|
Post by sts60 on Mar 28, 2006 17:21:24 GMT -4
Here are some localized references to certain specific claims: 1. Bart Sibrel's 5:1 superiority claim, debunked in this thread2. "No plausible way to cool an astronaut on the Moon." Various responses which pointed out his fundamental failures to understand the environment, types of heat transfer involved, or insulation techniques, plus hard numbers indicating the suitability of cooling an astronaut via the PLSS' water sublimation technique. 3. The Apollo lunar orbit rendezvous was "untried" (refuted here). 4. "Missions to the Moon should have started with unmanned craft." It is pointed out here that many unmanned craft were sent to the Moon prior to the A11 landing. It was discussed at length here as to exactly why it made no sense to attempt an automated LM landing. 5. Bart Sibrel's claim that the Saturn had to be 266 times bigger than it actually was (refuted here). 6. The Apollo CSM was unable to get back from the Moon itself (couldn't carry enough fuel, etc.), refuted here, with explicit numbers crunched by Bob B. Hope this helps.
|
|
|
Post by nasamoonedamerica on Mar 28, 2006 23:31:28 GMT -4
If this isn't a case of shameless self-promotion, I don't what the heck is. Seriously, nasamoonedamerica? Nothing suspicious there... ![::)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/eyesroll.png) No I have nohting to do with Rene. The only common thing is that I use to live in Garfield, NJ when he lived in the neighboring Passaic, NJ but i never met him. The reason I choosed this name is that his reasoning makes most sense. On the other side the Fox Tv special, looks more as "ratings booster show " then as an attempt to prove that Apollo programs was not more then "The Most exepnsive Movie" in American history. I wouldn't be suprised if Fox show was ordered by the same "Corporate heads" who pulled up the hoax of the century.
|
|
|
Post by nasamoonedamerica on Mar 28, 2006 23:38:44 GMT -4
Wow I didn't expect all these answers right away.
Since I'm currently at my office and the bosses arround don't like when workers spend time on interent forums (I wonder why ;D), I will present my arguments later tonight from home....Don't go asking for sympathy here - just get yourself a high-paying official super-duper-above-top-secret NASA-CIA-NSA-Illuminati-Freemason-MenInBlack Paid Debunker job like we have, complete with sleek cars and sleeker women. Then you can just lounge around the workplace all day drinking martinis and suppressing The Awful Truth(tm). Very funny. Just to clerify something, I don't think tht FreeMasons and the others such as CIA/Iluminati are on the same side. FreeMasons are progress minded gropu of people while Iluminati/"World Corporations" are the one trying to stop it. Thi reminds me... In my youth I was counting the months until the Mars Mission or until any mission outside of the Lunar orbit. Years passed by and nothing. I couldn't understand why if we really landed on the Moon in 1969, no progress has been made since then. And at this moment almost 40 years from the Apollo 11, it is nothing strange in NAsa claim that we will be ready for Lunar mission in bout 5-10 years... WOW
|
|
|
Post by nasamoonedamerica on Mar 29, 2006 0:29:11 GMT -4
OK lets start with something simple.
One of the most unbeliveable aspects of the apollo mission was the navigation.
"Nine times in a row the Apollo capsulesslipped into lunar orbit without needing a major burn to correct their trajectory. Then they elaborated on their accuracy. The LEM, with its center of gravity far above the single rocket engine powering it, landed wihtin spitting distance of the target site five out of six ties. It was guided by Houston Ground Control operating at a distance of 230,000 miles. All this accuracy was at the radio/radar transmission loop of 2.5 seconds duration. Yet 37 years later they can't land shuttle here on earth if there are clouds over the Kennedy Sapce port" - Ralph Rene. And something even more amazing:
Six times in a row, the top half o the LEM made precise rendezvous with the command capsule after lifting off from the lunar surface. Also the apollo's made nine deadly accurate re-entires into the Earth's atmophere, again apparently wihtout the need of major corections.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Mar 29, 2006 0:49:18 GMT -4
any knowledge of the actual chain of events at the end of apollo would make obvious the reason why we a.) stopped going , b.) haven't been back since and c.) can't just up and go whenever we want.
a.) we stopped going because the funding was cut. The goals had been made, we had won the race, and the public support had evaporated. Apollo was expensive and considered expendable when the time came.
b.) we haven't been back since because there has been no great public support of it. Going to the moon is expensive and the taxpayers would rather spend the money on something else.
c.) any of the engineers on this board can tell you that just because the technology exists at one time doesn't mean it always exists. Apollo required some very specialized technology. Some of that technology can be adapted for other uses, but most of it cannot. Suffice to say most of the technology to get to the moon has been forgotten because of its uselessness for anything besides getting to the moon. Therefore, to get to the moon again we have to remake all that technology.
