|
Post by grashtel on Sept 11, 2006 17:47:07 GMT -4
What is the difference from a the usual re- entry and a TE re-entry? Is it the speed, angle? Speed, from the Moon you are coming in at about 11km/s from orbit you are coming in at just under 8km/s, and remember that kinetic energy scales with speed squared so while the difference between 8 and 11 doesn't look like much it means dealing with about twice the energy. Not in any practical sense, you would need to use as much fuel as it would take to send your vehicle to the Moon in order to slow down to dock, and unless you can refuel while in Lunar orbit (which has its own nice big set of problems) it means carrying several times as much fuel to the Moon in the first place. About the only practical way to send a shuttle to the Moon is by recycling it for raw materials to build a vehicle designed with going to the Moon in mind rather than for working exclusively in low orbit.
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Jan 15, 2008 21:08:08 GMT -4
Are these links supposed to be identical, it seems to me that they have been truncated somehow?
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Jun 13, 2007 7:21:14 GMT -4
I love that site. I'd love to download all the pictures and video to my computer and store them on DVD for reference. I use Linux and I bet there must be a program that can download whole sites. If it is legal to do so of course. I'm not sure of the copyright restrictions et al. HTTrack is a good program for downloading whole websites and NASA images are already released into the public domain so copyright isn't an issue for unedited ones. Also the way the web works means that you are effectively being given permission to create a local copy for personal use of anything that is up on it (your browser does so automatically in its cache).
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Nov 9, 2006 17:23:19 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Sept 23, 2006 10:19:44 GMT -4
So why doesn't the FBI deal with it?. It is not anything to claim that an organization connected to the government is falsifying things, and that they are star witnesses of this. It is not that they will give the mpublicity or stuff, but it is the duty of intelligence t ogo after falsifications A) Free speech. B) Limited time, money, and manpower that is better spent dealing with actual criminals rather than people who post stupid stuff on the web. C) The fact that chasing them down would just add credibility to the story in many people who are already of a conspiracy theorist type mindset. D) The website's owners may not be American (I haven't checked so don't know) seriously limiting what the FBI can do about them.
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Sept 8, 2006 23:35:58 GMT -4
" We have rules of engagement and chains of command and deadly force is gonna take a bit of effort to arrive at." You are living in the sub basement of cloud cuckoo land. And of course you have actual evidence that your beliefs are more correct than nomuse's? Or are you just spitting out the standard conspiracisst line with the usual complete lack of facts?
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Sept 3, 2006 23:30:43 GMT -4
"Both Buzz and Neil did big jumps up onto the LM ladder (near the end of the Apollo 11 footage.) The astronauts have stated that jumping was off-putting and they felt like they were toppling backwards, so avoided it as much as possible" Ok, now its all clear to me, they said it so it must be true, is that right ? Are you saying that its not true? If so I expect you to provide evidence that you know more about moving in a space suit in one sixth gravity than the people who have actually done it. If trying to jump a long way made them feel uncomfortable why would they do it? Especially considering the consiquences of falling over backwards, to me it looks like it would be quite easy to end up stuck on your back while wearing one of the Apollo suits which would be seriously embaressing and if their backpack or suit was damaged quite possibly fatal. The fact that if the suit gets peirced, the helmet cracked, or the backpack breaks you die would tend to put more than just a slight damper on jumping around for the sake of jumping around. Finally how much of the Apollo videos have you seen? It is quite possible that they did bigger jumps at some point you haven't seen but realised that it wasn't such a good idea so didn't do it again.
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Sept 3, 2006 23:15:07 GMT -4
1. Now for the reason of not going again being money, www.themoneymasters.com/ , then it is a fact that when needed then more money is simply printed so that is hardly a reason. I would suggest learning more about economics before you make that kind of statement. In particular the term " Hyperinflation" to see what tends to happen to a national economy when a goverment tries what you suggested.
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Jul 2, 2006 11:48:08 GMT -4
Nevermind, I think I found something. Care to elucidate? I'm with you on the Realplayer- it's barf. Well the one I use is Real Alternative if Jones has found something else I would be interested to know about it
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Jul 10, 2006 22:21:48 GMT -4
After roughly 100 hours of continuous sun exposure, the moon's surface temperature during this feather experiment was only about 130 F? That's about the same temperature as a hot day in Death Valley California and it only has sunlight for 12 hours a day. Its also an awful lot hotter than Antarctica after over 4000 hours of exposure to sunlight. Exposure time is only part of the story when working out the temperature of a surface.
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Jul 11, 2006 21:36:41 GMT -4
Geosynchronous should be the right term as the orbit I'm thinking of would need it to stay on the day side but as it would need to orbit the opposite direction as a geostationary orbit to stay on the day side, would a retrograde geosynchronous orbit be the most correct term? Its not possible for an orbit around Earth to stay on the day side of the planet. A "retrograde geostationary" orbit would still circle the planet every 24 hours, it would just do it in the oposite direction to Earth's rotation. The only way to get an object to stay on the day side is for it to be in orbit around the sun or in the inner Lagrange point.
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on May 29, 2006 20:05:50 GMT -4
The Apollo space missions A straight line? Well almost a straight line LOOK http--www.lpi.usra.edu-expmoon-apollo10-A10_MplanFS.gif.url regards kev Am I correct in thinking that you are trying to link to this image www.lpi.usra.edu/expmoon/Apollo10/A10_MplanFS.gif? If so you need to remember two things, firstly that is a diagrammatic representation and therefor is not necessarily accurate in fine detail and secondly that an orbit from Earth to the Moon is naturally going to be almost a straight line due to the distances involved the Moon is 3,476km in diameter and averages a distance of 384,400km from Earth (which is 2,756.3 km in diameter) so an orbit between them will be something like a hundred times as long as it is wide, which makes it into a pretty good approximation of a straight line over most of it.
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on May 29, 2006 11:47:25 GMT -4
Kevin no one except you has even talked about straight lines. By my understanding orbital mechanics and space travel basically never involves traveling in a straight line unless you have a ludicrously powerful engine (orders of magnitude more powerful than anything even being seriously considered let alone in existence). What I understand the Apollo missions to have done to break their orbit around the Moon was a burn to change their orbit from nearly circular to an elongated ellipse, that went far enough away from the Moon that Earth's gravity became dominant so that the Apollo space craft was no longer orbiting the Moon but not orbiting the Earth, with the initial orbital change chosen to put the spacecraft into an orbit that intersected Earth's atmosphere.
(I will freely admit that my knowledge of orbital mechanics is basic at best, I'm sure that Jay and the other people who know more about this will correct any mistakes)
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Jun 21, 2006 22:38:56 GMT -4
Again, another complete impossiblity. There still is no way to confirm the Apollo landings on the moon by any means. 40+ some days of traveling to and from the earth and the moon and basically nothing photographed in transit? And what exactly would photographs taken in transit do anyhting to prove Apollo considering that faking them would be almost trivial to do (even if there would be massive differances from photos taken in orbit (there wouldn't be) it was be well within the technological abilities off the time to build automated cameras, such as were used on some of the later Apollo missions even).?
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Dec 21, 2006 10:24:59 GMT -4
Why is it assumed that the lunar surface has a uniform radiation environment when it doesn't have a uniform gravitational field or an atmosphere? Because there is nothing to suggest it isn't a reasonably uniform radiation environment, including sensing of the radiation environment from orbit. If there is no evidence to suggest that a danger exists despite such evidence having been looked for it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the danger isn't present. Or maybe you think they should have brought along protection against killer moon bunnies just in case because their existence cannot be disproven? Yes, from you.
|
|