ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: Gazpar on August 03, 2015, 08:20:41 AM
-
Hello again.
Is it possible that the footage from lunar orbit could be faked using a fake moon?
(http://i.imgur.com/QzenPT2.jpg)
Why the LM looks like something I could have made with cheap foil?
(http://i.imgur.com/KVQMXQn.jpg)
Thank you in advance.
-
The detail available in the pre-Apollo images just wasn't adequate to show the rock and craters that were photographed by the astronauts on the lunar surface and from lunar orbit. Those rocks and craters, not known about before Apollo, have been verified not just by the LRO but also by Chinese and Indian probes.
As for the LM, sorry but "It kind of looks funny" isn't a good argument. The LM didn't have to look good, it just had to function - which it did.
-
Is it possible that the footage from lunar orbit could be faked using a fake moon?
No
Why the LM looks like something I could have made with cheap foil?
(http://i.imgur.com/KVQMXQn.jpg)
Come on know- make a little effort here Gazpar! Are you saying that you can make a Lunar lander from foil? Really? Or are you just regurgitating clapped out conspiracy theory rubbish?
What research have you done to investigate the LM construction?
What books have you read?
I'm all for helping anyone, but only if they make even a small effort to learn for themselves.
-
Hello again.
Is it possible that the footage from lunar orbit could be faked using a fake moon?
(http://i.imgur.com/QzenPT2.jpg)
Why the LM looks like something I could have made with cheap foil?
(http://i.imgur.com/KVQMXQn.jpg)
Thank you in advance.
Because it is foil, specifically aluminised mylar. It provides thermal insulation for little weight. It is intentionally wrinkled to minimise the contact area between it and the underlying structure and hence thermal conduction to the underlying structure. It is still in common use on space vehicles today.
-
Is it possible that the footage from lunar orbit could be faked using a fake moon?
No
Why the LM looks like something I could have made with cheap foil?
(http://i.imgur.com/KVQMXQn.jpg)
Come on know- make a little effort here Gazpar! Are you saying that you can make a Lunar lander from foil? Really? Or are you just regurgitating clapped out conspiracy theory rubbish?
What research have you done to investigate the LM construction?
What books have you read?
I'm all for helping anyone, but only if they make even a small effort to learn for themselves.
Well, I was looking at the LM blueprints so I got this materials:
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LM04_Lunar_Module_ppLV1-17.pdf
Thermal and Micrometeroid shield:
Inconel
Inconel Mesh
Nickel foil
Aluminium shield
H-film
Mylar
Structural Aluminium shield.
I think that answered my question...
-
...
As for the LM, sorry but "It kind of looks funny" isn't a good argument. The LM didn't have to look good, it just had to function - which it did.
Not only didn't have to look good, but had to be the correct weight for the initial lift. That design, kept the LM behind schedule. The engineers finally got it all together, worked out the engine problems, and yes indeed worked on all the lunar missions.
-
Why the LM looks like something I could have made with cheap foil?
Similar foil coverings feature on many present-day unmanned satellites. It's there for thermal control reasons, same as it was on the LM. Here's a typical example:
http://rue89.nouvelobs.com/sites/news/files/assets/image/2010/03/satellite_eutelsat.jpg
-
Well, I was looking at the LM blueprints so I got this materials:
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LM04_Lunar_Module_ppLV1-17.pdf
Thermal and Micrometeroid shield:
Inconel
Inconel Mesh
Nickel foil
Aluminium shield
H-film
Mylar
Structural Aluminium shield.
I think that answered my question...
Well done on having a go.
Information that you find for yourself will be remembered far longer than information supplied by other people.
Now you know that there aren't any "photo anomalies". The only anomaly was in your knowledge and understanding.
-
Why the LM looks like something I could have made with cheap foil?
You might as well ask why Michelle Pfeiffer look like she's made of faded denim.
(http://cdn.skim.gs/images/ea4fefc26afd46770f42/michelle-pfeiffer-celebrity-style-michelle-pfeiffer-in-jeans)
All you're seeing is the outer covering. Check-out what the LM looks like without its insulation and outer skin:
(http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/misc/apmisc-LM-noID-13.jpg)
On the upper right is the Ascent Stage, where the crew rides. Notice that the pressurized compartment is supported by closely-space aluminum ribs. On the left is the Descent Stage, which has to support the weight of the Ascent Stage and function as a launch pad for it when it's time to leave the Moon. It was made using a rugged, welded-box construction.
(http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/misc/apmisc-LM-noID-16.jpg)
Here's the back of the Ascent Stage, showing the unpressurized electronics bay. The thin stringers are what the light-weight outer coverings mount to. Underneath them you can see the robust main support girders.
Hope this helps.
-
Hello again.
Why the LM looks like something I could have made with cheap foil?
I always wonder, why would NASA and it's contractors actually build it that way even if it was a prop for the Hoax? Did they just not care about it being believable?
-
Hope this helps.[/quote]
Sure it does, thanks.
Well done on having a go.
Information that you find for yourself will be remembered far longer than information supplied by other people.
Now you know that there aren't any "photo anomalies". The only anomaly was in your knowledge and understanding.
You are right, doing it yourself works much better and clears doubts
-
Hello again.
Why the LM looks like something I could have made with cheap foil?
I always wonder, why would NASA and it's contractors actually build it that way even if it was a prop for the Hoax? Did they just not care about it being believable?
I dont understand CT logic sometimes...
-
Hello again.
Why the LM looks like something I could have made with cheap foil?
I always wonder, why would NASA and it's contractors actually build it that way even if it was a prop for the Hoax? Did they just not care about it being believable?
They built it that way, because it didn't have to look "aerodynamic" since it was operated in a nearly void atmosphere with low gravity. Looks can be deceptive all it "had to do" was land, take off and rendezvous/dock. Why would NASA have any thoughts at what a group of people perceived to their very successful vehicle.
-
Why the LM looks like something I could have made with cheap foil?
...
All you're seeing is the outer covering. Check-out what the LM looks like without its insulation and outer skin:
(http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/misc/apmisc-LM-noID-13.jpg)
On the upper right is the Ascent Stage, where the crew rides. Notice that the pressurized compartment is supported by closely-space aluminum ribs. On the left is the Descent Stage, which has to support the weight of the Ascent Stage and function as a launch pad for it when it's time to leave the Moon. It was made using a rugged, welded-box construction.
(http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/misc/apmisc-LM-noID-16.jpg)
Here's the back of the Ascent Stage, showing the unpressurized electronics bay. The thin stringers are what the light-weight outer coverings mount to. Underneath them you can see the robust main support girders.
Hope this helps.
Looks a lot different without the covering, good visual for everybody to view.
-
The closest thing the average layman is likely to get to the aluminized films used on the LM is a potato chip (crisp, in Commonwealth) wrapper. The same process makes those. They have nearly all the optical properties of metals and nearly all the mechanical properties of plastics. We still use those materials extensively on spacecraft today. So I'm absolutely floored when conspiracy people say it doesn't look like a spaceship, when there are plenty of examples of other actual spacecraft that use laid-up films as their thermal blankets.
Structurally the LM was meant to be very light and very strong. The ascent stage had to be built to enclose a habitable volume, so it was built using a small handful of heavy structural elements around which was composed a balloon of stiffened aluminum skin. That's how you do it. That's essentially how the space shuttle was built too.
The methods developed for building the unpressurized descent stage are still very much how we do structural design today for unmanned spacecraft. We typically build a chassis of stiffened plates in some particular intersecting pattern. All the key components are attached somewhere to those plates and then covered with a thin skin or blankets.
I've spoken about the tape before. Industrial pressure-sensitive adhesives are nothing like what is sold to the general public. I use Mylar tapes that are sticky enough to need a trip to the hospital if you accidentally stick it to your skin. If you saw where LM-2's outer covering was in the worst distress, prior to its restoration a few years ago, it certainly wasn't the tape. And that's the proper way to fasten blankets together, or to certain kinds of underlying structure. Piercing fasteners such as screws or rivets create points where the mechanical stress concentrates and risks tearing the blanket, just like the front page in every loose-leaf binder.
