Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > The Universe / UFOs / IFOs / Crop Circles

View Poll Results: Do you believe that men walked on the Moon in 1969
Yes i believe NASA has told us the truth 79 30.38%
No i dont believe men walked on the Moon in 1969 181 69.62%
Voters: 260. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-09-2012, 08:48 PM   #4141
moving finger
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Down in the basement, working for the government
Posts: 3,721
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

[QUOTE=oooooooooo;1061022780]
Long story short. The m-m shield was never designed to be "wide open", so i believe we are left with only 2 options.
1. The gaps in the shield did not matter.
2. The hardware malfunctioned. Reducing its capability to perform its designated task. /QUOTE]

ftfy
moving finger is offline  
Old 03-09-2012, 12:51 PM   #4142
oooooooooo
Inactive
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: in the cover of a smoke grenade.
Posts: 3,014
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

[quote=moving finger;1061022844]
Quote:
Originally Posted by oooooooooo View Post
Long story short. The m-m shield was never designed to be "wide open", so i believe we are left with only 2 options.
1. The gaps in the shield did not matter.
2. The hardware malfunctioned. Reducing its capability to perform its designated task. /QUOTE]

ftfy
from this i am led to understand you believe the irregular gaps in the shield did not have any effect on function.

Thats cool.
And your opinion is respected.

However this begs the obvious follow on question.
Why over engineer the suits that were designed to be m-m proof, even though they were to spend significantly less time than the LM in the "danger zone".

Is it not logical to think that if the LM was so unlikely to be compromised (as TG speculated) by a m-m that the same yard stick is applied to the suits that would spend a fraction of the time "outside".

We could argue that two different opinions from two different designers and manufacturers led to differing levels of calculated threat, but i dont buy it.

Your thoughts are appreciated.

(where the suits ever analysed for m-m hits ?)
oooooooooo is offline  
Old 03-09-2012, 01:05 PM   #4143
moving finger
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Down in the basement, working for the government
Posts: 3,721
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

[quote=oooooooooo;1061023555]
Quote:
Originally Posted by moving finger View Post

from this i am led to understand you believe the irregular gaps in the shield did not have any effect on function.

Thats cool.
And your opinion is respected.

However this begs the obvious follow on question.
Why over engineer the suits that were designed to be m-m proof, even though they were to spend significantly less time than the LM in the "danger zone".

Is it not logical to think that if the LM was so unlikely to be compromised (as TG speculated) by a m-m that the same yard stick is applied to the suits that would spend a fraction of the time "outside".

We could argue that two different opinions from two different designers and manufacturers led to differing levels of calculated threat, but i dont buy it.

Your thoughts are appreciated.

(where the suits ever analysed for m-m hits ?)

Good questions.

I would think the main point here is that if the LM were compromised then there is the back up of a suit. If the suit is compromised there is no back up.

The micro-meteoroid component of the suit is part of the thermal insulation set up, so like the two are combined. Somewhere there will be details of their construiction, but I don't have time to find them now (nothing to stop you doing it though). A quick tralw finds this:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-EMU1.pdf

and on page 2-18 there is a list of layers in one part of the suit. Most of the layers are thermal and radiation protection, compared with one later of rubberised ripstop micrometeroid.

I'm not so sure that the amount of time spent in the LM is so much more than the suit - the later missions had extended EVAs, and even Apollo 11 didn't spend that long there altogether.

I'm pretty sure the suits were examined in detail on their return (every other aspect was so I assume they were), but whether micrometeoroid damage would have been distinguishable from scratches and abrasions I can't say yet.

Last edited by moving finger; 03-09-2012 at 01:05 PM.
moving finger is offline  
Old 03-09-2012, 01:40 PM   #4144
oooooooooo
Inactive
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: in the cover of a smoke grenade.
Posts: 3,014
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

[quote=moving finger;1061023575]
Quote:
Originally Posted by oooooooooo View Post


Good questions.

I would think the main point here is that if the LM were compromised then there is the back up of a suit. If the suit is compromised there is no back up.

