundamental innovation in space navigation since the Apollo days. Because they don't have analytical solutions they had to wait for better computing facilities. I believe the first actual use of a gravity slingshot maneuver by a spacecraft was Mariner 10's shuttling between Mercury and Venus in 1973-75, followed soon after by the Pioneer 10/11 and Voyager 1/2 tours of the gas giants. Now these interplanetary billiards games are absolutely routine.
-
I don't know if man went to the moon in the sixties or not, but the record of the Apollo missions seems to be completely false
Here are some of the reasons I believe this
1. The Command Module being only 210 cubic feet would not fit (3) men all the food, water, air, spacesuits, boots, helmets, cameras film and equipment needed for up to 10-11 days in space. The usual reply is that these items were in the Lem or the service module, but that would be very unsafe (not to mention bringing back hundreds of pounds of moon rocks)
2. Back in the Apollo days we (the public) were told that the Moon was an Extremely Hot, Dry, and geologically dead place with no atmosphere. Now according to the NASA Lunar Science Institute the moon is an extremely Cold, Wet geologically active place with an atmosphere that extends all the way to earth. Just the opposite of what we were told.
3. The trajectory of the Apollo missions is nothing like spacecraft go to the moon today. Today spacecraft going to the moon make several increasingly large earth orbits not a crazy “8” trajectory.
4. Regardless of popular belief computer and communication technology were not sufficient in the sixties (slide rules were the norm in the sixties)
5. Several of the Apollo mission especially AP17 supposedly went to the moon when the moon was nearly full. If the moon puts out enough light that I can easily see the settings on my telescope and camera in Florida, over 200 thousand miles away don't you think that the light would blind the astronauts if they were actually on the moon
6. Several people note that the lighting wasn't right in the lunar pictures and that they did not bring any lights with them Why not? It would take at least 3 additional cameramen to take all the lunar footage not Ed Fendell from Houston with a remote control
7. Since the spacesuits were supposedly cooled by water the astronaut's would have instantly frozen on Eva's and on the surface of the moon in the shade
8. The Lem was made of Tin foil, Mylar and tape the abort procedure was to bail out in space
9. Any glass in the command module would melt upon reentry killing anyone inside
10. There is no way the record of the Apollo missions is accurate.
[Post restored by LunarOrbit]
REst assured DAKDAK they didn't go, and so you are not crazy. The record is not accurate. The record doesn't even exist. Not a good one anyway.
-
Aaaaand there it is. Wondered when you'd get round to being obvious.
-
Actually, the most efficient Lunar Orbit Rendezvous pattern would be this "figure 8" which you speak of. Basically, the spacecraft is in what is called a "parking orbit" around Earth. It is basically sitting there to await what's called a Hohmann Transfer...
Actually, there are multiple meanings of "most efficient" here. Engineering is all about making tradeoffs. Everything depends on how you define "optimum".
Any lunar mission needs propellant to get there. Within limits you can get there faster by burning more propellant, or you can save propellant by taking a more leisurely trip. But a manned lunar mission has other constraints: it has to carry substantial amounts of food, LiOH, water, hydrogen and oxygen to keep the crew alive, and the longer the trip the more of these consumables you'll need. The increase can easily cut deep into your propellant mass savings from going more slowly.
Unmanned missions have considerably more flexibility because crew consumables (and boredom) aren't issues. So a Hohmann transfer isn't necessarily the cheapest possible way to get to the moon. If somebody could find a cheaper way that takes months instead of days, that would be a non-starter for a human flight but entirely practical for a robot.
Such a way has been found: the use of ion rockets.
Ion drives achieve extremely high Isps compared to chemical rockets, but they have an Achilles heel: very low thrust. You can't use them in conventional bang-bang (impulsive) maneuvers like a Hohmann transfer. You have to spiral your way out with lots of long (often continuous) burns that actually require more total delta-V than the Hohmann impulses, but the ion engine can easily provide that extra delta-V and more. But it'll still take you months to get there, and that just ain't acceptable for a human crew.
So "efficiency" is highly context-dependent.
It seems when it comes to a lunar mission it is all about safety though. Who cares how you do it as long as you get there and back.
-
Ok, lots of one-liners all over the site, building from somewhat reasonable positions to they didn't go.
So, how're things in San Francisco? Just looked at the METAR and TAF for KSFO. Looks like a nice day for a bike ride, although the temperature and dew point are close. Watch the traffic if it gets foggy.
-
What are your sources for these claims?
The LM was made of tin foil. Shouldn't we lighten up on the "source" stuff when obvious?
-
No, because what is 'obvious' to people is often wrong. The LM was not made of tin foil. It was neither tin nor foil.
