Discovery Launches at 11:38 EDT. Expects to Reach and Dock With ISS in 44 Hours!

Back to topic...

Was there room (time) for above top secret stuff going on during STS-120? I don't know, I'm here to learn.

I am, also, wishing to understand more science re: thermal effects of Sun's radiation on spacecraft, especially as pertained to Apollo 13. They had to power down to save the batteries after the SM explosion. Using the LM as a 'lifeboat' was smart (they were lucky they'd already docked the LM to the CM). So, the CM was powered down to preserve power for re-entry, make sure chutes deploy and everything.

Now, some Apollo 'hoax' believers claim man cannot leave LEO because of cosmic radiation. But I read that a polyethelene barrier, built into the spacecraft's skin, would be sufficient for a few days, the hydrogen atoms in the poly tend to interact with the dangerous particles and help protect the humans.

OK, still with me? It got very cold on Apollo 13, saving battery power meant not using it for heaters. Where was the IR from the Sun? Was the spacecraft in the Earth's shadow? Did the radiation barrier work too well? I'll answer that last question...IR waves are long and should not have been stopped by polyethelene. Cosmic radiation is higher on the EM scale, and mostly consists of particles. Heat (IR) is conducted thru a medium, according to what we are used to here on Earth. BUT, I can go outside on a sunny day and FEEL the warmth of the Sun on my face...

Scientists? Please discuss....

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by johnlear
Thanks for the post BS, the information on the system you call "google" was extremely informative and helpful. I had no idea such a site existed.

I'm glad I've dragged another person from dark ages into the era of accessible information and learning aids. I'm sure that from now on you will do a little looking around before posting trivial questions on the forum. Good work!

So the sun doesn't produce any heat that would warm the spacecraft?

Oops, I celebrated too early. John, Sun does produce heat but the heat can be reflected, and indeed was. If the craft was painted black, it would probably be as hot as a furnace, but you don't want the astronauts to be BBQd, do you? The radiators were tuned to dump a specific amount of heat into space, and when there was less energy availble, the balance was broken. There are high school physics textbooks which I highly recommend in addition to "google".



[edit on 15-11-2007 by buddhasystem]

oops...I think buddhasystem just answered some of MY questions, even though he was directing his comments to someone else. Care to join in?

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Keeping the heat balance inside the space vehicle was achieved with radiators. Once there was less heat produced inside the vehicle due to power failure (heard of that, John?), the temps went down.

So the sun hitting the side of the craft would not produce heat then? hmmmm. The last time we went through this was that the radiators took the heat from the sunny side and dispersed it to the shady side...

Oh well what do I know ?

And I was just wondering why you refuse to do a little research before you post something like that? Is it that hard? I can explain, John. You type the following string:

www.google.com

Well if we did ALL the leg work at Google there would be little discussion... besides google works for both sides of an argument... just depends which sources you believe

[edit on 15-11-2007 by zorgon]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
oops...I think buddhasystem just answered some of MY questions, even though he was directing his comments to someone else. Care to join in?

Dear weedwhacker,

I'll be more than happy to asnwer your physics question as best I can.

By the way, there is no way that cosmic radiation (particles and gamma) could have kept the craft warm in any case. For that to be true, the dose would so high the astronauts would have expired rather soon.

It was the EM radiation from the Sun that was heating the craft. The spectrum can be found here:

en.wikipedia.org...

You correctly pointed out the diminished output of energy inside the craft due to the disaster. John keeps missing that.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

It was the EM radiation from the Sun that was heating the craft. The spectrum can be found here:

Thanks for the post BS. Now wait a mintue. You just said:

Keeping the heat balance inside the space vehicle was achieved with radiators. Once there was less heat produced inside the vehicle due to power failure (heard of that, John?), the temps went down.

Now you are saying the EM radiation was heating the craft.

So are you saying that once the power failed the suns heat could not heat the spacecraft?



Thanks for the post.

Originally posted by Fett Pinkus
Just love how you have so much time to post here yet when it comes to the Baut forums you cant waste your precious time waiting for responses.

Precisely right my PRECIOUS time... unlike some in here I actually have a life outside the computer

Guess you dont want to get owned again over there

What would be the point? All it would accomplish is to give Phil more free material to sell in his books and tours.

Beside as you have proven here, you guys over at BAUT never address an issue... you made an accusation here about my site being invalid when I clearly have proof that ALL my material is properly sourced to the original... yet you and the rest at BAUT completely ignored that fact

Besides I have checked my question to the ISS ground jockey has STILL NOT BEEN POSTED...So I call that censorship, as I have not been banned I do not see why the post was never made... or is a week between posts standard practice over there?

I have since found a separate email address for him at the other forum and have had a reply...

Keep your biased board... I have no interest in posting where they review and censor your posts

Originally posted by johnlear

Keeping the heat balance inside the space vehicle was achieved with radiators. Once there was less heat produced inside the vehicle due to power failure (heard of that, John?), the temps went down.

Now you are saying the EM radiation was heating the craft.

So are you saying that once the power failed the suns heat could not heat the spacecraft?

John, both the heat released inside and the EM radiation from the Sun was heating the craft. The heat dissipation was tuned to a particular level of power consumption inside the craft, and once that fell, so did the temperature. It took me 5 tries to explain this simple concept to you John, but hey, anything to make you happy. I even suggested the ATS members buy you a telescope but this didnt' fly.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
(they were lucky they'd already docked the LM to the CM). So, the CM was powered down to preserve power for re-entry, make sure chutes deploy and everything.

Funny I don't recall them having to dock... I could have sworn the accident happened on the way TO the Moon... But hey I could be wrong here...



Did you know the darn thing almost blew up on liftoff?

[ex
The flight's problems began during the liftoff with a lesser-known malfunction: during the second-stage burn, the center engine shut down two minutes early. The four outer engines were run for longer than planned, to compensate for this. Engineers later discovered that this was due to dangerous pogo oscillations which might have torn the second stage apart; the engine was experiencing 68g vibrations at 16 hertz, flexing the thrust frame by 3 inches.

Now, some Apollo 'hoax' believers claim man cannot leave LEO because of cosmic radiation. But I read that a polyethelene barrier, built into the spacecraft's skin, would be sufficient for a few days, the hydrogen atoms in the poly tend to interact with the dangerous particles and help protect the humans.

OK, still with me?

No actually... ever heard of aerogel?

"the darn thing almost blew up on lift off"

Well, almost is the key word there, isn't it? BTW, check up on some Apollo mission research, you will see that the LM was 'unpacked' and the Command/Service module docked with the Lander AFTER TLI. This, obviously, before reaching the Moon's orbit. If anything had gone wrong during this maneuver, the landing would have course have to be abandoned and the crew would return, using the Moon's gravititational field. Much like the Apollo 13 contingency plan AFTER the SM explosion.

IF the O2 tank had exploded shortly after TLI, then who knows, the crew may have been lost. OR, creative folks on the ground may have come up with solutions. Point is, 'facts is facts'.

Fiinally, I use no official terms here, when I wrote 'unpacked', just my interpretation.

BTW, think about it. You're going to the Moon, in this clumsy vehicle system called Apollo. No 'inertial dampers', no 'impulse drives', just Newton's laws. After TLI there's a while of travel time, then the SM engine had to burn to decelerate JUST ENOUGH to enter a Lunar orbit. That same engine had to burn again to send you to the TEI trajectory. That was the sequence for Apollo 8 -17 (except 13, of course). 13 used a 'free-return' trajectory, that uses the 'sling-shot' effect of the Moon's gravity. No need for an engine burn that way.

reply to post by zorgon


To answer your last question posed, zorgon. I've HEARD of aerogel - not sure what it is, exactly. I will Google and find out. But, if it's what I think it is, then are you telling me I'm right re: a simple and lightweight defense against Gamma radiation, for short jaunts, outside the Earth' magnetoshpere?

IF so, thank you! Next, please tell us if aerogel had been invented yet, in 1969. I will, as I said, Google and find out or, perhaps you could save me some time.

Funny I don't recall them having to dock... I could have sworn the accident happened on the way TO the Moon... But hey I could be wrong here...

Well, you're a little off the mark. They DID have to make a separation and 180 degree turn with the CM to dock and retrieve the LM from its garage on top of the last stage of the Saturn. So you're right that they didn't have to make the complex and dangerous LOR, but they did have to execute a docking after they'd made lunar trajectory insertion.

reply to post by johnlear

John,

I'm really at a loss about what to say to you other than you are simply not who you say you are if you don't understand the most rudimentary things about spaceflight, the vacuum of space, orbital mechanics, etc. Period. You've gotten schooled in this thread and outed as a charlatan - a man who claims to not have enough money to prove his theory correct despite how simple and cheap it would be to do so (you could have razor sharp photos of Shuttle-SSS rendezvous for a $2000-$3000 investment).

But you keep spouting wrong things like they're gospel, and your lemming followers (I'm betting none of whom have gone to college) support you for no good reaosn other than they want to believe.

Others, however, read your replies and scoff. They don't post, but they're the majority - and thank god for that.

Back to the topic of spacecraft and the heating or cooling therein... this is from a guy over at BAUT who actually used to fly the International Space Station:

First, a little about myself: I've been an ISS flight controller (one of those guys in Mission Control with the headsets in front of the big screens) since 1999. My areas of concentration in that time have been ISS Guidance, Navigation, and Control and Environmental Control & Life Support.

You're wrong about the first part. The ratio of insolation to eclipse is dependant on the Beta angle. The Beta angle is the angle between the orbital plane of the ISS and the sun. It varies cyclically and predictably over the course of the year. At the time of my posting the ISS spends ~55 minutes of its orbit in the sun and ~35 in the shade.

Yes, it does require massive radiators to remain cool and remain habitable. Clearly you don't understand why...

Yes, ammonia is one of the coolants used. Since ammonia in concentrated form is extremely dangerous to humans, interface heat exchangers are used to couple the ammonia loops outside with water loops inside.

So WHY is there a massive cooling system on ISS? To reject the heat created by the computers, batteries, power relays, payloads, etc. All this equipment turns electricity to heat and it gets hot - very hot. This equipment operates without the advantage of gravity-aided convection. To remedy this, the equipment is placed on cold-plates which transfer the heat to the internal water loop and then to the external ammonia loop. The heat is then rejected by the radiators.

The crew cabin tends to stay pretty close to a shirt-sleeve environment thanks to the all the heat that is generated in the station. Inter- and intramodule ventilation helps to even the temperature across the station's air volume (and ensure no pockets of Carbon Dioxide!).

Do you know what the Shuttle provides to ISS components which are en route to the ISS? Power. Why? To run heaters. Without the internal equipment running the hardware gets VERY cold in space. Every mission has a thermal constraint related to the payload - go without power long enough and your hardware will be permantly damaged by the cold. Even powered and mated modules have "shell heaters" to prevent humidity from condensing on the cold hull.

EDIT: the original poster would do well to look at the ISS' assembly sequence. The thermal control system has expanded dramatically over the course of construction even though the ISS spends just as much time in the sun today as it did back in 1999 - as more equipment has been added, more heat rejection capability has been required.

So there you have it - from somebody who actually knows. I'm sure you'll just call him a disinfo agent...

Don't take his word for it. Go grab yourself a space environment text book and cite whatever passage proves whatever it is that you believe.

Hint: you won't be able to!

-1553B

P.S. How the plan to track the shuttle change it's inclination going?

[edit on 15-11-2007 by 1553B]

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I even suggested the ATS members buy you a telescope but this didnt' fly.

Whatever happened to that topic anyway? I tried to click on it again and was told it didn't exist.

I thought your proposal made sense, but apparently it rubbed some people the wrong way. Perhaps it should have be on BTS instead?