The micro-meteoroid component of the suit is part of the thermal insulation set up, so like the two are combined. Somewhere there will be details of their construiction, but I don't have time to find them now (nothing to stop you doing it though). A quick tralw finds this:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-EMU1.pdf

and on page 2-18 there is a list of layers in one part of the suit. Most of the layers are thermal and radiation protection, compared with one later of rubberised ripstop micrometeroid.

I'm not so sure that the amount of time spent in the LM is so much more than the suit - the later missions had extended EVAs, and even Apollo 11 didn't spend that long there altogether.

I'm pretty sure the suits were examined in detail on their return (every other aspect was so I assume they were), but whether micrometeoroid damage would have been distinguishable from scratches and abrasions I can't say yet.
thanks for the link, i will have a read.

The issue i have with the thermal blankets doubling up as a m-m shield (LM or suit) is that your are inviting a m-m hitting at a shallow angle to mimic a rip, which i believe would cause issues with whatever it is you are attempting to protect from the extreme heat/cold.
oooooooooo is offline  
Old 03-09-2012, 04:17 PM   #4145
moving finger
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Down in the basement, working for the government
Posts: 3,721
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Suits were examined in detail on return, and the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal has a couple of them. The main focus is on wear and tear, and micrometeorites are not specifically mentioned. Had there been any significant damage identifiable as being from one, I'd guess it would be mentioned.

More on the protective layer:

Quote:
Thermal micrometeorite protective cover layer: The need for an outer PGA cover layer was established early in the development program. Puncture and abrasion protection for the basic TLSA pressure and restraint layers and thermal and micro- meteorite protection during EVA'S on the lunar surface or in free space were required. The initial A6L cover layer design consisted of a separate jacket and a pair of trousers made from multilayer thermal insulating materials like those of the Gemini G-4C space suit. The materials cross section consisted of alternate layers of perforated aluminized Mylar film, marquisette, and nonwoven Dacron sandwiched between a high-temperature-resistant outer layer of Nomex fabric and an inner layer of neoprene-coated ripstop nylon fabric. The separate jacket and trousers were to be donned and doffed over the basic PGA during flight.
From http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/tnD8093EMUDevelop.html

Effectively the protective layer was a more flexible version of what the LM had.
moving finger is offline  
Old 03-09-2012, 05:56 PM   #4146
oooooooooo
Inactive
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: in the cover of a smoke grenade.
Posts: 3,014
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11LM5structures.pdf[/url]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/47291342/L...nce-J-Missions

[i]THERMAL AND MICROMETEOROID SHIELD

After the LM is removed from the spacecraft-Lunar Module adapter SLAl, it is exposed to micrometeoroids and solar radiation. To protect the LM astronauts and equipment from temperature extremes, active and passive thermal control is used. Active thermal control is provided by the ECS. Passive thermal control isolates the vehicle interior structure and equipment from its external environment to sustain acceptable temperature limits throughout the lunar mission.

The entire ascent stage structure is enclosed within a thermal blanket and a micrometeoroid shield. Glass fiber NICKEL FOIL V ALUMINUM SHIELD ~ POLYIMIDE (H-FILM) R-6 Typical Thermal Blanket and Micrometeoroid Shield standoffs, of low thermal conductivity, hold the blanket away from the structural skin. Aluminum frames around the propellant tanks prevent contact between tanks and blanket. The thermal blanket consists of multiple-layered (at least 25 layers) of aluminized sheet (mylar or H-film). Each layer is only 0.00015 inch thick and is coated on one sidewith a microinch thickness of aluminum. [b]

originally posted by HLAR- requoted for ease of reference.

The above seems to state that the shield and blankets are doing seperate jobs.
oooooooooo is offline  
Old 03-09-2012, 08:04 PM   #4147
oooooooooo
Inactive
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: in the cover of a smoke grenade.
Posts: 3,014
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Cheers MF, a fascinating read.
I have no issue with the developmental time line or function of the suits ( regarding m-m protection) but then i have never seen a pic of a naut with his fly open.

However when NASA state "the entire ascent stage is enclosed within a thermal blanket and a m-m shield", and i look at the pics with the gaping gaps in the shield, "enclosed" is not a word that springs to mind.

In effect the LM had its flys open.

I am still struggling to accept the "shield" did the job it was designed for.
oooooooooo is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Tags
apollo hoax, moon landing

Thread Tools

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:13 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.