Jump to content
The Education Forum

Did NASA Use 1/6 Gravity Simulators to Fake Apolllo ?


Recommended Posts

Apollo defender Jay Windley ( also known as Jay Utah ) , owner of the clavius moon base web site , posted this on the Apollohoax forum recently ... I understand that his mission in life is to try to refute the Apollo hoax evidence by any means necessary , and his favorite game to play with his followers is ' let's all bash the moon hoax believers ' ... but I didn't know that he would post such misinformed nonsense as this , just to try to make me look bad.

Here's Windley's post .

"Straydog says they used 1/6th g simulation chambers - I can't get him to explain exaclty what he means by this.

My work would be considerably easier if I could simply wish into existence some mechanism that miraculously possessed exactly the properties needed to satisfy some proposition. Since no one has yet managed such a feat, we have to resort to crude application of known physical law. It is incumbent upon those who say an unlikely item exists to explain the physical law by which it was brought into existence, then to give evidence of its actual creation. "

And here is the Apollo information he either didn't know about , or was deliberately hiding from his fan club .

"[275] Computers in the Apollo Mission Simulators

No less than 15 simulators trained crews during the Apollo Program. Three were the primary Command Module Simulators, with one at Houston and a pair at the Cape. Two were the primary Lunar Module Simulators, one at each site. At Houston, a Command Module Procedures Simulator trained crews just to rendezvous with the command module, as there was a Lunar Module Procedures Simulator for lunar module rendezvous and landing training. Gemini's Dynamic Crew Procedures Simulator became the same for Apollo. Additional moving-base simulators at the Manned Spacecraft Center were for lunar module formation flying and docking, and a centrifuge (to avoid trips to Johnsville). Langley Space Flight Center pioneered the research into the final 200 feet of lunar landing by suspending five sixths of a simulator's weight to give astronauts practice in controlling the lander in the gravity of the moon12. Another lunar landing simulator used a jet engine to support five sixths of its weight and permit free-flight landing training. That simulator required a simulator of its own to keep the crews from crashing it. FINALLY, A PAIR OF PARTIAL-GRAVITY SIMULATORS GAVE THE ASTRONAUTS THE CHANCE TO WALK IN SPACE SUITS WHILE HAVING FIVE-SIXTHS OF THEIR WEIGHT SUPPORTED . Later in the program, MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER BUILT A SIMULATOR FOR THE LUNAR ROVER VEHICLE. "

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/computers/Ch9-2.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Apollo defender Jay Windley ( also known as Jay Utah ) , owner of the clavius moon base web site , posted this on the Apollohoax forum recently ... I understand that his mission in life is to try to refute the Apollo hoax evidence by any means necessary , and his favorite game to play with his followers is ' let's all bash the moon hoax believers ' ... but I didn't know that he would post such misinformed nonsense as this , just to try to make me look bad.

Here's Windley's post .

"Straydog says they used 1/6th g simulation chambers - I can't get him to explain exaclty what he means by this.

My work would be considerably easier if I could simply wish into existence some mechanism that miraculously possessed exactly the properties needed to satisfy some proposition. Since no one has yet managed such a feat, we have to resort to crude application of known physical law. It is incumbent upon those who say an unlikely item exists to explain the physical law by which it was brought into existence, then to give evidence of its actual creation. "

And here is the Apollo information he either didn't know about , or was deliberately hiding from his fan club .

"[275] Computers in the Apollo Mission Simulators

No less than 15 simulators trained crews during the Apollo Program. Three were the primary Command Module Simulators, with one at Houston and a pair at the Cape. Two were the primary Lunar Module Simulators, one at each site. At Houston, a Command Module Procedures Simulator trained crews just to rendezvous with the command module, as there was a Lunar Module Procedures Simulator for lunar module rendezvous and landing training. Gemini's Dynamic Crew Procedures Simulator became the same for Apollo. Additional moving-base simulators at the Manned Spacecraft Center were for lunar module formation flying and docking, and a centrifuge (to avoid trips to Johnsville). Langley Space Flight Center pioneered the research into the final 200 feet of lunar landing by suspending five sixths of a simulator's weight to give astronauts practice in controlling the lander in the gravity of the moon12. Another lunar landing simulator used a jet engine to support five sixths of its weight and permit free-flight landing training. That simulator required a simulator of its own to keep the crews from crashing it. FINALLY, A PAIR OF PARTIAL-GRAVITY SIMULATORS GAVE THE ASTRONAUTS THE CHANCE TO WALK IN SPACE SUITS WHILE HAVING FIVE-SIXTHS OF THEIR WEIGHT SUPPORTED . Later in the program, MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER BUILT A SIMULATOR FOR THE LUNAR ROVER VEHICLE. "

