Apollo Flags Still Standing
Discussion
Simpo Two said:
Apart from being blown over on take-off, how could they fall over later?
Deterioration of the flagpole and the flag itself. The UV is phenomenally harsh and will attack not just the dyes but the polymers in the materials used in the flag and flagpole. At some point they will become too weak to support themselves even under lunar gravity and will crumble.As a kid in the early 80s, my parents got a highly fashionable garden table and chairs in a stylish white plastic. After being stashed behind the garden shed for 20+ years, the plastic table top crumbled as soon as you touched it. I can see how over 40+ years and without the benefit of UV attenuation from the atmosphere, a cloth flag could turn to dust.
On the second matter "what did lunar exploration ever do for us?" there was a BBC World Service (or possibly Radio 4) programme on the subject a few years ago. The direct and indirect effects were huge. Even aside from the important point of beating the Russians (and anyone who doesn't remember the Cold War will not appreciate how REALLY important this was) the money filtered down very quickly and boosted the economy all over the US. We tend to think of NASA as being just Houston and Kennedy Space Centre, but they have facilities all around the country, and their suppliers are all over the place.
The catalytic effect it had on integrated circuit development alone was probably worth the money, and modern Quality Assurance methodologies can be traced directly back to the Apollo and related programmes. QA is one of those dull, boring, grey things that people don't notice, but is responsible for simply making things work. Whether it is medical drugs, cars that work better at 100,000 miles than a 1963 car ever did at 10, or planes that don't fall out of the sky.
Might be of interest. I like the cost of the flag and where it came from. Probably. Footnote 10.
http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/flag/flag.htm
http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/flag/flag.htm
CommanderJameson said:
Guvernator said:
Spiders on drugs
Coolest experiment ever.Anyway don't go off topic, Eric gets upset.
I always wondered why the flags looked like they were flapping in the wind and now I know so thanks to whoever linked that article. Nice to know it's because a latch broke\didn't work properly rather than the myriad other conspiracy fueled theories.
The problem is that the "conspiracy" has been discussed to death on PH and many other fora. I just get tired having to wade through all the same old non-science/nonsense again and again.
By all means have the discussion (again) on some other thread. I might even join in
.
But it can pollute genuine chat about Apollo on what was intended to be a sensible thread.
By all means have the discussion (again) on some other thread. I might even join in
.But it can pollute genuine chat about Apollo on what was intended to be a sensible thread.
Speaking of Apollo then I recently visited the Science Musuem to take my nieces round for a bit of fun and enlightenment. Hadn't been there for years and have to say was very surprised by the size of the Apollo 10 command module. I assume the one in the musuem is either the real one or a full scale model? Either way it was tiny and looked very fragile indeed. Absolutely not what I'd choose as the spacecraft to hurtle through space in. Big brass balls on those guys I have to say!
Also I've not been keeping up on the latest NASA developments. Are their any plans to revisit the moon at all or is Mars the new hot destination now? If so when and who will be planting the flag on Mars, any predictions?
Also I've not been keeping up on the latest NASA developments. Are their any plans to revisit the moon at all or is Mars the new hot destination now? If so when and who will be planting the flag on Mars, any predictions?
I can confirm that the Apollo 10 Command Module on display at the Science Museum in London is the real deal. It was very kindly donated by NASA not long after the mission in 1969.
It is indeed a very small space in which to live and work for a fortnight - the length of time of an average lunar mission. However, having come from Mercury and Gemini, most of the astronauts at the time were very impressed with the large amount of volume they had in the Command Module compared to the earlier spacecraft. Apollo is still quite a bit more spacious inside than the Soyuz Command Module - which is still in use. And Soyuz was partly designed with lunar missions in mind.
As for future manned missions, the US is in a bit of a hiatus at the moment. Obama shelved the Ares/Constellation programme which would have seen a return to the moon. All elements of the programme have been cancelled except for the Command Module style spacecraft called Orion. Orion is a kind of super-Apollo - being similar in shape but about 1/3 bigger. The first flightworthy example of the Orion Command Module was recently delivered to the Kennedy Space Centre.
The problem at the moment is that NASA does not have a definitive booster in existence which can launch the thing.
There is a tentative programme for a Saturn V class rocket called the SLS (Space Launch System - I hope they eventually come up with a better name that that).
There is also the possibility that the Orion could be launched on top of a modified Atlas V.
Boeing are even angling for the re-opening of the F1 rocket engine production line. The legendary Saturn V used five F1s on the first stage.
It is indeed a very small space in which to live and work for a fortnight - the length of time of an average lunar mission. However, having come from Mercury and Gemini, most of the astronauts at the time were very impressed with the large amount of volume they had in the Command Module compared to the earlier spacecraft. Apollo is still quite a bit more spacious inside than the Soyuz Command Module - which is still in use. And Soyuz was partly designed with lunar missions in mind.
As for future manned missions, the US is in a bit of a hiatus at the moment. Obama shelved the Ares/Constellation programme which would have seen a return to the moon. All elements of the programme have been cancelled except for the Command Module style spacecraft called Orion. Orion is a kind of super-Apollo - being similar in shape but about 1/3 bigger. The first flightworthy example of the Orion Command Module was recently delivered to the Kennedy Space Centre.
The problem at the moment is that NASA does not have a definitive booster in existence which can launch the thing.
There is a tentative programme for a Saturn V class rocket called the SLS (Space Launch System - I hope they eventually come up with a better name that that).
There is also the possibility that the Orion could be launched on top of a modified Atlas V.
Boeing are even angling for the re-opening of the F1 rocket engine production line. The legendary Saturn V used five F1s on the first stage.
10 looked pretty purpose built to me. On 10 in the museum, if memory serves, you can still see the effects of the atmosphere, not very fragile. I would be surprised if it were not what is there. The mock up of the LM on the other hand surprised me, the size of it. I was expecting smaller there.
Yep obviously not fragile as it stood up to the abuse of getting hurled into space, round the moon and more importantly back again, RE-ENTRY and to top it off dropped in the ocean.
Bearing all that in mind it still looks rather small and fragile and all relativley untried\untested at the time too compared to stuff built nowadays. A modern car looks sturdier and probably goes through more rigorous safety testing and cars don't travel thorugh vacuum at several hundred thousand miles per hour!
Would I have gone in one given the opportunity, probably but all the time thinking that the odds of making it back in one piece weren't that great. I wonder if the astronaut's were actually fully aware of the dangers and the very slim margins for error when they volunteered? If so then then they were even braver.
Bearing all that in mind it still looks rather small and fragile and all relativley untried\untested at the time too compared to stuff built nowadays. A modern car looks sturdier and probably goes through more rigorous safety testing and cars don't travel thorugh vacuum at several hundred thousand miles per hour!
Would I have gone in one given the opportunity, probably but all the time thinking that the odds of making it back in one piece weren't that great. I wonder if the astronaut's were actually fully aware of the dangers and the very slim margins for error when they volunteered? If so then then they were even braver.
They were pretty aware of the dangers involved is spaceflight. However, they took it in their stride because the bulk of them had come out of US Military Test Flight (Air Force and Navy/Marines, mostly). So they were pretty used to living with the possibility of a catastrophic and dramatic fatal incident.
Regarding "thousands of miles an hour in a vacuum", that is probably the easiest bit as regards strength of the spacecraft. For the Command Module the real test was re-entry - as the re-entry was done directly from the return path from the moon. Therefore, the spacecraft impacted the upper atmosphere at 25,000 mph (a good 7,500 mph faster than an earth orbiting spacecraft does). The heat discolouration and searing evident on the Apollo 10 Command Module is testimony to the heat endured on re-entry.
Having said all that, it was the Command/Service Module that caused the two most serious incidents in teh Apollo programme, the fire that killed the Apollo 1 astronauts in 1967 and the oxygen tank explosion that nearly killed the Apollo 13 crew.
Regarding "thousands of miles an hour in a vacuum", that is probably the easiest bit as regards strength of the spacecraft. For the Command Module the real test was re-entry - as the re-entry was done directly from the return path from the moon. Therefore, the spacecraft impacted the upper atmosphere at 25,000 mph (a good 7,500 mph faster than an earth orbiting spacecraft does). The heat discolouration and searing evident on the Apollo 10 Command Module is testimony to the heat endured on re-entry.
Having said all that, it was the Command/Service Module that caused the two most serious incidents in teh Apollo programme, the fire that killed the Apollo 1 astronauts in 1967 and the oxygen tank explosion that nearly killed the Apollo 13 crew.
If you think the Apollo X CM was a confined space, then think about Frank Borman & Jim Lovell spending 2 weeks aboard Gemini VII in 1965. 2 weeks spent doing Mach 25 while sitting in the same space as the front 2 seats in a Nissan Micra. In pressure suits (mostly).
If you can, have a look at an original Vostok spacecraft. It's a bit confined. Fancy doing Mach 25 in that, followed by a pre-meditated ejection in order to parachute to the ground after re-entry? Yahoo!
If you can, have a look at an original Vostok spacecraft. It's a bit confined. Fancy doing Mach 25 in that, followed by a pre-meditated ejection in order to parachute to the ground after re-entry? Yahoo!
speedtwelve said:
If you think the Apollo X CM was a confined space, then think about Frank Borman & Jim Lovell spending 2 weeks aboard Gemini VII in 1965. 2 weeks spent doing Mach 25 while sitting in the same space as the front 2 seats in a Nissan Micra. In pressure suits (mostly).
If you can, have a look at an original Vostok spacecraft. It's a bit confined. Fancy doing Mach 25 in that, followed by a pre-meditated ejection in order to parachute to the ground after re-entry? Yahoo!
As I said earlier, the Soyuz is not that big at all. Neither is the Chinese Shenzhou.If you can, have a look at an original Vostok spacecraft. It's a bit confined. Fancy doing Mach 25 in that, followed by a pre-meditated ejection in order to parachute to the ground after re-entry? Yahoo!
Travelling at "Mach 25" in space is not really that spectacular. Indeed, it's a bit of a misleading way to describe what is going on - since the spacecraft is travelling in a vacuum. Obviously, re-entry is a different kettle of fish - although at the initial impact point with the atmosphere, when speeds are at or near Mach 25, the air is extremely thin.
speedtwelve said:
I've heard NASA astronauts use Mach Nos to refer to on-orbit speeds, near-vacuum notwithstanding. Always thought it sounded more impressive than 17600mph!
Well, in all my reading of NASA material over the decades - whether histories, biographies or technical books, I have never heard anyone refer to velocity in space as a Mach number. The only time it is mentioned is during re-entry when it does, of course, have some real meaning.And I'm impressed by speeds of 17,500 mph (or even 25,000 mph - for Apollo) even if you aren't.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff