I thought the flow separation occurs part way down the Service Module...
No. That is not how flow separation works. Your observation and interpretation are in error.
I would think there would be a lot of turbulence right where the RCS's are located.
That is correct, but turbulence is not an issue for projecting structures as it would be for structures that extend into a supersonic slipstream, as was your original concern. Turbulence imposes several orders of magnitude less drag loading. You're changing horses trying to find
anything that you can claim to be a problem without knowing whether it really would be.
As you can see the air flow bows out part way down the silver SM section.
No, that's where the visible condensation begins in that particular case. Where the condensation begins is not necessarily where the flow separation begins. The flow separation begins where there is a discontinuity in the geometry of the projectile -- namely where the conical CM abruptly transitions to the cylindrical SM. If the flow manages to follow that, there is no reason for it suddenly to separate partway down the SM at some arbitrary place along the continuous surface. You are floundering about, cargo-cult fashion, trying to pretend expertise you clearly do not have. That is not a valid basis from which to question the authenticity of the Apollo project.
Also, btw check out the 1 minute mark of the trailer. It shows the LM being transported from production to mating. It is almost unrecognizable versus the LM we see in space. The legs are different, the undercarriage and sides are different, the ladder is wrapped differently and there are no plume deflectors.
Asked and answered. At the time it is depicted in the trailer, it is not finished being built. You were told this multiple times earlier in the thread. You have a completely ignorant expectation for construction and integration methods.
...but it does seem unusual to make all these literally last minute changes and add all this additional weight.
Asked and answered. You are not an expert on how spacecraft are designed and built. Therefore your opinion as to what to expect from such a process is utterly useless as a yardstick by which to measure evidence. Do not simply ask again that we validate your poorly-informed speculation.
This was all previously covered in this thread. Now that you have returned to the thread and are paying attention to it now, do not waste your critics' time by simply starting it over
de novo and attempting to re-litigate all the prior arguments we determined were based on ignorant expectations. You were given specific questions to address once you returned to this thread. Here they are, for your convenience.
Insisting it is suspect that the LM looks different between stacking and landing, despite being shown the apparatus and documentation relating to work done on the pad after stacking.
Insisiting it is suspect that the RCS quads on the service module are exposed even after being informed of why they were not at risk of being damaged by airflow during take-off.
Failing to acknowledge the difference between a paper and a memo
Failing, after several times of saying you had it, to provide a 'more detailed' paper that you say proves the RCS system required perfect balance to operate correctly.
Failing to address the clear and evident fact that the memo you used to support your argument that the plume deflectors introduce instability actually says exactly the opposite for all but one very unlikely scenario.
Getting mixed up between LM and CSM RCS systems used on Apollo 13.
I notice that with respect to the first one you have simply doubled down on your ignorant expectations, despite having been thoroughly instructed about how the LM was built. You complain that you are being subjected to a "hornet's nest" of criticism. This clearly dishonest behavior on your part may be why you feel that way. Contrary to your protests, you are not behaving reasonably. Kindly correct your behavior.