-
On the upper right is the Ascent Stage, where the crew rides. Notice that the pressurized compartment is supported by closely-space aluminum ribs.
Actually those are what aircraft makers call stringers. "Skin-and-stringer" construction is a common technique, similar to what corrugated cardboard tries to achieve. What made the LM special is Grumman's technique for chemically milling those panels out of a solid aluminum billet in such a way that the skin and stringers were the same piece of metal. In normal aircraft construction the stringers are glued, welded, or riveted to the skins. Grumman used mechanical milling processes to create the three-dimensional skin-and-stringer panels down to the thicknesses were metal bits would no longer be safe to apply. Then they were placed in chemical baths that ate away more of the metal, according to a precise rate, until the appropriate thicknesses of skins and stringers had been achieved. Then those panels were welded together at the edges to form the pressure hull.
Similar methods were used to create the isogrids for the two major bulkheads inside the LM structure.
-
On the upper right is the Ascent Stage, where the crew rides. Notice that the pressurized compartment is supported by closely-space aluminum ribs.
Actually those are what aircraft makers call stringers. "Skin-and-stringer" construction is a common technique, similar to what corrugated cardboard tries to achieve. What made the LM special is Grumman's technique for chemically milling those panels out of a solid aluminum billet in such a way that the skin and stringers were the same piece of metal. In normal aircraft construction the stringers are glued, welded, or riveted to the skins. Grumman used mechanical milling processes to create the three-dimensional skin-and-stringer panels down to the thicknesses were metal bits would no longer be safe to apply. Then they were placed in chemical baths that ate away more of the metal, according to a precise rate, until the appropriate thicknesses of skins and stringers had been achieved. Then those panels were welded together at the edges to form the pressure hull.
Similar methods were used to create the isogrids for the two major bulkheads inside the LM structure.
It seems like the manufacturing process reduced the number of welds use to construct, thereby reducing possible leak points that would have possibly been disastrous. Very clever of those group of engineers.
-
It seems like the manufacturing process reduced the number of welds use to construct, thereby reducing possible leak points that would have possibly been disastrous. Very clever of those group of engineers.
It was more to do with reducing the mass of the LM. The initial LMs were overweight and NASA introduced a bonus system that would pay $25,000 for every pound of weight shaved off. Operation Scrape was put in place which literally lead to individual bolts being pared down. Chemically etching the parts allowed for very precise control of the thickness of each part. They even went so far as to eliminate a varnish coat that protected the panels from Earths atmosphere.
The Mylar blankets replaced the original rigid thermal shields. They also made an effective Whipple shield (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whipple_shield)
-
It seems like the manufacturing process reduced the number of welds use to construct, thereby reducing possible leak points that would have possibly been disastrous. Very clever of those group of engineers.
It was more to do with reducing the mass of the LM. The initial LMs were overweight and NASA introduced a bonus system that would pay $25,000 for every pound of weight shaved off. Operation Scrape was put in place which literally lead to individual bolts being pared down. Chemically etching the parts allowed for very precise control of the thickness of each part. They even went so far as to eliminate a varnish coat that protected the panels from Earths atmosphere.
The Mylar blankets replaced the original rigid thermal shields. They also made an effective Whipple shield (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whipple_shield)
The SWIP team cut over 1,000 kilos from the overall LM weight. The substitution of Mylar was one of their ideas.
-
It seems like the manufacturing process reduced the number of welds use to construct, thereby reducing possible leak points that would have possibly been disastrous. Very clever of those group of engineers.
It was more to do with reducing the mass of the LM. The initial LMs were overweight and NASA introduced a bonus system that would pay $25,000 for every pound of weight shaved off. Operation Scrape was put in place which literally lead to individual bolts being pared down. Chemically etching the parts allowed for very precise control of the thickness of each part. They even went so far as to eliminate a varnish coat that protected the panels from Earths atmosphere.
The Mylar blankets replaced the original rigid thermal shields. They also made an effective Whipple shield (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whipple_shield)
Ok that was one of the unspecified weight problems that caused the delay of deleivery.
-
Because it is foil, specifically aluminised mylar.
It's actually aluminized Kapton, not Mylar. Kapton is yellow or orange, depending on thickness, while Mylar is grey. Kapton tolerates wider temperatures, so it is generally preferred for external thermal coverings. Mylar is used inside (e.g., below the micrometeoroid shields covering the ascent stage) where the temperatures aren't as extreme.
-
Because it is foil, specifically aluminised mylar.
It's actually aluminized Kapton, not Mylar. Kapton is yellow or orange, depending on thickness, while Mylar is grey. Kapton tolerates wider temperatures, so it is generally preferred for external thermal coverings. Mylar is used inside (e.g., below the micrometeoroid shields covering the ascent stage) where the temperatures aren't as extreme.
Well, pobodies nerfect.
-
Kapton is also a non-Kerchoff material. It radiates heat more favorably than its absorption properties suggest.
-
Out of sheer curiousity I checked out Kapton. Stable range is −269 to +400 °C. Holy cow, that approaching absolute zero.
-
Out of sheer curiousity I checked out Kapton. Stable range is −269 to +400 °C. Holy cow, that approaching absolute zero.
And you probably won't find it on the local grocery store aisle either, for the construction project of course.
-
On the upper right is the Ascent Stage, where the crew rides. Notice that the pressurized compartment is supported by closely-space aluminum ribs.
Actually those are what aircraft makers call stringers. "Skin-and-stringer" construction is a common technique, similar to what corrugated cardboard tries to achieve. What made the LM special is Grumman's technique for chemically milling those panels out of a solid aluminum billet in such a way that the skin and stringers were the same piece of metal. In normal aircraft construction the stringers are glued, welded, or riveted to the skins. Grumman used mechanical milling processes to create the three-dimensional skin-and-stringer panels down to the thicknesses were metal bits would no longer be safe to apply. Then they were placed in chemical baths that ate away more of the metal, according to a precise rate, until the appropriate thicknesses of skins and stringers had been achieved. Then those panels were welded together at the edges to form the pressure hull.
Similar methods were used to create the isogrids for the two major bulkheads inside the LM structure.
Noting all this down as part of pre-read for my course.
-
They built it that way, because it didn't have to look "aerodynamic" since it was operated in a nearly void atmosphere with low gravity.
I understand that... but I believe you misunderstood my question.
Even if NASA had intended to fake the landings (which no reasonable person should believe anymore) , they would still have to construct and build a convincing LM - unless the Hoax was directed by Ed Wood instead of Kubrick :-)
-
They built it that way, because it didn't have to look "aerodynamic" since it was operated in a nearly void atmosphere with low gravity.
I understand that... but I believe you misunderstood my question.
Even if NASA had intended to fake the landings (which no reasonable person should believe anymore) , they would still have to construct and build a convincing LM - unless the Hoax was directed by Ed Wood instead of Kubrick :-)
I understand your question, look at the comments that followed the quoted part.
Looks can be deceptive all it "had to do" was land, take off and rendezvous/dock. Why would NASA have any thoughts at what a group of people perceived to their very successful vehicle.
Perhaps I didn't state my thoughts correctly. Why would NASA build any vehicle so that someone in the future would perceive it as being "correctly built". The LM as many of the posts indicate, the construction had the major criterion of weight. Any process that could accomplish this end was acceptable, with the provision that is would work of course. It seems informative to view what the Russian lander (LK) looked like. I can't find an actual picture this morning, but WIKI has a reasonable image.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK_(spacecraft)
Looks very similar to the LM, doesn't it? The Russians had the same problems with weight and therefore built a "non-aerodynamic" just like we did.
-
Perhaps I didn't state my thoughts correctly.
It seems we are still talking about different issues... Reality on your side and the missing "real" common sense and logic in a hypothetical (and obviously BS) Hoaxscenario on my side.
-
There have been many misguided allegations concerning the LM, all debunked as you have indicated. Again all I may say is that NASA didn't/doesn't care what a HB might believe about the construction/appearance of the LM. All they wished is it was within weight limits and it performed the required task.
-
Let's turn this around (and if I read this right, ineluki, you're not a HB), and ask hoax believer what the LM should have looked like.
I can't do it, as I'm know the reality, and I know form followed function, much the same as an A3xx looks a lot like a Boeing 7xx looks a lot like a DC/MD 8+ looks a lot like a B-52 looks a lot like a B-47....
-
Let's turn this around (and if I read this right, ineluki, you're not a HB), and ask hoax believer what the LM should have looked like.
I can't do it, as I'm know the reality, and I know form followed function, much the same as an A3xx looks a lot like a Boeing 7xx looks a lot like a DC/MD 8+ looks a lot like a B-52 looks a lot like a B-47....
OMG, the mystery of flight 370 has been solved; a bomb blew up in the cargo of the 777.
-
The other things to consider are 1) any such non-functional decoration would add weight (as mentioned, very much at a premium) and 2) to an engineer, it is - well, perhaps not beautiful, but elegant: supremely designed and fitted to the task at hand - and engineers were the ones tasked with creating and critiquing it.
-
Let's turn this around (and if I read this right, ineluki, you're not a HB), and ask hoax believer what the LM should have looked like.
I'm not a hoax believer, but I've always had the impression that they were expecting some kind of Destination Moon V2-style tail sitter.
-
It seems we are still talking about different issues... Reality on your side and the missing "real" common sense and logic in a hypothetical (and obviously BS) Hoaxscenario on my side.
This dichotomy arises a lot. The claim, "The LM doesn't look much like a spaceship" always begs the question "Well then what do you think a spaceship ought to look like?" And since few if any conspiracy theorists will tell us, we have to infer their expectations from any specifics they may add to their claims: the LM looks covered in flimsy materials, or was made by shoddy methods, or would need to withstand a "hostile" space environment. Invariably we get the idea they think it should be visually more robust. But we're not sure exactly in what way. The bottom line for that argument is that almost no one who makes it can speak intelligently about how spacecraft are actually designed and built, or how the LM specifically was designed and built.
But on the other side of the coin it's legitimate to ask why NASA would publish pictures of something they claim is a spacecraft, but doesn't seem like one to the people NASA was allegedly trying to fool with its hoax. It's fair to ask why NASA didn't do a more convincing job of faking a space mission. And granted this attacks a completely different premise than the argument above. But it's possible for a hoax argument to be wrong on two unrelated counts.
-
I don't remember anyone saying before 1969 that the LM didn't look "right". I do remember hearing it looked ungainly mostly from Walter Cronkite, but that was explained away quickly for the same reasons listed here. No atmosphere, low gravity vehicle used exactly once. I thought it looked cool, because it didn't resemble normal rockets, but more of the little one manned ships used to work in the high orbit with the wheel that was constructed. Normal to me but then I was/am a space nut.
-
Maybe I'm doing a lousy job of getting my point across, but I've asked this question to hoax believers many times and I've never had one respond to me. WHY would NASA build the LM they way they did if they were going to fake it ?
This is what really REALLY bugs me about the claims the "LM is just a prop" : if it's just a fake they plopped on a movie set, then WHY would they make it look as aesthetically ridiculous as it does ( and let's face it, it is kinda ridiculous looking). To my mind, the LM is a lousy choice as a prop.
I mean, from the point of view of a simple laymen such as myself, the hoax theory utterly falls apart here. By their reckoning, NASA spent millions developing a bitchin' looking rocket that carried a bitchin' looking CSM that may or may not have been real and may or may not have been hiding in low Earth orbit ( depending on the hoax details in play with whichever HB you are talking to), does it not follow that they should have built a Lunar Lander prop that matched the level of bitchin' found in Apollo and Saturn?
Why not just build the original concept of the LM with the cool windows and seats if it was all just fake? Or hell, just omit the silly looking Mylar and cover the whole shebang in aluminum sheeting?
Full disclosure, I don't actually think the LM is ridiculous at all, my opinion is that it is the ultimate expression of form following function and is therefore beautiful. However, it IS kinda ridiculous from a purely aesthetic point of view. Which is why looks ain't everything, right? Lol!
-
It's okay to say the LM looks "ungainly." It does. It's probably not going to win any beauty contests by the same lay standards that the F-4 or the F-104, or even the Citroën CV2 is judged. But by engineering standards -- which emphasize a different kind of elegance -- the LM is a perfect flying machine. It has everything you need and nothing you don't. It can even fill in in a pinch for more streamlined spacecraft that go awry.
I've built props for stage and screen. There is a gradation of quality, which relates to realism. Some props -- "hero" props -- are meant for closeups and are indistinguishable in most respects from what a practically manufactured object would look like. I've seen similar props constructed by others. The space suits by Global Effects are utterly convincing until you start taking them apart, and then only if you know what they're supposed to look like. The fanciful props for, say, Mission to Mars are made from the same materials and according to the same processes as "manufactured" parts. Processes like vacuum-forming and injection-molding are routinely used in propmaking, even though the per-unit price is astronomical.
The notion that a NASA prop for a hoax intended to fool the world indefinitely would have to be cardboard and foil and tape is absurd on several levels.
-
Yeah, I work in injection molding, I can certainly see how expensive movie prop parts could be. We lose a lot of prospective customers when they find out how expensive it is to build a new mold, and how many parts they need to order to make it cost effective.
You hit the nail exactly on the head with regards to the LM. Look, I'm just a working stiff with a couple of years of JC for an education, and I have nothing more than a laymen's understanding of spacecraft and how or what they do, but I cannot fathom a worse example of a fake spacecraft than the LM. A lifetime's experience working with industrial machinery tells me the only reason anything would ever be built like that is because it needed to work. Period.
Can't figure out why that is such a hard concept.
-
Yeah, I work in injection molding, I can certainly see how expensive movie prop parts could be. We lose a lot of prospective customers when they find out how expensive it is to build a new mold, and how many parts they need to order to make it cost effective.
You hit the nail exactly on the head with regards to the LM. Look, I'm just a working stiff with a couple of years of JC for an education, and I have nothing more than a laymen's understanding of spacecraft and how or what they do, but I cannot fathom a worse example of a fake spacecraft than the LM. A lifetime's experience working with industrial machinery tells me the only reason anything would ever be built like that is because it needed to work. Period.
Can't figure out why that is such a hard concept.
You are so right about that.
Anyone who has never seen "From Earth to the Moon" should at least make an effort to see the episode called "Spider" (its my favorite ep). It graphically illustrates just how technically difficult it is to build the perfect, one-off spacecraft to land on the moon. The amount of ideas and concepts they had to keep throwing away as they realised the magnitude of the task they were undertaking, is just amazing.
-
Anyone who has never seen "From Earth to the Moon" should at least make an effort to see the episode called "Spider" (its my favorite ep). It graphically illustrates just how technically difficult it is to build the perfect, one-off spacecraft to land on the moon. The amount of ideas and concepts they had to keep throwing away as they realised the magnitude of the task they were undertaking, is just amazing.
Or read Tom Kelly's excellent book "Moon Lander"
http://www.amazon.com/Moon-Lander-Developed-Smithsonian-Spaceflight/dp/1588342735
The list of problems that they overcame was huge. A lot of the book concentrates on the management structures that Grumman had to develop in order to control the vast amounts of data that was being generated. Change-control alone was a massive task.
My favourite story from that book concerned the root cause of certain weld failures. The boilerplate LM pipework leaked like a sieve. The hypergolic fuels are hugely corrosive and Grumman had to resort to using titanium pipework. Working titanium was in it's infancy and many of the procedure used were developed on the job. They had so many problems with welds cracking that they kept re-designing the pipework to use bolted-up fittings to reduce the amount of welding needed. Nevertheless, welding was unavoidable in places, and these joints kept cracking. A huge amount of work took place to try and find the problem, which was eventually tracked down to a certain batch of tack-rags that the welders used to wipe the titanium joints before welding. The tack-rags were leaving a residue that contaminated the weldpool and eventually caused the weld to fail under pressure.
<edit> I've just re-read the relevant portion (pages 142 of Kelly's book. The root cause was that tack-rags were being re-used on welds that failed on fuel tanks. The tack-rags were washed with a detergent that left traces on the titanium. This detergent attacked titanium. Super sleuthing by Henry Graf)
-
Anyone who has never seen "From Earth to the Moon" should at least make an effort to see the episode called "Spider"...
The whole series was excellent when compared with some Hollywood-type productions. So good, I took heaps of notes.
One excellent thing about Part 5, "Spider" is that they even gave John Houlbolt and his theories on Lunar Orbit Rendezvous a well-deserved turn.
Some of the notes from the DVD:
0:08:53 John Houbolt
0:09:26 Houbolt critics 1 & 2
0:09:56 Late 1961 — Houbolt's letter to Dr Seamans
0:10:08 Dr Robert Seamans and assistant
0:11:04 2 — Tom Kelly
0:11:05 July 1962 — Lunar orbit rendezvous accepted
0:11:19 November 1962 — Tom Kelly, Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation, Bethpage, New York
0:11:30 Bob Carbee
0:11:42 "Yeah, Frank. We got the contract. We're all just observing a moment of silence for the companies that didn't."
0:12:59 Tom Kelly: I'm afraid you're gonna have to go tell your wives and kids the bad news, fellas. Looks like you won't be seeing much of them for the next couple of years because we got the contract!
0:13:57 January 1963 — Grumman Engineering Bullpen
0:14:18 Tom Kelly: Seven years. Well, let's get started.
0:14:26 Four legs
0:14:42 February 1963 — Octagonal descent stage
0:14:55 March 1963 — Windows
0:15:36 What if they don't need seats?
0:17:00 May 1963 — Thermal shields
0:17:15 Mylar Engineer
0:17:40 August 1963 — Mylar film between layers of Kapton with an outer layer of nickel foil
0:18:06 Hatches
0:18:39 Arnold Whitaker
0:18:56 October 1963 — Square hatch
0:19:12 December 1963 — Ladder
0:19:32 Tom Kelly: Okay, one more thing. It's no longer the Lunar Excursion Module any more. Everybody feels that excursion sounds like it's gonna go out on a school trip. From now on it's just the Lunar Module.
0:20:02 March 1964 — Let's make sure we film everything we do
0:20:36 Every LM would have to be handmade
0:20:47 Thruster test
0:20:49 Engine test
0:20:53 Landing gear test
0:20:57 Sunlight and dust test
0:21:03 Landing gear on a slope
0:21:09 Thousands of tests, day after day, for years
0:21:32 Young engineer
0:23:12 Tom Kelly: This is bad, but as long as people speak up about their mistakes, we've got a shot. Okay? They try to sweep it under the rug and we're not going to go to New Jersey, let alone to the moon.
0:23:46 Original film of LM assembly
0:24:48 3 — Lunar Module 3
0:24:59 Jim McDivitt
0:25:04 Dave Scott
0:25:10 Rusty Schweickart
0:27:09 August 1967 — Grumman Engineering Bullpen
0:27:24 Original film of LM assembly
0:27:41 Systems Integration Test No. 1
0:28:00 Systems Integration Test No. 2
0:28:57 Systems Integration Test No. 3
0:29:21 4 — At the Cape
0:29:40 Tom Kelly: I need to know if we can make the date
0:30:48 Original film of LM assembly
0:32:13 Operations and Checkout Building, Kennedy Space Center
0:33:07 Deke Slayton and Jim McDivitt
0:35:14 5 — "First in space" — 11 October 1968 — Apollo 7
0:35:27 Apollo 8
0:35:48 LM 3 was ready
0:36:30 Call signs Spider and Gumdrop
0:37:53 3 March 1969 — Apollo 9
0:37:02 Jim McDivitt: She's a beautiful machine, Tom!
0:37:03 Tom Kelly: Isn't she?
0:37:05 Rusty Schweickart: You really think it's beautiful?
0:37:06 Jim McDivitt: God no, it looks like a toaster oven with legs, but I'm not gonna tell him that.
And even a little bit of Hollywood, but forgivable:
0:48:14 Error: LM above the North Island of New Zealand, which is reversed left to right. Coromandel Peninsula bottom left, Bay of Plenty bottom centre, Mahia Peninsula bottom right, Mount Egmont/Taranaki top left, Wellington top centre.
0:48:45 Descent stage above the lower North Island of New Zealand, which is reversed left to right. Wellington centre left.
0:51:34 Error: Ascent stage flying almost due south, above the Indus River and the Gulf of Kutch
Anyone's welcome to a copy of the notes -- for research purposes only. 31 pages of Arial Narrow 9-point, Open Document Format, covering all five DVDs. PM me if wanted.
-
It was good the John Houbolt kept being a thorn in NASA's side to get his point across. I'm not saying an earth rendezvous method would not work, but it seems that this procedure would require more risk, launching to vehicles into orbit then still having the issue of Lunar lift off to deal with. In addition the costs would seem to be costly than LOR. This is only speculation on my part as I wasn't involved in the manufacturing/procurement process that would have been required.
-
It was good the John Houbolt kept being a thorn in NASA's side to get his point across. I'm not saying an earth rendezvous method would not work, but it seems that this procedure would require more risk, launching to vehicles into orbit then still having the issue of Lunar lift off to deal with. In addition the costs would seem to be costly than LOR. This is only speculation on my part as I wasn't involved in the manufacturing/procurement process that would have been required.
For me, it's the point that Murray and Cox described in "Apollo - the Race to the Moon": how exactly were they going to configure the Command Module to land on the Moon?
Lying in their couches with the controls in front of them, the astronauts couldn't see the Moon as they backed down onto it. But if they stood up and had a window to look out of, they'd need a whole second set of controls with all the attendant weight and space issues. M & C suggest that the engineers didn't really ever come up with a solution to that conundrum from an EOR point of view.
It was separating those two functions into two separate spacecraft which solved the conundrum.
-
I don't know. To me there seems a fairly obvious solution: periscopes. It does add some weight, mind, but it could be part of the star sighting system.
-
I don't know. To me there seems a fairly obvious solution: periscopes. It does add some weight, mind, but it could be part of the star sighting system.
And a very, very long set of ladders to get to the ground.....
Look at the difficulties that SpaceX have with trying to get their rockets to land. OK, they are trying to do it autonomously, in a stronger gravity field and with atmospheric effects to deal with, but even so, getting a large rocket to land vertically is always going to be difficult. Would it have been even possible with 1960s technology?
The second big problem with EOR was getting the job done before the end of the decade. That was Kennedy's challenge and EOR would have meant that they would have missed it completely.
-
I think the landing difficulties of Space X's 1st stage and an Apollo direct aren't really comparable, for just the reasons you mention (automated, stronger grav, atmosphere) any more than the crashes of Project Morpheus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Morpheus) are proof the moon landing was a hoax, despite what some conspiracy theorists have claimed. Given that this could be made to fly (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNECMA_Atar_Volant) back then, I think this (http://www.astronautix.com/craft/gemander.htm) or this (http://www.astronautix.com/craft/apot2man.htm) could have landed on the moon.
-
I think the landing difficulties of Space X's 1st stage and an Apollo direct aren't really comparable, for just the reasons you mention (automated, stronger grav, atmosphere) any more than the crashes of Project Morpheus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Morpheus) are proof the moon landing was a hoax, despite what some conspiracy theorists have claimed. Given that this could be made to fly (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNECMA_Atar_Volant) back then, I think this (http://www.astronautix.com/craft/gemander.htm) or this (http://www.astronautix.com/craft/apot2man.htm) could have landed on the moon.
Agreed- SpaceX and a direct-to-Moon lander are very different, but I think that the analogy stands. Landing a tail sitter is very, very difficult.
The Volant is interesting, but it is was a single seater, turbojet powered craft that crashed after a couple of flights. There's not much of an analogy to a rocket-powered craft large enough to descend to the lunar surface and be able to take off again.
What is plain to see though, is that an EOR-based Lunar attempt would not have been successful before the end of the 60s.
-
Isn't the LM as it stands also a 'tail sitter'? I think the biggest problem with an Apollo Direct, at least as initially envisioned, was Nova. The Saturn V was big, but Nova. . . . At least one (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nova_Rocket.jpg) configuration had a 2nd stage with a bigger diameter 2nd stage than the Saturn V first stage!
-
Isn't the LM as it stands also a 'tail sitter'? I think the biggest problem with an Apollo Direct, at least as initially envisioned, was Nova. The Saturn V was big, but Nova. . . . At least one (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nova_Rocket.jpg) configuration had a 2nd stage with a bigger diameter 2nd stage than the Saturn V first stage!
Indeed it is, but it is a heck of a lot closer to the ground than a direct return craft would be.
Nova was designed for a direct ascent. An EOR plan would have used rockets about half the size of the Saturn V. Multiple launches of these would be used to get the components of the Lunar lander into LEO, where the lander would be assembled.
-
Isn't the LM as it stands also a 'tail sitter'?
Not really, in terms of how you do the landing-stability math. Which is to say, it's not magical math. The geometry of the footprint taken together with the center of mass determines its tendency to trip or topple. The LM had a very, very low center of mass and a very wide footprint. Tail-sitter aircraft had "foot" prints that were narrow because of aerodynamic and control concerns for atmospheric flight. They also had centers of mass that were too far forward from the tail -- also for fixed-wing flight concerns.
-
Many of the surface images of the LM, show it tilted one way or another. Landing on NOT A LEVEL surface and the inherent ability to remain upright without toppling over as JayUtah has descirbied as with A15
-
Many of the surface images of the LM, show it tilted one way or another. Landing on NOT A LEVEL surface and the inherent ability to remain upright without toppling over as JayUtah has descirbied as with A15
That particular LM landed with one footpad in a crater which meant it tilted at nearly 11 degrees. I would think that it would take a lot to topple the LM given its wide footprint. Of more concern would the maximum allowable angle for the ascent stage to clear the descent stage. There was a good discussion on the NASA Spaceflight forum about the maximum safe tilt angle....most places seem to say it was 12 degrees..
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32246.0
-
Many of the surface images of the LM, show it tilted one way or another. Landing on NOT A LEVEL surface and the inherent ability to remain upright without toppling over as JayUtah has descirbied as with A15
That particular LM landed with one footpad in a crater which meant it tilted at nearly 11 degrees. I would think that it would take a lot to topple the LM given its wide footprint. Of more concern would the maximum allowable angle for the ascent stage to clear the descent stage. There was a good discussion on the NASA Spaceflight forum about the maximum safe tilt angle....most places seem to say it was 12 degrees..
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32246.0
Interesting read and I remember that the bell of the last three flights was extended to provide more thrust on landing to allow for the heavier weight of the rovar. Also if I remember correctly A15's bell actually touched the lunar surface. I'll have to look at the images agian.
-
One of the last 3 missions had a damaged descent engine bell from contact with the surface. Don't remember which one, though.
-
(http://www.spaceaholic.com/csimages/as15_87_11842.jpg)
Yes, it was A15.
-
(http://www.spaceaholic.com/csimages/as15_87_11842.jpg)Yes, it was A15.
Damn you're quick, that's the one I was thinking about.
EDIT: Moved my comment to where it belonged!!
-
In the book "For all mankind" Irwin recalls the landing:
"Man we hit hard..then we started pitching and rolling to the side. My first thought - Dave's too - was 'Man are we going to get into an unstable position? Are we going to have to abort?'I thought surely we had ruptured something, that something might be leaking, and we were going to have to leave right away. Finally, the vehicle stopped rolling, and we came to rest on the side of a crater"
Irwin's comment of 'BAM' as they touchdown probably summed it up, and it certainly looks like there was a bit of movement:
FF to about 14:15 if you want to skip to touchdown.
-
(http://www.spaceaholic.com/csimages/as15_87_11842.jpg)
Yes, it was A15.
And to think they "faked" this landing!! ::)
-
Many of the surface images of the LM, show it tilted one way or another. Landing on NOT A LEVEL surface and the inherent ability to remain upright without toppling over as JayUtah has descirbied as with A15
Would the original large lander needed for direct ascent or EOR been able to land at that angle without tipping over?
-
Many of the surface images of the LM, show it tilted one way or another. Landing on NOT A LEVEL surface and the inherent ability to remain upright without toppling over as JayUtah has descirbied as with A15
Would the original large lander needed for direct ascent or EOR been able to land at that angle without tipping over?
Since the final configuration, not the artist conceptions, isn't known, a conclusion might be very difficult to derive. As Jay has indicated the center of gravity of the body probably would have been higher and thus the vehicle would have been more prone to tipping over.
-
For me, it's the point that Murray and Cox described in "Apollo - the Race to the Moon": how exactly were they going to configure the Command Module to land on the Moon?
And how were they going to get safely and simply down to the surface (and back again), once they'd landed? Wouldn't fancy laddering down this behemoth...
(http://habrastorage.org/getpro/habr/post_images/032/419/c23/032419c23652cf274fef2ffbbf657310.jpg)
-
I think a rappelling line with footholds would be safer.
-
I think a rappelling line with footholds would be safer.
Which sounds to me like someone would need to stay in the capsule to do some belaying.
Now THAT would be tough - landing on the Moon and not being allowed out of the spacecraft while your mates get to cavort around...
-
I think a rappelling line with footholds would be safer.
Which sounds to me like someone would need to stay in the capsule to do some belaying.
Now THAT would be tough - landing on the Moon and not being allowed out of the spacecraft while your mates get to cavort around...
Well, you could do it in shifts, perhaps. After all, all but Apollo 11 were planned to have more than one EVA.
-
For me, it's the point that Murray and Cox described in "Apollo - the Race to the Moon": how exactly were they going to configure the Command Module to land on the Moon?
And how were they going to get safely and simply down to the surface (and back again), once they'd landed? Wouldn't fancy laddering down this behemoth...
(http://habrastorage.org/getpro/habr/post_images/032/419/c23/032419c23652cf274fef2ffbbf657310.jpg)
Hester skelter slide. Simples.
Getting back up might be an issue...
-
And how were they going to get safely and simply down to the surface (and back again), once they'd landed? Wouldn't fancy laddering down this behemoth...
The final configuration of the direct lander used a disposable braking stage, also known as the lunar crasher, to reduce the size of the vehicle that would have to be landed on the surface. The necessary ladder wasn't as cumbersome.
-
There was a plan to configure a Gemini capsule to land on the moon as well.
Doesn't look like it would have been that comfortable...
(http://s29.postimg.org/j3i9ppwc7/lg_i_and_ii_general_arrangement.png) (http://postimage.org/)
hosting image (http://postimage.org/)
-
There was a plan to configure a Gemini capsule to land on the moon as well.
Doesn't look like it would have been that comfortable...
There were a couple of configurations for 2 man direct landers, one using a Gemini capsule, and the other a smaller version of the 3 man Apollo capsule. They would have, at least in theory, been within the payload capacity of a single S-V launch.
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/apot2man.htm (http://www.astronautix.com/craft/apot2man.htm)
-
For me, it's the point that Murray and Cox described in "Apollo - the Race to the Moon": how exactly were they going to configure the Command Module to land on the Moon?
And how were they going to get safely and simply down to the surface (and back again), once they'd landed? Wouldn't fancy laddering down this behemoth...
(http://habrastorage.org/getpro/habr/post_images/032/419/c23/032419c23652cf274fef2ffbbf657310.jpg)
Hester skelter slide. Simples.
Getting back up might be an issue...
LOL. I'm pretty sure that would encourage my kids to want to be astronauts...
In fact we have a couple of photos of the kids inside a space suit - at the Canberra Deep Space Communications Centre: the Visitors' Centre has a Shuttle-era space suit with the back cut out and a stand so you can stick your head inside the helmet, and mug for photos. (Plus they have a rock collected on Apollo 11 and a heap of other interesting space paraphernalia.)
-
The final configuration of the direct lander used a disposable braking stage, also known as the lunar crasher, to reduce the size of the vehicle that would have to be landed on the surface.
Surveyor did just this; its "crasher" was a large solid rocket motor that was fired to remove most of the velocity on approaching the moon and then jettisoned.
-
The final configuration of the direct lander used a disposable braking stage, also known as the lunar crasher, to reduce the size of the vehicle that would have to be landed on the surface.
Surveyor did just this; its "crasher" was a large solid rocket motor that was fired to remove most of the velocity on approaching the moon and then jettisoned.
Yes, bouncing one or more times before finally coming to rest.
-
The final configuration of the direct lander used a disposable braking stage, also known as the lunar crasher, to reduce the size of the vehicle that would have to be landed on the surface.
Surveyor did just this; its "crasher" was a large solid rocket motor that was fired to remove most of the velocity on approaching the moon and then jettisoned.
Yes, bouncing one or more times before finally coming to rest.
Yes. I think it was Surveyor 3 that did the bumpety landing proving that a soft landing was possible. I'll have to look it up.
ETA: Or likely some bod here will beat me to it.
-
The final configuration of the direct lander used a disposable braking stage, also known as the lunar crasher, to reduce the size of the vehicle that would have to be landed on the surface.
Surveyor did just this; its "crasher" was a large solid rocket motor that was fired to remove most of the velocity on approaching the moon and then jettisoned.
Yes, bouncing one or more times before finally coming to rest.
Yes. I think it was Surveyor 3 that did the bumpety landing proving that a soft landing was possible. I'll have to look it up.
ETA: Or likely some bod here will beat me to it.
Right, Surveyor 3 made an unplanned bounce and Surveyor 6 made a planned takeoff and landing.
-
See? Randi 1M dollar challenge accepted, LOL.
-
See? Randi 1M dollar challenge accepted, LOL.
I thought it was heawe(?) and for 1B? :)
-
Heiwa (Anders Björkman) and 1 million euro.
-
Heiwa (Anders Björkman) and 1 million euro.
That's him, I only found out who he was this past week from smartcookie.
-
Heiwa (Anders Björkman) and 1 million euro.
That's him, I only found out who he was this past week from smartcookie.
Really? Treat in store for you then. Heiwa is quite a piece of work. Buys a ban wherever he goes, even crank sites.
-
Heiwa (Anders Björkman) and 1 million euro.
That's him, I only found out who he was this past week from smartcookie.
Really? Treat in store for you then. Heiwa is quite a piece of work. Buys a ban wherever he goes, even crank sites.
Judging from his website, there isn't much that man has done that isn't a hoax. So I believe you to be correct, what a rube.
-
Ok, so this is not exactly a photo anomaly (but I am going to post images :) ).
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/ApolloHoax/LM2.jpg) (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/ApolloHoax/CSM2.jpg)
On the CSM there is a docking mechanism (arrowed) which connects to the LM via the top hatch behind the rendezvous radar antenna (arrowed)
Now this really might turn out to be a dumb question, but how do the astronauts get past this piece of equipment to move between the CM and the LM? I haven't found a diagram that shows this clearly enough.
Is it attached to the forward hatch door so that it somehow gets removed or swung out of the way?
-
It's the docking probe; it gets removed (as a separate piece of equipment), as I recall. Others will be by soon to explain in much more detail.
-
It is a docking probe within the forward hatch, opening and removed inward toward the CSM.
Here is link to an image http://historicspacecraft.com/Apollo_Capsules.html
The lander probably had a similar door that was opened and removed into the the lander, but I haven't found that part yet. I'm just remembering videos of the astronauts moving through the area and saw no "open door"
-
The lander probably had a similar door that was opened and removed into the the lander, but I haven't found that part yet. I'm just remembering videos of the astronauts moving through the area and saw no "open door"
Would this (http://www.apollosaturn.com/asnr/s151.gif) be it? Found here (http://www.apollosaturn.com/asnr/docking.htm).
-
The lander probably had a similar door that was opened and removed into the the lander, but I haven't found that part yet. I'm just remembering videos of the astronauts moving through the area and saw no "open door"
Would this (http://www.apollosaturn.com/asnr/s151.gif) be it? Found here (http://www.apollosaturn.com/asnr/docking.htm).
You found it way before I started looking, catching up with other tasks.
-
Excellent guys. Thanks!
-
IIRC, one of the Apollo 11 TV transmissions on the way to the moon showed Mike Collins removing the docking mechanism and opening the tunnel. Couldn't find it in a quick Youtube search. Maybe someone else knows where it is.
-
I was just remembering that two of the missions AS14 and AS17 had docking problems. AS14 was more severe and I don't know if NASA ever figured out why the latching mechanism didn't perform as expected. AS17 had Cernan open the hatch and manually lock a number of the latches manually, before the LM was retrieved from third stage.
I find it fascinating that so many little problems cropped up during the missions and through ingenuity and luck of ground control/crew all were overcome.
-
... which gives the lie to HB claims that they were "perfect". None were; some were worse than others (ignore A13, of course, which is in its own category).
-
Ah, but you see NASA manufactured those "glitches" just to keep everybody from getting bored...
-
Ah, but you see NASA manufactured those "glitches" just to keep everybody from getting bored...
They were crafty back in them there days. :)
-
Ah, but you see NASA manufactured those "glitches" just to keep everybody from getting bored...
They were crafty back in them there days. :)
But they can't dig blast craters, add stars to the sky, or figure out a labelling system for more than 26 props. Crafty, indeed. ::)
-
Now this really might turn out to be a dumb question, but how do the astronauts get past this piece of equipment to move between the CM and the LM? I haven't found a diagram that shows this clearly enough.
Is it attached to the forward hatch door so that it somehow gets removed or swung out of the way?
Of all the clever bits on Apollo (and there were a LOT of them!) the probe and drogue has got to be on the list of the cleverest (all IMHO). It's an exquisite piece of form and functionality.
http://history.nasa.gov/afj/aoh/aoh-v1-2-13-dock.pdf
http://heroicrelics.org/stafford/apollo-probe-and-drogue/
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=687.0
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19720018207.pdf
-
IIRC, one of the Apollo 11 TV transmissions on the way to the moon showed Mike Collins removing the docking mechanism and opening the tunnel. Couldn't find it in a quick Youtube search. Maybe someone else knows where it is.
The Spacecraft Films Apollo 11 set of DVDs has it. From the original Apollo 11 set:--
TV transmission during translunar coast, JSC kinescopes.
0:00:00 1 Probe removal and LM checkout. GET 55:08
0:02:00 2 Working on the probe
0:14:00 3 Removing the drogue
0:23:44 4 Ready for the hatch
0:27:00 5 Into Eagle
0:33:00 6 Opening the shades
0:40:40 7 The AOT
0:47:30 8 Mike over in Columbia
0:52:00 9 Eagle instrument panels
1:04:30 10 Camera mount
1:16:43 11 Panel 3
1:18:00 12 More instruments
1:25:09 13 Our home from space
1:30:52 End
I also recall that on another DVD set the astronauts carried the probe or another part of the mechanism back to the couches and videoed it so that the techies in Houston could see it and maybe figure out a problem.
Can't recall which set though. Fellow Kiwi member AJV can probably tell us.
-
IIRC, one of the Apollo 11 TV transmissions on the way to the moon showed Mike Collins removing the docking mechanism and opening the tunnel. Couldn't find it in a quick Youtube search. Maybe someone else knows where it is.
The Spacecraft Films Apollo 11 set of DVDs has it. From the original Apollo 11 set:--
TV transmission during translunar coast, JSC kinescopes.
0:00:00 1 Probe removal and LM checkout. GET 55:08
0:02:00 2 Working on the probe
0:14:00 3 Removing the drogue
0:23:44 4 Ready for the hatch
0:27:00 5 Into Eagle
0:33:00 6 Opening the shades
0:40:40 7 The AOT
0:47:30 8 Mike over in Columbia
0:52:00 9 Eagle instrument panels
1:04:30 10 Camera mount
1:16:43 11 Panel 3
1:18:00 12 More instruments
1:25:09 13 Our home from space
1:30:52 End
I also recall that on another DVD set the astronauts carried the probe or another part of the mechanism back to the couches and videoed it so that the techies in Houston could see it and maybe figure out a problem.
Can't recall which set though. Fellow Kiwi member AJV can probably tell us.
Perhaps give us a time this occurred so we may search the ALSJ?
