When you know the government lies but, you still trust NASA, you're only:

submitted by JasonCarswell from cdn.discordapp.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Satellites are real. Space shuttles are real. These travel in near Earth orbits.

The farthest the shuttle has gone is just over 400 miles, which is 1/15th the distance across the US. The moon is an orbiting object that is 250,000 miles away.

1/6 gravity may help, but having no atmosphere means that all motion control is 100% caused by both gravity and thrusters. One tiny overcompensation and it's over.

One mistake = Over.

In that instant the manually controlled craft starts overrotating the thrust that balances against the pull of gravity is off-balance. Gravity continues to pull towards the center of the moon. Any horizontal force vector applied by the rocket being out of alignment will:

1) push the craft sideways.
2) create a rotational moment, and begin to rotate the craft around it's center of mass.
3) reduce the force vector that was decelerating the craft against the moons acceleration/gravity.

For perspective: It's probably a good time to consider the fact that all of the controls on the lunar lander are either mechanical, or electronic. Not computer controlled. All manual. The computer controls used in modern ABS brakes far exceeds anything available in 1969.

There's no guidance to save them.
No accelerometers.
No laser guidance or laser range (distance) finding.

Just 3 pilots sitting in a windowless aluminum box that is 10 feet (or so) above a giant lunar landing rocket booster (which is huge, but still undersized; given its supposed to launch then back into space from the moon).

Again, just 3 pilots in a windowless aluminum box, with steering controls consisting of:

  • Electronic/mechanical analogue knobs.
  • Electronic/mechanical switches (on/off).
  • Mechanical/electronic analogue steering controls.
  • Manual controlled side thrusters (4)

This is truly an impossible feat. This is a basic descriptive breakdown of only one necessary portion of the supposed to the moon.

This is beyond impossible. Space X crashed 1/3 rockets during their recent falcon heavy mission, and they have the best and most modern computer-controlled equipment that money can buy.

Manually Landing on the moon is not even remotely possible for a single landing in a thousand attempts. 6/6 successful NASA lunar landings in the 70s is slapstick comedy.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Having no air resistance is both a pro and a con. It's neither something to rely on or "lean" against nor something to complicate things.

I'm not saying your wrong, but you're comparing apples and orangutans.

The ace pilots would be better than computers at a lot.

The Space X vehicles are sooo different than the lander.

A better point to make is that their failures with the LLRV. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=LLRV+ejection

They claim to have gotten a handle on it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=091ezcY-mkU

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Agreed. The lander vs. space X crafts are very different.

The space X versions are superior in nearly every capacity. Yet, 33% (1/3) crashed upon landing. The lunar lander had a 100% (6/6) successful landing record on the moon...?