Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[Loss Leader]

Closer to 0.08 second.

No, no. You take a cigarette, you light it, put it in your mouth, then you take a small oxygen bottle and open up the valve. You have to hold it a little bit away from the cigarette or your face will explode.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Was there enough Teflon covered wiring such that when it "burned" in that tank it released enough heat to expand the O2 gas that COLD! to break that tank? Of course not.

Had you bothered to read the relevant section (p. 4-6) of NASA's report on the Apollo 13 accident, you would have discovered that the amount of Teflon in the tank was 1.1 lb (0.5 kg), including Teflon fittings, and that the material's heat of combustion is 2400 btu (2.5 MJ). You would also have learned that the tank had a normal operating pressure of around 900 psi (6.2 MPa), a burst pressure of around 2200 psi (15 MPa), and that it contained a maximum of about 320 lb (145 kg) of oxygen. The tank was about 80% full at the time of the accdent, so the amount of oxygen was around 256 lbs (116 kg).

Further, if you'd read this section of the report, you would have learned that NASA also determined that it was possible that aluminum components within the tank caught fire. From the above link, the amount of aluminum in the tank was 0.8 lb (0.4 kg), with a heat of combustion of 20,500 btu (21.6 MJ). Please explain how this wouldn't provide enough energy to overpressure the tank.

Finally, NASA determined that the tank fittings could have been weakened by the fire, causing them to fail at a lower pressure. Please explain how this can't possibly be correct.

To suggest so is ludicrous beyond on the stars.....

Quite frankly, the only thing ludicrous here is your attempt to pretend that you have any idea what you're talking about.

 

[JayUtah]

No, no. You take a cigarette, you light it, put it in your mouth, then you take a small oxygen bottle and open up the valve. You have to hold it a little bit away from the cigarette or your face will explode.

My demonstrations take place with a substantial thickness of polycarbonate between the objects and a face. But I see where you're going with that.

 

[abaddon]

No, no. You take a cigarette,

In a vacuum.

you light it,
put it in your mouth,

Also in a vacuum. How did you light it?

then you take a small oxygen bottle and open up the valve.

Which, of course, you simply had about your person anticipating such an eventuality, right?

You have to hold it a little bit away from the cigarette or your face will explode.

What will the ciggie combust with?

 

[R.A.F.]

He wants to claim authorship for the myriad of corrections he's absorbed...

Exactly why I am being such a "bear" about the "LM lifeboat assessment" question. Patrick made an error...it was pointed out to him, yet he refuses to admit that error, even going as far as to say that he didn't "mean" what it was he had posted.

Patrick "owns" that error, and I'm not going to stop "pressing" him on that question until he admits that error.


See, Patrick, you simply do not have an "out", here...admit your error.



aside...I have the sinking feeling I'll be posting essentially the same post 6 months down the road...sigh.

 

[Loss Leader]

In a vacuum.


Also in a vacuum. How did you light it?

Which, of course, you simply had about your person anticipating such an eventuality, right?

What will the ciggie combust with?

You appear to have misunderstood me. I was talking about demonstrating the "power" of oxygen to college students in a lecture hall with a cigarette and an oxygen bottle. There was no vacuum and I did anticipate the eventuality because I was the one that found the video showing it was possible and copied it.

JU's demonstrations appear to be significantly more complex but, in my defense, I was teaching a Real Estate Law class at the time.

 

[abaddon]

You appear to have misunderstood me. I was talking about demonstrating the "power" of oxygen to college students in a lecture hall with a cigarette and an oxygen bottle. There was no vacuum and I did anticipate the eventuality because I was the one that found the video showing it was possible and copied it.

JU's demonstrations appear to be significantly more complex but, in my defense, I was teaching a Real Estate Law class at the time.

No worries.

You must admit it looked a little odd though.

 

[Patrick1000]

Lovell Himself Claimed That He Thought It Could Have Been An Instrumentation Problem

You want to explain this one, please? Why, because you have not made a case, do you say Aaron is lying? Why wasn't his knowledge of the systems, coupled with the descriptions enough for him to decide that it was hardware, not instrumentation?

I suggest using bullet points and short, declaritive sentences, with no perjoratives. Please do not use "busted big time" or make other childish statements, because all that sounds like to me is "'cause I said so, that's why!"

And before you object to my wanting your justification, may I point out that you are diagnosing Frank Borman not only remotely in space, since you've never met him, I'm sure, but over 43 years of time as well, by using your (claimed) expertise and the data presented to you.

Lovell Himself Claimed That He Thought It Could Have Been An Instrumentation Problem , And States Explicitly In His Oral History That He Could not Tell One Way or The Other, Hardware vs Instrumentation....

If Lovell hismself claimed he could not tell if it was or was not an instrumentation problem, then Aaron could not have made this bogus determination either.

See the oral history provided by Lovell, page 44. The point is covered explicitly by the always jiving fraudulent commander of the imaginary ship Apollo 13.

Aaron is a PERP, no two ways about it. Even the Commander of the bogus mission's testimony implicates the fraudulent EECOM as just that, a PHONY CHARLATAN if there ever was one...Aaron is disgusting.....

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/oral_histories/k-l.htm

 

[Patrick1000]

Hardly, I'll Tell You Who Makes Fools Of Themselves

I am genuinely curious, Patrick.

Why then do you post here?

Don't you realize that nobody agrees with you? Don't you see that with virtually all your posts you are making more of a fool of yourself?

Hardly, I'll Tell You Who Makes Fools Of Themselves, Kranz And Lovell

Check out Lovell's oral history here, go to page 45.

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/oral_histories/k-l.htm

Now read how this this Lovell admits he had no previous idea that the LM could be used as a lifeboat to get back to earth by way of an extended journey as Kranz tried to imply 15 minutes into the feigned "disaster".

Lovell also explicitly states(only after being pressured to do so) in this oral history that he does not know about the O2 pressure dropping in tank 1 until well after he noticed the "venting". So the "chronology" is not such that the O2 pressure drop is noticed roughly coincident with the venting as Lovell is always trying to claim.

Unless someone presses Lovell on the point, or flat out points out his lying ways as I do, Lovell always tries to tell the story as though it is obvious that it is oxygen venting from the service module because the cammander always tries to make the false claim that he sees the O2 tank 1 pressure falling roughly coincident with the venting. But this of course is simply not so. Lovell sees O2 tank 1 pressure falling well after the "venting" is first acknowledged in this staged drama.

Lovell mentions the venting in order to start to press the "this is not an instrumentation problem angle", and what Lovell/they really want, what Lovell/they are hoping for, is for the flight officers to draw that conclusion, decide that it is oxygen that is venting, a real bona fide and very significant "hardware problem". This way, with the flight officers deciding venting=O2 leak, that conclusion is on them, on the flight officers. A scenario cannot be phony if the flight officers are THEMSELVES "discovering" it in real-time. But the flight officers simply do not bite on this bogus putrid bait early on, and good for them!!!! Lovell himself cannot say at that point that it is the oxygen venting. He cannot say that in the real-time of the fake drama because if he did, a clever historian then or now would say, "Hey you! Commander Lovell!!! You are in on the fraud know!!!! You know about the phony scenario even before the EECOM officers!!! You are a perpetrator Commander Lovell!!!" So Lovell can only go as far as baiting these guys by way of saying that gas is venting and then hope that the Houston staff will conclude the venting is O2. But Liebergot and Clint Burton don't go for this conclusion right away, nor does anyone else. And Lovell dares not to say that venting=oxygen leak in real time lest he botch it like Kranz did when Kranz said they were going to use the LM as a lifeboat 15 minutes into this ridiculous farce of a pretended mission.

The O2 tank 1 pressure drop is not noticed until well after the venting is noticed. If it was actually dropping 14 or 15 minutes into this when Lovell noticed the venting and Kranz gives the rah rah let's use the LM speech, one would hear the EECOM Liebergot say on the EECOM tapes that the O2 level in tank one was dropping. But Liebergot makes no such claim, draws no such conclusion so early in. This is a critical FACT.

Read this history carefully and you'll even see how the interviewer presses Lovell to acknowledge that point, how the interviewer presses Lovell to acknowledge that the commander noticed the venting first and it was not until well after this that the O2 tank 1 pressure drop was noted, well after. This, despite Lovell's usual attempt to BULL his way through this pathetic scenario again, a scenario ever so transparent in its fraudulence......

Disgusting......

 

[JayUtah]

If Lovell hismself claimed he could not tell if it was or was not an instrumentation problem, then Aaron could not have made this bogus determination either.

Non sequitur. One man is a pilot, the other is a systems engineer. Did you miss where I was able to diagnose a problem with an airplane from SUSpilot's description alone, where the pilot in question could not? That's what systems engineers do. That's why we have both engineers and pilots.

No, you're simply trying to impose new roles, responsibilities, and skills on people so that you can naively and wrongly accuse them of failing to meet your expectations.

Aaron is a PERP, no two ways about it.

Childish name-calling noted.

Aaron is disgusting...

Over-dramatized insults noted.

 

[JayUtah]

Now read how this this Lovell admits he had no previous idea that the LM could be used as a lifeboat to get back to earth by way of an extended journey...

But he also explicitly states his knowledge that the LM could be used as a lifeboat for other purposes, such as extending the consumables or supplementing a failed propulsion system.

No, Patrick -- you're still trying to argue your original point, which was long ago refuted. You were wrong and you still refuse to admit it. This only makes you look more comical.

...as Kranz tried to imply 15 minutes into the feigned "disaster".

No. Kranz simply mentions the "LM lifeboat." Contrary to the highlighted section, he did not imply any sort of mission profile at that time. 17 minutes into the incident, they were simply thinking of the LM as additional consumables. Only much later did they realize they had to extend the LM's consumables for a longer journey.

It is a well-known fact that systems engineers improvised a mission along the general lines of the LM lifeboat principle, part of which was the PC+2 DPS burn. This is in all the systems engineering textbooks, Patrick. It's not something that you have revealed to the world for the first time.

Lovell also explicitly states(only after being pressured to do so) in this oral history that he does not know about the O2 pressure dropping in tank 1 until well after he noticed the "venting".

You must be reading a different document than me. The statement that you attribute to Lovell does not appear, and Lovell several times gives the correct chronology.

Unless someone presses Lovell on the point, or flat out points out his lying ways as I do...

Bluster. You have repeatedly ignored my offer to facilitate your pointing out Lovell's "lying ways" to him directly. You are apparently terrified to confront any of these men directly with your accusations and name-calling.

Let me ask you another thing: is it lying to employ sock puppets in a debate? I want your moral thermostat on that point.

Lovell always tries to tell the story as though it is obvious that it is oxygen venting from the service module...

No. I've heard Jim Lovell tell this story many times in person -- i.e., with only air separating his physical lips from my physical ears. He gets the chronology right. But in most of the contexts where he lectures, he's only given 20 minutes or so to narrate his recollection. He is therefore naturally prone to compress the story. This compression what he does on PDF pg. 42 where he describes the entire incident in summary in one paragraph. which I quote below.

Read this history carefully and you'll even see how the interviewer presses Lovell to acknowledge that point...

Instead of your cherry-picking, let's see what the document really says.

LOVELL: Well, it went in various sequence. The light came on. Something was wrong with the electrical system. We started—we eventually lost two fuel cells. We couldn’t get them back. Then we saw our oxygen being depleted. One tank was completely gone. The other tank had started to go down. Then I looked out the window, and we saw gas escaping from
the rear end of my spacecraft.

STONE: Well, you didn’t see that, now, for about—according to the record, for 14 minutes before you saw the gas coming out, right?​

It's not clear what Stone (the interviewer) is asking about. Lovell's summary is chronologically correct, but does not describe the intervals that pass between the events. Stone is telling him to slow down, and awkwardly phrases his statement.

The rest of your post is merely you making up a new story about Jim Lovell using your annoying childish tone of voice, so I'm not going to address it. I'm going to stick to the facts -- and your misinterpretation of them.

Disgusting......

OMG!!! Venting!!!

Please quote exactly from the document the statement from Lovell that you believe says he didn't notice the oxygen tank readings until after the venting.

 

[Patrick1000]

Were Aaron actually aware that it indeed was a hardware issue...

Non sequitur. One man is a pilot, the other is a systems engineer. Did you miss where I was able to diagnose a problem with an airplane from SUSpilot's description alone, where the pilot in question could not? That's what systems engineers do. That's why we have both engineers and pilots.

No, you're simply trying to impose new roles, responsibilities, and skills on people so that you can naively and wrongly accuse them of failing to meet your expectations.



Childish name-calling noted.


Over-dramatized insults noted.

Were Aaron actually aware that it indeed was a hardware issue, then Lovell would have been notified immediately to that effect. Nobody else is saying Aaron knew what everyone else did not. Aaron's "great insight" was/is no insight at all Jay. The story is made up. Show me one reference from anywhere stating explicitly that Aaron knew what the others did not and why. Show me something credible in that regard Jay. You cannot. Such a story, such a reference does not exist. This story about Aaron and his diagnostic acumen and Aaron himself are phony. That is a fact.

It is disgusting Jay, Aaron's fraudulence, and that is an understatement. Aaron is obviously a perpetrator, a fraud insider, and that is a FACT. It has nothing to do with childish name calling.

 

[Garrison]

Hardly, I'll Tell You Who Makes Fools Of Themselves, Kranz And Lovell

Really? how do they compare to the person who thought Teflon wouldn't burn, mistook a tape counter for the time of day, and asserted that there was no LM 'lifeboat' scenario, only to backpedal furiously when all these mistakes were pointed out without ever simply admitting to making them?

If it come to credibility I'll take Lovell and Kranz.

BTW are you ever going to respond to JayUtah's generous offer to put you in touch with Gene Kranz?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It's curious how little sense Patrick's claims now make. I suppose it's the inevitable consequence of painting himself into a corner.

He appears now to be saying that;

a) Lovell reported venting before reporting pressure falling on the surviving O2 tank
b) <insert missing logical step here>
c) therefore Lovell can't have been an innocent dupe in Patrick's imagined conspiracy.

But since Patrick's conspiracy says Lovell and his crew stayed on the ground and weren't even in Apollo 13, it's a little hard to see how he thinks this advances anything.

All I can draw from the above is if Patrick's ludicrous, impossible Apollo hoax fantasy were true then Lovell must have been one of those who knew about it. Well, duh!

Oh, and Patrick still insists that Kranz wasn't allowed to reassure anyone that the lifeboat option existed until the crew were proven to be in imminent deadly danger. The explosion, power dip, indicated total loss of half their oxygen supply and venting weren't enough, for some unexplained reason. Some missing logical steps there too.

 

[Loss Leader]

Aaron is a PERP, no two ways about it. Even the Commander of the bogus mission's testimony implicates the fraudulent EECOM as just that, a PHONY CHARLATAN if there ever was one...Aaron is disgusting.....

Patrick, I'm having trouble understanding your sentiment. Please help me by clarifying your beliefs:


1. You believe that the Apollo missions were covers for military mission to the moon and other point.

2. You believe the military hardware helped improve ICBM guidance as well as submarine guidance.

3. You believe this was done as part of an arms race with the Russians.

4. You believe the technology worked in the best sense of the word - we did not have a nuclear war with Russia.

5. You believe that the cold war ended peacefully, without either side using nuclear weapons against the other

So, exactly why are you so angry? Why are these people perps and frauds? Why aren't they unsung heroes of the cold war? Why shouldn't we celebrate the great personal sacrifices they made to keep America safe? Exactly what is it that we should be angry about?

The US kept plenty of secrets from its own citizens in the name of national security. Secrecy is really necessary in military planning. Why don't you think that Americans today would understand that?

 

[Garrison]

Patrick, I'm having trouble understanding your sentiment. Please help me by clarifying your beliefs:


1. You believe that the Apollo missions were covers for military mission to the moon and other point.

2. You believe the military hardware helped improve ICBM guidance as well as submarine guidance.

3. You believe this was done as part of an arms race with the Russians.

4. You believe the technology worked in the best sense of the word - we did not have a nuclear war with Russia.

5. You believe that the cold war ended peacefully, without either side using nuclear weapons against the other

So, exactly why are you so angry? Why are these people perps and frauds? Why aren't they unsung heroes of the cold war? Why shouldn't we celebrate the great personal sacrifices they made to keep America safe? Exactly what is it that we should be angry about?

The US kept plenty of secrets from its own citizens in the name of national security. Secrecy is really necessary in military planning. Why don't you think that Americans today would understand that?

For that matter why does he keep talking about getting a rebate? If the money went on this mysterious military program that worked why would anyone think they were entitled to a tax refund?

 

[JayUtah]

Were Aaron actually aware that it indeed was a hardware issue, then Lovell would have been notified immediately to that effect.

You're making up yet another "requirement" that Aaron didn't fulfill, just so you can bash him for failing to fulfill it.

Aaron's "great insight" was/is no insight at all Jay.

And here's another patented Patrick1000 Flip-Flop^TM.

First you say that no one could possibly have done what Aaron claimed to do, because no one is that skillful. Then when comparable skill among trained professionals is demonstrated right before your very eyes, you have to come up with a way for Aaron's skill to be credible, but his consultation to still be some sort of hoax. So now you make up a new lame story where someone should have told someone else about it, but didn't.

What's funny is that you still seem to believe we all can't see you doing this. Who do you think you're fooling? You flip-flop more than any politician.

Show me something credible in that regard Jay. You cannot.

Of course I can't, because it's something you made up. That's been everyone's point. Aaron displayed no more skill during the phone call than that which would be expected of any EECOM or other systems engineer. But because of his role later in the incident, where he improvised with uncommon skill, the resulting glow illuminates his entire role when recounted historically.

It is disgusting Jay, Aaron's fraudulence, and that is an understatement. Aaron is obviously a perpetrator, a fraud insider, and that is a FACT. It has nothing to do with childish name calling.

You're defending your childish name-calling with more childish name-calling. Is this Stundie worthy?

 

[Patrick1000]

You missed the entire point about the Teflon "burning" Garrison...

Really? how do they compare to the person who thought Teflon wouldn't burn, mistook a tape counter for the time of day, and asserted that there was no LM 'lifeboat' scenario, only to backpedal furiously when all these mistakes were pointed out without ever simply admitting to making them?

If it come to credibility I'll take Lovell and Kranz.

BTW are you ever going to respond to JayUtah's generous offer to put you in touch with Gene Kranz?

You missed the entire point about the "exploding frying pan" and Teflon "burning" Garrison...

I am well aware of NASA's claims about teflon burning in O2 tank one as well as their allusion to the possibility that aluminum may have been burning in the tank as well. The issue is not whether teflon/aluminum burn under exotic or any circumstances for that matter, but rather, if in fact this is what happened, if in fact this blew the wall off Apollo 13 as it "moved" through cislunar space in April of 1970.

The house I live in is combustible, as I presume your home is as well Garrison, and there is an abundance of oxygen around, plenty to feed fires that would take down both of our places of residence were a fire to start. But we leave our homes every day confident that they will be there when we return despite the ever threatening oxygen in the air. Why is that Garrison?

My point about teflon was not whether it might burn or not under exotic circumstances, but that it is NEVER mentioned in popular accounts of what happened in the context of Apollo 13 disaster presentations, nor is aluminum mentioned either, the latter may have burned as well according to NASA. What these people want to do is to get everyone to simply think, "WOW!! a tank of pure oxygen blew up!!!!" If that was not the case, they would mention the teflon. They would mention the aluminum. And they would mention that the fire was specifically a teflon fire and/or an aluminum fire. But you NEVER hear this. And I presume one does not hear this for a reason and I intend to get to the bottom of that reason Garrison. I have only begun to investigate the details regarding NASA's claims about the fire in the tank.

I stated in my first post about the teflon that it was an introduction to the subject. I have not begun to touch on whether or not it was/is conceivable such a fire actually started in O2 tank number 1. I would suggest now that as I investigate this issue I shall discover that it is simply not credible to suggest there was a teflon/aluminum fire in O2 tank one. Obviously, I am not going to be claiming that teflon and aluminum do not burn under any circumstances.

More than a spark is required to set a house on fire most of the time, and given teflon's properties, it is all the more the case that more than a simple spark is required to set teflon off and burning. Teflon is designed especially not to burn. My house is fire resistent. So too is Teflon, even more so. Let's see what NASA comes up with to convince the curious as to how this fire resistant material went off.

