PDA

View Full Version : Apollo 13 Hoax?



SAMU
2001-Nov-03, 08:46 AM
I hope you can answer this question and if not I hope it gives you food for thought as it has me.

Regarding the moon landing hoax. I didn’t see the fox special on it but I have heard of it. I don’t disbelieve that the landings happened.

My question regards the Apollo 13 story. According to the story the spacecraft got cold when it had to power down all non essential equipment after it lost power after the accident. It got so cold that the astronauts cought colds, their breath fogged when they exhaled and condensation formed on the inside if the ship.

My question is, since the closed ship was in direct raw sunlight with no aptnospheric
insulation and with a solar exposure equivelent to the equatorial desert, at high noon, 24 hours a day for 5 days. Like a car parked in direct sunlight with the windows rolled up. How did they throw off all that heat as well as the heat produced by their bodies?

Part of the "answer" is that some of the light was reflected by the skin of the ship and the heat coming in from the sun side of the ship was radiated away from the shaded side. Some of the light comming through the windows would have been trapped inside the ship by the greenhouse effect. The astronauts mentioned they were irritated by the bright light coming in the window. They did not mention that they were warmed by that light.
Also the condensation pattern inside the ship was as if the ship was in contact with cold water. The tempreture was cold enough to condense the water but not freeze it as it would if the ship was in contact with somthing else of a different tempreture. Which is a very narrow range.

As you may know, because anything in direct sunlight in space gets hot as well as heat
produced by the bodies of the astronauts, heat builds up. Heat removal apparatus is a major design feature of spacecraft and spacesuits. Turning off those apparatus to conserve energy would have created an overheating problem not an over cooling problem.

Naturaly, having thought up this complex of peculiarities I have also bult up some
suspicions as to what may have really happened. I have three main possibilities, from the picayune to the tragic.
One is that it was a publicity stunt to reaquire waning public intrest and funding. another is that there was a covert mission under way and the disaster was a cover. Finaly, that the mission was actually lost and the story was fabricated to cover the fact.
In all cases the hoax, if it was a hoax, could have been carried out in the mission
simulators using one of the preplaned disaster scenareos that all crews train under. As is part of the story the people on the ground were trying to help the men up there. So there was a lot of activity at the mission simulators at that time. Since the mission was notoriously under reported by
the media before the accident. NASA had more than usual freedom to set up the hoax. If it was a hoax I suspect mostly the covert mision because there are earmarks of planning evident in the events as told by the story. The under reporting could have been planned as a cover for a planned covert mission. In the planning stage of the cover story someone thinking to make the hoax as realistic as possible may have said ‘It’s cold in space, so if we say they lose power then they should get cold.” Not knowing that space in fact is niether hot nor cold. An object in the sun gets very hot and an object in the shade gets very cold. That fallacy was and still is a common myth. A person including it in the story may have pointed out that people know that “It’s cold in space.” so convinced all involved that the simulator had to get cold or the cover would be blown. That error in the planning stage, when being set up may have had the crew asking themselves “How are we going to get this simulator cold”. Rather than build a huge refrigerator to cool the simulator they may have just set it up in a tank of cold water. Setting up in an artificial environment would also explain why the bright lights of the powerful floodlights set to simulate the sun irritated the
astronauts but did not warm them.
Since as this story is one of NASA’s finest hours and everyone involved seemes more than
willing to talk. If you ask some questions sensitive to this scenario of your contacts in NASA and they suddenly freeze up, could you let me know that? If you answer this I would ask the question of why anything else in direct sunlight in space gets hot but this
didn’t.

Yours
David Samuel
dpsamu@yahoo.com
1337 Esplanade Ave.
New Orleans LA
70116

David Simmons
2001-Nov-03, 03:05 PM
On 2001-11-03 03:46, SAMU wrote:

My question regards the Apollo 13 story. According to the story the spacecraft got cold when it had to power down all non essential equipment after it lost power after the accident. It got so cold that the astronauts cought colds, their breath fogged when they exhaled and condensation formed on the inside if the ship.

Yours
David Samuel
dpsamu@yahoo.com
1337 Esplanade Ave.
New Orleans LA
70116



You don't say whether this "Apollo 13 story" is the movie, or a NASA report. The movie, from all I hear was a good one but it is a movie. Movies tell stories and a story needs conflict of some sort.

As to temperature. An object that absorbs and radiates all wavelengths equally, i.e. a black body, at the orbit of the earth will assume a temperature of 288 deg K. or 13 deg C (55 deg F). If the object doesn't absorb all of the energy of the sun but reflects half of it, the temperature could be as low as -31 deg C (-24 deg F). So the temperature of Apollo 13 would probably be somewhere between these extremes.

The three astronauts provide about 40 calories/sec which would help keep things warmer.

SAMU
2001-Nov-03, 08:06 PM
The "Story" is the official NASA complex of reports including the reports of the astronauts, TV and filmed images from the inside of the ship, the mission control personel, the news media as well as hundreds of other sources. The movie was based on those reports but the cold was not made up to create conflict in a movie. It is part of all accounts of the Apollo 13 events. As to "black body" issues. A non rotating body reaches tempretures of some 200 degrees F on the sun side and some 200 below zero F on the shady side. Some energy would be reflected from the sun side, some would be radiated from the sun side, some would be conducted by the material of the ship to the shaded side and radiated from that side, none would be convected away because there is no convecting medium in space. At any rate the ship should have been hot on one side and cold on the other. Were it the case that the ship was throwing off heat in these manners then the condensation on the interior of the ship would have been on the shaded side and none on the hot side. I never heard any mention in any report that the ship was rotating, hot on one side and cold on the other or had any other asymetrical deviation from evenly cold even when the astronauts were in the direct, raw sunlight comming through the windows of the ship. Put your hand in direct sunlight on a sunny day and see how much heat it gets.


SAMU

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SAMU on 2001-11-03 15:15 ]</font>

The Rat
2001-Nov-03, 08:56 PM
Put your hand in direct sunlight on a sunny day and see how much heat it gets.
SAMU
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SAMU on 2001-11-03 15:15 ]</font>


OOPS! before I edited this I said "I don't know where you live", and I just noticed it's New Orleans. You're forgiven. I've heard that you only have two seasons there, summer and February.

Anyhow, if you ever get one, try your hand experiment on a cold day. I'm in Toronto, and on a cold winter's day I can stick my hand out of the sleeve of my thick parka and feel some warmth on the the sunlit side.

The rest of me is still frozen stiff.

The best way I've found to beat it (other than the two day drive to Florida) is to consume a warm mixture of fermented, distilled grain with some carbohydrates and fats. Irish coffee. Let's see if NASA will include that in the next emergency ration kit.

_________________
Free speech; exercise it or shut up!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Rat on 2001-11-03 16:10 ]</font>

SAMU
2001-Nov-03, 10:07 PM
The cold you feel in Toronto is caused by convection and conduction of heat to the cold air in contact with your hand carrying heat from your hand. Niether of those occur in space, only radiation and reflection. Prevent the heat from escaping by convection by keeping the heat transfered to the air by conduction trapped in the insulation of your parka and the heat stays and keeps you warm.

As I pointed out in the initial post, the pattern of condensation was consistant with a conduction convection pattern of cooling as if the ship was in contact with somthing either cold air or cold water. I suspect cold water because cold air might have been cold enough to freeze the condensation. Cold water on the other hand could only have cooled it to just above the freezing point of water unless it was salt water in which case it could have been cold enough to freeze, but it didn't freeze. So, fresh water.

SAMU

The Bad Astronomer
2001-Nov-03, 10:45 PM
As was previosuly pointed out, you cannot just say how hot something will be when you place it 1 AU from the Sun. The reflectivity of the object is critical. A white sheet placed in Earth orbit will be much cooler than a black one. Something that reflects 40% of the light that hits it (which is roughly what the Earth does) will actually have a temperature below freezing (assuming it rotates rapidly). The Earth's atmosphere's greenhouse effect is what keeps us above freezing.

So your comment about 200 Fahrenheit is essentially meaningless unless you say what the material is. For an Apollo capsule, which is highly reflective, the ambient temperature would be quite low.

Donnie B.
2001-Nov-04, 12:41 AM
Under normal circumstances, the problem facing the Apollo spacecraft designers was not how to keep the spacecraft warm, but how to keep it cool. Apollo had a lot of heat sources inside: the astronauts (only a small factor) and scads of electronic equipment, which in those days was far less efficient than today's equivalents. The problem was bad enough that the Lunar Module actually used a coolant fluid that circulated (absorbing heat from the equipment), and was then vented overboard, taking the heat with it.

To minimize the amount of heat that the cooling systems had to handle, the Apollo spacecraft (plural) were made very reflective (think shiny side of the aluminum foil). Therefore there was little thermal gain from solar radiation -- by design.

There was another factor as well, although I don't know whether it made any difference in the net thermal equation. It was not desirable to have one side of the spacecraft baking in the sun (and the other side freezing in shadow) for long periods, so it was standard practice to place the ship in "passive thermal mode". This was a controlled roll, with a rate on the order of one RPM, that allowed the ship to be evenly exposed on all surfaces. This was done during the Apollo 13 mission, even after the explosion. While it may not have reduced the solar heating of the interior, it did prevent then from pointing the windows at the sun and getting some warmth that way.

Indeed, it did get quite cold in the spacecraft, because most of the electronic gear was turned off. IIRC, the cabin temperature dropped to the low 40's (F) -- not much warmer than a refrigerator. And the astronauts didn't have any warm clothing. I'm not sure why the EVA suits couldn't be used, but even if they could, there were only two of them.

David Hall
2001-Nov-04, 03:35 AM
The DVD of Apollo 13 includes a very nice "making of" documentary. I was amazed at how much trouble they went through to make it accurate. Of course, they played up the drama a bit in some places, but the only major change they made to the story was a flare-up of tempers between the astronauts. They said in the documentary that it didn't happen that way in reality, but they wanted some way to show how the tension was getting to them.

It's a great movie, the more so for it's accuracy. What other movie has actually filmed it's actors in real free-fall? (It was robbed of a well-deserved special effects oscar by that stupid pig movie "Babe". /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_evil.gif Grrr! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_evil.gif) This DVD is one of those I intend to buy for myself as soon as I can. I highly reccommend it.

SAMU
2001-Nov-04, 04:30 AM
The 200 degree tempreture I mentioned was based on tempreture mesurements made of moon rocks, which have a high degree of refletivity, in direct sunlight. Certainly the combination of heat gain to heat loss could have resulted in a tempreture coincidentaly in the narrow range between condensation and freezing. The command capsule was covered in silvery material to reflect sunlight. Why? To reduce heating. The landing stage of the lander was covered with gold mylar laminate to reflect sunlight heat and landing rocket heat. Why? To reduce heating. The assent stage of the lander where the astronauts spent most of their time during 13 was not silvered to reflectivity. I find it remarkable that the combination of reflectivity, radiation and heat absorbtion and retension resulted in an average tempreture that resembles immersion in cold water. So I remarked on it. Were it me up there freezing my ears off, I would have spent plenty of time in the window with the sun shinning in to warm them up and to heck with rotating the craft at 1 RPM to maintain even heating which was by all accounts too durned cold to begin with. I know I wouldn't have complained that the light was irritating as the astronauts did. Although sodium arc light is very irritating and not very warming. Review every documentary you see about 13 from the perspective of the tempreture and you will spot an ever increasing number of peculiarities. For example the lithium hydroxide co2 scrubber problem with co2 as a measure of metabolic heat produced by the crew.

As to the tempreture here in New Orleans. It's not the heat it's the humidity. But on the topic of the air here. Even a mile and a half downwind from Bourbon Street on a Saturday night the air could be described as downright flamable.
Back to astronomy. Did you know that here in New Orleans on a clear night we can see many of the Space Shuttle's reentries? It is a spectacular sight. It streeks across the sky like a slow meteor from horizon to horizon in about 8 seconds. It's a fiercly glowing shooting star flickering as it passes through "chop" of varying density air with a glowing contrail 25 miles long. Five minutes later it's landing in Florida.

SAMU

Peter B
2001-Nov-04, 05:01 AM
SAMU

I'm intrigued by your logic. Let's compare Apollo 13 with other Apollo missions.

With all their instruments switched on, and everything operating normally, the other Apollo spacecraft maintained an acceptable temperature.

Now let's switch off most of the equipment, which produces heat, and see what happens to the temperature. If everything else is equal, the temperature's going to drop.

Incidentally, there's NO WAY they were not going to keep Apollo 13 in the Passive Thermal Roll. I understand that this was vital to prevent damage to several vital systems, including the heat shield. After all, I'd rather be cold for several days, than get cooked when my heat shield fails.

And as for Apollo 13's problems, to question whether the explosion was staged, don't forget that virtually every other Apollo mission suffered a range of problems, some of which could easily have caused an abort: Apollo 6 had three engines fail, including two on one stage; Apollo 10's lunar module went into wild gyrations while separated from the Command Module; Apollo 11 had programming bugs in its software which nearly caused an abort before landing; Apollo 12 was struck by lightning; Apollo 14's Command and Lunar Modules had problems docking...and they're just the ones I know about.

SAMU
2001-Nov-04, 08:10 AM
The other Apollo spacecraft had cooling systems working. The way a cooling system works in space is by compressing the heat and radiating it. The rate of heat lost by radiation is directly proportional to the tempreture of the radiating object. The hotter the object the faster the energy radiation. By compressing the heat to a radiator, a functioning cooling system is able to throw off heat fast enough to balance heat comming in to maintain a comfortable temprature.

Quote:
"there's NO WAY they were not going to keep Apollo 13 in the Passive Thermal Roll. I understand that this was vital to prevent damage to several vital systems, including the heat shield."

And what would have done the damage? Heat.

As to the mention of two EVA suits. I know I saw three astronauts in spacesuits board the rocket. Also, regarding those spacesuits. The profile of all the Apollo flights has the astronauts removing their suits after launch and putting them back on for the landings and reentries. I have seen the films of all the crewmen donning their suits before the flights and they each have at least 3 guys with pliers and monkeywrenches and screwdrivers helping them get them on. I realize that in a weightless capsule it would be somewhat easier and with the other astronauts to help...But, if you've ever seen how cramped the Apollo capsule is you can see that removing and redressing with a hard spacesuit gives a new meaning to the word cramp. And where did they store those big bulky suits anyway? Exept for the occasional loose glove floating around I don't recall ever seeing the suits sticking out of some corner. With the extremly limited space in the ship it seems the most efficient storage place for the suits would be on the crew's bodies.

As mentioned in the initial message I suspect a covert mission. I don't think they staged an explosion. I think they may have staged an entire mission to cover a covert mission. If a covert mission, did they actually land? Possibly, possibly not. Did they bring a lander with them at all? Possibly, possibly not. Did they bring several tons of somthing else with them? Possibly,...possibly.

SAMU



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SAMU on 2001-11-04 03:40 ]</font>

Kaptain K
2001-Nov-04, 01:13 PM
The 200 degree tempreture I mentioned was based on tempreture mesurements made of moon rocks, which have a high degree of refletivity, in direct sunlight.
High reflectivity?????? The albedo (reflectivity) of the moon is 0.07-0.11 (i.e. black as fresh laid asphalt). Not exactly "a high degree of reflectivity".


And what would have done the damage? Heat.
Assymetric thermal gradient!

_________________
All else (is never) being equal.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kaptain K on 2001-11-04 08:15 ]</font>

Donnie B.
2001-Nov-04, 06:37 PM
On 2001-11-04 03:10, SAMU wrote:
The other Apollo spacecraft had cooling systems working. The way a cooling system works in space is by compressing the heat and radiating it.


Actually, there are at least two ways to get rid of excess heat in space. One is to radiate it. Another is the one I mentioned in my earler post: use a coolant to absorb the heat, and dump the coolant (and its heat) by venting it. I'm not sure what you mean by "compressing" the heat; I don't believe heat is compressible. Concentrating it, perhaps? or compressing a coolant fluid, as in a refrigerator? I am not aware of any active refrigeration systems on Apollo, except those in the space suit life support systems. If there was any active refrigeration, it would have been shut off to conserve energy (which was the most limited resource after the explosion). So yes, that would have tended to make the capsule warm up, not cool off -- *if* there was active refrigeration, and *if* the remaining heat sources in the cabin were producing more heat than passive radiation could remove.



Quote:
"there's NO WAY they were not going to keep Apollo 13 in the Passive Thermal Roll. I understand that this was vital to prevent damage to several vital systems, including the heat shield."

And what would have done the damage? Heat.


As another poster pointed out, this is incorrect. The heat shield, for example, was not exposed to sunlight during the mission (it was covered by the Service Module); and even if it were, the heat wouldn't have bothered it. After all, it was designed to survive far greater heat during reentry (and dissipate that heat by ablation). The purpose of "passive thermal mode" was to keep all external parts of the spacecraft at moderate temperatures, rather than have some parts baking in the sun and other parts freezing in shadow. It was the temperature difference (gradient) that was undesirable.



As to the mention of two EVA suits...


The problem with any space suit (either the launch-day pressure suits or the moon suits) is that they are not like regular clothing. They don't "breathe". For this reason, they require active thermoregulation systems -- coolant pumped through the liner -- and this means they consume power. Once again, that was the resource they could least afford.

My guess would be that an astronaut wearing a "turned-off" spacesuit would begin to overheat, sweat profusely, and eventually die of heat stroke.



As mentioned in the initial message I suspect a covert mission. I don't think they staged an explosion. I think they may have staged an entire mission to cover a covert mission. If a covert mission, did they actually land? Possibly, possibly not. Did they bring a lander with them at all? Possibly, possibly not. Did they bring several tons of somthing else with them? Possibly,...possibly.


Well, I don't know about anybody else, but this sounds to me like pure paranoid conspiracy-mongering. What on earth (or off it) would the point be? And if there were such a covert mission, how has it been covered up so thoroughly for so long? There would have been hundreds of people involved. This argument can also be applied to the standard "moon hoax" theory, and it's equally powerful here.

The problem is, your proposed conspirators are both too smart (clever enough to organize a huge coverup and keep it secret for 40 years) and too dumb (not smart enough to figure out whether the cabin should get hot or cold).

So the idea of a vague conspiracy to do something-or-other isn't very persuasive to me. And you got to this because you have an intuitive suspicion (with no supporting evidence) that it got too cold in the spacecraft? Sorry, no sale.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Donnie B. on 2001-11-04 14:16 ]</font>

James
2001-Nov-04, 06:52 PM
...Apollo 12 was struck by lightning...

Did this happen during the launch into space or during re-entry and/or landing?

Donnie B.
2001-Nov-04, 07:28 PM
On 2001-11-04 13:52, James wrote:

...Apollo 12 was struck by lightning...

Did this happen during the launch into space or during re-entry and/or landing?



During launch. The "stack" was actually struck twice, and it caused a major electrical outage in the command module. However, the Saturn V launch vehicle had a completely independent guidance system that was well-protected from electrical discharges, and it continued to function perfectly.

After they got into orbit, the crew and ground controllers got the command module powered up again, did a full system checkout (which showed no damage), and decided to go ahead with the mission. I doubt whether today's NASA would do the same. In fact, it's not at all clear that they made the "prudent" decision then.

Incidentally, this incident caused NASA to change its launch rules in respect to electrical storms; they require much larger distance from the nearest storm now. The reason it happened, which no one had realized until then, is that the plume of ionized gasses from the engines created a low-impedance path from the launch vehicle to ground. In effect, the spacecraft was the tip of the world's tallest lightning rod!

SAMU
2001-Nov-04, 07:39 PM
Quote:

"High reflectivity?????? The albedo (reflectivity) of the moon is 0.07-0.11 (i.e. black as fresh laid asphalt). Not exactly "a high degree of reflectivity"."

I didn't say it is as reflective as a mirror or fresh fallen snow. But I can see from here that it's not as black as asphalt.
Still the usually quoted surface tempreture range is +200 degrees F. in the sun and -200 degrees F. in the shade. Nearby where I live we have beaches made of a unique type of sand. The sand is made of sphericly shaped grains of quartz. When the grans grind against eachother when you walk on them they squeek. The sand is also sugar white. But try walking across it bare foot at noon, it's hot. Also try touching a silvery chrome bumper in the sun just after noon, it's hot. As mentioned in the initial message, the spacecraft were in equatorial equivelent sunlight 24 hours a day for 5 days. To throw off that much heat by passive methods to the point of discomforting coldness goes against many design concerns I have heard of.
SAMU

SAMU
2001-Nov-04, 08:12 PM
Here is a drawing from the nasa website of the command module showing one of eight!!! electrical system radiator panels and one of two large environmental control system (ECS)radiator panels .

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/diagrams/ad004.gif

Here are many more pictures of Project Apollo.

http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/history/apollo/apollo.html

Also see here.

http://kids.msfc.nasa.gov/News/2001/News-StationCool.asp


Here is part of an essay written by 13 commander Jim Lovell

An engineering test on the vehicle showed
that its mechanisms could survive seven or eight hours in space without water cooling, until the guidance system rebelled at this enforced toasting.

Later in the same essay:

TIRED, HUNGRY, WET, COLD, DEHYDRATED
The trip was marked by discomfort beyond the lack of food and water. Sleep was almost
impossible because of the cold. When we turned off the electrical systems, we lost our source of heat, and the Sun streaming in the windows didn't much help. We were as cold as frogs in a frozen pool, especially Jack Swigert, who got his feet wet and didn't have lunar overshoes. It wasn't simply that the temperature dropped to 38 F: the sight of perspiring walls and wet
windows made it seem even colder. We considered putting on our spacesuits, but they would have been bulky and too sweaty. Our teflon-coated inflight coveralls were cold to the touch, and how we longed for some good old thermal underwear.

See here
http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/pao/factsheets/nasapubs/suit.gif
Note the liquid cooling and ventalation garment. Is this a red handed lie here?
SAMU





<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SAMU on 2001-11-04 16:42 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SAMU on 2001-11-04 17:11 ]</font>

GrapesOfWrath
2001-Nov-05, 12:25 AM
On 2001-11-04 13:37, Donnie B. wrote:
Well, I don't know about anybody else, but this sounds to me like pure paranoid conspiracy-mongering.

I'd go with that. Questions about nagging (apparent) inconsistencies are one thing--to make a leap to cover-up and hoax are another.


What on earth (or off it) would the point be? And if there were such a covert mission, how has it been covered up so thoroughly for so long? There would have been hundreds of people involved. This argument can also be applied to the standard "moon hoax" theory, and it's equally powerful here.

The problem is, your proposed conspirators are both too smart (clever enough to organize a huge coverup and keep it secret for 40 years) and too dumb (not smart enough to figure out whether the cabin should get hot or cold).

Worse, it seems that the data that he's using to "prove" his case is ... other NASA missions. Apparently, those are still believed to have happened--but the participants don't seem to have known anything about how they operated.

<font size=-1>[Fixed formatting of quotes]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: GrapesOfWrath on 2001-11-05 07:27 ]</font>

The Bad Astronomer
2001-Nov-05, 02:11 AM
I didn't say it is as reflective as a mirror or fresh fallen snow. But I can see from here that it's not as black as asphalt.

You are not correct. The reflectivity of the Moon (known technically as the albedo) is indeed roughly that of asphalt or a blackboard. The Moon looks white because it is brightly lit in a dark sky. A piece of asphalt the same size as the Moon, at that distance, sitting in full sunlight would look the same.

Instead of guessing, you could research this. The information isn't hard to find. Try a web search on "moon albedo" and see what you get.



Still the usually quoted surface tempreture range is +200 degrees F. in the sun and -200 degrees F. in the shade.


Again, this is misleading. The surface of the Moon does get hot, but not until the Sun is shining down on it at a steep angle. Try walking on your beach at an hour after sunrise and compare how hot the sand is to noon.

Anyway, the analogy is false; the reflectivity of metal is probably 3-5 times better than the Moonrocks.



Also try touching a silvery chrome bumper in the sun just after noon, it's hot.


While chrome is highly reflective in the visible portions of the spectrum, I have read that it has a very low emissivity; that is, it traps heat very well. So while it does reflect efficiently, what it does not reflect it doesn't emit efficiently. The heat builds up, just more slowly (this too can be found on the web).

The lesson here is that your common sense may steer you in the wrong direction, as it has in this case. There may be (and almost certainly always will be) many factors of which you are unaware that profoundly affect the case you are studying.

Ben Benoy
2001-Nov-05, 02:19 AM
Ok, so what exactly is the problem here?

Your first link shows a picture of the spacecraft with units that presumably radiate heat out into space. During normal operation, the electrical systems would be generating heat, and the panels you point out seem to be a way of ditching the excess heat. This suggests that the electrical systems generate a lot of heat. Which is in keeping with the assertion that electrical equipment was not that efficient.

I'm not sure what I am supposed to see in the pictures in your second link. I would point out though that Lovell apparently lived long enough to write the essay you quoted, so your theory that they all died is pretty much out the window. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif

Now, the next link is to a NASA kids site, and it says



The Sun can heat up one side of the Space Station to 250° F (121° C)! That's hot enough to boil water. The other side of the Station, toward dark, cold space, can get down to -250° F (-157° C).


It doesn't say that it does do this, just that it can. It then says that there are measures to prevent this happening, such as reflective surfaces, and heat exchangers. What's your point? Are you saying that the Apollo 13 crew should have stopped spinning so that one side of their craft might heat up, but the difference in temperature of systems would cause them to break, leading to certain death?

Then there's the essay from Jim Lovell, and a cryptic remark about a red-handed lie (which metaphor I'm not sure I understand). As I understand it, the liquid cooled garment worn under the suit is just that, a jumpsuit you wear which takes heat from your body, transfers it to a liquid in the garment, from whence the heat is transfered to the outer layer and radiated away. So you don't sweat yourself to death. Don't think that I'd want to wear a cooling garment in 38 degree weather. But that's just me.

Ok, that's enough. You need to work out what your position is, and then try to support it. Right now you have too many contradictory agendas running at once.

Ben Benoy

SAMU
2001-Nov-05, 03:50 AM
Quote:

“Well, I don't know about anybody else, but this sounds to me like pure paranoid
conspiracy-mongering. What on earth (or off it) would the point be? And if there were such a covert mission, how has it been covered up so thoroughly for so long? There would have been hundreds of people involved. This argument can also be applied to the standard "moon hoax" theory, and it's equally powerful here. “

The government runs covert ops all the time. The CIA, FBI, SS, NSA, etc, all secrecy based
organizations. NASA launches classified missions abord the Shuttle frequently. They tend to use the Atlantis by the way. It’s smaller, lighter, faster, higher flying. They announce them as classified. They don't say what's aboard. It’s not “conspiracy-mongering” to point out that an Apollo mission could have been used for one. That a covert op couldn’t have happened because hundreds of people couldn’t have kept a secret Is flawed logic. They sign
security oaths. They would land in jail if they spilled the beans. Do they sign those oaths for fun?

Quote:

“The problem is, your proposed conspirators are both too smart (clever enough to organize a huge coverup and keep it secret for 40 years) and too dumb (not smart enough to figure out whether the cabin should get hot or cold).”

If it was a covert operation it would have been run by that organization that is the classic definition of contradiction of terms “Millitary Inteligence.”

Quote:

“So the idea of a vague conspiracy to do something-or-other isn't very persuasive to me. “

Not knowing what they did doesn’t make it vague. If they admited (or it was proven) that it was a covert op but did not say what was done, doesn’t make it vague.

Quote:

“And you got to this because you have an intuitive suspicion (with no supporting evidence) that it got too cold in the spacecraft? Sorry, no sale.”

Plenty of supporting evidence. No intuition required. Just system analysis.

Just because it may have been a covert op doesn’t meen it was evil. Sure, it could have been a nuclear weapons platform or it could have just been a high powered telescopic camera.

SAMU

SAMU
2001-Nov-05, 04:20 AM
Bad A,

I'm surprised at you. Maybe asphalt is a different color where you come from but around here it's really black. The Moon looks bright grayish white in a black background from here but in photos from the surface it looks pretty much the same color, bright grayish white. Not black as the asphalt around here.

While I'm sure that you can find some internet hole full of bad astronomy regarding tempretures, albedo etc. The links I posted give the usual figures, diagrams, images etc from NASA. Unless there is some logic for discarding those figures that hasn't been posted yet, I think it's inteligent to go with those figures.

SAMU

SAMU
2001-Nov-05, 07:53 AM
Ben Benoy

I'll take some of your questions here but not all. Not that I can't It's just that they're kind of lame. And by lame I only meen it's clear you missed some things.

Quote:

"Your first link shows a picture of the spacecraft with units that presumably"

"Presumably? Nothing presumed about it. they're labled radiators, they are radiators.

"radiate heat out into space. During normal operation, the electrical systems would be generating heat, and the panels you point out seem to be a way of ditching the excess heat. This suggests that the electrical systems generate a lot of heat. Which is in keeping with the assertion that electrical equipment was not that efficient."

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/diagrams/ad004.gif

The picture also shows (as I mentioned when I posted the link) One of two of the larger environmental radiators. Just scroll down on the picture, adjacent to the high gain antenna.
See a photograph here.
http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/images/pao/AS13/10075514.jpg
It's the large light colored panel from 12 o'clock to 7 o'clock just left and aft of the large gaping hole.

Quote:

Now, the next link is to a NASA kids site, and it says"

You don't think the NASA kids sites have good info?

Quote:

The Sun can heat up one side of the Space Station to 250° F (121° C)! That's hot enough to boil water. The other side of the Station, toward dark, cold space, can get down to -250° F (-157° C).


It doesn't say that it does do this, just that it can."

Ya...right.

"It then says that there are measures to prevent this happening, such as reflective surfaces, and heat exchangers. What's your point? "

Do you know what a heat exchanger is? You think it's just somthing they can just turn off with no consequences? It doesn't prevent heat from comming in. It just manages it in a effective way. That is (if you had read further)it's connected to a network of water pipes which gather heat from the spacecraft, transfer it to a gaseous coolant, compress the gas, the gas heats up, goes to the radiator and radiates to space.(In a nutshell)

Quote:

"Then there's the essay from Jim Lovell, and a cryptic remark about a red-handed lie (which metaphor I'm not sure I understand)."

He wrote it with his hand, so a red handed lie. I couldn't post on short notice a video of him saying it with his mouth, as I have seen, in which case I would have called it a bald faced lie. Recognise the metaphors now?

"As I understand it, the liquid cooled garment worn under the suit is just that, a jumpsuit you wear which takes heat from your body, transfers it to a liquid in the garment, from whence the heat is transfered to the outer layer and radiated away. So you don't sweat yourself to death. Don't think that I'd want to wear a cooling garment in 38 degree weather. "

The coolant in the garment can be heated, cooled or turned off.
The thermal garment is described by the astronauts themselves in interviews taken while they are putting them on immediatly before missions and by the manufacturer as "glorified long underwear" .
I posted a quote from an essay written by the commander of 13 saying he "wished for some good old long underwear." I post a picture of the "glorified long underwear" he was supposed to be wearing. I say that someone is lying. You say it's " a cryptic remark". If it looks like long underwear, acts like long underwear and the people who use and make it call it long underwear. It's long underwear. Put two and two together here pal I can't do it for you. Well I could do it but that could make you LAME. And if you lame you could limp. And girls don't like a guy who limp.

SAMU

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SAMU on 2001-11-05 03:05 ]</font>

Kaptain K
2001-Nov-05, 09:33 AM
I'm surprised at you. Maybe asphalt is a different color where you come from but around here it's really black.
Yup! asphalt appears black compared to other things with higher reflectivity.

The Moon looks bright grayish white in a black background from here ...
So would a sun-lit parking lot, IF it could be seen against the truly *black* backdrop of space.

... but in photos from the surface it looks pretty much the same color, bright grayish white. Not black as the asphalt around here.
Do you have any grasp of the concept of how photographic exposures are optimized for the available light? I could take a picture of my backyard by moonlight and given fast enough film, small enough f/stop and long enough exposure, I could post a photo here that you would swear was taken in broad daylight. Conversely, I could take a picture of the same scene in daylight but with different film, f/stop and/or shutter speed, that would appear to be shot by moonlight. The shots of the moon surface were optimized for proper exposure to show maximum detail. The same exposure settings wuold also be correct for an asphalt parking lot in sunlight and would appear grayish-white.

WHarris
2001-Nov-05, 11:23 AM
On 2001-11-04 22:50, SAMU wrote:
The government runs covert ops all the time. The CIA, FBI, SS, NSA, etc, all secrecy based
organizations. NASA launches classified missions abord the Shuttle frequently.


Frequently?!? The last DOD related shuttle flight was back in 1992!

Your assertion that Atlantis was used exclusively during DOD missions is also incorrect. Discovery has been used on several occasions and at least one used Columbia.

James
2001-Nov-05, 01:05 PM
The thermal garment is described by the astronauts themselves in interviews taken while they are putting them on immediatly before missions and by the manufacturer as "glorified long underwear" .
I posted a quote from an essay written by the commander of 13 saying he "wished for some good old long underwear." I post a picture of the "glorified long underwear" he was supposed to be wearing. I say that someone is lying. You say it's " a cryptic remark". If it looks like long underwear, acts like long underwear and the people who use and make it call it long underwear. It's long underwear.

I do believe that you, SAMU, are the one taking things and twisting them. How do you know that maybe, just maybe, Lovell wasn't just wishing for some good old-fashioned long underwear instead of the new-fangled long underwear they had to wear? You don't. I know I've wished for some on some very cold mornings, but I didn't have them, so I made do with what I had.

If you still believe otherwise, provide proof. Just saying it won't make it come true.

Donnie B.
2001-Nov-05, 01:27 PM
SAMU,

Okay, it's clear to me that you have your theory and you're in love with it. Nobody's going to convince you you're wrong, and you're not going to convince anybody here that you're right.

But I'm enough of a masochist to take one more shot, even at the risk of being called "lame".

You claim the moon's surface is much brighter than fresh asphalt. Assume for a moment that this were true -- that the moon was a good reflector, and nearly white.

If that were the case, then the surface of the full moon would look nearly as bright as the disc of the sun! A moonlit night would have at least a dark-blue sky, and the moon would be too bright to look at directly. (No, it wouldn't be quite as bright as the sun, because some of the infalling light would reflect away in other directions. My point it that the moon would be far, far brighter than it is.)

But really, that's a side issue.

The main question is, if an Apollo spacecraft lost nearly all electrical power, would the cabin warm up or cool down?

Your own evidence shows that the designers were coping with a major heat buildup problem(under normal conditions) -- so much so that they had to provide lots of active cooling. The issue becomes, what is the source of that heat? We know of three possibilities: solar radiation, the astronauts' metabolisms, and the onboard electronic equipment. Which was the main contributor?

If it was the electronics, your claim falls apart, because all the CM systems were shut down, and the LM systems were running at a minimum level (and still being actively cooled, I might add -- you can't use a computer as a space heater without causing it to fail in both capacities).

OK, so how do we determine where the heat came from? We can discount the astronauts themselves. Their body heat wasn't nearly enough to require all that refrigeration. So was it the sun, or the electronics? I say that the presence of the radiators proves that it was the latter.

Remember, weight is critical on any space mission, and the lunar missions especially so. Refrigeration systems are heavy, and the more heat they have to dissipate, the heavier they get. So a spacecraft designer is going to do everything in his power to reduce the amount of heat that has to be removed.

But an electrical or electronic system can only get so efficient (given a particular era's technology). This was in the infancy of mircocircuits, and even a modern computer puts out quite a bit of heat. So for a given roster of electrical gear, there would be an irreducible heat budget.

But solar gain is something you can do something about, and it's not only easy to do but costs nothing in weight. That's to make the spacecraft as highly reflective as possible, reducing the solar gain so as to make the cooling system's job that much easier. A shiny surface doesn't weigh any more than a dark one -- maybe less.

In summary:
- Apollo had active cooling systems.
- So, Apollo had to get rid of excess heat.
- So, Apollo would have been designed to absorb as little solar heat as possible.
- So, since it still needed radiators even though it was reflective, the heat source was something else.
- So, the heat source was internal electrical equipment.
- The electrical equipment was nearly all turned off after the explosion on 13.
- Therefore, the cabin got cold.

I've said all I care to say on this topic. Have a nice, paranoia-filled life, SAMU.

K. Hovis
2001-Nov-05, 01:39 PM
On 2001-11-03 23:30, SAMU wrote:
The 200 degree tempreture I mentioned was based on tempreture mesurements made of moon rocks, which have a high degree of refletivity, in direct sunlight. Certainly the combination of heat gain to heat loss could have resulted in a tempreture coincidentaly in the narrow range between condensation and freezing. The command capsule was covered in silvery material to reflect sunlight. Why? To reduce heating. The landing stage of the lander was covered with gold mylar laminate to reflect sunlight heat and landing rocket heat. Why? To reduce heating. The assent stage of the lander where the astronauts spent most of their time during 13 was not silvered to reflectivity. I find it remarkable that the combination of reflectivity, radiation and heat absorbtion and retension resulted in an average tempreture that resembles immersion in cold water. So I remarked on it. Were it me up there freezing my ears off, I would have spent plenty of time in the window with the sun shinning in to warm them up and to heck with rotating the craft at 1 RPM to maintain even heating which was by all accounts too durned cold to begin with. I know I wouldn't have complained that the light was irritating as the astronauts did. Although sodium arc light is very irritating and not very warming. Review every documentary you see about 13 from the perspective of the tempreture and you will spot an ever increasing number of peculiarities. For example the lithium hydroxide co2 scrubber problem with co2 as a measure of metabolic heat produced by the crew.


SAMU


Any spacecraft is designed to exacting tolerances. The primary design criteria for Apollo spacecraft was to perform the missions selected using the lightest weight spacecraft and equipment that could be built. The LM's were made primarily from Titanium, the outer skins being .015" thick in many places. Titanium loses 10% of its strength and will enlongate about 10% of a part's length when exposed to 200 deg. F heating for 1/2 hr. (Check MIL-HNDBK-5F for 6Al-4V Ti). Again, the LM and CSM's were designed to exact tolerances. If only one side of the spacecraft were exposed for any great length of time, the deformation and loss of strength of the structure would have caused a catastrophic failure. The spacecraft had to rotate to evenly heat the outer surfaces. Also, the structure was designed to conduct heat through the the structure to the "cold" side to be radiated out into space. Little heat was radiated by the structure into the interior. As stated elswhere in this thread, the heat came from the equipment running. When the 13 crew had to power down, little was left to heat the interior.

{Edited for spelling errors!}

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: K. Hovis on 2001-11-05 08:45 ]</font>

GrapesOfWrath
2001-Nov-05, 01:44 PM
On 2001-11-05 08:27, Donnie B. wrote:
You claim the moon's surface is much brighter than fresh asphalt. Assume for a moment that this were true -- that the moon was a good reflector, and nearly white.

If that were the case, then the surface of the full moon would look nearly as bright as the disc of the sun! A moonlit night would have at least a dark-blue sky, and the moon would be too bright to look at directly. (No, it wouldn't be quite as bright as the sun, because some of the infalling light would reflect away in other directions. My point it that the moon would be far, far brighter than it is.)

But really, that's a side issue.

Sure, but in this case, everything is a side issue. The issue is whether or not Apollo 13 was a hoax, but the discussion hinges on "side issues."

Actually, I was startled by your claim that the moon would be as bright as the sun, but now that I think about it, it makes perfect sense. If there were a giant mirror orbiting the earth, reflecting the sun, we would see an image of the sun in that mirror which would be approximately the size of the sun, since the sun is so far away compared to the distance to the mirror. If the mirror was smaller than that, we'd see less of the image of the sun, and have less light, obviously--but since the moon is about the size of the sun in the sky, such a reflective moon would be able to reflect the whole image of the sun. And it would be about as bright as the sun. That's fifteen magnitudes brighter than what it is. So, it doesn't reflect very much light.

Sure is bright in the eyepiece, though.

Karl
2001-Nov-05, 02:29 PM
On 2001-11-05 08:44, GrapesOfWrath wrote:



Actually, I was startled by your claim that the moon would be as bright as the sun, but now that I think about it, it makes perfect sense. If there were a giant mirror orbiting the earth, reflecting the sun, we would see an image of the sun in that mirror which would be approximately the size of the sun, since the sun is so far away compared to the distance to the mirror. If the mirror was smaller than that, we'd see less of the image of the sun, and have less light, obviously--but since the moon is about the size of the sun in the sky, such a reflective moon would be able to reflect the whole image of the sun. And it would be about as bright as the sun. That's fifteen magnitudes brighter than what it is. So, it doesn't reflect very much light.

Sure is bright in the eyepiece, though.



As an interesting part of the side issue, a polished aluminum mirror put in orbit to perform the function you are describing would run very hot, the a/e values for that material are listed as: absorptance = .35 and emittance = .04 for and a/e of 8.75

A 'mirror' made of black paint would run much cooler: absorptance = .97 emittance = .91

If you really want it to run cold, make your mirror out of Optical Solar Reflectors ( silvered quartz mirrors with Teflon): absorptance = .08 emittance = .81

It's amazing how intutition fails totally when dealing with thermal optical properties.

Donnie B.
2001-Nov-05, 02:44 PM
Actually, I was startled by your claim that the moon would be as bright as the sun...



Glad I could startle you! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

Actually, I said nearly as bright. There are two factors that would cut that down: less-than-perfect reflectivity (SAMU is not claiming that the moon is pure white), and the fact that the moon is a sphere, so only a fraction of the incident light would happen to head our way. That's why I suggested a "dark blue sky" if the moon were more reflective than it is.

If the moon were, in fact, a plane (or slightly parabolic) mirror aimed just right, we'd see an image of the solar disc, almost exactly the same size as the sun; a full moon would produce 24-hour daylight. And daytime heat, too, if the mirror was good down to IR wavelengths.

Weren't the Russians toying with the idea of orbiting large mirrors to bring more "sunlight" to Siberia and increase crop yields? Anybody remember this, and know what came of it?

Donnie B.
2001-Nov-05, 02:51 PM
On 2001-11-05 09:29, Karl wrote:

A 'mirror' made of black paint would run much cooler: absorptance = .97 emittance = .91

It's amazing how intutition fails totally when dealing with thermal optical properties.


You wouldn't happen to have the numbers for the Titanium alloy used in the CM and/or LM, would you? (Of course, even this isn't definitive unless you know something about how the outer skin was thermally coupled to the cabin.)

How about white paint?

Karl
2001-Nov-05, 03:07 PM
On 2001-11-05 09:51, Donnie B. wrote:


You wouldn't happen to have the numbers for the Titanium alloy used in the CM and/or LM, would you? (Of course, even this isn't definitive unless you know something about how the outer skin was thermally coupled to the cabin.)

How about white paint?



I don't think any of the titanium was exposed so it's not relevant. Metal tends to run hot, (like the polished aluminum). White paint tends to run cold, it it used for radiators. Epoxy white paint Absorptance = .2 Emittance = .85, Acrylic white paint Absoptance = .22 Emittance = .88

The exposed surface of the LM and CM were multilayer thermal blankets.

David Simmons
2001-Nov-05, 03:15 PM
Open letter to all who respond to SAMU -

[quote]
<font color="blue">On 2001-11-03 03:46, SAMU wrote:
I hope you can answer this question</font>

SAMU's subsequent actions indicate that he doesn't really want answers. He wants confirmation for his wild, off-the-wall imaginings.

<font color="blue"> and if not I hope it gives you food for thought</font>

Oh, it has. But I doubt that you would be pleased with my thoughts.

<font color="blue">If you ask some questions sensitive to this scenario of your contacts in NASA and they suddenly freeze up,</font>(emphasis added)<font color="blue"> could you let me know that?

Yours
David Samuel
70116 </font>
</quote>

In short, he seemingly wants to hear back only if the response confirms his idea but not if it doesn't.

One more time. Aluminum reflects anywhere from 85% to 91%(depending upon surface treatment such as anodizing, roughening, etc.) of the light that falls on it. Solar energy at earth orbit is 0.033 cal/sec/cm^2. This means that about 0.0043 cal/sec/cm^2, as an assumed overall average, actually enters the aluminum. If the aluminum radiates as a black body the temperature of the skin would be about -36 deg C, or about -32 deg F. The astronauts would rapidly freeze to death.

And, by the way, that heat input is only for those square cms. that are at right angles to the suns rays. Most parts of the capsule exterior would be at some grazing angle less than 90 deg and the heat input to those parts would go way down.

The aluminum of the capsule doesn't radiate as a black body since aluminum has a relatively low emissivity. I've forgotten how to handle that in heat computations (it's been a looong time) but from previous posts and NASA information, the inside temperature was in the vicinity of 4 deg C, or 40 deg F. which is in accord with a low emissivity because the object has to get hotter to get rid of the heat input and get to equilibrium.

SAMU spoke of one side of the capsule at 200 deg F. and the other at -200 deg. F in a previous post. Anyone who thinks that an aluminum structure would support such a large temperature gradient in such a short distance is obviously not very aware of heat conduction and his opinions on heat and temperature in general can be safely disregarded.

This is the end as far as I am concerned. I'm not even sure why I'm bothering with this since, as someone posted, SAMU obviously has a speculation and loves it in spite of anything said.

So let him. The sun will still rise tomorrow and NASA will go on with its work, entirely undisturbed by such bilge.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David Simmons on 2001-11-05 10:19 ]</font>

The Bad Astronomer
2001-Nov-05, 06:56 PM
I'm surprised at you. Maybe asphalt is a different color where you come from but around here it's really black. The Moon looks bright grayish white in a black background from here but in photos from the surface it looks pretty much the same color, bright grayish white. Not black as the asphalt around here.


I have pictures of asphalt I took that make it look bright white. How things look depends on many things, not the least of which is how you expose the film. There are pictures of the Moon's surface making it look pitch black, too. Worse, the illumination of the lunar surface depends on the angle of the sunlight with respect to the camera as well.

As I said before, this is a complicated topic with many "side issues" which are critical to understanding them. I strongly urge you to do what I did: research this issue first. I have made plenty of mistakes while discussing this issue, but I followed up by researched them, and wound up learning quite a bit. Far from casting any doubt, my research has reinforced the idea that these missions were indeed real and an incredible achievement.

As far as your weblinks go, you seem to be terribly confused. The thermal capabilities of the Apollo capsules were designed with two things in mind: the electornics run hot, and that heat must be dumped. So, if the electronics are off, the capsule will perforce be cold. It's really just that simple.

CJSF
2001-Nov-05, 07:16 PM
I have pictures of asphalt I took that make it look bright white...


Could you post some of those, Phil?

CJSF

JayUtah
2001-Nov-05, 08:02 PM
Okay, engineer checking in.

First, albedo. Geometric albedo concerns only zero-phase diffuse reflection. It does not consider specular reflections, which in many substances accounts for a vastly different visual phenomenon. The moon's albedo is measured as low as 0.07 and as high as 0.12, meaning it diffusely reflects between 7% and 12% of the light it receives back toward the source of the light. The earth's albedo is somewhere in the 0.30 range, considerably brighter than the moon. In fact, when you see pictures of both the earth and the moon taken by outbound interplanetary spacecraft, you have to artificially brighten the moon because the correct exposure for the earth leaves the moon a rather unimpressive dark brown.

The moon appears bright from earth because it's a the brightest object in an otherwise lightless environment. Look at a candle in daylight, then look at one in an otherwise dark room.

Second, asphalt. Or more properly, "bitumin asphalt concrete". "Concrete" is, in the general engineering sense, anything composed of an aggregate and a cement. In what we commonly call concrete, the aggregate is sand and gravel and the cement is Portland cement or other such compound. "Asphalt" (bitumin) is the cement in the asphalt concrete used in roadway construction. The aggregate is usually pea gravel. The bitumin asphalt holds the aggregate together in the same way Portland cement holds the aggregate together in concrete.

A freshly laid asphalt concrete roadway has a geometric albedo of about 0.04, or almost half that of the moon's lowest measurement. After about five years, the bitumin asphalt wears off the top surface of the aggregate and the geometric albedo rises to about 0.12, or equivalent to the highest estimate of the lunar albedo.

Thus it is not correct to compare the albedo of the moon to a freshly laid asphalt roadway. It is more correct to compare it to an asphalt roadway after several years of use, the ones that appear almost white. In fact, the geometric albedo of worn asphalt concrete is not especially less than the geometric albedo of ceramic concrete.

The thermal behavior of an object in space under solar radiation is directly affected most strongly by the reflectivity of that object. The Apollo command module was covered in aluminized Kapton insulation. The lunar module was covered in several blankets of aluminized Mylar insulation. The geometric albedo of these materials as applied to the spacecraft is in the 0.50 neighborhood. (It differs from the values for aluminum because the Kapton and Mylar sides were outboard.)

Some portions of the lunar module descent stage were covered in absorptive material because the machinery behind them actually needed to absorb a certain amount of solar heat in order to maintain the correct operating temperature.

It's clear SAMU doesn't have the appropriate expertise in thermodynamics or heat transfer to evaluate the viability of his theory, or understand the objections to it. The "Apollo 13 as a publicity stunt" theory is popular among hoax believers. Unfortunately it fails for two reasons. First, the popularity of Apollo missions hit its nadir around Apollo 15 or Apollo 16, and no "stunt" was forthcoming to fix that. Second, the failure of Apollo 13 is cited as a direct contributor to the decision to terminate the project. Its overall effect was to shorten the project, not perpetuate it.

ToSeek
2001-Nov-05, 08:34 PM
On 2001-11-05 15:02, JayUtah wrote:

It's clear SAMU doesn't have the appropriate expertise in thermodynamics or heat transfer to evaluate the viability of his theory, or understand the objections to it.



I'm always impressed by the HBers, Cassini protesters, etc., who seem to think they know more about the space environment and spacecraft design than the people who have spent their careers sending hardware into space. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

The Bad Astronomer
2001-Nov-06, 03:37 AM
Jay Utah-- impressive display of knowledge. I must admit that my own knowledge of asphalt is limited. It is interesting to know that asphalt's albedo changes. Perhaps a more appropriate comparison to the Moon's albedo is a blackboard, and not asphalt. I'll keep that in mind.

The Moon is not a specular reflector; properties in the soil make it tend to reflect light back in the direction from which it came. I plan on extensively adding to the Moon hoax page eventually, but I can hardly keep up with everything else right now. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

Again, I am impressed with the level of knowledge of many of the readers of this board.

SAMU
2001-Nov-06, 05:07 AM
Well!!!


OK, the Moon is black as asphalt. Fine, according to some philisophical hokum white is black. Go ahead and believe it you true believers. THAT, I'm not buying.

You want to talk metals? Now you're talking my bussiness. I've got 2500 pounds of my own aluminum handiwork in deap space right now. With a little heart and arrow with me and my girlfriend's initials scribed inside one big piece. You see those C-17 Airforce transports dropping food to the Afganies? I cut the titanium jet tailcones for most of them. You fly Boing 747, 777 etc. Your life is swinging on my handiwork bigtime. Ever bring your kids to the aquarium? Guess who's hand made that 20 ton piece of plastic thats holding back those 20,000 tons of water from crushing your kids to a screaming pulp. That's me.

I make assertions and have the courtesy, not to mention the scientific propriety, to provide links to official NASA drawings, images and figures to support my assertions.

YOU make assertions and expect ME to do the research to support YOUR assertions.

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

You sound like creationists.

I don't think it's too much to ask that if you say the moon is as black as asphalt or a blackboard that you find some pictures from the NASA image gallery, to which I provide a link, containing hundreds of pictures of the Moon from every concievable perspective that you find some that show it to be black. Instead of playing some occult philisophical numbers game.

Not that any of that makes a bit of difference to the point that there is no legitimatly supported theory as to why Apollo 13 got cold when enormous expense is invested in throwing a cooling system that is designed to manage deadly heat up there and it "has to be turned off".

Heck, calling it a cooling system is to under rate it to the point of idiocy. Once the launch stages fall away the spacecraft themselves are nearly all life support system. And life support means pressure vessel, air and cooling.

SAMU



PS

That aquarium plastic mentioned above, It's DOT designation is PVHO. Presurized Vehicle Human Occupancy. And none of it meets the DOT Specs. Just thought you'd like to know.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SAMU on 2001-11-06 00:58 ]</font>

Hauteden
2001-Nov-06, 05:20 AM
People, People, People . . .

I am sorry but I have to step in here. It is true that I was going to step in and defend "The Cause" but in light /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif of what is happening I must state simply.

Please stop confusing SAMU with facts.

I can't believe I said that with a straight face. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

I regards to the security oath. Now I personally have never had a reason to see or sign a security oath. But I believe that they might exist. But that just the idea of them dumbfounds me. Follow me here:

If I were were a spy. And the company says "Sign this document stating that you will not reveal secrets to anybody and if you do tell somebody we'll prosecute you." I would sign that document in a heartbeat. That way I know they wouldn't suspect me if the information ever got out because I signed it so it must be true.

OK so I got that idea from an old M.A.S.H episode . . . sue me /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif


Hauteden

I actually do love the banter I learn so much
please don't stop.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Hauteden on 2001-11-06 00:25 ]</font>

James
2001-Nov-06, 12:54 PM
If I were were a spy. And the company says "Sign this document stating that you will not reveal secrets to anybody and if you do tell somebody we'll prosecute you." I would sign that document in a heartbeat. That way I know they wouldn't suspect me if the information ever got out because I signed it so it must be true.

OK so I got that idea from an old M.A.S.H episode . . . sue me /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif


Let me guess, it's the one with Col. Flagg and Sydney the shrink? IMO, Flagg is his own comedic<sp?> relief. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

Karl
2001-Nov-06, 12:57 PM
On 2001-11-06 00:07, SAMU wrote:


I make assertions and have the courtesy, not to mention the scientific propriety, to provide links to official NASA drawings, images and figures to support my assertions.

YOU make assertions and expect ME to do the research to support YOUR assertions.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SAMU on 2001-11-06 00:58 ]</font>


We're telling you what we learned when we took Themodynamics. If you choose to dispute those 'assertions' don't you think it's worth at least a little research?.

Peter B
2001-Nov-06, 02:08 PM
SAMU

Just out of interest, do you discount the possibility that Apollo 13 was exactly what NASA said it was?

Hat Monster
2001-Nov-06, 03:09 PM
Buy a torch. Find some asphalt. Shine said torch onto said asphalt in the night. Observe appearance of aforementioned asphalt.
Realize that, in fact, you are wrong.
Now take a small, black, rocky planet sized body. Shine a star at it from 150,000,000km away. Observe said rocky planet from 300,000km away.
Compare aforementioned illuminated rocky planet with aforementioned illuminated asphalt.
Realize that, in fact, you are wrong.
_________________
"We want a few mad people now. See where the sane ones have landed us!" - George Bernard Shaw

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Hat Monster on 2001-11-06 10:12 ]</font>

CJSF
2001-Nov-06, 03:48 PM
OK, the Moon is black as asphalt.


You're the only one saying that, at this point. It is NOT black. It is as DARK as asphalt with an albedo of about .12 at it's brightest.

The biggest reason why the moon looks "white" at night is because your EYES and BRAIN adjust the contrast of the image on your retinas. Hence, one of the BRIGHTEST objects in the sky at night - the MOON - appears as the BRIGHTEST object to your eyes... the contrast is changed and it appears white.

For proof your brain did this, look at the moon from inside your house with ALL the lights off. Then, after a few minutes, TURN ON THE LIGHTS. GUESS WHAT? Your retinas get overloaded for two reasons.

ONE, your irises are wide open and can't close up fast enough to compensate, and

TWO, your brain has wired the contrast of the images so that the MOON is near 100%, so the light is WAY too bright for your brain to process.




You want to talk metals? Now you're talking my bussiness. I've got 2500 pounds of my own aluminum handiwork in deap space right now. With a little heart and arrow with me and my girlfriend's initials scribed inside one big piece. You see those C-17 Airforce transports dropping food to the Afganies? I cut the titanium jet tailcones {etc, etc}


I use a computer everyday, but I don't claim to know precisely how the video card communicates with the CPU. So you work with metals? Big deal! You don't have to cut metal to understand the physical properties of it.



I make assertions and have the courtesy, not to mention the scientific propriety, to provide links to official NASA drawings, images and figures to support my assertions.

YOU make assertions and expect ME to do the research to support YOUR assertions.


We ARE doing the research (or have done it) and are presenting the RESULTS to you. You choose not to accept those results. That's your perogitive.

Tsk, tsk, tsk.



You sound like creationists.

ummm...



I don't think it's too much to ask that if you say the moon is as black as asphalt or a blackboard that you find some pictures from the NASA image gallery, to which I provide a link, containing hundreds of pictures of the Moon from every concievable perspective that you find some that show it to be black. Instead of playing some occult philisophical numbers game.


The photographs of the Moon don't show it to be DARK (NOT black) because in order for it to show up, the CONTRAST HAS BEEN INCREASED TO MAKE IT VISIBLE. The lenses and film speed and exposures used were chosen to make the Moon appear at least as it does to our eyes at night (and in some cases brighter or with MORE contrast). It doesn't help anyone to visually analyse the Moon's surface if they can't see it.

Now - for some images that DO show the Moon as dark! NOW you're talking!

http://home.earthlink.net/~dancingdinos/index.html

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap980129.html
NOTE: The above image's captions states that the Moon's brightess was increased FIVE times for the image.

There have been thorough studies of the Moon's albedo, and they all indicate something between .06 and .12 (or 6-12%). Would you like us to dig up some reference for you to personally look up? I'll try and do so, if you want.



Not that any of that makes a bit of difference to the point that there is no legitimatly supported theory as to why Apollo 13 got cold when enormous expense is invested in throwing a cooling system that is designed to manage deadly heat up there and it "has to be turned off".

Apparently you haven't read any of the responses to your questions or you really don't care and are just stirring up trouble.



Heck, calling it a cooling system is to under rate it to the point of idiocy. Once the launch stages fall away the spacecraft themselves are nearly all life support system. And life support means pressure vessel, air and cooling.

right................

CJSF

_________________
"Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never,
ever get it out."
--Thomas Cardinal Wolsey (1471-1530)


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Christopher Ferro on 2001-11-06 11:09 ]</font>

JayUtah
2001-Nov-06, 05:51 PM
B.A.:I must admit that my own knowledge of asphalt is limited.

That's the nature of engineering. You spend your whole life studying stuff that no one in his right mind would be interested in, and then in one shining moment it all pays off when that obscure bit of knowledge suddenly becomes useful for something.


B.A.:It is interesting to know that asphalt's albedo changes.

I think everyone's seen the difference between freshly laid asphalt, which is a deep black, and asphalt that's been around for several years. Obviously the color changes. The change in albedo isn't all that apparent to the naked eye, but can be inferred. We know that the color brightens, and that bright colors have a higher albedo than dark colors.

Not only do you get the effect from car tires which rub the bitumin film off the top layer of aggregate, but you get dust and grit ground into the upper layer of bitumin between the aggregate, the same way dirt works its way into the calk around your bathroom fixtures.


B.A.:Perhaps a more appropriate comparison to the Moon's albedo is a blackboard, and not asphalt.
Perhaps, but I don't know the albedo of a blackboard. Asphalt is appropriate, so long as you clarify that it's weathered asphalt and not the freshly laid variety.

I live in Utah where we have a great deal of sun and lots of asphalt roadways. Which brings me to your comment...


B.A.:The Moon is not a specular reflector

True, but asphalt is. I wasn't trying to describe the moon as much as I was trying to point out that geometric albedo is a poor quantification of the total lighting properties of a surface. Something like asphalt with a "low" albedo can actually reflect enough light in the specular sense (not measured by albedo) to impair vision. The glare off the asphalt roadways here in Utah is quite striking.

You mention the moon's emphasis on zero-phase lighting. That's correct, visually verifiable from earth, and quite evident in the Apollo lunar surface photographs. Again, geometric albedo does not account for these "special" lighting effects, hence it is a poor quantification for the lighting properties of the lunar surface.


SAMU:OK, the Moon is black as asphalt.

No, that's the antithesis of my point. The moon is not black. It's equivalent to a weathered gray asphalt roadway, not a freshly laid black asphalt roadway.


SAMU:You want to talk metals? Now you're talking my bussines.

The skill of cutting metal to a pattern given to you by someone else is not equivalent to the skill of determining those patterns. That happens to be my busines. When you cut tailcones or wing spars or what have you, you're simply following the instructions given to you by people like me who work out the designs for you.


SAMU:I make assertions and have the courtesy, not to mention the scientific propriety...

The arguments you offer in favor of your assertions demonstrate that you don't understand thermodynamics. A proper understanding of thermodynamics is necessary to the claims you're making. Not only do you seem rather ignorant on the subject of thermodynamics, you seem especially antagonistic to those who are trying to educate you.


SAMU: I don't think it's too much to ask that if you say the moon is as black as asphalt ...

I can only speak for myself, but I'm claiming the moon is as white as asphalt, the kind that's been around for several years.


SAMU: there is no legitimatly supported theory as to why Apollo 13 got cold when enormous expense is invested in throwing a cooling system that is designed to manage deadly heat up there and it "has to be turned off".

What do you mean by "legitimately supported"? The thermodynamics numbers others have posted seem correct to me. The only quantitative arguments you have made don't constitute valid thermodynamics.

The cooling of the command module has been explained to you as plainly as it can be. The primary source of heat on the Apollo spacecraft was the electronic equipment. The heat production of the astronauts and that absorbed from the sun is very small in comparison. If you run the electronic equipment you must also run the cooling units. If you turn off the electronic equipment you do not need the cooling units. You must either run both or neither.

Without that electronic equipment, the only sources of heat are the astronauts themselves and the radiant heat absorbed from the sun. You've been shown the black-body figures for an object in that situation, which you have sidestepped.

Christopher: You don't have to cut metal to understand the physical properties of it.

Machinists often have intuitive knowledge of a material's properties because to cut it efficiently, correctly, and without damage one must adjust "feed" and "speed" values on the machine and arrange for the appropriate coolant during machining.

But these are typically given in tables. A good machinist can set the feed/speed values for various aluminum alloys and such from experience. But that's not the same level of experience as the person who originally specified that material for use in the project under construction.

A machinist knows not to let the material get too hot. But he doesn't necessarily have to know how or why it gets hot, or compute transfers and steady states for the thermal situation. And he doesn't necessarily have to know why he's cutting it 0.256 inch thick instead of 0.248 inch. And he doesn't know why that particular alloy was chosen for that particular component. That's the job of the design engineer upstairs.

Needless to say one doesn't become a design engineer without understanding the general problem of thermal effects -- what causes them, how to quantify them, and how to make them work to his advantage.

K. Hovis
2001-Nov-06, 06:12 PM
On 2001-11-06 10:48, Christopher Ferro wrote:


http://home.earthlink.net/~dancingdinos/index.html

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap980129.html
NOTE: The above image's captions states that the Moon's brightess was increased FIVE times for the image.



Chris,
Thanks for the post of these pictures. This leads me to a question. How difficult would it be for an astronomer on Mars using a 10" reflector to actually observe the Moon? I'd think with its dark albedo, the Moon would be hard to observe. Any opinions?

CJSF
2001-Nov-06, 06:52 PM
Jay,

Well, I have come across one bit of albedo stuff online that talks about how difficult it is to compare albedos on Earth with that of objects in space.

http://www.roboticobservatory.com/jeff/lunar/obs_tech/albedo.htm

I will note that comparing the albedo of grass to that of lunar surface material as this author does, is not a "fair" comparison either. Grass looks green to us mostly because chlorophyll absorbs most of the red and blue wavelengths it receives. The brightness of grass is also due to our eyes/brains manipulating the contrast. The problem there is that one can measure albedo in various wavelengths.

Here is a report from an instrument called GOME:

http://www.sron.nl/divisions/eos/gome_moon.html

It shows the albedo falling withing the 6-12% zone, on average, with what seems to be a slight, linear increase in albedo from Near UV to Near IR wavelengths.

CJSF

JayUtah
2001-Nov-06, 08:10 PM
Christopher, excellent material!

I especially like Medkeff's straightforward and comprehensive examination of the geometry of the lunar regolith and its effect on light. Not only does this dispel the incorrect use of albedo as a practical measure of lighting properties, it gives the beginner something of a foothold on what is otherwise an obscure bit of science.

It's difficult to convey in purely textual form the geometrical nature of the behavior of reflecting light. A few years ago I came across a visual representation scheme for incident and reflected light used by computer graphics people, namely Cook, Torrance, and Sparrow. It represents the intensity of reflected light in any direction by a vector along that direction whose magnitude is proportional to the reflection intensity. The set of all such vectors form a surface composed of the vector heads, and which conveys for some incident light direction the total character of the reflected light.

The study of the illumination properties of the lunar surface applies to conspiracy theorists such as David Percy who maintain that the down-sun surfaces of objects should be totally black. The occlusion of shadows by their casting objects at zero phase angle, coupled with the zero-phase reflection through spherical soil particles answers quite effectively the notion that only objects directly illuminated by sunlight on the lunar surface will receive light.

Silas
2001-Nov-06, 08:36 PM
re "light and dark," think about sunspots. They look "dark," even though they're incandescent and bright. It's counter-intuitive: sunspots "look dark." They are obviously "dark spots." Except...they aren't. Not only are your eyes untrustworthy to measure this sort of thing, so are cameras.

Silas

The Bad Astronomer
2001-Nov-06, 09:28 PM
re "light and dark," think about sunspots. They look "dark," even though they're incandescent and bright.

Ah, excellent analogy. I'll have to remember that.

I read the essays on albedo and I'll have to think carefully about this. I know that albedo is a difficult topic (it makes assumptions abotu reflection spectra that may not be accurate) so I want to make sure that I don't say something that makes matters worse.

SAMU, comparing me to creationists is pretty funny, and terribly ironic. I admit when I am wrong, and try to find more info. Several people here (including me) have shown you exactly (and politely, mind you) where you are not correct, but I have not seen you even attempt to assimilate this info. You just deny it.

Irishman
2001-Nov-06, 09:29 PM
SAMU, first I was going to congratulate you for not being completely uninformed on some technical matters. For instance, you know the difference in the different types of heating (convection vs conduction vs radiation), something many hoax proponents don't understand.

However, you are not as informed as you think you are. It has been pointed out there are many small details that affect conditions and you ignore them or just refuse to accept them. How can we convince you if you refuse to listen?

The spacecraft temperature issue has been explained to you. Yes, there are radiators on the Service module. Yes, there are three components to the heat load - the human metabolic heat, the solar radiation accumulation, and the heat from the electronics. It's the specifics that give you pause. Solar radiation accumulation can be mitigated. Pick the material properties, and the surface properties that give you what you want. They used white paint and white thermal blankets specifically to reflect as much incoming radiation as possible, and to emit as much as possible. This is understood by engineers. In fact, we build tools and equipment for the Shuttle and Station using the same principles. Some are painted white, but a lot are anodized aluminum because paint gets chipped off too easily in some applications. There are lots of guidelines to design tools and equipment to keep them from heating up in the sun. Apollo used similar controls for the exterior of the Command and Service Modules.

It has been stated that the electronics generated heat, and that with the electronics off, they were not generating heat. Thus the vessel would automatically be cooler than nominal case. How much cooler is a function of how much heat the electronics puts out running and how efficient at rejecting solar heat buildup the ship is. Since the design was to be as efficient as possible in rejecting solar heat, and the electronics put out a lot of heat, the difference was significant.

Rolling the ship to keep thermal equilibrium would not change the situation. If they pointed one side only to the sun and let the other get cold, the interior temperature would not increase, because you still have the same amount of solar incidence and emissivity. However, you would get a thermal gradient across components and systems. Perhaps enough to rupture the pressure skin, or perhaps enough to freeze out electronics in the Service Module required on reentry systems, or perhaps enough to rupture fuel lines. Etc. Thermal gradients bad. And it would not have helped the crew stay any warmer.

What about the long underwear? Those were designed as a cooling garment. They are lined with plastic tubes filled with water that pumps through and removes body heat. Off hand it seems logical to think that if they just didn't pump the water it should work as normal long underwear, but the water would still be in the tubes, and still act as a heat sink from the body. Parts of the tubes are exposed to the air, so it would still remove body heat. While it would be slower than an active pumping of the water, it would probably be faster than not wearing the suits.

You mention the heat removal systems - the radiator panels and cooling systems. Well, those were all turned off, too. You think that would make the vehicle stay warmer. Yes, but warmer than what? Warmer than running the cooling systems and not running the rest of the electronics? Just because the active cooling systems are off doesn't mean the lack of heat generation isn't enough to make the overall situation cold.

Example: my apartment. Right about now the temps are mid 80s in day, and dropping to 40s at night. During the day, the apartment gets warm unless I run the A/C. However, at night I can turn off the A/C when I go to be and I still wake up to a cold apartment in the morning. I'm not running the active cooling system, but the heat generation inside the apartment is not enough to compensate for the heat loss to the environment. Same thing with the Apollo. The active cooling systems were off, but the heat generation devices were off, too.

So your expectation of the situation is not correct, but you use that expectation to reach the following possible conclusions:

Naturaly, having thought up this complex of peculiarities I have also bult up some suspicions as to what may have really happened. I have three main possibilities, from the picayune to the tragic. One is that it was a publicity stunt to reaquire waning public intrest and funding. another is that there was a covert mission under way and the disaster was a cover. Finaly, that the mission was actually lost and the story was fabricated to cover the fact.

I note that you have already concluded that it was a hoax. You do not even allow the possibility that everything was just as NASA said and you are just uninformed. That certainly makes you seem less than open minded. Will you not at least concede it's possible you don't know all the technical details?


SAMU said:

I find it remarkable that the combination of reflectivity, radiation and heat absorbtion and retension resulted in an average tempreture that resembles immersion in cold water. So I remarked on it.

Why is that remarkable? Again, the connection is one you are making but it is not necessarily fair. What range should it fall in? Should it automatically be cold enough to freeze? Should it remain a balmy 68 deg F? What makes the temperature range it reached suspicious to you? Did you already suspect the mission was hoaxed and look at this as something confirming your idea? How are you qualified to a priori determine that the temperature range is suspicious? This is what bugs people here. You notice a similarity (the temperature range corresponds to what could be reached using cold water immersion) but haven't supplied a justification for why that explanation is preferred (more logical) over the official story.


Review every documentary you see about 13 from the perspective of the tempreture and you will spot an ever increasing number of peculiarities. For example the lithium hydroxide co2 scrubber problem with co2 as a measure of metabolic heat produced by the crew.

Again, what is suspicious? Yes, they breathed in oxygen and put out carbon dioxide. Yes, the scrubber system was not designed to handle three people for that length of time. Yes, CO2 is related to metabolic output of heat. Please tell me how that is suspicious. If I jump to a conclusion here, it seems you are saying that they had body heat and so the cabin shouldn't have gotten cold. I don't see how you can quantify that conclusion based purely on CO2 output.


Nearby where I live we have beaches made of a unique type of sand. The sand is made of sphericly shaped grains of quartz. ... The sand is also sugar white. But try walking across it bare foot at noon, it's hot. Also try touching a silvery chrome bumper in the sun just after noon, it's hot. As mentioned in the initial message, the spacecraft were in equatorial equivelent sunlight 24 hours a day for 5 days. To throw off that much heat by passive methods to the point of discomforting coldness goes against many design concerns I have heard of.

The sand and the bumper are not in the same thermal conditions as the Apollo spacecraft. And just because you have not heard of a design characteristic does not mean that nobody is aware of it. In a purely radiation heating environment, two factors are important - the albedo and the emissivity. Albedo is light reflectivity - how much of the incoming radiation is reflected away. Emissivity is how much of the internal energy is dispersed. The properties of the spacecraft were optimized for a high albedo and high emissivity. Chrome bumpers and white quartz sand are not.


Here is part of an essay written by 13 commander Jim Lovell

An engineering test on the vehicle showed that its mechanisms could survive seven or eight hours in space without water cooling, until the guidance system rebelled at this enforced toasting.

You don't reference the original source. However, I think you are misunderstanding the statement. I believe the above sentence applies to the vehicle with all electronic systems active but the water cooling is off, vs. the Apollo 13 case of all electronic systems off and water cooling off. Big difference between the electronics putting out heat and not putting out heat. This appears to be a statement of how long the systems would remain operational without active cooling, not how they would behave unpowered.


The CIA, FBI, SS, NSA, etc, all secrecy based organizations.

NASA is not any of the above organizations. NASA is a civilian organization (not DoD) that is run in the public.


NASA launches classified missions abord the Shuttle frequently. They tend to use the Atlantis by the way. It’s smaller, lighter, faster, higher flying. They announce them as classified. They don't say what's aboard.

The Shuttle has in the past run classified missions for the DoD. However, that ended circa 1992.


It’s not “conspiracy-mongering” to point out that an Apollo mission could have been used for one. That a covert op couldn’t have happened because hundreds of people couldn’t have kept a secret Is flawed logic. They sign security oaths. They would land in jail if they spilled the beans. Do they sign those oaths for fun?

Your argument is flawed. There are plenty of known cases of government whistle blowers, people who signed security oaths that spilled the beans because the project was dangerous. It is extremely difficult for governments to keep the existence of projects a secret. Especially after 40 years. The sheer scope of the necessary involvement is staggering, and to think that not one person with direct knowledge has come forward in all this time, or left "deathbed confessions", really speaks volumes.


Do you know what a heat exchanger is? You think it's just somthing they can just turn off with no consequences? It doesn't prevent heat from comming in. It just manages it in a effective way. That is (if you had read further)it's connected to a network of water pipes which gather heat from the spacecraft, transfer it to a gaseous coolant, compress the gas, the gas heats up, goes to the radiator and radiates to space.(In a nutshell)

Yes, but you fail to recognize one small but important detail - what is the source of the heat that the cooling system is removing? Is it solar radiation, or heat from the electronics systems? In Apollo's case, mostly the latter, which were powered down on Apollo 13.

Regarding the albedo of the moon, I, too, have always questioned the comparison to new asphault. After all, I can see the moon in the daytime sky - I did this morning. However, comparing to old asphault definitely fits better.

Regarding the moon rocks and their color:

http://www-curator.jsc.nasa.gov/curator/lunar/lunar.htm

Or from http://www.solarviews.com/eng/edu/moonio.htm
Luna is the only natural satellite of Earth and is one of the darker objects in the solar system. Its rocks are mostly dark gray and it reflects less than 15% of the sunlight that falls on it.

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/moonfact.html

That's a start for references.


Not that any of that makes a bit of difference to the point that there is no legitimatly supported theory as to why Apollo 13 got cold when enormous expense is invested in throwing a cooling system that is designed to manage deadly heat up there and it "has to be turned off".

Now you're just displaying a strident refusal to listen to anybody. The cooling system is required when all the electronic systems are powered ON. On Apollo 13, they were all powered OFF. Does it make sense to you NOW?



Donnie B. said:

The problem was bad enough that the Lunar Module actually used a coolant fluid that circulated (absorbing heat from the equipment), and was then vented overboard, taking the heat with it.

This is not entirely correct, or at least the phrasing is murky enough to be misleading. The Lunar Module did use an active water cooling loop. That water circulated to remove heat from the cabin. Also, the cooling system did vent water to space to remove heat. This is through a phase change process (sublimation). However, they were independent water loops connected via a heat exchanger. Just wanting to be technically precise.

BA and JayUtah, you two mention "specular reflector" vs. the albedo. I do not understand what you mean. Could you please explain?

Donnie B.
2001-Nov-06, 10:39 PM
Donnie B. said:

The problem was bad enough that the Lunar Module actually used a coolant fluid that circulated (absorbing heat from the equipment), and was then vented overboard, taking the heat with it.

This is not entirely correct, or at least the phrasing is murky enough to be misleading. The Lunar Module did use an active water cooling loop. That water circulated to remove heat from the cabin. Also, the cooling system did vent water to space to remove heat. This is through a phase change process (sublimation). However, they were independent water loops connected via a heat exchanger. Just wanting to be technically precise.


You're right, I was less than precise. The point I was trying to make was that you don't always have to use radiation to get rid of heat; you can dump it overboard.

Incidentally, this unusual cooling system cost some of the Apollo 13 mission controllers a lot of grey hairs. Throughout the return leg, the spacecraft continually drifted off course, an effect that was serious enough to require a burn to get back into the middle of the reentry corridor.

During the flight, no one could figure out why the course was changing. Later, they realized that it was the impulse from the LM's coolant jet.

In normal operation, its effect was negligible. But of course, since the LM was normally jettisoned before leaving lunar orbit, no one had ever considered what it would do over a 3-day period of trans-Earth coast! Once they jettisoned the LM shortly before reentry, the drift stopped.

Just thought that tidbit might be interesting.

JayUtah
2001-Nov-06, 11:11 PM
BA and JayUtah, you two mention "specular reflector" vs. the albedo. I do not understand what you mean. Could you please explain?


The various definitions of albedo do not generally account for any lighting conditions other than Lambert surfaces -- those which reflect light uniformly in all directions regardless of incident light angle.

In contrast to the Lambertian surfaces we find materials which reflect greater amounts of light in a particular direction congruent to the incident light angle. We term this "specular reflection". Roadway glare is one example of it.

In practice all surfaces exhibit some degree of diffuse or Lambertian reflection, and some degree of directional or specular reflection. The common definitions of albedo use only the former, while both contribute to the actual light reflecting properties of the surface, depending on the direction of observation.

Bad Astronomer emphasized that the lunar surface is neither perfectly Lambertian nor possessed of a particularly salient specular component. The major non-Lambertian reflection component is the zero-phase reflection, or reflection along the reciprocal angle of the incident lighting angle, back to the light source, regardless of incident angle.

Various artificial materials such as Reflexite are constructed to specifically exhibit this property.

While this represents non-Lambertian reflection, it is covered by the definition of geometric albedo which specifies that the light measurement be taken from the zero-phase direction. Materials presented by Christopher demonstrate that measurements taken according to this method give albedos for lunar surface features that far exceed those of asphalt or other common comparison.

SAMU
2001-Nov-07, 02:53 AM
I've said all I'm going to about the color of lunar rocks and soil. No one can research answers to all questions presented which are only tangental to a specific assertion. Or especially which are asked from obstrustification and ignorance.

I think that the way to proceed in keeping this discussion on the point of my assertion regarding Apollo 13 tempreture is to reserch the NASA site's info on the spacecraft's cooling systems to find out what their heat exchange capacity is in BTU if available, research the heat output of the internal sources of heat in BTU (electrical and biological) if available and subtract the internal sources from the capacity to find the excess capacity of the system. Presume that they are not going to lift a 1000 pound 100,000 BTU heat exchanger up there if a 10,000 BTU 50 pounder will do. Then presume that the excess "unused" capacity is designed in to manage solar heating.

If the excess is far greater than a reasonable amount of unused margin, as determined by comparing it to other margins (if available) designed into the craft, that will further support my assertion. If the excess is a reasonable amount of unused margin as determined by comparing it to other margins designed into the craft, that will discourage my assertion.

Those are the thermodynamic numbers appropriate for applicability, directness and simplicity to this discussion and that is the research I will do. I will post the well anotated (via short range link) results when I compile them. You are welcome to do the research as well if you don't trust my schoolarship.

Other than that, an impartialy conducted experiment comprised of launching an Apollo spacecraft with it's equiptment turned off and three men aboard into trans lunar orbit and measuring the tempreture would also apply. It would be much more complex, as many other evaluative approaches such as some of the ones posted are. But it would be more accurate, applicable and direct than some posted as well. Because some formulas posted require the support of numbers from materials and structures that are not available and/or are not accurate or applicable.

Regards,
SAMU

PS

As I said in my initial post. Food for thought.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SAMU on 2001-11-06 22:06 ]</font>

Kaptain K
2001-Nov-07, 10:40 AM
Obviously, you were not here 6 - 8 months ago for the Fox TV moon hoax flap. Every point that you have brought up (thinking it was original) has hashed and rehashed ad nauseum. The research has been done. The answers have been found. The responses you have been getting are the result of that research. You have three choices:
1) Accept the word of those who have already done the digging.
2) Follow the links that have been provided (the results of the research) and discover the truth that others have found.
3) Keep your head and the sand.

Notice that having others do the research (again) for you is not one of the options.

CJSF
2001-Nov-07, 11:53 AM
I will note that comparing the albedo of grass to that of lunar surface material as this author does, is not a "fair" comparison either. Grass looks green to us mostly because chlorophyll absorbs most of the red and blue wavelengths it receives. The brightness of grass is also due to our eyes/brains manipulating the contrast. The problem there is that one can measure albedo in various wavelengths.


I must also note that grass reflects only about 13% of the green wavelength light it receives, but the human eye is most sensitive in the green range (that's why "night vision" stuff like they showed on TV in the Gulf War and such is green), so it appears brighter than an object reflecting 13% of red or blue (or other wavelength) light.

James
2001-Nov-07, 12:06 PM
You have three choices:
1) Accept the word of those who have already done the digging.
2) Follow the links that have been provided (the results of the research) and discover the truth that others have found.
3) Keep your head and the sand.

How much you wanna bet he's gonna pick #3? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_evil.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_evil.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Irishman
2001-Nov-07, 01:52 PM
SAMU said:

No one can research answers to all questions presented which are only tangental to a specific assertion.

Yet you seem to expect people to be able to research any question as if it is the specific assertion. You have a specific complaint about the heat loads and cooling capabilities of the Apollo spacecraft. Other people want to know why the cameras took such good pictures and weren't over or underexposed, or how the lunar rover fit inside the lunar lander, or how much fuel was required, or why the descent engine of the LM could provide 10,000 lb thrust but the ascent engine could only provide 3000 lb. One guy came here arguing that the space suits could not have kept the astronauts cool because he didn't know anything about how they worked but knew space is a vacuum and so they couldn't cool by convection. So while you have one main question, everyone is coming asking their "one" main question and expecting people here to be able to answer those questions off the cuff. There is a surprising amount of information available, that I've only become aware of in the past 2 years. Some really good technical descriptions and data. On the other hand, I keep finding questions to even more specific levels that I haven't found the data for. Your's is one of those questions.

I will note you are passing on discussing the "tangential" issues, without actually conceding that people here know what they're talking about even if you don't. That is a depressingly common occurrence. Someone asks a technical question, then doesn't accept the answer when it comes from knowledgable professionals who studied the topic in college to get degrees in order to understand it, and then apply that knowledge in their career. You seem aware that not everyone can be an expert in everything. However, you don't seem willing to accept that other people are experts in those areas and are giving you the answer. When a person (such as we have had in the past) comes in and says that everything we tell him about thermodynamics and space suit operations is suspect because we work for NASA (as a few people here do or have in some capacity), he is discounting the fact that all of the general principles being described are taught in engineering and physics classes around the world. It's kinda hard to lie about how physics works. But that's the position you seem to be putting us in when you won't accept how albedo and reflectivity and emissivity work and how material surface properties make all the difference. Or when you accuse NASA of faking the Apollo 13 flight including the explosion because the temperatures just happened to stay above freezing temperatures but were cold and not hot. Even after people have described why, you aren't happy and want to see the actual calculations the design engineers made 40+ years ago when designing the system. That just seems an unreasonable expectation to me.

Be that as it may, I tried to look through the usual references to find the numbers. No luck. I have a pretty good description of how the cooling system (environmental control system) on the LM worked that I can reference. It lists water pressures in the system, but not heating/cooling loads.

http://www.apollosaturn.com/Lmnr/ec.htm

I will note this paragraph down at the bottom of that page:


Electronic equipment that requires active temperature control is cooled by cold plates and cold rails. Most flat cold plates are installed between electronic equipment and the LM structure in a manner that minimizes heat transfer from the structure to the coolant, to avoid a reduction of the coolant cooling capacity. The surrounding structure and equipment may have a temperature range of 0 to +160 degrees F. The remaining flat cold plates are installed directly on the electronic equipment without making contact with the LM structure. Cold rails are also structural members and are used in the aft equipment bay in the descent stage for the DSEA. The IMU has an integral cooling circuit. Cold plates and cold rails for equipment essential for mission abort have two independent coolant passages, one for the primary loop and one for the secondary loop.

You will note they reference the cooling systems are designed to cool the electronics and equipment separate from the structure of the vehicle itself. This implies heavily that the cooling system was built to handle electronic equipment heat loads, not heat from the crew or from solar radiation on the structure. Which is what we've already said.

I'll look a little more and see what else I can turn up, but without doing some hairy calculations I don't know that you'll get the answers you want.

JayUtah
2001-Nov-07, 03:42 PM
SAMU: I've said all I'm going to about the color of lunar rocks and soil.

Works for me. The only point I think arose from that was the notion that rocks and spacecraft have different thermal properties in space because they are different materials with different ways of responding to solar illumination. Therefore you can't necessarily say that because a rock in direct sunlight in space reaches 200 degrees, a spacecraft must therefore also reach the same temperature. Thermodynamics doesn't work that way.


SAMU: You are welcome to do the research as well if you don't trust my schoolarship.

No doubt some will do that. It's scholarly courtesy to document your case. Equally important as documentation is demonstrating that you understand enough about thermodynamics to deal correctly with your information. There are a number of excellent online resources to help you, and a number of textbooks at your disposal. You might even consult those of us here who understand thermodynamics and can provide professional expertise.


SAMU: Because some formulas posted require the support of numbers from materials and structures that are not available and/or are not accurate or applicable.

Quite true, nevertheless an empirical measurement is impractical, therefore we'll all have to settle for an analytical approximation. It's perfectly okay to estimate numerical values you can't look up or measure. You just have to clearly label those values as estimates and perhaps explain a bit how you arrived at it. It may not be accurate, but it's honest.

ToSeek
2001-Nov-07, 03:45 PM
On 2001-11-06 21:53, SAMU wrote:

I think that the way to proceed in keeping this discussion on the point of my assertion regarding Apollo 13 tempreture is to reserch the NASA site's info on the spacecraft's cooling systems to find out what their heat exchange capacity is in BTU if available, research the heat output of the internal sources of heat in BTU (electrical and biological) if available and subtract the internal sources from the capacity to find the excess capacity of the system. Presume that they are not going to lift a 1000 pound 100,000 BTU heat exchanger up there if a 10,000 BTU 50 pounder will do. Then presume that the excess "unused" capacity is designed in to manage solar heating.


"The command module uses only about 2000 watts of electricity, similar to the amount required by an oven in an electric range."

From: http://www.apollosaturn.com/facts_figs.htm

The source was trying to reflect how little energy the command module uses, but if it's enough to cook a turkey, significant cooling is going to be required in a space as confined as the CM.

ToSeek
2001-Nov-07, 03:49 PM
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). Knowing the approximate electrical and metabolic heat load, the heat loss through the structure was determined. Experience from Apollo 7 and 9, both Earth orbit missions, showed that heat loss through the cabin structure varied from 380 to 675 watts (1300 to 2300 Btu/hr), depending on the extent of CM electrical load.

From: http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S6CH5.htm

Note that these figures are similar to the values given for power usage in the CM (which would all get turned into heat eventually).

SAMU
2001-Nov-07, 04:33 PM
Other research strategies that I intuitivly believe will yield available data desired include finding, if available, the ambient tempreture of other derilict spacecraft. That data is applicable to Apollo 13 because 13 was for ambient tempreture balance resembalant to a derilict. Probably be a good method and one I will try. No big complex of research there or formuli , just a question of whether the data is available.

The afore mentioned strategy of BTU capacity is another.

Research into the data acquired by the Mercury and Gemini programs, which was used to base the design of the Apollo, would probably work but would be more complex and in my intuitive opinion less available.

Guesstimates of Apollo spacecraft albedo are in my intuitive opinion the only numbers available for an albedo based strategy. Because no engineer is going to base spacecraft design on attempting to measure the albedo of a complex structure like the Apollo spacecraft when accurate experimental data from mercury and Gemini is available. So a strategy reliant on measurements of the spacecraft albedo is In my intuitive opinion not going to yield accurate results because I think the measurements were not made.

I know that some inaccurate albedo guesstimates were made prior and applied to the design of the Mercury spacecraft. But from my information that strategy was discarded when hard data came from the Mercury flights.

SAMU

JayUtah
2001-Nov-07, 05:06 PM
Irishman: I will note you are passing on discussing the "tangential" issues, without actually conceding that people here know what they're talking about even if you don't.

Yes, depressingly common. The major conspiracy theorists bank on knowing only slightly more about a subject than their intended audience, but being able to convey the impression that they understand as much as, or more than, practitioners of the applicable field. So while Ralph Rene, for example, demonstrates he knows next to nothing about cislunar radiation or radiation in general, he attempts to establish that he's not only an expert, but more of an expert than those who make their living building machines designed to operate in cislunar space.

People who read these books then make the rounds of online forums spouting the ignorant crap they've read. Sooner or later someone presents hard data which directly contradicts the conspiracist's findings. But the reader doesn't necessarily have the expertise to recognize that it's true, just as he didn't recognize that the stuff he read in the conspiracy theorist's book was crap. It sounded plausible, so he took it as the truth and parrots it as necessary.

Faced with the inability to intelligently defend the conspiracy theory and the inability to dispute bona fide expertise to the contrary, the reader is left with various unappealing face-saving options.


Irishman: Even after people have described why, you aren't happy and want to see the actual calculations the design engineers made 40+ years ago when designing the system. That just seems an unreasonable expectation to me.

Not necessarily. It's not unreasonable to want to see the calculations if they exist. As we all have agreed, a tremendous amount of information is available online and in print about the details of the Apollo program. More are being made available every day. Examples of the actual machines are available in museums. It may take quite a bit of effort, but it's not unreasonable to ask.

The question is what happens if one's desire for information cannot be adequately met. What do we conclude in the absense of verificatory information?

Looking at the larger picture, here's what has to happen. If someone like SAMU comes along and asserts that it's impossible for the scenario described for Apollo 13 to have occurred, it should be accompanied with research and documentation at that time, not after days of wrangling.

The problem is that people pop up with "food for thought", but the implication is, "This is what everyone should believe unless proved otherwise." So we all scramble to provide a rigorous rebuttal to a proposition which is nothing more than idle or uninformed speculation.

Conspiracy theorists continue to avoid accountability because we continue to play the game according to the rules they've drawn up. Nowhere else in the field of investigation is someone allowed to say, "This proposal of mine holds unless you can prove it's false."


Irishman: ... without doing some hairy calculations I don't know that you'll get the answers you want.

The same problem applies here as in the radiation example above. In practice, computing radiation dosages and probable effect on the human organism is fiendishly difficult. The conspiracy theorists adopt a sort of "Star Trek" approach that all radiation is simply a simple quantity that is measured with a guage, and when the guage reaches the red line, you're dead.

The layman's concept of heat can often be simplistic. But in quantitative terms heat transfer and thermodynamics are ugly and require hairy differential equations to get right. If you want to say, under a certain set of circumstances, that the command module should have been at X degrees, then typically a page or so of computations is required. "Food for thought" is insufficient, because here's how my thought goes: the command module was built by expert professional engineers. The charge of conspiracy is being made by someone whose qualifications I don't know, and who has given no detailed case. Therefore I summarily reject the conclusion until it's supported commensurately with what I know about the command module and its designers. I know they did their homework, and someone challenging their results ought to provide an equivalent amount of homework.

Some CM equipment was mounted on cold rails but some was not because its steady-state operation without them wasn't expected to exceed its operational limits or inappropriately warm the cabin. This steady state included helping to warm the cabin to a comfortable temperature.

Simply determining the internal cabin temperature of the CM without the electronic equipment and without the astronauts, due solely to solar heating, at steady state is quite a chore. Just because portions of the spacecraft skin reach a high temperature doesn't mean the inside will.

TinFoilHat
2001-Nov-07, 05:42 PM
On 2001-11-07 11:33, SAMU wrote:
Other research strategies that I intuitivly believe will yield available data desired include finding, if available, the ambient tempreture of other derilict spacecraft.

The russians accidentally lost contact with their Salyut 7 space station while it was unmanned. When a rescue team was finally able to reach it, they found it had completely shut down, no electrical systems operating at all, and no active cooling systems either. It was cold enough inside for all the station's water supply to have frozen solid. They were able to get it back up and running.

JayUtah
2001-Nov-07, 05:46 PM
SAMU: That data is applicable to Apollo 13 because 13 was for ambient tempreture balance resembalant to a derilict.

So long as it's a derelict in cislunar space. A derelict spacecraft in low earth orbit is inapplicable because such a vehicle will undergo a cycle of alternating sunlight and shadow. Apollo 13 was in full sunlight for all of its journey save for when the moon blocked the sun.

Unfortunately you will run into the same problem as you did using lunar surface material as an example -- the derelict spacecraft you choose for your baseline data may not have the same material properties as the Apollo command module.

I think you need to come to the realization that solving the steady-state heat problem for an Apollo command module is not something you can just refer to in a table or arrive at by arithmetic averages.

That's not to say reference to derelict spacecraft temperatures is irrelevant. It's just going to supply you with a direct answer, nor is it directly applicable without allowing for materials properties.


SAMU: Because no engineer is going to base spacecraft design on attempting to measure the albedo of a complex structure like the Apollo spacecraft when accurate experimental data from mercury and Gemini is available.

In practice engineers will use both data points. Mercury and Gemini data are valuable because they provide empirical adjustments to the analytical figures obtained in the design. But they are not directly applicable to the Apollo design because neither the Mercury nor Gemini capsule is an Apollo capsule. So the engineer must still apply analytical thermodynamics principles, including surface albedo, to the design of the spacecraft. But he may then use empirical methods derived from previous designs in order to refine his new design.

In practice a spacecraft is not a homogeneous thermal unit. Temperature gradients will persist, even using passive and active thermal control. For the lunar module the passive effects of skin materials was used to an advantage. The various portions of the descent stage were skinned differently depending on how much heat needed to be conducted to the interior portion of that segment of the stage.

Each segment of the lunar module contained equipment whose thermal requirements varied, and so the steady thermal state included different absorption and emission characteristics that varied across the struction and provided an appropriate thermal gradient. In short, not only will thermal gradients persist, they can sometimes be useful.


SAMU: I think the measurements were not made.

On the contrary, the albedo of the materials chosen for the outer skins of the various Apollo spacecraft were quite accurately measured and factored into the design.


SAMU: I know that some inaccurate albedo guesstimates were made prior and applied to the design of the Mercury spacecraft. But from my information that strategy was discarded when hard data came from the Mercury flights.

True enough, but this does not make skin albedo irrelevant to the design of Apollo or modern spacecraft, which is how I'm reading your argument.

Empirical data from these early programs provide an understanding of how skin albedo contributes to the overall thermodynamics of the spacecraft. We simply can't compute ahead of time the intricacies of the thermal situation. But the basic thermodynamics equations provide a jumping-off point. Then empirical data provides approximations which we can use to refine basic thermodynamics into a thermal model for a spacecraft of a given basic design.

Unfortunately Mercury and Gemini missions provide only limited help because these spacecraft were intended only for low earth orbit. The sun-dark cycle repeats every ninety minutes or so, and that differs considerably from being in direct sunlight for days on end.

JayUtah
2001-Nov-07, 06:10 PM
Skylab may also be relevant as a derelict. It was quite warm when the first crew arrived, but this was because the outer heat shield had been stripped away in the launch. Its job had been to reflect away sunlight.

So on the one hand you have Salyut 7, which froze solid, and on the other hand you have Skylab which turned into a sauna under very similar circumstances. Which is accurate? Both are, because the difference is in how the incident sunlight was handled.

Albedo alone doesn't determine this, to be sure. The Skylab heat shield was mechanically decoupled from the station hull as much as possible. That way there was little material linkage along which for heat to be conducted. Similarly the crinkled appearance of the outer LM skin was intended. By hand-crinkling the insulation layers, the manufacturer reduced the physical contact between adjacent layers, and therefore the available paths for heat conduction.

Skylab's thermal problem was solved by an aluminized Kapton "parasol" which prevented the sun from shining directly on the station skin. Salyut froze up because there was no internal heat source, but also because its passive heat rejection systems were still intact. While the outer skin of Salyut 7 may have been quite hot during the period of solar exposure, the station was designed so that head would not be transmitted through the structure to the inside.

The lunar module had a very similar design. There was an inner skin which formed the pressure vessel, and an outer skin which provided thermal and meteorite protection. The mechanical connection between these two layers was provided by "standoffs" which greatly minimized the physical contact between them, and between the outer skin and the structural elements.

Silas
2001-Nov-08, 03:41 AM
On 2001-11-06 16:28, The Bad Astronomer wrote:


re "light and dark," think about sunspots. They look "dark," even though they're incandescent and bright.

Ah, excellent analogy. I'll have to remember that.


My existence is validated! (Grin!)

A friend of mine gave another useful observation: if you look at a tv set, when the tv is off, the screen looks grey. But when you actually watch the tv, you see "black." Obviously, the screen cannot display any shade of darkness that is darker than the screen with no power; it's all in contrast to the bright areas on the screen.

Valiant Dancer
2001-Nov-08, 03:24 PM
On 2001-11-07 11:33, SAMU wrote:
Other research strategies that I intuitivly believe will yield available data desired include finding, if available, the ambient tempreture of other derilict spacecraft. That data is applicable to Apollo 13 because 13 was for ambient tempreture balance resembalant to a derilict. Probably be a good method and one I will try. No big complex of research there or formuli , just a question of whether the data is available.

The afore mentioned strategy of BTU capacity is another.

Research into the data acquired by the Mercury and Gemini programs, which was used to base the design of the Apollo, would probably work but would be more complex and in my intuitive opinion less available.

Guesstimates of Apollo spacecraft albedo are in my intuitive opinion the only numbers available for an albedo based strategy. Because no engineer is going to base spacecraft design on attempting to measure the albedo of a complex structure like the Apollo spacecraft when accurate experimental data from mercury and Gemini is available. So a strategy reliant on measurements of the spacecraft albedo is In my intuitive opinion not going to yield accurate results because I think the measurements were not made.

I know that some inaccurate albedo guesstimates were made prior and applied to the design of the Mercury spacecraft. But from my information that strategy was discarded when hard data came from the Mercury flights.

SAMU



Allow me to provide some other intuitive guidance. I am a computer programmer who also has built computers from the ground up (marrying together component devices, cards, memmory blocks, hard drives to make a functioning computer.). I also work on mainframes. Most of the space inside a computer and computer room is for cooling. Computers throw a lot of heat. I had a 486 processor cook itself (I love the smell of burnt electronics in the morning, it smells like victory) in a little under 30 minutes. A cooling fan had failed and only the power supply cooling fan was operating. Mainframes need a lot of active cooling to keep them at a relatively cool 65 degrees. The electronics in the Apollo space program were toasty enough to need a massive cooling system (both active and passive) for the spacecraft. Without that input of heat from the electronics, whatever passive cooling systems would negate the minor input of human body heat and solar radiation. Therefore, the temperature inside the capsule drops.

SAMU
2001-Nov-09, 04:53 AM
Here are some stats for skylab.

http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/history/skylab/flight-summary.htm

You will find a tempreture of 125 degrees after loss of meteor shield and a temp of 75 degrees after instalation of a very large parasol to shield it from the sun.

True it's not an Apollo and true it's not trans lunar orbit. It spent a large portion of it's time every hour in the shade of the Earth's shadow. But it's a far way from the 38 degree temp mentioned by Commander Jim Lovell's essay.

More as I find it. There are lots of derilicts up there but expectedly not very easy to find documentation.

AS to the water freezing on the Soviet Station. I don't expect data to be very available but I would point out that the freezing point of water is higher in low pressure and the boiling point is lower. An example is frozen c02 which at sea level pressure has a boiling point and frezing which is the same which is why it goes from frozen solid to gas without melting to liquid first.
SAMU

PS
Oddly this page and many other related pages are dissabled right now.

http://search.spacelink.nasa.gov/r.html?col=library+xreflib&qt=temperature&url=http%3A//www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/Numbers/Math/Mathematical_Thinking/estimating_the_temperature.htm

But all other unrelated pages I tried on that server are showing up.

Also my last messages to this board are not showing up.


Also it might intrest you to know that this topic is nearly the hottest topic on this board based on number of replies and number of page views second only to the antigravity topic. I guess some people think it is food for thought. Not that that was my intention.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SAMU on 2001-11-09 02:47 ]</font>

WHarris
2001-Nov-09, 11:05 AM
True it's not an Apollo and true it's not trans lunar orbit. It spent a large portion of it's time every hour in the shade of the Earth's shadow. But it's a far way from the 38 degree temp mentioned by Commander Jim Lovell's essay.


But it does demonstrate the point. Without the thermal shielding and with the electronics turned on Skylab heated up to an uncomfortable degree. Had the opposite happened, as it did on Apollo 13, it would have cooled down substantially.



AS to the water freezing on the Soviet Station. I don't expect data to be very available but I would point out that the freezing point of water is higher in low pressure and the boiling point is lower. An example is frozen c02 which at sea level pressure has a boiling point and frezing which is the same which is why it goes from frozen solid to gas without melting to liquid first.


And I would like to point out that the Soviets maintained sea level atmosphere and pressure in their spacecraft. Ergo your contention here is meaningless.

SAMU
2001-Nov-09, 11:12 AM
I point out that the designers no mater how much they know about the spaceraft or calculated to get the spacecraft to work right in the hostile environment of space or even how inteligent they were.

It was the end user, the purchaser, NASA (a paramilitary organization) that clamed that the craft had an explosion and got cold.

An example of how the end user royaly F**ked up a spacecraft because of lack of understanding of the design is Apollo 1. Which was designed to have a pure oxygen cabin pressure of one third sea level. NASA, performing a test pressurized the cabin to full sea level pressure with pure oxygen. A small spark ignited cumbustibles in the cabin and murdered the astronauts Grissom, White and Chaffee. If you've never seen a rag saturated with oxygen burn, it burns like a blowtorch.

Which should tell you somthing about the intelligence of the men who volunteered for the military during Vietnam.

Although they were clever to make the covert mission cover (if that's what it was) a lunar landing abort scenario, eliminating the complexity of faking a landing which in other threads on this board is demonstrated to be difficult to pull off.

SAMU

SAMU
2001-Nov-09, 11:44 AM
Quote

"But it does demonstrate the point. Without the thermal shielding and with the electronics turned on Skylab heated up to an uncomfortable degree. Had the opposite happened, as it did on Apollo 13, it would have cooled down substantially."

What it demonstrates is (if you had read it carefully) That prior to the first manned mission to the ship and presumably with few electronics and no environmental system functioning with no heat shield it got to 125 degrees. And with a heat shield with absolutly minimal contact with the hull compared to any other spacecraft and all electronics and an environmental control system functioning it was still 75 degrees and they would have liked it to be cooler. Or do you think that they placed the parasol in such a way that they had to run a heater to maintain a temp of 75 degrees?

Quote
"And I would like to point out that the Soviets maintained sea level atmosphere and pressure in their spacecraft. Ergo your contention here is meaningless."

I agree with the pressure you note as what I recall of how the soviets maintained their spacecraft. But You don't say how you know what the pressure was after they stopped maintaining it and abandoned it for a period of time and had reportedly all systems shut down. My recollection is that it leaked like a sieve. Out gassing as has been pointed out carries heat away from the ship with it and if the pressure fell then the water would have evaporated at a lower tempreture and cooled the ship more due to evaporative cooling and carried more heat away with it as it leaked out. As a derilict my speculation is applicable. Your contention is meaningless.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SAMU on 2001-11-09 06:54 ]</font>

CJSF
2001-Nov-09, 12:31 PM
SAMU,

Paramilitary: (adjective), of, relating to, being, or characteristic of a force formed on a military pattern especially as a potential auxiliary military force.

What's your evidence that NASA is paramilitary?

Also, comparing Skylab or ANY other LEO SPACE STATION to the Apollo 13 craft is like comparing grapefruits to cherries. They are both fruit and can be eaten, but the similarites end soon after.

You began this thread saying you had questions you'd like us to clear up for you, which we did. But you didn't want us to answer your questions, you just want to argue, against logic, research and PHYSICS that Apollo 13 was a hoax!

I take the Piper Pledge and bow out of this thread.

CJSF 8-(

James
2001-Nov-09, 12:40 PM
I point out that the designers no mater how much they know about the spaceraft or calculated to get the spacecraft to work right in the hostile environment of space or even how inteligent they were.
Does this sentence make any sense to anyone else?


It was the end user, the purchaser, NASA (a paramilitary organization) that clamed that the craft had an explosion and got cold.
1st: NASA isn't a part of the military. Granted, they do send up military hardware from time to time, but the military pays them for that.
2nd: What would you consider proof? Being there in person?


An example of how the end user royaly F**ked up a spacecraft because of lack of understanding of the design is Apollo 1. Which was designed to have a pure oxygen cabin pressure of one third sea level. NASA, performing a test pressurized the cabin to full sea level pressure with pure oxygen. A small spark ignited cumbustibles in the cabin and murdered the astronauts Grissom, White and Chaffee.
I have a feeling that they tested it like that just in case they had to pressurize the cabin to that pressure. Wouldn't you feel better knowing that the ship you're in is tested for far greater pressure than it normally would be under? I know I would.

Also, didn't NASA design everything themselves?



Which should tell you somthing about the intelligence of the men who volunteered for the military during Vietnam.
Watch it. My dad voluteered to serve in the military during Vietnam. Granted, he didn't go to Vietnam, but still, don't go attacking people unless you've been there. And I honestly doubt you were.


Although they were clever to make the covert mission cover (if that's what it was) a lunar landing abort scenario, eliminating the complexity of faking a landing which in other threads on this board is demonstrated to be difficult to pull off.
If the landings were faked, then why not have major problems like Apollo 13 had during Apollo 11 or even Apollo 8? Why not make it seem impossible to make it to the moon rather than go and then have a major accident happen?

David Simmons
2001-Nov-09, 02:18 PM
SAMU wrote:

I point out that the designers no mater how much they know about the spaceraft or calculated to get the spacecraft to work right in the hostile environment of space or even how inteligent they were.

On 2001-11-09 07:40, James wrote:

Does this sentence make any sense to anyone else?


Don't call that jumble of words a sentence!

All of the mess after "I would point out that the designers" is just a long, parenthetical expression. And "I would point out that the designers" doesn't say anything meaningful.

Apparently the writer forgot what the original intention was. But that's OK because most people lost interest in his (or her) views a long time ago.

The Bad Astronomer
2001-Nov-09, 04:26 PM
Which should tell you somthing about the intelligence of the men who volunteered for the military during Vietnam.


First warning: sweeping insults like this are a great way to get banned from this board. There will be no second warning.

Kaptain K
2001-Nov-09, 05:06 PM
I take the Piper Pledge and bow out of this thread.
Second that.

This is starting to resemble the postings of Paul M. on the old board.

When in danger, or in doubt...
Run in circles, scream and shout.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kaptain K on 2001-11-09 12:09 ]</font>

Donnie B.
2001-Nov-09, 05:23 PM
On 2001-11-09 06:12, SAMU wrote:
An example of how the end user [i.e. NASA...db]royaly F**ked up a spacecraft because of lack of understanding of the design is Apollo 1. Which was designed to have a pure oxygen cabin pressure of one third sea level. NASA, performing a test pressurized the cabin to full sea level pressure with pure oxygen. A small spark ignited cumbustibles in the cabin and murdered the astronauts Grissom, White and Chaffee. If you've never seen a rag saturated with oxygen burn, it burns like a blowtorch.

Which should tell you somthing about the intelligence of the men who volunteered for the military during Vietnam.
SAMU


Wow. I mean, wow. Where to start?

NASA is and was not the military. The Apollo spacecraft was designed by NASA, not by the military. Even if your despicable, cheap-shot condemnation of the Vietnam-era military were true, that says nothing at all about NASA and its spacecraft designers -- and speaks volumes about you.

The use of a pure-oxygen environment was not a mistake, but a deliberate decision based on previous experience in the X program (rocket planes leading up to the X-15) and the Mercury and Gemini programs. The risk of fire in such an environment was known, and many precautions were taken (but were, sadly, insufficient in the case of Apollo 1).

All spacecraft, including Apollo (even after the fire), used pure oxygen in space, because the capsule was pressurized to about 1/3 atmosphere, and a N2-O2 mixture would have had too low a partial O2 pressure to be breathable. The capsule had to be pressurized above one atmosphere during ground tests to check for leaks under realistic conditions (i.e. during operation of all equipment used in flight), and it was only under these conditions that the pure O2 atmosphere resulted in a dangerous condition. A multi-gas system, just for ground tests, was judged to be less reliable and an unnecessary burden on the weight budget, especially since NASA had used pure O2 successfully and safely on many previous missions and ground tests. In fact, the original Mercury design used a mixed-gas system for ground testing but this was switched to pure O2 after a near-fatal accident involving the mixed-gas system.

Until now, I was able to restrain myself from further contributions to this useless thread, but this is just too much. Your contention that the tragic loss of the Apollo 1 crew was murder is scurrilous, and just as imbicilic as the HB claim that they were deliberately killed.

Silas
2001-Nov-09, 05:54 PM
If I may be so bold as to play peacemaker for a moment, I think that Samu meant that the accidental electrical spark "murdered" -- i.e. killed -- the Apollo 1 astronauts. I don't believe he intended to imply that NASA, or anyone else, deliberately struck the spark.

Let's not tease him for a few linguistic lapses... I mean, after all... who here has perfect spelling and grammar?

Silas

Valiant Dancer
2001-Nov-09, 06:30 PM
On 2001-11-09 12:54, Silas wrote:
If I may be so bold as to play peacemaker for a moment, I think that Samu meant that the accidental electrical spark "murdered" -- i.e. killed -- the Apollo 1 astronauts. I don't believe he intended to imply that NASA, or anyone else, deliberately struck the spark.

Let's not tease him for a few linguistic lapses... I mean, after all... who here has perfect spelling and grammar?

Silas


The objection is not to any grammatical or spelling error. He (SAMU) used the word murdered. A word which means the deliberate killing of people. There is no ambiguity to that word at all. Donnie B is quite correct to object to the characterisation of a tragic mistake, which caused the deaths of three men and the injury of others who burned themselves trying to extract the astronauts from the burning capsule, as murder.

SAMU
2001-Nov-09, 07:29 PM
I suppose that the word murder may have been missinterpreted legaly to mean murder one which it was not. More accurate legaly might have been a charge of involuntary manslaughter, homicide three if there were a legal charge which there was not. So legaly it goes down as accidental. In spite of the fact that the manufacturers designers knew that the NASA plan to run a high pressure pure oxygen test was dangerous and tried to stop it to redesign the ship for the test but were overruled. Like the situation with the shuttle O rings that designers said for months had a problem but were also overruled. Finaly the designers won and the craft were redesigned but the crews lost, they lost their lives. There's no point minimizing that because sloppy work costs lives in what is already a very dangerous undertaking.

With appologies to Vietnam era veterans I point out that the navy uses the facitious (joking) design criteria that their ships be designed to be run by teenage high school dropouts.

The design of the spacecraft was done by the manufacturers based on specs and research drawn up by NASA. The manufacturer included instructions for the operation of the craft which NASA was supposed to, but did not always follow.

The the crews were military and many many other operational personel were military as well as manufacturer supplied. I could supply a link to information to support that assertion but I won't because if you are so ignorant that you don't know that then you should do the research yourself or otherwise "what would happen to man's search for knowlege?" You may remember this phrase "We don't want civilian pilots, because security clearances just takes too long for that kind of people."

There are holes you can't see
up there in the sky
can't see 'em at all with your naked eye

But if you go up there
if you would fly
then you could fall through one
and then you would die

Those of you who don't want to participate in this discussion are free to leave. You not liking how it's going is no reason to deny the right of others who do want to participate. Not liking how it's going is not even on topic so you should keep that to yourself and unless you have somthing on topic to say. Since it also obscures the salient on topic points you may want to go back and delete the message portion regarding "I don't like..."

Kaptain K,

In answer to your last message.

Quote:

You have three choices:
1) Accept the word of those who have already done the digging.
2) Follow the links that have been provided (the results of the research) and discover the truth that others have found.
3) Keep your head and the sand."

and James's follow up

Quote:

"How much you wanna bet he's gonna pick #3?"

James, you lose. I obviously choose #4) Continue to research applicable data.

SAMU







<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SAMU on 2001-11-09 15:35 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SAMU on 2001-11-09 15:45 ]</font>

Lisa
2001-Nov-09, 08:11 PM
ith appologies to Vietnam era veterans I point out that the navy uses the facitious (joking) design criteria that their ships be designed to be run by teenage high school dropouts.
Then you've obviously never been to a Navy or AF Tech school.


The the crews were military and many many other operational personel were military as well as manufacturer supplied. You may remember this phrase "We don't want civilian pilots, because security clearances just takes too long for that kind of people."
Well let's see. On one hand you have civilian test pilots and support crew. You'll have to verify their records and do background checks, costing manhours and big bucks.
On the other hand you have military test pilots and support crew, already verifiably trained and all with security clearances.
Hmmm. {Lisa scratches head}
You're right, tough decision.[/sarcasm]
Lisa

JayUtah
2001-Nov-09, 08:43 PM
SAMU: It was the end user, the purchaser, NASA (a paramilitary organization) that clamed that the craft had an explosion and got cold.

The military didn't really like NASA. They felt NASA's backers in Congress had drawn all the space funding away from the military and given it to NASA.

Do you really think NASA could claim the service module had exploded, and the combined stack had grown cold, and that the contractors who built these spacecraft would not be able to tell whether that was a lie?

SAMU: As a derilict my speculation is applicable.

I disagree. You still have not established to my satisfaction that the thermodynamics of a spacecraft in low earth orbit can be meaningfully compared in any way with a spacecraft on a circumlunar trajectory.

Second, you have not established that a quantitative or qualitative relationship exists in the thermodynamics of spacecraft of two different designs, even if they are in the same environment.

You are quite obviously trying to compare apples and oranges.

The notion that NASA masterminded the spacecraft and just handed a completed set of blueprints to the contractors who uncomprehendingly assembled them is about as far from the truth as one could get. NASA solicited proposals for spacecraft designs from the leading aerospace firms. These firms did their own research.

NASA drew up specifications for the spaceships, but any engineer can tell you that the hardest part of the job is arriving at a design which satisfies the specification. NASA didn't just hand a completed solution to the contractors; it expected the contractors to develop the solution and design the hardware based on their expertise.

NASA maintained a hands-on approach to design reviews, and suggested modifications and various design elements. But the contractors held the repository of expertise on the spacecraft and their systems. This is why you see contractors on-site at the various NASA facilities to provide expertise on the operation of the spacecraft.

To suggest that Boeing and North American and Grumman weren't aware of the thermodynamic properties of their spacecraft in different contingencies is to reveal a very great ignorance in how NASA obtains spacecraft.

SAMU: The crews were military

Neil Armstrong was a civilian.

Using people who already have the necessary permission is simple economics. All space technology was considered classified back then because even if it were used for civilian purposes it could be used for military ones too.

Are you trying to establish that the military had undue control over NASA or that Apollo had a military agenda? If so, you'll have to provide a lot more than this.

SAMU
2001-Nov-09, 09:08 PM
Jay Utah,

You are another who is not reading the messages.

SAMU: As a derilict my speculation is applicable.

Utah:I disagree. You still have not established to my satisfaction that the thermodynamics of a spacecraft in low earth orbit can be meaningfully compared in any way with a spacecraft on a circumlunar trajectory.

SAMU:The trans lunar course would keep it in the sun longer as already posted.

UTAH:Second, you have not established that a quantitative or qualitative relationship exists in the thermodynamics of spacecraft of two different designs, even if they are in the same environment.

SAMU:I think that if I or you find that the only ten derilicts that we find with tempreture documentation that that will be a strongly supportive base of data points.


Utah:The notion that NASA masterminded the spacecraft and just handed a completed set of blueprints to the contractors

SAMU:I said the manufaturers designed them.

Utah:NASA drew up specifications for the spaceships, but any engineer can tell you that the hardest part of the job is arriving at a design which satisfies the specification. NASA didn't just hand a completed solution to the contractors; it expected the contractors to develop the solution and design the hardware based on their expertise.

SAMU: That's what I said.

SAMU: The crews were military

Utah:Neil Armstrong was a civilian.

SAMU:Neil Armstrong was military. Due to be decomisioned prior to the the mission and used for the mission as a civilian.

Utah:Using people who already have the necessary permission is simple economics. All space technology was considered classified back then because even if it were used for civilian purposes it could be used for military ones too.

SAMU: Yes, right. that is why they had 'em


Utah:Are you trying to establish that the military had undue control over NASA or that Apollo had a military agenda? If so, you'll have to provide a lot more than this.

SAMU: No I'm pointing out that the military had somewhat inept use of NASA.

SAMU



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SAMU on 2001-11-09 16:53 ]</font>

JayUtah
2001-Nov-09, 11:01 PM
SAMU: The trans lunar course would keep it in the sun longer as already posted.

That's the difference in environment, not the difference in behavior in the spacecraft. You presume to gather numerical data about spacecraft in one type of environment and apply it to spacecraft in a different environment.

Yes, a spacecraft in a circumlunar trajectory will be constantly in the sun, for all intents and purposes, unlike a spacecraft in low earth orbit. It is obvious that this will subject it to greater solar heating, so you would be correct to suspect that such a spacecraft would reach a hotter steady state.

But how much hotter? Two degrees? Ten degrees? Two hundred degrees? Your proposal provides no method to quantitatively correlate the two cases. Hence it is largely useless.

SAMU:I think that if I or you find that the only ten derilicts that we find with tempreture documentation that that will be a strongly supportive base of data points.

No. Without a detailed thermodynamic analysis of the design of each spacecraft and a qualitative comparison between the designs the model is useless. You cannot assemble an apple, a peach, a mango, a banana, and a kumquat and presume that this tells you something about oranges.

SAMU:I said the manufaturers designed them.

I realize this, but if I'm interpreting your earlier cryptic statements correctly, you suggest that NASA and the contractors had incorrect and possibly different understandings of the thermal properties of the spacecraft. You contend that the claim surrounding Apollo 13 represents an incorrect thermal situation. You contend that the claim of cooling was made by NASA, therefore NASA had no accurate knowledge of the true thermal properties of the spacecraft. Since the contractors did not dispute NASA's claim you must also contend that the contractors were unaware of the thermal properties of the spacecraft under these conditions.

If these are your contentions, they are preposterous. To argue that neither NASA who specified and operated the spacecraft, nor the contractors who designed and built them, understood the thermal properties of the spacecraft and the thermal environment in which they operated is ludicrous. Manned spaceflight requires very exacting tolerances in thermal design, and these spacecraft were tested extensively for compliance with the thermal requirements of their specifications.

I may have misunderstood your argument. If so, I apologize.

SAMU:Neil Armstrong was military. Due to be decomisioned prior to the the mission and used for the mission as a civilian.

Armstrong left the U.S. Navy in 1952, quite some time before participating in the Apollo project.

SAMU: No I'm pointing out that the military had somewhat inept use of NASA.

And this proves what?



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2001-11-09 18:03 ]</font>

Donnie B.
2001-Nov-09, 11:40 PM
I dispute the contention that the Apollo spacecraft was "specified by NASA and designed by the contractors". The design of the CSM was most definitely in NASA's hands, although the contractors had more input than in previous designs (such as Mercury and Gemini).

The primary designers were Max Faget and Caldwell Johnson, both of whom had been deeply involved in the earlier programs (Faget is credited with designing the Mercury capsule almost single-handedly).

The nominal process for the Apollo design was for NASA to do preliminary studies, then award study contracts to three private firms who would take it from there. It didn't work out quite like that. Though the study contracts were awarded to Convair, GE and Martin, Faget's team continued to develop their design, and that's what was ultimately built -- by North American, not one of the three earlier contractors.

It worked out well; the NASA designers could examine the contractors' designs and use their best ideas. The contractors couldn't see NASA's design or their competitors', so naturally the NASA design was the best.

Note that this applies to the CSM; the LM was also a NASA design but may have been somewhat more influenced by the contractor.

Source: "Apollo: The Race to the Moon", Murray and Bly Cox, Touchstone (Simon & Schuster), 1989, ISBN 0-671-61101-1

I recommend this book highly, if you can find it; I believe it's out of print. It's an unusual treatment of the Apollo program, focused on the designers and flight controllers rather than the astronauts. It has one of the best treatments of Apollo 13 that I've read.

SAMU
2001-Nov-09, 11:41 PM
Utah:You cannot assemble an apple, a peach, a mango, a banana, and a kumquat and presume that this tells you something about oranges.

SAMU: But it does tell you somthing about fruit.

SAMU:I said the manufaturers designed them.

Utah:you suggest that NASA and the contractors had incorrect and possibly different understandings of the thermal properties of the spacecraft. You contend that the claim surrounding Apollo 13 represents an incorrect thermal situation. You contend that the claim of cooling was made by NASA, therefore NASA had no accurate knowledge of the true thermal properties of the spacecraft.

SAMU: I contend that the people who ran the covert op. and released the story had no accurate knowledge of the true thermal properties of the spacecraft. NASA just kept their mouths shut. Some times the people who keep covert secrets believe in what they are doing. That's probably one of the reasons they are given the secrets to keep.

I may have misunderstood your argument. If so, I apologize.

SAMU:You did, You're forgiven.



Utah:Are you trying to establish that the military had undue control over NASA or that Apollo had a military agenda? If so, you'll have to provide a lot more than this.

SAMU: No I'm pointing out that the military had somewhat inept use of NASA.

Utah:And this proves what?

SAMU:Proves nothing, supports my man supports. Proof is only to be had by going back in time or conducting an exact reproduction of the mission conditions or by a confession from the covert operatives if any.

SAMU

SAMU
2001-Nov-09, 11:46 PM
I suppose that, presuming ineptitude on the part of the operators of 13 during understandably stressfull conditions, since the environmental systam was working to some extent, regardless of the possible tempreture expected with a non working cooling system, the environmental cooling systam could have been working
unnoticed. Even though the explosion was directly adjacent to the environmental radiators of the reportedly unusable service module. Because of ineptitude it could have been cooling the spacecraft too much and not been noticed. That alone would explain everything. That answer or the other will be supported. An answer of “It’s none of your bussiness” or other minimaly supported answers are not acceptable. Ban me from this board if you like but I will
persue this story.

PS

I have already posted a preliminary copyright to this story so don’t try to steal it.


SAMU


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SAMU on 2001-11-09 18:57 ]</font>

Donnie B.
2001-Nov-10, 12:09 AM
On 2001-11-09 18:46, SAMU wrote:
I suppose that, presuming ineptitude on the part of the operators of 13 during understandably stressfull conditions, since the environmental systam was working to some extent...


There was no ineptitude involved. The cooling system on the CSM was completely shut down; they couldn't have afforded the power, even if it had been needed.

As has been stated previously in this thread, the cooling system of the LM was operating at a minimal level to keep critical components (specifically, the electronics associated with the guidance system, computer, and life support systems) from overheating. This had little impact on cabin temperature, and was unavoidable since an overheated computer is neither a good space heater nor a useful computer.



PS

I have already posted a preliminary copyright to this story so don’t try to steal it.


This is bull, pure and simple. What do you claim to have copyrighted? Anything posted here is in the public domain. Anything you haven't written yet is not copyrightable. What are you claiming rights to, the notion that NASA's been lying about Apollo 13?

Don't worry about us, though. Nobody here would dream of publishing such an absurd claim. Write on, brother, and may it bring you the fame and fortune you richly deserve.

The Bad Astronomer
2001-Nov-10, 02:14 AM
On 2001-11-09 18:46, SAMU wrote:
Ban me from this board if you like but I will
persue this story.


I ban people on the way they post, and not because I disagree with them. Sweeping generalizations that are insults will get you banned, because they are rude. Read the FAQ.



I have already posted a preliminary copyright to this story so don’t try to steal it.

What story? The idea that Apollo 13 was faked? There are lots of websites that make the same claim. David Percy wrote a whole book about how the missions were real, but the pictures were faked.

Also, as has been pointed out, posting here is public domain. I have a copyright on the bottom of every page on this website except this forum. That is not an accident; I won't take a copyright on what other people write. But if you make a post here, others can do whatever they like with the idea.

SAMU
2001-Nov-10, 02:57 AM
I agree. The Vietnam vet comment was a despicable, cheep shot. I am ashamed I wrote it.

The Vietnam vets did honorable service for the greatest country on earth during a turbulent time when the justice of events is sometimes hard to determine.

I apologise for the comment. It is not the way I truly feel about the vets. The vets have taken too much stuff like that.

Sincerely
SAMU

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SAMU on 2001-11-09 22:04 ]</font>

David Simmons
2001-Nov-10, 03:19 AM
On 2001-11-09 21:57, SAMU wrote:
I agree. The Vietnam vet comment was a despicable, cheep shot. I am ashamed I wrote it.

The Vietnam vets did honorable service for the greatest country on earth during a turbulent time when the justice of events is sometimes hard to determine.

I apologise for the comment. It is not the way I truly feel about the vets. The vets have taken too much stuff like that.

Sincerely
SAMU

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SAMU on 2001-11-09 22:04 ]</font>


<font color="red">GOOD FOR YOU!</font>



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David Simmons on 2001-11-09 22:21 ]</font>

Trish
2001-Nov-10, 08:23 AM
SAMU:

Also it might intrest you to know that this topic is nearly the hottest topic on this board based on number of replies and number of page views second only to the antigravity topic. I guess some people think it is food for thought. Not that that was my intention.

Actually, I find the rebuttals of more interest than the argument you've attempted to put forward. That's one reason I keep reading this thread. Then I have enjoyed learning about the subject.

SAMU
2001-Nov-11, 09:09 PM
I was hoping to avoid this because a simple explanation of a complex subject is open to multitudes of oppositions. (Note the opposition to a quote of the commonly given tempreture of things in sunlight and shade in near Earth space of +- 200-250 degrees.) But since some of you seem to be getting it I’ll go ahead and present the following in hopes of clarifying my resistance to albedo measurment as a strategy for measuring the heat absorbtion of Apollo and to perhaps getting more readers looking towards the other simpler strategies as more fruitfull.

Albedo is a more complex subject than it would appear to the layman. In simple terms albedo is defined by Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia as the ratio of the radiation reflected from an object to the total amount incident upon it. At first this seems to be a simple statement to understand. But the complexities rise so quickly when you define albedo to a precise tool it uses terms that the layman is not likly to understand.

As Van Nostrand further defines it.A=pq where p is the ratio of the brightness at the phase angle of zero to the brightness of a perfectly difusing disk under the same conditions, and q is a factor representing the phase law.

Did you you get that? Good, you’re smarter than the average bear. Why don’t you try to explain it in laymans terms 300 words or less? Here’s my try at it.

Imagine a red light shining on a red pigmented object and a blue pigmented object. The red light reflected from the red object is much greater than the red light reflected from the blue object. The frequency of the light (phase angle) and brightness (amplitude) relative to the chemical structure of the reflecting object (phase law) is key to measuring albedo. The more complex the chemistry and the more frequencies and amplitudes incedent upon it, the more complex the calculations are to measure total albedo of the pigment. Now imagine a complex structure like an Apollo spacecraft with it’s multitude of chemicals and alloys and imagine the complex of frequencies and amplitudes of which sunlight is composed, all the way from the far infrared to the far ultraviolet to X-rays and cosmic rays. It should be noted here that this decription is just the beginning of how complex it really is. A full understanding to use it as a tool for this purpose requires an understanding of trigonometry, calculus. electromagnetics, chemistry and subatomic physics.

Measurement of reflected energy in terms of albedo can be misunderstood as a simple procsess because the simple definition misleads the layman that the solution is simple.

This does not even get into what can happen to light when it’s absorbed such as florecence (A change in frequency of absorbed light) or radiation (the eletromagnetic release of absorbed light energy ) conduction ( electronic transfer of absorbed light energy to adjacent material) photo electric, (changing light energy to electric current) convection, (just conduction to a moving adjacent material.) and retention (not releasing absorbed energy).

Thus albedo is inaplicable to measure the energy absorbed and active as heat from sunlight by Apollo when simple comparasons to similar structures and environments are available. Especialy when very different structures in similar environments arrive at similar heat levels.

Albedo is most often and applicably used as a tool to determine chemical composition by shining a lightof many frequencies and measuring which frequencies are reflected and/or which are absorbed. Because all elements absorb their own specific frequenciy and molecules absorb their own frequencies. Which is why many carbon molocules such as asphalt (a combination of hydrocarbon molecules) are black because carbon can combine with other elements including itself in so many ways that they can be the most complex and largest of all molocules thus able to absorb or reflect, depending on their structure, many frequencies of light.

PHEW!!! That’s the simple explanation.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SAMU on 2001-11-11 16:29 ]</font>

JayUtah
2001-Nov-12, 02:57 PM
Note that this applies to the CSM; the LM was also a NASA design but may have been somewhat more influenced by the contractor.

See Tom Kelly's "Moon Lander", just published. Kelly claims the LM was a Grumman design.

JayUtah
2001-Nov-12, 03:23 PM
SAMU: But it does tell you somthing about fruit.

Yes, it tells me that fruit occurs in great variety, and that trying to generalize the behavior of a pomegranate by examining a banana is a foolish plan.

The two derelicts we've discussed exhibited widely varying thermal properties. What does this tell you about the thermal properties of derelicts in general? Nothing useful.

If you study a certain set of derelicts in low earth orbit, and discover their thermal characteristics vary widely, where do you put the CSM/LM stack on that same chart? Near the top? Near the middle? Near the bottom? Off the top or bottom of the scale? What would be your justification?

Your plan is so fraught with methodological uncertainty that I can't imagine how you expect to extract any meaningful data from it.

SAMU: I contend that the people who ran the covert op. and released the story had no accurate knowledge of the true thermal properties of the spacecraft.

Who do you claim ran such a covert operation? Why didn't they do their homework? The thermal properties of the spacecraft had been studied and were available in written form.

SAMU: NASA just kept their mouths shut.

Why would they? Why would they let some other branch of the government run a covert operation whose end result is to make them look like incompetent buffoons, and place upon them the blame for nearly killing three highly-regarded pilots? And why would they accept such a scenario when it is the most commonly cited reason for why the Apollo program was cut short, reducing their budget?

Your scenario simply makes no sense from a human perspective. It requires people to act irrationally within the context of the hypothesis.

It also makes not sense from a technical perspective. Above you argue that both NASA and their contractors would reasonably have understood the thermal properties of the spacecraft. You say NASA kept its mouth shut. What about Grumman? What about North American?

Thousands of Grumman employees flocked to their workplaces unbidden when they heard the flight was in trouble. The "Grummies" in the MCC backroom were looking at the telemetry and hearing the reports from the astronauts. Do you expect me to believe that these people who had spent the better part of a decade designing and building this spacecraft, who had produced 4,000 design documents per week for several years, who were some of the most talented engineers in the business -- not one of these people said, "Hey, why is the spacecraft getting cold? It's supposed to get hot under these circumstances?"

Why didn't the Russian engineers, who had seen the basic designs for the Apollo spacecraft and who had considerable experience with their own spacecraft in cislunar space, say, "Why is the American spacecraft getting cold? It looks to me like it should get hot?"

Could the answer possibly be that all this combined worldwide expertise is right when it predicts that the spacecraft would cool down? And could it be that SAMU's argument for an incredible thermal situation is based on the appearance that SAMU is learning thermodynamics as he participates in the discussion?

SAMU: Some times the people who keep covert secrets believe in what they are doing.

Who do you claim was keeping this secret and what reasons can you give for why they would want to keep this particular secret?

SAMU:Proves nothing, supports my man supports.

I don't understand this sentence.

SAMU: Proof is only to be had by going back in time or conducting an exact reproduction of the mission conditions

Since that's impractical, why don't you do the next best thing and provide a detailed, well-supported set of computations that show, in a manner that a thermodynamics expert would accept as plausible, there is anything remotely meritorious in your argument?

SAMU: or by a confession from the covert operatives if any.

Not sufficient. Anyone can claim, in Bob Lazar style, that he was a member of a covert team who accomplished this. I would require, in addition to the confession from a conspirator, proof that the events to which he confessed actually took place and that he participated in them.

You provided your hypothesis as "food for thought". My thoughts are these:

1. Your analysis of the thermal situation is simplistic and lacks a grounding in the principles of thermodynamics.

2. Your cover-up hypothesis is implausible.

3. Your methodology is ad hoc and amateur.


SAMU
[/quote]

David Simmons
2001-Nov-12, 03:40 PM
On 2001-11-12 10:23, JayUtah wrote:

And could it be that SAMU's argument for an incredible thermal situation is based on the appearance that SAMU is learning thermodynamics[emphasis added] as he participates in the discussion?



No he isn't! If he were in fact learning, it might be worth the trouble. Otherwise ...

Valiant Dancer
2001-Nov-12, 05:01 PM
On 2001-11-12 10:23, JayUtah wrote:
SAMU:Proves nothing, supports my man supports.

I don't understand this sentence.


He believes that what you are saying supports his position. With that, I'm gonna Piper Anon out of this one.

JayUtah
2001-Nov-12, 05:11 PM
SAMU: I was hoping to avoid this because a simple explanation of a complex subject is open to multitudes of oppositions.

Why do you think you have to provide a simple explanation? Your whole problem is exactly that you're trying to simplify what is really a complext situation.

SAMU: in hopes of clarifying my resistance to albedo measurment as a strategy for measuring the heat absorbtion of Apollo

The only thing you should be resisting is the improper usage of the word "albedo". We got stuck on this term because we brought lunar surface temperatures into the discussion early on. It's common to use "albedo" when discussing the thermal steady state of an entire planetoid. Engineers use terms like "reflectivity" or "emissivity" when discussing radiative heat transfer in constructed objects. These are related to albedo, but of course not identical to it.

There is an inverse relationship between absorption and reflection. Increase one and you lower the other. Since albedo is one way of measuring reflection, it can be considered an inverse quantity to absorption.

SAMU: ... looking towards the other simpler strategies as more fruitfull.

No. Your problem is precisely that you think this question has an answer that can be arrived at simply. You don't seem to understand the effect of surface reflectivity and emissivity on the thermal properties of an object heated and cooled primarily through radiation.

SAMU: Albedo is a more complex subject than it would appear to the layman.

Many of us aren't laymen.

SAMU: Why don?t you try to explain it in laymans terms 300 words or less?

Easy. The amount of reflected light depends on the amount of incoming light. It depends on the angle at which the light hits the surface. It also depends on what color the light is versus what color the surface is, and what that surface is made of.

SAMU: A full understanding to use it as a tool for this purpose requires an understanding of trigonometry, calculus. electromagnetics, chemistry and subatomic physics.

True. Why don't you come back when you can incorporate these various disciplines into an argument in favor of your hypothesis.

SAMU: Measurement of reflected energy in terms of albedo can be misunderstood as a simple procsess because the simple definition misleads the layman that the solution is simple.

True, but are you not the one who wants us to throw out all discussion of light-surface interaction and rely on "simple" comparative methods? Are you not the one who argued, without justification, that all objects in cislunar space arrive at the same steady state temperature regardless of material?

You just got done showing us how complicated and potentially chaotic these models are. Now you want to argue that you can just throw together a comparative solution that ignores thermodynamics and, on that basis, claim Apollo 13 was fraudulent.

Pardon me while I laugh.

SAMU: Thus albedo is inaplicable to measure the energy absorbed and active as heat from sunlight by Apollo when simple comparasons to similar structures and environments are available.

Hogwash. The model is either complex and potentially chaotic, or it is not.

"Albedo" isn't generally an engineering term. Or rather, it applies to radiative heat transfer but in a different capacity. I fear we may have confused you by migrating from a discussion of planetary albedo to a discussion of reflectivity and such, without the necessary intervening change of vocabulary.

But that's not the issue. You still maintain, despite lots of valid objections for which you have provided only vague handwaving answers, that you can just compute some kind of numerical average based on whatever spacecraft you choose ad hoc, and that will give you a answer reliable enough to support an accusation of falsification.

SAMU: Especialy when very different structures in similar environments arrive at similar heat levels.

What environments are you talking about?

You've already agreed that cislunar space and low earth orbit are not similar environments, especially for solar heating. At best low earth orbit would provide only a lower bound for estimates of steady state temperature in cislunar space.

Which structures do you refer to, those that are diversely constructed yet achieve identical steady states in space? Is this due entirely to radiative effects?

Upon what basis can you argue that a spacecraft designed thermally for low earth orbit is identical or even qualitatively comparable to a spacecraft designed for cislunar space?

I'm speaking from the point of view of someone who holds a degree in engineering and who has worked in the field of design engineering for aerospace for a number of years. Perhaps you can explain why the Grumman engineers believe they could significantly alter the steady state temperature of portions of the lunar module by covering with materials of varying reflectivity.

Perhaps you can explain why the suits used by firemen in areas of great radiant heat are silver, just like the command module.

Perhaps you can explain why United Air Lines, whose airplanes are dark gray, have to run their A/C packs at high capacity on the ground in my desert city, while Delta airplanes which are white can run them at a lower setting, and American Airlines, whose planes are silver, can sometimes get by just running one pack?

Perhaps you can explain why the radiative heat transfer module on TMG's thermal modeling software, a standard throughout the industry, lets me select the reflectivity of the materials involved.

SAMU: Albedo is most often and applicably used as a tool to determine chemical composition...

No, it's most commonly used in heat transfer models belonging to meteorology. You're talking about spectroscopy.

Karl
2001-Nov-12, 06:14 PM
On 2001-11-12 12:11, JayUtah wrote:

SAMU: A full understanding to use it as a tool for this purpose requires an understanding of trigonometry, calculus. electromagnetics, chemistry and subatomic physics.

True. Why don't you come back when you can incorporate these various disciplines into an argument in favor of your hypothesis.



Why would it need subatomic physics? Seems like thermodynamics is the key here. I think classical non-atomic non-quantum physics is perfectly adequate.

Silas
2001-Nov-12, 07:32 PM
On 2001-11-12 12:11, JayUtah wrote:

Perhaps you can explain why United Air Lines, whose airplanes are dark gray, have to run their A/C packs at high capacity on the ground in my desert city, while Delta airplanes which are white can run them at a lower setting, and American Airlines, whose planes are silver, can sometimes get by just running one pack?


Cool! (Um...pun intended...) I didn't know that, but, yeah, it makes perfect sense.

If their air conditioners failed...the three planes would get hot inside...at different rates...

Can I presume the same would be true on a cold (windless) day in Chicago, under a weak and pallid sun, if the planes' heaters failed? All three planes would get cold inside...at different rates?

Now, the next trick is to get those three airplanes into orbit...

Grin!

Silas

Donnie B.
2001-Nov-12, 08:27 PM
SAMU,

I going to try once more to come at this from a different direction.

Imagine for a moment that when the CSM/LM stack was launched into translunar orbit, something else was sent along: a very large, perfectly reflective mirror, one designed to allow no radiation to penetrate, and (for good measure) to stay cool so that it didn't radiate significantly in the IR from the backside. This mirror is arranged such that the CSM/LM is in its shadow completely, all the way to the moon.

Now, we remove the astronauts and turn off all the electrical equipment (including the cooling systems). Thus there are no internal heat sources, and the spacecraft is totally shielded from the sun -- as effectively, say, as if it were on the unlit side of the moon.

You would agree, would you not, that in such circumstances, the capsule would get very cold? Even though there is no active cooling going on?

All right. Now put in the astronauts, but leave the equipment turned off. It would be a bit warmer (as long as the astronauts remained alive), right? But not hot, by any means.

But, you say, there was no mirror, no "parasol" for the Apollo spacecraft. But there was! The designers knew that they had some 1500 - 2000 watts of heat to dissipate from the electrical systems alone, and would have to provide lots of cooling capacity for it. They didn't want to make those systems any larger and heavier than necessary.

Therefore, they designed the spacecraft to absorb as little solar energy as possible. Of course, their "mirror" wasn't perfect, so the heat dissipation systems were made big enough to deal with that. But they did a pretty good job, so good that when the electronics and most of the refrigeration was shut down, the solar gain wasn't enough to keep the interior very much above freezing.

For your scenario to be correct, the Apollo designers would have to be incompetent fools, who couldn't figure out how to keep the sun at bay and therefore added vast amounts of unnecessary weight to provide the cooling capacity to re-radiate what they couldn't reflect away in the first place.

So, were the Apollo designers incompetent fools, or were they not?

JayUtah
2001-Nov-12, 08:32 PM
Why would it need subatomic physics? Seems like thermodynamics is the key here.

Yes, basic thermodynamics solves the problem and subatomic physics is not strictly necessary.

SAMU was still discussing albedo, which he argues is irrelevant to thermodynamics. Subatomic physics is relevant to the physical phenomenon of reflection, expressed in the macro effect as albedo, because reflection is partially governed by the wavelength of the incident light in combination with the subatomic properties of the surface.

For thermodynamics purposes, where comparison to the blackbody absorber/emitter is encapsulated relatively simply without loss of generality, the subatomic component of light reflection is far more detail than is necessary or helpful.

I wasn't necessarily agreeing to all the implications of SAMU's laundry list of relevant fields, only suggesting that a more complex approach is in order.

SAMU
2001-Nov-13, 03:13 AM
Thermodynamics 101

Heat always flows from high to low.

Imagine a thermos bottle with warm coffee inside. Inside is a silvered pressure vessal surounded by vacume (or other insulator) with the coffee inside. Attaching the vessal to the hull is a small spring at the bottom to cushion shocks and a mouth. In a dark and/or cold place the heat of the coffee inside will slowly leak out via conduction through the spring and the mouth to the hull where it radiates or is conducted away. The coffee will then get cooler. Place the thermos in a bright hot light so the hull gets hotter than the coffee inside and now the heat leaks slowly to the inside through the spring and the mouth to the coffee inside and the coffee gets warmer.




Imagine an Apollo Spacecraft with warm men inside. Inside is a silvered pressure vessel surounded by vacume (or other insulator) with the warm men inside. Attaching the vessel to the hull is a combination pressure vessel, insulator, hull. In a dark and/or cold place the heat of the men inside will slowly leak out via conduction through the combination pressure vessel, insulator, hull to the hull. The men then get cooler. Place the Apollo spacecraft in a bright hot light so the hull gets hotter than the men inside and now the heat leaks slowly to the inside through the combination pressure vessel, insulator, hull to the men inside and the men get warmer.

For somthing to get cold it's heat has to escape. If the Apollo insulation is so efficient that it can keep the heat on the outside from comming in but will allow the heat on the inside to escape, then tell me where I can get some of that stuff. It'll save me $2500.00 a year in airconditioning costs.

Or did I miss somthing in my years of study of thermodynamics? Or did you?
SAMU

SAMU
2001-Nov-13, 07:39 AM
Utah,

This is not just to you but you have done it most often so it'll be easier for the other readers to find and see your messages and see what I'm talking about.

I don't mind you quoting me but it's only courtesy to get it right.

This is just one of the latest of too many.

Utah
Quote:

"SAMU was still discussing albedo, which he argues is irrelevant to thermodynamics."

Where is the message where I wrote that? I don't remember writing it, I wouldn't have written it and I can't find it in all the messages I posted. Would you mind finding it for me and posting the date I posted it?

The next time just copy what I wrote and paste it into a text editor. Then you can look at it as you respond. Then you cut and paste it back to the post window and then you can be sure you get it right. Also your response will be more appropriate to what I wrote rather than what I didn't write. What would be the point of that? When you do somthing like that it reads like a chatroom/bulleten board flame bait.

Forgive me Utah. Compared to some respondents to this you're not as bad. Some of the others read like such flame bait I'm not even answering them.


SAMU



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SAMU on 2001-11-13 02:58 ]</font>

SAMU
2001-Nov-13, 09:16 AM
Trish,

About your message.

Quote:

"Actually, I find the rebuttals of more interest."

Which one was your favorite?

SAMU

Peter B
2001-Nov-13, 01:42 PM
SAMU

I asked this a couple of days ago...

Do you consider it possible that Apollo 13 was exactly what NASA said it was?

Silas
2001-Nov-13, 03:03 PM
For somthing to get cold it's heat has to escape. If the Apollo insulation is so efficient that it can keep the heat on the outside from comming in but will allow the heat on the inside to escape, then tell me where I can get some of that stuff. It'll save me $2500.00 a year in airconditioning costs.

Or did I miss somthing in my years of study of thermodynamics? Or did you?
SAMU


Surrounding your home with a high-grade vacuum will probably cost more than the air- conditioning...

The Apollo was both in a dark place AND a light place: mirrored on the light side to decrease heat uptake, and with heat-sink vanes on the other to radiate heat away, and rolling slowly to average things out.

If the heat-sink vanes radiate more heat than is picked up from the sunlight, the apparatus will cool down. If not, it won't. As it turned out, it did, but not a whole heck of a lot: it got down to an uncomfortable 50 or 60 F.

(The heat-sink vanes in earthly electronics both radiate and conduct heat away, but, frankly, non-moving air is such a poor conductor of heat, it might as well be a vacuum. *Moving* air is quite different, but still air is a fairly good insulator.)

Silas

JayUtah
2001-Nov-13, 03:27 PM
[quote]
SAMU: I don't mind you quoting me but it's only courtesy to get it right.

Fair enough. So long as we're being pedantic, my name is Jay. Utah is where I live. It's a desert state in the Rocky Mountains of the U.S. My nick is intended to be interpreted as "Jay from Utah".

Jay: "SAMU was still discussing albedo, which he argues is irrelevant to thermodynamics."

SAMU: Where is the message where I wrote that?

My mistake. You argue that reflectivity (let's get into correct nomenclature, shall we?) is too complicated to figure out, not irrelevant. I apologize.

Therefore you argue that simple empirical comparisons to radically different spacecraft designs in incomparable environments will give you a reliable basis to accuse somebody of fraud. Unfortunately what it sounds like to me is that you don't know enough about thermodynamics to formulate a valid physically-based argument in favor of your theory. Therefore you're attempting to cobble together an argument based on what you do know, regardless of whether it's valid.

Now that we've got this unpleasantness out of the way, let's concentrate on the questions you aren't answering:

1. You claim that significantly different structures in the same environment reach similar or identical steady states. Which specific structures and environments are you talking about?
2. Your methodology assumes there is an established correlation between the thermal environment of low earth orbit and cislunar space. Can you provide a quantitative thermodynamics argument in favor of this method?

3. You claim an agent other than NASA published the story that Apollo 13 had grown cold. Which agency do you claim did this?

4. You accept the premise that NASA and its contractors understood the thermal properties of the spacecraft. Yet you have provided no satisfactory explanation for why NASA and the contractors did not say anything when reports were published containing spurious allegations of fact.
Please answer these questions.

JayUtah
2001-Nov-13, 03:48 PM
SAMU: Or did I miss somthing in my years of study of thermodynamics?

Oh, give me a break. It's painfully obvious that most of what you know about thermodynamics you've learned in the past couple of days trying to keep your head above water in in this discussion.

In your thermos example let's remove the mouth attachment and the spring. Let's say the inner vessel is held in place by a magnetic field or something so that there's no solid points of contact. There is a perfect vacuum between the inner and outer vessels. The entire assembly is suspended by a thin cable from the ceiling of a darkened room at room temperature.

Please answer the following questions:

1. Will the coffee still cool?

2. Through what mechanism of heat transfer will the coffee cool?

3. Describe how to compute the steady state temperature of the described system.

4. How would the system be affected if the air temperature in the room were raised to 100 C?

Now in relation to the Apollo spacecraft, assume the following conditions.

- An Apollo CSM is placed in deep space. No appreciable sunlight falls on its surface.

- The cabin is pressurized with 5 psia pure diatomic oxygen.

