At sceptimatic's request...

There's loads of stuff on the parachutes on the web - is your google broken.

Anyway, here's how they are deployed, as well as information on the parachute cords:

The Pilot parachute is a 7.2 foot diameter , 12 gore Ringslot design permanently attached to the Main parachute deployment bag through a steel riser cable (both the Pilot and Main parachute deployment bag remain permanently attached to the apex of the main parachute).  The main parachute suspension line is 600 pound nylon cord, 130.4 feet in length and canopy construction is of 1.1 oz per square yard Ripstop nylon. Constructed porosity is 22 percent with a drag area of 24.4 feet squared. A Dacron cover protects a 346.1 inch length fabric riser interconnecting the Pilot parachute suspension line with the 111 inch steel riser. The chute is retained within a mortar tube assembly until deployment and is installed with a sabot placed between the packed chute and the mortar charge to support safe ejection.

.....................

Deployment of the Main parachutes commenced at 11,000 after two 16.5 foot diameter ribbon-type mortar deployed drogues stabilized Command Module attitude and provided initial deceleration. Following detachment of the drogues, the Pilot parachute (one affiliated with each Main chute) was mortar deployed simultaneously at 90 degrees to the CM vertical axis, providing the force necessary to release the Main parachute retention system and extract the Main parachute pack assemblies from the Command Module's upper deck (the parachutes were protected during reentry by a forward heatshield Apex Cover which was jettisoned at 24,000 feet). The deployment sequence was controlled by the fully automatic redundant sequencing system with a manual override mode available as back-up system at the astronauts discretion. As the main parachute packs were pulled away from the command module, the parachutes were extracted from their deployment bags. The Main parachute inflated through the two reefing states to the fully open configuration. Collectively, the three main parachute assemblies decelerated the command module to the final descent velocity of 32 feet per second (two parachute descent rate, i.e. in the event one of the three failed to properly deploy resulted in an off nominal but still very survivable 36 fps descent rate  as demonstrated with the flight failure of one Main chute during Apollo 15 splashdown).

it's all here along with a photo of  an actual parachute.

All in good time, nipper, all in good time.

Are you trying to bore us into submission?

Quote from: SirSpankalot on February 26, 2014, 04:16:35 AM

Not sure what you don't understand here.. the 'chutes were packed around the side of the entry hole.. which you can clearly see in the photo. See drawing below:



What's the problem with the crew hatch?  its plenty big enough for them to move through... especially in zero gravity.



 

Well, these side holes where the chutes come out of were certainly closed when in space, as we see, so...how did those panels jettison to allow the chutes to be deployed? More explosives?

And what is so unfathomable about that?  Controlled explosions are used quite frequently to allow jettisons of military aircraft pilots in emergencies.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 26, 2014, 04:46:48 AM

Quote from: SirSpankalot on February 26, 2014, 04:16:35 AM

Not sure what you don't understand here.. the 'chutes were packed around the side of the entry hole.. which you can clearly see in the photo. See drawing below:



What's the problem with the crew hatch?  its plenty big enough for them to move through... especially in zero gravity.



 

Well, these side holes where the chutes come out of were certainly closed when in space, as we see, so...how did those panels jettison to allow the chutes to be deployed? More explosives?

I don't know.. but if I would take a guess - shear bolts.  But why is it so important to you?

I want the truth, that's why all of it is important. The smaller things often get overlooked.
So, you think shear bolts. How exactly would this work? I mean, the plates must be held in place by MANY of these bolts or whatever and there's 3 plates which would be a lot of bolts to shear, so how do they shear?

Quote from: BJ1234 on February 26, 2014, 04:23:03 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 26, 2014, 03:45:28 AM

Anyway; moving on:

In this picture there looks to be a few problems. Bear in mind the weight of this capsule as we are told, was just over 6 (US) tons.
Take a look at the parachute cord, although I'm sure it would have been made with some super strong material like unobtanium, (chuckle).

Moving on:
Also, take a look at the top of this command module...This is where the astronauts climbed in from the docked LM. Can anyone get their heads around how they managed this?
The top looks closed,so how was any parachutes deployed?

How could the men get into that little hole and past the 3 gigantic parachutes?
Seriously people, does this appear normal to any of you?
And people wonder why this stuff is being questioned. 

Is there any reason why you are saving pictures and then uploading them to image shack instead of directly linking them from their source?

Any ways, using Google's image look up feature, I was able to determine that this was the splash down of Apollo 14.  Here is a picture right before it landed.

As you can see, there many parachute cords on each parachute.  I do not know what the cords are made of in the Apollo space craft.  However, parachute cords used during WWII were made of nylon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parachute_cord
Now the weakest cord there has a breaking strength of 100lbs.  As the module was 6 tons or 12000 lbs.  A minimum of 120 of the weakest cords would have to be used.  That is only 40 cords per parachute.  From the picture I found, it appears there is way more than 40 cords per chute.

Here is a diagram of where the parachutes were loaded.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Apollo-linedrawing.png
As you can see, they are not blocking the top hatch in any way. 
Also, that top hatch is much larger than the men in the rafts.  I don't see an issue with them climbing through it.

Very true, there looks about a million (exagerration) cords for each chute. It's a far cry from the amount of cords we actually see hanging around the CM, don't you think?

The design of the ropes there are such that most would be underwater.. I would also suspect, if you think about it logically..(oh sorry, its you..) that the chutes would be jettisoned.. (Haha, I've always wanted to say that!) on landing so that they don't drag the module.

I know you think you're smart. But you're making a circus of yourself.  Nothing you've pointed out in this whole thread says anything one way or the other.. you're picking the most trivial things, and making judgements using faulty logics and total ignorance as your premise.  Perhaps it's time to move on?

None of the evidence you've presented proves the moon landings didn't happen, it does however, prove you have an extremely limited understanding of the subject matter, engineering and history... You're ignorance is all that is on show here.  Sorry to be harsh, I know you hate that.. but most will agree with me on this.

Quote from: SirSpankalot on February 26, 2014, 04:48:32 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 26, 2014, 04:46:48 AM

Quote from: SirSpankalot on February 26, 2014, 04:16:35 AM

Not sure what you don't understand here.. the 'chutes were packed around the side of the entry hole.. which you can clearly see in the photo. See drawing below:



What's the problem with the crew hatch?  its plenty big enough for them to move through... especially in zero gravity.



 

Well, these side holes where the chutes come out of were certainly closed when in space, as we see, so...how did those panels jettison to allow the chutes to be deployed? More explosives?

I don't know.. but if I would take a guess - shear bolts.  But why is it so important to you?

I want the truth, that's why all of it is important. The smaller things often get overlooked.
So, you think shear bolts. How exactly would this work? I mean, the plates must be held in place by MANY of these bolts or whatever and there's 3 plates which would be a lot of bolts to shear, so how do they shear?

Now we have to explain a bolt to you?

They're pre weakened so that they break under a predetermined pressure.. But there does seem to be a load of info out there in google land.. look it up.  There's nothing to see here.

Also I don't know what the process is.. it might be explosive bolts.. maybe the panels are on frames, and the frames have shear bolts.....  When the parachutes deploy, they would come out with huge energy.. removing the panel covering them would be a piece of piss.. much like an airbag cover in a car.

So, you think shear bolts. How exactly would this work? I mean, the plates must be held in place by MANY of these bolts or whatever and there's 3 plates which would be a lot of bolts to shear, so how do they shear?

I've already provided this information: they were deployed from mortar tubes.  Read my post.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 26, 2014, 04:46:48 AM

Quote from: SirSpankalot on February 26, 2014, 04:16:35 AM

Not sure what you don't understand here.. the 'chutes were packed around the side of the entry hole.. which you can clearly see in the photo. See drawing below:



What's the problem with the crew hatch?  its plenty big enough for them to move through... especially in zero gravity.



 

Well, these side holes where the chutes come out of were certainly closed when in space, as we see, so...how did those panels jettison to allow the chutes to be deployed? More explosives?

And what is so unfathomable about that?  Controlled explosions are used quite frequently to allow jettisons of military aircraft pilots in emergencies.

Yes! There appears to be a whole host of explosions from rocket take off from the launch pad to space and back to parachute landing. Amazing flawless stuff.

Anyway: Any idea how the 3 steel panels were held in place on that CM before the parachutes were deployed?

There's loads of stuff on the parachutes on the web - is your google broken.

Anyway, here's how they are deployed, as well as information on the parachute cords:

Quote

The Pilot parachute is a 7.2 foot diameter , 12 gore Ringslot design permanently attached to the Main parachute deployment bag through a steel riser cable (both the Pilot and Main parachute deployment bag remain permanently attached to the apex of the main parachute).  The main parachute suspension line is 600 pound nylon cord, 130.4 feet in length and canopy construction is of 1.1 oz per square yard Ripstop nylon. Constructed porosity is 22 percent with a drag area of 24.4 feet squared. A Dacron cover protects a 346.1 inch length fabric riser interconnecting the Pilot parachute suspension line with the 111 inch steel riser. The chute is retained within a mortar tube assembly until deployment and is installed with a sabot placed between the packed chute and the mortar charge to support safe ejection.

.....................

Deployment of the Main parachutes commenced at 11,000 after two 16.5 foot diameter ribbon-type mortar deployed drogues stabilized Command Module attitude and provided initial deceleration. Following detachment of the drogues, the Pilot parachute (one affiliated with each Main chute) was mortar deployed simultaneously at 90 degrees to the CM vertical axis, providing the force necessary to release the Main parachute retention system and extract the Main parachute pack assemblies from the Command Module's upper deck (the parachutes were protected during reentry by a forward heatshield Apex Cover which was jettisoned at 24,000 feet). The deployment sequence was controlled by the fully automatic redundant sequencing system with a manual override mode available as back-up system at the astronauts discretion. As the main parachute packs were pulled away from the command module, the parachutes were extracted from their deployment bags. The Main parachute inflated through the two reefing states to the fully open configuration. Collectively, the three main parachute assemblies decelerated the command module to the final descent velocity of 32 feet per second (two parachute descent rate, i.e. in the event one of the three failed to properly deploy resulted in an off nominal but still very survivable 36 fps descent rate  as demonstrated with the flight failure of one Main chute during Apollo 15 splashdown).

it's all here along with a photo of  an actual parachute.

Quote

All in good time, nipper, all in good time.

Are you trying to bore us into submission?

Here's your answer, right in Jimmy's reply..

"(the parachutes were protected during reentry by a forward heatshield Apex Cover which was jettisoned at 24,000 feet)."

Why don't you ever research your own questions? This whole thread has shifted from "things that prove the space program is fake" to "look at all these things I don't understand"....

the pilot
chutes are deployed at about
10,000 feet (3.05 km) by a
barometric switch, pulling the three main parachutes from
their containers. The ELS was
designed so the drogue chutes slow the descent down to roughly 200 km/h (124 mi/h) before the pilot chutes pull the
main chutes, eventually slowing
down the CM to 22 miles per
hour (35 km/h) for splashdown
and to roughly 24.5 mi/h (39.5 km/h) with only two main
chutes properly deployed, as it
happened during the Apollo 15 splashdown.

The design of the ropes there are such that most would be underwater.. I would also suspect, if you think about it logically..(oh sorry, its you..) that the chutes would be jettisoned.. (Haha, I've always wanted to say that!) on landing so that they don't drag the module.

I know you think you're smart. But you're making a circus of yourself.  Nothing you've pointed out in this whole thread says anything one way or the other.. you're picking the most trivial things, and making judgements using faulty logics and total ignorance as your premise.  Perhaps it's time to move on?

None of the evidence you've presented proves the moon landings didn't happen, it does however, prove you have an extremely limited understanding of the subject matter, engineering and history... You're ignorance is all that is on show here.  Sorry to be harsh, I know you hate that.. but most will agree with me on this.

