Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 210

Thread: Apollo 13 Hoax?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    624
    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

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    143
    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.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    624
    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>

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    143
    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>

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    624
    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

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,227
    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.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    6,275
    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.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,677
    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". [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_evil.gif[/img] Grrr! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_evil.gif[/img]) This DVD is one of those I intend to buy for myself as soon as I can. I highly reccommend it.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    624
    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

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    1,896
    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.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    624
    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>

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    7,732
    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>

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    6,275
    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>

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    164
    ...Apollo 12 was struck by lightning...
    Did this happen during the launch into space or during re-entry and/or landing?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    6,275
    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!

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    624
    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



  17. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    624
    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/Hi...rams/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/...tationCool.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/factshee...apubs/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>

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    3,011
    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>

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,227
    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.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    79
    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. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif[/img]

    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

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    624
    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

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    624
    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

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    624
    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/Hi...rams/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>

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    7,732
    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.


  25. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    618
    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.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    164
    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.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    6,275
    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.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    14
    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>

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    3,011
    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.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    325

    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.

Similar Threads

  1. "Apollo Moon Hoax" Hoax Planetarium Show - Boulder, CO
    By stu in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 2008-Apr-17, 12:55 AM
  2. Apollo 17 hoax
    By MG1962A in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 2007-Mar-10, 02:01 PM
  3. Apollo Hoax Investigation
    By J-Fire_Man in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 2004-Aug-24, 11:15 PM
  4. Apollo Hoax FAQ
    By ToSeek in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 2003-Jun-05, 12:36 AM
  5. why an apollo hoax?
    By overrated in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 2002-Aug-15, 05:35 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •