Here Thar Be Monsters!

From the other side of the argument to the other side of the planet, read in over 149 countries and 17 languages. We bring you news and opinion with an IndoTex® flavor. Be sure to check out the Home Site. Send thoughts and comments to luap.jkt at gmail, and tell all your friends. Sampai jumpa, y'all.

25.7.19

One Small Step For A Man

I was born just three months after Alan Sheppard's 1961 sub-orbital Mercury flight, and six months before John Glenn's orbital flight in 1962.

Due to Cold War propaganda, I knew precious little about Yuri Gagarin, who became the first human to orbit the Earth a full three months before Sheppard's ballistic shot.  Nor was I aware of Alexei Leonov's historic EVA in 1965, until years later.

I was born with the Space Age and my life and hobbies have been intricately tied to this epoch in history.  I have fostered a life-long interest in astronomy and aerospace, studying the topics both independently and at university.  I can recite facts and figures about the Universe that would induce narcolepsy in most normal humans.

During the Apollo 11 mission, I absorbed every second of broadcast time, getting exhilarated every time I saw fellow Houstonian Walter Cronkite's visage appear on the fuzzy black-and-white cathode-ray tube, futzing with the rabbit ears to draw in the clearest possible picture of the events as they unfolded.  It was a very rare occasion that my strict parents let me stay up late, glued to the TeeVee (but not too close as it would ruin my eyes).

Perhaps it was my youthful naivete, or my willing suspension of disbelief, or my indoctrination into the Cult of American Greatness, or perhaps a bit of all three that led me to unquestioningly accept everything I saw.  It would be decades until I started critically examining the Moon landings.

Being an expert in optics, lighting, set construction, special effects, and film production in general, I take most of the photographic theories with a grain of salt.  I think Stanley Kubrick was far too careful to make simple mistakes (wink).  I do think a good number of the iconic Moon photos were staged, but that does not a priori rule out actual landings.

My suspicions are centered much more on the technology.  There are some serious and fact-based questions that have never been adequately addressed by NASA, nor satisfactorily answered by Apollogists (pun intended).

There are two issues in particular that have long puzzled me, and the NASA documentation is vague and dodgy.  There have never been any clear explanations for these two issues and some of the design data are still classified.  The first is how the astronauts' backpacks exchanged heat in a vacuum, and the other is the Aerozine 50 fuel used in the descent and ascent stages of the Landing Module (LM).

The first of these mysteries is the Primary Life Support System, or PLSS, which are the bulky backpacks worn by the moon-walking astronauts.  Among the many functions of a PLSS - radio, CO2 scrubbers, micro-meteor protection, insulation, humidity control, etc. - was the removal of internal and external heat and exchange it with the environment.

One may think this is a simple and straightforward process, and inside an atmosphere, one would be right.  We must recall, however, that the Moon has no atmosphere.  We are told repeatedly by NASA and other agencies that the surface is a perfect vacuum in which the entire Universe sucks on any object exposed to it.  While this presents a number of issues with the moonsuits and lander construction, we will focus on the heat exchange.

Anyone familiar with the function of a Thermos will instantly appreciate the problem of exchanging heat with a vacuum.  In a Thermos, an inner glass container is held in a vacuum enclosed by an outer container, which prevents heat from being lost to the surrounding environment.  Because there is no medium of transfer, i.e. air, to dissipate heat to the environment, hot liquids inside the Thermos retain heat.  Simple concept, but presents unique challenges for astronauts on the Moon.

Not only is the astronaut's body generating heat, which gets uncomfortable rather quickly if not vented, the astronaut would quick cook when exposed to direct sunlight on the Moon.  Any surface on the Moon reaches up to 250F in direct contact with sunlight on the Moon.  The moonsuits are not immune to this, even given the bright white reflective materials.  Inside, the astronaut is generating heat, both at rest and especially when working.

The solution was a form-fitting body stocking (LCVG) infused with tiny capillaries circulating cool water to a heat collector inside the backpack.  The heat exchangers then "vent" the heat into the vacuum by sublimation.  This presents a number of major issues.

The astronauts must carry to the Moon a large amount of water to be wasted by sublimating the waste water.  This process will take some time inside the PLSS endangering electronic systems, or it must be sprayed directly into the environment creating clouds of ice crystals and/or steam that can blind the astronauts' visors (among other problems).

Sublimation is the process of a solid converting directly to gas without a liquid state.  To watch sublimation at home, get a piece of dry ice and place it on the kitchen counter.  Note the time and watch how long it takes for the ice to sublimate.