- Only minimal life support equipment is running: a fan circulates the cabin air through lithium hydroxide canisters, and a passive regulator adds oxygen to the cabin as necessary to maintain a breathable atmosphere.

- Three normal human astronauts occupy the cabin.

- The three astronauts are wearing Beta cloth flight suits.

Under these conditions, giving estimates for values not provided, please answer the following questions:

1. Describe the common method used to compute the thermodynamic steady state of this system.

2. List the modes of heat transfer that exist in this system. Give estimates of quantitative values for each heat transfer mode.

3. Compute or give estimates of the heat flux for each principal element in this system.

When you can discuss these questions intelligently, then you will have established that you have a sufficient grasp of thermodynamics to show that your hypothesis has a valid argument attached to it. You have made a claim that the Apollo 13 scenario represents an unlikely thermal state. Therefore it is up to you to demonstrate that your knowledge of thermodynamics is up to the task of quantifying heat transfer.

Time to put up or shut up.

Silas
2001-Nov-13, 07:34 PM
1. Describe the common method used to compute the thermodynamic steady state of this system.

2. List the modes of heat transfer that exist in this system. Give estimates of quantitative values for each heat transfer mode.

3. Compute or give estimates of the heat flux for each principal element in this system.

Time to put up or shut up.



I don't think you're being entirely fair... I couldn't answer those questions, but I've been able to keep up with the discussion. That's a little like asking you to be able to solve the Shroedinger Wave Equations before you can talk about quantum physics, or being able to solve tensor equations before you can talk about Relativity.

Um...but while we're on the subject, was I right or wrong in saying that non-moving air is a fairly good insulator? It's been my experience that still air does not heat up (or cool down) very fast at all, but I don't have any theoretical defense or mathematical model for this.

I thought that the comparisons to differently colored aircraft in the desert sunlight was a sufficiently evocative description for the ordinary bloke to grok the concepts.

Silas

JayUtah
2001-Nov-13, 08:42 PM
I don't think you're being entirely fair.

I do. These are questions that relate to basic principles of thermodynamics. Notice I'm not asking for tight numerical answers, only discussions about the method of solving such problems.

SAMU has implied he's studied thermodynamics for "years". If that's true, he should be able to answer these questions without much difficulty at all. If he's relatively new to thermodynamics, as appears to be the case, the investigations he'll need to do in order to answer the questions will provide him with the answers he sought here.

I couldn't answer those questions, but I've been able to keep up with the discussion.

I'm confident that many people have been able to follow the discussion, but would have difficulty understanding and solving the problems. But most people aren't making the kind of claims that SAMU is, and therefore aren't carrying as great a burden of proof. Following the discussion is not as involved a process as having initiated it.

That's a little like asking you to be able to solve the Shroedinger Wave Equations before you can talk about quantum physics, or being able to solve tensor equations before you can talk about Relativity.

I don't consider it the same thing, because SAMU is doing more that "talking about" the thermodynamic problem of spacecraft heating. He's making quantitative claims without any indication that he understands the quantitative or qualitative principles. He's relying simply on a sort of hand-waving approach that tries to equate complicated phenomena with whatever in the lay world most closely resembles the phenomena, whether it's a valid comparison or not.

Unfortunately this is quite a favorite tactic of conspiracy theorists. By referring to intuitive principles which may or may not apply, they propose theories which have the appearance of plausibility, but lack an appropriate degree of rigor. Sadly their audience is often incapable of detecting just how fanciful some of these "intuition-based" theories are.

I'm basically trying to guage how much SAMU knows about thermodynamics. That will help me determine how seriously to take his argument. If he is a relative novice in thermodynamics, then I probably won't pay as much attention to this particular argument.

Someone who has taken a first-semester thermodynamics course would be able to answer most or all these questions.

was I right or wrong in saying that non-moving air is a fairly good insulator?

It depends on what comparison you have in mind. A stationary air layer between two surfaces is a good thermal insulator compared to a layer of water, or a layer of concrete. But it's not as good as a layer of nothing (i.e., vacuum).

With air and other fluids you have a bit of of quandry because in gravity the heat transfer from the solid to the fluid will induce motion in it. Hot air rises. In space, where hot air doesn't rise, you would have a more pronounced boundary layer condition at steady state, a thermal gradient extending from the surface of the solid to a point somewhere in the fluid mass. This means the layer of air immediately next to the surface would be hotter than it would with convective motion (either induced or forced) and that means less heat would transfer conductively away from the surface.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2001-11-13 15:57 ]</font>

Donnie B.
2001-Nov-13, 08:59 PM
On 2001-11-13 14:34, Silas wrote:
[quote]
Um...but while we're on the subject, was I right or wrong in saying that non-moving air is a fairly good insulator? It's been my experience that still air does not heat up (or cool down) very fast at all, but I don't have any theoretical defense or mathematical model for this.



Quite correct. Still air is, in fact, what does the insulating in most of the common forms of thermal insulation, including fiberglass bats, down jackets, and fiberfill.

Down is a lousy insulater when it's wet for the very reason that it collapses and no longer contains dead air spaces.

However, when it comes to radiating fins on electroncis coolers, they don't rely entirely on radiation, even when they are not force-cooled (no fan). Convection is a major player, when the fins are oriented properly. The warm metal heats the nearby air, causing it to rise and drawing cooler air in at the bottom of the fins. Thus the heat is carried away by a combination of conduction and convection, and that is a much stronger effect than radiation for such devices.

(Edited to clarify: the above discussion applies to coolers used in one atmosphere at the surface of the earth, and does not apply to such devices when they're in vacuum and/or a microgravity environment.)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Donnie B. on 2001-11-13 16:04 ]</font>

SAMU
2001-Nov-13, 09:27 PM
Jay

Quote:

"My mistake. You argue that reflectivity (let's get into correct nomenclature, shall we?)"

(SAMU: Yes lets do that shan't we?)

Jay:
is too complicated to figure out, not irrelevant. I apologize.

SAMU: Wrong again. I wrote that it's too complicated to use as a strategy to figure out the tempreture of Apollo 13. Kind of like using pre WW 2 radar to measure the length of a two by four rather than using a known standard like a tape measure.

Jay:
"Oh, give me a break. It's painfully obvious that most of what you know about thermodynamics you've learned in the past couple of days trying to keep your head above water in in this discussion."

Well you must be a genious. To be able to teach me all I know about thermodynamics in a couple of days reading your flawed inacurate and false posts.

Your test is flawed by key factors being left out. I have clarified my answers by adding the key factors.

Jay

Quote:

"In your thermos example let's remove the mouth attachment and the spring. Let's say the inner vessel is held in place by a magnetic field or something so that there's no solid points of contact. There is a perfect vacuum between the inner and outer vessels. The entire assembly is suspended by a thin cable from the ceiling of a darkened room at room temperature."

SAMU:To clarify, we are describing a room with walls at room tempreture and air at room tempreture. Not a slimy trick room without walls or a room with walls at absolute zero or walls at room tempreture that don't radiate. It's a room with walls at room tempreture and air at room tempreture. And we're going to eliminate " The entire assembly is suspended by a thin cable from the ceiling" and just say the whole thing, room, air, thermos and all, is in zero g. Unless you can show how gravity affects the thermodynamics of the situation.

Jay

Quote:

Please answer the following questions:

Jay:1. Will the coffee still cool?

SAMU: Yes. It will cool to room tempreture if the air and the walls are at room tempreture.

2. Through what mechanism of heat transfer will the coffee cool?

SAMU: Radiation and conduction if there is air at room temoreture and the walls are at room tempreture. Radiation alone if there is no air and the walls are at room tempreture.

Jay:3. Describe how to compute the steady state temperature of the described system.

SAMU: Sutract the amount of heat escaping to the room from the thermos from the amount of heat entering the thermos from the air and walls of the room.

Jay:4. How would the system be affected if the air temperature in the room were raised to 100 C?

SAMU:The tempreture would stabalize at 100 C if the air and walls are are 100 C.

Jay:Now in relation to the Apollo spacecraft, assume the following conditions.

- An Apollo CSM is placed in deep space. No appreciable sunlight falls on its surface.

- The cabin is pressurized with 5 psia pure diatomic oxygen.

- Only minimal life support equipment is running: a fan circulates the cabin air through lithium hydroxide canisters, and a passive regulator adds oxygen to the cabin as necessary to maintain a breathable atmosphere.

- Three normal human astronauts occupy the cabin.

- The three astronauts are wearing Beta cloth flight suits.

Under these conditions, giving estimates for values not provided, please answer the following questions:

Jay:1. Describe the common method used to compute the thermodynamic steady state of this system.

SAMU:Sutract the amount heat escaping from the amount of heat entering.

Jay: List the modes of heat transfer that exist in this system. Give estimates of quantitative values for each heat transfer mode.

SAMU:Conduction through the insulation at whatever rate the insulation conducts to the hull where it radiates away.

Jay:3. Compute or give estimates of the heat flux for each principal element in this system.

SAMU: The astronauts would lose as much heat as they have or can produce at the rate the insulation allows it to escape to stabilize at the tempreture that allows the escape of heat to equal the heat produced. If they can produce 4 watts per hour and it escapes at 4 watts per hour at a given tempreture then the tempreture will remain the same. If they produce 4 watts per hour and it escapes at 3 watts per hour at a given tempreture the tempreture will rise. If they produce 4 watts per hour and it escapes at 5 watts per hour at a given tempreture the tempreture will fall.


Jay

Quote:

"When you can discuss these questions intelligently, then you will have established that you have a sufficient grasp of thermodynamics to show that your hypothesis has a valid argument attached to it."

SAMU: That is the fallacy of proof by authority. What I know and say about thermodynamics or what NASA knows and says about thermodynamics or what Nixon knows and says about tapes has nothing to do with whether the facts support the assertions.

By the way, what message did you post that tought me all that about thermodynamics?


Jay

Quote:

You have made a claim that the Apollo 13 scenario represents an unlikely thermal state. Therefore it is up to you to demonstrate that your knowledge of thermodynamics is up to the task of quantifying heat transfer.

SAMU: No. It's up to me to post the facts which support the assertion It's up to you to show the facts are in error. If the facts are not in error and support the assertion then the assertion is reasonable.

Fact 1: Objects in steady sunlight in trans lunar space reach a surface tempreture of 200 degrees before they radiate as much energy as they absorb. Unless there is an active heat exchange pumping heat out faster than it comes in. Factual examples already posted. Find some fact to refute those examples. Or post some thermodynamic principals that apply.


Simple thermodynamic test for you:

1) If an object at 200 degrees in sunlight radiates at the same rate that it absorbs, what is it's steady state tempreture?


2) If an object at 400 degrees in sunlight radiates at the same rate that it absorbs, what is it's steady state tempreture?

3) If an object at 38 degrees in sunlight radiates at a lower rate than it absorbs, what is it's steady state tempreture? Higher or lower than 38 degrees?

4) An object in sunlight can radiate more energy than it absorbs only if what?

5) Give examples of objects without active heat exchange in constant sunlight in space at a distance from the sun the same as the Apollo at a tempreture of less than 50 degrees. Besides apollo 13.

Quote:
Time to put up or shut up.

SAMU


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SAMU on 2001-11-13 16:54 ]</font>

SAMU
2001-Nov-13, 10:26 PM
Peter B,
Quote:

"I asked this a couple of days ago...

Do you consider it possible that Apollo 13 was exactly what NASA said it was?"

SAMU: I find no thermodynamic principal that supports thier assertion as stated.

Quote:

(paraphrasing)

"There was no active environmental heat exchanger opperating (approximatly 60 square feet of radiator surface off line. Link to example already posted http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/images/pao/AS13/10075514.jpg ) except that used for the electronics. (Approximatly 8 square feet of radiator surface. Link to example already posted http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/diagrams/ad004.gif ). The spacecraft cooled to 38 degrees. It was in direct sunlight 24 hours a day for 5 days. Objects in direct sunlight reach tempreture of 250 degrees. (link to example already posted http://kids.msfc.nasa.gov/News/2001/News-StationCool.asp


Now I have a question for you:

Based on the pictures decribe where the environmental control system radiator panels are and where the electrical power system radiator panels are.

What are their respective sizes (approximatly)?

SAMU

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SAMU on 2001-11-13 17:38 ]</font>

The Bad Astronomer
2001-Nov-13, 11:13 PM
Have a care here folks. I just deleted a post to this thread, and tempers are starting to heat up, no pun intended. There is still some good science to mine from this topic, so I won't lock the thread... yet.

JayUtah
2001-Nov-14, 12:30 AM
SAMU: Wrong again. I wrote that it's too complicated to use as a strategy to figure out the tempreture of Apollo 13.

Okay, we're finally converging. Where I used to work we had software that would do just this. You plug in the geometry and the thermal situation and it would give you wonderful simulations that look so good on trade show posters. It's specifically made for modeling the thermal behavior of spacecraft. I'd get myself a copy of it, but it costs more than my car.

If someone handed me a pad of paper, a calculator, and a pencil and told me to compute the various thermal states of an Apollo command module based on the basic principles of heat transfer, I'd tell them to go jump in the lake. A very cold lake.

But you're throwing out very important data by saying we can just compare the steady-state temperatures of objects in space and not consider their construction characteristics.

SAMU: Well you must be a genious. To be able to teach me all I know about thermodynamics in a couple of days reading your flawed inacurate and false posts.

Um, I'm not claiming to be the one teaching you about thermodynamics. What I meant was that you seem to be doing research offline in response to questions raised here. When I say "you're learning" about thermodynamics that isn't to say I'm teaching.

SAMU: Your test is flawed by key factors being left out. I have clarified my answers by adding the key factors.

I left out key factors on purpose. People who know what they're talking about know what they need to fill in. People who are faking it don't necessarily know what's missing.

Note that I didn't specify the temperature of the coffee.

SAMU:To clarify, we are describing a room with walls at room tempreture and air at room tempreture.

Yes. The intent was to introduce hot coffee into an environment that had previously been at equilibrium.

SAMU: And we're going to eliminate " The entire assembly is suspended by a thin cable from the ceiling" and just say the whole thing, room, air, thermos and all, is in zero g.

Fine by me. The point was to eliminate the need to consider conduction through whatever was holding up the thermos.

SAMU: Unless you can show how gravity affects the thermodynamics of the situation.

As long as you know how it would affect the system I don't mind.

SAMU: Radiation and conduction if there is air at room temoreture and the walls are at room tempreture. Radiation alone if there is no air and the walls are at room tempreture.

That's what I was fishing for. You left out radiation in your example, and I just wanted to know if that was an intentional omission for the sake of simplicity. Thank you.

In gravity you have to deal with convection. It's okay with me if you want to consider convection a special case of conduction. I do it all the time for simplicity in discussion.

The coffee transfers heat to the inner vessel via conduction, or convection if you prefer, and also through radiation. The inner vessel transfers heat to the outer vessel through radiation and nothing else. The outer vessel transfers heat to the "environment" through radiation and convection (conduction, whatever).

SAMU: Sutract the amount of heat escaping to the room from the thermos from the amount of heat entering the thermos from the air and walls of the room.

What thermal gradients, if any, would there be? Would there be a thermal gradient in the coffee? Across the inner vessel wall?

SAMU:The tempreture would stabalize at 100 C if the air and walls are are 100 C.

I really only wanted to know if you had considered radiation from the environment back into the vessel. As I said, most of this series of questions was just to determine where radiation fit into your thinking.

I was hoping you'd mention the role of differential equations in the computation of steady state. For heaven's sake I sure didn't expect you solve any, but that's what I was fishing for when I asked for a description of how to deal numerically with systems progressing toward a state of equilibrium.

SAMU:Sutract the amount heat escaping from the amount of heat entering.

I was hoping for something a little more detailed. Specifically I was hoping you'd talk about what thermal gradients might exist in such a situation.

SAMU:Conduction through the insulation at whatever rate the insulation conducts to the hull where it radiates away.

Again, I wanted something more detailed. Astronauts transfer heat through convection and radiation. (I insist on convection here rather than conduction because I'm presuming the astronauts are moving about. That's effective forced convection.) Cabin atmosphere transfers to inner hull via convection and radiation. Inner hull transfers to insulation via conduction and radiation. Insulation transfers to outer hull via conduction and radiation Inner hull transfers to outer hull via conduction through attach points. (The insulation is fundamentally opaque and therefore no transfer occurs between the hulls via radiation.) Outer hull radiates.

SAMU: The astronauts would lose as much heat as they have ...

Okay, I really didn't expect a good answer to this. Those who get really excited about thermodynamics would have solved this numerically.

The answer I was fishing for was that the astronauts are the only "input" source of heat. Everything else in the system is a transfer of some kind.

SAMU: If they produce 4 watts per hour and it escapes at 3 watts per hour at a given tempreture the tempreture will rise.

And as the temperature increases, the rate of radiation increases. In fact, an increase in the temperature of the radiator produces a fourth power increase in the heat flux.

SAMU: That is the fallacy of proof by authority.

I meant "valid" in the sense "worth paying attention to," not "leading toward a true conclusion."

The problems of proof by authority do not apply to expert testimony. This caveat appears in any textbook's discussion of this particular fallacy. You characterize your line of reasoning as a simple "facts support the conclusion" scenario, when in fact that's not the case. The facts in this case require competence in thermodynamics in order to evaluate their relevancy, behavior, and therefore their degree of support for the hypothesis.

SAMU: By the way, what message did you post that tought me all that about thermodynamics?

I have not made any such post, nor have I claimed at any time to have made such a post. I was referring to the posts made early in this discussion by Bad Astronomer, David Simmons, and others. You seem to have completely ignored the implications of those posts.

SAMU: No. It's up to me to post the facts which support the assertion It's up to you to show the facts are in error.

Agreed.

Fact 1: Objects in steady sunlight in trans lunar space reach a surface tempreture of 200 degrees before they radiate as much energy as they absorb.

This is not a fact. Q.E.D.

SAMU: Factual examples already posted.

You gave two examples, lunar material (already discussed) and the space station (discussed below).

SAMU: Find some fact to refute those examples.

Already done. The descent stage of the lunar module was composed of components that had different steady-state temperatures.

SAMU: post some thermodynamic principals that apply.

Already done. Several posters early on gave you computations, examples, and qualitative discussion pertinent to this point.

Now on to your questions. I've collapsed a few of them into algebraically equivalent form for convenience.

SAMU: If an object at K degrees in sunlight radiates at the same rate that it absorbs, what is it's steady state tempreture?

Assuming no other transfer modes apply, the simple answer is K degrees. The definition of steady state in an radiation-only system is when the radiation and absorption rates are equivalent.

SAMU: 3) If an object at 38 degrees in sunlight radiates at a lower rate than it absorbs, what is it's steady state tempreture? Higher or lower than 38 degrees?

Higher. In the simple scenario the temperature of the object rises until its radiation rate is equivalent to the absorption rate.

SAMU: 4) An object in sunlight can radiate more energy than it absorbs only if what?

Only if its temperature is above the steady state temperature suggested by a radiation-only model.

SAMU: 5) Give examples of objects without active heat exchange in constant sunlight in space at a distance from the sun the same as the Apollo at a tempreture of less than 50 degrees.

I assume you mean 50 F.

I'm not going to answer that question. I'm instead going to explain what's been wrong with your questions to me, and what's been wrong with your answers to my questions.

You talk about "objects in space" as if there were no thermal gradients in any of these objects (or structures, in the case of spacecraft). You seem to believe that if you put an object in cisulanar space under constant solar illumination, that object will reach 200 degrees and that all parts of it will be that same 200 degrees.

But we know that's not true.

Say we put a hollow metal sphere filled with air out in cislunar space. We keep it from rotating. The side facing the sun will get hot. The side facing away from the sun won't get as hot. Heat will conduct through the material from the hot side to the cold side. So the cold side will be a little warmer than the temperature it would reach without being connected to the hot side.

But since the radiation rate is proportional to the fourth power of the temperature, just boosting its temperature a little will really lift its radiation rate. The question is: can it radiate faster due to the increase in temperature than it can be replaced via conduction through the material? You betcha. What's the result? A thermal gradient.

Now what happens to the air inside? Let's suppose we have a little mouse in there stirring up the air as he floats around (forced convection). And his metabolism adds to the system. If he moves around enough, we can assume the air becomes reasonably isothermal. Does that mean the outer shell is isothermal? Nope. Does that mean the air is the temperature of the mouse? Not necessarily.

Now we consider two identical spheres, one composed of a dark matte black material, and the other composed of a very bright, shiny material. The mass and geometry of the mouseships are identical.

The black ball obviously absorbs more energy than the silver ball. (The balls transmit no light, therefore what is not reflected has to be absorbed.) But the black ball radiates more energy than the silver ball. Would they then reach an equivalent state of equilibrium (200 F)?

The answer to that question lies chiefly in whether radiation and absorption behave identically in response to temperature. If differences in material properties (i.e., shininess) cause absorption and radiation to behave differently for different materials, then different materials would have different equilibrium temperatures. The equilibrium would still be the temperature at which absorption and radiation were equivalent, but it might not necessarily be the same for different materials.

There exists a quantitative solution to this problem, but we don't need it. The qualitative solution may be inferred from the fact that people who build comm satellites for a living (and who therefore ought to know what life is like for permanent cislunar residents) put matte black stuff on the parts of the spacecraft that should be warm, and shiny silver stuff on the parts of the spacecraft they'd prefer kept cool.

And if everything in cislunar was just always isothermal, the people who sell thermal modeling software to aerospace engineers ought to be the ones we lock up for fraud.

SAMU: The spacecraft cooled to 38 degrees.

The interior air temperature of the spacecraft was 38 F. Was that the temperature of the spacecraft skin? Could the skin of the spacecraft have been at a higher temperature at equilibrium? Could parts of it have been at a higher temperature, and parts of it at a lower temperature? Is an Apollo spacecraft isothermal?

SAMU: Objects in direct sunlight reach tempreture of 250 degrees. Link to example already posted.

Well, your example is for low earth orbit, not cislunar space. You still haven't explained what makes it an applicable example.

And you're only citing half your example. The sunlit side is 250 F. The shady side is -250 F. But it's the same object! Obviously this isn't an isothermal object. Half of it is really hot, and half of it is really cold. So let's fill up that spacecraft with several thousand mice all stirring up the air and making at least the air as isothermal as it can be. What would be the temperature of the air inside? +250 F? -250 F? 0 F? Something in between?

Your statement "all objects in space reach an equilibrium temperature of 200 F" just doesn't hold. Your examples don't support that. Common spacecraft design practice doesn't support that. Radiation and absorption don't support that.

What part of your argument do you believe we haven't completely shot down here?


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2001-11-13 19:35 ]</font>

SAMU
2001-Nov-14, 12:41 AM
Bad Astronomer,

You do what you think you have to.

I think this thread is getting back on track. Bit by bit as long as messages respecting my authoritah, or anybody elses for that matter, are kept to a minimum and the questions are regarding the facts at issue.

SAMU

SAMU
2001-Nov-14, 02:27 AM
Jay
Quote:

"Note that I didn't specify the temperature of the coffee."

SAMU: Yes you did

Jay
Quote:

"In your thermos example"

SAMU: My thermos example reads as follows:

Quote:

"Imagine a thermos bottle with warm coffee inside."

And in your very next sentence

Jay:"Yes. The intent was to introduce hot coffee into an environment that had previously been at equilibrium."

SAMU:you're not even reading your own messages.

Jay:You left out radiation in your example

SAMU: No I didn't.

Quote

"leaks out via conduction through the spring and the mouth to the hull where it radiates or is conducted away."

I note that you didn't give examples of other objects lower than 50.

As to the rest of your message, I'll answer the salient points. For you also the sapient points. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

Say we put a hollow metal sphere filled with air out in cislunar space. We keep it from rotating. The side facing the sun will get hot. The side facing away from the sun won't get as hot. Heat will conduct through the material from the hot side to the cold side. So the cold side will be a little warmer than the temperature it would reach without being connected to the hot side.

The hot side will radiate in all directions: back towards the sun out to the sides into the sphere. It will also conduct heat to the shaded side and to the air inside the sphere. Will the space side get a lot colder than the hot side? It will if the material conducts a lot slower than it radiates. The metals of the skin of Apollo (titanium) conduct quickly. Titanium absorbs and radiates rather slowly compared to it's conductivity.

Your black ball example is in error. The black ball will reach equilibrium faster but they will both reach the same equalibrium tempreture.

SAMU: 3) If an object at 38 degrees in sunlight radiates at a lower rate than it absorbs, what is it's steady state tempreture? Higher or lower than 38 degrees?

Jay:Higher. In the simple scenario the temperature of the object rises until its radiation rate is equivalent to the absorption rate.


SAMU: You can answer that question without knowing the material or reflectivity or "quantified" absorbtion rate or "quantified" radiation rate or "quantified" conduction rate. You don't say it's going to maintain the tempreture of 38 degrees by throwing all the heat comming in the hot side out of the cold side. You know that all points of the object will absorb more than they radiate until they reach the equalibrium tempreture that will cause them to radiate all the heat being absorbed.

Unless you compare the Apollo to the moon where the hot rocks on the sun side are conveyed to the extrasolar side by the moon's rotation where they cool at their radiation rate based on thier tempreture until they reach their dark side equalibrium or are conveyed back into the sunlight where they absorb heat again until they reach their sunside equalibrium. In the case of the moon the heat of the heat of hot rocks is conveyed to the cool side more slowly than they radiate. Apollo spacecraft titanium surfaces don't have that kind of gradient or internal insulating properties. It conducts heat to the cool side much faster than it radiates it. The tempreture of the cool side is pretty close to tempreture of the hot side.


I note you don't disput the acuracy of the examples regarding tempreture just assert that they don't apply to Apollo.

If you think that two objects of different materials, reflective, absorbtive, conductive and radiative rates side by side in the sun in space at equalibrium tempreture will be at different tempretures then that is the crux of your lack of general knowlege.


Tell you what, plug these figures into your computer.

A 1 X 10 X 10 inch alumunnium plate and a 1 X 10 X 10 inch steel plate in an oven at 400 degrees F will have an equalibrium tempreture of what? In space at 1AU what?

SAMU



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SAMU on 2001-11-13 21:55 ]</font>

Silas
2001-Nov-14, 03:38 AM
A 1 X 10 X 10 inch alumunnium plate and a 1 X 10 X 10 inch steel plate in an oven at 400 degrees F will have an equalibrium tempreture of what? In space at 1AU what?
SAMU


I like this question, because (in my humble opinion) it strikes directly at the heart of the issue.

Is the plate face on to the sun...or edge on?

If the plate is face on, the equilibrium temperature will be greater than if it is edge on.

Is the plate polished to a mirror finish, or is it sanded to a matte finish? Is it painted white, or black?

(I went for a walk today, wearing a black t-shirt. I got HOT, even though it was a cool day...)

If the plate is rotating, then there's a LOT more math involved...

SAMU: you're trying too hard. Relax, do.

Jay [from] Utah: okay, yes. I'm not a physicist (I've played one in films) but I've read everything Asimov and Sagan and Clarke have published... I can't do the math, but I can grok the explanations... I trust you, and I hope you'll correct me when I boo-boo....

Silas


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Silas on 2001-11-13 22:41 ]</font>

Salvius
2001-Nov-14, 05:51 AM
I've now seen this link to a "NASA Kids" web page discussing temperature in relation to the ISS (http://kids.msfc.nasa.gov/News/2001/News-StationCool.asp) posted here a couple of times. Specifically, reference to the statement, "The Sun can heat up one side of the Space Station to 250° F (121° C)!"

I thought folks might be interested to know that I just ran across a slightly less simplified version of the same information (simple enough for laypersons, rather than simple enough for children) at http://www.spacer.com/news/iss-01n.html. In fact, based on the language used and the publication dates, I suspect the kids' page was simplified from this very article. Note that here, it states in somewhat more precise language, "Without thermal controls, the temperature of the orbiting Space Station's Sun-facing side would soar to 250 degrees F (121 C), while thermometers on the dark side would plunge to minus 250 degrees F (-157 C)...Fortunately for the crew and all the Station's hardware, the ISS is designed and built with thermal balance in mind -- and it is equipped with a thermal control system that keeps the astronauts in their orbiting home cool and comfortable" (emphasis added). As in the Apollo spacecraft, this thermal control system comprises both active and passive components.

So, can we extrapolate meaningfully from a quoted temperature gradient along the surface of an ISS-shaped object with no thermal control system whatsoever (active or passive) in low earth orbit, to determine the interior air temperature in an Apollo capsule in cislunar space with at least passive thermal controls operating to minimize heat input from the sun?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Salvius on 2001-11-14 00:57 ]</font>

SAMU
2001-Nov-14, 05:53 AM
Here's another.

Take two ballons one big and one little and put them in a stream of water side by side. Which one will fill faster and when full which one is more full? If you increase the pressure of the stream then the ballons will fill more but they will be equally full.

But this is all just more thermodynamics.(a priori)

Find and post the things without active heat exchange in cislunar space that support an assertion of lower tempreture than the things I have found that support an assertion of a higher tempreture.

That is called experimental (empirical) proof. And it is at hand.


SAMU

Salvius
2001-Nov-14, 07:11 AM
Another good one: http://pss.fit.edu/moldwin/thermal.pdf, "Spacecraft Thermal Control", by Prof. Mark Moldwin.

He gives an equation to calculate equilibrium temperature in orbit given the absorptivity and emissivity of the material. Unfortunately, his tables don't seem to have been reproduced in that pdf file. I dug around a little looking for values for those hypothetical aluminum and steel plates. Putting them in orbit (rather than in an oven, where heat transfer is dominated by conduction/convection, and is therefore an entirely different physical situation), and assuming the steel plate was painted white for some reason, by my amateurish calculations, the steel plate has an equilibrium temperature about 23% cooler than the aluminum plate. Make of that specific calculation what you will, the fact remains that different materials in space have different equilibrium temperatures, depending on their absorptivity (mostly in the 0.25-2.5 um wavelengths) and emissivity (>5 um wavelengths).

Trish
2001-Nov-14, 09:54 AM
BA if this is too long...let me know and I'll edit it down more...

my comments are in italics.

SAMU says:
About your message.

Quote:

"Actually, I find the rebuttals of more interest."

Which one was your favorite?

SAMU

These are just some of them and they are cut up and out of order.

JayUtah:

First, albedo. Geometric albedo concerns only zero-phase diffuse reflection. It does not consider specular reflections, which in many substances accounts for a vastly different visual phenomenon. The moon's albedo is measured as low as 0.07 and as high as 0.12, meaning it diffusely reflects between 7% and 12% of the light it receives back toward the source of the light. The earth's albedo is somewhere in the 0.30 range, considerably brighter than the moon. In fact, when you see pictures of both the earth and the moon taken by outbound interplanetary spacecraft, you have to artificially brighten the moon because the correct exposure for the earth leaves the moon a rather unimpressive dark brown. This I didn't know.

The moon appears bright from earth because it's a the brightest object in an otherwise lightless environment. Look at a candle in daylight, then look at one in an otherwise dark room. This I understood

Second, asphalt. Or more properly, "bitumin asphalt concrete". "Concrete" is, in the general engineering sense, anything composed of an aggregate and a cement. In what we commonly call concrete, the aggregate is sand and gravel and the cement is Portland cement or other such compound. "Asphalt" (bitumin) is the cement in the asphalt concrete used in roadway construction. The aggregate is usually pea gravel. The bitumin asphalt holds the aggregate together in the same way Portland cement holds the aggregate together in concrete. This I've had some experience with - briefly having worked in the aggregates industry (a company I worked for temporarily recycled asphalt).

...snipped...

The thermal behavior of an object in space under solar radiation is directly affected most strongly by the reflectivity of that object. The Apollo command module was covered in aluminized Kapton insulation. The lunar module was covered in several blankets of aluminized Mylar insulation. The geometric albedo of these materials as applied to the spacecraft is in the 0.50 neighborhood. (It differs from the values for aluminum because the Kapton and Mylar sides were outboard.) I didn't know the material used in the lunar module

The Bad Astronomer:

I have pictures of asphalt I took that make it look bright white. How things look depends on many things, not the least of which is how you expose the film. There are pictures of the Moon's surface making it look pitch black, too. Worse, the illumination of the lunar surface depends on the angle of the sunlight with respect to the camera as well. Understand over/under exposure of film and it's effects on the appearance of surfaces.

Snipped...

David Simmons

snipped...

One more time. Aluminum reflects anywhere from 85% to 91%(depending upon surface treatment such as anodizing, roughening, etc.) of the light that falls on it. Solar energy at earth orbit is 0.033 cal/sec/cm^2. This means that about 0.0043 cal/sec/cm^2, as an assumed overall average, actually enters the aluminum. If the aluminum radiates as a black body the temperature of the skin would be about -36 deg C, or about -32 deg F. The astronauts would rapidly freeze to death. Interesting info here and I can confirm it too.

And, by the way, that heat input is only for those square cms. that are at right angles to the suns rays. Most parts of the capsule exterior would be at some grazing angle less than 90 deg and the heat input to those parts would go way down.I hadn't considered this originally myself - but referring back to JayUtah's information - this is presented there also.

snipped...

Karl:

I don't think any of the titanium was exposed so it's not relevant. Metal tends to run hot, (like the polished aluminum). White paint tends to run cold, it it used for radiators. Epoxy white paint Absorptance = .2 Emittance = .85, Acrylic white paint Absoptance = .22 Emittance = .88

The exposed surface of the LM and CM were multilayer thermal blankets.

From another post:

As an interesting part of the side issue, a polished aluminum mirror put in orbit to perform the function you are describing would run very hot, the a/e values for that material are listed as: absorptance = .35 and emittance = .04 for and a/e of 8.75

A 'mirror' made of black paint would run much cooler: absorptance = .97 emittance = .91

If you really want it to run cold, make your mirror out of Optical Solar Reflectors ( silvered quartz mirrors with Teflon): absorptance = .08 emittance = .81

It's amazing how intutition fails totally when dealing with thermal optical properties.

Information I didn't have, but that can be confirmed...

K. Hovis:

snipped... The LM's were made primarily from Titanium, the outer skins being .015" thick in many places. Titanium loses 10% of its strength and will enlongate about 10% of a part's length when exposed to 200 deg. F heating for 1/2 hr. (Check MIL-HNDBK-5F for 6Al-4V Ti).Milspecs I understand...and I know where to check the info

Donnie B.:

Snipped...

The main question is, if an Apollo spacecraft lost nearly all electrical power, would the cabin warm up or cool down?

Your own evidence shows that the designers were coping with a major heat buildup problem(under normal conditions) -- so much so that they had to provide lots of active cooling. The issue becomes, what is the source of that heat? We know of three possibilities: solar radiation, the astronauts' metabolisms, and the onboard electronic equipment. Which was the main contributor?

If it was the electronics, your claim falls apart, because all the CM systems were shut down, and the LM systems were running at a minimum level (and still being actively cooled, I might add -- you can't use a computer as a space heater without causing it to fail in both capacities).

OK, so how do we determine where the heat came from? We can discount the astronauts themselves. Their body heat wasn't nearly enough to require all that refrigeration. So was it the sun, or the electronics? I say that the presence of the radiators proves that it was the latter.

Remember, weight is critical on any space mission, and the lunar missions especially so. Refrigeration systems are heavy, and the more heat they have to dissipate, the heavier they get. So a spacecraft designer is going to do everything in his power to reduce the amount of heat that has to be removed.

But an electrical or electronic system can only get so efficient (given a particular era's technology). This was in the infancy of mircocircuits, and even a modern computer puts out quite a bit of heat. So for a given roster of electrical gear, there would be an irreducible heat budget.

But solar gain is something you can do something about, and it's not only easy to do but costs nothing in weight. That's to make the spacecraft as highly reflective as possible, reducing the solar gain so as to make the cooling system's job that much easier. A shiny surface doesn't weigh any more than a dark one -- maybe less.

In summary:
- Apollo had active cooling systems.
- So, Apollo had to get rid of excess heat.
- So, Apollo would have been designed to absorb as little solar heat as possible.
- So, since it still needed radiators even though it was reflective, the heat source was something else.
- So, the heat source was internal electrical equipment.
- The electrical equipment was nearly all turned off after the explosion on 13.
- Therefore, the cabin got cold.

I've said all I care to say on this topic. Have a nice, paranoia-filled life, SAMU.

Those old electronics ran hot. They still have cooling problems with electronics. That was one of the assumed problems with exceeding a 586 processor - cooling it.

JayUtah

snipped...

Quote:
B.A.:The Moon is not a specular reflector

True, but asphalt is. I wasn't trying to describe the moon as much as I was trying to point out that geometric albedo is a poor quantification of the total lighting properties of a surface. Something like asphalt with a "low" albedo can actually reflect enough light in the specular sense (not measured by albedo) to impair vision. The glare off the asphalt roadways here in Utah is quite striking.

You mention the moon's emphasis on zero-phase lighting. That's correct, visually verifiable from earth, and quite evident in the Apollo lunar surface photographs. Again, geometric albedo does not account for these "special" lighting effects, hence it is a poor quantification for the lighting properties of the lunar surface.

Quote:
SAMU:You want to talk metals? Now you're talking my bussines.

The skill of cutting metal to a pattern given to you by someone else is not equivalent to the skill of determining those patterns. That happens to be my busines. When you cut tailcones or wing spars or what have you, you're simply following the instructions given to you by people like me who work out the designs for you. I've heard this many times when refering to engineers. That the person actually doing the job and working with the material knows more - that's simply not the case - as for understanding the all the considerations that go into the best material - I'll leave that to the engineers. I'll just constrain my *****es to not enough room to actually perform necessary maintenance when they do the layout design for a peice of equipment.

snipped...

The arguments you offer in favor of your assertions demonstrate that you don't understand thermodynamics. A proper understanding of thermodynamics is necessary to the claims you're making. Not only do you seem rather ignorant on the subject of thermodynamics, you seem especially antagonistic to those who are trying to educate you. I enjoyed the discussions regarding thermodynamics at the last job I had. This is sounding familiar, and reinforcing that which I was learning about there.

snipped...

Quote:
SAMU: there is no legitimatly supported theory as to why Apollo 13 got cold when enormous expense is invested in throwing a cooling system that is designed to manage deadly heat up there and it "has to be turned off".

What do you mean by "legitimately supported"? The thermodynamics numbers others have posted seem correct to me. The only quantitative arguments you have made don't constitute valid thermodynamics.

The cooling of the command module has been explained to you as plainly as it can be. The primary source of heat on the Apollo spacecraft was the electronic equipment. The heat production of the astronauts and that absorbed from the sun is very small in comparison. If you run the electronic equipment you must also run the cooling units. If you turn off the electronic equipment you do not need the cooling units. You must either run both or neither.

Without that electronic equipment, the only sources of heat are the astronauts themselves and the radiant heat absorbed from the sun. You've been shown the black-body figures for an object in that situation, which you have sidestepped.

snipped....

Christopher Ferro

Jay,

Well, I have come across one bit of albedo stuff online that talks about how difficult it is to compare albedos on Earth with that of objects in space.

http://www.roboticobservatory.com/jeff/lunar/obs_tech/albedo.htm

I will note that comparing the albedo of grass to that of lunar surface material as this author does, is not a "fair" comparison either. Grass looks green to us mostly because chlorophyll absorbs most of the red and blue wavelengths it receives. The brightness of grass is also due to our eyes/brains manipulating the contrast. The problem there is that one can measure albedo in various wavelengths.

Here is a report from an instrument called GOME:

http://www.sron.nl/divisions/eos/gome_moon.html

It shows the albedo falling withing the 6-12% zone, on average, with what seems to be a slight, linear increase in albedo from Near UV to Near IR wavelengths.

CJSF

Great links - but JayUtah got to say that first. Something else to add...

JayUtah

Christopher, excellent material!

I especially like Medkeff's straightforward and comprehensive examination of the geometry of the lunar regolith and its effect on light. me too. Not only does this dispel the incorrect use of albedo as a practical measure of lighting properties, it gives the beginner something of a foothold on what is otherwise an obscure bit of science. Well I can say I understood a good portion of what was said here.

It's difficult to convey in purely textual form the geometrical nature of the behavior of reflecting light. A few years ago I came across a visual representation scheme for incident and reflected light used by computer graphics people, namely Cook, Torrance, and Sparrow. It represents the intensity of reflected light in any direction by a vector along that direction whose magnitude is proportional to the reflection intensity. The set of all such vectors form a surface composed of the vector heads, and which conveys for some incident light direction the total character of the reflected light. Would you believe this...in computer animation we use specular, blinn, phonng, and someother type of light reflectivity - and we can layer the info - hey maybe I can create an accurate moon now! Not likely - but I can try.

JayUtah

Quote:
BA and JayUtah, you two mention "specular reflector" vs. the albedo. I do not understand what you mean. Could you please explain?

The various definitions of albedo do not generally account for any lighting conditions other than Lambert surfaces -- those which reflect light uniformly in all directions regardless of incident light angle. This I didn't know.

In contrast to the Lambertian surfaces we find materials which reflect greater amounts of light in a particular direction congruent to the incident light angle. We term this "specular reflection". Roadway glare is one example of it.Yup! need this for the computer animation stuff - but I went about it through trial and error - now I have info that I can actually plug into the system that it can use - and hopefully *look* correct. Easier than playing and rendering for 4 or 5 hours.

snipped...

_________________
Time crumbles things; everything grows old under the power of Time and is forgotten through the lapse of Time.
~Aristotle

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Trish on 2001-11-14 04:55 ]</font>

Jim
2001-Nov-14, 12:04 PM
On 2001-11-12 22:13, SAMU wrote:
Thermodynamics 101

Heat always flows from high to low.

(snip)

For somthing to get cold it's heat has to escape. If the Apollo insulation is so efficient that it can keep the heat on the outside from comming in but will allow the heat on the inside to escape, then tell me where I can get some of that stuff. It'll save me $2500.00 a year in airconditioning costs.

Or did I miss somthing in my years of study of thermodynamics? Or did you?
SAMU


Maybe you did. Or at least, HVAC 101.

The heat arriving from the sun is being radiated. If the "shiny side" of the capsule is sufficiently reflective, very liitle heat will be absorbed and conducted into the capsule.

The heat in the capsule is conducted through the skin and then radiated into space.

Look at the insulation commonly used on HVAC (air conditioning) ducting. It is fiberglass bating with an aluminum skin on one side. The aluminum faces out to reflect radiated heat, but some is absorbed, hence the bating to lessen conduction into the ducting, so the cool air stays cool on a sunny day.

Now try a cold day when the duct is carrying hot air. The air's heat conducts (inefficiently) through the bating and the aluminum and radiates away, while the aluminum still reflects the sunlight.

You could try painting your house with aluminized paint. This might lower your cooling bills in the summer, but those winter heating bills would be nasty.

JayUtah
2001-Nov-14, 02:43 PM
SAMU: Tell you what, plug these figures into your computer.

I don't have the software anymore. As I said, it's quite expensive. It's expensive because thermal equilibrium of a complex constructed object in space under radiation conditions is not just a matter of adding some watts here and subtracting some watts there.

In all of this hoo-hah you've missed the main point of my length article. I tend to ramble, so I understand. I'll be very concise. Just a few questions.

1. Must all systems at thermal equilibrium also be isothermal?

2. What does "form factor" mean in the context of radiative heat transfer?

SAMU
2001-Nov-17, 09:16 AM
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-6/ch1.htm


Aurora 7 SECOND U.S. MANNED ORBITAL SPACE FLIGHT, MAY 24, 1962 M. Scott Carpenter

Cabin and pressure-suit temperatures were high but not intolerable

See
Life Support System

2 thirds down the page

Note

[MISSING] Figure 1-9.-Schematic diagram of the environmental control system.

Temprature remarks edited from transscript of flight recorder P=pilot CC=capcom

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-6/appendix2.htm

Just above halfway down the page.

CAPE CANAVERAL (FIRST PASS)


00 50 17
CC
Okay. Blood pressure starting. We suggest that you do not exercise during the blood pressure since your temp is up.

00 50 23.5
P
Roger. This is the story on the suit temp. I have increased two 10-degree marks since lift-off. And now about-well, 15 degrees above launch mark. My steam vent temperatures read 69 and 80 [degrees]. I'll take one more stab at increasing or decreasing temperature by increasing flow rate. If this doesn't work, I'll turn them off and start lower Over.

4 minutes later

00 54 28.5
CC
Roger. Your suit temperature is down a bit at this point.

00 54 31.5
P
Say again, Deke.

00 54 33
CC
Your suit temperature is down, which is good.

00 54 36.5
P
Well, that's a result of an increase in flow lately. I would think that-I'll try increasing rather than decreasing.

One minute later.


00 55 37
CC
Roger. Okay. The Cape now advises to keep the suit setting where it was since it's coming down.

00 55 44.5
P
Roger. I-for your information, I have increased it just slightly. My readings now are 7 [psia] and 7 [psia] on suit and cabin. What are my inverter temperatures and thruster line temperatures, Deke? Are they okay?

00 56 29
CC
Roger. We're going to have the flare in approximately 2 minutes. We'll give you a read out on your temperatures.



00 57 00
CC
Roger. Understand. All systems okay. We have your temperatures. Your 150 inverter, 152 [degrees]. Your 250 inverter, 167 [degrees]. Do you copy? Over.

01 01 29
P
Roger. Suit temperature is now 70 [degrees]. Suit temperature is 70 [degrees]. Steam exhaust is 70 [degrees]. The cabin exhaust is 80 [degrees].

01 01 43
CC
Roger. Do you confirm-do you have your-back down to the black scribe mark?

01 01 51
P
That is negative. I have then both set on seven at this time and-an increase in setting resulted in a decrease- in suit temperature. I think I'd like to try-try them at this setting a little while longer. Over.


01 11 10
P
Roger. I've been reading you for some time. I've tried to contact you on HF with no success. My status is good; the capsule status is good; control mode is fly-by-wire; gyros caged; maneuver is off. The fuel reads 74-85 [percent). Oxygen is 87-100 [percent]. The cabin temperature is a bit high at 104 [degrees]. The suit-steam vent temperature is 70 [degrees], and cabin is 80 [degrees], but I believe they're coming down. Over.


01 13 13.5
CC
Did you-could you comment on whether you are comfortable or not-would you . . . a 102 [degrees] on body temperature.

01 13 21
P
No, I don't believe that's correct. My visor was open; it is now closed. I can't imagine I'm that hot. I'm quite comfortable, but sweating some.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-6/appendix3.htm


01 19 51
P
Excess cabin-water light came on at that time. I'll have to go back all the way down and off. Suit is-still high. The cabin-water gage is reading-plus 9, which is hard to believe.

01 20 15
P
My temperature, my body temperature doesn't feel . . . feel bad at all. My suit-yes, my suit temperature is down now, also.

01 20 32.5
P
But the steam vent temperature is-still about-70 [degrees].

01 27 33.5
P
Roger, Guaymas, loud and clear. My control mode is now fly-by-wire; gyros are caged, I'm in-maneuver is off. I'll go to automatic mode directly. My status good; the capsule status is good. The fuel is 69-69 [percent], oxygen is 88-100 [percent]. The cabin steam vent has gone to plus 10, I believe that's a bad gage reading, and suit temperature steam vent is coming down slowly, now reading 68 [degrees]. Over.

01 28 16
CC
Roger. Understand 68 [degrees]. How is your temperature comfort? Over

01 28 19
P
Roger. My body comfort is good. I am tracking now a very small particle, one isolated particle, about-there is another, very small, could be a light snowflake.

01 28 40
CC
Roger. We're reading-we're having a-a bad body temperature reading on you, 102.4 [degrees], probably erroneous.

01 28 48.5
P
I can't believe it. My suit temperature shows 60 [degrees] and I feel quite comfortable. I'm sure I would be sweating more than this if my temperature were 102 [degrees].

01 28 59.5
CC
Your suit-inlet temperature, near 61 [degrees], so it looks pretty good.

0129 04
P
Roger.

01 36 08
C
Could you give us a cabin steam and suit temperature, please?

01 36 11
P
Roger. Suit steam is 69 [degrees] and cabin is plus 11. That dropped down very suddenly when the excess cabin-water light came on. I think I'm going to-increase . . . I'll try to increase suit-water flow one more time. If that doesn't work I'll drop-down-to closed and start over again.

01 36 46
CC
Aurora Seven, cut back your cabin water.

01 36 49
P
Okay. Cabin water going back. I'll start now at two. This is 20 degrees below launch value.

01 48 27
P
Roger, Canary. My status is good; the capsule status is good; my control mode is automatic; gyros normal, maneuver off. Fuel 51-68 [percent], oxygen 85-100 [percent]; my cabin steam vent temperature now is picking up and reading about 19, suit steam vent temperature still reading 70 [degrees]. I have backed it off to zero and reset it at one. Over.

01 49 09
CC
. . . cabin exhaust temperature. Over.

01 49 11.5
P
Cabin exhaust temperature is climbing back up to 19. Over.

01 57 01
CC
Aurora Seven, how are you feeling? Your body temperature is up somewhat. How do you feel? Over.

01 57 07.5
P
Roger. I feel fine. Last time around I-someone told me it was 102 [degrees]. I don't feel, you know, like I'm that hot. Cabin temperature is 101 [degrees]. I'm reading 101 [degrees], and the suit temperature indicates 74 [degrees].

01 57 38.5
CC
Are you perspiring any?

01 57 41.5
P
Slightly, on my forehead.

01 57 50
P
Since turning down the suit water valve, the suit steam vent temperature has climbed slightly-am increasing from one to two at this time. This should bring it down. The cabin steam vent temperature has built back up to 40 [degrees].

01 58 27.5
CC
Roger, Aurora Seven, everything looks okay now. We seem to have lost the body temperature readings from previous stations. We are reading 102 [degrees] right now, but as long as you feel okay right now.

01 58 42
P
Roger, I feel fine.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-6/appendix4.htm

02 04 38.5
P
Roger. My status is good; the capsule status is good; my control mode is automatic; gyros are normal; maneuver is off. Control fuel is 51 [percent] and 69 [percent]; oxygen is 82 [percent] and 100 [percent]. That's about all except I have, so far, been unable to get my suit steam vent temperature down much below 70 [degrees]. Steam vent, or the water control valve setting at this time is 4 at the prelaunch mark. It may be too high. Turning it off at this time and going to three, which is where the cabin is set. Over.

02 11 13
P
That is negative Except this problem with steam vent temperature. I'm going-I'll open the visor a minute; that'll cool-it seems cooler with the visor open.

02 12 28
CC
Aurora Seven, Indian Ocean Cap Com. I do not read your transmission.

02 12 32
P
Roger. Indian Cap Com, Aurora Seven

02 12 35.5
CC
Out.

02 15 11.5
P
Well, I have-I am in record only, and I am getting warm now.

02 15 34
P
Don't know what to with the cabin.

02 15 45
P
I'll turn it up and see what happens.

02 17 45
P
That's as close to zero as I can make it. At 02 17 49, my rates are zero and attitudes are zero plus, or at zero, minus 3, minus 48. Let those rest awhile, and I'll see what we can do about suit temperature.

02 18 14
P
Cabin is rising. Suit temperature seems to be rising too. I'm going to let it go out until 02 25 00 to see if this is going to bring it down some.

02 18 49
P
I don't need to exercise. I really don't feel I need the exercise. I would get too warm.

02 23 28
P
Roger. My status is good; control mode is fly-by-wire; gyros normal; maneuver off. Fuel is 45-6-70 [percent], that's 45-70 [percent], and oxygen is 84-100 [percent]. I have only one minor problem, and that is my inability to get the suit steam vent temperature down, Deke.

02 23 56.5
P
Roger. What's it running now?

02 23 58.5
CC
Well, I'm reading 70 [degrees]. I'm really a little at a loss as to how to get it down, my suit-water valve is set now past the marks. This doesn't seem to being it down, and neither does putting it . . . negative. That's wrong. The cabin was past the marks The suit temperature is at prelaunch value of about four. I'm going to go to a setting of plus 6 at this time and see if that will bring it down below 70 [degrees]. Over.

02 24 40.5
CC
Okay. Fine. We're indicating 84 [degrees] suit which is a bit high.

02 24 44.5
P
Roger. My gage shows 7,76 [degrees] on the suit.

02 24 50
CC
Rog.

02 28 07
P
Cabin temperature is 107 [degrees].

02 28 10.5
CC
Cabin 107 [degrees].

02 28 48.5
CC
Sunrise 04.19 00.

02 23 54.5
P
Roger. Copy.

02 28 59
CC
Well, it sounds like you're doing real well up there, Dad.

02 29 01.5
P
Roger. It's a little warm.

02 29 04
CC
I suspect so.

02 30 05.5
CC
Would you give us another readout on your suit steam temp? Has this changed any?

02 30 09.5
P
It may have gone down just a tad. It's about zero now; I mean about 70 [degrees] now. It was a little bit higher. The visor is closed and I'm beginning to feel a little cooler.

02 30 24
CC
Very good.

02 30 27
CC
We indicated 2-degree drop at suit inlet, so it sounds like you're making out a bit.

02 33 22.5
CC
Roger. Could you give us . . . could you give us cabin temperature?

02 33 31.5
P
Roger. Cabin temperature is 102 [degrees] at this time.

02 33 37
CC
Roger. What is the suit temperature?

02 33 41
P
Okay, stand by.

02 33 49.5
P
Suit temperature is 74 [degrees]; suit steam exhaust is 71 [degrees].

02 33 58.5
CC
Roger. Understand. Are you feeling a little more comfortable at this time?

02 34 02.5
P
I don't know. I'm still warm and still perspiring, but not really uncomfortable. I would like to I would like to nail this suit temperature problem down. It-for all practical purposes, it's uncontrollable as far as I can see.

02 34 26.5
CC
Roger. Understand. You might have to wait a few more minutes before this takes effect. You are on No. 6. Is that right?

02 34 34
P
That is right. Suit temperature is No. 6.

02 34 39
CC
Roger. Systems reports that your suit temperature has dropped 2 degrees over station, if that's any encouragement to you.

02 34 44.5
P
Roger. Thank you. It is.

02 39 35
P
I guess I'd better try to get that xylose pill out. I hate to do this.

02 40 57.5
P
Oh yes. There is the xylose pill. It didn't melt. All tie rest of the stuff in here did melt.

02 41 31
P
Okay. Xylose pill being consumed at 02 41 35 The rest of the food is pretty much of a mess. Can't stand this cabin temperature.

02 43 51
P
Roger, George. My control mode is manual. The gyros are caged, maneuver is off. Fuel is 45 and 64 [percent], a little ahead of schedule. Oxygen reads 82-100 [percent]. Steam vent temperature in the suit is dropping slightly. It's a little below 70 [degrees]. Cabin is 4.6 [psia]. Suit temperature has dropped to about 71 [degrees] now. All the power is good, and here is A blood pressure. Over.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-6/appendix5.htm


02 51 43
CC
. . . temperature exhaust . . . steam exhaust?

02 51 39
P
Roger. Suit exhaust is 70 [degrees]. Cabin exhaust is 49 [degrees].

02 59 16.5
P
Roger. Control mode is manual, gyros normal, maneuver off. Fuel is 45-50 [percent]. Balloon is out. Oxygen 81-100 [percent]. And my status is good. The capsule status is good, except I'm unable to get a reasonable suit steam exhaust temperature. Still reading 70 [degrees]. Over.

02 59 42
CC
Roger, seems to me as long as suit inlet is going down that you could continue to increase flow until you feel comfortable.

02 59 52.5
P
Roger.

02 59 55
CC
Understand you're GO for orbit three.

02 59 58
P
I am-Roger. I am GO for orbit three.

03 00 00
CC
Seven, this is California.

03 00 12
P
Go, California.

03 00 15
CC
General Kraft is still somewhat concerned about auto fuel. Use as little auto; use no auto fuel unless you have to prior to retrosequence time. And I think maybe you might increase flow to your inverter heat exchanger to try to bring the temperature down. They are not critical yet, however.

03 00 38
P
Roger, I have gone from 4 to 5 on the inverter at this time. And I think I'll increase just a tad on the suit.

03 00 49.5
CC
Roger. You're sounding good here. Give you a period of quiet while I send Z and R cal.

03 00 55.5
P
Roger.


03 07 32
P
Roger. Control mode, manual; gyros normal; the maneuver switch is off.. Fuel is 45-45 [percent]; oxygen is 70 [percent], or, correction, oxygen is 80 and 100 [percent]. Suit temperature is 68 [degrees], now and coming down pretty well. Suit steam vent temperature is 69 [degrees], and beginning to be a little more comfortable. Over.

03 08 12
CC
Roger, and how do you feel, now?

03 08 15
P
I feel pretty good. Still warm.

03 08 18
CC
Okay, sounds like you'll be all right.

03 09 28.5
CC
Roger. Surgeon suggests that you drink as much water as you can.

03 10 11.5
CC
Would you give us your-your temperature control valve settings, please''

03 10 20
P
Roger, suit is 7.5, cabin is about 10. That's 10 on the cabin and 5 on the inverters.

03 28 13
P
The cabin temperature has dropped considerable now, and the setting I have on the suit is 7.

03 28 20.5
P
Am going to increase it just a tad more.

03 28 40
P
My suit valve, water valve temperature now is-about 8.

03 39 31.5
P
Roger. My status is good, the capsule status is good. I am in drifting flight on manual control. Gyros are caged. The fuel reads 45-42 [percent], oxygen 79-100 [percent]. Steam vent temperatures both read 65 [degrees] now; suit temperature has gone down nicely. It is now 62 [degrees], and an the power is good. The blood pressure is starting at this time. I've just finished taking some MIT pictures, and that is all I have to report at this time.

03 40 16.5
CC
Roger, Aurora Seven I copy your control mode manual; gyro caged; fuel 45-42 [percent]; oxygen 79-100 [percent]; and I did not hear the last part of your transmission. How do-

03 40 31.5
P
Roger. My status is good; the suit temperature has reduced considerably; steam vent temperatures now read 69 [degrees] on cabin and suit, suit temperature is 62 [degrees], and cabin temperature is 101 [degrees]. Over.

03 40 12.5
CC
Roger. Suit temperature 62 [degrees], and cabin temperature 101 [degrees]. Your blood pressure is starting-and understand you are on the manual. Understand also you are drifting for awhile.

03 41 10
P
That is Roger. I am

56 19.5
P
Excess cabin water light is on at this time, 03 56 24. Am going to turn it down just a tad- so it will be just about where the suit is. I would say, let's see, from that, that it jumped down to freezing.

03 57 08
P
Roger. Deke, my control mode is manual; gyros are caged; the maneuver switch is off. My fuel reads 45 and 42 [percent]; the oxygen is reading 76 and 100 [percent]; steam vent temperatures are 68 [degrees] on the suit and I just got excess cabin water light; the needle dropped down to 20. Reset cabin water at about 6 and in this capsule it seems optimum settings are right between 6 and 7. Outside of that, all things, all systems are good. And blood pressure is starting now

04 06 32.5
CC
You say visor is open?

04 06 35.5
P
That's negative. I did not open it. I won't open it until I get through with these readings. Phecda now extincts at 1.7 in the mid, in mid position between the haze layer and the earth. Okay, Woomera, my-my status is very good. The suit temperature is coming down substantially. Steam vent temperature is not down much, but the suit environment temperature is 60 [degrees]. I'm quite comfortable. Cabin temperature is 101 [degrees]; cabin is holding an indicated 4.8; oxygen is 75-100 [percent], all d-c power continues to be good, 20 Amps; both a-e busses are good; fuel reads 46 and 40 [percent].]. I am in drifting flight. I have had plenty of water to drink. The visor is coming open now. And blood pressure is coming your way at this time.

04 08 00.5
P
Hello, Woomera, Woomera Cap Com, this is Aurora Seven. Did you copy my last? Over.

04 09 27.5
P
Cabin temperature, cabin water flow is all the way off and reducing back to about 7.5 now a little bit less. At this time cabin steam vent going to record only.

04 09 52.5
P
Cabin steam vent is 10; suit steam vent is 62. I would like to have a little bit more pad on the temperature, but I can't seem to get it. The suit temperature is 60 [degrees]; the cabin temperature continues at 102 [degrees]. I have 22 minutes and 20 seconds left for retrofire. I think that I will try to get some of this equipment stowed at this time.

04 11 07.5
P
There is the moon.

04 11 31.5
P
Looks no different-here than it does on the ground.

04 11 51
P
Visor is open and the visor is coming closed now at this time.

04 12 28
P
I have put the moon-in the center of the window and it just drifts very, very little.

04 12 49.5
P
There seems to be a stagnant place in the, my helmet. The suit is cool, but along my face it's warm.

04 51 12.5
P
Snorkle override now. Emergency flow rate on. Emergency main fuse switch at 15 [1,000 ft.], standing by for the main chute at 10 [1,000 ft.].

04 51 33.5
P
Cabin pressure, cabin altimeter agree on altitude. Should be 13,000 [feet] now.Mark 10; I see the main is out, and reefed, and it looks good to me. The main chute is out. Landing bag goes to auto now. The drogue has fallen away. I see a perfect chute, visor open. Cabin temperature is only 110 [degrees] at this point. Helmet hose is off.

04 52 39.5
P
Does anybody read. Does anybody read Aurora Seven? Over.

04 52 54.5
P
Hello, any Mercury recovery force. Does anyone read Aurora Seven? Over.

04 53 04.5
CC
Aurora Seven, Aurora Seven, Cape Cap Com. Over.

04 53 07.5
P
Roger. Say again. You're very weak.

04 53 13
CC
Aurora Seven, Aurora Seven, Cape Cap Com. Over.

Splashdown

http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/history/mercury/ma-6/docs/ma-6-transcript-1.html

Friendship Seven February 20, 1962
AIR-GROUND COMMUNICATIONS OF THE MA-6 FLIGHT

CAPE CANAVERAL (FIRST ORBIT)

00 35 40
46.9
P
Roger. This is Friendship Seven. The window, attitude indications, and periscope all check right together in good shape. I can see the dark side coming up in the periscope back behind me at present time. Cabin pressure is 5.5 and holding. Cabin temperature is 95 [degrees]. Relative humidity is 28 [percent]. I have turned the cabin-my suit temperature onto the increased water position for more cooling. Steam temperature is presently indicating 61 [degrees]. Oxygen is 75-100 [percent]. I didn't give suit temperature. Suit inlet temperature is 65 [degrees] and pressure is 5.8. Over.

00 16 35
0.0
P
That is affirmative. Attitude: roll 0 [degrees], yaw 2 [degrees] right, pitch -33 [degrees]. Rates are all indicating zero. I am on ASCS at present time. The clock is still set for time to ret, for retrograde time of 04 plus 32 plus 28. I have retrograde times okay from Bermuda. Cabin pressure holding steady at 6.7. Cabin air 90 [degrees]. Relative humidity, 30 [percent]. Coolant quantity is 68 [percent]. Suit environment is 65. Suit pressure is indicating 5.8. Steam temperature 60 [degrees] on the suit. I am very comfortable. However, I do not want to turn it down just yet. Primary oxygen is 78 [percent]; secondary, 102 [percent]. Main bus is 24. Number one is 25, 25, 25. Standby one is 26; Standby two is 25; Isolated, 29, and back on main. Ammeter is indicating 23. ASCS is 112. Fans are 112. Over.

00 35 40
46.9
P
Roger. This is Friendship Seven. The window, attitude indications, and periscope all check right together in good shape. I can see the dark side coming up in the periscope back behind me at present time. Cabin pressure is 5.5 and holding. Cabin temperature is 95 [degrees]. Relative humidity is 28 [percent]. I have turned the cabin-my suit temperature onto the increased water position for more cooling. Steam temperature is presently indicating 61 [degrees]. Oxygen is 75-100 [percent]. I didn't give suit temperature. Suit inlet temperature is 65 [degrees] and pressure is 5.8. Over.

SAMU



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SAMU on 2001-11-17 04:59 ]</font>

Kaptain K
2001-Nov-17, 10:18 AM
And your point is? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif

SAMU
2001-Nov-17, 08:13 PM
The point is, if you all can't come up with data and/or crunch the numbers to support the lower temp reported by 13 than the data I find which supports a higher temp expectation then I figure I am on the right track.

SAMU

Kaptain K
2001-Nov-17, 09:28 PM
Oh! I see. Since they had trouble keeping a first generation spacecraft cool (which was 1) So filled to the brim with active electrical and electronic equipment that there was barely room for one person to sit, and 2) Painted black), therefore, a third generation spacecraft which was painted white (except for the areas that were reflective foil) and had all but the bare minimum of equipment turned off must have been hot too. Get real. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_evil.gif

SAMU
2001-Nov-18, 02:01 AM
You make it sound as if they were flying ships full of 1940s era radio parts made of zink plated vacume tubes stone knives and bearskins. The transister had been invented by then. Also if you had read the complete transscript you would see that his heating problems happened almost immediatly when he was in the sun. It cooled off when he passed into the night side.

Since generations of spacecraft were mentioned. Did you know that the Atlas rocket built for NASA's 6 mannned flights of the Mercury program were built in the hundreds armed with nuclear warheads. Followed by the Titan rocket used for the 10 maned Gemnini flights and also built in the hundreds armed with nuclear weapons. and dozens of other types of rockets built in the hundreds armed with nuclear weapons. Finaly Saturn 5, built in the dozens for 11 manned Apollo missions at a cost of billions of dollars and armed with NO? nuclear weapons? Ever? Not even once? covertly?

SAMU



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SAMU on 2001-11-17 21:07 ]</font>

Donnie B.
2001-Nov-18, 02:08 AM
Also if you had read the complete transscript you would see that his heating problems happened almost immediatly when he was in the sun. It cooled off when he passed into the night side.


Right. Which may explain why the Apollo spacecraft was covered with reflective material instead of being painted black. One big reason for Mercury and Gemini was to learn things about spaceflight and spacecraft design so future designs could be better.



Since generations of spacecraft were mentioned. Did you know that the Atlas rocket built for NASA's 6 mannned flights of the Mercury program were built in the hundreds armed with nuclear warheads. Followed by the Titan rocket used for the 10 maned Gemnini flights and also built in the hundreds armed with nuclear weapons. and dozens of other types of rockets built in the hundreds armed with nuclear weapons. Finaly Saturn 5, built in the dozens for 11 manned Apollo missions at a cost of billions of dollars and armed with NO? nuclear weapons? Ever? Not even once? covertly?



What does this have to do with the original topic?

But since you brought it up: the Atlas and Titan boosters (and the Redstone used in the suborbital Mercury missions) were used in the earlier programs because they were the only choices. They were the only existing missiles with enough thrust to put a manned spacecraft into orbit.

No launch vehicles had been designed for human flight at the time. However, the particular boosters used by NASA were not off-the-shelf ICBMs. They were specially-manufactured "man-rated" versions. Good thing, too, as the Air Force was losing about one out of four Atlas launches at the time.

Apollo, on the other hand, couldn't use ICBMs; they simply didn't have the necessary power to send a large payload to the moon. They didn't need to. All they had to do was get a modest payload to the Soviet Union. Nuclear weapons had become much more compact and efficient by then, too, so we never designed an ICBM with anywhere close to the Saturn V's thrust; it just wasn't neceessary.

No, the Saturn V was never, ever mated to nuclear payloads. Not even covertly. Only 13 actual Saturn V's were ever manufactured (plus a couple full-scale mockups), and all of them are accounted for: two were test articles (launched unmanned), nine were expended in the lunar flights (Apollos 8 and 10-17), and the remaining two (originally intended for lunar missions which were cancelled) were put on public display and never flew. The other Apollo flights and Skylab were launched by Saturn IIIs, as they were not lunar missions and didn't require a Saturn V.

It would have been absurd to use a Saturn V in a covert mission of any kind. There was no way to launch one in secret. The infrastructure required was gigantic, and when they took off, they made the loudest sound other than a nuclear explosion ever created by mankind. It would be easier for a Super Bowl quarterback to play the entire game naked, unnoticed, than it would be to launch a Saturn V in secret.

Sorry, SAMU, but your ideas seem to be drifting ever farther from contact with reality.

(Edited because I hit 'post' before adding my comments... arrrgh.)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Donnie B. on 2001-11-17 21:30 ]</font>

SAMU
2001-Nov-18, 04:06 AM
Who's comments are not based in reality? Where did I write suggesting that they launched it covertly? The premise of this thread is not that they launched it covertly. It is that they loaded it and used it covertly, with a cover story that has a global flaw in it. You seem to be applying "Grand Lunar Hoax" thinking to this limited premise.

SAMU

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SAMU on 2001-11-17 23:08 ]</font>

SAMU
2001-Nov-18, 04:35 AM
Hrer's another point to be raised about 13.

They returned to Earth with the disabled service module attached. A component which was dead weight, awkward, and already had exploded once. Now they use their flimsy under powered "lifeboat" to ram this awkward, explosive, dead weight all the way back to Earth. I wonder how much faster they would have gotten back if they had dumped it. Also if they were using their heads they could have dumped the landing stage of the LM and used the LM's ascent engine for more thrust. It has been suggested that they were afraid that the heat shield may have been damaged in the explosion and they wanted to keep the SM attached to protect it from further damage. So what do they do with this possibly damaged heat shield that can withstand a 5000 degree reentry impact, as well as meteors? They awkwardly ram it into the explosive service module several times. Where did they apply this force? Through the docking ring component.

Usually when pilots have an unpredictably explosive component abord, and they can continue the flight without it, they dump it, ASAP.

If the NASA story is true, you've gotta hand it to them. They must have brass ones, big and plenty of them.

SAMU



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SAMU on 2001-11-17 23:54 ]</font>

The Bad Astronomer
2001-Nov-18, 06:13 AM
Administrative note: SAMU, next time please don't cut and paste the whole passage; just put in a link to the appropriate page. It eats up bandwidth and space unnecessarily. Thank you.

Donnie B.
2001-Nov-18, 12:39 PM
On 2001-11-17 23:06, SAMU wrote:
Who's comments are not based in reality? Where did I write suggesting that they launched it covertly? The premise of this thread is not that they launched it covertly. It is that they loaded it and used it covertly, with a cover story that has a global flaw in it. You seem to be applying "Grand Lunar Hoax" thinking to this limited premise.


OK, I misunderstood; now I see you were suggesting that Apollo 13 was the one time that the Saturn V was used to tote nuclear weapons.

May I ask: to where, for what purpose? I'm not aware that there were any detonations anywhere on Earth at the time, there's nothing on the Moon to blow up, and there's not much point putting weapons into orbit unless the other side knows they're there (against treaty commitments, to boot).

I still don't understand the motivations you feel were behind this putative fake-near-disater and coverup thereof. Can you give one or two specualtions on specifically why the government would do this, and why NASA would go along with something that would hurt their reputation at a time they were struggling to maintain funding for future lunar missions?

Oh, and please note: I do not concur with your claim of a "great flaw" in the Apollo 13 story. Neither do several other posters in this thread, whose expertise in thermodynamics is clearly greater than mine.

Donnie B.
2001-Nov-18, 01:15 PM
On 2001-11-17 23:35, SAMU wrote:
Hrer's another point to be raised about 13.

They returned to Earth with the disabled service module attached. A component which was dead weight, awkward, and already had exploded once. Now they use their flimsy under powered "lifeboat" to ram this awkward, explosive, dead weight all the way back to Earth. I wonder how much faster they would have gotten back if they had dumped it. Also if they were using their heads they could have dumped the landing stage of the LM and used the LM's ascent engine for more thrust. It has been suggested that they were afraid that the heat shield may have been damaged in the explosion and they wanted to keep the SM attached to protect it from further damage. So what do they do with this possibly damaged heat shield that can withstand a 5000 degree reentry impact, as well as meteors? They awkwardly ram it into the explosive service module several times. Where did they apply this force? Through the docking ring component.

Usually when pilots have an unpredictably explosive component abord, and they can continue the flight without it, they dump it, ASAP.



The descent stage had a more powerful engine than the ascent stage, of course, since the combination of the two was heavier than the ascent stage alone. It also contained vital consumables (batteries, oxygen, etc.) that were critically needed. Dumping the descent stage would have been suicidal.

The amount of force (and potential damage to the CM's heat shield) produced by the LM engine was orders of magnitude smaller than the force produced during launch, also applied through the same SM/CM docking ring. It was perfectly capable of transmitting those forces without damage to the heat shield.

There was a very specific philosophy at work among the ground controllers during 13: don't throw anything away until you absolutely have to. You never know what might come in handy, and once it's gone, it's gone for good.

As to the specific reason for keeping the SM attached: in fact, jettisoning the SM was considered, but not because of its potential to produce another explosion. They didn't know until later how extensively it was damaged. [They knew there had been a "pretty good bang", and that it had cost them all their oxygen supplies (and thereby all their electrical power), but had no way to assess conditions in the SM beyond that.]

But about 12 hours after the explosion, a decision was made between two possible return trajectories. One (the "fast burn") would have brought the mission back to Earth 24 hours earlier. But doing that would have required jettisoning the SM, to shed its dead weight. They chose the slower return, and here's why: unlike the rest of the CSM/LM, the heat shield was not designed to be exposed to the thermal environment of space for two days. It had simply never been tested under those conditions, and the feeling was that it could easily crack under the thermal stresses. So they opted for the "slow burn", and left the SM attached to protect the heat shield.

James
2001-Nov-18, 01:37 PM
On 2001-11-18 08:15, Donnie B. wrote:


On 2001-11-17 23:35, SAMU wrote:
Hrer's another point to be raised about 13.

They returned to Earth with the disabled service module attached. A component which was dead weight, awkward, and already had exploded once. Now they use their flimsy under powered "lifeboat" to ram this awkward, explosive, dead weight all the way back to Earth. I wonder how much faster they would have gotten back if they had dumped it. Also if they were using their heads they could have dumped the landing stage of the LM and used the LM's ascent engine for more thrust. It has been suggested that they were afraid that the heat shield may have been damaged in the explosion and they wanted to keep the SM attached to protect it from further damage. So what do they do with this possibly damaged heat shield that can withstand a 5000 degree reentry impact, as well as meteors? They awkwardly ram it into the explosive service module several times. Where did they apply this force? Through the docking ring component.

