[JRowe]

A lunar module where they rely on such a fragile layer and the desperate prayer that there's no mistake in order to survive, constantly pressurizing and depressurizing unnecessarily complex mechanisms.

Where are you getting the impression that the lunar module was "constantly pressurizing and depressurizing"?  To the best of my knowledge, the only times that it was depressurized and pressurized was for the EVAs.

Which entails pressurizing and depressurizing, especially on later missions:

For the later Apollo missions the LM stayed on the surface for several days, so bring able to take off spacesuits is a requirement.

The lunar module didn't have an airlock. They had to vent all the air within it every time they wanted to go outside, and then it all rushed back in when they got back to the ship, or when they spent days down there and had to take their suits off.

You really should consider choosing your words more carefully because 1-2 depressurize/pressurize cycles per day can hardly be considered "constantly".  I would also think that the pressurization could be controlled well enough where the air could hardly be considered rushing back in.

Flowery language hardly invalidates the point. It's unnecessary strain whether it's once a day or a hundred.

[Tumeni]

Which entails pressurizing and depressurizing, especially on later missions:

... but not constant pressurizing and depressurizing - just when there were EVAs
 
The lunar module didn't have an airlock. They had to vent all the air within it every time they wanted to go outside, and then it all rushed back in when they got back to the ship, or when they spent days down there and had to take their suits off.

Yeah, so?

If a few minutes exposes multiple holes in the official story ...

But it doesn't. You think it does, but others, myself included, disagree.

[JRowe]

But it doesn't. You think it does, but others, myself included, disagree.

Then for the love of god, stop blindly insisting and make a goddamn response one of these days. You seem to think 'I disagree!' trumps reasoning and logic.
Actually give an answer, or I'm going to block you, I'm thoroughly sick of your prevaricating.

[markjo]

A lunar module where they rely on such a fragile layer and the desperate prayer that there's no mistake in order to survive, constantly pressurizing and depressurizing unnecessarily complex mechanisms.

Where are you getting the impression that the lunar module was "constantly pressurizing and depressurizing"?  To the best of my knowledge, the only times that it was depressurized and pressurized was for the EVAs.

Which entails pressurizing and depressurizing, especially on later missions:

For the later Apollo missions the LM stayed on the surface for several days, so bring able to take off spacesuits is a requirement.

The lunar module didn't have an airlock. They had to vent all the air within it every time they wanted to go outside, and then it all rushed back in when they got back to the ship, or when they spent days down there and had to take their suits off.

You really should consider choosing your words more carefully because 1-2 depressurize/pressurize cycles per day can hardly be considered "constantly".  I would also think that the pressurization could be controlled well enough where the air could hardly be considered rushing back in.

Flowery language hardly invalidates the point.

But imprecise language can.

It's unnecessary strain whether it's once a day or a hundred.

If you want to do an EVA, then depressurizing/pressurizing is a very necessary strain that you limit to as few times as necessary.  BTW, the LM was pressurized to all of 4.8 psi when in space or on the moon, so there wasn't as much strain as you might think.  A soda can experiences a lot more pressure than that.

[JRowe]

It's unnecessary strain whether it's once a day or a hundred.

If you want to do an EVA, then depressurizing/pressurizing is a very necessary strain that you limit to as few times as necessary.  BTW, the LM was pressurized to all of 4.8 psi when in space or on the moon, so there wasn't as much strain as you might think.  A soda can experiences a lot more pressure than that.

It isn't the constant pressure, it's the variation in that pressure, the strain of air being evacuated and then released back into it. It's pressure that ought to be completely unnecessary for the lunar module, hence my whole point, we get fed a story about a ridiculous and thoroughly impractical construction because it looks good and has a cool factor, but it does not make sense.
No competent engineer would want to put undue and unnecessary strain on a module given that if it fails upon depressurization, the astronauts are screwed. Everything else aside, does that sound sensible to you?

[markjo]

It's unnecessary strain whether it's once a day or a hundred.

If you want to do an EVA, then depressurizing/pressurizing is a very necessary strain that you limit to as few times as necessary.  BTW, the LM was pressurized to all of 4.8 psi when in space or on the moon, so there wasn't as much strain as you might think.  A soda can experiences a lot more pressure than that.

It isn't the constant pressure, it's the variation in that pressure, the strain of air being evacuated and then released back into it.

 
Huh?  What kind of strain are you talking about? 

It's pressure that ought to be completely unnecessary for the lunar module, hence my whole point, we get fed a story about a ridiculous and thoroughly impractical construction because it looks good and has a cool factor, but it does not make sense.

You think that the LM looks good?  Cool factor? 

No competent engineer would want to put undue and unnecessary strain on a module given that if it fails upon depressurization, the astronauts are screwed. Everything else aside, does that sound sensible to you?

How much strain do you think that a 4.8 psi pressure change imparts?  Do you think that some of that strain could be mitigated by gradually changing the pressure instead of just blasting the air in or out?

[Tumeni]

Then for the love of god, stop blindly insisting and make a goddamn response one of these days. You seem to think 'I disagree!' trumps reasoning and logic. Actually give an answer, or I'm going to block you, I'm thoroughly sick of your prevaricating.

I disagree that you have pointed out "holes in the story".  What else is there to say apart from that?

You think you have pointed them out, I disagree. You have not. Others disagree as well.  Again, you said;

"The rocket, composed of one airtight chamber with an attached airlock. That's two airtight doors, and it's inherently sturdier than a docking port made to break apart. All the living space the astronauts need; most of the room would be the artight chamber adjacent to the airlock. The airlock contains a non-airtight lunar lander, a frame with a few rockets on as gone into before, the only important parts, strapped to the side of the airlock chamber. Maybe pockets to store samples, and for later missions other air tanks; when used up, they can be left behind. The astronauts wear their spacesuits for the duration of the moonwalk only.

This is just what I came up with in a few minutes, but it is preferred by every metric to the lie we're told. "

This is so full of holes it resembles Swiss cheese. What metrics apply in this case? What "lie"? You haven't proven any lie.

You propose the astronauts wear suits for EVA only. That's what they did anyway.
You propose ditching stuff that isn't required for the remainder of the mission. That's what Apollo did.
As for the rest of it, where's your consideration of weight, materials, size, etc.?   

[JRowe]

Huh?  What kind of strain are you talking about? 

The force of air being pumped in and out and huge changes in pressure ... as I've said... repeatedly...

You think that the LM looks good?  Cool factor? 

Triumphant gold and white colors, the spiel on 'and the atmospheric pressure is so slight we only need to make it out of the most fragile tinfoil,' it's pure propaganda.

How much strain do you think that a 4.8 psi pressure change imparts?  Do you think that some of that strain could be mitigated by gradually changing the pressure instead of just blasting the air in or out?

Better question, why would they want any unnecessary strain? It's pretty well established that any airtight chamber with different pressures inside and out has a whole host of difficulties, that's been observed on Earth. Putting the crux of the whole moon landing through that is just absurd.

Then for the love of god, stop blindly insisting and make a goddamn response one of these days. You seem to think 'I disagree!' trumps reasoning and logic. Actually give an answer, or I'm going to block you, I'm thoroughly sick of your prevaricating.

I disagree that you have pointed out "holes in the story".  What else is there to say apart from that?

Actual responses rather than just blatantly ignoring what I've said over and over. You have 'objections' but when you're pushed to say what they actually are, you whine and evade and then ultimately just repeat rubbish I responded to in the posts you 'replied' to. Blocked. It really says a lot that you roundies feel the need to act so superior, but you're incapable of ever backing up what you say.

[markjo]

Huh?  What kind of strain are you talking about? 

The force of air being pumped in and out and huge changes in pressure ... as I've said... repeatedly...

And you think that the materials used couldn't handle the huge strain of a 4.8 psi pressure change because...?

How much strain do you think that a 4.8 psi pressure change imparts?  Do you think that some of that strain could be mitigated by gradually changing the pressure instead of just blasting the air in or out?

Better question, why would they want any unnecessary strain?

Who says that the strain is unnecessary?  Do you honestly think that the professional aerospace engineers involved weren't aware of the stresses and strains involved and couldn't design the LM accordingly?  Seriously, what makes you smarter than an aerospace engineer?

It's pretty well established that any airtight chamber with different pressures inside and out has a whole host of difficulties, that's been observed on Earth.

Do you mean like airplanes that routinely fly in excess of 35,000 ft?

[JRowe]

Who says that the strain is unnecessary?  Do you honestly think that the professional aerospace engineers involved weren't aware of the stresses and strains involved and couldn't design the LM accordingly?  Seriously, what makes you smarter than an aerospace engineer?

I think they were more concerned with the story they could tell than creating a practical lander. Instead of an empty appeal to authority, answer the question. This is a high risk, high profile mission, there's no need for the lunar module to be a pressure vessel (and indeed doing without that makes it significantly lighter and makes take-off much easier). Why would you make a heavier module and put it under unnecessary stress, rather than a lighter, practical one whose only drawback is not looking pretty?

It's pretty well established that any airtight chamber with different pressures inside and out has a whole host of difficulties, that's been observed on Earth.

Do you mean like airplanes that routinely fly in excess of 35,000 ft?

Yes, actually. That's still a much kinder environment than the moon, but look at the safety requirements, look at the sheer weight of the construction, look at what happens should a tiny hole form.
And then imagine all that when it's just tinfoil preventing a hole from forming, and building it with a massive limit on what weight you can have.

[markjo]

Who says that the strain is unnecessary?  Do you honestly think that the professional aerospace engineers involved weren't aware of the stresses and strains involved and couldn't design the LM accordingly?  Seriously, what makes you smarter than an aerospace engineer?

I think they were more concerned with the story they could tell than creating a practical lander. Instead of an empty appeal to authority, answer the question. This is a high risk, high profile mission, there's no need for the lunar module to be a pressure vessel (and indeed doing without that makes it significantly lighter and makes take-off much easier). Why would you make a heavier module and put it under unnecessary stress, rather than a lighter, practical one whose only drawback is not looking pretty?

But the lunar module did need to be pressurized.  Or do you think that it's possible to spend several days sealed in a space suit?  How do you suppose they were supposed to eat or drink if they couldn't get out of their space suits and into a pressurized environment? 

It's pretty well established that any airtight chamber with different pressures inside and out has a whole host of difficulties, that's been observed on Earth.

Do you mean like airplanes that routinely fly in excess of 35,000 ft?

Yes, actually. That's still a much kinder environment than the moon, but look at the safety requirements, look at the sheer weight of the construction, look at what happens should a tiny hole form.
And then imagine all that when it's just tinfoil preventing a hole from forming, and building it with a massive limit on what weight you can have.

Just because the thickness of the skin in some areas was comparable to tin foil doesn't mean that they used tin foil.  Besides, weren't you just saying that they should make the LM as light as possible?  It seems to me that they were just using as thin of a material as they thought that they could reasonable get away with.

[Ofcourseitsnotflat]

there's no need for the lunar module to be a pressure vessel

There is, if you want the astronauts to be able to breathe without their suits on. Or are you suggesting they should have been suited up for the whole duration?

[JRowe]

But the lunar module did need to be pressurized.  Or do you think that it's possible to spend several days sealed in a space suit?  How do you suppose they were supposed to eat or drink if they couldn't get out of their space suits and into a pressurized environment? 

As has already been mentioned in this thread, the limited number of missions in which they had to spend that much time on the moon they did have water and food in the spacesuits.
But rather than just assuming what you've been told is right, simple counter question: what possible purpose did spending several days on the moon's surface achieve? They collected rocks, supposedly from different seas each time so it's not like they needed to travel for more data, and like you say they would need to return to the lander so it's not like they could go too far anyway. There is nothing that could not be done in just a few hours.

Yes, actually. That's still a much kinder environment than the moon, but look at the safety requirements, look at the sheer weight of the construction, look at what happens should a tiny hole form.
And then imagine all that when it's just tinfoil preventing a hole from forming, and building it with a massive limit on what weight you can have.

Just because the thickness of the skin in some areas was comparable to tin foil doesn't mean that they used tin foil.  Besides, weren't you just saying that they should make the LM as light as possible?  It seems to me that they were just using as thin of a material as they thought that they could reasonable get away with.

It staggers me that you cannot see the problem there. You are defending contradictory requirements.

there's no need for the lunar module to be a pressure vessel

There is, if you want the astronauts to be able to breathe without their suits on. Or are you suggesting they should have been suited up for the whole duration?

Yes. Well done for noticing. Do you want a medal?

[markjo]

But the lunar module did need to be pressurized.  Or do you think that it's possible to spend several days sealed in a space suit?  How do you suppose they were supposed to eat or drink if they couldn't get out of their space suits and into a pressurized environment? 

As has already been mentioned in this thread, the limited number of missions in which they had to spend that much time on the moon they did have water and food in the spacesuits.

How much food and water did they have in the space suits?  I'll give you a hint, it wasn't nearly enough for the 3 days that Apollo 17 spent on the moon.

But rather than just assuming what you've been told is right, simple counter question: what possible purpose did spending several days on the moon's surface achieve? They collected rocks, supposedly from different seas each time so it's not like they needed to travel for more data...

Are you saying that collecting more samples from different areas and setting up more experiments are bad things?  If you're going to all of the bother to go to the moon, wouldn't it make sense to collect as much data as possible?

...and like you say they would need to return to the lander so it's not like they could go too far anyway. There is nothing that could not be done in just a few hours.

That's why Apollo 15-17 took lunar rovers with them, so they could go farther and gather more diverse samples.

Yes, actually. That's still a much kinder environment than the moon, but look at the safety requirements, look at the sheer weight of the construction, look at what happens should a tiny hole form.
And then imagine all that when it's just tinfoil preventing a hole from forming, and building it with a massive limit on what weight you can have.

Just because the thickness of the skin in some areas was comparable to tin foil doesn't mean that they used tin foil.  Besides, weren't you just saying that they should make the LM as light as possible?  It seems to me that they were just using as thin of a material as they thought that they could reasonable get away with.

It staggers me that you cannot see the problem there. You are defending contradictory requirements.

Are you serious?  Just about every engineering project ever has contradictory and conflicting requirements so you wind up with a lot of compromises.  Why should a trip to the moon be any different?

[Ofcourseitsnotflat]

there's no need for the lunar module to be a pressure vessel

>> are you suggesting they should have been suited up for the whole duration?

Yes. Do you want a medal?

No, but I think your suggestion is totally impractical.

[AATW]

It's pretty well established that any airtight chamber with different pressures inside and out has a whole host of difficulties, that's been observed on Earth.

Do you mean like airplanes that routinely fly in excess of 35,000 ft?

Yes, actually. That's still a much kinder environment than the moon, but look at the safety requirements, look at the sheer weight of the construction, look at what happens should a tiny hole form.
And then imagine all that when it's just tinfoil preventing a hole from forming, and building it with a massive limit on what weight you can have.

I would gently suggest that there is a significant difference in the strength requirement between an airplane which thunders along at 500mph through an atmosphere with all the friction and turbulence that entails and a craft designed to work in a vacuum (so the speed is irrelevant, no friction from an atmosphere or turbulence) where the only consideration is the pressure difference between the vacuum outside and the pressure inside. The pressure inside the lunar module was 4.8psi compared with 14.8 on earth, it was pure oxygen which is why the astronauts could still breathe. So while I'm no expert, it seems that a design decision was made that it was more practical to build a craft which could withstand a relatively low amount of pressure rather than the astronauts having to spend days at a time in their space suits with all the difficult logistics that would entail.

What are your qualifications and experience which means you are so sure that this was not a reasonable solution to the problem?

[JRowe]

But the lunar module did need to be pressurized.  Or do you think that it's possible to spend several days sealed in a space suit?  How do you suppose they were supposed to eat or drink if they couldn't get out of their space suits and into a pressurized environment? 

As has already been mentioned in this thread, the limited number of missions in which they had to spend that much time on the moon they did have water and food in the spacesuits.

How much food and water did they have in the space suits?  I'll give you a hint, it wasn't nearly enough for the 3 days that Apollo 17 spent on the moon.

But rather than just assuming what you've been told is right, simple counter question: what possible purpose did spending several days on the moon's surface achieve? They collected rocks, supposedly from different seas each time so it's not like they needed to travel for more data...

Are you saying that collecting more samples from different areas and setting up more experiments are bad things?  If you're going to all of the bother to go to the moon, wouldn't it make sense to collect as much data as possible?

...and like you say they would need to return to the lander so it's not like they could go too far anyway. There is nothing that could not be done in just a few hours.

That's why Apollo 15-17 took lunar rovers with them, so they could go farther and gather more diverse samples.

there's no need for the lunar module to be a pressure vessel

>> are you suggesting they should have been suited up for the whole duration?

Yes. Do you want a medal?

No, but I think your suggestion is totally impractical.

Break down what you're saying. What you are proposing is that the lunar lander served as a homebase, and that they went out from it without food or water, explored, gathered a whole bunch of rocks over a larger area without any feasible way to keep track of which came from where, then had to stop and turn around and go back to the lander to eat, spend the night, then go out the next day presumably in a different direction; not that the other direction gives them anything special. Ditto for the rover, that lets them go further but what else are they going to gather? They already have multiple landing sites, supposedly, from mission to mission. The lunar rover's just more merchandizing, it too fundamentally fails to make sense.
Alternately a lightweight, non-airtight lunar lander is something they could pretty much bring with them. Instead of spending several days wandering back and forth they could just strike out in one direction, and keep going twice as far, likely even more so with replaceable air so the only sticking points are going to be food and water. Sure, they won't be spending days down there, but they still don't need to. You can talk about making the most of it all you want, but there's nothing of significance taht their set-up allows them to do over days that couldn't be done in hours.

Are you serious?  Just about every engineering project ever has contradictory and conflicting requirements so you wind up with a lot of compromises.  Why should a trip to the moon be any different?

Because there's a solution that solves both, as I have said repeatedly, rather than requiring the mental gymnastics to expect they'd go for both airtight and lightweight and in doing so make it staggeringly unsafe and unnecessarily heavy.

[Ofcourseitsnotflat]

What you are proposing

>>> I'm not 'proposing' this. It's a matter of record.

is that the lunar lander served as a homebase, and that they went out from it without food or water,

>>> They had water supply in the suits. Humans can last for a few hours without food.

explored, gathered a whole bunch of rocks over a larger area without any feasible way to keep track of which came from where

>>> They knew where they were when they gathered each sample or set of samples. They recorded this by having the main sample sites (stations) mapped out in advance (the area had already been mapped by various lunar orbiters), by telling mission control what they were doing each step of the way, and by photographing some of the samples. I'm not theorising that they might or could do this, it's a matter of record that they did. 

then had to stop and turn around and go back to the lander to eat, spend the night, then go out the next day presumably in a different direction

>>> Sure. Why not? What's the problem with that?

Alternately a lightweight, non-airtight lunar lander is something they could pretty much bring with them. Instead of spending several days wandering back and forth they could just strike out in one direction, and keep going twice as far, likely even more so with replaceable air so the only sticking points are going to be food and water. Sure, they won't be spending days down there, but they still don't need to. You can talk about making the most of it all you want, but there's nothing of significance taht their set-up allows them to do over days that couldn't be done in hours.

So you propose a mobile lunar lander which lands in one spot, moves around, then takes off from a different spot, and which isn't airtight?  How do you make it mobile, but also able to take off? 

[AATW]

So you propose a mobile lunar lander which lands in one spot, moves around, then takes off from a different spot, and which isn't airtight?  How do you make it mobile, but also able to take off?

I'm interested that he thinks this is less of a technical challenge than a lunar module which and pressurise and depressurise.
And he hasn't clarified what his experience of qualifications are which mean he can say so definitively why NASA are a bunch of clowns and got all this wrong.

[JRowe]

So you propose a mobile lunar lander which lands in one spot, moves around, then takes off from a different spot, and which isn't airtight?  How do you make it mobile, but also able to take off?

No. For the love of god have you ever read any of my posts?
Cut out all the unnecessary propaganda rubbish, all it needs to be is a frame with a couple of rockets and seats. That's it. i could carry that around on Earth, in the reduced gravity there's meant to be on the moon it's pretty trivial.

I'm interested that he thinks this is less of a technical challenge than a lunar module which and pressurise and depressurise.
And he hasn't clarified what his experience of qualifications are which mean he can say so definitively why NASA are a bunch of clowns and got all this wrong.

Because i want no part of your appeal to authority bs. if you cannot justify the logic behind it, it doesn't matter how many people claim it or what their qualifications are if it fundamentally does not make sense. if all you are going to do is blindly follow aht you're told, why the hell ar eyou on a forum for discussion when as far as you're concerned the discussion starts and ends with "They said it, so it's true."
it's far less of a technical challenge when it isn't being blatantly misrepresented by someone incapable of thinking outside of their model.