|
Post by gwiz on Nov 29, 2006 9:01:19 GMT -4
Staelites use foil and tape. When they take off they are protected by nose cone's and they never have to land. They just burn up when they drop out of orbit. And where was the LM when a Saturn V was launched? And you've already been told how the exhaust spreads along the ground during landing.
|
|
|
Post by 20469 on Nov 29, 2006 9:18:29 GMT -4
Jupitor. in fact all Try reading all my posts Did you do the experiment with the tap fully open or are you still drying your clothes ha ha.
Why was there not more effort to try to photograph stars from the moon. Apollo 16 were supposed to have taken a small telescope but the results were they said diisapointing.
Do you think they will make it back for the 50th aniversry of the first landing (the 40th is just 3 years away so won't make that)
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Nov 29, 2006 9:21:44 GMT -4
Then if they were going to hoax it why not use that design rather than what has to be the ugliest and most implusible looking flying vehicle ever made? If something has to fool people into thinking its a rocket rather than actually being functional why not make it look more like a rocket than the just plain ugly and weird looking but extremely functional and very well designed for its operational enviroment LM? Just a guess but I'd say Television ratings. Lost in Space was far more popular than the Thunderbirds in the USA. They went for the space pod look instead of the sleek lines of the Thunderbird craft. ;D Check your production dates. The Space Pod copied the look of the LM.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Nov 29, 2006 9:35:10 GMT -4
Did you do the experiment with the tap fully open or are you still drying your clothes ha ha. Unfortunately for your argument, the impingement of a jet on a wall is a well-studied case in fluid mechanics. The jet spreads radially, it does not bounce back. Here's just one example: elecpress.monash.edu.au/ijfd/2003_vol7/paper1/index.shtml
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Nov 29, 2006 9:42:56 GMT -4
Open a tap full and watch your clothes get wet.
Congratulations on missing the point of the experiment entirely. I didn't specify a steady flow because it looks nice but because it reflects the behaviour of the exhaust from a rocket in a vacuum.
I'll say it until I'm blue in the face if I have to, but there is just no mechanism by which lunar surface dust can ever get on the lander as a result of being kicked up by the exhaust from the descent engine. It is always blown away from the LM.
that decal looks like its about 12 inches above the descent engine.
And a few feet to the side. The descent engine is placed well back from the edge of the descent stage. How exactly would the exhaust from the engine, directed downwards, get along the bottom of the descent stage and up the side to impinge on the decal, and even if it did would it be hot enough to cause a problem with adhesion?
I'm willing to bet you have absolutely no idea of the answer, nor even how you'd go about determining the answer. Why exactly should we take you seriously?
Staelites use foil and tape. When they take off they are protected by nose cone's and they never have to land. They just burn up when they drop out of orbit.
And that relates to the LM how, exactly?
The LM was inside a shroud when it was launched. It never made an atmospheric entry so the decal never had to deal with massive air currents or anything along those lines.
It is interesting that having first sent a orbit mission around the moon they did not do a dummy run of landing and having take off an umaned module under remote control to se if it would work.
The LM is a piloted vehicle. It is designed to operate with a man in it. It already had one unmanned flight (Apollo 5), a manned Earth orbital flight (Apollo 9) and a manned lunar orbital flight (Apollo 10), thus showing that all the systems worked. The only thing left to do was land, and since they already knew the machine worked, why not try to land with people in it?
The russians tried it to grab some rocks but it failed. guess they must have wanted to win the race realy bad and were willing to risk it all.
What does the failure of a Russian unmanned sample return mission have to do with the likelihood of success of Apollo? Different technology, different mission specs.
In any case, the first Russian sample return mission attemtp was Luna 15, which went to the Moon at the same time as Apollo 11. And the N1 launchpad explosion happened in the same month as Apollo 11.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Nov 29, 2006 9:44:59 GMT -4
Where have I seen this sort of "hoax theory poetry" style of writing before? Hmm...
Tape is basically just glue with a backing. If the glue is strong, and the backing is strong, then the tape is strong. This was mentioned on the other thread, but consider this experiment:
Take a piece of ordinary paper and screw, nail, or tack it into a wall. Apply the nails or screws across the entire top side of the paper. Pull down stiffly on the paper. It will tear off of the wall leaving the screws or nails or whatever on the wall. Take another piece of paper and firmly tape it to the same wall. Apply the tape across the entire top side of the paper. Pull down stiffly and it (providing you used decent tape) should hold.
Your argument is stupid. you can't even accept that reflective foil can reflect the blackness of the lunar sky. Here's another experiment. Get some household foil, and put some black paper near it. Amazing! You are so stubborn you can't accept even the most mundane truths in the images. You have absolutely no experience in engineering or astrophysics. You don't even know your history too well.
The entire argument is flawed. The LM looks ugly and flimsy and is not what a layman would expect of an advanced and expensive spacecraft. If the moon landings were faked, why didn't NASA just make the LM look nice? Well, probably because other rocket scientists would cry foul. Rocket scientists would take one look at a slick and pretty LM and know it wasn't a good design. So then NASA would make the LM look real. But if you could make the LM so real it would fool rocket scientists, especially those who would greatly scrutinize the craft, you could have just built a real working LM.
Anyone with even the most rudimentary knowledge of rocket science (i.e. myself) understands that weight is absolutely the most important factor in designing a spacecraft. The heavier it is, the more fuel you have to carry, which gets ridiculously expensive really quick. The LM (along with the other craft) is as absolutely light as it possibly could be without sacrificing safety. I didn't need to be aerodynamic (no air to resist against) so it could be built as small as possible as well.
Even with the smallest bit of knowledge of how spaceflight works, it becomes amazingly obvious that the LM could not be better designed. But you disagree just because it isn't glamorous.
Since you obviously know how to build a better spacecraft, why don't you tell us how you would design the LM? We can tell you what would work or not and why.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Nov 29, 2006 10:38:50 GMT -4
The decal of the american flag + united states is held on to the base of the moon lander with sticky tape. if I had gone this bad a job of wrapping a xmas present I would have had another go at it. What you don't seem to realize is that you don't get to have another go at it. Removing the tape to re-affix the decal would tear the Mylar, you therefore have only one shot at it. Furthermore, you're not applying the tape to a nice smooth hard surface, thus it isn't the easiest thing to get right the first time. If the application of the tape isn't perfect then you just have to live with it because you can't tear it off to redo it.
|
|
|
Post by 20469 on Nov 29, 2006 10:41:40 GMT -4
reynobalt Thanks for your reply you say the point I make are stupid that I wont admit gold can reflect the black sky If you read my post you wil se that the reson I think the surface in question is not gold reflecting the black sky is due to it not facing the sun. Its only possible illumination comming from a reflection of the dull grey moon surface or possibly the white space suite of a nearby astronaut. Neither of which could cause it to reflect the sky.
I do not think the link you provide proves that splatter would not occur. As for my enginerring knowledge well I must admit I only have a lowly City in Guilds In mechanical Engineering But I am an honest enough to examine this matter from all points of view.
I rember wathing on my black and white TV when the moon landing occured. They flashed LIVE on the screen at the time. Well it want quite LIVE but hey they were just being a little economical with the truth. I sent for a poster of Buz Aldrin on the moon and a film of the rover on the moon from the Sunday Mirror. Ok the photo has been manipulated abit about 50% they cut of the forground added fake sky and a fake earth in the sky and lightened Buz up abit. still made a nice poster. As I ran the 8mm film of the moon rover on my home projector I was mighty impressed.
I saw 20001 a space oddity and Dimonds for ever and Capricorn One but the penny didnt drop. Twenty years would pass beofre I started hear abot moon hoax ideas.
Many of the hoax suggestions have an immediate appeal but are clearly open to opinion.
When you visit the apollo image library you see how many bad photo's were taken. giving lie to the idea that all moon photo's are perfect, The number of panning photo's help explain the quantity of photos.
But questions still remain.
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Nov 29, 2006 10:51:25 GMT -4
Welcome back, Lunatic.
|
|
|
Post by 20469 on Nov 29, 2006 11:02:54 GMT -4
Bob B
That is why they would not use tape. Also such a small area of tape is in contact with the surface that any bending would tend to peal it off Much better to coat the whole of the back of the decal with strong glue. For something as imortant as the American symbol a special piece with a stick back or some means to laminate the symbol should be used.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Nov 29, 2006 11:07:09 GMT -4
Also such a small area of tape is in contact with the surface that any bending would tend to peal it off
You're still missing the point: what would cause the mylar to bend once the LM is in space? It's a vacuum, and the bit the decal is attached to is not a mobile surface. There are no air currents to flap the mylar around. So we come back to what would make the decal come off? It's not going to fall off under its own weight (if it survived launch it can survive sitting clamly in 1/6th G), it's not being blown about. Why should it come off?
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Nov 29, 2006 11:08:07 GMT -4
This whole thing about sending an unmanned module first to test the LM's ability to land is beyond laughable.
Even if they had done that there would still have had to be a first manned landing, which is a completely different concept to an unmanned one. Having already tested that the ascent engine could be successfully fired in space, and all the other components, on previous Apollo missions, landing unmanned offers no information that NASA didn't already have - especially when you consider that NASA already had experience of landing unmanned craft on the lunar surface.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Nov 29, 2006 11:12:56 GMT -4
If you read my post you wil se that the reson I think the surface in question is not gold reflecting the black sky is due to it not facing the sun. Its only possible illumination comming from a reflection of the dull grey moon surface or possibly the white space suite of a nearby astronaut. Neither of which could cause it to reflect the sky.
And you're not getting specular reflection either, are you? If you put a mirror there instead you would not dispute that it could show you a reflection of the sky, surely?
Well Mylar is very like a mirror in that respect. Unless the picture was taken at such an angle as to directly reflect the surface or the astronaut taking the picture it will reflect black sky.
|
|
|
Post by 20469 on Nov 29, 2006 11:21:30 GMT -4
when the lander lands. The descent rocket blasts when the lander gets near the gound. the balst would be redirected towards the lander. eben with 1/6 G there is some atmosphere Imagine getiing a vacume cleaner and putting on blow and blowing up onto a wall that you had just stuck your favorite poster on. Would it stay attatched? Maybe, maybe not
When trying something so new baby steps are best they had not tried using this design to land and take off form the moon. Remote control would be possible and wise
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Nov 29, 2006 11:30:21 GMT -4
when the lander lands. The descent rocket blasts when the lander gets near the gound. the balst would be redirected towards the lander. eben with 1/6 G there is some atmosphere
No, sorry. Utterly wrong. The atmosphere of the Moon is so tenuous that the Apollo descent and ascent angine exhausts added to it appreciably. There just isn't enough atmosphere to create turbulence to blow dust up at the lander.
The exhaust is primarily deflected radially along the surface. This really is a well documented and understood effect.
When trying something so new baby steps are best
Yes, that explains the all-up procedure for testing the Saturn V, and the gamble with Apollo 8.
Again, the machine worked. All the systems worked. There was no reason whatsoever to believe it would not be able to land and take off. If you know of anything that might have an effect in the airless void above the lunar surface feel free to tell us.
they had not tried using this design to land and take off form the moon. Remote control would be possible and wise
Why do you insist that landing with men onboard would be unwise? They had an abort capability right up to the final few seconds of descent that could have brought them up again. If they had tried Apollo 11 with an unmanned lander it would have crashed and they would have no idea why. The ability to take off hardly needs testing. Fire a rocket downwards and the spacecraft goes upwards, and they had already verified that that engine and the control systems worked.
But even if an automated landing would have been wise, that is no basis on which to assume that because they didn't do it that way they couldn't do it at all.
|
|