Questions needing answers

[Ishkabibble]

You can see the packers using hydraulic rams to stow the 'chutes.

Go and work out where the packed 'chutes were located. Your claim- you show your evidence.

I have always been fascinated with the chutes, how they were designed, how they were packed, what caused them to stay reefed until a certain time, and then unfurl the way they did...

Are there any explanatory documents out there that describe how they figured all of that out? I am really interested in learning how you keep a chute that size reefed until a specific altitude, and then have it open without shredding itself.

There has to be something that explains this, without it being a graduate-level course in chute-engineering...

[JayUtah]

Auto-reefed drag and braking chutes were old hat by 1969.  Previous aircraft required them.  The reefing settings were worked out ahead of time and operated by open-loop control from the pitot pressure (airspeed).

[Ishkabibble]

Auto-reefed drag and braking chutes were old hat by 1969.  Previous aircraft required them.  The reefing settings were worked out ahead of time and operated by open-loop control from the pitot pressure (airspeed).

Yes, Jay... I knew that already. What I don't know is, how were these things designed/assembled/packed/created so that they operated the way that they did.

What I'm obliquely referencing is some documentary I may or may not correctly recall seeing when I was a pre-teen, lo those many years ago. Something that specifically dealt with recovery systems, and how the future shuttle would not need them. I'd like to have my memory refreshed, but 35 years is a long time.

Are there any websites or documents available to the layman that describe the processes to which you referred?

[gillianren]

Side note, I'm pretty sure he's deleting posts, since I see responses to ones that are missing when I read the page.

I don't think so. All deleted posts go to a "recycle bin" and there is only one by him. He could be editing them, but only within a short timeframe.

Thank you.  My mistake.

Tradosaurus, do you mean satellites in orbit?  Because a whole lot of us have seen them on Earth--as I've said, I have seen them on Earth.  If you mean in orbit, I've seen that, too.  Every summer, when I'm watching the Perseids, I see satellites cross the sky as I'm waiting to see meteors.  If what I'm seeing isn't satellites, what are they?

[sts60]

And do me a favor; google "satellites" and see if you find one actual picture and not a composite drawing or a CGI animated. 

Good luck!

Well, thanks; but no luck needed.  Nor Googling; that's for pretend engineers [population: you]. 

The first one is a satellite I helped build, integrate, test, and operate on three separate missions.
The second is me aboard one of the vehicles that gave it a ride to and from orbit, during preflight integration tests. 
The third is a picture taken by our satellite of another such vehicle, which was also a satellite at that point.

[raven]

Tradosaurus, do you mean satellites in orbit?  Because a whole lot of us have seen them on Earth--as I've said, I have seen them on Earth.  If you mean in orbit, I've seen that, too.  Every summer, when I'm watching the Perseids, I see satellites cross the sky as I'm waiting to see meteors.  If what I'm seeing isn't satellites, what are they?

I already provided a link to Heaven's Above where he can find a time for  his location for flyovers for many different  satellites, including the ISS, but he's too much of an intellectual coward to follow up on it, I'd bet.

[sts60]

Of course, Thierry Legault's work is just tremendous.  All of us have seen satellites in orbit.  M. Legault has photographed astronauts in orbit.  Of course, I'm just posting this for the enjoyment of the regulars, but our current Visting Chair in Pretend Engineering is also welcome.

[ka9q]

It is not an exaggeration to say that it was the most meticulously and thoroughly documented civil engineering project in history.

...thoroughly documented engineering project, period. Every branch of engineering and many of science were represented in Apollo in some way. Even the nuclear engineers (radioisotope heaters and RTGs; switch tip illuminators; radiological safety equipment).

[carpediem]

Fortunately NASA didn't fake it for 6 men like the photo below or it would have been really hard to believe.

I hate to correct such a highly educated engineer, but that doesn't look like a photo to me.

[Trebor]

...
Well, thanks; but no luck needed.  Nor Googling; that's for pretend engineers [population: you]. 

The first one is a satellite I helped build, integrate, test, and operate on three separate missions.
The second is me aboard one of the vehicles that gave it a ride to and from orbit, during preflight integration tests. 
The third is a picture taken by our satellite of another such vehicle, which was also a satellite at that point.

Cool images... what was the satellite?
Nice to see that even in threads as awful as this one a few good things come out.

[Apollo 957]

The globe earth is your religion 

We're waiting, all agog, for your proof that it isn't.

Photo of the edge? Documented proof of trips to the edge?

If the Antarctic is that 'ice wall' defended by the military, then please tell us how long that wall is, and how many bases you think would be needed to defend it, and what the distance between each would be. Where are the photos of those bases? Where are the stories of service personnel who return from their tour of duty 'on the wall' ?

[Apollo 957]

The command module is just one of many discrepancies of the moon landing hoax.   Simple thought experiments that question the ability of 1960's technology to make the trip and back, no blast craters or dust under the lunar module, the ability of the astronauts to do any fine motor skills with the pressurized gloves, etc.   Is it any wonder the U.S is a joke outside of this country?   

The middle couch in the CM folded away.

Why would you expect a 'blast crater' under the LM from such a low-powered engine in a vacuum?

Here's a challenge for your engineering - the exhaust nozzle was just over 1 metre across. The weight of the LM was approx. 2500 lbs at landing. What's the output of the engine per square cm, or per square inch? (yes, I mixed metric and imperial units deliberately)

[Apollo 957]

try adhering water to a spinning ball at 1,000 mph.

What about a spinning ball that spins at one revolution every 24 hours? For that's the same as the Earth, isn't it?

Oh, no - you don't believe in that. So you want to disprove it by spinning a ball at "1000 mph", but you don't believe it's actually spinning, so  ..... what does that do to your proof?

EDIT - Oops, sorry, just seen the request to stop feeding FE to him, which came after the quote above.

[JayUtah]

What about a spinning ball that spins at one revolution every 24 hours?

Right up there with putting a cup of tea on the table in a train going 120 km/h.  At that fantastic speed, the cup would slide right off the table.  Right?  Well, no, because all that stuff was uniformly accelerated to that speed.  The action/reaction forces happened earlier.  If you look at how accretion works for a rotating body, there's no initial acceleration or sheer.  All the material that will be eventually spinning starts out spinning.

All tradosaurus can manage is, "Ooooh everyone look at these big scary numbers I posted and use your imagination."  But there are some people whose imagination works on the abstract nature of the forces and effects those numbers measure and figures out the quantitative interplay among them.  The units you measure things in are irrelevant to the relationships they represent.  And when you can think that way, you begin to figure out how the universe works without being frightened by big numbers.

Oh wait, that's science.

[tradosaurus]

And do me a favor; google "satellites" and see if you find one actual picture and not a composite drawing or a CGI animated. 

Good luck!

Well, thanks; but no luck needed.  Nor Googling; that's for pretend engineers [population: you]. 

The first one is a satellite I helped build, integrate, test, and operate on three separate missions.
The second is me aboard one of the vehicles that gave it a ride to and from orbit, during preflight integration tests. 
The third is a picture taken by our satellite of another such vehicle, which was also a satellite at that point.

The first one looks CGI.
The second one means nothing
The third one is blurry and means nothing.

I've got a better one; This is me floating in space enjoying some sun.   No, really it is me because I'm providing a "picture" and I wouldn't lie.