ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: allancw on October 13, 2013, 05:34:41 PM
-
Having just re-watched Ron Howard's Apollo 13, and having consulted with medical people, one question I have: Why didn't the astronauts don their space suits for the three day trip back to earth with no climate control or power in the LEM?
Related issues: Alan Bean has stated that a LEM on the moon with no power (as it was on the powerless LEM returning from the moon, a three day trip under the same conditions) would heat up to 250 degrees f. Yet the Apollo story is that the cabin cooled down to '34 degrees,' according to Lovell. Explain the discrepancy, please.
Assuming that Bean is somehow wrong.... Three days at 34 degrees f would cause severe hypothermia, even death, according to an EMS friend. So how did they survive so well? And again, why not don their spacesuits to stay warm?
The skin of the LEM was 'like two layers of tinfoil.' How do they expect us to believe that whatever the temperature really was (250 f or 34 f) -- with no power would it not be unsurvivable?
-
I've wondered this too actually. Apparently, given the limited water aboard, sweating in the spacesuits would be more dangerous than the hypothermia of being in the rather chill environment.
I am pretty sure it wasn't that cold for the entire trip though
Bean could easily be mistaken. I know someone here can give the math showing the actual ambient temperature the LM would have. Though I would like a definitive source proven he said this at all.
Also, it's LM, lunar module. While some NASA sources used LEM, the official term past a certain point was LM, lunar module.
-
Thermal conditions on the lunar surface are not the same as in deep space, even in the daytime, despite being a hard vacuum in both places.
Objects in vacuum achieve radiative equilibrium with their surroundings. That is, they reach a temperature where the heat power they absorb is exactly equal to the heat power they radiate.
The sun is not the only thing heating a spacecraft. Not only do the earth and moon reflect some of the sun's visible and near-infrared radiation, the sunlight they don't reflect is absorbed, producing heat that is re-radiated in the far infrared. They too reach radiative equilibrium with their surroundings. (A change in the earth's radiative equilibrium is the mechanism behind global warming.)
A LM sitting on the lunar surface is exposed not only to the full force of sunlight but also to a hot lunar surface occupying fully half of the sphere that surrounds it. The lunar surface reaches over +100C at lunar noon, though the Apollo missions were all gone by then.
The LMs were covered with multilayer insulation designed to block as much of this incoming thermal radiation as possible. But keeping heat out also keeps it in, creating a new problem: how to get rid of the waste heat generated internally by electronic equipment and the astronauts' own metabolism. This was done by evaporating water with waste heat much like a "swamp cooler" used in drier locations on earth. Although this consumed precious water, it was a practical solution because the LM only had to operate for a few days at most, and it required relatively little electrical power to drive the coolant pumps. (A regular air conditioner burns most of its power in the compressor that recycles the coolant, but here the water coolant wasn't recycled.)
Battery power was extremely limited in the Apollo 13 LM so its internal systems generated much less internal waste heat than in normal operation. And because it was in deep space, not on the lunar surface, that large external source of heat was missing. It therefore reached thermal equilibrium with its surroundings at a much lower temperature than normal, and that's why it got so cold inside.
-
Bean overstated the case a little. The lunar surface does get very hot (over 100C or 212F) at local noon, but all the Apollo crews were gone by then. Temperatures are far more moderate in the local morning, which is when all the landings occurred.
Spacecraft thermal engineering is based on very well understood physical laws, but the computer models are still quite complicated because the environment and spacecraft themselves are so complicated. The spacecraft is represented as a large collection of physical points (or "nodes"), each with a certain thermal mass (specific heat). The nodes have conductive, radiative and perhaps convective connections with each other that have to be evaluated and specified in the model.
The nodes of the external surface are radiatively coupled with the sun, deep space, earth and/or moon in ways that depend on the spacecraft orientation, the positions of those other bodies, and the optical properties of the various surfaces (specifically their darkness at both visible and longwave IR wavelengths). Once you've got this model built you can let the computer turn the crank and solve for the temperature at each node that results in thermal equilibrium. As in computer graphics the basic rules are simple enough but the sheer amount of computation required makes the end result anything but simple.
-
LEM. Check.
-
You guys are over my head with some of your data/explanations.... I appreciate the time and effort though. But still, the question remains: Lovell has stated that the temperature in the LM (I stand corrected) quickly dropped to 34 f. This is hypothermia time and sorry but a spacesuit and some sweating would be better than hypothermia (or death, according to my EMS friend).
Bean said as I quoted him in a film (I recall) called Moon Movie. Trust me, I screen-grabbed it. I also found it incredible that Bean didn't know he went through the Van Allen Belt. (You all here should have seen by now his embarrassing interview on this subject.) I compare it to running into someone who claims he climbed Everest and when asked how he handled the thin air answers, 'What thin air?'
I doubt that there are any 'technical' explanations for this one.
I also find it incredible that the Apollo 11 crew claimed they could see no stars from the moon's service and in a BBC interview Armstrong said you cannot see stars from sislunar (sp?) space either -- frankly, you could tell he was lying in this one. It's on Youtube, search 'BBC interviews Neil Armstrong.' You can then go to NASA's 'Pictures of the Day' and see what the day time sky would look like from the earth with no atmosphere (or the moon, same thing). It would be breathtaking.
That an astronaut (all three of the Apollo crew) would lie about this is damning, no?
Also, that they 'lost' 10,000 reel to reel telemetry tapes -- the scientific history of the missions -- makes 'the dog ate my homework' look like gospel. Ditto with the specs to the LM and the Saturn. This sort of thing does it for me.
When I started looking into the possibility that Apollo was a hoax, I totally expected it to be a BS 'conspiracy theory.' I was in for a surprise.
-
One other thing, and I do appreciate the feedback, even if you guys are on the other side: I'm a professional photographer and the attached photo raises a big red flag. The moonscape is clearly lit from the far left (looking at the photo), whereas for the earth to be 'full', the sun must be behind the camera. In fact, if you look closely, the 'sun' is slightly to the right, the other side.
Two suns?
-
One other thing, and I do appreciate the feedback, even if you guys are on the other side: I'm a professional photographer and the attached photo raises a big red flag. The moonscape is clearly lit from the far left (looking at the photo), whereas for the earth to be 'full', the sun must be behind the camera. In fact, if you look closely, the 'sun' is slightly to the right, the other side.
Two suns?
We are on the other side of what? If you think the missions were faked in some way you must have an alternative theory that better accounts for the evidence. Care to tell us what you think happened.
The photo is lit from the far left? What exactly does that mean? Care to do the work to show the angle of the lighting? It is a known photogrammetric process. It would also be helpful if you would provide the NASA catalogue number of the actual photo rather than a low res screen capture.
Think long and hard before you hold yourself out as a professional, there are several people here that can put you to the test on that account.
-
Lovell has stated that the temperature in the LM (I stand corrected) quickly dropped to 34 f. This is hypothermia time and sorry but a spacesuit and some sweating would be better than hypothermia (or death, according to my EMS friend).
I don't agree with your EMS friend. 34°F is about 1°C. I have spent longer than three days in conditions colder than that in an 11x11 tent on the side of Mt Cook during a military training exercise, with only body heat and warm clothes to stay warm. And I didn't have a space suit either.
You can see from this chart...
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/ApolloHoax/Survival.jpg)
...that it is possible for humans to live up to 10 days @ 0°C, which is a degree colder than what the Apollo 13 astronauts had to endure.
NOTE: Chart pinched from here.
http://www.livescience.com/34128-limits-human-survival.html
-
Having just re-watched Ron Howard's Apollo 13, and having consulted with medical people, one question I have:
What does the movie have to do with anything? What medical experts did you consult with? Do they have any experience as space flight surgeons? Can you provide any of their analysis?
-
One other thing, and I do appreciate the feedback, even if you guys are on the other side: I'm a professional photographer and the attached photo raises a big red flag. The moonscape is clearly lit from the far left (looking at the photo), whereas for the earth to be 'full', the sun must be behind the camera. In fact, if you look closely, the 'sun' is slightly to the right, the other side.
Two suns?
That is not a NASA photo, that is from Kaguya, the Japanese Lunar Orbiter. I too am a professional photographer and photo-processor. I see nothing wrong or suspicious about the photo (other than crappy resolution).
How can you say that the photo is lit from the far left when it is clearly lit from about four to five o'clock (six o'clock being directly behind the camera).
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/ApolloHoax/EarhriseJAXA.png)
NOTE: I found a higher resolution version of your screenshot and have cropped to show the crater shadow below to indicate that its the same photo. The fixed 1:1 circular marquee over the Earth clearly shows that it is gibbous, not full. The terminator is clearly visible on the left side of the disk.
-
I also found it incredible that Bean didn't know he went through the Van Allen Belt.
The VAB is not some clearly defined zone like a house or a road, where you are either in it or not. The AB is like the Earth's atmosphere: dense at the bottom, less dense the higher you go. All the Apollo missions were designed to avoid the densest section.
(You all here should have seen by now his embarrassing interview on this subject.) I compare it to running into someone who claims he climbed Everest and when asked how he handled the thin air answers, 'What thin air?'
Except no one can sense the VAB. A more apt analogy would be to ask someone if they can feel the difference between 50% and 51% humidity.
I doubt that there are any 'technical' explanations for this one.
The explanations found in reality work really good.
I also find it incredible that the Apollo 11 crew claimed they could see no stars from the moon's service and in a BBC interview Armstrong said you cannot see stars from sislunar (sp?) space either
Watch the complete interview to get the context of the question Armstrong was asked. The interviewer asked him a question about a very specific location and a very specific time.
-- frankly, you could tell he was lying in this one.
Sure, if you already have the preconceived idea he is lying. If you take it at face value he seems genuine.
It's on Youtube, search 'BBC interviews Neil Armstrong.' You can then go to NASA's 'Pictures of the Day' and see what the day time sky would look like from the earth with no atmosphere (or the moon, same thing). It would be breathtaking.
Try standing directly under a bright streetlight and look straight up. Tell us how many stars you see.
That an astronaut (all three of the Apollo crew) would lie about this is damning, no?
Sure, if they were lying. But they're not.
Also, that they 'lost' 10,000 reel to reel telemetry tapes -- the scientific history of the missions -- makes 'the dog ate my homework' look like gospel.
Do you know the complete history of that story? It seems you don't.
Ditto with the specs to the LM and the Saturn.
Right out of the hoax believer playbook. Now go do some real research and find out how you've been lied to.
This sort of thing does it for me.
When I started looking into the possibility that Apollo was a hoax, I totally expected it to be a BS 'conspiracy theory.' I was in for a surprise.
No, you believed it was a conspiracy before you "started looking" into it.
I think this falls under the "just asking questions" so mark your box if you have it.
-
Yes, slightly gibbous but you're hoisting by your own petard since the sun is then to the right of camera, with the moonscape lit from the left... the dark shadow band at the bottom clearly should be sun-lit.
-
Your Shakespeare is wrong, too. The expression is "hoist by your own petard" and roughly means "blown up by your own hand grenade."
-
the dark shadow band at the bottom clearly should be sun-lit.
Huh? The bottom is lit. Look at the shadow made by the peak in the crater. The sun is obvious to the right.
-
Yes, slightly gibbous but you're hoisting by your own petard since the sun is then to the right of camera, with the moonscape lit from the left... the dark shadow band at the bottom clearly should be sun-lit.
You are not any kind of professional photographer if you cannot see that the gibbousness of the Earth and the shadows of the peaks (A) inside the crater both indicate that the sun is to the right and behind the camera.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/ApolloHoax/20071113_kaguya_01l.jpg)
How can you not see that the whole moonscape is lit from the same position. The dark area at the bottom (B) between the viewer and the crater peaks, is the shadow of the near rim of the crater.
Looking at this picture, the whole scene looks like its lit from "behind and to my right", which is what it is. It is clear and obvious, that there is NO lighting of any kind coming from the left side. If it was lit from the left, then the right hand rear crater wall (C) would be in full sunlight - it isn't. The only wall of that crater that IS in full sunlight is the back left (D). Taken together, (C) and (D) prove conclusively that there is only one light source, and it is behind and to the right of the camera. If there were two light sources, the Sun and your imagined one to the left, then both (C) and (D) would be in full sunlight
-
Allancw, you're all over the place.
One issue at a time please.
Your sources on the effect of cold are not quite accurate. 1 degree Celsius is a lot more manageable than you think when you're in the dry. It's when wet that it is more dangerous because water is a much more potent medium to lose heat.
Also, if you read up a little, you'll discover comments by Lovell about how sitting still in zero G without convection allowed a bubble of warm air to develop around. When sleeping, they were a bit toastier so did get some respite.
-
You guys are over my head with some of your data/explanations.... I appreciate the time and effort though. But still, the question remains: Lovell has stated that the temperature in the LM (I stand corrected) quickly dropped to 34 f. This is hypothermia time and sorry but a spacesuit and some sweating would be better than hypothermia (or death, according to my EMS friend).
Bean said as I quoted him in a film (I recall) called Moon Movie. Trust me, I screen-grabbed it. I also found it incredible that Bean didn't know he went through the Van Allen Belt. (You all here should have seen by now his embarrassing interview on this subject.) I compare it to running into someone who claims he climbed Everest and when asked how he handled the thin air answers, 'What thin air?'
I doubt that there are any 'technical' explanations for this one.
I also find it incredible that the Apollo 11 crew claimed they could see no stars from the moon's service and in a BBC interview Armstrong said you cannot see stars from sislunar (sp?) space either -- frankly, you could tell he was lying in this one. It's on Youtube, search 'BBC interviews Neil Armstrong.' You can then go to NASA's 'Pictures of the Day' and see what the day time sky would look like from the earth with no atmosphere (or the moon, same thing). It would be breathtaking.
That an astronaut (all three of the Apollo crew) would lie about this is damning, no?
Also, that they 'lost' 10,000 reel to reel telemetry tapes -- the scientific history of the missions -- makes 'the dog ate my homework' look like gospel. Ditto with the specs to the LM and the Saturn. This sort of thing does it for me.
When I started looking into the possibility that Apollo was a hoax, I totally expected it to be a BS 'conspiracy theory.' I was in for a surprise.
Aaaand my Bingo card is filled up already. Inanimate Carbon Rod called it. "LEM" indeed.
-
Lovell has stated that the temperature in the LM (I stand corrected) quickly dropped to 34 f. This is hypothermia time and sorry but a spacesuit and some sweating would be better than hypothermia (or death, according to my EMS friend).
34 degrees Fahrenheit is survivable for extended periods. Air isn't a great heat sink. On the other hand, there wasn't room in the LM for three men in spacesuits, and if they took off the suits to gain some mobility or avoid overheating (which they would without an active colling system inside the suit, even with their helmets and gloves off) and tried floating around in that temperature is sweaty wet garments they would very quickly suffer the effects of cold.
I also found it incredible that Bean didn't know he went through the Van Allen Belt. (You all here should have seen by now his embarrassing interview on this subject.) I compare it to running into someone who claims he climbed Everest and when asked how he handled the thin air answers, 'What thin air?'
The comparison is not remotely valid. As air gets thinner you find it colder and harder to breathe and exert yourself. There is no way for a human in a spacecraft to tell he is passing through the van Allen belt. The trajectory of the Apollo flights was designed to avoid them mostly anyway. It is not a requirement of a flight to the moon to pass through the van Allen belt. It's a belt, and spaceflight is a 3D problem...
I doubt that there are any 'technical' explanations for this one.
I doubt you'd accept them anyway, if that is going to be your attitude going in.
I also find it incredible that the Apollo 11 crew claimed they could see no stars from the moon's service and in a BBC interview Armstrong said you cannot see stars from sislunar (sp?) space either
Why do you find it incredible that on a sunlit surface surrounded by brightly lit things they could not see stars? As to Armstrong's response, he was being asked about a very specific point in the mission. He did not say 'stars are invisible in cislunar space under any and all conditions'. That's just your interpretation.
frankly, you could tell he was lying in this one.
No, he wasn't. You just decided he must be.
You can then go to NASA's 'Pictures of the Day' and see what the day time sky would look like from the earth with no atmosphere (or the moon, same thing). It would be breathtaking.
Would it? How well do you think your eyes could make out all those stars with the Sun above the horizon and the ground and everything around you brightly lit? Try going outside at night and shining a torch in your face while you try and look at the stars and see how breathtaking the view is then.
That an astronaut (all three of the Apollo crew) would lie about this is damning, no?
If they were lying it would be damning, but they're not. Their statements don't match your expectations, and you admit to being out of your depth on the technical side. That's the problem.
Also, that they 'lost' 10,000 reel to reel telemetry tapes -- the scientific history of the missions -- makes 'the dog ate my homework' look like gospel.
They did not lose anything. They reused the original telemetry tape because they needed it for other missions. By that time they had copied the historically significant details such as the TV broadcast onto other media.
>>Ditto with the specs to the LM and the Saturn.<<
Which specs are lost? We hear this one a lot, and yet no-one seems to be able to tell what's missing. I have a number of cooks that contain a lot of technical detail about the LM and the Saturn rockets. Full detailed construction blueprints would be a vast storage problem for something no lnoger being made, but that doesn't mean you can;t find them in an archive somewhere on microfilm. Have you actually tried to find out where such information might be?
-
Yes, slightly gibbous but you're hoisting by your own petard since the sun is then to the right of camera, with the moonscape lit from the left... the dark shadow band at the bottom clearly should be sun-lit.
In what way is that moonscape lit from the left? The crater peak shadow is clearly lit by a source behind and to the right of the photographer, justa s the Earth is.
-
I also found it incredible that Bean didn't know he went through the Van Allen Belt. (You all here should have seen by now his embarrassing interview on this subject.) I compare it to running into someone who claims he climbed Everest and when asked how he handled the thin air answers, 'What thin air?'
I doubt that there are any 'technical' explanations for this one.
What practical use was there for Bean to know one way or the other? Would knowing it have helped him perform his mission better?
Bean was flat out (a) learning how to help Gordon and Conrad fly the CM, (b) learning how to help Conrad fly the LM, (c) learning the geology of the landing area for Apollo 12, (d) learning how to set up and operate the ALSEP, and (e) probably a few other things too. Learning that at two points in the mission he'd pass through the fringes of the Van Allen Belts was not relevant to any aspect of successfully completing the mission.
To put it another way, if I gave you street directions for you to drive from point A to point B, I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't notice the colour of the fourth house on the right; because you're concentrating on (a) driving and (b) looking for street signs.
-
I certainly hit the motherlode when it comes to experts! This is great. I actually am a respected (if not rich) writer doing a project on subjects like conspiracy theorists; other things as well. You can look up my books at amazon -- Allan Weisbecker is my name.
Will you guys continue to 'set me straight'?
If so: One question I have is why they used approx 16 psi of pure O2 in the capsule during a communications test -- when Grissom & Co burned to death. Even I know not to do that.
-
If so: One question I have is why they used approx 16 psi of pure O2 in the capsule during a communications test -- when Grissom & Co burned to death. Even I know not to do that.
You do now because of Apollo 1.
After an accident, everyone, especially those who would otherwise have no clue, become a Captain Hindsight.
-
That's your answer? An insult?
-
Well, your question is kind of an insult, isn't it? "I don't know much about space travel, and I'm smart enough to know not to do this thing." But because you don't know much about space travel, you have no idea what possible reasons there might have been for it and why it might have seemed like a good idea at the time.
-
You're very quick on your responses. May I ask if this is a paying job?
-
Ah, here we go. Are you about to accuse us all of being paid shills? Strange how often that is used as a deflection tactic, so I'm sure you won't mind my asking.
-
You're very quick on your responses. May I ask if this is a paying job?
If people are quick on their responses it's because we've heard it all before. So far you haven't brought anything new to the discussion. Your claims are so old that we've even made a game (http://apollohoax.net/bingo) out of them.
-
Hey, Andromeda... looks like the US government shutdown broke your avatar. :-\
-
Hey, Andromeda... looks like the US government shutdown broke your avatar. :-\
:( thanks for letting me know. Fixed it now!
-
:( thanks for letting me know
No problem. It's probably one the least significant consequences of the shutdown, but I figured you might want to change it. :)
-
You guys are over my head with some of your data/explanations.
<snip>
I doubt that there are any 'technical' explanations for this one.
These points of view are incompatible. Choose one or the other.
...some sweating would be better than hypothermia (or death, according to my EMS friend).
Because every anonymous EMS is trained in space survival.
I also found it incredible that Bean didn't know he went through the Van Allen Belt.
He didn't. He went around the edge of it. The filmmaker Bart Sibrel told him he'd gone through the Van Allen belt, even though Sibrel is essentially ignorant of what that is or what that means. Naturally Bean was surprised; Sibrel in his ignorance misrepresented the case.
...frankly, you could tell he was lying in this one.
Does every "professional photographer" display such remarkable clairvoyance? I know trained and experienced psychiatrists who find it difficult to tell just by looking at a few seconds of film of someone they've never met, whether he's lying or not.
It would be breathtaking.
For a "professional photographer" you are colossally ignorant about the strength of light and the mechanics of vision.
Also, that they 'lost' 10,000 reel to reel telemetry tapes...
No, they didn't lose them. They were reluctantly forced to re-use them due to a vendor snafu long after Apollo.
the scientific history of the missions...
That may be your characterization but it's not the view of the relevant scientific community.
Ditto with the specs to the LM and the Saturn.
Who says they are "lost?" You're listening to way too much hoax-advocate rhetoric. Yeah, they're so "lost" that engineer Scott Sullivan was able, using only publicly available information, to reconstruct the mechanical design of the spacecraft using modern drafting and modeling techniques. I've seen quite a handful of the original drawings, which for the most part are held by their contractors in one form or another.
This sort of thing does it for me.
Oh really? How many aerospace engineering projects have you been personally involved with? On what basis are you judging the reletive
When I started looking into the possibility that Apollo was a hoax, I totally expected it to be a BS 'conspiracy theory.' I was in for a surprise.
I don't see you exhibiting a lot of critical thought here. You came here with specific questions, admitted that the answers you're getting from qualified professionals went over your head, and then just decided not to believe them. Don't try to play "innocent questioner" here. As soon as you got your first answer, you let loose the standard Gish gallop of claims.
So now that it's obvious you're here to debate and not "just ask questions," let's see how much you really know about the beliefs you espouse.
-
You're very quick on your responses. May I ask if this is a paying job?
I'm paid to be an aerospace engineer, yes. But posting on these forums is not my paid job. As has been said, your claims are so old and so long-debunked that it simply takes no effort to provide the real story.
-
If so: One question I have is why they used approx 16 psi of pure O2 in the capsule during a communications test -- when Grissom & Co burned to death. Even I know not to do that.
You know now not to do that, largely because of what happened to Apollo 1. Prior to that, oxygen saturated environments had been operated safely, hence there was no special cause for concern. The danger was known and discussed, and plans were being made to fix it. But they were being made to the Block II design, not the Block I design, which was what the Apollo 1 spacecraft was.
The test has to have an environment of 3-5 psi over the ambient in order to test the pressure regulation mechanisms. And because of the plumbing, the only gas they could pressurize that spacecraft with was oxygen. The capsule design was vetted for the space environment, and test constraints etc. were considered secondary in the rush to get the program off the ground. What later was realized during the investigation but was not realized in the development and test phases is that the test environment for the Apollo 1 capsule, for reasons including the high-pressure oxygen, was actually more dangerous than the flight conditions. This arose simply because overworked engineers were so focused on flight.
In short, yes it was not a wise thing to do. But it is exactly the sort of thing that happens when you work on a complex engineering project very fast.
-
I'm a professional photographer and the attached photo raises a big red flag.
I don't believe you. I have at times worked as a professional photographer, and while I maintain my own studio I do not make my living that way. However, part of my living as an engineer is in photographic analysis, typically in a forensic engineering role. I have been formally trained along those lines, and my analysis has appeared in such prestigious journals as Science.
You don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about here.
-
The percentage of hoax believers that are professional-photographers-on-the-internet is truly astonishing.
You're very quick on your responses. May I ask if this is a paying job?
Aaaand the Shill Gambit.
Pray tell, is misrepresenting yourself a professional deformity or is it just a hobby?
-
If so: One question I have is why they used approx 16 psi of pure O2 in the capsule during a communications test -- when Grissom & Co burned to death. Even I know not to do that.
As several others have already pointed out, hindsight is always 20-20.
Why was Apollo 1 pressurized to ~16 psi? Because it was designed to operate in space with zero outside pressure; external pressure would crush the structure. So as it sat on the pad at sea level the internal pressure had to be greater than 1 atm to provide a positive pressure just as it would have in space.
Why did Apollo use pure oxygen? Because it was designed as a 1-gas system to save weight (no nitrogen tanks and a much lighter structure) and reduce complexity (no nitrogen piping and regulators, no O2 partial pressure sensors).
Apollo astronauts also conducted many EVAs in pressure suits. Even today, it is pretty much impossible to make a suit that can be pressurized to 1 atm while remaining light and flexible. Since our lungs care only about the partial pressure of oxygen, which is about 21% of air, by eliminating the nitrogen the total suit pressure can be dropped to less than 4 psi (vs 14.7 psi at sea level). This makes it far lighter and more flexible.
If Apollo had used ordinary air, it would have to have been pressurized to ~1 atm, greatly complicating EVA preparations. The astronauts would have to breathe pure oxygen for hours while the pressure around them is reduced very slowly to allow the nitrogen in their bodies to come out without causing the bends. The use of low pressure pure oxygen on Apollo greatly simplified an EVA; you just put on your suits, depressurized the cabin, and left; no prebreathing period was required.
After Apollo 1 revealed the extreme fire hazards of pure oxygen at > 1 atm, procedures were changed so that the prelaunch cabin contained a 60% O2, 40% N2 mixture. This was provided by ground equipment so the spacecraft did not have to be modified. After launch, the cabin was slowly vented and replaced with pure oxygen at the normal low pressure of about 5 psi.
The Space Shuttle, ISS and all Russian crewed spacecraft do use mixed-gas atmospheres (i.e., ordinary air) at sea level pressure, and that makes them considerably heavier and more complex. Astronauts spend hours in the airlock prebreathing oxygen to prepare for each EVA. But this was considered necessary because of the greater fire hazards in the much larger cabins filled with all sorts of equipment and supplies that couldn't always be made completely fireproof in pure oxygen.
-
That's your answer? An insult?
It's not an insult; it's a rebuke -- and a well-deserved one.
Unless you work in an industry for a long time, you can't really use your personal beliefs or suppositions as a basis to judge the propriety of actions taken by others in that field. And you surely can't say, with any depth of understanding or credibility, things like "Well, I would never have made that mistake." So when you insinuate that such an allegedly bone-headed practice would never have arisen in a real space program and so this one must be fake, you're going to have a lot of engineers lambasting you.
Don't pretend you're an expert in things you don't know about. Around here you will get cut off abruptly at the knees for it, without warning or mercy.
-
Still no answer. OK. Main thing is that my observation that three days in tinfoil and no climate control in deep space IS a new observation has been confirmed. I just wanted to make sure I was the first to point that out. Thanks, guys.
-
Um, maybe you should actually read the answers several people have provided you with.
-
Still no answer.
No, you got your answer. You simply didn't want to take the time to understand it -- you even said so.
You are committing the fallacy, almost universal among Apollo deniers, of appealing to incredulity.
-
But this was considered necessary because of the greater fire hazards in the much larger cabins filled with all sorts of equipment and supplies that couldn't always be made completely fireproof in pure oxygen.
The Apollo cabin was supposed to be reasonably sterile for flight. The flammability and extinguishment characteristics of all the materials qualified for flight was carefully evaluated for the 5 psi of pure oxygen. Even still, the investigation board found "creep" in the amount and types of materials accepted for flight, that was strictly above the combustibles limit.
But one of the big problems was all the stuff in the cabin for the test that would have been removed prior to the flight -- the webbing under the couches, the protective covers over the instruments, the "remove before flight" tags, the cable and hose covers. All these things were not qualified for flight and were not evaluated for flammability. Why? Because those constraints were not established for ground test. If everything present in the cabin at all times during its preparation had to be flight-qualified, there would be no end of delay and frustration. And so a careful evaluation of non-critical constraints is one of the first things that falls by the wayside in a very high-profile, very complex project that is falling behind.
And it's absolutely true that the dangers of a high-pressure oxygen environment -- even if only for test -- were being realized by other aerospace projects and were trickling over to Apollo. It was being discussed. The designs for Block II were being looked at for possible revision. GSE equipment designs were being modified. Test procedures were being examined.
The problem is that the layman doesn't realize just what a sheer workload that is to go from abstract concern to deploying modified designs. "Test procedures" are not just a handout. For a manned space flight "test procedures" amount to dozens of feet of shelf space of loose-leaf binders that all have to be read through page-by-page to determine whether any individual steps need to be changed. Then modified, then submitted to all affected parties and contractors for approval, then submitted to training to be implemented by the pad and flight crew.
You can't just willy-nilly add a diluent gas and all its associated tankage and plumbing to a spacecraft design without it rippling through all aspects of the design from systems reliability to aerodynamics to RCS flight control to mechanical interference control to electronic load control to panel displays and controls to telemetry to medical to thermal designs.
In the meantime the project continues. "Evaluate risk factors for high-pressure oxygen in ground test and service operations" is one of maybe 100 new items brought to the team's attention that day. As is, "Evaluate spacecraft design for diluent gas." As far as anyone was concerned in January 1967, the plugs-out pad test was a reasonably safe procedure that had been done a dozen times safely before for other manned missions.
-
Still no answer.
Hogwash. You either don't like the answer or you don't understand it. Please tell us which it is. But saying "no answer" is just you with your fingers in your ears, not wanting to believe there are rebuttals to your beliefs.
Main thing is that my observation that three days in tinfoil and no climate control in deep space IS a new observation has been confirmed. I just wanted to make sure I was the first to point that out. Thanks, guys.
What on Earth are you blabbering about? No one has "confirmed" your ignorant handwaving. They told you what was wrong with your line of reasoning. If you can't let go of your instinctual premises, then no one can help you.
-
Still no answer. OK. Main thing is that my observation that three days in tinfoil and no climate control in deep space IS a new observation has been confirmed. I just wanted to make sure I was the first to point that out. Thanks, guys.
Good grief! Even by HB standards of chutzpah, that's pretty breathtaking.
-
Still no answer. OK. Main thing is that my observation that three days in tinfoil and no climate control in deep space IS a new observation has been confirmed. I just wanted to make sure I was the first to point that out. Thanks, guys.
No answer to what? You have bombarded this board with multiple questions, complaints and opinions without citations for your sources or explanations for your beliefs. So if you feel that your posts are not getting answers, try starting a dialog. This practice of dropping a few effete bombs and declaring victory is all to common among hoax believers and cranks that blindly follow the crowd. Do you really want to be one of them?
-
Still no answer.
I'd ask you to show us your heat balance calculation for this problem but we all know you don't have a clue how to even begin calculating it.
-
The percentage of hoax believers that are professional-photographers-on-the-internet is truly astonishing.
A lot of these people get duped by Bart Sibrel (who isn't a professional photographer either) or David Percy (who has a professional credential, but doesn't appear to be able to show us any of his work), and think that if they just represent what these guys say, they can pass themselves off as professional photographers or relevant analysts. They naively think that anyone they encounter on the web won't be any better educated than Sibrel or Percy, and thus they can keep the bluff going long enough to seem knowledgeable.
Most people these days own or have used a camera, so there's a lot of belief out there that all one has to do is to be able to point a DSLR at a subject and one can claim the profession. So very few of these people actually take the time to learn and be trained in what professional photographers do in order to prepare for their profession, and don't realize how much of it impinges upon the examination and validation of Apollo photography.
And that's not even beginning to note that photographic analysis is a separate field altogether. I know several excellent professional photographers who wouldn't know how to do, for example, a shadow VPA or even why the math for that works.
-
I'm a professional photographer
Do you have a link to a portfolio of your work? I'd be interested to see it.
-
I also found it incredible that Bean didn't know he went through the Van Allen Belt. (You all here should have seen by now his embarrassing interview on this subject.)
Yes, we've seen this interview; every hoaxer extensively cites the works of Bart Sibrel, and so far you're following in that pattern exactly.
Bean, like most of the other Apollo astronauts, was a pilot and engineer -- not a space physicist -- and the simple fact is that the Van Allen belts were of little concern to him. The mission planners designed the trajectories to avoid their densest parts and there was nothing for the astronauts themselves to do about them but to read their dosimeters to Capcom every day. On the later missions they investigated the light flash phenomenon, though they were probably caused by cosmic ray particles, not the lower energy charged particles trapped in the Van Allen belts. That was it.
The Apollo astronauts were generalists who were busy enough learning what they actually needed to do their missions. They couldn't possibly be experts on everything. That's why NASA had all sorts of specialists on the ground to back them up. That included space physicists and doctors to determine if the astronauts were in danger from a solar event and advise whether a mission should be postponed or aborted.
By the way, Bean flew in space twice: first as LMP on Apollo 12 to the moon, and then as CDR on Skylab 3 in earth orbit. He actually got more radiation from his Skylab flight than from Apollo 12.
-
The light flash discovery is interesting as they were first discovered on Apollo missions. While later missions intentionally went out looking for them found too, if Apollo was fake, how were they found in the first place?
-
I thought i told you fellows my name so you could check my cv via amazon: allan weisbecker. Book author, screenwriter (check IMDB), including helping create Miami Vice, and professional photographer: I've done covers for mags like Men's Journal and a 13 page spread for Smithsonian. Is that enough? You all protest too much, me thinks. If you all are NOT shills (as an investigative journalist I have to assume that possibility), you'll check my credentials and ease up with your insults. Nothing I've said is personal. Your personal attacks don't do much for your credibility.
And some of your answers show that YOU are not critical thinkers: In the BBC interview with Armstrong, the whole question and answer equaled Armstrong saying that he could not see stars from cislunar space. Period. If you're going to equivocate and claim otherwise, then why should anyone believe anything you say?
Anyway, before you further insult my character, maybe read the 350 plus reader reviews for my books on Amazon, which average 4.7 stars. Try to find another author with that many reviews and that average. Let me know when you find one.
-
It doesn't matter who you are, what matters is the evidence for your claims. You may or may not take professional photographs, but you have shown yourself unable to analyse them.
Clearly you haven't seen the Neil Armstrong interview in its entirety (nor its context), that claim has been discussed here many times before. Your statement, "the whole question and answer equaled Armstrong saying that he could not see stars from cislunar space. Period." is demonstrably false.
Also, you're not the only author here. Unless your books deal with the subject matter that this forum is based upon, your books are irrelevant and so are the number of reviews you have received. I suggest you look up the argumentum ad populum fallacy.
-
By the way, that Bean was unfamiliar with the Van Allen belt IS incredible, whether he could 'feel' it (the radiation) or not. That I get insulted for pointing that out also goes to motives here. Speaking of which, since you seem to believe that they somehow 'avoided' the belts, possibly you could come up with a contemporaneous account of how they planned the launch to avoid the worst of the radiation. That would go a long way to shutting me up about the matter.
-
So you're telling me that I lie about myself and now it doesn't matter anyhow. What's wrong with you?
-
Please point out where I can see the BBC interview in its entirety or link me to a page here that covers that. I'd really like to clear this one up.
-
I thought i told you fellows my name so you could check my cv [..]
Since you started by lying why should we believe ANY claim you make?
via amazon: allan weisbecker. Book author, screenwriter (check IMDB), including helping create Miami Vice, and professional photographer: I've done covers for mags like Men's Journal and a 13 page spread for Smithsonian. Is that enough? You all protest too much, me thinks. If you all are NOT shills (as an investigative journalist I have to assume that possibility), you'll check my credentials and ease up with your insults. Nothing I've said is personal. Your personal attacks don't do much for your credibility.
Historical truth is determined by evaluating the evidence, NOT by the assertions of who ever has the longer bragsheet.
And some of your answers show that YOU are not critical thinkers: In the BBC interview with Armstrong, the whole question and answer equaled Armstrong saying that he could not see stars from cislunar space. Period.
Why does that matter? He does not say it is impossible.
Collins said he could. I.E. he looked out the window when conditions for seeing stars were better.
Anyway, before you further insult my character, maybe read the 350 plus reader reviews for my books on Amazon, which average 4.7 stars. Try to find another author with that many reviews and that average. Let me know when you find one.
What do your reviews have to do with your character?
BTW, how many of those did your friends write?
So you're telling me that I lie about myself and now it doesn't matter anyhow.
You lying tells us you are a liar.
What you lied about, i.e. you being a pro-photographer, isn't actually relevant to the subject matter..
What's wrong with you?
You first.
Why do you lie?
-
Let's stick to the stars-seeing subject. Even according to your buddy Phil Plait, 'If you were standing on the moon you would indeed see stars, even in the day.'
Do you want the link to that page of Discover?
'We were not able to see stars from the moon's surface.' Neil Armstrong (or was it Aldrin? I can look it up.)
If you guys don't have a problem here... well, I know I'm just a 'civilian,' but I do have a problem here. If you're going to say that my quotes are out of context, please refer me to a link wherein I can be enlightened as to what the astronauts actually meant.
-
I thought i told you fellows my name so you could check my cv via amazon: allan weisbecker.
Your cv is largely irrelevant, since it covers nothing relevant to the subject at hand. I notice that the one claim you made on the back of your expertise as a photographer you have failed to return to. Do you still maintain that picture is lit from two separate sources?
And some of your answers show that YOU are not critical thinkers: In the BBC interview with Armstrong, the whole question and answer equaled Armstrong saying that he could not see stars from cislunar space. Period.
Wrong.
Anyway, before you further insult my character, maybe read the 350 plus reader reviews for my books on Amazon, which average 4.7 stars. Try to find another author with that many reviews and that average. Let me know when you find one.
Irrelevant. We're dealing with Apollo, not your status a a well-regarded author/screenwriter/photographer.
-
By the way, that Bean was unfamiliar with the Van Allen belt IS incredible, whether he could 'feel' it (the radiation) or not.
Incredible to you, not to anyone familiar with what his job actually was. Hoax believers frequently think the astronauts are experts in all things space related. no, they are experts in flying their craft and doing their job. Some of the technical details just don't matter to them in the execution of their part of the mission.
Speaking of which, since you seem to believe that they somehow 'avoided' the belts,
This is not a belief, it is a well-documented fact. There's a thread on the subject in this very forum. I'll find a link when I have time, or you could do some of your own research...
-
Hey, Halcyon: liar liar pants on fire!
Ok, I am a liar.
How about referring me to the whole interview? Your babbling didn't distract me from the fact that you didn't respond to the matter of importance (the BBC interview).
-
Please point out where I can see the BBC interview in its entirety or link me to a page here that covers that. I'd really like to clear this one up.
Don't you think it would have been a good idea to try and find that yourself before making an unequivocal statement about what it contained?
-
Allan, it is good forum etiquette to be sure of what your claims are before you start launching them at us, to say nothing of your rudeness.
-
Yes, Jason, please refer me to where the belts avoidance is covered (by a contemporaneous account). As I say, this would shut me up. In fact, I'd apologize even to the jerk Halcyon if you do that. I promise.
-
Please point out where I can see the BBC interview in its entirety or link me to a page here that covers that. I'd really like to clear this one up.
Patrick Moore: "Mr Armstrong, I do realise that when you were on the moon you had very little time for gazing upwards but could you tell us something about what the sky actually looks like from the Moon, the Sun, the Earth the stars if any and so on?"
Armstrong: "The sky is a deep black when viewed from the moon, as it is when viewed from cis-lunar space, the space between the earth and the moon. The earth is the only visible object other than the sun that can be seen, although there have been reports of seeing planets. I myself did not see planets from the surface but i suspect they might be visible".
-
Let's stick to the stars-seeing subject. Even according to your buddy Phil Plait, 'If you were standing on the moon you would indeed see stars, even in the day.'
Do you want the link to that page of Discover?
'We were not able to see stars from the moon's surface.' Neil Armstrong (or was it Aldrin? I can look it up.)
Who was it? Armstrong or Aldrin? Your credibility doesn't do well if you can't even tell us who said what.
Look, it's very simple: the sky is black on the Moon, meaning there is no atmosphere to block the view of the stars when the sun is up. However, your eyes adapt to lighting conditions. IF you could find a shaded area and IF you could exclude all bright sunlit objects from your field of view and IF you gave your eyes time to adapt you could see stars. If you don't you can't. If you're working around on the surface you won't just happen to see stars when you look up, or if you have the sky in your view. Your eyes are adapted for the sunlit scenery and will not detect stars. Phil Plait was correct, but you ripped his comment from any and all context (including the 'understood' context, where he doesn't actually have to spell it out for his intended audience) and presented it as a contradiction. it's not. It only becomes one when you rip the two statements out and present them as if they were the be all and end all on the subject.
If you're going to say that my quotes are out of context, please refer me to a link wherein I can be enlightened as to what the astronauts actually meant.
Usual hoax believer strategy. 'Show me everything because I can't be bothered to do any of my own research'.
-
Yes, Jason, please refer me to where the belts avoidance is covered (by a contemporaneous account). As I say, this would shut me up. In fact, I'd apologize even to the jerk Halcyon if you do that. I promise.
You'll take back the name calling of others if you expect me to do anything for you. Rudeness will get you nowhere.
-
"Out from behind the shadow of the earth, we are into the constant sunlight. In a way, there is constant darkness as well, for it depends on which way one looks. Toward the sun, nothing can be seen but its blinding disk, whereas down-sun there is simply a black void. The stars are there, but they cannot be seen because, with sunlight flooding the spacecraft, the pupil of the eye involuntarily contracts, and the light from the stars is too dim to compete with the reflected sunlight, as both enter the eye through the tiny aperture formed by the contracted pupil. No, to see the stars, the pupil must be allowed to relax, to open wide enough to let the starlight form a visible image on the retina, and that can be done only by blocking out the sunlight. In practical terms, that means putting metal plates over all five windows, and then pointing the telescope at exactly the right angle, an angle which is not only away from the sun but which also does not permit any sunlight to bounce off the LM or CM structure into the telescope's field of view. Under these conditions the eye slowly "dark adapts" itself, and the brighter stars gradually emerge from the void. After a few minutes the familiar patterns of the constellations become recognizable (assuming you are fortunate enough to have familiar constellations in the part of the sky you have been forced to use to escape the sunlight), now the navigator can continue with his work."
- Michael Collins, Carrying The Fire
-
They were on the first mission. If you were on the moon, and took the time to get yourself in a position where sunlight or light reflecting off the lunar surface and the lunar module wasn't affecting your night vision, took the time to dark adapt, yes, you would see stars. But how long was that first Apollo lunar EVA? Two and a half hours and there was a lot to do. They didn't have time for no star gazing. Some of the later, longer missions, I've heard some astronauts took the time, but Apollo 11 just didn't have that leeway.
Frankly, I hate personal insults entering into this discussion, but I think, considering they have seen numerous conspiracy theorists trot out the same tired hoax claims as you, they are behaving quite well. Maybe a little grumpy, a little cynical, but you so far haven't given them any reason to be otherwise. So far, the worst I've noticed is them calling you ignorant. That's not an insult, that's simply a statement of your present state of knowledge regarding Apollo. Hey, we are all ignorant about something.
-
Allancw, I have a small but rather obvious challenge for you.
Pick out your very best evidence/proof of your claim - the one you have the absolute most expertise on.
Then, politely, let us all go through it, step by step, each point being agreed before proceeding. Anything that you (or we) cannot properly and scientifically cite and prove beyond reasonable doubt must be conceded.
After all, if you are the expert and logical thinker that you say, that process (of focusing on the issues of most importance and applying proper methodology) would be very familiar to you - it is of course the only way to get to the guaranteed truth on a complex topic.
It also will stop you (or us) from doing the ridiculous jumping from topic to topic and thereby avoiding addressing ANY of the answers given...
Surely this would be the best way to proceed - if not, can you explain why you don't like the idea?
So, Allan C Weisbecker - what single issue is the *best* evidence?
PS - choose carefully, Allan...... 8)
-
You all protest too much, me thinks.
Your Shakespeare is wrong again. Hint--using it incorrectly doesn't help make you look smart.
If you all are NOT shills (as an investigative journalist I have to assume that possibility) . . . .
No. Now, your journalism is wrong.
Under what circumstances would an investigative journalist have to assume that the people with whom he is speaking on a random internet message board are paid shills? First, the organization in question must be known to pay shills to hang out on random internet message boards. So unless you have evidence that NASA has ever done that, even once, you don't have to assume that anyone is a paid NASA shill.
Second, as I've pointed out elsewhere, 97% of NASA is on furlough at the moment. Do you really believe that debunking conspiracy theories counts as an essential government service? If it doesn't, what are the odds that any of us would be doing that right now if the reason we were doing it was that we get paid?
Third, if you are investigative journalist, you don't simply assume your source is lying. You do your due diligence to find out. Now, it's awfully easy to find out that Jay is who he says he is. There are several other people around here who are not too difficult to track down. I, personally, use a screen name, but it's the same one I use pretty much everywhere, so it's not too difficult to track down a lot of things about me.
I mean, you've given us a name. But I think that, as a former journalism student, it's my job to assume that you're lying about it and trying to hang on the coat tails of someone who "helped create" one of the most tedious and vacuous shows of the '80s. Enjoy proving me wrong!
-
Yes, Jason, please refer me to where the belts avoidance is covered (by a contemporaneous account). As I say, this would shut me up. In fact, I'd apologize even to the jerk Halcyon if you do that. I promise.
http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/TLI-animation.htm
-
If you all are NOT shills (as an investigative journalist I have to assume that possibility),
Bwahahahaha! Seriously dude? As an "investigative journalist" you no doubt did some "investigating" and interviewed many aeronautical engineers before appearing here and posting the same worn-out long-debunked nonsense?
-
In the BBC interview with Armstrong, the whole question and answer equaled Armstrong saying that he could not see stars from cislunar space. Period.
First you claim some vague hoax based on a single Neil Armstrong interview.
Then you reveal that you haven't seen the whole interview.
Please point out where I can see the BBC interview in its entirety or link me to a page here that covers that. I'd really like to clear this one up.
This confirms my initial suspicion that you are not presenting original material but parroting other hoax believers. Please feel free to dispute this by providing something original in you posts here. I am certainly willing to be proven wrong. As long as you are posting trite, well used canards and using the old trick of complaining about how people are treating you to avoid answering the critics you sought out, you will remain just another conspiracy monger. It is up to you.
-
By the way, that Bean was unfamiliar with the Van Allen belt IS incredible, whether he could 'feel' it (the radiation) or not. That I get insulted for pointing that out also goes to motives here.
No, it goes to show your complete lack of knowledge about the subject matter. Don't start whining when you come up with a stupid analogy and get spanked for it.
-
Yes, Jason, please refer me to where the belts avoidance is covered (by a contemporaneous account). As I say, this would shut me up. In fact, I'd apologize even to the jerk Halcyon if you do that. I promise.
While people on the forum sometimes go out of their way to point CTs to facts, it really is up to you to shut your self up until you actually know what you are talking about. What you are doing is shifting the burden of proof.
-
I think Jason's condition is reasonable.
You'll take back the name calling of others if you expect me to do anything for you.
-
Yes, Jason, please refer me to where the belts avoidance is covered (by a contemporaneous account). As I say, this would shut me up. In fact, I'd apologize even to the jerk Halcyon if you do that. I promise.
http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/TLI-animation.htm
That vid shows the Earth orbital path as it translated to the ellipse to intersect the Moon. As you can see, the path takes Apollo missions past the outer edges of the belts. But even so, if they had gone straight through the middle of them, do you have any tangible evidence for what dose they would have received? I'm guessing you haven't.
-
Your personal attacks don't do much for your credibility.
No personal attacks have been made. All that has happened is that doubts have expressed towards your claims of expertise, and that some of your questions and observations are simply rehashing the same tired old arguments that have been authoritatively debunked.
And some of your answers show that YOU are not critical thinkers: In the BBC interview with Armstrong, the whole question and answer equaled Armstrong saying that he could not see stars from cislunar space.
It has been clearly pointed out to you that particular quote has been taken out of context. You have clearly not seen the entire interview.
Here is a link to the Patrick Moore / Neil Armstrong interview in question.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p007x88t (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p007x88t)
Anyway, before you further insult my character, maybe read the 350 plus reader reviews for my books on Amazon, which average 4.7 stars. Try to find another author with that many reviews and that average. Let me know when you find one.
That has no bearing upon Apollo, space physics or the US space program in general. It is irrelevant.
Edit: pretty much every one has beaten me to it. Just back from the pub. :)
-
Is that enough?
No, because you can't tell which direction the light in a photograph is coming from. As far as I'm concerned that pretty much disqualifies you from any relevant claim to expertise.
And some of your answers show that YOU are not critical thinkers: In the BBC interview with Armstrong, the whole question and answer equaled Armstrong saying that he could not see stars from cislunar space. Period.
No, not "period." In fact Armstrong went on to say that he knew that other crews were able to see stars while he himself could not. He attributed that difference to varying observation conditions.
Anyway, before you further insult my character...
Oh, please, get over yourself. You're claiming expertise while demonstrating pretty poor observational skills. You're pretending to have expertise in our fields of professional practice while being demonstrably ignorant of the relevant scientific and physical principles.
Stop relying so much on ego and irrelevant fandom and realize that you're just quoting other conspiracy theorists and pretending that this gives you erudition.
-
I've found some of Allan Weisbecker's comments on YouTube. It seems he likes his conspiracies.
-
Yes, Jason, please refer me to where the belts avoidance is covered (by a contemporaneous account). As I say, this would shut me up. In fact, I'd apologize even to the jerk Halcyon if you do that. I promise.
Stop the name calling now or you'll find yourself under moderation and your posts will require my approval before they appear in the forum.
-
Let's stick to the stars-seeing subject. Even according to your buddy Phil Plait, 'If you were standing on the moon you would indeed see stars, even in the day.'
Do you want the link to that page of Discover?
Actually the quote is from Bad Astronomy's web site, dating to February 2001. And in that entry he goes on to explain relative photometry and camera exposure settings.
I subsequently spoke to Ed Mitchell, who actually tried to see stars. He had to go into the LM shadow and crane his head upward for long enough for his eyes to adapt. He reported then seeing stars, but says they were not visible during ordinary surface operations.
-
Speaking of which, since you seem to believe that they somehow 'avoided' the belts, possibly you could come up with a contemporaneous account of how they planned the launch to avoid the worst of the radiation. That would go a long way to shutting me up about the matter.
For some reason I don't believe you, but here goes anyway.
The earth's magnetic field is not aligned with its rotational axis; the magnetic north pole is in Canada. The earth's magnetic field traps the particles in the belts, so the belts "wobble" with respect to the earth's rotation.
Apollo lunar missions were launched into earth parking orbits inclined at an angle to the equator. (The precise value depended on the mission and launch time and was always greater than 28.5 degrees, the latitude of Kennedy Space Center). Trans-lunar injection typically occurred over the Pacific Ocean so that the climb to high altitude took place mostly over North America, relatively close to the north magnetic pole (in Canada) so as to avoid the densest parts of the belts over the geomagnetic equator.
An excellent animation of all this can be found here:
-
I've found some of Allan Weisbecker's comments on YouTube. It seems he likes his conspiracies.
I also note that he posted a video of Patrick Moore's two-part question about stars at the well known post-flight press conference, in which Armstrong's answer to the second question is edited out - it jumps to Collins's "I don't remember seeing any" to make it sound as if Michael chimed in on the "none seen from the surface" answer.
Maybe we should add "Deceptive Video Editing" to the HB Bingo game.
-
The stars are there, but they cannot be seen because, with sunlight flooding the spacecraft, the pupil of the eye involuntarily contracts, and the light from the stars is too dim to compete with the reflected sunlight, as both enter the eye through the tiny aperture formed by the contracted pupil.
I don't know if this has been brought up before, but while Collins is conceptually right (the sensitivity of the eye varies with light level) he has the wrong mechanism. The iris only covers a fairly small range of brightness, and it does so fairly quickly (a few seconds).
Most of the dynamic range between night and day comes from variations in the amount of photosensitive pigment in the rod cells in the retina. It's depleted by light and takes time to regenerate in the dark.
-
... since you seem to believe that they somehow 'avoided' the belts, possibly you could come up with a contemporaneous account of how they planned the launch to avoid the worst of the radiation. That would go a long way to shutting me up about the matter.
This should tell you all you need to know:
http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm
All the trajectory data was available at the time of the missions.
-
Please go back and read smartcooky's Reply #15 to your sunlight angle observation in this thread. Your next post after that said:
I certainly hit the motherlode when it comes to experts! This is great. I actually am a respected (if not rich) writer doing a project on subjects like conspiracy theorists; other things as well. You can look up my books at amazon -- Allan Weisbecker is my name.
Will you guys continue to 'set me straight'?
If so: One question I have is why they used approx 16 psi of pure O2 in the capsule during a communications test -- when Grissom & Co burned to death. Even I know not to do that.
Am I wrong in seeing that as a sarcastic reply? Instead of guessing your intent, I'd rather see you respond to that and other good rebuttals to your accusations by either withdrawing that particular claim or directly arguing the points that were made. That's what objective "critical thinkers" do, not just move the goalposts by changing the subject when shown to be wrong.
-
By the way, that Bean was unfamiliar with the Van Allen belt IS incredible, whether he could 'feel' it (the radiation) or not. That I get insulted for pointing that out also goes to motives here. Speaking of which, since you seem to believe that they somehow 'avoided' the belts, possibly you could come up with a contemporaneous account of how they planned the launch to avoid the worst of the radiation. That would go a long way to shutting me up about the matter.
Argument by naive expectation.
You've been told (by conspiracy mongers) to think of the VARB as some Mysterious Deadly Antimatter Space Wedgie. So to you, getting close to this Charybdis of Space should be foremost on everyone's mind.
The reality is that it is a danger as well understood (and probably ranked rather below) that of sunlight, or vacuum. The man is riding on top of megatons of energetic chemistry, dependent every instant on complex and fragile systems just to keep breathing, further away from any possible rescue than Floyd Collins....and bending every bit of his considerable intellect and skills towards the task of "Don't F*** Up, there's a lot of money and prestige riding on this."
He's got other things to think about. And specifically, things he actually has some control over.
-
allancw, here's what Wikipedia says regarding astronauts and VAB radiation:
The Apollo missions marked the first event where humans traveled through the Van Allen belts, which was one of several radiation hazards known by mission planners. The astronauts had low exposure in the Van Allen belts due to the short period of time spent flying through them. The command module's inner structure was an aluminum "sandwich" consisting of a welded aluminium inner skin, a thermally bonded honeycomb core, and a thin aluminium "face sheet." The steel honeycomb core and outer face sheets were thermally bonded to the inner skin.
In fact, the astronauts' overall exposure was dominated by solar particles once outside the Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission to mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy), much less than the standard of 5 rem (50 mSv) per year set by the United States Atomic Energy Commission for people who work with radioactivity.
Please comment on this, allancw.
-
You've been told (by conspiracy mongers) to think of the VARB as some Mysterious Deadly Antimatter Space Wedgie.
Actually, I believe the technical term is Searing Radiation Hell. Which would be an excellent name for a heavy metal band.
-
Everyone seems to agree that the Van Allen Belts were potentially dangerous to the astronauts. Therefore, all the Apollo missions must have taken this into account, i.e., the launches timed and the flight trajectories carefully plotted so the astronauts would not be 'dosed.'
I'll assume this is a given, from the above posts.
Therefore there surely are CONTEMPORANEOUS reports/accounts/papers/studies/documents proving this, or at least MENTIONING IT. Just to be sure you understand: when I say 'contemporaneous' I mean dated from the time of the missions, not some Youtube video or verbal claim from the 21st century.
I am saying, actually guaranteeing, that none of you can come up with the above, and for this reason: The Apollo missions were hoaxes.
So that's my 'proof': You cannot produce the stated evidence, which you surely could produce if the missions were done with the Van Allen Belt taken as a serious risk factor. (A risk factor that at least one of the astronauts was unaware of, i.e., Allan Bean.)
-
You have to be the laziest "investigative journalist" in recorded history.
-
One point that hasn't been made so far is that the cabin pressure in Apollo craft was comparable to earth atmosphere at an altitude of 25000 feet. Convective heat loss is less efficient at lower pressure, meaning that even at 34F the apparent or perceived temperature would be higher.
And to address one comment in the inevitable Gish-gallop post (which should also have a bingo square), the BBC interview: the common Hoax Believer subjective analysis is that the Apollo 11 crew were lying. This notion is mutually incompatible with externally verifiable facts about the space program.
My subjective analysis is that they were hung over, which is compatible with externally verifiable facts about pilots in general and some of the Apollo crew in particular.
Both views are subjective. Only one creates more questions than it answers.
-
Everyone seems to agree that the Van Allen Belts were potentially dangerous to the astronauts. Therefore, all the Apollo missions must have taken this into account, i.e., the launches timed and the flight trajectories carefully plotted so the astronauts would not be 'dosed.'
I'll assume this is a given, from the above posts.
Therefore there surely are CONTEMPORANEOUS reports/accounts/papers/studies/documents proving this, or at least MENTIONING IT. Just to be sure you understand: when I say 'contemporaneous' I mean dated from the time of the missions, not some Youtube video or verbal claim from the 21st century.
I am saying, actually guaranteeing, that none of you can come up with the above, and for this reason: The Apollo missions were hoaxes.
So that's my 'proof': You cannot produce the stated evidence, which you surely could produce if the missions were done with the Van Allen Belt taken as a serious risk factor. (A risk factor that at least one of the astronauts was unaware of, i.e., Allan Bean.)
Perhaps you did not see my Reply #88. Please read it and comment on it.
-
Therefore there surely are CONTEMPORANEOUS reports/accounts/papers/studies/documents proving this, or at least MENTIONING IT. Just to be sure you understand: when I say 'contemporaneous' I mean dated from the time of the missions, not some Youtube video or verbal claim from the 21st century.
The trajectories were well known at the time. If I knew as much about orbital mechanics back then as I do today, I could have gleaned enough information from television and newspapers to calculate the trajectories accurately enough to know they'd miss the bulk of the radiation belts.
-
Therefore there surely are CONTEMPORANEOUS reports/accounts/papers/studies/documents proving this, or at least MENTIONING IT. Just to be sure you understand: when I say 'contemporaneous' I mean dated from the time of the missions, not some Youtube video or verbal claim from the 21st century.
I am saying, actually guaranteeing, that none of you can come up with the above, and for this reason: The Apollo missions were hoaxes.
Here you go: https://sites.google.com/site/chewtansy/msfn/A11_MissionReport.pdf
Page 94.
-
Everyone seems to agree that the Van Allen Belts were potentially dangerous to the astronauts.
As was the rocket blowing up, and a thousand other things. Every manned space mission (and every human endeavor) faces "potential danger." You're certainly playing this one up for all it's worth. Noting that it's a danger and was recognized as such doesn't mean it was planned for in the specific manner you laid out.
Therefore, all the Apollo missions must have taken this into account, i.e., the launches timed and the flight trajectories carefully plotted so the astronauts would not be 'dosed.'
And here you are, spinning an oddly specific expectation of what "must be the case" in Apollo planning. Piling one layer of speculation on top of another does not create truth.
Therefore there surely are CONTEMPORANEOUS reports/accounts/papers/studies/documents proving this...
Begged question and a blatant straw man. "I assume this specific, narrowly-defined thing must exist, therefore if you can't provide it, I'm right." Do you really think that's how actual investigation works? I agree -- you must be the world's most inept "investigative journalist."
I am saying, actually guaranteeing..., that none of you can come up with the above...
Of course not, because you've ham-fistedly proposed the existence of something you specifically arranged not to be available, for the sole purpose of pretending that this hypothetical document, if non-existent, stands in place of all the mountain of Apollo evidence and decides the question all by itself.
...and for this reason: The Apollo missions were hoaxes.
Well, that's your affirmative claim and therefore your burden of proof. A better explanation for why such a suspiciously narrowly-described document may not be locatable is not that you have any legitimate interest in how Apollo prepared to traverse the magnetosphere, or that it was an elaborate hoax that -- among millions of pages of public cover-story documents -- forgot to include this one document, but that you're desperate to manufacture any dilemma you think can portray criticism against you as ill-informed or purely faith-based. Rest assured we've seen these lame tactics before.
So that's my 'proof': You cannot produce the stated evidence...
Hm, NASA Technical Note D-7080 (1973).
-
Heh. You forget about the shutdown, Jay?
-
Heh. You forget about the shutdown, Jay?
The report still exists, despite the current unavailability of the NASA Technical Reports Server to serve a digital copy.
-
Heh. You forget about the shutdown, Jay?
The report still exists, despite the current unavailability of the NASA Technical Reports Server to serve a digital copy.
And with a bit of digging using Google (to get the URL) and Archive.org (to get an archived version) I was able to find a copy of it, should I post up the link or see if Allancw is able to figure out how to get to it himself?
-
The Russians were also interested in going to the moon. Their planned moon rocket, the N1, was a very explosive dud unfortunately, blowing up in the first stage in all four launch attempts, with one example falling back onto the pad right after launch, destroying the pad in what can be considered the largest non nuclear explosion ever in terms of energy release.
No moon rocket, no moon mission.
However, before they gave up the project, they sent unmanned versions of their equivalent of the Apollo 8 CSM to test several things, including re-entry.
Among other things they tested was living creatures reaction to the conditions, including human cell cultures, such as HeLa cells and fibroblasts. As well, they included an experiment to measure the radiation levels directly.
They found that: (http://cds.cern.ch/record/864491/files/p484.pdf) "The comparison of the dosage evaluations with the permissible values allows the conclusion that, should no solar flare occur, seven-day flights along the trajectories of Zond-5 and 7 probes are safe from the radiation point of view."
So that's third party evidence that, if you follow the right trajectory, as everyone here has been saying, the Van Allen Belts are safe enough to traverse. Just who is this alleged "Everyone" you speak of, allancw?
-
Ok, I am a liar.
Indeed.
Yet you have the audacity to accuse a very large group of people of crimes based solely on lies told to you by hoaxmongers.
Shame on you.
How about referring me to the whole interview?
You're quite the investigator.
Yes, Jason, please refer me to where the belts avoidance is covered (by a contemporaneous account). As I say, this would shut me up. In fact, I'd apologize even to the jerk Halcyon if you do that. I promise.
Another lie?
I am saying, actually guaranteeing, that none of you can come up with the above, and for this reason: The Apollo missions were hoaxes.
You not having evidence is your evidence?
-
Check
Check
Check
Check
Check...... we got one!
-
Still no answer. OK. Main thing is that my observation that three days in tinfoil and no climate control in deep space IS a new observation has been confirmed. I just wanted to make sure I was the first to point that out. Thanks, guys.
Ignorant *and* passive-aggressive. What a lovely combination.
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v239/Gadfium/Forum%20Uploads/Bingo_zps3dc75346.jpg~original)
Have I missed any?
::)
-
Everyone seems to agree that the Van Allen Belts were potentially dangerous to the astronauts. Therefore, all the Apollo missions must have taken this into account, i.e., the launches timed and the flight trajectories carefully plotted so the astronauts would not be 'dosed.'
I'll assume this is a given, from the above posts.
Therefore there surely are CONTEMPORANEOUS reports/accounts/papers/studies/documents proving this, or at least MENTIONING IT. Just to be sure you understand: when I say 'contemporaneous' I mean dated from the time of the missions, not some Youtube video or verbal claim from the 21st century.
I am saying, actually guaranteeing, that none of you can come up with the above, and for this reason: The Apollo missions were hoaxes.
So that's my 'proof': You cannot produce the stated evidence, which you surely could produce if the missions were done with the Van Allen Belt taken as a serious risk factor. (A risk factor that at least one of the astronauts was unaware of, i.e., Allan Bean.)
Of course, the problem with an affirmative position like that is that you now have to deal with all the evidence that Apollo was real. My own particular area of interest (to the groans of regulars here) is the rocks supposedly brought back by the Apollo missions.
Were they fake rocks? No, because geologists from around the world (including from countries with no love for the USA) have studied the rocks. The rocks have characteristics that mean they are definitely not from the Earth, like the evidence they formed in a low gravity vacuum, and that they've been subjected to micrometeor bombardment for millions of years.
Were they genuine rocks collected by unmanned missions? No, because we have photos of the rocks on location, often with astronauts in the photos. If those photos were taken on the Moon, there's evidence that astronauts were on the Moon. But if the photos were faked on Earth, how were the genuine rocks in those photos not contaminated by Earthly materials on the location where the photos were taken?
Plus, there was no unmanned technology at the time capable of picking up the sheer volume of material brought back from the Moon. Three Soviet unmanned sample return missions brought back enough material to fill a soup can. Six Apollo missions brought back roughly 1000 times as much.
The only logical explanation for ~370kg of Apollo rocks is that they were collected from the Moon by a dozen Moon walking astronauts.
-
OK, so far no contemporaneous accounts of how the belts were to be avoided (just to remind you all of my request). By the way, the reason I guaranteed that you wouldn't find anything was because I spent a couple hours looking (I can imagine this sentence resulting in another barrage of irrelevant ad hominem crap). I had already read the sentence quoted in reply 88, in Wikipedia. As you all must know, the source of that info (from NASA) is a 'broken link' -- at the risk of precipitating still another barrage, this doesn't surprise me, given the 'loss' of the telemetry data (loss by erasure is even more ridiculous than misplacement), given the vital and irreplaceable data lost.
Likewise, I'd already examined the document recommended here:
https://sites.google.com/site/chewtansy/msfn/A11_MissionReport.pdf
A word scan for 'Van Allen' brought up only one hit, which said nothing about planning the trajectory (with radiation intensity in mind).
So, I wait. You all have expended many man-hours insulting me. Why not just find the document/report/whatever I ask for and be done with it? You have already stated that the mission trajectories were planned with the belts in mind. Surely you got this information somewhere...
Maybe one of you will surprise me.
-
By the way, the reason I guaranteed that you wouldn't find anything was because I spent a couple hours looking
A "couple of hours"?? Bear in mind that some of the folks on here have spent decades working in this field.
You do accept, of course, that just because your "couple of hours" didn't get you the result (let's ignore for this moment that you probably do not have the knowledge/skills to recognise the answer even if you did find it), that does not mean that it doesn't exist.
Likewise, I'd already examined the document recommended here:
https://sites.google.com/site/chewtansy/msfn/A11_MissionReport.pdf
A word scan for 'Van Allen' brought up only one hit, which said nothing about planning the trajectory (with radiation intensity in mind).
What's your qualifications and experience that would allow you to confirm or dismiss a spacecraft's trajectory?
Also, what qualifies you to dismiss, completely out of hand, the trajectory information contained on page 94 (as you were directed to here (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=515.msg17250#msg17250) )?
You were also directed to a NASA Technical Note (here (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=515.msg17251#msg17251)) which deals specifically with radiation protection. What is your expert analysis of this document? You DID read this document, didn't you?
-
If you want to overview the trajectories then Bob Braeunig's page contains all you'll need to know:
http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm
Have a look through that page and then let us know where the errors are. Or alternatively, admit thatyou haven't the foggiest idea of how to interpret this page.
The info in that page has been sourced from the NASA trans-Lunar reports. The burn information has been sourced from the the Saturn V launch vehicle flight evaluation reports, which ARE contemporaneous. An investigative journalist of your calibre will be able to source these documents for yourself
-
Hello name-brother - you have not to my knowledge yet proven that the Van Allen Belts were so dangerous that they were an obstacle to be avoided. Also, you have not addressed the trajectory used, which was calculated with the help of James Van Allen himself. This trajectory which transported the Apollo missions north of the densest parts of the belts.
Some have claimed the VAB's are deadly, like a tsunami of radiation. Truth is, the ACTUAL radiation is more like a light drizzle or morning mist drifting in from the moor. Nobody ever drowned in that. And then consider the type of materials used in the crafts, which was perfectly capable of absorbing most of the radiation. The bremsstrahlung problem was solved with lightweight nuclei (aluminium, carbon, hydrogen) in the outermost parts, which have an electron structure not capable of producing hard x-rays. The soft x-rays actually created had limited penetrating power in aluminium, and was absorbed before it penetrated to the cabin.
-
A "contemporaneous account" would be AIAA 69-19 authored by Modisette, Lopez and Synder.
-
A "contemporaneous account" would be AIAA 69-19 authored by Modisette, Lopez and Synder.
Here is a link to where the paper can be found.
Radiation plan for the Apollo lunar mission (http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.1969-19)
-
OK, so far no contemporaneous accounts of how the belts were to be avoided...
You have been given the contemporaneous numbers for the Earth-Moon trajectory. You have been directed to a page that uses these numbers to illustrate how that trajectory avoids the heart of the Van Allen Belts and instead skims the edge. You have been given references for two contemporaneous papers that explain how the VAB hazard is minimised. You obviously haven't the technical background to understand any of it. You are just floundering around making yourself look ignorant.
-
I think* that he does not have any technical experience at all. Hence his assertion that he word-searched the document. I think that he was expecting a section that details the trajectory around the VA belts and explains in in "Janet and John" fashion. Instead he gets a page detailing the time and duration of burns (for example). These burns will have set the direction but he has no idea to translate that into a trajectory.
*and I fully accept that I am putting words in Mr Weisbecker's mouth here
-
Wouldn't a contemporaneous explanation be one that took place literally at the same time as the Apollo missions? Are we not, in fact, looking for a contemporary explanation? One from the same era? Because if our new visitor is really looking for a contemporaneous explanation, that is limiting to the point of ridiculous.
-
Wouldn't a contemporaneous explanation be one that took place literally at the same time as the Apollo missions? Are we not, in fact, looking for a contemporary explanation? One from the same era? Because if our new visitor is really looking for a contemporaneous explanation, that is limiting to the point of ridiculous.
I guess that it would depend on your definition of the same period of time (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/contemporaneous)? If you define it as a second, then yes. If you define it as a couple of years, then no.
-
Hmmm, JSC has 85 reports specifically dealing with the radiation problem, including Shielding Verification, Soviet analysis of Apollo radiation, the ASROSS setup and a stack more reports. All from 1964-through present day, with the bulk before 1976 only a year after Apollo ended.
-
OK, so far no contemporaneous accounts...
Oh how sad: your clumsy straw man tactic didn't work as expected.
...(from NASA) is a 'broken link'
In case you haven't noticed, the U.S. government is presently shut down. I'll offer an apology for the clown of a senator from my state who seems principally responsible for it, but the fact remains that the historically easiest way to obtain materials from NASA is temporarily unavailable for reasons that have nothing to do with this debate.
However, the sine qua non of investigative reporting is not "Can I click on it?" You might actually have to visit one of the many libraries that is a government document depository.
Why not just find the document/report/whatever I ask for made up out of thin air and be done with it?
There, fixed that for you.
Obligating your critics to provide some document requires more than idle speculation on your part that it exists in the form you imagine. As with most interesting historical questions, you may need to do more than just read the answer you seek directly from some primary source.
You have already stated that the mission trajectories were planned with the belts in mind. Surely you got this information somewhere...
Of course we did. Just not from the hypothetical One Authoritative Source you ignorantly insist must exist and be the only voice you will listen to. You're the one artificially restricting what evidence you will accept. Don't blame us if your narrow filter doesn't let in the evidence the way it actually exists, or if prepackaged historical tidbits for any arbitrary question are not quickly found.
You're presuming that there exists somewhere in the annals of NASA some brief document written in the 1960s that states succinctly in as many words the same summary answer you've been given today to your question by knowledgeable professionals. And you'll accept no substitute. I'll let the world marvel at how an "investigative reporter" -- or indeed any sort of an historian -- would think that way.
Where did I get this information? From the three feet of shelf space I devote to the secondary sources of Apollo historical material. From the uncounted pages of digital primary material I've read over the past 15 years of answering conspiracy theorists, as well as a likely equal amount in the decades of my professional and educational career in space science preceding that. From my hard-won knowledge of orbital mechanics and a working understanding of the AP-8 and AE-8 models that I have to use in my profession. From the published orbital geometries (several contemporaneous sources) of the Apollo missions. From my correspondence with Dr. Van Allen.
See, you receive the succinct, concise answers from us knowledgeable practitioners because we distill all this down for you. To turn around and demand it in that same distilled form only from some other source is frankly insulting and arrogant on your part.
Maybe one of you will surprise me.
I doubt it. You have obviously come here with strong preconceptions of what you would find, and you are laboring most intently to make that preconception seem true. You have utterly ignored corrections to your misunderstandings, you have arrogantly and assiduously asserted that what you believe to be true about our professions should be the standard to hold historical fact up to, and you have failed the most basic tests of observation. Yet from this presumptively lofty perch you simply lob decades-old, long-debunked materials that you obviously just cribbed from the common web sources. How is this anything but some sort of coup-counting exercise on your part? You demonstrate zero desire to be taught, so what is your point in coming here?
-
(http://i1336.photobucket.com/albums/o657/Andromeda_Apollo/image_zps442fd4ba.jpg)
-
Have I missed any?
::)
'The "missing" Apollo 11 footage.'
Possibly the 'I'm just asking questions.'
-
Would the missing telemetry argument transfer over to music? Because that would mean The Beach Boys: Shut Down Vol. 2 never happened because the multis went missing. Same too for Good Vibrations as the vocal multis went south as well.
-
Have I missed any?
::)
'The "missing" Apollo 11 footage.'
Possibly the 'I'm just asking questions.'
;D ;D
-
Likewise, I'd already examined the document recommended here:
https://sites.google.com/site/chewtansy/msfn/A11_MissionReport.pdf
A word scan for 'Van Allen' brought up only one hit,
If that is the extent of your "investigative journalism" then I weep for your profession.
Page 94 gives the latitude, longitude, and altitude of Apollo 11 from Translunar Injection (TLI) through various events. It is a trivial matter to compare the spacecraft's position relative to the VAB.
-
Would the missing telemetry argument transfer over to music? Because that would mean The Beach Boys: Shut Down Vol. 2 never happened because the multis went missing. Same too for Good Vibrations as the vocal multis went south as well.
The Buddhas of Bamiyan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhas_of_Bamyan) also must never have existed either...
-
Nor did quite a few Dr Who episodes (http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/classic/episodeguide/missingepisodes.shtml).
-
I think* that he does not have any technical experience at all. Hence his assertion that he word-searched the document.
Yes and no. He clearly doesn't have any technical understanding. But the stunt of doing a simple word-search is his attempt to perpetuate the straw man regardless of whether he knows what he's talking about. He demands a "Janet and John" explanation from the 1960s, as you say, and has obviously planned to declare victory should we be unable to find exactly what he wants. So narrowing his search and avoiding any sort of creative or analytical thought is part of the overall (and pretty ham-fisted) rhetorical ploy and is independent of his ability to understand the answers he's been given.
Instead he gets a page detailing the time and duration of burns (for example). These burns will have set the direction but he has no idea to translate that into a trajectory.
Likely he does not. But his question is not what the trajectory was, but the motives in designing it to be the way it was. His claim, based on misinterpreting Alan Bean, appears to be that the hazardous nature of cislunar radiation was not known prior to Apollo. Hence prior to Apollo there could have been no plan to accommodate or avoid it. That's why he has set up this ridiculous straw man to argue (from silence) that our supposed inability to document radiation concerns prior to flying the first Apollo mission amounts to a conspicuous omission in the official story therefore a story better defined as an incomplete cover story for fraud rather than a true account of actual missions.
This is why he has to narrowly define what he will accept as documentation. His line of reasoning, in addition to being logically flawed (i.e., argument from silence), relies upon there being nothing to satisfy his criteria. So firm is his need that he even tipped his hand prior to issuing his challenge.
He demands material from the Apollo era because if we present anything later, he will likely argue that it was retrospectively applied to Apollo after the true nature of the Van Allen belts became more generally known. That would fail for a couple reasons. First, he would have to point to the time where there arose a sudden shift in the world's understanding of cislunar trapped radiation. Second, it still has to account for how the originally documented Apollo orbits just coincidentally managed to miss where we later discovered the nasty parts of the Van Allen belts to be. If you watch a driver swerving in a way that manages to miss every pothole on the road, it's very hard to argue he's not swerving with the intent of avoiding potholes.
He demands material mentioning specific things in specific ways because he wants to argue, in the absence of exactly that, that we're just making things up or drawing our own conclusions that wouldn't be supported by primary sources.
-
Page 94 gives the latitude, longitude, and altitude of Apollo 11 from Translunar Injection (TLI) through various events. It is a trivial matter to compare the spacecraft's position relative to the VAB.
Only if you have a notion of what you are talking about. Of course, if our illustrious hero had the foggiest clue he wouldn't then be trying to use oft-debunked, recycled hoax clap-trap to explain his position.
I think that our hero is too deep into the woo (http://www.banditobooks.com/jfk_essay/) to ever admit that though.....
-
given the 'loss' of the telemetry data , ... given the vital and irreplaceable data lost.
The underlined words are your arrogant and presumptive attempt to amplify the apparent value of the data and thus the apparent absurdity in its loss.
loss by erasure is even more ridiculous than misplacement
No, the world is not required to agree with your uninformed personal judgment on this point.
Due to an unforeseen problem with a new tape vendor, the only media available to record telemetry from subsequent unmanned (i.e., non-Apollo) missions in progress were the older Memorex tapes. The missions were already in progress and operating according to an inexorable and unalterable timetable; at a certain point data were going to be sent, and the inability to capture it as it arrived would result in its being forever lost. These are not simply off-the-shelf media. They are manufactured on demand and must qualify to a very high standard of mechanical tolerance and chemical purity. One may not simply run down to Radio Shack and buy new ones.
Apollo telemetry had already been studied. The video component of Apollo 11 had already been read out from the proprietary, unique format embedded in the unified S-band onto industry-standard NTSC videotape. Important and valuable elements of the downlink telemetry had already been studied in the form of paper strip charts and their lessons incorporated into subsequent Apollo missions. In fact, when the tapes were reused, the Apollo program had already ended. Specific telemetry information is largely useless for subsequent programs because only broader concepts carry from one program to another. The tapes were largely only backups for the strip charts that were also reading out values in real time. For example, when the Apollo 13 crisis emerged, the EECOM and other teams did not go back to telemetry tapes. They were using paper strip charts that were being written as the mission progressed.
Sure there was an interest in preserving Apollo telemetry in its original form. That's why it had been preserved for as long as it was. But the problem NASA faced was in balancing the archival value of telemetry that had largely served its practical purpose had had only historical or nostalgic value against the need to acquire and preserve new telemetry from new missions, which had yet to be seen and analyzed by anyone. The decision in that case is unfortunate, but clear and correct -- the Apollo telemetry tapes were reused in the furtherance of NASA's primary mission at the time the need arose. Trying to paste other requirements, motives, or constraints on them in retrospect is futile and silly.
-
I think that our hero is too deep into the woo (http://www.banditobooks.com/jfk_essay/) to ever admit that though.....
Wow. :o
-
Note also that his books are self-published.
-
I think that our hero is too deep into the woo (http://www.banditobooks.com/jfk_essay/) to ever admit that though.....
Wow. :o
Aaaannndd another favourite of the hoax-belivers...
http://www.banditobooks.com/essay/content/1.php
::) ::)
[sarcasm mode]
Hey, I wonder if Mr Weisbecker has ever written a book or been involved in any screenplays? You think if he did then he might actually mention it once or twice?
[/sarcasm mode]
-
On top of all that, NOT ONE, spokesperson for any hoax believer party, who so eloquently try to portray themselves as being so morally outraged that such important historical items as the raw TV data could be wiped, ever made any reference to the importance of said tapes prior to the official announcement made by NASA.
Put simply, they didn't even know that such important tapes were used prior to being told by NASA. As I was very closely involved with the tape search, I know exactly what transpired and what didn't.
-
Note also that his books are self-published.
He appears to be cut from the same cloth as the late Wayne Green -- which is to say he was so very enamored with his own value as a writer and commentator that he thought no one should fault him for getting the facts woefully and arrogantly wrong. And like Green, our latest poster seems to think we've never seen or heard the existing body of conspiracy claims and that he can merely parrot them without it seeming so very obvious that's what he's doing. And, sadly, like Green the middle- and endgame of the debate consists largely of sophomore rhetoric tricks and accusing his critics of being paid shills.
-
Nor did quite a few Dr Who episodes (http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/classic/episodeguide/missingepisodes.shtml).
Fortunately that page is out of date as of last week. I'm really, really happy about that.
-
Any word on a telecast date ajv?
-
Hi, allancw. A belated welcome to the board. I am a space systems engineer who has worked with a number of Apollo engineers, and have a certain amount of interest and familiarity with "hoax" claims.
Everyone seems to agree that the Van Allen Belts were potentially dangerous to the astronauts. Therefore, all the Apollo missions must have taken this into account, i.e., the launches timed and the flight trajectories carefully plotted so the astronauts would not be 'dosed.'
I'll assume this is a given, from the above posts.
Mostly correct. The trajectory design and timing were carefully managed to minimize the exposure to geomagnetically trapped particles. The question was not whether the crews would get a dose, but how much of a dose. The doses were measured and found to be quite acceptable - see Biomedical Results of Apollo.
Therefore there surely are CONTEMPORANEOUS reports/accounts/papers/studies/documents proving this, or at least MENTIONING IT. Just to be sure you understand: when I say 'contemporaneous' I mean dated from the time of the missions, not some Youtube video or verbal claim from the 21st century.
There are. Some have been provided to you already. Below are excerpted some more examples.
I am saying, actually guaranteeing, that none of you can come up with the above, and for this reason: The Apollo missions were hoaxes.
So that's my 'proof': You cannot produce the stated evidence, which you surely could produce if the missions were done with the Van Allen Belt taken as a serious risk factor...
Your "proof" is demonstrably incorrect. You guaranteed such materials did not exist. What are the terms of your guarantee?
NASA TN-D-7080, Apollo Experience Report: Protection Against Radiation
The problem of protection against the natural radiations of the Van Allen belts was recognized before the advent of manned space flight. The simplified solution is to remain under the belts (below an altitude of approximately 300 nautical miles) when in earth orbit and to traverse the belts rapidly on the way to outer space. In reality, the problem is somewhat more complex...
Raymes, Frederick (North American Aviation, Inc.). "Apollo Spacecraft Nuclear Radiation Protection Status Report", NASA SP-71, Second Symposium on Protection Against Radiation in Space
, 1964.
If one considers only the lunar mission during which the spacecraft slices through the more intense regions of the trapped radiation belts for a duration in the order of 20 minutes, the belts present no serious problem t,o the astronauts as long &s they are residing in t’he CSM. Calculations have been performed for various mission modes which require CSM-LEM docking during transition through the trapped radiation belts. It was found that the astronauts could not be permitted to enter the LEM adapter, nor the LEM, for 10 to 20 minutes after injection into the trsnslunar phase. Mission operations & procedures have been worked out which will not require the astronauts to leave the CSM for at least that time period after injection into the transslunar trajectory.
Schaefer, Herman J. (Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory), "Apollo Mission Experience", NASA TM-X-2440, Proceedings of the National Symposium on Natural and Manmade Radiation in Space, 1971.
On standard near-Earth orbital missions such os the prepamtory missions Apollo VII ond IX, tmpped protons are encountered in repeated passes through the South Atlantic Anomaly. On lunar missions, they are encountered in two complete traversals of the mdiotion belt on tmnslunar and trans-Earth injection. Since the angle of inclimtion of the plow of the geomagnetic equator to the plone of the coplamr orbits of the Moon ond the vehicle around the Earth varies continuously on o doily and monthly cycle, the geomagnetic tmjectory through the radiation belt varies from crossing to crossing. Sometimes the trajectory traverses the inner belt more periphemlly, rometimes more centrally.
Bellcom, Inc. The Radiation Environment of Apollo, Interim Report, 1963. Section 3.2, Computer Programs.
A computer program has been compiled at Bellcomm tio compute the instantaneous and accumulated particle flux intercepted by a spacecraft in orbit or on a given lunar trajectory. A detailed mathematical description is given in Appendix B. The program uses the following initial six parameters to specify an orbit: atlitude, longitude, latitude, azimuth, elevation, and velocity magnitude at burnout and it computes the orbi8t as a functino of in-plane angle or true anomaly. A subroutine then converts geographical coordintates into B,L coordinates. A second subroutine interrogates the memory and reads out the particle (proton and/or electron) fluxesd out of ~1200 B,L boxes and the instantaneous and accumulated fluxes read out.
Roberts, W.T. (Marshall Space Flight Center). NASA TM-X-54700, Space Radiations: A Compilation and Discussion, 1964.
Methods are now under development to determine the optimum trajectories (in terms of dose rates) to be used for various mission profiles. If this method proves successful, the mission may be made more complicated due to the specificatino of a path to be followed through the Van Allen zones.
By the way, Allan, regarding your "broken link" comment: I have PDFs of these and will be happy to provide them to you. The gov't, and thus the NASA Technical Reports Server, may be shut down, but not my hard drive.
-
Similarly I have every Apollo TV related NTRS document in pdf, along with every JSC History and Archive document pertaining to the same including Skylab, ASTP, and the shuttle.
-
Maybe I missed it but did allancw ever give any indication that he knows what the radiation exposure rates are in the VAB's? I work as a physical science technician at a shipyard and it is my job to keep workers informed of radiation levels. It would be very foolish of me to make any informed decisions on the risk of radiation exposure without knowing the radiation levels.
So allancw, do you have any idea what the radiation levels were (or are) outside of low Earth orbit? International units would be fine. If you do, then you will be the very first hoax believer to indicate so to my knowledge.
Ranb
-
OK, so far no contemporaneous accounts of how the belts were to be avoided (just to remind you all of my request).
You have been shown how the preplanned, and flown, trajectories avoided the radiation belts. By all reasonable standards your request has been met.
There is no need for NASA to specifically say that they're not flying through the heart of the VARB when they publish beforehand the trajectories they're taking. If I tell you I'm driving from Memphis to Los Angeles via Interstate 40, there is no need for me to announce I won't be driving through Dallas. You can check my route on a road map and see that I40 doesn't go through Dallas. Ditto for Apollo. We can check the trajectories and see that the most dense parts of the VARB were avoided. It is absurd and unreasonable to believe such trajectories were not by design.
-
(http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj292/JasonTT/VAB007.jpg) (http://s275.photobucket.com/user/JasonTT/media/VAB007.jpg.html)
A summary diagram, compiled from contemporary data in various documents. Can I link to it? No, I found the data in things called books that I borrowed from my local library.
-
And incidentally, do you still mainitain the photo is lit from the left, and what about the whole seeing stars issue? What have you to say on that now?
-
NASA TN-D-7080, Apollo Experience Report: Protection Against Radiation
The problem of protection against the natural radiations of the Van Allen belts was recognized before the advent of manned space flight. The simplified solution is to remain under the belts (below an altitude of approximately 300 nautical miles) when in earth orbit and to traverse the belts rapidly on the way to outer space. In reality, the problem is somewhat more complex...
Raymes, Frederick (North American Aviation, Inc.). "Apollo Spacecraft Nuclear Radiation Protection Status Report", NASA SP-71, Second Symposium on Protection Against Radiation in Space
, 1964.
If one considers only the lunar mission during which the spacecraft slices through the more intense regions of the trapped radiation belts for a duration in the order of 20 minutes, the belts present no serious problem t,o the astronauts as long &s they are residing in t’he CSM. Calculations have been performed for various mission modes which require CSM-LEM docking during transition through the trapped radiation belts. It was found that the astronauts could not be permitted to enter the LEM adapter, nor the LEM, for 10 to 20 minutes after injection into the trsnslunar phase. Mission operations & procedures have been worked out which will not require the astronauts to leave the CSM for at least that time period after injection into the transslunar trajectory.
Schaefer, Herman J. (Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory), "Apollo Mission Experience", NASA TM-X-2440, Proceedings of the National Symposium on Natural and Manmade Radiation in Space, 1971.
On standard near-Earth orbital missions such os the prepamtory missions Apollo VII ond IX, tmpped protons are encountered in repeated passes through the South Atlantic Anomaly. On lunar missions, they are encountered in two complete traversals of the mdiotion belt on tmnslunar and trans-Earth injection. Since the angle of inclimtion of the plow of the geomagnetic equator to the plone of the coplamr orbits of the Moon ond the vehicle around the Earth varies continuously on o doily and monthly cycle, the geomagnetic tmjectory through the radiation belt varies from crossing to crossing. Sometimes the trajectory traverses the inner belt more periphemlly, rometimes more centrally.
Bellcom, Inc. The Radiation Environment of Apollo, Interim Report, 1963. Section 3.2, Computer Programs.
A computer program has been compiled at Bellcomm tio compute the instantaneous and accumulated particle flux intercepted by a spacecraft in orbit or on a given lunar trajectory. A detailed mathematical description is given in Appendix B. The program uses the following initial six parameters to specify an orbit: atlitude, longitude, latitude, azimuth, elevation, and velocity magnitude at burnout and it computes the orbi8t as a functino of in-plane angle or true anomaly. A subroutine then converts geographical coordintates into B,L coordinates. A second subroutine interrogates the memory and reads out the particle (proton and/or electron) fluxesd out of ~1200 B,L boxes and the instantaneous and accumulated fluxes read out.
Roberts, W.T. (Marshall Space Flight Center). NASA TM-X-54700, Space Radiations: A Compilation and Discussion, 1964.
Methods are now under development to determine the optimum trajectories (in terms of dose rates) to be used for various mission profiles. If this method proves successful, the mission may be made more complicated due to the specificatino of a path to be followed through the Van Allen zones.
To paraphrase the title of Oolon Colluphid's (http://hitchhikers.wikia.com/wiki/Oolon_Colluphid) fourth book....."Well, That About Wraps it up for no Contemporaneous Documents"
-
To paraphrase the title of Oolon Colluphid's (http://hitchhikers.wikia.com/wiki/Oolon_Colluphid) fourth book....."Well, That About Wraps it up for no Contemporaneous Documents"
;D ;D ;D ;)
-
so far no contemporaneous accounts of how the belts were to be avoided (just to remind you all of my request). By the way, the reason I guaranteed that you wouldn't find anything was because I spent a couple hours looking
Well, you've certainly allayed any concerns I had about your thoroughness.
-
...
By the way, Allan, regarding your "broken link" comment: I have PDFs of these and will be happy to provide them to you. The gov't, and thus the NASA Technical Reports Server, may be shut down, but not my hard drive.
I would be interested in those...
-
OK, so far no contemporaneous accounts of how the belts were to be avoided (just to remind you all of my request). By the way, the reason I guaranteed that you wouldn't find anything was because I spent a couple hours looking
So, I wait. You all have expended many man-hours insulting me. Why not just find the document/report/whatever I ask for and be done with it? You have already stated that the mission trajectories were planned with the belts in mind. Surely you got this information somewhere...
So Mr. Weisbecker, you have now been furnished with the names and details of the documents that you "guaranteed" couldn't be found. You've even had quotations extracted from those documents in case your word-searching skills let you down.
I am saying, actually guaranteeing, that none of you can come up with the above, and for this reason: The Apollo missions were hoaxes.
Given that you have now got the information that you requested, it seems that a retraction of the above statement is required. I am personally happy to give you a little time to verify the documents (say a day), just so you don't have to accept anything on face value. Will you then retract the assertion that the missions were hoaxes?
-
By the way, it's too late to edit my earlier post now, but the typos in the quotes above are due to OCR of scanned documents. If I expand the citation list, I'll clean it up.
ETA: The other problems are from editing on a smartphone
-
He appears to be cut from the same cloth as the late Wayne Green -- which is to say he was so very enamored with his own value as a writer and commentator that he thought no one should fault him for getting the facts woefully and arrogantly wrong.
Maybe he's a graduate of the Ralph Rene School of Investigative Journalism.
-
(http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj292/JasonTT/VAB007.jpg) (http://s275.photobucket.com/user/JasonTT/media/VAB007.jpg.html)
That's a beautiful diagram.
-
This is my favorite:
'You're presuming that there exists somewhere in the annals of NASA some brief document written in the 1960s that states succinctly in as many words the same summary answer you've been given today to your question by knowledgeable professionals. And you'll accept no substitute. [RIGHT! SOME EVIDENCE TO BACK UP YOUR BS!] I'll let the world marvel at how an "investigative reporter" -- or indeed any sort of an historian -- would think that way.
Where did I get this information? From the three feet of shelf space I devote to the secondary sources of Apollo historical material. From the uncounted pages of digital primary material I've read over the past 15 years of answering conspiracy theorists, as well as a likely equal amount in the decades of my professional and educational career in space science preceding that. From my hard-won knowledge of orbital mechanics and a working understanding of the AP-8 and AE-8 models that I have to use in my profession. From the published orbital geometries (several contemporaneous sources) of the Apollo missions. From my correspondence with Dr. Van Allen.' [PROVE IT! WOULD YOU ACCEPT THAT KIND OF BALD ASSERTION FROM ME?]
(Yeah, yeah I don't know how to isolate your quotes. BFD)
This guy will spend how ever many hours writing insults but can't come up with a mention of how they avoided the Belts, etc etc. Tiresome.
And more petard hoisting from the paper from 1969, which, brilliantly, suggests that the boys 'transit the belts rapidly' as a solution. Well, duhhh:
'When you find yourself in a hail of bullets: run!!!!'
Still not a word about a 'Van Allen launch window.' (Yes, my phraseology.)
I'll check back in one more time but you guys are not doing well.
-
I agree with Andromeda, a very nice diagram indeed.
I do have a question and an observation though.
Question:
Are the VARB's not distorted somewhat by the solar wind?
Observation:
A somewhat large penny dropped when I saw that drawing. I had always visualised the VARBs as a doughnut shape, at right angles to the Earth's axis, but in seeing this diagram it has dawned on me that the doughnut shape is in fact at right angles to the Earth's magnetic axis. I had always suspected that they had to take some account of the Moon's orbital inclination being 5.5° off the Earth's equatorial plane in order to calculate the "window" for each mission, but the fact that the magnetic pole (in the 1960's) was about 15° away from the Earth's axis, means that the doughnut is also inclined, and that means, depending on the position of the Moon in its orbit, that the "amount" of the VARB between the Earth and the Moon along a given flight path would vary from one day to the next. This might also have to be taken into account when planning the mission window.
-
I'll check back in one more time but you guys are not doing well.
Stop blustering.
Have you read the documents that you have been referred to?
-
This guy will spend how ever many hours writing insults
Where did he insult you? I can't find an example.
but can't come up with a mention of how they avoided the Belts, etc etc. Tiresome.
Several sources and examples were already provided. What is your reason for ignoring them?
-
Start the Ban clock.....
-
And more petard hoisting from the paper from 1969, which, brilliantly, suggests that the boys 'transit the belts rapidly' as a solution. Well, duhhh:
'When you find yourself in a hail of bullets: run!!!!'
You mistakenly continue to equate transiting the van Allen belts with running through "hail of bullets" (despite being shown reference after reference after reference that your understanding is wrong).
Using your metaphor, passing quickly through the van Allen belts to minimise radiation exposure is more like hurrying through light drizzle, to get from the front door of your house to the car parked in the driveway, so that you don't get too wet!!
-
You know, with all his questions about how they avoided the belts, I am staring to wonder if our friend here thinks that you can only travel in a straight line in space, forgetting (or simply not knowing) how gravity can curve a trajectory.
-
This guy will spend how ever many hours writing insults but can't come up with a mention of how they avoided the Belts, etc etc. Tiresome.
And more petard hoisting from the paper from 1969, which, brilliantly, suggests that the boys 'transit the belts rapidly' as a solution. Well, duhhh:
'When you find yourself in a hail of bullets: run!!!!'
The manta in radiation protection is "Time, Distance, Shielding". Given your poor grasp of everything else that others have patiently taken the time to spoon feed you, it looks like I will have to hold your hand and walk you through the aspect of "time" in radiation protection. The dose received from a radiation source is dependent upon the time a person is exposed to it. If a radiation source would give a dose of 1 sievert in 1 hour and a person were exposed to the source for 1 hour, they would receive a dose of 1 sievert. If they spent 20 minutes there they would receive a dose of one third of a sievert. Complicated, isn't it? Comparing it to the binary situation of being hit or not hit by a bullet is as stupid as your Mount Everest analogy.
Still not a word about a 'Van Allen launch window.' (Yes, my phraseology.)
Bwahahaha! Yeah, no kidding it's your own phraseology! It speaks volumes about your complete ignorance of the subject.
-
The manta in radiation protection is "Time, Distance, Shielding"
There is no way allancw is going to understand this if he can't wrap his ahead about the fact that he appears to not know how much radiation there is to be protected from or avoid.
-
...And more petard hoisting from the paper from 1969, which, brilliantly, suggests that the boys 'transit the belts rapidly' as a solution. Well, duhhh:
Speaking as a practicing space engineer with more than two decades in the field, a space physics degree, and a hazmat ops certification, I don't have a problem with it, because:
1. The paper noted that the problem was more complex, and the above was only part of the solution.
2. "Time-distance-shielding" applies here, and a rapid transit of the region is a major part of the solution to minimizing exposure to the trapped particle radiation.
I'm afraid your statement is nothing more than an appeal to ridicule, unless you have something more specific to say about the problem.
'When you find yourself in a hail of bullets: run!!!!'
A lot of guys who made it off Omaha Beach thought that was pretty good advice. However, the analogy isn't very much use for Earth departure planning.
Still not a word about a 'Van Allen launch window.' (Yes, my phraseology.)
Agreed, that's your phrasing. We don't use that in the space business.
I'll check back in one more time but you guys are not doing well.
Allan, you guaranteed we could not provide examples of references to trajectory planning to minimize exposure to Van Allen Belt radiation. I and others provided exactly that.
At this point, you have two choices:
1. You can refuse to acknowledge the evidence explicitly refuting your claim, and use appeals to ridicule and meaningless phrases (e.g., "Van Allen launch window") to avoid addressing the issue, or
2. You can acknowledge that just such planning was done, and either accept or challenge the adequacy of such planning. Either way in this case (#2), you will have learned something.
There's a great deal to learn about Apollo in particular and space flight in general, and people here who are willing to share their knowledge of these subjects with you. Are you in?
-
I thought i told you fellows my name so you could check my cv via amazon: allan weisbecker.
An author that doesn't capitalize the first letters in his own name?
Anyway, before you further insult my character, maybe read the 350 plus reader reviews for my books on Amazon, which average 4.7 stars. Try to find another author with that many reviews and that average. Let me know when you find one.
Hugh Howey, 6,543 reviews just for his best known book (Wool) and averaging 4.7 out of 5. What is that supposed to prove about your ignorance of Apollo and spaceflight?
-
Still not a word about a 'Van Allen launch window.' (Yes, my phraseology.)
That's because there isn't one.
The VABs are formed by the earth's magnetic field capturing charged particles from the sun. The magnetic poles do slowly wander around the earth, but to a first approximation they're fixed to it. That means the VABs are also fixed to the rotating earth so there's no "window" to be had. What matters is the trajectory you fly over the earth's surface, and that was nearly the same for all the Apollo lunar missions. They all launched nearly eastward from KSC into low altitude parking orbits and then fired the upper stage a second time to go to the moon (TLI). Except for Apollo 17, which performed TLI over the Atlantic, the lunar missions all did TLI over the Pacific so they flew the same trajectory through the VABs regardless of the time of day.
-
By the way, that Bean was unfamiliar with the Van Allen belt IS incredible, whether he could 'feel' it (the radiation) or not.
Why? They can't be seen, felt, heard, smelled, or tasted. The trajectory was planned to go around the majority of them. It wasn't like he had a need to grab the controls and fly Buck Rogers style weaving through them.
That I get insulted for pointing that out also goes to motives here.
Only yours.
Speaking of which, since you seem to believe that they somehow 'avoided' the belts, possibly you could come up with a contemporaneous account of how they planned the launch to avoid the worst of the radiation. That would go a long way to shutting me up about the matter.
-
Everyone seems to agree that the Van Allen Belts were potentially dangerous to the astronauts. Therefore, all the Apollo missions must have taken this into account, i.e., the launches timed and the flight trajectories carefully plotted so the astronauts would not be 'dosed.'
I'll assume this is a given, from the above posts.
Therefore there surely are CONTEMPORANEOUS reports/accounts/papers/studies/documents proving this, or at least MENTIONING IT. Just to be sure you understand: when I say 'contemporaneous' I mean dated from the time of the missions, not some Youtube video or verbal claim from the 21st century.
I am saying, actually guaranteeing, that none of you can come up with the above, and for this reason: The Apollo missions were hoaxes.
So that's my 'proof': You cannot produce the stated evidence, which you surely could produce if the missions were done with the Van Allen Belt taken as a serious risk factor. (A risk factor that at least one of the astronauts was unaware of, i.e., Allan Bean.)
Translation: I haven't done any research on my own so I wouldn't know of the many dry technical reports covering this many of which are not on the internet so I'm claiming victory!
-
I think our visitor's phrase from that "How The World Works" link:
"dilettante-ism at its most annoying"
is very apropos of his venture here.
Also, O visitor, if you would care to put that "EMS friend" in touch with me, I'll gladly attempt to straighten him out on hypothermia effects in a confined, low pressure, low humidity, microgravity, almost completely still-air environment, based on 30 years experience in EMS and Nursing. Living through it for a few days would suck, but is quite survivable.
-
Hugh Howey, 6,543 reviews just for his best known book (Wool) and averaging 4.7 out of 5. What is that supposed to prove about your ignorance of Apollo and spaceflight?
There are a few authors I've considered looking up, but I don't care enough. Especially given how meaningless the information is.
-
[PROVE IT! WOULD YOU ACCEPT THAT KIND OF BALD ASSERTION FROM ME?]
http://s149.photobucket.com/user/clavius_examples/media/van-allen-letter.gif.html (http://s149.photobucket.com/user/clavius_examples/media/van-allen-letter.gif.html)
-
Speaking of which, since you seem to believe that they somehow 'avoided' the belts, possibly you could come up with a contemporaneous account of how they planned the launch to avoid the worst of the radiation. That would go a long way to shutting me up about the matter.
OK allancw. Are you going shut up about it now!?
-
I think that our hero is too deep into the woo (http://www.banditobooks.com/jfk_essay/) to ever admit that though.....
Wow. :o
To quote George Takei: "Oh, my!"
-
"Crank magnetism" certainly seems common, doesn't it?
-
<rubbish snipped>
And more petard hoisting from the paper from 1969, which, brilliantly, suggests that the boys 'transit the belts rapidly' as a solution. Well, duhhh:
<more rubbish snipped>
And what exactly is the problem with transiting the belts as quickly as possible?
At least you now know that there are contemporaneous papers from the era that specifically address what you claim to be an insurmountable problem (it isn't and it wasn't). And you have referred to them (not that I was expecting a blowhard like you to come out and say something like "Hey guys, I had my head up my ass and have been shown that I was incorrect. Thanks for taking the time to correct me. I'm now off to read these documents and to try to educate myself a little"). You gave that as the sole piece of "evidence" to support your wild claim that the missions were hoaxed. It seems that practical experience in the field, years spent in education and in relevant industries has trumped your couple of hours searching. Who'd have thunk it, eh?? ::)
So again,
OK, so far no contemporaneous accounts of how the belts were to be avoided (just to remind you all of my request). By the way, the reason I guaranteed that you wouldn't find anything was because I spent a couple hours looking
So Mr. Weisbecker, you have now been furnished with the names and details of the documents that you "guaranteed" couldn't be found. You've even had quotations extracted from those documents in case your word-searching skills let you down.
I am saying, actually guaranteeing, that none of you can come up with the above, and for this reason: The Apollo missions were hoaxes.
Given that you have now got the information that you requested, it seems that a retraction of the above statement is required. I am personally happy to give you a little time to verify the documents (say a day), just so you don't have to accept anything on face value. Will you then retract the assertion that the missions were hoaxes?
No more hand-waving. No more attempts to insult people. Just try to be a man, acknowledge that you were incorrect and retract your ridiculous statement.
-
allancw, no-one has insulted you yet you have launched insults and SHOUTED at us.
Projection, much?
Why, may I ask, did you come here? Your refusal to read the answers you have been given and then claiming to have not received any answers is wearying. What is the point of it?
-
(http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj292/JasonTT/VAB007.jpg) (http://s275.photobucket.com/user/JasonTT/media/VAB007.jpg.html)
That's a beautiful diagram.
Thanks. I put it together years ago for a thread on the old boards.
-
Question:
Are the VARB's not distorted somewhat by the solar wind?
Yes, they are.
The diagram is a gross simplification of a very complex and dynamic system. Due to the solar wind the belts are 'squashed' on the side facing the Sun and stretched out somewhat on the trailing side. Since everything is in motion this is also not a fixed situation. A diagram can only cover so much.
It also simplifies the relationships of the various planes. In reality it is not the case that there is some imaginary distant videwpoint where all the planes are aligned like that so that the viewer would see all of them side on. However, it does illustrate that it is possible to miss the most intense regions of the belts using orbital inclination.
Observation:
A somewhat large penny dropped when I saw that drawing. I had always visualised the VARBs as a doughnut shape, at right angles to the Earth's axis, but in seeing this diagram it has dawned on me that the doughnut shape is in fact at right angles to the Earth's magnetic axis.
Nice to know that my work helped someone understand something. :)
I had always suspected that they had to take some account of the Moon's orbital inclination being 5.5° off the Earth's equatorial plane in order to calculate the "window" for each mission, but the fact that the magnetic pole (in the 1960's) was about 15° away from the Earth's axis, means that the doughnut is also inclined, and that means, depending on the position of the Moon in its orbit, that the "amount" of the VARB between the Earth and the Moon along a given flight path would vary from one day to the next. This might also have to be taken into account when planning the mission window.
Very probably. As I said, the whole thing is a dynamic system. The relative positions of the Earth, Sun and moon, the time of day, the solar wind, all combine to produce a system that is not fixed and simple to work with but needs to be modelled and worked out for each launch.
Of course this leads us the difference between the HB interpretation of this (that everything must be calculated to the nth degree: remember the trouble we had with hagbardceline, who could not grasp that the van Allen belt does not have a solidly definable edge?) and the reality, where there is an acceptable margin of precision that can be quite broad in some cases.
[/quote]
-
This is my favorite:
So among all the responses that actually gave you what you asked for, your favourite was one where you felt you could attack the person rather than deal with the information you've been given? Says it all, really.
And you'll accept no substitute. [RIGHT! SOME EVIDENCE TO BACK UP YOUR BS!]
The evidence is right here in this thread, in your continued refusal to accept ANY of the documents you have been given.
This guy will spend how ever many hours writing insults but can't come up with a mention of how they avoided the Belts, etc etc. Tiresome.
So how about dealing with those who DID come up with stuff about how they avoided the belts?
And more petard hoisting from the paper from 1969, which, brilliantly, suggests that the boys 'transit the belts rapidly' as a solution. Well, duhhh:
Is there some reason that is an invalid suggestion? Yes, it's obvious, but that doesn't mean it can be left out of the planning details.
I'll check back in one more time but you guys are not doing well.
So how about answering our questions then? Do you still maintain that the picture is lit from the left, and do you accept the responses to the star seeing issues? Your continued refusal to address ANY of the reponses to your questions with anything but ad hominems is not doing your own credibility any favours.
-
This guy will spend how ever many hours writing insults...
Such as ... ?
but can't come up with a mention of how they avoided the Belts, etc etc.
Actually I did. I posted the reference to the same technical memo that Sts60 referred to and quoted. You didn't even acknowledge it. And I know why you didn't: your entire line of reasoning here is based on your presupposition that no such thing would be found. Hence you refuse to acknowledge most of the many references and citations you've been given. And the ones you do acknowledge you pretextually reject after a cursory examination.
Still not a word about a 'Van Allen launch window.' (Yes, my phraseology.)
If you'd stop looking for hypothetical stuff you made up on the spot and look at what's actually being provided, perhaps you'd realize that the worldwide aerospace industry actually does have an answer for all this, and perhaps your uninformed individual conjecture is wrong.
Here's the problem. You obviously don't know how any of this works. That's not an insult, nor even much of a pointed observation. The vast majority of humankind doesn't know how to operate in space, so you're not alone nor at a particularly odious disadvantage. But your problem -- the first half of it, anyway -- is that you keep pretending that you do know how it works: the documents, the engineering, the scientific practice. There's a special brand of arrogance that you display, and the response you interpret as "insult" is proper rebuke for your wanton hubris. The second half of your problem is that while few people in the general population understand how to fly in space, you've managed to encounter a good half dozen of them here -- including people well known for such knowledge. Since many of us are well known, it makes it hard for you to bluff around it. And yes, we're giving you the answers you ask for, but as many of the lay regulars here have noticed, you're simply ignoring all of it. You've got a scenario in your head for how you thought this discussion would play out, and you're sticking to your side of the script even when you're not getting the answers you planned for.
Your screen credits may include vapid television cop shows; mine include top-shelf documentaries on the subject of science and space. I also happen to have written one of the most often consulted web sites on the subject of hoaxed Moon landings. So I promise you that your continued bluster will probably not carry you very far in this debate.
I'll check back in one more time but you guys are not doing well.
According to whom?
-
The diagram is a gross simplification of a very complex and dynamic system.
Indeed, which is why our canonical representation of them is a computer model, not a drawing or even a 3D static model. To determine their geometry, flux, and all other properties of interest, you have to feed the model some time and space coordinates.
This caused me no small consternation when asked to summarize dosages on my History Channel documentary. Even producers who are sympathetic to historical accuracy and scientific correctness still want sound bites that are palatable to a lay audience, in the mode of "Here's what the experts have to say about passage through the Van Allen belts." They want simple answers, not accurate ones. "It varies," is correct but lacks the force the producer wants to elicit from an expert.
It also simplifies the relationships of the various planes. In reality it is not the case that there is some imaginary distant videwpoint where all the planes are aligned like that...
...or even maintain a constant alignment amongst each other. What is helpful in the diagram is the abstract realization that there are different planes involved. Even on Clavius.org I carefully note that nearly all depictions of the celestial mechanics problem of flight to the Moon are so simplified. We don't even manage them graphically like that, except when such can be synthesized automatically on the computer. We model the relationships among orbits using abstract mathematical definitions involving the various frames of reference. Accurate, but lacking visual appeal.
Nice to know that my work helped someone understand something. :)
I still like the donut model. The one made from actual donuts.
....needs to be modelled and worked out for each launch.
Lacking a closed-form solution to the problem but possessed of extremely powerful computers, we can today optimized launch windows, if necessary, for radiation sensitivity. That simply goes into the mission planning phase where we evaluate payloads for first-order constraints. Other payloads are more robust in a "shake and bake" sense.
-
So among all the responses that actually gave you what you asked for, your favourite was one where you felt you could attack the person rather than deal with the information you've been given? Says it all, really.
Quite so. I would say he long ago gave up any pretense of dealing with actual evidence of any form, but in fact he has been avidly poisoning the well from the very start. Only recently has he relied almost exclusively on that.
So how about dealing with those who DID come up with stuff about how they avoided the belts?
I'd like to point out that in addition to exposing the logical pitfall in his latest rhetorical trap, I did actually provide a reference to one of NASA's planning documents. Sts60 provided the same one and clearly trumped the hand with his characteristic thoroughness, but just because I chose to focus on the ethical bankruptcy of the "challenge," doesn't mean I didn't also satisfy it. You know me: I like the one-two-punch approach where possible.
As a matter of associated and increasingly relevant fact, the hosting for Clavius.org is at a subsidiary over which I now have a great deal of control -- including its provisioning. Hence, given the past problems with NASA's document repository and the ongoing government hiatus, I think I will devote as much disk space as I can spare at the facility to mirroring as much of the relevant document library as I can that pertains to Apollo.
-
That reminds me, I haven't checked out Bob Andrepont's massive collection of space-related documents (http://www.scribd.com/bandrepont) lately.
-
Yesterday, a bunch of us in the post office were grousing about the shutdown (the woman next to me at the counter was mailing tax documents), and I made them all laugh by the whole "I can't find it on the NASA website, so hoax!" argument. Especially right now.
-
Hence, given the past problems with NASA's document repository and the ongoing government hiatus, I think I will devote as much disk space as I can spare at the facility to mirroring as much of the relevant document library as I can that pertains to Apollo.
Yay!! I would be happy to contribute my own Apollo archive, which at the moment tallies to 118 GB.
-
Hence, given the past problems with NASA's document repository and the ongoing government hiatus, I think I will devote as much disk space as I can spare at the facility to mirroring as much of the relevant document library as I can that pertains to Apollo.
Yay!! I would be happy to contribute my own Apollo archive, which at the moment tallies to 118 GB.
I suppose that hosting all that on a home cloud NAS server would run afoul of the ISP's ToS. And probably the too many initials and jargon police too.
-
From reply # 172 we have this, referring to the VARB:
'...As I said, the whole thing is a dynamic system. The relative positions of the Earth, Sun and moon, the time of day, the solar wind, all combine to produce a system that is not fixed and simple to work with but needs to be modelled and worked out for each launch.' WORKED OUT FOR EACH LAUNCH
Sounds like they needed to calculate a specific 'VARB launch window' for each flight. Which has been said several times here. Yet no one can come up with a document showing what each flight's 'VARB launch window' was. Or one flight's. 'Hurry up' (through VARB) is not enough, guys.
ONE MORE TIME: Show me. Just saying you showed me isn't quite enough. You have to actually do it.
-
From reply # 172 we have this, referring to the VARB:
'...As I said, the whole thing is a dynamic system. The relative positions of the Earth, Sun and moon, the time of day, the solar wind, all combine to produce a system that is not fixed and simple to work with but needs to be modelled and worked out for each launch.' WORKED OUT FOR EACH LAUNCH
Sounds like they needed to calculate a specific 'VARB launch window' for each flight.
No, it doesn't. The radiation doses were measured for each mission, and they varied somewhat unpredictably. But even the highest was far below the safe limits, so there was no need to do mission-specific planning or determine a "launch window". As I explained, there is no launch window associated with avoiding the VABs as they turn with the earth.
-
From reply # 172 we have this, referring to the VARB:
'...As I said, the whole thing is a dynamic system. The relative positions of the Earth, Sun and moon, the time of day, the solar wind, all combine to produce a system that is not fixed and simple to work with but needs to be modelled and worked out for each launch.' WORKED OUT FOR EACH LAUNCH
Sounds like they needed to calculate a specific 'VARB launch window' for each flight. Which has been said several times here. Yet no one can come up with a document showing what each flight's 'VARB launch window' was.
Wrong! You can get launch window information here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Apollo-Definitive-Sourcebook-Springer-Exploration/dp/0387300430
Don't forget to check out the references and tables at the back.
Or one flight's. 'Hurry up' (through VARB) is not enough, guys.
Um, yes it is. If you think it isn't, then supply data that proves it. The burden of proof is on you. You've seen the letter from Dr van Allen - so it is up to you to refute it with facts and proof. We need absorption data, radiation type, flux density, shielding, timings... Go ahead.
ONE MORE TIME: Show me. Just saying you showed me isn't quite enough. You have to actually do it.
We did. Now will you acknowledge that you have received the information you have asked for, in several different forms and from several places, but failed to read them? (Ha ha, silly me!)
For pity's sake, stop shouting.
-
I suppose that hosting all that on a home cloud NAS server would run afoul of the ISP's ToS.
Depends on the service; some permit servers and unlimited traffic.
But it's really not necessary to run it out of a home given how cheap commercial hosting services have become. My own is only $9/mo and it doesn't limit disk space or network traffic.
-
Wrong! You can get launch window information here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Apollo-Definitive-Sourcebook-Springer-Exploration/dp/0387300430
Since he probably won't bother checking, I should point out here that while every Apollo mission had a launch window, they were not determined by a need to avoid the Van Allen belts. Apollo lunar launch windows were determined mainly by lighting conditions at the landing site; every landing took place shortly after local sunrise. This limited the window to a few days each month. Then the moon had to pass through the plane of the parking and transfer orbit, which limited the window to a couple of hours each day (by allowing for some variability in the orbit plane with exact launch time.)
-
Wrong! You can get launch window information here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Apollo-Definitive-Sourcebook-Springer-Exploration/dp/0387300430
Since he probably won't bother checking, I should point out here that while every Apollo mission had a launch window, they were not determined by a need to avoid the Van Allen belts. Apollo lunar launch windows were determined mainly by lighting conditions at the landing site; every landing took place shortly after local sunrise. This limited the window to a few days each month. Then the moon had to pass through the plane of the parking and transfer orbit, which limited the window to a couple of hours each day (by allowing for some variability in the orbit plane with exact launch time.)
Yes, I know, but that book includes the appropriate launch window calculations for the mission as a whole - so pretty much everything that could reasonably be asked for. As you pointed out earlier, the "move through the edge and fast" method works just fine with the VAB. I'm waiting (with baited breath!) for our friend to prove us wrong ;D
-
ONE MORE TIME: Show me. Just saying you showed me isn't quite enough. You have to actually do it.
Stop shifting the goalposts.
You originally said that the "proof" of the hoax was that there were no contemporaneous documents. You have been given copious documents.
Again, are you going to answer this?
Given that you have now got the information that you requested, it seems that a retraction of the above statement is required. I am personally happy to give you a little time to verify the documents (say a day), just so you don't have to accept anything on face value. Will you then retract the assertion that the missions were hoaxes?
-
Sounds like they needed...
And here you go again, pretending to be an expert in something you know nothing about, ignorantly supposing what "must" be done, and then trying to hold professional practitioners accountable to your made-up nonsense.
Yet no one can come up with a document...
Simply false.
...showing what each flight's 'VARB launch window' was.
And here's the part where you move the goalposts in order to ensure that "no documents exist" for the thing you (now) say must be absolutely crucial.
ONE MORE TIME: Show me.
You've been shown.
No one has any reason to jump further through your contrived hoops. You set up the rhetorical trap on the premise that no one could find what you are asking for. And as we've seen, you'll just keep changing the notion of what you're asking for so that your premise remains true. It's not as if you're actually reading and trying to understand any of this. The list Sts60 gave you should have taken you several days to read and absorb. But you suddenly conclude that none of them is what you're asking for, and suddenly you need something else to satisfy you.
Who do you think you're fooling?
-
Who do you think you're fooling?
Himself
-
Sounds like they needed to calculate a specific 'VARB launch window' for each flight.
Nope. That reply was specifically in reference to the limitations of my diagram in terms of how good a representation of the belts it was. They do change shape somewhat. Does this affect the Apollo launch? No. It was preplanned to miss the vast majority of the belts anyway, and slight distortions in the shape of the belts would have negligible impact. I did not say that any specific launch window needed to be calculated.
Which has been said several times here.
Only by you.
Yet no one can come up with a document showing what each flight's 'VARB launch window' was. Or one flight's.
Because no such launch window is needed. A trajectory to avoid most of them yes, a specific launch window, no.
'Hurry up' (through VARB) is not enough, guys.
Says who? You? You've already told us you have no relevant qualifications in aerospace engineering or space flight planninjg, so why are you not listening to the people in this conversation who do? Why are you not reading the documents you have been given? The sheer volume of reference material already suggested to you is not something you could possibly have read and understood in the time this conversation has been going on.
ONE MORE TIME: Show me. Just saying you showed me isn't quite enough. You have to actually do it.
One more time, what do you have to say about your earlier claims about the photo being lit from the left and the ability of astronauts to see stars? Your continued refusal to respond to this question is tiresome.
-
...every Apollo mission had a launch window, they were not determined by a need to avoid the Van Allen belts.
Indeed, the obsession over the radiation hazard is a disproportionate emphasis that exists mostly in allancw's mind and is not as grave an issue for actual spacefarers. As many other laymen do, he's convinced via the notion of some Radiation Boogey Man that the principal and overriding hazard to the astronauts was the trapped radiation belt, and therefore it ought to have been a major cause for concern at NASA and a major driver for determining launch windows.
He has also pooh-poohed the most obvious solution: that a transfer orbit of particular inclination and eccentricity will skirt the Van Allen belts no matter when it is executed. Sadly he's latched onto the prospect that the geometry and ferocity of the trapped radiation vary, and wrongly supposed that they vary to such an extent that no one-size-fits-all orbit can avoid them. Of course that's entirely his supposition based on nothing more profound than his intuition. And this has been his approach throughout: whatever he imagines, that must necessarily be case without further argument. Sadly he doesn't recognize this approach as inappropriately hubristic and, frankly, ignorant.
As we've all noticed before, people speculating outside their fields of expertise tend to surmise that problems are more difficult to solve than they really are, and that solutions to them must fall into certain intuitive, brute-force categories rather than capitalizing on innovation and simplicity. The design of the translunar trajectory simply and elegantly solves the radiation exposure in the most straightforward and uncomplicated way. Allancw seems miffed that the real solution doesn't resemble what he thought it would be.
-
That reminds me, I haven't checked out Bob Andrepont's massive collection of space-related documents (http://www.scribd.com/bandrepont) lately.
Thanks, sts60!
I hadn't visited there for a while either. But on your prompt I checked out his Apollo section again and found the Apollo Recovery Operational Procedures Manual which contained information on something I had been wondering about for the A9 Flight Journal: how to decode the Apollo 9 Block Data recovery area codes e.g. 10-CC, 33-1A etc.
So, 10-CC means on revolution 10, recovery will be in contingency sector C (Western Pacific) which will have support level C (aircraft with locating and pararescue capability). 33-1A means on revolution 33, recovery zone 1 (West Atlantic - USS Guadacanal) with support level A (recovery ship at or near target point).
Thanks again.
-
Of course that's entirely his supposition based on nothing more profound than his intuition.
As we've all noticed before, people speculating outside their fields of expertise tend to surmise that problems are more difficult to solve than they really are, and that solutions to them must fall into certain intuitive, brute-force categories rather than capitalizing on innovation and simplicity.
Jay, I have seen this before (I can't remember exactly where) in trying to understand the power of lift.
Consider a fully fuelled and laden Boeing 747-400. Depending on the model, its all-up weight is around 900,000 lbs (around 400 tons)
On the face of it, if you know nothing about lift, and going purely on intuition, it just cannot fly. Even if you had lift explained to you, it seems totally counter-intuitive, that the fact that the only reason this behemoth can get in the air and stay there is because the airflow around the wings can create near a million pounds of upwards force. It just doesn't seem possible, yet, it is.
Yet, people don't say that lift is a hoax, or that flight doesn't really happen, even if they don't understand it. They are prepared to get on board passenger aircraft in their millions every year without having the foggiest understanding of exactly how this 400 ton monster flies. They take it on faith, and on observational experience that it works.
Spaceflight, and flight to the Moon however, don't seem to get the same trust.
-
I guess because the 747 has entered into the realm of everyday magic.
The same with modern computers and even a typical car. Most of us don't know how they work, they just do. If going to the moon was as common as jumbo jets, there probably would not be nearly as many conspiracy theorists going off about this, if at all.
-
Why do we even know about the Van Allen Belt, Allancw? We know about it because NASA found it and told us about it.
So I would like to know why you think NASA would even tell us about the radiation if it posed an insurmountable obstacle? If we didn't know about the radiation they wouldn't have to explain how the Apollo missions dealt with it. Right?
So please explain that to me.
-
ONE MORE TIME: Show me. Just saying you showed me isn't quite enough. You have to actually do it.
Allan, you guaranteed we couldn't produce documents discussing trajectory planning with regard to the Van Allen Belt hazards. Such references have been explicitly provided to you. When will you satisfy your guarantee?
-
*puts on cynicism hat* The day we get a million Euro from Heiwa I would imagine.
-
allancw, I worked in the space program in the 1960's on the Atlas and Titan boosters and later with Boeing. I was a participant and firsthand witness to the incredible effort and expertise that went into preparing for space exploration. That's why I am a bit insulted and quite disgusted that you can't understand how impossible it would be to carry on the immense deception required to fake the entire Apollo Program involving thousands of people worldwide. You really don't seem to have a grasp of how far-reaching that endeavor was.
It is obvious you have an obsession about this that is unassailable. You have a firewall in your mind that will not allow ANYTHING that counters that belief in. It's not just a matter of our disagreeing. For the bright people on this forum (most of them more knowledgeable in space sciences and astrophysics than I), it's like trying to educate a lamp post.
It would be funny if it weren't so sad.
-
I'm just sort of disappointed that he seems to have completely bailed on the one issue I have some actual real-world expertise in. I guess the old bait-and-switch isn't dead after all.
-
I think that we've probably seen the last of Mr Weisbecker. He's had his arse handed to him on a plate. I ecpect that he'll go back to telling anyone in earshot that he has written a few mediocre books (hey, 350 reviews on Amazon!), writing crank letters to physicists and trying to flog his plot of land in Costa Rico
Its a funny thing...I think that people like this have such a belief in their own ego that they can never broker any idea that they might be incorrect. It's a funny old way to live your life, after all, if you never get anything wrong you are not learning anything much about the world.
-
I expect he will wander round the net telling everyone that we are paid shills who wouldn't (or couldn't) give him what he asked for.
I find it difficult to empathise with that mindset - Heiwa was the same. To have on the screen, right in front of them, the answers to the questions they asked (multiple times) and then insist that the answers have not been provided... It really baffles me.
-
hypothermia effects in a confined, low pressure, low humidity, microgravity, almost completely still-air environment
Wouldn't this also create a troublesome bubble of CO2? I've heard of that happening to sleeping astronauts and awakening them with headaches. There are usually a lot of blowers and fans to counteract this problem, though I don't know about Apollo 13. I know that they used suit hoses to blow fresh air up into the tunnel to the CM, which was used for sleeping.
-
I expect he will wander round the net telling everyone that we are paid shills
Not only that, but NASA considers people like him -- who know The Truthtm -- to be so dangerous that they kept their shills active when nearly all of NASA was furloughed during the government shutdown!
-
From reply # 172 we have this, referring to the VARB:
'...As I said, the whole thing is a dynamic system. The relative positions of the Earth, Sun and moon, the time of day, the solar wind, all combine to produce a system that is not fixed and simple to work with but needs to be modelled and worked out for each launch.' WORKED OUT FOR EACH LAUNCH
Sounds like they needed to calculate a specific 'VARB launch window' for each flight. Which has been said several times here. Yet no one can come up with a document showing what each flight's 'VARB launch window' was. Or one flight's. 'Hurry up' (through VARB) is not enough, guys.
ONE MORE TIME: Show me. Just saying you showed me isn't quite enough. You have to actually do it.
Seeing as you've shown everyone else What For regarding VARB launch windows, how about you turn your obvious skills to explaining how NASA acquired that ~370kg of rocks, soil and core samples which has convinced scientists from around the world for the last 40+ years?
-
Why do we even know about the Van Allen Belt, Allancw? We know about it because NASA found it and told us about it.
So I would like to know why you think NASA would even tell us about the radiation if it posed an insurmountable obstacle?
I would like to know why, when his exhaustive multi-hour search couldn't produce information on Apollo avoiding the Van Allen belts, he automatically assumed that this was because Apollo was a hoax, and not, say, because the Van Allen belts were a hoax.
-
The Apollo astronauts were generalists who were busy enough learning what they actually needed to do their missions. They couldn't possibly be experts on everything. That's why NASA had all sorts of specialists on the ground to back them up.
Sorry folks, I've only read to page 4, but thought I'd add the following which backs up what KA9Q has said. It's from the soundtrack of the wonderful movie "For All Mankind," and it's from one of the Apollo astronauts many laypeople have probably never heard of, Ken Mattingly. I'll bold his most important points, but include the entire soundtrack for that particular five-minute period in the film. (For those who don't understand the mixups that occur, they are intentional. The movie portrays one fictional trip to the moon, using the very best footage from all the missions, and even includes some from Gemini.)
"It won't fail because of me"
0:04:07 Ground Crew: Y'all take care now.
0:04:36 Ground Crew: Godspeed, men.
0:04:44 T. Kenneth Mattingly II: Right at the last minute there was a psychological block in there that said, "Don't, don't count on this so heavily, it might not happen." This is such a big thing, I frankly don't see how you can do it even though I am participating in it. I think it's audacious that you would try. I clearly could never understand as a crewman how to how to make it work. I could only learn how to operate my share of it. 0:05:11
0:05:34 T. Kenneth Mattingly II: Being command pilot, I was sitting in the centre seat so that meant I climbed in last. I just stood around, and waited until they strapped in. And here was a kind of a strange quiet. Look out and you can see a large part of the state and ocean and this thing out here — you have the feeling that it's alive. That's the kind of thing that sort of, for the first time, begins to bring home the fact that today is not the game we've been playing in training for years. This is reality. 0:06:11
0:06:39 T. Kenneth Mattingly II: I had the only window at this point and I looked out and doggone if the, if the moon wasn't visible in the daylight right straight out the top of the window. I know they're doing their job right, because the moon's right straight ahead and that's where we're pointed, and they're just going to launch us right straight to this thing. 0:06:55
0:07:00 M.C.: This is Apollo Saturn Launch Control. All still Go on the Apollo mission, the flight to land the first men on the moon. The spacecraft also now is on full internal power. Up to this time it had been sharing the load with an external power source. Once we get down to the three-minute-and-ten-second mark in the countdown we'll go on an automatic sequence. All aspects from thereon down will be automatically run by the ground master computer here in the firing room. We have some 7.6 million pounds of thrust pushing the vehicle upward, a vehicle that weighs close to six and a half million pounds.
0:07:46 T. Kenneth Mattingly II: We all are in this together as a team effort, we're going to make it work. And I don't know how to make it work. I don't know how to do most of this mission. But I do know that I can assure you that my piece of it is going to work and you won't fail because of me. 0:08:02
0:08:04 M.C.: The members of the launch team here in the control centre are monitoring a number of what we call red line values. These are tolerances we don't want to go above or below in temperatures and pressures. They're standing by to call out any deviations from our plans. All indications coming into the control centre at this time indicate we are Go. The test supervisor now has informed launch vehicle test conducted, you are Go for launch. Three minutes twenty-five seconds and counting. We are still Go at this time.
0:08:35 T. Kenneth Mattingly II: There's a long period of time where you've done all the things in the cockpit you can do and there are very few things left to say. You don't know any new jokes to tell or — there's just not much left to say except just sit there and wait. 0:08:46
0:08:46 Astronaut: It feels good.
0:08:47 M.C.: Astronauts report it feels good. One minute twenty-five seconds and counting. Our status board indicates the third stage completely pressurised. Guidance system goes on internal at seventeen seconds leading up to the ignition sequence at 8.9 seconds. Power transfer is complete. Firing command coming in now, we are on the automatic sequence. T minus sixty seconds and counting. We will launch vehicle at this time. All the second stage tanks now pressurised. Thirty-five seconds and counting. Go.
0:09:23 T. Kenneth Mattingly II: It won't fail because of me. 0:09:25
-
I expect he will wander round the net telling everyone that we are paid shills
Not only that, but NASA considers people like him -- who know The Truthtm -- to be so dangerous that they kept their shills active when nearly all of NASA was furloughed during the government shutdown!
It just demonstrates the effort required to maintain the cover up.
You know, I'm beginning to think the whole hoax just wasn't worth the trouble.
-
It just demonstrates the effort required to maintain the cover up.
You know, I'm beginning to think the whole hoax just wasn't worth the trouble.
-
I worked in the space program in the 1960's on the Atlas and Titan boosters and later with Boeing. I was a participant and firsthand witness...
<snip>
For the bright people on this forum (most of them more knowledgeable in space sciences and astrophysics than I), it's like trying to educate a lamp post.
Well, don't sell yourself short. Firsthand knowledge and experience with space engineering is important and valuable. It's especially valuable because people like allancw tend to approach space science (or whatever they're claiming is a hoax) as if it were some high-priesthood profession practiced only by a few special, privileged people who (in the conspiracist's estimation) don't deserve their lofty station nor the accolades of society. In fact it's just a job like any other, and it's not uncommon to meet and talk with people who practice it whereupon you realize they're normal people just like anyone else -- not some Manchurian candidate, hapless pawn in a global power struggle, nor nefarious oppressor.
I think that we've probably seen the last of Mr Weisbecker. He's had his arse handed to him on a plate.
Unfortunately he had his arse handed to him pretty much upon his arrival. He didn't recognize or accept it then, so I don't expect him to recognize and accept it now. He never paid serious attention to any of the answers he was given, and he won't pay any attention to any future ones.
I expect that he'll go back to telling anyone in earshot that he has written a few mediocre books (hey, 350 reviews on Amazon!), writing crank letters to physicists and trying to flog his plot of land in Costa Ric[a]
I'm sure he did that before coming here, that he's been doing so all along, and will continue to do so long after he loses interest in us. The statements he's made here and elsewhere indicate that he's essentially groping for whatever semblance of credibility and stature he can attain using his means.
Its a funny thing...I think that people like this have such a belief in their own ego that they can never broker any idea that they might be incorrect.
In my opinion this sort of overwhelming belief in one's own ego is actually a paradoxical symptom of low self-esteem. This type of person usually goes overboard hyping himself because deep down he's fundamentally insecure and believes people will judge him harshly and reject him. Often there's no rational reason for it; the individual is usually -- for lack of a better word -- just fine. However, it is obvious that efforts to amplify one's apparent greatness and prowess would be intolerant to criticism or evidence of error.
To have on the screen, right in front of them, the answers to the questions they asked (multiple times) and then insist that the answers have not been provided... It really baffles me.
As I pointed out, this conversation is a rhetorical exercise meant to bolster faith in the construct I described above. Allancw entered the discussion with the "guarantee" that we could not find what he said he wanted. The exercise had already been laid out: the outcome in his mind was foregone. He'll simply do or say whatever is needed to keep making the premise of the exercise true.
-
In my opinion this sort of overwhelming belief in one's own ego is actually a paradoxical symptom of low self-esteem. This type of person usually goes overboard hyping himself because deep down he's fundamentally insecure and believes people will judge him harshly and reject him. Often there's no rational reason for it; the individual is usually -- for lack of a better word -- just fine.
:,( that's so tragic.
-
So now that the government shutdown is over, does that mean we'll be able to directly point him to things on the NASA website to prove him wrong again? Because despite my certainty that it won't matter, it'll be funny to make it even more pointed that he doesn't know what he's talking about.
And once again, I really do think we've hit an example of an HB who's so wrong that you don't actually need specialized information to see it. Yes, the technical Apollo stuff does. However, I'm going to point out again the completely bonkers claim that it's the job of an investigative journalist to assume we're all NASA shills. I mean, find one proper journalist who thinks that! And the general public may not have a great understanding of how journalism works, but they still know better than that.
-
In my opinion this sort of overwhelming belief in one's own ego is actually a paradoxical symptom of low self-esteem. This type of person usually goes overboard hyping himself because deep down he's fundamentally insecure and believes people will judge him harshly and reject him. Often there's no rational reason for it; the individual is usually -- for lack of a better word -- just fine. However, it is obvious that efforts to amplify one's apparent greatness and prowess would be intolerant to criticism or evidence of error.
Jay, I've said it before, and I'll say it again: for an engineer, you're a hell of a practical psychologist.
-
First off, reading the link to your webpage, I've started a thread in the "Other Conspiracy Theories" section to talk about what parts of history since ww2 is a lie, besides JFK getting shot. I'm truly interested, since this would be new territory.
Here's the thread:
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=520.0
Second off, there wasn't a "van allen belt launch window." As I understand it, the time of the launch would have no effect - after all, the van allen belts don't change that much. But, correct me if I'm wrong about this, there would be a window of how many orbits after launch they had for TLI (that's the burn where you go to the moon), but the van allen belts wouldn't be the only things contributing to it. Besides, if I recall correctly, the parking orbit after launch was low enough that atmospheric drag would have resulted in the spacecraft reentering in a few days anyway.
Here's a graphic representation of the trajectory, viewed from the side:
(http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/pics/A11TLI-fig6.gif)
And showing the belts:
(http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/pics/electronbelt.gif)
Courtesy of this page:
http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm
Also, a question I've always wanted to ask people who say it was a hoax, but I've never seen answered, is:
Why did they have to hoax it anyway?
Was it a problem with the spacecraft, a problem with the environment on the moon, a problem with the environment in space, what? Surely you must have a reason in mind?
Finally, why isn't 'go through the belts really fast' an option? If you've got "x amount of radiation per minute in this area," ins't spending less minutes in said area a good plan?
And a note to everyone else: Tone It Down, lighten up a little. This board's gotten a lot less friendly recently.
-
The "reasons" the hoax advocates quote vary from "rockets don't Work in Space" to "Aliens on the moon didn't want humans there" with all flavors inbetween. Some use faulty math to calculate the needed fuel, and don't want to accept that other people with relevant knowledge calculate the fuel needed using well-proven formulae. Others cite the "sea of deadly radiation" in Space - with the "deadly solar flares" thrown in. Then there's the people who don't believe the technology would Work - from the computers used to the structure of the spacecraft. Then there's the question of re-entry which also (in hoax-universe) precludes anybody from returning form Space - which also "proves" ISS, Space Shuttle and all the other manned missions were hoaxed.
The problem with radiation in the hoax-universe is that they don't understand (or wish to) the concept of radiation dose accumulation over time. They think that radiation is equal to instant death - or at least a slow, unavoidable death, which will preclude any Space travel through or beyond the Ván Allen Belts - no matter that no scientist with RELEVANT knowledge agrees with them.
The reasons they do it, varies from what JayUtah already has mentioned, to personal greed - some sell books and DVDs and make a substantial amount of Money off insulting and attacking the professionals who DID and DO Work with Space related matters. And generally making an ass of themselves.
And your other theories - the JFK assassination - It is very probable - from the data I have seen - and from a background as a competition shooter - that the 3 shots fired from Lee Harvey Oswalds rifle were the only shots fired that day.
-
It is very probable - from the data I have seen - and from a background as a competition shooter - that the 3 shots fired from Lee Harvey Oswalds rifle were the only shots fired that day.
Not forgetting, of course, the four shots Oswald fired in murdering Officer J.D. Tippett, in the vicinity of 10th Street and Patton Avenue, about 40 minutes after JFK was assassinated
-
Oh yes - but with a handgun it is much easier to shoot fast than with a bolt-action rifle.
-
Guys, please don't discuss the JFK assassination in this section of the forum. It will only encourage Allancw et al to go off on a tangent unrelated to Apollo.
-
hypothermia effects in a confined, low pressure, low humidity, microgravity, almost completely still-air environment
Wouldn't this also create a troublesome bubble of CO2? I've heard of that happening to sleeping astronauts and awakening them with headaches. There are usually a lot of blowers and fans to counteract this problem, though I don't know about Apollo 13. I know that they used suit hoses to blow fresh air up into the tunnel to the CM, which was used for sleeping.
That is indeed a problem in microgravity, with no natural convection to move 'air' around. As far as I can tell from the handbooks, the only circulation came from the Atmosphere Revitalization system, which moved the air through the LiOH cannister (and replaced O2). IIRC from Lost Moon, the only things they had powered up during the coast back were the atmosphere fan, cooling system, and minimal communications.
I've never seen it mentioned anywhere in connection with Apollo 13, but the system could also use the smaller LiOH cartridges intended for the PLSSs... I don't know how long one would last filtering three people's exhalations, though, and in any case, weren't most of them stored in one of the external bays?
-
Good thing they found a way to jury rig the CM cannisters to work. Of course, to I am sure no ones surprise, the solution involved duct tape. The carbon dioxide 'bubble' problem is mentioned in Lost Moon as well I believe.
-
I've never seen it mentioned anywhere in connection with Apollo 13, but the system could also use the smaller LiOH cartridges intended for the PLSSs... I don't know how long one would last filtering three people's exhalations, though, and in any case, weren't most of them stored in one of the external bays?
Yes. I believe the secondary LiOH receptacle in the LM ECS took the smaller PLSS LiOH cartridges. That might be one of the post-Apollo 13 redesigns; I'm not sure.
And yes, LM internal storage was severely limited so at least some of the spare LiOH cartridges were stored outside in the MESA. I know PLSS supplies (batteries, LiOH cartridges) were kept out there and probably the LM LiOH cartridges too. Part of each day's closeout was to bring in the supplies for the next day.
-
Second off, there wasn't a "van allen belt launch window." As I understand it, the time of the launch would have no effect - after all, the van allen belts don't change that much. But, correct me if I'm wrong about this, there would be a window of how many orbits after launch they had for TLI (that's the burn where you go to the moon), but the van allen belts wouldn't be the only things contributing to it. Besides, if I recall correctly, the parking orbit after launch was low enough that atmospheric drag would have resulted in the spacecraft reentering in a few days anyway.
Correct. The VABs rotate with the earth, but you launch into an orbit plane that remains (almost) fixed in inertial space.
A much bigger constraint was S-IVB propellant boil-off. The primary opportunity (for TLI over the Pacific) was 1.5 orbits after launch with a backup at 2.5 orbits -- and that was it. Enough hydrogen was continually vented to provide a small but meaningful amount of thrust to overcome drag of the very low parking orbit.
The low parking orbit maximized the Oberth effect; burning propellant at the lowest possible altitude means not having to carry it up with you. To increase the Saturn's payload capacity for the heavier J missions (Apollo 15-17) the parking orbit was lowered to only about 170 km.
To give you an idea of just how extremely low that is, the lowest operational orbit I know of is that of GOCE, the Gravity Field and Steady State Ocean Circulation Explorer. It measures the irregularities in the earth's gravity field by their effect on its own orbit. Resolution drops off sharply with altitude so you want the lowest orbit possible. GOCE is shaped like a torpedo to minimize drag, and it uses an ion engine to continuously counteract the remainder. And it's all the way up at 260 km. It has reached end of life, and it will soon re-enter after the ion propellant runs out.
The ISS is also in a relatively low orbit that requires frequent reboosting, but it's way up there at over 400 km.
-
I expect he will wander round the net telling everyone that we are paid shills
Not only that, but NASA considers people like him -- who know The Truthtm -- to be so dangerous that they kept their shills active when nearly all of NASA was furloughed during the government shutdown!
It just demonstrates the effort required to maintain the cover up.
You know, I'm beginning to think the whole hoax just wasn't worth the trouble.
I found this an interesting thing to think through some years ago. Sort of "OK, I am going to hoax, what are the issues". The issues pile in thick and fast. Anyone can do it.
He (Allancw) is missing the big point here and the analogy is Microwave ovens are dangerous. Drop them on your foot and it hurts like heck. Avoid dropping it on your feet. Same here with Apollo, they are dangerous, minimise the risk which is mind numbingly simple. But if I wanted to fake the landings, how do you deal with the impassible? Dash and darn it, caught out by what everyone else in the world can work out....
-
Yes, you're right. You've heard the last of me but not for the reasons you imply...
To sum up: I asked for a contemporaneous (1969 or earlier) mention anywhere about how 'the worst of the VARB would be avoided.' (Several of you made this claim, words to this effect, and no one disagreed.)
The closest you came was in the 1969 Mission Report wherein 'pass rapidly' through the belts was the only mention. This is not 'avoiding the worst of the belts.'
I'm leaving this thread because I don't need any more reminders of how easy it apparently is to get humans to do what you do here. Whether it's money or MKULTRA or inborn delusion or simple wishful thinking or, most certainly, Evil at work, I'd prefer not to hear any more of it...
-
Yes, you're right. You've heard the last of me but not for the reasons you imply...
To sum up: I asked for a contemporaneous (1969 or earlier) mention anywhere about how 'the worst of the VARB would be avoided.' (Several of you made this claim, words to this effect, and no one disagreed.)
The closest you came was in the 1969 Mission Report wherein 'pass rapidly' through the belts was the only mention. This is not 'avoiding the worst of the belts.'
I'm leaving this thread because I don't need any more reminders of how easy it apparently is to get humans to do what you do here. Whether it's money or MKULTRA or inborn delusion or simple wishful thinking or, most certainly, Evil at work, I'd prefer not to hear any more of it...
Translation: You provided me multiple references that showed they avoided the belts. I ignored them and "moved the goalposts" multiple times. Now I'm leaving with yet another accusation that you are either paid or deluded because insults is all I really have. Now I must really get out of here because I can't stand to have my predefined conclusions questioned.
-
The closest you came was in the 1969 Mission Report wherein 'pass rapidly' through the belts was the only mention. This is not 'avoiding the worst of the belts.'
Mr Weisbecker, recently
(http://www.cruxcatalyst.com/wp-content/uploads/lalalala.jpg)
Let me guess..you didn't bother word-searching the copious documents that you were shown as you couldn't find them.
The power of self-delusion and wilful ignorance, eh?
-
Is "Declare victory and flounce" on the Bingo card?
-
Yes, you're right. You've heard the last of me ...
And there was much rejoicing.
-
(http://whatnot2crochet.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/golden_flounce.jpg)
Not quite as good a flounce as DAKDAK, so 6/10.
The quality of hoax believers and their flounces is really slipping lately.
-
Yes, you're right. You've heard the last of me but not for the reasons you imply...
To sum up: I asked for a contemporaneous (1969 or earlier) mention anywhere about how 'the worst of the VARB would be avoided.' (Several of you made this claim, words to this effect, and no one disagreed.)
The closest you came was in the 1969 Mission Report wherein 'pass rapidly' through the belts was the only mention. This is not 'avoiding the worst of the belts.'
I'm leaving this thread because I don't need any more reminders of how easy it apparently is to get humans to do what you do here. Whether it's money or MKULTRA or inborn delusion or simple wishful thinking or, most certainly, Evil at work, I'd prefer not to hear any more of it...
I take that to mean you've already got the Apollo rocks issue sorted.
Great. I can't wait to hear it.
-
I'm leaving this thread because I don't need any more reminders of how easy it apparently is to get humans to do what you do here. Whether it's money or MKULTRA or inborn delusion or simple wishful thinking or, most certainly, Evil at work, I'd prefer not to hear any more of it...
Or, just possibly, years of training and actual practical experience. Not by me, of course, when it comes to astronautics and astrodynamics, but certainly by several here. I do have my own skill set and knowledge base, however, if you'd care to revisit the hypothermia question.
You're like a Monday morning quarterback demanding to be shown in the team's playbook where it says that the quarterback should attempt to avoid the defender's raised arms when throwing a pass; it's inherent in the process.
-
Yes, you're right. You've heard the last of me but not for the reasons you imply...
Oh, it is very much is for those reasons, as you admit below. You're only about the fiftieth conspiracy theorist to try this same approach and tactic on this forum and its predecessors. As you've noticed, your approach is so characteristic we can even talk about the psychology of it with little opposition. Having gotten a little attention elsewhere, you've convinced yourself of two things: first, that you know it all; and second, that evil powers are out to get you. The latter gives rise to belief in widespread conspiracies; the latter wrongly tells you that you have a rational basis for those beliefs.
The closest you came was in the 1969 Mission Report...
Factually incorrect. You were given multiple citations to multiple academic and technical studies from multiple fields in and out of the government. But you'd already told us we'd find nothing, because you -- in your "investigative journalist" persona -- made a cursory, straw-man examination and failed to find anything. Having thus laid your cards on the table, you have no option now but to fold your hand. "Gee, I guess you guys were right all along," doesn't appear to be in your vocabulary, as it would be for any rational person.
I'm leaving this thread because I don't need any more reminders of how easy it apparently is to get humans to do what you do here. Whether it's money or MKULTRA or inborn delusion or simple wishful thinking or, most certainly, Evil at work, I'd prefer not to hear any more of it...
Yeah, that would be the reason. You cannot stomach facts that disagree with your pre-determined beliefs. So you ignore the facts and demonize the people who know more about them than you do.
-
Yes, you're right. You've heard the last of me ...
And there was much rejoicing.
You know he'll be back.
-
Is "Declare victory and flounce" on the Bingo card?
I'm pretty sure. I haven't actually looked at mine, I admit, because I think someone else won before I even joined the thread.
-
LOL @ "MKULTRA".
(http://i1336.photobucket.com/albums/o657/Andromeda_Apollo/image_zps7381efbf.jpg)
I don't think I've ever been described as evil before :-*
-
Yes, you're right. You've heard the last of me but not for the reasons you imply...
To sum up: I asked for a contemporaneous (1969 or earlier) mention anywhere about how 'the worst of the VARB would be avoided.' (Several of you made this claim, words to this effect, and no one disagreed.)
The closest you came was in the 1969 Mission Report wherein 'pass rapidly' through the belts was the only mention. This is not 'avoiding the worst of the belts.'
I'm leaving this thread because I don't need any more reminders of how easy it apparently is to get humans to do what you do here. Whether it's money or MKULTRA or inborn delusion or simple wishful thinking or, most certainly, Evil at work, I'd prefer not to hear any more of it...
One of the things I love about this place is you can ask questions and some very qualified people will answer. Now you can take this at face value or take it away and go to a library and check it up. Either way you have some input from people who are not giving an armchair opinion and have experience to back it up.
Hows about we start again? I have seen quite a few answers to this in this thread. More than enough to go away and check up. Why avoid those answers? I am able to follow them.
-
To sum up: I asked for a contemporaneous (1969 or earlier) mention anywhere about how 'the worst of the VARB would be avoided.' (Several of you made this claim, words to this effect, and no one disagreed.)
The closest you came was in the 1969 Mission Report wherein 'pass rapidly' through the belts was the only mention. This is not 'avoiding the worst of the belts.'
Just for the sake of discussion, let's assume for a moment that the VAB is a howling maelstrom of radioactive death, and that the astronauts had no choice but to fly through it anyway.
** How does this assumption explain the literal tons of technical documentation and testing for every single piece of flown hardware, down to their underpants?
** How does it affect our understanding of 800+ lbs of rock and soil samples that have been examined by geologists world wide for the last 40 years without one questioning the veracity of the materials?
** And what about the Baysinger recordings ( http://legacy.jefferson.kctcs.edu/observatory/apollo11/ ) of the Apollo 11 EVA?
Thousands of individual datapoints, all internally and externally consistent, tell a fantastic story about human engineering achievements. But you, like every single HB before you, think you can point to one "smoking gun" detail, totally out of context and with zero factual analysis of the underlying concepts, and somehow this defeats all the externally verifiable facts.
Wasn't your OP about the thermal conditions inside the A13 spacecraft? What happened to that argument?
-
The closest you came was in the 1969 Mission Report wherein 'pass rapidly' through the belts was the only mention. This is not 'avoiding the worst of the belts.'
So you didn't see the simple stuff that even I can understand? The inclination is the most relevant figure:
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-24_Translunar_Injection.htm
That is avoiding the worst of the belts and noted on every single mission report.
I'm leaving this thread because I don't need any more reminders of how ignorant I am.
Fixed that for you. On behalf of the lay people though, thanks for this thread. We may learn a few things from the experts around here, it's just a shame that yet another Heiwa clone is incapable of that really simple thing.
-
Yes, you're right. You've heard the last of me but not for the reasons you imply...
To sum up: I asked for a contemporaneous (1969 or earlier) mention anywhere about how 'the worst of the VARB would be avoided.' (Several of you made this claim, words to this effect, and no one disagreed.)
The closest you came was in the 1969 Mission Report wherein 'pass rapidly' through the belts was the only mention. This is not 'avoiding the worst of the belts.'
I'm leaving this thread because I don't need any more reminders of how easy it apparently is to get humans to do what you do here. Whether it's money or MKULTRA or inborn delusion or simple wishful thinking or, most certainly, Evil at work, I'd prefer not to hear any more of it...
I'm flouncing!
There, fixed that for you!
And thanks heaps. I learned some new stuff in this thread. Pity you are too ignorant to have availed yourself of the opportunity to do likewise!
-
To sum up: I asked for a contemporaneous (1969 or earlier) mention anywhere about how 'the worst of the VARB would be avoided.' (Several of you made this claim, words to this effect, and no one disagreed.)
No. Here is exactly what you asked for:
"...Therefore, all the Apollo missions must have taken this into account, i.e., the launches timed and the flight trajectories carefully plotted so the astronauts would not be 'dosed.'
...
Therefore there surely are CONTEMPORANEOUS reports/accounts/papers/studies/documents proving this, or at least MENTIONING IT."
The closest you came was in the 1969 Mission Report wherein 'pass rapidly' through the belts was the only mention. This is not 'avoiding the worst of the belts.'
Factually incorrect. Let me commend to your attention highlights (in bold) of documents I have already cited for you:
On lunar missions, they are encountered in two complete traversals of the radiation belt on translunar and trans-Earth injection. Since the angle of inclination of the plane of the geomagnetic equator to the plane of the coplanar orbits of the Moon and the vehicle around the Earth varies continuously on a daily and monthly cycle, the geomagnetic trajectory through the radiation belt varies from crossing to crossing. Sometimes the trajectory traverses the inner belt more peripherally, sometimes more centrally.
There is also a nice little diagram of the Apollo XII TLI and TEI gemagnetic trajectories.
A computer program has been compiled at Bellcomm to compute the instantaneous and accumulated particle flux intercepted by a spacecraft in orbit or on a given lunar trajectory. A detailed mathematical description is given in Appendix B. The program uses the following initial six parameters to specify an orbit: atlitude, longitude, latitude, azimuth, elevation, and velocity magnitude at burnout and it computes the orbit as a function of in-plane angle or true anomaly. A subroutine then converts geographical coordinates into B,L coordinates. A second subroutine interrogates the memory and reads out the particle (proton and/or electron) fluxes out of ~1200 B,L boxes and the instantaneous and accumulated fluxes read out.
Methods are now under development to determine the optimum trajectories (in terms of dose rates) to be used for various mission profiles. If this method proves successful, the mission may be made more complicated due to the specification of a path to be followed through the Van Allen zones.
There, in black and white, are three examples directly discussing concerns of Apollo translunar trajectories with regard to the Van Allen belts - in other words, three examples of what you guaranteed we could not find. And this is just a facile word-search of NTRS and documents I already had on hand; it is not an engineering exercise.
Allan, why are you refusing to uphold your guarantee? And I'm not looking for clever answers from other board members; I really would like Allan to explain why he is apparently so committed to denying the facts presented to him.
I'm leaving this thread because I don't need any more reminders of how easy it apparently is to get humans to do what you do here.
Allan, that's very disappointing to read. I thought you were here to learn something. The above makes it sound like you only came here to confirm your preconceived notions.
What was easy here was for you to get useful information about the Apollo program and spaceflight in general, freely given by people who have accumulated a great deal of knowledge on these subjects. Instead of learning from it, you are avoiding it. Why is that? Are you afraid to challenge your own assumptions? Do you not like the idea that the same country involved in Vietnam could accomplish this? Is it a religious thing? Or what?
Whether it's money
Wrong. I do not get paid for providing information to you, nor to any other hoax believer.
or MKULTRA
Wrong. Nothing to do with me.
or inborn delusion
Wrong. The same principles that applied to Apollo apply to other space projects - military, civil, and commercial - and each type of which I have worked on. If I was deluded, I would not be approaching the quarter-century mark in my line of work.
or simple wishful thinking
Wrong. I am paid to perform actual space engineering, and have both both the education and experience to back up what I say. Wishful thinking is not part of my job skill set.
or, most certainly, Evil at work,
Are you saying that I'm evil for providing you with facts contradicting your claim? This must be a new definition of "evil" with which I am not familiar.
I'd prefer not to hear any more of it...
Allan, that's really too bad. You can still decide to stick around and learn something, if you like. Or you can close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears, and shout "La la la I can't hear you". The latter approach is easier, because it never means having to admit an error, but really won't help you in the long run.
Personally, I hope you choose the former.
Edited two paragraphs in the "wishful thinking" and "delusion" responses.
-
Alas, I came too late for the argument... then again, there wasn't much of one. Or is this Abuse?
I also keep wondering why the Vertical Assembly Building is so dangerous...
-
Did you pay for the full hour, or just five minutes?
He'll be back, probably. Most HB'ers don't flounce for good until third time.
-
I also keep wondering why the Vertical Assembly Building is so dangerous...
Well, I've seen a bunch of safety guys in there standing around more or less under an Orbiter swaying gently under the big crane. Maybe their job descriptions include "Act as contingency crushable impact energy absorber."
-
A truly textbook appearance. Come in with one question, Apollo 13 temperatures, when that fails to get traction, switch to the multi question approach and yell about mistreatment. When questions get answered and yelling doesn't get traction, settle on radiation then fall on their own sword. Why is it always radiation? All we have left is the attempt to have the last word after the initial flounce that winds up as just more name calling, because they just can't help it.
-
A truly textbook appearance. Come in with one question, Apollo 13 temperatures, when that fails to get traction, switch to the multi question approach and yell about mistreatment. When questions get answered and yelling doesn't get traction, settle on radiation then fall on their own sword. Why is it always radiation? All we have left is the attempt to have the last word after the initial flounce that winds up as just more name calling, because they just can't help it.
HB's do seem to follow a predictable sequence don't they.
I guess that's probably why HB Bingo works so well!! :)
-
I also keep wondering why the Vertical Assembly Building is so dangerous...
Well, I've seen a bunch of safety guys in there standing around more or less under an Orbiter swaying gently under the big crane. Maybe their job descriptions include "Act as contingency crushable impact energy absorber."
That could mean an amazing business card.
-
As long as you aren't a male member of the gravitational acceleration services team.
-
That could mean an amazing business card.
A guy I know moved into middle management and put "Sacrificial Layer" as his job title on his business card.
-
I'm leaving this thread because ..... I'd prefer not to hear any more of it...
So another CT tucks his tail and runs, leaving behind the requisite face-saver as salve for his butt whooping. I maintain hope that someday one will stray from the script just far enough to attain a sliver of enlightenment, but this one doesn't appear to be that guy. He's just another unremarkable specimen within the HB herd.
-
It was fun while it lasted. That may sound cynical and flippant, but I actually mean it.
I always learn so much while we try to educate a conspiracy theorist.
-
Yes, you're right. You've heard the last of me but not for the reasons you imply...
To sum up: I asked for a contemporaneous (1969 or earlier) mention anywhere about how 'the worst of the VARB would be avoided.' (Several of you made this claim, words to this effect, and no one disagreed.)
The closest you came was in the 1969 Mission Report wherein 'pass rapidly' through the belts was the only mention. This is not 'avoiding the worst of the belts.'
I'm leaving this thread because I don't need any more reminders of how easy it apparently is to get humans to do what you do here. Whether it's money or MKULTRA or inborn delusion or simple wishful thinking or, most certainly, Evil at work, I'd prefer not to hear any more of it...
Wow. You come here with long debunked HB nonsense, get your figurative bottom end handed to you by people who have seen these arguments before (many of them with real world space science or engineering credentials), and then hem and haw that no one cited something you can find for yourself.
Then we get a irrelevant mention of MKULTRA...
Do we CT much allancw?
-
Ok, I have to ask......
What is a MKULTRA?
Phil
-
MindKontrol ULTRA.
-
MindKontrol ULTRA.
Um, ok. That makes sense?
Phil
-
That could mean an amazing business card.
A guy I know moved into middle management and put "Sacrificial Layer" as his job title on his business card.
One of my favourites:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v241/evilroyburton/FAC_zpsf8b29f3a.jpg)
(Card from display in USAF Museum, Dayton, OH)
-
MindKontrol ULTRA.
Thing is, MKUltra did some real damage to real people. It wasn't just a CT BS story like Majestic 12.
MKUltra was real
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra
-
Still no answer. OK. Main thing is that my observation that three days in tinfoil and no climate control in deep space IS a new observation has been confirmed. I just wanted to make sure I was the first to point that out. Thanks, guys.
By the way, Allan, you're not the first Apollo hoax believer to claim something was fishy about Apollo 13. Heck, there was a thread on BABB a dozen years ago (http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?104-Apollo-13-Hoax) where one guy claimed it should have been much hotter inside the vehicles, but he stubbornly refused to consider the thermodynamic realities involved.
The point of this is to illustrate your lack of familiarity with the Apollo record and the staleness of the hoax claims in general. And the point of that is to try to get you to think about your attitude of certainty that you are right and everyone here who disagrees with you is wrong, deluded, or "evil".
How about it? Are you willing to learn something?
-
Thing is, MKUltra did some real damage to real people. It wasn't just a CT BS story like Majestic 12.
MKUltra was real
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra
Yes, and that's why it's so offensive to call people MKUltra victims just because they don't agree with you. It trivializes the suffering of actual MKUltra victims.
-
That's . . . putting it mildly. :o
-
MindKontrol ULTRA.
Thing is, MKUltra did some real damage to real people. It wasn't just a CT BS story like Majestic 12.
MKUltra was real
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra
Well, sure. But aren't most CT's based on actual events that the woos have built up, basically, urban legends around?
-
MindKontrol ULTRA.
Thing is, MKUltra did some real damage to real people. It wasn't just a CT BS story like Majestic 12.
MKUltra was real
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra
Quite awhile ago, someone pointed out to hunchbacked that the statements he made about the astronauts just acting out the lunar missions didn't make sense as the way their voices sounded pretty convincing that they were actually experiencing something real and incredible. That's when he made the first claim I know of that obviously they were under the influence of drugs and/or mind control. He cited the fact that the CIA had been performing experiments so of course that's good enough for him to state his opinion as a a fact rather then some crazy conspiracy theory.
-
Quite awhile ago, someone pointed out to hunchbacked that the statements he made about the astronauts just acting out the lunar missions didn't make sense as the way their voices sounded was pretty convincing that they were actually experiencing something real and incredible. That's when he made the first claim I know of that obviously they were under the influence of drugs and/or mind control. He cited the fact that the CIA had been performing experiments so of course that's good enough for him to state his opinion as a a fact rather then some crazy conspiracy theory.
He wasn't the first to make this claim. In 1996, Bill Kaysing called Jim Lovell a "comic Manchurian Candidate" who was "either brainwashed, hypnotized, programmed or whatever to present this spurious story of having gone to the moon."
http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/07.25.96/moon-9630.html (http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/07.25.96/moon-9630.html)
-
He wasn't the first to make this claim. In 1996, Bill Kaysing called Jim Lovell a "comic Manchurian Candidate" who was "either brainwashed, hypnotized, programmed or whatever to present this spurious story of having gone to the moon."
Is that the same Bill Kaysing that tried to sue Lovell for calling him "wacky"? ::)
-
He wasn't the first to make this claim. In 1996, Bill Kaysing called Jim Lovell a "comic Manchurian Candidate" who was "either brainwashed, hypnotized, programmed or whatever to present this spurious story of having gone to the moon."
Is that the same Bill Kaysing that tried to sue Lovell for calling him "wacky"? ::)
Dear gods, is there more than one?! :o
But yes, most certainly. It's like the pot calling a recently polished kettle black, no?
-
Thing is, MKUltra did some real damage to real people. It wasn't just a CT BS story like Majestic 12.
MKUltra was real
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra
Yes, and that's why it's so offensive to call people MKUltra victims just because they don't agree with you. It trivializes the suffering of actual MKUltra victims.
I just find the idea of claiming that such tactics would be used to populate a small message board is completely ridiculous. Surely the OP wasn't serious, I figured he was just lashing out.
-
I just find the idea of claiming that such tactics would be used to populate a small message board is completely ridiculous. Surely the OP wasn't serious, I figured he was just lashing out.
Sadly, after having looked at his website, I think you're giving him too much credit.
-
Allancw, I see that you visited this thread this morning. Care to comment?
-
Atomicdog: Nothing better to do than keep track of my Net wanderings? Why not leave that to your associates at NSA?
A related subject: Yes, I was drawn back by amazement at the man-hours/tax dollars expended here...
Try this:
One reply I can picture: 'Since Bean was totally ignorant of the VARB, it's only logical that he would be totally ignorant about the functioning of his spacecraft...' Might work...
-
My associates at the NSA? Bwa-ha ha ha! I'm a semi-retired flea market booth owner who has to sell off his comic book collection to make ends meet! That's why I have so much time to follow your meanderings here.
You interested in some 80s Wolverines, near mint?
-
Atomicdog: Nothing better to do than keep track of my Net wanderings? Why not leave that to your associates at NSA?
A related subject: Yes, I was drawn back by amazement at the man-hours/tax dollars expended here...
Have any proof that ANY money is spent here? I'll bet you don't. All you have is paranoia.
it is truly a mark of a desperate person when they claim all their opponents are paid to oppose them.
As for the LM, I don't have complete knowledge of its thermal control (though undoubtedly far more than you) but I would think that its final state is going to depend on multiple things. First you have time. Eventually the LM will reach an equilibrium. With its outside surface being reflective that won't happen immediately and may very likely get colder before it gets hotter. Unlike you I'm willing to be corrected on this though. What also occurs to me is that Apollo 13 suffered a total power failure while Bean was talking about JUST a loss of climate control. Heat in the LM came from more than just the climate control. IIRC all the other machinery put out quite a bit of heat. If those are still on but the climate control is not then it would get hotter. If everything was off it would likely get colder. Of course you could figure this all out yourself if you bothered to do the slightest bit of research. That would involve more than doing a ctrl-f in sources handed to you though. It would involve actual effort and understanding and frankly I doubt you'll put forward either.
-
Why not leave that to your associates at NSA?
Sorry but I don't belong to the National Scrabble Association.
-
Why not leave that to your associates at NSA?
Lame.
Each time you resort to an ad hom attack rather than present evidence and rational arguments, you only demonstrate and emphasise your dearth of evidence and rational arguments.
For some reason almost all hoaxies eventually go there.
It should give you pause.
Why is it that for over 40 years hoaxies have been unable to support their accusations with anything that could stand up against scrutiny?
-
Atomicdog: Nothing better to do than keep track of my Net wanderings? Why not leave that to your associates at NSA?
A related subject: Yes, I was drawn back by amazement at the man-hours/tax dollars expended here...
Quoted just for the sheer paranoia.
I'm still waiting for your math for the heat balance of the LM.
oh, and pimping your books was a delicious hypocritical touch.
-
Atomicdog: Nothing better to do than keep track of my Net wanderings? Why not leave that to your associates at NSA?
A related subject: Yes, I was drawn back by amazement at the man-hours/tax dollars expended here...
Try this:
One reply I can picture: 'Since Bean was totally ignorant of the VARB, it's only logical that he would be totally ignorant about the functioning of his spacecraft...' Might work...
Well, then, if you've got time to make a YouTube film especially for us, why not turn your attention to the Apollo rocks. You might like to start at somewhere like this: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/samples/
That's right, a place where real scientists do real science with real rocks from the Moon.
ETA: You're amazed at the man-hours [sic] and tax dollars spent here? In what way? That it's so cheap?
-
And hey, care to go over with me why your claim at the proper tactics of journalism is wrong? I can name a few people who got in a lot of trouble over assuming instead of doing due diligence.
-
Atomicdog: Nothing better to do than keep track of my Net wanderings? Why not leave that to your associates at NSA?
A related subject: Yes, I was drawn back by amazement at the man-hours/tax dollars expended here...
Try this:
One reply I can picture: 'Since Bean was totally ignorant of the VARB, it's only logical that he would be totally ignorant about the functioning of his spacecraft...' Might work...
This is so typical. Once again my hopes for a newer/better hoax believer have been dashed upon the shores of the mundane and predictable.
Why is it that Alan Bean, in an interview many years later, is the definitive authority on everything Apollo. Is it the shared fist name perhaps?
-
Atomicdog: Nothing better to do than keep track of my Net wanderings? Why not leave that to your associates at NSA?
Hi, Allan. Welcome back to the forum.
In reply #239 (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=515.msg17423#msg17423) I pointed out that you had been given citations explicitly mentioning trajectory design through the Van Allen belts - which you had guaranteed did not exist.
Will you live up to your guarantee?
If not, why not?
-
I'm a semi-retired flea market booth owner who has to sell off his comic book collection to make ends meet! That's why I have so much time to follow your meanderings here.
You interested in some 80s Wolverines, near mint?
That my friend is a great front for an NSA operation.
Who'd ever suspect?
-
A related subject: Yes, I was drawn back by amazement at the man-hours/tax dollars expended here...
Do not mistake the "tax dollars" allegedly being spent here, for what is simply a bunch of like minded people who are having a lot of fun, for free..... and at your expense!!
-
SNIP
So instead of even acknowledging the responses that you have received you've decided to become a seagull poster? Oh, and not forgetting your contribution to YouTube's pile of kook videos. You really are trashing about in areas where you know absolutely nothing.
That's some investigative journalism right there, folks.
Looks like that hashish that you admit to smuggling really has gone to your head....
-
The "you're all paid shills" motif is rather odd, to my mind. If he's convinced that all the posters who disagree with him are paid shills, what is the point of arguing with us? If we're paid to dispute the hoax theory, we're not going to suddenly go, "Oh, goodness, you're RIGHT!"
I suppose it is a combination of insult ("you're paid hacks") and ego-defense ("there's no legitimate reason for you not to agree with me").
-
The "you're all paid shills" motif is rather odd, to my mind. If he's convinced that all the posters who disagree with him are paid shills, what is the point of arguing with us? If we're paid to dispute the hoax theory, we're not going to suddenly go, "Oh, goodness, you're RIGHT!"
I suppose it is a combination of insult ("you're paid hacks") and ego-defense ("there's no legitimate reason for you not to agree with me").
I see it more as a combo of paranoia and megalomania. Either way it isn't valid.
-
Bean was totally ignorant of the VARB, it's only logical that he would be totally ignorant about the functioning of his spacecraft...
That is about the most ridiculous thing I have EVER heard an HB say...just totally stupid, and I am rather insulted that you would think it "ok" to post such crap, here.
It just makes you look really ignorant to say stuff like that...
-
I'm a semi-retired flea market booth owner who has to sell off his comic book collection to make ends meet! That's why I have so much time to follow your meanderings here.
You interested in some 80s Wolverines, near mint?
That my friend is a great front for an NSA operation.
Who'd ever suspect?
Hmmm...for years, S.H.I.E.L.D. used a barber shop as a front for its New York operation.
You might have something there.
-
Hmmm...for years, S.H.I.E.L.D. used a barber shop as a front for its New York operation.
You might have something there.
UNCLE used a tailor's shop.
SHADO used a film studio.
MiB used a tunnel ventilator building.
Yep. He's got you.
-
I'm holding out for the high-speed phonebooth elevator that CONTROL had...
... I'll pass on the cone of Silence though...
-
Why should I bother? Honestly, why should I?
You've had your nonsense debunked already, and your reaction was to pretend you hadn't seen it (I don't know if that pretending is conscious or unconscious), spout abuse and then flounce off. So why should I bother doing more?
You asked us to open our eyes. Try removing your hands from yours.
FTR, I am neither American nor a "guy".
-
He wasn't the first to make this claim. In 1996, Bill Kaysing called Jim Lovell a "comic Manchurian Candidate" who was "either brainwashed, hypnotized, programmed or whatever to present this spurious story of having gone to the moon."
Is that the same Bill Kaysing that tried to sue Lovell for calling him "wacky"? ::)
Yes, either "wacky" or a "kook." I don't remember which. I do remember, however, that Kaysing represented himself in court and managed to get his case dismissed with prejudice. The only way to fail, legally speaking, to any greater extent would be to also get slapped with contempt.
-
It's interesting that someone who wilfully breaks the forum rules should think it appropriate to tell us how things "should" be here.
-
Here's a question that surely is relevant: Is there even one regular in this forum that takes the position that Apollo was a fabrication/hoax. No? Do you just wait for someone like me to come along so you can congratulate each other? (I mean aside from those paid for doing this.)
What a fine little ****** **** you all have going.
-
Heinous, isn't it? A group of people with a common interest, having conversation.
How much are you being paid to be here, Allan?
-
What a fine little ****** **** you all have going.
So now that you have devolved into juvenile humor, do you still expect to be taken seriously?
You're so "out of it", you're not even worth acknowledging...
-
I've noticed that he has not said anything meaningful about Apollo since his return to this thread. It's all been insults hurled at us and other conspiracy woo.
-
allancw, There's no reason why we should tag along on your constant desperate change of subject after you've been given answers you "guarantee" (whatever that means) we won't be able to provide. So let's stay with claims you have made and the answers you have ignored. I think it's important that you address them now and show that you are willing to admit error to avoid further wasting of our time on you.
Please comment on the documents that have been provided regarding VARB avoidance you strongly asserted don't exist. I'm sure at least one of us will remind you of this request after each post you make that doesn't address it. You need to be accountable for your claims and acknowledge details you have been wrong about. Any good journalist or critical thinker would want to tie up those loose ends. Please do that for us.
-
Second: there actually is a limit under American criminal law for trying to argue that a person is guilty in one instance because he was guilty in a past instance. Past behavior is not per se evidence that a person has committed a subsequent crime.
I was going to point this out myself. Hey, isn't the concept of "prior bad acts" something that would come up on Miami Vice?
-
I've made accusations re why some of you are here. You might ask why I am here.
While researching a story about why my best friend from childhood was killed in Vietnam,...
Allan, I'm sorry about your friend.
To respond to the first part of your post, I have asked why you are here; specifically, I asked if you were here to learn something, or here to reinforce your own convictions. Here is why I ask that:
In reply #239 (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=515.msg17423#msg17423) I pointed out that you had been given citations explicitly mentioning trajectory design through the Van Allen belts - which you had guaranteed did not exist.
Will you live up to your guarantee?
If not, why not?
-
Here's a question that surely is relevant: Is there even one regular in this forum that takes the position that Apollo was a fabrication/hoax.
This domain name originated with a hoax claimant who invited people here to debate him on the subject. After a year or so of patient discussion and questinon, he actually changed his mind and agreed there was little credible evidence to support the hoax. We've had quite a few hoax proponent regulars over the years.
Do you just wait for someone like me to come along so you can congratulate each other?
The forum exists for no reason other than to entertain discussion and debate on the authenticity of the Apollo missions. That purpose is not served by having only one side of the question represented. While we have had, over the ten years or so of the domain's existence, a number of webmasters and a number of long-time hoax proponents, there are not presently any regulars who advocate a hoax. Most "melt down" rather quickly and go elsewhere.
You're quite welcome to stay as long as you want and debate Apollo as best you can. But frankly you don't seem as interested in the facts of Apollo as you do in trying to shame people who disagree with you. Since that is not allowed, I predict you'll soon be banned.
I mean aside from those paid for doing this.
Who is being paid to post here, and how do you know that?
No answer? Ah, didn't think so. You're desperate to find some other reason why people disagree with you and dispute you. As others have pointed out, you are entirely unable to deal with the possibility that there is informed disagreement and opposition to your belief. You have to fabricate other reasons, rather than face the possibility of being mistaken.
What a fine little [vulgar reference] you all have going.
I see you are unable to remain civil. Contrary to your insinuations, the inability to comport oneself as an adult is usually why people are asked to leave this forum. Can you explain why hoax claimants invariably turn to childish language and insults? Is it so they invite moderator intervention and can then go elsewhere and claim they were sanctioned "for their beliefs?"
-
Hey LUCKMEISTER, etc etc: NO ONE SHOWED ME ONE MENTION OF HOW THE MISSIONS AVOIDED THE WORST OF THE BELTS. You can repeat your crap about trajectories as many times as you get paid for or whatever your motive is, but it does not make it true.
And neither has anyone even touched the question of whether the LMs were heated or air conditioned or somehow both.
-
NO ONE SHOWED ME ONE MENTION OF HOW THE MISSIONS AVOIDED THE WORST OF THE BELTS.
Bull. You were provided references, and sts60 even quoted the relevant sections to you. That is EXACTLY what you are insisting no-one provided, and yet you still insist it's not there. Is blindness a problem for you?
-
NO ONE SHOWED ME ONE MENTION OF HOW THE MISSIONS AVOIDED THE WORST OF THE BELTS.
Aside from the excerpts that Sts60 provided, you were also shown preplanned and actual trajectory data. If NASA tells you the trajectory they're flying, and that trajectory avoids the worst of the VARB, then that sure as hell is a mention of how they plan to avoid the VARB.
-
You might ask why I am here.
I do, and none of that wall of text answers that question.
Why have you come to a forum for the purpose of discussion only to refuse to discuss it?
-
Here's a question that surely is relevant: Is there even one regular in this forum that takes the position that Apollo was a fabrication/hoax.
Actually there are one or two long-term members who do hold that position. They don't post often, but unlike most have managed to maintain their membership of the forum by discussing the subject in a civil fashion.
Others who have not lasted so long have:
Devolved rapidly into personal abuse in favour of discussing the subject (as you have done).
Accused us of being unwilling to engage in a discussion of non-Apollo releated conspiracy theories on the Apollo0 section rather than in the clearly marked 'other conspiracies' section (as you have done).
Asked for things to be provided and refused to acknowledge when they have been (as you have done).
Been unable to grasp the notion that if they don't actually know how aerospace engineering works then it just might be the case that their expectations of what should and should not be available are in error (as you have done).
Been unable to understand that if they don't understand aerospace engineering it might be a good idea to take note of the professional aerospace engineers they are discussing with (as you have done).
Accused us of being paid NASA shills (as you have done).
Refused to answer simple and repeated questions (as you have done).
Tried to throw as many questions out as possible and refused to discuss one before moving on to another (as you have done).
After a time there is little point in carrying on the discussion, since they are in fact refusing to discuss. As you are. Your only reason for being here now seems to be to insist we must agree with you or else be on the receiving end of some immature abuse, rather than understanding how a discussion actually works. You bring nothing new, nothing original, and frankly nothing remotely surprising to this forum. You're just another in a long line of people who don't know how to debate technical issues of which they are profoundly ignorant, and refuse to even consider the opportunity to learn somethnig about the subject in favour of abusing anyone who disagrees with their layman's notions of how something should be.
Now, I will ask again, do you still insist that the lunar landscape in that photo is lit from the left, and do you acknowledge that seeing stars is a complex situation dependent on the viewing circumstances? Continued refusal to answer will just confirm what we already suspect about you, frankly.
-
NO ONE SHOWED ME...
Oh, please...is it really so hard for you to find that information?...is it really impossible for you to educate yourself?????
Willful ignorance sickens me...
-
Hey LUCKMEISTER, etc etc: NO ONE SHOWED ME ONE MENTION OF HOW THE MISSIONS AVOIDED THE WORST OF THE BELTS. You can repeat your crap about trajectories as many times as you get paid for or whatever your motive is, but it does not make it true.
And neither has anyone even touched the question of whether the LMs were heated or air conditioned or somehow both.
Which bit you stuck on? I am still learning but perhaps we can help each other through this.
I know the belts are dangerous, but to what extent? What do you know about this?
-
I am temporarily locking this thread due to it being taken waaay off topic. I will clean it up and then unlock it after I get home from work.
I apologize if I have disrupted anyone who was in the process of posting when the thread was locked.
Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
-
This thread is now open. I have moved all of the off topic messages to this thread:
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=524.0
Allancw:
If you really want to talk about some other conspiracy theory that is not related to Apollo do it in the "Other Conspiracy Theories" section. If you continue to take threads off topic I will place you under moderation and your posts will require my approval before appearing in the forum.
-
But so far, not one answer to the Bean video question: was the LM heated or air conditioned or, somehow, both?
This has already been answered but you're just not paying attention.
All the electronics in the LM produced a large amount of heat so, when everything was operating, the waste heat had to be removed via an active cooling system. If the cooling system were shutdown, but not the other electronics, the LM would heat up because there would be no way to get rid of the heat generated by the still operating electronics. This is the scenario Al Bean was talking about because he mentioned a failure of the cooling system only, not a total failure of all the electronics. In the case of Apollo 13, almost all the heat-generating electronics were shutdown in order to conserve electrical power. The narrator called it a "heater" but there was no heater per se – he was just referring to the electronics that generate heat through their normal operation. With these electronics turned off, Apollo 13 could not produce enough heat to maintain a warm temperature; therefore the spacecraft cooled down.
-
So Allan, can we expect you any time soon to read through the 80+ documents over at the JSC archives, specifically addressing the radiation problem? I mean its hard to take you seriously if you claim none of us has supplied you with the documents if you havent even bothered to read them, now is it?
Those are the reports and documents ranging from 1966 through to 1976 and they all curiously have Apollo and Radiation in their title.
-
Hey LUCKMEISTER, etc etc: NO ONE SHOWED ME ONE MENTION OF HOW THE MISSIONS AVOIDED THE WORST OF THE BELTS.
Allan, what you said was:
"...Therefore, all the Apollo missions must have taken this into account, i.e., the launches timed and the flight trajectories carefully plotted so the astronauts would not be 'dosed.'
...
Therefore there surely are CONTEMPORANEOUS reports/accounts/papers/studies/documents proving this, or at least MENTIONING IT."
You guaranteed that no such mention existed. However, I provided several such examples (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=515.msg17423#msg17423) mentioning trajectory design in regard to VAB transit inclinations, trapped particle fluxes, and dose rates. Other posters also provided examples, including Bob Braeunig's very thorough analysis.
You can repeat your crap about trajectories as many times as you get paid for or whatever your motive is,
Allan, posting here is a hobby. I don't get paid for it. My specific motivation for providing examples of VAB transit considerations with regard to crew safety is to educate you. Are you willing to learn?
but it does not make it true.
Your stated criteria have explicitly been met. Here's a few more examples:
NASA New Release No. 64-302, “NASA Schedules Launch of Radiation-Detection Satellite this Month”, 1964:
…The Energetic Particles Explorer D (EPE-D), formerly designated S-3c, will continue the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's intensive program to study the natural and artificial radiation belts surrounding the Earth. Earlier satellites in the energetic particles series included Explorers XII, XIV, and XV.
Primary objective of the new satellite is to help scientists understand how high energy particles are injected, trapped and eventually lost in the radiation belts.
Information obtained from the mission is expected to make important contributions to the Apollo manned lunar landing program, specifically in the design of protective spacecraft shielding and in planning flight trajectories for Moon landing. Information on the depth of penetration of the geomagnetic field by high energy solar protons - particles of potential danger to Moon-bound astronauts - may also be obtained…
NASA Project Apollo Working Paper No. 1100, Environmental Factors Involved in the Choice of Lunar Operational Dates and the Choice of Lunar Landing Sites, 1963:
There are three potential radiation hazards to Apollo: cosmic radiation, trapped (Van Allen) radiation, and solar flare radiation. The cosmic radiation and the trapped radiation do not affect the choice of a lunar landing site or time. Although the radiation dose received during exit through the belts is a function of the exact trajectory, which in turn is influenced by the lunar declination, in no case does the dose exceed the design limits.
NASA CR-856, Clinical Space Medicine: A Prospective Look at Medical Problems from Hazards of Space Operations, 1967:
Trapped (Van Allen) Radiation
Because flight plans usually call for orbits beneath or transient passage through the zones of geomagnetically trapped radiation surrounding the Earth, this source is considered a relatively minor hazard to astronauts. The location and characteristics of the zones are being so precisely defined that depending on the spacecraft shielding and trajectories selected, radiation exposure can be maintained at safe levels during both orbiting and non-orbiting missions.
NASA SP-34, Space Flight Handbooks, Vol. 2, Lunar Flight Handbook, 1963:
In the near -earth environment, radiation hazards occur mainly in the parking and/ or waiting orbit phase, in any orbital phase on earth return, and in the near -earth portions of lunar flight, when the vehicle velocity relative to earth is about 10 km/sec. Radiation dosages and shielding requirements during that portion have been given in Chapter II of Ref. 1. The parking and waiting orbit altitudes in Chapter V as well as the orbital phase during earth return in Chapter X can be selected so as to be below the inner Van Allen belt.
Figure 1 illustrates the early phases of a typical lunar mission launched from Cape Canaveral. The doughnut-shaped inner Van Allen belt is shown, with the proton flux indicated by eight cross sections and the geomagnetic equator shown on the earth. The shading indicates the proton flux - the darker the appearance of the shaded area, the higher the flux . The illustrated trajectory (with a relatively high parking orbit altitude) intersects the fringes of the inner Van Allen belt after injection, but the time spent in the region of high proton flux is very small due to the high initial space vehicle velocities.
Allan, will you honor your guarantee?
-
I would be surprised. Pleased, but surprised.
-
Here's a question that surely is relevant: Is there even one regular in this forum that takes the position that Apollo was a fabrication/hoax. No? Do you just wait for someone like me to come along so you can congratulate each other? (I mean aside from those paid for doing this.)
What a fine little ****** **** you all have going.
Yes, your observation is correct: there are no current "regulars" here that espouse the hoax fabrication. Every single one of them eventually gets pissed off at having their precious little "theories" smacked down.
See, the thing is, we cheat. You have to go through all the hard work of making up stuff, but we cheat by looking up independently verifiable historical and scientific facts. Having a reality-based approach to the subject matter gives us an unfair advantage. The usual HB eventually gets frustrated by this.
The same thing is true on every other forum. The only places where long-running communities of hoax believers exist are fora where the inmates run the asylum: David Icke Forum & Cluesforum, for instance, where people state with a straight face things like rockets can't work in a vacuum and radio waves can't pass through the ionosphere, and one of my favorites, that sublimation can't take place in a vacuum.
If you honestly feel you have a valid case to make, by all means present it. So far you've followed the usual HB script of asking one question, ignoring the answers and making a gish-gallop post of pre-chewed youchoob blather to see what we'll respond to and then making personal attacks while ignoring all answers to your comments. Your "theory" barely rises above the noise floor.
-
But so far, not one answer to the Bean video question: was the LM heated or air conditioned or, somehow, both?
This has already been answered but you're just not paying attention.
All the electronics in the LM produced a large amount of heat so, when everything was operating, the waste heat had to be removed via an active cooling system. If the cooling system were shutdown, but not the other electronics, the LM would heat up because there would be no way to get rid of the heat generated by the still operating electronics. This is the scenario Al Bean was talking about because he mentioned a failure of the cooling system only, not a total failure of all the electronics. In the case of Apollo 13, almost all the heat-generating electronics were shutdown in order to conserve electrical power. The narrator called it a "heater" but there was no heater per se – he was just referring to the electronics that generate heat through their normal operation. With these electronics turned off, Apollo 13 could not produce enough heat to maintain a warm temperature; therefore the spacecraft cooled down.
Also, Bean did say "slowly but surely" with regard to heating - the presumption sounded to me like the LM was stuck there. If that were the case, when the sun passed the zenith you would also have heating from it shining through the LM windows - always assuming they weren't covered, of course.
-
Also, Bean did say "slowly but surely" with regard to heating - the presumption sounded to me like the LM was stuck there. If that were the case, when the sun passed the zenith you would also have heating from it shining through the LM windows - always assuming they weren't covered, of course.
Since the interview with Bean is edited, I don't know the full context of his comments. He also says "if the lunar module is sitting in the sun". If by "sitting" he means "sitting on the moon", then we have a very different thermal condition than Apollo 13, which was drifting in space. Sunlight reflecting off the lunar surface would heat then LM from almost all directions rather than just from the direction of the sun. In this case, even with all the electronics shut off, the LM's equilibrium temperature would be much higher than Apollo 13's.
In either case – a partial shutdown of the cooling system only, or a total shutdown with the LM sitting on the moon – I don't see any contradiction between what Bean said and the case of Apollo 13.
-
Also, Bean did say "slowly but surely" with regard to heating - the presumption sounded to me like the LM was stuck there. If that were the case, when the sun passed the zenith you would also have heating from it shining through the LM windows - always assuming they weren't covered, of course.
I think that would be a fairly minor contributor compared to the thermal radiation from the lunar surface. At local noon near the lunar equator the surface temperature exceeds +100C, and of course this hot surface occupies nearly half of the sphere around an LM sitting on the surface.
The LM was well insulated, but no insulation is perfect. The fact that it got so cold during Apollo 13 is proof of that.
The Apollo 12 astronauts noted the increase in thermal radiation from the slowly warming lunar surface between their two EVAs, though they did not seem to know that was the reason. See the discussion in the ALSJ at 132:01:20.
-
In either case – a partial shutdown of the cooling system only, or a total shutdown with the LM sitting on the moon – I don't see any contradiction between what Bean said and the case of Apollo 13.
Neither do I.
Apollo deniers might as well claim that my car is a hoax. After all, it gets really cold inside my car in northern Minnesota in the winter when everything is shut off, yet it gets really hot inside my car in Death Valley in the summer when I turn everything on except the climate control. I mean, how can the very same car possibly get both hot and cold??! And with the sun shining in both cases?
-
See, the thing is, we cheat. You have to go through all the hard work of making up stuff, but we cheat by looking up independently verifiable historical and scientific facts. Having a reality-based approach to the subject matter gives us an unfair advantage.
Simply outstanding!!! (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/Smilies/2funny.gif)
If this were JREF, I'd nominate this passage for the Language Award!!
-
In my reply #308 (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=515.msg17575#msg17575) earlier, I had problems attaching a graphic that was mentioned. I've requoted the relevant citation and an admittedly rather cruddy copy of the image is attached.
NASA SP-34, Space Flight Handbooks, Vol. 2, Lunar Flight Handbook, 1963:
In the near-earth environment, radiation hazards occur mainly in the parking and/ or waiting orbit phase, in any orbital phase on earth return, and in the near-earth portions of lunar flight, when the vehicle velocity relative to earth is about 10 km/sec. Radiation dosages and shielding requirements during that portion have been given in Chapter II of Ref. 1. The parking and waiting orbit altitudes in Chapter V as well as the orbital phase during earth return in Chapter X can be selected so as to be below the inner Van Allen belt.
Figure 1 illustrates the early phases of a typical lunar mission launched from Cape Canaveral. The doughnut-shaped inner Van Allen belt is shown, with the proton flux indicated by eight cross sections and the geomagnetic equator shown on the earth. The shading indicates the proton flux - the darker the appearance of the shaded area, the higher the flux. The illustrated trajectory (with a relatively high parking orbit altitude) intersects the fringes of the inner Van Allen belt after injection, but the time spent in the region of high proton flux is very small due to the high initial space vehicle velocities.
Allan, will you honor your guarantee?
-
In my reply #308 (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=515.msg17575#msg17575) earlier, I had problems attaching a graphic that was mentioned. I've requoted the relevant citation and an admittedly rather cruddy copy of the image is attached.
Excellent! That that shows exactly what we've been describing to allancw. And from a 1963 publication.
-
Ah, see but it wasn't written, formatted and printed between July 16 and July 24 1969, and is therefore invalid. Fools.
-
Allan, will you honor your guarantee?
Well, he did say he would "shut up", and apparently that is what he is doing.
Works for me...
-
Well, he did say he would "shut up", and apparently that is what he is doing.
Works for me...
Not for me! I want to see him, just once, admit an error in his claims and I want his buddies and followers in wooland who may be lurking here to see it.
-
Don't grip your exhalation, Luckmeister. Though it would be nice to see him admit the error.
-
Rationalwiki mentioned Alan's lunacy and subsequent dismemberment by the forum regulars here and I had to create a profile just to say how much I've enjoyed the show.
The internet is an amazing place. Where else can you pick the brains of so many incredibly knowledgeable people? Jay Utah and sts60, I refer to you especially, your knowledge and patience are inspirational (how you keep your cool with people like Alan is beyond me).
Anyway, it's a pity more people can't recognize what a resource the interwebz really are, choosing to use it instead as a new venue for playground-style name calling.
-
Rationalwiki mentioned Alan's lunacy and subsequent dismemberment by the forum regulars here
Do you have a link to that?
-
Rationalwiki mentioned Alan's lunacy and subsequent dismemberment by the forum regulars here
Do you have a link to that?
I was browsing the clogosphere section and spotted it.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:What_is_going_on_in_the_clogosphere%3F
Search for "Some poor conspiracist went into Apollohoax.net at full tilt, with predictable results". If the other members are so inclined, they can go there as well and upvote its visibility.
-
Allan, will you honor your guarantee?
Well, he did say he would "shut up", and apparently that is what he is doing.
Works for me...
But I don't want Allan to shut up. I want him to learn something; specifically, that the radiation hazard from transit of the Van Allen belts was considered, as we have explicitly shown him with the "contemporaneous" references he demanded - and whose existence he denied.
But in order to learn, he's going to have to back up from a position in which he appears to have significant investment - that such trajectory considerations were never even mentioned, let alone that the VAB hazards were adequately mitigated. That's not an easy step to take, and I propose to cut him a little slack. (Allan, I'll be happy to offer whatever assistance I can to help you learn more about the topic.)
-
Don't grip your exhalation, Luckmeister. Though it would be nice to see him admit the error.
Especially the one about the JAXA picture being lit from the left! Shadows101 ----- exceedingly obvious.
-
Search for "Some poor conspiracist went into Apollohoax.net at full tilt, with predictable results". If the other members are so inclined, they can go there as well and upvote its visibility.
Found it. Thanks. Unfortunately, reading some of the other stuff that page links to has given me a headache. I may have to lie down in a darkened room.
-
I don't want Allan to shut up. I want him to learn something...
That would be my goal also, but as is said in that old saying... “You cannot reason people out of a position that they did not reason themselves into.”
Lets just say that after dealing with these "people" for almost 10 years, it's hard not to get cynical.
-
Lets just say that after dealing with these "people" for almost 10 years, it's hard not to get cynical.
Agreed, I've written friends off for pulling the sort intellectual dishonesty that Allan has. Still, I find sts60's optimism about humanity to be inspiring. And JayUtah mentioned this forum was started by a conspiracy theorist who eventually came around. So, there is hope. Yes?
There was a website dedicated to the art of persuading people who are being irrational, but I seem to have lost the address (I think I first heard it mentioned in Jesse Galef's "Defense Against the Dark Arts" [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U47uWryrcc8] but don't have time to crawl through that right now). In the case of Allan, I'd say you need to begin with bad epistemology, rather than attacking any particular incorrect idea. Not to mention combating the psychological profiles (i.e. paranoia, sense of impotence) that make people susceptible to these trains of thought. Still, I prefer to be optimistic. Calmly, rationally and non-dismissively answering these questions might not see any immediate results, but the memetic seeds are being sown in people's minds.
-
NASA Manned Spacecraft Center, AIAA Paper NO. 69-17, Apollo 4 and 6 Radiation Results, 1969:
A primary objective of the Apollo 4 and 6 missions was to obtain radiation measurements inside an Apollo command module while passing through the most intense portions of the trapped radiation belts...
The analysis of the Apollo 4 and 6 data indicated that dose calculations for manned lunar missions which pass through the more intense portion of the trapped radiation belt are reliable and that the expected doses are well below the planning operational dose limits set by NASA...
...Apollo 4 and 6 trajectories followed roughly the same path through the inner belt, the Apollo 6 trajectory spent more time in the region of highest proton intensity (as shown in Fig. 9) and, therefore, should have encountered more radiation dose... (my note: which it did!)
...Dose calculations for the Apollo 4 and 6 missions are within a factor of 2.5 when compared with the Integrating Radiation Dosimeter measurements. These
errors are well within the state of the art for such complex computations. Although the need for a more accurate model of the trapped radiation environment is indicated, the results of the radiation analysis lend a great deal of confidence to the use of analytical computations for mission planning. These flights show that there will be no biological hazard associated with passage through the trapped radiation belts during the translunar and transearth phase of Apollo lunar missions, providing that there are no further high-altitude nuclear tests and that astronaut activity is confined to the command module during belt passage.
-
Allancw:
Are you prepared to even acknowledge that the test that you put out there has been answered? You were on the board yesterday, so you are reading this.
Are you able to admit that you have been corrected?
If not, then it's clear that you are wilfully ignorant. I personally can not understand why anyone would be so wedded to their ideas* that they are so willing to close their minds to learning something new.
Wilful ignorance really is the most cowardly of intellectual paths to choose. I'd hate to allow my mind to become so closed that I stop enjoying learning new things. Sad really. And totally ironic that people like this are the ones that use the catcalls of others having closed minds.
<shakes head and walks away>
*Lets face it, they aren't even your own ideas. You've picked these notions up from others.
-
...Apollo 4 and 6 trajectories followed roughly the same path through the inner belt, the Apollo 6 trajectory spent more time in the region of highest proton intensity (as shown in Fig. 9) and, therefore, should have encountered more radiation dose... (my note: which it did!)
Very interesting! I didn't know this had been true for Apollos 4 and 6. Looks like 6 in particular passed right through the center of the inner belt. Does that reference give any dosimeter readings? It would be interesting to see what a worst case looks like.
-
I can't get at the paper right now, but I'll check when I can.
The interesting thing I've learned from answering Allan's question is how thoroughly the VAB transit had been deprecated as a crew hazard relatively early on in the program. Well before Apollo 8 headed for the Moon, the only really major radiation hazard for the short Apollo missions was known to be solar protons in cislunar and lunar space. While avoiding the worst parts of the inner belt was desirable to minimize dosage, strictly speaking it wasn't necessary to avoid harm precisely because of the "run like hell" approach Allan scoffed at.
At least that's my understanding at this point, so thanks to Allan for prompting this learning experience.
-
In either case – a partial shutdown of the cooling system only, or a total shutdown with the LM sitting on the moon – I don't see any contradiction between what Bean said and the case of Apollo 13.
Well, of course not. A spacecraft in deep space is in a totally different environment from one sitting on a surface that is reflecting solar radiation onto the craft, besides which I would think that at some point the surface absorbs enough energy to begin radiating on its own (bit of a SWAG on my part).
In any case, I took Bean's statement to mean that, left long enough with no provision for cooling, thermal equilibrium would eventually be reached.
The interesting thing I've learned from answering Allan's question is how thoroughly the VAB transit had been deprecated as a crew hazard relatively early on in the program. Well before Apollo 8 headed for the Moon, the only really major radiation hazard for the short Apollo missions was known to be solar protons in cislunar and lunar space. While avoiding the worst parts of the inner belt was desirable to minimize dosage, strictly speaking it wasn't necessary to avoid harm precisely because of the "run like hell" approach Allan scoffed at.
That was also my impression. From the transcripts, no one even thought it worth mentioning when the cleared the VAB. The crew was quite busy with T&D, getting stowage squared away, and so forth. There's no hint that anyone was anxiously eyeing their dosimeters.
Edited due to a *&$%^* sticky 'a' key.
-
A short excerpt from the Apollo 4 report:
5.20.3 Radiation Monitoring
There were three radiation monitoring instruments, an integrating radiation dosimeter (IRD) and two nuclear emulsion spectrometers (NES), onboard the Apollo 4 spacecraft. All three instruments were recovered successfully and returned to MSC in good condition. The IRD measureda skin dose of 0.59 rads and a depth dose of 0.38 rads.
-
That was also my impression. From the transcripts, no one even thought it worth mentioning when the cleared the VAB. The crew was quite busy with T&D, getting stowage squared away, and so forth. There's no hint that anyone was anxiously eyeing their dosimeters.
And of course they stayed inside the CM the whole time.
During the VAB crossing they probably also had the bulk of the S-IVB either behind or in front of them, which would have increased their shielding somewhat.
-
A spacecraft in deep space is in a totally different environment from one sitting on a surface that is reflecting solar radiation onto the craft, besides which I would think that at some point the surface absorbs enough energy to begin radiating on its own (bit of a SWAG on my part).
It's not a SWAG, it's exactly what happens.
Any object in thermal equilibrium will radiate exactly as much power as it receives. If the object is light-colored, most of this power is simply reflected incident light, which from the sun peaks in the visible and near infrared. If the object is dark, the incident light that would otherwise be reflected is absorbed, turned into heat and re-radiated in the long infrared.
Note that an object that appears "light" in visible light may be dark in the far IR, and vice versa. Human skin, for example, appears jet black in the far IR no matter how much or little melanin it contains. Gold appears relatively dark in visible light but extremely reflective in the far IR.
Either way, the total emitted radiation (long + short wave) is exactly equal to the total incident radiation (long + short wave), plus any heat generated internally by the object of course.
-
C'mon, Allan C Weisbecker, man up! Are you big enough to admit you blew it.. BADLY?
There is no shame in not being an expert on a topic - the shame is when you barge into a haven of folks who know their stuff, pretend to be an expert, and then, when faced with undeniable facts and logic, you can do nothing but run for it and hide. A non-Dunning-Kruger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect) human being would acknowledge that their guarantee was completely fulfilled and admit they were out of their depth.
Just out of interest, have you considered the facts that:
- you were able to join up freely
- anyone else is similarly able to join freely
- you did not have your posts edited or deleted and had every opportunity to put your 'case'
- you were/are not banned, and are free to post
and yet despite all of that, and despite the sad (for you) fact that no-one bothered to join up and support you even though your visit was public and 'advertised'.. you protest that this is some sort of paid/closed club? You're a very funny guy!
Have you not also noticed that at every forum of any note (excluding the ones that obviously encourage utter stupidity), that Apollo deniers have virtually died out, overwhelmed by the truckloads of conclusive and completely consistent and verifiable evidence, and starved of any support from anyone with a clue?
FTR, I come here to learn, and see others learn. Oh, alright, I also quite enjoy watching people who refuse to learn, implode when faced by facts and proper analysis/methodology. :)
When I stop learning and admitting errors (which is one of the very best ways to do that learning), then I will be of no further use to this planet.
BTW, was radiation your BEST shot? :D
-
...Apollo 4 and 6 trajectories followed roughly the same path through the inner belt, the Apollo 6 trajectory spent more time in the region of highest proton intensity (as shown in Fig. 9) and, therefore, should have encountered more radiation dose... (my note: which it did!)
Very interesting! I didn't know this had been true for Apollos 4 and 6. Looks like 6 in particular passed right through the center of the inner belt. Does that reference give any dosimeter readings? It would be interesting to see what a worst case looks like.
A short excerpt from the Apollo 4 report:
5.20.3 Radiation Monitoring
There were three radiation monitoring instruments, an integrating radiation dosimeter (IRD) and two nuclear emulsion spectrometers (NES), onboard the Apollo 4 spacecraft. All three instruments were recovered successfully and returned to MSC in good condition. The IRD measureda skin dose of 0.59 rads and a depth dose of 0.38 rads.
Thanks, Tanalia. Here is another excerpt showing that, yes, VAB trapped particle radiation was a hazard - just not the impossible one claimed by hoax believers (nor the straw man of "you say it's no problem at all" used by so many HBs).
The measured and calculated VABD dose rates encountered in the inner radiation belt during the ascending portion of the Apollo 6 high-altitude orbit are shown in Figure 11. Peak dose rates of 3.6 and 2.6 rad/hr for the unshielded and shielded sensors, respectively, were encountered at altitudes of 1400 and 1500 n.mi as the spacecraft passed through the most intense portion of the inner radiation belt. The Apollo 6 dose-rate measurements indicate that extended operation of a manned Apollo CM at altitudes between 800 and 2400 n.mi. would be severely limited because of dose rates in excess of 1 rad/hr. Astronaut activity in more thinly shielded vehicles than the CM, such as the lunar module, or space suits would most likely be prohibited at these altitudes.
Again, the primary mitigations were "go fast" and "stay in the CM", as well as "go through the less intense regions".
-
See, the thing is, we cheat. You have to go through all the hard work of making up stuff, but we cheat by looking up independently verifiable historical and scientific facts. Having a reality-based approach to the subject matter gives us an unfair advantage.
Not to mention the fact, that while every Hoaxer seems to think he is the first genius to discover and bring up their relevations, most of the stuff has been around since the time Battlestar Galactica was a series with robotic dogs. "All this has been claimed before, and all of it will be claimed again."
-
See, the thing is, we cheat. You have to go through all the hard work of making up stuff, but we cheat by looking up independently verifiable historical and scientific facts. Having a reality-based approach to the subject matter gives us an unfair advantage.
Not to mention the fact, that while every Hoaxer seems to think he is the first genius to discover and bring up their relevations, most of the stuff has been around since the time Battlestar Galactica was a series with robotic dogs. "All this has been claimed before, and all of it will be claimed again."
Ecclesiastes 1:9?
-
Ecclesiastes 1:9?
BSG
Though the shows Mormon roots really do make it sound like scripture at times. :p
-
Ecclesiastes 1:9?
BSG
Though the shows Mormon roots really do make it sound like scripture at times. :p
Indeed, Glen Larson based a lot of the original BSG on Mormon doctrine and mysticism. I had the opportunity to talk about this with Richard Hatch, and he said most of the cast was largely unaware of it, nor (when they found out about it later) had any problem with it. His opinion is that religion and fantasy fiction have always based themselves on the same archetypes.
-
A spacecraft in deep space is in a totally different environment from one sitting on a surface that is reflecting solar radiation onto the craft, besides which I would think that at some point the surface absorbs enough energy to begin radiating on its own (bit of a SWAG on my part).
It's not a SWAG, it's exactly what happens.
Any object in thermal equilibrium will radiate exactly as much power as it receives. If the object is light-colored, most of this power is simply reflected incident light, which from the sun peaks in the visible and near infrared. If the object is dark, the incident light that would otherwise be reflected is absorbed, turned into heat and re-radiated in the long infrared.
Note that an object that appears "light" in visible light may be dark in the far IR, and vice versa. Human skin, for example, appears jet black in the far IR no matter how much or little melanin it contains. Gold appears relatively dark in visible light but extremely reflective in the far IR.
Either way, the total emitted radiation (long + short wave) is exactly equal to the total incident radiation (long + short wave), plus any heat generated internally by the object of course.
It may have turned out to be accurate, but for me it was still a little guesswork. From what you said, am I correct in thinking that (if we assume that the max temp of the lunar surface is 250o C), once the surface reaches that temperature, it's radiating all the energy that strikes it? With some probably fairly small loss to conduction to the lower layers?
-
The maximum temperature of the surface of the Moon is not 250 C, but around 110-115 C. The other number is a musunderstanding - it's about the same temperature in Farenheit.
-
It may have turned out to be accurate, but for me it was still a little guesswork. From what you said, am I correct in thinking that (if we assume that the max temp of the lunar surface is 250o C), once the surface reaches that temperature, it's radiating all the energy that strikes it? With some probably fairly small loss to conduction to the lower layers?
The lunar surface doesn't get quite that hot. It gets to a little over +100C on the equator at local noon, hot enough to still cause problems.
The surface always radiates all the energy that strikes it, either at the same wavelength (i.e., reflection) or by re-radiation at longer wavelengths you can't see. Conditions on the moon change slowly enough (the sun moves at only 0.5 degrees/hr, vs 15/hr for the earth) and the loose, well-insulated surface layer has so little thermal inertia, that it's always in near-perfect equilibrium. The sun's intensity is constant but the heat input varies as the sine of the sun's elevation angle.
But when an object is not in equilibrium, the imbalance goes to heating or cooling it, yes.
The Apollo heat flow experiments showed that the surface has very poor heat conductivity (it's a loose powder, remember) and you only have to go about a meter down before the temperature is nearly constant throughout the month. The moon has some internal heat from radioactive decay that still comes out but it's tiny relative to the solar fluxes.
You control the temperature of a spacecraft both actively (with heaters, coolers, etc) and passively, by selecting the absorptivity (a) and emissivity (e) of its surface coatings. To stay cool in sunlight, you want a low absorptivity (looks light in visible/near IR) so it reflects most of the sunlight and a high emissivity (looks dark in far IR) so it efficiently radiates its own heat. Examples of materials with low a/e ratios are aluminized Kapton, Teflon or Mylar with the aluminum on the rear surface (e.g., the blankets on the LM). To collect heat you want something with a high a/e, e.g., polished gold.
But there's a catch: high emissivity also means that it absorbs very well in far IR. Doesn't the sun also radiate a lot there? Yes, but it's so hot (6000 K) that it radiates far more in the visible/near-IR. And because it occupies a very small fraction of the sky at 1 AU, we can pretty much ignore the sun's longwave IR.
But the moon appears quite big to someone standing on it, so it hits you with a lot of longwave IR at local noon. You'd reach its temperature if you were in thermal equilbrium with it, so this is a real problem. Apollo avoided this problem by arriving shortly after sunrise and leaving well before noon, but the ALSEP experiments had to deal with it.
Why does the moon get so much hotter than the earth at local noon, given the same amount of sunlight? Because the moon lacks an atmosphere to redistribute heat. This also provides our solution: just hide from the lunar surface behind a reflector so we see only the sky. Even with the sun in that sky we can stay cool with a low a/e. If you look at the ALSEP experiments, particularly the central stations, you'll see reflectors doing exactly this. Some experiments overheated because the astronauts could not keep those reflectors clean.
-
You could also bury yourself and have the dual advantage of radiation protection.
-
You could also bury yourself and have the dual advantage of radiation protection.
Yes you could, but you then have to get rid of your own waste heat.
The moon is fairly cool below the surface (I don't remember the temperature offhand) so depending on its conductivity you might just dump it into the regolith with something like a geothermal heat pump. Or you could build radiators above the surface, being careful to keep their active surfaces from seeing the surface. That includes any surrounding mountains, which caused some of the Apollo 15 experiments to run hot.
The one option completely out of the question is the one Apollo used: sublimating water to vacuum. I can't think of a more wasteful use of an extremely precious resource...
-
You could have pipes with the working fluid, perhaps in Thermos style insulation, lead up to radiators on the surface.
By this (http://www.lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Lunar_Temperature) source, at the equator, the subsurface temperature is quite friendly.
-
The working fluid could easily be water. Drop the pressure sufficiently and it will boil below room temperature. Don't let the pressure drop to zero, and it won't freeze. Pipe the water vapor to the radiator and let it condense back to liquid.
Make the radiators much bigger and add some solar collectors and you could generate quite a bit of solar thermal power.
I think some large commercial HVAC chillers, like the one at my company's building, use water as the working fluid. Because they don't have a radiator looking at deep space, they dissolve LiBr in the water and drive an absorption cycle with waste heat from electric generators fueled with natural gas.
-
Well, vacuum is certainly not something that is in small supply on the moon, which is why I suggested Thermos style insulation.
-
Yeah, just aluminize the pipes and your problem is solved.
Didn't Arthur C Clarke write an essay about there being so much vacuum in space that it could be mined and brought back to earth?
-
Yeah, just aluminize the pipes and your problem is solved.
Didn't Arthur C Clarke write an essay about there being so much vacuum in space that it could be mined and brought back to earth?
Heh, wouldn't surprise me. In a world, like so much of the golden age science fiction, where space travel is cheap but electronics never got past the vacuum tube, it might not be a bad idea.
-
Yeah, just aluminize the pipes and your problem is solved.
Didn't Arthur C Clarke write an essay about there being so much vacuum in space that it could be mined and brought back to earth?
Wasn't that Asimov and water (The Martian Way and Other Stories) ?
ETA: Perhaps you are thinking of mining the quantum vacuum, and Clarke's warning of the risks!
There's a fuel supply that is costless, unlimited and that gives off no pollution at all when you use it. There's just one minor problem. When you try to use it, you may accidentally blow up part of the Universe.
It will be over before anyone can say `sorry'. In a laboratory somewhere, someone tries to get hold of a weird and completely new, exotic type of energy. But boy, the experiment goes out of hand. Suddenly, there's a BIG explosion. And then there's nothing -- our planet, the sun, all planets in our solar system and even some stars surrounding our solar system have been blown to smithereens.
And explaining what went wrong isn't even simple. We're talking quantum physics here: the physics of the vanishingly small building blocks that make up all matter in the Universe.
In quantum physics, everything is totally different from daily life. Quantum particles can be in two places at the same time, and can behave both like waves and particles. In fact, when you hear a quantum physicist say `particles', don't think of little, round balls. Quantum `particles' are better compared with tones of music: they're definitely there, but you can't see them or catch them.
One of the most mind-boggling properties of quantum particles is that they come into existence out of nowhere. Suck every molecule of air out of a bottle, making it completely vacuum -- and quantum particles will still be there. They pop up in pairs out of nowhere. And within a tiny fraction of a second, they merge together and -- zzzip! -- they're gone.
It is precisely this odd `quantum vacuum' that may one day open the door to a very new source of energy. Suppose you're able to snatch some of those out-of-nowhere particles away. Admittedly, you'll have to be REALLY fast. But if you do succeed, you'll have harvested particles out of nowhere. And since matter and energy are basically the same stuff (according to Einstein's E=mc2), you'll have energy out of nowhere!
The advantages would be unimaginable. Here's an energy source that never runs out, is everywhere around, is extremely cheap, and causes no pollution whatsoever.
But then again, there is a small, but alarming risk. There may be simply energy too much. Mining the quantum vacuum might bring about an unstoppable chain reaction, releasing an ever increasing amount of energy. In fact, no-one knows how much energy will be released: calculations done by physicists give answers anywhere between zero and infinity.
Obviously, too much energy would mean trouble. The explosion could be huge enough to blow apart our entire solar system and everything around it. And of course, infinite energy would bring about infinite destruction, bombing not just a handful of stars, but everything in the entire Universe.
Gladly, no present-day scientist is capable of mining the quantum vacuum. On the other hand: one day, there will be. And that day may arrive sooner than you think: some estimate around 2020 science will be ready. Let's hope physicists finally have their calculations straightened out by then.
So it's `wait and see'. And talking about `seeing': as the famous science-fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke once pointed out, whenever you see an unexplained burst of energy coming from the cosmos (and there are a lot of them), it may be some alien civilization, blowing itself to kingdom come while experimenting with the quantum vacuum...
-
He demands a "Janet and John" explanation from the 1960s, as you say, and has obviously planned to declare victory should we be unable to find exactly what he wants. So narrowing his search and avoiding any sort of creative or analytical thought is part of the overall (and pretty ham-fisted) rhetorical ploy and is independent of his ability to understand the answers he's been given.
Allancw, a "Janet and John" type of explanation of a manned spacecraft's journey through the Van Allen belts would be hard to find in Nasa literature, but by going through what I have from the 1960s and 70s I found a little that was intended for public consumption:--
March 1964
"Footprints on the Moon", Hugh L. Dryden, Ph.D., Deputy Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration. National Geographic, Vol. 125, No. 3, March 1964, pages 356-401
Page 381:
Many problems and hazards exist for a lunar mission that are not encountered while orbiting the earth. Before I describe a voyage to the moon, as we now plan it, let's look at some of those possible pitfalls.
The Van Allen radiation belt, named for its discoverer, Dr. James A. Van Allen, must be traversed. It consists of charged particles expelled from the sun and trapped above the earth by our own planet's magnetic field.
Basically there is only one belt, but it includes two dissimilar regions. One consists of high-energy protons caught in a layer that arches some 2,000 miles above earth at the magnetic equator. The other, containing high-energy electrons, girdles the magnetic equator about 10,000 miles from earth. In schematic drawings these regions curve around the globe like horns or crescent moons. The second, in particular, is quite deep, extending outward some 20,000 miles.
Manned space flights to date have been too low to get into this radiation, but Apollo crewmen will have to slash through it going out and coming back. Fortunately they will be exposed for a total of only a few hours, and the estimated 20 roentgens of radiation they will absorb will not be serious from a health standpoint. Their spacecraft, of course, gives only limited protection; it cannot be sheathed in thick lead.
Apollo 8
"A Most Fantastic Voyage", Lt. Gen. Sam C. Phillips. National Geographic, Vol. 135, No. 5, May 1969, pages 593-631
Page 604:
04:52:00 Houston, Apollo 8 with a PRD reading... At 4 hours 4 minutes commander is 0, CMP .64, LMP .02.
Translated, this means that Bill Anders is reporting on the readings of the personal radiation dosimeters worn by the commander, the command module pilot, (Lovell), and the lunar module pilot (Anders), after the crew have passed through the thickest portion of the Van Allen radiation belt. As expected, the readings are negligible. Total radiation on the entire flight turns out to be not much more than that of a chest X-ray.
Apollo 11
"The Invasion of the Moon 1969 - The Story of Apollo 11", Peter Ryan. Penguin Books Ltd, Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England (1969) -- Paperback
Page 71:
GET 02:44 (5.16 p.m. BST) Ignition at the start of the 5 minute 20 second burn of the J 2 engine which gradually increased Apollo's speed to 24,182 miles an hour, lifting it out of earth orbit towards the moon. As the engine cut off, the craft was already 200 miles along its quarter-million-mile flight path. A few moments later they passed through the Van Allen belts, but the dose of radiation they received was rather less than the dose a dentist uses to take an X-ray.
No doubt your investigative abilities will be able to verify that Dryden and Phillips were high up in the Nasa hierarchy.
Ryan's paperback book was on sale about October or November 1969 here in New Zealand, which was when I bought my first copy in Wellington. I didn't note the exact details of such things in those days.
One interesting point is that many of the books and magazine and newspaper articles of the time don't even mention the VABs because they simply weren't a big deal. I hope you don't think they would "fry" anyone passing through, or that they are a "searing radiation hell." If you do, you've been hoodwinked.
Just a few quick questions:
What sort of research have you done regarding the official stories about the moonlandings?
Have you, for instance, spent time at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journals and the Apollo Flight Journals? They are all available online.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/frame.html
http://history.nasa.gov/afj/
Are you familiar with all the Mercury and Gemini missions that led up to Apollo?
Do you know that two of the Gemini crews travelled into the Van Allen belts? And that the International Space Station also regularly passes through part of them?
Do you know what the various unmanned mission did as far as presenting information about space and the moon?
If, as you say, you believe in a moonlanding hoax, at what mission or missions do you believe Nasa started hoaxing?
Regarding the "hoax," have you spent a few hours at JayUtah's marvellous website, Clavius? There you will find very detailed answers to most of the common hoax claims. http://www.clavius.org
-
"Janet and John"?
-
AKA Joe the Plumber or any ordinary interested citizen.
-
Equivalent to Dick and Jane.
-
Equivalent to Dick and Jane.
Or in other words, a simply-worded child's explanation.
-
So the kind of thing I'd understand, then.
-
Equivalent to Dick and Jane.
Pretty much: a series of books for children in the early stages of learning to read, where they move beyond recognising words to put them together in simple stories.
-
So the kind of thing I'd understand, then.
Yes, of course. But the subtle issue I see is not the simplicity of the answer but it's comprehension and scope. You've read widely enough in history to understand that the answer to some historical question must often be pieced together from different sources. We can ask an infinite number of questions about history, but we cannot expect the authors from history to have anticipated all such question forms and provided the answer to all of them helpfully in a set of single, trite messages. Even if orbital mechanics, spacecraft design, and astrophysics are topics that you understand only simplistically, you can appreciate that no one document, symposium, journal, or reference will necessarily provide the answer to a given question in those fields, such as "How were the Apollo transfer orbits designed to avoid the Van Allen belts?" You'd appreciate -- especially if told by experts -- that you may have to get pieces of the answer from different sources.
-
Conspiracy theorists in a word.
It doesn't matter how small their question is in the broader scheme of things. It doesn't matter how skewed their view of reality is. The only answer they will accept is one that directly addresses their specific need within their own skewed frame.
An example might be, "Show me a link that proves so-and-so the ham operator isn't an employee of the government." Because, of course, not-being-an-employee-of-the-government is the Most Important Thing Ever to said ham and it will be the first thing on his web page, right under his call sign. It never occurs to the conspiracy theories that neither the ham nor anyone involved in his various social and professional circles cares, and this simply isn't a question that comes up often (if at all) and certainly isn't considered of any import.
Or the OP, demanding that everyone from Dr. Van Allen down recognize that the VARB were nigh-impassible space obstacles that could only be defeated by heroic measures and a cunning plan. Any document of any sort that doesn't begin, "To keep the astronauts from being killed instantly by the Deadly Radiation, it was necessary..." will be rejected out of hand as not properly addressing ///the question/// their preconception.
-
Yes, of course. But the subtle issue I see is not the simplicity of the answer but it's comprehension and scope. You've read widely enough in history to understand that the answer to some historical question must often be pieced together from different sources.
Well, yeah, fair enough. I do tend to think of one of my functions around here as being stepping in to say, "Yeah, your simplified explanation? Not simple enough, because I still have no idea what you're talking about." However, I don't expect primary sources to be written so someone who hasn't taken a science class since 1999 (and that was the History of Biology!) can understand them. I think I've told the story of Why Gillian Doesn't Know Physics a time or two, but even leaving aside the sillier aspects of it, that storied physics class of mine was high school level and during the 1993-94 school year. Why should primary sources write to my level of understanding, even if all the information about [thing] is in one document?
ETA--Huh. I initially put "x" in those brackets, but it changed it to a bullet point. So I guess we can do bullet points?
-
The only answer they will accept is the one that directly addresses their specific need within their own skewed frame they know for sure doesn't exist.
There, fixed that for ya.
Consider the firestorm about the "missing" Apollo 11 tapes. Your average Apollo denier had no idea such tapes ever existed until they read about them missing. Even now they haven't a clue what said tapes contained, why they were made, and what we could (and could not) do with them if they still existed.
It helped their appeal, of course, that "missing tapes" that almost surely contained damning evidence were at the center of the last act of the Watergate scandal.
-
To sum up: I asked for a contemporaneous (1969 or earlier) mention anywhere about how 'the worst of the VARB would be avoided.' (Several of you made this claim, words to this effect, and no one disagreed.)
The closest you came was in the 1969 Mission Report wherein 'pass rapidly' through the belts was the only mention. This is not 'avoiding the worst of the belts.'
Just for the sake of discussion, let's assume for a moment that the VAB is a howling maelstrom of radioactive death, and that the astronauts had no choice but to fly through it anyway.
** How does this assumption explain the literal tons of technical documentation and testing for every single piece of flown hardware, down to their underpants?
** How does it affect our understanding of 800+ lbs of rock and soil samples that have been examined by geologists world wide for the last 40 years without one questioning the veracity of the materials?
** And what about the Baysinger recordings http://legacy.jefferson.kctcs.edu/observatory/apollo11/
of the Apollo 11 EVA? [Snip]
Many thanks for that link, ApolloGnomon. I noticed that like so many other hoax-believers when faced with the same, allancw ignored your excellent questions. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story, huh?
The story is fascinating because of what Larry Baysinger accomplished, but it is of even greater interest to us here at ApolloHoax because he was interested in UFOs back in 1969 ('the "brain" behind the activities of the Louisville UFO Investigations Committee'), and was keen to catch Nasa out should they broadcast an edited version of the astronauts' conversations:--
Baysinger told me that the Apollo lunar eavesdropping project arose because in the late 1960’s he was an amateur radio astronomer with an interest in NASA, in astronomy, in UFOs, and in other such things that were hot topics at a time when America was on the verge of landing its first men on the moon. He experimented with satellite tracking and capturing pictures of Earth transmitted from weather satellites. He had some success in these matters – for example, he was able to print out crude images from weather satellites using an impact printer that printed using carbon paper.
These interests and efforts led to the idea that he might independently verify the information that NASA had been providing about the Apollo program. Could he get unedited, unfiltered information about the Apollo 11 landing by eavesdropping on the radio signals transmitted from the lunar surface? And could he find out things that NASA did not want the public to know about?
And he found that what he recorded was the same as went out to the public:--
I asked Baysinger whether he found anything that NASA edited out – comments about things going wrong, the astronauts being loose with their language, or exclamations about meeting aliens! He said no – absolutely everything was transmitted to the public on TV. In fact he said, “that was kind of disappointing”. Part of the idea of this project was to hear the unedited “real story”, and it turned out there was nothing edited out.[iv] Indeed, Rutherford’s story (click here for hi-resolution version which you can read) makes no mention of hearing anything unusual.
-
I asked Baysinger whether he found anything that NASA edited out – comments about things going wrong, the astronauts being loose with their language, or exclamations about meeting aliens! He said no – absolutely everything was transmitted to the public on TV. In fact he said, “that was kind of disappointing”. Part of the idea of this project was to hear the unedited “real story”, and it turned out there was nothing edited out.[iv] Indeed, Rutherford’s story (click here for hi-resolution version which you can read) makes no mention of hearing anything unusual.
To be honest, I'm surprised no HB has used this as evidence for the hoax : "What, NASA expects us to believe that these Air Force and Navy guys never swore or said a word out of turn? Obviously the transmissions were pre-recorded and broadcast from satellites or remotely-controlled ships!" (or something).
Of course, now I've pointed that out....
-
"Obviously the transmissions were pre-recorded and broadcast from satellites or remotely-controlled ships!" (or something).
They have claimed that.
-
Someone (Phil Webb I believe) did the math and to pre-record the transmissions (ignoring that there is several instances where the chatter involved events that happened that NASA would have had no control over, like talking about the weather (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11transcript_tec.html), see 07 05 38 54) using the tape formats of the time would require a bigger craft than the CSM.
