|
Post by dwight on Nov 14, 2011 14:03:36 GMT -4
Or playdor, you could have gone to Vienna and ask Mr Armstrong yourself as he appeared on Servus TV and gave an interview for about 2 hours not so long ago, or in Sydney this year or to any of the public appearances he made this year. Hell, you could even book him yourself through his agent.
|
|
|
Post by abaddon on Nov 14, 2011 14:16:54 GMT -4
Would you let the all caps issue go I explained that it was a cut and pasted quote. I AM SORRY. Sure. Consider it forgotten. 60 minutes said that Armstrong had historically avoided interviews, so i went to the net to see any interviews posted. the only one that came up on youtube was the 1970 BBC interview. Gosh, so Neil's 2003 speaking tour of Europe was a mirage or something, as were the Q and A sessions at the end of each engagement. in watching it Armstrong stated, from cislunar space they could only see the blackness of space, the earth, sun and moon, and other crews may have reported some planets. As predicted. I asked the question here what Armstrong meant and i get deflections about adjusting eyes to night vision and why can't i understand that, and it takes so long to adjust, can't turn off the cabin lights, all the port holes allowing light in, rotation of the capsule, Apollo 11 crew were too busy to look out the window to sight see, blah blah blah. So let me get this straight. You concede that they were in direct sunlight all the way through the traverse of cislunar space. You concede that even when all five CM windows were facing away from the Sun, the CM interior was floodlit. You seem to believe that the crew were idly loafing around the CM with nothing to do other than pull down the window blinds, switch off the lights and wait to get dark adapted, simply to satisfy your bias, because they would not see anything from the CM that could not be better seen from Earth. It never ceases to amaze me that the HB crew believe that somehow the stars will look, in some undefined way, DIFFERENT from cislunar space. It is as if eyeball beats Hubble by magic. To imply these issues influenced Armstrong's answer belittles Armstrong and his crew. Nope, you are doing the belittling here. If they had intended to see if he could view the stars from cislunar space, Did they so intend? You present precisely zero evidence of such intention. he would ofhave over come these issues. If he had jumped through the imaginary hoops of your creation, then he possibly could have, but to what end? Just to satisfy you? he did not say they did not look. if you can't determine what he meant by this interview, just say it. if you can give me the science It has been handed to you on a plate throughout this very thread. It is no ones fault but yours that you fail to understand it. What you have here is a resource. A fund of knowledge. A group who will patiently take the time and effort to explain to you whichever issue you don't get. Don't turn and poop on their doorstep.
|
|
|
Post by twik on Nov 14, 2011 15:21:57 GMT -4
To imply these issues influenced Armstrong's answer belittles Armstrong and his crew. If they had intended to see if he could view the stars from cislunar space, he would of over come these issues. Can you explain why you think anyone would have "intended to see" if Armstrong could see the stars? How often do you think airline pilots say, "Hey, we're over the pacific ocean, the air's clear and there's no light pollution from outside, let's turn out all the lights in the cockpit, and just spend some time gazing at the stars?" Would you want to fly that airline if they did? You are assuming that the astronauts would be interested in the stars, but you've given no obvious reason why they should make any particular effort to see them.
|
|
|
Post by twik on Nov 14, 2011 15:50:46 GMT -4
Would you let the all caps issue go 60 minutes said that Armstrong had historically avoided interviews, so i went to the net to see any interviews posted. the only one that came up on youtube was the 1970 BBC interview. You do know, do you not, that there's more to the world than what is available on YouTube? Simply saying, "Well, I looked on YouTube" is not adequate research.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 14, 2011 15:54:58 GMT -4
I think you're selling yourself short. Even if you understand none of the technical aspects of Apollo, and I rather doubt that, you'd hear and see inconsistencies and problems discussed openly and repeatedly by those whom you do regard as experts. If there were any, you'd know it. My point is that there are lots where I'm just going to have to take various people's words as to whether there are inconsistencies or not, because I don't understand it myself. Are there places where I would? Sure. But whenever the thread gets technical, my eyes glaze over. Pages of numbers? I don't know what they mean. (And please don't try to teach me; this is not a forum where I have the ability to learn it, regardless of my mental aptitude on the subject full stop.) When someone says, "This number should be X," I'm taking their word on it. There are words which get used a lot which I've had to look up, because I'm not an engineer, a physicist, or anything along those lines. Bluntly, I'm not a scientist. I have a higher-than-average interest in the subject, and I know the principles of how science works, but knowing what I know means that I know that I am not personally equipped to actually do the work. However, as you say, we can't all be experts at everything. I know every time any of you have put a comma in the wrong place, but I'm not so good with decimal points. However, as I've said, I don't have to be a scientist to know that Apollo is real. Come to that, I don't have to have a higher-than-average interest in the subject and know the principles of how science works, though of course that's pretty much enough in and of itself. Apollo conspiracism--indeed, most conspiracism--falls on the grounds of basic logic, of human psychology, and on a whole bunch of other grounds which conspiracists don't know any more about than they do about science.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Nov 14, 2011 16:27:45 GMT -4
Gillian, I agree with you. I'm just pointing out that laymen can often tell whether a set of technical results are real or not simply by watching how the experts behave. If you observe them rigorously following the scientific method, then their results ought to be much more credible than if they don't, especially if there are a lot of unsettled arguments. By that I mean legitimate scientific debate, not manufactured controversy by those with a political or economic motive.
Unfortunately the latter is increasingly common. The classic examples are evolution and the health effects of smoking. Now it's happening with global warming. I'm not sure how to deal with the problem.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 14, 2011 16:45:24 GMT -4
Layman often don't know the difference. That's where my higher-than-average interest level comes in.
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Nov 14, 2011 17:10:21 GMT -4
Thank you for an answer on the temperature of 1191 degrees at the nozzle exit. this is the first straight answer given on this site. How is this not a straight answer?
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Nov 14, 2011 17:13:42 GMT -4
try this, if you were standing on the moon, in a sheltered area where you did not see anything except space, can you tell me if you will see stars? I guess you already know the answer to that question yourself, don't you?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Nov 14, 2011 18:56:46 GMT -4
ascent engine used unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine fuel and and inhibited red fuming nitric acid (IRFNA) as the oxidizer INCORRECT. The fuel was most definitely not IRFNA. Please stop being so obtuse.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Nov 14, 2011 19:01:14 GMT -4
Grumman didn't even develop or manufacture the descent engine. Correct, the DPS was developed by Rocketdyne. The APS was developed by Bell Aerosystems.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Nov 14, 2011 19:02:46 GMT -4
Playdor, why do you expect us to answer your questions when you're unwilling to answer ours?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Nov 14, 2011 19:03:28 GMT -4
what cools the exhaust gas as it leaves the rocket engine in a vacuum? Expansion. It takes energy to expand and the only source of energy is the gas itself; therefore the gas loses thermal energy as it expands and cools down.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Nov 14, 2011 19:04:57 GMT -4
also are the fuels the same in both engines? Why will saying it one more time make a difference?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 14, 2011 19:15:38 GMT -4
what cools the exhaust gas as it leaves the rocket engine in a vacuum? Expansion, in conformance to the ideal gas law, as expressed by Bob, and also radiation chiefly in the infrared wavelengths. The SPS (service module engine), the LM APS (ascent engine) and DPS (descent engine) all used the same fuel formulation: nitrogen tetroxide and Aerozine-50.
|
|