Apollo 11 CM's aluminium handles should've been destroyed during re-entry

[Kiwi]

This is a new claim to me which I've only just heard about.

Article by Dr Emanuel E Garcia, Philadelphia-born psychoanalyst and psychiatrist (plus HB) who emigrated to New Zealand in 2006:-
https://www.aulis.com/handles.htm

Heat loads on the Command Module during re-entry are not something I'm familiar with, but it occurred to me that as they weren't part of the heat shield, at least they wouldn't have been exposed to the highest temperatures.

Can anyone comment on whether Figure 7 in the link is accurate or not regarding stability of the CM during re-entry? To me it seems a bit odd that heat and air pressure would not be evenly spread over a greater area of the heat shield, but I'm also ignorant regarding the finer points of aerodynamics.

And finally, is the comparison with a Soyuz capsule valid? Or is that similar to comparing the aerodynamics of a Chevvy Bel Air and a Volkswagen?

[onebigmonkey]

I'm not expert enough in the subject to make a judgement, but it seems there's an awful lot of "nudge nudge wink wink" in there.

There's also this statement at the end:

"No handles were fitted to the Apollo 13 CM – except for the movie Apollo 13 (Imagine Entertainment, Universal Pictures 1995) – wherein it was deemed necessary to add them to the command module."

when this splashdown photo clearly shows one:

https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-media/NASM-A19740651000cp02

This is the thread on collectSpace he references

http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum14/HTML/001473.html

where it mentions that the handles were covered with protective tape - he seems to have forgotten to include that detail.

The handles were there to help the crew on EVAs, and as the Soyuz capsules are not designed for that, there's no need for handles. As they were deisgned for EVAs, it would not have mattered if they had been destroyed during re-entry.

The only thing to be addressed is whether the temperatures outside the CM in its re-entry heat envelope reach the levels likely to threaten the integrity of the spacecraft for the period of time it was an issue. He has no evidence of that. We do have evidence of re-entry conditions from the 16mm footage.

Science aside, the author ignores the parts that don't fit his narrative, and mis-interprets the parts he wants to include so that they do. He should stick to analysing the mentally ill. He'll find plenty at Aulis. That's if he's still allowed to do that:

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/457986/covid-19-relief-as-anti-vax-psychiatrist-suspended

[onebigmonkey]

Couple of articles I found:

https://www.irjet.net/archives/V4/i1/IRJET-V4I199.pdf

https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/46763/what-was-the-leeward-surface-temperature-of-the-apollo-command-module-during-ree

[bknight]

In one of the close-ups of A11 one can observe some heat damage on the fastening brackets, so the plasma flow never got to the handles per say.  The temperature points in that area of the surface of the capsule registered ~1500 Fahrenheit. The capsule took the brunt of that plasma.   But the plasma does not hug the capsule as it flows to the edge of the heat shield.  That is why the surface temperature doesn't get to 3000 or 5000 like the heat shield.  And since the handles are raised the effect of heat transfer occurs at a diminished rate and therefore were not melted. I have found no real close-ups of the handles, so any damage was superficial at best.
It is Aulis and they accept any publication casting doubt on Apollo without doing any journalistic review.  I quit going there when a previous HB posted here a few years back, Derrick Willis, IMSMC.  He was also on UM.

[onebigmonkey]

Returning to this claim, it really does demonstrate the lack of knowledge typical of these people, and the lack of effort they're prepared to put in to their claims:

"It is also of interest that across the CMs allegedly flown and now exhibited as such, the Apollo 4 and 6 flew handles of different finishes, while of the Apollo missions themselves, Apollo 12 and 13* did not have any handles at all. No handles were fitted to the Apollo 13 CM and no handles were on the command module picked up in the Atlantic by the Russians shortly after the Apollo 13 flight and taken to Russia. The module was later handed back to the US and loaded on the Icebreaker Southwind in Murmansk during September 1970"

Apollo 12 image AS12-47-6877

https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/21648261352/in/album-72157659014150521

shows handles when zoomed in, as does this recovery image:

https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a12/ap12-S69-22265.jpg

Apollo 13 has two magazines showing the CSM from the LM lifeboat, complete with handles:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157657383647904/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157659010458930/

I can only assume he's referring to the models displayed in museums, where the handles are absent (but the fixing points for them are evident):

https://cosmo.org/events/restoration-the-apollo-13-command-module-odyssey/

https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/command-module-apollo-12/nasm_A19730364000

The command module picked up the Russians was a boiler plate model. Why would it have them?

[bknight]

Additionally, I notice the quote indicated different different finishes.  A different finish would have little to no prevention to searing heat of reentry.  They(he) don't even make sense when quoting nonsense.  But the CT crowd just soaks up BS that "proves Apollo never went to the moon".

[Kiwi]

Dr Garcia first came to my attention in the magazine New Dawn Special Issue Vol. 18 No. 4, which I bought because it includes the Apollo moonlandings - one of my top favourite subjects - and has an article about Elon Musk.

The four-page article "Celestial Deceptions: The Apollo Conspiracy Unmasked", was written by Dr Garcia, who in referring to Apollo 11 mentions "...the three people who allegedly first set foot on the hitherto unreachable Moon..." so is perhaps implying that Michael Collins deserted the command module and hitched a ride to the surface in the lunar module.

The magazine's website says that New Dawn is "for people who think for themselves", so here's the link:
https://www.newdawnmagazine.com/product/new-dawn-special-issue-vol-18-no-4

[Dalhousie]

He should stick to analysing the mentally ill. He'll find plenty at Aulis. That's if he's still allowed to do that:

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/457986/covid-19-relief-as-anti-vax-psychiatrist-suspended

He is apparently "retired" https://realitycheck.radio/replay/the-inquiry-sessions-dr-manny-garcia-psychiatrist-on-informed-consent/

[onebigmonkey]

Iroically, he appears incapable of thinking for himself. Here's the same article, more or less:

https://www.transcend.org/tms/2022/05/getting-a-grip-on-apollo-11/

Well, definitely less:

This is the initial abridged version of a more comprehensive technical article. David Percy, the editor of www.aulis.com, added quite significantly to the longer version. I am also indebted to Mr. James Ward for  drawing my attention to the Apollo handles in an email exchange.  I have decided that this will be my final ‘word’ on the Apollo missions.

(my emphasis).

He's regurgitated other Apollo theories elsewhere:

https://human-wrongs-watch.net/2018/07/13/how-high-the-moon-or-the-greatest-deception-of-them-all/

I use regurgitate deliberately - he seems to just recycle the works of others and doesn't have an original thought in his head. Let's hope he's true to his word and shuts up about it.