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: 473
377
<< 470  471  472    474  475  476 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo
this is something i also noticed, so they had a dual back up system in the LM?? (which if they did, it would be the FIRST time ever I heard of this) which could auto-link ALL the hydro-electric hoses and mechanisms that would pilot the CM and not to mention, the nav system which was only designed for Landing and jettisoning off the moon to 'hook' up with
the CM in orbit.....which is a whole other ball of wax.. but saving for later..


Hydro-electric hoses? I'm not sure what that even means.

The LM had independent systems. It wasn't "controlling" the CM. The navigation solutions were worked out on the ground. All they had to do was use the LM RCS engines to orient the spacecraft in the right direction and tell the computer to fire the descent engine for specific periods of time.




posted on May, 27 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM
 


How many "quotes" can we "quote"??

Turns into a work of art.....
And how many "assertions" can we make without making any assertions? Quite a few, it seems.

I'm not sure why people need evidence to know what water vapour looks like. Maybe they're just confused.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Ok, whats that "Steam to Vacuum"?
Is that steam leaving the plate?
If so, I ask again, what happens under the covering of the PLSS?


Yes, that's where the steam escapes.

The sublimator is at the top of the PLSS (green arrow). The steam escapes through the cutout in the frame (red arrow):




posted on May, 27 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by Komodo
this is something i also noticed, so they had a dual back up system in the LM?? (which if they did, it would be the FIRST time ever I heard of this) which could auto-link ALL the hydro-electric hoses and mechanisms that would pilot the CM and not to mention, the nav system which was only designed for Landing and jettisoning off the moon to 'hook' up with
the CM in orbit.....which is a whole other ball of wax.. but saving for later..


Hydro-electric hoses? I'm not sure what that even means.

The LM had independent systems. It wasn't "controlling" the CM. The navigation solutions were worked out on the ground. All they had to do was use the LM RCS engines to orient the spacecraft in the right direction and tell the computer to fire the descent engine for specific periods of time.


sorry should have said electromechanical *



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
Ok, whats that "Steam to Vacuum"?
Is that steam leaving the plate?
If so, I ask again, what happens under the covering of the PLSS?


Yes, that's where the steam escapes.

The sublimator is at the top of the PLSS (green arrow). The steam escapes through the cutout in the frame (red arrow):




Nice photo.
Anyway, ok, my question still stand though.
The steam comes out. Yet there is a white covering over the PLSS.
Where, I dont see an escape hole or slit:




So I'm wondering, what is happening to that build up steam?



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
Well Nat something managed to hit the Earth because there was a SID measured.
Are SIDs not dangerous outside of the Magnetosphere?
Yes, the electromagnetic radiation hit earth. This is much less dangerous than particle radiation.

And the magnetosphere has nothing to do with SIDs, because they are the result of electromagnetic radiation, which is not deflected by the magnetosphere. Only charged particles are affected by the magnetosphere.


So you dont think hard x-rays would be a problem for the astronauts in the LM?



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by FoosM
You dont see the point?
You brought it up.
So I gave you evidence, you still want to deny a major solar flare occurred during Apollo?
I'm saying I can't adequately comprehend the evidence you've presented in order to make a claim one way or another.

I know how much you hate grey areas, FoosM, but I just don't understand it.


what part of solar flare and seeing the date alongside it which corresponds to dates that Apollo space craft were in space, is difficult to comprehend?



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
Well Nat something managed to hit the Earth because there was a SID measured.
Are SIDs not dangerous outside of the Magnetosphere?
Yes, the electromagnetic radiation hit earth. This is much less dangerous than particle radiation.

And the magnetosphere has nothing to do with SIDs, because they are the result of electromagnetic radiation, which is not deflected by the magnetosphere. Only charged particles are affected by the magnetosphere.


So you dont think hard x-rays would be a problem for the astronauts in the LM?
I don't think x-rays would be any more of problem to them than it would be to anyone in space.

The x-rays, being highly directional, would be easy to mitigate against. They could have the whole of the CM between them and the sun providing protection.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

So I'm wondering, what is happening to that build up steam?


There's no build up. The PLSS is just covered by a beta cloth cover held in place by snaps. The steam is free to escape.

And we're not talking about a lot of steam, either. Sublimation carries away 970 BTU per pound of water. If you look at Apollo Experience Report: Assessment of Metabolic Expenditures, you'll see that, say, on the second EVA of Apollo 15, the commander averaged 1000 BTU/hour for 7.22 hours. That's a total of 7220 BTU, which would consume 7.44 pounds of water (0.86 gallons).



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by Komodo
this is something i also noticed, so they had a dual back up system in the LM?? (which if they did, it would be the FIRST time ever I heard of this) which could auto-link ALL the hydro-electric hoses and mechanisms that would pilot the CM and not to mention, the nav system which was only designed for Landing and jettisoning off the moon to 'hook' up with
the CM in orbit.....which is a whole other ball of wax.. but saving for later..


Hydro-electric hoses? I'm not sure what that even means.

The LM had independent systems. It wasn't "controlling" the CM. The navigation solutions were worked out on the ground. All they had to do was use the LM RCS engines to orient the spacecraft in the right direction and tell the computer to fire the descent engine for specific periods of time.


sorry should have said electromechanical *


See thats the problem with the ship (CM and LM) getting cold.
Wouldnt the ship have to leak... or sublimate, for it to start to cool?
Similar to the PLSS, or the LM?
Otherwise its like thermos. The heat stays trapped and only increases in temperature.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
Well Nat something managed to hit the Earth because there was a SID measured.
Are SIDs not dangerous outside of the Magnetosphere?
Yes, the electromagnetic radiation hit earth. This is much less dangerous than particle radiation.

And the magnetosphere has nothing to do with SIDs, because they are the result of electromagnetic radiation, which is not deflected by the magnetosphere. Only charged particles are affected by the magnetosphere.


So you dont think hard x-rays would be a problem for the astronauts in the LM?
I don't think x-rays would be any more of problem to them than it would be to anyone in space.

The x-rays, being highly directional, would be easy to mitigate against. They could have the whole of the CM between them and the sun providing protection.


You dont think Xrays are not a problem for space-farers?
And now you are saying it would be easy to mitigate against by moving the CM around to protect them.
Will did they do that?
So you are suggesting that X-rays are dangerous.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   

It had been thought that the X-rays were not copious enough to be a major hazard, but a new study suggests X-rays really do pose a threat to astronauts working outside of protective spacecraft or bases. The research was carried out by David Smith at the Lunar and Planetary Laboratory in Tucson, Arizona, US, and John Scalo of the University of Texas in Austin, US.

Using the observed rate of solar X-ray outbursts of different magnitudes, they worked out that a lunar astronaut has a 10% chance of receiving a dangerous dose of X-rays from a solar flare for every 100 hours of activity outside of shelters.

The level of radiation they consider harmful is 0.1 Gray or more, which can cause bleeding ulcers and other internal damage, and would certainly increase an astronaut's risk of cancer. The Sun has even produced flares that could kill an unprotected spacesuited human on the Moon, they say, although these are extremely rare.


www.newscientist.com...



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Komodo

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by Komodo
this is something i also noticed, so they had a dual back up system in the LM?? (which if they did, it would be the FIRST time ever I heard of this) which could auto-link ALL the hydro-electric hoses and mechanisms that would pilot the CM and not to mention, the nav system which was only designed for Landing and jettisoning off the moon to 'hook' up with
the CM in orbit.....which is a whole other ball of wax.. but saving for later..


Hydro-electric hoses? I'm not sure what that even means.

The LM had independent systems. It wasn't "controlling" the CM. The navigation solutions were worked out on the ground. All they had to do was use the LM RCS engines to orient the spacecraft in the right direction and tell the computer to fire the descent engine for specific periods of time.


sorry should have said electromechanical *


See thats the problem with the ship (CM and LM) getting cold.
Wouldnt the ship have to leak... or sublimate, for it to start to cool?
Similar to the PLSS, or the LM?
Otherwise its like thermos. The heat stays trapped and only increases in temperature.

There is no perfect insulator. Over time, the capsule would radiate its heat away.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
Well Nat something managed to hit the Earth because there was a SID measured.
Are SIDs not dangerous outside of the Magnetosphere?
Yes, the electromagnetic radiation hit earth. This is much less dangerous than particle radiation.

And the magnetosphere has nothing to do with SIDs, because they are the result of electromagnetic radiation, which is not deflected by the magnetosphere. Only charged particles are affected by the magnetosphere.


So you dont think hard x-rays would be a problem for the astronauts in the LM?
I don't think x-rays would be any more of problem to them than it would be to anyone in space.

The x-rays, being highly directional, would be easy to mitigate against. They could have the whole of the CM between them and the sun providing protection.


You dont think Xrays are not a problem for space-farers?
And now you are saying it would be easy to mitigate against by moving the CM around to protect them.
Will did they do that?
So you are suggesting that X-rays are dangerous.
Yes, x-rays can be a problem. I said they were not any MORE of a problem for the crew of Apollo 13 than any other space flight.

And yes, they could reorient the craft to increase protection. Did they? I don't know. Maybe they didn't have to. In general, the craft would travel LM towards the moon so the navigational optics could be used. That would mean sun would would be towards the CM end of the craft. I can't say what the exact orientation of the craft was at the moment of each flare.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Komodo

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by Komodo
this is something i also noticed, so they had a dual back up system in the LM?? (which if they did, it would be the FIRST time ever I heard of this) which could auto-link ALL the hydro-electric hoses and mechanisms that would pilot the CM and not to mention, the nav system which was only designed for Landing and jettisoning off the moon to 'hook' up with
the CM in orbit.....which is a whole other ball of wax.. but saving for later..


Hydro-electric hoses? I'm not sure what that even means.

The LM had independent systems. It wasn't "controlling" the CM. The navigation solutions were worked out on the ground. All they had to do was use the LM RCS engines to orient the spacecraft in the right direction and tell the computer to fire the descent engine for specific periods of time.


sorry should have said electromechanical *


See thats the problem with the ship (CM and LM) getting cold.
Wouldnt the ship have to leak... or sublimate, for it to start to cool?
Similar to the PLSS, or the LM?
Otherwise its like thermos. The heat stays trapped and only increases in temperature.

There is no perfect insulator. Over time, the capsule would radiate its heat away.


Ok, but then dont you think the CM and LM got cold rather quickly?
Recall we were told that the LM had to be cooled while on the moon.
We were told that they had to barb q roll the CM so the sun would heat the craft evenly.
But for Apollo 13 both craft got cold?



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by FoosM
You dont see the point?
You brought it up.
So I gave you evidence, you still want to deny a major solar flare occurred during Apollo?
I'm saying I can't adequately comprehend the evidence you've presented in order to make a claim one way or another.

I know how much you hate grey areas, FoosM, but I just don't understand it.


what part of solar flare and seeing the date alongside it which corresponds to dates that Apollo space craft were in space, is difficult to comprehend?
Are you implying I'm a liar, FoosM? That I'm dodging the answers? If I were doing that, I'd quit responding, or forge on ahead with my imperfect understanding of the matter. Intellectually dishonest, yes, but I suppose I could get away with it of I give 'em the ol' flim-flam-flummox. It's not like people in this thread have a long attention span.

Yet I choose to admit my inadequacies. I'll stay on the bench until I see a play I recognize, thanks.
edit on 2011/5/27 by 000063 because: +



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


a lunar astronaut has a 10% chance of receiving a dangerous dose of X-rays from a solar flare for every 100 hours of activity outside of shelters.


Let's see, that translates to a 0.1% chance per hour. How many hours were the astronauts on EVA? 22 hours for Apollo 17. An overall 2.2% chance of a dangerous X ray dose.

Why do I have a feeling of deja vu? Seems you never did come up with evidence of a dangerous SPE during any Apollo mission (even after I showed you the flare data), or did I miss something?



edit on 5/27/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by FoosM
You dont see the point?
You brought it up.
So I gave you evidence, you still want to deny a major solar flare occurred during Apollo?
I'm saying I can't adequately comprehend the evidence you've presented in order to make a claim one way or another.

I know how much you hate grey areas, FoosM, but I just don't understand it.


what part of solar flare and seeing the date alongside it which corresponds to dates that Apollo space craft were in space, is difficult to comprehend?
Are you implying I'm a liar, FoosM?


Why are you being so defensive? Im asking a legitimate question.
You stated you didnt see any mentioned solar flares occur during Apollo 13.
I provided a link showing you a flare that occurred during Apollo 13.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by FoosM
 


a lunar astronaut has a 10% chance of receiving a dangerous dose of X-rays from a solar flare for every 100 hours of activity outside of shelters.


Let's see, that translates to a 0.1% chance per hour. How many hours were the astronauts on EVA? 22 hours for Apollo 17. An overall 2.2% chance of a dangerous X ray dose.

Why do I have a feeling of deja vu?


Because Im going to show it to you again:



It happened



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Ok, but then dont you think the CM and LM got cold rather quickly?
Recall we were told that the LM had to be cooled while on the moon.
We were told that they had to barb q roll the CM so the sun would heat the craft evenly.
But for Apollo 13 both craft got cold?

Define "quickly."

From Biomedical Results of Apollo:



So from the high point at 58:35, it fell at a rate of 0.27º per hour over the remainder of the mission. Over the first 43.5 hours since the high point, it fell at 0.32º F per hour. Nothing seems unreasonable about that.

The "BBQ roll" was used to evenly distribute the heat load from the sun across the exterior of the craft. It really didn't have anything to do with the heat level inside the craft.

And the LM didn't get nearly as cold as the CM.

Oh, and as for the electronics and systems providing negligible heat: The aforementioned Biomedical Results of Apollo says:


Radiator heat load and rejection was determined by use of the total flow and radiator inlet and outlet and evaporator outlet temperature measurements. Typical heat load and rejection under favorable conditions during translunar or transearth PTC ranged between 1170 and 1470 watts (4000 and 5000 Btu/hr).


As the Apollo Experience Report: Assessment of Metabolic Expenditures shows, the typical metabolic heat load generated under light physical load was around 450 BTU/hr.

So 3 people in the craft would be generating around 1350 BTU/hr of the total 4000-5000 BTU/hr rejected by the radiators.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 470  471  472    474  475  476 >>

log in

join