Usually when pilots have an unpredictably explosive component abord, and they can continue the flight without it, they dump it, ASAP.



The descent stage had a more powerful engine than the ascent stage, of course, since the combination of the two was heavier than the ascent stage alone. It also contained vital consumables (batteries, oxygen, etc.) that were critically needed. Dumping the descent stage would have been suicidal.

The amount of force (and potential damage to the CM's heat shield) produced by the LM engine was orders of magnitude smaller than the force produced during launch, also applied through the same SM/CM docking ring. It was perfectly capable of transmitting those forces without damage to the heat shield.

There was a very specific philosophy at work among the ground controllers during 13: don't throw anything away until you absolutely have to. You never know what might come in handy, and once it's gone, it's gone for good.

As to the specific reason for keeping the SM attached: in fact, jettisoning the SM was considered, but not because of its potential to produce another explosion. They didn't know until later how extensively it was damaged. [They knew there had been a "pretty good bang", and that it had cost them all their oxygen supplies (and thereby all their electrical power), but had no way to assess conditions in the SM beyond that.]

But about 12 hours after the explosion, a decision was made between two possible return trajectories. One (the "fast burn") would have brought the mission back to Earth 24 hours earlier. But doing that would have required jettisoning the SM, to shed its dead weight. They chose the slower return, and here's why: unlike the rest of the CSM/LM, the heat shield was not designed to be exposed to the thermal environment of space for two days. It had simply never been tested under those conditions, and the feeling was that it could easily crack under the thermal stresses. So they opted for the "slow burn", and left the SM attached to protect the heat shield.

I agree with everything you said, but I would like to ask a question: Assuming they had jettisoned the Command Module and were basically stranded in space in the Lunar Module, would the LM survive the trip through the atmosphere or not? I'm thinking not and they, as you said, went to the LM because it had more supplies, etc, than the CM at the time. They just used the LM to maneuver around the moon to come home, right?

Donnie B.
2001-Nov-18, 02:25 PM
On 2001-11-18 08:37, James wrote:
I agree with everything you said, but I would like to ask a question: Assuming they had jettisoned the Command Module and were basically stranded in space in the Lunar Module, would the LM survive the trip through the atmosphere or not? I'm thinking not and they, as you said, went to the LM because it had more supplies, etc, than the CM at the time. They just used the LM to maneuver around the moon to come home, right?



Hi, James,

You need to make a distinction here: The Service Module is what we're discussing. That's the cylindrical section that's behind the Command Module. It's the CM that has the heat shield for reentry.

No, they could not discard the CM; its heat shield was their only means of reentering the atmosphere safely. No one is suggesting that they could have jettisoned the CM, just the SM.

The SM was expendable after the accident, since it no longer provided them with oxygen or power. It still had an engine, but no one dared to use it (since they didn't know how bad the damage was in the SM). So they could have ditched it, and come home with just the LM and CM. But that would have exposed the heat shield, which was normally covered (physically) by the SM until a few minutes before reentry. That was something they couldn't risk, so they took "the long way home".

They used the descent engine on the LM twice: once to put the ship back on a free-return trajectory, and once to make a course correction. The latter was pretty hairy, because they had to control their attitude manually and the combined CSM/LM was hard to maneuver using only the LM thrusters.

ToSeek
2001-Nov-18, 03:36 PM
On 2001-11-18 09:25, Donnie B. wrote:

They used the descent engine on the LM twice: once to put the ship back on a free-return trajectory, and once to make a course correction. The latter was pretty hairy, because they had to control their attitude manually and the combined CSM/LM was hard to maneuver using only the LM thrusters.


Actually, they used the LM descent engine an additional time, for what was called the "PC+2" (two hours after pericynthion, or closest point to the moon) burn. This took place between the free-return burn and the mid-course correction in order to speed up their return home.

As for the course correction, the only time I've seen it depicted as "hairy" was in the movie, and I'm assuming that was mostly for dramatic reasons. Neither "Lost Moon" nor "A Man on the Moon" make it sound like a big deal.

Donnie B.
2001-Nov-18, 10:16 PM
On 2001-11-18 10:36, ToSeek wrote:
Actually, they used the LM descent engine an additional time, for what was called the "PC+2" (two hours after pericynthion, or closest point to the moon) burn. This took place between the free-return burn and the mid-course correction in order to speed up their return home.

As for the course correction, the only time I've seen it depicted as "hairy" was in the movie, and I'm assuming that was mostly for dramatic reasons. Neither "Lost Moon" nor "A Man on the Moon" make it sound like a big deal.



Well, relatively hairy, then. They had trouble getting an alignment, because there was still a lot of debris drifting around the ship, and they couldn't spot stars. So they had to "steer by the seat of their pants" by using the limb of the Earth as a guide.

But you're right, it wasn't as dramatic as shown in the film; just more so than a typical burn.

One thing that is true, though -- they had a bit of trouble using the LM thrusters to orient the whole CSM/LM stack... I remember a quote to the effect that it was like carrying around an elephant on your back, or some such.

Damn, you're right about the PC + 2 burn. That was the very one I mentioned above, when they made the decision not to jettison the SM and do the "fast burn". Ah well... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

James
2001-Nov-19, 12:03 AM
On 2001-11-18 09:25, Donnie B. wrote:


On 2001-11-18 08:37, James wrote:
I agree with everything you said, but I would like to ask a question: Assuming they had jettisoned the Command Module and were basically stranded in space in the Lunar Module, would the LM survive the trip through the atmosphere or not? I'm thinking not and they, as you said, went to the LM because it had more supplies, etc, than the CM at the time. They just used the LM to maneuver around the moon to come home, right?



Hi, James,

You need to make a distinction here: The Service Module is what we're discussing. That's the cylindrical section that's behind the Command Module. It's the CM that has the heat shield for reentry.

Ah, thanks, Donnie. I don't believe they make that distinction in the movie. It's been a while since I last watched, so they may have, I just don't remember.

Donnie B.
2001-Nov-19, 12:54 AM
On 2001-11-18 19:03, James wrote:
Ah, thanks, Donnie. I don't believe they make that distinction in the movie. It's been a while since I last watched, so they may have, I just don't remember.



I think they show a shot of the astronauts gaping at the SM as it tumbles away. It was finally discarded 4-1/2 hours before splashdown. The CM and LM were still docked; they finally discarded the LM a couple hours later.

SAMU
2001-Nov-19, 01:41 AM
Asked to speculate about why, what and where issues I have to preface by pointing out that these are speculations supported only by comparisons to congruent activities. Rather than the temp premise which is supported by comparisons to congruent physical conditions.

1)Conventional nuclear armed rockets of the day had a smaller payload than The Saturn 5 payload.

2) The payload could have been used for any of the covert tasks executed by the military/inteligence. My speculation would be mostly along the lines, as I pointed out in my initial post, of large powerful albeit primitive telescopic spy cameras or a nuclear platform.

3)We wouldn't neccisarily tell the soviets that we had somthing up there. The soviet system was most effectively disrupted my their imagination of what we could be doing rather that us telling them what we had done. Look at what happened by their trying to "keep up" with us in the Star Wars program.

SAMU

PS
Bad Astronomer,

I did not post the entire transscript. It is 7 pages of all the other things that were said during the flight of aurora 7. I just exerpted the mentions regarding tempreture as further support of the premise of this thread. Which due to other posts, from confusions of the color of asphalt and the color of agregate to childish schoolyard flame casting, has persistantly gone off track.

This is your web site but if you would rather preach to the converted than to have some reasoned support of opposing possibilities. I can be gone in a heartbeat and you can pretend that I was just another nameless troll.




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SAMU on 2001-11-18 20:59 ]</font>

Silas
2001-Nov-19, 02:09 AM
They used the descent engine on the LM twice: once to put the ship back on a free-return trajectory, and once to make a course correction. The latter was pretty hairy, because they had to control their attitude manually and the combined CSM/LM was hard to maneuver using only the LM thrusters.



What was used to slow the flight to earth-orbit speed? Or did the CM come straight in at luna-to-terra speed? As I understood things (and I may be very, very wrong) the big engine on the SM was necessary to brake the flight, in order to establish an earth orbit, and then again, to brake the CM to a re-entry (partial) orbit. I can conceive of skipping the intermediate stage: there's no absolute need to establish a circular orbit before slowing to a re-entry orbit... But isn't the big burner on the SM the braking rocket that makes it possible to hit atmosphere at a survivable speed?

I had thought (mere mortal memory) that the SM was still functioning in many of its roles...

I'm (only barely) able to do some of the math to work some of this stuff out...but all y'all are ahead of me in this, so I'm just asking.

Silas

Peter B
2001-Nov-19, 05:03 AM
Silas asked: "What was used to slow the flight to earth-orbit speed? Or did the CM come straight in at luna-to-terra speed?"

Your second sentence has it right, Silas. The CSM combination came in at about 40000 km/h (25000 mph). The SM was discarded, and the CM re-entered the atmosphere. There was no braking involved, and the spacecraft never entered Earth orbit on return from the Moon.

Donnie B.
2001-Nov-19, 10:49 AM
On 2001-11-19 00:03, Peter B wrote:
Silas asked: "What was used to slow the flight to earth-orbit speed? Or did the CM come straight in at luna-to-terra speed?"

Your second sentence has it right, Silas. The CSM combination came in at about 40000 km/h (25000 mph). The SM was discarded, and the CM re-entered the atmosphere. There was no braking involved, and the spacecraft never entered Earth orbit on return from the Moon.


Right, and just to make it clear, this was the normal reentry mode for all Apollo lunar flights, not just 13. Why send all that fuel to the moon and back when you can use the atmosphere as your brake?

Also, to Silas: after the explosion, the SM contined to provide electrical power for another hour or so, until the last of its oxygen leaked away (one tank exploded, the second emptied rapidly, but the third had only a small "plumbing leak" and took awhile to lose its contents). After that, the SM was dead weight. It may still have had some systems working, but they were either useless (its attitude jets couldn't be used because the CM was shut down to conserve power) or too risky to depend on (the big engine might have been damaged).

As explained above, they kept the SM attached because there was no urgent need to get rid of it, and because it might have proved to be necessary at some point, and because it provided thermal protection for the all-important heat shield.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Donnie B. on 2001-11-19 05:52 ]</font>

Jim
2001-Nov-19, 12:17 PM
On 2001-11-18 09:25, Donnie B. wrote:
No, they could not discard the CM; its heat shield was their only means of reentering the atmosphere safely.


You forgot the parachutes.

TinFoilHat
2001-Nov-19, 12:31 PM
On 2001-11-19 05:49, Donnie B. wrote:
one tank exploded, the second emptied rapidly, but the third had only a small "plumbing leak" and took awhile to lose its contents
Actually, the Apollo 13 SM only had the two oxygen tanks. One exploded, the other leaked out over about an hour's period. The third tank was added after the Apollo 13 mission.

Valiant Dancer
2001-Nov-19, 02:07 PM
On 2001-11-17 21:01, SAMU wrote:
You make it sound as if they were flying ships full of 1940s era radio parts made of zink plated vacume tubes stone knives and bearskins. The transister had been invented by then. Also if you had read the complete transscript you would see that his heating problems happened almost immediatly when he was in the sun. It cooled off when he passed into the night side.

Since generations of spacecraft were mentioned. Did you know that the Atlas rocket built for NASA's 6 mannned flights of the Mercury program were built in the hundreds armed with nuclear warheads. Followed by the Titan rocket used for the 10 maned Gemnini flights and also built in the hundreds armed with nuclear weapons. and dozens of other types of rockets built in the hundreds armed with nuclear weapons. Finaly Saturn 5, built in the dozens for 11 manned Apollo missions at a cost of billions of dollars and armed with NO? nuclear weapons? Ever? Not even once? covertly?

SAMU



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SAMU on 2001-11-17 21:07 ]</font>


BUZZZZZZZ!!!! Tacky buzzer.
The Saturn V platform was considered for a nuclear payload. The program was cancelled after the manned exploration to Mars was canceled.

http://www.nv.doe.gov/news&pubs/dirpdfs/DOENV707_Rocket.pdf

JayUtah
2001-Nov-19, 04:05 PM
The point is, if you all can't come up with data and/or crunch the numbers to support the lower temp reported by 13 than the data I find which supports a higher temp expectation then I figure I am on the right track.

No. Citing examples from a dissimilar spacecraft built with little or no experience in manned spacecraft design, operating in dissimilar circumstances, is not proof that the Apollo 13 thermal profile was falsified. Since you are the one claiming the report was falsified, you are required to "crunch the numbers" to provide support for that argument.

Further, since your argument is based on your failure to find a suitable thermodynamic model for the Apollo 13 spacecraft, I assert that this has value as proof only if you can show that you fully understand all the relevant thermal properties that affect spacecraft design. Otherwise I find it more parsimonious to believe that you are simply underinformed about how spaceships behave thermally, than that the whole Apollo 13 debaucle was deliberately and clumsily falsified by some entity you refuse to name.

Therefore I require answers to the following questions asked earlier.

1. Must an object in thermal equilibrium with its environment, especially under conditions of radiation, necessarily also be isothermal?

2. Please define "form factor" as it relates to radiative heat transfer.

JayUtah
2001-Nov-19, 04:13 PM
Dumping the descent stage would have been suicidal.

Agreed, for the reasons you cite.

It (the CSM interstage structure) was perfectly capable of transmitting those forces without damage to the heat shield.

Again agreed. The thrust of the Saturn V was on the order of millions of pounds, while the LM's DPS could provide at most 10,500 pounds. Further, the aerodynamic pressure during the ascent was concentrated on the boost protective cover and transmitted via the command module to the service module across the CSM interface. Not only do you have millions of pounds pushing upward through that interface, you have quite a lot of aerodynamic pressure pushing back. The compression load on the CSM interface was known to be great.

Irishman
2001-Nov-19, 06:31 PM
Donnie B. said:

But, you say, there was no mirror, no "parasol" for the Apollo spacecraft. But there was! The designers knew that they had some 1500 - 2000 watts of heat to dissipate from the electrical systems alone, and would have to provide lots of cooling capacity for it. They didn't want to make those systems any larger and heavier than necessary.

Therefore, they designed the spacecraft to absorb as little solar energy as possible. Of course, their "mirror" wasn't perfect, so the heat dissipation systems were made big enough to deal with that. But they did a pretty good job, so good that when the electronics and most of the refrigeration was shut down, the solar gain wasn't enough to keep the interior very much above freezing.

For your scenario to be correct, the Apollo designers would have to be incompetent fools, who couldn't figure out how to keep the sun at bay and therefore added vast amounts of unnecessary weight to provide the cooling capacity to re-radiate what they couldn't reflect away in the first place.

I think you're getting a bit extreme here. Or maybe the problem is in that last sentence: they would be incompentent fools only if they provided the cooling capacity to re-radiate what they could reflect away in the first place, but did not. In other words, if they couldn't reflect it away, they would have had to use another cooling system to deal with that heat. But if they could reflect it and instead absorbed it and then used an active system, that would be stupid.

But I think everyone followed you.

SAMU said:

You make it sound as if they were flying ships full of 1940s era radio parts made of zink plated vacume tubes stone knives and bearskins. The transister had been invented by then. Also if you had read the complete transscript you would see that his heating problems happened almost immediatly when he was in the sun. It cooled off when he passed into the night side.

And you make it sound like modern electrical and electronic equipment don't generate any heat. Why is it that PC's have a fan in them that must run constantly when the computer is on? Hint - it's not solar radiation or metabolic heat of the user.

As for the heat load of the Mercury capsule peaking with incident sun, you still have yet to recognize the differences between the Mercury capsule and the Apollo craft, i.e. the surface treatments and therefore optical and thermal properties were very different.


Did you know that the Atlas rocket built for NASA's 6 mannned flights of the Mercury program were built in the hundreds armed with nuclear warheads. Followed by the Titan rocket used for the 10 maned Gemnini flights and also built in the hundreds armed with nuclear weapons. and dozens of other types of rockets built in the hundreds armed with nuclear weapons. Finaly Saturn 5, built in the dozens for 11 manned Apollo missions at a cost of billions of dollars and armed with NO? nuclear weapons? Ever? Not even once? covertly?

Your statements are misleading. They imply that the Atlas and Titan rockets were built first for the manned space program (Mercury and Gemini) and then subsequently employed for military use. That is not the case. NASA took existing rocket designs and then had them custom built and man-rated. Why? It was a quicker and easier jump start to space than designing new rockets from the ground up to do the same job - put payloads into low earth orbit. Whereas Apollo was a unique design because it had a unique mission - taking a payload to the Moon. Thus NASA did have to start from scratch.


Where did I write suggesting that they launched it covertly? The premise of this thread is not that they launched it covertly. It is that they loaded it and used it covertly, with a cover story that has a global flaw in it.

The "global flaw" is in your theory. You're saying that somehow the military came in and secretly replaced the Apollo modules and LM with some other payload (presumably in a shell to look like Apollo hardware?), then smuggled the astronauts away and did not put them in the rocket? Or was the command module real but the LM fake? Whichever, both have major holes in them in trying to carry out a fake mission that was a nominal disaster as a cover for some other mission.

Donnie B. wrote:

No, they could not discard the CM; its heat shield was their only means of reentering the atmosphere safely.

Jim replied:

You forgot the parachutes.

The parachutes were a safe way to reenter the atmosphere? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif (I take it you meant the parachutes were on the CM, and the LM was not designed to land in Earth's gravity, even if the descent stage hadn't already spent all its fuel in orbital maneuvers, and it somehow survived reentry.)

The Bad Astronomer
2001-Nov-19, 07:14 PM
On 2001-11-17 21:01, SAMU wrote:
Finaly Saturn 5, built in the dozens for 11 manned Apollo missions at a cost of billions of dollars and armed with NO? nuclear weapons? Ever? Not even once? covertly?

First, dozens of rockets? Do you have a cite?

Second, I wondered if it would come down to this. You ask if NASA could have put nuclear weapons on the S-Vs, as if supports your case of conspiracy. They could have, and they could have loaded them with gold bars, or anthrax, or leprachauns. You cannot argue what NASA could have done without facts to back it up. This sort of supposition is worse than useless: it opens up every possibility you can think of with no sort of rational review process, and weakens your argument considerably.

You have to do a lot more than just say what could have happened when you have no facts whatsoever to assume such a possibility. Stick with the science of the mission.

ToSeek
2001-Nov-19, 07:32 PM
On 2001-11-19 14:14, The Bad Astronomer wrote:

First, dozens of rockets? Do you have a cite?


Maybe a dozen. Let me think here:

Apollo 4 (first unmanned test)
Apollo 6 (second unmanned test)
Apollos 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17
Skylab (to launch the lab itself)
The two sitting on the ground at JSC and KSC (which really p*sses me off, btw)

I count 15.

Valiant Dancer
2001-Nov-19, 07:41 PM
On 2001-11-19 14:14, The Bad Astronomer wrote:


On 2001-11-17 21:01, SAMU wrote:
Finaly Saturn 5, built in the dozens for 11 manned Apollo missions at a cost of billions of dollars and armed with NO? nuclear weapons? Ever? Not even once? covertly?

First, dozens of rockets? Do you have a cite?

Second, I wondered if it would come down to this. You ask if NASA could have put nuclear weapons on the S-Vs, as if supports your case of conspiracy. They could have, and they could have loaded them with gold bars, or anthrax, or leprachauns. You cannot argue what NASA could have done without facts to back it up. This sort of supposition is worse than useless: it opens up every possibility you can think of with no sort of rational review process, and weakens your argument considerably.

You have to do a lot more than just say what could have happened when you have no facts whatsoever to assume such a possibility. Stick with the science of the mission.


Per Boeing website, the production run of Saturn V rockets was 15. 13 were used in the space program. Two were placed on display. (Although they state storage, NASA identifies them as on display.)

http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/history/boeing/saturn.html

JayUtah
2001-Nov-19, 08:12 PM
NASA took existing rocket designs and then had them custom built and man-rated.

Several of the first astronauts comment on the brutality of Atlas and Titan launches. These were ICBMs that produced eight g's or so on liftoff. Plus, the Atlas had a peculiar preference to roll immediately after takeof so that the horizon was vertical from the astronaut's point of view. This was because its guidance system worked best navigating on its side.

Whereas Apollo was a unique design because it had a unique mission - taking a payload to the Moon.

Hence the astronauts' characterization of the Saturn V as the "gentleman's rocket". Since it was designed primarily for passengers and not bombs, it was designed to exert a somewhat lower g-force than the ICBMs and could be ridden by less than perfect human specimens.

This design trend persists in the space shuttle, whose hardware is only capable of 4 g acceleration and whose flight control software limits acceleration to 3 g's to preserve the wits of the crew.

Jim
2001-Nov-19, 08:22 PM
Jim replied:

You forgot the parachutes.

The parachutes were a safe way to reenter the atmosphere? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif (I take it you meant the parachutes were on the CM, and the LM was not designed to land in Earth's gravity, even if the descent stage hadn't already spent all its fuel in orbital maneuvers, and it somehow survived reentry.)


Upon rereading my post, I can see where it could be misleading.

The point is pretty much what you said. A heat shield is nice and necessary, but without parachutes, about all it does is keep the crew cool when they splat. The LM had (and needed) neither; it was designed for a powered landing... but under 1/6G, so even fully fueled it couldn't have supported a powered descent to earth.

Donnie B.
2001-Nov-19, 09:13 PM
On 2001-11-19 07:31, TinFoilHat wrote:
Actually, the Apollo 13 SM only had the two oxygen tanks. One exploded, the other leaked out over about an hour's period. The third tank was added after the Apollo 13 mission.



Quite right. Shows what happens when you rely on memory instead of checking the facts.

What confused me was that the two O2 tanks were fed to three fuel cells. I remembered that the flight controllers had anxiously closed the cutoff valves to first one, then a second, fuel cell, hoping that would stop the leak, but knowing it would cost the mission -- the operation was one-way, and the lunar landing would have to be abandoned if only one fuel cell was on line. Of course, it was moot; there was no way to stop the leak.

I guess I unconsciously jumped from three fuel cells to three O2 tanks... d'oh!

Donnie B.
2001-Nov-19, 09:17 PM
On 2001-11-19 14:14, The Bad Astronomer wrote:
You have to do a lot more than just say what could have happened when you have no facts whatsoever to assume such a possibility. Stick with the science of the mission.


Whoopsie! And here I've been calling on SAMU to speculate as to why there had been a fake mission. My thinking was along the lines of, well, if you can't give a good reason why it happened, what's the point of the whole speculation?

But on consideration, I withdraw that request. You're right, BA, we should stick to the facts.

Peter B
2001-Nov-19, 09:34 PM
Apollo 9: did it use a Saturn 5 or a Saturn 1B?

ToSeek
2001-Nov-19, 09:37 PM
On 2001-11-19 16:34, Peter B wrote:
Apollo 9: did it use a Saturn 5 or a Saturn 1B?


Saturn V - the inclusion of the lunar module made the payload too heavy for a IB.

JayUtah
2001-Nov-19, 09:56 PM
But on consideration, I withdraw that request. You're right, BA, we should stick to the facts.

It's not improper to require someone to state his hypothesis up front, clearly. In fact, failure to elucidate the argument is, in fact, a fallacy per se. It's hard to find where he's spelled out his argument. Piecing together what SAMU has written over the past seven pages, I gather he's trying to argue that the U.S. military commandeered the Apollo 13 spacecraft for some reason, and invented what he considers to be an implausible cover story to account for the "failure" of the planned mission.

So what started as a hypothesis that the Apollo 13 wasn't a real emergency -- with the alleged thermodynamics discrepancy as the key piece of data -- is really a larger conspiracy theory. Unfortunately this larger conspiracy just opens up more questions for which we have not been given many answers. It's true this larger theory is more than mere "food for thought" and contains more plot holes than a rejected Star Trek script.

But we can, if we wish, concentrate for now on the science. The apparent hypothesis that Apollo 13 was commandeered rests on the premise that the cover story was implausible. If that premise fails, the hypothesis fails. But since his premise is not universally held, SAMU must demonstrate it. It is the proponent's duty to establish by proof any premises which lead to his conclusion.
So far his argument that the cover story is implausible is based on his failure to formulate a satisfactory thermodynamic scenario to account for the cooling. But that consequent has many antecedents, not the least of which that SAMU may not be sufficiently expert in thermodynamics nor familiar enough with the thermal design of the spacecraft in question to make his failure a significant point.

Specifically, many people in the world would fail to formulate a reasonable thermodynamic model for the combined, powered-down Apollo stack. This is because they don't have the requisite expertise. Thus, SAMU's argument makes sense only if SAMU is sufficiently expert in the thermal design of spacecraft.

This is what I am endeavoring to determine. He seems unsure of the properties of thermal equilibrium involving radiation, and this would be essential to knowing whether his failure is due to the lack of a suitable solution altogether, or SAMU's lack of skill in finding one. The difference is, precisely, the argument.

Even then, any argument which relies on the absence of the consequent as reliable predictor of the absence of an antecedent is a shaky argument.

Silas
2001-Nov-19, 11:57 PM
Um...dumb trivia question (btw thanks for the info on the re-entry course of the CM!)

So, what ever happened to Saturn II, III, and IV? I'm pretty sure they were never physically built...but were they ever fully designed, or only partially designed, or...um...what?

Silas

Donnie B.
2001-Nov-20, 12:41 AM
On 2001-11-19 18:57, Silas wrote:
Um...dumb trivia question (btw thanks for the info on the re-entry course of the CM!)

So, what ever happened to Saturn II, III, and IV? I'm pretty sure they were never physically built...but were they ever fully designed, or only partially designed, or...um...what?

Silas



I'm not completely sure this answer is definitive, but the "missing Saturns" may simply be the various stages of the various Saturn launch vehicles.

For example, for the Saturn V itself, the first stage was S-IC (S-one-C), the second stage was S-II (S-two), and the third stage was S-IVB (S-four-B).

Then again, the Saturn I was a completely different booster, and had little in common with the S-IC... most notably, different engines.

Donnie B.
2001-Nov-20, 12:53 AM
All right, here's a really simplistic (i.e. dumb) argument on the thermodynamics issue. I know it's far from rigorous, but what the heck, let's run it up the flagpole.

Several sources, including ones cited by SAMU, have stated that the sunlit side of objects in space heat up to about 250 degrees, and that the shaded sides drop to -250 degrees.

Now, the Apollo spacecraft was flown in passive thermal mode, meaning that it rotated slowly like a pig on a spit. And as for the roasting pig, that's done to keep the temperature at any one place from reaching those extremes.

But any one spot on the spacecraft would have spent about half its time in the sun, and the other half in the shade. So it would tend toward the average temperature... namely, zero degrees.

Now, I think the temperatures I've seen were listed in degrees Fahrenheit, so that average temperature would be about -17C. If I'm mistaken and the temps were already in Celsius, then the average would be around the freezing point. Either way, the Apollo 13 cabin ended up a little bit above that... which can be accounted for by the remaining electronics, sunlight entering through the windows, and the astronauts' metabolic heat.

Is this not reasonable?

SAMU
2001-Nov-20, 03:14 AM
In addition to the Saturn 5s already cited I have seen myself one outside New Orleans at NASA Michoud where NASA assembled the booster and one at NASA Huntsville. That's 15 by my count. I don't know how many others may be sitting at other NASA sites. I have also seen an Apollo comand module on top of a post outside of a strip mall in a suburb Los Angeles.

Regarding strategies for determining what the tempreture of 13 should have been. As already stated. Since the only Apollo spacecraft claimed to have been opperated without active cooling was 13. All strategies for determining tempreture Including just "taking their word" for it are just that, strategies.

I have not been letting the other strategies go by the wayside though. As of now the data usable for comparisons to other spacecraft has been more available. But the data that can be used in the strategy of heat absorbtion/conduction/radiation computations are coming in.

The bulletin board format is not usefull for the posting of the complex formulas and data involved nor are the readers likly to be able to follow it should it be posted by another meens. However it can be simplified to where it can be posted and understood by any who have a reasonably good knowlege base and reading skills. It is however an awkward strategy to research and post and should be incumbent on the ones who propose it to apply it.

It is not incumbent for someone who proposes a strategy for determinig the roundness of the Earth to state how the round earth fits on the back of The Great Turtle.

If you havent read the post regarding the balony detection kit you should read it now and apply it to your own posts.

http://www.sciam.com/2001/1101issue/1101skeptic.html

Second page here.

http://www.sciam.com/2001/1201issue/1201skeptic.html

SAMU

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SAMU on 2001-11-19 22:22 ]</font>

Hauteden
2001-Nov-20, 04:02 AM
On 2001-11-17 21:01, SAMU wrote:
Also if you had read the complete transscript you would see that his heating problems happened almost immediatly when he was in the sun. It cooled off when he passed into the night side.

SAMU


I was curious about that because Figure 1-10 Cabin-air temperatures (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-6/ch1.htm#f1.10) clearly shows that the cabin temps cool down during sunlit hours. And would start to rise just before relative nightfall. Another thing to note is the sunlit periods were longer then the nightfall periods.

Of course from what I can tell the suit temp changed with respect to sunlight. However the changes can be directly tied to changes that the Astronaut made.

In regards to the suit MA-6 and MA-7 are significantly different. But on Cabin temps they were basically the same accept the problems MA-7 had resulted in slightly higher levels.

Hauteden

Peter B
2001-Nov-20, 04:32 AM
SAMU said: "It is not incumbent for someone who proposes a strategy for determinig the roundness of the Earth to state how the round earth fits on the back of The Great Turtle."

Absolutely right. BUT if (1) we believed that the Earth was a disc sitting on the back of the Great Turtle, and (2) you said the Earth was round, your objective is not to show how a round Earth fits on the back of the GT.

Instead it is to show why it's round.

Several people here, with much more knowledge about thermodynamics than me, have pointed out quite reasonably why Apollo 13 would be cooler if its electrical systems were switched off, but you don't seem to follow their arguments. At the moment, the Earth appears to be a disc, sitting happily on the back of the GT... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

SAMU
2001-Nov-20, 05:34 AM
Quote:

"Several people here have pointed out quite reasonably why Apollo 13 would be cooler if its electrical systems were switched off, but you don't seem to follow their arguments."

Arguments are not appropriate here at all. Just viewing and comprehending a fairly detailed and labled drawing of the spacecraft.

I cannot comprehend why we keep coming back to this electrical system heating issue. I have posted several times with links to NASA drawings showing that the electrical apperatus heat load was radiated by a seperate much smaller system. Unless people haven't looked at the picture or don't understand it.

Unless you want to speculate that the electrical cooling capacity was designed to be inadequate and the excess was to be expelled by the environmental cooling system, and that this speculated excess was so excessive that the ship needed an 8 times larger environmental cooling system to handle it, and that when the electicals were for the most part shut down the environmental cooling was not needed at all for absorbed solar and biological heating. But you couldn't say that because then with the environmental cooling system disabled and in fact jetisoned before the electricals were turned back on they should have fried without it.

I even hesitate to include the biologic input to the heating equation because it can appear to some lacking general knowlege that it is a source equal to solar heating which it is not. Solar heating is much greater. To be clear, the solar heating input was much larger than the electrical or the biological heating input combined.

Quote:

"At the moment, the Earth appears to be a disc, sitting happily on the back of the GT."

Yes the Earth is sitting on calmly on the back of the great turtle and it was created by god from Adam's rib. I know it doesn't say that anywhere in the bible but that is how it is to some people. Even people who read the bible every day. What they don't understand isn't important.

SAMU

ToSeek
2001-Nov-20, 02:52 PM
On 2001-11-19 18:57, Silas wrote:

So, what ever happened to Saturn II, III, and IV?



Whoa! I actually learned something today! I was thinking they skipped over those numbers, but they were all on the drawing boards at one point. There was even a Saturn 8 considered!

Here's a chart of the whole family:
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/saturnc8.htm

Go up one level to find links to information about each of the Saturn rockets (and many more besides).

Basically, each of the different Saturns had a role according to the approach to landing on the moon.

The Saturn C-2 would have been used to assemble a lunar landing vehicle in Earth orbit using repeated missions (12-15). The C-3 would have supported earth orbit rendezvous. The C-4 was the original lunar orbit rendezvous launcher, much like the Saturn V but with four engines in each of the first two stages instead of five. The Saturn C-5 (later V) was selected in order to have reserve capacity, which was a good thing since the command, service, and lunar modules ended up being heavier than expected.

The Saturn C-8 would have been used for the direct ascent mode.

Ben Benoy
2001-Nov-20, 03:05 PM
On 2001-11-20 00:34, SAMU wrote:
Quote:

"Several people here have pointed out quite reasonably why Apollo 13 would be cooler if its electrical systems were switched off, but you don't seem to follow their arguments."

Arguments are not appropriate here at all. Just viewing and comprehending a fairly detailed and labled drawing of the spacecraft.


Ah ha! Another "just look at the pictures and you will see" tack. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

I would like to point out that this is totally specious, since if your information gleaned from looking at pictures cannot be reconciled with consistent information from other sources, pictures really ought to be the first to go.

(Look guys! Only one line parallel to a given line can pass through a point not on that line. Just look at the picture! C'mon.... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif )

The picture doesn't tell you anything about how much heat was created and where it went, it just shows an artist's rendering of a cutaway of the capsule. This is a major "big deal" moment for the people listening at home. Rational argument is always needed to back up your statements, and if you don't have it, well then you might just get King Lear quoted at you...

Ben Benoy

JayUtah
2001-Nov-20, 03:22 PM
So it would tend toward the average temperature... namely, zero degrees.

What an interesting concept. Are you listening, SAMU?

Either way, the Apollo 13 cabin ended up a little bit above that... which can be accounted for by the remaining electronics, sunlight entering through the windows, and the astronauts' metabolic heat.

Another interesting concept.

Now I flip open the astronauts' debriefing to the page where they discuss using the powered-down CM as a bedroom. They say the temperature inside was fine until they put the window shades up to block the sunlight. Then the temperature went way down.

The conclusion we draw is that the cabin temperature was being held in a certain equilibrium from light entering the window in a broad spectrum, being absorbed by objects in the cabin and then reradiated in the infrared to which the cabin windows were opaque.

Why didn't they just open up the window shades and let the temperature rise again? Ah, but that's the difference between radiation and absorption.

Is this not reasonable?

Qualitatively, yes. To make a good argument it would require some mathemtics. But question of thermal gradients under conditions of substantial radiation is one I'm trying to get SAMU to answer. I may have irritated him to the point where he's ignoring me.

JayUtah
2001-Nov-20, 03:35 PM
That's 15 by my count.

The production run of the Saturn V is generally cited as 15, yes.

I don't know how many others may be sitting at other NASA sites.

They're rather difficult to conceal.

I have also seen an Apollo comand module on top of a post outside of a strip mall in a suburb Los Angeles.

Or rather you have likely seen a full-size replica. The San Diego aerospace museum, for example, has full-scale HDPE replicas of both the CSM and the Mercury spacecraft. I have helped to build scale models of the LM for museums and planetariums.



All strategies for determining tempreture Including just "taking their word" for it are just that, strategies.

I'd rather take the word of accomplished engineers than your word. I don't know you from Adam, but I know the engineers who worked on these spacecraft and can vouch for their credentials and skill. Your contention that Apollo 13 represents an implausible thermal scenario is still, at present time, simply your word for it.

As of now the data usable for comparisons to other spacecraft has been more available.

You still have not addressed the severe qualitative discrepancies between your "sample" spacecraft and the Apollo 13 spacecraft.

But the data that can be used in the strategy of heat absorbtion/conduction/radiation computations are coming in.

I don't yet believe you are capable of correctly performing such computations. Some answers to my questions posted twice now will alleviate my skepticism.

The bulletin board format is not usefull for the posting of the complex formulas

That hasn't stopped others.

nor are the readers likly to be able to follow it should it be posted by another meens.

Try us. We've been begging for a rigorous treatment of your argument for some time now. Don't be so sure we'll ignore it.

It is however an awkward strategy to research and post and should be incumbent on the ones who propose it to apply it.

I think this means you. You have made the assertion that the Apollo 13 scenario is implausible thermodynamically. This is inherently a quantitative argument, yet you have made only vague and partial references to the quantities involved. Should it not be incumbent upon you to provide a highly detailed thermal analysis of the situation before drawing your conclusion?

JayUtah
2001-Nov-20, 04:09 PM
Just viewing and comprehending a fairly detailed and labled drawing of the spacecraft.

Can you show that you comprehend the fairly detailed drawing of the spacecraft and that this gives you very detailed knowledge of the thermal design of the spacecraft and quantitative ballparks for the expected heat loads from various sources and the transfers within the system?

As a matter of fact, electronics cooling was accomplished through three systems. Can you name them?

...showing that the electrical apperatus heat load was radiated by a seperate much smaller system.

Are you sure it was separate? Are you sure that's the only means provided for cooling the electronics?

The reason we keep coming back to the electronics is that the means for rejecting the heat of the electronics tells us something about the more passive thermal properties of the spacecraft itself.

The problem you're having is that you've already made up your mind what the conclusion should be. You don't appear to have done any computations or comparisons before arriving at your conclusion and so you're now having to retrospectively cobble up an argument. This isn't compelling because we have no faith that your investigation will be impartial. We have every reason to believe that you'll selectively present only the data that fits your predetermined conclusion.

You aren't sufficiently motivated to find data which disagrees with your conclusion, so I doubt your ability to find it. I suggest you read sections 4.4.3 and 4.4.9 of the Apollo Program Summary, JSC-09423.

Jim
2001-Nov-20, 06:15 PM
On 2001-11-17 15:13, SAMU wrote:
The point is, if you all can't come up with data and/or crunch the numbers to support the lower temp reported by 13 than the data I find (from the Aurora 7 transcript) which supports a higher temp expectation then I figure I am on the right track.


Let's assume for a moment that you are right, that Apollo 13 was a covert military operation and the "disaster" was faked to divert attention.

In faking that situation, the folks at NASA would need to make it as realistic as possible. To do this - and if all they had was the data from past flights which indicated that the temp would go up - why didn't the "fake" show the astronauts sweltering in the near-unbearable heat? Wouldn't that be just as dramatic as near-freezing temps? And isn't that supported by your transcript information?

So, why would NASA deliberately choose to go against documented historical experience?

Donnie B.
2001-Nov-20, 06:23 PM
Hi, J-U,

Thanks for participating in my little thought experiment. I'm pleased to see you found it of interest, unlike certain other participants in this discussion who seemed to dismiss it as some sort of "baloney".



On 2001-11-20 10:22, JayUtah wrote:
Why didn't they just open up the window shades and let the temperature rise again? Ah, but that's the difference between radiation and absorption.



I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Are you saying that opening the shade did not (or would not) cause the cabin to warm up again? If so, is this because the cabin had reached a new, lower-temperature equilibrium, and that the sunlight was unable to overcome this new steady state?

I'm not challenging that idea at all, just looking for a bit more detail.



Is this not reasonable?

Qualitatively, yes. To make a good argument it would require some mathemtics. But question of thermal gradients under conditions of substantial radiation is one I'm trying to get SAMU to answer. I may have irritated him to the point where he's ignoring me.



Well, thermodynamics is not my area of expertise, so I'll decline to embarass myself by attempting a computation. I just thought it was an interesting way to get a "first-order" estimate of the steady state condition for a spacecraft in passive thermal mode.

Thanks again for your comments!

Irishman
2001-Nov-20, 06:51 PM
SAMU said:

"Several people here have pointed out quite reasonably why Apollo 13 would be cooler if its electrical systems were switched off, but you don't seem to follow their arguments."

Arguments are not appropriate here at all. Just viewing and comprehending a fairly detailed and labled drawing of the spacecraft.

Sorry, this statement does not make sense. How are the arguments invalid just because you've shown a picture that has two radiator panels? Yes, one is labeled "Electrical Power System" and the other is labeled "Environmental Control System". But that hardly gives a systematic overview of how they really work.

Here is the picture you linked for reference:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/diagrams/ad004.gif

Now let me direct you to some links (that I previously referenced but apparently you didn't read) that describe how it all works.

From the Apollo Saturn Reference Pages
http://www.apollosaturn.com/asnr/p117-135.htm

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL

The subsystem provides oxygen and hot and cold water, removes carbon dioxide and odors from the CM cabin, provides for venting of waste, and dissipates excessive heat from the cabin and from operating electronic equipment.
(bolding mine for emphasis)


The water-glycol is a heat-absorbing medium; it picks up excess heat from operating equipment and the heat exchangers and is routed to the service module, where it passes through radiator tubes on the outside skin. The glycol mixture radiates its heat to space in its passage through these tubes, which are exposed to the cold of space. Then the mixture, now cold again, returns to the CM and repeats the cycle.

Under Equipment:


Space Radiators Two aluminum panels about 49 square feet each are around the outside surface of the service module in a 130-degree arc. Each panel has five tubes through which water-glycol flows. There is also a secondary tube for the secondary coolant systems. As the water-glycol flows through the tubes, its heat is rejected through radiation to space. About 4415 Btu per hour can be removed through each panel.

And under WATER-GLYCOL COOLANT SUBSYSTEM:


The radiator panels are an integral part of the SM skin and are located on opposite sides of the SM in Sectors 2 and 3 and in Sectors 5 and 6. With the radiators being diametrically opposite, it is possible that one primary panel may face deep space while the other faces the sun, earth, or moon. These extremes in environments mean large differences in panel efficiencies and outlet temperatures. The panel facing deep space can reject more heat than the panel receiving external radiation; therefore, the overall efficiency of the subsystem can be improved by increasing the flow to the cold panel. The higher flow rate reduces the transit time of the coolant through the radiator, which decreases the quantity of heat radiated.

This is only describing the "Evironmental Control System" radiators in your drawing, and it clearly refers to electrical systems providing heat. Futhermore, this last paragraph explicitly states that different points on the outside surface will be at different temperatures. If the exterior has temperature gradients, then you cannot use the max exterior temperature by itself as a guideline to where the internal temperature will reach steady state.

Furthermore, there are multiple mentions of having heaters in the system in case the operating temperatures drop too low. Heaters. If the incident solar radiation is so great as you presume that it is the main heat load, then why do they need heaters in the cooling system?

Now I reference the description of the Electrical System, http://www.apollosaturn.com/asnr/power1.htm . This section is about the "Electrical Power System" radiators in your original linked drawing.


The reactants (hydrogen and oxygen) are supplied to the [fuel] cell under regulated pressure (referenced to a nitrogen gas supply which also is used to pressurize the powerplants). Chemical reaction produces electricity, water, and heat, with the reactants being consumed in proportion to the electrical load. The byproducts -- water and heat -- are used to maintain the drinking water supply and to keep the electrolyte at the proper operating temperature. Excess heat is rejected to space through the space radiators. The fuel cell powerplants are located in Sector 4 of the service module.
And under Fuel Cell Powerplants:

Waste heat, transferred to the glycol in the condenser, is transported to the radiators located on the fairing between, the CM and SM, where it is radiated into space. Radiator area is sized to reject the waste heat resulting from operation in the normal power range.

[bolding mine]
Yes, it very clearly states that those radiators are exclusively for the electrical power system fuel cells, and do not control cooling for the rest of the electronics and electrical components within the Service Module or the Command Module. All the panels and switches and systems in the Command Module are cooled via the Environmental Control System radiators.

But you (SAMU) said:

Unless you want to speculate that the electrical cooling capacity was designed to be inadequate and the excess was to be expelled by the environmental cooling system, and that this speculated excess was so excessive that the ship needed an 8 times larger environmental cooling system to handle it, and that when the electicals were for the most part shut down the environmental cooling was not needed at all for absorbed solar and biological heating. But you couldn't say that because then with the environmental cooling system disabled and in fact jetisoned before the electricals were turned back on they should have fried without it.

Which shows how uninformed you are. I don't need to speculate - it is explicitly stated that the electrical power system radiators are only for the fuel cells, and the rest of the electrical components are cooled by the
8 times larger ECS.

And your last statement is even more ignorant. The Service Module is jettisoned right before reentry, and the Command Module system is designed for the limited amount of time without the radiator to handle the heat loads within itself, via the suit cooling system and the water-glycol accumulator tanks (that serve as a heat sink).

So your argument that all the electrical and power systems are cooled via the Electrical Power System radiators was based purely on that one picture and your interpretation of what the labels meant, but in fact it has been shown to be an error on your part. Now do you concede that maybe, just maybe, NASA engineers knew more about it than you do?

Silas
2001-Nov-20, 07:13 PM
Whoa! I actually learned something today! I was thinking they skipped over those numbers, but they were all on the drawing boards at one point. There was even a Saturn 8 considered!

Here's a chart of the whole family:
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/saturnc8.htm

Major league wow! I love it! Thank you!

(Maybe you should change your name to "Successfully To Have Sought"!)

Silas

ToSeek
2001-Nov-20, 07:44 PM
On 2001-11-20 14:13, Silas wrote:

(Maybe you should change your name to "Successfully To Have Sought"!)


But there's always more to seek. The quest never ends! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

J-Man
2001-Nov-20, 09:14 PM
Thermodynamics aside... how about some (il)logical issues?

Nobody has mentioned the number of HAM radio listeners that is cited about other moon hoax theories. Did all the HAM radios get turned off because we made it to the moon twice already? I think not. (No evidence to support my claim at this time.) NASA (and the military) knew that their broadcasts were being listened to, so was all the clamor and commotion simply code?

[sarcastic scenerio]
Astronaut - "Houston we have a problem. We are losing oxygen and the space craft is venting a gas."

Mission control personal thinking to themselves... "Ahh good that means the nuclear payload is in position... just in time too." (speaking) "OK Aquarius (is that the right name?), we want you to shut down the valve on fuel cell 1."

Astronaut thinking - "Ok now, that means detonate the warhead... oh, wait, that means put it on stand-by.... close one there..."
[/sarcastic scenerio]

Also, the conventional media ignored the launch and the first part of the trip (up to the explosion.) Then all the papers, tv and radio stations had constant coverage (pretty much) about the situation. (I believe this claim is justified and can be agreed upon without proof.) I think that the logical course of action in designing a conspiracy would be to call as little attention to yourself as possible. So why invent a "cover story" that all the media will jump on and bring world wide attention to your actions?
I find the 'ol Area 51 stories much more compelling (although unfounded) simply because the military/government keeps it secret. That's the way to perpetrate a real conspiracy, not by telling the world that something very significant and alarming has just happened aboard a spacecraft.

And another thing... If you want someone (especially a large number of people, i.e. the population of the world) to believe a lie, you must present them with convincing data. >IF< 13 was a hoax, why would they tell anyone a temperature inside the spacecraft if they didn't know what it >WOULD< be in the same real circumstances? And if the engineers/designers of the craft and the materials that make the craft didn't know or couldn't compute it, why would SAMMU be able to find their error? And how large is this alleged error? 2 degrees? 10 degrees? 100 degrees? (Centigrade, Farenheiht OR Kelvin.)

The fact is that no one on this board has the data to accuratly compute the thermodynamic properties of the CM, SM, LM or all three connected together. I find the point moot and not derserving of 7+ pages of discussion on albedo and thermodynamics... but please continue as I do find the info interesting.
/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

In addition to my above questions I would like to know
1) What did the military allegedly do? I only recall Samu incinuating that it could be either a spy satellite or a nuclear platform. (It is a very poor conspiracy theory which only states "something happened".)
2) Why? A conventional rocket (one not designed to go to the moon or beyond) is obviously capable to deliver a spy satellite to orbit as has been demonstrated repeatedly. Using a Saturn V for launching a satellite is like taking a helicopter ride to visit your next door neighbor. Keeping a nuclear platform in space is much more costly and bothersome than ballistic missiles on the ground/subs/planes.
3) Why is all NASA material on the design of the spacecraft, valid, but one data point (the internal temperature of the LM/CM) not valid?

I don't really expect answers to any of my questions, but remain hopeful in an attempt.


P.S. There are NO spelling errors in this post... I'm just using a different dialect. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

JayUtah
2001-Nov-20, 10:56 PM
dissipates excessive heat from the cabin and from operating electronic equipment.

Thank goodness at least someone's interested in doing original research.

I was hoping SAMU would discover these on his own, but I guess you've already pointed him there and he just didn't want to go.

The equipment that needed cooling (basically most of it) is mounted on cold plates. Some of it is inside the cabin, some of it is in the bays outside the pressure hull in the lower rim of the command module. Cold plates are structures served by a coolant loop. This same coolant loop can cool the cabin atmosphere.

With the radiators being diametrically opposite, it is possible that one primary panel may face deep space while the other faces the sun, earth, or moon.

We still use the diametrically opposed radiator system today in systems with coolant loops. You pipe the heat from the sunny side to the shady side.

Futhermore, this last paragraph explicitly states that different points on the outside surface will be at different temperatures.

Aw, you gave away the answer to my first question.

Yes, temperature gradients do in fact exist in objects under solar radiation. Why SAMU continues to claim they don't is basically all the proof I need that SAMU doesn't really understand the thermal design of spacecraft.

Maybe when he discovers the definition of "form factor" he'll realize that just because a surface is visible to the sun doesn't mean it receives the full potential radiation from the sun.

Think about the worst case for solar radiation. That's when the tip of the CM is pointing directly at the sun, so that all the upper heat shield is constantly in the sun. But in the Apollo 13 configuration the CM would have been shaded by that gawdawful pig of an LM stuck to the nose. So the worst case can't have arisen for Apollo 13.

Best case, point the SPS at the sun, and the CM is is total darkness all the time.

Average (stationary) case, the sun is off to the side. Then only half the CM is visible to the sun, But since the aspect of the CM presented to the sun changes, the form factor changes. If you were to sample the skin temperature of the CM under this scenario, the hottest point would be the line from apex to base most directly aimed at the sun. The temperature would fall off as you measured around toward the dark side.

So the alleged 250 F temperature only applies to a foot-wide strip of metal most directly presented to the sun. The rest is cooler -- in many cases substantially cooler.

If the incident solar radiation is so great as you presume that it is the main heat load, then why do they need heaters in the cooling system?

In case their engine fails and strands them on the dark side of the moon. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

The ECS was both a heater and an air conditioner, cleverly using the same cabin radiator. As the air circulated, it passed over a radiator which could tap into the ECS coolant flow at different points. If the cabin is too cold, it taps into the coolant loop right after it picks up all the heat from the cold plates and before it goes to the SM radiators. This dumps some of the heat into the cabin air.

If the cabin is too warm, it taps into the coolant loop right after it comes back from the radiators so that some of the heat in the cabin air is pulled into the coolant before it goes to the cold plates. The resulting diminished capacity to cool the electronics is compensated by adjusting coolant flow.

Yes, it very clearly states that those radiators are exclusively for the electrical power system fuel cells, and do not control cooling for the rest of the electronics and electrical components within the Service Module or the Command Module.

SAMU is obviously confused by the nomenclature. The reference I gave provides a high-level description of the system layout in the CSM.

JayUtah
2001-Nov-20, 11:32 PM
I think that the logical course of action in designing a conspiracy would be to call as little attention to yourself as possible.

Most conspiracy theories require the conspirators to act irrationally or stupidly. The whistle-blower hypothesis was formulated precisely because the previous conspiracy theories require NASA to be monumentally inept. The vast number of "anomalies" couldn't be rationally attributed to NASA stupidity, so they had to be attributed to deliberate sabotage of the hoax. Of course, it never crosses the conspiracy theorist's mind that the utter implausibility of his conspiracy theory might be due to there not having been a hoax.

As long as we're talking about direct observation of Apollo 13, there are telescope photos of the Apollo 13 spacecraft near the moon, surrounded by a cloud of debris. Pretty good trick, huh?

If you want someone (...) to believe a lie, you must present them with convincing data.

This is one of many questions I've asked SAMU, and which he has not answered. Does he think the entire repository of the world's rocket scientists was wrapped up in Apollo? There should have been reams of engineers from other countries thinking, "Why is NASA claiming the spacecraft has grown cold? My expertise in thermodynamics suggests it should be warming."

No one except SAMU has challenged NASA's claims regarding the thermal situation on Apollo 13. Is SAMU simply that much smarter than the rest of the world when it comes to thermodynamics.

The fact is that no one on this board has the data to accuratly compute the thermodynamic properties of the CM, SM, LM or all three connected together.

Nor would we want to. Such a computation, accurately computing the thermodyanic properties of the spacecraft as a passive entity, and accounting for reflection, absorption, and emission of radiation, would be an enormous undertaking.

please continue as I do find the info interesting.

I'm trying to sprinkle some general principles of spacecraft design in my rebuttals. I figure you wouldn't necessarily be here if the construction of spacecraft didn't present some degree of passing interest.

I only recall Samu incinuating that it could be either a spy satellite or a nuclear platform.

Spy satellites were routinely sent into orbit disguised as other payloads, or in many cases as secondary payloads. Many a monkey rode into space with a KH-4 or one of its cousins along for the ride. It would be fairly easy and fairly boring to send a spy satellite up with an Apollo mission. You certainly don't need to pre-empt the expected Apollo payload to do it.

An orbital nuclear platform has limited use. Its location in the sky at any one instant would be strictly dictated by orbital mechanics. You'd have to wait as long as 90 minutes to drop a nuke on a bad guy's head. By then it could be all over. If you've already got Titans and Atlases that can be launched in minutes and reach their targets in less than an hour, you have all you need. The only thing you gain from an orbital platform is the illusion of invulnerability. It would be harder, but not impossible, for the Soviets to knock it out of orbit.

Mr. X
2001-Nov-21, 05:18 PM
..but I know the engineers who worked on these spacecraft and can vouch for their credentials and skill.

Could you, you know, maybe, introduce me or something? I'd love to talk with these people! Please? They must easily be in their 70s today so they can't be extra busy, right?

JayUtah
2001-Nov-21, 09:37 PM
Could you, you know, maybe, introduce me or something?

Sure, come to Utah and we'll all have lunch.

Many of them were in their 20s when they worked in the industry so they aren't especially old today. But many have moved on to other interests. Dr. Edgar Thompson, for example, is former chair of the Department of Music at the University of Utah. He worked on the CSM at North American.

ToSeek
2001-Nov-21, 09:42 PM
On 2001-11-21 16:37, JayUtah wrote:
Dr. Edgar Thompson, for example, is former chair of the Department of Music at the University of Utah. He worked on the CSM at North American.



Which eminently qualified him to become a professor of music!? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

Mr. X
2001-Nov-21, 11:05 PM
On 2001-11-21 16:37, JayUtah wrote:
Could you, you know, maybe, introduce me or something?

Sure, come to Utah and we'll all have lunch.

Many of them were in their 20s when they worked in the industry so they aren't especially old today. But many have moved on to other interests. Dr. Edgar Thompson, for example, is former chair of the Department of Music at the University of Utah. He worked on the CSM at North American.

No problem! Although I would prefer on the 'net, but what is done is done, give me some time but I'm going to hold you to that!

JayUtah
2001-Nov-21, 11:33 PM
After leaving NAA he continued his education, obtaining a PhD in Music.

It's actually surprising how many engineering types are attracted to music either as hobbies or as second careers. (I'm also a musician.)

I was touring Europe with Dr. Thompson a few years back and our bus got a flat tire in the backwoods of Switzerland. None of the jacks was of the right dimensions or strength to lift the bus. Our bus driver was at his wit's end before learning that of the 66 occupants of the bus, some two dozen were either practicing engineers, retired engineers, or engineering students.

My butcher used to work for Lockheed. Small world.

Mr. X
2001-Nov-21, 11:50 PM
Go on, what happened with the bus?

JayUtah
2001-Nov-22, 12:04 AM
The Geek Squad rummaged around in the brush and found a set of logs sufficient to lay into a framework upon which the bus could be driven. A ramp of sorts. This allowed us to use one of the jacks since the frame was now high enough to slip the jack underneath. The jack had originally been too tall to fit between the ground and the frame.

Not a very hard problem to solve. The charm of the story lies in having found a bunch of closeted engineers in a very unlikely setting.

Mr. X
2001-Nov-22, 12:21 AM
I wonder... why were the logs there?

I think what helped the most was perhaps that you were 2 dozen people ready to help, you could have been an engineer all you want, but sitting in the bus and looking around wouldn't have gotten you very far!

SAMU
2001-Nov-22, 12:38 AM
Cloud of debris surrounding the spacecraft?

Assuming a minimal impetus of ejection of say 1 mile per hour the debris should have dispersed to a distance of 10 miles in 10 hours. Include course changes of the spacecraft and anyone want to speculate on how the debris continued to remain in the vicinity of the ship in such density as to obscure the navigational 'scope? According to my understanding of celestial mechanics the ship should have been thousands of miles clear of the debris field by the time of the second and third burns.

SAMU

Silas
2001-Nov-22, 12:52 AM
On 2001-11-21 19:04, JayUtah wrote:
The Geek Squad rummaged around in the brush and found a set of logs sufficient to lay into a framework upon which the bus could be driven. A ramp of sorts. This allowed us to use one of the jacks since the frame was now high enough to slip the jack underneath. The jack had originally been too tall to fit between the ground and the frame.

Not a very hard problem to solve. The charm of the story lies in having found a bunch of closeted engineers in a very unlikely setting.



This is wonderfully relevant to Apollo 13: we're a nation of tinkerers, fixers, fiddlers, and gadgeteers. Is there anyone here who *didn't* grow up in a home with a tool drawer? Most of us (yanks) grew up with hammers, screwdrivers, drills, wrenches, etc. For so very, very many of us, our formative memories consist of being little ones, playing with tools alongside papa in his workshop, hammering nails into sawhorses, sawing pieces of scrap lumber, etc.

In WWII, this was one of the keys to our victory: while European troops would wait for the breakdown van to come, we hands-on yanks would try to fix things with baling wire and metal shims.

And, in Apollo 13, the famous air-filter fix is a celebration of our ability to "kludge" things together.

I'll warrant that the bus load of engineers could have been replaced by a bus load of Americans of darn near any stripe, and the same thing would have happened: we'd have gone out, found the logs, found fence posts, found flat rocks, found a castoff trash bin...

It is no coincidence that we love to watch "Junkyard Wars."

And -- again, this is really on topic! -- this strikes at the heart of the question: should we have a manned exploration program or a robot exploration program?

In favor: men can get their hands dirty, can jerry-rig, can put two incongruent parts together and get a working subsystem, whereas a robot cannot.

Against... We place an artificially large value on the lives of our explorers.

(Not to be disrespectful: the death of seven astronauts all but stopped space flight for a number of years... And yet 50,000 of us die on our freeways every year, yet the 55mph speed limit was repealed...)

Miracle: no one has died in "space," but only in launch or re-entry...

And, alas, when that evil day does happen, and an astronaut/cosmonaut/navistella/etc. does die in space... What do you wanna bet there will be people insisting it was a hoax?

Silas...

SAMU
2001-Nov-22, 01:15 AM
As I said the data to compute absobtion/conduction/radiation/is coming in. You will just have to have patience on that. Requested was quantitative data. My calculator is currently programmed with the conductivity proerties of such things as steel, iron, glass, wood, asbestos as well as a number of other elements and substances. I intuitively know from experience that titanium has a conductivity simmilar to steel but what was requested was quantitative numbers and I'll find those as I fimd them.

To Utah I'm not going to answer your questions until you answer mine. Saying you don't have the program doesn't wash. The questions can be answered with calculations on a piece of paper. I'll give you the first one. It doesn't even need a piece of paper.
I accuse you of violating baloney rule #8.

Quote:

"#8. Is the claimant providing an explanation for the observed phenomena or merely denying the existing explanation?
This is a classic debate strategy--criticize your opponent and never affirm what you believe to avoid criticism. It is next to impossible to get creationists to offer an explanation for life (other than "God did it"). Intelligent Design (ID) creationists have done no better, picking away at weaknesses in scientific explanations for difficult problems and offering in their stead "ID did it." This stratagem is unacceptable in science."


The rest should go back and carefully look at the electrical and cooling systems. You've got so many things wrong that I'm not going to go into them.


SAMU

Ian R
2001-Nov-22, 02:35 AM
It is no coincidence that we love to watch "Junkyard Wars."

Ah, yes, but that is a spinoff of an original British TV show called "Scrapheap Challenge." It's presented by Cathy Rogers and Kryten from Red Dwarf.

We Brits love to Bodge!! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Mr. X
2001-Nov-22, 02:49 AM
On 2001-11-21 21:35, Ian R wrote:
We Brits love to Bodge!! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif


Huh?

Silas
2001-Nov-22, 03:33 AM
On 2001-11-21 21:35, Ian R wrote:


It is no coincidence that we love to watch "Junkyard Wars."

Ah, yes, but that is a spinoff of an original British TV show called "Scrapheap Challenge." It's presented by Cathy Rogers and Kryten from Red Dwarf.

We Brits love to Bodge!! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif


Grin! I'll take "bodge" as "tinker," or the like, eh?

I'll confess that much of what I know about British culture came from a big stack of collected "Giles" cartoons from the London Daily Express. My God, what a great political cartoonist! His "family" was completely delightful! And, sure enough, his "family" had a workshop with a lot of household tools! The love of tools is probably a common heritage affair, going back before the Revolutionary War...

Which means, quite simply... Thanks!

Silas

Peter B
2001-Nov-22, 04:15 AM
One one line - about people tinkering - what's to say us Aussies aren't tinkerers either? An Aussie's shed is almost sacred territory, no matter what's in it! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Though the question also has to be asked, "ANY busload?" I'm sure there are plenty of busloads of all sorts of people - Americans, Britons, Australians, whatever - who could sit in a stranded bus like a bunch of gormless idiots, patiently awaiting rescue, or loudly complaining about the quality of bus services these days...

On another line - about leaving the debris cloud behind - I also wonder a bit about any acceleration being likely to leave original debris behind. But I figure if debris is constantly being expelled from the SM, then it'll share the SM's current velocity.

After all, with everything in free fall, and no atmosphere to generate friction, all sorts of rubbish could remain attached to the ruined SM, with a lot less strength than autumn leaves clinging to the branches. All that would be needed to dislodge it would be a slight knock somewhere inside the CM/LM - just enough to loosen that last tie.

Mr. X
2001-Nov-22, 05:35 PM
Though the question also has to be asked, "ANY busload?" I'm sure there are plenty of busloads of all sorts of people - Americans, Britons, Australians, whatever - who could sit in a stranded bus like a bunch of gormless idiots, patiently awaiting rescue, or loudly complaining about the quality of bus services these days...

Any busload of people willing to help! Or able to help. Either way, there's a number of ways to look at a problem, such as the JayUtah way, let's try to be as useful as possible and maybe we can do something with this, or my way, screaming obscenities at everyone, running around, constant pestering (I'm talking about the fact that I can pester and whine for more than 10 hours, non-stop), more obscenities, insults, a non-stop 2 hour feed of yelled profanities in front of children and finally getting a ride in the police car /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif .

Sounds like I have a bad temper, doesn't it? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif Well I do!

Point being, there are some people (me /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif ) to whom the word help never comes to mind in any situation.

Silas
2001-Nov-23, 12:51 AM
On 2001-11-21 23:15, Peter B wrote:
One one line - about people tinkering - what's to say us Aussies aren't tinkerers either? An Aussie's shed is almost sacred territory, no matter what's in it! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif


Well, there ya go! Canadians too: all us descendants of ol' Mama England have the "Tinkering Meme."

(I like the phrase from Slim Dusty, describing Australia as "A nation built by hand.")



On another line - about leaving the debris cloud behind - I also wonder a bit about any acceleration being likely to leave original debris behind. But I figure if debris is constantly being expelled from the SM, then it'll share the SM's current velocity.

After all, with everything in free fall, and no atmosphere to generate friction, all sorts of rubbish could remain attached to the ruined SM, with a lot less strength than autumn leaves clinging to the branches. All that would be needed to dislodge it would be a slight knock somewhere inside the CM/LM - just enough to loosen that last tie.


'Zactly. The debris will move *slowly* away from the craft. Some smaller bits will have been blown well away...but the larger bits will only move away slowly.

With the first real course correction the craft makes, the debris field will continue on in its own separate orbit... Newton's first law...

(The classical gripe about spaceships blowing up in most science fiction on tv and in movies: the ship is moving along swiftly across the screen -- but when it blows up, the explosion is fixed in place on the screen. NOPE!)

Silas

Trish
2001-Nov-23, 10:11 AM
Sorry I've been away from the BB so long (5 days), but my father died on Sunday.

I'm going to offer an explanation to SAMU of why his *diagram* is not the thing to be using when trying to figure out the cooling system for Apollo.

First, it's a general diagram rendering by a technical illustrator. This was probably put together to show the general location and give a general lay explanation of the composition of the CSM/LM.

Second, this is not an engineers, drafters, or designers 2D orthoganal projection (engineering drawing). That would, in great detail, show the potential interconnectivity of the system. It also does not specifically show the individual components - just touches on the main components of the system in the most general of manners.

A tech illustrator may or may not have a background in drafting - tho it is helpful. Please remember a drawing of this type is extremely general in nature and not necessarily held to the rigorous standards to which engineering drawings (bluelines) are held. This drawing briefly touches on major components only and does not show how the system is set up nor does it explain the inner workings of any system. For that you would need a diagram showing the specific wiring and tubing requirements for the system. Then you need to know how to read the engineering diagram properly.

Additionally, SAMU I think you need read the #8 item from Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit again. It appears to me that you are the one offering an explanation that goes against the currently accepted and therefore you are the one required to provide the proof of your position - not the other way round.

My 2 cents.

(Correcting my bad typing)
_________________
Time crumbles things; everything grows old under the power of Time and is forgotten through the lapse of Time.
~Aristotle

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Trish on 2001-11-23 05:13 ]</font>

SAMU
2001-Nov-23, 11:38 PM
My experince in the aerospace industry has included the oppetunity to work from "bluelines" (although they're black and white now) of large air and spacecraft. The drawing is besides being available is in my opinion accurate for the purpose of comparativly estimating respective electrical and environmental heat loads.

The baloney rule violation refers to Jay Utah's assertion that a strategy using thermodynamic calculation will indicate a tempreture lower than the comparative strategy. He demands both quantitative data from me and proof of my ability to interpret it. He claimes expertise in thermodynamics but he doesn't do the calculation himself nor provide interpretations which can be scrutinized. The violation

Quote:

"is a classic debate strategy--criticize your opponent and never affirm what you believe to avoid criticism."

My presentation of comparative data points is not at present numerous enough to be conclusive. If they were you'd be reading this in the New York Times.

I have been providing all data points available not just the ones that support a higher tempreture expectation. I have not found data points supporting the lower tempreture asserted by NASA.

The thermodynamic calculation strategy is a challenging one that could support either a low or a high tempreture expectation. It is challange I have not shirked and it is the only appropriate test of thermodynamic expertise in this discussion. You can be assured that any relevant data available will be posted to this thread.

Trish

Quote:

" It appears to me that you are the one offering an explanation that goes against the currently accepted and therefore you are the one required to provide the proof of your position - not the other way round."

The "currently accepted" explanation is not an explanation at all. It is an assertion By genericly NASA that the tempreture of 13 fell specificly to 38 degrees.

Any relevant data supporting either a high or a low temreture expectation is welcome to this thread.

If "The Apollo 13 Story" was a science fiction movie, and you were looking for "movie mistakes" what would you find?

SAMU

Trish
2001-Nov-24, 11:02 AM
"#8. Is the claimant providing an explanation for the observed phenomena or merely denying the existing explanation?

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/Academy/History/APOLLO-13/mission-report.html

Excerpt:

The ride home was a cold one. With the systems in the CM shut down, there was no internal heat source to maintain cabin temperatures. The inert CM settled to a level of 38 degrees F, so cold that the crew stopped using the couches for their sleep periods. They made makeshift beds in the LM, which was warmer than the CM but still uncomfortable. Worse than the discomfort, the cold prevented them from resting well, and Mission Control was concerned that fatigue might impair their ability to function.

http://www.ksc.nasa.gov/history/apollo/apollo-13/apollo-13.html

Excerpt:

The trip was marked by discomfort beyond the lack of food and water. Sleep was almost impossible because of the cold. When the electrical systems were turned off, the spacecraft lost and important source of heat. The temperature dropped to 38 F and condensation formed on all the walls.


My experince in the aerospace industry has included the oppetunity to work from "bluelines" (although they're black and white now) of large air and spacecraft. The drawing is besides being available is in my opinion accurate for the purpose of comparativly estimating respective electrical and environmental heat loads.

How do you get this from a general diagram? There is nothing there to suggest any engineering regarding electrical or environmental heat loads. It only shows the major components.


The baloney rule violation refers to Jay Utah's assertion that a strategy using thermodynamic calculation will indicate a tempreture lower than the comparative strategy. He demands both quantitative data from me and proof of my ability to interpret it. He claimes expertise in thermodynamics but he doesn't do the calculation himself nor provide interpretations which can be scrutinized. The violation [emphasis mine]

Comparative strategy? It has been pointed out you are comparing a dark absorbtive object with a highly reflective object. Here's a suggestion (since it's winter it should work fairly well) take two tubes (Fed Ex round kind will work fairly well) and paint the interiors of both black, now paint the exterior of one black and the exterior of the other silver. Place outside in temperature approximately 30°F will work. Place an ice cube in each tube - which ice cube melts and why?

The one in the black because it's absorbing heat and the one in the silver tube should melt more slowly since the tube is more reflective.


My presentation of comparative data points is not at present numerous enough to be conclusive. If they were you'd be reading this in the New York Times.

I have been providing all data points available not just the ones that support a higher tempreture expectation. I have not found data points supporting the lower tempreture asserted by NASA.

The thermodynamic calculation strategy is a challenging one that could support either a low or a high tempreture expectation. It is challange I have not shirked and it is the only appropriate test of thermodynamic expertise in this discussion. You can be assured that any relevant data available will be posted to this thread.

He is requesting that you perform a function that is well known within the scientific/engineering community to be a close approximation for figuring the rate of heat transfer by an object. This is the accepted method. Your comparative strategy would require that you use a replica of the Apollo CSM/LM under the same environmental conditions as Apollo 13. You don't have access to that type of comparison. Until you do your comparative strategy is seriously flawed.

Question - Are you capable of the calculations required by thermodynamics?

(apologies - but bad form)
_________________
Time crumbles things; everything grows old under the power of Time and is forgotten through the lapse of Time.
~Aristotle

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Trish on 2001-11-24 06:04 ]</font>

SAMU
2001-Nov-24, 01:41 PM
Quote:
"Comparative strategy? It has been pointed out you are comparing a dark absorbtive object with a highly reflective object."

We are comparing it to any objets in or near translunar space who's thermal activities have been recorded and are available.

Quote:
"Your comparative strategy would require that you use a replica of the Apollo CSM/LM under the same environmental conditions as Apollo 13. You don't have access to that type of comparison."

We do have access to a variety of other structures and substances in substantialy simmilar circustances which despite their differences support an expectation of higher tempreture for 13 than the one reported. Do you have data points supporting the tempreture reported by "13" other than the reports of "13" itself?

Just for fun if any of you would like to play thermodynamics, here are some figures for you to play with.

Thermal conductivity at 20*C. of
steel: 314.4 Btu.in/hr sq.ft.F
Iron: 468 Btu.in/hr sq.ft.F
gold: 2028 Btu.in/hr sq.ft.F

Of course steel is not titanium and the Apollo 13 spacecraft was insulated, geometricaly complex and partialy reflective thus making for a challenging(hint) mathematics and research exercise.

SAMU

Question:
How many LMs are still up there in similar circumstances ie powerdown and un heated/cooled and in sunlight for substatial periods. I count possibly 3. Is there a way to determine their current tempretures possibly via infrared telescopy or even easier an examination of telemetry collected after shutdown and discardment, if available, as mentioned in Lovell's essay. Would that be a fair comparative data point for 13?



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SAMU on 2001-11-24 10:48 ]</font>

TinFoilHat
2001-Nov-24, 03:45 PM
Quote:
How many LMs are still up there in simmilar circumstances ie powerdown and un heated/cooled and in sunlight for substatial periods.

None. The combination of the Earth's gravity and the Moon's lumpy composition means that orbits around the Moon are not long-term stable. All of the lunar ascent stages have long since crashed into the moon.

SAMU
2001-Nov-24, 03:57 PM
Most of the LMs crashed into the moon long ago not because of orbital instability but because they were deliberately crashed. The Eagle was left in a lunar orbit and the LM of Apollo 10 was also left in lunar orbit. But presuming that they have crashed that still leaves the LM from Apollo 9 in earth orbit unless it was deliberatly crashed as well. It also leaves their telemetry at least of Eagle that was mentioned in Lovell's essay. Although the mention was of a power on computer in a cooling system off situation and could and likely did overheat from it's own exertions. The rest of the telemetry should exist somewhere.

I will continue my research and let you know.

SAMU

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SAMU on 2001-11-24 11:13 ]</font>

SAMU
2001-Nov-24, 04:56 PM
Want to run into a lot of NASA security to get telemetry info. click here.

http://tel.jpl.nasa.gov/~betsy/mm/mmug.htm#label_2

Anyone have a JPL security clearance?

SAMU

The Bad Astronomer
2001-Nov-24, 05:04 PM
On 2001-11-24 08:41, SAMU wrote:

Thermal conductivity at 20*C. of
steel: 314.4 Btu.in/hr sq.ft.F
Iron: 468 Btu.in/hr sq.ft.F
gold: 2028 Btu.in/hr sq.ft.F



The issue here is not conductivity, nor has it ever been. It's radiative emissivity, and has been discussed many, many times in this thread, that depends on a lot of varying factors.

I have been watching this thread for a while now, and believe that we have reached the point of diminishing returns. There has been no new information in a long time, and from past experience I don't believe there will be. I am closing this thread.