Why are you getting all uptight and defensive? I'm asking questions and picking up on certain matters. I'm not directly saying YOU faked the landings, am I?

Do you not agree that things should be questioned?
Telling me that I know nothing about space exploits whilst pretending you do, is a bit silly, don't you think?

So most of the cords are under water are they? They should still be all hanging down from the top of the CM no matter whether the majority is under water, right?

Oh, so it was jettisoned after impact to stop the CM being dragged. Which is it? Does it just Jettison three quarters of the cord and leave the rest to dangle around?
You think this stuff is trivial do you. Well let me tell you something. If just one small thing of triviality of these supposed missions gets found out, then the whole space ploy is in question, right?

Let me just clarify something for you to save you time when typing. Try your best to deal with what I'm putting out and leave the other attempted ridicule out of it, because, (I promise you) you will become really frustrated and irate and become more vulgar as time goes on, which will make you even more irate and yet, I'll still be typing as if you nver ever said anything. 

Now concentrate on me ripping this moon landing garbage to bits.

Now we have to explain a bolt to you?

They're pre weakened so that they break under a predetermined pressure.. But there does seem to be a load of info out there in google land.. look it up.  There's nothing to see here.

Also I don't know what the process is.. it might be explosive bolts.. maybe the panels are on frames, and the frames have shear bolts.....  When the parachutes deploy, they would come out with huge energy.. removing the panel covering them would be a piece of piss.. much like an airbag cover in a car.

Exploding from inside, where the parachutes are stacked and not damaging them, the cord or the support struts tthat the panels would be bolted to. Seriously? I mean, seriously?

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 26, 2014, 04:59:01 AM

So, you think shear bolts. How exactly would this work? I mean, the plates must be held in place by MANY of these bolts or whatever and there's 3 plates which would be a lot of bolts to shear, so how do they shear?

I've already provided this information: they were deployed from mortar tubes.  Read my post.

Mortar tubes. Gotcha!

"(the parachutes were protected during reentry by a forward heatshield Apex Cover which was jettisoned at 24,000 feet)."

What the hell is a FORWARD heat shield protective cover? Is this on the inside covering the chutes? Is this in addition to the 3 outer plates that have to be blown out?
This N.A.S.A clap trap just gets better and more complicated as time goes on and yet these are 'trivialities' aren't they? You say!

Why don't you ever research your own questions? This whole thread has shifted from "things that prove the space program is fake" to "look at all these things I don't understand"....

Quote

the pilot
chutes are deployed at about
10,000 feet (3.05 km) by a
barometric switch, pulling the three main parachutes from
their containers. The ELS was
designed so the drogue chutes slow the descent down to roughly 200 km/h (124 mi/h) before the pilot chutes pull the
main chutes, eventually slowing
down the CM to 22 miles per
hour (35 km/h) for splashdown
and to roughly 24.5 mi/h (39.5 km/h) with only two main
chutes properly deployed, as it
happened during the Apollo 15 splashdown.

I think the fact that I'm actually questioning N.A.S.A and the landings has gotten lost on you.

Now concentrate on me ripping this
moon landing garbage to bits.

OK let us know when you're ready to start.

Quote from: BJ1234 on February 26, 2014, 04:58:21 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 26, 2014, 04:46:48 AM

Quote from: SirSpankalot on February 26, 2014, 04:16:35 AM

Not sure what you don't understand here.. the 'chutes were packed around the side of the entry hole.. which you can clearly see in the photo. See drawing below:



What's the problem with the crew hatch?  its plenty big enough for them to move through... especially in zero gravity.



 

Well, these side holes where the chutes come out of were certainly closed when in space, as we see, so...how did those panels jettison to allow the chutes to be deployed? More explosives?

And what is so unfathomable about that?  Controlled explosions are used quite frequently to allow jettisons of military aircraft pilots in emergencies.

Yes! There appears to be a whole host of explosions from rocket take off from the launch pad to space and back to parachute landing. Amazing flawless stuff.

Anyway: Any idea how the 3 steel panels were held in place on that CM before the parachutes were deployed?

Yes, controlled explosions.  Now tell me why controlled explosions would work on blowing the canopy off a fighter jet, but not be able to blow the heat shields off a command module?  In essence, the mechanics would be very similar.  I mean they are able to explode without incinerating the pilot that is being ejected.

Let me just clarify something for you to save you time when typing. Try your best to deal with what I'm putting out and leave the other attempted ridicule out of it, because, (I promise you) you will become really frustrated and irate and become more vulgar as time goes on,

It is more likely we will just grow bored with your tedious garden path arguments and inability to ever get to the point.  Your over-wrought manner really doesn't help either.

All you are showing us is your lack of engineering knowledge and lack of ability to understand basic science.

 

Now concentrate on me ripping this moon landing garbage to bits.

"The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than is accurate. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude.[1] Actual competence may weaken self-confidence, as competent individuals may falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding."

Quote from: sceptimatic

Now concentrate on me ripping this
moon landing garbage to bits.

OK let us know when you're ready to start.

Many people looking at this will be realising just what a load of clap trap those landings were. Once they see the absurdity of it all, even with these so called trivialities, they will eventually be convinced it was all garbage, so anything you say isn't going to change that. People can see who the desperate ones are, who are trying their best to pour scorn on the questioning.

Quote from: SirSpankalot on February 26, 2014, 05:07:52 AM

"(the parachutes were protected during reentry by a forward heatshield Apex Cover which was jettisoned at 24,000 feet)."

What the hell is a FORWARD heat shield protective cover? Is this on the inside covering the chutes? Is this in addition to the 3 outer plates that have to be blown out?
This N.A.S.A clap trap just gets better and more complicated as time goes on and yet these are 'trivialities' aren't they? You say!

I am not sure, but I would gather that FORWARD is a directional indicator. As in it is more towards the front than another heat shield.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 26, 2014, 05:04:57 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on February 26, 2014, 04:58:21 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 26, 2014, 04:46:48 AM

Quote from: SirSpankalot on February 26, 2014, 04:16:35 AM

Not sure what you don't understand here.. the 'chutes were packed around the side of the entry hole.. which you can clearly see in the photo. See drawing below:



What's the problem with the crew hatch?  its plenty big enough for them to move through... especially in zero gravity.



 

Well, these side holes where the chutes come out of were certainly closed when in space, as we see, so...how did those panels jettison to allow the chutes to be deployed? More explosives?

And what is so unfathomable about that?  Controlled explosions are used quite frequently to allow jettisons of military aircraft pilots in emergencies.

Yes! There appears to be a whole host of explosions from rocket take off from the launch pad to space and back to parachute landing. Amazing flawless stuff.

Anyway: Any idea how the 3 steel panels were held in place on that CM before the parachutes were deployed?

Yes, controlled explosions.  Now tell me why controlled explosions would work on blowing the canopy off a fighter jet, but not be able to blow the heat shields off a command module?  In essence, the mechanics would be very similar.  I mean they are able to explode without incinerating the pilot that is being ejected.

How many fighter jet canopies do you know that fully bolted down which the CM would have to be?

Many people looking at this will be realising just what a load of clap trap those landings were. Once they see the absurdity of it all, even with these so called trivialities, they will eventually be convinced it was all garbage, so anything you say isn't going to change that. People can see who the desperate ones are, who are trying their best to pour scorn on the questioning.

Are  you ever going to get to the point?

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 26, 2014, 05:23:45 AM

Quote from: SirSpankalot on February 26, 2014, 05:07:52 AM

"(the parachutes were protected during reentry by a forward heatshield Apex Cover which was jettisoned at 24,000 feet)."

What the hell is a FORWARD heat shield protective cover? Is this on the inside covering the chutes? Is this in addition to the 3 outer plates that have to be blown out?
This N.A.S.A clap trap just gets better and more complicated as time goes on and yet these are 'trivialities' aren't they? You say!

I am not sure, but I would gather that FORWARD is a directional indicator. As in it is more towards the front than another heat shield.

