|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
NatGeo's "Space Race - The Untold Story"...And you thought "Moon Shot" was bad, kids...
....I just watched the last 30 minutes of "Space Race - The Untold
Story" on the NatGeo channel. I honestly think we've found a doco that's more inaccurate than "Moon Shot", kids. Just in that last half hour or so, I noted the following serious inaccuracies: * The July 3 1969 N-1 disaster was listed as having destroyed most of Baikonur, and killed at least 100 people. Can you say "let's ignore the fact that the Nedelin disaster was long ago revealed to have been separate from the N-1 failure, just for dramatic purposes?" More pathetically was this one SFX scene with an N-1 spherical tank - possibly from the Block A stage - imbedded in the side of a building's third story, practically intact. Remember that scene towards the end of Speilberg's "War of the Worlds"? The one where the Tripod's leaning dead against the building? Deja Vu. * There was *never* any proposal given - at least, none that have been presented in *any* declassified accounting - that the Soviets would nurse Soyuz 1 along until Soyuz 2 could get up there, rendevouz and dock, and then do an unplanned, unscheduled, and unrehearsed EVA to free the stuck solar panel on Soyuz 1. * During Eagle's descent to Tranquility, there was no TV from the cockpit. And yet, they showed the *film* footage from Buzz's 16mm time-lapse as if it were coming down live! * When A8 achieved lunar orbit, they went from 2 seconds of actual TV footage from the *end* of the Xmas Eve cast, to the downward view from the *film* camera, and played like it was being relayed to Mission Control as a TV signal. * The guy playing WvB was *far* too young for the role. ....I'm sure there were more errors splattered throughout this mess, but there were some really minor saving graces. The N-1 launch was finally shown with CGI, and was rather well done. Even Sander would have been impressed. Also, Neil's first steps shown were his *first* steps, not the usual "let's show him jumping down the ladder instead" mistake every other fracking doco has made. ....In any case, I'll probably wait until I see the whole mess before I totally condemn it. Not that I'll hold my breath that it'll be any more accurate by then :-P OM -- ]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
NatGeo's "Space Race - The Untold Story"...And you thought "Moon Shot" was bad, kids...
OM wrote: ...I just watched the last 30 minutes of "Space Race - The Untold Story" on the NatGeo channel. I honestly think we've found a doco that's more inaccurate than "Moon Shot", kids. Just in that last half hour or so, I noted the following serious inaccuracies: I guess you just being absorbed by the WeltGeist of SSH, Bob...your opinion seems strictly conformist ;-) Stan Marsh wrote: ] A lamentable waste of 4 hours, in my opinion. ] ] And I'm not referring to all the condescending commercials depicting BP as ] responsible corporate citizens... ] ] The producers paid painfully little attention to fact checking, chock full ] of easily avoidable mistakes. Gee, I didn't know that Mission Control had ] live TV of the LM descent phase! ] |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
NatGeo's "Space Race - The Untold Story"...And you thought "MoonShot" was bad, kids...
OM wrote: * The July 3 1969 N-1 disaster was listed as having destroyed most of Baikonur, and killed at least 100 people. Can you say "let's ignore the fact that the Nedelin disaster was long ago revealed to have been separate from the N-1 failure, just for dramatic purposes?" More pathetically was this one SFX scene with an N-1 spherical tank - possibly from the Block A stage - imbedded in the side of a building's third story, practically intact. Remember that scene towards the end of Speilberg's "War of the Worlds"? The one where the Tripod's leaning dead against the building? Deja Vu. AFAIK, there was never any lives lost in relation to any of the four failed N-1 launches. About the only one that would have been a candidate for this would be the third launch which fell apart at fairly low altitude. In that case the first and second stages flew on for a while before crashing. The first and fourth launch failed at fairly high altitude and quite a ways from the launch site, the second just fell on the pad from a few hundred feet up. In the documentary they show it blowing up in midair; this is wrong- it did strike one of the lightning protection towers on the way down, but the main explosion only occurred when it struck the pad itself. Pat |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
NatGeo's "Space Race - The Untold Story"...And you thought "Moon Shot" was bad, kids...
But it's mostly lies, and of extremely well paid liars telling us those
lies. Don't you think? - Brad Guth OM wrote: ...I just watched the last 30 minutes of "Space Race - The Untold Story" on the NatGeo channel. I honestly think we've found a doco that's more inaccurate than "Moon Shot", kids. Just in that last half hour or so, I noted the following serious inaccuracies: * The July 3 1969 N-1 disaster was listed as having destroyed most of Baikonur, and killed at least 100 people. Can you say "let's ignore the fact that the Nedelin disaster was long ago revealed to have been separate from the N-1 failure, just for dramatic purposes?" More pathetically was this one SFX scene with an N-1 spherical tank - possibly from the Block A stage - imbedded in the side of a building's third story, practically intact. Remember that scene towards the end of Speilberg's "War of the Worlds"? The one where the Tripod's leaning dead against the building? Deja Vu. * There was *never* any proposal given - at least, none that have been presented in *any* declassified accounting - that the Soviets would nurse Soyuz 1 along until Soyuz 2 could get up there, rendevouz and dock, and then do an unplanned, unscheduled, and unrehearsed EVA to free the stuck solar panel on Soyuz 1. * During Eagle's descent to Tranquility, there was no TV from the cockpit. And yet, they showed the *film* footage from Buzz's 16mm time-lapse as if it were coming down live! * When A8 achieved lunar orbit, they went from 2 seconds of actual TV footage from the *end* of the Xmas Eve cast, to the downward view from the *film* camera, and played like it was being relayed to Mission Control as a TV signal. * The guy playing WvB was *far* too young for the role. ...I'm sure there were more errors splattered throughout this mess, but there were some really minor saving graces. The N-1 launch was finally shown with CGI, and was rather well done. Even Sander would have been impressed. Also, Neil's first steps shown were his *first* steps, not the usual "let's show him jumping down the ladder instead" mistake every other fracking doco has made. ...In any case, I'll probably wait until I see the whole mess before I totally condemn it. Not that I'll hold my breath that it'll be any more accurate by then :-P - The problems ahead are simply far too many for such a naysay mindset, such as your's, to manage. - Brad Guth |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
NatGeo's "Space Race - The Untold Story"...And you thought "MoonShot" was bad, kids...
OM wrote: * There was *never* any proposal given - at least, none that have been presented in *any* declassified accounting - that the Soviets would nurse Soyuz 1 along until Soyuz 2 could get up there, rendevouz and dock, and then do an unplanned, unscheduled, and unrehearsed EVA to free the stuck solar panel on Soyuz 1. Everything else I completely agree with you, however the EVA plan seems at least to have some slight truth in it, according 'Challenge to Apollo' page 583: "there was even a plan to have the two EVA cosmonauts, Yeliseyev and Khrunov, manually unfurl the jammed solar panel during their spacewalk from one ship to the other" The stuck solar panel was not considered a very dangerous item, as Soyuz T9 also proved the soyuz can fly and manouvre with only one unfolded panel. Failure of the stellar/solar sensors on Soyuz 1 was worse as it severely hampered its ability to manouvre and orientate to the sun. If Komarov had been able to orientate his ship in the correct attitude (with the one panel facing the sun) the batteries would have charged sufficiently even with only one panel. (Failure of the parachute system, leading to his death, was unrelated to these other failures and not known at the time, had Soyuz 2 launched, its crewmembers would have met the same fate as Komarov on landing). Regards, Geert |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
NatGeo's "Space Race - The Untold Story"...And you thought "MoonShot" was bad, kids...
Geert Sassen wrote: The stuck solar panel was not considered a very dangerous item, as Soyuz T9 also proved the soyuz can fly and manouvre with only one unfolded panel. Failure of the stellar/solar sensors on Soyuz 1 was worse as it severely hampered its ability to manouvre and orientate to the sun. If Komarov had been able to orientate his ship in the correct attitude (with the one panel facing the sun) the batteries would have charged sufficiently even with only one panel. The other problem was the back-up orientation system, that was to sense the flow of ions around the Soyuz to allow it to determine its orientation in relation to its orbital path, also failed due to being interfered with by the RCS system's exhaust. This left only the Vzor on the periscope for orientation. Pat Pat |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
NatGeo's "Space Race - The Untold Story"...And you thought "Moon Shot" was bad, kids...
OM wrote:
...I just watched the last 30 minutes of "Space Race - The Untold Story" on the NatGeo channel. I honestly think we've found a doco that's more inaccurate than "Moon Shot", kids. Just in that last half hour or so, I noted the following serious inaccuracies: * The July 3 1969 N-1 disaster was listed as having destroyed most of Baikonur, and killed at least 100 people. Can you say "let's ignore the fact that the Nedelin disaster was long ago revealed to have been separate from the N-1 failure, just for dramatic purposes?" More pathetically was this one SFX scene with an N-1 spherical tank - possibly from the Block A stage - imbedded in the side of a building's third story, practically intact. Remember that scene towards the end of Speilberg's "War of the Worlds"? The one where the Tripod's leaning dead against the building? Deja Vu. * There was *never* any proposal given - at least, none that have been presented in *any* declassified accounting - that the Soviets would nurse Soyuz 1 along until Soyuz 2 could get up there, rendevouz and dock, and then do an unplanned, unscheduled, and unrehearsed EVA to free the stuck solar panel on Soyuz 1. * During Eagle's descent to Tranquility, there was no TV from the cockpit. And yet, they showed the *film* footage from Buzz's 16mm time-lapse as if it were coming down live! * When A8 achieved lunar orbit, they went from 2 seconds of actual TV footage from the *end* of the Xmas Eve cast, to the downward view from the *film* camera, and played like it was being relayed to Mission Control as a TV signal. * The guy playing WvB was *far* too young for the role. ...I'm sure there were more errors splattered throughout this mess, but there were some really minor saving graces. The N-1 launch was finally shown with CGI, and was rather well done. Even Sander would have been impressed. Also, Neil's first steps shown were his *first* steps, not the usual "let's show him jumping down the ladder instead" mistake every other fracking doco has made. ...In any case, I'll probably wait until I see the whole mess before I totally condemn it. Not that I'll hold my breath that it'll be any more accurate by then :-P John Meglier; the radiation would make everyone get cataracts and be blind in just a year. Cancer would skyrocket. Actually short term exposure is DNA doable (although you could still go at least partially blind unless wearing a sufficiently thick leaded helmet or at least using a leaded visor), whereas on most any given bad solar/cosmic/moon day, that human/DNA TBI limit might be accomplished within hours if not minutes. Thus far we have no hard-science proof or any other soft-evidence that anything as having ever gone to the moon surface didn't summarily impact and/or sink out of sight. Did you folks know that Kodak made it possible to process their film on the fly, and others having made it possible to scan that processed film on the fly, thus no conventionally exposed film was ever returned from outside the Van Allen belts to Earth for subsequent developing that wasn't radiated to the point of being damaged if not unusable. Outside our Van Allen zone of death it's short term humanly survivable as long as you're extremely well shielded and not being kept within sight of our gamma/xray moon, our sun isn't having another bad day and there's otherwise nothing in the cosmic realm of nasty gamma and hard-X-ray events taking place. Therefore a few hours out of any given month it's perfectly survivable, and even longer if you've damn lucky and got that cash of banked bone marrow as your backup plan-B. I suppose if there actually were such a fly-by-rocket lander (US or Russian), as such there'd be all sorts of R&D prototypes that could have been demonstrated right here on Earth, and subsequently utilized ever since for the AI/robotic fly-by-rocket likes of accomplishing Mars or other moons. Do you know that our supposed landers had no primary airframe/spacecraft momentum reaction wheels to speak of, other than instrumentation. Oddly, we still have nothing situated within LL-1 (roughly 58,500 km from the moon). At a reaction fuel budget of perhaps a kg/tonne/month, station-keeping within LL-1 or ME-L1 is quite doable. It may even be as little as 0.1 kg/tonne/month of reaction fuel demand if using an Xe--ion thruster should be more than sufficient, and otherwise I'm thinking a mg/tonne/month of using Ra--LRn--Rn--ion (Rn laser cannon) thrust might offer an interesting alternative. Perhaps using up a cash of U235 isn't such a bad idea, at least according to William Mook. Of course there has never been one frame of NASA/Apollo film, not even a given 16mm movie frame or of anything 35 mm, much less of any larger format of any Kodak film that was ever made available for an independent review, not even so much as a blank leader/trailer portion of such film. I wonder why not, especially since the modern micro-digital scanning process is 100% nondestructive, and can even be accomplished within any given security vault? There's no technical reasons why not and only multiple reasons why each and every frame needs to get re-scanned at much greater resolution and at least to a 16 bit depth. - Brad Guth |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
NatGeo's "Space Race - The Untold Story"...And you thought "Moon Shot" was bad, kids...
Let's see Brad berates National Geographic because they synchronize
film footage taken at the time of a lunar exploration with the audio broadcasts and says OTHERS have a naysaying mindset? Puhlease! Get a freakin' life asshole! Brad Guth wrote: But it's mostly lies, and of extremely well paid liars telling us those lies. Don't you think? - Brad Guth OM wrote: ...I just watched the last 30 minutes of "Space Race - The Untold Story" on the NatGeo channel. I honestly think we've found a doco that's more inaccurate than "Moon Shot", kids. Just in that last half hour or so, I noted the following serious inaccuracies: * The July 3 1969 N-1 disaster was listed as having destroyed most of Baikonur, and killed at least 100 people. Can you say "let's ignore the fact that the Nedelin disaster was long ago revealed to have been separate from the N-1 failure, just for dramatic purposes?" More pathetically was this one SFX scene with an N-1 spherical tank - possibly from the Block A stage - imbedded in the side of a building's third story, practically intact. Remember that scene towards the end of Speilberg's "War of the Worlds"? The one where the Tripod's leaning dead against the building? Deja Vu. * There was *never* any proposal given - at least, none that have been presented in *any* declassified accounting - that the Soviets would nurse Soyuz 1 along until Soyuz 2 could get up there, rendevouz and dock, and then do an unplanned, unscheduled, and unrehearsed EVA to free the stuck solar panel on Soyuz 1. * During Eagle's descent to Tranquility, there was no TV from the cockpit. And yet, they showed the *film* footage from Buzz's 16mm time-lapse as if it were coming down live! * When A8 achieved lunar orbit, they went from 2 seconds of actual TV footage from the *end* of the Xmas Eve cast, to the downward view from the *film* camera, and played like it was being relayed to Mission Control as a TV signal. * The guy playing WvB was *far* too young for the role. ...I'm sure there were more errors splattered throughout this mess, but there were some really minor saving graces. The N-1 launch was finally shown with CGI, and was rather well done. Even Sander would have been impressed. Also, Neil's first steps shown were his *first* steps, not the usual "let's show him jumping down the ladder instead" mistake every other fracking doco has made. ...In any case, I'll probably wait until I see the whole mess before I totally condemn it. Not that I'll hold my breath that it'll be any more accurate by then :-P - The problems ahead are simply far too many for such a naysay mindset, such as your's, to manage. - Brad Guth |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
NatGeo's "Space Race - The Untold Story"...And you thought "Moon Shot" was bad, kids...
Pat Flannery wrote: Geert Sassen wrote: The stuck solar panel was not considered a very dangerous item, as Soyuz T9 also proved the soyuz can fly and manouvre with only one unfolded panel. Failure of the stellar/solar sensors on Soyuz 1 was worse as it severely hampered its ability to manouvre and orientate to the sun. If Komarov had been able to orientate his ship in the correct attitude (with the one panel facing the sun) the batteries would have charged sufficiently even with only one panel. The other problem was the back-up orientation system, that was to sense the flow of ions around the Soyuz to allow it to determine its orientation in relation to its orbital path, also failed due to being interfered with by the RCS system's exhaust. This left only the Vzor on the periscope for orientation. Pat Pat Which explains why the Russians could do space so much more cheaply than the Americans. What a freaking innovative idea! Too bad nobody tested it before it got implemented. Could you imagine NASA doing something like that? Of course the Russian's management methods were a little different weren't they. At NASA there's no way you'd end up in Siberia. Hell, there's no way you'd lose your job, even when shuttles are burning up and blowing up all around you. Change, especially identifiable change pointing back to one or a few people, is not the NASA way! lol. At NASA someone who came up with this idea would be looked at blankly, and someone would take them aside and say, hey we're cost constrained, and time constrained, and we just don't have the resources to really put this thing into space. Of course at NASA if they were really pushy, their career would suffer, and they'd retire as a GS18 or something - step 99 bazillion! lol. But this ion sensor aboard the Soyuz tells me that in Russia, a really pushy engineer with a bright idea, if they get their boss involved, wow, they'd actually implement this great idea! Geepers. Batman. Of course for the poor Rooskie who convinced his management that this was a cool idea, ha - d'ya think he went to Siberia? or the Gulag? lol. I hope not. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
NatGeo's "Space Race - The Untold Story"...And you thought "Moon Shot" was bad, kids...
Brad has been trying to goad me into responding to his trash these past
few months, and I find this last screed so damned irritating I must respond to at least part of it! lol. Brad Guth wrote: OM wrote: ...I just watched the last 30 minutes of "Space Race - The Untold Story" on the NatGeo channel. I honestly think we've found a doco that's more inaccurate than "Moon Shot", kids. Just in that last half hour or so, I noted the following serious inaccuracies: * The July 3 1969 N-1 disaster was listed as having destroyed most of Baikonur, and killed at least 100 people. Can you say "let's ignore the fact that the Nedelin disaster was long ago revealed to have been separate from the N-1 failure, just for dramatic purposes?" More pathetically was this one SFX scene with an N-1 spherical tank - possibly from the Block A stage - imbedded in the side of a building's third story, practically intact. Remember that scene towards the end of Speilberg's "War of the Worlds"? The one where the Tripod's leaning dead against the building? Deja Vu. * There was *never* any proposal given - at least, none that have been presented in *any* declassified accounting - that the Soviets would nurse Soyuz 1 along until Soyuz 2 could get up there, rendevouz and dock, and then do an unplanned, unscheduled, and unrehearsed EVA to free the stuck solar panel on Soyuz 1. * During Eagle's descent to Tranquility, there was no TV from the cockpit. And yet, they showed the *film* footage from Buzz's 16mm time-lapse as if it were coming down live! They syncrhonized the footage they had inside the lunar module with the audio track taken at the same time. They presented these two actual records of the lunar landing without comment in an attempt to create thematically for the viewer what happened. What is your point? You're claiming the journey never took place. Where did the time lapse footage and audio tracks come from? From a trip you claim never took place. * When A8 achieved lunar orbit, they went from 2 seconds of actual TV footage from the *end* of the Xmas Eve cast, to the downward view from the *film* camera, and played like it was being relayed to Mission Control as a TV signal. Again, you're making a illogical connection here. First off, its not even true. They never said the film camera was TV footage. They merely synchronized audio tapes and film footage in a way that thematically recreated the event for the viewer from real materials returned from the journey. Quite and acheivement if you ask me. You are illogically concluding because YOU thought it was TV footage the trip didn't take place. Loon. * The guy playing WvB was *far* too young for the role. ...I'm sure there were more errors splattered throughout this mess, These aren't errors, they're perfectly acceptable POV of the writer, who is telling us a story about history. Ever see the painting of the Philadelphia burning in Tripoli hanging in the Navy Offices at the Pentagon? Would you say the Tripoli didn't battle Barbary Pirates in the Second Barbary War because the painter wasn't there and took liberties with his representation? Asshole. These are National Geographic Specials made for TV - they're very much a piece of artwork, just as the painting is. And just like the painting they evoke an emotional response, and they represent a solid and a real piece of our history, and are accurate to the degree we can know that history without actually being there. You don't like such representations of history because such representations fly in the face of your idiotic belief system that claims the journeys they represent never took place. Clue for you Guthball, you look craziest when you grasp at straws like the ones here. but there were some really minor saving graces. The N-1 launch was finally shown with CGI, and was rather well done. Even Sander would have been impressed. Also, Neil's first steps shown were his *first* steps, not the usual "let's show him jumping down the ladder instead" mistake every other fracking doco has made. Hmm... you have said time and time again that these journeys never took place. Yet here you are talking as if they DID take place. Which is it asshole? Of course the journeys took place. This reduces all your naysaying to criticism of the writer and producer choices to represent history as it happened. Sheez. ...In any case, I'll probably wait until I see the whole mess before I totally condemn it. Not that I'll hold my breath that it'll be any more accurate by then :-P Another clue, we're not holding our breath to hear what you have to say. John Meglier; the radiation would make everyone get cataracts and be blind in just a year. Cancer would skyrocket. Actually short term exposure is DNA doable (although you could still go at least partially blind unless wearing a sufficiently thick leaded helmet or at least using a leaded visor), whereas on most any given bad solar/cosmic/moon day, that human/DNA TBI limit might be accomplished within hours if not minutes. Guthball, like your inaccurate assessment of mass-ratios and your flawed opinion of the capacity of the Saturn V moon rocket, this assessment of the radiation environment is equally flawed. Get some real freakin' clues before posting your rot! OK? http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm Asshole. Thus far we have no hard-science proof or any other soft-evidence that anything as having ever gone to the moon surface didn't summarily impact and/or sink out of sight. Did you folks know that Kodak made it possible to process their film on the fly, and others having made it possible to scan that processed film on the fly, thus no conventionally exposed film was ever returned from outside the Van Allen belts to Earth for subsequent developing that wasn't radiated to the point of being damaged if not unusable. Did you know that Guthball is claiming we never went to the moon. Yet here he is arguing that the way the film was processed for the lunar trips proves what exactly? That we didn't go to the moon? lol. Asshole. And Liar. Because the truth is quite different than what Guthball believes. Here's the deal about the film; http://history.nasa.gov/apollo_photo.html This URL has a complete description of what cameras were taken on what voyages and how they were modified to carry out their tasks. Outside our Van Allen zone of death it's short term humanly survivable as long as you're extremely well shielded and not being kept within sight of our gamma/xray moon, our sun isn't having another bad day and there's otherwise nothing in the cosmic realm of nasty gamma and hard-X-ray events taking place. Therefore a few hours out of any given month it's perfectly survivable, and even longer if you've damn lucky and got that cash of banked bone marrow as your backup plan-B. Utter nonsense. Personal Radiation Dosimeters were carried by the astronauts and three passive dosimeters were worn by each of the astronauts at three locations on their bodies. After the journey their total exposure to radiation was assessed using these 12 dosimeters. Here are the results of all the Apollo missions averaged over each crew for each mission; http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apoll...pg/ts2c3-2.jpg And a complete breakdown of all radiation sources the astronauts were exposed to are summarized here; http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm I suppose if there actually were such a fly-by-rocket lander (US or Russian), as such there'd be all sorts of R&D prototypes that could have been demonstrated right here on Earth, and subsequently utilized ever since for the AI/robotic fly-by-rocket likes of accomplishing Mars or other moons. What's your point here? That if the cost of a sophisticated rocket propelled lander with active RCS is called for in a manned landing but not called for in a less massive, less costly, unpiloted landing then the manned landing didn't take place? Jerk! If you have a 100 kg payload capacity versus a 15,000 kg payload at the moon, you're going to do things differently - until MEMs rockets are developed sufficiently, then everything will be rockets. Do you know that our supposed landers had no primary airframe/spacecraft momentum reaction wheels to speak of, other than instrumentation. No **** sherlock. Its called monocoque construction. Used by aerospace engineers to lower the structural fraction of a spacecraft or high-performance aircraft. Of course you don't know that. Hell, you don't know the first goddamned thing about space travel. So how the hell would you know the second and third things? lol. You really oughta pick up a book on spacecraft engineering sometimes if you are going to post on the subject. Do you know how massive a flywheel has to be in order to be useful here? Do you know how much structural mass an airframe would add to the vehicle? Sheez. They had a mass budget of about 4,000 lbs for the lunar lander. This is what caused so much problems. Grumman took monocoque construction to new heights with the lunar lander - to get within the mass budget. Nope the lander didn't have an airframe, it didn't have freakin' flywheels, it was just folded aluminum welded together and fitted with machined hardware where doors and windows and instrumentation had to be added. http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/...ts/Apollo.html The Lunar Lander was the best we could do at the time given the hardware we were working with. It was superlatively engineered. Not much more could be done. Here's what one modern analyst had to say about it; http://www.sei.aero/library/paper_ar...34_present.pdf Quite impressive. Well a lot of energy went into doing things right. And for those of us alive at the time and watching events as they unfolded you'll recall that the Russians were working on their N1 and in the Spring of 1968 it seemed we might be surprised again - by underestimating the Russians again, like we did in 1957 - only 10 years and 6 months earlier recall. All through that time the Russians pulled out amazing feats while we were getting organized. The first satellite, the first lunar probe, the first living thing in space, the first man in space the first woman in space the first spacewalk. So, news of the N1, prior to their failures, sent a chill through the hearts of all good Americans cheering on the Apollo program. Some folks said at the time we ought to go out and do something to derail the N1 program using our intelligence network. Many thought Apollo 1 fire was sabatoge. Would such activities spark a nuclear war? People said things like this at that time. If you want to look at conspiracy theories I'd look at the string of bad luck the Russians had with their hardware combined with the bad luck of their top engineers dying and falling out of favor. But that's only if you need to believe in that stuff. So, Apollo was pushing to go to the moon sometime in 1968, the earlier the better. Some vendors weren't ready in the spring of 1968. But Grumman wasn't ready with the lunar lander and wouldn't be ready for testing of the lander until spring of 1969. So, I recall a lot of talk of this on the news broadcasts - the psychological impact of being the first to orbit the moon, versus landing on the moon. And the likelihood of a Russian landing versus a Russian orbiting the moon. Because they were having problems with their lander too. etc. etc. etc. So, off we went with Apollo 8 - in December of 1968 - 11 years and 2 months after Sputnik - an amazing achievement - without a lunar lander, because the rest of the system was ready and the lander was not. But the lander came along the spring of '69 and after a test in Earth orbit on Apollo 9, and a test in lunar orbit on Apollo 10, where they navigated down to a few miles of the lunar surface, and flew back up to orbit, we were ready to go for the moon in June 1969. Now all of this taken together suggests to me they really were going to the moon. If the whole thing was just faked, they wouldn't have a freakin' supplier holding them up for 8 months to a year after they needed their big political win. Oddly, we still have nothing situated within LL-1 (roughly 58,500 km from the moon). Oddly, because there's no freakin' reason to have something situated there. At a reaction fuel budget of perhaps a kg/tonne/month, Hmm... another reason not to put something there. It won't stay put, and putting anything there just float away, or require a constant stream of propellent be fed to it to keep it there. Why the hell would anyone want to do that? Sheez. station-keeping within LL-1 or ME-L1 is quite doable. Sure, there's just no damned reason to do it. It may even be as little as 0.1 kg/tonne/month of reaction fuel demand ??? Which is it genius? 1.0 kg/tonne/month or 0.1 kg/tonne/month ??? Why should we buy any of these figures? What sort of analysis have you done? Do you even know the relevant analysis? Asshole. Given the complete and utter bull**** you have trotted out before us in this post, one has to wonder where you are getting these numbers. Likely pulled them out of your ass - the place where ALL your ideas come from! if using an Xe--ion thruster should be more than sufficient, Oh Jesus, not THAT again! lol. GUTHBALL! That freakin' idea though a little clever CANNOT WORK! The THRUST IS TOO DAMNED LOW! Because the energy is so damned low and the Isp is so damned high! THERE'S A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE POWER YOU'VE GOT TO PUT INTO A JET, THE SPECIFIC IMPULSE AND THE THRUST PRODUCED! If you had all the radium in the freakin' world and collimated the particle emissions, you couldn't make a thruster out of it capable of doing ****! I went through this with you, as well as through all the mass-ratios and performance figures for the Saturn V - and YOU HAVE TOTALLY IGNORED THEM! YOU ARE A FREAKING LUNATIC! YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO APPRECIATION NOT ANY OF WHAT IT TAKES TO DO SPACE TRAVEL. YOUR IDEAS ARE STUPID AND UNWORKABLE AND YOUR THEORIES ABOUT US NOT GOING TO THE MOON OR LIFE ON VENUS ARE INSANELY WRONG WRONG WRONG! and otherwise I'm thinking a mg/tonne/month of using Ra--LRn--Rn--ion (Rn laser cannon) thrust might offer an interesting alternative. Why do you think that Guthball? What basis does this thought have in reality? Got any analysis, or engineering studies or anything to back it up? Or is it just **** that you PULLED OUT OF YOUR ASS cause it feels good? Jerk. Perhaps using up a cash cache - asshole - not cash. They sound the same. They're not the same. of U235 isn't such a bad idea, at least according to William Mook. If you want the Isp you're Radon rocket can achieve AND thrust, then you've got to get your power level up. And a simple way to do that is to create a fission reactor and use the reaction products directly. Of course there has never been one frame of NASA/Apollo film, not even a given 16mm movie frame or of anything 35 mm, much less of any larger format of any Kodak film that was ever made available for an independent review, Of course by 'independent' Guthball means anyone who is not independent at all. Guthball means someone who buys into the stupid notion with absolute certainty his crackpot theories. That's Guthball's notion of independence! lol. not even so much as a blank leader/trailer portion of such film. Dude, I wouldn't let you into my offce, let alone GIVE you anything. I wonder why not, especially since the modern micro-digital scanning process is 100% nondestructive, and can even be accomplished within any given security vault? Actually the library of congress is digitally recording all important historical records of the 50s and 60s including NASA films and archives - in just the manner described here. So, I guess that makes Guthball either ill-informed, or A LIAR! There's no technical reasons why not and only multiple reasons why each and every frame needs to get re-scanned at much greater resolution and at least to a 16 bit depth. http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/ The Library of Congress is doing far better than that Guthball. - Brad Guth Get a freakin' life and leave me the hell out of it. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|