Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.

[JayUtah]

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

That wasn't directed at you, as is obvious from the attributions.  Pay attention.

[Luke Pemberton]

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.

No, I didn't know that for the LLRV, but I've certainly heard the astronauts talk about how the training prepared them for the missions and how it had to be as close as to the forthcoming events, in particular the geology training they received.

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

Amazing to see Charlie Brown close up. I've taken some pictures of the heat shield (what's left of it anyway). For those that are UK based, the Science Museum has a Cosmonaut Exhibition opening in a couple of weeks.

If some can PM me the code to display the images at the correct width, I'll save them as JPEG and load them to the Reality of Apollo section. Thanks in advance.

[Apollo 957]

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....

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.

Going back to those earlier questions, and rephrasing slightly differently - do you regard sublimator failure as a life-threatening situation?

Have you read the post above about the use of the oxygen purge?

[Abaddon]

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

You clearly do not.

You're not very coherent with the second part of your question

That's precious, coming from you.

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.

So what?

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

What exactly is it about the sublimators which requires a human guinea pig? Any heat source would do for testing purposes. A sublimator does not care whence the heat originates.

prior to the highest risk activity of performing in orbit at 17,000 mph, 249 miles high.

What difference, in your opinion does the velocity and altitude make? How would those numbers influence the operation of a sublimator in any way? What is the sublimator were at 25,000 mph and 250,000 miles high? Would that make the sublimator operate in any different manner?

Or is it that you simply want to shovel in "scary" numbers into your pointless argument?

The way they allegedly sequentially constructed ISS would make it difficult to place the entire ISS into a vacuum chamber.

No *** Sherlock.

But yes, the individual components should be vacuum tested prior to assembly. I would assume they are.

Why? Why would you not check rather than assume?

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.

That's procedural training. It has little to do with space suit integrity.

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.

Once again, no **** Sherlock.

An astronaut wearing a spacesuit can't be in the pool and vacuum chamber simultaneously.

Once again, I grant you a third no **** Sherlock.

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

Which they do.

at vacuum to perform EVA without being overwhelmed by fear of equipment failure.

"at vacuum" does not add some special ingredient and a sublimator failure would not be critical. How many times must this be explained to you before it sinks in?

[Apollo 957]

I didn't go to London. What are you talking about?

He was talking to someone else. Look at the quotes. There's no HTML to be mastered, just basic reading skills.

[Abaddon]

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.

So is 911, JFK, JFK junior etc. but that did not stop you lobbing in those red herring off topic balls of crap. Not even a moderator warning stopped you.

Look to your own house.

[Luke Pemberton]

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

Good, we've got somewhere at last. Pegasus was used to calculate stresses in steel as a result of aeroplane accidents due to mechanical stress failures (Sus_pilot reminded me of Pegasus with his comment about mechanical stress).

It had further application in the design of building, bridges, ships, helicopters. The point being there are many ways to mitigate risks without putting the human into the loop at each step of the design process.

But eventually, that plane is going to have to be flown by a test pilot to its specified parameters, probably beyond.

Yes, of course it is, but that does not mean that every subsystem of the plane needs to be tested by a human during the design. In any case, testing jet planes if a fairly risky business anyway. Not sure how many of the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo astronauts were in that game, but Neil Armstrong was a test pilot. It's one of the reasons he made the pilot corp.

[Luke Pemberton]

What exactly is it about the sublimators which requires a human guinea pig? Any heat source would do for testing purposes. A sublimator does not care whence the heat originates.

Neil, care to answer this question. Why not use a heated mannequin that produced the same heat output as a human. We can find the metabolic loads for humans quite easily, they are well documented?

{I asked a similar question a long time ago, and received no answer}

[Neil Baker]

Really? That's YOUR country's 'major problem'? (Note - it's not THIS country, it's just A country, as far as the rest of us are concerned....)

Not the drought in California? The lack of free healthcare for your citizens? The rampant gun crime? etc etc

Yes, in my opinion, the only political issue in the United States is an Independent 9-11 Investigation. Everything else is a trifle.
But why are you asking me off-topic questions?

[mako88sb]

No, I didn't know that for the LLRV, but I've certainly heard the astronauts talk about how the training prepared them for the missions and how it had to be as close as to the forthcoming events, in particular the geology training they received.

I remember a video series about the Russian moon landing program and Alexei Leonov mentions that they only used helicopter auto-rotation for their moon landing training. He also mentions in one of the episodes about how their specialists verified the Apollo 11 successful landing.

Amazing to see Charlie Brown close up. I've taken some pictures of the heat shield (what's left of it anyway). For those that are UK based, the Science Museum has a Cosmonaut Exhibition opening in a couple of weeks.

Yeah, I always think about how cool it would be if someday in the future, Snoopy could be found and brought back to Earth. I don't know if it would ever be technically possible or feasible but that would be something.

As for you Neil, how about explaining why, if the landings were faked, NASA would go to all the trouble of faking the Apollo 12 recovery of Surveyor 3 components when any future visit to the Surveyor 3 site would bust the hoax wide open?

[Luke Pemberton]

But why are you asking me off-topic questions?

I'm not the mod, but I would say in fairness you have been asked to stay on topic by others. The same rules apply to all of us. I'm guilty of straying off topic a few times.

ETA: This is IMHO of course.

[Neil Baker]

What exactly is it about the sublimators which requires a human guinea pig? Any heat source would do for testing purposes. A sublimator does not care whence the heat originates.

whence? Are you from UK? Whence and whilst, like fingernails on a chalkboard.
Yes, except for the last step which mainly tests the astronauts reaction to the high stress of possible suit or sublimator failure.

Neil, care to answer this question. Why not use a heated mannequin that produced the same heat output as a human. We can find the metabolic loads for humans quite easily, they are well documented?

The mannequin doesn't have the capacity for fear.

{I asked a similar question a long time ago, and received no answer}

Oh dear.

[JayUtah]

Yes, except for the last step which mainly tests the astronauts reaction to the high stress of possible suit or sublimator failure.

"Suit or sublimator" failure conflates two concepts with radically different criticalities.  Just because space in general is dangerous doesn't mean your obsession over sublimators is justified.

The mannequin doesn't have the capacity for fear.

Again you're conflating training with testing.  What does the sublimator care if its head load has the capacity to feel fear?

[Neil Baker]

As for you Neil, how about explaining why, if the landings were faked, NASA would go to all the trouble of faking the Apollo 12 recovery of Surveyor 3 components when any future visit to the Surveyor 3 site would bust the hoax wide open?

They might have known there was no such site. If the moon landings were a hoax, then the Surveyor 3 was probably a hoax too. They knew nobody would visit it in the future because they knew it didn't exist. Any future unmanned rover will probably head straight for the alleged Apollo 11 site where the hoax would probably bust open. Surveyor 3 would be a footnote.

[Apollo 957]

... except for the last step which mainly tests the astronauts reaction to the high stress of possible suit or sublimator failure.

The mannequin doesn't have the capacity for fear.

Wow. The purpose of the testing is to scare the sh*t out of the astronaut? Really?