The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Investigations => Topic started by: Tumeni on July 10, 2018, 05:36:09 PM
-
How many innocents continue to believe sweet fictions like Neil Armstrong hobbling about on the moon after climbing out of a capsule made of tin foil?
In itself, this statement is a lie. The lunar module was not "made of tinfoil". Much of it required little in terms of structural integrity, since it would be exposed to no wind, weather, or other environmental elements. At the core of it was a pressure vessel for the astronauts, and many of the functional elements were bolted on to the side of this.
Here's the pressure vessel viewed toward the top of the vehicle, showing the docking hatch which connected to the Command Module, and the rectangular window for viewing the docking aid. The windows and hatch used for entry and exit on the Moon are hidden, and are to the top of the assembly.
(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/misc/apmisc-LM-noID-05.jpg)
Here's the view from the rear once most/all of the ancillary 'stuff' has been bolted onto the side of the pressure vessel. This includes various tanks, and the electrical/system panel (to the left in this photo). The CM hatch is to the top, and lunar hatch hidden to the right.
(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/misc/apmisc-LM-noID-16.jpg)
As you can see, we have pictures noID-05 and noID-16 here - change the URL manually in your browser bar, and you can see a host of others, from 02 to nn.
02 shows the intermediate stage of foil wrap
03 shows a tech working on the rear section, with CM hatch to the top
04 shows the descent stage
05 is referenced above
06 shows the descent stage from below
07 shows the ascent and descent stages together
08 shows both stages from the side, lunar hatch to the right
09 shows ascent stage with lunar hatch to front right
10 shows ascent stage with lunar hatch to the front, and some ancillaries attached
11 shows ascent stage from below with lunar hatch front left
12 shows ascent and descent stage with some ancillaries
13 shows 'naked' ascent and descent stages
14 shows descent stage
15 shows descent stage
16 is referenced above
17 shows transport of LM
18 shows rear of ascent stage with ancillaries, especially the electrical panel
19 shows the ascent stage with lunar hatch to the front
20 shows ascent stage from rear left with ancillaries
21 shows descent stage
22 shows transport of LM
23 shows ascent stage with ancillaries, lunar hatch front right
24 shows the fairing to go around the LM on the Saturn V
25 shows an almost-complete ascent stage, lunar hatch to the left
26 shows the pressure vessel atop the descent stage skeleton
27 shows almost-complete ascent and descent stage from the rear
28 shows almost-complete ascent and descent stage from the side, lunar hatch to the left
etc
etc
No doubt JRowe will take me to task for "discussing space travel" when he doesn't think I should, but I really don't see the need for a new thread to specifically rebut something within this one.
-
How many innocents continue to believe sweet fictions like Neil Armstrong hobbling about on the moon after climbing out of a capsule made of tin foil?
In itself, this statement is a lie.
Incorrect. The cabin was very thin, barely thicker than tin foil.
From http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum14/HTML/001072.html
A quick look at my reference data shows that the pressurized cabin web thickness was specified as thin as "0.015 to 0.025" inches thick. About every 3-4 inches the thickness increased to "0.055 to 0.065" inches, centered on ribs of 0.812 inches depth, 0.04 inches wide.
then..
As a further follow-up, I wanted to verify a few dimensions and get a true sense of perspective on how thin 0.012-0.015 inches really is.
According to this ALCOA source, US aluminum beverage can walls were approximately 0.015 inches thick in the 1970s. According to this excellent Scientific American article from September 1994, The Aluminum Beverage Can (http://www.chymist.com/Aluminum%20can.pdf), can wall thicknesses were reduced even further to 0.003-0.006 inches. This study shows that US aluminum soda cans with walls 0.005 inches thin can contain internal gas/liquid pressure loads of 50+ psi.
Moving away from aluminum pressure vessels, I wanted to check relevant dimensions of aluminum sheet and foil. According to this Aluminum Industry (http://www.aluminum.org/Content/NavigationMenu/TheIndustry/SheetPlate/Rolling_Aluminum_From_The_Mine_Through_The_Mill.pdf) document, aluminum sheet is a product 0.008-0.249 inches thick (previously 0.006-0.249 inches), and aluminum foil is a product 0.0079 inches or less thick (previously less than 0.006 inches). Reynolds Wrap Aluminum Kitchen Foil varies in thickness from 0.00064-0.00137 inches as you progress from the standard product to the extra heavy product. So while the aluminum skin of the Apollo LM crew cabin may have been, in certain areas, the equivalent of 3 (very thick) layers of aluminum foil, that foil was not thin modern-day kitchen foil grade. Perhaps kitchen foil of the 1960s-1970s was an awful lot thicker!
Overall, the chem-milled aluminum skin was sufficiently robust for the lunar landing missions. While you may not have been able to push your finger through the side walls, a sharp pointed object or a stray foot may have resulted in disaster so care was needed. Andrew Chaikin wrote in A Man On The Moon (p156):
"In the ascent stage, the walls of the crew cabin were thinned down until they were nothing more than a taut aluminum balloon, in some places only five-thousandths of an inch thick. Once, a workman accidentally dropped a screwdriver inside the cabin and it went through the floor."
-
The cabin was very thin, barely thicker than tin foil.
So you agree, then, it was THICKER than tin foil?
A quick look at my reference data shows that the pressurized cabin web thickness was specified as ...
.. but we can see from the photos that the construction is clearly not a single layer of that material. So again, you appear to agree it was not "made of tin foil" ...
-
No doubt JRowe will take me to task for "discussing space travel" when he doesn't think I should, but I really don't see the need for a new thread to specifically rebut something within this one.
Yeah, this is off-topic and derails the other thread. I've split the lunar module posts and moved the new thread to FEI for those who want to continue to discuss.
-
No doubt JRowe will take me to task for "discussing space travel" when he doesn't think I should, but I really don't see the need for a new thread to specifically rebut something within this one.
Enjoy your new thread :P
Ok! Time to have some fun.
Honestly I think my favorite summary of how ludicrous all this is:
"In the ascent stage, the walls of the crew cabin were thinned down until they were nothing more than a taut aluminum balloon, in some places only five-thousandths of an inch thick. Once, a workman accidentally dropped a screwdriver inside the cabin and it went through the floor."
Absolutely something that's going to be capable of making and surviving the journey. It's going to tear, it just is. Even with everything REers say about the lack of a lunar atmosphere, air isn't the only force that is going to act on an object, it still needs to have basic structural integrity. Simply being dropped to the moon is going to impart acceleration, and so a force, which is not going to be perfectly uniformly distributed.
Further, and more importantly, why is the tinfoil there? It's not like they need it to be airtight, they're meant to have spacesuits, and it's hardly holding the module together or stopping people from falling out. What does it actually contribute?
Answer: aesthetic. It's shiny, it's how people wanted space travel to look. White and gold, naturally triumphant colors; it's pure propaganda.
-
Absolutely something that's going to be capable of making and surviving the journey. It's going to tear, it just is.
WHY? Because you say so?
Even with everything REers say about the lack of a lunar atmosphere, air isn't the only force that is going to act on an object, it still needs to have basic structural integrity.
Please name the other forces. You can see the construction of the pressure vessel in the picture. Does it look to you as though it has no structural integrity?
Simply being dropped to the moon is going to impart acceleration, and so a force, which is not going to be perfectly uniformly distributed.
That's your 'other forces'?
Further, and more importantly, why is the tinfoil there? It's not like they need it to be airtight, they're meant to have spacesuits, and it's hardly holding the module together or stopping people from falling out.
Do some research, for goodness' sake. The mission(s) as a whole lasted anywhere from 8 to 12 days. For much of this time the LM was docked to the CM in transit between Earth and Moon and in lunar orbit. The crew did not live in their spacesuits for the whole of the missions. The environmental control systems were designed for them to wear overalls and breathe cabin air for most of the time.
-
Absolutely something that's going to be capable of making and surviving the journey. It's going to tear, it just is.
WHY? Because you say so?
Even with everything REers say about the lack of a lunar atmosphere, air isn't the only force that is going to act on an object, it still needs to have basic structural integrity.
Please name the other forces. You can see the construction of the pressure vessel in the picture. Does it look to you as though it has no structural integrity?
Simply being dropped to the moon is going to impart acceleration, and so a force, which is not going to be perfectly uniformly distributed.
That's your 'other forces'?
Further, and more importantly, why is the tinfoil there? It's not like they need it to be airtight, they're meant to have spacesuits, and it's hardly holding the module together or stopping people from falling out.
Do some research, for goodness' sake. The mission(s) as a whole lasted anywhere from 8 to 12 days. For much of this time the LM was docked to the CM in transit between Earth and Moon and in lunar orbit. The crew did not live in their spacesuits for the whole of the missions. The environmental control systems were designed for them to wear overalls and breathe cabin air for most of the time.
So, you begin by acting affronted when i provide an answer in the next sentence. All in all, pretty silly. Acceleration relies on forces, and tin foil can hardly stand up to much.
Yes, the lunar module was docked for most of the mission, why do you think that in any way contradicts my point? it's the command module that would need to be airtight. The lunar module has no such requirement.
-
Incorrect. The cabin was very thin, barely thicker than tin foil.
From http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum14/HTML/001072.html
A quick look at my reference data shows that the pressurized cabin web thickness was specified as thin as "0.015 to 0.025" inches thick. About every 3-4 inches the thickness increased to "0.055 to 0.065" inches, centered on ribs of 0.812 inches depth, 0.04 inches wide.
then..
As a further follow-up, I wanted to verify a few dimensions and get a true sense of perspective on how thin 0.012-0.015 inches really is.
According to this ALCOA source, US aluminum beverage can walls were approximately 0.015 inches thick in the 1970s. According to this excellent Scientific American article from September 1994, The Aluminum Beverage Can (http://www.chymist.com/Aluminum%20can.pdf), can wall thicknesses were reduced even further to 0.003-0.006 inches. This study shows that US aluminum soda cans with walls 0.005 inches thin can contain internal gas/liquid pressure loads of 50+ psi.
Moving away from aluminum pressure vessels, I wanted to check relevant dimensions of aluminum sheet and foil. According to this Aluminum Industry (http://www.aluminum.org/Content/NavigationMenu/TheIndustry/SheetPlate/Rolling_Aluminum_From_The_Mine_Through_The_Mill.pdf) document, aluminum sheet is a product 0.008-0.249 inches thick (previously 0.006-0.249 inches), and aluminum foil is a product 0.0079 inches or less thick (previously less than 0.006 inches). Reynolds Wrap Aluminum Kitchen Foil varies in thickness from 0.00064-0.00137 inches as you progress from the standard product to the extra heavy product. So while the aluminum skin of the Apollo LM crew cabin may have been, in certain areas, the equivalent of 3 (very thick) layers of aluminum foil, that foil was not thin modern-day kitchen foil grade. Perhaps kitchen foil of the 1960s-1970s was an awful lot thicker!
Overall, the chem-milled aluminum skin was sufficiently robust for the lunar landing missions. While you may not have been able to push your finger through the side walls, a sharp pointed object or a stray foot may have resulted in disaster so care was needed. Andrew Chaikin wrote in A Man On The Moon (p156):
"In the ascent stage, the walls of the crew cabin were thinned down until they were nothing more than a taut aluminum balloon, in some places only five-thousandths of an inch thick. Once, a workman accidentally dropped a screwdriver inside the cabin and it went through the floor."
While technically nothing you said was wrong, it wasn't the full story. The hull was .012 inches thick at the thinnest areas, but there were numerous support ridges and bars around the outside of the frame, as can be seen in these photos: (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/misc/apmisc-LM-noID-06.jpg) (http://www.collectspace.com/review/gacspaceguy/lem_pressurization01-lg.jpg)
These provided structural support. Your quote above states this as well:
About every 3-4 inches the thickness increased to "0.055 to 0.065" inches, centered on ribs of 0.812 inches depth, 0.04 inches wide.
The hull wasn't weak enough to push through with a foot or anything, but something sharp could've pierced through it (a knife, for example).
-
Acceleration relies on forces, and tin foil can hardly stand up to much.
You can see the structure in the photo. Does that look like a single layer of tin foil to you?
Yes, the lunar module was docked for most of the mission, why do you think that in any way contradicts my point? it's the command module that would need to be airtight. The lunar module has no such requirement.
Yes, it does. The two craft were docked, and the astronauts moved between the two, through the docking port. The LM needed to be airtight because it and the CM cabin formed a combined living and working space. And, once again, the astronauts did not live in their spacesuits for either the duration of the mission, nor even for the whole duration of the LM descending to the surface, staying there, then returning to the CM.
