Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[JayUtah]

Of course I didn't read the whole thing,

I did read the whole thing. Actually, back in college. But since my principal client and one of the largest industries in Utah is based largely around burning aluminum, it pays to know what one's client does.

Just scanning cherry-picking this type of article and books as well...

FTFY.

You have a long and colorful history of ripping quotes bleeding from their context on a knee-jerk reaction to some point on which you realize you've just erred badly. This is one of those times.

You skimp on your research and you lack the basic foundation skills of engineering science, and of pretty much any other science from what I have read. Yet for some reason you seem to believe you alone are wrong and all the qualified professionals are wrong. What's suspicious about that picture?

I don't have time...

I reject this excuse. You have had plenty of time to write several walls of irrelevant test. You've had plenty of time to scrounge up another retrospective involving Kranz.

If you don't have time to do the basic research that is required by your claim, then you deserve to have your arguments treated as they are -- irrelevant hot air.

...nor need for anything else.

Your many and egregious errors indicate otherwise.

Besides you still have yet to account for how someone who claims to have a medical degree, a license to practice medicine, and a board certification in internal medicine can simultaneously claim to have had only one basic high-school chemistry course.

At any rate, one can conclude there was not enough heat to ignite aluminum, nor Teflon for that matter.

No, "one" cannot do this. Get your pronouns right. You don't get to pretend your fumbling around is a general conclusion that everyone must respect. That's your claim, and you're being asked to support it in the method you first claimed was required. Changing horses when you realize you don't know how to do it is cheating.

At least I see no good experimental evidence for the claims.

Asked and answered repeatedly. You are the one who asserted that one would need to perform calculations in order to discover the ignition and combustion properties of the relevant materials. You are therefore on the hook to provide them. But to distract from your now-obvious inability to reason about basic chemistry, you're following your typical approach of arbitrarily inventing new requirements for others to follow.

You are not a forensic engineer. You are not qualified to determine whether empirically derived values are required in some particular engineering investigation. Therefore I'm asking you to stop with the distraction and perform the computations you promised.

And while you're at it, I'd like to get your contact information so that we can schedule your interview with NASA engineers at Ames and another one with some flight surgeons at Moffett. I'd like to get those both on the same day so that you don't have to make two trips down the 101.

 

[Ranb]

Keep in mind, when the "venting" was reported, no one could have known that it was oxygen per se, and even if it was identified as oxygen, which it WAS NOT in any immediate sense, it would not have meant "to the life boat".

So what could the service module vent into space and still remain operational? I don’t think the SM had much onboard they could afford to lose and remain operating well enough to ensure completion of the mission without using the resources of the LM.

Ranb

 

[Patrick1000]

My take on the aluminum "problem" is that it is very dependent on the metal's

A 30-year-old paper that has been superseded (and cited) by the 2002 reference you were given previously. The paper itself admits that experimental results are few and contradictory. The method proposes to compare against thermal ramp rates of hundreds of degrees K per second in previous experiments with thermal ramp rates of 3x10⁴ K/s in the present experiment, with error analysis deriving from optical temperature observations.

The major flaw in this research, and the reason it is no longer taken especially seriously, is that the definition of "ignition" in context is variously considered and described, with event timings that introduce substantial potential for skew in the especially high temperature time derivatives. With more rigorous definition of "ignition" (e.g., the observation of primary indicators of reactions rather than secondary indications such as flame) we can arrive at a more sensible value.

I find it highly amusing that you, mister "It ain't valid unless there's an experiment," were given a fairly inexpensive experiment you could perform by yourself to determine the ignition properties of aluminum, and you don't appear to have done it. You've turned instead to homework discussions among high school students and decades-old academic papers.

My take on the aluminum "problem" is that the ignition temperature is very dependent on the metal's formulation, particle size and so forth. As best I can tell as I go along, the equipment needed to establish the ignition temperature for the Apollo 13 O2 tank aluminum would be exceedingly sophisticated.

Also, as I go along, I am sure this will not be too difficult to demonstrate, and it will be revealed that the ignition temperature, the heat/energy required to set off Apollo 13 O2 tank 2's aluminum, start it combusting will be off the hook sky high. So far, it looks as though that temp would have to be somewhere near 2000 degrees C. Anyone find a better figure yet?

It may take a bit if digging and sniffing about, but that will undoubtedly be the outcome, and of course my point indeed does apply, all the more so. The Apollo 13 Investigators should already have done this sophisticated work, matter-0-fact, they are not allowed to claim ANYTHING about the aluminum business unless they do. They are allegedly sending astronauts back up, Apollo 14 remember?, which one now sees in the wake of this to be OBVIOUSLY FRAUDULENT. They claimed aluminum may have burned and blew the Apollo 13 ship, then they sent another bogus space boat back up without a fix to yet leak again? , right......How FAKE!

No data on the ignition/combustion of their tank which is built in part with aluminum. Obviously PHONY.

This ship done blowed up big time........

By the way, it is not "Mister", it is Doctor......just in case you were wondering......

 

[Garrison]

https://plus.google.com/u/0/107946557021507888184/posts/JKqP2hGBje1


1) 07:30, "We've got a problem"

2) 07:40, Leibergot says they have lost fuel cell one N2 pressure. Note, what is "venting" could well have been nitrogen. Just because oxygen is being lost, doesn't mean it is the ONLY gas/substance that might be "venting" and of course this is what the flight officers are assuming to be the case. Anything is possible at this point. Lovell will not note the venting for another 14 minutes.

...

Edited by LashL: 

Breach of Rule 4 removed.

So they know they are losing Oxygen pressure, there's been a bang, and a shimmy, and you don't think it's reasonable to start thinking in terms of worst case scenario responses? If 'anything is possible' best to be ready for the worst. Anyway speculation is unnecessary; if you give your contact details to JayUtah you can ask Mr. Kranz himself. Why are you avoiding that golden opportunity Patrick1000?

 

[SpitfireIX]

Regardless of my previous error, get a load o' this......


http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA425147


From the above article.........

https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/...lbums/5711792117991940737/5711792117451028018

Obviously a complicated subject, but any way you cook it, the 10-20 joules of Apollo 13 O2 tank two juice was no where near enough to reach the ignition temperature. 2000 C give or take.......

This spaceship done blowed up.... incoming.......

I've asked you several times if you know what the temperature of an electric spark is. As you've repeatedly ignored my question, and you've now demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt that you don't understand combustion, I'm going to tell you. Even a small electric spark has a temperature of around 6000 K. See here. So again, as in so many other things, you're completely wrong.

Further, as I've tried to get you understand and acknowledge, the spark didn't ignite the aluminum. It ignited the PTFE insulation, which did not, despite your continued insinuation, simply evaporate, burn off, or become non-flammable. This led to one of two likely failure modes. Either the burning PTFE ignited the aluminum, which provided enough heat to overpressure the tank, or else the PTFE tank fittings caught fire, weakening them to the point of failure. Note that these two scenarios are not mutually exclusive; both the fittings and the aluminum could well have burned, which would have hastened the failure, as the oxygen pressure would have been increasing while the tank's burst pressure was decreasing.

 

[abaddon]

A 30-year-old paper that has been superseded (and cited) by the 2002 reference you were given previously.

True, it may well be superseded, but nonetheless, Patrick omits the notion that some of the experiments in the paper he quotes were at 298 K. (That's 25 C)

He simply cherry picks the results he wants. Hello confirmation bias.

 

[Patrick1000]

Lots of stuff.........

So what could the service module vent into space and still remain operational? I don’t think the SM had much onboard they could afford to lose and remain operating well enough to ensure completion of the mission without using the resources of the LM.

Ranb

Oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, helium, water, fuel, a fuel cell mix of gases, or a mixture of other things.

Just because they were venting, did not mean this was fatal. They could have vented a little of something, it could have stopped, not a major problem, and on with the mission.

This is all super dooper doubly, no, no ,no, triply whooper FAKE, PHONY, SCAMMY, JIVE INFESTED.. For forensic reasons, the astronauts should have been all over this taking photos and movies. What do we have photo and pic wise?, Fred Haise slpeeping, how bogus , and maddening, being treated with such contempt by these people, wasting our money like this on their stupid military toys.

I want my $433 back NOW...

 

[JayUtah]

My take on the aluminum "problem" is...

...that of someone who has admitted he is a layman and who has committed egregious errors of understanding on the problem.

It may take a bit if digging and sniffing about, but that will undoubtedly be the outcome...

...who formulates his desired conclusion first, then tries to backfill it with cherry-picked pseudoscience.

By the way, it is not "Mister", it is Doctor......just in case you were wondering......