Not only that, but the newly proposed lunar mission is way more advanced than Apollo ever was. The plan is to allow at least 3 astonauts on the surface and let them stay for months. That requires way more than Apollo ever asked. Even if we didn't have to remake all the technology that Apollo utilized, it would still take years to prepare for all the advances that this new plan entails.
And to say that no progress has been made in aerospace technology is just plain wrong. If you want to see progress, look no further than the Spirit and Opportunity rovers trekking around mars. These two rovers are leaps and bounds more advanced than the previous mars rover Sojourner, and have been operational for over two years!
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Mar 29, 2006 1:08:58 GMT -4
Thi reminds me... In my youth I was counting the months until the Mars Mission or until any mission outside of the Lunar orbit. Years passed by and nothing. I couldn't understand why if we really landed on the Moon in 1969, no progress has been made since then. Did you pay any attention to the politics of the day? That'll give you a clue as to why people didn't walk on Mars last century. If you look at NASA's information, they had a plan to go to Mars, build a space station orbiting the Earth and another one on the Moon, and also operate the Space Shuttle. But the money they required for all this was way beyond what Congress was willing to give them. What Congress was hearing was questions from their constituents along the lines of, "We've beaten the Soviets to the Moon, so why are we still going back there." What's so strange? In fact, NASA reckons it won't be able to land on the Moon until about 2018. Assuming the usual delays which bug programs like this, I'd say that without a large injection of additional funding, they'll probably be held up until about 2023. You DO understand that NASA has to pay for this? And that the less money they get each year, the longer it'll take to make things happen?
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Mar 29, 2006 1:29:31 GMT -4
nasamoonedamerica said:
Every time a spacecraft makes a major burn, they calculate ahead of time how long the burn should be, and in what direction, in order to achieve the desired outcome. Then, after the burn is performed, they compare the actual result with the desired result, and make a final adjustment if necessary.
Now, if you know: (a) where the spacecraft will be when the engine is fired; (b) what direction it's pointing; (c) how much thrust the engine provides; (d) the mass of the spacecraft; and (e) how long the engine fires, you can work out exactly what the effect of the burn should be on the spacecraft's path. All of these bits of information are fairly easy to collect.
So what's so hard? Voyager 2's closest approach to Neptune was off by a matter of a couple of seconds. This was 12 years after it was launched, and it didn't have an astronaut on board to push the buttons. If we can do it with unmanned spacecraft with that sort of accuracy, where's the problem with Apollo?
What's the point about the spacecraft's centre of gravity? If you can aim the thrust accurately, it won't be a problem. How far above the engines is the centre of gravity of a Redstone rocket? Much higher than the LM.
No. The landing path was determined long before the mission, and the astronauts could take control of the LM in the final stages of the landing. If the astronauts wanted to, they could have allowed the computer to land the LM. Of course, the danger there was that terrain features too small to be detected beforehand could be in the landing area, leading to a crash. So the astronauts would take control of the craft and guide it to a landing point of their choosing. How is this any different from a helicopter pilot choosing a landing point?
Last time I looked, clouds weren't a problem on the Moon.
Also, if things started to go wrong with a landing on the Moon, the astronauts could always abort and return to orbit. That's not really an option with the Space Shuttle. Once the shuttle fires its engines to return to Earth, it's committed to that course of action, come what may.
Once again, the trajectory of the LM Ascent Stage was carefully planned well before the mission started. From second to second, they knew exactly where the Command Module was in orbit around the Moon. As a result, the LM had a very small launch window every 2 hours or so. If they didn't lift off within a second or so of the right time, it would make the rendezvous very tricky. That's why they were very careful about preparing the LM for lift-off - they didn't want to screw up.
Well, no major corrections were required, but minor corrections were made on every mission on the return to Earth. Once again, the nature of gravity is such that once you put a spacecraft on a particular course at a particular speed, you'll know *very accurately* where it'll be in 3 days, 3 months or 3 years.
I was thinking of using as an analogy a car's cruise control system. If you set the cruise control for 100km/h for exactly 2 hours, you should travel exactly 200 kilometres, yes? How far will you actually travel? Well, the figure may be out by a kilometre, but it won't be too bad.
But now think about the difference between a car and a spacecraft. The road you travel will probably have a few hills, and the car may lose a bit of distance as it compensates for climbing the hill. There may be wind, and the car always has to overcome drag. But in space, these sorts of problems don't arise. That's why it's possible for engineers to plot spacecraft courses so accurately.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 29, 2006 1:45:06 GMT -4
"Nine times in a row the Apollo capsulesslipped into lunar orbit without needing a major burn to correct their trajectory.
Why is that surprising? The layman might go "gee whiz" but that's simply what's expected of aerospace engineers. That's the level of precision we routinely have to achieve in order to put satellites in orbit, etc.
Further, the notion that a "major" course correction would somehow be necessary negates the true nature of trajectories. At certain points designated MCC-1 and MCC-2 even short rocket bursts from the steering jets would have a major effect on the resulting insertion points. And for many missions -- especially those that employed hybrid trajectories -- there was a mandatory correction at either MCC-1 or MCC-2 in order to shift trajectories. In the orbital mechanics sense, these are considered "major" burns, although they do not require a considerable amount of rocket power.
The LEM, with its center of gravity far above the single rocket engine powering it...
No. As a matter of fact the LM's mass properties made it highly stable. The LM descent engine (i.e., the center of thrust) was actually quite high up in the center of the descent stage. The fuel tanks -- the heaviest part of any spacecraft -- were clustered around the engine on all sides, not above it as in a typical launch vehicle. This puts the center of mass only slightly above the DPS throat.
Further, the "single" rocket engine was gimballed, meaning it could be steered left and right, forward and backward, to achieve "gross trim", the basic large-scale stability. The LM also had a reaction control system that was actually overpowered for the application. Connected to a computer that adjusted the spacecraft's "fine trim" twice every second, the steering really wasn't a problem. The astronauts actually trained to control the LM even without the computer, and it was not impossible.
The ascent stage fuel was held low in tanks on either side. From a strictly mass-properties point of view, the Apollo lunar module is probably the most inherently stable manned spacecraft ever designed.
...landed wihtin spitting distance of the target site five out of six ties.
The sixth (actually the first in order, since we're talking about Apollo 11) missed by more than a mile due precisely to navigation problems. That puts the LM landing precision at about 85%, which is not really that good. Rene simply sweeps under the rug the evidence that doesn't fit his conclusion.
It was guided by Houston Ground Control operating at a distance of 230,000 miles. All this accuracy was at the radio/radar transmission loop of 2.5 seconds duration.
No. There was no active guidance being imposed by Mission Control on Earth. The spacecraft was tracked by Earth stations, but the control for the descent was entirely aboard the spacecraft in the form of two redundant digital guidance systems and two highly-skilled, highly-trained pilots.
Yet 37 years later they can't land shuttle here on earth if there are clouds over the Kennedy Sapce port"
That's a mission rule having to do with visibility requirements on the ground, not the capability of the vehicle to land. The space shuttle uses the TACAN radio navigation system and could otherwise land in any weather.
Six times in a row, the top half o the LEM made precise rendezvous with the command capsule after lifting off from the lunar surface.
No. The co-elliptical rendezvous orbits were arranged to make the ascent highly tolerant of imprecision. The LM got "close" the CSM's orbit, and then various RCS burns were made to "trim" the ascent orbit. The "precise" rendezvous was achieved through progressive refinement of a rough orbit over several hours.
Also the apollo's made nine deadly accurate re-entires into the Earth's atmophere, again apparently wihtout the need of major corections.
And again Rene ignores MCC-3 and MCC-4 where even small changes on the order of 5 feet per second can have a major effect on the final arrival point. He apparently expects some sort of huge, lengthy rocket burn.
Now understand that Rene has absolutely no training in engineering or spacecraft design. Why would you trust his assessment of the LM's flight and mass properties?
Understand also that Rene has no training in orbital mechanics or celestial navigation. Why would you trust his assessment of what was possible or even commonplace? Or his expectations of what sorts of maneuvers would routinely be required?
And finally, Rene displays absolute ignorance over how the LM was actually guided. He seems to think Mission Control was somehow flying the LM from hundreds of thousands of miles away, which is absolutely not what NASA claims. That's something he could have easily looked up or asked someone who knew.
You said these were "well reasoned" arguments. They are not.
When someone gets his opponent's claims wrong -- such as Rene has done with the LM guidance -- that's considered a "straw man" argument. It doesn't actually prove anything.
When someone simply asks you to agree with him that something seems wrong or fantastic but doesn't necessarily explain why, that's called "begging the question" and it avoids a burden of proof. Rene has the burden of proof to show that the alleged navigation feats actually were beyond the capacity of the science of the time. He has simply tried to dazzle you with common-sensical appeals.
|
|
|
Post by nasamoonedamerica on Mar 29, 2006 1:56:24 GMT -4
c.) any of the engineers on this board can tell you that just because the technology exists at one time doesn't mean it always exists. Apollo required some very specialized technology. Some of that technology can be adapted for other uses, but most of it cannot. Suffice to say most of the technology to get to the moon has been forgotten because of its uselessness for anything besides getting to the moon. Therefore, to get to the moon again we have to remake all that technology.
OK. How it is possible to forget something that was invented and created only 37 years ago ? Aren't there any records, any blueprints ? Not only that, but the newly proposed lunar mission is way more advanced than Apollo ever was.
Can't wait to see that "advanced" SciFi movie.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Mar 29, 2006 2:16:40 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 29, 2006 2:16:43 GMT -4
OK. How it is possible to forget something that was invented and created only 37 years ago?
Because if you stop doing it 35 years ago, all the people who did it will have retired and moved on. And the longer you leave it fallow, the more likely the processes that you used get superseded by new ones. It's different for production lines that operate continuously for years, or evolve smoothly and incrementally from one year to the next.
Aren't there any records, any blueprints?
Yes, but there is much, much more to building spacecraft than just "records" and "blueprints". It's not like building toasters or even like building cars.
You have to use fairly exotic processes to build some of these things, and they are designed with those processes in mind. Later you come up with new exotic processes for other designs and you retire the old processes. The old designs are therefore "unbuildable" because the materials, processes, and methods have changed.
Even in the simplest sense, you break up the tooling after something goes out of production. Tooling is not trivial in aerospace. For example, it takes 270,000 custom-built tools to build a Boeing 747. When the B-747 finally goes out of production, those tools will be destroyed, cannibalized for parts for new tools, or adapted to other designs. There's no going back. It would take literally years to rebuild all those tools and fixtures. You can't store them because it would take a building the size of the factory to store them in, and do you store all the tools for all the designs you've ever built, even though nobody wants them anymore? What would your stockholders have to say about that?
And despite the best attempts at record-keeping and standardization, the key knowledge for building any design successfully is frequently contained in the noggins of people who work for you. If those people are no longer available, or move on to other projects and therefore fill their heads with other stuff, you lose that knowledge.
Aerospace just doesn't work according to the notion that all you need is a roll of blueprints and a few guys who are good with screwdrivers. It's very highly specialized and difficult manufacturing.
Can't wait to see that "advanced" SciFi movie.
I thought this was supposed to be a scientific discussion. Why the cheap shot?
|
|
|
Post by nasamoonedamerica on Mar 29, 2006 2:26:36 GMT -4
Every time a spacecraft makes a major burn, they calculate ahead of time how long the burn should be, and in what direction, in order to achieve the desired outcome. Then, after the burn is performed, they compare the actual result with the desired result, and make a final adjustment if necessary. Now, if you know: (a) where the spacecraft will be when the engine is fired; (b) what direction it's pointing; (c) how much thrust the engine provides; (d) the mass of the spacecraft; and (e) how long the engine fires, you can work out exactly what the effect of the burn should be on the spacecraft's path. All of these bits of information are fairly easy to collect. So what's so hard? Voyager 2's closest approach to Neptune was off by a matter of a couple of seconds. This was 12 years after it was launched, and it didn't have an astronaut on board to push the buttons. If we can do it with unmanned spacecraft with that sort of accuracy, where's the problem with Apollo? How the radar from earth can tell where the spacecraft is ? The radar can only tell how far from earth the spacecraft is and no way it can tell the bearing. And the "pilot" of the apollo 11 Michael Collins in his book "Carrying the fire", claims that using the on board computer with 32 kb memory was able to "swing the sextant" toward the previously selected navigational stars. "Unlike gemini, however, Apollo has fancy computer tied to the optics, and now I call on it for help; it responds by swinging the sextant around until it points at where it thinks Menkent is. Aha ! There it is, in plain view, and it's a simple task for me to align the Cross-hairs (?!?!?! ") precisely on it and push a button at the instant of alignment.. Now I repeat the process using Nunki, and the computer pats me on the back by flushing the information that my measurements differ from its stored star angle data by 0.1 degree"How the computer with 32 kb memory stores the star systems information, and can "swing" the supposed sextant toward those stars systems ? That is a half Commodore 64. With much slower processor, bus and peripherals.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Mar 29, 2006 2:36:56 GMT -4
OK. How it is possible to forget something that was invented and created only 37 years ago ? Aren't there any records, any blueprints ?"
By "forgot," I mean "fallen out of practice". There are several responses to this. For one thing, what was essentially forgotten was the specialized expertise and training of the engineers that worked on the Apollo missions. Their knowledge of the specific hurdles that Apollo had to overcome became essentially (and I'm generalizing here) useless after Apollo was cancelled. That specialized knowledge simply was not carried to the next generation of engineers. It would need to be relearned. It's basically the same for the parts and technology.
There are records of some of the equipment, but not enough to be of too much use for the new mission. I'm sure whatever help those documents could provide has been exploited. The fact is, most of the documentation of Apollo has been destroyed. The reason is simple: Apollo generated a lot of documentation. Every process, every decision, every part, and every craft was documented. The companies that built the spacecraft are not interested in keeping so much documentation at their expense, especially for no other reason than historical value, and most of it was destroyed. It is common practice.
Also, a significant portion of the technology developed provided solutions for problems that do not exist anymore. Some of the technology from Apollo would surely be redundant for a lunar mission nowadays.
"Can't wait to see that "advanced" SciFi movie."
I don't think CGI quality is anywhere near the quality required to fool anybody into thinking what they were watching was real, and it won't be for years. The fidelity in which the upcoming lunar landings will be broadcast is sure to be much higher than the Apollo landings, and SFX just can't fabricate reality that well. There are things about the lunar environment which require either technology beyond our means to fake or SFX good enough to fool scientists and more importantly other SFX specialists. I mean, not only would the new SFX have to be completely convincing generally, but it would have to have the exact same look as the old moon landing. Just watching Star Wars Episode 1 and Episode 2 you see inconsistancies in the way things are represented (not to mention old SW vs. new SW) between the two movies. A change in scenery and 40 years on the moon can only do so much for you.
By the way, I don't really like Star Wars, I was just using it as an analogy.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Mar 29, 2006 2:47:20 GMT -4
jeez I really gotta start typing faster. I just want to say, Jay, that I got most of my information about Apollo from you. I've learned a great deal from reading your site and badastronomy.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Mar 29, 2006 3:48:25 GMT -4
Hi. i would like to discuss the "temperature on the moon" issue and how the astronauts were "cooled" during the alleged "Moon walks" Howdy, and welcome to the board! Hopefully, after you've been here a while, you'll want to change your alias. ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) Let's talk about the "temperature on the moon". That phrase has led to a lot of confusion. You have no doubt heard that the temperature on the Moon varies from -250F up to 250F. I live in Texas, and in the summertime, the temperature gets up over 100F, so standing on the Moon must be like standing in an oven, right? No. If, on a hot summer day here in Texas, I walk out on the sidewalk barefoot, it's hot enough to cause pain. If I step onto the asphalt street, I will blister my feet. Why? 100F is less than two degrees above normal body temperature. The solid pavement is hotter than the transparent air because it absorbs more radiant energy from the sunlight. The light-colored concrete sidewalk may heat-up to 120-140F. The darker asphalt may get up to 180F or more. When we ask, "what is the temperature outside?" we are asking about the ambient temperature of the air. On the Moon, there is no air, so when we ask about the temperature there, we are asking about the temperature of a specific object on the surface; a patch of dirt, a rock, a camera or an astronaut's spacesuit (and specifying whether it is the side facing towards or away from the Sun). Note that this varies: In my above example, the sidewalk was ~130F, but the asphalt was 180+ F. When a textbook says that it gets up to 250F on the Moon, it is referring to the surface of a black, solid object with its face perpendicular to the Sun at local noon. The actual lunar surface is not black: It's about the same shade as asphalt (not the fresh-laid black stuff, but rather the dark/medium grey color it fades to after a few years). It heats up to roughly 200F. Mind you, the Moon is the same average distance from the Sun as the Earth. All things being equal, lunar regolith and asphalt should reach the same temperature. However, the asphalt is cooled somewhat because the air in contact with the pavement conducts away some of the heat (we can see it doing this: it causes the shimmering effect when we look across a hot parking lot). Also, daylight only last ~12 hours on Earth, but it's 14 days from sunrise to sunset on the Moon. I said before that the pavement here in Texas can get up to ~180F. However, on a summer day I can go outside and walk on it barefoot with no discomfort. How? It's simple: I do it at 8:00am, before it gets anywhere near that hot. The Apollo astronauts did the same thing: They landed when the rising sun was only ~10 degrees above the horizon and the surface temperature was ~30F. When they left three days later (on the longest missions), the sun was still only half-way up the sky, and the surface temperature was a bit over 100F (yes, NASA did have the technology to make insulated shoes in the 1960s ![:))](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/cheesy.png) . (Allow me to state the blindingly obvious: The surface starts out cold because it has spent all night radiating its heat into space. As someone else already pointed out, when a surface is in the sun, it absorbs light based on its reflectivity (more reflective absorbs less energy) and its angle to the sun (a perpendicular angle to the light absorbs more than an oblique angle). When the same surface is shaded from the sun, it radiates heat as efficiently as it absorbs it - a black surface radiates faster than a light one.) For astronauts, heat management is a crucial issue that requires careful engineering, whether they are on the Moon or in Earth orbit - Remember, they are at the same average distance from the Sun. In fact, the Earth is more reflective than the Moon, so astronauts & spacecraft in Earth orbit get more reflected energy than those on the Moon (even though the surface is much further away, there's a lot more area doing the reflecting). For spacecraft & spacesuits (which can be thought of as mini-spacecraft), the engineering solution is basically the same: Keep as much of the outside heat out and control the heat that's being generated on the inside to maintain comfortable levels. Outside heat from direct & reflected sunlight is kept out by using a reflective outer layer, backed up by layers of insulation. When you look at the flimsy-looking outer covers of the Lunar Module, you're only seeing the reflective skin that covers the actual structural members and pressure vessels beneath. Interestingly, Middle Eastern nomads developed the same principle centuries ago: Those volumous white robes they wear serve the same function, and work better than shorts and a t-shirt to keep them cool in the desert. Inside, heat is generated by electronics and by the astronauts themselves. On full-size spacecraft, most of the heat comes from electronics, and any excess goes to shielded radiators on the hull (on Apollo 13, when they lost power, they shut down the electronics and therefore their main heat source, which is why it got so cold). Men doing geology on the Moon, and building the International Space Station in orbit are basically doing heavy work for hours in an airtight rubber suit. Beneath the rubber, they wear something like long underwear that has a whole network of tubes. They pump water through the tubes to something called a porous-plate sublimator, which carries the heat away to space. The smaller pieces of equipment on the Moon, such as cameras and experiment packages mainly relied on reflective outer casings. In these cases, keeping the dark lunar dust off of them was a major concern. On the EVA videos, you can hear some exasperation from the astronauts after the umpteenth request from Houston to dust-off the TV camera because it's overheating. Of course, the astronauts and the still cameras they carried were almost constantly turning this way and that, so individual surfaces spent as much time facing away from the Sun as towards it. Hopefully this helps clear things up for you.
|
|