Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch

[bknight]

jr:  What on Earth are you calling "fenders".  I have looked at 360 degree images of the lander and I don't see what you are calling fenders?

[jr Knowing]

Hi bknight,

The fender I am referring to is a fender off the land rover not the LM. The fender is laying on the ground in the background slightly to the left of the LM leg.

[JayUtah]

The fender I am referring to is a fender off the land rover not the LM.

I assume you mean the lunar rover, the LRV.

[BertieSlack]

background rocks and the hills

The 'hill' in the background is Bear Mountain. It's about 3 miles away.

[jr Knowing]

Hi Jay,

You are right. Lunar Rover. It’s funny, When I was writing it I was saying in my head this isn’t right. Brain freeze. I am getting too old.

[bknight]

Hi bknight,

The fender I am referring to is a fender off the land rover not the LM. The fender is laying on the ground in the background slightly to the left of the LM leg.

What is the number of the image?

[jr Knowing]

Hi bk,

The first two photos are from magazine 147, photo 22515 et al. This magazine also has a series of strip down lunar rover pics where the rover goes for a quick test spin. These are central to this discussion. (The fender is in the background on some of these pics) The final photo I posted has the pic number in jpg description.

[BertieSlack]

I have attached another photo to help everyone along.

It's part of a pan Gene took at the SEP site: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17pan1230624.jpg

Please, go ahead - make a clown of yourself. I look forward to a good laugh.

[JayUtah]

I believe a crater like the one seen in A17 could cause a significant issue.

And that belief has what evidentiary value?

I also believe a pilot would not deliberately land this close to a crater given a choice.

And that belief has what evidentiary value?  One of the more common approaches hoax claimants have used here is essentially "I would have done it differently."  That sort of reasoning spectacularly fails to convince us that there must have been something suspicious about the Apollo program.  You aren't a lunar module pilot, and you certainly weren't Gene Cernan at that time and place.

What Cernan said in the debriefing is that he deliberately curtailed his forward movement because the terrain ahead of him was even more forbidding, not in terms of craters but of hills and hummocks that might have exceeded the LM's touchdown terrain angle.  In terms of your analysis, it seems he wasn't given the choice.

That says to me they had a visibility problem.

Except that Cernan specifically said he had excellent visibility during the P66 landing.  The fact is that the LM didn't land in a crater.  You're trying to tell us, based on your personal impressions, that this had to have been a near-accident instead of precise flying from a highly-trained and experienced pilot.

Others obviously feel differently. No big deal. Just wanted to point it out as example of what I believe is LM visibility problem.

Your belief is based on no data, and in fact is contradicted by the testimony of people who were there.  Your belief is simply an uninformed opinion.  Now you tell us you know it's just your opinion and that other people will have different ones.  Yet you seem eager for people to take some sort of "journey" based on your impressions.  Why should anyone?  It comes off as a sort of passive-aggressive argument that there "really" was some sort of critical flaw in the LM cockpit design that made it hard to fly.

Have you ever been in an Apollo lunar module?

[jfb]

Okay, I've looked at the pictures again.  What "unsettling conclusions" should I come to?

Absent any numbers that show how far away the crater actually was, what the tilt angle would have been had the LM put a foot down in it, etc., you're just guessing.  I mean, based on the angle of view, I'd guess that the crater was a good 5 to 8 meters away from the footpads.  Close, yeah, but not right next to.  Also based on that angle of view, I'd guess that the floor of the crater wasn't significantly lower than the ground the other footpads were on (and certainly not several feet deep). 

But again, that's all guessing.  Which is all you are doing.  And, sorry, I'm not gonna trust your gut on this. 

The LM was designed to land on uneven terrain, up to a certain tolerance.  Test articles were built and drop-tested to characterize what it could handle.  Crews trained for months in simulators to handle off-nominal landing situations.  Nobody expected to land on a tabletop surface.  The LM was designed to tolerate some tilt (up to 12 degrees, I think), the legs were designed to absorb some impact on touchdown, etc.  If you can provide numbers that show this particular crater really was outside the tolerance the LM was designed for, then we'll talk.  Otherwise, you're just arguing from incredulity, which is ... not convincing. 

[jr Knowing]

Hi Jay,

While it is evident I have doubts about things, I never suggested the actual LM landings were hoaxed. I only pointed out that the LM seemed to have less than optimal visibility. Just an opinion.

As far as being passive aggressive, I am just trying not alienate myself from everyone as being seen as "hunchbacked", flat earth, firmament, alien moon base crackpot. Believe me, I am trying only to ask reasonable questions.

Humor me. Take a look at the Apollo 17 photos. This is ultimately what led me to the uncertainties/doubts I have now.

 

[jr Knowing]

Hi jfb,

The third picture I attached shows the footpad (in a small crater) about 2-3 feet from the ridge of the much larger crater not 5-8 meters as you suggest.

The unsettling conclusions have nothing to do with the LM landing. It has to do with everything you see in those pics versus other photos from A17. (my recent posts give some direction on where to start to look.)

[Jason Thompson]

Hi, thanks again for the responses. But I have to say it is disheartening to see some responses. I am aware, myself included, we all have certain predispositions. But it is deflating to see immediate responses that clearly show no considered thought. I ask a simple (and I think reasonable ) question regarding RCS engines on the side of the CM. Immediately I am told they were covered. Are people not aware there are many photos on liftoff showing the exact opposite?

This was noted and corrected, and discussed at length before you returned to this thread. Why bring it up again instead of just dealing with the actual answer to the query that was eventually provided?

I can't even get anyone admit that Apollo 17 landed beside a crater.

That is another misrepresentation. What you can't get from anyone is a blind acknowledgement that Apollo 17 landed beside a crater that would have caused a fatal accident.

And again, I am 100 percent certain that Cernan (or anyone for that matter) would not intentionally land that close to a crater. So either Cernan (or Schimitt?) is very bad pilot or their visibility was extremely impaired.

Or your certainty is wrong. What is it based on? Have you met Cernan or Schmitt? Have you read their debriefings? Or is it simply that you wouldn't have done what they did? If so, why should they be under any obligation to do what you think they should have done? THey were landing on a surface that is cratered at every scale. THey had no choice but to land 'near' a crater. The size is the issue, and no-one here sees any proble with the size of that crater.

People, (including many here I'm sure), would point out the engines were thrusting (including heat) directly on the lower stage of LM. That certainly would raise many questions.

Actually one of the things that would strike me about it would be the rather toxic and corrosive nature of some of the propellants and their combustion products coating the regions of the descent stage the astronauts would be working on. However, as I have already pointed out, without the plume deflectors the engines are not thrusting directly onto the LM at all. The axis of thrust passes by the octagonal descent stage. ONly the wider dispersing combustion products would be impinging onto the LM itself as they spread out in a vaccum, and that's a tiny fraction of the actual thrust.

But on the subject, I noticed you have not responded to the reply I gave to your question about a vehicle that thrusts back onto itself. There's one kind of vehicle that does exactly that and has been flying successfully in large numbers for decades.

[Obviousman]

That says to me they had a visibility problem. Others obviously feel differently. No big deal. Just wanted to point it out as example of what I believe is LM visibility problem.

Have you ever stood inside the LM / LM simulator and looked outside through those windows, seeing what the visibility is like? I have, and I am sure a few others here have.

If you are interested in how they were constructed, this has good technical detail:

https://dodlithr.blogspot.com/2012/07/lunar-module-windows.html

And if you think that the vision provided was not sufficient to land the LM, just consider that some of the X-15 pilots had a tiny slit to land a craft such as the X-15 at about 240 mph.



In the image above, the window on the left was blocked through debris from the ablative material applied to the aircraft. The right window had 'flaps' on it that could be opened after the high-speed flight, giving a tiny - but adequate - view for landing.

I think you don't give credit to the Apollo crew's great skills and substantial training they went through for the missions.

[Jason Thompson]

Hi Guys,
I respect your opinions. I believe a crater like the one seen in A17 could cause a significant issue.

WHy believe? Calculate and show. You know how big the LM is, and you can estimate the depth of the crater. What would be the effect of landing with one leg in that crater other than the LM being tipped back a bit? Incidentally, Apollo 15 did exactly what you said would be disastrous and landed with one leg in a crater. The LM tipped back and the engine bell hit the ground. Not catastrophic at all.

I also believe a pilot would not deliberately land this close to a crater given a choice.

Maybe not, but did he have much of a choice? You're talking about the actions of two men, one of whom only died recently and the other of whom is still alive, who have been discussing this for decades. What is your belief based on other than your personal incredulity?

That says to me they had a visibility problem. Others obviously feel differently. No big deal. Just wanted to point it out as example of what I believe is LM visibility problem.

One that has been explicitly refuted by people who actually flew the thing, and people who designed it, and people who have been inside one, or a mockup of one. Have you ever stood in a life-size relica of a LM and seen how those windows worked in terms of visibility?

I am actually interested in everyone's thoughts of those A17 photos. I reattached the first two I posted. I believe it shows everything you need to make a proper assessment of the legitimacy of A17 photos. Pay particular attention to the crater, the footprints in the foreground, the footprints in the background, background rocks and the hills, and especially the fender on the ground in the background (to the left of LM leg halfway back in the background). (And before anyone suggests that isn't a fender, there are many hi Res colour pics that show it to be a fender)

I feel the need to point out at this stage that some of us have been here for decades. We will not play this game, If you have specific concern about the images then present them. Don't expect us to jump through your vague hoops. Many of us are intimately familiar with this record and have been examinaing it for a very long time. Bring your arguments to the table or abandon the discussion.

I appreciate well reasoned responses even if it goes against my thoughts.

You have already demonstrated this is not true since you stil insist the plume deflectors are an issue despite several lengthy posts explaining in some detail why this is just not the case.