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: 647
377
<< 644  645  646    648  649  650 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



I still would like to know what the differences in the chart are?
They seem pretty much identical.


DJW is offline. But, as I was involved in much back-and-forth with SJ, and was stonewalled there, I am quite familiar with the point here (even if it is not immediately apparent to you).

The upper chart is the one SJ posted, and it is missing some very pertinent explanatory information. It even has that note ("See Text") in the heading. Yet, deviously, the notes referred to up top are conveniently not reproduced at bottom of the chart image. Almost as if it is intentional, in order to hide pertinent details. (And thus, give a false impression to the reader).

Because then, the (upper) chart was used in an attempt to somehow (?? I presume) discredit the history of the Apollo 13 incident, by trying to infer the "recorded" cabin temps in the CM were not the same as reported in the records and personal recollections of the crewmembers' experiences.

Comprende'?




posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   
holy crap guys. this was the first thread i ever posted in when i first started, and to see this thread still alive and kicking is just..... wow.. you would think after 600+ pgs EVERYTHING that can be discussed has been.



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by stuncrazy
 


You don't show as having made any posts in this thread at all befoer the one above??


But yeah.....some folk just can't let go of a treasured idea....regardless of how much proof there is showing it is carp. it's as if their existance depends on it or something - dunno - I'm sure there's some PhD's to be gained studying something like this....

edit on 7-11-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


ok i may not of posted, but i remember reading a butt ton on this thread when i first joined. i guess i thought i posted here. this was one of the threads that got me started here at ATS that much i know. not dogging just the only thread i have seen in my entire membership here at ATS.



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Why is this thread still even active??


Ridiculous if you ask me.. IMO.



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 09:37 PM
link   
So looking at various NASA published sources and tables for Command Module Cabin Temperatures and newspaper reports we can find the following information. We have to examine the tables and the newspaper reports together to really know what really happened up there.

Lovell made more than one comment about how cold it was up there on Apollo 13.
One of the comments he made was in regard to the hotdogs and how cold they were,


I recall that we went to get some hot dogs one day and it was like reaching into the freezer for
them, for the food."
Lovell voice over on NASA documentary after the mission was over. vimeo.com...

The other comment Lovell made was in regard to sleeping,


"I don't know if we'll be able to sleep up here tonight," he said. "It must be 35 or 40 degrees."



HOWEVER> Mission Control says that they were monitoring the temperatures and temperatures were were not that cold


"At the time he said that," said an official who was at Mission Control, "temperature in the cabin was actually 52 degrees. But I'm sure it felt like 35 or 40 to him."




DJW001 is trying to make the argument that Apollo 13 temperature sensors were turned off to save power but looking at the newspaper articles and the tables seems to dispute that to, cough , to certain degree.



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 12:08 AM
link   
DJW001's missing link:

"SP-368 Biomedical Results of Apollo

CHAPTER 5
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS"


history.nasa.gov...




posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


The (See Text) that was missing for all this time:


Crew comments indicated that the Command Module was uncomfortably cool during several missions, especially during sleep periods. These occurrences were not serious problems and crewmen compensated by increasing their clothing insulation.

During the Apollo 13 mission, the LM environmental control system provided a habitable environment for approximately 83 hours (57:45 to 141:05 ground elapsed time). Cabin temperature remained low due to low electrical power levels. This caused crew discomfort during much of this time, with cabin temperatures ranging between 283° and 286°K (49° and 55°F).

During the Apollo 11 mission, the crewmen could not sleep in the Lunar Module following EVA because they were too cool. Contributing to the crewmen's discomfort were the sleep positions on the floor of the vehicle, the use by the crewmen, for some time after the EVA, of a cabin supply to their liquid cooling garments that had been provided against a hot-case contingency; and vehicle temperatures between 288° and 290°K (58° and 62°F). Hammocks were provided for sleeping after subsequent Apollo EVA's, and the cabin liquid cooling garment support system was not used before the sleep period; therefore, the problem did not recur

At the conclusion of each of the missions, the Command Module was precooled prior to reentry to minimize the possible effect of the reentry thermal transients on the internal temperature of the Command Module. No elevated cabin temperatures were experienced during any of the reentries.



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


Use as many little laughing emoticons you want to.


DJW001 is trying to make the argument that Apollo 13 temperature sensors were turned off to save power but looking at the newspaper articles and the tables seems to dispute that ....



Reading comprehension fully engaged, it is obvious that the LM acted as the lifeboat for approximately 83 hours, and remained uncomfortably cold (because, they were powered down to only essential items, to save batteries. This meant that many of the electronics, that are very power-hungry, were off....and,they would normally provide heat).

The power in the CM was still off during most of that time, with the exception of occasional power-ups for some systems checks, as related in the history files.

Don't know why it continues to be so difficult to understand that when Lovell mentioned getting the hot dogs, he was getting them from inside the CM, while the power had been off. It was colder in the CM, than in the LM, during this period. Three men huddled in the LM....and, there is a hatch in the LM ceiling that they could close, to trap as much warmth in there as possible!

To repeat, from the source (edited to clarify):


During the Apollo 13 mission, the LM ........ Cabin temperature remained low due to low electrical power levels. This caused crew discomfort during much of this time, with cabin temperatures ranging between 283° and 286°K (49° and 55°F).




edit on Tue 8 November 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


The (See Text) that was missing for all this time:


Crew comments indicated that the Command Module was uncomfortably cool during several missions, especially during sleep periods. These occurrences were not serious problems and crewmen compensated by increasing their clothing insulation.


This is the "see text"


Temperature in the CM was controlled through a combination of coldplate wall radiators and a cabin-gas heat exchanger. In practice, however, the gas heat exchanger was neither effective nor necessary and because it increased the ambient noise level it was seldom used. The ambient temperature sensor was located near the inlet to the heat exchanger and it was necessary that the heat exchanger be operating to provide a representative ambient temperature reading. Typically, when the heat exchanger was turned on the temperature reading immediately rose 2.2° to 3.3°K (4° to 6°F), although no constant offset can be assumed. The data from this sensor are presented in table 1.


edit on 8-11-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


ProudBird, I think we can agree that the hotdogs were freezing. Jim Lovell said it himself.

Now that we all have seen and reviewed the Official NASA tables and listened to Apollo 13 astronaut remarks about how cold it was... I think we need a 3rd perspective.

We need a third perspective, again, from another expert, NASA engineer Jerry Woodfill.



Someone did a later study about how cold Apollo 13 actually was. I know that 38 degrees F was sort of accepted as the temperature during the rescue. (This was the reported temperature in the far reaches of the dead Command Module quarters where Jack Swigert dwelled.) But other analysis found an environment not nearly as cold, especially in the lander. The customary “barbeque-rotational-solar” heating was always present. Nevertheless, Jim Lovell stated in the 40th Anniversary panel discussion I attended, “I actually did hug Fred to keep him warm as the movie depicts.” Source www.universetoday.com...


If the Command Module was "dead" how can NASA read the temperature?



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


That is even more, missed it since was above the Chart. However, the portion immediately below the Chart is relevant as well. In fact, the entire block of text under the title of that section, "Thermal Comfort" is relevant for a full explanation and understanding.

It's amazing just how much, and to what level of detail they went to in order to "fake" (cough, cough) the Apollo missions, isn't it??



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird

Tell us.....have you ever used a film movie camera? Heck, it's not much different from a videotape, in fact.

You shoot some footage, then stop the camera. You set it aside, and then days later take it out and resume shooting, right where you stopped the previous day. How hard is this to understand?

Here, a line drawing exploded view showing the DAC, and one of the film magazines unattached, for illustration:



They could carry more than one film magazine to be used in the camera!!


Interesting.
How did they record the sound?



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

My issue is that you have not saidn why you consider it factual and relevant to the moon landing hoax.

Glad to have cleared that up for you, and I look forward to your answer.

Yes, you cleared that up nicely.
I now know for certain you didnt understand my post(s)

Lets me summarize the four posts.


Well done FoosM!
Your research adds immensely! Even Bellcomm (AT&T) as you mentioned played a vital role in the success of the Apollo Propaganda Program. As did Mr. Rogers and Al Worden,




posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 02:48 AM
link   
Jarrah is discussing the lack of plume on the ascent module during lunar liftoff. Uploaded by WhiteJarrah on Oct 30, 2011



And Jarrah's response to questions about it.



edit on 11/8/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)

edit on 11/8/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 02:53 AM
link   
It states on that chart that the temperature was recorded at the heat exchanger. Now i have NO idea what that is, will happily admit that. And im sneaking glances at this thread as im at work and dont wanna get caught! But surely thats the crucial thing here? If i took the temperature in the interior of my car this morning it would be bloody cold. But if i measured different parts of the car, for example, near the exhaust manifold, it would be considerably hotter.

Forgive me if its been mentioned, like i said im skimming, but surely its relevent WHERE the temperatures were recorded


Love this thread, as a neutral its really informative, but Foos etc, ive gotta be honest, every single thing you guys come up with with gets shot down with science. I admire your determination and the fact you stick to your guns, but sooner or later you have to learn to admit you were wrong on something and move on in life.

If your holding an apple, and everyone proves beyond reasonable doubt with proper science and reasoned observation that your holding an apple and it even looks and tastes like an apple, then no point sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming its an orange.




posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by expatwhite
It states on that chart that the temperature was recorded at the heat exchanger. Now i have NO idea what that is, will happily admit that. And im sneaking glances at this thread as im at work and dont wanna get caught! But surely thats the crucial thing here? If i took the temperature in the interior of my car this morning it would be bloody cold. But if i measured different parts of the car, for example, near the exhaust manifold, it would be considerably hotter.



Well as I read it, it was used to get the ambient temperature of the CM:



The ambient temperature sensor was located near the inlet to the heat exchanger and it was necessary that the heat exchanger be operating to provide a representative ambient temperature reading. Typically, when the heat exchanger was turned on the temperature reading immediately rose 2.2° to 3.3°K (4° to 6°F),




So... yeah.



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



If you are talking about Apollo 11 Neil said that he could see his footprints and the treads of his boots in the "fine, sandy particles".


If you were following the flow of conversation.....the initial claim by 'FoosM' was that during the launch of the ASCENT Module, the flag should have been "sandblasted".

The Lunar Module DESCENT portion acted as a sort of launchpad, and as such, the Ascent Module was elevated, on that lower section above the Lunar surface. There was no accumulation of Lunar regolith up there, surrounding the Ascent Module engine thrust nozzle.

Is this difficult to understand for some reason?

Here....instead of posting the (rather large) image, just a link to the photo, with a Human astronaut standing next to the spacecraft, for size comparison:




Understanding how the exhaust gases would behave in a vacuum is another crucial aspect to understanding that the Ascent engine thrust pattern would NOT have affected the regolith located on the Lunar surface. Also, there was the simple fact of that large object (the Descent Module) acting as a launchpad that was in the way....


Awesome pic~!.. especially with the ENTIRE LM with ZERO dust.. someone must have taken the duster to it after words eh ? especially the landing pads.... but, it's hard as a rock up there .. or is it .. or is it just under LM that doesn't have any dust / sand .. ? Footprint on the Moon and a half of a foot print at that

edit on 8-11-2011 by Komodo because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-11-2011 by Komodo because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by expatwhite

Love this thread, as a neutral its really informative, but Foos etc, ive gotta be honest, every single thing you guys come up with with gets shot down with science. I admire your determination and the fact you stick to your guns, but sooner or later you have to learn to admit you were wrong on something and move on in life.



I will of course have to disagree with you. I think we have shown that the science that supports Apollo is pretty much shoddy and unvalidated. And that the people behind the science are suspect. I do admit there have been some occasions were we have barked up the wrong tree, but then again, in many other areas we have found anomalies and contradictions that simply can not be explained away conclusively by science. I will provide a few more those in the near future.



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 07:00 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


One of the reasons i respect you foosm, is that while i think your TOTALLY wrong, you are at least courteous in your replies (usually
) so kudos to you.

I do look forward to your attempts to prove the science i have seen wrong, because with every reply you get i learn a bit more. And to the posters who keep responding to you with facts and figures rather than just losing their temper, people such as proudbird, djm (weedwhacker also i seem to remember from the past?) etc, i sincerely thank you, i LOVE this thread, one of the reasons i have returned to ATS after a prolonged absense due to silliness on here.

So hats off to both sides for the best thread on ATS by a country mile



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 644  645  646    648  649  650 >>

log in

join