Uhm, yes it would. Frenat is actually correct. If you have a 10% reflective surface, 90% of the solar energy is delivered to that surface and what is beneath. If you however have a 99% reflective surface, only 1% of the energy is delivered to the surface and below....

Best,
Badeskov

They would have been fried. Lots of charged particles one doesn't really want flitting through the body

Best,
Badeskov

This is what I find very dubious.

We're supposed to believe that NASA would be willing to take such enormous risks - with a heavily modified, untested vehicle, to attempt a moon landing - for the very first time with astronauts onboard. And even more unbelievable, to also attempt an ascent from the lunar surface for the very first time with astronauts onboard.

And furthermore, that they would attempt this feat a mere 2 months after a near-catastrophic failure with the previous LM..

An error in switch postion brought a heart-stopping moment when the LM ascent stage went into wild gyrations after separation from the descent stage - possible a fatal error if it had occurred during take off from the surface on a landing mission.

Incorrect switch setting led to wild gyrations when the LM ascent stage separated at an altitude of 15 km above the lunar surface. The crew regained control only two seconds before the LM would have been an an irreversible course to crash on the moon. Final dress rehearsal in lunar orbit for landing on moon. LM separated and descended to 10 km from surface of moon but did not land.

http://www.astronautix.com/details/apo27559.htm



How can you claim the Eagle went through "exhaustive testing"?? You just finished mentioning that Snoopy's flight was "the final test" before - and for - the Eagle. It almost ended in complete disaster, and it didn't even land on the moon (or lift off from the moon)!

But just 2 months later, NASA is somehow prepared to send a heavily modified LM - with astronauts onboard - to land on the moon (for the first time ever), lift off from the lunar surface (for the first time ever), and rendezvous with a CM in lunar orbit?

You say that "Luck had little to do with it". And I agree. But not because of "exhaustive testing" - indeed, as NASA's own records show, the Eagle wasn't actually tested beforehand.

They didn't need any luck, because the LM (like the rest of Apollo) was 'all show and no go'. It was all staged, so they didn't have to worry about putting the LM through instensive testing. They only waited 2 months after the previous mission (Apollo 10) until the next one (Apollo 11), but they could have done it 2 days later, for all it really mattered!


The problem was that NASA had been given a task with a totally unrealistic goal - to land men on the moon and safely return them to Earth before the end of the decade (the 1960's). It was an incredible, overly hopeful dream that the US government hatched up in 1961. But it was an utterly naive, idealistic statement. And it left NASA with no choice but to either admit it wasn't possible, or to fake it. So they decided to fake it.

It becomes very obvious when one looks at the complete timeline of US space 'achievements'. From 1960 to mid-Dec. 1968, there is a very gradual progression (by both the US and the USSR) in achievements, through many years of trial and error, as they finally advanced to manned LEO missions.

That all changed Dec. 21, 1968, with Apollo 8...

To beat the Soviet Union to the moon, in August 1968 NASA changed Apollo 8's D-mission from a low-earth orbit Lunar Module/Command Module test, to a lunar orbital flight, and renamed it the C-prime mission. The new mission's profile, procedures and training, were prepared in an uncharacteristically very short time-frame, between August and December 1968

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_8

So now, along comes an amazingly advanced mission, all prepared within "an uncharacteristically very short time-frame"!

Why? Well, because we were very concerned about "beating the Russians to the moon", of course.

As long as we (the public) don't really think about how many years it's taken for us just to get men into LEO, then we won't think about how utterly ludicrous it is when they tell us we were able to send men to the moon and back within the next few months! Or when they tell us they put men right on the moon in another few months.


It's not a matter of NASA throwing caution to the wind, and ignoring/leapfrogging several steps in advancing towards that goal. That would not be a matter of "risk-taking", nor would it be foolish - indeed, it would actually be insane.

But they weren't insane, or foolish, or risk-takers. They were staging a fraud, and they had to wrap it up within the next year (1969). That required massive leaps in progress, beyond all reality.

Interesting perspective. But the "Mother of All Moon Hoax Threads", as I think you denoted it at some point, did indeed uphold a breathtaking posting pace in it's 3 month short active existence. This thread at hand is indeed very educative and I for one enjoy just reading as the posts trickle along

Please do keep it up

Best,
Badeskov

Personally, I don't care what you believe. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, but you asked for information, I gave it to you. If you choose not to accept the verified, historical facts presented to you, then that's your problem, and it shows a total lack of willingness to actually learn about the subject you are talking about.

Moving on...

As to "untested", perhaps it would be better to say that it was the Eagle's "maiden" (and only) voyage. The LM design and systems were hardly untested, a fact that you would know if you took a few minutes to stop the hand waving and actually read the documentation that's available about the testing it went through. You make it sound like the LM was just thrown together willy nilly and sent up there, but c'mon Turbo, you and I (and a whole lot of others) know that's just not true. The LM had been in development for 7 years by the time the Eagle landed on the Moon in 1969.

Source: Apollo Program Summary Report, section 4.5 "Lunar Module Development Program"

4.5.2 Test Articles and Ground Test Program
The lunar module development program utilized a series of ground test vehicles for establishing the production configuration and man-rating the flight vehicles. In increasing order of development complexity, the types of vehicles employed were mockups (M series), test modules (TM series), and lunar module test articles (LTA series). In some instances, the total lunar module configuration was simulated; however, in other instances, only the area of test interest was simulated.


Actually, by the time Apollo 10 was on its way to the Moon, the Eagle was already stowed away inside Apollo 11's S-IV-B stage of the Saturn V and the whole stack was on the crawler heading to launch pad 39A (Apollo 10 was launched from pad 39B and was the only Saturn V mission launched from that pad). The changes between LM-4 (Snoopy) and LM-5 (Eagle) had already been made. The incident on Snoopy wasn't even a "systems failure", but was a "procedural failure" - as I will show further on in this post - which did not require any physical changes to be made to the Eagle.


Interestingly, that second paragraph above that I have underlined does not show up on the page that you have linked to.

It is however, part of this page: http://www.astronautix.com/flights/apollo10.htm

You should try to be more precise when quoting sources. A minor thing, yes, I know, but still important.

Also interesting is that in all the documentation I have looked through regarding this incident, I have never once seen anything that says they were "seconds away from imminent doom". Perhaps the author of that website has access to other material that I don't, or perhaps the author is just expressing his interpretation of the event. In any regard, all I'm saying is that the documentation I have does not reflect that position.

Anyway... here's another quote from further down that same page that gives some details of the incident:

"After Stafford's camera failed, he and Cernan had little to do except look at the scenery until time to dump the descent stage. Stafford had the vehicle in the right attitude 10 minutes early. Cernan asked, "You ready?" Then he suddenly exclaimed, "Son of a b****!" Snoopy seemed to be throwing a fit, lurching wildly about. He later said it was like flying an Immelmann turn in an aircraft, a combination of pitch and yaw. Stafford yelled that they were in gimbal lock - that the engine had swiveled over to a stop and stuck - and they almost were. He called out for Cernan to thrust forward. Stafford then hit the switch to get rid of the descent stage and realized they were 30 degrees off from their previous attitude. The lunar module continued its crazy gyrations across the lunar sky, and a warning light indicated that the inertial measuring unit really was about to reach its limits and go into gimbal lock. Stafford then took over in manual control, made a big pitch maneuver, and started working the attitude control switches. Snoopy finally calmed down.

For this first lunar module flight to the vicinity of the moon, the pilots were supposed to use the abort guidance system instead of the primary guidance system, to test performance in the lunar environment. The abort system had two basic control modes, "attitude hold" and "automatic." In automatic, the computer would take over the guidance and start looking for the command module, which was certainly not what the crew wanted to do just then. In correcting for a minor yaw-rate-gyro disturbance, the pilots had accidentally switched the spacecraft to the automatic mode, and the frantic gyrations resulted. From Cernan's startled ejaculation to Stafford's report that everything was under control took only three minutes. Flight control told the crewmen they had made an error in switching, but the system was fine. They could fire the ascent engine. After the firing, the lander flew what Stafford called a "Dutch roll," yawing and pitching and snaking along. When the engine shut down, however, to the crew's surprise the attitude and flight path to the command module were correct.

Also, here's an excerpt from the PAO (Public Affairs Office) Commentary transcript regarding the cause of the incident:

May 22, 1969, 20:07 CDT, 104:18 GET (tape 376, page 1)
"This is Apollo Control at 104 hours 18 minutes. We're not quite 2 minutes away from acquisition of the Command Module. We'll try to give you a - an explanation of what happened during the staging sequence. The backup guidance system, the AGS or Abort Guidance System mode control switch was set in AUTO because the - the radar had been used to track the Command Module, and they were using the AUTO mode for reaction control system added to control. Now at - the - this mode control switch should have been placed in attitude hold for staging, but it was not because that step had been omitted from the checklist. So the control system maneuvered the Lunar Module to lock on to the Command Module as the computer directed, but that was not the proper attitude for staging, and the crew were not sure whether the went to pulse mode or to manual, straight manual control, but thye went to one of those two modes to get out of that situation, and the staging went well."

Here are the relevant excerpts from the Apollo 10 Onboard Voice Transcription - Lunar Module:

(CDR = Tom Stafford, LMP = Gene Cernan, CMP = John Young, CC = CapCom)
04:06:45:16 CDR - STAGE. Gimbal lock.
04:06:45:19 LMP - Son of a b***h.
04:06:45:20 CDR - Let's go to PGNS. God damn.
04:06:45:25 LMP - Okay, let's - let's make this burn on the AGS, babe.
04:06:45:30 CDR - We're in trouble.
04:06:45:34 LMP - Make this - make this burn on the AGS. Got a good staging. Let's make it on the AGS
04:06:45:46 CDR - How are the AGS? Are we okay? I think we're okay, Gene-o. Proceed.
04:06:45:50 LMP - Did you get into gimbal lock?
04:06:45:51 CDR - Yes, but we got out of it.


04:07:09:13 CC - Roger. We think we can help you psyche out your problem, there, at staging. It looked like the MODE CONTROL switch was in AUTO instead of ATT HOLD. Over.
04:07:09:23 CDR - God damn! Okay - Okay, we'll try to re - recollect it. I thought we went right through our checklist, as prescribed, but you got telemetry. That'll sure help.


04:07:10:06 CMP - Snoopy, we're going to acquire - acquire you on VHF again.
04:07:10:11 LMP - Okay, we'll be quiet, John
04:07:10:24 CDR - Okay. How did we have that in ATTITUDE HOLD?
04:07:10:30 LMP - I thought we did, babe. Shh. Be quiet while he's talk - acquiring. He can hear us hot mike.
04:07:10:34 CDR - Yes.

[at this point, Snoopy was having problems reacquiring comm lock and did not hear CapCom's transmission explaining the checklist problem.
According to the PAO Transcript, page 591 (tape 327/1) at approximately 04:07:10:40 CapCom was saying the following:

"Snoop, Houston. We noticed on your checklist that minus 14 minutes prior to - prior to insertion, we have an omission on the mode control switch. It doesn't call out its position, and we think that's where we ran astray. Over."]

04:07:11:25 CC - Snoop, Houston. Over
04:07:11:27 CDR - Go ahead, Houston.
04:07:11:31 CC - Roger, Tom. Would you like some further amplification on that staging problem? We think the error came at minus 14 minutes where we failed to call out the AGS MODE CONTROL switch into ATT HOLD. Over.
04:07:11:45 CDR - Okay

So as you can see, the problem was not a design flaw with the LM or a system failure at all, but was an error on the checklist. The LM systems did exactly what they were supposed to do, but they were being told to do the wrong thing. The problem, while certainly critical, was over in less than a minute, worked out and solved in less than 1/2 hour. All that was required to ensure this did not happen again was the adding of one or two short lines of text the LM ckecklists.


7 years of testing is not enough for you?

I don't claim the Eagle (or the LM as a whole) was tested, Grumman and NASA provide the proof that there was a very comprehensive testing program carried out on all the LM systems during the design and manufacture. I am merely relating those facts to you and supplying you with the relevant supporting documentation.

They are not claims, they are facts backed up with documentation.

By the way... the car that you drive (I'm assuming you drive), how much testing did that specific vehicle go through before it was sent to the dealership? Did the manufacturer comprehensively test every single vehicle they built? Or did they build prototypes and other test platforms and test the heck out of those, then apply the data from those testbeds to the vehicle design before they started making the production models? How about airplanes? We all know that aircraft manufacturers test all of an aircraft's systems and subsystems thoroughly before they produce a working prototype.

This is exactly what Grumman (an aircraft manufacturer, btw) did while building the LM's. They comprehensively tested each subsystem individually and also collectively by various methods, making changes to the design as they went and incorporating what changes were necessary into the "production models" (and I use that term just to differentiate between the ground test vehicles and systems they used and the actual flown vehicles). The LM systems were then flight tested on Apollo 5 (LM-1 - un-manned), Apollo 9 (LM-3 - manned) and Apollo 10 (LM-4 - manned). So while the Eagle itself had not actually flown before it was launched to the Moon, the ship's systems were tested as LM-5 was assembled and the OVERALL LM DESIGN had been flown 3 times and proven to be spaceworthy and, according to all the data they had collected from all the testing, capable of landing on the Moon.

Of course something could have happened - some accident or serious malfunction - that prevented the Eagle from either landing or from lifting off from the surface of the Moon, but those risks were well know, the astronauts trained for situations like that (Michael Collins was trained and prepared to pilot the CM Columbia back to Earth by himself if necessary) and the astronauts accepted those risks.

Just because YOU find those risks personally unacceptable (which is your right) and YOU would not get in that spacecraft (which is also your right), that does not mean that those men - trained military officers, veteran fighter pilots and experienced test pilots who risked their lives every time they went up on a combat sortee or patrol or when flight testing some new prototype aircraft - would find those risks unacceptable.


Yep... they were ready, the hardware was ready, they systems had been checked out both on the ground and in space, the men were trained and they were ready and anxious to go.


Where in NASA's records does it show the Eagle wasn't tested? Can you provide a link or a document reference to back up that statement? Or is this just another "opinion" of yours?

I will direct your attention to this website:

Lunar Module, SpaceCraft Assembly & Test, Grumman Bethpage

which is a site documenting the manufacturing, assembly and testing procedures and people who did them.

Examples from http://www.ehartwell.com/LM//SCATTest.htm


"This LM 5 in its work stand . The LM was both assembled and electrically tested in the stands."

Further down that page:

What is an OCP?

The LM Subsystems and Integrated systems were tested as the vehicle was being assembled in work stands in plant 5. The LM sampled measurements, (i.e., 5x per sec., 100x per sec. . . . etc.) were transmitted in a Pulse Coded Modulation (PCM) mode, were down linked , were coupled with plugs in "carry on" measurements, were signal conditioned and then sent to the ACE (Acceptance Checkout Equipment) station. The ACE station displayed hundreds of measurements per second to test engineers manning positions in the ACE room. These measurements were "real time" displayed on "paged" CRT's, bush recorders, and event lights. The LM was basically tested in a pseudo flight configuration mode. The persons in the LM cabin (LMP and CDR) performed actions under the direction of the "Test Conductor". Personnel in the ACE room then verified the correctness of the resulting measurements coming down from the LM. Each second, hundreds of measurements would be sampled from the LM subsystems.

Given the information contained on the linked website and the quotes above, I now ask you to retract this false statement:

"the Eagle wasn't actually tested beforehand."


Your opinion only, not substantiated by any facts or verifiable evidence.


Perhaps they could have gone two days later, but they did wait two months because that's when the launch was scheduled for, and they succeeded in reaching the Moon and succeeded in landing the Eagle on the Moon with Neil and Buzz on board and then succeeded in lifting off the surface of the Moon and succeeded in rendezvousing with Michael Collins in the Columbia in lunar orbit and then succeeded in returning to the Earth and landing safely, just as the verified historical record shows.

That, my friend, is not my opinion. It is documented and verified historical fact.



Unrealistic to some, perhaps, but a challenging and worthy goal to those who made it happen.


Your opinion only, not substantiated by any facts or verifiable evidence.


What is obvious is that they decided they were ready to go. LM-3 wasn't going to be ready in time for the original Apollo 8 mission, so rather then delay the whole program, they reassigned the original Apollo 8 mission and crew to Apollo 9. Since the Block II Command Module had proved itself in LEO during Apollo 7's "shakedown cruise", they felt they were ready to send the next vehicle in line to the Moon. They had to go sometime, so why not with this mission? They had the time in the schedule and it allowed them to complete some mission objectives that were slated for the Apollo 10 mission.


From the start of the Space race with Sputnik in October, 1957, it took just a little over 4 years to put an American in orbit (John Glenn, Freedom 7 (Mercury-Atlas 6), February 20, 1962). By the end of the Mercury program, NASA had a pretty good idea that they could put a man safely in LEO and get him back safely. Project Gemini furthered that research and focused on developing the techniques necessary for Apollo and also for testing the endurance of the space craft and the astronauts.

So to look at it in terms of your statement, it took NASA 4 years and 4 months "just to get men into LEO".

What has that got to do with Apollo 8 going to the Moon? There's a time difference of almost 7 (EDIT... bad math on my part, I originally said 8) years from Glenn's first orbital flight to Apollo 8 orbiting the Moon. How long should it have taken and what documented facts do you base that conclusion upon?


Your opinions only, not supported by facts or any verifiable evidence.

In fact, it is entirely contradicted by the historical record of NASA's manned space program.


What verifiable evidence do you have that backs up this preposterous statement?

And as I have stated before:


I'll actually revise that statement a little to also include the name "Jarrah White" as not acceptable.

You make a lot of noise and flap your arms very well. I'll also add that, as other have said, even though your conclusions, theories and opinions are wrong and show a vivid imagination, but a complete lack of understanding and an unwillingness to do much of your own research, you generally provide fairly well though out posts.

So how about providing us with some of that evidence you've been saying you're going to provide for the last few months...?


Hope you had a great Christmas and best wishes for the New Year





Cz

EDITED grammatically...

OK.

You know you're asking an awful lot here!


There were alot of strange little comments concerning temperature on the Moon which I can address.

Unfortunately, it appears that the majority of them came from Ralph Rene's letter to Tom Hanks (???) trying to convince him not to make the movie, Apollo 13 (I am certain that Mr. Hanks was impressed...if he ever read it).

One of these little sections was entitled, MOON LANDINGS, and said (verbatim...which says alot about Rene...):




He really said this.

He makes an unquantified, yet true statement in saying that insulation doesn't entirely stop the flow of heat, but rather impedes it. It's the degree of impedance which is not discussed. Insulation's effects depend upon many factors; the rate at which thermal conductivity occurs is proportional to the thickness of the material it's going through, the cross-sectional area over which it travels, the temperature gradients between its surfaces and its thermal conductivity. Additionally, most gasses are poor conductors of thermal energy, thus, spaces between layers help insulation effect.

When addressing thermal radiation and barriers to it, these barriers possess the characteristics of low emissivity (which is a measure of the materials ability to absorb and radiate energy relative to a classic black body), low absorptivity and high reflectivity in the infra-red spectrum.

All insulation impedes the flow of heat energy. However, it depends on the insulation and its construction as to it's efficiency.

The Apollo suits were highly efficient, composed of over a dozen layers of alternating types of thermal insulation material, all covered by a thick and highly reflective outer layer (the suits were white for a reason).

The fact is, solar heating was not very readily absorbed at all by this armor the crews wore. They were highly reflective and insulating against radiant heat.

Now...if you take a frozen hot dog and toss it in your oven, as this genius did...it'll cook. And I'm sure we'd all be duly impressed. But it has no insulation against the radiant heat provided by the oven. The argument he puts forth here is almost ludicrous in its complete lack of sense or relevance.

What he should've done is placed that frozen hot dog into a good thermos bottle...one of those with the reflective metal exterior, and placed that in the oven for twenty minutes. The result would be...he'd open the bottle to find a largely frozen hot dog still inside.


Bottom line: the suits provided more than adequate insulation against solar heat.


There was another seemingly associated bit at the end which adressed the thermal cooling garment that the astronauts wore against their skin inside the suit. I believe that Mr. White was attempting to illustrate some proof that the suits did indeed get hot from solar heating.

Just as Mr. Rene's reasoning is often seen to be full of holes, and often completely irrelevant, Mr. White posesses an innate inability to understand simplicity and rationality, and to actually investigate the matters he speaks to whatsoever.

There was in fact a cooling garment which the astronauts wore around their skin, underneath the suit. And therein lies the reason...the suit, and the human body sealed within it.

This garment wasn't just some 14 layers of various insulating and protective material. All that covered the pressure garment, a snug fitting, rubber-like garment (think of a wet suit, only stronger, and thicker and much more cumbersome). When you climb into one of these things, and seal it up..there's no way to dissapate BODY HEAT. You will, without adequate circulation, and some way of removing excess body heat (allowing it to radiate away from you), quickly overheat, get real sweaty, start losing electrolytes, and eventually, be impeded to the point of passing out.

The suit cooling system dissapated body heat, not solar heat.

So you see, the suit protected against radiant heat from the sun (and a bunch of other stuff), and it also dissapated body heat to keep everyone comfy and healthy inside while they worked out on the surface.

End of installment 1.

Take it easy guys, i'm supposed to be on holidays
Great info though.

To continue...


There's another segment called ENIGMA, which I reproduce (again, verbatim.):



Again, he attaches an irrelevancy at the end, with that bit about the Moon's surface temperature during the day. It has nothing to do with what he's talking about.

...~250 degrees F is the maximum lunar surface temperature during the day, a figure never experienced by any Apollo lunar crew, since landings were done during lunar morning, when the surface was much more moderate...but again, this is irrelevant.


The real enigma of space is that heat and cold are both problems, depending on what you're talking about.

The general statements he makes about space lacking matter is functionally correct, and only matter can become hot or cold. Both things happen routinely in space. He is very unclear (which is not too surprizing) about his equilibrium statement, or where he comes up with 250 degrees F as that point.


But the fact is, we never found out on an Apollo mission how hot a sun side could get, or how cold an non-sun side would get. We know that the sun will heat things, and lack of sun will allow things to cool. There was alot of sensitive gear in the SM, and any extremes in temperature were to be avoided, for obvious reasons (too much heat being absorbed by pressurized materials and you might blow a tank, too much cold and you might freeze up essential gear, like thruster valve assemblies and the like).

The fact is, how hot something's going to get is a function of how much heat energy is being applied to it, how long its exposed to that energy, and how well insulated the system is. In the case of the SM, it wasn't nearly as insulated as the CM, which was a pressurized thermos bottle in a way. To mitigate problems associated with constant thermal effect from the Sun, the spacecraft was placed into an attitude perpendicular to the ecliptic plane, basically, and rolled. Simply put, it basically spun around its long axis roughly three times every hour, thus, balancing out solar heating with the cooling effect of space, and normalizing temperatures uniformly throughout the vehicle structure.

Rotisserie Mode, as it was called informally.

Basic thermodynamics is key to understanding why we say space is cold or hot. I know, it's kind of confusing (space really isn't either...).
Since there is virtually no medium in space for conduction or convection of heat, a body which generates heat in space gains or loses it by radiation. If any body in space radiates more heat than it absorbs, it cools off.

When you observe a common waste water dump in space, you invariably see ice crystals immediately form. The small amount of heat they carry radiates quickly into the vacuum.

You get hot if the Sun's shining on you, and you'll rapid get cold if it's not.