-
8. The Lem [sic] was made of Tin foil, Mylar and tape the abort procedure was to bail out in space.
You're only referring to the skin of the LM. Do you really think the entire craft was made out of foil? How much research have you done on the LM?
But even Kelly said it was easy to kick a boot through the foil of the LM side, so it's foil enough to make the thing fragile.
-
But even Kelly said it was easy to kick a boot through the foil of the LM side, so it's foil enough to make the thing fragile.
Having something that can be punctured by a deliberate effort is a world away from having something that won't stand up to its intended use.
-
8. The Lem [sic] was made of Tin foil, Mylar and tape the abort procedure was to bail out in space.
You're only referring to the skin of the LM. Do you really think the entire craft was made out of foil? How much research have you done on the LM?
But even Kelly said it was easy to kick a boot through the foil of the LM side, so it's foil enough to make the thing fragile.
It is the exterior heat and micro meteor shielding and nothing to do with the structure. I don't expect anyone was inclined to put a boot through it.
-
I don't know if man went to the moon in the sixties or not, but the record of the Apollo missions seems to be completely false
Here are some of the reasons I believe this
1. The Command Module being only 210 cubic feet would not fit (3) men all the food, water, air, spacesuits, boots, helmets, cameras film and equipment needed for up to 10-11 days in space. The usual reply is that these items were in the Lem or the service module, but that would be very unsafe (not to mention bringing back hundreds of pounds of moon rocks)
2. Back in the Apollo days we (the public) were told that the Moon was an Extremely Hot, Dry, and geologically dead place with no atmosphere. Now according to the NASA Lunar Science Institute the moon is an extremely Cold, Wet geologically active place with an atmosphere that extends all the way to earth. Just the opposite of what we were told.
3. The trajectory of the Apollo missions is nothing like spacecraft go to the moon today. Today spacecraft going to the moon make several increasingly large earth orbits not a crazy “8” trajectory.
4. Regardless of popular belief computer and communication technology were not sufficient in the sixties (slide rules were the norm in the sixties)
5. Several of the Apollo mission especially AP17 supposedly went to the moon when the moon was nearly full. If the moon puts out enough light that I can easily see the settings on my telescope and camera in Florida, over 200 thousand miles away don't you think that the light would blind the astronauts if they were actually on the moon
6. Several people note that the lighting wasn't right in the lunar pictures and that they did not bring any lights with them Why not? It would take at least 3 additional cameramen to take all the lunar footage not Ed Fendell from Houston with a remote control
7. Since the spacesuits were supposedly cooled by water the astronaut's would have instantly frozen on Eva's and on the surface of the moon in the shade
8. The Lem was made of Tin foil, Mylar and tape the abort procedure was to bail out in space
9. Any glass in the command module would melt upon reentry killing anyone inside
10. There is no way the record of the Apollo missions is accurate.
Your post is full of inaccuracies. If you are truly interested in learning, please start by doing some reading here http://www.clavius.org/ . That site is owned, written, and edited by an actual aerospace engineer named Jay Windley, who posts here as JayUtah. There are other engineers who post here as well (I'm personally just an interested amateur). I recommend you read through Jay's site, then if you have any questions I'm sure people here will be more than happy to answer them.
The Apollo landings are historical fact, as hopefully you'll soon realize :)
That's hardly fair having him read Clavius. He should be reading the NASA primary baloney.
-
8. The Lem [sic] was made of Tin foil, Mylar and tape the abort procedure was to bail out in space.
You're only referring to the skin of the LM. Do you really think the entire craft was made out of foil? How much research have you done on the LM?
But even Kelly said it was easy to kick a boot through the foil of the LM side, so it's foil enough to make the thing fragile.
And I can put a screwdriver through the side of a Cessna 172, if I wanted to. Doesn't mean that it won't take load stress when used as intended.
-
The LM was made of tin foil. Shouldn't we lighten up on the "source" stuff when obvious?
Um. No. The LM had an extremely thin skin and thermal shielding, but its actual hull was quite durable. There are a vast number of photographs showing the Lunar Module in construction that really give you an idea of how sturdy it was. The thermal protection of the LM was mostly mylar between outer layers of kapton. They really laid the stuff on in the key locations near propulsion systems and thrusters. That tired old hoax claim about the "tin foil" LM is just getting boring. Just look at a picture of the LM. And anyway -- can you prove the LM could not withstand the maneuvers and levels of radiation NASA says it did? Or will you just resort to saying something like, "Van Allen Belts = Dead"
-
Vincent, I know you have been away a while but please re-acquaint yourself with what has gone on here in your absence before you start necroposting and addressing people who were banned several weeks ago.