Shocking New Evidence On 1969 Moon Landing
- Thread starter Jacksson_77
- Start date
wacko
you canadians are always trying to put america down. take off you hoser
It's all about weight ...
Unlike the Apollo spacecraft and Lunar Lander, the Shuttle Orbiter has aerodynamic additives, a payload bay and other features, let alone was designed with greater redundancy, the ability to last longer in space with almost 3x the crew, etc... Now factor in the sheer design of the Saturn V and added launch capability, and the reduced total size/payload, and you have your very simple, but real answer.
In fact, if you're trying to find a "conspiracy theory" to utilize, this is a very poor one. Why? Because anyone with an ounce of physics and who eye-witnessed (let alone took ground measurements) knows that the Saturn V was launched and had the capability to send the Apollo spacecraft and Lunar Lander into Lunar Orbit. That would include the ability of the first and second stages to launch what would have to be a remaining, significantly massed 3rd stage that would break the escape velocity of even geostationary, and enter lunar orbit.
Again, it's all about weight, and in the case of the Saturn V system, with Apollo and LIM atop, it wasn't a question. A very, very poor argument indeed. I mean, the difference between low earth orbit and geostationary isn't much as far as "escape velocity" is concerned. And once you get past geostationary, you're heading towards the moon's own gravity. So it's only about the multiplicative realities of the added propellent for latter stages and the vehicles.
It's actually only about 150,000 miles, with the moon providing the gravity pull after that. You know, that thing that causes the tides? It's strong enough that humans can vary in weight as well, based on where they moon is when you weigh yourself. The only propellent necessary after that is for insertion and then disembark (far less given the lack of both the LIM and the used propellent in the Service Module for insertion) from lunar orbit, which isn't too much given that the moon is ... tada ... orbiting the earth.
Basic engineering mechanics on a 2D plan can explain that. Remember, the moon itself is just another "satellite" orbiting the earth, so all the Apollo spacecraft (with and without LIM) is doing is transferring to that higher orbit with the moon. Again, once you reach about 150,000 miles (which isn't much beyond geostationary in "velocity" terms, which is already not much beyond LEO, it's not linear), the moon pulls you towards it.
You've already neutralized Earth influence by achieving any escape velocity, so it's just a matter of increasing it with more thrust, including the increasing influence of the Moon's gravity as well.
First off, it wasn't 60,000 miles, as you're looking at only the thickest of the Van Allen belt. In reality, it wasn't remotely that, and astronauts traversed it in minutes, not over a hour.
Secondly, the radiation is not as remotely deadly as you believe either.
"the radiation dosage per year is about 2500 rem, assuming one is shielded by 1 gr/cm-square of aluminum (about 1/8" thick plate)"
The ESA, Russians and everyone else knows this as well, anyone who has shot a vehicle into elliptical orbit, let alone the various unmanned moon shots the Russians made in the '60s. Otherwise they would have called NASA on their alleged "leies."
You're far more likely to be hit by a shower of particles. In fact, there are a couple recordings from the various Apollo missions -- even on 11 itself -- where various issues arose with a flash, possibly due to a combination of materials and radiation. They didn't have the complex set of sensor equipment they have today on the Shuttle Orbiter and other spacecraft.
In reality, the Apollo Mission would never be attempted given the dangers and issues and overall "risk" knowing what we know today with the design and the realities. The Apollo spacecraft and strategy was just not designed to be well risk mitigated at all, knowing what we know today. The new Moon (let alone planned Mars) Missions with Orion go well beyond what Apollo did.
It is very amazing that everyone came back alive. Apollo 13 was definition the big scare, and we're still lucky they hit the return velocity/vector given all their issues. NASA also didn't do the baby-steps they should have, jumping from Apollo 7 to 8 with the circumnavigation, although they did at least do the test of the LIM with the flyover in Apollo 10 before attempting to land.
Sorry, you just hit on one of the things why engineers are so misunderstood, let alone those at NASA, by the general public. You're talking about people who have done differential and integral calculus their entire career to explain systems of interactions, including the mechanics of spaceflight. That's where the "rocket scientist" moniker comes from!
People who don't need calculators and computers to do engineering mechanics. All engineers learn this way! You don't need a calculator or slide rule to do things, they just help get answers faster (the calculator faster and more precise than slide rules, but slide rules are still pretty damn helpful).
Dude, three astronauts -- three of the very best, including Grissom (the 2nd American in space, and only because Shepard lost his clearance to fly for health reasons, likely to be the commander of the 7th manned mission in Apollo, the first to land on the moon) and White (the first American to spacewalk) -- died in a fire on the launch pad during a routine "plugs-in" test to test the pressure of the cabin and their new suit designs. Why? Because there wasn't the knowledge and understand their is today with hundreds of thousands of manhours in space. Back then it was just hitting a thousand.
The safety expectations and the ambitions of not just going to the moon, but building a base are what matters. Going to the moon and walking (or driving) around is easy. The difficulty is doing something useful, which is what Orion is all about. Every engineer today has to agree that other than the political capital and the indirect engineering knowledge/transfer, going to the moon was a big, capital waste overall. We could have done it cheaper and better with far more baby steps -- waiting until the 21st century. But JFK decided otherwise (like many things, I actually disagreed with).
In fact, many of us (myself included) believe the focus should be on lowering cost of price per kg payload, and not pie-in-the-sky manned missions. Put aside the manned missions until we get the price per kg down. If you talk to a lot of NASA engineers, they do not disagree. Unfortunately, the Executive Administration sets the priorities, with other administrators, not NASA engineers.
It's all about weight.
Unlike the Apollo spacecraft and Lunar Lander, the Shuttle Orbiter has aerodynamic additives, a payload bay and other features, let alone was designed with greater redundancy, the ability to last longer in space with almost 3x the crew, etc... Now factor in the sheer design of the Saturn V and added launch capability, and the reduced total size/payload, and you have your very simple, but real answer.
In fact, if you're trying to find a "conspiracy theory" to utilize, this is a very poor one. Why? Because anyone with an ounce of physics and who eye-witnessed (let alone took ground measurements) knows that the Saturn V was launched and had the capability to send the Apollo spacecraft and Lunar Lander into Lunar Orbit. That would include the ability of the first and second stages to launch what would have to be a remaining, significantly massed 3rd stage that would break the escape velocity of even geostationary, and enter lunar orbit.
Again, it's all about weight, and in the case of the Saturn V system, with Apollo and LIM atop, it wasn't a question. A very, very poor argument indeed. I mean, the difference between low earth orbit and geostationary isn't much as far as "escape velocity" is concerned. And once you get past geostationary, you're heading towards the moon's own gravity. So it's only about the multiplicative realities of the added propellent for latter stages and the vehicles.
Actually, the Shuttle Orbiter travels farther with more crew through a greater debris field than the lunar shot. That too is commonly known to basic astrophysicists, let alone even amateur astronomers.
It's actually only about 150,000 miles, with the moon providing the gravity pull after that. You know, that thing that causes the tides? It's strong enough that humans can vary in weight as well, based on where they moon is when you weigh yourself.
The only propellent necessary after that is for insertion and then disembark (far less given the lack of both the LIM and the used propellent in the Service Module for insertion) from lunar orbit, which isn't too much given that the moon is ... tada ... orbiting the earth.Basic engineering mechanics on a 2D plan can explain that. Remember, the moon itself is just another "satellite" orbiting the earth, so all the Apollo spacecraft (with and without LIM) is doing is transferring to that higher orbit with the moon. Again, once you reach about 150,000 miles (which isn't much beyond geostationary in "velocity" terms, which is already not much beyond LEO, it's not linear), the moon pulls you towards it.
You've already neutralized Earth influence by achieving any escape velocity, so it's just a matter of increasing it with more thrust, including the increasing influence of the Moon's gravity as well.
This is the only argument that has some validity, but it too utterly fails and pries on the ignorance that any radiation is automatically deadly. If that was the case, you and I would be dead already.
First off, it wasn't 60,000 miles, as you're looking at only the thickest of the Van Allen belt. In reality, it wasn't remotely that, and astronauts traversed it in minutes, not over a hour.
Secondly, the radiation is not as remotely deadly as you believe either.
"the radiation dosage per year is about 2500 rem, assuming one is shielded by 1 gr/cm-square of aluminum (about 1/8" thick plate)"
The ESA, Russians and everyone else knows this as well, anyone who has shot a vehicle into elliptical orbit, let alone the various unmanned moon shots the Russians made in the '60s. Otherwise they would have called NASA on their alleged "leies."
You're far more likely to be hit by a shower of particles. In fact, there are a couple recordings from the various Apollo missions -- even on 11 itself -- where various issues arose with a flash, possibly due to a combination of materials and radiation. They didn't have the complex set of sensor equipment they have today on the Shuttle Orbiter and other spacecraft.
In reality, the Apollo Mission would never be attempted given the dangers and issues and overall "risk" knowing what we know today with the design and the realities. The Apollo spacecraft and strategy was just not designed to be well risk mitigated at all, knowing what we know today. The new Moon (let alone planned Mars) Missions with Orion go well beyond what Apollo did.
It is very amazing that everyone came back alive. Apollo 13 was definition the big scare, and we're still lucky they hit the return velocity/vector given all their issues. NASA also didn't do the baby-steps they should have, jumping from Apollo 7 to 8 with the circumnavigation, although they did at least do the test of the LIM with the flyover in Apollo 10 before attempting to land.
Obviously you don't understand the first thing about basic engineering mechanics. Less weight, while already traveling at a high velocity, with a gravitational assist from the moon, etc...
Okay dude, now you're off your rocker. Where are you getting this information on the Van Allen Belts?
Huh? The Apollo spacecraft had one of the first digital computers, both in the Command and Lunar Modules. You also had hundreds of engineers doing calculations upon calculations in real-time, to assist with velocity and vectoring.
Sorry, you just hit on one of the things why engineers are so misunderstood, let alone those at NASA, by the general public. You're talking about people who have done differential and integral calculus their entire career to explain systems of interactions, including the mechanics of spaceflight. That's where the "rocket scientist" moniker comes from!
People who don't need calculators and computers to do engineering mechanics. All engineers learn this way! You don't need a calculator or slide rule to do things, they just help get answers faster (the calculator faster and more precise than slide rules, but slide rules are still pretty damn helpful).
No, it's return by early 2020s. The problem is that the government is not willing to spend not only the equivalent money of the 10 year Gemini-Apollo approach, but ensure the improved and expected safety required. There is no way Gemini-Apollo would be accepted in NASA today, as it operates. Gemini and Apollo had major errors, and would fail basic unit and integration acceptance testing.
Dude, three astronauts -- three of the very best, including Grissom (the 2nd American in space, and only because Shepard lost his clearance to fly for health reasons, likely to be the commander of the 7th manned mission in Apollo, the first to land on the moon) and White (the first American to spacewalk) -- died in a fire on the launch pad during a routine "plugs-in" test to test the pressure of the cabin and their new suit designs. Why? Because there wasn't the knowledge and understand their is today with hundreds of thousands of manhours in space. Back then it was just hitting a thousand.
The safety expectations and the ambitions of not just going to the moon, but building a base are what matters. Going to the moon and walking (or driving) around is easy. The difficulty is doing something useful, which is what Orion is all about. Every engineer today has to agree that other than the political capital and the indirect engineering knowledge/transfer, going to the moon was a big, capital waste overall. We could have done it cheaper and better with far more baby steps -- waiting until the 21st century. But JFK decided otherwise (like many things, I actually disagreed with).
In fact, many of us (myself included) believe the focus should be on lowering cost of price per kg payload, and not pie-in-the-sky manned missions. Put aside the manned missions until we get the price per kg down. If you talk to a lot of NASA engineers, they do not disagree. Unfortunately, the Executive Administration sets the priorities, with other administrators, not NASA engineers.
James May on the Moon
Sunday 21 June
9:05pm - 10:05pm
BBC2
1/7
"I'm too old, too unfit and too long-haired ever to know what it means to be an astronaut," says James May. But that doesn't stop him from getting as close as an ordinary chap can to experiencing space travel in this film celebrating the 40th anniversary of humankind's first steps on the Moon. He meets three veterans of the space race, endures zero gravity on the infamous "Vomit Comet" and bone-crushing gravitational forces in a centrifuge chamber (not a pretty sight - but at least he manages not to throw up). It's good, blokeish fun, underpinned with some serious and informative moments. So when he takes a privileged flight 70,000ft up in a U-2 spy plane and sees the curvature of the Earth below him and the blackness of space above, he's almost lost for words at the beauty of it. Which will perhaps go some way to make up for his disappointment at discovering that real-life astronauts don't "live on Tracy Island and eat food out of toothpaste tubes". See more over on BBC4 at 10:00pm in James May at the Edge of Space
Sunday 21 June
9:05pm - 10:05pm
BBC2
1/7
"I'm too old, too unfit and too long-haired ever to know what it means to be an astronaut," says James May. But that doesn't stop him from getting as close as an ordinary chap can to experiencing space travel in this film celebrating the 40th anniversary of humankind's first steps on the Moon. He meets three veterans of the space race, endures zero gravity on the infamous "Vomit Comet" and bone-crushing gravitational forces in a centrifuge chamber (not a pretty sight - but at least he manages not to throw up). It's good, blokeish fun, underpinned with some serious and informative moments. So when he takes a privileged flight 70,000ft up in a U-2 spy plane and sees the curvature of the Earth below him and the blackness of space above, he's almost lost for words at the beauty of it. Which will perhaps go some way to make up for his disappointment at discovering that real-life astronauts don't "live on Tracy Island and eat food out of toothpaste tubes". See more over on BBC4 at 10:00pm in James May at the Edge of Space
acenipplelicker
Banned
what do you think now a days
Similar threads
