Is there an explanation for this phenomena, that fits with all the other evidence?

I'm not sure what you mean by "this phenomena." Do you mean the radial lines?

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Standard conspiracy theorist tactic. When unable to conclude one argument in your favour, churn out some more to keep your opponent snowed under trying to answer all your arguments at once.

I won't do it. Why don't you show us what you did to demonstrate that what you claimed was a spotlight rig in one of the first sets of pictures was indeed a spotlight rig, and why you dismiss the alternative offered?

I will grant this one simple response. This was written in 1955 assuming one huge rocket capable of going directly from launch to the Moon and back in one piece. This was never the planned route once the Apollo program actually got started.

__________________
"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: They don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views." The Doctor, Doctor Who: The Face of Evil.

I don't know, but suspect that the two biggest factors in the difference
between the 1955 calculations and the 1960's Apollo reality were the size
of the crew and the need to lift a sturdy spacecraft with a heat shield
off the Moon. And of course, the self-amplifying need for fuel when the
load is heavier: the heavier the load, the more fuel needed; the more fuel
carried, the larger the fuel tanks, making the rocket heavier, requiring
greater thrust, so heavier engines, requiring even more fuel... What's
the technical term for that kind of positive feedback?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

__________________
http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

"The other planets?
Well, they just happen to be there, but the point of rockets is to explore them!"
-- Kai Yeves

"Awww... Crap! I shoulda gone to law School..."

__________________
"Hope is not the conviction that something will turn out well but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out." -- Vaclav Havel

Quote:

We just don't know much.

Yet if not for those words, what would science be for? - KaiYeves

I propose an ATM corollary to Godwin's law: an ATM'er will inevitably compare himself to Copernicus (Or Galileo), when the going gets tough. - CodeSlinger

Okay, right, it's negative positive feedback!

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

__________________
http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

"The other planets?
Well, they just happen to be there, but the point of rockets is to explore them!"
-- Kai Yeves

The 1955 direct flight rocket argument reminds me of Kaysings argument that a 1959 paper said a flight to the Moon was impossible. Well, at that time, with the very limited knowledge base and even more limited technology, it was. But these arguments seem to deny the idea of actual technical progress and learning.

What's the technical term for that kind of positive feedback?

In general engineering, "the Scaling Problem." That occurs when the algebraic relationship between the requirement and the provision is not linear (e.g., doubling the volume of a tank requires four times the mass of the tank structure), or also when various properties of a single solution do not scale harmoniously (e.g., yield strength versus length versus mass of a beam). The way it works for rockets is particularly insidious.

But a very useful measure is the simple mass ratio. That's the ratio of a vehicle's total mass to its dry mass -- i.e., the mass that isn't fuel. A vehicle that masses 10,000 kg fully loaded, but whose structure, equipment, and crew mass only 2,000 kg has a mass ratio of 5. The mass ratio and the specific impulse of the propulsion system give the vehicle's overall ability to change its velocity, and holds as the absolute masses change while preserving the mass ratio.

But of course that masks the aspects of vehicle structural design that you alluded to. The mass ratio of a typical Earth launch booster these days is around 20. The mass ratio of the lunar module (2,200 kg dry mass, 2,400 kg ascent fuel) is about 2.1. That's the magic figure. Fuel reserved for the TEI burn would be considered part of the dry mass of the lunar module von Braun initially had in mind and thus significantly increase the ascent fuel requirement. That's the genius of the LOR approach. It's risky in the sense that it requires a lunar orbit rendezvous maneuver, but it's advantageous in that it requires considerably less fuel than von Braun's original estimate and assumptions.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

The 1955 direct flight rocket argument reminds me of Kaysings argument that a 1959 paper said a flight to the Moon was impossible.

I got the same impression, although there is an important difference.

Von Braun's comment is attributable. We can discover when he wrote it, why, and in what context. Kaysing simply reports the findings of a report he says exists, but we cannot see. Assuming it did exist, that still prevents us from evaluating its assumptions and methods. We can know what von Braun was thinking of, and whether it applies to Apollo or not.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base