Spacecraft Sound Levels
Ken Webster
later ships like the Shuttle, I imagine it sounds a lot like my office- just
a bunch of fans. The Mercury's, would seem to me to be the quietest, just
because of their simplicity, if nothing else.
I recall reading somewhere that the Apollo astronauts who tried to sleep on
the moon complained that the LEM made an assortment of unusual sounds, some
not very reassuring.
Thanks...
Herb Schaltegger
(in article <5a9bf$430a27c7$438df92e$29...@ALLTEL.NET>):
For the U.S. pressurized elements of SSF/ISS, individual subassemblies
were spec'd for an overall cabin noise level of NC40 - essentially
time-weighted average sound pressure levels of 40 dB. For most
components and subassemblies this was not a problem. However, for the
CDRA with it's absurdly-high RPM fan this was a tremendously-difficult
spec for the vendor to reach and I don't believe they ever made it.
Eventually it was proposed to raise the spec for cabin noise (right
about the time I left) and I don't know what happened after I left.
--
"Fame may be fleeting but obscurity is forever." ~Anonymous
"I believe as little as possible and know as much as I can."
~Todd Stuart Phillips
<www.angryherb.net>
Pat Flannery
Herb Schaltegger wrote:
>For the U.S. pressurized elements of SSF/ISS, individual subassemblies
>were spec'd for an overall cabin noise level of NC40 - essentially
>time-weighted average sound pressure levels of 40 dB. For most
>components and subassemblies this was not a problem. However, for the
>CDRA with it's absurdly-high RPM fan this was a tremendously-difficult
>spec for the vendor to reach and I don't believe they ever made it.
>Eventually it was proposed to raise the spec for cabin noise (right
>about the time I left) and I don't know what happened after I left.
>
>
IIRC, didn't we have to replace the Russian fans because of their noise
levels?
Pat
TVDad Jim
that he and Jack spent a bit of time calling out to each other guesses
on what was making which noise during their rest period.
Knowing that there was a chewing-gum-wrapper thickness of metal
separating the cabin air from the lunar atmosphere would have kept me
jumping at every pop and ping.
bombardmentforce
pressure is assumed to be 10 psi, then SPL = 143 db re 0.0002 8bar."
Project Orion Conceptual Vehicle Designs Volume III pg 104 of the pdf
Markus Baur
>
> For the U.S. pressurized elements of SSF/ISS, individual subassemblies
> were spec'd for an overall cabin noise level of NC40 - essentially
> time-weighted average sound pressure levels of 40 dB. For most
> components and subassemblies this was not a problem. However, for the
> CDRA with it's absurdly-high RPM fan this was a tremendously-difficult
> spec for the vendor to reach and I don't believe they ever made it.
what was the design rationale to use this paricular fan .. ? what
prevents going to a larger ans slowel (=quiet) fan?
servus
markus
Herb Schaltegger
(in article <9d257$430b5f19$5470293d$30...@news.chello.at>):
Volume allowable for the fan assembly and the required flow rates
through the CDRA, primarily. Packaging the ECLSS equipment was/is a
tremendously difficult problem.
Rocky Top
"Ken Webster" <kenwe...@carolinadotrr.com> wrote in message
news:5a9bf$430a27c7$438df92e$29...@ALLTEL.NET...
> What was the sound environment like inside the various space vehicles? For
> later ships like the Shuttle, I imagine it sounds a lot like my office-
> just a bunch of fans. The Mercury's, would seem to me to be the quietest,
> just because of their simplicity, if nothing else.
>
it was electrical, not wind-up, but it still made a "tick-tock" sound from
the escapement mechanism IIRC.
OM
wrote:
>Didn't the Mercury instrument panel include a mechanical clock? I think
>it was electrical, not wind-up, but it still made a "tick-tock" sound from
>the escapement mechanism IIRC.
...This begs a gag rendering for Orbiter, with the Mercury console
having a big wind-up key next to the clock :-)
OM
--
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb bastard die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society
- General George S. Patton, Jr
Prop...@gmx.net
I recall Rusty Schweikert's saying in an interview published in
Spaceflight that he and Jim McDivitt developed hand signals to use in
case the LM's ascent engine was so noisy that they couldn't talk while
it was firing. It turned out to be perfectly quiet. They just looked
at each other and laughed.
We also know that during the flight of Gemini 8, Armstrong and Scott
were initially unaware that the leftward roll that developed while they
were docked to the Agena was caused by a thruster on the Gemini rather
than on the Agena. This suggests that Gemini's thrusters generated no
noise audible in the cockpit.
Does anybody know of any other cases in which engines either were or
were not audible in the cockpit?
What about re-entry noise?
Bob Martin
> Does anybody know of any other cases in which engines either were or
> were not audible in the cockpit?
I've heard RCS thruster firings on the shuttle compared to howitzers...
and (IIRC) the STS-1 mission report states that the crew mainly used the
verniers for attitude control so they wouldn't be woken up/disturbed by
the larger thrusters firing
Brad Guth
damage control) group, thus the truth obviously can't be contributed,
in which case I'll have to repost this into the "sci.space.history"
portion of the original topic/author.
Ken Webster and otherwise on behalf of Bob Martin (Spacecraft Sound
Levels: Engine Noise),
According to these not always so nice NASA/usenet rusemasters, there
never is a sound of thrusters from within any of their craft. That's
actually always been a wee bit hard to believe, especially since we're
talking about at least 5 psi (better than 0.3 bar) of ambient cabin
atmosphere and of various rocket engines plus internal auxiliary
components having to be attached to that craft, in that you'd have to
think such items might have to be rather noisy, that is unless your
ears are situated within a vacuum and thus you're quite dead.
Thus decades long after the fact, it's clear that we're never going to
hear for ourselves as to what the truth really is about spacecraft
cabin sounds and noise levels.
However, we're being told to believe that such lack of any engine noise
must be why there's no live sound tracks obtained from anything
associated within ISS, shuttle or of those spendy Apollo missions.
Simply a waste of time and technology, or perhaps too gosh darn spendy
and apparently way to much extra weight and energy consumption as to
include any sort of cabin audio recording technology that might have at
the time consumed 10 whole watts of energy if doing such things in the
old magnetic tape way, as otherwise only a fraction of a watt as of the
last decade.
This must also be why for all these decades there has been no camera,
as of the last decade 0.0003 lux B&W w/auto-iris as an external camera
(now there's even a color 0.0003 lux version Model KPC-650 of 1.2 watt)
that are never sharing publicly accessible images from space, not even
at one frame per second. Apparently we wouldn't want to be consuming
all of perhaps 5 watts (including the video frame storage) of energy on
behalf of confusing folks with those pesky stars and nearby moving
items that might have any of those pesky UV energy signatures as having
been indirectly obtained by David Sereda, plus his offering us new
ideas and notions of UV energy, of video images that had to be
forcefully extracted away from NASA. For best impact on this one,
you'll really need to obtain a copy of his video tapes:
http://www.ufonasa.com
Even a terrestrial application via telescope is certainly worth of
knocking your socks off, however most of the UV spectrum has been
moderated or entirely eliminated by the atmosphere of Earth. This
example is of what an amateur Ultima 11 SCT telescope captured
http://www.aaobc.com/pc164.html
This 0.0003 lux camera obtained photo (4-23--LUNAR0023) is interesting
in that it's given us another typical look-see at the larger as clearly
suggesting an icy proto-moon as having been impacted by perhaps another
large icy orb, then of somewhat newer and much smaller skip impacts of
two or more bounces which clearly indicates something quite interesting
as to the relatively soft surface composition of the moon.
http://www.aaobc.com/pc164/4-23--LUNAR0023.jpg
Image 4-23--LUNAR0018 is that of an even much larger ice impact zone
upon an icy proto-moon, with loads of other icy secondary impacts, plus
having the usual numbers of the much newer and most likely those of a
non icy format, whereas these smaller craters having a diameter/depth
ratio suggesting that perhaps neither surface had any initial ice
involvement.
http://www.aaobc.com/pc164/4-23--LUNAR0018.jpg
Their club (Amateur Astronomers Of Beaver County) even has one of those
nifty entro score, so that means they know exactly what they're doing:
http://www.aaobc.com/
Of course as of not so recently there's been high resolution 2/3" CCD
0.0001 lux cameras that have been off the shelf, and certanly always
along with a UV spectrum capable lens to boot, that is unless you
intentionally wanted to exclude such UV spectrum photons with an
approprate optical filter. There's actually plenty of fairly common
optics that are notorious for their high UV transmission, although
specialized glass that's obviously quite pure can manage to efficiently
pass 250 nm, the Cerco UV lens
(http://www.sodern.com/pdf/leaflet%20F28%20june%2004.pdf) offers an
example of one that's suitable from 220 nm to 620 nm
~
Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
War is war, thus "in war there are no rules" - In fact, war has been
the very reason of having to deal with the likes of others that haven't
been playing by whatever rules, such as GW Bush.
Brad Guth
Don't look Ken, sci.space.tech and sci.space.science brown-nose suck
and blow like another black hole at the same time, as even you've been
excluded as well as Bob Martin and certainly anyone other that doesn't
fit their incest flatulence mold of the day.
At least "Orval Fairbairn" offers his fair share of damage-control on
behalf of his pagan God (MI6/NSA~NASA);
"Moon Landing Hoax: Nexus of NASA Loyal Worker With Religion & Moon
Landing Lies & Seniority"
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.models.rockets/browse_frm/thread/945d91648901476b/ef1181d1ce1f3382?lnk=st&q=brad+guth&rnum=1&hl=en#ef1181d1ce1f3382
>I happen to have worked on the guidance/performance of the Apollo Mission
>I also have a personal friend and flying buddy who trained astronauts on
>the lunar lander simulator, which was an actual, flying test article.
Apparently simulators of which none of the astronauts actually managed
any real flight-time via rocket thrust within are all that matters.
Tell us Orval Fairbairn; where's the film footage of even others as
having been dropped out of the sky and purely fly-by-rocket living to
tell us village idiots about it?
How about even a look-see upon any robotic/tethered aerial drop of
anything that's purely fly-by-rocket?
At least pro-NASA "Cardman" has recently been contributing approprate
sorts of topic feedback.
Cardman,
Here's another new and improved version as to your:
>People will believe what they see, and what makes sense, if other
>people do not inform them how things really work.
Finally, you've offered something that makes perfect sense. So, why not
ask of these supposedly all-knowing lords and wizards of usenet to
start off with their explaining as to how fly-by-rocket landers
(AI/robotic as well as manned) actually functioned throughout the
various R&D steps that had to have taken place.
In addition to "Spacecraft Sound Levels"
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.history/browse_frm/thread/1a0bacb9e674adc4/0436eb09ef5d2011?lnk=st&q=brad+guth&rnum=12&hl=en#0436eb09ef5d2011
We'll need a few specifics, such as actual R&D film footage as to the
applied physics and technology of physical stabilizing, de-orbit and
down-range fuel consumption/kg of mass, physical and radiation
shielding, internal cabin and/or internal moonsuit noise levels, as
well as internal energy demands and so forth as based upon whatever's
external to the NASA/Apollo bible because, it obviously should match
exactly unless something has been skewed a little off track.
Then having someone of their all-knowing wizardly status quo start
explaining upon the Kodak laws of photon physics, as such might
represent yet another perfectly good step for mankind that's going in
the right direction.
OOPS; my PC just went into the toilet because, it looks as though my
contributions have been exceeding your usenet bandwidth, as in too much
drain upon their mainstream status quo mainframes. Either that or I'm
being formally sequestered into their intellectual black hole of
topic/author banishment.