|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 21, 2008 12:40:33 GMT -4
There is no official HB line because they can't decide among themselves what to believe.
We've already seen that Turbonium alone can't even maintain a consistent set of claims -- he seems to be flip-flopping on which Apollo missions he thinks were fake. Not only do hoax believers fail to agree among themselves, they change their individual stories as needed in order to backpedal, or to dodge new evidence. The complete lack of consistency and unity is, in my opinion, one of the biggest strikes against the legitimacy of conspiracy-theory thought. You can't lose if you can't be pinned down. Unfortunately you also can't be right unless you can be pinned down.
The fact they're all over the place with their stories is because there is no evidence to support any of it.
Right. Specifically, very few make a claim in favor of any particular hypothesis. Conspiracism -- especially the Moon hoax variety -- is about avoiding a particular hypothesis: that NASA actually landed men on the Moon. When your position is defined entirely by opposition to some idea, there are very many other ideas to which you can be drawn, none of them guaranteed to be the right one. People who flee tend to flee in all directions. People who congregate tend do so around whatever has attracted them.
So conspiracism is about "anything but NASA," and so goes in all directions -- none of them evidently the right one.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 21, 2008 13:16:31 GMT -4
I've been waiting on this thread until the details emerged. I don't want to be baited into a straw-man argument. But no details are emerging.
For all we know, Turbonium may indeed be talking about the Ares V and not the Ares I. For all we know, the problems he alludes to may be serious, relevant issues. But since we're given only a vague (and possibly incorrect) hand-wave to a name, we can't be sure. How fortunate for Turbonium if we wax indignant on what we think his claims would be, only to have him come back and say, "Oh, that's not at all what I was talking about."
So at the risk of missing the mark...
What you call 'ongoing problems' I call 'designing a rocket'. The engineering design process for any launch vehicle includes analyzing and correcting problems as they are identified.
I can't possibly agree more. The whole process of engineering development is not only identifying and fixing issues in the proposed solution, but doing one's best to make those problems appear during development. An engineering development process that has not met, characterized, and solved significant issues either has not succeeded in producing a reliable design, or has not attempted enough innovation to matter.
If we assume the vehicle in question is the Ares I, and the problems in question are the longitudinal vibrations, then I say "pshaw." Every new vehicle design has issues with longitudinal oscillations. That's why every new vehicle design is specifically studied for that eventuality while still in development. Testing models of launch vehicles for resonance issues caused by combustion irregularities, identifying the resonance, and altering the design to absorb them safely is the process of launch vehicle design; it does not signal a problem with that process.
Nowadays we can do the majority of that testing on digital CSD models in supercomputers. How do I know this? Because my team provided the CSD analysis supercomputing platforms for ATK under contract. ATK bought a million dollars worth of technology hoping to use it to find these very problems and explore the solutions to them.
...and have no particular relevancy to Apollo/Saturn. (emphasis added)
True, but the Saturn I and Saturn V both had resonance problems that were identified during development and solved by adjusting the design either to damp them or to prevent them from arising. Every launch vehicle resonates, and every launch vehicle design thus has to be detuned based on some form of feedback. In the 1960s static firings and flight test played a more prominent role in reducing vibration. That's about ten to twenty times more expensive than doing it digitally in the computer, which is how the Ares I design is being vetted.
There is nothing suspicious going on in the Ares I development program. This is what engineers do.
So I wait with extreme interest to find out if (1) we've properly identified Turbonium's intended vehicle, (2) we've properly identified the problem Turbonium intended to allude to, and (3) what all this can possibly have to do with the inability of Apollo-Saturn to venture beyond low Earth orbit. Details!
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Apr 21, 2008 15:18:42 GMT -4
The details we need to see first are: 1. What exactly prevented Apollo 8 from going to the Moon? 2. Exactly when and how was this problem or set of problems discovered to be insurmountable? 3. What specific evidence does turbonium have for the existence of this problem? Not quotes mined from 1958 articles. Not recent articles which talk about the hazards of long-duration missions. Not handwaving claims about other launch vehicles. What specifically was discovered, and when, that kept Apollo 8 from leaving Earth orbit, and what is the specific evidence for it? And we might as well point out that Apollo 8 was tracked on its translunar trajectory by observers in Hawaii, the continental United States, the UK, France, and Spain.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 21, 2008 16:59:50 GMT -4
And the Soviets. ( Sorry for the stilted English, this is a Babelfish coverted site that is in Russian)
|
|
|
Post by cos on Apr 21, 2008 18:06:36 GMT -4
If a HB concedes that Apollo 8 left earth orbit or that the Lunar module went up with Apollo 9 and was successfully flown in the vacuum of space then most of their arguments against Nasa's capability to land on the moon are gone. Hence the ever more ridiculous propositions they must support. Obviously, having realised that they had miscalculated about the Van Allen belts and Grumman delivering a balsa wood model instead of a lunar lander, NASA was suddenly faced with the fact that Apollo 8 wasn't going anywhere. So they decided to fake it. Secretly launching an unmanned probe to bring back pictures of the far side of the moon, they then decided Apollo 8 could only go in LEO. As the hoax would be obvious to every tracking station not under direct American control they called in a few favours to keep quiet about it. The Russians were easy to buy off and a few crates of vodka was enough for them to eschew the greatest cold war propaganda opportunity. Obviously, every amateur astronomer had to be bought off or menaced by NASA death squads (was there a higher incidence of mortality amongst amateur astronomers at the time of Apollo 8? No statistics? How convenient!). The fact that of Apollo 8 remaining in earth orbit for 6 days made it visible to most of the population of the earth was countered by all the bribed/intimidated astronomers who told anyone who asked that it was a comet but were under strict instructions not to record the appearance of this celestial event. Honestly, you PANs have no imagination....
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Apr 21, 2008 18:09:15 GMT -4
It's tiring waiting on an answer to the 'Apollo 8 leaving LEO' question, but I anticipate a detailed reply. ;D
One thing that I find hard to explain - if the missions were faked that is - is the communication record of the astronauts. I mean the events that occured according to their testimony, and the verbal accounts between the astronauts and mission control. Every mission had glitches of some sort - little problems that needed attending to, adjustments to many things like rocket firings and the like.
As an example, the dust on the moon. Did NASA 'make up' how dusty its surface was. I mean, no one had ever been there before, right? Pete Conrad said on Apollo 12, "The dust! Dust got into everything. You walked and a pair of dust clouds kicked up around your feet." Dust clung to their boots and spacesuit legs so thick that during their rest and sleep periods they remained in their suits to keep vital parts from being clogged. (from Moon Shot, p. 257)
And how is Apollo 13 explained? Did they really have problems? The events are detailed in the NASA record. Was parts of that made up? Did they really shoot around the moon in their spacecraft? An interesting note on this mission - Among the ships rushing to the south pacific to splashdown target were British warships, a French aircraft carrier, and Soviet whalers!
What about the sometimes very emotional responses by astronauts supporting the missions on the ground? Were they really happy at times, or sad, or inventive or frustrated by any of the events that happened from Apollo 8 on? Or was it all 'faked' for them too? It seems extremely unlikely, given the closeness of the Astronauts (basically the first and second teams) that they would actively decieve each other. I would find that utterly impossible. There were many times that even minor things that NASA did, or wanted to do, set off minor revolts on the astronauts part. And it just wasn't Grissom who was rebellious, as the HB like to think.
If Apollo 11 was faked - was the friction between Aldrin and Armstrong about who would first step out of the LM onto the Moon's surface all some ploy to inject some storyline into the fakery? Doesn't that seem just so, absurd?
