Author Topic: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.  (Read 474013 times)

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3789
    • Clavius
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #60 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.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline Bob B.

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 819
  • Bob the Excel Guru™
    • Rocket & Space Technology
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #61 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.

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #62 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.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2015, 09:12:47 PM by Luke Pemberton »
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people – Sir Isaac Newton.

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Offline Bob B.

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 819
  • Bob the Excel Guru™
    • Rocket & Space Technology
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #63 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.

Offline smartcooky

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1959
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #64 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."


 
« Last Edit: August 26, 2015, 09:30:16 PM by smartcooky »
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong.

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3789
    • Clavius
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #65 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.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #66 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.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people – Sir Isaac Newton.

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3789
    • Clavius
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #67 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.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3107
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #68 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.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline Neil Baker

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 107
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #69 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

Offline raven

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1639
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #70 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.

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3789
    • Clavius
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #71 on: August 27, 2015, 12:18:38 AM »
Sincerely,

E

Dear E.,

Thanks for posting, and for your concern.  You have our support.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline smartcooky

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1959
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #72 on: August 27, 2015, 12:50:00 AM »
That is a creative flounce methinks, or a bad case of MPD
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong.

Offline Zakalwe

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1590
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #73 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...



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
"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' " - Isaac Asimov

Offline Peter B

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1273
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #74 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?
Ecosia - the greenest way to search. You find what you need, Ecosia plants trees where they're needed. www.ecosia.org