Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.

[gillianren]

Since he should be competent to understand the physics, how can he choose to mentally "look away" when he writes his nonsense? How and why can he be so dishonest to himself? And why does he see dishonesty as the way to gain "the truth" on 9/11?

I'm not qualified to get into that.  I'm not a mental health professional, just someone who has done a fair amount of independent research.  It's possible there's an underlying condition; it's possible it's just an extreme version of the same sort of cognitive dissonance most people have about at least something in their lives.  I do not, however, believe it's a position you can logic yourself into unless something is broken with your sense of logic.

Don't forget the strangely frequent trait of being unable to use the "quote" function.

What is up with that? Can they just not accept repeating someone else's words without being able to twist them or take them out of context?

I got nothing, but it's hard not to say, "You're not competent to do this one simple task, but you think you know enough to overturn the work of hundreds if not thousands of qualified people?"

Hey, Neil--what would a video of a sublimator test show that would be different from not having a sublimator in there at all?

[Cat Not Included]

[SNIP]
I read your responses here to there being nothing that could reasonably convince any responsible engineer that a spacesuit or sublimator had ever been in a vacuum chamber since 1966 and I’m creeped out even more.

Just to state the obvious, no one has said that. What people have said, just to be totally clear, is that:

A) If you are not convinced that sublimators work, have been tested and have been used in a vacuum by the VAST amount of evidence already available and presented for you, it seems very unlikely that any evidence could possibly convince you.

B) IF there really were some vast multi-national super-powered conspiracy capable of the most complex deceptions in history - which would be required for all of the world's space programs to be fake - then it would be so simple for them to fake the vacuum chamber test that you describe that it wouldn't be worth actually bothering with, because obviously they would just fake it and you would never know the difference.

[JayUtah]

I think I understand why most engineers lack integrity or courage.
...
It can be observed in this thread with most resorting to the desperate measures of name calling...

Such as calling everyone else in your profession cowards for disagreeing with you?  No, you are not the hero.  You are not God's gift to the profession.  You do not stand on superlatively high moral ground.

Your position on the subject of this thread is entirely political.  It has nothing to do with science or professional practice.  It is simply you on a crusade to embarrass the federal government so that you can feel good about the various conspiracy theories you espouse.

I read your responses here to there being nothing that could reasonably convince any responsible engineer...

First, you habitually misstate your critics' positions.  Second, you don't get to foist your imaginary and ever-changing criteria onto the profession and pretend it obligates them to address you personally.  Responsible engineers from all over the world accept the industry-standard test regime of the porous plate sublimators as probative.  You are not the one special engineer who correctly knows differently.

You don’t KNOW anything that I don’t KNOW and I don’t KNOW anything.

Nonsense.  You wallow in self-imposed, solipsist ignorance and deny everyone else's demonstrated expertise.  Sure, you want to play the solipsism game.  The problem is that your proposed solution isn't any more probative in the solipsist sense than what has already been done and deemed suitable by the profession.  You're just playing word games design to increase your self-esteem at the expense of others.

A faith-based space program is unacceptable.

Nothing about it is faith-based.  You simply deny the mountain of evidence laid at your feet and pretend that if you don't acknowledge it, others won't see it either.  Your critics and the rest of the profession can see you doing this, so they just laugh at you when you call them cowards.

Repent for your engineering sins; demand NASA be accountable and stop it with the ridiculous morality deception.

I'm demanding accountability first from you.  You are unwilling to provide it.  You simply demand we take your judgment as gospel.  That's a faith-based argument.

[Mag40]

_____ then it would be so simple for them to fake the vacuum chamber test that you describe that it wouldn't be worth actually bothering with, because obviously they would just fake it and you would never know the difference.

This is where one fast rewinds to the inevitable meeting where they refuse to do this in favour of releasing a video where it doesn't work. The evil double bluff ploy

[nomuse]

Neil understands the science full well, and the scientific method, and how to report scientifically. He is choosing not to in order to pursue what he sees as a righteous crusade.

Correct.  He has said his objection is not on physical science grounds.  He does not doubt the physics of phase-change cooling, or even the engineering of how to build one (which is rather non-trivial as it requires precise control over the sintering processes that create the porous plate).  The only thing he says he doubts is whether they were suitability tested and the tests suitably documented.  That moves the argument entirely out of science and technology, so he can safely sidestep the notion of whether it would work or not.  Of course he still slips in his various comments about all NASA manned space exploration being fake, and therefore obviating the need for working spacesuits.  But his focus is on something he can argue incessantly regardless of what's said to him, because it's policy and not science.  His evidence that NASA fakes manned space operations is not necessarily that the equipment doesn't work, but that NASA cannot document "proper" testing of equipment it says is required.

Still, that raises the question of what a "proper" test would uncover and why NASA is allegedly so fearful to conduct it.  It's not as if Baker's argument is particularly cogent or consistent.  But he's fastened on a little corner of the overall enterprise of space engineering and dug himself in to have a nice long discussion of the policy that applies to it.

Hrm. Does it? I admit to near-total ignorance on the subject, but it appears to me that an undertaking like the Apollo Project would have at least strong patterns of testing and procedure that could be referenced against. (I imagine they had a great deal more than that, in fact, reams of standards by which various equipment and operations would be tested).

Only if you consider the sublimator in isolation does it become a matter of opinion whether the testing was proper. Taken in context, it seems to me you would want to ask if it stands out as an element of Apollo equipment that was tested rather less than (or at least markedly different than) the standard for other gear.

[Abaddon]

OoooK then. It would seem that our current protagonist has chosen the well trodden path of seagulling one post per day, not addressing the issues at hand, repeating the same baloney in that single post and ignoring all replies. In fact, his last entry consisted of an unevidenced rant about how he was hard done by via his former employers as if that had the slightest relevance to Apollo in any way, unfounded and scurrilous insults against the engineering community. Finally, in an effort to seem relevant to Apollo, he chucked in a one-liner about Apollo at the very end of his rant.

Frankly, I couldn't give a rats posterior about whatever dispute he might have with his former employ. It's not relevant to Apollo, and is off topic. However, I do object to the direct accusations levelled against the engineering community as a body. Yes, I am an accredited engineer. Yes, I signed up to a code of ethics. Yes, I uphold that code. Yes, you, Neil, may feel free to contact my boss about that because guess what? if you do you will be talking to me.  No, Neil, I am not a US citizen, nor live in the US, nor ever have done so, nor have any US "gubbmint" agency as a customer, nor have any desire to do so since those same "gubbmint" agencies are a pain to deal with from overseas.

Your claims are abject nonsense. Every single one. Consider that a professional assessment.

[sts60]

Neil,

You never answered the questions or addressed the points I raised here and here.  Nor did you answer my question as to why you are going out of your way to remain ignorant on this subject.

It doesn't really matter, since your motivations are pretty plain, and you still haven't attempted to learn anything about the subject since then, and clearly aren't about to start.  But there are a couple of things worth pointing out.

I think I understand why most engineers lack integrity or courage...  And also, they might just be rotten people inside (I've met a few of those)...

It can be observed in this thread with most resorting to the desperate measures of name calling, insults and attempted defamation of character after retreating into a metaphysical black hole of self-delusion about “morality” of all things...

I am not interested in what you claim someone else said about morality.  I will, however, note that you chastise others for "name calling, insults, and attempted defamations of character" after saying they "lack integrity or courage", "might just be rotten people inside", and are "self-delu[ded]".   That is amusingly hypocritical.  But that's not your real problem here; most people are hypocritical now and then, even though you are making it a full-time hobby.

You are demonstrably ignorant of space operations, spaceflight hardware testing, and human space flight in general.  But that's not your real problem, either.  Lots of people don't know anything about spaceflight.

