|
Post by unknown on Jun 1, 2005 16:04:05 GMT -4
Hey, more intelligent people than me, many persons say Americans never went to the moon.
There is an easy way to demonstrate the contrary: send one spy-satellite of yours in orbit around the moon and film your uncontaminated flag. But don't use Softimage, Maya, 3D Studio Max as usually please. ;D
|
|
|
Post by unknown on Jun 1, 2005 15:35:17 GMT -4
JeyUtah wrote: You argued that the LM was unflyable because insufficient computing power was available. You were given the example of helicopters, which can be flown by humans without computer control. You have also been given the example of the Harrier, which uses jet propulsion for VTOL and hovering and which -- despite being more difficult to fly because of the additional degrees of freedom -- can be flown by a human without computer control.
I'm sorry but you don't understand anything about mechanics of forces. 1 - Helicopters are thrusted on the top and then it's quite easy to fly them. 2 - Harrier has some jet engines and for this reason it's quite easy to fly it (as 4 friends that lift a chair putting their forefingers under the legs).
|
|
|
Post by unknown on Jun 1, 2005 15:19:22 GMT -4
Today at 1:49pm, unknown wrote: Why? What a silliness is that. With a more powerful rocket engine LM could fly on the earth (even if it would roll like a balloon as on the moon).
Bob B. wrote: But that wouldn't be a valid test. A LM with a more powerful engine is no longer the LM that will land on the Moon, so what good is the test?
Hey, do you think you are speaking to an idiot? ;D
|
|
|
Post by unknown on Jun 1, 2005 13:49:34 GMT -4
I wrote: Before landing on the moon, you try to do it on the earth or not? If you don't do it, you are an idiot.
JayUtah wrote: Agreed. However, the LM cannot fly on or near the Earth...
Why? What a silliness is that. With a more powerful rocket engine LM could fly on the earth (even if it would roll like a balloon as on the moon).
|
|
|
Post by unknown on Jun 1, 2005 13:36:23 GMT -4
"Preparations continued at Dunsfold over the summer and autumn of 1960, with engine running trials and system tests conducted ahead of the initial set of hovering flights. The first of these finally took place on 21 October, with Bill Bedford at the controls. For this initial series of tests the aircraft was tethered to the grid with short cables to limit the height it could rise to. Limited by one-foot tethers, and with Bill Bedford's right leg in plaster following a car accident, the first hover was successfully completed." So, the first hover test of an early ancestor of the Harrier took place on October 21, 1960... almost nine years before the Apollo 11 moon landing". Let's try to reason with intelligence: lunar modul is very unlike the Harrier. Astronauts had to learn to keep lunar module in hovering going backwards, not the Harrier. Harrier has some rocket engines not one on the bottom.Look at this image Hey, don't rocket engines send forth smoke? We don't see any smoke while this old crock is flying.Hey, look at this image marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/spirit/20050421a/1114044227_4922-1_dd_rad_456-A462R1_br.jpg"This movie clip shows a dust devil scooting across a plain inside Gusev Crater on Mars as seen from the NASA rover Spirit's hillside vantage point during the rover's 456th martian day, or sol (April 15, 2005). The individual images were taken about 20 seconds apart by Spirit's navigation camera. Each frame in this movie has the raw image on the top half and a processed version in the lower half that enhances contrast and removes stationary objects, producing an image that is uniformly gray except for features that change from frame to frame". Please, look at the middle of this photograph. Are there on Mars rectilinear surfaces? ;D
|
|
|
Post by unknown on May 31, 2005 15:50:54 GMT -4
"The only way to successfully build the LM at all was to build it to operate solely in a space environment. In order to train pilots for rocket-propelled VTOL operations, a different vehicle had to be devised..."
Hey, that LLRV hasn't got a rocket engine. It seems to fly (as it's only a photomontage) by compressed air.
Rocket engine is very unlike compressed air. Don't you think? ;D
|
|
|
Post by unknown on May 31, 2005 14:29:57 GMT -4
Let's try to reason with intelligence: if you must land on the moon with lunar module. Before, what do you think to do? Before landing on the moon, you try to do it on the earth or not? If you don't do it, you are an idiot. Before you train with and then you use this What is this? Does Lunar module have tramp suits? ;D
|
|
|
Post by unknown on May 30, 2005 17:21:51 GMT -4
See you again soon
|
|
|
Post by unknown on May 30, 2005 17:13:49 GMT -4
Have you ever been outside at night before? Try looking at the stars while standing beneath a street light. Let me know if you can see them. Hey, do you see street lights in this picture?
|
|
|
Post by unknown on May 30, 2005 17:07:17 GMT -4
"That is a problem that Robert Goddard solved decades before NASA was even formed. All rockets (not just the Apollo LM) use gyroscopic devices called inertial sensors to detect imbalances. If the vehicle shifts to one side it automatically compensates, the pilot doesn't have to do anything. It's a mechanical system so no computing power is necessary.
Inertial sensors were also used by the German V2 rockets to guide them to their targets... before computers".
There was no mechanical system, no gyroscope that could keep fixed in hovering a rocket (and perhaps not even today). Imagine: you are close to the ground inside your rocket and you must hold it fixed 10 feet above the ground while it whiffs, snorts and wants to roll, but for you it's child's play. With compliments.
|
|
|
Post by unknown on May 30, 2005 16:51:17 GMT -4
"The cameras were setup to photograph the bright objects in the foreground (the lunar surface, the LM, the astronauts, etc.), not faint stars in the sky. You can't photograph both at the same time".
The true reason is that it would have been very difficult (and impossible) to simulate star lights.
|
|
|
Post by unknown on May 30, 2005 16:31:19 GMT -4
There shouldn't be any stars in the pictures. The cameras were setup to photograph the bright objects in the foreground (the lunar surface, the LM, the astronauts, etc.), not faint stars in the sky. You can't photograph both at the same time. The hills/mountains in the background are far away, if that's what you mean. Take a look at this panoramic image from Apollo 17 to get a better idea of the scale of things. If that was filmed on Earth then it must be one helluva big sound stage. But, don't you see it is a model made with plastics?
|
|
|
Post by unknown on May 30, 2005 16:29:33 GMT -4
Unknown: please stick to one subject at a time. We are discussing Apollo not the Mars rovers. So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that the reason the Apollo LM wouldn't work is because the rocket engine is on the bottom instead of the top of the vehicle. Is that what you mean? If that is really what you mean then that's your problem right there... you simply don't understand how rockets work. To put it as simply as possible, rockets create thrust that pushes the spacecraft in the opposite direction. If you throttle back the engines to just the right amount the thrust and the mass of the vehicle balance perfectly and you are able to hover. It's not that complicated. It's terribly complicated to hover a heavy piece of metal with the rocket engine on the bottom because it becomes frightfully instable and is inclined to fall off on all sides and you are not able to react in time to keep it vertical, like a coke bottle on your forefinger.
|
|
|
Post by unknown on May 30, 2005 16:08:56 GMT -4
...and you decide to film tons of stones?Yes. Why doesn't Spirit raise its head to look at horizon all around?It has. But its primary purpose is geological observation. Therefore it looks at stones. In any case, why is the choice of viewing material evidence of your claim that the photographs are digital fakes? It is as if you go to see New York and instead of raising your head, you concentrate on asphalt.
|
|
|
Post by unknown on May 30, 2005 15:52:55 GMT -4
It was not designed to go backwards. Unless, perhaps, you mean lowering vertically. Why is that a different problem than going upwards in a vacuum, from a guidance standpoint?
Have you ever seen aerobatic rc model aircrafts when they stay in hovering? They can do that because the engine is up. It's a gravity question.
|
|