|
|
Post by Data Cable on Apr 10, 2009 18:38:04 GMT -4
Picking up on a reply from soulleister to a thread in the Clavius section: The real crux of the issue is not whether or not a astronaut in an inflated/pressurised suit with PLSS velcroed to his back can fit in the hole, rather the fact/problem that cannot be overcome is: the distance between hatch and the wall 32 inches beyond the hatch protecting the ascent rocket which is taller than the hatch opening... [Emphasis mine] This is incorrect. The LM Midstep, as it is known, rises only 18 inches above the forward section deck, well below the 32 inch height of the forward hatch:  |
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Apr 10, 2009 19:13:12 GMT -4
HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS FOR THE MERCURY PROGRAM The first astronauts Slayton, Glenn, Scott Carpenter, Gordon Cooper, Virgil “Gus” Grissom, Wally Schirra and Alan Shepard also had to be no taller than 5’11” in order to fit into the tiny Mercury capsuleswww.nasa.gov/50th/50th_magazine/astronauts.htmlGEMINI AND APOLLO: Three years after that first selection, NASA issued another call for Gemini and Apollo astronaut trainees. Experience in flying high-performance aircraft still was stressed, as was education. The limit on age was lowered to 35 years, the maximum height raised to 6 feet, and the program was opened to qualified civilians. www.solarviews.com/eng/astronts.htmI'll post only HERE for this topic in the future... |
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Apr 10, 2009 21:10:20 GMT -4
For the record, I was thinking of unsuited astronauts when I said none of them were over six feet tall. I did know the suits were fitted to each individual astronaut. Also I wasn't trying to parrot anyone else, I was just saying the LM egress issue had been discussed on this board before and where it was discussed. Anyway, I think Soulleister wants to know how much height the suit adds. I admit I'm not very good at math.  I found this in the ALSJ though. (Apollo 12) 115:47:04 Gibson: Roger, Pete. (Pause) Pete, for your information for those photos, your shadow length right now is about 45 feet on a level plane. 115:47:16 Conrad: Okay, very good. "(Photograph) contingency sample area" I got. "Deploy the color chart (on an undisturbed surface)" Ho ho. Take your time, Al. (Pause) Hey, I'm learning to do it. (Pause) [Pete may be learning how to run or, at least, to take advantage of lunar gravity by using bouncing steps and hops as he moves.] [It is currently about 1210 UTC/GMT on 19 November 1969 and the Sun's elevation at the landing site is about 7.4 degrees. Pete is relatively short at 5 feet 6.5 inches (1.69 meters). His suited height would be greater because of the boots and LEVA. On a level surface with the Sun 7.4 degrees above the horizon, a suited figure 1.78 meters tall would cast a 45 foot (13.7 meters) shadow. Given that Ed may be reading a graph, the figures are certainly consistent.] history.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/a12.eva1prelim.html |
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Apr 10, 2009 22:13:38 GMT -4
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 11, 2009 1:12:01 GMT -4
Video of someone coming out of an LM hatch in a suit would squash this objection, I think. Is there any?
|
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Apr 11, 2009 1:57:44 GMT -4
Yep, on the Apollo 15 downlinks - ingress/egress in situ - not the first egress of course, but at the end of one of the EVAs. Also there are lots of sequences from neautral bouyancy training sessions from various missions clearly showing ingress/egress. There is also the Apollo 17 "Vomit Comet" ingress/egress footage.
I'd say its a pretty much shut case. There are also the simulations done in all the major TV studios prior to the lunar surface camera feed in which fully suited actors would negotiate out of replica LMs.
I can't see what more one would require as confirmation of this "argument" being debunked.
|
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 11, 2009 2:45:26 GMT -4
There is also the Apollo 17 "Vomit Comet" ingress/egress footage.
Yes, I have this sitting on my bookshelf right now and it clearly shows that a suited astronaut could egress a model of the LM in 1/6g. Add to that, the "LM" that was actually measured and started this whole thing was a model that was used in a vaccum chamber specifically for the suited astronauts to practice getting in and out of. The claim is simply ridiulous.
|
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 11, 2009 3:27:09 GMT -4
Frankly, I've always thought it was one of the lamest claims. How stupid would NASA have to be to make disproving Apollo that easy?
|
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Apr 11, 2009 6:55:51 GMT -4
Not only that, but you'd think the Grumman engineers would maybe raise the point early on in the game after seeing no fully suited astronaut could get out. What with them being profession aircraft designers and all.
|
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 11, 2009 10:44:31 GMT -4
Frankly, I've always thought it was one of the lamest claims. How stupid would NASA have to be to make disproving Apollo that easy? Yes, but to his credit he's the first person I've seen to consider the question in three dimensions. Everyone else just talks about the dimensions of the hatch. |
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Apr 11, 2009 11:00:38 GMT -4
Yes, but to his credit he's the first person I've seen to consider the question in three dimensions. I've seen this issue raised before, but I can't remember where. Don't be too quick to credit soulleister with its invention. |
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Apr 11, 2009 11:24:51 GMT -4
I'm confident that many, many hours were spent in the ground mockups sorting out the egress/ingress issues. Even so, there were still problems...Buzz's broken circuit breaker, Conrad tearing the door insulation. It was a tight fit, no doubt about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Apr 11, 2009 12:14:53 GMT -4
It definitely sounds like a tight fit. [Cernan - "By this time, I was really tired and it was a lot of trouble to get back in the cabin. It's such a small space; and you've got to twist and turn to get in there. You've got to crawl in with that big PLSS on your back until you hit the back bulkhead with your helmet. Then you've got to start arching your back so that you can get your head up so that you can get further in. But you've got to keep the PLSS clear of the DSKY, so that means really arching your back. Then you push with your feet until you're in and you can stand up and then turn around. And it didn't help that a lot of space, particularly on the engine cover, was taken up by the boxes and bags we'd brought in from the surface. It was really crowded."]history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17.clsout1.html |
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Apr 11, 2009 14:56:36 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by dragonblaster on Apr 11, 2009 17:56:00 GMT -4
Frankly, I've always thought it was one of the lamest claims. How stupid would NASA have to be to make disproving Apollo that easy? Also, why did Grumman bother downgrading from a sleek, gleaming helicopter-like vehicle to a spindly tinfoil bug? Why not just say the Saturn V could handle the weight and leave it at that? |
|
The real crux of the issue is not whether or not a astronaut in an inflated/pressurised suit with PLSS velcroed to his back can fit in the hole, rather the fact/problem that cannot be overcome is: the distance between hatch and the wall 32 inches beyond the hatch protecting the ascent rocket which is taller than the hatch opening...
I found this in the ALSJ though.