Your research skills are abysmally poor.  You posted lengthy descriptions about how you pestered people and companies (including "Hamilton Sunstrand [sic]"; you could at least try to get the name right), and searched and searched, and yet somehow you couldn't find reams of engineering documentation that other people were able to turn up in minutes.  But that's not your main problem, either.  Lots of people are lousy researchers.

Bizarrely, when people served up all this information you said didn't exist, you ignored it; then you denied it; then you sort-of admitted it by greasing up your goalposts and shooting them off into the sunset; and now you've gone back to denying it.  That is a problem; it shows you're not willing to admit you're wrong.  I don't understand how brittle your worldview must be, that because of your beliefs and opinions, you have to flat-out reject evidence that threatens even one single part of it.  I can't help you with that; I'm an engineer, not a psychologist.  But that's only your penultimate problem anyway.

One of the Professional Obligations listed in the Code of Ethics of the National Society of Professional Engineers is: ...

I'm glad you see fit to quote from this Code.  And because I'm an engineer, and you keep proclaiming your superiority to the other engineers you claim to be lackeys and sellouts and whatnot, I will tell you what your real problem is in engineering terms.  From the NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers:

II.3. Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.
b.    Engineers may express publicly technical opinions that are founded upon knowledge of the facts and competence in the subject matter

Your real problem here, right here in this thread and captured for whoever cares to read it, is that you represent yourself as an engineer on a topic in which you are not competent. 

Are you a registered professional engineer?  Because if so, you are in direct violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics.  Will you self-report, or do we need to do it for you?

A corollary problem is that you keep trying to extrapolate your personal incompetence to others:

I read your responses here to there being nothing that could reasonably convince any responsible engineer that a spacesuit or sublimator had ever been in a vacuum chamber since 1966 and I’m creeped out even more. Stop trying to win so much and focus on the truth. You don’t KNOW anything that I don’t KNOW and I don’t KNOW anything. A faith-based space program is unacceptable. Repent for your engineering sins; demand NASA be accountable...

I will grant you that you don't know anything about spaceflight.  The rest is just silly posturing.  I have direct personal experience with the people and systems and organizations you try to impugn, and you have no idea what you are talking about.  I have worked with a fair number of the astronauts who have used the suits you say are impossible, and engineers who designed hardware some of them used to repair the Hubble telescope.  I've worked with Apollo engineers and Apollo-era astronauts.  I work with the people who keep healthy the large space station you comically assert is a giant balloon.   I work with engineers every day whose job is to get it right, and to say when things are wrong. 

You can plug your ears and shut your eyes and keep repeating "absurd!" and "faith!" all you want, but outside your head your heroic engineering fantasy reads as just another layman ranting about something he not only doesn't understand, but refuses to understand - yet, you presume to lecture others about accountability.  That's not even irksome; it's merely pathetic. 

[JayUtah]

Frankly, I couldn't give a rats posterior about whatever dispute he might have with his former employ. It's not relevant to Apollo, and is off topic.

Well, yes and no.  That is:  yes to the first, and let's think about the second.  It's been put to Baker several times that he is the lone engineer among a brigade of them who doubts the sublimator test regime.  Whether it's directly relevant, he has to answer that somehow.  And his answer is the same as every crackpot gives -- he is an unsung hero who has been repeatedly undermined by unscrupulous employers and colleagues.  He alone knows the right way to do things, and those who disagree are disingenuous and conniving.  Which to say, that's what the world looks like from within the crackpot's perspective.

However, I do object to the direct accusations levelled against the engineering community as a body.

Of course.  That's just pure paranoid nonsense.  As I said, Baker's only goal in these parts is to fluff his ego at the expense of, well, everyone else in the profession and probably everyone else around him.

Your claims are abject nonsense. Every single one. Consider that a professional assessment.

Agreed.  Albeit he's made almost no technical argument.  His argument is one of pure policy:  he disagrees with how testing is performed and documented, believes himself to be the only authority on the subject (or more accurately, that the "right" way is somehow self-evident), and won't be satisfied until everyone proves personally to him that they are not dastardly enemies of truth.

