|
Post by theteacher on Feb 1, 2012 8:35:47 GMT -4
The Apollo CM had a shielding rating of about 7 to 8 g/cm 2. Given that aluminum has a density of 2.7 g/cm 3, this rating equates to an aluminum thickness of about 1021-1167 mils (259-296 mm). Wouldn't that be 25.9-29.6 mm?
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Jan 24, 2012 16:46:03 GMT -4
Then when NASA's data doesn't conform to his personal uninformed expectations, he rants and calls people names. Sorry, but that is indeed childish. Perhaps, I am assuming he feels entitled and may well be. www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg4trPZFUwc
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Jan 24, 2012 16:42:21 GMT -4
The OP references NASA's own data. Does not seem very childlike to me. He seems extremely competent. Yes, he seems competent. He's quite good at seeming, isn't he? He "seems" so competently, that it seems compelling to the uninformed and incompetent.
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Dec 19, 2011 22:24:02 GMT -4
It is very typical to americans to just say something and wait that the friends are halooballoing and supporting. I'm not American. This claim demonstrates that you don't understand even the basics of physics. No wonder you are confused.
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Dec 12, 2011 19:17:22 GMT -4
Neil Armstrong says you can see stars:071:59:20 Armstrong: Houston, it's been a real change for us. Now we're able to see stars again and recognize constellations for the first time on the trip. It's - the sky is full of stars. Just like the night side of Earth. But all the way here, we've only been able to see stars occasionally and perhaps through the monocular, but not recognize any star patterns. 071:59:52 McCandless (CAPCOM): I guess it's turned into night up there really, hasn't it? 071:59:58 Armstrong: Really has. Like to hear him say it playdor? Starts at 3:24 -> history.nasa.gov/ap11fj/audio/0715600.mp3
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Dec 2, 2011 21:45:58 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Dec 2, 2011 20:38:09 GMT -4
I can only go by exactly what he said. Yes, that has now become obvious. I'll tell you what: I frankly don't give a damn about "what he said". If Armstrong himself tomorrow on world wide television declares, that he never was on the Moon and that the whole thing was faked, it won't change one iota in the Apollo record. The only thing it will prove is that the man has gone nuts.
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Dec 1, 2011 15:45:55 GMT -4
echnaton the question was "is there an official NASA document explaining why stars are not visible in cislunar space?" Stars ARE visible in cislunar space, so what do you think? It seems that this nonsense can go on for ever.
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Nov 25, 2011 16:04:24 GMT -4
i analyzed film 1122D and posted the results so if this is wrong please detail to me what is going on in this film and where the lm is in relation to the cm. How about consulting a person, you yourself consider being an expert in the matter and then come back and publish the result? That goes for all of your "questions", by the way.
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Nov 23, 2011 17:53:06 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Nov 20, 2011 14:25:43 GMT -4
2) August 12 1969 news conference, Statements by Collins, I don't recall, either. the guy orbited the moon, there was a side in darkness. - about which he said in his book as already pointed out to you by laurel on page 44 #651: " Outside my window, I can see stars -- and that is all. Where I know the Moon to be, there is simply a black void; the Moon's presence is defined solely by the absence of stars." There are no contradictions.
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Nov 19, 2011 10:18:08 GMT -4
We can look into the heavens and find stuff as far as we are able to see, and we can look into the small and find stuff as far as we can see, we can name it, classify it and dissect it. we can develop models of how processes seem to work, and build clever toys with that information. but when it's all said and done we are still in the middle with no real answers as to what "this" is. because "it" is unspeakable and unknowable You talk religious talk, but this "discussion" is about science and historical record, which is a completely different realm. All living creatures must take into account and master how the world really works. If they don't, they die. Ha ha ;D Telling me!
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Nov 16, 2011 17:51:34 GMT -4
Looks like Collins has fallen prey to a common misconception. The pupil responds very quickly to light level changes, but it only provides a small range of sensitivities. The real factor is the sensitivity of the retina, which slowly increases in the dark to far larger values than in bright illumination. I should have used the term "narrative" instead of "explanation" and thus have avoided to confuse the two. I merely wanted to convey his experience, as "he was there" :-) A brief explanation is here by the way.
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Nov 16, 2011 8:49:47 GMT -4
you don't find it bewildering that for the most part astronauts do not see stars? I want to know why? its like sailing around the world and afterward saying you never saw any water. REALLY i don't get it. It has been explained to you extensively. Maybe you should read the whole thread once again starting with page #1? Here's how Michael Collins explains it in his book "Carrying the Fire": "Out from behind the shadow of the earth, we are into the constant sunlight. In a way, there is constant darkness as well, for it depends on which way one looks. Toward the sun, nothing can be seen but its blinding disk, whereas down-sun there is simply a black void. The stars are there, but they cannot be seen because, with sunlight flooding the spacecraft, the pupil of the eye involuntarily contracts, and the light from the stars is too dim to compete with the reflected sunlight, as both enter the eye through the tiny aperture formed by the contracted pupil. No, to see the stars, the pupil must be allowed to relax, to open wide enough to let the starlight form a visible image on the retina, and that can be done only by blocking out the sunlight. In practical terms, that means putting metal plates over all five windows, and then pointing the telescope at exactly the right angle, an angle which is not only away from the sun but which also does not permit any sunlight to bounce off the LM or CM structure into the telescope's field of view. Under these conditions the eye slowly "dark adapts" itself, and the brighter stars gradually emerge from the void. After a few minutes the familiar patterns of the constellations become recognizable (assuming you are fortunate enough to have familiar constellations in the part of the sky you have been forced to use to escape the sunlight), now the navigator can continue with his work." ETA: pp. 378-379, First Cooper Square Press edition 2001, OCR-scan.
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Nov 15, 2011 18:58:41 GMT -4
I suspect that he believes it only works one way. He can say the astronauts should logically have looked out the window. Because that make sense to him. Well, that makes sense to me too. I think the discussion of whether Armstrong did or did not look out of the windows is futile. Of course he and the others looked out of the windows - a lot. How else could he say, that the stars could not be seen? The point is, that Armstrong and the other crew members did not make any special arrangements to "see stars" apart from detecting them through the optics in order to align the navigation platform. So while cruising along they could not see stars even had they specifically looked for them - out of the windows.
|
|