D ESP
<< >>
"Moon plays": The moon was the Earth - Lies and Truth in the Atmosphere
21 a. Impossible Lunar Module: The descent stage which cannot fly
The technical impossibility of a flight of the Lunar Module (LM) as a vertical landing vehicle with only one engine - the crashs of the test vehicles Lunar Landing Research Vehicle LLRV - crash of Delta Clipper
Armstrong's crash with an LLRV / LLTV, 6 May 1968 [9]
by Michael Palomino (2006 / 2021)
| Share: |
Facebook |
|
Twitter
|
from:
-- Gerhard Wisnewski: Lügen im Weltraum (Lies in Space); Knaur 2005
-- internet sources
Abbreviations
The different abbreviations are:
-- for moon landing module: Lunar Module (LM), Lunar Modules (LMS)
-- the old name for moon landing module: Lunar Excursion Module (LEM)
-- additive modules to the moon landing module: Lunar Test Article (LTA).
For the training vehicles there are two names:
-- Lunar Landing Research Vehicle (LLRV) (Wisnewski)
-- Lunar Landing Training Vehicle (LLTV) (Internet)
On the moon crane the training was performed with the "Lunar Landing Vehicle".
The illusions of rocket Nazi Wernher von Braun and Walt Disney for a moon landing module with only one engine (engl.: Lunar Module LM)
The Lunar Module in science fiction
Bonestell: Unreal Lunar Module, science fiction painting 1954 [1]
Wernher von Braun in his office (16.9.1960) with a science fiction painting in the background with an unreal landing module with only one engine [2]
As it seems the physicians of the "USA" are not protesting and let the nonsense be...
Tests with the Lunar Landing Research Vehicle resp. Lunar Landing Testing Vehicle
The Bell Aerosystems Company builds all in all five LLRV training vehicles. The test flights (several hundred) take place 1964 until 1972 in Dryden Flight Research Center and in Manned Spacecraft Center (today Johnson Space Center) near Houston.
(http://www.urbin.de/usa/raumfahrzeuge/mondlandefaehre.htm)
The numeration of the training vehicles is:
-- LLRV-A1
-- LLRV-A2
-- LLTV-B1
-- LLTV-B2
-- LLTV-B3 (Wisnewski, p.118).
The LLRV is a vertical take-off aircraft with several engines on the underside. It should perform a vertical landing (Wisnewski, p.117).
The LLRV has three engines:
-- one engine for simulation of the moon gravity
-- two engines for regulation of height.
The latter moon landing modules (Lunar Modules LM) only have one engine.
(In: Jones, Eric M.: Utility of the Lunar Landing Training Vehicle, 1995, last revised 2004; Wisnewski, p.118)
The training's flights on the LLRV are permitted only for the commanders of the Apollo missions. The pilots of the landing modules may not get training on them. It seems it is not necessary... (Wisnewski, p.116).
According to Wisnewski the LLRV is an "expression of a certain helplessness", in the worst case it is a "diversion" to deceive the public and to pretend preparations for a "moon landing" (Wisnewski, p.117).
[The cabin is fixed at the side to give the vehicle a better stability to take down the center of gravity of the vehicle].
Test flights for a "Landing" with the Lunar Landing Research Vehicle (LLRV)
For a training with the moon landing modules the industry constructs a "training vehicle" for the astronauts, the "Moon Landing Research Vehicle", LLRV (Wisnewski, p.116). the authorities are indicating that this vehicle could flight presenting photos, but these are all photo compositions without any engine smoke:
Training's flights of the LLRV: Faked NASA fotos without engine smoke
Lunar Landing Research Vehicle LLRV during a flight 2 without engine smoke, faked foto (foto composition) (according to NASA alleged 1965, foto no. ECN-688) [7]
[One sees that half of the cabin had been removed probably to install an ejection seat. The NASA fotos have no engine smoke, so they must be faked fotos reps. foto compositions].
The LLRV is also tested in Ellington near Houston, on this foto with engine smoke.
1 Sep 1965
Test stage: An engine of the future Lunar Module LM explodes
in the "Arnold Engineering Development Center" (AEDC) (Wisnewski, p.115).
End of April 1967
Test stage: Two engines of the future Lunar Module LM explode
in Bell Aerosystems Test Facility at Wheatfield, N.Y. (Wisnewski, p.115).
Thereby NASA thinks the ascent engine would be even more problematic than the landing engine (In: The Apollo Spacecraft - A Chronology; NASA Special Publication 4009; Wisnewski, p.115).
Crash of Armstrong with an LLRV / LLTV on 6 May 1968 [9]
6 May 1968
Test flight with LLRV-A1 with Neil Armstrong: Crash
The test of LLRV-A1 with steering "astronaut" Neil Armstrong begins with an ascent phase to a height of 150 m, then a descent phase to 70 m. Then the vehicle declines forward and it going to fall (Wisnewski, S.117). The landing control engines do not function as planned. The vehicle declines to the right side. Armstrong safes himself with the ejection seat and the LLRV crashes on the Earth (Wisnewski, p.118).
One year yet to the "moon landing".Summer1968
Cape Kennedy: The first Lunar Vehicle "Eagle" is delivered
Lunar Module 1, LM-1 is delivered by the constructor "Grumman Aerospace" (Wisnewski, p.115). It has only one engine and cannot fly at all because it always declines [and only has a labile balance] (Wisnewski, p.118). The center of gravity is much too high and the vehicle declines more than the test vehicles, with a cabin and with the crew over the engine (Wisnewski, p.119).
Impossible "Lunar Module" of the NASA
drawing with inscriptions [10]
By incomprehensible reasons it's not allowed having training with the Lunar Module (Wisnewski, p.116).
[How should this vehicle fly without declining? The Lunar Module during the flight with only one engine has a "stability" as a ball staying on another ball, a "labile balance", so there is no stability at all. The Lunar Module is declining at once when the flight begins, it is not capable to fly and is not capable to steer. This also counts for the moon gravity. By incomprehensible reasons the physicians of the "USA" are not protesting for developing a new concept of a well steerable landing vehicle].
When the engine fails the Lunar Module crashs, this is an incredible risk for the "astronauts", for the NASA, for the president of the "USA", for the prestige of the "USA" (Wisnewski, p.119).
The astronauts are only shaking the head because the failures of the delivered Lunar Module LM-1 are not possible to count. Astronaut James Lovell (airdrop Apollo 8 and 13):
"During the first tests of the fragile, with foil covered space vehicle it seemed as if every decisive component would have heavy failures which cannot be repaired. The number of failures in this vehicle was even outnumbering the imagination of the strongest NASA pessimists."
(In: Lovell / George: Apollo 13; Munich 1995, p.42; Wisnewski, p.115)
According to Wisnewski it's hardly possible having removed all failures of the Lunar Module in one year and having fulfilled the plan of the first "moon landing" in 1969. The main problem is that the vehicle has never been tested under moon conditions. The landing and the start had never been tested:
<If and how the Lunar Module would land on the moon and start from the moon had - simply - never been rehearsed.>
(Wisnewski, p.115)
There are even no unmanned tests. But there should be a "landing" on the moon with astronauts and live in TV. The Lunar Module is never tested in reality (Wisnewski, p.116).
The Apollo fans defend the Lunar Module - computer steering in the 1960ies
The Apollo fans maintain always an air balloon would also need only one "engine" to be able to fly... (Wisnewski, p.119).
[This way thinks only the stupid Disney Mickey Mouse society. But the air balloon is not at all steerable precisely like the Lunar Module...]
The Apollo fans maintain also that there would be computer steered position control engines.
(In: Space Vehicles. Lunar Module Stability; www.clavius.org/techlmstab.html (2006); Wisnewski, p.119)
But the computers of the 1960ies in that time are not this developed having the control over complicated flying procedures in an automatic way, and also at the LLRV the computer supported steering is failing on 60 % of the vehicles (Wisnewski, S.119).
So, it is a wonder how the responsibles can sleep well when they see the "Lunar Module"... (Wisnewski, p.119).
Apollo 5: Lunar Module functions officially only during 4 seconds
Apollo 5 on 21 January 1968 has got a Lunar Module on board. During the flight of the Lunar Module in the Atmosphere in the weightlessness the engine only works for 4 seconds (Wisnewski, p. 121).
Apollo 6, 7 and 8 have no Lunar Module in the rocket but only ballast. The opportunity for extensive testing of the Lunar Module is not taken (Wisnewski, p.120). The second Lunar Module delivered (LM-2 ) is landing directly in the museum and makes no flight (www.madsci.org/posts/archives/jun2001/991783298.As.r.html; Wisnewski, p. 120).
8 Dec 1968
Test flight of LLRV-B1 by pilot Joe Algranti - crash
After about 4 minutes the LLRV gets problems of stability. It falls like a stone and crashs, Algranti uses the ejection seat and can safe himself by parachute (Wisnewski, S.118).
Moments before the crash 1968. the Lunar Landing Training Vehicle no. 3 is flying over the 30 acre big "Lunar Landing sector", the site of the Manned Spacecraft Center campus [at Houston]. The pilot can save oneself by ejection seat and is not hurt. Courtesy Johnson Space Center Archives, Woodson Research Center, Rice University.
Test flight with LLRV / LLTV, Algranti before his crash 1968 [12]
1969-1972
3 March 1969
Apollo 9: Start with a Lunar Module - stuttering engine
The flight is only in a near Earth orbit. The Lunar Module flies but at the end the engine does not function well, and this was the "test" (Wisnewski, p.121).
18-26 May 1969
Apollo 10: Trip "to the moon" with Lunar Module - all is "fine"
NASA maintains all tests in the moon orbit had been well performed and all would function well now to a height of some km over the moon's surface. According to Wisnewski it's not real that now all would work well when it did not only two months before (Wisnewski, p. 121).
The "moon landing" with the "Lunar Module" in the "moon film" on the moon crane at Langley
"Lunar Module" without being able to steer and to fly
Lunar module with Astronaut. This photo is a big lie, because this scene was performed in a big hall on Earth [13]
Lunar Module: Instrument panel and windows, absolutely unreal and without any sight [14]
For "moon landing" training a moon landing vehicle is hanging on a rope and for a realistic training there is produced an artificial "moon landscape". The crane warrants a "clean landing". The "Lunar Module" gets: Wisnewski:
"a very soft landing on the 'moon surface' " (Wisnewski, p.283), and there is no landing crater of course. The background is in variations with backdrops, the floor is filled with earth (Wisnewski, p.284) and the shadows of the artificial craters are made specially black with spray to get a harder light shadow effect (Wisnewski, p.285).
"Moon landing" with the moon crane
Moon crane at Langley near Hampton, sight from above [15]
Moon crane with Lunar Landing Vehicle, several stages of the landing [16]
Under leadership of the boss of the Lunar Landing Research Facility, Donald Hewes, the "landscape artists" are building a "moon landscape". Hansen:
NASA maintains this would be the Lunar Module in an Earth orbit...
NASA foto no.:
AS11-44-6581"-- floodlights at the convenient points to simulate the moon light [...]
-- a black wall was installed at the far end of the crane having imitated the black (Wisnewski, p.284) sky of the moon [...]
-- Hewes himself climbed into the false craters with spray and sprayed the shadows of the craters black so the astronauts had a right impression of the shadows during a moon landing."
(Wisnewski, p.285)
(In: Hansen, James R.: Spaceflight Revolution, SP-4308, S.375; Internet edition,
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4308/contents.htm; Wisnewski, p.284-285).
[The real scenario of the "moon landing" with the moon crane
It seems to be like this that the "moon landings" have all happened at Langley simulation center with an empty Lunar Landing Vehicle "on the rope". Crane elements, ropes and spots can have been painted black on the films so it would resemble to the "space". After landing a cut in the film follows to the Manned Spacecraft Center near Houston where is the Lunar Module where the astronauts are getting out].
(Conclusion Palomino)
29 Jan 1971
Test flight of LLTV-B2 with pilot Stuart M. Present - crash
At the crash pilot Present can safe himself by ejection seat and parachute (Wisnewski, p.118).
The LLRV declines, pilot Stuart M. Present safes himself by ejection seat [18]
1972
Of 5 Lunar Testing Vehicles exist yet two of them
-- at Dryden Flight Research Center LLRV-A2
-- at NASA Johnson Space Center [ex Manned Spacecraft Center MSC] LLTV-B3 (Wisnewski, p.118).
NASA then maintains that the LLRVs resp. the LLTVs would be less stable than the Lunar Module whereas this is absolutely wrong because the Lunar Module has got only one, the LLRV training's vehicle has got three engines. The Lunar Module has a much higher height and is not at all stable but is worse than the training's vehicle LLRV (Wisnewski, p.118).
Conclusion: The moon landings have taken place at Langley on the moon crane
There were only LLRVs resp. LLTVs tested in flight, and with the flightless and non steerable Lunar Module there were no flight tests at all. So the conclusion seems right that the Lunar Module has never flown but that the "moon landing" has been performed with an empty "Lunar Vehicle" on the moon crane at Langley Research Center.
After the "landing" the film was cut and followed a scene with the "Lunar Module" in the studio in the Manned Spacecraft Center near Houston where the "astronauts" got out of the "Lunar Module".
(Conclusion Palomino)
1990s
Astronaut Eugene Cernan about the training with LLRV / LLTV
Cernan says in the 1990ies there was no necessity to have training even with LLRV:
"Frankly there was no necessity to train pilots of Lunar Module on the LLRV."
(In: Jones, Eric M.: Utility of the Lunar Landing Training Vehicle, 1995, last revised 2004; Wisnewski, p.116)
Cernan has an ambiguous meaning about the LLRV:
-- it would be "little stable"
-- it would be "realistic"
-- it had been a "wonderful training vehicle", but of a kind "as it would never seen again or used again."
(In: Jones, Eric M.: Utility of the Lunar Landing Training Vehicle, 1995, last revised 2004; Wisnewski, p.116)
In this style are the meanings also of the other astronauts. But LLRV was not at all a "training's vehicle" but the LLRV had essential differences to the Lunar Module which had only one engine and had no stability of flight at all (Wisnewski, p.116).
1991-1993
The new NASA vertical take-off aircraft and vertical landing aircraft "Delta Clipper" (DC-X) and his crash
Since the beginning of the 1960s aircraft engineers develop blueprints for a vertical take-off atmosphere ship, the so called Vertical Take-Off Vertical Landing launch vehicle, VTOVL. But more than some blueprints and studies have never been realized.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DC-X; Wisnewski, p.118)
(http://www.astronautix.com/lvfam/vtovl.htm)
1991 to 1993 NASA develops together with the "Strategic Defense Initiative Organization" of the department of defense a new, unmanned, vertical take-off atmosphere ship "Delta Clipper Experimental". "Delta Clipper" should mainly work in load transport. McDonnel Douglas builds the DC-X, so. the atmosphere ship should not reach a high orbit but above all it should be reusable, by entry into the tight atmosphere with the nose ahead, but with a vertical landing on the engines. For this new technique it was necessary to develop new engines for all manoevres. Between landing and starting should no moving be necessary to fuel the vehicle. And the Delta Clipper should have hardly no maintenance effort (one man) and control effort (two men during the flight).
The technical data concerning the stability are now better than the data of the Lunar Module:
-- with four big engines for the stability
-- with the center of gravity very low over the engines.
(In: The Delta Clipper Experimental: Flight Testing Archive. Last updated January 6, 1998; Wisnewski, p.119)
7 July 1995
First crash of Delta Clipper (DC-X) - new Delta Clipper DC-XA
A hard landing damages the protection shield (aero shell) heavily. Delta Clipper is rebuilt in a new version with new tanks and a better control system (DC-XA) and is called now "Clipper Advanced" resp. "Clipper Graham".
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DC-X)
Delta Clipper DC-XA Crash [21]
In 1996 there are tests at White Sands.
(http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/dcx.htm)
31 July 1997
Crash of Delta Clipper DC-XA
The obviously stable Delta Clipper crashes down. A landing foot fails. Delta Clipper with it's four engines [and with a modern computerized steering] declines and explodes. NASA is giving up the plan to rebuild it again because of financial difficulties whereas astronaut Conrad allocates 50 mio. $.
(In: The Delta Clipper Experimental: Flight Testing Archive. Last updated January 6, 1998; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DC-X; Wisnewski, p.119)
Conclusion
When a vertical take-off aircraft like Delta Clipper could not fly with four engine, a Lunar Module with only one engine could not fly at all. The Lunar Module was never tested in flight on Earth and according to the landing data and the ray data of the Apollo missions the Lunar Module also never has landed "on the moon".
This is NO conspiracy theory, stupid journalist, but these are the facts and is logic. You don't believe? The facts will NOT change.
