|
Post by gwiz on Mar 20, 2007 18:03:52 GMT -4
The Harrier crashed so often that it earned the nickname "the Widow-Maker"!Much of this was early in its development when pilots were recruited from fixed-wing ranks. When pilots were assigned who had extensive helicopter training, the crash rate went down. The Harrier is indeed a demanding aircraft to fly, as was the LM. However, the Harrier's instability does not derive from its mass-derived flight dynamics, but rather from its aerodynamics. In a thrusted hover, crosswinds catch the wings and cause uncommanded rolls. This is not a problem for the LM, which operates in a vacuum. The Harrier's undercarriage requires a very narrow pitch-roll envelope at landing and takeoff, requiring greater pilot skill. As someone who spent a large period of his professional life as a member of the Harrier design team, I can confirm that Jay is right on these points. In fact, any swept-wing is unstable in roll in a crosswind, but if you have forward speed the weathercock effect of the fin compensates for this. It only becomes a problem at very low speeds/hover, a fact that was first discovered on the Short SC1.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Feb 26, 2007 12:58:59 GMT -4
Look at the rocket exhaust on a Delta rocket launch. Just to clarify that, it's the second stage of the Delta II, which has an engine with very similar technology to the Apollo engines. There are films available at the Rocketcam site.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Feb 16, 2007 10:14:59 GMT -4
Also, your claim is wrong. There was such a rocket flight done since then. More than once. I do recall seeing a video (don't' know the link; someone else might) of a half dome looking craft that took off, went up 100+ feet or so, then came back down safely (anyone know what I speak of?). That would be Blue Origin. There was also the already-mentioned DC-X, plus rocket-braked landings by Surveyors and Lunas on the moon and Vikings on Mars.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Feb 14, 2007 6:53:53 GMT -4
We were asking about bio-sat 3 and the frogs as it is pretty obvious there were parallel projects (highly unsuccessful low profile parallel projects) going on, sending frogs into space in 1970 indeed? These projects had a 0% success rate and were comparatively simple in regards to project Apollo. Perhaps you could explain what exactly about the OFO mission was unsuccessful? It looks a 100% success to me.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Feb 9, 2007 12:59:55 GMT -4
Do any of you have any information regarding NASA Biosatellite 3 program, which put a monkey in orbit in 1969? NASA Orbiting Frog Otolith-A, which put 2 frogs in orbit for 7 days in November 1970? Biosatellite 3: Launched 29 Jun 1969. Biological satellite (Biosatellite D) built by General Electric for NASA was a 699 kg blunt cone-cylinder 2.06 m long and 1.42 m in diameter. It carried a 259 kg recovery capsule 1.2 m long and 1.02 m in diameter with a Thiokol solid retro-rocket, a pigtail monkey named Bonny, a life support system, a ciné camera, a tape recorder and radiation dosimeters. Medical instrumentation included ECG, EEG, blood and brain temperature, EOG, blood pressure, muscle tension, a urine analyser and psychomotor and visuomotor testing devices. Additional planned investigations involved comparison of pre and post-flight body, blood, bone and urine characteristics. Adapter section was 1.2 m long and contained support systems including a gas-jet attitude control system. Power supply was by a hydrogen-oxygen fuel cell and silver-zinc batteries. Bonny did not adapt well to zero gravity, with poor scores on test devices, high blood pressure and low temperature. From 1969 Jul 6 he refused to drink and became dehydrated. Mission was therefore cut short after nine of planned 30 days. Capsule was ejected after 139 orbits 1969 Jul 7.98 and re-entered. Cloud prevented mid-air retrieval and capsule landed in sea 2341 UT. Retrieved from the Pacific Ocean 40 km north of Kauai, Hawaii. Bonny died of heart failure due to dehydration less than twelve hours after recovery. OFO: Launched 9 Nov 1970. Orbiting Frog Otolith biological satellite built by Aerojet General for NASA was a 133 kg octagonal prism 1.19 m long and 0.76 m in diameter with four 1.98 m inertia booms carrying two bullfrogs with instrumentation to measure heartbeat and otolith response, a life support system, a centrifuge to provide artificial gravity, a tracking beacon and a yo-yo de-spin system, powered by batteries. Following satellite de-spin, centrifuge was use to provide alternating periods of artificial gravity and weightlessness in frog container. Frogs were disoriented at first, but adapted in about three days. There was no provision to recover the frogs, which were used because their inner ear structure is similar to humans. Ceased transmitting when batteries exhausted 1970 Nov 15. Edit to add: You forgot to ask about Kosmos 110.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jan 25, 2007 11:50:29 GMT -4
Is that it? Are you are saying that if it were raining pennies from heaven, and I had a big bucket, that I would catch pennies at a slower rate if I turned the bucket away from the direction of the flow of pennies? In a nutshell, or even in a bucket.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jan 25, 2007 6:12:47 GMT -4
For all your rhetoric in reality none of the pro-moony play-group actually understand why the Earth is cool at the poles or how the LM maintained a liveable temperature. A few pages back you asked me to provide temperature ranges for the earth, moon and Mercury, which I did. These showed the opposite of the effect that you seemed to expect, in that worlds with negligible atmospheres showed greater equatorial/polar temperature ranges than the Earth. One might therefore ask who is the person in this discussion who doesn't understand this.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jan 20, 2007 8:14:46 GMT -4
