|
Post by Data Cable on Feb 18, 2007 23:03:08 GMT -4
I'm still trying to figure out why the NASA hoax department would design such an obviously incorrect LM, if indeed the HBs are correct. Because Americans are obedient, state-indoctrinated sheepole who blithly believe what they are ordered to believe by their omnipotent Government overlords.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Feb 19, 2007 0:54:49 GMT -4
That's ba-a-a-a-ad
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Feb 19, 2007 9:11:54 GMT -4
Albeit not a very good one! Hey, I'm an engineer - what do you expect?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Feb 19, 2007 11:59:43 GMT -4
I don't know why HB's think that the LM was top heavy for anyway. When you look at the positioning of the fuel and oxidizer tanks compared to the engine they are virtually in the same place part of the rocket, add to that the batteries, water tanks, helium, and Oxygen tanks, and the lower part (the Descent Stage) was far heavier than the top. Here is a rough illustration of the mass distribution: When the propellant tanks are full the center of mass is clearly toward the bottom. And when the tanks are empty it looks like the center of mass will be near the geometric center of the vehicle. This appears to be true for both the combined ascent/descent stages and the ascent stage alone. Also note the asymmetric placement of the ascent stage propellant tanks (yellow). There is 1.6 times more oxidizer than fuel by mass (approximately the same volume however due to the oxidizer being denser). The fuel tank is therefore placed further outboard to balance the moment created by the oxidizer tank on the opposite side. The descent stage had two propellant tanks and two oxidizer tanks each placed opposite the other, thus creating symmetry.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 19, 2007 14:44:28 GMT -4
As I mentioned earlier, the other important detail you can see in Bob's excellent illustration is the descent engine position. The throat of the descent motor is far up inside the descent stage -- perhaps halfway up the vertical height. This is the center of thrust. It is at most only a very small number of meters away from the likely center of mass. The short moment arm limits the amount of angular acceleration that results from off-axis thrust.
Again, the sticky wicket for most conspiractists seems to be the very wrong impression that rotational stability of a free body is affected by the presence of gravity. A very common mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. A rocket neither "balances" on its thrust nor would fare better if "suspended" from it. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Feb 19, 2007 14:54:14 GMT -4
The throat of the descent motor is far up inside the descent stage -- perhaps halfway up the vertical height. The same is of course true of the ascent engine, which is well up inside the ascent stage body.
|
|
|
Post by Glom on Feb 19, 2007 14:58:49 GMT -4
It's quite shocking to see the top of the combustion chamber in the cabin itself. Good thing there are no moving parts or it would have been bloody noisy.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 19, 2007 17:30:02 GMT -4
You may have heard the Earth's core described as a self-sustaining dynamo.
I have, and I've been mulling this over for a couple of days trying to decide whether the electrical current in the Dynamo Theory is really a first-class effect or whether it's merely an outgrowth of self-sustenance. But in the strictest sense the magnetic field in the Dynamo Theory derives most proximally from current in a conductor, so it's probably moot to argue that the current creating the field derives from the motion of the conductor through the magnetic field generated by the passage of the current through a conductor, which generates a magnetic field that induces a current in the conductor...
You get the idea. Yes, you've convinced me that the Earth can be considered an electromagnet.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Feb 19, 2007 18:55:22 GMT -4
Was that an "I stand corrected," or an "I learned something, thanks"? Joe's t-shirt hangs in the balance!
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 19, 2007 18:57:35 GMT -4
I'd call that a T-shirt.
<edit> You have given out shirts for clearly wrong statements, such as "Apollo 11's command module was named Lollipop." It's up to you whether you want to give out shirts for concessions in a reasoned debate. Those may not have clearly right or wrong answers; but as in this case, someone may have a more defensible line of reasoning than I. Joe's point is elegantly simple, and mine is mere nuance.
You can even give one to Heavenlybody if you want, since by conceding Joe's point I'm effectively agreeing with her that Earth is indeed an electromagnet. </edit>
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 19, 2007 19:36:14 GMT -4
Whatever the result, it does go to show the difference between the two sides. One acknowledges when there is a better argument and rather then entreching themselves and repeating the previous claim verbatum, changes their position.
The CT's and HB's always like to claim that we are close-minded, but in reality, they have a far greater chance of persuding us that we are wrong than we do them. We are convinced by evidence, if the evidnce changes, own opinion will change. If they can provide vaild scientific evidence that Apollo was faked, we'd accept it and change sides. They won't accept the evidence and nothing will convince them they are wrong, regardless of how stupid their claims get. Now which side is really close-minded?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Feb 19, 2007 19:44:21 GMT -4
No, please. I wasn't doing this for a T-shirt, or to correct Jay specifically. There was a statement out there before my eyes that was not correct. I offered the correction. It doesn't matter who made the statement.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Feb 20, 2007 9:51:22 GMT -4
We should clarify that Jay's original objection to heavenlybody is still correct.
Heavenlybody wrote: "To boot the Sun emits radiation in the form of electromagnetic waves that are also affected by the Earths magnetosphere it being a huge electromagnetic field."
Jay responded: "Earth's field is magnetic, not electromagnetic. Electromagnetic radiation is not affected by magnetic fields."
Tofu wasn't sure Jay spoke correctly and wrote: "So by definition, anything that is magnetic *is* electromagnetic."
The confusion here, I think, is over the term electromagnetic. The Earth is an electromagnet, but as Jay points out, it does not produce an electromagnetic field. It produces a magnetic field.
An electromagnetic field is light, radio waves, and so on. It is also called electromagnetic radiation. As its name suggests, it is an interplay between electric and magnetic fields. In the particle view it is considered a flow of photons. Electromagnetic radiation (or a photon) does not have an electrical charge, so it is not affected by a magnetic field. Thus, light from the sun is not blocked by the Earth's magnetosphere.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Feb 20, 2007 10:11:44 GMT -4
Joe ... thank you!
The latter part of this thread suddenly makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Feb 22, 2007 1:51:05 GMT -4
Can someone remind me whether Heavenlybody has addressed the source of the rocks gathered on the Apollo missions, namely:
- If they're fake, how are they so good?
- If they're really from the Moon, how were they obtained, given that NASA's technology apparently wasn't up to the task?
|
|