Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.

[bknight]

I've scrubbed out the bits that do not apply to me and added my journey to here. You can see the parallels with my introduction to AH.net. There is far much more fun gained from the reality of Apollo than the hoax.

I pretty much ignored Jarrah's 'short segment film' claim as another absurd bare assertion on his part. I think he arrived at a figure of 30 s being the maximum zero-g film length. I never really pursued it here, and whether there are longer sections. I kind of dismissed it out of hand and didn't want to waste people's time.

I never pursued any of that series whether blunder or not.  I have only contributed to a few on YT quite ineffectively at either obtaining a convert or comment about the HB proposal being wrong.  The only conclusive blunder thread was the disgusting series on Apollo 1 fire, that was the last video I've watched or will ever from him.
This forum has been great to learn new aspects of the Apollo program that I didn't know, but suspected or at least thought about.  As well being able to stop and think about the absurd "anomalies" presented by HB's and how to show that their isn't one and/or being able to do a little research to finding answers trolling the net.

[Bob B.]

Heiwa does exactly the same. he created a preposterous $1Milion dollar challenge-

For the record, it's one million euro.

[gillianren]

It's similar to the American euphemism "bathroom" that is used when the speaker actually means toilet, lavatory, dunny, thunderbox etcetera. If anyone ever comes to my place and asks for directions to the bathroom, they will be given them, and if they return and explain that they actually wanted that "other room", they might be loudly asked why they didn't have the good sense say so in the first place.

Because it's a perfectly legitimate word and all those other terms are euphemisms, too?

[Zakalwe]

Heiwa does exactly the same. he created a preposterous $1Milion dollar challenge-

For the record, it's one million euro.

Thanks for the correction.
It could be one million Koh-i-Noors as the chances of Bjorkman actually having it, or him declaring that anyone has won it are zero.

[bknight]

Because it's a perfectly legitimate word and all those other terms are euphemisms, too?

Besides many but not all contain a shower/tub in the same room.

[bknight]

Thanks for the correction.
It could be one million Koh-i-Noors as the chances of Bjorkman actually having it, or him declaring that anyone has won it are zero.

Evasive goal changing M. O. I suspect, to protect "No one has proven me wrong".

[gillianren]

Because it's a perfectly legitimate word and all those other terms are euphemisms, too?

Besides many but not all contain a shower/tub in the same room.

Certainly mine does.  And the real estate term for ones that don't, in the US, is "half-bath."  Or "3/4 bath" if it has a shower but not a tub.

[ka9q]

I bet that would go as well as stampeding cattle through the Vatican.

Kinky...!

[sts60]

I have experience in, among other things, spacecraft integration and test, and vacuum chamber systems -ultra-high vacuum, or UHV as Luke mentioned, to be precise (10^-6 torr is a crappy vacuum).  If someone asked me to film a test of a sublimator, my first question would be "Why?"  It just sits there.  It's like proving software works by filming a microprocessor.

While there might be movies of sublimators, the idea that it is some sort of vital evidence is laughable - only an ignoramus would make such a silly claim.  Moreover, only an ignoramus who is determined to remain ignorant, rather than actually think about the issue.

[bknight]

I have experience in, among other things, spacecraft integration and test, and vacuum chamber systems -ultra-high vacuum, or UHV as Luke mentioned, to be precise (10^-6 torr is a crappy vacuum).  If someone asked me to film a test of a sublimator, my first question would be "Why?"  It just sits there.  It's like proving software works by filming a microprocessor.

While there might be movies of sublimators, the idea that it is some sort of vital evidence is laughable - only an ignoramus would make such a silly claim.  Moreover, only an ignoramus who is determined to remain ignorant, rather than actually think about the issue.

I believe you have correctly described Mr. Baker.

[JayUtah]

If someone asked me to film a test of a sublimator, my first question would be "Why?"  It just sits there.

Indeed.  I can see some value in video documents of a bench test where, conceivably, you might use the video to measure the rate of ice formation or some such thing.  But that would only be a shorthand to other forms of data collection.  A sublimator literally just sits there.