Some other notes on Apollo 8: Jim Webb actually told Pres. Johnson that it 'was time to gamble' and put astronauts aboard the Saturn V and send them all the way to the moon aboard Apollo 8. The vibration problems were fixed, and the Lunar module wasn't yet ready. Johnson loved the idea of at least orbiting the moon before he left office. It seems the person who first thought up the idea was George Low, the spacecraft Program Manager.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 21, 2008 18:31:08 GMT -4
George Low was pretty clever. The slipping LM schedule made it inadvisable to rush the spacecraft into flight test on Apollo 8. (A spacecraft that is still having problems on the ground won't give you a very meaningful test flight.) The CSM was already smoke-tested (no disrespect intended to the Apollo 1 crew), so another Earth-orbit test of just the CSM would have been of limited value. The next CSM test had to be a significant extension of Apollo 7's objectives; and the lunar orbit mission software was ready to go. The Saturn V was ready for manned test. So what "meaty" mission can you fly with only a CSM and the Saturn V? The revised Apollo 8 mission profile was brilliant in terms of the all-up test mentality. Well timed, too.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Apr 21, 2008 18:41:55 GMT -4
So what "meaty" mission can you fly with only a CSM and the Saturn V? The revised Apollo 8 mission profile was brilliant in terms of the all-up test mentality. Well timed, too. Yes indeed. I have to agree. The only thing preventing it would be if the Saturn V wasn't ready, but that became a non-issue - sort of. . I'm sure there were some tense moments at takeoff, but after the first stage was ejected it probably calmed down a lot. I'm not all that knowledgeable about this, but from what I've been reading lately the dots are starting to connect to each other pretty good. ;D
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 21, 2008 19:05:17 GMT -4
Now you can have a little more sympathy for James Webb. George walks into his office and says, "We want to send Apollo 8 into lunar orbit." Webb at first says something like, "You wanna do what? Are you nuts?" Then George says, "Calm down and hear me out -- we've given it a lot of thought." And within two days, with all those cards on the table, Webb advocates the plan to the President.
There is still considerable risk for the Apollo 8 crew. They're flying a significant mission with no LM lifeboat. That doesn't change the readiness of the technology any, but it changes the consequences of failure. Then you have a little more sympathy for Lovell's Santa Clause comment. The SPS was always a critical component, but even more so on this mission.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Apr 21, 2008 19:19:21 GMT -4
Was the LM lifeboat option developed when Apollo 8's revised mission was decided? Not having that LM as either a lifeboat or "outboard engine" must have been a major factor against a translunar flight... but fortune favours the bold, and as has been said, the CSM (and SPS engine) had been tested.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Apr 21, 2008 19:31:14 GMT -4
So using the LM as a lifeboat during Apollo 13 wasn't a new idea I gather? I never thought it had ever been considered, but I learn something new every day thank goodness.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Apr 21, 2008 20:49:45 GMT -4
According to Lost Moon, "The lifeboat idea had been kicking around since the early days of the Apollo program in 1964, and a few such maneuvers had even been practiced in early 1969, when the Apollo 9 astronauts flew the first LM in Earth orbit. However, nobody seriously believed it would ever have to be used." That's on page 86 in my edition of it.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 21, 2008 22:50:02 GMT -4
Apollo 9 tested the ability of the LM to act as a propulsion system for the stack. They actually fired it longer than 13 had to. It wasn't considered a likely senario though, sort of like the Space Shuttle. They figured that anything that would take out the SPS would likely kill the crew too.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Apr 21, 2008 23:13:01 GMT -4
Also note that Apollo 8 was placed on a free-return trajectory, thus if the SPS failed, the spacecraft would return safely to Earth. If the SPS worked to put them into lunar orbit, the chances were very good that it would work to get them out of lunar orbit.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Apr 22, 2008 7:04:00 GMT -4
So using the LM as a lifeboat during Apollo 13 wasn't a new idea I gather? I never thought it had ever been considered, but I learn something new every day thank goodness. It had definitely been considered. During the Apollo 13 mission I found a NASA tech memo on the concept in the library at work. The most significant fact I learned from this was that only the Descent Stage could be used for propulsion of the stack, answering the question of how fast they could be brought back. The Ascent Stage propellant was unusable because the Ascent engine was fixed, unlike the gimballed Descent engine, and the thust line was so far from the stack centre that the attiude control system couldn't prevent the vehicle going into a spin during the burn.
|
|