Your donations are appreciated and help keep this site running. Even the smallest amount helps.
Thankyou

 
PROMOTE YOUR SITE
HERE
Only $3 USD/month
TRUTHSPOON.COM
The man they can't recruit!
Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me

TOPIC: Space Travel

Space Travel 19 Apr 2016 09:05 #41

  • zax
  • zax's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5825
  • Likes received: 1560


The bunnyhop issue is another one to discuss.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Space Travel 19 Apr 2016 09:16 #42

  • zax
  • zax's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5825
  • Likes received: 1560
See this on Radiation Remediation :D [keep in mind the story goes that NASA kicked radiation's ass decades ago--

www.tethers.com/papers/ES_Remediation_IEEE_Paper.pdf
Background: The Van Allen Radiation Belts

The Van Allen Belts are concentrations of energetic particles near the Earth that pose significant danger to humans and spacecraft operating in those regions. The Earth’s atmosphere is continually bombarded by the interstellar flux of cosmic rays. These cosmic rays collide with molecules and atoms in the upper atmosphere and generate high-energy charged particles. A significant portion of these high-energy electrons and ions are trapped by the magnetic mirror formed by the Earth’s magnetic field, as shown in Figure 2. In addition, the Sun continually ejects high-energy charged particles into the space around it. As these solar wind particles speed past the Earth, some of them find their way inside the Earth’s magnetopause and also become trapped by the magnetic mirror formed by the Earth’s dipole magnetic field. This combination of cosmic-ray induced particles and solar wind particles trapped by the geomagnetic field form regions of intense radiation flux in Earth space. These particles bounce rapidly back and forth between mirror points above the Earth’s atmosphere, and also drift azimuthally around the Earth several times per hour. The altitude of the mirror point of a particle depends upon the pitch angle of the particle’s velocity with respect to the magnetic field, and only those particles with pitch angles greater than a certain level are trapped; particles with lower pitch angles will be lost through impact with the atmosphere. The trajectories of the trapped particles are usually described using the McIlwain "L-shell" coordinate system defined using an integral equation involving adiabatic invariants of the trapped particle motion. This coordinate system is a nested set of toroids having an "egg-shaped" cross-section. The higher energy particles become concentrated into three major radiation belts, a broad proton belt, an inner electron belt, and an outer electron belt. The existence of the gap between the inner and outer electron belts indicates that there are certain L-shells that do not trap significant numbers of electrons of any energy for long periods of time.

Radiation Belt Effects on Spacecraft and Personnel:


Energetic particles with energies greater than about 1 MeV pose a severe threat to spacecraft systems in those regions. These energetic particles will steadily degrade electronics, optics, solar panels, and other critical systems by breaking chemical bonds, disrupting crystalline and molecular structures, and by causing localized charge effects. Higher energy particles in solar events and cosmic rays can cause single-event disruptions or damage to electronics. Spacecraft systems operating in Earth orbit must be hardened to withstand this radiation environment, and typically their electronics must be designed with several layers of redundancy, incurring significant expense and additional mass. The radiation particles also pose a significant threat to personnel and other biological systems in Earth orbit. As they pass through tissue, they can deposit their energy by ionizing water and proteins, causing cellular damage, modifying DNA, RNA, and proteins in ways that can lead to cancers, immune system disorders, and other maladies. Protecting personnel in space from energetic particles in the MeV range requires a great deal of extra mass for shielding; a 1996 NRC study concluded that the shielding mass required to protect astronauts during a Mars expedition could add $10B to $30B to the cost of the mission. The presence of the high radiation fluxes in the Van Allen belts limits long-duration manned missions to operation below about 1200 km altitude. Spacecraft passing through the radiation belts will experience rapid degradation of solar panels, electronics, and other systems, and thus transit times through the belts must be minimized; this effect of the radiation belts is one of the primary obstacles preventing Solar-Electric Propulsion based transfer vehicles from being used to provide lower-cost orbit transfer for manned and robotic missions.

www.tethers.com/HiVOLT2.html

Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Space Travel 19 Apr 2016 09:35 #43

  • zax
  • zax's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5825
  • Likes received: 1560
Spence speaks--
The number of high energy particles streaming in from space did not tail off closer to the moon's surface, as would be expected with the body of the moon blocking half the sky.

Rather, the cosmic rays created a secondary — and potentially more dangerous — shower by blasting particles in the lunar soil which then become radioactive.

"The moon is a source of radiation," said Boston University researcher Harlan Spence, the lead scientist for LRO's cosmic ray telescope. "This was a bit unexpected."

While the moon blocks galactic cosmic rays to some extent, the hazards posed by the secondary radiation showers counter the shielding effects, Spence said at a press conference at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco this week.

Overall, future lunar travelers face a radiation dose 30 percent to 40 percent higher than originally expected, Spence said.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Space Travel 19 Apr 2016 09:40 #44

  • zax
  • zax's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5825
  • Likes received: 1560
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Space Travel 19 Apr 2016 09:45 #45

  • zax
  • zax's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5825
  • Likes received: 1560
Even towing the NASA party line,we get gems like this---
There is one key difference between the astronauts of today and those of the future. That difference is the Earth, itself.

Galactic cosmic radiation — also called galactic cosmic rays — is the kind of radiation that researchers are most worried about. It's made up particles, bits and pieces of atoms that were probably flung off from the aftermath of supernovas. The majority of this radiation, roughly 90%, is made up protons ripped from atoms of hydrogen. These particles travel around the galaxy at almost the speed of light.

And then they hit the Earth. This planet has a couple of defense mechanisms that protect us here on the ground from the impact of galactic cosmic radiation. First, Earth's magnetic field both pushes away some of the particles and blocks others completely. Then, the particles that make it through that barrier start to encounter the atoms that make up our atmosphere.

If you drop a big tower made of Legos down the stairs it will break apart, losing more pieces every time it hits a new step. That's a lot like what happens to galactic cosmic radiation in our atmosphere. The particles collide with atoms and break apart, forming new particles. Those new particles hit something else and also break apart. At each step, the particles lose energy. They get a little slower, a little weaker. By the time they "come to a stop" at the ground, they aren't the galactic powerhouses they once were. It's still radiation. But it's much less dangerous radiation. Just like it would hurt a lot less to be hit with one Lego block, than with a whole tower of them.

All of the astronauts we've sent into space so far have, at least partially, benefited from Earth's protective barriers, Francis Cucinotta told me. He's the director of the NASA Space Radiobiology Program, the go-to guy for finding out how radiation hurts astronauts. He says, with the exception of Apollo flights to the Moon, the human presence in space has happened within the Earth's magnetic field. The International Space Station, for instance, is above the atmosphere, but still well inside the first line of defense. Our astronauts aren't exposed to the full force of galactic cosmic radiation
boingboing.net/2013/01/04/how-space-radiation-hurts-astr.html
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Space Travel 25 Apr 2016 06:20 #46

  • zax
  • zax's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5825
  • Likes received: 1560
NASA Refuses To Accept Its Own News Media Accreditation (Update)
Keith's update: NASA HQ PAO has informed me that my FOIA request for CASIS documents is now being processed. PAO tells me that the "media" status of NASAWatch is not an issue. The NASA FOIA office has initiated the search for what I have requested and will work with me on the details once FOIA at HQ and JSC get a handle on the size of what is found. I'll let you know what I hear back from NASA. I was very specific about the documents I requested - just the NASA/CASIS Cooperative agreement and regular CASIS status reports and NASA responses. Nothing else. Since Sam Scimemi is the CASIS POC at NASA, he'd have all this within easy reach, yes? After all, CASIS is responsible for 50% of the allocation in the U.S. segment of the ISS - so one would reasonably expect that Scimemi and his staff would take these reports very seriously. When I worked at NASA - even back in the day - I had everything organized in folders for projects I managed - either electronically or on paper so that others could find things if I was not in the office. One would think that this is a simple matter of going to Scimemi's desktop computer, electronically copying the files, dragging them into to an email, and then emailing them to me. Yes, I am applying logic here folks - will all the associated assumptions in so doing.
nasawatch.com/archives/2016/04/nasa-refuses-to.html
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Space Travel 25 Apr 2016 06:35 #47

  • zax
  • zax's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5825
  • Likes received: 1560
Earth’s “Magnetosphere” COLLAPSED in space TODAY for two+ hours! Trouble ahead for all of us



A stunning and terrifying event has taken place in space surrounding our planet; for two hours today, earth's "Magnetosphere" COLLAPSED around the entire planet! The magnetosphere is what protects earth from solar winds and some radiation.

EARTH'S MAGNETOSPHERE

Deep within the Earth, a fierce molten core is generating a magnetic field capable of defending our planet against devastating solar winds. The protective field, called the "magnetosphere" extends thousands of miles into space and its magnetism affects everything from global communication to animal migration and weather patterns. The magnetosphere is the region of space surrounding Earth where the dominant magnetic field is the magnetic field of Earth, rather than the magnetic field of interplanetary space. The magnetosphere is formed by the interaction of the solar wind with Earth’s magnetic field. This figure illustrates the shape and size of Earth’s magnetic field that is continually changing as it is buffeted by the solar wind.
www.mydailyinformer.com/earths-magnetosphere-collapsed-in-space-today-for-two-hours-trouble-ahead-for-all-of-us/
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Space Travel 25 Apr 2016 15:09 #48

  • Gaia
  • Gaia's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 7288
  • Likes received: 1571
1 - "The protective field, called the "magnetosphere" extends thousands of miles into space and its magnetism affects everything from global communication to animal migration and weather patterns."

It is more the other way around. Animal migration and weather patterns are hundreds of millions respectively billions of years old. The antropocentric media puts the last microseconds in Earth's history before the full year that came before... :larf:

2 - "Earth’s “Magnetosphere” COLLAPSED in space TODAY for two+ hours! Trouble ahead for all of us" + "its magnetism affects everything from global communication to animal migration and weather patterns" doesn't really combine well, does it? If this really happened, we would be without communication for 2+ hours and animals and weather would go crazy. Has that happened? I don't think so...

The MSM predicting "Biblical" apocalyptic scenarios based on nothing and knowing shit about our beautiful blue-green planet. What's new. :wissl:
The Only Limit is Your Own Imagination
A truth seeker is someone who dares to wade through thick series of toxic smoke screens and tries not to inhale - Gaia
"What do you call 'genius'?" "Well, seeing things others don't see. Or rather the invisible links between things."
- Vladimir Nabokov (1938)
"The silence of conspiracy. Slaughtered on the altar of apathy." - Lords of the New Church (1982)
Last Edit: 25 Apr 2016 15:10 by Gaia.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Space Travel 28 Apr 2016 07:41 #49

  • zax
  • zax's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5825
  • Likes received: 1560
Warp Speed: The Hype of Hyperspace
The concept of hyperspace travel is also known as hyperdrive, subspace and warp speed. But the dearth of research and scholarly discussion on the transportation method make it more often a convenient literary device than scientific possibility, Shostak said

Yes,the predictive programming in sci-fi books and movies where we now have two generations that a good portion of actually beiieves this technology exists or at least whatever NASA and other space agencies say they have accomplished in space.
In 2015, rumors of a possible NASA warp drive called the "EM Drive" surfaced on a NASASpaceflight.com forum and then spread around the Internet rapidly. The reports said a prototype of this engine, which was intended to operate without fuel and move faster than light, produced a small amount of thrust when tested in a vacuum. Critics said it would violate physical laws.


- See more at: www.space.com/32712-warp-drive-hyperspace.html#sthash.NQHxyGIl.dpuf

The crtics are right.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Space Travel 28 Apr 2016 07:46 #50

  • Gaia
  • Gaia's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 7288
  • Likes received: 1571
zax wrote:
The crtics are right.

Nahh, you think so??
intended to operate without fuel and move faster than light,

After all, it is only an intention, so no worries here... :larf:
The Only Limit is Your Own Imagination
A truth seeker is someone who dares to wade through thick series of toxic smoke screens and tries not to inhale - Gaia
"What do you call 'genius'?" "Well, seeing things others don't see. Or rather the invisible links between things."
- Vladimir Nabokov (1938)
"The silence of conspiracy. Slaughtered on the altar of apathy." - Lords of the New Church (1982)
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Space Travel 28 Apr 2016 08:32 #51

  • zax
  • zax's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5825
  • Likes received: 1560
Kinda like the Moonbeamer's parroting the NASA Happy Horsehit about the Laser Ranging Reflector allegedly left on the moon in 1969.

They say it is intended to be proof that man bolted past LEO and did a slingshot to the moon. :roll:

Come to find out...lasers on earth were used before that time to bounce off the surface of the moon. :chuckle:



From a distance that contraption looks like a Morley Fuzz-Wah Pedal. ;)

Up close it looks like a waffle iron tilted on an angle as if it is a solar Belgian Waffle Iron. :hahano:
Last Edit: 28 Apr 2016 08:36 by zax.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: rodin

Space Travel 28 Apr 2016 09:00 #52

  • zax
  • zax's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5825
  • Likes received: 1560
'The Lasers Bright Magic' by Thomas Meloy

Page 876
"Four years ago (1962) a ruby laser considerably smaller than those now available, shot a series of pulses at the Moon, 240000 miles away. The beams illuminated a spot less than two miles in diameter, and were reflected back to Earth with enough strength to be measured by ultra sensitive electronic equipment."

Many types of signals can be bounced off the Moon, even without any type of reflectors. In the 1950s, Moon-bounce was used to communicate around the curvature of the Earth. If you were in the military and wanted to talk with someone in Hawaii from California, you would bounce your conversation off the Moon.

:cool:
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Space Travel 28 Apr 2016 09:09 #53

  • zax
  • zax's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5825
  • Likes received: 1560
On another note--

Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Space Travel 28 Apr 2016 09:23 #54

  • zax
  • zax's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5825
  • Likes received: 1560

Gran Telescopio Canarias



Keck 1 and Keck 2



BTA-6

tek-think.com/2015/06/23/the-three-largest-telescopes-on-the-earth-so-far/

A few years ago,some of us elsewhere were going over the different type of earth-based behemoth telescopes and NASA's yarns,and the tie-ins.
Above are a few monsters. :cool:
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Space Travel 28 Apr 2016 09:46 #55

  • zax
  • zax's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5825
  • Likes received: 1560
OCCUPATIONAL COSMIC RADIATION LIMITS


Radiation is often converted to a dose equivalent when considering it’s biological effect. This dose equivalent is measured in Sievert (Sv). Considering the small doses within cosmic radiation, the dose is more commonly displayed in micro-Sievert per hour (ųSv/Hr) or milli-Sievert (mSv) per year, where 1 Sv = 1,000 mSv and 1 mSv = 1,000 ųSv (1 Sv = 1,000,000 ųSv). The radiation effective dose is the tissue-weighted sum of all equivalent doses. It accounts for the type of radiation and the nature of each irradiated organ or tissue since different types of radiation do different degrees of damage. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) explains that “for beta and gamma radiation, the dose equivalent is the same as the absorbed dose. By contrast, the dose equivalent is larger than the absorbed dose for alpha and neutron radiation, because these types of radiation are more damaging to the human body.” If you find measuring radiation a gripping topic, check out the NRC’s summary.
Space agencies approach radiation limits for astronauts in a different way. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) made recommendations for career dose limits of astronauts to NASA in 1970. The number that they chose was based on an attempt to maintain astronauts’ probability of developing cancer on par with the general population. The NAS recommended a reference risk of 4 Sv for a career and NASA adopted this as their dose limit thru 1989. It was in this year that the National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP) issued Report 98, which provided updated recommendations that were dependent on both age and gender. These limits only applied to low earth orbits (LEO). Appreciating the significant risks to life and health that astronauts take by the nature of the job, these guidelines attempted to set dose limits of no more than a 3% increased risk of (cancer) mortality. These limits were updated in 2000 and summarized in NCRP Report 132, significantly lowering the 1989 suggested limits. In light of the continued scientific research, large uncertainties remain regarding the cancer risks from exposure to space radiation.
goflightmedicine.com/cosmic-radiation/

These guys gotta tell Buzz about these uncertainties. :D
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Space Travel 28 Apr 2016 09:55 #56

  • zax
  • zax's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5825
  • Likes received: 1560
What is not known
We don’t know what causes most health problems that could be linked to radiation, including some forms of cancer and reproductive health issues like miscarriage and birth defects. If you are exposed to cosmic ionizing radiation and have these health problems, we can’t tell if it was caused by your work conditions or something else.


•We don’t know what levels of cosmic radiation are safe for every person
www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/aircrew/cosmicionizingradiation.html

Ahh.but this is under the protection of the earth's magnetosphere. :yerright:

For the heavy bombardment out yonder,NASA had the magic mylar. :ponda:
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Space Travel 28 Apr 2016 10:05 #57

  • zax
  • zax's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5825
  • Likes received: 1560
August 1972 Event
Apollo missions were fortunate to avoid extreme interplanetary conditions
especially the August 1972 solar flares and CMEs.
www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/leag2012/presentations/Stubbs.pdf

Sure. :umm:
They practiced the bob and weave technique on earth,and nailed it in the tin cans in space.
:cool:
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Space Travel 01 May 2016 09:24 #58

  • zax
  • zax's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5825
  • Likes received: 1560
What one finds when going over science papers or articles on space travel since 1972, are tacit admisisons of the mpossibiltyof space travel or backpeddling of NASA's claims from those wonder years..There is also lip service paid to those bygone years in sentences right after stating the dangers inherent in going beyond LEO.
Exploring the Final Frontier

The Danger of Deep Space Radiation

In 2004 President Bush proposed an ambitious space exploration plan that envisioned sending astronauts back to the moon and eventually to Mars. Such missions into deep space will involve risks not seen by astronauts in low Earth orbit, in particular increased radiation levels. A recent report from the National Research Council concludes that a better understanding of space radiation and improved protection is needed, or it's unlikely astronauts can make long stays on the moon or travel to Mars anytime soon.

The two main forms of radiation in space are galactic cosmic radiation (GCR) -- background radiation present at all times -- and solar particle events (SPEs), which are short bursts of solar radiation. GCR contains heavy, high-energy particles that penetrate spacecraft. SPEs generally involve low-energy particles that can be blocked using shielding. They can be sudden and intense, however, creating a danger for crewmembers working outside the spacecraft. To protect its astronauts, NASA monitors the amount of radiation to which they are exposed and imposes strict lifetime limits.

In the past, astronauts avoided reaching their radiation limits either by staying within the safety of Earth's atmosphere, which blocks most space radiation, or by keeping the amount of time spent outside Earth's atmosphere short. Longer stays on the moon, or eventual trips to distant destinations like Mars, will mean exposure to more radiation, though. If crews hit their lifetime limits midmission, they'd have to turn around and come home or else risk the possibility of radiation sickness or even cancer.

James van Hoften, a former crew member on Discovery and Challenger who chaired the study committee, encountered space radiation during a spacewalk outside Challenger. "I saw what looked like a white laser line go right through my eyes," he said. "I thought, 'Well this can't be good…having high-energy particles fly through your head.' "

The biological effects of radiation exposure vary and are not entirely understood. Much of what is known comes from the study of accidental occupational radiation exposure, and from atomic bomb survivors, who received massive doses of gamma rays instantaneously. An atomic bomb is very different than what astronauts would experience, although the committee pointed out that, despite years of study, we don't know exactly what to expect in deep space.

Safely pushing the boundaries of human space exploration, said the committee, will require a better understanding of the deep space environment and shielding that can protect against all possible forms of radiation exposure. -- Rebecca Alvania

www.infocusmagazine.org/8.2/hs_space_radiation.html
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Space Travel 01 May 2016 10:09 #59

  • zax
  • zax's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5825
  • Likes received: 1560
Apollo 11 Spacecraft Retrieval (1969)



:chuckle:
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Space Travel 01 May 2016 11:17 #60

  • zax
  • zax's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5825
  • Likes received: 1560
Re-Entry Matters
A Detailed Investigation into Apollo Command Module Returns
by Mary DM Bennett
Remarkably, rather than referring to a designated method for the Apollo return procedure, there are different accounts from those closely associated with this project regarding how the Apollo command module (CM) achieved a safe return to Earth
Apollo 6 failed to achieve sufficient velocity to properly simulate a lunar return, leaving the earlier Apollo 4 as the only unmanned CM on record successfully simulating lunar return velocities. Even if the data in the Apollo 4 flight report might be considered suspect by some scientists, especially compared with modern papers on the problem of re-entry, this flight report is relevant for precisely that reason. It is what NASA officially adopted for Apollo returns – on paper (Apollo 4, 1969).
One wonders why the AFIT authorities thought it necessary to release a part of his degree work into the public domain. Surely there were enough NASA studies on the matter already. What this study does do however, is refute Chris Kraft’s assertion that the skip entry was the technique used for Apollo. And it is indeed odd that an Apollo flight director should appear to be so blatantly wrong. Taking Kaya’s words and Kraft’s statement together, could lead one to the inevitable conclusion that the Apollo missions were unmanned. Or that unmanned CMs attempted skip re-entries, but were not recorded as such. Something is surely not right with such disregard for definition and such a lack of clarity regarding this Apollo re-entry data.

No wonder the record reeks of confusion and, wittingly or otherwise, obfuscation.
NASA might have intended to use the 'double dip' entry, but then again it originally intended to land on dry land with pinpoint precision. Computing not being up to the task, this option wasn’t pursued, and as it turns out, according to the record, the 'double dip' entry procedure attributed to the unmanned tests went through some modifications. Either that, or the data has been removed, because although termed ‘double dip’ the Apollo manned mission data lacks a second set of peak gs. Fig 7 below is the Apollo 11 flightplan data, which is typical of all missions except Apollo 10 and 17.
The Apollo 17 mission report doesn’t mention the method of entry, nor does it mention the g-forces experienced, while the NASA entry data chart mentions only one figure of 6.49g. This lack of data makes it doubtful that a 'double dip' entry was actually performed on Apollo 17. Even the double dip within the atmosphere has to be managed carefully and perhaps the Apollo 4 test had revealed that the computational ability of the onboard computers was not reliable enough to risk human lives.
Even more confusing is that irrespective of the techniques applied to Apollo, astronauts Worden and Stafford seemingly do not know enough about the overall mechanics of entry to be able to set David Orbell right as to the exact definition of a direct entry, and how that can translate into a choice of skip manoeuvres. Which is very hard to believe. But since neither man chose to set the intrepid Orbell right – Houston, there is an elephant in the room.

Unfortunately, NASA flightplans contradict the skip entry described by Chris Kraft. As does the fact that although the Apollo skip guidance was engineered, it was never used on a manned mission precisely due to navigation and control concerns during the skip manouevre out of the atmosphere.
Amazingly, this system has apparently even confused some Apollo astronauts. Certainly, the Apollo 10 flight (remember it also had a double dip programmed into its flightplan) caused Eugene Cernan some number muddles. In his biography The Last Man on the Moon, he writes:


"The fifty five hour return was totally without problems and required only one tiny midcourse correction. We came hammering home on Monday, packing a velocity that carried the risk of the spacecraft skipping off the atmosphere rather than plunging through it. We had extra fuel when we left the Moon, and burning it off accelerated us to well over 25,000 miles per hour as we approached Earth, making us the three fastest humans in history…