-
From FIRST ON THE MOON - A Voyage with NEIL ARMSTRONG MICHAEL COLLINS EDWIN E. ALDRIN JR. written with GENE FARMER and DORA JANE HAMBLIN Epilogue by ARTHUR C. CLARKE, Michael Joseph, London, 1970
Page 146
Fifty-five hours and ten minutes, receiving live television at Goldstone, presumably a test of the system. Stand by for a call from the crew...
HOUSTON (Duke): We're getting ready to flight configure here at Houston for the transmission. We'll be up in a couple of minutes. Over.
ALDRIN: Rog, this is just for free. This isn't what we had in mind.
[It turned out that they had quite a lot in mind... It was time to remove the probe and drogue assembly linking the two spacecraft. Then Buzz Aldrin would go "up" and through a tunnel to enter the lunar module for the
<146
147>
first time and check it out; the lunar landing was almost exactly forty-eight hours away...]
HOUSTON (Duke): It's a pretty good show here. It looks like you almost got the probe out.
ALDRIN: Yeah, it's loose now. Can you see that?... Coming down.
HOUSTON (Duke): Looks like it's a little bit easier than doing that in the chamber. Over.
ARMSTRONG: You bet.
ALDRIN: It's pretty massive but it goes where you direct it.
ARMSTRONG: Mike must have done a smooth job in that docking. There isn't a dent or a mark on the probe.
HOUSTON (Duke): With a twelve-foot cable, we estimate you should have about five to six feet excess when you get the camera into the LM... We can see the probe now. A correction, the drogue.
COLLINS: Okay, drogue removal is coming next.
[Once that was out of the way, they would have access to the lunar modale hatch...]
HOUSTON (Duke): Looks like it's pretty crowded in there with that drogue. Over.
ARMSTRONG: Oh, it's not really bad.
ALDRIN: This TV cable is getting in the way.
HOUSTON (Duke): We see lots of arms.
COLLINS: The only problem, Charlie, is these TV stagehands don't know where they stand... well, the dock latches look good today, just like they did yesterday.
HOUSTON (Duke): Eleven, Houston. We can even read the decals up there on the LM hatch.
ALDRIN: Well, let me move [the camera] up and see how much you can read.
HOUSTON (Duke): We can see the LM umbilical connection quite well, Buzz. We see you zooming in on one of the decals now. It's — to reset, unlatch handle, latch behind grip and pull back two full strokes. That's about all we can make out.
ALDRIN: You get an A plus.
HOUSTON (Duke): Thank you very much, sir. At least I passed my eye test.
There will most likely be more info in the Apollo 11 Flight Journal.
-
Perhaps give us a time this occurred so we may search the ALSJ?
It's on the first line:
0:00:00 1 Probe removal and LM checkout. GET 55:08
You'll want the Apollo 11 Flight Journal.
http://history.nasa.gov/afj/
-
Perhaps give us a time this occurred so we may search the ALSJ?
It's on the first line:
0:00:00 1 Probe removal and LM checkout. GET 55:08
You'll want the Apollo 11 Flight Journal.
I'll get to watching later, but thanks for the timeline synopsis, saves me a lot of research time.
-
I was just remembering that two of the missions AS14 and AS17 had docking problems. AS14 was more severe and I don't know if NASA ever figured out why the latching mechanism didn't perform as expected. AS17 had Cernan open the hatch and manually lock a number of the latches manually, before the LM was retrieved from third stage.
The first manned Skylab mission also had great difficulty docking. After the crew put on space suits and fiddled with the docking probe, the next attempt succeeded.
I don't recall any of the shuttle missions having difficulty. I guess its docking system is more reliable.
-
I'll get to watching later, but thanks for the timeline synopsis, saves me a lot of research time.
The quickest place to ascertain things like GET and tons of other minutiae is at Apollo By the Numbers
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/thread/1356/apollo-numbers
I have all the mission summaries and timelines printed and in a folder - 59 pages. They are very useful.
Anyone who wants a copy and doesn't want to reinvent the wheel can PM me with their email address.
-
I was just remembering that two of the missions AS14 and AS17 had docking problems. AS14 was more severe and I don't know if NASA ever figured out why the latching mechanism didn't perform as expected. AS17 had Cernan open the hatch and manually lock a number of the latches manually, before the LM was retrieved from third stage.
The first manned Skylab mission also had great difficulty docking. After the crew put on space suits and fiddled with the docking probe, the next attempt succeeded.
I don't recall any of the shuttle missions having difficulty. I guess its docking system is more reliable.
I didn't realize the Skylab had problems, thanks. The Shuttle probably had all the experience from prior missions to get it right or a re-design.
-
I'll get to watching later, but thanks for the timeline synopsis, saves me a lot of research time.
The quickest place to ascertain things like GET and tons of other minutiae is at Apollo By the Numbers
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/thread/1356/apollo-numbers
I have all the mission summaries and timelines printed and in a folder. They are very useful.
I don't have room for anything more!!! I get the constant "advice" to clean up my office and throw "stuff" out.
-
AS14 was more severe and I don't know if NASA ever figured out why the latching mechanism didn't perform as expected.
Ice in the latches. One of my early mentors was one of the engineers who worked on the probe mechanism, and one of the guys who got an emergency call to help diagnose it. He had pieces of one of the Apollo docking probes in his office.
-
AS14 was more severe and I don't know if NASA ever figured out why the latching mechanism didn't perform as expected.
Ice in the latches. One of my early mentors was one of the engineers who worked on the probe mechanism, and one of the guys who got an emergency call to help diagnose it. He had pieces of one of the Apollo docking probes in his office.
Did the ice make the latches non-responsive or slow response? I read somewhere, maybe WIKI, that they tried it five times. The sixth and successful was they retracted the latches as the vehicles just contacted. The entrance distance was then slowly decreased to zero and the latches latched when tried.
-
The latches work very much like the bolt on a bedroom door. Pressure on the door forces the latch into the door body until it reaches the hole in the jamb, whereupon it springs back out and "captures" the door. Ice prevented the latches on the docking probe from withdrawing into the probe tip. Imagine trying to slam the door when the bolt won't retract; it just bounces off the jamb. The latches sit on the tip of a retractable apparatus not unlike some scissors-type car jacks. So with the RCS firing and exerting pressure between the vehicles, and the tip of the probe held in the apex of the drogue by that pressure, they retracted the probe until the hard-dock latches could engage. around the rim. The capture latches never did work for that first docking.
When they pulled the probe and drogue into the CM, the bit of ice had already melted because the tunnel had to be pressurized first. It really doesn't take much contamination to jam up those latches.
-
Never thought about it before, and it's likely a really dumb question, but how did they unlatch the probe and drogue for undocking? I couldn't find an explanation anywhere... just reverse the "scissor jack?"
-
Never thought about it before, and it's likely a really dumb question, but how did they unlatch the probe and drogue for undocking? I couldn't find an explanation anywhere... just reverse the "scissor jack?"
No such thing as a "dumb question". I read up on the mechanism a zillion years ago, so I shall have a rummage and see what I can find. Likely, Jay has it at his fingertips though and will beat me to the punch.
-
Never thought about it before, and it's likely a really dumb question, but how did they unlatch the probe and drogue for undocking? I couldn't find an explanation anywhere... just reverse the "scissor jack?"
No such thing as a "dumb question". I read up on the mechanism a zillion years ago, so I shall have a rummage and see what I can find. Likely, Jay has it at his fingertips though and will beat me to the punch.
I emailed Eric Jones yesterday looking for the in flight TV video. It isn't on the ALSJ as far as I can find it. Waiting for a response. Anybody have a link to a video of that broadcast?
-
Eric edits the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. As I suggested in post 96, you should try the Apollo Flight Journal for flight information. It has different editors.
http://history.nasa.gov/afj/
ETA: Added "you"
-
Eric edits the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. As I suggested in post 96, shouldn't you be trying the Apollo Flight Journal?
http://history.nasa.gov/afj/
There are images/movie clips in the ALSJ with both Eric and Ken Glover listed as editors, I chose the first. I have received a reply today where Eric basically forwarded my email to David Woods and Ken Glover. They may have all separated the components to make it a easier to manage.
Do you have a link to the Flight Journal?
-
Do you have a link to the Flight Journal?
Yes. It's in both posts 96 and 108, and in your quote in post 109. Please read the information we give you.
Edited to add: Did you also record the link in post 99? Some of the links at the Nasa site don't work or are missing, so to access all of Apollo By the Numbers, you need the multitude of links provided.
-
I received an email concerning the videos during the trip out/back and unfortunately the haven't transferred the raw material.
Ken Glover did link a video, , however the hatch had been just removed and is being stowed at the beginning of the video.
-
This forum is just amazing.
I ask a simple question, I get a couple of simple answers which I am satisfied with.... happy is me!
I go away for a couple of days and come back to find the answers have kept coming and in minute and comprehensive detail. It is this detail - the extensive documentation of the seemingly most insignificant bits of technology; the detailed recording of the tiniest and seemingly most trivial tasks; the "no stone left unturned" nature of the Apollo record, that ought to convince any reasonable person that Apollo really did take place exactly as advertised.
Not only that, but the answers lead to more questions and related information, about Apollo, that can be verified due to the comprehensive detail in the Apollo record.
For mine, this shows just how unreasonable idiots like Heiwa, Hunchbacked, Weisbecker and the Blunder are.
-
I watched part one of a programme on SkyTV called "13 Factors that saved Apollo 13" , and about 20 minutes in, there it was, a view down the tunnel when they were removing and stowing the hatch, and the docking mechanism is clearly visible...
-
I watched part one of a programme on SkyTV called "13 Factors that saved Apollo 13" , and about 20 minutes in, there it was, a view down the tunnel when they were removing and stowing the hatch, and the docking mechanism is clearly visible...
Although there isn't a transfer of the hatch in A11, here is a YT video just after the Probe and Drogue has been removed.
Is the SkyTV program recorded?
-
I watched part one of a programme on SkyTV called "13 Factors that saved Apollo 13" , and about 20 minutes in, there it was, a view down the tunnel when they were removing and stowing the hatch, and the docking mechanism is clearly visible...
Although there isn't a transfer of the hatch in A11, here is a YT video just after the Probe and Drogue has been removed.
Is the SkyTV program recorded?
Yes it is, and part two is booked
-
Isn't the LM as it stands also a 'tail sitter'? I think the biggest problem with an Apollo Direct, at least as initially envisioned, was Nova. The Saturn V was big, but Nova. . . . At least one (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nova_Rocket.jpg) configuration had a 2nd stage with a bigger diameter 2nd stage than the Saturn V first stage!
Indeed it is, but it is a heck of a lot closer to the ground than a direct return craft would be.
Nova was designed for a direct ascent. An EOR plan would have used rockets about half the size of the Saturn V. Multiple launches of these would be used to get the components of the Lunar lander into LEO, where the lander would be assembled.
I'm reading Apollo The Race to the Moon right now and they mentioned that due to the tremendous noise NOVA would of generated, they were actually looking at someway to sea launch it. I found this article that explains it a bit more near the bottom of it. Even mentions that one concept studied was to launch it from hollowed out launch tubes in Hawaiian cliff sides?!?!? Quite the logistics nightmare to pull that one off. Anybody aware of this study and where it might be located? I also read the logistics chapter in Stages to Saturn. I'm not even sure they could of built NOVA as it seems the Saturn V really pushed them to the limits transporting all the different components to the assembly location.
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/nova.htm
-
Isn't the LM as it stands also a 'tail sitter'? I think the biggest problem with an Apollo Direct, at least as initially envisioned, was Nova. The Saturn V was big, but Nova. . . . At least one (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nova_Rocket.jpg) configuration had a 2nd stage with a bigger diameter 2nd stage than the Saturn V first stage!
Indeed it is, but it is a heck of a lot closer to the ground than a direct return craft would be.
Nova was designed for a direct ascent. An EOR plan would have used rockets about half the size of the Saturn V. Multiple launches of these would be used to get the components of the Lunar lander into LEO, where the lander would be assembled.
I'm reading Apollo The Race to the Moon right now and they mentioned that due to the tremendous noise it would of generated, they were actually looking at someway to sea launch it. I found this article that explains it a bit more near the bottom of it. Even mentions that one concept studied was to launch it from hollowed out launch tubes in Hawaiian cliff sides?!?!? Quite the logistics nightmare to pull that one off. Anybody aware of this study and where it might be located? I also read the logistics chapter in Stages to Saturn. I'm not even sure they could of built NOVA as it seems the Saturn V really pushed them to the limits transporting all the different components to the assembly location.
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/nova.htm
I have just recorded a doco on the History Channel called "The Saturn V Story" but I haven't watched it yet. Maybe they will mention these aspects.
-
I have just recorded a doco on the History Channel called "The Saturn V Story" but I haven't watched it yet. Maybe they will mention these aspects.
Is it part of the Moon Machines series?
-
I have just recorded a doco on the History Channel called "The Saturn V Story" but I haven't watched it yet. Maybe they will mention these aspects.
Is it part of the Moon Machines series?
I don't think so. "Moon Machines" was released in 2008, but this doco has a release date of 2014
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3884454/
-
Isn't the LM as it stands also a 'tail sitter'? I think the biggest problem with an Apollo Direct, at least as initially envisioned, was Nova. The Saturn V was big, but Nova. . . . At least one (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nova_Rocket.jpg) configuration had a 2nd stage with a bigger diameter 2nd stage than the Saturn V first stage!
Indeed it is, but it is a heck of a lot closer to the ground than a direct return craft would be.
Nova was designed for a direct ascent. An EOR plan would have used rockets about half the size of the Saturn V. Multiple launches of these would be used to get the components of the Lunar lander into LEO, where the lander would be assembled.
I'm reading Apollo The Race to the Moon right now and they mentioned that due to the tremendous noise NOVA would of generated, they were actually looking at someway to sea launch it. I found this article that explains it a bit more near the bottom of it. Even mentions that one concept studied was to launch it from hollowed out launch tubes in Hawaiian cliff sides?!?!? Quite the logistics nightmare to pull that one off. Anybody aware of this study and where it might be located? I also read the logistics chapter in Stages to Saturn. I'm not even sure they could of built NOVA as it seems the Saturn V really pushed them to the limits transporting all the different components to the assembly location.
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/nova.htm
That sounds very Supervillian Lair there.
-
Isn't the LM as it stands also a 'tail sitter'? I think the biggest problem with an Apollo Direct, at least as initially envisioned, was Nova. The Saturn V was big, but Nova. . . . At least one (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nova_Rocket.jpg) configuration had a 2nd stage with a bigger diameter 2nd stage than the Saturn V first stage!
Indeed it is, but it is a heck of a lot closer to the ground than a direct return craft would be.
Nova was designed for a direct ascent. An EOR plan would have used rockets about half the size of the Saturn V. Multiple launches of these would be used to get the components of the Lunar lander into LEO, where the lander would be assembled.
I'm reading Apollo The Race to the Moon right now and they mentioned that due to the tremendous noise it would of generated, they were actually looking at someway to sea launch it. I found this article that explains it a bit more near the bottom of it. Even mentions that one concept studied was to launch it from hollowed out launch tubes in Hawaiian cliff sides?!?!? Quite the logistics nightmare to pull that one off. Anybody aware of this study and where it might be located? I also read the logistics chapter in Stages to Saturn. I'm not even sure they could of built NOVA as it seems the Saturn V really pushed them to the limits transporting all the different components to the assembly location.
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/nova.htm
I have just recorded a doco on the History Channel called "The Saturn V Story" but I haven't watched it yet. Maybe they will mention these aspects.
Watched this last night, and it just reinforced my belief that the Saturn V, and particularly, the F1 engine, is an extraordinary feat of complex engineering. Truly awesome.
How anyone could see this and still think it was all faked defies all logic and reason.
-
To anyone who has his / her eyes open, it's an awesome machine.
-
How anyone could see this and still think it was all faked defies all logic and reason.
Here's your answer:
-
It almost seems that it is religious to the HB's, but they may feel exactly the same towards us.