Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
2
The Reality of Apollo / Re: Ascent stage tanks
« Last post by Allan F on March 21, 2023, 04:33:22 PM »
That number seems off, since the entire LM was about 14.5 tonnes full up.
3
The Reality of Apollo / Re: Ascent stage tanks
« Last post by onebigmonkey on March 21, 2023, 02:20:13 PM »
Thomas J. Kelly's book 'Moon Lander' doesn't give weights for the ascent tanks*, but does give a figure of "25000 pounds" for the descent propellant tanks.



*that I could find on a cursory skim read.
4
The Reality of Apollo / Re: Ascent stage tanks
« Last post by Allan F on March 21, 2023, 12:17:53 PM »
I'll see if I can find this later. But for comparison, the dry mass of the O2 tanks in the SM is about 100 kg.

Thank you. It's for a discussion about why the space shuttle couldn't go to the moon. Working backwards through the rocket equation, disregarding the mass of tanks and piping and pressurization systems, using only the OMS engines, I got a mass of the spaceshuttle including fuel before TLI to be around 26.000 tonnes, based on a 2.200 tonnes shuttle at reentry.

ETA: I suspect that with the added mass of tanks and equipment, the mass of such a vehicle would balloon beyond any reason.
5
The Reality of Apollo / Re: Ascent stage tanks
« Last post by JayUtah on March 21, 2023, 10:18:08 AM »
I'll see if I can find this later. But for comparison, the dry mass of the O2 tanks in the SM is about 100 kg.
6
The Reality of Apollo / Re: Ascent stage tanks
« Last post by Obviousman on March 20, 2023, 07:44:42 PM »
Can't help with that, sorry. NASA Technical Notes 7082 and 7143 have a lot of information about the LM and the Ascent Stage Propulsion System but not weights (that I could find).
7
The Reality of Apollo / Ascent stage tanks
« Last post by Allan F on March 20, 2023, 04:29:28 PM »
I wonder if there's any numbers out there for the mass of the ascent stage tanks. Not the fuel/oxidizer, but the tanks themselves - also the mass of they helium pressurization system?
8
The Hoax Theory / Re: Blunder® takes on a Flerf
« Last post by onebigmonkey on March 08, 2023, 02:03:48 PM »
None of his 3 events are in the top 50, let alone Earth bound.

That was my first thought: were the CME he quotes actually heading anywhere near Artemis. The sun's a big ball, it can spit that stuff out in a large range of directions that don't come anywhere near us.
9
The Hoax Theory / Re: Blunder® takes on a Flerf
« Last post by Mag40 on March 07, 2023, 05:30:51 PM »
A bit off topic but still relevant - I just listened to today's NASA Artemis I Post-Flight Media Teleconference, surprise guest around timestamp 00:56:00:   :-\

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IWSaicWuVA&t=3367s

Is there anything this incompetent berk can get right? He is citing "hindustantimes" as his source for the 3 CMEs in his question. He has his own video segment covering this. I won't post it.

https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en/solar-activity/top-50-solar-flares/year/2022.html

None of his 3 events are in the top 50, let alone Earth bound.
10
The Hoax Theory / Re: Blunder® takes on a Flerf
« Last post by TippedIceberg on March 07, 2023, 01:08:13 PM »
A bit off topic but still relevant - I just listened to today's NASA Artemis I Post-Flight Media Teleconference, surprise guest around timestamp 00:56:00:   :-\

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IWSaicWuVA&t=3367s
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10