|
Post by sts60 on May 1, 2006 12:45:18 GMT -4
Or for the value - like Yo Yo Ma forgetting a million-dollar cello in the trunk of an NYC taxicab. (Yes, he got it back.)
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Apr 30, 2006 21:47:33 GMT -4
Technical rope rescue certified, eh? Man....since I took up climbing it seems other climbers are, well, " " out of the woodwork.
Did it tickle you the first time you realized gear is rated in KN? None of this easy-to-misinterpret "pounds" stuff for UIAA!You'll be waiting a while if you need me to haul my 1.(ahem) kN up the rope. But that's what we have mechanical advantage for. Or better yet, just start at the top and lower on down. There was a pretty unique rescue in Pennsylvania not far from here, at the very top of a coal smokestack something like 300 m high. Three men were working on the lining when it caught fire and they were trapped on a small platform at the very tip. They were up there for a few hours, alternately huddling together for warmth in the freezing air and beating out the flames as their clothing caught fire. A nearby fire department technical rescue team picked them off the top into a Maryland State Police helicopter. "How was your day, honey...?"
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Apr 29, 2006 23:35:38 GMT -4
When did the quoted exchange in the OP take place?
And yes, you can use some kind of loop as a change of direction, not just a pulley, especially for such relatively light loads. mosis2, do you dispute that? (BTW, I'm certified at the Operations level in technical rope rescue.)
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Apr 29, 2006 22:34:51 GMT -4
I remember vaguely seeing both "hard" and "soft" space suits at the Air & Space Museum. The one you're talking about doesn't ring a bell, but when I have time I'll look around.
The current Shuttle EVA suits have "solid" (that is, hard) torsos. As far as protection, the Apollo suits and so on offer pretty good micorometeoroid protection, and with the various materials available today a "soft" suit can offer quite good protection.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Apr 27, 2006 13:54:29 GMT -4
Certainly. That's why the all-powerful NASA-CIA-Illuminati-NSA-Freemason conspiracy waited what, three-plus decades before killing Bill Kaysing.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Apr 24, 2006 9:33:43 GMT -4
The "fake monitor" claim smells like bull**** to me. But suppose, for the sake of argument, there had been some unused stations without active displays, and some zealous PAO-type had some overlays put on them so that they looked nice for visitors in the gallery. So what? How is that supposed to be evidence of a hoax?
Virtually every slick PR photo of spacecraft integration and test is staged, as the photographer moves engineers, technicians, secretaries, etc. into an eye-pleasing arrangement and has them frown intently at various random spacecraft bits. Does that mean your satellite TV dish is pointed at nothing?
Also, I take serious exception to the phrase "hopelessly amateurish". That's a ridiculous and insulting characterization of the efforts of a group of extremely bright, dedicated, and competent people. One might as well say the D-Day invasion was "hopelessly amateurish" because paratroopers landed in water and minefields and amphibious tanks sank before reaching the shore.
BTW, I never saw fake monitors in the old FCR when I was there. But that was two decades after Apollo.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Apr 28, 2006 22:39:13 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Apr 28, 2006 8:57:22 GMT -4
I'm tired of hiding from society! Of keeping my secret from friends, family, and colleagues! Ya know, people like me didn't choose to be this way! And we're just people like the rest of you! "If you prick us, do we not bleed?" We have the same hopes and dreams and needs as everybody else... except for one. Well, enough hiding. Say it loud and say it proud: Yes, I need an RC helicopter that I can fly upside down!
Sorry. Couldn't resist. Once I get a little coffee in me, I'll be OK.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Apr 22, 2006 17:55:17 GMT -4
Hi I did say for want of a better word. But I am still struggling to fined it? I know the nozzle is fixed and in the center. The balancing act is there at the nozzle and low down. The center of gravity is therefore at the bottom of the craft. Odiously the LM has no inbuilt stability and will be extremely Difficult to control Can anyone see what I am getting at? Regards Kevin Kevin, I believe you have this picture of the rocket sort of balancing on the exhaust flame, with a tendency to tip over - sort of like a Coke can on your fingertip (regulars here will recall similar exchanges in the past). But that's not how it works. There's no reason for the module to turn one way or the other in flight, except for a slight tendency for the bottom to be, well, on the bottom due to the low center of gravity. The rocket engine, being fixed to the vehicle, is in the same "inertial frame", and will only make the vehicle tilt if the thrust of the engine is misaligned with the center of mass of the vehicle. But it's aligned very accurately, and as Bob B. pointed out, the control thrusters can handle quite a substantial misalignment - and of course, as Jason pointed out, the point from where you consider the thrust to be "centered" is close to the center of mass, which is what you want for this sort of vehicle. The guidance computer monitored the attitude rates and kept the vehicle pointed in the direction it was supposed to go. This job was made easier by the fact that the LM was actually a very stable flying machine.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Apr 22, 2006 14:40:48 GMT -4
Oh, OK. That's a good thing for you, considering how ruthlessly we NASA-CIA-NSA-UFO-Illuminati types police are own.
(bored tone)The Farm, immediately*.
*a gold star to whoever comes up with the reference first
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Apr 22, 2006 13:18:52 GMT -4
Bob, I was referring to kevb's post
Back to the center of gravity one person rote that the rocket engine Had a high center of gravity in the LM because the top of it protruded Into the crew department. It may well do so? But the high center of gravity surly comes from the rocket Nozzle itself. What I mean by this is the combustion gives the engine forward or in this case Upward movement by propelling energy out from the small nozzle. But it is here that the gimble or swiveling( for want of a better word )takes place
which I take to mean that he thought the APS engine bell was gimballed.
But I am not convinced that the landings took place.
kevb, here's a question: what would convince you that the landings took place?
I still have a lot of questions which I will ask over the coming days.
Please do.
reynoldbot, I agree kevb's postings have a sort of haiku-beat thing going. I feel like nodding my head and snapping my fingers when I read his posts. Wearing dark glasses, of course.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Apr 22, 2006 13:11:07 GMT -4
Hey. I'm proud of my twaddle!
[British accent]That's high-quality twaddle, that is![/British accent]
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Apr 22, 2006 9:44:34 GMT -4
HI all I seemed to have kicked something of here. I have read a lot of twaddle and also good deal of Stuff by odiously clever people.
"Odiously clever". LOL.
But I am not convinced that the landings took place. I still have a lot of questions which I will ask over the coming days. Back to the center of gravity one person rote that the rocket engine Had a high center of gravity in the LM because the top of it protruded Into the crew department.
It's more proper to say that the entire vehicle had a low center of gravity, or center of mass - in this case, they are essentially the same.
It may well do so? But the high center of gravity surly comes from the rocket Nozzle itself. What I mean by this is the combustion gives the engine forward or in this case Upward movement by propelling energy out from the small nozzle.
The CG has to do with the mass distribution of the vehicle and the local gravitational field; it does not depend on the thrust of the engine (although it changes as the propellant is consumed).
But it is here that the gimble or swiveling( for want of a better word )takes place The nozzle is the lowest part Regards kevb
First of all, the ascent engine was fixed, not gimballed.
Second, the nozzle is a small contributor to the mass distribution and thus the CG/CM of the vehicle, and again the exhaust itself does not factor into the CG. The general idea is that you keep the engine/nozzle as close to the CG/CM as possible, so any misalignment will act on as short a moment arm as possible - that is, it won't exert much torque on the vehicle. On the other hand, the thrusters are as far out as you can get them, so they can exert the greatest torque for their thrust.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Apr 21, 2006 11:10:30 GMT -4
kevb,
any response to our posts on lunar rotation, lunar orbit rendezvous, stability, etc.? Are you satisfied with those explanations? Do you retract your initial claim that the LM could not have achieved rendezvous with the CM? If not, why not?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Apr 21, 2006 9:20:55 GMT -4
Just to expand on a couple of points the others have made - not only is aerodynamic stability irrelevant in a vacuum, the whole problem is greatly simplified by not having to deal with wind forces, aerodynamic pressures, and acoustic loads generated by passage through the air. That is, it's easier to control an LM in a vacuum than it is to control a helicopter in air.
Also note that, while the descent and ascent engines are aligned with the vehicles center of mass - thereby not exerting any torque on the vehicle - the "little" thrusters are on the periphery of the vehicle, where they can exert the greatest torque.
As far as helicopters go, it is very tempting to think that a helicopter is stable because it "hangs" from the rotor(s) - but that's wrong, as Bob pointed out, and Jay explained in detail months ago in one of the threads with the late unlamented widbill/pierrennn/unknown.
Let’s hope the US have been to the MOON because If they haven’t the Chinese soon will
The U.S. presence on the Moon decades ago has no bearing on whether the Chinese go there or not. In any case, they won't be there for at least ten years - maybe you consider that "soon".
That will upset a few people
The China's-going-why-aren't-we line has been floated around a little bit by various Congress-types, but has nothing like the motivating power of the Cold War space race. The whole idea of the new U.S. effort is to be in it for the long haul, not for a sprint against somebody else.
|
|