|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
ATTN: Scott Grissom - Gene Cernan questions
Jim Davis wrote in message .1.4...
Jay Windley wrote: | and of technical documentation of the 1/6th gravity | scaled lander I have heard many assertions to the effect that "the blueprints" for the lunar module, the Saturn V, the LRV, and other important Apollo hardware was destroyed. Perhaps some explanation is in order here, Jay. Brad has gotten the notion into his head that there were such things as "1/6th gravity scaled landers". This is *probably* (but who can tell with Brad?) a confused description of the LLTVs and LLRVs. Brad has seen videos of the various crashes of these vehicles, but has never seen a video of a successful flight. Brad has asked that he be provided with such videos. Since no one has bothered to do his leg work for him and provide these videos, Brad has concluded that no successful flights were made by the "1/6th gravity scaled landers" and therefore no successful lunar landings were made. Brad's term for people that refuse to do his research for him is "NASA moles". Jim Davis That's not at all the case. I'll accept your flak and/or a disagreement as long as you've given some form of reference for supporting that stance. It seems I'm not the bad guy here, I'm just not as smart as you, as such I'll need to be taken by the hand and shown at least where to look, as others (thousands) have apparently been trying to get this same information for decades, so that makes me a rather late bloomer because, up until roughly three years ago, I'd swear we'd been there and done that lunar thing, nearly without a hitch. BTW, there certainly was a prototype 1/6th gravity scaled lander (I saw it), to be pilotted and test flown for all the right and logical reasons. Only problem being is that it bought the farm. All that I've ever asked of those opposing the idea that I've discovered something of interest on Venus, of those insisting there's absolutely nothing whatsoever existing on Venus other than hot rock are oddly the very same folks insisting that we somehow went to and walked on the moon, even though oddly there's a black hole of the documentation for making that happen, that's in spite of the fact that Walter Cronkite and myself were right there, whatever uncle Walter saw and heard I too did, yet looking back and trying to put two and two together simply isn't working anymore, as there was way too much radiation and thermal stress involved with that film to have been so unaffected, none of which matters if the 1/6th scaled prototype lander never functioned other than for crash testing, as that part it accomplished quite nicely. The actual lunar lander was dealing with a relatively high center of gravity, a variable center of gravity at that and, I don't recall ever seeing any (X/Y) mass stabilisation gyros within the description, nor was there any demonstration of the lander having to function in a speedy down-range gravity situation. Good grief, we still can't hardly keep those V22 Ospreys in the air. Offer a specific document number and/or a URL page and I'll not only read it but I'll post that sort of data (full context) from a link on my index page. Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS 1-253-8576061 http://guthvenus.tripod.com alternate URL: http://www.geocities.com/bradguth |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
ATTN: Scott Grissom - Gene Cernan questions
As provided by: Jay Windley | webmaster @ clavius.org
www.spacecraftfilms.com http://www.clavius.org/techlltv.html I looked, I read some and, I'll certainly post these two links which you so kindly offered as your best "proof positive". The technical information on the theory of modern rocket stability (perfected late 70s, though modulated is still in R&D) is certainly good as gold, as long as absolutely every modulated thruster functions exactly according to spec and there's no other variables, same goes for those V22 Ospreys (no room for error, as there's nothing surplus to go around). However, if in fact those test flights were supposedly so darn terrific, even if they were problematic, I'd still like to see a film documentary on a typical test flight, wherein having the craft doing a speedy approach decent, then continuing down-range, alluding bad terrain by controlling it's flight and landing safely. Seems like if they did so many test flights, there should be hours worth of combined flight time recorded on film (198 X 3 minutes each = 594 minutes), from several cameras (on the ground as well as from onboard, at least that's what I would have expected), so where exactly is the stash of film or even a substantially reduced movie preview of even the good parts. Seems that every national and international news program and certainly of aviation publications of any worth would have paid serious big bucks for having access to such film, as we were banking and/or betting the entire cold-war farm on those craft becoming 6 times greater in mass and functioning without a hitch on the moon, not only landing in one piece but subsequently a portion thereof lifting off and the crew coming home, in spite of all the radiation and in spite of all the +/- 250 degrees (F) worth of thermal stress (that's not only a neat trick for plastic film but, also a darn good one for the thin aluminum (nearly foil) construction of the lander itself (half smoking hot at +250 degrees while the other half being seriously frozen at a subarctic -250 degrees), of flat panels no less, showing no distorts or buckling (certainly can't do that one on Earth). On those pages, I saw terrific graphics and simply superb page of HTML code, though oddly, I saw no such film posted nor even a preview of any prototype lander footage