|
Post by stutefish on Feb 22, 2012 21:49:33 GMT -4
I would expect my counterpart in Italy to be more familiar with Celsius oven settings and what you cook at what temperature. Am I the only one piqued by the idea of a JayOtranto?
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Feb 21, 2012 13:20:03 GMT -4
On the other hand, density is mass per unit volume. Mass is mass regardless of gravity. Therefore, 1.3 g/cm 2 is 1.3 g/cm 2 on Earth, the moon, or anyplace else. It looks like your example gives mass per unit area...
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Feb 8, 2012 15:48:22 GMT -4
It'd be a shame to lose all of the fine schoolin' found in these threads...
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Feb 7, 2012 17:05:49 GMT -4
Am I the only one who finds it jaw-droppingly ironic that forthethrill, in a post asking for "comprehensive scientific documents" on radiation, actually quotes the title of one of these "comprehensive scientific documents"? Stunning. Truly amazing. I guess when you're so sure you're right, you don't have to bother reading anyone else's posts. And yet for some reason it's still important to quote them. Isn't this a recurring complaint about Patrick's posts over at JREF? That he often quotes other people, and then goes on to ignore everything he's quoted?
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Feb 7, 2012 17:02:25 GMT -4
I was thinking more in terms of scraping the messages directly out of the HTML. Scraping the HTML code for each thread shouldn't be hard. I just don't know what to do with it once it is scraped. Probably the "simplest" thing to do, while still preserving a modicum of the narrative arc of the old board, would be to write a script that emulates the part of the Proboards functionality necessary to lay out each thread in threaded form, preserving the reference links for quoted material. Then you could deposit each preserved thread on another website, as a sort of Record of What Has Gone Before. Link the Record to the new forum, and let people start new threads picking up where the old ones left off. Awkward at first, but smoothing out over time, as more and more of the discussion shifts to the new forum threads. This would be essentially similar to how clavius.org is currently treated by this forum: Just as people discuss things here, and reference Jay's analysis on Clavius, they could similarly reference previous discussions in their new ones.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Dec 17, 2011 13:10:44 GMT -4
I have to wonder how much of Tsialkovsky's problem is an "in Soviet Russia..." problem.
In the early 70s, any American boy of 10 years, with some combination of a subscription to Boy's Life magazine, or whose parents subscribed to National Geographic or LIFE, or who had a library card, could probably figure out how to get their hands on as much Apollo photographic record as they cared to. They'd probably have to write some letters, and maybe save up their allowance for a few weeks or something, but the task for them would be essentially trivial.
I'm not so sure a similar boy in the Soviet Union would have even the faintest conceptual notion of what kinds of material the US government and social institutions might make readily available to every citizen as a matter of course (and perhaps even as a point of pride).
But I could be wrong about that.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Dec 10, 2011 22:59:00 GMT -4
I for one think the analogy to (American) football is especially apt.
I watch a fair amount of the stuff as a casual observer, usually while visiting friends who are much more interested in the sport than I am. I also listen to snippets of games on the radio, from time to time.
And what is abundantly clear to me is that I know next to nothing about the game. The commentators are clearly speaking from a depth of informed opinion that goes far beyond the video record of the play itself.
Having never bothered to study the game, the "few snip its from parts of of a play" are almost entirely meaningless to me. Any time I try to seriously understand what I'm watching, I am immediately and painfully aware that extensive "book larnin'" would be necessary for me to actually explain what I'm seeing.
tl;dr: Anybody who only watches plays and never reads books will never be able to explain football (or orbital rendezvous and docking). In contrast, anybody who is sufficiently well-read in football (or orbital rendezbous and docking) could probably explain with ease what's going on in any "snip its from film footage" you cared to show them.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Sept 20, 2011 20:45:56 GMT -4
Did anybody ever happen to give an explanation for why Houston introduced an Ascent O2 pressure check at 135:59:19? What about it? The sequence of valve changes transferred the cabin O 2 supply temporarily from the descent stage to the ascent stage tank #1 long enough for Houston to get telemetry confirming that the ascent O 2 tank is full and its valve and filter are working properly. It also confirms that the O 2 Descent Feed valve is closing properly. That's pretty vital as the O 2 manifold would be vented to space at staging if it's not sealed. There's a second ascent O 2 tank but it apparently wasn't checked at this time. Looking at the LM O 2 system, I see a high pressure O 2 manifold within the ascent stage that can be fed by either of two tanks in the ascent stage or by a single line carrying O 2 from the descent stage. This high pressure manifold can be opened directly into the cabin via the infamous Cabin Repress And Emergency O 2 valve, but normally the manifold goes through redundant demand regulators into the suit loop. I suppose that do that check then so that in the unlikely event the ascent O 2 is malfunctioning they keep one or both PLSSes, with the gas hoses open to keep the cabin pressuurized and to remove CO 2. You want to know if you you'll need to do this before you discard the PLSS. Thanks! That all makes sense. I was just curious why Houston phrased it as an ad hoc, off-checklist test. I guess I figure, if it was important enough to do as a matter of course, it would have been a checklist item, which from the way the transcript reads, it wasn't. Therefore, if Houston introduced it as an off-checklist test, they must have had some out-of-the-ordinary reason for it. I was curious if anybody happened to know what that reason was. The other possibilities I can think of are that it was on the checklist, and just reads as ad hoc in the transcript, or that my assumptions and expectations are way off base (which is entirely plausible).
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Sept 16, 2011 17:04:35 GMT -4
Did anybody ever happen to give an explanation for why Houston introduced an Ascent O2 pressure check at 135:59:19?
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Jul 8, 2011 18:10:50 GMT -4
Stutefish Patients who "look like Borman" with diarrhea, vomiting, chills get interrogated big time regardless of "familiarity". Some cases of infectious diarrhea must be reported to the local board of public health for obvious reasons. This is fairly significant stuff. fattydash, you miss my point. I'm not suggesting Borman wasn't interrogated. I'm suggesting that not only was Borman interrogated, but that most of the interrogation had already taken place. What specific question do you think the doctor should have asked?
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Jul 7, 2011 22:18:39 GMT -4
One thing I wonder (and forgive me if this has already been covered), is whether fattydash's demand for "questions from the doctor" was already satisfied.
I mean, how likely was it that the questions fattydash expects, the questions that an ER doctor or a GP would ask of some patient they've seen rarely or never, were all already answered by the doctor as a natural result of his day-to-day supervision of the astronauts.
It seems to me that a doctor asks you what you did yesterday because he has no idea at all what you did yesterday. He asks you what you ate, because your diet is a complete mystery to him. But these questions would be redundant and a waste of time, for the Apollo flight surgeons. They know exactly what the astronauts did yesterday, and exactly what they ate.
Could it be that it's not so much a matter of questions not asked, but rather questions already asked and answered, before the conversation even began?
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Apr 2, 2011 14:22:28 GMT -4
I for one welcome the opportunity to re-read a classic bit of Jay Utah from the archives.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Feb 7, 2011 21:31:04 GMT -4
I wouldn't be surprised if at least half the OP's list were intentional jokes. No. 12 in particular seems to be an obvious joke.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Aug 18, 2009 19:22:01 GMT -4
Forty pages and we've moved from the feather fall to Ed Fendell's framing of the feather fall? I have to say this is the slowest Gish gallop ever.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Aug 13, 2009 14:09:56 GMT -4
I used my common sense for the default options that should be discussed first. I do not rule out other alternatives.To what extent should we rely on your common sense as a suitable standard for selecting "main alternatives"? Are you well-experienced in this type of analysis? Are you more experienced, say, than I am? If you are not more experienced than I am, why should I not use my own common sense in place of yours? Do you, in fact, have any kind of selection methodology at all? Any kind of step-by-step procedure you can describe for us? Any list of sound investigative principles that guide your decision-making? I mean, if you're going to just say "common sense" and leave it at that, fine. It just doesn't seem very thorough or justifiable to me, you know? It would be difficult to apply such a significant rotational momentum (initially the vane is inclined upwards and at the end downwards) with the pressurized fingers which could mainly just release the feather. I assume that such effect could be possible by using the wrist. In this case, the feather would be thrown down but not just dropped down, resulting in initial non-zero vertical velocity which would allow the feather to reach the ground before the hammer head. I strongly disagree. I have just now very easily imparted rotational momentum to a dropped object, simply by holding it at one end and releasing it slowly, so that it starts to rotate as the unsupported end drops faster than the friction of my fingtertips releases the supported end. No throwing motion of the wrist is involved. Why have you not considered this alternative? This particular scene is quite short because there are two static moments with no moving objects before the astronauts appearing in it and after leaving it.No. If you're going to assert that this scene is quite short, then you must demonstrate with good evidence that it was, in fact, that short. Saying it could be that short is not the same thing. If you want to disregard the rest of the footage--which by all evidence is continuous--then you need to demonstrate that the evidence is faulty, and that the film was spliced where you say it was spliced. As it stands right now, the evidence of vacuum, and the evidence of a single continuous piece of footage, and the lack of evidence for any kind of splice, all combine to rule out one of your two "main alternatives". Why have you considered an alternative for which you have no supporting evidence, and which is undermined by the evidence which does exist? I will try to address the said issues within the limitations of my own limited background.Thanks. I look forward to your responses.
|
|