|
Post by Trinitrotoluene on Jan 22, 2008 6:48:59 GMT -4
Hello all, Jarrah has just released his new production Sticks and Stones. Some of you get a mention which I'm sure will fill your day with happiness and sunshine! www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1ghsEaNZJ8 Part 1 www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4h6GdEFTLE Part 2 www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDc8OdXz2pc Part 3 Obviously I will be responding in due course, but it's quite hard to knock up a video response quickly, seeing as though I work full time, and study for my degree full time and on top of that I need to keep the missus happy!!! There is also researching things etc. If anyone is willing to offer a hand in terms of research, that would be great (drop me a PM or post in here and I'll give you my MSN address).
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jan 22, 2008 12:51:26 GMT -4
Part 1...Proton's inclination was 50-something degrees, Apollo's was 30 something. And listing an apoggee and perigee in a newspaper does not constitute "orbital data"...there are a bunch of other items if you want to precisely define an orbit.
Part 2...he goes on about the TEI burn. When the accident happened, they were not free return, a small mid course correction had taken them off that. After the accident, they did a small burn to make them free return again, and it does not entail going past the Moon by 10s of thousands of miles. There was a later burn to speed their return and give a better cushion for remaining consumables. At no time in the A13 mission was there a massive LOI ot TEI burn, typically used in the other, nominal, missions.
Relatively small (compared to LOI/TEI) DPS and RCS burns got A13 home from the accident,.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jan 22, 2008 14:49:49 GMT -4
Jarrah White is clueless. It's embarrassing, really. Part 1...Proton's inclination was 50-something degrees, Apollo's was 30 something. And listing an apoggee and perigee in a newspaper does not constitute "orbital data"...there are a bunch of other items if you want to precisely define an orbit. Exactly; perigee and apogee doesn’t tell you anything about when or where a satellite should be visible. With all his rambling on about whether or not Apollo 11 was visible, I believe Jarrah’s point has been lost. What is he even arguing about? What does he claim happened or should have happened? Ragarding Part 2... Jarrah’s arguments about Apollo 13 are a joke. The guy has no understanding of the mission that was flown following the accident, much less what it would take to accomplish it. His arguments about propellant usage are complete nonsense. And is he actually quoting Ralph Rene as some sort of an expert? LOL!
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jan 22, 2008 15:58:51 GMT -4
After the accident, they did a small burn to make them free return again, and it does not entail going past the Moon by 10s of thousands of miles.
Of course it does, accompanied by the "errrrrrrrrrrrrt!" skidding sound and smoke from the brakes, as the back end of the ship fishtails around. Didn't you learn anything at Cartoon U.?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Jan 22, 2008 16:06:09 GMT -4
That is almost exactly how that scene played out in "Armageddon."
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jan 22, 2008 16:16:00 GMT -4
OK, I need to correct myself, the PC+2 burn was a pretty big one...263.4 second DPS burn, 860.5fps velocity change. This accellerated them on the homeward course moving their landing up by about 9 hours and moving the landing point to the Pacific Ocean (vs Indian Ocean). It was not required for getting back to Earth, just shortened the trip a bit. Needed a long burn, as the "little engine that could" was hefting a big mass. My error there...
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 22, 2008 16:18:53 GMT -4
That is almost exactly how that scene played out in "Armageddon." Awww come on, it's much more exciting to fly shuttles fighter plane style through a bunch of spinning peices of rock at really high speeds than to have then come in at slightly above the speed of the asteroid and manoeuver through them slowly and carefully.
|
|
|
Post by Trinitrotoluene on Jan 22, 2008 16:28:27 GMT -4
That is almost exactly how that scene played out in "Armageddon." Awww come on, it's much more exciting to fly shuttles fighter plane style through a bunch of spinning peices of rock at really high speeds than to have then come in at slightly above the speed of the asteroid and manoeuver through them slowly and carefully. The moons gravity cleared the debris from the Asteroids tail, don't you know ANYTHING Phantomwolf!
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 22, 2008 16:30:23 GMT -4
In fact, apogee and perigee altitudes relative to normalized ground level of the primary are not standard orbital elements. The geometric shape of an orbit are given by the length of the semi-major axis and the eccentricity. The orientation of the orbital plane and the orientation of the orbit's ellipse within the plane are given by the other values of the standard orbital elements, and are crucial in reasoning about orbital compatibility.
Engine maneuvers to transform a free-return trajectory to a hybrid trajectory and back again are minimal compared to LOI insertion manuevers. LOI requires a substantial change in velocity along the orbital path. LOI-1 and LOI-2 are in-plane retrograde burns. TEI is also a substantial in-plane, posigrade burn. MCC-x burns, including trajectory insertion, are out-of-plane lateral corrections. It's equivalent to making a very small change in the angle of a pool cue that results in a substantially different final position for the struck ball. While MCC burns are sometimes done with the SPS, they can also be done with the SM RCS. They are not done with the DPS nominally because the LM guidance system is not configured for docked maneuvers. But the DPS is more than sufficient to provide MCC-degree delta-v.
The PC+2 burn was an improvsed posigrade, in-plane DPS burn simply to hasten the return. There was no preset requirement for the PC+2 acceleration burn; it was simply for as much additional energy as would fit the margin for re-entry. DPS fuel was not a critical consumable in the contingency mission, and it doesn't matter how powerful the engine is. It only matters how much overall delta-v can be attained. Expending a certain amount of fuel results in a certain delta-v, regardless of how long it takes to expend it.
Flying through space ain't like dusting crops.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jan 22, 2008 17:31:47 GMT -4
I'm glad I got that straight... ;D
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Jan 22, 2008 17:37:59 GMT -4
I don't know, Jay... I'd have to see the look on your face to know if you were telling the truth about all that.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Jan 22, 2008 17:54:45 GMT -4
As I am months away from graduating with a cartooning degree, I can say with some authority that this is what is to be expected, though it would also be acceptable for the ship to bounce off of a group of nearby craters pinball style until a large "tilt" sign appears for comedic effect.
He promised to mention me in his next video. I am at school right now and can't watch the movies. Have my dreams come true?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Jan 22, 2008 18:17:50 GMT -4
At great expense to my well being, I just watched part of Jarrah's new video. In the past, I've advocated for responding to YouTube videos in the comments section and for making response videos. But I have to say that I think it is a complete waste of time to engage Mr. White. His claims are so bizarre and nonsensical that I really think we are just feeding the monkey by responding to him. No matter what evidence you provide, he just charges forward at full throttle, driving his head farther into the sand. The monkey doesn't get any smarter when we feed him, but just continues to produce excrement on a regular basis. I honestly have to wonder if we stop feeding the monkey if he would starve.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jan 22, 2008 19:42:34 GMT -4
Jay, if you can sabotage Jarrah's computer via Yahoo, can't you stop him from viewing the posts here? Surely we deserve some privacy? I hope he doesn't see my Egyptian mockup, as Jason pointed out he may think it's authentic or he may think that I think it is, or worse he may think that we all think it is or may think that it isn't but think that we've faked it and are passing it off at being genuine. Jarrah doesn't seem to understand that we here don't pretend to know everything about the Apollo missions: even the most knowledgeable among us cannot always be 100% correct all the time. The difference though is that we don't mind being corrected by another forum member - I would even go as far to say that in general we would be delighted in getting the correct information. So of course, I get delighted a lot.Since he seems to be watching all the time I wonder if he can tell if we are joking or not if we don't use a smilie? Jarrah's videos sure are looking a lot more slick though, I'll say that for them - too bad they masquerade as reality.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 22, 2008 19:59:07 GMT -4
Of course no one person claims to know everything about Apollo. And I can't think of anyone who would be believed if he claimed it. And yes, I'm happy to be corrected by people who know something I don't.
But conspiracism is not about what's right; it's more about claims that someone else is wrong. Conspiracy theories aren't coherent, well-formed alternatives to the mainstream belief. They're simply laundry lists of things that are "fishy" or "anomalous" or "inconsistent." A conspiracist believes his theory is acceptable if he can but show the Powers That Be are not 100% correct all the time, therefore maybe -- just maybe -- there's a chance they are wrong in that one particular case.
It's a completely straw man. Since no one is entirely correct all the time, no one can ever be the only kind of critic a conspiracy theorist would accept as a judge of his theory. It's all just part of the ploy to avoid any meaningful criticism. One does not have to be perfect in order to correctly point out where someone else is quite demonstrably wrong.
|
|