When you're talking about Apollo 13, you're talking about cold in the CM environment, which gradually dropped from the time of full power down from it's nominal 70 degrees to a low of 43 degrees F some 80 hours later.

Because the CM is so well insulated against radiant heat from the outside (and micrometeoroids, and various radiations) it's natural state in space was to be cool unless some form of heating was provided interiorally. This heat came from the barrage of electrical equipment which was constantly powered up in that relatively small space. In fact, excess interior heat was removed by the coolant system.

When that's gone, the natural result is that heat begins to diminish. It radiates into the walls of the vehicle, and cabin leakage (there was a minimal amount of that through both the LM and CM structures...lots of vents and things like that) allowed more heat to radiate off into space. A discussion of the nominal BTU loss through the structure of the CM can be found in NASA SP-368, Biomedical Results of Apollo, Section VI, Chapter 5, CSM and LM Environmental Control Systems Analysis.


If Apollo 13's CM didn't get cold, something would've been very wrong with reality!

End of Installment 2.

Just thinking, the argument about the Lunar Module is that right? But how could they have actually flight-tested it in the conditions for which it was designed beforehand? Unless they could somehow construct a way of replicating the moon's gravity and vacuum on earth, in a big enough space to actually fly the LM in, then the first time it landed on the Moon would be the first time that it was tested in the environment it was designed for. Even in earth orbit, they wouldn't have been able to practice landings and takeoffs, I'd have thought. With a plane, gravity and atmosphere is going to be pretty much a constant anywhere (and you can go to, say, arctic or desert regions for testing in extreme conditions), but you can't do that with a spacecraft whose sole purpose is to land on another planet, until you get to that planet.*

*ok, satellite

Yawn...


There was also a statement relative to Skylab and its overheating problems, as if to sustain the position that Apollo 13 should've been hot.




Skylab actually spent only 1/3 of its time in the shade, due to it's 50 degree orbital inclination. It needed a micrometeoroid / sun shield to reflect sunlight and reduce absorbed heat. It didn't have that after launch, and so, spending 67% of it's time in the sun, it got hot, and didn't have enough time in the shade to radiate away excess heat. Additionally, there wasn't much if any power flowing due to the jammed solar array, and of course, power was necesary for the cooling system to work effectively.

When Skylab 2 got on orbit, they installed a shield, and deployed the solar array. Temperatures were swiftly reduced to livable levels. Skylab's problems had no relation to Apollo 13's.

Skylab had no passive thermal control. It wasn't rolled to evenly distribute heating and cooling (that would sort of make it's observatory functions a litle difficult to manage!). All it's thermal controls were active, and required power (which it didn't have enough of initially), and a reflective shield to cover the sun facing side of the workshop, which was much larger than the Apollo spacecraft, and didn't have the shiny, reflective coating that the CM had. It spent 2/3 of its time with one side in the sun, it was much larger, and absorbed alot more heat. The CM, although in the Sun alot, spent no more than 20 minutes with any part of it exposed directly to Sun, and it was continually rotating. Skylab spent an hour out of every hour and a half in the Sun, and it wasn't rotating.


I think this ends it.

At least as much as I want to get into Rene's silliness, and White's adherance to it....


I hope I haven't bored anbybody to death trying to make what's actually a complex set of circumstances seem simple!

We shall try, Bade!

Adequate insulation, and a reflective exterior, Hat.
The CM had both of them.

Take a look (AS11-37-3443), Apollo 11 CSM viewed from the LM in lunar orbit, 20 July, 1969.

What is dubious is that still, despite the documented evidence, you still cling to the notion that the LM was untested, and have this idea that a manned vehicle, designed to be flown by men, to the surface of the Moon, and which had performed so admirably on unmanned flights, as well as two thoroughly busy, and fully crammed manned engineering test missions, would be landed on the Moon un-manned...

I suppose we'd just send a manned CM out with a LM, which would have to be configured to do everything it was supposed to (with manual input) by virtue of ground commands, and sent down to the surface via computer control.

It could've flown the landing approach via computer control. But if we went down to Apollo Landing Site 2, without men on board, odds are that the LM would've just suddenly gone LOS, because it crashed in an area that it couldn't see...since there were no fellows looking out those windows at where the computer was taking them.

We'd have data drop out, and nothing else to analyze. No article, no pictures, no idea what happened or why.

Now, that's just dumb. It was ready to try the landing. The men were ready to try it. Thus, in a completely logical progression of the intense test program that had been ongoing, the next logical thing was to go the next step, and land the thing. We knew it worked...all of it. We simply hadn't landed it yet. We needed to continue the process, and that's what we did.

And you propose an ascent from the surface (again, implying that the blind LM computers didn't land in a boulder field) without men?
What about the platform alignments necessary to make sure the computer's ready to guide them at the appropriate time, what about the vast checklist that had to be executed by men aboard before you lit 'er up?


Do you know what sort of incredibly expensive changes would have to be made in order to allow all this stuff to be executed by a machine?

The idea of such a flight, if proposed to a crew that had been involved in a manned space flight test program, one which was filled with such good data and performance of a MANNED vehicle, would be looked on as nuts.

What would be truly unbelievable is that given the success of Apollo 9, and Apollo 10, that Apollo 11 would be an unmanned landing attempt, with a vehicle that was designed to do it manned...

In your opinion it was a task with a totally unrealistic goal.
To John Kennedy, a man of high intellect, who had consulted with his advisors and with space flight experts and many scientists for many months, it was not.
There was nothing naive about this decision. It was based upon the best information the President could get, and intense discussions with experts.


And actually, there is a completely logical, and very rapid sequence of accomplishments associated with what the U.S. did in space from the start. It was an amazingly exhilarating experience.
From Earth orbit and manual control of space craft in 1962, to a two man spacecraft with orbital manuevering capability in March 1965, and then, rendezvous, docking, flight duration records, and EVA mastery, which all occurred in the next 20 months of intense labor and risky flight testing (which were in no way devoid of some very hairy moments), were amazing accomplishments. We moved very fast considering the unknowns we explored on each mission.

After Apollo 7, we had a proven CSM, a vehicle which performed in Earth orbit for longer than a lunar mission would require. It functioned beautifully.
Going all the way out to the Moon involved one thing: developing the CMC software for G & N, which was already in work during Apollo 7, and which could be ready by December, 1968, according to Chris Craft...and if he said so, it would be so.

So...why not?
The flight control team was ready, and the crew was ready and willing, and the LM wasn't yet. Repeating Apollo 7 was a waste. Again, a logical, if not bold progression which involved a lot of logic, and certainly more risk...but again, that risk was managed adequately in the eyes of the flight control teams and the crew. Thus, we went. It made perfect sense based on what we had at our disposal at the time. It was just another leap in a series of leaps we'd been making steadily for the past three years.


And, it really capped off a bad year in American history...one of the worst, with a crowning visual, an emotional high, and...finally, confirmation that there is indeed a Santa Claus, provided by NASA (one of the many benefits of Apollo)...

Were you around for this fake picture? Christmas Eve, 1968 (Santa Claus is actually off to the right of the frame...tracking had him and his eight tiny reindeer at ~ 040 degrees from the CSM at a range of 18 NM at the time...subsequent frames showed a bright red light about 6 degrees over the horizon...).

What that really meant was that there are alien bases on the dark side of the moon, of course.

Shhhh...I didn't want to go there!

I thought Santa was based on Neptune?

"Your mistletoe is no match for my T.O.W. missile!" - Robot Santa

I didn't say the LM design and systems were untested, I specifically said the Eagle - which was an extensively modified/revised version of the LM - was untested.



The problem I have is that the development and testing for the LM did not continue to progress in this manner. That is, after many years of slow and steady progress, they were suddenly able to make incredible advancements over the next few months. By 'incredible', I mean just that - the stunning advancements they claim to have made with the LM over such a short period of time, are simply not credible.



Your analogy is flawed.

For one thing, the cars we drive today are based on over 100 years of research and development, while continually implementing advanced technology, further refinements, etc. The Eagle was based on a mere 7 years of LM development. You put 7 years in bold, as if that would be more than enough time - to develop a completely new type of vehicle, able to perform a multitude of functions and operations with complete reliability, within a virtually unknown, alien environment.

Now we have a relevant analogy. Let's say this was our first car...

An automobile powered by an Otto gasoline engine was built in Mannheim, Germany by Karl Benz in 1885.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile

Now, I'll go out on a limb here - I'll bet that you can't find any of these on the sales lot of your local car dealer...

Or find a car built 20, 30, or 40 years later? That would take us into the 1920's, and the Model T.



Another analogy way off the mark.

Take it from the Wright Brothers, and go 7 years forward. 'Nuff said.



They flight-tested the "overall LM design" a whole 3 times?! Whew, that's really putting it through the ringer!

It's ridiculous.



"those risks were well known"

"the astronauts trained for situations like that"

Those claims are simply ridiculous, I'm sorry to say.

The LM had never landed on the moon even once before. The LM had never lifted off from the moon even once before. Not just the version of the LM they called the "Eagle", but no version of the LM!

These are very serious issues, and you can't simply write them off with little catch-phrases, like "those risks were well known", or "the astronauts trained for situations like that".

How would the risks be "well known", when they're attempting completely unprecedented feats, such as these?

I can imagine a NASA spokesman trying to explain it....

"Yes, in spite of the fact that we're going to try to land on the moon, and lift off from it, for the very first time ever, the risks involved are "well known" to us, and our astronauts are "trained for situations like that"

Come on, this is complete nonsense!



It's not a matter of personal opinion. The issue is not even debatable. You may as well claim that astronauts walked on Saturn, because "the risks were well known to them".



Sorry, but if anyone here should be retracting false statements, it's you. The Eagle (supposedly) landed on the moon and lifted off the moon, for the first time ever. This is not open for debate, whether you believe it did so, or you don't - either way, that is what happened according to NASA. Those operations, whether they really took place or not, were not tested (by the Eagle, or by any other LM) at any time beforehand.



Because they weren't even close to being able to send men beyond LEO in 1969. We still can't do it, for that matter.

There's an immense difference between wanting to do something, and actually being able to do it.

But the problem is that many people have great difficulty in making that distinction for Apollo. It's so much better, and so much easier, to just believe that it was a true event(s), and not question and evaluate its credibility.

"We had to go sometime", is actually "We'd like to go sometime".



Try to look at what (I think) can be agreed on....

In 1957, we (and the USSR) had no idea if man could survive in space. Not just in deep space, but even in LEO. We didn't know what effect(s) zero gravity would have on humans. So after we were able to build spacecraft that could fly in LEO, we started to put all sorts of life forms inside these craft, and sent them off into LEO.

Finding out it was safe for dogs and chimps to fly in LEO, we decided it was safe to send humans into LEO (1st time by the USSR in 1961, and by the US in 1962)

From 1962 to late 1968, we continued sending humans into LEO.

So far, so good. But then, in Dec. 1968, comes Apollo 8 ...

Just 3 months after the last manned mission in LEO, we (supposedly) went right to the moon and back - with humans onboard.

How would they (NASA) somehow "know" it was safe for humans to go all the way to the moon and back, without even knowing if it was safe for rats, or dogs, or monkeys to go?

Of course, the answer is that they wouldn't "know" it was safe for humans.

That prompts replies such as the one you noted about the Eagle - "the risks were well known".

But again, the reality is that the risks were not well known. Not in 1969, and not even today!

"They were very lucky" is another one I often hear. The reality is that the risks were (and still are) largely unknown. "Luck" has nothing to do with it.

That's why when (and if) we ever do (or can) send humans beyond LEO, and to the moon, we will send animals and other life forms FIRST. Before any humans.

We didn't even know if humans could survive LEO, so we sent animals first. The VA Belts are a known radiation hazard, and yet you claim we could forget about sending animals out first, because we already "knew" it was safe, so we skipped directly into the manned missions?!?

Hell, why not keep going? Let's send 'em all the way to the moon and back! "The risks are well known!"