You are mister until you decide to prove otherwise. You lie habitually, so you don't get the benefit of the doubt.

Start by explaining how a doctor can get his degree, certification, and license after having only one year of high school chemistry. Still waiting on that answer.

 

[Hans]

By the way, it is not "Mister", it is Doctor......just in case you were wondering......

That is your claim, you have provide zero evidence to validate it and plenty of evidence that you lack the knowledge to be such.

Let me show you an example of a fake claim:

I claim I can read minds: I have read your mind and it tell me you have a degree in sociology.

In Patrick's world the fact that I have made a claim means its true and under the wonderful set of rules in your universe, i don't have to provide any evidence for it either

So when did you get your sociology degree?

 

[JayUtah]

Oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, helium, water, fuel, a fuel cell mix of gases, or a mixture of other things.

And how many of these would be explained by the totality of evidence at the engineers' disposal?

Just because they were venting, did not mean this was fatal.

Asked and answered repeatedly.

They could have vented a little of something, it could have stopped, not a major problem, and on with the mission.

But after an hour, when it became obvious that the venting would not stop despite the controllers' and crew's best efforts, and that only a little bit of some very necessary consumables remained, then and only then was the lifeboat scenario invoked.

This is all super dooper doubly, no, no ,no, triply whooper FAKE, PHONY, SCAMMY, JIVE INFESTED.

Again, the world's experts disagree. And your egregious errors demonstrate amply that you are in no position to question us.

For forensic reasons, the astronauts should have been all over this taking photos and movies.

You mean while they were trying frantically to save their ship? Why don't we have any photos of the Titanic sinking?

No, sorry, you don't get to make up rules for other people to follow, just so you can beat them over the head for not following them.

What do we have photo and pic wise?, Fred Haise slpeeping...

Irrelevant. That happened later in the mission when there was little to do but wait to coast home. What a cheap shot.

...being treated with such contempt by these people, wasting our money like this on their stupid military toys.

You are not in a position to question the legitimacy of others' motives, Mister Socks. Your indignance derives solely from your misguided and admittedly uninformed opinions that you refuse to let be affected by facts or expertise, and that you refuse to place in the hands of competent experts under your real identity. In place of the rigor you have promised, you give us only these overbaked dramatics and the bluster of anonymity.

I want my $433 back NOW...

Send me your contact information. I'll arrange for you to ask Gene Kranz in person for it back.

 

[CptColumbo]

I am a physician

No, you are not.

It's been my experience, based on the few physicians that I know, that Doctors tend not to have as much free time as Patrick1000 appears to have.

 

[RobDog63]

Just because they were venting he was displaying some minor symptoms, did not mean this was fatal. They He could just have vented had a harmless bug, a little of something, it could have stopped, not a major problem, and on with the mission.

See how that works Patrick?

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Edited for clarity.

 

[Philth53]

Since you weren't paying any Federal income taxes in the 1960's, none of your money was involved in the Apollo program.

You can't get a refund on money you never spent.

Phil

 

[Tomblvd]

By the way, it is not "Mister", it is Doctor......just in case you were wondering......

OK Mister Patrick.

Things a medical doctor would not say:

I believe I mentioned I took a year's worth of high school chemistry, and that is more than adequate in one's dealing with this nonsense....

As discussed previously, and ignored by you again, it is a requirement of every medical school I'm aware of that you have a year of general chemistry and a year of organic chemistry in college. I dare say that close to 100% of med students have had biochem, pchem, and a lot of other courses prior to applying to med school. Heck, I'm only a dentist and I took more than that.

Vaccines are most decidedly NOT 100% efficacious, and though of great value, they should not be administered indiscriminately.

(from another thread where he's ignoring my question also)

How in God's name do you "indiscriminately" administer vaccines?

were Borman to have had influenza, Lovell and Anders under those circumstances would be expected to get if for sure.

We've already covered this stupidity.

Anyway, why are you always ignoring my medical questions Patrick? I post and post, and hardly ever get a response. One would think that if you were a medical doctor, those would be the questions you would jump on, not get continually pole-axed by Jay and company on the engineering questions.

 

[JayUtah]

That is your claim, you have provide zero evidence to validate it and plenty of evidence that you lack the knowledge to be such.

Not only has he provided no evidence that he is a doctor, he has specifically disavowed it. He told us a while back that the "doctor" persona was nothing more than another of his throwaway false identities. He even went so far as to praise himself for having fooled us all so completely.

So when a person says, "I am X," and then turns around and says, "I am not X," the first thing we have to conclude is that one of those statements has to be a lie. We try, if possible, to elicit a reconciliation between the conflicting claims. If none is to be had, then we affirm our decision that one statement is a lie, and move on to secondary indications to determine which. And here, the secondary indications include his inability to discuss medical topics with other experts at an informed level, and his unwillingness to submit to a brief, reasonably indicative test of skill. At that point it becomes reasonable to believe that he is not the expert he claims to be.

Why is this important? Because he has made arguments in which he applies his own medical judgment to determine the propriety of others' actions. That's iffy anyway, but where one purports to be an expert and to offer expert testimony, his status as an expert must be confirmed first. You don't get to offer expert judgment without actually being the expert.

 

[Andy_Ross]

In the UK a Surgeon is called Mister, not Doctor.

 

[Tomblvd]

For forensic reasons, the astronauts should have been all over this taking photos and movies.

Pictures like this?

 

[SpitfireIX]

My take on the aluminum "problem" is that the ignition temperature is very dependent on the metal's formulation, particle size and so forth.

No one's interested in your "take"; as has been mentioned, you've demonstrated that you have no understanding of combustion, therefore your opinion is clearly irrelevant.

As best I can tell as I go along, the equipment needed to establish the ignition temperature for the Apollo 13 O2 tank aluminum would be exceedingly sophisticated.

Again, you are not qualified to make any such determination.

Also, as I go along, I am sure this will not be too difficult to demonstrate, and it will be revealed that the ignition temperature, the heat/energy required to set off Apollo 13 O2 tank 2's aluminum, start it combusting will be off the hook sky high.

As noted, you've predetermined your conclusion, at which you are in any case not qualified to arrive.

So far, it looks as though that temp would have to be somewhere near 2000 degrees C. Anyone find a better figure yet?

You were provided with a more up-to-date source. Why are you ignoring it?

It may take a bit if digging and sniffing about, but that will undoubtedly be the outcome, and of course my point indeed does apply, all the more so.

Again, you've predetermined your conclusion. Fail.

The Apollo 13 Investigators should already have done this sophisticated work, matter-0-fact, they are not allowed to claim ANYTHING about the aluminum business unless they do.

You are the one who is not allowed to claim anything about the report because you are not qualified to make any such claims.

They are allegedly sending astronauts back up, Apollo 14 remember?, which one now sees in the wake of this to be OBVIOUSLY FRAUDULENT. They claimed aluminum may have burned and blew the Apollo 13 ship, then they sent another bogus space boat back up without a fix to yet leak again? , right......How FAKE!

The modifications made to the Apollo Service Module on subsequent missions are well documented and easily accessible online, if only you were willing to look.

No data on the ignition/combustion of their tank which is built in part with aluminum. Obviously PHONY.

This ship done blowed up big time........

Here, again, is the NTSB report on the crash of TWA Flight 800. Please indicate the ignition/combustion data for the center fuel tank of a 747-100.

By the way, it is not "Mister", it is Doctor......just in case you were wondering......

Whatever you say, Mr. Socks.

 

[SUSpilot]

Patrick: as SpitfireIX has pointed out, some significant modifications were made to the service modules of subsequent missions to avoid a recurrence. This is something that happens in all aspects of engineering, not just aerospace, when something goes wrong. Surprised that in your "extensive" research you didn't tumble to those modifications.

Even further, I'm surprised that you didn't discover the root causes of the accident (the fire was a symptom). So, while you're working on those pesky PTFE calculations, take a short break and let us know if you found that information (no help from the peanut gallery please - I gave enough of a hint by using the plural).

Or, you can supply Jay your contact info and ask one of the principals, Gene Kranz, directly about these points.

-----------

(NOTE: I would love to have the opportunity of a lifetime like this to have a one-on-one conversation with one of modern America's heroes. Ah, well....)

 

[SUSpilot]

Oh, one more thing, regarding medical training. My youngest daughter recently graduated from a pretty prestigious nursing program with a bachelors degree in nursing. She was the top of the class (3.98 GPA, thank you), with more honors than I knew could be had. She basically walked into a cardiac nurses job at a major hospital. So I asked her last night how many chem courses she had to take. Turns out a Bachelor's in nursing takes one full year of general chemistry at the college level.

So how did you, Patrick, become a doctor with just high school chemistry?