Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Nov 16, 2011 1:04:56 GMT -4
Read a book, dude.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Nov 16, 2011 1:53:52 GMT -4
The main solid-fuel retrorocket that performed most of the deceleration was jettisoned to save weight at an altitude of about 10 km shortly before landing. It impacted by itself some distance away. Three smaller liquid-fueled vernier rockets continued to fire until just a few meters above the surface. They're still on the Surveyor along with their propellant tanks.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Nov 16, 2011 2:38:47 GMT -4
Jason for what its worth An Interview with NASA's Robyn Villavecchia And what does that quote have to do with the LM? Again, you are desperately grasping at straws for anything you can tenuously connect to the Lm while ignoring the actual stated references that say exactly what it really used. No, you quoted from a summary reference where they did not specifically mention which oxidiser was used in each engine and inferred from that that there must be some difference, again ignoring the references that told you there was none. It would make a difference to the performance of the engine, so yes. They used nitrogen tetroxide. Find us a reference that clearly states they did not and we'll take it seriously. Keep reading too much into other statements while ignoring others that show you to be incorrect and we won't. That's how real understanding is developed.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Nov 16, 2011 2:42:27 GMT -4
I was interested in the moon landings, and honestly i had not made up my mind what the truth was. Bull. Your first couple of posts on this forum were outright statements that it was all a big NASA lie. If you were genuinely interested you would have come here asking questions, not making bold statements. You would also be listening to the answers, not refusing to accept any that disagree with your admittedly limited understanding of the reality. No, for the reasons already presented. For the most part their eyes would not be adjusted to see them because of the ambient lighting conditions, and in any case they had more important things to do. No it is not. Then try reading the answers you've already been given and let go of your preconceptions about how simple the problem is. You can bring up all the inconsistencies you like. It's your unwillingness to listen to the responses that is annoying us.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Nov 16, 2011 2:48:01 GMT -4
I have posted honestly and have given references when i posted, or upon request. No you haven't. You have been asked for a reference in the Moon Machines episode where they say specifically that the two engines used different propellants. You have been asked for references from anywhere else that specifically state the two engines used different propellants. You have neither provided such references nor admitted you were unable to do so. If you can provide them do so. If you cannot admit you cannot and then explain why you refuse to change your argument. Then perhaps it would be a good idea to listen to the people here who are experts, don't you think?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Nov 16, 2011 2:52:44 GMT -4
the gas release at white sands was accidental release, not at higer temperature. Higher than what? How much of a temperature rise is required to produce nitrogen dioxide from nitrogen tetroxide? It exists in an equilibrium state, which means there is ALWAYS some nitrogen dioxide formed when nitrogen tetroxide is released regardless of the temperature. Temperature only affects how much is formed in a given time. What is the ambient outside temperature at the facility compared to the inside of the storage container? Any ideas on that? No, it would not. Once more, you are refusing to listen to the people here and accept that they know what they are talking about. At least three people here in this thread, including myself, have told you that they have seen nitrogen dioxide formed in school, and that the big red cloud in the image you posted is consistent with what we have seen with our own eyes. Now explain, if you are being so honest and genuinely trying to understand the situation, why you will simply not accept that? And furthermore explain why you again cite a wikipedia article when you dismissed wikipedia as unreliable when we did the same for you earlier.
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Nov 16, 2011 3:59:18 GMT -4
The closest to balloons being used for soft landings was the use of airbags surrounding the lander by the Soviet Luna 9 as cushioning for the very final portion of decent, similar to the Spirit and Opportunity Mars Exploration Rovers. But even then, Luna 9 used onboard rockets for almost all the braking. Seriously, what use do you think balloons could possibly have have on world without a significant atmosphere?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Nov 16, 2011 6:14:56 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Nov 16, 2011 8:49:47 GMT -4
you don't find it bewildering that for the most part astronauts do not see stars? I want to know why? its like sailing around the world and afterward saying you never saw any water. REALLY i don't get it. It has been explained to you extensively. Maybe you should read the whole thread once again starting with page #1? Here's how Michael Collins explains it in his book "Carrying the Fire": "Out from behind the shadow of the earth, we are into the constant sunlight. In a way, there is constant darkness as well, for it depends on which way one looks. Toward the sun, nothing can be seen but its blinding disk, whereas down-sun there is simply a black void. The stars are there, but they cannot be seen because, with sunlight flooding the spacecraft, the pupil of the eye involuntarily contracts, and the light from the stars is too dim to compete with the reflected sunlight, as both enter the eye through the tiny aperture formed by the contracted pupil. No, to see the stars, the pupil must be allowed to relax, to open wide enough to let the starlight form a visible image on the retina, and that can be done only by blocking out the sunlight. In practical terms, that means putting metal plates over all five windows, and then pointing the telescope at exactly the right angle, an angle which is not only away from the sun but which also does not permit any sunlight to bounce off the LM or CM structure into the telescope's field of view. Under these conditions the eye slowly "dark adapts" itself, and the brighter stars gradually emerge from the void. After a few minutes the familiar patterns of the constellations become recognizable (assuming you are fortunate enough to have familiar constellations in the part of the sky you have been forced to use to escape the sunlight), now the navigator can continue with his work." ETA: pp. 378-379, First Cooper Square Press edition 2001, OCR-scan.
|
|
|
Post by twik on Nov 16, 2011 10:07:28 GMT -4
what has NASA been doing in space since Apollo? Seriously? You claim that you are scientifically literate enough to detect flaws in the Apollo narrative, and you do not know what they've been doing in the past 40 years?
|
|
|
Post by chew on Nov 16, 2011 13:28:27 GMT -4
why did we not just send the shuttle to the moon? I've been waiting for this. Every yahoo who thinks he's qualified to render a verdict about the authenticity of Apollo eventually brings up the Shuttle going to the Moon. Flying a spaceship is not like driving your car. Your pot pusher lives 100 miles away. You can drive 50 mph and get there in 2 hours. You can drive 100 mph and get there in 1 hour. The time to get there is proportional to your speed. That doesn't work in space. The Moon is 240,000 miles away. You can't increase the speed of the shuttle by 1000 mph and get there in 240 hours, or increase your speed by 2000 mph and get there in 120 hours. To get to the Moon you need to increase your speed by an exact amount. That exact amount is dependant on many factors, but the key point is you need the exact velocity to escape Earth's gravitational pull and to get on an exact elliptical path to intercept the moon. That speed is in the neighborhood of 7000 mph. The Shuttle was capable of changing its speed by about 350 mph. It is rocket science: www.braeunig.us/space/orbmech.htmen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_mechanicsen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Nov 16, 2011 14:34:11 GMT -4
The Shuttle-to-the-moon question has popped up before here, and back in the Margamatix days someone (Bob B probably) did the math.
Getting the shuttle to the moon would require another entire big-orange-tank of fuel for TLI, but that's just for a free-return trajectory. More fuel would be required to get into lunar orbit.
Then to decelerate the shuttle for reentry you'd need even more fuel, more than the big orange tank holds.
Taking the Shuttle to the moon would be like driving a dumptruck on a halfpipe.
|
|
|
Post by chew on Nov 16, 2011 14:44:04 GMT -4
I remember reading about what it would take to send the Shuttle to orbit the Moon. IIRC, it would take 19 additional shuttle missions to lift the fuel into LEO.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Nov 16, 2011 14:45:40 GMT -4
you don't find it bewildering that for the most part astronauts do not see stars? Why should it be hard to comprehend that people might not be able to see stars that well during the day? It should be noted that you are also wrong, they did see many stars through the optical telescope on the CM and the LM also while in the shadow of the moon. As has also been pointed out to you. People have told you why repeatedly.
|
|
|
Post by twik on Nov 16, 2011 15:34:28 GMT -4
why did we not just send the shuttle to the moon? I've been waiting for this. Every yahoo who thinks he's qualified to render a verdict about the authenticity of Apollo eventually brings up the Shuttle going to the Moon. Here's a similar question: Why can't your Uncle Ray's RV win the Indianapolis 500? Answer: Because it wasn't designed to do that.
|
|