Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch

[Jason Thompson]

While it is evident I have doubts about things, I never suggested the actual LM landings were hoaxed. I only pointed out that the LM seemed to have less than optimal visibility. Just an opinion.

DOn't play the semantics game here, it won't wash. You are very clearly implying the landing were hoaxed or else suspect in some way. Just because you haven't explicitly stated it doesn't absolve you of the responsibility to defend that position.

Believe me, I am trying only to ask reasonable questions.

We will believe you a lot mre if you actually represent the responses you have been given correctly and acknowledge the lengthy expert explanations you have been given as to why your opinions are based on flawed premises.

Humor me. Take a look at the Apollo 17 photos. This is ultimately what led me to the uncertainties/doubts I have now.

AGain, we have looked at them. If you have specfic concerns then bring them here. No guessing games.

 


[/quote]

[JayUtah]

I only pointed out that the LM seemed to have less than optimal visibility. Just an opinion.

Of course it has "less than optimal" visibility, just as many practical vehicles have "less that optimal" visibility, or "less than optimal" turning radius, or "less than optimal" fuel efficiency.  "Less than optimal" is a ubiquitous condition in any engineered product, for any criterion.  That is because engineering is mostly the study of balancing competing concerns.  Nothing ends up optimal, for good reason.  The question is why this particular suboptimality matters, and why you keep returning to it again and again as if it means something.

And don't think we didn't see the goalposts move just then.  There's a big difference between the "visibility problem" you've been asserting up until now and the "less than optimal" visibility you backpedaled to on this post.  If you want to revise your argument, please do so.  But don't try to sneak it under the radar.  State it explicitly and openly.  Otherwise it makes it very hard to argue that you're just asking honest and reasonable questions.

Believe me, I am trying only to ask reasonable questions.

It would be easier to believe you if you were to stop dismissing the answers in favor of belaboring your beliefs, surreptitiously rewriting your arguments, and misrepresenting your interlocutors.

Humor me. Take a look at the Apollo 17 photos. This is ultimately what led me to the uncertainties/doubts I have now.

You already have my answer.  Your "uncertainties/doubts" are based on assumptions and uninformed personal opinions that you refuse to let go of.

[VQ]

Hi VQ,

I think you need perspective to understand the size of the crater. The strut supporting the LM leg is 4 feet 10 inches off the ground. Are you suggesting the main descent engine nozzle coming down on the raised crater edge would not have created a significant, if not, catastrophic outcome?

I did not say the A17 mission was a fabrication because they would not have landed that close to the crater. What I did say however is the pictures I attached if examined with the other A17 photos (particularly EVA1) you will come to some unsettling conclusions.

As others have noted, the LM leg is a poor yardstick because by design it collapsed on landing as a single-use shock absorber. One of the photos you posted showed the crater covered in footprints, which does provide a decent yardstick. Based on the footprints it's clearly a lot less than 3-4 feet deep, more of a gently sloped pothole. By inspection, I would say that it would have caused no life safety risk whatsoever: the LM was designed to land on quite alarming slopes without overturning, and even if it overturned, it would have done so slowly enough to allow an abort to orbit. And as others have also noted, contact of the engine bell to surface features at landing was minimally concerning - neither significant nor catastrophic. Remember, the engine was near minimum throttle at this point in the landing, and by design would have been shut off just above the surface to allow a short free fall.

You'll find that many posters here have minimal patience for wordplay regarding "I didn't say it was faked" or your innuendo regarding "unsettling conclusions".

Personally, I'd like to close out this particular line of discussion (including hearing a real reply to my question in reply #52) before we gallop on to some other concern you have.

[Von_Smith]

One poster did pose an interesting question regarding why NASA would have bothered adding deflectors if the whole thing is a fake. I gave that question some thought in the past. And I came to the conclusion, the alternative would have been worse. People, (including many here I'm sure), would point out the engines were thrusting (including heat) directly on the lower stage of LM. That certainly would raise many questions. They did it briefly without deflectors on prior missions but landing on the moon would bring a lot more eyes to the project.

You said in your original post that the deflectors were "problematic" and claimed that an MIT paper had suggested that they would create significant instabilities in anything other than perfect conditions.  Now you're suggesting that the deflectors would have been considered necessary by any competent observers, and so had to be there in order to fool them.  So which is it?  Are the deflectors what one would expect on a legit mission or not?  Are they features that "don't look right" or ones that look exactly the way they need to in order to fool the experts among the audience?

[Dalhousie]

And btw, given we are on the subject of RCS engines, how did the RCS's nozzles not get torn off the Saturn on liftoff. The LM's RCS's were covered but the RCS's on the CM were completely exposed. Max Q is 14km up. That is a long way up for those small nozzle cups facing up not to get torn off. Even if they were not torn off, they could have been easily damaged or compromised.  That seems quite the risk NASA took given the RCS's had no backups.  Regards jr.

Which is why they were under the boost protective cover (BPC).  If you don't understand something, ask.  Don't assume that the people who worked on Apollo were stupid or risk takers, or that you have discovered some inconsistent detail that proves it was fake.

The CSM RCS quads were not under the BPC, being about a third of the way down the side of the service module.



 However, that doesn't mean they can't simply be engineered to be tough enough to survive those forces. That's the kind of detail that years of design and testing fixes....

Jason, I understood the question to have been about the thrusters on the CM, which jr Knowing specified. These were under the BCF, I think.

The RCS on the SM were a different matter

[JayUtah]

The RCS on the SM were a different matter

Quite, actually.  When speaking of the integrated command and service modules, the acceptable abbreviation is CSM.  But when speaking of the RCS systems, there is no such thing as the CSM RCS.  There is the CM RCS, the SM RCS, and the LM RCS.  Jr Knowing specifically called out the "CM RCS," which means a specific thing.  And that specific thing was indeed under the boost protective cover.  This tempest in a teapot is ultimately the fault of precise (although wrong) terminology which some interpreted literally and others evidently corrected mentally.

[nomuse]

Hi jfb,

The third picture I attached shows the footpad (in a small crater) about 2-3 feet from the ridge of the much larger crater not 5-8 meters as you suggest.

The unsettling conclusions have nothing to do with the LM landing. It has to do with everything you see in those pics versus other photos from A17. (my recent posts give some direction on where to start to look.)

I really hate to dive into the meta-discussion. But please look at it our way. There's a familiar profile that the vast majority of hoax proponents fit. Whatever your motives, whatever your intended approach, however you personally perceive your approach, you are fitting the profile sufficiently to make some of the people here uncomfortable.

At the risk of engaging in a long-winded and ultimately futile analogy, at the beginning of the James Bond novel "Man with the Golden Gun" Bond, who had been missing for over a year, shows up in London. He immediately heads for Fleet Street to get the kind of suit James Bond wears, to the shops to get the kind of tobacco James Bond smokes and the kind of liquor James Bond drinks, and even the kind of perfume James Bond wears. When he finally saunters in to report to M they have the bulletproof glass down and a guard waiting.

And, yes; pointing at a picture and calling it suspicious and refusing to explain why is exactly the sort of thing you don't want to do.

[onebigmonkey]

First of all now that you've posted the images that are exercising you so I can see the crater to which you are referring and I apologise for accusing you of being mistaken.

That said the point is moot and my original observation remains: they did not land in that crater.

Here it is as viewed from the LRO:



If you know the dimensions of the LM ascent module you can work out exactly how far away it is from it.

You can just about make it out in the descent footage shot by the 16mm camera, it would have been visible to the crew at some point. I've highlighted approximately where it is on this screenshot of that footage:



I'm afraid I am at a loss as to where you think the fender is in the image you posted, and cryptic comments are not helping you. If there are high resolution images showing it more clearly, show us them. At the risk of being overly crude, shit or get off the pot. Cut to the chase.

[Jason Thompson]

Jason, I understood the question to have been about the thrusters on the CM, which jr Knowing specified. These were under the BCF, I think.

The RCS on the SM were a different matter

A good point. I interpreted it to be the SM RCS as they are the exposed ones, but yes, JR did refer to CM thrusters which were under the cover.

[BertieSlack]

That said the point is moot and my original observation remains: they did not land in that crater.

By maintaining a little forward velocity Gene knew he wouldn't back into something he'd already flown over. You can hear Jack reminding gene to nudge the LM forward as the approach the ground. The audio from the other missions contain many such reminders. On Apollo 15 the blown dust obscured the ground to such an extent that Scott and Irwin didn't have any visual clues as to their +Z motion which is why the -Z footpad ended up in a shallow crater.

BTW - I'm pretty sure I know what JR's claim about AS17-134-20437 is going to be. It's approaching the Expattaffy level of silliness.

[onebigmonkey]

Having looked around this morning, can I assume that the feature I've circled in red is the alleged fender?



It's to the right of the LRV, that would be the thing with the 4 bright red fenders.

[onebigmonkey]

This is (I believe) the same feature in AS17-140-21373:



and in close up:

[BertieSlack]

This is (I believe) the same feature in AS17-140-21373:

I just found that too. Not a fender. It appears in Jack's 4 o'clock LM pan before Gene went for a test drive. Maybe something Gene discarded when he ran over to Poppie after he came down the ladder. It's right next to his trail to Poppie.

[onebigmonkey]

This is (I believe) the same feature in AS17-140-21373:

I just found that too. Not a fender. It appears in Jack's 4 o'clock LM pan before Gene went for a test drive. Maybe something Gene discarded when he ran over to Poppie after he came down the ladder. It's right next to his trail to Poppie.

In between landing and taking the photo they had also opened up the MESA and unloaded the LRV. Quite a lot of material kicking around from both of those things I would imagine.

There's another pan he took on EVA 2

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17pan1410123.jpg

Where he's stood pretty much on that spot.

[onebigmonkey]

Whatever it is also features in the live TV. This still I just took from apollo17.org's video is at maximum zoom



By maximum zoom I mean that Ed Fendell picks it out and zooms in on it. Ponder that for a moment.

Shortly after this the fender (one of the 4 still mounted on the LRV) does actually break.

It's also worth pointing out these observations from the crew:

117:11:30 Cernan: Jack, I'm out here. Oh, my golly! Unbelievable! Unbelievable; but is it bright in the Sun. (Pause) Okay! We landed in a very shallow depression. That's why we've got a slight pitch-up angle. (It's a) very shallow, dinner-plate-like, dish crater just about the width of the struts (meaning the total span of the landing gear). How you doing, Jack?

117:14:20 Cernan: There's a small little 1-meter crater right in front of us with a whole mess of glass right in the middle. That's right in front of the MESA, as a matter of fact. Right where I want to park the Rover. Jack, you're looking good.

117:15:05 Cernan: Who said this place was smooth? Oh, boy! There's a lot of local depressions here I didn't figure existed.

117:15:21 Cernan: Hey, Bob, I'm east of the LM now. I'm east of the LM, and the back strut of the LM is...Well, the LM straddles this crater I talked about, and that's where we get the pitch angle; the back strut is probably right down in the eastern one-third of that crater. Just a very subtle crater.

117:16:08 Schmitt: You landed in a crater!

117:21:50 Cernan: Yeah. I don't think there is any place you could land around here where you wouldn't have one foot(pad) in a crater.