|
Post by svector on Jun 5, 2007 22:38:54 GMT -4
All I said was that the viewers are watching and judging. You're right. I'm watching, and in my judgment, you don't know what you're talking about. I have. And again you're wrong. No, he was asking you to provide evidence of fraud which hasn't already been thoroughly debunked. So? Given the proper viewing conditions, stars are visible in space. Why does this surprise you? Perhaps his particular viewing conditions were never satisfactory for seeing stars. Again, why does this surprise you? Not just that photo. All of them. Why do you continue to be confused by the limited dynamic range of photographic film? No, that isn't plausible. What IS plausible, is that you have no practical hands-on photographic experience, and you're just guessing at answers. You essentially admitted as much on YouTube. Isn't that right? That's funny, coming from someone who's posted here 134 times, and in each instance, took a stand.By NASA no doubt. So has everyone else. It is after all, completely forgettable. ...which is the only "evidence" you've ever required.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 6, 2007 2:57:51 GMT -4
Rocky strikes again.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Jun 6, 2007 4:50:43 GMT -4
Jeez, at least Rocky Balboa stopped after 6 posts ... a couple of which were even quite good.
|
|
|
Post by captain swoop on Jun 6, 2007 10:15:57 GMT -4
As for the 6 feet of lead. If it's needed why don't the planned Lunar missions from Both China and NASA include 6 feet of Lead?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 6, 2007 10:51:30 GMT -4
Don't you think the conspiracy theorists are gearing up already to call those missions fake too?
I wonder also why the Soviet lunar lander from the 1960s didn't have that much shielding.
There is categorically no example of any spacecraft meant to operate in cislunar space that has the shielding conspiracy theorists say is necessary. Science is unanimous on this point, which is why Rocky's only recourse to maintain his worldview is to assert that all science is bogus. And again it traces back to a single misinterpreted reference -- Mauldin's book. The widespread circulation and reiteration of that misinterpretation does not validate it. The only people claiming that six feet of lead is required for cislunar manned travel are conspiracy theorists, none of whom can demonstrate enough understanding of astrophysics to suggest that their claim is anything other than a mindless repetition of someone else's statement.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jun 6, 2007 11:18:00 GMT -4
I often see the planners using the crew's water as a shield out there. Can someone give us a brief primer on this?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 6, 2007 13:19:57 GMT -4
Water is an excellent shield material for a lot of cislunar radiation. It has a high density of hydrogen to molecular mass. If you want to use your water supply also as a shield, you have coupling and non-linearity issues that affect the reliability engineering. Rather than being a static shield material bolted to the outside of the ship, the water supply has to be accessible via plumbing from inside. And there may arise a time when water would be in high demand, short supply, and thar be radiation afoot too.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Jun 6, 2007 16:05:37 GMT -4
The planned mission to mars would take at least a couple months just to fly there, right? Is the ship being designed to actually allow the crew to be able to move around? I mean, I don't think I could cope mentally and physically with being cooped up in a single room for three months straight. I think that presents a bigger challenge to engineers than any radiation hazard.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jun 6, 2007 16:50:18 GMT -4
The planned mission to mars would take at least a couple months just to fly there, right? The length of time varies, but the missions to date that have flown a direct route to Mars have averaged about 7 months.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 6, 2007 16:58:00 GMT -4
Keeping a crew reasonably non-psychotic for the duration of the cruise is indeed one of the problems being studied. The effects of privacy, habitation volume, color, and so forth all factor into it. That's one of the things the ISS is good for.
|
|
|
Post by svector on Jun 6, 2007 19:07:30 GMT -4
Don't you think the conspiracy theorists are gearing up already to call those missions fake too? Absolutely they are. One has been bellowing for months that the LRO camera will have lower resolution than the one used for the Mars orbiter, and that NASA is naturally going to use this as some kind of excuse for failing to produce visuals of the landing sites. They're always thinking three moves ahead, these pesky little HB's.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jun 6, 2007 23:04:58 GMT -4
Data can be "manufactured", but when scrutinized by those who know the subject (it's called "peer review"), then it is found accurate or fraudulent. There is nothing in the Apollo record to indicate it is not an accurate account of a manned trip to the Moon. The world's scientists and engineers see it so. edit...brain f#rt...responding to page 1 post...
|
|
furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Jun 7, 2007 3:07:40 GMT -4
popping my forum cherry so be gentle
This is not a specific post as to the manufacturing of data, or to Empirical proof taken over common sense or expected/mal-published thoughts more just to some generic Data collection and Reality checks.
I believe the Starfish Prime and the Other HANE tests which by nature introduced Hi radiation Flux into the Magnetosphere and also the belts them selves, provided a mass of info and data that could effectively provide particle densities across that region, through observation, and measurement of EM strength across most of the southern pacific, this data would not have been specific to the US as Soviet and any other specialised physicist teams would have been able to pickup monitor and extrapolate data. I can't remember specifically but I believe starfish Prime was specifically a test to measure and confirm the Van Allen Belts, as opposed to being a Hi Alt ERRB ABM test.(prob both)
as for published data being mis-interpreted, It doesn't take long for a machinist or a designer to calculate that pi is not 4 or 22/7. and with some work that it is not 3.1415926535897932384626433832795
I can't remember if it was Keppler or Newton (I Think probably Keppler) that was a little upset with observed elliptical orbits differing from the common sense view that they should be circular, as the great clock maker wouldn't make mistakes, and even tried to modify theories to fit in with this.
If NASA had produced false data, it wouldn't have been just the Soviets that would have immediately have pointed and posted a quick headline in Pravda and to the rest of the worlds community saying "LOLZ NASA U R Fa1lLsKi"(*), I don't think any amount of bribery could have kept the political machine of the USSR silent given the political atmosphere at the time.
If anything almost transparent data access to similar agencies would have been required to ensure that such a cry could not be made, as the effort would have been a waste of political oneupmanship if that was the case.(not a waste of money though ;D )
I have started reading this Forum after meeting not 1 but 3 HBers in the Pub, one everyone knows is a general CT nut, (illuminati freemason NZO etc) however the other 2 I always thought as being quite normal and rational, having read through a couple of the HB websites I have come to the belief that all you seem to need to do is put a statement in the format
FACT: All conspiracy Theories are a government plot to stop YOU finding out the Truth!!!
and it becomes a definite fact, and after reading posts here a lot of the HBers seem to Favour Youtube and googled CT sites links and seem to be as acceptant of new thought as they are to Reason and Logic.
Some of the Responses I have read here are some of the most methodical and reasoned and also easily researched answers I have seen on a lot of forums in a Very long time, I knew a little about optics before (not photographic) but now reading the responses and with a little google fu and applied reason, I know a heck of a lot more
As has been said in many threads and replies to the OP, you are crying Foul Bogus Hoax, supply us with proof
oh and don't give me that Layman can't understand crap, A-Level physics will supply you with a damn good grounding, damn even the basic mechanics and Nuc Physics you get at 14 should be able to dismiss most of the radiation/thrust/computational queries.
BTW, anyone know the address for NASAs Accounting department they owe me 34 years of Backhanders.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 7, 2007 5:02:44 GMT -4
Welcome aboard!
Not everyone here who doesn't even have a basic grounding in physics (and in the US, you don't get mechanics and nuclear physics at 14 unless you're a prodigy) is a hoax believer, either. The other side likes to babble on about how common sense is on their side, but it really isn't. Common sense, in fact, demands to know how in Gods' names the whole thing could be kept secret when Watergate and Iran-Contra, either of which required far fewer conspirators, couldn't.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jun 7, 2007 10:54:34 GMT -4
Hi furi, and welcome. HB sites seem geared toward those who are ignorant of basic sciences, skeptics, and those who really don't like the USA for whatever reason.They depend on, and encourage these attributes. As you said, it certainly doesn't take a rocket scientist to start unravelling their arguments and "logic". As you've noted, we have some folks here well versed, and experienced, in the space industry, we all are learning every day. It's just frustrating to see the willing ignorance of some folks, who blindly refuse to look outside their tiny HB world. What they fail to realize, as said in the movie "Contact", science is the one true universal language...but they don't speak it, don't want to even hear it. Come on in, the water's fine... Dave
|
|