OK neverfly since your so adament you know where the plans are, why don't you get them for us. I'm not the only one who would be interested here.

So you think the LM wasn't amazing? How would you describe the device that supposedly led to man's greatest accomplishment?

You think pocket calculator power isn't limiting?

Please quote anyplace where I adamantly claimed that I know where the plans are.

I just said it was amazing. I also agree that it was a great accomplishment.

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?

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

You think pocket calculator power isn't limiting?

Compared to what?

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

So UtahJay, now I have to provide you with vintage 1960's lighting trusses? So that's what I need to do to validate it? I would more likely rather you explain to me what that is doing on the moon? It isn't very complicated. Do you think they got it at Sears?

Your lack of knowledge about Rocket flight computing does not justify your claims. Perhaps you should learn more about the topic.

The schematic you see attached is the ENTIRE schematic.
This is what is still used by enthusiasts to this day.

Attached Images

untitled.JPG (61.5 KB, 9 views)

For what application? Have you ever done any embedded computer applications? If you haven't, you probably have no concept of what is possible with such hardware.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

jayutah (sorry I got name wrong before), the LM "plans" thing is getting old. Really just need the plans, too many things to go over here. There will be many more questions looking at them as well. OK, I would like to know the materials and fabrication of the main structure for starters, do you know that? The exterior fasteners look puzzling to me, Poor tolerances?

I am totally amazed by the computational power of LM computer, truely remarkable for how compact it was, by 1966 standards it was great FOR IT'S SIZE. But that's 50 years ago. Compare the computers in the space shuttle to the LM.

Ah, those appear to be based on fairly high end PIC microcontrollers. PICs are in common use today, and the AGC exceeded the specs on many of them.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Exactly, I googled PIC real quickly to give an example of how we are still using that "technology" today as enthusiasts.

Even modern cars have much more computer abilities than the LM. How can you tell me a computer built 50 years ago can compare to what is used in the space shuttle or modern satellite? What are we arguing here? I said it was amazing what else do you want me to say?

Elaborating on the four photographs posted.

1. Two features are immediately salient. The first is the fogging extending roughly vertically in the center of the photograph. This is a "sunstrike." It is visible in several rolls of Apollo film, especially near the beggings and ends of the rolls. They occur because the normal Hasselblad interlock mechanism with the darkslide was removed. This was done for two reasons: first the third-party longroll magazine locking mechanisms worked better without it, and second because the astronauts had difficulty manipulating the darkslides in their gloves.

So they removed the darkslides before mounting the magazines. This sacrificed several frames at the beginning and ending of the rolls to sun exposure during magazine changes. The pattern of reflection and transmission around the film in the gate often produced such localized effects. I have experimented with 120 film in a Hasselblad MK/70 with the darkslide disabled and have produced similar sunstrikes.

The second are the looping features across the top of the image. This is writing made by archivists on the duplication masters. The scans being used are the JSC scans made in the 1980s from admittedly not very good dupe masters. They are low-resolution and of generally poor quality.

At JSC and later at LPI, the archivists wrote the identification numbers for various frames on the film itself. This was to aid in locating specific frames. The frames are not self-identifying. Photographic logs established the beginning and ending frame numbers for each roll, which contained up to 180 frames. But to resolve a desired frame number to its actual location on the dupe master required counting from one end, sometimes up to dozens of frames. The archivists thus annotated the frames with assured frame IDs.

Some of these annotations extend into the frame. This is unfortunate, but it is a feature of this particular poor copy of the Apollo stills that was used for that scanning effort. In other frames the annotations are much clearer, extend farther into the frame, and are thus generally more recognizable for what they are.

2. This is a composite of several Apollo still photographs. It is easily recognized as such by the experienced photo analyst due largely to the poor quality of the composition seams.

The annotations imply that the shadows in the frame do not derive from a consistent light source. The further implication is that artificial lights (i.e., plural) must have been used.

First, such analysis is simply not valid on a composite image, which puts together images taken from different photographer positions.

Second, the method used to derive the apparent shadow directions and reconstruct the lighting is invalid as it is affected by perspective in a way that has not been accounted for in this analysis. A more proper method called vanishing-point analysis would be suitable here, if this were a single image. It would be valid if done on the constituent images individually. There is no valid method for the photogrammetric rectification of lighting in a composite without establishing photographer position.

Third, the argument is indirect. It doesn't establish directly the use of studio lighting, but rather a line of reasoning that removes a single straw man, whereupon the desired conclusion is held by default.

3. This is a single image taken as part of a panoramic shot. The astronauts sometimes shot directly up-sun. There is nothing in this photograph that is not consistent with a photograph of the sun.

The large apparent image of the sun derives from film saturation. ISO 160 film at the common settings used for landscape photography, f/8 to f/16 at 1/250 second, will saturate the sun image. In addition, lens dispersion will create a larger false image of the bright light source. Light never refracts perfectly through a lens. Some small portion of any bundle of coincident rays will disperse to the sides. In ordinary photography this does not matter much. When the incoming light is very bright, dispersion becomes photographically significant and even reach saturation levels.

4. This photograph is taken from the cockpit of the lunar module, looking forward to the command module, which is in a position to effect docking.

The bright feature in the upper portion of the frame is consistent with the position of the overhead docking window as reflected in the forward left window.

Over the LM commander's head (the left station) is a small rectangular window that the commande will use when docking the spacecraft at the overhead hatch.

The LM forward windows are angled such that the top edge tilts away from the pilot. This positions it to reflect objects on the LM's ceiling.

From the lighting on the CM we can tell that the sun is overhead. This will shine directly on the LM overhead docking window. However, as seen from the position on the forward window where a reflection would occur from the pilot's vantage point, the sun could not be seen directly through the LM docking window.

However, no glass is perfectly transparent. All windows scatter and refract light. It is particularly the scatter from contaminants (e.g., condensed breath, RCS residue, fingerprints, lunar dust attracted statically) that interests us. Such contaminants cause glass to glow when directly illuminated, but seen from a different angle.

The relative positions of the camera and the two windows make this a substantive explanation.

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

Was it CAPABLE of the job to be done?

Sure some cars today have more computing power. In 1966 many cars didn't have ANY computing power.
These comparisons are irrelevant.

I'm sure in the future, cars will have much much more computing power than cars today do. Does that mean we didn't have cars today?

Todays airplanes have Much more computing power than the ones in decades past. In fact many airplanes in decades past didn't have any computer at all.

How did those poor WWII pilots do it? I guess both World Wars were a hoax huh?

Thank you, jayutah for doing some thoughtful research on the counter point. Let me look at what you have here. I will respond next week, and throw up a few more photos as well.

jayutah (sorry I got name wrong before), the LM "plans" thing is getting old.

I don't care. You tipped your hand. You think it's suspiciously convenient that the LM "plans" are not available, suggesting your intent to read something nefarious into their absence alone. I'm not at all convinced you expect to get anything from reading them. I am, however, convinced that you want to attribute some desired reason to your inability to Google them.

Really just need the plans...

I asked you what you intended to glean from the materials you think will be provided, that wasn't provided in the materials you say you've already seen.

OK, I would like to know the materials and fabrication of the main structure for starters, do you know that?

Yes. The materials are various aluminum alloys. The design geometry includes milled solid billets, chem-milled skin-and-stringer subassemblies, and sheet stock. The joinery was mostly inert-gas welding.

Primary structure begins with two bulkheads machined from solid aluminum billets. These were set fore and aft. These were connected with two ventral beams of cold-rolled aluminum. They were joined at the top with a solid overhead of machined aluminum alloy.

Two laterally-parallel structures provided structural support for the cockpit, which was cantilevered from the forward main bulkhead. These formed the recognizable nose of the structure. The forward hatch passes between these milled structures at the bottom.

Secondary structures included prefabricated struts made of machined steel and aluminum alloys, used to attach the aft equipment bay and the ventral fuel assemblies.

The pressure-bearing vessel was the skin-and-stringer panels, chem-milled into the proper shape and welded to the primary and secondary structures.

The exterior fasteners look puzzling to me, Poor tolerances?

No, sufficient tolerances. The outer skin is not the structure. The skin sheets simply needed to be held in place against their own inertia. They were neither load-bearing nor pressure-bearing. Their role was to provide proper optical response for heat transfer management, and as the first line of defense for micrometeoroids.

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

So what?

Who told you that?

I am telling you that we regularly use computers in embedded applications today that are less powerful than the AGC was. They are used because they can do the job.

Do you agree that the AGC was capable of doing the functions that were required?

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

I'm talking about cars now, in 2008.