|
Post by randombloke on Aug 7, 2009 9:28:10 GMT -4
We will know more (much more) when the LRO finishes it's Lunar map.
Google Moon anyone?
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Jul 30, 2009 6:48:54 GMT -4
"so did the intense unhindered IR blah blah blah..." Obviously not since they all came back entirely un-spit-roasted. Maybe that was because a 30% increase in intensity doesn't represent a major excess load for a normal human (dunno about trolls, sorry)? Or maybe it was because they had a frigging gigantic portable AC unit strapped to their backs? Something like that, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Jul 27, 2009 13:29:02 GMT -4
Yes, I especially love how Nixon, the most spectacularly failed conspiracist in history - a man who couldn't even keep a couple of tapes out of the hands of the press despite theoretically having the entire Secret Service at his disposal, is supposed to have not only successfully managed to keep the largest conspiracy in history an absolute secret but also completely failed to expose it himself despite unlimited opportunity and motivation, such as, say, in the middle of Watergate...
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Jul 23, 2009 8:44:49 GMT -4
See, the problem here is in treating the drop as a scientific investigation of Lunar gravity; it was never intended to be such, so no-one took an accurate measurement of the heights involved, probably because they never imagined that one day someone would come along and try an work out whether the acceleration depicted matches the textbooks exactly.
The point of he drop was to demonstrate the principle of equal gravitation, which it clearly does.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Jul 22, 2009 7:08:16 GMT -4
And furthermore I don't appreciate when some liitle girl questions my logic without making any sense other then trying to play a TV psycologist and giving me unsolicited advice. I think your blatant misogyny marks you out as a pathetic shell of a human being.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Jul 21, 2009 12:44:10 GMT -4
At what altitude in the scorching radiation hell of the lunar vacusphere does the alleged "concept" of pounds-per-square-inch begin? Uh, all of them, I think. Pretty sure concepts like mass and area are the sort of thing that doesn't change from planet to planet...
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Jul 21, 2009 9:26:01 GMT -4
So, in summary: 1. What footprint? I see a foot. Move the LM and we might get a better idea of how deep the impression is. 2. See that gold stick-thing out the side there? That's a couple inches wide and buried completely. How deep do you have to make an impression before you bury a two-inch tube? 3. If you actually bother to do any of the math, you will find that the astronauts exerted more ground-pressure than the LM because they were standing on much smaller feet.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Jun 29, 2009 16:22:45 GMT -4
Actually, it is entirely possible to jam a satellite transmission by simply being far, far louder than the satellite; orbital vehicles have strictly limited power supplies that ground stations can simply overpower with relative ease. The directionality is the difficult part to deal with, but really all that means is a high point (like a mountain) or multiple broadcast stations.
Al in, though, if you wanted to block satellite internet, you would be better off jamming the uplinks; no page requests = no page fetches, and you always know where to point your blocking signal.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Jun 29, 2009 16:07:28 GMT -4
Lets not forget the moon sequences from "2001" Because they were obviously shot in Earth gravity? That must be why Kubrick insisted on filming on location when NASA asked him to fake the Apollo videos.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Jun 29, 2009 7:46:25 GMT -4
So you admit you're just here to waste time and give silliy answers to questions? . Wasn't that obvious at page 3 of this thread? I thought it was obvious by the end of the first post, but then I may be a mite cynical.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Jun 27, 2009 21:41:32 GMT -4
Hmm, not just dolly shots there; one or two literally impossible ones, unless we submit to the idea that NASA had, in the sixties, a film camera and camera operator which did not occupy the third dimension or which was capable of phasing through solid matter: Towards the end of this abomination, you will see a close-up of a column followed by a swift pan. Unfortunately, to achieve this pan, the body of the "camera" (and whoever was running it) has to pass through the column. As others have also mentioned, the "film grain" effect is overdone and, worse, on a frikken loop; it starts to repeat about half-way through. I also love the way the opening text is overlaid onto the video using a mock-seventies style font and CG techniques not developed until the eighties. Made extra special by the text promising "unedited images." And, last but not least, everything in the video, even under all the filters (some of which I note are designed to mimic atmospheric effects ) and compression artefacts, retains that ugly unreal "hey! this is CGi!" look that mars so many attempts at computer animation, even today.
|
|