|
Post by theteacher on Aug 15, 2009 18:50:56 GMT -4
Hello Johnsmith I'm still curious to know, if you have tried it? I know, you must be busy, but I think it is a fairly easy questÃon, that can be answered with a Yes or a No. So - again: Have you tried it? I mentioned earlier that I would try to find a similar falcon feather, which is a future work. Oh, that disappoints me. Because you wrote: So I thought, that you knew that. But you don't. Thanks for your answer.
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Aug 15, 2009 18:24:28 GMT -4
When such an asymmetric feather falls down on its own the tendency most of the time would be to propagate through the air with its vane surface parallel to the vertical direction thus reducing the drag to a minimum. Hello Johnsmith I'm still curious to know, if you have tried it? I know, you must be busy, but I think it is a fairly easy questÃon, that can be answered with a Yes or a No. So - again: Have you tried it?
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Aug 15, 2009 17:02:53 GMT -4
When such an asymmetric feather falls down on its own the tendency most of the time would be to propagate through the air with its vane surface parallel to the vertical direction thus reducing the drag to a minimum. Have you tried it?
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Aug 11, 2009 16:36:20 GMT -4
Could it also be that after going to the moon dealing with a hunch of reporters demanding to have the experience reduced to a soundbite was anti-climactic to say the least? That seems plausible. In the very beautiful and moving (to me anyway) film "In the Shadow of the Moon" one of the astronauts says, that the crew on Apollo 11 perhaps were the best choice for the flight to the Moon, but when it came to public relations, they probably were a bad choice. Armstrong is also described as the best and coolest astronaut of the whole group, and when you know, that apart from that he was - and still is maybe - a very shy and private person, it's not astonishing, that he felt uncomfortable with - as a sort of spokesman for the team - trying to establish the broarder meaning of their experience. So maybe he was the best choice for Apollo 11 but the worst choice for the pressconference. If you haven't seen the film, you really have something to look forward to. And when one sees it, one realizes, that the hoax-theory is the mother of all insults. Have a look at www.youtube.com/watch?v=IM5hjYq0omc&feature=related. Edited to add link.
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Jul 31, 2009 18:44:41 GMT -4
We all know that these discussions would end only when the Moon sites are visited again and examined on site. By whom, if I may ask? Last night I was looking through all the photos from the Apollo 12 mission to the landing site of Surveyor 3 in late 1969. I also read the full 315 pages report from the investigations of the impact of Lunar environment on the parts of the craft, that were brought back to Earth. This is not satisfying evidence, I can understand from "the discussions" "When the Moon sites are visited again and examined on site", there will be new photos (and video-footage) showing the same anomalies as the previous - no stars, non-parallel shadows, etc. etc. ad nauseam. There will be new Moon-rocks, and there will be artifacts from the LMs and the scientific instruments left on the Moon in the sixties. There will be no crater under the future LM - and there will probably be no flame from the nozzle, when it takes off. Maybe we will see the very take-off from a TV-camera, and who the heck is that staying back there to operate it? The Moon sites have been visited "again", so what on Earth - or the Moon - would it help to visit them again again? I learned the other night, that the LRO-images could easily be faked. They sure could. Will it help, when the expected lower orbit improves resolution tree times? Tell me, why should it? (Edited for spelling error) theteacher
|
|