|
Post by sts60 on Dec 29, 2011 10:15:01 GMT -4
A 35 mph car wreck will easily kill you if "done right", but all capsule-landing crews are in the most survivable mode - lying flat and fully supported by an energy absorbing system, with no possibility of the violent whiplash that can damage the spinal column or collision with other hard objects. Of course, going fast enough, internal injuries will still be fatal even without these trauma modes.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Dec 21, 2011 15:28:17 GMT -4
Hi, hal. Welcome to the board.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Dec 19, 2011 16:31:57 GMT -4
Agreed.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Dec 16, 2011 1:50:51 GMT -4
I knew this claim was bogus from personal observation, but I am a layman in that realm, so thanks to nomuse and JayUtah for saying all those experty words about it.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Dec 16, 2011 0:04:25 GMT -4
I am old enough to remember some of the Apollo mission coverage. None of the NASA animations looked "real" at all; they were clearly just that - animations.
Apart from your wild claims about image processing and rendering state of the art back then, your claims about LM maneuvering, how rockets are "steered" in general, Apollo docking mechanisms, lunar sample provenance, and availability of Apollo images in the '70s are all still wrong, too.
And the notion that the lunar surface EVAs could have been faked on Earth is just laughable, unless you can show us a vacuum chamber a few kilometers wide, equipped with artificial gravity - yes, we have thought about what it would take to try faking the EVA imagery sequences.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Dec 15, 2011 17:32:59 GMT -4
The issue is that von Braun argues that Saturn V was capable of transporting 118 ton to LEO and 47 ton to Moon orbit.It's not just one man; it's thousands and thousands of engineers, technicians, and scientists who were involved in the design, manufacture, test, and operation of the Saturn V, plus all those similarly involved in the Apollo spacecraft, plus the same for Skylab, plus the engineers since Apollo who have studied the design and used its technologies. Soviet inteligenceUnsourced, unsupported appeal to magic. says that the capacity of rocket was not more than 27 tons to Moon orbit. Soviet engineers on the record disagree, and acknowledge the Saturn V was capable of doing what it was claimed to do. They trump your pretend "intelligence" agents. NASA says that Skylab was 77 tons which indicates that the rocket was rather strong (even if major pogo vibrations occurred). My calculations propose that Skylab was not at all so heavy.Your calculations fail a sanity check. It would be easy to draw a compromising conclusion - Saturn V was indeed capable of transporting 77 tons to LEO and this means that about 27 tons to Moon orbit was possible. But if we accept that, we must understand that the figures are exceptionally high - anomalies - in rocket engineering. Today we cannot even imagine a rocket as strong without external boosters.Speak for yourself. I can, and I'm a practicing space engineer. Then the big problem remains - we cannot explain how the 47 ton Apollo system could have been transported to the Moon orbit...One cannot explain reality if one diverges from it as badly as you have. Saturn V F-1 engines were indeed dead end and major failures in rocket engineering - that is why they were not further developed and were completely abandoned.Those engines demonstrably lofted the Apollo CSM stacks to the Moon and Skylab into orbit. The rest is merely your layman's characterization. If they did what was told, they would certainly be today the most celebrated rocket systems used by all the space countries - but they are not even considered in rocket planning. RD-170 and RD-180 are engines used by all ... including US.Your lack of understanding. "Celebrated" does not require "still used", especially when mission goals changed as they did after Apollo. F-1 engines always had major problems with pogo - especially after about one minute from start (where Skylab was also damaged). In NASA reports it is mentioned that all the Saturn V test and flights were successful, but this is not true ... all they had pogo problemsYou have no idea what you're talking about. First, pogo is not an engine problem, it is a vehicle problem. Second, your claim of "always... major problems" is refuted by the observed flight characteristics of the Apollo missions, as well as Skylab. Third, again, Skylab was not damaged due to pogo. (Pokrovsky said that they had to reduce the performance 20 %).Pokrovsky is demonstrably incompetent, and his assertions are at odds with, well, all the world's aerospace engineers. ...I must repeat that Soviet politicians did not have any interest to deny the success of Apollo. But the space scientists knew exactly what the reality was (and maybe informed politicians).Soviet "space scientists", the engineers and cosmonauts who were trying themselves to get to the Moon, did indeed know what the reality was, and acknowledged that Apollo did go to the Moon. <snip laughable sociopolitical fantasy> PS - it is not very nice to call experts having probably more knowledge on space research as hoaxers or conspiracy theorists - those other people who are repeating Wikipedia or NASA/Apollo sketches are parrots ... nothing more - so leave out such wording.First of all, "conspiracy theorist" is simply someone who theorizes a conspiracy - which is exactly what you and Pokrovsky are doing*. It is a descriptive term, not a pejorative one. Second, you don't have more knowledge. I am a practicing space engineer with two decades in this field and a decent collection of science and engineering degrees, and I am outshone here by several other engineers. There are non-engineers on this board who themselves have amassed significantly more Apollo knowledge as well; several have quite a bit more Apollo-specific knowledge than me. *Calling what you are doing "theorizing" is being generous. Neither you nor Pokrovsky has a theory; you have speculation, some bad measurements, various factual errors, counterhistorical claims, and an inability to account for all the piles and piles of other evidence for Apollo.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Dec 15, 2011 12:57:58 GMT -4
...For example, NASA tells that the weight of air lock was 22 tons... Some more Skylab mass figures picked from various NASA reports: ... The NASA board investigating the launch problems with Skylab gave these masses: ... Airlock Module: 22,226 kg ... OK, I apologize - I believe I'm looking at a subassembly weight for the pressurized parts of the Airlock Module, which total what I said in my post above (about 15,000 lbs). The TM cites AM weight: 15,166 lbs <-- pressurized segments only, not the entire AM assembly FAS weight: 22,749 lbs DA weight: 3,744 lbs which I think are included as a composite in the figures of 22 tons/~22,000 kg by the posters quoted above. So I will allow that tsialkovsky cited a correct weight for the entire AM, and have marked up my earlier post accordingly. However, that does not change the point that he is still wildly wrong in his claims that even if it was a solid aluminum ingot that it wouldn't make up the stated weight. I showed that even a ridiculously conservative cartoon of the AM - just the two pressurized fixed segments alone - disproved that rather conclusively. tsialkovsky's claims still fail the sanity check rather badly.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Dec 15, 2011 12:26:59 GMT -4
For example, NASA tells that the weight of air lock was 22 tons.Wrong.
Referring to NASA TM-X-04810, Skylab Airlock Module Final Report, the mass of the Airlock Module was a little over 15,000 pounds. Edited to reflect a difference between pressurized cylindrical segments only, and the entire composite assembly. tsailkovsky's citation above is not wrong.The volume of this module is 17 m3. If that would be completely full solid aluminium, that would weight 47 tons. This means that it should have been half filled with aluminium - which is a big lie. I measured the cross sections and only 15-20 % was some material which means that the real weight is 7-9 tons. Wrong , again. Edited - see above edit note.If we consider only the two fixed cylindrical pressure vessel sections, the tunnel assembly (153" L, 65" dia) and the Structure Transition Section (47" L, 120" dia), and represent them as simple "average" aluminum cylinders, then they would only need to be a little over 3" thick to exceed the documented mass. But suppose we used your incorrect value of 22 tons (44,000 lbs). Again, using only the two-cylinder cartoon, the thickness of the two sections would only have to be about 9.3 inches. That would mean that the tunnel assembly was about half empty, and the STS was about 7/10 empty. So even using your wrong value, you're still wildly off. And, of course, the cylindrical sections had or needed no such thickness of aluminum to make up the listed mass, since there were a lot of things making up the airlock module, including an external truss assembly, tanks, provisions, fittings, wiring, instrumentation, internal bracing, etc. The weight of Skylab body was even less than 8 tons because removal of J-2 engine with all the accessories should be considered. And airlock replaced it as told and measured above. You can have the total mass of 30 tons - not more. You have the wrong number for the ATM mass, and you have demonstrated that you cannot even perform a simple sanity check of your values. That is one of the first things that engineers like Bob and I do, and we have shown your "solid cylinder" claims to be completely off base. And engines had extensive pogo problems even then breaking the vehicle's shielding and solar panels.Wrong again. POGO was not the cause of the Skylab launch mishap. Only Russians have lifted extensive loads to LEO...Fantasy. I trust very much Russian investigations 1969 at the Florida coast.Of course you trust completely unsourced "investigations", but you don't trust the Soviet engineers and cosmonauts who came to talk about the "race" to the Moon and the success of Apollo, because you have a fixed ideology and must protect it. With that fleet of electronic spying ships they can tel the Saturn V figures with 3 decimals.Tell what to 3 decimal places? How, exactly? And where is your actual evidence for any of this? Meanwhile, Soviet electronic resources that are actually documented tracked Apollo to the Moon. It is pity that Pokrovsky and others are not allowed to use spy data in publications (Russian foreign policy).Anonymous fantasizing aside, his incompetence, and yours, in this "analysis" have been well established.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Dec 14, 2011 17:43:01 GMT -4
it had a massive solar telescope with its own solar panels.
