Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 24
Illiniblue35

Did we land on the moon?

14,135 posts in this topic

Still waiting for the evidence that supports your uninformed opinion.

An excerpt of a document....

The only functioning full-body MCP suit prototype that is known to have been built and tested was the Space Activity Suit (SAS) developed by Webb and Annis in the 196os [Annis & Webb, 1971]. It enabled much greater mobility than the Apollo pressure suit and caused a decreased metabolic rate compared to the Apollo suit. However, the knee flexion range in the SAS was still less than the unsuited range (81 degrees suited average vs. 141 degrees unsuited average), and its energy cost of locomotion was 1.64 times greater than the unsuited cost [Annis & Webb, 1971]. The sources of this increased energy cost and decreased mobility in the SAS remain unknown. Descriptions of the SAS do not discuss what design improvements, if any, would avoid an increase in metabolic rate and a decrease in mobility from an unsuited baseline.

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=The+Second+Skin+Approach:+Kristen+Bethke&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCkQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdspace.mit.edu%2Fbitstream%2Fhandle%2F1721.1%2F32443%2F61719483.pdf%3Fsequence%3D1&ei=d_NjT8fpJ4efiQKFyMyiDw&usg=AFQjCNGaYE3Y47ZskysLddYC31l3M6PbFg

The knee flexion range in the SAS was 81 degrees, on averge. That's mabout the knee flex of someone sitting in a chair. It's also like the knee bends in Shuttle images (your side posted earlier).

It is NOT EVEN CLOSE to the deep knee bends in the Apollo clips. The knee flex seen in those clips is well over 100 degrees. Anyone can see that.

Clearly impossible, so it's clearly a fake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does MCP stand for, Turbs?

Answer that and you'll know why you fail yet again.

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An excerpt of a document....

The only functioning full-body MCP suit prototype that is known to have been built and tested was the Space Activity Suit (SAS) developed by Webb and Annis in the 196os [Annis & Webb, 1971]. It enabled much greater mobility than the Apollo pressure suit and caused a decreased metabolic rate compared to the Apollo suit. However, the knee flexion range in the SAS was still less than the unsuited range (81 degrees suited average vs. 141 degrees unsuited average), and its energy cost of locomotion was 1.64 times greater than the unsuited cost [Annis & Webb, 1971]. The sources of this increased energy cost and decreased mobility in the SAS remain unknown. Descriptions of the SAS do not discuss what design improvements, if any, would avoid an increase in metabolic rate and a decrease in mobility from an unsuited baseline.

Clearly impossible, so it's clearly a fake.

I don't see any problem. What does that photo tell you?

5869.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also... if you'd bothered to do more than cherry-pick the quote you've provided that you mistakenly think supports your "argument", and actually read further into the document (link provided for those of you out there who have Turbs on ignore), you'd find on pages 17 & 18 the following information:

The EMU has established many advancements in spacesuit design and performance and has been an impressive tool for Shuttle and Station missions. However, the mobility enabled by the EMU is not sufficient for locomotion on planetary surfaces.

Because of its pressurized gas and restrictive mechanical joints, the EMU is simply not very accommodating to body limb manipulations. Upper body motion requires significant effort, and lower body motion is severely limited. These mobility restraints are partly intentional and partly undesired. Most EVA work in Earth orbit is carried out in foot restraints and relies on the stiffness of the suit's lower body to transmit forces from the upper body. Consequently, the EMU was intentionally designed for mainly upper body motion. The suit's hip joint is a single-axis joint that allows only twisting motion only about the torso's long axis. Below the hip, only forward and backward leg motion is allowed; no abduction or adduction is possible [schmidt, 2001]. In addition to these intentional mobility limits, the suit's joint angles ranges are limited by the pressurization of the EMU limbs. Bending at the joints requires pressure-volume work, which places high torque demands on the hip, knee, and ankle joints and consequently narrows the joint angle ranges. A 1-g study of suited subjects found the hip flexion range to be 20 to 40 degrees (for a specification of 0 to 70 degrees), the knee flexion range to be 10 to 90 degrees (for a specification of 0 to 120 degrees), and the ankle flexion range to be -35 to 30 degrees (for a specification of -40 to 40 degrees) [schmidt, 2001, p. 76].

Notice that they give the design specification of 0 to 120 degrees of knee flex, and during that 1-g test the subjects tested displayed a range of 10 to 90 degrees.

Notice that they are discussing the Shuttle- and ISS-era EMU, not the Apollo-era A7L suit.

So there you have it. Your own source shoots you down yet again and simply serves to throw a spotlight on your astronomical incompetence yet again.

Cz

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, Good!

Then they could do a "complete" deep knee bend.

Gee, I was hoping the engineering team had designed for that

Wow, are you suggesting they never even designed it for those deep knee bends?

Which means it's more incredible than before, no?

Then there was the question about your requirement to be able to bend ones knees and sit on one's own legs in the suit.

When did I talk about any such requirement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Notice that they give the design specification of 0 to 120 degrees of knee flex, and during that 1-g test the subjects tested displayed a range of 10 to 90 degrees.

Notice that they are discussing the Shuttle- and ISS-era EMU, not the Apollo-era A7L suit.

I certainly did notice the above points.

But you don't notice what it says about Apollo, or you just choose to deny it.

Why is the issue of knee flex so relevant to them? To have a spacesuit to walk (bend, etc.) on the moon, or perhaps even Mars.

Shuttle and ISS spacesuits lack the mobility needed to walk on the moon.

Geez, it'd sure be sweet if they had another option. Like an earlier spacesuit designed for walking on the moon. That would be perfect! But that's just a fantasy....

No?

You mean...such a spacesuit really exists?

Perhaps you should tell them about it.

Apollo is ignored because it was a fake. If it was genuine, it would never have been totally ignored like it was. It would be the perfect model to base their own research on, going forward.

The other suits would not be ignored, of course, having technological advancements since Apollo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When did I talk about any such requirement?

Uh...nice stretch.

It's your issue, and you're asking?

Now.

Was there anything more that might contribute to a real discussion of your doubts?

Edited by MID

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean...such a spacesuit really exists?

Perhaps you should tell them about it.

Apollo is ignored because it was a fake. If it was genuine, it would never have been totally ignored like it was. It would be the perfect model to base their own research on, going forward.

The other suits would not be ignored, of course, having technological advancements since Apollo.

Really...

Going away is a much better option than hanging around here...popping in once every week or two, to post innanities, and...

TO AVOID YOUR BURDEN OF PROVING, YET ANOTHER NONSENSICAL IDEA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Turbs...

Speaking of things being ignored, how much longer are you going to ignore this...

Hey Turbs...

Image4.jpg

What is this man doing in one of the production-model Apollo Lunar EVA suits that proves you wrong...?

Or these...

The Science Channel's documentary mini-series "Moon Machines" has an episode detailing the design and construction of the Apollo Space Suit. The DVD series is available from Amazon (which is where I got my copy of the set) and other retailers, and the episode is available on YouTube, split into 5 parts:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

I don't expect Turbs will actually deign to watch this very informative episode. Again, it would be too much like actual research, something for which he has shown absolutely NO ability.

ETA...

At the end of Part 1 and the beginning of Part 2, they describe the bellows-like systems used in the design which allowed much freedom of movement in the knee and elbow joints.

And while we're at it, why are you also ignoring this question I ust asked you...?

What does MCP stand for, Turbs?

Answer that and you'll know why you fail yet again.

I mean, you must have read it since its still on this same page and you've replied to a post I made AFTER posting this one...

Could it possibly be that even acknowledging these things I've posted poses a severe problem for your "argument" because they essentially destroy your "argument"...?

Hmmm... what was it I said about ignoring requested evidence earlier...?

Oh, yeah...

All the evidence Turbs is asking for is in that series of videos I've posted, yet it seems he has refused to look at them.

Why would anyone with even a singular shred of integrity or intellectual honesty refuse to look at the evidence he has been asking for.......? :rolleyes:

Thanks for proving to us again that you have no integrity or intellectual honesty, Turbs and your main purpose here is to remain ignorant and to make yourself look like a fool.... not that it was ever really in question.... ;)

Cz

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apollo is ignored because it was a fake.

Nice landing, but next time lower the landing gear. Do you really know how silly that sounds in light of the fact that you have yet to provide any evidence to back up your claims?!

You have yet to provide a single shred of evidence while others have provided you with undeniable proof that men walked on the moon. Personally, I think that you are just here to have some fun and nothing else by the way you continue to ignore those who have posted evidence, facts, and everything else that proved beyond any doubt that men walked on the moon.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An excerpt of a document....