NASA could have said astronauts walked on Jupiter or Saturn, and you'd probably believe it. The only difference is that we'd be arguing about the faked Jupiter/Saturn landings, instead of the faked moon landings.

Ridiculous! Really?
How many times was the space shuttle Columbia flight tested before it's first launch turbonium, or Challenger which had significant modifications from Columbia? Or Discovery which had significant modifications from Challenger? In fact what was the total number of unmanned test launches in the US space shuttle programme? You can count them twice if you like but the answer will still come to zero.

Given that what, apart from your argument, is ridiculous in the LM test programme?

It's no different than how the LEO missions progressed...

They would start with unmanned missions, then proceed into missions with life forms (animals, etc.) onboard, (to evaluate the biological/physical effects). The LM's (as well as the other spacecraft involved) would be remotely controlled from Earth (Houston, etc.)

In other words, the same way that NASA is planning to supposedly "return" men to the moon in 2020!

But in the 1960's, we weren't capable of landing an unmanned LM on the moon, or lifting an unmanned LM off of the moon, imo.

Actually, I think that NASA should have faked a few unmanned LM moon landings first, and then faked some moon landings with animals onboard, before faking the moon landings with astronauts - it would have been much more realistic and believable. Especially in hindsight, when looking back at how ludicrous the timeline became from Apollo 8 onward.

Imagine a graph for the timeline of space achievements. It would closely resemble the seismogram of an earthquake -

Let me edit out everything in your post that wasn't your personal opinion:



Going by what seems to pass as your "logic", Alan Sheppard couldn't have flown on May 5, 1961 because Freedom 7 was "not tested" before it was launched, yet you do not deny that he flew .

Extrapolating that, Yuri Gagarin could not have flown, because Vostok 1 was not tested before it was flown, but you're not denying it flew either.

Neither was Sputnik 1, so I guess it didn't fly either...?

Turbo, your "logic" is so flawed it is beyond comprehension. You have provided nothing but personal opinion. You are so stuck on the misguided notion that Apollo did not happen as it did that you cannot see anything else and you will grasp at anything that YOU THINK supports that idea.

You have provided NO evidence. Your opinion is not fact. You have provided nothing but more opinions to back up your opinions.



We are all still waiting for that "evidence" you've been promising to show us. Why do I feel we'll all be waiting a lot longer...?


Cz

Turbs

I'm sorry, but your recent speeches amount to liitle more than a combination of the logical fallacy argument from personal incredulity, and "if I ran the zoo".

You can use those arguments to try and prove anything.

Take your "earthquake seismograph" for example. Let's apply that to another milestone in human and scientific exploration, one that's been mentioned before many times in relation to Apollo: bathyscaphe Trieste, and its descent to the bottom of Challenger Deep. Using your logic, it is clearly impossible that this feat ever happened. How is it possible that 47 years ago, humans descended to a depth of approx 36,000 feet using 1950's technology? The depth record prior to Trieste was nowhere near 36,000 feet. No manned dive has approached that depth in the intervening years. In 1994, the Japanese sent a robotic probe down the Marianas trench and it failed before it achieved the depth set by Trieste.

Why did they risk the lives of two people on such a ridiculous venture, without attempting the descent remotely first? Surely they could to test the ability of the craft to withstand the enormous pressure at the bottom on the ocean WITHOUT putting people's lives at risk? Why didn't they film the decent? Or even take some photographs while they were at the bottom?
How do we know they even went to the bottom? Why should we trust the word of the two people who claim to have been inside at the time... Jacques Piccard and Don Walsh? Where is the evidence? What samples did they return? What film did they take? What photos?

Lets take a look at the timescale of bathyscaphe technology. The first was built in 1948. Trieste was launched just 5 YEARS later, and still holds the record for the deepest manned dive. How much did car technology advance in 5 years since the invention of the automobile? How about aircraft technology? Name ANY other technology or form of transport that was more successful 5 years after its invention than it is today.

My question to you Turbs is, do you think they faked the descent of the Trieste to the bottom of Challenger Deep in 1960? If not, why do you choose to believe it, with very little evidence? Why does the logic you are using to try and prove Apollo didn't happen not apply to Trieste?

I am sorry to disagree with you,Frenat.Only reflective exterior and insulation would not prevent the heat inside the spacecraft.Sun is not a so easily thing to deal with,specially in the vacuum environment.This fact brings us another good question - HOW COULD THE LM STAY ON THE MOON FOR DAYS (AS APOLLO 17) AND THE ASTRONAUTS DIDN'T GET FROZEN OR COOKED?

Fantastic comments Turbonium!!!

I like that graph; I wonder how a graph showing the budget allocated to space programs over the same period would look ?

Thanks Mid for your considerations...If your opinion is correct,so would it be correct to say that if apollo 13 was lost in space ,and if it was found in space after 40 years, we would find the 3 astronauts frozen inside of it?The sun would never effect its interior low temperature??? It seems an impossible statement that we have here,born from your afirmations...
If it was a so well insulated and had a so good reflective exterior ,why did the heat from outside on reentry get so fast inside the capsule?? It would still be working during reentry and not only in the vacuum of space..You can see on Tom Hanks apollo 13 film that all the frozen interior of the capsule became water and it started a "rain" inside the capsule.Remember that his film was based on astronauts's declarations and that it is a precise description of the history.
I keep saying that Tom Hanks suffered much more on his film as astronaut than the real astronauts on apollo 13 fake mission.

Hey Mid,what is the CSM doing between the LM and the moon ??? Was this the correct position ?? I thought that the LM never got above the CSM in relation to the moon!

did we land on the moon.... hmmm DID I LAY AN EGG?!?!?

Anyone going to reply to my question before the new year please?

They say we did and there was a briefing about this at Nasa a few weeks/months ago.
Apparently during the briefing they talked about something that was found on the dark side of the moon which they do not want the public to know about.

Impossible to you, because you don't understand the subject under discussion.


You seem to think that the movie "Apollo 13" is a minute-by-minute documentary of the Apollo 13 mission. It is not, nor was it ever intended to be. It is a dramatization based on real events. At the end of the movie's credits it states:

"Although this film was based upon a true story, certain characters and events have been fictionalized for dramatic purposes."

The scene at the end with the water droplets falling off the control panel was not meant to be accurate, it was intended to demonstrate to the audience that the capsule was no longer in a weightless environment, hence the droplets falling. The scene is not totally accurate to actual conditions during the Mission. In reality, the CM had been powered up for 2 1/2 hours before re-entry. While the temperature did rise to a somewhat more comfortable level, it was still cold inside the capsule after splashdown.

Also, the cabin did not "freeze". Although it did get very cold, the lowest recorded temperature was 43° F. Cold, for sure, but not freezing.

Source: Apollo 13 Mission Report
Page 5-1
Structural temperatures remained within acceptable limits throughout the mission. However, because of the long cold-soak period following powering down, the command module structure exhibited significantly lower temperatures than has been observed in previous flights.

Page 5-13
During the period when the command module was powered down, the cabin temperature slowly decreased to approximately 43° F and considerable amounts of moisture condensed on the spacecraft windows and the command module structure. Thermal control, after powering up at 140 hours, was satisfactory, although the cabin temperature remained very cold during entry.


page 8-12 & 8-13
Earlier, at approximately 73 hours, the command module windows had become nearly opaque with water droplets. This moisture contamination continued to increase, and at approximately 110 hours a thin water film appeared on the interior command module structure itself, as well as on the lunar module windows. Despite this condensation because of the reduced cabin temperature, at no time did the humidity reach levels which were uncomfortable for the crew. The moisture on the lunar module windows disappeared shortly after power-up at approximately 135 hours. The condensation generally disappeared after parachute deployment, although the structure remained cold after landing.

Page 10-7
f. The interior surfaces of the command module were very damp and cold, assumed to be condensation; there was no pooling of water on the floor.


Cz

Which question? The last one I recall was about the LM windows and I believe MID answered that for you.


Cz

This is a load of poppycock.

They talked about it... but they don't want the public to know about it.... ?



And do you have a link to an article that verifies this...?



Cz

Not sure, but that graph seems to match up fairly well with Michael Jackson's career...







Cz

It depends on where the craft was when we found it. I think the only way that Apollo 13 could've been lost in space was for it to fail to maneuver itself into a free-return trajectory prior to encountering the Moon. If that were the case, then the vehicle would've slung around the Moon, and headed out on an aberrant trajectory (probably some giant complex ellipse involving the Earth-Moon system which would've taken it far from the Earth).

Odds are, yes, you would find frozen men aboard. It would happen gradually, and long after they were already dead from lack of oxygen. If they remained close to the Earth Moon system, maybe not, but it would be cold inside...very cold.





It didn't, Hat. Interior cabin temperatures didn't increase during re-entry by any appreciable measure at all.



I think perhaps you're relying too much on a Hollywood dramatization of a real event, rather than relying on the actual event itself, every detail of which is available.
Apollo 13, the movie, is not a precise description of history. It is a dramatization by Hollywood, and as all such things are, it is filled with "artistic licence" in many places to increase the drama. While it's true that Ron Howard had technical advisors from Mission Control, and even Jim Lovell, when they objected to something Howard was doing for drama, Howard had veto power and did what any Hollywood director would do. I think they did a decent job of portraying a historical event for the public, and fundamentally it was accurate in all important respects.

I actually laughed at some of the melodrama.

As to the comment regarding Apollo 13's frozen interior, that's a little melodrama.
The interior never got down to freezing.
It got cold, and it doesn't have to be close to freezing to be perceived as cold, or to create condensation.

It's an interesting comment about it starting to rain inside the CM. There's a touch of melodrama in that statement as well.
In a manner of speaking, yes, that's essentially the mechanics behind rain. Condensation of atmospheric moisture.

The cold cabin surfaces had moisture condense on them, quite naturally. Take a cold bottle of beer out of your refrigerator and you'll see exactly the same thing happen...if there's any moisture in your room air at all, you'll see condensation form on the bottle immediately. If it's fairly humid, you'll actually see drops of water bead up on the cold surface.

This in fact happened in the cabion of the CM, on a whole bunch of cold surfaces. It's not exactly rain, but it's the same principal.

Yep, a good position given what came next in the sequence. This was taken by Eagle after separation. The attitude was assumed for separation based on maintaining decent communications with Houston, and providing the best visual platform for Mike Collins to inspect Eagle (no interference with his observations from bright Moon, etc).

Nothing says the two spacecraft can't be in any particular position relative to each other while stationkeeping. This attitude gave Mike Collins good visibility and the ability to take good photos of the LM, like this (AS11-44-6574).

How come the cameras never melted or malfunctioned?
ReNtRy

Belial,

I think your last question was about the windows on the LM.
That was a few pages ago. I answered that one...reproduced here below:




12-27-07:

I'm not sure what the "double glazed effect in space" is, but I can tell you that the LM windows were indeed made of glass, and they were in fact double paned.

The outer pane was made of something called Vycor glass (Corning makes that) with special thermal outer and anti-reflective inner coatings. The inner layer was a structural glass sheet with a defog coating on the outer surface and an antii-reflective coating on the inner suface.

There was a space of a couple inches, if I recall correctly, between the two panes, that space being vented into the space environment. Thus, it appears that this space was a vacuum. The windows were also electrically heated (defrosters, as-it-were, if necessary).

belial:

The camera that took the film you link to was a 16mm film camera mounted inside the CM during re-entry, where it was cozy at around 70 degrees.
It wasn't out there in space. It wouldn't have survived for a minute.

We did what, land on the Moon?
They said that long before a few weeks or months ago.




Really?!

Then why would they have a briefing about it?

Thanks again MID, i couldn't find the windows reply As for the rentry footage, it just looked like it was an outside camera, thanks again.

You can refer to one of my previous posts here (page 200) for some answers and links to other references

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...t&p=2057181

If you're asking about the camera used in the video you