|
Post by lukepemberton on Jan 3, 2011 17:01:08 GMT -4
BTW, Dwight; I thoroughly enjoyed the book! Good job. Talking of books, I was kindly given the Apollo Haynes Manual and Voices from the Moon for Christmas. Both are excellent. I heard good reviews about the Haynes manual here, and it does not disappoint. Voices from the Moon is simply a compilation of photographs and quotes from the astronauts. It makes an interesting read to think about what they witnessed. Even if I distilled all my imagination into one thought, I doubt I could even come close to what they experienced.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Jan 3, 2011 18:53:04 GMT -4
I bought Voices From The Moon last year and I also thought it was excellent. It has excerpts from the interviews that Andrew Chaikin conducted for A Man On The Moon, and I loved that book, so it was interesting to have a look at the process that led to its being written. I found the astronauts' recollections in Voices quite candid and insightful, and I enjoyed the glossy photographs.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jan 4, 2011 12:17:27 GMT -4
Reference from stalker about camera's having circuitry to prevent burnout, not sure what exactly about camera's having circuitry to prevent burn out as it optical (bit in the dark here?) The documentation on the Apollo 11 lunar surface camera did talk about a circuit to prevent damage due to excess light. If I recall correctly, it dropped the voltage to the image intensifier section on the front of the tube. This voltage was varied to adjust its sensitivity, so the automatic gain control circuit that controlled it had to react sufficiently fast. The damage wasn't caused by direct heating by the incident light but by the high beam currents that resulted, so dropping the voltage would reduce the current as well. I'm sure that direct heating by incident light became a problem at some brightness level (like pointing the camera at the sun) so this vulnerability was probably unique to this particular type of tube.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Jan 5, 2011 7:49:05 GMT -4
All the TV cameras on Apollo had some form of electronics to help protect the gear cope with bright images. In the case of Al Bean and the Apollo 12 surface camera, the light intensity directly from the sun was just way to much for any protection. Also, according to Stan Lebar, when Bean hit the camera with his hammer (thinking the color wheel had jammed) he actually dislodged any functioning part of the image senor from it's bed thus making any type of salvage impossible from that point on.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jan 14, 2011 17:50:50 GMT -4
Well, if you think Stalkervision has left the lights on and left the building, I've just been asked this question by a YouTube user: 'What has gravity got to do with an astronauts freefall and acceleration on the Moon?' I kid you not.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 14, 2011 20:12:59 GMT -4
Well, if you think Stalkervision has left the lights on and left the building, I've just been asked this question by a YouTube user: 'What has gravity got to do with an astronauts freefall and acceleration on the Moon?' I kid you not. I'd suggest to them that they go and learn about physics and when they can answer that question for themselves, come back.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Jan 15, 2011 4:38:22 GMT -4
trouble is, those folk dont care about actually learning anything. They are so emotionally committed to the cause, that they will let nothing stand in their way - like facts.
I have a question: I have a radio interview regarding "Live tv" in 2 weeks. Should I mention the HB mentality at all? The few encounters I have had since the book came out are disturbing to say the least. Exposing these folk seems to be the only way I can let the fence sitters know what type of people they are.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 15, 2011 5:23:00 GMT -4
trouble is, those folk dont care about actually learning anything. They are so emotionally committed to the cause, that they will let nothing stand in their way - like facts. I have a question: I have a radio interview regarding "Live tv" in 2 weeks. Should I mention the HB mentality at all? The few encounters I have had since the book came out are disturbing to say the least. Exposing these folk seems to be the only way I can let the fence sitters know what type of people they are. I'd be careful as you could come across as trying to pioson the well or casting personal attacks against your opponents. Lack of understanding and research is a major issue though. Even the well researched HB's, like Jarrah, only reseach until they find something they think backs up their claim, they never go the next step to understanding it with an ability to apply it to the real world and predict senarios with the knowledge. This is the sad bit.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Jan 15, 2011 9:25:55 GMT -4
1. Don't bring them up - let the interviewer do that if they want to.
2. The answer to the question "what do you think about these conspiracy theorists then?" is "Well, majority of them seem to be regular folks who have simply been failed by our education system." or similar. Also have anecdotes to hand, such as the one about thee guy who wanted to know what gravity had to do with the moon...
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jan 15, 2011 9:26:29 GMT -4
Even the well researched HB's, like Jarrah, only research until they find something they think backs up their claim, they never go the next step to understanding it with an ability to apply it to the real world and predict scenarios with the knowledge. This is the sad bit. With due respect PW, he's not well researched in that case. I would not provide Jarrah with any words that he can use to preen himself. He's a terrible researcher, and changes the scope of pretty much everything he presents and lacks a grasp of basic physics. I've met 11 year olds who have a better understanding of physics than him.
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Jan 15, 2011 10:12:19 GMT -4
I have a question: I have a radio interview regarding "Live tv" in 2 weeks. Should I mention the HB mentality at all? The few encounters I have had since the book came out are disturbing to say the least. Exposing these folk seems to be the only way I can let the fence sitters know what type of people they are. I understand very well that it is tempting to mention, but it might also work as a kind of troll feeding, thus being counterproductive with respect to your goal.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Jan 15, 2011 11:39:48 GMT -4
Yeah. I feel that brining them up will make me the bad guy. If it is mentioned I think I will use the "failed by the education system" description. Is it then worth to mention the hard cores who are so emotionally invested in it that they actually knowingly peddle rubbish as facts?
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Jan 15, 2011 11:50:44 GMT -4
Hmm...I'd express concern that, in addition to the ones that simply don't know better, there appear to be some that do, who are manipulating the others to gain notoriety and/or profit. But again it's the sort of thing I'd leave out unless pressed since, if they want notoriety, simply giving it to them in an interview would be counter-productive.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 15, 2011 14:46:27 GMT -4
I certainly wouldn't name any names.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Jan 15, 2011 18:55:12 GMT -4
I certainly won't name anyone. They deserve obscurity and that's what they'll get.
|
|