It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Unusual discussions in the Apollo transcripts

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
Now remembering, Schmitt was the geologist on board, however, he was still a trained astronaut and a vital part of the crew and would have spent thousands of hours in a simulator.

Just how often do you think they'd simulate manually regulating the cabin temperature in the simulator by using a simulated LM life support system? Frankly, it's not nearly as critical to know how to operate that function manually by memory in a split second as say, an even more obscure but far more critical switch like "SEC to Aux." As a scientist, I'd expect him to be able to remember the "bold face" sort of functions much better than the mundane.

[edit on 30-4-2010 by ngchunter]




posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


What, exactly, is your point, anyway?


Obsessing over arcane conversations, routine to the max, in most cases. They exhibit boredom? Big surprise. They're used to the Cabin Temp Control in AUTO, but find it in MANUAL...and have to stop a moment to consider it?

BIG DEAL.

Just name a dire emergency where the Cabin Temp Control requires an immediate attention from the crew....

Ya know...on some larger airliner widebodies (at some airlines) they installed knobs back near the Flight Attendant stations, or at the jumpseats. Labeled them "Cabin Temperature Control". Did wonders to reduce the continued pesky calls to the cockpit to complain about the temperatures back there.

Thing is, a lot of those "controls" weren't even hooked up. It worked psychologically on the F/As. Made 'em feel better....


Here is a sample of a checklist for the CSM from Apollo:

www.ibiblio.org...


You already have the links to the systems training manuals. You can follow through Google to find more, no doubt. Might have to actually purchase some, if what's free on the web is insufficient for you.

Now, that is a 'normal' checklist, and without context (I.E., when, at which point in any mission, it would be the one to use) it is interesting to read, but hardly the full story.

Like airline checklists...however, there will always be "non-normal" checklists and procedures...and "emergency" falls into that category.

We don't have to commit to memory EVERY emergency procedure. IN FACT, the last thing we want (in aviation) is to go off half-cocked from 'memory'...except in a few, limited instances, where we have "Memory Items" to accomplish, to stabilize certain situations, prior to calling for the appropriate checklist, and methodically stepping through the process.

Just off the top of my head, on the B-757/767: "Dual Engine Failure". "Rapid Depressurization". At my airline, we didn't have to memorize the whole thing, just the first few steps. Really, they are so obvious, that you instinctively do them anyways.

(Rapid Depressurization? First item is "Oxygen Masks On, 100%". Duh.)

Take a look at another airline's QRH 'memory' items, that they find important for their crews:

www.biggles-software.com...

*('QRH' acronym for 'Quick Reference Handbook'. Non-normals are in this bound booklet, and one for each pilot onboard the airplane. SAME info is the printed manuals, too, but the QRH is much handier, plastic-coated, tabbed and indexed).

You can compare, if you wish, the formatting and verbiage of the NASA manuals with actual airliner training manuals, too. Say, from Boeing, for instance. (Many vendors exist, online. Just one example: www.esscoaircraft.com...)

(Each airline has their own, 'custom' manuals...but they mostly follow, almost word-for-word, the original manufacturer's manuals. Sometimes the Boeing -- for instance -- can be less than clear, so airlines enhance the descriptions, 'fleshing' them out, so to speak. Elaborating. ALL FAA-approved, of course, before being OK'd for use).


NOW...IF you think that dissecting the routine conversations from the transcripts is going to glean any spectacular surprises or information, feel free to beat that dead horse.

It's about as interesting as if you could overhear EVERY regular passenger airliner's cockpit conversations, too.

(Of course, some of THOSE would leave you scratching your head, is likely. Out of context, and without having the background to understand it in general. Not to mention, tone of voice, cadence, timing....transcripts don't convey that nuance).



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Most of the TEC transcripts are in order from what I can tell. With the need to trouble shoot minor anomalies that appear during flight, that actually give the men something to do, there really wasn't a huge deal on any flight except 13.

Apollo 15 had alot of Caution and Warnings going off and if youi read the TEC it was because of bad relays on bank B of isolation valves on the SPS engine. The re-wrote the prcedures and the rest of the flight was fine.

You research these things, Called Inflight Anomalies.

Here is a great document Apollo Command and Service Modules Explained.

[edit on 1-5-2010 by theability]



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 08:13 AM
link   
Hey "theability". Thanks for that link, I had already found it though.
Still appreciated nonetheless


Now this one from Apollo 17 I don't get at all.



The statement "I don't know what the VOX switch is" coming from Commander Cernan is intriguing. Wouldn't he know with 100% certainty what it is after thousands of hours in the simulator? Schmitt also seems a bit confused.

Even if the transcript is wrong, and he actually said 'where', it still doesn't make sense.

Note; this part of their conversation wasn't in the air to ground communications. It was recorded on the 'black box' inside the cockpit that recorded their conversations.

Here's what VOX does from the Apollo Handbook. It basically just transmits when a voice is heard.



edit source: www.jsc.nasa.gov...
timestamp 02:17:37:32



Originally posted by theability
You research these things, Called Inflight Anomalies.
Here is a great document Apollo Command and Service Modules Explained.



[edit on 2-5-2010 by ppk55]



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


Actually I'm more interested in the transcripts that mention the astronauts hearing music. Let me see if I can scrounge up a link

Apollo 10

Its on page 197 and 198 of the transcript.

By the way the moon landing was not a hoax as is implied in your post. If it were it would more likely have been shot in New Mexico


Anyway, the music in the transcript is weird. Is it possible the astronauts were suffering from dementia or did they bring an audio tape of music with them? Or is it possible they were some how hearing the electromagnetic forces that usually take a computer to translate into audio.

Space Sounds

By the way, the Space Sounds website also has some recordings of the launch sequences of many space missions. I suppose hoax proponents think all of this is faked too


Mission Recordings

[edit on 2-5-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

[edit on 2-5-2010 by Titen-Sxull]



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 09:40 AM
link   
I just read it, and it is very interesting, thanks Titen-Sxull !

Pity there's no recording ... I wonder what it was they heard ?

I was going to logout, but couldn't resist posting this.
Just imagine if you were in a plane, and you overhead this coming from cockpit.



Of course, this wasn't a plane, it was the crew of Apollo 17.

Also this little 1 min 44 sec section wasn't in the air to ground communication. It was recorded on the 'black box' inside the cockpit that recorded their conversations.


edit: source www.jsc.nasa.gov...
timestamp: 03:15:59:39



Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
Actually I'm more interested in the transcripts that mention the astronauts hearing music. Let me see if I can scrounge up a link

Apollo 10
Its on page 197 and 198 of the transcript.




[edit on 2-5-2010 by ppk55]



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 



Hey that part of the TEC was about doing a experiement with visualizing high speed particales, they used blind fold so they'd only see the energy or light hitting the retina. They needed to be in VOX so they could report their findings.

Plus simulators were use for writing the flight procedures. Not all they wrote was the best 'procedure' for the job. Hence about what they were doing.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by theability
 


Yeah...what he said.....


Oh, and OP??

PLEASE go up, scroll up, and review some of my other posts.

In essence: Go learn and study OFFLINE for a bit, and get educated.

Will answer a LOAD of your questions...



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 04:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Oh, and OP??
PLEASE go up, scroll up, and review some of my other posts.
In essence: Go learn and study OFFLINE for a bit, and get educated.
Will answer a LOAD of your questions...


Um, how exactly will that answer this conundrum ...

Just imagine if you were in a plane, and you overhead this coming from cockpit.



Of course, this wasn't a plane, it was the crew of Apollo 17. I've watched about 20 full length 747 and 737 flight videos, from takeoff to landing and never, ever have I heard the pilots refer to "I guess all those switches and things are done, circuit breakers and things like that"

Or did I ever hear "How do I know when it's out ? When that THING goes gray ?"

I should also add I've done some basic flight training and if I'd ever said 'all those switches and things etc.' I would have been grounded immediately.

Maybe a pilot can help us out, because I would have thought procedures in the Apollo spacecraft would be far more professional and sophisticated than a simple and basic 747 plane.



[edit on 3-5-2010 by ppk55]



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


Oh, because you've 'watched' a few videos of a B-737 and B-747 in flight, NOW you think you've heard everything?

I've tried to tell you the difference between reading transcriptis, and HEARING a conversation, in context.

AND, guys (and gals) who are pilots will josh each other. To an outsider, even if they 'HEAR' it, can sound a bit 'off'....ina transcript, it can appear way off.


Here's a challenge --- try an experiment, try recording some (any sort of) conversation somewhere, then have it transcribed.

Select a few volunteers, let one group ONLY read the transcript, let another group HEAR the tape, and have a third group READ and HEAR both.

The, have them take a poll, and answer some questions as to their impressions.

For a BONUS....include VIDEO, too, for full context.

I hope this will begin, then, to make some sense....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Had another idea....do you have the equivalent of 'C-SPAN' down there, Down Under?

C-SPAN is the 'Congress Channel', available to most cable-TV subscribers. Of course, ALL government business is also transcribed, into print. THERE is a perfect example, ready-made (and easier, since YOU don't have to setup the experiment, just use what someone else has already done).


See? Record a session of Congress (or Parliament) and compare the video/audio recording to the written transcript, in the example I suggested before edit.

[edit on 3 May 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Oh, because you've 'watched' a few videos of a B-737 and B-747 in flight, NOW you think you've heard everything?

I've watched about 20 full length 747 and 737 flight videos, from takeoff to landing and never, ever have I heard the pilots refer to "I guess all those switches and things are done, circuit breakers and things like that"

I should also add I've done some basic flight training and if I'd ever said 'all those switches and things etc.' I would have been grounded immediately.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
I've tried to tell you the difference between reading transcriptis, and HEARING a conversation, in context.

Ok, let's imagine you read this transcript from 747 pilots whilst you were onboard.


Of course, this wasn't a plane, it was the crew of Apollo 17.
Please don't let me be in that plane ( or apollo mission )



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
Even if the transcript is wrong, and he actually said 'where', it still doesn't make sense.

Why wouldn't it? If I remember right, the VOX switch is on a box attached to the mic cable and can freely float around in the capsule or cabin. I can imagine quite easily that it might float off in zero g and get tangled up with other equipment.

[edit on 3-5-2010 by ngchunter]



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 
I'll leave it to more knowledgeable members to debate how 'unusual' the astronaut commentary was. The point about banter and humour is way off beam. Missions are taken seriously and still allow for some messing about. Alan Shepard taking a 6-iron out there and playing golf is the first example that springs to mind...




posted on May, 3 2010 @ 12:29 PM
link   
If anyone remembers the IMAX film "The Dream is Alive," I was talking with astronaut Jim Bagian about this film, and he began to discuss some of the photos from the movies he took while in space for IMAX.

As he was coming in for a landing at Dryden Flight Research Facility, as NASA prefers to call the entire landing surfaces at Edwards AFB, California, he had some remaining film, and as they were approaching the coastline of California, he decided to use some of the film, even though he could not really see much because of the haze. Later, when the IMAX people took his crew in, along with several other crews, they were screening their footage and he saw a beautiful view of the entire California coastline, from San Diego up to San Francisco. He actually asked, "That's great. Who took that?" They told him that this was his film, that he had taken that mission.

By way of explanation, they told him that the reflected sunlight was cleared by the use of the lenses they were using, and so even though he could not see it with his own eyes, the film captured a wonderful view of the Golden State.

This sort of thing is not uncommon with space photos, as there are a number of factors that determine how any one photos appears later.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


when it goes grey is called TALK BACKS....

When they, the astronauts select a certain item to sense, the item does a query and sends item GREY to the sensor.

IE talk back! If the Item is out sensor range the get BARBOR POLE.... if they get grey its in range...



The "gray talkback" is an example of the indicators which were mounted around some of the instrument panels. Each talkback consisted of a small window with a black and white stripe pattern behind it - the "barber pole" often referred to during the mission. A gray flag could move in front of the barber pole stripes to indicate the status of a particular system. The gray flag would be driven by a control signal from the system in question and it told the crew what was going on in that system, therefore the indicator was called a talkback. Gray was essentially a normal or "doing nothing" indication. A barber pole in the talkback usually meant an abnormal or transient status.

source here

BTw this is all listed in the TEC.....

[edit on 3-5-2010 by theability]

[edit on 3-5-2010 by theability]



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 03:54 AM
link   
Hi 'theability'

Thanks for that info, but I don't think you're quite getting me.

I'm concered that commander Cernan doesn't know what he's looking at, with his statment.

"HOW DO I KNOW WHEN IT'S OUT ? WHEN THAT THING GOES GRAY ? "

He's asking 2 questions here. He shouldn't be asking ANY questions, he's the commander. He should know that spacecraft inside out.

I find it strange.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 04:19 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 

The conversation is about the equipment carried in the SIM (Scientific Instrument Module) bay of the service module. The bay had been opened 10 minutes before and the crew was going through the checklist. This would be something that would not necessarily involved a lot of training before the mission. Certainly not mission critical.



Control panel 230 was added to the CM to enable control of the new SIM bay experiments, which included the Lunar Mapping Camera to activate/deactivate camera heaters and functions, compensate for image motion and extend/retract the camera on its deployment rails. For the Panoramic Camera the panel was used to activate/deactivate camera heaters, supply/remove primary camera power, select operate/standby operation modes, supply film roller torque to prevent slack in film during launch and maneuvers, activate a five-frame film advance cycle if the camera was not operated in a 24-hour period, increase/decrease the width of the exposure slit, and select the stereo or monoscopic mode of operation. This panel was primarily operated by the Command Module Pilot (CMP). Also included on this panel was a power switch to activate the scientific data system information collection and processing equipment. Another switch on this panel activates the remote checkout of the scientific data system frequency generating equipment by the ground.

history.nasa.gov...


[edit on 5/4/2010 by Phage]



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 



I've watched about 20 full length 747 and 737 flight videos, from takeoff to landing and never, ever have I heard the pilots refer to "I guess all those switches and things are done, circuit breakers and things like that"


Have links to those? If I could see what you've seen, and are referring to, I could keep it in context.

You know, the Astronauts, like airline pilots, get a geat deal of training, but there is no way one Human can remember everything. And, we are Human (no offence to those certain pilots, many whom I've met in my career, who think they are 'Sky Gods'...)

Sometimes, and it is just casual conversation...'they' (the Astros) know what they're talking about, with each other, and sometimes it's just easier to use what seem like 'dumbed down' terms, rather than the mouthful of technical jargon, as they talk amongst themselves.

They were doing very, very routine tasks (as "Phage" pointed out).

So, all of that training (and, the Astronauts were highly involved in some direct, hands-on parts of all the design and construction of the spacecraft) they still are not computers, they are men. Frankly, I hear (read) nothing unusual in how they (sometimes) phrased things.

It is context, as I keep repeating.....

You know, on a Boeing, for instance, I don't thiink to myself each time I raise the gear lever to retract the landing gear ("OK, the handle has sent an electrical signal to the first relay, and that has signalled the volves to port hydraulic fluid to the gear door actuators, and once the doors signal they are fully open, then the downlocks receive the hydraulic pressure to release, and then after all three have satisfied that they are no longer locked down, THEN the next relay seies ports fluid to the retract cylinders to all three gear".....etc)

I know, from a purely mechanical standpoint, HOW the system works, even without needing to know exact details, nor to think about them at every moment.

Sysytems are designed to to work as expected, BUT if something fails along the way, THEN (depending on design) a fault message of some sort is indicated.

That was just one long explanation, as an example, for what is a split second of thought process in a person's mind, normally. WHEN something goes wrong, then we assess, based on whatever indications are displayed, and refer to the checklist ('QRH', or 'Quick Reference Handbook' --- a handy-dandy collection of all the abnormal procedures, bound into plastic-coated pages, and tabbed by system, for easier accessiblity). MUCH easier than digging the full Aircraft Manual out of our flightbags.

Apollo (and Gemini and Mercury) didn't have the luxury to stock EVERYTHING onboard, both for space and weight issues. BUT, they always had the full support from the 'ground'. They had only the bare minimum reference materials onboard.





[edit on 4 May 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 09:07 AM
link   
Good post, Weedwhacker.

You are exactly correct. This is typical for what they do, on a mission, in a training device, and in person. Most of the astronauts are really very nice people. Even the selection process is geared to that. These are just guys at work. It is highly technical work, but at a technical level that they are very comfortable with. That's why they are sometimes a bit lax in their conversation.

Nothing more should really be read into this, than that.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 09:53 AM
link   
In my continuing quest to post interesting and unusual apollo transcripts ..
from Apollo 17 again ...

I really, REALLY don't see how commander Cernan can be laughing 3 seconds after liftoff. It just defies belief.



This comment below seems a bit strange for 6 mins after blast off.
I have never heard any of the space shuttle astronauts speaking like this.



41 minutes in...



BTW I'm not ignoring previous replies,
I'm bringing all the incongruities together to make a final point.


[edit on 5-5-2010 by ppk55]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join