|
Post by LunarOrbit on Nov 26, 2011 22:31:23 GMT -4
when i show you that they have the same dimensions, you will then say so what? so whats the point? Because it's just an unsubstantiated claim until you support it. Just saying it doesn't make it true.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Nov 26, 2011 22:34:57 GMT -4
Wrong again. Ed Mitchell did swear on the Bible, so did Gene Cernan. Sibrel just decided that they were lying when they swore. Exactly. Sibrel has even said that if they swore on the Bible he would call them liars and if they didn't he would would still call them liars. The astronauts knew he was slime and didn't want to play along with his childish games. It's like a witch hunt. If you say "no, I'm not a witch" they assume you're lying and drown you in the river. If you say "yes, I am a witch" they drown you in the river. So there's no right answer.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Nov 26, 2011 22:37:43 GMT -4
On the subject of Kubrick, I wonder if playdor has the faintest idea where 2001 was actually shot, and why that idea might tickle me in particular of all the people on this board...
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Nov 26, 2011 22:47:21 GMT -4
Technically it was a urine bag, not a diaper. But the point stands. Doh. I've heard the story about Aldrin being the first man to pee on the Moon a couple of different ways. In one version he urinated during the EVA while President Nixon was talking, in the other version he urinated while inside the LM not long after landing. Am I right that they used diapers during the EVAs and collection bags while inside the LM?
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Nov 26, 2011 22:58:49 GMT -4
Technically it was a urine bag, not a diaper. But the point stands. Doh. I've heard the story about Aldrin being the first man to pee on the Moon a couple of different ways. In one version he urinated during the EVA while President Nixon was talking, in the other version he urinated while inside the LM not long after landing. Am I right that they used diapers during the EVAs and collection bags while inside the LM? This link explains it in great detail (well, perhaps great is not the right word, but it should tell you what you need to know). lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/s6ch2.htmI thought Playdor was referring to Aldrin having urinated right before he stepped off the Lunar Module ladder, an incident he describes in In The Shadow Of The Moon, but I could be wrong.
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Nov 26, 2011 23:08:42 GMT -4
I am getting a Page Not Found, laurel.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Nov 26, 2011 23:12:57 GMT -4
Try it now.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Nov 27, 2011 1:05:09 GMT -4
ka9q again why are you attacking me on film 1122D How am I attacking you? I simply asked you a question: what's wrong with those individual frames of the LM other than some vague unease that something is wrong with them? I merely countered that the LM looked exactly as it should. What techniques?? And maybe they were that way because computers had calculated the exact maneuvers they had to make to be that way. They were trying to join them together, remember? What makes you think it was untested? Do you have any idea of the amount of ground and flight testing that was done before Apollo 11? An entire separate program -- Gemini -- had been conducted primarily to learn how to conduct orbital rendezvous, the precise maneuver you see here. It was critical to getting the lunar astronauts back home so they had to be sure they could do it before their lives depended on it. And they got good at it. Now they do it in earth orbit all the time, whenever the Shuttle or some other craft goes to the ISS. Do you doubt they can do that too? We're dealing with orbital mechanics, not aeronautics. Orbital mechanics is about as "pure" as physics gets. There's no air, so there's no drag, no lift, no gusts of wind, no turbulence. The spacecraft don't have an airplane's control surfaces that can be moved irregularly to make the craft around. As always, Newton's laws are in full effect, including that an object remains at rest or in motion until acted upon by an outside force. Here, the only outside force is the continuous and completely predictable gravity of the moon, except for the brief times that they fire their rocket engines. Unlike an aircraft, which usually operates its engines continuously, a spacecraft simply coasts most of the time with its engines off. So spacecraft motion is very smooth. Their relative positions are being measured with an accurate radar. Computers can very accurately predict all motions during flight and very accurately simulate them on the ground during training. Computers calculate and execute all major rocket engine burns, precisely measure their effects and accurately predict their results. Otherwise they would not have been able to perform this rendezvous. The LM had sixteen small (100 pound) rocket engines pointed in all six directions, four on each corner. It could rotate in any of 3 directions -- pitch, roll or yaw -- or translate up, down, left, right, forward or back, or rotate and translate at the same time. It was very versatile, and it could do this either under computer control or under manual control of the astronauts.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Nov 27, 2011 6:39:53 GMT -4
It's been a while since I watched Dark Side of the Moon, but one of the clues I remember was that they interviewed the "former CIA director" and he spoke Russian. Why would the former CIA director be speaking Russian? That was Vernon Walters, an actual former US deputy CIA director, and he was speaking French, not Russian. He was talking to a French filmmaker, and he could speak the language, so why not?
