Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.

[bknight]

Jay--Well, the fact remains that the photo of the ice sublimator didn't appear in 2007 when I searched. Harold McCann looked also and couldn't find the photo. Also, I was able to make the claim that no photo existed on the Internet until only recently. I don't know exactly when it appeared. It may very well have been there buried deep and we didn't use the correct description to bring it up but it didn't come up when "spacesuit ice sublimator" was typed in the Google search engine.

You continue this line of thought, why?  Posters have spoon fed you multiple images and documents that pre-date 2007.  I believe you are either inept at researching or too dumb/lazy to do it.

As for the no textbook mentioning ice sublimators, I'm not sure the Chinese publication in 2010 was not instigated by my dispute regarding the subject of ice sublimators since I was disputing them in 2007 in many places and nobody presented me with any evidence to the contrary.  The Chinese performed a spacewalk in suits that I suspect they say they cooled with sublimators and so might have thought they needed to cover that base.  But still, 1993 is the earliest I can find and that's odd too since they've allegedly been using them since at least 1969. But it just might be that I haven't located the book yet. It might be there from 1968. I'll keep searching.

You were given two links of patents that occurred prior to 1993, again you are a poor researcher at best.

But even you should confess that it is strange. Despite being one of the most interesting heat transfer devices, so little visual information is given regarding them. Except for the one photo and some different line drawings, there's nothing. Yes, video of the tests might not show much but they could have shown the experiment setups with treadmill and suited subject outside the vacuum chamber. Roughing pumps, turbo pumps, gauges. It is an interesting, potentially dangerous and very crucial aspect of the testing program and so, if only from a PR perspective, it is expected that NASA would cover it. If not then, then now when they've finally been challenged to do so.

One or a thousand, what difference does that make?

And still, having read what I've read, I'm still a bit confused. None of the test reports indicate that any human in a spacesuit ever entered a vacuum chamber that was pumped down to high vacuum conditions. Something is very wrong with the picture and I'm wondering if your dedicated enthusiasm for Apollo has blinded you to the possibility that this area of the technology was not adequately documented to avoid suspicion.

As my previous post indicated the sublimator was in the vacuum chamber connected by hoses to the individual on the tread mill.  Why does this invalidate the test?  Your immature obsession with this test is really poorly build.

Trebor--I have no reason why it wouldn't be a suitable way to remove heat. It sounds cool (no pun intended). I was fascinated when I first learned about it but like I described in my first post, it was when I went to learn more and found so little of what I expected to find that I started to doubt.

All in all of your posts you continue circling around this specific test when similar tests information have been spoon fed.  I gave you the benefit of doubt in the beginning, but your continued refusal to comprehend the data and literature linked to you covering well over 50 years and present days usage change that benefit to definitely  negative.

[Peter B]

PeterB--one of the things I learned in heat transfer class was that there are only three modes of heat transfer--conduction, convection and radiation. I haven't been able decide which mode is represented by an ice sublimator.

A radiator is not a sublimator nor vice versa.
A radiator radiates heat.
A sublimator liberates heat by facilitating the phase change of ice directly to steam.

Okay, so please spell it out: Do you doubt the physics of sublimation? Is there any reason why spacesuit sublimators can't operate the way space agencies say they do?

At the moment your comments read like you're trying to have it both ways - that sublimation as a concept works but that spacesuit sublimators for some reason can't.

And frankly, you sound like someone looking at a platypus swimming around, and saying that because it isn't a mammal (because it lays eggs) and isn't a reptile (because it has fur) then it can't possibly exist.

Finally, could you please explain: if NASA faked Apollo because the sublimators didn't work, don't you think the Soviets would have been smart enough to work this out? Or do you think they were in on the fake too?

[bknight]

bknight--would you go into space to perform an EVA without having donned that suit and sublimator and tested them in a high vacuum chamber on Earth first? Is my perspective really that narrow? I think it should represent common sense of any reasonably responsible astronaut that the answer is no.

Perhaps 50 years ago prior to literally thousand of hours and being the first few to use it, I might like a functionality test, similar to the one you suggested took place with me on a tread mill and the sublimator in a vacuum.  The two difference are the length of hoses and me not in the vacuum chamber.  Yes, that test would suffice any lingering doubt that it would work.[/quote]

It is very puzzling to me why it's only me, especially among this very smart crowd, that is asking for the test. I have learned what is presented and it's not clear at all that they work as advertised.[/quote]
It is really puzzling to the rest of the board why you won't/can't understand that the device works as advertised since it is apparent to all of us save you that testing has been successfully completed.

I've heard the Latin word for truth is veritas. It's where we get the word verify. In a way, from a semantics perspective, the Scientific Method is older than we ever thought although Francis Bacon is supposed to have formalized the procedure.

And this pertains to what portion of the information linked to you many times?  Your inability to understand prevents your brain from accepting the obvious.

[Jason Thompson]

Trebor--Sublimation should work but that's not the issue. The issue is the validation that it works.

Since you utterly fail to understand what actually qualifies as validation, this issue exists solely in your mind.

Now I repeat: we have video of astronauts in spacesuits with sublimators on the lunar surface. There is plenty of evidence that this is in a vacuum. What do you say about that? And if you say 'it could be faked' explain why we should think you won't say the same about any film or video that does show an astronaut in a vacuum chamber, and explain how it could be faked.

[Jason Thompson]

Testimony of Independent witnesses observing a spacesuit with sublimator operating in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit is not, in my opinion, an unreasonable request.

Provided already. As long as the sublimator connected to the suit cooling system is in a vacuum, why does the astronaut have to be? The test is not invalidated by that difference from practical usage in space. This is how real science works.

It should cost nothing extra and pose little inconvenience to allow independent observers.

Rubbish. If I was expected to provide demonstrations of the technology I work on to 'independent observers' on request I would have no time to do the work I am actually paid for in developing that technology. It is not a trivial task, especially to someone as obviously ignorant as you are who would need every bit of the test explained.

[RAF]

Jay--I'd enjoy a discussion with you....

You enjoy being told you are wrong??

 

...but if you're going to hurl hard names and insults at me, I'll just ignore you.

"hard names"??.... no, Jay was just informing you that you obviously do not know what you are talking about...he knows that because he does know what he is talking about.

If you can't "handle" being told that you are wrong, then perhaps you should seek another board where the standards of evidence are not that high...otherwise expect to be "schooled" by the members here.

[Abaddon]

Abaddon--I'm sorry but I'm looking for a second photo of a sublimator.

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTT1Fqkun-qpbbPxfR2dfG3OJ5h7NZbjER9eYLFrJ9iguU-mPyN

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSxGWG8dqlw4MBN-OvLl4kNVhC2aFD_SMDYL8fzbFjOsbcGAdy6

http://enu.kz/repository/2011/AIAA-2011-5187.pdf

And?

Out of interest, I had a look at the article at the last link.

At the end of the article were three referenced articles. I Googled the last and got this:

http://papers.sae.org/1999-01-2004/

Only an abstract. But I'm sure that if Mr Baker is serious about getting to the bottom of this issue he shouldn't have a problem spending $25 to buy the full article which, I note, was published in 1999.

There are any amount of related papers on the subject on that site alone.

Another from 1991 http://papers.sae.org/911577/

[JayUtah]

And frankly, you sound like someone looking at a platypus swimming around, and saying that because it isn't a mammal (because it lays eggs) and isn't a reptile (because it has fur) then it can't possibly exist.

It's more like someone banging on the door of the Westminster clock tower demanding to take the innards of the clock apart because he doesn't believe in pendulums.

[Luke Pemberton]

If I was expected to provide demonstrations of the technology I work on to 'independent observers' on request I would have no time to do the work I am actually paid for in developing that technology.

The pharmaceutical industry would be crippled if they had to meet Neil's acid test for each drug they produce. Of course, the real issue here is that Neil believes he and the PLSS sublimator are special cases. He only makes this demand for the PLSS sublimator, where he has chosen a small piece of technology that he thinks does not work because he unable to carry out basic research (as shown by the record here). He thought he had all the aces up his sleeve. In his own words, if he can prove Apollo was hoaxed, maybe his 9-11 claims would be taken more seriously. Sadly for Neil, no one will ever take him seriously now, because we can point to the record here and show that he is a useless researcher that jumps horses and moves goalposts in an attempt to save face.

Neil - Having read Jason's two posts, he does know what he is talking about where biology and human science is concerned. He is also a keen Apollo enthusiast and that is evident from his postings at this forum and the old pro-boards.  In as much as Jay and sts60 know about aerospace engineering, and ka9q/smartcooky know about communication systems, and RAF knows about flight systems, and andromeda knows about physics, and OBM/Kiwi know about photography and its analysis. Sorry for those that I have not mentioned (Bob/Raven/AllanF/gwiz/peter/bknight/Apollo957/trebor/gillianren et al)

Neil, the people here know their stuff, and if we don't we tend not to comment and leave it to others with the expertise and knowledge. That's how this forum works, and that's because all of us know how science/engineering works. You do not. For the record, I know how to tie my shoelaces

[Luke Pemberton]

It's more like someone banging on the door of the Westminster clock tower demanding to take the innards of the clock apart because he doesn't believe in pendulums.

Funny you should mention the Westminster Clock.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-34051053

Although BBC sometimes insist on referring to the clock as Big Ben.

[JayUtah]

Given the scale of the Apollo project, there's other, far more significant aspects that the astronauts could have taken issue with, but remember they were experienced test pilots, and they were used to placing their trust in their designers and builders.

Many were engineers themselves and knew intimately how their equipment worked.  And no, the sublimator is not a critical piece of equipment.  If one failed, the result would be the astronaut slowly heating up -- a condition that could be tolerated while he returned to the spacecraft and attached his suit to the ship's environmental control system for relief.  There was even a contingency plan where he could turn off his oxygen loop heater and let the oxygen come from the cryogenic tank as a very cool gas.  Obviously we want sublimators to work and be reliable.  But if one failed, would the astronaut be in immediate peril of his life?  Heavens no!  Baker is amping up the criticality of this component to buttress his fantasy for how he thinks they should have been tested.

[bknight]

The pharmaceutical industry would be crippled if they had to meet Neil's acid test for each drug they produce. Of course, the real issue here is that Neil believes he and the PLSS sublimator are special cases. He only makes this demand for the PLSS sublimator, where he has chosen a small piece of technology that he thinks does not work because he unable to carry out basic research (as shown by the record here). He thought he had all the aces up his sleeve. In his own words, if he can prove Apollo was hoaxed, maybe his 9-11 claims would be taken more seriously. Sadly for Neil, no one will ever take him seriously now, because we can point to the record here and show that he is a useless researcher that jumps horses and moves goalposts in an attempt to save face.

Neil - Having read Jason's two posts, he does know what he is talking about where biology and human science is concerned. He is also a keen Apollo enthusiast and that is evident from his postings at this forum and the old pro-boards.  In as much as Jay and sts60 know about aerospace engineering, and ka9q/smartcooky know about communication systems, and RAF knows about flight systems, and andromeda knows about physics, and OBM/Kiwi know about photography and its analysis. Sorry for those that I have not mentioned (Bob/Raven/AllanF/gwiz/peter/bknight/Apollo957/trebor/gillianren et al)

Neil, the people here know their stuff, and if we don't we tend not to comment and leave it to others with the expertise and knowledge. That's how this forum works, and that's because all of us know how science/engineering works. You do not. For the record, I know how to tie my shoelaces

I'm not trained in any of those sciences/technologies so no problem here.  I'm interested in learning from those on the board of a passionate belief.

[JayUtah]

Funny you should mention the Westminster Clock.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-34051053

No coincidence.  That story was reported a few days ago in the U.S. and is naturally of particular interest to engineers, or anyone fascinated by mechanisms.

Although BBC sometimes insist on referring to the clock as Big Ben.

During my stay in London I was properly schooled that Big Ben is not the tower, not the clock, but the 13-ton bell that strikes the hour -- named for Sir Benjamin Hall, the commissioner of works when the clock was installed.

[Trebor]

He only makes this demand for the PLSS sublimator, where he has chosen a small piece of technology that he thinks does not work because he unable to carry out basic research (as shown by the record here).

When I asked him earlier he said he saw no reason why it would not work. Which is what I find especially puzzling.

[Luke Pemberton]

When I asked him earlier he said he saw no reason why it would not work. Which is what I find especially puzzling.

I saw that admittance. As is common with CTs, they cannot keep a consistent story.  If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything.