[ARCHIVED THREAD] - SPACE-Apollo Missions question (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 8/28/2008 3:09:30 PM EDT
|
I have a question about the Apollo LEM's. We all know that when the LEM's left the Moon, the descent stage stayed on the Lunar surface and only the ascent stage returned to orbit to rendezvous with the command module. We also know that only the capsule portion of the command module re-entered the Earth's atmosphere and splashed down in the ocean. So obviously the ascent module of the LEM and the "engine section" (I don't know the correct term) of the command module were discarded along the way back to Earth. My question is this; what happened to them? Did they re-enter the atmosphere as well and burn up, or did they continue on a different trajectory and go into orbit around the Sun? If they are in solar orbit, it seems to me that they would come back around every now and then and maybe have a close encounter with the Earth, like old friends dropping by for a visit while they're in the neighborhood. Anybody know? Anybody at least want to get IBTT (In Before The Truthers)? 
|
They ditched them on purpose to test the seismometers they had left on the surface. |
Interesting. And in before the 'moon landings were faked' crowd. |
That would take some insane resolution! Something about the size of a mini-van at over 240,000 miles makes for an itty-bitty target. I think it's safe to say my Meade 10" won't be picking it out!
|
|
Ascent module, impacted back on the moon. undocked before the burn to head back to earth. Service module burned up in earth atmosphere, separated from the capsule a hour or so before reentry. A few third stages are in a solar orbit, other hit them moon, depending on the launch trajectory. |
indeed. i looked it up. it would take a GIGANTIC mirror to see at that kind of resolution necessary to see our stuff on the moon. www.popsci.com/military-aviation-space/article/2008-07/could-hubble-space-telescope-photograph-lunar-footprints |
Not even Hubble can resolve landing sites. 
|
|
Read today in an astronomy magazine that at least one of the lunar orbiting satellites (Japanese, I believe) can "see" craters made by the lunar landing module's descent rocket motor. They can also see what they "think" are shadows of the landing modules when the sunlight is at a low angle, but the resolution of the cameras isn't good enough to see the actual hardware. On the other hand, the Mars orbiters can see the various Mars spacecraft on the surface of Mars, so there's an apparent difference in capabilities for some reason, even though the technologies should be similar. There's even a photo of the most recent Mars lander (Phoenix) on the parachute as it decends to the surface. The distance is almost 200 miles. (from the orbiter to the lander) The same article said that earth telescopes and Hubble didn't have near enough resolution to pick up the hardware. |
This is what I was talking about. I guess I should have been more specific when I said "high resolution." |
|
Neat bit of trivia on this subject: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J002E3 ETA: This is what some people are talking about on page 2. 3rd stage from Apollo 12 was thought to be an asteroid until they determined it was man-made. Check out the link. |
|
It's interesting stuff. I was going through the models at a local hobby shop today on my lunch hour and decided to pick up a model of the Apollo 11 landing. It just got me to thinking about things and I realized there were some things I didn't know. I appreciate all your input!
|
|
Apollo 5 Lunar Module - Burned up in Earth's atmosphere Apollo 9 Lunar Module "Spider" - Both stages burned up in Earth's atmosphere Apollo 10 Lunar Module "Snoopy" - Descent stage jettisoned, impacted moon, site unknown; ascent stage in heliocentric orbit Apollo 11 Lunar Module "Eagle" - Descent stage on moon; ascent stage jettisoned from Columbia on July 21, 1969 at 23:41 UT, impact site unknown Apollo 12 Lunar Module "Intrepid" - Descent stage on moon; ascent stage impacted Moon on November 20, 1969 at 22:17:17.7 UT 3.94 S, 21.20 W Apollo 13 Lunar Module "Aquarius" - Both stages burned up in Earth's atmosphere April 17, 1970 Apollo 14 Lunar Module "Antares" - Descent stage on moon; ascent stage impacted Moon on February 7, 1971 at 00:45:25.7 UT 3.42 S, 19.67 W Apollo 15 Lunar Module "Falcon" - Descent stage on moon; ascent stage impacted Moon on August 4, 1971 at 03:03:37.0 UT 26.36 N, 0.25 E Apollo 16 Lunar Module "Orion" - Descent stage on moon; ascent stage jettisoned on April 24, 1972, loss of attitude control made targeted impact impossible, impact site unknown Apollo 17 Lunar Module "Challenger" - Descent stage on moon; ascent stage impacted Moon on December 15, 1972 at 06:50:20.8 UT 19.96 N, 30.50 E |
This situation is similar to Earth orbit recon satellites (distance, etc). What cannot [yet] be done is resolve a landing site on the Moon from Earth orbit (200,000+ miles) |
I believe, if true, that would be called ........................... testing 
|
|
The lunar ascent modules crashed back on the moon. They were not parked in orbit. They docked with the CSM and then were jettisoned. They didn't bother trying to give them any additional fuel nor do all the work that would be involved in putting them in a stable orbit. The moon's gravity pulled them down and they crashed. I believe they used the impact of the ascent stage to verify the Apollo Lunar Seismic Experiment Package (ALSEP) was functioning properly. The service modules were burned up on entry to the earth's atmosphere. Again, they were not parked in a stable orbit. Once the CM separated, they would simply get pulled down by gravity and the atmosphere did the rest. I believe their trajectories were done such that any bits that survived reentry would impact the ocean. Just be virtue of being in space, doesn't mean an object will stay there. It actually takes a lot of work to achieve a stable orbit. It also takes a fair amount of fuel. Weight was critical for the Apollo missions and they really didn't carry much more fuel than was necessary to get the job done. Parking the SM or the LM in orbit would have taken a lot of fuel would would not have provided any benefits for doing so. |
I have seen strong evidence that bigfoot is frozen in a big block of ice in a cooler somewhere in North Carolina. 
|
Lying government pawn! Everyone knows Bigfoot is in SOUTH Carolina! 
|
Capabilities depend on the purpose of a mission. The Mars orbiters were given some pretty fancy and expensive optics to match their mission profile. The Japanese bird would be outfitted according to the mission profile specific to it, and according to whatever budget they had to work with. There's no point of going through the costs associated with being able to optically resolve objects that are under 20 meters in size if you're only planning to study objects many times larger than that. You save weight and cost everywhere you can. Unneeded capabilities are the first things to go. If it costs you 300K per lb of stuff you want to put in orbit around the moon, you tend to build the absolute minimum you need. (I forget what the actual cost per lb or kg is, but it is not cheap) |
This is a testiment that there are some gullible people out there that will believe in any outlandish conspiracy theory. |
 ETA: Please, show us this "evidence". We would all like to see it, too. |
Yeah and none of the amateur astronomers or other nations with the capability to do so noticed...  Here's your sign... Wait, you were joking, right? 
|
As a former Space Shuttle Door Gunner, I would have to call your "strong evidence"..... 
|
|
Several years ago a UFO was spotted in a near-earth trajectory and I believe it was concluded that it was an SIVB (Saturn V third stage) from one of the Apollo shots that was in an eternal solar orbit and was returning for a visit. Don't recall if they could conclude which mission it supported, but based their conclusion on the fact that it was "shiny" like a white-painted aluminum tank would be and that it was tumbing as would be expected. Don't think they had any definitive pictures. |
One thing to note is that the moon is a very bright object, most telescope used by astronomers are designed to look at very faint objects. If you built a scope that could see stuff on the moon, there would be basically nothing else it could look at, and so not very useful. |
We both knew it was gonna happen. Let's both act surprised. Ready? On 3. 1...2...3!!! 
|
Cool, that one got by me too. Thanks for the info! 
|
And Santa Claus is real right? And the Easter Bunny? All this "the moon landings are fake" shit has been debuked so many times it's not funny. |
|
Was the OP watching the History Channel about Chuck Yeager this evening? I just went over the entire Apollo mission profile with my 14yo son from watching it. He was asking similar questions. Since all that happened when I was a kid, I knew it all by heart. To this day, I am constantly amazed that there are moon mission truffers. While the 9/11 truffers are despicable, the moon mission truffers are just plain goofy assed FUNNY! 
|
No, actually I haven't even turned the T.V. on at all tonight, but I watch the History Channel, Science Channel, Discovery Channel, and stuff like that almost exclusively, which is why it amazes me that I didn't know the answers to my original post. I mean, I'm a space nut, and I should know stuff like that!  I went into that hobby shop today to pick up a couple of those super-detailed astronaut figures to go in the curio cabinet with my meteorite displays! I have a big-a** computer controlled telescope in my living room! I picked up the model of the LEM/landing site just because I saw it and immediately started digging it, and that is what got me started thinking about the whole thing. I feel like such a dumba**!
|
Yeah, NO DOUBT!!!! It would be the ultimate clubhouse! Kinda like boobs and electric trains though. They're both made for the kids but the DADDY always ends up playing with 'em! 
|
|
I don't know why you guys still respond to 26th-of-June. He's a classic troll. Very uneducated in the ways of science, engineering, and physics, so all he does is post outlandish one-liners just to shit in threads. He made a thread about chemtrails for crying out loud. 
|
Funny how the topic came up both places like that. Did you know, when the ascent stage of the LEM fell back and hit the moon, the moon "rang" for hours? They could pick it up on the seismograph they left behind. |
I assumed he was referring to some component of Apollo 2 - 9 that involved unmanned re-entry testing. I guess I gave him too much credit? |
|
Yep, burn hydrocarbons and you create CO2 z)carbon dioxide) and another chemical... Called H2O. AKA WATER.
|