Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch

[onebigmonkey]

And just for fun, assuming we are seeing the Apollo 11 LM, here's a nice compare and contrast:



I see no foil or contact probes on the feet (no point adding the former until the latter are on) and lots of red flags that say "Do stuff here".

I see no difference in the wrapping of the legs.

Correction: My mistake, the probes are there, just folded back out of the way with a small amount foil as in this image at the ALSJ:

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/ap11-S69-32396.jpg

[jr Knowing]

Hi Onebigmonkey,

100 percent that is the Apollo 11 LM. There are photos and video with documentation. This is not a random as Jay suggests. At the start of this thread, the very first post, I attached the NASA photo that accompanys this video. Further I attached a NASA photo of the LM already inserted in the sleeve being hoisted up to mates to the Saturn stage. They did not change in appearance.

I think you need to look more closely to the photos. The legs, for instance, were not even wrapped part way up the leg pre flight. And wrapping post flight is different colour and material. Take a close up of the ladder. Wrapped completely different pre vs post. The undercarriage is also wrapped differently etc etc. Plus the plume deflectors were added. Should I go on?

[JayUtah]

One sure-fire way to identify LM-5 is to recall that it's the only one with a two-tone forward hatch.  An ECO was issued for the latch in the design, and it was determined that LM-5 could be retrofitted safely.  The forward hatch skin was cut open and the latch mechanism was upgraded.  When they went to patch the skin, they discovered the newer supplies of the sheeting were of a slightly lighter shade.

Similarly, no two Saturn Vs for Apollo flew the same roll-evident patterns.  Ron Howard got in a bit of hot water for using the wrong paint scheme on Apollo 13's launch vehicle.  If you look closely in Apollo 11 and notice details like that in all the hardware, you can see where other missions stand in for 11.

[JayUtah]

There are photos and video with documentation.

Then you should be able to provide links to them.  Specifically, for your claim that the clip in the trailer is LM-5 on its way to be mated.  Not that it would matter a whole lot, as there is no rule that say you can't continue assembly after mating.  That "constraint" is just something you made up.  Your initial post certainly is of LM-5, but it tells us nothing about the Apollo 11 trailer.  Do you really think that every picture of an LM on the low-bay hoist is the specific flight article you think it is?  Do you really think that every transit of the LM on the hoist is for the purpose you envision?  You have a serious problem with the important notion of "what proves what."

Should I go on?

No, you don't need to go on showing various views of various LM in different phases of preparation.  It has already been stipulated that the LM would appear differently depending on what stage of the process it's in.  It's your claim that this is somehow suspicious.  What you do need to do is substantiate the expectations upon which your suspicions are based.  In other words, you should answer the actual questions you're being asked instead of merely belaboring your wrong expectations.

[jr Knowing]

Hi Jay,

Is that all you got? My credentials are stellar, so I am right? Come on. You seem to concede that the air flow seems to have the appearance it starts part way down the SM but it really starts higher up at the CM-SM joint. Really?

I would think the most obvious answer here, is the bowing of the air flow is actually being caused by the RCS’s protruding out and disrupting the airflow. Not saying I am right or wrong but just saying it could be a reasonable assumption.But Of course, admitting to this would compromise your argument, would it not? But nothing to worry about, I don’t have your credentials to back that up.

[Jason Thompson]

Actually it is not quite the way I saw it when I watched the movie. I thought the flow separation occurs part way down the Service Module and the RCS are right at the top of the module.

Why do you think you can see where the flow separation occurs, rather than where a condensation cloud sits? The two are not the same. Once again, you can't just look at something and draw conclusions from it if you lack the foundational understanding of the forces at work. Fluid dynamics is a mature science well-studied.

I would think there would be a lot of turbulence right where the RCS's are located.

So what? Turbulent flow is nowhere near as problematic as laminar supersonic flow. ANd again I ask, since there is a clear solution to the problem that is employed litetrally everywhere else on the vehicle where something sticks out (protective fairings), why would this not have been employed if air flow was a problem?

And yes there is some minimal documentation, mainly third party and after the fact, that suggests the LM got a complete makeover on the launch pad.

How much research have you done to make that claim? Specifically, how have you concluded the documentation is 'minimal', that it is 'third party', that it was 'after the fact' and that it claims the LM got a 'complete makeover' rather than additional work.

Maybe so, but it does seem unusual to make all these literally last minute changes and add all this additional weight.

To you. Why are NASA personnel obliged to share your views?

I thought they were offering $50000 bonuses to the manufacturers to eliminate one pound of weight and here they go tacking on a bunch a weight post production.

How much?

[Jason Thompson]

Hi Jay,

Is that all you got? My credentials are stellar, so I am right?

No, his credentials are relevant, and therefore do support his conclusions. Yours have no such support other than 'ot looks weird'.

You seem to concede that the air flow seems to have the appearance it starts part way down the SM but it really starts higher up at the CM-SM joint.

No, what he said was that the visible condensation is not the same as the actual flow separation.

I would think the most obvious answer here, is the bowing of the air flow is actually being caused by the RCS’s protruding out and disrupting the airflow. Not saying I am right or wrong but just saying it could be a reasonable assumption.

No, that is not at all an answer, or a reasonable assumption. As I said before, fluid dynamics is a mature science, and since Jay happens to have professional experience as an aerospace engineer, you are literally trying to tell a qualified and experienced person he is wrong about a fundamental element of his job.

Shame you are just proving you can't argue from a reasoned position. You are, quite simply, wrong. Now, how about addressing the other questions put to you on this thread. Specifically I await your use of the equation in the memo you provided earlier to show that the LM is unstable in solo flight.

[JayUtah]

Is that all you got? My credentials are stellar, so I am right?

Don't get all butthurt just because you don't know what you're talking about.  I'm professionally qualified in aerodynamics.  You are not.  I'm pointing out the errors that you're making, from my position as a qualified expert, citing the relevant details that someone who is an expert in the field would be expected to know.  You can't answer any of that, so now you're trying to bluster your way past it.

You seem to concede that the air flow seems to have the appearance it starts part way down the SM...

I've conceded no such thing.  I've specifically disputed it, and given reasons pertinent to the science of aerodynamics that reinforce my point.  As I explained already, you're mistaking the point at which visible condensation forms as the point at which flow separation starts.  There is no rule that says they have to start at the same place.  In fact there can be flow separation without any condensation at all.  In Florida, where the air is very humid, condensation is more likely.  In Utah, where the air is dry, condensation rarely forms from supersonic flow separation.  The flow separation nevertheless occurs, because flow separation doesn't depend on humidity.  It occurs every time you fly supersonic.

I would think the most obvious answer here...

No, you're just making up more ignorant nonsense.

Not saying I am right or wrong...

I'm saying you're wrong.

...but just saying it could be a reasonable assumption.

You have no basis for knowing whether that assumption is reasonable or not.  You're just frantically throwing stuff out there.

But Of course, admitting to this would compromise your argument, would it not? But nothing to worry about, I don’t have your credentials to back that up.

No, you don't.  So you don't grasp that this is not about your assumptions violating my supposedly precious worldview, but rather about your assumptions violating the well-understood principles of sciences you don't know anything about, and I do.

[Zakalwe]

I think you need to look more closely to the photos. The legs, for instance, were not even wrapped part way up the leg pre flight. And wrapping post flight is different colour and material. Take a close up of the ladder. Wrapped completely different pre vs post. The undercarriage is also wrapped differently etc etc. Plus the plume deflectors were added. Should I go on?

The LM was installed into the SLA with unwrapped pads. The original leg design had the lower legs unwrapped as the the LM landing profile called for the descent engine to be shut off when the contact probes touched the surface and for the craft to fall the last couple of metres to the surface. The astronauts felt uncomfortable with this and asked for an option to keep the engine burning until touchdown. NASA agreed, but then had concerns that the unwrapped lower legs would be exposed to additional thermal loads.

As a result, an additional 18Kgs of insulation was required. As LM-5 was already installed into the SLA and to prevent having to roll the stack back to the VAB to remove the LM they used LM-6 to test that the additional wrapping was not going to foul any of the mechanism. once proven, identical additional thermal insulation was attached to LM-5 whilst it was still in the SLA. Other last minute changes were the addition of the plume deflectors and the removal of the contact probe on the leg under the egress hatch.

This picture shows Alan Contessa beside the +Y leg inside the SLA. Contessa was one of the team that were charged with wrapping the legs and any subsequent unwrapping to check things or install new kit. The Kapton and Iconel thermal protection had yet to be installed and you can see that the leg and pad are bare aluminium.




Source:Countdown to a Moon Launch.

[JayUtah]

...you are literally trying to tell a qualified and experienced person he is wrong about a fundamental element of his job.

Oh, no, he's being very courteous and reasonable.  He told us so himself.

[mako88sb]

Maybe so, but it does seem unusual to make all these literally last minute changes and add all this additional weight. I thought they were offering $50000 bonuses to the manufacturers to eliminate one pound of weight and here they go tacking on a bunch a weight post production.   

The weight reduction was an important part of the LM development but what people who question what seems like superfluous add-ons to them don't seem to know is that the Saturn V engines were up-rated during their development which allowed more payload and this was passed on to Grumman as well as the fact that they would need to modify the design to allow for the possible inclusion of a proposed lunar rover or jet packs to enhance exploration. That's why when they settled on the lunar rover, it was a simple matter of moving items from one quadrant of the descent stage so that the lunar rover could be stored there.

[Zakalwe]

This was the original leg thermal protection as flown on A-9 and A-10

[JayUtah]

The weight reduction was an important part of the LM development...

And it's important to realize that eliminated weight that could be safely lost.  It isn't to eliminate weight at all costs, but at an acceptable cost.

[Jason Thompson]

the Saturn V engines were up-rated during their development which allowed more payload and this was passed on to Grumman as well as the fact that they would need to modify the design to allow for the possible inclusion of a proposed lunar rover or jet packs to enhance exploration.

Clearly that can't be right, because it implies all the various subcontractors actually developed hardware and talked to each other. You know, instead of just blindly building what those fakers at NASA told them to....

[mako88sb]

The weight reduction was an important part of the LM development...

And it's important to realize that eliminated weight that could be safely lost.  It isn't to eliminate weight at all costs, but at an acceptable cost.

Yes, excellent point. Thanks for the clarification.