ApolloHoax.net

Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: profmunkin on May 07, 2012, 08:31:22 PM

Title: Questions concerning Apollo
Post by: profmunkin on May 07, 2012, 08:31:22 PM
When Apollo 11 landed on the moon, was The Eagle piloted by Armstrong or remote controlled from Mission Control or by Computer Guidance system on board?
And or at what times during the landing was each system utilized?
Title: Re: Questions concerning Apollo
Post by: Laurel on May 07, 2012, 08:51:30 PM
Armstrong took manual control of the LM during the landing because the guidance system was leading them into a boulder field and he needed to find a safer landing site.

What hoax theory are you asking this in relation to?
Title: Re: Questions concerning Apollo
Post by: profmunkin on May 07, 2012, 09:53:05 PM

What hoax theory are you asking this in relation to?

I was wondering how the eagel was controlled.
If they could have remote controlled the the eagle most or all the way to the moons surface, why did they not do it on an earlier apollo mission as a test run to make sure it was possible?

Was the Eagle controlled from Mission control or computer before Armstrong took over?
When the landing sequence was started, how was it controlled till Armstrong.
Title: Re: Questions concerning Apollo
Post by: sts60 on May 07, 2012, 10:08:29 PM
The LM was not and never could be flown from the ground.
Title: Re: Questions concerning Apollo
Post by: Grashtel on May 07, 2012, 10:17:02 PM
I was wondering how the eagel was controlled.
If they could have remote controlled the the eagle most or all the way to the moons surface, why did they not do it on an earlier apollo mission as a test run to make sure it was possible?
Earlier missions had performed unmanned and manned testing of the LM so they knew that it would work.  Probes had landed on the Moon before Apollo using the same technique as the LM so they knew that would work.  All that was left to test was the actual landing of the LM on the Moon which as Apollo 11 demonstrated needed a pilot to be a proper test due to needing to make sure that the landing site was suitable.  An unmanned version of Apollo 111 would have failed due to not being able to see that the landing site was unsuitable and choose another as Neil Armstrong did.
Title: Re: Questions concerning Apollo
Post by: Count Zero on May 07, 2012, 10:46:12 PM
The onboard Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC) autopilot controlled the powered descent until ~2 1/2 minutes before landing.  At that point, Armstrong saw that the area the autopilot was bringing him down into was too rough, so he switched from automatic guidance to "attitude hold", which enabled him to manually control the attitude and thus the speed & direction of travel.  12 seconds later he flipped the "rate of descent" switch (R.O.D.), which enabled him to control how fast the LM descended.  He levelled-out, allowing the LM to fly down-range past the debris field.  Then he pitched back to kill his horizontal velocity (much the same way that a helicopter flares before landing) and used the ROD function to bring it down to a soft landing.

Here (http://www.doneyles.com/LM/Tales.html) is an excellent detailed description of how the AGC and Armstrong worked together to make a safe landing, written by Don Eyles, the guy who programmed the AGC (note that there's a link to contact Eyles by e-mail).  You can follow his narrative while watching this film (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/a11.landing.mov) of the landing.

Left to its in automatic, the AGC would have tried to bring the LM to zero horizontal velocity & zero rate-of-descent at zero altitude.  However it had no way of knowing what the terrain was like, and would have crashed had it been allowed to come down in or near West Crater.  The astronaut-pilot was essential to safely landing an Apollo Lunar Module.
Title: Re: Questions concerning Apollo
Post by: JayUtah on May 08, 2012, 12:36:56 AM
I was wondering how the eagel was controlled.

Manually, with computer assistance.

Quote
If they could have remote controlled the the eagle most or all the way to the moons surface, why did they not do it on an earlier apollo mission as a test run to make sure it was possible?

First, because the point was to land a man on the Moon.  And second, it's a much harder task to land by remote control.  It's not a faithful test of whether a manned spacecraft could land on the Moon, which was the goal of the program.  Manned flight test occurs all the time.  When you go up, you're committed to a safe landing or a Bad Day, whether you're 200 feet above the Earth's surface or 240,000 miles above it.  In other words, Apollo 11 was the test flight.  There's absolutely no point to a remote-control "test" flight.

Quote
Was the Eagle controlled from Mission control or computer before Armstrong took over?

Mission Control never flew it.  Armstrong flew it with computer assistance.  There are three principal computer programs that control the LM during the descent, and all require pilot input (if at least to confirm transferring from one program to another).

P63 operates the LM from PDI (powered-descent initiation) to "high gate," a pilot's term for the end of the initial approach.  Little pilot input is needed here; the ship is mostly just bleeding off forward velocity in a controlled manner.

P64 operates the LM from "high gate" to "low gate."  It flies a predetermined profile designed to leave the LM about 200-300 feet above the selected landing site with a vertical descent rate of 10-15 fps.  The pilot places the landing site by means of the rotational hand controller, using marks on the LM window as a sort of gunsight.  "Pitch forward" means move the landing point long (i.e., downrange); "pitch back" means to move it short (i.e., uprange).  Lateral movements move the landing site left or right.

P65 was supposed to be an automatic terminal descent program, but was never fully implemented, tested, or used.  Because of the coupling and the non-orthogonal control axes, the program never worked right.  Elements of it were eventually incorporated into P66 (see below).

P66 is "manual" control, meaning the pilot has attitude control with the attitude hand controller, and control over the descent rate.  The computer converts the commanded descent rate into a throttle setting.  In later versions of P66, zeroing the lateral velocities was an automatic feature.

The ground had limited control over the LM computer remotely by means of the ability to send virtual keystrokes via telemetry.  However, the hand controllers are not addressable telemetrically, and the PRO key (the keypress required to confirm transition from program to program in the descent guidance sequence) is explicitly not available remotely.  The onboard crew must be present to press that button and confirm any program changes that the ground could conceivably order.
Title: Re: Questions concerning Apollo
Post by: ka9q on May 08, 2012, 12:48:39 AM
When Apollo 11 landed on the moon, was The Eagle piloted by Armstrong or remote controlled from Mission Control or by Computer Guidance system on board?
And or at what times during the landing was each system utilized?
Piloted by Armstrong, with Aldrin as his flight engineer. That's why they were there. They were also there to deploy the scientific experiments and take pictures around the landing site, but that was secondary on Apollo 11. Surface EVAs became far more elaborate and important on the later landings.

How could the LM be remote-landed from Mission Control? The only TV camera on board was packed away in the side of the descent stage, and you know how crappy its pictures were. How would Mission Control have seen where they were going?

That was the whole point of having a crew on board. They had eyes to see where they were going, so they could find a good landing spot in the limited time available. And they could do it without the 3 second round trip delay to earth that will always be there no matter how good our technology gets.

One of the major tasks of today's LRO with 50cm (or better) resolution is to map prospective landing sites well enough that safe landing spots can be pre-identified. If you know where the safe spots are and you can accurately navigate to them, then certainly with today's technology you can reliably land without local eyeballs and skilled judgment. And even when you do have a crew, you improve their safety by eliminating as many unknowns as possible.

But there was no LRO with 50cm resolution in those days. There was Lunar Orbiter, whose primary job was to image the prospective Apollo sites at the highest resolution possible, but even it could not spot every boulder and crater large enough to cause a problem for a LM. Each landing was a trip into unknown (at high resolution) territory. The planners picked areas that, from the medium resolution LO images, looked flat and clean, but they were often surprised (as on Apollo 11).

Navigating a lunar landing is a big issue. The moon doesn't have GPS, and its detailed gravity field is only now being worked out. The incomplete lunar gravity model (especially for the farside) inherently limited the accuracy of the LM's onboard guidance system no matter how good the hardware and software were. These errors in the gravity model are the favored explanation for Apollo 11 landing so far downrange.

These errors were tolerable in orbital flight, and Mission Control did have a limited ability to remotely command simple LM maneuvers (e.g., the final deorbit of the ascent stage into impact after jettison, and the entire Apollo 5 mission). But landing is an entirely different problem.  Because of the inherent accuracy of the unaided guidance system was nowhere near good enough, the Apollo LM carried a landing radar to tell how far away the surface really was and how fast they were really moving over it. They simply couldn't have landed without it, though Alan Shepard probably would have given it a really good try. And the LM simply wasn't designed to land without a crew, though there were proposals to create cargo versions that could.



Title: Re: Questions concerning Apollo
Post by: raven on May 08, 2012, 12:51:56 AM
It wouldn't surprise me if Soviet LK control would have been a bit different, seen how they favoured much more the spam in a can approach to cosmonaut flight.
Can any confirm or deny this?
Title: Re: Questions concerning Apollo
Post by: Glom on May 08, 2012, 03:30:11 AM
In case it gets brought up. Apollo 5 didn't involve any sophisticated control and navigation. It was just a firing of the engines. It was over before dinner.
Title: Re: Questions concerning Apollo
Post by: sts60 on May 08, 2012, 10:32:10 AM
The LM was not and never could be flown from the ground.
So much for hasty replies typed on a PDA.

The LM could not be landed from the ground. 
Title: Re: Questions concerning Apollo
Post by: ka9q on May 08, 2012, 02:21:41 PM
In case it gets brought up. Apollo 5 didn't involve any sophisticated control and navigation. It was just a firing of the engines. It was over before dinner.
Correct. That's why I distinguished between orbital flight of an LM (Apollo 5 was earth orbital) and a lunar landing, which is far more difficult and can only be done with a human crew at the controls.

Apollo 5 had planned to exercise the Apollo Guidance Computer much more than it did. But an incorrect parameter given the programmers resulted in a shutdown of a planned burn, so the burns were done manually. I guess it was mostly important to check out the various hardware systems (especially propulsion) in vacuum and 0g, as that's hard to do on the ground. On the other hand, the computer operates just as well in both places.

Title: Re: Questions concerning Apollo
Post by: profmunkin on May 08, 2012, 10:15:31 PM
How could the LM be remote-landed from Mission Control?

Navigating a lunar landing is a big issue. The moon doesn't have GPS, and its detailed gravity field is only now being worked out.

I was guessing that it could not be controlled from earth because of the time delay for signals.

I found the gravity anomalies (if that is the right word ) to be fascinating, is the cause understood?
Title: Re: Questions concerning Apollo
Post by: Echnaton on May 08, 2012, 10:57:16 PM
Mass concentration within the moon that was not understood and incorporated into the computer model. 

Gravitation of the Moon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation_of_the_Moon)
Title: Re: Questions concerning Apollo
Post by: Chew on May 08, 2012, 10:58:06 PM
Yes it's mass concentration or mascon, for short.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_concentration_(astronomy))
Title: Re: Questions concerning Apollo
Post by: ka9q on May 09, 2012, 12:47:49 AM
I was guessing that it could not be controlled from earth because of the time delay for signals.
It all depends on what you're doing, because the delay is just a minor nuisance for some things and an insurmountable obstacle to others.

Today we have some pretty sophisticated spacecraft computers. They are absolutely indispensable for spacecraft in the outer solar system conducting time-critical flybys (e.g., the Voyager missions to the gas and ice giants). Well in advance of each encounter you upload software to the onboard computer to tell it what observations to make and when. The software also handles as many faults as it can. Some are simple; if the primary star tracker fails, just switch to the backup. But it's impossible to anticipate every possible failure, so for many the computer typically puts the spacecraft into "safe mode", a stable configuration that avoids further damage, establishes a minimal communications link to earth, and waits for further instructions. This obviously takes time, but it gives the humans back in Mission Control an opportunity to analyze the problem and devise a solution.

There's a good analogy to the vertebrate central nervous system. The brain is like Mission Control; it can make the most complex decisions but it's slow. You don't want to take the time to ask your brain what to do when you touch a hot stove; you'll have a badly burned hand before you get an answer. That's why we've evolved a spinal cord reflex that causes you to jerk your hand away from a hot stove without even thinking about it. The onboard computer on a spacecraft implements its "reflexes".

The big problem comes when you need to handle situations more complex than the onboard computer can handle, but you don't have time to consult with Earth. In this case you really have no choice but to fly a trained crew. The Apollo LM didn't have sensors and onboard computers powerful enough to spot and avoid obstacles and land entirely automatically, and the time lag for remote control from earth would have been unacceptably long. It simply couldn't land without a crew at the controls.

There are also interesting ideas to land robots on Mars controlled by astronauts who stay in Martian orbit, thus keeping the delays low without having to figure out how to return those astronauts all the way from the surface.
Quote
I found the gravity anomalies (if that is the right word ) to be fascinating, is the cause understood?
Sure. No planet or moon has a totally uniform internal mass distribution that can be modeled as a single mass at the center. None are perfectly spherical either.

The moon's gravity field is much lumpier than the earth's mainly because it's so much smaller. It's tidally locked with earth, so we never see the lunar far side. From earth we can track a satellite in lunar orbit whenever it's on the near side, and we can accurately infer the lunar gravity field from that tracking data. But you can't track a lunar spacecraft behind the moon, and that has kept our gravity models for the lunar farside much less accurate than those for the near side. And you need the gravity of both sides to accurately predict the motion of a satellite orbiting the moon.

This problem has attracted quite a bit of attention in recent years. The Japanese Kaguya spacecraft had a subsatellite in a separate lunar orbit to relay tracking signals between earth and the mother ship when the latter is behind the moon, and that substantially improved our lunar farside gravity models. But the real improvements are coming now from the two US GRAIL spacecraft where each can track the other with extremely high precision, store the data onboard and dump it to earth when they're above the lunar nearside.


Title: Re: Questions concerning Apollo
Post by: profmunkin on May 11, 2012, 10:46:34 AM
Preface; While discussing the details of the Apollo landings I have come to the opinion that there is compelling evidence in favor of the moon landings not being real, yet there seems to be no significant, definitive "smoking gun" evidence disproving the possibility that these events occurred as promoted by NASA. Although I still remain skeptical and continue to question these events.

If anyone would care to address a few issues it may be helpful to gain additional knowledge.

1) Was the EVA space suits temperature controlled via the circulation of water through plastic tubes sewn within the layers of the suits fabric?

2) How many feet of tubing was there?

3) What was the diameters of the various tubes?

4) Is there a schematic available for this temperature control system?

Up front; These question are directed at the possibility that this system was plausible but not practical to use based on of the lengths of and various sizes of the tubes required that would be necessary to circulate the coolant effectively. The size of a pump required and pressure required to circulate the water and the amount of energy necessary to operate the pump. Also potential problems of leaks from a myriad of tubes and connections that must maintain integrity while functioning within a dynamic field of movement. Et cetera
Title: Re: Questions concerning Apollo
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 11, 2012, 10:56:09 AM
I have come to the opinion that there is compelling evidence in favor of the moon landings not being real

Then perhaps you could present that 'compelling evidence'.

Quote
Up front; These question are directed at the possibility that this system was plausible but not practical to use based on of the lengths of and various sizes of the tubes required that would be necessary to circulate the coolant effectively. The size of a pump required and pressure required to circulate the water and the amount of energy necessary to operate the pump. Also potential problems of leaks from a myriad of tubes and connections that must maintain integrity while functioning within a dynamic field of movement.

Short-circuiting your entire discussion I would like to point out that that system of cooling a) was around before Apollo and was adopted for the purpose, and b) has been and is currently used on spacesuits other than those for Apollo, and works fine.

Quote
Excreta

I hope you meant et cetera there....
Title: Re: Questions concerning Apollo
Post by: profmunkin on May 11, 2012, 11:45:59 AM
Then perhaps you could present that 'compelling evidence'.
et cetera - Looked funny but missed it, thanks

No reason to list "compelling evidence", since this "compelling evidence" is only in my opinion.
I would consider posting a list if only to satisfy your curiosity, if I could post listing without further comment or getting side tracked into discussions having to defend items listed.

Can you provide answers to my questions concerning this temperature control system?
Title: Re: Questions concerning Apollo
Post by: Bob B. on May 11, 2012, 11:57:45 AM
1) Was the EVA space suits temperature controlled via the circulation of water through plastic tubes sewn within the layers of the suits fabric?

Just to clarify, the spacesuits consisted of three separate garments.  The liquid cooling garment (LCG) was the inner most and was completely separate from the pressure garment assembly and the outer thermal micrometeoroid garment.  The LCG resembled a set of long johns with the flexible tubes incorporated into it.
Title: Re: Questions concerning Apollo
Post by: JayUtah on May 11, 2012, 12:05:45 PM
Profmunkin, you're doing an abysmal job of distancing yourself from the run-of-the-mill closeted conspiracy theorist who says he's asking questions only satisfy his curiosity, but really looking for others to spoon-feed him ammunition for his conspiracy theory.

When you tell us you have compelling evidence but no smoking gun, then you backpedal and say the evidence is compelling only to you, this fairly screams "I believe Apollo was hoaxed, but I have no proof and I'm just stabbing blindly in the dark looking for a post-justification for my pre-existing belief."  You really have no clue how space engineering works, yet you seem to feel that it all must vaguely be some sort of hoax.  The clincher is that you seem to enjoy the "paranoia" of your critics when they call you on your passive-aggressive nonsense.  If you have evidence and you think it's compelling, post it.  Otherwise don't talk about your "compelling" evidence as if it mattered.

