A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » History
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Apollo Trivia Question



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old August 1st 06, 11:58 AM posted to sci.space.history
Proponent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 68
Default Apollo Trivia Question

Scott Hedrick wrote:
What *should* have been done is the capsule be picked up, crew onboard, and
lowered into an enclosure which was fully closed *before* the seal on the
capsule was cracked.


I once came across an article written a couple of years before Apollo
11--I think it was one of WvB's popular pieces--in which a procedure
like this was described. I wonder why it was never implemented.
Several Mercury capsules, after all, were lifted aboard with astronauts
still in them.

  #22  
Old August 1st 06, 12:01 PM posted to sci.space.history
Proponent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 68
Default Apollo Trivia Question

Pat Flannery wrote:
The problem is that the CM brings in outside air as it descends under
its chutes (remember the nitrogen tetroxide contamination during
Apollo-Soyuz?)
Ideally, that valve should also be closed until it's safely contained in
the isolation chamber.


IIRC, there were biological filters on the vent to prevent any putative
moon critters from getting out into the atmosphere. How much
confidence one could have in a filter designed against a completely
alien and unknown organism I don't know, but in any case its the big
flaw in the procedure was still the opening of the hatch under
uncontrolled conditions.

  #24  
Old August 1st 06, 10:28 PM posted to sci.space.history
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default Apollo Trivia Question



Proponent wrote:

I once came across an article written a couple of years before Apollo
11--I think it was one of WvB's popular pieces--in which a procedure
like this was described. I wonder why it was never implemented.
Several Mercury capsules, after all, were lifted aboard with astronauts
still in them.



Size of helicopter required?

Pat
  #25  
Old August 1st 06, 10:33 PM posted to sci.space.history
Brad Guth[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 679
Default Apollo Trivia Question

jonathan wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
I think its funny when people talk of mars quarantine The multi month
trip home should be enough to answer that question, no need for
extended stay at a space station///


More likely they'll need straight jackets for the return trip
not a quarantine.

They won't be able to answer the question of life on Mars.

On the way home they'll go nuts trying to figure it out and
trying to reconcile their emotions from being responsible for
such a Grand Scientific Failure.

I tend to agree with that anti-Mars mindset of yours, as for Mars being
nothing but another spendy space-toilet that's anything but end-user
friendly.

However, since we haven't bothered to establish the most ideal and
relatively energy efficient LL-1 science platform, as such we still
know next to nothing about the Earth/moon relationships and thereby
zilch as to that of our vanishing magnetosphere. We don't even know of
the voltage differential that exist between Earth and our moon, or of
whatever's potentially alternating in polarity as our moon orbits about
whatever's left of our magnetosphere.

Of course, our rad-hard Buzz Aldrin on C2C will soon enough set that
almighty record straight, along with all of those missing Apollo-11
records. Fortunately for our NASA, Hoagland still thinks we've walked
on that gamma and hard-X-ray lethal moon, rather than on some passive
guano island that's xenon lamp illuminated.
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2006/07/31.html

The Earth's Magnetic Field is Still Losing Energy / 7.5e12 MJ
-0.05%/year
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq...9_1/GeoMag.htm
http://www.creationresearch.org/cgi-...9_1/GeoMag.htm

This paper closes a loophole in the case for a young earth based on the
loss of energy from various parts of the earth's magnetic field.
Using ambiguous 1967 data, evolutionists had claimed that energy gains
in minor ("non-dipole") parts compensate for the energy loss from
the main ("dipole") part. However, nobody seems to have checked
that claim with newer, more accurate data. Using data from the
International Geomagnetic Reference Field (IGRF) I show that from 1970
to 2000, the dipole part of the field steadily lost 235 ± 5 billion
megajoules of energy, while the non-dipole part gained only 129 ± 8
billion megajoules. Over that 30-year period, the net loss of energy
from all observable parts of the field was 1.41 ± 0.16 %. At that
rate, the field would lose half its energy every 1465 ± 166 years.
Combined with my 1990 theory explaining reversals of polarity during
the Genesis Flood and intensity fluctuations after that, these new data
support the creationist model: the field has rapidly and continuously
lost energy ever since God created it about 6,000 years ago.
-
Try replacing "God" with seriously smart ETs and you've got yourself a
working deal, along with rational accountability.

http://www.sdsc.edu/GatherScatter/GS...95/raeder.html
Simulating Earth's Magnetosphere on the Paragon
Joachim Raeder, Jean Berchem, and Maha Ashour-Abdalla, University of
California, Los Angeles

Earth's magnetosphere is that region of space where the Earth's
dipole-like magnetic field is confined by the solar wind, a tenuous,
fast-flowing, and magnetized plasma stream coming from the sun. Because
the solar wind is supersonic, a bow shock forms in front of the Earth,
at a distance of approximately 15 RE (1 RE is 6,372 kilometers, or one
Earth radius). The magnetosphere extends from the ionosphere about 100
kilometers above the Earth and is bounded by the magnetopause, which
lies at about 10 RE on the Earth-Sun line; towards its flanks, it
flares out to about 14 RE, and, beyond 20 RE behind the Earth, it
becomes nearly cylindrical with a radius of 15-25 RE.

While the solar wind compresses the Earth's dipole on the sunward side,
it also causes the Earth's magnetic field to be stretched out several
hundred RE in the anti-sunward direction, thereby forming the
geomagnetic tail. Most of the oncoming solar wind is deflected around
the magnetosphere to form the "magnetosheath," the region between the
bow shock and the magnetopause. However, a small fraction of the
impinging energy of the solar wind enters the magnetosphere by various
local processes. The energy is ultimately dissipated, mostly in the
ionosphere.
-

It's sufficiently clear that without a rotating core of such highly
magnetic iron and having sufficient metallic elements within the crust
would have excluded our having a viable magnetosphere, by which we
certainly wouldn't have all that much of a remaining atmosphere, and
obviously we'd be summarily irradiated from the solar, cosmic and lunar
dosage by at least a thousand fold greater dosage, from which our frail
human DNA couldn't survive.

Once upon a time Earth's atmosphere was 50+ bar, and of it's
magnetosphere at the time was substantially greater. Today we're at
something less than 1 bar, and even though it has become rather badly
polluted with damn near everything including the kitchen sink, it's in
the process of losing rather than gaining mass.

Solar winds that often vari from 1e14 to 1e15 Joules can at short
periods of time exceed 1e16 Joules. Earth's protective magnetosphere
of perhaps 7.5e18 Joules (1e19 joules maximum) is reported by others as
somewhat greater by way of using the rotational energy loss being
worthy of 6.33e19 joules at 100% efficiency, that's otherwise having
been well established as currently losing magnetic flux intensiity at
an accellerated rate of roughly better than 0.05% per year.

I'm estimating that's putting our magnetosphere half life at a very
predictable threshold or critical point of no-return, whereas we either
unavoidably start to die off or perhaps get saved by something of the
interstellar ice-age cycle that's roughly transpiring every 105,000
years, that'll either reset our magnetosphere's clock or allowing some
ET intelligent design improvements to our otherwise frail DNA, that
which as is can only take so much radiation trauma without mutating in
the wrong direction.

Life as we know it, of which the entire species of humans represents
such an itsy bitsy part of that life, and that's mostly as having been
destructive at that, probably couldn't have ever existed without a
robust atmosphere as would have been magnetosphere enhanced, any more
so than a mostly water world could have managed so well without having
involved a tidal generating moon. If all things being equal from a
given starting point, except going without a magnetosphere and
especially without a moon would have made such a wet and salty Earth
into a rather tough place to live, if at all. However, if having been
a sufficient ET terraforming wizard, whereas first things first, we'd
have to either establish the magnetosphere prior to having incorporated
such a gamma and hard-X-ray moon to deal with, or else we'd have to be
damn happenstance lucky as all get out to have been given such a nifty
one in a billion trillion of a do-everything planet to start with, and
yet if that were there case, here we're still into doing everything
imaginable in order to global pollute and warm it to death, with far
less than 50% of those diatoms available for converting and/or storing
the excess CO2 (are we good at nailing mother Earth, or what?).
-
Brad Guth

  #26  
Old August 2nd 06, 12:41 AM posted to sci.space.history
Scott Hedrick[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 180
Default Apollo Trivia Question


"Proponent" wrote in message
oups.com...
IIRC, there were biological filters on the vent to prevent any putative
moon critters from getting out into the atmosphere. How much
confidence one could have in a filter designed against a completely
alien and unknown organism I don't know, but in any case its the big
flaw in the procedure was still the opening of the hatch under
uncontrolled conditions.


As long as it was positive inward pressure, it shouldn't be a problem.

On the other hand, if it were something like the bug in The Andromeda
Strain, the normal space radiation should have increased the mutation rate
inside the craft on the way back that it would have eaten the seals before
reentry.


  #27  
Old August 2nd 06, 12:44 AM posted to sci.space.history
Scott Hedrick[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 180
Default Apollo Trivia Question


"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...


Proponent wrote:

I once came across an article written a couple of years before Apollo
11--I think it was one of WvB's popular pieces--in which a procedure
like this was described. I wonder why it was never implemented.
Several Mercury capsules, after all, were lifted aboard with astronauts
still in them.


Size of helicopter required?


This sounds to me like the most likely reason. Surprised a crapload of money
wasn't spent to build a NASA-sized helicopter

In which case, the next best thing would be to hook on and drag the capsule
to the carrier, then use a crane. This would have required the launch weight
to increase to allow for the increased number of barf bags.

I've never been subject to motion sickness, but I suspect even I would need
a baggie on that trip.


  #28  
Old August 2nd 06, 01:29 AM posted to sci.space.history
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default Apollo Trivia Question



Scott Hedrick wrote:


On the other hand, if it were something like the bug in The Andromeda
Strain, the normal space radiation should have increased the mutation rate
inside the craft on the way back that it would have eaten the seals before
reentry.



Then, after getting into the ocean via the open hatch, it will start
eating the sea lions, walruses, and all the other pinnapeds also.
(cut to image of seal on Moon balencing a boulder on its nose). ;-)

Pat
  #29  
Old August 2nd 06, 06:17 AM posted to sci.space.history
jonathan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 611
Default Apollo Trivia Question


"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
.. .

"Proponent" wrote in message
oups.com...
IIRC, there were biological filters on the vent to prevent any putative
moon critters from getting out into the atmosphere. How much
confidence one could have in a filter designed against a completely
alien and unknown organism I don't know, but in any case its the big
flaw in the procedure was still the opening of the hatch under
uncontrolled conditions.


As long as it was positive inward pressure, it shouldn't be a problem.

On the other hand, if it were something like the bug in The Andromeda
Strain, the normal space radiation should have increased the mutation rate
inside the craft on the way back that it would have eaten the seals before
reentry.


The astronauts could've fought off the virus by hyperventilating
all the way back though.








 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
what was Apollo 1's mission to be? PowerPost2000 History 16 July 1st 06 03:16 PM
The Apollo Hoax FAQ CAPCOM Astronomy Misc 16 February 21st 06 02:07 PM
Apollo Buzz alDredge UK Astronomy 5 July 28th 04 10:05 AM
The Apollo FAQ (moon landings were faked) Nathan Jones UK Astronomy 8 February 4th 04 07:48 PM
The Apollo Moon Hoax FAQ v4.1 November 2003 Nathan Jones Misc 20 November 11th 03 08:33 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.