So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?

[raven]

Fuel Cells have the advantage of providing water for cooling and drinking as a byproduct, though NASA seems to have had the same idea about solar cells looking at Constellation.

[ka9q]

This is true. If you need water anyway, launching it as elemental hydrogen and oxygen lets you burn it to make energy as well. But the Apollo fuel cells produced considerably more water than was needed so the excess was dumped. So did the shuttle.

This argues that if you're going to carry fuel cells, they should probably be only part of your electrical supply. The rest can come from PV panels. This also gives you diversity in supply, something important for something as vital as electrical power.

[geo7863]

I have just read the first 16 pages of this thread... I now want to inject urine into my eyeballs to take the mental pain away!

JayUtah, Andomreda, Sus_Pilot, Ka9q.... et al...how do you manage to keep calm and reasonably polite when faced with such insanity (as in my understanding of the term 'insanity' obviously, and probably going against the spirit of this forum, in that I have no training in psychological disorders and diseases of the mind and cannot give any proof of my theory of this...mind you that's exactly how the CT's seem to operate so at least I am on their level in one respect!) you have my admiration one and all!

Gods teeth! to doubt Apollo is one thing but to doubt every single manned space mission, and believe that the CIA/NASA is controlling everything...and to back up your doubts by likening space travel to operating boats...madness pure madness!

[Valis]

What you say is true, but LED's tend to be soldered in place. Much more difficult to replace, and generally not field serviceable, but traditional bulbs are. Put it this way, (speculation ensues), had A13 been built with modern technology, would they have been able to accomplish the return journey?

Having some experience on LEDs (well, more in semiconductors generally), I'm not aware of any condition on Apollo 13 that would have caused them to fail. One of the main advantages of semiconductor-based electronics is a certain ruggedness compared to their earlier counterparts, see for example modern RAM design for integrated systems vs. Apollo's core-rope memory.

[ka9q]

One of the main advantages of semiconductor-based electronics is a certain ruggedness compared to their earlier counterparts, see for example modern RAM design for integrated systems vs. Apollo's core-rope memory.

Very true. I like to cite the example of the Air France 447 flight data recorders. They spent over two years submerged under 4,000 meters of sea water, yet when finally recovered their data was intact. Like most modern recorders they use semiconductor flash memories rather than the tape recorders of years past.

Considering how often people like to complain that "they don't make 'em like they used to", I think that's pretty impressive.

[Not Myself]

I have just read the first 16 pages of this thread... I now want to inject urine into my eyeballs to take the mental pain away!

I know how you feel . . .

[ka9q]

JayUtah, Andomreda, Sus_Pilot, Ka9q.... et al...how do you manage to keep calm and reasonably polite when faced with such insanity

Several ways:

I like a good argument as much as anybody especially when I am absolutely sure I'm factually right. That brings a sort of quiet confidence.

I learn a great deal from researching answers to hoaxer questions. That's really the main reason I still do it. Too bad the hoaxers themselves never seem to learn anything, but that's not their goal. They use questions as weapons, not as tools to learn.

I know that others are watching who are much more receptive to facts and logical argument. So I know what I say can have an effect even though it's not always obvious. But sometimes it is hard to remember they're there. It's easy to succumb to temptation and just let some hoaxer have it. Sometimes it feels really good, but like all guilty pleasures it has a downside: the risk of lowering yourself to their level.

[Not Myself]

I like a good argument as much as anybody especially when I am absolutely sure I'm factually right. That brings a sort of quiet confidence.

I think probably a number of those on the other side feel exactly the same way, except for the "quiet" part.  There may be some difference in the extent to which the confidence is justified.

[Echnaton]

had A13 been built with modern technology, would they have been able to accomplish the return journey?

Why not? For one thing, modern avionics would use far less power so the extreme constraints on battery power and cooling water that Apollo 13 experienced would be much less of a problem today. The computers and guidance system could still have been used to conduct the engine burns instead of having to do them by hand.

This brings up the question, if Apollo 13 had been built with modern electronics, the battery capacity of the LM might well have been reduced to the lower amount needed for the different design and could have been insufficient to support the minimal life support needed after the accident.  So perhaps the accident would have required the more risky option of a turnaround in space through a SM burn.

[cjameshuff]

If some superwealthy person, like an arab oil prince, decided that he wanted to have one of his sons go to the moon and do a little walk, how long would it take from he committed his money, until an actual manned launch could be tried?

Elon Musk went from nothing to an orbital launcher that could technically carry humans to LEO in about a decade, and a manned version capable of beyond-LEO operations is well on the way to flying (they're doing a pad abort test later this year, IIRC).

What you say is true, but LED's tend to be soldered in place. Much more difficult to replace, and generally not field serviceable, but traditional bulbs are.

Small indicator lamps are very often soldered in place, and LEDs can just as easily be removable, but almost never fail. They actually generally have pins better suited for sockets than the wires of small "rice bulb" lamps. For interfacing with the spacecraft, they might just use laptops, switching to a different laptop if one fails.

Put it this way, (speculation ensues), had A13 been built with modern technology, would they have been able to accomplish the return journey?

Why would it be less able to do so? A13 rebuilt with modern technology would have much higher reliability electronics with far more room for redundancy, far more sensors and localized control systems, etc. It's likely the tank stirrer would have detected the short and shut down.

[Donnie B.]

had A13 been built with modern technology, would they have been able to accomplish the return journey?

Why not? For one thing, modern avionics would use far less power so the extreme constraints on battery power and cooling water that Apollo 13 experienced would be much less of a problem today. The computers and guidance system could still have been used to conduct the engine burns instead of having to do them by hand.

This brings up the question, if Apollo 13 had been built with modern electronics, the battery capacity of the LM might well have been reduced to the lower amount needed for the different design and could have been insufficient to support the minimal life support needed after the accident.  So perhaps the accident would have required the more risky option of a turnaround in space through a SM burn.

I'm not sure that's any kind of problem.  The LM would still be designed to support two men for three days (or whatever it was for that mission), regardless of what the specific numbers were for the consumables (including power).  So it would most likely still be able to support three men for the same amount of time it was required to.

Of course, the specific scenario would be most unlikely to happen again just the same way, but that's really not relevant to your point -- except that since the margins were so small on A13, any difference could turn out to be critical.

[Donnie B.]

Regarding '60s vs current tech, there is one example where old was clearly superior (in one aspect).  I'm referring to computer memory.

Modern solid-state memory is susceptible to radiation damage, and the problem is getting worse as semiconductor geometries and power supply voltages continue to shrink and densities rise.  A cosmic ray hit can flip the state of a memory bit or (with high enough energy) completely destroy it.  With ever-smaller geometries, a single CR hit can damage more elements (though smaller chip areas reduce the odds of a hit somewhat).  Core memory was virtually immune to radiation damage.

This problem can be mitigated by using larger geometries (at the expense of some efficiency, size, and weight) and by implementing redundancy, error detection/correction, and remapping techniques (to disable damaged areas of memory).  Still, it's a very real issue that has to be addressed in all spacecraft designs.  I heard (some time back) that it was getting harder for designers to find rad-tolerant memories as more semiconductor fabs migrate to smaller-geometry processes.

[gillianren]

JayUtah, Andomreda, Sus_Pilot, Ka9q.... et al...how do you manage to keep calm and reasonably polite when faced with such insanity (as in my understanding of the term 'insanity' obviously, and probably going against the spirit of this forum, in that I have no training in psychological disorders and diseases of the mind and cannot give any proof of my theory of this...mind you that's exactly how the CT's seem to operate so at least I am on their level in one respect!) you have my admiration one and all!

First off, it isn't just against the spirit of the forum.  It's ignorant of the meaning of the word "insanity" (hint: it's a legal term) and rude to several people here who do have mental health problems.  It's also counterproductive.  You don't educate by insulting.

Second . . . well, I do think education is important.  And even if some people are never going to be educated, there are some who are.  There are people who lurk and are educated.  Heck, we are educated every time someone posts something we didn't previously know, right?  I know more than the average person about Apollo, and it's almost exclusively from reading threads like these.  I don't read the "Reality of Apollo" section--too many numbers--but I am still capable of answering some pretty obscure questions, when asked.  And in the Real World, I am asked.  My friends know that I am a resource, and it's because I've spent years battering my head against the wall of HB ignorance.

[JayUtah]

Elon Musk went from nothing to an orbital launcher that could technically carry humans to LEO in about a decade...

Indeed, but not without help that the SpaceX fan club doesn't typically acknowledge -- hidden public funds, and a huge influx of "traditional" rocket engineer refugees from the mainstream companies, between Falcon 1 (crap) and Falcon 9 (awesome).

You've heard me criticize SpaceX a couple times in the past.  But that's largely in the past.  As I said back then, what matters is whether you can achieve and maintain operational footing.  SpaceX has, so they deserve the praise they're now getting.  They talked a big talk, and now they're walking the walk, and results are what matters.  Indeed they took a set of largely clean-sheet designs into production in a respectably short amount of time, so they've earned their spurs.

[cjameshuff]

Indeed, but not without help that the SpaceX fan club doesn't typically acknowledge -- hidden public funds, and a huge influx of "traditional" rocket engineer refugees from the mainstream companies, between Falcon 1 (crap) and Falcon 9 (awesome).

Falcon 1 wasn't that impressive as a launch vehicle, but it did reach orbit on the fourth try (after coming quite close on the second), and it did help with development of the Falcon 9. For one thing, it's rather good that they learned about the unexpectedly long high-altitude shutdown transient of the Merlin 1C on Falcon 1 Flight 3 instead of Falcon 9 Flight 1. It wasn't successful as a commercial launcher, but in my view it did what it needed to do.

And yes, SpaceX had the benefit of design work and a bunch of experienced engineers from outside, but presumably so would this ridiculously-rich "oil prince", so the comparison still seems reasonable.