|
Post by randombloke on Nov 17, 2009 18:25:38 GMT -4
OK, here's the short version then; find a picture with the Gnomon and determine the local vertical from that. If you also get the LM in the same shot, you can extrapolate it's orientation relative to the vertical and use that in other shots. Until then, you still have no valid references for the horizontal or vertical orientations you claim.
Everything else on the Moon is either unpredictably variable (the surface itself, with all its dips and craters and so forth) or mobile (the astronauts and equipment) and therefore subject to being moved, placed on a non-horizontal surface etc.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Nov 16, 2009 18:17:13 GMT -4
Mostly to prevent interference from Earth (especially if we go with the combo radio/optical array), partly to alleviate spying fears (and keep the operators focussed on the job) but also to avoid mucking up the side people see. Any structure that big would eventually significantly alter the visible face of the Moon. Plus a far-side array could cover the blind spot in our NEO spotting programme caused by the presence of the Moon itself.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Nov 16, 2009 12:08:53 GMT -4
Our best chance for directly observing an extrasolar planet would be to build an optical VLB array on the dark side of the Moon, approximately the width of the Moon. Would have to be protected during daylight like any other optical scope, but it would be fun to see them all opening up and you'd get much longer observations. You might even be able to resolve individual continents on a near enough ESP. Plus you could build a VLB radio array in the gaps.
Interferometry is fun.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Nov 15, 2009 8:49:11 GMT -4
fm: "Blah blah blah "flares can't be predicted" blah blah" citation? Date of citation? As I recall, flares were at least somewhat predictable, with a range of a couple of days, back when Apollo was flying. "A few days" being plenty sufficient for a three day mission. It is of course wildly insufficient for an extended duration mission to Mars for instance, which is why a new set of radiation studies is being done on the interplanetary environment. Also, "unpredictable" is not the same as "unobservable" - flare maxima are preceded by visible surface activity on the Sun, from which approximate intensity and primary vectors can be derived. On such a warning, astronauts can be ordered into their radiation shelter. Of course, this is a misdirection on your part as flares have very little to do with VAB radiation, which is particulate in nature and derived primarily from the solar wind, a separate phenomenon. You want to challenge the 8 minute claim? Go ahead, or should I in the future cite you as and expert in this area? Would you care to first point out where I even mentioned 8 minutes? You asserted that "flares are unpredictable" I asked you for a citation and you resorted to pejorative insults. This is not conducive to discussion. I never once mentioned the 8 minute figure because, oddly enough, it has nothing to do with prediction. In fact I totally agree that it should take 8 minutes for electromagnetic radiation to travel from the Sun to Earth. But that's like answering "it takes five hours to fly from New York to London" when asked for the time of the next scheduled flight. Factually accurate, but utterly useless as an answer to the question asked.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Nov 14, 2009 22:02:19 GMT -4
fm: "Blah blah blah "flares can't be predicted" blah blah" citation? Date of citation? As I recall, flares were at least somewhat predictable, with a range of a couple of days, back when Apollo was flying. "A few days" being plenty sufficient for a three day mission. It is of course wildly insufficient for an extended duration mission to Mars for instance, which is why a new set of radiation studies is being done on the interplanetary environment. Also, "unpredictable" is not the same as "unobservable" - flare maxima are preceded by visible surface activity on the Sun, from which approximate intensity and primary vectors can be derived. On such a warning, astronauts can be ordered into their radiation shelter. Of course, this is a misdirection on your part as flares have very little to do with VAB radiation, which is particulate in nature and derived primarily from the solar wind, a separate phenomenon. @ Homo bibiens: thankyou, thankyou, I'll be here all week; try the fish! And tip your servers!
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Nov 14, 2009 19:54:49 GMT -4
I did, but it was lost during testing. And when I say "lost" I mean "we can't find it" - see, it was set to cut drive 2 minutes into the test flight, but unfortunately the timer was on-board. Best we figure it's our past Centauri and still accelerating...
