The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: Humble_Scientist on January 23, 2016, 07:07:36 PM

Title: It looks like that genuine "Apollo" capsule never was in space.
Post by: Humble_Scientist on January 23, 2016, 07:07:36 PM
Ladies and Gentlemen,

Recently, an honest and good-natured RE'er, namely frenat, most kindly provided me with a detailed image of a genuine "Apollo" flown capsule. Just look at those nice stainless steel handles, attached by some rivets or screws. They are good and reliable, no doubt. I have similar in my bathroom.

Now look here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_entry)
It says:
"a spacecraft entering the atmosphere at 7.8 km/s would experience a peak shock layer temperature of 7,800 K."
Which is, if I'm not mistaken, 7800-273 = 7,527 C.

Now look here:
http://www.bssa.org.uk/topics.php?article=103 (http://www.bssa.org.uk/topics.php?article=103)
It says:
Melting temperature ranges for stainless steels...
And gives a table with the highest range at 1,530 C

I digged the Net, and they believe that boiling temperature range for stainless steel is about 3,000 C. Check it yourself.

Thus, it seems very likely that if this Apollo capsule were in space, then during the atmospheric entry those nice stainless-steel handles would be instantly melted or even evaporized, and blown away by the refreshing wind at 7,800 m/s or so, with the temperature around 7,500 C. Then, the hot plasma with such extreme temperature would get into the "spaceship" through the holes in the body of the "spaceship", needed to attach the handles with the rivets or screws. So, the "crew" would likely arrive back to Earth in the form of ashes.

Anyway, there would be no handles on the body of the "spaceship".

Conclusion: based on what I see, this "Apollo capsule" most likely has never been to space.

Thank you for your attention.

Dixi.


(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/Apollo_14_CM_Saturn_V_Centre.JPG)
Title: Re: It looks like that genuine "Apollo" capsule never was in space.
Post by: Rayzor on January 23, 2016, 07:16:36 PM
You should have  looked up how the heat shield works, before jumping to false conclusions.


Title: Re: It looks like that genuine "Apollo" capsule never was in space.
Post by: frenat on January 23, 2016, 07:21:24 PM
On the same page he quoted the temperature there is this quote

Quote
If the reentry vehicle is made blunt, air cannot "get out of the way" quickly enough, and acts as an air cushion to push the shock wave and heated shock layer forward (away from the vehicle). Since most of the hot gases are no longer in direct contact with the vehicle, the heat energy would stay in the shocked gas and simply move around the vehicle to later dissipate into the atmosphere.
So the space craft does not come in direct contact with air that temp.  But that would have required him to read.
Title: Re: It looks like that genuine "Apollo" capsule never was in space.
Post by: Humble_Scientist on January 23, 2016, 07:30:20 PM
You should have  looked up how the heat shield works, before jumping to false conclusions.

Dear Sir,

May I ask you, where is the heat shield on those nice bright handles?

 ;D

I see none.

So, please enlighten me, what protected the handles during the atmospheric entry?

 ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: It looks like that genuine "Apollo" capsule never was in space.
Post by: markjo on January 23, 2016, 07:38:25 PM
So, please enlighten me, what protected the handles during the atmospheric entry?
The bow shock.
(http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4001/images/fig06.jpg)
Title: Re: It looks like that genuine "Apollo" capsule never was in space.
Post by: rabinoz on January 23, 2016, 11:11:37 PM
Ladies and Gentlemen,

Recently, an honest and good-natured RE'er, namely frenat, most kindly provided me with a detailed image of a genuine "Apollo" flown capsule. Just look at those nice stainless steel handles, attached by some rivets or screws. They are good and reliable, no doubt. I have similar in my bathroom.

Now look here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_entry)
It says:
"a spacecraft entering the atmosphere at 7.8 km/s would experience a peak shock layer temperature of 7,800 K."
Which is, if I'm not mistaken, 7800-273 = 7,527 C.
Now look here:
http://www.bssa.org.uk/topics.php?article=103 (http://www.bssa.org.uk/topics.php?article=103)
It says:
Melting temperature ranges for stainless steels...
And gives a table with the highest range at 1,530 C
I digged (sic) the Net, and they believe that boiling temperature range for stainless steel is about 3,000 C. Check it yourself.
Thus, it seems very likely that if this Apollo capsule were in space, then during the atmospheric entry those nice stainless-steel handles would be instantly melted or even evaporized, and blown away by the refreshing wind at 7,800 m/s or so, with the temperature around 7,500 C. Then, the hot plasma with such extreme temperature would get into the "spaceship" through the holes in the body of the "spaceship", needed to attach the handles with the rivets or screws. So, the "crew" would likely arrive back to Earth in the form of ashes.

Anyway, there would be no handles on the body of the "spaceship".

Conclusion: based on what I see, this "Apollo capsule" most likely has never been to space.

Thank you for your attention.

Dixi.


(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/Apollo_14_CM_Saturn_V_Centre.JPG)

I can assure you that "that boiling temperature range for stainless steel is about 3,000 C" does not come into it!


The heat shield is the very blackened part at the bottom of the photo (not much of it can be seen).


Markjo says a bit more in http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65578.msg1751949#msg1751949 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65578.msg1751949#msg1751949)


The drawing at the right shows an impression of the re-entry of an Apollo capsule. 

The heatshield is at the front deflecting most of the extremely hot air.  The shield is an ablative material that gradually burns away.

