Lunar lander?
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Leeds
Age: 67
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No atmosphere, exactly the point BKS. The Lunar Module was specifically designed as a vehicle for use in a vacuum. Funnily enough the point that started this thread (ie that lunar hoax supporters consider how effectively the craft could be stabilised using the thrusters as one of their main points of contention) is one that I've not really seen being argued.
I've seen most of the others....
Now the Van Allen Belts................
Cheers
Steve
PS BKS - I recall the first aircraft I ever noted was a BKS Viscount at LBA in 1967 (!)
I've seen most of the others....
Now the Van Allen Belts................
Cheers
Steve
PS BKS - I recall the first aircraft I ever noted was a BKS Viscount at LBA in 1967 (!)
I heartily agree with all the people here who say that we DID land on the moon in 1969...and the computing power of the LM, and the CM and the mainframe back at Houston had very little to do with it.
Those guys who landed them on the moon were some of the very best pilots in the world, Neil Armstrong may have been nominally a civilian, but he was a highly skilled test pilot, and did a short spell in the US Navy before that. Pete Conrad who landed Apollo 12 with great accuracy in November 69, was a Navy pilot too....and Jim Lovell (ex USN) would have no doubt landed 13 well too, if his service module hadnt let him down..
Computers have enough trouble landing UAV's on carriers now, but these guys did it all the time, day in day out....The human brain is still a mighty processor, no matter what Intel and Microsoft would have you believe!!
Actually I have just checked, All but one of the LM commanders were USN, only Dave Scott on Apollo 15 was USAF. The conclusion seems to be, if you want to land on the Moon, dont take a computer, take a Navy pilot!
Those guys who landed them on the moon were some of the very best pilots in the world, Neil Armstrong may have been nominally a civilian, but he was a highly skilled test pilot, and did a short spell in the US Navy before that. Pete Conrad who landed Apollo 12 with great accuracy in November 69, was a Navy pilot too....and Jim Lovell (ex USN) would have no doubt landed 13 well too, if his service module hadnt let him down..
Computers have enough trouble landing UAV's on carriers now, but these guys did it all the time, day in day out....The human brain is still a mighty processor, no matter what Intel and Microsoft would have you believe!!
Actually I have just checked, All but one of the LM commanders were USN, only Dave Scott on Apollo 15 was USAF. The conclusion seems to be, if you want to land on the Moon, dont take a computer, take a Navy pilot!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: DORSET
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Neil armstrong eject:
Apparently the only clip of one of the astronauts aboard a prototype (53 secs):
YouTube - LEM Prototype Crash
YouTube - LEM Prototype Crash
Aviator Extraordinaire
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 76
Posts: 2,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently the only clip of one of the astronauts aboard a prototype (53 secs):
Or are you saying that was the only flight with an astronaut flying the Lunar Landing Research Vehicle? Which would infer that plain old average test pilots could fly the research vehicle but the astronauts were not good enough to fly the thing.
Which is what it was called, Lunar Landing Research Vehicle. It was not a prototype of the actual Lunar Landers.
We landed men on the moon in 1969 and brought them home safely.
BOAC - well, I would have thought that the onus would then be on the conspiracy theorists to prove that all of the Apollo landing site views (there are several, not just Apollo 11) sent back by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter are Photoshopped.
Neil Armstrong's standard written response to CTs - no, I don't know him, I took the trouble to read his approved biography - is that it would have been a lot more difficult to fake the Moon landings than to carry them out. Can't argue with that.
And then there's what Buzz Aldrin did to a CT - i.e. decked him
As has been pointed out elsewhere, even if only one person in a thousand thinks that your crackpot theories are right, that's still quite a lot of people given that there are billions on the planet. Plenty enough to give credence to our not landing on the Moon, 9/11 being an inside job, aliens alive and well in New Mexico, a flying saucer landing near a Air Force base in the east of England etc etc. You feeling fit Buzz?
Neil Armstrong's standard written response to CTs - no, I don't know him, I took the trouble to read his approved biography - is that it would have been a lot more difficult to fake the Moon landings than to carry them out. Can't argue with that.
And then there's what Buzz Aldrin did to a CT - i.e. decked him
As has been pointed out elsewhere, even if only one person in a thousand thinks that your crackpot theories are right, that's still quite a lot of people given that there are billions on the planet. Plenty enough to give credence to our not landing on the Moon, 9/11 being an inside job, aliens alive and well in New Mexico, a flying saucer landing near a Air Force base in the east of England etc etc. You feeling fit Buzz?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: DORSET
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
are you saying that was the only flight with an astronaut flying the Lunar Landing Research Vehicle
As has been pointed out elsewhere, even if only one person in a thousand thinks that your crackpot theories are right
I am intrigued by this one argument though - piloting the landers is so difficult that today, despite increased computing power, the landers often end up out of control. How did Apollo manage it flawlessly, not once, but six times?
Would we now consider the risk to the astronauts to be unacceptable?
I would hope so, as the chances of recovering from even a slight miscalculation in moon orbit would be fatal, maybe to all the crew.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are talking nonsense. The lunar landes have not been used for 35 years. And they proved themselves admirably! But that design could not be used under Earth Gravity, they were built for 1/6 Earth gravity, and worked very well. Your 'proof' is bunkum. Look at the early flying bedstead testing for the Harrier, then the later production models. Working pretty well! Well enough that we gasped as they performed bows to the audience at the airshows.
I'm afraid discussing this insanity with you gives the whole thing an air of respectability. It is utter stupidity, and more fool you for even raising it here. You must be very naive, and totally blinkered.
I'm afraid discussing this insanity with you gives the whole thing an air of respectability. It is utter stupidity, and more fool you for even raising it here. You must be very naive, and totally blinkered.
SS said: They are NOT my crackpot theories. I think the hoax theories are hokum, and said so at the beginning of the thread.
Tog says: Second person impersonal plural, not you personally SS. Maybe I should have said "one's theories". My apologies.
Tog says: Second person impersonal plural, not you personally SS. Maybe I should have said "one's theories". My apologies.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Leeds
Age: 67
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As pointed out earlier by other posters the LLTV was effectively an aircraft (with a passing similarity to the Rolls Royce 'Flying Bedstead') and which had two independent means of propulsion. A jet engine supported 5/6 of it's weight whilst airborne and it was maneuvered using two rocket engines powered by hydrogen peroxide gas. There were a number of small jets on the craft to simulate the RCS thrusters on the Lunar Module and assist with stabilisation.
Armstrong's ejection in May 1968 was due to the depletion of attitude control fuel and subsequent instability (traced later to a design flaw).
In it's lunar simulation mode the LLTV flew as though in a vacuum and in lunar gravity.
To move around the pilot has to tilt the LLTV and allow the rocket engine to push him in his chosen direction and because of 1/6 g he has to tilt the craft six times as far as he would in 'normal' gravity. The danger here is by tilting too far the craft will fall out of the sky.
Whilst doing this the pilot has to use the throttle to prevent altitude loss. Once moving he would keep going in that direction (as in the lunar vacuum) until he slows down and halts his motion by tilting the craft in the opposite direction.
It was a dangerous and unforgiving machine but it gave the lunar landing astronauts (they all flew it at some time) the 'real time' experience they needed ready for the real thing. Only this craft could give the astronaut any sort of preparation for the last few hundred feet of powered descent to the lunar surface.
No prototype Lunar Module ever flew free in the Earth's atmosphere everything about it was designed purely for flight in space.
As for the hoax theory I had the pleasure to attend an event with Neil Armstrong once and he was asked his opinion on the 'hoax' his reply that given all that would have to be done to make a hoax 'believeable' it was actually just easier to go to the moon!
Armstrong's ejection in May 1968 was due to the depletion of attitude control fuel and subsequent instability (traced later to a design flaw).
In it's lunar simulation mode the LLTV flew as though in a vacuum and in lunar gravity.
To move around the pilot has to tilt the LLTV and allow the rocket engine to push him in his chosen direction and because of 1/6 g he has to tilt the craft six times as far as he would in 'normal' gravity. The danger here is by tilting too far the craft will fall out of the sky.
Whilst doing this the pilot has to use the throttle to prevent altitude loss. Once moving he would keep going in that direction (as in the lunar vacuum) until he slows down and halts his motion by tilting the craft in the opposite direction.
It was a dangerous and unforgiving machine but it gave the lunar landing astronauts (they all flew it at some time) the 'real time' experience they needed ready for the real thing. Only this craft could give the astronaut any sort of preparation for the last few hundred feet of powered descent to the lunar surface.
No prototype Lunar Module ever flew free in the Earth's atmosphere everything about it was designed purely for flight in space.
As for the hoax theory I had the pleasure to attend an event with Neil Armstrong once and he was asked his opinion on the 'hoax' his reply that given all that would have to be done to make a hoax 'believeable' it was actually just easier to go to the moon!
Last edited by sp221156; 15th Oct 2009 at 21:35.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: clonmel
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've always thought,by extensive reading on the subject, that the whole Apollo mission programme was a magnificent achievement but that it was a very risky enterprise from beginning to end.
From a disfunctional orbiter (the Apollo 1 fire) to the successful landing took only 3 years.
Apollo 8 was the first maned craft to even orbit the moon and 6 months later they land successfully.
From a disfunctional orbiter (the Apollo 1 fire) to the successful landing took only 3 years.
Apollo 8 was the first maned craft to even orbit the moon and 6 months later they land successfully.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SS - keep trying. Eventually some of the folk will understand your query.
The basic 'upright' stability of a lander would have been fairly easily achieved even before the 60's with the use of a reasonably simple gyroplatform feeding the thrusters. 'All' the pilot has to do then is to input changes to that attitude to manoeuvre. I do not see the actual handling of the module as particularly 'dodgy', but the other problems such as fuel reserves and choice of landing site were huge. Your statement "in fact, on earth trials, the Lander always became uncontrollable." is incorrect. You will see that in other video clips of the modules. Have a look also at the other 'successful' VSTOLs of the 50's and 60's - the Coleoptere, the X-13, the 'Flying Bedstead' for example. All were controllable (most of the time!)
Remember too that the early earth-bound lunar trial platforms were 'development' platforms where thruster power, response, postion and angles were probably all being played with, and hard lessons learned - on earth and not on the moon. All jet-borne VTOL is challenging and like the moon module requires above average pilots (ehem..........). It is inherently unstable to sit on a column of thrust (nurse!) and it was always a hoot watching the early attempts at a Harrier 'static' hover which moved faster than the following Land Rover.
The CTs must try harder than that. There were other parts of the early space/moon programmes that were far riskier than the piloting of a lunar lander by a top-grade pilot!
The basic 'upright' stability of a lander would have been fairly easily achieved even before the 60's with the use of a reasonably simple gyroplatform feeding the thrusters. 'All' the pilot has to do then is to input changes to that attitude to manoeuvre. I do not see the actual handling of the module as particularly 'dodgy', but the other problems such as fuel reserves and choice of landing site were huge. Your statement "in fact, on earth trials, the Lander always became uncontrollable." is incorrect. You will see that in other video clips of the modules. Have a look also at the other 'successful' VSTOLs of the 50's and 60's - the Coleoptere, the X-13, the 'Flying Bedstead' for example. All were controllable (most of the time!)
Remember too that the early earth-bound lunar trial platforms were 'development' platforms where thruster power, response, postion and angles were probably all being played with, and hard lessons learned - on earth and not on the moon. All jet-borne VTOL is challenging and like the moon module requires above average pilots (ehem..........
). It is inherently unstable to sit on a column of thrust (nurse!) and it was always a hoot watching the early attempts at a Harrier 'static' hover which moved faster than the following Land Rover. The CTs must try harder than that. There were other parts of the early space/moon programmes that were far riskier than the piloting of a lunar lander by a top-grade pilot!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: DORSET
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am tired of saying they are not my personal theories, but that with this one aspect the looney hoax theorists have raised an interesting point.
.
rainboe's Harrier example is a case for the hoax theorists. How many years of failure did it take to develope the P1127, let alone a Harrier that still requires specialist training to fly.
The Osprey similary has problems in transition.
Yet, as cml387 points out, Apollo managed in three years to develope a Lander that worked perfectly six times.
And the Armadillo trials are of new craft, not 35 year old machinery.
Look at the early flying bedstead testing for the Harrier, then the later production models. Working pretty well! Well enough that we gasped as they performed bows to the audience at the airshows.
rainboe's Harrier example is a case for the hoax theorists. How many years of failure did it take to develope the P1127, let alone a Harrier that still requires specialist training to fly.
The Osprey similary has problems in transition.
Yet, as cml387 points out, Apollo managed in three years to develope a Lander that worked perfectly six times.
And the Armadillo trials are of new craft, not 35 year old machinery.
Last edited by sharksandwich; 15th Oct 2009 at 20:50. Reason: This post written before I saw BOACs!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There have been replies, the Soviet Union would have a 'field day' debunking the first landing using their space tracking capability. Read on.........
A primary reason for the race to the Moon was the Cold War. Plait states in Bad Astronomy that the Soviets, with their own competing Moon program and a formidable scientific community able to analyze NASA data, could be expected to have cried foul if the United States tried to fake a Moon landing,[Books 8] especially since their own program had failed. Successfully pointing out a hoax would have been a major propaganda coup. Bart Sibrel has responded, "the Soviets did not have the capability to track deep spacecraft until late in 1972, immediately after which, the last three Apollo missions were abruptly canceled."[9]
I rest my case.
A primary reason for the race to the Moon was the Cold War. Plait states in Bad Astronomy that the Soviets, with their own competing Moon program and a formidable scientific community able to analyze NASA data, could be expected to have cried foul if the United States tried to fake a Moon landing,[Books 8] especially since their own program had failed. Successfully pointing out a hoax would have been a major propaganda coup. Bart Sibrel has responded, "the Soviets did not have the capability to track deep spacecraft until late in 1972, immediately after which, the last three Apollo missions were abruptly canceled."[9]
I rest my case.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ss
How many years of failure did it take to develop the P1127, let alone a Harrier that still requires specialist training to fly.
So a research platform goes out of control? It does not make the whole concept impossible.
and a pretty poor case it is!
Find me one WELL QUALIFIED expert to support you! not some collection of armchair theorists, who know only how to get sensationalist nonsense printed...
Just because the Russians couldnt deep track Moon probes until 1972, doesnt mean that the Americans couldnt! We all know why Apollo's 18-20 got cancelled, it was because Nixon's administation didnt want to fund any more costly missions to prove something that had already been done....they had spent $20 billion 1960- dollars on the Space Race, and they wanted to see some payback....
Just give it a rest!
Find me one WELL QUALIFIED expert to support you! not some collection of armchair theorists, who know only how to get sensationalist nonsense printed...
Just because the Russians couldnt deep track Moon probes until 1972, doesnt mean that the Americans couldnt! We all know why Apollo's 18-20 got cancelled, it was because Nixon's administation didnt want to fund any more costly missions to prove something that had already been done....they had spent $20 billion 1960- dollars on the Space Race, and they wanted to see some payback....
Just give it a rest!
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Leeds
Age: 67
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was indeed Sibrel that Aldrin hit. It was an absolute beaut!! I seem to recall video of other astronauts giving him pretty short shrift including Apollo 14 LMP Ed Mitchell who kicks him up the backside..........
Steve
Steve
togsdragracing wrote
NASA - A Second Look at Apollo 11
The conspiracy nut jobs don't believe the LRO images.
Jarrah White is probably the lead nutjob at the moment.
Well worth a look through for anyone wanting a bit of amusement. Amazing the lengths that Jarrah goes to trying to prove the Moon Hoax!
YouTube - MoonFaker: LRO, SELENE & Clementine
YouTube - MoonFaker: LRO, Moment Of Truth?
YouTube - MoonFaker: LRO, Laser Retroreflector Oddity
YouTube - WhiteJarrah's Channel
TJ
Just point your local conspiracy theorist at this page and ask them to explain it away...
The conspiracy nut jobs don't believe the LRO images.
Jarrah White is probably the lead nutjob at the moment.
Well worth a look through for anyone wanting a bit of amusement. Amazing the lengths that Jarrah goes to trying to prove the Moon Hoax!
YouTube - MoonFaker: LRO, SELENE & Clementine
YouTube - MoonFaker: LRO, Moment Of Truth?
YouTube - MoonFaker: LRO, Laser Retroreflector Oddity
YouTube - WhiteJarrah's Channel
TJ
How many years of failure did it take to develope the P1127, let alone a Harrier that still requires specialist training to fly.
Harrier GR1 entry into RAF service: April 1969.
So rather less time to develop than modern marvels (Typhoon, F-22, F-35) despite being a completely new concept.
rainboe's Harrier example is a case for the hoax theorists. How many years of failure did it take to develope the P1127, let alone a Harrier that still requires specialist training to fly.
Seems to be pretty stable: YouTube - Lunar Lander Research Vehicle
Last edited by Load Toad; 17th Oct 2009 at 02:41.