Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.

[Luke Pemberton]

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.

Yes, we English take great pride in schooling others with this factoid. I do like the picture in the news article, the one with the pennies on the pendulum.

[JayUtah]

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

Indeed in other forums he has made it plain that he doesn't disagree with the physics or the engineering -- only the testing.  It shouldn't puzzle you if you remember how conspiracists work.  They don't focus so much on stuff that can be independently or factually verified.  Having found his McGuffin, Baker settles in for a long goalpost-shifting, nit-picking, quibble over what constitutes a proper, scientifically acceptable test for validation.  (Despite his Latin lesson, Baker mistakes "validation" for verification."  In the world of engineering test, those mean entirely different things.)

[Luke Pemberton]

Despite his Latin lesson, Baker mistakes "validation" for verification."  In the world of engineering test, those mean entirely different things.)

When changing software code for a model I worked on validation was the process whereby (a) we checked the model represented the physics of the problem and (b) whether we were actually producing code to answer the question that the change was designed to answer. Verification was the process where we ensured the model was behaving sensibly against a set of criteria and the rest of the model still provided 'sensible' results once the change was made. I recall the forms we had to fill in for the model QA process. Verification and validation were separate processes.

[bknight]

Indeed in other forums he has made it plain that he doesn't disagree with the physics or the engineering -- only the testing.  It shouldn't puzzle you if you remember how conspiracists work.  They don't focus so much on stuff that can be independently or factually verified.  Having found his McGuffin, Baker settles in for a long goalpost-shifting, nit-picking, quibble over what constitutes a proper, scientifically acceptable test for validation.  (Despite his Latin lesson, Baker mistakes "validation" for verification."  In the world of engineering test, those mean entirely different things.)

The tests have validated and verified that the sublimator works.  As you note the goal post set  at a ridiculous distance to give him comfort levels that NASA will not indulge him.  The test presented here suffice to everyone except one.

[Zakalwe]

Baker- what exactly would you expect to see if (and it's a massive "if") yo ruled the world and were able to get NASA to test a suit? A big chamber gets evacuated -how would you verify the vacuum? After all, NASA are hoaxers and frauds, aren't they? Then a bloke in a suit enters the chamber through an airlock. How do you know that he has a working sublimator? Perhaps he just has a liquid cooled garment with an iced-water tank on his back. How long would you want the test to run for? What exactly would you expect to see to verify that the sublimator was working as intended?

Finally, after you had seen the test, would you then admit that all the technical data that you've been shown was correct? If so, what's stopping you from doing so now? Unless, of course, you are not able to check the maths in the documentation that you've been shown. If that's the case, then how would you verify your imaginary test??

Come to think of it, given your clear incompetence at research, it seems to me that even if you got your ridiculous test that you would not be able to verify what you were seeing. Given that, then what's the point of demanding a test that you are incapable of verifying?

[Bryanpoprobson]

I must admit that although I have no sympathy for this approach by Neil, but as an engineer I have an empathy for administering my own tests to a problem. In telecommunications, when a new network is brought into service, it goes through a process of NVQ or Network validation. I was the technical project manager for the first (Pan-european) STM64 Fiber Optic network and was in charge of the testing process. In my mind however the NVQ was written by our manufacturer (Nortel, now long gone), this was tantamount to them sitting an exam, where they not only wrote the questions but marked the exam paper. The arguments I had when elements failed because I introduced my own tests, they called them invalid tests, but I only went down "plausible" paths. I think the end product was a "more" robust network.
In the case of the PLSS testing however, the tests carried out were sufficient and the results are there for people to see. The fact that it did/does work should be sufficient for anybody who does not have a separate agenda for disagreeing with the process. 

[ineluki]

It is very puzzling to me why it's only me, especially among this very smart crowd, that is asking for the test.

That leaves three options:
1. Your idea that this is a useful and necessary test is wrong
2. You think that those who disagree with you must be lying
3. You think that those who disagree with you must be stupid (which makes "smart crowd" a lie)

[Luckmeister]

I must admit that although I have no sympathy for this approach by Neil, but as an engineer I have an empathy for administering my own tests to a problem. In telecommunications, when a new network is brought into service, it goes through a process of NVQ or Network validation. I was the technical project manager for the first (Pan-european) STM64 Fiber Optic network and was in charge of the testing process. In my mind however the NVQ was written by our manufacturer (Nortel, now long gone), this was tantamount to them sitting an exam, where they not only wrote the questions but marked the exam paper. The arguments I had when elements failed because I introduced my own tests, they called them invalid tests, but I only went down "plausible" paths. I think the end product was a "more" robust network.
In the case of the PLSS testing however, the tests carried out were sufficient and the results are there for people to see. The fact that it did/does work should be sufficient for anybody who does not have a separate agenda for disagreeing with the process.

Yes, the tests were certainly done.

I worked in the pre-Apollo space program helping to develop testing and verification procedures on-site for Atlas and Titan booster systems (at VAFB and DMAFB). I'm talking about my direct experience from 1960 to 1964 with state-of-art engineering practices at the time. Believe me, extensive testing and verification was critical to anything space-related, especially to systems used both as our last line of defense and to boost humans into orbit. But then, that's no surprise to everyone here except one.

[JayUtah]

Baker- what exactly would you expect to see if (and it's a massive "if") yo ruled the world and were able to get NASA to test a suit? A big chamber gets evacuated -how would you verify the vacuum?

He has said he wants his witnesses to be able to instrument the test with their own equipment.  But then he says this won't increase the cost, so there should be no objection to letting him do that.

How ridiculous.

Those of you who are fans of the American movie Office Space might be amused to learn NASA indeed has such a thing as a TPS Report, for "Test Procedure Step."  Testing at NASA (and in aerospace in general) is not just plugging in the gizmo and making sure it works.  Test procedures are worked out well in advance, with each step and sub-step numbered, validated, and cross-checked with all who have roles in the test.  The TPS report is the test director's report of what was observed at each test step.  These run to dozens of pages in most cases, and up to hundreds for major tests, or for tests involving human subjects (where safety checks are made at each step and reported).

The notion that Baker or his delegates can just show up on the morning of the test with a suitcase full of test equipment, and be allowed to participate, is so ludicrously naive as to merit only laughter.  There has to be engineering integration exercises for that type of observation, as well as approvals from the engineering, management, test, and legal representatives of both NASA and the manufacturers involved.  Contrary to Baker's naive assurances, his request would add tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs to the test.  Baker simply has no accurate idea whatsoever what is involved in aerospace test involving human subjects.

[bknight]

...

The notion that Baker or his delegates can just show up on the morning of the test with a suitcase full of test equipment, and be allowed to participate, is so ludicrously naive as to merit only laughter.  There has to be engineering integration exercises for that type of observation, as well as approvals from the engineering, management, test, and legal representatives of both NASA and the manufacturers involved.  Contrary to Baker's naive assurances, his request would add tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs to the test.  Baker simply has no accurate idea whatsoever what is involved in aerospace test involving human subjects.

In addition to the cost of the test itself, which I'm sure would be hundreds of thousands of dollars of NASA's budget.

[Peter B]

Neil Baker

I'd be grateful if you could answer the following questions:

1. Is personal validation the only way you verify facts? If not, who do you trust to give you reliable information about subjects you're personally unfamiliar with and how do you verify their reliability? What's to stop you from using this process with people testing PLSSs?

2. If NASA faked Apollo because the spacesuit sublimators didn't or couldn'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 hoax? If so, why would they go along with something which provided a propaganda victory to the USA at the height of the Cold War?

[Peter B]

...

The notion that Baker or his delegates can just show up on the morning of the test with a suitcase full of test equipment, and be allowed to participate, is so ludicrously naive as to merit only laughter.  There has to be engineering integration exercises for that type of observation, as well as approvals from the engineering, management, test, and legal representatives of both NASA and the manufacturers involved.  Contrary to Baker's naive assurances, his request would add tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs to the test.  Baker simply has no accurate idea whatsoever what is involved in aerospace test involving human subjects.

In addition to the cost of the test itself, which I'm sure would be hundreds of thousands of dollars of NASA's budget.

I assume Mr Baker was planning on piggy-backing on a test which NASA was going to conduct anyway, thus his naive assumption of no additional costs...

[bknight]

I assume Mr Baker was planning on piggy-backing on a test which NASA was going to conduct anyway, thus his naive assumption of no additional costs...

Naivety is a gross exaggeration, IMHO.

[twik]

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.

I think this reflects a certain way of thinking that does lead to a susceptibility to conspiracy theorizing when it comes to science. It's a lack of faith in repeatability, that things will behave in the same way, even if you change the parameters slightly.

To NASA, it would be obvious that the sublimators will cool the suit, even if the suited astronaut is not put in the chamber with them for testing. Their function would be repeatable whether the rest of the suit is there or not. But to some people, the jump from one situation to another is too much. Yes, apples fall down today. They did yesterday, too. But you can't extrapolate from that to tomorrow, because tomorrow things might be slightly different. It's raining, say, or you're one day later in the year. That, they believe, could make everything different.

It's an unsettling way to view the world, that we can't trust it to keep doing what it's always done, and that may well lead to searches for conspiracies to explain a world which to them is essentially uncontrolled and unpredictable.

[Zakalwe]

The thing is, Baker already has an image of Schweickart testing the suit AND a direct quotation from the man himself. So he is basically calling him a flat out liar.