Author Topic: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.  (Read 461450 times)

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #450 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.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3107
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #451 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.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #452 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.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2015, 07:42:05 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 Zakalwe

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1588
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #453 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.
"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 ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3014
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #454 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 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

Offline raven

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1637
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #455 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.

Offline smartcooky

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1959
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #456 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 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.   
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 Dr_Orpheus

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 76
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #457 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.

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3107
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #458 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.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline Dr_Orpheus

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 76
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #459 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.

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3107
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #460 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.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline Dr_Orpheus

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 76
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #461 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


Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2211
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #462 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.
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

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

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3107
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #463 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
« Last Edit: August 30, 2015, 02:12:38 PM by bknight »
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3014
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #464 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.