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 Apollo pics, video and transcripts

page: 17
9
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by bokonon2010
 

Timeline:
The LM descent stage water valve was opened at 126:17:00 (it was closed during EVA prep). At 127:52 the water leak was reported.

And we're not sure whether it spilled a fair amount of water or just the little small puddle that we have here on the floor of the LM. Have you noticed any significant decrease in water supply?

Houston reports:

Allen: Dave and Jim, this is Houston. Our data shows no leakage of water at all. We suspect that the little puddle you see on the floor is about all the water that's dripped out there.


Later, more than two hours after the leak had been stopped by removing the filter:

130:32:01 Parker: Rog. We noticed over the last half hour or so, a 25-pound drop in the water quantity. We're wondering if you guys have been doing something. Know anything about that you could clue us in on?

130:32:16 Scott: Rog. We just recharged both PLSSs.

130:32:19 Parker: Rog. Was that in the last hour and a half?

130:32:24 Scott: Rog. Just in about the last, oh, 30, 40 minutes.


Then, a bit later:

130:54:45 Parker: And one last comment to give you a good night's sleep. That little water leak you guys saw when you came in the cabin this afternoon. Right now, our plots are showing that as 25 pounds (about ten liters). Do you guys care to make any comments about the size of the leak, or anything more about that?

130:55:04 Scott: My! No, except that, when we got in, that little plastic connector on the - yeah - on the bacteria filter was broken and there was water running out of it.

130:55:22 Parker: Roger; understand. More or less a steady stream?

history.nasa.gov...

It sounds to me like there was some confusion over the water loss. The amount of the leak was too slight to register when it occurred. 2 hours later Houston noticed a decrease (during the recharging of the PLSS's) the amount of the decrease was 25 pounds, most of that attributable to the recharge, a small amount, the amount seen on the floor of the LM, to the leak. But for 25 pounds of water to have leaked in 95 minutes, it would have been a very slow leak. It seems that if 25 pounds of water had been loose in the LM it may have been of concern but apparently not. I just don't see the problem.

[In a 1996 letter, Dave noted that no one, he and Jim included, seems to have asked where the 25 pounds of water went.]


There is a discrepancy with in the amount of water carried on the LM.

[The LM water tanks were loaded with a total of 496 pounds at the start of the mission. Planned usage was 391 pounds, with the remainder constituting a reserve. Actual usage will be 419 pounds. The estimated 25-pound loss due to the leak is a significant fraction of the 105 pound reserve, but not enough to cause cancellation of EVA-3.]


According to this source: lsda.jsc.nasa.gov...
The LM on Apollo 15 carried a total of 664 pounds of water in the descent stage, representing a reserve of 245 pounds, making the loss only about 10% of the reserve. Not a problem at all.

Apparently see something highly significant here. Something that indicates Apollo 15 was a hoax? I don't, I see a probable misunderstanding of no real consequence. Do you think the water leak was just a show and they messed up? What's the point? Why bother?

Why do you have to be so abrasive and insulting? Why can't you just make your point clearly and discuss it? It can be much more productive.

edited because I misread the timestamps.
And again...for the same reason.

[edit on 8/7/2010 by Phage]

[edit on 8/7/2010 by Phage]




posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
 

Timeline:

[Tech Debriefing]
The leak have been mentioned almost immediately by astronots after EVA1.

126:09:28 [the door closed]
when
126:08:40, 126:16:16 [helmets and gloves taken off]
[Transcripts]

and more than 1 hour later (only after meals):


At 127:52 the water leak was reported.
^^^^^
Correct.


Later, more than two hours after the leak had been stopped by removing the filter
^^^^^
Is this your fantasy or you can back it up by transmission reports?



130:32:01 Parker: Rog. We noticed over the last half hour or so, a 25-pound drop in the water quantity. We're wondering if you guys have been doing something.



