It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by ngchunter
I have yet to fully explore the simulation links (thanks again, BTW) but before I do, was wondering about something you said.
In 'later' missons (am assuming 16 and 17?) they used the CM, or actually, the CM/SM combined vehicle, for initial de-orbital deltaV, so the LM could use less fuel? Following that, the CM/SM would certainly have to fire the main engine to correct the orbit, yet save enough for the TEI to get home. Am I correct?
Oh, here's a thought...the initial TLI placed the combined CM/SM/LEM vehicle into a purposely 'higher' orbit than previously, so that the larger engine on the SM could help reduce some of the orbital velocity, allow the CM/SM to then settle into the lower orbit needed for rendezvous later, before the trip home, thus allowing more fuel on the LEM for maneuvering, if necessary.
Experience is the key here...real life experience, lessons learned from previous missons, would have allowed for this 'tweaking' in the missions we are discussing. Makes sense.
Soylent Green Is People
First of all, we need to remember that even before the Command Module (CM) and LEM separated, the joined spacecraft needed to slow itself down from 11,000 meters per second (its trans-lunar cruising speed) to 1600 meters/second (its lunar orbital speed). This was done by turning the spacescraft around, pointing the engine in the direction of motion, and conducting a burn of the engine. I hope you don't doubt the fact that the spacecraft can slow down in this manner, since this is basic physics...action/reaction stuff, and is done all of the time.
Originally posted by ngchunter
reply to post by no.stars
The spacecraft is not a disk with forces being applied tangentally to the edge, so how is this analogy supposed to apply? If the force of the engine were going to induce a spin, the simulator would reflect it. If you try to do a burn with a fictional spacecraft that's not properly balanced it will spin, but the apollo spacecraft never exhibit this behavior because their engines are directly in line with their cog, unlike in your example.
Originally posted by darktim
all i have to sayis this. why people have they not been bacjk in just over 40 years?
i once saw this long program on the landing arguement. they recon (those who say it didnt happen) that the radiation and temperatures along would not allow a man to walk the moon.
Originally posted by EarthDweller
Instead the new question should be:
With what technology was it made possible?