Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.

[JayUtah]

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?

There was just too much to think about in the reactive mode.  The Apollo 13 incident is one of the most widely studied incidents in failure analysis, not only from the technical standpoint but from the psychological standpoint.  Engineers ironically have to study a lot of pyschology if they build systems that rely on human operators.  And the ground teams were focused first on how to save the mission, and thereafter on how to save the crew based on the failures that had already occurred.  The movie Apollo 13 overdramatizes it a little, but the CO₂ problem wasn't considered crucial until the telemetry made the ground controllers take notice.

Engineers responding to a failure generally think first about how to drive the system to a stable state in order to buy time to fully analyze various solutions.  Hence with the crew "safely" in the LM it wasn't immediately apparent that they would overtax the LM's ECS.

[bknight]

There was just too much to think about in the reactive mode.  The Apollo 13 incident is one of the most widely studied incidents in failure analysis, not only from the technical standpoint but from the psychological standpoint.  Engineers ironically have to study a lot of pyschology if they build systems that rely on human operators.  And the ground teams were focused first on how to save the mission, and thereafter on how to save the crew based on the failures that had already occurred.  The movie Apollo 13 overdramatizes it a little, but the CO₂ problem wasn't considered crucial until the telemetry made the ground controllers take notice.

Engineers responding to a failure generally think first about how to drive the system to a stable state in order to buy time to fully analyze various solutions.  Hence with the crew "safely" in the LM it wasn't immediately apparent that they would overtax the LM's ECS.

I agree with crew safety concerns were paramount in the initial stages of the event.  And I agree with studying a design to be used by someone else especially when you are only talking to them about the procedure by voice.  I wasn't really referring to the movie when asked the question, rather since we have a situation like they were faced with do some problem solving (after the initial crew safety issues) into what more COULD happen.  I know that is how "we" react to situations where I work, identify the problem, solutions to fix/abate the problem and what more could happen with the given set of circumstances.  But that is the engineer in me talking, not the engineers at MCC.

[Luke Pemberton]

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.

Quite. Ralph Rene wrote about the PLSS sublimator and asked why water vapour/ice crystals were not seen being ejected into space from the 'blow-hole' of the PLSS.

I won't labour the reasons for that here, but Neil's demand for a video had me think about Ralph's claim. The reality is that we would not see a thing from the sublimator. That's why I think many of us want him to explain what sublimation means (with or without a phase diagram). One could film a vacuum needle showing a system is being pumped and just sit an unconneted sublimator in the vacuum and it would give the same visual result as the PLSS sublimator operating.

What is Neil expecting? Ralph Rene's venting blow hole? As Andromeda said, the video will show nothing, it is the data obtained that shows the effectiveness.

[Zakalwe]

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.

Quite. Ralph Rene wrote about the PLSS sublimator and asked why water vapour/ice crystals were not seen being ejected into space from the 'blow-hole' of the PLSS.

I won't labour the reasons for that here, but Neil's demand for a video had me think about Ralph's claim. The reality is that we would not see a thing from the sublimator. That's why I think many of use want him to explain what sublimation means (with or without a phase diagram). One could film a vacuum needle showing a system is being pumped and just sit an unconneted sublimator in the vacuum and it would give the same visual result as the PLSS sublimator operating.

What is Neil expecting? Ralph Rene's venting blow hole? As Andromeda said, the video will show nothing, it is the data obtained that shows the effectiveness.

And let's assume that Baker gets his video and even his ridiculous test. Does that then mean that he agrees with all of the documentation that has been presented to him? If that's the case, then he should be able to analyse the documentation and declare it bogus or valid. That's assuming that he has the skills and wherewithal to do so. if he hasn't, then he certainly would not be able to validate what is happening in a test or video.
The absence or presence of the video and/or test doesn't alter the documentation one jot. Either the documentation stands on its own or it doesn't Either which way, seeing it in action in a test chamber won't alter the veracity of the documentation.

[ka9q]

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."

Turning on the rendezvous radar (actually leaving it in "standby") was not a "checklist error" as is often reported. But it was added to the checklist at a late date. The idea was to have it warmed up in case it was needed for an abort.

The specs for the two 800 Hz references only called for frequency lock, not phase lock. This was even noted during test but forgotten as unimportant. It wasn't noticed in the simulator because it wasn't a complete simulation of the LM, only those parts relevant to training the crew.

Apollo was before the days of optical shaft encoders so the rendezvous radar adapted an device called a Synchro that had been widely used during WW2 in naval fire control systems. An actual synchro motor was used on the antenna and a "virtual" one was used on the computer to produce angle information for the A/D converters.

The whole gory story is here: http://www.doneyles.com/LM/Tales.html

[raven]

I've read that before I believe, and it raises, yet again, a question us non-techy types can ask: Why, in all heck, would NASA pretend to make mistakes like this that would make them and their contractors look bad? It's not quite on the level of proof, or anything more than circumstantial evidence, but it's a good question nonetheless, I think.

[smartcooky]

Apollo was before the days of optical shaft encoders so the rendezvous radar adapted an device called a Synchro that had been widely used during WW2 in naval fire control systems. An actual synchro motor was used on the antenna and a "virtual" one was used on the computer to produce angle information for the A/D converters.

Jeez that brings back a few fond memories.

My dad had a selsyn synchro motor system to drive his 20m band cubical quad. He had a synchro transmitter in his ham shack with a 360° dial and a knob with a pointer. He would read off a Great Circle map the bearing he wanted, turn the knob around to the desired bearing and the motor on the mast head would turn the antenna accordingly.   

[Dr_Orpheus]

I've read that before I believe, and it raises, yet again, a question us non-techy types can ask: Why, in all heck, would NASA pretend to make mistakes like this that would make them and their contractors look bad? It's not quite on the level of proof, or anything more than circumstantial evidence, but it's a good question nonetheless, I think.

The late Dr. Patrick claimed that NASA put mistakes in the "narrative" and even faked Borman's illness to increase the drama or something like that.   I'm not digging through hundreds of pages of threads to get his exact words on the subject.

[bknight]

The late Dr. Patrick claimed that NASA put mistakes in the "narrative" and even faked Borman's illness to increase the drama or something like that.   I'm not digging through hundreds of pages of threads to get his exact words on the subject.

I believe that Dr. Patrick's narrative is incorrect.  According to the post flight report http://history.nasa.gov/ap08fj/pdf/a08-missionreport.pdf page 175

During the 6.l-day lunar orbital flight, the three crewmen accumulated
441 man-hours of space flight experience. For the first time in
the space program, the crew reported symptoms of motion sickness during
the adaptation phase of the intravehicular activity.

[Dr_Orpheus]

I believe that Dr. Patrick's narrative is incorrect.  According to the post flight report http://history.nasa.gov/ap08fj/pdf/a08-missionreport.pdf page 175

During the 6.l-day lunar orbital flight, the three crewmen accumulated
441 man-hours of space flight experience. For the first time in
the space program, the crew reported symptoms of motion sickness during
the adaptation phase of the intravehicular activity.

Saying Patrick Tekel AKA, DR T, fattydash, Patrick1000 and numerous sock puppets was incorrect is a lot like saying the Pacific Ocean has water in it.

[bknight]

Saying Patrick Tekel AKA, DR T, fattydash, Patrick1000 and numerous sock puppets was incorrect is a lot like saying the Pacific Ocean has water in it.

Ah ok, I thought that might have been someone who knew something.

[Dr_Orpheus]

Ah ok, I thought that might have been someone who knew something.

Sorry, I didn't realize that you weren't familiar with the stupendous intellect of Dr Socks.   Here's a very long thread started by him if you are curious.    http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=216531&highlight=lick

[gillianren]

Saying Patrick Tekel AKA, DR T, fattydash, Patrick1000 and numerous sock puppets was incorrect is a lot like saying the Pacific Ocean has water in it.

Ah ok, I thought that might have been someone who knew something.

I don't dispute that he must have known something, but nothing relevant.

[bknight]

Saying Patrick Tekel AKA, DR T, fattydash, Patrick1000 and numerous sock puppets was incorrect is a lot like saying the Pacific Ocean has water in it.

Ah ok, I thought that might have been someone who knew something.

I don't dispute that he must have known something, but nothing relevant.

I stand corrected again.

EDIT: Moved my comment outside the last closed quote

[ka9q]

My dad had a selsyn synchro motor system to drive his 20m band cubical quad.

Sure it was a Selsyn? They were generally rather low torque, much too low to drive a large HF antenna.

Antenna rotors are common, and virtually all use AC (some use DC) motors to drive gears that turn the antenna. A potentiometer detects mast angle, and this is sent back to the control box where it drives the indicator and stops rotation when it reaches the desired spot.