A very vague answer. Do you know or don't you?

Quote from: SirSpankalot on February 26, 2014, 04:59:29 AM

The design of the ropes there are such that most would be underwater.. I would also suspect, if you think about it logically..(oh sorry, its you..) that the chutes would be jettisoned.. (Haha, I've always wanted to say that!) on landing so that they don't drag the module.

I know you think you're smart. But you're making a circus of yourself.  Nothing you've pointed out in this whole thread says anything one way or the other.. you're picking the most trivial things, and making judgements using faulty logics and total ignorance as your premise.  Perhaps it's time to move on?

None of the evidence you've presented proves the moon landings didn't happen, it does however, prove you have an extremely limited understanding of the subject matter, engineering and history... You're ignorance is all that is on show here.  Sorry to be harsh, I know you hate that.. but most will agree with me on this.

Why are you getting all uptight and defensive? I'm asking questions and picking up on certain matters. I'm not directly saying YOU faked the landings, am I?

Do you not agree that things should be questioned?
Telling me that I know nothing about space exploits whilst pretending you do, is a bit silly, don't you think?

So most of the cords are under water are they? They should still be all hanging down from the top of the CM no matter whether the majority is under water, right?

Oh, so it was jettisoned after impact to stop the CM being dragged. Which is it? Does it just Jettison three quarters of the cord and leave the rest to dangle around?
You think this stuff is trivial do you. Well let me tell you something. If just one small thing of triviality of these supposed missions gets found out, then the whole space ploy is in question, right?

Let me just clarify something for you to save you time when typing. Try your best to deal with what I'm putting out and leave the other attempted ridicule out of it, because, (I promise you) you will become really frustrated and irate and become more vulgar as time goes on, which will make you even more irate and yet, I'll still be typing as if you nver ever said anything. 

Now concentrate on me ripping this moon landing garbage to bits.

So there's another skill you lack.. reading peoples emotion.

I am increasingly taken aback that you might actually be this stupid.. but whatever.  Its no skin of my teeth.. I don't employ you. thank god.

Quote from: BJ1234 on February 26, 2014, 05:31:49 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 26, 2014, 05:23:45 AM

Quote from: SirSpankalot on February 26, 2014, 05:07:52 AM

"(the parachutes were protected during reentry by a forward heatshield Apex Cover which was jettisoned at 24,000 feet)."

What the hell is a FORWARD heat shield protective cover? Is this on the inside covering the chutes? Is this in addition to the 3 outer plates that have to be blown out?
This N.A.S.A clap trap just gets better and more complicated as time goes on and yet these are 'trivialities' aren't they? You say!

I am not sure, but I would gather that FORWARD is a directional indicator. As in it is more towards the front than another heat shield.

A very vague answer. Do you know or don't you?

I assumed that since you capsed forward, you were having trouble with that term.  All the other terms heat shield protective cover are pretty self explanatory.  On ships, forward means towards the front of the boat.  So if someone asked where the head was, they would say it is just forward of the galley.  Or there are forward winches and aft winches.  So knowing that knowledge, I am applying it to this case.  a forward heat shield is one towards the front of the ship.
And you should be talking about being vague.  Every picture you post, you pretty much say it just doesn't look right.  Or can anyone tell me what is wrong.

Quote from: glokta on February 26, 2014, 05:26:05 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic

Now concentrate on me ripping this
moon landing garbage to bits.

OK let us know when you're ready to start.

Many people looking at this will be realising just what a load of clap trap those landings were. Once they see the absurdity of it all, even with these so called trivialities, they will eventually be convinced it was all garbage, so anything you say isn't going to change that. People can see who the desperate ones are, who are trying their best to pour scorn on the questioning.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

No no no.. only blithering idiots like you think its clap trap..

You're not actually debunking anything.. again, all your doing is displaying to us all, how little you understand about engineering and science... 