The Apollo Telescope Mount launch weight was approximately 25,000 lbs, or a little over 11,300 kg. See NASA TM-X-64811, Skylab Apollo Telescope Mount.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Dec 14, 2011 13:25:15 GMT -4
Americans really want to tell that there was a competition to the moon between USA and SU - and USA won.
There was, and it did. Your personal dislike for the fact does not negate history. Besides, the USSR acknowledged and congratulated the US on its sucessful manned lunar landing on A11.
US media has done everything to find smallest pieces of Soviet moon interests. Unfortunately this is not true. N-1 was a natural continuation to develop bigger and bigger rockets mostly for construction of space stations - it was not a moon rocket.
It became one, but too late and with too few resources.
And Soviet engineers met the same probles as the US ... there is a physical limit with rocket size.
The Soviets had a problem making larger engines because their material technology wasn't as advanced. The U.S. was able to use a design which was more efficient and much more reliable overall.
N-1 failed and so did F-1, which was only little better than S-1B
Gibberish. The N-1 was a heavy-lift launch vehicle, the F-1 was an engine, and the S-1B was a first stage, unless you mean the Saturn 1B, which was a launch vehicle with a completely different purpose than the N-1 ever had.
and definitely not capable of sending 47 tons with Saturn V to the trans lunar orbit (probably not even to LEO).
Conclusively disproven, with only a flawed and debunked video "analysis" to support this fantasy.
Soviet engineers...
like Vasili Mishin, acknowledged that Apollo succeeded. You may not like it, and they did not enjoy it at the time, but the engineers knew and accepted it.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Dec 14, 2011 11:42:16 GMT -4
playdor, I know you've been busy searching for promotional videos you can say have something to do with the documented Apollo record, so in case you missed it: ...Armstrong's answer is also inclusive with cislunar inner space and that when space is viewed from cislunar inner space, space is a deep black and the only visible objects are the earth the sun and the moon. Stars are not visible. Neil Armstrong says you can see stars:071:59:20 Armstrong: Houston, it's been a real change for us. Now we're able to see stars again and recognize constellations for the first time on the trip. It's - the sky is full of stars. Just like the night side of Earth. But all the way here, we've only been able to see stars occasionally and perhaps through the monocular, but not recognize any star patterns. 071:59:52 McCandless (CAPCOM): I guess it's turned into night up there really, hasn't it? 071:59:58 Armstrong: Really has. Also, I still want to know exactly what you mean by claiming to have "mulitple degrees in science".
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Dec 14, 2011 11:38:42 GMT -4
There were very few Apollo pictures available in 70s ... mostly they came in 80s ... and of course were distributed much later via Internet.
Backtracking noted. First you claimed
the pics were produced in 1990s
then when that was instantly shown to be laughably wrong, you start waving your hands about "very few" in the 70s and "mostly" in the '80s. Popping smoke and retreating doesn't save you from the fact you're still wrong; that imagery was available to the public before the '80s.
The best pictures are very recent ones and they are definitely not Hasselblad pictures.
First, this is wrong since the pictures are manifestly not recent since they were distributed during the program. Second, I would love to see your present your evidence for the claim that they are not Hasselblad images to the photographers on this board.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Dec 14, 2011 11:23:58 GMT -4
There were few problems with Apollo: 1) Saturn V was not able to carry such a payload to even low earth orbit (physical limitations
You have failed to square this claim with the observed properties of the Saturn V, let alone the measured and documented masses of the various payloads.
and some Russian investigations);
The Russians (Soviets) acknowledged that Apollo worked as intended, and congratulated the U.S. for the successful missions.
2) LM did not have a manageable steering system
Wrong. The LM had a very capable digital autopilot as well as man-in-the-loop control for terminal guidance for docking and landing. It also had a well-documented reaction control system for "steering" with plenty of control authority. And the Apollo guidance system was considerably more sophisticated than that of Gemini, Mercury, or the Vostok and early Soyuz spacecraft.
(today they desperately try to develop those with fast computers and moving rocket engines);
Wrong on multiple counts.
First, your use of the term "desperately" is meaningless melodrama, as appropriate spacecraft guidance has been in use for decades.
Second, fast computers are manifestly unnecessary, as generations of spacecraft have performed quite well with computers that are extremely slow and limited by today's standards; many early spacecraft had no general-purpose computer architecture at all.
Third, "moving" (gimbaled) engines are not used in most spacecraft. Most use fixed reaction control thrusters (like the Apollo LM ascent stage and the CM). The Space Shuttle uses fixed OMS engines and thrusters on orbit (the gimbaling main engines are only used on ascent). Unmanned spacecraft use thrusters, reaction wheels, magnetic torquers, etc., but very few if any use gimbaled engines. So you're wrong about the need for gimbaling. And you're also wrong about the implied lack on Apollo, since the LM descent stage did have a gimbaled engine.
3) They did not have docking technology in LM/CM (their own statement);
Flatly wrong. The LM/CSM docking mechanisms and guidance are exhaustively and publicly documented.
4) Moonrocks are at least mostly from earth (several studies and compared with SU samples);
Wildly wrong. The lunar samples have been categorically identifed as being collected in situ on the Moon by the world's geological community, and their collection and provenance have been exhaustively documented.
5) NASA has been caught from so many lies that something is wrong.
Bald, unsupported assertion, based on your ignorant misunderstandings of the subject.
My theory is that the Moon photos have been produced as follows (remember, the pics were produced in 1990s
Wrong. The entire Apollo photographic record has been available for decades. Just because you confuse "freely downloadable from the Web" with "existing" does not mean that reality is obliged to conform to your limited experience. I personally obtained photographs from the JSC image library - as in ordered them, and went there in person and picked them up - in the early '80s.
and sophisticated software were available):
Wrong. There was no such ability when the Apollo images were originally produced and made available to the public.
1) Pics were made using a simple GIS...
Fantasy, and decades after the images were actually released.
...The JAXA Selene pictures are good examples of the methodology - you just add the 3rd layer described above and get exactly Apollo pics. The 3D models made using new data are more detailed than the Apollo pics because now better topographic contour data can be used.
Irrelevant, unless you plan to show me high-resolution still or motion imagery of actual EVA operations on the surface, such as deployment of the ALSEP on various missions.
It would be easy to transfer the 3rd layer data to e.g. LRO pictures as they are in a same coordinate system.
It would be easier to actually perform the missions rather than attempt to credibly fake them by your scheme. Just because you don't understand the scope and depth of the Apollo record doesnt' mean the scientists and engineers who made it happen and have studied it for decades don't.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Dec 12, 2011 18:28:47 GMT -4
...Armstrong's answer is also inclusive with cislunar inner space and that when space is viewed from cislunar inner space, space is a deep black and the only visible objects are the earth the sun and the moon. Stars are not visible. Neil Armstrong says you can see stars:071:59:20 Armstrong: Houston, it's been a real change for us. Now we're able to see stars again and recognize constellations for the first time on the trip. It's - the sky is full of stars. Just like the night side of Earth. But all the way here, we've only been able to see stars occasionally and perhaps through the monocular, but not recognize any star patterns. 071:59:52 McCandless (CAPCOM): I guess it's turned into night up there really, hasn't it? 071:59:58 Armstrong: Really has. That's what happens when the viewing conditions are right, as when the spacecraft is in the Moon's shadow. playdor, since you apparently are only able to listen to words from Neil Armstrong regarding stars - do you finally acknowledge the "no stars" claim is bogus?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Dec 12, 2011 2:10:08 GMT -4
i have multiple degrees in science playdor, please explain exactly what you mean by this claim. Please explain how you "know how [science] works" when you refuse to examine the relevant concepts, mission planning, analyses, and experience reports for the Gemini rendezvous and docking and instead complain people haven't provided enough video. Also, please explain why your wide-ranging ignorance of the topics, and endless series of fundmental mistakes, do not cause you to re-examine your central premise, as an actual scientist would do.
|
|