|
Post by Moon Man on Nov 15, 2005 1:32:26 GMT -4
Ah yes, we're back to Von Braun's SS connection. If you can't win the technology debate (and I'm using the word debate very loosely), just attack the character of some of the major players! Are you denying the claim I made..? Heinrich Himmler, Reichfhrer SS visits Peenemuumnde. The man in the black SS uniform standing behind Himmler is Wernher von Braun. To the left of Himmler is Major General Walter Dornberger, commanding officer of the Peenemuumnde Rocket Facility. In April 1943, Heinrich Himmler visited Peenemuuml;nde. Von Braun was REQUIRED to wear his uniform on that all important day. This is the ONLY photo of him in the death's head uniform. At that time, the dreaded Gestapo SS took over the facility. Wernher von Braun was promoted to Sturmbannfuumlehrer: the equivalent of Major in the U.S. Army. Most of these top Nazis were later brought to the U.S. They were intimately acquainted with the rockets of Dr. Robert Goddard.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Nov 15, 2005 1:40:30 GMT -4
I think most of us are simply giving it the silence it deserves. Please, dragging in personalities (will Charles Manson be back again in your threads?) does nothing to advance your case. In case you missed it, this is an engineering-oriented board. Innuendo and allegation are interesting but not considered profitable by most of the posters here.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Nov 15, 2005 1:50:22 GMT -4
The fact that von Braun was a Nazi is not disputed... but how does it prove that going to the moon is impossible?
I have to agree with what Bob B. said... you agreed that you would stick to one argument at a time. If you want to discuss other claims add them to your list. If you are not going to follow the rules then I will discard the debate entirely and everyone will be free to respond to all of your claims immediately. Is that what you want?
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Nov 15, 2005 1:52:20 GMT -4
Ah yes, we're back to Von Braun's SS connection. If you can't win the technology debate (and I'm using the word debate very loosely), just attack the character of some of the major players! Are you denying the claim I made..? My point is your claim has no bearing on Von Braun's technical expertise in engineering and rocketry.
|
|
|
Post by Moon Man on Nov 15, 2005 2:31:57 GMT -4
The fact that von Braun was a Nazi is not disputed... but how does it prove that going to the moon is impossible? I have to agree with what Bob B. said... you agreed that you would stick to one argument at a time. If you want to discuss other claims add them to your list. If you are not going to follow the rules then I will discard the debate entirely and everyone will be free to respond to all of your claims immediately. Is that what you want? The debate thread is open to rebuttal, not questions. I have posted by submission on the batteries and waiting for replies. I orginally agreed to debate one person, not twenty. I don't mind everyone offering replies but so far it's just more questions. It's not possible for me to keep up to 10-20 people as I simply don't have time. In the meantime, I am reading and responding to other threads, like everyone else. The message I posted in this thread is not related to the batteries.
|
|
|
Post by Moon Man on Nov 15, 2005 2:34:28 GMT -4
I think most of us are simply giving it the silence it deserves. Please, dragging in personalities (will Charles Manson be back again in your threads?) does nothing to advance your case. In case you missed it, this is an engineering-oriented board. Innuendo and allegation are interesting but not considered profitable by most of the posters here. Innuendo..? He wrote books and articles, made space movies with Walt Dinsey and worked for NASA. This is not inuendo..
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Nov 15, 2005 3:07:34 GMT -4
Moon Man, why did you start discussing Von Braun in a thread about the LM ascent? You wouldn't be topic-hopping again, would you?
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Nov 15, 2005 3:18:54 GMT -4
He seems to be snowed in by twenty people....twenty people asking the same three questions. Or, rather, twenty people mostly attempting a little science education on a couple of basic principles.
|
|
|
Post by Van Rijn on Nov 15, 2005 3:31:36 GMT -4
The debate thread is open to rebuttal, not questions. I have posted by submission on the batteries and waiting for replies. I orginally agreed to debate one person, not twenty. I don't mind everyone offering replies but so far it's just more questions. It's not possible for me to keep up to 10-20 people as I simply don't have time. This isn't a court case and it isn't a philosophical debate. It is a technical discussion. Your statements are judged on their technical merit. When you make a technical argument, it is expected that you have some understanding of the subject and have done substantial research to back up your assertions. Most of the questions you have been asked aren't new and should have been possible to anticipate. Both here and at BAUT, forum members have been helpful and answered many of your questions and provided references where you could learn more. In several cases, you were asked questions on issues that had been substantially explained to you before. While forum members may be kind enough to do research for you, you should not expect this or rely on it. If you ask questions, you should expect to be asked questions. If you merely say "It is so" you should always expect others to ask you exactly how it is so. If and when you explain the technical details, you should expect that you will be asked detailed questions on any part that is unclear or that appears incorrect. If you want to learn, you can gain a great deal out of these discussions. If you refuse, well ...
|
|
|
Post by Moon Man on Nov 15, 2005 3:49:39 GMT -4
Moon Man, why did you start discussing Von Braun in a thread about the LM ascent? You wouldn't be topic-hopping again, would you? This thread is about the lift off footage. It drifted to movies. I posted evidence that the NASA director at Marshall Space centre wrote fictional books and made fictional movies about space and moon landings. All relevant to this thread, which directly relates to fictional footage of the lift off.
|
|
|
Post by Moon Man on Nov 15, 2005 3:58:28 GMT -4
The debate thread is open to rebuttal, not questions. I have posted by submission on the batteries and waiting for replies. I orginally agreed to debate one person, not twenty. I don't mind everyone offering replies but so far it's just more questions. It's not possible for me to keep up to 10-20 people as I simply don't have time. This isn't a court case and it isn't a philosophical debate. It is a technical discussion. Your statements are judged on their technical merit. When you make a technical argument, it is expected that you have some understanding of the subject and have done substantial research to back up your assertions. Most of the questions you have been asked aren't new and should have been possible to anticipate. Both here and at BAUT, forum members have been helpful and answered many of your questions and provided references where you could learn more. In several cases, you were asked questions on issues that had been substantially explained to you before. While forum members may be kind enough to do research for you, you should not expect this or rely on it. If you ask questions, you should expect to be asked questions. If you merely say "It is so" you should always expect others to ask you exactly how it is so. If and when you explain the technical details, you should expect that you will be asked detailed questions on any part that is unclear or that appears incorrect. If you want to learn, you can gain a great deal out of these discussions. If you refuse, well ... A hoax TV show was aired and some hoax cites were created. The BA dude started a response site. Did he pose questions to the hoax show and site owners or did he just post a rebuttal of why they were wrong..? I've given a detailed explanation on my theory of the batteries. No one has answered it, because they can't, so they throw a bunch of meaningless questions in the thread in their attempt to bury the truth. What happened or was said on BA has nothing to do with this debate. That was the mods rules and not mine.
|
|
|
Post by Moon Man on Nov 15, 2005 4:05:21 GMT -4
He seems to be snowed in by twenty people....twenty people asking the same three questions. Or, rather, twenty people mostly attempting a little science education on a couple of basic principles. Apparently you're a NASA expert, therefore, I expect an expert type reply from you in the debate thread to all issues cited with actual evidence and links to prove all of my claims all wrong. Good luck, and I look forward to your reply.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Nov 15, 2005 4:24:21 GMT -4
I suppose I could do something like the approximation I suggested earlier; say, take total kilometers travelled by the Rover, assume say 40% drive efficiency... That's a long calculation for an evening off, though. I'd prefer to point out that your theory, such as it is, depends on the batteries being "chilled by the cold of space" and losing their charge prematurely. And that is not an accurate description of events.
Really, I can point out that there isn't any reason for the batteries to get numbingly cold. They aren't exposed to cold, any more than General Custer was exposed to the withering fire of the Normandy machine-gun nests.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Nov 15, 2005 4:44:41 GMT -4
Moon Man, why did you start discussing Von Braun in a thread about the LM ascent? You wouldn't be topic-hopping again, would you? This thread is about the lift off footage. It drifted to movies. I posted evidence that the NASA director at Marshall Space centre wrote fictional books and made fictional movies about space and moon landings. All relevant to this thread, which directly relates to fictional footage of the lift off. By that logic, every aspect of the history of lunar exploration is "directly related" to every thread on the board, which totally defeats the purpose of specialized threads! Is that what you're trying to tell us?
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Nov 15, 2005 5:40:01 GMT -4
I'll post this again as not one iota has been said about it. I take that to mean my points are agreed upon and if they aren't please feel free to correct:
Gadou, welcome aboard.
I don't know how you could remain a camera operator for 25 years if you can't get your head around pre-emptive pan/tilt/and zoom. All the techniques featured on the A17 lunar ascent are accepted standard TV techniques used in sports events, and remote camera operations.
I have routinely panned a camera and managed to shoot a football landing centre frame. Why? Because I know about pre-emptive shot setup. How can you not ever have done this being a camera operator. I have also used remote control cameras with a delay in reaction time from movement of the joystick, to actual movement of the camera. Learning curve adaptation for me has been under 5 minutes to become accustomed to pan/tilt/zoom delay. Zooming out, and tilting up, with the aid of a precalculated countdown would defeintely not be the most difficult facet of TV work I would ever have done.
Perfect shoot? The horizontal level is off, the camera zooms out in broken nonfluid motion, the LM is lost after circa 40 seconds. This is not the type of "perfection" my superiors would be happy about. For ENG type live material, then its fairly good considering, but my studies of classic picture composition tell me the shot needs alot of work in order to be perfect.
The technology for the time was well capable of transmitting what was transmitted. Right down to the disc array RGB composition back on earth. The colour wheel camera technology was in fact several decades old by the time of Apollo. Remote Control devices were used as early as WW1 to guide boats loaded with explosives into enemy boats. Remote Control in TV was developed as early as 1957, a good 15 years before the A17 mission.
The Rover was transmitting only twice while on the move, and both times it was just after "wheels up". You must know the difference between NTSC 525/60 and 16mm film. See those speckles, grain, scratches and higher contrast ratio on the rover film, that means they are filmed and not videotaped. While moving the rover transmitted around 20 seconds of usable footage. That is why it was turned off during traverse (with the exceptions of the two times it was left on prior to driving). The picture breakup is exactly what should occur when the uplink dish was not properly aligned with the tracking stations. No TV satellite was used, even though Telstar was in earth orbit several years prior to Apollo.
Moon Man, also a belated welcome, and with all due respect, please bone up on how the TV signal was transmitted back to earth before denouncing the way it was done. I invite you to call up any TV studios uplink centre and explain to them how TV signals could not be transmitted via line of sight to a 64 meter receiving dish based on earth. Should any person deny the basic principles of such transmission, please put them in touch with me, as I'd be very interested to know why the company they work for continues to keep them in their employ.
Ultimately the size of the Rx dish is what makes or breaks the signal, not the size of the Tx dish. Other than the advancement of TV signals into digital MPEG2, the principles of TV transmission remain unchanced. Indeed analog TV was more accomodating to error than current digital technology.
Cold temperature doesn't affect Tx nor Rx. Icing on the Rx dish certainly does. I don't know what equipment you use in Rx, but I'd be very worried if you haven't got a thermostat and deicer in place. Ice is something that generally doesn't cause problems on the moon, nor at the Australian tracking stations for that matter. Cloud cover can cause problems, but generally only when a pretty major storm is directly overhead.
If you have trouble believing Tv transmission works the way it does, I strongly urge you to thow away your TV set as the fact that it works is more miraculous than any TV transmitted from the moon.
cheerio Dwight RTL TX
modifications made in order to clarify possibly ambiguous points
|
|