|
Post by blackbriar1 on Mar 5, 2010 17:53:21 GMT -4
Why is it that whenever I see "LEM" I just know that the writter is an HB and their ignorance of the program is high.
Probably because some of us hinterlanders never achieved a self gloating orb like mind like that of our higher learned self professed???
At least we hinterlanders were educated enough to spell correctly and don`t need to hide behind the use of acronyms.
|
|
|
Post by cos on Mar 5, 2010 17:58:37 GMT -4
blackbriar1,
If you are finding people a little less than helpful, it is because you have posted into the Hoax Theory thread, so people are expecting you to defend your proposition from knowledge. If you genuinely don't know how something was done and want to find out why not ask the question in The Reality of Apollo board? You'll find people more than willing to help you fill in the gaps of your knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Mar 5, 2010 18:04:47 GMT -4
Blackbriar1, if you're going to quote other posts, learning to use the quote function would be a good idea. You just put these tags around the part that you're quoting.
[quote]quoted text goes here[/quote]
And what's your point in complaining about acronyms? Sorry, but NASA uses a lot of acronyms and if you want to discuss the Apollo missions, they're hard to avoid.
|
|
|
Post by blackbriar1 on Mar 5, 2010 18:04:56 GMT -4
JayUtah???
The only single question i can truthfully ask of you was ? Meaning in the early Apollo era? When was the last time that you yourself landed on the planet Moon and and left it`s gravity to orbit and returned safely back to planet earth.
I `m not interested in MIT scholarships , Egos, or anything else for that matter of fact,, either you experienced it or you did not ? Theory doesn`t move anything until it becomes reality.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Mar 5, 2010 18:07:45 GMT -4
So now you're saying no one is qualified to talk about Apollo unless they went to the Moon themselves? Don't you think that's just a little unreasonable?
|
|
|
Post by chew on Mar 5, 2010 18:10:47 GMT -4
Is it a fair comparison between the Gemini and what it consisted of and the lunar module and what it`s on board fuel supply was? Apples and Oranges. You're absolutely right they are apples and oranges. It is much more difficlut to rendezvous in Earth orbit than Lunar orbit. 17,300 mph in Earth orbit versus 3,600 mph in lunar orbit. On Earth, atmospheric drag compounds the problem. As previously mentioned, numerous Gemini spacecraft rendezvoused in Earth orbit. One spacecraft was already in orbit and the second spacecraft launch was timed to faciltate the rendezvous. This required a narrow launch window but the spacecraft had maneuvering systems so the launch time didn't have to set to the nearest second. About 45% of the total weight of the LM was fuel. About 45% of the Ascent stage was fuel. Plug those numbers into the rocket equation and you'll have your answer.
|
|
|
Post by cos on Mar 5, 2010 18:10:48 GMT -4
blackbriar1,
Are you saying the only people who can comment on Lunar Orbital Rendezvous are astronauts? Do you have something to say or can we close this thread?
(edited to spell your name correctly)
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Mar 5, 2010 18:14:57 GMT -4
I think blackstar1 is trying to paint a scenario and engineer a question so that only certain results will his claim.
|
|
|
Post by chew on Mar 5, 2010 18:24:17 GMT -4
Why is it that whenever I see "LEM" I just know that the writter is an HB and their ignorance of the program is high. Probably because some of us hinterlanders never achieved a self gloating orb like mind like that of our higher learned self professed??? At least we hinterlanders were educated enough to spell correctly and don`t need to hide behind the use of acronyms. The point PhantomWolf was trying to make is the acronym "LEM" was discontinued by NASA in the early 1960's. The official designation is "LM". It is one of those "tells" hoax believers make. Don't accuse people of being poor spellers. Your spelling, punctuation, and grammar so far has been atrocious but nobody, until now, is pointing it out to you. And what the hay is a "hinterlander"?
|
|
|
Post by hplasm on Mar 5, 2010 18:33:40 GMT -4
I smell something familiar...from the past; this will not end well. Still, I have popcorn
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Mar 5, 2010 18:38:13 GMT -4
G'day all, Sorry about my late entry. Regarding the camera mounted on the LM: All versions of the Apollo TV cameras (the Block I B&W SSTV RCA Camera - used on Apollo 7 and 8; the Westinghouse B&W Lunar surface camera - used on Apollo 9 and Apollo 11's EVA; the CSM color Cameras used on all flights post Apollo 9 through to ASTP; and the GCTA RCA camera - used on Apollos 15, 16 and 17) were rigourously tested for heat, vibration, shock, moisture and leakage for years prior to flight. They flew with a 99.9% reliability for a set life exceeding the mission duration. The TV cameras were mounted in the MESA and arranged to point straight at the ladder when the compartment was deployed via a lanyard system. Prior to the deployment they were protected inside the MESA compartment. The TV signal was sent via the LM antenna to earth based radio antennas which picked up the weak but usable signal and amplified it, then sent it off for standards conversion, color conversion (if required) and then off to Houston. At no point were the TV cameras exposed to rocket exhauts excepting when the LM acsent stage launched and the cameras were no longer operational/required. If you need a more thourough explanation may I recommend "Live TV From the Moon" which is due out in June. It's the best book I know of on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by cos on Mar 5, 2010 18:38:32 GMT -4
blackbriar1, If you want to learn something, try reading this thread. apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=apollo&action=display&thread=1359Fuel loads are discussed in relation to the LM from Apollo 10 (Snoopy), in which it is shown that whilst it had enough propellant to land it did not have enough to take off and acheive Lunar orbit. If you plug the fuel payloads for the later LM's (the ones that did land) you can see that it was possible. If you are then interested we can discuss how the CM & LM located each other in Lunar Orbit.
|
|
|
Post by blackbriar1 on Mar 5, 2010 18:50:01 GMT -4
Tedward,
No i would disagree with your statement greatly , i would love more than anything to be on the side of Hip Hip Hooray we landed on the Moon !! I remember watching the landing being in a Cub Scout meeting of all things, and i appreciate all that NASA and all the difficult engineering over the years have done, not only for the US but all over the world.
Yet i have a real difficult time with the complexity of the actual LM and it`s feats for 1969, more over the higher technical communications and accuracy of capability , then there is the whole embroiled political discussion of either being pseudo in front of the world, given it`s push to go and were we really advanced enough and ready to do that with out having to deceive our way to it. Nasa has shown an a copious amount of substance that has been brought into question and under great scrutiny...all over the world....not just here on this post.
No? I am a very open minded person, i enjoy examining things in detail, and don`t particularly care whether i am right or wrong, it does nothing for my libido, i would rather understand the truth though if there is great doubt, and there is great questionable doubt surrounding Apollo in it`s infancy. I have nothing to claim here for myself her Tedward, just expressing a different view of question.
|
|
|
Post by carpediem on Mar 5, 2010 19:02:36 GMT -4
Tedward, Yet i have a real difficult time with the complexity of the actual LM and it`s feats for 1969, more over the higher technical communications and accuracy of capability , then there is the whole embroiled political discussion of either being pseudo in front of the world, given it`s push to go and were we really advanced enough and ready to do that with out having to deceive our way to it. Nasa has shown an a copious amount of substance that has been brought into question and under great scrutiny...all over the world....not just here on this post. Do you have a similar problem with the Russian Luna 16,20 and 24 probes? No? I am a very open minded person, i enjoy examining things in detail, and don`t particularly care whether i am right or wrong, it does nothing for my libido, i would rather understand the truth though if there is great doubt, and there is great questionable doubt surrounding Apollo in it`s infancy. I have nothing to claim here for myself her Tedward, just expressing a different view of question. I assume you mean ego rather than libido, and how long exactly have you spent studying Apollo?
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Mar 5, 2010 19:04:14 GMT -4
Yet i have a real difficult time with the complexity of the actual LM and it`s feats for 1969, more over the higher technical communications and accuracy of capability , then there is the whole embroiled political discussion of either being pseudo in front of the world, given it`s push to go and were we really advanced enough and ready to do that with out having to deceive our way to it. Why do you think they couldn't have been ready? There were four successful manned Apollo test flights before the first landing.
|
|