Jump to content
Unexplained Mysteries uses cookies. By using the site you consent to our use of cookies as per our Cookie Policy.
Close X
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Illiniblue35

Did we land on the moon?

14,134 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Rusich
Excellent point. However, there are also structural engineers from all over the world with the expertise to know whether or not large commerical airliners impacting a skyscraper could lead to eventual collapse....hasn't stopped that particular conspiracy theory either.

Perhaps they are at the same place all the structural engineers are? I'm beginning to see a pattern here folks!

Excellent point? No, to dot too early!

Possible I inconsequential state its opinion. I does not want to poach special knowledges on the area of. I wants to speak of things to comprehensible any person.

1) Unbelievably good statistics of boarding LM on the Moon in the comparison with automatons flown on the Moon.

Table of start to Moon:

________"Pioneer"_______________"Ranger" _____________"Surveyor"

17.08.1958 - damage______ 23.08.1961 - damade______ 30.05.1966 - well

11.10.1958 - mistake ______ 18.11.1961 - damage ______ 20.09.1966 - damade

06.12.1958 - mistake ______ 26.01.1962 - mistake ______ 17.04.1967 - well

06.03.1959 - mistake ______ 23.04.1962 - damade ______ 14.07.1967 - damade

26.11.1959 - damade ______ 18.10.1962 - damade ______ 08.09.1967 - well

25.09.1960 - damade______ 30.01.1964 - damade ______ 07.11.1967 - well

15.12.1960 - damade ______ 28.07.1964 - well ________ 07.01.1968 - well

_________________________ 17.02.1965 - well__________

_________________________ 21.03.1965 - well__________

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total: 100% - bad__________ 67% - bad; 33% - well________29% - bad; 71% - well

Is necessary take into account that;

NASA had no experience of boarding on the Moon of such heavy devices as LM!

NASA had no experience an ascent of cosmic devices from Moon!

NASA had no experience of link-up, devices raised from Moon, on a Moon's orbit!

NASA had no experience of return to the land of device lifted from surfaces of the Moon!

Each of enumerated above stages generates percent of risk.

Hereon NASA speaks that has done six 100% successful debarkations of person on the Moon on the untried technician! This is science fiction.

You object that NASA gradually rallied an experience and reach such perfection which has ensured 100% success.

Well, then consider statistics flights an Space Shuttle themselves.

Take into account that ascent and landing Space Shuttle much more light problem than debarkation of people on the Moon.

2) Will now speak of moon dust.

NASA bad aware of moon dust much little at the time of debarkations of person on Moon. Automatic devices "Surveyor" have reported NASA on mechanical characteristics of moon soil, its radioactivity, temperature and contents of chemical elements. But they did not realize a chemical formula of moon soil.

NASA did not know are kept or no in the moon soil dangerous for health and lifes of person chemical materials. NASA undisturbedly looked at that astronauts were soilled in moon dust, breathed her, used it with the food during several day! This not thinkable! More so this strangely considering that in recently in the moon soil discovered very poisonous material - polonium.

3) Will now speak of the amount of moon soil brought by astronauts.

NASA confirms that got near 380 kilograms of moon soil and stones. But NASA did not afford a world scientific society all 380 kilograms of moon soil for the study. Moon soil is given by considering grams. Stones are not given nobody!

This causes a doubt in existence of such enourmous amount of moon soil beside NASA.

4) Photo and video material of program an "Apollo".

This beautiful materials for loved plays of critics NASA - "Flood plain NASA on forgery"!

I several years read debates between protectors and hitting upon NASA in russian internet.

Now I has decided to go from the rooter in the player. The greater thank you Microsoft for the help in NASA exposing in the lie. Can bring one of my discoveries for the example.

http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery/image...-107-17446.html

On photographies well seen difference between the soil in photostudio and pictured panorama on the back plan. Artist has ed do a good job.

I has indicated arrows to the border between the soil and panorama.

linked-image

Edited by Rusich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf
while the russians just used cork (on buran)

I don't know about wasted money but I see that, like most moon hoax believers, you don't "waste" your time by actually doing any research.

This myth about cork heat shields was originally circulated about Chinese recoverable capsules. It was as wrong then as it is in your statement. The Buran used a very similar system to the shuttle and the tiles were made of silica just as the US shuttle tiles were, with reinforced carbon-carbon being used on the nose and wing leading edges.

From the European Space Agency site:

Re-radiative thermal-protection systems are primarily applied on reusable vehicles. Depending on the expected temperature levels, two basic material systems are used for the TPS of the US Space Shuttle Orbiter, as well as for Russia's 'Buran" spaceplane:
  • Reinforced Carbon-Carbon (RCC or C/C) is used at all locations where the predicted surface temperatures exceed 1260°C, i.e. for the nose cap and the leading edges of the wings. The colder aluminium airframe behind the RCC nose cap and leading edges is protected by means of silica/ceramic-fibre insulations against the heat originating from these hot structural elements.
  • The Reusable Surface Insulation (RSI) is applied to most of the surface where the predicted temperatures are lower. The RSI usually consists of rigid ceramic tiles or flexible blankets.
The rigid tiles are made from high-purity (99.8%) silica fibres, which are rigidly interconnected in a high-temperature sintering process. Tiles with densities of 144 and 352 kg/m ³ have been realised. The exposed tile surface is covered with a thin glassy coating, which is black for the space vehicle's hottest areas and white elsewhere. This coating extends to tile surfaces in the gap between the tiles, thereby leaving only a small tile area uncovered. The tiles are bonded via a layer of nylon felt to the aluminium airframe with a silicone adhesive. The nylon felt acts as an elastic strain-insulation pad.

The flexible blankets (FRSI) were originally made from a Nomex felt. A white silicone elastomer coating provided the required thermo-optical properties and the water-proofing. The blankets were bonded directly to the aluminium airframe with a silicone-based adhesive.

More than 60 successful Orbiter flights and the Buran flight have validated this thermal-protection concept.

Source: ESA

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf
bekoz I kan't spel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
flyingswan
Excellent point? No, to dot too early!

Possible I inconsequential state its opinion. I does not want to poach special knowledges on the area of. I wants to speak of things to comprehensible any person.

1) Unbelievably good statistics of boarding LM on the Moon in the comparison with automatons flown on the Moon.

Table of start to Moon:

________"Pioneer"_______________"Ranger" _____________"Surveyor"

17.08.1958 - damage______ 23.08.1961 - damade______ 30.05.1966 - well

11.10.1958 - mistake ______ 18.11.1961 - damage ______ 20.09.1966 - damade

06.12.1958 - mistake ______ 26.01.1962 - mistake ______ 17.04.1967 - well

06.03.1959 - mistake ______ 23.04.1962 - damade ______ 14.07.1967 - damade

26.11.1959 - damade ______ 18.10.1962 - damade ______ 08.09.1967 - well

25.09.1960 - damade______ 30.01.1964 - damade ______ 07.11.1967 - well

15.12.1960 - damade ______ 28.07.1964 - well ________ 07.01.1968 - well

_________________________ 17.02.1965 - well__________

_________________________ 21.03.1965 - well__________

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total: 100% - bad__________ 67% - bad; 33% - well________29% - bad; 71% - well

Is necessary take into account that;

NASA had no experience of boarding on the Moon of such heavy devices as LM!

NASA had no experience an ascent of cosmic devices from Moon!

NASA had no experience of link-up, devices raised from Moon, on a Moon's orbit!

NASA had no experience of return to the land of device lifted from surfaces of the Moon!

Each of enumerated above stages generates percent of risk.

Hereon NASA speaks that has done six 100% successful debarkations of person on the Moon on the untried technician! This is science fiction.

You object that NASA gradually rallied an experience and reach such perfection which has ensured 100% success.

Well, then consider statistics flights an Space Shuttle themselves.

Take into account that ascent and landing Space Shuttle much more light problem than debarkation of people on the Moon.

For a start, none of the Pioneers and several of the Rangers were not moon landers. If you include other lunar missions, why ignore Lunar Orbiter which had five successes in five tries? There is also a pattern of increasing success rate with time, so the Apollo 8 out of 9 success rate is not very different from the most recent Surveyor plus Lunar Orbiter 10 out of 12. Every feat has to be tried for a first time, and NASA had tested the LM on three previous missions which effectively covered every aspect except the actual landing. For instance, lunar orbit rendezvous was demonstrated on Apollo 10. I don't see how mentioning the Shuttle helps your case - it had 24 successful missions before the Challenger disaster and NASA had no experience of launching and orbiting it before the first manned flight.

As for your other points, several of the Surveyors carried an instrument for chemical analysis of the lunar soil - what harmful substances were compatible with the results of these measurements? I'm sure there were papers mentioning studies of complete rocks published soon after the missions (find me a geologist who doubts the Apollo rocks), and if you can't recognise a local horizon in uneven ground you should get outdoors more.

Edited by flyingswan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unlimited

The nagging question i always have; is if you could make it the moon in 1968..why cant we make it to the moon now?....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
flyingswan
The nagging question i always have; is if you could make it the moon in 1968..why cant we make it to the moon now?....

Why can't I buy a ticket for a supersonic transatlantic flight, when I could in 1980?

How soon did anyone return to the South Pole after Amundsen and Scott?

When will anyone repeat the Trieste mission?

In all cases the reasons are the same as for a return moon mission.

In a word - politics.

Or to put it another way, it's very expensive and someone has to provide the money. Since Apollo, no-one has been inclined to fund any more such missions. The latest administration has proposed a return in 2019, but is already backtracking on the funding so the schedule will inevitably slip.

Edited by flyingswan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unlimited
Why can't I buy a ticket for a supersonic transatlantic flight, when I could in 1980?

How soon did anyone return to the South Pole after Amundsen and Scott?

When will anyone repeat the Trieste mission?

In all cases the reasons are the same as for a return moon mission.

In a word - politics.

Or to put it another way, it's very expensive and someone has to provide the money. Since Apollo, no-one has been inclined to fund any more such missions. The latest administration has proposed a return in 2019, but is already backtracking on the funding so the schedule will inevitably slip.

Im of the understanding the shuttle cant make it to the moon without burning up....same reason russia and china still havent made it to the moon...the craft will burn up entering outer space....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly

The Space Shuttle is very much larger than the vehicles that went to the moon in the Apollo era. The Shuttle simply doesn't have the energy needed to get itself into a trans-lunar orbit. This is what the engineers mean when they talk about "delta-v". I'm sure one of them would be glad to explain this further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rusich

The whole RUnet fall from the chair from the laughter, when read this. Even protectors NASA not steels to rehabilitate this author.

I was advised with specialists on radio communications. And they have said me that radio engineering facilities from land to distinguish a space shuttle with the people on board from relay impossible.

From land impossible to find a signal walking aside Apollo.

Such specialist of by name Molotov nor who does not know. Usually, when write like become indicate completely as a name of person and its service record. That reader saw possible to entrust this or no. As judged by the choice of surname "Molotov" author of article a foreigner, who not powerfully knows what surnames russian have. This common newspaper lying. I consider that to the Moon flew relay in the manner of "Apollo".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rusich
For a start, none of the Pioneers and several of the Rangers were not moon landers. If you include other lunar missions, why ignore Lunar Orbiter which had five successes in five tries? There is also a pattern of increasing success rate with time, so the Apollo 8 out of 9 success rate is not very different from the most recent Surveyor plus Lunar Orbiter 10 out of 12.

Surveyor has flown earlier Lunar Orbiter, and its problem more complex than beside Lunar Orbiter. Well, all flight Lunar Orbiter ingenious. What it changes in the Surveyor's statistics? This statistical table I has brought for proof of difficulties of space flights. Fly on the Moon this not on the picnic to go. But you certain that having gone on the picnic beside you will not be broken car? In space flights either as in any deal does not can be 100% success. Lunar Orbite has done 5 flights, Surveyor has done 7 flights. If Lunar Orbite has done 7 flights you will give a warranty that with him nor what did not occur?

Every feat has to be tried for a first time, and NASA had tested the LM on three previous missions which effectively covered every aspect except the actual landing. For instance, lunar orbit rendezvous was demonstrated on Apollo 10.

Main problem LM not evolutions on orbit, but boarding and ascent from Moons. Nor on the Land, nor on orbit this do not feel. Only real boarding on the Moon and ascent in the automatic mode. And simulator do not give real skills of pilotting LM in conditions of the Moon. You will sit in the plane if you will say that pilot nor when real did not fly on this plane, but exams on the simulator has delivered on fine? I seem probability of ingenious boarding LM on the Moon must be 50% in such conditions.

I don't see how mentioning the Shuttle helps your case - it had 24 successful missions before the Challenger disaster and NASA had no experience of launching and orbiting it before the first manned flight.

On Shuttle excellent statistics, unless consider 14 dead bodies!

Shuttle this veins of activity NASA. Technical level that who do Shuttle above that who do an Apollo, but tragedy has happenned don't care.

As for your other points, several of the Surveyors carried an instrument for chemical analysis of the lunar soil - what harmful substances were compatible with the results of these measurements?

You don't compare analytical possibilities Surveyor with possibilities a labs. of institute.

I'm sure there were papers mentioning studies of complete rocks published soon after the missions (find me a geologist who doubts the Apollo rocks), and if you can't recognise a local horizon in uneven ground you should get outdoors more.

Geologists with the pleasure have searched in 380 кг. heap of Moon soil interesting stones. Yes only who it this will allow?

Than is distinguished tiny bit of soil from the whole stone? That that sand can and automaton to take like Luna-16. But interesting piece of sorts to split off from mountains can only person!

Edited by Rusich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rusich
The Space Shuttle is very much larger than the vehicles that went to the moon in the Apollo era. The Shuttle simply doesn't have the energy needed to get itself into a trans-lunar orbit. This is what the engineers mean when they talk about "delta-v". I'm sure one of them would be glad to explain this further.

Here is exactly. Shuttle much more complex Apollo, but problem stand before him much more simply than before the Apollo.

Shuttle flies with first cosmic velocity - an Apollo with the second cosmic velocity.

Shuttle is not beyond the scope of magnetosphere Earth - an Apollo penetrate hard cosmic radiations.

Shuttle falls Into atmosphere with the first cosmic velocity - an Apollo with the second cosmic velocity.

But now compare. Two Shuttle perished, but apolloes all alive have returned. Even Apollo-13 is returned without victims.

This looks not logistical. Old asked technology is got better modern complex.

This trend is everywhere tracked or in the american manned fly only?

Edited by Rusich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trinitrotoluene

You have to look at the fact that the shuttle has launched 117 times, with two failing, while Apollo had only 6 (that successfully landed on the moon). You can't really compare the two as they are a world of difference away from each other. In response to your Apollo penetrated the Van Allen Belt, yes indeed it did, but the amount of radiation they were hit with was no where near a lethal dose, as they were only in the belts for a short period of time. Also lets not forget Apollo 1 (I'd certainly class that as a failure RIP), and Apollo 13 had a very narrow escape having to deal from everything from not having enough power, to rising carbon dioxide saturation. Apollo had its fair share of problems, but I don't think it's fair to compare it against the shuttle.

Edited by Gavsto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rusich

Good-bye, America. I am go to sleep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AtomicDog
...running out of funds is not the same as not being bothered to complete the task... or wasting it on pens... :whistle:

No matter the reason, money wasted is still money wasted.

In case you think that I am picking on the Russians, look up the Superconducting Super Collider some time.

Edited by AtomicDog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RAMS
The nagging question i always have; is if you could make it the moon in 1968..why cant we make it to the moon now?....

Answer: No.....

1. Money

2. Saturn 5

3. Aires

4. Ground-launch support service structures

5. OPF for a Saturn 5 like vehicle.

6. Money

7. Money

Write a letter to representives for increasd funding for NASA. Demand such. It works.

RAMS

Edited by RAMS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID
The Space Shuttle is very much larger than the vehicles that went to the moon in the Apollo era. The Shuttle simply doesn't have the energy needed to get itself into a trans-lunar orbit. This is what the engineers mean when they talk about "delta-v". I'm sure one of them would be glad to explain this further.

Lilly was answering limited, who said...

Im of the understanding the shuttle cant make it to the moon without burning up....same reason russia and china still havent made it to the moon...the craft will burn up entering outer space....

Yep...that little delta V thing.

Space craft don't burn up entering "outer space". They can burn up entering the Earth's atmosphere, however.

What it means is basically what Lilly said, in that we don't have the energy to get a Shuttle to the Moon.

Or, we can't make it go fast enough to get out there (fuel...lots of it. Shuttles are kinda big...).

That being said, the idea of the Shuttle-- a purposefully designed aerodynamic vehicle, mind you--going to the Moon, has always been somewhat amusing to me (Movies are often so dumb that I am astounded).

If we were, say, able to strap on some fuel and oxidizer tanks, and the SSMEs were able to provide adequate thrust to attain escape velocity, and get us on a course to the Moon....

What are we gonna do when we get there with a Shuttle?

We've got to attain a lunar orbit (more fuel).

We'll have to de-orbit and have a powered descent to the surface...which means we'd have to go in rear end forward...

And then, we'd have to pitch the 200,000 pound thing around to face the Moon, and pray that our trajectory is dead on, and then of course, land the thing on the surface...at a certain velocity (since landing so we could see where we were landing would necessitate having the engines pointing in a direction where they would do us no good , with a very...incredibly precise trajectory so as to get the wheels to touch down on the surface and so we could roll out to a stop in the lunar dust.

Now, if you understand anything about spacecraft, and really think about this scenario of landing a Shuttle on the Moon, you will rapidly realize that the idea is...ridiculous.

But say we could!

Where are we gonna land the thing? Is there some safe, really loooong area we know of where we could land? And if we did, how are we gonna get off again? We've gotta lift a hundred tons of Shuttle (plus the fuel) off the surface, get it back into orbit, and then, blast it, plus it's fuel load back toward Earth...

How do we do that, when the Shuttle will be thrusting horizontally, and roilling along the lunar surface? Perhaps you expect that this vehicle will somehow attain lift? Maybe we can use thrusters to pitch up and get an up vector (fuel...again...a bunch of it...where we gonna put that stuff?)???

And if we do that completely untenable thing...we still need more fuel (mass...my God the thing's going to have to be twice it's size with the fuel tanks...), since we're gonna have to slow down...alot... in order to allow the Shuttle to enter the Earth's atmosphere at a speed which its design parameters will allow it to (gentle, shallow, at Earth Orbital velocity...not the velocity ot would necessartily attain on a trans earth trajectory).

Look, I could talk about the incredulous idea of sending a vehicle that was specifically designed for Earth orbital operations to the Moon and back for a long time.

However, I won't.

Let's just say that we build spacecraft to execute certain functions. The Shuttle was never built to go to the Moon, and it can't. The idea is rather comical. We build things to execute tasks functionally, safely, and economically. The Shuttle, beyond not having the delta V capabiulity required to start it's lunar journey, is not built for such a task. It would be unbelievably insane to attempt to design it for such a purpose...

The shuttle can't make it to the Moon because it was not designed to do so. That's the bottom line. As to Russia and China, the factors in their lack of having done what America did many years ago boils down to money, national will, a purpose, ABILITY, and to paraphrase RAMS, I should add, money again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID
Answer: No.....

1. Money

2. Saturn 5

3. Aires

4. Ground-launch support service structures

5. OPF for a Saturn 5 like vehicle.

6. Money

7. Money

Write a letter to representives for increasd funding for NASA. Demand such. It works.

RAMS

Succinctly put...and true.

I was probably far too verbose in my prior explanation.

I would like to add a caveat...

The nagging question i always have; is if you could make it the moon in 1968..why cant we make it to the moon now?....

We could make it to the Moon now. We've had the capability, the know-how, and the technology to do it since 1968. We simply haven't (since 1972)because of the things RAMS lists in his post.

Oh, and there's this thing called money that's important too.

That may not seem like an adequate reason...but it is entirely true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spiritchaser

yeah its pretty interesting that we havent gone back to the moon since then

makes you wonder why Money is not the answer at all if NASA really wanted

another moonshot theyd have had it when Ronnie was at the Helm and Yet natta

we have sent men to space stations and for fancy plane rides above the atmosphere but NOBODY

from either the US....China.....Korea....or Russia has gone again

there must be real reasons why and those listed as

Money

money

and money

thats BUNK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviousman

Actually, NASA did a study to use the Shuttle for lunar orbital missions.

