Neil Armstrongs widow finds....
Discussion
I am curious to know if more people actually knew. How much weight would bugger up the approach and re entry that was not known? All that would need to be calculated and it would be stowed. Then recovered. Just wondering if this is not the story it seems, rather "Oh yeah, we did, didn't we". Wonder what Mr Collins has to say.
I am sure that the weight of the camera would have had an insignificant impact on the trajectory and flight path of the re-entering Command Module - which would have been Armstrong's logic on this I'm sure.
After all, as each mission took place, the Command Module re-entered at heavier and heavier weights. Later missions carried more gear and, most importantly came back carrying a heavier load of moon rocks each time which would have been much heavier than a small 16mm camera.
After all, as each mission took place, the Command Module re-entered at heavier and heavier weights. Later missions carried more gear and, most importantly came back carrying a heavier load of moon rocks each time which would have been much heavier than a small 16mm camera.
I am pretty sure there was plenty of margin of error built into the Command Module design to ensure that it could cope with a wide range of weights. Probably more important was the amount of weight they could load into the Lunar Module for lift off from the lunar surface.
They certainly wouldn't have wanted to compromise its ability to lift off safely. The cine camera would have been an item that WASN'T supposed to be left on the moon as it had a job to do during lift-off i.e. film the event from the right hand window - as seen here. This is the Apollo 14 imagery as it is better quality than Apollo 11 but it is the type of footage taken with the 16mm camera during a lunar lift off.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEFxZNqFlN0
They certainly wouldn't have wanted to compromise its ability to lift off safely. The cine camera would have been an item that WASN'T supposed to be left on the moon as it had a job to do during lift-off i.e. film the event from the right hand window - as seen here. This is the Apollo 14 imagery as it is better quality than Apollo 11 but it is the type of footage taken with the 16mm camera during a lunar lift off.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEFxZNqFlN0
Doctor Volt said:
What will they come up with next in attempting to make it look like it really did happen?
Perhaps an Alien found in an old wardrobe being sold from an antique shop opposite The Whitehouse
Didn't there were antique shops opposite the Whitehouse. But then I have never been there.Perhaps an Alien found in an old wardrobe being sold from an antique shop opposite The Whitehouse
jmorgan said:
Apart from one (13), on the moon I think. They left them in orbit, probably crashed. Better not have future missions have to contend with them in orbit. Not sure about 10.
Here is a complete history of the ultimate fates of all the Lunar Modules that flew in space - Apollo 4 - LTA-10R (a test article rather than a full LM) Burned up in earth's atmosphere
Apollo 5 - LM1. This LM was legless and burned up in earth's atmosphere
Apollo 6 - LTA-2R Another test article that burned up in earth's atmosphere
Apollo 7 - No LM carried
Apollo 8 - No LM carried
Apollo 9 - 1st manned test of LM (LM3) in earth orbit. Ascent and descent stages both burned up in earth's atmosphere
Apollo 10 - 1st flight of an LM to the moon (LM4) Did not land. Descent stage jettisoned at a height of 50,000 feet above the moon and crashed to the surface. The ascent stage was jettisoned in earth orbit and then fired into an orbit around the sun - where it still is today.
Apollo 11 - 1st lunar landing (LM5). Descent stage sitting on Sea of Tranquility. Ascent stage jettisoned in lunar orbit and crashed back onto the moon at an unknown point.
Apollo 12 - LM6 Descent stage on Ocean of Storms. Ascent stage, same fate as LM5.
Apollo 13 - LM7 Used as a lifeboat to save the crew. Burned up in earth's atmopshere
Apollo 14 - LM8 Descent stage at Fra Mauro. Ascent stage deliberately crashed at targeted point - partly to check on seismometer readings from equipment left by Apollos 11 and 12.
Apollo 15 - LM10 Descent stage at Hadley Rille. Same fate as LM8.
Apollo 16 - LM11 Descent stage at Descartes. The ascent stage went out of control after it was jettisoned so the planned targeted impact on the moon had to be abandoned. It did later crash but no one knows where.
Apollo 17 - LM12 Descent stage sits in the Taurus-Littrow Valley. The ascent stage was deliberately crashed into the moon as in Apollos 14 and 15.
Eric Mc said:
Apollo 10 - 1st flight of an LM to the moon (LM4) Did not land. Descent stage jettisoned at a height of 50,000 feet above the moon and crashed to the surface. The ascent stage was jettisoned in earth orbit and then fired into an orbit around the sun - where it still is today.
Ah, Snoopy. I believe there are some on-going efforts to pin-point it. That true? Last I heard on this subject was 3 or 4 years ago.I find it fascinating that it's still out there somewhere... unless it's been swallowed by the sun (I've not idea whether that would be possible / how far out it was).
It's orbit would be similar to earth's around the sun - so not likely that has fallen the 93 million miles in towards the sun.
One of the SIV stages (top stage of the Saturn V) was "discovered" as an asteroid orbiting the sun - but was subsequently identified as a bit of an Apollo rocket.
One of the SIV stages (top stage of the Saturn V) was "discovered" as an asteroid orbiting the sun - but was subsequently identified as a bit of an Apollo rocket.
In the first trips to the moon, Apollos 8 and 10, there was no attempt to direct the SIVB stage after it had fired the motor to send the Command/Service Module (and Lunar Module - if attached) to the moon. Once the Apollo craft was separated from the SIVB, then it just continued on in its path - mised the moon and entered orbit around the sun.
On later missions, the SIVB was redirected to impact into the lunar surface - partly to ensure it didn't become space junk but mainly so that it could test the effectiveness of the seismometers left on the surface of the moon by the astronauts.
On later missions, the SIVB was redirected to impact into the lunar surface - partly to ensure it didn't become space junk but mainly so that it could test the effectiveness of the seismometers left on the surface of the moon by the astronauts.
Eric Mc said:
Only some of it. But those moon cars just need a set of new batteries and they are good to go.
Were they purely battery powered with no fuel cell electricity generation? Wow - imagine future visits - they could take the rover's weight in batteries alone and go on some long-range trips.I also wonder, with the advancement of e-vehicle tech, what sort of lunar rover they could produce these days.
The cars were purely battery powered. The fuel cell technology used on Apollo was liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen to generate electricity so needed quite large cryogenic fuel tanks. This would have been impractical for a small car like the Lunar Rover.
Interestingly, the Orion spacecraft is NOT going to use fuel cell technology as its main power source. For the first time ever (the Skylab space station excepted), an American manned spacecraft will be powered by an array of solar cells - like Soyuz.
Interestingly, the Orion spacecraft is NOT going to use fuel cell technology as its main power source. For the first time ever (the Skylab space station excepted), an American manned spacecraft will be powered by an array of solar cells - like Soyuz.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff