We did not have the technology in 1968 to accomplish a moon landing. Looking at pictures of the LEM makes me feel that we were so naive at the time. I downloaded all NASA schematics and guess what... no fuel. So how the hell did we get back.
2007-12-08 02:53:25 · 14 answers · asked by alainmaltais007 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
You need to stop smoking that stuff. Or maybe learn how to read the word FUEL TANK. You seem to be able to spell it. I just can't understand why you can't read it.
Reading lesson 101:
F U E L T A N K!
Now go and practiced and come back and apologize to all these nice people.
2007-12-08 10:10:02 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 0⤋
The diagrams show a fuel tank.
There's a descent engine and fuel tanks for the descent engine in the descent stage (the section left behind).
There's an ascent engine and fuel tanks for the ascent engine in the ascent stage (the part that left the Moon).
(You are correct that we didn't have the technology to do this when Kennedy committed us to landing a man on the Moon before the end of the decade. People were getting mighty nervous about already planning the Apollo launch and a way to get the astronauts into orbit around the Moon with no way to get them both down to the surface and back up. Pushing technology so far, so fast wouldn't normally be considered a very responsible thing to do.)
Edit: Mark gets a thumbs up just for mentioning slide rules. :)
2007-12-08 03:10:01 · answer #2 · answered by Bob G 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Beyond the road the limit includes the availability of advanced life support and for law enforcement to oversee crash sites. 75 mph is much more survivable than 80 mph, which in turn is much more survivable than 85 mph. At 100 mph virtually all accidents are fatalities, which (from a regulatory standpoint) can tie up officers and shut down the road for half a day. At 120 mph, see the video in the first source. Vehicles have to be designed for a maximum impact speed, the speed at which the crumple zones are exhausted and the restraints have done all they could. In the 1970s it was established the "sweet spot" for maximum impact speed for passenger vehicles was about 80 mph. By that speed fatalities are common anyway so it didn't matter if the cars were designed for 90 mph. Speed limits reflect the jurisdiction's willingness to deal with the carnage from higher speeds. 70 mph is pretty safe, 80 mph is asking for trouble. 90 mph is just plain stupid.
2016-05-22 04:05:38 · answer #3 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
5,187 lb of the 10,300 lb mass of the ascent stage is fuel. And since the Moon only has 1/6 as much gravity as Earth, and no atmosphere, that is enough fuel to reach lunar orbit. 3,000 MPH lunar orbit at 50 miles altitude is much easier to reach than 17,500 MPH Earth orbit at 200 miles altitude, especially plowing through the Earth's atmosphere for the first 50 or so miles.
Saying the Moon landings were impossible because 1968 technology was not good enough is like saying the ancient Egyptians didn't have the technology to build the pyramids thousands of years ago. Both statements grossly underestimate the abilities of past people.
2007-12-08 09:51:56 · answer #4 · answered by campbelp2002 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Most of the fuel for the trip back to Earth was never taken down to the lunar surface; it remained in orbit with the command module. For the short trip from lunar orbit down to the surface and then back up, there was plenty of fuel in the base of the module that had the folding legs. The design allowed that base to be left behind further lightening the load, and the moon's minimal gravity gave the LEM fuel much more "bang for the buck" as it were... Maybe better expressed as "buck (push-off) for the bang",....
2007-12-08 03:13:38 · answer #5 · answered by @lec 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I doubt very much that you downloaded all the NASA schematics, because there are many available that quite clearly do show fuel tanks, such as this one from the NASA site.
http://history.nasa.gov/diagrams/ad015.gif
There's a big sphere clearly labelled APS fuel tank, and guess what it contained.
So don't try to bulls**t us that you know what you're talking about when quite clearly you haven't the first clue about the technology of Apollo or the era in general. An era that gave us ICBMs, nuclear bombs (fission and fusion), interplanetary probes, supersonic bombers, nuclear submarines....
2007-12-08 08:16:11 · answer #6 · answered by Jason T 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Your information is incorrect. We did have the technology. They did have the fuel. The design shows how the fuel was stored and if you are a rocket scientist, you can calculate for yourself the amount of fuel needed and whether or not that is consistent with the fuel on board.
Learn how to read schematics before you disparage the marvelous achievement of thousands of other people.
2007-12-08 03:03:18 · answer #7 · answered by Brant 7 · 6⤊ 0⤋
When I saw the lift off from the moon, it looked more like a blast off, as in an explosive type. The weak gravity on the moon likely made it sufficient to shoot it back to the command module. I suppose it would have to be a directed blast calculated to reach the proper orbit to rendezvous with the command module.
2007-12-08 03:07:57 · answer #8 · answered by Harold S 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
KBW3----answered your question; we did have the technical ability as proven by 6 lunar missions. This topic comes up about every 30 minutes on Answers------- I wish folks would read the archives and look at LINKS that have been posted in the past.
Either that OR just join the flat Earth Society............ they ALSO have PROOF that the Earth is not round.
2007-12-08 03:35:11 · answer #9 · answered by Bullseye 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You are a dumb a** if you believe in those stupid conspiricy theories.
Stop scaring the kiddies out there. Next time do the research before you make such a foolish claim. Sheesh! Some People.
2007-12-08 03:33:57 · answer #10 · answered by B. 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