(Merged) Fetzer / Burton Apollo Hoax debate thread

[John Dolva]

When/if the debate continues: from other topic:

Until agreement on which is best pic I'd like to make this observation. In this image the RGB components have been separated. I don't know how far the earths atmosphere in all layers extend, and the blur factor is important particularly over such a vast distance with a camera. The continents and oceans are not definable. *Red shows least ''diffusion''.

edit typo add*

http://www.pdas.com/atmthick.html

''If you demand that the particle count per cubic meter be indistinguishable from the density of the solar wind in the vicinity of the earth's orbit, you have to go to something like 1000 km.'' (atmosphere thickness)

http://geography.abo...lqzdiameter.htm

''The diameter of the earth at the equator is 12,756.32 kilometers''

ie roughly 1 : 12.75, pole to pole roughly 1 : 12.5

Further there is motion blur to consider. The ''corona'' is not even. During the time of exposure, 1/60th of a second, the relative motion of the moon and earth* could account for this. Overall, with error margins considered, as well as color values being something like one would expect, it seems to me the suggested proof cannot be taken as such. Rather, the image as presented seems to be as expected taking all things into account.

*addendum : ''The Moon orbits the Earth at a speed of about 2288 miles per hour (3683 kilometers per hour)'', further, it rotates as fast as it revolves around the earth. (the dark side of the moon)

ie ~ 1km per second

ie : irrelevant as shutter speed is 1/60 seconds. (16 meters during exposure : a miniscule arc.)

So resolution and camera blur are the factors (?)

The following should all balance out.

( M to E distance ) / ( E diameter ) = ( C to O distance ) / ( O size )

M = moon

E = earth

C = camera

O = object with apparent same width as E diameter

The bit that has me stumped is what role the camera lens combination has.(it is a q I've been looking for an answer to for some time, I can't get my thinking straight on it, could someone help, please? Perhaps it's irrelevant, perhaps one can treat it as an eye with a single lens. Does one need to know the camera specs)

It seems to me a useful thing to be clear about as it has applications in photo analysis in general such as locating objects on JFK images.

The following site seems to have pointers to an answer, but I'm not anything but snaphappy with some sense of issues to consider and concepts, terminology are largely beyond me. So I'm posting this to log the info in the hope that some day I'll understand the whole thing.

(The gif is quite interesting)

http://en.wikipedia....8photography%29

''In photography and cinematography, perspective distortion is a warping or transformation of an object and its surrounding area that differs significantly from what the object would look like with a normal focal length, due to the relative scale of nearby and distant features. Perspective distortion is determined by the relative distances at which the image is captured and viewed, and is due to the angle of view of the image (as captured) being either wider or narrower than the angle of view at which the image is viewed, hence the apparent relative distances differing from what is expected.

Perspective distortion takes two forms: extension distortion (?) and compression distortion, also called wide-angle distortion and telephoto distortion, due to these corresponding to capturing a given field size with a wide-angle lens (hence from closer than with a normal lens) or capturing a given field size with a telephoto lens (hence from further than with a normal lens) – and in both cases then viewing from a normal distance.

In extension distortion, which can be seen in images shot from close using a wide angle of view, an object close to the lens appears abnormally large relative to more distant objects, and distant objects appear abnormally small and hence more distant – distances are extended. In compression distortion, which can be seen in distant shots with a narrow angle of view, distant objects look approximately the same size – closer objects are abnormally small, and more distant objects are abnormally large, and hence the viewer cannot discern relative distances between distant objects – distances are compressed.

Note that perspective distortion is caused by distance, not by the lens (?) per se – two shots of the same scene from the same distance will exhibit identical perspective distortion, regardless of lens used. However, since wide-angle lenses have a wider field of view, they are generally used from closer, while telephoto lenses have a narrower field of view and are generally used from further away. For example, if standing at a distance so that a normal lens captures someone's face, a shot with a wide-angle lens or telephoto lens from the same distance will have exactly the same perspective on the face, though the wide-angle lens may fit the entire body into the shot, while the telephoto lens captures only the nose. However, crops of these three images with the same coverage will yield the same perspective distortion – the nose will look the same in all three. Conversely, if all three lenses are used from distances such that the face fills the field, the wide-angle will be used from closer, making the nose relatively larger, and the telephoto will be used from further, making the nose relatively smaller.

Outside of photography, expansion distortion is most familiar in side-view mirrors (see "objects in mirror are closer than they appear") and peepholes, though these often use a fisheye lens, exhibiting different distortion. Compression distortion is most familiar in looking through binoculars or telescopes, as in telescopic sights.''

