Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 91 to 115 of 115

Thread: Why NASA has never returned to The Moon?

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    893
    Quote Originally Posted by The Killchain View Post
    The LM was a VTOL Aircraft, to a point. Harrier Pilots get in some tight fields, and they are dealing with an atmoshpere/wind...etc.

    Could a NASA pilot land there.......
    And once down there, there might be plenty of flat areas within all the craters, so it's more of a large scale picture that makes it seem daunting. But your analogy has at least one thing that's flawed. A Harrier pilot normally isn't running on close to empty as he's landing. That's based on Apollo 11, I don't know if they bumped up the fuel for the next missions or not. But unused fuel is weight that wasn't needed, so they likely didn't have a lot to play with either.

  2. #92
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    176
    Quote Originally Posted by The Killchain View Post
    The LM was a VTOL Aircraft, to a point. Harrier Pilots get in some tight fields, and they are dealing with an atmoshpere/wind...etc.

    Could a NASA pilot land there.......
    I suspect a Harrier pilot would be very reluctant to land in a random unknown field, one pothole in the wrong place could cause a few problems.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhaedas View Post
    And once down there, there might be plenty of flat areas within all the craters
    The problem would come if you did not know in advance if that area was flat and clear enough.
    Time for finding an alternative landing site would be very short.

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by moog View Post
    I suspect a Harrier pilot would be very reluctant to land in a random unknown field, one pothole in the wrong place could cause a few problems.

    The problem would come if you did not know in advance if that area was flat and clear enough.
    Time for finding an alternative landing site would be very short.
    Agreed, Given the visability restrictions & fuel levels, there would'nt be many second chance's for the Nasa pilot.
    Must have been tough, 1 decent engine to control, Harrier has four directable nozzles.... that would make life easyier for harrier pilot.

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    4,933
    Quote Originally Posted by The Killchain View Post
    Agreed, Given the visability restrictions & fuel levels, there would'nt be many second chance's for the Nasa pilot.
    Must have been tough, 1 decent engine to control, Harrier has four directable nozzles.... that would make life easyier for harrier pilot.
    My bold. The lunar module had attitude control thrusters that performed the same function.

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Hornblower View Post
    My bold. The lunar module had attitude control thrusters that performed the same function.
    So with more fuel & visability, you could drop that baby anywhere.....

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    639
    Quote Originally Posted by The Killchain View Post
    So with more fuel & visability, you could drop that baby anywhere.....
    I'm sure visibility would be enhanced by modern ground radar plus the added advantage that you could have one or more video cameras giving you more views. Good quality cameras are now so small and light these days, and with fairly light flat screens to view them on, I would have thought this would be an integral part of the ship. I know weight is the primary importance, but surely this small amount would be allowed?

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Skyfire View Post
    I'm sure visibility would be enhanced by modern ground radar plus the added advantage that you could have one or more video cameras giving you more views. Good quality cameras are now so small and light these days, and with fairly light flat screens to view them on, I would have thought this would be an integral part of the ship. I know weight is the primary importance, but surely this small amount would be allowed?
    If the LM was design'd today i bet it would be a totaly different beast....

    The systems in a Raptor/Eurofighter/Apache....
    must be Space age to the 1969 LM.

    Why didnt they have camera's aiding decent? The camera's were pointing out the window......

  8. #98
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    176
    Quote Originally Posted by The Killchain View Post
    Why didnt they have camera's aiding decent? The camera's were pointing out the window......
    A 16mm Film camera, not that handy for the purpose of scouting a landing site.

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,404
    The systems in a Raptor/Eurofighter/Apache....
    must be Space age to the 1969 LM.
    I'm sorry but this cracked me up. I know you are using Space Aged to mean advanced but rephrase what is being said here:
    The systems in a plane must appear space aged compared to those in a genuine space vehicle.

    We need to redefine Space aged to mean "legacy hardware maintained at great cost because a lack of new systems mean that it is the only system that can do the job"

  10. #100
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    19,882
    Quote Originally Posted by The Killchain View Post
    NEOWatcher
    [...]It is a shame that they didnt think of getting some of their cash back, from the resouce of the moon. Like mining possibillitys.
    With the constraints of time and life support they already had a hard enough time getting the few scientific experiments going.
    There would be no payback spending more resources and weight to bring back some mined material. Just lifting off the moon with anything of any value to justify it would be a losing proposition.

    Besides; the payback was in the science they were able to get done.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Killchain View Post
    the first mission, to go and return safe, Done.
    second, verify & compare every piece of data. (prove its repeatable) Done.

    The next four missions, were they wasted cash
    Absolutely wrong. Each mission had new scientific packages being deployed along with being able to sample various areas.
    Even you said there weren't enough sample sites, so the first two were absolutely not enough in your opinion.

    The genesis rock was not even found until Apollo 15. That was a very important key in our understanding. That only left two missions for verification.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Killchain View Post
    The LM was a VTOL Aircraft, to a point. Harrier Pilots get in some tight fields, and they are dealing with an atmoshpere/wind...etc.
    Could a NASA pilot land there.......
    The Harrier was designed for combat conditions and rough terrain. It's landing gear is highly strengthened for various landing conditions.
    If the LM were designed for such landings, we wouldn't have been able to get it to the moon with the technology we had at the time. It was a trade-off. Safer landing sites compared to extra weight of structural support.

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,222
    Quote Originally Posted by The Killchain View Post
    ...but the photography, mission footage, looks similar in many ways.
    I don't understand the point you are trying to make. The Moon is pretty much the same. Why would you "expect" the photography/footage to be significantly different for different missions?

    ...actually, if you've looked at all the photos/footage, there are differences between landing sites...the major being the location of craters.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Killchain View Post
    The LM was a VTOL Aircraft, to a point.
    ...if that "point" ignores that one craft was designed for atmospheric flight at one "G", while the other was designed to operate in zero, or 1/6th "G", and not for atmospheric "flight" at all.

  12. #102
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,222
    Quote Originally Posted by The Killchain View Post
    Why didnt they have camera's aiding decent?
    How would that "aid" descent?

  13. #103
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,222
    Quote Originally Posted by The Killchain View Post
    The next four missions, were they wasted cash..
    No, and am I ever glad you weren't "running that railroad".


    ...if you were standing on the surface of the Moon in sunlight, the temperature would be hot enough to boil water.
    The temperature of what?


    ...And then the Sun would go down, and the temperature would drop 250 degrees in just a matter of moments.
    Moments?, really??.

    ...and, again...the temperature of what.

  14. #104
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    R.I. USA
    Posts
    7,648
    Just a side note: Cameras for landing on the moon get in trouble in the presence of the considerable amount of dust
    kicked up by the descent rockets. Gets on everything. Nothing's easy.

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    3,767
    Quote Originally Posted by The Killchain View Post
    Why didnt they have camera's aiding decent?
    They didn't need them. The windows faced out and down - they could see where they were landing ( all be it with the dust flying around )

    They had RADAR to tell them how high they were, an 8 ball to tell them their attitude, other instruments to tell them their horz.velocity, and eyeballs out of the window to survey the landscape.

    Using all those - the Apollo 12 astronauts landed EXACTLY where they needed to - from :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_12

    "Conrad actually landed Intrepid 580 feet (175 m) short of Pete's Parking Lot because the planned landing point looked rougher than anticipated during the final approach to touchdown, and was a little under 1,180 feet (360 m) from Surveyor 3, a distance that was chosen to eliminate the possibility of lunar dust (being kicked up by Intrepid's descent engine during landing) from covering Surveyor 3.[5] But the actual touchdown point — approximately 600 feet (185 m) from Surveyor 3 — did cause high velocity sandblasting of the probe."


    And yes - if the LEM were designed today it would be different - in the same way the F35 is different to the F4, which was a cutting edge aircraft at the time.

    Sorry - what is your point, exactly?

  16. #106
    Glom's Avatar
    Glom is offline Insert awesome title here
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    10,673
    Quote Originally Posted by Hornblower View Post
    My bold. The lunar module had attitude control thrusters that performed the same function.
    And the descent engine was itself directable.

  17. #107
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    1,612
    Quote Originally Posted by The Killchain View Post
    If the LM was design'd today i bet it would be a totaly different beast....
    I doubt it. Yes, the computer systems might be very much different, but the basic premise of the LM is a landing vehicle in two parts with a couple of rocket engines. The basic principles behind the LM design have not changed.

    The systems in a Raptor/Eurofighter/Apache....
    must be Space age to the 1969 LM.
    I must add my amused response to this. As someone has already mentioned, the LM itself is space age, since it was a real space vehicle.

    Why didnt they have camera's aiding decent? The camera's were pointing out the window......
    So were the astronauts' eyes. Why do you need cameras to aid a descent to a surface you can already see? With their eyes and the landing radar they had all the information they needed to make a landing.

