|
Post by trebor on Feb 21, 2012 16:40:26 GMT -4
Looks like dimensional absurdity is infectious. Perhaps using better units would be less confusing all round
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Feb 8, 2012 16:18:42 GMT -4
Should be possible to keep a static html copy?
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Feb 7, 2012 13:50:36 GMT -4
...rather than asking your hypothetical GF? Are you saying dastardly's sister isn't real? I thought it was his/her wife? Hard to keep track here.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Feb 6, 2012 21:07:48 GMT -4
And this would have been catastrophic, why? Yes, too bad we wouldn't have had historic photographs, but we would still have had the TV transmissions, and the samples that were returned. It would not have made the mission a failure, and the weight woudl have been significant. Not to mention the 16mm footage..
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Feb 2, 2012 11:04:27 GMT -4
Something else worth mentioning... If a 100+ MeV proton does penetrate the shielding, it is no longer a 100+ MeV proton by the time it gets through. It looses much of its energy penetrating the shielding. Therefore, the amount of biological damage it can do if it does happen to hit an astronaut is greatly reduced. Protons? I thought the particular discussion was focussing on electrons?
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Feb 1, 2012 7:55:08 GMT -4
Jarrah says the outer belts had an average of 10-100MeV. I told him we could work on the principle that they were 50MeV. Where is he getting that figure for the electron energy range from? I had a look and have found nothing which shows there is any at all with that high an energy in the outer VAB.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Jan 31, 2012 14:37:05 GMT -4
Kerbal looks great, thanks for bringing that up. I think my rocket designs are a bit crap though.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Jan 28, 2012 20:02:41 GMT -4
the EAGLE could not have actually landed with the rocket engine running because of this back pressure. Why not? Here is a video of a rocket powered Lander touching down with the engine running: www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL2suXb4DdoIt seemed to have no trouble. And that is with earth's atmosphere helping to contain the engine exhaust gasses as well. A quick question:, are you saying that Lunokhod 1 and 2 were also hoaxed then? chew "Bwahahahaha! Dude, get an education." why? I suspect it is due to your complete inability to tell the difference between force and pressure. Much like your inability to tell the difference between heat and temperature
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Jan 28, 2012 19:30:30 GMT -4
Perhaps instead of long winded and aimless explanations you could demonstrate that the engine would have produced a larger crater than it did.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Jan 28, 2012 19:07:53 GMT -4
trebor these figure work just fine By all means try to demonstrate this. So far all we have had is you making up figures for assumed reasons which you do not justify.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Jan 28, 2012 18:59:37 GMT -4
1080 pounds per square foot was attempt to account for 1/6th gravity... Why don't you try to start with figures that actually match reality and continue from there.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Jan 28, 2012 18:45:04 GMT -4
trebor i would love to see your calculations on how much pressure would have been exerted on the regolith by the lem rocket exhaust from 2 feet away. until then "There isn't one because the surface was never exposed to 1080 pounds of thrust per square foot." carries no weight The descent engine was not capable of producing 1080 pounds of thrust per square foot. Not even at full throttle.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Jan 28, 2012 17:35:24 GMT -4
Yes back to the lem, where is the crater that should have been produced by 1080 pounds of thrust per square foot of pressure? There isn't one because the surface was never exposed to 1080 pounds of thrust per square foot.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Jan 28, 2012 16:36:39 GMT -4
there is no vacuum in space. it is just void of matter.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Jan 16, 2012 11:17:15 GMT -4
playdor, I know you've been busy searching for promotional videos you can say have something to do with the documented Apollo record, so in case you missed it: Neil Armstrong says you can see stars:Also, I still want to know exactly what you mean by claiming to have "mulitple degrees in science". sts60 what changed that the stars could now be seen? What changed is that they passed into the shadow of the moon, so that it was blocking all sunlight. As astronaut Mike Fossum also very recently pointed out when asked about seeing stars : “The key is to be in a place where you can dark adapt – any sunlight overpowers night vision.”
|
|