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

[Duane Daman]

bump

[Duane Daman]

Sorry for the double bump , but my post would not move forward and I kept getting knocked off the site .

Edited July 30, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Duane Daman]

*edited to obey the forum rules .

Edited July 31, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Duane Daman]

*edited to obey the forum rules .

The dishonest trash posted on the Apollo Hoax forum wasn't worth repeating anyway .

Edited July 31, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Duane Daman]

bump again .

[Evan Burton]

If you have issues with what people on other forums say about you then take it up with them on that forum.

This forum is not intended to be a place from where you can throw stones at other people, or where other people can throw stones at you.

We can tolerate some crosstalk, but when it gets to the "Mr A said on Forum 1" and "Mr B said on Forum 2" stage on a regular basis, we have to deal with the issues raised on the forums on which they were raised.

I have been guilty of as much crosstalk as anyone else, so I'll say it again: deal with the issues raised on other forums ON the other forums. Reasonable crosstalk will be permitted - and yes, the Mods here will determine what is reasonable for themselves.

[Dave Greer]

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

It was your initial description of a "1/6th g simulation chamber" that were used to fake Apollo TV footage that has been called into question, not the fact that there were training devices used to simulate 1/6th g. Given Jay Windley's knowledge of Apollo, I'm sure he is more than aware of the training simulators used.

You've implied that a "1/6th g simulation chamber" is different to a vacuum chamber with a wire-rig, but you haven't stated what it actually is. This goes to the heart of what this thread is about: I originally posted that it was your assertion (on Youtube) that these were used to film the TV footage of Apollo, but I couldn't get you to say what they actually were. Here we are weeks later, and I still can't get you to say what they are. My guess is that is why Jay Windley is saying you wished them into existence, since you won't even describe what they are, never mind provide any evidence to back the claim up.

I'll ask again: since it's not a vacuum chamber with a wire-rig assembly, what exactly is a "1/6th g simulation chamber"?

Thanks.

[Dave Greer]

Still trying to find out exactly what Duane means by a "1/6th g simulation chamber", and how it could have been used to fake live Apollo TV footage.

NASA does have a zero-g research facility at the Glenn Research centre, but I'm pretty sure that's not what Duane meant.

http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/ground/zero.htm

Duane, you've hinted at what this device is by referring to some training devices used to simulate 1/6th g. Can you be more specific please and explain exactly what you understand a "1/6th g simulation chamber" to be?

Thanks.

[Duane Daman]

This is what I meant .

"In an attempt to simulate lunar surface conditions, Max Faget's group set up a model of the lander in a thermovacuum chamber in Houston. The chamber was not big enough for the pilots to move a hundred meters away from their craft as they planned to do on the moon, but the engineers did provide the desired lighting - a 15-degree sun angle - and the proper temperature range. The crew crawled out of the lander, pulled a package from the MESA (modular equipment stowage assembly) section in the descent stage, and deployed the experiments. During one of these sessions, Armstrong had to report: "Mission Control this is Apollo 11, we can't get the hatch open."27

While the chamber tests were going on, two dozen engineers, mostly from Faget's directorate, held monthly meetings on the status of the extravehicular mobility unit. James Chamberlin, one of the nation's top space vehicle and equipment designers, led the group, which operated much as Rose's flight operations planning team did. The Design Review Board studied the system, piece by piece, and then assigned Crew Systems Division specialists to work on specific problems and submit their resolutions for board approval. For example, Thomas Mattingly, the astronaut representative on the board, reported that the reflective gold coating on the helmet visors peeled after several cleanings with solvent, allowing light to leak through.

Another area under study was how well the crew could grasp lunar samples with gloved hands. During a chamber run, the systems people coated one of Armstrong's gloves with silicone and left the other uncoated. Armstrong reported that the treated glove worked better, and the board approved the change, which upset the scientists. Hess complained that the silicone would contaminate the lunar samples and pointed out that his group would have enough trouble with contamination by the fumes from the descent engine exhaust and the attitude thruster fuel. "Can't we get rid of [the silicone]?" Reminding Hess that time was too short to look for a substitute, Low refused. Crew Systems Chief Robert E. Smylie added that silicone was basically inorganic and that the tips of the glove fingers and the lunar boots were already made of that substance, so coating the gloves should not make much difference.28

Chamberlin's board also investigated suit fit and mobility. In chamber sessions on 27 March and 7 April, Armstrong complained that his sleeves were too tight and asked that some of the bulky material be removed from inside the elbow. When he bent his arms, he said, some of his capillary blood vessels ruptured. Aldrin, too, wanted adjustments, such as shorter suit arms. There was some discussion about how hard it would be to walk on the lunar surface wearing the big 85-kilogram pack on their backs - even though the moon had only one-sixth the earth's gravity. Using Don Lind as a test subject, Crew Systems discovered that there would be a small shift in the center of mass. The crewmen could compensate for this by leaning slightly forward. If they bent over too far, however, they might overbalance and fall.29"

In February 1969, NASA officials decided to construct a one-sixth gravity simulator in the centrifuge building to get a closer look at lunar locomotion. A pathway, with a simulated lunar surface, around the periphery of the 46-meter-diameter rotunda would provide a walkway of unlimited length. Dressed in full regalia and with umbilical lines attached to the instruments inside the centrifuge checking biological and metabolic data, an astronaut, suspended by a harness that would bear all but one-sixth of his weight, could practice for walking and working on the lunar surface. Since the simulator was completed too late in their training to be of much use to the Armstrong crewmen and since they did not plan to venture as far away from the lander as later crews, Armstrong and Aldrin would check out and evaluate the facility after their flight rather than before. Physicians were getting some of the desired data during underwater training (where locomotion was similar to that experienced in space) and in KC-135 aircraft Keplerian trajectories (which duplicated weightlessness for a few seconds at the top of the flight arc).31

During February, Mueller asked Gilruth to hold a lunar surface demonstration similar to the one given in August 1968. Gilruth arranged the exhibition for the latter part of April 1969, and Phillips' Certification Review Board would study the exercise to check on the status of that part of the mission. An extravehicular activity committee set up by Gilruth under his special assistant, Richard S. Johnston, had already conducted many reviews of the plans, procedures, and equipment. Mueller was pleased with the session, telling Paine that the simulation was smooth and the crew was "ready for the first lunar landing." Phillips was disturbed when the demonstrators used a rope pulley to haul equipment and samples up and down from the cabin to the surface and back. He suggested that the astronauts carry the materials in one hand. Low explained that the first rung on the ladder was 65 centimeters from the surface, and the crewmen could lift their legs only 30 centimeters with any ease. The astronauts would have to hop or pull themselves up, using both hands, which they had done successfully in water and on KC-135 aircraft. By the end of June, the final version of the lunar surface operations plan was completed.32

Armstrong and Aldrin also trained at other places, especially at Langley Research Center, where they worked on the suspended lunar landing trainer equipped with realistic surface views and lighting. On 12 June, NASA senior management agreed that the crew was ready for a 16 July launch. Less than a month later, on 7 July, Mueller told Paine that "if Apollo 11 continues to progress on plan, the first men will set foot on the moon two weeks from today."

http://solarviews.net/history/SP-4205/ch13-3.html#source29

But in hindsight , I'm not sure if these simulation facilities would have worked all that well for faking the Apollo photography ... I believe it was for the most part probably filmed and photographed on 360 degree lunar sound stages , complete with fly harnesses and special slow motion effects .

[Evan Burton]

So now we are back to wires and slo-mo?

Let's summarise:

- They could simulate the vacuum

- They could simulate the temperature

- They could simulate the 1/6th G

- They could simulate a lunar landscape

- They could NOT simulate all the conditions at the one time. The low-G setups were via brief periods inside a C-135, or used cumbersome wire rigs (in both the vertical and horizontal positions). The vacuum and temperature could be simulated, but in a 1G environment. The vacuum chambers did not allow for a large lunar landscape, being only about 100 feet in diameter.

So you can't all the observed conditions in the one "simulator". Thus we go back to "wires & slo-mo" - but how does that explain the behaviour of the lunar soil, etc, behaving as it would be expected under 1/6G?

That takes us back to the beginning again, and I'm sure we'll go back to familiar, well-visited claims again as we circle around....

[Dave Greer]

This is what I meant .

<Snip>

http://solarviews.net/history/SP-4205/ch13-3.html#source29

But in hindsight , I'm not sure if these simulation facilities would have worked all that well for faking the Apollo photography ... I believe it was for the most part probably filmed and photographed on 360 degree lunar sound stages , complete with fly harnesses and special slow motion effects .

Thanks for clearing up what you meant. Fair enough, you don't think it could have been used to fake the Apollo TV footage (neither do I - don't sound so surprised!)

Personally I don't see how they could have faked the TV footage the way they did with 1960's and early 70's TV technology. Too many instances of "unnatural movement" of astronauts arms etc when the footage is sped up. Just doesn't look right to me.

Evan was right though, we have gone round in a rather large circle with this one (gravity simulation chambers). Subject over as you don't believe they were used to fake footage I suppose?

[Duane Daman]

So now we are back to wires and slo-mo?

Let's summarise:

- They could simulate the vacuum

- They could simulate the temperature

- They could simulate the 1/6th G

- They could simulate a lunar landscape

- They could NOT simulate all the conditions at the one time. The low-G setups were via brief periods inside a C-135, or used cumbersome wire rigs (in both the vertical and horizontal positions). The vacuum and temperature could be simulated, but in a 1G environment. The vacuum chambers did not allow for a large lunar landscape, being only about 100 feet in diameter.

So you can't all the observed conditions in the one "simulator". Thus we go back to "wires & slo-mo" - but how does that explain the behaviour of the lunar soil, etc, behaving as it would be expected under 1/6G?

That takes us back to the beginning again, and I'm sure we'll go back to familiar, well-visited claims again as we circle around....

Speaking of wires and special effects photography , here's a little bit of both , that were used on the Apollo 16 and 17 moonsets .

They got the 1/6 g effects down very well for the astro-NOTS on the wires , but what do you think happened with those plastic bags that fell out of their pockets at 1 g speed ? ... I guess that part wasn't in the script ?

Moon Hoax - One Six G.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcEb4zBnY1I

BTW, volcanic ash at a high altitude doesn't kick up like regular dust ... In fact it behaves just like moon dust would ... but why do you say the dust in the faked Apollo films look like it's falling in 1/6 g , when it falls at the same rate of speed that the dropped bags do ?

Edited August 9, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Evan Burton]

I'll take a look at the video shortly, but for those with bandwidth restrictions could you explain your argument? For example you might link to a video and say:

"The link shows a segment of the Apollo 20 mission on EVA 4 between GET 165 hrs 10 min and 165 hrs 20 min. In it, you can see astronauts Dick Gordon and Ron Evans jumping into the LRV. As the camera pans by Gordon, you can see a large white rabbit walk out of the crater to his right. The rabbit is carrying a walkman CD player. Since there are no rabbits on the Moon, and CD walkmans had not yet been invented, the video must be faked."

[Dave Greer]

Speaking of wires and special effects photography , here's a little bit of both , that were used on the Apollo 16 and 17 moonsets .

They got the 1/6 g effects down very well for the astro-NOTS on the wires , but what do you think happened with those plastic bags that fell out of their pockets at 1 g speed ? ... I guess that part wasn't in the script ?

Moon Hoax - One Six G.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcEb4zBnY1I

BTW, volcanic ash at a high altitude doesn't kick up like regular dust ... In fact it behaves just like moon dust would ... but why do you say the dust in the faked Apollo films look like it's falling in 1/6 g , when it falls at the same rate of speed that the dropped bags do ?

Unfortunately, the author of the video (greenmagoos) hasn't done any actual analysis of the video. He's just put up various undocumented clips and made the assertion that the behaviour of objects in the clips is as you would expect in a 1g environment.

For this to be taken seriously, he needs to analyze some of the footage on a frame by frame basis, then apply one of the equations of motion to the vertical motion:-

s=ut+¹/₂at²

with estimates and errors for

s (distance fallen)

u (initial velocity)

t (time taken)

and solve the equation for a.

Or, he could assume that he knows what the value of a is (either g or g/6), solve the equation for t, and show that it does or does not fall within the expected range given uncertainty in measurement.

In either case he needs to state what the assumed value of u (initial velocity) is. In the hammer and feather experiment, it could be assumed that this is zero. I don't think it would be correct to make this assumption in all of the clips on this video. For example, in the first clip, the astronaut moves his hand down to try and catch the bag. If his hand touched it on the way down it may have increased the velocity of the bag. In the third clip, the PLSS is bouncing up and down slightly. The bag appears to fall as the PLSS is moving downwards, possibly giving an initial velocity which would need to be taken into account.

Then we need to look at the sources of the video, and ensure they are being played at the correct speed.

The video in question hasn't attempted to do this at all, it's just a collection of clips with the implied assumption that the motion we are seeing is wrong, with no attempt at all to prove this empirically. I suppose this could reinforce someone's belief that the video is faked, who isn't prepared to actually analyse any of the footage.

The best thing about the video is the music, which I admit did take me back a few years and had me singing along!

[Duane Daman]

I'll take a look at the video shortly, but for those with bandwidth restrictions could you explain your argument? For example you might link to a video and say:

"The link shows a segment of the Apollo 20 mission on EVA 4 between GET 165 hrs 10 min and 165 hrs 20 min. In it, you can see astronauts Dick Gordon and Ron Evans jumping into the LRV. As the camera pans by Gordon, you can see a large white rabbit walk out of the crater to his right. The rabbit is carrying a walkman CD player. Since there are no rabbits on the Moon, and CD walkmans had not yet been invented, the video must be faked."

Funny stuff Evan ! ... I love it when ridicule is done with humor ... It makes it so much more fun to read !