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.

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.

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.

"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.

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).

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

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

__________________
Valiant Dancer

Here are some stats for skylab.

http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/h...ht-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.h...emperature.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>

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.

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 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

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>

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-(

__________________
Two years ago moved from my town
I was looking up past the city lights
But the city lights got in my way

See the constellation ride across the sky
No cigar, no lady on his arm
Just a guy made of dots and lines

-from "See The Constellation"
by They Might Be Giants

Does this sentence make any sense to anyone else?

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?

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?


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.

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?

__________________
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." [Carl Sagan]

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.

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

__________________
Phil Plait
The Bad Astronomer
http://www.badastronomy.com
badastro@badastronomy.com

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>

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.

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.

__________________
Valiant Dancer

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>

Then you've obviously never been to a Navy or AF Tech school.
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

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.

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>

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>

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.

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

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>