It seems rather silly to me that you would suggest my point was that teflon did not burn under any circumstaces, or might not burn under any circumstances given my obvious familiarity with the Apollo 13 Report on the subject.

In summary, the question is not whether teflon/aluminum burn, but rather did they actually burn in the tank, was there a fire?

What is clear already, what one can see plainly is that teflon and aluminum fires are almost never discussed in popular accounts of Apollo. I am in the process of investigating the details of an explanation which will address exactly why that is indeed the case, why it is that if one watches a film about Apollo 13, or hears Lovell, Haise, Kranz speak, they never mention teflon or aluminum.

 

[tsig]

You missed the entire point about the "exploding frying pan" and Teflon "burning" Garrison...

I am well aware of NASA's claims about teflon burning in O2 tank one as well as their allusion to the possibility that aluminum may have been burning in the tank as well. The issue is not whether teflon/aluminum burn under exotic or any circumstances for that matter, but rather, if in fact this is what happened, if in fact this blew the wall off Apollo 13 as it "moved" through cislunar space in April of 1970.

The house I live in is combustible, as I presume your home is as well Garrison, and there is an abundance of oxygen around, plenty to feed fires that would take down both of our places of residence were a fire to start. But we leave our homes every day confident that they will be there when we return despite the ever threatening oxygen in the air. Why is that Garrison?

My point about teflon was not whether it might burn or not under exotic circumstances, but that it is NEVER mentioned in popular accounts of what happened in the context of Apollo 13 disaster presentations, nor is aluminum mentioned either, the latter may have burned as well according to NASA. What these people want to do is to get everyone to simply think, "WOW!! a tank of pure oxygen blew up!!!!" If that was not the case, they would mention the teflon. They would mention the aluminum. And they would mention that the fire was specifically a teflon fire and/or an aluminum fire. But you NEVER hear this. And I presume one does not hear this for a reason and I intend to get to the bottom of that reason Garrison. I have only begun to investigate the details regarding NASA's claims about the fire in the tank.

I stated in my first post about the teflon that it was an introduction to the subject. I have not begun to touch on whether or not it was/is conceivable such a fire actually started in O2 tank number 1. I would suggest now that as I investigate this issue I shall discover that it is simply not credible to suggest there was a teflon/aluminum fire in O2 tank one. Obviously, I am not going to be claiming that teflon and aluminum do not burn under any circumstances.

More than a spark is required to set a house on fire most of the time, and given teflon's properties, it is all the more the case that more than a simple spark is required to set teflon off and burning. Teflon is designed especially not to burn. My house is fire resistent. So too is Teflon, even more so. Let's see what NASA comes up with to convince the curious as to how this fire resistant material went off.

It seems rather silly to me that you would suggest my point was that teflon did not burn under any circumstaces, or might not burn under any circumstances given my obvious familiarity with the Apollo 13 Report on the subject.

In summary, the question is not whether teflon/aluminum burn, but rather did they actually burn in the tank, was there a fire?

What is clear already, what one can see plainly is that teflon and aluminum fires are almost never discussed in popular accounts of Apollo. I am in the process of investigating the details of an explanation which will address exactly why that is indeed the case, why it is that if one watches a film about Apollo 13, or hears Lovell, Haise, Kranz speak, they never mention teflon or aluminum.

The mission was fake because popular accounts don't go into technical details of the explosions?

You started trying to argue the facts, then you went to accounts of the facts and now you're using popular accounts as facts. Patrick it looks like you're getting farther and farther from what really happened.

 

[Tomblvd]

What is clear already, what one can see plainly is that teflon and aluminum fires are almost never discussed in popular accounts of Apollo. I am in the process of investigating the details of an explanation which will address exactly why that is indeed the case, why it is that if one watches a film about Apollo 13, or hears Lovell, Haise, Kranz speak, they never mention teflon or aluminum.

You've already been smacked over the nose with a rolled-up newspaper by Jay over your annoying habit of using "popular" sources for your "research" instead of the professional/technical sources that are overflowing on the internet alone.

The reason these sources are "popular" is because the do not go into much detail, and only hit the high points.

Now, along with all the other overdue retractions, are you going to admit you were wrong for the "teflon doesn't burn" mistake?