"Our re entry corridor was tiny, plus or minus half a degree… We had to be confident that the slide-rule guys would make the shot, because, unlike in the simulators where you get a second chance, we couldn't start this part of the trip over again. It was all or nothing. After eight days of weightlessness, the force of gravity welcomed us back to our world, and the G-forces climbed as we punched into the heavy air. Half a G...two Gs...four...six...seven..." (Cernan, 2000)

There’s a lot wrong with the above statements. And not all of it down to hyperbole. Hammering home at 36,666ft/sec would be within the parameters of normal lunar return velocities. And Cernan knows perfectly well that in order to enter the atmosphere safely retro-rockets must be fired to bring the speed down. He knows that the actual EI velocity as recorded by NASA is the relatively more sedate 36,314ft/sec. If the ‘slide rule boys’ had worked the original maths he also knows that computers governed the entry process, and he also knows that the flightpath angle at entry has been calculated expressly to ensure capture of the CM and protect against skip out of the atmosphere. Finally for what it’s worth, the Apollo 10 narrative records that the maximum g-loading for this flight was under 7g.

However, this dramatic statement indicates that Apollo 10 ended up with an entry of only one peak g, otherwise Cernan would surely have described the experience. Despite the double dip shown in the pre-flightplan and press release, there is no indication that this ever occurred. And the post flight mission report has a distance from EI to splashdown commensurate with all the other manned Apollo flights of some 13.5 minutes.


Many happy returns
Maybe Chris Kraft’s use of the words ‘skip it out’ actually provides the clue to these anomalies in the Apollo record, because technically, the skip portion of the re-entry procedure spent outside the atmosphere is also called the Keplerian/ ballistic coast. (See Fig 13 below and Fig 4, Apollo 4) And one might say that Worden certainly went ballistic.

But perhaps it was all theatre.

If the intrusive audience member who had not liked David Orbell’s question on re-entry (why not?) did in fact have connections to the backroom boys at Autographica, Al Worden might have known what was coming. Especially since Tom Stafford had already been asked the same question. So might this dramatic response by Worden have been a set-up? David Orbell’s question providing exactly the right moment for Worden to make his point. Getting Orbell evicted shortly afterwards would certainly make sure his innocent questioner didn’t forget the incident. Speculation perhaps, and certainly if this was theatre, it took in David Orbell – as he later wrote:


"In retrospect one can see the dilemma that the Apollo veterans now face. Today they are locked between two realities. On the one hand they have to acknowledge NASA's explicit historic game plan. However we now know that no technical expertise existed with which to effect the skip re-entry manoeuvre suggested by Chris Kraft. The solution? Bluff your way through this dilemma and hope to God no one picks up on these impossible contradictions. Unfortunately I did, at Autographica. Solution? Remove me quickly from the scene." (Orbell, 2015)

Was Worden trying to bluff his way through the question? It’s quite possible, but the Apollo astronauts were selected for their ‘right stuff’ – the ability to remain calm in the face of extreme adversity, so I’m not so sure. Worden’s tantrum got Orbell’s attention and it got him chucked out, leaving him outraged and determined to follow up on the matter.
www.aulis.com/re-entrymatters.htm
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
Moderators: novum, rodin, Flare
Powered by Kunena Forum

Annual Server Target

Whether its 50 cents or five dollars, your donations are appreciated and help keep this community site running so we can all continue to enjoy using it. Secure transactions via paypal.
This target is to meet our server cost for one year, June 2019 - May 2020, in USD.
$ 340 - Target
( £ 278 GBP )
donation thermometer
donation thermometer
$ 160 - Raised
( £ 130 GBP )
donation thermometer
47%
Updated
2nd October 2019

No one is obliged to donate, please only donate what you can afford. Even the smallest amount helps. Being an active member is a positive contribution. Thank You.