|
Post by JayUtah on May 30, 2005 17:53:52 GMT -4
Hey, do you see street lights in this picture?
No, but I see several objects lit by the sun. Whether you believe they are really being lit by the sun or by a stage light is irrelevant. If, for the sake of argument, the objects in this photo are in sunlight, then it is expected there will be no stars in the photo because the film does not have adequate dynamic range to render both sunlit objects and stars. Conspiracy authors argue this is not proper, but in fact this is exactly what photographers expect.
|
|
|
Post by papageno on May 31, 2005 5:14:27 GMT -4
PLease go to Google.com and write: "we never went to the moon" You can visit 4,150,000 websites that say you never went to the moon because of many reasons. Unfortunately for the HBs, facts are not decided by popularity.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on May 31, 2005 11:20:08 GMT -4
PLease go to Google.com and write: "we never went to the moon" You can visit 4,150,000 websites that say you never went to the moon because of many reasons. When I did the Google search that Unknown suggested it only found 888 sites... far short of 4,150,000. And you're right, Martin, most of those sites belong to people who believe the landings really happened. It depends on how you enter it. If you use the quotation marks, i.e. “we never went to the moon” then you only get sites that contain that complete phrase. I just did it and got 893 hits. If you leave the quotation marks out, i.e. we never went to the moon then you get hits on pages containing any of these words in its body. I just did it and got 4,670,000 hits. Of course, the vast majority of these pages have absolutely nothing to do with the alleged moon landing hoax. A page with the phrase “we went to the moon” would probably come up as a strong hit because it includes 5 of the 6 key words.
|
|
|
Post by unknown on May 31, 2005 14:29:57 GMT -4
Let's try to reason with intelligence: if you must land on the moon with lunar module. Before, what do you think to do? Before landing on the moon, you try to do it on the earth or not? If you don't do it, you are an idiot. Before you train with and then you use this What is this? Does Lunar module have tramp suits? ;D
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on May 31, 2005 14:51:28 GMT -4
Before, what do you think to do?
You use all available means of training and simulation.
Before landing on the moon, you try to do it on the earth or not? If you don't do it, you are an idiot.
Agreed. However, the LM cannot fly on or near the Earth. Thus the LM itself cannot be used for training during the actual landing. The LM can fly in space, and so training in Earth orbit for flying the LM during the orbital phases of its mission was conducted during several pre-operational Apollo missions. LM-1, LM-3, and LM-4 were used in test missions.
The only way to successfully build the LM at all was to build it to operate solely in a space environment. In order to train pilots for rocket-propelled VTOL operations, a different vehicle had to be devised -- one that would safely operate in an Earth environment yet also provide the same handling characteristics as the LM would exhibit in space.
There is no presumption that this trainer would have to look like the LM or operate internally according to the same principles.
Before you train with (LLRV image) and then you use this (LM image)
Yes. Those of us familiar with flight test and training don't see a problem with this. Do you have expertise in flight test, flight training, or aircraft design that we should be aware of?
What is this? Does Lunar module have tramp suits?
You're looking at the loosely-packed insulation on the bottom surface, designed to protect the understructure from reflected and radiant heat during the landing. The loose appearance is intentional: it minimizes conduction paths through several layers of insulation.
Now what was all this intended to prove? You seem to be trying to argue that there was some sort of fatal disparity between the LLRV and the LM. Please elaborate. What do you assume to be the necessary points of correspondence?
Further, the LLRV was not the only means used to train LM pilots, as you well know. You have argued that it was impossible to fly the LM. But you have provided no evidence of that claim.
|
|
|
Post by unknown on May 31, 2005 15:50:54 GMT -4
"The only way to successfully build the LM at all was to build it to operate solely in a space environment. In order to train pilots for rocket-propelled VTOL operations, a different vehicle had to be devised..."
Hey, that LLRV hasn't got a rocket engine. It seems to fly (as it's only a photomontage) by compressed air.
Rocket engine is very unlike compressed air. Don't you think? ;D
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on May 31, 2005 15:56:30 GMT -4
Hey, that LLRV hasn't got a rocket engine.
Yes it does.
Rocket engine is very unlike compressed air. Don't you think? ;D
Jet propulsion is jet propulsion, whether it derives from a rocket, a jet motor, or compressed air. But that is irrelevant as the LLRV had downward-directed rocket engines.
Please research the LLRV before making wild assertions about it.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on May 31, 2005 15:58:27 GMT -4
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on May 31, 2005 16:03:57 GMT -4
"The only way to successfully build the LM at all was to build it to operate solely in a space environment. In order to train pilots for rocket-propelled VTOL operations, a different vehicle had to be devised..." Hey, that LLRV hasn't got a rocket engine. It seems to fly (as it's only a photomontage) by compressed air. The LLRV had a jet engine to support 5/6ths of its weight to allow it to simiulate the Moon's gravity. It then had two rocket engines to simulate the LM's descent engine. Not really. Compressed air would have a much lower specific impulse, but the basic principle is the same.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on May 31, 2005 16:36:50 GMT -4
Cold gas rockets are a time-honored technique.
|
|
|
Post by martin on Jun 1, 2005 2:18:41 GMT -4
From The history of the Harrier: "Preparations continued at Dunsfold over the summer and autumn of 1960, with engine running trials and system tests conducted ahead of the initial set of hovering flights. The first of these finally took place on 21 October, with Bill Bedford at the controls. For this initial series of tests the aircraft was tethered to the grid with short cables to limit the height it could rise to. Limited by one-foot tethers, and with Bill Bedford's right leg in plaster following a car accident, the first hover was successfully completed." So, the first hover test of an early ancestor of the Harrier took place on October 21, 1960... almost nine years before the Apollo 11 moon landing. In the eastern time zone of US, there is right now a program on the history channel of the harrier jet. I do not know if it can be seen in other places. Martin
|
|
|
Post by unknown on Jun 1, 2005 13:36:23 GMT -4
"Preparations continued at Dunsfold over the summer and autumn of 1960, with engine running trials and system tests conducted ahead of the initial set of hovering flights. The first of these finally took place on 21 October, with Bill Bedford at the controls. For this initial series of tests the aircraft was tethered to the grid with short cables to limit the height it could rise to. Limited by one-foot tethers, and with Bill Bedford's right leg in plaster following a car accident, the first hover was successfully completed." So, the first hover test of an early ancestor of the Harrier took place on October 21, 1960... almost nine years before the Apollo 11 moon landing". Let's try to reason with intelligence: lunar modul is very unlike the Harrier. Astronauts had to learn to keep lunar module in hovering going backwards, not the Harrier. Harrier has some rocket engines not one on the bottom.Look at this image Hey, don't rocket engines send forth smoke? We don't see any smoke while this old crock is flying.Hey, look at this image marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/spirit/20050421a/1114044227_4922-1_dd_rad_456-A462R1_br.jpg"This movie clip shows a dust devil scooting across a plain inside Gusev Crater on Mars as seen from the NASA rover Spirit's hillside vantage point during the rover's 456th martian day, or sol (April 15, 2005). The individual images were taken about 20 seconds apart by Spirit's navigation camera. Each frame in this movie has the raw image on the top half and a processed version in the lower half that enhances contrast and removes stationary objects, producing an image that is uniformly gray except for features that change from frame to frame". Please, look at the middle of this photograph. Are there on Mars rectilinear surfaces? ;D
|
|
|
Post by unknown on Jun 1, 2005 13:49:34 GMT -4
I wrote: Before landing on the moon, you try to do it on the earth or not? If you don't do it, you are an idiot.
JayUtah wrote: Agreed. However, the LM cannot fly on or near the Earth...
Why? What a silliness is that. With a more powerful rocket engine LM could fly on the earth (even if it would roll like a balloon as on the moon).
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jun 1, 2005 13:53:04 GMT -4
Let's try to reason with intelligence: lunar modul is very unlike the Harrier. Astronauts had to learn to keep lunar module in hovering going backwards, not the Harrier. Harrier has some rocket engines not one on the bottom. Why do you thing backwards is anymore difficult than forward, left, or right? The Harrier has two jet engines that can be made to thrust downward being swiveling the exhaust outlets. Hey, don't rocket engines send forth smoke? We don't see any smoke while this old crock is flying. Not all rocket engines produce smoke and flame. Most of the LLRV's thrust came from the jet engine in the center. You don't see smoke coming from a jet engine do you? The LLRV rockets were fueled by hydrogen peroxide, which burns very clean producing clear gaseous exhaust products.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jun 1, 2005 14:10:32 GMT -4
Why? What a silliness is that. With a more powerful rocket engine LM could fly on the earth (even if it would roll like a balloon as on the moon). But that wouldn't be a valid test. A LM with a more powerful engine is no longer the LM that will land on the Moon, so what good is the test?
|
|