|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 29, 2005 11:51:28 GMT -4
Perhaps the nay-sayers can tell us all how THEY think the new missions should look. . . That's the thing, they don't seem to realise that they look similar because it's the best way to do it. Guess what the Russian LK (Lunar Lander) looked like.......
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Sept 29, 2005 12:24:58 GMT -4
Perhaps the nay-sayers can tell us all how THEY think the new missions should look. . .I can imagine margamatix saying, "First, get a lot more lead..." Not that he was able to back up his assertion (depicted visually here) that the Apollo missions needed lead shielding. Or explain why the Van Allen belts were such an insurmountable obstacle, despite the fact that the man they are named after worked with NASA to design the Apollo trajectories and has explicitly refuted CT claims trying to use him and his work as evidence against Apollo.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Sept 29, 2005 12:28:22 GMT -4
Perhaps the nay-sayers can tell us all how THEY think the new missions should look. . . That's the thing, they don't seem to realise that they look similar because it's the best way to do it. Guess what the Russian LK (Lunar Lander) looked like....... And how many people did this contraption bring back from the moon?
|
|
|
Post by skinbath on Sept 29, 2005 12:32:29 GMT -4
Perhaps the nay-sayers can tell us all how THEY think the new missions should look. . . That's the thing, they don't seem to realise that they look similar because it's the best way to do it. Guess what the Russian LK (Lunar Lander) looked like....... Well this time you`ve got it plain WRONG...... This is obviously one of those things the Ruskies brew their tea in.....the samovar....
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 29, 2005 12:38:49 GMT -4
And how many people did this contraption bring back from the moon? Well apart from that fact it wasn't designed to return, and was only tested in earth orbit. I guess you're next claim is going to be that the Russians designed it because they were planning to fake their missions too?
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Sept 29, 2005 12:38:58 GMT -4
Well this time you`ve got it plain WRONG...... This is obviously one of those things the Ruskies brew their tea in.....the samovar.... I think you might be on to something there............
|
|
|
Post by rocketdad on Sept 29, 2005 12:39:12 GMT -4
Margamatix is once again changing the subject, begging the question, and throwing emotional language (contraption) around as if it means anything. A
The point is not whether it brought back cosmonauts but how somebody else designed something to go to the moon and bring 'em back. Are you suggesting (again) that a truck driver is more qualified to design equipment than rocket scientists? If so, then PONY UP AND POST A DRAWING!
It does look like a contaption, though. Perhaps that's why the Russians didn't bother to send it after we sent A11, they realized how much further behind they were in technology and design. Not a bit of mylar on it. How much did it weigh?
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Sept 29, 2005 12:40:51 GMT -4
[ Well apart from that fact it wasn't designed to return, and was only tested in earth orbit. Oh well, such minor differences that it hardly seems worth nitpicking!
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Sept 29, 2005 12:43:59 GMT -4
. Are you suggesting (again) that a truck driver is more qualified to design equipment than rocket scientists? Is a truck driver more qualified than a Defence Secretary to have a correct view on whether Iraq had WMDs? Never be fooled by "mathemagics" rocketdad.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 29, 2005 12:47:56 GMT -4
The reason it never landed was twofold, nd neither of them what you are thinking. Firstly because they tried to automate it rather than letting the pilot fly it, which ment long delays, and secondly, the Rocket that was supposed to get it up into orbit and then to the moon had a habit of blowing up.
While it is a lot smaller, it is only designed for one person, not two, and had no tunnel like the LM, the Cosmonaut would transfer from the LOK via a space walk prior to and after the mission, but like the LM it is a two stage module, a descent and ascent module.
The question is, if the LM was so wrong in your opinion, why does the Russian design look and work in such a similar manner? Or are you going to claim they were planning to fake their missions as well? In which case, why didn't they?
|
|
|
Post by rocketdad on Sept 29, 2005 12:47:57 GMT -4
"Mathemagics"? Nice way to tip your hand, Bart.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 29, 2005 12:52:31 GMT -4
. Are you suggesting (again) that a truck driver is more qualified to design equipment than rocket scientists? Is a truck driver more qualified than a Defence Secretary to have a correct view on whether Iraq had WMDs? Never be fooled by "mathemagics" rocketdad. ROFL. And you drive a truck (based n math by engineers) over bridges (based on math by engineers) and go into buidlings? By the way, Quality of Intel on Iraq and the pure science behind space flight are so different you might as well be trying to compare oranges and chimpaezes. Or are you trying to tell us you know more about space flight and space craft than both the Russian and American aerospace industries combined?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 29, 2005 12:59:03 GMT -4
It does look like a contaption, though. Perhaps that's why the Russians didn't bother to send it after we sent A11, they realized how much further behind they were in technology and design. Not a bit of mylar on it. How much did it weigh? Not sure the weight, though I could find out. It actually looks very similar to the LM without it's mylar foil outer, though obviously smaller. They weren't hugely behind in the Lander side of things, and even the LOK was ready. They just couldn't launch them because the N-1 had a nasty habit of exploding everytime they attempted to fly it. It was sort 300 feet of fuel on top of 30 unstable rocket engines. They didn't give up after Apollo 11 either, they actually quit their Lunar lander program in 1974.
|
|
|
Post by rocketdad on Sept 29, 2005 13:11:56 GMT -4
www.astronautix.com/graphics/v/vonbland.jpgClass: Manned. Type: Lunar Lander. Destination: Moon. Nation: USA. Manufacturer: Von Braun. Von Braun's first lunar lander design was an immense spacecraft, larger in earth orbit than a Saturn V booster. Three of them would take a 50-crew expedition to a six-week exploration of the moon at Sinus Roris in 1977. Von Braun outlined the first expedition to the moon only after he had calculated the necessary trajectories and masses for an expedition to Mars. Like the Mars expedition, the first lunar journey would be a grand journey, modelled intentionally on the exploratory trips of Columbus. No fewer than fifty engineers and scientists would fly to the moon aboard three spacecraft assembled in earth orbit. At 3964 tonnes each, one of these spacecraft alone, already in earth orbit, had the same mass as the Saturn V used 16 years later to launch the actual first lunar voyage from the earth's surface. Two of the lunar landers would house 20 crew, and one 10 crew plus 259 tonnes of cargo for lunar exploration. The cargo lander would be left on the lunar surface; the crew would return in two of the landers, 25 men per spacecraft.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Sept 29, 2005 13:27:32 GMT -4
Not a bit of mylar on it. How much did it weigh? About five and a half tonnes. The descent stage was relatively much smaller than the LM's because the mission profile differed from Apollo's in that the final stage of the N1 launch vehicle would have been used for most of the descent deceleration. No doubt that thermal blankets would have been fitted, much like those of Soyuz.
|
|