/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15564388
>>15564474
>tinfoil and tape
yes it's for thermals.
have you ever seen a modern spacecraft? they still look like that

>>15371342
The propellant is stored in the balls

>>15269648

The LM is the coolest spaceship ever built. Only Starship will surpass it

>>15034257
>People here unironically believe this thing went to the moon and back to earth
I mean it never made it back to Earth, besides maybe some debris during Apollo 13. Also it was way more solid than the final layer makes it look.

>>14709800

Space Porn Edition.


Previous thread: https://boards.4channel.org/sci/thread/12670033#top

>>12632820
posting before mods delete this thread for nsfw

>>12458510
Given the size of the LEM that had to be awkward.

>>11997246
Because back then a great amount of effort was put into getting man on the moon as soon as possible. Meanwhile, there's so little interest in going beyond low Earth orbit that making a propellant tank would take a decade.

At least that is the case with government agencies. Private space flight is on the rise, and has shown to be more deeply interested and capabile.

>Don't look anon, I just stepped out of the shower!

>>11862540

>>11851232

>>11836852
I just don't understand this reusable lander meme.

The amount of money you can save from reusing landers isn’t enough to justify how much harder it makes it to perform the difficult landings that usually make money in the lunar cargo world. I’m sure one day reusability will be more effective, but the truth is that when you have all the challenges that come with rocket science in general, it’s almost always much more effective to throw away the lander after it’s done its job than to figure out how to make recovery part of the mission. I know of no major technology on the near term horizon that would change that.

Even if reusable landers are possible now, but when reliability is THE number one priority (in this case the cargo takes up 2/3rds of the cost and the actual lander only 1/3rd) it makes absolutely no sense. Like, look at this lander (pic related). This represents some of the most advanced technologies in the aerospace world. Do you honestly think that such a complicated machine can be made tough and reliable enough to be reusable? I doubt it. Best example in my opinion is condoms, sure you could reuse them but making sure that they do not suffer a drop in reliability will cost a lot of money and time.

Just because some company has made reusing landers popular, then that doesn't mean that we will have the sci-fi future of thousands of landings per year. We'll be lucky to see more than a couple dozen per year. Dial down your expectations, don't buy into the 'reusability for landers' meme.

>>11590132

>>11390313
pic related (1/5)

>>11160353
Or it might be a protoype. IDK.

>>10839109
Thats a non-structural cover. You still haven't explained why the Soviets didn't expose the whole thing.

>>10825184
>And pic related, what an incredible feat of engineering it is, cost 30 billion in today's money, even the panels don't fit properly and is fitted with high tech gold foil.
Thats a cover. The reason why it looks weak is because the lander didn't need a strong sturdy outer skin. Why? Because it was going to be used in an environment without an atmosphere.

How about you point out actual technical issues you find with Apollo instead of pointing at images saying "it look weird!". There are tons of technical information on Apollo out there, if it were all a hoax then surely there has to be a mistake somewhere in the technical information. Such as lack of explanation for a piece of equipment that's important to the actual mission but wasn't seen in the public videos of the mission (such as the programing used). Or a use flaw in the flight plan that looks fine at first, but doesn't respect spaceflight mechanics.

>>10823564
Can't wait!

retarded cunt

Moon lander image dump to reel the discussion in the spaceflight thread back to spaceflight.

>>10401517
>I have circumstantial evidence
no you don't, you don't even have that

>>10391997
the ISS is just theft from the public coffers on behalf of contractors

>and what we could learn about both science and engineering to live on the moon.
very little

"we have not been to the moon for 50 years now" does not mean the apollo program was a hoax, it means that travel to the moon is hindered by incredible expense, little political will, and no clear benefit. "i want to rave on the moon, why aren't we raving on the moon" is also not evidence of a hoax.

anyway nasa have set out the plan to land on the moon in 2027 after SLS is complete. everyone knows SLS will never be complete because it's just another shitty contractor heist, though. private space clearly wants to do it for tourism and prestige, but again it's bloody expensive and requires the arduous process of human certification.

>Take all other conspiracies in the past, that has since been officially admitted as conspiracies. Did Russia, or the rest of the world for that matter, call these conspiracies out while they were occurring and still relevant?
what are you even on about?