[Peter B]

[SNIP]

I read your responses here to there being nothing that could reasonably convince any responsible engineer that a spacesuit or sublimator had ever been in a vacuum chamber since 1966 and I’m creeped out even more. Stop trying to win so much and focus on the truth. You don’t KNOW anything that I don’t KNOW and I don’t KNOW anything. A faith-based space program is unacceptable. Repent for your engineering sins; demand NASA be accountable and stop it with the ridiculous morality deception.

Neil Baker

Could you please answer these 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?

3. Could you please explain what sort of unmanned spacecraft would be capable of collecting rocks up to 10+ kilograms (including rocks chipped off larger rocks), fragile clods of regolith breccia and 2+ metre long core samples and returning them to Earth, given the total mass of material returned from the Moon is around 380 kilograms? Could you please provide evidence for the development, construction, launch and operation of this/these spacecraft? Could you please explain the existence of photos which show these samples in situ which also show astronauts: as the photos must have been taken on the Moon, then the astronauts must have been there too, working sublimators or not.

Thank you.

[Dalhousie]

Only Luna 24 and the unsuccessful Luna 23 had the flexible core, in order to get a longer sample than the earlier Lunas.

Do you have a source for that?  The Luna 16 core was 35 cm long and had to fit in a 25 cm return capsule.  Photos of the core suggest also a flexible core tube.  Luna 20 returned 25 cm of core. Luna 23 and 24 had the ability to drill much deeper than the earlier Lunas, 2 m as opposed to 38 cm.

The return capsule diameter was 50 cm.  The cutaway drawing of the Luna 16/20 return capsule shows the soil container is straight.  Here's a good article with lots of references:
http://shvachko.net/teller/?p=1362

Thanks!  It certainly looks straight, although conceivably you are looking in the plane of a coil.

I don't think that link gives a diameter for the capsule though.  Several sources do state 25 cm.  It's been about a decade I saw the lunar 24 capsule, but I do recall it being smaller than 50 cm.  But it was a while ago!

But I have scaled some drawings of the lander and get 45 cm diameter for the capsule, suggesting 50 cm is indeed correct (or close to it).

[bknight]

One of the Professional Obligations listed in the Code of Ethics of the National Society of Professional Engineers is: ...

I'm glad you see fit to quote from this Code.  And because I'm an engineer, and you keep proclaiming your superiority to the other engineers you claim to be lackeys and sellouts and whatnot, I will tell you what your real problem is in engineering terms.  From the NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers:

II.3. Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.
b.    Engineers may express publicly technical opinions that are founded upon knowledge of the facts and competence in the subject matter

Your real problem here, right here in this thread and captured for whoever cares to read it, is that you represent yourself as an engineer on a topic in which you are not competent. 

Are you a registered professional engineer?  Because if so, you are in direct violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics.  Will you self-report, or do we need to do it for you?

A corollary problem is that you keep trying to extrapolate your personal incompetence to others:

I seriously doubt he will turn himself in, his disillusion prevents him from believing there is any wrong doing. 
His work record is full of short term assignments and I suspect his work/personal work ethics and behavior were the main reasons all those assignments were short.  Again however, he sees himself as a shiny knight to save the damsel(projects).

[Neil Baker]

I was over looking at the site rules and it indeed says that I'm supposed to answer every question posed to me in a timely manner. Wow! No wonder you have so few protagonists. Seems kinda unfair to me. So many antagonists and so many questions but I'll give it a go starting with the most recent and working back. I don't have a lot of time to devote to this but hopefully I'll get it whittled down some.

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?