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/computers/Ch9-2.html

You yourself quoted what he said: "I CAN'T GET HIM TO EXPLAIN...WHAT HE MEANS BY THIS"

From the above, we can now see what you are referring to:

apmisc-L65-6577.jpg

NASA L65-6577

p378a.jpg

NASA L68-8308

"FINALLY, A PAIR OF PARTIAL-GRAVITY SIMULATORS GAVE THE ASTRONAUTS THE CHANCE TO WALK IN SPACE SUITS WHILE HAVING FIVE-SIXTHS OF THEIR WEIGHT SUPPORTED"

p375a.jpg

NASA L69-6324

p376b.jpg

NASA L67-9108

or possibly the LLTV

"Langley Space Flight Center pioneered the research into the final 200 feet of lunar landing by suspending five sixths of a simulator's weight to give astronauts practice in controlling the lander in the gravity of the moon"

(I suspect it refers to the LLRV / LLTV, but it might be referring to large rig which was also at Langley.)

(information on the LLRV / LLTV can be found.. SURPRISE - on Jay's website: http://www.clavius.org/techlltv.html )

10075794.jpg

NASA S71-23843

"Astronaut John W. Young, Apollo 16 prime crew commander (right), takes a drive in the One-G Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV) trainer in the Lunar Topgraphic Simulation area at the Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC). He is accompanied by John Omstead, with General Electric, MSC."

"MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER BUILT A SIMULATOR FOR THE LUNAR ROVER VEHICLE"

If you had made yourself clearer when asked, these things would have been shown to you.

Edited by Evan Burton
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, the first portion of the quote was not made by Jay; it was made by postbaguk:

BertLs: The one thing that frustrates me most that I've asked the question "How did NASA fake the lunar gravity?" about 10 times now, and I still haven't gotten any answer apart from "they calibrated it". Wow, really? He really thinks they changed it in order to make it look like lunar gravity? Wow, that's new.

postbaguk: Straydog says they used 1/6th g simulation chambers - I can't get him to explain exaclty what he means by this.

Jay Utah: My work would be considerably easier if I could simply wish into existence some mechanism that miraculously possessed exactly the properties needed to satisfy some proposition. Since no one has yet managed such a feat, we have to resort to crude application of known physical law. It is incumbent upon those who say an unlikely item exists to explain the physical law by which it was brought into existence, then to give evidence of its actual creation.

Now we can see that the statement was made in the context of simulating the lunar gravity during the films, etc. The examples you have quoted are used for training, and could not be used in any so-called "hoax".

Link to post
Share on other sites
Apollo defender Jay Windley ( also known as Jay Utah ) , owner of the clavius moon base web site , posted this on the Apollohoax forum recently ... I understand that his mission in life is to try to refute the Apollo hoax evidence by any means necessary , and his favorite game to play with his followers is ' let's all bash the moon hoax believers ' ... but I didn't know that he would post such misinformed nonsense as this , just to try to make me look bad.

Here's Windley's post .

"Straydog says they used 1/6th g simulation chambers - I can't get him to explain exaclty what he means by this.

My work would be considerably easier if I could simply wish into existence some mechanism that miraculously possessed exactly the properties needed to satisfy some proposition. Since no one has yet managed such a feat, we have to resort to crude application of known physical law. It is incumbent upon those who say an unlikely item exists to explain the physical law by which it was brought into existence, then to give evidence of its actual creation. "

And here is the Apollo information he either didn't know about , or was deliberately hiding from his fan club .

"[275] Computers in the Apollo Mission Simulators

No less than 15 simulators trained crews during the Apollo Program. Three were the primary Command Module Simulators, with one at Houston and a pair at the Cape. Two were the primary Lunar Module Simulators, one at each site. At Houston, a Command Module Procedures Simulator trained crews just to rendezvous with the command module, as there was a Lunar Module Procedures Simulator for lunar module rendezvous and landing training. Gemini's Dynamic Crew Procedures Simulator became the same for Apollo. Additional moving-base simulators at the Manned Spacecraft Center were for lunar module formation flying and docking, and a centrifuge (to avoid trips to Johnsville). Langley Space Flight Center pioneered the research into the final 200 feet of lunar landing by suspending five sixths of a simulator's weight to give astronauts practice in controlling the lander in the gravity of the moon12. Another lunar landing simulator used a jet engine to support five sixths of its weight and permit free-flight landing training. That simulator required a simulator of its own to keep the crews from crashing it. FINALLY, A PAIR OF PARTIAL-GRAVITY SIMULATORS GAVE THE ASTRONAUTS THE CHANCE TO WALK IN SPACE SUITS WHILE HAVING FIVE-SIXTHS OF THEIR WEIGHT SUPPORTED . Later in the program, MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER BUILT A SIMULATOR FOR THE LUNAR ROVER VEHICLE. "

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/computers/Ch9-2.html

Why not post this at Apollohoax, where the actual discussion is taking place? Given your grasp of the material I'm sure you could hold your own.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point, Craig.