-
The workman's tool may well have penetrated the skin whilst under construction and probably incomplete, but was any of that skin actually able to be contacted at all once the thing was completed?
Internal views show control panels, stowage lockers, and all manner of internal build items which, even if not providing total resistance to tools launched in anger, would add to the rigidity of the structure as well as the ribbing mentioned above.
-
Acceleration relies on forces, and tin foil can hardly stand up to much.
You can see the structure in the photo. Does that look like a single layer of tin foil to you?
Yes, the lunar module was docked for most of the mission, why do you think that in any way contradicts my point? it's the command module that would need to be airtight. The lunar module has no such requirement.
Yes, it does. The two craft were docked, and the astronauts moved between the two, through the docking port. The LM needed to be airtight because it and the CM cabin formed a combined living and working space. And, once again, the astronauts did not live in their spacesuits for either the duration of the mission, nor even for the whole duration of the LM descending to the surface, staying there, then returning to the CM.
Why? You have this attachment to the party line, but they planned this mission from scratch apparently so there is no reason for any of it to be the way it is. Ditto for the tin foil; there is precisely no reason for it to exist, except for the propaganda value. I'll admit, there's a cool-factor there, vacuum being so empty that something so fragile can withstand it, but like any 60s sci-fi it falls apart when you actually think about it.
I don't know why you keep harping on about astronauts living in their spacesuits, I have literally never said they did. Airtight command module, but this is about the lunar module. You disrupt other threads to talk about this stuff, and then when you get a thread about the lunar module you still want to change the subject.
The combined CM-LM living/working space is just such a bad idea. The lunar lander is the crux of the mission, by any account it ought to be kept in the best possible condition, not constantly pressurized then depressurized then repressurized (particular with such fragile components) once it makes it to the moon, and with astronauts tramping all through it. Plus imagine the worst happened and the module broke down on the moon; unlucky Mr Three without the name recognition of Armstrong or Aldrin suddenly loses a chunk of his living space and has to trust that a docking port holds rather than a more secure airlock. A bunch of men banging around the connector while they float from module to module over a period of several days in a high-risk, brand new environment is hardly what a sensible organization would opt for.
Really, they shouldn't need any more than a frame with a couple of rockets, two chairs, seatbelts and pockets on. But it isn't about the practicality of the mission, it's about the look of the thing.
The workman's tool may well have penetrated the skin whilst under construction and probably incomplete, but was any of that skin actually able to be contacted at all once the thing was completed?
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-badc58e6646435aff703a22ca2eb8835-c)
Looks easy to contact to me. (Unless you want to cry photoshop and I would genuinely love it if you did).
-
Acceleration relies on forces, and tin foil can hardly stand up to much.
You can see the structure in the photo. Does that look like a single layer of tin foil to you?
Yes, the lunar module was docked for most of the mission, why do you think that in any way contradicts my point? it's the command module that would need to be airtight. The lunar module has no such requirement.
Yes, it does. The two craft were docked, and the astronauts moved between the two, through the docking port. The LM needed to be airtight because it and the CM cabin formed a combined living and working space. And, once again, the astronauts did not live in their spacesuits for either the duration of the mission, nor even for the whole duration of the LM descending to the surface, staying there, then returning to the CM.
Why? You have this attachment to the party line, but they planned this mission from scratch apparently so there is no reason for any of it to be the way it is.
It's the way it is because of the design specifications and requirements defined in the 1950s and 1960s. These are easily found online
Ditto for the tin foil; there is precisely no reason for it to exist, except for the propaganda value.
If they were going for propaganda value, the LM would not have looked the way it did.
I don't know why you keep harping on about astronauts living in their spacesuits, I have literally never said they did.
Yes, you did. "why is the tinfoil there? It's not like they need it to be airtight, they're meant to have spacesuits, and it's hardly holding the module together or stopping people from falling out. "
Airtight command module, but this is about the lunar module. You disrupt other threads to talk about this stuff, and then when you get a thread about the lunar module you still want to change the subject.
You cannot get away from discussing both when they actually formed one living environment for large parts of the missions.
The combined CM-LM living/working space is just such a bad idea.
..but six missions have already taken place like this, regardless of whether you think it so or not.
The lunar lander is the crux of the mission, by any account it ought to be kept in the best possible condition, not constantly pressurized then depressurized then repressurized (particular with such fragile components) once it makes it to the moon, and with astronauts tramping all through it. Plus imagine the worst happened and the module broke down on the moon; unlucky Mr Three without the name recognition of Armstrong or Aldrin suddenly loses a chunk of his living space and has to trust that a docking port holds rather than a more secure airlock. A bunch of men banging around the connector while they float from module to module over a period of several days in a high-risk, brand new environment is hardly what a sensible organization would opt for.
Yet they did this six times, seven if you include Apollo 13, regardless of whether you think it good planning or not
Really, they shouldn't need any more than a frame with a couple of rockets, two chairs, seatbelts and pockets on. But it isn't about the practicality of the mission, it's about the look of the thing.
If it was about the look of the thing, the LM would not have looked like that
The workman's tool may well have penetrated the skin whilst under construction and probably incomplete, but was any of that skin actually able to be contacted at all once the thing was completed?
IMG
Looks easy to contact to me.
That's the outside. The quote above says the workman dropped a tool INSIDE it. I say that once complete, I'm not convinced that any of the skin's surface could be seen, or anything make contact with it.
-
You have this attachment to the party line ...
I also have a wide selection of third-party confirmations, during and after the missions;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
The Apollo Experience Reports;
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/ApolExpRpts.html
... and a host of other evidence.
-
It's the way it is because of the design specifications and requirements defined in the 1950s and 1960s. These are easily found online
...
If they were going for propaganda value, the LM would not have looked the way it did.
...
You cannot get away from discussing both when they actually formed one living environment for large parts of the missions.
...
..but six missions have already taken place like this, regardless of whether you think it so or not.
...
Yet they did this six times, seven if you include Apollo 13, regardless of whether you think it good planning or not
...
If it was about the look of the thing, the LM would not have looked like that
Do you have anything to contribute beyond plugging your ears and blindly insisting? "They would not have done this if it were real because [list of valid reasons]." "But they did do it! Lalalala I can't hear you!"
The whole set-up was impractical and unsafe and frankly rubbish, for reasons I've barely even started to go into. They were the ones that wrote the regulations, they would not have to be bound to them. But they wanted it to look good, they picked good old white and gold for the colors of their propaganda flagship, and they had to find excuses for it all.
Yes, you did. "why is the tinfoil there? It's not like they need it to be airtight, they're meant to have spacesuits, and it's hardly holding the module together or stopping people from falling out. "
Well, yes, talking about the lunar module. Ie, that thing that goes down to the lunar surface, clue's in the name. How do you go from that to claiming they spent the whole journey from Earth to the moon in spacesuits,e specially given I already pointed out I did NOT say that?
The workman's tool may well have penetrated the skin whilst under construction and probably incomplete, but was any of that skin actually able to be contacted at all once the thing was completed?
IMG
Looks easy to contact to me.
That's the outside. The quote above says the workman dropped a tool INSIDE it. I say that once complete, I'm not convinced that any of the skin's surface could be seen, or anything make contact with it.
Are you kidding me?[/list]
-
Do you have anything to contribute beyond plugging your ears and blindly insisting?
I've got loads. I've got all the third-party confirmations of the missions;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
I've got all the work that was done on the lunar samples, experimental and other data from the missions;
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/books/lunar_sourcebook/
"They would not have done this if it were real because [list of valid reasons]." "But they did do it! Lalalala I can't hear you!"
I don't accept your reasons as valid. Simply saying "They should have done X, Y and Z. A, B and C shouldn't have looked like that" is not "valid reasons". That's just the "If I had been running the ship back then, I would have...." argument, and that's no proof or disproof of anything.
The whole set-up was impractical and unsafe and frankly rubbish ...
Why should we accept this?
Well, yes, talking about the lunar module. Ie, that thing that goes down to the lunar surface, clue's in the name. How do you go from that to claiming they spent the whole journey from Earth to the moon in spacesuits,e specially given I already pointed out I did NOT say that?
You initially said "It's not like they need it to be airtight, they're meant to have spacesuits" which implies to me that you thought that most or all of the mission was carried out in the suits. It wasn't.
Are you kidding me?
No.[/list]
-
I've got loads. I've got all the third-party confirmations of the missions;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
I've got all the work that was done on the lunar samples, experimental and other data from the missions;
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/books/lunar_sourcebook/
Good for you. Do you want me to quote the appendices of Lord of the Rings?
I don't accept your reasons as valid. Simply saying "They should have done X, Y and Z. A, B and C shouldn't have looked like that" is not "valid reasons". That's just the "If I had been running the ship back then, I would have...." argument, and that's no proof or disproof of anything.
Oh, that counts as an argument now? Then I don't accept your reasons as valid either. Cool beans.
It is not what 'I' would have done, it's basic common sense. You would not put the crux of the whole mission under undue strain, and given that the CM has to be airtight independent of the LM anyway you'd want to minimize mass.
Why should we accept this?
Have you just progressed to pretending my posts don't exist then?
You initially said "It's not like they need it to be airtight, they're meant to have spacesuits" which implies to me that you thought that most or all of the mission was carried out in the suits. It wasn't.
The 'it' in question pretty bloody obviously being the lunar module. I am thoroughly sick of this REer bs, instead of bothering with the slightest bit of reading comprehension you instead try to focus on what non-existent ambiguity you could possibly use to mock. Move on, stop harping on about spacesuits. I pointed out first time I was talking about the module, you still felt the need to complain. Drop it, drop the cheap dishonest tactics and respond to a simple point already. You wanted this discussion so much you kept spamming it in other threads, so let's have it. Why are you balking the moment you get it?
The lunar module was a propaganda tool, thoroughly impractical and decked out in colors meant to announce triumph.
There is no reason whatsoever for the tin foil to exist.
A bunch of numbers claimed to have been used and a bunch of photos others claim to have taken onm the moon are not evidence for the lunar landing any more than LOTR appendices and fanfic are evidence of Middle-Earth.
-
I've got loads. I've got all the third-party confirmations of the missions;
LINK
I've got all the work that was done on the lunar samples, experimental and other data from the missions;
LINK
Good for you. Do you want me to quote the appendices of Lord of the Rings?
No, because it's a work of fiction. Everyone knows this. Apollo was not. Everyone knows this except FEers, apparently.
Oh, that counts as an argument now? Then I don't accept your reasons as valid either. Cool beans. It is not what 'I' would have done, it's basic common sense.
I don't accept your reasons because all you offer is "doesn't make sense", "doesn't look right", "I would have done it this way" - no evidence, merely doubts based on your "common sense" ... No valid disproof.
The lunar module was a propaganda tool, thoroughly impractical and decked out in colors meant to announce triumph.
Grey and black?
A bunch of numbers claimed to have been used and a bunch of photos others claim to have taken on the moon are not evidence for the lunar landing any more than LOTR appendices and fanfic are evidence of Middle-Earth.
... but you have no photos, data, film, video, etc. of Middle Earth. I/we have these of the Apollo missions. You have no evidence of independent travel to Middle Earth after Frodo's adventure. I/we have multiple instances of third-party confirmations years after the Apollo missions.
-
No, because it's a work of fiction. Everyone knows this. Apollo was not. Everyone knows this except FEers, apparently.
...
I don't accept your reasons because all you offer is "doesn't make sense", "doesn't look right", "I would have done it this way" - no evidence, merely doubts based on your "common sense" ... No valid disproof.
Why is it you spend so much time trying to discuss this, then when people bring it up you defend it with nothing but empty insistence?
It demonstrates the mission fundamentally does not make sense. If that isn't a disproof, I don't know what is.
You wanted to discuss this, so discuss already. If all you're going to do is go "I'm right and you're wrong!" I don't see any reason to bother.
The lunar module was a propaganda tool, thoroughly impractical and decked out in colors meant to announce triumph.
Grey and black?
White and gold. The lunar module was more than the ascent stage.
... but you have no photos, data, film, video, etc. of Middle Earth. I/we have these of the Apollo missions. You have no evidence of independent travel to Middle Earth after Frodo's adventure. I/we have multiple instances of third-party confirmations years after the Apollo missions.
Twenty hours of film and video, but who's counting?
So space travel is possible because people said so, and otehr people said those people were right? Got it.
-
So space travel is possible because people said so, and other people said those people were right? Got it.
Same applies to anything else in this world;
Person A says something, and this is confirmed when persons B, C, and D agree with what A says.
I say I've been to California, and other people say I'm right.
You say you went to work yesterday, and other people say you're right.
etc
etc
No?
Or are you just cherry-picking space travel because that's what you want to believe is wrong?
-
... you defend it with nothing but empty insistence?
Not empty. I've cited numerous sources to back up what I said. You've cited none.
You wanted to discuss this, so discuss already. If all you're going to do is go "I'm right and you're wrong!" I don't see any reason to bother.
Again, not just doing this. Cited multiple sources of proof and data.
The lunar module was a propaganda tool, thoroughly impractical and decked out in colors meant to announce triumph.
Wow, your best point is that it's the wrong colour for you?
-
So space travel is possible because people said so, and other people said those people were right? Got it.
Same applies to anything else in this world;
Person A says something, and this is confirmed when persons B, C, and D agree with what A says.
I say I've been to California, and other people say I'm right.
You say you went to work yesterday, and other people say you're right.
etc
etc
No?
Or are you just cherry-picking space travel because that's what you want to believe is wrong?
Cool. There's a guy in Australia who says he's Jesus and plenty of people insist he's correct, there's a whole host of people who've said they've been abducted by aliens, there are countless people who've been to faith healers and will support one another's claims of miracles, are they correct?
Or are you just cherry-picking space travel because that's what you want to believe is right?
... you defend it with nothing but empty insistence?
Not empty. I've cited numerous sources to back up what I said. You've cited none.
You wanted to discuss this, so discuss already. If all you're going to do is go "I'm right and you're wrong!" I don't see any reason to bother.
Again, not just doing this. Cited multiple sources of proof and data.
The lunar module was a propaganda tool, thoroughly impractical and decked out in colors meant to announce triumph.
Wow, your best point is that it's the wrong colour for you?
This is a waste of time. You completely ignore what I say, repeat insistence people are correct, and do nothing else.
Don't bring this subject up in threads constantly if you refuse to debate it. Adios.
-
Cool. There's a guy in Australia who says he's Jesus and plenty of people insist he's correct, there's a whole host of people who've said they've been abducted by aliens, there are countless people who've been to faith healers and will support one another's claims of miracles, are they correct?
OK, when you have 10 years' worth of photos of what they've done, 3 years' worth of video also showing what they've done, a stack of documenation showing what they've done and how they did it, a number of independent confirmations from amateur and professional sources, in multiple countries, what they've done, and the work of hundreds of scientists, worldwide, based on what they did and data they provided, then come back and let us know who they are and provide more detail on them. Until then ...
Or are you just cherry-picking space travel because that's what you want to believe is right?
No, I'm happy that mainstream science is right about many other things, too. Shape of the Earth and the Moon (both globes). Shape of the planets (all globes) and their moons (again, all globes).
You wanted to discuss this, so discuss already. If all you're going to do is go "I'm right and you're wrong!" I don't see any reason to bother. This is a waste of time. You completely ignore what I say, repeat insistence people are correct, and do nothing else. Don't bring this subject up in threads constantly if you refuse to debate it. Adios.
I have been discussing this for a page or so. Don't make it sound like I haven't.
I've cited multiple confirmations for what I said, you've come up with imaginary people in Australia.
You insist you're right because it "Don't make sense" or "Don't look right" , I insist I'm right because I have the evidence I've cited to back my statements up.
You're the one who insists the LM is the "wrong colour", as if that's evidence of something. I've cited construction detail, and other documentation about its build.
You're the one repeatedly insisting he/she is correct, based on nothing. I insist I'm correct with the documentation to back it up.
-
Ditto for the tin foil; there is precisely no reason for it to exist, except for the propaganda value.
For the remainder of this post I'll be discussing two parts of the craft, as I'm not sure what you're referencing as "tin foil."
First, the solid aluminum hull. The aluminum hull, the gray part underneath the gold foil, was what astronauts lived in. It acted as an airtight seal, and as the structural support of the whole thing. That had a reason to exist. An image of the aluminum frame can be seen here: (https://i.stack.imgur.com/o8hnx.jpg)
Second, the gold foil wrapped around the aluminum hull. That served mainly as thermal control, as well as a secondary purpose of micrometeoroid protection and radiation shielding (the latter of which was mainly done by the aluminum hull). The foil consisted of at least 25 layers of different materials. The outer layer was kapton and aluminized mylar foil with gold leafing on it. This served as thermal control. The highly-reflective surface helped to reflect the sun's radiative heat away from the LM, keeping the inside of the LM cool, as well as keeping heat inside the LM so that it didn't radiate into the vacuum of space. A layer of aluminum helped with micrometeoroid protection Other layers included metallic inconel, which was primarily used for areas that had to withstand more direct heat, such as the RCS plume deflectors. That can be seen as the black material on the deflector underneath the RCS engine here: (https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-63d84b3c872e264e1d636c02946bc65a.webp). This was also coated in heat-resistant Pyromark paint. Another material used was nickel, which also helped dealing with high temperatures, mainly from the engines.
As for the crinkliness of the spacecraft, this was done on purpose. The layers were folded and crinkled so as to provide an easier venting path for heat, and to minimize contact between the layers themselves and the aluminum hull. If the layers weren't crinkled, they'd be touching much more, allowing for conduction of heat to take place far easier, heating up the spacecraft to dangerous levels.
All of this information can be found here in detail: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LM04_Lunar_Module_ppLV1-17.pdf. This website provides detail as to where exactly these materials were used on the spacecraft: http://home.earthlink.net/~pfjeld/lmdata/ The LM handbook is a great resource as well: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LM10HandbookVol1.pdf
'll admit, there's a cool-factor there, vacuum being so empty that something so fragile can withstand it, but like any 60s sci-fi it falls apart when you actually think about it.
What would make it fall apart? The aluminum hull was rigid. The LM had interior support rods as well: (https://i.stack.imgur.com/2Icj4.jpg). It could survive standing on Earth as it was being built and tested, why couldn't it survive in space where there is no gravity, and on the Moon where there is only 1/6 gravity?
The combined CM-LM living/working space is just such a bad idea. The lunar lander is the crux of the mission, by any account it ought to be kept in the best possible condition, not constantly pressurized then depressurized then repressurized (particular with such fragile components) once it makes it to the moon, and with astronauts tramping all through it.
What other way would astronauts get out of the LM then? You can't have a pressurized spacecraft suddenly open to the vacuum of space, you'd have no air left, and it'd damage the spacecraft. You also can't have the LM constantly depressurized, the astronauts need a space to live inside. The pressurization system and LM was built to withstand the multiple pressurizations and depressurizations. I don't see why it wouldn't be. The engineers at Grumman and NASA were smart, they accounted for this. The astronauts also weren't "tramping all through it." Once inside, it was really just used for minimal walking around (it wasn't a huge amount of space), and sleeping.
Plus imagine the worst happened and the module broke down on the moon; unlucky Mr Three without the name recognition of Armstrong or Aldrin suddenly loses a chunk of his living space and has to trust that a docking port holds rather than a more secure airlock.
Collins would have 3X the space in the CM if Aldrin and Armstrong didn't come back. The LM was great for adding space for 3 people, but not necessary if there is only one. Also, the docking port would hold, why wouldn't it? It's a much more secure airlock than the LM which could've broken away if something hit it. Your logic here really doesn't make sense. You're grasping at straws.
A bunch of men banging around the connector while they float from module to module over a period of several days in a high-risk, brand new environment is hardly what a sensible organization would opt for.
First, astronauts weren't constantly transversing between the CM and LM. Most of the mission to and from the Moon was spent in the CM, not in the LM. The LM was only meant for landing on, and lifting off of the Moon, so it wasn't necessary to be in it constantly except for inspection, preparations for landing, and other similar tasks.
Second, I'm confident that the astronauts weren't wildly banging around the CM-LM connection, and took care as they transferred. These people are highly intelligent, why would they be so stupid to do something that careless? It was much more likely that they floated freely between the spacecraft, and put a hand or two on the wall to keep steady.
Third, I'm also confident the engineers took into account the dangers of breaking the connection while in space. They certainly would make sure the connection was rigid and could withstand the average bump.
Really, they shouldn't need any more than a frame with a couple of rockets, two chairs, seatbelts and pockets on.
Uh, that's basically what they had, minus the chairs and seatbelts. The astronauts stood so as to have a better view out the window when landing, and it was only 1/6 gravity, so it really wasn't necessary for them to be sitting.
But it isn't about the practicality of the mission, it's about the look of the thing.
If it was about looks, the spacecraft would've looked far different. I can guarantee you that.
-
It demonstrates the mission fundamentally does not make sense.
And you would be what? An aerospace engineer?
If that isn't a disproof
Unless your answer to the above was "Yes", then no, it's not a disproof, it is merely your uneducated and inexpert (dare I say ignorant?) opinion only.
I don't know what is.
Clearly.
-
'll admit, there's a cool-factor there, vacuum being so empty that something so fragile can withstand it, but like any 60s sci-fi it falls apart when you actually think about it.
What would make it fall apart? The aluminum hull was rigid. The LM had interior support rods as well:
Turn of phrase: the idea falls apart, not the physical module.
But firstly, before I get into it, thank you for providing an actual response to my posts.
I'll focus primarily on the area for 'thermal control and radiation shielding.' Micrometeoroid protection doesn't seem like a priority, simply because if something so fragile as to be torn by a screwdriver acts as protection then there's little else that wouldn't. As my response is going to mainly be tied to pointing out how the alternative, less stylish approach would be preferred I'll focus on that.
What other way would astronauts get out of the LM then? You can't have a pressurized spacecraft suddenly open to the vacuum of space, you'd have no air left, and it'd damage the spacecraft. You also can't have the LM constantly depressurized, the astronauts need a space to live inside. The pressurization system and LM was built to withstand the multiple pressurizations and depressurizations. I don't see why it wouldn't be. The engineers at Grumman and NASA were smart, they accounted for this. The astronauts also weren't "tramping all through it." Once inside, it was really just used for minimal walking around (it wasn't a huge amount of space), and sleeping.
They don't have to live inside the LM, as I said. That is how things are said to be, not the necessary state. Given the lack of a lunar atmosphere, and so lack of danger from re-entry, on top of the weak gravity to minimise how much force is needed to escape it, the 'module' doesn't need to be any more than a frame with a couple of rockets attached for momentum control. Not only is this lighter, something of huge importance when it comes to space travel, but it's substantially simpler, and simpler is always going to be preferred by anyone on a mission far away from any repair shops and tools. There's less that could go wrong. The simple presence of spacesuits fulfil every other requirement of the module, and if they don't work there's no using the module anyway.
Instead of a separate module attacked to the ship, just make a room that can serve as an airlock and strap it down inside. It doesn't need to be airtight, it doesn't need to run the risk of something being knocked loose by the force of depressurisation. That gives you living space and substantially less in the way of weight to carry and elements to go wrong. Further, if there's a fault in the LM, that only prevents the moon landing rather than cutting off astronaut living space and resources. By every metric this is preferred.
Yes, as you say, no doubt they could plan to make the lunar module sturdy enough to take depressurisations, the astronauts be careful with how rarely they go through from one module to the other and so so less often, all of that, but the simple fact is you wouldn't want to take the risk. On any mission like this you would want to minimise how much could go wrong.
They added more, more and more moving parts prone to go wrong, even when it was unnecessary.
Also, the docking port would hold, why wouldn't it? It's a much more secure airlock than the LM which could've broken away if something hit it. Your logic here really doesn't make sense. You're grasping at straws.
I don't understand this argument. By its very nature, an airlock is part of the ship. It is substantially more secure than a docking port that is literally made to split apart. If something hits it, the LM blows away, most of their living space and possibly the astronauts themselves are knocked away with it.
Really, they shouldn't need any more than a frame with a couple of rockets, two chairs, seatbelts and pockets on.
Uh, that's basically what they had, minus the chairs and seatbelts. The astronauts stood so as to have a better view out the window when landing, and it was only 1/6 gravity, so it really wasn't necessary for them to be sitting.
They had airtight walls and a vessel capable of holding that pressure, mechanisms capable of depressurising and surviving that force, special legs they left behind, hell they even threw in a ladder...
But it isn't about the practicality of the mission, it's about the look of the thing.
If it was about looks, the spacecraft would've looked far different. I can guarantee you that.
Really? You get automatically shiny, triumphant colors, symmetrical designs...
Go behind the scenes at any factory, especially for the manufacture of vehicles. The real mechanisms never look nearly so pretty as those in the space programme, despite the fact the space programme has a hundred times the reasons to be concerned with practicality and to not waste weight and money on style.
-
Half a dozen paragraphs of "They could have done this", "They should have done that" .... none of which actually disproves anything, nor negates any of the substantial body of record that documents what they actually did.
It's just the tired old "If I had been running the show, I would have..." with the implication that because the show wasn't run your way, that it was either faked or never occurred.
-
The computer system alone to facilitate a trip in some imaginary space, would have encompassed 20 of these. No technology was available and still isn't. We see one side of the moon that never changes, it's a projection of light built by God. No one is landing on it, ever !
You've been duped by the evil one...….
-
The computer system alone to facilitate a trip in some imaginary space, would have encompassed 20 of these.
20 of these ... what?
No one is landing on it, ever !
Yet we have mappings of the far side from Indian, Chinese, Japanese and American craft....
-
They don't have to live inside the LM, as I said. That is how things are said to be, not the necessary state. Given the lack of a lunar atmosphere, and so lack of danger from re-entry, on top of the weak gravity to minimise how much force is needed to escape it, the 'module' doesn't need to be any more than a frame with a couple of rockets attached for momentum control. Not only is this lighter, something of huge importance when it comes to space travel, but it's substantially simpler, and simpler is always going to be preferred by anyone on a mission far away from any repair shops and tools. There's less that could go wrong. The simple presence of spacesuits fulfil every other requirement of the module, and if they don't work there's no using the module anyway.
Instead of a separate module attacked to the ship, just make a room that can serve as an airlock and strap it down inside. It doesn't need to be airtight, it doesn't need to run the risk of something being knocked loose by the force of depressurisation. That gives you living space and substantially less in the way of weight to carry and elements to go wrong. Further, if there's a fault in the LM, that only prevents the moon landing rather than cutting off astronaut living space and resources. By every metric this is preferred.
Yes, as you say, no doubt they could plan to make the lunar module sturdy enough to take depressurisations, the astronauts be careful with how rarely they go through from one module to the other and so so less often, all of that, but the simple fact is you wouldn't want to take the risk. On any mission like this you would want to minimise how much could go wrong.
They added more, more and more moving parts prone to go wrong, even when it was unnecessary.
I have a hard time visualizing what you're talking about, especially when you say things that seem contradictory like
Instead of a separate module attacked to the ship, just make a room that can serve as an airlock and strap it down inside. It doesn't need to be airtight, it doesn't need to run the risk of something being knocked loose by the force of depressurisation.
What kind of airlock doesn't need to be airtight and doesn't need to be depressurized?
For the later Apollo missions the LM stayed on the surface for several days, so bring able to take off spacesuits is a requirement.
As for connecting up the LM and the CSM into one living space, there were several alternatives considered, including just having one big spaceship go all the way from Earth to the surface of the moon and back. Constraints of time, money, and engineering complexity led to the final design.
-
Turn of phrase: the idea falls apart, not the physical module.
But firstly, before I get into it, thank you for providing an actual response to my posts.
I see my mistake, thanks for the correction.
I'll focus primarily on the area for 'thermal control and radiation shielding.' Micrometeoroid protection doesn't seem like a priority, simply because if something so fragile as to be torn by a screwdriver acts as protection then there's little else that wouldn't.
The inside aluminum hull was fragile as it could be pierced, but the micrometeoroid protection was a priority because that was random. An astronaut can think, and know not to stab the aluminum hull. The micrometeoroid protection also did its job well. The aluminum sheets broke micrometeoroids into small fragments, stopped by successive layers. See the image on the top of page 8 for a better idea: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LM04_Lunar_Module_ppLV1-17.pdf#page=8
They don't have to live inside the LM, as I said. That is how things are said to be, not the necessary state. Given the lack of a lunar atmosphere, and so lack of danger from re-entry, on top of the weak gravity to minimise how much force is needed to escape it, the 'module' doesn't need to be any more than a frame with a couple of rockets attached for momentum control. Not only is this lighter, something of huge importance when it comes to space travel, but it's substantially simpler, and simpler is always going to be preferred by anyone on a mission far away from any repair shops and tools. There's less that could go wrong. The simple presence of spacesuits fulfil every other requirement of the module, and if they don't work there's no using the module anyway.
Simpler, but impossible. The suits had no way of keeping a person alive for 3 days. The astronauts were limited to the food they could eat. On Apollos 15-17 the astronauts had a fruit bar, but that was it: (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/CernanDrinkFood.gif) (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/foodstick.jpg). It was enough to give them a snack if they needed it in their EVAs, none of which lasted more than 7.5 hours. Astronauts ate heavily before they went on their EVAs, there's no way to provide them that food without having to take the suits off.
Another problem arises for water. Astronauts had 32oz pouches for water for the EVAs, but that can't hold a man for 3.125 days. Astronauts drank heavily before they went on EVAs as well so there was water in their system. Experts say 64oz of water should be drank per day, so for 3 days an astronaut would need a 192oz pouch of water (1.5 gal, 5.67L). That weighs 12.5 pounds (5.67 kg). Plus, the astronauts are sweating as they work, so more water would likely be needed. The suit simply couldn't hold that much water.
Another problem is the amount of air and battery power needed. For Apollos 7-14, the suits had 6.5 hours of life support. For A15-A17, it's 7.5 hours. If you live on the Moon for 3 days 3 hours, or 75 hours, you'd need 10X more air and 10X more battery power.
Overall the suit would be immensely heavy and impractical. Astronauts would have gigantic packs, far larger than they already are, making movement basically impossible.
Instead of a separate module attacked to the ship, just make a room that can serve as an airlock and strap it down inside. It doesn't need to be airtight, it doesn't need to run the risk of something being knocked loose by the force of depressurisation. That gives you living space and substantially less in the way of weight to carry and elements to go wrong.
I'm not getting a picture of this well, do you have an illustration? Do you mean something like Voskhod 2 had, with an airlock sticking out for the EVA? (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/Voskhod_spacecraft_diagram.png/220px-Voskhod_spacecraft_diagram.png)
This could easily be knocked loose by depressurization, or if hit by an asteroid.
Also, how would astronauts get to the LM through it? Would they need to pressurize and then depressurize the airlock, or depressurize and then repressurize the CM?
Further, if there's a fault in the LM, that only prevents the moon landing rather than cutting off astronaut living space and resources.
If there's a fault in the CM, though, the astronauts have no living space at all. This is what happened on Apollo 13. Luckily, the astronauts still had a functioning LM they could live in.
By every metric this is preferred.
Tell that to the engineers at the time.
Yes, as you say, no doubt they could plan to make the lunar module sturdy enough to take depressurisations, the astronauts be careful with how rarely they go through from one module to the other and so so less often, all of that, but the simple fact is you wouldn't want to take the risk. On any mission like this you would want to minimise how much could go wrong.
They added more, more and more moving parts prone to go wrong, even when it was unnecessary.
Dude, these are astronauts, are you serious? These people were test pilots. Every day they had to get into a new plane that could, at any moment, kill them (and there was a good chance of that happening). One test pilot was dying every week in the 50s. These people also had to get on top of a rocket with enough fuel that, if something went wrong, an explosion comparable to a small atomic bomb would occur. I'm confident that they were aware of the risk, and I'm also confident that they would accept the risk.
I don't understand this argument. By its very nature, an airlock is part of the ship. It is substantially more secure than a docking port that is literally made to split apart. If something hits it, the LM blows away, most of their living space and possibly the astronauts themselves are knocked away with it.
If something hit the airlock, it'd also blow away too, killing the astronauts.
They had airtight walls and a vessel capable of holding that pressure, mechanisms capable of depressurising and surviving that force, special legs they left behind, hell they even threw in a ladder...
The airtight walls, as I explained above, were necessary because a space suit couldn't keep a man alive for three days. The ladder's mass was negligible, but the ladder was necessary for getting down to the surface, and back into the LM. This is pretty obvious.
The "special legs" I'm assuming means the descent stage. This is also necessary. If you didn't have the descent stage, problems could, and would arise. First, if you only had one stage, and that stage's engine breaks on landing, you won't be getting off of the surface. This actually happened on Apollo 15, but because they had the ascent stage, no worry was needed. A single stage spacecraft would also have to be far larger and carry more propellant (thus being heavier) because it would need to carry things no longer needed, such as used propellant tanks, fuel cells, landing legs, and more. By having two stages, these things don't have to be carried. It's the same reason rockets have multiple stages, to discard excess mass.
Really? You get automatically shiny, triumphant colors, symmetrical designs...
Go behind the scenes at any factory, especially for the manufacture of vehicles. The real mechanisms never look nearly so pretty as those in the space programme, despite the fact the space programme has a hundred times the reasons to be concerned with practicality and to not waste weight and money on style.
The space program was concerned with looks, but they weren't going to let it control the spacecraft's design. Much of the look of the spacecraft is because that's how it had to be. Gold foil? That's used for thermal control and shielding. Octagonal descent stage? Far easier to build than a circle, or other shape, and allows more cargo to be held. Boxy ascent stage? That's simply the outer skin molding around the aluminum hull.
-
The computer system alone to facilitate a trip in some imaginary space, would have encompassed 20 of these. No technology was available and still isn't. We see one side of the moon that never changes, it's a projection of light built by God. No one is landing on it, ever !
You've been duped by the evil one...….
No, it wouldn't. A trip to the moon requires nothing more than Newtons laws of motion and his gravitational theory. That was not what was hard about it.
You've been duped by yourself...
-
That is why in over 50 years we haven't been back even to pick up some soil.
Richard Branson outlined his vision for Virgin Galactic’s future back in 2008...guess what? Can't get above the dome.
All BS... NASA hires a few goobers to post here all day. Master, you want I make you go to the moon? I dream of Jeannie....
-
Apollo 8 the astronuts quoted the King James Bible once they realized they too had been compartmentalized and duped into believing they were in space when in fact they too couldn't get above the "firmament" ie dome.
They got even and quoted their GOD...the only God Genesis
William Anders
We are now approaching lunar sunrise, and for all the people back on Earth, the crew of Apollo 8 has a message that we would like to send to you.
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.[4]
James Lovell
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day."[4]
Frank Borman
And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
And from the crew of Apollo 8, we close with good night, good luck, a Merry Christmas – and God bless all of you, all of you on the good Earth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_8_Genesis_reading
-
That's 3 astronauts - less than 10% of the total Apollo astronaut complement. Not a high percentage. No indication that the astronauts who are not quoted above shared the sentiments of the three who were quoted.
-
That is why in over 50 years we haven't been back even to pick up some soil.
Richard Branson outlined his vision for Virgin Galactic’s future back in 2008...guess what? Can't get above the dome.
All BS... NASA hires a few goobers to post here all day. Master, you want I make you go to the moon? I dream of Jeannie....
You picked the wrong gripe. The computers were simple and up to the task. There are other things that are far, far more difficult and Branson is just not the guy the get the job done. There are others enjoying more success, but that still does not mean the task is not immensely difficult. Even today the computers are not the hardest part.
-
That is why in over 50 years we haven't been back even to pick up some soil.
Richard Branson outlined his vision for Virgin Galactic’s future back in 2008...guess what? Can't get above the dome.
All BS... NASA hires a few goobers to post here all day. Master, you want I make you go to the moon? I dream of Jeannie....
You picked the wrong gripe. The computers were simple and up to the task. There are other things that are far, far more difficult and Branson is just not the guy the get the job done. There are others enjoying more success, but that still does not mean the task is not immensely difficult. Even today the computers are not the hardest part.
You really don't expect this lunar hoax to be believed when NASA itself admits it's impossible. I;m not sure what you hope to gain from idiots who have been indoctrinated to a spinning globe? Aren't they all broke now anyway?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpPMoIv1lxI
-
Whereabouts in that vid is the admission that it's "impossible"? Time stamp, please.
-
That is why in over 50 years we haven't been back even to pick up some soil.
Why would we need to? Samples of the stuff from six Apollo missions, and a host of unmanned American and Russian missions have been pored over for more than 40 years by geologists the world over.
You can request a sample for yourself if you have the credentials. Here's the online form;
https://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/sampreq/requests.cfm
Why haven't we been back at all? Money, primarily.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/techandscience/astronauts-explain-why-nobody-has-visited-the-moon-in-more-than-45-years-%E2%80%94-and-the-reasons-are-depressing/ar-AAA4zcU?li=AA59G2 (https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/techandscience/astronauts-explain-why-nobody-has-visited-the-moon-in-more-than-45-years-%E2%80%94-and-the-reasons-are-depressing/ar-AAA4zcU?li=AA59G2)
"A tried-and-true hurdle for any spaceflight program, especially for missions that involve people, is the steep cost.
A law signed in March 2017 by President Donald Trump gives NASA an annual budget of about $19.5 billion, and it may rise to $19.9 billion in 2019.
Either amount sounds like a windfall — until you consider that the total gets split among all of the agency's divisions and ambitious projects: the James Webb Space Telescope, the giant rocket project called Space Launch System, and far-flung missions to the sun, Jupiter, Mars, the Asteroid Belt, the Kuiper Belt, and the edge of the solar system. (By contrast, the US military gets a budget of about $600 billion per year. One project within that budget — the modernization and now expansion of America's nuclear arsenal— may even cost as much as $1.7 trillion over 30 years.)
Plus, NASA's budget is somewhat small relative to its past.
"NASA's portion of the federal budget peaked at 4% in 1965. For the past 40 years it has remained below 1%, and for the last 15 years it has been driving toward 0.4% of the federal budget," Apollo 7 astronaut Walter Cunningham said during a 2015 congressional testimony.
Trump's budget calls for a return to the moon, and then later an orbital visit to Mars. But given the ballooning costs and snowballing delays related to NASA's SLS rocket program, there may not be enough funding to make it to either destination, even if the International Space Station gets defunded early.
A 2005 report by NASA estimated that returning to the moon would cost about $104 billion (which is $133 billion today, with inflation) over about 13 years. The Apollo program cost about $120 billion in today's dollars.
"Manned exploration is the most expensive space venture and, consequently, the most difficult for which to obtain political support," Cunningham said during his testimony, according to Scientific American. "Unless the country, which is Congress here, decided to put more money in it, this is just talk that we're doing here."
Referring to Mars missions and a return to the moon, Cunningham added, "NASA's budget is way too low to do all the things that we've talked about doing here."
-
You really don't expect this lunar hoax to be believed when NASA itself admits it's impossible. I;m not sure what you hope to gain from idiots who have been indoctrinated to a spinning globe? Aren't they all broke now anyway?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpPMoIv1lxI
Where in this video does NASA say its impossible?
-
NASA...yes this is NASA...this is the accomplishment of the human race or was it?
Collins was chewing on fruity bars and not looking at the universe of stars. Duh....made in a studio in Hollywierd.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77GBL96vs60
-
REPORTER I have two brief questions that I would like to ask, if I may. When you were carrying out that incredible Moon walk, did you find that the surface was equally firm everywhere or were there harder and softer spots that you could detect. And, secondly, when you looked up at the sky, could you actually see the stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare?
ALDRIN The first part of your question, the surface did vary .... one must be quite cautious in moving around in this rough surface.
ARMSTRONG We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics. I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see.
COLLINS I don't remember seeing any. (from the surface, in the solar corona. He's joking, because he wasn't on the surface.)
Frankly, Armstrong's reaction proves nothing, apart from that maybe he was tiring of Collins' company or humour by this time. They'd been together in a confined space for 8 days, and on their return had been in quarantine together for a further 21 days.
I think if we confined you to spend a month with the same two people, you might show some signs of friction, too....
-
NASA...yes this is NASA...this is the accomplishment of the human race or was it?
Collins was chewing on fruity bars and not looking at the universe of stars. Duh....made in a studio in Hollywierd.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77GBL96vs60
Cherry-picking to the max!
They asked if they could see stars when photographing the solar corona, not in general.
Collins was joking because he was in orbit at the time.
-
Why haven't we been back at all? Money, primarily.
A 2005 report by NASA estimated that returning to the moon would cost about $104 billion (which is $133 billion today, with inflation) over about 13 years. The Apollo program cost about $120 billion in today's dollars.
And yet SpaceX developed the Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 for $390 million total.
NASA has spent $11.9 billion on SLS so far and it may never get done.
No matter what we may believe about the shape of the earth, we can all agree that NASA's SLS program is fake.
We know that it costs $400 million to develop a rocket (that can launch and land). What has NASA done with the other 11.5 BILLION?
-
Why haven't we been back at all? Money, primarily.
A 2005 report by NASA estimated that returning to the moon would cost about $104 billion (which is $133 billion today, with inflation) over about 13 years. The Apollo program cost about $120 billion in today's dollars.
And yet SpaceX developed the Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 for $390 million total.
NASA has spent $11.9 billion on SLS so far and it may never get done.
No matter what we may believe about the shape of the earth, we can all agree that NASA's SLS program is fake.
We know that it costs $400 million to develop a rocket (that can launch and land). What has NASA done with the other 11.5 BILLION?
Do I/we need to point out that the Falcons are not, at present, manned craft, and don't constitute a lunar mission?
Here's an apple. Please compare it to an orange, why don't you?
-
You really don't expect this lunar hoax to be believed when NASA itself admits it's impossible. I;m not sure what you hope to gain from idiots who have been indoctrinated to a spinning globe? Aren't they all broke now anyway?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpPMoIv1lxI
It doesn't surprise me you’d drag something like this up. NASA admit no such thing. The twit that created the video takes a lot out of context and is not telling you all the facts. Lying by omission – over and over again.
Here are some pertinent facts he left out.
The trajectory of the moon missions avoided the inner belt completely and just barely skimmed the outer layers of the outer belts. The radiation in the outer belts is mostly only high energy electrons which would be mostly shielded for by the outer hull (thin aluminum is all that is required). All that said, they were through the outer belts in about an hour.
Total radiation dose experienced by the astronauts on the lunar flights, most of it experienced in the space between earth and the moon, was under 1.2 rads. Less than half one quarter of the dose deemed to be the onset of harm.
For many of the planned and potential Orion missions, they do not have the luxury of a voiding the Van Allen belts due to the required flight profiles. So they do need to beef up the shielding.
The remaining Saturn 5 launch vehicle components were destroyed. So, yeah, until the Orion equipment is built we no longer have the ability to launch humans beyond a few hundreds of miles.
While the temperature does rise on average in the atmosphere as you ascend through the thermosphere the air is so rarefied that there is practically no heat energy there. The density of molecules is so low in the thermosphere that the mean free path of a molecule (the average distance it must travel before colliding with another molecule) is about 1 km. Will aluminum melt there? Not a chance in hell. Since there is so little energy to be transferred to the metal, it will be radiated away before it has a chance to even warm up.
Watching, and believing, the utter nonsense in videos like this is going to damage your brain. Like you FE’ers always say, do your own research and avoid getting your knowledge from the sewer that is YouTube.
-
No matter what we may believe about the shape of the earth, we can all agree that NASA's SLS program is fake.
We know that it costs $400 million to develop a rocket (that can launch and land). What has NASA done with the other 11.5 BILLION?
Probably wasted it. They are a government organization after all. Do you seriously expected them to be efficient?
Also, you seem to be ignoring the mission capabilities they are designing the SLS for. They go well beyond the interesting but much more limited SpaceX Falcon 9.
-
It is not what 'I' would have done, it's basic common sense.
Why do you think that common sense is relevant to the design of such a specialized space craft like the lunar module? Common sense refers to sound judgement in everyday matters. Designing a spacecraft to land on the moon is hardly an everyday matter.
-
Why haven't we been back at all? Money, primarily.
A 2005 report by NASA estimated that returning to the moon would cost about $104 billion (which is $133 billion today, with inflation) over about 13 years. The Apollo program cost about $120 billion in today's dollars.
And yet SpaceX developed the Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 for $390 million total.
NASA has spent $11.9 billion on SLS so far and it may never get done.
No matter what we may believe about the shape of the earth, we can all agree that NASA's SLS program is fake.
We know that it costs $400 million to develop a rocket (that can launch and land). What has NASA done with the other 11.5 BILLION?
Do I/we need to point out that the Falcons are not, at present, manned craft, and don't constitute a lunar mission?
Here's an apple. Please compare it to an orange, why don't you?
1) I show you a 1 pound apple next to a 30 pound orange and all you have to say about it is we shouldn't compare apples to oranges? I call foul on that answer.
2) The SpaceX Falcon 9 block 5 is a human rated launch vehicle. The Falcon Heavy is supposed to support lunar missions. Are you sure they're not both oranges? What about BFR? Is that an apple or an orange?
My point, that NASA makes absurd amounts of money disappear, is still uncontested. I can understand the argument that it took 120 billion to do something for the first time. But how can anyone say, "Ok, that sounds fine" when NASA says it will cost $133 billion to do it again?
-
You’ve done nothing to show NASA wastes money other than balling at budget sizes.
-
Do you seriously expected them to be efficient?
Inefficient isn't a good enough descriptor for NASA. Inefficient works for Boeing who will use $4.2 billion to do a job that really takes $2.6 billion to do. If you told me that this comparison is a description of not efficient I would agree.
Also, you seem to be ignoring the mission capabilities they are designing the SLS for. They go well beyond the interesting but much more limited SpaceX Falcon 9.
Fine. Apples and oranges. I get it. How about this then... We are being told that it takes $2.6 billion to build a system to deliver people to low earth orbit. All the Space shuttle ever claimed to do was deliveries to low earth orbit. How much did that cost to develop? If they were inefficient, it would have cost $5 billion. Maybe they were REALLY inefficient at $10 billion. Nope. NASA's original cost projection for the Shuttle was $43 billion to develop and $54 million per flight (inflation adjusted to 2011 dollars). These are all projections for space systems that can carry 7 people to low earth orbit.
We don't know the actual development cost of the Shuttle program. But we have been told that the actual per flight number didn't end up being $54 million. It's was $450 million. "Not efficient" cannot be an acceptable descriptor of NASA. I'd have to go with "conspiratorial" instead.
-
You’ve done nothing to show NASA wastes money other than balling at budget sizes.
Comparing budget sizes is a valid method of inspecting claims of wasted money.
-
Projects go over budget all the time.
Add in the fact that NASA had two VERY public fatality incidents with two separate missions, with all the inspection, revision and such that followed, with all the health and safety considerations thereafter, and I'm not surprised at all that they were well over budget.
I know of at least one public transport project in the UK that went three times over its original budget, and that didn't have any loss of life considerations at all ....
Anyone following on from this (SpaceX, etc.) has the benefit of hindsight with respect to what NASA did, and how that affects what they do, so any direct comparison between the pioneering project being more expensive than the project which followed it (both chronologically and logistically) would appear to be moot.
-
Projects go over budget all the time.
Add in the fact that NASA had two VERY public fatality incidents with two separate missions, with all the inspection, revision and such that followed, with all the health and safety considerations thereafter, and I'm not surprised at all that they were well over budget.
I know of at least one public transport project in the UK that went three times over its original budget, and that didn't have any loss of life considerations at all ....
Anyone following on from this (SpaceX, etc.) has the benefit of hindsight with respect to what NASA did, and how that affects what they do, so any direct comparison between the pioneering project being more expensive than the project which followed it (both chronologically and logistically) would appear to be moot.
All well stated. Your points work very well when a project goes three times over budget.
Don't you join me is questioning when the project goes 8 times over budget? Or is thirty times more expensive than it needs to be?
Shouldn't NASA be included in organizations that "benefit of hindsight". I have put effort into not comparing pioneering projects with follower projects. The SLS booster is comparable to Falcon Heavy. Orion is comparable to Dragon. SLS will be comparable to BFR (when they exist). It's not like I'm comparing Saturn V to Falcon 1.
Yes government costs more, yes human rated costs more. Twice as much... fine. Three times over budget... that happens. I am agreeing with you guys about this. But what are limits of your ability to just say space is hard and things go over budget? At some point someone needs to ask what's really going on here. If 20 times over actual costs is not enough for you what is?
-
For some reason I didn't get notifications for this. Ok, so going back to my last posts, there seems to be some misunderstanding so I'll just go through it from scratch.
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.
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. A docking port and the inherent structural weakness it provides. It's not pretty or elegant though, which is where all the attention went.
Instead you want us to believe that for this huge, high profile, high risk operation they instead opted to multiply the number of risks instead of reduce.
-
2) The SpaceX Falcon 9 block 5 is a human rated launch vehicle.
Not yet, it isn't. It needs to have 7 successful unmanned flights in its final crew configuration before becoming man rated. To the best of my knowledge, the required updated helium tanks were not included in any of the block 5 launches yet (the third launch was early this morning), so the F9 block 5 still needs at least 7 more launches before it can be man rated.
-
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.
-
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.
Well, that's the problem. You expect everyone to accept that your few minutes of thought is preferable and more plausible than the man-years of work that NASA, Grumman et al put into it ...
-
2) The SpaceX Falcon 9 block 5 is a human rated launch vehicle.
Not yet, it isn't. It needs to have 7 successful unmanned flights in its final crew configuration before becoming man rated. To the best of my knowledge, the required updated helium tanks were not included in any of the block 5 launches yet (the third launch was early this morning), so the F9 block 5 still needs at least 7 more launches before it can be man rated.
From spaceflightnow.com
https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/05/11/spacex-debuts-an-improved-human-rated-model-of-the-falcon-9-rocket/
The successful launch propelled SpaceX closer to launching astronauts for NASA, which will fly on the same “Block 5” model of the Falcon 9 rocket that flew Friday
SpaceX engineers also added a permanent fix on the Block 5 upgrade to resolve a concern with turbine wheel cracks inside the Merlin engine’s turbopump, and new helium tanks that are not susceptible to pooling frozen liquid oxygen and friction that led to the explosion of a Falcon 9 rocket on the launch pad in 2016.
Both changes were meant to make the Falcon 9 compliant with NASA human-rating safety standards.
I guess if the Block 5 falcon has launched 3 times, they need 4 more. The SpaceFlightNow launch schedule says that could be done by the end of August. So unless SpaceX is planning to spend $42 billion in the next month, they should just come in under the NASA standard for low earth taxi service.
-
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.
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.
Well, that's the problem. You expect everyone to accept that your few minutes of thought is preferable and more plausible than the man-years of work that NASA, Grumman et al put into it ...
And that's the problem with you. As ever you just spam "You're wrong because I say so!" and have a religious objection to ever bothering to address a single point.
If a few minutes exposes multiple holes in the official story, that should tell you something if you weren't so blinkered as to believe in something you cannot defend.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
Am I obliged to? I'm responding to what you said here, now.
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.
But would that meet the requirements that were expressed and recorded before the mission? Have you studied these requirements?
-
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?
Am I obliged to? I'm responding to what you said here, now.
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.
But would that meet the requirements that were expressed and recorded before the mission? Have you studied these requirements?
You are very much obliged to read the actual thread and posts you are responding to, yes.
if you think it doesn't work then put your money where your mouth is and say why rather than evading the point. You've been given an alternative lunar lander, one that's lighter and safer, why does it not get the job done? instead of your empty implication that it must just not be good enough because the moon landings just have to be real, say something that it is actually worth discussing.
-
You've been given an alternative lunar lander, one that's lighter and safer, why does it not get the job done?
...because a couple of chairs and a frame would appear to provide little in the way of storage for tools, supplies, return of lunar samples, navigation equipment, etc etc.
You appear to be proposing, assuming the retention of a command and service module, that two astronauts would don suits, exit the CSM, get into their "2 seats and a frame" by unspecifed means in order to descend to the surface, and would then use this frame to return to the CSM, where they would enter the CSM by unspecified means. Would you have an airlock on the CSM? Wouldn't this increase its weight? Have you considered how this would impact other aspects, such as fuel requirements, re-entry, etc.?
You're providing a vague, sketchy description, and proposing that everyone accept it at face value because you think the one that was used "doesn't make sense", but in order for us to accept you as competent to rule on this, we need to see what your skills and experience are.
Once again - what was done is a matter of public record. It's not a matter of merely someone "saying so" - there's an unbroken narrative with supporting evidence in multiple forms, along with numerous third-party confirmations, during and after the missions.
Here's a broad overview of requirements, from a press briefing of the time;
"The NASA/Grumman Apollo Lunar Module (LM) after descending to the lunar surface from lunar orbit, provides a base from which the astronauts explore the landing site and enables the astronauts to take off from the lunar surface to rendezvous and dock with the orbiting Command and Service Modules (CSM).
The ascent stage is designed to:
Provide a controlled environment for the two
astronauts while separated from the CSM.
Provide required visibility for lunar landing,
stay, and ascent; and for rendezvous and docking
with the CM.
Provide for astronaut and equipment transfer
between the LM and CM and between the LM
and the lunar surface.
Protect the astronauts and the equipment from
micrometeoroid penetration.
The descent stage is the unmanned portion of the LM; it represents approximately two-thirds of the weight of the LM at the earth-launch phase. This is because the descent engine is larger than the ascent engine and it requires a much larger propellant
load. Additionally, its larger proportion weight results from necessity of the descent stage to:
(1) Support the entire ascent stage.
(2) Provide for attachment of the landing gear.
(3) Support the complete LM in the SLA.
(4) Provide structure to support the scientific and communications equipment to be used on the lunar surface.
(5) Act as the launching platform of the ascent stage.
= =
How does your design spec cope with, for instance, micrometeoroid penetration, or providing sufficient power for a descent engine, as well as allowing later takeoff for rendezvous?
-
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.
OK, firstly I already did explain the logic to you. It is problematic astronauts staying in their space suits for days on end so they pressurised the capsule so they didn't have to. To quite a low pressure but with pure oxygen. Enough so they could survive outside their spacesuits and low enough pressure that the lunar module was able to withstand it.
Was that the only possible way of solving the problem? I'd say probably not, but it was the way they chose and it makes sense in a much as it worked.
It's not "they said it, so it's true". It's "they said it and with my knowledge of science I can see how that would have worked". And it did work.
Your argument is "They said it but it doesn't make sense to me so therefore it's false".
OK, that's fine. But you have to have some knowledge of things yourself and you're showing with comments like not seeming to understand why an airplane travelling at 500mph in an atmosphere is subject to more force than an object at low pressure in a vacuum is not showing you have much understanding of these things.
I could just as well say "Every time I go up in an airplane they say the outside temperature is very cold. That doesn't make sense, we are closer to the sun, it should be hotter". If you showed me some scientific article explaining why that is so I can't just say "appeal to authority!"
The reason people are authorities is because they have expertise in a certain field. That doesn't make them right but if someone has more expertise in a subject than you then it does lead some credence to their opinions about it.
You keep on showing here that you don't understand what you are talking about here. The one thing I agree with is yes, maybe they could have solved problems in a different way. That could be said about many challenges in science or engineering. But just saying "This doesn't make sense to me" isn't an argument unless you can demonstrate a good level of understanding of a subject and show why the solution they came up with couldn't have worked.
-
You're providing a vague, sketchy description, and proposing that everyone accept it at face value because you think the one that was used "doesn't make sense", but in order for us to accept you as competent to rule on this, we need to see what your skills and experience are.
No, you're just ignoring the repeated times i have explained the whole thing and i am sick of it, screw you. Why should i bother when you just ignore my posts?
...because a couple of chairs and a frame would appear to provide little in the way of storage for tools, supplies, return of lunar samples, navigation equipment, etc etc.
So they can go to the moon and not invent the bag?
You appear to be proposing, assuming the retention of a command and service module, that two astronauts would don suits, exit the CSM, get into their "2 seats and a frame" by unspecifed means in order to descend to the surface, and would then use this frame to return to the CSM, where they would enter the CSM by unspecified means. Would you have an airlock on the CSM? Wouldn't this increase its weight? Have you considered how this would impact other aspects, such as fuel requirements, re-entry, etc.?
Just read the damn thread. Just a command module, with an airlock that serves as living space/storage room while sealed. No increased weight, if anything decreased because you don't have to mess around with a docking tube. if you are too lazy to read a thread why do you demand people repeat themselves for you benefit?
it's only 'unspecified' to you because you are apparently illiterate.
OK, firstly I already did explain the logic to you. It is problematic astronauts staying in their space suits for days on end
You are the ONLY people that are saying they should stay in their spacesuits for days on end and i'm sick of correcting you.
But you have to have some knowledge of things yourself and you're showing with comments like not seeming to understand why an airplane travelling at 500mph in an atmosphere is subject to more force than an object at low pressure in a vacuum is not showing you have much understanding of these things.
What are you on about?!
You keep on showing here that you don't understand what you are talking about here.
No, you lot are just consistently misrepresenting me even when i explicitly and repeatedly say the exact opposite of what you whinge about. How many times do i have to say something for you to acknowledge it?!
-
OK, firstly I already did explain the logic to you. It is problematic astronauts staying in their space suits for days on end
You are the ONLY people that are saying they should stay in their spacesuits for days on end and i'm sick of correcting you.
Your unpressurized LM might have worked for Apollo 11 where they were on the moon for just under a day, but each successive mission called for longer and longer stays. What do you suppose the Apollo 15-17 astronauts should have done for their planned 2-3 day stays on the moon?
-
OK, firstly I already did explain the logic to you. It is problematic astronauts staying in their space suits for days on end
You are the ONLY people that are saying they should stay in their spacesuits for days on end and i'm sick of correcting you.
Your unpressurized LM might have worked for Apollo 11 where they were on the moon for just under a day, but each successive mission called for longer and longer stays. What do you suppose the Apollo 15-17 astronauts should have done for their planned 2-3 day stays on the moon?
Are you going to pay attention to the lengthy responses I have already given to that exact question or can I expect all of you to just keep ignoring me?
-
Are you going to pay attention to the lengthy responses I have already given to that exact question or can I expect all of you to just keep ignoring me?
Let me see if I have the basic gist of your argument. You feel that the thin skin on some parts of the LM would not be able to handle the strain of depressurization and repressurization despite the fact that aluminum soda cans have thinner skins and can handle 10x the pressure that the LM skin would be subjected to. Your solution to this perceived unnecessary risk is to not even bother pressurizing the LM and just seal the astronauts in their space suits, have them land in their minimalist LM, explore for a few hours and then return to the command module to go back home. Does that sound about right?
The problem with your premise is that you have provided no evidence whatsoever that strain of depressurizing and repressurizing the LM causes any significant strain on the "tin foil" parts of the skin. Your whole premise is nothing more than an argument from incredulity. Saying "OMG, tin foil could never handle the strain" isn't a valid argument unless you show how much strain the 4.8 psi change in pressure imparts and how much strain the "tin foil" can handle.
-
Are you going to pay attention to the lengthy responses I have already given to that exact question or can I expect all of you to just keep ignoring me?
Let me see if I have the basic gist of your argument. You feel that the thin skin on some parts of the LM would not be able to handle the strain of depressurization and repressurization despite the fact that aluminum soda cans have thinner skins and can handle 10x the pressure that the LM skin would be subjected to. Your solution to this perceived unnecessary risk is to not even bother pressurizing the LM and just seal the astronauts in their space suits, have them land in their minimalist LM, explore for a few hours and then return to the command module to go back home. Does that sound about right?
More than a few hours, the concept of a second air tank should not be so bizarre.
Are you seriously going to compare a soda can in atmosphere to an object in vacuum where lives are on the line?
The problem with your premise is that you have provided no evidence whatsoever that strain of depressurizing and repressurizing the LM causes any significant strain on the "tin foil" parts of the skin. Your whole premise is nothing more than an argument from incredulity. Saying "OMG, tin foil could never handle the strain" isn't a valid argument unless you show how much strain the 4.8 psi change in pressure imparts and how much strain the "tin foil" can handle.
No, my argument is based on pointing out that their whole plan is thoroughly impractical. My pitch not only helps with the ridiculous lunar lander, but also significantly improves safety and weight restraints just for starters. ANd your response is, what? No, it must be real, they said it was.
You are being absurdly cavalier, in a wya that you only could be if peoples' lives weren't at stake.
-
Are you going to pay attention to the lengthy responses I have already given to that exact question or can I expect all of you to just keep ignoring me?
Let me see if I have the basic gist of your argument. You feel that the thin skin on some parts of the LM would not be able to handle the strain of depressurization and repressurization despite the fact that aluminum soda cans have thinner skins and can handle 10x the pressure that the LM skin would be subjected to. Your solution to this perceived unnecessary risk is to not even bother pressurizing the LM and just seal the astronauts in their space suits, have them land in their minimalist LM, explore for a few hours and then return to the command module to go back home. Does that sound about right?
More than a few hours, the concept of a second air tank should not be so bizarre.
How long do you suppose that that an astronaut could function effectively with the amount of food and water that a space suit can carry?
Are you seriously going to compare a soda can in atmosphere to an object in vacuum where lives are on the line?
Are you seriously going to suggest that the LM pressurized to 4.8 psi in a vacuum experiences more strain than a soda can pressurized to 50 psi in the atmosphere?
The problem with your premise is that you have provided no evidence whatsoever that strain of depressurizing and repressurizing the LM causes any significant strain on the "tin foil" parts of the skin. Your whole premise is nothing more than an argument from incredulity. Saying "OMG, tin foil could never handle the strain" isn't a valid argument unless you show how much strain the 4.8 psi change in pressure imparts and how much strain the "tin foil" can handle.
No, my argument is based on pointing out that their whole plan is thoroughly impractical.
Practicality wasn't the goal. Functionality was the goal and the LM is a case study in form following function. Remember that this was the 1960s and much of the technology that got us to the moon was being invented as they went along. It was essentially a brute force effort.
My pitch not only helps with the ridiculous lunar lander, but also significantly improves safety and weight restraints just for starters.
So you're saying that an unpressurized LM would be safer than a pressurized one? What happens if one of the space suits fails on the way down or up? Where is the fail safe redundancy? Yes, NASA believes in safety through redundancy, even if it does weigh more.
ANd your response is, what? No, it must be real, they said it was.
You are being absurdly cavalier, in a wya that you only could be if peoples' lives weren't at stake.
You do understand that we're talking about the early days of manned space flight where pretty much every flight was a test flight, don't you? The astronauts chosen were veteran military pilots and test pilots who knew the dangers of flying unproven aircraft. Yes, safety is a concern and I believe that a pressurized LM is inherently safer than an unpressurized one, especially if you want to spend more than a few hours on the lunar surface (and they did).
-
My pitch not only helps with the ridiculous lunar lander, but also significantly improves safety and weight restraints just for starters.
How does your pitch "improve safety"?
And your response is, what? No, it must be real, they said it was.
No, the RE response is that it's real because all the evidence says so, much of which is provided by those not involved in the missions.
You are being absurdly cavalier, in a way that you only could be if peoples' lives weren't at stake.
How does your proposal reduce those stakes?
-
More than a few hours, the concept of a second air tank should not be so bizarre.
Oh, so now we've added a 'second air tank'?
So the astronauts are going to switch to this secondary air supply, either within their open-frame craft with chairs, or outwith it, all the while in a vacuum of space as opposed to a controlled, pressurised environment .... and this is safer than the NASA LM design?
-
How long do you suppose that that an astronaut could function effectively with the amount of food and water that a space suit can carry?
Let's say eight hours, they're not exactly going to be working up a sweat in zero g. At any point are you going to actually address the question I asked earlier as to why they need days given all they're really doing is collecting rocks?
Practicality wasn't the goal. Functionality was the goal and the LM is a case study in form following function. Remember that this was the 1960s and much of the technology that got us to the moon was being invented as they went along. It was essentially a brute force effort.
Practicality and functionality are the same thing. Unnecessary strain, unnecessary weight, unnecessary limitations...
A brute force effort isn't an excuse to miss the obvious.
So you're saying that an unpressurized LM would be safer than a pressurized one? What happens if one of the space suits fails on the way down or up? Where is the fail safe redundancy? Yes, NASA believes in safety through redundancy, even if it does weigh more.
What happens if the space suit fails on the moon? You think you can get back in and repressurize in time? Safety checks before heading down, that's all that's possible either way.
An unpressurized LM is a hundred times safer than one that has to pressurize and depressurize repeatedly with the safety of tinfoil.
My pitch not only helps with the ridiculous lunar lander, but also significantly improves safety and weight restraints just for starters.
How does your pitch "improve safety"?
Why do you EVER post here when you are just plain not reading what I've said? I'm sick to death of repeating myself and you just want to waltz in and explain it all again?
If you are too lazy to read, I am not going to put any effort into engaging with you.
More than a few hours, the concept of a second air tank should not be so bizarre.
Oh, so now we've added a 'second air tank'?
So the astronauts are going to switch to this secondary air supply, either within their open-frame craft with chairs, or outwith it, all the while in a vacuum of space as opposed to a controlled, pressurised environment .... and this is safer than the NASA LM design?
'Now'?! I've said it before. For god's sake what is the point in talking to you?! Read the damn thread.
And, uh, yeah, it's pretty bloody simple. Two tanks on the suit, a small seal, switch from one to the other, remove and drop off the first, insert the second. Ta-da. Small, testable, and if it goes wrong it doesn't kill everyone; worst case it kills one person, most likely case it'd be spotted and there's still a whole tank of air before they have to worry about the broken seal.
-
How long do you suppose that that an astronaut could function effectively with the amount of food and water that a space suit can carry?
Let's say eight hours, they're not exactly going to be working up a sweat in zero g.
First of all, the lunar surface is 1/6 g, not zero g. Secondly, are you forgetting that the space suits are pressurized and very stiff to move in?
At any point are you going to actually address the question I asked earlier as to why they need days given all they're really doing is collecting rocks?
If you think that all they did was collect moon rocks, then you need to go back and study up on the Apollo missions before you go around designing their lunar module and telling them how long they need to stay on the moon.
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_17/experiments/
Practicality wasn't the goal. Functionality was the goal and the LM is a case study in form following function. Remember that this was the 1960s and much of the technology that got us to the moon was being invented as they went along. It was essentially a brute force effort.
Practicality and functionality are the same thing.
No, they aren't. Gold is a very functional as an electrical conductor, but it isn't practical to wire your house with it.
Unnecessary strain, unnecessary weight, unnecessary limitations...
Again, you haven't shown that the strain or weight were unnecessary, especially given the additional functionality afforded (longer stays, additional science experiments, etc.).
A brute force effort isn't an excuse to miss the obvious.
What's obvious is that you don't understand the mission requirements or the engineering involved.
So you're saying that an unpressurized LM would be safer than a pressurized one? What happens if one of the space suits fails on the way down or up? Where is the fail safe redundancy? Yes, NASA believes in safety through redundancy, even if it does weigh more.
What happens if the space suit fails on the moon? You think you can get back in and repressurize in time? Safety checks before heading down, that's all that's possible either way.
What would be possible depends on the nature of the failure. BTW, those safety checks eat into the time that the astronauts are sealed in their space suits and not being on the moon.
An unpressurized LM is a hundred times safer than one that has to pressurize and depressurize repeatedly with the safety of tinfoil.
Again, where is your evidence for that claim? I've already shown you that a soda with a thinner skin can easily handle 10x the pressure that the LM needed to handle. Your incredulity is not evidence of anything but your ignorance.
-
First of all, the lunar surface is 1/6 g, not zero g. Secondly, are you forgetting that the space suits are pressurized and very stiff to move in?
No, they aren't. Gold is a very functional as an electrical conductor, but it isn't practical to wire your house with it.
So, you're going to rely on pedantry? None of that has any effect on the points I am making.
If you think that all they did was collect moon rocks, then you need to go back and study up on the Apollo missions before you go around designing their lunar module and telling them how long they need to stay on the moon.
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_17/experiments/
And I stand by what I said before, and the question you keep refusing to answer: why is it they actually needed to spend so long down there? Great, they did a few things, wow. None of them really require any time, they can be done as they walk.
Again, you haven't shown that the strain or weight were unnecessary, especially given the additional functionality afforded (longer stays, additional science experiments, etc.).
No, you are just ignoring it every time I do, and then refusing to respond to any question I ask you in turn.
What would be possible depends on the nature of the failure. BTW, those safety checks eat into the time that the astronauts are sealed in their space suits and not being on the moon.
It always depends on the nature of the failure, that's the whole point. And yes, it does, except the only checks that'd need to be performed while actually in the suit might eat up a whole minute. How terrible.
Again, where is your evidence for that claim? I've already shown you that a soda with a thinner skin can easily handle 10x the pressure that the LM needed to handle. Your incredulity is not evidence of anything but your ignorance.
Anjd I've responded to that what feels like a hundred times over at this point, and you're still whining about it. I am trying to have a discuission. If you have a problem with what I have said, do me the courtesy of actually replying, not just repeatedly asserting and ignoring my repeated explanations.
Look at how much of your post is "You just don't understand!" "But they did it differently!" with an utter lack of the slightest hint of justification, and you'll see my problem. That is the definition of brainwashing.
-
First of all, the lunar surface is 1/6 g, not zero g. Secondly, are you forgetting that the space suits are pressurized and very stiff to move in?
No, they aren't. Gold is a very functional as an electrical conductor, but it isn't practical to wire your house with it.
So, you're going to rely on pedantry? None of that has any effect on the points I am making.
You can't properly make your points if you don't use the right words. Words have meanings and it's important that we agree on the meanings of those words.
If you think that all they did was collect moon rocks, then you need to go back and study up on the Apollo missions before you go around designing their lunar module and telling them how long they need to stay on the moon.
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_17/experiments/
And I stand by what I said before, and the question you keep refusing to answer: why is it they actually needed to spend so long down there? Great, they did a few things, wow. None of them really require any time, they can be done as they walk.
You seriously don't have any idea of what those experiments were or what it took to set them up, do you? Also, what's wrong with getting more samples from a wider area?
Again, you haven't shown that the strain or weight were unnecessary, especially given the additional functionality afforded (longer stays, additional science experiments, etc.).
No, you are just ignoring it every time I do, and then refusing to respond to any question I ask you in turn.
Is it being pedantic to point out the difference between claiming something and showing something? All you've done is claim that the strain or weight were unnecessary, you have't shown anything. Also, since the LM suffered exactly zero failures, it's hard to substantiate your claim that your unpressurized LM would 100x safer.
Again, where is your evidence for that claim? I've already shown you that a soda with a thinner skin can easily handle 10x the pressure that the LM needed to handle. Your incredulity is not evidence of anything but your ignorance.
Anjd I've responded to that what feels like a hundred times over at this point, and you're still whining about it. I am trying to have a discuission. If you have a problem with what I have said, do me the courtesy of actually replying, not just repeatedly asserting and ignoring my repeated explanations.
Maybe if you to respond with something other than just your uninformed opinion, then maybe I would stop asking for evidence and we could move the discussion along.
Look at how much of your post is "You just don't understand!" "But they did it differently!" with an utter lack of the slightest hint of justification, and you'll see my problem. That is the definition of brainwashing.
Look how much of your justification is "because I said so". That is a sign of Dunning-Kruger.
-
Look at how much of your post is ... "But they did it differently!" with an utter lack of the slightest hint of justification, and you'll see my problem. That is the definition of brainwashing.
Why should anyone have to justify the way that it was done, when the way it was done is already a matter of public record, along with numerous documents detailing what the agreed requirements were, and how the design satisfied those requirements?
The records of the missions included verbal and textual reports from participants, film and photos recording them, experimental data, telemetry from the craft, and a host of independent confirmations, both during and after the events. There's also, available online, the design specs, experience reports, press briefings, and a whole host of others detailing how it was done.
You, on the other hand, propose that it should have been done another way, a way that is totally untried and untested, either for real, or in the laboratory. You're the one that should be providing the justification, surely?
-
You can't properly make your points if you don't use the right words. Words have meanings and it's important that we agree on the meanings of those words.
Use a little common sense and context too. That's how language works.
You seriously don't have any idea of what those experiments were or what it took to set them up, do you? Also, what's wrong with getting more samples from a wider area?
Are you ever going to say anything of substance?
Is it being pedantic to point out the difference between claiming something and showing something? All you've done is claim that the strain or weight were unnecessary, you have't shown anything. Also, since the LM suffered exactly zero failures, it's hard to substantiate your claim that your unpressurized LM would 100x safer.
Uh, yes i have, repeatedly, hence this whole discussion on how it coudl easily be avoided. And now you're just asserting that it was real to back up your claim that it's real, of course that's what it comes back to, typical roundie circular arguing.
Look how much of your justification is "because I said so". That is a sign of Dunning-Kruger.
Except no, that has never been my justification, are you just going to persist in completely ignoring me?!
Why should anyone have to justify the way that it was done, when the way it was done is already a matter of public record, along with numerous documents detailing what the agreed requirements were, and how the design satisfied those requirements?
The records of the missions included verbal and textual reports from participants, film and photos recording them, experimental data, telemetry from the craft, and a host of independent confirmations, both during and after the events. There's also, available online, the design specs, experience reports, press briefings, and a whole host of others detailing how it was done.
You, on the other hand, propose that it should have been done another way, a way that is totally untried and untested, either for real, or in the laboratory. You're the one that should be providing the justification, surely?
And if the missions were faked, do you think they wouldn't have provided false documentation? What are you talking about?!
Their way was completely untested. Have you been paying any attention whatsoever to this thread despite my repeated pleas for you to actually READ?!
-
Their way was completely untested.
But their way was tested. It was tested in vacuum chambers on earth. It was tested with an unmanned flight in earth orbit. It was tested with a manned flight in earth orbit. It was tested with a manned flight that came to within 10 miles of landing on the moon. It was tested with 6 manned landings on the moon. It was pushed beyond its design limits with the aborted Apollo 13 mission where lives were on the line.
How much testing have you done on your unpressurized LM idea?
-
You can't properly make your points if you don't use the right words. Words have meanings and it's important that we agree on the meanings of those words.
Use a little common sense and context too. That's how language works.
But that isn't how science and engineering work. Science and engineering have very specific meaning for words so that there is as little confusion as possible.
You seriously don't have any idea of what those experiments were or what it took to set them up, do you? Also, what's wrong with getting more samples from a wider area?
Are you ever going to say anything of substance?
Are you ever going to provide any evidence that 4.8 psi is too much strain for the LM to handle?
Is it being pedantic to point out the difference between claiming something and showing something? All you've done is claim that the strain or weight were unnecessary, you have't shown anything. Also, since the LM suffered exactly zero failures, it's hard to substantiate your claim that your unpressurized LM would 100x safer.
Uh, yes i have, repeatedly, hence this whole discussion on how it coudl easily be avoided. And now you're just asserting that it was real to back up your claim that it's real, of course that's what it comes back to, typical roundie circular arguing.
By arguing that your LM would be better than NASA's LM implies that you accept the moon landings were real, otherwise we might just as well be arguing whether Superman could beat the Hulk in an arm wrestling match.
Look how much of your justification is "because I said so". That is a sign of Dunning-Kruger.
Except no, that has never been my justification...
Well, you sure haven't used facts and figures as justification.
... are you just going to persist in completely ignoring me?!
I can't ignore things that you haven't said.
-
Their way was completely untested
No, it wasn't.
Mercury and Gemini programmes were used to work on the basics of orbital motion, docking, etc.
The actual Apollo Command and Service Modules and Lunar Module were tested in Earth orbit as part of Apollo missions 4 thru 10.
Apollo 10 did everything that Apollo 11 would do except land. The LM went to within a few miles of the lunar surface.
Untested? No, no, no......
-
Their way was completely untested.
But their way was tested. It was tested in vacuum chambers on earth. It was tested with an unmanned flight in earth orbit. It was tested with a manned flight in earth orbit. It was tested with a manned flight that came to within 10 miles of landing on the moon. It was tested with 6 manned landings on the moon. It was pushed beyond its design limits with the aborted Apollo 13 mission where lives were on the line.
How much testing have you done on your unpressurized LM idea?
If you are just trying to drive me insane, let me know, there have got to be more efficient ways than your constant run-around.
Their way was completely untested
No, it wasn't.
Mercury and Gemini programmes were used to work on the basics of orbital motion, docking, etc.
The actual Apollo Command and Service Modules and Lunar Module were tested in Earth orbit as part of Apollo missions 4 thru 10.
Apollo 10 did everything that Apollo 11 would do except land. The LM went to within a few miles of the lunar surface.
Untested? No, no, no......
Ditto for you, it's like talking to a brick wall.
But that isn't how science and engineering work. Science and engineering have very specific meaning for words so that there is as little confusion as possible.
Jesus christ will you stop whinging over nothing and focus on the science at some point?!
You seriously don't have any idea of what those experiments were or what it took to set them up, do you? Also, what's wrong with getting more samples from a wider area?
Are you ever going to say anything of substance?
Are you ever going to provide any evidence that 4.8 psi is too much strain for the LM to handle?
I have literally never said that it was, just that the constant pressurization and depressurization imparts unnecessary strain. Now will you stopp blatantly lying and answer a straight question already?!
By arguing that your LM would be better than NASA's LM implies that you accept the moon landings were real, otherwise we might just as well be arguing whether Superman could beat the Hulk in an arm wrestling match.
What are you on about?! I have and have always been demonstrating that the NASA claims of the moon landing were a propaganda piece, designed to play up the cool factor, fun trivia, the tin foil holding out vacuum, the bright and shining gold... It's impractical precisely because it's not real, any sensible engineer would have pointed out that the much better solution would be both safer and uglier, but uglier's just unacceptable when you're not leaving Earth and want a propaganda victory.
And the fact that you are unable to defend your model, and indeed outright refuse to actually respond to straight questions, should tell you all you need to know about how much sense your party line really makes.
-
Are you ever going to provide any evidence that 4.8 psi is too much strain for the LM to handle?
I have literally never said that it was, just that the constant pressurization and depressurization imparts unnecessary strain. Now will you stopp blatantly lying and answer a straight question already?!
Sure, just as soon as you show some evidence that the strain of "constant pressurization and depressurization" should be of any concern to a properly designed LM. Remember, just screaming "OMG, tinfoil, lives on the line" is not evidence. Believe it or not, common sense isn't evidence when talking about such an uncommon project either.
By arguing that your LM would be better than NASA's LM implies that you accept the moon landings were real, otherwise we might just as well be arguing whether Superman could beat the Hulk in an arm wrestling match.
What are you on about?! I have and have always been demonstrating that the NASA claims of the moon landing were a propaganda piece, designed to play up the cool factor, fun trivia, the tin foil holding out vacuum, the bright and shining gold... It's impractical precisely because it's not real, any sensible engineer would have pointed out that the much better solution would be both safer and uglier, but uglier's just unacceptable when you're not leaving Earth and want a propaganda victory.
Are you an engineer? Do you have an engineering background? BTW, common sense says that the "tin foil" is supposed to keep the air in, not the vacuum out. A sensible engineer would agree that the "shining gold" is quite good for thermal management.
And the fact that you are unable to defend your model, and indeed outright refuse to actually respond to straight questions, should tell you all you need to know about how much sense your party line really makes.
My defense for the design of the lunar module is that it was designed and built by people who know a fuckton more about designing and building spacecraft than you, me and everyone on this site put together.
-
My defense for the design of the lunar module is that it was designed and built by people who know a fuckton more about designing and building spacecraft than you, me and everyone on this site put together.
That's a rather poor argument, Markjo. If Apollo was phony, then those people don't actually exist as you assume to exist.
The fact is that you need to defend Apollo, and can't expect to appeal to NASA's authority.
-
That's a rather poor argument, Markjo. If Apollo was phony, then those people don't actually exist as you assume to exist.
>>> Prove that it was phony, then, without any 'appeal to authority'....
The fact is that you need to defend Apollo, and can't expect to appeal to NASA's authority.
OK, here goes;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings (a summary - looking at all the individual instances should take more than a few minutes)
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/books/lunar_sourcebook/ (there's 60 pages of references to the work done by scientists based on Apollo and other mission data, experiments and samples. Again, this should take more than a few minutes to digest)
https://csiropedia.csiro.au/parkes-radio-telescope-and-the-apollo-11-moon-landing/ (There were six other tracking stations around the world)
https://www.quora.com/How-can-I-convince-my-dad-that-Apollo-11-went-to-the-moon (,,, and, once you've digested all of the above.....)
-
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
This looks cool;
(https://img.purch.com/w/660/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5zcGFjZS5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2kvMDAwLzA3MS83NzQvb3JpZ2luYWwvc3BhY2VzaGlwdHdvLXZpcmdpbi5qcGc=)
as does;
(https://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/fheavy_product_page1.jpg)
and;
(https://cdn.britannica.com/91/72291-004-BAE955B3.jpg)
But this.....
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2a/Apollo16LM.jpg/260px-Apollo16LM.jpg)
This is just plain fu-ugly.
The Lunar Module was light years away from "cool" ....
-
I have literally never said that it was, just that the constant pressurization and depressurization imparts unnecessary strain.
OK. And as I said to you some time ago when you said that, in any engineering projects design decisions have to be made. There are often multiple ways of solving a problem and all will have some pros and some cons. There is rarely a perfect solution and any solution will involve some compromise.
The downside of this decision was pressurising and re-pressurising the LM. But the pressure was relatively low, well within the tolerance of the strength of the material and the benefit was it meant the astronauts didn't have to spend days at a time in their space suits. Fun fact, one of the first things on the schedule after the descent of Apollo 11 was a rest time. They didn't just land, get out, plant a flag, walk around a bit, pick up some rocks and take off again. The later missions were there for several days. So I can see why the decision was made.
And once again I'd ask you what your qualifications and experience are which allow you to proclaim that a load of NASA engineers are dullards who designed it all wrong and you'd have done a much better job. I can recommened "A Man On The Moon" by Andrew Chaikin if you want to learn more about the Apollo missions, loads of interesting detail in there.
-
My defense for the design of the lunar module is that it was designed and built by people who know a fuckton more about designing and building spacecraft than you, me and everyone on this site put together.
That's a rather poor argument, Markjo. If Apollo was phony, then those people don't actually exist as you assume to exist.
The fact is that you need to defend Apollo, and can't expect to appeal to NASA's authority.
Who's authority should I appeal to when talking about manned moon missions? Remember that appealing to a legitimate authority in a relevant field is not a fallacy.
-
Sure, just as soon as you show some evidence that the strain of "constant pressurization and depressurization" should be of any concern to a properly designed LM.
At any point are you going to explain why unnecessray strain would be the chosen path, or are you just going to keep evading that and keep claiming I haven't shown repeatedly that it is unnecessary?
Lives are on the line. Don't dismiss that as some minor quirk. If you have a choice between something with unnecessary strain and more things that can go wrong, and something significantly safer where mistakes only ever affect one person rather than everyone, which would you pick?
My defense for the design of the lunar module is that it was designed and built by people who know a fuckton more about designing and building spacecraft than you, me and everyone on this site put together.
ie: appeal to authority, pure fallacy.
It was designed and built by people that ought to have logical reasons for doing so. Instead you're just going to blindly believe what you're told. What is even the point in talking with you?
I have literally never said that it was, just that the constant pressurization and depressurization imparts unnecessary strain.
OK. And as I said to you some time ago when you said that, in any engineering projects design decisions have to be made. There are often multiple ways of solving a problem and all will have some pros and some cons. There is rarely a perfect solution and any solution will involve some compromise.
The downside of this decision was pressurising and re-pressurising the LM. But the pressure was relatively low, well within the tolerance of the strength of the material and the benefit was it meant the astronauts didn't have to spend days at a time in their space suits. Fun fact, one of the first things on the schedule after the descent of Apollo 11 was a rest time. They didn't just land, get out, plant a flag, walk around a bit, pick up some rocks and take off again. The later missions were there for several days. So I can see why the decision was made.
Instead of butting in the middle of a thread without reading it, how about going back and seeing that that has already been brought up and refuted?
There was no benefit to spending days there. There just wasn't. You get a lot of handwaving, claims, but all of it is easy for a semi-competent team to get done in a few hours. I confronted Markjo about that, and as with the rest he just evades the question.
-
Sure, just as soon as you show some evidence that the strain of "constant pressurization and depressurization" should be of any concern to a properly designed LM.
At any point are you going to explain why unnecessray strain would be the chosen path, or are you just going to keep evading that and keep claiming I haven't shown repeatedly that it is unnecessary?
You say that the strain is unnecessary. I say that the strain is well within the material's ability to handle safely and is therefore of little concern.
Lives are on the line. Don't dismiss that as some minor quirk. If you have a choice between something with unnecessary strain and more things that can go wrong, and something significantly safer where mistakes only ever affect one person rather than everyone, which would you pick?
I'm not dismissing the fact that lives are on the line, and neither did the astronauts who flew in the LMs. However, when you weigh the risks vs benefits of a pressurized vs unpressurized LM, everyone involved seemed to agree that the benefits out weighed the additional risks.
My defense for the design of the lunar module is that it was designed and built by people who know a fuckton more about designing and building spacecraft than you, me and everyone on this site put together.
ie: appeal to authority, pure fallacy.
Nope, not when appealing to a recognized authority in the relevant field.
It was designed and built by people that ought to have logical reasons for doing so.
They did. The fact that you don't have the background to recognize those reasons is not their problem.
Instead you're just going to blindly believe what you're told. What is even the point in talking with you?
I'm no rocket scientist, but I do have enough of a scientific and technical background to find the explanations at least plausible.
There was no benefit to spending days there. There just wasn't. You get a lot of handwaving, claims, but all of it is easy for a semi-competent team to get done in a few hours. I confronted Markjo about that, and as with the rest he just evades the question.
One of the main benefits of a longer stay is that you don't have to rush your mission. Your own estimate was that astronauts could work effectively for about 8 hours in their space suits. That isn't a whole lot of time to prep your lander for descent, land on the moon, do your science mission, collect samples, prep the ascent stage and return to the command module. Armstrong and Aldrin spent about 2.5 hours on their moon walks, but spent over 22 hours from lunar landing to take off.
Another benefit that I keep pointing out is that more time = more science. You're already spending billions of dollars for the program. Why shouldn't you get as much science out of it as possible?
-
Instead of butting in the middle of a thread without reading it, how about going back and seeing that that has already been brought up and refuted?
I have read it and I saw that.
You saying "they wouldn't have needed that long" is not refuting it.
Refute means: "prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove."
You saying "didn't", isn't refuting anything. It is just your opinion and I'll ask again what qualifications and experience you have in this field, what is your opinion based on?
I mean, I don't have a heap of experience either, but I'm not the one pontificating about what they should have done.
It's like me saying "metal is really heavy and they decide to make ships out of it? What kind of stupid decision is that? Polystyrene is much lighter and it floats on water anyway, they should make ships out of that!". Have I just refuted the idea that ships are made of metal? No, I've just spoken from a position of ignorance about ship building. It neither proves nor demonstrates anything.
Once again I'd recommend "A Man On The Moon" by Andew Chaikin. Load of information in here about the Apollo missions and Mercury and Gemini which proceeded them.