|
Post by LunarOrbit on Mar 29, 2006 3:49:52 GMT -4
How it is possible to forget something that was invented and created only 37 years ago ? Aren't there any records, any blueprints ? Go ask Ford to build you a new 1969 Mustang... and see if they can do it in the same time it takes to build a 2006 Mustang. By your logic they should be able to do it... afterall, if they could build them in 1969 they should be able to do it now, right?
|
|
|
Post by james on Mar 29, 2006 4:40:12 GMT -4
Count Zero: That was an excellent explanation on the heat/temperature on the moon. I never understood it well enough to explain it to another person if I had to, but now I think I could. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Mar 29, 2006 4:42:59 GMT -4
How the computer with 32 kb memory stores the star systems information, and can "swing" the supposed sextant toward those stars systems ? That is a half Commodore 64. With much slower processor, bus and peripherals. How old are you? When I started work, the one computer in the company had 64 words of core memory plus a 7k magnetic drum, yet we used it for engineering calculations. Swinging a sextant is a fairly simple problem in trigonometry, easily done with a computer the size of Apollo's. They only used a few navigation stars, and storing two co-ordinates per star doesn't take a lot of memory.
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Mar 29, 2006 5:22:05 GMT -4
Isn't this the crux of the matter. Ford didn't peak in 1969. They can still make muscle cars like the 69 mustang. Maybe not as nice to look at though. If Ford had made the LEM ??
|
|
|
Post by james on Mar 29, 2006 6:06:00 GMT -4
Isn't this the crux of the matter. Ford didn't peak in 1969. They can still make muscle cars like the 69 mustang. Maybe not as nice to look at though. If Ford had made the LEM ?? Sure they can make cars like the 69 Mustang, but I believe the point was that Ford couldn't make an exact replica of one. They don't build cars the same way they did then as they do today. The tools and materials have changed, thus they can not build a 69 Mustang exactly like they used to.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Mar 29, 2006 6:21:52 GMT -4
Isn't this the crux of the matter. Ford didn't peak in 1969. They can still make muscle cars like the 69 mustang. Maybe not as nice to look at though. If Ford had made the LEM ?? Sure they can make cars like the 69 Mustang, but I believe the point was that Ford couldn't make an exact replica of one. They don't build cars the same way they did then as they do today. The tools and materials have changed, thus they can not build a 69 Mustang exactly like they used to. To elaborate, I believe the point was more specifically that Ford couldn't make an exact replica of a 69 Mustang in the same amount of time as a new Mustang. They have the capability, but they would have to build it basically from scratch, all the way from making blueprints to manufacturing new parts to using a different assembly method and possibly hiring people who specialize in building old cars. Because their methods of production are so different now, they would have to "relearn" how to build the 69 Mustang and that would take considerable time, money, effort, and change to their system of production.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Mar 29, 2006 6:37:46 GMT -4
Okay, nasamoonedamerica. Some friendly advice.
You should start noticing that the Apollo believers on this site are taking the time to thoroughly explain their position regarding the points you have brought up, and you should be starting to get the impression they know what they are talking about. Indeed, these are folks who do this stuff for a living.
Where most hoax proponents go terribly wrong in debates such as these on this forum and others is to not respond to specific refutations; I hope you are not one of those.
For example, it has been explained to you now, by engineers, why it would be so difficult to re-create the Apollo missions today. Instead of simply restating your disbelief, you should either take these experienced engineers at their word, provide an example of another experienced engineer who disagrees with them, or state your engineering experience and why you think they are wrong.
What gets tedious very quickly is somebody who simply states they don't believe something over and over and over again instead of an honest addressing of evidence contrary to their position.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Mar 29, 2006 6:50:27 GMT -4
My Grandfather spent most of his working life as a Toolmaker with Blackburn Aircraft/Hawker Siddley/British Aerospace.
This was a full-time job involving significant new expertise, new, improved methodologies and significant inputs of (over)time, whenever a new aircraft (or in reality parts of a new aircraft, as they generally built only the wings) was placed on the line.
Moreover, the factory in which he was employed was involved in a large number of prototype vehicles which required tools to be built for effectively a one-off project, kind of like Apollo in terms of numbers of vehicles produced, which were generally dismantled as soon as a decision was made to not proceed a prototype design into production, or even to change the design slightly requiring different tooling to be put together.
When he retired he was a highly skilled man with decades of experience, all of which was lost to the company at that point in time.
Sure, all the designs for the tools he helped to build throughout his career may well have been retained, but without the knowledge of my Grandfather and the rest of his team how easy would it be for subsequent generations of engineers to recreate those tools to do the same job.
Alternatively, as a number of years have passed and new methodologies have been developed, those tool designs could now be totally inappropriate, meaning that the current generation of toolmakers have to effectively start all over again from a blank piece of paper.
nasamoonedamerica, you seem to be under the impression from Ralph Rene that engineering on this scale is something very straightforward that can just be picked up and put down at will.
It doesn't work that way, pure and simple.
Crass example ... my band is currently recording a new album in a digital studio where everything is done within the computer once recorded. The bass player and lead guitarist both have a background in analogue recording, and have a great deal of knowledge and expertise in sound and recording in general.
Stick everything on half-inch tape with a floor-ceiling rack of hardware processors, and they will produce you an album. Confront them with sequencer software and a HD full of wav files and software processors and they will stare at you like you are from another planet.
End result ... still an album full of music using all the same underlying principles but produced using vastly different methodologies. Sergeant Pepper was produced on four-track tape, X&Y within a PC/Mac. Same product, different methodologies.
Going to the moon is the same ... Apollo used the engineering practices and techniques of the 1960s, a new US moon shot will use the practices and techniques of the 21st century (assuming that the US Gov pony up the dough to make it happen).
You would not try to record an album using four-track tape nowadays. Likewise, you would not try to recreate moon landing hardware using Apollo technology.
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Mar 29, 2006 7:01:57 GMT -4
I understood Lunarorbits post very well, the thing is I cant see anywhere where anyone asked for an exact duplicate of anything to be rolled out. There is a difference between replicating something using known techniques and duplicating something down to the Mylar tape.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Mar 29, 2006 7:09:15 GMT -4
I understood Lunarorbits post very well, the thing is I cant see anywhere where anyone asked for an exact duplicate of anything to be rolled out. There is a difference between replicating something using known techniques and duplicating something down to the Mylar tape. My impression of what was implied is that the fact we went to the moon over 30 years ago should have anything to do with the length of time it will take to return. There are other, easily quantified reasons why we haven't been back and why it will take so long to return, and the length of time it is taking for a return trip is certainly not evidence of an Apollo hoax.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Mar 29, 2006 7:58:06 GMT -4
Welcome Mooned... The physics of "space" navigation has been a given since the late 50s. The science is sound, having been used and tested through thousands of flights into space, be it Earth orbit or Voyager's trip outside the solar system. The ability to navigate accurately depends more on the hardware operating as planned, the engines producine the planned thrust to impart a known force on a known mass in a given direction. When all the variables are known, the results are precisely predictable. Sometimes small adjustments are needed, often the "variances" fall below the threshhold and tweaks aren't called for. It's rocket science, yes, but when the problem is worked and all the variables inserted, there is always a right answer at the end. All of the spacefaring countries run by these physical laws. It wasn't magic that we got to the Moon. Political will (Cold War), enthusiastic engineering (with some "outside the box" thinking), and a robust industrial base, with sufficient funding, accomplished it. It wasn't always perfect, there were glitches and such in every flight. In every flight the ingenuity of the crew and ground team overcame obstacles and got things done. There is nothing "unbelievable" about going to the Moon. It's about understanding the challenges and issues, and engineering solutions for them. As new problems arose, they were addressed for follow-on missions. We will go back when we as a nation decide to. Meanwhile, other nations are also working on the trip. There is nothing holding us to low Earth orbit except lack of motivation for bigger things.
Dave
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Mar 29, 2006 8:03:57 GMT -4
Point Taken.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Mar 29, 2006 8:32:46 GMT -4
How the radar from earth can tell where the spacecraft is ? The radar can only tell how far from earth the spacecraft is and no way it can tell the bearing. And the "pilot" of the apollo 11 Michael Collins in his book "Carrying the fire", claims that using the on board computer with 32 kb memory was able to "swing the sextant" toward the previously selected navigational stars.
Tracking in Apollo did not solely use radar. I really urge you to know the facts before making claims. I dont think you'd be terribly impressed with my argument if I asked how you could possibly post messages here without using a CB radio.
Apollo tracking used a new concept called Unified S-Band which was a signal which carried telemetry, and communications, which was sent via radio waves, not radar. Radar was used by the LM prior to landing, and in the case of Apollo 14, nearly caused serious problems when it did not want to cooperate.
Tracking is the same for any spacecraft in space. I can reconfigure a TV satellite receiver and antenna to track the ISS if I so choose. (It would be a hell of a lot of unnessesary work, but in theory it is very possible).
In addition, 3 coord bearings do not use mammoth amounts of computer memory. The preselected satellite position coords on our video receiver use a tiny (I mean tiny) amount of memory. These are also simple elevation, azimuth, and polarity settings. We can store thousands of coords on a simple receiver. We just push a button and the antenna steers towards our desired satellite. Heck we can even locate a satellite by hand (and no I dont particularly endorse that method...but sometimes you have no choice). Let me ask you, how much memory is required to store a x,y, z set of coords?
I agree with some of the other people's statement. You came here requesting serious scientific discussion, and yet you resort fairly quickly to cheap shots and definite statements with regards to something you are clearly not well versed on. That in itself is not a bad thing; willful ignorance is, though.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Mar 29, 2006 9:32:33 GMT -4
OK, coming in late, but:
"Nine times in a row the Apollo capsulesslipped into lunar orbit without needing a major burn to correct their trajectory.
Nope, they all performed midcourse corrections on the way to the Moon. Not that it matters. Orbital mechanics determines trajectories quite nicely. Voyager 2 flew past Neptune only a few seconds late, and that was twelve years after it was launched, and even more years after someone plotted its trajectory. Prior to Apollo several American and Russian probes slipped into lunar orbit quite nicely as well. Where is the problem with Apollo?
The LEM, with its center of gravity far above the single rocket engine powering it,
I know Jay has already pointed this out, but it does bear repeating. Go and look up the design of the LM. The centre of gravity is actually very low compared to the engine. Both ascent and descent stages have the fuel tanks clustered around the engine. Now compare that to the Saturn V that launched the Apollo spacecraft in the first place: virtually all of its mass is above the engines, and in a column roughly the same width as the engine cluster. Certainly there is negligible mass below or surrounding the centre of thrust, yet that seemed to fly OK, wouldn’t you agree?
landed wihtin spitting distance of the target site five out of six ties. It was guided by Houston Ground Control operating at a distance of 230,000 miles.
Utterly and completely wrong. Its trajectory was calculated well in advance, but mission control had absolutely no control over the spacecraft during landing. It was guided in by a landing radar and two highly trained human pilots. No-one involved with Apollo has ever claimed the LM was landed remotely by people in Houston. The fact that Rene makes such an argument shows a complete lack of research into the reality of the matter.
Yet 37 years later they can't land shuttle here on earth if there are clouds over the Kennedy Sapce port"
The astronauts need to see where they are going in case the automatic system has problems. Once the shuttle is set for re-entry it has no choice but to come back to Earth. The LM had an abort function: the ascent stage could be separated and fired to get the LM back into orbit. The shuttle has no such capability, since it has no fuel left for such a manoeuvre.
Six times in a row, the top half o the LEM made precise rendezvous with the command capsule after lifting off from the lunar surface.
Rendezvous was a well practiced technique by the time of Apollo. Project Gemini was designed specifically to cover that and other key techniques, and by the time of the first rendezvous from the lunar surface NASA had performed over twenty rendezvous manoeuvres.
Also the apollo's made nine deadly accurate re-entires into the Earth's atmophere, again apparently wihtout the need of major corections.
Again wrong. Rene apparently does not know what constitutes a course correction. If you get the trajectory right on leaving lunar orbit you won’t need huge corrections.
OK. How it is possible to forget something that was invented and created only 37 years ago ? Aren't there any records, any blueprints ?
Yes, plenty. That doesn’t mean it can be made. There has never been anything like the Saturn V made since Skylab in 1973. Materials, design and fabrication techniques have advanced a lot in the last thirty or forty years. If we want to make a new Saturn V type vehicle the design has to be made virtually from scratch, since every aspect affects every other aspect.
The radar can only tell how far from earth the spacecraft is and no way it can tell the bearing.
What expertise have you in Apollo telemetry and tracking that allows you to make such a judgement? Do you know what a Doppler shift is, and how it can be used to measure speed?
How the computer with 32 kb memory stores the star systems information, and can "swing" the supposed sextant toward those stars systems ? That is a half Commodore 64. With much slower processor, bus and peripherals.
What computing expertise do you have that allows you to determine what can be done with computers, and why do you think that comparing a dedicated system to a domestic computer is valid?
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Mar 29, 2006 9:46:42 GMT -4
Folks seem to think the Commodore was a piece of junk...in it's day, it was cutting edge (for consumer electronics). The Apollo computer didn't need to do graphics, didn't have a bloated OS, didn't need to to a lot of fancy stuff. It did...math. It crunched numbers, using a very trim, austere program. 32kb can do a lot when properly programmed. We waste a lot of CPU power on interfaces these days, back then the interface was verbs and nouns. AGS was quite suitable for the task assigned.
Dave
|
|