123 replies to this topic

[flyingswan]

rajeev shagun, on 21 June 2010 - 02:10 PM, said:

...there was no way to see moon behind the CM because CM was top of the Eagle (check the trajectory plans image) in this case we should had been seeing black space behind the CM or in other case if they were in same altitude in same orbit from lunar surface then it should appear like the image I attached about Soyuz in earth orbit which was taken from Apollo.

I think you are checking the wrong plans, that is just a simplified representation.  Try looking at the actual flight plan which includes a lot more detail.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Can I just remind every one of what Lilly said way back in post number 2:

Lilly, on 08 June 2010 - 08:23 AM, said:

Ok, there's already a thread covering the notion of a hoaxed moon landing: "Did We Land On The Moon?". Please keep the 'moon hoax' discussion there. I suggest that Mr. rajeev shagun needs to do a bit of reading so as not to repeat content that has already been addressed.

Any discussion regarding Columbia can be here.

rajeev shagun, by all means continue to discuss the STS-107 accident in this thread, but please take you arguments about Apollo to the "Did We Land On The Moon?" thread, which can be found HERE.
Thank you.

[MID]

rajeev shagun, on 21 June 2010 - 02:10 PM, said:

Hi again 6th time-
                            Mr Mid and Mrbusdriver what ever you explained me about the footage where you see the Apollo command module and in the back ground the moon surface, it is exactly contrary to   facts I founded now.(thanks any way for that much of efforts) there was no way to see moon behind the CM because CM was top of the Eagle (check the trajectory plans image) in this case we should had been seeing black space behind the CM or in other case if they were in same altitude in same orbit from lunar surface then it should appear like the image I attached about Soyuz in earth orbit which was taken from Apollo.

rajeev---

The facts you found aren't facts, they are simplistic representations of the mission profile, deliberately drawn out of scale and without details so as to make it simple.  I told you Apollo was complex, and the details are difficult for the layman.

You told me you understood about the orbital mechanics things I explained a little while back.

Apparently you do not, and you did not read what I wrote.

Now, I don't want to direct you to the flight plan for the mission.  You wouldn't understand it.  However, I will direct you to the Apollo 11 Press Kit, which is a 250+ page document provided to the press for their reference.  It's got alot of detail in it.

Go here:

APOLLO LUNAR SURFACE JOURNAL

Click on Apollo 11 in the left hand column.
Click on Press Kit in the Background Information group.
Call up the first link and look at page 40 on the PDF.

There you will find the CSM/LM SEPARATION MANEUVER described in diagrams.
On the lower left hand side, you'll see a simplified relative motion diagram describing the relative motion and positions of the LM and CSM during this maneuver.

It says quite clearly "LM ABOVE AND BEHIND".

What I told you about that picture was absolute fact.  The LM was above the CSM, exactly as planned at that point in flight.  And it would be more above and behind the CSM after the CSM executed its separation maneuver, a short, ~2.5 FPS RCS maneuver radially down from the LM.  This maneuver would drop the LM over the next orbit ~ 0.5 miles below the LM.  

Why?

I thought you understood that.   Lower means faster.  The CSM would advance ahead of the LM due to its lower altitude over the next orbit, so that at the point where DOI took place, the LM would be ~ 1.8 miles behind the LM.  Then, the LM executed its DOI burn, which I already told you about, dropping its perilune to ~ 9 miles, from which point it would begin its descent to the surface.

What I told you was precisely correct, and the CM was below the LM until DOI.

Consult the Press Kit for your proof of this.  
You are looking at someting in your diagram that is completely irrelevant to what you're seeing in the picture.

Quote

Command module always had nose down to the moon surface until Eagle returned from lunar surface and docked again but once you docked you can not take this picture. This is the another evidence of that the Moon landing was a great hoax.

Again you are incorrect.
The CSM assumed several attitudes during the solo orbital flight period, depending on what on board equipment she was using.   The CSM was "nose down" during the descent, and for a great deal of the time, but...not duiring the undocking and separation phase of lunar orbit flight (where the picture you showed was taken).  She was exactly as you saw her in that picture.

I advise you to read very carefully what's written herein before you proclaim evidence of a hoax.  It is very silly to interpret irrelevant pictures as evidence of something you obviously have very little technical knowledge of.

You really need to have some understanding of this material before you go proclaiming hoax...
When you have that, you won't do that.


Further:

Please listen to Waspie and post this material over on the Moon Hoax thread.
This one was about STS-107 and I think we're done with that...

Edited by MID, 21 June 2010 - 09:19 PM.

[mrbusdriver]

For rajeev,

http://caib.nasa.gov/

Here is the Columbia accident report. I ask that you read it carefully. You have NOT seen this report in some newspaper. Your inattention to detail and claims of caring about the astronauts when NASA "didn't" is getting very tiresome, and frankly, borders on disgusting.

If you cared, you would have read this report (it's been available on the web for years, and not in a newspaper), and understood the Shuttle well enough that your ignorant "rescue" plans had no basis in reality.

You need to start getting informed on the subject before you get into debates...(edit to add ...and we would like to help in the learning. Sorry for the angry tone.)

