Major league wow! I love it! Thank you!

(Maybe you should change your name to "Successfully To Have Sought"!)

Silas

But there's always more to seek. The quest never ends! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Thermodynamics aside... how about some (il)logical issues?

Nobody has mentioned the number of HAM radio listeners that is cited about other moon hoax theories. Did all the HAM radios get turned off because we made it to the moon twice already? I think not. (No evidence to support my claim at this time.) NASA (and the military) knew that their broadcasts were being listened to, so was all the clamor and commotion simply code?

[sarcastic scenerio]
Astronaut - "Houston we have a problem. We are losing oxygen and the space craft is venting a gas."

Mission control personal thinking to themselves... "Ahh good that means the nuclear payload is in position... just in time too." (speaking) "OK Aquarius (is that the right name?), we want you to shut down the valve on fuel cell 1."

Astronaut thinking - "Ok now, that means detonate the warhead... oh, wait, that means put it on stand-by.... close one there..."
[/sarcastic scenerio]

Also, the conventional media ignored the launch and the first part of the trip (up to the explosion.) Then all the papers, tv and radio stations had constant coverage (pretty much) about the situation. (I believe this claim is justified and can be agreed upon without proof.) I think that the logical course of action in designing a conspiracy would be to call as little attention to yourself as possible. So why invent a "cover story" that all the media will jump on and bring world wide attention to your actions?
I find the 'ol Area 51 stories much more compelling (although unfounded) simply because the military/government keeps it secret. That's the way to perpetrate a real conspiracy, not by telling the world that something very significant and alarming has just happened aboard a spacecraft.

And another thing... If you want someone (especially a large number of people, i.e. the population of the world) to believe a lie, you must present them with convincing data. >IF< 13 was a hoax, why would they tell anyone a temperature inside the spacecraft if they didn't know what it >WOULD< be in the same real circumstances? And if the engineers/designers of the craft and the materials that make the craft didn't know or couldn't compute it, why would SAMMU be able to find their error? And how large is this alleged error? 2 degrees? 10 degrees? 100 degrees? (Centigrade, Farenheiht OR Kelvin.)

The fact is that no one on this board has the data to accuratly compute the thermodynamic properties of the CM, SM, LM or all three connected together. I find the point moot and not derserving of 7+ pages of discussion on albedo and thermodynamics... but please continue as I do find the info interesting.
[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

In addition to my above questions I would like to know
1) What did the military allegedly do? I only recall Samu incinuating that it could be either a spy satellite or a nuclear platform. (It is a very poor conspiracy theory which only states "something happened".)
2) Why? A conventional rocket (one not designed to go to the moon or beyond) is obviously capable to deliver a spy satellite to orbit as has been demonstrated repeatedly. Using a Saturn V for launching a satellite is like taking a helicopter ride to visit your next door neighbor. Keeping a nuclear platform in space is much more costly and bothersome than ballistic missiles on the ground/subs/planes.
3) Why is all NASA material on the design of the spacecraft, valid, but one data point (the internal temperature of the LM/CM) not valid?

I don't really expect answers to any of my questions, but remain hopeful in an attempt.


P.S. There are NO spelling errors in this post... I'm just using a different dialect. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

dissipates excessive heat from the cabin and from operating electronic equipment.

Thank goodness at least someone's interested in doing original research.

I was hoping SAMU would discover these on his own, but I guess you've already pointed him there and he just didn't want to go.

The equipment that needed cooling (basically most of it) is mounted on cold plates. Some of it is inside the cabin, some of it is in the bays outside the pressure hull in the lower rim of the command module. Cold plates are structures served by a coolant loop. This same coolant loop can cool the cabin atmosphere.

With the radiators being diametrically opposite, it is possible that one primary panel may face deep space while the other faces the sun, earth, or moon.

We still use the diametrically opposed radiator system today in systems with coolant loops. You pipe the heat from the sunny side to the shady side.

Futhermore, this last paragraph explicitly states that different points on the outside surface will be at different temperatures.

Aw, you gave away the answer to my first question.

Yes, temperature gradients do in fact exist in objects under solar radiation. Why SAMU continues to claim they don't is basically all the proof I need that SAMU doesn't really understand the thermal design of spacecraft.

Maybe when he discovers the definition of "form factor" he'll realize that just because a surface is visible to the sun doesn't mean it receives the full potential radiation from the sun.

Think about the worst case for solar radiation. That's when the tip of the CM is pointing directly at the sun, so that all the upper heat shield is constantly in the sun. But in the Apollo 13 configuration the CM would have been shaded by that gawdawful pig of an LM stuck to the nose. So the worst case can't have arisen for Apollo 13.

Best case, point the SPS at the sun, and the CM is is total darkness all the time.

Average (stationary) case, the sun is off to the side. Then only half the CM is visible to the sun, But since the aspect of the CM presented to the sun changes, the form factor changes. If you were to sample the skin temperature of the CM under this scenario, the hottest point would be the line from apex to base most directly aimed at the sun. The temperature would fall off as you measured around toward the dark side.

So the alleged 250 F temperature only applies to a foot-wide strip of metal most directly presented to the sun. The rest is cooler -- in many cases substantially cooler.

If the incident solar radiation is so great as you presume that it is the main heat load, then why do they need heaters in the cooling system?

In case their engine fails and strands them on the dark side of the moon. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

The ECS was both a heater and an air conditioner, cleverly using the same cabin radiator. As the air circulated, it passed over a radiator which could tap into the ECS coolant flow at different points. If the cabin is too cold, it taps into the coolant loop right after it picks up all the heat from the cold plates and before it goes to the SM radiators. This dumps some of the heat into the cabin air.

If the cabin is too warm, it taps into the coolant loop right after it comes back from the radiators so that some of the heat in the cabin air is pulled into the coolant before it goes to the cold plates. The resulting diminished capacity to cool the electronics is compensated by adjusting coolant flow.

Yes, it very clearly states that those radiators are exclusively for the electrical power system fuel cells, and do not control cooling for the rest of the electronics and electrical components within the Service Module or the Command Module.

SAMU is obviously confused by the nomenclature. The reference I gave provides a high-level description of the system layout in the CSM.

I think that the logical course of action in designing a conspiracy would be to call as little attention to yourself as possible.

Most conspiracy theories require the conspirators to act irrationally or stupidly. The whistle-blower hypothesis was formulated precisely because the previous conspiracy theories require NASA to be monumentally inept. The vast number of "anomalies" couldn't be rationally attributed to NASA stupidity, so they had to be attributed to deliberate sabotage of the hoax. Of course, it never crosses the conspiracy theorist's mind that the utter implausibility of his conspiracy theory might be due to there not having been a hoax.

As long as we're talking about direct observation of Apollo 13, there are telescope photos of the Apollo 13 spacecraft near the moon, surrounded by a cloud of debris. Pretty good trick, huh?

If you want someone (...) to believe a lie, you must present them with convincing data.

This is one of many questions I've asked SAMU, and which he has not answered. Does he think the entire repository of the world's rocket scientists was wrapped up in Apollo? There should have been reams of engineers from other countries thinking, "Why is NASA claiming the spacecraft has grown cold? My expertise in thermodynamics suggests it should be warming."

No one except SAMU has challenged NASA's claims regarding the thermal situation on Apollo 13. Is SAMU simply that much smarter than the rest of the world when it comes to thermodynamics.

The fact is that no one on this board has the data to accuratly compute the thermodynamic properties of the CM, SM, LM or all three connected together.

Nor would we want to. Such a computation, accurately computing the thermodyanic properties of the spacecraft as a passive entity, and accounting for reflection, absorption, and emission of radiation, would be an enormous undertaking.

please continue as I do find the info interesting.

I'm trying to sprinkle some general principles of spacecraft design in my rebuttals. I figure you wouldn't necessarily be here if the construction of spacecraft didn't present some degree of passing interest.