Apparently see something highly significant here. Something that indicates Apollo 15 was a hoax? I don't, I see a probable misunderstanding of no real consequence. Do you think the water leak was just a show and they messed up? What's the point? Why bother?


Is this a flag signal to your forum colleagues to bury (using flood, deviation, silence default) the straight questions from my OP as you fail to explain them?

[edit on 8.8.2010 by bokonon2010]



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by bokonon2010
 

From the Technical debrief:

Then we disconnected the filter; that stopped the leak.


From the transcript:

127:52:48 Scott: The bacteria filter that's on the water gun, at some stage in the process today, got broken. It only has a plastic connector on it, rather than a metal connector, and the plastic connector chipped, and it started leaking. And we don't know exactly when that happened. We found it when we were unsuiting to get a drink. And we're not sure whether it spilled a fair amount of water or just the little small puddle that we have here on the floor of the LM. Have you noticed any significant decrease in water supply?

127:53:26 Allen: Stand by, Dave.

127:53:31 Scott: Okay. (Long Pause) And, of course, Joe, the bacteria filter is no longer usable, if anybody is worried about that. We're not, particularly.

The leak was discovered before it was reported. Unless you believe the astronauts did nothing about the leak, it was also stopped before it was reported.

Houston inquired about water usage at 130:32. More than two hours after the report of the leak.

To answer your questions.
1) The leak was stopped by disconnecting the bacteria filter.
2) Any liquid water would have vaporized when the LM was depressurized for the next EVA.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by bokonon2010
 


The proper SPELLING is AstroNAUTs.

The only people I ever see spelling that word the way you do are the Apollo "hoaxists" and "hoax" believers who post on YouTube.

But, of course, earlier you said you don't subscribe to the Apollo "hoax" 'theories'??

How can you reconcile this discrepancy??



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by bokonon2010
 

Houston inquired about water usage at 130:32. More than two hours after the report of the leak.

To answer your questions.
1) The leak was stopped by disconnecting the bacteria filter.
2) Any liquid water would have vaporized when the LM was depressurized for the next EVA.

You have failed to answer the questions from my OP [www.abovetopsecret.com...], instead you chosen the info deception to change them.

Re1) you failed to find an answer when the leak stopped and how it was handled. More:


history.nasa.gov...

128:19:10 Irwin: Yeah.
[Worden has hot-water to use in preparing his meals, a luxury the LM crews have to do without.]

Where did they get this hot-water from? (tip: meals were prepared and taken before the leak reported (but observed already) to Houston.

Re2) you have failed to answer the question of observed liquid water (discovered straight after EVA1) and instead speculated what would happen in next EVA2. Compare your speculation with ALSJ props:


history.nasa.gov...

138:05:16 Fullerton: Okay. If you find any water back there, we have some suggested procedures to clean it up, and we'd like to do that before depressurization.

138:05:33 Scott: Rog. Will do.

[Long Comm Break]

[Scott - "If we had a problem, they should have awakened us early, to take care of the problem...if you want to stay on the timeline. Cause, if you ever get behind, you get behinder. You know, the old saying, 'Get ahead and stay ahead.'"]

[Jones - "Otherwise, you might lose the North Complex or something."]

[The reason for cleaning up the water prior to depressurization is to prevent sublimation in the vacuum which would not only cool the cabin but might also lead to ice formation on the hatch seal and/or various cabin systems. Indeed, the fact that there is, indeed, a considerable amount of liquid water behind the engine cover suggests that the bacteria filter was broken at the end of the EVA and that much of the leakage occurred after repressurization.]

138:10:56 Scott: Hello, Houston; Falcon. Yes, we do have a little puddle of water back behind the engine cover.

[If none of the 25 pounds of water had sublimated, the puddle would contain a bit over 11 liters. As can be inferred from the quantity of water involved - and Dave's statement during the post-flight Technical Debrief - Dave's "little puddle" is undoubtedly an understatement.]

[Scott, from the 1971 Technical Debrief - "Sure enough, there was a great big puddle back there."]


[edit on 9.8.2010 by bokonon2010]



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by bokonon2010
 


The proper SPELLING is AstroNAUTs.

The only people I ever see spelling that word the way you do are the Apollo "hoaxists" and "hoax" believers who post on YouTube.

But, of course, earlier you said you don't subscribe to the Apollo "hoax" 'theories'??

How can you reconcile this discrepancy??


I do not complain about the spelling COSMONAUTS.
Though your off-topic question reflects the level of cultural tolerance the Apollo props exhibit.

[edit on 9.8.2010 by bokonon2010]



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by bokonon2010
 

Wonderful. More information. But they did tell us how they stopped the leak (by removing the filter).

Now will you please just get to the point of all this? Will you just tell us what the big deal about the leaky bacteria filter is?

[edit on 8/9/2010 by Phage]



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by bokonon2010
 

Wonderful. More information. But they did tell us how they stopped the leak (by removing the filter).

Now will you please just get to the point of all this? Will you just tell us what the big deal about the leaky bacteria filter is?


Return to the post www.abovetopsecret.com...
read it and follow-up posts.
Then answer the questions:

When the filter was broken?
Was it cause of the water leak? [answered]
When the water leak stared?
When it first observed? [answered]
What they saw? [partly answered]
Where did they get the water for the meals?
When was the water leak reported first? [answered]
When the water leak stopped?
What amount of water was lost because of the leak? [answered]
Was it a serious accident? Could it impact the mission? [partly answered]
When did they begin to deal with the leaked water? How?



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 08:10 AM
link   
Hello again,

This is one that I find puzzling.

In the following 2 videos of repairs to the ISS in 2010, something struck me.

The astronauts motion during repairs actually looks normal. I think this is because the ISS missions ARE real.

For some reason I think we've been led to believe everything in space, especially the apollo missions should be in slow motion.

But apparently that's not the case, things do in fact move at normal speed in space.

Look at how fast these guys hands go repairing the space station.




Then compare this to the apollo missions. In all fairness I've tried to find similar type hand actions from their missions.

ps. I'm glad we didn't have TV reception issues in 1969 like the ones we have during todays spacewalks in 2010. That would have been a nuisance.
Maybe they could source some of the old technology to fix today's issue huh?



edit: Did the tv camera have an extension arm on the rover ?

I ask this because it looks like the camera recording this video is off quite significantly to one side of the rover.





[edit on 30-8-2010 by ppk55]



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


I am amazed (well, now it makes sense) that you had the (wrong) impression all this time, about "slow motion" in space. Little wonder, you've thoguht you've discovered 'anomolies'....working from the wrong set of assumptions, to begin with.

( I guess too many bad, bad Hollywood depicitions of "space" over many decades of popular entertainment are at fault...has been responsible for this misconception... ;( )

Now, this bit?:


ps. I'm glad we didn't have TV reception issues in 1969 like the ones we have during todays spacewalks in 2010. That would have been a nuisance. Maybe they could source some of the old technology to fix today's issue huh?


??? Just when it seems you're starting to really "get it"...you come up with THIS sort of nonsense? :shk:



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


The TV camera was mounted to one side of the rover:


I have no idea what you're talking about when you claim things in space are in "slow motion." Everything seems to move quite naturally, although on the Moon things fall more slowly due to the 1/6th gravity.
Edit to fix embedding.

[edit on 30-8-2010 by DJW001]


jra

posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
For some reason I think we've been led to believe everything in space, especially the apollo missions should be in slow motion.


Who's "we" in that sentence? There is plenty of footage that shows the Apollo astronauts moving normally. Especially in footage where you see one of them trip and fall and there arms and feet move quickly as they try regain there footing.


ps. I'm glad we didn't have TV reception issues in 1969 like the ones we have during todays spacewalks in 2010.


They also didn't have camera's mounted on the helmets during Apollo like they do now.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


His hands and body in the Apollo clip are quite clearly moving at normal speed. I don't see an issue here.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 07:51 AM
link   
The slow motion issue is just something I've noticed recently, comparing it to video I've seen of ISS repairs. Maybe we can choose to disagree.

Also, I've just found a great video. It's presented by Marcus Allen publisher of Nexus magazine.

There are 12 parts, and it really brings to life some new information I've never heard of in the Apollo hoax story.

Here is part 1 of 12




posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


Could you provide a quick verbal summary of the salient points?



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 08:49 AM
link   
No DJW, look at it yourself. Stop being so lazy.

This I find amazing. It's from the Honeysuckle creek tracking station in Australia that also provided support to Apollo besides Parkes and Goldstone.


Originally posted by www.honeysucklecreek.net
John Saxon writes,

It may seem strange, but Apollo support sites were not required to keep a formal log. Usually particular times were reported to Houston as they happened, or when the action was completed. Some times were reported in post-pass Teletype messages.

At Honeysuckle we did try to maintain an overall log of mission events as we observed them. And the operating position on the right hand side of the main station Operations console got lumbered with the job.

This position was also required to monitor anything up to 6 or 7 voice loops simultaneously, and respond as required. Also, there were two 25 key CAMs (Computer Address Matrix) used to control some aspects of the Command and Telemetry Computers (send commands to the Spacecraft if data communications were lost between the site and Houston, etc.), operated by this position. So keeping a written log as well, was sometimes difficult.


www.honeysucklecreek.net...

Right, so keeping logs of this important, once in a lifetime event wasn't that important. Actually, 'not required' .. Yeah right.

This is beyond belief. Any critical element in man's supposedly greatest accomplishment must have been required to keep at least a formal log. Apparently, not so. I don't know what more to say.

edit: I wonder why they weren't required to keep a formal log.

Also, what were these '6 or 7 voice loops'?
Can anyone elaborate that knows more than myself? Anyone?

[edit on 7-9-2010 by ppk55]



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


And you complained about others being "rude"???


No DJW, look at it yourself. Stop being so lazy


If you had paid attention, you would have seen that 'DJW' was unable to hear any sound on YouTube videos.

Nice touch..... :shk:



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


Your expectations are irrelevant. As someone who's kept logs under real-time situations, I can tell you that everyone focusing on the job is much more important than writing things down as it happens. Log-keeping can be useful, but it is also distracting in a busy situation.

Besides, if they had kept a meticulous log, moment-by-moment, then hoax-believers would have just called it fake anyway.




posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 09:46 AM
link   
I've looked at the logs and now I can now confirm point 7.

So now I must ask again, how can the lens flare and 'sun' of the below images be identical if...

[1] The 2 photos are taken 27 frames apart
[2] The astronaut descended into a crater to take the second one
[3] The sun moved at least 2 degrees in elevation between these photos
[4] Every photo they took had the horizon at a different level as evidenced in the pans above.
[5] They had no viewfinder
[6] The 2nd photo was omitted from the pan
[7] The camera was mounted and fixed on the astronauts chest plate.


From NASA lunar surface journal
[The checklist calls for Al to mount one of the 70 mm cameras on the bracket on the front of his chest-mounted RCU. This will leave his hands free for other tasks. When he needs to take a picture, all he needs to do is squeeze a trigger on the handle which is also attached to the bracket.]




Once again, to achieve the sun and lens flare in the identical position on photos 27 frames apart given the above 7 points I think is remarkable.

edit: I'm going to call this one ... the sun and lens flare were added in later. Apart from the obvious take a look at the rays just visible screen left. They're even identical.

sources:

history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...

The 2 frames are AS12-46-6739 and 6766

www.lpi.usra.edu...
eol.jsc.nasa.gov...



edit on 13-9-2010 by ppk55 because: calling it : the sun and lens flare was added in later



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 



So now I must ask again, how can the lens flare and 'sun' of the below images be identical


It's still the same lens.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join