|
|
Post by dragonblaster on Sept 6, 2009 16:18:03 GMT -4
It's the only conceivable obstacle to human lunar flight that would not also block robotic missions. So why didn't they just say the command module was covered in a layer of unobtanium, or even that it had lead lining - a few extra tons here and there could have been covered by a small exaggeration in Saturn V's lift capability. Why did NASA post diagrams of the CM skin composition if cursory examination would have shown it unequal to the task? |
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Sept 7, 2009 15:42:42 GMT -4
So why didn't they just say the command module was covered in a layer of unobtanium, or even that it had lead lining - a few extra tons here and there could have been covered by a small exaggeration in Saturn V's lift capability. Why did NASA post diagrams of the CM skin composition if cursory examination would have shown it unequal to the task? Because "whistleblowers" had to make NASA slip up in ways that only the clever HBs could eventually detect, naturally. These mistakes are far too subtle for mere mortals like conventionally trained engineers and scientists to detect, you understand. Even when an "obvious anomaly" is pointed out to us, we still refuse to see it. Obviously we Apollogists are deep into denial...  |
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Dec 6, 2009 18:17:55 GMT -4
This wasnt a contradiction, but it breaks my brain nonetheless. Not five minutes ago, an CT claimed that, in 1969, they thought 2,500. My brain, my poor, innocent, brain.
|
|
|
|
Post by homobibiens on Dec 6, 2009 18:44:35 GMT -4
This wasnt a contradiction, but it breaks my brain nonetheless. Not five minutes ago, an CT claimed that, in 1969, they thought 2,500. My brain, my poor, innocent, brain. They thought 2,500 what? |
|
|
|
Post by slang on Dec 6, 2009 19:43:25 GMT -4
Exactly. Lethal poison for the poor, innocent, brain. Another contradiction, as noted by Laurel on BAUT: Ed White was supposedly killed for not wanting to be part of any moonlanding hoax, but apparently he didn't mind at all faking his Gemini 4 first American space walk. |
|
|
|
Post by homobibiens on Dec 6, 2009 22:41:57 GMT -4
Exactly. Lethal poison for the poor, innocent, brain. I am still completely in the dark as to what "They thought 2,500" means here. |
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Dec 7, 2009 4:26:47 GMT -4
Oh gods I am sorry. I must have hit reply without thinking. Brace yourselves.
The creature in questions thinks that they thought the moon was 2,500 miles away in 1969.
Sorry, the idiocracy if the comment must have been infectious.
To quote noble Homer, "D'oh!"
|
|
|
|
Post by homobibiens on Dec 7, 2009 4:33:42 GMT -4
OK, now I understand the nature of the gross injustice committed against your poor innocent brain While I find it entirely believable that there were people in 1969 who thought the Apollo launch site in Florida was closer to the moon than it was to Paris, I seriously doubt any of those people worked for NASA or any of the contracting agencies. Well, not in any important position, at least. Maybe one of the people who took out the trash at NASA believed the moon was 2,500 miles away, that is possible, but I don't think anyone planning the mission, designing/building any of the equipment, etc. would have thought this. |
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Dec 8, 2009 7:19:32 GMT -4
The creature in questions thinks that they thought the moon was 2,500 miles away in 1969. If you can, ask him to quote his source, and feel free to mention the following: The moon's distance, 1950: Pears Cyclopaedia, Sixtieth Edition; Editor L. Mary Barker, B.Sc. (Lond.); A. & F. Pears Ltd, Isleworth, Middlesex, England; Autumn 1950; page 612: Moon, the earth's satellite, is distant from us 238,857 miles. It is a globe 2,160 miles in diameter... And further back, 1926: Webster's New International Dictionary; Editor In Chief, W. T. Harris, PH.D., LL.D.; G. & C. Merriam Company, Springfield, Mass., USA; 1926; page 1403: The moon's diameter is 2,162 miles; mean distance from the earth, about 238,840 miles; mass, about one eightieth that of the earth, and volume, about one forty-ninth. Those are two books I have at home. Further research would likely show that the moon's distance from earth was fairly accurately known many years before they were published. |
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Dec 8, 2009 11:26:48 GMT -4
Further research would likely show that the moon's distance from earth was fairly accurately known many years before they were published. The earliest book in my collection is The Heavens by Amedee Guillemin, Richard Bentley & Son, London, 1883. On p115 we have "According to the latest researches of Professor Adams, the mean distance of the centres of the Earth and the Moon is 238,793 miles" |
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Dec 8, 2009 18:09:59 GMT -4
I provided a link showing that the Ancient GREEKS could and did figure out a very good approximation using eclipses. And yes, I asked repeatedly for sources for their claim. The closest I got to a response was "Library books". Ouch, ouch, ouch.  |
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Dec 8, 2009 19:10:42 GMT -4
The creature in questions thinks that they thought the moon was 2,500 miles away in 1969. If you can, ask him to quote his source, and feel free to mention the following: The moon's distance, 1950: Pears Cyclopaedia, Sixtieth Edition; Editor L. Mary Barker, B.Sc. (Lond.); A. & F. Pears Ltd, Isleworth, Middlesex, England; Autumn 1950; page 612: Moon, the earth's satellite, is distant from us 238,857 miles. It is a globe 2,160 miles in diameter... And further back, 1926: Webster's New International Dictionary; Editor In Chief, W. T. Harris, PH.D., LL.D.; G. & C. Merriam Company, Springfield, Mass., USA; 1926; page 1403: The moon's diameter is 2,162 miles; mean distance from the earth, about 238,840 miles; mass, about one eightieth that of the earth, and volume, about one forty-ninth. Those are two books I have at home. Further research would likely show that the moon's distance from earth was fairly accurately known many years before they were published. from "The Moon: A Popular Treatise" by Garvett P. Serviss (1907) www.archive.org/stream/moonpopulartreat00servuoft#page/n7/mode/2up |
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Dec 8, 2009 20:13:20 GMT -4
OK, so we have four pre-Apollo sources, three of which are pre-rocketry in general. A quick analysis shows that even the earliest was within half of a percentage point of the current mean orbital distance as given by Wolfram|Alpha:
238793 (1883)
239000 (1907)
238840 (1926)
238857 (1950)
239200 (current average from W|A)
238004 (current average -0.5%)
Somewhat surprisingly though, the 1907 figure is closest. Does anyone have any more authoritative sources for the lunar orbital distance?
|
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Dec 8, 2009 23:39:15 GMT -4
Maybe they saw it in scientific notation and didn't understand it?
|
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Dec 9, 2009 10:12:28 GMT -4
How do you get "2500" from "2.39x10^5" though?
|
|
