| Users Online Now: 2,089 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 1,030,661 | |
| Pageviews Today: 1,915,029 | Threads Today: 922 | Posts Today: 16,729 |
| 09:02 PM | ||
| Users Online Now: 2,089 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 1,030,661 | |
| Pageviews Today: 1,915,029 | Threads Today: 922 | Posts Today: 16,729 |
| 09:02 PM | ||
TELL ME "THIS" LANDED ON THE MOON!!!!!! | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 40378295  United States10/26/2015 02:41 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | So which makes more sense... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 4556813 A. The need for a lightweight lander that can be propelled into space on a rocket with a limited amount of thrust, resulting in what appears to be a hodgepodge of materials (mostly shielding that doesn't NEED to be riveted every 1/2 inch)? B. NASA needing to build a prop to fake moon photos with, then proceeding to build the shittiest looking lander possible? They wen't all out on the suits and the rover.. why cheap out on the lander? Why didn't they "fake" a lander that looked like something from popular fiction of the era? A smoove-looking Buck Rogers type ship, with fins and two-tone paint job, would have been too obvious, even for Boobus Americanus. No, they were quite brilliant. They designed and built that absurd junk-pile precisely because it looked like a heap of shit slapped together by schoolkids. Then they could trumpet "function over form", "no need for aerodynamics", "the math proves it worked" ad nauseam! Genius, really! It didn't need aerodynamics, no air. It did, however require a fair amount of fuel to decelerate out of orbit and power itself down to a soft landing. No air for parachutes or fins to use. The problem is all the life support requirements, the single engine supporting it prior to landing is a totally unstable arrangement, if it got a couple degrees off plumb (look it up) the engine would have propelled it off at a tangent, out of control. The cameras couldn't have produced those beeyootiful photos, and thy would have never manged to rendezvous with the CM. The timing would have been impossible. The fuel required would not fit in that tomato can they took off in.. An error of 0.1 second would have made them miss (only one try to a customer, now) by hundreds of yards. Nope. Can't buy it, never will. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 67928177 United States10/26/2015 02:43 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Well, you could look at it a couple of ways. One could analyze all the other forms of lander/rovers that have been sent out to luna and mars, but of course these are all robotic and so we are really talking apples and oranges. Sending the humans and all their cargo in one shot seems ludicrous and highly implausible given that it is magnitudes more weighty than anything else we have been able to accomplish. The whole mission was full of redundancy and still left huge margins for error. I guess if you had your heart set on manned landings, a simple jet pack arrangement on a suited astronaut would work about as well as anything to land on the surface. You eliminate the redundant crew cabin, and all the structure of the lander itself, with all its pointless mechanisms just to make it to the ground. Then you rendezvous with pre-positioned supplies and dwelling compartments and whatever else you need and then hop on a return vehicle that takes you back to earth. That doesn't answer the question, "what should it look like" Your solution is way more complicated. This simple jetpack you talk about, presumably it has to carry an inertial navigation system, complete with 60s vintage computer, radio trancievers,landing radar, instrument panel and navigation display, what about if the pilot is overloaded with work, it helps to have a co pilot along calling out you altitude, speed, fuel, talking on the radio for you as you fly the landing, batteries, enough oxygen and coolant for the pilot, a thermal cooling system for the pilot and electronics, some energy absorbing landing system, a reaction control system, a micrometeorite and thermal protecting skin for the pilot. Sounds pretty heavy, how much fuel does it need to carry? Now what if the pilot misses the landing zone like Armstrong did, is he left to die because he can't reach his shelter and return craft? They spent years making the LM design as simple and light as possible, it really is paired to the bone, they didn't even have hammocks for the first crew to sleep in. . actually it is less complicated. IF you insist on the notion of landing humans, they have inbuilt inertial navigation systems, the inner ear, would work fine in a gravity field. No need for landing radar because we have eyes. No need for displays because we have eyes. No need for a copilot to double check redundant machine systems. They already needed space suits so no extra weight there. Much less fuel necessary. Armstrong missed the landing site probably because of the redundant and awkward navigation system. Prepositioned supplies and equipment could have been landed using far more stable and reliable methods much like have been employed in dozens of other robotic missions It is the notion of an all in one mission that is absurdly complicated and we are expected to believe they achieved all these missions almost without error. Balberdash, i say. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 70649522 United States10/26/2015 02:47 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | This thread is full of fun. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 40378295 They never set foot on the moon. No big deal, just another pack of lies from the ripoff gov't that stole the money that was supposed to develop a real mission. JFK's bright idea was a lot of fun and full of inspiration, but it was the idea of a politician. The same people legislate fuel milage requirements in cars, efficiency must go up, as they also require more and more heavy safety equipment be installed. No problem, the engineers will find a way. The moon was not that easy, there was no way. So they called Mr Kubric, and the rest is history. ...and that, young Jedi, is why you fail... learn some math and science... You're so stupid. I am a retired radar and weapons control system mechanic. I grind and polish my own telescope mirrors as a hobby. A great deal of precision measurement and calculations are required. They never went. Sorry if you can't handle the truth. Was a 17XX for many years...SAGE/BUIC/AWACS/NCC...thanks to your work! There are, and were, folks out there who put the same skill and passion into designing, fabricating, assembling and flying rockets and spacecraft. They too knew of precision and craftsmanship, and learned from their failures... The physics work, the orbital mechanics work, the environmental support systems work, the engine design worked. Is there anything specific you find "in-credible"? |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 70586871 United States10/26/2015 02:55 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 40378295 United States10/26/2015 02:58 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | This thread is full of fun. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 40378295 They never set foot on the moon. No big deal, just another pack of lies from the ripoff gov't that stole the money that was supposed to develop a real mission. JFK's bright idea was a lot of fun and full of inspiration, but it was the idea of a politician. The same people legislate fuel milage requirements in cars, efficiency must go up, as they also require more and more heavy safety equipment be installed. No problem, the engineers will find a way. The moon was not that easy, there was no way. So they called Mr Kubric, and the rest is history. ...and that, young Jedi, is why you fail... learn some math and science... You're so stupid. I am a retired radar and weapons control system mechanic. I grind and polish my own telescope mirrors as a hobby. A great deal of precision measurement and calculations are required. They never went. Sorry if you can't handle the truth. Was a 17XX for many years...SAGE/BUIC/AWACS/NCC...thanks to your work! There are, and were, folks out there who put the same skill and passion into designing, fabricating, assembling and flying rockets and spacecraft. They too knew of precision and craftsmanship, and learned from their failures... The physics work, the orbital mechanics work, the environmental support systems work, the engine design worked. Is there anything specific you find "in-credible"? Electrical power source (ca 1969) Liquid O2 storage cannister for 3 days on the surface, two men. Film that can withstand extremes of heat and cold and cosmic radiation. This gyro stabilization system, are you aware how those work? Extreme electrical demand, a heavy rotating wheel, follow up potentiometers, error sensors, a computer for control. Then there's the suits... |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 67928177 United States10/26/2015 02:58 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 40378295 United States10/26/2015 03:05 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Here's a page about a modern boat stabilizing gyro system. It weighs 790 pounds, draws 2000 watts of high voltage current, needs 4 gallons per minute of cooling water, and costs 30K, and is about 3 feet square and needs an ambient temp between 32 and 140 degrees F. Good luck with the 1969 models. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 40378295 United States10/26/2015 03:05 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 67928177 United States10/26/2015 03:05 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 1965 tech. In lunar gravity field, would this not be sufficient for retrorocket landing of crew. I ask the experts among us. [link to www.youtube.com (secure)] |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 13860386  Croatia10/26/2015 03:11 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 70649522 United States10/26/2015 03:13 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 60685306  United Kingdom10/26/2015 03:13 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | So which makes more sense... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 4556813 A. The need for a lightweight lander that can be propelled into space on a rocket with a limited amount of thrust, resulting in what appears to be a hodgepodge of materials (mostly shielding that doesn't NEED to be riveted every 1/2 inch)? B. NASA needing to build a prop to fake moon photos with, then proceeding to build the shittiest looking lander possible? They wen't all out on the suits and the rover.. why cheap out on the lander? Why didn't they "fake" a lander that looked like something from popular fiction of the era? A smoove-looking Buck Rogers type ship, with fins and two-tone paint job, would have been too obvious, even for Boobus Americanus. No, they were quite brilliant. They designed and built that absurd junk-pile precisely because it looked like a heap of shit slapped together by schoolkids. Then they could trumpet "function over form", "no need for aerodynamics", "the math proves it worked" ad nauseam! Genius, really! It didn't need aerodynamics, no air. It did, however require a fair amount of fuel to decelerate out of orbit and power itself down to a soft landing. No air for parachutes or fins to use. The problem is all the life support requirements, the single engine supporting it prior to landing is a totally unstable arrangement, if it got a couple degrees off plumb (look it up) the engine would have propelled it off at a tangent, out of control. The cameras couldn't have produced those beeyootiful photos, and thy would have never manged to rendezvous with the CM. The timing would have been impossible. The fuel required would not fit in that tomato can they took off in.. An error of 0.1 second would have made them miss (only one try to a customer, now) by hundreds of yards. Nope. Can't buy it, never will. That single, central engine thing always intrigued me. If one of the two standing Lunanauts had moved just an inch, it would have needed an instantaneous response from some kinda compensating mechanism (gyro or whatever) to prevent the craft from tumbling. I guess it must have had a major flywheel gyro, pulling Kilowatts of power, with a super-fast, computer-controlled response! Who knew? |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 40378295 United States10/26/2015 03:21 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | So which makes more sense... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 4556813 A. The need for a lightweight lander that can be propelled into space on a rocket with a limited amount of thrust, resulting in what appears to be a hodgepodge of materials (mostly shielding that doesn't NEED to be riveted every 1/2 inch)? B. NASA needing to build a prop to fake moon photos with, then proceeding to build the shittiest looking lander possible? They wen't all out on the suits and the rover.. why cheap out on the lander? Why didn't they "fake" a lander that looked like something from popular fiction of the era? A smoove-looking Buck Rogers type ship, with fins and two-tone paint job, would have been too obvious, even for Boobus Americanus. No, they were quite brilliant. They designed and built that absurd junk-pile precisely because it looked like a heap of shit slapped together by schoolkids. Then they could trumpet "function over form", "no need for aerodynamics", "the math proves it worked" ad nauseam! Genius, really! It didn't need aerodynamics, no air. It did, however require a fair amount of fuel to decelerate out of orbit and power itself down to a soft landing. No air for parachutes or fins to use. The problem is all the life support requirements, the single engine supporting it prior to landing is a totally unstable arrangement, if it got a couple degrees off plumb (look it up) the engine would have propelled it off at a tangent, out of control. The cameras couldn't have produced those beeyootiful photos, and thy would have never manged to rendezvous with the CM. The timing would have been impossible. The fuel required would not fit in that tomato can they took off in.. An error of 0.1 second would have made them miss (only one try to a customer, now) by hundreds of yards. Nope. Can't buy it, never will. That single, central engine thing always intrigued me. If one of the two standing Lunanauts had moved just an inch, it would have needed an instantaneous response from some kinda compensating mechanism (gyro or whatever) to prevent the craft from tumbling. I guess it must have had a major flywheel gyro, pulling Kilowatts of power, with a super-fast, computer-controlled response! Who knew? Right you are, Ted! |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 24944642 United Kingdom10/26/2015 03:23 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Well, you could look at it a couple of ways. One could analyze all the other forms of lander/rovers that have been sent out to luna and mars, but of course these are all robotic and so we are really talking apples and oranges. Sending the humans and all their cargo in one shot seems ludicrous and highly implausible given that it is magnitudes more weighty than anything else we have been able to accomplish. The whole mission was full of redundancy and still left huge margins for error. I guess if you had your heart set on manned landings, a simple jet pack arrangement on a suited astronaut would work about as well as anything to land on the surface. You eliminate the redundant crew cabin, and all the structure of the lander itself, with all its pointless mechanisms just to make it to the ground. Then you rendezvous with pre-positioned supplies and dwelling compartments and whatever else you need and then hop on a return vehicle that takes you back to earth. That doesn't answer the question, "what should it look like" Your solution is way more complicated. This simple jetpack you talk about, presumably it has to carry an inertial navigation system, complete with 60s vintage computer, radio trancievers,landing radar, instrument panel and navigation display, what about if the pilot is overloaded with work, it helps to have a co pilot along calling out you altitude, speed, fuel, talking on the radio for you as you fly the landing, batteries, enough oxygen and coolant for the pilot, a thermal cooling system for the pilot and electronics, some energy absorbing landing system, a reaction control system, a micrometeorite and thermal protecting skin for the pilot. Sounds pretty heavy, how much fuel does it need to carry? Now what if the pilot misses the landing zone like Armstrong did, is he left to die because he can't reach his shelter and return craft? They spent years making the LM design as simple and light as possible, it really is paired to the bone, they didn't even have hammocks for the first crew to sleep in. . actually it is less complicated. IF you insist on the notion of landing humans, they have inbuilt inertial navigation systems, the inner ear, would work fine in a gravity field. No need for landing radar because we have eyes. No need for displays because we have eyes. No need for a copilot to double check redundant machine systems. They already needed space suits so no extra weight there. Much less fuel necessary. Armstrong missed the landing site probably because of the redundant and awkward navigation system. Prepositioned supplies and equipment could have been landed using far more stable and reliable methods much like have been employed in dozens of other robotic missions It is the notion of an all in one mission that is absurdly complicated and we are expected to believe they achieved all these missions almost without error. Balberdash, i say. You can navigate dead reckoning for 250 miles on your back, feet first over unfamiliar terrain applying just the right amount of thrust to brake and pitch over at just the right time, to hit your landing oval, using ..... the force Luke, use the force. Too much Star Wars science fiction for you.  |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 40378295 United States10/26/2015 03:24 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 70649522 United States10/26/2015 03:26 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | So which makes more sense... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 4556813 A. The need for a lightweight lander that can be propelled into space on a rocket with a limited amount of thrust, resulting in what appears to be a hodgepodge of materials (mostly shielding that doesn't NEED to be riveted every 1/2 inch)? B. NASA needing to build a prop to fake moon photos with, then proceeding to build the shittiest looking lander possible? They wen't all out on the suits and the rover.. why cheap out on the lander? Why didn't they "fake" a lander that looked like something from popular fiction of the era? A smoove-looking Buck Rogers type ship, with fins and two-tone paint job, would have been too obvious, even for Boobus Americanus. No, they were quite brilliant. They designed and built that absurd junk-pile precisely because it looked like a heap of shit slapped together by schoolkids. Then they could trumpet "function over form", "no need for aerodynamics", "the math proves it worked" ad nauseam! Genius, really! It didn't need aerodynamics, no air. It did, however require a fair amount of fuel to decelerate out of orbit and power itself down to a soft landing. No air for parachutes or fins to use. The problem is all the life support requirements, the single engine supporting it prior to landing is a totally unstable arrangement, if it got a couple degrees off plumb (look it up) the engine would have propelled it off at a tangent, out of control. The cameras couldn't have produced those beeyootiful photos, and thy would have never manged to rendezvous with the CM. The timing would have been impossible. The fuel required would not fit in that tomato can they took off in.. An error of 0.1 second would have made them miss (only one try to a customer, now) by hundreds of yards. Nope. Can't buy it, never will. That single, central engine thing always intrigued me. If one of the two standing Lunanauts had moved just an inch, it would have needed an instantaneous response from some kinda compensating mechanism (gyro or whatever) to prevent the craft from tumbling. I guess it must have had a major flywheel gyro, pulling Kilowatts of power, with a super-fast, computer-controlled response! Who knew? where was the GG of the LM...? You are making assumptions on the balance of the vehicle without knowing this? |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 40378295 United States10/26/2015 03:33 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 60685306 A smoove-looking Buck Rogers type ship, with fins and two-tone paint job, would have been too obvious, even for Boobus Americanus. No, they were quite brilliant. They designed and built that absurd junk-pile precisely because it looked like a heap of shit slapped together by schoolkids. Then they could trumpet "function over form", "no need for aerodynamics", "the math proves it worked" ad nauseam! Genius, really! It didn't need aerodynamics, no air. It did, however require a fair amount of fuel to decelerate out of orbit and power itself down to a soft landing. No air for parachutes or fins to use. The problem is all the life support requirements, the single engine supporting it prior to landing is a totally unstable arrangement, if it got a couple degrees off plumb (look it up) the engine would have propelled it off at a tangent, out of control. The cameras couldn't have produced those beeyootiful photos, and thy would have never manged to rendezvous with the CM. The timing would have been impossible. The fuel required would not fit in that tomato can they took off in.. An error of 0.1 second would have made them miss (only one try to a customer, now) by hundreds of yards. Nope. Can't buy it, never will. That single, central engine thing always intrigued me. If one of the two standing Lunanauts had moved just an inch, it would have needed an instantaneous response from some kinda compensating mechanism (gyro or whatever) to prevent the craft from tumbling. I guess it must have had a major flywheel gyro, pulling Kilowatts of power, with a super-fast, computer-controlled response! Who knew? where was the GG of the LM...? You are making assumptions on the balance of the vehicle without knowing this? You must mean the CG, center of gravity. Then you have to consider the center of mass. Try this- Get a small glass of water. Put your index finger under it, right in the center. Hold it up for 10 seconds without any other touch. Just the center of the underside. Balance it there. Any luck? You see, it is inherently unstable. It wants to topple off center. So would the LEM. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 70649522 United States10/26/2015 03:34 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Neil once crashed the LEM landing test vehicle and it was on a tether. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 40378295 Then those news stories just stopped coming. I was alive then, watching it all unfold on tv. They tried to do the impossible, tried their best. Funny...there were many, many successful flights of the LLTV...and these flights were not televised...maybe taped, but not live TV. And Neil's accident was not on a tether... Finally, it wasn't the LEM , it's LM. It was a simulator which all of the astronauts did indeed praise for it's general fidelity. Neil's one flight accident was due to malfunctioning thrusters (ran out of thruster fuel due to leak IIRC) |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 43136614 United States10/26/2015 03:34 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 43136614 WTF does 911 have to do with the Apollo missions? Why do you hoaxers always change the subject when you can't prove your accusations? Why do hoaxers always change the subject when they can't hide the fact that they are ignorant of the subject at hand? Gish gallop. Look it up. What does 9/11 have to do with Apollo? A hoax is a hoax. 9/11 was a type of hoax. A false flag really but still a hoax. I really don't care if NASA went to the Moon or not. If they went there it helped nothing. If they didn't it helped nothing. If they did it's not like they're ever going back. And don't even get me started on a Mars mission. LOL! Shite answer. Didn't help anything? Do you have any idea how many inventions we use day to day that were a direct or indirect result of the Apollo missions? Of course, you wouldn't know.... you willfully embrace your ignorance like all hoaxers do. The major problem with you hoaxers is you make accusations but you never provide proof. You only provide scientific illiteracy. [link to www.design-laorosa.com] perhaps the 911 reference is to show that the elite are still pulling off hoax's even in 2001. the greater the lie, the greater it is more likely to be believed. The difference is that the science in Apollo checks out. The other issue is that not one single hoaxer has been able to explain how 400,000 people have kept their mouths shut for almost 50 years. Some of those engineers are in their 90s now and many have already passed on. And yet not one single deathbed confession. From anyone? The only people that seem to have a problem with the Apollo data are people that have absolutely no training or any kind of background in any of the sciences. It's like cavemen trying to understand electricity. The hoaxers will believe anyone, no matter the lack of qualifications but will ignore the brightest scientific minds in the world because it doesn't fit their preconceived beliefs. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 67928177 United States10/26/2015 03:35 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 69837236 Well, you could look at it a couple of ways. One could analyze all the other forms of lander/rovers that have been sent out to luna and mars, but of course these are all robotic and so we are really talking apples and oranges. Sending the humans and all their cargo in one shot seems ludicrous and highly implausible given that it is magnitudes more weighty than anything else we have been able to accomplish. The whole mission was full of redundancy and still left huge margins for error. I guess if you had your heart set on manned landings, a simple jet pack arrangement on a suited astronaut would work about as well as anything to land on the surface. You eliminate the redundant crew cabin, and all the structure of the lander itself, with all its pointless mechanisms just to make it to the ground. Then you rendezvous with pre-positioned supplies and dwelling compartments and whatever else you need and then hop on a return vehicle that takes you back to earth. That doesn't answer the question, "what should it look like" Your solution is way more complicated. This simple jetpack you talk about, presumably it has to carry an inertial navigation system, complete with 60s vintage computer, radio trancievers,landing radar, instrument panel and navigation display, what about if the pilot is overloaded with work, it helps to have a co pilot along calling out you altitude, speed, fuel, talking on the radio for you as you fly the landing, batteries, enough oxygen and coolant for the pilot, a thermal cooling system for the pilot and electronics, some energy absorbing landing system, a reaction control system, a micrometeorite and thermal protecting skin for the pilot. Sounds pretty heavy, how much fuel does it need to carry? Now what if the pilot misses the landing zone like Armstrong did, is he left to die because he can't reach his shelter and return craft? They spent years making the LM design as simple and light as possible, it really is paired to the bone, they didn't even have hammocks for the first crew to sleep in. . actually it is less complicated. IF you insist on the notion of landing humans, they have inbuilt inertial navigation systems, the inner ear, would work fine in a gravity field. No need for landing radar because we have eyes. No need for displays because we have eyes. No need for a copilot to double check redundant machine systems. They already needed space suits so no extra weight there. Much less fuel necessary. Armstrong missed the landing site probably because of the redundant and awkward navigation system. Prepositioned supplies and equipment could have been landed using far more stable and reliable methods much like have been employed in dozens of other robotic missions It is the notion of an all in one mission that is absurdly complicated and we are expected to believe they achieved all these missions almost without error. Balberdash, i say. You can navigate dead reckoning for 250 miles on your back, feet first over unfamiliar terrain applying just the right amount of thrust to brake and pitch over at just the right time, to hit your landing oval, using ..... the force Luke, use the force. Too much Star Wars science fiction for you. Maybe too much nasa fiction, but think about it. Most of the navigational calculations were done and operated by computer during the thousands of miles that guides a spaceship to its target. Fine tuning the final approach and set down (or orbital rendezvous) is what I am talking about and this almost always has involved someone using "the force" or their eyes or sense of balance. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 43136614 United States10/26/2015 03:38 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | So which makes more sense... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 4556813 A. The need for a lightweight lander that can be propelled into space on a rocket with a limited amount of thrust, resulting in what appears to be a hodgepodge of materials (mostly shielding that doesn't NEED to be riveted every 1/2 inch)? B. NASA needing to build a prop to fake moon photos with, then proceeding to build the shittiest looking lander possible? They wen't all out on the suits and the rover.. why cheap out on the lander? Why didn't they "fake" a lander that looked like something from popular fiction of the era? A smoove-looking Buck Rogers type ship, with fins and two-tone paint job, would have been too obvious, even for Boobus Americanus. No, they were quite brilliant. They designed and built that absurd junk-pile precisely because it looked like a heap of shit slapped together by schoolkids. Then they could trumpet "function over form", "no need for aerodynamics", "the math proves it worked" ad nauseam! Genius, really! It didn't need aerodynamics, no air. It did, however require a fair amount of fuel to decelerate out of orbit and power itself down to a soft landing. No air for parachutes or fins to use. The problem is all the life support requirements, the single engine supporting it prior to landing is a totally unstable arrangement, if it got a couple degrees off plumb (look it up) the engine would have propelled it off at a tangent, out of control. The cameras couldn't have produced those beeyootiful photos, and thy would have never manged to rendezvous with the CM. The timing would have been impossible. The fuel required would not fit in that tomato can they took off in.. An error of 0.1 second would have made them miss (only one try to a customer, now) by hundreds of yards. Nope. Can't buy it, never will. That single, central engine thing always intrigued me. If one of the two standing Lunanauts had moved just an inch, it would have needed an instantaneous response from some kinda compensating mechanism (gyro or whatever) to prevent the craft from tumbling. I guess it must have had a major flywheel gyro, pulling Kilowatts of power, with a super-fast, computer-controlled response! Who knew? Prove it. Show us the math and not your assumptions. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 40378295 United States10/26/2015 03:39 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Neil once crashed the LEM landing test vehicle and it was on a tether. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 40378295 Then those news stories just stopped coming. I was alive then, watching it all unfold on tv. They tried to do the impossible, tried their best. Funny...there were many, many successful flights of the LLTV...and these flights were not televised...maybe taped, but not live TV. And Neil's accident was not on a tether... Finally, it wasn't the LEM , it's LM. It was a simulator which all of the astronauts did indeed praise for it's general fidelity. Neil's one flight accident was due to malfunctioning thrusters (ran out of thruster fuel due to leak IIRC) Neil once crashed the LEM landing test vehicle and it was on a tether. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 40378295 Then those news stories just stopped coming. I was alive then, watching it all unfold on tv. They tried to do the impossible, tried their best. Funny...there were many, many successful flights of the LLTV...and these flights were not televised...maybe taped, but not live TV. And Neil's accident was not on a tether... Finally, it wasn't the LEM , it's LM. It was a simulator which all of the astronauts did indeed praise for it's general fidelity. Neil's one flight accident was due to malfunctioning thrusters (ran out of thruster fuel due to leak IIRC) BS, it was still running when it went in and there were no untethered attempts. Neil had a sort of ejection seat, he was parachuted down to avoid his untimely demise. The LEM is the correct term. Lunar Excursion Module. Mr. Know-it-all here is all wet. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 70649522 United States10/26/2015 03:41 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 40378295 It didn't need aerodynamics, no air. It did, however require a fair amount of fuel to decelerate out of orbit and power itself down to a soft landing. No air for parachutes or fins to use. The problem is all the life support requirements, the single engine supporting it prior to landing is a totally unstable arrangement, if it got a couple degrees off plumb (look it up) the engine would have propelled it off at a tangent, out of control. The cameras couldn't have produced those beeyootiful photos, and thy would have never manged to rendezvous with the CM. The timing would have been impossible. The fuel required would not fit in that tomato can they took off in.. An error of 0.1 second would have made them miss (only one try to a customer, now) by hundreds of yards. Nope. Can't buy it, never will. That single, central engine thing always intrigued me. If one of the two standing Lunanauts had moved just an inch, it would have needed an instantaneous response from some kinda compensating mechanism (gyro or whatever) to prevent the craft from tumbling. I guess it must have had a major flywheel gyro, pulling Kilowatts of power, with a super-fast, computer-controlled response! Who knew? where was the GG of the LM...? You are making assumptions on the balance of the vehicle without knowing this? You must mean the CG, center of gravity. Then you have to consider the center of mass. Try this- Get a small glass of water. Put your index finger under it, right in the center. Hold it up for 10 seconds without any other touch. Just the center of the underside. Balance it there. Any luck? You see, it is inherently unstable. It wants to topple off center. So would the LEM. Center of mass?...is this different from Cg? Then throw in the center of thrust...in a vacuum. Then the outboard RCS thrusters for attitude control... ...do you think this wasn't thought out, or tested? (see Apollo 9 and 10) |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 43136614 United States10/26/2015 03:42 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24944642 That doesn't answer the question, "what should it look like" Your solution is way more complicated. This simple jetpack you talk about, presumably it has to carry an inertial navigation system, complete with 60s vintage computer, radio trancievers,landing radar, instrument panel and navigation display, what about if the pilot is overloaded with work, it helps to have a co pilot along calling out you altitude, speed, fuel, talking on the radio for you as you fly the landing, batteries, enough oxygen and coolant for the pilot, a thermal cooling system for the pilot and electronics, some energy absorbing landing system, a reaction control system, a micrometeorite and thermal protecting skin for the pilot. Sounds pretty heavy, how much fuel does it need to carry? Now what if the pilot misses the landing zone like Armstrong did, is he left to die because he can't reach his shelter and return craft? They spent years making the LM design as simple and light as possible, it really is paired to the bone, they didn't even have hammocks for the first crew to sleep in. . actually it is less complicated. IF you insist on the notion of landing humans, they have inbuilt inertial navigation systems, the inner ear, would work fine in a gravity field. No need for landing radar because we have eyes. No need for displays because we have eyes. No need for a copilot to double check redundant machine systems. They already needed space suits so no extra weight there. Much less fuel necessary. Armstrong missed the landing site probably because of the redundant and awkward navigation system. Prepositioned supplies and equipment could have been landed using far more stable and reliable methods much like have been employed in dozens of other robotic missions It is the notion of an all in one mission that is absurdly complicated and we are expected to believe they achieved all these missions almost without error. Balberdash, i say. You can navigate dead reckoning for 250 miles on your back, feet first over unfamiliar terrain applying just the right amount of thrust to brake and pitch over at just the right time, to hit your landing oval, using ..... the force Luke, use the force. Too much Star Wars science fiction for you. Maybe too much nasa fiction, but think about it. Most of the navigational calculations were done and operated by computer during the thousands of miles that guides a spaceship to its target. Wrong. Most of the calculations were done on the ground and sent to the Astronauts who then fed it into the Nav computer. This is a documentary about the designing of the Navigation Computer. [link to youtu.be (secure)] |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 67928177 United States10/26/2015 03:42 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Sobriquet™ What does 9/11 have to do with Apollo? A hoax is a hoax. 9/11 was a type of hoax. A false flag really but still a hoax. I really don't care if NASA went to the Moon or not. If they went there it helped nothing. If they didn't it helped nothing. If they did it's not like they're ever going back. And don't even get me started on a Mars mission. LOL! Shite answer. Didn't help anything? Do you have any idea how many inventions we use day to day that were a direct or indirect result of the Apollo missions? Of course, you wouldn't know.... you willfully embrace your ignorance like all hoaxers do. The major problem with you hoaxers is you make accusations but you never provide proof. You only provide scientific illiteracy. [link to www.design-laorosa.com] perhaps the 911 reference is to show that the elite are still pulling off hoax's even in 2001. the greater the lie, the greater it is more likely to be believed. The difference is that the science in Apollo checks out. The other issue is that not one single hoaxer has been able to explain how 400,000 people have kept their mouths shut for almost 50 years. Some of those engineers are in their 90s now and many have already passed on. And yet not one single deathbed confession. From anyone? The only people that seem to have a problem with the Apollo data are people that have absolutely no training or any kind of background in any of the sciences. It's like cavemen trying to understand electricity. The hoaxers will believe anyone, no matter the lack of qualifications but will ignore the brightest scientific minds in the world because it doesn't fit their preconceived beliefs. Ridiculous bandwagon appeal and ad hom attacks. Why should anyone believe you. It has been repeatedly stated that there is no dispute that there was and is an actual space program. It is the nature and validity of the apollo claims that is disputed. It does not fit with the rest of developments in space exploration so the notion that it "checks out" is what is suspect. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 40378295 United States10/26/2015 03:42 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 67928177 United States10/26/2015 03:45 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 67928177 actually it is less complicated. IF you insist on the notion of landing humans, they have inbuilt inertial navigation systems, the inner ear, would work fine in a gravity field. No need for landing radar because we have eyes. No need for displays because we have eyes. No need for a copilot to double check redundant machine systems. They already needed space suits so no extra weight there. Much less fuel necessary. Armstrong missed the landing site probably because of the redundant and awkward navigation system. Prepositioned supplies and equipment could have been landed using far more stable and reliable methods much like have been employed in dozens of other robotic missions It is the notion of an all in one mission that is absurdly complicated and we are expected to believe they achieved all these missions almost without error. Balberdash, i say. You can navigate dead reckoning for 250 miles on your back, feet first over unfamiliar terrain applying just the right amount of thrust to brake and pitch over at just the right time, to hit your landing oval, using ..... the force Luke, use the force. Too much Star Wars science fiction for you. Maybe too much nasa fiction, but think about it. Most of the navigational calculations were done and operated by computer during the thousands of miles that guides a spaceship to its target. Wrong. Most of the calculations were done on the ground and sent to the Astronauts who then fed it into the Nav computer. This is a documentary about the designing of the Navigation Computer. [link to youtu.be (secure)] Um, yeah, that is what I just said, proving that it is not necessary to dead reckon an approach trajectory for hundreds of miles by manual control. I said only the final moments of landing would require the subtlety of manual adjustment. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 60685306 United Kingdom10/26/2015 03:45 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Sobriquet™ What does 9/11 have to do with Apollo? A hoax is a hoax. 9/11 was a type of hoax. A false flag really but still a hoax. I really don't care if NASA went to the Moon or not. If they went there it helped nothing. If they didn't it helped nothing. If they did it's not like they're ever going back. And don't even get me started on a Mars mission. LOL! Shite answer. Didn't help anything? Do you have any idea how many inventions we use day to day that were a direct or indirect result of the Apollo missions? Of course, you wouldn't know.... you willfully embrace your ignorance like all hoaxers do. The major problem with you hoaxers is you make accusations but you never provide proof. You only provide scientific illiteracy. [link to www.design-laorosa.com] perhaps the 911 reference is to show that the elite are still pulling off hoax's even in 2001. the greater the lie, the greater it is more likely to be believed. The difference is that the science in Apollo checks out. The other issue is that not one single hoaxer has been able to explain how 400,000 people have kept their mouths shut for almost 50 years. Some of those engineers are in their 90s now and many have already passed on. And yet not one single deathbed confession. From anyone? The only people that seem to have a problem with the Apollo data are people that have absolutely no training or any kind of background in any of the sciences. It's like cavemen trying to understand electricity. The hoaxers will believe anyone, no matter the lack of qualifications but will ignore the brightest scientific minds in the world because it doesn't fit their preconceived beliefs. Only a tight clique of maybe 40 or 50 senior Freemasons right at the top needed to know the entire plot. This is why sinister government agencies have security classifications, and "need to know" levels of secrecy. Remember, also, that almost all the top astronots were high-level Freemasons, and their first loyalty (above God, country and family) is to the Brotherhood, on pain of death. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 24944642 United Kingdom10/26/2015 03:47 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | So which makes more sense... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 4556813 A. The need for a lightweight lander that can be propelled into space on a rocket with a limited amount of thrust, resulting in what appears to be a hodgepodge of materials (mostly shielding that doesn't NEED to be riveted every 1/2 inch)? B. NASA needing to build a prop to fake moon photos with, then proceeding to build the shittiest looking lander possible? They wen't all out on the suits and the rover.. why cheap out on the lander? Why didn't they "fake" a lander that looked like something from popular fiction of the era? A smoove-looking Buck Rogers type ship, with fins and two-tone paint job, would have been too obvious, even for Boobus Americanus. No, they were quite brilliant. They designed and built that absurd junk-pile precisely because it looked like a heap of shit slapped together by schoolkids. Then they could trumpet "function over form", "no need for aerodynamics", "the math proves it worked" ad nauseam! Genius, really! It didn't need aerodynamics, no air. It did, however require a fair amount of fuel to decelerate out of orbit and power itself down to a soft landing. No air for parachutes or fins to use. The problem is all the life support requirements, Which is? the single engine supporting it prior to landing is a totally unstable arrangement, if it got a couple degrees off plumb (look it up) the engine would have propelled it off at a tangent, out of control. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 40378295 Considering it had to pitch over 90 degrees during landing, this is obviously wrong. Look at the diagram on page 68, the LM can successfully abort landings while tipped over at angles of over 60 degrees. [link to 212.26.68.60] Another unsupported claim. and thy would have never manged to rendezvous with the CM. The timing would have been impossible. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 40378295 And another The fuel required would not fit in that tomato can they took off in.. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 40378295 How much did they need? An error of 0.1 second would have made them miss (only one try to a customer, now) by hundreds of yards. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 40378295 Nope. Can't buy it, never will. Ever heard of guidance? Just a bunch of unsupported claims, very much par... |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 70658713  Mexico10/26/2015 03:50 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