I only recall Samu incinuating that it could be either a spy satellite or a nuclear platform.

Spy satellites were routinely sent into orbit disguised as other payloads, or in many cases as secondary payloads. Many a monkey rode into space with a KH-4 or one of its cousins along for the ride. It would be fairly easy and fairly boring to send a spy satellite up with an Apollo mission. You certainly don't need to pre-empt the expected Apollo payload to do it.

An orbital nuclear platform has limited use. Its location in the sky at any one instant would be strictly dictated by orbital mechanics. You'd have to wait as long as 90 minutes to drop a nuke on a bad guy's head. By then it could be all over. If you've already got Titans and Atlases that can be launched in minutes and reach their targets in less than an hour, you have all you need. The only thing you gain from an orbital platform is the illusion of invulnerability. It would be harder, but not impossible, for the Soviets to knock it out of orbit.

Could you, you know, maybe, introduce me or something? I'd love to talk with these people! Please? They must easily be in their 70s today so they can't be extra busy, right?

Could you, you know, maybe, introduce me or something?

Sure, come to Utah and we'll all have lunch.

Many of them were in their 20s when they worked in the industry so they aren't especially old today. But many have moved on to other interests. Dr. Edgar Thompson, for example, is former chair of the Department of Music at the University of Utah. He worked on the CSM at North American.

Which eminently qualified him to become a professor of music!? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

No problem! Although I would prefer on the 'net, but what is done is done, give me some time but I'm going to hold you to that!

After leaving NAA he continued his education, obtaining a PhD in Music.

It's actually surprising how many engineering types are attracted to music either as hobbies or as second careers. (I'm also a musician.)

I was touring Europe with Dr. Thompson a few years back and our bus got a flat tire in the backwoods of Switzerland. None of the jacks was of the right dimensions or strength to lift the bus. Our bus driver was at his wit's end before learning that of the 66 occupants of the bus, some two dozen were either practicing engineers, retired engineers, or engineering students.

My butcher used to work for Lockheed. Small world.

Go on, what happened with the bus?

The Geek Squad rummaged around in the brush and found a set of logs sufficient to lay into a framework upon which the bus could be driven. A ramp of sorts. This allowed us to use one of the jacks since the frame was now high enough to slip the jack underneath. The jack had originally been too tall to fit between the ground and the frame.

Not a very hard problem to solve. The charm of the story lies in having found a bunch of closeted engineers in a very unlikely setting.

I wonder... why were the logs there?

I think what helped the most was perhaps that you were 2 dozen people ready to help, you could have been an engineer all you want, but sitting in the bus and looking around wouldn't have gotten you very far!

Cloud of debris surrounding the spacecraft?

Assuming a minimal impetus of ejection of say 1 mile per hour the debris should have dispersed to a distance of 10 miles in 10 hours. Include course changes of the spacecraft and anyone want to speculate on how the debris continued to remain in the vicinity of the ship in such density as to obscure the navigational 'scope? According to my understanding of celestial mechanics the ship should have been thousands of miles clear of the debris field by the time of the second and third burns.

SAMU

This is wonderfully relevant to Apollo 13: we're a nation of tinkerers, fixers, fiddlers, and gadgeteers. Is there anyone here who *didn't* grow up in a home with a tool drawer? Most of us (yanks) grew up with hammers, screwdrivers, drills, wrenches, etc. For so very, very many of us, our formative memories consist of being little ones, playing with tools alongside papa in his workshop, hammering nails into sawhorses, sawing pieces of scrap lumber, etc.

In WWII, this was one of the keys to our victory: while European troops would wait for the breakdown van to come, we hands-on yanks would try to fix things with baling wire and metal shims.

And, in Apollo 13, the famous air-filter fix is a celebration of our ability to "kludge" things together.

I'll warrant that the bus load of engineers could have been replaced by a bus load of Americans of darn near any stripe, and the same thing would have happened: we'd have gone out, found the logs, found fence posts, found flat rocks, found a castoff trash bin...

