|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Nov 17, 2011 13:22:06 GMT -4
While I can admire the inquisitiveness that brings forth novel questions, your current interest in the landing probe touches one of the least relevant aspects of the entire program.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Nov 17, 2011 12:54:28 GMT -4
Good grief! 1991? Why did they bother spending the time/money writing this? Was it worth the investment just to be able to slap congresscritters upside the head with 26 pages of "we already asked ourselves this question, now go away?"
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Nov 17, 2011 12:49:28 GMT -4
For those actually interested in the Lunar Regolith, this paper might provide some details on some of studies and analysis performed to determine depth: lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov/library/wilcox_2005.pdfAdmittedly, not everyone finds this kind of thing interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Nov 16, 2011 18:44:32 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Nov 16, 2011 18:34:29 GMT -4
JayUtah could you demonstrate that principle on a pool table? Why would you land a Lunar Module on a pool table? That doesn't make any sense.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Nov 16, 2011 14:34:11 GMT -4
The Shuttle-to-the-moon question has popped up before here, and back in the Margamatix days someone (Bob B probably) did the math.
Getting the shuttle to the moon would require another entire big-orange-tank of fuel for TLI, but that's just for a free-return trajectory. More fuel would be required to get into lunar orbit.
Then to decelerate the shuttle for reentry you'd need even more fuel, more than the big orange tank holds.
Taking the Shuttle to the moon would be like driving a dumptruck on a halfpipe.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Nov 15, 2011 17:54:40 GMT -4
now I'll ask you again what is temperature measuring? velocity or vibration rate. Neither. In modern physics temperature is defined in terms of the fundamental degrees of freedom of a system. If you're gonna drop nerd-bait like that in the water you better be prepared to reel it in. Tell me more. Point me toward references. Please.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Nov 15, 2011 12:02:42 GMT -4
Not in my high school chemistry class. The teacher did it on a bench and made "brown cloud" in the classroom, comparing the amount in the room to the amount in downtown Denver's air every day.
Slightly alarming.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Nov 15, 2011 11:51:22 GMT -4
I think the original Battlestar Galactica was the worst for fighter-jets-in-space flight dynamics.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Nov 14, 2011 19:18:36 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Nov 14, 2011 1:50:10 GMT -4
Most space movies are pretty terrible and sensationalistic. Also, the science in them has, invariably, massive fail. NASA hasn't really bothered getting themselves involved in the cultural mindset of the American public, and their budget reflects this.
I like "Alien" (the first one) because it's about truck drivers in space. Just work-a-day folks. I love the idea that someday ordinary people will have crappy jobs IN SPACE.
I also liked the 1981 movie "Outland," because it's just your ordinary "trash western," in space. Someday, no matter how advanced we think we'll be, there will still be cops on the beat keeping the peace on mining colonies orbiting Jupiter.
I was looking for "moon movies" on google several years ago to watch with my kids. Instead I found Bart Sibrel. Then I found this group.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Nov 12, 2011 16:32:51 GMT -4
Yes, 2 things. 1) I would like a link to your reference so I know what the heck you're going on about. 2) I prefer to read posts written with complete sentences and at least minimal compliance with the standards of English language punctuation. My reason for this is proper punctuation requires methodical sentence construction rather than randomly flinging one's fingers around the glass of a "smart" phone, leading to more comprehensible statements less prone to misunderstandings and ambiguity.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Nov 12, 2011 10:54:55 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Nov 11, 2011 12:19:34 GMT -4
First of all, neither one is a thermodyanamics engineer, so the broad statements made for a general audience lack the weight of detailed analysis.
Second, there's no contradiction because the conditions described are not the same. Aldrin was talking about the actual temperature of the Eagle, which was set lower than for other missions (about 61 degrees) but Bean was talking about a hypothetical example.
Your confusion is caused by trying to make an apple into an orange.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Nov 11, 2011 11:56:56 GMT -4
I have a nit to pick with the OP video.
Regarding the image of steam coming from a kettle: the invisible portion is, as stated in the video, gaseous water. The visible portion is NOT, as stated, due to "other gasses." That's liquid water, very small droplets. The gas condenses as it cools and returns to liquid phase, but the droplets of liquid are so small that they are just floating around in the air. If you observe a plume of "steam" you might note that the cloud eventually disperses from the moisture-saturated area and evaporates.
This might seem like picking at an irrelevancy, but the steam image was presented in support of another argument, that the visible exhaust plume is due to "other gasses" in the atmosphere burning. I'm pretty sure the flame temperature of rocket exhaust is too low for that.
The visible exhaust plume is not adequately explained in your response video. The handwaving of jw should not be met with other handwaving but with specifics, details, equations and charts.
|
|