(?) adds

edit formatting

More of the same, here from the ''theatre of noise''

http://www.theatreof...r-size-and.html

''Perspective distortion is only influenced by how far you are from your subject. It has nothing directly to do with the lens or camera. It has nothing to do with the focal length and nothing to do with the size of the sensor or film you are using. However, if you are using a wide-angle lens you will need to be closer to fill the frame with your subject. This will lead to extension distortion, which is why it is also commonly called wide-angle distortion. And likewise you need to stand back when using a telephoto lens, so you will be able to capture more than a nostril. And this leads to compression distortion, AKA telephoto distortion.''

edit formatting

It would be great to have a photo expert on the forum who can guide a neophyte to deeper understanding of issues. The following SEEMS to me to be relevant once visor reflections become an issue

Christopher Mei, PhD Student:

Central Catadioptric Systems

And

SLAM

http://www-sop.inria...entToolbox.html

I've fiddled with a trial copy of a program that can do spherical corrections but am not satisfied with the result.

It would be good if someone cropped the visor and did a ''flattening'', pref by not compressing the center but expanding the periphery. I think the shadow of the photographing austronaut can be seen.

Further, imo, a good idea may be to subtract the visors color value. This is a bit more tricky but I don't think impossible. One way (using method described, as developed by me, in missing nix frames topic (jfk section)) could be to overlay a uniform visor colored layer and inverting its color and setting it at 50% transparency (depending on luminance and other values this transparency sometimes needs to be increased or decreased somewhat). This then neutralises its influence on the image and perhaps gives a more accurate color flat mirror view of what the visor reflects. I'm assuming the visor is spherical. (?).

Anyway, hypothetically the above is doable.

[John Dolva]

When/if the debate continues: from other topic:

Until agreement on which is best pic I'd like to make this observation. In this image the RGB components have been separated. I don't know how far the earths atmosphere in all layers extend, and the blur factor is important particularly over such a vast distance with a camera. The continents and oceans are not definable. *Red shows least ''diffusion''.

edit typo add*

http://www.pdas.com/atmthick.html

''If you demand that the particle count per cubic meter be indistinguishable from the density of the solar wind in the vicinity of the earth's orbit, you have to go to something like 1000 km.'' (atmosphere thickness)

http://geography.abo...lqzdiameter.htm

''The diameter of the earth at the equator is 12,756.32 kilometers''

ie roughly 1 : 12.75, pole to pole roughly 1 : 12.5

Further there is motion blur to consider. The ''corona'' is not even. During the time of exposure, 1/60th of a second, the relative motion of the moon and earth* could account for this. Overall, with error margins considered, as well as color values being something like one would expect, it seems to me the suggested proof cannot be taken as such. Rather, the image as presented seems to be as expected taking all things into account.

*addendum : ''The Moon orbits the Earth at a speed of about 2288 miles per hour (3683 kilometers per hour)'', further, it rotates as fast as it revolves around the earth. (the dark side of the moon)

ie ~ 1km per second

ie : irrelevant as shutter speed is 1/60 seconds. (16 meters during exposure : a miniscule arc.)

So resolution and camera blur are the factors (?)

The following should all balance out.

( M to E distance ) / ( E diameter ) = ( C to O distance ) / ( O size )

M = moon

E = earth

C = camera

O = object with apparent same width as E diameter

The bit that has me stumped is what role the camera lens combination has.(it is a q I've been looking for an answer to for some time, I can't get my thinking straight on it, could someone help, please? Perhaps it's irrelevant, perhaps one can treat it as an eye with a single lens. Does one need to know the camera specs)

It seems to me a useful thing to be clear about as it has applications in photo analysis in general such as locating objects on JFK images.

The following site seems to have pointers to an answer, but I'm not anything but snaphappy with some sense of issues to consider and concepts, terminology are largely beyond me. So I'm posting this to log the info in the hope that some day I'll understand the whole thing.

(The gif is quite interesting)

http://en.wikipedia....8photography%29

''In photography and cinematography, perspective distortion is a warping or transformation of an object and its surrounding area that differs significantly from what the object would look like with a normal focal length, due to the relative scale of nearby and distant features. Perspective distortion is determined by the relative distances at which the image is captured and viewed, and is due to the angle of view of the image (as captured) being either wider or narrower than the angle of view at which the image is viewed, hence the apparent relative distances differing from what is expected.

Perspective distortion takes two forms: extension distortion (?) and compression distortion, also called wide-angle distortion and telephoto distortion, due to these corresponding to capturing a given field size with a wide-angle lens (hence from closer than with a normal lens) or capturing a given field size with a telephoto lens (hence from further than with a normal lens) – and in both cases then viewing from a normal distance.

In extension distortion, which can be seen in images shot from close using a wide angle of view, an object close to the lens appears abnormally large relative to more distant objects, and distant objects appear abnormally small and hence more distant – distances are extended. In compression distortion, which can be seen in distant shots with a narrow angle of view, distant objects look approximately the same size – closer objects are abnormally small, and more distant objects are abnormally large, and hence the viewer cannot discern relative distances between distant objects – distances are compressed.

Note that perspective distortion is caused by distance, not by the lens (?) per se – two shots of the same scene from the same distance will exhibit identical perspective distortion, regardless of lens used. However, since wide-angle lenses have a wider field of view, they are generally used from closer, while telephoto lenses have a narrower field of view and are generally used from further away. For example, if standing at a distance so that a normal lens captures someone's face, a shot with a wide-angle lens or telephoto lens from the same distance will have exactly the same perspective on the face, though the wide-angle lens may fit the entire body into the shot, while the telephoto lens captures only the nose. However, crops of these three images with the same coverage will yield the same perspective distortion – the nose will look the same in all three. Conversely, if all three lenses are used from distances such that the face fills the field, the wide-angle will be used from closer, making the nose relatively larger, and the telephoto will be used from further, making the nose relatively smaller.

Outside of photography, expansion distortion is most familiar in side-view mirrors (see "objects in mirror are closer than they appear") and peepholes, though these often use a fisheye lens, exhibiting different distortion. Compression distortion is most familiar in looking through binoculars or telescopes, as in telescopic sights.''

(?) adds

edit formatting

More of the same, here from the ''theatre of noise''

http://www.theatreof...r-size-and.html

''Perspective distortion is only influenced by how far you are from your subject. It has nothing directly to do with the lens or camera. It has nothing to do with the focal length and nothing to do with the size of the sensor or film you are using. However, if you are using a wide-angle lens you will need to be closer to fill the frame with your subject. This will lead to extension distortion, which is why it is also commonly called wide-angle distortion. And likewise you need to stand back when using a telephoto lens, so you will be able to capture more than a nostril. And this leads to compression distortion, AKA telephoto distortion.''

edit formatting

It would be great to have a photo expert on the forum who can guide a neophyte to deeper understanding of issues. The following SEEMS to me to be relevant once visor reflections become an issue

Christopher Mei, PhD Student:

Central Catadioptric Systems

And

SLAM

http://www-sop.inria...entToolbox.html

I've fiddled with a trial copy of a program that can do spherical corrections but am not satisfied with the result.

It would be good if someone cropped the visor and did a ''flattening'', pref by not compressing the center but expanding the periphery. I think the shadow of the photographing austronaut can be seen.

Further, imo, a good idea may be to subtract the visors color value. This is a bit more tricky but I don't think impossible. One way (using method described, as developed by me, in missing nix frames topic (jfk section)) could be to overlay a uniform visor colored layer and inverting its color and setting it at 50% transparency (depending on luminance and other values this transparency sometimes needs to be increased or decreased somewhat). This then neutralises its influence on the image and perhaps gives a more accurate color flat mirror view of what the visor reflects. I'm assuming the visor is spherical. (?).

Anyway, hypothetically the above is doable.

This image indicates the visor is not spherical. Therefore to do a proper flattening one would need the specs plus a utility where all necessary parameters can be entered. Linked here for anyone who wants to explore this.

http://www.myspacemuseum.com/leva1b.jpg

One can, I thinkl assume a greater degree of sphereness in the center of the visor which is where the photographer is. Cropping this and resizing it greatly yields a better result when distortion correcting.

Anyway this is a good example of how objects get displaced by the visor and it is so east to see things not as they are but as distorted by the visor.

[John Dolva]

When/if the debate continues: from other topic:

Until agreement on which is best pic I'd like to make this observation. In this image the RGB components have been separated. I don't know how far the earths atmosphere in all layers extend, and the blur factor is important particularly over such a vast distance with a camera. The continents and oceans are not definable. *Red shows least ''diffusion''.

edit typo add*

http://www.pdas.com/atmthick.html

''If you demand that the particle count per cubic meter be indistinguishable from the density of the solar wind in the vicinity of the earth's orbit, you have to go to something like 1000 km.'' (atmosphere thickness)

http://geography.abo...lqzdiameter.htm

''The diameter of the earth at the equator is 12,756.32 kilometers''

ie roughly 1 : 12.75, pole to pole roughly 1 : 12.5

Further there is motion blur to consider. The ''corona'' is not even. During the time of exposure, 1/60th of a second, the relative motion of the moon and earth* could account for this. Overall, with error margins considered, as well as color values being something like one would expect, it seems to me the suggested proof cannot be taken as such. Rather, the image as presented seems to be as expected taking all things into account.

*addendum : ''The Moon orbits the Earth at a speed of about 2288 miles per hour (3683 kilometers per hour)'', further, it rotates as fast as it revolves around the earth. (the dark side of the moon)

ie ~ 1km per second

ie : irrelevant as shutter speed is 1/60 seconds. (16 meters during exposure : a miniscule arc.)

So resolution and camera blur are the factors (?)

The following should all balance out.

( M to E distance ) / ( E diameter ) = ( C to O distance ) / ( O size )

M = moon

E = earth

C = camera

O = object with apparent same width as E diameter

The bit that has me stumped is what role the camera lens combination has.(it is a q I've been looking for an answer to for some time, I can't get my thinking straight on it, could someone help, please? Perhaps it's irrelevant, perhaps one can treat it as an eye with a single lens. Does one need to know the camera specs)

It seems to me a useful thing to be clear about as it has applications in photo analysis in general such as locating objects on JFK images.

The following site seems to have pointers to an answer, but I'm not anything but snaphappy with some sense of issues to consider and concepts, terminology are largely beyond me. So I'm posting this to log the info in the hope that some day I'll understand the whole thing.

