Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[JayUtah]

...the warning mandates have to do with stored oxygen not with vents or wall feeds.

Asked and answered. Hair-split.

I do not know if the Teflon in an Apollo 13 cryogenic tank might be enticed to burn SUSpilot. I haven't gotten that far.
[...]
So you'll have to be patient. I suspect I will have much to say about the Teflon/aluminum thing, I am quite good at that sort of science.

So you're really good at that science but you don't yet have the answer? Sorry, fakers need not apply.

 

[JayUtah]

In the History Channel Film...

Asked and answered. You refuse to consider the difference between contemporary accounts and historical retrospective.

In any case you have been given the opportunity to ask Gene Kranz this and other questions personally. Why do you refuse to take it? Why is your argument here based solely on trying to get your opponents to guess what other people were thinking? Is is so that you can spin your wheels endlessly without resolution?

 

[JayUtah]

Do you honestly believe I am going to let [Kranz] off the hook here? He is NAILED!

Bold words from someone who has been handed the opportunity to confront him personally but who ignores it. I'd say you are the one on the hook. Please send along your verifiable contact information ASAP.

By the way, NASA refers to the oxygen in the Apollo service module tanks as "super critical" NOT cryogenic.

NASA uses both terms because both are correct in this case. A cryogenic fluid may also be supercritical.

Once that question is answered...

Then answer it. You've been asked it a dozen times. We're not going to sit here endlessly while you quote the same two Kranz sources and pound on the table like a bad TV lawyer. You made verifiable assertions, and you admit you did not first perform the needed computations to determine whether they were true.

And for the love of Lord Kelvin, please stop asking SUSpilot and others to supply you with the needed knowledge. You've stumbled along this whole time getting others to supply you the key facts and understanding in your theory, so that you can turn around and pretend you were the one who came up with it. How can you claim even to be a bike shop owner when it's evident you cannot stand on your own two feet on any subject?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... Kranz continues with his interview and claims preposterously that Lovell said he thought they may be venting oxygen and then even more preposterously, Kranz claims it was at that time he, Kranz, based on Lovell's venting OXYGEN statement, realized there had a been an explosion that caused the damage to Apollo 13. Of course if one reads the voice transcript, listens to the EECOM tapes and so forth, one recognizes nothing could be further from the truth here, no one knew at that time that there had been an explosion. Some were still thinking it was not even a hardware problem, that it was possibly primarily an instrumentation problem. Kranz is quite unbelievably making it it all up. Have a look and listen SUSpilot. It is all rather incredible.

You appear to have the world's lowest threshold of amazement.

When Kranz is interviewed decades later and condenses a story he's told innumerable times, saying the gas which was venting was oxygen, rather than sticking to the strict chronology and merely suspecting it was oxygen considering the information available, this, to you, is 'preposterous'. That's pretty weak, even for one of your arguments.

And when informed that the bang has been followed by gas venting into space, the inference that this is an actual explosion rather than an instrumentation error is 'even more preposterous' to you. Your powers of diagnosis seem to be dismally weak. Thank heavens you're not a doctor.

This tiny quibble of yours, nitpicking an anecdote from decades after the fact, somehow leads you to claim that 'nothing could be further from the truth' and Kranz is 'making it all up'. Can you see how idiotic this hysterical hyperbole looks to everyone else? It's not merely that nobody takes it seriously, rather it makes you look utterly foolish and entirely undermines any possibility of your being taken seriously.

This is perhaps the most incriminating evidence I have looked at/seen so far...

That's perhaps the most pitiable aspect of the whole sorry mess; that this dismal stuff is the best you've got.

 

[Tomblvd]

I agree Jay, it is a distraction, let's get back to the nuts and bolts of the scam. Tomblvd I am sure will report in later. He is quite dependable.

How would you know that?

Seriously. You made an absolute statement about me, how do you know it is true?

This goes toward establishing the basis for all your other absolute statements.