that's showing what so many others and I'm after. Perhaps that why you're so smart an I'm not, as I simply can't seem to identify one iota of film sequence that supports the necessary requirements, whereas you can but simply can't seem to point it out to anyone other. BTW; I didn't realize there were 4 symmetrically located fuel tanks, not just the two (port/stbd) depicted in your graphic, as otherwise your yardstick analogy wouldn't work so terrific in the fore/aft axis. Then also there's something to being said for the fuel burn-off, as representing a great deal of mass that's all the sudden become extremely variable and, in a very big way. Though fly-by-wire sensors and computers of today can manage such variables, I see nothing of a modulated thrust control that would have been discreet enough to have managed from late 60s rocket technology. Once again, I'm the one that's not smart enough to see what's obviously well documented, out there somewhere. Perhaps I'll need to look further, since so many others like yourself can't be more specific, as I'm sure that you're not intentionally alluding this quest, as that would place you into the pro-NASA Borg/mole category and, I believe you've stated that's not the case. Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS 1-253-8576061 http://guthvenus.tripod.com alternate URL: http://www.geocities.com/bradguth |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
ATTN: Scott Grissom - Gene Cernan questions
"Brad Guth" wrote in message om... | | The actual lunar lander was dealing with a relatively | high center of gravity No. This is simply what the most popular conspiracy theorists say. Ask them to show you their mass properties analysis that shows the LM had a high center of gravity and they'll either run and hide, or look at you like you've just spoken to them in Chinese. As a matter of fact the LM had a very LOW center of gravity compared to its center of thrust. The LM is an inherently stable design. | a variable center of gravity at that ... As have all rockets. Guidance for variable-mass, variable-c.g. vehicles was solved in the 1930s and 1940s. | I don't recall ever | seeing any (X/Y) mass stabilisation gyros within the description Straw man. "One of several potential means of stabilization wasn't provided, therefore there wasn't any means of stabilization." Please discuss the stabilization techniques that WERE used. | nor was there any demonstration of the lander having to | function in a speedy down-range gravity situation. What on earth (or on the moon, for that matter) are you taking about? | Good grief, we still can't hardly keep those V22 Ospreys | in the air. Different set of problems; vague and superficial similarities. | Offer a specific document number and/or a URL page and I'll | not only read it but I'll post that sort of data (full context) | from a link on my index page. I gave you the name, address, and telephone number of the professional historian charged with maintaining the records of those test flights, as well as the name, address, and telephone number of one of the pilots of those vehicles. Why haven't you used that? Are you really so foolish as to believe it doesn't exist unless it has a URL? -- | The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
ATTN: Scott Grissom - Gene Cernan questions
"Brad Guth" wrote in message om... | | I looked, I read some and, I'll certainly post these two | links which you so kindly offered as your best "proof positive". I'm not sure I would characterize them as the "best" proof. What I find most interesting about this information is how easy it was to obtain, and how silent the conspiracy theorists are about it. They clearly did little or no research on their claims regarding the LLTV. In fact, I'm hard pressed to find anything on which they've done a significant amount of research. They mostly just quote each other as "authorities" while making it up as they go. | The technical information on the theory of modern rocket stability | (perfected late 70s, though modulated is still in R&D) ... You're obviously completely unfamiliar with the work of Robert Goddard. | as long as absolutely every modulated thruster functions | exactly according to spec ... Keep your straw men out of the picture. The astronauts trained to deal with failed thrusters and stuck-open thrusters, especially after Armstrong's Gemini flight. RCS-based flight stabilization is not as volatile as you seem to believe. | However, if in fact those test flights were supposedly so darn | terrific, even if they were problematic, I'd still like to see | a film documentary on a typical test flight ... As I already said, obtain the Apollo 11 DVD set from SpacecraftFilms.com. Go to Disc 3, select "Bonus Materials" and then "Lunar Landing Training Vehicle Flights". You'll see the vehice manage several abrupt attitude changes, hundreds of feet of altitude, and considerable forward and lateral velocity. There are several minutes worth of flight film. It's clear by your implication that the LLTVs were hard to fly or inherently problematic, that you've never seen anything except the six-second clip of Armstrong's crash that the conspiracists show you. They got that clip from the same source that Mark Gray consulted for the lengthier, more representative clips that he provides on the DVDs. But the conspiracists, for some reason, found it unnecessary to use it. | there should be hours worth of combined flight time recorded on | film (198 X 3 minutes each = 594 minutes), from several cameras | (on the ground as well as from onboard, at least that's what I would | have expected) Every flight was filmed from the ground. There was no onboard camera. However, not all the films from all the flights were retained. If you need to diagnose a crash or point out something specific to the pilot, you keep the film. After 30 years, 200 films of essentially the same thing are of limited historical value and so only a few representative samples are retained. I suggest you focus your efforts on finding and intelligently commenting on five minutes of representative film footage, rather than make blanket and distractionary requests for hours of additional film. You have no business asking others to labor to hand you on a silver platter large volumes of additional evidence until you can demonstrate some degree of competence with what's already available. You're stalling. | Seems that every national and international news program and | certainly of aviation publications of any worth would have paid | serious big bucks for having access to such film ... They were shown on the evening news. Not every flight, of course, since most flights were not newsworthy. But the LLTV received a great deal of coverage. I'm sorry you missed it. The Discovery Wings television network even uses LLTV flight clips in its colophons. | we were banking and/or betting the entire cold-war farm on | those craft becoming 6 times greater in mass and functioning | without a hitch on the moon ... No. You completely misunderstand the purpose of the LLTVs. They were not LM prototypes. The development of the LM and its flight tests in earth orbit and lunar orbit had nothing to do with the LLTVs and how they were designed and built. The LLTVs were built to train the *pilots*, not to develop LM technology. This is a fundamental conspiracist mistake. The LLTV was intended to duplicate the "feel" of the LM, as anticipated, by any means possible -- *not* necessarily by the same means that the actual LM would be designed and built. The "by any means" requirement dictated the rather silly appearance of the LLTV. The LLTVs were not technology testbeds. They were literally thrown together. Five were built (in two variants) precisely because their hasty design and construction all but assured that they would eventually crash and be destroyed. That's why they were fitted with ejection seats. They were not considered safe or reliable vehicles, nor were they intended to be. If you want to discuss the feasibility of the lunar module, looking at the LLTV is not a good way to go about it. Characterizing the LLTV as an LM prototype is very wrong. | ... in spite of all the radiation What radiation? Give me dates, sources, and skin dosages. I have those numbers. Do you? | ... and in spite of all the +/- 250 degrees (F) worth of | thermal stress Why does the temperature of the lunar rocks and dust over a four-week cycle have anything to do with the lunar module? | ... that's not only a neat trick for plastic film The photographic film used the Estar polyester base, and it was never in contact with the lunar surface material. | but, also a darn good one for the thin aluminum (nearly foil) | construction of the lander itself (half smoking hot at +250 | degrees while the other half being seriously frozen at a subarctic | -250 degrees) Huh? Do you realize that aluminum and lunar material have radically different optical properties, and therefore radically different responses to radiant heat transfer? Do you actually know anything about radiant heat transfer, or any form of heat transfer? Why are you quoting temperatures for the lunar surface material at its extremes and implying that they apply in any way to the lunar module materials? Please discuss the 200-node computational radiant heat transfer model that was formulated for the lunar module in the 1960s. Are you aware of it? If not, why are you drawing these conclusions? | ... as I simply can't seem to identify one iota of film sequence | that supports the necessary requirements Why do you seem to believe that it's not evidence until it appears on the other end of a URL? Real experts don't sit on their butts and point and click their way through life. They spend a considerable amount of time in classrooms, libraries, factories, and archives getting all the information they need. I suggest, before you argue that there is "no evidence," you do something besides waiting for others to hand it to you on a silver platter. Do your homework or shut up. If you're not a real expert, and have no desire to become one, why then would your ignorant ramblings be worth anything? Why would they be considered to "prove" anything? | Then also there's something to being said for the fuel burn-off, | as representing a great deal of mass that's all the sudden become | extremely variable and, in a very big way. Compute the moments that demonstrate this. The location of the fuel tanks was determined by the mass flow rates of the individual propellant components. Normal fuel depletion would not shift the c.g. outside the envelope controllable in the gross scope by DPS gimballing. Slosh-induced moments would be well within RCS error rate limits. | Though fly-by-wire sensors and computers of today can manage | such variables What evidence can you provide that the FBW sensors and computers in the lunar module could *not* manage those variables? | I see nothing of a modulated thrust control that would have | been discreet enough to have managed from late 60s rocket | technology. I'm not very interested in what you say you can't find. You don't seem to be looking very hard for anything, so I'm not surprised you come up empty-handed. The LM RCS could be operated in pulse mode, which provides exactly the variable thrust required to provide stabilization as the LM's moment of inertia decreases. | Once again, I'm the one that's not smart enough to see what's | obviously well documented, out there somewhere. Yes, that's absolutely true. I have several printed sources, both modern and from the 1960s, that describe in very great detail the LM's guidance system, from abstract theory down to wiring diagrams. I've been able to talk to some of the people who designed and built it, and to a few of the people who used it in operational lunar landing flights. It took some effort to locate, but it is out there and available. The MIT Draper lab can provide you with much of it, right down to the Luminary source code for the computer. | Perhaps I'll need to look further, since so many others | like yourself can't be more specific Specificity is not the issue. Your unwillingness to do sufficient research and your implicit reliance on limited and highly questionable sources is the issue. I have, as I said, given you contact information for named individuals who have provided me with information. What have you done to contact them and have your concerns addressed? | ... that would place you into the pro-NASA Borg/mole category | and, I believe you've stated that's not the case. This isn't a matter of politics, ideology, or loyalty. This is a matter of facts. Your conclusions aren't based on any, and you seem reluctant to do what's necessary to obtain them. There is more involved with researching a subject than just Googling around. -- | The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
ATTN: Scott Grissom - Gene Cernan questions
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 17:02:43 -0600, "Jay Windley"
wrote: "OM" om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org wrote in message ... | | Please, Jay, Enough is enough. Will you *please* stop trying to tell me what to do? Killfile me if you do not wish to read what I write. ....No to either. You're going as overboard with this as Alan is about his impostors, and everyone here is sick of it. You've got a lot to contribute to the group, but wasting our ****ing bandwidth on nutters like Guth and Maxson is not the way to do it. I've tossed both of them into Killfile Hell where they belong, you need to quit trying to act so goddamn "holier than thou" and do the same. Again, enough is enough. OM -- "No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
ATTN: Scott Grissom - Gene Cernan questions
"OM" om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org wrote in message ... | | ...No to either. You're going as overboard with this as | Alan is about his impostors, and everyone here is sick of it. You don't speak for everyone. | You've got a lot to contribute to the group, but wasting our | ****ing bandwidth ... Blah, blah, blah. In my 15+ years on Usenet I've heard countless self-appointed moderators whine about this mythical "bandwidth", and I've never seen Usenet run out of it. Further, it's been my experience that those who whine the most are frequently the worst offenders. You whine about me responding on-topic to Scott Grissom, yet when *you* respond to him, it's nothing but the same puerile insults he dishes out. You, worse than most, egg him on. I, at least, am *trying* to have on-topic productive conversations with people. | ... on nutters like Guth and Maxson is not the way to do it. I'll contribute to Usenet as I see fit. If you don't like what I contribute, then you have the means to avoid reading what I write. | I've tossed both of them into Killfile Hell where they belong ... Good for you. Put me there if you don't like what I write. Killfiles were invented for eliminating parts of the discussion which you don't wish to read. This is preferable to "wasting bandwidth" trying to moderate an unmoderated newsgroup by intimidation. | Again, enough is enough. You're right. Plonk. -- | The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
So Long Jay Windley. Enjoy Killfile Hell....
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 10:54:10 -0600, "Jay Windley"
wrote: [Pompous bull**** deleted] | Again, enough is enough. You're right. Plonk. ....Fine, You're no better than scott or Brad Guth with an attitude like that, and deserve to sleep with them in Killfile Hell. Hope you *do* bend over for the soap while you're down there, too. PLONK ....The nerve of some idiots. OM -- "No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
ATTN: Scott Grissom - Gene Cernan questions
Jay Windley said:
Blah, blah, blah. In my 15+ years on Usenet I've heard countless self-appointed moderators whine about this mythical "bandwidth", and I've never seen Usenet run out of it. Look harder. Several ISPs have dropped Usenet because of the expense of supporting it. The length of time required for posts to propagate and the short retention times of posts on news servers is a continuing discussion topic on my ISP's support newsgroups. Consider the personal bandwidth of those of us who have dial-up access. The newsreader downloads all posts, and only then can filter them. You whine about me responding on-topic to Scott Grissom, yet when *you* respond to him, it's nothing but the same puerile insults he dishes out. You, worse than most, egg him on. Good point. -- Kevin Willoughby lid We'd spend the remaining time trying to fix the engine. -- Neil Armstrong |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
ATTN: Scott Grissom - Gene Cernan questions
In article ,
Kevin Willoughby wrote: Consider the personal bandwidth of those of us who have dial-up access. The newsreader downloads all posts, and only then can filter them. You could get better newsreading software that downloads headers only, filters as directed, then downloads only articles you actually want to read. Just a suggestion . . . -- Herb Schaltegger, Esq. Chief Counsel, Human O-Ring Society "I was promised flying cars! Where are the flying cars?!" ~ Avery Brooks |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|