Managed to survive to drastic temperature changes, radiation, the film wasn't destroyed, nailed it on the first try. Took the pictures despite being unable to see exposure settings and wearing pressurized gloves. Transmitting an analog TV signal 250,000 miles from earth when they yet degraded over a small distance on earth.
And the problem wasnt sending a signal, it was sending one in real time, there was at least a 2.4 second delay in the signal yet the president had no problem talking to them in real time.
Watching it again, I see there is a cut for a second. I dont remember this in the original video. In fact the original one isnt in the top results. But I did find this.
Original clip, there is a delay. Does seem rather long though. If it takes like 2.4-3 seconds to reach the moon and back. Wouldnt it only take like 1.5 seconds to get from the moon to the earth, another couple seconds to get from florida to washington. Just a delay in the equipment proably? Meh whatever. Im interested in the new moon mission, for sure. Thought it was interesting they strapped the dummys with radiation vests because of "boobies".
Not to mention, they built a 1:1 ratio full size set in the desert, where they recreated the craters exactly by using bombs. Boy I bet that took some effort. Prolly easier than going to the moon at that time.
But for the lander itself, it would work. No atmosphere, no weather. The vacumn itself is a very little threat. Its radiation that makes it inhospitable for organic things, and traditional electronics as well.
If a can of sheet thin aluminum can do it, then for sure something thicker would as well. Of course, thats not going to do anything for a random cosmic or solar event though. Amazing no one ended up sterile or crazy from the trip.
Forget the lander, look at that horizon line. Am I suppose to believe that the moon is that tiny compared to other pictures of it with greater distance between the camera and horizon? Are they above some giant cavern or hill? Wouldn't we still be able to see further? Why does it just suddenly stop not too far after the lander?
That's not tin foil it's a highly engineered material known as MYLAR. Back in the '60s it had special properties that allowed 5 mil sheet to block space rays. Nowadays the physics have changed which is why NASA is combing the materials science research for a suitable replacement for Orion.
It was a vehicle designed for a low-gravity environment; they look flimsy but are heavily engineered to work well. You're belittling enormous engineering effort. Fucking talentless retard.
I received your gift of space crayons. They will be really useful to decorate the walls where I am confined. I had been drawing crosses in my own blood but these have nice colors and they're soft and chewy too.
Not really. It is just that I have no tolerance for morons whether they are in engineering or especially in politics. As for your comment that I'm not an engineer but a shill, it's invalid - I'm a good quality engineer and for that matter, a scientist and I'll take on any challengers any time. And I enjoyed working at JPL on space things, and gained a lot of knowledge about the things we put in space. So I don't take it lightly when dumb people like the op mock genuine engineering.
People forget that gravity on the moon is far lower than earth normal. This means you do not have to build a spacecraft out of Arnold Schwarzenger's bones - the structural members need only be 1/5 as strong an earth craft would need. Thus the lunar lander looks flimsy but is quite suited for the moon.
I am an engineer who worked for JPL at NASA on unmanned spacecraft and Air Force satellites. I have probably forgotten more space engineering than you've had hot breakfasts. You speak of things you actually have no personal knowledge of, so go look up Dunning-Kroger then do more readings and elevate your mind.
If the 'prop' is so functionally complete that it can actually do the function it's supposed to simulate, is it a prop anymore? No. It's an actual lunar lander. One that was sent to and landed on the moon.
Managed to survive to drastic temperature changes, radiation, the film wasn't destroyed, nailed it on the first try. Took the pictures despite being unable to see exposure settings and wearing pressurized gloves. Transmitting an analog TV signal 250,000 miles from earth when they yet degraded over a small distance on earth.
Also, good thing they had the exposure set to "disable background stars in all shots".
I dont believe they made it to the moon, but a couple notes here.
Ive mentioned before, when the soviets wanted to take a picture of the moon, they used spyfilm they had taken from crashed weather balloons.
https://fstoppers.com/film/how-soviet-union-snapped-first-picture-far-side-moon-captured-air-force-kodak-325971
And the problem wasnt sending a signal, it was sending one in real time, there was at least a 2.4 second delay in the signal yet the president had no problem talking to them in real time.
https://youtu.be/WTFZpZFeF18?t=119
Wheres the delay?
Watching it again, I see there is a cut for a second. I dont remember this in the original video. In fact the original one isnt in the top results. But I did find this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkJk76wh4-4
So this guy is proably right.
https://youtu.be/1Ai_HCBDQIQ
Original clip, there is a delay. Does seem rather long though. If it takes like 2.4-3 seconds to reach the moon and back. Wouldnt it only take like 1.5 seconds to get from the moon to the earth, another couple seconds to get from florida to washington. Just a delay in the equipment proably? Meh whatever. Im interested in the new moon mission, for sure. Thought it was interesting they strapped the dummys with radiation vests because of "boobies".
Not to mention, they built a 1:1 ratio full size set in the desert, where they recreated the craters exactly by using bombs. Boy I bet that took some effort. Prolly easier than going to the moon at that time.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/going-moon-apollo-11-astronauts-trained-these-five-sites-180972452/
But for the lander itself, it would work. No atmosphere, no weather. The vacumn itself is a very little threat. Its radiation that makes it inhospitable for organic things, and traditional electronics as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSZMNu4PWf8
If a can of sheet thin aluminum can do it, then for sure something thicker would as well. Of course, thats not going to do anything for a random cosmic or solar event though. Amazing no one ended up sterile or crazy from the trip.
No way man you can totally pressurize it with air.
its looks like a fucking ikea build. some people cant let this one go
Forget the lander, look at that horizon line. Am I suppose to believe that the moon is that tiny compared to other pictures of it with greater distance between the camera and horizon? Are they above some giant cavern or hill? Wouldn't we still be able to see further? Why does it just suddenly stop not too far after the lander?
Gold tin foil blocks radiation from the Van Allen belt
That's not tin foil it's a highly engineered material known as MYLAR. Back in the '60s it had special properties that allowed 5 mil sheet to block space rays. Nowadays the physics have changed which is why NASA is combing the materials science research for a suitable replacement for Orion.
What about the physics has changed
physics has literally changed that's why going to the moon so hard now
I can put tyvek on a house straighter than the panels on that thing
It was a vehicle designed for a low-gravity environment; they look flimsy but are heavily engineered to work well. You're belittling enormous engineering effort. Fucking talentless retard.
I received your gift of space crayons. They will be really useful to decorate the walls where I am confined. I had been drawing crosses in my own blood but these have nice colors and they're soft and chewy too.
You seem like an angry person...
Not really. It is just that I have no tolerance for morons whether they are in engineering or especially in politics. As for your comment that I'm not an engineer but a shill, it's invalid - I'm a good quality engineer and for that matter, a scientist and I'll take on any challengers any time. And I enjoyed working at JPL on space things, and gained a lot of knowledge about the things we put in space. So I don't take it lightly when dumb people like the op mock genuine engineering. People forget that gravity on the moon is far lower than earth normal. This means you do not have to build a spacecraft out of Arnold Schwarzenger's bones - the structural members need only be 1/5 as strong an earth craft would need. Thus the lunar lander looks flimsy but is quite suited for the moon.
You lack discernment you gullible fool.
Grow the f up
I am an engineer who worked for JPL at NASA on unmanned spacecraft and Air Force satellites. I have probably forgotten more space engineering than you've had hot breakfasts. You speak of things you actually have no personal knowledge of, so go look up Dunning-Kroger then do more readings and elevate your mind.
You are incompetent
You literally do not understand the concept of “UP”
Respond to this message and ill prove it
And then ill post your response to my proof, as a new post, so everyone else can laugh at your dumbass
Also, you spelled Kruger wrong
you're an idiot troll. fuck off
No, that's your mother.
Do astronauts have to go “UP” to get to the moon?
You are a shill, not an engineer.
Would make a nice wallpaper.
All the schematics and blueprints for this 'prop' are still available online.
https://history.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-LMdocs.html
If the 'prop' is so functionally complete that it can actually do the function it's supposed to simulate, is it a prop anymore? No. It's an actual lunar lander. One that was sent to and landed on the moon.
You fucking morons never post a pic of the LM without its mylar isolation
Look --- metal...
sheet metal boxes are an odd design choice for a pressure vessel
its high grade aircraft aluminum -- with titanium welds
You need strongly reinforced chassis to survive all the spacewind and heavy gravity on the moon...
You need a strongly reinforced chastity.