|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on May 5, 2010 17:59:11 GMT -4
For the site to lose a member who can spell and write in complete sentences is a loss, no matter what they want to talk about or which side of any issue they stand on.
|
|
|
Post by capricorn1 on May 5, 2010 18:57:55 GMT -4
About that thread on the Icke forum, I would like your scientific clarification on a couple of points if possible?
So......
How high can an astronaut jump on the moon? There's a couple of maths posts on that thread that sort of conflict. What's that all about. I know 14 feet sounds ridiculous....but can it be proven to be so?
The dreaded C-rock. Does anybody know where the prints came from and how they ended up in Jarrah's book? I think Hagbard made that point.
One thing I notice is Jarrah White's obsessional persistence. I really think his personal ego may be getting in the way, and wish in a way that the LRO photos had been just a bit nearer to possibly shut him up? He just refuses to acknowledge anything, not even 'in your face' cold hard science.
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on May 5, 2010 19:51:14 GMT -4
That issue is rather complicated, as you would have to include not only weight and mass of the PLSS and spacesuit, but also it's stiffness and how it affected the centre of gravity of the astronaut. One may jump high, but you'll likely land on your butt, or worse, PLSS.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on May 5, 2010 20:13:08 GMT -4
Correct. I view this site as a resource for Apollo discussion and to lose a member for non-Apollo related reasons seems a loss for the site in general. Depends on what non-Apollo reasons those are. I mean, not being able to hold a civilized conversation is, by my standards at least, a non-Apollo reason to lose someone, and one where we're all better off as a result. (Not, thank you, that I'm saying this is the case here. I have several others in mind.)
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on May 5, 2010 20:50:29 GMT -4
Regarding the jumping claim: www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=114539&page=2Post 17 Someone comes in with some actual numbers. I'm not a math guy, so I can't comment intelligently, but I have an observation. In Apollo 11 the astronauts appear to be very uncomfortable and awkward. They move around in a way that suggests that they are unsure of their footing and afraid to fall over. Then watch films of Apollo 17 astronauts. They really confident in their movements --they're all over the place. They thrash around like a couple of kids. It seems like they learned something about what they could get away with, and the pre-mission training prepared them better to operate in lower gravity.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on May 5, 2010 21:05:40 GMT -4
Regarding the jumping claim: www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=114539&page=2Post 17 Someone comes in with some actual numbers. I'm not a math guy, so I can't comment intelligently, but I have an observation. In Apollo 11 the astronauts appear to be very uncomfortable and awkward. They move around in a way that suggests that they are unsure of their footing and afraid to fall over. Then watch films of Apollo 17 astronauts. They really confident in their movements --they're all over the place. They thrash around like a couple of kids. It seems like they learned something about what they could get away with, and the pre-mission training prepared them better to operate in lower gravity. Andrew Chaikin agrees with you. A Man On The Moon, page 513-14: "Both men, and especially Schmitt, took to their work with a kind of physical aggressiveness, even arrogance, rarely seen in any moonwalkers before them, and certainly not on the first day outside; they seemed to have no wariness about the risk of a damaged spacesuit. It wasn't recklessness -- both men had a healthy respect for their situation -- but the kind of confidence that comes with familiarity, as if they had done all of this many times before. And in a sense, they had, because five teams of astronauts had gone before them. Once again, the phenomenon of instantaneous evolution that had marked each Apollo mission, not only among the astronauts but among the flight controllers and engineers, was at work: Cernan and Schmitt had absorbed the experiences of their predecessors, and now, on the moon, they were building on them." Also the astronauts on the later missions had redesigned suits that were more flexible, so their movement was less restricted. history.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-SuitConvolutes.html
|
|
|
Post by tomblvd on May 5, 2010 21:09:29 GMT -4
If I'm sending this in the wrong direction, let me know and I'll (as I usually do) shut up. But there is an identical thread on the ATS board started by the same guy. It has, of course, taken on a life of its own and here we are, 31 pages and hundreds of posts along, I see this quote: "In 2006, the European Space Agency (ESA) crashed their SMART-1 space probe into the moon. It crashed into the lunar maria. This probe kicked up plumes of moon dust that scientists could analyze using radio telescopes. What they discovered was that the rocks actually on the moon are mineralogically different to those collected by Apollo astronauts." It comes from Bart Sibrel's FAQ. I've seen absolutely nothing about this. Does anybody know anything about it? And as I said, it really means little, because you would expect different types of rock in different areas of the moon, and one report I read said it may have impacted a ridgeline. But the quote is obviously a bastardization of something, and I'd like to see what. www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread566601/pg31#pid8738036You should look around, lots of woo for everyone.....
|
|
|
Post by scooter on May 5, 2010 21:25:30 GMT -4
Regarding the jumping claim: www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=114539&page=2Post 17 Someone comes in with some actual numbers. I'm not a math guy, so I can't comment intelligently, but I have an observation. In Apollo 11 the astronauts appear to be very uncomfortable and awkward. They move around in a way that suggests that they are unsure of their footing and afraid to fall over. Then watch films of Apollo 17 astronauts. They really confident in their movements --they're all over the place. They thrash around like a couple of kids. It seems like they learned something about what they could get away with, and the pre-mission training prepared them better to operate in lower gravity. Andrew Chaikin agrees with you. A Man On The Moon, page 513-14: "Both men, and especially Schmitt, took to their work with a kind of physical aggressiveness, even arrogance, rarely seen in any moonwalkers before them, and certainly not on the first day outside; they seemed to have no wariness about the risk of a damaged spacesuit. It wasn't recklessness -- both men had a healthy respect for their situation -- but the kind of confidence that comes with familiarity, as if they had done all of this many times before. And in a sense, they had, because five teams of astronauts had gone before them. Once again, the phenomenon of instantaneous evolution that had marked each Apollo mission, not only among the astronauts but among the flight controllers and engineers, was at work: Cernan and Schmitt had absorbed the experiences of their predecessors, and now, on the moon, they were building on them." Also the astronauts on the later missions had redesigned suits that were more flexible, so their movement was less restricted. history.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-SuitConvolutes.htmlI would imagine that, were it possible to imagine such a thing, the only regret the Apollo 11 moonwalkers might ever have would be that they didn't have more time on the surface, as on the later flights. Their stay was so very brief. But understandable, nonetheless.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on May 6, 2010 5:33:19 GMT -4
"In 2006, the European Space Agency (ESA) crashed their SMART-1 space probe into the moon. It crashed into the lunar maria. This probe kicked up plumes of moon dust that scientists could analyze using radio telescopes. What they discovered was that the rocks actually on the moon are mineralogically different to those collected by Apollo astronauts." It comes from Bart Sibrel's FAQ. I've seen absolutely nothing about this. Does anybody know anything about it? And as I said, it really means little, because you would expect different types of rock in different areas of the moon, and one report I read said it may have impacted a ridgeline. But the quote is obviously a bastardization of something, and I'd like to see what. I've only found one account of observations of the impact plume, but there is no mention of any analysis of the chemical content, just the physical size. www.cfht.hawaii.edu/News/Smart1/#DustI think that SMART 1 gained its information on lunar chemistry from on-board instruments before the impact.
|
|
|
Post by tomblvd on May 6, 2010 10:33:24 GMT -4
I've only found one account of observations of the impact plume, but there is no mention of any analysis of the chemical content, just the physical size. www.cfht.hawaii.edu/News/Smart1/#DustI think that SMART 1 gained its information on lunar chemistry from on-board instruments before the impact. Thanks, that's about what I read also. Chalk up another Sibrel lie.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on May 6, 2010 10:59:51 GMT -4
I guess that I was in error to think that "like minded" individuals posted to this board...bottom line is I don't belong here. We aren't like-minded individuals, and I would be disappointed if we were. However, getting along with people of different backgrounds sometimes means not joining every debate that presents itself.
|
|
|
Post by tomblvd on May 6, 2010 20:32:39 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on May 6, 2010 21:32:52 GMT -4
The moon does have an atmosphere. Not much of one though...
"There is trace of atmosphere, but the density is so low that it corresponds to what we normally call a good laboratory vacuum. The total weight of the entire lunar atmosphere is no more than 30 tons" -On the Moon, by Patrick Moore
BTW I didn't understand much in that link, I thought it was talking about water vapour...
|
|
|
Post by tomblvd on May 6, 2010 21:43:50 GMT -4
The moon does have an atmosphere. Not much of one though... And therein lies the problem. This guy sees the term "atmosphere", and makes the comparison to Earth, even though it is 100 trillionth of Earth's. But he's incapable of understanding how different the two really are. Some of us here debated a guy a good few years back on, I believe, a Yahoo forum and he made the mistake of claiming sound waves could travel in space. (No, I cannot for the life of me recall what the genesis of the discussion was). After being called on such a basic mistake, he then spent page after page arguing that space wasn't a "pure" vacuum, but filled with plasma. So sound waves had the media to travel thru. We tried over and over to demonstrate that the number of molecules of plasma in a cubic meter of space was next to nothing, so the sound waves couldn't propagate. But it didn't matter. He had his life preserver, and he clung to it for hundreds of posts. I couldn't bring myself to read or use the word "plasma" for months after that. Anybody recall that discussion?
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on May 6, 2010 22:06:43 GMT -4
Anybody recall that discussion?
Vaguely.
He was unhealthily dogged in clinging to his beliefs. I'm sure I skimmed it for a while then gave up.
|
|