Apollo Trivia Question

Derek Lyons wrote:

Out of all of them, I'd say the Skycrane would be the best choice, as
its rear facing cargo handler would be able to raise the CM right up
between the landing legs and this would mean it would be easy to land on
the carrier with it without damaging it by contact with the deck.



Much depends on if a navalized version of the Skycrane can be built.
(Mostly corrosion issues since it's already available in a military
version.)


For a voyage as short as going out to get a Apollo, you could toss a big
plastic tarpaulin over it at Pearl Harbor to keep the salt spray off of it.
I did find one other potential U.S. lifting candidate in the Sikorsky
S-56 "Mojave", the Skycrane's ancestor.
Since these were being used by the Marines as well as the Army, they
should be corrosion resistant, but they are very iffy in the payload
department with only 10,179 lbs difference between empty and gross
weight, and would have been obsolete by 1969.

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:
Derek Lyons wrote:

Out of all of them, I'd say the Skycrane would be the best choice, as
its rear facing cargo handler would be able to raise the CM right up
between the landing legs and this would mean it would be easy to land on
the carrier with it without damaging it by contact with the deck.

Much depends on if a navalized version of the Skycrane can be built.
(Mostly corrosion issues since it's already available in a military
version.)

For a voyage as short as going out to get a Apollo, you could toss a big
plastic tarpaulin over it at Pearl Harbor to keep the salt spray off of it.

That'll keep the spray off of it - but it won't keep the salt air away
from it.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Derek Lyons wrote:


That'll keep the spray off of it - but it won't keep the salt air away
from it.



Still though, the landing area for Apollo 11 was quite close to Hawaii;
the Skycrane could be put aboard the carrier only a couple of days in
advance of the landing and the carrier still be in position for pick-up.
The Skycrane with cargo load can fly 250 miles; sans load (and possibly
with a fuel tank attached below it it) it should be able to fly, what-
500 miles out to sea to rendezvous with the carrier?
BTW, we had three Skycranes here in town once; they were using them to
lower high voltage electrical transmission towers into place.
Not the prettiest helicopter in history by a long shot (it looks like
some huge insect) but the most cargo capable one this side of Russia.

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:

That'll keep the spray off of it - but it won't keep the salt air away
from it.

Still though, the landing area for Apollo 11 was quite close to Hawaii;
the Skycrane could be put aboard the carrier only a couple of days in
advance of the landing and the carrier still be in position for pick-up.

With no practice, no test flights? Not a good idea.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

No matters what the consequences, you folks really must really like
sucking up to NASA's infomercial-science butt, as it making your brown
nose feel all warm and fuzzy, doesn't it. I supposed that includes
using NASA's conditional laws of physics and of evidence exclusion is
also just what your Third Reich (aka Skull and Bones) and mostly white
Jewish doctors ordered.

Ever heard of the Raytheon/TRW Space Data report?

Ever heard of anticathode secondary/recoil radiation?

Have you an honest independent and thus replicated clue as to exactly
how Sv/rad-hot our naked moon is?

Fortunately Mars is not nearly a naked as our moon, but it's also
further way from being solar shielded, and thus it's getting a bit more
than it's fair share of cosmic dosage that's also rather gamma horrific.
Do you know what gamma does whenever interacting rather badly with all
of that nearby and unavoidably surrounding matter of what that Mars
surface represents?

Our moon is considerably more naked than Mars, and it's getting rather
nicely solar illuminated along with full gauntlet of receiving all sorts
of such nasty raw energy that the surface of Earth never obtains. Is
there some hocus-pocus law of physics reason or skewed
infomercial-science logic, as to why our moon shouldn't be worse off
than our lethal Van Allen belts?

Would any of you folks like to review a nifty PDF file, such as I might
share and share alike on behalf of forking over my copy of the now
officially banished Constellation-X (AKA con_x_dose1) report: (original
though broken link
http://conxproject.gsfc.nasa.gov/rad...on_x_dose1.pdf)

How about my offering a link to few shots of Jupiter and that of our
fully illuminated though physically dark moon, as being within the same
photographic frame?

Jupiter - Moon occultation (though incorrectly posted as
"moom.saturn.jpg")
Taken by Becky Coretti with Bill Williams, using a 15" Obsession and a
Tom O Compact Platform. A ToUCam was used with a TeleVue 4x Powermate.
For some reason this image file got itself improperly named as
"moon.saturn.jpg", but otherwise having been properly published as being
that of our moon and Jupiter as obtained within the same frame and
exposure.
http://www.equatorialplatforms.com/moon.saturn.jpg

If others can manage to have photographed (from Earth and thus through
our polluted and spectrum filtering atmosphere none the less) the likes
of Jupiter as being somewhat similar to the moon albedo, then where's
the problem with that of Venus and of a few other items, and especially
from that naked lunar environment and being optically unfiltered to
boot.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Derek Lyons wrote:

With no practice, no test flights? Not a good idea.


That wouldn't be a problem; they could do test pick-ups of a a
boilerplate capsule on the Great Lakes with no corrosion problems.
Touching down on the carrier could be simulated by landing on a
converted coal barge with the capsule.


Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:

With no practice, no test flights? Not a good idea.


That wouldn't be a problem; they could do test pick-ups of a a
boilerplate capsule on the Great Lakes with no corrosion problems.
Touching down on the carrier could be simulated by landing on a
converted coal barge with the capsule.

Try thinking this through when the drugs wear off Pat.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Derek Lyons wrote:

That wouldn't be a problem; they could do test pick-ups of a a
boilerplate capsule on the Great Lakes with no corrosion problems.
Touching down on the carrier could be simulated by landing on a
converted coal barge with the capsule.



Try thinking this through when the drugs wear off Pat.



You know, I would have thought the Navy would have done some sort of
psychological screening for how potential submariners would interact
with their crewmates given that they were going to be cooped up together
for weeks or months on end. Frankly, with your sort of attitude, I'm
amazed you ever got put on a sub, as I would have thought that their
profile of you would probably have included the words "and will
probably get his teeth knocked out within a week of leaving port"
somewhere in the triplicate forms. :-)
You appear to have more pent-up anger than a badger, and about as much
civility as a pit viper.

Pat

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 07:10:07 GMT, (Derek Lyons)
wrote:

With no practice, no test flights? Not a good idea.

....Try telling that to a 'Crane pilot, D. They're the only chopper
pilots I've ever come across whose confidence and ego come anywhere
close to matching that of a true Naval Aviator. They really, truly
believe they can pick up anything and put it anywhere.

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

Pat Flannery wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:

That wouldn't be a problem; they could do test pick-ups of a a
boilerplate capsule on the Great Lakes with no corrosion problems.
Touching down on the carrier could be simulated by landing on a
converted coal barge with the capsule.

Try thinking this through when the drugs wear off Pat.



You know, I would have thought the Navy would have done some sort of
psychological screening for how potential submariners would interact
with their crewmates given that they were going to be cooped up together
for weeks or months on end. Frankly, with your sort of attitude, I'm
amazed you ever got put on a sub, as I would have thought that their
profile of you would probably have included the words "and will
probably get his teeth knocked out within a week of leaving port"
somewhere in the triplicate forms. :-)

Of course it never occurs to you that plain speech is a virtue.

You appear to have more pent-up anger than a badger, and about as much
civility as a pit viper.

I have little of either. What I do have is little patience for
handwaving idiots.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL