Why Are We Orbiting Earth Instead of Landing on the Moon Again?

[Entropy]

Are you telling me that the equipment the atronauts used, was equivalent to breathing, climbing over the top of K2 8,000 feet altitude? I would think that Nasa would have developed equipment to breathe normally on the surface of the Moon and take that into consideration for duration of stay.

Well you are in the vacuum of space. The difference in pressure is greater if you have air at ATP. Maybe the space suit can't handle that pressure?

 

[Rader]

Well you are in the vacuum of space. The difference in pressure is greater if you have air at ATP. Maybe the space suit can't handle that pressure?

In vacuum of space, there is no pressure, there is nothing to press. If there was a whole in a spacesuite it would empty it quickly. We breathe at 14.7 pounds a square inch at sea level. Although at 8,000 feet above sea level the pressure might be half that. I do not think it is reasonble to believe Nasa would design a spacesuite for astronauts to only fill to 7 pounds per square inch and as a result, make the astronauts work hard and breath at marathon heartbeat levels.

Up till now there is two reasons given. One by you that maybe the ambient air pressure we breath on Earth is set at a lower level in spacesuites and the other by Russ that its harder working on the Moon with one sixth gravity of Earth. Another reason is constrition of movement in spacesuites. None give a logical explanation where a hearbeat could go to 160 doing normal work in a spacesuite, maybe all three combined could with adrenal emotion adding to the factors.

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/Numbers/Math/Mathematical_Thinking/pressure_in_the_vicnity.htm

http://www.vibrationdata.com/space/suit.htm

http://braindex.com/products/technology_and_science/space_technology/spacesuit.htm

http://www.universetoday.com/html/special/spacesuit.html

This last link may solve the mystery to this problem. Modern suits are filled to 3.7 pounds per square inch.
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/isuit_991110.html

http://www.fi.edu/pieces/hiley/history.htm

 

[selfAdjoint]

In vacuum of space, there is no pressure, there is nothing to press. If there was a whole in a spacesuite it would empty it quickly. We breathe at 14.7 pounds a square inch at sea level. Although at 8,000 feet above sea level the pressure might be half that. I do not think it is reasonble to believe Nasa would design a spacesuite for astronauts to only fill to 7 pounds per square inch and as a result, make the astronauts work hard and breath at marathon heartbeat levels.

You misunderstood Entropy's post. The pressure difference, between the inside of the suit and the outside, is what is important. The outside pressure is 0 as you say. If the inside were 14.7 psi the suit would be very hard to design. The problem they had was that the suit wants to blow up rigidly, like a balloon. To keep the astronauts from being as rigid as gingerbread men, they put ingenious valves in the joints, and in order to make this work better, they lowered the pressure inside the suit. They did a lot of research beforehand, on mountain climbers, for example, to decide how low they could make it and still allow the astronauts to do somple work, like carrying a few pounds of rocks.

 

[Rader]

You misunderstood Entropy's post. The pressure difference, between the inside of the suit and the outside, is what is important. The outside pressure is 0 as you say. If the inside were 14.7 psi the suit would be very hard to design. The problem they had was that the suit wants to blow up rigidly, like a balloon. To keep the astronauts from being as rigid as gingerbread men, they put ingenious valves in the joints, and in order to make this work better, they lowered the pressure inside the suit. They did a lot of research beforehand, on mountain climbers, for example, to decide how low they could make it and still allow the astronauts to do somple work, like carrying a few pounds of rocks.

All what you say is very clear to me as I have investigated quite a bite, as you can see from the links to my previous post. Confirmed 3.7 psi is the pressure inside a suite and the reasons why. So that means the astronauts would be dead unless, the oxygen content in the air they were breathing was higher than normal. Were the astronauts breathing pure oxygen, if they were why would a heartbeat go to 160 while doing very little hard work?

Up on top of Everest, on a really nice day, it's nine inches which means that you are on oxygen most of the time. In fact, if you were to land there with a helicopter without oxygen, you would probably be dead within 10 or 15 minutes.
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/JaredGoldberger.shtml

 

[marcus]

All what you say is very clear to me as I have investigated quite a bite, as you can see from the links to my previous post. Confirmed 3.7 psi is the pressure inside a suite and the reasons why...

