|
Post by Obviousman on Feb 4, 2012 17:46:10 GMT -4
Also useful would be
A STUDY OF SPACE RADIATION SHIELDING PROBLEMS FOR MANNED VEHICLES (Wilson, Miller and Kloster, NASA CR-56005, 8 Jun 62)
Available from NTRS or can also send.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Feb 4, 2012 17:40:24 GMT -4
Bob,
Have you got the papers done by Francis Cucinotta?
JSC-29295 SPACE RADIATION CANCER RISK PROJECTIONS FOR EXPLORATION MISSIONS: UNCERTAINTY REDUCTION AND MITIGATION (JSC, Jan 2001)
SPACE RADIATION CANCER RISKS AND UNCERTAINTIES FOR MARS MISSIONS (pp 682 - 688, Radiation Research #156, 2001)
They go into the methodology. If you'd like copies, just PM me.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Jan 13, 2012 19:16:22 GMT -4
Not bad at all.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Jan 9, 2012 23:35:05 GMT -4
If someone will summarise is claims / evidence, I'll comment. I'm not about to raise his hit count on YouTube nor waste precious bandwidth on his garbage, though.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Jan 8, 2012 8:53:09 GMT -4
Hmmm - I don't know if people were 'competitive' for a CMP slot, especially for a lunar landing mission.... but I agree that to be assigned to such said that you were considered to be extremely competent.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Jan 7, 2012 19:05:27 GMT -4
Yeah, but she HAS to. I bet his sister doesn't share that opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Jan 7, 2012 6:48:26 GMT -4
The guy lives in Australia, in New South Wales, and you'd be lucky to find 50 people throughout the country - who are not diehard HBs - who have ever heard of him.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Jan 3, 2012 3:43:57 GMT -4
Thanks for that - much appreciated!
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Jan 2, 2012 18:35:55 GMT -4
Could well be, or it could be someone totally different.
They might tell us!
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Jan 2, 2012 16:40:02 GMT -4
A new document, comparing every Apollo image taken of the Earth with contemporary images images at the same time. Lovely piece of work. Yet another death knell to the HB claims, specifically Percy et al. www.scribd.com/doc/76882844/Clouds-Across-the-Moon
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Dec 31, 2011 19:50:09 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Nov 6, 2011 5:55:58 GMT -4
Good to see some research instead of just accepting things as you are told, djw001 - well done! I particularly like that they have provided - and you have posted - the file numbers associated with the origin.
Don't forget to have the reply scanned.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Oct 28, 2011 17:46:35 GMT -4
I liked the authenticity - for the most part - of the hardware.
There were several bits where you could easily see it was not filmed in 1/6 G.
The noisy comms gave me the irits.
The plot was easy to guess from the get-go, and not that entertaining.
Because of the knowledge of the subject, I disliked the glaring errors:
- Being able to power and launch the LK without so much as a checklist
- Just blasting off whenever, not taking into account the necessity of rendezvous windows based on the CSM orbit; and
- Not actually entering any type of ascent programme (duration, pitchover, etc).
Presumably he was going to do an EVA transfer?
Anyway, an ok film if you are into the subject but not that much to recommend it.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Oct 14, 2011 21:21:38 GMT -4
What a sad person. He has nothing better to do than get banned repeatedly and ignore the answers to his nonsense? That's a good point, and got me wondering: the person has repeatedly demonstrated an inability / unwillingness to conform to the various rules in order to discuss the subject. Do you think the same disregard for rules extends into their offline world? Are they likely to be someone who thinks rules apply to other people and not them? If so, do you think this is typical behaviour (i.e. can't obey simple rules on a forum therefore unlikely to adhere to rules of society or law)?
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Oct 13, 2011 18:05:14 GMT -4
Hehe - some parallels here.
This reminds me of the F-111 and what I see is possibly happening now with the F-35 programme: trying to make something be all things to all people (which funnily enough, is actually achieved with some software I mention further below). The F-111 was meant to fulfil requirements for both Navy and Air Force... and failed. Once the Navy version was cancelled and the need for competing (and often mutually exclusive) requirements dropped, it went on to be a highly successful aircraft. I think the same could be happening with the F-35: a conventional fighter version, a STOVL version, and a CTOVL version, seeking to fill multiple roles in multiple services. Sometimes you simply need a specialised tool and have to accept the cost that comes with it.
Not quite the same but similar in some respects is the roll out of some software (Patriot Excalibur, an aircrew resource management tool) to our squadrons. Without going into detail, the software is highly configurable and adaptable. When I roll it out to the squadrons, they invariably told me that things had to be a certain way or they needed to use it in a particular way... despite my recommendations as to the methods in which it should be employed. After a month or so of using the software (gaining experience) they'd come back and say "Well, yes, this is what we asked for but it is not what we want" and come up with far more appropriate requirements for me to configure to.
|
|