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 orangetom1999
One more thing of importance here..it is OUR OWN government who has played us for a sucker here..not the Russians...or the Russian government.
The early space program required a very very fine precise working instrument called an accelerometer to accurately measure the velocity of a spacecraft in order to successfully control rocket burn.
To little control and one would not control rocket burn enough to prevent slamming onto the surface of the moon. To much control and the rocket motors would burn to long negating the ability to soft land until one ran out of fuel and crashed. This is the crux of the Russian design problem and why they could not successfully achieve a moon landing. They tried many times and kept slamming their unmanned spacecraft onto the surface of the moon because they could not get a successful working accelerometer to control rocket burn for a soft landing.
My understanding of the early accelerometers is that the initial batch of these precision measuring instruments were built by hand. In those days there were only about five machinists who could continually do precision work down into tolerances beyond 100,000 ths of an inch...by hand. All of them lived in the USA and all of them around Detroit Michigan.
Interestingly enough even our own WHORISH LYING government is loath to give us this information's and or tell us the truth about this question. Notice that this is a question avoided by NASA and all the supposed "EXPERTS."
Now if the Russians today have a working precision Accelerometer...I know from whence it came..not from Russia.
You are stating in your post that the automatic pilot or automatic landing controls were not working or suspect.... If this were so..how did they get back home??
The story of the the 1202 computer alarm going off at a very inconvenient time during Eagle's powered descent to Mare Tranquilitatis is well-known and often recounted in documentaries, as it ads a lot of drama to the story (as it did, undoubtedly, to the descent).
None of the documentaries I watched, however, offered a reason for the alarm (meaning data overload of the onboard computer, if I understand it correctly) - fair enough, I thought, computer glitches occured before the invention of Windows.
I was surprised, then, that in the beautiful documentary, "In the Shadow of the Moon", Buzz Aldrin offered a simple explanation: "Being Dr. Renezvous", and contrary to the flight manual, he had left the rendezvous radar on in case he needed it quickly, and the data flow resulting from both the landing and the rendezvous radar caused the overload (The film is on YouTube here, and the story begins at 6:45 into the segment).
My questions - Is this the accepted explanation for the alarm? Were there any consequences from it? I guess Aldrin's explanation for him leaving the rendezvous radar on is very reasonable. Was there a modification on subsequent flights to allow for the added data flow, or was the dual radar just avoided? I also got the impression Aldrin rolled his eyes a bit that nobody anticipated that he would do what he did. What came out of the debriefings regarding this error?
The story is told in considerable detail in Murray and Cox's "Apollo - The Race to the Moon". It suggests Aldrin's answer is correct, but incomplete. The key was that the rendezvous radar was taking up a large portion of the computer's time, all the while performing a useless task.
The task related to the radar's mode switch, which could be in one of four settings. For the descent to the Moon, the radar was originally to be in one mode. Not long before launch, it was decided to use a different mode, which required the development of new software and new procedures. The new software was loaded, but then the engineers decided the new procedures were too much to introduce at such a late stage. So they came up with a method of disabling the software which they thought was failsafe. Unfortunately, all they did was make the LM computer undertake an impossible task (described in the book as trying to calculate an angle with a sine and cosine of 0). Doing that apparently used nearly one-fifth of the computer's time, and contributed to the computer indicating that it was overloaded.
It sounds like it wouldn't have been that hard to remedy for later missions. What puzzles me is why it was never picked up in any of the simulations - Aldrin presumably didn't do anything in the landing that he hadn't already done in the sims.
Anyway, I'm sure I haven't given the story full justice, so if anyone can tell it better than me, go right ahead.
Originally posted by orangetom1999
Still, a precision accelerometer is needed to get accurate velocity measurements...in X, Y , and Z axis of motion.
This is especially necessary for unmanned missions which would preceed the manned missions.
say, a good radar tracking the approaching surface, or target satellite -- you can calculate acceleration and -- more important -- required course corrections -- perfectly well without any accelerometer at all.
Originally posted by orangetom1999
Seems like this could all be combined into an accurate, reliable IMU to save vital space in the lander.
Originally posted by ngchunter
Originally posted by magicmushroom
Orange, I think you will find that the Russian engines were and still are superior to the American ones. They developed a closed combustion cycle for their engines which the US never managed to do, the shuttle uses Russian engine technology to this day. Even at the height of the US rocket program Russian engines were far more powerful than the US counterparts.
Uh, no, totally and completely wrong.
Originally posted by ngchunter
The F-1 engine from the Saturn V is still, to this day, the most powerful liquid rocket engine ever used.
At no time have the russians ever matched the superiority of the F-1 engine.
Originally posted by bokonon2010
en.wikipedia.org...(rocket_engine)
Originally posted by ufoorbhunter
I know what you mean. The Russians won every other race in space, first dog, first man, first woman, first satellite, first space station and the Yanks have followed. The one thing the Yanks won, the race to the moon, was not copied by the russians which is a bit out of sync
Originally posted by bokonon2010
You don't have to write this every time while you fail short of facts, and trying to offset this with fairy tales.
en.wikipedia.org...(rocket_engine)
Originally posted by pavil
reply to post by ZeroKnowledge
NM, I must need to brush up on my Soviet space program.
[edit on 13-8-2010 by pavil]
YUP i was watching a russian doc the other day and he said something strange that stuck in my mind ..he said they were winning the space race right up to the early 80's...thought comment was strange and thought of the moon landing's been fake
Originally posted by Rabmal
Every documentary you watch on the Apollo missions, they use the phrase "the race for the moon". When the USA started the mission to reach the moon we were well behind the Soviets in the "race for the moon". As history played out the USA was the first country to reach the moon, but this begs a question.
Why did the Soviets not land a man on the moon as well even if it would have been second? Not in the 60's, not in the 70's and not in the 80's. I know they landed a rover on the moon but not a man.
One would imagine that if the Soviets had been the first to place a man on the moon we would not have stopped trying to get there and certainly still would have put our own man on the moon.
You would think that the Soviets would want to know first hand what it is like there and also check out if we put anything there as well. (Especially, considering the paranoia we had for each other at the time.) I understand they may be able to do this remotely, but you would think they would want to put "boots on the ground" as well.
This would be akin to the Spanish coming to the New World and the English deciding to just stay home and listen to stories about it.
In the 30 years past you would have thought that some country would have wanted to land a man on the moon for themselves. I would be interested in hearing anyone's insight on this.
Originally posted by orangetom1999
Did they have enough space to put one on the lander?? How about the power requirements in addition to all the other power requirements they had to meet?? I dont know if radars in 1968/69 were all that compact or the power requirements that small.
Originally posted by sitchin i was watching a russian doc the other day and he said something strange that stuck in my mind ..he said they were winning the space race right up to the early 80's...thought comment was strange and thought of the moon landing's been fake