|
Post by alex04 on Aug 1, 2007 3:00:56 GMT -4
Sorry Count Zero -
what i meant was - if the craft was released from zero velocity - from a slightly conservative altitude - say 300kms
Im just entertaining the absurd notion in my head that if it were possible to brake the craft to zero velocity @ say 300kms - maybe it would survive a direct freefall? (with chutes of course!)
|
|
|
Post by alex04 on Aug 1, 2007 2:32:20 GMT -4
Furthermore, the capsule still needs to drop through the atmosphere even if slowed by the engines, so that aspect isn’t removed no matter what you do. In fact there is actually a higher peak g-load if the capsule drops at a steeper angle from a slower velocity. to ask a very hypothetic (and naive!) question, what if you managed to get the spacecraft to zero velocity, and then allowed for a free-fall? thanks for the comments guys, interesting stuff
|
|
|
Post by alex04 on Aug 1, 2007 0:28:33 GMT -4
I realise that the situations were totally different c.zero, but i understand now that basically the point is - that the amount of fuel required to an about-face towards earth is negligible, compared with trying to slowing capsule right down for re-entry thanks
|
|
|
Post by alex04 on Jul 31, 2007 23:54:12 GMT -4
Regarding atmospheric re-entry,
when i was younger i used to wonder why space-craft couldn't simply fire the engines to reduce the re-entry speed to make it a less dangerous affair - i arrived at the conclusion that maybe there wouldn't be enough fuel for this.
However in the Apollo 13 mission (yes, from watching the movie ;D) after the explosion they briefly considered the option of doing a direct abort with the main engine, which i think would require considerably more fuel - bearing in mind though that i'm not aware of the velocity of the spacecraft at this time).
So what's the real reason why they don't simply fire the engine to reduce the re-entry speed? (i'm guessing there may be a number of complicated reasons i'm not aware of).
|
|
|
Post by alex04 on Jul 20, 2007 8:14:50 GMT -4
No stars! it's a fake!! And another moon in the background? is it the 'moons' moon? hehe
j/k
Nice picture.. wow, you drew it?
|
|
|
Post by alex04 on Jul 21, 2007 10:40:23 GMT -4
Surely it could have been avoided if she had changed the manner of how she had asked the question though? She probably hadn't intended it to come across the way it did, but it certainly came across to me as a pompous HB question (and everyone else evidently), hence the responses.
|
|
|
Post by alex04 on Jul 19, 2007 19:45:02 GMT -4
thanks Tanalia ;D
|
|
|
Post by alex04 on Jul 19, 2007 2:25:31 GMT -4
*chortles*
^^was that originally posted on this forum? ;D
|
|
|
Post by alex04 on Jul 15, 2007 6:11:26 GMT -4
I'm watching this right now, good to be able to put a face to Jay's name!
Great work Jay!
|
|
|
Post by alex04 on Nov 21, 2007 6:43:35 GMT -4
But I wouldn't be surprised if some hardcore HB (Jarah, Percy, Jack White) still maintain the hoax. I think the ones with commercial interests will. Something new will definitely turn up... <HB mode:activate>"Those supposed Apollo lading sites were actually set up by NASA apologist agents over the last 20 years. You know all those "highly classified" military shuttle flights? They were actually satellites sent to the moon to drop mock-up LM descent stages, Rovers and fake experiment packages at the "landing sites". And I have proof of this too. I got a letter from a guy who met someone who overheard a conversation at a truck stop about someone on the internet talking about some guy he talked to in a Moon Hoax Conspiracy chat room who said he "accidentally" got e-mailed details about a highly classified military project at NASA. And it has to be true because that truck stop in question was in Florida a mere 325 miles from Cape Kennedy. Unfortunately the truck stop got bulldozed recently to make way for a Wal-Mart, the guy who overheard the conversation died at age 97 under "mysterious circumstances" and the e-mail address for the guy who "accidentally" received the information now comes back as "undeliverable". But that's all part of the "Master Plan" to cover their tracks. But its all 100% true... ...and its all documented in the 565-page book and Collector's Edition 5-disc DVD combo-set I'm selling for $179.95 (plus S&H) on my website www.a-funny-thing-happened-on-the-way-to-the-truck-stop.info ..." <HB mode:deactivate> Cz no doubt the response will be along those lines. Don't know why the government over the last 10 years, would be bothered to spend billions of dollars just to protect the reputation of the government back in the 60s/70s though
|
|
|
Post by alex04 on Dec 30, 2007 6:05:16 GMT -4
The "undebunkable" moon hoax video mentioned earlier at: www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmQ8UPekwTUshows prolonged movement after the astronaut walks by. I can count at least 25 swings of the flag corner. I believe that type of reaction would be impossible in an atmosphere. MichaelStMark obviously disagrees. Go to 9:00 in the video and count for yourself. Michael has changed his position so many times (from 20 to 10 seconds of movement after the astronaut passes, breeze assisted to no breeze, indoors to outdoors, etc.) that he now says the "apparent" prolonged flag movement is caused by "picture instability". He says I just need to open my eyes! If any of you feel up to it, would you take a look for yourself and add your opinion? If you're lucky, maybe Michael won't censor your comment and allow it to post! My last comment was censored. It was quite reasonable and i was trying to stay onside with him. I consider MichaelStMark exposed as a coward and a liar.
|
|
|
Post by alex04 on Dec 24, 2007 2:46:30 GMT -4
The "undebunkable" moon hoax video mentioned earlier at: www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmQ8UPekwTUshows prolonged movement after the astronaut walks by. I can count at least 25 swings of the flag corner. I believe that type of reaction would be impossible in an atmosphere. MichaelStMark obviously disagrees. Go to 9:00 in the video and count for yourself. Michael has changed his position so many times (from 20 to 10 seconds of movement after the astronaut passes, breeze assisted to no breeze, indoors to outdoors, etc.) that he now says the "apparent" prolonged flag movement is caused by "picture instability". He says I just need to open my eyes! If any of you feel up to it, would you take a look for yourself and add your opinion? If you're lucky, maybe Michael won't censor your comment and allow it to post! Does anyone know where i can find the exact 'complete' source footage of the video in question here? (at 9minutes, and 3:07)?
|
|
|
Post by alex04 on Dec 16, 2007 16:12:03 GMT -4
i had a quick look, will have a proper look later. I imagine that if it was fake, as he's trying to make out it is - this would be a simple experiment to replicate here on earth.
Obviously, the objectivity of someone's research starts to become a little suspect, once they start using the word 'undebunkable'.
In my experience, 'Undebunkable', is the first of a two stage life-cycle for conspiracy-theorist 'evidence'. Once you've finally gone to a ridiculous amount of effort to point out the fallacies in their theories (you know, getting past the arguing and name calling), the evidence then becomes 'misinformation'.
|
|
|
Post by alex04 on Dec 1, 2007 20:06:10 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by alex04 on Nov 9, 2007 16:28:18 GMT -4
Wow! I didn't know about the Forum; could you give me a URL? +1, i wanna bookmark this forum ;D
|
|