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Nov 27, 2011 6:56:37 GMT -4
This link explains it in great detail (well, perhaps great is not the right word, but it should tell you what you need to know). The intra-cabin version of the #1 system was demonstrated briefly in Apollo 13. Jim Lovell was fond of saying that the most popular question by far asked of him by members of the public was "how do you go to the bathroom in space?" so the movie finally answered it, at least in part. I don't know if it was his idea, Ron Howard's or Tom Hanks to actually put it in the film. On the ISS, urine is collected along with condensed water vapor from the astronauts' exhalations and, instead of simply being dumped, electrolyzed to produce O 2 for breathing. I believe the H 2 is dumped overboard, along with the CO 2 extracted from the cabin atmosphere. I also read Aldrin's Return to Earth and his description of urinating into his collection bag as he came down the ladder, commenting on how unusual it seemed to have the whole world watching him on TV. Unpleasant as it could be for the astronauts, it was also the topic of humor at times. It turns out that Apollo 16's Charlie Duke was unable to urinate while walking. John Young knew this, and at one point he sees Charlie standing motionless facing the large crater behind the lunar module. So he bursts out laughing but refuses to tell the Capcom why, saying he'd explain later. If Apollo was a hoax, they sure thought to add a lot of colorful little details like these.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Nov 27, 2011 7:12:03 GMT -4
Please look at film 1122d the sun screen in window is almost in focus, the moon is always in focus, and the lm is always in focus, even when it gets close. can a lens keep all objects in focus from infinite to a few feet away or in the case of the sun screen, very close to the lens? It's called "depth of field". A good depth of field, i.e., a wide range of distances all in focus, is an inherent property of a short (wide angle) lens, especially when stopped down as it would be for daylight photography. Many of the pictures on the moon also have good depth of field because they too were taken with a fairly wide lens and small f-stop. By the way, this is very good evidence that we were seeing the real thing, not miniature models. Any photographer who has ever tried to photograph models or anything else quite small (e.g., with a macro lens) knows how extremely difficult it is to get them entirely in focus. In fact, a limited depth of field is one of the most reliable tip-offs that one is looking at a miniature model, e.g, in Hollywood movie effects.
|
|
|
Post by abaddon on Nov 27, 2011 7:46:40 GMT -4
Playdor, why did the CIA representative speak exclusively in Russian?
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Nov 27, 2011 8:26:51 GMT -4
simply put, we could not get to the moon, we can't get thru the radiation belts and live, and even if we tried space if filled with radiation. You are aware that there are now hundreds of organisations operating satellites within and beyond the Van Allen belts? These include a worldwide variety of governments, commercial and academic organisations and even radio amateur groups. If the radiation environment wasn't as NASA claimed, don't you think someone might have noticed? In spite of no-one seeing them there, but plenty of astronomers, amateurs as well as professionals, seeing them on their lunar trajectory. Apollo in low orbit would have been as conspicuous as Skylab. In spite of the fact that no astronomer or geologist has found a single flaw in the Apollo record, despite decades of study? You can find web pages listing lots of flaws in Kubrick's 2001. In which case they made an astounding job of predicting the weather on earth during the mission.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Nov 27, 2011 8:45:36 GMT -4
You are aware that there are now hundreds of organisations operating satellites within and beyond the Van Allen belts? These include a worldwide variety of governments, commercial and academic organisations and even radio amateur groups. Indeed. In 1983 I was personally involved with the AMSAT Oscar-10 spacecraft. It carried an onboard computer, which we believe to be a first at least on such a small spacecraft. We had a radiation-hardened 1802 CPU but we couldn't get radiation-hardened RAM; the commercial grade parts we used were good to only about 3,000 rads (Si). The spacecraft ended up in an elliptical orbit that crossed the Van Allen belts four times every day. Soft errors were seen on each belt crossing that were fixed by error correction hardware. About 3 years after launch, the error rates overwhelmed the correction scheme; the hardware had reached its dose limit. 3000 rads over 3 years is about 2.74 rads/day or .685 rads/belt crossing, remarkably close to what the Apollo astronauts experienced on each of their belt crossings.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Nov 27, 2011 9:35:21 GMT -4
frenat Could you give me the reference for "Ed Mitchell did swear on the Bible, so did Gene Cernan" That was posted by Laurel. Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
|
|