It is no coincidence that we love to watch "Junkyard Wars."

And -- again, this is really on topic! -- this strikes at the heart of the question: should we have a manned exploration program or a robot exploration program?

In favor: men can get their hands dirty, can jerry-rig, can put two incongruent parts together and get a working subsystem, whereas a robot cannot.

Against... We place an artificially large value on the lives of our explorers.

(Not to be disrespectful: the death of seven astronauts all but stopped space flight for a number of years... And yet 50,000 of us die on our freeways every year, yet the 55mph speed limit was repealed...)

Miracle: no one has died in "space," but only in launch or re-entry...

And, alas, when that evil day does happen, and an astronaut/cosmonaut/navistella/etc. does die in space... What do you wanna bet there will be people insisting it was a hoax?

Silas...

As I said the data to compute absobtion/conduction/radiation/is coming in. You will just have to have patience on that. Requested was quantitative data. My calculator is currently programmed with the conductivity proerties of such things as steel, iron, glass, wood, asbestos as well as a number of other elements and substances. I intuitively know from experience that titanium has a conductivity simmilar to steel but what was requested was quantitative numbers and I'll find those as I fimd them.

To Utah I'm not going to answer your questions until you answer mine. Saying you don't have the program doesn't wash. The questions can be answered with calculations on a piece of paper. I'll give you the first one. It doesn't even need a piece of paper.
I accuse you of violating baloney rule #8.

Quote:

"#8. Is the claimant providing an explanation for the observed phenomena or merely denying the existing explanation?
This is a classic debate strategy--criticize your opponent and never affirm what you believe to avoid criticism. It is next to impossible to get creationists to offer an explanation for life (other than "God did it"). Intelligent Design (ID) creationists have done no better, picking away at weaknesses in scientific explanations for difficult problems and offering in their stead "ID did it." This stratagem is unacceptable in science."


The rest should go back and carefully look at the electrical and cooling systems. You've got so many things wrong that I'm not going to go into them.


SAMU

Ah, yes, but that is a spinoff of an original British TV show called "Scrapheap Challenge." It's presented by Cathy Rogers and Kryten from Red Dwarf.

We Brits love to Bodge!! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Huh?

Grin! I'll take "bodge" as "tinker," or the like, eh?

I'll confess that much of what I know about British culture came from a big stack of collected "Giles" cartoons from the London Daily Express. My God, what a great political cartoonist! His "family" was completely delightful! And, sure enough, his "family" had a workshop with a lot of household tools! The love of tools is probably a common heritage affair, going back before the Revolutionary War...

Which means, quite simply... Thanks!

Silas

One one line - about people tinkering - what's to say us Aussies aren't tinkerers either? An Aussie's shed is almost sacred territory, no matter what's in it! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Though the question also has to be asked, "ANY busload?" I'm sure there are plenty of busloads of all sorts of people - Americans, Britons, Australians, whatever - who could sit in a stranded bus like a bunch of gormless idiots, patiently awaiting rescue, or loudly complaining about the quality of bus services these days...

On another line - about leaving the debris cloud behind - I also wonder a bit about any acceleration being likely to leave original debris behind. But I figure if debris is constantly being expelled from the SM, then it'll share the SM's current velocity.

After all, with everything in free fall, and no atmosphere to generate friction, all sorts of rubbish could remain attached to the ruined SM, with a lot less strength than autumn leaves clinging to the branches. All that would be needed to dislodge it would be a slight knock somewhere inside the CM/LM - just enough to loosen that last tie.

Any busload of people willing to help! Or able to help. Either way, there's a number of ways to look at a problem, such as the JayUtah way, let's try to be as useful as possible and maybe we can do something with this, or my way, screaming obscenities at everyone, running around, constant pestering (I'm talking about the fact that I can pester and whine for more than 10 hours, non-stop), more obscenities, insults, a non-stop 2 hour feed of yelled profanities in front of children and finally getting a ride in the police car [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] .

