|
Author
|
Topic: Apollo 12: Stand-up EVA at the Ocean of Storms
|
area51
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 03-18-2014 03:48 PM
   
Does anyone have firm evidence of a standup EVA on the Apollo 12 moon landing? |
mach3valkyrie
Member Posts: 719
From: Albany, Oregon
Registered: Jul 2006
|
posted 03-18-2014 04:40 PM
The only one I ever heard of took place on Apollo 15. |
Mike Dixon
Member Posts: 1428
From: Kew, Victoria, Australia
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 03-18-2014 04:57 PM
Correct. Only Apollo 15 had the standup EVA. |
Tom
Member Posts: 1610
From: New York
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 03-18-2014 06:46 PM
If not true... very interesting. |
Blackarrow
Member Posts: 3160
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 03-18-2014 06:47 PM
In short, no-one has any evidence of it because it didn't happen. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 43576
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-18-2014 07:22 PM
I don't suppose the narrator of the linked video ever bothered to actually contact Sandra Wagner, editor of the NASA report he cites, to inquire about her sources for the single paragraph (51 words) on which he hinges his entire theory. The blowing dust caused by the Apollo 12 LM landing appears to have been worse than that of Apollo 11. In fact, a standup extravehicular activity (EVA) was performed by the crew to assess the site prior to performing lunar surface EVAs because blowing dust completely obscured the view during landing. Because, you know, NASA has never, ever made a mistake citing its own history. (That's sarcasm, if my tone isn't perfectly clear.) |
area51
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 03-18-2014 08:12 PM
According to the Apollo Technical Air to Ground Voice Transcriptions... there is a 9 minute gap in air to ground communications. (4d, 15h, 9m, 31s to 4d, 15h, 18m, 34s). Seems strange for two people who landed on the Moon to stop talking for 9 minutes. So was this the time period where Apollo 12 conducted a SEVA? |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 43576
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-18-2014 08:39 PM
The air to ground transcripts make it clear what they were doing during the comm break — Conrad had entered a wrong value into the computer: And we entered one wrong number and did a Verb 32. Is there any way to wipe out that set of marks, now that we did a Verb 32? ...and, after checking with the ground, is redoing the program: MCC: The simplest thing to do is do the program over.Conrad: We agree. Bye-bye. It took Scott and Irwin on Apollo 15 over an hour to do a stand-up EVA, including pre- and post-activities. It is not a serious suggestion that one could be done in 9 minutes. |
area51
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 03-18-2014 09:26 PM
...good point! |
chet
Member Posts: 1506
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 03-18-2014 11:42 PM
I suppose Alan Bean (or Richard Gordon) could be asked this question directly at the upcoming Spacefest. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 43576
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-19-2014 12:10 AM
Sure, but it's a waste of their of time. The question is not that much different than asking if they saw floating glass pyramids or were on a sound stage in Hollywood... |
David C
Member Posts: 1039
From: Lausanne
Registered: Apr 2012
|
posted 03-19-2014 03:08 AM
True, but it may be worth asking Alan Bean if they had any EVA concerns in view of the increased dust. My guess is no, the LM weight was being supported and they did not resort to any Apollo 11 style (Armstrong) safety tether. |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1624
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 03-19-2014 08:47 AM
Another point — if they had to do an unscripted Stand-Up EVA, why keep it a dark secret? This is enjoyable to listen to but not believable. |
David C
Member Posts: 1039
From: Lausanne
Registered: Apr 2012
|
posted 03-19-2014 02:38 PM
And another thing, I'm not convinced that a SEVA would be any more useful in this regard than just standing on the ladder and looking. I'd love to know her source, sounds very unlikely. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 43576
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-19-2014 03:50 PM
I contacted Sandra Wagner about the report. She confirmed it was simply a typo. This was an editing error. I have submitted a request for the following errata:Errata: On page 1, in the observations section, the second paragraph states, "The blowing dust caused by the Apollo 12 LM landing appears to have been worse than that of Apollo 11. In fact, a standup extravehicular activity (EVA) was performed by the crew to assess the site prior to performing lunar surface EVAs because blowing dust completely obscured the view during landing." The sentence contains an error and is changed to, "The blowing dust caused by the Apollo 15 LM landing appears to have been worse than that of Apollo 11. In fact, a standup extravehicular activity (EVA) was performed by the crew to assess the site prior to performing lunar surface EVAs because blowing dust completely obscured the view during landing." |
One Big Monkey
Member Posts: 171
From: West Yorkshire, UK
Registered: Jul 2012
|
posted 03-19-2014 04:05 PM
Looking at the Apollo 12 landing video, it's possible to see that while there is indeed considerable dust generated on landing, like other landings it vanishes into the distance as soon as the engine is stopped - the view would have been clear. The pre-EVA panorama shown at the ALSJ seems to present a crystal clear view, so why would an S-EVA be of any use. I have a general rule of thumb with these claims. If you search the internet for a particular claim and the first couple of pages of results entirely consist of conspiracy websites, it's pretty much garbage. |
David C
Member Posts: 1039
From: Lausanne
Registered: Apr 2012
|
posted 03-19-2014 04:39 PM
The sentence contains an error and is changed to, "The blowing dust caused by the Apollo 15 LM landing appears to have been worse than that of Apollo 11. In fact, a standup extravehicular activity (EVA) was performed by the crew to assess the site prior to performing lunar surface EVAs because blowing dust completely obscured the view during landing. Huh. My understanding was that the Apollo 15 SEVA was pre-planned for geology purposes, not as any real-time reaction to dust on approach. At best this "corrected version" gives a misleading impression. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 43576
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-19-2014 04:49 PM
A good catch and I have responded to Wagner to let her know. But for the purposes of the topic at hand, it still is clear she never intended to state that Apollo 12 had performed a stand-up EVA. |
Blackarrow
Member Posts: 3160
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 03-19-2014 06:53 PM
Surely the bottom line here is that even if there had been an operational need to carry out an unplanned site survey by means of a SEVA (and there is no evidence of such a need) there is absolutely no reason to have kept it secret. |
Tom
Member Posts: 1610
From: New York
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 03-19-2014 08:37 PM
The correction indicating Apollo 15 (instead of 12) is very odd... it's a well known fact that the SEVA was planned on "15" prior to launch.Intrepid was targeted to land east of Surveyor crater. In fact, it landed northwest of the crater. I don't believe the crew had any identifiable landmarks in their initial view facing west. Until they actually got a chance to look towards the east, they may not have known how far they missed their target. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 43576
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-19-2014 09:19 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Tom:
The correction indicating Apollo 15 (instead of 12) is very odd...
To be honest, I think she saw my note about Apollo 15 being the only mission that performed a SEVA and issued the errata in response. Keep in mind, this is a 2006 report that was prepared for a program that no longer exists... |
advertisement