It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
Here is a nice, and very detailed and pretty photo of the nose of a Space Shuttle, where you can see ITS RCS thrusters. (Of course, they are streamlined and embedded within the airframe, for aerodynamic reasons. Such as re-entry).
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/148c605bfcb0.jpg[/atsimg]
Deposits?? See any?? Pretty subtle, if at all, isn't it?
So why aren't those carbon on oxygen deposits showing like they do on the space shuttle thrusters?
Or does the vacuum change depending on the mission ?
So why do the apollo RCS thrusters look so clean compared to the shuttle, after all, they're both operating in a vacuum.
STS-41-D: First flight.
STS-51-D: Carried first sitting United States Member of Congress into space, Senator Jake Garn (R–UT).
STS-26: Return to space after Challenger disaster (STS-51-L).
STS-31: Launch of Hubble Space Telescope.
STS-60: First Russian launched in an American spacecraft (Sergei Krikalev).
STS-95: Second flight of John Glenn, oldest man in space and third sitting Member of Congress to enter space.
STS-92: The 100th Space Shuttle Mission.
STS-114: Return to space after Columbia disaster (STS-107).
Originally posted by theability
reply to post by ppk55
Wow ppk55, I am sure you say it once again, all under the guise of asking questions. But seriously when does a question become unrealistic?
So why aren't those carbon on oxygen deposits showing like they do on the space shuttle thrusters?
Or does the vacuum change depending on the mission ?
I really believe you have out done yourself here, you actually believe that you can SEE something that hundreds of thousands of Phd's have missed?
Ohh brother that takes the cake.
Let me show you something: Reaction Control System (RCS) thruster as used in the Apollo Service Module and Lunar Module
That is a typical thruster used on Apollo.
Another view: With damage from use, IE charring.
Apollo Command Module RCS SE-8 Nozzle, ablation/charring evident from firing
That image is about half-way down the page here: CURRENT COLLECTION OF APOLLO COMMAND SERVICE MODULE LUNAR PROGRAM SPACEFLIGHT ARTIFACTS
I think that answers your questions about charring on RCS thruster during Apollo Missions.
What mission(s) are those Apollo thrusters from?
Ummm... wait a minute.
What mission(s) are those Apollo thrusters from?
Ummm... wait a minute.
What mission(s) are those Apollo thrusters from?
Originally posted by theability
reply to post by FoosM
Ummm... wait a minute.
What mission(s) are those Apollo thrusters from?
The reason I said this was an illogical question is as follows:
The RCS thrusters were attached to the Service Module and Accent Stage of the Lunar Module.
Neither of those pieces of Apollo returned to earth did they?
The answer would be NO, of course not.
So obviously the RCS thruster in those images could not be from any Mission of Apollo.
...how were your examples relevant to PPK's examples of supposedly real Apollo thrusters not showing any residue after being used?
Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by ppk55
ppk, do you really detect a coating of black on the black thruster surface? Setting that aside for the moment, I would like to draw everyone's attention to this wonderful YouTube video from Armadillo Aerospace:
This video, which is not from NASA, demonstrates many things relevant to this thread, not least of which is that if a bunch of good ol' boys can do this, imagine what NASA's deep pockets can do.
NOTE:
1) The absence of a crater at the lift off point
2) The absence of a crater at the touch down point
3) The absence of charring and blackening on the module's engine and landing gear
4) The billowing clouds of dust caused by the particles being swept upwards into the atmosphere
Any questions?
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM
>sigh<
...how were your examples relevant to PPK's examples of supposedly real Apollo thrusters not showing any residue after being used?
THEY WERE NEW! The residue only accumulates after many hours of use.
Originally posted by nataylor
Originally posted by FoosM
With this post I want to offer another example of NASA not fully understanding
the space environment prior to claiming to send men to the moon and back
as brought up recently by SayonaraJupiter
I don't think anyone is claiming they *fully* understood the environment. If they fully understood it, there wouldn't be much point in sending anyone into space. What they did have was a good enough understanding to send crews up with an acceptable level of risk.
www.astronautix.com...
Soviets judge that Apollo 8 has only a 25% chance of success.
Originally posted by FoosM
In an earlier post I revealed that at least 17 proton emitting X-class X-ray LDE Solar Flares were observed during Apollo mission dates. 10 flares alone during Apollo 12 including an EVA.
I dispute that. According to this Catalog of LDE Flares, I get 7 X-class flares occurring during actual mission dates for Apollo 10-17, and all of those happened on Apollo 12.
So out of those 10 flares, 7 were X-class.
Out of those 7 X-class flares 3 of them,
spread across every part of the Apollo 12 journey (going, landing, coming), had a SID at the maximum of 3+ !!!
I mean thats just CRAZY! And no one sounded the alarm?
Originally posted by FoosM
Let me ask this question... how far did the Apollo astronauts travel with their rovers?
The maximum was 4.8 miles on Apollo 17.
[T]he arrival times for most events are 4 to 6 hours after the flare and radio burst. Peak particle intensities do not occur until another 4 to 6 hours after the arrival of particles. The strategy was to use this time to move the astronauts off the lunar surface and have them return to the more heavily shielded command and service module.
Originally posted by FoosM
Lets take a look at the satellites that measured and detected x-rays.
The earliest I could find was:
You didn't look very hard. Here are just a few: Explorer 7 (1959), Vanguard III (1959), Pioneer 5 (1960), Mariner 2 (1962), Solrad 8 (1965), Solrad 9 (1968).
I'm sorry, but the CM did have RCS thrusters to control pitch, roll, and yaw
Are you, in some kind of way, supporting PPK's observations?
Originally posted by FoosM
Sayanara's point- they didnt have enough of an understanding due to the limited type of tests they conducted prior to the rushed launch of Apollo 8. In particular no biological tests to make sure their instruments didnt miss something. I pointed out that CME's were not even calculated into that risk.
Originally posted by FoosM
Thanks for pointing that out, yes I made a mistake, it should be "major" flare, and not X-class. In my earlier posts I forgot that I included M-class flares as well in my count
Originally posted by FoosM
How does that help with X-rays?
Originally posted by FoosM
Where is the data?
Where are the numbers for the various missions?
Especially prior to Apollo 8.
You going to back that up with a source or explain how you got to that answer?
The maneuvers performed by the Lunar Module (LM) were DOI-2 (Descent Orbit Insertion #2), PDI (Powered Descent Initiation) and Landing. DOI was a maneuver to insert the spacecraft in the correct orbit from which to initiate descent. DOI-1 was performed by the CSM with the LM still docked. The LM, using its RCS thrusters, performed DOI-2. PDI was the maneuver that brakes the LM out of lunar orbit and lands it softly on the surface of the Moon. This was the only maneuver to use the main engine of the Descent Propulsion System (DPS).