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.
Originally posted by jra
Originally posted by FoosM
Of course, Im still trying to figure out how light can come through the windows when the windows are facing the the shadow side of the LM in the first place
You really seem to have trouble understanding how light reflects off the Lunar surface. The shadow of the LM doesn't cover the entire surface in front of it you know. When one refers to the shadow side of the LM. They mean that side of the LM itself is in shadow. And not everything that's out side the window.
AS11-37-5454
AS11-37-5464
AS11-37-5531
Do you now understand how light can come through the windows?
There is no discussion of the window shades in the Apollo 11 Mission Report. However, the fact that none of the other crews reported problems with light coming in suggests that the shade design was modified to use a more opaque material.
Let me ask you this. When the LM was landing, did the windows at any point face the sun? Or were they flying backwards?
It's quite probable that men have sent probes to the moon, but the evidence of a manned landing is not there. And when you factor the rate of success, i.e. no deaths going to the moon and back, the excuse for why we didn't continue to go, or why we are not there now is invalid.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM
??????????????????????????????????
Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
It's quite probable that men have sent probes to the moon, but the evidence of a manned landing is not there. And when you factor the rate of success, i.e. no deaths going to the moon and back, the excuse for why we didn't continue to go, or why we are not there now is invalid.
You keep conveniently forgetting Apollos 1 and 13. Why are you so positive no-one landed on the Moon?
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM
I answered you. Did you stop reading after the "??????"s
The "answer" was actually in YOUR OWN EARLIER post, about the "sun shades" Remember?
Look....each and every time someone gives you a direct answer to (what seem to most of us as obvious, and even elementary questions) it doesn't sink in, based on the responses that are given back. Fingers in the ears kind of stuff, schoolyard-type retorts of "No it isn't!"
So, stop, drop and think it through again....because, merely feeding you the answers to even the simplest questions is not the way for you to learn....people learn best when they're challenged to reason for themselves.
Get it yet? Wanna hint?
Your post about the "sun shades"....YOU said the windows were facing away from the Sun....(and we haven't yet seen a sign of your understanding about why, even in that situation, sunlight can reflect back in and cause a person difficulty in sleeping)....
You also, somewhat frivolously and churlishly, tried to make a joke of it, with the "did they land going backwards" crack.
Those who actually can understand this, and how the flight profiles were flown, from undocking in Lunar orbit, to descent and touchdown, KNOW already. Your task is to learn it, not have it given to you so easily. Because, historically in this thread, any offerings of facts are waved aside anyway.
While watching this film,
Does anybody see the shades pulled down?
Does anybody see light filling the area of the window from the reflection of the ground after they land?
While watching this film,
Does anybody see the shades pulled down?
Those shots are from Apollo 17. The shades were mentioned as a problem on Apollo 11 and you quoted a source that said it was likely they corrected the design to use a more opaque material. Finally, the light was but one of 4 factors they cited as a condition that made sleep difficult.
Originally posted by FoosM
Now imagine the amount of light coming through those windows after NASA certified
sunshades are rolled down.
The light is torture! Even with my eyes closed I cant keep the light out!
www.lpi.usra.edu...
The light is blinding! Its driving me crazy!
www.lpi.usra.edu...
Oh the horror! I'm melting!
www.lpi.usra.edu...
LOL.
Originally posted by nataylor
The PLSSs (green arrow), went next to where the OPS (red arrow) were stowed:
Originally posted by FoosM
Space, the final Frontier
Now we assume that these Astros where not wearing their PLSSs.
Where would they go?
Between EVAs, one PLSS went back in the recharge station (green arrow), and one was stowed against the hatch, as per the flight checklist:
Originally posted by FoosM
Where the hell did the hammocks go?
Even in these diagrams, the artists has no choice but show the astronauts with helmets and suits on
You answered your own question:
The diagram shows the astronauts in suits because it was the original plan that they would stay in the suits while on the surface. As you point out, it became a comfort issue for the extended missions. The first diagram I posted above shows where the helmets were stowed, on the ascent engine cover, or they could hang in front of the forward instrument panel.
Originally posted by FoosM
Of course, Im still trying to figure out how light can come through the windows when the windows are facing the the shadow side of the LM in the first place
The same way light can come through your bedroom window during the day if it doesn't face the sun: by reflecting off the landscape.
Originally posted by FoosM
As you know, on several missions the astronauts weighed their rock boxes in the LM.
Did they take their helmets off? Did they take their PLSS off? If so, where could they measure
the SRCs and the sample bags? And again, where did they store the SRCs?
At least on Apollo 15 and on, they removed helmets, OPS, and PLSS before weighing the samples. The scale was nothing more than a little spring scale like you might use for weighing fish. In this particular EVA, they brought in one SRC. It was stowed where pilot's OPS went. That OPS was stowed by the dump valve on the floor.
The development of the requirements, the philosophy, and the guidelines which resulted in the Apollo quarantine program were the joint responsibility of NASA and a newly-formed Interagency Committee on Back-Contamination (ICBC). Those federal agencies responsible for protecting public health, agriculture, and other living and natural resources had representatives on the ICBC. Included on the Committee were members of the National Academy of Sciences and representatives from the U.S. Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and U.S. Department of Interior.
The charter of the Committee defined its purpose as follows:
To protect the public’s health, agriculture, and other living resources.
To protect the integrity of the lunar samples and the scientific experiments.
To ensure that the operational aspects of the program were least compromised.
It won’t be easy living and working on the Moon. On certain days each month, a veritable “dusty sleet” made up of irregularly shaped, razor-sharp dust grains travel-ing at hurr i c a n e - l i ke speeds could pelt the astronauts,possibly damaging their spacesuits and the roboticm a c h i n e ry they will use to establish their permanent outposts .These ultra-tiny dust grins — formed by millions ofyears of meteorite impacts that repeatedly meltedrocks into glass and then broke the glassy rocks intopowder — are highly electrostatic.Because of these issues, NASA has ranked lunar dust as among the top hazards to mitigate before sending human astronauts to the Moon for extended stays.H o w e v e r, before engineers candesign a detailed dust-mitigations t r a t e g y, NASA needs to betterunderstand the physics that drivethe phenomenon, many duste x p e rts believe
To keep astronauts from descending directly into the lunar dust, which can be as sharp as razor blades, the Goddard team created an elevator or “EVAt o r” system that would lower two astronauts and equipment from the top of the 6-meter-tall (20 feet) module to the surf a c e .Equipped with a control panel, platform, fixed rails, cable
Originally posted by nataylor
Those shots are from Apollo 17. The shades were mentioned as a problem on Apollo 11 and you quoted a source that said it was likely they corrected the design to use a more opaque material. Finally, the light was but one of 4 factors they cited as a condition that made sleep difficult.
Originally posted by FoosM
Now imagine the amount of light coming through those windows after NASA certified
sunshades are rolled down.
The light is torture! Even with my eyes closed I cant keep the light out!
www.lpi.usra.edu...
The light is blinding! Its driving me crazy!
www.lpi.usra.edu...
Oh the horror! I'm melting!
www.lpi.usra.edu...
LOL.
That's really what you're hanging your argument on? That you think they are lying about one of the factors that made sleep difficult?
Originally posted by weedwhacker
Do you realize that when I fly the airplane with the Sun behind us, during daylight hours, the entire cockpit is fully illuminated?? I don't need to turn on any interior lighting. I take that back....most big airliners have white flourescent lights, under the forward instrument panel glareshield....they help to eliminate shadows, so we almost alwyays have those turned on. BUT, if they are off, still easy to see everything jsut fine... When we are on a heading with the Sun in our eyes, or off to the side, (when it's low, morning or evening) we have sunshades. NOT opaque, of course, not like in your car. Tinted. Sheesh!! AND, we can still see inside the cockpit, without any extra lighting needed.
Originally posted by FoosM
While watching this film,
Does anybody see the shades pulled down?
Does anybody see light filling the area of the window from the reflection of the ground after they land?
No.
While watching this film,
Does anybody see the shades pulled down?
Does anybody see light filling the area of the window or even see blinding glints of light bouncing off the metallic parts of the LM due to the reflection off the ground while that blue glowing astronaut is walking about?
No.
The light is torture! Even with my eyes closed I cant keep the light out!
www.lpi.usra.edu...
The light is blinding! Its driving me crazy!
www.lpi.usra.edu...
Oh the horror! I'm melting!
www.lpi.usra.edu...
LOL.
The PLSSs were both originally (pre-EVA) stowed next to the OPS, on the left side of the LM. After the EVA, one PLSS went back to the same location for recharge, and one was stowed against the hatch.
Originally posted by FoosM
Ok, so your saying the same thing.
One went on the floor, the other to the side bulkhead where they charged the PLSSs.
Or are you saying the second one wasnt stored on the floor?
As was pointed out above, the shades on Apollo 11 apparently were easy to scratch and the light became an issue (one of 4 that were mentioned as affecting sleep). Some people are more sensitive to light than others. My wife is particularly annoyed by light at night, so I have covered all the LEDs in our bedroom with black electrical tape.
Originally posted by FoosM
Yes, and when I close the curtains, or pull down the shades, it gets sufficiently dark.
And even if I dont, I have eyelids to sufficiently cut-off the light.
And its not like people haven't been able to take naps out during the day in the bright sun.
When you are tired you are tired. If it wasnt a problem for them to sleep while going to the moon, how was it a problem on the LM?
I don't think that photo is of the helmets as they actually would have been stowed on the ascent engine cover. They're way too close the hatch. The helmets are not that tall.
Originally posted by FoosM
So, the OPS is on the floor, its about the size of the SRC, so thats makes no difference.
They now have to sleep:
They have the OPS on the floor...
The CDR PLSS goes to the side bulkhead...
The LMP's PLSS is attached... also on the floor?
Their suits and helmets go where? On the ascent engine cover?
If so, it ends up looking like this:
Yet we are led to believe, that these hammocks hang this low:
The suits were stowed behind the ascent engine cover, toward the aft. There was plenty of empty room there between EVAs.
Originally posted by FoosM
Notice, they dont draw in where the suits go.
Ok, no drawing can reflect the actual situation, I understand that.
But its odd, that all contingencies weren't looked into with the illustrations.
At any rate, and any photos or videos showing the hammocks hung would
help this issue.
Checklists and drawings are not confirmation
for any of the sleep/work that happened in the LM
Originally posted by FoosM
So thats after one EVA, what happens when they fill in the other SRC?
That one goes where OPS two was supposedly sitting, so where does
the second OPS go? Also on the floor? And what about the extra rocks collected?
Where do those samples go?
Originally posted by FoosM
Best picture I could find on Apollo 11 sleeping position.
Ok, their suits are on.
One PLSS is on the side, the other? On the floor?
And what about the OPS...? On the floor?
Did Aldrin just sit on those things?
I think it was a surprise to everyone how that stuff got everywhere. But ultimately, it turned out to be a nuisance, not a serious problem.
Originally posted by FoosM
Not to forget, we got astronauts breathing in toxic, alien moon dust
and NASA wasnt worried about their health?
Originally posted by FoosM
Also, have you been able to find where the extra samples were stored on the CM?
No, you conveniently do not read my posts carefully.
I said no fatalities while taking a roundtrip to the moon.
Apollo 1 didnt go to the moon did it?
And Apollo 13 had no fatalities did it?
And when you factor the rate of success, i.e. no deaths going to the moon and back, the excuse for why we didn't continue to go, or why we are not there now is invalid.
Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
No, you conveniently do not read my posts carefully.
I said no fatalities while taking a roundtrip to the moon.
Apollo 1 didnt go to the moon did it?
And Apollo 13 had no fatalities did it?
No, I read what you said very carefully. First you said "rate of success" and then you changed what you were talking about:
And when you factor the rate of success, i.e. no deaths going to the moon and back, the excuse for why we didn't continue to go, or why we are not there now is invalid.
What you said.
The rate of success would be how many missions were accomplished successfully during the entire program.
You saw what I wrote, why are you trying to make excuses.
I gave you MY parameters of success. Not whatever yours is.