|
Post by TaeKwonDan on Jul 27, 2005 10:25:45 GMT -4
I agree he should be banned, and it's not because he called me a professor. That doesn't offend me. Really? You're not offended by a time that 99% of all rational people would consider a compliment. TKD, Too lazy to get a doctorate
|
|
|
Post by TaeKwonDan on Aug 31, 2005 11:28:23 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by TaeKwonDan on Aug 11, 2005 15:45:20 GMT -4
Are copies of blueprints for all buildings kept on file by the towns or cities they are build in? I can't answer this for the city, but my wife said that the usual amount of time her firm keeps a paper copy is 10 years before they are destroyed. Electronic copies are kept in perpetuity.
|
|
|
Post by TaeKwonDan on Aug 10, 2005 16:17:42 GMT -4
Definitely part of my point. And based on my wife's desk and office in general you still end up with a boatload of paper for these straigh-forward designs.
I can't imagine the airplane hangar you would have to store all drawings related to Apollo in.
|
|
|
Post by TaeKwonDan on Aug 10, 2005 15:45:07 GMT -4
To add some more concept of scale, I emailed my wife, an architect the following question:
How many individual sheets of paper would you estimate going into the drawings of a standard strip mall or office complex? And I mean everything from building blueprints, to wiring diagrams, etc.?
Her response:
Now this is for something much less complicated than everything that went into making Apollo work and she only counted final drawings where as I know for a fact they save and date interim designs before client changes and red-lining.
|
|
|
Post by TaeKwonDan on Jul 31, 2005 10:56:20 GMT -4
And what does Buzz Aldrin's perennial non-shame-faced and non-guilt-wracked demeanor indicate? That'll be the Buzz Aldrin whose response to suggestions that it was all a hoax was "You'll have to talk to the administration (NASA) about that. We were just passengers" then? I'll take Not Getting Sarcasm for $800, Alex.
|
|
|
Post by TaeKwonDan on Jul 31, 2005 10:24:10 GMT -4
Whereabouts in my posting is the word "always"? Then why does it matter that the US government has lied in the past? It gives you reason enough to not trust things on face value, but it is not proof of wrong doing in and of itself. Either it matters, because you think they always lie or it's an emotional argument meant to sway one from looking at the facts of the case. Thus the fact that the government has lied in the past should have no bearing on whether or not you accept the evidence that the Apollo landings were real. The evidence stands or falls on its own.
|
|
|
Post by TaeKwonDan on Jul 31, 2005 7:42:29 GMT -4
If I was required to answer this is one sentence, I would say Because in the second half of my life, I have learned that the government of the United States is prepared to lie to me. Yes, but do they lie all the time? I've told little white lies to my wife and friends in my life, but I don't lie all of the time. Otherwise you would get paradoxes such as: 1. I apparently didn't pay my taxes this year. The government told me that I did, but since they always lie I must still have that money in my account. 2. We have no troops in Iraq. The government tells me they are over there, but how do I know that the images and the photos and personal testimony of friends that have been stationed over there isn't all false. The government always lies so that can't be true. Has the fact that the US government lied in the past and the present hurt its credibility with the individual and the world? Yes, it has, but that only a fool takes that to mean that everything they say and do must be a lie. It's just as foolish as taking everything they say and do at face value. What must be done is to take each action and weigh the physical and logical evidence to ascertain its validity. And the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the US having landed men on the moon.
|
|
|
Post by TaeKwonDan on Jul 29, 2005 9:42:50 GMT -4
Hi Margamatix . And anyway, an unmanned Lunar Module couldn’t collect rocks, so how does that answer my original question? Surely you are not suggesting that it would be possible to build a rocket which could carry a vehicle 240,000 miles into moon orbit, it would be possible for a part of that vehicle to detatch itself and make a 60 mile controlled descent to the moon surface, it would be possible for this lander to then take off from the moon, go back into moon orbit and dock with the mother ship, and return 240,000 miles to Earth..... And yet it would not be possible to build a machine which could pick up rocks? Interesting. So you're saying that we could build a lunar lander that was stable enough to land and then take off from the moon? Doesn't that kind of invalidate your favoritist quote by Mr. Sibrel? Secondly, we could build a machine that does that, but prove to me that we could build one as discerning as a human being. That was part of the advantage of sending a person. They could decide which rocks to keep and which to throw away. Something noticeably absent with the recent Mars rover.
|
|
|
Post by TaeKwonDan on Jul 31, 2005 7:35:23 GMT -4
Right. So it would be easier to send two people to the surface of the Moon in 1969 than to build a telescope that could see the surface of the Moon in 2005? ROFL! I'll take doesn't understand basic principles of optics for $800 Alex.
|
|
|
Post by TaeKwonDan on Jul 27, 2005 10:06:39 GMT -4
Apparently it was post-Communism "Pravda" (probably the most respected Russian newspaper) who released this information, and Aulis also contains this quote.... LMAO! Oh I needed that. That is rich. Pravda probably receives more links on fark.com for crazy made-up headlines than even the Weekly World News and its beloved bat-boy. Pravda hurts the credibility of the story.
|
|
|
Post by TaeKwonDan on Jul 25, 2005 17:35:55 GMT -4
Cosmic" Dave doesn't want you looking at better footage of his claims, Surely NASA publish it? Which is Jay's point. They did. In a 20 hour chunk of mission footage which we have no index for figuring out where the footage came from other than watching it.
|
|
|
Post by TaeKwonDan on Jun 8, 2005 15:41:28 GMT -4
You've proben an important scientific theorem that I have been working on for a long time.
Everything is better with penguins.
|
|
|
Post by TaeKwonDan on May 9, 2005 14:30:05 GMT -4
Of course I always try and turn that logic on them and see if they think the government NEVER tells the truth. If they say yes then you can easily catch them in the paradox of that belief.
|
|
|
Post by TaeKwonDan on Jul 21, 2005 10:24:36 GMT -4
I was on another message board (actually a sports related board, but they have a general section) and disappointment with the shuttle launch delay came up and some folks were expressing displeasure with NASA and wondering why we were able to go to the moon 30+ years ago, but not to Mars yet.
Let me first say that these are not woo-woo's as one of the folks remembered watching Apollo and just wondered what happened to the space program in the interim. Myself and another poster who works for NASA basically caught him up on the political changes in the space program and why we went on a different tact than Apollo. (It's a board for Georgia Tech atheletics so there are just a few engineers over there.)
Anyway, I was thinking and trying to point out the differences between going to the moon and to Mars. And thought it might be a fun mental exercise for us over here as well. Here were my thoughts as to some of the challenges that would need to be overcome:
1. Storage of food and water on ship that would be in space for ~12 months (roundtrip.) 2. Helping a human to cope with being in a near 0 G environment for that period of time. 3. (not certain on this one) Protecting the ship passengers from the increased likey hood of large solar flare incidences. I'm not certain, because at the distance we're talking I don't know how dangerous a solar flare truly is to an astronaut. 4. (also not certain on this one) Protecting the ship from the increased likelyhood of contact with space debris. 5. Landing on and taking off from Mars is a very different ball game than landing and taking off from the Moon. -Mars has an atmosphere making the efficient design of the LM most likely inadequate. -The moon has 1/6th gravity of the Earth while Mars has roughly 1/3 the gravity. This changes the rocketry problem in terms of reaching escape velocity significantly especially when coupled with drag from the atmosphere. 6. The program could not and should not move as quickly as Apollo did from a logistics stand point. Missions where we just prove we can get a person there and back would take a year in comparison to the 6 days lunar orbit on Apollo 8 took.
Now, these are not reasons we'll never go and I think it's a noble and exciting cause. I was just having fun thinking about the larger hurdles necessary to put a person on Mars. I'm sure I missed a bunch so what else is there that you guys can think of? And of course feel free to tell me why some of the things I listed aren't really that much of an obstacle.
|
|