Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

What does your link prove? Uncertainties in the program and results were inconclusive.

What kind of a liar says that results are inconclusive? Propagandists always make statements that sound like positive claims, right, Sayanara? Did the Bushies ever say that intelligence about "WMD's" in Iraq was "inconclusive?"

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
That bugs me a lot FoosM. In fact, it pisses me off that NASA is doing new "lander testing" like this when these technical challenges were allegedly "mastered" by NASA and the Russians by the early 1970's.

NASA is lying. DoD is pulling the strings.

And how!

America's Army (also known as AA or Army Game Project) is a series of video games and other media developed by the United States Army and released as a global public relations initiative to help with recruitment. America's Army was conceived by Colonel Casey Wardynski and is managed by the U.S. Army's Office of Economic and Manpower Analysis at the United States Military Academy. Wardynski envisioned "using computer game technology to provide the public a virtual Soldier experience that was engaging, informative and entertaining."

NASA has once again landed on the lunar surface with the goal of colonization, research, and further exploration. Shortly after the return to the Moon, NASA has established a small outpost on the south pole of the moon called Moonbase Alpha.

store.steampowered.com...
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by DJW001


You linked to the report that discussed EVA's only. The report you linked to said "inconclusive".

METABOLISM AND HEAT DISSIPATION DURING APOLLO EVA PERIODS
lsda.jsc.nasa.gov...

The lowest metabolic rates occurred while astronauts drove and rode in the LRV (figure 4). This was the most clearly defined operational activity. Metabolic rates for this activity approached rates reported for shirt sleeve riding in an automobile (Webb, 1973).

During the Apollo 14 mission, which included some of the most extensive walking traverses (figure 5), a specific effort was made to relate walking speed to metabolic rate. The results of this effort are presented in table 4. These data indicate a very poor correlation between traverse rate and metabolic rate. During these operational traverses, the crewman apparently maintained a comfortable walking effort, and, to a large extent, the rate of travel at this level of effort varied with the terrain and the operational requirements of each traverse.

1. "Riding in the LRV produces the lowest metabolic rates"
2. "extensive walking traverses show poor correlation between traverse rate and metabolic rate",
3. "Several researchers reported on the effect of one-sixth on the cost of work in a pressure suit. The results were inconclusive."
4. "The metabolic rates experienced during the lunar surface extravehicular activities were lower than conservative premission estimates."
5. "The heart rate, counted from the electrocardiographic signal, was related to metabolism on the basis of a correlation with bicycle ergometer workload which was established before the flight (figure 1). "

This is figure 1.

lsda.jsc.nasa.gov...

6. "2. The oxygen usage, computed from the decrease in oxygen bottle pressure per unit time, was related to metabolism. A correction was made for an assumed rate of suit leakage. "

Assumed rate of suit leakage? How much suit leakage did they assume? The scientists are making up numbers now? Typical NASA

How do you know they made anything up?

Did you even try to find out??

Space suit info - including how they determined leakage rates (7.2mb pdf) -

The CSSS Configuration 2 leak rate is assumed equal to the average measured mean Apollo pre-flight value of 82.8 sccm.

Unless you are going to measure a leakage rate in real time you HAVE to assume one that you have established at some other time.

Or:

The suit oxygen leakage rate was variable and had to be estimated. The maximum oxygen leakage rate allowed by the pressure suit specification was equivalent to a metabolic rate of approximately 211 X 103 J /hr (200 Btu/hr).

From Apollo Experience Report - Assessment Of Metabolic Expenditures

typical hoaxer - do a smidgen of research to give some appearance of credibility, then claim their own ignorance is evidence that something had to be invented!

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz
OMG, this is still going on, I don't remember the overall evidence against or trend of the thread, it's been so long.

ATS really needs a 'summary function' of some sort for threads that remain THIS active for THIS long...

It's been 9 months and another 200 pages since I wrote this, so I will ask again. Plz.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
That bugs me a lot FoosM. In fact, it pisses me off that NASA is doing new "lander testing" like this when these technical challenges were allegedly "mastered" by NASA and the Russians by the early 1970's.

Yeah! What are they thinking, doing testing like that when it was already done in the 60's. I mean it's not like anything has changed in the last 40 years. It's not like there are new materials available or new methods of construction to take advantage of now...

Seriously though. Why is this such a problem for you? What is so wrong about engineers continually building on their knowledge and improving upon it? Do you get equally pissed off when Automotive companies do tests on there new models, even though they've been done before on previous years models? The same goes for any Aerospace company that continually tests there planes and or various components of them. And cars and planes have been around for about 100 years now. So by your logic, any technical challenges should have been mastered a long time ago, and that there is nothing new to learn, right?

Looking at the photo you posted. I can see they're testing a 3 legged lander. With only 3 legs, their is a greater chance of tipping over than one with 4 legs. So finding ways to develop a more stable lander with 3 legs is a good thing. It also helps save a little bit of weight too.

Originally posted by jra
Seriously though. Why is this such a problem for you? What is so wrong about engineers continually building on their knowledge and improving upon it? Do you get equally pissed off when Automotive companies do tests on there new models, even though they've been done before on previous years models?

Automotive safety testing is government mandated because ........ people ride in cars. The 3-legged design isn't expected to carry any passengers just the instrument package.



That's Luna 16. Moon landing Date 20 September 1970 05:18 UTC.
Three days later on 24 September, after a direct ascent traverse with no mid-course corrections, the capsule, with its 101 grams of lunar soil, reentered Earth's atmosphere at a velocity of 11 kilometers per second. The capsule parachuted down 80 kilometers southeast of the town of Jezkazgan in Kazakhstan at 05:25 UT on 24 September 1970.

It seems to me that NASA is at a crossroads and they need to get to the moon before these other countries get up their and report what's really up there. Looking at the Apollo program and comparing it to today's lethargic NASA I can come up with a few modest suggestions:
1. Hire some ex-Nazi rocket engineers
2. Resurrect Richard Nixon
3. Get Hollywood, USIA, CBS and the CIA involved.

With a team like that America could be back on the moon by Christmas 2011

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

What does your link prove? Uncertainties in the program and results were inconclusive.

What kind of a liar says that results are inconclusive? Propagandists always make statements that sound like positive claims, right, Sayanara? Did the Bushies ever say that intelligence about "WMD's" in Iraq was "inconclusive?"

edit on 27-9-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to polish style.

You are in total denial DJ. That means you are getting closer to a breakthrough in your critical thinking skills!

Why are you overlooking the facts? Did the report say "we are highly confident in our findings?" NO. They said "uncertainties" and "inconclusive". The report you posted is trash. Do you know why it's trash? Because the engineers at NASA today are never going to read that report EVER.

All of the data in that report is useless. The report basically says when astros are riding in the LRV the metabolism is low. I could have told you that!

More fakery from the report:

The lowest metabolic rates occurred while astronauts drove and rode in the LRV (figure 4). This was the most clearly defined operational activity. Metabolic rates for this activity approached rates reported for shirt sleeve riding in an automobile (Webb, 1973).

Well, where are the statistics? Where are the controls for the "shirt sleeve riding in an automobile." This report has no credibility at all.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

All of the data in that report is useless. The report basically says when astros are riding in the LRV the metabolism is low. I could have told you that!

Actually, I would have thought opposite, due to the fact they are "supposedly" driving over unknown, crater, boulder, ridden terrain in a light weight vehicle. I would have been worried about toppling over, going into a unseen crater or crevasse, etc. Or at least there should have been a difference between the driver and the passenger, no?

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

It seems to me that NASA is at a crossroads and they need to get to the moon before these other countries get up their and report what's really up there. Looking at the Apollo program and comparing it to today's lethargic NASA I can come up with a few modest suggestions:
1. Hire some ex-Nazi rocket engineers
2. Resurrect Richard Nixon
3. Get Hollywood, USIA, CBS and the CIA involved.

With a team like that America could be back on the moon by Christmas 2011

edit on 9/28/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: quoted too much, saving space

Maybe we need to update it to
1. ex Al Queda
2. Bush
3. And include FOX, they now have the football, after all.

The 117-page report shows an $80 million cost overrun this year for just one motor and a dozen different technical problems that the space agency put in the top risk zone, meaning the problems are considered severe. The report put the program’s financial performance in that category, as well.
Some experts say it’s too early to be worried, others say NASA’s design is flawed or the space agency is just repeating mistakes made in developing the space shuttle.

www.universetoday.com...



Both programs strife with issues.
Except one completed its task on time with less technology and less information no deaths during the solar peak.
The other, is DOA.

The GAO identified several areas that could delay Constellation:

Both vehicles have a history of weight issues;

Excessive vibration during launch threatens system design;

Uncertainty about how flight characteristics will be impacted by a fifth segment added to the Ares I launch vehicle;

Ares I upper stage essentially requires development of a new engine;

No industry capability currently exists for producing the kind of heat shields that the Orion will need for protecting the crew exploration vehicle when it reenters Earth’s atmosphere; and

Existing test facilities are insufficient for testing Ares I’s new engine, for replicating the engine’s vibration and acoustic environment, and for testing the thermal protection system for the Orion vehicle.

NASA has claimed that Constellation is on schedule, and the problems are manageable. “I’ve rarely seen more of a mountain made out of less of a molehill,” NASA Administrator Mike Griffin told the Space Transportation Association in Washington, D.C., last month.

The lift capacity of the Ares V outperforms the Saturn V by a large margin. Ares can take 410,000 pounds into low earth orbit; the Saturn V carried 260,000 pounds. And, the Saturn V could send a payload of 100,000 pounds to the moon; Ares will carry 157,000 pounds.

I dont get it, whats the point for all that extra lift power, if in the end you can only offer a marginal increase in what you can send to the moon? Bring back the Saturn!

www.thespacebuff.com...




www.universetoday.com...

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

Well, where are the statistics? Where are the controls for the "shirt sleeve riding in an automobile." This report has no credibility at all.

With your research skills, it's a good thing you don't work for NASA!

www.engineeringtoolbox.com...

reply to post by FoosM


For the benefit of the thread. Here is the historical context to the graph that DJ posted. I'm glad the DJ posted that graph because it allows us all a chance to review it to varying degrees and from different perspectives.

www.hq.nasa.gov...

121:32:06 Scott: Little water. (Pause)
[Both Dave and Jim experienced heart arhythmias called premature ventricular contractions (PVCs) on the lunar surface and during the trip home - with Jim's episodes on the trip home being the most frequent and severe. Here, Jim ascribes his condition to dehydration. Another major factor was a potassium deficiency that built up in the crew during training and the initial stages of the flight. Abnormal occurrences of PVCs were eliminated on Apollo 16 and 17 by the addition of potassium-laced beverages to the ship-board diet of the entire crew.

121:37:36 Scott: Okay. (Long Pause)
[During the drive to the first geology stop, they will have average metabolic rates of about 400-500 BTU/hr or less than half their average 1000-1100 for the entire EVA. Because, in essence, they will be resting during the drive, they won't need much cooling.]

These astros were monitored for years by the best doctors at NASA. NASA shipped them to the moon with potassium deficiency which directly correlates to premature ventricular contractions. Are these the same doctors that tested on the monkeys? Probably.

Jim Irwin was not able to take a drink of water out of his waterpouch for the entire duration of EVA-1. Not only is the suit providing him with 100% pure oxygen but he's dehydrated. He's in an alien environment using totally artificial life support. He completes the mission.

Where is the trailblazing astronaut in NASA today? Who can compare to these legends? Nobody knows. Because nobody goes to the moon anymore. They stay low. Where it's safe.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

Where is the trailblazing astronaut in NASA today?

He died of heart failure in 1991. I'd say that's keeping pretty low.

reply to post by DJW001

Jim Irwin is playing with life & death on the Moon! What is NASA scared of for 50 years? Radiation? Aliens? Ruins? Space Wars?

It's not about money because we have already shown that space projects go forward when the President says go forward. It's not about money because NASA crashes $billions dollars of satellites into the Moon over 50 years.

NASA is just plain scared of the Moon. None of these Presidents want to go back because they're scared too.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

NASA is just plain scared of the Moon. None of these Presidents want to go back because they're scared too.

In psychology, this is known as projection. One thing that 'moon hoaxers" have in common is that they project their fears onto others. Time and again on this thread we have seen them project their exaggerated fear of radiation, their fear of poor sanitation, even their fear of driving! Now you are claiming that an entire space agency suffers from selenophobia!

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

121:32:06 Scott: Little water. (Pause)
[Both Dave and Jim experienced heart arhythmias called premature ventricular contractions (PVCs) on the lunar surface and during the trip home - with Jim's episodes on the trip home being the most frequent and severe. Here, Jim ascribes his condition to dehydration. Another major factor was a potassium deficiency that built up in the crew during training and the initial stages of the flight. Abnormal occurrences of PVCs were eliminated on Apollo 16 and 17 by the addition of potassium-laced beverages to the ship-board diet of the entire crew.

Hmmm.... what if they never left the ground?

Microgravity decreases heart rate and arterial pressure in humans.

Spaceflight causes adaptive changes in cardiovascular physiology, such as postflight orthostatic intolerance, that can have deleterious effects on astronauts. In-flight cardiovascular data are difficult to obtain, and results have been inconsistent. To determine normative in-flight changes in Shuttle astronauts, we measured heart rate, arterial pressure, and cardiac rhythm disturbances for 24-h periods before, during, and after spaceflight on Shuttle astronauts performing their normal routines. We found that heart rate, diastolic pressure, variability of heart rate and diastolic pressure, and premature ventricular contractions all were significantly reduced in flight. Systolic pressure and premature atrial contractions also tended to be reduced in flight. These data constitute the first systematic evaluation of in-flight changes in basic cardiovascular variables in Shuttle astronauts and suggest that a microgravity environment itself does not present a chronic stress to the cardiovascular system.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

reply to post by FoosM

Microgravity decreases heart rate and arterial pressure in humans.

Which is why driving on the Moon is comparable to driving on Earth; they both require minimal exertion. Their other activities were more strenuous. The were fighting the pressurized suits and lifting heavy equipment. The heart problems were due to a potassium deficiency. They had "space scurvy!" This was solved by adding potassium to the diets of later missions.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

Microgravity decreases heart rate and arterial pressure in humans.

Which is why driving on the Moon is comparable to driving on Earth; they both require minimal exertion. Their other activities were more strenuous. The were fighting the pressurized suits and lifting heavy equipment. The heart problems were due to a potassium deficiency. They had "space scurvy!" This was solved by adding potassium to the diets of later missions.

fighting the pressurized suits? lifting heavy equipment?
Please tell us ... what did they lift on the Moon that could be considered heavy?

121:21:12 Irwin: My, it's heavy*.
[Irwin, from the 1971 Technical Debrief - "I guess I was surprised it was that heavy."]

124:27:55 Allen: And, Jim, you might want to take a short breather after carrying that heavy package**.

*reference to LEC, a pallet of food & batteries
**reference to ALSEP, science package

Another example shows it was "easy" to move the LRV around with no mention how heavy it was.
120:27:15 Irwin: You want to get a downhill run here.

[They turn the Rover clockwise until Dave has his back to the LM and the nose is pointing more or less to the northeast.]
[Scott, from the 1971 Technical Debrief - "We turned it around and pointed it away from the LM so I could drive off in forward rather than in reverse. We found it very easy to pick up and turn around. Subsequently, we moved it several times and it was easy to handle."]

Question: how much did the A15 ALSEP & A15 LEC weigh on the moon compared to the LRV?

Nixon was president during all Apollo 11-17 Moon missions between 1969-1972.
Lunar geologists refer to KREEP to explain the composition of certain A15-A17 rocks.
Nixon's 1972 had an election committee called CREEP.


Written by G. Jeffrey Taylor
Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology
www.psrd.hawaii.edu...

The Procellarum KREEP Terrane (PKT) dominates the nearside of the Moon. "KREEP" is an acronym for lunar rocks that are high in potassium (K), rare earth elements (REE), and phosphorous (P).

PKT is a mixture of assorted rocks, including most of the mare basalts on the Moon, and is characterized by high Th (about 5 parts per million on average). This region has also been called the "high-Th Oval Region" and the "Great Lunar Hot Spot" by two of the authors of the Jolliff paper. PKT occupies about 16% of the lunar surface.

The nature and origin of the PKT is controversial. A common rock type among Apollo samples is nicknamed "LKFM." As Randy Korotev reviews in his paper, this acronym has had a long and confusing history. It stands for "Low-K Fra Maura" basalt. The K stands for potassium, and the low was added to distinguish it from medium and high-K varieties. The original samples were not basalts, which are lava flows. Instead, they were impact-produced glasses in the lunar soil. Rocks of the right composition were found in abundance at the Apollo 15, 16, and 17 sites, and they were all impact melt breccias (fragments of assorted rocks and minerals bound together by magma made during an impact). Originally an adjective, LKFM began to be used as a noun--the name for a rock type--and the acceptable amount of potassium began to be stretched.

Interdisciplinary studies of the Moon are guaranteed to change the way scientists view it. - G. Jeffrey Taylor
, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology

The Committee for the Re-Election of the President, abbreviated CRP but often mocked by the acronym CREEP, was a fundraising organization of United States President Richard Nixon's administration. Besides its re-election activities, CRP employed money laundering and slush funds and was directly and actively involved in the Watergate scandal.