|
|
Post by fiveonit on Oct 15, 2009 15:40:58 GMT -4
I've been in several disputes with Hoaxers in the past about the alleged MASSIVE crater that the LEM should have left on the Lunar Surface. Of course, well all know it's a bunch of crock, but there is still one thing that is not clear to me.
The LM had contact sensors under its footpads, that much I know. We can hear the LM pilot mention on several NASA landing tapes "Contact light." I always thought that the descent engine was shut off once the sensors made surface contact and then the LM "free fell" the rest of the way. This was even recreated in the series "From the earth to the moon" in the episode about Apollo 12. Is this what was really done or am I mistaken?
The hoaxers always point to the landing sequence for Apollo 11 where it "appears" that the engine is still running after the pilot mentions "contact". I've always chalked that up to the Audio being out of sync with the video. Perhaps I'm mistaken?
|
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Oct 15, 2009 15:56:24 GMT -4
It was shut off manually once the contact sensors tripped.
But how promptly they did this varied between the missions.
Apollo 15 for example had its engine shut off promptly and it fell quite a way, where as Apollo 11 may have had the contact light on for a while before it was noticed and the engine shut down.
|
|
|
|
Post by cos on Oct 15, 2009 17:13:33 GMT -4
From the mission debriefing (p84); history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/A11TechCrewDebrfV1_2.pdfArmstrong We continued to touchdown with a slight left translation.
I couldn’t precisely determine touchdown. Buzz called lunar contact, but I never saw the lunar contact lights.
Aldrin I called the contact light.
Armstrong I’m sure you did, but I didn’t hear it, nor did I see it.
I heard you say something about contact, and I was spring loaded to the stop engine position, but I really don’t know whether we had actually touched prior to contact or whether the engine off signal was before contact. In any case, the engine shutdown was not very high above the surface. The touchdown itself was relatively smooth; there was no tendency toward tipping over that I could feel. It just settled down like a helicopter on the ground and landed.
Towards the end of this sequence from the 16mm camera on the LEM the first thing that Armstrong describes after stepping off the ladder onto the moon is the blast impression caused by the landing. Don’t HB’s do any research? www.youtube.com/watch?v=d73jCthcAokedit: I mean if the blast crater that the HB's claim is such a glaring omission from the 'fake' set, why the hell would the first thing Armstrong do is describe the very lack of a crater? If they thought they needed a crater wouldn't they just of dug one? Clearly they never thought they'd encounter the superior intellect of the HB's. It is just so stupid it is exasperating. |
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 15, 2009 17:19:13 GMT -4
Actually both Armstrong and Aldrin commented on the lack of any cratering by the engine. This is also in "wait a minute" categoty. From the astronuat comments and Artist impressions pre-mission, NASA was expecting there to be a crater. Why would they then leave one out from the Hoax if they were expecting one to be there?
|
|
|
|
Post by rob260259 on Oct 15, 2009 17:25:22 GMT -4
If the landings were faked by Nasa, placing a blast crater under the LM would be the most obvious thing to do in order to 'fool' the unwitting public.
|
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 15, 2009 18:10:17 GMT -4
My analysis of the landing film suggests that the LM footpads were in contact with the lunar surface with the engine still running. It looks like the LM does not move hardly at all after the engine cutoff.
|
|
|
|
Post by toseek on Oct 16, 2009 12:02:08 GMT -4
If the landings were faked by Nasa, placing a blast crater under the LM would be the most obvious thing to do in order to 'fool' the unwitting public. That's always been one of my issues: they can build and launch a six-million-pound rocket, they can keep a secret for forty years, but they can't fake a blast crater? |
|
|
|
Post by dragonblaster on Oct 17, 2009 18:28:56 GMT -4
If the landings were faked by Nasa, placing a blast crater under the LM would be the most obvious thing to do in order to 'fool' the unwitting public. That's always been one of my issues: they can build and launch a six-million-pound rocket, they can keep a secret for forty years, but they can't fake a blast crater? CUT! We need stars in this scene, moron! STARS! And what's that freakin' rock doin' with a freakin' letter C on it? Oh, for cryin' out loud, we used exactly the same backdrop in the last scene! Oh, and would someone please tell me where the goldarned reseau marks are in this rushes? Put some in, right now, pronto, immediatement! What's with the incriminating message some clown wrote on just the white stripes on the U.S. flag? Blank it out! No, don't worry about the gaps in the reseau marks. Nobody will ever notice. OK, OK, OK, enough with the freakin' hurricane in here! The freakin' flag's flappin' around like crazy! Last time I heard, this was meant to be a closed set: so close the Goddamned door, Einstein! Listen up, crew: we have millions of dollars to fake this thing, and nobody - but nobody - must ever suspect the truth! What's that, TJ? Film Buzz walking on the moon in the Vomit Comet? Do you have the slightest idea what that could cost? No, just film him on the set and slow it down a bit. As an Illuminati Regional Vice-Deputy Assistant Co-Ordinator, I want the director of the Apollo footage shot - RIGHT NOW! |
|
|
|
Post by dragonblaster on Oct 17, 2009 18:31:00 GMT -4
I sometimes get the feeling that hoaxie-baiting is kind of like laughing at the lack of comprehension of small children.
I'm a sick bastard...
|
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Oct 17, 2009 20:48:01 GMT -4
I sometimes get the feeling that hoaxie-baiting is kind of like laughing at the lack of comprehension of small children. I'm a sick bastard... If they were actually small children then I would agree, laughing at adults who have (apparently) fairly normal mental capabilities and educational opportunities who never the less still have the level of comprehension of small children is a different matter. |
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Oct 18, 2009 10:27:29 GMT -4
Wasn't there a concern by the engineers of the engine operating with pads on the ground? Backpressure overpressurising the nozzle, lack of clearance etc?
I clearly remember Pete Conrad's bewilderment at the small rock under the bell, unmoved by the exhaust flow. But it didn't move him to start thinking he may have landed in Nevada...
|
|
|
|
Post by dragonblaster on Oct 18, 2009 14:39:58 GMT -4
Wasn't there a concern by the engineers of the engine operating with pads on the ground? Backpressure overpressurising the nozzle, lack of clearance etc? They were worried the LM might be flipped over, or the deflected thrust plume might damage the underside of the descent stage. After all, the craft was only made out of tinfoil - unlike the somewhat more robust Moon! I've yet to hear an answer from a hoaxie as to why, if it was all a load of tosh cooked up in a studio, we didn't go to the Moon in the starship Enterprise, or Thunderbird One, or the Millennium Falcon... instead of an awkard, spindly bug made out of sweet wrappers. But by Grud, do I love that awkward, spindly bug!  |
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Oct 18, 2009 18:45:19 GMT -4
But by Grud, do I love that awkward, spindly bug! That spindly bug was a magnificent triumph of function over form, and Hoax Believers just don't seem to understand that. |
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Oct 18, 2009 20:25:58 GMT -4
The first honest to goodness spaceship...minus Hollywood's nuclear plasma, warp drive propulsion...just plain old chemical engines, and all the limitations thereof reflected in the design.
An engineering masterpiece. Funky!
|
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Oct 19, 2009 3:34:12 GMT -4
Actually both Armstrong and Aldrin commented on the lack of any cratering by the engine. This is also in "wait a minute" categoty. From the astronuat comments and Artist impressions pre-mission, NASA was expecting there to be a crater. Why would they then leave one out from the Hoax if they were expecting one to be there? Something similar can be said for the "clean" LM footpads. In images of EVA training, the set crew put rocks & dust in the footpads ( photo). In vacuum, material did not billow, so the pads generally stayed clean on landing. |
|