Sounds like I have a bad temper, doesn't it? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] Well I do!

Point being, there are some people (me [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] ) to whom the word help never comes to mind in any situation.

Well, there ya go! Canadians too: all us descendants of ol' Mama England have the "Tinkering Meme."

(I like the phrase from Slim Dusty, describing Australia as "A nation built by hand.")

'Zactly. The debris will move *slowly* away from the craft. Some smaller bits will have been blown well away...but the larger bits will only move away slowly.

With the first real course correction the craft makes, the debris field will continue on in its own separate orbit... Newton's first law...

(The classical gripe about spaceships blowing up in most science fiction on tv and in movies: the ship is moving along swiftly across the screen -- but when it blows up, the explosion is fixed in place on the screen. NOPE!)

Silas

Sorry I've been away from the BB so long (5 days), but my father died on Sunday.

I'm going to offer an explanation to SAMU of why his *diagram* is not the thing to be using when trying to figure out the cooling system for Apollo.

First, it's a general diagram rendering by a technical illustrator. This was probably put together to show the general location and give a general lay explanation of the composition of the CSM/LM.

Second, this is not an engineers, drafters, or designers 2D orthoganal projection (engineering drawing). That would, in great detail, show the potential interconnectivity of the system. It also does not specifically show the individual components - just touches on the main components of the system in the most general of manners.

A tech illustrator may or may not have a background in drafting - tho it is helpful. Please remember a drawing of this type is extremely general in nature and not necessarily held to the rigorous standards to which engineering drawings (bluelines) are held. This drawing briefly touches on major components only and does not show how the system is set up nor does it explain the inner workings of any system. For that you would need a diagram showing the specific wiring and tubing requirements for the system. Then you need to know how to read the engineering diagram properly.

Additionally, SAMU I think you need read the #8 item from Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit again. It appears to me that you are the one offering an explanation that goes against the currently accepted and therefore you are the one required to provide the proof of your position - not the other way round.

My 2 cents.

(Correcting my bad typing)
_________________
Time crumbles things; everything grows old under the power of Time and is forgotten through the lapse of Time.
~Aristotle

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Trish on 2001-11-23 05:13 ]</font>

My experince in the aerospace industry has included the oppetunity to work from "bluelines" (although they're black and white now) of large air and spacecraft. The drawing is besides being available is in my opinion accurate for the purpose of comparativly estimating respective electrical and environmental heat loads.

The baloney rule violation refers to Jay Utah's assertion that a strategy using thermodynamic calculation will indicate a tempreture lower than the comparative strategy. He demands both quantitative data from me and proof of my ability to interpret it. He claimes expertise in thermodynamics but he doesn't do the calculation himself nor provide interpretations which can be scrutinized. The violation

Quote:

"is a classic debate strategy--criticize your opponent and never affirm what you believe to avoid criticism."

My presentation of comparative data points is not at present numerous enough to be conclusive. If they were you'd be reading this in the New York Times.

I have been providing all data points available not just the ones that support a higher tempreture expectation. I have not found data points supporting the lower tempreture asserted by NASA.

The thermodynamic calculation strategy is a challenging one that could support either a low or a high tempreture expectation. It is challange I have not shirked and it is the only appropriate test of thermodynamic expertise in this discussion. You can be assured that any relevant data available will be posted to this thread.

Trish

Quote:

" It appears to me that you are the one offering an explanation that goes against the currently accepted and therefore you are the one required to provide the proof of your position - not the other way round."

The "currently accepted" explanation is not an explanation at all. It is an assertion By genericly NASA that the tempreture of 13 fell specificly to 38 degrees.

Any relevant data supporting either a high or a low temreture expectation is welcome to this thread.

If "The Apollo 13 Story" was a science fiction movie, and you were looking for "movie mistakes" what would you find?

SAMU

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/Academy...on-report.html

Excerpt:
http://www.ksc.nasa.gov/history/apol...apollo-13.html

Excerpt:
How do you get this from a general diagram? There is nothing there to suggest any engineering regarding electrical or environmental heat loads. It only shows the major components.

[emphasis mine]

Comparative strategy? It has been pointed out you are comparing a dark absorbtive object with a highly reflective object. Here's a suggestion (since it's winter it should work fairly well) take two tubes (Fed Ex round kind will work fairly well) and paint the interiors of both black, now paint the exterior of one black and the exterior of the other silver. Place outside in temperature approximately 30°F will work. Place an ice cube in each tube - which ice cube melts and why?

The one in the black because it's absorbing heat and the one in the silver tube should melt more slowly since the tube is more reflective.

He is requesting that you perform a function that is well known within the scientific/engineering community to be a close approximation for figuring the rate of heat transfer by an object. This is the accepted method. Your comparative strategy would require that you use a replica of the Apollo CSM/LM under the same environmental conditions as Apollo 13. You don't have access to that type of comparison. Until you do your comparative strategy is seriously flawed.

Question - Are you capable of the calculations required by thermodynamics?

(apologies - but bad form)
_________________
Time crumbles things; everything grows old under the power of Time and is forgotten through the lapse of Time.
~Aristotle

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Trish on 2001-11-24 06:04 ]</font>

Quote:
"Comparative strategy? It has been pointed out you are comparing a dark absorbtive object with a highly reflective object."

We are comparing it to any objets in or near translunar space who's thermal activities have been recorded and are available.

Quote:
"Your comparative strategy would require that you use a replica of the Apollo CSM/LM under the same environmental conditions as Apollo 13. You don't have access to that type of comparison."

We do have access to a variety of other structures and substances in substantialy simmilar circustances which despite their differences support an expectation of higher tempreture for 13 than the one reported. Do you have data points supporting the tempreture reported by "13" other than the reports of "13" itself?

Just for fun if any of you would like to play thermodynamics, here are some figures for you to play with.

Thermal conductivity at 20*C. of
steel: 314.4 Btu.in/hr sq.ft.F
Iron: 468 Btu.in/hr sq.ft.F
gold: 2028 Btu.in/hr sq.ft.F

Of course steel is not titanium and the Apollo 13 spacecraft was insulated, geometricaly complex and partialy reflective thus making for a challenging(hint) mathematics and research exercise.

SAMU

Question:
How many LMs are still up there in similar circumstances ie powerdown and un heated/cooled and in sunlight for substatial periods. I count possibly 3. Is there a way to determine their current tempretures possibly via infrared telescopy or even easier an examination of telemetry collected after shutdown and discardment, if available, as mentioned in Lovell's essay. Would that be a fair comparative data point for 13?



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SAMU on 2001-11-24 10:48 ]</font>

None. The combination of the Earth's gravity and the Moon's lumpy composition means that orbits around the Moon are not long-term stable. All of the lunar ascent stages have long since crashed into the moon.

Most of the LMs crashed into the moon long ago not because of orbital instability but because they were deliberately crashed. The Eagle was left in a lunar orbit and the LM of Apollo 10 was also left in lunar orbit. But presuming that they have crashed that still leaves the LM from Apollo 9 in earth orbit unless it was deliberatly crashed as well. It also leaves their telemetry at least of Eagle that was mentioned in Lovell's essay. Although the mention was of a power on computer in a cooling system off situation and could and likely did overheat from it's own exertions. The rest of the telemetry should exist somewhere.

I will continue my research and let you know.

SAMU

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SAMU on 2001-11-24 11:13 ]</font>

Want to run into a lot of NASA security to get telemetry info. click here.

http://tel.jpl.nasa.gov/~betsy/mm/mmug.htm#label_2

Anyone have a JPL security clearance?

SAMU

The issue here is not conductivity, nor has it ever been. It's radiative emissivity, and has been discussed many, many times in this thread, that depends on a lot of varying factors.

I have been watching this thread for a while now, and believe that we have reached the point of diminishing returns. There has been no new information in a long time, and from past experience I don't believe there will be. I am closing this thread.

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