Czy LRO udało się uchwycić któryś z tych obiektów na zdjęciach?Mialo chyba byc kraterow po tych obiektach?
Takie pytanie,
Czy wiadomo w jakich okolicach Księżyca upadły człony wznoszące LEM (rzecz jasna po ich wcześniejszym odcumowaniu od CSM) ? Czy LRO udało się uchwycić któryś z tych obiektów na zdjęciach?
Witam,
Takie pytanie, czy orientujecie się gdzie miały konkretnie lądować niedoszłe misje Apollo-18, 19 i 20? Coś słyszałem chyba o Koperniku zarezerwowanym dla 18-tki, i bodajże obszeżach Tycho (20)...
Tutaj pokażę mapę, opublikowaną we wrześniu 1969 roku, jeszcze przed lotem "Apollo-12"Bardzo ciekawa mapka. Tutaj tabelka publikowana w lipcu 1969 r:
Jak przetłumaczyć (fachowo)Problem wlasnie z tym ze jezyk polski jest pod tym wzgledem duzo ubozszy niz angielski i nie wypracowal odpwiednich jednoznacznych zwrotow.
Trochę byków można się naliczyć np: była rezygnacja 3 ostatnich lotów apollo 18,19 i 20 a piszą , że tylko 2:))Fakt, jednak nie jest to wedlug mnie duzy blad bo rezygnacja z 20 byla duzo wczesniej niz rezygnacja z 18,19 wiec wszystko zalezy jak daleko w tyl sie patrzysz.
Project Apollo Archive => http://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/ ;)Świetne skany, niektóre widzę pierwszy raz. Są też ujęcia nie wykadrowane, wręcz byle jakie, ale przez to mają swój klimat :)
Transkrypcja komunikacji, nagrania i zdjęcia połączone czasowo w jedną przewijalną relację z Apollo 17 od startu do samego końca, gorąco polecam: http://apollo17.orgImponujaca kompilacja.
All the Apollo landing sites as photographed by @LRO_NASA Humans haven't been back to the Moon since December 1972...
Ciekawe czy teraz Amerykanie zdecydują się na otwarcie kolejnego pojemnika z próbkami. Jeśli tak, to dobrze byłoby przeprowadzić ceremonię takowego otwarcia w 50 rocznicę lądowania Apollo 11 na Morzu Spokoju, czyli 20 lipca przyszłego roku. Zamiast lądowania ludzi na Marsie w 50 rocznicę misji Apollo 11 mielibyśmy przynajmniej namiastkę przygody księżycowej w otwieraniu pojemnika z bezcennymi próbkami ....
wydano nowa monetę o nominale - one dollar.Zastanawia mnie koszt takiego zakupu do Polski
As authorized by Congress, the Mint will strike up to 50,000 gold coins, no more than 400,000 silver dollar coins, no more than 750,000 clad half dollar coins and up to 100,000 five-ounce silver proof coins.
Project Apollo, 1960 - 1973 Actual Inflation
AdjustedSpacecraft $8.1 billion $81.3 billion Launch Vehicles $9.4 billion $99 billion Development & Operations $3.1 billion $28.7 billion Direct Project Costs $20.6 billion $209 billion Ground Facilities, Salaries, & Overhead $5.2 billion $53.8 billion Total Project Apollo $25.8 billion $263.8 billion Robotic Lunar Program $907 million $10.3 billion Project Gemini $1.3 billion $14.1 billion Total Lunar Effort $28 billion $288.1 billion
... However I think it's odd to contrast the spending back then and today the way you have here. The Apollo program was brand new and often cutting edge technology. The SLS most definitely is not. It should not cost nearly as much to repeat something that you had already done previously... The centers are there. Even the original hardware is there if the goal was simply to repeat the mission
After 177 hours in a CM within Chamber A of the Space Environment Simulation Lab at MSC Kerwin, Brand & Engle emerged OTD in 1968. The 2TV-1 test began on 16 Jun to evaluate systems & procedures upgraded since the Apollo 1 fire & in advance of Apollo 7 [Courtesy NASA/Mark Garcia]https://twitter.com/aisoffice/status/1672504470985404416
For the 2TV-1 test NASA selected astronauts Joseph P. Kerwin as Commander, Vance D. Brand as CM Pilot and Joseph H. Engle as LM Pilot. The crew, wearing Apollo A6L space suits, entered the CM on June 16, 1968, and closed the spacecraft’s hatch. Based on lessons learned from the Apollo fire and in accordance with NASA’s decision in March 1968, the cabin’s atmosphere at the beginning of the test was a mixture of 60 percent oxygen and 40 percent nitrogen at a pressure of 16 pounds per square inch. Engineers then pumped Chamber A down to vacuum and replaced the cabin’s atmosphere with pure oxygen at five pounds per square inch, the same procedure followed in an actual spaceflight.https://www.nasa.gov/feature/50-years-ago-two-critical-apollo-tests-in-houston
During the next eight days, the crew performed many of the functions as if on an actual spaceflight, including eating and sleeping. They operated guidance and navigation equipment, activated and checked out spacecraft systems and simulated engine firings. Meanwhile, chamber operators put the spacecraft through several phases of the thermo-vacuum test, beginning with a 15-hour hot soak with the arc lamps aimed at the CM, followed by a 15-hour cold soak with the lamps off. Then they aimed the lamps at the side of the Service Module for 45 hours, followed by 71 hours of alternate and contingency operations, ending with a 12-hour entry phase. The spacecraft performed very well throughout the test, with only a few minor anomalies reported. The crew egressed from the spacecraft on June 24, having spent 177 hours in the CM. Recommendations from the test resulted in 12 hardware design and 13 crew procedure changes for the Apollo 7 mission.
In March 1962, NASA selected Aerojet-General’s Space Propulsion Division in Azusa, California, as the subcontractor to design, build, and test the SPS engine, designated AJ10-137, at a time when the agency favored the direct ascent mode to reach the Moon. The design of the SPS ensured that it had sufficient thrust to lift the entire Apollo spacecraft from the lunar surface for the direct trip back to Earth. Even after NASA selected lunar-orbit rendezvous in July 1962, no longer requiring such a powerful engine, managers decided not to change the design for the SPS so as not to delay its development. To increase the reliability of the engine now needed for critical maneuvers, especially the trans-Earth injection burn to bring the astronauts home, NASA chose the use of Aerozine 50 as fuel and nitrogen tetroxide as oxidizer. As hypergolic propellants, meaning they ignited upon contact with each other, they did not require a complex ignition system and also had the advantage of long-term storability. The engine generated 20,500 pounds of thrust and the gimbalable engine nozzle allowed precise steering.https://www.nasa.gov/feature/60-years-ago-first-test-firing-of-the-apollo-service-propulsion-system