|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 2, 2005 12:12:18 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Jun 2, 2005 12:30:38 GMT -4
The cemeteries are full of helicopter pilots who thought their craft "hung" from the rotor and would swing naturally back to vertical after an accidental pitch or roll. And sometimes these cemeteries have marking "unknown." So maybe there can be one more with "unknown," when he is testing his theories on helicopter flight. Martin |
|
|
|
Post by unknown on Jun 2, 2005 16:15:19 GMT -4
Hey, papageno
remember that Leonardo da Vinci is the father of plane and helicopter.
I'm sorry, but you don't understand when I speak metaphorically. ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 2, 2005 16:23:19 GMT -4
I'm sorry, but you don't understand when I speak metaphorically.
And you don't understand when we speak scientifically.
You have made claims that would normally require specialized understanding and relevant experience in order to make them credible. You have not demonstrated any of that understanding. In fact, you have demonstrated a perfect characterization of lay (untrained) misunderstanding.
Your claims that the LM and/or LLTV are unflyable have been addressed by several people whose professions include the relevant knowledge. They have outlined several serious problems with your claims, which you have yet to resolve. You claim your opinions are "intelligent" but intelligent opinions are able to address (not sidestep) objections made to them. You refuse to discuss the problems with your conclusions, therefore they cannot be deemed intelligent.
|
|
|
|
Post by unknown on Jun 2, 2005 16:44:46 GMT -4
Dear martin, I'm sorry but you haven't guessed. See again this image www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/k-4/home/F_Apollo_11.html"Image to left: The first footprints on the Moon will be there for a million years. There is no wind to blow them away. Credit: NASA" Does it seem to you a foot-print? Look at shadows carefully. What do you see?
That foot-print shows an elevation that projects a big shadow on the left.
Hey, martin, tracks sink on the ground, tracks are like a bas-relief.
In that image instead the foot-print forms a high-relief.You know it's impossible that a foot-print is in elevation.This image is the most faked one you can see. ;D ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by martin on Jun 2, 2005 17:33:19 GMT -4
Dear martin, I'm sorry but you haven't guessed. No, I did not play your game. You were humourous for a short time, but this is ended. Martin |
|
|
|
Post by unknown on Jun 2, 2005 17:46:30 GMT -4
You don't know what to answer and you are finding only a pretext. ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 2, 2005 17:53:47 GMT -4
No, unknown, it is highly rude to make others try to guess at what you're thinking. If you have a question or a conclusion -- state it!
|
|
|
|
Post by unknown on Jun 2, 2005 18:03:02 GMT -4
Dear friend,
also you don't know what to answer.
That picture is faked. Also a child can see in it a foot-print in alto-rilievo.
See you again soon
|
|
|
|
Post by DaveC on Jun 2, 2005 18:30:50 GMT -4
Dear friend, also you don't know what to answer. That picture is faked. Also a child can see in it a foot-print in alto-rilievo. OK - so in answer to my speculation in another thread, I guess we're dealing with a child. |
|
|
|
Post by martin on Jun 2, 2005 20:12:51 GMT -4
You don't know what to answer and you are finding only a pretext. ;D ;D ;D Pretext for what? I do not care what rot you believe. When you can persuade others, then I think this is a problem, but I do not see any possibility of this. When you are complaining that others do not know what to answer, why do you not answer any of the questions (many dozens) which they are asking you? Also, why do you not show to us how stable is a helicopter without individual control of rotors? Your Darwin award is waiting on you... Martin |
|
|
|
Post by unknown on Jun 3, 2005 13:51:23 GMT -4
DaveC wrote:
"OK - so in answer to my speculation in another thread, I guess we're dealing with a child".
Thank you, only children see the truth. ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jun 3, 2005 13:55:38 GMT -4
Children also believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. That doesn't mean they're real.
|
|
|
|
Post by unknown on Jun 3, 2005 15:35:33 GMT -4
LunarOrbit wrote:
"Children also believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. That doesn't mean they're real.
And you believe that ridiculous Lunar Module, that old crock (assembled with tape) with only one rocket engine on the bottom can fly in hovering going backwards.
Haven't you still understood that if you push an object from the bottom it will roll down in any directions.
You must study mechanics of forces. I suggest you to begin with bending moment. ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jun 3, 2005 16:12:07 GMT -4
You might want to start by actually knowing what you're talking about.
1. "Bending moment" isn't what you're thinking about. Try Googling up another random term and see if we're any more impressed next time.
2. The descent stage motor was simple, robust, and rated for 10,000 lbs of thrust. You seem to think that the descent stage motor was the only reaction source on the LM, which is completely wrong. This was already explained to you.
3. You think that a rocket motor on the bottom = inherent instability. Also wrong. Jay has explained this at some length to you.
4. The LM didn't fly "backwards". This also was already explained to you.
5. Insults don't change the fact that anybody who actually has looked at the design can see that the LM is a marvel of functionality. In engineering, that's beautiful; it's not how "pretty" it looks. I'm sorry if you think that watching "Battlestar Galactica" on TV qualifies you to judge real-world spacecraft design.
6. The LM wasn't assembled with tape any more than an automobile is assembled with tape, despite the fact that both use tape to hold non-structural elements together. I've pointed out elsewhere that real spacecraft do indeed use tape, though not the kind you buy at the grocery store.
You made six major errors in one post. What did you say your qualifications were, again?
|
|
