ApolloHoax.net

Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: Neil Baker on August 26, 2015, 10:46:02 AM

Title: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 26, 2015, 10:46:02 AM
My contention is that most of the NASA space program is probably a hoax. I say "probably" because I don't know. But neither does anyone else and I think that's unacceptable. A faith-based space program during this great age of the scientific method is unnecessary and absurd. It's way past time for NASA to be scientifically accountable.

After my painful 2003 epiphany regarding 9-11, I gained the courage to confront my mythological beliefs about the space program and other things. I was confronted with the difficult question, "How do we PROVE we went to the moon?"

Photos? Video? Could be fake. Narrative? Could be lies. Launches? Yes, but what happened after they went into orbit out of sight? Did they really go to the moon? Do they really go to the space station or is just a lighted orbiting umannned and possibly inflatable prop? Did they really repair a Hubble telescope? What about the flag waving? I don't know and there's nothing we can prove about it on Earth. What about the shadows? I don't know and there's nothing we can prove about them on Earth.What about the Lunar laser reflector? I don't know and who knows how it got there even if it's actually there.

But then I stumbled upon the spacesuit ice sublimators. Being in either the vacuum of orbit or the vacuum of the moon, heat transfer is a difficult engineering challenge. There's nothing cool to conduct heat to, there's no atmosphere so there's nothing to convect heat to and a radiator would be huge and ungainly so NASA describes the clever and exotic technique of using nickel porous plate ice sublimators to explain how heat was allegedly transferred from the spacesuits and the Lunar Modules(LM).

A primary closed loop of water circulates around the heat source, either a human body or the Lunar Module, through a nickel porous plate heat exchanger. The secondary side of the heat exchanger is open to the vacuum of space through many small pores. Water passes into the heat exchanger, receives the heat of the closed primary loop and then, because it's exposed to vacuum, phase changes from liquid to ice and sublimates into space transferring heat with it. Very neat and ingenious. Naturally, I wanted to learn more. What does a spacesuit sublimator look like? Specifications? Procedures? Video of one being tested? Photographs? Technical discussions in heat transfer or thermodynamics books? I searched. Strangely and absurdly, I found almost nothing. I received almost nothing.

I got stonewalled when I appealed for information. Absurdly, there were no photographs. Absurdly, there was no video of spacesuits with ice sublimators being tested. Most absurdly, there was no information in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics books. Absurdly, the alleged manufacturer, Hamilton Sunstrand of United Technologies would only release very elementary information. Absurdly, NASA's Johnson Space Center refused to provide video or photos and stonewalled me instead. Absurdly, the Rice University Department of Mechanical Engineering, most closely associated with Houston's Johnson Space Center refused to comment. Absurdly, my Congressional representatives in two states, California's and Washington's Feinstein, Boxer, Cantwell, Murray, Capps and Hastings, stonewalled me also when I requested their assistance acquiring accountability from NASA.

But voila! The good news was that I had stumbled upon the way to PROVE whether the NASA space program was a hoax. The lack of information and evasion regarding spacesuits with sublimators represents a huge anomaly upon which attention should be focused. NASA must publicly demonstrate, before independent witnesses, a spacesuit with ice sublimator cooling system in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit. NASA refuses to be accountable. It's unacceptable. We can PROVE today on Earth if the NASA space program is a hoax. For independent witnesses I recommend retired Army General Antonio Taguba, retired Navy Admiral William Fallon and me.

Please demand NASA accountability from your respective Congressional representatives.As President Ronald Reagan said in his Farewell Address, "We the PEOPLE tell the government what to do; it doesn't tell us."  Please tell them that you want to see a spacesuit with ice sublimator work in a high vacuum chamber on Earth.
Thank you.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Jason Thompson on August 26, 2015, 11:28:27 AM
But neither does anyone else and I think that's unacceptable. A faith-based space program during this great age of the scientific method is unnecessary and absurd. It's way past time for NASA to be scientifically accountable.

There is nothing 'faith-based' about understanding how Apollo was accomplished. I strongly suggest you disabuse yourself of the notion that anyone here believes Apollo is a matter of faith.

Quote
After my painful 2003 epiphany regarding 9-11

The usual 'I used to believe' stuff I see.

Quote
Photos? Video? Could be fake.

'Could be' is irrelevant. Prove that they were or assumption of authenticity stands as the default conclusion (and yes, that really is the default conclusion in any such investigation)

Quote
Narrative? Could be lies.

See above. You can't just brush off huge swathes of material and anecdotal evidence because it 'could be' fake or lies.

Quote
Launches? Yes, but what happened after they went into orbit out of sight? Did they really go to the moon? Do they really go to the space station or is just a lighted orbiting umannned and possibly inflatable prop? Did they really repair a Hubble telescope?

Any evidence for any of those propositions?

Quote
What about the flag waving? I don't know and there's nothing we can prove about it on Earth.

False.

Quote
What about the shadows? I don't know and there's nothing we can prove about them on Earth.

Not only false but repeatedly shown to be so.

Quote
What about the Lunar laser reflector? I don't know and who knows how it got there even if it's actually there.

Quite a few people know, and quite a few people would have to know, however it got there. Because you don't know doesn't make that a valid argument.

Quote
But then I stumbled upon the spacesuit ice sublimators....

Naturally, I wanted to learn more. What does a spacesuit sublimator look like? Specifications? Procedures? Video of one being tested? Photographs? Technical discussions in heat transfer or thermodynamics books? I searched. Strangely and absurdly, I found almost nothing. I received almost nothing.

How much effort did you put into your search?
 
Quote
Absurdly, there were no photographs.

Funny, I've seen sone.

Quote
Absurdly, there was no video of spacesuits with ice sublimators being tested.

False. There is film of spacesuit tests, and since the ice sublimator was a major part of the spacesuit then it was by definition being tested in those tests too. Your complaint is analagous to complaining there is no video of a test of an air conditioning system used on a commercial jet airliner. If it flies and people can live in it at altitude then the air systems work even if no specific pointer is made to the fact.

But just out of interest, exactly what do you expect to see in a video of an ice sublimator cooling system being tested?

Quote
Absurdly, my Congressional representatives in two states, California's and Washington's Feinstein, Boxer, Cantwell, Murray, Capps and Hastings, stonewalled me also when I requested their assistance acquiring accountability from NASA.

Maybe because they recognise the absurdity of asking for accountability from an organisation as publicly open as NASA already is.

Quote
But voila! The good news was that I had stumbled upon the way to PROVE whether the NASA space program was a hoax.

No, the Apollo program is not a house of cards ready to tumble at one single anomaly.

Quote
NASA must publicly demonstrate, before independent witnesses, a spacesuit with ice sublimator cooling system in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit.

Film and video of spacesuit tests in vacuum chambers is readily available, and since the cooling system must be functioning in order to prevent the astronaut from overheating inside a sealed rubber suit, your conditions have been met.

Quote
Please tell them that you want to see a spacesuit with ice sublimator work in a high vacuum chamber on Earth.

Already seen.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 26, 2015, 11:34:10 AM
My contention is that most of the NASA space program is probably a hoax. I say "probably" because I don't know. But neither does anyone else and I think that's unacceptable. A faith-based space program during this great age of the scientific method is unnecessary and absurd. It's way past time for NASA to be scientifically accountable.
And you would be flat out wrong. On all counts.

After my painful 2003 epiphany regarding 9-11, I gained the courage to confront my mythological beliefs about the space program and other things. I was confronted with the difficult question, "How do we PROVE we went to the moon?"
CTists almost always find that once they swallow one load of hogwash, the next load of hogwash is easier to swallow no matter it's size.


Photos? Video? Could be fake.
Thousands of photos and countless hours of video all faked in the largest vacuum chamber ever created which conveniently disappeared without trace. Sorry. Your claim, your burden of proof. How could they be faked?

Narrative? Could be lies.
Not much point in that since they actually went.

Launches? Yes, but what happened after they went into orbit out of sight? Did they really go to the moon?
They were independantly tracked all the way there and all the way back.

Do they really go to the space station or is just a lighted orbiting umannned and possibly inflatable prop?
So now the US is in cahoots with the Russians, all of Europe, the Indians, the chinese in fact pretty much everyone to haox the ISS. Are you the only one who is not "in on it"?

Did they really repair a Hubble telescope?
It was broken. Now it is fixed. Seems pretty clear that they did fix it, no?

What about the flag waving?
What about it? It "waves" when the astronauts interact with it and at no other time.

I don't know and there's nothing we can prove about it on Earth.
Wrong.

What about the shadows? I don't know and there's nothing we can prove about them on Earth.
Wrong. There is nothing unusual about the shadows. All of their effects can be demonstrated on Earth in sunlight.

What about the Lunar laser reflector? I don't know and who knows how it got there even if it's actually there.
Of course it's there. Anyone can point a laser at it and measure the response and they do. It is used to measure the precise rate of recession of the Moon. They were placed there by the Apollo astronauts.

But then I stumbled upon the spacesuit ice sublimators. Being in either the vacuum of orbit or the vacuum of the moon, heat transfer is a difficult engineering challenge. There's nothing cool to conduct heat to, there's no atmosphere so there's nothing to convect heat to and a radiator would be huge and ungainly so NASA describes the clever and exotic technique of using nickel porous plate ice sublimators to explain how heat was allegedly transferred from the spacesuits and the Lunar Modules(LM).

A primary closed loop of water circulates around the heat source, either a human body or the Lunar Module, through a nickel porous plate heat exchanger. The secondary side of the heat exchanger is open to the vacuum of space through many small pores. Water passes into the heat exchanger, receives the heat of the closed primary loop and then, because it's exposed to vacuum, phase changes from liquid to ice and sublimates into space transferring heat with it. Very neat and ingenious. Naturally, I wanted to learn more. What does a spacesuit sublimator look like? Specifications? Procedures? Video of one being tested? Photographs? Technical discussions in heat transfer or thermodynamics books? I searched. Strangely and absurdly, I found almost nothing. I received almost nothing.
All of those sources are publicly available on the internet. Your inability to find them is your problem and nobody elses.

I got stonewalled when I appealed for information. Absurdly, there were no photographs. Absurdly, there was no video of spacesuits with ice sublimators being tested. Most absurdly, there was no information in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics books. Absurdly, the alleged manufacturer, Hamilton Sunstrand of United Technologies would only release very elementary information. Absurdly, NASA's Johnson Space Center refused to provide video or photos and stonewalled me instead. Absurdly, the Rice University Department of Mechanical Engineering, most closely associated with Houston's Johnson Space Center refused to comment. Absurdly, my Congressional representatives in two states, California's and Washington's Feinstein, Boxer, Cantwell, Murray, Capps and Hastings, stonewalled me also when I requested their assistance acquiring accountability from NASA.
Do you think they waste their time answering every moon hoax crank question, or do you suppose that they simply file such requests under T for Trash?

But voila! The good news was that I had stumbled upon the way to PROVE whether the NASA space program was a hoax. The lack of information and evasion regarding spacesuits with sublimators represents a huge anomaly upon which attention should be focused. NASA must publicly demonstrate, before independent witnesses, a spacesuit with ice sublimator cooling system in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit. NASA refuses to be accountable. It's unacceptable. We can PROVE today on Earth if the NASA space program is a hoax. For independent witnesses I recommend retired Army General Antonio Taguba, retired Navy Admiral William Fallon and me.
That would be part of the test schedule for EVERY space suit, so it has been done countless times already. Why would one more repetition be somehow "special"? Why should a "special" test be set up just for you? Are you going to foot the bill?

Please demand NASA accountability from your respective Congressional representatives.As President Ronald Reagan said in his Farewell Address, "We the PEOPLE tell the government what to do; it doesn't tell us."  Please tell them that you want to see a spacesuit with ice sublimator work in a high vacuum chamber on Earth.
Thank you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yNoOYjR0_g Orlan suit vacuum test. I'm sure your sooper resurch skillz can find more.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 26, 2015, 11:37:52 AM
I say "probably" because I don't know. But neither does anyone else and I think that's unacceptable.

So your claim is that no one can possibly know whether a national space program is authentic?

Quote
What does a spacesuit sublimator look like? Specifications? Procedures? Video of one being tested? Photographs? Technical discussions in heat transfer or thermodynamics books? I searched. Strangely and absurdly, I found almost nothing. I received almost nothing.

It took me about 8 seconds to find a photo of an Apollo space suit sublimator via a Google search.

Quote
I got stonewalled when I appealed for information.

Gee, I can find all sorts of information.  Of course I'm an aerospace engineer with about 25 years' experience in the field, so maybe I have a leg up.  But most people here are not professionally qualified, yet they will astonish you with their ability to research and understand the relevant topics correctly.  Since every spacefaring country uses the porous plate sublimator, and it's one of the most common and well-understood bits of space engineering, and it's been in every space suit design since the 1960s, I have to conclude you have poor research skills.

Of course your blanket insistence that world spacefaring is entirely a fiction neatly seems to exempt you from having to deal with almost all the evidence, leaving you only with your trumped-up argument from silence.

Quote
The lack of information and evasion regarding spacesuits with sublimators represents a huge anomaly upon which attention should be focused.

So you're a one-issue conspiracy theorist.  Gotcha.

Quote
NASA must publicly demonstrate, before independent witnesses, a spacesuit with ice sublimator cooling system in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit.

Or how about in every space walk ever, since Apollo?

Quote
Please demand NASA accountability from your respective Congressional representatives.

I would rather demand accountability from you instead, since you're the one ignorantly calling an entire profession liars for quite a number of years.  You claim to have performed a diligent search, and you list a few steps of that search.  Do you really want to claim that was exhaustive enough to assert before the world that the nickel porous plate sublimator is a fiction?  Think carefully before you answer, and remember that your posting history elsewhere is easily searchable.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gillianren on August 26, 2015, 11:38:09 AM
Take your proudest accomplishment, Neil.  Whatever you did that you're happiest about.  Now, imagine that someone went around saying it could be faked just because they weren't there and don't understand what you did.  What would your reaction be?  Especially when every response to what you told them as evidence was, "Oh, that could have been faked" without ever suggesting a plausible answer about how it was faked.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 26, 2015, 11:42:05 AM
I see you've been banging this same drum since at least 2011, and you've already been provided with the evidence of suit testing many times over.  You simply refuse to accept it.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on August 26, 2015, 11:46:23 AM
Same old argument from ignorance.

Let's see your detailed analysis of this document. With calculations please.

http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19720005423
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 26, 2015, 11:59:06 AM
Let's see your detailed analysis of this document. With calculations please.

http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19720005423

Here are a couple more documents:

http://www.google.com/patents/US3170303

https://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/handle/1911/14662/7023573.PDF?sequence=1
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Gazpar on August 26, 2015, 12:03:24 PM
Quote
What does a spacesuit sublimator look like?

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/plss.html (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/plss.html)

(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/plss04.jpg)
Quote
A close up view of the heat-exchanger/sublimator (silver cutaway structure), radio module (gold), and the lithium hydroxide (background, in green/white). The Remote Control Unit (RCU), in the foreground, is mounted on the crewmember's chest.

The sublimator and heat exchanger are part of the "return circuit" of the PLSS. Oxygen, warmed by the heat generated by the astronaut's body, is cooled in the heat exchanger before being passed through the lithium hydroxide canister to eliminate exhaled carbon dioxide. Water circulated through the Liquid Cooling Garment (LCG) also flows through the heat exchanger where it gives up heat to a separate supply of cooling feedwater. The feedwater flows into the sublimator, where it is added to a layer of ice and, ultimately evaporates and carries away excess heat. In the foreground, the controls of the chest-mounted RCU are visible. The gold rotary switch selects the radio transmission mode. To the our right of the switch is the oxygen pressure gauge. Five windows on the right display caution and warning flags that alert the astronaut to problems with the PLSS. The guarded switch controls operation of the PLSS fan which moves oxygen out of the PLSS and into the suit.
(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/plss100.jpg)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on August 26, 2015, 12:03:42 PM
Do you realize, Neil Baker, that every current generation EVA spacesuit, from the NASA EMU to the Russian Orlan, to the Chinese Fetian, uses ice sublimation as it way of removing waste heat? Moreover, the Apollo A7L wasn't just used for Apollo, oh no, it was also used in modified form for Skylab EVA.
 Are you claiming Skylab is fake now? Given that it fell out of the sky and derbited messily over Australia and more, that strikes me as somewhat untenable.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gwiz on August 26, 2015, 12:03:55 PM
The lack of information and evasion regarding spacesuits with sublimators represents a huge anomaly upon which attention should be focused. NASA must publicly demonstrate, before independent witnesses, a spacesuit with ice sublimator cooling system in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit.
Oh my.  Anyone can see the International Space Station with the naked eye.  It required a lot of the spacewalks you don't believe in to construct.  Amateur astronomers these days can get detailed pictures of the station and have recorded the way it has been added to over the years.  They have even observed astronauts working outside the station, so the demonstration you demand has already taken place.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on August 26, 2015, 12:16:03 PM
Let's see your detailed analysis of this document. With calculations please.

http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19720005423

Here are a couple more documents:

http://www.google.com/patents/US3170303

https://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/handle/1911/14662/7023573.PDF?sequence=1


Strange, isn't it?  A bloke pops up and claims that his searches for information have been "stonewalled". That there were "no photographs". All this despite, allegedly, many attempts to find such information. Yet, within minutes you, I and others can find such information.

I guess it must be our special NASA shill internet access and enhanced Google-fu

Mr Baker, let me help you.  CLICK HERE (http://bfy.tw/1UHw)
  ::)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 26, 2015, 12:24:21 PM
Yet, within minutes you, I and others can find such information.

As well as examples from years ago where Baker has paraded this same argument from silence in other venues and been met by others with similar, nearly instantaneous pointers to easily available information.  It's hard to maintain for years the claim that no relevant information is available when other people seem to find it so easily.

Hence rather than look at the massive and nearly undeniable consilience of evidence for Apollo's authenticity culled from dozens of avenues of evidence, Baker drills down to literally one single component in the entire $23 billion decade-long engineering project and declares that unless certain specific forms of documentation are provided for certain specific modes of testing it, he is justified in declaring the whole project a fraud.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on August 26, 2015, 12:30:46 PM
It's hard to maintain for years the claim that no relevant information is available when other people seem to find it so easily.

It's only possible if you adopt this pose:

(http://www.scorebuddy.co.uk/images/stories/employee-performance-review-not-listening.jpg)




Hence rather than look at the massive and nearly undeniable consilience of evidence for Apollo's authenticity culled from dozens of avenues of evidence, Baker drills down to literally one single component in the entire $23 billion decade-long engineering project and declares that unless certain specific forms of documentation are provided for certain specific modes of testing it, he is justified in declaring the whole project a fraud.

Standard hoax believer argument. "I'll ignore that huge mountain of evidence over there, to focus on this tiny area that I can't/won't understand here"
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 26, 2015, 12:37:03 PM
I've gone through the responses so far and I'm simultaneously impressed and disappointed. I concede I'd appreciate instruction on how Bob B located the rice.edu source on sublimators. 
The photograph of the ice sublimator that is presented is able to be presented because of me. I'm confident, it was my steady agitation that caused it to finally appear on the Internet. As I said in my original posting, when I first searched for information, there was no photograph. I chatted once with Harold McCann, one of the coauthors of "U.S. Spacesuits" and he  sent a couple more. But the fact remains, it was not there when I first became aware of ice sublimators.

And although there is plenty of video of spacesuits in swimming pools there's none of spacesuits with sublimators in vacuum chambers. There is, however,  a video on YouTube from 1966 of a spacesuit without sublimator failing in a vacuum chamber resulting in a near fatality.

But the question remains, "Can we PROVE we went to the moon?"
And the answer is "Yes, publicly demonstrate before independent witnesses a spacesuit with ice sublimator cooling system in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit."
If NASA truly used spacesuits on the moon and in orbit as it alleges then it also regularly tests those suits on Earth in high vacuum chambers as it also alleges it does. It should cost nothing extra and impose little inconvenience to allow independent witnesses to observe. But they refuse which is an anomaly that must be addressed.

I understand the passion and pride involved in this subject. It's not pleasant to contemplate the possibility of losing your moon.  Law enforcement officials report that they suspect the crime of fraud is most often unreported for the fear people have of appearing to be victims. The temptation is to take the easy route and dismiss and discredit the assertion. To disparage. I've heard it all.

We enjoy great fortune to live in the Age of the Scientific Method. An anomaly has been presented to you. Disparaging responses will not suffice. The challenge of a scientific response is being given. If you're satisfied to continue accepting your faith-based space program, then you either do nothing or continue jabbering with lame links and empty opinions. The only solution is to PROVE the spacesuits with an appropriate demonstration before independent witnesses. We don't have to believe; we can KNOW. After hundreds of billions of dollars, we deserve to KNOW.



Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 26, 2015, 12:47:59 PM
The photograph of the ice sublimator that is presented is able to be presented because of me. I'm confident, it was my steady agitation that caused it to finally appear on the Internet.

No. False.

The internet contains many resources that were publicly available long before the internet. You could also have gone to a library and found the documentation you needed. Your inability to find resources does not mean they do not exist, nor does their 'sudden' appearance mean that you made it happen.

Why do you find it difficult to accept that sublimation can cool a spacesuit?

Why have you zoomed in on that particular topic and ignore all the other evidence that provides an entirely consistent set of data supporting Apollo?


Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 26, 2015, 01:00:00 PM


How many experts will it take to convince you you're wrong?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on August 26, 2015, 01:01:54 PM
I've gone through the responses so far and I'm simultaneously impressed and disappointed. I concede I'd appreciate instruction on how Bob B located the rice.edu source on sublimators. 
The photograph of the ice sublimator that is presented is able to be presented because of me. I'm confident, it was my steady agitation that caused it to finally appear on the Internet. As I said in my original posting, when I first searched for information, there was no photograph. I chatted once with Harold McCann, one of the coauthors of "U.S. Spacesuits" and he  sent a couple more. But the fact remains, it was not there when I first became aware of ice sublimators.

And although there is plenty of video of spacesuits in swimming pools there's none of spacesuits with sublimators in vacuum chambers. There is, however,  a video on YouTube from 1966 of a spacesuit without sublimator failing in a vacuum chamber resulting in a near fatality.

But the question remains, "Can we PROVE we went to the moon?"
And the answer is "Yes, publicly demonstrate before independent witnesses a spacesuit with ice sublimator cooling system in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit."


Why do it on the ground, when it can be done in orbit? Or is it your assertion that the ISS, MIR, Skylab did not happen?


I've gone through the responses so far and I'm simultaneously impressed and disappointed.

That must be nice for you.

The photograph of the ice sublimator that is presented is able to be presented because of me. I'm confident, it was my steady agitation that caused it to finally appear on the Internet. As I said in my original posting, when I first searched for information, there was no photograph.
Wow. Just wow. Do you really believe that???
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 26, 2015, 01:16:01 PM
But the fact remains, it was not there when I first became aware of ice sublimators.

I don't believe you.  And as I said, I demand accountability first from you.  Please submit verifiable proof that you are the person responsible for motivating the online publication of what we now can see as evidence of nickel porous plate sublimators, to the extent you so claim.

Quote
But the question remains, "Can we PROVE we went to the moon?"

As long as you're simply willing to declare that information doesn't exist, which does, then nothing will prove that to you.  You've left a trail of ignoring practically every proof put to you, so I don't agree that the question "remains."

Further, you asserted (however tentatively) that space programs are a hoax.  Therefore the pertinent question is, "Can you prove it is a hoax?"  And you've already admitted for all intents and purposes that you cannot, by telling us you "don't know."  Your entire argument for that conclusion is your personal disbelief in one isolated component of a massive civil engineering program.

Quote
And the answer is "Yes, publicly demonstrate before independent witnesses a spacesuit with ice sublimator cooling system in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit."

No, that's just what you say would prove it to you.  And that formulation derives largely from your obsession over a chunk of nickel, when the rest of the world has already settled the question for themselves using a better approach.

Quote
But they refuse...

Submit verifiable proof of this claimed refusal.

Quote
I understand the passion and pride involved in this subject.

No, do not convert the failure of your technical argument into allegations of inappropriate emotional involvement on the part of your critics.

Quote
The temptation is to take the easy route and dismiss and discredit the assertion.

The years I've spent acquiring the knowledge it takes to see through your disingenuity is not the easy route.  Nor is the willingness of others here to do your homework for you the easy route.  The easy route is what you're doing:  sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending the resulting silence should be suspicious.

Quote
I've heard it all.

Yes you have.  You have deployed this argument many times in many venues, and have been challenged upon it the same way every time.  Your demonstrated intransigence elsewhere suggests this debate will be equally fruitless.

Quote
An anomaly has been presented to you. Disparaging responses will not suffice.

An anomaly is an observed outcome that differs from the expected outcome.  The validity of an anomaly depends in part therefore upon the validity of the expectations.  You have stated your expectations against which anomaly is alleged and they have been duly questioned.  Your inability or unwillingness to establish those expectations ends the argument.

The allegation of anomaly as formulated presents us with at least two possible explanations.  First, as you insinuate, nickel porous plate sublimators are fictitious, and the alleged lack of pertinent documentary evidence evinces the fiction.  Or second, you the proponent don't understand them, have misrepresented your research, and have unreasonable expectations for documentation.  You ask the reader to determine which of these is most likely the explanation for the "anomaly" you allege.

Quote
If you're satisfied to continue accepting your faith-based space program, then you either do nothing or continue jabbering with lame links and empty opinions.

I'll continue practicing space engineering successfully as my profession, thank you.

You are the one insisting on a faith-based approach.  We are to take it as uncontestable that you have actually undertaken the exhaustive investigation you claim, despite evidence that others have undertaken similar research with different results.  Despite your sidestepping, the "lame links" to which you refer undermine your claim that no suitable information exists.  My opinions, such as they apply, are based on a career in the relevant industry.  On the other hand, your demands for certain types and modes of proof, to the exclusion of all else, is simply your empty opinion that this is objectively necessary in order to form a rational conclusion.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 26, 2015, 01:26:32 PM
Let's see your detailed analysis of this document. With calculations please.

http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19720005423

Here are a couple more documents:

http://www.google.com/patents/US3170303

https://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/handle/1911/14662/7023573.PDF?sequence=1


Strange, isn't it?  A bloke pops up and claims that his searches for information have been "stonewalled". That there were "no photographs". All this despite, allegedly, many attempts to find such information. Yet, within minutes you, I and others can find such information.

I guess it must be our special NASA shill internet access and enhanced Google-fu

Mr Baker, let me help you.  CLICK HERE (http://bfy.tw/1UHw)
  ::)

Great programming and more than that to point.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 26, 2015, 01:32:34 PM
Let's face it, this is just a rehash of a tired old conspiracy theorist technique that I've seen over and over of latching on to a tiny detail that they think no-one can provide support for.

Mr Baker has latched on to sublimation cooling not because he believes it to be impossible, but because he doesn't think evidence exists that says it is possible. On getting that evidence we have the usual dance:

CT: I demand evidence of x
Sane person: You mean this evidence?
CT: No, not that evidence, it proves me wrong. I want different evidence that I don't think you have.
Sane person: Ah, you mean this evidence!
CT: No, because I've moved the goalposts to change the specific criteria that satisfy my personal definition of acceptable evidence.

And so on and so on and so on..
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 26, 2015, 01:34:49 PM
I've gone through the responses so far and I'm simultaneously impressed and disappointed. I concede I'd appreciate instruction on how Bob B located the rice.edu source on sublimators. 
The photograph of the ice sublimator that is presented is able to be presented because in spite of me. I'm confident, it was my steady agitation that caused it to finally appear on the Internet. As I said in my original posting, when I first searched for information, there was no photograph. I chatted once with Harold McCann, one of the coauthors of "U.S. Spacesuits" and he  sent a couple more. But the fact remains, it was not there when I first became aware of ice sublimators.
FTFY
Quote

And although there is plenty of video of spacesuits in swimming pools there's none of spacesuits with sublimators in vacuum chambers. There is, however,  a video on YouTube from 1966 of a spacesuit without sublimator failing in a vacuum chamber resulting in a near fatality.
And what other mechanism doesn't fail from time to time?
Quote

But the question remains, "Can we PROVE we went to the moon?"
And the answer is "Yes, publicly demonstrate before independent witnesses a spacesuit with ice sublimator cooling system in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit."
If NASA truly used spacesuits on the moon and in orbit as it alleges then it also regularly tests those suits on Earth in high vacuum chambers as it also alleges it does. It should cost nothing extra and impose little inconvenience to allow independent witnesses to observe. But they refuse which is an anomaly that must be addressed.
Been there done that
Quote

I understand the passion and pride involved in this subject. It's not pleasant to contemplate the possibility of losing your moon.  Law enforcement officials report that they suspect the crime of fraud is most often unreported for the fear people have of appearing to be victims. The temptation is to take the easy route and dismiss and discredit the assertion. To disparage. I've heard it all.
YOU MAY HAVE HEARD, BUT YOU DIDN'T LISTEN AND LEARN
Quote

We enjoy great fortune to live in the Age of the Scientific Method. An anomaly has been presented to you. Disparaging responses will not suffice. The challenge of a scientific response is being given. If you're satisfied to continue accepting your faith-based space program, then you either do nothing or continue jabbering with lame links and empty opinions. The only solution is to PROVE the spacesuits with an appropriate demonstration before independent witnesses. We don't have to believe; we can KNOW. After hundreds of billions of dollars, we deserve to KNOW.
Most of the scientific and engineering work has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.  It is rather up to you to disprove the evidence.  And not by claiming "I don't understand, therefore it must be false".  Show some scientific or engineering work that the PLSS didn't work in a vacuum.

EDIT: changed don't to didn't
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Jason Thompson on August 26, 2015, 01:39:06 PM
As I said in my original posting, when I first searched for information, there was no photograph.

You are, as with so many conspiracy theorists these days, confusing 'it's not on the internet' with 'it doesn't exist'. Clearly that picture does exist. The fact that it is perhaps only recently appearing on the internet does not make it suspect. You are also, I note, conceding that something you claimed did not exist has in fact been presented and does exist.

Quote
But the fact remains, it was not there when I first became aware of ice sublimators.

And exactly why should the authenticity of something be measured against a timeline of your awareness?

Quote
And although there is plenty of video of spacesuits in swimming pools there's none of spacesuits with sublimators in vacuum chambers.

Really? Given your record so far I am disinclined to believe you have done sufficient research to conlcude there is no such material. Have you actually visited any of the places where this material is stored and gone through the archive yourself? That is how everyone used to do research before the internet came along. The existence of the internet has not made it a redundant research method, and does not mean that any and all information can be expected to drop into your lap without you leaving your front room.

Quote
But the question remains, "Can we PROVE we went to the moon?"
And the answer is "Yes, publicly demonstrate before independent witnesses a spacesuit with ice sublimator cooling system in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit."

No, that is YOUR answer. No-one else is compelled to hold up your arbitrary standard of proof, especially since if you assume porous plate sublimators are false then the entire space program of every nation who ever went into space is also false. You are handwaving away a vast mountain of evidence (and that is not an exaggeration if you were to gather it all in one location) on the back of your limited research and poor understanding of technology and history.

Quote
If NASA truly used spacesuits on the moon and in orbit as it alleges then it also regularly tests those suits on Earth in high vacuum chambers as it also alleges it does. It should cost nothing extra and impose little inconvenience to allow independent witnesses to observe.

Why should we believe that if you went in to view a test taking place today, in 2015, that you would accept that the technology worked in the 1960s?

Quote
But they refuse which is an anomaly that must be addressed.

No, they simply don't let any old idiot into their test facilities. That's just good sense really.

Quote
I understand the passion and pride involved in this subject. It's not pleasant to contemplate the possibility of losing your moon.  Law enforcement officials report that they suspect the crime of fraud is most often unreported for the fear people have of appearing to be victims.

Yadda yadda yadda you're all blinded by patritotism blah blah blah. Heard it all before and it is no more relevant now than it ever was.

Quote
The temptation is to take the easy route and dismiss and discredit the assertion.

Look at the responses you've had here, and the other threads on the board. People are going out and providing you with the stuff you said did not exist. That's not the easy route.

Quote
Disparaging responses will not suffice.

So what about the other respnses you've had that provided you with material you said didn't exist? Oh yes, that's right, you handwaved it all away. THAT is the easy route, requiring no effort on your part whatsover.

Quote
The only solution is to PROVE the spacesuits with an appropriate demonstration before independent witnesses.

No, the only solution that will satisfy you is for NASA to let you in to watch it being done, and even then we have no reason to believe you would actually have sufficient understanding or interest to accept what you were being shown.

Unless you can explain how they faked every visual record of the spacesuits being used in space there is no reason to assume they are anything other than genuine examples of a spacesuit working in space as designed. Can you?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: twik on August 26, 2015, 01:40:26 PM
This is a challenge that is set to fail.

Let's say I ask you to prove that you went to Cleveland, because I (for some reason) refuse to believe that it's possible. Hey, the Government says Cleveland exists, and we know they lie about everything, right? So Cleveland probably doesn't even exist.

You provide me with receipts for your hotel stay, credit card slips for gas and meals, and some lovely photos and videos of your family you say you took at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. You even give me the telephone number of the hotel you stayed at.

I say, "These can all be faked. The receipts can be forged, the pictures are photoshopped, and how do I know that Frank the Hotel Manager is who he says he is? I refuse to accept this as proof."

You ask, "Then how could I convince you?"

I say, "I don't believe that your car radiator would work for a trip to Cleveland. My theory is that your engine would seize up long before you got there. So, show me a video of your radiator as your car is operating under the conditions of travelling to Cleveland. Without that, I must believe Cleveland is a hoax."

Do you see the problem here? Let's say I fix up a video camera under the hood, and take off on the highway. I send you the video that shows my radiator working fine.

Will you say, "Oops, I guess I was wrong about that?" Or will you say, "Hmmph! That just shows that you can not only fake videos of people at the Hall of Fame, you can fake videos of radiators working under highway conditions. It's still a FAKE!!11!"

If you do not accept the tons (literally) of documentation - photos, film, written - that already exists, you won't accept the video you claim would prove it to you. You will simply slide those goal posts further afield, and whine that nobody can give you that perfectly reasonable evidence you're looking for. Ah, if they only did, then you'd believe.

Pull the other one, it has bells on it.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Tedward on August 26, 2015, 01:42:19 PM
Goalposts on a position relocater I suspect.

Edit. Actually, I want to know what a high vacuum chamber is. I have searched the interweb and cannot find the relevant elevation for any of them.



Did I say search? I might have. Or might not have.

Edit 2. Or is it one suitable for tall people?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 26, 2015, 01:47:27 PM
No, the only solution that will satisfy you is for NASA to let you in to watch it being done, and even then we have no reason to believe you would actually have sufficient understanding or interest to accept what you were being shown.

Unless you can explain how they faked every visual record of the spacesuits being used in space there is no reason to assume they are anything other than genuine examples of a spacesuit working in space as designed. Can you?
As if NASA were to spend money, time and effort to disprove CT's beliefs.  Rather like designing a lunar rover to fly to the moon and drive around previous landing sites.  CT's would claim that those procedures were faked. 
I think Neil, you should get a large dose of reality, shallow hard and call back in the morning.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 26, 2015, 01:52:57 PM
Do you think they waste their time answering every moon hoax crank question, or do you suppose that they simply file such requests under T for Trash?

In my experience it's not very difficult to discern even well-veiled crackpottery from legitimate concern or interest.  Conspiracy theorists seem to have a very distorted perception of whether their questions and insinuations come across as sensible to non-conspiracists.

Even under the most charitable of circumstances, I can't imagine an aerospace company today honoring a request for decades-old design information with anything but rudimentary production.  Hamilton Sundstrand, at the alleged time, was already a merger of Hamilton Standard (the original manufacturer of the Apollo sublimators), and there has been yet another merger since (and yet another renaming).  This is common in the aerospace industry. One of the common effects of this circumstance is that post-merger employees rarely know much about pre-merger operations or recordkeeping, especially for defunct designs.  I have a fine loose-leaf notebook somewhere listing Hamilton Sundstrand's then-existing (ca. 2005) sublimator designs, because they were still a leading manufacturer of them.

And that makes me ask why Neil Baker simply didn't order a modern sublimator from H-S and prove to the world it doesn't work.  And why H-S would offer as a commercial product something that literally anyone could buy from them and either prove to the world it did or didn't work, or sue H-S for fraud if it did not.

But I guarantee that the public-relations secretary to whom Baker's request was undoubtedly delivered legitimately has no intention of performing exhaustive and time-consuming archival research just because some letter out of the blue asked for it.  It's just not how business works.  He'll get whatever she can find after ten minutes' search, and then she's on to the next request.  In the grand scheme of things, Baker just doesn't matter.  Baker can call it "stonewalling" all he wants; it's his burden to prove the production of documents he received was suspiciously deficient.

Further, I can vouch for quite extensive thermal testing, in heat-loading vacuum chambers, of all the space technology I've been involved with.  And if I got a letter from someone I didn't know demanding all the details of it, I'd T-for-trash it immediately.  Why?  Because those details are my intellectual property.  The test methods and outcomes, and the designs being tested, are my competitive edge in the marketplace.  He doesn't get to see them, even if they are being furnished, say, for a government contract.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on August 26, 2015, 01:53:44 PM
You think  that image is on the web because of you?
I hate to break it to you, but that image was available at the latest in 1997, when the Internet Archive archived it (https://web.archive.org/web/19970617055401/http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/plss.html).
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 26, 2015, 01:59:48 PM
You think  that image is on the web because of you?
I hate to break it to you, but that image was available at the latest in 1997, when the Internet Archive archived it (https://web.archive.org/web/19970617055401/http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/plss.html).
His browser broke? ::)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on August 26, 2015, 02:02:37 PM
I got stonewalled when I appealed for information. Absurdly, there were no photographs. Absurdly, there was no video of spacesuits with ice sublimators being tested. Most absurdly, there was no information in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics books. Absurdly, the alleged manufacturer, Hamilton Sunstrand of United Technologies would only release very elementary information. Absurdly, NASA's Johnson Space Center refused to provide video or photos and stonewalled me instead.

No images?

"Rusty" Schweickart testing the suit and PLSS in vacuum chamber A (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/engineering/integrated_environments/altitude_environmental/chamber_A/index.html) in Building 32 in 19

https://archive.org/download/S68-55391/S68-55391.tif

And just before entering the vacuum chamber

https://archive.org/download/S68-55983/S68-55983.tif
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: mako88sb on August 26, 2015, 02:08:51 PM
Quote
Why do it on the ground, when it can be done in orbit? Or is it your assertion that the ISS, MIR, Skylab did not happen?

As Jay pointed out, this guy has been at it for years. He has stated numerous times that the ISS and all the Shuttle eva's are all faked. When it's pointed out to him that the ISS can be seen by eye, he just brushes if off with the ridiculous claim it's nothing more then an uninhabited inflatable.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on August 26, 2015, 02:10:18 PM
Schweikart testing the suit and PLSS in LEO


(http://www.honeysucklecreek.net/images/images_Apollo_9/AS9-20-3094.jpg)

(http://www.honeysucklecreek.net/images/images_Apollo_9/AS09-19-2994.jpg)


(http://40.media.tumblr.com/1ebf0786ce6ee6440e1f143102a91bb0/tumblr_nixy1ryWtJ1sg8i4lo1_1280.jpg)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 26, 2015, 02:43:52 PM
I see you've been banging this same drum since at least 2011, and you've already been provided with the evidence of suit testing many times over.  You simply refuse to accept it.
Try 2008
http://www.amazon.com/review/R1B2DMX4O95EQH/ref=cm_cd_pg_prev?ie=UTF8&asin=075662858X&cdForum=Fx2B4PDRF5MYYAO&cdPage=1&cdThread=Tx1NBQTDQ8WTG0M&store=books#wasThisHelpful

and from the replies it is clear he had prior form.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on August 26, 2015, 02:51:35 PM
Quote
Why do it on the ground, when it can be done in orbit? Or is it your assertion that the ISS, MIR, Skylab did not happen?

As Jay pointed out, this guy has been at it for years. He has stated numerous times that the ISS and all the Shuttle eva's are all faked. When it's pointed out to him that the ISS can be seen by eye, he just brushes if off with the ridiculous claim it's nothing more then an uninhabited inflatable.
That would be quite a feat in itself, sending up and inflating such a large, complex structure in orbit. Who built this alleged structure, Neil Baker? Who were the engineers and scientists involved? Can you name even one?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 26, 2015, 02:52:51 PM
Try 2008
http://www.amazon.com/review/R1B2DMX4O95EQH/ref=cm_cd_pg_prev?ie=UTF8&asin=075662858X&cdForum=Fx2B4PDRF5MYYAO&cdPage=1&cdThread=Tx1NBQTDQ8WTG0M&store=books#wasThisHelpful

and from the replies it is clear he had prior form.
Why is that CT's always refer to their "critical thinking" when they don't realize the true meaning?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: mako88sb on August 26, 2015, 03:08:05 PM
Yes, he can be a pretty persistent fella:
http://www.independent.com/news/2013/dec/12/former-ucsb-employee-neil-baker-sentenced-probatio/

from 2010
https://edhat.com/site/tidbit.cfm?nid=27193&showcomments=T

So Neil. Do you think this type of behavior is justified?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on August 26, 2015, 03:51:58 PM
Good Heavens!! I have a wee sleep and next thing, there's a three-pager

The OP certainly contains the Big Three of Hoax Belief; argument from assertion, argument from incredulity, argument from ignorance.

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/Smilies/Process-Stupid2.png)

Mr Baker...

"I don't understand, therefore it didn't happen"
"I didn't see it therefore it didn't happen"

... are not valid arguments.

Apollo and the entire Space Programme are established facts, verifiable with mountains of documentation (most of which is available to the public), tens of thousands of hours of film and video and hundreds of thousands of images (all of which NASA freely shares with the public world-wide) and millions of eye witnesses, including hundreds of thousands of people who experience(d) it in person. 533 people from 46 different countries have reached Earth orbit, They have spent over 29,000 person-days (a cumulative total of over 77 years) in space including over 2400 person-hours of spacewalks. And you think they are all lying?

If YOU think it was/is all faked YOU have to prove that assertion.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 26, 2015, 03:55:37 PM
Good Heavens!! I have a wee sleep and next thing, there's a three-pager
...

That will teach you to sleep!!
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 26, 2015, 04:27:07 PM
Very disappointing.

The most disappointing are the ones asserting that the information I seek has been presented and yet I don't see any spacesuits being tested in vacuum chambers.
It's very odd. If NASA went to all of that trouble to manufacture fake video and photos of spacewalks and moonwalks, why didn't they manufacture fake video of spacesuits being tested in vacuum chambers?
Why release video of spacesuits in swimming pools but none in vacuum chambers?
Why did MythBusters acquire access to a NASA spacesuit and show a vacuum chamber but fail to enter the chamber wearing the suit?
It's been said that criminals want to be caught. Leaving this particular anomaly available for consideration seems very sloppy. I wonder what the NASA folks are thinking. I'm suspect some are here reading this. What's up?

And so many posts as expected want, so quickly, to get metaphysical. I don't expect anyone to believe me alone. I suggest three independent witnesses, two of whom have national gravitas, one General forced into retirement for revealing abuses at Abu Ghraib and the other Admiral forced into retirement for shutting down George W Bush's aspirations to attack Iran. And then me, the person that pointed out the anomalies regarding the spacesuit ice sublimators. They got Capone on tax evasion.

Whether you like it or not, the anomaly has been described. The NASA spacesuits are allegedly used and tested but no scientific validation exists that they are. The good news is that we're just a  simple demonstration away from the scientifically validated TRUTH. The Scientific Method is a wonderful thing. Now, if only we can get NASA to be scientifically accountable. By the way, I hope my suspicions are wrong. I hope we went to the moon and all the rest. But I seriously doubt it.

Raul Blanco is allegedly in charge of NASA spacesuit testing at the Johnson Space Center in Houston. I've chatted with him. He once promised video and photos but reneged. You can Google his number. He works for you. Holding him accountable is not inappropriate.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: mako88sb on August 26, 2015, 04:37:58 PM
So how do you think people would survive hurricanes and typhoons with this proposal of yours. Just going to block them like waves as you suggest?

http://web.archive.org/web/20031224132630/www.oceanchinampa.com/
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 26, 2015, 04:40:18 PM
... I don't see any spacesuits being tested in vacuum chambers.

That's funny.  I did.

It's very odd. If NASA went to all of that trouble to manufacture fake video and photos of spacewalks and moonwalks, why didn't they manufacture fake video of spacesuits being tested in vacuum chambers?

See, you're already calling it fake.  So what's the point of jumping through all your hoops?

Why did MythBusters acquire access to a NASA spacesuit and show a vacuum chamber but fail to enter the chamber wearing the suit?

It wasn't a functioning NASA spacesuit.  It was replica of an Apollo spacesuit used, I think, in the miniseries "From the Earth to the Moon".

And then me, the person that pointed out the anomalies regarding the spacesuit ice sublimators.

You're not new or special.  There were a lot of people before you who demonstrated a similar ignorance of the sublimators.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Jason Thompson on August 26, 2015, 04:42:15 PM
The NASA spacesuits are allegedly used and tested but no scientific validation exists that they are. The good news is that we're just a  simple demonstration away from the scientifically validated TRUTH.

Scientific validation does not, and has never, included a staged demonstration to a complete novice. And I say that as a scientist involved in a project currently undergoing a lot of scientific validation. You cannot simply state something is so and expect it to be accepted by all.

Quote
By the way, I hope my suspicions are wrong. I hope we went to the moon and all the rest.

This is, simply, BULLSHIT. If you hoped the landings were real you'd be examining ALL the evidence, not focusing on one little detail while disregarding the entirety of the record in favour of demanding one thing that there is no actual justification for NASA ever producing.

Quote
He works for you.

Who is 'you'? You understand this is the worldwide web, right?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on August 26, 2015, 04:45:25 PM
You mean like this (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=11b_1363672986&comments=1)? Yes, it ended in almost disaster, but it shows them testing it, it shows the vacuum chamber,it even shows video from inside the vacuum chamber while it was in use, and the problem that resulted had nothing to do with the water sublimation cooling.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: RAF on August 26, 2015, 05:12:56 PM
The NASA spacesuits are allegedly used and tested but no scientific validation exists that they are.

Correction...this information of course exists you simply refuse to accept it...there is a difference.

 
Quote
The good news is that we're just a  simple demonstration away from the scientifically validated TRUTH.

I seriously doubt you would accept the results...which makes your statement an empty brag.


Quote
Very disappointing

I agree...although I have not heard your particular "argument" for a hoax before, it is lame on its face.

...very disappointing...



Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 26, 2015, 05:27:15 PM
Quote
1964 December 9 - .

Effects of radiation and vacuum on the materials of space suits - . Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: A7L. Summary: Avco Corporation was under a 10-month contract amounting to $124,578 to MSC to study the effects of solar radiation and ultra-high vacuum on the materials and components of space suits. Testing would be performed in the Avco space environment chamber.


Quote
1965 November 11 - .

Apollo manned lunar mission metabolic profile test run - . Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: Apollo LM; A7L; LM Electrical. A manned lunar mission metabolic profile test was run in the Hamilton Standard Division altitude chamber using the development liquid-cooled portable life support system (PLSS). The system was started at a chamber altitude of over 60,906 m (200,000 ft), and the subject adjusted the liquid bypass valve to accommodate the programmed metabolic rates which were achieved by use of a treadmill. Oxygen was supplied from an external source through the PLSS bottle and oxygen regulation system. This procedure was used because bottle qualification was not complete, so pressure was limited to 2,068 kilonewtons per sq m (300 psig). An external battery was used for power because the new batteries that were required by the change to the all-battery LEM were not yet available. The thermal transport system including the porous plate sublimator was completely self-contained in the PLSS. All systems operated within specification requirements and the test was considered an unqualified success.

Quote
1965 December 5 - .

Hamilton Standard tested Apollo life support back pack - . Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: A7L. Hamilton Standard successfully tested a life-support back pack designed to meet requirements of the lunar surface suit. The system functioned as planned for more than three hours inside a vacuum chamber, while the test subject walked on a treadmill to simulate the metabolic load of an astronaut on the lunar terrain. The 29.48-kg (65-lb) portable life support system supplied oxygen, pressurized to a minimum 25,510 newtons per sq m (3.7 lbs psi), controlled its temperature and relative humidity, and circulated it through the suit and helmet. The pack pumped cooled water through the tubing of the undergarment for cooling inside the pressure suit. A canister of lithium hydroxide trapped carbon dioxide and other air contaminants to purify the oxygen for reuse.

Quote
1968 November 22 - .

Astronaut training runs with the Apollo extravehicular mobility unit - . Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: A7L. In a memorandum for the record, ASPO Manager George M. Low summarized results of November 19 and 22 meetings on procedures for astronaut training runs with the Apollo extravehicular mobility unit (EMU) under simulated space conditions. The runs would be in the two vacuum test chambers of the Center's Space Environment Simulation Laboratory. MSC Director Robert R. Gilruth had attended the meetings. Training runs were always to be preceded by a run also under altitude conditions and using a gas umbilical from the life support system of the facility itself. Although connected to the crewman, the facility umbilical would not be used as a gas supply under normal test conditions. For the final training run, the astronaut would wear a complete flight-configured EMU without any other link with the facility. Although several participants objected that training runs using the EMU alone ran greater risk than normal in chamber tests, the decision to conduct the exercises using the all-up flight configuration was reaffirmed.

Quote
1969 March 6 - . 16:45 GMT - .

EVA Apollo 9-1 - . Crew: Schweickart; Scott. EVA Type: Stand-Up External Vehicular Activity. EVA Duration: 0.0319 days. Nation: USA. Related Persons: Schweickart; Scott. Program: Apollo. Class: Moon. Type: Manned lunar lander. Flight: Apollo 9. Spacecraft: Apollo LM; A7L. Summary: Tested Apollo spacesuit.

SOURCE:  http://www.astronautix.com/craft/a7l.htm



Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 26, 2015, 05:32:41 PM
Looks like lots of proof to me.  But then I am not blind to facts, as it seems Neil is.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Gazpar on August 26, 2015, 05:37:45 PM
Quote
After my painful 2003 epiphany regarding 9-11, I gained the courage to confront my mythological beliefs about the space program and other things. I was confronted with the difficult question, "How do we PROVE we went to the moon?"

Then you claim

Quote
But then I stumbled upon the spacesuit ice sublimators.
Quote
Strangely and absurdly, I found almost nothing. I received almost nothing.
Quote
I got stonewalled when I appealed for information. Absurdly, there were no photographs. Absurdly, there was no video of spacesuits with ice sublimators being tested. Most absurdly, there was no information in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics books.

The information of the PLSS and the sublimator were already public on the internet in the 90`s and way before too.
Are you sure you made a good research? Because something doesnt makes sense here.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on August 26, 2015, 05:40:09 PM
Very disappointing.
I'm sure that you are used to that feeling....




and yet I don't see any spacesuits being tested in vacuum chambers.

Do you have eyesight problems or are you choosing to ignore the images that I linked to that show exactly that scenario? (that's a rhetorical question by the way....the answer is blatantly obvious)

As Jay pointed out, this guy has been at it for years. He has stated numerous times that the ISS and all the Shuttle eva's are all faked. When it's pointed out to him that the ISS can be seen by eye, he just brushes if off with the ridiculous claim it's nothing more then an uninhabited inflatable.

Oh, I know that. Mr. Baker is as close-minded and wilfully ignorant as they come. I'm enjoying finding some new images though, such as the Schweickart images in the vacuum chamber. That's one of the few redeeming qualities of having hoaxies about....you get to find out new information (not from them, I hasten to add!)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 26, 2015, 05:48:50 PM

....you get to find out new information (not from them, I hasten to add!)
Not even new claims, new hoax approaches.  There is still the refusal to look and learn, but that isn't new either.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 26, 2015, 05:50:34 PM
The most disappointing are the ones asserting that the information I seek has been presented and yet I don't see any spacesuits being tested in vacuum chambers.

Straw man.  You made two claims.  First you claimed that there was insufficient publicly available information regarding porous plate sublimators to allow someone to determine whether they would work as advertised.  Second, you demanded a particular artifact of a particular form of testing, which you insisted was necessary for someone to rationally determine whether sublimators would work.  With respect to your first claim, it has been shown that copious information is indeed publicly available, and additionally (contrary to your subsequent protest) was available when you allegedly conducted your research.  With respect to your second claim, it has been shown to be based on an irrationally specific expectation.  Do not conflate the rebuttals.

Quote
It's very odd. If NASA went to all of that trouble to manufacture fake video and photos of spacewalks and moonwalks, why didn't they manufacture fake video of spacesuits being tested in vacuum chambers?

Perhaps because they didn't anticipate your personal obsession.  You demand we accept your judgment that certain artifacts of testing, if genuine, should be casually producible.  Yet you fail to explain why an organization so apparently otherwise concerned with perpetrating a convincing hoax should omit the fabrication of an artifact deemed so important.  Your claim is inconsistent.

Further the Apollo 17 LM egress testing video should suffice.

Quote
Why release video of spacesuits in swimming pools but none in vacuum chambers?

You insinuate that NASA's choice of publication for casual interest is indicative of their overall archival holdings for other purposes, such as serious historical research or compliance investigations.  You are the claimant.  You are responsible for assertively seeking what you deem should exist.  Noting what NASA chooses to emphasize, and speculating why, does not satisfy your burden of proof.

Quote
Why did MythBusters acquire access to a NASA spacesuit and show a vacuum chamber but fail to enter the chamber wearing the suit?

First, because Mythbusters' insurance wouldn't allow it.  Second, because NASA regulations doesn't allow civilians inside vacuum chambers, regardless of purpose, and only allows its own humans in there for very specific reasons.  There are many reasons why humans don't casually enter vacuum chambers.  You don't get to presume the alleged rarity is for the reason you suppose.  The former you could have discovered by phoning the Mythbusters production office.  The latter you could have discovered by consulting CFR.

Quote
And so many posts as expected want, so quickly, to get metaphysical.

Logical analysis is not metaphysical.  You are responsible for providing documentary, eyewitness, circumstantial, and other forms of evidence to support your claim.  You are also responsible for constructing a cogent line of reasoning to connect them to the conclusion you say you draw upon it.  Noting that your claim is logically untenable is not an inappropriate or subordinate form of analysis.

Quote
I don't expect anyone to believe me alone.

It appears you do.  And we have shown ample cause why your judgment should be considered at best uninformed and at worst highly impaired, and why your allegations of fact should be questioned.

Quote
I suggest three independent witnesses...

Before we decide whether to seek out these witnesses, give us a brief deposition.  What exactly do you suggest each of these three witnesses are expected to attest to?

Quote
Whether you like it or not, the anomaly has been described.

Whether you like it or not, the anomaly has been dismissed as an unevidenced, unfounded suspicion based on your ignorance and laziness.  You do not get to beg the question that your accusation is sound simply for your having made it.

Quote
The NASA spacesuits are allegedly used and tested but no scientific validation exists that they are.

Straw man.  You demand exactly one form of validation and assiduously ignore whether other convincing forms exist or whether your demand is a rational expectation.

Quote
Now, if only we can get NASA to be scientifically accountable.

Quote
By the way, I hope my suspicions are wrong. I hope we went to the moon and all the rest.

Nonsense.  The record shows you've passed up numerous pertinent opportunities to change your opinion upon good evidence.  Your argument is not at all consistent with someone who has been compelled to believe in a hoax despite a predilection otherwise.

Quote
Raul Blanco is allegedly in charge of NASA spacesuit testing at the Johnson Space Center in Houston. I've chatted with him. He once promised video and photos but reneged.

Did he give you a reason?

Quote
Holding him accountable is not inappropriate.

You're making serious accusations which, if true, would lead to felony charges being brought against prominent people.  Holding you accountable first is the proper action.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Trebor on August 26, 2015, 06:02:24 PM
Why do it on the ground, when it can be done in orbit? Or is it your assertion that the ISS, MIR, Skylab did not happen?

That is exactly what he claimed... then it got awkward when it was pointed out that you could see the ISS with your own eyes.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on August 26, 2015, 06:03:57 PM
The photograph of the ice sublimator that is presented is able to be presented because of me. I'm confident, it was my steady agitation that caused it to finally appear on the Internet.

Then your confidence is misplaced.

Photographs of the PLSS ice sublimator have been available on the internet for over 10 years.

This...

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/ApolloHoax/A7L_plss.jpg)

... has been on display at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum since 1974 when it was transferred there from NASA's Johnson Space Flight Centre. I saw it there myself in 1987

I can only conclude that you have been intentionally blind and ignorant... which does not surprise me in the least given your track record of wilful ignorance.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on August 26, 2015, 06:14:31 PM
Why do it on the ground, when it can be done in orbit? Or is it your assertion that the ISS, MIR, Skylab did not happen?

That is exactly what he claimed... then it got awkward when it was pointed out that you could see the ISS with your own eyes.

He'll hate this then....
http://spaceweathergallery.com/indiv_upload.php?upload_id=116657

and this:
http://www.astrophoto.fr/STS-133.html
which shows (shock! horror!) a working spacesuit, imaged from the ground by an amateur*, using amateur gear**

Even without super-duper gear, this type of image is possible:
(http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/files/2011/02/robbullen_iss_discovery.jpg)

Which was taken from the UK, with a 200mm Newtonian. That was hand-guided (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/02/28/ridiculously-awesome-pic-of-discovery-and-the-iss-taken-from-the-ground/#.Vd46AfSIlZh) at the time by Rob Bullen.







*a very, very skilled amateur,
**and not even that exceptional gear (http://www.astrophoto.fr/info.html). A Takahashi mount and a 14" Edge SCT scope. Not entry level stuff admittedly, but not that high end.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 26, 2015, 06:20:04 PM

He'll hate this then....
http://spaceweathergallery.com/indiv_upload.php?upload_id=116657

and this:
http://www.astrophoto.fr/STS-133.html
which shows (shock! horror!) a working spacesuit, imaged from the ground by an amateur*, using amateur gear**

Even without super-duper gear, this type of image is possible:
(http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/files/2011/02/robbullen_iss_discovery.jpg)

Which was taken from the UK, with a 200mm Newtonian. That was hand-guided (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/02/28/ridiculously-awesome-pic-of-discovery-and-the-iss-taken-from-the-ground/#.Vd46AfSIlZh) at the time by Rob Bullen.

*a very, very skilled amateur,
**and not even that exceptional gear (http://www.astrophoto.fr/info.html). A Takahashi mount and a 14" Edge SCT scope. Not entry level stuff admittedly, but not that high end.
Great images, but he will no doubt claim everyone is on the payroll. ::)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Gazpar on August 26, 2015, 06:23:45 PM
Why do it on the ground, when it can be done in orbit? Or is it your assertion that the ISS, MIR, Skylab did not happen?

That is exactly what he claimed... then it got awkward when it was pointed out that you could see the ISS with your own eyes.

He'll hate this then....
http://spaceweathergallery.com/indiv_upload.php?upload_id=116657

and this:
http://www.astrophoto.fr/STS-133.html
which shows (shock! horror!) a working spacesuit, imaged from the ground by an amateur*, using amateur gear**

Even without super-duper gear, this type of image is possible:
(http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/files/2011/02/robbullen_iss_discovery.jpg)

Which was taken from the UK, with a 200mm Newtonian. That was hand-guided (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/02/28/ridiculously-awesome-pic-of-discovery-and-the-iss-taken-from-the-ground/#.Vd46AfSIlZh) at the time by Rob Bullen.







*a very, very skilled amateur,
**and not even that exceptional gear (http://www.astrophoto.fr/info.html). A Takahashi mount and a 14" Edge SCT scope. Not entry level stuff admittedly, but not that high end.
That doesnt looks like a balloon at all.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on August 26, 2015, 06:23:50 PM
Great images, but he will no doubt claim everyone is on the payroll. ::)

No doubt.
The payroll is getting pretty big now though. Plus it covers the entire globe as there many, many amateurs imaging various ISS transits....

http://bfy.tw/1Ui0
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 26, 2015, 06:34:45 PM
Here's another shot, but this might take some special hardware.
http://www.astrosurf.com/legault/iss_atlantis_transit.html
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on August 26, 2015, 06:39:11 PM
Here's another shot, but this might take some special hardware.
http://www.astrosurf.com/legault/iss_atlantis_transit.html
The interested looking cows in the last picture are actually NASA agents in disguise, watching for any funny business from someone on their payroll.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Cat Not Included on August 26, 2015, 06:39:26 PM
Neil, let me ask you a two-part hypothetical question. Let us say, for some reason, NASA decided to arrange a special demonstration - just for you and some other observers - just like you request to show off the spacesuit working in a vacuum chamber.

Would this actually convince you?

If so, WHY would it actually convince you? You've posited some insanely complicated acts of deceit on behalf of NASA. According to you, they've somehow gotten an inflatable object into orbit around the planet at a speed of over 17,000 miles per hour.
Do you have the experience and knowledge to positively identify an in-use vacuum chamber? Could you tell if it was being faked?
Magicians manage to convince live audiences of amazing feats of illusion. David Copperfield arranged an illusion that tricked his audience into thinking he'd made the Statue of Liberty vanish. Do you really think they couldn't manage something as simple as a fake vacuum chamber?

So again, why would this specific demonstration convince you? It is no less "fakeable" than all the other evidence that is available.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 26, 2015, 06:42:00 PM
He'll hate this then....

Nothing is distasteful as long as you're willing to engage in an astonishing amount of denial.  As I said at first, if one's alleged hoax encompasses a colossal portion of what others take to be reality, then all possible refutation is simply dismissed as self-referential and therefore non-probative.  Deny enough reality, and it becomes legally and clinically actionable.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 26, 2015, 07:36:28 PM
It wasn't a functioning NASA spacesuit.  It was replica of an Apollo spacesuit used, I think, in the miniseries "From the Earth to the Moon".

You may be confusing the Mythbusters demonstration with the one from The Truth Behind....  The latter used a space suit replica made by Global Effects for From the Earth to the Moon.  While accurate in the respects that mattered, its PLSS contained only a battery and a fan for blowing ambient air into the suit via the practical hoses.  The former employed a similar costume suit of unknown manufacture, privately owned by Adam Savage.  It was used for the mobility demonstrations.  Neither Savage's costume nor the Global Effects replica includes the PGA or establishes any kind of airtight integrity.  Mythbusters also employed actual space-suit arms and gloves provided by NASA to allow the presenters to manipulate items in the vacuum chamber.  This form of isolation is commonly known as a glovebox.

It should be noted that while not mentioned here, Baker also argues elsewhere that pressurized space suits themselves are impossible for reasons having to do with materials, in addition to the claims made regarding the sublimator.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 26, 2015, 07:42:31 PM
You may be confusing the Mythbusters demonstration with the one from The Truth Behind....  The latter used a space suit replica made by Global Effects for From the Earth to the Moon.

I did indeed confuse the two.  I realized my mistake not too long after I posted it, but didn't bother to edit.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 26, 2015, 07:47:02 PM
My contention is that most of the NASA space program is probably a hoax. I say "probably" because I don't know.

Not the most auspicious of starts. So you don't know? There's not a lot of point to any future discussion then. You claiming that you don't know is like turning up to an exam on Contemporary European Art in the 17th Century, having studied Topological Geometries of M-theory for the last 3 years.

Quote
But neither does anyone else and I think that's unacceptable.

How can you not know then claim other people don't know? I'm really scratching my head here. Are you a student of D Rumsfeld?

Quote
A faith-based space program during this great age of the scientific method is unnecessary and absurd. It's way past time for NASA to be scientifically accountable.

The scientific method has been established since antiquity. In fact, as a physics undergrad I studied the philosophy of logic, and the foundation for the scientific method was documented by the Greeks. In any case, Apollo was an engineering project, so the scientific method does not apply. The missions are documented historical fact.

Quote
After my painful 2003 epiphany regarding 9-11, I gained the courage to confront my mythological beliefs about the space program and other things. I was confronted with the difficult question, "How do we PROVE we went to the moon?"

Good for you. So you believe in other woo such as 9-11 then?

Quote
Photos? Video? Could be fake. Narrative? Could be lies. Launches? Yes, but what happened after they went into orbit out of sight? Did they really go to the moon? Do they really go to the space station or is just a lighted orbiting umannned and possibly inflatable prop? Did they really repair a Hubble telescope? What about the flag waving? I don't know and there's nothing we can prove about it on Earth. What about the shadows? I don't know and there's nothing we can prove about them on Earth.

You don't appear to know a lot really. My reading of your post is this: you've picked up a few hoax arguments such as the flag and shadows, have not followed this through with objective research to show how these arguments are readily debunked using basic physics, nor the well discussed modus operandi of the claimants and their ulterior motives. You have then arrived here with some pseudo-intellectual babble (above), portraying yourself as a critical thinker with quasi-philosophical sound bites. I'm quite disappointed with your first post already.

Quote
What about the Lunar laser reflector? I don't know and who knows how it got there even if it's actually there.

This is a tautological statement.

Quote
But then I stumbled upon the spacesuit ice sublimators. Being in either the vacuum of orbit or the vacuum of the moon

What's a vacuum of orbit? This pretentious and overly flowery imprecise waffle does nothing to impress me. Again, I am most disappointed that you invoke high standards for NASA, yet show little scientific literacy yourself. In the words of Tony Blair... weak, weak, weak.

Quote
heat transfer is a difficult engineering challenge.

Yes, but not insurmountable.

Quote
There's nothing cool to conduct heat to

Why does something need to be cool so heat conducts to it? You mean there's no material to conduct heat to a lower temperature (or heat source to heat sink). Incorrect physics terms and concept constructs are a slight bug bear of mine. If you want to talk physics then please satisfy me that you understand the concepts using precise language, especially when you accuse others of being unscientific and how this is unacceptable to you.

Quote
there's no atmosphere so there's nothing to convect heat to

I could pick holes with the terminology here (again), but I won't. The point is that you are not proving yourself to be scientifically literate, yet demand this of others.

Quote
and a radiator would be huge and ungainly so NASA describes the clever and exotic technique of using nickel porous plate ice sublimators to explain how heat was allegedly transferred from the spacesuits and the Lunar Modules(LM).

I take it that you know what sublimation means, and the latent heat that is involved with the sublimation of ice? I'll leave it here as the rest of your OP is irrelevant given you have not offered an alternative analysis of the thermodynamics at this conjecture.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 26, 2015, 08:23:26 PM
there's no atmosphere so there's nothing to convect heat to

I contend that the water vapor is an atmosphere.  No need for a natural atmosphere when we can create our own.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on August 26, 2015, 08:44:46 PM
I find it astonishing Mr Baker that you claim to be unable to find anything about Apollo Spacesuits. It took me all of ten seconds to find this..

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LM15_Portable_Life_Support_System_ppP1-5.pdf

Please note the very last paragraph of this document

"Complete details on the Portable Life Support System can be obtained from  Hamilton Standard"

They are now known as United Technologies Corporation

www.utc.com

I'm sure if you ask them, they will be happy supply all the technical specifications and information they have on the PLSS and the ice-sublimation cooling system. The only doubt I have is that you would understand any of it!


ETA

As for the photo of the sublimator posted earlier that you claim to have been responsible for having been published recently as a result of your supposed "agitation", well  I knew I had seen that photo somewhere before;I guessed about 10 years.

http://www.therebreathersite.nl/03_Historical/apollo_rebreathers.htm

Its about the 9th/10th photo down in this website, which has been there since at least 2005. That page also has a good EXPLANATION OF HOW IT WORKS

"The PLSS includes oxygen bottles, water storage tanks, a sublimator, a fan/separator/pump/motor assembly, a contaminant control cartridge, various regulators, valves and sensors, communications and the microprocessor caution and warning system module.

System ventilation airflow enters the suit from the PLSS at the helmet and flows from behind the head, over the face and down through the suit. Oxygen, carbon dioxide and water vapour from breathing leave the suit through the liquid-cooling and ventilation garment near the astronaut's elbows and feet and return to the PLSS.

The flow first goes through the PLSS contaminant-control cartridge, where activated charcoal and lithium hydroxide remove odours and carbon dioxide. Next, it passes through a fan that maintains a flow of about six cubic feet per minute. Gas flow is then routed to the sublimator, a cooling device which condenses water vapour and permits its removal by a slurper and by the rotary separator. The water that is removed from the gas flow is pumped primarily into the PLSS water storage tanks for reuse in cooling the astronaut.

The sublimator also cools the ventilation flow to about 12° C. The oxygen then moves through a flow sensor and back to the suit inlet. Oxygen is added, as needed, to the ventilation flow from the primary oxygen tanks, entering the ventilation loop downstream of the flow sensor. Suit pressure is maintained at approximately 0.7 psid (0,047 bar)(15 psid = 1 bar) above ambient pressure* in the intravehicular mode, and at 4.3 psid (0,29 bar)(15 psid = 1 bar)in the extravehicular mode. The astronaut selects the mode by manually operating an actuator located on the display and control module."


 
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 26, 2015, 08:51:30 PM
I'm sure if you ask them, they will be happy supply all the technical specifications and information they have on the PLSS and the ice-sublimation cooling system.

Baker indicates that he has already contacted the manufacturer.  He confirms that they sent him some materials, but he deems the production inadequate.  He does not specify what he received, what instead he would consider reasonably complete under the circumstances, nor why the material he received was not sufficient.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 26, 2015, 09:01:02 PM
I contend that the water vapor is an atmosphere.  No need for a natural atmosphere when we can create our own.

You make a good contention in context of the PLSS and its sublimator. Of course, one might argue that convection strictly occurs in a closed fluid system whereas in interfacial systems the heat transfer is through evaporative loss, which is the point in my previous post where I stopped with my interrogation of Neil's scientific understanding of heat transfer.

In the case of the PLSS, where the phase transition is solid to gas, we need to discuss heat transfer by sublimative loss.

Maybe Neil would like to comment on the function of the PLSS and why the thermodynamics of sublimation precludes a viable solution to cool astronauts now he has evidence of its design and function.

On one hand he claims that the engineering of heat transfer is a difficult problem, and given there is no evidence that the PLSS was demonstrated in a vacuum the issue of astronaut cooling remained unsolved. On the other hand he is unable to present evidence demonstrating his understanding of heat transfer to the same standards he expects from others. I find his position unacceptable and disappointing.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 26, 2015, 09:43:17 PM
The convective properties of the sublimation products, if any, are not considered in the thermal design.  The intent is evaporative/sublimation cooling only.  In fact, early experience showed that any residual atmosphere in the slowly-venting LM inhibited the sublimator startup.  In fact even today we have icing problems with sublimator startup if the ambient pressure isn't well below the triple point.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 26, 2015, 11:53:48 PM

The interested looking cows in the last picture are actually NASA agents in disguise, watching for any funny business from someone on their payroll.
Of course it is a never ending job with everyone on the payroll.  No wonder the national debt is so large.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 12:12:50 AM
Neil,

Roomie here. You departed still logged into my computer. I hope you don't mind but I've  been reading your comments here at Apollohoax.net and decided to comment.
Like the rest of the geeks here, I think you're a loon. You're knowledgeable and passionate but very unpersuasive. Do you really think NASA could pull off a hoax of this magnitude without someone blowing the whistle? I know we've had this discussion before and you think compartmentalization of information, security clearances and possibly death threats were enough but I'm not buying it. It doesn't look like anybody is.

I will admit that I think it's an interesting observation you've made about spacesuits in swimming pools but none in vacuum chambers but absence of information is hardly evidence of a hoax. I know it seems weird but couldn't there be some less ominous explanation for lack of video of space suits being tested, or no photos of ice sublimators or no mention of them in any heat transfer book? Couldn't it just be that NASA thought nobody would care and nobody did until you came along?

So all you want is a demonstration of a spacesuit in a vacuum chamber? Are you sure? If after seeing what you want to see and seeing that the spacesuits work in vacuum would you be done with this obsession? Didn't you obsess for the longest time about the LRO being the only lunar orbiter with a camera powerful enough to resolve Apollo remnants. Something about no independent verification when the Japanese should have sent the correct camera. And remember when you were ranting about the pressure seal on the Gemini helmet visor and the shoe lace covers? And let's not forget your long exploration of the difference between a 5psi difference between 15psi and 10psi versus 5 psi and 0 psi.  5psi difference is 5psi difference! All that baloney about counting gas molecules using the Kinetic Particle Theory of Pressure made me think you were losing it.

I'm worried about you roommate. You're clean and pay the rent on time but can't you admit that you've almost completely obliterated your life? Twice arrested, once committed. A felony for a broken window. Yes, I know you did it for 9-11 truth but so what. Where did it get you? No, I won't break the second window and I've got bad news for you. Nobody will. They got away with it. 3000 murdered in our faces to send thousands more to death in rotten wars and, yes, they got away with it. It's the way it is. Move on. Get a girlfriend. Play golf. Finish that book. Anything! But stop it with the conspiracy theories. Please.

Sincerely,

E
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on August 27, 2015, 12:17:07 AM
Well, that's either the most creative flounce I've ever seen, or we got ourself a case of roommate drama. Hi E! You're welcome to sign up under your own name if there's anything you want to discuss.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 12:18:38 AM
Sincerely,

E

Dear E.,

Thanks for posting, and for your concern.  You have our support.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on August 27, 2015, 12:50:00 AM
That is a creative flounce methinks, or a bad case of MPD
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on August 27, 2015, 02:46:54 AM
So all you want is a demonstration of a spacesuit in a vacuum chamber? Are you sure? If after seeing what you want to see and seeing that the spacesuits work in vacuum would you be done with this obsession? Didn't you obsess for the longest time about the LRO being the only lunar orbiter with a camera powerful enough to resolve Apollo remnants. Something about no independent verification when the Japanese should have sent the correct camera. And remember when you were ranting about the pressure seal on the Gemini helmet visor and the shoe lace covers? And let's not forget your long exploration of the difference between a 5psi difference between 15psi and 10psi versus 5 psi and 0 psi.  5psi difference is 5psi difference! All that baloney about counting gas molecules using the Kinetic Particle Theory of Pressure made me think you were losing it.

I'm worried about you roommate. You're clean and pay the rent on time but can't you admit that you've almost completely obliterated your life? Twice arrested, once committed. A felony for a broken window. Yes, I know you did it for 9-11 truth but so what. Where did it get you? No, I won't break the second window and I've got bad news for you. Nobody will. They got away with it. 3000 murdered in our faces to send thousands more to death in rotten wars and, yes, they got away with it. It's the way it is. Move on. Get a girlfriend. Play golf. Finish that book. Anything! But stop it with the conspiracy theories. Please.

Sincerely,

E

Best flounce ever? Or a long suffering room-mate (room-mate? What age is he- 19???). Or a bad case of MPD where we will see a full blown argument all conducted under the same login? I can't wait until they start arguing about who keeps drinking all the milk in the fridge and why the empty toilet roll is left on the holder.
Either which way, this could turn out to be fascinating...

(http://33.media.tumblr.com/5326a6b6b554289a8a43d2188a7f1b71/tumblr_mxlwfti5At1qchjtmo1_250.gif)

Here's another shot, but this might take some special hardware.

Just a simple white-light filter over the front of the 'scope. The ones taken with a hydrogen-alpha solarscope are a bit more special

Click Here (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ISS+transit+hydrogen-alpha&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CCEQsARqFQoTCLLjraTUyMcCFUnXFAoddxcEgw&biw=1920&bih=947#imgrc=_)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Peter B on August 27, 2015, 05:02:02 AM
My contention is that most of the NASA space program is probably a hoax. I say "probably" because I don't know. But neither does anyone else and I think that's unacceptable. A faith-based space program during this great age of the scientific method is unnecessary and absurd. It's way past time for NASA to be scientifically accountable.

[SNIP] "How do we PROVE we went to the moon?"

Photos? Video? Could be fake. Narrative? Could be lies. Launches? Yes, but what happened after they went into orbit out of sight? Did they really go to the moon? Do they really go to the space station or is just a lighted orbiting umannned and possibly inflatable prop? Did they really repair a Hubble telescope? What about the flag waving? I don't know and there's nothing we can prove about it on Earth. What about the shadows? I don't know and there's nothing we can prove about them on Earth.What about the Lunar laser reflector? I don't know and who knows how it got there even if it's actually there.

But then I stumbled upon the spacesuit ice sublimators.

[SNIP]

Well, I stumbled onto the rocks - the 380-odd kilograms of rocks brought back by the Apollo missions. (If metric values are unfamiliar to you, I'm sure you can work out how many pounds that is.)

Anyway, where did these rocks come from?

1. We know they're not Earth rocks. Their mineral composition, while broadly similar to Earth rocks, includes several distinct differences which have never been observed in Earth rocks. For example, they contain significantly less volatile elements and compounds than equivalent Earth rocks, and they also show signs of millions of years of exposure to solar radiation, which doesn't happen to Earth rocks. So that's why they're not Earth rocks.

2. We know they're not lunar meteorites. Sometimes meteor impacts on the Moon blast rocks off the Moon's surface and into space, and some of those rocks make it to the Earth. Lunar meteorites, like other meteorites, show signs of alteration by atmospheric heating - from passing through the Earth's atmosphere at speeds of several kilometres per second. The Apollo rocks show no such signs. Instead, they show signs of being bombarded by tiny dust particles themselves travelling at tens of kilometres per second. This is only possible to rocks sitting on the surface of the Moon, not on the surface of the Earth. So that's why the Apollo rocks are not lunar meteorites.

3. We know they're not Moon rocks collected by unmanned sample retriever missions. The Apollo rocks include quite a few rocks weighing more than a kilogram each, as well as core samples up to two metres long, and also clods of lunar soil. There is no evidence that NASA ever had the technology to build unmanned sample retriever spacecraft capable of collecting such samples; in fact there isn't even any evidence that these sorts of things could be done today, more than 40 years later. What we do have is photos of astronauts standing near rocks which now sit in storage facilities.

So what that leave is the only possible explanation: Those rocks, which are clearly from the Moon, and which clearly came to the Earth not in high-speed contact with the Earth's atmosphere, and which clearly were not collected by unmanned spacecraft, must have been collected by humans walking on the Moon.

Now if you have some alternative explanation for these rocks, I'm all ears. But in the interim I'm going to stick with the explanation that spacesuit sublimators must have worked, allowing those astronauts to walk on the Moon and retrieve those rocks.

Quote
For independent witnesses I recommend retired Army General Antonio Taguba, retired Navy Admiral William Fallon and me.

Is this some new meaning of the word "independent"?

Just to be clear - you're making the assertion that NASA faked Apollo. So you have a dog in the fight. So by any normal meaning of the word "independent", that means you're not independent.

Plus, out of interest, do Taguba and Fallon have any understanding of the physics behind spacesuit sublimators? If not, what's the point of having them investigate any demonstration?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 27, 2015, 06:21:48 AM
Sincerely,

E

Various speculation to this outcome, and thus far I have managed to arrive at 5 possible explanations for this turn of events. I'll wait and see what happens.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: dwight on August 27, 2015, 06:31:05 AM
Yo, Dwight

Roomie here. Rather than speak to you in person I thought I'd write you on Apollo Hoax. Those books you wrote about NASA's TV development are awesome. I think you should tell your friends on AH how much of a legend you are. Maybe they will buy some copies.

Anyway keep up the good work but for heaven's sake put the toilet seat down and take the dog for a walk.

F
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 27, 2015, 06:38:37 AM
Here's another shot, but this might take some special hardware.

Just a simple white-light filter over the front of the 'scope. The ones taken with a hydrogen-alpha solarscope are a bit more special

Click Here (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ISS+transit+hydrogen-alpha&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CCEQsARqFQoTCLLjraTUyMcCFUnXFAoddxcEgw&biw=1920&bih=947#imgrc=_)
I guess I was thinking of not staring into the sun through a telescope.  Cameras if they have proper settings obviously can take pictures as you have linked. 
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 27, 2015, 06:40:29 AM
Neil,

...
Sincerely,

E
This has the makings of fish in the household trash for three days.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 27, 2015, 06:50:49 AM
Yo, Dwight

Roomie here. Rather than speak to you in person I thought I'd write you on Apollo Hoax. Those books you wrote about NASA's TV development are awesome. I think you should tell your friends on AH how much of a legend you are. Maybe they will buy some copies.

Anyway keep up the good work but for heaven's sake put the toilet seat down and take the dog for a walk.

F

I'm trying to think of one penned to myself, but cannot.  But yeah, take the dog for a walk. Can you bath him after, he's getting smelly and his fur his matted.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: dwight on August 27, 2015, 07:09:08 AM
Yo Luke,

Roomie here logging on from Dwight's pc.

Dont forget to turn the stove off before going out.

Later
G
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 10:56:37 AM

That would be quite a feat in itself, sending up and inflating such a large, complex structure in orbit. Who built this alleged structure, Neil Baker? Who were the engineers and scientists involved? Can you name even one?

I think it might have been Bigelow Aerospace in Las Vegas. The website says they've been around since 99 but I suspect much longer probably as a black ops. 1999 was probably the year they came out of stealth mode after building the ISS balloons. Pretty impressive operation for a company that hasn't sold anything.
[/quote]
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 27, 2015, 11:01:38 AM
For a list of those astronauts responsible for construction of the ISS, Google Shuttle missions from 1999.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 11:06:15 AM
I think it might have been...

So no, you can't.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 11:13:29 AM
Neil, let me ask you a two-part hypothetical question. Let us say, for some reason, NASA decided to arrange a special demonstration - just for you and some other observers - just like you request to show off the spacesuit working in a vacuum chamber.

Would this actually convince you?

If so, WHY would it actually convince you? You've posited some insanely complicated acts of deceit on behalf of NASA. According to you, they've somehow gotten an inflatable object into orbit around the planet at a speed of over 17,000 miles per hour.
Do you have the experience and knowledge to positively identify an in-use vacuum chamber? Could you tell if it was being faked?
Magicians manage to convince live audiences of amazing feats of illusion. David Copperfield arranged an illusion that tricked his audience into thinking he'd made the Statue of Liberty vanish. Do you really think they couldn't manage something as simple as a fake vacuum chamber?

So again, why would this specific demonstration convince you? It is no less "fakeable" than all the other evidence that is available.

It would have to be fakeable to more than just me. I expect at least two other independent witnesses on hand. I also expect to be allowed to hook up our own pirani and hot cathode ionization gauges. I'm confident that my level of experience with vacuum systems is sufficient. Personally, I doubt they'll be able to get anywhere near orbital vacuum of ~1e-6 Torr if the sublimator works as they allege. But maybe they have some huge vacuum pumps to compensate for the sublimator sublimating.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 11:15:47 AM
I think it might have been...

So no, you can't.

Yes, it's pure speculation like everything else. I have PROOF of nothing. But neither do you.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 27, 2015, 11:17:49 AM
It would have to be fakeable to more than just me. I expect at least two other independent witnesses on hand. I also expect to be allowed to hook up our own pirani and hot cathode ionization gauges. I'm confident that my level of experience with vacuum systems is sufficient. Personally, I doubt they'll be able to get anywhere near orbital vacuum of ~1e-6 Torr if the sublimator works as they allege. But maybe they have some huge vacuum pumps to compensate for the sublimator sublimating.
I'm curious, please list all/any of your qualifications to judge how sublimation PLSS work
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Kiwi on August 27, 2015, 11:20:18 AM
Here's a good photo of that thing that Neil claims is a balloon -- the International Space Station -- plus two astronauts using the type of suit-cooling he claims doesn't work, plus a highly detailed background of central New Zealand showing the very clear sky that day above the Manawatu, where I live. I'm actually hidden behind a pixel near the top, about 2 o'clock from the ball on the mast. Smartcooky might be in the photo too near the top of the South Island, and AJV near the bottom of the North Island.

The photo was taken on 14 December 2006:--
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/165304main_image_feature_719_ys_full.jpg

The ISS will soon be making early-evening passes over or near New Zealand from 2 to 25 September, and plenty of us will be outside watching on the clear nights when it passes nearby.

Neil -- I watched Sputnik 1 pass over New Zealand at 8:06pm NZST on Wednesday 9 October 1959.  Do you claim that was a balloon put up by NASA too? And if so, how did Ham radio people, here and in other countries, detect its bleeper?

I find it rather amusing that you tell us to demand accountability from NASA, when members have posted in this thread from Australia, Germany, the UK and New Zealand.

Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 11:21:24 AM
It would have to be fakeable to more than just me. I expect at least two other independent witnesses on hand.

You're not an independent witness.  You're the accuser.  Name the other two witnesses, or describe how they would be chosen to your satisfaction.

Quote
I also expect to be allowed to hook up our own pirani and hot cathode ionization gauges.

Why should the people you accuse of fraud based no evidence except your ignorant doubt allow you to tamper with their equipment in this all-important test?  Contrary to what you might expect, you have a burden to show at least a modicum of prima facie evidence before you can make demands upon other parties.

And you have answered the pressing question.  Hamilton Standard sold porous plate sublimators commercially for decades.  Their successor Hamilton Sundstrand, with whom you claim to have had dealings, continued to sell them until they were acquired by UTC.  In all that time, why didn't you purchase one of their sublimator products and test it yourself in your own way, or via an independent testing laboratory?  Armed with those findings you could have taken H-S to court for fraud.  That is, if you really believe your claims have merit and you're not just grubbing for attention.

Quote
I'm confident that my level of experience with vacuum systems is sufficient. ... But maybe they have some huge vacuum pumps to compensate for the sublimator sublimating.

If you have to speculate about how test chambers compensate for outgassing of the test subject then no, your level of experience with vacuum systems is not only insufficient but almost entirely ignorant.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 11:22:39 AM
I'm curious, please list all/any of your qualifications to judge how sublimation PLSS work

I thought he asked if I was qualified to understand how a vacuum system works. As far as how a PLSS works, I've probably read most of the same propaganda as you.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gillianren on August 27, 2015, 11:25:08 AM
Best flounce ever? Or a long suffering room-mate (room-mate? What age is he- 19???). Or a bad case of MPD where we will see a full blown argument all conducted under the same login?

Two points.  One, I have plenty of friends with roommates well into their thirties, because minimum wage in the US hasn't kept up with rent.  If you're poor, roommates can mean keeping a roof over your head at all.

Two, "multiple personality disorder," currently called "dissociative identity disorder," is a controversial diagnosis at best.  Many mental health professionals don't actually belief it exists.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 11:25:35 AM
Yes, it's pure speculation like everything else. I have PROOF of nothing. But neither do you.

You're the one claiming, among other things, that the ISS is just a big balloon.  Your claim; your burden of proof.  My disbelief of your claim doesn't obligate me to assertively disprove it.  You admit you have no evidence.  Claims made without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.

My disputation arises from, as I said, my 25 years' experience in the relevant fields.  Can you provide any evidence or argument that would convince someone in my position?  If not, why should the world defer to your personal doubt?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 11:28:04 AM
I thought he asked if I was qualified to understand how a vacuum system works.

Since your allegedly expert judgment is central to your argument on many points, please list all your relevant qualifications.

Quote
As far as how a PLSS works, I've probably read most of the same propaganda as you.

But earlier you insinuated there existed no sufficient material for such judgment to be made.  Now you're saying you've read enough to determine that it's "propaganda."  Please reconcile your arguments.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 27, 2015, 11:28:17 AM
...
Neil -- I watched Sputnik 1 pass over New Zealand at 8:06pm NZST on Wednesday 9 October 1959.  Do you claim that was a balloon put up by NASA too? And if so, how did Ham radio people, here and in other countries, detect its bleeper?
Of course the former Soviet Union was being paid by NASA to fake its space program to justify the massive budgets in the 60's. ::)
Quote

I find it rather amusing that you tell us to demand accountability from NASA, when members who posted in this thread from Australia, Germany, the UK and New Zealand.

I'm sorry I just can't make you or smartcookie out, maybe its the eyes :)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 11:31:00 AM
Here's a good photo of that thing that Neil claims is a balloon -- the International Space Station -- plus two astronauts using the type of suit-cooling he claims doesn't work, plus a highly detailed background of central New Zealand showing the very clear sky that day above the Manawatu, where I live.

Nice fake photo of a nice prop with fake spacesuits over fake background. Probably. I love Photoshop.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 27, 2015, 11:32:47 AM
I thought he asked if I was qualified to understand how a vacuum system works.

Since your allegedly expert judgment is central to your argument on many points, please list all your relevant qualifications.
Seconds that question, again.
Quote

Quote
As far as how a PLSS works, I've probably read most of the same propaganda as you.

But earlier you insinuated there existed no sufficient material for such judgment to be made.  Now you're saying you've read enough to determine that it's "propaganda."  Please reconcile your arguments.

Is this a facepalm moment or what?
https://www.google.com/search?q=facepalm&biw=1366&bih=571&tbm=isch&imgil=tTGdTkGlDERknM%253A%253BrleBi_6hQ6aT2M%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fconcealednation.org%25252F2015%25252F08%25252Fconcealed-carry-trainer-negligently-shoots-student-and-its-not-his-first-nd-facepalm%25252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=tTGdTkGlDERknM%253A%252CrleBi_6hQ6aT2M%252C_&usg=__p9mv-J5DFSCaLMFnzZZGYcMQviM%3D
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 11:35:06 AM
Nice fake photo of a nice prop with fake spacesuits over fake background. Probably. I love Photoshop.

Do you have proof that the photograph was fabricated?  Or are you just making an affirmative dismissal based -- again -- entirely on speculation?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: darren r on August 27, 2015, 11:36:15 AM


Nice fake photo of a nice prop with fake spacesuits over fake background. Probably. I love Photoshop.

What's your evidence that it's fake? It's not enough to just keep saying it.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 11:38:01 AM
Yes, it's pure speculation like everything else. I have PROOF of nothing. But neither do you.

You're the one claiming, among other things, that the ISS is just a big balloon.  Your claim; your burden of proof.  My disbelief of your claim doesn't obligate me to assertively disprove it.  You admit you have no evidence.  Claims made without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.


No, I didn't say that.
I said I had no proof. Neither do you.
We both have plenty of evidence. I'm shown evidence of a photo of ISS and I show evidence of a photo of a huge preposterous factory owned by Bigelow.
That which makes my argument unique, and the reason you should support it, is that I describe something that can be scientifically validated on Earth today. Flags and shadows can be argued forever but the spacesuits are here and nobody has to go to the moon or orbit to PROVE them in a vacuum chamber.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 27, 2015, 11:41:48 AM
Yes, it's pure speculation like everything else. I have PROOF of nothing. But neither do you.

You're the one claiming, among other things, that the ISS is just a big balloon.  Your claim; your burden of proof.  My disbelief of your claim doesn't obligate me to assertively disprove it.  You admit you have no evidence.  Claims made without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.


No, I didn't say that.
I said I had no proof. Neither do you.
We both have plenty of evidence. I'm shown evidence of a photo of ISS and I show evidence of a photo of a huge preposterous factory owned by Bigelow.
That which makes my argument unique, and the reason you should support it, is that I describe something that can be scientifically validated on Earth today. Flags and shadows can be argued forever but the spacesuits are here and nobody has to go to the moon or orbit to PROVE them in a vacuum chamber.

Excuse me but didn't you just post this?
Here's a good photo of that thing that Neil claims is a balloon -- the International Space Station -- plus two astronauts using the type of suit-cooling he claims doesn't work, plus a highly detailed background of central New Zealand showing the very clear sky that day above the Manawatu, where I live.

Nice fake photo of a nice prop with fake spacesuits over fake background. Probably. I love Photoshop.
This is a direct claim that the photo has been faked, the ISS is a nice prop and the spacesuits are fake with a fake back ground.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 11:42:22 AM


Nice fake photo of a nice prop with fake spacesuits over fake background. Probably. I love Photoshop.

What's your evidence that it's fake? It's not enough to just keep saying it.

My evidence is that the spacesuits shown have never in their over 50 years of alleged use been publicly demonstrated by NASA to work in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit. Only until recently after my agitation could a photograph of a spacesuit ice sublimator be seen on the Internet. And despite representing one of the most interesting and exotic heat transfer devices ever contrived, no spacesuit ice sublimator is mentioned in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics book. It's evidence of anomalous spacesuits.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 27, 2015, 11:44:21 AM
Yes, it's pure speculation like everything else. I have PROOF of nothing. But neither do you.

You're the one claiming, among other things, that the ISS is just a big balloon.  Your claim; your burden of proof.  My disbelief of your claim doesn't obligate me to assertively disprove it.  You admit you have no evidence.  Claims made without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.


No, I didn't say that.
I said I had no proof. Neither do you.
We both have plenty of evidence. I'm shown evidence of a photo of ISS and I show evidence of a photo of a huge preposterous factory owned by Bigelow.
That which makes my argument unique, and the reason you should support it, is that I describe something that can be scientifically validated on Earth today. Flags and shadows can be argued forever but the spacesuits are here and nobody has to go to the moon or orbit to PROVE them in a vacuum chamber.

Excuse me but didn't you just post this?
Here's a good photo of that thing that Neil claims is a balloon -- the International Space Station -- plus two astronauts using the type of suit-cooling he claims doesn't work, plus a highly detailed background of central New Zealand showing the very clear sky that day above the Manawatu, where I live.

Nice fake photo of a nice prop with fake spacesuits over fake background. Probably. I love Photoshop.
This is a direct claim that the photo has been faked, the ISS is a nice prop and the spacesuits are fake with a fake back ground.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 11:46:06 AM
This is a direct claim that the photo has been faked, the ISS is a nice prop and the spacesuits are fake with a fake back ground.

Probably
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 27, 2015, 11:50:32 AM
This is a direct claim that the photo has been faked, the ISS is a nice prop and the spacesuits are fake with a fake back ground.

Probably
Slippery aren't you, but again please list your qualifications, if any, to satisfy my curiosity.  Your qualifications are at the heart of this whole discussion.
BTW, will you please quit claiming that your interference caused the creation of web pages describing the operation of PLSS.  You have been shown many links that make this assertion quite invalid.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 27, 2015, 11:53:32 AM
I thought he asked if I was qualified to understand how a vacuum system works. As far as how a PLSS works, I've probably read most of the same propaganda as you.

How the PLSS works is certainly not propaganda, it's quite well documented. The Soviets used a similar cooling system in their spacesuits, i.e a closed circuit transporting the coolant to a heat exchanger. I know, I've seen it at the UK National Space Centre near Leicester. In fact. visiting the UK NSC provides a stark example of how US and USSR systems were comparable, and how such systems are still used today. Funny that, two nations arrive with similar PLSS systems. Maybe they relied on the same physics to arrive at their engineering solutions. As this thought entered you mind?

In any case, I thought you claimed that no documentation exists, or at least no photo. Surely if the documentation exists and you have now seen a photo, your argument reduces to the function of the PLSS in a vacuum?

You do realise that you are fundamentally at odds with other conspiracy theorists regarding the existence of evidence for the PLSS, both photographic evidence and documentation. Ralph Rene and Jarrah White acknowledge the PLSS documentation, they just dispute the thermodynamics because neither are smart enough to apply the correct heat transfer equations. This presents a problem for the conspiracy theory, as we have some of you on different horses.

So which is it (a) you afford direct contradiction to other conspiracy theorists and claim there are no PLSS photos and/or documentation of its function. (b) you are in agreement that PLSS documentation exists but dispute the heat transfer calculations.

It has to be (a) or (b)? What side of the fence do you sit on? Or are you sitting on a different fence?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 11:55:16 AM
No, I didn't say that.
I said I had no proof. Neither do you.

And I said, I have no burden to produce any in order to question your claim.  You seem to be arguing that we are on equal footing, or in some sort of standoff or stalemate.  Not true, as regards your claim.  You have the burden to prove it.  If you say you cannot, it fails forthwith.

Quote
We both have plenty of evidence.

You've presented no evidence.  You've presented only speculation and bare denial.  You've also made subsidiary affirmative claims which proved false.

Quote
That which makes my argument unique, and the reason you should support it, is that I describe something that can be scientifically validated on Earth today.

And has been, to the satisfaction of the relevant professional fields.  In contrast you present only your denial, based on an argument from silence.  You maintain this despite having been informed numerous times why your argument is not convincing.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 11:56:57 AM
This is a direct claim that the photo has been faked, the ISS is a nice prop and the spacesuits are fake with a fake back ground.

Probably

Weasel words.  Either the photo is genuine and provides evidence your theory does not account for or it is fake, as you have suggested.  The only way this evidence does not defeat your claim is if you can prove your accusation that it's fake.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 27, 2015, 12:00:37 PM

My evidence is that the spacesuits shown have never in their over 50 years of alleged use been publicly demonstrated by NASA to work in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit.
Except that such tests have been performed and you have been provided with the very video and photographic evidence you demanded.
Only until recently after my agitation could a photograph of a spacesuit ice sublimator be seen on the Internet.
You have been demonstrated to be completely wrong on this. You have been provided with evidence which predates your "agitation". It is nobodies fault but yours that you are an incompetent researcher.

And despite representing one of the most interesting and exotic heat transfer devices ever contrived,
There is nothing exotic about sublimation, nor it's principles, nor it's scientific provenance, nor the devices used to implement it as a cooling system. Just because you are ignorant of such things does not perforce mean that everyone else must be.

no spacesuit ice sublimator is mentioned in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics book.
Funny how it was covered in thermodynamics 101 in my first year uni text books 25 years ago. How do you explain that?

It's evidence of anomalous spacesuits.
No, it is evidence that you know nothing Neil Baker.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Kiwi on August 27, 2015, 12:00:58 PM
You think  that image is on the web because of you?
I hate to break it to you, but that image was available at the latest in 1997, when the Internet Archive archived it (https://web.archive.org/web/19970617055401/http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/plss.html).

Neil Baker:  Did you notice that particular post (reply 27 on page 2)? The link proves the photo you claim recent responsibility for, was actually on the internet back on 17 June 1997, at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journals.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 27, 2015, 12:02:49 PM
no spacesuit ice sublimator is mentioned in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics book. It's evidence of anomalous spacesuits.

As a physicist I fail to understand why anyone would explicitly write about a bespoke engineering system in a heat transfer or thermodynamics book. Your understanding of the interface between academic books and real world engineering projects is distinctly flawed.

The PLSS works on a simple heat exchanger, and the engineer needs an understanding of thermodynamics to design the system. Once designed that system may be patented (its working is protected under patent law) or as with the Apollo project, a description of the PLSS is published as a technical document along with all the other project documentation.

There is no interest in the academic author writing about a bespoke system. I have a heat exchanger in my car, right at the front of the car, I have never seen it written about in any academic book. I can assure you that my car is parked on my drive and the said heat exchanger exists.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on August 27, 2015, 12:13:38 PM

That would be quite a feat in itself, sending up and inflating such a large, complex structure in orbit. Who built this alleged structure, Neil Baker? Who were the engineers and scientists involved? Can you name even one?

I think it might have been Bigelow Aerospace in Las Vegas. The website says they've been around since 99 but I suspect much longer probably as a black ops. 1999 was probably the year they came out of stealth mode after building the ISS balloons. Pretty impressive operation for a company that hasn't sold anything.
OK, evidence? Bigelow sent up a couple inflatable satellites as proof of concept for their inflatable module design, but they are far simpler than the  ISS complex's shape, seen in the photos anyone with access to the right consumer level hardware. Besides, one could 'think' and 'suspect' anything, I could 'say' it was Tiny, world's largest circus clown and I could 'suspect' it was done with Santa Claus' help, and we'd both be on equal footing evidence-wise.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 12:14:09 PM
And I said, I have no burden to produce any in order to question your claim.  You seem to be arguing that we are on equal footing, or in some sort of standoff or stalemate.  Not true, as regards your claim.  You have the burden to prove it.  If you say you cannot, it fails forthwith.

Yes you do. You claim there's a manned ISS and spacewalks and moonwalks were made.
I say PROVE it.
Yes, I accept a burden of proof also but, unfortunately, I'm still seeking the required assistance from NASA.
We both have burdens of proof and, fortunately, we can both use the same method of PROOF---public demonstration before independent witnesses of a NASA spacesuit with sublimator in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 12:17:17 PM
Weasel words.  Either the photo is genuine and provides evidence your theory does not account for or it is fake, as you have suggested.  The only way this evidence does not defeat your claim is if you can prove your accusation that it's fake.

I don't have proof. I have to say "probably."
You don't have proof either but you don't say "probably."
Who's the weasel?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Gazpar on August 27, 2015, 12:19:17 PM
Quote
I say PROVE it.
You were provided with photos of the ISS taken by amateurs and their telescopes.
Its up to you to prove that such aerodynamical shape can fly over the skies at high speed
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 12:19:50 PM
My evidence is that the spacesuits shown have never in their over 50 years of alleged use been publicly demonstrated by NASA to work in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit.

False according to evidence presented, and in any case a narrowly-tailored straw man.  Your contrived personal definition of a "public demonstration" does not create a controversy that others are bound to respect.

Quote
Only until recently after my agitation could a photograph of a spacesuit ice sublimator be seen on the Internet.

Records were produced proving otherwise.  You are not responsible for the publication on the internet of photographs of sublimators.

Quote
And despite representing one of the most interesting and exotic heat transfer devices ever contrived...

Phase-change cooling is far from "exotic."  Have you ever heard of swamp cooler?  And sublimation cooling is no more exotic than, say, a Joule-Thompson device, which is also commonly used on spacecraft.

Quote
...no spacesuit ice sublimator is mentioned in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics book.

The most widely referenced free textbook (Lienhard) on heat transfer, from an MIT professor, has an entire chapter on phase-change methods of heat transfer.

Further this is another straw man.  Heat transfer and thermodynamics textbooks rarely describe any commercial products that effect the principles they describe.  They are primarily physics textbooks.  The standard engineering reference on spacecraft design (Fortescue et al.) has an entire chapter on thermal design, including a discussion of both practical phase-change mechanisms and limits on practical testing of thermal control methods on Earth.  Looking in the wrong places and handwaving about allegedly suspicious omissions does not create an argument those skilled in the art are obliged to respect.

Quote
It's evidence of anomalous spacesuits.

No, the more parsimonious interpretation is that you overstate the degree of research you have done as well as misrepresent the findings, and present only a fairly easily refutable argument from silence.  Your personal incredulity and your personal ineptitude at research is not probative of anything except those things.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 12:21:42 PM
Did you notice that particular post (reply 27 on page 2)? The link proves the photo you claim recent responsibility for, was actually on the internet back on 17 June 1997, at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journals.

I saw it and I believe you. I imagine it was buried in cyberspace somewhere. But it didn't appear to me and others until much later.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 27, 2015, 12:22:04 PM
And I said, I have no burden to produce any in order to question your claim.  You seem to be arguing that we are on equal footing, or in some sort of standoff or stalemate.  Not true, as regards your claim.  You have the burden to prove it.  If you say you cannot, it fails forthwith.

Yes you do. You claim there's a manned ISS and spacewalks and moonwalks were made.
I say PROVE it.
Yes, I accept a burden of proof also but, unfortunately, I'm still seeking the required assistance from NASA.
We both have burdens of proof and, fortunately, we can both use the same method of PROOF---public demonstration before independent witnesses of a NASA spacesuit with sublimator in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit.
It has been done, you have been shown technical documents, pictures and videos, all of which you were unable to find on your own, all of which were spoon fed to you, all of which you ignore in favour of stamping your feet and demanding that a "special" demonstration be undertaken just for you. Because you are "special".

As for ISS spacewalks, they have been observed from earth using backyard telescopes by amateurs. Had you undertaken the most basic of research you would know this, but apparently even google surpasses your abilities.

Neil Baker, a man whose talents truly know no beginning.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 27, 2015, 12:22:10 PM
...no spacesuit ice sublimator is mentioned in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics book.

Here a text book titled Advanced Heat and Mass Transfer that asks its students a question about porous plate sublimators (question #4.2.1).

https://books.google.com/books?id=yxMnotbAAz4C&pg=PA436#v=onepage&q&f=false
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Gazpar on August 27, 2015, 12:22:36 PM
Did you notice that particular post (reply 27 on page 2)? The link proves the photo you claim recent responsibility for, was actually on the internet back on 17 June 1997, at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journals.

I saw it and I believe you. I imagine it was buried in cyberspace somewhere. But it didn't appear to me and others until much later.
But It was there regardless of your observation.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 12:23:24 PM
Quote
I say PROVE it.
You were provided with photos of the ISS taken by amateurs and their telescopes.
Its up to you to prove that such aerodynamical shape can fly over the skies at high speed

That's not proof. That's evidence. Those photos could be fake and even if they're not, the thing photographed could be fake.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 12:24:48 PM
...no spacesuit ice sublimator is mentioned in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics book.

Here a text book titled Advanced Heat and Mass Transfer that asks its students a question about porous plate sublimators (question #4.2.1).

https://books.google.com/books?id=yxMnotbAAz4C&pg=PA436#v=onepage&q&f=false

Yes, published in 2010 long after I began publicly disputing the ice sublimators in 2007
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 12:25:11 PM
Yes you do. You claim there's a manned ISS and spacewalks and moonwalks were made.
I say PROVE it.

No, that's now how proof works.  You started off by saying all space travel was a hoax.  We've identified publicly available information that points to a legitimate orbiting space station.  Your claim, in order to hold, must explain contrary evidence such as that.  Those who bring this evidence to your attention and ask you to reconcile it with your claims are not obliged to establish its authenticity over and above your speculative dismissal.

Quote
Yes, I accept a burden of proof also but, unfortunately, I'm still seeking the required assistance from NASA.

No, it is not the fault of those whom you accuse that you are unable to substantiate your accusation.

Quote
We both have burdens of proof...

No, that is expressly not how the burden of proof works (cf. Sagan, Demon-Haunted World).
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 12:26:26 PM
Those photos could be fake and even if they're not, the thing photographed could be fake.

Affirmative rebuttals incur a burden of proof.  If you cannot prove the evidence was faked, then you cannot expect your critics to accept that as your explanation for why your theory cannot account for it.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: mako88sb on August 27, 2015, 12:26:34 PM
So, your also saying that the Hubble repair eva's were all faked as well. Can you explain why it would be in NASA's best interest to display images from it and state that they were not of the quality they were expecting? Then go to enormous effort to fake the repair videos so that they could claim that the images were now meeting their expectations. This level of duplicity seems plausible to you does it?

Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 12:28:24 PM

As for ISS spacewalks, they have been observed from earth using backyard telescopes by amateurs.


Oh bull!
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 27, 2015, 12:28:46 PM
Did you notice that particular post (reply 27 on page 2)? The link proves the photo you claim recent responsibility for, was actually on the internet back on 17 June 1997, at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journals.

I saw it and I believe you. I imagine it was buried in cyberspace somewhere. But it didn't appear to me and others until much later.
No, it wasn't "buried in cyberspace somewhere". It was on the internet in the exact same place it is still to be found today.

Your incompetence is not reflective of the world at large. Kindly cease attempting to drag everyone down to your level of subject matter ignorance.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Gazpar on August 27, 2015, 12:28:51 PM
Quote
I say PROVE it.
You were provided with photos of the ISS taken by amateurs and their telescopes.
Its up to you to prove that such aerodynamical shape can fly over the skies at high speed

That's not proof. That's evidence. Those photos could be fake and even if they're not, the thing photographed could be fake.
Again, to even consider it could be fake, you must list a couple of reasons for that. You said it is an inflatable balloon when such aerodynamical shape dont allows it to fly at high speeds.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 12:29:16 PM
I saw it and I believe you. I imagine it was buried in cyberspace somewhere. But it didn't appear to me and others until much later.

Your inability to locate a photo on the internet does not prove such a photo did not exist there.  Further, you are not an authority on what others can and cannot find on the internet.  You have made the laughable claim that there has been little if any public discussion of nickel porous plate sublimators prior to 2007.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 12:29:55 PM
Oh bull!

Is there any portion of your argument that isn't either speculation or bare denial?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 27, 2015, 12:31:18 PM

As for ISS spacewalks, they have been observed from earth using backyard telescopes by amateurs.


Oh bull!

Is what you're full of

http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/666/how-powerful-a-telescope-would-allow-me-to-view-the-astronauts-aboard-iss-do-a-s
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 27, 2015, 12:34:03 PM
Here's the US patent that discusses ice sublimation. Note the filing date Neil, well before you raised your concerns about their existence.

http://www.google.ca/patents/US3613775

Now, it you claim that this was filed during the Apollo missions so was too late for the Apollo missions, you clearly do not know a lot about patents OR have read through this patent which discusses previous sublimation systems. So, it would appear that a patent existed for ice sublimators well before your objections.

Your move.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 12:36:10 PM
So, your also saying that the Hubble repair eva's were all faked as well. Can you explain why it would be in NASA's best interest to display images from it and state that they were not of the quality they were expecting? Then go to enormous effort to fake the repair videos so that they could claim that the images were now meeting their expectations. This level of duplicity seems plausible to you does it?

More stolen money piggy-backed on already stolen money. I speculate it's all about stealing money. I admit it's pure speculation but that's the best I can do absent any responsible scientific accountability from NASA.
Does this level of duplicity seem plausible? For someone like me, no. But after confronting 9-11, I'm astounded at the evil of media-controlling Zionists.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 27, 2015, 12:36:45 PM
...no spacesuit ice sublimator is mentioned in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics book.

Here a text book titled Advanced Heat and Mass Transfer that asks its students a question about porous plate sublimators (question #4.2.1).

https://books.google.com/books?id=yxMnotbAAz4C&pg=PA436#v=onepage&q&f=false

Yes, published in 2010 long after I began publicly disputing the ice sublimators in 2007

Who cares when it was published?  You claimed no texts books mention it and that claim is false.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 27, 2015, 12:37:30 PM
I speculate it's all about stealing money.

So there's no argument to address.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 12:38:24 PM
http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/666/how-powerful-a-telescope-would-allow-me-to-view-the-astronauts-aboard-iss-do-a-s

Oh please!
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 27, 2015, 12:38:36 PM
Please list any your relevant qualifications.

Just in case you missed the question in all the posts.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 27, 2015, 12:39:21 PM
Who cares when it was published?  You claimed no texts books mention it and that claim is false.

But, once Neil raised it, the whole scientific community had to rush out and make sure it was covered by filling in the gaps. I think that is what he is suggesting.  :o
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 12:39:56 PM
I admit it's pure speculation but that's the best I can do absent any responsible scientific accountability from NASA.
Does this level of duplicity seem plausible?

No.  It is not NASA's fault you are unwilling and unable to prove your accusations against them.  "Responsible scientific accountability" does not mean acquiescing to delusional demands made without evidence.

Quote
For someone like me, no. But after confronting 9-11, I'm astounded at the evil of media-controlling Zionists.

This is telling.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 27, 2015, 12:40:35 PM

As for ISS spacewalks, they have been observed from earth using backyard telescopes by amateurs.


Oh bull!
Why? Is that yet another thing your bumbling efforts at research failed to find?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 12:40:52 PM
http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/666/how-powerful-a-telescope-would-allow-me-to-view-the-astronauts-aboard-iss-do-a-s

Oh please!

Once again, bare denial is not an argument.  You are repeatedly and distinctly unable to explain any contrary evidence.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 12:41:14 PM

Who cares when it was published? 

Think hard. I'm sure you can figure this one out by yourself.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 27, 2015, 12:41:26 PM
Here's the US patent that discusses ice sublimation. Note the filing date Neil, well before you raised your concerns about their existence.

http://www.google.ca/patents/US3613775

Now, it you claim that this was filed during the Apollo missions so was too late for the Apollo missions, you clearly do not know a lot about patents OR have read through this patent which discusses previous sublimation systems. So, it would appear that a patent existed for ice sublimators well before your objections.

Your move.

Here is the patent on the sublimator (which I posted yesterday).  The filing date is 1963.

http://www.google.com/patents/US3170303
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 12:43:21 PM
But, once Neil raised it, the whole scientific community had to rush out and make sure it was covered by filling in the gaps. I think that is what he is suggesting.  :o

Including, I suppose, time-traveling back to the 1980s and planting one in the Smithsonian, where and when I first saw a sublimator in person.  Or perhaps telepathically altering my memory.  Baker complains that NASA ignores him.  Perhaps he would be more successful if he were able to recruit some appropriately qualified allies?  But the record shows Baker is roundly regarded as a crackpot.  And for good reason, it appears.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 27, 2015, 12:43:36 PM
...no spacesuit ice sublimator is mentioned in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics book.

Here a text book titled Advanced Heat and Mass Transfer that asks its students a question about porous plate sublimators (question #4.2.1).

https://books.google.com/books?id=yxMnotbAAz4C&pg=PA436#v=onepage&q&f=false

Yes, published in 2010 long after I began publicly disputing the ice sublimators in 2007
Heat and Mass Transfer - Anthony Mills - 1995 - ISBN 0256114439

You were saying?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 27, 2015, 12:44:29 PM
http://www.google.com/patents/US3170303

Sorry Bob, I missed that. The evidence is clear though, patents exist for sublimation technology prior to Neil's concerns. The conclusion being that Neil is a poor researcher and is now trying to dig himself from a hole.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: mako88sb on August 27, 2015, 12:45:31 PM
Please list any your relevant qualifications.

Just in case you missed the question in all the posts.

Here's his resume from when he was running for governor back in 2002:

http://web.archive.org/web/20031224132630/www.oceanchinampa.com/BakerResume.pdf
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 12:46:02 PM
Think hard. I'm sure you can figure this one out by yourself.

It's already been figured out:  you're changing horses.  In your original post, you represented the "lack of information" regarding nickel porous plate sublimators as an ongoing concern.  It clearly is not, hence you have revised your argument to claim that you were responsible in 2007 for motivating the recent publication of suitable descriptions.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 12:46:17 PM
Why? Is that yet another thing your bumbling efforts at research failed to find?

Hoaxers love blurry photos.
Okay, throw it in the pile with your other so-called evidence.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 27, 2015, 12:47:32 PM
Think hard. I'm sure you can figure this one out by yourself.

Ok, I've thought about it.  You claim is false.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 27, 2015, 12:48:00 PM
Including, I suppose, time-traveling back to the 1980s and planting one in the Smithsonian, where and when I first saw a sublimator in person.

Time travel, that would mean a bit of Einstein's relativity I guess.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 27, 2015, 12:49:44 PM
Just go to Google Books and search "porous plate sublimator" and all sorts hits come up.

https://www.google.com/search?q=porous+plate+sublimator&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1#q=porous+plate+sublimator&tbm=bks&start=0
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 27, 2015, 12:51:02 PM
Why? Is that yet another thing your bumbling efforts at research failed to find?

Hoaxers love blurry photos.
Okay, throw it in the pile with your other so-called evidence.
There is a veritable pile of evidence that all of these missions are real.

You, OTOH, have no evidence at all for any of your wild, fanciful claims. None, Nada. Zero. Zilch. SFA.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 12:51:58 PM
...no spacesuit ice sublimator is mentioned in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics book.

Here a text book titled Advanced Heat and Mass Transfer that asks its students a question about porous plate sublimators (question #4.2.1).

https://books.google.com/books?id=yxMnotbAAz4C&pg=PA436#v=onepage&q&f=false

Yes, published in 2010 long after I began publicly disputing the ice sublimators in 2007
Heat and Mass Transfer - Anthony Mills - 1995 - ISBN 0256114439

You were saying?

Where's the 1995 date?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 12:54:09 PM
Why? Is that yet another thing your bumbling efforts at research failed to find?

Hoaxers love blurry photos.
Okay, throw it in the pile with your other so-called evidence.
There is a veritable pile of evidence that all of these missions are real.

You, OTOH, have no evidence at all for any of your wild, fanciful claims. None, Nada. Zero. Zilch. SFA.

Too bad you don't have proof.
By the way, I have a way you can PROVE it. On Earth. Today.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 27, 2015, 12:54:32 PM
...no spacesuit ice sublimator is mentioned in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics book.

Here a text book titled Advanced Heat and Mass Transfer that asks its students a question about porous plate sublimators (question #4.2.1).

https://books.google.com/books?id=yxMnotbAAz4C&pg=PA436#v=onepage&q&f=false

Yes, published in 2010 long after I began publicly disputing the ice sublimators in 2007
Heat and Mass Transfer - Anthony Mills - 1995 - ISBN 0256114439

You were saying?

Where's the 1995 date?
That would be the publication date.

Are you really that useless at looking things up?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 27, 2015, 12:55:58 PM
Why? Is that yet another thing your bumbling efforts at research failed to find?

Hoaxers love blurry photos.
Okay, throw it in the pile with your other so-called evidence.
There is a veritable pile of evidence that all of these missions are real.

You, OTOH, have no evidence at all for any of your wild, fanciful claims. None, Nada. Zero. Zilch. SFA.

Too bad you don't have proof.
By the way, I have a way you can PROVE it. On Earth. Today.
Yes. You said. The tests you demand have been done countless times. You are not a special snowflake that gets to demand that said tests be repeated just for you.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 27, 2015, 12:58:37 PM
That would be the publication date.

40 - Love

Quote
Are you really that useless at looking things up?

game, set and match.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 01:00:02 PM
Too bad you don't have proof.

Shifting the burden of proof.  Further, there is no obligation to disprove speculation.

Quote
By the way, I have a way you can PROVE it. On Earth. Today.

Asked and answered.  You have had a way for many years to prove your claims practically.  You have not done so, nor explained why you have not.  Instead you have simply launched upon a crusade against an entire field of engineering, on no more rational a basis than your ignorance and disbelief.  Further, you have been repeatedly provided with evidence of the trials you say were never done.  Your resistance to them does not obligate NASA or anyone else to orchestrate a new one for your personal benefit.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 01:01:39 PM
That would be the publication date.

I think Baker legitimately believed the ISBN was meant to refer to the book found at the link.  It does not; they are two separate books.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on August 27, 2015, 01:04:32 PM
Did you notice that particular post (reply 27 on page 2)? The link proves the photo you claim recent responsibility for, was actually on the internet back on 17 June 1997, at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journals.

I saw it and I believe you. I imagine it was buried in cyberspace somewhere. But it didn't appear to me and others until much later.
Well, that looks to me rather at odds with your earlier:

The photograph of the ice sublimator that is presented is able to be presented because of me. I'm confident, it was my steady agitation that caused it to finally appear on the Internet.
[bolded for emphases]
Even if you go back to the ALSJ intro page (https://web.archive.org/web/19970617035116/http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/) as it was almost 20 years ago, it takes a grand total of three clicks, one on the Apollo lunar surface journal logo image, another on 'Introductory Material' and, lastly,'Portable Life Support System (PLSS)', to get back to the page I linked to. That's not buried, Neil Baker. That's not even mildly dusted.
You should listen to your room-mate.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 27, 2015, 01:05:36 PM
That would be the publication date.

I think Baker legitimately believed the ISBN was meant to refer to the book found at the link.  It does not; they are two separate books.
I don't see how he could conflate the two books. Different titles, different authors, different publication dates and different ISBNs.

Unless we are proposing to add poor reading comprehension to his repertoire of bumbling around the webernets.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: mako88sb on August 27, 2015, 01:06:55 PM
Neil, let me ask you a two-part hypothetical question. Let us say, for some reason, NASA decided to arrange a special demonstration - just for you and some other observers - just like you request to show off the spacesuit working in a vacuum chamber.

Would this actually convince you?

If so, WHY would it actually convince you? You've posited some insanely complicated acts of deceit on behalf of NASA. According to you, they've somehow gotten an inflatable object into orbit around the planet at a speed of over 17,000 miles per hour.
Do you have the experience and knowledge to positively identify an in-use vacuum chamber? Could you tell if it was being faked?
Magicians manage to convince live audiences of amazing feats of illusion. David Copperfield arranged an illusion that tricked his audience into thinking he'd made the Statue of Liberty vanish. Do you really think they couldn't manage something as simple as a fake vacuum chamber?

So again, why would this specific demonstration convince you? It is no less "fakeable" than all the other evidence that is available.



It would have to be fakeable to more than just me. I expect at least two other independent witnesses on hand. I also expect to be allowed to hook up our own pirani and hot cathode ionization gauges. I'm confident that my level of experience with vacuum systems is sufficient. Personally, I doubt they'll be able to get anywhere near orbital vacuum of ~1e-6 Torr if the sublimator works as they allege. But maybe they have some huge vacuum pumps to compensate for the sublimator sublimating.

It was a few months ago, I believe, when someone pointed out that NASA would likely never allow someone arrested for bomb threats into any of their facilities. You said you would be fine with 3 people with reputations you could trust being the witnesses. From your post here, it sounds like you've changed your mind. Do you really think you would ever get the required security clearance? 
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 01:09:07 PM
Unless we are proposing to add poor reading comprehension to his repertoire of bumbling around the webernets.

Look at his level of attention here and elsewhere he has debated.  I believe he simply doesn't read any of the posts here except to latch onto some tidbit he can use to prolong the debate and increase the attention paid to him.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 27, 2015, 01:12:53 PM
Please list any your relevant qualifications.

Just in case you missed the question in all the posts.

Here's his resume from when he was running for governor back in 2002:

http://web.archive.org/web/20031224132630/www.oceanchinampa.com/BakerResume.pdf

Didn't hold employment for very long at the same organization.  Is this  because of work performance, work relationship or job hopping for better pay?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on August 27, 2015, 01:13:34 PM
And I said, I have no burden to produce any in order to question your claim.  You seem to be arguing that we are on equal footing, or in some sort of standoff or stalemate.  Not true, as regards your claim.  You have the burden to prove it.  If you say you cannot, it fails forthwith.

Yes you do. You claim there's a manned ISS and spacewalks and moonwalks were made.
I say PROVE it.


Have you ever tried to look at the ISS through a small telescope? It's not that hard...transit times are publicly available from a myriad of sources.
www.heavens-above.com


As for ISS spacewalks, they have been observed from earth using backyard telescopes by amateurs.


Oh bull!
So now you are calling people like Thierry Legault liars and frauds? As well as people that I personally know? You are incorrect and woefully ignorant.

By the way, I am still waiting for your detailed refutation from here:

http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=945.msg31079#msg31079

You state that it can't work. Prove it.


[thread drift]
I guess I was thinking of not staring into the sun through a telescope.  Cameras if they have proper settings obviously can take pictures as you have linked.

No, they cannot.
In whitelight the Sun is simply too bright and the infra-red energy thats focused through the lens will burn the sensor or shutter curtains. Never, ever point an unfiltered camera at the Sun
http://www.camerarepair.org/2012/05/solar-eclipse-burned-camera/

The hydrogen-alpha images are taking with a highly specialised telescope that employs a resonant cavity filter (a Fabry-Perot etalon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabry%E2%80%93P%C3%A9rot_interferometer)) to only allow a very precisely tuned wavelength of light through (656 Angstroms). This light is emitted when a hydrogen electron falls from the third to it's second lowest energy level. Viewing at this frequency allows us to see into a deeper layer of the Sun's atmosphere called the chromosphere.

[/thread drift]
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 01:14:01 PM
It was a few months ago, I believe, when someone pointed out that NASA would likely never allow someone arrested for bomb threats into near any of their facilities.

As capital, critical assets, NASA vacuum test chambers have armed guards.  Further, Baker's experience with law enforcement might provide the world with a different reason why NASA ignores him.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 27, 2015, 01:16:39 PM
It would have to be fakeable to more than just me. I expect at least two other independent witnesses on hand. I also expect to be allowed to hook up our own pirani and hot cathode ionization gauges. I'm confident that my level of experience with vacuum systems is sufficient. Personally, I doubt they'll be able to get anywhere near orbital vacuum of ~1e-6 Torr if the sublimator works as they allege. But maybe they have some huge vacuum pumps to compensate for the sublimator sublimating.
Chamber B

Vacuum: 1x10-6 torr

Pumping capacity: 1 x 107 liters/sec condensables and 2 x 105 liters/sec noncondensables at 1 x 10-6 torr pressure; Note: Usual chamber inleakage less then 3 x 105 liters/sec of air at 1 x 10-6 torr pressure

Why can't you find this publicly available basic data yourself?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: mako88sb on August 27, 2015, 01:19:50 PM
It was a few months ago, I believe, when someone pointed out that NASA would likely never allow someone arrested for bomb threats into near any of their facilities.

As capital, critical assets, NASA vacuum test chambers have armed guards.  Further, Baker's experience with law enforcement might provide the world with a different reason why NASA ignores him.

Thanks Jay. I didn't know that but makes sense.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 27, 2015, 01:22:28 PM
It was a few months ago, I believe, when someone pointed out that NASA would likely never allow someone arrested for bomb threats into near any of their facilities.

As capital, critical assets, NASA vacuum test chambers have armed guards.  Further, Baker's experience with law enforcement might provide the world with a different reason why NASA ignores him.
If he got close it might be a Red alert.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Mag40 on August 27, 2015, 01:23:06 PM
Unless we are proposing to add poor reading comprehension to his repertoire of bumbling around the webernets.

Look at his level of attention here and elsewhere he has debated.  I believe he simply doesn't read any of the posts here except to latch onto some tidbit he can use to prolong the debate and increase the attention paid to him.

This is just a Heiwa-clone thread. I am baffled at the behaviour of these people, it happens so often one could be mistaken for thinking it was the same person. Did I miss his explanation for how we obtained the lunar samples?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 27, 2015, 01:25:54 PM

This is just a Heiwa-clone thread. I am baffled at the behaviour of these people, it happens so often one could be mistaken for thinking it was the same person. Did I miss his explanation for how we obtained the lunar samples?
In the true tradition of the circular firing squad, all spaceflight is fake, therefore the samples are fake and since the samples are fake all spaceflight is fake.

Or some such nonsense.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 27, 2015, 01:26:03 PM

This is just a Heiwa-clone thread. I am baffled at the behaviour of these people, it happens so often one could be mistaken for thinking it was the same person. Did I miss his explanation for how we obtained the lunar samples?
By a convoluted route that the Apollo's PLSS could/did not work, because he doesn't understand how it works.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: mako88sb on August 27, 2015, 01:31:14 PM
It was a few months ago, I believe, when someone pointed out that NASA would likely never allow someone arrested for bomb threats into near any of their facilities.

As capital, critical assets, NASA vacuum test chambers have armed guards.  Further, Baker's experience with law enforcement might provide the world with a different reason why NASA ignores him.
If he got close it might be a Red alert.

Well Neil, maybe it's time to recruit some big guns to help you out. I'm sure Jarrah White would be more then willing to step up to the plate for you and straighten everybody out over here. I suggest you try contacting him and see if he'd be willing to convince NASA about the importance of this test.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 27, 2015, 01:33:39 PM

Well Neil, maybe it's time to recruit some big guns to help you out. I'm sure Jarrah White would be more then willing to step up to the plate for you and straighten everybody out over here. I suggest you try contacting him and see if he'd be willing to convince NASA about the importance of this test.
I predict that will rise like a 2m lead balloon.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 27, 2015, 01:42:43 PM
I predict that will rise like a 2m lead balloon.

The Mythbusters got that to happen.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on August 27, 2015, 01:45:29 PM
I predict that will rise like a 2m lead balloon.

The Mythbusters got that to happen.
Looked a bit bigger than 2 meters (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZSkM-QEeUg) though.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 27, 2015, 01:47:28 PM
I predict that will rise like a 2m lead balloon.

The Mythbusters got that to happen.
Looked a bit bigger than 2 meters though.

For what it's worth, I might actually be the person responsible for getting them to test that myth.  I submitted the idea to them along with some calculations showing that it was feasibly possible.  About a year later it made it into the show.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on August 27, 2015, 01:49:16 PM
I predict that will rise like a 2m lead balloon.

The Mythbusters got that to happen.
Looked a bit bigger than 2 meters though.

For what it's worth, I might actually be the person responsible for getting them to test that myth.  I submitted the idea to them along with some calculations showing that it was feasibly possible.  About a year later it made it into the show.
That's, really, just really  cool. ;D
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 27, 2015, 01:51:56 PM
For what it's worth, I might actually be the person responsible for getting them to test that myth.  I submitted the idea to them along with some calculations showing that it was feasibly possible.  About a year later it made it into the show.

Kudos. I don't know what to give you more kudos for, this, or sitting through BlunderWunder's radiation videos.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 27, 2015, 01:57:35 PM
A couple years after the original airing of that episode, the Mythbusters did a special in which they revisited some of their prior myths.  Adam said that the lead balloon episode was his all-time favorite.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 27, 2015, 01:59:00 PM
Adam said that the lead balloon episode was his all-time favorite.

You're showing off now :)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: mako88sb on August 27, 2015, 02:05:39 PM
A couple years after the original airing of that episode, the Mythbusters did a special in which they revisited some of their prior myths.  Adam said that the lead balloon episode was his all-time favorite.

Well, I got a bone to pick with you about that episode. My oldest daughter and I were watching it and I told her that it wouldn't work. Of course, we know the results and my daughter hasn't let me forget it. She can be quite merciless sometimes. Grrr!
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 27, 2015, 02:07:45 PM
I predict that will rise like a 2m lead balloon.

The Mythbusters got that to happen.
I actually meant a 2 m thick balloon,if that is what they did.
E2a Congratulations on suggesting it in the first place.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Cat Not Included on August 27, 2015, 02:13:24 PM
Neil, let me ask you a two-part hypothetical question. Let us say, for some reason, NASA decided to arrange a special demonstration - just for you and some other observers - just like you request to show off the spacesuit working in a vacuum chamber.

Would this actually convince you?

If so, WHY would it actually convince you? You've posited some insanely complicated acts of deceit on behalf of NASA. According to you, they've somehow gotten an inflatable object into orbit around the planet at a speed of over 17,000 miles per hour.
Do you have the experience and knowledge to positively identify an in-use vacuum chamber? Could you tell if it was being faked?
Magicians manage to convince live audiences of amazing feats of illusion. David Copperfield arranged an illusion that tricked his audience into thinking he'd made the Statue of Liberty vanish. Do you really think they couldn't manage something as simple as a fake vacuum chamber?

So again, why would this specific demonstration convince you? It is no less "fakeable" than all the other evidence that is available.

It would have to be fakeable to more than just me. I expect at least two other independent witnesses on hand. I also expect to be allowed to hook up our own pirani and hot cathode ionization gauges. I'm confident that my level of experience with vacuum systems is sufficient. Personally, I doubt they'll be able to get anywhere near orbital vacuum of ~1e-6 Torr if the sublimator works as they allege. But maybe they have some huge vacuum pumps to compensate for the sublimator sublimating.
So...just to be clear. You claim is that almost the entire space programs of multiple countries are a hoax. The most elaborate hoax ever in human history. Which has successfully fooled millions of people, including thousands of direct observers. Which has super-secret special effects technology decades ahead of their time and can spend millions of dollars on developing and launching completely non-functional space station duplicates.

But they couldn't manage to fool three people in an indoor demonstration?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on August 27, 2015, 02:20:22 PM
But they couldn't manage to fool three people in an indoor demonstration?

Or just make them disappear?

Remember, NASA can do ANYTHING, except land men on the Moon and return them safely. ::)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: mako88sb on August 27, 2015, 02:22:16 PM

But they couldn't manage to fool three people in an indoor demonstration?

This has been pointed out numerous times to him over at the Michio Kaku video he frequents. Plus I've told him just as many times there's no way NASA would ever start jumping through hoops to satisfy one person since it would lead to all kinds of demands by the ignorant to demo what they can't figure out. His continued persistence is totally irrational. Especially after viewing his resume that shows he has the education to know there's no reason at all that the PLSS couldn't work as shown.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 27, 2015, 02:23:53 PM
I actually meant a 2 m thick balloon,if that is what they did.

They made it out of a thin lead foil.  Adam devised a pretty neat way of arranging the sheets in such a way that it could be constructed with everything laid out flat on the floor.  When it was inflated, the sheets unfolded in just the right way to make nice balloon.  The biggest problem they had was that the foil was so soft that it would easily tear.  They had to keep patching it while it was inflating.  Nonetheless, it worked.

I suggested the use of lead foil, but my idea was to construct it like a dirigible with a lightweight wire frame.  The calculations showed that it definitely would have enough buoyancy to work.  In fact, the Mythbusters design has so buoyant that they got it to rise used a mixing of helium and air.  My calculations were based on pure helium.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: dwight on August 27, 2015, 02:30:30 PM
Neil.

Just buy or rent the unit from the manufacturer and demonstrate how it doesnt work.

Because your bs ranting is about as gratifying as a 1khz tone at 150dB. Time is money.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Jason Thompson on August 27, 2015, 02:30:47 PM
The lead balloon was nothing short of amazing. Loved that episode. Although it (and others) did contribute to the frivolous use of an element we are slowly but surely depleting. As Dara OBriain put it in his latest tour, no other species has punched a hole in the periodic table by taking an entire element and hoofing it off into space!

But to summarise this dscussion, everything about anything about space is fake, photos that were on the internet and published elsewhere even before 2010 were only released because he agitated for them in 2010, and the only way to prove it all is true is for NASA to do something no organisation in its right mind would do and let a man with a dubious police record into their facilities and fiddle around with their equipment. Right....
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Dr_Orpheus on August 27, 2015, 02:40:13 PM
Is it my imagination, or do an increasing number of HBs believe that all manned (and sometimes even all unmanned) space flights are fake?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 27, 2015, 02:42:13 PM
I actually meant a 2 m thick balloon,if that is what they did.

They made it out of a thin lead foil.  Adam devised a pretty neat way of arranging the sheets in such a way that it could be constructed with everything laid out flat on the floor.  When it was inflated, the sheets unfolded in just the right way to make nice balloon.  The biggest problem they had was that the foil was so soft that it would easily tear.  They had to keep patching it while it was inflating.  Nonetheless, it worked.

I suggested the use of lead foil, but my idea was to construct it like a dirigible with a lightweight wire frame.  The calculations showed that it definitely would have enough buoyancy to work.  In fact, the Mythbusters design has so buoyant that they got it to rise used a mixing of helium and air.  My calculations were based on pure helium.
I was aiming that comment to the blunder down under.   With his "complete " understanding of radiation.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: mako88sb on August 27, 2015, 02:42:59 PM


But to summarise this dscussion, everything about anything about space is fake, photos that were on the internet and published elsewhere even before 2010 were only released because he agitated for them in 2010, and the only way to prove it all is true is for NASA to do something no organisation in its right mind would do and let a man with a dubious police record into their facilities and fiddle around with their equipment. Right....

The fact that he can't seem to recognize how unreasonable his demand is really begs the question of just how mentally stable is he? For someone to even consider making a bomb threat back in 2010 raises all kinds of concerns about what he could possibly do in the future when all his efforts to uncover his version of the truth appear to Neil to be plots to stonewall him.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 27, 2015, 02:53:00 PM
Please list any your relevant qualifications.

Just in case you missed the question in all the posts.

Here's his resume from when he was running for governor back in 2002:

http://web.archive.org/web/20031224132630/www.oceanchinampa.com/BakerResume.pdf
Given that his materials engineering degree is valid, it seems odd that he does not understand the sublimation chacterists of the Apollo PLSS. With all the "Engineering" jobs held, it seems to me that he should be able to understand the chacterists.   Curious indeed.
EDIT: Change engineering degree to match his resume.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: mako88sb on August 27, 2015, 03:20:13 PM
Please list any your relevant qualifications.

Just in case you missed the question in all the posts.

Here's his resume from when he was running for governor back in 2002:

http://web.archive.org/web/20031224132630/www.oceanchinampa.com/BakerResume.pdf
Given that his materials engineering degree is valid, it seems odd that he does not understand the sublimation chacterists of the Apollo PLSS. With all the "Engineering" jobs held, it seems to me that he should be able to understand the chacterists.   Curious indeed.
EDIT: Change engineering degree to match his resume.

I'm not sure if you seen his bid for the Governor of California but his plan for everybody is to live on floating plastic Islands around the equator. When asked about waves, his response:

 "Waves are a wind driven phenomenon. If we block the wind or cover most of the surface of the ocean where we live with islands to prevent exposure to wind, no waves will be generated."

He response trivializes something like that as if it's a simple solution yet he can't get his head around something like this? Kind of disturbing actually.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 27, 2015, 03:27:20 PM
Because your bs ranting is about as gratifying as a 1khz tone at 150dB. Time is money.

I have a CD that plays that tone for 10 hours continuously, as it is far more interesting and soothing than watching a Blunder video.

'Obviously...'
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: sts60 on August 27, 2015, 03:35:36 PM
Hello, Neil.  Welcome to the board, belatedly.

My contention is that most of the NASA space program is probably a hoax. I say "probably" because I don't know. But neither does anyone else ...

No.  You speak for yourself, but not for me and others.  Please understand, this is a very common conspiracist tactic, to insinuate that we are all helpless to understand the record in detail, but it will gain you no traction here.

I work in this field, including for and with Apollo engineers and Apollo-era astronauts.  I've worked in the backrooms at Mission Control, in the processing and launch facilities at the Cape and KSC, and other NASA facilities.  I've personally performed integration tests aboard the Shuttle with a spacecraft I helped build, and operated that vehicle after it was deployed by the Shuttle.  (By the way, we also tracked our own vehicle with our own S-band antenna at our own facility.)  In short, I have the relevant education and experience to evaluate much of the record for myself. 

...I was confronted with the difficult question, "How do we PROVE we went to the moon?"

Well, you could take the time to learn something about the subject, ask meaningful questions, listen to the answers, and take more time to really dig into the historical, management, technical, and scientific record.  But that will take some effort, and a willingness to admit there's more to it than you have said.  Are you game?

...Could be fake... Could be lies. Launches?  ...Did they really...? Do they really...? Did they really...? ...I don't know... I don't know...

Waving your hands and saying that something "could be" is meaningless; it's simply an appeal to personal doubt.  In order to support your claims, you need to show why things had to be faked, how it was faked, and show some evidence of the actual massive effort required to fake it all.  You also need to explain how all of this has fooled the scientific and engineering communities worldwide for lo these many years. 

But you have done none of that, and don't seem to understand the scale or type of information that is available, let alone the information itself.  That leaves you with your original appeal to ignorance.  OK, fine, you don't know, but that's your choice; there's a cornucopia of really good material to review and people willing to help you, should you decided to learn something.

But then I stumbled upon the spacesuit ice sublimators... the clever and exotic technique of using nickel porous plate ice sublimators...

It is clever.  It was exotic half a century ago when it was first developed.  It's merely standard practice now.

Naturally, I wanted to learn more. What does a spacesuit sublimator look like? Specifications? Procedures? Video of one being tested? Photographs? Technical discussions in heat transfer or thermodynamics books? I searched. Strangely and absurdly, I found almost nothing. I received almost nothing.

That's funny.  I was able to find all that stuff, except video (which I didn't bother looking for, but other people have dug up), with very little effort.  I didn't even need to go to a technical library or anything.

...Absurdly, there were no photographs.

Wrong.

Absurdly, there was no video of spacesuits with ice sublimators being tested.

Largely irrelevant, but wrong.

Most absurdly, there was no information in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics books.

Wrong.

Absurdly, the alleged manufacturer, Hamilton Sunstrand [sic] of United Technologies would only release very elementary information.

Why is this absurd?  Should they provide detailed information on their designs to every random layman who attempts to pester them over a general email or phone?  What if the design information is proprietary, or export controlled - which are both very common in the industry?  Are you a credible potential customer, or just another random crank accosting a high-technology organization?

Absurdly, NASA's Johnson Space Center refused to provide video or photos and stonewalled me instead.

Why is this absurd?  You can look up such items yourself online, or you could actually go to a technical library. What exactly do you mean by "stonewalled"?  Who exactly did you talk to?  What was their job?  Is doing your homework for you in-scope for them, or did you provide a charge number?

Absurdly, the Rice University Department of Mechanical Engineering, most closely associated with Houston's Johnson Space Center refused to comment.

I went to Rice.  Why do you think the ME department currently has any significant involvement with PLSS subsystems?  Amusingly enough, Rice did work on sublimator research back during Apollo, and I found a nice long report from the '60s with diagrams and pictures and thermodynamics and everything with a very simple NTRS search.  You said there was no such thing; why did you say that?

And when you say "refused to comment", what exactly do you mean?  You are not the first hoax believer who says, "I talked to [name of large institution] and they wouldn't answer me!"  Given that you are patently unfamiliar with the topic, I do not accept your characterizations ("absurd", "stonewalled", "refused to talk") without explicit justification.  Loaded language may impress other ignorant laymen sympathetic to conspiracy "theories", but here it is readily seen as a flimsy and transparent bid to bypass critical examination of your claims.

Absurdly, my Congressional representatives in two states, California's and Washington's Feinstein, Boxer, Cantwell, Murray, Capps and Hastings, stonewalled me also when I requested their assistance acquiring accountability from NASA.

1. This may be the funniest entry of all.  You tried to ask Congressmen (well, some first-line staffers) about an obscure technical topic?  How many of them do you think could even define sublimation?

2. You might be a resident of one state or another for voting purposes, but not both.  Therefore, they are not all "your representatives".  One would think, since you have implied by your list that you are some sort of diligent researcher, that you would have established this by now.

But voila! The good news was that I had stumbled upon the way to PROVE whether the NASA space program was a hoax. The lack of information and evasion regarding spacesuits with sublimators represents a huge anomaly upon which attention should be focused.

There is no lack of information regarding sublimators used in space.  You simply were incapable of finding it or understanding it.  Other people have found it easily.  Nor is the amount of information available over the Internet out of line with what one expects to find on such topics, at least to someone who understands the subject.  Therefore, your assertion of an "anomaly" fails due to subversion of support.

NASA must publicly demonstrate, before independent witnesses,...

You are just the latest in a long line of conspiracists who wave around some MacGuffin they think they've uncovered and demand that NASA "prove" this or that.  Invariably - and this includes you - such persons do not understand the systems, are unfamiliar with the record, and can provide no technical justification or cost-benefit analysis to back up their demands. 

Moreover, you cannot account for the routine use of such systems over the past half-century, other than to wave your arms about how somehow - you can't explain how - it's all a big fake, and nobody really knows anything.  Nope. Sorry.  I've worked with astronauts who have done EVAs, including working on the Hubble telescope you also suggested was faked.  You simply don't know what you're talking about, and you don't get taxpayer funds to satisfy your ignorance.

retired Army General Antonio Taguba, retired Navy Admiral William Fallon and me.

1. Have either General Taguba or Admiral Fallon agreed to this exercise? Are they, in fact, even aware of your existence?  (Restraining orders don't count.)

2. Do either of them have them have any experience in thermodynamics, PLSS technology, or vacuum systems?  (Clearly, you don't.)  If not, why would they be of any use in such a test?

3. You are manifestly not independent, therefore you are excused from the test.  Thank you for your interest.

Please demand NASA accountability...

That's part of my job as a NASA contractor, just as it is NASA's, and my company's, job to demand accountability from me.  Please do not presume to lecture us about "accountability", when you have no idea at all what you're talking about.

That last part, though, is your choice.  Would you rather believe in a hoax at all costs, or would you like to actually learn something?  If the latter, you have a pretty good free resource in the regulars on this board.  It's up to you.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: sts60 on August 27, 2015, 03:47:18 PM
I'm curious, please list all/any of your qualifications to judge how sublimation PLSS work

I thought he asked if I was qualified to understand how a vacuum system works.

The answer to that is "no".  The word salad you posted in reply 84 merely confirms this.

[Edited to add: no one with the resume linked by mako88b has any business posting such nonsense.  If that is actually the resume of the poster here, I can only offer my sympathy, because something - I won't speculate what - has clearly gone seriously awry.]

Please don't try to bluff here; it won't work.  For example, I was a graduate student and researcher in a vacuum materials science laboratory.  I've also participated in spacecraft thermal/vacuum testing in Chamber B.  Feel free to Google that up too.

As far as how a PLSS works, I've probably read most of the same propaganda as you.

Nope.  You didnt even know the information existed until everybody else served it up for you.

I'll ask again: do you want to stubbornly cling to your beliefs, or do you actually want to learn something?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 03:47:43 PM
I think Baker legitimately believed the ISBN was meant to refer to the book found at the link.  It does not; they are two separate books.

Thank you. I was confused. I found the book and I have scanned the Table of Contents and I don't see the part about a spacesuit ice sublimator or anything about sublimation in general. I don't really want to scan the whole book. Is it there or not? I concede, you're much better at Internet searching than I am.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: twik on August 27, 2015, 03:49:27 PM
Is it my imagination, or do an increasing number of HBs believe that all manned (and sometimes even all unmanned) space flights are fake?

I think it's a natural progression. Once you start with the premise "Everything everyone tells me is a lie (except for crackpots, scammers and the generally ignorant, who are entirely to be trusted without the slightest proof)," why should Apollo be singled out?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 03:51:22 PM
I don't really want to scan the whole book.

Irrelevant.  It was your assertion that none of the expected texts mentions porous plate sublimators.  If you haven't already read them, your assertion is dismissed.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: twik on August 27, 2015, 03:54:03 PM
For independent witnesses I recommend retired Army General Antonio Taguba, retired Navy Admiral William Fallon and me.

First of all, you are the one putting forward the proposition. You are in no way an "independent" witness. It would be like a prosecutor also sitting on the jury, claiming to be able to impartially judge his claims when outside the jury box.

Second, you seem to have great faith in military people. If these two men said "Yep, sublimators work as advertised," would you accept that, or believe that they had been compromised due to their association with the government? If you would believe them if they disagreed with you, why are these men different than the thousands who worked on the space program?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 27, 2015, 03:56:33 PM
I don't really want to scan the whole book. Is it there or not?

You don't want to find the information. Excuse me, but you demand high standards of others and the good people here have delivered information you claim does not exist, then you tell us you don't want to do the research yourself. To add insult to injury, you changed horses in the face of evidence provided, making some flimsy excuse that it only appeared after you raised concerns.

Quote
I concede, you're much better at Internet searching than I am.

It takes more than internet searching to have the body of knowledge demonstrated by the individuals at this board. We all bring something to the party, and it's based on a deep understanding of our professional fields and the research skills we possess. You on the other hand assume you have achieved erudition by Google, and now freely admit that you cannot be bothered to carry out your own research. This might explain why you failed in the quest to find information about the PLSS in the first instance.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 27, 2015, 03:58:46 PM

Second, you seem to have great faith in military people. If these two men said "Yep, sublimators work as advertised," would you accept that, or believe that they had been compromised due to their association with the government? If you would believe them if they disagreed with you, why are these men different than the thousands who worked on the space program?

They're a specific type of military person. Google their names, you'll see why he wants them.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: mako88sb on August 27, 2015, 03:59:19 PM
It was a few months ago, I believe, when someone pointed out that NASA would likely never allow someone arrested for bomb threats into near any of their facilities.

As capital, critical assets, NASA vacuum test chambers have armed guards.  Further, Baker's experience with law enforcement might provide the world with a different reason why NASA ignores him.

So Neil. Now that you know there's know way in hell you will ever knowingly be allowed near a NASA vacuum test facility, how does this affect you in your pursuit of your version of the truth?

You never did answer me about if your actions that led to your arrest in 2010 were justifiable?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on August 27, 2015, 04:00:58 PM
Only until recently after my agitation could a photograph of a spacesuit ice sublimator be seen on the Internet.

No. That photograph has been available on the internet since 2005...

http://www.therebreathersite.nl/03_Historical/apollo_rebreathers.htm

(Note the last update on that webpage, Sept 14, 2005).

Scroll down and you'll see the photo about 9 or 10 photos down

Additionally, this cutaway example of a PLSS...

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/ApolloHoax/A7L_plss.jpg)

... has been on display at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum since 1974 when it was transferred there from NASA's Johnson Space Flight Centre. The sublimator is right there between the Oxygen Purge System and the horizontal electrical tagboard with the  "Life Support System" label on it

I can only conclude that you have been intentionally blind and ignorant... which does not surprise me in the least given your track record of wilful ignorance.




Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 27, 2015, 04:05:47 PM

Second, you seem to have great faith in military people. If these two men said "Yep, sublimators work as advertised," would you accept that, or believe that they had been compromised due to their association with the government? If you would believe them if they disagreed with you, why are these men different than the thousands who worked on the space program?

They're a specific type of military person. Google their names, you'll see why he wants them.
The old whistle blowers!
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 27, 2015, 04:16:19 PM
...

You never did answer me about if your actions that led to your arrest in 2010 were justifiable?
BaHaHa you want a criminal to admit wrong doing?  Didn't you realize that everyone in prison is innocent
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 27, 2015, 04:16:37 PM
I think Baker legitimately believed the ISBN was meant to refer to the book found at the link.  It does not; they are two separate books.

Thank you. I was confused. I found the book and I have scanned the Table of Contents and I don't see the part about a spacesuit ice sublimator or anything about sublimation in general. I don't really want to scan the whole book. Is it there or not? I concede, you're much better at Internet searching than I am.
A rubber duck is better at searching the internet than you. You couldn't even find a reference that has been in the very same place on the internet since 1997, for pete's sake. To which one might add your bizarre expectation that ALL data must be on the internet else it does not exist. Whence you derive such a notion is anyone's guess, but derive it you have. This begs the question: How do you suppose any research occurred before the internet?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 27, 2015, 04:21:22 PM
A rubber duck is better at searching the internet than you. You couldn't even find a reference that has been in the very same place on the internet since 1997, for pete's sake. To which one might add your bizarre expectation that ALL data must be on the internet else it does not exist. Whence you derive such a notion is anyone's guess, but derive it you have. This begs the question: How do you suppose any research occurred before the internet?
What do you mean, "Go to the library and thumb through index cards to find several references?" :)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: mako88sb on August 27, 2015, 04:23:22 PM
...

You never did answer me about if your actions that led to your arrest in 2010 were justifiable?
BaHaHa you want a criminal to admit wrong doing?  Didn't you realize that everyone in prison is innocent

Yes, your right. Very silly of me. However, I sure would like to hear from Neil why he felt a bomb threat seemed like a reasonable course of action to him.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 27, 2015, 04:25:32 PM
What do you mean, "Go to the library and thumb through index cards to find several references?" :)

Then after finding a few references of importance, going back to the library and digging out the cited work from the original references, and trawling your way through these - probably to find a few nuggets worth using. My thesis cited in excess of 300 papers, and I probably researched 5 times this number to find the supporting information I needed. Not to mention the books I had to read.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 04:27:06 PM
I'm still looking for the evidence that NASA tested a spacesuit with sublimator in a vacuum chamber.

Anybody?

The good news is that we're all a simple NASA demonstration away from the long coveted TRUTH! And yet, strangely, you all want to evade the Scientific Method and rely on questionable evidence.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Jason Thompson on August 27, 2015, 04:29:36 PM
Don't tell a bunch of scientists what the scientific method is. It doesn't involve staging random demonstrations at the whim of a layman who can't even manage basic research, for starters.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 04:29:56 PM
I'm still looking for the evidence that NASA tested a spacesuit with sublimator in a vacuum chamber.

Anybody?

The good news is that we're all a simple NASA demonstration away from the long coveted TRUTH! And yet, strangely, you all want to evade the Scientific Method and rely on questionable evidence.

Repeating your claims anew does not unwind the previous 15 pages of discussion.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: mako88sb on August 27, 2015, 04:31:02 PM
I'm still looking for the evidence that NASA tested a spacesuit with sublimator in a vacuum chamber.

Anybody?

The good news is that we're all a simple NASA demonstration away from the long coveted TRUTH! And yet, strangely, you all want to evade the Scientific Method and rely on questionable evidence.

You will never be allowed near a NASA vacuum test facility because of your criminal actions. How much more do you want to ruin your life for something that's never going to happen?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 27, 2015, 04:32:27 PM
A rubber duck is better at searching the internet than you. You couldn't even find a reference that has been in the very same place on the internet since 1997, for pete's sake. To which one might add your bizarre expectation that ALL data must be on the internet else it does not exist. Whence you derive such a notion is anyone's guess, but derive it you have. This begs the question: How do you suppose any research occurred before the internet?
What do you mean, "Go to the library and thumb through index cards to find several references?" :)
Heaven forefend! Surely not a Dewey Decimal System? Surely you cannot expect one to interact with treeware? Surely you cannot expect one to open an actual "book"? (Do such things still exist? Did they ever exist?)

Admit it. The entire universe did not exist before there was an internet and therefore, anything which does not exist on the intertubes or webernets does not really exist at all.

Or so the various Crank McBullplops would have you believe.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 27, 2015, 04:38:50 PM
I'm still looking for the evidence that NASA tested a spacesuit with sublimator in a vacuum chamber.

Anybody?
Why yes! Quite a few have handed you exactly that. What is your problem? You got pictures, videos, technical documentation and so forth. Why are you pretending that you did not when it is plain in this very thread that you bloody well did?

The good news is that we're all a simple NASA demonstration away from the long coveted TRUTH! And yet, strangely, you all want to evade the Scientific Method and rely on questionable evidence.
No. The good news is that it has been dne countless times already. The further good news is that this has been presented to you and all and sundry in this very thread.

Here is the bad news. Despite the data being presented to you, you pretend it has not. This leaves you without a leg to stand on, as even the most Luddite of thinkers can see that ALL of your bovine questions have been copiously answered.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 27, 2015, 04:39:40 PM
I'm still looking for the evidence that NASA tested a spacesuit with sublimator in a vacuum chamber.

Why are published accounts of the tests and photos of the tests not evidence?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: mako88sb on August 27, 2015, 04:40:46 PM
I'm still looking for the evidence that NASA tested a spacesuit with sublimator in a vacuum chamber.

Anybody?

The good news is that we're all a simple NASA demonstration away from the long coveted TRUTH! And yet, strangely, you all want to evade the Scientific Method and rely on questionable evidence.

You will never be allowed near a NASA vacuum test facility because of your criminal actions. How much more do you want to ruin your life for something that's never going to happen?

I guess the next inevitable question Neil is what part of your brain keeps you from comprehending and accepting that it's never going to happen?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 04:41:00 PM
However, I sure would like to hear from Neil why he felt a bomb threat seemed like a reasonable course of action to him.

No bomb threat.
Trumped up charge.
Ten days in jail.
Twelve days in a mental hospital.
Evaluated by three psychs, no mental illness, no personality disorders, no required meds, I doubt most could pass the test.
Discovery revealed two additional quiet charges, "threat to incite strike" and "threat to accuse of a crime." No threats, I did incite and I did accuse, both legal.
Theft (seizure) of my rifle.

Bogus charges dismissed a day before scheduled trial.
Lots of stories about my arrest, few if any about dismissal.

I'm on 3 years probation now after 4 months jail for felony vandalism for breaking a window demanding an Independent 9-11 Investigation.
I signed a gag order as part of my probation agreement the violation of which would probably result in 4 years prison.
This is all I want to say on the subject except don't believe everything you read on the Internet.
Thank you.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 27, 2015, 04:42:00 PM
I'm still looking for the evidence that NASA tested a spacesuit with sublimator in a vacuum chamber.

Here's a video showing the test facilities and how it almost went wrong.



Now please explain to us all why you think a sublimator does not work in a vacuum.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 27, 2015, 04:42:19 PM
I'm still looking for the evidence that NASA tested a spacesuit with sublimator in a vacuum chamber.

Why are published accounts of the tests and photos of the tests not evidence?
Because he is a "special" snowflake, and a custom demo must be arranged for him and him alone according to whatever impossible criteria he may choose to attempt to impose.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 04:43:01 PM
Don't tell a bunch of scientists what the scientific method is. It doesn't involve staging random demonstrations at the whim of a layman who can't even manage basic research, for starters.

Cheap shot and a cop out. The best thing NASA could do is allow the validation of its claim.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 04:44:17 PM
I'm on 3 years probation now after 4 months jail for felony vandalism for breaking a window demanding an Independent 9-11 Investigation.

Why do you think this would not disqualify you from visiting a secure NASA facility?

Quote
This is all I want to say on the subject except don't believe everything you read on the Internet.

Your arguments regarding the porous plate sublimator presume the Internet to be a reliable reflection of the general state of information, including even by the absence of something on it.  Please reconcile this.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 04:46:43 PM
Cheap shot and a cop out.

No, the world is not required to accept your personal opinion of what scientific methodology consists of.  You may not beg the question that your demands are objectively reasonable.

Quote
The best thing NASA could do is allow the validation of its claim.

Your personal standard of validation is irrelevant.  Not only is there already evidence of the test you say was not recorded, but the technical claims regarding the operation of porous plate sublimators have already been validated to everyone's satisfaction but yours.  You may not beg the question that your standard of proof is the only reasonable one.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 04:48:28 PM
Now please explain to us all why you think a sublimator does not work in a vacuum.

I can't believe you posted it. Honestly, I was about to tell everyone not to post that 1966 video but then I thought that this was a more mature crowd, a better crowd. Nobody would post that video.
But there you go.
It's a spacesuit without sublimator. It has an umbilical. It's a failure. Someone almost died. As far as I can tell, it's the last time NASA ever attempted performing vacuum chamber tests of spacesuits. It could have been the preApollo test that finally convinced them they had to fake it.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 27, 2015, 04:51:43 PM
Cheap shot and a cop out. The best thing NASA could do is allow the validation of its claim.

Not a cheap shot at all. By your own admission you could not be bothered to find basic information from a link, so I would agree that you cannot manage to carry out basic research. Why should you demand one standard from others, but fail to show the high standards yourself?

You have managed to hoist yourself by you own petard once it was shown that the information about the PLSS and its operation exists. You changed horses and have no jumped back onto your original horse.

Now, please explain why you think an ice sublimator cannot function in a vacuum. I would like an answer to this question please.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 27, 2015, 04:53:32 PM
However, I sure would like to hear from Neil why he felt a bomb threat seemed like a reasonable course of action to him.

No bomb threat.
Trumped up charge.
Ten days in jail.
Twelve days in a mental hospital.
Evaluated by three psychs, no mental illness, no personality disorders, no required meds, I doubt most could pass the test.
Discovery revealed two additional quiet charges, "threat to incite strike" and "threat to accuse of a crime." No threats, I did incite and I did accuse, both legal.
Theft (seizure) of my rifle.

Bogus charges dismissed a day before scheduled trial.
Lots of stories about my arrest, few if any about dismissal.

I'm on 3 years probation now after 4 months jail for felony vandalism for breaking a window demanding an Independent 9-11 Investigation.
I signed a gag order as part of my probation agreement the violation of which would probably result in 4 years prison.
This is all I want to say on the subject except don't believe everything you read on the Internet.
Thank you.
How is this relevant except to establish that you have prior form for really odd notions?

I have never threatened anyone with anything, never been psych evaluated, nor spent time in jail, nor mental hospital and so forth.

None of this lends any credibility to my position in any way. What does lend credibility to is my position Re: facts and evidence.

Your position seems entirely devoid of such regardless of whatever prior history you may have had. I really couldn't care less about any of that, except as it pertains to your claims here and now on this site.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 04:54:25 PM
Repeating your claims anew does not unwind the previous 15 pages of discussion.

But it does emphasize that nobody has answered the challenge.
Even if you believe the spacesuits and sublimators work as claimed, you should want the demonstration I describe so that you can KNOW they work as claimed.
I'm puzzled by everyone's reluctance to demand a demo.
Is believing you're right so much better than knowing the truth?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 04:54:45 PM
I thought that this was a more mature crowd, a better crowd.

Insults are not an argument.

Quote
As far as I can tell, it's the last time NASA ever attempted performing vacuum chamber tests of spacesuits.

We have discovered a serious problem with your "As far as I can tell" strategy, namely that you admit you aren't as good a researcher as your critics are, that you are willing to lie regarding what has been published and when, and that you demonstrate your search not to have been even remotely exhaustive.

Talk about the LM egress tests.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 27, 2015, 04:56:07 PM
Don't tell a bunch of scientists what the scientific method is. It doesn't involve staging random demonstrations at the whim of a layman who can't even manage basic research, for starters.
Cheap shot and a cop out. The best thing NASA could do is allow the validation of its claim.
Nope. It is not a cheap shot. You failed to find data that has been on-line for decades. You fail at research.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: mako88sb on August 27, 2015, 04:57:12 PM
However, I sure would like to hear from Neil why he felt a bomb threat seemed like a reasonable course of action to him.

No bomb threat.
Trumped up charge.
Ten days in jail.
Twelve days in a mental hospital.
Evaluated by three psychs, no mental illness, no personality disorders, no required meds, I doubt most could pass the test.
Discovery revealed two additional quiet charges, "threat to incite strike" and "threat to accuse of a crime." No threats, I did incite and I did accuse, both legal.
Theft (seizure) of my rifle.

Bogus charges dismissed a day before scheduled trial.
Lots of stories about my arrest, few if any about dismissal.

I'm on 3 years probation now after 4 months jail for felony vandalism for breaking a window demanding an Independent 9-11 Investigation.
I signed a gag order as part of my probation agreement the violation of which would probably result in 4 years prison.
This is all I want to say on the subject except don't believe everything you read on the Internet.
Thank you.

Fair enough. Thank you for the explanation. Still wondering why you continue to pursue this to such extreme unreasonable lengths when anybody can see that a test of this sort will never satisfy you despite what you say.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 04:58:59 PM

How is this relevant except to establish that you have prior form for really odd notions?

Mako asked about it.


I have never threatened anyone with anything, never been psych evaluated, nor spent time in jail, nor mental hospital and so forth.

 And you've never done your duty either. You're derelict and complicit.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 04:59:59 PM
But it does emphasize that nobody has answered the challenge.

The absurdity of your challenge has been discussed at length.  You don't get to beg the question that your demands are reasonable.

Quote
Even if you believe the spacesuits and sublimators work as claimed, you should want the demonstration I describe so that you can KNOW they work as claimed.

I don't need the test you propose in order to know that they work.  You don't get to beg the question that your demands are reasonable.

Quote
I'm puzzled by everyone's reluctance to demand a demo.

And that should tell you something.  If you're the only one who seems to want something, you shouldn't presume it to be something that's objectively necessary.  Further, you have ignored the production of everything else you said didn't exist.  So your critics can be excused for not taking your demand at face value.  You offer them no assurance this is really what would convince you.  You instead convey the impression that no amount or kind of evidence would change your mind.

Quote
Is believing you're right so much better than knowing the truth?

You offer no truth.  By your own admission you offer only speculation, and you are unable to reconcile that speculation with the evidentiary record except by more speculation.  Since you offer no reason to reject the null hypothesis, it remains the presumption.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Jason Thompson on August 27, 2015, 05:00:29 PM
Cheap shot and a cop out.

No, you have already demonstrated unwillingness to do basic research. The 'cheap shot and a cop out' here is you handwaving away massive piles of evidence as 'probably' faked and insisting on one piece of proof you know damn well you will never get. Why do you feel the need to be so dishonest if you're supposed to be out for the truth?
 
Quote
The best thing NASA could do is allow the validation of its claim.

What you consider validation and what the rest of the world considers validation are two entirely different things. Another thing about real validation is that it seldom involves videos. To repeat my question from earlier, exactly what do you expect to see in a video of a spacesuit with sublimator beng tested in a vacuum chamber that would actually qualify as validation? How would you verify that the sublimator was in fact working based on a video?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 27, 2015, 05:02:01 PM
I can't believe you posted it. Honestly, I was about to tell everyone not to post that 1966 video but then I thought that this was a more mature crowd, a better crowd.

Of course you were.

Quote
It's a spacesuit without sublimator. It has an umbilical. It's a failure. Someone almost died. As far as I can tell, it's the last time NASA ever attempted performing vacuum chamber tests of spacesuits.

I know it had no sublimator. I wanted to drag you back into the real nuts and bolts of this rather than allow your continued avoidance and gish gallop, and the fact that you have ignored everyone of my posts. I had to try a few different flies to get your attention. I'm a keen fisherman you see, and not all fish go for the same fly. You went for the YouTube link, a nice popular source of CTs, video and audio so not much need to find textual information. I found the correct fly, you could say. Fly fishermen like me are quite canny.

Now, why does a sublimator not work in a vacuum? What physics prevents the sublimation of the ice when there is no atmosphere? I would like you to show me evidence using the standard phase diagram for water. There's a nice bit of research for you to carry out.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 05:05:29 PM
Still wondering why you continue to pursue this to such extreme unreasonable lengths when anybody can see that a test of this sort will never satisfy you despite what you say.

I think or at least used to think that it was the quick route to the much more important Independent 9-11 investigation.
I'm bewildered by the level of resistance from educated men. It's a simple thing.   A validation.
Although I understand the fear that NASA can't validate its claim.
And that's what would lead to 9-11 truth.
If it was revealed that the government lied big about NASA, people would be more agreeable to confronting the harder truth about 9-11.

And you're wrong. The test before independent witnesses would satisfy me. I'm sick of this subject and want it settled.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 27, 2015, 05:06:41 PM

How is this relevant except to establish that you have prior form for really odd notions?

Mako asked about it.


I have never threatened anyone with anything, never been psych evaluated, nor spent time in jail, nor mental hospital and so forth.

 And you've never done your duty either. You're derelict and complicit.
"derelict and complicit." in what exactly?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 27, 2015, 05:08:01 PM
I'm bewildered by the level of resistance from educated men. It's a simple thing.   A validation.

It's already been done.  The fact that you or I weren't a witness to it doesn't pain me in the least.
 
 
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Jason Thompson on August 27, 2015, 05:08:12 PM
So why exactly does that one single standard of proof override objective investigation of every other bit of evidence? If you REALLY want the truth, why are you so insistent about avoiding the (actually not that) difficult hunt for it in favour of sitting back and demanding something be handed to you on a plate?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 05:08:44 PM
You offer no truth.  By your own admission you offer only speculation, and you are unable to reconcile that speculation with the evidentiary record except by more speculation.  Since you offer no reason to reject the null hypothesis, it remains the presumption.

I don't have the truth to offer.
I don't know the truth.
I do know the anomaly and fortunately its examination provides the way to the truth.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: mako88sb on August 27, 2015, 05:09:28 PM
Still wondering why you continue to pursue this to such extreme unreasonable lengths when anybody can see that a test of this sort will never satisfy you despite what you say.

I think or at least used to think that it was the quick route to the much more important Independent 9-11 investigation.
I'm bewildered by the level of resistance from educated men. It's a simple thing.   A validation.
Although I understand the fear that NASA can't validate its claim.
And that's what would lead to 9-11 truth.
If it was revealed that the government lied big about NASA, people would be more agreeable to confronting the harder truth about 9-11.

And you're wrong. The test before independent witnesses would satisfy me. I'm sick of this subject and want it settled.

Well, I guess you best get used to that feeling because there's no way it's going to happen. You can't see for one second the can of worms this would open if NASA did the test? Everybody with some type of ax to grind will demand similar demos as proof. You can't comprehend that at all?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 05:10:06 PM
It's already been done.  The fact that you or I weren't a witness to it does pain me in the least.

Hah!
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 05:10:36 PM
And you've never done your duty either. You're derelict and complicit.

No, you are not an unsung hero.  You don't get to accuse people of being derelict when your own assertions are predicated on claims to having done exhaustive research it's clear you never did and are probably unqualified to do.  You don't get to accuse people of being "complicit" simply because they demand accountability from you, the accuser.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on August 27, 2015, 05:12:47 PM
It's a spacesuit without sublimator. It has an umbilical. It's a failure. Someone almost died. As far as I can tell, it's the last time NASA ever attempted performing vacuum chamber tests of spacesuits.

Why do you continue to ignore the images of Schweikart testing the PLSS in the vacuum chamber that I showed you earlier? I did the basic research for you.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 27, 2015, 05:13:26 PM
I think or at least used to think that it was the quick route to the much more important Independent 9-11 investigation.
Off topic. Your crackpottery on other notions is irrelevant to Apollo. Although equally bovine.

I'm bewildered by the level of resistance from educated men. It's a simple thing.   A validation.
That is your failing, and yours alone. Do not attempt to project your lack upon others.

Although I understand the fear that NASA can't validate its claim.
Validate in full with evidence aplenty. Your lack of comprehension is your problem.

And that's what would lead to 9-11 truth.
Off topic. Please desist from this uber Gish Gallop.
If it was revealed that the government lied big about NASA, people would be more agreeable to confronting the harder truth about 9-11.
Yet more off topic babble.

And you're wrong. The test before independent witnesses would satisfy me. I'm sick of this subject and want it settled.
And such tests have been performed again and again and again. Why are those test invalid, yet you special snowflake test is somehow more valid than any other?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 05:15:42 PM
I don't have the truth to offer.
I don't know the truth.

Then you don't get to style a challenge to your claim as a rejection of or disinterest in the truth.

Quote
I do know the anomaly and fortunately its examination provides the way to the truth.

No.  There is no "anomaly" except that which you have manufactured in your mind, explained only with speculation, and supported only by demanding that people validate your ignorance and laziness.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 27, 2015, 05:15:49 PM

I don't have the truth to offer.
You have nothing to offer.

I don't know the truth.
You know nothing, Neil Baker.

I do know the anomaly and fortunately its examination provides the way to the truth.
Which so-called "anomaly" has been copiously addressed.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 05:16:57 PM

Well, I guess you best get used to that feeling because there's no way it's going to happen. You can't see for one second the can of worms this would open if NASA did the test? Everybody with some type of ax to grind will demand similar demos as proof. You can't comprehend that at all?

That's the beauty of the spacesuits and ice sublimators. I can't think of another anomaly that can be investigated on Earth to the level of PROOF. It's a great opportunity. NASA slipped up. Accountability is due.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Jason Thompson on August 27, 2015, 05:19:19 PM
For the last time, Neil, it HAS been investigated on Earth. The lack of video is irrelevant to the fact that the tests occurred.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 27, 2015, 05:19:23 PM
Still wondering why you continue to pursue this to such extreme unreasonable lengths when anybody can see that a test of this sort will never satisfy you despite what you say.

I think or at least used to think that it was the quick route to the much more important Independent 9-11 investigation.
I'm bewildered by the level of resistance from educated men. It's a simple thing.   A validation.
Although I understand the fear that NASA can't validate its claim.
And that's what would lead to 9-11 truth.
If it was revealed that the government lied big about NASA, people would be more agreeable to confronting the harder truth about 9-11.

And you're wrong. The test before independent witnesses would satisfy me. I'm sick of this subject and want it settled.

Arrogant nonsense - everyone who disagrees with me is wrong, you are too frightened to admit the truth blah blah blah.

Maybe you should check out the beam in your own eye and examine your own motives in the context of your little rant there.

Shock news: I am not defending Apollo missions out of fear. I am not defending Apollo out of blind belief or defence of a government that is nothing to do with me. I am not desperately clinging on to some thin raft of world constructs that will tumble like a house of cards if some lone jumped up internet warrior with a vastly over-inflated sense of their own importance inversely proportional to their ability to read a book and understand its contents says I'm wrong.

I defend Apollo to stop a great achievement being denigrated by morons and idiots. I defend it because I know it is a genuine historical event, and I know it because I have put the hours in doing my own research and validating evidence, and because I can see that every piece of information about the programme presents a coherent and consistent narrative supported by scientific fact.

What have you done apart from bluster and sneer?

Where is your empirically proven scientifically validated evidence that a sublimator will not cool a space suit?

Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 27, 2015, 05:22:17 PM

Well, I guess you best get used to that feeling because there's no way it's going to happen. You can't see for one second the can of worms this would open if NASA did the test? Everybody with some type of ax to grind will demand similar demos as proof. You can't comprehend that at all?

That's the beauty of the spacesuits and ice sublimators. I can't think of another anomaly that can be investigated on Earth to the level of PROOF. It's a great opportunity. NASA slipped up. Accountability is due.
It has already been done multiple times. That opportunity, as you term it is a de riguer component of space suit testing. Somehow, you seem surprised that an invitation was not extended to you, an internet nobody, to attend and witness such tests. Congratulations on your own overblown sense of your own importance, but the reality is that you are an internet crank with a terrorist record. Personally, I wouldn't let you within sight of a simple pencil.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 27, 2015, 05:23:07 PM
I don't have the truth to offer.
I don't know the truth.
I do know the anomaly and fortunately its examination provides the way to the truth.

The more I read, the more I think that you are Donald Rumsfled in disguise with your talk of what you know and what you don't know, but if we do know we can find out the things we don't know.

Bottom line is you are a lazy researcher, and inadvertently I have managed to find out (with Jay's input) that you know nothing of the space suit testing during Apollo. You haven't even followed up Jay's lead to show yet another one your assertions is wrong. All you had to do was type in a few words that Jay provided. This is dishonest on your part, and I find this unacceptable when you demand high standards of others, but are not prepared to correct your own mistakes and admit when your assertions are incorrect.

All you offer is speculation until you are found wrong by the knowledge base that exists here. When you are proven wrong you offer disdain about how you expected more from such educated people in order to hide your abject failures. You demand validation to appease your lack of knowledge and inability to carry out basic research, you accuse others of not showing the same standards you insist upon. Why should anyone take you seriously when you cannot even provide a simple answer to you main objection, namely that the PLSS sublimator would not work in a vacuum, despite being shown engineering books to the contrary?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 27, 2015, 05:23:12 PM
It's already been done.  The fact that you or I weren't a witness to it doesn't pain me in the least.

Hah!

Explain.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 27, 2015, 05:25:44 PM
I do know the anomaly ...

What anomaly?  That you weren't a witness to the original vacuum chamber tests?  How is that an anomaly?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Allan F on August 27, 2015, 05:26:25 PM
I've been reading about you, Neil Baker, and it appears from newspaper articles and other sources, that you have serious issues with the real world. Your actions aren't those one would expect from a learned individual. You have scientific background, but don't use it at all. You can't seem to grasp the concept that thousands and thousands of engineers and scientists routinely USE the very technology you claim don't work. Why is it that YOU can see though the "veil of lies" and the other scientists and engineers can't?

Engineers have a very goal-oriented way of doing things. Ask an engineer to design a piece of hardware which does a specific thing, using known scientific principles, he goes right along and does it. If it wasn't possible - or HE didn't think it was possible - he'd tell you why and how it did not work. Then he'd tell you to either hire a smarter engineer, wait for himself to catch up, or suggest an alternative which would work.

That is the way of ice sublimation. It is a very simple concept, well described in literature for many years, the energy needed to sublimate water can be looked up in chemistry textbooks. The engineering challenge wasn't that great - heat exchangers and water flow had been mastered many years ago. Even the first steam engines had them.

The only anomaly is your inability to grasp that there are people much smarter than you who do the work and has done the education. It spills over into your other conspiracist claims.


EDITED TO ADD: Please describe with your own words WHAT sublimation is. Can you do that?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 05:29:50 PM
I can't think of another anomaly that can be investigated on Earth to the level of PROOF.

That doesn't mean it's not just your McGuffin.

Quote
It's a great opportunity.

Asked and answered.  You are the only one who is demanding such a test.  You may not beg the question that your demands are reasonable, nor that others' lack of interest in or endorsement of your claims constitutes "derelict[ion] and complicit[y]" on their part.

Further, you have been asked several times why you didn't test your claim in the more straightforward way suggested.  Instead you seem to demand that NASA do your homework for you, give special deference to you, and that their reasonable reluctance to engage a violent felon in a fool's errand can only be explained by their fear of discovery.

Quote
NASA slipped up. Accountability is due.

No.  Speculation on your part does not oblige others to extraordinary production.  Your accusations, however, do oblige you to be accountable for them.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on August 27, 2015, 05:34:32 PM
It's a simple thing.   A validation.

Put yourself in the position of any space-flight organisation.

Why would they want to validate the veracity of spacesuits in a  vacuum chamber test when they have been routinely used in space for over 50 years and thousands of hours in space-walks and zero atmosphere environments?

Why would they want to even bother wasting their time and money dealing with some crackpot conspiracy theorist like you? What do they have to gain from running a test for a tiny minority of the world's loons when the vast majority of people know that the truth is plain and right in front of of them?

It would be rather like asking the Ford Motor Company to demonstrate that a Crown Vic can be driven on a road when millions of them have been routinely driven on roads for over 20 years!
 
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on August 27, 2015, 05:46:59 PM
Baker's similarities to Heiwa are remarkable, aren't they?


Both ex-engineers.
Both gone completely off the rails.
Both incapable of controlling their obsessions to the point where they get themselves in real-world trouble.  (Bjorkman thrown out of conferences, Baker committed and jailed).
Both suffering from 9/11 obsessions.
Both suffering from crank magnetism.
Both incapable of acknowledging the very evidence that they maintain is unavailable even when said evidence is shoved right under their noses.
Both demonstrate superiority complexes.
Both maintain that the ISS is a fake.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 05:52:55 PM
Your actions aren't those one would expect from a learned individual.

Or even an especially stable one.  Baker begs that the explanation of the "stonewalling" against him -- accepting for the sake of argument that it has a factual basis -- is the result of others' dereliction of duty and complicity in some presumably nefarious scheme.  He ignores the possibility that it may instead be the expected and prudent reaction to his demonstrated irrational and violent behavior, and that this would be defensible even were his argument to have any factual merit.

Quote
You can't seem to grasp the concept that thousands and thousands of engineers and scientists routinely USE the very technology you claim don't work.

He has already said he suspects "the space program" to be a hoax.  From that it would follow that he simply believes all who claim to use the suspect technology are simply lying as part of the hoax.

Quote
heat exchangers and water flow had been mastered many years ago. Even the first steam engines had them.

Phase-change thermal controls were already very well established prior to the middle of the 20th century.  That the porous plate sublimator is an innovative implementation of the principle cannot be denied.  But to pose it as some device unheard of in physics or engineering is simply ludicrous.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 27, 2015, 05:55:54 PM
...
I defend Apollo to stop a great achievement being denigrated by morons and idiots. I defend it because I know it is a genuine historical event, and I know it because I have put the hours in doing my own research and validating evidence, and because I can see that every piece of information about the programme presents a coherent and consistent narrative supported by scientific fact.

What have you done apart from bluster and sneer?

Where is your empirically proven scientifically validated evidence that a sublimator will not cool a space suit?
That is one of the best description of the services provided by the collective group that belong to this forum.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 27, 2015, 06:04:49 PM
A rubber duck is better at searching the internet than you. You couldn't even find a reference that has been in the very same place on the internet since 1997, for pete's sake. To which one might add your bizarre expectation that ALL data must be on the internet else it does not exist. Whence you derive such a notion is anyone's guess, but derive it you have. This begs the question: How do you suppose any research occurred before the internet?
What do you mean, "Go to the library and thumb through index cards to find several references?" :)
Heaven forefend! Surely not a Dewey Decimal System? Surely you cannot expect one to interact with treeware? Surely you cannot expect one to open an actual "book"? (Do such things still exist? Did they ever exist?)

Admit it. The entire universe did not exist before there was an internet and therefore, anything which does not exist on the intertubes or webernets does not really exist at all.

Or so the various Crank McBullplops would have you believe.
Off topic, but one of the highlights of reading through these pages and learning a new word!!
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 27, 2015, 06:14:08 PM
A rubber duck is better at searching the internet than you. You couldn't even find a reference that has been in the very same place on the internet since 1997, for pete's sake. To which one might add your bizarre expectation that ALL data must be on the internet else it does not exist. Whence you derive such a notion is anyone's guess, but derive it you have. This begs the question: How do you suppose any research occurred before the internet?
What do you mean, "Go to the library and thumb through index cards to find several references?" :)
Heaven forefend! Surely not a Dewey Decimal System? Surely you cannot expect one to interact with treeware? Surely you cannot expect one to open an actual "book"? (Do such things still exist? Did they ever exist?)

Admit it. The entire universe did not exist before there was an internet and therefore, anything which does not exist on the intertubes or webernets does not really exist at all.

Or so the various Crank McBullplops would have you believe.
Off topic, but one of the highlights of reading through these pages and learning a new word!!
It is not of my coining, more is the pity. Nevertheless, it is a term that is sufficiently descriptive that I like it.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: sts60 on August 27, 2015, 06:35:01 PM
Neil, as I pointed out here (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=945.msg31310#msg31310) and here (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=945.msg31311#msg31311), and many others have repeatedly shown as well, your characterization of an "anomaly" is founded upon nothing more than your personal say-so.  You are manifestly unfamiliar with the record, you keep denying the existence of items showed to you, you keep trying to say that everyone else is as much in the dark as you, and you fountain out wild claims of coverups spanning half a century of international space operations with no basis whatsoever.  Yet you insist that a special demonstration be arranged for you on the basis of your ignorant and frankly irrational opinions.  You are just one of many hoax believers who attempt this silly and self-important charade. 

Not that you've answered, or even addressed, my previous questions, but - You accuse others here of being blind followers, but they've been busily digging up information and supplying context for you, and your response is to stick your fingers in your ears and shut your eyes to avoid having to reconsider your position.  You've assiduously avoided learning anything at all.  Why are you going to such lengths to remain clueless in the service of clinging to your "hoax" belief?  Is it a religious thing?  Are you just angry that the U.S. accomplished such a feat?   Or what? 

You don't have to wrap yourself in a shell of paranoia and ignorance.  There's a lot to learn and enjoy the understanding of.   It's up to you.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Cat Not Included on August 27, 2015, 06:51:11 PM
Repeating your claims anew does not unwind the previous 15 pages of discussion.

But it does emphasize that nobody has answered the challenge.
Even if you believe the spacesuits and sublimators work as claimed, you should want the demonstration I describe so that you can KNOW they work as claimed.
I'm puzzled by everyone's reluctance to demand a demo.
Is believing you're right so much better than knowing the truth?
Neil, as I've tried to discuss earlier, even if, for some reason, I didn't think spacesuits worked, I wouldn't find the demo you described remotely convincing, and I'm baffled* as to why you would.

"In a single test, three independent viewers agreed this worked!" is NOT convincing proof. It is, in fact, a ridiculously minimal amount of evidence. It is laughable. Just imagine that for a moment in any other situation:
"Buy our product! THREE people say it works!"

Indeed, I would actually suspect that a claim of "three people claim it works" is almost certainly trying to conceal something. If it really worked, they wouldn't have to settle for three measly people.

On the other hand, I am rather convinced, in fact, by "thousands of experts and people who's jobs and lives depend on this all agree that it works". Especially when there's continued agreement across multiple countries and multiple generations. Especially when there's clear and direct evidence that could only be produced by having it work.

Further, as I alluded to earlier, if an organization was corrupt and carrying out a massive fraud, it would be utterly insane to request a demonstration from that organization to prove they were not a fraud. Of course they would fake it.

* OK, honestly, no, I'm not really baffled. I've got a pretty good idea why you've chosen this approach. But if I were to give you the benefit of the doubt, I'd be baffled.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Allan F on August 27, 2015, 07:07:04 PM
Stonewalling - has he (I suspect not) even made it reasonable likely that he has actually contacted somebody who has had any connection to the technology he claims doesn't work? If he contacted somebody doing rocket nozzles about the sublimator-(non)issue, it's more than likely his request would be discarded. And even if he got somewhere near the right people, how was it worded? If he rambled on about it being fake and didn't work, he probably would not get a lengthy answer, if any. Or if he required access to papers about current models, would they not be protected by company policy against industrial espionage?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 07:12:55 PM
"In a single test, three independent viewers agreed this worked!" is NOT convincing proof.

For reasons that need not be belabored, Baker himself will never be allowed to participate in a test that takes place at a NASA vacuum testing facility.  Since he sidesteps every single bit of contrary evidence with speculation, there is no reason to suppose that in the event his independent witnesses report a successful sublimator test he won't simply dismiss it speculatively as, "NASA must have gotten to them."

If Baker's intent were truly to test the sublimator, he could have purchased one himself and tested it under his own supervision, in the presence of as many witnesses as he wished.  And without the potential interference from NASA.  The fact that he hasn't done this, or even acknowledged the proposal, evinces a more likely explanation:  he simply wants to continued demanding something unreasonable so that he can continue to read all manner of malice into its absence.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 27, 2015, 07:15:17 PM
Or if he required access to papers about current models, would they not be protected by company policy against industrial espionage?

Quite. I'm going to phone BAe tomorrow and ask for information about a military system. If I get stonewalled I'll assume that the system is fake. I cannot get my head around the idea that he thinks that the sublimator does not work, or needs some proof of it working. Phase change heat exchangers are quite common technology, and the PLSS sublimator uses the condition of vacuum to do what it says on the tin. He only needs to look at the phase diagram for water.

To me it's another one of these examples where the CT has seen the use of the word anomaly, and has invented something to concoct a theory, when in reality it is lazy research and poor understanding on his part. He's floated his idea thinking he has a clincher, and has fallen flat on his face and trying to find a way out.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 27, 2015, 07:44:20 PM
I found a newspaper article concerning A11:
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2209&dat=19690716&id=D4pjAAAAIBAJ&sjid=EnoNAAAAIBAJ&pg=5510,1683661&hl=en
In the article
Quote
The PLSS, however, has undergone more than 148 hours of simulated us in NASA and Hamilton-Standard test facilities.
Now I believe I read somewhere that the PLSS would only work in a vacuum.  If this were accurate then these tests had to be conducted in a vacuum chamber.  Now whether or not there is a video(s) of the tests only NASA and Hamilton-Standard would know.  But it seems pretty clear that it was tested before ever flown by Apollo crews.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on August 27, 2015, 07:59:03 PM
I found a newspaper article concerning A11:
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2209&dat=19690716&id=D4pjAAAAIBAJ&sjid=EnoNAAAAIBAJ&pg=5510,1683661&hl=en
In the article
Quote
The PLSS, however, has undergone more than 148 hours of simulated us in NASA and Hamilton-Standard test facilities.
Now I believe I read somewhere that the PLSS would only work in a vacuum.  If this were accurate then these tests had to be conducted in a vacuum chamber.  Now whether or not there is a video(s) of the tests only NASA and Hamilton-Standard would know.  But it seems pretty clear that it was tested before ever flown by Apollo crews.

A good find that pretty much dumps Baker's crank theories in the trash can where they belong.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gillianren on August 27, 2015, 08:55:45 PM
Here's what I keep going back to.

I don't have a physics background of any kind.  I couldn't prove the sublimator used for Apollo worked, because the most experience I have with sublimation is Magic Disappearing Ice Cubes in my freezer.  All the tests in the world would be meaningless to me.

Therefore, NASA has no obligation to provide me, specifically, with tests.  The people they have to provide the data to are people like you guys who actually work in the field.  You'd know if things didn't work, because you would see them fail and know why.  Since all of you are satisfied--and since the evidence in fields I do know something about, like geology, politics, and history, holds up to scrutiny at the level at which I am capable of scrutinizing--I'm perfectly willing to accept that the doodads work.  Anyone trying to convince me that they don't also would have to explain to me how people who work in the field are convinced and, importantly, how the mission was faked.  Because until you can come up with a reasonable way of faking all the tons of evidence, well, you've failed your burden of proof.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 27, 2015, 09:09:44 PM
...and since the evidence in fields I do know something about, like geology, politics, and history, holds up to scrutiny at the level at which I am capable of scrutinizing--...
Slight hijack, so if I asked you what a Andesite was you could quickly comeback with the correct answer?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: sts60 on August 27, 2015, 09:32:12 PM
I found a newspaper article concerning A11:
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2209&dat=19690716&id=D4pjAAAAIBAJ&sjid=EnoNAAAAIBAJ&pg=5510,1683661&hl=en
In the article
Quote
The PLSS, however, has undergone more than 148 hours of simulated us in NASA and Hamilton-Standard test facilities.
Now I believe I read somewhere that the PLSS would only work in a vacuum.  If this were accurate then these tests had to be conducted in a vacuum chamber.  Now whether or not there is a video(s) of the tests only NASA and Hamilton-Standard would know.  But it seems pretty clear that it was tested before ever flown by Apollo crews.
Of course it was, and there are reports discussing such testing that can be found on the Web without any real effort.

There's a lot more detail out there that may require a little effort, or purchasing an article from a journal or conference proceedings.  And then, of course, there's more at NASA centers and technical libraries and, of course, the nitty-gritty of technical memorandums and progress reports and such that reside at the National Archives; they measure them by the foot.  (Anybody live near Fort Worth?)

In any case, though, you really don't need to leave your keyboard to find plenty of detail about design and performance for the sublimator, or about any other piece of Apollo technology.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 27, 2015, 09:38:36 PM
Of course it was, and there are reports discussing such testing that can be found on the Web without any real effort.

There's a lot more detail out there that may require a little effort, or purchasing an article from a journal or conference proceedings.  And then, of course, there's more at NASA centers and technical libraries and, of course, the nitty-gritty of technical memorandums and progress reports and such that reside at the National Archives; they measure them by the foot.  (Anybody live near Fort Worth?)

In any case, though, you really don't need to leave your keyboard to find plenty of detail about design and performance for the sublimator, or about any other piece of Apollo technology.
I realize that there was testing, I was looking for a video to submit and I found that article.
Not only has testing been done, but many hours of usage during the last 45 years. 
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: nomuse on August 27, 2015, 10:44:01 PM
I'm curious, please list all/any of your qualifications to judge how sublimation PLSS work

I thought he asked if I was qualified to understand how a vacuum system works. As far as how a PLSS works, I've probably read most of the same propaganda as you.

Not the right question.

You -- like practically every other hoaxie -- want to characterize the sublimator as a black box that we only know works because NASA says it works.

That's the wrong angle, and that is how you fail to understand the minds of every engineer and scientist on the planet who understand and support the reality of space exploration.

You don't need to know a blessed thing about any sublimator used by NASA, or anyone else, in order to understand the scientific principles and the engineering principles and work out for yourself from those very basic and well-tested laws of chemistry and physics IF such a technique would work, how PRACTICAL it would be to build, and what the NUMBERS on one would be (aka how many BTU versus how many liters, exposed volume, mass of the item, etc.)

But of course this isn't how you construct your argument. For you it is insufficient that it could plausibly be done. You require proof, absolute proof, which is of course unobtainable in anything other than certain formal systems of mathematics. And this leads you into chasing down ever-tinier details as if the proof you wish to deny others will somehow be found there.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gillianren on August 27, 2015, 10:46:52 PM
True story--I work for a jeweler three weekends a year at a Renaissance faire.  Once, a long time ago, when I worked for him more regularly, a customer held up a piece.  She was standing maybe fifteen or twenty feet away.  She said, "What stone is this?"

I squinted.  "It's a form of quartz," I said.

"Oh, thanks."  Beat.  "Wait a minute!"

Turns out she was actually a geologist and therefore knew that "a form of quartz" is a safe bet when it comes to semiprecious stones.  (Something like ninety percent of them are forms of quartz.)  However, since I'd said it with such confidence, she just went along with it.  As it happens, it was carnelian, indeed a form of quartz.

Short answer, no, I didn't remember what andesite was.  But when I looked it up, I understood all the words in the Wikipedia article enough so that I do now.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 27, 2015, 10:52:54 PM
True story--I work for a jeweler three weekends a year at a Renaissance faire.  Once, a long time ago, when I worked for him more regularly, a customer held up a piece.  She was standing maybe fifteen or twenty feet away.  She said, "What stone is this?"

I squinted.  "It's a form of quartz," I said.

"Oh, thanks."  Beat.  "Wait a minute!"

Turns out she was actually a geologist and therefore knew that "a form of quartz" is a safe bet when it comes to semiprecious stones.  (Something like ninety percent of them are forms of quartz.)  However, since I'd said it with such confidence, she just went along with it.  As it happens, it was carnelian, indeed a form of quartz.

Short answer, no, I didn't remember what andesite was.  But when I looked it up, I understood all the words in the Wikipedia article enough so that I do now.
I didn't want this to be a test nor embarrass you, sorry if I came out that way.  I had to take a lot of Geology courses in school, so I know a bit of the science.  And I didn't remember what carnelian was, if I ever had it in Mineralogy class. :)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gillianren on August 27, 2015, 11:03:58 PM
Obviously, it's a form of quartz!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnelian

No, I didn't think it was a test.  I'm just being honest with the level of my knowledge.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 27, 2015, 11:07:22 PM
That was never on my lab specimens, but it does look like it belongs on a necklace.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: sts60 on August 27, 2015, 11:18:33 PM
I realize that there was testing, I was looking for a video to submit and I found that article.
Not only has testing been done, but many hours of usage during the last 45 years. 
Oh sure, I knew you knew that.  Didn't you know? :-)

As to how much imagery of the original tests still exists, it is quite possible that neither NASA JSC nor "Ham Standard"'s current incarnation know for sure. 50-year-old film of  engineering tests for an obsolete space suit PLSS is not a high retention priority.  As things get moved, consolidated, borrowed, lost, accidentally damaged, and perhaps, ultimately archived by people who weren't around when the tests were done, the entropy of such records increases significantly.  Despite the claims of hoax believers who have no clue how such projects work, there's nothing "anomalous", sinister, or even particularly remarkable about it.

Besides, as I've already pointed out, what is particularly useful about movies of PLSS tests?  The PLSS is a basically a static machine.  Watching it is like watching grass grow.  The useful information is the telemetry from the tests, and examples of such data are easily found. 
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Peter B on August 28, 2015, 12:00:25 AM
My contention is that most of the NASA space program is probably a hoax. I say "probably" because I don't know. But neither does anyone else and I think that's unacceptable. A faith-based space program during this great age of the scientific method is unnecessary and absurd. It's way past time for NASA to be scientifically accountable.

[SNIP] "How do we PROVE we went to the moon?"

Photos? Video? Could be fake. Narrative? Could be lies. Launches? Yes, but what happened after they went into orbit out of sight? Did they really go to the moon? Do they really go to the space station or is just a lighted orbiting umannned and possibly inflatable prop? Did they really repair a Hubble telescope? What about the flag waving? I don't know and there's nothing we can prove about it on Earth. What about the shadows? I don't know and there's nothing we can prove about them on Earth.What about the Lunar laser reflector? I don't know and who knows how it got there even if it's actually there.

But then I stumbled upon the spacesuit ice sublimators.

[SNIP]

Well, I stumbled onto the rocks - the 380-odd kilograms of rocks brought back by the Apollo missions. (If metric values are unfamiliar to you, I'm sure you can work out how many pounds that is.)

Anyway, where did these rocks come from?

1. We know they're not Earth rocks. Their mineral composition, while broadly similar to Earth rocks, includes several distinct differences which have never been observed in Earth rocks. For example, they contain significantly less volatile elements and compounds than equivalent Earth rocks, and they also show signs of millions of years of exposure to solar radiation, which doesn't happen to Earth rocks. So that's why they're not Earth rocks.

2. We know they're not lunar meteorites. Sometimes meteor impacts on the Moon blast rocks off the Moon's surface and into space, and some of those rocks make it to the Earth. Lunar meteorites, like other meteorites, show signs of alteration by atmospheric heating - from passing through the Earth's atmosphere at speeds of several kilometres per second. The Apollo rocks show no such signs. Instead, they show signs of being bombarded by tiny dust particles themselves travelling at tens of kilometres per second. This is only possible to rocks sitting on the surface of the Moon, not on the surface of the Earth. So that's why the Apollo rocks are not lunar meteorites.

3. We know they're not Moon rocks collected by unmanned sample retriever missions. The Apollo rocks include quite a few rocks weighing more than a kilogram each, as well as core samples up to two metres long, and also clods of lunar soil. There is no evidence that NASA ever had the technology to build unmanned sample retriever spacecraft capable of collecting such samples; in fact there isn't even any evidence that these sorts of things could be done today, more than 40 years later. What we do have is photos of astronauts standing near rocks which now sit in storage facilities.

So what that leave is the only possible explanation: Those rocks, which are clearly from the Moon, and which clearly came to the Earth not in high-speed contact with the Earth's atmosphere, and which clearly were not collected by unmanned spacecraft, must have been collected by humans walking on the Moon.

Now if you have some alternative explanation for these rocks, I'm all ears. But in the interim I'm going to stick with the explanation that spacesuit sublimators must have worked, allowing those astronauts to walk on the Moon and retrieve those rocks.

Quote
For independent witnesses I recommend retired Army General Antonio Taguba, retired Navy Admiral William Fallon and me.

Is this some new meaning of the word "independent"?

Just to be clear - you're making the assertion that NASA faked Apollo. So you have a dog in the fight. So by any normal meaning of the word "independent", that means you're not independent.

Plus, out of interest, do Taguba and Fallon have any understanding of the physics behind spacesuit sublimators? If not, what's the point of having them investigate any demonstration?

Neil Baker, I'd be grateful if you could respond to this email from page 5 of the thread.

Thank you.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 28, 2015, 12:13:55 AM

"Rusty" Schweickart testing the suit and PLSS in vacuum chamber A (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/engineering/integrated_environments/altitude_environmental/chamber_A/index.html) in Building 32 in 19

https://archive.org/download/S68-55391/S68-55391.tif

And just before entering the vacuum chamber

https://archive.org/download/S68-55983/S68-55983.tif

Wait a minute. What makes you think he's in vacuum. He might be in a vacuum chamber but how can you tell he's in a vacuum? According to the link you provide, that chamber is 65 feet in diameter, 120 feet high and takes 12 hours to pump down to low earth orbit conditions.

I still have trouble believing a high vacuum could be attained with a sublimator leaking water vapor into the chamber.

Also that 1995 book. Where is the mention of spacesuit ice sublimators in it?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 28, 2015, 12:30:27 AM
Wait a minute. What makes you think he's in vacuum.

If this is going to be your universally denialist response, why does it matter whether there are film records of previous vacuum chamber tests?  You don't consider them probative, so your suggestion that none exists is just empty rhetoric.

Quote
I still have trouble believing a high vacuum could be attained with a sublimator leaking water vapor into the chamber.

Your personal ignorance and incredulity are not probative.  Do you understand that the world does not revolve around you?

Quote
Also that 1995 book. Where is the mention of spacesuit ice sublimators in it?

In the part you haven't read, but insinuate you did.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on August 28, 2015, 12:33:48 AM

"Rusty" Schweickart testing the suit and PLSS in vacuum chamber A (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/engineering/integrated_environments/altitude_environmental/chamber_A/index.html) in Building 32 in 19

https://archive.org/download/S68-55391/S68-55391.tif

And just before entering the vacuum chamber

https://archive.org/download/S68-55983/S68-55983.tif

Wait a minute. What makes you think he's in vacuum. He might be in a vacuum chamber but how can you tell he's in a vacuum? According to the link you provide, that chamber is 65 feet in diameter, 120 feet high and takes 12 hours to pump down to low earth orbit conditions.

I still have trouble believing a high vacuum could be attained with a sublimator leaking water vapor into the chamber.
Maybe they just continue to run the pumps while the tests are running? Now, I am not nearly so educated as many of the fine folks here, and I don't claim to be, but that would keep it from building up at least, yes?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 28, 2015, 12:48:44 AM

Well, I stumbled onto the rocks - the 380-odd kilograms of rocks brought back by the Apollo missions. (If metric values are unfamiliar to you, I'm sure you can work out how many pounds that is.)

Anyway, where did these rocks come from?

1. We know they're not Earth rocks. Their mineral composition, while broadly similar to Earth rocks, includes several distinct differences which have never been observed in Earth rocks. For example, they contain significantly less volatile elements and compounds than equivalent Earth rocks, and they also show signs of millions of years of exposure to solar radiation, which doesn't happen to Earth rocks. So that's why they're not Earth rocks.

2. We know they're not lunar meteorites. Sometimes meteor impacts on the Moon blast rocks off the Moon's surface and into space, and some of those rocks make it to the Earth. Lunar meteorites, like other meteorites, show signs of alteration by atmospheric heating - from passing through the Earth's atmosphere at speeds of several kilometres per second. The Apollo rocks show no such signs. Instead, they show signs of being bombarded by tiny dust particles themselves travelling at tens of kilometres per second. This is only possible to rocks sitting on the surface of the Moon, not on the surface of the Earth. So that's why the Apollo rocks are not lunar meteorites.

3. We know they're not Moon rocks collected by unmanned sample retriever missions. The Apollo rocks include quite a few rocks weighing more than a kilogram each, as well as core samples up to two metres long, and also clods of lunar soil. There is no evidence that NASA ever had the technology to build unmanned sample retriever spacecraft capable of collecting such samples; in fact there isn't even any evidence that these sorts of things could be done today, more than 40 years later. What we do have is photos of astronauts standing near rocks which now sit in storage facilities.

So what that leave is the only possible explanation: Those rocks, which are clearly from the Moon, and which clearly came to the Earth not in high-speed contact with the Earth's atmosphere, and which clearly were not collected by unmanned spacecraft, must have been collected by humans walking on the Moon.

Now if you have some alternative explanation for these rocks, I'm all ears. But in the interim I'm going to stick with the explanation that spacesuit sublimators must have worked, allowing those astronauts to walk on the Moon and retrieve those rocks.

Quote
For independent witnesses I recommend retired Army General Antonio Taguba, retired Navy Admiral William Fallon and me.

Is this some new meaning of the word "independent"?

Just to be clear - you're making the assertion that NASA faked Apollo. So you have a dog in the fight. So by any normal meaning of the word "independent", that means you're not independent.

Plus, out of interest, do Taguba and Fallon have any understanding of the physics behind spacesuit sublimators? If not, what's the point of having them investigate any demonstration?

Neil Baker, I'd be grateful if you could respond to this email from page 5 of the thread.

Thank you.
[/quote]

I don't know about rocks. But I will say this. I was ten years old when the Apollo 8 Christmas mission took place. It was spectacular. The first ever photos were taken of the Earth from the orbit of the moon or so I thought. I wonder if you had to be alive then to understand how radical those photos were. In my memory, Apollo 8 was more exciting than Apollo 11. They were the first to get close. There had been nothing like it. But there had. NASA allegedly sent five lunar orbiters in 66 and 67 and they took photos of the Earth from moon orbit. Why didn't they release them to the public in 1966? Were they holding them so they could say the astronauts faking the Apollo 8 mission took them in 1968? 

The NASA lunar surveyor program allegedly sent seven landers to the moon between 1966 and 1968. Could they have been used to retrieve rocks robotically so it could be claimed later that astronauts gathered them?
Yes, it's pure speculation but if it's all a hoax, would they have gone to such a length to make the hoax convincing?
If it's a hoax, it wouldn't be surprising that black ops came into play at some time during the prelude to the alleged landings.
Even if it turns out that it was hoax, what a spectacular hoax! Legendary!

Taguba and Fallon are recommended due to their gravitas and exemplary integrity at a time when it's apparent that it's extremely rare. 
They are well educated and I'm confident they would be capable of quickly acquiring the requisite knowledge to understand what they needed to observe.  Besides, it's expected that one or more other independent witnesses with engineering backgrounds would be present.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 28, 2015, 12:55:25 AM
I don't know about rocks.

Then it's yet more evidence you can't explain.

Quote
Yes, it's pure speculation but...

But nothing.  Patching holes in your speculation with more speculation makes your case less convincing, not more.

Quote
Taguba and Fallon are recommended due to their gravitas and exemplary integrity at a time when it's apparent that it's extremely rare.

"Gravitas" is not a professional qualification.  I don't care about their celebrity.
 
Quote
They are well educated and I'm confident they would be capable of quickly acquiring the requisite knowledge...

Then they are presently unqualified.  You are not selecting them for their knowledge.  You are apparently selecting them because you consider them political allies.

Quote
Besides, it's expected that one or more other independent witnesses with engineering backgrounds would be present.

Many tests of the sublimator process have already been conducted under the supervision of qualified engineers.  You have no problem calling all of them liars, so explain why you would suddenly respect the engineers observing new tests.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 28, 2015, 01:03:47 AM
Maybe they just continue to run the pumps while the tests are running? Now, I am not nearly so educated as many of the fine folks here, and I don't claim to be, but that would keep it from building up at least, yes?

But he'd allegedly be in a hermetically sealed suit for more than twelve hours requiring sublimator cooling at vacuum and other cooling on the way to vacuum. He'd need an umbilical to augment the sublimator. Once low earth vacuum was reached the sublimator could be turned on but that would probably result in an immediate loss of vacuum. I doubt this test can be done in a vacuum chamber on Earth. If they wanted to simulate real moon surface conditions, they'd have to illuminate the spacesuit with enough light that on the moon brings the surface temperature up to about 240 degrees F.
Raul Blanco at NASA's Johnson Space Center, a salt of the Earth sounding guy, assured me they test the spacesuits with sublimators in vacuum chambers regularly. He also assured me there's nothing classified about a spacesuit or it's cooling system.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 28, 2015, 01:06:04 AM

Many tests of the sublimator process have already been conducted under the supervision of qualified engineers.  You have no problem calling all of them liars, so explain why you would suddenly respect the engineers observing new tests.

Allegedly.
Nobody has called anyone a liar.
Please behave.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on August 28, 2015, 01:10:08 AM
No. They could not have. The Russians had specifically designed sample return probes, three of which were successful, and they returned, wait for it, a grand total of 326 grams,and that was a regolith core sample. Apollo collected orders of magnitude more lunar material, practically 1000 times . Heck, there is rocks (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/samples/) from Apollo that weigh more than that individually.
Besides, the Surveyor probes were designed to land on the moon. They had no capacity to return to Earth on their own, let alone with many kilograms of lunar samples each. This would be an even greater undertaking, and, again, I have to ask you who did it and what evidence you have for this.
(In light of Neil's reply)
Ever heard of an airlock? He wouldn't have to spend the whole 12 hours in the machine waiting for it to be evacuated. And if you look at the pictures, yes, there is indeed lights to simulate the lunar tempereture conditions, though, if you look up the sun angles (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-sunangles.html), it never got noon time hot while the astronauts would have been there, if you do the math. (http://www.lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Lunar_Temperature)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 28, 2015, 01:10:18 AM
I doubt this test can be done in a vacuum chamber on Earth.

Your personal doubts are not probative.

Quote
If they wanted to simulate real moon surface conditions, they'd have to illuminate the spacesuit with enough light that on the moon brings the surface temperature up to about 240 degrees F.

Which was done in Earth orbit.  Sublimator operation is only loosely coupled to crew safety while wearing the EMU.  Hence that mode of testing is available following vacuum test chamber validation.

Quote
Raul Blanco at NASA's Johnson Space Center, a salt of the Earth sounding guy...

Whom you have no problem calling a liar.

Quote
He also assured me there's nothing classified about a spacesuit or it's cooling system.

That doesn't mean you're entitled to the information you demand, via the way you demand it.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 28, 2015, 01:13:08 AM
Allegedly.
Nobody has called anyone a liar.

Contradiction on its face.  I have asked you several times if any part of your argument is not either bare denial or speculation.  Are you prepared to give me an answer?

Quote
Please behave.

You're in no position to lecture people on the propriety of behavior.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 28, 2015, 01:15:25 AM

Whom you have no problem calling a liar.


No, I said he reneged on a promise. Liar is your word. Again, please behave.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Grashtel on August 28, 2015, 01:18:42 AM
No, I said he reneged on a promise. Liar is your word. Again, please behave.
He says that they regularly test sublimators in vacuum chambers and they work, you are contending that sublimators do not work in vacuum, therefore you saying that he is telling a lie which would make him a liar.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 28, 2015, 01:24:38 AM
No, I said he reneged on a promise. Liar is your word.

Blanco claims sublimators are routinely tested in vacuum chambers.  You claim such a test would be impossible, or at best fruitless.  Explain how you can claim the latter without accusing Blanco of lying.

Quote
Again, please behave.

You are a violent felon.  Do not lecture me on the propriety of behavior.  You are also accusing a number of people of fraud with evidence you admit is no stronger than speculation.  You do not stand on the moral high ground here.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 28, 2015, 01:32:01 AM
NASA allegedly sent five lunar orbiters in 66 and 67 and they took photos of the Earth from moon orbit. Why didn't they release them to the public in 1966? Were they holding them so they could say the astronauts faking the Apollo 8 mission took them in 1968?

The lunar orbiter photos don't look anything like those taken during Apollo 8.  Photos from lunar orbiter were developed on board the spacecraft, scanned, and transmitted to Earth.  The process left telltale artifacts in the photos the are absent from the Apollo 8 photos.  Furthermore, I have a book published in 1968 that includes lunar orbiter photos.  This was before Apollo 8's fight in late December of that year.

The NASA lunar surveyor program allegedly sent seven landers to the moon between 1966 and 1968. Could they have been used to retrieve rocks robotically so it could be claimed later that astronauts gathered them?

The lunar surveyor payloads weren't large enough to carry the capability to return 382 kilograms of lunar samples.  Also the diversity of the samples defy the premise that they were just scooped up in the immediate vicinity of a lander.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Peter B on August 28, 2015, 02:05:24 AM
Quote
...Neil Baker, I'd be grateful if you could respond to this email from page 5 of the thread.

Thank you.

I don't know about rocks. But I will say this. I was ten years old when the Apollo 8 Christmas mission took place. It was spectacular. The first ever photos were taken of the Earth from the orbit of the moon or so I thought. I wonder if you had to be alive then to understand how radical those photos were. In my memory, Apollo 8 was more exciting than Apollo 11. They were the first to get close. There had been nothing like it. But there had. NASA allegedly sent five lunar orbiters in 66 and 67 and they took photos of the Earth from moon orbit. Why didn't they release them to the public in 1966? Were they holding them so they could say the astronauts faking the Apollo 8 mission took them in 1968?

According to this article (http://www.space.com/12707-earth-photo-moon-nasa-lunar-orbiter-1-anniversary.html) the images were released at the time.

Quote
"NASA took the image and they created a poster of it which was given as gifts to everybody," said Friedlander. "Senators and congressmen would give it out as presents to constituents and visiting dignitaries."

The Lunar Orbiter photos were black and white. Apollo 8 produced colour photos of the Earth. NASA would hardly distribute B&W photos from Lunar Orbiter when colour Apollo 8 photos were available, so the statement quoted above must mean the photos were distributed before Apollo 8.

Quote
The NASA lunar surveyor program allegedly sent seven landers to the moon between 1966 and 1968. Could they have been used to retrieve rocks robotically so it could be claimed later that astronauts gathered them?

Let's do the maths. The Apollo rocks total ~380 kilograms. With seven landers that would require each to return an average of about 55 kilograms of material. Now, the Surveyor spacecraft were launched using Atlas rockets. Perhaps you might like to calculate whether an Atlas rocket could launch a spacecraft large enough to itself launch 55 kilograms of material off the surface of the Moon in a container which could itself survive re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere.

For comparison, we know the Soviets brought back ~400 grams of material on three sample return missions. In other words, enough to fill a can of soup - in three missions. And you're suggesting NASA could return nearly a thousand times the mass on seven spacecraft. NASA might be good, but I don't think they're that good.

In any case, to repeat what I said in my original post:
Quote
We know they're not Moon rocks collected by unmanned sample retriever missions. The Apollo rocks include quite a few rocks weighing more than a kilogram each, as well as core samples up to two metres long, and also clods of lunar soil. There is no evidence that NASA ever had the technology to build unmanned sample retriever spacecraft capable of collecting such samples; in fact there isn't even any evidence that these sorts of things could be done today, more than 40 years later. What we do have is photos of astronauts standing near rocks which now sit in storage facilities.

In other words, there's no record of anyone designing, building or operating these legendary unmanned sample retriever spacecraft.

Quote
Yes, it's pure speculation but if it's all a hoax, would they have gone to such a length to make the hoax convincing? If it's a hoax, it wouldn't be surprising that black ops came into play at some time during the prelude to the alleged landings.

Black ops might be good for doing stuff in secret. But it doesn't mean they can break the laws of physics or suddenly invent technology decades ahead of what is otherwise available.

Quote
Even if it turns out that it was hoax, what a spectacular hoax! Legendary!

And if it's real, what does that say about American technology and can-do attitude, and the bravery and skill of those who were involved? (Just for the record, I'm Australian, so I feel no patriotic loyalty to the USA.)

Quote
Taguba and Fallon are recommended due to their gravitas and exemplary integrity at a time when it's apparent that it's extremely rare. 
They are well educated and I'm confident they would be capable of quickly acquiring the requisite knowledge to understand what they needed to observe.  Besides, it's expected that one or more other independent witnesses with engineering backgrounds would be present.

And if Taguba and Fallon attest to the reality of the sublimator system will you accept what they say, or will you shift position again and suggest the government got to them?

In any case, if the sublimator system can't possibly work, why didn't the Soviets say something back in 1969? Or are you skeptical of the reality of the Cold War too?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 28, 2015, 02:11:53 AM

I don't know about rocks. But I will say this. I was ten years old when the Apollo 8 Christmas mission took place. It was spectacular. The first ever photos were taken of the Earth from the orbit of the moon or so I thought. I wonder if you had to be alive then to understand how radical those photos were. In my memory, Apollo 8 was more exciting than Apollo 11. They were the first to get close. There had been nothing like it. But there had. NASA allegedly sent five lunar orbiters in 66 and 67 and they took photos of the Earth from moon orbit. Why didn't they release them to the public in 1966? Were they holding them so they could say the astronauts faking the Apollo 8 mission took them in 1968? 

Oh really? Google fail again:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Lunar-Orbiter-Photographs-Earth-and-Moon-Kodak-1966-/380538883694?hash=item5899e28e6e

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1967-Boeing-NASA-Lunar-Orbiter-Spacecraft-moon-surface-photos-vintage-print-Ad-/361370647308?hash=item54235e7b0c

The photos of Earth were released and they were released before Apollo 8. The entire collection of Lunar Orbiter images was made public before Apollo finished - I have an original copy of the book.

The published images do not contain the level of detail shown in Apollo images or more recent probes launched by the US, China and India, particularly of the landing areas covered by the later Apollo missions as the photography for those was done by other Apollo missions.

What you don't appear to realise is that the photos, 16mm and live TV images of Earth from every Apollo mission (every single one of them) contain a unique meteorological fingerprint that is time and date specific, and that meteorology is exactly matched by the available meteorological satellite record. The configuration of Earth in the lunar sky and its terminator is also an exact match for what should be there as predicted by astronomical software.

Word to the wise: if you're going to try and invent stuff to cover your backside, probably best not to do it in front of people who know waaaaaay more about it than you.

Quote
The NASA lunar surveyor program allegedly sent seven landers to the moon between 1966 and 1968. Could they have been used to retrieve rocks robotically so it could be claimed later that astronauts gathered them?

Yes they did, and no they couldn't.

Again, the Surveyor images show details matched by modern probes. If you think they could provide a return sample, show us how. Especxially the bit where they have the launch capability to get back to Earth. I have the original reports, published before Apollo, they happened.

Quote
Yes, it's pure speculation

For once you got it right.

Quote
Taguba and Fallon are recommended due to their gravitas and exemplary integrity at a time when it's apparent that it's extremely rare. 

No - you picked them because you think they share your values and because they have been critical of aspects of US foreign policy that you also criticise. Don't insult our intelligence by claiming you believe them to be neutral.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 28, 2015, 02:21:05 AM
Let's do the maths. The Apollo rocks total ~380 kilograms. With seven landers that would require each to return an average of about 55 kilograms of material. Now, the Surveyor spacecraft were launched using Atlas rockets. Perhaps you might like to calculate whether an Atlas rocket could launch a spacecraft large enough to itself launch 55 kilograms of material off the surface of the Moon in a container which could itself survive re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere.

For comparison, we know the Soviets brought back ~400 grams of material on three sample return missions. In other words, enough to fill a can of soup - in three missions. And you're suggesting NASA could return nearly a thousand times the mass on seven spacecraft. NASA might be good, but I don't think they're that good.

The entire Surveyor spacecraft had a launch mass of about 1000 kg, which was near the limit of what the Atlas-Centaur launch vehicle could deliver to the moon.  It's mathematically impossible to land on the moon and return to Earth 55 kg of samples with a craft that small.

The Soviet landers that returned about 100 grams of material each had a launch mass of 5600 kg.  They were also launched on Proton rockets, which are 5 times more massive than the Atlas-Centaur.
 
 
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on August 28, 2015, 02:24:26 AM
Here's two (https://books.google.ca/books?id=BlMEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA48-IA2&dq=%22lunar+orbiter%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAWoVChMI3rPmyJHLxwIVz3-SCh2FWAu1#v=onepage&q=%22lunar%20orbiter%22&f=false) more (https://books.google.ca/books?id=BlMEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA48-IA2&dq=%22lunar+orbiter%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAWoVChMI3rPmyJHLxwIVz3-SCh2FWAu1#v=onepage&q=%22lunar%20orbiter%22&f=false) examples of Lunar Orbiter photos released before Apollo 8.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 28, 2015, 02:24:35 AM
1966 press conference:

(http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4308/p345a.jpg)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 28, 2015, 02:32:33 AM
Here's two (https://books.google.ca/books?id=BlMEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA48-IA2&dq=%22lunar+orbiter%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAWoVChMI3rPmyJHLxwIVz3-SCh2FWAu1#v=onepage&q=%22lunar%20orbiter%22&f=false) more (https://books.google.ca/books?id=BlMEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA48-IA2&dq=%22lunar+orbiter%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAWoVChMI3rPmyJHLxwIVz3-SCh2FWAu1#v=onepage&q=%22lunar%20orbiter%22&f=false) examples of Lunar Orbiter photos released before Apollo 8.

I have an A2 size copy of that Copernicus image, and one taken from above - it's amazing. It's mounted on a board and was part of a set sold to Universities. It was being thrown away!
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on August 28, 2015, 02:37:43 AM
Here's two (https://books.google.ca/books?id=BlMEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA48-IA2&dq=%22lunar+orbiter%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAWoVChMI3rPmyJHLxwIVz3-SCh2FWAu1#v=onepage&q=%22lunar%20orbiter%22&f=false) more (https://books.google.ca/books?id=BlMEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA48-IA2&dq=%22lunar+orbiter%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAWoVChMI3rPmyJHLxwIVz3-SCh2FWAu1#v=onepage&q=%22lunar%20orbiter%22&f=false) examples of Lunar Orbiter photos released before Apollo 8.

I have an A2 size copy of that Copernicus image, and one taken from above - it's amazing. It's mounted on a board and was part of a set sold to Universities. It was being thrown away!
Wow! I'm glad you got it, but wow!
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Jason Thompson on August 28, 2015, 03:22:30 AM
Wait a minute. What makes you think he's in vacuum. He might be in a vacuum chamber but how can you tell he's in a vacuum?

And there we have it.

So, Neil, a simple question. How would you, given a video of a vacuum chamber test, verify that a) there was a vacuum and b) that the sublimator was working? It seems clear you'd just handwave the evidence away based on your inability to do either of those things.

However, we don't need video of a vacuum chamber test to see a spacesuit working in a vacuum. Fortunately the film and TV of, for example, the Apollo lunar surface activities, is replete with evidence of a vacuum, from mylar foil being tossed around in ways impossible in air, through ziploc bags being scrunched up while sealed without puffing out in the irritating way that anyone who has tried to roll one up on Earth is familiar with, to the behaviour of the dust. There we have vidual records of a spacesuit functioning in a vacuum.

But of course you have already said that it was 'probably' faked, so tell us why we shold take anything you say seriously when you're so eager to dismiss any and all evidence presented to you except the one thing you know you will never get.

Quote
I still have trouble believing a high vacuum could be attained with a sublimator leaking water vapor into the chamber.

What, you can't imagine how a pump powerful enough to evacuate a room that size could possibly cope with a small amount of water vapour being emitted from a spacesuit inside it? How much water vapour would have to be emitted from a sublimator unit into a room that size to make a significant difference to the ambient pressure within? Surely you can do that bit of mathematics?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: sts60 on August 28, 2015, 03:24:26 AM
...Once low earth vacuum was reached the sublimator could be turned on but that would probably result in an immediate loss of vacuum. I doubt this test can be done in a vacuum chamber on Earth...

No one cares about your ignorant opinion, since you not only have not done any of the work to test your claims and assertions such as the above, you refuse to even acknowledge it when other people do it for you and rub your nose in it.

I will reiterate an earlier assessment: I pointed out here (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=945.msg31310#msg31310) and here (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=945.msg31311#msg31311), and many others have repeatedly shown as well, that your characterization of an "anomaly" is founded upon nothing more than your personal say-so.  You are manifestly unfamiliar with the record, you keep denying the existence of items showed to you, you keep trying to say that everyone else is as much in the dark as you, and you fountain out wild claims of coverups spanning half a century of international space operations with no basis whatsoever.  Yet you insist that a special demonstration be arranged for you on the basis of your ignorant and frankly irrational opinions.  You are just one of many hoax believers who attempt this silly and self-important charade. 

Not that you've answered, or even addressed, my previous questions, but - You accuse others here of being blind followers, but they've been busily digging up information and supplying context for you, and your response is to stick your fingers in your ears and shut your eyes to avoid having to reconsider your position.  You've assiduously avoided learning anything at all.  Why are you going to such lengths to remain clueless in the service of clinging to your "hoax" belief?  Is it a religious thing?  Are you just angry that the U.S. accomplished such a feat?   Or what?  Are you simply afraid that we'll laugh at you if you admit a mistake?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Jason Thompson on August 28, 2015, 03:50:29 AM
Of course it is beyond Neil's ken that just maybe the astronaut wasn't standing in the vacuum chamber while it was being pumped down....
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: dwight on August 28, 2015, 04:12:52 AM
Who here remembers when the hoax brigade actually cared about their arguments and didnt use things that could be easily proved false?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: sts60 on August 28, 2015, 04:25:41 AM
There have been very few hoax claims that could not easily be proven false.

But the current poster's level of denial is right up there with Alan W, in terms of simply refusing to admit the existence of data even after it has been handed to him.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Al Johnston on August 28, 2015, 04:50:10 AM
Quote
Taguba and Fallon are recommended due to their gravitas and exemplary integrity at a time when it's apparent that it's extremely rare. 

No - you picked them because you think they share your values and because they have been critical of aspects of US foreign policy that you also criticise. Don't insult our intelligence by claiming you believe them to be neutral.

As men of integrity, there's no particular reason to suppose they would want even the slightest association with this creep.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Jason Thompson on August 28, 2015, 05:30:20 AM
Some quick, back-of-the-envelope calculations, just for fun.

The vacuum chamber described, which I assume to be cylindrical, has a volume of about 11,300 cubic metres.

At standard temperature and pressure that volume of air has a mass of about 13,500kg

The Apollo PLSS carried 3.9kg of water for cooling

So, even if we assume that every last bit of cooling water was sublimed (which it wasn't as some of it was in a closed loop), if a vacuum pump can successfully evacuate the vast majority of 13,500kg of air from that chamber, would an additional 3.9kg of water vapour really a) pose a challenge for the pump, or b) make so much difference to the pressure in the chamber once it has been evacuated to render the cooling sublimator unable to function?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on August 28, 2015, 06:05:06 AM
To keep things on the up and up, I realize now I linked to the same page twice on my earlier 'Lunar Orbiter pics from before 1968' post. Here (https://books.google.ca/books?id=21UEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA33-IA4&dq=%22lunar%20orbiter%22&pg=PA33-IA4#v=onepage&q=%22lunar%20orbiter%22&f=false) is the second example I found, also from LIFE. Here's some (https://books.google.ca/books?id=ASoDAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA85&dq=%22lunar%20orbiter%22&pg=PA84#v=onepage&q=%22lunar%20orbiter%22&f=false) more (https://books.google.ca/books?id=wioDAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA90&dq=%22lunar%20orbiter%22&pg=PA90#v=onepage&q=%22lunar%20orbiter%22&f=false), this time from Popular Science.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Peter B on August 28, 2015, 07:01:48 AM
Who here remembers when the hoax brigade actually cared about their arguments and didnt use things that could be easily proved false?

Not me.

Thinking back ten years or so to when Dave Cosnette was active, his arguments were just as risible. Same for Margamatix a couple of years later...

I suspect JayUtah would say the same for Bennett and Percy back in the day.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 28, 2015, 07:06:57 AM
So, even if we assume that every last bit of cooling water was sublimed (which it wasn't as some of it was in a closed loop), if a vacuum pump can successfully evacuate the vast majority of 13,500kg of air from that chamber, would an additional 3.9kg of water vapour really a) pose a challenge for the pump, or b) make so much difference to the pressure in the chamber once it has been evacuated to render the cooling sublimator unable to function?

It's even worse for Neil. Having worked with UHV systems, water has a very nasty habit of sticking to the walls of vacuum systems. It's a real pain to remove from UHV systems, especially when trying to maintain the integrity of metal surface samples that one has spent hours polishing and then running through IBA cycles. The vacuum chambers pertinent to this discussion operate at pressures above UHV, I would be happy to bet a good sum of money that a proportion of the water would stick to the sides and offer less of a challenge to the pumps. Vacuum physics is not trivial, and I don't suppose Neil understands surface outgassing and the limitations it has on such systems. 3.9 kg of water is in the noise - especially when it is not suddenly dumped as a pool of water in the middle of the chamber floor.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Trebor on August 28, 2015, 07:31:44 AM
I still have trouble believing a high vacuum could be attained with a sublimator leaking water vapor into the chamber.

Here you go, a very simple demonstration showing the basic principle.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOYgdQp4euc
Looks like an ideal way to remove heat when in a vacuum environment to me.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: RAF on August 28, 2015, 07:50:36 AM
No, I said he reneged on a promise. Liar is your word. Again, please behave.

So you're calling him a liar, but you don't want anyone else to think you are calling him a liar??



Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 28, 2015, 08:02:55 AM
To keep things on the up and up, I realize now I linked to the same page twice on my earlier 'Lunar Orbiter pics from before 1968' post. Here (https://books.google.ca/books?id=21UEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA33-IA4&dq=%22lunar%20orbiter%22&pg=PA33-IA4#v=onepage&q=%22lunar%20orbiter%22&f=false) is the second example I found, also from LIFE. Here's some (https://books.google.ca/books?id=ASoDAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA85&dq=%22lunar%20orbiter%22&pg=PA84#v=onepage&q=%22lunar%20orbiter%22&f=false) more (https://books.google.ca/books?id=wioDAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA90&dq=%22lunar%20orbiter%22&pg=PA90#v=onepage&q=%22lunar%20orbiter%22&f=false), this time from Popular Science.

On a similar note, just in case Mr Baker cares to dispute the public availability of Apollo 8 imagery of Earth, I have an original Apollo 8 NASA photography report with all the images in it, and also an original ESSA meteorological data catalog covering the Apollo 8 mission. Both were available to anyone with the money to buy them, and both my copies are ex-libris, where any member of the public could borrow them.

Not to mention countless images of Earth taken by Apollo 8 published in newspapers and magazines at the time.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on August 28, 2015, 08:08:06 AM
I declare previous exchanges between Neil and myself in YouTube comment threads, under the IDs Apollo 957, Apollo 958 and Apollo Evidence, and since he's repeating what he posted over there, I shall do the same.

To go back to the proposition put forth by Neil that the ISS 'could be' an 'inflatable lighted prop', I posted the following, back-of-an-envelope estimate of the ISS's velocity over there, and Neil didn't respond  -

"The quoted speed of the ISS on wikipedia is 17,100 mph average.

I've watched it pass by, from horizon to horizon, pretty much, in the past, and it crosses the sky in around 5mins. The next pass in my area is scheduled to take around 5 mins too, according to in-the-sky.org, so I set to the task of calculating the speed for myself, from my own observations.

Radius of Earth at sea level = R1
Orbital height of ISS = R2
Radius of ISS orbit = R1 + R2

Imagine R1 and R2 drawn vertically through my observation point from the Earth's centre to ISS height. Let's approximate my sightline as a line drawn out as a tangent to the Earth's surface from my location, at a 90 degree angle to R1 and R2. This gives two sides of a right-angle triangle, with the hypotenuse formed by R1 and R2 extended up to the point where the ISS enters my view. A mirror image triangle in the other direction deals with where it leaves my sight.

We know some of the sizes and angles, and need to solve for the angle A at the Earth's centre.

Right-angle triangle calculator - http://www.csgnetwork.com/righttricalc.html

R1 = 4000 miles (side a)
R2 = 220 miles (therefore the hypotenuse, side c = 4000+220 = 4220)

Put these into the calculator, and this yields angle A (angle 3 on the calculator) = 19 degrees or so, therefore I see the ISS over an angle of 38 degrees total, 19 degrees approaching, with the same angle receding.

The circumference at the ISS height is 2piR, where R = R1+R2, and that works out at 26,500 miles. The portion of the circumference I've seen the ISS at is therefore 38/360 * 26500 = 2800 miles approx.

The ISS covers that in 5.5mins, so that's 2800/5.5 = 508 miles per minute, or over 30,000 mph.

Obviously I'm overstating, probably because the ISS doesn't actually pass directly over me - I see it mainly to the south and south-west, and probably because of my approximations.

HOWEVER - that's pretty darn fast for an inflatable, wouldn't you say? How do you think the folks get an inflatable to go that fast, considering a 747 cruises at below 1000 mph ..... ?

Show your work, Neil - if you can. Go out and look at it for yourself, and do your calcs"

Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 28, 2015, 08:33:42 AM
Quote
For independent witnesses I recommend retired Army General Antonio Taguba, retired Navy Admiral William

I don't know about rocks.
It is becoming rather clear you don't know much about anything you present in this thread.
Quote
But I will say this. I was ten years old when the Apollo 8 Christmas mission took place. It was spectacular. The first ever photos were taken of the Earth from the orbit of the moon or so I thought. I wonder if you had to be alive then to understand how radical those photos were. In my memory, Apollo 8 was more exciting than Apollo 11. They were the first to get close. There had been nothing like it. But there had. NASA allegedly sent five lunar orbiters in 66 and 67 and they took photos of the Earth from moon orbit. Why didn't they release them to the public in 1966? Were they holding them so they could say the astronauts faking the Apollo 8 mission took them in 1968? {/quote]
The orbiter photos were released you just had to ask for them as the internet wasn't quite developed at that time.
Quote


The NASA lunar surveyor program allegedly sent seven landers to the moon between 1966 and 1968. Could they have been used to retrieve rocks robotically so it could be claimed later that astronauts gathered them?
Yes, it's pure speculation but if it's all a hoax, would they have gone to such a length to make the hoax convincing?
If it's a hoax, it wouldn't be surprising that black ops came into play at some time during the prelude to the alleged landings.
Even if it turns out that it was hoax, what a spectacular hoax! Legendary!
Ok, lets do a little math, there were five successful Surveyor landings weighing about 1000 lbs each at launch. Now for a return of 380 pounds of rocks, one needs much more than 6 x 1000 lbs of fuel to return them.  Really bad argument totally dismissed.
Quote

Taguba and Fallon are recommended due to their gravitas and exemplary integrity at a time when it's apparent that it's extremely rare. 
So you are saying that all the commanders that did not disagree with the Bush Administration are without integrity?
They are well educated and I'm confident they would be capable of quickly acquiring the requisite knowledge to understand what they needed to observe.  Besides, it's expected that one or more other independent witnesses with engineering backgrounds would be present.
Quit waving your hands in the air and start reading the material posted to you and figure out that the sublimator worked back in the late 60's and continue to work up to current space operations of the ISS.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 28, 2015, 08:46:33 AM
Let's do the maths. The Apollo rocks total ~380 kilograms. With seven landers that would require each to return an average of about 55 kilograms of material. Now, the Surveyor spacecraft were launched using Atlas rockets. Perhaps you might like to calculate whether an Atlas rocket could launch a spacecraft large enough to itself launch 55 kilograms of material off the surface of the Moon in a container which could itself survive re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere.

For comparison, we know the Soviets brought back ~400 grams of material on three sample return missions. In other words, enough to fill a can of soup - in three missions. And you're suggesting NASA could return nearly a thousand times the mass on seven spacecraft. NASA might be good, but I don't think they're that good.

The entire Surveyor spacecraft had a launch mass of about 1000 kg, which was near the limit of what the Atlas-Centaur launch vehicle could deliver to the moon.  It's mathematically impossible to land on the moon and return to Earth 55 kg of samples with a craft that small.

The Soviet landers that returned about 100 grams of material each had a launch mass of 5600 kg.  They were also launched on Proton rockets, which are 5 times more massive than the Atlas-Centaur.
I thought you would reply to the comment about the rocks, and I agree with the proposition of lack of fuel to launch the rocks.  Have you computed the fuel necessary for the return of the rocks plus some modest containers?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on August 28, 2015, 09:03:14 AM
Here's a question, Neil Baker. Let's suppose that the water sublimation cooling system would have been unworkable.
What's stopping the engineers of the world's manned space flight flying countries from, oh, coming up with another solution?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: darren r on August 28, 2015, 09:16:48 AM

HOWEVER - that's pretty darn fast for an inflatable, wouldn't you say? How do you think the folks get an inflatable to go that fast, considering a 747 cruises at below 1000 mph ..... ?


Of course it can go that fast - you just have to let the air out!  :)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 28, 2015, 09:18:09 AM

HOWEVER - that's pretty darn fast for an inflatable, wouldn't you say? How do you think the folks get an inflatable to go that fast, considering a 747 cruises at below 1000 mph ..... ?


Of course it can go that fast - you just have to let the air out!  :)
And have it travel in  an environment that has no air.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on August 28, 2015, 10:21:37 AM
Anyone got any suggestion why my estimate of ISS speed was so overstated? Have I missed some obvious assumption, or is it merely because I've assumed it to pass directly over, when it's some 50 degrees south and west of me?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: 12oh2alarm on August 28, 2015, 10:32:55 AM
Anyone got any suggestion why my estimate of ISS speed was so overstated? Have I missed some obvious assumption, or is it merely because I've assumed it to pass directly over, when it's some 50 degrees south and west of me?
I'd investigate the accuracy of the 5.5 minutes figure. How did you measure that? What relative error is in that measurement?
I've never timed a satellite traveling horizon to horizon, but would think there are a few factors that might get in the way (systematic errors, as a physicist would call them). Atmospheric diffraction is especially large near the horizon. Also, both points on the horizon should be near sea level. If there are hills and mountains, other errors are introduced.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on August 28, 2015, 10:54:09 AM
Anyone got any suggestion why my estimate of ISS speed was so overstated? Have I missed some obvious assumption, or is it merely because I've assumed it to pass directly over, when it's some 50 degrees south and west of me?
I'd investigate the accuracy of the 5.5 minutes figure. How did you measure that? What relative error is in that measurement?
I've never timed a satellite traveling horizon to horizon, but would think there are a few factors that might get in the way (systematic errors, as a physicist would call them). Atmospheric diffraction is especially large near the horizon. Also, both points on the horizon should be near sea level. If there are hills and mountains, other errors are introduced.

I picked the timing from in-the-sky.org for my location. I didn't time it myself, but 5.5mins seems fairly accurate from watching experience. Fairly close to sea level at observation point, but land rises both at the point where it enters my view and where it departs.

Thanks!
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 28, 2015, 10:59:29 AM
Anyone got any suggestion why my estimate of ISS speed was so overstated? Have I missed some obvious assumption, or is it merely because I've assumed it to pass directly over, when it's some 50 degrees south and west of me?

Welcome to the board. The important aspect of the calculation is that you are aware of the errors and have now set Neil the task of disproving that there is something in the sky that is moving with parameters that suggest an object in LEO. That in itself is a test of the veracity of his competence, which has some merit.

It also begs an important question: Engineers can design a system to put an object into LEO, yet they cannot manage to design a system to cool an astronaut. How can that be when putting an object into LEO is far more technically challenging?

I'm still trying to work out Neil's claims and the mind it takes to conjure up such a fantastical argument to discredit an entire industry over what is essentially a widget of a subsystem.

Without labouring the point by repeating what has gone before, he demands video evidence of the PLSS sublimator working in vacuum while simultaneously questioning whether a photo was taken in a vacuum. We have a set of moving goalposts!! What ever proof we offer he will simply deny it and put in place another set of criteria we need to meet. The reason for this is a 9-11 obsession which has resulted in a criminal prosecution for violent behaviour. His own words, if he can prove the moon landings were hoaxed, which I'm guessing he thinks is a simpler nut to crack, it provides a platform whereby others will take his 9-11 claims seriously. Such is his obsession with 9-11, he is determined to hold onto proving Apollo was hoaxed as that is a means to his 9-11 end.

As Jay and others have pointed out, his argument seems to be based on straightforward denial of any evidence and that he is sole arbitrator of what meets proof. He's rather set NASA the tasks of Hercules.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Kiwi on August 28, 2015, 11:32:58 AM
Anyone got any suggestion why my estimate of ISS speed was so overstated? Have I missed some obvious assumption, or is it merely because I've assumed it to pass directly over, when it's some 50 degrees south and west of me?

Welcome to ApolloHoax, Apollo 957. I think your reply No. 315 might be way above Neil Baker's ability to comprehend it.  In fact I wonder whether he has ever looked up the predictions for visible passes of the ISS for his area and watched it pass over.

I have watched it many times, and often post the details in advance on a New Zealand message board when it makes a good pass for most of the country and there is widespread clear weather. It's always enjoyable to hear people all over New Zealand exclaiming about it, and that the kids waved to the astronauts.

One thing I often try while watching the ISS, is counting off one second and then getting my brain to accept that it travelled over 7 km in that second.  Something in my head always says, "Nah!  Impossible!" I blame my earth-based existence in an atmosphere for that.

On the night of 29-30 December 2007 I watched the ISS make five consecutive passes, which is apparently a fairly rare sight that few people have seen. Here in New Zealand our air is apparently much clearer than in the northern hemisphere, and I have often seen it with the naked eye when it is 5 or 6 degrees above the horizon.

Back to your question, maths was my worst ever subject at school in the 1950s and 60s, but I think its distance put you wrong.  You really need to use a pass that's as close to overhead as possible, 80° elevation or better.

Below are the figures for its closest pass for me on 10 July 2015, when it reached 85° elevation. The sky was light in the northwest, but had it been darker and the ISS visible when at 10° elevation, it would have been visible for about 6 minutes 25 seconds. I'll include my entire post about it. The figures at the bottom are from the Heavens-Above website and modified a little for laypeople, and other details come from the ground track map and an atlas.
http://www.heavens-above.com/

Quote
International Space Station tonight 10 July 2015

The ISS crosses central New Zealand tonight, northwest to southeast and offshore from Taranaki and Wanganui, then directly above the southern Manawatu and Wairarapa.

Easily visible (if skies are clear) from between lines from Auckland to East Cape and Hokitika to Christchurch, and low in the sky from further away.

The sky might be too light to see the ISS when it's low in the NW, but if so, it should be visible higher up and in darker sky around 5:51:00 to 5:52:30,

5:52:50 pm onward, passes along and above the Taranaki Bight, just offshore from Opunake, Hawera, Patea, Waverly, Wanganui and Ratana.

5:53:14 passes above and between Himatangi and Foxton on the Manawatu coast.

5:53:27 crosses the Wairarapa coast near Castlepoint.

5:56:15 pm – Enters Earth's shadow E of Clutha, SE of the Chatham Islands.

Figures for Manawatu
5:47:52 pm – Rises (not visible yet) – NW – 2,315 km distant
5:49:56 pm – Reaches altitude 10° (becoming visible) – NW – 1,463 km distant
5:53:12 pm – Maximum altitude 85° – SW – 415 km distant
5:56:15 pm – Enters Earth's shadow, altitude 12° – SE – 1,361 km distant
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gillianren on August 28, 2015, 12:15:52 PM
So here's the thing, Neil.  When you are saying that Apollo was hoaxed, you are by definition calling everyone involved in it who would have had enough knowledge to know if it had been hoaxed a liar.  There's no way around that.  When Buzz Aldrin says he walked on the Moon, by your own standards, he must be lying.  When someone who works with sublimators tells you that they work in vacuum, by your own standards, they must be lying.  When geologists the world over report on the obvious factors in the rocks that show they cannot be from the Earth, by your own standards, they must either be lying or deluded--which means bad at their jobs.  And if they're bad enough at their jobs that they can't tell the difference between Moon rocks and Earth rocks, well, when they got their degrees, guess what?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 28, 2015, 12:34:46 PM
Does anybody remember a couple weeks ago when I posted this is another thread:

One thing I’ve noticed about many hoax theorists is that they attack us, the defenders of Apollo, and they attack NASA as an organization, but they tend to hesitate personally attacking any of the high-profile individuals at NASA.  Of course by making the claims that they do, and by going after NASA, they are by extension attacking the astronauts and all the people who were part of Apollo.  When we point that fact out, the HB will often start backpedaling.  They’ll sometimes say something like the astronauts were forced into it, or they we just doing what their country asked of them, etc.  I guess some HBs just don’t have the guts to put a name and a face to the people they are calling criminals.  Instead they blame the namely and faceless “powers that be”.

Sound familiar?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 28, 2015, 12:35:57 PM
Figures for Manawatu
5:47:52 pm – Rises (not visible yet) – NW – 2,315 km distant
5:49:56 pm – Reaches altitude 10° (becoming visible) – NW – 1,463 km distant
5:53:12 pm – Maximum altitude 85° – SW – 415 km distant
5:56:15 pm – Enters Earth's shadow, altitude 12° – SE – 1,361 km distant

I agree with those figures so we are left with (20/360)*26500=1458 miles.  1458 m/(5 min/60 min/hr) results in 17496 mph.  I believe the right triangle Apollo 957 is not as he stated.  Now all these figures are average and precise calculations would refine the answers down to less errors.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: mako88sb on August 28, 2015, 12:41:42 PM
Still wondering why you continue to pursue this to such extreme unreasonable lengths when anybody can see that a test of this sort will never satisfy you despite what you say.

I think or at least used to think that it was the quick route to the much more important Independent 9-11 investigation.
I'm bewildered by the level of resistance from educated men. It's a simple thing.   A validation.
Although I understand the fear that NASA can't validate its claim.
And that's what would lead to 9-11 truth.
If it was revealed that the government lied big about NASA, people would be more agreeable to confronting the harder truth about 9-11.

And you're wrong. The test before independent witnesses would satisfy me. I'm sick of this subject and want it settled.

I don't believe for a second that a test would satisfy you. Anybody who reads this thread can see you have no intention of letting this subject go no matter how sick you supposedly are of it. Your ultimate goal is to get 9/11 investigated and you somehow got in your head that this is the way to make it happen. The test is never going to happen but if it did and proved you wrong, you would just go onto another multi-year campaign for the next smoking gun anomaly your mind would contrive about Apollo. So once again Neal. How much more of your life are you prepared to ruin for something that's never going to happen?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 28, 2015, 01:06:26 PM
Your ultimate goal is to get 9/11 investigated and you somehow got in your head that this is the way to make it happen.

...and it has been investigated. There is the 9-11 Commission Report that is freely available on the internet which makes clear recommendations following the hi-jacking of the four planes and their suicide missions into the Twin towers and Pentagon. The veracity of Apollo is not at question here, it's about Neil's obsession with 9-11 and his position of grandeur as the person who found the twoof and saved us all from nasty Uncle Same. Let's face it, who demands former Generals and Admirals to witness and verify the function of a widget. Again, another condition that we cannot possibly meet, unless of course Neil has confirmed that they have agree to act as referees. Have you Neil?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 28, 2015, 01:14:12 PM
And you're wrong. The test before independent witnesses would satisfy me. I'm sick of this subject and want it settled.

Why is James Philip Shero not an independent witness?  Remember him?  He's the guy from Rice University who, in 1969, wrote his doctoral thesis "Porous Plate Sublimator Analysis".  I linked to his paper way back on page 1, post 7.  In case you've forgot, here's the link again:

https://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/handle/1911/14662/7023573.PDF?sequence=1

Dr. Shero ran experimental tests in a vacuum on several different porous plates.  He not only proved that they work, but he computed their effectiveness.

Why do you ignore that this independent researcher performed and documented exactly what you've been asking for?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 28, 2015, 01:24:58 PM
Once low earth vacuum was reached the sublimator could be turned on but that would probably result in an immediate loss of vacuum. I doubt this test can be done in a vacuum chamber on Earth.

A near perfect vacuum is not needed for the test to succeed.  The pressure just needs to be below the triple point of water, which is about 600 Pa.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 28, 2015, 01:33:04 PM
A big thank you to Zakalwe for posting this: https://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/handle/1911/14662/7023573.PDF?sequence=1
Bravo! Good stuff.

But I'm still looking for a book published before 2007 that mentions spacesuit ice sublimators.  Abaddon  gave Heat and Mass Transfer - Anthony Mills - 1995 - ISBN 0256114439 but I don't see anything about spacesuit ice sublimators.

Also, I know there's contention about the photograph of an ice sublimator with some claiming it was available since 1997 and my saying I couldn't find it in 2007. I'm sure there are tricks I don't know for bringing buried stuff to the surface of the Internet. Please indulge with instruction on how to find a second photograph of a spacesuit ice sublimator. Currently only one shows when you do the Google Image search. Please educate me in how to bring the others to the surface.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 28, 2015, 01:36:07 PM
A big thank you to Zakalwe for posting this: https://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/handle/1911/14662/7023573.PDF?sequence=1
Bravo! Good stuff.

But I'm still looking for a book published before 2007 that mentions spacesuit ice sublimators.  Abaddon  gave Heat and Mass Transfer - Anthony Mills - 1995 - ISBN 0256114439 but I don't see anything about spacesuit ice sublimators.

Also, I know there's contention about the photograph of an ice sublimator with some claiming it was available since 1997 and my saying I couldn't find it in 2007. I'm sure there are tricks I don't know for bringing buried stuff to the surface of the Internet. Please indulge with instruction on how to find a second photograph of a spacesuit ice sublimator. Currently only one shows when you do the Google Image search. Please educate me in how to bring the others to the surface.

Careful with those goalposts, they could hurt someone if you move them too quickly.

Prepared to retract your BS about Lunar Orbiter yet?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 28, 2015, 01:37:04 PM

Why is James Philip Shero not an independent witness?  Remember him?  He's the guy from Rice University who, in 1969, wrote his doctoral thesis "Porous Plate Sublimator Analysis".  I linked to his paper way back on page 1, post 7.  In case you've forgot, here's the link again:

https://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/handle/1911/14662/7023573.PDF?sequence=1

Dr. Shero ran experimental tests in a vacuum on several different porous plates.  He not only proved that they work, but he computed their effectiveness.

Why do you ignore that this independent researcher performed and documented exactly what you've been asking for?

Consider him ignored no longer. I think he would be an excellent addition to the independent witness group.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: 12oh2alarm on August 28, 2015, 01:40:26 PM
I picked the timing from in-the-sky.org for my location. I didn't time it myself, but 5.5mins seems fairly accurate from watching experience. Fairly close to sea level at observation point, but land rises both at the point where it enters my view and where it departs.

If the timing from that source takes terrain into account, it will give you considerable less time of visibility than a calculation with a spherical Earth. Anything rising above the sea level horizon reduces visibility time considerably (because at the horizon is where the ISS has the slowest apparent speed; maximum is overhead). Maybe their computation makes more assumptions, like "anything closer than 3° to the horizon is out of sight". What about asking them about the details of their computation?

The actual time of visibility for an observer on a spherical Eearth, ignoring atmospheric diffraction, is 607 seconds (~10min) for a 92 minute orbit.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 28, 2015, 01:41:54 PM

Consider him ignored no longer. I think he would be an excellent addition to the independent witness group.

Damn the bad luck. http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/OBITUARIES/2008-06/1212306659
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 28, 2015, 01:45:30 PM
But I'm still looking for a book published before 2007...

Your attempt to limit the evidence to exclude modern sources derives solely from your unevidenced and patently absurd claim that any relevant evidence dating since then is necessarily a response to your personal discovery of the concept and is presumed to be a fictitious description invented by the industry and calculated only to undermine your credibility.  You have failed to establish that claim on any relevant grounds, and therefore your critics are not bound to it.

Quote
...I don't see anything about spacesuit ice sublimators.

Have you read the book in question?  Yes or no.

Quote
I'm sure there are tricks I don't know for bringing buried stuff to the surface of the Internet.

No, you do not get to saddle your critics with burdensome requests for production.  You have claimed no relevant records existed prior to your personal discovery of the concept.  When confronted with contrary evidence, you lied and continue to lie.  It is therefore reasonable to conclude (a) that you have not performed the exhaustive and thorough research required to make a claim of nonexistence, and have no intent to do so, and (b) that any evidence your critics uncover to contradict your claim will be ignored just as you have ignored all the production to date.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 28, 2015, 01:46:21 PM
Consider him ignored no longer. I think he would be an excellent addition to the independent witness group.

You do not understand.  He has already borne his witness and you are being asked to account for it.  Bob B. is not proposing that this author be a witness to the stunt you demand.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 28, 2015, 01:47:13 PM

Careful with those goalposts, they could hurt someone if you move them too quickly.

Prepared to retract your BS about Lunar Orbiter yet?
The goalpost nearly hit me.  Thanks for stating it before me. :)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: mako88sb on August 28, 2015, 01:48:48 PM

Why is James Philip Shero not an independent witness?  Remember him?  He's the guy from Rice University who, in 1969, wrote his doctoral thesis "Porous Plate Sublimator Analysis".  I linked to his paper way back on page 1, post 7.  In case you've forgot, here's the link again:

https://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/handle/1911/14662/7023573.PDF?sequence=1

Dr. Shero ran experimental tests in a vacuum on several different porous plates.  He not only proved that they work, but he computed their effectiveness.

Why do you ignore that this independent researcher performed and documented exactly what you've been asking for?


Consider him ignored no longer. I think he would be an excellent addition to the independent witness group.

You mean the independent witness group that will never be formed or used because despite years of trying, you have accomplished absolutely nothing. Oh sorry. You have done an outstanding job of ruining your life and completely destroying your credibility. That's some accomplishment there Neil.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 28, 2015, 01:58:10 PM
Damn the bad luck. http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/OBITUARIES/2008-06/1212306659

Cut the dramatics. The work has already been reviewed and the veracity of its findings accepted by others. Who are you to question its findings? Where is your evidence that sublimators do not work as reported in the literature?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on August 28, 2015, 02:03:07 PM

But he'd allegedly be in a hermetically sealed suit for more than twelve hours requiring sublimator cooling at vacuum and other cooling on the way to vacuum. He'd need an umbilical to augment the sublimator. Once low earth vacuum was reached the sublimator could be turned on but that would probably result in an immediate loss of vacuum.

Stop making stuff up. You are just wildly thrashing about now. I showed you two images that you clearly had never seen before. One was an astronaut inside the test chamber- the other was as he was about to enter. Or are you that ignorant of things that you never heard of an airlock???
Here's a quote from Schweikart "I remember standing at the bottom of the huge altitude test chamber A in Houston-this thing something like one hundred and twenty feet high and eighty feet in diameter [...] testing and checking out the spacesuit. [....] Not only did I have all of the systems of the systems in the suit which could fail, and the backpack which could fail, but I had all of the failure modes of the test chamber, which could also kill me" http://librarun.org/book/51138/371
The backpack didn't fail and it didn't kill him, ergo, it worked.
Of course, you'll just handwave this away or just ignore it. Again.

I doubt this test can be done in a vacuum chamber on Earth.

Your doubt is based on your ignorance of the test. Doubt and ignorance does not mean that something didn't happen. Again, I have shown you the test images and provided a quotation from the man that carried out the test. A normal person would change their view, but you aren't normal, are you Mr Baker? (https://web.archive.org/web/20070126172014/http://www.dailynexus.com/article.php?a=12946)

If they wanted to simulate real moon surface conditions, they'd have to illuminate the spacesuit with enough light that on the moon brings the surface temperature up to about 240 degrees F.
Which they did (surely you don't believe that they would send an untested suit into space, now do you??). Read the quotation that I linked to, "...I'm the little thing at the bottom in a cage of heaters, testing and checking out the spacesuit, stepping up and down on the step to put a controlled heat input into the suit"
Again, here's the image:  https://archive.org/details/S68-55391  See the cage of heating elements that surrounds him???? Note the date of the image publication: December 1968. Are you going to claim that that image is only available due to you?

By the way, I'm still waiting for your analysis of the document that I showed you here:
Let's see your detailed analysis of this document. With calculations please.
http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19720005423

I'm also waiting for you to acknowledge this:
Have you ever tried to look at the ISS through a small telescope? It's not that hard...transit times are publicly available from a myriad of sources.
www.heavens-above.com
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 28, 2015, 02:14:17 PM

Consider him ignored no longer. I think he would be an excellent addition to the independent witness group.

Damn the bad luck. http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/OBITUARIES/2008-06/1212306659
He already performed the test you say never happened.
Like most CT's you are never going to admit your failure to understand the engineering/science that actually preceded  the events that you fail to embrace.
Your inability and incompetence has been pointed out by many on this thread.  Only someone wrapped up in their own egotistical persona can be so stupid.  Get over it, NASA has/continues to use the PLSS in space operations including the ISS that even a normally sighted person can see without a telescope.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 28, 2015, 02:18:48 PM
Neil, have you ever taken any form of medication such as painkillers or anti-histamines? Serious question.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 28, 2015, 02:23:30 PM
A big thank you to Zakalwe for posting this: https://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/handle/1911/14662/7023573.PDF?sequence=1
Bravo! Good stuff.

But I'm still looking for a book published before 2007 that mentions spacesuit ice sublimators. 
That was published in November, 1969. What more do you want?

Abaddon  gave Heat and Mass Transfer - Anthony Mills - 1995 - ISBN 0256114439 but I don't see anything about spacesuit ice sublimators.
Did you buy the book or not?  Or did you simply view the few excerpts available online and give up?

Also, I know there's contention about the photograph of an ice sublimator with some claiming it was available since 1997 and my saying I couldn't find it in 2007.
Once again, your abject failures do not apply to everyone else. They are your failures and yours alone.

I'm sure there are tricks I don't know for bringing buried stuff to the surface of the Internet.
I am sure you are incapable of finding your butt with both hands when it comes to research. You have demonstrated such right here.

Please indulge with instruction on how to find a second photograph of a spacesuit ice sublimator.
I will indulge you if you will honour the invoice for your education.

Currently only one shows when you do the Google Image search.
Then you are doing it wrong. You have been provided with copious images, videos and technical documentation gratis. All of which are freely available on the webernets, all of which you could have googled all on your lonesome.

Please educate me in how to bring the others to the surface.
Will you accept and honour the invoice for such an expenditure of time and effort? I ask because so far, you seem to be reluctant to acquire any learning at all, and given that, I would be reluctant to impart any education which will fall upon deaf feet of clay.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 28, 2015, 02:27:36 PM

Please educate me in how to bring the others to the surface.
Quote
Will you accept and honour the invoice for such an expenditure of time and effort? I ask because so far, you seem to be reluctant to acquire any learning at all, and given that, I would be reluctant to impart any education which will fall upon deaf feet of clay.

Make sure the currency is deposited and cleared for the proper time before spending your time and effort. ;D
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 28, 2015, 02:28:07 PM
Scathing Abaddon - but fair :)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 28, 2015, 02:39:19 PM
Scathing Abaddon - but fair :)
Scathing Abaddon - but fair :)
Commercial reality. All of the products that my company produces have a hari-kiri routine built in. You no pay? Software no work anymore. It is pure self defense against those who attempt to score a freebie.

Neil is attempting to garner a free education whilst also attempting to maintain his delusions. Very sorry, but that ain't how it works. The art of searching the intertubes is a skill which may be acquired freely...on the intertubes. Any jackass can find out how to effectively search for anything for free. Neil cannot even be bothered to do that for himself like anyone else, but appeals for an education to be provided to him. Fine. Pay for it, or else make the effort to do it for yourself sez I.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: twik on August 28, 2015, 02:56:52 PM

Consider him ignored no longer. I think he would be an excellent addition to the independent witness group.

Damn the bad luck. http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/OBITUARIES/2008-06/1212306659

Let's say Dr. Shero was still alive. Why would you consider him an important "independent witness" when he published data that he did such tests, and the sublimator plate technology worked as advertised? If it doesn't, he was lying, so how would he be a trustworthy witness for you?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on August 28, 2015, 03:27:15 PM
Figures for Manawatu
5:47:52 pm – Rises (not visible yet) – NW – 2,315 km distant
5:49:56 pm – Reaches altitude 10° (becoming visible) – NW – 1,463 km distant
5:53:12 pm – Maximum altitude 85° – SW – 415 km distant
5:56:15 pm – Enters Earth's shadow, altitude 12° – SE – 1,361 km distant

I agree with those figures so we are left with (20/360)*26500=1458 miles.  1458 m/(5 min/60 min/hr) results in 17496 mph.  I believe the right triangle Apollo 957 is not as he stated.  Now all these figures are average and precise calculations would refine the answers down to less errors.

Even of you ignore the right triangle and just use the two distance figures divided by the time

(2315km + 1361km) / 8min 23s

► 3676 / 8.38

= 438.7 km/min

= 26,319 km/hr

= 16,354 mph

Its in the right ball park.

Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on August 28, 2015, 03:34:42 PM
I'm sick of this subject and want it settled.

No, its been settled; 50 years and thousands of hours of use by hundreds of astronauts from dozens of countries has settled it... you just won't accept it.

I have no doubt that were such a test be done, then even if you were satisfied with the results, and accepted that the sublimator really did work as advertised (like everyone else already does), you would simply do what all crackpot hoax believers do, invent another perceived "anomaly" out of whole cloth!
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 28, 2015, 04:34:01 PM
A big thank you to Zakalwe Bob B. for posting this: https://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/handle/1911/14662/7023573.PDF?sequence=1
Bravo! Good stuff.

You're welcome.  Can I assume that Dr. Shero's analysis satisfies all your doubts about porous plate sublimators?  His methods seem quite thorough and his results convincing.

But I'm still looking for a book published before 2007 that mentions spacesuit ice sublimators.

Since you are still making the claim in 2015, 2007 is irrelevant.  Nonetheless, here are a few publications that I found with a couple minutes of looking.

ASHRAE Handbook & Product Directory, The Society, 1978  (https://books.google.com/books?id=wTlSAAAAMAAJ&q=porous+plate+sublimator&dq=porous+plate+sublimator&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAmoVChMI4YOY7MnMxwIVhJQeCh0hEQrN)

Control of Thermal Balance by a Liquid Circulating Garment Based on a Mathematical Representation of the Human Thermoregulatory System, University of California, Berkeley, 1975 (https://books.google.com/books?id=FbhHUi5wDQ8C&q=porous+plate+sublimator&dq=porous+plate+sublimator&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CC8Q6AEwADgUahUKEwi2xfjKzMzHAhWKpB4KHRjkBTs)

A Collection of Technical Papers: AIAA Crew Equipment Systems Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, November 7-9, 1973 (https://books.google.com/books?id=sEUNAQAAMAAJ&q=porous+plate+sublimator&dq=porous+plate+sublimator&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEAQ6AEwA2oVChMIzYzo5cvMxwIVAXYeCh2duAY8)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 28, 2015, 04:36:54 PM
The term sublimator has been defined in the Clavius glossary since 2002.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 28, 2015, 04:59:31 PM
A big thank you to Zakalwe Bob B. for posting this: https://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/handle/1911/14662/7023573.PDF?sequence=1
Bravo! Good stuff.

You're welcome.  Can I assume that Dr. Shero's analysis satisfies all your doubts about porous plate sublimators?  His methods seem quite thorough and his results convincing.

But I'm still looking for a book published before 2007 that mentions spacesuit ice sublimators.

Since you are still making the claim in 2015, 2007 is irrelevant.  Nonetheless, here are a few publications that I found with a couple minutes of looking.

ASHRAE Handbook & Product Directory, The Society, 1978  (https://books.google.com/books?id=wTlSAAAAMAAJ&q=porous+plate+sublimator&dq=porous+plate+sublimator&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAmoVChMI4YOY7MnMxwIVhJQeCh0hEQrN)

Control of Thermal Balance by a Liquid Circulating Garment Based on a Mathematical Representation of the Human Thermoregulatory System, University of California, Berkeley, 1975 (https://books.google.com/books?id=FbhHUi5wDQ8C&q=porous+plate+sublimator&dq=porous+plate+sublimator&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CC8Q6AEwADgUahUKEwi2xfjKzMzHAhWKpB4KHRjkBTs)

A Collection of Technical Papers: AIAA Crew Equipment Systems Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, November 7-9, 1973 (https://books.google.com/books?id=sEUNAQAAMAAJ&q=porous+plate+sublimator&dq=porous+plate+sublimator&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEAQ6AEwA2oVChMIzYzo5cvMxwIVAXYeCh2duAY8)

So Neil, can we now close the before 2007 issue. Bob has done your donkey work for you. I think we can conclude that you are a poor researcher and a lazy one at that too. What does grates me the most is when you are given what you are looking for on a plate you change horses and show complete denial. I find that disappointing and unacceptable.

Thanks for doing this Bob. These articles are a useful repository for future reference. You see Neil, this is what happens when people like you, full of bluster, arrive here. The likes of Bob set their wheels in motion an we learn more. Thanks for playing and pop by any time you want with new claims, it's great to learn isn't it?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 28, 2015, 05:02:38 PM
The term sublimator has been defined in the Clavius glossary since 2002.

Now that you mention it, the term is in my glossary as well.  I know it's been there at least since 1998.

C:\Users\Robert Braeunig\Documents\WWW\space\glossary.htm
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on August 28, 2015, 05:03:39 PM
But I'm still looking for a book published before 2007 that mentions spacesuit ice sublimators

A 16 minute 1966 NASA-JSC film on Lunar Spacesuits

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92MqPUOR1HU

A simple explanation of the heat exchange system begins at 7:26

The vacuum test begins at 10:02

Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 28, 2015, 05:09:44 PM
Thanks for doing this Bob.

There were actually far more books and papers than the ones I listed, though most were NASA publications.  I limited my selection to non-NASA sources.  This is also just what came up in Google Books.  As we know, the Internet is not the sole depository of human knowledge.  I'm sure there is quite a bit more information sitting on bookshelves.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 28, 2015, 05:11:56 PM
I limited my selection to non-NASA sources.

Wise in the circumstances.

ETA: In fact Neil, are you aware of Google Scholar. Type porous plate sublimator into the search bar, and your before 2007 argument evaporates into thin air, or should I say sublimates into the vacuum.  ;D
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on August 28, 2015, 05:25:56 PM
I limited my selection to non-NASA sources.

Wise in the circumstances.

ETA: In fact Neil, are you aware of Google Scholar. Type porous plate sublimator into the search bar, and your before 2007 argument evaporates into thin air, or should I say sublimates into the vacuum.  ;D
Ironically, it came out of a vacuum in the first place, practically ex nihilo, pulled out of thin . . . not even air.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on August 28, 2015, 05:28:28 PM
ETA: In fact Neil, are you aware of Google Scholar. Type porous plate sublimator into the search bar, and your before 2007 argument evaporates into thin air, or should I say sublimates into the vacuum.  ;D

Wow... just wow!!

1992 - https://www.google.com/patents/US5092129

1999 - http://papers.sae.org/1999-01-2004/


and especially this one...

1965 - https://www.google.com/patents/US3170303

Which contains a detailed & comprehensive description of how the porous plate sublimator works...complete with cutaway diagrams

(https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pages/US3170303-1.png) (https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pages/US3170303-0.png)


edited to add extra diagram
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Trebor on August 28, 2015, 05:30:14 PM
But I'm still looking for a book published before 2007 that mentions spacesuit ice sublimators.

Why? Would these things suddenly start working on their own after 2007 and not before?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Grashtel on August 28, 2015, 05:40:51 PM
Why? Would these things suddenly start working on their own after 2007 and not before?
Apparently that is when Neil started looking for them causing NASA to plant info about them in books and on the web or something
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 28, 2015, 05:42:47 PM
Why? Would these things suddenly start working on their own after 2007 and not before?

Baker claims that until he personally started researching sublimators in 2007 there was insufficient material available to determine whether they existed and worked as claimed.  He further claims that all references after 2007 were made in response to his activity, in an apparent attempt to backfill the record and create a fictional history for them and thereby undermine his prior claim to a dearth of evidence.

Yes, he literally claims he's that important.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 28, 2015, 05:49:18 PM
It seems that Mr. Baker suffers from paranoia also.
Woo is me everyone and everything is against me. Only I stand against the tyranny of the world.
http://www.edhat.com/site/tidbit.cfm?id=3603
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 28, 2015, 05:51:14 PM
Baker claims that until he personally started researching sublimators in 2007 there was insufficient material available to determine whether they existed and worked as claimed.

He changed horses though, and switched to demanding a video demonstrating that the PLSS sublimator works in a vacuum. When provided with a photo he asked how that proves the PLSS is in a vacuum. So, how do we prove that the video is in a vacuum? I would imagine if he was shown footage of the vacuum gauge this would not be enough either. I woke this morning to find he had jumped back on the pre-2007 evidence horse.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 28, 2015, 05:56:26 PM
He changed horses though, and switched to demanding a video demonstrating that the PLSS sublimator works in a vacuum. When provided with a photo he asked how that proves the PLSS is in a vacuum. So, how do we prove that the video is in a vacuum? I would imagine if he was shown footage of the vacuum gauge this would not be enough either. I woke this morning to find he had jumped back on the pre-2007 evidence horse.
Rather like pushing against a puddle of mercury.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 28, 2015, 05:57:38 PM
When he finds out that the books written after 2007 refer to material written before 2007 it's really going to mess his mind up.

Can we have a vacuum chamber big enough to fit a CSM in as well, to test the evaporative cooling systems on that?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 28, 2015, 05:58:56 PM
Rather like pushing against a puddle mound of mercury bullshit.

There, corrected that for you  ;)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 28, 2015, 06:00:30 PM
and especially this one...

1965 - https://www.google.com/patents/US3170303

Which contains a detailed & comprehensive description of how the porous plate sublimator works...complete with cutaway diagrams

That patent was linked to on page 1 of the thread just over an hour after Baker's opening post.  Along with Dr. Shero's thesis.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 28, 2015, 06:01:01 PM
Rather like pushing against a puddle mound of mercury bullshit.

There, corrected that for you  ;)
Ok I can accept that correction, poor janitors around here.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 28, 2015, 06:01:19 PM
When he finds out that the books written after 2007 refer to material written before 2007 it's really going to mess his mind up.

I never thought about that scenario. There will be a small tremor felt around the world as he explodes.  :o
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 28, 2015, 06:02:21 PM
That patent was linked to on page 1 of the thread just over an hour after Baker's opening post.  Along with Dr. Shero's thesis.

And Baker ignored them then, just as he has largely ignored them now.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 28, 2015, 06:04:11 PM
When he finds out that the books written after 2007 refer to material written before 2007 it's really going to mess his mind up.

Can we have a vacuum chamber big enough to fit a CSM in as well, to test the evaporative cooling systems on that?
His assertion will be all of this material was post written because he agitated for the information.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 28, 2015, 06:04:23 PM
Can we have a vacuum chamber big enough to fit a CSM in as well, to test the evaporative cooling systems on that?

Yes, that was done.  And we still do it today, in much the same way.  The spacecraft is wheeled into the altitude test chamber and the pressure brought down to the appropriate vacuum.  Then radiant heat is applied, and the thermal control systems allowed to come to equilibrium.  Lots of telemetry ensues.  In fact, individual spacecraft generally must pass a round of these kinds of tests as part of customer acceptance.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 28, 2015, 06:05:41 PM
Can we have a vacuum chamber big enough to fit a CSM in as well, to test the evaporative cooling systems on that?

Yes, that was done.  And we still do it today, in much the same way.  The spacecraft is wheeled into the altitude test chamber and the pressure brought down to the appropriate vacuum.  Then radiant heat is applied, and the thermal control systems allowed to come to equilibrium.  Lots of telemetry ensues.  In fact, individual spacecraft generally must pass a round of these kinds of tests as part of customer acceptance.
Is this the Chamber B or is there another one around somewhere?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 28, 2015, 06:07:26 PM
That patent was linked to on page 1 of the thread just over an hour after Baker's opening post.  Along with Dr. Shero's thesis.

Which goes to show how so many of us have found the information, yet Neil has singly failed in this endeavour. I think Dr Shero's thesis was the nail in the coffin though.

I wonder if Neil has used aspirin to remedy a headache, and then went away and told people that the drug could not have worked because all the research examining aspirin's effectiveness had been written many years ago.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 28, 2015, 06:12:23 PM

Stop making stuff up. You are just wildly thrashing about now. I showed you two images that you clearly had never seen before. One was an astronaut inside the test chamber- the other was as he was about to enter. Or are you that ignorant of things that you never heard of an airlock???
Here's a quote from Schweikart "I remember standing at the bottom of the huge altitude test chamber A in Houston-this thing something like one hundred and twenty feet high and eighty feet in diameter [...] testing and checking out the spacesuit. [....] Not only did I have all of the systems of the systems in the suit which could fail, and the backpack which could fail, but I had all of the failure modes of the test chamber, which could also kill me" http://librarun.org/book/51138/371
The backpack didn't fail and it didn't kill him, ergo, it worked.
Of course, you'll just handwave this away or just ignore it. Again.

Actually, I'd seen those photos before. But so long ago that I forgot about them. The one photo with the radiative heaters? on is interesting because they apparently have bars blocking the direct radiation. The size of the chamber sure seems like overkill but then again with a sublimator sublimating maybe it's necessary.


Your doubt is based on your ignorance of the test. Doubt and ignorance does not mean that something didn't happen. Again, I have shown you the test images and provided a quotation from the man that carried out the test. A normal person would change their view, but you aren't normal, are you Mr Baker? (https://web.archive.org/web/20070126172014/http://www.dailynexus.com/article.php?a=12946)

I am very ignorant. I don't KNOW anything about the sublimators. I can only believe. I haven't witnessed PROOF of anything.
Unlike most of you, I'm also scientifically honest. NASA has not been accountable.

Which they did (surely you don't believe that they would send an untested suit into space, now do you?
Which is the basis of this discussion. Of course they wouldn't send an untested suit. So where's the video of one being tested. Oh sure, they tested them and tested them for more than 50 years but not a single video. Plenty of video of spacesuits in swimming pools but none in a vacuum chamber down the hall. Anomaly. Focus.

By the way, I'm still waiting for your analysis of the document that I showed you here:
Let's see your detailed analysis of this document. With calculations please.
http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19720005423

It's an interesting document and thank you again for posting it. It's interesting how they say they did the sublimator test. They put the sublimator in a vacuum chamber without putting the astronaut inside. Something is very suspicious about that but I need to think about it a bit longer. What calculations are you expecting? Don't hold your breath waiting.

I'm also waiting for you to acknowledge this:
Have you ever tried to look at the ISS through a small telescope? It's not that hard...transit times are publicly available from a myriad of sources.
www.heavens-above.com

No, but I have watched with the naked eye what NASA says is a manned ISS passing by overhead. How do you KNOW there are people aboard?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 28, 2015, 06:12:50 PM
He changed horses though, and switched to demanding...

This is how this particular form of conspiracism works.  As I've been quoted, the goal of conspiracism is not to arrive at an answer, but to mire down the debate in meaningless details or philosophy so that it never ends.  As long as Baker can keep the hamster wheel spinning, he can keep insinuating that NASA and its cronies are "stonewalling" him.  Then he can attribute that alleged stonewalling to evading a test that he deems crucial to their credibility.  And if he can thus keep impugning the credibility of one government agency, he can keep hope alive that his 9/11 fantasies may still come true.

Baker, like many others, seems to like to burden his critics with demanding the production of copious amounts of documentary evidence, which he then invariably rejects according to ad hoc criteria.  Most conspiracists who make the claim, "There's no pertinent record," do so knowing that it's nearly impossible to prove the claimant hasn't done the exhaustive search such a claim would ordinarily require, that few if any gullible readers will question the claim, and that his critics -- in order to refute him -- will have to make an affirmative case.  "No, it has to be before 2007" is just another spin of this particular hamster wheel.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: nomuse on August 28, 2015, 06:13:39 PM
Maybe they just continue to run the pumps while the tests are running? Now, I am not nearly so educated as many of the fine folks here, and I don't claim to be, but that would keep it from building up at least, yes?

But he'd allegedly be in a hermetically sealed suit for more than twelve hours requiring sublimator cooling at vacuum and other cooling on the way to vacuum. He'd need an umbilical to augment the sublimator. Once low earth vacuum was reached the sublimator could be turned on but that would probably result in an immediate loss of vacuum. I doubt this test can be done in a vacuum chamber on Earth. If they wanted to simulate real moon surface conditions, they'd have to illuminate the spacesuit with enough light that on the moon brings the surface temperature up to about 240 degrees F.
Raul Blanco at NASA's Johnson Space Center, a salt of the Earth sounding guy, assured me they test the spacesuits with sublimators in vacuum chambers regularly. He also assured me there's nothing classified about a spacesuit or it's cooling system.

Let me paraphrase the above:

"Only the specific test I dreamed up can be used to defend the reality of the Apollo landings. Oh, wait; let me come up with a bunch of ways in which that test is impossible to perform, and while I'm at it, throw in a bunch of ways it could be faked, thus be incapable of proving anything."

Do you even read your own posts?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on August 28, 2015, 06:19:27 PM
And apparently he didn't read the very page giving (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/engineering/integrated_environments/altitude_environmental/chamber_A/index.html) Chamber A's specifications, not seeing the 'crewlocks' mentioned that would allow entry and exit without having to pressurize and de-pressurize the whole thing.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 28, 2015, 06:21:49 PM
I am very ignorant. I don't KNOW anything about the sublimators. I can only believe. I haven't witnessed PROOF of anything.

Unlike most of you, I'm also scientifically honest. NASA has not been accountable.

Are you aware of the inherent problem with the two statements you have made? On one hand you claim ignorance about the sublimators, but then tell us you are scientifically honest. How can you be scientifically honest about something you are ignorant about?

I would not walk into Stephen Hawking's office, declare my ignorance of quantum loop gravity and then declare that he should be more accountable for his work. I would become a laughing stock.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on August 28, 2015, 06:24:55 PM
That patent was linked to on page 1 of the thread just over an hour after Baker's opening post.  Along with Dr. Shero's thesis.

And Baker ignored them then, just as he has largely ignored them now.

He specialises in that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drSqtw0Qywk

... if you have the time and the patience to count the number of threads where I challenged him and his wild-ass theories, and it went eerily silent....
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 28, 2015, 06:27:46 PM
I am very ignorant. I don't KNOW anything about the sublimators.

Apples and oranges.  You, like many people, have no personal experience with the device in question.  The difference between you and those others similarly situated is that they don't ignorantly deny its operation.

Quote
I haven't witnessed PROOF of anything.

And upon that solipsist basis you are free to harbor continuing personal doubt.  You are not free, however, to suggest that your personal doubt, fed by your ongoing incompetence, laziness, and deception, constitutes a legitimate controversy or hobbles anyone else from drawing reasoned conclusions.

Quote
Unlike most of you, I'm also scientifically honest.

Nonsense.  You simply make up personal standards of proof and foist them on other people.  That is expressly contradicted in the scientific method.  Further, you freely admit your desire for a particular outcome.  And you happily draw conclusions in the depths of self-admitted ignorance.  Nothing could possibly be more scientifically dishonest.

Quote
NASA has not been accountable.

Of course it has.  Your ongoing denial in the face of it proves only your purposeful intransigence.  You desperately need NASA to be vilified as a stepping stone to your obsession over 9/11.  You have explicitly said so.

Quote
So where's the video of one being tested. Oh sure, they tested them and tested them for more than 50 years but not a single video.

Straw man.

Quote
It's an interesting document and thank you again for posting it. It's interesting how they say they did the sublimator test. They put the sublimator in a vacuum chamber without putting the astronaut inside.

Ad hoc revision.  Do not move the goalposts.

Quote
Something is very suspicious about that but I need to think about it a bit longer.

No, you need to provide right now a justification for why an appropriate test of the sublimator in a vacuum requires a human subject.  You may not evade accountability by asking for arbitrary time-outs so that you can dream up more speculation.

Quote
What calculations are you expecting? Don't hold your breath waiting.

You have a degree in engineering and subsequent experience in engineering fields.  You have made a argument in the form of doubting the capacity of vacuum test chambers to facilitate a sublimator test on various quantitative grounds.  Surely as an engineer you must know that a quantitative argument must be accompanied by the relevant calculation.  Please provide it, or admit that you are incompetent to do so.

Quote
No, but I have watched with the naked eye what NASA says is a manned ISS passing by overhead. How do you KNOW there are people aboard?

Because they have been directly observed in the manner suggested to you, which you admit you have not done.  Do not simply continue to spin the hamster wheel of denial.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: nomuse on August 28, 2015, 06:28:13 PM
A big thank you to Zakalwe for posting this: https://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/handle/1911/14662/7023573.PDF?sequence=1
Bravo! Good stuff.

But I'm still looking for a book published before 2007 that mentions spacesuit ice sublimators.  Abaddon  gave Heat and Mass Transfer - Anthony Mills - 1995 - ISBN 0256114439 but I don't see anything about spacesuit ice sublimators.

Also, I know there's contention about the photograph of an ice sublimator with some claiming it was available since 1997 and my saying I couldn't find it in 2007. I'm sure there are tricks I don't know for bringing buried stuff to the surface of the Internet. Please indulge with instruction on how to find a second photograph of a spacesuit ice sublimator. Currently only one shows when you do the Google Image search. Please educate me in how to bring the others to the surface.

Because apparently one photograph isn't good enough. And if you find a second, then two photographs won't be good enough.

And has anyone else noticed that every time "it is in a book" comes up, it somehow turns into "But I want to see a picture that's conveniently on-line," and every time "a test was made" comes up, the plaint is immediately "I need to see a video of guys standing around doing a test -- actual testimony, numbers, scientific papers, etc. mean nothing to me."
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on August 28, 2015, 06:31:48 PM
"No, but I have watched with the naked eye what NASA says is a manned ISS passing by overhead. How do you KNOW there are people aboard?"

I'm going to assume this was Neil speaking;

Neil, there is hour upon hour of video, live streaming, still photos, etc. Amateur radio enthusiasts have spoken to the astronauts on board as it passes by.

Your stated theory that all the footage is done with 'green screen' and/or CGI is fanciful, to say the least.

There are regular Soyuz launches from Baikonur, and touchdowns in Kazakhstan, in full view of representatives from all the countries involved.

You don't REALLY imagine they're all pretending, do you?

Note also - it isn't JUST NASA that states this. Canada, Russia, Europe, Japan, etc have all been involved, and have published their own accounts and videos of their own astronauts' time on the station.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 28, 2015, 06:34:49 PM
His assertion will be all of this material was post written because he agitated for the information.

That's the nice thing about delusions, there's no limit to the possibilities.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 28, 2015, 06:39:13 PM
That patent was linked to on page 1 of the thread just over an hour after Baker's opening post.  Along with Dr. Shero's thesis.

And Baker ignored them then, just as he has largely ignored them now.

He specialises in that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drSqtw0Qywk

... if you have the time and the patience to count the number of threads where I challenged him and his wild-ass theories, and it went eerily silent....
I have listened to that video on the past and finally make the connection, thanks.
The questions he asks border on the absurd. I'm glad Dr. Kaku kept his cool and went about answering a lot of quests some not asked by Neil.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 28, 2015, 06:40:02 PM
His assertion will be all of this material was post written because he agitated for the information.

That's the nice thing about delusions, there's no limit to the possibilities.

The mind is a terrible thing to lose.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on August 28, 2015, 06:50:22 PM
His assertion will be all of this material was post written because he agitated for the information.

It will be very hard to claim that for a US Patent Application dated 1965... unless of course, the Patent Office is in on the hoax. That would be the next logical step for a person with such a distorted worldview.

But as we have said here before, the people who benefit most from the likes of ACW, Adrian and Baker coming here and getting an ass whipping is not them; they are beyond help IMO. Its the lurkers and those who might be teetering on the edge of hoax belief.

Every one of those we can educate, and show the preposterous lengths to which the Neil Bakers of this would will go to in order to deny what is right in front of them, is one that I hope will not fall into the trap.   
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on August 28, 2015, 06:54:00 PM
Actually, I'd seen those photos before. But so long ago that I forgot about them.

How convenient.

The one photo with the radiative heaters? on is interesting because they apparently have bars blocking the direct radiation. The size of the chamber sure seems like overkill but then again with a sublimator sublimating maybe it's necessary.
So, one one hand you say (in an earlier post) that using a sublimator would destroy the vacuum (how, exactly?), now the chamber is too big. However, you don't appear to have a problem with the fact that there WAS a spacesuit test that took place in a vacuum chamber, so that must infer that you acknowledge that the spacesuit worked, as designed.


I am very ignorant. I don't KNOW anything about the sublimators. I can only believe. I haven't witnessed PROOF of anything.
Well, perhaps you could start with reading the copious information that you have been presented with? Then you might learn something about the very items that you are claiming that do not work. You could also withdraw this claim:
Naturally, I wanted to learn more. What does a spacesuit sublimator look like? Specifications? Procedures? Video of one being tested? Photographs? Technical discussions in heat transfer or thermodynamics books? I searched. Strangely and absurdly, I found almost nothing. I received almost nothing.

I got stonewalled when I appealed for information. Absurdly, there were no photographs. Absurdly, there was no video of spacesuits with ice sublimators being tested. Most absurdly, there was no information in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics books. Absurdly, the alleged manufacturer, Hamilton Sunstrand of United Technologies would only release very elementary information. Absurdly, NASA's Johnson Space Center refused to provide video or photos and stonewalled me instead. Absurdly, the Rice University Department of Mechanical Engineering, most closely associated with Houston's Johnson Space Center refused to comment. Absurdly, my Congressional representatives in two states, California's and Washington's Feinstein, Boxer, Cantwell, Murray, Capps and Hastings, stonewalled me also when I requested their assistance acquiring accountability from NASA.
In fact, I insist on it. As you have now been provided with and acknowledged copious sources your claims that there "there was no information in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics books" have now shown to be incorrect. Do yourself a favour, try and regain a shred of decency and withdraw this claim.

I'm also scientifically honest.

No you're not. But if you were then you would withdraw the claim above. Lets see you do this.


Which is the basis of this discussion. Of course they wouldn't send an untested suit. So where's the video of one being tested. Oh sure, they tested them and tested them for more than 50 years but not a single video. Plenty of video of spacesuits in swimming pools but none in a vacuum chamber down the hall. Anomaly. Focus.

Why the obsession on a video? Why would a video suddenly make the copious documents that you have been supplied with suddenly conclusive? Either they are or they are not. Or are you saying that only a video of a suited person in a high vacuum is a suitable proof?
If that is the case, then why is a still photo not conclusive? After all, a video is nothing more than a series of stills.
If your obsession demands a video, then how can you handwave away the many tens of hours of video that is freely available (assuming you can search them out- a subject that you so far have failed to demonstrate ANY particular skill in) of suits using sublimators in a vacuum environment?

Of course, we all know the answer to this. Your obsession is similar to Anders Bjorkmann's obsession with a $1Million test. You have constructed a test that is impossible to be carried out, and you then you have convinced yourself that that is the only proof that can possible apply. It isn't. Your test will never happen for many reasons. Why would you expect NASA to waste taxpayer's money on a ridiculous test for the benefit of one deranged obsessionist? Why would NASA allow a convicted felon into a critical installation? Why would your so-called witnesses want to be associated with a convicted felon's obsession?
However, your obsession with this ridiculous test is nothing more than that- an obsession. It does not remove the fact that sublimators have been shown to work, by many different nations,for over 50 years.


Let's see your detailed analysis of this document. With calculations please.
http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19720005423

It's an interesting document and thank you again for posting it. It's interesting how they say they did the sublimator test. They put the sublimator in a vacuum chamber without putting the astronaut inside. Something is very suspicious about that but I need to think about it a bit longer. What calculations are you expecting? Don't hold your breath waiting.
Think away. When you have finished thinking then feel free to come back and either acknowledge that it works as described OR provide evidence to the contrary. With calculations and test results to back up your findings.
As you say though, I won't hold my breath....



No, but I have watched with the naked eye what NASA says is a manned ISS passing by overhead. How do you KNOW there are people aboard?
Well try it with a small telescope. Or even a pair of binoculars. Then you will find that it fits the description of the ISS. And not an inflated construction.

Finally, can you please make an effort to work out how this forum uses quotations? It's very simple and it makes seeing where you have made comments much easier. It's a small detail, but a little courtesy would go a long way.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 28, 2015, 07:15:14 PM
Taking the ISS question and astronauts being on board, I have a question for Neil, well more of an observation. My understanding of a theory is that it must be consistent across the evidence upon which it draws. You claim that the ISS is an inflatable prop, yet there are many moonhoax CTs that draw upon the accepted story to underpin their hoax arguments. So, we arrive at a position where you have offered evidence that undermines all the hard work of Jarrah White, David Percy and others.

Do you realise that this does not look good for the side of the fence you sit on as the theory descends into a patchwork quilt of conflicting ideas? Thanks for you input in helping unstitch the consistency of the hoax theory even more. Kudos to you. To think that you want people to take you seriously about 9-11 through the platform of the moonhoax, yet you cannot provide a consistent narrative with your compatriots.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: sts60 on August 28, 2015, 08:28:25 PM
Can we have a vacuum chamber big enough to fit a CSM in as well, to test the evaporative cooling systems on that?

Yes, that was done.  And we still do it today, in much the same way.  The spacecraft is wheeled into the altitude test chamber and the pressure brought down to the appropriate vacuum.  Then radiant heat is applied, and the thermal control systems allowed to come to equilibrium.  Lots of telemetry ensues.  In fact, individual spacecraft generally must pass a round of these kinds of tests as part of customer acceptance.
Is this the Chamber B or is there another one around somewhere?

Well, the LM was tested in Chamber B.  I have done spacecraft test in Chamber B myself, and it goes as Jay describes.  The mammoth Chamber A is right nearby, and that was where the CSM stack was tested.

ETA: however, there aren't armed guards around the chambers, unless things have changed dramatically since I was at JSC.  No, I'm not claiming a T-shirt for a minor nontechnical point.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on August 28, 2015, 08:36:12 PM
Baker:

NASA Technical Note D-8093
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19760003073.pdf
The Apollo Experience Report-The Development of the Extravehicular Mobility Unit.
Published Nov 1975 (this blows your ridiculous 2007 argument into the weeds)

Pages 34-44 shows the development of the PLSS and OPS systems. Full schematics are included
Pages 45-59 details the development of the PLSS. Refer to pages 48-50. This details the change from the original design of the PLSS which incorporated a wick-filled water boiler to remove metabolic heat to a porous-plate sublimator. A sectional view shows the construction of the sublimator.
Pages 62-64 details the qualification testing of the PLSS:
"The PLSS was subjected to a total of 20 thermal-vacuum lunar mission profiles, each lasting 3 or 4 hours. Test conditions simulated lunar day, lunar night, and LM cabin temperatures and pressures as well as crewman heat loads and contaminant level inputs. The total PLSS functional performance was evaluated for the three possible startup conditions: after a cold soak (116-K (-250" F) chamber wall temperature for 2 hours), after a hot soak (366-K (200" F) chamber wall temperature for 2 hours), and at ambient conditions."

Baker- please acknowledge that you have read this document. Recognise the publication date- how come your research did not include this?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on August 28, 2015, 08:58:24 PM
Most absurdly, there was no information in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics books. Absurdly, the alleged manufacturer, Hamilton Sunstrand of United Technologies would only release very elementary information. Absurdly, NASA's Johnson Space Center refused to provide video or photos and stonewalled me instead. Absurdly, the Rice University Department of Mechanical Engineering, most closely associated with Houston's Johnson Space Center refused to comment.

Rubbish
From Hamilton Standard:
http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.1964-1211

From the Second Conference on Portable Life Support Systems (May 1971)
http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19720019456

From Hamilton Standard (remember, the people who "only release very elementary information"  ::) ) Pages B-17
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCsQFjABahUKEwjAxJ3Zic3HAhWFOhQKHTm9BR8&url=http%3A%2F%2Fntrs.nasa.gov%2Farchive%2Fnasa%2Fcasi.ntrs.nasa.gov%2F19750016288.pdf&ei=KALhVcCQAoX1ULn6lvgB&usg=AFQjCNFWtxtq7BrAevvrapr2vGBIcKr53A&sig2=iMHWI6kVBlWS1u51Wot-YQ&cad=rja

From the New York Academy of Sciences (Volume 134) The Design and Development of the Apollo Extravehicular Mobility Unit
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1965.tb56174.x/pdf

How come your research hasn't found these? Are you saying that all these documents are bunkum and would only be validated by a video of a test?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 28, 2015, 09:19:35 PM
Baker:

NASA Technical Note D-8093
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19760003073.pdf
The Apollo Experience Report-The Development of the Extravehicular Mobility Unit.
Published Nov 1975 (this blows your ridiculous 2007 argument into the weeds)

Pages 34-44 shows the development of the PLSS and OPS systems. Full schematics are included
Pages 45-59 details the development of the PLSS. Refer to pages 48-50. This details the change from the original design of the PLSS which incorporated a wick-filled water boiler to remove metabolic heat to a porous-plate sublimator. A sectional view shows the construction of the sublimator.
Pages 62-64 details the qualification testing of the PLSS:
"The PLSS was subjected to a total of 20 thermal-vacuum lunar mission profiles, each lasting 3 or 4 hours. Test conditions simulated lunar day, lunar night, and LM cabin temperatures and pressures as well as crewman heat loads and contaminant level inputs. The total PLSS functional performance was evaluated for the three possible startup conditions: after a cold soak (116-K (-250" F) chamber wall temperature for 2 hours), after a hot soak (366-K (200" F) chamber wall temperature for 2 hours), and at ambient conditions."

Baker- please acknowledge that you have read this document. Recognise the publication date- how come your research did not include this?
It is utterly amazing what information is available IF one looks.  Those silly boys at NASA did so much work to fabricate a hoax. ::)

EDIT: Very through report on the operation and testing of the whole system including the PLSS.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on August 28, 2015, 09:29:20 PM
Unlike most of you, I'm also scientifically honest.

You are not scientifically honest. neither are you intellectually honest. In fact you are not honest at all in any way!

You come here and have;

► claimed to have extensively researched your so-called "anomaly", namely, the alleged non-functionality of the PLSS porous plate sublimator, and that you have been unable to find out any information about it.

The members here have provided dozens of links and examples of pages and pages of technical documentation, widely available to anyone carrying out the simplest of internet searches. 

► claimed that you have been stonewalled by NASA and the manufacturer.

The members here have provided both NASA and manufacturers documentation, as well as documentation from non-NASA sources.

► claimed that information  has only been released post 2007 when you first started agitating

The members here have provided proof that there is relevant technical information going back to as early as 1965.

► claimed that the PLSS has never been tested in a hard vacuum

The members here have provided documentary and video proof that the PLSS has been extensively tested, including a number of tests in hard vacuum.

You have had all your research done for you! You have had everything thing you asked for handed to you on a silver platter, and yet you still persist in denying the facts that are right in front of your face.

You are both scientifically and intellectually dishonest...

The fact is, you are a liar!
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: ka9q on August 29, 2015, 12:10:40 AM

IHaving worked with UHV systems, water has a very nasty habit of sticking to the walls of vacuum systems. It's a real pain to remove from UHV systems
My educated guess is that this is one reason why thermal vacuum chambers have plates cooled by liquid nitrogen. Several volatiles (water, carbon dioxide) would freeze out on such plates, making the job easier for the vacuum pumps.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: ka9q on August 29, 2015, 12:29:00 AM
Yes, that was done.  And we still do it today, in much the same way.  The spacecraft is wheeled into the altitude test chamber and the pressure brought down to the appropriate vacuum.  Then radiant heat is applied, and the thermal control systems allowed to come to equilibrium.  Lots of telemetry ensues.
My understanding is that thermal vacuum tests, at least for communications satellites, rarely involve solar simulation. It can be done, but is expensive. The spacecraft is powered and operated through hardlines that go through the chamber walls. Usually the walls of the chamber have lines through which coolant at various temperatures can be circulated. The spacecraft is allowed to come to radiative equilibrium with the walls and its correct operation at that temperature is verified. From memory, the range might be -25 C to +50 C, with one of the most severe tests being a power-up at the lowest temperature to see if the crystal oscillators start.

At the same time, witness plates chilled with liquid nitrogen capture any volatiles (grease, plasticizers, badly chosen adhesives, etc). This is especially important if you're flying with a spacecraft with optics (weather, earth resources, or astronomy; I guess spy would also qualify).

So the purpose is to verify correct operation in vacuum at a range of temperatures; the thermal design of the spacecraft is not checked, so you just have to make sure you get the surface coatings right.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 29, 2015, 12:32:43 AM
My understanding is that thermal vacuum tests, at least for communications satellites, rarely involve solar simulation.

Well, I personally witnessed the Boeing 601HP and 701 thermal validation tests.  It was a Hughes design that Boeing bought.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: ka9q on August 29, 2015, 01:02:01 AM
Well, it was a little too strong to say that the thermal design is not checked. With or without a solar simulator the test will generate heat loads that will flow through the spacecraft just as they will in space (internal radiation and conduction but not air convection) so you'll know if there's a problem getting heat out of some module like a power amplifier.

But the spacecraft I'm familiar with were not tested to ensure their surfaces would achieve the desired temperatures in space. We relied on physics and the known properties of the surface coatings (multilayer blankets, second-surface mirrors, paints, solar cells, etc).

Then again our budget was a little lower than some.

Edited to add: Ah, I see you said "radiant heat", which I read to mean a solar simulator. The chambers I've seen had coolant lines on the walls to bring them to any desired temperature, which would in turn bring the spacecraft under test to the same temperature. Perhaps we're talking about the same thing.

I know that some of the large chambers originally built for Apollo did have solar simulators, but they're awfully expensive to run.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gillianren on August 29, 2015, 01:10:03 AM
The fact is, you are a liar!

And I, for one, have no problem using the word.  We are saying that someone is knowingly saying things they know to be untrue.  Where I come from, the word for such behaviour is "lying."
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Peter B on August 29, 2015, 01:11:50 AM
SNIPPED A BIT.

...NASA has not been accountable...

Of course they wouldn't send an untested suit. So where's the video of one being tested. Oh sure, they tested them and tested them for more than 50 years but not a single video. Plenty of video of spacesuits in swimming pools but none in a vacuum chamber down the hall. Anomaly. Focus.

They put the sublimator in a vacuum chamber without putting the astronaut inside. Something is very suspicious about that but I need to think about it a bit longer...

If it's all as suspicious as you say, why didn't the Soviets say anything at the time? Or were they in on the hoax?

Quote
I have watched with the naked eye what NASA says is a manned ISS passing by overhead. How do you KNOW there are people aboard?

Because countries other than the USA send astronauts to the ISS. What do the Russians, Canadians and miscellaneous Europeans get out of hoaxing the ISS?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on August 29, 2015, 01:30:43 AM
Because countries other than the USA send astronauts to the ISS. What do the Russians, Canadians and miscellaneous Europeans get out of hoaxing the ISS?
Not to mention some of the wealthiest  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_tourism#List_of_flown_space_tourists)people on the planet. How would you feel, if you were the kind of person who can spend 25 million or so on a vacation, specifically to spend it on the ISS, only to find you have to spend those couple of weeks cramped up in the Soyuz capsule and then, then find out you have to lie about it and say you spent it in the far roomier ISS. Remember, these are people who are wealthy beyond most of our realistic dreams, powerful individuals who are probably used to getting things their way.
I bet that would go as well as stampeding cattle through the Vatican.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 29, 2015, 02:31:19 AM
If it's all as suspicious as you say, why didn't the Soviets say anything at the time? Or were they in on the hoax?

Of course they had to be in on the hoax.  Their spacesuits use porous plate sublimators too. ::)

Russian Spacesuits, Isaak P. Abramov and A. Ingemar Skoog, 2003 (https://books.google.com/books?id=f7pZosHqkbEC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false)

From page 242 (with photo on page 243):

Quote
The design of the sublimator/CHX for heat and humidity removal was proven in the spacesuit programmes of the USA and USSR and was also selected for breadboarding the ESSS project.  The design consisted of a stainless steel heat exchanger core with nickel fins and a sublimator porous plate built up of several layers of wire meshes rolled together (Figure 11.2.18).  The breadboard model of an all-European-manufactured sublimator/CHX proved the design worked, but heat removal capacity was lower than predicted.  Detailed analyses of the test results revealed the likely cause of reduced heat removal, and the unit was modified to give improved performance.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: mako88sb on August 29, 2015, 02:45:06 AM
He'll probably quit posting soon. 2 or 3 weeks from now he'll be back starting a new thread about all the absurdities and how the only way to prove the landings were real is with the demo and act like none of the past few days has even happened. Standard procedure for him over at his usual hang-out, the Michio Kaku video.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on August 29, 2015, 05:06:50 AM
He'll probably quit posting soon. 2 or 3 weeks from now he'll be back starting a new thread about all the absurdities and how the only way to prove the landings were real is with the demo and act like none of the past few days has even happened. Standard procedure for him over at his usual hang-out, the Michio Kaku video.

If schadenfreude is truly the (made-up?) German word for taking pleasure at others' misfortunes, I may have to coin 'bakerwhippenassenkickenfreude' for the drubbing he's been receiving here.....
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Andromeda on August 29, 2015, 05:42:02 AM
Why this obsession with video?  CT-ers seem to expect everything to be on the internet in the form of a video.  I don't think any lab work I have ever done has ever been videoed - the recording took the form of my lab books & write-ups.  Okay, so my specialism isn't engineering, but is video really a "scientifically honest" method of "proof" (proofs are only for mathematicians, Neil!) as Neil insists?  I don't think so.

Furthermore, what would Neil expect to see when watching the equipment working in a vacuum chamber, on video or in real life?  How would he know it was working?  My guess is it would be handwaved away...
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 29, 2015, 05:56:49 AM
Why this obsession with video?  CT-ers seem to expect everything to be on the internet in the form of a video.  I don't think any lab work I have ever done has ever been videoed - the recording took the form of my lab books & write-ups.  Okay, so my specialism isn't engineering, but is video really a "scientifically honest" method of "proof" (proofs are only for mathematicians, Neil!) as Neil insists?  I don't think so.

Furthermore, what would Neil expect to see when watching the equipment working in a vacuum chamber, on video or in real life?  How would he know it was working?  My guess is it would be handwaved away...

Because they don't have to think as hard.

There is a similar discussion over at ATS involving turbonium, well known to many here, who is demanding video footage of the testing of Apollo suit gloves to prove they were capable of being pressurised and then function properly. It's mostly a diversion from having his ass handed to him for posting one of archangel4mike's stupid videos about John Young not wearing gloves.

It's exactly the same premise as the tactic being employed here: find a topic for which the HB believes there is no evidence and keep gnawing at it in the hope that your detractors will go away. He can't prove that the gloves don't work, but he can prove that there is no video of them being tested (or believes he can). It's a scam to try and accumulate a series of small 'victories' and "A-ha! So you admit..." moments that they hope will add up to some sort of aggregate proof.

Another poster there had a similar thing over photos of crew members in the CSM in Apollo 12. He found that there were none, and decided that was all the proof he needed. The fact that 16mm footage of the crew in the CSM in zero G was available, as well as reflections of crew members in the window while filming the moon, was not of interest to him: there were no tourist "Hey ma look at me" images, ergo proof.

They don't want an answer, they want there not to be an answer. As with our OP here, they don't necessarily believe the argument, they believe that the other person can't provide a counter.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 29, 2015, 06:22:00 AM
My educated guess is that this is one reason why thermal vacuum chambers have plates cooled by liquid nitrogen. Several volatiles (water, carbon dioxide) would freeze out on such plates, making the job easier for the vacuum pumps.

I certainly didn't work with systems the size of chamber A, but ultra-high vacuums are not achieved using mechanical pumps alone. Once in the ultra-high range mechanical pumps are not really that helpful. High vacuum is normally achieved using a rotary pump. We then switched on an oil diffusion pump once high vacuum was achieved (you need to obtain high vacuum first otherwise the diffusion pump would stall). The entire rig was then wrapped like a turkey and heated to out gas the walls for 24 - 36 hours (mainly of water). The last procedure was carried for such a long time because we were quite a poor research group and no one wanted to purchase getter or cryo pumps. Heating the chamber with a turbo pump running was found to reduce the vacuum by another 2 orders of magnitude :)

But yes, once you reach ultra-high vacuum adsorption techniques are employed. Titanium cryopumps are used as they remove helium really well, no one would buy one of these for us :(

It was quite a feat to achieve 10-9 Torr, but we managed it. We once got 10-10 and pretty much everyone came in and looked at the ion gauge to witness our achievement, although most people thought the ion gauge was faulty at this point.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: 12oh2alarm on August 29, 2015, 06:24:19 AM
If schadenfreude is truly the (made-up?) German word for taking pleasure at others' misfortunes, I may have to coin 'bakerwhippenassenkickenfreude' for the drubbing he's been receiving here.....
Schadenfreude is not made-up. It's not even specific to German as many other languages have a word meaning exactly the same. Would you believe it, the ancient Greeks called it ἐπιχαιρεκακία (epichairekakía), and, I'm told, epicaricacy is an English word.
If I may, a suggestion for the newly coined word: since in German, -en indicates the infinitive of a verb, I'd remove it from the "assen" part, leaving (note capitalization) Bakerwhippenasskickenfreude.

On the other hand, maybe such word-coining is like beating a man already on the ground ("poking a donkey with a stick" as I read elsewhere). We don't make fun of handicapped people, why would me make fun of otherwise ill people who ruined most of their life with an Idée fixe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id%C3%A9e_fixe_%28psychology%29)?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Kiwi on August 29, 2015, 07:06:16 AM
 
...Bakerwhippenasskickenfreude...

Shouldn't the middle part be "arse" instead of "ass"? In that context "ass" is a distinctly North American (US and Canadian) euphemism which is not used by many Europeans and English-speaking people.

It's similar to the American euphemism "bathroom" that is used when the speaker actually means toilet, lavatory, dunny, thunderbox etcetera. If anyone ever comes to my place and asks for directions to the bathroom, they will be given them, and if they return and explain that they actually wanted that "other room", they might be loudly asked why they didn't have the good sense say so in the first place.

Oh, we Kiwis can be a pretty blunt lot, just the same as Australians.  :)

Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: dwight on August 29, 2015, 07:18:40 AM
How about Bäckerarschtrittenschadenfreude? That uses correct terminology.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gwiz on August 29, 2015, 07:18:50 AM
Of course they had to be in on the hoax.  Their spacesuits use porous plate sublimators too. ::)

Russian Spacesuits, Isaak P. Abramov and A. Ingemar Skoog, 2003 (https://books.google.com/books?id=f7pZosHqkbEC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false)
That book includes numerous other mentions of sublimation coolers, used from the early space station missions in the 1970s and still in use for EVAs from the Russian segment of the International Space Station.  It also includes several photos of test subjects wearing the suits inside thermal vacuum chambers.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 29, 2015, 07:28:26 AM
...why would me make fun of otherwise ill people who ruined most of their life with an Idée fixe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id%C3%A9e_fixe_%28psychology%29)?

I have never seen that term before although the link is broken for me. I've fixed it for you in this post, hope you don't mind?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gwiz on August 29, 2015, 07:28:31 AM
Okay, so my specialism isn't engineering, but is video really a "scientifically honest" method of "proof" (proofs are only for mathematicians, Neil!) as Neil insists?  I don't think so.
As an aerospace engineer occasionally involved with analysing flight tests, I can say that moving pictures are not normally a part of the process.  There are some types of test, such as the release of what are generally known as "stores" from military aircraft, where you want to see where the store goes after release to make sure it doesn't come too close to the aircraft, but in general the data comes from the normal flight instruments and extra sensors where needed.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Andromeda on August 29, 2015, 07:35:26 AM
Okay, so my specialism isn't engineering, but is video really a "scientifically honest" method of "proof" (proofs are only for mathematicians, Neil!) as Neil insists?  I don't think so.
As an aerospace engineer occasionally involved with analysing flight tests, I can say that moving pictures are not normally a part of the process.  There are some types of test, such as the release of what are generally known as "stores" from military aircraft, where you want to see where the store goes after release to make sure it doesn't come too close to the aircraft, but in general the data comes from the normal flight instruments and extra sensors where needed.

That's the thing - a video might show that something happens, but that's it.  For science, you need to have numbers attached to that - which won't be shown on a video without further analysis anyway.  A video will, to give a simple example, show that a ball thrown up will eventually fall back down.  But what good is that?  To gain anything useful & scientific, you need to know how long it took to fall down/how high it went/where it landed etc etc.  The exact stuff which Neil is dismissing...
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: 12oh2alarm on August 29, 2015, 07:36:31 AM
...why would me make fun of otherwise ill people who ruined most of their life with an Idée fixe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id%C3%A9e_fixe_%28psychology%29)?

I have never seen that term before although the link is broken is broken for me. I've fixed it for you in this post, hope you don't mind?

Thanks, mate. I've corrected it in the original as well.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on August 29, 2015, 08:02:41 AM
If schadenfreude is truly the (made-up?) German word for taking pleasure at others' misfortunes, I may have to coin 'bakerwhippenassenkickenfreude' for the drubbing he's been receiving here.....

If I may, a suggestion for the newly coined word: since in German, -en indicates the infinitive of a verb, I'd remove it from the "assen" part, leaving (note capitalization) Bakerwhippenasskickenfreude.

I don't speak the language, but I approve.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 29, 2015, 08:03:41 AM
Why this obsession with video?  CT-ers seem to expect everything to be on the internet in the form of a video.  I don't think any lab work I have ever done has ever been videoed - the recording took the form of my lab books & write-ups.  Okay, so my specialism isn't engineering, but is video really a "scientifically honest" method of "proof" (proofs are only for mathematicians, Neil!) as Neil insists?  I don't think so.

Furthermore, what would Neil expect to see when watching the equipment working in a vacuum chamber, on video or in real life?  How would he know it was working?  My guess is it would be handwaved away...
Videos are the easiest way to get a conception. No long time spent reading, just ten minutes of your life. Society has become accustomed to ease of the internet, the privacy, the anonymity that it provides. In my later years, I too have spent far too long on the net. It can be rewarding as well as alluring.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Peter B on August 29, 2015, 08:26:18 AM
Okay, so my specialism isn't engineering, but is video really a "scientifically honest" method of "proof" (proofs are only for mathematicians, Neil!) as Neil insists?  I don't think so.
As an aerospace engineer occasionally involved with analysing flight tests, I can say that moving pictures are not normally a part of the process.  There are some types of test, such as the release of what are generally known as "stores" from military aircraft, where you want to see where the store goes after release to make sure it doesn't come too close to the aircraft, but in general the data comes from the normal flight instruments and extra sensors where needed.

That's the thing - a video might show that something happens, but that's it.  For science, you need to have numbers attached to that - which won't be shown on a video without further analysis anyway.  A video will, to give a simple example, show that a ball thrown up will eventually fall back down.  But what good is that?  To gain anything useful & scientific, you need to know how long it took to fall down/how high it went/where it landed etc etc.  The exact stuff which Neil is dismissing...

I remember reading somewhere that the German engineers who designed and tested the V-2 would crowd around displays during a test, groups of them each recording what he saw on a given dial over time. After the test results would then be collated. Apparently for all their rock-solid engineering smarts, they never thought to point a camera at a dial to record what was happening (or, for that matter, of designing a device to output data on a continuous feed of paper).

So there are times when I can see that recording something on video (or film, whatever) might have value.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gwiz on August 29, 2015, 08:26:44 AM
For science, you need to have numbers attached to that - which won't be shown on a video without further analysis anyway. 
That involved at least two cine cameras and, in the days before digital images, a lot of measuring of the position within each frame of film of several points on the object you were interested in, so as to reconstruct the trajectory and a record of how the attitude was changing.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on August 29, 2015, 08:28:03 AM
Why this obsession with video?  CT-ers seem to expect everything to be on the internet in the form of a video.  I don't think any lab work I have ever done has ever been videoed - the recording took the form of my lab books & write-ups.

Because they seem to use sources such as YouTube as "research". The content that they seem to absorb is emotion-led arguments from the likes of the Blunder, hunchbacked and others. Plus, a video is a one-sided discussion, with no room for rebuttals or debate, so they can "tune out" any contradictory ideas. It's the ultimate from of confirmation bias and it reinforces their perceptions. Lets face it the modern crop of hoaxies seem exclusively to be poorly educated and unable to lift their discussions above cut'n'paste jobs.

Furthermore, what would Neil expect to see when watching the equipment working in a vacuum chamber, on video or in real life?  How would he know it was working?  My guess is it would be handwaved away...

He knows, either consciously or unconsciously, that his test is never likely to happen. Therefore he will never have to come to that conclusion. It's the equivalent of saying "If NASA went to the Moon then they should be able to show me a unicorn. As they refuse to enter into a unicorn-based discussion, they are clearly hiding something. Further, proof of the Moon landings can only happen if they show me a unicorn. As they won't discuss it and as there are no videos of unicorns, then the whole thing is a fake". There is no recognition of the fact that unicorns do not exist and even if they did, why would NASA waste time (and taxpayers money) arranging a unicorn demonstration to a convicted felon who is utterly obsessed with conspiracy theories?

Heiwa does exactly the same. he created a preposterous $1Milion dollar challenge- one where he is in total control and where the rules vary at whim. One where he can selectively ignore any evidence that has a chance of winning his mythical prize. As no-one can possibly win the "competition" then he uses this as evidence that his claims of a hoax are correct.

The other thing to consider is that most of the hoax arguments are emotion-based. The hoaxies build their belief system into their personality and any attempt to debunk their beliefs are seen as a personal challenge and insult. Showing them scientific evidence and facts generally won't change their minds as their belies are based on emotion. Look at the Blunder and how much emotion he has invested in his beliefs, not to mention that he is probably making a few bucks from the sale of Rene's horse-manure.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 29, 2015, 08:39:01 AM
I remember reading somewhere that the German engineers who designed and tested the V-2 would crowd around displays during a test, groups of them each recording what he saw on a given dial over time. After the test results would then be collated. Apparently for all their rock-solid engineering smarts, they never thought to point a camera at a dial to record what was happening.

Aaah so that's why NASA never filmed anything ;)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 29, 2015, 08:39:53 AM
Because they don't have to think as hard.

There is a similar discussion over at ATS involving turbonium, well known to many here, who is demanding video footage of the testing of Apollo suit gloves to prove they were capable of being pressurised and then function properly. It's mostly a diversion from having his ass handed to him for posting one of archangel4mike's stupid videos about John Young not wearing gloves.

It's exactly the same premise as the tactic being employed here: find a topic for which the HB believes there is no evidence and keep gnawing at it in the hope that your detractors will go away. He can't prove that the gloves don't work, but he can prove that there is no video of them being tested (or believes he can). It's a scam to try and accumulate a series of small 'victories' and "A-ha! So you admit..." moments that they hope will add up to some sort of aggregate proof.

Another poster there had a similar thing over photos of crew members in the CSM in Apollo 12. He found that there were none, and decided that was all the proof he needed. The fact that 16mm footage of the crew in the CSM in zero G was available, as well as reflections of crew members in the window while filming the moon, was not of interest to him: there were no tourist "Hey ma look at me" images, ergo proof.

They don't want an answer, they want there not to be an answer. As with our OP here, they don't necessarily believe the argument, they believe that the other person can't provide a counter.
I saw one video on YT that presented similar material of videos inside the CSM.  The proponent, I don't remember his handle, believed that all the zero G shots were less than maybe 21 seconds, the amount of time the vomit comet simulates zero G.  Therein lies his proof that all the interior videos were filmed in a studio here on Earth, or in the vomit comet.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 29, 2015, 08:46:10 AM


Aaah so that's why NASA never filmed anything ;)
The veil of secrecy that helps hide the very large Hoax. ::)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gwiz on August 29, 2015, 08:48:09 AM
The proponent, I don't remember his handle, believed that all the zero G shots were less than maybe 21 seconds, the amount of time the vomit comet simulates zero G. 
Even if that were true, the reason would be more likely a finite supply of cine film.  This was always a limiting factor, and the reason why slow frame rates were often used, eg the Apollo 11 crew on the lunar surface.  The TV record certainly contains very long sequences.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on August 29, 2015, 08:52:07 AM
Why this obsession with video?  CT-ers seem to expect everything to be on the internet in the form of a video.  I don't think any lab work I have ever done has ever been videoed - the recording took the form of my lab books & write-ups.  Okay, so my specialism isn't engineering, but is video really a "scientifically honest" method of "proof" (proofs are only for mathematicians, Neil!) as Neil insists?  I don't think so.

Furthermore, what would Neil expect to see when watching the equipment working in a vacuum chamber, on video or in real life?  How would he know it was working?  My guess is it would be handwaved away...

Because video is so easy to do nowadays. Every cellphone/smartphone has a HQ video camera built in, home video cameras are relatively cheap. Even digital still cameras have had basic video capability going back to the mid 2000s, and then video tape cameras before that.

It simply does not occur to them that back in the 1960's, making a movie was not a trivial task. A simple 16 minute video about Lunar Spacesuits like the one I posted earlier would not have been cheap to produce. A 1964 Arriflex IIC shooting at 25 frames/sec will use about 123 feet of film every minute. A 16 minute production will use nearly 2000 feet of film.... that was very expensive back in the day, and that is just the film. There is the set up on top of that.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 29, 2015, 08:52:11 AM

Even if that were true, the reason would be more likely a finite supply of cine film.  This was always a limiting factor, and the reason why slow frame rates were often used, eg the Apollo 11 crew on the lunar surface.  The TV record certainly contains very long sequences.
Wait you are applying logic and thinking to your post, surely you don't expect THAT BEHAVIOR from a Hoaxer? ::)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 29, 2015, 08:54:36 AM
Because video is so easy to do nowadays. Every cellphone/smartphone has a HQ video camera built in, home video cameras are relatively cheap. Even digital still cameras have had basic video capability going back to the mid 2000s, and then video tape cameras before that.

It simply does no occur to them that back in the 1960's, making a movie was not a trivial task. A simple 16 minute video about Lunar Spacesuits like the one I posted earlier would not have been cheap to produce. A 1964 Arriflex IIC shooting at 25 frames/sec will use about 123 feet of film every minute. A 16 minute production will use nearly 2000 feet of film.... that was very expensive back in the day.
Are you suggesting that there was activities prior to the advent of the internet? We all have Al Gore to thank for this. ::)  :o
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 29, 2015, 08:56:36 AM
I saw one video on YT that presented similar material of videos inside the CSM.  The proponent, I don't remember his handle, believed that all the zero G shots were less than maybe 21 seconds, the amount of time the vomit comet simulates zero G.  Therein lies his proof that all the interior videos were filmed in a studio here on Earth, or in the vomit comet.

I'm confident that was Blunder from Down Under.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 29, 2015, 09:10:57 AM

I'm confident that was Blunder from Down Under.
It may well have been him, but maybe someone else.  Since my semi-retirement I watched a lot on YT, trying to find new proposals or new evidence.  I didn't record any links(in retrospect probably a bad judgment on my part) for future reference.  I would just have to go back over them to find the one I wanted to link and ask a question.  One particular was a parallax issue that I didn't understand, and started a thread here.  Jay and others quickly brought me up on the learning curve quickly.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Kiwi on August 29, 2015, 09:23:56 AM
...I know there's contention about the photograph of an ice sublimator with some claiming it was available since 1997 and my saying I couldn't find it in 2007. I'm sure there are tricks I don't know for bringing buried stuff to the surface of the Internet. Please indulge with instruction on how to find a second photograph of a spacesuit ice sublimator. Currently only one shows when you do the Google Image search. Please educate me in how to bring the others to the surface.

Sigh!  ::)

Neil Baker, just like many other hoax-believers have done, you really are putting an immense effort into proving to us just how stupid you can be, aren't you? Whatever for? It just makes you look foolish.

However, I must congratulate you because you have had such resounding success that you have convinced me. But having done that, isn't it a good idea that you start using your brains just a little bit? Obviously, I'm assuming that you have some to use but for reasons of your own have hardly done so.

Try this: Go back to pages one and two and study the posts sufficiently to understand them. Note that in reply No. 8 Gazpar gave you the link to what you ask for above, but instead of following it properly you had the audacity to insult him and other members of this forum with the following remark in your second post:

If you're satisfied to continue accepting your faith-based space program, then you either do nothing or continue jabbering with lame links and empty opinions.

In another post you stated:

Only until recently after my agitation could a photograph of a spacesuit ice sublimator be seen on the Internet. And despite representing one of the most interesting and exotic heat transfer devices ever contrived, no spacesuit ice sublimator is mentioned in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics book.

You have been shown with copious examples what nonsense those two statements are, starting with links on pages one and two. And even after having been given some of them a second time, still you are foolish enough to not accept most of the information. All you have done is shift the goalposts.

In reply 27 on page 2, Raven gave you the link that shows the PLSS data was on the internet in 1997, which you later acknowledged in post 115, page 8:
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=945.msg31217#msg31217

But you also added, like a true intellectual giant, "I imagine it was buried in cyberspace somewhere. But it didn't appear to me and others until much later."

The Apollo Lunar Surface Journals (ALSJ) have never been buried anywhere in cyberspace since they were first put on the internet, so the article and its photos never appeared to you and others much later. They have always been there.

I have both the CD-ROM version of the ALSJ of 1 May 1999, and the DVD-ROM version of 10 August 2006, and the articles and photos are in both versions. The photo you claimed responsibility for getting on the internet, was created (probably scanned from a print or slide) on 30 March 1999 for the CD-ROM version, but had obviously been on the internet earlier than that.

Had you done your homework properly and examined the information given to you, you would have read that  the original editor of the Apollo Lunar Surface Journals, Eric Jones, took the photo plss04.jpg.

Here, allow me to spoon-feed you the information that you didn't seem to find from Raven's link:

Quote
These photos are cutaway views of a full-scale, engineering model of the Portable Life Support System (PLSS). The colors of the internal components are used to enhance the identification of critical components only. Production models were not color coded.

...All these photographs were taken the Journal Editor, Eric Jones, and were scanned by Frank O'Brien. Our thanks to Joe Kosmo at the NASA Johnson Space Center for providing access to the PLSS model.

See that?  Unlike production models of the PLSS, that one was colour-coded for your viewing ease, and the photo was taken by Eric Jones.

One thing you should know about the ALSJ, is that a direct link like Gazpar's is okay for looking at a specific document or photo, but is not the best way to access the entire journals.  You need the frames for that, by starting with (and recording), this link:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/frame.html

To navigate to the PLSS article from there, click on the link
Introductory Material
then page down to
Flight Hardware
Suits and Life Support Equipment

and click on
Portable Life Support System (PLSS)

Easy, huh? You could spend many years studying the information at the ALSJ. Quite a few of us here have contributed to the journals.

Then there are also the Apollo Flight Journals:
http://history.nasa.gov/afj/

One little hint about what you call "stonewalling" in your own empty opinions:  Nasa and aerospace companies don't suffer fools gladly. As you have amply shown in this thread, it's a waste of time.  Even here, many of us are not really posting for your benefit, we are instead posting for other members and the more intelligent onlookers who will understand and appreciate the things that you don't.

Some time back one HB claimed that the lurkers would all be on his side, so we persuaded them to de-lurk and say whose side they were on.  A few did, and not one of them was on his side.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 29, 2015, 09:31:16 AM
Since my semi-retirement I watched a lot on YT, trying to find new proposals or new evidence.  I didn't record any links (in retrospect probably a bad judgment on my part) for future reference.  I would just have to go back over them to find the one I wanted to link and ask a question.  One particular  [question] was an parallax issue effective exhaust velocity problem  that I didn't understand, and started a thread here.  Jay and others quickly brought me up on the learning curve quickly.

I've scrubbed out the bits that do not apply to me and added my journey to here. You can see the parallels with my introduction to AH.net. There is far much more fun gained from the reality of Apollo than the hoax.

I pretty much ignored Jarrah's 'short segment film' claim as another absurd bare assertion on his part. I think he arrived at a figure of 30 s being the maximum zero-g film length. I never really pursued it here, and whether there are longer sections. I kind of dismissed it out of hand and didn't want to waste people's time.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 29, 2015, 09:42:01 AM

I've scrubbed out the bits that do not apply to me and added my journey to here. You can see the parallels with my introduction to AH.net. There is far much more fun gained from the reality of Apollo than the hoax.

I pretty much ignored Jarrah's 'short segment film' claim as another absurd bare assertion on his part. I think he arrived at a figure of 30 s being the maximum zero-g film length. I never really pursued it here, and whether there are longer sections. I kind of dismissed it out of hand and didn't want to waste people's time.
I never pursued any of that series whether blunder or not.  I have only contributed to a few on YT quite ineffectively at either obtaining a convert or comment about the HB proposal being wrong.  The only conclusive blunder thread was the disgusting series on Apollo 1 fire, that was the last video I've watched or will ever from him.
This forum has been great to learn new aspects of the Apollo program that I didn't know, but suspected or at least thought about.  As well being able to stop and think about the absurd "anomalies" presented by HB's and how to show that their isn't one and/or being able to do a little research to finding answers trolling the net. :)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 29, 2015, 11:17:03 AM
Heiwa does exactly the same. he created a preposterous $1Milion dollar challenge-

For the record, it's one million euro.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gillianren on August 29, 2015, 11:58:25 AM
It's similar to the American euphemism "bathroom" that is used when the speaker actually means toilet, lavatory, dunny, thunderbox etcetera. If anyone ever comes to my place and asks for directions to the bathroom, they will be given them, and if they return and explain that they actually wanted that "other room", they might be loudly asked why they didn't have the good sense say so in the first place.

Because it's a perfectly legitimate word and all those other terms are euphemisms, too?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on August 29, 2015, 12:56:13 PM
Heiwa does exactly the same. he created a preposterous $1Milion dollar challenge-

For the record, it's one million euro.

Thanks for the correction.
It could be one million Koh-i-Noors as the chances of Bjorkman actually having it, or him declaring that anyone has won it are zero. ;)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 29, 2015, 01:05:42 PM

Because it's a perfectly legitimate word and all those other terms are euphemisms, too?
Besides many but not all contain a shower/tub in the same room.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 29, 2015, 01:07:39 PM

Thanks for the correction.
It could be one million Koh-i-Noors as the chances of Bjorkman actually having it, or him declaring that anyone has won it are zero. ;)
Evasive goal changing M. O. I suspect, to protect "No one has proven me wrong".
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gillianren on August 29, 2015, 01:35:53 PM

Because it's a perfectly legitimate word and all those other terms are euphemisms, too?
Besides many but not all contain a shower/tub in the same room.

Certainly mine does.  And the real estate term for ones that don't, in the US, is "half-bath."  Or "3/4 bath" if it has a shower but not a tub.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: ka9q on August 29, 2015, 03:13:16 PM
I bet that would go as well as stampeding cattle through the Vatican.
Kinky...!
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: sts60 on August 29, 2015, 03:35:49 PM
I have experience in, among other things, spacecraft integration and test, and vacuum chamber systems -ultra-high vacuum, or UHV as Luke mentioned, to be precise (10-6 torr is a crappy vacuum).  If someone asked me to film a test of a sublimator, my first question would be "Why?"  It just sits there.  It's like proving software works by filming a microprocessor.

While there might be movies of sublimators, the idea that it is some sort of vital evidence is laughable - only an ignoramus would make such a silly claim.  Moreover, only an ignoramus who is determined to remain ignorant, rather than actually think about the issue.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 29, 2015, 04:09:44 PM
I have experience in, among other things, spacecraft integration and test, and vacuum chamber systems -ultra-high vacuum, or UHV as Luke mentioned, to be precise (10-6 torr is a crappy vacuum).  If someone asked me to film a test of a sublimator, my first question would be "Why?"  It just sits there.  It's like proving software works by filming a microprocessor.

While there might be movies of sublimators, the idea that it is some sort of vital evidence is laughable - only an ignoramus would make such a silly claim.  Moreover, only an ignoramus who is determined to remain ignorant, rather than actually think about the issue.
I believe you have correctly described Mr. Baker.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 29, 2015, 04:34:16 PM
If someone asked me to film a test of a sublimator, my first question would be "Why?"  It just sits there.

Indeed.  I can see some value in video documents of a bench test where, conceivably, you might use the video to measure the rate of ice formation or some such thing.  But that would only be a shorthand to other forms of data collection.  A sublimator literally just sits there.

Besides, Baker insists that he has to see an all-up test:  an astronaut in a sublimation-cooled space suit, demonstrably in a vacuum.  But the sublimator is necessarily inside the PLSS out of sight -- in vacuum, but also in shade.  As we have seen, Baker nit-picks all the video evidence shown to him.  The video he demands as ultimate proof is ripe for exactly the kind of solipsist nit-picking he uses to sidestep all the other evidence.

Quote
It's like proving software works by filming a microprocessor.

Not quite the same, but I've actually imaged microprocessors in the infrared while they were running certain specific code.  When you build a supercomputer to run a particular software package (custom finite-element analysis) there is actual value in determining how to cool the apparatus for that particular application.

Quote
Moreover, only an ignoramus who is determined to remain ignorant...

Or alternatively, an ignoramus determined to portray to the equally ignorant public that there is a legitimate controversy when, in fact, there isn't.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on August 29, 2015, 04:48:13 PM
I have experience in, among other things, spacecraft integration and test

Just an off topic question.

I am assuming that these integration tests are effectively a test to make sure that everything on the spacecraft works with everything else on the spacecraft that it is expected to work with, and to ensure that systems continue to function correctly when other non-related systems are turned on or turned off.

Did Apollo undergo integration tests prior to Apollo 11? The reason I ask is that it occurs to me such a test would have picked up the problem with the 1201 and 1202 alarms caused by the AGC running out of resources when the LM's rendezvous radar was left switched on.

With regard to Apollo 13, I read somewhere that using the LM as a lifeboat was something that had been considered well in advance of the launch, and that they knew if they were going to do have to that, they would have problems with the carbon dioxide build up. Would an integration test for that scenario have picked up the non-interchangeability of the Lithium Hydroxide cartridges?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 29, 2015, 04:57:21 PM
Did Apollo undergo integration tests prior to Apollo 11?

Yes, and your understanding of what the test is meant to study is correct.

Quote
The reason I ask is that it occurs to me such a test would have picked up the problem with the 1201 and 1202 alarms caused by the AGC running out of resources when the LM's rendezvous radar was left switched on.

The decision to leave it switched on was a late change, after integration testing.  The phase lock protocol between the redundant radar power supplies wasn't considered a critical factor (or even, at the time, well publicized).  Hence it was written off as "no big deal."

Quote
Would an integration test for that scenario have picked up the non-interchangeability of the Lithium Hydroxide cartridges?

No.  Integration tests focus on the nominal mission, and only drift slightly into contingency flight plans.  The LM Lifeboat scenario was well down the list of contingencies.

The LM LiHO cartridges were annular, like some older car air filters.  The inlet supplied air to the outer perimeter, and the discharge was at the center.  This best fit the form factor of the LM ECS, tacked onto the bulkhead on the LMP's side.  The CM LiHO were straightforward axial filters.  The need to use one filter in the other system was considered, but not deemed sufficiently important to warrant attempting an extensive redesign of either ECS system.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on August 29, 2015, 05:05:53 PM


With regard to Apollo 13, I read somewhere that using the LM as a lifeboat was something that had been considered well in advance of the launch, and that they knew if they were going to do have to that, they would have problems with the carbon dioxide build up. Would an integration test for that scenario have picked up the non-interchangeability of the Lithium Hydroxide cartridges?

Some, but not all, lifeboat procedures had been simulated and documented. Sy Liebergot (page 142 of his autobiography) "I stood up and called TELMU Bob Heselmeyer, my LM counterpart. He was only ten feet to my right, but I called him on is loop. "Bob, do you remember the lifeboat procedures that we started to develop on that sim where we went round the Moon and lost cabin pressure? Did you guys ever work on those lifeboat procedures?"" The procedures weren't fully developed because NASA thought that a multiple failure of so many systems was unlikely (http://www.zshiftgroup.com/blog/simulation-and-the-true-story-behind-apollo-13-1286/).
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 29, 2015, 05:10:45 PM

The LM LiHO cartridges were annular, like some older car air filters.  The inlet supplied air to the outer perimeter, and the discharge was at the center.  This best fit the form factor of the LM ECS, tacked onto the bulkhead on the LMP's side.  The CM LiHO were straightforward axial filters.  The need to use one filter in the other system was considered, but not deemed sufficiently important to warrant attempting an extensive redesign of either ECS system.
Given that this was the case, why not start studying how to solve the problem in advance of when the CO2 partial pressure began to be a problem?  They might have instituted the corrective measures before the event actually happened?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 29, 2015, 05:17:46 PM
Given that this was the case, why not start studying how to solve the problem in advance of when the CO2 partial pressure began to be a problem?  They might have instituted the corrective measures before the event actually happened?

There was just too much to think about in the reactive mode.  The Apollo 13 incident is one of the most widely studied incidents in failure analysis, not only from the technical standpoint but from the psychological standpoint.  Engineers ironically have to study a lot of pyschology if they build systems that rely on human operators.  And the ground teams were focused first on how to save the mission, and thereafter on how to save the crew based on the failures that had already occurred.  The movie Apollo 13 overdramatizes it a little, but the CO2 problem wasn't considered crucial until the telemetry made the ground controllers take notice.

Engineers responding to a failure generally think first about how to drive the system to a stable state in order to buy time to fully analyze various solutions.  Hence with the crew "safely" in the LM it wasn't immediately apparent that they would overtax the LM's ECS.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 29, 2015, 05:36:03 PM

There was just too much to think about in the reactive mode.  The Apollo 13 incident is one of the most widely studied incidents in failure analysis, not only from the technical standpoint but from the psychological standpoint.  Engineers ironically have to study a lot of pyschology if they build systems that rely on human operators.  And the ground teams were focused first on how to save the mission, and thereafter on how to save the crew based on the failures that had already occurred.  The movie Apollo 13 overdramatizes it a little, but the CO2 problem wasn't considered crucial until the telemetry made the ground controllers take notice.

Engineers responding to a failure generally think first about how to drive the system to a stable state in order to buy time to fully analyze various solutions.  Hence with the crew "safely" in the LM it wasn't immediately apparent that they would overtax the LM's ECS.
I agree with crew safety concerns were paramount in the initial stages of the event.  And I agree with studying a design to be used by someone else especially when you are only talking to them about the procedure by voice.  I wasn't really referring to the movie when asked the question, rather since we have a situation like they were faced with do some problem solving (after the initial crew safety issues) into what more COULD happen.  I know that is how "we" react to situations where I work, identify the problem, solutions to fix/abate the problem and what more could happen with the given set of circumstances.  But that is the engineer in me talking, not the engineers at MCC.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 29, 2015, 06:41:17 PM
If someone asked me to film a test of a sublimator, my first question would be "Why?"  It just sits there.  It's like proving software works by filming a microprocessor.

Quite. Ralph Rene wrote about the PLSS sublimator and asked why water vapour/ice crystals were not seen being ejected into space from the 'blow-hole' of the PLSS.

I won't labour the reasons for that here, but Neil's demand for a video had me think about Ralph's claim. The reality is that we would not see a thing from the sublimator. That's why I think many of us want him to explain what sublimation means (with or without a phase diagram). One could film a vacuum needle showing a system is being pumped and just sit an unconneted sublimator in the vacuum and it would give the same visual result as the PLSS sublimator operating.

What is Neil expecting? Ralph Rene's venting blow hole? As Andromeda said, the video will show nothing, it is the data obtained that shows the effectiveness.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on August 29, 2015, 06:57:47 PM
If someone asked me to film a test of a sublimator, my first question would be "Why?"  It just sits there.  It's like proving software works by filming a microprocessor.

Quite. Ralph Rene wrote about the PLSS sublimator and asked why water vapour/ice crystals were not seen being ejected into space from the 'blow-hole' of the PLSS.

I won't labour the reasons for that here, but Neil's demand for a video had me think about Ralph's claim. The reality is that we would not see a thing from the sublimator. That's why I think many of use want him to explain what sublimation means (with or without a phase diagram). One could film a vacuum needle showing a system is being pumped and just sit an unconneted sublimator in the vacuum and it would give the same visual result as the PLSS sublimator operating.

What is Neil expecting? Ralph Rene's venting blow hole? As Andromeda said, the video will show nothing, it is the data obtained that shows the effectiveness.

And let's assume that Baker gets his video and even his ridiculous test. Does that then mean that he agrees with all of the documentation that has been presented to him? If that's the case, then he should be able to analyse the documentation and declare it bogus or valid. That's assuming that he has the skills and wherewithal to do so. if he hasn't, then he certainly would not be able to validate what is happening in a test or video.
The absence or presence of the video and/or test doesn't alter the documentation one jot. Either the documentation stands on its own or it doesn't Either which way, seeing it in action in a test chamber won't alter the veracity of the documentation.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: ka9q on August 30, 2015, 01:17:51 AM
The decision to leave it switched on was a late change, after integration testing.  The phase lock protocol between the redundant radar power supplies wasn't considered a critical factor (or even, at the time, well publicized).  Hence it was written off as "no big deal."

Turning on the rendezvous radar (actually leaving it in "standby") was not a "checklist error" as is often reported. But it was added to the checklist at a late date. The idea was to have it warmed up in case it was needed for an abort.

The specs for the two 800 Hz references only called for frequency lock, not phase lock. This was even noted during test but forgotten as unimportant. It wasn't noticed in the simulator because it wasn't a complete simulation of the LM, only those parts relevant to training the crew.

Apollo was before the days of optical shaft encoders so the rendezvous radar adapted an device called a Synchro (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchro) that had been widely used during WW2 in naval fire control systems. An actual synchro motor was used on the antenna and a "virtual" one was used on the computer to produce angle information for the A/D converters.

The whole gory story is here: http://www.doneyles.com/LM/Tales.html (http://www.doneyles.com/LM/Tales.html)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on August 30, 2015, 02:08:33 AM
I've read that before I believe, and it raises, yet again, a question us non-techy types can ask: Why, in all heck, would NASA pretend to make mistakes like this that would make them and their contractors look bad? It's not quite on the level of proof, or anything more than circumstantial evidence, but it's a good question nonetheless, I think.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on August 30, 2015, 05:06:16 AM
Apollo was before the days of optical shaft encoders so the rendezvous radar adapted an device called a Synchro (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchro) that had been widely used during WW2 in naval fire control systems. An actual synchro motor was used on the antenna and a "virtual" one was used on the computer to produce angle information for the A/D converters.

Jeez that brings back a few fond memories.

My dad had a selsyn synchro motor system to drive his 20m band cubical quad. He had a synchro transmitter in his ham shack with a 360° dial and a knob with a pointer. He would read off a Great Circle map the bearing he wanted, turn the knob around to the desired bearing and the motor on the mast head would turn the antenna accordingly.   
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Dr_Orpheus on August 30, 2015, 09:05:20 AM
I've read that before I believe, and it raises, yet again, a question us non-techy types can ask: Why, in all heck, would NASA pretend to make mistakes like this that would make them and their contractors look bad? It's not quite on the level of proof, or anything more than circumstantial evidence, but it's a good question nonetheless, I think.

The late Dr. Patrick claimed that NASA put mistakes in the "narrative" and even faked Borman's illness to increase the drama or something like that.   I'm not digging through hundreds of pages of threads to get his exact words on the subject.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 30, 2015, 09:59:13 AM

The late Dr. Patrick claimed that NASA put mistakes in the "narrative" and even faked Borman's illness to increase the drama or something like that.   I'm not digging through hundreds of pages of threads to get his exact words on the subject.
I believe that Dr. Patrick's narrative is incorrect.  According to the post flight report http://history.nasa.gov/ap08fj/pdf/a08-missionreport.pdf page 175
Quote
During the 6.l-day lunar orbital flight, the three crewmen accumulated
441 man-hours of space flight experience. For the first time in
the space program, the crew reported symptoms of motion sickness during
the adaptation phase of the intravehicular activity.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Dr_Orpheus on August 30, 2015, 11:50:09 AM

I believe that Dr. Patrick's narrative is incorrect.  According to the post flight report http://history.nasa.gov/ap08fj/pdf/a08-missionreport.pdf page 175
Quote
During the 6.l-day lunar orbital flight, the three crewmen accumulated
441 man-hours of space flight experience. For the first time in
the space program, the crew reported symptoms of motion sickness during
the adaptation phase of the intravehicular activity.

Saying Patrick Tekel AKA, DR T, fattydash, Patrick1000 and numerous sock puppets was incorrect is a lot like saying the Pacific Ocean has water in it.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 30, 2015, 12:23:35 PM

Saying Patrick Tekel AKA, DR T, fattydash, Patrick1000 and numerous sock puppets was incorrect is a lot like saying the Pacific Ocean has water in it.
Ah ok, I thought that might have been someone who knew something.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Dr_Orpheus on August 30, 2015, 01:33:51 PM
Ah ok, I thought that might have been someone who knew something.

Sorry, I didn't realize that you weren't familiar with the stupendous intellect of Dr Socks.   Here's a very long thread started by him if you are curious.    http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=216531&highlight=lick (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=216531&highlight=lick)

Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gillianren on August 30, 2015, 01:44:44 PM

Saying Patrick Tekel AKA, DR T, fattydash, Patrick1000 and numerous sock puppets was incorrect is a lot like saying the Pacific Ocean has water in it.
Ah ok, I thought that might have been someone who knew something.

I don't dispute that he must have known something, but nothing relevant.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 30, 2015, 02:02:17 PM

Saying Patrick Tekel AKA, DR T, fattydash, Patrick1000 and numerous sock puppets was incorrect is a lot like saying the Pacific Ocean has water in it.
Ah ok, I thought that might have been someone who knew something.

I don't dispute that he must have known something, but nothing relevant.

I stand corrected again. :)

EDIT: Moved my comment outside the last closed quote
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: ka9q on August 30, 2015, 05:09:21 PM
My dad had a selsyn synchro motor system to drive his 20m band cubical quad.
Sure it was a Selsyn? They were generally rather low torque, much too low to drive a large HF antenna.

Antenna rotors are common, and virtually all use AC (some use DC) motors to drive gears that turn the antenna. A potentiometer detects mast angle, and this is sent back to the control box where it drives the indicator and stops rotation when it reaches the desired spot.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on August 30, 2015, 07:26:58 PM
My dad had a selsyn synchro motor system to drive his 20m band cubical quad.
Sure it was a Selsyn? They were generally rather low torque, much too low to drive a large HF antenna.

Antenna rotors are common, and virtually all use AC (some use DC) motors to drive gears that turn the antenna. A potentiometer detects mast angle, and this is sent back to the control box where it drives the indicator and stops rotation when it reaches the desired spot.

Well it was a long time ago, I was about 10 years old (I am 60 next month), however, I remember Dad calling it a "selsyn motor".

It also had a separate dial that sat on top of his HRO right next to the speaker (in fact it was housed in an identical box to the speaker, a stippled black finish). It showed where the antenna was actually pointing; he would turn the knob (sometimes he would let me turn it) until the pointer pointed to, say, 270°. You could hear the humming of the motor and the dial would track around gradually until it too pointed to 270°. Perhaps I misunderstood and the dial arrangement was a selsyn?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: ka9q on August 30, 2015, 07:45:12 PM
Although I've never seen it done that way, yes, it's quite possible that a selsyn was used to display the position of the rotator on the control box. This is just how a lot of Navy warships used them to display gun positions at remote locations.

But the rotator itself was almost certainly driven by a conventional motor. A very popular design uses a two (rather than three) phase AC induction motor with a capacitor between the hot sides of the two windings. You apply AC power to one winding or the other and the motor turns in the corresponding direction.

Nearly all rotators today use a potentiometer to produce a DC voltage proportional to the position, and this voltage is sent back down to the control box where it is displayed on an analog or digital meter.

As a kid in the 1960s we had a TV rotator that pulsed a switch every N degrees that would energize an electromagnet in the control box and step an indicator needle around the circle. It kept getting out of sync, so you'd have to run the rotator into one stop and then push a button on the control box until it also read at the stop. I've never seen it anywhere else.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 30, 2015, 10:54:03 PM
I found this book published in 1993 that mentions spacesuit ice sublimators.
https://books.google.com/books?id=fb4QAQAAMAAJ&q=spacesuit+ice+sublimator&dq=spacesuit+ice+sublimator&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDYQ6AEwBDgKahUKEwjty7GimNLHAhXVKYgKHZUTC2k

I searched hard for a second Internet photo of a spacesuit ice sublimator with no success but in 2007 Harold McCann, coauthor of U.S. Spacesuits

http://www.amazon.com/Spacesuits-Springer-Praxis-Books-Exploration/dp/144199565X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1440988637&sr=8-1&keywords=u.S.+spacesuits

sent me two additional photos of ice sublimators from his private collection so I know they exist even though they weren't on the Internet.

And except for that one 1966 video of a spacesuit without sublimator failing with a near-fatality, I can't find any others. I've read the comments and I agree that there would be little to see  if a vacuum chamber were filmed and little could be proven by it but considering the crucial nature of those tests and the unique nature of the heat transfer device, I'm surprised more public attention wasn't focused on the sublimators.

Reading many of the links provided, it was surprising to learn that none of the test reports indicated that an astronaut was in the vacuum chamber at the same time the sublimator was being tested. They would place the sublimator in a vacuum chamber with a suited astronaut outside on a treadmill. The Rice University tests used an electric heater to supply the heat load for the sublimator in a vacuum chamber. I didn't understand the units he used to describe vacuum chamber pressure.

Anyway, although I now know much more about the sublimators, I still have doubts that astronauts have performed EVAs in the vacuum of space. Testimony of Independent witnesses observing a spacesuit with sublimator operating in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit is not, in my opinion, an unreasonable request.
If NASA is using those spacesuit for EVAs as they allege then they've been regularly testing them for more than 50 years as they also allege. It should cost nothing extra and pose little inconvenience to allow independent observers. Plus it would add validation to NASA's Citizen supported activity.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 30, 2015, 11:04:47 PM
Anyway, although I now know much more about the sublimators, I still have doubts that astronauts have performed EVAs in the vacuum of space.

Of course you do.  You had those doubts before you were told how they worked.  And you still have that doubt, because you explained why you need that doubt in order to satisfy your personal pet projects in other areas.  As such, it will never go away despite that the available information satisfies everyone except you, including those who work in the field.  As was amply shown, your willy-nilly requests for others to provide information, accompanied by goalposts that move so fast they create sonic booms, cannot possibly be calculated to form part of any serious study.

Since you've conceded that information regarding sublimators existed prior to 2007, please retract your claim that you instigated recent publication.  And please apologize to your critics for insinuating that you had made a thorough enough search prior to the claim, which you have now admitted indirectly was not true.

Quote
Testimony of Independent witnesses observing a spacesuit with sublimator operating in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit is not, in my opinion, an unreasonable request.

It is, for the reasons already specified and which you stubbornly refuse to address.  You are the only one who doubts they work.  And frankly, you're just not that important.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Trebor on August 30, 2015, 11:23:15 PM
I still have doubts that astronauts have performed EVAs in the vacuum of space.
Why exactly?
I don't think you have ever given an actual reason why the sublimation of water in a vacuum would not be a suitable way to remove heat.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: nomuse on August 30, 2015, 11:44:52 PM
Ah, yes. We've tested that hammers work. We've tested that nails work. But there is no possible way of telling if you could hammer a nail. Because something mysterious might happen when you put together an astronaut AND radiant heat AND "high" vacuum AND a sublimator AND...I dunno, a Mickey Mouse Wristwatch, because if you are going to assume completely unpredictable interactions between individually well-behaved elements, you can't rule any addition to the system out.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 30, 2015, 11:57:02 PM

Reading many of the links provided, it was surprising to learn that none of the test reports indicated that an astronaut was in the vacuum chamber at the same time the sublimator was being tested. They would place the sublimator in a vacuum chamber with a suited astronaut outside on a treadmill. The Rice University tests used an electric heater to supply the heat load for the sublimator in a vacuum chamber. I didn't understand the units he used to describe vacuum chamber pressure.
Why is this surprising?  The sublimators in the vacuum chamber worked as expected cooling the individual on the tread mill.  Only your narrow perspective of how a test should be conducted is in question by all of us.
Quote

Anyway, although I now know much more about the sublimators, I still have doubts that astronauts have performed EVAs in the vacuum of space. Testimony of Independent witnesses observing a spacesuit with sublimator operating in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit is not, in my opinion, an unreasonable request.
It is when you are the only one asking for the test, when it has been made abundantly clear they work as advertised in a vacuum.  You are holed up in your opinion of yourself and refuse to learn what has been presented.
Quote

If NASA is using those spacesuit for EVAs as they allege then they've been regularly testing them for more than 50 years as they also allege. It should cost nothing extra and pose little inconvenience to allow independent observers. Plus it would add validation to NASA's Citizen supported activity.
The only validation is in your mind, the rest of the world accepts that they work, and even has imagery of them working at various locations.  These locations you also refuse to acknowledge even though one of them you can see with the naked eye.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 31, 2015, 12:16:16 AM
Jay--Well, the fact remains that the photo of the ice sublimator didn't appear in 2007 when I searched. Harold McCann looked also and couldn't find the photo. Also, I was able to make the claim that no photo existed on the Internet until only recently. I don't know exactly when it appeared. It may very well have been there buried deep and we didn't use the correct description to bring it up but it didn't come up when "spacesuit ice sublimator" was typed in the Google search engine.

As for the no textbook mentioning ice sublimators, I'm not sure the Chinese publication in 2010 was not instigated by my dispute regarding the subject of ice sublimators since I was disputing them in 2007 in many places and nobody presented me with any evidence to the contrary.  The Chinese performed a spacewalk in suits that I suspect they say they cooled with sublimators and so might have thought they needed to cover that base.  But still, 1993 is the earliest I can find and that's odd too since they've allegedly been using them since at least 1969. But it just might be that I haven't located the book yet. It might be there from 1968. I'll keep searching.

But even you should confess that it is strange. Despite being one of the most interesting heat transfer devices, so little visual information is given regarding them. Except for the one photo and some different line drawings, there's nothing. Yes, video of the tests might not show much but they could have shown the experiment setups with treadmill and suited subject outside the vacuum chamber. Roughing pumps, turbo pumps, gauges. It is an interesting, potentially dangerous and very crucial aspect of the testing program and so, if only from a PR perspective, it is expected that NASA would cover it. If not then, then now when they've finally been challenged to do so.

And still, having read what I've read, I'm still a bit confused. None of the test reports indicate that any human in a spacesuit ever entered a vacuum chamber that was pumped down to high vacuum conditions. Something is very wrong with the picture and I'm wondering if your dedicated enthusiasm for Apollo has blinded you to the possibility that this area of the technology was not adequately documented to avoid suspicion.

Trebor--I have no reason why it wouldn't be a suitable way to remove heat. It sounds cool (no pun intended). I was fascinated when I first learned about it but like I described in my first post, it was when I went to learn more and found so little of what I expected to find that I started to doubt.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Trebor on August 31, 2015, 12:20:58 AM
I still have doubts that astronauts have performed EVAs in the vacuum of space.
Why exactly?
Trebor--I have no reason why it wouldn't be a suitable way to remove heat.
So what is the problem exactly?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 31, 2015, 12:24:48 AM
bknight--would you go into space to perform an EVA without having donned that suit and sublimator and tested them in a high vacuum chamber on Earth first? Is my perspective really that narrow? I think it should represent common sense of any reasonably responsible astronaut that the answer is no.

It is very puzzling to me why it's only me, especially among this very smart crowd, that is asking for the test. I have learned what is presented and it's not clear at all that they work as advertised.

I've heard the Latin word for truth is veritas. It's where we get the word verify. In a way, from a semantics perspective, the Scientific Method is older than we ever thought although Francis Bacon is supposed to have formalized the procedure.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 31, 2015, 12:32:17 AM

So what is the problem exactly?

When I went to find more information about them in 2007, I couldn't find a photograph, or a video or a citation in any academic-level book.  A single photo has since appeared and I have today identified a book from 1993 that mentions them but still it's far less than what I expected considering that spacesuit ice sublimators are one of the most exotic heat transfer devices ever developed. I can't understand why they aren't more appreciated. If I had a freshman thermo class, the question I'd ask them in the course is, how would you cool a spacesuit in the vacuum of space if you had nothing to conduct to, nothing to convect to and no radiator?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 31, 2015, 12:32:39 AM
Jay--Well, the fact remains...

Not a fact.  You've already pled incompetent at net searches, so we're done with that point.

Quote
As for the no textbook...

Weasel words.  You said no textbook mentioned it.  You were wrong, but you won't admit it.  This means you're arguing in bad faith.

Quote
But even you should confess that it is strange.

No, I should not.  I was writing about sublimators in 2002.  Your attempt to trump up a controversy about it years later convinces no one.

Quote
And still, having read what I've read, I'm still a bit confused. None of the test reports indicate that any human in a spacesuit...

Shifting goalposts.  And you probably don't realize that this latest shift pretty much exposes you as entirely ignorant of human test subject protocols and engineering test protocols.  Give it up, Baker.  You're a complete ignoramus on this subject, and that -- not some farfetched conspiracy -- is why no one pays attention to you.

Quote
your dedicated enthusiasm for Apollo has blinded...

Nice try, Baker.  This is an emotional argument for you, not me.

Quote
...this area of the technology was not adequately documented to avoid suspicion.

Let me repeat that you're talking about my profession, about which you demonstrate absolutely no correct knowledge.  Maybe your explicitly stated zeal to use NASA and Apollo as proxies for your 9/11 obsession -- which has reached criminal proportions -- has blinded you to the fairly obvious fact that you're the only one who claims nickel porous plate sublimators can't work and weren't adequately tested.

Quote
..it was when I went to learn more and found so little of what I expected to find that I started to doubt.

But you didn't actually go, as we've determined and as you've lately, indirectly, admitted.  And your expectations are laughably absurd.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Trebor on August 31, 2015, 12:32:48 AM
bknight--would you go into space to perform an EVA without having donned that suit and sublimator and tested them in a high vacuum chamber on Earth first?

I see no reason why I would not, because the space suits have been tested many, many times in orbit by several countries. What exactly do you think the problem is here?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 31, 2015, 12:33:21 AM
And except for that one 1966 video of a spacesuit without sublimator failing with a near-fatality, I can't find any others. I've read the comments and I agree that there would be little to see  if a vacuum chamber were filmed and little could be proven by it but considering the crucial nature of those tests and the unique nature of the heat transfer device, I'm surprised more public attention wasn't focused on the sublimators.
More Orlan vacuum chamber testing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVsDa_bkXjU

Early US pressure suit vacuum chamber testing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTLTptXx28s

You really are incredibly incompetent at research, aren't you?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 31, 2015, 12:35:01 AM
When I went to find more information about them in 2007, I couldn't find a photograph, or a video or a citation in any academic-level book.

We've already demonstrated how incompetent you are at the relevant research.  That, not some conspiracy, is why you were "unable" to find relevant information.  That, and the stated need to find NASA in some sort of intellectual default so that you could leverage that for your 9/11 fantasy.

Quote
I can't understand why they aren't more appreciated.

They are.  Every manned spacefaring country uses them.  Your ignorance does not create a legitimate controversy.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Trebor on August 31, 2015, 12:38:25 AM

So what is the problem exactly?

When I went to find more information about them in 2007, I couldn't find a photograph, or a video or a citation in any academic-level book.

And from what we have seen, that is just down to you not being very good at searching for information.

.. it's far less than what I expected considering that spacesuit ice sublimators are one of the most exotic heat transfer devices ever developed.

Exotic? Really? It is an extremely basic principle.
Neatly demonstrated in this video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOYgdQp4euc

I can't understand why they aren't more appreciated.
Probably because there is nothing 'exotic' about them, it is a basic behaviour of water in a vacuum.

Which leads back into my original question; What is the problem with this system? Is there any particular reason you think it would not work?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Peter B on August 31, 2015, 12:39:05 AM
I found this book published in 1993 that mentions spacesuit ice sublimators.
https://books.google.com/books?id=fb4QAQAAMAAJ&q=spacesuit+ice+sublimator&dq=spacesuit+ice+sublimator&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDYQ6AEwBDgKahUKEwjty7GimNLHAhXVKYgKHZUTC2k

I searched hard for a second Internet photo of a spacesuit ice sublimator with no success but in 2007 Harold McCann, coauthor of U.S. Spacesuits

http://www.amazon.com/Spacesuits-Springer-Praxis-Books-Exploration/dp/144199565X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1440988637&sr=8-1&keywords=u.S.+spacesuits

sent me two additional photos of ice sublimators from his private collection so I know they exist even though they weren't on the Internet.

And except for that one 1966 video of a spacesuit without sublimator failing with a near-fatality, I can't find any others.

What about this page: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/plss.html

Quote
I've read the comments and I agree that there would be little to see  if a vacuum chamber were filmed and little could be proven by it...

Fair enough.

Quote
...but considering the crucial nature of those tests and the unique nature of the heat transfer device, I'm surprised more public attention wasn't focused on the sublimators.

Aaaargh!

You just accepted that there'd be "little to see" if the test was done the way you want. Why do you think the "public" would show any interest in a white box sitting in a chamber where there was "little to see"? What sort of insight do you think you have into where "public attention" should be focused?

Quote
Reading many of the links provided, it was surprising to learn that none of the test reports indicated that an astronaut was in the vacuum chamber at the same time the sublimator was being tested. They would place the sublimator in a vacuum chamber with a suited astronaut outside on a treadmill. The Rice University tests used an electric heater to supply the heat load for the sublimator in a vacuum chamber. I didn't understand the units he used to describe vacuum chamber pressure.

Why the surprise? If the purpose of the test is to ensure the sublimator works in a vacuum, why put anything else in the vacuum chamber? Why risk the astronaut's life from having something unexpected happen to some other piece of hardware? You can save all-up tests until you've confirmed the sublimator works according to specs.

To provide an alternative example, when the RAF first tested Barnes Wallis's dam-buster bomb during World War Two, they didn't put live explosives inside the casings. They simply substituted it with another material of the same weight, because all they were testing was whether the casings were strong enough.

Quote
Anyway, although I now know much more about the sublimators, I still have doubts that astronauts have performed EVAs in the vacuum of space. Testimony of Independent witnesses observing a spacesuit with sublimator operating in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit is not, in my opinion, an unreasonable request.

Do you realise how tight NASA's budget is? You may think your request is perfectly reasonable. The problem is that there's any number of people with similar "perfectly reasonable" requests, and if NASA was to meet your request they'd have to meet everyone else's too. NASA would be left with no money to actually do what the US Congress wants it to.

Quote
If NASA is using those spacesuit for EVAs as they allege then they've been regularly testing them for more than 50 years as they also allege. It should cost nothing extra and pose little inconvenience to allow independent observers. Plus it would add validation to NASA's Citizen supported activity.

The Soviets/Russians have been using similar techniques for years. Why don't you ask them? Or do you think they've been faking their space record too? Please answer this question as I've now asked it three times.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 31, 2015, 12:39:55 AM
bknight--would you go into space to perform an EVA without having donned that suit and sublimator and tested them in a high vacuum chamber on Earth first?

The sublimators were tested.  You've been given copious amount of documentation on that, which you have predictably swept aside in favor of your new goalposts.  Now you say an astronaut has to be in the suit for the tests, as if the sublimator cares where its heat load comes from.

Honestly, you have an engineering degree.  How frankly inept are you going to be in order to pursue your obsession?

Quote
Is my perspective really that narrow?

Yes.

Quote
It is very puzzling to me why it's only me, especially among this very smart crowd, that is asking for the test.

Yeah, you should continue to ponder that.  When it's you on one side and every other smart, qualified, experienced person on the other side, that should give you pause.

Quote
I have learned what is presented and it's not clear at all that they work as advertised.

Bare denial.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 31, 2015, 12:47:18 AM
The problem is that there's any number of people with similar "perfectly reasonable" requests, and if NASA was to meet your request they'd have to meet everyone else's too. NASA would be left with no money to actually do what the US Congress wants it to.

Well, what Congress wants it to do is another whole debate.

But yes, you've hit the nail on the head.  Neil Baker is convinced he's the special snowflake, so important in the grand scheme of things that the government had to "trump up" charges against him to silence him.  Nothing is so dangerous as a crackpot on a mission.  And for the present time, that mission is to show that some singular component in a $23 billion civil engineering project is so worth verifying to him personally that NASA has to allow him and his "witnesses" unfettered access.

Neil, please get this into your head very firmly:

You're not important and you don't know what you're taking about.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Peter B on August 31, 2015, 12:49:16 AM
If I had a freshman thermo class, the question I'd ask them in the course is, how would you cool a spacesuit in the vacuum of space if you had nothing to conduct to, nothing to convect to and no radiator?

No radiator? Isn't that what a sublimator is? A device to radiate heat?

How can you say a spacesuit with a sublimator has no radiator?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 31, 2015, 12:55:12 AM
What about this page: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/plss.html
Quote

That's the same photo. Absurdly, the only photo on the Internet. (I possess two others not on the Internet)

Do you realise how tight NASA's budget is? You may think your request is perfectly reasonable. The problem is that there's any number of people with similar "perfectly reasonable" requests, and if NASA was to meet your request they'd have to meet everyone else's too. NASA would be left with no money to actually do what the US Congress wants it to.
Quote

I suspect I'm the only person that has called NASA asking to witness a spacesuit in a vacuum chamber test. And it wouldn't cost them anything extra.

The Soviets/Russians have been using similar techniques for years. Why don't you ask them? Or do you think they've been faking their space record too? Please answer this question as I've now asked it three times.

I don't speak or read Russian, I don't know who to contact. I don't know if they're faking it just like I don't know if we're faking it. I have my doubts because I don't have scientific validation. Neither do you but that hasn't kept you from saying you know something that there's no way for you to know. The best we can do is believe and that's unacceptable.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 31, 2015, 12:57:27 AM
If I had a freshman thermo class, the question I'd ask them in the course is, how would you cool a spacesuit in the vacuum of space if you had nothing to conduct to, nothing to convect to and no radiator?

No radiator? Isn't that what a sublimator is? A device to radiate heat?

How can you say a spacesuit with a sublimator has no radiator?

Well, a radiator is something that rejects heat via radiative heat transfer.  Car "radiators" are really convective heat exchangers.  The notion that there's "no radiator" in space is absolutely ludicrous.  We don't typically use water-operator porous plate sublimators on long-term missions because they require a consumable supply of water.  The most typical phase-change heat sink in space engineering uses paraffin as the phase-susceptible material.  There are closed-cycle paraffin exchangers and open-cycle ones, typically reserved for emergencies.  Radiation is the most common method of rejecting heat aboard a spacecraft.

For spacesuits, the radiator assembly would be cumbersome.  And since EVAs are time-bounded for other reasons (e.g., astronaut fatigue), it's perfectly acceptable to use a highly efficient heat reject method that nevertheless requires a replenishable consumable -- cooling water.

Thermodynamics is not the same as heat transfer.  If I were teaching a freshman thermodynamics course and some freshman said in class that porous plate sublimators couldn't work, he'd be going home that night with a very hefty homework assignment.  Note that Baker, for all his bluster, has evaded every single request to show from a thermodynamics or heat transfer standpoint, complete with equations etc., that his claim has merit in the physical sciences.

That's because he can't, and he knows he can't.  He just needs to stir up enough doubt by handwaving at test protocols to plausibly (to laymen) accuse NASA of lying.  Then he can, as he as stated is his aim, try to say that the government also lied about 9/11.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 31, 2015, 01:00:24 AM

That's the same photo. Absurdly, the only photo on the Internet. (I possess two others not on the Internet)

I suspect I'm the only person that has called NASA asking to witness a spacesuit in a vacuum chamber test. And it wouldn't cost them anything extra.

I don't speak or read Russian, I don't know who to contact. I don't know if they're faking it just like I don't know if we're faking it. I have my doubts because I don't have scientific validation. Neither do you but that hasn't kept you from saying you know something that there's no way for you to know. The best we can do is believe and that's unacceptable.
here:

http://www.google.ie/imgres?imgurl=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Apollo_portable_life_support_system.jpg&imgrefurl=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_Life_Support_System&h=3727&w=4711&tbnid=sd6LaOuIDyffGM:&docid=h01wvtICf35bjM&ei=mt3jVfewJ8ud7gbGnJfoBg&tbm=isch&ved=0CCcQMygGMAZqFQoTCPflo6HD0scCFcuO2wodRs4FbQ

And here:
http://www.google.ie/imgres?imgurl=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/A7L_plss.jpg&imgrefurl=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_Life_Support_System&h=1958&w=1234&tbnid=8UrDKoYXdGTBEM:&docid=h01wvtICf35bjM&ei=mt3jVfewJ8ud7gbGnJfoBg&tbm=isch&ved=0CEIQMygXMBdqFQoTCPflo6HD0scCFcuO2wodRs4FbQ

And so forth. Hell, the sublimators are so old hat alternatives are being actively worked on, like here:
http://www.tda.com/Library/docs/2008-01-2111.pdf
with pictures for your viewing pleasure.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 31, 2015, 01:02:49 AM
PeterB--one of the things I learned in heat transfer class was that there are only three modes of heat transfer--conduction, convection and radiation. I haven't been able decide which mode is represented by an ice sublimator.

A radiator is not a sublimator nor vice versa.
A radiator radiates heat.
A sublimator liberates heat by facilitating the phase change of ice directly to steam.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 31, 2015, 01:04:34 AM
I suspect I'm the only person that has called NASA asking to witness a spacesuit in a vacuum chamber test.

Try to work out why.

Quote
And it wouldn't cost them anything extra.

Hogwash.  You said you wanted your witnesses to be able to integrate their own monitoring equipment into the test.  Why do you think that wouldn't cost NASA extra?  NASA doesn't test every individual sublimator in an all-up test in a full-scale, high-vacuum test with a human subject.  Why?  Because it's not necessary, and to do so would be unnecessary, immoral, and inefficient.  Hence the next vacuum-chamber test of a sublimator is likely to be well into the future, when new sublimator designs require it.

You are not at all conversant in engineering test protocols.  Your assessment of what is required and what it would additionally cost is pure fantasy.

Quote
I don't speak or read Russian,

Your ongoing incompetence at the relevant research is not a valid excuse.

Quote
...I don't have scientific validation. Neither do you...

False.  You don't get to dictate what, for everyone, is "scientific validation."  In fact, what you've proposed is eminently non-scientific.  You may assiduously wish to believe otherwise for personal reasons, but not everyone is as ignorantly in the dark as you are.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Trebor on August 31, 2015, 01:06:17 AM
PeterB--one of the things I learned in heat transfer class was that there are only three modes of heat transfer--conduction, convection and radiation. I haven't been able decide which mode is represented by an ice sublimator.

Then maybe you should go back to school and learn that energy is required to turn a solid to a gas...
Why exactly would the sublimation of ice in a vacuum not work very effectively to remove heat?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 31, 2015, 01:09:48 AM
I haven't been able decide which mode is represented by an ice sublimator.

Then I would have failed you if I were teaching that class.  Phase-change cooling predates rational engineering.  It was discovered via practical application.  It was covered at length, including its history, in several of the references provided to you, which you obviously have taken little if any time to read.

Astronaut to LGC:  conductive.
LGC to sublimator:  convective.
Sublimator secondary to primary:  conductive
Sublimator primary to working substance:  conductive

If it's a mystery to you that the phase change in the working substance has a heat component to its computation, then I would petition your university to withdraw your engineering degree.  Heat of sublimation is a very elementary concept.  If you don't understand that phase changes in a substance, not involving a temperature change, results in heat changes then you are not competent to practice engineering.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 31, 2015, 01:12:07 AM
Jay--I'd enjoy a discussion with you but if you're going to hurl hard names and insults at me, I'll just ignore you. Please behave. You're very bright. You don't have to be ugly.

Trebor--Sublimation should work but that's not the issue. The issue is the validation that it works.

Abaddon--I'm sorry but I'm looking for a second photo of a sublimator.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Trebor on August 31, 2015, 01:16:40 AM
Trebor--Sublimation should work but that's not the issue. The issue is the validation that it works.

Validation? Of what?
It is really basic physics here. It is known exactly how much energy is needed to turn ice to a gas.
What is the actual mystery?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 31, 2015, 01:23:14 AM
Jay--I'd enjoy a discussion with you but if you're going to hurl hard names and insults at me, I'll just ignore you.

Why would this be any different than what you've done for the past eight years?  You can't get traction among the engineering community because you are demonstrably incompetent, criminally sociopathic, and you ignore every attempt to educate you.  No, you don't enjoy a discussion with me because you've disingenuously ignored already nearly everything I've said.

I am not the only professional engineer here, and frankly you are an embarrassment to the profession.  The codes of ethics promulgated by ASME, NSPE, AIAA and other professional organizations encourage us to crack down on the incompetent and unqualified practice of the profession.  You have demonstrated that and more.  If you feel you have been unfairly insulted, you're free to report me to the moderator.

I know you want nothing more than an excuse to ignore your critics.  You desperately need to believe that you're a great American hero on a mission.  But you are not.  You are a failed engineer and a criminal vandal.  You have no credibility, and you deserve none for your inexcusable misuse of the engineering profession.  If ignoring me is how you continue to believe you're somehow the only human on earth who can find truth, so be it.  But it will not make the facts go away, and the more you rage against them, the more likely you are to find yourself ostracized from civil society.

Quote
The issue is the validation that it works.

They have been validated to work by hundreds of bench tests and fifty years of practical application.  Your unwillingness to accept that is your own problem.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Peter B on August 31, 2015, 01:57:29 AM
What about this page: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/plss.html

That's the same photo. Absurdly, the only photo on the Internet. (I possess two others not on the Internet)

What do you mean "the same photo"? That page has about a dozen photos of the PLSS. You don't get to say there's only one photo when that page has more than one.

Quote
Do you realise how tight NASA's budget is? You may think your request is perfectly reasonable. The problem is that there's any number of people with similar "perfectly reasonable" requests, and if NASA was to meet your request they'd have to meet everyone else's too. NASA would be left with no money to actually do what the US Congress wants it to.

I suspect I'm the only person that has called NASA asking to witness a spacesuit in a vacuum chamber test. And it wouldn't cost them anything extra.

How would it not cost extra? You want NASA to test its spacesuits according to your standards rather than theirs. Changing the test setup is going to cost money in equipment and in the salaries of the staff needed to make the changes - presumably all the while with you breathing down their necks to make sure it's all done to your standards.

At the moment my gig is payroll. If you were to tell me that you didn't trust the way I calculated your pay and you wanted to sit with me while I calculated your payroll individually (as opposed to the other few hundred people I'm responsible for), all the while questioning every calculation I did, I'd be getting my time for that job charged back to your work area. I wonder how long your boss would put up with that expense, along with your unproductive time watching me?

Quote
The Soviets/Russians have been using similar techniques for years. Why don't you ask them? Or do you think they've been faking their space record too? Please answer this question as I've now asked it three times.
I don't speak or read Russian, I don't know who to contact. I don't know if they're faking it just like I don't know if we're faking it. I have my doubts because I don't have scientific validation. Neither do you but that hasn't kept you from saying you know something that there's no way for you to know. The best we can do is believe and that's unacceptable.

Seriously, your personal validation is the only way you verify facts? Isn't there anyone you trust to give you reliable information about subjects you're personally unfamiliar with?

I trust the historians of the Soviet and Russian space programs, who've verified to their satisfaction what's real and not real about the programs.

In any case, if NASA faked Apollo because the sublimators didn't work, don't you think the Soviets would have been smart enough to work this out? Or do you think they were in on the fake too?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 31, 2015, 02:06:35 AM
Apollo 11 report on the suit & PLSS, pre- and post-flight.

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/A11CSD.pdf

See how many times the words 'test' and 'testing' comes up.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 31, 2015, 02:07:55 AM
If you were to tell me that you didn't trust the way I calculated your pay and you wanted to sit with me while I calculated your payroll individually (as opposed to the other few hundred people I'm responsible for), all the while questioning every calculation I did, I'd be getting my time for that job charged back to your work area. I wonder how long your boss would put up with that expense, along with your unproductive time watching me?

I think he might also get the Aldrin treatment...
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: ka9q on August 31, 2015, 02:17:52 AM
Astronaut to LGC:  conductive.
LGC to sublimator:  convective.
Sublimator secondary to primary:  conductive
Sublimator primary to working substance:  conductive
And "working substance to space" is arguably convection.

Convection is heat transfer by the physical movement of a heat-carrying substance. In this case, steam is physically moving from the sublimator to space, carrying heat with it. The pressure within the steam vent is quite low, but it is not a vacuum.

Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 31, 2015, 02:24:27 AM
Apollo 12 PLSS location in LRO image, as one example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFuKCB7L1WY

Apollo 17 located at the foot of the ladder:



You can see that PLSS in the 16mm footage taken inside.

There is footage on youtube of the PLSS actually being discarded, and the full broadcast ended with a time and date specific shot of Earth.

There are also images of a discarded PLSS showing where it bounced.

Not only does Mr Baker need to disprove that the PLSS are not capable of use on the lunar surface, he also needs to prove that discarded PLSS units can't be seen on the lunar surface in probe images and in live TV and video that shows other verifiable lunar surface features.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 31, 2015, 02:42:50 AM
Here's an astronaut wearing a PLSS on the front page of a newspaper:

(http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/sights/wpimages/wp9f15b330_05_06.jpg)

It appeared in the newspaper on the day after it was broadcast to Earth.

There are features in that image that were not photographed by any pre-Apollo probes.

What exactly is keeping this astronaut cool then?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 31, 2015, 02:50:52 AM
f I had a freshman thermo class, the question I'd ask them in the course is, how would you cool a spacesuit in the vacuum of space if you had nothing to conduct to, nothing to convect to and no radiator?

I'd conduct (excuse the pun) research and find that there are many documents on the internet dating back to the 1960s that explain how porous plate sublimators are used in the PLSS of spacesuits. Hardly a testing question Professor. Hell, there's even a PhD thesis on the topic that reports the vacuum parameters that are used. I would then write up my research as a paper and you could mark it. If you failed me I'd report you to the Dean and explain that I think you are wholly incompetent to teach. How do you like them apples?

A sublimator liberates heat by facilitating the phase change of ice directly to steam.

So finally, we have arrived at you describing the phase change associated with sublimators. So, what would expect to see from a video of a sublimator in a vacuum exactly? Do you expect it to look like a boiling kettle?

Also, why do we need a human to test a sublimator? Why can we not simulate the thermal load of a human and measure the effectiveness of a sublimator to remove heat from a coolant?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 31, 2015, 03:14:24 AM

Abaddon--I'm sorry but I'm looking for a second photo of a sublimator.

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTT1Fqkun-qpbbPxfR2dfG3OJ5h7NZbjER9eYLFrJ9iguU-mPyN

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSxGWG8dqlw4MBN-OvLl4kNVhC2aFD_SMDYL8fzbFjOsbcGAdy6

http://enu.kz/repository/2011/AIAA-2011-5187.pdf

And?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on August 31, 2015, 06:06:54 AM
I still have doubts that astronauts have performed EVAs in the vacuum of space. Testimony of Independent witnesses observing a spacesuit with sublimator operating in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit is not, in my opinion, an unreasonable request.

Neil, I've posted this so many times over on YouTube;

The whole world, including its scientific community, has watched these suits in use, in the environment for which they were intended, for 50 years or so. On film, video, stills, and in live broadcasts, as well as in the form of telemetry and other data sent by devices the astronauts have installed whilst wearing the suits.

This is good enough for the rest of the world, why isn't it good enough for you?

Simply sidestepping this with 'it could be an inflatable' (when referring to the ISS), or 'they might be doing it with green screen' is inadequate, against the volume of evidence that shows them for real.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on August 31, 2015, 06:30:19 AM
Jay--Well, the fact remains that the photo of the ice sublimator didn't appear in 2007 when I searched. Harold McCann looked also and couldn't find the photo. Also, I was able to make the claim that no photo existed on the Internet until only recently. I don't know exactly when it appeared. It may very well have been there buried deep and we didn't use the correct description to bring it up but it didn't come up when "spacesuit ice sublimator" was typed in the Google search engine.

... which leaves us with the impression that was the only search term you used, which, if it was, was a bit remiss of you....

None of the test reports indicate that any human in a spacesuit ever entered a vacuum chamber that was pumped down to high vacuum conditions. Something is very wrong with the picture and I'm wondering if your dedicated enthusiasm for Apollo has blinded you to the possibility that this area of the technology was not adequately documented to avoid suspicion.

There's nothing wrong with the myriad of pictures, videos and live broadcasts of these spacesuits in use, in a natural vacuum, watched by the whole wide world, for 50 years or so - unless you can prove otherwise?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on August 31, 2015, 06:45:51 AM
would you go into space to perform an EVA without having donned that suit and sublimator and tested them in a high vacuum chamber on Earth first? Is my perspective really that narrow? I think it should represent common sense of any reasonably responsible astronaut that the answer is no.

Does the 747 pilot insist on performing the flight-worthiness testing on every 747 he flies himself? No. He turns up at the airport and places his trust in Boeing, their test pilots, the airline's maintenance staff, and possibly his trust in Rolls-Royce, who likely made the engines.

Does the Naval Captain, or any of his crew, taking the submarine out of port for a mission of a few months, insist on running a test programme against his vessel? Again, no - they turn up and place their trust in others.

Both examples equally risky. Far more in terms of casualties if something goes wrong.

Given the scale of the Apollo project, there's other, far more significant aspects that the astronauts could have taken issue with, but remember they were experienced test pilots, and they were used to placing their trust in their designers and builders.   
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on August 31, 2015, 06:49:16 AM

So what is the problem exactly?

When I went to find more information about them in 2007, I couldn't find a photograph, or a video or a citation in any academic-level book.

But you gave no indication of how far you looked, nor which libraries you looked in.

Did you travel to libraries outside your current town or city of residence? Outwith your state of residence? Did you make any effort to consult any sources outwith the USA? Or did you just google a limited set of search terms?

Once we know the answers to these, we can place some context on you not finding stuff.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on August 31, 2015, 06:54:58 AM
I don't speak or read Russian, I don't know who to contact. I don't know if they're faking it just like I don't know if we're faking it. I have my doubts because I don't have scientific validation. Neither do you but that hasn't kept you from saying you know something that there's no way for you to know. The best we can do is believe and that's unacceptable.

The best we can do is to look at the available evidence, and that shows a number of astronauts, from various nations, including Russia, using these suits, for real, in the environment for which they were intended, for 50 years or so.

You seem to be very skilled at sidestepping or ignoring this evidence. 
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Peter B on August 31, 2015, 06:56:07 AM

Abaddon--I'm sorry but I'm looking for a second photo of a sublimator.

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTT1Fqkun-qpbbPxfR2dfG3OJ5h7NZbjER9eYLFrJ9iguU-mPyN

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSxGWG8dqlw4MBN-OvLl4kNVhC2aFD_SMDYL8fzbFjOsbcGAdy6

http://enu.kz/repository/2011/AIAA-2011-5187.pdf

And?

Out of interest, I had a look at the article at the last link.

At the end of the article were three referenced articles. I Googled the last and got this:

http://papers.sae.org/1999-01-2004/

Only an abstract. But I'm sure that if Mr Baker is serious about getting to the bottom of this issue he shouldn't have a problem spending $25 to buy the full article which, I note, was published in 1999.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on August 31, 2015, 06:57:28 AM
Jay--I'd enjoy a discussion with you but if you're going to hurl hard names and insults at me, I'll just ignore you. Please behave. You're very bright.

You don't get to ignore him, especially when he provides such a reasoned argument against you.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 31, 2015, 07:09:34 AM
Jay--Well, the fact remains that the photo of the ice sublimator didn't appear in 2007 when I searched. Harold McCann looked also and couldn't find the photo. Also, I was able to make the claim that no photo existed on the Internet until only recently. I don't know exactly when it appeared. It may very well have been there buried deep and we didn't use the correct description to bring it up but it didn't come up when "spacesuit ice sublimator" was typed in the Google search engine.
You continue this line of thought, why?  Posters have spoon fed you multiple images and documents that pre-date 2007.  I believe you are either inept at researching or too dumb/lazy to do it.
Quote

As for the no textbook mentioning ice sublimators, I'm not sure the Chinese publication in 2010 was not instigated by my dispute regarding the subject of ice sublimators since I was disputing them in 2007 in many places and nobody presented me with any evidence to the contrary.  The Chinese performed a spacewalk in suits that I suspect they say they cooled with sublimators and so might have thought they needed to cover that base.  But still, 1993 is the earliest I can find and that's odd too since they've allegedly been using them since at least 1969. But it just might be that I haven't located the book yet. It might be there from 1968. I'll keep searching.
You were given two links of patents that occurred prior to 1993, again you are a poor researcher at best.
Quote

But even you should confess that it is strange. Despite being one of the most interesting heat transfer devices, so little visual information is given regarding them. Except for the one photo and some different line drawings, there's nothing. Yes, video of the tests might not show much but they could have shown the experiment setups with treadmill and suited subject outside the vacuum chamber. Roughing pumps, turbo pumps, gauges. It is an interesting, potentially dangerous and very crucial aspect of the testing program and so, if only from a PR perspective, it is expected that NASA would cover it. If not then, then now when they've finally been challenged to do so.
One or a thousand, what difference does that make?
Quote

And still, having read what I've read, I'm still a bit confused. None of the test reports indicate that any human in a spacesuit ever entered a vacuum chamber that was pumped down to high vacuum conditions. Something is very wrong with the picture and I'm wondering if your dedicated enthusiasm for Apollo has blinded you to the possibility that this area of the technology was not adequately documented to avoid suspicion.
As my previous post indicated the sublimator was in the vacuum chamber connected by hoses to the individual on the tread mill.  Why does this invalidate the test?  Your immature obsession with this test is really poorly build.
Quote

Trebor--I have no reason why it wouldn't be a suitable way to remove heat. It sounds cool (no pun intended). I was fascinated when I first learned about it but like I described in my first post, it was when I went to learn more and found so little of what I expected to find that I started to doubt.
All in all of your posts you continue circling around this specific test when similar tests information have been spoon fed.  I gave you the benefit of doubt in the beginning, but your continued refusal to comprehend the data and literature linked to you covering well over 50 years and present days usage change that benefit to definitely  negative.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Peter B on August 31, 2015, 07:12:12 AM
PeterB--one of the things I learned in heat transfer class was that there are only three modes of heat transfer--conduction, convection and radiation. I haven't been able decide which mode is represented by an ice sublimator.

A radiator is not a sublimator nor vice versa.
A radiator radiates heat.
A sublimator liberates heat by facilitating the phase change of ice directly to steam.

Okay, so please spell it out: Do you doubt the physics of sublimation? Is there any reason why spacesuit sublimators can't operate the way space agencies say they do?

At the moment your comments read like you're trying to have it both ways - that sublimation as a concept works but that spacesuit sublimators for some reason can't.

And frankly, you sound like someone looking at a platypus swimming around, and saying that because it isn't a mammal (because it lays eggs) and isn't a reptile (because it has fur) then it can't possibly exist.

Finally, could you please explain: if NASA faked Apollo because the sublimators didn't work, don't you think the Soviets would have been smart enough to work this out? Or do you think they were in on the fake too?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 31, 2015, 07:18:14 AM
bknight--would you go into space to perform an EVA without having donned that suit and sublimator and tested them in a high vacuum chamber on Earth first? Is my perspective really that narrow? I think it should represent common sense of any reasonably responsible astronaut that the answer is no.

Perhaps 50 years ago prior to literally thousand of hours and being the first few to use it, I might like a functionality test, similar to the one you suggested took place with me on a tread mill and the sublimator in a vacuum.  The two difference are the length of hoses and me not in the vacuum chamber.  Yes, that test would suffice any lingering doubt that it would work.[/quote]

It is very puzzling to me why it's only me, especially among this very smart crowd, that is asking for the test. I have learned what is presented and it's not clear at all that they work as advertised.[/quote]
It is really puzzling to the rest of the board why you won't/can't understand that the device works as advertised since it is apparent to all of us save you that testing has been successfully completed.
Quote

I've heard the Latin word for truth is veritas. It's where we get the word verify. In a way, from a semantics perspective, the Scientific Method is older than we ever thought although Francis Bacon is supposed to have formalized the procedure.
And this pertains to what portion of the information linked to you many times?  Your inability to understand prevents your brain from accepting the obvious.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Jason Thompson on August 31, 2015, 08:40:54 AM
Trebor--Sublimation should work but that's not the issue. The issue is the validation that it works.

Since you utterly fail to understand what actually qualifies as validation, this issue exists solely in your mind.

Now I repeat: we have video of astronauts in spacesuits with sublimators on the lunar surface. There is plenty of evidence that this is in a vacuum. What do you say about that? And if you say 'it could be faked' explain why we should think you won't say the same about any film or video that does show an astronaut in a vacuum chamber, and explain how it could be faked.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Jason Thompson on August 31, 2015, 08:44:48 AM
Testimony of Independent witnesses observing a spacesuit with sublimator operating in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit is not, in my opinion, an unreasonable request.

Provided already. As long as the sublimator connected to the suit cooling system is in a vacuum, why does the astronaut have to be? The test is not invalidated by that difference from practical usage in space. This is how real science works.

Quote
It should cost nothing extra and pose little inconvenience to allow independent observers.

Rubbish. If I was expected to provide demonstrations of the technology I work on to 'independent observers' on request I would have no time to do the work I am actually paid for in developing that technology. It is not a trivial task, especially to someone as obviously ignorant as you are who would need every bit of the test explained.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: RAF on August 31, 2015, 09:02:40 AM
Jay--I'd enjoy a discussion with you....

You enjoy being told you are wrong??

 
Quote
...but if you're going to hurl hard names and insults at me, I'll just ignore you.

"hard names"??.... no, Jay was just informing you that you obviously do not know what you are talking about...he knows that because he does know what he is talking about.

If you can't "handle" being told that you are wrong, then perhaps you should seek another board where the standards of evidence are not that high...otherwise expect to be "schooled" by the members here.



Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 31, 2015, 09:03:13 AM

Abaddon--I'm sorry but I'm looking for a second photo of a sublimator.

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTT1Fqkun-qpbbPxfR2dfG3OJ5h7NZbjER9eYLFrJ9iguU-mPyN

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSxGWG8dqlw4MBN-OvLl4kNVhC2aFD_SMDYL8fzbFjOsbcGAdy6

http://enu.kz/repository/2011/AIAA-2011-5187.pdf

And?

Out of interest, I had a look at the article at the last link.

At the end of the article were three referenced articles. I Googled the last and got this:

http://papers.sae.org/1999-01-2004/

Only an abstract. But I'm sure that if Mr Baker is serious about getting to the bottom of this issue he shouldn't have a problem spending $25 to buy the full article which, I note, was published in 1999.
There are any amount of related papers on the subject on that site alone.

Another from 1991 http://papers.sae.org/911577/
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 31, 2015, 09:23:02 AM
And frankly, you sound like someone looking at a platypus swimming around, and saying that because it isn't a mammal (because it lays eggs) and isn't a reptile (because it has fur) then it can't possibly exist.

It's more like someone banging on the door of the Westminster clock tower demanding to take the innards of the clock apart because he doesn't believe in pendulums.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 31, 2015, 09:25:57 AM
If I was expected to provide demonstrations of the technology I work on to 'independent observers' on request I would have no time to do the work I am actually paid for in developing that technology.

The pharmaceutical industry would be crippled if they had to meet Neil's acid test for each drug they produce. Of course, the real issue here is that Neil believes he and the PLSS sublimator are special cases. He only makes this demand for the PLSS sublimator, where he has chosen a small piece of technology that he thinks does not work because he unable to carry out basic research (as shown by the record here). He thought he had all the aces up his sleeve. In his own words, if he can prove Apollo was hoaxed, maybe his 9-11 claims would be taken more seriously. Sadly for Neil, no one will ever take him seriously now, because we can point to the record here and show that he is a useless researcher that jumps horses and moves goalposts in an attempt to save face.

Neil - Having read Jason's two posts, he does know what he is talking about where biology and human science is concerned. He is also a keen Apollo enthusiast and that is evident from his postings at this forum and the old pro-boards.  In as much as Jay and sts60 know about aerospace engineering, and ka9q/smartcooky know about communication systems, and RAF knows about flight systems, and andromeda knows about physics, and OBM/Kiwi know about photography and its analysis. Sorry for those that I have not mentioned (Bob/Raven/AllanF/gwiz/peter/bknight/Apollo957/trebor/gillianren et al)

Neil, the people here know their stuff, and if we don't we tend not to comment and leave it to others with the expertise and knowledge. That's how this forum works, and that's because all of us know how science/engineering works. You do not. For the record, I know how to tie my shoelaces ;)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 31, 2015, 09:27:41 AM
It's more like someone banging on the door of the Westminster clock tower demanding to take the innards of the clock apart because he doesn't believe in pendulums.

Funny you should mention the Westminster Clock.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-34051053

Although BBC sometimes insist on referring to the clock as Big Ben.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 31, 2015, 09:34:30 AM
Given the scale of the Apollo project, there's other, far more significant aspects that the astronauts could have taken issue with, but remember they were experienced test pilots, and they were used to placing their trust in their designers and builders.

Many were engineers themselves and knew intimately how their equipment worked.  And no, the sublimator is not a critical piece of equipment.  If one failed, the result would be the astronaut slowly heating up -- a condition that could be tolerated while he returned to the spacecraft and attached his suit to the ship's environmental control system for relief.  There was even a contingency plan where he could turn off his oxygen loop heater and let the oxygen come from the cryogenic tank as a very cool gas.  Obviously we want sublimators to work and be reliable.  But if one failed, would the astronaut be in immediate peril of his life?  Heavens no!  Baker is amping up the criticality of this component to buttress his fantasy for how he thinks they should have been tested.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 31, 2015, 09:35:48 AM

The pharmaceutical industry would be crippled if they had to meet Neil's acid test for each drug they produce. Of course, the real issue here is that Neil believes he and the PLSS sublimator are special cases. He only makes this demand for the PLSS sublimator, where he has chosen a small piece of technology that he thinks does not work because he unable to carry out basic research (as shown by the record here). He thought he had all the aces up his sleeve. In his own words, if he can prove Apollo was hoaxed, maybe his 9-11 claims would be taken more seriously. Sadly for Neil, no one will ever take him seriously now, because we can point to the record here and show that he is a useless researcher that jumps horses and moves goalposts in an attempt to save face.

Neil - Having read Jason's two posts, he does know what he is talking about where biology and human science is concerned. He is also a keen Apollo enthusiast and that is evident from his postings at this forum and the old pro-boards.  In as much as Jay and sts60 know about aerospace engineering, and ka9q/smartcooky know about communication systems, and RAF knows about flight systems, and andromeda knows about physics, and OBM/Kiwi know about photography and its analysis. Sorry for those that I have not mentioned (Bob/Raven/AllanF/gwiz/peter/bknight/Apollo957/trebor/gillianren et al)

Neil, the people here know their stuff, and if we don't we tend not to comment and leave it to others with the expertise and knowledge. That's how this forum works, and that's because all of us know how science/engineering works. You do not. For the record, I know how to tie my shoelaces ;)
I'm not trained in any of those sciences/technologies so no problem here.  I'm interested in learning from those on the board of a passionate belief.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 31, 2015, 09:37:12 AM
Funny you should mention the Westminster Clock.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-34051053

No coincidence.  That story was reported a few days ago in the U.S. and is naturally of particular interest to engineers, or anyone fascinated by mechanisms.

Quote
Although BBC sometimes insist on referring to the clock as Big Ben.

During my stay in London I was properly schooled that Big Ben is not the tower, not the clock, but the 13-ton bell that strikes the hour -- named for Sir Benjamin Hall, the commissioner of works when the clock was installed.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Trebor on August 31, 2015, 09:40:09 AM
He only makes this demand for the PLSS sublimator, where he has chosen a small piece of technology that he thinks does not work because he unable to carry out basic research (as shown by the record here).
When I asked him earlier he said he saw no reason why it would not work. Which is what I find especially puzzling.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 31, 2015, 09:48:19 AM
When I asked him earlier he said he saw no reason why it would not work. Which is what I find especially puzzling.

I saw that admittance. As is common with CTs, they cannot keep a consistent story.  If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything. :)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 31, 2015, 09:50:15 AM
During my stay in London I was properly schooled that Big Ben is not the tower, not the clock, but the 13-ton bell that strikes the hour -- named for Sir Benjamin Hall, the commissioner of works when the clock was installed.

Yes, we English take great pride in schooling others with this factoid. I do like the picture in the news article, the one with the pennies on the pendulum.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 31, 2015, 09:57:37 AM
When I asked him earlier he said he saw no reason why it would not work. Which is what I find especially puzzling.

Indeed in other forums he has made it plain that he doesn't disagree with the physics or the engineering -- only the testing.  It shouldn't puzzle you if you remember how conspiracists work.  They don't focus so much on stuff that can be independently or factually verified.  Having found his McGuffin, Baker settles in for a long goalpost-shifting, nit-picking, quibble over what constitutes a proper, scientifically acceptable test for validation.  (Despite his Latin lesson, Baker mistakes "validation" for verification."  In the world of engineering test, those mean entirely different things.)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 31, 2015, 10:07:45 AM
Despite his Latin lesson, Baker mistakes "validation" for verification."  In the world of engineering test, those mean entirely different things.)

When changing software code for a model I worked on validation was the process whereby (a) we checked the model represented the physics of the problem and (b) whether we were actually producing code to answer the question that the change was designed to answer. Verification was the process where we ensured the model was behaving sensibly against a set of criteria and the rest of the model still provided 'sensible' results once the change was made. I recall the forms we had to fill in for the model QA process. Verification and validation were separate processes.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 31, 2015, 10:08:11 AM

Indeed in other forums he has made it plain that he doesn't disagree with the physics or the engineering -- only the testing.  It shouldn't puzzle you if you remember how conspiracists work.  They don't focus so much on stuff that can be independently or factually verified.  Having found his McGuffin, Baker settles in for a long goalpost-shifting, nit-picking, quibble over what constitutes a proper, scientifically acceptable test for validation.  (Despite his Latin lesson, Baker mistakes "validation" for verification."  In the world of engineering test, those mean entirely different things.)

The tests have validated and verified that the sublimator works.  As you note the goal post set  at a ridiculous distance to give him comfort levels that NASA will not indulge him.  The test presented here suffice to everyone except one.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on August 31, 2015, 10:40:12 AM
Baker- what exactly would you expect to see if (and it's a massive "if") yo ruled the world and were able to get NASA to test a suit? A big chamber gets evacuated -how would you verify the vacuum? After all, NASA are hoaxers and frauds, aren't they? Then a bloke in a suit enters the chamber through an airlock. How do you know that he has a working sublimator? Perhaps he just has a liquid cooled garment with an iced-water tank on his back. How long would you want the test to run for? What exactly would you expect to see to verify that the sublimator was working as intended?

Finally, after you had seen the test, would you then admit that all the technical data that you've been shown was correct? If so, what's stopping you from doing so now? Unless, of course, you are not able to check the maths in the documentation that you've been shown. If that's the case, then how would you verify your imaginary test??

Come to think of it, given your clear incompetence at research, it seems to me that even if you got your ridiculous test that you would not be able to verify what you were seeing. Given that, then what's the point of demanding a test that you are incapable of verifying?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on August 31, 2015, 10:50:00 AM
I must admit that although I have no sympathy for this approach by Neil, but as an engineer I have an empathy for administering my own tests to a problem. In telecommunications, when a new network is brought into service, it goes through a process of NVQ or Network validation. I was the technical project manager for the first (Pan-european) STM64 Fiber Optic network and was in charge of the testing process. In my mind however the NVQ was written by our manufacturer (Nortel, now long gone), this was tantamount to them sitting an exam, where they not only wrote the questions but marked the exam paper. The arguments I had when elements failed because I introduced my own tests, they called them invalid tests, but I only went down "plausible" paths. I think the end product was a "more" robust network.
In the case of the PLSS testing however, the tests carried out were sufficient and the results are there for people to see. The fact that it did/does work should be sufficient for anybody who does not have a separate agenda for disagreeing with the process. 
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: ineluki on August 31, 2015, 11:01:00 AM
It is very puzzling to me why it's only me, especially among this very smart crowd, that is asking for the test.

That leaves three options:
1. Your idea that this is a useful and necessary test is wrong
2. You think that those who disagree with you must be lying
3. You think that those who disagree with you must be stupid (which makes "smart crowd" a lie)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luckmeister on August 31, 2015, 11:21:43 AM
I must admit that although I have no sympathy for this approach by Neil, but as an engineer I have an empathy for administering my own tests to a problem. In telecommunications, when a new network is brought into service, it goes through a process of NVQ or Network validation. I was the technical project manager for the first (Pan-european) STM64 Fiber Optic network and was in charge of the testing process. In my mind however the NVQ was written by our manufacturer (Nortel, now long gone), this was tantamount to them sitting an exam, where they not only wrote the questions but marked the exam paper. The arguments I had when elements failed because I introduced my own tests, they called them invalid tests, but I only went down "plausible" paths. I think the end product was a "more" robust network.
In the case of the PLSS testing however, the tests carried out were sufficient and the results are there for people to see. The fact that it did/does work should be sufficient for anybody who does not have a separate agenda for disagreeing with the process.

Yes, the tests were certainly done.

I worked in the pre-Apollo space program helping to develop testing and verification procedures on-site for Atlas and Titan booster systems (at VAFB and DMAFB). I'm talking about my direct experience from 1960 to 1964 with state-of-art engineering practices at the time. Believe me, extensive testing and verification was critical to anything space-related, especially to systems used both as our last line of defense and to boost humans into orbit. But then, that's no surprise to everyone here except one.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 31, 2015, 11:32:09 AM
Baker- what exactly would you expect to see if (and it's a massive "if") yo ruled the world and were able to get NASA to test a suit? A big chamber gets evacuated -how would you verify the vacuum?

He has said he wants his witnesses to be able to instrument the test with their own equipment.  But then he says this won't increase the cost, so there should be no objection to letting him do that.

How ridiculous.

Those of you who are fans of the American movie Office Space might be amused to learn NASA indeed has such a thing as a TPS Report, for "Test Procedure Step."  Testing at NASA (and in aerospace in general) is not just plugging in the gizmo and making sure it works.  Test procedures are worked out well in advance, with each step and sub-step numbered, validated, and cross-checked with all who have roles in the test.  The TPS report is the test director's report of what was observed at each test step.  These run to dozens of pages in most cases, and up to hundreds for major tests, or for tests involving human subjects (where safety checks are made at each step and reported).

The notion that Baker or his delegates can just show up on the morning of the test with a suitcase full of test equipment, and be allowed to participate, is so ludicrously naive as to merit only laughter.  There has to be engineering integration exercises for that type of observation, as well as approvals from the engineering, management, test, and legal representatives of both NASA and the manufacturers involved.  Contrary to Baker's naive assurances, his request would add tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs to the test.  Baker simply has no accurate idea whatsoever what is involved in aerospace test involving human subjects.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 31, 2015, 11:37:35 AM
...

The notion that Baker or his delegates can just show up on the morning of the test with a suitcase full of test equipment, and be allowed to participate, is so ludicrously naive as to merit only laughter.  There has to be engineering integration exercises for that type of observation, as well as approvals from the engineering, management, test, and legal representatives of both NASA and the manufacturers involved.  Contrary to Baker's naive assurances, his request would add tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs to the test.  Baker simply has no accurate idea whatsoever what is involved in aerospace test involving human subjects.
In addition to the cost of the test itself, which I'm sure would be hundreds of thousands of dollars of NASA's budget.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Peter B on August 31, 2015, 11:39:55 AM
Neil Baker

I'd be grateful if you could answer the following questions:

1. Is personal validation the only way you verify facts? If not, who do you trust to give you reliable information about subjects you're personally unfamiliar with and how do you verify their reliability? What's to stop you from using this process with people testing PLSSs?

2. If NASA faked Apollo because the spacesuit sublimators didn't or couldn't work, don't you think the Soviets would have been smart enough to work this out? Or do you think they were in on the hoax? If so, why would they go along with something which provided a propaganda victory to the USA at the height of the Cold War?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Peter B on August 31, 2015, 11:41:55 AM
...

The notion that Baker or his delegates can just show up on the morning of the test with a suitcase full of test equipment, and be allowed to participate, is so ludicrously naive as to merit only laughter.  There has to be engineering integration exercises for that type of observation, as well as approvals from the engineering, management, test, and legal representatives of both NASA and the manufacturers involved.  Contrary to Baker's naive assurances, his request would add tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs to the test.  Baker simply has no accurate idea whatsoever what is involved in aerospace test involving human subjects.
In addition to the cost of the test itself, which I'm sure would be hundreds of thousands of dollars of NASA's budget.

I assume Mr Baker was planning on piggy-backing on a test which NASA was going to conduct anyway, thus his naive assumption of no additional costs...
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 31, 2015, 11:49:13 AM

I assume Mr Baker was planning on piggy-backing on a test which NASA was going to conduct anyway, thus his naive assumption of no additional costs...
Naivety is a gross exaggeration, IMHO. :)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: twik on August 31, 2015, 12:04:06 PM
And still, having read what I've read, I'm still a bit confused. None of the test reports indicate that any human in a spacesuit ever entered a vacuum chamber that was pumped down to high vacuum conditions. Something is very wrong with the picture and I'm wondering if your dedicated enthusiasm for Apollo has blinded you to the possibility that this area of the technology was not adequately documented to avoid suspicion.

As my previous post indicated the sublimator was in the vacuum chamber connected by hoses to the individual on the tread mill.  Why does this invalidate the test?  Your immature obsession with this test is really poorly build.

I think this reflects a certain way of thinking that does lead to a susceptibility to conspiracy theorizing when it comes to science. It's a lack of faith in repeatability, that things will behave in the same way, even if you change the parameters slightly.

To NASA, it would be obvious that the sublimators will cool the suit, even if the suited astronaut is not put in the chamber with them for testing. Their function would be repeatable whether the rest of the suit is there or not. But to some people, the jump from one situation to another is too much. Yes, apples fall down today. They did yesterday, too. But you can't extrapolate from that to tomorrow, because tomorrow things might be slightly different. It's raining, say, or you're one day later in the year. That, they believe, could make everything different.

It's an unsettling way to view the world, that we can't trust it to keep doing what it's always done, and that may well lead to searches for conspiracies to explain a world which to them is essentially uncontrolled and unpredictable.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on August 31, 2015, 12:08:20 PM
The thing is, Baker already has an image of Schweickart testing the suit AND a direct quotation from the man himself. So he is basically calling him a flat out liar.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: twik on August 31, 2015, 12:13:04 PM
The thing is, Baker already has an image of Schweickart testing the suit AND a direct quotation from the man himself. So he is basically calling him a flat out liar.

But I think in his own mind he has an out. If the testing wasn't done the way he wanted it, it doesn't prove anything. Because you couldn't possibly extrapolate from those tests and say that the PLSS worked. His testing is the only system that would ever be able to prove it. So if NASA didn't do it his way, they must have not been interested in knowing if the PLSS worked.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 31, 2015, 12:15:24 PM
The thing is, Baker already has an image of Schweickart testing the suit AND a direct quotation from the man himself. So he is basically calling him a flat out liar.
Maybe Neil should stalk Rusty and jump out with a Bible and...
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 31, 2015, 12:25:25 PM
I worked in the pre-Apollo space program helping to develop testing and verification procedures on-site for Atlas and Titan booster systems (at VAFB and DMAFB).

That's a pretty impressive CV. But clearly, by Neil's standards I don't believe that those vehicles worked as I have not had independent witnesses to verify their performance.

Quote
Believe me, extensive testing and verification was critical to anything space-related, especially to systems used both as our last line of defense and to boost humans into orbit. But then, that's no surprise to everyone here except one.

Shooting one's self in one's foot, quite literally, with nuclear warheads would be a bit of a home goal. You've got to be fairly sure that such vehicles do what they say on the tin.

Right, I was going out, but I'm not sure that my car safety features work. I'd like to have them tested independently, despite the whole world using seat belts, collapsible steering columns, air bags and crumple zones in their cars.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 31, 2015, 12:28:09 PM
The thing is, Baker already has an image of Schweickart testing the suit AND a direct quotation from the man himself. So he is basically calling him a flat out liar.

Yes, but once his ineptitude for research had been exposed it was easier to call liar. People in glass houses and all that.  ::)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on August 31, 2015, 01:03:17 PM
I asked this before, but either you didn't see it or you didn't respond, Neil Baker. If this wouldn't work, why not come up with other solutions? Plenty of Apollo went through iterative designs. Just look at the changes in the LM design as the program went on. Let's say the engineers at Hamilton Standard found that testing with the sublimation cooling system wasn't working so well. Would they go 'Oh, hell, guess we're going to have to fake the whole darn thing', or would they try to work some other solution out?
I'm not an engineer, nor do I play one on TV, but that doesn't sound like something they would do.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gillianren on August 31, 2015, 01:09:38 PM

The pharmaceutical industry would be crippled if they had to meet Neil's acid test for each drug they produce. Of course, the real issue here is that Neil believes he and the PLSS sublimator are special cases. He only makes this demand for the PLSS sublimator, where he has chosen a small piece of technology that he thinks does not work because he unable to carry out basic research (as shown by the record here). He thought he had all the aces up his sleeve. In his own words, if he can prove Apollo was hoaxed, maybe his 9-11 claims would be taken more seriously. Sadly for Neil, no one will ever take him seriously now, because we can point to the record here and show that he is a useless researcher that jumps horses and moves goalposts in an attempt to save face.

Neil - Having read Jason's two posts, he does know what he is talking about where biology and human science is concerned. He is also a keen Apollo enthusiast and that is evident from his postings at this forum and the old pro-boards.  In as much as Jay and sts60 know about aerospace engineering, and ka9q/smartcooky know about communication systems, and RAF knows about flight systems, and andromeda knows about physics, and OBM/Kiwi know about photography and its analysis. Sorry for those that I have not mentioned (Bob/Raven/AllanF/gwiz/peter/bknight/Apollo957/trebor/gillianren et al)

Neil, the people here know their stuff, and if we don't we tend not to comment and leave it to others with the expertise and knowledge. That's how this forum works, and that's because all of us know how science/engineering works. You do not. For the record, I know how to tie my shoelaces ;)
I'm not trained in any of those sciences/technologies so no problem here.  I'm interested in learning from those on the board of a passionate belief.

I'm not trained in them, either, but it's astonishing to discover that I actually understand sublimation better than Neil.

Another point here, Neil, is that proving Apollo to be a hoax (assuming it were, which it wasn't) proves nothing about 9/11.  They are two separate events.  You want to argue 9/11?  We have a segment of the board for that, where you can be shown to be just as ignorant as you are of Apollo.  (Seriously, I understand sublimation better than you do because of the aforementioned Amazing Disappearing Ice Cubes and a single course of Oceanography 101.)  But Apollo happened or didn't on its own merits, and what happened on 9/11 happened or didn't on its own merits.  When you try to connect them, you show a fundamental misunderstanding of, well, everything.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: ka9q on August 31, 2015, 01:19:12 PM
There was even a contingency plan where he could turn off his oxygen loop heater and let the oxygen come from the cryogenic tank as a very cool gas.
Oxygen was stored in both the PLSS and OPS tanks at ambient temperature under high pressure. The OPS provided cooling by letting the oxygen flow once through the suit and out to space through a purge valve. It could provide only 30 or 60 minutes of operation even though the OPS bottles contained considerably more oxygen than the PLSS.

The PLSS was analogous to a diving rebreather; the OPS to SCUBA.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 31, 2015, 01:33:24 PM

I'm not trained in them, either, but it's astonishing to discover that I actually understand sublimation better than Neil.
...
And this does not surprise me in any way after 37 pages of going around and around.  He gets shown almost 100% of what he seeks and still does not accept the facts.  It seems obvious to me that he doesn't really want the sublimator test, it is in operation on a routine basis on a space station he does not acknowledge. 
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Sus_pilot on August 31, 2015, 01:57:57 PM
Well this was worth my while for three things today:

I knew that it was the bell that was Big Ben, thanks to Arthur C. Clarke, but never knew why.

I now know how adjustments to the Westminster Clock are made.

And that Davis-Monthan is more than a storage/reclamation depot.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 31, 2015, 02:06:21 PM
The last thing I read on this site last night was someone telling me that testing a spacesuit with an astronaut in it was immoral.

When I was in the Navy I had to attend firefighting school three times where they would make us don an oxygen breathing apparatus (OBA) and enter a steel compartment on land modeled after the compartment of a ship that was engulfed in flames with smoke pouring out of it to put out the fire. It was seriously dangerous. People would sometimes get hurt. It was scary. But it was a tremendous confidence booster. We had fire drills twice a day on the carrier I was stationed aboard and we once had a bad fire in a paint locker that we had to extinguish. After the USS Forrestal fire, nobody could serve aboard ship without having gone through firefighting school. The entire crew, from the highest ranking officer to the lowest enlisted, consisted of trained firefighters that had experienced fighting fires in smoke-filled fire-engulged rooms while wearing an OBA.

In boot camp we had to enter a teargas-filled room wearing a gas mask and then take off the mask before rushing out of the room suffering the expected horrible symptoms.

So this situation where it appears due to alleged morality reasons that no spacesuit has been tested in a high vacuum chamber with a person in it just makes the alarms in my head go off even louder.  It's like saying it would be immoral to fight a fire in a compartment on land because it's dangerous; let's wait until we have a fire on a ship to fight one.

I think it's common sense. If I'm going to the ISS to perform an EVA, I first don the spacesuit and enter the high vacuum chamber on Earth and pump down to 1e-6 torr. I probably want to do it many times. While I'm in there they shut off the sublimator to perform the recovery drill. They drill other stuff too, loss of electricity, loss of air, loss of spacesuit integrity. I'd probably want to go in with another astronaut to practice the buddy system of PLSS troubleshooting and emergency procedures. And while we're in there we want the whole thing video recorded for replay and post-test analysis.

There's nothing immoral about it. It's very moral. There's not a single NASA astrounaut that has trained for an EVA that shouldn't have some test video. It's absurd that it doesn't exist.

If somehow the witnessed test that I want was ordered, I doubt they'd find any volunteers to wear the suit inside while the chamber got pumped down to high vacuum. I'm still doubting. I lean even a bit more toward hoax.

Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 31, 2015, 02:14:45 PM
...
If somehow the witnessed test that I want was ordered, I doubt they'd find any volunteers to wear the suit inside while the chamber got pumped down to high vacuum. I'm still doubting. I lean even a bit more toward hoax.
I'm utterly flabbergasted by your stating the obvious.  But the volunteers work in spacesuits cooled by the very device you ask.  You have been shown many images and yet you fail to connect the obvious to the test you so blatantly ask, which by the way will not ever happen.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 31, 2015, 02:33:37 PM
The last thing I read on this site last night was someone telling me that testing a spacesuit with an astronaut in it was immoral.
Oh, goody. Reading comprehension fail.

When I was in the Navy I had to attend firefighting school three times where they would make us don an oxygen breathing apparatus (OBA) and enter a steel compartment on land modeled after the compartment of a ship that was engulfed in flames with smoke pouring out of it to put out the fire. It was seriously dangerous. People would sometimes get hurt. It was scary. But it was a tremendous confidence booster. We had fire drills twice a day on the carrier I was stationed aboard and we once had a bad fire in a paint locker that we had to extinguish. After the USS Forrestal fire, nobody could serve aboard ship without having gone through firefighting school. The entire crew, from the highest ranking officer to the lowest enlisted, consisted of trained firefighters that had experienced fighting fires in smoke-filled fire-engulged rooms while wearing an OBA.

In boot camp we had to enter a teargas-filled room wearing a gas mask and then take off the mask before rushing out of the room suffering the expected horrible symptoms.
So what? NASA is not a military outfit, different health and safety rules apply, and it would add nothing to test a sublimator with an actual live astronaut present. The sublimator simply deals with a heat load. Whence that heat load originates is irrelevant. If you are going to claim that it does, then you are faced with the inevitable consequence that you must perforce claim that the sublimator is able to distinguish between human body heat and other sources of heat, by magic. You must claim that there are different and identifiable characteristics to heat energy all of which are detected by a sublimator and that such data is used by the sublimator to modulate it's behaviour.

All of which is rendered moot by the fact that a sublimator does not care what the heat source is, you have been provided with pictures, technical reports, peer reviewed papers and video as requested and as denied by you to even exist.

So this situation where it appears due to alleged morality reasons that no spacesuit has been tested in a high vacuum chamber with a person in it just makes the alarms in my head go off even louder.  It's like saying it would be immoral to fight a fire in a compartment on land because it's dangerous; let's wait until we have a fire on a ship to fight one.
You have been provided with such. Stop pretending you have not.

I think it's common sense. If I'm going to the ISS to perform an EVA, I first don the spacesuit and enter the high vacuum chamber on Earth and pump down to 1e-6 torr. I probably want to do it many times. While I'm in there they shut off the sublimator to perform the recovery drill. They drill other stuff too, loss of electricity, loss of air, loss of spacesuit integrity. I'd probably want to go in with another astronaut to practice the buddy system of PLSS troubleshooting and emergency procedures. And while we're in there we want the whole thing video recorded for replay and post-test analysis.
And they do those very things. You are labouring under the delusion that all data must be uploaded to the internet, even though it plainly is not, and that your established ineptitude at finding that which has been uploaded is probative of anything other than your incompetence.

There's nothing immoral about it. It's very moral. There's not a single NASA astrounaut that has trained for an EVA that shouldn't have some test video. It's absurd that it doesn't exist.
It is immoral to exposed people to insane and pointless risk.

If somehow the witnessed test that I want was ordered, I doubt they'd find any volunteers to wear the suit inside while the chamber got pumped down to high vacuum. I'm still doubting. I lean even a bit more toward hoax.
Yet that is exactly what is done. You have been provided with photographic, video, scientific and witness evidence that you claim does not exist. You have demonstrated your ineptitude at research to the point where you had to beg "How did you find that?" like a plaintive child.

At this point, you have burned your own credibility and any goodwill helping you find or learn anything. You have amply demonstrated that credibility, finding, researching and learning are simply skills with which you are negatively equipped. I wouldn't have believed it physically possible, but you simultaneously suck and blow at all of those and you have admitted so in your very own posts.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: darren r on August 31, 2015, 02:41:14 PM
There's not a single NASA astrounaut that has trained for an EVA that shouldn't have some test video. It's absurd that it doesn't exist.


Why this fixation on video? Maybe they did test each individual suit to the satisfaction of the astronaut that would be using it. It doesn't follow that they would automatically video it. How would video be of any use or help?


If somehow the witnessed test that I want was ordered, I doubt they'd find any volunteers to wear the suit inside while the chamber got pumped down to high vacuum. I'm still doubting. I lean even a bit more toward hoax.


Does the efficiency or otherwise of the sublimator make any difference to the effectiveness of the spacesuit in a vacuum, at least for a short while? Are you suggesting the spacesuits didn't work now?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on August 31, 2015, 02:50:00 PM
Again, Neil Baker, you seek forget they wouldn't need to have the tester in the suit in the room for the entire atmospheric removal process, even if they were to do a manned test.
Let's go back to this page (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/engineering/integrated_environments/altitude_environmental/chamber_A/index.html). Even though you've linked it in your own posts, you don't seem to be reading it, otherwise you would have noticed this, under Access.
Quote
Access:    a) 12.2 m (40 ft) diameter side-hinged door
b) Dual crewlocks at floor level and 9.4 m (31 ft) level, measuring 2.4 m high, 3.4 m wide, and 3.9m long (8 x 11 x 12.8 ft)
c) 13.7 m (45 ft) diameter (180( rotating floor
d) Door at 18.9 m (62 ft) level
e) Catwalk platform at 9.4 m (31 ft) and 18.9 m (62 ft) levels
[bolded for emphases]
Now, I'm not an engineer, but I know what an airlock is, and I am guessing, guessing mind, a crewlock is something of the same breed, with a similar purpose. If they were to do a manned test, it would be the perfect access way for the tester to enter the chamber without having to wait out, as you seem to imply, the entire evacuation process.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 31, 2015, 03:03:42 PM
NASA has never publicly demonstrated before independent witnesses a spacesuit with ice sublimator cooling system in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit.

Now it appears they've never tested a spacesuited astronaut while in a vacuum chamber at all except for that last documented test way back in 1966 when the suit failed causing a near fatality.

I'm puzzled more why they won't even show a video of an ice sublimator in a vacuum chamber with the astronaut outside running on the treadmill.

Our space program is currently a mythological faith-based thing. You insist upon it remaining so.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: mako88sb on August 31, 2015, 03:05:25 PM
Best brush up on your political skills Neil. Not sure how much support you got when you ran for Governor of California but the only way your going to get your test is to become President.   
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 31, 2015, 03:11:40 PM
Now it appears they've never tested a spacesuited astronaut while in a vacuum chamber at all except for that last documented test way back in 1966 when the suit failed causing a near fatality.


Why do you insist on repeating this lie?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 31, 2015, 03:12:32 PM
the only way your going to get your test is to become President.

If I were President, I'd bypass NASA and go straight for the jugular by ordering the establishment of an Independent, fully funded and fully empowered 9-11 investigation.
And then we'd have an Independent Holocaust Investigation.
And then we'd have NASA perform a demo.

I think I got zero votes (except mine of course )and Arnold's vision won.  Cruz Bustamante came in second. Poor California.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 31, 2015, 03:13:08 PM
The last thing I read on this site last night was someone telling me that testing a spacesuit with an astronaut in it was immoral.

Nope they didn't say immoral. They explained there were ethical issues to be considered when using humans when testing. It is always the duty of the scientist to reduce any testing on animals. A human is also an animal, we're part of the animal kingdom. So, a scientist will carry out several actions before carrying out human trials.

(a) Check whether the work has been done before (that's called research).
(b) Consider suitable simulation tests.
(c) Consider ways of reducing the number of humans taking part in a trial.
(d) Reduce the exposure of the human to the trial.
(e) Examine statistical techniques to reduce the number of human participants.
(f) Write an ethical protocol for the trial.

In the case of the sublimator you can test it using energy outputs that are representative of the human metabolic load. That would cover part (a) and (b) above, so there is no need to move to human trials. Metabolic loads for varying intensity of activity are easily found on the interweb... oh hang one, that means you looking. You're not much good at that. Anyway...

It's fairly simple to test a sublimator without a human, you could heat a coolant by passing it around a heated mannequin, run the coolant through a sublimator, and find the outgoing temperature of the coolant once it has passed through the sublimator. The sublimator could sit in a small vacuum chamber, maybe the size of a bell jar. I would consider that approach. Point being, I wouldn't even consider a human trial. Why would you, that is the real question?

Not only are there ethical issues with using human beings - there is also a cost and time issue. So as a scientist that has been involved with human trials; research into possible simulation are exhausted before moving to human trials. There are some cases where it very clear that one cannot pursue (a) and (b), and that applies to niche technologies or when one is looking at integration between man and machine. For example, the space suit would be tested for integration with the space craft. The integration plans I worked with are huge lists of activities that the user would normally perform while wearing the new technology under development. This would be part of the validation and verification processes.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 31, 2015, 03:13:37 PM

And then we'd have an Independent Holocaust Investigation.


Wow. Just. Wow.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 31, 2015, 03:16:46 PM
And then we'd have an Independent Holocaust Investigation.

Are you a holocaust denier too? Is there a reason you have ignored all but one of my posts, and that reason being the Einstein quote in my signature?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Cat Not Included on August 31, 2015, 03:18:40 PM
[SNIP]
I am very ignorant. I don't KNOW anything about the sublimators.
[SNIP]
Funnily enough, a week ago I had never even heard of a sublimator. Now I know a fair bit about them, and have a ton of sources I could easily pursue to learn more were I so inclined.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on August 31, 2015, 03:20:03 PM

And then we'd have an Independent Holocaust Investigation.


Wow. Just. Wow.
We have other places on this forum if you wish to discuss such conjectures, Neil Baker.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 31, 2015, 03:20:43 PM

And then we'd have an Independent Holocaust Investigation.


Wow. Just. Wow.

It's worse than NASA.
No documented gas chambers.
Nowhere near enough ovens.
Lice insecticide, Zyklon B, still manufactured as Uragan D2 with the charges that it was used as an agent of mass murder scoffed at by its Czech Republic manufacturers.
Worst, outrageous thought crime laws in 14 nations prohibiting the questioning or investigation of the holocaust.
GOD bless America!
An International group of forensic experts could make quick work of this hoax if they were allowed in.
I recommend this website to deprogram yourself from the holocaust garbage they fed you in public school.
http:// [LINK REMOVED] /
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 31, 2015, 03:22:36 PM
The last thing I read on this site last night was someone telling me that testing a spacesuit with an astronaut in it was immoral.

Nope they didn't say immoral.

Oh brother, here we go again. They said immoral.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 31, 2015, 03:24:24 PM
NASA has never publicly demonstrated before independent witnesses a spacesuit with ice sublimator cooling system in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit.

And you seem to be the only person on the face of the planet that gives a crap.  They tested it.  It works.  A public demonstration with independent witnesses is unnecessary.

Now it appears they've never tested a spacesuited astronaut while in a vacuum chamber at all except for that last documented test way back in 1966 when the suit failed causing a near fatality.

How did you come up with this?

I'm puzzled more why they won't even show a video of an ice sublimator in a vacuum chamber with the astronaut outside running on the treadmill.

You mean, why isn't there a video posted on the Internet that I can easily find?  How do you know that there's not a can of film sitting around somewhere on a dusty shelf that shows this?  It could be that nobody thinks it's interesting or important enough to go find it, convert it to video, and post it on the web. 
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 31, 2015, 03:25:43 PM

Funnily enough, a week ago I had never even heard of a sublimator. Now I know a fair bit about them, and have a ton of sources I could easily pursue to learn more were I so inclined.

Funny? You think that's funny? It's not funny. It's the anomaly that could, if more of the engineers here would demonstrate courage, bring down the government of the First Republic of the United States.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on August 31, 2015, 03:26:33 PM

Funnily enough, a week ago I had never even heard of a sublimator. Now I know a fair bit about them, and have a ton of sources I could easily pursue to learn more were I so inclined.

Funny? You think that's funny? It's not funny. It's the anomaly that could, if more of the engineers here would demonstrate courage, bring down the government of the First Republic of the United States.
A government you tried to get elected to be part of . . .
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 31, 2015, 03:27:24 PM

And then we'd have an Independent Holocaust Investigation.


Wow. Just. Wow.

It's worse than NASA.
No documented gas chambers.
Nowhere near enough ovens.
Lice insecticide, Zyklon B, still manufactured as Uragan D2 with the charges that it was used as an agent of mass murder scoffed at by its Czech Republic manufacturers.
Worst, outrageous thought crime laws in 14 nations prohibiting the questioning or investigation of the holocaust.
GOD bless America!
An International group of forensic experts could make quick work of this hoax if they were allowed in.
I recommend this website to deprogram yourself from the holocaust garbage they fed you in public school.
http:// [LINK REMOVED] /

This is the Apollo forum.  Please do not deviate from that topic.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 31, 2015, 03:29:39 PM
NASA has never publicly demonstrated before independent witnesses a spacesuit with ice sublimator cooling system in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit.

And you seem to be the only person on the face of the planet that gives a crap.  They tested it.  It works.  A public demonstration with independent witnesses is unnecessary.

Now it appears they've never tested a spacesuited astronaut while in a vacuum chamber at all except for that last documented test way back in 1966 when the suit failed causing a near fatality.

How did you come up with this?

I'm puzzled more why they won't even show a video of an ice sublimator in a vacuum chamber with the astronaut outside running on the treadmill.

You mean, why isn't there a video posted on the Internet that I can easily find?  How do you know that there's not a can of film sitting around somewhere on a dusty shelf that shows this?  It could be that nobody thinks it's interesting or important enough to go find it, convert it to video, and post it on the web.

Because NASA alleges they've been testing them for more than fifty years.
NASA alleges they test them now.
An astronaut would be a fool not to test them under conditions as realistic to being at the ISS as possible. There shouldn't be no video. There shouldn't be only one video. There shouldn't be only ten videos. There should be post test videos for every vacuum chamber simulated-EVA.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 31, 2015, 03:31:58 PM

And then we'd have an Independent Holocaust Investigation.


Wow. Just. Wow.

It's worse than NASA.
No documented gas chambers.
Nowhere near enough ovens.
Lice insecticide, Zyklon B, still manufactured as Uragan D2 with the charges that it was used as an agent of mass murder scoffed at by its Czech Republic manufacturers.
Worst, outrageous thought crime laws in 14 nations prohibiting the questioning or investigation of the holocaust.
GOD bless America!
An International group of forensic experts could make quick work of this hoax if they were allowed in.
I recommend this website to deprogram yourself from the holocaust garbage they fed you in public school.
http:// [LINK REMOVED] /

My contempt just turned to loathing and disgust. If I posted what I think about you and your ilk I would be banned from the forum.

You aren't worth the effort.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 31, 2015, 03:32:24 PM

Funnily enough, a week ago I had never even heard of a sublimator. Now I know a fair bit about them, and have a ton of sources I could easily pursue to learn more were I so inclined.

Funny? You think that's funny? It's not funny. It's the anomaly that could, if more of the engineers here would demonstrate courage, bring down the government of the First Republic of the United States.
A government you tried to get elected to be part of . . .

The end of the First, the beginning of the Second.
France is on their Fifth.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 31, 2015, 03:32:44 PM
NASA has never publicly demonstrated before independent witnesses a spacesuit with ice sublimator cooling system in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit.
Such has been spoonfed to you, yet you continue to lie about it.

Now it appears they've never tested a spacesuited astronaut while in a vacuum chamber at all except for that last documented test way back in 1966 when the suit failed causing a near fatality.
Another lie. Is there no end to your duplicity?

I'm puzzled more why they won't even show a video of an ice sublimator in a vacuum chamber with the astronaut outside running on the treadmill.
And this would be evidence of what, exactly?

I can tell you what, exactly. You will simply shift your goalposts no matter what to preserve your delusion. First, you demanded pictures, you were given them, then you demanded videos, you were given them, then you demanded text books, you were given them, then you demanded peer reviewed scientific papers, you were given them.

Now, you bizarrely demand "an ice sublimator in a vacuum chamber with the astronaut outside running on the treadmill." WTF is the intent and purpose of such a pointless thing? Why would anyone in their right mind set up such a pointless "test" of something you cannot identify?

Our space program is currently a mythological faith-based thing. You insist upon it remaining so.
"Our space program"? Really? ESA, Roscosmos,  China, India, Pakistan and so forth might be tapping on your shoulder.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 31, 2015, 03:34:02 PM
Oh brother, here we go again. They said immoral.

I read the post, and in context it would be unethical which would lead to it being immoral. There is a distinct difference. Ethical pertains to professional practice, moral pertains to society. The two are intrinsically linked.

If I were to gas animals with HCN to find out if they would die, then that would be unethical. We know from research and toxicology that HCN kills, there is no need to carry out that test. Society would then seek my punishment for my immorality.

In any case, you ignored all of my well thought out post about why scientists do not always carry out tests with humans. I asked you a question, why would you carry out a test on a PLSS sublimator with humans when you can carry out bench tests using a simulated metabolic load? Why do you need to go to the expense and trouble of human trials? Why would you not follow scientific practices that are well recognised?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 31, 2015, 03:34:20 PM

And then we'd have an Independent Holocaust Investigation.


Wow. Just. Wow.

It's worse than NASA.
No documented gas chambers.
Nowhere near enough ovens.
Lice insecticide, Zyklon B, still manufactured as Uragan D2 with the charges that it was used as an agent of mass murder scoffed at by its Czech Republic manufacturers.
Worst, outrageous thought crime laws in 14 nations prohibiting the questioning or investigation of the holocaust.
GOD bless America!
An International group of forensic experts could make quick work of this hoax if they were allowed in.
I recommend this website to deprogram yourself from the holocaust garbage they fed you in public school.
http:// [LINK REMOVED] /

My contempt just turned to loathing and disgust. If I posted what I think about you and your ilk I would be banned from the forum.

You aren't worth the effort.

The TRUTH shall set ye free but first it shall make ye miserable.
Dare to be miserable.
Dare to be free.
The misery is temporary. With eternal diligence, the freedom is forever.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 31, 2015, 03:36:28 PM
the only way your going to get your test is to become President.

If I were President, I'd bypass NASA and go straight for the jugular by ordering the establishment of an Independent, fully funded and fully empowered 9-11 investigation.
And then we'd have an Independent Holocaust Investigation.
And then we'd have NASA perform a demo.

I think I got zero votes (except mine of course )and Arnold's vision won.  Cruz Bustamante came in second. Poor California.
Sweet nobshabkemming help us. Are you now claiming NASA did 911 or is in any way related to 911? I might be true on planet sausage perhaps, but not in the real world.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 31, 2015, 03:36:41 PM
Oh brother, here we go again. They said immoral.

I read the post, and in context it would be unethical which would lead to it being immoral. There is a distinct difference. Ethical pertains to professional practice, moral pertains to society. The two are intrinsically linked.

If I were to gas animals with HCN to find out if they would die, then that would be unethical. We know from research and toxicology that HCN kills, there is no need to carry out that test. Society would then seek my punishment for my immorality.

In any case, you ignored all of my well thought out post about why scientists do not always carry out tests with humans. I asked you a question, why would you carry out a test on a PLSS sublimator with humans when you can carry out bench tests using a simulated metabolic load? Why do you need to go to the expense and trouble of human trials? Why would you not follow scientific practices that are well recognised?

Actually, I think the post of interest was removed or altered. Perhaps it sounded just too foolish to he who wrote it.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on August 31, 2015, 03:38:00 PM
Again, Neil, we do have a sub forum (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?board=7.0) for this kind of bullshit. Dump it and yourself there if you want, I am sure some members will be willing to disprove your claims, but this is not the place.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on August 31, 2015, 03:39:34 PM
And then we'd have an Independent Holocaust Investigation.

Why did I just KNOW that would would also be a holocaust denier. What a plonker!

Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 31, 2015, 03:40:01 PM
Unfortunately Neil you aren't a white knight saving mankind from big bad government, you're a pathetic Don Quixote riding a nag against a windmill.

EDIT: To add Don's last name.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 31, 2015, 03:40:22 PM
It's worse than NASA.
No documented gas chambers.
Nowhere near enough ovens.
Lice insecticide, Zyklon B, still manufactured as Uragan D2 with the charges that it was used as an agent of mass murder scoffed at by its Czech Republic manufacturers.
Worst, outrageous thought crime laws in 14 nations prohibiting the questioning or investigation of the holocaust.
GOD bless America!
An International group of forensic experts could make quick work of this hoax if they were allowed in.
I recommend this website to deprogram yourself from the holocaust garbage they fed you in public school.
http:// [LINK REMOVED] /

I despise your existence on this planet for even suggesting that the holocaust was hoaxed. I can run with people that believe the moon landings were hoaxed, or the JFK conspiracy. I usually find they're ignorant, duped or egotistical. 9-11 truthers I find offensive to the memories of the victims, and don't entertain it at all. But holohoax, sorry, I have nothing but contempt for you.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Jason Thompson on August 31, 2015, 03:42:58 PM
Neil, there is video of the PLSS being used in a vacuum. Not on Earth, on the Moon. It is full of evidence that it IS a vacuum, and more than you would get from watching a video of an astronaut in a vacuum chamber.

Why should every test be videoed rather than documented and reported on? Why should every video of every test be retained indefinitely and made available online even if it was made at the time?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Jason Thompson on August 31, 2015, 03:43:50 PM
And now we've moved into holocaust denial and accusing people of editing their posts to undermine your own misinterpretations we have clearly reached the point where you have no argument worth speaking of.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 31, 2015, 03:46:05 PM
Again, Neil, we do have a sub forum (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?board=7.0) for this kind of bullshit. Dump it and yourself there if you want, I am sure some members will be willing to disprove your claims, but this is not the place.
I agree with all that have posted this proposition, Neil DISCONTINUE any posting that is not closely associated with the sublimator.

IF you have anything to post on any other subject start a new thread.
But I doubt you will do any better there than you have demonstrated in this thread.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 31, 2015, 03:46:11 PM
NASA has never publicly demonstrated before independent witnesses a spacesuit with ice sublimator cooling system in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit.

And you seem to be the only person on the face of the planet that gives a crap.  They tested it.  It works.  A public demonstration with independent witnesses is unnecessary.

Now it appears they've never tested a spacesuited astronaut while in a vacuum chamber at all except for that last documented test way back in 1966 when the suit failed causing a near fatality.

How did you come up with this?

I'm puzzled more why they won't even show a video of an ice sublimator in a vacuum chamber with the astronaut outside running on the treadmill.

You mean, why isn't there a video posted on the Internet that I can easily find?  How do you know that there's not a can of film sitting around somewhere on a dusty shelf that shows this?  It could be that nobody thinks it's interesting or important enough to go find it, convert it to video, and post it on the web.

Because NASA alleges they've been testing them for more than fifty years.
NASA alleges they test them now.
An astronaut would be a fool not to test them under conditions as realistic to being at the ISS as possible. There shouldn't be no video. There shouldn't be only one video. There shouldn't be only ten videos. There should be post test videos for every vacuum chamber simulated-EVA.
Terribly sorry old chap, but your expectation of what is or is not loaded on the internet is baseless. Not everything is uploaded to the internet and nobody is under any obligation to do so. You should know this since you claim professional credentials.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 31, 2015, 03:48:09 PM
Actually, I think the post of interest was removed or altered. Perhaps it sounded just too foolish to he who wrote it.

Rich coming from a despicable piece of human trash such as yourself, and you still cannot answer the questions I posed. Instead you divert your attention to the OP and avoid the real nuts and bolts of why you need to test the PLSS sublimator with humans. You've failed miserably at every hurdle. You're a laughing stock, and in some ways I am glad that you have exposed yourself as a Crank Magnet by invoking the most despicable of all crank theories. The record stands showing the person you are.

To the regulars here, I'm sorry for lowering the tone. I'm heading out. I really cannot cope with this. LO, deal with me as you must for my transgression. I just felt I wanted my online words to reflect how I would react to Neil's face.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 31, 2015, 03:53:37 PM
The last thing I read on this site last night was someone telling me that testing a spacesuit with an astronaut in it was immoral.

No.  Testing the sublimator by applying it to a human subject at risk is immoral.  You don't risk human life to validate equipment.  You can determine whether the sublimator performs its function correctly without requiring a human to supply the heat load.

Quote
When I was in the Navy I had to attend firefighting school...

Yes, that's to train you to do something.  You can't do that without some risk to a human.  I would have thought the difference would be obvious.  At least in real life engineering the difference is obvious.

Quote
There's not a single NASA astrounaut that has trained for an EVA that shouldn't have some test video. It's absurd that it doesn't exist.

Begging the question.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 31, 2015, 03:54:16 PM

Funnily enough, a week ago I had never even heard of a sublimator. Now I know a fair bit about them, and have a ton of sources I could easily pursue to learn more were I so inclined.

Funny? You think that's funny? It's not funny. It's the anomaly that could, if more of the engineers here would demonstrate courage, bring down the government of the First Republic of the United States.
It is funny. You think I give a rats butt about the US gubbmint? Don't live there, not a citizen, have no interest in living in a land which gives rise to cranks like you.

And I am not the only one here who is in similar circumstance. The simple fact is that the US is under 5% of the totality of humanity, a paltry minority. And it is failing because of baseless opinions like yours which deprecate science, education and learning in favour of superstitious nonsense.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 31, 2015, 03:55:59 PM
The TRUTH shall set ye free but first it shall make ye miserable.
Dare to be miserable.
Dare to be free.
The misery is temporary. With eternal diligence, the freedom is forever.

Lying and criminal activity also make one miserable.  You aren't right because you're miserable.  You're miserable because you are so very wrong that no one anymore will pay attention to you and you're left spouting pseudo-revolutionary vomitus instead of being accountable.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 31, 2015, 03:57:21 PM
The last thing I read on this site last night was someone telling me that testing a spacesuit with an astronaut in it was immoral.

Here is the "immoral" quote in context:

Hogwash.  You said you wanted your witnesses to be able to integrate their own monitoring equipment into the test.  Why do you think that wouldn't cost NASA extra?  NASA doesn't test every individual sublimator in an all-up test in a full-scale, high-vacuum test with a human subject.  Why?  Because it's not necessary, and to do so would be unnecessary, immoral, and inefficient.  Hence the next vacuum-chamber test of a sublimator is likely to be well into the future, when new sublimator designs require it.

Jay didn't say that testing a spacesuit with an astronaut inside was immoral.  He was talking about unnecessary human testing of every single individual sublimator that comes off the assembly line.  Putting humans at risk in unnecessary and pointless testing is immoral.


ETA:  While I was typing Jay showed up to defend himself.
 
 
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 31, 2015, 04:00:11 PM

Actually, I think the post of interest was removed or altered. Perhaps it sounded just too foolish to he who wrote it.
I presume you are ready to retract tis comment?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 31, 2015, 04:01:11 PM
An astronaut would be a fool not to test them under conditions as realistic to being at the ISS as possible.

No, an astronaut would be a fool to subject himself bodily to a highly risky test (the vacuum chamber environment is hazardous for reasons besides heat rejection) solely to validate a piece of equipment.  NASA spends literally millions of dollars training each individual astronaut.  They are not guinea pigs.

Quote
There should be post test videos for every vacuum chamber simulated-EVA.

You misunderstand.  When NASA tests sublimators, they don't test them using human subjects.  They don't run all-up EVA tests in vacuum chambers, with the highly trained astronauts, just to validate equipment.

You really have absolutely no clue whatsoever what is involved in engineering test.  How did you manage to get a degree?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 31, 2015, 04:11:18 PM

You misunderstand.  When NASA tests sublimators, they don't test them using human subjects.  They don't run all-up EVA tests in vacuum chambers, with the highly trained astronauts, just to validate equipment.

You really have absolutely no clue whatsoever what is involved in engineering test.  How did you manage to get a degree?
Exactly my thoughts, as a fellow engineer, you Jay,  it is too embarrassing to call Neil a fellow engineer.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gillianren on August 31, 2015, 04:17:22 PM
How did you manage to get a degree?

That's what I've been wondering for some time now.  My standard tends to be "when I know more about science than you do, you've really failed."  By that standards, Neil shouldn't have gotten out of seventh grade science, much less gotten a degree in anything relying on science.  And were I so inclined, I could shred him on history, too, but since he isn't responding to me, either, why should I bother?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 31, 2015, 04:23:07 PM
And were I so inclined, I could shred him on history, too, but since he isn't responding to me, either, why should I bother?

We'd better stop contributing, the threads getting long now, and they mostly respond to Jay... mostly.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 31, 2015, 04:24:33 PM
And were I so inclined, I could shred him on history, too, but since he isn't responding to me, either, why should I bother?

We'd better stop contributing, the threads getting long now, and they mostly respond to Jay... mostly.
<snigger>
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on August 31, 2015, 04:37:47 PM
Again, Neil, we do have a sub forum (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?board=7.0) for this kind of bullshit. Dump it and yourself there if you want, I am sure some members will be willing to disprove your claims, but this is not the place.
I agree with all that have posted this proposition, Neil DISCONTINUE any posting that is not closely associated with the sublimator.

IF you have anything to post on any other subject start a new thread.
But I doubt you will do any better there than you have demonstrated in this thread.
Well, I tried that forum again to see if he's posted anything there, but, nope, nothing. I guess he isn't so interested after all.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Allan F on August 31, 2015, 04:42:52 PM
And were I so inclined, I could shred him on history, too, but since he isn't responding to me, either, why should I bother?

We'd better stop contributing, the threads getting long now, and they mostly respond to Jay... mostly.

Newt?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on August 31, 2015, 04:45:43 PM
Our space program is currently a mythological faith-based thing.

Currently, with the ISS it isn't YOUR space programme (an American one), but an INTERNATIONAL effort.

However, the evidence for the existence of Apollo, Gemini, Mir, Skylab, ISS and any other manned programme that I've missed easily outweighs your lack of research on the suits and sublimators.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 31, 2015, 04:46:29 PM

Newt?
I miss any connection Allan. :-[
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 31, 2015, 04:51:23 PM
Newt?

You've got it.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 31, 2015, 05:01:14 PM
And were I so inclined, I could shred him on history, too, but since he isn't responding to me, either, why should I bother?

We'd better stop contributing, the threads getting long now, and they mostly respond to Jay... mostly.

Newt?
Yup.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 31, 2015, 05:03:01 PM
Newt?

You've got it.
Although, with respect to our current protagonist, perhaps a better one would be...

"Game over, man. Game over."
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Cat Not Included on August 31, 2015, 05:11:30 PM
Newt?

You've got it.
Although, with respect to our current protagonist, perhaps a better one would be...

"Game over, man. Game over."

I was thinking more "Did IQs drop sharply while I was away?"
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 31, 2015, 05:13:52 PM
Newt?

You've got it.
Although, with respect to our current protagonist, perhaps a better one would be...

"Game over, man. Game over."
I'm still lost, this one zinged over my head.

EDIT: I get it now thanks to Allan.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on August 31, 2015, 05:14:02 PM
Newt?

You've got it.
Although, with respect to our current protagonist, perhaps a better one would be...

"Game over, man. Game over."

I was thinking more "Did IQs drop sharply while I was away?"
"I got better!"
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on August 31, 2015, 06:13:13 PM
NASA alleges they've been testing them for more than fifty years.

NASA alleges they test them now.

NASA and others have been seen, by the whole wide world, to have been USING them, in the environment for which they were intended, for the last 50 years or so.

You'd have to be a half-blind wombat not to have seen this. There's been live broadcasts, there's been film, video, stills, and a raft of accounts of their activities from the astronauts concerned.

Which bit of this did you miss?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Dalhousie on August 31, 2015, 06:28:45 PM
NASA alleges they've been testing them for more than fifty years.

NASA alleges they test them now.

NASA and others have been seen, by the whole wide world, to have been USING them, in the environment for which they were intended, for the last 50 years or so.

You'd have to be a half-blind wombat not to have seen this. There's been live broadcasts, there's been film, video, stills, and a raft of accounts of their activities from the astronauts concerned.

Which bit of this did you miss?

Not to mention Russian (which have been in use just as long and more recently Chinese space suits.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on August 31, 2015, 06:32:22 PM
NASA alleges they've been testing them for more than fifty years.

NASA alleges they test them now.

NASA and others have been seen, by the whole wide world, to have been USING them, in the environment for which they were intended, for the last 50 years or so.

You'd have to be a half-blind wombat not to have seen this. There's been live broadcasts, there's been film, video, stills, and a raft of accounts of their activities from the astronauts concerned.

Which bit of this did you miss?

Not to mention Russian (which have been in use just as long and more recently Chinese space suits.
The Orlan is a beautiful piece of engineering, from its easy 'open the back and climb in' entry to its ingenious 'sunroof' porthole in the top of the helmet.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on August 31, 2015, 06:35:58 PM

You misunderstand.  When NASA tests sublimators, they don't test them using human subjects.  They don't run all-up EVA tests in vacuum chambers, with the highly trained astronauts, just to validate equipment.

You really have absolutely no clue whatsoever what is involved in engineering test.  How did you manage to get a degree?
Exactly my thoughts, as a fellow engineer, you Jay,  it is too embarrassing to call Neil a fellow engineer.

Heavens, I'm not even an engineer to the level that you guys are (just a former Avionics Engineer) and even I cringe at the thought if calling him an "engineer". Embarrassment to the name IMO.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on August 31, 2015, 06:37:25 PM
Newt?

You've got it.
Although, with respect to our current protagonist, perhaps a better one would be...

"Game over, man. Game over."

I was thinking more "Did IQs drop sharply while I was away?"

Maybe if Neil got some o' that Arcturian poontang, he might see some sense....
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: VQ on August 31, 2015, 06:51:07 PM
Funny? You think that's funny? It's not funny. It's the anomaly that could, if more of the engineers here would demonstrate courage, bring down the government of the First Republic of the United States.

That's funny.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: VQ on August 31, 2015, 07:06:55 PM
Quote
When I was in the Navy I had to attend firefighting school...
Yes, that's to train you to do something.  You can't do that without some risk to a human.  I would have thought the difference would be obvious.  At least in real life engineering the difference is obvious.

To finish the thought, astronauts do train extensively for space walks, and some of the training can be dangerous. Just like it was worthwhile to train firefighters in a potentially dangerous way to improve the chances that they would be successful in a life-threatening emergency.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: VQ on August 31, 2015, 07:09:10 PM
We'd better stop contributing, the threads getting long now, and they mostly respond to Jay... mostly.

Game over man!
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on August 31, 2015, 07:16:46 PM

Funnily enough, a week ago I had never even heard of a sublimator. Now I know a fair bit about them, and have a ton of sources I could easily pursue to learn more were I so inclined.

Funny? You think that's funny? It's not funny. It's the anomaly that could, if more of the engineers here would demonstrate courage, bring down the government of the First Republic of the United States.
A government you tried to get elected to be part of . . .

The end of the First, the beginning of the Second.
France is on their Fifth.
You know, you've made so many delusional statements, like a picture available since at least 1997 online is only online and/or available because of your agitation in the mid-late 2000's, it's hard to tell if you don't think your election to Governor of California is enough to make that change.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 31, 2015, 07:23:10 PM
To finish the thought, astronauts do train extensively for space walks, and some of the training can be dangerous. Just like it was worthwhile to train firefighters in a potentially dangerous way to improve the chances that they would be successful in a life-threatening emergency.

Exactly.  The point of training is to impart experience and skill to the person being trained.  If the person is being trained to do a potentially hazardous thing, there is generally a tradeoff between the fidelity of the training and its safety.  There is simply no other way to acquire practical knowledge than to put the human into a realistic situation that may at times transcend the capability of simulation.  You train firefighters by having them put out fires in buildings erected solely for that purpose.  And yes, it is dangerous to expose a firefighter trainee to the hazards of a real fire.  You mitigate that risk by surrounding him with highly experienced firefighters, escalating the hazards across training in a controlled fashion, and having abort facilities such as fire-suppression systems that work independently of his efforts.  But there simply is no other way for the trainee to learn how to fight fires.

But you don't test a new respirator system by putting it on a trainee and sending him into a fire.  You don't test new nozzle designs by making a fireman stand and fight a real fire with it.  Respirators and nozzles are verified in ways that don't expose a human to danger in case of test failure.  Similarly when NASA says they test sublimators, they don't expose a human to risk if the sublimator fails in testing.  They don't need to, and yes, to risk a human unnecessarily for such a test would indeed be immoral.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 31, 2015, 07:33:21 PM
In Neil's world, the infantry would undergo FIBUA training using fragmentation grenades and live round ammunition and cavalry training would use HESH and sabot rounds.  :o
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 31, 2015, 07:47:15 PM
In Neil's world, the infantry would undergo FIBUA training using fragmentation grenades and live round ammunition and cavalry training would use HESH and sabot rounds.  :o
Crawling through mud beneath barb wired with live fire above was a close simulation.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: LunarOrbit on August 31, 2015, 08:30:52 PM

And then we'd have an Independent Holocaust Investigation.


Wow. Just. Wow.

It's worse than NASA.
No documented gas chambers.
Nowhere near enough ovens.
Lice insecticide, Zyklon B, still manufactured as Uragan D2 with the charges that it was used as an agent of mass murder scoffed at by its Czech Republic manufacturers.
Worst, outrageous thought crime laws in 14 nations prohibiting the questioning or investigation of the holocaust.
GOD bless America!
An International group of forensic experts could make quick work of this hoax if they were allowed in.
I recommend this website to deprogram yourself from the holocaust garbage they fed you in public school.
http:// [LINK REMOVED] /


This is off topic and not welcome in my forum. Start your own forum if you want to discuss things like that. This is your only warning.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: LunarOrbit on August 31, 2015, 08:40:14 PM
And then we'd have an Independent Holocaust Investigation.
My contempt just turned to loathing and disgust. If I posted what I think about you and your ilk I would be banned from the forum.

I'll defend a Apollo hoax believer if I believe they are being treated unfairly... but I won't defend a holocaust denying scumbag. They're fair game.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 31, 2015, 08:49:04 PM
And then we'd have an Independent Holocaust Investigation.
My contempt just turned to loathing and disgust. If I posted what I think about you and your ilk I would be banned from the forum.

I'll defend a Apollo hoax believer if I believe they are being treated unfairly... but I won't defend a holocaust denying scumbag. They're fair game.
His true colors became vivid this afternoon.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: DD Brock on August 31, 2015, 08:58:47 PM
And then we'd have an Independent Holocaust Investigation.
My contempt just turned to loathing and disgust. If I posted what I think about you and your ilk I would be banned from the forum.

I'll defend a Apollo hoax believer if I believe they are being treated unfairly... but I won't defend a holocaust denying scumbag. They're fair game.

I could not possibly agree more. Holocaust deniers are the amongst the worst sort of scum.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: nomuse on August 31, 2015, 09:02:47 PM
The last thing I read on this site last night was someone telling me that testing a spacesuit with an astronaut in it was immoral.

When I was in the Navy I had to attend firefighting school three times where they would make us don an oxygen breathing apparatus (OBA) and enter a steel compartment on land modeled after the compartment of a ship that was engulfed in flames with smoke pouring out of it to put out the fire. It was seriously dangerous. People would sometimes get hurt. It was scary. But it was a tremendous confidence booster. We had fire drills twice a day on the carrier I was stationed aboard and we once had a bad fire in a paint locker that we had to extinguish. After the USS Forrestal fire, nobody could serve aboard ship without having gone through firefighting school. The entire crew, from the highest ranking officer to the lowest enlisted, consisted of trained firefighters that had experienced fighting fires in smoke-filled fire-engulged rooms while wearing an OBA.

In boot camp we had to enter a teargas-filled room wearing a gas mask and then take off the mask before rushing out of the room suffering the expected horrible symptoms.

So this situation where it appears due to alleged morality reasons that no spacesuit has been tested in a high vacuum chamber with a person in it just makes the alarms in my head go off even louder.  It's like saying it would be immoral to fight a fire in a compartment on land because it's dangerous; let's wait until we have a fire on a ship to fight one.

I think it's common sense. If I'm going to the ISS to perform an EVA, I first don the spacesuit and enter the high vacuum chamber on Earth and pump down to 1e-6 torr. I probably want to do it many times. While I'm in there they shut off the sublimator to perform the recovery drill. They drill other stuff too, loss of electricity, loss of air, loss of spacesuit integrity. I'd probably want to go in with another astronaut to practice the buddy system of PLSS troubleshooting and emergency procedures. And while we're in there we want the whole thing video recorded for replay and post-test analysis.

There's nothing immoral about it. It's very moral. There's not a single NASA astrounaut that has trained for an EVA that shouldn't have some test video. It's absurd that it doesn't exist.

If somehow the witnessed test that I want was ordered, I doubt they'd find any volunteers to wear the suit inside while the chamber got pumped down to high vacuum. I'm still doubting. I lean even a bit more toward hoax.

The difference being, the soldier getting a nose full of CS is the one being tested, not the "gas." Try to make arbitrary changes to the training equipment without oversight and testing and see how they'd react to that idea.

</