 

[threadworm]

How interesting you think that way SUSpilot......Seems rather silly to leave out the most important part of the quote.

Hardly a derail SUSpilot, I believe I introduced the idea a while back as a point soundly incriminating Kranz. IT has only been a point of emphasis for me with regard to Kranz's solid effort at self incrimination. Do you honestly believe I am going to let him off the hook here? He is NAILED!

By the way, NASA refers to the oxygen in the Apollo service module tanks as "super critical" NOT cryogenic. So the question is more appropriately, "Was the activation energy achieved in any sense for the combustion of Teflon and aluminum in the presence of super critical oxygen, and if activation energy was achieved for the combustion of Teflon and or aluminum, how was it achieved?"

Once that question is answered, one can then move on to other questions such as; how much Teflon was present, how much aluminum was present, assuming the activation energy was achieved, would the reaction propagate given the circumstances, and assuming the reaction was sustained, would enough energy be released to account for the damage done?

You don't happen to know the answer to those questions yet, do you SUSpilot?

Pettifogging sophistry.

Cryogenics: of or relating to very cold. Supercritical - the point above where a liquid becomes a vapour. The temperature at which this occurs for oxygen is -118.6 degrees C. By anyone's standards this is cold. Liquid oxygen is a cryogenic fuel.

This document on the service module:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/CSM07_Service_Module_Overview_pp53-60.pdf

describes the sector 4 tanks supplying the oxygen as "cryogenic" tanks keeping the oxygen in a semi-liquid semi-gas state. Cryogenic and supercritical do not appear to be mutually exclusive terms here.

 

[Patrick1000]

The point is Erock that is not what the EECOMs thought....

Here's the obvious one.

In the log and transcript, Lovell didn't report what he THOUGHT. He reported what he saw - gas venting. Back on Earth he indicates what his thoughts were.

Kranz in retelling, says what Lovell THOUGHT!!

Is there no end to the nonsense spouted on this subject? Tedious.

So, Patrick, when are you going to discuss this with the people who you accuse? Afraid much?

The point is Erock that is not what the EECOMs thought...There was no reason to conclude in any conclusive sense that it was oxygen that was in fact the substance venting.

This will put it in perspective for you, say Lovell had said that. Say in the voice transcript he said it was the O2, or said he thought it was O2 venting. Because there are other things that could have been venting from the service module, one could/would/should conclude Lovell had foreknowledge right there.

Were Lovell to have actually said it was oxygen, or were Kranz to have actually written it in his log book, or if Kranz himself said anything that was recorded on the EECOM or Flight Director's loop about O2, then one could conclude appropriately the person declaring oxygen to be the substance venting was a perp, as the EECOMs, aware of the venting, did NOT declare it to be oxygen.

 

[Patrick1000]

The "super critical" bit was written tongue in cheek threadworm....

Pettifogging sophistry.

Cryogenics: of or relating to very cold. Supercritical - the point above where a liquid becomes a vapour. The temperature at which this occurs for oxygen is -118.6 degrees C. By anyone's standards this is cold. Liquid oxygen is a cryogenic fuel.

This document on the service module:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/CSM07_Service_Module_Overview_pp53-60.pdf

describes the sector 4 tanks supplying the oxygen as "cryogenic" tanks keeping the oxygen in a semi-liquid semi-gas state. Cryogenic and supercritical do not appear to be mutually exclusive terms here.

The "super critical" bit was written tongue in cheek threadworm, though NASA brought that on themselves. We may as well enjoy the silly parlance. Rather poetic, no?

My point about the activation energy is a very good one, no?

And again, I am still beating up on poor Gene Kranz. I will get to this Teflon/aluminum combustion issue in good time.

 

[JayUtah]

I might buy some of it Loss Leader if Lovell and others did not try to imply that they knew oxygen tank one was losing pressure at the time of Lovell's alleged identification of the venting.

