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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree. The Vietnam vet comment was a despicable, cheep shot. I am ashamed I wrote it.

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

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

Sincerely
SAMU

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

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



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

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

__________________
Time crumbles things; everything grows old under the power of Time and is forgotten through the lapse of Time.
~Aristotle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PHEW!!! That’s the simple explanation.


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

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

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

SAMU: But it does tell you somthing about fruit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

SAMU: NASA just kept their mouths shut.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SAMU:Proves nothing, supports my man supports.

I don't understand this sentence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Your cover-up hypothesis is implausible.

3. Your methodology is ad hoc and amateur.


SAMU
[/quote]

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

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

__________________
Valiant Dancer

SAMU: I was hoping to avoid this because a simple explanation of a complex subject is open to multitudes of oppositions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Many of us aren't laymen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pardon me while I laugh.

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

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

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

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

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

What environments are you talking about?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grin!

Silas

SAMU,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why would it need subatomic physics? Seems like thermodynamics is the key here.

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

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

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

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

Thermodynamics 101

Heat always flows from high to low.

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




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

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

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

Utah,

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

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

This is just one of the latest of too many.

Utah
Quote:

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

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

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

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


SAMU



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

Trish,

About your message.

Quote:

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

Which one was your favorite?

SAMU

SAMU

I asked this a couple of days ago...

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