Besides, Baker insists that he has to see an all-up test:  an astronaut in a sublimation-cooled space suit, demonstrably in a vacuum.  But the sublimator is necessarily inside the PLSS out of sight -- in vacuum, but also in shade.  As we have seen, Baker nit-picks all the video evidence shown to him.  The video he demands as ultimate proof is ripe for exactly the kind of solipsist nit-picking he uses to sidestep all the other evidence.

It's like proving software works by filming a microprocessor.

Not quite the same, but I've actually imaged microprocessors in the infrared while they were running certain specific code.  When you build a supercomputer to run a particular software package (custom finite-element analysis) there is actual value in determining how to cool the apparatus for that particular application.

Moreover, only an ignoramus who is determined to remain ignorant...

Or alternatively, an ignoramus determined to portray to the equally ignorant public that there is a legitimate controversy when, in fact, there isn't.

[smartcooky]

I have experience in, among other things, spacecraft integration and test

Just an off topic question.

I am assuming that these integration tests are effectively a test to make sure that everything on the spacecraft works with everything else on the spacecraft that it is expected to work with, and to ensure that systems continue to function correctly when other non-related systems are turned on or turned off.

Did Apollo undergo integration tests prior to Apollo 11? The reason I ask is that it occurs to me such a test would have picked up the problem with the 1201 and 1202 alarms caused by the AGC running out of resources when the LM's rendezvous radar was left switched on.

With regard to Apollo 13, I read somewhere that using the LM as a lifeboat was something that had been considered well in advance of the launch, and that they knew if they were going to do have to that, they would have problems with the carbon dioxide build up. Would an integration test for that scenario have picked up the non-interchangeability of the Lithium Hydroxide cartridges?

[JayUtah]

Did Apollo undergo integration tests prior to Apollo 11?

Yes, and your understanding of what the test is meant to study is correct.

The reason I ask is that it occurs to me such a test would have picked up the problem with the 1201 and 1202 alarms caused by the AGC running out of resources when the LM's rendezvous radar was left switched on.

The decision to leave it switched on was a late change, after integration testing.  The phase lock protocol between the redundant radar power supplies wasn't considered a critical factor (or even, at the time, well publicized).  Hence it was written off as "no big deal."

Would an integration test for that scenario have picked up the non-interchangeability of the Lithium Hydroxide cartridges?

No.  Integration tests focus on the nominal mission, and only drift slightly into contingency flight plans.  The LM Lifeboat scenario was well down the list of contingencies.

The LM LiHO cartridges were annular, like some older car air filters.  The inlet supplied air to the outer perimeter, and the discharge was at the center.  This best fit the form factor of the LM ECS, tacked onto the bulkhead on the LMP's side.  The CM LiHO were straightforward axial filters.  The need to use one filter in the other system was considered, but not deemed sufficiently important to warrant attempting an extensive redesign of either ECS system.

[Zakalwe]

With regard to Apollo 13, I read somewhere that using the LM as a lifeboat was something that had been considered well in advance of the launch, and that they knew if they were going to do have to that, they would have problems with the carbon dioxide build up. Would an integration test for that scenario have picked up the non-interchangeability of the Lithium Hydroxide cartridges?

Some, but not all, lifeboat procedures had been simulated and documented. Sy Liebergot (page 142 of his autobiography) "I stood up and called TELMU Bob Heselmeyer, my LM counterpart. He was only ten feet to my right, but I called him on is loop. "Bob, do you remember the lifeboat procedures that we started to develop on that sim where we went round the Moon and lost cabin pressure? Did you guys ever work on those lifeboat procedures?"" The procedures weren't fully developed because NASA thought that a multiple failure of so many systems was unlikely.

[bknight]

The LM LiHO cartridges were annular, like some older car air filters.  The inlet supplied air to the outer perimeter, and the discharge was at the center.  This best fit the form factor of the LM ECS, tacked onto the bulkhead on the LMP's side.  The CM LiHO were straightforward axial filters.  The need to use one filter in the other system was considered, but not deemed sufficiently important to warrant attempting an extensive redesign of either ECS system.

Given that this was the case, why not start studying how to solve the problem in advance of when the CO₂ partial pressure began to be a problem?  They might have instituted the corrective measures before the event actually happened?