Neil Armstrong has Died

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?

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.

People do remember details, but not forever. Memories fade.

Some details you never forget. Again, you're assuming a lot.


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
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

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

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.

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.

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."]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.