More Moon fakery

Komodo

Saint Exupery
reply to post by waynos

 

...And remember, folks, that it is more difficult to do in 1 Gravity with air blowing you around than it is in 1/6th G with no air.

pics

or it aint happening .. cuz' that little machine nearly killed the astronaut that attempted to pilot it.. without ANY stablizer rockets it's going down .. simple mechanical logic ..

and you can TY that all day.. I don't have time ..

edit on 24-2-2014 by Komodo because: (no reason given)

Now you're an aeronautical engineer. Please explain your statement.

reply to post by Komodo


What do you think that is in my post? This was part of the UK's well documented development of VTOL in which the Rolls Royce lift engine concept championed by Shorts (and Dassault of France) competed unsuccessfully with the ultimately successful vectored thrust concept of Bristol Siddeley and Hawker which resulted in the Harrier. If you don't believe me there many many sources for it.

Here's a video, this device is shown from 1:09



Incidentally, when you see the Harrier and SC.1 in the video it is exactly the same as, when not moving forward, the wings and tail are contributing nothing to the control of the aircraft, that concept was why the TMR was built first.

After over a decade of such work, the controllability of the Lunar lander would have been relatively simple.

Komodo

pics

or it aint happening .. cuz' that little machine nearly killed the astronaut that attempted to pilot it.. without ANY stablizer rockets it's going down .. simple mechanical logic ..

and you can TY that all day.. I don't have time ..

the lunar lander had 16 RCS thrusters..

and with these machines you are fighting gravity.. isnt it obvious that the pull of gravity on earth is much higher than the pull on the lunar surface? the greater the gravity the greater the instability..

choos

Komodo

pics

or it aint happening .. cuz' that little machine nearly killed the astronaut that attempted to pilot it.. without ANY stablizer rockets it's going down .. simple mechanical logic ..

and you can TY that all day.. I don't have time ..

the lunar lander had 16 RCS thrusters..

and with these machines you are fighting gravity.. isnt it obvious that the pull of gravity on earth is much higher than the pull on the lunar surface? the greater the gravity the greater the instability..

You always test your equipment under the right circumstances...so not on earth. but on the moon.

America falsified science in an extreme way !!!!! ;-) !!!!!

reply to post by webstra


A pm to a mod may be a more productive way to get an answer.

webstra

choos

Komodo

pics

or it aint happening .. cuz' that little machine nearly killed the astronaut that attempted to pilot it.. without ANY stablizer rockets it's going down .. simple mechanical logic ..

and you can TY that all day.. I don't have time ..

the lunar lander had 16 RCS thrusters..

and with these machines you are fighting gravity.. isnt it obvious that the pull of gravity on earth is much higher than the pull on the lunar surface? the greater the gravity the greater the instability..

You always test your equipment under the right circumstances...so not on earth. but on the moon.

America falsified science in an extreme way !!!!! ;-) !!!!!

So the Wright brothers should have tested their powered flight craft before they actually tried to.....uhm....fly......

Right.

So, exactly how would you test a craft who's thrust weight ratio was designed to work with the moon's gravity and not the Earth's?

The science was there. The physics was understood. Concepts were tested using prototypes of the engine. They understood enough to make something that they knew would work.

Exactly what was falsified now? Please be a bit more specific.

Let's keep it On Topic , Please.

Unrelated concerns can be addressed by way of the ATS Suggestion/Complaint feature.

eriktheawful

webstra

choos

Komodo

pics

or it aint happening .. cuz' that little machine nearly killed the astronaut that attempted to pilot it.. without ANY stablizer rockets it's going down .. simple mechanical logic ..

and you can TY that all day.. I don't have time ..

the lunar lander had 16 RCS thrusters..

and with these machines you are fighting gravity.. isnt it obvious that the pull of gravity on earth is much higher than the pull on the lunar surface? the greater the gravity the greater the instability..

You always test your equipment under the right circumstances...so not on earth. but on the moon.

America falsified science in an extreme way !!!!! ;-) !!!!!

So the Wright brothers should have tested their powered flight craft before they actually tried to.....uhm....fly......

Right.

So, exactly how would you test a craft who's thrust weight ratio was designed to work with the moon's gravity and not the Earth's?

The science was there. The physics was understood. Concepts were tested using prototypes of the engine. They understood enough to make something that they knew would work.

Exactly what was falsified now? Please be a bit more specific.

edit on 25-2-2014 by eriktheawful because: (no reason given)

Actually, you have placed your finger on a core part of hoax believer thinking: it was not done before, so it must not be possible. This fallacy develops into variations like: they needed to send chimpanzees first, or they never tested the LM under 1/6th gravity, or the Russians never dared enter the Van Allen Belts* therefore it is impossible to survive... and so forth.

*Voskod 2 reached an altitude of over 400 kilometers, thereby passing through the South Atlantic Anomaly several times, a fact that hoaxies seem unaware of.

reply to post by DJW001


Oh I know. Just thought I would ask to see what the poster would say.

Sort of like: Nuclear weapons are not real, because there was no way to test them first before they detonated the first one (and in reality, they were not too sure exactly what was going to happen.....but they did it anyway).

kurthall
reply to post by Komodo

 

We went to the Moon, and there are an awful lot of threads on the topic. As far as a Flag, I would say there is a difference between the moon and a space station. I am sure someone will fill you in.

I'll reply to this before i read further down - It seems to be this would not be the case at all. There is no atmosphere on the moon to buffer it from micrometeorites. It seems to me to be just as exposed as the space station. I would also think the gravitational pull of the moon would help to pull micrometeorites down to the surface - even doubling the chance the Flag will be bombarded..

Thats my take, now I'll read more and see what folks think.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Edit, to say i just watched the video after I make this post. i had only gone on the Ops description of the video before.

I think the guy in the video did an excellent job of gathering facts and trying to rationally and logically figure out whats really going on.

If this IS the case then it begs the question WHY would NASA Lie to us about something so easily provable? Don't they know one day telescopes for armatures will be powerful enough to tell the truth? There has to be a Reason behind it.

JohnPhoenix

I'll reply to this before i read further down - It seems to be this would not be the case at all. There is no atmosphere on the moon to buffer it from micrometeorites. It seems to me to be just as exposed as the space station. I would also think the gravitational pull of the moon would help to pull micrometeorites down to the surface - even doubling the chance the Flag will be bombarded..

how much man-made space junk is floating at the same altitude that the space station is??

likewise how much debris is orbiting the moon of less than 2m altitude?

JohnPhoenix

I'll reply to this before i read further down - It seems to be this would not be the case at all. There is no atmosphere on the moon to buffer it from micrometeorites. It seems to me to be just as exposed as the space station. I would also think the gravitational pull of the moon would help to pull micrometeorites down to the surface - even doubling the chance the Flag will be bombarded..

Have you even considered how big the target is compared to the surface area of the MOON!!!

JohnPhoenix
... doubling the chance the Flag will be bombarded..

If you take a very, very, very, very small chance and double it...

...it is still a very, very small chance.

reply to post by Saint Exupery


The history of our space program is riddled with failures. The list is long and well documented, so let's focus on the successes. How about the rocket systems we employed on those lunar landers. These little miracles could not be tested here on Earth because they were a one hit pony, they could only be fired once, one and done, like a tampon, due to the damage caused by the corrosiveness of the fuel. Every time they fired those rockets for take off from the moon was the one and only time that particular engine would ever be fired. No testing could be done on the engines before they were "taped" to the aluminum foil covered do dads, or LEM's or whatever you call em. If those ascent rockets didn't perform perfectly the first time, the only time, each and every time, we were going to have some awfully lonely astronauts out there on the moon. Thankfully they did.

How many 100% success stories can you name in the history of our space program?

reply to post by Stackpot


That's why the ascent engine (the more life-preserving critical of the two main engines on the two parts of the LM) was made to work very simply and reliably. They did this by the use of hypergolic fuel in two parts -- a propellant and an oxidizer -- which would ignite on contact with each other.

That means the ascent engine could be made to be very mechanically simple; there was no need for pumps and no need for an igniter. There were far fewer parts to the engine, including far fewer moving parts, so there was less that could go wrong. It's true that because of this engine simplicity, the hypergolic fuel is extremely corrosive, and as you indicated, the engine was not reusable. It could only be fired once, and that once was the time they needed it to work to get them off the Moon.

But your argument is a bit backwards. The reason it could only be used once (and the specific engine could not be test fired) was BECAUSE it needed to be simple and reliable. The ascent engine's simplicity of design and the reliability inherent to that simple design is what led them to use hypergolic fuel in the first place. They felt that the use of hypergolic fuel in an extremely simple and straightforward engine design is the best way to ensure astronaut safety, even if they could not test each specific engine to be used.

There was still some risk involved, obviously, but don't forget that these astronauts were test pilots, and test piloting of planes was one of the most dangerous jobs in the world to begin with. In some ways, the Apollo program was safer than what many of these guys were doing before they became astronauts.

reply to post by Stackpot


To add, even though those particular engines have not been tested, identical engines have been tested in space environment:


So the engine design was tested, and was very simple and reliable.