|
Post by LunarOrbit on Mar 27, 2007 2:19:44 GMT -4
Oh, and LO, that is clearly Photoshopped, you can tell because of the white thing that has been pasted over the back of the 747's tail. Actually it's from Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004. The Shuttle transport 747 has some kind of stabilizer fins attached to it's tail, if that's what you mean. I don't think such a maneuver is actually possible, I'm sure the Shuttle would break away from the 747.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Mar 27, 2007 3:27:55 GMT -4
I don't think such a maneuver is actually possible, I'm sure the Shuttle would break away from the 747.
I'm not so sure. A properly executed barrel-roll (as opposed to an aileron roll) pulles Gs that keep "down" towards the bottom of the aircraft.
Only one way to find out . . .
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Mar 27, 2007 3:53:49 GMT -4
Actually, you are quite right. As Tex Johnston (the pilot) explained to Bill Allen (Boeing president) afterwards, he properly executed an aileron roll (actually, he did two) at a constant 1G, which places no additional stress on the airframe.
So the B747/Shuttle could do it - as long as the pilot doesn't blow it.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Mar 27, 2007 13:51:55 GMT -4
welcome, jondon! well, welcome back, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by hplasm on Mar 27, 2007 14:31:03 GMT -4
how? by sticking to one username? O.K Thanks! I'm a bear of very little brain, and easily confused... Sorry for confusing you with the multi-entity.
|
|
|
Post by pzkpfw on Mar 27, 2007 17:14:11 GMT -4
Actually it's from Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004. The Shuttle transport 747 has some kind of stabilizer fins attached to it's tail, if that's what you mean. (You realise he was kidding, right? Pointing out the stabliser [which most people on this board would recognise as real] - instead of the upside-down 747 shuttle transport over the fake terrain - was the funny bit. Maybe it's Kiwi humour?)
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 27, 2007 18:35:38 GMT -4
The attach point for the orbiter on the 747 is actually stenciled ATTACH ORBITER HERE . BLACK SIDE DOWN.
An aileron roll is nominally a 1G manuever, but is rarely executed perfectly enough in a large aircraft to qualify as one. Most aileron rolls involve a pitch excursion that the pilot will want to correct, and I suspect it will be a more pronounced excursion in the B-747/STS stack because of the slight nose-up attitude of the orbiter.
I elected a barrel roll beginning with a dive in order to render the inverted portion more level and to count on the 747's prodigious engine power to help execute the loop component. I wasn't sure what kind of a roll rate I would get out of that whale.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Mar 27, 2007 22:12:30 GMT -4
(You realise he was kidding, right? Pointing out the stabliser [which most people on this board would recognise as real] - instead of the upside-down 747 shuttle transport over the fake terrain - was the funny bit. Maybe it's Kiwi humour?) I just wasn't sure if he thought that I thought it was a real picture.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 27, 2007 23:46:19 GMT -4
I must have forgotten the smilie
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Mar 28, 2007 2:20:22 GMT -4
I don't think such a maneuver is actually possible, I'm sure the Shuttle would break away from the 747.I'm not so sure. A properly executed barrel-roll (as opposed to an aileron roll) pulles Gs that keep "down" towards the bottom of the aircraft. Only one way to find out . . . I remember watching a program on TV in which a pilot took a light plane through a barrel roll with one hand. With the other hand he poured water from a jug into a glass he'd placed on the flat panel between the dashboard and the windscreen. Not a drop was spilled.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Mar 28, 2007 2:48:43 GMT -4
I don't think such a maneuver is actually possible, I'm sure the Shuttle would break away from the 747.I'm not so sure. A properly executed barrel-roll (as opposed to an aileron roll) pulles Gs that keep "down" towards the bottom of the aircraft. Only one way to find out . . . I remember watching a program on TV in which a pilot took a light plane through a barrel roll with one hand. With the other hand he poured water from a jug into a glass he'd placed on the flat panel between the dashboard and the windscreen. Not a drop was spilled. That would have been Bob Hoover in his Shrike Aero Commander, I'm guessing. He's done it many times for demos. If you have never seen a Bob Hoover display, you are missing out. He switches off the engines, feathers the props, and proceeds to do an aerobatic / handling routine. The guy is a master of energy management.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Mar 28, 2007 20:23:59 GMT -4
I was watching the vomit comet training footage from Apollo 17, where they parabola-dive simulate 1/6th G. Something caught my eye which relates closely to the wire-rig claims. Those of you who have the SCF DVDs can verify this: watch the technicians/support crew guys in orange overalls. They move about in ways that would make the uniniated think some sort of wire rig was being used. What is actually happening is that because of the 1/6 G they can adopt poses or get up from difficult kneeeling/squatting positions with unnatural-looking ease. Compared to Charlie Duke's oft debated pcikup off the lunar surface it looks remarkably similar (sans obviously the spacesuit). Anyways, you may have seen it, but I only just noticed it, and I've watch that segment often enough.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Mar 29, 2007 5:39:36 GMT -4
no worries
|
|
|
Post by heavenlybody on Mar 29, 2007 7:44:55 GMT -4
LO, The Hawker Siddeley Harrier is a VTOL. The JSF F-35 Lighting II is a STOVL. What do you prefer apples or oranges? BTW We actually prefer the Harrier it is a great aircraft, with however a poor safety record. We also like the original "Lightning" the English Electric Lighting it was better for its' day than F-35 it could super-cruise way back in the 50s! Excellent plane but totally irrelevant. Don't you think talking about DC10s & 747s is a bit pointless and has nothing what so ever to do with Project Apollo either?
JU, Please give the post/reply number where you addressed the different density, distance and scacterers for your experiment.
If the lunare surface dust was blown away by the LEM how could there be a foot print at the bottom of the ladder? Why do the pictures from the Surveyor mission show the surface to be rocky and are inconsistent with all of the Apollo Photos. Why do the photos of the imprint left by the legs of the Surveyor Modules taken on Apollo Mission differ from the photos taken by the Surveyor probe itself?
C. Fred Kleinknect, head of NASA at the time of the Apollo Space Program, is now the Sovereign Grand Commander of the Council of the 33rd Degree of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry of the Southern Jurisdiction. Do any of you know how many other Project Apollo personnel were Freemasons?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Mar 29, 2007 8:07:10 GMT -4
If the lunare surface dust was blown away by the LEM how could there be a foot print at the bottom of the ladder?
Who said all of the dust was blown away? Some was blown away, loads was left. It's not hard to understand, surely?
Why do the pictures from the Surveyor mission show the surface to be rocky and are inconsistent with all of the Apollo Photos.
Which pictures, which Surveyor missions, and what exactly is inconsistent about them?
Why do the photos of the imprint left by the legs of the Surveyor Modules taken on Apollo Mission differ from the photos taken by the Surveyor probe itself?
Provide the pictures so we can see what you are talking about, otherwise we have no basis for discussion.
C. Fred Kleinknect, head of NASA at the time of the Apollo Space Program, is now the Sovereign Grand Commander of the Council of the 33rd Degree of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry of the Southern Jurisdiction. Do any of you know how many other Project Apollo personnel were Freemasons?
Once again, irrelevant. There are loads of Freemasons in loads of professions all over the world, Does that mean they are all suspect?
Again, provide evidence that Apollo was faked, not some handwaving guilt-by-association claptrap about secret societies.
|
|