Up on top of Everest, on a really nice day, it's nine inches which means that you are on oxygen most of the time. In fact, if you were to land there with a helicopter without oxygen, you would probably be dead within 10 or 15 minutes.
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/JaredGoldberger.shtml

Hey guys I want to understand this better so help if you can.
Oxygen is 1/5 of air, so the partial pressureof oxygen in air we breath at sealevel is about 3 PSI

so it seems to me that if you breath pure O2 where ambient pressure is 3 PSI the chemistry should be about the same---as long as the CO2 is absorbed quickly and does not rise to a bad partial pressure.

So I wonder about what you say about astronauts only doing a little light work. part of the work they do is just moving around in stiff bulky awkward clothing, if you add that into the picture wouldn't it seem that they could do a normal amount of total work?

Or were they really enfeebled by low oxygen pressure?

 

[Rader]

Hey guys I want to understand this better so help if you can.
Oxygen is 1/5 of air, so the partial pressureof oxygen in air we breath at sealevel is about 3 PSI

so it seems to me that if you breath pure O2 where ambient pressure is 3 PSI the chemistry should be about the same---as long as the CO2 is absorbed quickly and does not rise to a bad partial pressure.

So I wonder about what you say about astronauts only doing a little light work. part of the work they do is just moving around in stiff bulky awkward clothing, if you add that into the picture wouldn't it seem that they could do a normal amount of total work?

Or were they really enfeebled by low oxygen pressure?

If 3.7 psi is in a spacesuite, it can not be pure oxygen, pure oxygen is lethal.
There has to be a mixture that is compatable for the astronauts at 3.7psi, temperature, mixture and pressure have to all be balanced, to keep them alive. The question is can the mix cause astronauts working in rather easy condition, make there hearbeat reach 160? We need a doctors opinion, who specializes in chemistry and biology.

For instance divers have a special mix of helium oxygen at great depths. Each atmosphere that you go down the volume is cut in half, so they must make a mix that fill the lungs but not with to much oxygen that would kill the diver. I think the problem is similar to make an analogy.

 

[selfAdjoint]

If 3.7 psi is in a spacesuite, it can not be pure oxygen, pure oxygen is lethal.
There has to be a mixture that is compatable for the astronauts at 3.7psi, temperature, mixture and pressure have to all be balanced, to keep them alive. The question is can the mix cause astronauts working in rather easy condition, make there hearbeat reach 160? We need a doctors opinion, who specializes in chemistry and biology.

For instance divers have a special mix of helium oxygen at great depths. Each atmosphere that you go down the volume is cut in half, so they must make a mix that fill the lungs but not with to much oxygen that would kill the diver. I think the problem is similar to make an analogy.

Did you have this link to http://vesuvius.jsc.nasa.gov/er/seh/suitnasa.html ? It discusses several of these problems and states that the modern shuttle spacesuits feed pure oxygen to the astronauts.

 

[russ_watters]

Hey guys I want to understand this better so help if you can...

Sounds like you understand it just fine. Everything you had there was correct.

Or were they really enfeebled by low oxygen pressure?

No. I've looked into this a little more and apparently, it was just the bulk of the suit and doing a job with a poorly designed tool. For more, I started a thread at BadAstronomy.com on this: http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=15496

If 3.7 psi is in a spacesuite, it can not be pure oxygen, pure oxygen is lethal.

You even have the answer in your post. As a matter of fact, I took the scuba course last month and this is covered. Oxygen (pure or otherwise) is lethal at a certain pressure. Breathing 3psi pure oxygen and breathing 15psi air gives you exactly the same amount (partial pressure) of oxygen (like marcus said), so its no problem.

Why, my regulator gives me the same amount of oxigen at any depth I go. Yes the volumn intake is greater the deeper you go but your absorption through your lungs is proportional to how much work you do.