The result was that it would be possible but a very poor use of resources. There would be modifications required to the External Tank and to the Shuttle. It would require about 12 specially-modified Shuttle tanker launches to get the fuel into Earth orbit to support a single mission to the Moon.

From memory, it would only be able to get a few hundred Kg to lunar orbit.

I'll post a link to the report when I dig it up again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unlimited

what was the shuttle built for?...just to weaponize space?...and give you a leg up in war?....besides that its useless...

Edited by limited

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AtomicDog
what was the shuttle built for?...just to weaponize space?...and give you a leg up in war?....besides that its useless...

It was built as a cheap (well, cheaper) and easy way to get into Low Earth Orbit. Unfortunately, it turned out to be neither. That is why it is scheduled to be retired in 2010 and replaced with the Orion space vehicle.

Edited by AtomicDog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ghost Ship

I wish humans were already aquainted with star travel and lunar hotels and Saturn cruises. I envy the future generations if all goes well for the space programs. I would like to go on a trip around Neptune.

As for the Moon landings,well, i believe the moon was landed upon. I hope im alive when Mars is landed upon by mankind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AtomicDog
yeah its pretty interesting that we havent gone back to the moon since then

makes you wonder why Money is not the answer at all if NASA really wanted

another moonshot theyd have had it when Ronnie was at the Helm and Yet natta

we have sent men to space stations and for fancy plane rides above the atmosphere but NOBODY

from either the US....China.....Korea....or Russia has gone again

there must be real reasons why and those listed as

Money

money

and money

thats BUNK

Why? Bush The Elder proposed returning to the Moon in the late '80s. When the (wildly inflated) price tag came in, he dropped the proposal and never said another word about it. The ONLY reason given by the Media for Bush's dropping the project was Congress' reluctance to pay for it.

The only reason that Congress is going for it this time is that most of the money will be diverted from the Space Shuttle as that program ends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviousman
Actually, NASA did a study to use the Shuttle for lunar orbital missions.

The result was that it would be possible but a very poor use of resources. There would be modifications required to the External Tank and to the Shuttle. It would require about 12 specially-modified Shuttle tanker launches to get the fuel into Earth orbit to support a single mission to the Moon.

From memory, it would only be able to get a few hundred Kg to lunar orbit.

I'll post a link to the report when I dig it up again.

Here you go: Feasibility analysis of cis-lunar flight using the Shuttle Orbiter (PDF document)

http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19910014907

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rusich
You have to look at the fact that the shuttle has launched 117 times, with two failing, while Apollo had only 6 (that successfully landed on the moon). You can't really compare the two as they are a world of difference away from each other.

Problem beside shuttl and beside the Apollo one - to deliver people and cargoes in cosmos and afterwards return them to the Land. Principle differences between them no. Be only qualitative and quantitative differences. They only outwardly powerfully differ. On the purpose this alike devices, so I consider possible their compare.

In response to your Apollo penetrated the Van Allen Belt, yes indeed it did, but the amount of radiation they were hit with was no where near a lethal dose, as they were only in the belts for a short period of time.

Honestly dialect, in histories of Apollo an radio-active belt of the Land I little worry. I more interest radiation on the Moon, where astronauts were to go in one fabric space suits. I descended in the library and is returned from there devastated. This information inaccessible for the usual people, only for that who has a special permit.

Also lets not forget Apollo 1 (I'd certainly class that as a failure RIP), and Apollo 13 had a very narrow escape having to deal from everything from not having enough power, to rising carbon dioxide saturation. Apollo had its fair share of problems, but I don't think it's fair to compare it against the shuttle.

Apollo was felt and in unmanned and manned variant and problem he had either as beside any new cosmic device. But finally its have done as is necessary.

LM did not pass nor reek test real flight. But problems beside it was not.

If present a ligament an Apollo - LM, the Apollo this "tightrope" but LM this "thread". In the moon program tears only "tightrope", "thread" - never! This nonsence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.