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Nov 12, 2009 13:13:51 GMT -4
See, the problem here is that your friend is wrong in almost every respect as regards his assumptions concerning the Lunar Rover; it was not solar powered, nor is it superior to anything that could have been built in 2000. Either that, or the milk float that does the daily rounds on my street does not exist. And your assertion about solar intensity on the surface is also partially incorrect; the atmosphere does not absorb very much visible light at all. If it did; it wouldn't be visible. And almost all solar panels are designed to work with visible light because that's the stuff we have down here. Also, somewhat counter-intuitively, moving a vehicle on the Moon would not necessarily be made easier by reduced gravity, as reducing gravity reduces the down-force on the vehicle, which reduces friction and therefore traction.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Nov 11, 2009 10:10:29 GMT -4
Given that the LRO is going to end up doing several passes of each site now that it's in its scientific orbit, how feasible would it be to interpolate multiple slightly offset views to see if we can get any additional information?
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Nov 10, 2009 20:45:56 GMT -4
RE: Watches: They needed something to tell the time* with, right? Helmet-HUDs hadn't been invented yet....
*Lack of neither air nor gravity will affect a (well-built) coil-sprung watch's motion, excepting that any lubrication it might have could boil away faster in vacuum.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Nov 10, 2009 19:06:55 GMT -4
What do you suppose are the odds that fm will: 1. Ignore Jason's excellent post and diagram 2. Complain about the geomagnetic offset because "North is North!" 3. Ask for the callsign/registration number of the ecliptic (aero)plane 4. All of the above?
P.S. Jason; thank you for that. It really crystallises a few things about the Earth's magnetic fields and spatial orientation that have seemed to flow past each other without making contact in my head for a while. P.P.S. Where is the Moon in relation to that diagram? Off to the right, of course, but somewhere near the Apollo orbital plane, yes?
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Nov 10, 2009 12:01:50 GMT -4
"Tell you the truth, I wouldn't be surprised if they found radiation belts around the moon as well." This alone illustrates a shocking ignorance of the nature of the VABs and how they are formed and maintained.
And this: "Sounds like a situation where the shortest distance between point A and B is a straight line" indicates to me that you didn't actually read the quotes you mined from wherever it is you got them from, since they clearly state that the minimum energy path has to aim ahead of the moon so that the lunar gravity can curve the otherwise straight trajectory towards lunar orbit.
And your picture is clearly meant to be illustrative, since it appears to have the Moon orbiting within about 3.75 Re, or somewhere inside the VABs. It also has the Saturn V at about 6000km long. Truly it was the biggest rocket ever built but that's just ridiculous. That you then go on to claim that the orbit illustrated is diagnostic of the one actually taken is equally so.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Nov 6, 2009 10:50:17 GMT -4
If I understand your description of the device, it would look something like a regular electroscope only with two leaves, on on each side of the central conductor? And that central conductor is actually split by an insulator to form two electrically isolated conductors?
Under that circumstance I would tend to suspect that he is misinterpreting one leaf moving back towards the neutral position as it being attracted by the other, instead of the correct explanation that the angle the leaf stabilises at is a product of the electrical charge on the leaf and the gravitational attraction of the leaf towards the ground.
Of course, I haven't seen the alleged apparatus, nor the claimed results, so the above is approximately 100% speculation.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Oct 29, 2009 7:27:36 GMT -4
There's even a video on the same site (it's just a scroll-by of the overall site and not as zoomed in, but still interesting).
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Oct 23, 2009 8:05:29 GMT -4
Since I seem to have 'accidentally' blocked bravehost from my network on account of excessive stupid, could someone who has seen the video post a brief synopsis?
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Oct 6, 2009 7:48:59 GMT -4
It's certainly likely, but only BS knows the true answer. I don't know that I like the possibility of anyone attributing any positive truth-value to anything BS spouts...feels weird, like the gap where a broken tooth used to be.
|
|