Biggest Apollo 11 myth (fuel/oxidizer level on landing)

The latest issue of the newsletter at http://www.aiaahouston.org/ has an
interesting article titled: "The Biggest Myth about the First Moon
Landing" by Paul Fjeld

In a nutshell, it debunks the newspaper headline "The dramatic first
Moon landing of Apollo 11 succeeded with only twenty seconds of fuel
remaining!".

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 Monday, September 23, 2013 8:38:05 AM UTC-5, Jeff Findley wrote:
The latest issue of the newsletter at http://www.aiaahouston.org/ has an
interesting article titled: "The Biggest Myth about the First Moon
Landing" by Paul Fjeld

....The biggest mistake I made during the years I was doing the commute to Houstopolis ever 3-5 weeks was not joining AAIAH and attending the meetings. I haven't been down there since I got "Stumpy", but should I finally get to the point where I can drive a vehicle again - read: I win the lottery or stumble across some drug dealer's stash - I intend to join and attend regularly, as there really isn't that sort of a group locally.

....As for just joining and getting the newsletter, I quit doing that when I let my sub to NatGeo lapse in 1981, the month they relented and started letting certain edumacational campuses carry a limited supply in their commons newsrag & candy stores. Still, I've recently vampired all of AAIAH's newsletters, and if the Masonic Lodges had agitprop that professional, the Catholic Church would have been run out of business by now. Hell, if they'd accept my ASTP research as I've presented it, with humor and colorful metaphors intact, I'd do some writing for them gratis :/

OM

Jeff Findley wrote:

The latest issue of the newsletter at http://www.aiaahouston.org/ has an
interesting article titled: "The Biggest Myth about the First Moon
Landing" by Paul Fjeld

In a nutshell, it debunks the newspaper headline "The dramatic first
Moon landing of Apollo 11 succeeded with only twenty seconds of fuel
remaining!".

ISTR removing the bunk at some length, and under considerable opposition,
a while back.

On Saturday, October 5, 2013 10:20:06 AM UTC-7, Fevric J. Glandules wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote:

ISTR removing the bunk at some length, and under considerable opposition,
a while back.

....Where? Here? Cite the source, sir, as I'd be interested in reading your take on it.

OM

OM wrote:

On Saturday, October 5, 2013 10:20:06 AM UTC-7, Fevric J. Glandules wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote:

ISTR removing the bunk at some length, and under considerable opposition,
a while back.

...Where? Here? Cite the source, sir, as I'd be interested in reading your take on it.

A thread here, about a year ago, "Neil Armstrong has Died".

The sources I used were on nasa.gov, which is, of course, shut down.

But IIRC this report:
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apol...ant_Status.htm
gives final (revised) figures for all missions and it becomes apparent
that A11 did not have significantly less fuel remaining on landing
than later missions.

The most important thing to realise is that the countdown being given
by mission control was the time remaining until the "bingo call", NOT
fuel remaining. Bingo call was decision time - abort or land NOW.

So at the time they thought they were ~20 seconds from bingo which was
itself ~20 seconds from fuel depletion, and the mission report
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/A11_MissionReport.pdf
from November 1969 gives an "indicated 45 seconds to propellant
depletion".

Later it became apparent that the low-fuel sensor had latched on
early, due to fuel sloshing around the tanks, a problem fixed
on later flights with the addition of baffles inside the tank.
Taking this into consideration the final figure given was about
65 seconds. Not that they knew it at the time.