Author Topic: Questions concerning Apollo  (Read 11666 times)

Offline sts60

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 383
Re: Questions concerning Apollo
« Reply #30 on: May 11, 2012, 03:00:24 PM »
profmunkin, if I come across as being critical in my post 1782 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.

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2715
    • Clavius
Re: Questions concerning Apollo
« Reply #31 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.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1348
Re: Questions concerning Apollo
« Reply #32 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.
"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 Jason Thompson

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1348
Re: Questions concerning Apollo
« Reply #33 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!
"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 raven

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1378
Re: Questions concerning Apollo
« Reply #34 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.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2012, 05:28:31 PM by raven »

Offline tikkitakki

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 28
Re: Questions concerning Apollo
« Reply #35 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.

Offline raven

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1378
Re: Questions concerning Apollo
« Reply #36 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.

Offline ChrLz

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
Re: Questions concerning Apollo
« Reply #37 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.


Offline sts60

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 383
Re: Questions concerning Apollo
« Reply #38 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, 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?

Offline Glom

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 978
Re: Questions concerning Apollo
« Reply #39 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.