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.
Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!
page: 245share:
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.
Contradiction
Whether or not one believes light off the surface of the moon (which has an albedo of concrete) could sufficiently cause light to come through the windows, its reflected light, not direct light. And I would assume the shades and the LM windows would sufficiently block the sunlight.
Let me ask you this. When the LM was landing, did the windows at any point face the sun? Or were they flying backwards?
reply to post by FoosM
??????????????????????????????????
I thought you were doing so well....doing the research,and actually (hopefully) finally learning some things...but, then....that question?
Stop, drop and think. Sit down, and really, really think it through.
Note your EARLIER mention? Of the direction the LM windows were facing? I mentioned, once or twice before, that there might be a spatial awareness ability that is slightly lacking....it is actually common, in many people....that old left brain/right brain dichotomy thing is part of it.
Not everyone can visualize in three dimensions, just in their minds. Pilots, architects, surgeons....to name just a few examples, are adept at it. It is a simple fact, some are not good at all, in that area.
??????????????????????????????????
Let me ask you this. When the LM was landing, did the windows at any point face the sun? Or were they flying backwards?
I thought you were doing so well....doing the research,and actually (hopefully) finally learning some things...but, then....that question?
Stop, drop and think. Sit down, and really, really think it through.
Note your EARLIER mention? Of the direction the LM windows were facing? I mentioned, once or twice before, that there might be a spatial awareness ability that is slightly lacking....it is actually common, in many people....that old left brain/right brain dichotomy thing is part of it.
Not everyone can visualize in three dimensions, just in their minds. Pilots, architects, surgeons....to name just a few examples, are adept at it. It is a simple fact, some are not good at all, in that area.
reply to post by FoosM
You keep conveniently forgetting Apollos 1 and 13. Why are you so positive no-one landed on the Moon? Were you there? No. By your own standards of "evidence," you keep making an assertion based entirely on faith. No matter how many times people have explained that your Santa Claus doesn't exist, you keep demanding proof. Your irrational belief is entirely superstitious. It is based upon fear of what you don't understand, as your pathetic little story of the children and the electric fence makes clear. You don't understand radiation, so you fear it. You assume that everyone is as frightened as you are and must be lying if they are not. You do not understand NASA, so you fear it, accusing it of lies and even murder. If they are so evil, why is Jarrah White still alive? Either he is so far off the mark he represents no threat, or NASA just doesn't murder people. Think about it: if there really were a conspiracy, and NASA were ruthless in their cover up, why did they let Jarrah attend Buzz Aldrin's press junket? And, having produced the "smoking gun" in front of all those reporters, why did they let him stay? Shouldn't Aldrin's NASA goon squad given him the "bum's rush?" Threatened him? No. They just let him sit there quietly. There is proof positive that NASA does not use strong-arm tactics, provided in video form by Jarrah himself.
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? Were you there? No. By your own standards of "evidence," you keep making an assertion based entirely on faith. No matter how many times people have explained that your Santa Claus doesn't exist, you keep demanding proof. Your irrational belief is entirely superstitious. It is based upon fear of what you don't understand, as your pathetic little story of the children and the electric fence makes clear. You don't understand radiation, so you fear it. You assume that everyone is as frightened as you are and must be lying if they are not. You do not understand NASA, so you fear it, accusing it of lies and even murder. If they are so evil, why is Jarrah White still alive? Either he is so far off the mark he represents no threat, or NASA just doesn't murder people. Think about it: if there really were a conspiracy, and NASA were ruthless in their cover up, why did they let Jarrah attend Buzz Aldrin's press junket? And, having produced the "smoking gun" in front of all those reporters, why did they let him stay? Shouldn't Aldrin's NASA goon squad given him the "bum's rush?" Threatened him? No. They just let him sit there quietly. There is proof positive that NASA does not use strong-arm tactics, provided in video form by Jarrah himself.
edit on 10-11-2010 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct typo.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM
??????????????????????????????????
Exactly...
thanks for the non answer.
How many of these have you posted so far on this thread?
More than 50?
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.
Finally, think about this some more----YOU are planning the descent and landing, knowing the limited actual view from those windows, restricted as it is...even with a lot of electronics to monitor your progress, as a pilot you still rely on some visual cues, it's in our training (and DNA).
Would you rather plan the approach to landing with the Sun glaring in your face? Or, with it at your back, and therefore NOT disrupting your view, AND allowing the shadows that are cast give you a sense of depth perception?
Which would YOU choose???
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.
Finally, think about this some more----YOU are planning the descent and landing, knowing the limited actual view from those windows, restricted as it is...even with a lot of electronics to monitor your progress, as a pilot you still rely on some visual cues, it's in our training (and DNA).
Would you rather plan the approach to landing with the Sun glaring in your face? Or, with it at your back, and therefore NOT disrupting your view, AND allowing the shadows that are cast give you a sense of depth perception?
Which would YOU choose???
edit on 10 November 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)
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?
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?
furthermore, NASA as an organization does not kill people.
They dont need to. There are other alphabet organizations who are experts in that field.
foosm your a slow person arn't you? lol.. I have a 6th grade level of sci. and I understand what he is saying.. you don't get it on a basic level
and that's why you keep getting told again and again.. the answers your looking for but are not educated enough to get it tho lol.. god I get a laugh
from you each day.. and I've been reading this a long time now.. think I'm going to start showing people you just so they don't feel so bad.. think
your stupid or having a bad day.. read about Foosm in this thread... lol.
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.
So I guess that makes 51 non-answers
Keep it up Weed.
Your making a fine collection of frivolous posts.
So... were the windows facing the sun they landed or not?
The answer is no.
Watch the video:
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.
How about this video:
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.
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.
reply to post by FoosM
Seriously??
The video of the Apollo 11 landing, and you are asking if they had the shades drawn for the landing???!!! Why in the hell would they have done that? Makes no sense....
Again, you base this question on what? A fixed-reference camera view?? DO you think it was pitch-dark inside the cabin???
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.
Your second "example"?? The DAC footage of the Apollo 11 EVA....they wanted to film the EVA...WHY would they pull the shades down?!?!?
Really, are you serious?? :shk: :shk:
Seriously??
While watching this film,
Does anybody see the shades pulled down?
The video of the Apollo 11 landing, and you are asking if they had the shades drawn for the landing???!!! Why in the hell would they have done that? Makes no sense....
Does anybody see light filling the area of the window from the reflection of the ground after they land?
Again, you base this question on what? A fixed-reference camera view?? DO you think it was pitch-dark inside the cabin???
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.
While watching this film,
Does anybody see the shades pulled down?
Your second "example"?? The DAC footage of the Apollo 11 EVA....they wanted to film the EVA...WHY would they pull the shades down?!?!?
Really, are you serious?? :shk: :shk:
edit on 10 November 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)
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 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?
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?
Between EVAs, one PLSS went back in the recharge station (green arrow), and one was stowed against the hatch, as per the flight checklist:
Thanks for illustrating.
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.
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?
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.
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:
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
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?
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?
Not to forget, we got astronauts breathing in toxic, alien moon dust
and NASA wasnt worried about their health?
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
Careful, that stuff can be deadly!
Also, have you been able to find where the extra samples were stored on the CM?
lsda.jsc.nasa.gov...
gsfctechnology.gsfc.nasa.gov...
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?
Where the shades drawn in those pictures?
Do I think that the astronauts were trying to leave clues to the scam? Yes.
I think several of them were doing that.
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.
Thats right Weed.
But what's the difference between the moon and Earth?
One has no atmosphere.
But you know all this...
Originally posted by FoosM
While watching this film,
Does anybody see the shades pulled down?
Are the astronauts sleeping? No, they're landing the LM!
Does anybody see light filling the area of the window from the reflection of the ground after they land?
No.
Do you understand how camera's and exposure settings work? And how it differs from the human eye?
While watching this film,
Does anybody see the shades pulled down?
Are the astronauts sleeping? No, they're out on an EVA with the DAC filming through the window.
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.
Do you understand how camera's and exposure settings work? And how it differs from the human eye? No you obviously do not. Case in point:
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.
Do you understand what underexposure is?
Do yourself a favour and pick up a camera and play with it, learn how they work. Take a photo from inside your home with the window blinds open on a sunny day with a shutter speed of around 1/125 or so and see just how dark the room looks in the photo.
edit on 10-11-2010 by jra because: (no reason given)
reply to post by FoosM
The Lunar surface provided ample reflected light, "scattering" the sunlight in similar ways (not exactly the same as atmospheric scattering, but the end result is virtually the same).
My gawd!!! Are you so eager to find anything, anything, no matter how silly and incorrect now?? That desperate to clutch at any straw that you can imagine? Because that is what you are doing, and NOT thinking it through.
The ISS.
Earth orbit. It is not in any atmosphere. On the day side of orbit it has two potential light sources to impinge on the windows, depending on the orientation at any given moment.
Plenty of direct sunlight from the original source, and the reflected light from that big blue ball "down" there, too.
Sleeping on the ISS? "Day", "night", "day", "night" cycles about every 90 minutes or so...they need shades, or a deeper recess, away from windows. Space craft (station) is big enough, to have more elbow room of course...
Found this ( you like YouTube, right?? Oh, wait...that was sure a silly question... )
Broadband troubles atm, so I'm going only by the title (looks promising) here:
The Lunar surface provided ample reflected light, "scattering" the sunlight in similar ways (not exactly the same as atmospheric scattering, but the end result is virtually the same).
My gawd!!! Are you so eager to find anything, anything, no matter how silly and incorrect now?? That desperate to clutch at any straw that you can imagine? Because that is what you are doing, and NOT thinking it through.
The ISS.
Earth orbit. It is not in any atmosphere. On the day side of orbit it has two potential light sources to impinge on the windows, depending on the orientation at any given moment.
Plenty of direct sunlight from the original source, and the reflected light from that big blue ball "down" there, too.
Sleeping on the ISS? "Day", "night", "day", "night" cycles about every 90 minutes or so...they need shades, or a deeper recess, away from windows. Space craft (station) is big enough, to have more elbow room of course...
Found this ( you like YouTube, right?? Oh, wait...that was sure a silly question... )
Broadband troubles atm, so I'm going only by the title (looks promising) here:
edit on 10 November 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)
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?
And it's a problem on the surface, because in space there is significantly less surface area reflecting light in the windows (the only significant light sources would be the Earth, Sun, and Moon). If you consider a hemisphere surrounding the windows of CM, during the middle of the journey, only a small portion of that would be taken up by the Earth, Sun, or Moon. But on the surface, the same hemisphere is occupied largely by the surface of the moon.
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:
At any rate, the helmet could have been hung over the front instrument panel, allowing ample room for the hammocks.
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?
After the EVAs, the OPS were stowed on the floor (to be used in an emergency during ascent):
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?
One PLSS in the recharge station, one against the hatch (red arrow):
One OPS would go in against the left bulkhead, next to the PLSS, and one would be on the floor, near the dump station (to the right of the ascent engine cover, next to Aldrin's feet).
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?
I thought you had already answered that question yourself. But here's the Apollo 16 stowage list: history.nasa.gov...
reply to post by FoosM
No, I read what you said very carefully. First you said "rate of success" and then you changed what you were talking about:
What you said.
The rate of success would be how many missions were accomplished successfully during the entire program. The number of deaths during the program is something else. The number of failed lunar missions is yet another. The rate of success for the program is 83%. One out of twelve astronauts died in order to achieve the goal of landing on the Moon. One out of seven landing missions failed: That's a failure rate of 14%. How many astronauts do you want to have died?
Now consider this: would you fly on an airline that boasted that their "success rate" was 100%, excluding flights to Melbourne, in which case only one out of seven flights arrives safely? And flights to Sydney, which result in the death of one out of every twelve passengers? I doubt you would. And you wonder why no-one else has been in a hurry to go back?
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. The number of deaths during the program is something else. The number of failed lunar missions is yet another. The rate of success for the program is 83%. One out of twelve astronauts died in order to achieve the goal of landing on the Moon. One out of seven landing missions failed: That's a failure rate of 14%. How many astronauts do you want to have died?
Now consider this: would you fly on an airline that boasted that their "success rate" was 100%, excluding flights to Melbourne, in which case only one out of seven flights arrives safely? And flights to Sydney, which result in the death of one out of every twelve passengers? I doubt you would. And you wonder why no-one else has been in a hurry to go back?
edit on 10-11-2010 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct formatting.
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.
. no deaths going to the moon and back,
You saw what I wrote, why are you trying to make excuses.
I gave you MY parameters of success. Not whatever yours is.
reply to post by FoosM
So you admit you were very careful to define your criteria to exclude data points necessary to an honest calculation of the success rate. Why? To achieve a predetermined result? That's called "data chopping." It's using statistics to lie.
Now, answer my question: would you fly on an airline that couldn't land successfully every seventh flight? And how would you feel about them if their adverts claimed a 100% success rate?
You saw what I wrote, why are you trying to make excuses.
I gave you MY parameters of success. Not whatever yours is.
So you admit you were very careful to define your criteria to exclude data points necessary to an honest calculation of the success rate. Why? To achieve a predetermined result? That's called "data chopping." It's using statistics to lie.
Now, answer my question: would you fly on an airline that couldn't land successfully every seventh flight? And how would you feel about them if their adverts claimed a 100% success rate?