Did man land on the moon?

[Pudding Time]

Beats me, I've never looked for it. I guess you could search YouTube :dunno

What exactly am I looking for then? I'd assume there would be a lot of different videos of the moon landing and everything leading up to it.

 

[dt3]

Here's a cool link for ya PT:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/LEM-GNCStudyGuide.pdf

It has mockups of the actual control panels. Page 3 shows the gauge with the % Thrust on it. Page 19 shows the selector switch for either automatic or manual throttle.

Here's a diagram that shows the Thrust Translation Controller
http://www.fi.edu/pieces/schutte/moonpics/Lmcontrols2.jpg

And here's another great article explaining why they needed to control the thrust:
LM News Reference: Guidance, Navigation and Control

During the descent phase, the LM must be slowed (braked) to place it in a transfer orbit from which it can make a soft landing on the lunar surface. To accomplish braking, descent engine thrust is controllable so that the precise velocity (feet per second) necessary to alter the vehicle's trajectory can be achieved. For a soft landing on the lunar surface, the weight of the LM must be matched by an upward force so that a state of equilibrium exists, and from this point, the descent engine is shut off and the LM free falls to the lunar surface. The thrust of the descent engine provides this upward force, and since the weight of the vehicle is a variable (due to consumption of expendables) this is another reason why the magnitude of the engine thrust is controllable. In addition, the center of gravity is also variable and the thrust must be such that it is in line with the LM center of gravity. This is accomplished by gimbaling (tilting) the descent engine.

 

[dt3]

What exactly am I looking for then? I'd assume there would be a lot of different videos of the moon landing and everything leading up to it.

I was referring to the Tom Hanks movie, kinda tongue in cheek

 

[Pudding Time]

Here's a cool link for ya PT:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/LEM-GNCStudyGuide.pdf

It has mockups of the actual control panels. Page 3 shows the gauge with the % Thrust on it. Page 19 shows the selector switch for either automatic or manual throttle.

Here's a diagram that shows the Thrust Translation Controller
http://www.fi.edu/pieces/schutte/moonpics/Lmcontrols2.jpg

And here's another great article explaining why they needed to control the thrust:
LM News Reference: Guidance, Navigation and Control

It really is amazing that they had this technology back then, and are now trying to develope the technology now.

Rocket Tests Move NASA Closer To The Lunar Vision

 

[dt3]

It really is amazing that they had this technology back then, and are now trying to develope the technology now.

Rocket Tests Move NASA Closer To The Lunar Vision

It's not the same technology. This is MUCH more advanced, as stated in your article.

The Apollo landers used hypergolic propellants, meaning it was two liquids that ignite when they come in contact. At the time it was pretty revolutionary, but now it's "old news".

Your article is about cryogenic propulsion, which is the new fad in rocket designs. It's still very much in the testing phase. To the best of my knowledge, no rocket has actually even flown using cryogenic propellants.

I'm not a rocket scientist, and I'm sure Evan could probably elaborate quite a bit more, but it's not even close to the same technology.

 

[Pudding Time]

Yes I understand it uses different propulsion systems, but the goal they are trying to reach is the exact same goal they reached almost 50 years ago.

Building an Engine that Can Throttle Down | Universe Today

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

It's not the same technology. This is MUCH more advanced, as stated in your article.

The Apollo landers used hypergolic propellants, meaning it was two liquids that ignite when they come in contact. At the time it was pretty revolutionary, but now it's "old news".

Your article is about cryogenic propulsion, which is the new fad in rocket designs. It's still very much in the testing phase. To the best of my knowledge, no rocket has actually even flown using cryogenic propellants.

I'm not a rocket scientist, and I'm sure Evan could probably elaborate quite a bit more, but it's not even close to the same technology.

Do you think that will convince him now?

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

Ooooops. Guess not.

 

[Pudding Time]

Do you think that will convince him now?

Convince me of what CB?

 

[dt3]

Yes I understand it uses different propulsion systems, but the goal they are trying to reach is the exact same goal they reached almost 50 years ago.

Building an Engine that Can Throttle Down | Universe Today

Again, apples and oranges.

At low power, liquid hydrogen can slow and vapourize in the coolant lines

Apollo didn't have that problem because it wasn't a cryogenic propellant system.

This is an entirely different technical hurdle.

 

[Pudding Time]

Again, apples and oranges.



Apollo didn't have that problem because it wasn't a cryogenic propellant system.

This is an entirely different technical hurdle.

Again. I'm not talking about the technology, but rather the end result.

Besides, you just pointed out a very good reason why the technology from the 60's is better than what they are developing now.

 

[groundpounder]

less Filling!!! Tastes Great!!!

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

Groundpounder. Behave.



:ninja :24:

 

[Hexidecimal]

So we all agree that it was faked..

excellent..

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

So we all agree that it was faked..

excellent..

 

[Hexidecimal]

Hello Breeze

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

Hello Breeze

Aye Hexi. How you doing today?

I just seen you not too long ago. You ready to rumble again?

 

[Hexidecimal]

where did you see me?

 

[All Else Failed]

So we all agree that it was faked..

excellent..

sorry no

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

where did you see me?

Around the corner.