Your absorption through your lungs of any gas, oxygen included, depends on the partial pressure of that gas. That's why you get the bends: too much nitrogen dissolves in your blood. That's also why, if high enough pressure, oxygen can be toxic: too much oxygen dissolved in your blood. And that's also why with more oxygen, you can do more work: more oxygen dissolved in your blood and available to use for work.

That said, it appears the partial pressure of oxygen in a space suit is roughly equal to sea level, so this isn't an issue.

My implication is only stated facts from the documentary, nothing more.

At the very least, the implication is that something out of the ordinary (besides, of course, walking on the moon for the first time ) was going on. And this quote from earlier suggests you are of the opinion that something very out of the ordinary was going on.

The reason contains the mystery, why we went to the moon.

So do you or don't you have an opinion?

The documentary gave the explanation not me, I want to know if it is a hoax and you do not convince me yet.

Whatever the documentary claimed, it takes an awful lot more than an out of the ordinary heart rate to prove it and making a claim second-hand doesn't eliminate your burden of proof.

 

[neutroncount]

For instance divers have a special mix of helium oxygen at great depths. Each atmosphere that you go down the volume is cut in half, so they must make a mix that fill the lungs but not with to much oxygen that would kill the diver. I think the problem is similar to make an analogy.

Think about it. What is different about this situation? Oxygen is only toxic at higher pressures. If a diver has been under greater than atmospheric pressure for an extended time to allow more gas to dissolve into the blood than suddenly goes from high pressure to a lower pressure, the plasma can no longer hold as much gas molecules and they will form back into a gas (while still in you) and you call this the bends. Even at the surface at 14 psi oxygen's effects can start at about an hour into breathing it pure. But at 3.7 psi oxygen is not as readily absorbed into the bloodstream so oxygen is much less toxic over a longer period. That's why astronauts can get away with it.

Dang beat me to it russ.

 

[Rader]

That said, it appears the partial pressure of oxygen in a space suit is roughly equal to sea level, so this isn't an issue.

Well it appears that all the pieces of the puzzle, of my inquiery into why 160 heart rate, were just turned upside down or not correctly arranged. Each ones contribution here confirms with a 99.9% certainty that:

Apollo 11 astronauts used inside there spacesuites, pure oxygen at approx 3psi. There were no side affects because, breathing 3psi pure oxygen and breathing 15psi air gives you exactly the same amount (partial pressure) of oxygen so its no problem.

At the very least, the implication is that something out of the ordinary (besides, of course, walking on the moon for the first time ) was going on. And this quote from earlier suggests you are of the opinion that something very out of the ordinary was going on. So do you or don't you have an opinion?

Note Armstrongs hearbeat was at 158 and Aldrins 110 on LM descent. How much work was there to push buttons? Emotion OK maybe. The work load 4 pounds each, accomplished on the surface with restricted movement, 1/6 gravity. No way, I have done exercises in and out of water with a very restrictive wet suite, lifting your arms is very difficult. You have to experience what the physical activity encounters to get a in condition heart to reach 160. The documetary states, on quote that Armstrongs hearbeat was 160 and Aldrins at 155 as they both took the 14 minute video and walked in around and through this structure. For whatever reasons I would conjecture that that high of a hearbeat was due to emotions not workload.

Whatever the documentary claimed, it takes an awful lot more than an out of the ordinary heart rate to prove it and making a claim second-hand doesn't eliminate your burden of proof.

Thats true but then there is a 14 minute video, that came from the hands of a retired General ****, that was classified information, on quote. Its a fake or its not? Its my opinion to be suspect, for the very simple reason it is not normal 160 heartbeat and the fact that I have seen this suspect classified information. I plan to intervue the author and when this is accomplished, I will give you my formal opinion.

 

[russ_watters]

Note Armstrongs hearbeat was at 158 and Aldrins 110 on LM descent.

Well, they were a few seconds from running out of fuel and Armstrong was driving. But maybe Armstrong was more prone to heart rate spikes than Aldrin for any reason. Some people are like that. I'm exactly the opposite - it takes an extreme amount of exhertion to get my heart rate up to 160 (but then, my resting heart rate is about 52).

For whatever reasons I would conjecture that that high of a hearbeat was due to emotions not workload.

Ok, but that's just a conjecture. Its utterly worthless without some real evidence. The mundane explanation seems viable - you need some real evidence in order to do anything more than conjecture that it isn't. And since no one seemed concerned about it at the time, saying it is evidence of anything is pretty tough: its wet tissue paper thin.

 

[Rader]

Well, they were a few seconds from running out of fuel and Armstrong was driving. But maybe Armstrong was more prone to heart rate spikes than Aldrin for any reason. Some people are like that. I'm exactly the opposite - it takes an extreme amount of exhertion to get my heart rate up to 160 (but then, my resting heart rate is about 52).

Russ, this is one of the best links I have ever found on what, I quoted before about Armstrongs nerves of steel. Does a trained fighter pilot in combat have his heartbeat reach 160? What is that based on, survival, or low heartbeat in combate? You do not know all the details of what was in the crater. The landing area was photographed in great detail and the landing site planed in advance, this was not suppose to be a star wars landing.
http://www.zip.com.au/~psmith/Luminary.html
So then you are a man in condition and do fully understand what I am talking about.

Ok, but that's just a conjecture. Its utterly worthless without some real evidence. The mundane explanation seems viable - you need some real evidence in order to do anything more than conjecture that it isn't. And since no one seemed concerned about it at the time, saying it is evidence of anything is pretty tough: its wet tissue paper thin.

Would you consider the 14 minute video, evidence if it was analized by experts to be authentic? Do you know what classified informaton means? No one should be concerned about it, as far as the public is concerned.
Lets not forget that my main concern is the 160 heartbeat. While landing the LM is debatable, it seems that the other repeated high heartrates while loading feather rocks and taking a video should not have had an impact on the heartrates of the two astronauts. We all have confirmed this from what we have learned, have we not?

Examine your memory, you mean to say the govenment always tells us why they are doing something and never hides the real reason, for whatever reason that may be, for the good of the public?

 

[enigma]

Are you kidding?

You're in a tin can; you're a few hundred meters up; you're the farthest away from the Earth that anyone has ever been.

If you crash, you die. If you abort, you disappoint every man, woman and child on the planet.

And then, your 'low fuel' warning buzzers start going off.

And you expect him to be cool as a cucumber?

Even combat pilots get excited. They just perform better under stress.

 

[Rader]

X 15 tests on fighter pilots

Are you kidding?.

Not in the least, I am trying to convince myself, with all your help.

You're in a tin can; you're a few hundred meters up; you're the farthest away from the Earth that anyone has ever been.
If you crash, you die. If you abort, you disappoint every man, woman and child on the planet.
And then, your 'low fuel' warning buzzers start going off.
And you expect him to be cool as a cucumber?
Even combat pilots get excited. They just perform better under stress.

You make a good agruement, I would almost agree with you, except that your reasons do not correlate with the X15 tests done on fighter pilots. The reason is not stress or exertion but excitement that triggers the high heartbeat in fighter pilots.

What was so exciting on the way down, for Armstrongs heartbeat, to hit 158 while landing the LM. We would have to agree it was due to excitement, statistics and experimentation show this. What is more exciting the acceleration of a X15 in a Earth atmosphere or a descent in a LM with no atmosphere. I can not answer that I was never to the moon. But logic would tell me you can not feel the force in empty space as you would here on Earth, there is no gravity, maybe I am wrong, do you have that answer? Then we have the main focus of all my inquires. What stress and exertion is there in collecting 4 pounds of rocks each, taking videos and pictures on the moon and setting up scientific equipement. Better question yet, why is it just as exciting landing a LM, as all those things accomplished on the moon? Sorry you have not convinced me my reasoning is flawless up till now. I would have hoped that someone could convince me by now. Armstrong..Buzz are you out there?

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/x15conf/legacy2.html

The physiological measurements of interest for acromedical analysis are heart rate, breathing rate, and blood pressure. Initial measurements were at first perplexing to acromedical experts. Figure 4 (ref. 5) shows some summary data. Heart rates averaged 145 to 160 beats/min, sometimes reaching a peak on some flights of 185 beats/min. Medical experts had previously only witnessed such high rates on sick people or people under stress. It was detennined from repeated flight tests, however, that stress or exertion was not involved and that the high rates were primarily due to psychological factors associated with the excitement of launch and acceleration of the X-15. Such behavior was finally accepted to be non-nal for this kind of activity. Nobody gets concerned, for example, when an astronaut shows similar rates during a launch or reentry sequence. As a matter of interest, Neil Armstrong registered a heart beat of 156 during the first lunar landing.

 

[neutroncount]

What is more exciting the acceleration of a X15 in a Earth atmosphere or a descent in a LM with no atmosphere. I can not answer that I was never to the moon. But logic would tell me you can not feel the force in empty space as you would here on Earth, there is no gravity, maybe I am wrong, do you have that answer?

You've got a strange concept of physics Rader. They were decelerating on their way to the moon. Of course there was gravity..the moon's gravity. This may have not been a problem in orbit but as they decelerated you feel those changes as if it were gravity. Atmosphere or not you'll still feel the pull of gravity inside LEM as it tugs it as well. They were linerally in a controlled fall toward the moon as he was trying to slow the decent module down...nerves of steel or not that has to have been a stressful situation. And yes stress, not just excitement causes quick rises in heartbeats as well..hell it can lead to fast irregular heartbeat too.

Then we have the main focus of all my inquires. What stress and exertion is there in collecting 4 pounds of rocks each, taking videos and pictures on the moon and setting up scientific equipement. Better question yet, why is it just as exciting landing a LM, as all those things accomplished on the moon?

1/6th gravity or not I bet those suits were difficult to maneuver in. So things become more of a challenge to do. Even shuttle astronauts doing routine spacewalks get exhausted due to resistive movements inside the suits and their in orbit.

It was detennined from repeated flight tests, however, that stress or exertion was not involved and that the high rates were primarily due to psychological factors associated with the excitement of launch and acceleration of the X-15.

Fail enough...that's X15 data. But you fail to mention the part right above that.

"Medical experts had previously only witnessed such high rates on sick people or people under stress."

So that counters your previous statements on stress altogether.

Sorry you have not convinced me my reasoning is flawless up till now. I would have hoped that someone could convince me by now. Armstrong..Buzz are you out there?

Russ and I have found plenty wrong with your logic. You're a cocky bastard in real life aren't ya!

 

[Rader]

You're a cocky bastard in real life aren't ya!

I always thought fowl language made a cocky bastard.

 

[enigma]

The reason is not stress or exertion but excitement that triggers the high heartbeat in fighter pilots.

You mean to tell me that you think that watching the lunar surface rushing up to meet you and warning alarms going off all around you wouldn't raise your heartbeat a tremendous amount?!?

Go ride a good rollercoaster. Now imagine a being on a rollercoaster which there is a very real chance of dying.

 

[neutroncount]

I always thought fowl language made a cocky bastard.

Just pointing out what I see. If you're willing to learn, you're willing to listen. I don't see you doing that. You have it in your mind that something is up and that's that..nothing else can be the answer.

 

[Rader]

You mean to tell me that you think that watching the lunar surface rushing up to meet you and warning alarms going off all around you wouldn't raise your heartbeat a tremendous amount?!?

Go ride a good rollercoaster. Now imagine a being on a rollercoaster which there is a very real chance of dying.

I am sure that must go through there heads but the way you state it, this factor, is then the major reason why the heartbeat would go to such limits. Is it only fear of death or also the pure excitement of the unknown, the first experience? I know how small there computers were and about the alarms and having to reload the program, giving prioity to whatever was most important, quick thinking on Armstrongs judgement.
The link I provided shows that high heartbeat is normal in X15 flights and the reason given for it, was excitment not stress. The hearbeat of Armstrong was 158, they attribute it to the same reason excitement. I am not disputing that. A astronauts training is most difficult, they pick the best and train them in these situations. If not for the statistics I found I would not believe it, hell when they first started testing X15 pilots they did not believe it, now its known that it seems to be quite normal.

The reason why I asked the question is, what is more exciting the acceleration of a X15 in a Earth atmosphere or a descent in a LM with no atmosphere. Was to make the point accelerating and decelerating in different gravities and atmospheres would feel different.

Well there is now few things that have been confirmed.
01-Astronauts spacesuites filled with 3psi pure oxygen, is the norm and they should be able to breathe and work as we do with air and 14.7psi, when in space or on the surface of the moon.
02-High heartbeats of 145-160 and more, of pilots and astronauts seem to be normal upon takeoffs and landings. Nothwithstanding I have been in a lot of dangerous situations and at 160 you can hear your heart beat, this has never happened to me. It seems I am not the norm and the statistics are. You would think that after lots of a pilots training, this would not happen but it appears that it does.

03-What about on the surface of the moon? Was it that difficult to move around? The suits had bendable joints, the rocks weighed little and the gravity was one sixth.

 

[neutroncount]

03-What about on the surface of the moon? Was it that difficult to move around? The suits had bendable joints, the rocks weighed little and the gravity was one sixth.

The suits were still heavy fabric and a temp regulation systems embedded in them. Plus they couldn't just walk; the low gravity prevented a natural walking rhythm in the suits so they had to hop around. Bending over wasn't natural either and required a lot of effort. Not because of the pressure difference (that was only a part of it), but because the suits stiffer regardless of bendable joints.

 

[Rader]

The suits were still heavy fabric and a temp regulation systems embedded in them. Plus they couldn't just walk; the low gravity prevented a natural walking rhythm in the suits so they had to hop around. Bending over wasn't natural either and required a lot of effort. Not because of the pressure difference (that was only a part of it), but because the suits stiffer regardless of bendable joints.

I have been looking into this and recognize the Apollo 11 mission was a first test. The Apollo missions, that followed used a moon rover, the suites were adapted, to bend at the waist, for sitting in the rover. The astronauts learned to do a run skip type walk, which dobled the speed of walking. It seems the heartrates were also lower due to these factors, even though the time spent was greater on the surface of the moon. Nothwithstanding it is difficult to imagine 160 hearbeats from trained astronauts working on the surface of the moon, from all the evidenece we have gathered and learned. It is factual documented evidence, that excitement seems to be the main factor for the high hearbeats, in take off and landings. It seems so also, that it was apparently very exciting working on the moon, for whatever reason.

Playing the devils advocate here, to find out some new interesting things and remember some that I have forgotten, as regarding the unusual hearbeats of the Apollo 11 astronauts has rattled a few. My intention is to leave this concern, without a doubt. By not questioning anything I would not have arrived to where I am now.

 

[neutroncount]

But I guess I still don't get the point. What are you trying to accomplish with this investigation? Are you just trying to get a feel on why these events happened and how they could have resulted?

Just to clairify things, I just read resently in another forums that some guys thinks that the reason his heartbeat went up was because he saw a huge UFO hovering over them. His "evidence" is a shadow and the lack of communication between the astronauts for about 20 seconds. The shadow was obviously from the astronaut and they didn't chat because Buzz was too busy trying to climb the ladder at the time.

I just don't want you to jump to wild conclusions either. It's better to think logically.

 

[Rader]

But I guess I still don't get the point. What are you trying to accomplish with this investigation? Are you just trying to get a feel on why these events happened and how they could have resulted?.

Well I will tell you. The documentary was convincing. The high heartbeat was the main attraction in the video and the structure did not look like anything I have ever seen. I would really like to know the answer to this one.

Just to clairify things, I just read resently in another forums that some guys thinks that the reason his heartbeat went up was because he saw a huge UFO hovering over them. His "evidence" is a shadow and the lack of communication between the astronauts for about 20 seconds. The shadow was obviously from the astronaut and they didn't chat because Buzz was too busy trying to climb the ladder at the time.

Please do not mix me up with lunatics. Did you ask this guy, if he had all his marbles? Really neutroncount, is that all you got from my posts, to compare me with this.

I just don't want you to jump to wild conclusions either. It's better to think logically.