(The gif is quite interesting)

http://en.wikipedia....8photography%29

''In photography and cinematography, perspective distortion is a warping or transformation of an object and its surrounding area that differs significantly from what the object would look like with a normal focal length, due to the relative scale of nearby and distant features. Perspective distortion is determined by the relative distances at which the image is captured and viewed, and is due to the angle of view of the image (as captured) being either wider or narrower than the angle of view at which the image is viewed, hence the apparent relative distances differing from what is expected.

Perspective distortion takes two forms: extension distortion (?) and compression distortion, also called wide-angle distortion and telephoto distortion, due to these corresponding to capturing a given field size with a wide-angle lens (hence from closer than with a normal lens) or capturing a given field size with a telephoto lens (hence from further than with a normal lens) – and in both cases then viewing from a normal distance.

In extension distortion, which can be seen in images shot from close using a wide angle of view, an object close to the lens appears abnormally large relative to more distant objects, and distant objects appear abnormally small and hence more distant – distances are extended. In compression distortion, which can be seen in distant shots with a narrow angle of view, distant objects look approximately the same size – closer objects are abnormally small, and more distant objects are abnormally large, and hence the viewer cannot discern relative distances between distant objects – distances are compressed.

Note that perspective distortion is caused by distance, not by the lens (?) per se – two shots of the same scene from the same distance will exhibit identical perspective distortion, regardless of lens used. However, since wide-angle lenses have a wider field of view, they are generally used from closer, while telephoto lenses have a narrower field of view and are generally used from further away. For example, if standing at a distance so that a normal lens captures someone's face, a shot with a wide-angle lens or telephoto lens from the same distance will have exactly the same perspective on the face, though the wide-angle lens may fit the entire body into the shot, while the telephoto lens captures only the nose. However, crops of these three images with the same coverage will yield the same perspective distortion – the nose will look the same in all three. Conversely, if all three lenses are used from distances such that the face fills the field, the wide-angle will be used from closer, making the nose relatively larger, and the telephoto will be used from further, making the nose relatively smaller.

Outside of photography, expansion distortion is most familiar in side-view mirrors (see "objects in mirror are closer than they appear") and peepholes, though these often use a fisheye lens, exhibiting different distortion. Compression distortion is most familiar in looking through binoculars or telescopes, as in telescopic sights.''

(?) adds

edit formatting

More of the same, here from the ''theatre of noise''

http://www.theatreof...r-size-and.html

''Perspective distortion is only influenced by how far you are from your subject. It has nothing directly to do with the lens or camera. It has nothing to do with the focal length and nothing to do with the size of the sensor or film you are using. However, if you are using a wide-angle lens you will need to be closer to fill the frame with your subject. This will lead to extension distortion, which is why it is also commonly called wide-angle distortion. And likewise you need to stand back when using a telephoto lens, so you will be able to capture more than a nostril. And this leads to compression distortion, AKA telephoto distortion.''

edit formatting

It would be great to have a photo expert on the forum who can guide a neophyte to deeper understanding of issues. The following SEEMS to me to be relevant once visor reflections become an issue

Christopher Mei, PhD Student:

Central Catadioptric Systems

And

SLAM

http://www-sop.inria...entToolbox.html

I've fiddled with a trial copy of a program that can do spherical corrections but am not satisfied with the result.

It would be good if someone cropped the visor and did a ''flattening'', pref by not compressing the center but expanding the periphery. I think the shadow of the photographing austronaut can be seen.

Further, imo, a good idea may be to subtract the visors color value. This is a bit more tricky but I don't think impossible. One way (using method described, as developed by me, in missing nix frames topic (jfk section)) could be to overlay a uniform visor colored layer and inverting its color and setting it at 50% transparency (depending on luminance and other values this transparency sometimes needs to be increased or decreased somewhat). This then neutralises its influence on the image and perhaps gives a more accurate color flat mirror view of what the visor reflects. I'm assuming the visor is spherical. (?).

Anyway, hypothetically the above is doable.

This image indicates the visor is not spherical. Therefore to do a proper flattening one would need the specs plus a utility where all necessary parameters can be entered. Linked here for anyone who wants to explore this.

http://www.myspacemu....com/leva1b.jpg

One can, I thinkl assume a greater degree of sphereness in the center of the visor which is where the photographer is. Cropping this and resizing it greatly yields a better result when distortion correcting.

Anyway this is a good example of how objects get displaced by the visor and it is so east to see things not as they are but as distorted by the visor.

Some further ponderings. Unless the photo is cropped the centre of the photo is where the camera on the tripod is pointing. The suit is in the corner of a rectangular room, looks like a shop, the striped blue wall mount is visible on the visor.

As one flattens the reflection the photographer looks to be much further away, perhaps indicating a zoom lens was used (?). The rather incredible distortions would account most likely for all anomalies in any visor ''study'' (?).

[John Dolva]

Can I take it that noone dealing with the above indicates an agreement or is it something noone is capable of dealing with one way or the other? The issues seem quite simple and imo deals with multiple debate topic issues.

edit add: also I think for purely educational purposes and the possible application in other image analysis someone like Christopher Mei phd should join and partake in a sharing of knowldege. I'm sure he would have many of us engaged in some serious discussions on many matters. I think a logarith with wide applications could be worked towards in dealing with flattening outthe image data on the visors. Naturally exact visor specs are be needed and afa I'm concerned a precise RGB or CMYK breakdown of the antiglare visor properties is needed.

Edited September 26, 2010 by John Dolva

[Jack White]

I have been doing some reading about the PLSS, and here is an excerpt

from a scientific paper which appears to document problems with the alleged

Apollo PLSS systems which are still not resolved. I have always doubted the ability

of the small backpacks to sustain life for long periods. Below, note something which

I had never read ANYWHERE previously. BEFORE AND AFTER ANY USE OF THE

SPACE SUIT, A PERIOD OF 40 MINUTES "TRANSITION" WAS REQUIRED WHEN

DONNING OR REMOVING THE SPACE SUIT. Also note problems with Oxygen loss

through fabric and seams, and that a tiny leak would be fatal. The problems of

rigidity is also discussed. I have highlighted problems apparently never solved

with the Apollo PLSS.

The paper is at: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/reports/CB-1106/ucb01.pdf

Jack

Space Suit Background

Technologies for protection from harsh environments, where pressure and temperature

extremes are not compatible with human physiology, have had some remarkable

milestones over the last sixty years. The beginnings of helmet and pressure suit

innovations date from 1934 when Wiley Post with Goodrich Rubber Company developed

the first pressurized high-altitude suit, which in its final design, consisted of a can-like

aluminum head unit with a front window and rubber waist entry (Mohler 1998). From

these early roots, the modern space suits of today evolved.

The current Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) is an improved version of the original

developed in 1975 by Hamilton Sundstrand and ILC Dover. The two major subsystems of

the EMU are the Portable Life Support Subsystem (PLSS) and the Space Suit Assembly

(SSA). The SSA is comprised of a Hard Upper Torso (HUT), Lower Torso Assembly

(LTA), boots, gloves, and other integrated components. The EMU provides life support

functions, such as oxygen supply, carbon dioxide removal, a pressurized enclosure,

temperature control and micrometeoroid protection. The suit and PLSS contain 7 hours of

expendables including O2 for respiration and pressurization, water for cooling via the

Liquid Cooling garment (LCG), a battery for electrical systems, and lithium hydroxide

for carbon dioxide removal.

The SSA provides full body pressurization and respiration at 4.3 psid using O2. A Prebreathe

of 40 minutes is required to transition from 10.2 psia habitat or cabin pressure to

4.3 psid (Furr 1987). This period of out-gassing is essential for transitions to a lower

pressure environment and is analogues to the precautions taken in deep sea diving.

Inadequate pre-breathing will result in nitrogen bubbles forming in the blood stream; a

condition known as the bends that can be fatal. Airflow, supplied by the PLSS, enters the

suit at the helmet and flows down to the torso and extremities. Used air containing water

vapor and CO2 is removed at the elbows and feet to be transported back to the PLSS

where CO2 is removed and water vapor is condensed using a sublimation system. The

water is then recycled back into the cooling system.

The Liquid Cooling Garment in which water is circulated through a network of fine

tubing to remove excess body heat performs thermal regulation. The excess heat is

subsequently removed at the sublimator and transferred to the outside environment.

Problem Statement

The use of O2 in current EMU’s to pressurize the whole body presents a number of

problems. Even under normal operating conditions, current EMU’s lose up to 50 liters of

O2 per eight-hour EVA through the many joints and seams of the suit. This great loss of

O2 limits current EMU endurance and makes it inadequate for long duration missions. A

single pressurization system also puts the suit at a high-risk of micrometeoroid puncture.

With current EMU’s, even a small puncture could result in rapid decompression of the

entire suit. This catastrophic situation can easily be fatal, as studies have shown an

astronaut has from 9-11 seconds of consciousness in which to save his or herself. (Parker

and West 1973)

The Sublimation cooling system is designed for use in a hard vacuum and will fail under

terrestrial conditions, such as those found on Mars. Even with only1/150th the pressure of

Earth, the delicate balance of the sublimation system will be disrupted and the astronaut

will overheat.

Current EMU’s have rigid torso and arm sections and soft joints for movable parts. When

pressurized, these soft joints become very rigid, limiting mobility, especially in key areas

like the hands. The complex designs of current space suits incorporate several control

systems that contribute to the weight and complexity of the unit. For example, the liquid

cooling layer alone adds 6.5 pounds when dry. These systems have a profound impact not

only on resource consumption and cost but on safety and mobility, as well. The more

complex the design, the more troubleshooting required, and the more components that

have the potential to malfunction or break.

[Jack White]

This raises the question...if air leaks were so dangerous, why did the spacesuits for Apollo 12

come equipped with a fly for urinary access? (see circle) Could it be that in the studios where

the photos were shot, it was necessary for the actors in the suits to take periodic trips to a urinal?

Jack

Scroll to bottom. I can figure no way to insert photos except at bottom.

I have been doing some reading about the PLSS, and here is an excerpt

from a scientific paper which appears to document problems with the alleged

Apollo PLSS systems which are still not resolved. I have always doubted the ability

of the small backpacks to sustain life for long periods. Below, note something which

I had never read ANYWHERE previously. BEFORE AND AFTER ANY USE OF THE

SPACE SUIT, A PERIOD OF 40 MINUTES "TRANSITION" WAS REQUIRED WHEN

DONNING OR REMOVING THE SPACE SUIT. Also note problems with Oxygen loss

through fabric and seams, and that a tiny leak would be fatal. The problems of

rigidity is also discussed. I have highlighted problems apparently never solved

with the Apollo PLSS.

The paper is at: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/reports/CB-1106/ucb01.pdf

Jack

Space Suit Background

Technologies for protection from harsh environments, where pressure and temperature

extremes are not compatible with human physiology, have had some remarkable

milestones over the last sixty years. The beginnings of helmet and pressure suit

innovations date from 1934 when Wiley Post with Goodrich Rubber Company developed

the first pressurized high-altitude suit, which in its final design, consisted of a can-like

aluminum head unit with a front window and rubber waist entry (Mohler 1998). From

these early roots, the modern space suits of today evolved.

The current Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) is an improved version of the original

developed in 1975 by Hamilton Sundstrand and ILC Dover. The two major subsystems of

the EMU are the Portable Life Support Subsystem (PLSS) and the Space Suit Assembly

(SSA). The SSA is comprised of a Hard Upper Torso (HUT), Lower Torso Assembly

(LTA), boots, gloves, and other integrated components. The EMU provides life support

functions, such as oxygen supply, carbon dioxide removal, a pressurized enclosure,

temperature control and micrometeoroid protection. The suit and PLSS contain 7 hours of

expendables including O2 for respiration and pressurization, water for cooling via the

Liquid Cooling garment (LCG), a battery for electrical systems, and lithium hydroxide

for carbon dioxide removal.

The SSA provides full body pressurization and respiration at 4.3 psid using O2. A Prebreathe

of 40 minutes is required to transition from 10.2 psia habitat or cabin pressure to

4.3 psid (Furr 1987). This period of out-gassing is essential for transitions to a lower

pressure environment and is analogues to the precautions taken in deep sea diving.

Inadequate pre-breathing will result in nitrogen bubbles forming in the blood stream; a

condition known as the bends that can be fatal. Airflow, supplied by the PLSS, enters the

suit at the helmet and flows down to the torso and extremities. Used air containing water

vapor and CO2 is removed at the elbows and feet to be transported back to the PLSS

where CO2 is removed and water vapor is condensed using a sublimation system. The

water is then recycled back into the cooling system.

The Liquid Cooling Garment in which water is circulated through a network of fine

tubing to remove excess body heat performs thermal regulation. The excess heat is

subsequently removed at the sublimator and transferred to the outside environment.

Problem Statement

The use of O2 in current EMU’s to pressurize the whole body presents a number of

problems. Even under normal operating conditions, current EMU’s lose up to 50 liters of

O2 per eight-hour EVA through the many joints and seams of the suit. This great loss of

O2 limits current EMU endurance and makes it inadequate for long duration missions. A

single pressurization system also puts the suit at a high-risk of micrometeoroid puncture.

With current EMU’s, even a small puncture could result in rapid decompression of the

entire suit. This catastrophic situation can easily be fatal, as studies have shown an

astronaut has from 9-11 seconds of consciousness in which to save his or herself. (Parker

and West 1973)

The Sublimation cooling system is designed for use in a hard vacuum and will fail under

terrestrial conditions, such as those found on Mars. Even with only1/150th the pressure of

Earth, the delicate balance of the sublimation system will be disrupted and the astronaut

will overheat.

Current EMU’s have rigid torso and arm sections and soft joints for movable parts. When

pressurized, these soft joints become very rigid, limiting mobility, especially in key areas

like the hands. The complex designs of current space suits incorporate several control

systems that contribute to the weight and complexity of the unit. For example, the liquid

cooling layer alone adds 6.5 pounds when dry. These systems have a profound impact not

only on resource consumption and cost but on safety and mobility, as well. The more

complex the design, the more troubleshooting required, and the more components that

have the potential to malfunction or break.

Edited September 26, 2010 by Jack White

[John Dolva]

lol, what's this studio, actor stuff about. Do you mean you think the Aollo missions to the moon were faked??? If so, do you have ANY reaon for believing such an absurdity?

[Jack White]

lol, what's this studio, actor stuff about. Do you mean you think the Aollo missions to the moon were faked??? If so, do you have ANY reaon for believing such an absurdity?

What other reason would there be for a spacesuit to have a fly for urinary access? LOL. LOL. LOL.

