|
Post by trebor on May 10, 2010 7:19:19 GMT -4
...but faking this effect is possible. How exactly? And the same goes for the scene where the astronaut drops a hammer and feather. In fact Bennett and Percy do their own fake to demonstrate in their film. That example you use is very interesting, firstly it should be noted that Percy dropped the feather point first. Nor did he use the same type of feather. Also the lab coated demonstrator carefully did not move his arms. In the original feather drop the arms of the astronaut move stupidly fast if sped up. Same for the lunar soil kicked about by the astronauts in the 'pendulum' video. If sped up it moves absurdly fast.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Apr 27, 2010 15:32:42 GMT -4
I believe the stayed in the safe zone, they only passed through the inner belt. Actually they did not pass through the centre of either belts. Think more three dimensionally.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Apr 27, 2010 15:23:14 GMT -4
Here is a short sequence of images of the Earth from Apollo 11....
Best seen in HD.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Apr 27, 2010 15:02:59 GMT -4
I suggest you take a closer look at that image. Specifically at the "safe zone" directly above and bellow both belts. That is the "safe zone" the Apollo missions passed through on the way towards the moon.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Apr 19, 2010 15:07:38 GMT -4
1) Why is Nicollier's visor clear, compared to Irwin's mirrored visor? In both suits the mirrored visor could be raised if they were in the shadows so they could see better. As Nicollier seems to be not in direct sunlight I assume he raised it. 3) What is the ragged looking item beneath Irwin's right elbow? Nicollier's suit looks much more streamlined by comparison. Looks like a sample bag attached to his PLSS, not a part of the suit. 4) Is Nicollier's suit only partially inflated, and if so, would this be due to any kind of loss of pressure, say from an inner suit? By comparison, do Apollo suits always have a more rumpled appearance than Nicollier's? In the Apollo A7L suit the outer white layer is not pressurised at all, only the inner suit is. www.clavius.org/img/naked-suit.jpgThis is what the pressurised inner suit looks like. No idea about the construction of the modern shuttle suits. 5) What might account for the sharp lines dividing the differing shades of grey in the background of the Apollo photo, and are there any reasons to suspect that these sharp lines are in any way artificial? They are just the changing terrain, without atmosphere they would be pretty sharp.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Apr 17, 2010 11:23:53 GMT -4
You could summarise his point (if he actually had one) in your own words.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Apr 8, 2010 17:12:30 GMT -4
I haven't read the book either, but from those who have, Mauldin states that a generational interstellar spacecraft would need a couple meters of shielding to protect the crew from cosmic radiation. He's not talking about a one-hour trip through the Van Allen Radiation Belts. That would be way beyond quote mine territory and into flat out lying. :\ It would make sense though, the problems of interstellar travel being so huge that the VABs are trivial by comparison.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Apr 8, 2010 16:33:05 GMT -4
'lo people. I have had a HB recently state that a physicist called John Mauldin claimed that a spacecraft would need 2 metres of water to shield against the Van Allen belt. They even quoted the source being his book "Prospects for interstellar travel" on page 225/226.
Not having access to a copy and knowing the propensity for many to quote mine like anything; does anyone know exactly what he stated about the VAB in that book?
It certainly seems a bit quote miney to me considering the title.
Cheers, Trebor
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Apr 1, 2010 12:05:41 GMT -4
Ah yes, that was it. Unfortunately there is no T shirt for correcting me.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Mar 31, 2010 11:16:19 GMT -4
My memory is hazy but did not an F-1 engine fail on one of the Saturn 5 qualification flights?
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Mar 17, 2010 3:47:29 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Mar 17, 2010 3:11:33 GMT -4
1. Why do astronauts sometimes appear very bright (even when they're facing away from the sun), while their shadow is solid black? As you hypothesise this is due to light reflected from the lunar surface. If light from the surface of the Moon illuminates them, then why wouldn't the reflected light from their white suits illuminate the ground in their shadow? It is not quite so easy for the ground to reflect light onto itself as light would be reflected upwards. It is also important to note that the lunar regolith is actually quite dark, but the astronauts are wearing a reflective white suit. There are also other indicators showing that the light is from the ground. For example see this section from AS11-40-5903 www.myimgs.net/images/woav.jpgThe suit is not evenly lit. See the folds on the arm, the top of each fold is shadowed and darker than the bottom. Note the hand. The top is darker as it is not facing the ground. There are lots of details like that in the image. Such as how bright those parts of the suit are which are in direct sunlight.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Mar 11, 2010 12:40:03 GMT -4
Humans are not big enough and the Earth does not have a powerful enough gravitational field for tidal forces to be significant.
Also as has been noted those gravitational forces are more intense the closer you are. Which is what causes a tidal force.
If you stand up the gravitational force on your feet is a 'tiny' amount stronger than the gravitational force on your head, but unless you are many kilometres tall that difference is unmeasurable let alone significant.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Mar 7, 2010 14:06:27 GMT -4
To go back to the topic of funny YouTube comments, here is one from a HB.... He then went on to claim that mass and weight are exactly the same thing, and that you lose mass when in a different gravitational field. Have you got a link for that? I will post you the links.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Mar 6, 2010 18:20:29 GMT -4
Does anyone recognise this clip? I had thought it was from Apollo 6. Yet others seem to think it was a Saturn IB.
|
|