The classic empirical example is the Tacoma Narrows bridge.May I ask the engineers here how many times they had to see the Tacoma Narrows film? I know I was tired of seeing it by the end of hight school. Quite a few times. One of our lecturers had compiled a "Great engineering failures" film show. And welcome back from me too, Jay.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jan 18, 2007 11:26:30 GMT -4
Gwiz, We would like you to tell us what the temperatures of the Moon and Mercury's very thin atmosphere are at each pole and at the equator, then compare your data with the Earths respective temperatures. Did you find we are right, again? Couldn't locate atmospheric temperatures, possibly no-one has ever measured temperature in such thin atmospheres. However, surface temperature ranges (typical max) are: Mercury: 380 K polar, 700 K equatorial, ratio 1.8 Moon: 230 K polar, 390 K equatorial, ratio 1.7 Earth: 260 K polar, 310 K equatorial, ratio 1.2 So it would seem that atmospheric effects actually reduce the temperature range, not increase it as you claim.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jan 15, 2007 4:34:19 GMT -4
Answers to post 205 - LM thermal control was unachievable Yes we concur - the LMs were not tested Yes we concur - the LLxVs were actually LM test vehicles rather than flight simulators who said they were not? - the LLxVs were uncontrollable and not useful yes we concur - Newtonian physics varies unpredictably between the Earth and the Moon the fact that the Pioneer 10 and 11 space-probes are receding from the sun slightly more slowly than they should be. www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3104321explain that with Newtonian physics. - no assessment of the lunar surface was done prior to the first LM landing a very basic assessment was carried out but insufficient data was retrieved - Surveyor 6 crash-landed? for want of a better description yes. You were given detailed answers to these claims of yours, showing how they were wrong. Merely repeating "we concur" is no defence to those answers. As with your Mercury atmosphere claim, the Pioneer anomaly must be considered from a numerical rather than an absolute standpoint. In other words, it is so small that it is very hard to measure and can thus be neglected for practical purposes. Moreover, an effect discovered after the Apollo programme ended is hardly relevant to whether Apollo was faked. The effects of general relativity are much larger, but I know of only one engineering application where the accuracy required is so great that that they must be included.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jan 15, 2007 4:31:33 GMT -4
Gwiz, Do you have any idea what you are talking about? MERCURY HAS AN ATMOSPHERE Any idea how dense an atmosphere Mercury has compared with earth? A thousanth? A millionth? A billionth? A trillionth? Technically you are right in that the concentration of atoms around Mercury is a little denser that the extended atmosphere of the sun inside of which all the planets have their orbits. For practical purposes, however, both the Mercury and Sun atmospheres are essentially vacuum. How can such an insignificant atmosphere have the effect on temperatures that you claim? If the latitude variation of temperature on Mercury is due to the atmosphere, then the effect should be a trillion times greater on earth. Why isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jan 12, 2007 7:49:51 GMT -4
Jason Thompson, you are a liar and a fool, take a look at the link below the poles are cooler due to atmospheric diffusion. Are you saying that an airless planet like Mercury would have a uniform temperature? Look at reason 2 in your link.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jan 12, 2007 4:40:41 GMT -4
What about those pings of light on the wires come? As explained in an earlier post, there was a thin blade antenna, like a piece of metal measuring tape, mounted on top of the backpack, and this occasionally caught the light. On top of this, bright flashes in the frame are a common video artifact. One appearing above an astronaut proves nothing, as you can just as easily select a video clip with a flash under his feet or off to the side. Also suggest you check with a film or stage special effects expert on whether or not they look like they are on wires, rather than just trust your own opinion.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jan 10, 2007 8:08:22 GMT -4
Many people think that the LLTV was too unstable to fly and the astronauts could not have been properly trained to land on the moon on that piece of junk. It is well documented that Neil Armstrong had to bail out of one of the 5 LLTV's before it crashed and exploded. On the other hand, there were plenty of successful flights, so it couldn't have been that unstable. The crashes of Armstrong and one of the other vehicles were the result of a one-off systems failures, not a generic problem with the vehicle. The third crash was due to wind gusting, not a problem on the moon. Surveyor 6 wasn't designed to get back into orbit. However, it had a bit of fuel left after a successful soft landing (not a crash) which was used for the hop. The real data it gained was the ability to lift off the surface. Once you do that, getting the rest of the way to orbit is a matter of having enough fuel, which the LM had and Surveyor hadn't.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jan 10, 2007 5:24:27 GMT -4
|
|