So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?

[JayUtah]

Falcon 1 wasn't that impressive as a launch vehicle, but it did reach orbit on the fourth try (after coming quite close on the second), and it did help with development of the Falcon 9.

And SpaceX did the right thing in learning as much as they could from the 1 and concentrating production development on the 9 with that knowledge in hand.

For one thing, it's rather good that they learned about the unexpectedly long high-altitude shutdown transient of the Merlin 1C on Falcon 1 Flight 3...

Indeed, and I still show that to people who get a steady diet of perfect staging videos, as well as Flt 2.  The conversation typically goes like:

Friend:  Why is the Saturn V dropping just that small ring?
Jay:  Because the Saturn V used dual-plane separation, first getting rid of the bulky first stage, then the interconnecting ring.
Friend:  Why do they need to do that?
Jay:  In case this happens.  [cue Falcon 1 nozzle-smash video]

The interstage is light enough that incidental contact with the J-2 nozzles would be survivable, as opposed to the energy from the whole spent S-1C.  Does anyone know if the Falcon 1 used a chi-freeze strategy at staging?  It's been a while since I read their report, but I do recall the stack was torquing around quite a bit to compensate for the wrongly parameterized flight loads.  Under the chi-freeze regime you can't stage until pitch and yaw rates are nulled.

And yes, SpaceX had the benefit of design work and a bunch of experienced engineers from outside, but presumably so would this ridiculously-rich "oil prince", so the comparison still seems reasonable.

Very apt, I just got sidetracked on backpedaling my previous criticism of SpaceX.  (Actually it was never so much SpaceX as some of its more irrational fans -- sort of a "Take that, Big Aerospace!" mentality.)  The rich oil prince would most likely contact an existing, established company or national space program.  That's just prudent -- no matter how much money you have to spend, you start with the people who are already closest to your goal.

On a related note, Boeing has drawings, renderings, and photographs of some of their airframes that have been fitted out and modified by "rich oil sheiks" and they make Air Force One look like a Jiffy Lube.

[smartcooky]

JayUtah, Andomreda, Sus_Pilot, Ka9q.... et al...how do you manage to keep calm and reasonably polite when faced with such insanity (as in my understanding of the term 'insanity' obviously, and probably going against the spirit of this forum, in that I have no training in psychological disorders and diseases of the mind and cannot give any proof of my theory of this...mind you that's exactly how the CT's seem to operate so at least I am on their level in one respect!) you have my admiration one and all!

Avoid using clinical words such as "insane", "mentally deficient" etc, as it belittles and insults  those who genuinely suffer from these conditions clinically.

I prefer to refer to some of the more extreme HB's (such as Sibrel, Kaysing, White and that Aussie guy whose name escapes me at the moment) using general slang terms such as "nut-bar", "nut-job", "froot-loop" etc. My justification for this is that IMO, being clinically of sound mind is not a barrier to being just plain stupid or ignorant. 

Gods teeth! to doubt Apollo is one thing but to doubt every single manned space mission, and believe that the CIA/NASA is controlling everything...and to back up your doubts by likening space travel to operating boats...madness pure madness!

You ain't seen nothing yet....

"All rockets to space are fakes because rockets don't work in a vacuum  as they have no air for the exhaust to push against"

"All of science is fake, and all the scientists in the world are part of a massive conspiracy and cover up. The Laws of Physics don't really exist, they were just made up as part of the super-conspiracy"

"The Nazis had a space programme, and put a man into space in the early 1940's"

"The NASA moan hoax is itself a hoax to cover up the fact that the Chinese hoaxed it first. All the NASA footage is really stolen Chinese footage that has been dubbed and visually altered (American flags instead of Chinese Flags). The Chinese agree to keep quite about it all in exchange for the US pulling out of Vietnam.

"The NASA moan hoax is itself a hoax to cover up the fact that the Russians hoaxed it first. All the NASA footage is really stolen Russian footage that has been dubbed and visually altered (American flags instead of Russian Flags). The Russians agree to keep quite about it all in exchange for wheat export concessions."

There are many many more, and nut just to do with Space and Apollo

Google "Stundie" and have a browse through JREF's Stundie awards. You will be astonished at the weird stuff that people actually believe. Here's the January 2013 Winner to get you started

Can you, e.g. explain re-entry. You are aboard the famous International Space Station, ISS, that according NASA is orbiting Earth every 90 minutes at 400 000 m altitude (almost vacuum) at 7 200 m/s velocity and you want to go down to Earth. It means you have to go down 400 000 m and slow down from 7 200 m/s to 0 m/s speed. How to do it?

        Do you jump into a little capsule with a little rocket engine to slow you down? Yes, apparently you do that and the result is that you arrive at 120 000 m altitude but that the velocity then has increased to 9 000 m/s as some potential energy of the capsule has become kinetic energy = greater velocity. It is like diving from the 10 m board. It gets faster the closer you get to the water.

        At 120 000 m altitude there is a thin atmosphere with nitrogene and oxygene atoms that you collide with and ... MAGIC ... suddenly you slow down to 100 m/s (at say 5 000 m altitude) and deploy a parachute and land. In a desert in Kazakstan. Where nobody lives. In the middle of nowhere!

        Imagine that - you slow down from 9 000 m/s to 100 m/s just by colliding with atoms. But why don't you slow down to 0 m/s by colliding with atoms? Let me ask a stupid question or two? Why do you need a parachute at the end? What is wrong with colliding with atoms to the end?

 
We'll see you next month sometime...

[Allan F]

I've been working my way through this tread (currently at page 16), and I must thank every (well, not EVERY) contributor - each page contains info, I've been ignorant of before. Some things I did know, up to a point, but having it spelled out for me is a relief. I can easily follow the math on fuel consumption, and understand where the 75 Gj claim came from, and why it is not even wrong.

Also, a thing I've been wondering about: The CSM's main engine. As I understand it, this engine was originally chosen to be the propulsion for a much larger and heavier craft, and when the LOR-mission was chosen, this engine wasn't replaced by a more appropriate engine system. Was the rationale behind it - "We have it and that's what we're using" or something else?

[Andromeda]

You ain't seen nothing yet....

"All rockets to space are fakes because rockets don't work in a vacuum  as they have no air for the exhaust to push against"

"All of science is fake, and all the scientists in the world are part of a massive conspiracy and cover up. The Laws of Physics don't really exist, they were just made up as part of the super-conspiracy"

"The Nazis had a space programme, and put a man into space in the early 1940's"

"The NASA moan hoax is itself a hoax to cover up the fact that the Chinese hoaxed it first. All the NASA footage is really stolen Chinese footage that has been dubbed and visually altered (American flags instead of Chinese Flags). The Chinese agree to keep quite about it all in exchange for the US pulling out of Vietnam.

"The NASA moan hoax is itself a hoax to cover up the fact that the Russians hoaxed it first. All the NASA footage is really stolen Russian footage that has been dubbed and visually altered (American flags instead of Russian Flags). The Russians agree to keep quite about it all in exchange for wheat export concessions."

There are many many more, and nut just to do with Space and Apollo

Don't forget Moonman!  "The Lunar Ascent Stage went off like a rocket!"

[cjameshuff]

Don't forget Moonman!  "The Lunar Ascent Stage went off like a rocket!"

That wasn't anywhere near the worst of it:

How high above the surface of the moon does this alleged vacuum start..?

Is there a sonic boom when they allegedly entered the vacuum..? If not, why wasn't there..?

http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?34711-I-Will-Prove-The-Moon-Landings-Were-Hoaxed&p=600377#post600377

[JayUtah]

Or as one of my favorite aphorisms goes:  "There's always more stupid."

[Not Myself]

Don't forget Moonman!  "The Lunar Ascent Stage went off like a rocket!"

Well, he was right about that!

[Glom]

The interstage to between the S-II and S-IVB separated with the S-II. Was the risk of hitting the single J-2 considered significantly less?

[gillianren]

I reread the whole Moon Man thread and was surprised at how little I posted in it.  I wonder what I was doing that whole time, since I mention a couple of times having a life instead.

[Peter B]

The interstage to between the S-II and S-IVB separated with the S-II. Was the risk of hitting the single J-2 considered significantly less?

It would seem so. This is what the Apollo 15 Flight Journal has to say about it:

Although part of the S-IVB in terms of construction, the conical aft interstage is left with the S-II at separation. Unlike the earlier staging, this is a single plane separation as the vehicle is essentially outside the effects of the atmosphere. Also, as there is only one engine, there is no possibility of an unbalanced thrust across a cluster of engines skewing the S-IVB's attitude.

[Abaddon]

If some superwealthy person, like an arab oil prince, decided that he wanted to have one of his sons go to the moon and do a little walk, how long would it take from he committed his money, until an actual manned launch could be tried?

Elon Musk went from nothing to an orbital launcher that could technically carry humans to LEO in about a decade, and a manned version capable of beyond-LEO operations is well on the way to flying (they're doing a pad abort test later this year, IIRC).

What you say is true, but LED's tend to be soldered in place. Much more difficult to replace, and generally not field serviceable, but traditional bulbs are.

Small indicator lamps are very often soldered in place, and LEDs can just as easily be removable, but almost never fail. They actually generally have pins better suited for sockets than the wires of small "rice bulb" lamps. For interfacing with the spacecraft, they might just use laptops, switching to a different laptop if one fails.

Put it this way, (speculation ensues), had A13 been built with modern technology, would they have been able to accomplish the return journey?

Why would it be less able to do so? A13 rebuilt with modern technology would have much higher reliability electronics with far more room for redundancy, far more sensors and localized control systems, etc. It's likely the tank stirrer would have detected the short and shut down.

Yep, the MTBF for LED's far exceeds traditional bulbs. I was more speculating that sometimes older technology might be the correct solution.

[Noldi400]

JayUtah, Andomreda, Sus_Pilot, Ka9q.... et al...how do you manage to keep calm and reasonably polite when faced with such insanity (as in my understanding of the term 'insanity' obviously, and probably going against the spirit of this forum, in that I have no training in psychological disorders and diseases of the mind and cannot give any proof of my theory of this...mind you that's exactly how the CT's seem to operate so at least I am on their level in one respect!) you have my admiration one and all!

First off, it isn't just against the spirit of the forum.  It's ignorant of the meaning of the word "insanity" (hint: it's a legal term) and rude to several people here who do have mental health problems.  It's also counterproductive.  You don't educate by insulting.

Just out of a combination of curiosity, consideration, and maybe a touch of P.C., what descriptive terms would be inoffensive when referring to, well, the folks we encounter who espouse beliefs that are at odds with reality and who - generally - adamantly refuse to accept simple facts?

[Valis]

Just out of a combination of curiosity, consideration, and maybe a touch of P.C., what descriptive terms would be inoffensive when referring to, well, the folks we encounter who espouse beliefs that are at odds with reality and who - generally - adamantly refuse to accept simple facts?

Willfully ignorant?

[ka9q]

a huge influx of "traditional" rocket engineer refugees from the mainstream companies, between Falcon 1 (crap) and Falcon 9 (awesome).

I'm as surprised and pleased as anyone by the good record of the Falcon 9 given the abysmal record of the Falcon 1. I grimaced when I saw videos of engine nozzles getting whacked during staging and exponentially increasing (i.e., undamped) attitude oscillations. I began to wonder how much longer they'd survive given their apparent inability to get some pretty basic things right.

So I'd be interested in any comments you might have about the reasons for SpaceX's turnaround that are not privileged in some way...

[raven]

Just out of a combination of curiosity, consideration, and maybe a touch of P.C., what descriptive terms would be inoffensive when referring to, well, the folks we encounter who espouse beliefs that are at odds with reality and who - generally - adamantly refuse to accept simple facts?

Willfully ignorant?

Aye, that's my term as well, though, generally, I don't call conspiracy theorists anything, referring to them as conspiracy theorists if and when I refer to the broader group. Some find the term pejorative, but it's their own damn fault if it is. Its literal meaning is neutrally descriptive at worst.