|
Post by iamspartacus on Feb 22, 2006 8:44:08 GMT -4
The official NASA story can be found here.
|
|
|
Post by iamspartacus on Jan 30, 2006 17:15:06 GMT -4
In Neal Thompson’s biography of Shepard (Light This Candle) he writes the following:
“We’re aware of the ground rules, Huston,” Shepard snapped. But that didn’t mean Huston could stop him from violating those rules. Just three miles above the surface, Shepard wasn’t about to turn back now, and he told Mitchell about his plan: “If the radar doesn’t kick in, we’re going to fly her down”
Shepard died in 98 and the book was written in 2004 so who's to say but it’s a good story.
|
|
|
Post by iamspartacus on Jan 11, 2006 12:14:19 GMT -4
You do know what happened to those who declared, "No I'm Spartacus!" don't you? ;D
|
|
|
Post by iamspartacus on Jan 8, 2006 13:13:53 GMT -4
I own a book called :
Introduction to Space Dynamics By William Tyrrell Thompson Published by Dover ISBN 0-486-65113-4
This includes a section on orbital mechanics. It claims to be aimed at undergraduates and has proved useful to me on occasion.
A quick trawl through Amazon brings up quite a few titles. One that seems to fit the bill is: Orbital Mechanics: For Engineering Students By Howard Curtis Published by Butterworth-Heinemann ISBN: 0750661690
I cannot give a personnel recommendation for this one though.
|
|
|
Post by iamspartacus on Jan 6, 2006 10:02:38 GMT -4
I know this is a bit out there and a few of you will start rolling your eyes when I mention anti-gravity. But wait, it might not be as wacky as you think! This weeks issue of New Scientist has an article on anti-gravity based on some obscure work by a German scientist (aren’t they always) called Burkhard Heim back in the 50s. It’s all to do with magnets (don't groan) so I’ll let you read it: www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18925331.200.htmlThe article also mentioned the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics which has apparently given a prize for a recent paper on anti-gravity based on Heim's work: www.aiaa.org/aerospace/images/articleimages/pdf/NFFP.pdfIt gets better. The AIAA site also claims that NASA has been looking into anti-gravity for many years under the auspices of the NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics (BPP) Project: www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/It seems we don’t yet have the technology to build the powerful magnets required and Heims theory is largely given credence due to its ability to very accurately predict the masses of fundamental particles. Some pretty august bodies are looking at it so what do you think?
|
|
|
Post by iamspartacus on Feb 12, 2006 20:43:23 GMT -4
Stargazer, accepting something without evidence is called a belief. This is exactly what you are asking us to do with your claims. Believe what stargazer says. He is the holder of the truth. He doesn't need to provide evidence.
You know very well how it works here. State you case, provide the evidence, don't rant or hand wave.
Spelling
|
|
|
Post by iamspartacus on Feb 13, 2006 18:06:39 GMT -4
Then please state what you think's wrong with it.
|
|
|
Post by iamspartacus on Feb 13, 2006 18:01:49 GMT -4
Wrong again. See www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20471.jpg
Well thanks, I don't remember seeing this one. However, that's a good candidate for a joke photo, too. Who is in that "space" suit, and what is wrong with that earth again? I've never seen a terminator line like that on the moon. Compare to the Salame picture. The ALSJ says it's Jack Schmitt. You seem to have a thing about terminators. Your mangled English is difficult to follow sometimes (no offence meant, it is certainly better than my command of your native tongue). Do you mean that " I've never seen a terminator line like that from the moon"? Please state what you think is wrong with it.
|
|
|
Post by iamspartacus on Feb 13, 2006 17:29:35 GMT -4
I was being sarcastic.
Taking pictures of the stars with the equipment they had was not possible if there was something bright in the field of view, like a dazzling white space suit!
It's simple photographic exposures which has been explained to you many times!
|
|
|
Post by iamspartacus on Feb 13, 2006 16:25:30 GMT -4
You forgot to mention that there's no stars in the picture.
|
|
|
Post by iamspartacus on Feb 13, 2006 9:54:24 GMT -4
It's a bit like picking a scab. You know you shouldn't but....
|
|
|
Post by iamspartacus on Feb 13, 2006 5:32:40 GMT -4
[stargazer’s] "but a walking shadow, a poor player That struts and frets his hour upon the stage And then is heard no more: it is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing."
Apologies to the Bard.
|
|
|
Post by iamspartacus on Feb 12, 2006 21:01:32 GMT -4
I think stargazer has just proved to himself that you can take pictures of stars if you remove the bright object (Earth, Moon, in his example the Sun) from the field of view.
|
|
|
Post by iamspartacus on Feb 11, 2006 4:49:36 GMT -4
Members of this forum have supported the Moon landings with the following: Newton’s laws of motion, mathematics, radiometry, photometry, optics, ophthalmics, atomic theory, orbital mechanics, trigonometry, photography, astronomy and much more. In other words, science.
Stargazer has supported his claims for the Moon hoax in this and other threads with the following: Sibrel, Colby, Hufschmid, Kaysing. The New World Order. That America and the USSR collaborated to produce a phoney Cold War. Physics is fundamentally wrong. Einstein’s theories are wrong and will soon be exposed. Anyone not believing in the Moon hoax was subject to mind control. NASA has rewritten science text books and history books. That the world’s scientists and engineers are lying/duped/threatened with death. That the world’s governments are lying/duped. That you can’t believe anybody with a technical/scientific qualification but can believe those who don’t (namely: Sibrel, Colby, Hufschmid and stargazer). That Moon rock can be duplicated in a “radiation oven” or “ceramics lab”. That cameras don’t work in the way that we currently understand them to work. That tracking stations/personnel can be fooled as to where they are pointing their dish. Acceptance of the Moon landings is a belief/religion, not founded in science. That there are “zillions”/“bazillions” of stars to be seen with the naked eye from the Moon’s surface. Space is a “radiation hell”. Ricardo Salamé and Frank A Pullo have strange names. That “we don’t have eyes to see”. In other words, CT garbage.
|
|
|
Post by iamspartacus on Feb 10, 2006 8:12:35 GMT -4
So, did it prevent you from seeing the stars, you crock? Stargazer, this has been explained to you many times. Seeing stars is different from taking pictures. Insult also noted. Ok, now that the Apollo fanatics have excreted their vilifications again, I suggest we return to the topic of this thread, Hufschmid's Science Challenge #26. www.erichufschmid.net/Science_Challenge_26.html which you took off topic in the first place with your curiously sized thumb argument which has been debunked Which answer is correct and how does it conflict with Armstrong's description of the earth as he claims to have seen it from the moon? Stargazer, if you can be bothered to read the very start of this thread you will know we are still waiting to find out exactly what Hufschmid's argument is. If you know what Hufschmid claims Armstrong to have said then please quote it. Spelling
|
|