Arogel has an extremely low density and can't help as a radiation shield.
Same applies to polyethylene.

There are two strategies of reducing the dose -- you either keep the shell very light so there aren't a lot of showers, or use massive shields, which is not easy in space flight. So that's one of the reasons the craft is kept light.

However, a different strategy can be employed against solar flares. Due to lower energy than typical cosmic rays, they can be guarded against using the available mass of heavier part of the craft. Roughly speaking, you can sit it out hiding behind a fridge.

You can google up particle showers.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

John, both the heat released inside and the EM radiation from the Sun was heating the craft. The heat dissipation was tuned to a particular level of power consumption inside the craft, and once that fell, so did the temperature. It took me 5 tries to explain this simple concept to you John, but hey, anything to make you happy. I even suggested the ATS members buy you a telescope but this didnt' fly.

Thanks you for your post BS and you consummate patience.

3rd try:

After the power down was the EM radiation from the sun able to heat the spacecraft. If not, why not?

I don't think the telescope suggestion was well thought out; not to even mention that it would be considered a gift I would have to report and would affect the allocation of my food stamps.

As far as your telescope suggestion as I explained I need a 16 inch cassegrain with an equatorial mount and orbital drive along with digital video capabilities. I also explained that this is not something you do in your back yard. For quality pictures of the secret space station you need to be in an area at least 100 miles from any city lights or else inside a ring of mountains such as about half way up hiway 93 to Groom Lake.

Also into consideration is the power required for both the equatorial mount and the orbital drive and the video camera while you are on site

While your Chirstmas present offer may have been made in good faith it was certainly made without any well thought out plan for either how to collect the money or how to spend it. You never consulted me beforehand to see what my requirements might be to photograph the secret space stations.

Nevertheless your posts are appreciated and I welcome the input.

Thanks again for your infinite patience in helping me staighten out this sun EM radiation question.

John, read this:

reply to post by 1553B


Spacecraft are light-colored objest, as I pointed out, for a reason. Concentrate, John.

As to those who are wondering what happened to the telescope thread -- the admins removed it. Sorry John. Without sarcasm, I expected a few people here to have faith and heart to collect enough for a good scope... And again, you don't have to spy the SSSS. You can check the motion of the shuttle...

This is just a general comment, because this is, after all, John Lear's forum.

I think the moderator has said it already, but here I go. Yes, Capt Lear is a lightning rod for controversy. Don't you love it?! I mean, agree or disagree, but keep it civil. Heck, he taught me more about the Lockheed L-1011 in one post than I've ever known in 35 years of flying airplanes.

BTW...Lockheed is a major contractor, (along with Boeing, Raytheon, and others) for the vast Military Industrial Complex. All have Black Ops budgets, of course. AND, that's the point of this website, right?

Lockheed...the SR-71, the U-2, stealth. Read the book 'SkunkWorks'. Really fascinating stuff.

OK, peace

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Without sarcasm, I expected a few people here to have faith and heart to collect enough for a good scope... And again, you don't have to spy the SSSS. You can check the motion of the shuttle...

Yup. John and his believers could blow the lid off of NASA!!! His life's work would be affirmed in no time!

When it comes to putting up or shutting up, oddly enough, he does neither. When he's called to task, he just keeps spouting nonsense and making lame excuses.

CROCK!

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Yes, Capt Lear is a lightning rod for controversy. Don't you love it?! I mean, agree or disagree, but keep it civil.

If you make outrageous claims that can be easily proven, you had better do so. If you don't, you're deserving of whatever scorn you get. Fact.

reply to post by johnlear


Thank you, Capt Lear...your last post just made me laugh out loud. I appreciate your sense of humor. This is not a joke, hope you don't take it as sarcasm, because it isn't. My offer stands - when I come visit LAS I'll treat you to a beer. Maybe I should not make this offer public...but you are interesting, and I'd love to pick your brain. Ooops, that sounds terrible, but I hope you know what I meant.

Cheers