DS Forums

 
 

Space and Astronomy Thread


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 20-07-2008, 16:22
Trinitrotoluene
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,484
I very much doubt that. However I do believe that the blueprints for building the lunar module have been lost.
I believe Grumman destroyed them because they were taking up too much space!
Trinitrotoluene is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 20-07-2008, 16:24
CASPER1066
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 22,219
I very much doubt that. However I do believe that the blueprints for building the lunar module have been lost.
This is what I read.....

It is not widely known that the Apollo 11 television broadcast from the moon was a high-quality transmission, far sharper than the blurry version relayed instantly to the world on that July day in 1969.

Among those battling to unscramble the mystery is John Sarkissian, a CSIRO scientist stationed at Parkes for a decade. “We are working on the assumption they still exist,” Mr Sarkissian told the Herald.

This loss I would consider one of the greatest blunders in history, and shows how fragile historical records really are in the grand scheme of things. It also shows what kind of priority NASA and the National Archives of the States places on records of scientific achievement. Hopefully the tapes/discs are found soon, and in perfect condition so that we can review a historical moment that was actually a lot clearer than people realized. It might not look like an IMAX movie, but it might renew interest in going to the Moon.
CASPER1066 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-07-2008, 16:25
HenryGarten
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 19,567
It's too far away (quarter of a million miles)
Telescope resolution is a direct function of the diameter of the objective lens or mirror.
To image something a couple of metres across, at a distance of quarter of a million miles, you'd need a telescope with an objective diameter of hundreds of metres.

The best ground based telescopes, and even the 'Hubble' can only manage to detect something the size of a football pitch, at that distance - and by 'detect', I mean a football pitch would only be a couple of pixels on the camera sensor - no detail, just a 'spot'

However......
Just a few days ago, the Japanese 'SELENE orbiter (which is taking high-res images of the Moon's surface) has imaged the Apollo 15 landing site, and picked up the plume of dust, disturbed by the Apollo 15 lander, when it blasted off on it's way home.
http://www.universetoday.com/2008/07...g-site-images/

Thanks Carlos. I was wondering when Selene and its Chinese counterpart might produce something like that. Still not quite good enough though.

I will never forget them saying "We are on the Rille at Hadley".

Also the scare when only two parachutes opened when lowering the command module into the ocean.
HenryGarten is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-07-2008, 16:28
HenryGarten
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 19,567
This is what I read.....

It is not widely known that the Apollo 11 television broadcast from the moon was a high-quality transmission, far sharper than the blurry version relayed instantly to the world on that July day in 1969.

Among those battling to unscramble the mystery is John Sarkissian, a CSIRO scientist stationed at Parkes for a decade. “We are working on the assumption they still exist,” Mr Sarkissian told the Herald.

This loss I would consider one of the greatest blunders in history, and shows how fragile historical records really are in the grand scheme of things. It also shows what kind of priority NASA and the National Archives of the States places on records of scientific achievement. Hopefully the tapes/discs are found soon, and in perfect condition so that we can review a historical moment that was actually a lot clearer than people realized. It might not look like an IMAX movie, but it might renew interest in going to the Moon.
Well it was Grumman who built he lunar module so I guess it was them who lost them.
HenryGarten is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-07-2008, 16:32
CASPER1066
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 22,219
what about the film which shows they couldnt fly the landing crafts shortly before they took off.....

I find it all very fasinating........does anybody actually question if it happened ?
CASPER1066 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-07-2008, 16:35
Trinitrotoluene
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,484
what about the film which shows they couldnt fly the landing crafts shortly before they took off.....

I find it all very fasinating........does anybody actually question if it happened ?
The vehicle you are talking about is the Lunar Landing Research Vehicle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LLRV. It was highly unstable due to the fact it was operating in 1g and the way it had to be designed. It had nothing to do with the ability of the pilots to fly the Lunar Module.
Trinitrotoluene is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-07-2008, 16:38
CASPER1066
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 22,219
Thanks Trinitroluene...........Im amazed we have not had people up there every year since..........or as near too.
CASPER1066 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-07-2008, 16:43
HenryGarten
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 19,567
I find it all very fasinating........does anybody actually question if it happened ?
Not for one second.

There are lots of threads on this forum debating the subject.
HenryGarten is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-07-2008, 16:45
Trinitrotoluene
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,484
Thanks Trinitroluene...........Im amazed we have not had people up there every year since..........or as near too.
It's not feasible money wise, but now the Americans are scrapping the current shuttle and replacing it with Project Constellation we will be going back to the moon in about a decade This will be to prepare us for launching a manned mission to Mars (hopefully).
Trinitrotoluene is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-07-2008, 16:45
CASPER1066
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 22,219
Not for one second.

There are lots of threads on this forum debating the subject.
thanks Henry...........
CASPER1066 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-07-2008, 16:47
CASPER1066
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 22,219
It's not feasible money wise, but now the Americans are scrapping the current shuttle and replacing it with Project Constellation we will be going back to the moon in about a decade This will be to prepare us for launching a manned mission to Mars (hopefully).
Correct me if Im wrong here.....but I heard that it would take too long to get a man to mars and back again.....
CASPER1066 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-07-2008, 16:59
HenryGarten
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 19,567
It's not feasible money wise, but now the Americans are scrapping the current shuttle and replacing it with Project Constellation we will be going back to the moon in about a decade This will be to prepare us for launching a manned mission to Mars (hopefully).
It is not clear where the money for a return to the moon will come from. One suggestion is that the USA will withdraw from the ISS in 2015. Now that does not seem very sensible.

I am not at all convinced that the USA will be going back to the moon.
HenryGarten is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-07-2008, 17:07
CASPER1066
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 22,219
I also heard the earth is on course for a huge impact 2027, with a comet or meteor which we might not be able to stop..........

sorry if im asking daft questions, but you guys seem to know alot more....its interesting having your imput.......
CASPER1066 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-07-2008, 17:08
TelevisionUser
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Storbritannia
Posts: 28,916
I very much doubt that. However I do believe that the blueprints for building the lunar module have been lost.
Agreed, HenryGarten. Not only that, there must also be so many films and photos of these momentous events in the vaults of media organisations that there'll always be something there. Indeed, my own avatar picture is the iconic Earthrise taken by Bill Anders in Apollo 8 (right click on TelevisionUser and click on Public Profile).

From a science point of view, the pieces of kit left by the Apollo astronauts on the Moon, such as the laser rangefinder reflectors, also serve to demonstrate that the landings actually did take place and that claims that they did not are groundless, spurious nonsense.
TelevisionUser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-07-2008, 17:19
CASPER1066
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 22,219
What about the problem the pictures..........experts said they were tampered with
CASPER1066 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-07-2008, 17:20
HenryGarten
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 19,567
Agreed, HenryGarten. Not only that, there must also be so many films and photos of these momentous events in the vaults of media organisations that there'll always be something there. Indeed, my own avatar picture is the iconic Earthrise taken by Bill Anders in Apollo 8 (right click on TelevisionUser and click on Public Profile).

From a science point of view, the pieces of kit left by the Apollo astronauts on the Moon, such as the laser rangefinder reflectors, also serve to demonstrate that the landings actually did take place and that claims that they did not are groundless, spurious nonsense.
Yes I like your avatar.

I always regard Apollo VIII as the boldest mission. Initially the Saturn V was to have been launched 13 times before it was man rated. Apollo VIII was only the third launch of the Saturn V and the previous launch while not a disaster was far from perfect.

I can still feel the excitement as the Apollo VIII was readied for launch with most people confidently predicting that they would not come back.

The reason for NASA's haste was that the USSR has twice looped the moon in unmanned Zond spacecraft and were asserting that they could have carried men.

I think people forget just intense the competition was in 1968. Only a year earlier the race seemed all over with the Apollo I fire. Then the death of Yuri Gagarin (allegedly in line to be the first man on the moon) in a plane crash and the fiasco of Vladimar Komarov in Soyuz I got the race back on again.
HenryGarten is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-07-2008, 19:52
TelevisionUser
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Storbritannia
Posts: 28,916
Yes I like your avatar.

I always regard Apollo VIII as the boldest mission. Initially the Saturn V was to have been launched 13 times before it was man rated. Apollo VIII was only the third launch of the Saturn V and the previous launch while not a disaster was far from perfect.

I can still feel the excitement as the Apollo VIII was readied for launch with most people confidently predicting that they would not come back.

The reason for NASA's haste was that the USSR has twice looped the moon in unmanned Zond spacecraft and were asserting that they could have carried men.

I think people forget just intense the competition was in 1968. Only a year earlier the race seemed all over with the Apollo I fire. Then the death of Yuri Gagarin (allegedly in line to be the first man on the moon) in a plane crash and the fiasco of Vladimar Komarov in Soyuz I got the race back on again.
The interesting thing is, HenryGarten, how the Soviets viewed the progress of the Americans. They apparently regarded the Americans as behaving almost recklessly with the fast pace at which they proceeded so potentially endangering astronauts' lives.

The later Proton-launched Zond missions (4-8) were almost certainly tests for a crewed circumlunar flight doing a figure of 8 around the Moon and back again. With the failure of the enormous N1 rocket programme, it became increasingly clear that the only way they could get to the Moon ahead of the American would be to do a flight and return mission with no landing. Powerful though it is, that is all the Proton launcher could manage. Even so, that would have been a publicity coup and they would have been able to get many stunning photographs just like Apollo 8 did. This was also one of the few times when the Soviets employed sea splashdowns for mission returns just like the Apollo capsules.

There were about two dozen cosmonauts selected for the N1 Moon mission (including Alexei Leonov) and (IIRC) about half a dozen of them petitioned to be allowed to go on a manned Zond circumlunar flight but the cautious authorities were not having any of it. I suspect the loss of the N1s and the tragic loss of Vladimir Komarov made them decide that it was just simply too dangerous to even attempt going round the Moon.

Personally, I think they a little overcautious and a Zond mission would probably have been less likely to go wrong than an Apollo one. I suspect part of the problem was the way they Soviets handled their Moon mission. Instead of going with one system, the Soviets had different design bureaus (and personalities!) all doing the same thing and there did not appear to be an early decision on which bureau's design to go with which was an unfortunate waste of both resources and time so they ultimately lost the race to the Moon.
TelevisionUser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-07-2008, 23:34
HenryGarten
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 19,567
The interesting thing is, HenryGarten, how the Soviets viewed the progress of the Americans. They apparently regarded the Americans as behaving almost recklessly with the fast pace at which they proceeded so potentially endangering astronauts' lives.

The later Proton-launched Zond missions (4-8) were almost certainly tests for a crewed circumlunar flight doing a figure of 8 around the Moon and back again. With the failure of the enormous N1 rocket programme, it became increasingly clear that the only way they could get to the Moon ahead of the American would be to do a flight and return mission with no landing. Powerful though it is, that is all the Proton launcher could manage. Even so, that would have been a publicity coup and they would have been able to get many stunning photographs just like Apollo 8 did. This was also one of the few times when the Soviets employed sea splashdowns for mission returns just like the Apollo capsules.

There were about two dozen cosmonauts selected for the N1 Moon mission (including Alexei Leonov) and (IIRC) about half a dozen of them petitioned to be allowed to go on a manned Zond circumlunar flight but the cautious authorities were not having any of it. I suspect the loss of the N1s and the tragic loss of Vladimir Komarov made them decide that it was just simply too dangerous to even attempt going round the Moon.

Personally, I think they a little overcautious and a Zond mission would probably have been less likely to go wrong than an Apollo one. I suspect part of the problem was the way they Soviets handled their Moon mission. Instead of going with one system, the Soviets had different design bureaus (and personalities!) all doing the same thing and there did not appear to be an early decision on which bureau's design to go with which was an unfortunate waste of both resources and time so they ultimately lost the race to the Moon.

Lovely to see someone writing with authority of the moon race.

Actually the real reason for the difference between the Russian and American is one that never gets mentioned and that is clustering of engines. The Russians gained an early advantage in the rocket world by clustering of engines. However that was carried much too far in the N1 rocket where there were about 30 engines on the first stage. It gets a bit complicated in the plumbing.

Now America went down the road of building big engines rather than cluster lots of smaller ones. That ultimately proved the difference between the programmes.

Also the Russian programme was too geared to having spectaculars like Voskhod I and II. Then when the American Gemini programme began it achieved things like rendevous and docking which were essential to any moon mission. During the 23 months of the Gemini programme not one Russian left the ground.

Another thing is that the first N1 launch attempt was about 3rd June 1969. Even if it was successful, which it wasn't, it was far too late to compete with Apollo 11 which was due away 13 days later.

To be honest I find it hard to see where the whole N1 programme was going. Mind you we did not know about the N1 for at least another 20 years.
HenryGarten is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2008, 00:04
LibertyBell7
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 438
The plans for the Soviet moonlanding are fascinating. The lone cosmonaut descending in the small lander. I guess the plans included a fixed camera and self-timer!
On return to the orbiting CSM the triumphant moonwalker would have had to transfer back to the mothership by EVA.
All very different from Apollo.
LibertyBell7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2008, 00:12
HenryGarten
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 19,567
The plans for the Soviet moonlanding are fascinating. The lone cosmonaut descending in the small lander. I guess the plans included a fixed camera and self-timer!
On return to the orbiting CSM the triumphant moonwalker would have had to transfer back to the mothership by EVA.
All very different from Apollo.
I must admit that I am not that familiar with the Soviet plans for a moon land beyond their N1 rocket.

Interestingly when lunar orbital rendevous was first suggested it was regarded as much too dangerous. At that point the plan was to build an even bigger rocket than he Saturn V called a Nova (with 8 F1 engines on the first stage) and fly directly to the moon. Eventually they decided it was better to go with the lunar orbit rendevous.
HenryGarten is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2008, 00:15
LibertyBell7
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 438
I must admit that I am not that familiar with the Soviet plans for a moon land beyond their N1 rocket.

Interestingly when lunar orbital rendevous was first suggested it was regarded as much too dangerous. At that point the plan was to build an even bigger rocket than he Saturn V called a Nova (with 8 F1 engines on the first stage) and fly directly to the moon. Eventually they decided it was better to go with the lunar orbit rendevous.
Comparison of the Soviet and American lunar landers here.
LibertyBell7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2008, 00:16
Gneiss
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Cambridgeshire
Posts: 14,044
I also heard the earth is on course for a huge impact 2027
It isn't....

In this case it was part of an observational report taken entirely out of context by the media.
Gneiss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2008, 00:18
LibertyBell7
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 438
Some very interesting images of the Soviet lunar lander here.
LibertyBell7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2008, 00:24
HenryGarten
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 19,567
Some very interesting images of the Soviet lunar lander here.
Thank you. I must look into this further as it is something I have not really come across.
HenryGarten is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2008, 00:26
LibertyBell7
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 438
Thank you. I must look into this further as it is something I have not really come across.
Personally I think it's a real shame that the Soviets didn't make it. IF they had, maybe the space race would have continued and we'd have landed on Mars over 20 years ago.
LibertyBell7 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 18:34.