edit: oh, deciditi, o respiravano ossigeno direttamente oppure ossigeno prodotto per idrolisi, tertium non datur...

edit2: damme retta, te conviene l'idrolisi , un litro d'acqua produce 620 litri d'ossigeno, invece per contenere ossigeno puro il serbatoio doveva essere enorme...

di questi, ben 5,5 di idrogeno e 44,5 di ossigeno se ne andavano solo per l'acqua da bere

toussaint ha scritto:
tra l'altro, mi sembra di capire che l'incidente all'Apollo 13 fu dovuto all'eccessivo svuotamento del serbatoio di ossigeno.

toussaint ha scritto:
niente, una ricerca su google non produce nulla.
si dice solo che c'erano dei serbatoi d'acqua ma da nessuna parte trovi collocazione, capacità e massa.
neanche il diagramma del SM dice nulla, sono riportati solo i serbatoi di ossigeno e idrogeno che però servivano l'impianto elettrico.
diagramma CM-SM
quindi i serbatoi d'acqua non erano interni ma esterni ma come sopra, non viene detto nulla su collocazione, capacità, massa.
piuttosto strano, direi...

dunque...

faccio ancora una domanda, dato che pur seguendo da anni questo sito naturalmente non posso essere al corrente di tutte le discussioni sugli argomenti lunari

Sulla questione "dimostrazione che gli F-1 non avevano potenza necessaria" (semplifico) tutto il "sapere" si può trovare in questo forum e negli altri due che ho elencato negli ultimi miei post?

Ripeto, dal 2007 (meglio 2009) che questa questione è venuta alla luce esistono in rete documenti, trattazioni, spiegazioni, dimostrazioni e così via, OLTRE (ripeto OLTRE) a quelle, con rispettivi link, che si possono trovare nei TRE thread che ho appena citato?

Non a caso è stato evidenziato in questo thread che trattasi di "punto dolente", che giustifica assai molte rimostranze e attacchi personali da parte dei "debunker" verso black, che sembrerebbe aver colpito nel segno, andando a toccare un argomento tabù e vietato, un vero e proprio tallone d'achille di tutto il programma Apollo.

Insomma, il fatto che vi sia questa "contestazione" da parte di scienziati russi mi ha lasciato assai sgomento e preso da irrefrenabile curiosità ho dedicato quasi dodici ore di seguito, inframezzate da un pò di sonno, all'analisi di questo dilemma.

E devo dire che, tra le altre cose, ho letto molto bene tutti i due forum che vi ho elencato all'inizio di questo post.

E devo dire che, tra le altre cose, ho letto molto bene tutti i due forum che vi ho elencato all'inizio di questo post.

Che immensa delusione ragazzi!
Capisco che per alcuni di voi siano cose già trite e ritrite da anni, però per me, che mi avvicino per la prima volta (carico di aspettative e pronto ad analizzare chissà quali studi) è stata una delusione tremenda!!

Tutto si basa sull'analisi del video dei primi due minuti e mezzo del decollo, corrispondenti all'esaurimento del primo stadio

Tutto si basa su un analisi di un video e sulla forma delle scie e delle onde di pressione che colpiscono il velivolo data una certa altitudine e velocità

Tutto questo il "punto dolente" di tutto il programma Apollo?
(tralascio appositamente i discorsi sullo Skylab, sull'allestimento della SSI e sull'abbandono del programma Apollo in virtù dell'inizio del programma Shuttle che sono stati abbondantemente e esaurientemente trattati in tutti i commenti presenti nei due forum di cui sopra)

Vorrei che si capisse che se non mi fosse venuto il "pallino" di approfondire, sarei rimasto "assai favorevolmente" toccato dalle argomentazioni così "passionali" di black.

E invece, andando a leggere bene, ho potuto capire senza alcuna ombra di dubbio che quelle obiezioni non portano davvero da nessuna parte (in effetti se fossero state degne di nota penso si sarebbe rivoltato il mondo!!)

Comunque sono dispostissimo a discutere questa cosa, magari come ho detto all'inizio, mi mancano ancora degli elementi per comprendere appieno la questione.

http://www.aulis.com/apollo11saturn_v.htm

The sun was shining on the day of the Apollo 11 launch (Fig.2), there were a few pockets of low clouds, but the rest of the sky wasn't completely clear either. According to NASA [2], the sky was 90% covered with a whitish translucent haze of fine and high cirrostratus clouds. Although their height is not given in [2], it is known from reference [1, 3-5] that these types of clouds are rarely higher than 26,000 feet (8 kms). This is confirmed by the data [2] on Apollo 13: on the day of Apollo 13 launch the similar cirrostratus clouds were at an altitude of 26,000 feet (8 kms).

The Super 8 film sequence
In a film shot by Phil Pollacia, the Apollo 11 launch was filmed continuously during the first 170 seconds of the launch. The vast majority of both amateur films and NASA’s recordings available on the Internet show the ascent of the Saturn V compiled and edited from separate clips, assembled from individual sequences.

Andrey Kudryavets [6] pointed out a very interesting video [7, 8] of the launch of Apollo 11. He writes, "The video is extraordinary because the launch is shown in one [continuous] shot – taking off from the launch pad to first stage separation. There are no cuts and no editing, so it is possible to watch the initial phase of the flight in full."

One of the authors of this article managed to contact the owner of the film on the telephone. It was Philip Frank Pollacia (Phil) [9] read more here – see page 7. Here's what was said (in brief):

Phil has a Bachelor’s degree from Louisiana Tech University and a Master’s degree from Auburn University, both in mathematics. He worked at IBM for NASA. He had the opportunity to become a controller during Gemini 7/5 – the first rendezvous, Gemini 8 – the first emergency re-entry and Apollo 13. After Gemini, he became the IBM lead manager for Apollo, Skylab and Apollo/Soyuz. Phil himself shot the film on a Super 8 film camera. The shooting and playback speed has not been changed. The Apollo launch footage is one continuous shot without cuts and with no editing. Phil is now 71 years old.

According to the Phil’s account, the company sent him on a special trip to observe the launch of Apollo 11. He shot the film on a Super 8 camera. His commentaries of the launch are the words of admiration and his sincere belief in this historic event – the mission to the Moon. Associated with long-term work for NASA and honestly convinced in the reality of missions to the Moon, Phil obviously had neither incentive nor motivation to shoot revelatory material. He simply filmed what he saw. This fact makes his material even more unprejudiced and more valuable in exposing NASA’s account which has come to light following analysis of his film.

Fig.4 shows key frames of the second part of the sequence, illustrating the rocket launch and ascent. Each frame has its time stamp indicating hours, minutes, and seconds. We do not know which reference time Phil used, but for our study it doesn’t actually matter. At the time mark of 1:01.02 fire and smoke beneath the rocket become visible. Hence, ignition has occurred.

The rocket does not immediately start to ascend, because for a few seconds it is held in place with the engines running [10]. After the engines reach the required thrust, the rocket is released and it starts to rise. Visually, this occurs at 1:01.05. This timer mark is used as the reference 0 second of the flight time. The clip ends at approximately the 175th second of the flight.

We now take a look at the four frames from the 104th to the 107th second, inclusive. The first and the last frames in the series are shown in full, and two frames in the middle are shown partially in order to save space. On the 104-105th seconds the rocket is approaching the upper layer of clouds, but it is hard to understand where it is: already in the cloud, or yet to enter it?

The next two frames make it clear. On the 106th second, a shadow appears to the left of the brightly-glowing plume area. At the 107th second it is quite distinct. This is a rocket which has already made it through the clouds, punched the hole, and cast its shadow on the clouds. And all this is shown as if being projected on a screen and it can be clearly seen from the ground because the top layer of clouds, are quite smooth and transparent.

Having understood this picture, we can more accurately determine the moment the rocket passes through the clouds. At 106th second the shadow has already started to form. Hence, the rocket’s nose is already above the cloud layer. But on the 105th second mark the shadow has not yet appeared. Therefore, it is the last second, when the rocket has not yet pierced the clouds.

So we can accept the 105th second as the time of passage through the clouds.

The upper layer of clouds, as we know, is located at an altitude of ~26,000 feet (8 kms). At the time of ~105 sec the rocket is flying at an altitude of ~26,000 feet (8 kms) whereas according to the Apollo 11 timing [12] (and in Table B-1 below) at this moment it should be far, far above the clouds, at a height of 79,000 feet (24 kms).

This means that the craft was lagging three times behind NASA's actual ascent record.
(See green underline – 105.0 secs, 23,999 metres.)

"With such a start to the flight, the Apollo 11 craft had no chance of catching up with the required ascent schedule", states the veteran of Baikonur Cosmodrome N. V. Lebedev. Indeed, according to NASA's records, the burn of the first stage of the Saturn V is about 60% of 162 seconds. Respectively, by 106th second the first stage has burnt about 60% of its fuel, and it has made less than 1/8th of its required journey.

And so one can reasonably ask: where will this rocket finish its flight, if not in waters of the Atlantic Ocean?

Even though Phil has confirmed that the film was shot in real-time, and that it corresponds to the true rocket speed, an extra check on such an key issue was very important.

At the first check point of the sequence Andrey Kudryavets writes [11,13], "Why rely on the film, [perhaps] it was slowed down? Well, its speed can be easily estimated from the time the Saturn V clears the service tower! So for the purpose of comparison we selected seven other available recordings of the Apollo 11 launch."

According to NASA’s documentation [12], the tower clearance time is about 9.5 secs. And this timing, in my opinion, can be trusted. The fact is that thousands of professional and (most importantly) tens of thousands of uncontrolled amateur cameras were shooting this very entertaining moment. The rocket did actually clear the tower strictly on schedule. And indeed, in Phil’s film (Fig.4) we see that the rocket rises to the height of the tower on the 9th second. Other consulted recordings [13] provide the same result.

Now to the second check point of the film. According to NASA’s record [12] the separation time of the first stage was 162 seconds into the mission. And as we see in the Phil’s film, it is on this very second that a tremendous cloud of hot gas surrounds the rocket. The impression is that the rocket is covered by a blast. After a few seconds, a glowing fragment leaves this cloud (173rd second). The shooting angle and remote distance does not allow determining what it is exactly – separation of the first stage and falling back, with the leading segment of the rocket keeping on going, or maybe something else. However in any event, a casual observer will assume this event to be the separation. And no doubt, that’s what NASA wanted.

The film-maker has confirmed that these events play back in real time. This is verified twice: at the beginning of the film on the 9th second, and at the end on the 162th second. Consequently, the film rate is confirmed as being correct, and the recording of all these events is accurate throughout the entire film.

Over the course of the film one can see other evidence, not as obvious, but nevertheless straightforward and clear. When viewing people walking around all movements are absolutely natural and occur at normal speed. Therefore, the timer on Phil’s film can be relied upon. Having established this timing with confidence we can see at what moment the rocket passes through the third and the highest layer of clouds (Fig. 5).

Alexander Popov was born in 1943 and graduated from the Moscow Engineering Physics Institute (MEPhI) Department of Experimental and theoretical physics in 1966. He spent time in special design departments, but mostly he worked in MEPhI.

In 1973 he received his PhD in MEPhI with his thesis on "Investigation of the interaction of optical radiation with the active medium of gas lasers."

In 1984 he became a Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences in MEPhI with his thesis on "Laser absorption analysis of molecular gases." He currently teaches physics at a private school.

Alexander Popov is author and co-author of 15 inventions and more than 100 publications in the field of laser technology, spectroscopy, absorption analysis, gas analysis, and laser optics. With his developments he has participated in the Exhibition of Achievements of the National Economy (VDNKh). He is decorated with bronze (1978) and gold (1981) medals of the Exhibition, and a medal "850 years of Moscow."

Popov recently wrote Americans on the Moon – A Great Breakthrough or a Space Affair? in Russian, 2009