Why don't you do that, Duane?

Also, here is the LLRV:

ECN-1582.jpg

It used a jet engine pointed downwards to take 5/6th of the vehicle's weight. Rate of descent / ascent was obtained by throttling up or down from this '5/6th' point. Pitch and roll were controlled by small reaction jets at the extremities of the vehicle.

Edited by Evan Burton
Added LLRV image
Link to post
Share on other sites
Apollo defender Jay Windley ( also known as Jay Utah ) , owner of the clavius moon base web site , posted this on the Apollohoax forum recently ... I understand that his mission in life is to try to refute the Apollo hoax evidence by any means necessary , and his favorite game to play with his followers is ' let's all bash the moon hoax believers ' ... but I didn't know that he would post such misinformed nonsense as this , just to try to make me look bad.

Here's Windley's post .

"Straydog says they used 1/6th g simulation chambers - I can't get him to explain exaclty what he means by this.

My work would be considerably easier if I could simply wish into existence some mechanism that miraculously possessed exactly the properties needed to satisfy some proposition. Since no one has yet managed such a feat, we have to resort to crude application of known physical law. It is incumbent upon those who say an unlikely item exists to explain the physical law by which it was brought into existence, then to give evidence of its actual creation. "

And here is the Apollo information he either didn't know about , or was deliberately hiding from his fan club .

"[275] Computers in the Apollo Mission Simulators

No less than 15 simulators trained crews during the Apollo Program. Three were the primary Command Module Simulators, with one at Houston and a pair at the Cape. Two were the primary Lunar Module Simulators, one at each site. At Houston, a Command Module Procedures Simulator trained crews just to rendezvous with the command module, as there was a Lunar Module Procedures Simulator for lunar module rendezvous and landing training. Gemini's Dynamic Crew Procedures Simulator became the same for Apollo. Additional moving-base simulators at the Manned Spacecraft Center were for lunar module formation flying and docking, and a centrifuge (to avoid trips to Johnsville). Langley Space Flight Center pioneered the research into the final 200 feet of lunar landing by suspending five sixths of a simulator's weight to give astronauts practice in controlling the lander in the gravity of the moon12. Another lunar landing simulator used a jet engine to support five sixths of its weight and permit free-flight landing training. That simulator required a simulator of its own to keep the crews from crashing it. FINALLY, A PAIR OF PARTIAL-GRAVITY SIMULATORS GAVE THE ASTRONAUTS THE CHANCE TO WALK IN SPACE SUITS WHILE HAVING FIVE-SIXTHS OF THEIR WEIGHT SUPPORTED . Later in the program, MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER BUILT A SIMULATOR FOR THE LUNAR ROVER VEHICLE. "

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/computers/Ch9-2.html

For the sake of accuracy, it was indeed postbaguk (i.e. me) who asked Duane what he meant by "1/6 g simulation chambers".

Duane, can you explain to me exactly what you do mean by "1/6 g simulation chambers", because I still don't know what you mean by this. I've never heard of such a thing.

If you mean the partial-gravity simulators, do you really believe they used them to fake hours and hours of Apollo moon footage? How does this explain the lunar dust, and thrown or dropped objects? Very poorly IMO, but I trust you will enlighten us all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave ... I can't believe that you are still pretending not to know what a 1/6g simulator is , or what nasa used them for .

The EVA's could have been filmed in nasa's big vacuum chamber with the use of fly systems , or possibly in 1/6g simulators as well ... From the information I have found so far , it looks as though the LM and CSM footage was faked in the simulators ... Remember Gene Krantz saying that the sims were so realistic looking that mission control couldn't discern the difference between a real landing from a simulated one ? .. Check out this nasa article about the LM simulator .

LM Simulator

1961 July

Langley simulated spacecraft flights in approaching the moon's surface

Langley Research Center simulated spacecraft flights at speeds of 8,200 to 8,700 feet per second in approaching the moon's surface. With instruments preset to miss the moon's surface by 40 to 80 miles, pilots with control of thrust and torques about all three axes of the craft learned to establish orbits 10 to 90 miles above the surface, using a graph of vehicle rate of descent and circumferential velocity, an altimeter, and vehicle attitude and rate meters, as reported by Manuel J. Queijo and Donald R. Riley of Langley.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1963 April 1

Grumman began Lunar Hover and Landing Simulation IIIA tests

Grumman began "Lunar Hover and Landing Simulation IIIA," a series of tests simulating a LEM landing. Crew station configuration and instrument panel layout were representative of the actual vehicle.

Through this simulation, Grumman sought primarily to evaluate the astronauts' ability to perform the landing maneuver manually, using semiautomatic as well as degraded attitude control modes. Other items evaluated included the flight control system parameters, the attitude and thrust controller configurations, the pressure suit's constraint during landing maneuvers, the handling qualities and operation of LEM test article 9 as a freeflight vehicle, and manual abort initiation during the terminal landing maneuver.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1963 May 6

Apollo LEM manual control simulated

Astronauts M. Scott Carpenter, Walter M. Schirra, Jr., Neil A. Armstrong, James A. McDivitt, Elliot M. See, Jr., Edward H. White II, Charles Conrad, Jr., and John W. Young participated in a study in LTV's Manned Space Flight Simulator at Dallas, Tex. Under an MSC contract, LTV was studying the astronauts' ability to control the LEM manually and to rendezvous with the CM if the primary guidance system failed during descent.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1963 June

Apollo LTV abort simulation negotiations with Grumman completed

Planning and final details of LTV abort simulation negotiations with Grumman were completed. The abort experiments, to be conducted at LTV's aerospace simulation facility in Dallas, Tex., were scheduled to begin in October.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1963 September 17

LTV presented the preliminary results of a manual rendezvous simulation study

LTV presented the preliminary results of a manual rendezvous simulation study. Their studies indicated that a pilot trained in the technique could accomplish lunar launch and rendezvous while using only two to three percent more fuel than the automatic system.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1964 January 24

Second phase of docking simulation studies ended

The second phase of docking simulation studies ended at North American- Columbus (Ohio). Tests included 170 runs simulating transposition and lunar orbital docking with stable and unstable targets, and two extendible probe concepts: cable and rigid boom.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1964 April 24

Apollo manual abort simulations

To train astronauts in various mission procedures, LTV had completed simulations of manual abort and, within a week, would be able to conduct simulated final maneuver phases of a rendezvous.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1965 July

Landing touchdown studies in the Apollo LEM landing simulator

Several astronauts participated in landing touchdown studies conducted in the LEM landing simulator to verify data collected in previous studies and to determine changes in controls and displays to improve the touchdown envelope. Studies involved landing runs from an altitude of 305 m (1,000 ft) with manual takeover at 213 m (700 ft), at which time the pilot could select a precise landing site.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1966 March 29

Use of Langley's Apollo Lunar Orbit and Landing Approach (LOLA) Simulator requested

MSC requested use of Langley Research Center's Lunar Orbit and Landing Approach (LOLA) Simulator in connection with two technical contracts in progress with Geonautics, Inc., Washington, D.C. One was for pilotage techniques for use in the descent and ascent phases of the LEM profile, while the other specified construction of a binocular viewing device for simplified pilotage monitoring. Langley concurred with the request and suggested that MSC personnel work with Manuel J. Queijo in setting up the program, in making working arrangements between the parties concerned, and in defining the trajectories of interest.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1966 September 21

Contract to Honeywell to provide digital computer systems for Apollo simulators

NASA awarded a $4.2-million contract to Honeywell, Inc., Computer Control Division, Framingham, Mass., to provide digital computer systems for Apollo command and lunar module simulators. Under the fixed-price contract, Honeywell would provide six separate computer complexes to support the Apollo simulators at MSC and Cape Kennedy. The complexes would be delivered, installed, and checked out by Honeywell by the end of March 1967.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1966 December 5

Apollo LM Simulator (LMS) 1 configuration issue

During reassembly of LM Simulator (LMS) 1 at Houston, MSC personnel discovered that the digital-to-analog conversion equipment was not the unit used during the preship tests at Binghamton, N.Y.; it was apparent the unit had never been checked out, because at least five power-buss bars were missing. The unit had not checked out in the preship tests, and at the simulator readiness review test on October 14 Grumman had been authorized to replace the defective digital-to-analog core memory after the unit arrived at Houston. MSC questioned whether the delivery requirement of LMS-1 had been met and asked Grumman to explain why the switch was made without MSC knowledge and what steps Grumman expected to take to correct the situation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1966 December 22

Third Apollo lunar module simulator cancelled

In a memo to Donald K. Slayton, MSC Deputy Director George M. Low indicated that he understood George E. Mueller had stated in executive session of the Management Council on December 21 that he had decided a third lunar module simulator would not be required. Low said, "This implies that either the launch schedule will be relieved or missions will be so identical that trainer change-over time will be substantially reduced."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1967 July 18

Display systems for the Apollo LM simulators

Visual display systems of complex optical devices were being used with the lunar module mission simulators. To help solve problems that some of these systems were creating, assistance was requested from J. E. Kupperian, E. S. Chin, and H. D. Vitagliano, all from Goddard Space Flight Center.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1967 Week Ending August 25

Apollo mission effects projector.

Grumman proposed a procurement for a study of the mission effects projector, to assist Grumman with an item that had been designed and built by Farrand but did not meet the established specifications. Grumman solicited assistance of qualified firms in the optomechanical field. Of 15 firms approached 7 were interested: Itek Corp., Kollmorgen Corp., Bausch & Lomb, Inc., Kollsman Instrument Corp., Biorad, General Precision Link Group, and Conductron. Technical proposals were received from Itek, Biorad, Link, and Conductron. Grumman considered the Itek proposal most technically acceptable and proposed a letter contract in which NASA concurred.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1969 March 14

Apollo Lunar Gravity Simulation device plans

MSC Director Robert R. Gilruth forwarded plans for the MSC Lunar Gravity Simulation device to Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips. He informed Phillips that "we have moved out on the design and fabrication of the inclined plane 1/6 g simulator and our schedule shows that it will be completed and ready for checkout by May 1, 1969 (see February 5). The vertical system approach is somewhat more sophisticated and our scheduled completion is February 1, 1970." Phillips replied March 28 that he was pleased to read that the simulator program was progressing so rapidly and "I feel very strongly that this device will greatly contribute to our capability to create useful lunar exploration missions."

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/lmslator.htm

I feel very strongly that this device will greatly contribute to our capability to create ( the illusion ) of useful lunar exploration missions. ... LOL

Link to post
Share on other sites

Duane,

We're starting to blur the line between simulators used to train for a lunar mission, and those that might have been used in the faking of a lunar mission.

The previous examples have all shown how NASA tried to simulate the conditions that would be experienced so as to better the training. Other examples are the C-135 training aircraft (the 'Vomit Comet') and the underwater training pool.

The footage shown could NOT have been faked using those systems.

I'll address your point about the vacuum chamber shortly; time to walk the dog!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dave ... I can't believe that you are still pretending not to know what a 1/6g simulator is , or what nasa used them for .

Duane, why should I second guess you as to what you think a "1/6th g simulation chamber" is? You'd only accuse me of putting words into your mouth, that's why I want to hear what YOU think they are. I've never heard of such a thing. I've heard of vacuum chambers. I know about some of the techniques used in training to simulate various aspects of the mission from a training perspective (for example to the horizontal wire-suspension assembly, and the LLTV, which simulated 1/6th g for entirely different purposes).

This might be just a matter of semantics: your previous claim was that NASA had "1/6g simulation chambers" - are you now withdrawing that claim, and saying it was just the various techniques they used for simulating 1.6th g in training? I'm asking you to be specific because I really don't know what youre getting at. My guess would be that you are claiming they filmed the footage in a vacuum chamber, with the astronauts on a wire harness: is this correct?

The EVA's could have been filmed in nasa's big vacuum chamber with the use of fly systems , or possibly in 1/6g simulators as well ... From the information I have found so far , it looks as though the LM and CSM footage was faked in the simulators ... Remember Gene Krantz saying that the sims were so realistic looking that mission control couldn't discern the difference between a real landing from a simulated one ? .. Check out this nasa article about the LM simulator .

OK, you're saying here that a vacuum chamber with fly system is different to a 1/6g simulator, so I'm stumped as to what you mean by that. Can you please be more specific, rather than just linking to a website that has details of how they trained?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said Dave.

Duane - what exactly do you mean by a "1/6 g simulation chamber"?

A large vacuum chamber that could also simulate the reduced gravity of the Moon?

A chamber, at Earth normal pressure, that would be able to simulate the reduced gravity of the Moon?

What exactly do you mean by a "1/6 g simulation chamber"?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, onto your post about the LM simulator.

Do you have any understanding of how it worked? What it simulated? I do, but I am not going to say - as yet. I want you to quote what it simulated. The material is easily available through a quick Google search. That should be no problem for you.

Although not strictly relevant, I'd like to ask what experience you have with simulators yourself. Do you have MS FlightSim loaded? How about Eagle lander? Orbiter?

My experience is:

- training with HS748 navigation station simulators (SNT - Synthetic Navigation Trainer, RAAF East Sale), quite old. Rotating magnetic drum memories, analogue displays, but they worked.

- training with fully digital Air Traffic Control sims for both tower and approach, as well as GCA.

- training with Sea King Rear Crew Compartment Simulator (RCCS). Simulates radar displays, navigation data, submarine contact data, etc.

- limited exposure to S70B2 Seahawk simulator; full motion, full graphics, now NVG compatible.

- countless hours on Flight Sim 98, and 2003 in support of my private pilot licence.

When talking about simulators, I do have some understanding about what they can and cannot do. I am happy to expand on this.

You have made a post about the LM simulator - what could it do? What could it not do? Care to list your experience with regard to simulators if a point you raise cannot be backed up by evidence and is simply a personal opinion?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Evan ... Your credentuals are very impressive I'm sure , but what do they have to do with the fact that Apollo was a hoax ? ... Besides making it more evident why you are on nasa's side , that is .

I have been looking through the nasa web sites on the various types of 1/6 gravity simulators that they had in use during the Apollo training and missions , but unfortunately after downloading many of these web sites , they won't open ... I guess I don't have the proper program installed on my PC to view them .

The botton line is this ... I have no idea if nasa used their 1/6g simulators to fake any of their Apollo videos in or not ... If they did use them for this purpose , the information would of course be top secret and not sitting around anywhere on the internet .

But they DO EXIST ... I have seen the evidence of that on many nasa web sites .. and that was the point of this topic ... to show that Jay Windley , one of the top defenders of the Apollo lost cause , was not telling the truth on the Apollohoax forum , when he made the claim that I had invented them ... I didn't "wish them into existence " ...They do exist , and it is quite possible that some of them, that no one knows about , could have been used to film some of the faked Apollo footage .

Edited by Duane Daman
Link to post
Share on other sites
Evan ... Your credentuals are very impressive I'm sure , but what do they have to do with the fact that Apollo was a hoax ? ... Besides making it more evident why you are on nasa's side , that is .

I have been looking through the nasa web sites on the various types of 1/6 gravity simulators that they had in use during the Apollo training and missions , but unfortunately after downloading many of these web sites , they won't open ... I guess I don't have the proper program installed on my PC to view them .

The botton line is this ... I have no idea if nasa used their 1/6g simulators to fake any of their Apollo videos in or not ... If they did use them for this purpose , the information would of course be top secret and not sitting around anywhere on the internet .

But they DO EXIST ... I have seen the evidence of that on many nasa web sites .. and that was the point of this topic ... to show that Jay Windley , one of the top defenders of the Apollo lost cause , was not telling the truth on the Apollohoax forum , when he made the claim that I had invented them ... I didn't "wish them into existence " ...They do exist , and it is quite possible that some of them, that no one knows about , could have been used to film some of the faked Apollo footage .

Duane, what exactly IS a "1/6th g simulation chamber"? I have no idea what you mean by this, and it seems noone else does either. Many people are aware of different types of training simulators used by NASA, if you mean one of these can you be more specific? You've already implied that it's different to a vacuum chamber with a cable-harness system, so what exactly is it? That's what the problem is here, noone seems to know what you're describing. Hence it's a bit previous to accuse someone of lying about them when they don't know what you're talking about.

How about the URLs to the websites you can't open, someone else may be able to?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have been looking through the nasa web sites on the various types of 1/6 gravity simulators that they had in use during the Apollo training and missions , but unfortunately after downloading many of these web sites , they won't open ... I guess I don't have the proper program installed on my PC to view them .

or perhaps you are incompetent at opening them? or do you mean to imply that you are being prevented from opening them?

Post the URL of the NASA sites, and I'll both post a link to the website which won't open, as well as reposting it verbatim.

The botton line is this ... I have no idea if nasa used their 1/6g simulators to fake any of their Apollo videos in or not ... If they did use them for this purpose , the information would of course be top secret and not sitting around anywhere on the internet .

But they DO EXIST ... I have seen the evidence of that on many nasa web sites .. and that was the point of this topic ... to show that Jay Windley , one of the top defenders of the Apollo lost cause , was not telling the truth on the Apollohoax forum , when he made the claim that I had invented them ... I didn't "wish them into existence " ...They do exist , and it is quite possible that some of them, that no one knows about , could have been used to film some of the faked Apollo footage .

I'll let jay speak for himself on this one:

It appears he was confused by my quotation style. Paragraphs in boldface are quotations from some previous post, not original statements. I prefer that appearance in general to the heavyweight indented box. Although someone else said, "I don't know what he [straydog] means by that," I suppose the sentiment is true enough for me as well. I don't know what he means either, but as a point of fact I did not make the statement he attributes to me.

My original statements that followed spoke mostly to the abstract notion of reality versus fantasy. Many conspiracy theories are based on conjecture of what might be instead of proof of what is. And often that conjecture seems reasonable, but merely begs the question. As conjecture only, with no proof that it actually existed, an "anti-gravity chamber" postulated to exhibit exactly the properties necessary to fake lunar surface motion pictures remains far less convincing than actual spacecraft with observable properties and pedigrees.

Sadly all Straydog has done is to attempt the old straw-man feint from high-school debate: use an ambiguous proposition to bait your opponent into committing to a line of reasoning in his rebuttal, whereupon you take a different line in your rejoinder and try to score rhetorical points for your opponent's suddenly-revealed irrelevance. Unfortunately Straydog seems to be too busy trying to spring the trap to notice that his feint was appropriately countered: the rebuttal was, logically enough, "What do you mean by that?"

Again, the notion that I'm "withholding" information about this point is simply ludicrous. First, the readers here generally don't need me to feed them information about Apollo. Although it seems the vogue now in conspiracy circles to consider this a debate between charismatic champions, with others being inert lookers-on only, the fact remains that I simply cannot hide information from the regulars here and at BAUT. They do the research on their own. They already know about the various training aids without me having to say anything about it.

Second, to complain about the prior absence of arguments that are only now made lately pertinent by Straydog's revision is the essence of the cheap rhetorical trick described above. I'm not "withholding" anything -- I'm simply waiting until there's something more substantial to talk about than a vague reference to "anti-gravity chambers." Now that it has been more clearly explained what "anti-gravity chamber" might refer to, the discussion can proceed.

The astronauts were of course to be subjected to a variety of physical gravity and gravity-like loads, from the microgravity during the translunar coast to the extreme loads of powered ascent and re-entry. A successful mission required hability in those various conditions. Centrifuges were used to subject the astronauts to higher-than-normal loads to verify they could operate the spacecraft controls under those conditions. A variety of techniques were used to simulate the effects of lesser or essentially non-existent gravity.

For microgravity simulation immersion tanks were used. Emergency egress and transfer manuevers were rehearsed there as well as the SIM bay recovery and service operations the CMP would have to perform on the way home. Immersion doesn't work well for lunar surface (i.e., 1/6 G) locomotion training because of the viscosity of the fluid medium. So while immersion training tanks might qualify as "anti-gravity chambers," they are not relevant to lunar surface motion pictures.

To train for lunar surface locomotion, first various methods of suspension were employed that removed 5/6 of the astronauts' weight. One method used a straightforward rig attached at the astronaut's center of gravity and attached by cables to a tensioner. As the astronaut bounced along, the tensioner maintained a tension on the cable equivalent to five-sixths his static weight.

Another method suspended the astronaut sideways pendulum-fashion so that he swung against an inclined platform. At the point in the arc at which the trainee "stood" on the platform, the force involved in standing was approximately 5/6 his Earth weight.

Finally, the KC-135 aircraft nicknamed "Vomit Comet" was used, flying shallower parabolas. There is a company now operating out of Las Vegas that will fly you on a Mars-simulating parabola, a Moon-simulating parabola, and several free-fall parabolas in their modified Boeing 727. For the low price of $3,000 you can demonstrate to yourself the effect thus produced.

The astronauts said the KC-135 flights were the best simulation of lunar gravity. The vertical suspension trials were next best, and the pendulum method was least helpful.

Of course I have discussed wire suspension methods at length here, since my theater work employs it. To say I have somehow "withheld" this information from my "fan club" is quite literally to ignore the discussion. I highly doubt Straydog has read enough of my writings here, at BAUT, and on Clavius to draw defensible conclusions for what I have and have not discussed.

But let's stay on the ball. The question of simulating the effect of lunar gravity is substantially different from the question of simulating its appearance for the camera. The suspension methods surveyed here largely try to provide the feel of different gravity from the astronaut's perspective. They do so at the expense of considerable visible apparatus. Those methods do not provide the appearance of lunar gravity.

Of course different wire suspension methods have existed for years in the entertainment industry to simulate the appearance of diminished gravity. As I've mentioned elsewhere, the 1968 film Chitty Chitty Bang Bang featured Dick Van d**e [ain't censorship fun?] as a full-sized jack-in-the-box whose antics were supported by nearly invisible carbon-coated wires. Any sufficiently advanced stage has provisions for wire flight either built into it or to be fitted. And any reasonably proficient stage engineer is well aware of how to operate them.

The NASA training rigs are crude and clumsy by comparison. They were built by engineers who cared little for appearances. So why are those rigs being put forward as items that require explanation? There's no dispute that wire-suspension technology exists as a matter of common stagecraft, so why the obsession over the well-documented training methods? They were built for locomotion training and worked well enough for that. Where's the evidence that those same rigs would have created the appearance of diminished gravity from an observer's perspective?

In general, suspension arguments don't work to explain the Apollo motion pictures. First, they don't account for all observable gravity effects. Dick Van Dyke's wires didn't alter the appearance of every object in the scene, just his. In Apollo footage, all objects behave consistently with diminished gravity. So the suspension argument is at best incomplete. Second, they don't account for the known deficiencies of theatrical suspension methods in terms of restrictions on astronauts' movements. When fastened into theatrical wire-flying rigs, one cannot move freely without risking fouling the wires, especially when more than one character is flown. Having over the years fastened a number of Peters, Wendys, Michaels, and Johns as well as a veritable squadron of fairies, flying monkeys, and fairy godmothers into flyrigs of every sort, including some on whose design I participated, I can offer my opinion that Apollo astronauts do not behave in motion pictures in a manner consistent with theatrical flying.

And of course, none of these suspension techniques really qualifies as a "chamber."

So that leaves the Vomit Comet. Bereft of wires and subject to actual physical means to reduce the force of gravity, the appearance of diminished gravity can be achieved convincingly. But, of course, only for a few seconds and within the claustrophic confines of the airplane cabin -- arguably a "chamber." Hours of continuous footage showing vast expanses of terrain cannot be simulated in that way.

For completeness we should revisit the immersion tanks again. Adjusting an astronaut's weight will let him bounce along the bottom of the tank, but as any diver will tell you raising a cloud of dust in that environment is most un-Moonlike. Rather than fall immediately to the surface, it tends to hang around in the water for a long time. That's a "chamber," but it fails utterly to supply the properties needed to fake lunar surface motion pictures.

http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...1220&page=3

Link to post
Share on other sites

Evan .... Thanks for posting one of Windley's typicaly long winded speeches here ... You saved me the trouble of looking at all of the other nonsense posted on the Apollohoax forum .. He sure knows how to hold court over his fans , doesn't he ?

This was my favorite part ...

"In general, suspension arguments don't work to explain the Apollo motion pictures. First, they don't account for all observable gravity effects. Dick Van Dyke's wires didn't alter the appearance of every object in the scene, just his. In Apollo footage, all objects behave consistently with diminished gravity. So the suspension argument is at best incomplete. Second, they don't account for the known deficiencies of theatrical suspension methods in terms of restrictions on astronauts' movements. When fastened into theatrical wire-flying rigs, one cannot move freely without risking fouling the wires, especially when more than one character is flown. Having over the years fastened a number of Peters, Wendys, Michaels, and Johns as well as a veritable squadron of fairies, flying monkeys, and fairy godmothers into flyrigs of every sort, including some on whose design I participated, I can offer my opinion that Apollo astronauts do not behave in motion pictures in a manner consistent with theatrical flying. "

Here is my reply which proves him wrong .

Apollo Program - The Truth

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BwUi35lTAM

And here is the proof that nasa used simulators , set up to imitate the lunar surface , in which to train their Apollo astro-NOTS ... Sure sounds like there was plenty of room to fake some of the video footage in as well .

Human-gravity simulator used to mimic walking on the moon ... This essential facility allowed NASA to train Apollo astronauts to fly in a simulated lunar ...

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/f.../Landmarks.html

Lunar Landing Research Facility

This essential facility allowed NASA to train Apollo astronauts to fly in a simulated lunar environment. Neil Armstrong, Edwin Aldrin and 22 other astronauts used the facility to practice piloting problems they would encounter in the last 150 feet of descent to the surface of the moon. It was built in 1965 and was basically an A-frame structure with a gantry used to manipulate a full-scale Lunar Excursion Module Simulator (LEMS).

The astronauts were also able to practice walking on a simulated lunar surface, as the base of the Lunar Landing Research Facility was modeled with fill material to imitate the moon's surface. Suspended by slings and cables on their sides, the men experienced what it would be like to walk on the moon where gravity is only 1/6 of that on Earth.

Today this facility is used for aircraft impact dynamics studies. The lunar landscape has been replaced by an impact runway that can be modified to simulate different crash environments. The LEMS has also been refurbished, and the names of many of the astronauts who trained at the Lunar Landing Research Facility are listed on its exterior. Today, the LEMS is on exhibit at the Virginia Air and Space Center in Hampton.

Lunar Landing Research Facility Facts and Figures

Operational: 1965

Initial Cost: $3.5 million

Structure: 400' x 230' A-frame steel structure

Status: Currently used to test structural design of aircraft to resist impact during crashes. The Lunar Excursion Module Simulator was used for training in conjunction with the Lunar Landing Research Facility.

Weight: 12,000 pounds

Cab Size: Could accommodate two astronauts with a common instrument panel mounted between them

Status: Inactive. Refurbished and on display at the Virginia Air and Space Center in Hampton

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/f.../Landmarks.html

As for the web sites I couldn't open ... If you google in " 1/6 gravity simulators used by nasa for Apollo " ... a long list of them should come up .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...