Apollo 13

[Glom]

In my opinion this sort of overwhelming belief in one's own ego is actually a paradoxical symptom of low self-esteem.  This type of person usually goes overboard hyping himself because deep down he's fundamentally insecure and believes people will judge him harshly and reject him.  Often there's no rational reason for it; the individual is usually -- for lack of a better word -- just fine.

:,( that's so tragic.

[gillianren]

So now that the government shutdown is over, does that mean we'll be able to directly point him to things on the NASA website to prove him wrong again?  Because despite my certainty that it won't matter, it'll be funny to make it even more pointed that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

And once again, I really do think we've hit an example of an HB who's so wrong that you don't actually need specialized information to see it.  Yes, the technical Apollo stuff does.  However, I'm going to point out again the completely bonkers claim that it's the job of an investigative journalist to assume we're all NASA shills.  I mean, find one proper journalist who thinks that!  And the general public may not have a great understanding of how journalism works, but they still know better than that.

[Sus_pilot]

In my opinion this sort of overwhelming belief in one's own ego is actually a paradoxical symptom of low self-esteem.  This type of person usually goes overboard hyping himself because deep down he's fundamentally insecure and believes people will judge him harshly and reject him.  Often there's no rational reason for it; the individual is usually -- for lack of a better word -- just fine.  However, it is obvious that efforts to amplify one's apparent greatness and prowess would be intolerant to criticism or evidence of error.

Jay, I've said it before, and I'll say it again:  for an engineer, you're a hell of a practical psychologist.

[Everett]

First off, reading the link to your webpage, I've started a thread in the "Other Conspiracy Theories" section to talk about what parts of history since ww2 is a lie, besides JFK getting shot. I'm truly interested, since this would be new territory.
Here's the thread:
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=520.0


Second off, there wasn't a "van allen belt launch window." As I understand it, the time of the launch would have no effect - after all, the van allen belts don't change that much. But, correct me if I'm wrong about this, there would be a window of how many orbits after launch they had for TLI (that's the burn where you go to the moon), but the van allen belts wouldn't be the only things contributing to it. Besides, if I recall correctly, the parking orbit after launch was low enough that atmospheric drag would have resulted in the spacecraft reentering in a few days anyway.

Here's a graphic representation of the trajectory, viewed from the side:



And showing the belts:



Courtesy of this page:
http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm

Also, a question I've always wanted to ask people who say it was a hoax, but I've never seen answered, is:

Why did they have to hoax it anyway?
Was it a problem with the spacecraft, a problem with the environment on the moon, a problem with the environment in space, what? Surely you must have a reason in mind?

Finally, why isn't 'go through the belts really fast' an option? If you've got "x amount of radiation per minute in this area," ins't spending less minutes in said area a good plan?



And a note to everyone else: Tone It Down, lighten up a little. This board's gotten a lot less friendly recently.

[Allan F]

The "reasons" the hoax advocates quote vary from "rockets don't Work in Space" to "Aliens on the moon didn't want humans there" with all flavors inbetween. Some use faulty math to calculate the needed fuel, and don't want to accept that other people with relevant knowledge calculate the fuel needed using well-proven formulae. Others cite the "sea of deadly radiation" in Space - with the "deadly solar flares" thrown in. Then there's the people who don't believe the technology would Work - from the computers used to the structure of the spacecraft. Then there's the question of re-entry which also (in hoax-universe) precludes anybody from returning form Space - which also "proves" ISS, Space Shuttle and all the other manned missions were hoaxed.


The problem with radiation in the hoax-universe is that they don't understand (or wish to) the concept of radiation dose accumulation over time. They think that radiation is equal to instant death - or at least a slow, unavoidable death, which will preclude any Space travel through or beyond the Ván Allen Belts - no matter that no scientist with RELEVANT knowledge agrees with them.

The reasons they do it, varies from what JayUtah already has mentioned, to personal greed - some sell books and DVDs and make a substantial amount of Money off insulting and attacking the professionals who DID and DO Work with Space related matters. And generally making an ass of themselves.

And your other theories - the JFK assassination - It is very probable - from the data I have seen - and from a background as a competition shooter - that the 3 shots fired from Lee Harvey Oswalds rifle were the only shots fired that day.

[smartcooky]

It is very probable - from the data I have seen - and from a background as a competition shooter - that the 3 shots fired from Lee Harvey Oswalds rifle were the only shots fired that day.

Not forgetting, of course, the four shots Oswald fired in murdering Officer J.D. Tippett, in the vicinity of 10th Street and Patton Avenue, about 40 minutes after JFK was assassinated

[Allan F]

Oh yes - but with a handgun it is much easier to shoot fast than with a bolt-action rifle.

[LunarOrbit]

Guys, please don't discuss the JFK assassination in this section of the forum. It will only encourage Allancw et al to go off on a tangent unrelated to Apollo.

[Noldi400]

hypothermia effects in a confined, low pressure, low humidity, microgravity, almost completely still-air environment

Wouldn't this also create a troublesome bubble of CO₂? I've heard of that happening to sleeping astronauts and awakening them with headaches. There are usually a lot of blowers and fans to counteract this problem, though I don't know about Apollo 13. I know that they used suit hoses to blow fresh air up into the tunnel to the CM, which was used for sleeping.

That is indeed a problem in microgravity, with no natural convection to move 'air' around. As far as I can tell from the handbooks, the only circulation came from the Atmosphere Revitalization system, which moved the air through the LiOH cannister (and replaced O₂). IIRC from Lost Moon, the only things they had powered up during the coast back were the atmosphere fan, cooling system, and minimal communications.

I've never seen it mentioned anywhere in connection with Apollo 13, but the system could also use the smaller LiOH cartridges intended for the PLSSs... I don't know how long one would last filtering three people's exhalations, though, and in any case, weren't most of them stored in one of the external bays?

[raven]

Good thing they found a way to jury rig the CM cannisters to work. Of course, to I am sure no ones surprise, the solution involved duct tape. The carbon dioxide 'bubble' problem is mentioned in Lost Moon as well I believe.

[ka9q]

I've never seen it mentioned anywhere in connection with Apollo 13, but the system could also use the smaller LiOH cartridges intended for the PLSSs... I don't know how long one would last filtering three people's exhalations, though, and in any case, weren't most of them stored in one of the external bays?

Yes. I believe the secondary LiOH receptacle in the LM ECS took the smaller PLSS LiOH cartridges. That might be one of the post-Apollo 13 redesigns; I'm not sure.

And yes, LM internal storage was severely limited so at least some of the spare LiOH cartridges were stored outside in the MESA. I know PLSS supplies (batteries, LiOH cartridges) were kept out there and probably the LM LiOH cartridges too. Part of each day's closeout was to bring in the supplies for the next day.

[ka9q]

Second off, there wasn't a "van allen belt launch window." As I understand it, the time of the launch would have no effect - after all, the van allen belts don't change that much. But, correct me if I'm wrong about this, there would be a window of how many orbits after launch they had for TLI (that's the burn where you go to the moon), but the van allen belts wouldn't be the only things contributing to it. Besides, if I recall correctly, the parking orbit after launch was low enough that atmospheric drag would have resulted in the spacecraft reentering in a few days anyway.

Correct. The VABs rotate with the earth, but you launch into an orbit plane that remains (almost) fixed in inertial space.

A much bigger constraint was S-IVB propellant boil-off. The primary opportunity (for TLI over the Pacific) was 1.5 orbits after launch with a backup at 2.5 orbits -- and that was it. Enough hydrogen was continually vented to provide a small but meaningful amount of thrust to overcome drag of the very low parking orbit.

The low parking orbit maximized the Oberth effect; burning propellant at the lowest possible altitude means not having to carry it up with you. To increase the Saturn's payload capacity for the heavier J missions (Apollo 15-17) the parking orbit was lowered to only about 170 km.

To give you an idea of just how extremely low that is, the lowest operational orbit I know of is that of GOCE, the Gravity Field and Steady State Ocean Circulation Explorer. It measures the irregularities in the earth's gravity field by their effect on its own orbit. Resolution drops off sharply with altitude so you want the lowest orbit possible. GOCE is shaped like a torpedo to minimize drag, and it uses an ion engine to continuously counteract the remainder. And it's all the way up at 260 km. It has reached end of life, and it will soon re-enter after the ion propellant runs out.

The ISS is also in a relatively low orbit that requires frequent reboosting, but it's way up there at over 400 km.

[Tedward]

I expect he will wander round the net telling everyone that we are paid shills

Not only that, but NASA considers people like him -- who know The Truth^tm -- to be so dangerous that they kept their shills active when nearly all of NASA was furloughed during the government shutdown!

It just demonstrates the effort required to maintain the cover up.

You know, I'm beginning to think the whole hoax just wasn't worth the trouble.

I found this an interesting thing to think through some years ago. Sort of "OK, I am going to hoax, what are the issues". The issues pile in thick and fast. Anyone can do it.

He (Allancw) is missing the big point here and the analogy is Microwave ovens are dangerous. Drop them on your foot and it hurts like heck. Avoid dropping it on your feet. Same here with Apollo, they are dangerous, minimise the risk which is mind numbingly simple. But if I wanted to fake the landings, how do you deal with the impassible? Dash and darn it, caught out by what everyone else in the world can work out....

[allancw]

Yes, you're right. You've heard the last of me but not for the reasons you imply...

To sum up: I asked for a contemporaneous (1969 or earlier) mention anywhere about how 'the worst of the VARB would be avoided.' (Several of you made this claim, words to this effect, and no one disagreed.)

The closest you came was in the 1969 Mission Report wherein 'pass rapidly' through the belts was the only mention. This is not 'avoiding the worst of the belts.'

I'm leaving this thread because I don't need any more reminders of how easy it apparently is to get humans to do what you do here. Whether it's money or MKULTRA or inborn delusion or simple wishful thinking or, most certainly, Evil at work, I'd prefer not to hear any more of it...

[frenat]

Yes, you're right. You've heard the last of me but not for the reasons you imply...

To sum up: I asked for a contemporaneous (1969 or earlier) mention anywhere about how 'the worst of the VARB would be avoided.' (Several of you made this claim, words to this effect, and no one disagreed.)

The closest you came was in the 1969 Mission Report wherein 'pass rapidly' through the belts was the only mention. This is not 'avoiding the worst of the belts.'

I'm leaving this thread because I don't need any more reminders of how easy it apparently is to get humans to do what you do here. Whether it's money or MKULTRA or inborn delusion or simple wishful thinking or, most certainly, Evil at work, I'd prefer not to hear any more of it...

Translation: You provided me multiple references that showed they avoided the belts.  I ignored them and "moved the goalposts" multiple times.  Now I'm leaving with yet another accusation that you are either paid or deluded because insults is all I really have.  Now I must really get out of here because I can't stand to have my predefined conclusions questioned.