Note the brown colouring on most of the external surfaces. This was originally part of a mylar - aluminium, etc sandwich, most of which has biunt off.  The section of the craft around the hatch was probably uppermost during re-entry and so was shielded from the worst of the heat - still burnt the mylar etc away.
           
From:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_entry#Sphere-cone (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_entry#Sphere-cone)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/Apollo_cm.jpg/330px-Apollo_cm.jpg)
Apollo Command Module
flying at a high angle of attack for
lifting entry, artistic rendition.
It seems a recurring theme here - "If I don't understand it, it MUST be a fake!"
Title: Re: It looks like that genuine "Apollo" capsule never was in space.
Post by: tappet on January 24, 2016, 02:40:28 AM
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/Apollo_cm.jpg/330px-Apollo_cm.jpg)
7.8km/s without spinning, now that's what I call awesome.
Title: Re: It looks like that genuine "Apollo" capsule never was in space.
Post by: rabinoz on January 24, 2016, 03:04:27 AM
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/Apollo_cm.jpg/330px-Apollo_cm.jpg)
7.8km/s without spinning, now that's what I call awesome.
Clearly you're the expert, so maybe you can just explain the aerodynamics for us!
In the meantime :
Unmanned re-entry vehicles (eg ballistic missiles) can be spin stabilised, but a manned obviously cannot have a rapid spin!
Quote
from: https://www.quora.com/During-ballistic-re-entry-why-does-a-space-capsule-or-MIRV-rotate-on-its-axis (https://www.quora.com/During-ballistic-re-entry-why-does-a-space-capsule-or-MIRV-rotate-on-its-axis)
Lift Control
The Apollo capsules did not actively spin, but they were rolled to adjust the lift on the capsule.  The center of mass was not at the geometric center, so rolling the vehicle a little would change the lift vector
]
Title: Re: It looks like that genuine "Apollo" capsule never was in space.
Post by: Humble_Scientist on January 24, 2016, 05:11:48 AM
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/Apollo_cm.jpg/330px-Apollo_cm.jpg)
Apollo Command Module
flying at a high angle of attack for
lifting entry, artistic rendition.

Dear rabinoz and markjo,

Thank you very much for your contribution. As you can see yourself, the "Apollo Command Module" is "flying at a high angle of attack for lifting entry", essentially making markjo's remark irrevelant. That extremely hot flame is obviously covering the body of the "spaceship", exactly at the location of the handles.

If I'm not mistaken, 7,800 K is much hotter then the Sun (6000 K, according to RET), and 7800 m/s is 7800/330 =23,6 times faster than sound. 24M!!!

Now, let's have a closer look at the picture:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Apollo_cm.jpg)
Do you see the handles?
 ;D  ;D ;D
Title: Re: It looks like that genuine "Apollo" capsule never was in space.
Post by: Rayzor on January 24, 2016, 05:41:51 AM
Hi Humble Scientist,

You raise an interesting point,   where did the handles go,   I've seen pictures of the Apollo Command Module with and without handles,  the pictures without handles,  show what looks like attachment points for a handle.   

I suspect the handles are only fitted for ground operations,  and removed for flight purposes.

It will be interesting to see if anyone knows the full story.

A quick look at Apollo recovery pictures,  I see some without handles,  others not so clear,  none clearly showing handles that I could see. 

Title: Re: It looks like that genuine "Apollo" capsule never was in space.
Post by: frenat on January 24, 2016, 05:52:32 AM
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/Apollo_cm.jpg/330px-Apollo_cm.jpg)
Apollo Command Module
flying at a high angle of attack for
lifting entry, artistic rendition.

Dear rabinoz and markjo,

Thank you very much for your contribution. As you can see yourself, the "Apollo Command Module" is "flying at a high angle of attack for lifting entry", essentially making markjo's remark irrevelant. That extremely hot flame is obviously covering the body of the "spaceship", exactly at the location of the handles.

If I'm not mistaken, 7,800 K is much hotter then the Sun (6000 K, according to RET), and 7800 m/s is 7800/330 =23,6 times faster than sound. 24M!!!

Now, let's have a closer look at the picture:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Apollo_cm.jpg)
Do you see the handles?
 ;D  ;D ;D
I see an "artistic rendition" (you even posted that it was yourself), not a picture of the capsule, that you are for some strange reason looking for handles on and also for some strange reason thinking it depicts exactly how the air moves around the capsule.  Markjo earlier posted a picture from a wind tunnel showing how the air moves around the capsule at high speeds.  Apparently you ignored that because it doesn't fit your world view?
Title: Re: It looks like that genuine "Apollo" capsule never was in space.
Post by: Humble_Scientist on January 24, 2016, 06:35:23 AM
I see an "artistic rendition" (you even posted that it was yourself), not a picture of the capsule, that you are for some strange reason looking for handles on and also for some strange reason thinking it depicts exactly how the air moves around the capsule.  Markjo earlier posted a picture from a wind tunnel showing how the air moves around the capsule at high speeds.  Apparently you ignored that because it doesn't fit your world view?
;D

Dear frenat,
Initially, I borrowed the picture from your own post, here:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65578.msg1751966#msg1751966 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65578.msg1751966#msg1751966)

If you think the picture is irrevelant, why did you post it?
 ;D
Title: Re: It looks like that genuine "Apollo" capsule never was in space.
Post by: frenat on January 24, 2016, 07:04:15 AM
I see an "artistic rendition" (you even posted that it was yourself), not a picture of the capsule, that you are for some strange reason looking for handles on and also for some strange reason thinking it depicts exactly how the air moves around the capsule.  Markjo earlier posted a picture from a wind tunnel showing how the air moves around the capsule at high speeds.  Apparently you ignored that because it doesn't fit your world view?
;D

Dear frenat,
Initially, I borrowed the picture from your own post, here:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65578.msg1751966#msg1751966 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65578.msg1751966#msg1751966)

If you think the picture is irrevelant, why did you post it?
 ;D
That is Rabinoz's post, not mine.  Please learn to read.  And it STILL says artistic rendition.  So the question STILL remains why you think it should show all details like handles or get exactly right how the air flows around the capsule.  And there is STILL the issue of the wind tunnel photo posted by Markjo that shows the bow shock does not come into contact with the craft and the description I posted from YOUR source that describes how and why the bow shock does not come into contact with the capsule.
Title: Re: It looks like that genuine "Apollo" capsule never was in space.
Post by: Humble_Scientist on January 24, 2016, 10:52:46 AM
I see an "artistic rendition" (you even posted that it was yourself), not a picture of the capsule, that you are for some strange reason looking for handles on and also for some strange reason thinking it depicts exactly how the air moves around the capsule.  Markjo earlier posted a picture from a wind tunnel showing how the air moves around the capsule at high speeds.  Apparently you ignored that because it doesn't fit your world view?
;D

Dear frenat,
Initially, I borrowed the picture from your own post, here:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65578.msg1751966#msg1751966 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65578.msg1751966#msg1751966)

If you think the picture is irrevelant, why did you post it?
 ;D
That is Rabinoz's post, not mine.  Please learn to read.  And it STILL says artistic rendition.  So the question STILL remains why you think it should show all details like handles or get exactly right how the air flows around the capsule.  And there is STILL the issue of the wind tunnel photo posted by Markjo that shows the bow shock does not come into contact with the craft and the description I posted from YOUR source that describes how and why the bow shock does not come into contact with the capsule.

Oops, sorry. My mistake. But it was a good post, anyway. And the picture is good. And I've already answered that Markjo's picture is less relevant, and why. Now

"Please learn to read."
 ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: It looks like that genuine "Apollo" capsule never was in space.
Post by: frenat on January 24, 2016, 10:59:44 AM
I see an "artistic rendition" (you even posted that it was yourself), not a picture of the capsule, that you are for some strange reason looking for handles on and also for some strange reason thinking it depicts exactly how the air moves around the capsule.  Markjo earlier posted a picture from a wind tunnel showing how the air moves around the capsule at high speeds.  Apparently you ignored that because it doesn't fit your world view?
;D

Dear frenat,
Initially, I borrowed the picture from your own post, here:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65578.msg1751966#msg1751966 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65578.msg1751966#msg1751966)

If you think the picture is irrevelant, why did you post it?
 ;D
That is Rabinoz's post, not mine.  Please learn to read.  And it STILL says artistic rendition.  So the question STILL remains why you think it should show all details like handles or get exactly right how the air flows around the capsule.  And there is STILL the issue of the wind tunnel photo posted by Markjo that shows the bow shock does not come into contact with the craft and the description I posted from YOUR source that describes how and why the bow shock does not come into contact with the capsule.

Oops, sorry. My mistake. But it was a good post, anyway. And the picture is good. And I've already answered that Markjo's picture is less relevant, and why. Now
And that is your problem.  Markjo's post show reality.  The picture you reposted is still an artistic rendition that you were asking where the handles were and assuming its depiction of the bow shock was more realistic. 

"Please learn to read."
 ;D ;D ;D
You first.  I'm not the one making judgments based on something an artist drew.  You've been shown why the temperatures in the bow shock do not come in contact with the craft and discarded that info in favor of a pretty picture.
Title: Re: It looks like that genuine "Apollo" capsule never was in space.
Post by: Humble_Scientist on January 24, 2016, 11:59:36 AM
And that is your problem.  Markjo's post show reality.  The picture you reposted is still an artistic rendition that you were asking where the handles were and assuming its depiction of the bow shock was more realistic. 

"Please learn to read."
 ;D ;D ;D
You first.  I'm not the one making judgments based on something an artist drew.  You've been shown why the temperatures in the bow shock do not come in contact with the craft and discarded that info in favor of a pretty picture.

Dear frenat,

Why don't you ask Markjo himself what his picture shows? And what are the temperatures?

On the contrary, that Wiki article gives you the details, including the temperature that the spaceship has to endure. It says that the spaceship returning to Earth would enter the atmosphere at certain angle (as opposed to Markjo's picture, which seems to show some test), and shows (just look at the picture) that the spaceship does contact the hot air. That is why they apply the shield, by the way.

Think about that. If, as you wrote, "the temperatures in the bow shock do not come in contact with the craft", there would be no need for the heat shield, correct?

Yes, the picture's an artistic rendition, so what? Or do you think Wikipedia posts false pictures?
 ;D
Title: Re: It looks like that genuine "Apollo" capsule never was in space.
Post by: Yendor on January 24, 2016, 01:09:33 PM
Go to this website to see a picture of Apollo 9 capsule being lifted out of the water onto a ship. The picture has a small green box you can move around to see a magnified view of the capsule. It clearly shows the handles attached.
http://fineartamerica.com/featured/the-apollo-9-command-module-is-hoisted-stocktrek-images.html   (http://fineartamerica.com/featured/the-apollo-9-command-module-is-hoisted-stocktrek-images.html)
Title: Re: It looks like that genuine "Apollo" capsule never was in space.
Post by: getrealzommb on January 24, 2016, 01:16:09 PM
Go to this website to see a picture of Apollo 9 capsule being lifted out of the water onto a ship. The picture has a small green box you can move around to see a magnified view of the capsule. It clearly shows the handles attached.
http://fineartamerica.com/featured/the-apollo-9-command-module-is-hoisted-stocktrek-images.html   (http://fineartamerica.com/featured/the-apollo-9-command-module-is-hoisted-stocktrek-images.html)

I see no handles on the scorched side of the craft. only on the un-scorched side, I wonder why that might be??
Title: Re: It looks like that genuine "Apollo" capsule never was in space.
Post by: Yendor on January 24, 2016, 02:04:50 PM
Go to this website to see a picture of Apollo 9 capsule being lifted out of the water onto a ship. The picture has a small green box you can move around to see a magnified view of the capsule. It clearly shows the handles attached.
http://fineartamerica.com/featured/the-apollo-9-command-module-is-hoisted-stocktrek-images.html   (http://fineartamerica.com/featured/the-apollo-9-command-module-is-hoisted-stocktrek-images.html)

I see no handles on the scorched side of the craft. only on the un-scorched side, I wonder why that might be??
Okay, here is apollo 13, is this look scorched enough to you?
(http://i.imgur.com/bdjZIiR.jpg)
Title: Re: It looks like that genuine "Apollo" capsule never was in space.
Post by: sokarul on January 24, 2016, 02:11:45 PM
Please don't intentionally post miniature models and then claim they are real. That is dishonest.
Title: Re: It looks like that genuine "Apollo" capsule never was in space.
Post by: luckyfred on January 24, 2016, 02:11:56 PM
It looks like a model to me, a good one, but the lack of details on the upper part and in general the colors and the metallic finish does seem to belong to a model rather than to the real thing
Title: Re: It looks like that genuine "Apollo" capsule never was in space.
Post by: frenat on January 24, 2016, 02:15:39 PM
And that is your problem.  Markjo's post show reality.  The picture you reposted is still an artistic rendition that you were asking where the handles were and assuming its depiction of the bow shock was more realistic. 

"Please learn to read."
 ;D ;D ;D
You first.  I'm not the one making judgments based on something an artist drew.  You've been shown why the temperatures in the bow shock do not come in contact with the craft and discarded that info in favor of a pretty picture.

Dear frenat,

Why don't you ask Markjo himself what his picture shows? And what are the temperatures?
the post shows a self described artistic rendition.  Do you know what those words mean or are you just trolling at this point?

On the contrary, that Wiki article gives you the details, including the temperature that the spaceship has to endure. It says that the spaceship returning to Earth would enter the atmosphere at certain angle (as opposed to Markjo's picture, which seems to show some test), and shows (just look at the picture) that the spaceship does contact the hot air. That is why they apply the shield, by the way.
That SAME reference says the bow shock does not contact the craft.  YOUR reference.  Perhaps YOU should have read it before posting it.

Think about that. If, as you wrote, "the temperatures in the bow shock do not come in contact with the craft", there would be no need for the heat shield, correct?
AGAIN, read YOUR reference.  It explains this and all you're doing is showing you haven't read your own reference.

Yes, the picture's an artistic rendition, so what? Or do you think Wikipedia posts false pictures?
 ;D
do you know what an artist is?  Are you sure the artist knew the exact angle that should be depicted?  Or exactly how the bow shock would look?  On the other hand you have an ACTUAL picture from a wind tunnel showing ow the bow shock forms and how the air moves around the craft and have chosen to ignore it.  That says more about you than anything else.
Title: Re: It looks like that genuine "Apollo" capsule never was in space.
Post by: frenat on January 24, 2016, 02:18:36 PM
Go to this website to see a picture of Apollo 9 capsule being lifted out of the water onto a ship. The picture has a small green box you can move around to see a magnified view of the capsule. It clearly shows the handles attached.
http://fineartamerica.com/featured/the-apollo-9-command-module-is-hoisted-stocktrek-images.html   (http://fineartamerica.com/featured/the-apollo-9-command-module-is-hoisted-stocktrek-images.html)

I see no handles on the scorched side of the craft. only on the un-scorched side, I wonder why that might be??
Okay, here is apollo 13, is this look scorched enough to you?
(http://i.imgur.com/bdjZIiR.jpg)
That is a miniature. The original version of the pic is here
http://universalentertainment.tumblr.com/post/25170935865/apollo-13-1995-miniature-command-module-this (http://universalentertainment.tumblr.com/post/25170935865/apollo-13-1995-miniature-command-module-this)

you can easily find pages where images can be found if you are using Chrome.  Just right click on the image and select "Search Google for image".  I assume you were unaware it was a miniature when you posted it but I could be wrong.
Title: Re: It looks like that genuine "Apollo" capsule never was in space.
Post by: getrealzommb on January 24, 2016, 02:40:19 PM
Go to this website to see a picture of Apollo 9 capsule being lifted out of the water onto a ship. The picture has a small green box you can move around to see a magnified view of the capsule. It clearly shows the handles attached.
http://fineartamerica.com/featured/the-apollo-9-command-module-is-hoisted-stocktrek-images.html   (http://fineartamerica.com/featured/the-apollo-9-command-module-is-hoisted-stocktrek-images.html)

I see no handles on the scorched side of the craft. only on the un-scorched side, I wonder why that might be??
Okay, here is apollo 13, is this look scorched enough to you?
(http://i.imgur.com/bdjZIiR.jpg)

Nice model. Rodney (yendor) why are you posting fakes???? why are you being deceptive??? you deliberately lie to us!
I suspect you are a shill!

yendor's creadibility is now not ZERO!

On the real thing.....re entry is survivable, testimony to 7 years of research and development of the heat shield and aerodynamics. Some humans are very clever, some not so..


http://www.astronautix.com/craft/csmhield.htm (http://www.astronautix.com/craft/csmhield.htm)


Title: Re: It looks like that genuine "Apollo" capsule never was in space.
Post by: rabinoz on January 24, 2016, 02:41:11 PM
Quote from: Humble_Scientist
Dear rabinoz and markjo,
Thank you very much for your contribution. As you can see yourself, the "Apollo Command Module" is "flying at a high angle of attack for lifting entry", essentially making markjo's remark irrevelant. That extremely hot flame is obviously covering the body of the "spaceship", exactly at the location of the handles.
If I'm not mistaken, 7,800 K is much hotter then the Sun (6000 K, according to RET), and 7800 m/s is 7800/330 =23,6 times faster than sound. 24M!!!
Far from "essentially making markjo's remark irrevelant.", just see later how his remarks were extremely relevant!

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/Apollo_cm.jpg/330px-Apollo_cm.jpg)
Apollo Command Module
flying at a high angle of attack for
lifting entry, artistic rendition.
You claim "'flying at a high angle of attack for lifting entry', essentially making markjo's remark irrevelant. That extremely hot flame is obviously covering the body of the "spaceship", exactly at the location of the handles."

If you had noted the image on the right of the airflow around a capsule shaped test object, you would have noted the shock wave extending out fro the heat shield.  The highest temperature air and heat shield fragments are diverted away from the vehicle!
You might have noted the wording in the reference (from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_entry)) "For example, a spacecraft entering the atmosphere at 7.8 km/s would experience a peak shock layer temperature of 7,800 K."

Nowhere does it say that any part of the module reaches 7,800 K.
The bow shock.
(http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4001/images/fig06.jpg)

Quote from: Humble_Scientist
Now, let's have a closer look at the picture: - - - - - Let's not bother wasting more space - - - - - Do you see the handles?
No, I don't see any handles!  So what? That picture is just an artist's rendition, intended only to give an idea of the attitude of the module during re-entry.

Maybe you should read the whole of the reference you have been getting your shocking information - the bit on Thermal protection systems might be educational.

As I have stated numerous times, you the classic example of "I can't understand it, so it HAS to be a fake!"

Look there are far more expert people around in this topic than you (a self proclaimed  ;D "Humble_Scientist" ;D and I, who claim no special expertise in these matters).

I think you can rest assured that if NASA was trying to fool you they would be much more convincing!  You people claim they have so many billions to spend.  If that if really is the case I am sure that they could easily fool youYou have been so utterly negligent on so many points that it is getting beyond a joke! 
While it's a lot of money the proposed 2016 budget figure for NASA is $US19.3 Billion, which is about 7% of the total science budget.  For comparison that proposed 2016 budget figure for defense is $US585 Billion out of a total budget of around $US3,500 Billion.

A little word of advice: Stop cluttering up your posts with massive images that simply cannot fit on anyone's screen (sorry, my monitor is only 1920x1280 and not 3840×2160 or 7680×4320) - it is just useless and makes your posts so hard to read!
Title: Re: It looks like that genuine "Apollo" capsule never was in space.
Post by: Yendor on January 24, 2016, 02:51:46 PM
Go to this website to see a picture of Apollo 9 capsule being lifted out of the water onto a ship. The picture has a small green box you can move around to see a magnified view of the capsule. It clearly shows the handles attached.
http://fineartamerica.com/featured/the-apollo-9-command-module-is-hoisted-stocktrek-images.html   (http://fineartamerica.com/featured/the-apollo-9-command-module-is-hoisted-stocktrek-images.html)

I see no handles on the scorched side of the craft. only on the un-scorched side, I wonder why that might be??
Okay, here is apollo 13, is this look scorched enough to you?
(http://i.imgur.com/bdjZIiR.jpg)
That is a miniature. The original version of the pic is here
http://universalentertainment.tumblr.com/post/25170935865/apollo-13-1995-miniature-command-module-this (http://universalentertainment.tumblr.com/post/25170935865/apollo-13-1995-miniature-command-module-this)

you can easily find pages where images can be found if you are using Chrome.  Just right click on the image and select "Search Google for image".  I assume you were unaware it was a miniature when you posted it but I could be wrong.

I apologize, In my haste I didn't read it, I just saw the pic and posted it. However, This is a pic of Apollo 7 for real. You have to admit that this capsule does not look like it just entered the earth's atmosphere. They must have painted it before this picture was taken . It doesn't even have the rubber raft around it to keep it from sinking.
(http://i.imgur.com/ltViiVS.jpg)
Title: Re: It looks like that genuine "Apollo" capsule never was in space.
Post by: Yendor on January 24, 2016, 02:56:38 PM
Go to this website to see a picture of Apollo 9 capsule being lifted out of the water onto a ship. The picture has a small green box you can move around to see a magnified view of the capsule. It clearly shows the handles attached.
http://fineartamerica.com/featured/the-apollo-9-command-module-is-hoisted-stocktrek-images.html   (http://fineartamerica.com/featured/the-apollo-9-command-module-is-hoisted-stocktrek-images.html)

I see no handles on the scorched side of the craft. only on the un-scorched side, I wonder why that might be??
Okay, here is apollo 13, is this look scorched enough to you?
(http://i.imgur.com/bdjZIiR.jpg)
That is a miniature. The original version of the pic is here
http://universalentertainment.tumblr.com/post/25170935865/apollo-13-1995-miniature-command-module-this (http://universalentertainment.tumblr.com/post/25170935865/apollo-13-1995-miniature-command-module-this)

you can easily find pages where images can be found if you are using Chrome.  Just right click on the image and select "Search Google for image".  I assume you were unaware it was a miniature when you posted it but I could be wrong.

I apologize, In my haste I didn't read it, I just saw the pic and posted it. However, This is a pic of Apollo 7 for real. You have to admit that this capsule does not look like it just entered the earth's atmosphere. They must have painted it before this picture was taken . It doesn't even have the rubber raft around it to keep it from sinking.
(http://i.imgur.com/ltViiVS.jpg)

I'm not doing too good tonight. Now I just found out the pic is a training exercise. I give up for tonight, I'm going to go eat dinner. Sorry for my mistakes, you guys win.
Title: Re: It looks like that genuine "Apollo" capsule never was in space.
Post by: getrealzommb on January 24, 2016, 03:00:07 PM
Go to this website to see a picture of Apollo 9 capsule being lifted out of the water onto a ship. The picture has a small green box you can move around to see a magnified view of the capsule. It clearly shows the handles attached.
http://fineartamerica.com/featured/the-apollo-9-command-module-is-hoisted-stocktrek-images.html   (http://fineartamerica.com/featured/the-apollo-9-command-module-is-hoisted-stocktrek-images.html)



 http://www.astronautix.com/craft/csmhield.htm (http://www.astronautix.com/craft/csmhield.htm)
I see no handles on the scorched side of the craft. only on the un-scorched side, I wonder why that might be??
Okay, here is apollo 13, is this look scorched enough to you?
(http://i.imgur.com/bdjZIiR.jpg)
That is a miniature. The original version of the pic is here
http://universalentertainment.tumblr.com/post/25170935865/apollo-13-1995-miniature-command-module-this (http://universalentertainment.tumblr.com/post/25170935865/apollo-13-1995-miniature-command-module-this)

you can easily find pages where images can be found if you are using Chrome.  Just right click on the image and select "Search Google for image".  I assume you were unaware it was a miniature when you posted it but I could be wrong.

I apologize, In my haste I didn't read it, I just saw the pic and posted it. However, This is a pic of Apollo 7 for real. You have to admit that this capsule does not look like it just entered the earth's atmosphere. They must have painted it before this picture was taken . It doesn't even have the rubber raft around it to keep it from sinking.
(http://i.imgur.com/ltViiVS.jpg)

Are you sure it has been to space ??? If it has that is a huge testament to the design of the damn thing.
Title: Re: It looks like that genuine "Apollo" capsule never was in space.
Post by: Humble_Scientist on January 24, 2016, 03:15:32 PM
A little word of advice: Stop cluttering up your posts with massive images that simply cannot fit on anyone's screen (sorry, my monitor is only 1920x1280 and not 3840×2160 or 7680×4320) - it is just useless and makes your posts so hard to read!

Dear rabinoz,

As indicated at the very beginning of this topic, that great picture was kindly provided to me by frenat. Thus, you've just proven that you do not read this thread and/or do not understand its topic.
;D

If my posts are so hard for you to read, just do not read them.

"there are far more expert people around in this topic than you"
What a capital idea.

So, dear experts, what're the temperatures at the locations of those handles during the atmospheric entry?

Is it possible that those shiny stainless steel handles, after atmospheric entry and landing, are still bright, shiny and show no signs of strong heating?
Title: Re: It looks like that genuine "Apollo" capsule never was in space.
Post by: getrealzommb on January 24, 2016, 03:57:34 PM
A little word of advice: Stop cluttering up your posts with massive images that simply cannot fit on anyone's screen (sorry, my monitor is only 1920x1280 and not 3840×2160 or 7680×4320) - it is just useless and makes your posts so hard to read!

Dear rabinoz,

As indicated at the very beginning of this topic, that great picture was kindly provided to me by frenat. Thus, you've just proven that you do not read this thread and/or do not understand its topic.
;D

If my posts are so hard for you to read, just do not read them.

"there are far more expert people around in this topic than you"
What a capital idea.

So, dear experts, what're the temperatures at the locations of those handles during the atmospheric entry?

Is it possible that those shiny stainless steel handles, after atmospheric entry and landing, are still bright, shiny and show no signs of strong heating?


YOU DONT NEED TO USE MASSIVE TEXTS AND IMAGES, WE ARE NOT BLIND

When you post an image, put .....   width=500 in the code

Example:
 [ img width=500 then the close square bracket ]image address [/img then close square bracket ]
Title: Re: It looks like that genuine "Apollo" capsule never was in space.
Post by: Humble_Scientist on January 24, 2016, 04:15:14 PM
A little word of advice: Stop cluttering up your posts with massive images that simply cannot fit on anyone's screen (sorry, my monitor is only 1920x1280 and not 3840×2160 or 7680×4320) - it is just useless and makes your posts so hard to read!

Dear rabinoz,

As indicated at the very beginning of this topic, that great picture was kindly provided to me by frenat. Thus, you've just proven that you do not read this thread and/or do not understand its topic.
;D

If my posts are so hard for you to read, just do not read them.

"there are far more expert people around in this topic than you"
What a capital idea.

So, dear experts, what're the temperatures at the locations of those handles during the atmospheric entry?

Is it possible that those shiny stainless steel handles, after atmospheric entry and landing, are still bright, shiny and show no signs of strong heating?


YOU DONT NEED TO USE MASSIVE TEXTS AND IMAGES, WE ARE NOT BLIND

When you post an image, put .....   width=500 in the code

Example:
 [ img width=500 then the close square bracket ]image address [/img then close square bracket ]

Cool.
Shouldn't you have told that to frenat?


WE ARE NOT BLIND
Yet, when I asked how you guys insert a GIF file as an avatar 'cause mine's not working, that was totally ignored...
 ;D

Finally, could you say something meaningful about the temperatures? Thanks.
Title: Re: It looks like that genuine "Apollo" capsule never was in space.
Post by: frenat on January 24, 2016, 04:29:42 PM

Shouldn't you have told that to frenat?
I posted it once and not in this thread.  Don't try to blame YOUR failures on me.

Title: Re: It looks like that genuine "Apollo" capsule never was in space.
Post by: Humble_Scientist on January 24, 2016, 05:03:21 PM

Shouldn't you have told that to frenat?
I posted it once and not in this thread.  Don't try to blame YOUR failures on me.

Wow, dear frenat. Your picture is great. Which failure you're talking about, it's magnificent. Thanks to you, the readers have a chance to carefully inspect the surface of the "spaceship" themselves and make their own conclusions. Isn't that wonderful?
 ;D
Title: Re: It looks like that genuine "Apollo" capsule never was in space.
Post by: getrealzommb on January 24, 2016, 05:25:04 PM
I have just enjoyed this factual read, It shows just what effort went into designing the command module heat shields.
There is a full timeline of development with citations and technical PDF's linked where necessary.

Guess stainless steel was good enough, because they used it for much of the exterior along with an ablative material layer that was designed to char off.  ;)

 http://www.astronautix.com/craft/csmhield.htm (http://www.astronautix.com/craft/csmhield.htm)

Here's just a small quote out of 1000's possible from the above link

Quote
"Command module heatshield requirements, including heating versus time curves, were established by NAA for several design trajectories. A computer program method of analyzing the charring ablation process had been developed. By this means, it was possible to calculate the mass loss, surface char layer temperature, amount of heat conducted through the uncharred ablation material and insulation into the cabin, and temperature profile through the ablator and insulation layers. In February, NAA determined that a new and more refined computer program would be needed."

Quote
ASPO reported that a different type of thermally restive stainless steel  would be used for the Apollo CM heatshield - . Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: Apollo CSM; CSM Heat Shield. ASPO reported that a different type of stainless steel would be used for the CM heatshield. The previous type, that had been formulated for re-entry temperatures, proved too brittle at cryogenic temperatures. Aside from their low temperature properties, the two metals were quite; similar and no fabrication problems were anticipated.


BTW, I know you wont entertain the read, because it greatly affects your world view. So you may as well go join the rest of the lalala I cant here you crowd.
Title: Re: It looks like that genuine "Apollo" capsule never was in space.
Post by: Rayzor on January 24, 2016, 05:27:01 PM
I'm not sure if this is going to help clarify why some pictures show handles and others don't,   all I've been able to find out is that they are called "EVA Handles"  They are grab points for Extra Vehicular Activities.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/NASA-tries-to-get-a-handle-on-relic-auction-3051835.php (http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/NASA-tries-to-get-a-handle-on-relic-auction-3051835.php)

One interesting bit of trivia, is that the EVA handles had a radioactive disk of promethium 147  which would glow so that they could still be able to see the grab handles if they had to do an EVA  in darkness.

The location of the handles varied slightly depending on the mission plan,   but I'd expect the two immediately below the main hatch would be common to multiple missions.

As to why there are pictures with the handles missing,  I'd only be guessing,   maybe they hadn't got round to putting them back?   There was a disposal protocol for radio active materials,  so it's likely the flight handles were removed because of the small amount of radio active material,  and replaced with new handles for display purposes.

I'm going to agree partly with Humble_Scientist,  and suggest that it's quite possible those particular handles have never been in space.  But the rest certainly has.

