A close look at the Apollo 14 Lunar module on the Moon

BlueJacket
reply to post by andy06shake

 

You cannot see stars without an atmosphere or similar filter.
2nd

You are joking surely......

tomounitismanassas

The area under, and slightly behind the engine bell shows evidence of disturbed soil resulting from the Descent Engine exhaust - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

I see no evidence of any kind regarding the soil.Do you know the power a thruster has?It would make a mess under it if it truely landed there.Regarding the other pic doesnt tell me much it seems like it but i cant take this for evidence

The truster was fully throttle-able. It was throttled down to a very low setting prior to landing. As 'Junkheap' said in the post above, if it wasn't throttled down, they would have been flying up real fast rather than landing slowly. I mean, my car can go over 100 mph, but I throttle back to only a couple mph when I'm parking in my garage.

Also, LM the engines shut down about 4 or 5 feet above the ground before landing. The LM had contact poles that were 5 feet long and sticking out from the bottom of each of the landing pads. They didn't want the engine thrusting right up against the soil, so whe one of these contact poles signaled contact with the moon, the engines were shut down.

So, what was changed to make it flyable without killing the astronauts?

andy06shake
reply to post by wildespace

 

Im sure there's a perfectly reasonable explanation and i do conclude that we did indeed goto the Moon but why is the sky in the pictures not full of stars?

edit on 11-4-2014 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)

It's called exposure. Try this : have you ever tried to take a photo at a concert? Ever noticed how you either get a nicely exposed stage are but black elsewhere OR nicely exposed crowd and burnt out stage area. And yet your eyes can see both perfectly well. Or how about photos at the seaside where you get EITHER the sea OR the sky but never both and yet you can clealry see both.

The camera is set to take the foreground correctly and as such the stars are far too dim.

kookoos
So, what was changed to make it flyable without killing the astronauts?

That was not an LM. That was an training vehicle -- a totally different vehicle that was only for training purposes (just like the shuttle astronauts used a T-38 jet fight in order to train how to land a space shuttle

The LM itself could only fly in space, so the LM itself could never be tested on Earth nor trained in on earth.

Soylent Green Is People

kookoos
So, what was changed to make it flyable without killing the astronauts?

That was not an LM. That was an training vehicle -- a totally different vehicle that was only for training purposes (just like the shuttle astronauts used a T-38 jet fight in order to train how to land a space shuttle

The LM itself could only fly in space, so the LM itself could never be tested on Earth nor trained in on earth.

So is it normal practice to train pilots in vehicles that have no similarities at all to the vehicle they are actually going to fly?

I don't think the LM can actually FLY per se, more of a ... controlled falling, something, which it appears to be very good at, the falling.

NASA with its huge Apollo budget couldn't build a simple trainer craft.. yet this guy could?



NASA shoulda hired this guy.

Junkheap
reply to post by tomounitismanassas

 

If the thruster was going full blast, the LEM wouldn't have been able to land.

edit on 11-4-2014 by Junkheap because: (no reason given)

True. Also, the engine was shut off while the footpads were still a few feet above the surface. Given the fact that the lunar surface is solid rock covered with fine dust, I don't see how the descent engine would have created any crater.

wildespace

Junkheap
reply to post by tomounitismanassas

 

If the thruster was going full blast, the LEM wouldn't have been able to land.

edit on 11-4-2014 by Junkheap because: (no reason given)

True. Also, the engine was shut off while the footpads were still a few feet above the surface. Given the fact that the lunar surface is solid rock covered with fine dust, I don't see how the descent engine would have created any crater.

So why is there not uneven dust under it? Not a big hole, sure, but why is there no dust blown marks outward?

reply to post by yorkshirelad


Thank you to everyone who answered my question as to where the star fields went. I get it now, it's due to exposure time.

kookoos

Soylent Green Is People

kookoos
So, what was changed to make it flyable without killing the astronauts?

That was not an LM. That was an training vehicle -- a totally different vehicle that was only for training purposes (just like the shuttle astronauts used a T-38 jet fight in order to train how to land a space shuttle

The LM itself could only fly in space, so the LM itself could never be tested on Earth nor trained in on earth.

So is it normal practice to train pilots in vehicles that have no similarities at all to the vehicle they are actually going to fly?

Th LM training vehicle had similarities to the LM. They both had a single main thruster underneath to provide main thrust, plus arrays of small thrusters to provide reaction control (control of pitch, roll, and yaw).

This is a picture of the aircraft used to train space shuttle pilots how to land. It does not look like a shuttle -- so does that mean the shuttle was a hoax?:

kookoos

HomerinNC
Beautiful pics, never knew HOW flimsy and fragile looking the LEM was
S&F

Yeah amazing it could even fly.. let alone land... looks in perfect pristine condition for a used vehicle too (one with high milage no less). Looks right out of the vehicle showroom in fact.

That photograph even looks studio quality, much better than I can do on a tripod outside even today with a modern camera, nevermind in a harsh environment such as the moon with BIG GLOVES on.

edit on 11-4-2014 by kookoos because: (no reason given)

It's not in pristine condition; you can see the buckled surfaces and other changes caused by the flight and landing. When you speak of mileage, you're talking about coasting through the vacuum of space. No atmospheric drag, no bumpy roads, no constant accelerations and decelerations, etc.

The photo was taken from a chest-mounted camera. By far not every Apollo photo is perfect; there are plenty photos that are tilted, or don't center on their subject, or are underexposed / overexposed, and some were even taken by accident.

If you can't take a photo like that with a modern camera on a tripod, you must have very poor photography skills :p

Soylent Green Is People

kookoos

Soylent Green Is People

kookoos
So, what was changed to make it flyable without killing the astronauts?

That was not an LM. That was an training vehicle -- a totally different vehicle that was only for training purposes (just like the shuttle astronauts used a T-38 jet fight in order to train how to land a space shuttle

The LM itself could only fly in space, so the LM itself could never be tested on Earth nor trained in on earth.

So is it normal practice to train pilots in vehicles that have no similarities at all to the vehicle they are actually going to fly?

It had similarities. It had a single main thruster to provide main thrust, plus arrays of small thrusters to provide reaction control (control of pitch, roll, and yaw).

This is a picture of the aircraft used to train space shuttle pilots how to land. It does not look like a shuttle -- so does that mean the shuttle was a hoax?:

edit on 4/11/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

Shuttle was more of a sales con than a hoax.

kookoos

Shuttle was more of a sales con than a hoax.

Maybe, but that's not relevant to this conversation.

What's relevant is that the shuttle pilots trained on this T-38 aircraft.

Soylent Green Is People

kookoos

Shuttle was more of a sales con than a hoax.

Maybe, but that's not relevant to this conversation.

What's relevant is that the shuttle pilots trained on this T-38 aircraft.

You're the one who brought up the Space shuttle, not me.

kookoos

Soylent Green Is People

kookoos

Shuttle was more of a sales con than a hoax.

Maybe, but that's not relevant to this conversation.

What's relevant is that the shuttle pilots trained on this T-38 aircraft.

You're the one who brought up the Space shuttle, not me.

Well, that's classic double-talk/backtracking/changing the subject on your part, if I ever saw it.

Soylent Green Is People

kookoos

Soylent Green Is People

kookoos

Shuttle was more of a sales con than a hoax.

Maybe, but that's not relevant to this conversation.

What's relevant is that the shuttle pilots trained on this T-38 aircraft.

You're the one who brought up the Space shuttle, not me.

Well, that's classic double-talk/backtracking/changing the subject if I ever saw it.

Well, you did, didn't you?

kookoos
I don't think the LM can actually FLY per se, more of a ... controlled falling, something, which it appears to be very good at, the falling.

Flying in space is basically using thrusters to accelerate / decelerate the craft in a certain direction. It's basic Newtonian physics. With no atmospheric drag, the craft will continue moving in the direction it was thrust in, with only gravity modifying its trajectory. The LM was able to do that as well as any other spacecraft.

kookoos

Soylent Green Is People

kookoos

Soylent Green Is People

kookoos

Shuttle was more of a sales con than a hoax.

Maybe, but that's not relevant to this conversation.

What's relevant is that the shuttle pilots trained on this T-38 aircraft.

You're the one who brought up the Space shuttle, not me.

Well, that's classic double-talk/backtracking/changing the subject if I ever saw it.

Well, you did, didn't you?

Are you just being intentionally obtuse now??

Yes, I DID IN FACT bring up the T-38 shuttle trainer. HOWEVER, I did so in direct response to the issue you have with using a training vehicle that is not exactly like the vehicle they were training for.

That is to say, you asked why they would use the LLRV to train astronauts when it looked nothing like the real LM, and in response I said that the T-38 aircraft that was used to train shuttle pilots looked nothing lik ethe shuttle.

It's called giving real world examples.

reply to post by zilebeliveunknown


AAhh thats why ok mystery solved:p

wildespace

kookoos
I don't think the LM can actually FLY per se, more of a ... controlled falling, something, which it appears to be very good at, the falling.

Flying in space is basically using thrusters to accelerate / decelerate the craft in a certain direction. It's basic Newtonian physics. With no atmospheric drag, the craft will continue moving in the direction it was thrust in, with only gravity modifying its trajectory. The LM was able to do that as well as any other spacecraft.

edit on 11-4-2014 by wildespace because: (no reason given)

Contrary to popular belief, there is gravity in space. That is why it is called micro-gravity, and the lunar surface has a gravity of 1.622 m/s²

en.wikipedia.org...

Uneven mass distributions (known as mascons) of the primary body will perturb orbits over time, and extreme distributions can cause orbits to be highly unstable. This effect has been discovered on the Moon, which has no atmosphere, but nonetheless has only four "frozen orbit" inclination zones where a lunar satellite can stay in a low orbit indefinitely. Lunar subsatellites were released on the last three Apollo manned lunar landing missions in 1971 and 1972; the subsatellite PFS-2 released from Apollo 16 was expected to stay in orbit for one and a half years, but lasted only 35 days before crashing into the lunar surface. In 2001, the mascons were mapped and the frozen orbits were discovered.[2]