|
Post by gregtj on Nov 18, 2005 5:07:25 GMT -4
MM said: "Also compelling is the fact that the ascent stage and descent stage were attached together upon landing. They were secured together somehow. I cannot find any data how they were secured. Most importantly, the two stages were required to be unlatched prior to lift off, since only the ascent module lifts off. Unlatching them would've required the astronauts to conduct this task, since nobody else was on the moon to do it. The conversation log evidences that they did not do so at anytime, thus proving beyond any doubt, and without further showing, that this was all a hoax. " Boy oh boy MM. You really did it this time. By your logic, no rocket could ever launch without sacrificing many lives. They would need sacrificial lambs to unlatch the booster from the pad at ignition. And only single stage rockets could fly, since there is no way to hang onto the side of a rocket at supersonic speeds to unlatch the stages even IF you were willing to give your life for it. Hmmm I guess the only way it could happen is if someday someone manages to come up with some kind of explosive bolt that can be fired automatically at launch. I hope someone figures out this show-stopping problem soon so we can start the space program. Amazingly, your "arguments" are getting more pathetic as this "debate" goes on. Edited to add....thus proving beyond any doubt, and without further showing, that you, MM are a pre-pubescent troll.
|
|
|
Post by Fnord Fred on Nov 18, 2005 5:12:49 GMT -4
So it was explosive bolts... I wanted to say that, but I wasn't completely sure on that one. Thanks guys.
|
|
|
Post by AstroSmurf on Nov 18, 2005 5:58:55 GMT -4
The stages were connected using 4 interstage connections, basically bolts that were wired with explosives to sever them. Further, there were also cutters for the interstage umbilical and two deadface connectors, all operated via a separate battery intended for this purpose alone. The command to sever the links was issued automatically when the ascent engine was fired, so no interaction from the crew was needed, though there were override switches provided as well if the automatic mechanism failed.
LM operations handbook, section 2.8. Circuitry is in the beginning of the section, drawings of the mechanisms used are on page 2.8-16.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Nov 18, 2005 8:04:11 GMT -4
Clearly this amount of chemicals was not mixed and added to the engine in 2, 3 or 5 seconds.
No, it was added and mixed in a controlled fashion over the course of ceveral minutes, which is how all rocket engines work.
Like many of the other issues I've cited I bet these specs are not available.
You mean you don't know where to look for them. Some of us do. 'Available' does not necessarily mean that it is freely accessible on the web. Sometimes you might have to go and see the company that built a vehicle, or visit a central archive, but the data is still available.
Clearly the wee flame we see is not from 5261 pounds of chemicals igniting.
No, but then it wouldn't be.
Most importantly, the two stages were required to be unlatched prior to lift off, since only the ascent module lifts off. Unlatching them would've required the astronauts to conduct this task, since nobody else was on the moon to do it. The conversation log evidences that they did not do so at anytime,
It was automatic, and happened during ignition. It is quite straightforward to wire up one switch to activate several systems at once. How do you think rockets stage in flight?
thus proving beyond any doubt, and without further showing, that this was all a hoax.
No, proving that you didn't bother to research properly, and simply based your conclusion on your own flawed expectation. Why did the possibility of automatic detachment of stages not occur to you?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Nov 18, 2005 8:17:59 GMT -4
So it was explosive bolts... I wanted to say that, but I wasn't completely sure on that one.
They're very ingenious devices. I'm not sure about the ones used on the LM, but the explosive bolts used on the Mercury capsule hatches were hollow, contained a small capsule of compressed gas, and a score-line to pre-weaken them. They were secure enough, but when activated the gas canister would be ruptured, and the resultant increase of pressure within the bolt would break it along the line of weakness.
An interesting side-note is that the Russians did not use explosive bolts and guillotines to sever thir electrical connectors on the early flights. That led to numerous instances when the Vostok and Voskhod cosmonauts came to re-entry in which the instrument module failed to disconnect properly and was left trailing by the main electrical umbilical. This caused the craft to spin dangerously during re-entry until the cable burned through. Fortunately for the cosmonauts, the re-entry capsule was spherical and covered entirely in ablative material. Had something similar happened with a Gemini capsule, for instance, the spinning capsule would have burned up.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Nov 18, 2005 10:02:30 GMT -4
IIRC from reading The Virtual LM, the stage separation was redundant as well. The ascent stage separated from the joining bolt by using an explosive charge to drive a specially shaped block down onto the threaded fastener in a manner that forced the fastener top together from the sides. This force pulled open the threaded lower part fastener, releasing the bolt. This is kind of vague because I can’t well describe the picture from memory. At the same time, a charge in the descent stage released the bolt.
I imagine the redundancy is very important because the failure of one bolt to release could caused a rather unstable situation.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Nov 18, 2005 10:16:31 GMT -4
This weight might not include the weight of the two astronauts so we may need to add another 320 pounds or so. Therefore, they needed 5261 pounds of chemicals mixed in order to lift off or NASA would not have added so much propellant, as weight was an issue in every facet of the mission. Clearly this amount of chemicals was not mixed and added to the engine in 2, 3 or 5 seconds. We would need the diameter specs on the pipes or hoses to prove it was not possible to add this much propellant this quickly. We would also need the specs on the pump or other device that delivered the propellant. Like many of the other issues I've cited I bet these specs are not available. Clearly the wee flame we see is not from 5261 pounds of chemicals igniting. Finding specs on rocket engines is not all that difficult if one takes the time to research it. I don't know specifically the diameter of the fuel lines for the LM ascent engine but I could probably find it if I really wanted to. I won't however, because the answer is not important enough to me to take the time. Here is some data on the LM ascent engines: Oxidizer: Nitrogen tetroxide Fuel: Aerozine 50 Thrust: 3,500 lbf Specific impulse: 311 s Propellant load: 5,261 lbm The propellant flow rate is, Q = F/Isp = 3,500/311 = 11.25 lbm/s I believe the mixture ratio for the ascent engine was 1.6, thus oxidizer and fuel flow rates were 6.92 lbm/s and 4.33 lbm/s respectively. The densities of nitrogen tetroxide and Aerozine 50 are 90.5 lbm/cf (1.45 g/ml) and 55.2 lbm/cf (0.885 g/ml) respectively. Therefore, the volumetric flow rates are, V.oxidizer = 6.92/90.5 = 0.0765 cf/s V.fuel = 4.33/55.2 = 0.0784 cf/s Let's say the velocity through the propellant lines is 7 ft/s. Then the required pipe cross-sectional areas are, A.oxidizer = 0.0765/7 = 0.0109 sf = 1.57 in^2 A.fuel = 0.0784/7 = 0.0112 sf = 1.61 in^2 Therefore the require pipe diameters are, D.oxidizer = 2*(1.57/Pi)^0.5 = 1.41 inches D.oxidizer = 2*(1.61/Pi)^0.5 = 1.43 inches So we need a couple 1-1/2" pipes. No big deal.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Nov 18, 2005 10:20:46 GMT -4
MM please check this link out regarding video camera technology used during the Apollo mission. It was written by Bill Wood who worked at the Goldstone tracking station (the US based tracking station). www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/frame.htmlYou will find that all the video technology was well within 1969 technology. The colour wheel camera was, as Jay pointed out, a trade off from quality for functionality and size. Perhaps you recall from high-school phyics that when you conmbine red blue and green light you get white light (and depending on mix ratios all the colours of the rainbow)? Similarly combining an RGB signal in a tv tube will yield a colour TV picture. Studio cameras are so large because three seperate guns carry information for the seperate RGB information (Red, Green, Blue). Also the pneumatic dolly upon which the cameras are mounted makes them seem larger than they really are (as in the function video camera itself). Another aspect of camera technology is the lens. Studio cameras have hi-end lenses on them, the westinghouse did not (comparitivly). Now I have been working in the TV insdustry for as long as the gentleman who started this thread. How come my explanation for TV operational techniques, which can be verfified by _any_ TV studio world wide, is ignored in your debate? The technology checks out for me, and I was lucky enough to still work with 2" machines and analog uplink/downlinks. I have also worked with cameras with pan,tilt and zoom all handled via remote control...and with a delay in reaction time. You will be surprised at how easy a "heavy" studio camera moves when properly mounted on a support. This is not the first time you have made false assumptions about the video technology of the time. Believe it or not the 60's were not the dark ages of video technology, Now I have explained in very simple terms: 1. Nixon was able to place a telephone call to the moon. (telephone hybrid) 2. Colour video was possible using the type of camera (Colourwheel with RGB assembly via disc-array on earth) 3. Remote control technology itself dating back to WW1, and TV remote technology dating back to the mid 1950's. 4. Satellite uplink downlink entirely feasible using the receiving stations regardless of temperature. 5. The footage of the LRV in motion is 16mm not video 6. The LRV camera/uplink transmitted while the LRV was in motion by accident only twice and the results are propriately poor due to the misaligned tranmitter, yet within what one would expect with analog signals. Are there any questions you have with regards to the TV technology? If the above explanations haven't convinced you that the TV technology was capable of sending tv from the moon, then I have to ask, do you doubt that your TV set can receive pictures from a TV station or through a cable? Because, the technology used to do that is as much a miracle as any signal transmission from outer space. cheers Dwight
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Nov 18, 2005 10:42:48 GMT -4
Also compelling is the fact that the ascent stage and descent stage were attached together upon landing. They were secured together somehow. I cannot find any data how they were secured. That's because you didn't bother to look at the LM Operations Handbook reference I gave you previously and to which AstroSmurf refers above. Why are you willing to spend so much time surfing web sites rather than just looking at the document that describes exactly what you're looking for, in detail? Most importantly, the two stages were required to be unlatched prior to lift off, since only the ascent module lifts off. Unlatching them would've required the astronauts to conduct this task, since nobody else was on the moon to do it. The conversation log evidences that they did not do so at anytime, thus proving beyond any doubt, and without further showing, that this was all a hoax. Thus proving beyond any doubt that once again you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Pyrotechnic devices go back to the start of the Space Age, and are used on, well, d**n near every space launch. You say you "believe in the space program", but this is flatly contradicted by your statement quoted above. Not one single satellite, Shuttle, or Russian Soyuz or Chinese Shenzhou flies without the use of pyrotechnics. They sever the bolts holding the Shuttle on the pad, and they separate the solid rocket motors from the rest of the vehicle. They also are used to separate the stages on every multi-stage rocket. They have many other uses, too, but I've made my point. Once again, you go trumpeting about "proving" something when you are wildly wrong and haven't the slightest clue about the subject because you didn't do any real research - you just Googled like a 14-year-old. Once again, you claim to have found "proof" of a hoax tipoff that, if it was real, could have been seen through by millions of average citizens decades ago - but somehow you are the only one special enough to figure it out after all this time. Aren't you even a little bit embarrassed by such a silly mistake, and one that actually contradicts your professed "belief" in space flight? Or do you not really believe that there are such things as satellites after all? I refer you to Technical Note D-7141, Apollo Experience Report - Spacecraft Pyrotechnic Systems, and await without much hope the complete retraction of your "proof" quoted above.
|
|
|
Post by tofu on Nov 18, 2005 11:52:38 GMT -4
The conversation log evidences that they did not do so at anytime, thus proving beyond any doubt, and without further showing, that this was all a hoax. This cannot possibly be a serious statement.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Nov 18, 2005 12:32:25 GMT -4
The conversation log evidences that they did not do so at anytime, thus proving beyond any doubt, and without further showing, that this was all a hoax. This cannot possibly be a serious statement. The frightening thing is that he is serious as a heart attack. He truely believes all this strange stuff. He hasn't yet retracted any of his previous contentions nor has he conceded a single point. I use the word "ignorant" as it is the most accurate, non derogatory term I can come up with, there are plenty less polite terms I could think of. He is, on the other hand, providing plenty of "signature block" material... Dave
|
|
|
Post by tofu on Nov 18, 2005 12:37:13 GMT -4
He truely believes all this strange stuff. or, maybe he's just playing a game with us.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Nov 18, 2005 14:44:23 GMT -4
He truely believes all this strange stuff. or, maybe he's just playing a game with us. In either case, some good responses have been posted and people are learning new things as a result. I don't know if MM is a troll of not, but sometimes trolls unintentionally serve a useful purpose by stimulating discussion.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Nov 18, 2005 15:12:03 GMT -4
Agreed.
BTW, once when out at KSC I was told that an SRB holddown bolt - one of the eight big suckers - failed to fire. The Shuttle just yanked it right out of the concrete. Dunno if this is a KSC urban legend or not.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Nov 18, 2005 15:34:03 GMT -4
On a flight not long before Columbia's demise, there was an incident where the primary circuit of one of the 8 holdown posts failed to fire, though the secondary did function, and the liftoff proceeded as normal. This caused a huge stir, IFA reports etc. Redesign here was a part of the shuttle RTF program. If I understand the design, the bolts are secured through the holddown structure at the base of the SRB. Big 3 inch bolts, with explosive "nuts" at the top end, captured in a honeycomed capture device to preclude fragments flying about. The other end goes through the holddown support structure on the MLP and is secured with a fixed bolt. Then the thing is tightened down to many million ft/lbs tension. On release, the main bolt bangs downward into a large capture bucket filled with sand to absorb the enormous release energy. If the bolt (s) failed to fire, not real sure what would transpire... Dave
|
|