Merged Discussion of the moon landing "hoax"

[Justinian2]

I will admit that some of you here have convinced me that the original apparent lack of 1/6 gravity on the moon wasn't as bad as it first seemed. What I saw in the video of the lunar landings is almost believable - with a stretch.

 

[CptColumbo]

I am familiar with most of what you've said. That is one reason that I wonder why the lunar landings went so well. There were no major problems on the descent to the moon and the return on any of the missions either in your list or my recollection of the landings.



Only one of the Apollo missions you listed went to the surface of the moon. Apollos 7, 8, 9, or 13 did not go to the moon's surface.

The six missions that went to the surface of the moon were 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17. They all happened during the Nixon administration. The landings, moon exploration, ascent from the moon and the docking were all successful and nearly flawless - a little hard to believe considering the list of problems you gave.

I was just giving the highlights, but if you insist. Apollo 13 was supposed to go to the Lunar surface, but didn't due to many technical failures. Apollo 11's landing wasn't "flawless." They had problems with the landing zone being covered with rocks and almost ran out of fuel before it landed. Apollo 14 almost aborted due to a glitch with the on-board computer. Apollo 17 had an accident with the Lunar Rover and lost a fender. The astronauts were covered in Lunar dust due to this. IIRC someone on Apollo 15 had a problem with their suits water system and almost died from dehydration (mainly because he didn't want to cut the moonwalk short).

Do you need more? Because there is a lot more.

 

[sts60]

Only one of the Apollo missions you listed went to the surface of the moon. Apollos 7, 8, 9, or 13 did not go to the moon's surface.

But here's the thing: All of the Apollo missions cited (except, of course, for 13), and the Gemini mission mentioned in the post, were all part of the preparation for the first manned lunar landing. Mercury, Gemini, and then Apollo-through-10 laid the groundwork for 11 and subsequent landings. So did Ranger, Surveyor, and Lunar Orbiter, and so did a host of other unmanned missions which went around and between the Earth and the Moon, and beyond.

The six missions that went to the surface of the moon were 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17. They all happened during the Nixon administration.

Nixon didn't particularly care for Apollo and was no big fan of spaceflight in general. He was willing to bask in a little reflected glory (though, to be fair, what politician isn't?), but had no particular incentive to keep supporting it after the successful first landing.

The landings, moon exploration, ascent from the moon and the docking were all successful and nearly flawless - a little hard to believe considering the list of problems you gave.

Dealing with those problems debugged the systems, procedures, and teamwork for the landings. And the landing missions themselves had their own problems, but the experience of previous missions, the hard work and smarts of the engineers, technicians, and flight crews, and the redundancy and built-in reliability of the systems made them possible. Even so, A11 was almost aborted before touchdown, and A13 was lucky to make it back at all. So it's not like everything magically went smoothly beginning with the first planned landing mission.

Apollo 11 itself could be considered the final test mission of the Apollo program. It had one single primary objective: "To perform a manned lunar landing and return." Science objectives only became primary beginning with A12.

 

[Nonpareil]

I am familiar with most of what you've said. That is one reason that I wonder why the lunar landings went so well. There were no major problems on the descent to the moon and the return on any of the missions either in your list or my recollection of the landings.

As CptColumbo has already said, there were plenty of major problems during the landings themselves. Don't confuse the popular image of the moon landings - monumental efforts that went off largely without a hitch due to good old-fashioned ingenuity - with what they were actually like.

 

[Arus808]

As I have mentioned several times previously, I went in September of 2010. I spent a day and a half there. The movies alone take several hours to see (in total)

and apparently you were there in half a daze, under the influence of something, or you just ignored everything presented...I'm voting for the latter, but hey, the former suggestions are probably just as correct.

There were many exhibits and movies. The actual suits worn on the moon were behind glass.

then i dont know what tour you went on. We actually got to see the suits up close and had a demonstration of how the astronauts got in and out of them.

And these weren't the current suits worn; these are the same suits that were used at the Space Academy (for which I also go to participate in when I was a kid) and were not that far off to what was worn during the moon missions.

A reliable sources indicated the lunar suit weighed 150 pounds.

Link please.

A less reliable source suggested 120 pounds. You suggested 200 pounds.

You should really learn to use better sources that non-attributed "reliable" and 'unreliable" sources


US Space Suits are covered extensively in this book
http://www.amazon.com/Spacesuits-Springer-Praxis-Books-Exploration/dp/0387279199/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1295383056&sr=8-1

and also looks at the Soviet Space suits as well.

 

[drewid]

re:flawless > Apollo 11, broken engine arming circuit breaker in the LM found after landing. It could have prevented them taking off again, fixed with a felt-tip pen.

 

[grmcdorman]

As CptColumbo has already said, there were plenty of major problems during the landings themselves. Don't confuse the popular image of the moon landings - monumental efforts that went off largely without a hitch due to good old-fashioned ingenuity - with what they were actually like.

Indeed. Look up the '1202' error on Apollo 11. Or, for that matter, the broken ascent engine arming switch on the same flight (they were almost stranded on the Moon's surface).

Both can be found in the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal.

 

[aggle-rithm]

re:flawless > Apollo 11, broken engine arming circuit breaker in the LM found after landing. It could have prevented them taking off again, fixed with a felt-tip pen.

I wonder if the newer technology used today would prevent astronauts from jury-rigging their equipment like that?

Then I remember that NASA's technology is still at least twenty years behind the times.

 

[Arus808]

Here is another book on the space suits worn by the astronauts and a commentary by Stafford (who was on the Apollo 10 lunar mission)
http://www.amazon.com/Spacesuits-Smithsonian-National-Museum-Collection/dp/1576874982/ref=pd_sim_b_1


Ooh, a book about the Lunar Mission as told by the astronauts who went there:
http://www.amazon.com/Apollo-Through-Astronauts-Robert-Jacobs/dp/0810921464/ref=pd_sim_b_6

 

[grmcdorman]

Newer technology doesn't prevent equipment failures/broken switches. So, no, jury-rigging would still be required.

A lot of the unmanned probes have failures of one sort or another. Because the engineers can upload new instructions - or even firmware - it's often possible to work around the problem. Same thing, only in software and remotely.

ETA: One of the best examples of that is the Spirit and Opportunity rovers. Spirit has a broken wheel; they programmed it to drive backwards to work around that. They have functioned something like 22 times their design lifetime; unfortunately Spirit may have finally failed (no communication since March, 2010; they are hoping for a possible communication in the Martian summer solstice next March). Opportunity is still going, though.

 

[dafydd]

Your statement is entirely possible. However, usually a person doesn't bend his knees at a 45 degree angle just to jump three inches. I should also think starting and stopping would be more difficult since the mass would be greater
(with the 200 pound suit) and yet the friction with the lunar surface would be less (due to 1/6 gravity) since your moon weight is only 58 pounds. More mass, less weight.

The same mass.

 

[CptColumbo]

I think the problem is that Justinian2 is mistaking "flawless" with successful.

During Gemini 4, Ed White almost couldn't get back into the capsule after his spacewalk. They hadn't taken into account the fact that a pressurized suit doesn't bend as easily as an unpressurized suit.

There was also the near-disaster of Gemini 8.

Rarely was the Agena used during Gemini, as either the Agena (or it's replacement) didn't function or something happened to the capsule the crew was in.

There is also a book about Apollo 8 called "Genesis" (the author's name escapes me) which describe the smell inside the capsule after Borman was sick. Imagine having to chase vomit and fecal matter with paper towels around an enclosed space to keep it out of the instruments, with the knowledge you can't air-out the cabin for several days.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Newer technology doesn't prevent equipment failures/broken switches. So, no, jury-rigging would still be required.

I was arguing that jury-rigging of new technology wouldn't be possible. It's like in the old days, when my wife's 75 Chevy wouldn't start, I could fix it by bending a couple of linkages in the carburator. Today...no more carburator.

It doesn't quit working as often, but when it does, I don't have the ability to fix it anymore.

 

[CptColumbo]

I was arguing that jury-rigging of new technology wouldn't be possible. It's like in the old days, when my wife's 75 Chevy wouldn't start, I could fix it by bending a couple of linkages in the carburator. Today...no more carburator.

It doesn't quit working as often, but when it does, I don't have the ability to fix it anymore.

Reminds me of Operation: Petticoat, when they replaced a valve spring with a girdle.

 

[Spindrift]

Flawless? You're listening to too much press hype. No Apollo mission was flawless. There were big problems and small problems.

In addition to the above, Apollo 14 almost wasn't able to dock with LM to pull it out of the second stage as the drogue wouldn't capture until they basically rammed it in.

On Apollo 16 or 17 the fender was broken off the rover. On Apollo 12 the video camera was ruined because it was pointed at the sun and Al Bean couldn't find the remote camera switch to take a picture of him and Pete Conrad. Imagine what the woos would have done with that picture!

 

[matt.tansy]

Newer technology doesn't prevent equipment failures/broken switches. So, no, jury-rigging would still be required.

A lot of the unmanned probes have failures of one sort or another. Because the engineers can upload new instructions - or even firmware - it's often possible to work around the problem. Same thing, only in software and remotely.

ETA: One of the best examples of that is the Spirit and Opportunity rovers. Spirit has a broken wheel; they programmed it to drive backwards to work around that. They have functioned something like 22 times their design lifetime; unfortunately Spirit may have finally failed (no communication since March, 2010; they are hoping for a possible communication in the Martian summer solstice next March). Opportunity is still going, though.

Spirit got stuck in a sand pit and couldn't be moved to maximize solar power generation during the Martian winter. Martian spring is this March. She may still be able to operate later. Good summary here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_rover#2010

 

[jadebox]

If the knees of the suit were too stiff, the suits could not have been changed in the LM.

When the astronauts were outside the LM, the suits were filled with air. They were inflated to only about 4.5 psi, but that was infinitely higher than the air pressure outside the suit. Outside the LM, the air pressure inside the suits made them almost rigid.

Joints built into the suit - and carefully designed gloves - were the only things that allowed the astronauts to move in the suits. Still, moving around and working on the moon was very difficult. Inside the LM, the suits weren't rigid, though I'm sure it was still a challenge to put them on or take them off.

None of the astronauts were going to risk their lives or the mission by taking unnecessary risks - like seeing how high they could jump ...

... at least not until the later missions when they had more confidence in the suits:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/Salute18339-40rb.jpg

-- Roger

 

[matt.tansy]

Apollo 16 was on the verge of aborting after they undocked in Lunar orbit because one synchro on the SPS was not working. It was one of 3 synchros for one gimbal axis (iirc) but mission rules required all 3 to be functional in case the CSM had to be used to rescue the crew on a disabled LM. The problem was fixed but it delayed landing by 6 hours.

 

[matt.tansy]

When the astronauts were outside the LM, the suits were filled with air. They were inflated to only about 4.5 psi, but that was infinitely higher than the air pressure outside the suit. Outside the LM, the air pressure inside the suits made them almost rigid.

Joints built into the suit - and carefully designed gloves - were the only things that allowed the astronauts to move in the suits. Still, moving around and working on the moon was very difficult. Inside the LM, the suits weren't rigid, though I'm sure it was still a challenge to put them on or take them off.

Pic of A7LB without outer cover:
http://www.myspacemuseum.com/a000001b.jpg

The gloves have joints for the knuckles!

The flight plan allocated ~45 minutes to don and doff their suits before and after each EVA.

 

[CptColumbo]

On Apollo 12 the video camera was ruined because it was pointed at the sun and Al Bean couldn't find the remote camera switch to take a picture of him and Pete Conrad. Imagine what the woos would have done with that picture!

[paraphrasing]
Capcom: [the color TV picture] looks better Al, what did you do?
Al Bean: Hit it with my hammer.
[/paraphrasing]