Oh please. This question is ridiculous. No, personal validation is not the only way I verify facts. Like everyone else I have to get along in an imperfect world. I rely on the FDA to oversee drug companies. I rely on competitors to challenge competitors if something is amiss. I think Consumer Reports and Underwriters Laboratories are great. I think the concept of Insurance is an ingenious invention that helps ensure truth in advertising. NASA is a government agency. It is funded by Citizen taxpayers and non Citizen taxpayers. As an agency of a government operating at the consent of the PEOPLE it owes Citizens accountability especially in those areas where doubt is intelligently expressed. It has no oversight except the Citizens. As a Citizen I expect that other nations might have provided oversight but after the fiasco of the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and the doubtful foreign lunar orbiters that preceded it all absurdly failing to carry cameras with sufficient resolution to verify Apollo remnants, I realize that no oversight from unreliable, possibly intimidated, almost definitely corrupt foreign regimes full of even more pusillanimous thought-slaves than found in the USA will be forthcoming.

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?

I don't know of any reason the spacesuit sublimators wouldn't work. I've never made the claim that they wouldn't. It would be pure speculation on my part as to why NASA would fake Apollo. I've tried to wrap my mind around the reason why foreign nations, except brave Iran, collude with American deception. Again, it would require pure speculation on my part to answer why the Soviets would go along with the hoax. I often wonder if there's a power on Earth greater than nations. President Woodrow Wilson once alluded to it.

3. Could you please explain what sort of unmanned spacecraft would be capable of collecting rocks up to 10+ kilograms (including rocks chipped off larger rocks), fragile clods of regolith breccia and 2+ metre long core samples and returning them to Earth, given the total mass of material returned from the Moon is around 380 kilograms? Could you please provide evidence for the development, construction, launch and operation of this/these spacecraft? Could you please explain the existence of photos which show these samples in situ which also show astronauts: as the photos must have been taken on the Moon, then the astronauts must have been there too, working sublimators or not.

I don't know and you already know I don't have any way to acquire that information. I do know that when a moon rock was put on display in my town back when I was a kid in the early seventies, it seemed like practically the whole town came out to look at it. I remember then wondering why NASA had to send us such a small rock about one-half inch x one inch x a quarter-inch. Do they have the rocks or not and why didn't they wow us with some big ones? It's not like we didn't pay for them. Sure, sure, the geologists were studying them. But how about now? Let's see them now. The geologists must be done by now. And how would I or any other nongeologist specializing in moon rocks know the difference? Why would I trust NASA when they refuse to be accountable with any independent oversight? Why do you trust them? They are part of a government that has repeatedly lied to its Citizens and it's part of a government that probably recently murdered 3000 of its Citizens.

[Neil Baker]

Are you a registered professional engineer?

No, I am not a registered professional engineer and I have not worked in any capacity as an engineer since January 2006. I was interviewed by Yale University in late 2006 and was anticipating an offer when I discovered that I had been blacklisted, defamed and sabotaged by a very powerful former employer for having blown the whistle regarding illegal activity and challenging its technicians, engineers and scientists to exhibit a spine regarding the criminal destruction of World Trade Center forensic crime scene evidence. I regrettably but legally ranted on the Internet instead of pursuing legal representation.

[Neil Baker]

"You're not competent to do this one simple task, but you think you know enough to overturn the work of hundreds if not thousands of qualified people?"

Well, excuse me. It's just that I'm not in the habit of using HTML. I think I'm getting the hang of it. Please be patient. Also, please don't exaggerate the numbers. Compartmentalization of information would vastly reduce the number of people that have anything to do with high vacuum testing.

Hey, Neil--what would a video of a sublimator test show that would be different from not having a sublimator in there at all?

Hopefully, it would have shown the elusive sublimator. Usually there's a vacuum chamber sight glass that would allow it's viewing. According to the test procedure from the seventies, the astronaut is in the suit attached to the sublimator in a vacuum chamber via an umbilical. That would be interesting video. Also, it would be interesting if the sublimator could be positioned in the vacuum chamber in a way that allowed viewing of the pores and any ice surface extruding from them. Vacuum gauge readings would be important to show. A quick video scan of the equipment would be good, what type roughing pumps and what type high vacuum pumps.

[gillianren]

Right.  So short answer, "I only accept the opinions of others if they confirm with what I already want to believe," right?