  18. #108
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    1,612
    Quote Originally Posted by The Killchain View Post
    If the LM was design'd today i bet it would be a totaly different beast....
    I doubt it. Yes, the computer systems might be very much different, but the basic premise of the LM is a landing vehicle in two parts with a couple of rocket engines. The basic principles behind the LM design have not changed.

    The systems in a Raptor/Eurofighter/Apache....
    must be Space age to the 1969 LM.
    I must add my amused response to this. As someone has already mentioned, the LM itself is space age, since it was a real space vehicle.

    Why didnt they have camera's aiding decent? The camera's were pointing out the window......
    So were the astronauts' eyes. Why do you need cameras to aid a descent to a surface you can already see? With their eyes and the landing radar they had all the information they needed to make a landing.

  19. #109
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    19,882
    Quote Originally Posted by The Killchain View Post
    If the LM was design'd today i bet it would be a totaly different beast....
    In what way?
    I bet it would be very close to this.
    Descent rocket, two stages (descent and ascent), spindly legs, an ingress/egress ladder.

  20. #110
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    746
    Quote Originally Posted by The Killchain View Post
    Must have been tough, 1 decent engine to control, Harrier has four directable nozzles.... that would make life easyier for harrier pilot.
    I'd disagree. Purely on physics, yes.. but when you include engineering... no.

  21. #111
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,447
    Quote Originally Posted by The Killchain View Post
    Harrier has four directable nozzles.... that would make life easyier for harrier pilot.
    The only way to do that in a rocket-propelled vehicle is to have four separate rocket engines. The Harrier has one engine whose thrust is divided and directed to the individual nozzles. The probability of a failure in any one nozzle is very remote. However, in a four-engine LM configuration all four engines would have to function correctly, whereas only one engine has to function correctly in the single-engine configuration. A four-engine LM is much less reliable.

  22. #112
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    324
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Thompson View Post
    I doubt it. Yes, the computer systems might be very much different,
    I guess to appeal to todays youth, it would have to be a "iLM" running a special moonlanding App instead of using human brains.

  23. #113
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    13,108
    Harrier has one engine with four nozzles that nozzles work together to provide the main thrust, they aren't controlled independently they move as one unit. Attitude control is provided by nozzles in the wing tips, nose and tail of the Harrier. There is an HP air bleed from the compressor stage of the engine, these nozzles keep the harrier stable
    Rules For Posting To This Board
    All Moderation in Purple

  24. #114
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,129
    Quote Originally Posted by captain swoop View Post
    Harrier has one engine with four nozzles that nozzles work together to provide the main thrust, they aren't controlled independently they move as one unit. Attitude control is provided by nozzles in the wing tips, nose and tail of the Harrier. There is an HP air bleed from the compressor stage of the engine, these nozzles keep the harrier stable
    In terms of the piloting tasks, the two vehicles are quite similar. In both cases the pilot keeps one hand on the throttle to control the descent rate by varying engine thrust and the other on a control stick linked to the small outboard jets that are used to control attitude. The Harrier engine nozzles are left in a fixed position during hover, and only moved during transition to or from wing-born flight. The LM task is actually easier on two counts. The lower gravity means things happen more slowly and the pilot doesn't have to worry about keeping the nose into the wind to prevent aerodynamic instability.

  25. #115
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4,034
    Quote Originally Posted by The Killchain View Post
    If the LM was design'd today i bet it would be a totaly different beast....
    And you would lose that bet, this is Altair from the Constellation program circa 2007. Yes it had some upgrades and improvements but you will notice the basic similarity of the design to the Apollo LM. Yes the avionics would be better but the basic mechanics would be the same. And it isn't just a matter of a NASA design philosophy, this is what the the soviets came up with for their cancelled moon program, the LK
    Barring a radical propulsion breakthrough or the ability to refuel on the moon the critical elements are going to remain unchanged.

Similar Threads

  1. Rovers Have Returned 50,000 Pictures
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2005-Sep-12, 08:16 PM
  2. Discovery has returned!
    By StarLab in forum Space Exploration
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2005-Aug-09, 02:46 PM
  3. Returned Apollo 12 S-IVB stage article
    By kucharek in forum Space Exploration
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 2003-Nov-02, 07:45 PM
  4. Honduran Moonrock Returned
    By heliopause in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2003-Sep-25, 07:50 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: