I guess logic and study aren't nearly as exciting as "stickin' it to the man"!! Though I don't understand a lot of the details in my copy of SMAD, the diagrams of the belts, their sizes and relative strength,....fascinating.
edit...been playing wuth the "Orbiter" simulator, using the Apollo 11 scenario. This is a very good sim and I came up with the following observations...

TLI started about over the equator (all latitudes are geographic, belt latitude even more)), approx 180km.
End of TLI (five minute burn)...306km altitude, 12N latitude, vertical speed 1300m/s and accellerating (earth surface curvature)
10 minutes later 3680km altitude, 31.5 N latitude, climbing away at 5125m/s still accellerating away in the coast.
10 minutes after that, 6800km alt, 5373 m/s vertical speed, 32.6 degrees N latitude.

45 minutes after end of TLI burn, (around TD&E time) 13114km altitude, 5041m/s vertical speed, 28.9 degrees latitude (descending node)

They hauled butt through the northern fringes of the belts, wish I could show it to LLL...

I do have to ask LLL:

Have you attempted to contact Cucinotta, Dicello, Setlow, etc? I have.

"The Committee considered all sources of radiations in Space. We concluded that Solar Particle Events (SPE) would be the major source of radiation exposures supplemented by the cosmic ray background composed of many types of particles including heavy nuclei. To the best of my knowledge, all space missions carry devices to measure the radiation doses. Astronauts should not be outside of a space craft if there were an SPE. They should be shielded inside the space craft. Hence, radiation exposures for Apollo missions would be very small. Hence, I believe that radiation exposures from Apollo missions were very small, unless astronauts stayed outside during an SPE about which they would have been informed."

I didn't conclude that his estimation was intended to LEO exposure at all and i know he was talking about moon surface in his 400 rem exposure estimation , i just made a comparison , if these astronauts received 400 rem to BFO in LEO , and added that in they wouldn't take 400 rem to BFO in LEO (thanks the the protection of the magnetosphere) , but this was just to compare figure to figure , nothing more than this .



i don't have to show you where i found this , since you completly misunderstood what i meant in the first place , see above.




I don't agree with his conclusion yes , i already told you why i didn't , he says they might survive their 400 rem to BFO radiation exposure , by quicky go back in the CM and head toward earth for medical care , but he didn't take the
fact that these astronauts would vomit in their suits , will have very damaged skin , probably severe eye damage as well , dizzyness (well sickness to make it simple) , so just going back in the lunar module , then liftoff , docking like nothing happened is a fairy tale , that's why i said his answer was safe but weak , safe in the sense that he dodge the embarassment of eventually 'admiting' that they wouldn't have any chance to survive this if they where on the moon surface , wich would have raised questions of why did they chose to send man outside magnetosphere in solar peak years for example , but weak because past this quick first read of the article , anyone even with minor knowledge about radiations , can see how unlikely it is that they would have any chance to survive this , they would need to be picked up by medical crew to survive this , certainly not being able to liftoff and dock on their own , with severe eye damage , burning , vomiting , dizzyness , you name it ...

Now for the "you cite him as source only when it suits your preconceived etc...", not exactly , i did said that i perfectly know how these F.Cucinotta and co , minimized the radiation risk for the apollo program ,

and i didn't need to contact him for that matter , because i don't see what he could tell me that he didn't already write in one of the many documents about radiations in wich i've seen his name , it's not like he just keep secret that he only reveal so random people that contact him personally (telling them to keep the secret maybe, ?) , sorry Obviousman , i don't live in a fantasy world where this F.Cucinotta would tell me the naked truth just because i personally contact him , he would of course only repeat what he already state in many documents , and that's what he apparently answered to you , so i will take as much source i'd like , and i will have no problem to cite estimations and/or datas coming from peoples that i completly disagree on some points or conclusion , because i could hardly cite any source at all if not , since Cucinotta and co are in about every single public space radiations , and dosimetry documents around , that don't mean that i will agree with every single words he could write about apollo radiation risk at all , in this case it was just to take the 11 times EVA , IVA ratio that even he 'admit' , even if he later make is claim that they could very well have survived the 400 rem exposure , and i completly disagree with this ,

still that the comparison i was searching is still there , the 11 times more radiations in their suits compared to CM environment , and i don't have any personal alternative datas make that estimation , i will take the info where it is , and since i am 99,99% sure that men never ever went outside our protective magnetosphere , and even if i don't ignore the existence of these documents mostly stating that "they where fine , radiations exposure wasn't a problem" , that don't mean i completly agree with everything written in these documents and with the conclusions of their authors , and i can't start to think 100% of these documents as flawless truth , so i filter the information , hey you can say "it's to fit my preconceived notions etc..." if you want , but from my point of view , it's just to logically not accepting what im 99,99% sure to be a fraud , and searching the datas and estimations that strenghten the incoherence of these apollo missions , especially in the radiations issue , sometimes they are pretty obvious (at least for me) sometimes they are half-hidden , and of course some are probably totally hidden , and i doubt anyone will find them by just searching in public documents like i do .

To make it simple , no i don't think F.Cucinotta is a totally reliable source for the truth about apollo missions radiations , of course i don't doubt any single seconds that he perfectly know how dangerous are these radiations outside magnetosphere , and that he perfectly know how fake these apollo missions , and their claims to have crossed the magnetosphere are , but he is still indirectly giving interesting clues that could very well be usefull to demonstrate why these apollo missions where fakes , or at the very least , why these apollo missions radiations datas where fakes , but it's pretty much the same thing you will agree.

Apollo did not experience any large radiation events during the 9 missions to the Moon vicinity. Such events are rare. The radiation of such events, had one happened, would be attenuated by being inside the LM, moreso be getting all crew to the CM. Additional shielding would be accomplished through CSM orientation (the mass of the SM would indeed attenuate the radiation greatly). Orbital adjustment would also maximize using the Moon as a shield, simple orbital mechanics.

Can you understand this LLL? Your worst case scenario demands the surface astronauts just stand outside the LM and "sunbathe"...foolish to the extreme.

this worst case scenario , even if rare , as more chances to happen in solar peak years than solar low , yet they allegedly launched these men's outside magnetosphere for the first time in history , at solar peak years , nothing strike you as totally illogical there ? , this is just more than foolish , this is suicidal behavior , and of course that's not what happened at all , and they didn't send these men's to this chaotic odds journey , also you seems to forget that the magnetosphere is protective , 'a cocoon' said the people at SRAG apparently , not even my words , a cocoon really describe a safe place right ? , outside our magnetosphere every single solar events , even minor ones , will increase radiations , under magnetosphere protection in the other hand , this increase will go roughly unnoticed for small events , because only the most energetic particles may have a 'chance' to penetrate in LEO altitude , if we except the poles that are mostly protection-free zones , then here we go , apollo 15 go outside of our protective magnetosphere , spent 295 hours +- out there , in solar peak so about ~36 CME's per day... , plus lot's of solar flares and all , they makes 19 hours of EVA , note that the surface crew is always under the sun , so any solar event that eventually come in the bad direction will affect them and their dosimeters , no escape to this , and they come back with 0,30 rad total official radiations , wich is just what you could have on a classical MIR or ISS flight (inside) , seriously , what is this ? who is gonna believe this as genuine cislunar flight radiations ? not me for sure , do you believe these official datas to be anywhere real cislunar radiations ? , note that i don't even talk about VAb's radiations for that particular figure , this one really doesn't even need VAb's radiations comparison to be highly suspicious , and this is cool because apparently , there is no available datas in VAb's radiations for that particular apollo 15 mission anyway .

I think you understand that no major solar flare ever happened and came in a "bad direction" during Apollo?
You quote a frequency of 36 CMEs per day. Other sources quote 25...others, 15 (25 was about the correct frequency for July, 1971). At any rate, the number is impressive, but the reality is that these numbers represent detectable solar events...not harmful solar events.

No, I imagine not.
"Stickin' it to the man" might be more fulfilling if the one doing the stickin' was actually doing some stickin'!



Yea, I wish you could too...but you're absolutely right...they hauled some serious butt through those belts...

I don't know...when LLL says "stuff" like...



..I don't think we can "safely" assume that he understands any of it.

Just my opinion...

The cislunar environment on a "routine" basis just isn't the searing hell that the hoax proponents make it out to be. Assuming a reasonable shielding of the CM, LM or even a many layered spacesuit, so long as significant solar events are not occurring, there is virtually no significant concerns, the shielding will protect the astronauts.
The rare cislunar aimed flares and CMEs can be detected, and, if deemed necessary, EVAs can be terminated, or appropriate attenuation schemes can be implemented. Rare is the operative term. It is also important to note that these events do NOT deliver all their energy at once, but over an extended period. The human body repairs. Suits and spacecraft attenuate, and there are effective techniques to further attenuate the radiation. Again, this all depends on the rare event happening while they are most vulnerable.
Was there a risk? Yes. Were some degree of chances taken? Yes. Just by launching the Saturn V risks were taken, the equivilant of a small atomic explosion. But the stakes were high, and there was a rare national enthusiasm at that time that allowed the explorers and their supporters to follow their dream.
The radiation risk was there, if events occurred there were effective plans. The fact remains that the odds were with the mission planners, and even at a solar max, the events did not affect the missions. Call it luck if you like, it probably was to some extent. But it happened as advertised.

I tend to agree...

The only thing that would've been potentially suicidal in Apollo would've been launching in late July, 1972. At that time, observations of magnetic fields around sunspots were definitely beginning to hint at some activity brewing. On August 2, several major directional flares were observed, and on August 4, we got hit with a large solar storm, the only major one recorded during Apollo years, which might have proved mighty dangerous to a crew on the Moon.

Otherwise...there wasn't anything suicidal, and that of course wasn't, since Apollo 16 had been back for 4 months and Apollo 17 was still 4 months away.

I think that's a pretty concise and inclusive explanation of the situation...

If someone wants to "believe" that these easily substantiated facts are not true, and that we couldn't have safely done what we did multiple times...I just don't know what else to tell 'em!

One other thing...it's sometimes said that the Explorer 1 intrumentation was overwhelmed by the radiation. It was. But the idea that the instruments were gauged to some sort of "human standard" is wrong. They were sensitive to radiation (unlike Sputnik, which simply transmitted a simple electronic "beep"), and were overwhelmed by the radiation level they were designed for...it wasn't a whole lot. It did not destroy the sensors. Much like an audio meter, they were at an attenuated level, later flights more accurately determined the VAB radiation levels with less sensitive sensors.

you will always find people who will not believe in this fact, even if they see the proof

i think i'll believe in it only when i get to land on the moon

no, sometimes it's just fun to be contrary, ot so it would seem. With no knowledge or study of the relevant science, depending on "common sense" and "it looks like".
The hoax proponents have no imagination, no ability to imagine a low/zero gravity environment, the dichotamy of orbital mechanics, human strength on a lunar gravity.
I remember Shepard's flight, the entire school herded into the lunchroom to watch the launch, and several after that. It was a very different day from today. Something special.
I wasn't there, but I was there. It was a time unlike any other.

Actually... given some of the theories and arguments out there, I think its safe to say that a lot of hoax believers have very active imaginations...




Cz

It was a very different day from today, wasn't it?

You know, I recall back at the 20th anniversary of Apollo 11 that CBS news put a special on concerning the event. They pulled out all their archival footage and made a nice presentation...with the notable exception of Dan Rather's annoying narration, complete with the all-too-common innaccuracies and over-sensationalization of events that were sensational enough without silly embellishments. Charles Kurault's segments were brilliant and poignant, which was a highlight (he should've done the whole program in my view).

But there was one thing that Rather said, right at the end, which was indeed accurate, and stuck with me.

"...That other country; that other America of twenty years ago...they did things differently there."


Yea, they did.
If you remember it, and reflect on it as you do, you were there!

yea...


As I've said before, I have noted a great deal of mental energy placed into some of the HB arguments...


I just wish it could be applied to learning, rather than speculative imagination and wild theorizing in the absence of anything to back it up...

In Soviet Russia, the Moon lands on you!

^Lol.

You're 'barking up the wrong tree'. I'm starting a separate thread on this issue, to address it properly.

The first problem is that Grumman didn't have any experience in designing and building machines intended to function and operate - not to mention having to do it perfectly each and every time - completely within an alien environment.

Turn your question around - How would Grumman know - or even have the slightest clue - that the LM they were watching on TV (like the rest of us) was actually NOT hovering above the lunar surface?

Obviously, the people at Grumman watching it on their TV sets were convinced it was all genuine, right? So what?

If NASA faked it, why wouldn't Grumman be just as convinced it was genuine?

They wouldn't know any different. They couldn't. They had no frame of reference to compare it against on Earth.

It's not like Grumman built a new high-tech plane for NASA (or whoever) and watched TV footage of it flying and landing at Edwards AFB. Although it still might be possible for NASA, etc. to fake such footage, it's much more likely to be detected by Grumman. That's because Grumman already has a wealth of experience and knowledge regarding the function and performance of aircraft within Earth's environment

In space, or on the moon, Grumman would not know if what they saw on TV was entirely normal, or totally unrealistic, for an LM - operating within those specific environments.

It doesn't mean Grumman was a group of idiots.

Wow, no kidding?!?

Take a quick look in that same post near the bottom, or my previous posts, to find "ascent".

It's called reading



Again, you are mistaking your problems as if they were my fault.

Apollo 9 and 10 LM's did not land and lift off (oh, excuse me - 'ascend') from the lunar surface.

That was (supposedly) first done during Apollo 11's mission.

Next time, read my entire post, and grasp the point(s) I'm actually making, before going off into a misguided tirade.

It's a much better thread that way, too.

Turbonium,
You seem to think that the only involvement Grumman had, once they handed the finished LM over to NASA, was sitting at home watching the TV coverage. I don't know the details, but I know that the had experts on hand at mission control, in the "back rooms". These were the folks who knew the LM systems intimately. They were directly involved with the mission, start to finish. It would only make sense to have them there, monitoring the real time telemetry, watching the onboard systems.

As for the first actual liftoff from the Moon (vs the on orbit "simulations" of A9 and 10), well, there has to be a first time for everything. Kind of like the first flight of a new airliner...they have done ground handling tests, high speed taxi runs, but at some point, you have to take that big leap and actually fly. They have done the math, they know that "on paper" there is no reason the vehicle won't fly as planned. The LM had been tested extensively on the previous two flights, and, while the landing and liftoff could not be tested directly, the handling of the craft was understood. Again, this is why they had test pilots as astronauts, where unexpected situations were part of the routine. (edit to add...the LM had been tested extensively in vaccuum three times, twice manned, once at the Moon (within 10 miles of the surface). The 4th test flight actually landed.)

As for having never having built a "spaceship", Grumman had beed a contractor for NASA missions for many years, they knew the space environment. They had been a sub contractor on many manned systems. They had expertise.

Lets take a look at your entire post:



Your use of the word "ascent" is not in regard to the ascent stage. It is painfully obvious that you are referring to ascent from the Moon...

...and who has trouble reading???

Lets see what else we have here...



You posted...



There is NO DIFFERENCE between the ascent stage seperating from the descent stage (and the ascent engine firing in orbit, and when it was all done on the Moon. That you are attempting to make it seem so terribily different only shows us once again that you simply don't understand how these things work.



Problem is that any points you make are irrelevant...as I have just demonstrated.

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4205/contents.html

Read the chapter on the LM...very interesting information on the LM development process!

Oh, come on, Mr. B... you should know by now that the last thing that Turbs is willing to consider is any form of evidence that questions his unfounded assumptions and beliefs...


Cz

Neither did McDonnel-Douglass, or North American, when they began to design the spacecraft they built.
Neither did Orville and Wilbur Wright, when they decided to make a thing that actually flew through the air.
The reasoning here escapes me.

And that fact is by the time the LM design was taking place, we knew alot about the environment we were designing for. It was not "alien". It was spacecraft operation in a vacuum, which we rapidly came to understand, as we did it extensively during Mercury and Gemini.



Well, at least that final statement can be agreed upon.
The rest is strawman stuff.

No one watched anything on their TV sets, save the general public, who saw nothing of the LM's operation. At MCC, what was seen was trajectory plots on the 10x20, and streams of data on computer displays. The Grumman people saw this as well as the NASA people. The general public would've been bored to death with unintelligible data on monochrome computer displays. They looked at graphic interpretations, listened to communications, and had to endure commentary that often covered over significant things that were happening behind the media chit-chat.

Grumman/NASA teamed up to design a LM. Both organizations were intensely involved with that development, and all the testing. When it came time to fly her, Grumman was all over the Kennedy Space Center, and all over the Manned Spacecraft Center.

You think because no one saw her operate in the vacuum of space...(as we on the ground hadn't seen any other spacecraft actually operate in space)...that this somehow means it was all a leap of faith? The only people who experienced their operation first hand were the crews who flew the vehicles. We on the ground saw everything...and likely alot more...that the crews did regarding their vehicle's operation, and when these men returned, they gave extensive technical narratives on their pilot experiences...and of course NASA, and Grumman were right there, asking them questions, noting everything, etc...

Because we never saw it operate with our own eyes, you think this introduces some sort of doubt...despite the reams of information and material that clearly indicates that the machine worked and executed its task?

This is really stretching the bounds of resonability.
It sounds like it's heading back into that nonsense about having a third party observer along for the ride...which, by your own standards of "proof", would prove nothing.

The fact has been presented before that someone had to actually take the process the whole way. Someone had to climb aboard the Wright flyer and actually fly her. Someone had to land the LM after everything required for the maneuver was proved out.

This is called flight testing.

That argument, which seems to have been ignored repeatedly, has now moved you into another diversion---the idea that because we couldn't actually see them do it, that this gives credence to the idea of fakery.

You advance this diversion again without actually proving that anything was faked at all. You introduce "If NASA faked it..." as if that addresses the issue. It doesn't.

You're supposed to show that NASA faked it, not introduce what you consider to be reasonable doubt, and which is actually unreasonable speculation based upon what you don't understand about an engineering test flight program.

Since you probably missed this post of mine from a week ago, I'll direct you to it here:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...t&p=2105952

and await your response.


Cz

I must say - this thread is HILARIOUS.

At times, I would be inclined to agree...if it weren't actually so sad.

Hello everyone. I just wanted to share this exciting piece of information which I came across today, which would, i think, solve the majority of the problems that have been discussed here. According to This interesting site, "I have proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is atmosphere, water and vegetation on the Moon, and that man does not need a space suit to walk on the Moon. A pair of jeans, a pullover and sneakers are just about enough."

That, i think, solves most of the problems, doesn't it.

All that's "left" is to pack Turb a sack lunch and send him there, straightaway

Then he can tell us how the landings were faked from first hand experience.

Shoot!

I was hoping no one would find that!

We'll just leave aside the quaint little pseudo-techno teminology like "EXOATMOSPHERIC" (which sort of applies to any vehicle designed to operate in space), and that reference to Tachyon Drives...which of course weren't actually conceptualized until the 1960's by such luminaries as Sudarshan, Feinberg, Myron-Bilaniuk, et.al....


I think you've closed this thread thanks to your revelation of secrets that were never meant to be known by "Joe Average".

Then, there would be a third-party observer's perspective....
But even then, who among us, would believe it!

well, that's just...incredible!

The shielding of the CM wouldn't be called reasonable for low earth orbit , today , but for you it was reasonable for cislunar trip in the sixtie's ? ,
the multi-layered spacesuits still need some density to protect against these radiations , and F.Cucinotta himself rated these suits at 0,25g/cm2 in an estimation , wich is very low , today spacesuits are rated 0,5g/cm2 for low earth orbit flight , in fact it seems to be 0,5 to 1g/cm2 and this isn't much , but already 2 to 4 times more than the apollo antiques ones , the EVA/IVA ratio seems to be 3 to 4 times higher radiation in EVA in LEO , and i did find a second source confirming this , here it is page 11 : 1,3 mSv/d EVA 0,4 mSv/d IVA so 3,25 times more outisde , plus the first one stating 3 to 4 times increase , as you can see this is coherent for now , note that this measure was taken in 2004 , so not a solar peak , but not really a solar low yet , it was more a descending year , a little bit closer to solar peak (2001) , the solar low being right now in 2008.
but in the case of apollo missions , no increase of radiations due to EVA apparently ...

And just looking at the apollo 15 mission , 0,30 rad total radiation for a 295 hours mission including 19 hours long of EVA's in these 0,25g/cm2 suits and 48 hours in the less shielded lunar module , that is constantly under the sun , and all its possible radiations emission by the way , so ~67 hours on the moon 19 in EVA , and 0,30 rad ? who can believe this massive lie ? , and who can believe that they would only have taken 0,6 milirad/h on the moon and 1 milirad/h in cislunar space ? this is pretty low radiations , 5,25 rad/y and 8,76 rad/y , it looks like classical LEO flights in comparison , and even with a quality factor of 4 its still low for an alleged cislunar flight 0,21 to 0,35 Sv/y , and even doubling these values , in case of a solar low year with more GCR , it is not very high at all 0,42 to 0,70 Sv/y (or 42 to 72 rem if you prefer) , note that these 0,6 and 1 milirad/h given in the official nasa documents , are for me , clearly GCR only estimation , idealised doses in other words (perfect to fool 'the masses'), i already explained why i think this , so these value doesn't even take any possible increase due to solar events at all , these events that don't need to be majors ones to increase radiations , as already stated in another document , but wait , aren't they supposed to be outside of our protective magnetosphere 95% of the time there ? you know that famous 'cocoon' ? looking at the data , it seems that they never ever left this cocoon , and of course , they never left that cocoon yet , and certainly not in a solar peak year !

so long for the "virtually no concern" heh ? im sorry to tell you that radiation risk is one of the major , if not the major concern in manned spaceflight , including in LEO flights , so imagine outside our protective beloved magnetosphere ... , and that's another good reason to fight this fraud , because when some brave astronauts will indeed go outside our protective magnetosphere for the first time in mankind history , they will deserve applauses , instead of just being named as "xx years after apollo , blahblah..." crap .

All you do is keep staing your beliefs, and your doubts.
You do nothing about them. You make no case beyond re-stating your disbelief.
The facts are right there. The data collected from almost 40 years ago.

Prove them wrong or drop it.
You can doubt and believe all you want. That does nothing for the discussion or its purpose.
You see data from 2004 and conclude that that makes data from 1969-1972 unreasonable.

This is utterly untenable. The reasoning behind such conclusions escapes me.

I'm sure you believe that the universe, and the state of space and radiation flux is a steady-state. It never changes.
I might advise you to consult one of the most thorough educational sources there is on these matters, which would be NASA.

However, seeing that they have fabricated all of this data in support of a hoax, I don't suppose you'd be willing to ask them, would you?

They could also clarify the obvious misunderstandings that lead to a statement like this...



...which is borderline ridiculous. But again, you wouldn't actually seek the information, would you?




No, somehow, I don't think you ever would seek the information, based upon statements like this.

By the way, Northrop Grumman is still awaiting your LM inquiries...anxiously, I am assuming.

LLL...what is the radiation shielding value of the LM? The CM? The actual spacesuits worn? You state that they were inadequate to the task, yet give no figures. How is the CM shielding "unreasonable", even today, for a 10 day run to the Moon? (where, for it's lunar orbit time, it, the whole stack, was shielded for half the time by the Moon). What was the cislunar radiation flux that made the Apollo system inadequate?
What types of materials best protect against particle radiation? How much aluminum will make a pass through the VAB fringes basically a non event?

The ISS experiments are for long duration exposure. Apollo was a 10-12 day outing, the ISS is up there for years, all solar events, etc. Inside the magnetosphere, true, but still exposed, and visiting the SAA regularly.

LLL, why would NASA place an image of Earth in a photo that they knew was too small?

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntr..._1973010172.pdf

For your reading list, LLL...

"NO DIFFERENCE"? What about 1/6 g?

It's painfully obvious who doesn't understand the issue here.

Yes, it is.

No thanks, I prefer to stay alive.

But since you believe it's safe, go right on ahead.

I'd really like to see how it turns out.

Perhaps you can explain why that seems to you to be a major difference, since whether in LEO, in Lunar orbit or on the surface of the Moon in 1/6 g, the APS was fully capable of doing the job it was designed to do - lift the LM Ascent Stage to Lunar Orbit?


Cz

They not only tested the LM in LEO they tested it at pericynthion (15km) on Apollo 10.

I agree with your statement, but I also agree with Turboniums. Testing the LM in LEO is a far cry from testing it on the Moon, which is why it was done on Apollo 10

Perhaps you in turn could explain why a 1/6 g gravity should make it more difficult? The APS produces a lot more than 1/6 g acceleration, and getting a rocket to start in zero gravity just gives the extra problem of getting the fuel from the tanks. That is why early ICBMs like the Atlas and the Soviet R-7 had their partially staged designs - they could ignite the upper stage engines on the pad, not in flight. Firing the Apollo 11 APS in 1/6 g was easier than the Apollo 9 and 10 tests.

By presenting facts, you are just going to confuse Turb.



Yes it is...

Problem is we are the ones feeling the pain.

Now, turb...please explain why 1/6th G would make it impossible to separate the stages and fire the engines. If you can not present evidence for that "impossibility", then withdraw your claim.

Yep... which is why I had said this in my previous post:






Cz

Hm. Stage separation and engine firing was tested in 1 G and 0 G. Why in the world would 1/6 G be a problem?