I am trying to do this, the high heartbeat is what I am questioning, if that can be falsified, the rest may so be also. Tired tonight I did a test, will tell you about it tomoorow. I am not finished yet.

 

[neutroncount]

I know you're trying to think logically. I did not group you with crackpots. I know you are much better than that...at least you listen to what people have to say and learn from it.

 

[russ_watters]

Rader, you're putting a lot of effort into what looks to the rest of us like nothing at all. If you have some real evidence of anything, present it. There isn't anything in what you have written so far.

Also, I think you need some work on your critical thinking. Landing on the moon was a pretty extrordinary and unusual thing - not to metnion the most complicated and difficult project ever done. Of course there are parts of it that won't go as expected, things that won't work as planned. But to seize on a minor anomoly and expect it to be considered evidence of a major discovery/conspiracy is - well - kinda nutty. Unless you have some pretty clear, incontrovertible evidence of anything, you'd do well to drop it.

 

[Rader]

Rader, you're putting a lot of effort into what looks to the rest of us like nothing at all. If you have some real evidence of anything, present it. There isn't anything in what you have written so far.

I inquired today about getting the video analized by a expert. I was told that yes we can do it, he would give me his opinion, for $300,00 an hour. I told him $300,00 an hour is fine but I do not want an opinion. He said tecknology has reached such limits, that it can deceive even the experts. I have then asked this guy, who made the documentary, for an intervue and he will see me in the coming months on his trip back to Europe. The first question I will put to him is, after making a series of legit documentaries, why present a Hoax?

Also, I think you need some work on your critical thinking. Landing on the moon was a pretty extrordinary and unusual thing - not to metnion the most complicated and difficult project ever done. Of course there are parts of it that won't go as expected, things that won't work as planned. But to seize on a minor anomoly and expect it to be considered evidence of a major discovery/conspiracy is - well - kinda nutty. Unless you have some pretty clear, incontrovertible evidence of anything, you'd do well to drop it.

What you say is true about the entire Apollo 11 project but how do you consider a 158 heartbeat a minor anomoly! The link that I provided proves, that high heartbeats on takeoffs and landings appears to be very normal. To the uninformed this is not normal. You recognize yourself the difficulty to reach those high heartrates. I would never have expected this from trained astronauts, it appears they are just as human as you or I. I do not think there was any nuts involved in investigating this. Nutty to me would be to go to the moon for no reason whatsoever, or just to say, we did it before the Russians. Why could there not be, a agenda more important than pride and waisting tax payers money?

As for working on the surface of the moon, could a combination of physical activity and excitement make the heartrate reach 160? That would be a logical assumption. Is there more to this than meets the eye. What I mean is, could the lack of partial pressure of certain gases, cause spikes in the heartrate, due to some not studied as yet, effects on the metabalism? Metabolic efficiency to remove oxalic acid from the muscles is higher when you are in shape and blood corpusles move oxygen more effectively. But what about the lack of those other gases. How do they contribute? The physcial activity alone does not convince me. I have redone a test that I have been recording information on me for some 2 decades. A 10 K sprint up a mountain 250 meter rise on a mountain bike. This activity involves mainly the leg muscles, although all the muscles are used. 10K> 250 rise> 30 minutes 450 calories burned. Heartrate 28 years 80bpm 38 100bpm 51 years 125bpm. I have some idea what it might feel like, a 160 heartrate from physcial activity, inside a spacesuite that was tight and unconfortable. I have experienced a high heartrate above 160 from emotional excitement and it feels quite different from that of physcial activity. If the high heartrate was due to only physical reasons, it would have been quite unbearable. I have not found any radio transmission logs of complaints of this natue.

Does anyone have a good link to original un cut, not interpretations of radio transmission from the entire Apollo 11 project between the astronauts and Houston?

 

[russ_watters]

As for working on the surface of the moon, could a combination of physical activity and excitement make the heartrate reach 160? That would be a logical assumption.

Indeed.

Does anyone have a good link to original un cut, not interpretations of radio transmission from the entire Apollo 11 project between the astronauts and Houston?

The BadAstronomy thread I linked includes links to the full EVA comms transcript including astronaut and control debriefing commentary.