[Evan Burton]

I have been doing some reading about the PLSS, and here is an excerpt

from a scientific paper which appears to document problems with the alleged

Apollo PLSS systems which are still not resolved. I have always doubted the ability

of the small backpacks to sustain life for long periods. Below, note something which

I had never read ANYWHERE previously. BEFORE AND AFTER ANY USE OF THE

SPACE SUIT, A PERIOD OF 40 MINUTES "TRANSITION" WAS REQUIRED WHEN

DONNING OR REMOVING THE SPACE SUIT. Also note problems with Oxygen loss

through fabric and seams, and that a tiny leak would be fatal. The problems of

rigidity is also discussed. I have highlighted problems apparently never solved

with the Apollo PLSS.

The paper is at: http://www.lpi.usra....-1106/ucb01.pdf

Jack

Space Suit Background

Technologies for protection from harsh environments, where pressure and temperature

extremes are not compatible with human physiology, have had some remarkable

milestones over the last sixty years. The beginnings of helmet and pressure suit

innovations date from 1934 when Wiley Post with Goodrich Rubber Company developed

the first pressurized high-altitude suit, which in its final design, consisted of a can-like

aluminum head unit with a front window and rubber waist entry (Mohler 1998). From

these early roots, the modern space suits of today evolved.

The current Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) is an improved version of the original

developed in 1975 by Hamilton Sundstrand and ILC Dover. The two major subsystems of

the EMU are the Portable Life Support Subsystem (PLSS) and the Space Suit Assembly

(SSA). The SSA is comprised of a Hard Upper Torso (HUT), Lower Torso Assembly

(LTA), boots, gloves, and other integrated components. The EMU provides life support

functions, such as oxygen supply, carbon dioxide removal, a pressurized enclosure,

temperature control and micrometeoroid protection. The suit and PLSS contain 7 hours of

expendables including O2 for respiration and pressurization, water for cooling via the

Liquid Cooling garment (LCG), a battery for electrical systems, and lithium hydroxide

for carbon dioxide removal.

The SSA provides full body pressurization and respiration at 4.3 psid using O2. A Prebreathe

of 40 minutes is required to transition from 10.2 psia habitat or cabin pressure to

4.3 psid (Furr 1987). This period of out-gassing is essential for transitions to a lower

pressure environment and is analogues to the precautions taken in deep sea diving.

Inadequate pre-breathing will result in nitrogen bubbles forming in the blood stream; a

condition known as the bends that can be fatal. Airflow, supplied by the PLSS, enters the

suit at the helmet and flows down to the torso and extremities. Used air containing water

vapor and CO2 is removed at the elbows and feet to be transported back to the PLSS

where CO2 is removed and water vapor is condensed using a sublimation system. The

water is then recycled back into the cooling system.

The Liquid Cooling Garment in which water is circulated through a network of fine

tubing to remove excess body heat performs thermal regulation. The excess heat is

subsequently removed at the sublimator and transferred to the outside environment.

Problem Statement

The use of O2 in current EMU's to pressurize the whole body presents a number of

problems. Even under normal operating conditions, current EMU's lose up to 50 liters of

O2 per eight-hour EVA through the many joints and seams of the suit. This great loss of

O2 limits current EMU endurance and makes it inadequate for long duration missions. A

single pressurization system also puts the suit at a high-risk of micrometeoroid puncture.

With current EMU's, even a small puncture could result in rapid decompression of the

entire suit. This catastrophic situation can easily be fatal, as studies have shown an

astronaut has from 9-11 seconds of consciousness in which to save his or herself. (Parker

and West 1973)

The Sublimation cooling system is designed for use in a hard vacuum and will fail under

terrestrial conditions, such as those found on Mars. Even with only1/150th the pressure of

Earth, the delicate balance of the sublimation system will be disrupted and the astronaut

will overheat.

Current EMU's have rigid torso and arm sections and soft joints for movable parts. When

pressurized, these soft joints become very rigid, limiting mobility, especially in key areas

like the hands. The complex designs of current space suits incorporate several control

systems that contribute to the weight and complexity of the unit. For example, the liquid

cooling layer alone adds 6.5 pounds when dry. These systems have a profound impact not

only on resource consumption and cost but on safety and mobility, as well. The more

complex the design, the more troubleshooting required, and the more components that

have the potential to malfunction or break.

Jack,

You just continually display your ignorance in these matters. The Apollo atmosphere was 100% O2 at a pressure of about 3.5 PSI, so no pre-breathing was required. Pre-breathing is required to remove nitrogen from the body when an Earth-normal atmosphere is used. High altitude pilots do this, such as SR-71 or U-2 pilots. Because the Shuttle uses an Earth-normal atmosphere, they have to pre-breathe before EVAs. Apollo did not.

You also don't understand the layers of the suit that protected the astronauts, ensuring that suit leakages was kept to a tiny minimum. Even so, allowance was made for leakage in the O2.

Briefly, the EMU was a multi-part system designed for wear outside the spacecraft in the harsh lunar environment. It consisted of several sub-assemblies. First, the IMU or Intravehicular Mobility Unit and the basic EMU were the suits worn inside the spacecraft during launch and critical mission events which had the potential of breaching the hull of the spacecraft. The IMU/EMU consisted of the Pressure Garment Assembly (PGA) plus the Communications Carrier (Comm Carrier - the "Snoopy Cap"), the Pressure Helmet Assembly (Bubble Helmet) and Pressure Gloves. The PGA was made up of the Torso-Limb Suit Assembly (TLSA), the Integrated Thermal Micrometeroroid Garment (ITMG), and the PGA Electrical Harness. While inside the CSM the crew also wore the Constant Wear Garment (CWG), on the moon the CDR & LMP wore the Liquid Cooling Garment (LCG).

Source

Lastly, there was no external waste ports in the suits. If you had to go, you defecated into the "nappy" you wore or urinated into a special bag attached to the penis. There was a protective cover over the zipper seal of the suit for early Apollo missions, but later missions had suits that that were sealed diagonally across the front.

The Urine Collection Device

Later PGA with different zipper configuration.

Now you have been told this before. I can only think of two reasons why you appear to ignore the answers previously provided to you: you are being deceptive by re-introducing topics you know have been resolved, or your mental faculties are letting you down and you cannot remember that this has already been answered.

[Evan Burton]

• The cabin atmosphere at launch was changed to 60% O₂ and 40% N₂ at sea-level pressure (14.7 psi or 1013 millibars). During ascent the cabin rapidly vented down to 5 psi (345 mbar), releasing approximately 2/3 of the N₂ (and O₂) originally present at launch. The vent then closed and the environmental control system maintained a nominal cabin pressure of 5 psi as the spacecraft continued into vacuum. The cabin was then very slowly purged (vented to space and simultaneously replaced with 100% O₂) so the N₂ concentration fell asymptotically to zero over the next day. Although the new cabin launch atmosphere was significantly safer than 100% O₂, it was still more hazardous than ordinary sea level air with only 21% O₂. This was necessary to ensure a sufficient partial pressure of oxygen when the astronauts removed their helmets shortly after launch. (60% of the nominal 5 psi cabin pressure is 3 psi; the partial pressure of oxygen in sea-level air is 20.9% of 14.7 psi or 3.07 psi.)

• The environment within the astronauts' pressure suits was not changed. Because of the rapid drop in cabin (and suit) pressures during ascent, decompression sickness was likely unless the N₂ had been purged from the astronauts' tissues prior to launch. They would still breathe pure O₂ starting several hours before launch and continuing until orbital insertion. Avoiding the "bends" was considered worth the residual risk of an oxygen-accelerated fire within a suit.

Source

[Evan Burton]

lol, what's this studio, actor stuff about. Do you mean you think the Aollo missions to the moon were faked??? If so, do you have ANY reaon for believing such an absurdity?

What other reason would there be for a spacesuit to have a fly for urinary access? LOL. LOL. LOL.

Good god, Jack, you actually revel in your ignorance, don't you? You display the very worst aspects of which people investigating subjects should aspire to avoid:

Confirmation Bias

"Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true."

And that is not bringing up where you ignore evidence that disproves your theories.

[Dave Greer]

Can I take it that noone dealing with the above indicates an agreement or is it something noone is capable of dealing with one way or the other? The issues seem quite simple and imo deals with multiple debate topic issues.

edit add: also I think for purely educational purposes and the possible application in other image analysis someone like Christopher Mei phd should join and partake in a sharing of knowldege. I'm sure he would have many of us engaged in some serious discussions on many matters. I think a logarith with wide applications could be worked towards in dealing with flattening outthe image data on the visors. Naturally exact visor specs are be needed and afa I'm concerned a precise RGB or CMYK breakdown of the antiglare visor properties is needed.

John

Have you seen the discussion on image AS11-40-5903 on the ALSJ? Someone has attempted the kind of analysis you're talking about on the famous image of Buzz.

[John Dolva]

Excellent, yes Dave, my attempts have been like that.

So it is understood what I mean and rather than stating it as a hypothesis I think one can say that definitely a correction is entirely possible that places things where they should be.

The exact parameters of the visor would be needed for a complete flattening with possibly the program written by the phd student or others used, but absent that: this shows it can be done. One can see how various oddities can be misinterpreted and now how to explain them.

For discoloring by the antisun visor that could perhaps also be compensated for.

But either way, I think many answers are dealt with by this.

[Evan Burton]

Second Fetzer/Burton Debate images, REFLECTIONS IN HELMET VISORS:

NUMBER NINE

No, Jack, you are wrong again. Firstly - as mentioned previously mentioned in this series - Jack Schmitt DID kneel down low to take the image. You can see him kneeling down in the reflection.

We can see an example of this in a genuine Apollo helmet. The images below were taken by me in 2008 whilst at the US Space and Rocket Center, in Huntsville, Alabama. I have reversed the images to make them the same as the reference Apollo 17 image. You can see me kneeling down, not unlike the astronaut did.

[Evan Burton]