It's a similar problem with water ice in the PLSS on the Moon.  For one thing, a large chunk of ice must be stored somewhere while it sublimates.  There's an additional problem in that water ice at temperatures below -200F is as hard as rock and apparently does not sublimate quickly, since Mars has large amounts of water all over the place, and a number of moons in the solar system are composed entirely of water ice.

If the water ice in the PLSS is not thrown away somehow, then it will melt (presumably) inside the PLSS and the LM, causing all sorts of issues with the electronics, not to mention a slip-and-fall hazard.  Since we never saw the astronauts helping each other get rid of ice balls in their packs, we must assume sublimation was not the means by which waste heat was expelled.

Since footage from the Moon never showed clouds of vapor spraying into the environment from the suits, and any collected inside the PLSSs would melt and cause problems inside the LM, we cannot fathom how the heat was exchanged with the environment.  After all, a vacuum is a critical component of a Thermos, which retains heat.  All of the available documentation either leads the reader in a circular argument, or waves the problems away with vague statements.

The second problem concerning the fuel for the descent and ascent stages of the LM is even bigger.  There is no dodging the issue with hand-waving and circular arguments.  The available documentation simply ignores this issue altogether.

The LM used a hypergolic binary fuel (self-oxydizing and ignites the moment to two liquids come in contact with each other) called Aerozine 50.  There are so many problems with this fuel that it is almost never used for human spaceflight.  In fact, the Apollo program is the only one I can find that used it for a manned mission.

Correction 27 July 2019 - Aerozine 50 was used on the Titan GLV rockets in the Gemini program that preceded Apollo.  A number of modifications were made to make it human-rated.  This fact, however, does not change the concerns and issues mentioned here.

Aerozine 50 combines a form of hydrazine with dinitrogentetroxide as an oxydizer to create a highly explosive fuel with a very high specific impulse.  An accident in 1980 punctured a hydrazine tank on an ICBM missile and the explosion lifted a 750-ton silo door right off, while launching the second stage and nuclear warhead out of the silo.

In addition, hydrazine freezes at 38F/2C, and the shade on the Moon is -250F.  None of the available specifications mention the ability to lower the freezing point to -250F.  Aerozine 50 is a special mixture that does lower the freezing point a bit, but certainly not anywhere near the temperatures found in space or on the Moon.

Hydrazine is highly caustic and will eat through many common materials, such as mylar sheeting, Kevlar spacesuits, etc.  The descent would have spewed vast amounts of highly caustic and poisonous exhaust  all over the landing sites.  This not only would have contaminated any rock and soil samples they collected making them scientifically useless, but would have been carried inside the LM, thus poisoning the astronauts and eating away at the electronics and air scrubbers if it didn't eat through the suits first.

While all of these issues are problematic, at best, the most obvious problem is that burning Aerozine 50 creates thick clouds of red smoke and bright flame, even in a vacuum (self-oxydizing).  In an airless environment like the Moon, this smoke would completely surround the landing sites and take a significant amount of time to dissipate.

To sum all this up, the Aerozine 50 fuel used to land and take off from the Moon placed two astronauts on top of highly caustic and explosive liquids that would have required very intricate heating systems to stay liquid.  The landing would have created a thick cloud of smoke that should have taken days or more to dissipate, leaving the astronauts blind visually and photographically.

Finally, the specific impulse of the Aerozine 50 means that the astronauts would have been pinned to the floor of the LM on launch (they were free-standing) for at least several seconds until acceleration peaked.

It should be noted that there is some discussion whether the ascent engine was powerful enough to lift the weight of the craft, men and samples.  These arguments are generally inconclusive because the weight data is not consistent or not complete, and in some cases, the specifications of the engine are in doubt.

The PLSS cooling system and Aerozine 50 fuel not only have a number of direct issues, there are dozens if not hundreds of ancillary and corollary problems introduced by these two things alone.

If we assume, as I do, that humans have indeed walked on the Moon, then we are faced with either or both of two possibilities: 1) the events did not occur as publicly acknowledged, and/or 2) technologies were employed that are not public knowledge.

These are just two of a number of glaring problems with the Apollo missions.  Other include the vacuum on the Moon and the construction of the LM and moonsuits, micro-meteor bombardment, weight of supplies and equipment versus the power of engine designs, and many more.

All of these issues are highlighted by the fact that humans have not (publicly) returned to the Moon in 50 years and apparently lack of engineering capability at NASA and other agencies to overcome the inherent problems of a return trip to the Moon.

While I have no desire to diminish the achievements of gutsy and talented individuals, there is some underlying reason why America has not be back to the Moon for 50 years, and why the Soviet Union (and later Russia) abruptly cancelled its plans after achieving nearly 90% of the tasks to get there.

History tells us that humans do not suddenly abandon or "lose" radical new technologies without compelling reasons.  It is not a "conspiracy theory" to question the existing facts.  Something has stopped humanity from following in those tentative first steps, at least openly.  Those of us who paid for those steps certainly deserve more than we have received.

One other solution presents itself: everything we have been told about the Moon's environment is false.
============================================================
Update 28 July 2019 (Anonymous Comment)
 With regard to IR radiation being the means by which heat is released into a vacuum, this is true HOWEVER:

The heated surfaces must be exposed to the vacuum in order for the heat to radiate away.  The astronauts and their PLSSs were highly insulated internally and externally.  Since they were not wearing mirrors, they were not perfect reflectors, therefore the amount of heat put into the system was over unity with the amount released through IR.

Diagrams of the PLSS show it being entirely enclosed, thus the IR would build up inside and damage critical circuits and machinery, thus killing the astronaut.  Furthermore, the sweat collected off the astronaut would have to be stored somehow, or released somehow.  There is no evidence of either solution being used.  AND the circulated cooling water would have to BE COOLED somehow, which comes right back to the heat release mechanism.  As I mentioned, the whole thing is a circular argument with dozens of corollary and ancillary issues.

No matter how you slice this problem, you always end up with more heat in the system than it can radiate away, especially considering all possible outlets for IR were insulted and unable to radiate heat away.

With regard to local time on the Moon, the Apollo missions were timed to land in the Moon's local morning, which may reduce heat problems, but increased cold problems.  No matter how you frame this argument, you end up with dead astronauts - whether by boiling or freezing.

As for thermal camera images, I have never found any from the Apollo landings, so difficult for either side to cite such things.  In any event, the IR reflected off of exposed surfaces would make the thermal images useless in this argument.

If water ice sublimates at extremely low temperatures, why aren't Europa, Callisto, Ganymede, Pluto, Charon, and other bodies composed of water ice not sublimating away - even in direct sunlight, and in some cases inside the highly radioactive magnetic field of Jupiter? After billions of years (theoretically), these primarily water ice bodies should be nothing but tiny balls of rock.  These moons and planets should be shrouded in steam as the surface ice sublimates.

Sublimation is sublimation, whether it's dry ice or water ice at 1,013.25 mbars and 25C, or more, or less.  That was the point, not whether or when CO2 exists as a liquid.

As for specific impulse, yes it is similar to octane ratings, but not exactly the same.  Regardless, if you are standing in the back of a pickup with nothing to hold on to and the driver floors the accelerator, does it really matter how much octane the fuel has when you fly out the back end and hit the tarmac?

Hypergolic fuel was ostensibly used because the engines are simple and reliable, but that does not address ANY of the other problems caused by using it.  One tiny pin-prick in the hydrazine tank - with micro-meteor threat and hypersonic dust particles accelerated by the exhaust - and there wouldn't be much left to collect in a bread box.  This is a huge amount of risk to take on a program that was so vital to US propaganda efforts.

Furthermore, this does not address the fact that the hydrazine would be frozen solid at -250F,thus useless as a propellant without a whole infrastructure to heat the tanks that would suck valuable battery life away from all the other critical systems.  Even if Aerozine 50's freezing point were magically lowered to -100F (which it wasn't), one is STILL 150F below that.  Again, a circular argument with no published sufficient remedies.

All of these issues get exponentially more problematic as surface times increase from hours to days in subsequent missions.  To put it as simply as possible, no amount of hand-waving and conditional language eliminates all of the problems.  Yes, they COULD have done a lot of things, but the available documentation is insufficient to answer the questions raised.

22 comments:

  1. You are on the right track... What you need now is to take the next step and understand that the entire Apollo project was indeed a massive fraud and hoax.. Mankind cannot even reach the moon due to the fact that there is no shielding available even today for going through the magnetosphere as well as traversing interstellar space to get to the moon... And must I state that the lunar surface itself is highly radioactive as well?

    Apollo used an ultra thin skinned aluminum cased vessel... And aluminum when exposed to cosmic rays or other charged particles generates xrays... The fact is that NASA used aluminum due to its light weight, but that metal is a disaster for real shielding..

    You are on the right track, but again you should take the next step and realize that the entire program was a massive fraud.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pseudo science has no place on this serious scientific discussion. You're an obvious amateur talking here to someone with some serious knowledge about the Apollo missions and the science involved. Away with your gibberish. I'm astonished by your presumption. Lecturing the guy as if he is your accolyte. He is on the right track but you'd not know it.

      Delete
    2. They did not land at noon, or at midnight, so they were not exposed to extreme temperatures. Titan II, used in Gemini, used hpergolic fuel. Learn some physics, learn what happened.

      Delete
  2. Сикрет Спејс Програм.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Then there is the photography. There wasnt enough time on the moon to take all them PERFECT pictures.
    https://www.quora.com/How-many-photos-were-taken-on-the-surface-of-the-moon-during-the-six-Apollo-missions

    Apollo 11........one photo every 15 seconds
    Apollo 12........one photo every 27 seconds
    Apollo 14........one photo every 62 seconds
    Apollo 15........one photo every 44 seconds
    Apollo 16........one photo every 29 seconds
    Apollo 17........one photo every 26 seconds

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous28.7.19

      On the mission,not on the Moon. The guy in the command module had a camera as well. Carpenter said all he did in orbit was sleep and take photos.

      Delete
  4. Another vital fact is that we are oxygen breathing mammals. We must take a breath every 5 seconds or die. To take the oxygen/air mixture on the mission for 3 men X 5 days would have required thousands of pounds storage. This would have weighed many tons. The rocket would never have lifted this weight. Space travel? We aren't going anywhere.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous28.7.19

      They only scrubbed the CO2 and replaced the oxygen. only 21% of air is oxygen. Your have to breath air several times to get all 21% out. The oxygen was stored as a liquid that is 1000 times denser than the gas. In space, you aren't fighting gravity to move nor did they move around much, so low oxygen consumption.

      Delete
  5. to confirm the fact that they went on the moon with success many time [5 or 6] and later on the space shuttle was most of the time with problems and soon dropped...does it make sense ? LOL !

    ReplyDelete
  6. Very clever arguments but perhaps this fuel was not used at all. How can you know if it was substituted for something else? Perhaps an additive was introduced to make it less volatile? Perhaps the suit heat exchangers ´venting´ was done at scheduled times and deemed to be unworthy of video time.There must have been many activities that were not filmed, or even made public. You can´t spend that amount of taxpayers money and have nothing to show for it. Was the Apollo 13 flight a fake as well? Of course not. The best way to investigate most ´crimes´ is to follow the money. How do you explain Moon rock brought back to earth or the laser reflectors left on the Moon at precise locations? Lasers have been fired at these ongojng since they were placed there. Why not check with the terrestrial locations where these are aimed from? Budget cuts and inadequate funding have prevented return missions - there was no further gain to be had from returning there and to do so requires massive amounts of taxpayers money. The public lost interest after Apollo 11, briefly spiked again during A-13 and only became re-enthused at the development of the Shuttle. Once launches became run of the mill, the media attention diminished by more than 50%. A manned Mars mission would of course get massive global attention but again, costs and technical problems relegate such a mission to being a paper tiger. The only reason these notions are kept alive is because unless the scientific community can keep the public and Congress fooled, then their sources of funding would dry up overnight.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The biggest reason not to believe that we went to the moon is, as you report, that we never went back.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous28.7.19

      The main danger to going back is all the cheap to build/launch robots on the surface and in orbit. We should cut welfare so that NASA can afford to send people instead of letting automation steal astronauts' jobs!

      Delete
  8. I have my doubts also about the orginal moon landings and I definitely see the problems with the hydrazine and the heat exchange. The heat exchange possibly is solvable and the mere risk factor to the astronauts could have been ignored but there are physics problems which I find hard to overcome also. I do tire of the nonsense about the Van Allen belt which is raised primarily by people who not only question the Apollo landing out of hand but typically also believe in a flat earth. Nothing about the Van Allen belt would stop men and machinery travelling through it although there would be a cost in exposure. I personally feel they have been, once. That most of the footage and images we've seen are fake. I'm also quite open to the idea the moon's environment is not as extreme as asserted and that some atmosphere does indeed exist. Why not? I suspect any large enough body in space will gather and atmosphere to some degree. Even the vaccuum of space is I suspect not a perfect vaccuum. Seems a bit hard to imagine given space is presumably not enclosed in anything.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dickweed Wang27.7.19

    Let's assume that the Apollo moon landings were in fact a fraud. The question then becomes why did the Soviet Union go along with the scam? You know damn well that the USSR would have figured out in an instant that what the US was claiming was false and if that's the case why wouldn't they have openly disputed that fact in front of the world? Especially considering the whole "moon race" thing between the US and the USSR. If the Russians knew the whole moon landing thing was a sham and went along with it what does that tell us about the whole cold war period?

    ReplyDelete
  10. From another angle: pre-launch film shows the "astronauts" slipping into a narrow hatch to board their vehicle, an opening barely large enough to accommodate a human body. Yet when they are purportedly on the moon, they are seen with large, square-looking backpacks far too large to fit in the hatch shown earlier. Many more slipups too, but I'll mention just one: the rock with the large letter "C" cut into it, obviously a marker placed on a soundstage by a stagehand.

    ReplyDelete
  11. wally5827.7.19

    I agree with the notion that the landing missions may have occurred, but that the photos were surely made on some location on Earth. They are too perfectly framed, focused, and overall composed. For some reason, many possible reasons, the photos were staged on Earth but surely there were some REAL photos taken on the Moon if they really went there. THOSE are the photos I'd like to see!

    ReplyDelete
  12. They contracted Kubrik to do simulated moon landing footage to maintain the couch potato crowd not up to understanding that completing scientific experiments on the moon had a much higher priority than home movies. NASA gave the television news networks this SKubrik footage and the television networks added a banner across the bottom of EVERY video short on television which said in big block letters, "THIS IS A SIMULATION".

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous28.7.19

    Question, how does a thermal camera see heat without touching what it's looking at? Does the hot air travel over to the camera? "Heat" transfers in multiple ways because the word "Heat" is used to describe several different phenomena.

    You need more than just a vacuum to make a thermos efficient. You also need something like aluminum that reflects infra-red back to the containment vessel. That's why the LEM was shiny.

    Specific Impulse is the energy density rating of the propellant, like octane is for gasoline. You aren't thrown back in your seat just because you put high octane fuel in your car, it just means you can go further per gallon.

    Liquid water cannot exist at near vacuum. It turns to solid or gas immediately. CO2 cannot exist as a liquid at 1 atmosphere, but under enough pressure CO2 can be liquid. Materials can only exist as a liquid within certain temp/press ranges and each one is different.

    Steam is gaseous water that has cooled back to a liquid.
    It takes 1000 times the energy to heat water 1 degree than it does air. Remember Titanic? Why would he freeze to death but she wouldn't? 1 gallon of water = 1000 gallons of air. If the water is near absolute zero, it would take a long time for a human to heat it up enough to get it to start sublimating, and gaseous water is invisible, it's not steam.

    Corrosive propellants you say. Teflon fry pans became available in the 70s, see the connection.

    The air pressure on Earth is 14.7 psi. Your car tires run at 32psi but can handle about 100psi before they explode. Aluminum is 3 times the strength of steal and 30 times the strength of tire rubber. 100th of an inch is plenty thick for the 1/3 earth pressure that the spacecraft where kept at.

    And just for fun, the solar wind distorts the earths magnetic field into a teardrop shape. At full moon, the moon is in it's tail and protected. You can see auroras on the moon as it passes through the radiation belts and ionizes the surface dust. Jupiters' mag field tail goes out past Saturn. If you try to go to the moon when it's towards the sun, you will get fried by the radiation before you hit high Earth orbit. See Hubble repair mission.

    Dry cement powder has jagged particles and will hold a foot print nice an crisp, sand at the beach is rounded and smooth, as is most dust on earth, cause erosion.

    Most people don't understand basic science and thus get confused. See flat earth and free energy... etc etc etc, for details.


    ReplyDelete
  14. PR. No bucks, no Buck Rogers

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous28.7.19

    It's obvious they simply landed on mars then desaturated the photos to gray. They never bothered with the moon, not worth fueling up your captured nazi ufo for such a short journey.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous29.7.19

    >> The astronauts and their PLSSs were highly insulated internally and externally.

    No insulation is 100%, it's just a buffer. Coolant in the suit cools the suit on the sunny side, then is pumped to the cold side to heat it. A fish tank pump could do that. Excess heat is removed by pumping the heat into the ice block. When the ice heats up to much, it sublimates and the gaseous water carries the built up heat away.

    Water cannot be a liquid at that pressure. Steam, fog, and mist are all made of liquid water.

    The point to landing in the morning was the sunny side had a heating problem, the shade side had a freezing problem. The suit created a balanced bubble. If it got out of balance, sublimation unit and heating unit to make up the relatively small difference. Goldie Lochs zone.

    I was using the example of IR cameras to show that conduction is not the only way heat transfers, which was what you were implying. I wasn't saying they had Thermal imaging cameras in 1969.

    Sublimation works like evaporation. This is the logic you are using... At Earth pressure, water boils at 100'c... Average temperature on Earth is 25'c... Therefore water never evaporates on earth! You are confusing sublimation with boiling. The moons of Jupiter and Saturn are much further from the Sun. If they were around the Earth, the water would go bye bye. The ice on the moon and on mercury is in craters at their poles that cause permanent shade. There is not enough sun light out at the big planets to cause sublimation with enough energy for the water molecules to reach escape velocity. Just falls back down and re-freezes.

    Radiation is a sub-atomic interaction. Sublimation is about molecular bonds. Jupiter irradiates the waters atomic nuclei and turns them to heavy isotopes. They decay later releasing the radiation again. Doesn't effect the ionic bonds between the molecules.

    You seemed to think specific impulse had something to do with how much thrust the engine put out. It doesn't, it's just the energy density of the fuel. They didn't floor the accelerator taking off, they pulled 2 moon G's, i.e. 1/3 of an Earth G i.e. 1/3 of the force pushing down on you right now. That's an acceleration of 1.6m/s/s, in American that equals 3.5 mph faster every second. The engine was on long slow burn to make it controllable. No prob on the moon given the low orbital speed and altitude they had to get to. Most of the energy of rocket on Earth is used to fight drag.

    Hit char limit...continues below

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous29.7.19

    Continued from above...

    One tiny pin prick in both propellant tanks would be required. you need both to mix for an explosion, that's how the engine works. The vast majority of micro meteors are microscopic dust. Their suits had kevlar for that. Those MMs wouldn't get through the Aluminum. The ISS is pock marked with those strikes. It's the rare big ones that are the problem. The ISS, Mir and shuttles got hit once every few years. Hang around on the Moon long enough and you will get hit ... eventually. They took the risk.

    Rocket engines are dangerous. The launch vehicles didn't use hypergolic propellants and they would blowup a lot too. Better to send disposable robots than people.

    Hydrazine doesn't effect gold. Almost nothing effects gold. What's the bottom of the lander covered in?

    Don't you mean how did that keep the hydrazine from boiling? Run a line from the tanks out to the sun and back again. Or run the heat transfer coolant and from the cabin down to the tanks. They had plenty of both hot and cold. You just need to move it around. They used water and anti-freeze, copper pipe and a fish tank pump. Literally simpler than a refrigerator and a lot more power efficient.

    The American Space shuttle used monomethylhydrazine. Check out it's LD50, plenty toxic. The Soviet Space shuttle was much safer. The exhaust from the engines evaporates in sunlight within minutes.

    A 1500kg thrust engine fits in your hand, I've held bigger. Stick that under a 3 story building and you won't see much when it launches. Pace out the size of the LEM, It's BIG!. That "The amount of space in a washing machine" is per man, in the return capsule only! The command module and LEM are bigger.

    BTW The LEM was like a toy drone, that's where the drone tech, and all flyby wire systems, are descended from. Humans can't fly LEMs anymore than drones, the tests on Earth showed that. The LEM had a joystick for the last 600m. You ask the drone/LEM to go left and the controller biases the "balancing" algorithm to the left a bit, and sideways you go without flipping over. The computer is doing the flying, you are just requesting gross movements from it, like asking a pilot to turn the plane to the right 10 degrees.

    I'm a member of multiple amateur high powered rocketry clubs, a rural fire brigade officer, professional programmer, I took 4 years of chemistry and 2 of physics, and I build small computers out of individual transistor for fun when I'm not building sounding rockets. By all means, keep firing simple questions at me. You have turned me around on the "Moon Hoax" thing. They probably did go, I could build all this stuff in my workshop and lab. Try the "not enough instruction types" thing about the flight computer. I can do a big diatribe explaining that machines messy design.

    Maybe we can do "Free energy" machines next. I'll give you a hint... energy and power don't mean the same thing.

    ReplyDelete

Feel free to leave your own view of The Far Side.