|
Post by Jason Thompson on Feb 16, 2007 6:28:26 GMT -4
Tests that are carried out on Earth will be effected by other factors that do not exist on the Moon therefore the results will be inconclusive.
A good scientist knows how to isolate variables. If you perform the experiment suggested involving two plates and a heat lamp in the same room at the same distance on the same day you eliminate the variables quite effectively and the only thing you are varying is the angle at which you present the plate to the heat source.
Let's go back to our original question regarding the thermo-regulation of the LEM. Why would the angle of the Sun in the Lunar sky make the LEM and astronauts any cooler?
...
It may well be better to be near the equator.
You know, whether near the equator or the poles you still have a sunrise, so you can still land at time when the sun is, say, 10 degrees above the horizon at either location. Lattitude only afects the maximum solar angle.
How wide from the front to back were the astronauts including back-pack and camera?
Assuming that you are going to bring up the LM hatch being too narrow, you are presumably unaware that a) the camera was not fitted until [/i]after[/i] the astronauts had left the LM, and b) that there is plenty of photographic and film evidence of the astronauts going in and out of the LM?
Why did the LRV kick up dust in waves
Since it is never going over smooth and level terrain its wheels will interact with the surface in an irregular fashion. How would you expect the dust to be kicked up?
and why did the dust only go up as high as it would from a car or motorbike on Earth?
A car or motorbike going at what speed? The rover had a top speed of around 13km/h. How much dust is kicked up and how high by a car or motorcycle going that slowly on Earth?
What provisions were made in the event an astronaut vomited?
Where would vomiting be a problem?
In the spacecraft it makes a mess, but it can be cleaned up. They had waste bags to throw up in, and wipes to clear up any spillage (to this day, Bill Anders apparently says he cannot use wet wipes because they remind him too strongly of having to use them to clean up the detritus from Frank Borman's bout of vomiting and diarrhoea during Apollo 8).
On the Moon, again it would make a mess but not be a disaster. Inside the LM it would be better on the Moon than in space because at least it would go all over the floor raher than float around the cabin. On an EVA (which would in any case either have been curtailed or cancelled if an astronaut reported feeling unwell) the vomit would sit in the suit and they'd curtail the EVA and go back to the LM.
The only time vomiting was a potential disaster was on an EVA during the flight. Rusty Schweickart's EVA on Apollo 9 was postponed and then heavily curtailed as a result of his space sickness. Vomiting inside a helmet in space could be fatal because the astronaut could not stop the vomit floating in front of his face and potentially obstructing his mouth and nose. IN that case there would be a problem, certainly. The others would have to help him back into the cabin, repressurise and get his helmet off quickly, releasing vomit to float around the cabin and possibly y that time revealing an unconscious man who needed resuscitation.
However, the simple answer is that they just didn't go out in a spacesuit if the astronaut was feeling unwell.
|
|
|
Post by jupiter2 on Feb 16, 2007 8:03:36 GMT -4
I am new to the board and would call myself a non-believer who wants to believe but cant for many questions I still have never had answered adequately. For me he major question still remains:
If we landed on the moon, where is (link?) one film of a successful NASA test landing of the LEM here on earth using the 1/6th scale (lunar gravity equivalent). I know no one here is stupid enough to argue that we would attempt it (a moon landing) without a successful test first. So where is this film? All I have ever seen is one which ended with Neil Armstrong ejecting and the LEM crashing. Considering that 40 years later no one has yet done it (a film of a successful Descent Landing of a rocket only powered spacecraft) I therefore consider the argument that we went to the moon baseless unless we could actually land a LEM on it without crashing. If this logical conclusion is laughable please enlighten me.
Ill bet Jay Utah has a good answer- but no documentation.
Come on Jay
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Feb 16, 2007 8:38:00 GMT -4
The LM was tested in space where it belongs: a test article of 1/6th the mass would be so different as to not constitute a valid test (and where would you get the 1/6th mass pilots to fly it?), also pointless, because even with 1/6th the mass, it would still fall at 1g on Earth, as Galileo demonstrated some time ago. Vertical landing had been achieved on many occasions; besides the LLTV & LLRV there had been the Rolls-Royce "Flying bedstead" and a whole series of XV-series experimental aircraft in the US. Rocket-powered VTOL has certainly been done since: the DC-X for example.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Feb 16, 2007 8:38:48 GMT -4
If we landed on the moon, where is (link?) one film of a successful NASA test landing of the LEM here on earth using the 1/6th scale (lunar gravity equivalent).
The LM could not be tested on Earth.
I know no one here is stupid enough to argue that we would attempt it (a moon landing) without a successful test first.