-
I assume he meant the video transmissions. Tapes of the audio transmissions would have been bulky but not out of the question.
Until the late 1970s, the standard video tape format was 2" quad. A single reel weighed maybe 10 kg and held an hour of video. Though smaller units were just beginning to appear, the most common machine to play it was the size of a large china hutch, weighed considerably more, and required 3-phase AC power and a compressed air supply.
-
I assume he meant the video transmissions. Tapes of the audio transmissions would have been bulky but not out of the question.
Even if so, though I think he meant all the radio, data and telemetry as well, ( I am looking for the video to verify that) that doesn't remove the 'live' quality of the transmissions.
-
It would have been exceptionally difficult to fool the ground station operators.
The PM transponders were 'phase coherent'. In "1-way" mode without an uplink, a local oscillator generated the nominal downlink frequency so the ground received frequency would depend on both Doppler and oscillator drift. When an uplink was received, the transponder automatically locked on and transmitted at exactly 240/221 times the received uplink frequency. This changeover was very obvious to the station operators, who aways observed it during station handover. Any difference between the expected and actual frequency was entirely due to Doppler, which directly indicated range-rate. This Doppler was integrated and used to update the range measurement.
To initially calibrate this range at the beginning of a pass, the ground turned on a PN (pseudo noise) ranging signal that was turned around by the transponder. The PN signal degraded the overall signal-to-noise ratio so it was turned off as soon as the range was acquired. It didn't have to be used again until the next handover unless lock was momentarily broken.
Only one ground station could transmit at a time, but any number could listen. Being in different locations they'd hear different Doppler shifts.
To even have a chance of fooling the ground operators you'd need real spacecraft with real transponders that worked like this. But several of their functions were manually controlled by the astronauts on request from the ground, e.g., antenna switching, selecting wide/medium/narrow beamwidth for the CSM high gain antenna, manually or automatically pointing the CSM and LM high gain antennas, enabling or blocking the path from the uplink command receiver to the computer, and enabling PN ranging turnaround only when it was actually needed to prevent noise from being retransmitted. On occasion things wouldn't work right (the CSM high gain antennas frequently misbehaved) and troubleshooting required voice conversations with the crew.
Usually the Capcom relayed the ground's requests, but on a few occasions the ground station operators spoke directly with the astronauts, e.g., when the link between the station and Houston was broken. For obvious reasons this wasn't carried by the TV networks, but the ground stations made their own recordings.
-
So Allancw hasn't been on the boards since 21st October. It's funny, isn't it? How the ones that bleat on about others having closed minds actually seem impervious to opening their own minds?
-
Is he "A.C. Weisbecker" on YouTube?
Anyone wanting to be amazed/aggravated by where our tax dollars go, try apollohoax.net then look up my thread, 'allancw.' Hundreds of man hours (and tax dollars), it appears, went into defending the official Apollo story against my little assault... Why would all these 'educated' professionals take the time and effort if they were not getting paid?
That's a very limited view on human motivations. Who's paying him to spread anti-Apollo propaganda, then? :D The KGB?
Also, "hundreds of hours"? Whut?
And seriously, prefacing one's shill accusations with bitching about taxes? That's turning into self-parody. To quote Tim Minchin, "A pigeonhole starts to form and it's immediately filled with pigeon..."
-
I did keep pointing out to him that, if it had been his tax dollars at work, it wouldn't have been happening at that time. I suppose we could have been working for IOUs, like my friends up at the submarine docks, but I really doubt anyone would have considered it essential enough to bother.
-
Interesting. Cannot prove his point, and I know he cannot and will not, try another ploy. A cad then.
-
And he found that what he recorded was the same as went out to the public:--
I asked Baysinger whether he found anything that NASA edited out – comments about things going wrong, the astronauts being loose with their language, or exclamations about meeting aliens! He said no – absolutely everything was transmitted to the public on TV. In fact he said, “that was kind of disappointing”. Part of the idea of this project was to hear the unedited “real story”, and it turned out there was nothing edited out.[iv] Indeed, Rutherford’s story (click here for hi-resolution version which you can read) makes no mention of hearing anything unusual.
It's kind of reassuring that at least one person who had at least some level of CT thought process going on acquired his own evidence and found... nothing. And then seems to have accepted that, rather than do the usual HB thing of deciding that the lack of "damning evidence" simply indicated an additional layer of coverup.
Anyone wanting to be amazed/aggravated by where our tax dollars go, try apollohoax.net then look up my thread, 'allancw.' Hundreds of man hours (and tax dollars), it appears, went into defending the official Apollo story against my little assault... Why would all these 'educated' professionals take the time and effort if they were not getting paid?
Evidently he found it too belittling to admit that most of his 'assault' was on the level of "Whose house did Goldilocks sleep in?" - claims that this group has heard and answered so many times that it wasn't exactly a major undertaking. I think we spent more time discussing the Bingo game.
-
Interesting. Cannot prove his point, and I know he cannot and will not, try another ploy. A cad then.
I'd call him an intellectual coward.
-
Is he "A.C. Weisbecker" on YouTube?
Anyone wanting to be amazed/aggravated by where our tax dollars go, try apollohoax.net then look up my thread, 'allancw.' Hundreds of man hours (and tax dollars), it appears, went into defending the official Apollo story against my little assault... Why would all these 'educated' professionals take the time and effort if they were not getting paid?
That's a very limited view on human motivations. Who's paying him to spread anti-Apollo propaganda, then? :D The KGB?
Also, "hundreds of hours"? Whut?
And seriously, prefacing one's shill accusations with about taxes?
Allan, if you're reading this: I probably pay more taxes than you. But none of that is against getting paid to respond to you; I'm on my own time digging up information for you.
What will you do with the information? You guaranteed it didn't exist. Will you live up to your guarantee and try to learn something? Or will you hide from it behind a paranoid fantasy that knowledgeable people who disagree with you can't do so honestly?
I hope it's the former, but you can't learn if you refuse to engage in a constructive manner.
-
Pretty much, I think CT's like allancw have such a single-minded and distorted world view and have so much personal self-esteem invested in their own "rightness" that they simply cannot understand or conceive of why or how anyone else could be invested in opposing them.
There are many people who spend hours upon hours of their own personal time doing things for other people that they never get paid for. I was a Rugby Union referee for 15 years before a serious knee injury ended it for me. I gave up every weekend for six months each year to referee two to five matches over each Saturday and Sunday. No-one ever paid me to to this, I did it for the love of the game, and to return something to the game that I got from it as a player. I now advise and coach young referees and players, and help to administer an international referee's website and forum that assists new and young referees from all over the world. I must have spent tens or thousands of hours over many years and have never received any remuneration for it.
I am sure others here will have their own stories.
-
Heck, I'm not getting paid to parent, and it's a lot more work than picking apart someone's belief of what investigative journalism means.
-
Heck, I'm not getting paid to parent, and it's a lot more work than picking apart someone's belief of what investigative journalism means.
Parenting is a job though, not just something you do in your spare time. Also, there is an investment in parenting that cannot be matched by simply having an interest in sports coaching/officiating, or being a space flight enthusiast.
The whole point here is that allencw seems happy enough to spend hours making up videos and regurgitating the same old, tired & lame ideas for debunking Apollo that we've all been hearing for years, yet cannot understand why anyone else would spend hours debunking him and not being paid. IMO, that is almost as big a failure of understanding as thinking Apollo was a hoax.
-
I am sure others here will have their own stories.
Quite. I help to run the local museum, which is a completely volunteer organisation, and I also write a column for a spaceflight magazine, again for no reward other than my personal satisfaction.
-
Hell, I spend more time watching Star Trek than I do on this forum. Does he think I'm paid to boost the fan numbers?
-
What will you do with the information? You guaranteed it didn't exist. Will you live up to your guarantee and try to learn something? Or will you hide from it behind a paranoid fantasy that knowledgeable people who disagree with you can't do so honestly?
What's really funny is that he, himself directs viewers of his youtube vid to come here to read this thread...and the main point of this thread is that A.C. made a guarantee, then went silent when proven wrong...
Just deliciously funny...:D
-
Parenting is a job though, not just something you do in your spare time. Also, there is an investment in parenting that cannot be matched by simply having an interest in sports coaching/officiating, or being a space flight enthusiast.
Yes. But it's still unpaid, and I did it on purpose.
The whole point here is that allencw seems happy enough to spend hours making up videos and regurgitating the same old, tired & lame ideas for debunking Apollo that we've all been hearing for years, yet cannot understand why anyone else would spend hours debunking him and not being paid. IMO, that is almost as big a failure of understanding as thinking Apollo was a hoax.
And I don't think he has the slightest idea of how little time and effort it really took. He didn't bring much new to the table; some of the responses might as well have been copy-paste. Now, they weren't, and there were one or two places where something new had to be written out because we hadn't had that particular rant before, but I suspect the part that took the longest was finding specific references as demanded. And if that took hundreds of man-hours, we've got some very slow readers.
-
Anyone wanting to be amazed/aggravated by where our tax dollars go, try apollohoax.net then look up my thread, 'allancw.' Hundreds of man hours (and tax dollars), it appears, went into defending the official Apollo story against my little assault... Why would all these 'educated' professionals take the time and effort if they were not getting paid?
An argument aimed purely at ego-reinforcement. From the ebullient résumé posted here to the rack of self-published books (complete with Amazon review counts), what we have here in this poster is someone frantically desperate for any degree of approval or accolade. This is exactly the sort of person who gets drawn into conspiracism as a way to lash out against the Establishment (which is typically blamed for that person's perceived lack of progress or recognition) and to wear the costume of erudition without actually achieving it. Having presumed his critics are paid government shills, having failed utterly to establish any viable technical basis for a hoax, and having his ham-fisted rhetorical trap slammed shut on his own fingers, the only place he has left to backpedal is the coup-counting proposition.
He downplays his best effort as a "little assault" so that it doesn't seem a big deal that it was entirely overthrown, and that he patently doesn't know what he's talking about. But in order to deploy that argument has to accept, at least in part, that his effort was unsuccessful. He seems to admit that he was rebutted, but that it took enormous well-funded effort to do so. He has shifted the goalposts again, this time to disconnect the skill of his argument from the very visible outcome. With his ego thus insulated, he can quite happily direct others to the thread. His claim is now that the government expends resources to stop him, so the fact that he was stopped becomes not an embarrassment but rather a premise to his new claim.
"Hundreds of hours" is quite the exaggeration. I spent more time last week on Halloween costumes than in reading and posting here. And I can point to hundreds of hours I've donated to local efforts, simply because I like what they do. But it has to be that monumental an effort in order to feed Allan's effort. One of many hidden subtexts is that he would have been successful in proving a hoax were it not for the all-out "government" effort to stop him. Nevermind that he was never able to provide any actual evidence that any of the criticism against him was anything other than idle volunteerism -- just people doing what they do. Nevermind that this isn't a high-traffic site. It just has to be a well-funded government disinformation site, in his mind: that's the only explanation his ego will accept for failure.
Hence he greatly exaggerates the level of effort required to debunk his decades-old borrowed claims, then begs a further question that no one would expend that effort uncompensated. From that he arrives at a dubious inference that it "must" be a shill site. Yes, it's an inference. Almost all conspiracy arguments, when faced with an abject inability to show what is the case, resort to trying to show what must be the case.
-
I am sure others here will have their own stories.
Quite. I help to run the local museum, which is a completely volunteer organisation, and I also write a column for a spaceflight magazine, again for no reward other than my personal satisfaction.
For a while I was probably averaging a hundred hours a month doing volunteer fire/EMS. While the county did provide some rather modest "attaboys" - a few hundred bucks a year - and you get a deduction on your state taxes, nobody I knew did it for such reasons. A few hundred dollars a year doesn't motivate you enough to get out of bed at 3 AM to check somebody's smoke alarm or to bandage the bleeding groin of someone with HIV and hepatitis.
The funny thing was, when you show up, you can truthfully say, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."
-
Anyone wanting to be amazed/aggravated by where our tax dollars go, try apollohoax.net then look up my thread, 'allancw.' Hundreds of man hours (and tax dollars), it appears, went into defending the official Apollo story...
If Allancw only knew how far from the truth that is. The only money changing hands in the running of this website is the money I'm giving to my web host. It's only about $95 per year, but since I don't place any advertising on the site or charge for membership it means it's costing me money rather than making me any. And since I'm Canadian I've never paid taxes, received an income, or voted in the United States.
against my little assault...
And that's all it was... a very little "assault". We've had young teenagers come to this forum and ask more thought provoking questions. Allancw, by comparison, is just a lazy mosquito with delusions of grandeur. He recycles the same old hoax claims we've seen for years, nothing new or special.
Why would all these 'educated' professionals take the time and effort if they were not getting paid?
Yeah, why would anyone want to spend their free time talking to other people who share a common interest? No one ever does that willingly, right? I guess, by that logic, that means he's being paid to spread misinformation about Apollo.
-
Tax dollars and hundreds of hours? I wish.
Allan, I come here to read, learn, and post occasionally (mainly, as a flight instructor, I get to use the toys engineers build for us, not design it, so I'm not near qualified to comment on a lot of this stuff) about one of the greatest achievements of my time. The time I spend here is a small fraction of what I put into being the volunteer chairman of a not-for-profit aviation organization, not to mention my day job.
The fact that you won't learn and that you deny the reality of events that the historical evidence overwhelmingly says did happen renders your opinions less than insignificant - they are totally irrelevant.
-
instances where the chatter involved events that happened that NASA would have had no control over, like talking about the weather (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11transcript_tec.html),
That's where crank magnetism comes into play, every really enlightened Conspiracist knows that NASA is manipulating the weather (*cough* Chemtrails).
-
Hell, I spend more time watching Star Trek than I do on this forum. Does he think I'm paid to boost the fan numbers?
It depends... are you watching the movies (if yes which), TOS, TNG; DS9, Voyager or Enterprise?
-
Hell, I spend more time watching Star Trek than I do on this forum. Does he think I'm paid to boost the fan numbers?
It depends... are you watching the movies (if yes which), TOS, TNG; DS9, Voyager or Enterprise?
He's watching TNG (yay! :) ) and Enterprise (boo! :( )
-
There was something a bit Heiwa-esque about his refusing to see that he'd already been given what he asked for.
-
I found this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8mQbVXO7hQ).
I don't know what to make of it...the whole video is really odd.
edit to add...at the 1 minute 16 second mark, I think we see where AC gets his "inspiration".
-
Actually, if you watch Woodstock the film, I think you might see Our mate. He's the one convinced that the helicopters at the event were seeding the clouds to cause the rain. using his own logic, it is undeniably him. Who else could it be? Unless he can provide contemporaneous evidence to the contrary (which I will ignore anyways) he's fooling no one.
-
I found this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8mQbVXO7hQ).
I don't know what to make of it...the whole video is really odd.
edit to add...at the 1 minute 16 second mark, I think we see where AC gets his "inspiration".
Pathetic is a fit description. Is this really what his life has come down to? Drinking and conspiracy mongering.
-
Yeah, why would anyone want to spend their free time talking to other people who share a common interest? No one ever does that willingly, right?
Actually -- no joke -- I'm being paid to write this post. There's a crew from Russian Television shooting today in our offices and one of our computing centers, and I was asked to do something "with a lot of typing" to make me look busy. So everyone smile and say "Soyuz!" ;D
I guess, by that logic, that means he's being paid to spread misinformation about Apollo.
Oh no, the logic never works the same in both directions. Anyone who defends the mainstream view is obviously being paid to do so, because who else would be motivated to do it? Who would willingly ally with that? In contrast anyone who argues against the mainstream automatically has pure motives and altruistic intent. They are only trying to tell the truth.
[ whoops, there was a lighting problem -- take 2 ]
And if anyone happens to want money or solicit donations for any of the counter-mainstream activities, that's perfectly okay because it's money going to a good cause. And they have to try to match the obviously well-funded efforts of their critics.
But yeah, the double standard is pretty apparent. "If you post, you must be getting paid" has to work both directions if it works at all. It's hilarious to see conspiracists falling all over themselves to poison the well, monetarily speaking. My review of Bennett and Percy's book on Amazon.com has a couple of responses accusing me of being a paid shill and saying things like, "Of course he'll deny it, but it's true." I suspect it's the typical YooToobers, but the point remains deliciously hypocritical -- they're posting on the page of a pro-hoax book being offered for sale for profit. These critics are either monumentally stupid or have no shame.
Okay, shooting done. And craft services has donuts. ::)
-
I found this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8mQbVXO7hQ).
I don't know what to make of it...the whole video is really odd.
Well, it looks like he's won over the drunk, credulous, girls on a beach demographic....
I don't count 41 though. Is there more to this?
-
Yeah, why would anyone want to spend their free time talking to other people who share a common interest? No one ever does that willingly, right?
Actually -- no joke -- I'm being paid to write this post. There's a crew from Russian Television shooting today in our offices and one of our computing centers, and I was asked to do something "with a lot of typing" to make me look busy. So everyone smile and say "Soyuz!" ;D
I guess, by that logic, that means he's being paid to spread misinformation about Apollo.
Oh no, the logic never works the same in both directions. Anyone who defends the mainstream view is obviously being paid to do so, because who else would be motivated to do it? Who would willingly ally with that? In contrast anyone who argues against the mainstream automatically has pure motives and altruistic intent. They are only trying to tell the truth.
[ whoops, there was a lighting problem -- take 2 ]
And if anyone happens to want money or solicit donations for any of the counter-mainstream activities, that's perfectly okay because it's money going to a good cause. And they have to try to match the obviously well-funded efforts of their critics.
But yeah, the double standard is pretty apparent. "If you post, you must be getting paid" has to work both directions if it works at all. It's hilarious to see conspiracists falling all over themselves to poison the well, monetarily speaking. My review of Bennett and Percy's book on Amazon.com has a couple of responses accusing me of being a paid shill and saying things like, "Of course he'll deny it, but it's true." I suspect it's the typical YooToobers, but the point remains deliciously hypocritical -- they're posting on the page of a pro-hoax book being offered for sale for profit. These critics are either monumentally stupid or have no shame.
Okay, shooting done. And craft services has donuts. ::)
So, are they shooting a documentary about how the old Soviet regime he the US fake the Apollo missions? ::)
-
No, supercomputing and the surveillance state.
-
There's a crew from Russian Television shooting today in our offices and one of our computing centers, and I was asked to do something "with a lot of typing" to make me look busy.
Is that "a Russian television", or RT, formerly known as "Russia Today"? Because if it's the latter case, they have a bit of a reputation...
-
It's the latter case, and I'm not entirely comfortable with it.
-
Well, it looks like he's won over the drunk, credulous, girls on a beach demographic….
I'm not convinced of that - the one who speaks never really says anything specific, and is often cut off in mid-sentence. I suspect the vague, lacking in content statements which survived the editing are the best that could be done with the material she provided.
I don't count 41 though. Is there more to this?
It looked like two to me, but might it be that this is his 41st video posted?
-
It's the latter case, and I'm not entirely comfortable with it.
At least, they told you they're from Russia Today …
-
Welcome to the board, Procopius. I hope you have a fruitful and informative stay. :)
-
I found this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8mQbVXO7hQ).
I don't know what to make of it...the whole video is really odd.
So he's been using his ridiculous "Mount Everest thin air is comparable to the Van Allen Belt" analogy since June 2012. And in all that time he never bothered to check if it was an accurate comparison. That's some slooooooooow investigative journalism.
-
Heck, I'm not getting paid to parent, and it's a lot more work than picking apart someone's belief of what investigative journalism means.
I found this forum back when I had baby RocketGirl on my lap (margamatix era). I found a lot of similarity between hoax arguments and babies -- irrational screaming, surprise puke and frequent diapers full of poop.
-
I found this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8mQbVXO7hQ).
I don't know what to make of it...the whole video is really odd.
Oh my. He's the crazy-eyed uncle you're afraid to leave alone with the kids.
Am I the only one getting that vibe?
-
I found this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8mQbVXO7hQ).
I don't know what to make of it...the whole video is really odd.
Oh my. He's the crazy-eyed uncle you're afraid to leave alone with the kids.
Am I the only one getting that vibe?
Nope.
If that is allencw, then ...... good heavens!! It looks like morning drinkies!
Personally, I never drink alcohol until the sun is over the yardarm!
ETA: It certainly looks like him http://www.librarything.com/pic/167850
-
frequent diapers full of poop.
Doctor Socks would have loved that one...
-
I found this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8mQbVXO7hQ).
I don't know what to make of it...the whole video is really odd.
edit to add...at the 1 minute 16 second mark, I think we see where AC gets his "inspiration".
Looking at that, it sounds as if Allancw might have watched or read some of Bennett & Percy's and Bart Sibrel's "works" during his investigations.
If so, I wonder if he had the good sense to pause and check the part in Sibrel's video "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" where the narrator says, "When objects are lit solely by the sun... then all shadows, regardless of the landscape, will run parallel with one another and never intersect, as shown by this example." (It's at 0:24:32 in my 0:46:56 copy.)
A typical layperson who casually looks at the example might agree that the shadows are indeed parallel, but a more sensible person with a truly investigative bent would naturally pause the scene and check the shadows with straightedges. Two sheets of A4 paper would do the trick on a small screen.
And lo and behold, the investigator will find that Sibrel's own shadows are certainly not parallel, and if extended far enough would indeed intersect near the edge of the screen.
Which says a lot about the truth, accuracy and reliability, or otherwise, of Sibrel's claims of a hoax.
Likewise, in Bennett and Percy's magnum dopus, "Dark Moon," page 22, there are two photos of tree shadows that they claim are parallel, but the laying-on of straightedges shows that the shadow lines in each photo intersect near the top of the adjacent photo.
Which also says a lot about Bennett and Percy's claims.
C'mon Allancw, tell us whether or not you properly investigated their work with such a simple experiment.
In fact, I wonder if any hoax-believers used their brains and ran the same checks; and of any that did, if they are still hoax-believers.
-
I found this forum back when I had baby RocketGirl on my lap (margamatix era). I found a lot of similarity between hoax arguments and babies -- irrational screaming, surprise puke and frequent diapers full of poop.
Don't forget the insistence that the world revolves around them.
-
Looking at that, it sounds as if Allancw might have watched or read some of Bennett & Percy's and Bart Sibrel's "works" during his investigations.
Almost certainly, since he's trying to play the photographic analysis angle (no pun intended). A lot of people have tried to pass themselves off as photo analysts simply by repeating Percy's nonsense. And of course Percy himself represents himself as such, even though it's clear he is not. While he's a credentialed photographer, we see no examples of his work anywhere. Nor does the credential apply to photographic analysis, which is different than photography. And at any rate, Percy clearly just makes up stuff as he goes. He has a list of "photo rules" -- i.e., properties he thinks should hold for authentic photographs and thus be useful in identifying fakes. But they're just his inventions; they have no basis in the relevant sciences. And Percy's last public response to critics came at the heels of having been shown that the cherry-picked photographs he cited in support of one photo "rule" actually break his other "rules."
I see Allan desperately trying to apply the same sort of shadow analysis to other photographs, but getting it obviously wrong. Of course there are so many levels of fail here. (Sorry, gillianren, but "failure" just doesn't have the proper vernacular ring to it.) See below.
Again I have to draw the parallel (again, no pun intended) to Wayne Green. He too bought into Bennett and Percy hook-line-and-sinker and was disappointed when, according to him, I had failed to appreciate Percy's special genius in photographic analysis.
If so, I wonder if he had the good sense to pause and check the part in Sibrel's video "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" where the narrator says, "When objects are lit solely by the sun... then all shadows, regardless of the landscape, will run parallel with one another and never intersect, as shown by this example."
"As shown by this example" is the standard cherry-picked example. Of course it's possible to carefully arrange the objects and landscape to create the illusion of parallel shadows. But it certainly isn't the norm. That's why for every cherry-picked example foisted as "regardless of landscape," there can be displayed innumerable counterexamples showing the effects of terrain, object shape, phase angle, and ordinary perspective.
And lo and behold, the investigator will find that Sibrel's own shadows are certainly not parallel, and if extended far enough would indeed intersect near the edge of the screen.
Indeed; see below.
Which says a lot about the truth, accuracy and reliability, or otherwise, of Sibrel's claims of a hoax.
Mark Gray's tireless efforts showed that Sibrel was indeed aware of the window-edge footage when he cherry-picked his Apollo footage. And there is no question that he edited out the infamous dolly-back away from the CM window.
For the newcomers, Sibrel's A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon contains what purports to be "secret backstage" film footage that was shot but never aired, and which (according to him) shows clear signs that the Apollo 11 crew was faking their allegedly translunar footage from Earth orbit. Sadly, Sibrel misunderstood a title slug on one of the reels he had been sent by NASA and upon that basis merely inferred that his footage never aired. In fact he was showing bits of the live telecast. Other footage didn't air live, but was recorded by MSFN, transmitted to Houston, and was published independently in the 1980s as part of a VHS series of the complete Apollo film record, much as what Mark Gray has done today at Spacecraft Films.
Sibrel's video argues variously that either the circular window or a transparency fastened to the window was used to simulate the distant Earth. He argues there is never any context to show a distant Earth on the television footage. However, in the test downlinks there is several seconds of just such footage, showing the distant Earth as well as a window bezel, and the relative motion between them. At first Sibrel argued that this footage was not part of anything he received from NASA and therefore that NASA had produced it recently to discredit him. But Gray showed conclusively that Sibrel had quoted from other parts of that reel, and hence could have been expected to see and know about it. Further, existing copies of the VHS series were shown also to contain it. Sibrel eventually had to admit it was authentic NASA footage that he had failed to account for, but simply wrote it off as "fake."
Sibrel's video also attempts to argue that in order to create the false footage, the television camera had to be placed across the cabin from the window, not right up in the window as is claimed (i.e., where you would normally position yourself to photograph something out the window). He shows two shots: one of the allegedly distant Earth, and then another clearly from across the cabin as the cabin lights are turned on to reveal where the camera man "really" is. But in the source footage this is one long continuous shot where the initial image is of the distant Earth and then the camera clearly backs away from the window and the astronaut clearly says he is pulling back away from the window and preparing to adjust for interior lighting. Sibrel blatantly edits out the evidence that clearly and convincingly disputes his claim.
Since he believed this was "secret" footage that no one else could ever see in its entirety, he apparently felt that no one would catch this edit. But the bottom line is that it's very easy to make a case that Sibrel knew he was misrepresenting his evidence. Even total incompetence doesn't account for all his "errors." In my judgment, he intentionally and maliciously misstates the evidence.
Likewise, in Bennett and Percy's magnum dopus, "Dark Moon," page 22, there are two photos of tree shadows that they claim are parallel, but the laying-on of straightedges shows that the shadow lines in each photo intersect near the top of the adjacent photo.
This is one of Percy's most annoying gaffes. Not only do the three tree shadows converge, contrary to the author's claim, but Percy actually draws his "guide" line right over one of the shadows!
Of course this is not the preferred method of discerning shadows. Only when you can make informed judgments about the shape of the object and the lay of the receiving terrain can you look at the extent of the shadow in an image and infer directional information from it. The rigorous method of shadow vanishing-point analysis is to connect a feature on an object with the corresponding shadow of the same feature. A "pencil" of such cast rays -- even in image space -- will point either to the light source or to the antipode of the light source, also in image space.
Such shenanigans rank right up there with drawing a line from the top of something in an image to the tip of its shadow in the image and pretending that gives the light-source elevation. Lay persons will likely be fooled by this nonsense, but as Percy has discovered it does not fool anyone. What's even worse is that before publishing his own book, he wrote of this in the Fortean Times and was shredded by an angry mob of photographers and photo interpreters. He should have looked to than as an indication of how his claims would be received by a wider audience. The fact that he ignored every correction and simply repeated his claims in the book suggests a vast quantity of intellectual dishonesty.
-
If so, I wonder if he had the good sense to pause and check the part in Sibrel's video "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" where the narrator says, "When objects are lit solely by the sun... then all shadows, regardless of the landscape, will run parallel with one another and never intersect, as shown by this example." (It's at 0:24:32 in my 0:46:56 copy.)
A typical layperson who casually looks at the example might agree that the shadows are indeed parallel, but a more sensible person with a truly investigative bent would naturally pause the scene and check the shadows with straightedges. Two sheets of A4 paper would do the trick on a small screen.
And lo and behold, the investigator will find that Sibrel's own shadows are certainly not parallel, and if extended far enough would indeed intersect near the edge of the screen.
It can also be a matter of perspective (pun intended).
Even lines on a photograph that you KNOW are parallel in reality, will most often not be parallel when measured on a photo. This is due to the vagaries of trying to display a three-dimensional world using two-dimensional media.
(http://www.joellesedlmeyer.com/img/s4/v69/p1149586620-3.jpg)
Everyone knows that the marking lines in a car park are parallel. This photo must be a fake, right?
-
(http://www.joellesedlmeyer.com/img/s4/v69/p1149586620-3.jpg)
Everyone knows that the marking lines in a car park are parallel. This photo must be a fake, right?
Well, there's more than one light source so hoax, obviously ;D
-
No, supercomputing and the surveillance state.
My question was a joke, of course, but it sounds closer than I feared, especially with RT in the mix.
Re: Percy, etc.
Sounds like we've made our way back around to that famous exchange at the HSCA hearings:
Mr. GOLDSMITH: I just have one more question Mr. White. Do you know what photogrammetry is?
Mr. WHITE: No.
Mr. GOLDSMITH: I have no further questions. Thank you.
-
Mr. GOLDSMITH: I just have one more question Mr. White. Do you know what photogrammetry is?
Mr. WHITE: No.
Mr. GOLDSMITH: I have no further questions. Thank you.
Wasn't that amazing? I'd have thought that after a humiliating experience like that, any normal human being would have crawled home with his tail between his legs and never have been heard from again. But I underestimate people like Jack White, and many other parasites on fame. They seem to be immune to embarassment. In fact, I'm beginning to think that's a prerequisite for being a politician.
-
Welcome back to the board, Allan!
You guaranteed no documentation such as is shown below existed. How do you propose to satisfy your guarantee? Will you acknowledge your error, or cling to it?
...Apollo 4 and 6 trajectories followed roughly the same path through the inner belt, the Apollo 6 trajectory spent more time in the region of highest proton intensity (as shown in Fig. 9) and, therefore, should have encountered more radiation dose... (my note: which it did!)
Very interesting! I didn't know this had been true for Apollos 4 and 6. Looks like 6 in particular passed right through the center of the inner belt. Does that reference give any dosimeter readings? It would be interesting to see what a worst case looks like.
A short excerpt from the Apollo 4 report:
5.20.3 Radiation Monitoring
There were three radiation monitoring instruments, an integrating radiation dosimeter (IRD) and two nuclear emulsion spectrometers (NES), onboard the Apollo 4 spacecraft. All three instruments were recovered successfully and returned to MSC in good condition. The IRD measureda skin dose of 0.59 rads and a depth dose of 0.38 rads.
Thanks, Tanalia. Here is another excerpt showing that, yes, VAB trapped particle radiation was a hazard - just not the impossible one claimed by hoax believers (nor the straw man of "you say it's no problem at all" used by so many HBs).
The measured and calculated VABD dose rates encountered in the inner radiation belt during the ascending portion of the Apollo 6 high-altitude orbit are shown in Figure 11. Peak dose rates of 3.6 and 2.6 rad/hr for the unshielded and shielded sensors, respectively, were encountered at altitudes of 1400 and 1500 n.mi as the spacecraft passed through the most intense portion of the inner radiation belt. The Apollo 6 dose-rate measurements indicate that extended operation of a manned Apollo CM at altitudes between 800 and 2400 n.mi. would be severely limited because of dose rates in excess of 1 rad/hr. Astronaut activity in more thinly shielded vehicles than the CM, such as the lunar module, or space suits would most likely be prohibited at these altitudes.
Again, the primary mitigations were "go fast" and "stay in the CM", as well as "go through the less intense regions".
-
You guaranteed no documentation such as is shown below existed. How do you propose to satisfy your guarantee? Will you acknowledge your error, or cling to it?
(http://bestuff.com/images/images_of_stuff/210x600/la-la-la-im-not-listening-83523.jpg?1186530106)
His "guarantee" will be as solid as Anders Bjorkman's.....