|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Jan 5, 2007 13:40:15 GMT -4
Haven't you read this thread? No I haven't and have no intention of doing so. Troll. Troglodite.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Mar 23, 2006 10:58:08 GMT -4
Well, now that this thread has been thoroughly jacked. . .
I would like to compliment LoTR on the new avatar. It seems to fit nicely with the notion of "in the darkness, bind them." There it is, looking all cute and fuzzy, until one contemplates the presence of a predator and two prey in the image.
In the past you've spammed the site with a megs of flower pictures, and now you come in showing your teeth.
Yeah, cute and fuzzy. With teeth and claws.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Oct 12, 2006 14:11:01 GMT -4
Lunatic never proved his assertions. He linked to a scuba site, but nothing connected the user with the site.
How easily led . . .
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Oct 10, 2006 17:52:34 GMT -4
Lunatic said nothing to convince me he was anything other than an angry English truck driver, home from a long drive, self medicating with a dozen cans of Newcastle to take the tweeker-twitches off.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Oct 2, 2006 12:56:30 GMT -4
Stupid, but persistent.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Sept 14, 2006 13:13:50 GMT -4
The faking of the Apollo project has not been proven to an acceptable standard.
The arguments and evidence fail to stand up to intelligent and informed scrutiny.
It's all just flag-waving.
Learn to research. We have.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Aug 10, 2006 11:44:09 GMT -4
A friend of mine years ago showed me a book (yeah, horribly unveriable reference, but so what?) that talked about the SR71. Swedish air traffic control, according to the book, clocked the blackbird at a speed WAY higher than than listed max, 3.7 if I remember correctly.
One of the posted links here talks about the structural max being under 4.0 due to the angle of the shockwaves impinging on the airframe, so 3.7 seems not unreasonable for pilots on a time-critical mission at the height of the cold-war, especially for once or twice in the life of a vehicle. After all, one never knows until one tries, does one? Especially for short bursts.
The blackbird was the fastest plane yet built, designed back in the days of slide-rule engineering. (I'm discounting the re-entry speed of the Shuttle, mach 25, as it's less of a plane than it is a brick outhouse.) Multipurpose craft like MIGs could never hope to compete with something designed to be, in essence, the ultimate hot-rod. That's what engineering is all about -- engineers, given goals and a decent budget, can design amazing and unbelievable things.
I think Vince should spend more time at the putt-putt course and less time on the internet.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Aug 7, 2006 20:36:23 GMT -4
Chemical batteries can contain gargantuan amounts of energy. Rechargables like NiCad and Lead-Acid are not so energy dense as disposables, like they used on the Lunar equipment. www.yardney.com/yardney/index.htmlThese people claim to have batteries with 3 to 5 times as much energy density as NiCad, and NASA sends these things to Mars, so who am I to argue? Try googling "battery energy density," that should give you a few great links.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Aug 7, 2006 20:30:54 GMT -4
I deleted a previous message - the battery comments were by a user other than the one I listed.
You can find them by looking through moonman's posts, but there's really very little substance to make it worth the effort.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Aug 7, 2006 19:25:03 GMT -4
Perhaps you misunderstand how the things in general are engineered. There's an initial power budget (watts, not dollars), weight budget, several areas of physical compartment budget, and meanwhile there's a list as long as your arm of gizmos that people convince themselves to be mission critical. That's just to design something simple, like cordless drill. Then there's NASA neurosis regarding systems redundancy, and eventually things shake down into a design most people involved can agree on. I've read the figures (4 at 400Ah) at (26 to 32 volts) for the LM power supply. Every engineer who had hardware on the craft had a piece of the power budget available to them, and they had to stick to it, period. Given the complexity and disposability of the craft, I doubt there is one all-encompassing list of every radio, motor and lightbulb on the Lunar Modules. That information was scattered across thousands of documents. Here's a vehicle that uses batteries by the same original manufacturer: www.speedace.info/silver_eagle.htm
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Jul 28, 2006 16:04:45 GMT -4
I, for one, welcome our new reptilian overlords ... I've been told they taste like chicken.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Jul 11, 2006 19:57:42 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Jul 10, 2006 18:57:46 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Jul 10, 2006 18:13:16 GMT -4
With a modern point-and-click infrared thermometer, the next generation of moon visitors will be able to easily determine the temperature of surfaces, like dirt, rocks, the bottom of their boots, sunlit vs. shaded parts of rocks or equipment, battery cases, radiators, gearboxes, etcetera. www.professionalequipment.com/xq/ASP/laserthermometer_temperature/ID.22/qx/default.htmApollo-era astronauts lacked the tools to do this. They might have been able to probe the dirt with a mercury thermometer, or put an electronic temp sensor (similar to automobile engine temp senders) onto things, or up against a rock, but the sensors of the day were pretty unsophisticated and had narrow range of measurement. I seem to recall that the rover had temp data for the batteries to keep them from overheating, but I don't have the LM handbook on my desktop at the moment. I would expect the next astronauts to collect large amounts of temp data to take back to the engineers for refining equipment design.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Jul 4, 2006 19:24:51 GMT -4
Personally, I'm not convinced 'lunatic' is really an indonesian scuba-tour operator.
|
|