Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch

[bknight]

Jay Dr. Ed Mitchell was the Apollo 14 LMP, Stu Roosa was the CMP and the infamous Alan Sheppard was CDR, IIRC.

[JayUtah]

Jay Dr. Ed Mitchell was the Apollo 14 LMP, Stu Roosa was the CMP and the infamous Alan Sheppard was CDR, IIRC.

Did I type CMP?  Yes, I meant LMP.  And there's only one P in Shepard. 

Obligatory Stu Roosa story:  in the MQF Stu had the top bunk.  Ed said he fell out of it one night, all the way to the floor.

[bknight]

Jay Dr. Ed Mitchell was the Apollo 14 LMP, Stu Roosa was the CMP and the infamous Alan Sheppard was CDR, IIRC.

Did I type CMP?  Yes, I meant LMP.  And there's only one P in Shepard. 

Obligatory Stu Roosa story:  in the MQF Stu had the top bunk.  Ed said he fell out of it one night, all the way to the floor.

I stand corrected.

I still suffer from CRS.

[Peter B]

Now I am sure you are going to say you are not defending your position but defending the facts as you continually tend to point out. Fair enough. But you have to realize, from an Apollo supporter standpoint, it is very hard defending something with facts that has a dearth of supporting evidence. And that is the problem with the Apollo project. And I have seen that with Apollo supporters and I see that in your answers. For instance, it is one thing to say the nozzle on the RCS will not get rip off on takeoff because the air flow, while turbulent, will not be powerful enough to do damage. Sounds reasonable enough but you offer no supporting evidence. If I said that, there would be 20 posts demanding I show a PHD dissertation on it. But that is problem with Apollo supporters, there is little supporting evidence to back their assertions. Yes there are many generalized docs but little technical info on the actual workings of many things. Case in point, we can dumb down things to some of the big elephants in the room in which even a child may ask about. Since we are talking about the LM in this thread, lets talk LM.

Seriously?

(a) You provide a link to an archive containing around 1200 documents, and then say there's a dearth of information? I'd hazard a guess that you've read less than 1% of the documents there, so I'd humbly suggest you have no idea what level of information is listed just there.

(b) And have you considered that, actually, not every document ever created has yet been scanned and placed on the Internet. Which libraries and archives have you scoured in order to ascertain this dearth?

(c) You might like to explain how, why and when all those 1200 documents were created if Apollo was faked.

[JayUtah]

I'd hazard a guess that you've read less than 1% of the documents there...

...or anything except the one document he linked to.  He can't even tell us which one of that trove is the only other document to mention plume deflectors.  And since he could have inferred the directory URL from just the one link he had, it's not clear whether he found the trove first and read the documents in it, or was given the URL to one documents and inferred the existence of the trove from it.

I'll venture he doesn't know anything about the NTRS.  Or such comprehensive libraries such as the experience reports.

[Jason Thompson]

I'd hazard a guess that you've read less than 1% of the documents there...

...or anything except the one document he linked to.

And he can't even understand that one short memo anyway, insisting that the control problem must be even worse for the LM on its own even though there is a not-very-complex-at-all equation in there that makes it very clear the problem simply cannot arise for the LM without the CSM attached.

[gillianren]

I sometimes think of myself as the Official Non-Expert around here.  Goodness knows I haven't read much original Apollo documentation and wouldn't understand it if I did.  (I think I've told the story of Why Gillian Doesn't Know Physics Despite Taking It In High School before, but here it is again--my physics teacher in high school had two heart attacks in November.  For the next two months, we had a substitute whose doctorate was in theatre and spent the class period doing things like discussing European architecture and playing board games.  Then we had a two-week stretch with a Cal Tech teacher, or TA, or something, who mostly tried to teach us over our heads.  When my actual teacher returned, my whole class--none of whom really cared about physics so much as we did about having it on our transcript for college applications--decided it was our job to make sure our teacher didn't exert himself too much and put in as little actual work as we could get away with to encourage him to take our class period easy as well.  To the point of having regular in-class potlucks.)  I simply don't have the background.

What I do have is an understanding of how "experts" work.  When someone can demonstrate ability in a field and says, "My expertise in this field is enough for me to know that [thing] is valid," I know to trust them rather than say, "Well, it still doesn't look right to me, so it must be wrong."  Something about the fluid dynamics doesn't make sense to me?  Well, of course it doesn't!  What do I know from fluid dynamics?

That said, of course, I do have a certain understanding of some of the non-STEM issues involved, such as the Cold War context and certain of the psychological aspects, including Buzz Aldrin's depression.  Though who was it who said I don't know as much about film as I think I do, when I provided a detailed explanation of why Kubrick would've been about the worst possible choice to direct Apollo missions?

[bknight]

I sometimes think of myself as the Official Non-Expert around here.  Goodness knows I haven't read much original Apollo documentation and wouldn't understand it if I did.  (I think I've told the story of Why Gillian Doesn't Know Physics Despite Taking It In High School before, but here it is again--my physics teacher in high school had two heart attacks in November.  For the next two months, we had a substitute whose doctorate was in theatre and spent the class period doing things like discussing European architecture and playing board games.  Then we had a two-week stretch with a Cal Tech teacher, or TA, or something, who mostly tried to teach us over our heads.  When my actual teacher returned, my whole class--none of whom really cared about physics so much as we did about having it on our transcript for college applications--decided it was our job to make sure our teacher didn't exert himself too much and put in as little actual work as we could get away with to encourage him to take our class period easy as well.  To the point of having regular in-class potlucks.)  I simply don't have the background.

What I do have is an understanding of how "experts" work.  When someone can demonstrate ability in a field and says, "My expertise in this field is enough for me to know that [thing] is valid," I know to trust them rather than say, "Well, it still doesn't look right to me, so it must be wrong."  Something about the fluid dynamics doesn't make sense to me?  Well, of course it doesn't!  What do I know from fluid dynamics?

That said, of course, I do have a certain understanding of some of the non-STEM issues involved, such as the Cold War context and certain of the psychological aspects, including Buzz Aldrin's depression.  Though who was it who said I don't know as much about film as I think I do, when I provided a detailed explanation of why Kubrick would've been about the worst possible choice to direct Apollo missions?

I think t was Pete Conrad talking to Alan Bean after they had lifted off the Moon, "Is this all there is?", or words to that effect.  What is left after a tremendous mission?  Probably why Buzz had depression.  Maybe more of them that either didn't make the headlines or wasn't as bad.

[jfb]

So, this is obviously not a new find to most people here, but I did my own quick-n-dirty search of documentation on the lunar module, and came across this gem - The Apollo News Reference put out by Grumman, focusing on the LM.  There is a huge wealth of basic information in this document covering the LM structure, environmental controls, propulsion, guidance, communication, power, instrumentation, lighting, and more, with plenty of drawings and schematics. 

Anyone who says "there's no documentation" hasn't bothered to look, and immediately outs themselves as arguing in bad faith.  Granted, as recently as 10 years ago you kind of had to know where to look, but today there's absolutely no excuse.  I literally just typed "apollo lunar module documentation" into Google and found that document within a couple of minutes. 

[JayUtah]

...this gem - The Apollo News Reference

Yep, the ANR has been a go-to reference since back in the days of the Apogee books.  It was included on the companion CD-ROM.

[gillianren]

I think t was Pete Conrad talking to Alan Bean after they had lifted off the Moon, "Is this all there is?", or words to that effect.  What is left after a tremendous mission?  Probably why Buzz had depression.  Maybe more of them that either didn't make the headlines or wasn't as bad.

I believe there's family history as well.

[Morgul]

Thank you, Jay, for answering this.  This is a question I recently had pop into my mind, about how the quads survived liftoff since they weren't covered (that I was aware of).  I kept meaning to post the question on here (in the appropriate forum), but you have saved me having to do that.  I appreciate it!

Now to go read up more on the boundary layer...

...and within the zone of boundary layer separation, thus protecting them from the supersonic slipstream.  The discontinuity where the conical command module becomes the cylindrical service module causes the boundary layer of air there to separate from the side of the service module.  You can see this illustrated by condensation around the stack during transonic flight.  The air in the immediate vicinity of the RCS quads is turbulent, not in laminar flow at high velocity.

This is an example of how many design factors contribute to where RCS jets can be located in a design, and underscoring that there is no "magical" placement for them such that any other position or configuration is dangerous or useless.  You can never place or configure RCS jets such that they have mission-wide optimal dynamics.  Thus no actual spacecraft design tries, nor relies on this being the case.

[jr Knowing]

Hi jfb,

I think you are confused by the Apollo News Reference. I have had this for years. Its not a technical manual. It is PR written, for the most part, in layman terms to explain things to the public. (The manual even states that) You can't build anything with this. Instructions for Ikea products are even better than this. (which isn't saying much) This perfectly illustrates the misconception out there regarding the "wealth of information" that people think is out there explaining the principles and details of the various Apollo systems and devices.

[ka9q]

OK, then how about the Apollo Operations Handbook? They're available for the lunar module and for the CSM. Each comes in two volumes: Subsystems Data and Operational Procedures.

Study them. Yes, there will be a test.

[jr Knowing]

Hi ka9q,

The AOH manuals are descriptive and operational in nature and not designed to be technical in nature. (Hence the name Apollo Operations) Tells me what things are and how to use them, it gives very little insight into the actual background/understanding/proofs of the technical aspects. (I have had these too for years. )