By continuing to use this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more
Forum sponsored by:
Forum sponsored by CML

Moon landing

All Topics | Latest Posts

Search for:  in Thread Title in  
Pete B - Moderator21/07/2019 13:49:32
avatar
Moderator
7586 forum posts
732 photos
Posted by Doc Marten on 21/07/2019 13:19:46:
Posted by Wilco Wingco on 21/07/2019 13:08:32:

Doc Martin.

My final comment NOT an anti American rant. Watch this and judge for yourself?.

**LINK**

Honestly wilco I'm not interested, I haven't opened the link nor do I intend to. This is a topic about the moon landings not a political debate

Indeed, let's keep it that way, folks....smile

Pete

Gary Manuel21/07/2019 14:07:40
avatar
1951 forum posts
1514 photos

I personally think that the lunar landings were man's greatest achievement for the very reason that JFK quoted as the reason for going there - because it was so damned difficult with the technology that wasn't even available at the time. We didn't even own a television at the time so spent the night at my uncle's house so we could watch it happening. I look back at those years with immense pride at what humans can achieve when they put their minds to it (and I'm no great fan of America).

I do not believe however, that mankind will ever surpass this achievement. I'm sure that we will return to the moon and even find our way to other planets. We may even eventually populate them. To me though, this will be a lesser achievement than the first moon landings that were done within a decade of first going into space, using technology that can be judged by looking at the cars of that era. If we do go to other planets, it won't be because we choose to go. It will because we need to go - because we have drained our own planet of resources or even made it incapable of supporting life. That's not what I call a great achievement.

Apologies for the negative summary. I hope I will be proved wrong, but I fear not.

Doc Marten21/07/2019 14:39:08
378 forum posts
4 photos

I have to agree Gary, I too doubt the achievement will ever be surpassed in relative terms.

john stones 121/07/2019 14:52:50
avatar
10701 forum posts
1480 photos

I'll leave the predictions of the future alone, Moon landings part of my childhood, coupled with the Ali fights, did they happen ? Yes, but Henry Cooper was robbed. wink

Doc Marten21/07/2019 15:00:50
378 forum posts
4 photos
Posted by Cuban8 on 21/07/2019 13:39:01:
Posted by Doc Marten on 21/07/2019 12:19:24:

There was a programme on TV many years ago which compared the Soviet rocket motors with the NASA designed motors.

The Americans designed them with the traditional approach, mind boggling calculations based on theories and past experience, the Soviets however approached it a slightly different way, they still used the mind boggling theoretical calculations and experience but were also brave enough to see if it worked when the designs said it may not, they ended up producing far more powerful rocket motors for the Soyuz craft which the Americans latter copied which are still in use today, dropping their own design in favour them.

Edited By Doc Marten on 21/07/2019 12:29:51

The Russians didn't always get it right and with the N1 (Saturn V competitor - sort of) it was poorly engineered and lacked the technical superiority of US industry. The whole vehicle used LOX and Kerosene rather than LOX and liquid Hydrogen in the upper stages, probably because of the severe engineering difficulties of manufacturing large cryogenic tanks with all the associated problems of weld integrity, insulation etc - that the Americans almost came to grief over themselves.

Clearly affected by the death of the 'Chief Designer' the multi engined N1 first stage of some 30 motors (it was thought, incorrectly as it turned out, that combustion instability was an insurmountable problem with very large rocket engines, hence the many small ones strategy) was always going to be a problem and so it proved to be. Interestingly as has been said, the engines did undergo development and eventually went on to be individually powerful and reliable units that the Americans used.

From what I remember this is basically how the programme was focused: On the low tech relatively inexperienced, 2nd world, clunky technology of communist Russia against the slick, hi tech, solid state technology of 1st world America and the pressure on the Soviets to make up the lost ground by simply 'giving it a go'. I seem to remember that there were something like a dozen catastrophic, explosive failures on the launch pad before they got to the end result.

Kim Taylor21/07/2019 17:47:17
280 forum posts
53 photos
Posted by Cuban8 on 20/07/2019 12:51:38:

I was 12 in '69, so recall the moon walk quite well, although I missed it live at 3.00 am . James Burke could sometimes 'over popularise' things I agree, and for my money, ITV's Peter Fairley was the better choice IIRC.

In a previous life I knew Peter Fairleys son.

He (Peter F) was obviously well respected amongst the scientific community and the NASA astronauts, as Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were house guests and became personal friends of the entire family.

Kim

Steve Hargreaves - Moderator21/07/2019 17:55:31
avatar
Moderator
6727 forum posts
191 photos

I was lucky enough to visit the Kennedy Space Centre during a work trip to the US a few years ago....if ever you get the chance...just go...it's an amazing place.....

Some pictures....

F1 Engine...the Saturn rockets had 5 of these....

apollo engine (2).jpg

Some facts about the engine......

apollo plaque.jpg

Business end of a Saturn V rocket....

saturn v (2).jpg

And slightly off topic but worth showing. They had not long opened a new museum on the Shuttle....to enter you walked under the main tank & between two of the solid rocket boosters....there's a person stood just next to the booster rocket on the right..... Big innit....

shuttle tanks (2).jpg

Just on the Van Allen belt too I read that travelling through this radiation would damage the eyes of anyone who passed through it. Apparently all the Apollo astronauts developed cataracts....wink 2

Trevor21/07/2019 18:46:22
avatar
386 forum posts
54 photos

“Just on the Van Allen belt too I read that travelling through this radiation would damage the eyes of anyone who passed through it. Apparently all the Apollo astronauts developed cataracts....wink 2

I guess that proves that I must have been on a space flight and then had it wiped from my memory. Maybe The conspiracy theorists are onto something. . .

Edited By Trevor on 21/07/2019 18:46:47

Martin Dilly 121/07/2019 19:15:31
62 forum posts
13 photos
Posted by Kim Taylor on 21/07/2019 17:47:17:
Posted by Cuban8 on 20/07/2019 12:51:38:

ITV's Peter Fairley was the better choice IIRC.

It was Peter Fairley (poss. Farley) who spearheaded the anti model flying campaign in the 1970s that led to the Bromley Council's proposed byelaws to ban model flying in its parks. The SMAE (as it was then) fought this to the extent of briefing a barrister (far from cheap in those days, and doubtless far more today) to put our case at the public enquiry that the SMAE's objections led to; I know because I had documents and press cuttings going back to the late 1940s covering the sport in Bromley and gave evidence. The outcome was that at least silent flight, including electrics, was preserved, as well as control-line on certain days and sites, but i.c.flying was banned. TV science correspondent or not, Fairley, who had a house backing onto Norman Park where RC flying took place, was no friend of model flying.

Martin McIntosh21/07/2019 20:29:57
avatar
2947 forum posts
1083 photos

I have sat back and had a good laugh at you all once again. You are easily stirred up arn`t you. Keeps the forum alive. Must think of a new subject for next time that things get a bit quiet!

Thanks to all for the informative replies though.

Doc Marten21/07/2019 20:51:46
378 forum posts
4 photos
Posted by Martin McIntosh on 21/07/2019 20:29:57:

I have sat back and had a good laugh at you all once again. You are easily stirred up arn`t you. Keeps the forum alive. Must think of a new subject for next time that things get a bit quiet!

Thanks to all for the informative replies though.

I really hope you didn't mean this Martin, I thought the 'Troll' comment was unjustified but this kinda confirms it.

Tom Sharp 221/07/2019 21:08:26
avatar
3549 forum posts
18 photos

To me, the Moon landing is all rubbish and best forgotten. We lost a baby daughter on that day, not good.

J D 821/07/2019 21:59:55
avatar
1308 forum posts
78 photos

Sorry to hear you lost a baby and the same probably happened to many others around the world on the same day.

But for many all over the planet the moon landings were something good and positive at a time when so much was not.

Martin Harris21/07/2019 22:56:23
avatar
8870 forum posts
221 photos

I'm very pleased that you weren't actually being so foolish and naive as your postings suggested, Martin and thank you for putting to rest any tiny doubts in my own mind that there could possibly have been any truth in the conspiracy theories.

However, I would caution against further such exercises as it does seem to infringe the Code of Conduct rather and we don't want to lose your valued experience and contributions on technical subjects.

buster prop22/07/2019 10:20:37
471 forum posts
9 photos

I don’t know why the US moon landings would have been faked, it doesn’t make any sense. Each Apollo launch was seen by millions of people live on TV and those who were at Cape Canaveral. Presumably the conspiracy theory is that the astronauts weren’t in the rocket because they went back down the tower before it launched. Alternatively, the Saturn 5 launched them into an earth orbit for a few days instead of flying to the moon while the landing and moonwalks were being faked in a studio. Later, TV showed the capsule splashing down into the Pacific and the real astronauts emerging. I don’t see how either of those theories are possible and too many people would have known. Remember that the Russians were desperately trying to get to the moon first and their engineers knew that Saturn 5/Apollo was a viable system. Why would the Americans go to all the trouble and expense of building and launching several moon-capable Apollos and then take the risk of being discovered faking moon landings? Easier to just go there. The landings happened for the following reasons: Does anyone think the TV pictures from the Apollo 8 command module of the earth from lunar orbit at the end of 1968 were faked and were pictures of the un-docked lunar lander in orbit around the moon (Apollo 9&10) faked as well? If not, then NASA had a manned craft capable of orbiting the moon and performing 90% of the mission. The only possible reason for faking just the landing mission was because they realised in 1969 that they couldn’t guarantee a safe landing and re-launch from the lunar surface. Why would NASA only think of that so late in the project? Being discovered faking moon walks with actors in space suits would have meant the end of NASA because they’d spent millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money developing a system capable of getting men to the moon and then didn’t land them. Too much risk. Therefore, unless the whole Apollo program between 1962 and 1972 was faked, which I find hard to believe because of the huge number of people who would have had to be sworn to secrecy, all they had to do was ensure that the lunar module would land and take off again. Remember that Apollo 11 was tracked by Jodrell Bank, they brought back moon rocks, left experiments on the moon and evidence of the 1969-72 landings can be seen from lunar orbit.

Edited By buster prop on 22/07/2019 10:24:20

Manish Chandrayan22/07/2019 10:35:26
595 forum posts
70 photos

And we have just now sent off another rocket with a Lunar rover wink

Cuban822/07/2019 11:23:31
2758 forum posts
13 photos
Posted by Tom Sharp 2 on 21/07/2019 21:08:26:

To me, the Moon landing is all rubbish and best forgotten. We lost a baby daughter on that day, not good.

I have to reply, because although I'm not going into my own family's recent similar troubles, only those who have experienced such a cruel moment in their life can possibly understand the affect is can have, and usually does. I'm so sorry that a subject that has given me and others a lifetime's interest and fascination, is one of upset and disaster for you and your family. Any anniversary of a bereavement is difficult to put it mildly, I must admit to putting such dates out of my mind which some of my family regard as callous, but it's simply the way I deal with things.

A date is a date, nothing more - celebration and remembrance can be held at any time and in one's own way.

 

Much is talked about the cost of space technology and how the money might be better spent - just as a comparison, the global market for cosmetics  (most of which I submit is frivolous) is reckoned to be in the region of five hundred million dollars and is expected to grow to eight hundred million dollars by 2024. Could do quite a lot of good with even a fraction of that.

Edited By Cuban8 on 22/07/2019 11:33:26

buster prop22/07/2019 12:16:27
471 forum posts
9 photos

Mannish, I was reading about the Indian moon mission in this morning’s Times newspaper. 47 days to get to the moon? Reason is that the crafts’ earth orbit is made increasingly eccentric by short ‘burns’ to make it approach the moon closer on each loop until lunar gravity takes over. A manned mission would have to do it differently as Apollo did. Interesting reading and I hope it succeeds.

Wilco Wingco22/07/2019 13:07:30
163 forum posts
3 photos

If the new rover can find the flag and footprints lleft my the previous visits, them surly that is proof that the moon landing did take place?.

Doc Marten22/07/2019 13:12:00
378 forum posts
4 photos
Posted by Wilco Wingco on 22/07/2019 13:07:30:

If the new rover can find the flag and footprints lleft my the previous visits, them surly that is proof that the moon landing did take place?.

 

Why the footprints? The flag, moon rover, scientific equipment and landing stage of the lunar module would be equally credible evidence.

All this talk of remote controlled spacecraft has me scratching my head; surely posessing the technical ability to do to that over using human operators would have significantly overshadowed the astronaut on the moon achievement and sent a much more chilling message to the USSR?

 

Edited By Doc Marten on 22/07/2019 13:21:53

All Topics | Latest Posts

Please login to post a reply.

Magazine Locator

Want the latest issue of RCM&E? Use our magazine locator link to find your nearest stockist!

Find RCM&E! 

Latest Forum Posts
Support Our Partners
Pepe Aircraft
Gliders Distribution
Wings & Wheels 2019
electricwingman 2017
Slec
Cambridge Gliding Club
CML
Sarik
Advertise With Us
Latest "For Sale" Ads
Do you use a throttle kill switch?
Q: This refers to electric-powered models but do you use a throttle kill switch?

 Yes
 No
 Sometimes
 Rarely

Latest Reviews
Digital Back Issues

RCM&E Digital Back Issues

Contact us

Contact us