|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Armstrong has Died
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Armstrong has Died
On 19/09/2012 13:55, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article , says... On 18/09/2012 15:20, Fred J. McCall wrote: In case you never noticed, people tend to remember the once in a lifetime events in quite a lot of detail. It wasn't quite a 'once in a lifetime' event for Kranz though. It WAS a first, but he worked shifts on seven Apollo missions, not to mention working behind the scenes on the other four. You've got to be f-ing kidding? You make it sound like Apollo 11 was just another mission or just another day in the office for Kranz. How can you pretend to know what was important to him? Where did I write that it wasn't important to him? Of course it was, but it was one amazing event among many. His career at NASA tends to be defined by his Apollo 13 experience rather than Apollo 11. After the landing he went off shift, held a press conference, went home, ate, got some sleep and returned to MSC for his next shift, when his priority was Ascent to orbit, redocking and return to Earth. I'm sure he probably read the Mission Report analysis, but he would not have been involved. This assumes so much that the conclusion is very suspect. Well, clearly the last sentence is my assumption, which is why I said 'probably'. The preceding is mostly fact, although I missed out that he watched the EVA from Mission Control before going home. It wouldn't be unheard of for him to have slept in his office as he did during 13, but there was no need for that during 11. The dates/times of his later shifts are a matter of record. People do remember details, but not forever. Memories fade. Some details you never forget. Again, you're assuming a lot. I'm not suggesting that Gene is becoming senile, but when some people become old they DO forget almost everything, even the name of their wives, husbands, children, etc. Others are assuming that he remembered 17s from 1969, or later, because it was a vital detail, whereas, in all probability, it was insignificant to him after that day. When asked about it forty years later he may well recall details, or he may not. And yes, I think we're all pretty bored with this thread by now. The bottom line for me is that there were different estimates made at different times as to how much usable fuel was left in the tanks of the descent module when the engine thrust was cut off. Exactly how much was there doesn't matter much to me. Post landing estimates especially don't matter to me because Armstrong could not possibly have known those estimates when he was on final descent. All Armstrong had to go on, at the time, were the instruments in front of him and his experience as an engineer, Navy pilot, test pilot, and astronaut. The fact of the matter is that Armstrong was the first commander to land a LEM on the moon safely, so he's in all the history books. Later missions made many hardware and operational changes which undoubtedly made landings on later missions *different*. You really can't casually compare Apollo 11 to the other missions due to the many variables which changed. Things that are different just aren't the same. If you read the history of the program it's pretty clear that Armstrong was one of the best trained astronauts in line to become an actual LEM pilot. If anyone was going to successfully complete the first manned landing, he had as good, or arguably better, shot as any other astronaut in the program. Jeff No argument from me on the above, and I've wasted enough time sparring with McCall. -- Brian W Lawrence Wantage Oxfordshire |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Armstrong has Died
Fred J. McCall wrote:
Which part of "your choice" what you believe is it that STILL has you confused. Consensual reality is not some sort of pick'n'mix. You can't change the facts. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Armstrong has Died
Jeff Findley wrote:
And yes, I think we're all pretty bored with this thread by now. The bottom line for me is that there were different estimates made at different times as to how much usable fuel was left in the tanks of the descent module when the engine thrust was cut off. Exactly how much was there doesn't matter much to me. Post landing estimates especially don't matter to me because Armstrong could not possibly have known those estimates when he was on final descent. I quite agree. Quite why some people have to claim that the situation was *worse* than they thought it was at the time is beyond me. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Armstrong has Died
Fred J. McCall wrote:
And let's not forget that he actually set the LEM down more gently than they thought was possible at the time; so gently that the 'crush pads' on the feet didn't compress, leaving them having to jump down off the ladder because the end was a meter higher than it would otherwise have been. Commentary from the ALSJ: [Neil had planned to shut the engine down when the contact light came on, but didn't manage to do it.] [Armstrong - "We actually had the engine running until touchdown. Not that that was intended, necessarily. It was a very gentle touchdown. It was hard to tell when we were on."] |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Armstrong has Died
Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Fevric J. Glandules" wrote: I quite agree. Quite why some people have to claim that the situation was *worse* than they thought it was at the time is beyond me. But so many things seem to be beyond you... One of them being your predilection for ad hominems. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Armstrong has Died
Fred J. McCall wrote:
Brian Lawrence wrote: No argument from me on the above, and I've wasted enough time sparring with McCall. Sparring? Which part of "your choice" to believe whatever you want is it that keeps leaving you so confused? Clearly it is *your* choice to believe things even when the evidence is all stacked the other way. Some of us take a more rational approach. |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Armstrong has Died
Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Fevric J. Glandules" wrote: Consensual reality is not some sort of pick'n'mix. You can't change the facts. Neither can you and I'm not trying to change them. I am trying to ascertain them. you don't know what they are any more than anyone else By this logic, history is entirely subjective, and claiming that A11 never landed at all is an equally valid viewpoint. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Armstrong has Died
Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Fevric J. Glandules" wrote: I'm not trying to change them. I am trying to ascertain them. Well, no, you aren't. You've already decided. I am and I haven't. Where I came in on this discussion was with the simple question of how much spare fuel A11 was *supposed* to land with. Because it struck me that saying that they landed "with only XX seconds left" was meaningless if it didn't have context. They weren't going to send hundreds of pounds / kilos of excess fuel all the way to the moon, were they? So there was always going to be a limited time in which to land, and the question was how far into the contingency fuel did they go. And on first examination, given a figure supplied by somebody here, the answer appeared to be "not far". Now, using what appear to be the most authoritative resources available, the only rational conclusion is that at the time, they thought that they had ~ 40 seconds remaining, and with hindsight, they actually had ~ 60 seconds. |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Armstrong has Died
Fred J. McCall wrote:
Which part of "your choice" what you believe is it that continues to leave your poor mind befuddled? I don't feel I have a choice. I have examined the historical record. The conclusion is inescapable. If / when more authoritative sources are made available to me, I will happily re-evaluate. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Neil Armstrong in Dublin | David McArthur | History | 9 | November 28th 03 11:25 AM |
Neil Armstrong saying | Rod Stevenson | History | 17 | October 8th 03 02:21 PM |