There's really enough for about 20 steps, but I'll stick to the conventional form...
jupiter2,
first of all, would you please make the minimal effort to format your posts legibly - quoting others appropriately and not putting everything into one giant block of text? If you can't be bothered to do that, why should we bother even reading them?
Second, you need to address the rebuttals of your prior claims (tippy rockets, impossibly cranky variable-thrust engines, etc.). You cannot simply ignore them and start off in another direction. Well, you can, of course, but do you really think you're fooling anyone? Do you think everyone else will forget? Do you think we haven't seen this sort of "Gish Gallop" style before?
Third, you need to stop moving the goalposts. You claimed that a "purely rocket powered craft" could not manage a vertical landing - then, when examples such as the DC-X were given to you, you start making a lot of irrelevant and-or incorrect comparisons to try to discredit the very example given to you. (Never mind that your "purely rocket powered craft" restriction is irrelevant from an engineering viewpoint anyway.) We notice when you do that, and it indicates that you are unwilling and/or unable to defend your positions, or acknowledge your errors, and that you're simply throwing stuff up in the hope something will stick. That may work in conspiracist forums, but most of the regulars
here actually have taken the time to learn something about the subject.
Fourth, you really need to stop appealing to ignorance, incredulity, and emotion. That may work in a forum where nobody else knows anything about the subject either, but again, it won't work here. Let's consider one example:
Did they land this vechicle by looking out the window to know exactly when to cut the rocket power before it tore a hole in the bottom of the lander and exploded the fuel tank or damaged or burned of the landing struts?...
Think about the lightweight dust on the moon that would have created a voluminous cloud 6 times heavier than that. Dont tell me you could place someone inside this thing looking out a window to land in this kind of visibility.This is wrong in so many ways.
Looking out the window was
one cue, but your idea that "lightweight" dust (as opposed to what? heavy Earth dust?) would have created a "cloud" in the absence of an atmosphere is dead wrong. The idea that the "cloud" would have been "6 times heavier" also makes no sense whatsoever - you're simply taking the Earth:Moon gravity ratio and applying it in a meaningless way. In any case, there would have been no massive, obscuring cloud of dust, like helicopters and VTOL jet aircraft on Earth
routinely encounter but manage to land safely anyway.
Moreover, if you had bothered to do any reading about the subject - a few minutes of Googling would have done it, no actual getting up and going to a library or anything needed - you would have known that the LM had both a landing radar to tell the crew how high they were, and contact probes to tell them when they were about to touch the surface.
Finally, your assertion that the exhaust would have "tor[n] a hole in the bottom of the lander", "exploded the fuel tank", etc., if the engine was not shut off instantly on the surface is completely unfounded. The exhaust, throttled down near a minimum setting, disperses and cools very rapidly. A very simple in-your-head calculation will show, for example, that the average pressure of the rocket plume on the lunar surface is only a couple of psi.
See what I mean? Your premise (just looking out the window) was wrong. Your physics (6 times heavier) was wrong. The problem statement (vision obscured by billowing dust clouds) was wrong. Your appeal to emotion about dire consequences ("tore a hole", etc.) was wrong. You just won't advance your claims unless you take the time to learn something about the subject, rather than just hoping we haven't.
Fifth, you should stop lecturing us about what should and shouldn't be with regard to a field in which you are clearly ignorant - example:
We should have more power sources hopefully better fuel mixtures.The fuel "mixtures" in use today have evolved somewhat but are not fundamentally different from those in use back then. The reason is that they work very well, and that they are dictated by real-life chemistry and reliability issues, unlike the fuels used by Hollywood to operate its spacecraft. Hydrazine, in different forms, and nitrogen tetroxide have been used on the Lunar Module, the Space Shuttle, and numerous other spacecraft and launch vehicles.
Sixth, using irrelevant comparisons and appeals to "common sense" based on ignorance and fundamental misconceptions doesn't help you either:
Nobody at NASA is going to risk his/her life on any type of piloted lander like this unless they have a deathwish and I dont see any pilots getting out this remoted controlled toy do you?Since your understanding of the LM was fundamentally deficient, since you never acknowledged your complete misunderstanding of the LM development and testing program, since you never acknowledged that virtually all manned vehicles - including the Space Shuttle - make their initial flights
and landings with humans at the controls, and since pilots generally don't sit in a remote-controlled craft anyway, this whole statement can be dismissed as meaningless handwaving.
Seventh, repeating false claims doesn't make them any less false:
There would be no way do do anything but a burn-till-land on the moon, which would have meant that the real lander, unlike this remote controled vechicle could never have done it... Put an astronaut in this then put a window on the side and tell him to pull this stunt and hell start running for the door.Wrong, as explained above. And, by the way, some of us have actually worked with astronauts; I for one will stick with my experience rather than your guessing about what they would and would not do.
Eighth, don't complain when you get what you asked for:
In what way does the DCX resemble the LM?.In that it was a rocket which made successful landings using thrusters for control - something you said couldn't be done. But then there was the familiar rumble of the goalposts being shoved back yet again, with no acknowledgment that your claim was simply wrong.
Ninth, don't toss in irrelevant and gratuitous comparisons or contrasts, because they only make you more vulnerable to knowledgeable counter-questioning:
Plus this craft used 3 rockets as well, not 1. Cheaters. Why is three rockets "cheating"? In fact, it makes it
more complicated then the extremely reliable DPS, which was pressure-fed and did not use the pumps required by the DC-X/DC-XA.
Tenth, don't tell us what we're going to say - especially when it makes no sense:
Thats a lot of fuel burned there. I know -your giong to say 6 times the gravity 6 times the fuel losd. Point taken.Point missed by a mile. Six times the gravity does
not equate to six times the fuel load.
Eleventh, begging the question won't fool anybody here either...
Still, I am not suprised as seeing they decided to attack the problem by not using any type of lander at all....especially when it leaves you having to explain away signals tracked by mulitple nations from the Moon - signals which came from the Apollo landing sites, from Soviet landers, from the Surveyor landers, from the ALSEP experiments. (And no, signals from the lunar surface
cannot be faked by some secret satellite.)
Twelfth, after you have been corrected, repeatedly, on your misconceptions about astronautics, it's no good to try to restate your ignorance in new terms:
With no help from mission-control Houston remote controling every degree it had to be repositioned along that thin, thin thrust axis point. that if breached spells doom.Meaningless word salad. But it gets worse:
Looks like [DC-X] pitched about 20 degrees at one point... That alone would have exceeded the 4-6 degree limit the LM could adjust for.As the saying goes, that's not even wrong. That's how fundamentally broken your grasp of the situation is. You seem to have this idea that the angle between the thrust and the center of mass dictates the magnitude of a possible correction, which is of course nonsense; it only affects the
rate of a possible correction.
But you're not even internally consistent in your misunderstanding. First you say that even a tiny misalignment would have disastrous effects; then you say that several degrees wouldn't have
enough effect!
It's one thing to not understand the subject at all, but when you trumpet your use of "logic", you should at least attempt to not contradict yourself so blatantly.
And in space if you pitch that much your moment could result in a a roll that you couldnt recover from without exceeding your fuel supply in getting it back on track again.You're
hopelessly confused and ignorant on the dynamics but you go right on tossing out jargon which you don't undersand - you can't even figure out which axis is which - in the hope that it will impress someone. That approach might work in the conspiracist forums, in which everyone styles themselves an expert, and actual relevant education and experience are regarded with suspicion and dismay, but here all it does is dig you a deeper hole.
Worse, it indicates that you are
not interested in learning anything. You have your conviction; you refuse to examine it in the face of data to the contrary; you refuse to even acknowledge errors in the face of expert correction; you refuse to do any research.
Why is that? Do you have some sort of religious conviction which forbids you from entertaining the notion that humans have been to the Moon? Are you too proud to acknowledge that somebody might know something more about the subject than you? Are you just here to troll? What is it?
And why should anybody continue to indulge you if you keep on going in the same vein?