You do know they are just a bit different?
So are you saying that it was possible for them to control directional movement for a non aerodynamically shaped craft in low gravity but not on an aerodynamic craft in higher gravity?
Please enlighten me to the differences. Make it plausible and simple as I find physics dull.
One had to fly the other didn't.
So you are saying they couldn't combine the technology with a plane even though they built a launch and return system involving two bodies orbiting the sun. They also had to land it vertically and then take off again.
Tiny Clanger
That guy can go whistle for it if he thinks i'm believing him
So you are saying they couldn’t combine the technology with a plane even though they built a launch and return system involving two bodies orbiting the sun.
So basically, it was faked because the Americans bought some British tech?
They could build a Saturn V but not a Harrier?
Or was the Saturn V faked as well?
They left the landing portion on the moon and used a different engine to take off? They designed two completely separate systems for ascent and descent.
When you say you ave asked many times why we had to design a vtol system despite the moon landings can I ask, have you read about how the lander operated at all?
EG here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module
Tells you all about how it worked.
The harrier development is detailed here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrier_Jump_Jet
They were developed around about the same time in parallel.
This also tells more about how the lander was developed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Landing_Research_Vehicle
It is a type of VTOL system, designed for a different purpose.
So basically, it was faked because the Americans bought some British tech?
I never said at any point I think it was faked.
They could build a Saturn V but not a Harrier?
Those are the facts.
Or was the Saturn V faked as well?
I never implied that, i'm not sure why you inferred it.
One had to fly the other didn’t.
Your enlightenment is simple but not plausible.
So are you saying that it was possible for them to control directional movement for a non aerodynamically shaped craft in low gravity but not on an aerodynamic craft in higher gravity?
It's a different problem really. Like building a formula one car vs a dune buggy.You could probably take the people who did one and get them to do another but everyone has a specialty. For what it's worth the harrier isn't really an aerodynamic craft when it's hovering. Have a look at the flying bedstead to see the test bed for the 'hover' bit. That crossed with a conventional airframe (more or less) gets you the harrier.
It's also worth noting that other people have made VTOL/STOL/whatever aircraft, including the USSR, it's just a hard problem to get right and the harrier evidently hit a bit of a sweet spot.
Make it plausible and simple as I find physics dull.
Sometimes you have to be prepared to understand complex ideas in order to be able to decide if they work. If you don't want to understand the complex physics then what gives you the right to claim its faked/notpossible/whatever?
I never said at any point I think it was faked.
So why are you highlighting a procurement decision of another part of the Government when discussing the Apollo program?
I think it is called trolling gobuchul.
Anyway so far not a single person has come forward with evidence that anyone with a decent science or engineering background thinks the moon landings were faked.
Thanks for those links, I have read them and the thrust vectoring article. Along with some of the sources they cite. They still don't answer my question.
I was not trolling I was asking a genuine question for which I have never received a satisfactory answer.
I never said i didn't want to understand a difficult concept, quite the opposite. I just don't find physics very interesting.
The procurement decision seems odd, given the technology they had.
It’s a different problem really. Like building a formula one car vs a dune <span class="skimlinks-unlinked">buggy.You</span> could probably take the people who did one and get them to do another but everyone has a specialty.
Thanks. I think it would be doable with the right budget though.
Would the Harrier not being aerodynamic in hover make it closer to the lander in operation?
I never said i didn’t want to understand a difficult concept, quite the opposite.
and this
Make it plausible and simple as I find physics dull.
Are a bit contradictory.
No matter, it is an irrelevance, perhaps they could have adopted each others technology, they did not for one reason or another. Your lack of an answer to an abstract question does not really shed any light on the veracity of the moon landings.
I think it would be doable with the right budget though.
Yes. For example, the US have now built the F35. The USSR had the Yak 38. I think the french had a dassault that was basically one of the standard mirage delta designs, but with a set of lifting engines in the fuselage as well as the 'going forward' set. We had the P1154 design which was, crudely speaking, a VTOL Phantom, but got cancelled for various political, engineering and cost reasons. The problem is, all the extra gear to do the VTOL bit eats into a meaningful weapons/equipment/fuel load, then the takeoff/landing is incredibly fuel hungry. All of this is a massive compromise for a combat aircraft that is already not going to have as much kit/weapons on board as they would like. For another analogy, it's like trying to design a tour de france winning road bike and also making it fold up like a brompton.
The procurement decision seems odd, given the technology they had.
It's not VTOL, but the TSR2 is supposedly the classic example- 'every aircraft has four dimensions- length, width, height and politics. TSR2 merely got the first three right'. Not everything in procurement is technology based.
Would the Harrier not being aerodynamic in hover make it closer to the lander in operation?
Yes. It's a pure mass reaction, exactly the same as a rocket on take off or a moon lander on landing. Chuck enough stuff out of the bottom fast enough and Mr Newton says you stay up (equal and opposite reaction). For the pedants, a rocket carries all of the material necessary to create the mass flow while the harrier was pulling in local air and using a jet engine to accelerate it downwards.
Aerodynamic flight can be construed to be using an angled wing to force air down. Forcing that air down is what 'pushes' the aircraft up.
I was not trolling I was asking a genuine question for which I have never received a satisfactory answer.
You've already been given two.
One had to fly the other didn’t.
and
They were developed around about the same time in parallel.
Here's another one (kinda related to the first). The LM isn't by any stretch of the imagination VTOL.
The landing is essentially a controlled drift in an environment which has a sixth of the Earth's gravity and as close to zero atmosphere as makes no odds. Lateral thrusters make small changes to its trajectory and a vertical booster arrests the descent. It's got more in common with a hot air balloon than a Harrier.
The LM's take-off is an entirely different system. That's a rocket booster which separates the top half of the LM, the landing system is left behind on the moon.
The Harrier by comparison is an aircraft which can land with precision and take off again vertically in Earth's gravity and atmosphere using wildly complicated computer systems which keep it stable in a hostile environment. You could no more land the lunar lander on the Earth than you could a wardrobe, the first breath of wind and it'd be on its roof. (I doubt a Harrier would cope too well on the moon either, come to that.)
Not to mention the Harrier was developed by a British consortium who may not have been party to nor wanted to give their technology to the US.
I find physics dull.
Yes, I see.
I am happy that this place is getting back to it's old self again. Nice work
The harrier was a joint UK-US project from the start. The US was fully involved with the Harrier at a prototype stage and through out it's development, the later versions were almost completely US designed and built.
Read this about the development. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrier_Jump_Jet
Second line - "Originally developed by UK manufacturer Hawker Siddeley in the 1960s,"
And if you then read the article it was a British development part funded by nato. The US got involved for the mark 2 in 1973 ish, just 4 years after the first moon landings...
Quotes from wikipedia:
In 1961 the United Kingdom, United States and West Germany jointly agreed to purchase nine aircraft developed from the P.1127, for the evaluation of the performance and potential of V/STOL aircraft. These aircraft were built by Hawker Siddeley and were designated Kestrel FGA.1 by the UK.
.......................................................
In the late 1960s the British and American governments held talks on producing Harriers in the United States. Hawker Siddeley and McDonnell Douglas formed a partnership in 1969 in preparation for American production, but Congressman Mendel Rivers and the House Appropriations Committee held that it would be cheaper to produce the AV-8A on the pre-existing production lines in the United Kingdom—hence all AV-8A Harriers were purchased from Hawker Siddeley.
EDIT - the point is the US were already testing the prototype Harrier before building the Lunar Lander Module.
Anyway so far not a single person has come forward with evidence that anyone with a decent science or engineering background thinks the moon landings were faked.
What has understanding science or engineering to do with acceptance that something could be faked. The science and engineering could explain why you couldn't possibly have done it which is nothing to do with whether anyone could fake it.
kerley my premise is along these lines, its just that having that knowledge allows you to understand how it is possible. Hence I have yet to meet a qualified scientist or engineer who thinks they were faked, the only people who think they were faked do not understand the science, technology, industry or govnmt services.
Do you know anyone who fits the educational criteria set out in the OP who does deny the moon landings?
EDIT – the point is the US were already testing the prototype Harrier before building the Lunar Lander Module.
Fair point, but lets not take away the original British achievement...
I work with a woman who thinks the moon landings were faked
Weirdly, she believes we've been to the moon, but just the Neil/Buzz landing was faked
Agreed, and I'm not trying to. This was posted due to idea from bsims about different VTOL technologies.
yes, agreed.
boba fatt is she by any chance a well educated scientist or engineer?
I don’t understand the comparisons with the moon lander and the Harrier! The hard bit about the Harrier was not the vertical landing and take off, it was the transition between the two, and the harrier has to contend with stronger gravity, a heavier aircraft that had to actually do stuff other than simply land and take off, it had to hover and be controllable. The moon lander was basically a controlled descent in a very low gravitational field, no wind to cope with and didn’t have to have the capability to hover, and fly around, it just had to perform a controlled crash without killing their occupants. And the take off was really about ballistics. So not sure how the fact the Brit’s developed Harrier somehow casts doubt on the ability of NASA (largely consisting of British engineers as well as a lot of other nationalities) to have developed the lander or the technology to land a man on the moon and return him safely back to Earth.
the US didn't develop a STVOL aircraft probably because their focus and priorities was on other things in the ‘50’s like long range supersonic nuclear bombers and SR71’s and the space race, so not developing a STOVL aircraft for a niche capability of the Marines was not high on their priority list. I’m sure if it was P1 in the US military agenda they would have developed one.
Do you go looking for flat earthers and Moon Landing disbelievers ?
In all my humble years I've never had the pleasure of engaging with anyone with such beliefs..
Where do such folks congregate ?
America never went to the moon but they are breeding an army of alien robot soldiers on the dark side of it.
At least two people above have mentioned this, but i agree,
IF the moon landings were faked, it would have taken (i guess) a couple of hundred people to do it, ie:make the fake movies.
Also, IF that’s actually true, how on earth do you keep a couple of hundred media types, who crave fame and money, quiet, when if they opened their mouths about it they would almost certainly made an absolute fortune and achieved the fame that most of these people actually desire the most.
i don’t believe that’s possible tbh.
i think it’s more plausible that nasa sent people to the moon, on live tv.
o level physics is the only qualification i left school with.
i’ve never met anyone who believes the moon landings were fake, or that the earth is flat, that I could have a rational conversation with. Ime, as soon as you counter one of their claims they change the subject.
I've had a few people i thought sane, educated & not, post in support of Tommy Robinson on Facebook, so yeah some people are just idiots
Sorry no quotes ,
swanny, thanks that helps, so to summarise you are saying they would have developed a harrier if they knew they needed one.
neil, that’s interesting.
wobliscot, transition, that is a new angle for me to look at, as you clearly understand this area, it might appear as an uncomplicated situation.
darcy , please elaborate
cougar, not really. Are you saying the harrier was harder and that they employ a different type of thrust vectoring.
5plus8 , are you saying it is not possible to simplify a theory/ hypothesis to help a layman understand.
I find physics dull.
Clearly.
count zero would you care to elaborate on that?
darcy , please elaborate
Yeah of course.
If I gave two shits. I don’t even give one.
But you give enough to reply, I’m touched.
I’m touched
indeed...
How so ditch jockey?
I remembered this which made me laugh at the time.
Dont forget NASA lost the moon rocks as well. How convenient!
How so ditch jockey
It's one of the three most likely hypotheses: you're a troll; you're being deliberately obtuse; you're touched (almost obsolete slang suggesting some kind of mental health issue).
I'm not saying this happened Martymac ..but how do you keep a couple of hundred people quiet who were in the know ..well one way to do it would be to pay them fortunes in the first place with a non disclosure agreement attached.. tied in with a very scary threat from a clandestine department of their government..
Feasible ? maybe ..maybe not but stranger things have happened .
cougar, not really. Are you saying the harrier was harder and that they employ a different type of thrust vectoring.
I'm saying - well, actually, I'm saying two things.
Firstly, they are two very different things. It's like arguing "why did we develop parachutes when we had skis?" Difficulty has nothing to do with it. They are very different things.
Secondly, you're seemingly wilfully ignoring other people's explanations. Not understanding science is fine. Attempting to refute science because you don't understand it is just dim. If you don't understand it, maybe consider deferring to the notion that people who do understand it know what they're talking about.
As I said, not a troll and not obtuse, just asking questions to get to the truth. If I don,t see it I will keep asking.
i thought he was referring to mental health. Funny how it’s alright to use that insult when it suits a person.
well one way to do it would be to pay them fortunes in the first place with a non disclosure agreement attached.. tied in with a very scary threat from a clandestine department of their government..
Met the government? Heard of Edward Snowdon, Wikileaks, USSR and the KGB?
At what point do the odds make it more likely that they did
No cougar, those two were thin and did not help me understand. My further question was valid and I await your response, the ski/ parachute analogy doesn’t help either although I understand your implication, surely the forces required for those transport methods are different?
The only way you get to understand is to ask questions if you are unsure of the argument presented. I have not refuted anything just asked more questions.