So you think LCGs wouldn't have worked for Apollo?  Then you must believe every single pressure or thermal-control suit manufactured since 1965 by every country and corporation in the world is a hoax.  Yes, what you're proposing is that naive.  ILC (the company that produced the Apollo space suit) didn't invent the LCG, they just borrowed what was already industry practice for other self-contained garments that provided limited heat rejection.

Yes, there are answers to your questions, and yes they can be found by poring over arcane technical documentation, most of which would probably be on my shelf.  But if you have a vague notion that the Apollo pumps couldn't force water through the tubing effectively enough, then do your own homework and come back when your handwaving suspicions have actual numbers and computations behind them that prove a hoax.  I have absolutely no inclination to do your homework for you, or to help lazy conspiracy theorists formulate their theories.  If you want to play engineer, go for it.  I'll be watching and waiting to grade your on your answer.
Title: Re: Questions concerning Apollo
Post by: Bob B. on May 11, 2012, 12:08:17 PM
I don't have time to do any research for you at the moment, but the following might answer some of your questions:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/46943919/Apollo-Experience-Report-Development-of-the-Extravehicular-Mobility-Unit
Title: Re: Questions concerning Apollo
Post by: profmunkin on May 11, 2012, 12:09:33 PM
Your are right.
I withdraw my inquiry.
Title: Re: Questions concerning Apollo
Post by: profmunkin on May 11, 2012, 12:12:02 PM
I don't have time to do any research for you at the moment, but the following might answer some of your questions:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/46943919/Apollo-Experience-Report-Development-of-the-Extravehicular-Mobility-Unit
thank you
you are always very helpful
Title: Re: Questions concerning Apollo
Post by: JayUtah on May 11, 2012, 12:20:39 PM
No reason to list "compelling evidence", since this "compelling evidence" is only in my opinion.

"Compelling" suggests that it transcends subjective appeal and would be objectively convincing.  However I grant that you may just think it's convincing.  However this is the second time you've mentioned it, so clearly you consider it important for us to know that you have a laundry list of suspicions that support your overall opinion.  It's unfair for you to ask us to hold out hope that rational debate with you is possible if you're unwilling to reveal the reasons for the conclusions that you propose to debate.  Post the list, so that we can decide for ourselves whether they are "compelling" or whether you're just arguing from an emotional basis.

Quote
I would consider posting a list if only to satisfy your curiosity, if I could post listing without further comment or getting side tracked into discussions having to defend items listed.

We're asking you to post and defend the list.  If you're unwilling to do that, then stop referring to them and stop asking us to take you seriously on the points you do choose to reveal.  For all we know, you'll reject everything we say because your hidden evidence contradicts it.

Quote
Can you provide answers to my questions concerning this temperature control system?

Can, but won't.  You seem to have already formed your suspicion that the water circulation system would not have performed as advertised, but it's evident that you don't know the details and are trying to bait this group into doing your research for you.  The research is the hard part of formulating a conspiracy theory, so I suggest that you should do that for yourself.  The NASA Technical Reports server is a good place to start.

You're clearly a conspiracy theorist, so act the part.  We're not deluded or paranoid for noting that you take the same passive-aggressive approach that characterizes about half the debates that occur on this topic.
Title: Re: Questions concerning Apollo
Post by: profmunkin on May 11, 2012, 12:46:39 PM
Profmunkin, you're doing an abysmal job of distancing yourself from the run-of-the-mill closeted conspiracy theorist who says he's asking questions only satisfy his curiosity, but really looking for others to spoon-feed him ammunition for his conspiracy theory.

When you tell us you have compelling evidence but no smoking gun, then you backpedal and say the evidence is compelling only to you, this fairly screams "I believe Apollo was hoaxed,.
If you are going to quote me, quote my first post  " I have come to the opinion that there is compelling evidence"
I told you from this introduction that it is my opinion that there is compelling evidence...

Plus "Although I still remain skeptical and continue to question these events."

I am not attempting to distance myself from anyone or any group, your assumption that I was, is just that.

Because of past hysteria displayed on this forum (Dan Goldin comments) I wanted to be up front as much as possible concerning this inquiry, I anticipated that you guys knew a lot about all aspects of the Apollo mission and could fill in areas that I may never be able to recognize as significant.  Was I looking for ammunition for a smoking gun, of course! But you guys have done such a great job in the past of defusing potential arguments that my questions concerning EVA suit may have been put to rest.
Title: Re: Questions concerning Apollo
Post by: gillianren on May 11, 2012, 01:27:11 PM
Excreta

I hope you meant et cetera there....

A, this is the problem with trying to sound smarter than you really are.  B, the former is a better description of the level of evidence we're likely to have presented to us.
Title: Re: Questions concerning Apollo
Post by: sts60 on May 11, 2012, 02:09:27 PM
Preface; While discussing the details of the Apollo landings I have come to the opinion that there is compelling evidence in favor of the moon landings not being real, yet there seems to be no significant, definitive "smoking gun" evidence disproving the possibility that these events occurred as promoted by NASA. Although I still remain skeptical and continue to question these events.
I think a separate thread listing your "compelling evidence" items would be interesting reading.  I have never seen anything in my twenty years in aerospace, nor in any part of my education in physics and engineering, that would constitute so much as a water pistol, let alone a smoking gun.
If anyone would care to address a few issues it may be helpful to gain additional knowledge...
What use do you think this knowledge will be?  Are you qualified to evaluate it?  And how far do you wish to develop your understanding of this particular subsystem?  Are you only interested in a few numbers, or do you intend to actually read the patents, design documents, engineering documents (development and test), and experience reports?
...Up front; These question are directed at the possibility that this system was plausible but not practical to use based on of the lengths of and various sizes of the tubes required that would be necessary to circulate the coolant effectively. The size of a pump required and pressure required to circulate the water and the amount of energy necessary to operate the pump. Also potential problems of leaks from a myriad of tubes and connections that must maintain integrity while functioning within a dynamic field of movement.
Such systems were first developed by the British for use in military aircraft, and have not only been used on Apollo - and Skylab - and the Shuttle, and the ISS - but also by race-car drivers, and in other demanding environments.  Clearly, you want to find Apollo was phony.  So was the Shuttle phony?  What about the Space Station?
1) Was the EVA space suits temperature controlled via the circulation of water through plastic tubes sewn within the layers of the suits fabric?
Why are you asking when you have already indicated that you are suspicious of his particular system?
2) How many feet of tubing was there?

3) What was the diameters of the various tubes?

4) Is there a schematic available for this temperature control system?
So you don't know any of the particulars of the system, but you are suspicious of it? 

2, 3 - I don't know offhand, and a quick search did not turn it up.  It might actually take going to a library or buying a journal article or book.  What does the length and diameter of the tubing tell you, and why?
4 - See Figs. 2-36 and 2-39 of the Apollo Operations Handbook, Extravehicular Mobility Unit, Vol. 1: System Description. (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19730064704).

A nice summary chronlogy of the Apollo EMU development is here (http://www.astronautix.com/craft/a7l.htm). 

You may also want to take a look at Apollo Experience Report - Extravehicular Mobility Unit (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19760003073).  Or some of the ILC progress reports.  Or follow-on reports and studies.

Excreta
I will consider any unsupported opinion that "it wouldn't have worked" to be exactly that.
Title: Re: Questions concerning Apollo
Post by: JayUtah on May 11, 2012, 02:12:51 PM
I told you from this introduction that it is my opinion that there is compelling evidence...

But your continued reluctance to share it means we have to trust your judgment on what is "compelling" or not.  If you're not going to let us form our own opinions regarding this evidence, which you keep saying you have and on which you admit basing your belief, then what's the point in debating you?

"Apollo was hoaxed," is an allegation of fact, not an opinion.  That essential nature is not changed by trying to play fast and loose with the label.  You either have evidence, or you don't.  If you're not willing to tell us what makes it "compelling" then no one is obliged to care about it, or to take your belief seriously.  "Put up or shut up" is what you typically hear.

Quote
Was I looking for ammunition for a smoking gun, of course!

That was obvious, so thanks for the honesty.

It's annoying when you try label us as ideologically entrenched or paranoid, when in fact our assessment of your approach is spot-on.  You are surreptitiously trying to enlist our help in formulating a conspiracy theory, which you will then turn around and use to argue that our beliefs are wrong -- so we're not paranoid.  You are presenting propositions before knowing all the facts, which you tacitly admit we probably already know -- so there's no reason to think our conclusions come from ideological entrenchment instead of comprehensive knowledge.

Rhetoric is nothing new on debate forums, but you need to realize that it's not the way to sneak past a careful examination of what we can know objectively or conclude rationally based on fact.  Your approach comes across as, "I have a vague sneaking suspicion, but you guys are obligated to do all the legwork and homework necessary to allay it for me."  Vague suspicion never amounted to anything, never will.
Title: Re: Questions concerning Apollo
Post by: Daggerstab on May 11, 2012, 02:57:43 PM
In addition to the links posted above, here's a recent Russian video showing an Orlan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlan_space_suit) liquid cooling garment used in a test on Earth:
Title: Re: Questions concerning Apollo
Post by: sts60 on May 11, 2012, 03:00:24 PM
profmunkin, if I come across as being critical in my post 1782 (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=81.msg1782#msg1782) above, it's because I want you to think carefully about why you want the information.  Is it just a few numbers you're looking for, and you'd say, "Aha!  40 feet of 1/8" ID tubing with 12 connections!  No way that would work reliably!" 

Or are you going to do some sort of hydraulic calculation, and make some reasonable (and explicit) assumptions, then compare that to the performance specifications?  Or a Failure Modes and Effects Analysis?  If you come to a contrary opinion after a reasoned evaluation, will you look into the development documents and see how this might have been addressed already by the engineers?

See, the first way is just handwaving to support your predetermined opinion.  The second way is actually thinking about your impressions.  You understand that the first way has no value; the second, especially in light of the same essential design still being used today for Station EVAs, indicates that you are interested in learning the truth - even if it disproves the convictions you had coming in.
Title: Re: Questions concerning Apollo
Post by: JayUtah on May 11, 2012, 03:27:46 PM
In the wake of Sts60's post, I'll stress that there is a right way to approach suspicion.  Which is to say, it's not per se unreasonable for a layman to look at a network of fine tubes and believe that pushing a fluid through them might be problematic.  It's generally true that the smaller and finer a conduit, the greater the force needed to achieve fluid flow in it.  It's also generally true that the more convolutions, the greater the force.  So these are not unreasonable suspicions.  And those are the right questions to ask:  How much tubing?  How narrow?  What did the pump look like?  Taking the answers from those questions to a conclusion of feasibility is a daunting analytical task; in practice we just test, even though computations would yield a usable result.  So at the bottom line is the same ultimatum as Sts60 proposed:  will there be computation, or just handwaving "It wouldn't have worked!" in our future?

It's a legitimate challenge.  We have people tell us the computer only at 16,000 words of storage and offering the unsubstantiated judgment that this was too small.  We have people in this very forum telling us that 210 cubic feet is too small for a manned spacecraft's crew compartment.  It's just elaborate question-begging.  Getting the facts right isn't the same as getting the interpretation of those facts right.  I always chuckle when I pass heavy construction equipment.  Why?  Because I think of how conspiracy theorists tell us the flexible space suit would have ballooned up under the 3.5 PSI difference in pressure, then I see rubber hydraulic hoses carrying around 3,000 PSI (standard industrial hydraulic pressure) without ballooning up.  There really is no substitute for knowing the relevant facts and properties.

But forestalling all of that quantitative discussion is the qualitative nature of the LCG development.  ILC (or maybe it was Hamilton Standard, since this would have been their part of the EMU) got put in the hot seat to fix the astronaut heating problem.  It was a serious hot seat:  "Fix the problem in two weeks or you lose the contract."  Now to an engineer, that deadline means there's no time to engineer, build, and test something.  Fierce deadlines means you buy a ready-made solution from someone else who has already solved a similar problem.  And that's what they did.  The LCG concept was nabbed from the British, who had already developed and tested it for some other purpose.  They ordered one, put it on a guy, wrapped him up in plastic, and put him on a treadmill to see whether it would pull away his body heat.  It did, so they just incorporated that product into the design.

That origin outside NASA makes it hard to argue that the LCG is an example of "suspicious" NASA engineering.  It already existed.  And its ubiquitous use in space operations for the past few decades makes it harder to argue that it's bogus.
Title: Re: Questions concerning Apollo
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 11, 2012, 04:19:46 PM
I would consider posting a list if only to satisfy your curiosity, if I could post listing without further comment or getting side tracked into discussions having to defend items listed.

I think you've been here long enough to know that won't happen. If you post reasons for disbelieving something we know to be true, of course you will be called to defend or explain it.

Quote
Can you provide answers to my questions concerning this temperature control system?

Do I have the technical info you requested? No, although I could find it without too much difficulty I am sure. However, since the system clearly does work on applications other than the Apollo missions, I fail to see what good it would do you to have the technical information presented to you. I also, frankly, question if you have the relevant knowledge required to evaluate its functionality even if you are furnished with the information.
Title: Re: Questions concerning Apollo
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 11, 2012, 04:23:20 PM
The LCG concept was nabbed from the British, who had already developed and tested it for some other purpose.

Yup, we're good at technology, us Brits.

Quote
They ordered one, put it on a guy, wrapped him up in plastic, and put him on a treadmill to see whether it would pull away his body heat.  It did, so they just incorporated that product into the design.

I'd have to recommend that Prof gets hold of the series 'Moon Machines. The series tells the story of the design and development of the hardware from the point of view of the people who actually built it. You won't hear Neil Armstrong describing the landing, or Jim Lovell talking about Apollo 13. What you will see is the people who worked for the cnotractors describing how the technology was developed, and you will see rare film of that development and testing. One of the tests/demos for the spacesuit's mobility and thermal properties actually involved putting a man inside one and having him playing soccer!
Title: Re: Questions concerning Apollo
Post by: raven on May 11, 2012, 05:25:12 PM
Actually, I think it was football, American style, at least the video shown in the Moon Machines episode.
I love all the personal, quirky little details in that series.
For example, the urine collection system used a condom catheter, basically a tube attached to, well, a condom. The trouble for the astronauts was the condoms were labelled small, medium and large.
So, to assuage such insecurities, they were relabelled, if I remember correctly, large, huge, and humongous.
I second the notion of profmunkin watching the series, actually everybody who hasn't.
This isn't the story of the astronauts;  this is the story of the people who pushed them there, all their headaches and heartaches, laughter and tears.
Title: Re: Questions concerning Apollo
Post by: tikkitakki on May 11, 2012, 06:37:00 PM
So, to assuage such insecurities, they were relabelled, if I remember correctly, large, huge, and humongous.
Large, gigantic and humongous to be exact.
Title: Re: Questions concerning Apollo
Post by: raven on May 11, 2012, 06:52:16 PM
So, to assuage such insecurities, they were relabelled, if I remember correctly, large, huge, and humongous.
Large, gigantic and humongous to be exact.
That's it. I remembered the large and humongous, the interviewee said the latter in a distinctive way, but not the middle one.
Title: Re: Questions concerning Apollo
Post by: ChrLz on May 11, 2012, 09:03:08 PM
I have come to the opinion that there is compelling evidence in favor of the moon landings not being real, yet there seems to be no significant, definitive "smoking gun" evidence disproving the possibility that these events occurred as promoted by NASA.
And that masterful piece of ridiculous logic is why I generally ignore your posts.

If you ever find anything that isn't a misrepresentation or misunderstanding (normally caused by Apollo deniers lack of education and lack of ability to visualise non-earthly conditions), I may re-engage.  But if it is just this continual posting of trivial silliness, and the almost complete lack of acknowledgement of your errors, and non-existent appreciation of all the information that is presented to you, count me out.

Title: Re: Questions concerning Apollo
Post by: sts60 on May 11, 2012, 09:14:39 PM
I don't know the exact specifications for the A7L's liquid cooling garment, but U.S. Patent 3,289,748, Jennings Heat Transfer Garment (http://www.google.com/patents/US3289748), provides detailed values for one "ideal" version. 

profmunkin, the question remains: what will you do with the numbers?

And if race-car drivers as well as Shuttle and ISS astronauts can use basically the same thing, do you also suspect that they are fakes as well as Apollo?
Title: Re: Questions concerning Apollo
Post by: Glom on May 12, 2012, 12:09:22 AM
Questioning the size of tubulars to carry sufficient flow is something I deal with regularly. The wells in my field have ridiculously small 2 7/8" tubing. When I go to our senior experts on one or another issue with modelling well performance, they often express disbelief that such a well could flow 10,000 bbl per day.  But it turns out you can.

It goes to show that even expert's intuition can betray them sometimes. If profmunkin just wants to eyeball some specifications, I'm not going accept that as definitive.