|
Post by stutefish on Sept 16, 2011 17:04:35 GMT -4
Did anybody ever happen to give an explanation for why Houston introduced an Ascent O2 pressure check at 135:59:19?
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Sept 19, 2011 5:41:51 GMT -4
Did anybody ever happen to give an explanation for why Houston introduced an Ascent O2 pressure check at 135:59:19? What about it? The sequence of valve changes transferred the cabin O 2 supply temporarily from the descent stage to the ascent stage tank #1 long enough for Houston to get telemetry confirming that the ascent O 2 tank is full and its valve and filter are working properly. It also confirms that the O 2 Descent Feed valve is closing properly. That's pretty vital as the O 2 manifold would be vented to space at staging if it's not sealed. There's a second ascent O 2 tank but it apparently wasn't checked at this time. Looking at the LM O 2 system, I see a high pressure O 2 manifold within the ascent stage that can be fed by either of two tanks in the ascent stage or by a single line carrying O 2 from the descent stage. This high pressure manifold can be opened directly into the cabin via the infamous Cabin Repress And Emergency O 2 valve, but normally the manifold goes through redundant demand regulators into the suit loop. I suppose that do that check then so that in the unlikely event the ascent O 2 is malfunctioning they keep one or both PLSSes, with the gas hoses open to keep the cabin pressuurized and to remove CO 2. You want to know if you you'll need to do this before you discard the PLSS.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Sept 20, 2011 20:45:56 GMT -4
Did anybody ever happen to give an explanation for why Houston introduced an Ascent O2 pressure check at 135:59:19? What about it? The sequence of valve changes transferred the cabin O 2 supply temporarily from the descent stage to the ascent stage tank #1 long enough for Houston to get telemetry confirming that the ascent O 2 tank is full and its valve and filter are working properly. It also confirms that the O 2 Descent Feed valve is closing properly. That's pretty vital as the O 2 manifold would be vented to space at staging if it's not sealed. There's a second ascent O 2 tank but it apparently wasn't checked at this time. Looking at the LM O 2 system, I see a high pressure O 2 manifold within the ascent stage that can be fed by either of two tanks in the ascent stage or by a single line carrying O 2 from the descent stage. This high pressure manifold can be opened directly into the cabin via the infamous Cabin Repress And Emergency O 2 valve, but normally the manifold goes through redundant demand regulators into the suit loop. I suppose that do that check then so that in the unlikely event the ascent O 2 is malfunctioning they keep one or both PLSSes, with the gas hoses open to keep the cabin pressuurized and to remove CO 2. You want to know if you you'll need to do this before you discard the PLSS. Thanks! That all makes sense. I was just curious why Houston phrased it as an ad hoc, off-checklist test. I guess I figure, if it was important enough to do as a matter of course, it would have been a checklist item, which from the way the transcript reads, it wasn't. Therefore, if Houston introduced it as an off-checklist test, they must have had some out-of-the-ordinary reason for it. I was curious if anybody happened to know what that reason was. The other possibilities I can think of are that it was on the checklist, and just reads as ad hoc in the transcript, or that my assumptions and expectations are way off base (which is entirely plausible).
|
|
|
Post by mrspock on Jan 9, 2012 17:56:05 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 9, 2012 18:55:25 GMT -4
Jarrah White has yet to show that he knows what he's talking about in any field.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jan 9, 2012 19:07:43 GMT -4
Do you have any comments? Are you curious as to whether JW is on to something or are you looking for someone to point out some of the many things that are wrong with his videos?
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Jan 9, 2012 23:35:05 GMT -4
If someone will summarise is claims / evidence, I'll comment. I'm not about to raise his hit count on YouTube nor waste precious bandwidth on his garbage, though.
|
|
|
Post by Vincent McConnell on Jan 10, 2012 1:54:33 GMT -4
Jarrah White's LRO videos are convincing to the casual observer, but LRO has been fully verified by GoneToPlaid, an optics EXPERT.
|
|
|
Post by mrspock on Jan 10, 2012 2:43:02 GMT -4
Do you have any comments? Are you curious as to whether JW is on to something or are you looking for someone to point out some of the many things that are wrong with his videos? Just curious because I am hanging around some swedish message boards regarding "the hoax" where these clips came up. Need I also say that I am not a HB, off course we went there.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jan 10, 2012 5:50:34 GMT -4
Not looking anymore. Might change my mind but can you flesh out the claim. So far, from what I have seen of the videos I have watched (laboured through), he could not prove there is a Y in the names of the days.
|
|
|
Post by mrspock on Jan 12, 2012 15:43:04 GMT -4
He claims for instance that no wheel tracks are visible in a specific photograph like they should.
I looked it up and the picture itself was with 55 centimeters / pixel...no wonder the tracks wasn't there...
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jan 12, 2012 16:35:15 GMT -4
He claims for instance that no wheel tracks are visible in a specific photograph like they should. I looked it up and the picture itself was with 55 centimeters / pixel...no wonder the tracks wasn't there... Which is an example of why we don't bother visiting his drivel and giving him any more hits. Every denial claim he makes is exactly the same as that one - easily disproved. All his videos prove is that he *deliberately misleads*. On numerous occasions when indisputable proof has been presented to him, he continues to promote the lies. He cannot use the excuse of being a lousy researcher. Jarrah White is the lowest of the low.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jan 12, 2012 20:59:25 GMT -4
But the rover tracks are visible in many LRO pictures with that same resolution. I think it has more to do with the illumination angle and the angle with which LRO is viewing the scene (not always straight down). Already I've noticed many Apollo artifacts that are very prominent in some LRO pictures and completely invisible in others.
And of course the same applies to many natural features like craters, which become almost invisible at high sun angles when there are no shadows to reveal their topography.
|
|
|
Post by mrspock on Jan 13, 2012 2:48:13 GMT -4
But the rover tracks are visible in many LRO pictures with that same resolution. I think it has more to do with the illumination angle and the angle with which LRO is viewing the scene (not always straight down). Already I've noticed many Apollo artifacts that are very prominent in some LRO pictures and completely invisible in others. And of course the same applies to many natural features like craters, which become almost invisible at high sun angles when there are no shadows to reveal their topography. I´m fighting a swedish HB with exactly these claims - "why doesn´t the tracks appear on "this" image" and so on. And he loves Jarrah W I don´t know why I waste my time trying to convince him... FYI - it´s the same guy (mclellan) who claims that Saturn IV never went more than to orbit in this thread: apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=2732&page=12
|
|
|
Post by Glom on Jan 13, 2012 12:25:20 GMT -4
Damn litterbugs! The Forestry Commission is going to go ape about this.
|
|