|
Post by stutefish on Mar 30, 2007 13:32:15 GMT -4
I guess it depends whether or not you really are a sock puppet, and what you did to convince them.
|
|
|
ranb
Jan 17, 2007 15:45:16 GMT -4
Post by stutefish on Jan 17, 2007 15:45:16 GMT -4
Of course the Earth is hollow ... haven't you people ever seen that great 1950s documentary "Journey To The Centre Of The Earth" That was faked by NASA. You can tell from the backdrops that it's more like "Journey to the Center of a Sound Stage in Burbank".
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Dec 21, 2006 15:20:20 GMT -4
No, stutefish. It doesn't Your bathroom mirror has two layers: an outer layer of clear glass, and an inner layer of reflective metal. The reflection comes from the inner layer. So there's the "inner layer reflection" you're having such a hard time accepting. If you can't even accurately observe something as mundane as your own bathroom mirror, why should we trust your ability to observe Apollo photographs?
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Dec 21, 2006 13:31:43 GMT -4
As for the reflection, it is not that simple. You'll have to show that such reflection can be casted internally. Lionking, your bathroom mirror casts such a reflection.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Dec 20, 2006 18:30:19 GMT -4
still don't understand how can internal visor layers cast such reflections on the outside... The same way the internal layer of your bathroom mirror casts such reflections.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Jan 4, 2007 13:06:34 GMT -4
That's interesting. Why were the ullage motors removed, and what was the effect on the rocket's operation. It was my understanding that the ullage motors were important Saturn V subsystems, necessary to the proper functioning of each stage. I wish I had a good answer to this question. I can only surmise that NASA must have concluded based on data from previous launches that they could get by without them. The S-II ullage motors were actually reduced in steps. Apollo 8 and earlier had eight motors, Apollo 9-14 had four, and Apollo 15-17 had zero. S-IVB ullage was provided by two solid rocket motors in addition to the Auxiliary Propulsion System (APS), which as far as I know was not modified. I can certainly see the need for S-IVB ullage since the partially filled tanks were weightless in space for a couple hours prior to the TLI burn. For those who don't know, the reason for ullage motors is to force the propellant to the bottom of the tanks prior to igniting the main engine(s). Thanks, Bob! That's definitely enough to get me started. I appreciate the background.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Jan 3, 2007 16:13:28 GMT -4
The ullage motors on the Saturn V S-II aft interstage adapter were removed, reducing the interstage mass by nearly a ton. Also the number of S-IC separation motors was reduced from 8 to 4 on Apollo 15, but these were replaced on Apollo 16-17. Furthermore, the Earth parking orbit was reduced from an altitude of 100 nautical miles to 90 nautical miles. That's interesting. Why were the ullage motors removed, and what was the effect on the rocket's operation. It was my understanding that the ullage motors were important Saturn V subsystems, necessary to the proper functioning of each stage.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Feb 14, 2007 12:46:24 GMT -4
I come here for the answers, which give me great intellectual pleasure in much greater proportion than the CTs give me pain. In a way, I'm almost grateful for hte CTs, because they give people like GL, JU, STS, etc. such an excellent reason to expound at length on all sorts of things that are interesting to me.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Sept 26, 2006 16:19:40 GMT -4
So, if someone says the government stolemoney in front of my eyes, no one would be sent to check up for the dangerous accusations? Maybe it is law, but it is not a fair law, then. Actually, it's a very fair law. People run their mouths off all the time. The Police have limited resources. If they investigated every crazy or extreme claim that people made, they'd waste a lot of time harassing people with no good reason. Instead, we trust our citizens to know what should be taken seriously and what should not. People who think their claims should be taken seriously, go to the police. And then the police know that someone is serious, and they take a serious look at the claims. People who think their claims should make them money, publish books and go on talk shows. And then the police know that they're not serious about their claims, and so the police stay focused on the serious accusations that they're already working on.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Aug 11, 2006 18:25:18 GMT -4
Would my skin FEEL hot or would it FEEL cold?
What does your feeling have to do with it?
That aside, and not being in any way, shape, or form an expert on such matters:
My bet is, aside from the discomfort of having your skin exposed to a vacuum, which could cause all kinds of FEELINGS, you'd FEEL the following:
At first, without anything else in contact with your skin, you would FEEL cold. This would be because there's no atmosphere to carry its heat energy to your skin. You would FEEL your skin getting colder, as you radiated your body heat out into the void, and as your body closed off the surface blood vessels to conserve body heat.
Then, if you were in sunlight, you would FEEL your skin get hotter, as it received energy from the sun faster than it could radiate it away as heat.
If you were not in sunlight, you would continue to FEEL your skin get colder, right up until the moment when you died or were rescued.
Again disregarding vacuum effects other than the absence of convection, I'd expect your skin temperature to drop from approximately body temperature down to something significantly below zero degrees Farenheit, and then rise in temperature to something significantly above 100 degrees Farenheit in sunlight, or keep dropping in temperature indefinitely in shadow.
How's that?
[Edited to add: Now that I think about it, in sunlight your skin might not actually decrease in temperature, but begin rising immediately.]
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on May 16, 2006 17:57:32 GMT -4
More missions, plain and simple.
Speaking of which, where can I find good information on Apollo Applications?
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on May 16, 2006 17:54:02 GMT -4
According to Virtual Apollo, each Astronaut was assigned to study and inform the design of a specific subsystem of the Apollo spacecraft. Each Astronaut was assigned to a different subsystem. As I recall, Bean was assigned to the recovery subsystem--everything from the parachutes to the recovery fleet itself.
Perhaps the Astronaut assigned to the "cislunar hazards mitigation subsystem", or whatever, would have been able to give a much more coherent and better informed answer to a question about the VAB.
I'm sure that even at 70, Bean could talk in great and accurate detail about the recovery subsystem.
(I'd look all this up, but as luck would have it, I donated my copy of Virtual Apollo to my nephew this past weekend. Speaking of which, does anyone know if the reissue will fix the major errors in the first edition?)
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Sept 14, 2006 15:35:30 GMT -4
I've been inside Hangar One at Moffett Field (home of the Nasa Ames Research Center) many times. It's often open to the public, for example during the annual Navy air show that takes place at Moffett Field.
Hangar One is neither airtight nor of the correct dimensions to provide the LEVA footage (it's long and tall, but relatively narrow).
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on May 17, 2006 20:14:16 GMT -4
Corroborating the Apollo missions is trivial:
There's eyewitness accounts of all phases of each mission.
There's warehouses full of detailed documentation.
There's thousands of photographs (you want photos of the descent stages, moon buggies, etc? No need to wait for Hubble II--the photos you desire have been around for about 40 years).
There's over three hundred pounds of actual moon material retrieved during the missions and valildated by scores of geologists from around the world.
There's a thoroughly itemized budget, approved by Congress and reviewed regularly throughout the Project by that same body.
There's a score of major multinational corporations, whose business succes is based in large part on leveraging the aerospace R&D that was funded by NASA for the Project.
How much more corroboration do you need?
And why is it that none of the radio astronomers at Arecibo seem to agree with you that their valuable telescope time should be spent looking for Apollo hardware on the moon? Last I checked, they seem to think even SETI is a more deserving effort.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Apr 24, 2006 12:08:03 GMT -4
On occasion when someone says "We won WWII" I like to say "Spaseba, tovarisch"
It should not be overlooked that Stalin started out on Hitler's side at the beginning of the war.
Giving Russia credit for helping to win the war is kind of like giving one kidnapper credit for rescuing the victim, when all he really did was shoot a few of the other kidnappers during a sudden altercation over the loot.
|
|