Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.

[Sus_pilot]

Neil, my IFR flight students have to know how to handle an airplane if they fly into a thunderstorm inadvertently, particularly in knowing how not to over stress the airframe.  Are you suggesting that I should fly them into a storm to prove the techniques work?

[smartcooky]

At what point is the death to be treated with contempt?   One death, 10,000 or 12,000,000? The all have the similar if not quantitate results.

Contempt is deserved for any claim that exploits (or denies) human suffering with a clear disregard for the facts and for cynical political or ideological purposes. In this way, claiming the Holocaust was fake is essentially the same as claiming 9/11 was an inside job, which is essentially the same as claiming the Apollo 1 fire was intentional murder (see, there's an Apollo connection).

And even more outrageous are claims that the surviving victims and witnesses were in on it, e.g. the Boston Bombing.

[Jason Thompson]

The gathered information indicates that astronauts never enter vacuum on Earth prior to entering the vacuum of orbit.

Now you are deliberately misrepresenting your own and others' arguments. There is plenty of evidence that astronauts entered vacuum chambers on Earth prior to going into space as part of their training. What there is not evidence of is testing of the PLSS sublimator with a fully suited astronaut in a vacuum chamber, and lengthy and numerous explanations for why this is not at all anomalous have been provided.

I claim it's ridiculous while the majority here contend that it would be immoral for an astronaut to do on Earth what they're scheduled to do in orbit.

The majority here contend no such thing. Consider this a direct question which the rules require you to answer:

Do you understand that there is a difference between testing equipment and training people, and that testing equipment in a way that puts people at risk when better and safer alternative methods exist is indeed of questionable morality?

Do you contend that astronaut training should include putting the entire spacecraft into a vacuum chamber and having the crew operate it under vacuum conditions to make sure it won't fail in space? If not, why not?

[Neil Baker]

Neil, my IFR flight students have to know how to handle an airplane if they fly into a thunderstorm inadvertently, particularly in knowing how not to over stress the airframe.  Are you suggesting that I should fly them into a storm to prove the techniques work?

Excellent example. No, I'm not suggesting you fly them into a thunderstorm. I am suggesting that you place them under the hood for many hours as pilot in command during cross country flights, the closest condition you can get to the risk without actually taking the risk of flying into a thunderstorm. Now if the pilot's military mission was to fly through a thunderstorm to reach their target and they didn't perform the necessary requisite hood training before the mission because it was construed as being immoral because it was potentially dangerous, then I would say that was ridiculous.

By the way, do you believe the story about JFK jr. stalling his plane? I had the meager hood training for a private pilots license and I'm confident I could have kept that plane on the straight and level using instruments in those conditions. I believe he was working on his Instrument rating and already had many hours of hood time.

[bknight]

...

By the way, do you believe the story about JFK jr. stalling his plane? I had the meager hood training for a private pilots license and I'm confident I could have kept that plane on the straight and level using instruments in those conditions. I believe he was working on his Instrument rating and already had many hours of hood time.

Off topic, please confine your comments to pours plate sublimators or related comments

[Allan F]

By the way, do you believe the story about JFK jr. stalling his plane? I had the meager hood training for a private pilots license and I'm confident I could have kept that plane on the straight and level using instruments in those conditions. I believe he was working on his Instrument rating and already had many hours of hood time.

JFK jr. did not have an instrument rating, when he flew in conditions he was not adequately trained for. With no visible horizon, it is easy to become spatially disorientated, and "feel" the aircraft doing something it is not doing. Even trained, experienced commercial pilots can fall into that trap, and accidentially kill themselves and their passengers. That is one of the reasons why commercial aircraft have two pilots at the controls - if one loses the plot, the other can take over and fly the aircraft.

Which by the way have zero relevance to the Apollo project which we are discussing here.

[JayUtah]

...they didn't perform the necessary requisite hood training before the mission because it was construed as being immoral...

You're still conflating testing with training.  Sus_pilot mentioned the danger of airframe overstress.  Would you conduct mechanical stress tests of an airframe with a pilot and passengers on board?  Or would you use crash-test dummies or other simulacra?

[Luke Pemberton]

Do you understand that there is a difference between testing equipment and training people, and that testing equipment in a way that puts people at risk when better and safer alternative methods exist?

Neil, taking Jason's point, what is more important for the military (a) training with live ammunition every time they train (b) using blank ammunition so they train tactics and procedures?

There were many ways to train the astronauts and their vehicles without placing them in a vacuum chamber each time, just as there are many ways to train the military without risking their lives. While live ammunition is used by the military, blank ammunition and training simulators are often preferred as they are cost effective and do not risk people's live. There are many military deaths each year from training exercises, but then the numbers involved in the training run into the thousands. The over all percentage of deaths is quite small. In fact, Apollo had a higher percentage death rate if you consider the Apollo 1 fire. That occurred during a plugs out test. Neil Armstrong came close to death while using the LM trainer. Your claims don't hold water against the reality of Apollo.

There is a thread here that lists all the problems that occurred during Gemini, Mercury and Apollo, and the idea that the US space program went without a glitch -all to support your doubts - is bogus.

[Luke Pemberton]

You're still conflating testing with training.  Sus_pilot mentioned the danger of airframe overstress.  Would you conduct mechanical stress tests of an airframe with a pilot and passengers on board?  Or would you use crash-test dummies or other simulacra?

... which brings me to a nice coincidence. Neil, find out what the Pegasus computer was used for. It is on display at the London Science Museum. Your idea that humans-in-the-loop are required for all testing is absurd. I'll give you a hint, Pegasus is related to Sus_pilot's airframe comment and the stress related with steel frames.

As others have explained, training and testing are different.

[Neil Baker]

Do you understand that there is a difference between testing equipment and training people, and that testing equipment in a way that puts people at risk when better and safer alternative methods exist?

Yes, I understand the difference between testing equipment and training people.

You're not very coherent with the second part of your question but I think you were asking "Is testing equipment in a way that puts people at risk better when safer alternatives exist?  Yes, testing, if possible, should be performed in a way that doesn't risk people but some things like airplane testing require a gradual increase in the level of risk until full blown performance testing is reached. The risk is mitigated. The same thing would happen with spacesuits with sublimators. Various components would be tested individually and then in an integrated configuration to mitigate the risk when a human occupied the spacesuit during training under high vacuum on Earth prior to the highest risk activity of performing in orbit at 17,000 mph, 249 miles high.

Do you contend that astronaut training should include putting the entire spacecraft into a vacuum chamber and having the crew operate it under vacuum conditions to make sure it won't fail in space? If not, why not?

The way they allegedly sequentially constructed ISS would make it difficult to place the entire ISS into a vacuum chamber. But yes, the individual components should be vacuum tested prior to assembly. I would assume they are. I think operational training performed in swimming pools is the closest that they can reasonably achieve on Earth as I think its more a factor of simulated weightlessness at that stage. I suppose it would be possible at astronomical cost to build a huge vacuum chamber the size of the ISS but there would be no way to simulate weightlessness. An astronaut wearing a spacesuit can't be in the pool and vacuum chamber simultaneously. I expect that the astronauts in tested spacesuits in vacuum chambers would mainly do range of motion tests, practice emergency procedures, practice ingress and egress procedures and gain the indispensable confidence in their equipment at vacuum to perform EVA without being overwhelmed by fear of equipment failure.

[mako88sb]

Neil Armstrong came close to death while using the LM trainer.

I'm not sure if it was Armstrong's incident or someone else's but NASA wanted to cancel the use of the LM trainer due to safety concerns. However, the astronauts insisted it be kept since they all felt it was the best method for learning that last stage of final descent to actual landing. I'm sure your aware of this but maybe Neil isn't.

How did your trip to London go? I hope someday I get a chance to view some Apollo hardware.

[Neil Baker]

...they didn't perform the necessary requisite hood training before the mission because it was construed as being immoral...

You're still conflating testing with training.  Sus_pilot mentioned the danger of airframe overstress.  Would you conduct mechanical stress tests of an airframe with a pilot and passengers on board?  Or would you use crash-test dummies or other simulacra?

I don't' see anything about airframe overstress in her question. What are you talking about?
But no, I would not conduct mechanical stress tests of an airframe with a pilot and passengers on board. I don't think it would be important to the test to have dummies on board. But eventually, that plane is going to have to be flown by a test pilot to its specified parameters, probably beyond.

I do think it important that astronauts wearing  tested spacesuits with sublimators enter high vacuum on Earth prior to orbit for the last step of testing and training.

[Neil Baker]

Neil Armstrong came close to death while using the LM trainer.

I'm not sure if it was Armstrong's incident or someone else's but NASA wanted to cancel the use of the LM trainer due to safety concerns. However, the astronauts insisted it be kept since they all felt it was the best method for learning that last stage of final descent to actual landing. I'm sure your aware of this but maybe Neil isn't.

How did your trip to London go? I hope someday I get a chance to view some Apollo hardware.

I didn't go to London. What are you talking about? Besides, it's off topic.

[JayUtah]

I don't' see anything about airframe overstress in her question. What are you talking about?

The part where he talks about overstressing the airframe.

Neil, my IFR flight students have to know how to handle an airplane if they fly into a thunderstorm inadvertently, particularly in knowing how not to over stress the airframe.  Are you suggesting that I should fly them into a storm to prove the techniques work?

Pay attention to the argument.

But no, I would not conduct mechanical stress tests of an airframe with a pilot and passengers on board.

For the same reason it is not necessary to test sublimators with an astronaut in a space suit in a vacuum chamber.

I do think it important that astronauts wearing  tested spacesuits with sublimators enter high vacuum on Earth prior to orbit for the last step of testing and training.

Not for any valid reason you can articulate.  You just want there to need to be such a test so you can insinuate something about its absence.

[twik]

Neil, have you found where all the films of the testing of all the components of the X-1 are? After all, this was a significant mission, and surely every piece of equipment used in it must have been not only tested (with humans if possible) but filmed, and the films preserved. They must be on the internet somewhere, if they exist. Could you tell us where this film can be found?