Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[Erock]

It's commonly accepted that Aldrin misspoke regarding Noun 60, which was the important bit of telemetry MOCR had been monitoring during the descent and landing. He intended only to ask whether Noun 43 had been copied.

The long pause prior to Aldrin's request for a copy confirmation is when Aldrin was executing the steps on the checklist that asked him to write down several pertinent guidance values as the result of post-landing computation.

You make a good point by showing that I didn't know this. It is probably widely accepted by people who know what they are talking about with expertise on the subject matter. Nor am I aware of anywhere in the transcript to verify this, though I suspect you are.

Here is the question to Patrick1000 that he continues to avoid...

Now we have definitive proof that the figures were sent and received from the P68 that you said NONE NONE NONE were sent and FAKE FAKE FAKE as a result. It makes your whole OP premise even more tenuous than it was previously(if that were possible!).

Do you withdraw your assertion that the P68 was not sent?

We already have the observatory director confirming 6 figures were received from NASA - an account made in 1969. Your claims are BUSTED BUSTED BUSTED, and it seems you have not the scientific ability to go where the evidence takes you. I for one am sick fed up of your continued avoidance of the questions and points raised, but by the same token am very pleased at the expert responses at you, educating us in the finer points (I include you in the 'us', even though you refuse to acknowledge any of it).

 

[Patrick1000]

What kind of ridiculous nonsense is this.......,..?......

It was your claim that the PNGCS coordinates were not in the transcript at all.
In the very first few lines of the transcript, Aldrin calls out N43, and McCandless confirms reciept via telemetry.

Are you retracting that claim?




No, you are going to ignore that and switch horses, and pretend you were not caught out.

I ask again, will you retract your claim, now that your N43 debacle is plain for all to see?

Aldrin said himself they ran a p68 program. The results were 0.649 north and 23.46 east. Armstrong said in the voice transcript more than once, in at least a couple of different ways that they did not know where they were and this was confirmed/is confirmed by Collins. What do you want me to retract? What horse am I switching to? What kind of nonsense are you bringing up? Of course my point stands. They never reported these numbers to MSFN, just ask H. David Reed......

 

[Tomblvd]

A long time ago in this thread, I mentioned that space sickness was a well-known open secret at the time. Though no astronaut would admit to it, some of them had experienced some hard times even before Apollo. We also had information that the Soviets were having problems with it, too.

It's hard to treat a problem when everybody affected keeps denying it exists.

To be fair, there is a difference between admitting it in public and in private. There was a link to discuss things like this with MC without it going over the airwaves free and clear. So space sickness was a relatively well known situation by then, it's just that with the increased space and freedom of movement in the Apollo capsule (not to mention the loss of the visual cues of the ever-rotating earth below), the effect was going to be magnified. I can believe that Borman's illness was not unexpected, at least in the abstract.

 

[Patrick1000]

Of course I knew you knew what noun 43 was.....

We all knew what Noun 43 was before we asked you. The point was to determine whether you knew what Noun 43 means, and therefore the implications of Duke's confirmation that the contents of Noun 43 had been received in Houston by telemetry. You didn't notice the inconspicuous little P00E at the top of the checklist page?

When Aldrin asks whether Noun 43 has been copied, he's asking whether the PGNS-reported landing site coordinates (i.e., the contents of Noun 43) have been received at Mission Control. You naively thought that the report listed in the checklist had to be a verbal read-down. Yet another mistake in a long and ongoing series of errors you've committed and never acknowledged.

I've reproduced your previous tantrum



and I'm asking you if you have any pertinent comment or retraction at this point.

Of course I knew you knew what noun 43 was.....My point was/is the results of the p68 are never given to Houston. They, the p68 numbers as disclosed in Mission Report Table 5-IV(0.649 north and 23.26 east), are right on top of the Eagle, as are the MSFN/powered flight processor data, as are the longitude and latitude as determined by AGS. All those results are together, in roughly the same local. They are accurate numbers as reported in the Mission Report and they AGREE Jay!!!! So if those were the p68 numbers(0.649 north and 23.46 east) and MSFN had been informed of them, then Michael Collins would have been instructed to look RIGHT THERE!!!!! Right at 0.649 north and 23.46 east , which as I pointed out was .53 miles from the actual coordinates. INSTEAD, THEY HAVE HIM HUNTING AROUND FOR FOR THE EAGLE MILES AND MILES FROM HERE, HUNTING AROUND GOD ONLY KNOWS WHERE. WOULDN'T YOU TELL COLLINS TO LOOK WHERE THE PGNS SAID THE MOON WALKERS WERE PRETENDING TO BE? WHERE NOUN 43!!!!!! WHERE NOUN 43!!!!!! WHERE NOUN 43!!!!!! WHERE NOUN 43!!!!!! WHERE NOUN 43!!!!!! SAID THE PRETEND MOONWALKERS WERE !!!!!!!