The only functioning full-body MCP suit prototype that is known to have been built and tested was the Space Activity Suit (SAS) developed by Webb and Annis in the 196os [Annis & Webb, 1971]. It enabled much greater mobility than the Apollo pressure suit and caused a decreased metabolic rate compared to the Apollo suit. However, the knee flexion range in the SAS was still less than the unsuited range (81 degrees suited average vs. 141 degrees unsuited average), and its energy cost of locomotion was 1.64 times greater than the unsuited cost [Annis & Webb, 1971]. The sources of this increased energy cost and decreased mobility in the SAS remain unknown. Descriptions of the SAS do not discuss what design improvements, if any, would avoid an increase in metabolic rate and a decrease in mobility from an unsuited baseline.

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=The+Second+Skin+Approach:+Kristen+Bethke&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCkQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdspace.mit.edu%2Fbitstream%2Fhandle%2F1721.1%2F32443%2F61719483.pdf%3Fsequence%3D1&ei=d_NjT8fpJ4efiQKFyMyiDw&usg=AFQjCNGaYE3Y47ZskysLddYC31l3M6PbFg

The knee flexion range in the SAS was 81 degrees, on averge. That's mabout the knee flex of someone sitting in a chair. It's also like the knee bends in Shuttle images (your side posted earlier).

It is NOT EVEN CLOSE to the deep knee bends in the Apollo clips. The knee flex seen in those clips is well over 100 degrees. Anyone can see that.

Clearly impossible, so it's clearly a fake.

So what have you proven with this document? That the average knee flexion in a PROTOTYPE MCP suit is 81 degrees. From this, you extrapolate that it is impossible for a pressurised Apollo suit to have greater knee flexion. (You do know that MCP suits aren't pressurised, don't you?) In addition, you've totally ignored the plethora of evidence that has been spoonfed to you showing that the Apollo suit did indeed have the flexion shown in the video clip. I don't know how much time you wasted desperately hunting down this one line to cherry pick, but it doesn't come close to supporting your assertion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what have you proven with this document? That the average knee flexion in a PROTOTYPE MCP suit is 81 degrees. From this, you extrapolate that it is impossible for a pressurised Apollo suit to have greater knee flexion. (You do know that MCP suits aren't pressurised, don't you?) In addition, you've totally ignored the plethora of evidence that has been spoonfed to you showing that the Apollo suit did indeed have the flexion shown in the video clip. I don't know how much time you wasted desperately hunting down this one line to cherry pick, but it doesn't come close to supporting your assertion.

Its also interesting to note that if you follow the references - which we all know Turbs did not and would not ever do - you start with the original SAS document by Paul Webb from 1968:

The Space Activity Suit: An Elastic Leotard for Extravehicular Activity (MS-Word .doc file)

which outlines the research done on the original MPC suit and references the comparisons to what is only termed as the "Apollo suit", in other words, no specific model of suit is given.

The references to THAT study lead you the following document from 1966:

Bioenergetics of Space Suits for Lunar Exploration

This is a study of (in general terms) how the body moves, how much energy it requires to move, how much heat it creates, and how those results change when the body is in a pressurized space suit. There are several suits specifically referenced by name and model - for example, the Arrowhead AX 6-10, Arrowhead AX 9, B.F. Goodrich Mark II and Mark IV suits are specifically names and tested. However, when it comes to the "Apollo suit", the only references are to a "pre-prototype International Latex Co. Apollo suit" and most of those references are in connection with a study done in 1963.

So what can we gather from this...?

While the document that Turbs cherry-picks does indeed reference comparative studies between the original SAS MCP suit and the "Apollo suit", the Apollo suit in question bears little more than superficial similarities to the production-model ILC A7L Lunar EVA suits actually used on the Moon.

Once again Turbs has shown us just how little value he places on actual research and and how, despite his claims in another thread that he "prefers evidence", the actual truth of the matter is that that sentiment is no more factual than anything else he has ever presented.

ETA...

There is also a reference to a 1971 study from Annis & Webb (Development of a Space Activity Suit) which on page 6 (pdf page 13) reference numbers from an "Apollo state-of-the-art unpressurized" suit. The footnote for the figure in which that suit is mentioned gives a reference to the above linked "Bioenergetics of Space Suits for Lunar Exploration" study which, as shown, used data gathered from tests done in 1963 on a "pre-prototype Apollo suit".

Cz

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh...nice stretch.

It's your issue, and you're asking?

No. I asked you what it HAS to do with my issue.

I'm still waitong for you to answer the question...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Turbs...

Speaking of things being ignored, how much longer are you going to ignore this...

Or these...

And while we're at it, why are you also ignoring this question I ust asked you...?

Your image? Well, it shows that an astronaut can, indeed, perform deep knee bends in a non-pressurized Apollo-type spacesuit.

I already knew that.

Your videos? Except for the image you posted, I have no idea what you want me to address.

And you already know what MCP stands for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what have you proven with this document? That the average knee flexion in a PROTOTYPE MCP suit is 81 degrees. From this, you extrapolate that it is impossible for a pressurised Apollo suit to have greater knee flexion. (You do know that MCP suits aren't pressurised, don't you?) In addition, you've totally ignored the plethora of evidence that has been spoonfed to you showing that the Apollo suit did indeed have the flexion shown in the video clip. I don't know how much time you wasted desperately hunting down this one line to cherry pick, but it doesn't come close to supporting your assertion.

Again - that spacesuit is NOT pressurized!!

A few seconds prior to that frame - before the astronaut puts on his helmet or gloves - we can clearly see it's the very same 'puffy' spacesuit! We know the spacesuit can't be pressurized without the helmet and gloves on...

You have no evidence here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again - that spacesuit is NOT pressurized!!

A few seconds prior to that frame - before the astronaut puts on his helmet or gloves - we can clearly see it's the very same 'puffy' spacesuit! We know the spacesuit can't be pressurized without the helmet and gloves on...

The layer of the suit you're looking at isn't the pressure suit! It's the protective layer. That layer does NOT get pressurised. The layer that gets pressurised is visible from 3:44 in this video. He has a hose hooked up to the suit, and is displaying a large range of motion, including deep knee bends at 4:00.

Add in the knee flexion in the EMU suit (a suit that WASN'T designed for the same level of mobility as the Apollo suits) clearly demonstrated in the image of McCandless during a spacewalk, showing approximately 90 degrees of knee flexion. Is it really such a stretch to believe that a suit that WAS designed for lunar EVA could be designed with such mobility in mind? What is the maximum angle that an Apollo knee joint can possibly bend to, and how does that compare to the angle in the video? Remember, the Apollo 16 video of the astronaut trying to stand back up shows that he is having some difficulty bending the knees as much as he needs to to stand upright. You can also see the spring-like nature of the joint as he finally gets upright, and some of the stored energy is recovered from the joint. Direct evidence that the joint is indeed pressurised.

You have no evidence here.

Reversing the burden of proof? You haven't supplied ANY evidence supporting your assertion about the flexion of the Apollo spacesuit. You made an apples and oranges comparison to a PROTOTYPE suit of COMPLETELY DIFFERENT construction. All you have is your disbelief that a knee joint in a pressurised suit can show such a range of motion. Disbelief equates to uninformed opinion, not evidence or proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. I asked you what it HAS to do with my issue.

I'm still waitong for you to answer the question...

Why I do your homework for you--

You know it's really silly for me to sit here and take care of your rediculous avoidance maneuver.

The suit flexibility issue?

Oh...let's see:

This you, March 10, outlining some of your ridiculous requirements.

Fully flexible" - allows a joint to have complete range of motion. For example, the knee joint,

The spacesuit's knee joints are fully flexible - they're able to fold and sit on their legs with ease.

You must realize this, surely?

You've done it.

You've managed to drag folks into another "issue"...a non-issue, where you clearly do not understand a thing about that which you speak.

Now it's suits. And...amazingly, since you can't recognize that you can flex in a pressurized suit, you apply your inimitable brand of logic once again to bore us all by saying Apollo couldn't have happened.

You lost this effort of yours years ago.

It's amazing to see the level of your obstinate persistence and your sometimes creativity. But it's boring.

You have never proved your case to the faintest degree of contemplable evidentiary rigor.

And yet: You question ME???

Please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your image? Well, it shows that an astronaut can, indeed, perform deep knee bends in a non-pressurized Apollo-type spacesuit.

I already knew that.

The suit is pressurized, Turbs. You need to pay closer attention.

Your videos? Except for the image you posted, I have no idea what you want me to address.

It shows the history of the design and construction of the suit, showing it being tested and men doing things in it that you say are impossible. What I want you to address is the fact that you don't know what you're talking about and that this video proves you wrong.

Yes, I know... its a pipe-dream that you'll ever admit you're wrong, despite the overwhelming evidence that proves you wrong, but maybe one day you'll grow a pair and start being honest with us and yourself.

And you already know what MCP stands for.

Yes... I know what it means... but do you know what it means and why it invalidates your evidence?

Based on your answers so far, that'd be a "no".

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have no evidence here.

There are tons of evidence supporting the fact that men worked on the moon, which explains why the moon hoax folks have yet to present evidence that supports their claims.It is silly to think that the government would spend billions of dollars to concoct moon mission hoaxes just to please the public when such a hoax could easily be revealed and since 1969, not one shred of evidence has surfaced that the moon missions were hoaxed.

We can take a couple of examples where the moon hoax folks had to wipe the mud off of their faces after scientific experiments smashed their theories in regards to the flag waving and foot step issues in a vacuum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote name='turbonium' timestamp='1332063697' post='4235740']

You have no evidence here.

:wacko::rolleyes:

You...YOU...just told someone they have no evidence???

:huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The layer of the suit you're looking at isn't the pressure suit! It's the protective layer. That layer does NOT get pressurised. The layer that gets pressurised is visible from 3:44 in this video. He has a hose hooked up to the suit, and is displaying a large range of motion, including deep knee bends at 4:00.

Are you actually claiming this is a pressurized Apollo (or Apollo-era) spacesuit we see at 4:00?

This spacesuit has virtually unlimited mobility, at every joint!! How can this be possible in a pressurized spacesuit designed over 40 years ago, when it's not even possible to design one TODAY??

So it's just another example of Apollo-land - a mythical fantasy-world, where we designed a perfectly functional lunar lander, fly men to the moon in amazing rocket-ships, wearing spacesuits with unlimited flexibility!

We still can't design a perfectly functional lunar lander, nor can we build these amazing rockets....nor have we designed a pressurized spacesuit with such an incredible degree of mobility as the spacesuit seen at the 4:00 mark of your video clip...

To suggest this could be done in an Apollo-era spacesuit is utterly ridiculous!

Is it really such a stretch to believe that a suit that WAS designed for lunar EVA could be designed with such mobility in mind?

Yes, it is a stretch. Such a degree of flexibility was beyond the limits of an Apollo spacesuit. I have 20+ years experience in molded plastic bellows, to cover (roboric) limb joints. The minute I saw the bellows in that video, I knew it confirmed my rgument.

If you doubt me on that, I can cite examples of current research and/or analysis involving bellows-type design.

What is the maximum angle that an Apollo knee joint can possibly bend to,

So you don't know, either? You (and your camp) always chirp on about how thoroughly documented Apollo is, and helps prove your case, blah, blah. Now you're asking me for Apollo documentation? That's a tiny bit odd, no?

Remember, the Apollo 16 video of the astronaut trying to stand back up shows that he is having some difficulty bending the knees as much as he needs to to stand upright. You can also see the spring-like nature of the joint as he finally gets upright, and some of the stored energy is recovered from the joint. Direct evidence that the joint is indeed pressurised.

Same flawed argument, I see.

To sum it up for you..

Whether it's very difficult, or not so difficult, it isn't relevant to this issue

The point is that it was done. Period.

You say it was difficult for him to do deep knee bends because his suit was pressurized. That is merely your opinion, nothing more.

You also say it was difficult for him to stand up after the deep knee bends because his suit was pressurized. Again, that is merely your opinion, nothing more.

So much "direct evidence". Not.

And it's not relevant to my case, I remind you again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why I do your homework for you--

You know it's really silly for me to sit here and take care of your rediculous avoidance maneuver.

The suit flexibility issue?

Oh...let's see:

This you, March 10, outlining some of your ridiculous requirements.

Turbonium:

"Fully flexible" - allows a joint to have complete range of motion. For example, the knee joint,

The spacesuit's knee joints are fully flexible - they're able to fold and sit on their legs with ease.

You must realize this, surely?

How in the world can you interpret my comments above into my "requirements"??!!??

He did a deep knee bend in the video clip. I described how the spacesuit was 'fully flexible', since he was able to do the deep knee bend in that spacesuit.

He did a deep knee bend, I described that as a 'fully flexible' spacesuit.

I never said it was a "requirement". It's no part of my argument. Never was.

It's clear to you, now?

Now it's suits. And...amazingly, since you can't recognize that you can flex in a pressurized suit, you apply your inimitable brand of logic once again to bore us all by saying Apollo couldn't have happened.

I'm well aware that one can flex in pressurized spacesuits.

It's the degree of flex I'm disputing. Like in the deep knee bend example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The suit is pressurized, Turbs. You need to pay closer attention.

It shows the history of the design and construction of the suit, showing it being tested and men doing things in it that you say are impossible.

So when does it show the spacesuits being pressurized?

Where do they show how a spacesuit looks and performs - both before and after pressurization?

I seem to have missed those parts of your video. Maybe you can point them out?

What indicates to you that a suit is pressurized, or is not pressurized, when fully suited up (including the helmet, gloves, etc.)?

Because, just saying that it's a pressurized suit....really doesn't cut it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 24

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.