Well, as you can tell by me getting called out for breathing WATER, my understanding of the elements is limited;. It just makes sense to me that a space worthy craft should look more robust than my tool shed.
What basis do you have for thinking this? Doesn't it make sense that a craft designed to operate in a vacuum at very low gravity and with a massive premium on weight would be flimsy looking?
I dunno, shouldn't a deepspace worthy craft look just a bit more substantial than this?
No one has mentioned the overlay pic that shows a plastic lego substitution in the video for the static photo if the lunar stage prop.
That's because nobody even knows what that was supposed to be showing. I still have no idea what the point of that gif is.
The movie is fake, that's the point. Compare the static shot to the lego model.
which is safe from the vacuum, which will implode a hollow tin can, according to the inventor of the vacuum tube.
You have this backward. A vacuum INSIDE a container will cause an implosion due to a negative pressure differential. A vacuum OUTSIDE a pressurized container is a much more stable situation. The LM crew compartment was pressurized to 5psi. Sea level airpressure is about 15psi. A can of soda can withstand approximately 90psi so that gives you an idea of what kind of strength is required to maintain the crew cabin. Not much, is it?
So, this airtight cabin was contained within and airtight rocket
Nothing airtight about the rocket. Just the cabin.
All that cardboard and foil maybe conceals the secret airtight stuff.
and was released into lunar orbit,with no breach of air locks in order to maintain an environmentally hospitable atmosphere and it navigated without pinwheeling, all the while managing to keep the 'naughts on the shady side for the ice sublimation to keep the cabin cool? Or does the airtight business matter? Maybe in a vacuum the heat doesn't matter, because at 300* even a few seconds of exposure would cause 3rd degree burns.
I think you are really underestimating some things here. For instance, the ability to compensate for temperature. I can turn my oven on to 500 degrees and come back a few hours later and put my hand right on the outside of the oven door without getting burned, but inside, just a few inches away, it's a burning inferno. Insulation deals with the temperature issue. They didn't have to be on the shady side of the LM all the time, the thing was insulated and had no problem with a few hours in sunlight.
Or the stated 72 hours of lunar surface exposure. Like your magically insulated hand inside your oven for 3 days.
I understand the glycol not vaporizing in the heat, or turning solid in the cold but what maintained the temperature? A battery operated radiator/AC heat pump type of thing? Powered with back pack batteries?
These questions are easily answered using Google.
Not so much Google just leads to more questions without any answers, That's why I ask the science experts like yourself to put into layman's terms and break it down a bit.
Like I said before, we have established my lack of scientific understanding
So why are you still objecting on scientific grounds?
Not Scientific, but where is all this stuff today if it worked so well back then? grounds
And let's not forget that NASA still has a contest going on for anyone that can successfully launch AND land a single engine rocket craft, the prize for which has never been claimed (or accomplished on earth).
Do you mean the prize awarded to two different companies in 2009 after they successfully completed the requirements?
Oh, like someone has finally claimed prize money for reaching the level two stage of keeping a rocket that could carry a small dog or hamster aloft for 180 seconds? At this rate, we should be able to get back to 1969, by the year 2045 or so, if we are lucky.
Of course, they managed this on the moon with no problem, which must have been very easy for them considering they had absolutely no way of predicting how matter would behave on the lunar surface.
If it was no problem why did it take a decade and several billion dollars? Also, the Apollo missions were completely different than the X prize requirements. Those companies had to do it on a *single* engine. The Saturn V rocket which blasted the Apollo missions into space had 11 engines, the Service Module had 1 main engine plus 16 thrusters, the Command Module had 12 thrusters, the Lunar Module had a descent engine, an ascent engine, and 16 thrusters. It was a completely different approach to the issue. Furthermore, the fact that I sometimes pay a restaurant to make food for me says nothing about my own ability to make food. The same goes here.
I see one, untarnished unblemished exhaust flu. Where are the thrusters exactly? Oh you mean these? :
And they got the environmental stuff right too,including showers I guess
Sponge baths and special shampoo.
I am not convinced of the 1/6th gravity thing, common as people think it is to accept this
Every scientist in the field is convinced. The approximate mass of the moon can be empirically determined from the Earth. It has been confirmed exactly by modern moon orbiters, some of which belong to countries such as Japan and China. There is absolutely no basis for doubting this fact.
I guess the exceptionally light touch of the navigation skills of Neil Armstrong, obviously substantially refined from the picture taken a year prior (see above) to the first landing allowed for the ever so graceful touchdown of the lander
You didn't read that detailed explanation I linked to of the math involved, did you? Please do.
No, I looked at the smoking wreck of what the math said was not supposed to happen and I have doubts that they worked it out in a completely untested environment 6 times in a row without similar results only one year later.
So every concern of yours has been addressed. Please stop making objections based on science, as you cannot trust your own understanding of science. Somehow I doubt you will do this.