SO THEY HAVE THE NOUN 43 NUMBERS 0.649 NORTH AND 23.46 EAST, WHY DOESN'T MICHAEL COLLINS LOOK THERE JAY ???????? So of course these coordinates, the p68 coordinates were never passed to the boys in Houston. Please please please please! You all insult the intelligence of the lurkers with this JIVE!!!! You guys could get jobs in Houston writing scripts for the next bogus NASA RIP OFF!!!!

This thing is so phony phony phony phony fake fake fake fake it's hard to read a page of it without puking.

 

[Patrick1000]

Another great opportunity to point out the cozy relationship with the CapCom....

With the other side bringing up the irrelevant noun 43 business, which I have just demonstrated HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MY POINT ABOUT THE P68 DETERMINED LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE, it's worth reminding everyone again of the intent behind the CapCom is an astronaut too thing.

The most important historical document of all in this ridiculous farce of a ridiculous pretend mission to the moon which was part of an insanely WASTEFUL and oh so ridiculous public rip off that makes me want to vomit each day that I research it is of course the Apollo 11 Voice Transcript, the very words of the pretend astronauts and their pretend handlers.

It is potentially a dangerous document because it is being formed in real time on the fly. As such, someone, an honest person, might have conceivably asked a pretend astronaut an honest question such as, "Neil, now that you are on the moon, can you see the argon blue green laser light coming from McDonald Observatory in Texas? The astronomers there are trying to shine the light on you right now. They are looking for you Neil. We gave Michael Collins your p68 latitude and longitude, 0.649 north and 23.46 east, but Collins says he doesn't see you. The laser beam is not very wide Neil, so if you see it, we'll know EXACTLY WHERE YOU ARE! Understand Neil?"

Of course this is the last thing these guys want going on live whilst they are trying to hide the bird, a very very very very FAKE FAKE FAKE bird. How best to be sure this kind of dialog is not injected into the mix? Control the voice transcript by way of HAVING ANOTHER ASTRONAUT AT THE OTHER END, THE HOUSTON END, AND SO GUARANTEEING NO ONE ELSE GETS A WORD IN EDGEWISE. SEEEEEEEEEEE??????????

No one ever mentions the actual pretend p68 numbers, the argon laser at landing time, and so forth and so on and so forth and so on and so forth and so on for the entirety of the whole nauseatingly disgusting and shameful 9 day con job.

The thing is a closed loop, only pretend astronauts are talking, and in this way, only utter bull bull bull is recorded for our benefit, the "benefit" of posterity.

Pretty dang sneaky huh?

 

[tsig]

A few last points (for the time being anyway) on the map thing......

Comments to put the map issue in all the better perspective.

Maurice Grolier's US Geological Survey Map should be viewed more or less as our standard.

http://next.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/A11-Geo-Map.JPG

The Grolier Map is detailed and was very accurate for its time. The map is gridded similarly to the flown map of Apollo 10 in that West Crater on both maps is located roughly at 23 27' 00" east. It differs from the Apollo 10 flown map however in that the flown map of Apollo 10 features an inappropriate depiction of the landing site ellipse running due east west across this rotated map.

Were the landing ellipse drawn in on the Maurice Grolier USGS post flight map, it would run diagonally across the map's rectangular frame with the east end in the upper right corner and the ellipse's west end in the map's lower left corner. Such an ellipse depicted on the USGS Map would feature the latitude lines running parallel to the ellipses long axis and the longitude lines running perpendicular to that ellipse long axis. Note that indeed the latitude lines of the Grolier USGS map do run diagonally upper right to lower left across the map's rectangle. This map of USGS is gridded accurately/appropriately. To straighten the Grolier USGS Map to the orientation of the Apollo 10 and 11 flow maps' orientations requires roughly 12.5 degrees of clockwise rotation.

Keeping the above in mind, one is now in position to state explicitly in what senses the Apollo 10 and 11 flown maps have been manipulated.

In the case of both of these maps, the landing ellipse runs parallel to the latitude lines and so defines those lines as indeed lines of latitude(east/west determinants). With respect to the landing ellipse, east/west is determined by/parallels the long axis of that ellipse, and so one may say that the lettered latitude lines of the Apollo 11 flown Map and the lines running parallel to the long axis of the ellipse in the images of the Apollo 10 flown map represent east/west latitude lines as defined by the orientation of the ellipse. Ditto for the longitude lines that perpendicularly cross the long axis of the Apollo 10 and 11 flown map ellipses. These lines represent north/south lunar longitudinal lines as committed to by the orientation of the ellipses.

I'll show in a moment how though these lines represent east/west and north/south as defined by the landing ellipse orientation, they do not represent true east west and north/south with reference to the lunar surface itself, and the lunar surface itself is of course the only thing that matters here. The ellipse image should be thought of as nothing mare that an outline superimposed over an already accurately oriented and gridded map.


As demonstrated previously, the landing ellipses featured in both the Apollo 10 and Apollo 11 flown maps are superimposed over a lunar surface image that is rotated roughly 12 degrees counterclockwise. (I'll use the Grolier map as a standard. The important issue here is that the image is rotated to a significant degree. The exact amount of rotation is not critical here, not yet anyway, and this rotational amount/quantity is indeed somewhat difficult to define with accuracy at this time.)

So in the case of the Apollo 10 and Apollo 11 flown map cases, the latitude and longitude lines are "appropriately" squared up with reference to the landing ellipses BUT! the latitude and longitude lines are very much NOT appropriately squared up with respect to the rotated lunar surface images which the ellipses overlay. In this regard, we see just how the flown maps have been tampered with, falsified, and indeed tampered with in an effort to intentionally deceive. Presumably to deceive map readers in various ways on the night of the the alleged "landing".

The Apollo 11 flown map is further falsified in the sense that the grid is shifted eastward by roughly 1.07 miles or 3 minutes and 24 descends of arc.

These are the details of the Apollo 11 LAM-2 flown map fraud such as they are now known. More of course will come shortly.

This fraudulent flown map is the most significant piece of Apollo Fraud evidence to date as it is utterly irrefutable and utterly concrete. It is a map intentionally falsified, no way around that, no way whatsoever.....

Yet you say that an unmanned mission landed there for military purposes.

How is it both a total fraud and a secret military mission?

 

[abaddon]

Of course I knew you knew what noun 43 was.....My point was/is the results of the p68 are never given to Houston. They, the p68 numbers as disclosed in Mission Report Table 5-IV(0.649 north and 23.26 east), are right on top of the Eagle, as are the MSFN/powered flight processor data, as are the longitude and latitude as determined by AGS. All those results are together, in roughly the same local. They are accurate numbers as reported in the Mission Report and they AGREE Jay!!!! So if those were the p68 numbers(0.649 north and 23.46 east) and MSFN had been informed of them, then Michael Collins would have been instructed to look RIGHT THERE!!!!! Right at 0.649 north and 23.46 east , which as I pointed out was .53 miles from the actual coordinates. INSTEAD, THEY HAVE HIM HUNTING AROUND FOR FOR THE EAGLE MILES AND MILES FROM HERE, HUNTING AROUND GOD ONLY KNOWS WHERE. WOULDN'T YOU TELL COLLINS TO LOOK WHERE THE PGNS SAID THE MOON WALKERS WERE PRETENDING TO BE? WHERE NOUN 43!!!!!! WHERE NOUN 43!!!!!! WHERE NOUN 43!!!!!! WHERE NOUN 43!!!!!! WHERE NOUN 43!!!!!! SAID THE PRETEND MOONWALKERS WERE !!!!!!!

They were delivered to Houston via telemetry. Why does this simple point evade you?

SO THEY HAVE THE NOUN 43 NUMBERS 0.649 NORTH AND 23.46 EAST, WHY DOESN'T MICHAEL COLLINS LOOK THERE JAY ???????? So of course these coordinates, the p68 coordinates were never passed to the boys in Houston.

Once again, those numbers were passed to Houston via telemetry.

Please please please please! You all insult the intelligence of the lurkers with this JIVE!!!! You guys could get jobs in Houston writing scripts for the next bogus NASA RIP OFF!!!!

This thing is so phony phony phony phony fake fake fake fake it's hard to read a page of it without puking.

A rant will not alter the fact that these numbers were passed to Houston via telemetry.

 

[sts60]

Yet you say that an unmanned mission landed there for military purposes.

How is it both a total fraud and a secret military mission?

You have to understand that consistency, to put it charitably, is not Patrick1000/fattydash/DoctorTea/etc.'s strong point.

For instances, he has contradicted himself repeatedly as to whether the LM could get to the moon. A few months ago, he said the LM wouldn't work. Then he allowed it would work. Then he said it wouldn't work. Then he said the LM couldn't get to the Moon because the crew couldn't see stars, while simultaneously claiming unmanned LMs could do so - which, as you will note, are mutually contradictory positions; if an unmanned vehicle could do so, a manned vehicle certainly could.

He's also contradicted himself on the question of telemetered navigational data; how long he's been "researching" Apollo, whether there was more than one way to determine the LM's position, his alleged respect for the astronauts, on whether various Apollo team members were part of the "conspiracy", and, well, you get the idea. His frantic quote-mining is also belied by the fact that every one of the sources, including those he touts as factual, agree that Apollo landed on the Moon.

His many self-contradictions are only part of the problem with his claims, though. He doesn't understand any of the relevant disciplines (e.g., his hilarious misunderstanding of Doppler techniques) and makes numerous errors of fact (e.g., his "budget" fiasco). He doesn't understand proper use of sources, and has no grasp of the history of that era. He has no evidence for any of his assertions, e.g., military payloads (which don't make sense for a variety of reasons, as patiently explained to him by people who actually know what they're talking about). The rest of his claims are of the "if I ran the zoo" variety, but this only is useful if one has relevant expertise, which he manifestly does not - it is clear that he has none of the qualifications he has claimed over the past few months.

Finally, he has no way to explain the staggering amount of evidence for Apollo, and simply runs away from the question by saying the "narrative" means it's all phony - all the while failing to address the problem that his own ...narrative is inconsistent, internally incoherent and therefore necessarily untrue (his words). In other words, he won't apply his own standards to himself.

 

[JayUtah]

Really, when you work with maps and airphoto or satellite imagery all the time, datum shifts, affine transformations, projection changes, scale shifts, false origins and rotations are just every day occurences.

Not only are they everyday occurrences, they are the entire substance of the Davies and Colvin paper he cited in support of his claim for an authoritative location of the Apollo 11 landing site. The authors used the ALSEP radio transmitters and LRRRs as a control network for rectifying an existing projection -- by means of affine rotations, translations, and scalings.

 

[JayUtah]

With the other side bringing up the irrelevant noun 43 business, which I have just demonstrated HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MY POINT ABOUT THE P68 DETERMINED LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE...

Noun 43 is where P68 stores the result of its computation, as verified in the LGC Luminary program code. To say they have nothing to do with each other is preposterous.

The most important historical document [...] is of course the Apollo 11 Voice Transcript...

That is your opinion.

...an honest person, might have conceivably asked a pretend astronaut an honest question such as, "Neil, now that you are on the moon, can you see the argon blue green laser light coming from McDonald Observatory in Texas?"

That would require the laser to be visible to the protected human eye from the surface of the Moon. You have the burden therefore to prove it would have been visible. Please therefore compute for us the apparent magnitude of the laser in question as seen from the lunar surface. Please show all your work and cite any sources or references you used.

If you cannot or will not do this, then please retract the claim.

No one ever mentions the actual pretend p68 numbers...

Explain why there was a need to do so, given the extensive digital communications available to the crews and ground controllers.

As I noted before, you made the mistake of assuming that the position report would be a verbal read-down of numbers. You were wrong, and now you're trying to salvage that misconception by improperly inflating the importance of voice communications.

 

[jdp1161]

My first post here... I haven't waded through all 100+ pages of this thread, but I've sat through the fattydash/DocT versions elsewhere. As I read through it I have two questions for Patrick that keep coming back in my head...

Part of most every version of the hoax is that people have been killed to keep the cover up going (Apollo 1, etc...). If that's really the case, Patrick, how is that YOU are still alive?

Secondly, again assuming that you alone have finally cracked the hoax that was Apollo, why are you peddling your story here to an audience that clearly doesn't buy a thing you're saying? Why are you not on CNN, or the lead story on the Evening News, or fielding interview requests from 60 Minutes and Piers Morgan?

My apologies if these questions have been asked before...

 

[Erock]

Of course I knew you knew what noun 43 was.....My point was/is the results of the p68 are never given to Houston. They, the p68 numbers as disclosed in Mission Report Table 5-IV(0.649 north and 23.26 east), are right on top of the Eagle, as are the MSFN/powered flight processor data, as are the longitude and latitude as determined by AGS. All those results are together, in roughly the same local. They are accurate numbers as reported in the Mission Report and they AGREE Jay!!!! So if those were the p68 numbers(0.649 north and 23.46 east) and MSFN had been informed of them, then Michael Collins would have been instructed to look RIGHT THERE!!!!! Right at 0.649 north and 23.46 east , which as I pointed out was .53 miles from the actual coordinates. INSTEAD, THEY HAVE HIM HUNTING AROUND FOR FOR THE EAGLE MILES AND MILES FROM HERE, HUNTING AROUND GOD ONLY KNOWS WHERE. WOULDN'T YOU TELL COLLINS TO LOOK WHERE THE PGNS SAID THE MOON WALKERS WERE PRETENDING TO BE? WHERE NOUN 43!!!!!! WHERE NOUN 43!!!!!! WHERE NOUN 43!!!!!! WHERE NOUN 43!!!!!! WHERE NOUN 43!!!!!! SAID THE PRETEND MOONWALKERS WERE !!!!!!!


SO THEY HAVE THE NOUN 43 NUMBERS 0.649 NORTH AND 23.46 EAST, WHY DOESN'T MICHAEL COLLINS LOOK THERE JAY ???????? So of course these coordinates, the p68 coordinates were never passed to the boys in Houston. Please please please please! You all insult the intelligence of the lurkers with this JIVE!!!! You guys could get jobs in Houston writing scripts for the next bogus NASA RIP OFF!!!!

Hark at you with your BOLDs and repetitions!!!!!!

The P68 was sent and received. You don't seem to understand the simple concept of having accurate positions, but not knowing at the time that they were accurate. How can anybody be so obtuse?

You were wrong, just like you were on Apollohoax.net with your fattydash sockpuppet orbital vectors, but without the simple ability to admit it. Everybody knows you were fattydash, the writing style, bolds and repetitions and walls of text are identical. The constant mistakes are also the same SOP.

This thing is so phony phony phony phony fake fake fake fake it's hard to read a page of it without puking.

You have been owned in the whole thread, I've never seen such a public mauling.

 

[JayUtah]

Of course I knew you knew what noun 43 was.....My point was/is the results of the p68 are never given to Houston.

No, your point was that, according to you, the astronauts had failed to execute a step in their post-landing checklist. But we determined quickly that your argument was based on your layman's inability to recognize how and where it had been done.

The checklist and voice transcript, which you accept as authoritative, confirm first that the computer was placed in its idle mode that allowed Mission Control to access its contents directly, and second that the computed results of Program 68 (i.e., Noun 43) had been explicitly received at Mission Control.

You were wrong about the steps not being carried out, and you were wrong about the voice transcript failing to contain the report. Your unwillingness to concede your error is based on nothing more that a restatement of your original claim. Your claim is clearly refuted. Deal with it.

All those results are together, in roughly the same local.

Your personal standard of proximity is irrelevant, and seems to vary greatly depending on the needs of your argument. Now that you need Noun 43 to be very close to the actual landing site, then all of a sudden all the contemporary estimates agree closely. But back when you were trying to trumpet Reed's findings, those estimates were "uselessly" divergent.

How do you know Collins in the CSM didn't receive Noun 43?

Your claim that P68 computed a position that was "right on top" of what we now understand to be the landing site in the modern coordinate system we use. However you don't understand how cartographic adjustments can affect judgments of accuracy.

If you drive to some location, and the dead reckoning of your odometer tells you that you're in a certain location, but you know from the fixed positions of landmarks that you're actually in a different position, then you may be inclined to distrust the odometer and go with your observed location instead. If later the USGS adjusts the map of the region so that all the landmarks now have slightly adjusted coordinates, and those coordinates now suddenly match the (then unreliably computed) coordinates you generated on your trip, does that suddenly make your previous method valid?

INSTEAD, THEY HAVE HIM HUNTING AROUND FOR FOR THE EAGLE MILES AND MILES FROM HERE, HUNTING AROUND GOD ONLY KNOWS WHERE. WOULDN'T YOU TELL COLLINS TO LOOK WHERE THE PGNS SAID THE MOON WALKERS WERE PRETENDING TO BE? WHERE NOUN 43!!!!!! WHERE NOUN 43!!!!!! WHERE NOUN 43!!!!!! WHERE NOUN 43!!!!!! WHERE NOUN 43!!!!!! SAID THE PRETEND MOONWALKERS WERE !!!!!!!

SO THEY HAVE THE NOUN 43 NUMBERS 0.649 NORTH AND 23.46 EAST, WHY DOESN'T MICHAEL COLLINS LOOK THERE JAY ???????? So of course these coordinates, the p68 coordinates were never passed to the boys in Houston. Please please please please! You all insult the intelligence of the lurkers with this JIVE!!!! You guys could get jobs in Houston writing scripts for the next bogus NASA RIP OFF!!!!

This thing is so phony phony phony phony fake fake fake fake it's hard to read a page of it without puking.

I refuse to respond to your repetitive gibberish anymore. If you want to be taken seriously, please calm down and act like an adult.

 

[LongFuzzy]

Patrick, if you are really a researcher, then you must be open to the possibility that Apollo happened as advertised. What evidence would it take to convince you that it was a manned mission?
-LF

 

[JayUtah]

One does not get diarrhea with space sickness...

Agreed.

Though at the time, 1968, that fact was not well known.

Please cite a reference establishing that the symptoms of space adaptation sickness (SAS) were not well known before 1969.

It may have even been why the Apollo 8 script writers featured the illness as they did, erroneously believing space sickness would cause diarrhea.

While several people here have suggested that the diarrhea may have been a symptom of SAS, I find no evidence that NASA at any time asserted that. Nor do I find any evidence that SAS was considered as a diagnosis for Frank Borman's illness. The two diagnoses considered were an adverse reaction to a sleeping aid, and acute viral gastroenteritis.

If you believe NASA intended Frank Borman's diarrhea to be accepted as a symptom of SAS, please provide evidence of that.

 

[R.A.F.]

This thing is so phony phony phony phony fake fake fake fake it's hard to read a page of it without puking.

Please answer the following question...scientists understand the Moon landings actually happened...are they ALL WRONG...yes or no??

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Patrick now appears to be arguing that employing a fellow astronaut as CAPCOM is an integral part of his conspiracy theory. He seems to be saying that only an astronaut was capable of resisting asking Armstrong if he could see any lasers shining from earth. Presumably this was down to some kind of special keeping-your-mouth-shut training they received. Remarkable. A new low.

 

[JayUtah]

The other point about the diarrhea, and my main point all along has been that the Apollo staff needed to fix the toilet.

No, your main point all along has not been that Apollo's toilet needed to be "fixed." It has instead been all along that the Apollo 8 mission should have been aborted because of Borman's illness, and that because NASA did not follow your personal judgment the mission was therefore not authentic.

Have you conceded that Apollo 8 should not have aborted and that the decision to proceed was correct? Please explicitly answer this question.

"The toilet" was a relief bag, technology borrowed from other aerospace applications. While undignified, it is deemed sanitary enough by the relevant qualified authority for use in this type of application.

You can't have astronauts breathing in feces for whatever reason the poop was aerosolized to begin with...It is dangerous

You haven't proven that it is any more dangerous in the Apollo context than it would be in other occupational contexts.

Please describe in detail a feces handling system that you believe NASA should have installed aboard the Apollo CM and LM. Your description should address at least

1. the industry-acceptable sustainable level of fecal material (a) in the cabin atmosphere and (b) on cabin surfaces, citing appropriate documentary and regulatory sources;
2. a rational for why the existing cabin air filtration system and cabin housekeeping procedures would fail to achieve and maintain that level;
3. exactly how, in terms of mechanics, your proposed apparatus would achieve and maintain the necessary contamination prevention and abatement standards required above;
4. the mass requirements for your system (including a full mass-properties analysis), and how they will conform to Apollo requirements;
5. the mass-properties effect of your apparatus on launch, spaceflight dynamics, and aerodynamics;
6. the volume requirements for your apparatus (including constraints on flight-axis orientation, proximity, mechanical interference), and its effect on Apollo volumetric constraints;
7. the consumables requirements for your system (including consumption profile for all flight contingencies), and how they will conform to Apollo budgets;
8. the power requirements for your apparatus (including a power consumption profile for all flight contingencies), and how they will conform to Apollo budgets;
9. the thermal properties and tolerances for your apparatus (including a heat-transfer analysis), and how they will confirm to Apollo budgets;
10. the materials hazard properties of your apparatus (e.g., outgassing, vacuum tolerance, thermal tolerances, flammability, oxidation, exposure to materials) and a mitigation plan for each hazard for each flight contingency;
11. a list of expected failure modes and a contingency plan for each failure mode including adverse effects on spacecraft operation and system, loss of functionality, feasibility of fault correction/mitigation procedures, mission downgrading potential, and criticality elimination design rationals.

You say you know a little engineering. Let's see if you do, or whether all you can do is just sit back and idly criticize the professionals.

In outer space, this is utterly ridiculous...

You are not qualified to make this judgment.

We know this because nothing was done about the poop problem. Armstrong could have been breathing in Collins' feces...

Armstrong could have been breathing Collins' feces just by washing his hands outside Collins' stall in a building in Houston. An astounding quantity of evidence has been presented to substantiate that we all daily ingest and inhale aerosolized fecal material, yet suffer few if any ill effects.

...were he to have gotten sick in cislunar space and died instead of pretending to walk on the moon.

Does in the inhalation or ingestion of fecal material invariably result in death?

 

[Patrick1000]

Again, space sickness is not associated with diarrhea....

To be fair, there is a difference between admitting it in public and in private. There was a link to discuss things like this with MC without it going over the airwaves free and clear. So space sickness was a relatively well known situation by then, it's just that with the increased space and freedom of movement in the Apollo capsule (not to mention the loss of the visual cues of the ever-rotating earth below), the effect was going to be magnified. I can believe that Borman's illness was not unexpected, at least in the abstract.

Again, space sickness is NOT NOT NOT associated with diarrhea...Do you know how many astronauts get a least a touch of space sickness Tomblvd? Perhaps most>50%. If space sickness were associated with diarrhea what would THAT mean?

Also Tomblvd, if you are going to claim Borman's illness was space sickness based, YOU NEED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE FROM CHARLES BERRY OR ONE OF THE OTHER NASA DOCTORS SAYING THAT WAS SO. As I try to keep reminding everyone, Berry's testimony in the Apollo 8 Mission Report is that the illness was viral gastroenteritis based. Maybe if we find Berry changing his story here and there we can all catch him in a big fat lie like I did with Borman in the case of his idiotic LIFE MAGAZINE article in which he gave personal testimony to the fact that he UNBELIEVABLY TOOK MORE SECONAL TO INTENTIONALLY MAKE HIMSELF SICK IN SPACE. Not only are these astronauts FAKE but also very very very very very very DUMB DUMB DUMB.


Again Tomblvd, the illness was attributed by quack, errrhh, I mean Dr. Berry, to viral gastroenteritis per the Apollo 8 Mission Report. Read it for yourself.

AND! CONSIDER THIS!; in the midst of the ongoing Honk Kong flu epidemic 1968 and 1969, they continued to pretend INFLUENZA was not a threat given the circumstances. The point here being, so what if they vaccinated Stafford/Young/Cernan/McDivitt/Schweickart/Scott/Armstrong/Collins/Aldrin/Bean/Gordon/Conrad. That is not guaranteed protection against influenza as they claimed was the case for Apollo 8. TALK ABOUT FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE........

It is the middle of a worldwide pandemic that killed 1,000,000 and made many many many many more millions sick on top of that. It could EASILY kill all three astronauts were ONE to get sick in space.

If this were real, when Apollo 8 "came back" from its mission, the capsule would have been "cultured", scrutinized, studied for evidence of infectious agents on the surface of the "walls and floors", in the water supply and with respect to the food supply.

Last but not least, they didn't even check Borman out to see if his HCG level was elevated upon return. Never know with those guys you know......

None of this happened. This is so ridiculous beyond belief. Maybe the astronauts were/are like me, getting sick to their stomachs because they can't stand the phoniness of it all........

 

[SUSpilot]

@RAF: Thanks for picking apart Patrick's response to my earlier question.

@Patrick: Since you've (sort of) engaged me on previously unanswered questions, I'll remind you of another one:

Just how is the first man on the moon supposed to behave, in your opinion? That is, what is it in Neil Armstrong's demeanor that is symptomatic of some sort of neurosis or psychosis? Was there a demonstrable change in his behavior pre- and post-mission to which you can point? Related to this point, what specialized training have received in normal/abnormal psychology that would qualify you to make such judgements?