|
Post by Obviousman on Jul 15, 2007 6:37:28 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by grmcdorman on Jul 15, 2007 10:55:26 GMT -4
grmcdorman, I notice in you reply to Dr. Greening that you corrected him on many of the quantities he quoted. Just for your information, Greening’s numbers come from Table 8 of Post Launch Mission Operation Report No. M-932-69-11 dated July 24, 1969. This is also the report I used when putting together my reply #5. The report that you reference is dated November 1969. Being the later and more extensive report, I tend to believe the one you used. However I’d go a little easy on Greening in criticizing his data since he is using figures published in a NASA report. Correct him when necessary but don’t treat him like he’s using bogus data. Bob B., I'm looking at M-932-69-11 right now. This document is titled 'Apollo 11 (AS-506) Mission'. Table 8 doesn't correspond to this at all; it's 'Recovery Force Requirements'. Did you get the document number wrong, or is there a duplicate document? By the way, I looked back; Dr. Greening's figures come from The NASA Mission Reports. Volume One: Apollo 11, Robert Godwin, ed., Apogee Books, 1999. This is available in my local library, but unfortunately it's closed today. ETA: M-932-61-11 is available from ALSJ at www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/A11_MissionOpReport.pdf
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 15, 2007 12:23:43 GMT -4
Bob B., I'm looking at M-932-69-11 right now. This document is titled 'Apollo 11 (AS-506) Mission'. Table 8 doesn't correspond to this at all; it's 'Recovery Force Requirements'. Did you get the document number wrong, or is there a duplicate document? By the way, I looked back; Dr. Greening's figures come from The NASA Mission Reports. Volume One: Apollo 11, Robert Godwin, ed., Apogee Books, 1999. This is available in my local library, but unfortunately it's closed today. ETA: M-932-61-11 is available from ALSJ at www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/A11_MissionOpReport.pdfIt looks like there are a couple documents that have that same number. There's the one that you link to titled, Mission Operation Report Apollo 11 (AS-506) MissionThen there is a second document titled, Post Launch Mission Operation ReportBoth documents carry the number M-932-69-11. The first document is reproduced in The NASA Mission Reports. Volume One: Apollo 11, Robert Godwin, ed., Apogee Books, 1999 starting on page 141, and the second starts on page 214. It is the second document that contains the Table 8 to which I refer (shown on page 228). Below is a scan of it: www.braeunig.us/pics/M-932-69-11_Table-8.jpg
|
|
|
Post by grmcdorman on Jul 15, 2007 13:13:22 GMT -4
Thanks, Bob B. I presume you have access to the referenced volume; can you take a look at page 102? Dr. Greening uses that as his source for the LM leak rate. Does the 0.2 lbm/hr figure appear on that page? Is it stated to be the actual, or design, leak rate, or neither?
Thanks.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 15, 2007 14:37:09 GMT -4
Thanks, Bob B. I presume you have access to the referenced volume; can you take a look at page 102? Dr. Greening uses that as his source for the LM leak rate. Does the 0.2 lbm/hr figure appear on that page? Is it stated to be the actual, or design, leak rate, or neither? Page 102 does indeed give the 0.2 lbm/hr leakage rate. It is listed as the nominal rate, which means it is the planned or designed rate. The actual leakage rate has to be determined post-flight from the measured oxygen usage. As you have already found, the actual leakage rate was determined to be 0.05 lbm/hr as reported in the November 1969 Apollo 11 Mission Report. For your information, the nominal oxygen usage rates that Greening references are from the Apollo 11 Lunar Landing Mission Press Kit: www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/A11_PressKit.pdf (warning: big file!) The data can be found on page 186 of the report, or page 190 of the PDF file.
|
|
|
Post by grmcdorman on Jul 15, 2007 14:42:54 GMT -4
Wonderful; thanks Bob B. I'll put this all together and should be able to put it up on JREF later today.
Thanks guys.
|
|
|
Post by grmcdorman on Jul 15, 2007 18:46:27 GMT -4
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 15, 2007 21:11:21 GMT -4
Brand spanking new, so there are no replies at this instant. You have a reply now. What does Starfish Prime have to do with Apollo 11 oxygen consumption?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 15, 2007 21:47:44 GMT -4
Interesting that he doesn't seem to distinguish between detectable radiation levels and those that are significant to biology or engineering.
He refers to "open literature." I'm looking at the open literature (e.g., Journal of Geophysical Research) and noting that his estimate of flux is consistent with that generally estimated some 10 hours after the detonation. However he omits that it had already diminished by two orders of magnitude after just that few hours. While levels remained "detectable" for years afterward, detectability is a nebulous concept. I suggest he cite exact flux figures for MeV electrons in 1972, not merely handwave about them.
|
|
|
Post by grmcdorman on Jul 15, 2007 21:57:52 GMT -4
Brand spanking new, so there are no replies at this instant. You have a reply now. What does Starfish Prime have to do with Apollo 11 oxygen consumption? That was one of the other things he raised (in a separate post, to be sure). The thread I started on JREF I intended to include both claims (and anything else he comes up with). So that's why it's there (rather than having several threads on the generic JREF CT forum, which could get harder to track). Besides, there's not much Apollo-related CT activity over there. (No rocky there!) Oh, and JayUtah, thanks for the info. Yes, he does tend to be a bit off base when discussing anything not related to chemistry. (He also just posted another one, about the Columbia disaster - forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2771100 if you want to take a look). To this non-engineer, it again seems that he's making inappropriate assumptions). I've started a new thread dedicated to the Starfish Prime stuff. If you prefer to discuss it here, we can ask the mods to can the new thread.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Jul 16, 2007 3:28:36 GMT -4
I remember reading that the docked leakage rate was originally specified an <0.1 lb/hr but got revised down to <0.05 lb/hr. I probably have the report I read that from here somewhere, if required.
|
|
|
Post by grmcdorman on Jul 16, 2007 10:01:02 GMT -4
The Apollo 11 Mission Report - linked in the rebuttal thread, forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2770734 - specifically says that the actual leak rate for the Apollo 11 LM was found to be 0.05 lbm/hr, as opposed to the nominal 0.2 lbm/hr. I wrote that rebuttal - the first post in the thread - as an OpenOffice.org document, by the way. It's available in various formats (ODT, DOC, PDF) if anyone wants it that way. (I don't have a place to host it, though.)
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 16, 2007 10:26:24 GMT -4
I remember reading that the docked leakage rate was originally specified an <0.1 lb/hr but got revised down to <0.05 lb/hr. I probably have the report I read that from here somewhere, if required. According to the Apollo 11 Lunar Landing Mission Press Kit, the nominal oxygen usage rates were: NOMINAL OXYGEN USAGE RATES
CM METABOLIC RATE 0.08 LB/HR CM LEAKAGE RATE 0.20 LB/HR TUNNEL LEAKAGE 0.10 LB/HR
LM METABOLIC RATE 0.16 LB/HR LM LEAKAGE 0.20 LB/HR FLOW THRU LM CABIN PRESURE RELIEF VALVE 0.06 LB/HR Could it be the tunnel leakage rate that you're remembering?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 16, 2007 10:51:16 GMT -4
(He also just posted another one, about the Columbia disaster - forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2771100 if you want to take a look). To this non-engineer, it again seems that he's making inappropriate assumptions). The calculations Greening is describing sounds very similar to the type of thing I've done on many occasions. Although I have no desire to to spend time on this particular problem nor to debate Greening, the coefficients of lift and drag he's using look very suspect to me. I think his L/D ratio is way too high.
|
|
|
Post by grmcdorman on Jul 16, 2007 12:04:56 GMT -4
FYI, Dr. Greening has admitted that his calculations about the O 2 consumption are in error. Unfortunately he did it in the middle of a diatribe essentially attacking the JREF posters as basically people duelling with quotes and opinions. Full post here.
|
|