Her own account.
I'm scared simply of the very idea that anyone is that paranoid and delusional.

__________________
I want to go back to the moon.
I don't care which rocket you use, whichever one you pick, I'll like it, I swear.
"If you think the LHC will create black holes, you might as well believe Hobbits are at the bottom of your garden."- Dr. Mike Inglis
Rovers forever! - ToSeek

now that I think about it, the other part was to keep the propellant feed system pressure from rising due to heating, bursting the disks, and dumping propellant all over the crew.

That would've been very, very bad.

That would only be a danger if the propellant were still in the tanks.

I may be misunderstanding you. If the propellant was in the tanks but the pressurant removed, there would be little chance of the disks rupturing or the propellant leaking, at least during the time when the astronauts were present.

My speculation is on what would happen during those many long lunar nights. All of the residual propellant would freeze. Then, during the lunar days, it would thaw again but perhaps unevenly. If there was a section of propellant line or a valve that is blocked by frozen propellant, there is a possibility of line rupture when thawed propellant expands with rising temperatures. Even without the pressurant, that could cause a leak. Each of the propellants is pretty nasty stuff. If that happened with both the nitrogen tetroxide and Aerozine 50, there might not be a lot of the descent stage left. This is just speculation on my part, of course.

Not in general, no. But the CM hypergols themselves were vented after main parachute deployment by simultaneously firing all RCS jets. That's a reasonably safe venting mode.

In that example, it sounds more like the RCS propellants were consumed rather than vented. That approach wouldn't work on the LM descent stage because the only engine is the big one.

I'd like to look at an LM descent module propulstion system schematic. I've seen some cutaway drawings but none with enough detail to tell me things like the position of the latch valves, how the propellant lines were routed, etc. My concerns might be completely baseless.

Just my $0.02 worth on imaging the sites with the LRO - I am in favour of doing it, to remind the public of what was achieved here.

When such images are made public and the Apollo missions are brought back into the forefront of public consciousness, hopefully a few more people will pause and think - it's been over 35 years since we last stood on that lunar surface. 35 years - that's half a life time.

And what have we done in that 35 years? Wasted millions of lives and trillions of dollars on utterly futile conflicts? Turned our environment into a sewer? Created the obsessional worship of vacuous 'celebrities'?

Maybe imaging these sites will remind people that when we put our mind to it, our species can be imaginative, determined, inventive, audacious, dedicated, brave beyond description - and that when we are, there are few limits to what we can achieve. I think a lot of people have forgotten that.

__________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day." - Douglas Adams

"Certainly, in the topsy-turvy world of heavy rock, having a good solid piece of wood in your hand is often useful." - Ian Faith

I have enjoyed reading your knowledgeable posts Jay, thanks. But may I respectfully, (and acknowledging that I am completely clueless in this matter,) ask whether that is as safe as you suggest?

I know it must have been the thing to do at the time.... I have great respect for all the Apollo personnel... ("If it fails it wont be because of me!")....
so I assume that it was the best move at that time.

If all the attitude jets have a common length, common source feed line, then it may be ok... but what if any one of the jets stops before the others? Wouldn't you have a sideways (or some other disastrous direction) moving object hanging below a parachute? Or at least the start of a possibly large displacement pendulum motion? Doesn't sound good to me.

Just asking out of interest... I don't want a design input into future missions and I do expect that my question will be easily put to rest.

I love talking to you guys.... which reminds me... sorry Kai... my sincere humble apologies. (I wouldn't want to upset the prophets.)

The CM RCS jets were really not powerful enough to set up any dangerous movements under the main chutes.

By "safe" I mean safe for recovery crews working in and around the CM after splashdown. That was no trivial concern; members of at least one CM recovery crew had to be hospitalized because of exposure to hydrazine from the CM RCS. Getting rid of as much of that stuff as possible (not just the pressure) was considered an important goal.

Was it safe in a purely objective manner? Demonstrably no: the failure of one of the Apollo 15 main parachutes was because the RCS plume burned through a shroud during the propellant runout! Although the RCS burnout didn't affect flight dynamics enough to worry about, it still posed a hazard due to very hot firey plumes shooting out the CM at odd angles.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Actually, both are correct and in context.

After all, if you're betting your life on a descent stage, you want it to be at least a decent descent stage, right?

We pronounce them differently in Texas, too... but then, we pronounce everything differently in Texas.

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

I am new here.... I feel like I have died and gone to heaven.

The chance to talk to such widely varied expertise is priceless. I am just an old version of the young kid I once was... a kid that watched that first 'small step' on his mates' dads' black-and-white TV with joy and amazement. (Nobody else I knew had a TV....)

HB's.... you are idiots. Wake up and have a chat with people who helped achieve things that have never yet been equalled. Look and learn how we all can work towards making everyone's life here on Earth better... by beginning to move out of the cradle to take up our real inheritance.

If the propellant was in the tanks but the pressurant removed, there would be little chance of the disks rupturing or the propellant leaking, at least during the time when the astronauts were present.

Agreed. Simply depressurizing the propellant feed system would remove all short-term hazards. The checklists and flight plans refer to venting "fuel" and "oxidizer" tanks; but it does not explicitly say that the fuel loads themselves were vented. Thus it's reasonable to conclude that depressurization is described, not detanking, venting, or purging.

I don't expect much of the DPS to be intact, through a combination of thermal cycles causing pressure excursions in the system and embrittlement of the tanking and piping, and chemical action on the propellant feed system.

In that example, it sounds more like the RCS propellants were consumed rather than vented.

Correct; the fuel supply was run out by operating the RCS, not by venting propellant.

I'd like to look at an LM descent module propulstion system schematic.

I have one somewhere. The DPS wasn't designed to exhibit any deterministic behavior after about 72 hours post landing. So your speculation is as plausible as the next guy's.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Eh, we say them differently in New Yawk as well.

__________________
I want to go back to the moon.
I don't care which rocket you use, whichever one you pick, I'll like it, I swear.
"If you think the LHC will create black holes, you might as well believe Hobbits are at the bottom of your garden."- Dr. Mike Inglis
Rovers forever! - ToSeek

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...1971010995.pdf

It's a big file, but describes the LM subsystems, including propulsion, in great detail. Hope it helps.

It's a nice speech but the sad fact is that 99.9% or the human race did nothing more than supply money. The remainder did the real work. I'd say half didn't even care. Sure, if we as a people, joined forces, we could accomplish amazing things. Sadly, most of our concerns are much more personal.

Face it, the guy who's out of work and trying to feed himself or his family isn't going to care at all about some strangers walking on the moon. It might provide a brief respite from his day to day problems but so does worrying about whether Britney enters rehab, and Britney isn't costing him anything.

__________________
You're a coward and a liar and a thOOF - Bart Sibrel

Hmmm, perhaps we should kill two birds with one stone and send Britney (and other "celebrities" like her) to the Moon, and preferably leave her there.

__________________
"Any Sufficiently Analyzed Magic is Indistinguishable from SCIENCE!" -Agatha Heterodyne

"Any technology, no matter how primitive, is magic to those who don't understand it." -Florence Ambrose

If you can work it out, I'm game. As it stands I'd rather be punched by Buzz than hear anything more about Britney.

Come to that, I'd rather have 10 minutes swilling beers with any one of the Apollo guys than a week in Britney's jacuzzi. I'd rather swill with any astronaut for that matter...as well as any species of wood bark one might find lying about.**


**Not that I equate non apollo astronauts with wood bark. yada yada. This place really gets one walking on eggshells.

Lest we offend.

__________________
You're a coward and a liar and a thOOF - Bart Sibrel

Oops I did it again!

What did she do?

__________________
_
Show me the money
_

I feel the need for a brief disclaimer: It sounds like I might be a hipocrite saying I don't care about Britney but knowing that she may or may not be in rehab. As I've stated, I work for an airline and as such, have access to various reading material that is left on the planes by our beloved passengers. Said material frequently concerns Her Britneyness as well as other popculture figures. While I could care less about Ms. Spears, I work with guys who do, apparantly. As a result there are a tons of those magazines that nobody ever buys in our shop and every now and then I run short of reading material.

Just wanted to clear things up.

__________________
You're a coward and a liar and a thOOF - Bart Sibrel

I do understand this and sadly I agree with you. However, I think there is a human need to be inspired - and there is precious little around at present to provide that inspiration.

Which is more likely to inspire the unemployed guy fighting to survive: knowing that with determination and effort a man can get to the moon, or believing that the pinnacle of achievement is to continually get wasted, capriciously spend millions on useless trifles and get photographed sans knickers?

If all I knew about was the latter, I would give it all up and go hide on a desert island somewhere. Imaging the artifacts on the moon might help remind people who have forgotten what it is to be genuinely inspired.

__________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day." - Douglas Adams

"Certainly, in the topsy-turvy world of heavy rock, having a good solid piece of wood in your hand is often useful." - Ian Faith

I would like to think it would get the appropriate treatment but I know that there are newspapers who just want to sell and reporters without a clue. I would imagine a lot of the usual suspects in the print world would also go for the hoax aspect that would be put up as another thing to think about. Looking at todays hoax believers and the reasoning behind the belief, I fear the people of today would latch onto it but pay no attention. It does not require any effort to just accept claims in a newspaper or on line. That will become fixed with no research or understanding and become the norm.

Not saying no pictures. That is for the ones with the cash to say yes or no.

And if you're a HB, you have to admit that it was decently staged, fooling millions upon millions for years upon years.

__________________
Spread the Love!

Three. It will make the Moon a VERY popular tourist destination.

__________________
Fiction has to be plausible. Reality is under no such constraint.

Wouldn't that depend on how much oxygen you gave said "celebrities", after all we don't want to spend more than necessary is do we?

__________________
"Any Sufficiently Analyzed Magic is Indistinguishable from SCIENCE!" -Agatha Heterodyne

"Any technology, no matter how primitive, is magic to those who don't understand it." -Florence Ambrose

Nah, be generous. Go ahead and give 'em plenty of oxygen. Tell 'em it was bottled in Switzerland even, and far more expensive than what the "little people" get.

They'll do themselves in when they have their spacesuits altered to show as much leg, midriff and cleavage as they've got.

__________________
And you, to whom adversity has dealt the final blow
With smiling [faces] lyin' to ye' everywhere ye' go
Turn to, and put out all your strength of arm and heart and brain
And like the Mary Ellen Carter, rise again.

Why give oxygen to airheads?

Eh, we say them differently in New Yawk as well.

New Yorker to visiter: "Where are you from?"

Visiter: "Iowa"

New Yorker: "Here in New York, we pronounce it OHIO."

That's pretty much anything west of Pennsylvania and east of California, right?

__________________
I may have many faults, but being wrong ain't one of them. -- Jimmy Hoffa

Hahahahahahahahaha <Plunk!>
Pardon me, I laughed my head off. Now I have to find it...

__________________
I want to go back to the moon.
I don't care which rocket you use, whichever one you pick, I'll like it, I swear.
"If you think the LHC will create black holes, you might as well believe Hobbits are at the bottom of your garden."- Dr. Mike Inglis
Rovers forever! - ToSeek

((Cautiously de-lurks))

Actually, for the most part, our environment is a lot CLEANER than it was in the 1960s, at least in the USA. That's not to say we don't have more to do, or more to watch.

CJSF

__________________
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

I do not question that America sent men to the moon. I do question how they got there alive. The van-allen belt is between us and the moon. This is an area of intense radiation that mankind had never encountored before. There only protection from the radiation and the vacume of space was a thin layer of aluminum. I have seen repica's of the apollo caft and have since that day had doubt. since the moon lander days all manned missions and station have remained below the van-allen belt. Can Anybody explain my doubt away. I want to believe.

The astronauts passed through the belt.

They did not sit in it gathering exposure.

Think of a person passing their finger or hand through a burning flame tip quickly. They move through it too quickly to be burned.

The Apollo astronauts passed through too quickly to receive a fatal dose.

Have a read of what wikipedia has to say....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_Belt

It reckons that 3mm Aluminium shielding gives a dose of 2,500 rem per year. The astronauts were only in the belt area for a short time on their way out and then again on the way back. The dosage they got was not life threatening... though these days we are not quite as blase about such things as they were back then.

They knew the belts were there.... they knew the dose would be lowish... they knew they stood a much greater risk of solar storms... but they went anyway. They were explorers willing to strap on giant piles of high explosive and light that candle to get them to their destination. These folk were the very best of the best... they took risks and they got the job done. Lets not negate their efforts now....

At the risk of being unkind, "belief" is not at issue. I'd get along better with someone who _didn't_ "believe" in a manned landing, but had a good understanding of the technical and scientific elements of the program.

At the risk of over-simplification, a belief process is to start with a conclusion and work towards finding data that supports it. A scientific process is to start with a conclusion and work towards finding data that flunks it.

The former process is prone to cherry-picking. The latter is more robust, and dare I say, more antagonistic, and yet leads to a conclusion with one interesting difference; to wit; a scientific theory will never be "proved," it will be instead "proven to the best of our ability." There will always remain the possibility of new evidence. Whereas, if your process began with a belief, new evidence is the _last_ thing you wish to encounter.

And in regards to the cherry-picking; who told you what protection the spacecraft carried against radiation? NASA. Who told you about the Van Allen belts. NASA. So why "believe" in the threat, but not in the amelioration? Why is one data acceptable, and the other suspicious? This only makes sense if you are carefully selecting data to support a previous conclusion (that is, that the landings were faked in part or in full).

__________________
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."