|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Dec 2, 2011 12:21:45 GMT -4
The guy had a pretty solid plan to disrupt the LHC: "The LHC successfully collided particles at record force earlier this week, a milestone Mr Cole was attempting to disrupt by stopping supplies of Mountain Dew to the experiment's vending machines." That could seriously impact productivity! But at least his motives seem clear: "Countries do not exist where I am from. The discovery of the Higgs boson led to limitless power, the elimination of poverty and Kit-Kats for everyone. It is a communist chocolate hellhole and I'm here to stop it ever happening."
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Nov 21, 2011 19:25:21 GMT -4
I've heard/read this described as "subtractive engineering" in contrast to "additive engineering."
At one end of the spectrum you have a 1960's VW Beetle, at the other end you have any product by Microsoft. For example.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Nov 21, 2011 3:34:02 GMT -4
Wow. They put a lot of detail into that thing!
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Nov 21, 2011 3:27:50 GMT -4
There was a story a few months ago regarding people experimenting with LM engines (don't remember which of 'em) using non-hypergolic fuels. NASA, per the story, wasn't interested as they prefer not to add the complexity of an ignition system to an already man-rated motor/fuel combination.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Nov 21, 2011 2:55:02 GMT -4
I've found Portland cement to be a suitable mechanical simulant. With coal ash added, it can also be a very good optical simulant, minus the spherules. Even the spherules could be simulated for fairly minimal cost: colesafety.com/product.sc?productId=39A lot cheaper than jarrah's $300 bucket of inappropriately sized dirt.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Nov 20, 2011 14:21:10 GMT -4
I think most HB's are confused by this because they don't understand the question.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Nov 20, 2011 12:58:02 GMT -4
If playdor wants to simulate the bootprints himself, perhaps he could buy some JSA-1AC from Jarrah. I bet JW would love to recoup some of the cost of his $300 bucket of dirt.
Of course, playdor would have to mix it with some fines to accurately model the lunar soil from the landing sites, since the -1AC Jarrah bought is the "coarse" granule simulant.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Nov 19, 2011 13:37:54 GMT -4
Its amazing picture, and look stars from the moon C'mon, man. Can you tell us at least 3 things in that picture that proves it's a fake? At a glance I can see three things wrong just with the space suit!
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Nov 18, 2011 14:19:59 GMT -4
The general preference here is to post a smaller sized version from a reliable source (such as the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html ) with link to both the posted version and the high-resolution version. Like this: www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5877.jpgHigh-Res: www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5877HR.jpgNote the HR at the and of the filename denoting the High Resolution version of the file. From your posting style and lack of both capitalization and punctuation I would surmise the following: 1) your age listed in your profile is incorrect 2) you are posting from a phone We like links around here. Apply the slightest modicum of effort to making your posts intelligible and verifiable and your posts will be taken ever-so-slightly more seriously.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Nov 18, 2011 12:50:14 GMT -4
The entire AGC could be replaced with a hobbyist grade microcontroller, the mainframes on the ground doing the "heaving lifting" of trajectory calculations could be replaced with a laptop, the 35 lb radios could be replaced with handheld units from Walmart and most of the rocket engines are either still in production or easily replaced with items still in production.
Building the Apollo program from scratch would be stupid and overly complicated, but replicating the functionality with modern technology would be a cinch.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Nov 17, 2011 23:44:39 GMT -4
gillianren 3) why would it bother you if i think your wrong, scientists disagree all the time Scientists disagree because of data, not because they pull random thoughts out of their pants. uh . . . Huh? I think you might have talked to someone once who read an interesting book. Perhaps further research on your part will clarify this 1/2 thought Wow. Off topic AND wrong! I suggest you expand your surfing to include ScienceNews or New Scientist magazines' sites. www.sciencenews.org/www.newscientist.com/section/science-news
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Nov 17, 2011 14:18:05 GMT -4
This line of questioning is like attempting to establish authorship of "Romeo and Juliet" by discussing the lid of Shakespeare's chamberpot.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Nov 17, 2011 14:16:15 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Nov 17, 2011 14:04:39 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Nov 17, 2011 13:49:41 GMT -4
Taken from end to end, the Hoax Theory appears to me to be cobbled together from odds and ends of confusion, lack of relevant education and gullible acceptance of flat-out lies by scambrokers with a book or video to sell.
But do carry on with your landing probe questions. This is a new approach to explaining the fakery of hundreds of hours of film and video footage, thousands of photographs and millions of pages of scientific analysis of the ALSEP data and 840 pounds of moon rocks and dirt.
|
|