The LM plans are lost, that was in the mainstream news, I think about a month ago.
Provide a reference.
As I said, I will stipulate that not all material that was produced is available today. I will, however, quibble with your likely definitions of "the LM plans," and "lost."
You can interpret "lost" anyway you want.
I will. However, not all of the possible values of "lost" support the contention that there was something wrong with the development of the lunar module.
What do you understand by "the LM plans?" What do you understand by "lost?" Why does that matter?
However, I've very skeptical that it was capable of doing what we were told it did do.
What is your skepticism based on? Do you have some training or experience in the design of large-scale spacecraft? Are you otherwise qualified to assess the feasibility of specialized, complex engineering?
It is totally amazing to me that a machine with such limited technology could do what it did, even by today's standard.
What precisely did the LM do that was so improbable? What exactly makes the LM's technology "limited" in a way that supports your skepticism? Are you simply comparing 1960s technology with 2000's technology and noting naturally that it is more primitive? If so that's a tautology. Or do you have specific claims relating to the technology that specifically did not address the requirements?
There are issues with interior dimensions that I am most curious about...
What "issues?"
...as well as construction materials and methods of fabrication.
I'm quite familiar with the construction methods used in the lunar module. What specific questions do you have?
|