I covered this at length, from the standpoint of Kranz's book, from the standpoint of the transcript, from the standpoint of Lovell's oral history, and from the standpoint of general engineering practice. Others seem to have enjoyed reading them, so I'm pretty sure my refutation isn't just a figment of my imagination.

You have yet to address any of that, much less even acknowledge that any analysis was given contrary to your beliefs. I don't think anyone much cares what you will or won't buy. You steadfastly ignore anything you can't address, so there.

...you would have learned that the telemetry monitoring equipment the EECOMs use for following O2 tank one pressures was not operating early on.

Misinterpretation, and one that I covered already. The instruments were energized and functioning, but were giving readings that did not appear to correspond to a real-world situation they could fathom. Hence for several minutes the EECOMs ignored the O2 tank readings, believing them to be spurious. Only when the reports of venting occurred did they reinterpret the findings.

I might buy some of it Loss Leader had Kranz not emphasized this bogus point in his book FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION...

Asked and answered at length. Ignored repeatedly by you.

I might buy some of it Loss Leader were I not in possession of an exact replica of Kranz's own log book...

Asked and answered at length. Ignored repeatedly by you.

The LM comment in real time only makes sense in light of the entire bogus staged scenario...

No, only in your twisted version of the events does this mean fraud. In the version accepted and believed by the world's historians and the technical subject-matter experts, Kranz was right on target. You were called on this before. You've spent thousands of words trying to spin and backpedal away from your original naive and wrong claims.

This rocket ship has done blowed up......

Are you a child? Seriously?

I think it's highly disingenuous of you to claim over and over that you have this or that artifact straight from the mouth or pen of Gene Kranz, and that this somehow authorizes you to speak with unchallenged authority on what he meant at any given time in the Apollo 13 timeline or in subsequent interviews, yet you won't even acknowledge that you've been handed the golden opportunity to confront him in person and have your questions answered and your challenges to his integrity met.

How does the label "hypocrisy" not apply to your claims?

 

[JayUtah]

Cryogenic and supercritical do not appear to be mutually exclusive terms here.

They are not mutually exclusive. "Cryogenic" simply refers to the very low temperature at which a useful density of the subject fluid is typically achieved. Sometimes it is used informally (but strictly incorrectly) to refer to any liquefied gas, even if that gas is not especially cold. This usage is allowed for some applications because a cryogenic process has usually at some point to render the gas into a liquid. From the designer's perspective, the abstract requirement is to store the most amount of a substance in the least amount of volume. The greater the volume required, the greater the mass required for the enclosing tank and structure, and this does not scale linearly. Hence the specific design requirements are for tank strength, thermodynamic properties, and heat-transfer properties.

"Supercritical" describes the unique physical properties of a substance that is at a temperature and pressure such that those properties include some gas properties and some liquid properties -- i.e., above that material's critical point. From the designer's point of view, the goal is usually to exploit those properties in some application. The oxygen in the service module is accidentally supercritical, so there is no distinct goal in keeping it that way. The designer then simply has to address the design trade-offs of supercritically, which are naturally parasitical in the oxygen tank design. Those are generally considered as dissolution and effusion properties of the tank components and valves. Some materials are permeated by supercritical fluids, adversly so.

The service module's helium tank, however, was intentionally supercritical. The designers exploit the property of supercritical helium in which a small heat input results in a disproportionately large increase in fluid pressure. This helium pressure was used to force propellants into the thrust chamber against the operating chamber pressure, rather than using a pump.

I agree, Patrick is simply trying to stir up controversy where none exists, so that he can call someone else a "perp" for not using the "right" term.

 

[R.A.F.]

...I am still beating up on poor Gene Kranz.

Correction...it is your belief that your Kranz "arguments" have validity...they do not.

Actually, the historical record is beating up on you. You just haven't realized it/can not accept it.

 

[JayUtah]

The "super critical" bit was written tongue in cheek threadworm, though NASA brought that on themselves.

Backpedaling. The parlance is correct, but you didn't know that until it was brought to your attention by someone else. Now you're trying to damage-control spin your way out of another accusation you made out of ignorance. "Haha just kidding," is the oldest backpedal in the book.

My point about the activation energy is a very good one, no?

Fishing for other people's expertise. You tell us whether it's a good point. You're the one on the hook to provide the proper computations to support your claim that PTFE and aluminum would not ignite and burn under the tank conditions. That includes discovering and employing the proper method to the computation.

And again, I am still beating up on poor Gene Kranz.

No, you're continuing to avoid any meaningful encounter with him. You're just an anonymous name ranting on the internet at this point. I assume you know your name, business address, and phone number. In the time it takes you to repeat your tired misquotations of Kranz, Lovell, Liebergot, the janitor from MOCR, and all the other people you call "perp," you could have sent me those so I can contact the relevant offices.

I will get to this Teflon/aluminum combustion issue in good time.

Why not now, instead of repeating your handwaving attempts to trump up inconsistencies in historical recollections?

 

[Patrick1000]

Gee that's interesting SUSpilot, you are not surprised.....

Two problems, maybe three, Patrick:

1) In the quote from the transcript, Kranz is saying the exact right thing, at the right time. It is a reminder to everyone that options are available and to not rush into doing something stupid. A simple equivalent in flight training is this: when the engine fails, even at a sufficient altitude to troubleshoot the problem, the very first thing you do is find a place to put the aircraft. Then you work the problem.

2) I'll grant the quotes don't match perfectly - this is my "maybe". It's only a problem in that an editor or proofreader probably didn't notice a mistake on their part. The "problem" is that it gives people like you an inconsistency on which to build a false premise.

3) This is yet another derail on your part. Back to where we started: does PTFE burn in the presence of cryogenic oxygen?

Gee that's interesting SUSpilot, you are not surprised, but Kranz was. This is from his oral history. Johnson Space Center Public Document;

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

The relevant quote from the 28 April 1999 Johnson Space Center Oral History interview;

KRANZ;

"And all of a sudden I start—instead of listening to every crew call and—controller
call and relaying it up, I start being much more selective in this process. Because I’m
starting to get the feeling that this isn’t a communications glitch. I’m about 5 minutes into
this problem right now. It’s something else. We don’t understand it. So, we proceed very
meticulously. And I call the controllers up and I tell them that, “Okay, all you guys, quit
your guessing. Let’s start working this problem.” Then I use some words that sort of
surprised me after the fact. I say, “We’ve got a good main bus A. Don’t do anything to
screw it up. And the lunar module’s attached, and we can use that as a lifeboat if we need to.
Now get me some backup people in here and get me more computing and communications
resources.” I’d said these words, but then I immediately went back to tracking this thing."

 

[Erock]

The point is Erock that is not what the EECOMs thought...There was no reason to conclude in any conclusive sense that it was oxygen that was in fact the substance venting.

This will put it in perspective for you, say Lovell had said that. Say in the voice transcript he said it was the O2, or said he thought it was O2 venting. Because there are other things that could have been venting from the service module, one could/would/should conclude Lovell had foreknowledge right there.

Were Lovell to have actually said it was oxygen, or were Kranz to have actually written it in his log book, or if Kranz himself said anything that was recorded on the EECOM or Flight Director's loop about O2, then one could conclude appropriately the person declaring oxygen to be the substance venting was a perp, as the EECOMs, aware of the venting, did NOT declare it to be oxygen.

Rubbish. The point is you are referring to modern telling of the accounts from knowledge gleaned after the fact. Lovell would quite rightly fear the worst in a situation where his life was at stake. They stirred the oxygen tanks, muffled bang. Venting.

Why in any non biased HB world would he NOT think that!

 

[Patrick1000]

Lovell's call about the venting and confirmation of an explosion are not coincidental

Another KRANZ quote below from the Johnson Space Center Oral History Archive, April 28 1999. No doubt in Gene's mind that venting=explosion.

Check out the history for yourselves at;


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

Here is the relevant Kranz quote;


"By this time, Lovell’s called down and indicating they’re venting something. And
we’ve come to the conclusion that we had some type of an explosion onboard the spacecraft;
and our job now is to start an orderly evacuation from the command module into the lunar
module. At the same time, I’m faced with a series of decisions that are all irreversible. At
the time the explosion occurred, we’re about 200,000 miles from Earth, about 50,000 miles
from the surface of the Moon. We’re entering the phase of the mission—we use the term
“entering the lunar sphere of influence.” And this is where the Moon’s gravity is becoming
much stronger than the Earth’s gravity. And during this period, for a very short time, you
have two abort options: one which will take you around the front side of the Moon, and one
which will take you all the way around the Moon."


Does not get any more incriminating than that now does it? Funny how he uses the word "we" there. No one else concluded there had been an explosion.

 

[nomuse]

It would seem your regulation has to do with stored oxygen and not vents and wall feeds that I referenced.

Splitting hairs. The point is the warning, not whether it is of some specified size or proximity to some part of the system.

 

[nomuse]

How interesting you think that way SUSpilot......Seems rather silly to leave out the most important part of the quote.

Hardly a derail SUSpilot, I believe I introduced the idea a while back as a point soundly incriminating Kranz. IT has only been a point of emphasis for me with regard to Kranz's solid effort at self incrimination. Do you honestly believe I am going to let him off the hook here? He is NAILED!

By the way, NASA refers to the oxygen in the Apollo service module tanks as "super critical" NOT cryogenic. So the question is more appropriately, "Was the activation energy achieved in any sense for the combustion of Teflon and aluminum in the presence of super critical oxygen, and if activation energy was achieved for the combustion of Teflon and or aluminum, how was it achieved?"

Once that question is answered, one can then move on to other questions such as; how much Teflon was present, how much aluminum was present, assuming the activation energy was achieved, would the reaction propagate given the circumstances, and assuming the reaction was sustained, would enough energy be released to account for the damage done?

You don't happen to know the answer to those questions yet, do you SUSpilot?

So you admit you can't calculate it, haven't even started on the research of whether it is possible, but you are still willing to insult a legion of engineers for saying that it is.

Facts, then conclusions -- you're doing it wrong.

 

[Patrick1000]

I figured you'd report back about your hospital....

How would you know that?

Seriously. You made an absolute statement about me, how do you know it is true?

This goes toward establishing the basis for all your other absolute statements.

I figured that you would report back about your hospital. Simple enough to do so Tomblvd. Your colleagues are counting on you to shut me down with respect to this issue. Have at it.... Was I wrong in making this assumption? That you would report back about your hospital?

Speaking of which, are there warning signs on your vents and wall feeds? "DANGER OXYGEN" something to that effect? Yes? No?

 

[SUSpilot]

The "super critical" bit was written tongue in cheek threadworm, though NASA brought that on themselves. We may as well enjoy the silly parlance. Rather poetic, no?

My point about the activation energy is a very good one, no?

And again, I am still beating up on poor Gene Kranz. I will get to this Teflon/aluminum combustion issue in good time.

First, frankly, I don't believe that the "super critical" bit was "tongue in cheek". You've used the "I was being sarcastic" too often. If this really your modus operandi, I would suggest you change your habits, as it undermines what credibility you have.

What I believe is that you found the term and you thought you had me on an error of fact and you were caught out.

So, before we go on, does PTFE burn in the presence of cryogenic oxygen?

And, as I asked before, are you saying that it was too cold in the tank for ignition to occur?

As I was typing this, I noticed that Jay is making the same points I am.

 

[SUSpilot]

It would seem your regulation has to do with stored oxygen and not vents and wall feeds that I referenced.

Wasn't the O2 in the service module tank being stored?