|
Author
|
Topic: Lunar module landings
|
mensax
Member Posts: 861
From: Virginia
Registered: Apr 2002
|
posted 07-16-2003 05:38 PM
   
How would you rank the six LM landings on the moon? Giving equal credit for landing in the right spot, landing gently, and landing level and away from danger.A11 missed the target but I believe I read that it came down so gently that Neil and Buzz didn't even know they touched down. A12 was right on target but they came down pretty hard from what I saw on the HBO series. And weren't they rather close to a crater? A14... ? A15... wasn't it parked on a slope? hard or soft? A16... kinda close to crater? A17...
So maybe rank them from best to worst...
A17
A14
A15
A11
A12
A16
Noah
|
Scott
Member Posts: 3307
From: Houston, TX
Registered: May 2001
|
posted 07-16-2003 07:14 PM
In my opinion, the choices are clear:Best: Charles Conrad, Apollo 12
(pinpoint accuracy and soft) Worst: Dave Scott, Apollo 15
(slammed down on the side of a crater at an angle and nearly tipped over - must have been all those covers.) |
cklofas
Member Posts: 221
From: Euless,TX USA
Registered: Mar 2003
|
posted 07-16-2003 07:30 PM
I agree with Scott. Conrad also wins the 'Best Articulation of Feelings' award for "Whoopeee!" |
Mike Dixon
Member Posts: 1397
From: Kew, Victoria, Australia
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 07-17-2003 12:07 AM
Interesting comments regarding the rankings of landings.FWIW, an article in Time magazine in 1971 covering Apollo 15 said without doubt that it was the most difficult of all lunar landings, including those sites already slated for 16 and 17. I agree though that A12's performance was brilliant ... if only they'd not lost TV transmission capability. Mike |
Bob M
Member Posts: 1744
From: Atlanta-area, GA USA
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 07-17-2003 09:27 AM
Any moonlanding that you can (moon)walk away from is a good one. |
Cliff Lentz
Member Posts: 655
From: Philadelphia, PA USA
Registered: Mar 2002
|
posted 07-17-2003 09:31 AM
Well, 14 was definately on the slope. You can see in all the photos and I believe Al mentioned it as he stepped on thev surface.12 was right on the money, but that was what Al Bean told me. OK my list!
12
11
17
16
15
14 |
Scott
Member Posts: 3307
From: Houston, TX
Registered: May 2001
|
posted 07-17-2003 10:54 AM
Right you are, Bob.
Scott |
dsenechal
Member Posts: 539
From:
Registered: Dec 2002
|
posted 07-17-2003 11:04 AM
Interesting topic, and lots of different perspectives. I would put Apollo 11 at the top of the list, simply because it was the very first. The crew didn't have the benefit of learning from previous crews, nor did the flight controllers have the opportunity to finetune their targeting parameters - it was all new.Dave [This message has been edited by dsenechal (edited July 17, 2003).] |
mensax
Member Posts: 861
From: Virginia
Registered: Apr 2002
|
posted 07-17-2003 05:03 PM
One thing about collectors... there is never any bias towards Apollo 12!  Do you think there is any truth to the rumor that the reason the camera broke on that mission is that Conrad and Bean didn't want mission control to see that they smuggled Dick Gordon down to the surface with them? Noah |
Rick Mulheirn
Member Posts: 4167
From: England
Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 07-17-2003 05:35 PM
My vote would have to be for Apollo 12 also. Armstrong was intent on putting it down; but anywhere would have done within reason. The accuracy of Conrad's landing was something else. After that Apollo 14 must rank highly. Prior to 14 Shepard only had 15 minutes or so sub orbital lob under his belt. And if memory serves me right, he landed Antares pretty flat; it only settled at an angle, some time after landing, during a sleep period. |
KenDavis
Member Posts: 187
From: W.Sussex United Kingdom
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 07-17-2003 05:42 PM
Didn't the descent radar on 14 take a long while to start returning their altitude, to the extent that they were pretty much on the abort limit before they starting getting a reading?Half jokingly Mitchell reckoned Shepard was so determined to reach the surface he would have carried on decent radar or no descent radar. That ought to push 14 up the ranking a bit. As for the rest I agree with Bob, any landing that succeeded was a good landing! |
BLACKARROW
unregistered
|
posted 07-17-2003 05:59 PM
I agree with Dave. I have the utmost admiration for Pete Conrad's achievement on Apollo 12: a pinpoint landing was crucial not only to allow the visit to Surveyor 3, but also to prove the concept of accurate landings at sites of great scientific interest. I rate Conrad's performance a very honourable second. BUT, neither Conrad nor Shepard nor Scott nor Young nor Cernan had to face the enormity of Armstrong's task: to do it first, to put the LM down safely, to achieve Kennedy's goal. No other commander had to face a series of master-alarms which so nearly forced an abort. To quote from "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner":"We were the first that ever burst
Into that silent Sea" The key word is "first." |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1586
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 07-21-2003 08:58 PM
I think it's hard to rank the landings since
none of them were so off target as to damage the scientific or geological results of that mission. |
advertisement