Kindly refrain from using the word stupid, and then define a 'successful test'. The LM was designed to operate with a two man crew. It was tested unmanned in Earth orbit on Apollo 5, then manned in Earth orbit on Apollo 9, then in lunar orbit on Apollo 10, and the final test was the Apollo 11 landing.
All this has already been covered in this thread before. If you are going to tack a reply on such a long thread rather than starting your own, please try and read what has gone before first.
So where is this film? All I have ever seen is one which ended with Neil Armstrong ejecting and the LEM crashing.
This was not a LM, it was a training vehicle and the only purpose of that vehicle was to give pilots training in landing the LM. It crashed because a control line broke, and there is plenty of film of it making successful flights. Like many engineering prototype vehicles it was used until it broke, then replaced.
The film of successful flights can be found among the DVDs offered by Spacecraft Films.
Considering that 40 years later no one has yet done it (a film of a successful Descent Landing of a rocket only powered spacecraft)
Bzzzt. Wrong. Again you need to define success and what part you are dealing with. There was a successful landing of a rocket powered vertical descent craft on Earth. It was a failure because a landing leg broke, not because the concept was inherently flawed.
When arguing about engineering tests and projects it is not enough to say 'it failed'. You need to know why it failed. A broken landing leg is not an indication that landing using a rocket powered descent is impossible or as yet unachieved.
I therefore consider the argument that we went to the moon baseless unless we could actually land a LEM on it without crashing.
Conveniently, this means you have dismissed the evidence of successfully landing a number of LMs while you look for something else that compares.
Ill bet Jay Utah has a good answer- but no documentation.
That is a highly inciminating comment. Why exactly do you single Jay out, like at least two other posters before you have done?
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Feb 16, 2007 8:45:56 GMT -4
I am new to the board and would call myself a non-believer who wants to believe but cant for many questions I still have never had answered adequately. For me he major question still remains: If we landed on the moon, where is (link?) one film of a successful NASA test landing of the LEM here on earth using the 1/6th scale (lunar gravity equivalent). I know no one here is stupid enough to argue that we would attempt it (a moon landing) without a successful test first. So where is this film? All I have ever seen is one which ended with Neil Armstrong ejecting and the LEM crashing. Considering that 40 years later no one has yet done it (a film of a successful Descent Landing of a rocket only powered spacecraft) I therefore consider the argument that we went to the moon baseless unless we could actually land a LEM on it without crashing. If this logical conclusion is laughable please enlighten me. Ill bet Jay Utah has a good answer- but no documentation. Come on Jay I would suggest that reading this page for an overview of the LLRV/LLTV, and its references (lots of documentation, much of it available online) for a better overview of what that part of the Apollo program involved. Most of the information you presented above is incorrect, the LLRV/LLTVs were just simulators to train the astronauts rather than testing anything about the LM (they have a lot more in common with a Harrier jet than the LMs), they flew many successful flights before finally breaking down (which is what happened in that film) its just that the film of one crashing is far more widely spread (them working successfully isn't exactly attention grabbing), and finally there have been other successful vertical landings of rocket powered vehicles, and thousands with jet powered vehicles (which are fundamentally the same problem).
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Feb 16, 2007 8:56:23 GMT -4
and why did the dust only go up as high as it would from a car or motorbike on Earth?
It was already mentioned that the top speed was 13 Kmph. I have read that it was even lower. I remember reading that the top speed was a theoretical 10 kph with a tested top speed of about 8 kph. How high would you really expect to see something ejected at those speeds?
|
|
|
Post by Cavorite on Feb 16, 2007 9:01:52 GMT -4
I am new to the board <snip> Ill bet Jay Utah has a good answer- but no documentation. Come on Jay For someone who is new to the board, you seem to have the same focus upon Jay as any of the rest of the series of tagteam posters that have come before you. You wouldn't be trying to derail a thread in progress, would you? Consider starting your query in a new thread.
|
|
|
Post by Cavorite on Feb 16, 2007 9:04:46 GMT -4
There was a successful landing of a rocket powered vertical descent craft on Earth. It was a failure because a landing leg broke, not because the concept was inherently flawed. Notwithstanding what I just said about derailing a thread... I'm pretty sure that the DC-X made successful landings earlier in the program. It's just that everybody remembers the one where it fall down go boom. Edit to fix quote tags
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Feb 16, 2007 9:14:52 GMT -4
Amazing. Jupiter2, I really hope that this isn't another example of somebody who is ignorant about a subject looking trying to 'own' people who know a lot about it but oblivious to the fact he just looks like a fool.
That gets old after a while.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Feb 16, 2007 9:17:25 GMT -4
STS60, are you sure you are qualified in this field and know what you are talking about? Take a look here astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/news/expandnews.cfm?id=333and educate yourself regarding the magnetosphere. Here is a quote from the page "The magnetosphere helps absorb outbursts of harmful radiation from the Sun, reducing and stabilizing the amount that reaches the Earth's surface." Even I can tackle this one. That's a simplified view. In actuality, the magnetosphere protects the Earth from particle radiation. Electromagnetic radiation passes through the magnetosphere with ease. Now, care to show us what you know about radiation? Funny you mention a dictionary.... pap-(n) soft food for infants or invalids
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Feb 16, 2007 9:35:16 GMT -4
I am new to the board and would call myself a non-believer who wants to believe but cant for many questions I still have never had answered adequately. Well, you seem to have come to the right place. Welcome to the board. No film exists because such a test could not be done. No matter what the scale, you're still in the same gravity field, i.e Earth's. Things on Earth won't behave like they do on the moon, regardless of their size. As said before, refrain from use insults. Now, the LM was tested, despite what others may say. Apollo 5 was an unmanned test in LEO. Apollo 9 was the manned test in LEO. Apollo 10 tested the LM in orbit around the moon. And Apollo 11 was, in essence, the final test; a landing. And let's not forget the parts of the LM were also tested before assembly. That wasn't a LM. That was a training craft, which only simulated a moon landing, by use of a jet engine to lift it off the ground. And that crash wasn't a typical flight. Many successful flights of this vehicle were made. Recently, NASA TV showed archive film of such a flight. 35 years is the more correct time frame. Just being pedantic there, because many people don't count the flights after Apollo 11. Apollo 17 was the last, in 1972. Also, your claim is wrong. There was such a rocket flight done since then. More than once. I do recall seeing a video (don't' know the link; someone else might) of a half dome looking craft that took off, went up 100+ feet or so, then came back down safely (anyone know what I speak of?). Even without this, a test on Earth is not the same for that on the moon. First, there is no factor of atmosphere to interfere with the landing. Second, the LM came down from orbit. On Earth, you need to take off, hover, then land. For the LM, it just needs to drop from orbit, hover, then land. Only the ascent stage goes up, and that's no different from any other rocket launch (aside from it's shape, which reflects the lack of atmosphere). And lastly, it's a weaker gravity that being fought against. I agree that for someone new, you seem to harp on Jay already. Remember, there are others of us here that can answer just fine.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Feb 16, 2007 10:14:59 GMT -4
Also, your claim is wrong. There was such a rocket flight done since then. More than once. I do recall seeing a video (don't' know the link; someone else might) of a half dome looking craft that took off, went up 100+ feet or so, then came back down safely (anyone know what I speak of?). That would be Blue Origin. There was also the already-mentioned DC-X, plus rocket-braked landings by Surveyors and Lunas on the moon and Vikings on Mars.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 16, 2007 10:20:39 GMT -4
I am new to the board...
But obviously not new to the most common approach used by conspiracy theorists to open a debate.
If we landed on the moon, where is (link?) one film of a successful NASA test landing of the LEM here on earth...
LOL! Why do you think it was appropriate to test the LM on Earth? I don't have any film of airplanes tested in Lake Michigan or submarines tested in the Gobi Desert either. I guess none of those exist either, or at least were not properly tested.
Spacecraft are tested in space. The LM test program was actually quite ingenious by aerospace standards.
...using the 1/6th scale (lunar gravity equivalent).
You mean the LLRV and LLTV? Those weren't prototypes to test the lunar module design. In fact, they were designed completely differently from the LM. They were invented to train the pilots, not to see whether the LM would work. That's a completely different purpose.
I know no one here is stupid enough to argue that we would attempt it (a moon landing) without a successful test first.
You're right; we're not that stupid. It seems you're the one assuming the LM was never tested.
Please explain in great detail why testing a completely different vehicle in a completely different setting would validate that the LM would work in space. Since I've made quite a good living devising test protocols for aerospace and other engineering pursuits, I would love to hear your well-reasoned arguments.
So where is this film?
Spacecraft Films has several examples on their Apollo 11 DVD. The Modern Marvels series of documentaries has an episode featuring unusual flying machines. They discuss the LLTV-type vehicles at length. Those are secondary sources. If you want the primary material, you have to contact the Dryden flight test facility.
But you seem to be one of those lazy types who won't believe anything that doesn't come over his web browser. If you want real knowledge and not just Google-smarts, you may have to do some work on your own.
All I have ever seen is one which ended with Neil Armstrong ejecting and the LEM crashing.
Not surprising. That's the only one the conspiracy theorists ever show, and the only one they tell their believers exists. Sounds like you need to get out more.
Considering that 40 years later no one has yet done it (a film of a successful Descent Landing of a rocket only powered spacecraft)...
Oh, it's been done. And even on autopilot.
A lot of people ask why we don't do it more. And that's a legitimate question. The answer is that there are many more energy-efficient and easier ways of landing a vehicle on Earth. So vehicles meant to land on planets with atmosphers tend to exploit things like air to let the vehicle float or fly to the ground. Even machines that land without airfoils, such as the Harrier or the new JSF, use air-breathing engines.
It is certainly possible to land on rocket power, but it's not commonly needed. We really only need that technology if we're going to land on an airless world, which we do rather seldom. And so you don't see a lot of research on rocket landings for Earth.
I therefore consider the argument that we went to the moon baseless...
For someone who "wants to believe", you're certainly anxious to dismiss an entire program based on one flimsy, presumptive argument. Check again.
...unless we could actually land a LEM on it without crashing.
What do you think would make landing the LM on the moon an especially difficult job?
If this logical conclusion is laughable please enlighten me.
It is laughable, and the enlightenment is easy: examine your own assumptions critically.
Ill bet Jay Utah has a good answer- but no documentation.
Very presumptuous for someone who seems to accept evidence only in hyperlink form.
And it's very astute of you to challenge me personally on your very first post. Most new posters here don't immediately gravitate toward the one person that long-time posters have come to hate -- it usually takes them a few days.
Since my web site is the first page that comes up on Google when I search for the phrase "llrv armstrong crash", and it answers all of your questions, then I'd say you really aren't paying much attention to whether my opinion is documented. You know, some people consider me the documentation!
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 16, 2007 10:48:32 GMT -4
"The magnetosphere helps absorb outbursts of harmful radiation from the Sun, reducing and stabilizing the amount that reaches the Earth's surface."
Particle radiation, which has no thermal effect. There are different kinds of radiation, you know. Oh, wait -- you don't know.
Why are threatening to ban us for using the term play-group?
Because it's insulting, and you've been told that repeatedly. After being told to stop your insults, you said it was just our "interpretation" and it wasn't your fault at all if we misunderstood you.
Grow up or get out.
Tests that are carried out on Earth will be effected by other factors that do not exist on the Moon...
True.
...therefore the results will be inconclusive.
False.
Every scientific experiment contains a multitude of effects. Isolating one and testing it -- even when the other effects are there -- is the control-and-variable principle of experimentation. It's basic science.
Jason provided several experiments that control for those other effects and allow you to say with confidence that some observed effect relates to some cause, which is experimentally varied. That's also basic science.
Your colossal and continued ignorance of basic principles of scientific inquiry continues to amaze me. You don't get to call science bogus just because you don't understand how it works.
Sorry about the "albedo" typo. Yes, you did spell it right later.
Why would the angle of the Sun in the Lunar sky make the LEM and astronauts any cooler?
The angle of the sun in the lunar sky doesn't matter. And I'm frankly sick of trying to tell you what you should have learned in high school.
The Earth is cold at the poles and hot at the equator because of the angle at which the sun strikes it. The moon is hot at the equator and cold at the poles for the same reason. In addition, the moon is hot at noon and cold at morning, evening, and night -- also because of sun angle.
This is important because it illustrates that every sunlit object in space has its own "equators" and "poles". That is, every point on an object comes to a different temperature.
That's all.
Objects like the LM that keep one side facing the sun make sure that side is the one best suited to absorb the energy. The outer skin of the LM functioned essentially like a big, attached parasol.
Objects like astronauts generally move around and keep the solar heating even. How hot do you think a space suit would have gotten in full sun? Give me an actual guess.
How wide from the front to back were the astronauts including back-pack and camera?
The PLSS was only about 12 inches from front to back. The soft-suit dimensions varied. Also, posture matters, so please consider it.
The cameras were not attached during LM ingress and egress, so that's not relevant.
Why did the LRV kick up dust in waves...?
Elucidate. I'm not sure what you mean here.
...and why did the dust only go up as high as it would from a car or motorbike on Earth?
Complex question. I dispute your interpretation of the evidence that says the dust only went up as high as some other instance. In the larger sense, there are factors besides gravity that affect that anyway.
What provisions were made in the event an astronaut vomited?
Not many, so the astronauts were specifically chosen from among people who demonstrate little or no susceptibility to motion sickness.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Feb 16, 2007 12:11:31 GMT -4
As usual, Jay takes the time to rationally address each issue raised, instead of using two simple one syllable words like he probably wanted to
|
|