Title: Re: It looks like that genuine "Apollo" capsule never was in space.
Post by: frenat on January 24, 2016, 05:40:24 PM
the boilerplate capsules used for training often didn't have handles.
Title: Re: It looks like that genuine "Apollo" capsule never was in space.
Post by: getrealzommb on January 24, 2016, 05:55:59 PM
I'm not sure if this is going to help clarify why some pictures show handles and others don't,   all I've been able to find out is that they are called "EVA Handles"  They are grab points for Extra Vehicular Activities.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/NASA-tries-to-get-a-handle-on-relic-auction-3051835.php (http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/NASA-tries-to-get-a-handle-on-relic-auction-3051835.php)

One interesting bit of trivia, is that the EVA handles had a radioactive disk of promethium 147  which would glow so that they could still be able to see the grab handles if they had to do an EVA  in darkness.

The location of the handles varied slightly depending on the mission plan,   but I'd expect the two immediately below the main hatch would be common to multiple missions.

As to why there are pictures with the handles missing,  I'd only be guessing,   maybe they hadn't got round to putting them back?   There was a disposal protocol for radio active materials,  so it's likely the flight handles were removed because of the small amount of radio active material,  and replaced with new handles for display purposes.

I'm going to agree partly with Humble_Scientist,  and suggest that it's quite possible those particular handles have never been in space.  But the rest certainly has.

Good work boffin , never thought of that.

Although it looks as if they formulated a stainless steel, tollerent to temp changes too. but I think you are correct; The radioactive handles were replaced with show versions.
Title: Re: It looks like that genuine "Apollo" capsule never was in space.
Post by: Alpha2Omega on January 24, 2016, 08:22:31 PM
I'm not sure if this is going to help clarify why some pictures show handles and others don't,   all I've been able to find out is that they are called "EVA Handles"  They are grab points for Extra Vehicular Activities.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/NASA-tries-to-get-a-handle-on-relic-auction-3051835.php (http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/NASA-tries-to-get-a-handle-on-relic-auction-3051835.php)

One interesting bit of trivia, is that the EVA handles had a radioactive disk of promethium 147  which would glow so that they could still be able to see the grab handles if they had to do an EVA  in darkness.

The location of the handles varied slightly depending on the mission plan,   but I'd expect the two immediately below the main hatch would be common to multiple missions.

As to why there are pictures with the handles missing,  I'd only be guessing,   maybe they hadn't got round to putting them back?   There was a disposal protocol for radio active materials,  so it's likely the flight handles were removed because of the small amount of radio active material,  and replaced with new handles for display purposes.

I'm going to agree partly with Humble_Scientist,  and suggest that it's quite possible those particular handles have never been in space.  But the rest certainly has.

Good work boffin , never thought of that.

Although it looks as if they formulated a stainless steel, tollerent to temp changes too. but I think you are correct; The radioactive handles were replaced with show versions.
Agree with getreal. You really can learn a lot reading this forum. Thanks for the research, Rayzor, and thanks also for the prodding from Humble_Scientist!
Title: Re: It looks like that genuine "Apollo" capsule never was in space.
Post by: Rayzor on January 24, 2016, 09:20:09 PM
This might help re-inforce the replacement handle theory.

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/903/lz9ajv.jpg) (http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/903/xOHvVJ.jpg)

The one without handles is Apollo 13,  the one with handles is Apollo 14,   Judging by the look of the fresh surface under where the handles used to be,  it's clear that the handles were removed post flight.



Title: Re: It looks like that genuine "Apollo" capsule never was in space.
Post by: Humble_Scientist on January 25, 2016, 06:02:04 PM
This might help re-inforce the replacement handle theory.

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/903/lz9ajv.jpg) (http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/903/xOHvVJ.jpg)

The one without handles is Apollo 13,  the one with handles is Apollo 14,   Judging by the look of the fresh surface under where the handles used to be,  it's clear that the handles were removed post flight.

Dear Rayzor,

Do you mean that the handles survived the atmospheric entry and then were removed? Why?

Or that only some parts of the apparatus claimed to be in space were actually in space?
 ;D

Or that some parts of the apparatus they say was in space - actually never were in space?
  :o
Title: Re: It looks like that genuine "Apollo" capsule never was in space.
Post by: Rayzor on January 25, 2016, 06:08:51 PM

Do you mean that the handles survived the atmospheric entry and then were removed? Why?

Or that only some parts of the apparatus claimed to be in space were actually in space?

Or that some parts of the apparatus they say was in space - actually never were in space?


I'm only guessing you understand,  but it all fits the evidence.  I think handles were removed after landing,  probably because of the radioactive materials disposal protocol.    When put on display they put show handles, rather than leave blank spots.

So you are partially correct, those handles in the Apollo 14 picture,  probably never went to space.
Title: Re: It looks like that genuine "Apollo" capsule never was in space.
Post by: Gaia_Redonda on January 25, 2016, 06:23:47 PM
Excellent topic, OP and questions. ;D

A "heat shield"... :D That stops the burning process, or what?? :D
Title: Re: It looks like that genuine "Apollo" capsule never was in space.
Post by: markjo on January 25, 2016, 06:28:50 PM
Do you mean that the handles survived the atmospheric entry and then were removed? Why?

Quote from: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/NASA-tries-to-get-a-handle-on-relic-auction-3051835.php
To ensure astronauts could see the handle if they had to work outside the command module while on the dark far side of the moon, NASA made it fluorescent. It did so by placing small, dime-size radioactive disks within it. The radioactivity came from an isotope called promethium 147.

The radioactivity played a key role in diverting the EVA handle from one of two possible fates - either the Air & Space Museum or a nuclear waste dump supervised by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - and toward Butterfields.