Anyway: I think we've proved beyond doubt that no men in a cone came down from space and landed by parachutes into the sea, amid all of what was needed to happen. More likely that the cone was dropped from a plane, EMPTY and landed into the sea where the actornauts were placed into them ready for the cameras to roll. This is why they have the inflatable rings and balls attached, just so they don't actually sink in the middle of the act.
Makes perfect sense.

So, now we will move on to 2 of the things that have been discarded, for obvious reasons. The Surveyor and the actornaut picture.
We will start with the actornaut picture, seeing as nobody seems to be able to see a discrepancy in it, or shall I say, "they do" but cannot answer it away effectively, except to make some utter bull crap up, which I'm fairly sure will happen.
I'll do it on my next post so it doesn't get mixed up with the digs that this post will get.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 26, 2014, 05:33:54 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on February 26, 2014, 05:31:49 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 26, 2014, 05:23:45 AM

Quote from: SirSpankalot on February 26, 2014, 05:07:52 AM

"(the parachutes were protected during reentry by a forward heatshield Apex Cover which was jettisoned at 24,000 feet)."

What the hell is a FORWARD heat shield protective cover? Is this on the inside covering the chutes? Is this in addition to the 3 outer plates that have to be blown out?
This N.A.S.A clap trap just gets better and more complicated as time goes on and yet these are 'trivialities' aren't they? You say!

I am not sure, but I would gather that FORWARD is a directional indicator. As in it is more towards the front than another heat shield.

A very vague answer. Do you know or don't you?

I assumed that since you capsed forward, you were having trouble with that term.  All the other terms heat shield protective cover are pretty self explanatory.  On ships, forward means towards the front of the boat.  So if someone asked where the head was, they would say it is just forward of the galley.  Or there are forward winches and aft winches.  So knowing that knowledge, I am applying it to this case.  a forward heat shield is one towards the front of the ship.
And you should be talking about being vague.  Every picture you post, you pretty much say it just doesn't look right.  Or can anyone tell me what is wrong.

Oh, I think I'm explaining them well enough. It's just shills that don't think so and I accept that.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 26, 2014, 05:33:54 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on February 26, 2014, 05:31:49 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 26, 2014, 05:23:45 AM

Quote from: SirSpankalot on February 26, 2014, 05:07:52 AM

"(the parachutes were protected during reentry by a forward heatshield Apex Cover which was jettisoned at 24,000 feet)."

What the hell is a FORWARD heat shield protective cover? Is this on the inside covering the chutes? Is this in addition to the 3 outer plates that have to be blown out?
This N.A.S.A clap trap just gets better and more complicated as time goes on and yet these are 'trivialities' aren't they? You say!

I am not sure, but I would gather that FORWARD is a directional indicator. As in it is more towards the front than another heat shield.

A very vague answer. Do you know or don't you?

I assumed that since you capsed forward, you were having trouble with that term.  All the other terms heat shield protective cover are pretty self explanatory.  On ships, forward means towards the front of the boat.  So if someone asked where the head was, they would say it is just forward of the galley.  Or there are forward winches and aft winches.  So knowing that knowledge, I am applying it to this case.  a forward heat shield is one towards the front of the ship.
And you should be talking about being vague.  Every picture you post, you pretty much say it just doesn't look right.  Or can anyone tell me what is wrong.

yep, that's the correct usage of the term forward.. and in this example the forward heatshields are under the capsule, the heat shield he's talking about would be the aft heatsheilds, which would be made of alloy and very light weight as 90% (ish) of the heat of course happening under the capsule.. IMHO.

Anyway: I think we've proved beyond doubt that no men in a cone came down from space and landed by parachutes into the sea, amid all of what was needed to happen.

We did?  When?

Did anyone else notice that?

Ok you good people, if you look at the picture of the actornaut and look into his visor, you will notice that there are another TWO actornauts. So what, right?
Well, you see! On the moon, there were only TWO actornauts at any one time, whilst the third was cosied up in his tight little CM module, as we are told.

Houston we have a very big problem here. "We are one actornaut heavy...repeat, we are one actornaut heavy. We need confirmation that his weight won't hinder our moon take off."