|
Post by Jason Thompson on Feb 23, 2007 15:53:28 GMT -4
I would like to see a manned lander solely rocket powered.
You never specified manned, and it has already been explained to you that the LLRV only incorporated a jet to counter the weight of the vehicle so it would behave as if in the 1/6th G gravity of the Moon. ALL the control of descent and manoeuvring was performed with rockets.
Did they land this vechicle by looking out the window to know exactly when to cut the rocket power
No, but they didn’t do that with the LM either.
At this point I have no choice but to conclude that your ignorance of Apollo at even the most basic level is so great as to render any judgements you make on its authenticity baseless and not worth bothering with.
I have been studying Apollo for a number of years. I’ve seen film, video, photographs, documents, read books by the people involved, seen some of the hardware. I’m willing to bet you’re not even aware half the stuff I have seen exists. Tell me again why we should take you seriously?
You want me to believe this stands as proof we landed and then took off from the moon?
No-one has made that claim. You asked to be shown film of a vertical descent and landing by a rocket powered vehicle. We provided it.
Think about the lightweight dust on the moon that would have created a voluminous cloud 6 times heavier than that.
Meaningless. Clouds like that won’t form on the Moon because there is no air to constarin the exhaust and deflect the dust that is blasted radially outwards.
Dont tell me you could place someone inside this thing looking out a window to land in this kind of visibility.
Who says visibility was the way the astronauts landed on the Moon? Landing radars tell them how far up they are, and contact probes tell them when to shut off the engine.
Please tell me how long Armstrong had in seconds to land on the moon from the moment it undocked?
Again, your ignorance undermines your entire argument. The duration of descent from 60 miles up was measured in MINUTES.
With no help from mission-control Houston remote controling every degree it had to be repositioned along that thin, thin thrust axis point.
And with an automated reaction control system that is easily achieved. The LM didn’t just land on a big rocket powered by a stick, for heaven’s sake!
I dont thing Armstrong had this long to accomplish what it took this flight to do.
But just now you said you didn’t know how long Armstrong had. Make up your mind.
How did we get so lucky in a hostile enviornment like the moon and see these Apollo landers thrusting all the way down and all the way up again without a hitch?
Who says the landings and ascents went without a hitch?
Armstrong and Aldrin would never have survived the tremendous blast furnace a few feet underneath them reflected back which would have probably caused the nozzle to explode.
Please do feel free to give us any numerical data to support your contention that there was a ‘blast furnace’ under them.
Like Gus Grissom had said, somebody would get killed It was so dangerous .
Gus Grissom had nothing to do with the LM. He was scheduled to fly a mission that had no LM, and he died almost two years before the first LM was even READY to fly, never mind actually flew.
So, what exactly do you know anything about that has any relevance to Apollo? You don’t know the basic design of the LM, you don’t know anything about rocketry and dynamics, nor apparently thermal transfer or how any of the landings were even purported to have been performed. Tell us, please, why we should consider your opinions on this subject even close to being valid?
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Feb 23, 2007 15:58:58 GMT -4
It's very much "deja vu" reading jupiter's posts. No knowledge of even the basics of the LM, yet he demands we agree with him that it was unflyable. Gyro stabilization platforms, gimballed engines, maneuvering thrusters, all well tested technologies by the time of the first lunar landing attempt. It doesn't take Mb's of computer memory or a sophsticated operating system to run such a stabilization system. You seem to lack knowledge of when computers ran on DOS. As for "flight tests" of the LM, it would not have fared well in atmospheric flight...it was specifically built for vaccuum and a 1/6g touchdown...it would have collapsed in 1g on landing. It was however tested on several manned and unmanned flights, both in Earth orbit (Apollo 5 and 9) and lunar orbit (Apollo 10) . After that, there was only a short trip further to landing. The craft was simple, no fuel pumps, batteries vs fuel cells, with virtually no unnecessary weight. Reliability was key. It didn't have to "look right" to work. And how does one determine the center of mass by looking at a picture of the craft? Where was the Cm of the Saturn V? The Atlas? Go study the LM documents, there are tons available. The stabilization system, the gyros, the flight control system...it's all there (if you dare, Percy doesn't want you looking for it, he relies on your dogged ignorance for his income).
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 23, 2007 16:30:15 GMT -4
Why don't HBs know how to use Mr. Paragraph?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 23, 2007 17:23:08 GMT -4
Did they land this vechicle by looking out the window...
No, they didn't. And someone who is that unbelievably ignorant of how the LM is supposed to work has no business trying to tell people it wouldn't have worked.
The more I watch this video and the more Im sure know the LM of 1969 could never have landed safely.
You have no intention of abandoning the belief that the LM was impractical. And that leads to the knee-jerk interpretation of everything as somehow supportive of that belief, no matter how gymnastic it has to be.
This [DCX] vechicle probably cannot take off again.
Irrelevant. It took off, executed a controlled flight path, and landed safely under rocket power -- something you say can't be done. Whether it was prepared to do it again is utterly irrelevant. Your claim that the LM couldn't land has nothing to do with whether it could have subsequently taken off.
However this is not a piloted vechicle.
Absolutely it was.
You say the LM can't have landed because it was too unstable and too uncontrollable. You say that's because of its mass properties and because of outside influences, which made it too difficult to control. That has nothing to do with who was in charge and where he sat.
Boeing makes lots of aircraft. You've flown in their commercial passenger liners. Those employ at least two human pilots and a set of assistive flight control electronics and computers. They also make a remote-piloted drone for which the pilot sits in a control station on the ground; his control actions are transmitted to the drone by radio. Boeing also makes completely automated aircraft that can take off, fly a mission, and land using nothing but onboard computers and no human interaction.
Yet all three of these aircraft types must obey the same rules of aerodynamics. The factors that affect aircraft stability don't act differently just because one has a human pilot and the other is flown by software.
Similarly the problems you identify with landing do not differ depending on whether the pilot is onboard, sitting remotely, or is a computer program.
You're just trotting out whatever differences you think you can observe, whether or not they are relevant. You're frankly desperate to dismiss any evidence, just so you can maintain the delusion that there isn't any.
I dont see any pilots getting out this remoted controlled toy do you?
The DCX was a scale model of a possible spacecraft design. The model was built to study the properties of a certain combination of propulsion and guidance solutions. It was built small because doing so was cheaper under the budget of the design study. It was too small to admit a human pilot. If you want to claim that the real reason no pilot touched it was because they were scared, then you have to give evidence that the limitations I cited were bogus.
You want me to believe this stands as proof we landed and then took off from the moon?
No. We want you to believe this stands as a refutation of your ridiculous claim that LM-style VTOL technology is impossible, or at best poorly developed.
We don't have to prove we landed on the moon in order to show that your claim we didn't is hogwash.
Think about the lightweight dust on the moon that would have created a voluminous cloud...
Nope. Dust clouds form on Earth because particles aerosolize in the ambient fluid and remain there until the fluid quiesces. On the moon there is no ambient fluid. Particles are entrained by the exhaust plume until the density of the plume gives them over to ballistic behavior. Therefore the behavior of dust is dictated largely by the fluid behavior of the plume.
When a fluid stream hits a flat surface, it does not go in all directions. It generally follows the path of least resistance, which in the case of fluid means minimizing the average change in molecule velocity. That typically means minimizing the angle at which a molecule is deflected. Deflected plume molecules tend to hug the ground -- a phenomenon we observe in fluid stream behavior on Earth. This results in a "sheet" of dust extending no more than a meter or two above the lunar surface. Chaotic flow will carry some particles much higher, but not at a density sufficient to obscure vision.
...6 times heavier than that.
No. Just because Earth's gravity is 6 times strong than the Moon's doesn't mean you can point at any random quantity and multiply or divide it by 6 to predict how that quantity will differ on the Moon.
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.
I'll bet you've never even been in the same room as an astronaut. More question-begging. More straw men. When will this end?
In what way does the DCX resemble the LM?
In its ability to retain rotational stability in controlled flight under rocket power alone.
Plus this craft used 3 rockets as well, not 1. Cheaters.
Yeah, those sailboat owners who put up more than one sail are doing it the hard way too.
That's a lot of fuel burned there.
So three engines of any size always burn more fuel than one engine of any size? How does that work?
With no help from mission-control Houston...
So all those guys sitting there monitoring the LM were doing nothing?
When LM-5's computer indicated an overload condition while displaying radar-measured descent rate in the cockpit, controllers suggested they disengage that display to free up the computer; they would monitor the descent rate from Houston via telemetry and warn the astronauts if it became a problem.
...remote controling every degree...
Straw man. It was possible to monitor the LM remotely, but not required. The 2.6-second latency in communication makes closed-loop remote control impractical. The onboard pilots and their onboard assistive electronics were in the best position to guide the spacecraft.
My guess is DCX was designed...
Your guesses have proved notoriously ignorant. When you can demonstrate any correct knowledge of rocket propulsion and guidance methods, then we might consider your guesses as something more than your grasping at straws to avoid having to change your mind.
Looks like it pitched about 20 degrees at one point. ...That alone would have exceeded the 4-6 degree limit the LM could adjust for.
Ignorant, ignorant, ignorant!
The degree to which thrust can be deflected is one of three numbers that determine the resulting moment. The other two are the thrust magnitude and the length of the moment arm.
The moment is one of three numbers that determine the angular acceleration. The other two are the spacecraft's moment of inertia and any existing angular acceleration from other sources (e.g., the RCS).
The angular acceleration is one of three numbers that determine angular velocity (the rate at which the tilt changes). The other two are the duration over which the moment acts and any existing angular velocity from other sources. In the vernacular of guidance system design, the angular velocity in one axis is called the error rate.
The angular velocity is one of three numbers that determine the new amount of tilt. The other two are the duration over which the angular acceleration acts and the current amount of tilt. In guidance systems this is called the error angle.
That's how it really works. It's not a matter of the spacecraft having to swivel its engine by 20 degrees in order to tilt 20 degrees. That's as wrong as it can possibly be. It's like saying that a driver backing up his tractor-trailer rig has to turn his steering wheel 18 degrees in order to change the angle of the trailer by 18 degrees. Yes, it's really that dumb.
And all that ignores that such a correction would be done by the RCS, not vectored thrust.
You have absolutely no clue how the LM was guided and controlled. I know children who understand this explanation of spacecraft guidance. Not only are you not anywhere close to being an expert, I'd say you know less about this than most laymen. You can't even grasp basic physics. If you want us to stop calling you ignorant, stop being such an excellent example of ignorant-by-choice.
Think of the flimsy little LM which was lightweight aluminum design.
Begging the question. Do you know what H-film is? Inconel mesh? What a pity; I didn't think so. Some elements of the "aluminum" LM were made of the same material as the tailcones and turbine blades of jet engines.
...would have probably caused the nozzle to explode. Probalbly damaged and unable to take the heat.
You use this word a lot. Since you don't seem to know much about this topic, why should anyone think any of these predictions would come true?
Explain to me why the "pogo effect" wouldnt come into play here...
Do you even know what the "pogo effect" is? Or are you just throwing out words from a conspiracy theory's laundry list?
As for showing me a solely rocket powered video of a vertical landing from altitude with astronauts inside manning the controls as the LM supposedly had this is not evidence.
All the italicized words above are additional restrictions you placed on your request after satisfactory evidence was given in each case. You're clearly changing the question to exclude each new answer. What better evidence can there be of your desire to make sure this question never has an answer?
Apollo videos cannot be offered as evidence since the charge is that these videos are faked.
Why am I not surprised? So you demand video evidence, but reserve the right to dismiss any of it on the grounds that some person accuses it of being fake. With a "get out of jail free" card like that, why would a reasonable person want to rise to meet your challenge.
A faked video cannot be used to prove its authenticity.
Wild, unproven claims that something is faked cannot be used to dismiss its evidentiary value.
...vertical takeoff which I have no problem with theoretically since I KNOW it can be done.
But you don't know why it can be done. If you had studied the history of rocket technology development, as many of us have done, you would know that the stability of the LM ascent stage as it rises on its single (unvectored) engine is governed by exactly the same principles of physics as the stability of the entire LM as it settled to the lunar surface. Your repeated insistence to treat these as two qualitatively different problems is simply wrong. It's the most common thing that laymen get wrong about rocketry.
...in my opinion though this "take-off" is full of errors.
No, not in your opinion, but in the opinion of whatever wacky book or website you are reading, or whatever video you watched. You aren't thinking for yourself at all. You're just mindlessly repeating what someone else told you to believe. That's apparent in your all-out, disjointed mud sling-fest.
I know this fuel was is Aerozine but couldnt they have warmed up the engine a second or two before they tore it from the surface? To put it mildly it looked fake. Cant they just do it right like its supposed to be done.
The universe is not obliged to obey the expectations of ignorant people.
The ignition transients of large pump-fed engines last several seconds because there are mechanical parts in them that must come up to speed and steady state. We pay for the good performance of such engines by requiring elaborate means to stabilize the vehicles during those run-ups and drastic measures to reduce the thermal and acoustic loading. Those are by no means trivial problems to have solved.
The LM ascent motor had to fire. Its operation was life-critical. In order to make sure it would fire, it was made as mechanically simple as possible and fed its propellents through a fail-safe pressure feed system. With no pumps to come up to speed, and being a comparatively small engine, the engine reached steady state in just under a third of a second.
A clean separation of the ascent stage was also critical. So the separation sequence was intended to be as simple as possible.
Now explain why the engineers charged with protecting the lives of astronauts would complicate the ignition and separation sequence just so that some ignoramus can feel good about how it looks? Do you have any idea how absurd your suggestion is?
Further, Sts60 has already pointed out one egregious example of your inability to think through your own arguments and keep them consistent. Here's another one.
Above you argued that the LM's descent engine would have to be turned off the instant it was possible to do so, otherwise the tremendous heat and pressure of the rocket plume would tear through the fragile LM. That was your straw man to make it sound like landing was impossible. Now here you say the LM ascent engine should have been run for some time with the ascent stage held down, in order to "warm it up". But you don't explain why the disastrous rocket-engine carnage you predicted earlier isn't a problem now. Why won't the ascent engine tear the ascent stage apart? Why wouldn't the "nozzle explode", as you said it probably would?
Is that so hard for you to understand?
People in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks. I keep pounding this point home because using multiple main rockets for thrust is what the LM did not have. If it did it would have been easier to accept as having been possible.
The world is not interested in what ignorant people accept or reject.
I expect you're now going to pretend to be some sort of expert in motor clustering and all the engineering and dynamics issues that surround it.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Feb 23, 2007 20:45:30 GMT -4
Why don't HBs know how to use Mr. Paragraph? You should teach English and Grammar (or maybe you do!!)
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Feb 23, 2007 21:05:49 GMT -4
Jay, and Jason, and STS More carefully crafted, interesting reads....too bad he won't understand most of what you said. Jupiter, there is a reason they call it rocket science. It involves engineering, math, physics, thermodynamics, and material sciences that I only slightly grasp, even after some higher level coursework. Trying to approach spaceflight, the space environment, or spacecraft design with a layman's perspective only results in a shrug of the shoulders. It just doesn't make sense. But, after a bit of "openminded" study of the science, it all makes sense. Orbital mechanics work backwards to intuition, life in a vaccuum is far different from our terrestrial environment, and rocket science takes some time and effort to understand. Those too lazy just cry "hoax", and languish in their ignorance, thinking they've beaten "the man".
Meanwhile, with it's bizzare, off centered thrust and configuration, how does the shuttle get into space?? Oh, it showd up after we invented real computers?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 23, 2007 21:45:02 GMT -4
Why don't HBs know how to use Mr. Paragraph? You should teach English and Grammar (or maybe you do!!) Heh. I do some--online lessons available on request--but not professionally. I don't do anything professionally until I get my medical situation sorted out. However, I have in the past worked as a copy editor and done more than a little tutoring.
|
|
|
Post by svector on Feb 24, 2007 21:51:24 GMT -4
In Sibrel's "unedited" footage he completely omits the GET 30:28 telecast. In that telecast the Earth, the window frame, and the interior of the spacecraft are visible simultaneously, and cannot have been photographed using any transparency or matte. Sibrel's conspicuous omission of evidence he cannot explain in a film postured as raw footage is clearly dishonest. Both Sibrel and Percy are clearly scared to death of this section of video. I actually asked David Percy once why he didn't feature any footage from the 30:28 transmission in his film. He told me he was "away from base at the moment, and wasn't aware of the footage in question". Soon after, he said he didn't think he'd be able to assist me any further. Considering the likely source for each production's video sequences, and the fact that their respective videos were each released shortly after this 'source' became publicly available, I believe it's highly unlikely Sibrel and Percy have not seen the footage in question. After I included this in part 5, not a single HB on YouTube has proven stubborn enough to continue pushing the "transparency" theory. Of course that doesn't mean the new theories they've invented to replace the broken one, are any less creative.
|
|
|
Post by svector on Feb 24, 2007 22:36:28 GMT -4
Did you know that there's a contest here to see which regular posters can catch me in a mistake? Sounds like fun! I want to play. A highly unlikely eventuality presented as a certainty. Do I win something? A totebag maybe?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 24, 2007 22:45:31 GMT -4
...I believe it's highly unlikely Sibrel and Percy have not seen the footage in question.
According to Mark Gray, who has seen Sibrel's video and who is consummately familiar with the source material, the blue video slate information in it conclusively identifies as a videotape known to have included the GET 30:28 telecast.
On Yahoo we asked Sibrel's assistant about it. He just played dumb.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Feb 24, 2007 23:31:47 GMT -4
What good is that if youre doing cartwheels in space. Wasnt that what happened to "Snoopy"? I find it funny that you are using something that happened to one of the lunar modules, during a mission that you say didn't really happen, as evidence that the LM couldn't fly. Don't you see that you're contradicting yourself? Snoopy wouldn't have done "cartwheels in space" if it wasn't really in space, now would it? If the whole thing was faked on Earth then the LM would have been little more than a prop hanging from cables. If the Apollo 10 incident was fake then it can't be used as evidence that the LM was unstable because it wasn't a real instability problem, just a scripted event thrown into the hoaxed mission to add drama (was NASA hoping to win an Oscar award?). I'm still wondering how anyone can watch footage of the Apollo CSM and LM maneuvering around in lunar orbit and think "hmm... that looks fake to me". How could they possibly fake that? With miniatures? Nope, because in some shots from the CSM you can see the astronauts moving around inside the the LM through the windows, all while the moon passes by beneath them and the two vehicles fly in totally different orientations.
|
|
|
Post by svector on Feb 24, 2007 23:48:10 GMT -4
Heavenly B - The "nice lady" narrating this video is only reading from Bart Sibrel's script. However, Sibrel made numerous easily verifiable mistakes when he wrote it. To name a few: 1. Earth was being photographed from low orbit through a "porthole" window. (impossible, since the effects of Earth rotation would've easily been seen from low orbit, and the artificial horizon created by a round window or "insert" would shifted as the handheld camera was moved, betraying the illusion)2. An astronaut's "arm" comes in frame and blocks part of Earth (it's actually the edge of the window)3. A mysterious "3rd party" instructs Armstrong to begin his scripted lines with the word "talk". (it's actually Buzz Aldrin speaking)4. The video shot during the 33:59GET TV transmission was "lost footage", never before seen by... blah blah blah.... (it's been in the public domain for 30+ years and part of the SC Films DVD set)5. The video's translation of the date stamps - Day 199 = July 19, Day 200 = July 20, etc. (day 199 of 1969 was actually July 18 and day 200 was July 19)6. A "crescent shaped insert" is removed from the window. (no such insert is ever seen - only suggested)7. The "stop button popped back up on the recorder" (there was no such "recorder" onboard. All video was beamed live to Goldstone or Parkes)8. You can see the "near earth" out the window as the iris is opened. (no such image of Earth is ever seen. The light coming through side window #1 is vastly overexposed earthlight, being diffused by the light-scattering properties of the fused silica window material)I could go on but for the sake of brevity I won't. Setting aside for the moment the motive behind these inaccuracies by the film's creator, do you have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge these clear mistakes from the video? If so, how can you realistically use it as a credible reference source for your positions? If not, how do you counter my explanations?
|
|
|
Post by brotherofthemoon on Feb 24, 2007 23:50:07 GMT -4
What good is that if youre doing cartwheels in space. Wasnt that what happened to "Snoopy"? I'm still wondering how anyone can watch footage of the Apollo CSM and LM maneuvering around in lunar orbit and think "hmm... that looks fake to me". How could they possibly fake that? With miniatures? Nope, because in some shots from the CSM you can see the astronauts moving around inside the the LM through the windows, all while the moon passes by beneath them and the two vehicles fly in totally different orientations. Godlike powers of real time special effects compositing. In the 1960s. And we still couldn't actually land there. Right.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Feb 24, 2007 23:54:33 GMT -4
If not, how do you counter my explanations? You'll have to wait until March 18 (at the earliest) for a reply, svector, because HeavenlyBody has been banned until then. And the odds are in favour of her returning with more of the same behaviour that got her banned (ie. not sticking to the topic and instead making this about her).
|
|
|
Post by svector on Feb 25, 2007 0:05:20 GMT -4
...I believe it's highly unlikely Sibrel and Percy have not seen the footage in question.According to Mark Gray, who has seen Sibrel's video and who is consummately familiar with the source material, the blue video slate information in it conclusively identifies as a videotape known to have included the GET 30:28 telecast. I'll have to go back and review the Sibrel footage. I didn't notice anything in it from 30:28 but it's very possible I missed it. It appeared to me he was only using 10:32 and 33:59 footage. I have both the SC films DVD set and Sibrel's video, so it's easy to compare. Is Mark also aware that Sibrel's translation of the dates on the bluescreens is wrong? He says day 200 = July 20th when in fact it's July 19. He uses the day 200 deception to his advantage in an obvious way. Are you sure it was his "assistant"? He used a similar ruse on YouTube, pretending to have an extensive "staff" of people answering comments, when in fact it was just him. Eventually he just banned everyone from commenting. I believe I was one of the first.
|
|