Author Topic: Questions concerning Apollo  (Read 13661 times)

Offline ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3010
Re: Questions concerning Apollo
« Reply #15 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.


« Last Edit: May 09, 2012, 12:52:11 AM by ka9q »

Offline profmunkin

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 454
Re: Questions concerning Apollo
« Reply #16 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
« Last Edit: May 11, 2012, 12:01:34 PM by profmunkin »

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1548
Re: Questions concerning Apollo
« Reply #17 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....
« Last Edit: May 11, 2012, 11:00:27 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 profmunkin

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 454
Re: Questions concerning Apollo
« Reply #18 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?
« Last Edit: May 11, 2012, 12:07:56 PM by profmunkin »

Offline Bob B.

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 819
  • Bob the Excel Guruâ„¢
    • Rocket & Space Technology
Re: Questions concerning Apollo
« Reply #19 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.

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3325
    • Clavius
Re: Questions concerning Apollo
« Reply #20 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.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline Bob B.

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 819
  • Bob the Excel Guruâ„¢
    • Rocket & Space Technology
Re: Questions concerning Apollo
« Reply #21 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

Offline profmunkin

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 454
Re: Questions concerning Apollo
« Reply #22 on: May 11, 2012, 12:09:33 PM »
Your are right.
I withdraw my inquiry.

Offline profmunkin

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 454
Re: Questions concerning Apollo
« Reply #23 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

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3325
    • Clavius
Re: Questions concerning Apollo
« Reply #24 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.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline profmunkin

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 454
Re: Questions concerning Apollo
« Reply #25 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.

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1960
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: Questions concerning Apollo
« Reply #26 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.
"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 sts60

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 398
Re: Questions concerning Apollo
« Reply #27 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..

A nice summary chronlogy of the Apollo EMU development is here

You may also want to take a look at Apollo Experience Report - Extravehicular Mobility Unit.  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.

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3325
    • Clavius
Re: Questions concerning Apollo
« Reply #28 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.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline Daggerstab

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 122
    • Badly Honed Bytes (my blog)
Re: Questions concerning Apollo
« Reply #29 on: May 11, 2012, 02:57:43 PM »
In addition to the links posted above, here's a recent Russian video showing an Orlan liquid cooling garment used in a test on Earth: