|
Post by Data Cable on Feb 20, 2012 18:16:42 GMT -4
If that numbering system had continued, wouldn't it have lead to duplicates in the 1990s? For example, couldn't there have been another STS-51L in 1995? How did they plan on avoiding that? Per the Wikipedia article: "...the third flight in FY 1995 would have been named 151-C" Apparently, the plan was to go to 3 digits starting in 1990.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Feb 19, 2012 1:07:40 GMT -4
I think I see where you might have been confused, gtvc. STS-26 was Discovery's lowest-numbered mission, but not its first. Looking at the list of Space Shuttle missions, they were numbered sequentially, STS-1 to -9, through 1983. In 1984, missions started to be numbered STS-41-_, -51-_ or -61-_, ending in a letter, apparently in the order missions were planned, but not necessarily launched. The reasoning behind the numbers, however, eludes me. (Planned to launch in 1984, '85 and '86, respectively? 51-A launched in Nov. '84 and 61-A in Oct. '85.) It was during this period that Discovery first flew, on STS-41-D. The last of these was Challenger's ill-fated STS-51-L. With Discovery's "Return to Flight" mission in 1988, they apparently also returned to simple consecutive numbering (again, not necessarily launched in the order they were planned) with STS-26 (the 26 th Space Shuttle mission), continuing that scheme through the end of the program. STS-41, -51 and -61, without the lettered suffixes, were even re-used, just to further confuse the issue. [Edit: D'oh! Once again, not looking at sources right in front of me. See the top of the Wikipedia page linked above for an explanation of the numbering system. Nutshelled: Superstition over the number 13 and Federal fiscal year calendar offset.)
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Feb 18, 2012 15:27:34 GMT -4
...comparing the pictures of the first and last landing of the shuttle Discovery... I don't think your first photo is from the landing of STS-41-D, Discovery's first flight. This photo from KSC is described as that event: (click for source page with description) Here is a better-quality version of that photo from the same source as your second, spacefacts.de. Note that the patch of black tiles on the front of the thruster pod is missing in this photo, but present in both of yours, indicating that they could not be of the same event. [Edit: The image url of gtvc's first photo indicates it was STS-26, which was Discovery's 7 th flight.] Also note that much of the surface detailing in the photo of the final landing is also visible in the first landing. Your first photo above is probably overexposed a bit, blowing out most of the detail on the orbiter's surface. Even the photo I linked above appears to be a bit washed out. In the photo of the final landing, however, the sun angle is high and slightly toward the camera, shading the near side of the orbiter and bringing out much more detail. It's also, quite simply, a sharper photo.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Feb 7, 2012 7:36:10 GMT -4
Two cameras seem better than one especially given safety concerns. [Emphasis mine] This is not a safety concern. At all. You have absolutely no idea what the word safety means. Your argument fails. Hard. ZOMG, even the sock puppet has sock puppets! They're multiplying exponentially!
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Feb 2, 2012 20:25:22 GMT -4
Clearly, Playdor is The Illuminati.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Feb 2, 2012 20:21:38 GMT -4
I have read that a greater concern than VA Belt radiation was the not unlikely occurrance of a high dose of radiation being delivered via a sporadic solar flare. I read that flares releasing lethal radiation doses are not uncommon. It is argued Apollo missions would not be launched into the teeth of such dangerous circumstances. This seems very reasonable to me. I have read that lightning can be very dangerous, even lethal. Therefore, anyone claiming to have left their house during a thunderstorm must have been lying. This seems very reasonable to me.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Feb 2, 2012 20:17:34 GMT -4
They never behave like guys that went to the moon. How could you possibly know what guys that went to the moon would behave like, if you claim that nobody has actually been there?
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Feb 2, 2012 19:59:09 GMT -4
I imagine there would be great risk associated with a hoax. Not as much as an actual moon launch but there would still be great risk. Elaborate on these risks, as you see them. How do you know they weren't?
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jan 25, 2012 1:53:38 GMT -4
I recommend the otherwise abysmal film Capricorn One for it's only positive contribution to the Apollo Hoax discussion: A beautiful illustration of exactly why concern for astronaut safety would be a monumentally stupid motivation to perpetrate a hoax.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Dec 21, 2011 21:50:36 GMT -4
As expected, the annual War On Newtonmas™ continues... [Edit: linked to poignant photographic essay on this vital social issue]
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Dec 19, 2011 22:53:08 GMT -4
For me it takes one day per mission to prepare images exactly like the Apollo pictures ... I only need LM and space suites - and few puictures of CM and Earth... Then do so. Prepare for us an entire mission's-worth of faked Apollo photographs, using only hardware and software available to you in 1969. You have 24 hours. Go. [Edit: punksheayshun]
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Dec 19, 2011 22:49:20 GMT -4
In this thread we don't talk about pictures - I can prepare similar Apollo pictures in one day per mission - they are topographically accurate and also time of day is considered. The questionms of "no atmosphere" or "1/6ths gravity" have not been seen. If anybody walks on Moon surface, the steps are easily 3-5 m long with the weight of astrionauts - we have not seen anything like that (longest step is 0.5 m). Why they put a nail into the feather? But they don't demonstrate the more exact topography as it is based on 100 m conour scheme. Let the Gish Galloping commence...
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Dec 16, 2011 22:53:56 GMT -4
Trees, Or The Outline Of Them...!!! No, plumes of lunar regolith kicked up by the LRV's wheels, which are plainly visible in the original unaltered photo. Water Forms A Parabolic Arc On Earth.. Correct. Close enough to be considered correct for the purposes of this discussion. Because it is 1/6 gravity, not microgravity (commonly, though erroneously, referred to as "zero-gravity") as in the photo of the spheroidal water mass you posted. 1/6 gravity is still gravity, just not as much as on Earth. It is not "the absence of" gravity, as in orbit.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Dec 15, 2011 0:33:01 GMT -4
I find it even more disturbing that they apparently planned a mission to Mars using Apollo hardware.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Dec 14, 2011 20:51:53 GMT -4
This all sounds suspiciously like regurgitation of NasaScam's ancient claptrap.
|
|