|
Post by Data Cable on Aug 9, 2011 11:18:25 GMT -4
Corollary: "If this sticker is infrared, then I am driving too fast."
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Aug 7, 2011 0:44:31 GMT -4
Some obscure astronomer nobody ever heard of also mentioned it last week.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Aug 4, 2011 4:54:13 GMT -4
Or use the mouse scroll wheel.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 27, 2011 1:00:51 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 22, 2011 13:53:53 GMT -4
Some of the people you get here would probably say, eagles have wings, wings only work in the air, there is no air on the moon, that proves it was all faked! I'm actually surprised that fattydash (or one of his 8.2 billion sock puppets) didn't use that argument.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 20, 2011 1:02:02 GMT -4
Now that you bring it up, I've never seen even two of them in a room at the same time. Dammit, ech, now you've got the image of Jerry Wang assaulting Jay in a restroom stall stuck in my head!
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 18, 2011 12:34:40 GMT -4
I think he missed that distance per second of arc latitude changes with the longitude. Isn't that backward?
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 17, 2011 9:48:44 GMT -4
...according to NASA's OWN Apollo 11 voice transcript, the alleged Eagle leaves the surface of the moon from lunar coordinates; N 00 43 24 and E 23 26 24. Determined by what means? Determined by what means?
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 12, 2011 14:19:45 GMT -4
There is a big difference between having someone, in this case the Lick Observatory staff, legitimately determine the position of something you have placed on the moon... The purpose of the Laser Ranging Retroreflector experiment wasn't to identify the location of the of said reflector on the lunar surface, it was to <spoiler> measure the range of the moon from the earth. As the beam width at lunar distance was, as you say, only two miles, those operating the laser must have been given at least a general point to aim at in order to get a return from the reflector, would they not? So long as the reflector fell within the diameter of the beam, its location would be apparent, as the reflector would be far more likely to return photons to the source than the lunar surface would.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 9, 2011 1:22:42 GMT -4
And don't get me started on the skyscraper that could magically lean 45 degrees, with no support structure on one side of the building, while being torn apart by a giant robot, without collapsing. I remember thinking that whole sequence both hackily-evoked images of 9/11 whilst simultaneously treating us as if we hadn't seen, from numerous angles, what happens when skyscrapers' structures fail catastrophically. They don't topple like redwoods, Michael!
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 8, 2011 5:05:17 GMT -4
Saying someone lied and calling someone a liar are 2 different things. A liar is one who lies. Ergo, if one lies, one is a liar. So do we.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 8, 2011 1:09:21 GMT -4
Is there such a thing as a "geolunar" orbit that would allow a single satellite to relay transmissions from the far side of the Moon to Earth? Y'mean "lunastationary?" i.e. maintaining a relative position over a given lunar longitute? Given that it would need a 28-ish day period, it'd be pretty high, and yeah, I'd expect Earth's gravity would probably predominate at that distance. Mind you, this is sheer intuition, I've done absolutely no math on this problem. There's always Earth-Moon L4/L5, particularly if you don't mind placing another relay at L2.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 7, 2011 12:25:28 GMT -4
I would imagine if one were on the surface of the moon and shielded from the sun's glare, one would see stars under a variety of circumstances regardless of the side one were on and regardless of the shielding mechanism. And how long would one need to shield their eyes to become dark adapted enough to see even the brightest stars after spending any appreciable amount of time surrounded by a landscape with approximately the albedo of aged asphalt? As Scooter points out, this involves shielding from one's view the relatively reflective lunar surface itself (even moreso when facing te downsun direction), in an EVA suit and PLSS backpack which already force the individual to lean forward to maintain balance, and a helmet with limited vertical visibility. So imagine if you will an astronaut standing on the surface of the moon, holding their forearm Dracula-style across their visor to shade their eyes from the surface for, at best, several minutes, in order to catch a glimpse of whatever stars fall in the limited field between the horizon and top edge of his helmet visor. Is this the scenario you're proposing?
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 7, 2011 1:41:47 GMT -4
I think the citation datacable requested is one that shows Collins actually said what you are claiming he said. You are correct sir. Assume the thing is fake. How would Collins answer the question, "So Mike, did you see the Southern Cross? What did Venus look like? Did you try and photograph Venus? Al Shepard did photograph Venus, nine times.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 6, 2011 12:57:27 GMT -4
The fact that Michael Collins and others repeated used the lame and INCORRECT explanation for not seeing stars as having to do with pupillary constriction... Citation(s), please.
|
|