Author Topic: The Absence of Airlocks  (Read 11535 times)

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1925
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: The Absence of Airlocks
« Reply #165 on: September 12, 2019, 01:37:47 PM »
I have yet to see any subject about which he hasn't demonstrated ignorance.
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline NthBrick

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 27
Re: The Absence of Airlocks
« Reply #166 on: September 12, 2019, 04:37:46 PM »
Here's a question for the ages, jr Knowing. If someone like you could 'figure out' an airlock would be needed, why didn't the folks at Grumman? Even if it was a hoax, these folks would still be doing their darndest to design and build a functional Lunar Module, right?

Leaving aside all science... this is something i would like for jr to adress...
I'll just slap an agreement on here, too. Engineers aren't idiots -- if you're attempting to hoax something, but need to put up a front of legitimacy, the last thing you want to do is have engineers build something that they know won't work. Otherwise, you're needlessly increasing the number of people who have to know about the conspiracy.

Conversely why would one design and build something that would work and not use it.  This was one of the arguments that our recent poster Derek K Willis proposed.
It sort of gets down to the root of the issue -- what exactly was stopping the Apollo missions from being possible? Radiation? No, James Van Allen debunked that himself. Technology? The Saturn V was clearly able to launch and the engineers involved haven't voiced any doubts about it's capabilities -- heck, it was designed specifically to go to the moon, it isn't as if it was hacked together from a bunch of junk laying around and the engineers were praying it could get to the corner store and back.

Unless you're, I dunno, a flat earther, I can't see any actually impenetrable barriers to the whole system working as advertised. Just engineering challenges to work out.

Offline Allan F

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
Re: The Absence of Airlocks
« Reply #167 on: September 12, 2019, 06:53:42 PM »
The hoax believers NEED it to not work, because their worldview and their sense of self is centered around themselves having superior knowledge - themselves being special, worth something. Therefore they will dismiss evidence which shows them their worldview is wrong. They may actually be unable to see it.
Well, it is like this: The truth doesn't need insults. Insults are the refuge of a darkened mind, a mind that refuses to open and see. Foul language can't outcompete knowledge. And knowledge is the result of education. Education is the result of the wish to know more, not less.

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2918
Re: The Absence of Airlocks
« Reply #168 on: September 13, 2019, 12:38:30 PM »
The hoax believers NEED it to not work, because their worldview and their sense of self is centered around themselves having superior knowledge - themselves being special, worth something. Therefore they will dismiss evidence which shows them their worldview is wrong. They may actually be unable to see it.

Narcissistic behavior of always being "right".
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline NthBrick

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 27
Re: The Absence of Airlocks
« Reply #169 on: September 13, 2019, 04:49:37 PM »
The hoax believers NEED it to not work, because their worldview and their sense of self is centered around themselves having superior knowledge - themselves being special, worth something. Therefore they will dismiss evidence which shows them their worldview is wrong. They may actually be unable to see it.
I typically try and take a more gracious position with respect to your average hoax nut, i.e. they may be well-meaning but mistaken, but am slowly becoming convinced that it all boils down to a self-centered desire to be right when everyone else is "deceived". Just the way some that I've interacted with recently respond to pretty basic corrections, and questioning of their conclusions doesn't make me think they're horribly genuine.

Not that I've interacted one-on-one with either, but jr knowing and cambo's behavior is basically hoax nut 101 -- they all follow very similar strategies.

Offline Britmax

  • Mercury
  • *
  • Posts: 8
Re: The Absence of Airlocks
« Reply #170 on: January 02, 2020, 08:17:01 AM »
So they said, what about the airlock? Well, we'll need the chamber, and two hatches instead of one, and the weight will be off centred, and we'll need another pump which may or may not be more complicated than multitasking an existing pump. Then we'll have to put both astronauts through it, a process that will take about half an hour minimum. But they are both going outside, so they will have their suits on anyway. So why not just look at the suits as their airlock and evacuate the LM? They are both going out so there is no-one in the LM who needs to breathe.

And, what kind of planning is not having a handle on the outside?  I'll give you a hint. It's really embarrassing to lock yourself out of your RV at the beach. Now do it 250,000 miles from the nearest AA van....!?

Offline Peter B

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 895
Re: The Absence of Airlocks
« Reply #171 on: January 02, 2020, 08:29:08 AM »
So they said, what about the airlock? Well, we'll need the chamber, and two hatches instead of one, and the weight will be off centred, and we'll need another pump which may or may not be more complicated than multitasking an existing pump. Then we'll have to put both astronauts through it, a process that will take about half an hour minimum. But they are both going outside, so they will have their suits on anyway. So why not just look at the suits as their airlock and evacuate the LM? They are both going out so there is no-one in the LM who needs to breathe.

And, what kind of planning is not having a handle on the outside?  I'll give you a hint. It's really embarrassing to lock yourself out of your RV at the beach. Now do it 250,000 miles from the nearest AA van....!?

Hello Britmax, and welcome to the forum.

It's weight-saving planning. When grams (or ouncey things) matter, why install a device with a measurable weight to manage a potential problem which can be...er...handled procedurally (don't shut the hatch on the way out).

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1533
Re: The Absence of Airlocks
« Reply #172 on: January 02, 2020, 09:23:02 AM »

It's weight-saving planning. When grams (or ouncey things) matter, why install a device with a measurable weight to manage a potential problem which can be...er...handled procedurally (don't shut the hatch on the way out).

Acknowledging that I am no engineer, and am basing this entirely on lay observation, was there even a mechanical issue to be solved? Or even, was the mechanical issue actually solved by not having a handle on the outside?

We are used to a world where most doors latch automatically when they close, so you have only to pull or push them closed and *click*, you can't get the door open without operating a handle. Hence people shut themselves out of their houses or cars. The lunar module hatch 'handle', as far as I can see, has a locked and an unlocked position. In other words, it only locks or unlocks the hatch, it doesn't disengage a sprung latch that holds the hatch closed when you push it all the way home. If there is no sprung latch involved then it won't matter if the hatch is closed all the way, you'd still be able to open it just by pushing it open from the outside provided the handle is in the 'unlocked' position. Since it can't be moved to the locked position from the outside, there is no problem.

Without a handle on the outside it a) is not possible for the astronaut to close the hatch all the way (you can't pull it flush with the frame if you have to have your fingers hooked around the edge of the hatch to pull it closed from the outside), and b) avoids the issue of the hatch being closed and locked from the outside and then the handle jamming or breaking.

To me it seems that having no exterior handle on the hatch is actually the best option as it in fact renders it impossible for the astronauts to accidentally shut themselves out of the LM while on the lunar surface.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2020, 09:26:14 AM by Jason Thompson »
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline ApolloEnthusiast

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 36
Re: The Absence of Airlocks
« Reply #173 on: January 02, 2020, 11:59:00 AM »
It's weight-saving planning. When grams (or ouncey things) matter, why install a device with a measurable weight to manage a potential problem which can be...er...handled procedurally (don't shut the hatch on the way out).
Sure, but leaving the hatch open for the whole EVA means there are hours of vacuum seeping into the craft and getting all over the place.  The last thing you want after returning home from a long day of walking on the moon is discovering you've left the door open and everything is just covered in vacuum.  ::)


Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1925
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: The Absence of Airlocks
« Reply #174 on: January 02, 2020, 01:17:50 PM »
So run a vacuum cleaner?
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline Abaddon

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1116
Re: The Absence of Airlocks
« Reply #175 on: January 02, 2020, 02:26:59 PM »
So run a vacuum cleaner?
LOL, very good.

Offline Allan F

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
Re: The Absence of Airlocks
« Reply #176 on: January 02, 2020, 03:04:16 PM »
So they said, what about the airlock? Well, we'll need the chamber, and two hatches instead of one, and the weight will be off centred, and we'll need another pump which may or may not be more complicated than multitasking an existing pump. Then we'll have to put both astronauts through it, a process that will take about half an hour minimum. But they are both going outside, so they will have their suits on anyway. So why not just look at the suits as their airlock and evacuate the LM? They are both going out so there is no-one in the LM who needs to breathe.

And, what kind of planning is not having a handle on the outside?  I'll give you a hint. It's really embarrassing to lock yourself out of your RV at the beach. Now do it 250,000 miles from the nearest AA van....!?

There was no pump. They shut off the life support system, and opened a valve in the hatch, which bled the cabin air out to space in a matter of minutes.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2020, 03:08:43 PM by Allan F »
Well, it is like this: The truth doesn't need insults. Insults are the refuge of a darkened mind, a mind that refuses to open and see. Foul language can't outcompete knowledge. And knowledge is the result of education. Education is the result of the wish to know more, not less.

Offline LunarOrbit

  • Administrator
  • Jupiter
  • *****
  • Posts: 909
    • ApolloHoax.net
Re: The Absence of Airlocks
« Reply #177 on: January 02, 2020, 03:11:17 PM »
It suddenly struck me that that tiny pea, pretty and blue, was the Earth.
I put up my thumb and shut one eye, and my thumb blotted out the planet Earth.
I didn't feel like a giant. I felt very, very small.
- Neil Armstrong (1930-2012)

Offline Obviousman

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 502
Re: The Absence of Airlocks
« Reply #178 on: January 02, 2020, 03:11:56 PM »
I my be missing something here but the LM did have an exterior hatch operating mechanism.





Offline Britmax

  • Mercury
  • *
  • Posts: 8
Re: The Absence of Airlocks
« Reply #179 on: January 03, 2020, 08:14:23 AM »
So they said, what about the airlock? Well, we'll need the chamber, and two hatches instead of one, and the weight will be off centred, and we'll need another pump which may or may not be more complicated than multitasking an existing pump. Then we'll have to put both astronauts through it, a process that will take about half an hour minimum. But they are both going outside, so they will have their suits on anyway. So why not just look at the suits as their airlock and evacuate the LM? They are both going out so there is no-one in the LM who needs to breathe.

And, what kind of planning is not having a handle on the outside?  I'll give you a hint. It's really embarrassing to lock yourself out of your RV at the beach. Now do it 250,000 miles from the nearest AA van....!?

There was no pump. They shut off the life support system, and opened a valve in the hatch, which bled the cabin air out to space in a matter of minutes.


I know that. But if they had used an airlock they would have needed one, and added to the weight. Another reason they didn't use  one.