Edited by mrbusdriver, 24 June 2010 - 06:56 PM.

[rajeev shagun]

Hi Mrbusdriver- first thanks for saying that you are not against me. About rescuing the columbia, i replied to MID on other thread...DID WE... I will put that here soon. Since long time even before the columbia first flew by the year 1981 there were always  planing how to repair the lost tile's gap and they trained the astronauts for that job i will soon send you the image and talk more about this issue.

[Obviousman]

Did you read the rescue options from the CAIB? Simple question.

[mrbusdriver]

rajeev shagun, on 26 June 2010 - 11:39 AM, said:

Hi Mrbusdriver- first thanks for saying that you are not against me. About rescuing the columbia, i replied to MID on other thread...DID WE... I will put that here soon. Since long time even before the columbia first flew by the year 1981 there were always  planing how to repair the lost tile's gap and they trained the astronauts for that job i will soon send you the image and talk more about this issue.

At the time, there were no real operational procedures for fixing/repairing damaged tiles. However, the damage to Columbia was to the leading edge RCC, where the temperatures are even higher and the stresses much greater than on the tile surfaces. There was certainly no repair option for that.
And they had no EVA suits to do any repairs, nor an airlock to leave the shuttle.

Repair by the Columbia crew was not an option.

[mrbusdriver]

mrbusdriver, on 26 June 2010 - 03:34 PM, said:

At the time, there were no real operational procedures for fixing/repairing damaged tiles. However, the damage to Columbia was to the leading edge RCC, where the temperatures are even higher and the stresses much greater than on the tile surfaces. There was certainly no repair option for that.
And they had no EVA suits to do any repairs, nor an airlock to leave the shuttle.

Repair by the Columbia crew was not an option.

OK, I'm WRONG on this. I didn't do my appropriate resarch. I apologize.

STS107 DID have an airlock, and if I read the Accident Report correctly, DID carry 2 EVA suits. What it didn't have were any specific materials or tools for tile or RCC repair. There is a long discussion of the possible contingency operations, and they were dangerous. They would be out of sight from the crew cabin, no hand holds out by the wing, sharp edges around the payload bay doors and radiators, and a strong possibility of damaging other things during the spacewalk.

There was also the possibility of launching Atlantis, carrying additional EVA suits, for crew rescue.

But this is hindsight. They didn't even know there was serious damage to the heat shield at the time.

Anyway, apologies again for spreading "bad dope"...

[Obviousman]

That's correct - two EVA suits, and most everything else you say is correct. Post-flight studies came up with a possible repair but it was marginal at best.

It involved just stuffing the hole with spare items, then using a water bag secured over the hole. The damaged wing would be kept in darkness and the water would freeze. They'd then seal the hole with tape.

No-one knows if it would have survived the re-entry heating but IMO it's unlikely and the result would have been the same.

The ATLANTIS option was better but still very high risk.

[rajeev shagun]

Dear MRBUSDRIVER-

Good morning !

Here I attached for you and Mr Mid and other knowledgeable people the plan of NASA ,how to simply repair the void which is left by lost tiles. It is very simple and these plans were exist even before Columbia could first fly In the year 1981.

I  think these are very basic shuttle’s rescue procedures and they must always have these facilities on board.

Attached Files

•  lost tiles make up comp..jpg   108.64K   8 downloads

[Czero 101]

rajeev shagun, on 27 June 2010 - 03:32 AM, said:

Dear MRBUSDRIVER-

Good morning !

Here I attached for you and Mr Mid and other knowledgeable people the plan of NASA ,how to simply repair the void which is left by lost tiles. It is very simple and these plans were exist even before Columbia could first fly In the year 1981.

I  think these are very basic shuttle’s rescue procedures and they must always have these facilities on board.

Yes, the plan for repairing or replacing the thermal tiles on the orbiter has been in place for a long time, however the damage done to Columbia was to the reinforced carbon-carbon leading edge panel(s) of the port wing. Those panels (see image below) cannot be repaired or replaced using the methods shown in your image / article.


Hole in RCC leading-edge panel, a result of impact testing in the investigation of the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster.
Soft polyurethane foam impacted this mock-up of a space shuttle wing at approximately 850 km/h.
Image credit: NASA



Cz

[rajeev shagun]

Hi again Mrbusdriver and Obviousman-

Yah… you are both right now…I think they must had EVA suits on Columbia.
About nobody was certain that there is a real damage of tiles on the left wing …Yes there were certainly two people knew about it  First person was (I put his name first) safety engineer of launch pad Mr Robert d. who was worried about tiles and emailed may be 14 times to Houston mission control and second sad person I was, who was sure of total 100% explosion( if you trust me) if they come back without homework and try to reenter.

[Obviousman]

No, it was NOT the tiles.

It was the reinforced carbon leading edge.

Have you read the rescue options as described in the CAIB report? Please - yes or no.

[rajeev shagun]

Hi Czero-
             You are as well right about carbon panels damages if there were any damage on carbon panels…please can you till me the possibilities of damaging the shuttle on reentry phase due to the damaged carbon panels.

[rajeev shagun]

Sorry i haven't read the report