41
The Reality of Apollo / Re: Vale GEN Thomas P Stafford
« Last post by bknight on March 23, 2024, 10:36:59 AM »RIP Gen. Stafford. Another Moon astronaut passes away.
Recent Posts
42
The Hoax Theory / Re: Saturn V Third Stage - Not enough room
« Last post by Allan F on March 22, 2024, 05:33:40 PM »Also, he thinks the CSM is also inside the 3rd stage.
43
The Hoax Theory / Re: Saturn V Third Stage - Not enough room
« Last post by Allan F on March 22, 2024, 05:31:56 PM »https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_(spacecraft)#Spacecraft%E2%80%93lunar_module_adapter_(SLA)
The confusion stems from your inclusion of the SLA into the 3rd stage. It was a separate entity.
The confusion stems from your inclusion of the SLA into the 3rd stage. It was a separate entity.
44
The Hoax Theory / Re: Saturn V Third Stage - Not enough room
« Last post by Allan F on March 22, 2024, 05:23:42 PM »Are your numbers for the third stage or for the third stage AND the SLA?
45
The Hoax Theory / Re: Saturn V Third Stage - Not enough room
« Last post by Peter B on March 22, 2024, 11:00:55 AM »Quote
I used a cylinder calculator and came up with 22,781 cubic feet.
Correct.
Quote
Now we look at the list. There were 2 fuel tanks the larger held almost 80,000 gallons the other just over 6,000. The fuel alone takes up 11,417.52 Cubic feet of space.
His figures are fairly off, but his volume is similar to what I calculated.
Quote
That's not counting the tanks to hold the fuel or the lines and pumps to move it.
Er, what? Once you put the fuel in, there's no room left for the fuel?
Quote
Remember it's already more than ½ full even if you just literally poured the fuel in the rocket.
Um, yes, that's how it works. A bit over half the volume of the stage is taken up by fuel. That leaves a bit less than half the volume for lines and pumps and engines and stuff.
46
The Hoax Theory / Saturn V Third Stage - Not enough room
« Last post by benparry on March 22, 2024, 08:30:34 AM »Morning / Afternoon All.
Another Facebook group argument / debate. Below is a comment from somebody. Is there a website which literally adds up the bits within the Third stage that shows it does all fit
Phase 3 of the Saturn 5 rocket is 61.6 feet tall and 21.7 feet in diameter. If it was a cylinder (which it's not the top has a lander attached to it and it's much smaller and the diameter slowly decreases at the top)
I used a cylinder calculator and came up with 22,781 cubic feet.
Now we look at the list. There were 2 fuel tanks the larger held almost 80,000 gallons the other just over 6,000. The fuel alone takes up 11,417.52 Cubic feet of space. That's not counting the tanks to hold the fuel or the lines and pumps to move it.
Remember it's already more than ½ full even if you just literally poured the fuel in the rocket.
And that's if the entire rocket was shaped like a cylinder, again it's not
We still need room for Insulation so now your available space is even smaller.
Next subtract the cubic feet needed for the rocket's engines.
Don't forget the Lander itself.
We still need an oxygen supply, batteries, computers, and room for 3 Astronauts. It literally doesn't all fit.
cheers guys
Ben
Another Facebook group argument / debate. Below is a comment from somebody. Is there a website which literally adds up the bits within the Third stage that shows it does all fit
Phase 3 of the Saturn 5 rocket is 61.6 feet tall and 21.7 feet in diameter. If it was a cylinder (which it's not the top has a lander attached to it and it's much smaller and the diameter slowly decreases at the top)
I used a cylinder calculator and came up with 22,781 cubic feet.
Now we look at the list. There were 2 fuel tanks the larger held almost 80,000 gallons the other just over 6,000. The fuel alone takes up 11,417.52 Cubic feet of space. That's not counting the tanks to hold the fuel or the lines and pumps to move it.
Remember it's already more than ½ full even if you just literally poured the fuel in the rocket.
And that's if the entire rocket was shaped like a cylinder, again it's not
We still need room for Insulation so now your available space is even smaller.
Next subtract the cubic feet needed for the rocket's engines.
Don't forget the Lander itself.
We still need an oxygen supply, batteries, computers, and room for 3 Astronauts. It literally doesn't all fit.
cheers guys
Ben
47
The Reality of Apollo / Re: Vale GEN Thomas P Stafford
« Last post by Ursa on March 20, 2024, 05:43:52 AM »48
The Reality of Apollo / Vale GEN Thomas P Stafford
« Last post by Obviousman on March 19, 2024, 03:11:44 AM »49
General Discussion / Re: Skylab launch video and animation
« Last post by JayUtah on March 18, 2024, 01:33:48 PM »Actually now that I think about it, I'm not sure they did any aerodynamic testing on the shield at all. I recall that being a big part of the incident investigation afterward.
50
General Discussion / Re: Skylab launch video and animation
« Last post by JayUtah on March 18, 2024, 10:13:08 AM »Unanticipated aerodynamic effects.
The shield was in fact very flimsy, because it didn't need to have much structural strength to perform its task on orbit. What most people don't realize is how the shield was meant to deploy. It was supposed to spring outward and form a larger cylinder than in the stowed-for-launch configuration (with foldouts to create the larger perimeter needed).
One of the fairings for the tunnels containing cabling and other conduits down the side of the payload created a shock wave that pulled the nearby leading edge of the shield away just enough for ram air to get underneath it. Once that happens, the shield is not nearly strong enough to withstand the slipstream.
The shield was made from 22-gauge aerospace aluminum, which makes it about twice as thick as an aluminum pie plate, or about twice as thick as your HVAC ductwork. For launch, it was held tight against the lab wall by its deployment mechanism. The aerodynamic test regime had not included protrusions such as fairings.
The shield was in fact very flimsy, because it didn't need to have much structural strength to perform its task on orbit. What most people don't realize is how the shield was meant to deploy. It was supposed to spring outward and form a larger cylinder than in the stowed-for-launch configuration (with foldouts to create the larger perimeter needed).
One of the fairings for the tunnels containing cabling and other conduits down the side of the payload created a shock wave that pulled the nearby leading edge of the shield away just enough for ram air to get underneath it. Once that happens, the shield is not nearly strong enough to withstand the slipstream.
The shield was made from 22-gauge aerospace aluminum, which makes it about twice as thick as an aluminum pie plate, or about twice as thick as your HVAC ductwork. For launch, it was held tight against the lab wall by its deployment mechanism. The aerodynamic test regime had not included protrusions such as fairings.