Apollo 13

[Jason Thompson]

You might ask why I am here.

I do, and none of that wall of text answers that question.

Why have you come to a forum for the purpose of discussion only to refuse to discuss it?

[Jason Thompson]

Here's a question that surely is relevant: Is there even one regular in this forum that takes the position that Apollo was a fabrication/hoax.

Actually there are one or two long-term members who do hold that position. They don't post often, but unlike most have managed to maintain their membership of the forum by discussing the subject in a civil fashion.

Others who have not lasted so long have:

Devolved rapidly into personal abuse in favour of discussing the subject (as you have done).

Accused us of being unwilling to engage in a discussion of non-Apollo releated conspiracy theories on the Apollo0 section rather than in the clearly marked 'other conspiracies' section (as you have done).

Asked for things to be provided and refused to acknowledge when they have been (as you have done).

Been unable to grasp the notion that if they don't actually know how aerospace engineering works then it just might be the case that their expectations of what should and should not be available are in error (as you have done).

Been unable to understand that if they don't understand aerospace engineering it might be a good idea to take note of the professional aerospace engineers they are discussing with (as you have done).

Accused us of being paid NASA shills (as you have done).

Refused to answer simple and repeated questions (as you have done).

Tried to throw as many questions out as possible and refused to discuss one before moving on to another (as you have done).

After a time there is little point in carrying on the discussion, since they are in fact refusing to discuss. As you are. Your only reason for being here now seems to be to insist we must agree with you or else be on the receiving end of some immature abuse, rather than understanding how a discussion actually works. You bring nothing new, nothing original, and frankly nothing remotely surprising to this forum. You're just another in a long line of people who don't know how to debate technical issues of which they are profoundly ignorant, and refuse to even consider the opportunity to learn somethnig about the subject in favour of abusing anyone who disagrees with their layman's notions of how something should be.

Now, I will ask again, do you still insist that the lunar landscape in that photo is lit from the left, and do you acknowledge that seeing stars is a complex situation dependent on the viewing circumstances? Continued refusal to answer will just confirm what we already suspect about you, frankly.

[RAF]

NO ONE SHOWED ME...

Oh, please...is it really so hard for you to find that information?...is it really impossible for you to educate yourself??

Willful ignorance sickens me...

[Tedward]

Hey LUCKMEISTER, etc etc: NO ONE SHOWED ME ONE MENTION OF HOW THE MISSIONS AVOIDED THE WORST OF THE BELTS. You can repeat your crap about trajectories as many times as you get paid for or whatever your motive is, but it does not make it true.

And neither has anyone even touched the question of whether the LMs were heated or air conditioned or somehow both.

Which bit you stuck on? I am still learning but perhaps we can help each other through this.

I know the belts are dangerous, but to what extent? What do you know about this?

[LunarOrbit]

I am temporarily locking this thread due to it being taken waaay off topic. I will clean it up and then unlock it after I get home from work.

I apologize if I have disrupted anyone who was in the process of posting when the thread was locked.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

[LunarOrbit]

This thread is now open. I have moved all of the off topic messages to this thread:

http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=524.0

Allancw:

If you really want to talk about some other conspiracy theory that is not related to Apollo do it in the "Other Conspiracy Theories" section. If you continue to take threads off topic I will place you under moderation and your posts will require my approval before appearing in the forum.

[Bob B.]

But so far, not one answer to the Bean video question: was the LM heated or air conditioned or, somehow, both?

This has already been answered but you're just not paying attention.

All the electronics in the LM produced a large amount of heat so, when everything was operating, the waste heat had to be removed via an active cooling system.  If the cooling system were shutdown, but not the other electronics, the LM would heat up because there would be no way to get rid of the heat generated by the still operating electronics.  This is the scenario Al Bean was talking about because he mentioned a failure of the cooling system only, not a total failure of all the electronics.  In the case of Apollo 13, almost all the heat-generating electronics were shutdown in order to conserve electrical power.  The narrator called it a "heater" but there was no heater per se – he was just referring to the electronics that generate heat through their normal operation.  With these electronics turned off, Apollo 13 could not produce enough heat to maintain a warm temperature; therefore the spacecraft cooled down.

[dwight]

So Allan, can we expect you any time soon to read through the 80+ documents over at the JSC archives, specifically addressing the radiation problem? I mean its hard to take you seriously if you claim none of us has supplied you with the documents if you havent even bothered to read them, now is it?

Those are the reports and documents ranging from 1966 through to 1976 and they all curiously have Apollo and Radiation in their title.

[sts60]

Hey LUCKMEISTER, etc etc: NO ONE SHOWED ME ONE MENTION OF HOW THE MISSIONS AVOIDED THE WORST OF THE BELTS.

Allan, what you said was:

"...Therefore, all the Apollo missions must have taken this into account, i.e., the launches timed and the flight trajectories carefully plotted so the astronauts would not be 'dosed.'
...
Therefore there surely are CONTEMPORANEOUS reports/accounts/papers/studies/documents proving this, or at least MENTIONING IT."

You guaranteed that no such mention existed.   However, I provided several such examples mentioning trajectory design in regard to VAB transit inclinations, trapped particle fluxes, and dose rates.  Other posters also provided examples, including Bob Braeunig's very thorough analysis.

You can repeat your crap about trajectories as many times as you get paid for or whatever your motive is,

Allan, posting here is a hobby.  I don't get paid for it.   My specific motivation for providing examples of VAB transit considerations with regard to crew safety is to educate you.  Are you willing to learn?

but it does not make it true.

Your stated criteria have explicitly been met.  Here's a few more examples:

NASA New Release No. 64-302, “NASA Schedules Launch of Radiation-Detection Satellite this Month”, 1964:

…The Energetic Particles Explorer D (EPE-D), formerly designated S-3c, will continue the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's intensive program to study the natural and artificial radiation belts surrounding the Earth.  Earlier satellites in the energetic particles series included Explorers XII, XIV, and XV.
Primary objective of the new satellite is to help scientists understand how high energy particles are injected, trapped and eventually lost in the radiation belts.
Information obtained from the mission is expected to make important contributions to the Apollo manned lunar landing program, specifically in the design of protective spacecraft shielding and in planning flight trajectories for Moon landing.  Information on the depth of penetration of the geomagnetic field by high energy solar protons - particles of potential danger to Moon-bound astronauts - may also be obtained…

NASA Project Apollo Working Paper No. 1100, Environmental Factors Involved in the Choice of Lunar Operational Dates and the Choice of Lunar Landing Sites, 1963:

There are three potential radiation hazards to Apollo: cosmic radiation, trapped (Van Allen) radiation, and solar flare radiation. The cosmic radiation and the trapped radiation do not affect the choice of a lunar landing site or time. Although the radiation dose received during exit through the belts is a function of the exact trajectory, which in turn is influenced by the lunar declination, in no case does the dose exceed the design limits.

NASA CR-856, Clinical Space Medicine: A Prospective Look at Medical Problems from Hazards of Space Operations, 1967:

Trapped (Van Allen) Radiation
Because flight plans usually call for orbits beneath or transient passage through the zones of geomagnetically trapped radiation surrounding the Earth, this source is considered a relatively minor hazard to astronauts.  The location and characteristics of the zones are being so precisely defined that depending on the spacecraft shielding and trajectories selected, radiation exposure can be maintained at safe levels during both orbiting and non-orbiting missions.

NASA SP-34, Space Flight Handbooks, Vol. 2, Lunar Flight Handbook, 1963:

In the near -earth environment, radiation hazards occur mainly in the parking and/ or waiting orbit phase, in any orbital phase on earth return, and in the near -earth portions of lunar flight, when the vehicle velocity relative to earth is about 10 km/sec. Radiation dosages and shielding requirements during that portion have been given in Chapter II of Ref. 1. The parking and waiting orbit altitudes in Chapter V as well as the orbital phase during earth return in Chapter X can be selected so as to be below the inner Van Allen belt.
 
Figure 1 illustrates the early phases of a typical lunar mission launched from Cape Canaveral. The doughnut-shaped inner Van Allen belt is shown, with the proton flux indicated by eight cross sections and the geomagnetic equator shown on the earth. The shading indicates the proton flux - the darker the appearance of the shaded area, the higher the flux . The illustrated trajectory (with a relatively high parking orbit altitude) intersects the fringes of the inner Van Allen belt after injection, but the time spent in the region of high proton flux is very small due to the high initial space vehicle velocities.

Allan, will you honor your guarantee?

[raven]

I would be surprised. Pleased, but surprised.

[ApolloGnomon]

Here's a question that surely is relevant: Is there even one regular in this forum that takes the position that Apollo was a fabrication/hoax. No? Do you just wait for someone like me to come along so you can congratulate each other? (I mean aside from those paid for doing this.) 

What a fine little ****** **** you all have going.

Yes, your observation is correct: there are no current "regulars" here that espouse the hoax fabrication. Every single one of them eventually gets pissed off at having their precious little "theories" smacked down.

 See, the thing is, we cheat. You have to go through all the hard work of making up stuff, but we cheat by looking up independently verifiable historical and scientific facts. Having a reality-based approach to the subject matter gives us an unfair advantage. The usual HB eventually gets frustrated by this.

The same thing is true on every other forum. The only places where long-running communities of hoax believers exist are fora where the inmates run the asylum: David Icke Forum & Cluesforum, for instance, where people state with a straight face things like rockets can't work in a vacuum and radio waves can't pass through the ionosphere, and one of my favorites, that sublimation can't take place in a vacuum.

If you honestly feel you have a valid case to make, by all means present it. So far you've followed the usual HB script of asking one question, ignoring the answers and making a gish-gallop post of pre-chewed youchoob blather to see what we'll respond to and then making personal attacks while ignoring all answers to your comments. Your "theory" barely rises above the noise floor.

[Noldi400]

But so far, not one answer to the Bean video question: was the LM heated or air conditioned or, somehow, both?

This has already been answered but you're just not paying attention.

All the electronics in the LM produced a large amount of heat so, when everything was operating, the waste heat had to be removed via an active cooling system.  If the cooling system were shutdown, but not the other electronics, the LM would heat up because there would be no way to get rid of the heat generated by the still operating electronics.  This is the scenario Al Bean was talking about because he mentioned a failure of the cooling system only, not a total failure of all the electronics.  In the case of Apollo 13, almost all the heat-generating electronics were shutdown in order to conserve electrical power.  The narrator called it a "heater" but there was no heater per se – he was just referring to the electronics that generate heat through their normal operation.  With these electronics turned off, Apollo 13 could not produce enough heat to maintain a warm temperature; therefore the spacecraft cooled down.

Also, Bean did say "slowly but surely" with regard to heating - the presumption sounded to me like the LM was stuck there. If that were the case, when the sun passed the zenith you would also have heating from it shining through the LM windows - always assuming they weren't covered, of course.

[Bob B.]

Also, Bean did say "slowly but surely" with regard to heating - the presumption sounded to me like the LM was stuck there. If that were the case, when the sun passed the zenith you would also have heating from it shining through the LM windows - always assuming they weren't covered, of course.

Since the interview with Bean is edited, I don't know the full context of his comments.  He also says "if the lunar module is sitting in the sun".  If by "sitting" he means "sitting on the moon", then we have a very different thermal condition than Apollo 13, which was drifting in space.  Sunlight reflecting off the lunar surface would heat then LM from almost all directions rather than just from the direction of the sun.  In this case, even with all the electronics shut off, the LM's equilibrium temperature would be much higher than Apollo 13's.

In either case – a partial shutdown of the cooling system only, or a total shutdown with the LM sitting on the moon – I don't see any contradiction between what Bean said and the case of Apollo 13.

[ka9q]

Also, Bean did say "slowly but surely" with regard to heating - the presumption sounded to me like the LM was stuck there. If that were the case, when the sun passed the zenith you would also have heating from it shining through the LM windows - always assuming they weren't covered, of course.

I think that would be a fairly minor contributor compared to the thermal radiation from the lunar surface. At local noon near the lunar equator the surface temperature exceeds +100C, and of course this hot surface occupies nearly half of the sphere around an LM sitting on the surface.

The LM was well insulated, but no insulation is perfect. The fact that it got so cold during Apollo 13 is proof of that.

The Apollo 12 astronauts noted the increase in thermal radiation from the slowly warming lunar surface between their two EVAs, though they did not seem to know that was the reason. See the discussion in the ALSJ at 132:01:20.

[ka9q]

In either case – a partial shutdown of the cooling system only, or a total shutdown with the LM sitting on the moon – I don't see any contradiction between what Bean said and the case of Apollo 13.

Neither do I.

Apollo deniers might as well claim that my car is a hoax. After all, it gets really cold inside my car in northern Minnesota in the winter when everything is shut off, yet it gets really hot inside my car in Death Valley in the summer when I turn everything on except the climate control. I mean, how can the very same car possibly get both hot and cold??! And with the sun shining in both cases?