|
Post by Kiwi on Feb 10, 2011 10:51:12 GMT -4
The thing is that if you're going to send astronauts up into the environment of space, as on a journey to the moon in a chemical rocket, it's important to assess the risks. Now nearly everybody here except me is sure that those risks were properly assesed. I'm not convinced... Hagbardceline: Did you even bother to read with a little intelligence Count Zero's post No. 585 at the top of page 40, where he provided a partial but substantial list of space probes which examined radiation and the Van Allen belts between 1958 and 1972? If the risks were not adequately assessed by those missions, why don't you start with ten of them and tell us why they could not have possibly done an adequate assessment? How about this one: 1966 September 12 – Gemini 11: Perigee: 161 km Apogee: 800 km. Manned flight in the Van Allen BeltDo you know who it was that flew into the belts on that mission? I shake my head in dismay at your bizarre crusade to expose a non-existant "hoax" when you are so ignorant of science, so unwilling to be taught by people who are experts in the relevant fields, and so incapable of giving straight and informed answers to simple questions you have been asked. People here have been extremely helpful, informative, considerate and polite to you, yet you repay them by repeating your ignorant nonsense over and over, and refusing to take on board the simplest of concepts such as "The Van Allen belts vary." You have given every appearance of being unwilling to learn the facts, the truth, about space travel, and, as the Americans put it, you "handwave", uselessly flapping your hands around and providing nothing of substance. If you really are going to expose this "hoax," when are you going to start? You haven't so far. Do forgive us if we consider you to be the same as so many other hoax-believers: Remarkably foolish. I suggest you read and think about two of my favourite quotes below:--
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jan 30, 2011 10:01:01 GMT -4
LunarOrbit
I'd suggest keeping any rebuttals as short as possible, or perhaps starting with a bunch of brief ones and then following them with more detailed explanations. Many HBs have short attention spans and don't have the inclination to read a great deal, so short rebuttals are more likely to grab their attention and perhaps interest them in reading further.
Feel free to use any of my brief comments written in the wake of the Fox documentary (below). Comments and criticisms are welcome.
The one, "Stars need 30,000 times more exposure than a sunlit scene" (or even up to 100,000 times more) is good because it puts a very large figure on the difference.
****************************************************
The movie "Capricorn 1'' was filmed five years after the last moon-landing and was deliberately made using Apollo-style hardware, even though it would have been useless for landing on Mars.
In the late 50s and early 60s many Russian and American scientists doubted it was possible to land on the Moon, but rapid advances in computers and other technologies, the experience and knowledge gained from a lot of spectacular failures, plus heaps of money, soon overcame the problems.
Eight (not ten) astronauts died in accidents involving, cars, aircraft and untested spacecraft, but there was nothing mysterious about their deaths. Flying and space travel are dangerous businesses.
Gus Grissom was a very enthusiastic contributor to the space program. To illustrate his concern for safety he hung a lemon on an Apollo SIMULATOR (not the lunar module), which, early on, had some faults, but he was NOT dissatisfied with the entire Apollo program.
Stars didn't show in photos because they are far too faint to register in a photograph of a sunlit scene. To register on film they need at least 30,000 times more exposure than a sunlit object. (See explanatory note at the bottom which shows that 130,000 is actually a better figure.)
The flags appeared to wave only when the astronauts manipulated the main pole which had a horizontal bar at the top holding the flag up. The lightweight structure moved easily in one-sixth gravity and there was no atmosphere to impede the flapping of the nylon flag.
Blast craters didn't appear under the lunar module because the Moon's surface is quite firm and the rocket engine was throttled back. It did, however, blast away the top layer of dust immediately under its nozzle.
Not all shadows on the Moon were dark because the Moon itself reflected light into them, and different camera exposures could lighten them further. We see the Moon's reflectivity when it lights up the Earth at night.
Multiple light sources cast multiple shadows and large light sources cast fuzzy shadows. Objects in the lunar surface photos cast only fairly sharp, single shadows.
Shadows cast by the sun are only parallel if the viewer is perpendicular to them, and their lengths and directions varied on the Moon due to the uneven surface. A key term here is one that is familiar to most artists: VANISHING POINT.
Two video clips are claimed to be taken on the same hill a day apart, but in the original video they were in fact taken only about five minutes apart. Editors of documentary films often use "wrong" photos for illustrative purposes, but that does not mean that there is anything wrong with the original, unedited record.
The rocket noise could not be heard above Aldrin's voice because rockets do not make a roaring noise in a vacuum - the roar we hear on Earth is due to the turbulent reaction between the exhaust plume and the atmosphere. The gas exits at above the speed of sound, causing a sort of continuous 'sonic boom'. The only noise audible within the lunar module would have been the flow noise of the fuel and oxidizer through the system. Besides, Aldrin's microphone was sealed inside his helmet and was designed to exclude environmental noise.
The training machine that crashed when Neil Armstrong was flying it did so because it broke after a number of successful flights. It was a very different vehicle to the actual lunar module.
Different photos showed similar backgrounds because the tall mountains were distant, so the astronauts would have had to move many kilometres to exclude them.
The lunar module could not be thrown off balance by the astronauts moving because it had a feedback system which corrected for changes in the centre of gravity (whether by astronaut movement or fuel depletion) by swivelling the rocket nozzle.
No rocket flames were seen when the astronauts took off from the Moon because the special fuels used, hydrazine and dinitrogen tetroxide, do not produce highly visible flames or smoke in a vacuum.
It is claimed that all the pictures taken on the Moon were perfect, but the truth is, they weren't -- most publishers used only the best ones. There were plenty of bad photos which can be viewed on the internet.
Crosshairs were sometimes obliterated by bright objects due to a characteristic of film called emulsion bleed. It can often be seen in photographs of a sunlit scene taken from a shaded room through a window which has an open venetian blind.
Radiation in the Van Allen belt is made out to be much harsher than it was where the astronauts went through it at high speed, and they received less than 1% of a fatal dose.
Neither Earth-based telescopes nor the Hubble telescope can see the moon-landing sites because they are not powerful enough. The Hubble would have to be more than eight times more powerful to see the part of the lunar module that was left on the Moon.
****************************************************
Should anyone think the figure regarding stars requiring "at least 30,000 times more exposure…." sounds much too high, here's the maths. A typical down-sun exposure with 100 ISO film is 1/250 at f11. The shortest exposure that will register the brightest stars is about 8 seconds at f2.8, but because of film's reciprocity failure during long exposures, 20 to 30 seconds at f2.8 is a better exposure.
Each step below doubles the exposure and the increase over the sunlight exposure is shown.
1/250 @ f11 1/250 @ f8 ======= 2x 1/250 @ f5.6 ====== 4x 1/250 @ f4 ======= 8x 1/250 @ f2.8 ===== 16x 1/125 @ f2.8 ===== 32x 1/60 @ f2.8 ====== 64x 1/30 @ f2.8 ===== 128x 1/15 @ f2.8 ===== 256x 1/8 @ f2.8 ====== 512x 1/4 @ f2.8 ===== 1,024x 1/2 @ f2.8 ===== 2,048x 1 sec @ f2.8 === 4,096x 2 sec @ f2.8 === 8,192x 4 sec @ f2.8 == 16,384x 8 sec @ f2.8 == 32,768x 16 sec @ f2.8 = 65,536x 32 sec @ f2.8 = 131,072x
Another approach could be a brief rebuttal followed by: "Don't take our word for it -- check it yourself in three steps. (1.) Take a properly exposed photo of a typical sunlit scene. (2.) At the same ISO setting, take a properly exposed photo of many stars -- not just the brightest ones. (3.) Record the two exposure settings and work out the difference between them."
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jan 30, 2011 7:44:15 GMT -4
Weren't some of the tracking stations aboard Navy ships? Navy ships and aircraft. For Apollo 11, the tracking ships involved were Huntsville, Mercury and Redstone in the western Pacific and Vanguard in the central Atlantic. From The Invasion of the Moon -- The Story of Apollo 11, Peter Ryan, Penguin Books Ltd, Harmondsworth, England, 1969, pages 78-79 (emphasis added):
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jan 28, 2011 3:01:23 GMT -4
The Warehouse had the Spacecraft Films 3-DVD set "The Mighty Saturns -- Saturn I and IB" in stock today for only $9.99, and if you buy another DVD at the same price you get them for $9.00 each. My nearest branch, Palmerston North, had four sets on display, so may have more, but they have one less set now!
Please post here if you see that they have any other Spacecraft Films DVD sets.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jan 23, 2011 8:37:58 GMT -4
Thanks, Dwight. Now that I've looked them up again, I recall seeing the references to Roundup in your bibliography, but it didn't click to follow up the information.
Below are some more articles from November 1966. The second-to last one, "Test Problems Cause Apollo Flight Reshuffle" has some early Apollo crew reassignments and also mentions the complete loss of a service module.
To save a lot of formatting, tabs have been changed to "[ * ]".
Space News Roundup, Vol. 6, No. 2, 11 November 1966, pages 1 & 6 ECS Problem Forces A/S 204 Date Change [ * ]NASA will launch the first manned Apollo spacecraft in the first quarter of 1967. The earth orbital flight is planned to verify performance of spacecraft systems and crew operations. [ * ]The three-men crew will be Virgil Grissom, command pilot, Edward White, senior pilot, and Roger Chaffee, pilot. Backup crew is James McDivitt, command pilot, David Scott, senior pilot, and Russell Schweickart, pilot. [ * ]Although NASA manned space flight officials had hoped to launch the mission late this year, it was decided to modify a unit in the spacecraft environmental control system (ECS) before the flight. This will require replacement of the ECS unit in the spacecraft and repeating some of the tests previously accomplished at the NASA Kennedy Space Center, Florida. [ * ]The unit is a water boiler-type heat exchanger in the command module which operates during peak heating periods to supplement the ECS radiators, the primary cooling mechanism. It cools a water glycol solution which is circulated throughout the spacecraft. [ * ]Its evaporative cooling is accomplished by inducing a controlled flow of water through metal pressure plates into a water glycol evaporator. The unit is vented to space which permits the space environment to evaporate water and dissipate steam. [ * ]Porous nickel pressure plates in the unit will be removed and replaced by stainless steel plates which have very fine drilled holes. During recent spacecraft tests, water flow through the nickel plates was restricted, due to clogging of the porous material, and cooling efficiency was reduced. In other tests of the unit, water flow was properly maintained through the stainless steel drilled plates. [ * ]The rupture October 25 of a service module fuel tank during a pressure test at North American Aviation, Space and Information Systems Division, Downey, California, is under study to determine any possible impact on the Apollo spacecraft. At this time, it is not known if it will affect the spacecraft for the first manned flight. [ * ]There were no injuries to test personnel. Extent of the damage to the 22-foot long cylinder-shaped service module was being assessed by NAA and NASA engineers. The service module was the only piece of flight equipment in the test cell at the time. [ * ]The spacecraft was undergoing a checkout prior to delivery to Cape Kennedy, Florida, for an unmanned Apollo flight on a Saturn V next year. [ * ]The service module houses a 22,000 pound thrust service propulsion engine to be utilized for mid-course maneuvers of the Apollo spacecraft on its way to and from the moon. The system includes two titanium fuel tanks and two oxidizer tanks, each approximately 14 feet in length and about 4 feet in diameter. The test was conducted with alcohol and freon in the tanks to simulate the hypergolic propellant which would be used in flight. The pressurizing gas was nitrogen. One oxidizer tank and one fuel tank were damaged. The tanks were pressurized somewhat above normal operating pressure which is 180 psi.
Space News Roundup, Vol. 6, No. 2, 11 November 1966, page 6 The Space News Roundup [ * ]The SPACE NEWS ROUNDUP, an official publication of the Manned Spacecraft Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Houston, Texas, is published for MSC personnel by the Public Affairs Office. Director ............................. Dr. Robert R. Gilruth Public Affairs Officer ......... Paul Haney Editor ................................ Terry White Staff Photographer ........... A. "Pat" Patnesky
Space News Roundup, Vol. 6, No. 2, 11 November 1966, page 6 Space News Of Five Years Ago [ * ]November 12, 1961 - Mercury-Atlas 5, scheduled for launch no earlier than November 14, ran into technical difficulties, postponing launch for several days. [ * ]November 15, 1961 - Mercury Spacecraft No. 18 was delivered to Cape Canaveral for the second manned (Carpenter) orbital flight, Mercury-Atlas 7 . [ * ]NASA Director of the Office of the Manned Space Flight, D. Brainerd Holmes, said in an interview that at least 10 Apollo spacecraft would be ordered in the manned lunar vehicle prime systems contract to be awarded in December 1961. [ * ]November 16, 1961 - In speech on "Scientists and Engineers in the Space Program," Albert F. Siepert, NASA Director of Administration, outlined NASA's basic policies on personnel. He pointed out that of NASA's some 20,000 employees, only 4,000 had come to NASA through individual appointments, the remainder on transfer of organizations intact to NASA. NASA's personnel utilization practices, Siepert said, were as follows: "(1) Don't use a scientist or engineer when another skill will do as well; (2) classify a man's skills by what he actually does rather than how he was formally trained; (3) provide professional entrance into the Federal civil service through an examination which is work centered rather than academically oriented; (4) take on-the-job training and education seriously; (5) encourage professional recognition outside the agency; and (6) recognize that job satisfaction depends upon the man's continued interest in his work as well as his take-home pay." [ * ]November 17, 1961 - NASA announced selection of the Chrysler Corp. for construction, test and launch of 20 first-stage Saturn boosters. [ * ]November 18, 1961 - Reported from Moscow that USSR was planning to orbit a man around the moon in 1962, and that USSR had ICBMs in being with 100-megaton warheads. [ * ]November 19, 1961 - Factory roll-out inspection of Atlas launch vehicle 109-D was conducted. This booster was designated for the Mercury-Atlas 6 mission, the first manned orbital space flight.
Space News Roundup, Vol. 6, No. 2, 11 November 1966, page 8 S/C 008 Crew Prepare To Egress [Photo] [ * ]AFTER SIX DAYS - Astronauts Joseph P. Kerwin (seated in hatchway) and Edward G. Givens Jr. (left), along with aerospace technologist Joseph A. Gagliano prepare to egress from Apollo Spacecraft 008 after the successful completion of the six-day test in the Space Environmental Simulation Laboratory's Chamber A.
Space News Roundup, Vol. 6, No. 2, 11 November 1966, page 8 Apollo Ends Six-Day Chamber Test [ * ]The six-day manned Apollo systems test of Spacecraft 008 which was conducted in the Space Environmental Simulation Laboratory's big chamber was completed successfully November 1. [ * ]The crew entered the spacecraft October 26 and was reported in good physical and psychological condition after spending six days under simulated space conditions. The three, Astronauts Edward G. Givens, Jr. and Joseph P. Kerwin and aerospace technologist Joseph A. Gagliano underwent a brief physical immediately after they climbed from the spacecraft. [ * ]Test officials, together with crew, conducted extensive engineering and operations debriefings last week. At the conclusion of the six-day exercise, test directors reported the main objectives of the test were met and that the spacecraft systems performed satisfactorily. [ * ]Main objective of the test was to demonstrate the Block I Environmental Control System performance with spacecraft subsystems in modes representative of those planned for Apollo mission A/S 204. [ * ]Approximately 550 MSC and contractor employees were involved in the around-the-clock support of the test.
Space News Roundup, Vol. 6, No. 3, 25 November 1966, page 1 & 2 Gemini XII Flight Closes Out Achievement-Packed Program [ * ]A highly-successful Gemini XII mission last week punctuated the Gemini Program story with a final period as the spacecraft splashed down within three miles of the prime recovery vessel. As the Gemini story was wrapped up, and became a part of manned space flight history, Apollo waited to tell its narrative. [ * ]Gemini XII met all mission objectives except that of going to a 400-nm apogee. Ignition of the Agena's primary propulsion system was ruled out when insertion telemetry showed that the Agena's main engine turbopump ran overspeed. [ * ]The Agena rendezvous vehicle was launched by an Atlas Standard Launch Vehicle at 1:07:58 pm CST November 11. The Agena placed itself into an orbit measuring 159 nm perigee by 163 nm apogee. [ * ]The Gemini countdown, meanwhile, went smoothly through crew insertion, hatch closure and the built-in hold at T minus 3 minutes. Liftoff was at 2:46:33 pm CST, and the Gemini Launch Vehicle inserted Gemini XII into an 87 nm by 152 nm orbit. 'No-Go' for PPS Burn [ * ]Gemini XII crewmen James Lovell and Edwin "Buzz" AIdrin immediately began onboard computations for the M=3 rendezvous with the Agena. Lovell's first docking took place at 4:16 pm CST over the tracking ship Coastal Sentry south of Japan. [ * ]Since the Agena was "no-go" for the high-apogee primary propulsion system burn, a retrograde burn of 43 fps was made at 7:05:06 ground elapsed time (GET) using the Agena secondary propulsion system to phase the spacecraft orbit to rendezvous with last Saturday's total eclipse of the sun over South America. The orbit of the combined vehicles was changed to 139 nm by 154 nm by the maneuver. [ * ]The crew settled down for the first sleep period shortly after the phasing maneuver. Racing With Sun [ * ]A second eclipse-phasing maneuver was made the following morning at 15:16:18 GET of 15 fps posigrade, and the crew made preparations for making still and motion pictures of the solar eclipse through the spacecraft windows. [ * ]Following the eclipse photography, Aldrin made the first of two stand-up extravehicular activities. Hatch opening took place at 19:29:01GET; closure was two hours 29 minutes later after Aldrin completed several photographic and scientific experiment tasks. [ * ]The rest of the day was spent in conducting experiments and operational checks. Fuel cell stack 2B was taken off the line when trouble developed in the system, but the remaining fuel cell stacks provided ample electrical power to complete the mission. Spacecraft attitude thrusters No. 2 and 4 also were operating at reduced thrust, thereby causing additional time to be spent in orienting the spacecraft with combinations of maneuver and attitude thrusters. Man at Work [ * ]Sunday's activities mainly revolved around AIdrin's umbilical EVA. Hatch opening was at 42:46 GET and hatch closing was two hours and nine minutes later. While on the 30-foot umbilical, Aldrin performed measured work tasks at the Agena docking adapter and at a work station in the spacecraft adapter section. [ * ]While on umbilical EVA, AIdrin attached the 100-foot tether stowed in the Agena adapter to the Gemini docking bar in preparation for the tethered operations. Gravity Gradient [ * ]Gemini XII backed out of the Agena docking collar at about 47:37 GET and the gravity gradient appeared to be established by one revolution later. The tether exercise lasted four hours and 17 minutes. [ * ]The crew immediately went into preparations for the second standup EVA in which Aldrin jettisoned unused equipment and conducted additional experiments and photography. Hatch-open time was 66:04 GET for a duration of 59 minutes. Total EVA time for the Gemini XII mission was three hours 37 minutes. [ * ]The remainder of the day was spent conducting experiments and operational tests. [ * ]Tuesday's retrofire took place over Canton Island at 94:00:01 GET, with a normal reentry following. Splash was at 94:34:31 GET (1:21:04 CST). Gemini XII landed about three miles from the prime recovery vessel, the USS Wasp, and about four miles from the aiming point. Both crewmen were picked up by helicopter and were welcomed aboard within a half hour after landing. The spacecraft was aboard a little more than an hour after splash.
Space News Roundup, Vol. 6, No. 3, 25 November 1966, pages 1 & 2 Test Problems Cause Apollo Flight Reshuffle [ * ]NASA last week announced several Apollo-Saturn manned space flight schedule changes because of launch vehicle and spacecraft development problems. [ * ]Principal change is the re-scheduling of a manned earth orbital mission, Apollo/Saturn 205 which was planned essentially as a repeat of the first manned Apollo flight - A/S 204. The A/S 204 mission is scheduled in the first quarter of 1967. [ * ]Under the new 1967 launch schedule, A/S 204 will be followed by A/S 206 which is an unmanned flight of the Apollo spacecraft lunar module. [ * ]Then will come a dual launch (AS 205/208) in which a manned Apollo command and service module will be launched by an uprated Saturn I. About a day later an unmanned lunar module will be orbited by another uprated Saturn I. The command-service module will rendezvous with the lunar module and the crew will transfer to lunar module, check out its manned operation. The crew will return to the command module for the landing. This mission, formerly designated as A/S 207/208 now will be designed A/S 205/208. [ * ]The prime flight crew for the original A/S 205 mission, Walter M. Schirra, Donn F. Eisele, and Walter Cunningham, now become the backup crew for the A/S 204 mission. The former backup crew for 203 - James McDivitt, David Scott, and Russell Schweikart - and the former backup crew for 205 - Frank Borman, Thomas Stafford and Michael Collins, now become available for assignment to subsequent Apollo missions. [ * ]In addition to the changes in the uprated Saturn/Apollo flight schedule, development problems have also affected the Apollo/Saturn V program. The first Saturn V flight, an unmanned sub-orbital mission has moved from the first to the second quarter of 1967. The second Saturn V flight, also an unmanned mission, has been rescheduled from the first to the second half of 1967. Subsequent Saturn V flights remain unchanged. [ * ]Development problems which led to the scheduled changes included: [ * ]1. Failure during qualification testing of the water boiler in the Apollo 204 spacecraft environmental control system. [ * ]2. Structural failure of the A/S 501 service module fuel tank with resultant complete loss of the service module itself. The cause has been identified as interaction of methyl alcohol, used in the tank to simulate fuel, and the stressed titanium skin of the tank. Apparently a form of stress corrosion, the phenomenon has been duplicated by placing titanium under stress up to 140,000 psi and exposing it methanol (methyl alcohol). The destroyed A/S 501 service module will be replaced by the service module previously planned for the A/S 205 mission. [ * ]3. Additional delays in the A/S 501 and 502 flights may result from structural cracks which have formed in the hydrogen tank in the S-II (second stage) of the Saturn V launch vehicle which must be analyzed for cause and repaired.
Space News Roundup, Vol. 6, No. 3, 25 November 1966, page 2 Saturn V to shrink during propellant load [ * ]The huge 365 foot tall Apollo/Saturn V space vehicle intended to place astronauts on the moon will "settle" and contract 10 inches when the 5.5 million pounds of propellant required for the round trip are pumped aboard. [ * ]Lucian Bell, who copes with problems like this as chief of the NASA-Marshall Space Flight Center's Saturn V Systems Engineering Office, said the top of the vehicle, if unrestrained, could be expected to sway up to five feet in the ocean's breeze as it awaits tanking. [ * ]Bell said rocket engineers are aware of the expected 10 inch "shrinkage" as cryogenic propellants are pumped in. Launch facility service arms extending to the vehicle from the umbilical tower are designed accordingly. [ * ]An accumulation of the many manufacturing tolerances built into the rocket accounts for some of the drop in height. Hundreds of small rivet holes in the thrust structure for example, will "give" somewhat. [ * ]But those who know rockets weren't happy about the anticipated swaying, which wind tunnel tests confirmed. The astronauts might have been concerned, too, even though the rocket is designed to take the stresses. [ * ]Bell says the real concern was in the area of wind-induced oscillations and engineers have designed a damper system to lessen these effects. These dampers, built at Marshall, will be installed before the initial unmanned Apollo/Saturn V flight next year. [ * ]Bell said the phenomenon of wind-induced vibrations in strings and wires, called aeolian tones, has been known for many years.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jan 22, 2011 4:55:08 GMT -4
Aha, so I'm not the only one who didn't know about Space News Update a week ago. If nothing else, it makes fascinating reading and a great time-filler for us Apollo nuts.
I have never noticed it mentioned in any history or bibliography, and only discovered it recently when Googling another Apollo subject. Even then, it only came up when someone mentioned it as a source for their information. My eyes popped a little when I heard of a Nasa newspaper and I had to find out more.
Googling "space news update" provided 67 hits but none of them provided any link at all to the JSC website. This could be a result of the funny things that sometimes happen with my slow rural dialup, but perhaps someone here who understands how websites are set up could mention it to the JSC webmaster so that their holdings appear when Googling.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jan 21, 2011 8:24:03 GMT -4
A useful resource for Mercury, Gemini and Apollo space history buffs is the small newspaper, Space News Roundup[/i], which was produced at the Manned Spacecraft Center (later Johnson Space Center) in Houston. PDF copies are available at the JSC website: www11.jsc.nasa.gov/history/roundups/roundups.htmBeware that as with many PDFs of old documents, the electronic text which can be copied-and-pasted is not always an exact copy of the original, so must be carefully checked. For example, in the 11 November 1966 issue the original text in an article says: Spacecraft Communicator: Charles Conrad 1, and Willam A. Anders 2.The electronic text is a garbled: Spacecraft Communica-tWoti:lliamChaArle. sAndCerosnra2d. 1, andThe entire corrected article, below, which lists the world-wide Gemini 12 ground crew, gives an idea of the valuable information in the newspapers. Besides the two astronauts mentioned above, it has a few other names that will be familiar to Apollo nuts, such as Charles Dukes who may be the familiar Charlie Duke, John W. Aaron who saved Apollo 12 with his "SCE to Aux", and Stephen G. Bales who handled Apollo 11's 1201 and 1202 alarms. Ooops, edited to change Charley to Charlie. Slapped head. Also added missing "E." to Donald E. Stullken.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jan 10, 2011 21:54:25 GMT -4
...a lot of farmers have a rifle to shoot varmints with. varmint n informal an irritating or obnoxious person or animal -- Collins English Dictionary, Tenth Edition, 2009 I get it: Hoax-believers!
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jan 10, 2011 7:44:56 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Dec 26, 2010 4:15:17 GMT -4
And a happy holiday season to you Dwight and everyone else.
I'd just like you northern hemisphere folk know that we have had an early start to summer down here with February temperatures in December.
Saw some sensible poms (that's UK people to those who don't know) here in New Zealand on the TV news tonight, basking in the sun, dressed in summer clothes, suntanned, and eating monstrous ice creams. And they didn't have knotted handkerchiefs on their heads, bless them!
Anyway, Dwight, are you filthy rich now? Able to hire good, professional proof-readers for the second edition instead of those rookies you used? I imagine someone has mentioned "plague" (deadly disease) in the heading on page 221 and "mantel" (the facing around a fireplace) on page 226 near the bottom of column 1.
(For those who don't get it, I was one of the rookies, but only got as far as chapter 2 before the lurgy took over.)
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Nov 28, 2010 6:47:49 GMT -4
(By the way gillianren, what are the rules on using punctuation together with quotation marks, for example when ending a sentence? I myself prefer to put my full stops or commas outside of quotation marks, but I've seen the other form used a lot in my study books.) You might find that British and American English differ on this. From The Style Book, New Zealand Government Printing Office, Third Edition (1981) -- based on British English:
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Nov 18, 2010 8:30:48 GMT -4
Could anyone give me any information on the photograph below? Ive been told its as-16-11618-722 but after looking i could not find it. Im most interested as to why it looks the way it does (messed up) and what the object in the bottom left hand corner is. Thanks in advance guys. The sticky thread at the top of the Reality of Apollo section, Thumbnails of Apollo lunar surface photos is handy for cases like this. Once the correct number of the photo is known, the caption can be read at the ALSJ and large copies of the photo viewed.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Nov 16, 2010 7:51:39 GMT -4
Oops -- thanks Count Zero. I have both speeches on my hard drive and picked up the wrong heading. To save any confuson, I'll edit the post to show the correct details. Thanks for pointing out the error. Yes, that great speech at Rice University is even better when viewed on film, with JFK looking as cool as he ever did -- which is one of the things I remember about him at the time -- and some of the officials behind him writhing around and mopping their brows and looking as if they are about to faint in the heat. [Mutters darkly about the subjunctive to herself.] If it's any consolation I noticed that too, but had no show of remembering what it is called (if I ever did actually know back in the early 60s), so didn't mutter either darkly or lightly.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Nov 15, 2010 6:09:42 GMT -4
Well, first things first. If I was going to hoax landing on the moon then I certainly wouldn't have allowed President Kennedy to say in his address to Congress on 25 May 1961 that the hoax would be perpetrated in full view of the world. What a tremendous handicap, having all types of media people poking their noses into every little thing, such as Life magazine taking out lucrative contracts with the astronauts for their personal stories, and so on.
[Edited to correct the address details and date as advised by Count Zero in post 19 below.]
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Nov 14, 2010 8:27:09 GMT -4
As I recall, the entire rendezvous and docking maneuver was piloted from the LM. Mike Collins says in his book, Carrying The Fire: The rendezvous manoeuvres, carried out by the LM, are listed in the Apollo 11 Press Kit, published before the mission. Actual times were close to those stated:
|
|