Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

Am 17.10.2011 19:11, schrieb RD Sandman:
Thomas wrote in news:9g1qeuFioqU1
@mid.individual.net:

Am 16.10.2011 18:47, schrieb RD Sandman:
Thomas wrote in
:
...

This is the kind of stupidity that is so typical of the conspiracy
nuts


(Actually its not my business and I'm not a 'conspiracy nut'. )
..
...

Several here have tried. You aren't unique no matter what your mum
told
you. So far, none of their theories have held any more water than
yours
...


But if the ideas have their own value and are is some respect 'better'
(as explanation), than they sooner or later outrun the competitors.

Yes, but so far, the facts don't fit the conspiracy theories.

In the subjects you call 'conspiracies', there are several ideas, that
seem to be more 'true' (hence: 'truthers'), what gives these ideas
advantages over official explanations.

Only in the minds of those who have trouble handling the truth.

The 'truthers' will inevitably outrun official fairy tails, because
truth has advantages in explaining things.

Well, that happens (and it hasn't yet) it will be interesting....but so
far the truth remains and conspiracy theories are like weeds. If you
don't like the one you just saw, wait a bit and another will show up.

Certainly interesting...

What if these 'theories' are in fact true. Not every one of course, but
one of them. What would it tell you about the people in the government?
No good things, I guess.

Hope everything comes to a good end. But there are dangers and that is
the possibility of massive violence in your country.

This could not be beneficial for the rest of the world. My suggestion
would be, that Americans try to solve their issues, possibly in a
peaceful manner.

Greetings

Thomas

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 17.10.2011 19:11, schrieb RD Sandman:

Well, that happens (and it hasn't yet) it will be interesting....but so
far the truth remains and conspiracy theories are like weeds. If you
don't like the one you just saw, wait a bit and another will show up.

Certainly interesting...

What if these 'theories' are in fact true. Not every one of course, but
one of them. What would it tell you about the people in the government? No
good things, I guess.

Hope everything comes to a good end. But there are dangers and that is the
possibility of massive violence in your country.

This could not be beneficial for the rest of the world. My suggestion
would be, that Americans try to solve their issues, possibly in a peaceful
manner.

Greetings

Thomas

Maybe you should spend a bit of time studying some comparative history
Let's say comparing the US and Germany over the last 100 years
Do tell us which of the 2 countries has had more violence against it's own
people and against it's neighbors over the last 2 centuries
And how many people died because of those actions

Before you ignorantly tell others what they should be doing, I strongly
suggest that you make sure your own house is in order.

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

Wild dogs terrorizing Saint Louis.
http://www.drudgereport.com

The three S S S.Shoot, Shovel, and Shut Up.

They eat dogs in the Philippines?
cuhulin

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 17.10.2011 07:01, schrieb Scout:


..

For Earth orbit you need much faster flight than you would need to
stay in orbit around the moon, but nevertheless it is quite fast. On
Earth it took a Saturn V rocket, to lift the craft into orbit. On the
Moon it would take less fuel, but way more, than the few gallons, they
had in the lander.

Ok, let's see your math.

I mean if you know they needed more, then clearly you have calculated
all this out and know exactly how much they would need and whether they
could have that much on the lander.

So let's see your work.

---- Insert mathematical proof here.

Here I will even aid you with the specifications for the mass, amount of
fuel, type of fuel, specific impulse, thrust provided, available
delta-V, and so on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_...Specifications


Well, I'm a little too lazy, but a rough calculation is possible:

There is the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation
velocity_final=v_exhaust* ln(mass_start/mass_finish)

V_end= 2200 m/s * ln (4547 kg/(4547-2353) kg)

that is :
v_end approx. 1603 m/s

this is an estimated calculation without gravity.

the final velocity is reduced by
delta v = g_moon * (time of engine running)

Don't know that number (time_ engine)

Maybe 100 seconds (???)

makes:
delta v = 1.6 m/s²*100 s=160 m/s

What gives a rough estimate for the final velocity of the landers
ascending stage of
v_end = 1440 m/s.

Now the orbital velocity had to be compared. But I don't have the data and
actually I'm too lazy to find them out. But usual orbits should be a
little less than escape velocity, what is
v_orbit_escape = 2380 m/s.

V_end is a rough estimate ('thumb times pi'). For better calculations
someone with more experience in rocket science is needed.

I cannot even tell you, if the ascent stage is fast enough or not. But my
intuition tells me, it is not.


IOW, you don't know what the hell you're talking about, and you're too lazy
to do the work needed to find out if what you think actually has merit or is
simply bat **** crazy.

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 17.10.2011 19:11, schrieb RD Sandman:
Thomas wrote in news:9g1qeuFioqU1
@mid.individual.net:

Am 16.10.2011 18:47, schrieb RD Sandman:
Thomas wrote in
:
..

This is the kind of stupidity that is so typical of the conspiracy
nuts


(Actually its not my business and I'm not a 'conspiracy nut'. )
..
..

Several here have tried. You aren't unique no matter what your mum
told
you. So far, none of their theories have held any more water than
yours
..


But if the ideas have their own value and are is some respect 'better'
(as explanation), than they sooner or later outrun the competitors.

Yes, but so far, the facts don't fit the conspiracy theories.

In the subjects you call 'conspiracies', there are several ideas, that
seem to be more 'true' (hence: 'truthers'), what gives these ideas
advantages over official explanations.

Only in the minds of those who have trouble handling the truth.

The 'truthers' will inevitably outrun official fairy tails, because
truth has advantages in explaining things.

Well, that happens (and it hasn't yet) it will be interesting....but so
far the truth remains and conspiracy theories are like weeds. If you
don't like the one you just saw, wait a bit and another will show up.

Certainly interesting...

What if .....

you could actually stick to what you can prove rather than relying on
supposition, intuition, and poor reasoning?

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

"SaPeIsMa" wrote in
:


"Gray Guest" wrote in message
.100...
Thomas Heger wrote in news:9g1pg5FcguU1
@mid.individual.net:


Well, I would agree to 'just math and knowing where things are'.

But that 'just math' is quite challenging, if you have only a
handcranked 'computer' with a few k Ram.

And knowing where everything is is difficult, too. Today they have
GPS, that would help a lot - if installed at the moon.

But without radar and satellite navigation things are VERY di

Are you a complete and utter moron?

How do you think people navigated across open oceans or seas before all
that crap was invented?

How do you think navigators, navigated?

You will deny every aspect of reality to feed your delusions.


I'll also point out that in the 60s there were no handheld calculators
that did various algebraic and trigonometrical functions.
You had slide rules for 3 meaningful digits and log tables for more
meaningful digits.
And computers were mainframes that had very few real-time applications
where you could dynamically change the data set on the fly, and
immediately recalculate. Not to mention that their processing speed was
slower than a cheap $5 calculator you pick up at Walgreens or Wal-Mart.





How does he think ballistic calculations were done back then? American
warships were getting first shot hits on a moving target form a moving gun
platform in WWII! The moment guns could fire other than direct fire
ballistics became an issue and ballistic tables were generated - by hand.

Lordy, what has the world come to?

--
Words of wisdom

What does not kill you... probably didn't cause enough tissue damage.

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

Am 18.10.2011 10:14, schrieb Scout:


"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 17.10.2011 07:01, schrieb Scout:


..

For Earth orbit you need much faster flight than you would need to
stay in orbit around the moon, but nevertheless it is quite fast. On
Earth it took a Saturn V rocket, to lift the craft into orbit. On the
Moon it would take less fuel, but way more, than the few gallons, they
had in the lander.

Ok, let's see your math.

I mean if you know they needed more, then clearly you have calculated
all this out and know exactly how much they would need and whether they
could have that much on the lander.

So let's see your work.

---- Insert mathematical proof here.

Here I will even aid you with the specifications for the mass, amount of
fuel, type of fuel, specific impulse, thrust provided, available
delta-V, and so on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_...Specifications


Well, I'm a little too lazy, but a rough calculation is possible:

There is the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation
velocity_final=v_exhaust* ln(mass_start/mass_finish)

V_end= 2200 m/s * ln (4547 kg/(4547-2353) kg)

that is :
v_end approx. 1603 m/s

this is an estimated calculation without gravity.

the final velocity is reduced by
delta v = g_moon * (time of engine running)

Don't know that number (time_ engine)

Maybe 100 seconds (???)

makes:
delta v = 1.6 m/s²*100 s=160 m/s

What gives a rough estimate for the final velocity of the landers
ascending stage of
v_end = 1440 m/s.

Now the orbital velocity had to be compared. But I don't have the data
and actually I'm too lazy to find them out. But usual orbits should be
a little less than escape velocity, what is
v_orbit_escape = 2380 m/s.

V_end is a rough estimate ('thumb times pi'). For better calculations
someone with more experience in rocket science is needed.

I cannot even tell you, if the ascent stage is fast enough or not. But
my intuition tells me, it is not.


IOW, you don't know what the hell you're talking about, and you're too
lazy to do the work needed to find out if what you think actually has
merit or is simply bat **** crazy.


I haven't claimed to be a rocket scientist. I'm totally happy with an
rough estimate. I could do it better, for sure, but do not want.

The reason is, that to figure this out is not my business - as I have
written.

You gave me that link and demanded to tell, what's wrong with the Apollo
program. I made a few comments to the picture on that page.

Than you wanted a mathematical proof, that the lander could not reach
the orbiter with the fuel in the ascent stage.

I gave you a short version and explained, that better calculations are
certainly possible, but I don't want to provide them. You could do that,
if you like or ask somebody. It is not THAT difficult. (Maybe there are
simulators already or Mathematica packages. )

It is certainly more interesting for American people than for me as a
German. The reason is, that the Apollo program would allow to
understand, how your government actually acts.

Greetings from Berlin

TH

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

Thomas Heger wrote in news:9g42k9F672U1
@mid.individual.net:

Am 17.10.2011 19:11, schrieb RD Sandman:
Thomas wrote in news:9g1qeuFioqU1
@mid.individual.net:

Am 16.10.2011 18:47, schrieb RD Sandman:
Thomas wrote in
:
..

This is the kind of stupidity that is so typical of the conspiracy
nuts


(Actually its not my business and I'm not a 'conspiracy nut'. )
..
..

Several here have tried. You aren't unique no matter what your mum
told
you. So far, none of their theories have held any more water than
yours
..


But if the ideas have their own value and are is some respect
'better'
(as explanation), than they sooner or later outrun the competitors.

Yes, but so far, the facts don't fit the conspiracy theories.

In the subjects you call 'conspiracies', there are several ideas,
that
seem to be more 'true' (hence: 'truthers'), what gives these ideas
advantages over official explanations.

Only in the minds of those who have trouble handling the truth.

The 'truthers' will inevitably outrun official fairy tails, because
truth has advantages in explaining things.

Well, that happens (and it hasn't yet) it will be interesting....but
so
far the truth remains and conspiracy theories are like weeds. If you
don't like the one you just saw, wait a bit and another will show up.

Certainly interesting...

What if these 'theories' are in fact true.

So far, none of them have proved to be.

Not every one of course, but
one of them. What would it tell you about the people in the government?
No good things, I guess.

Most folks in government are just like you and me. They go to work, they
try to do a good job and then come home.

Hope everything comes to a good end. But there are dangers and that is
the possibility of massive violence in your country.

There is the possibility of violence in virtually all countries. Yours,
mine, the one across the river....

This could not be beneficial for the rest of the world. My suggestion
would be, that Americans try to solve their issues, possibly in a
peaceful manner.

We do. My suggestion is that you should mind your own business and fix
things in your country rather than to try and fit conspiracy theories to
ours.




--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)

Witnessing Republicans and Democrats bickering over
the National Debt is like watching two drunks argue
over a bar bill on the Titanic.....

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

Am 18.10.2011 18:27, schrieb RD Sandman:
Thomas wrote in news:9g42k9F672U1
@mid.individual.net:

What if these 'theories' are in fact true.

So far, none of them have proved to be.

Not every one of course, but
one of them. What would it tell you about the people in the government?
No good things, I guess.

Most folks in government are just like you and me. They go to work, they
try to do a good job and then come home.



I do not agree. Do you know, why 'conspiracy theories' bear this name?
The claim is actually, that there are hidden forces, that try to
manipulate the society by hidden means.

Since they are hidden, these issues are not openly discussed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeYgLLahHv8

I really liked JFK and especially this speech..


Hope everything comes to a good end. But there are dangers and that is
the possibility of massive violence in your country.

There is the possibility of violence in virtually all countries. Yours,
mine, the one across the river....

This could not be beneficial for the rest of the world. My suggestion
would be, that Americans try to solve their issues, possibly in a
peaceful manner.

We do. My suggestion is that you should mind your own business and fix
things in your country rather than to try and fit conspiracy theories to
ours.


Well this is in fact true and everything you can do in reality is local.
So I try to fix things in my neighbourhood or in my own vicinity.

But the UseNet gives us the unique opportunity to discuss such subjects
around the globe, almost in realtime.


TH

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 18.10.2011 10:14, schrieb Scout:


"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 17.10.2011 07:01, schrieb Scout:


..

For Earth orbit you need much faster flight than you would need to
stay in orbit around the moon, but nevertheless it is quite fast. On
Earth it took a Saturn V rocket, to lift the craft into orbit. On the
Moon it would take less fuel, but way more, than the few gallons, they
had in the lander.

Ok, let's see your math.

I mean if you know they needed more, then clearly you have calculated
all this out and know exactly how much they would need and whether they
could have that much on the lander.

So let's see your work.

---- Insert mathematical proof here.

Here I will even aid you with the specifications for the mass, amount
of
fuel, type of fuel, specific impulse, thrust provided, available
delta-V, and so on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_...Specifications


Well, I'm a little too lazy, but a rough calculation is possible:

There is the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation
velocity_final=v_exhaust* ln(mass_start/mass_finish)

V_end= 2200 m/s * ln (4547 kg/(4547-2353) kg)

that is :
v_end approx. 1603 m/s

this is an estimated calculation without gravity.

the final velocity is reduced by
delta v = g_moon * (time of engine running)

Don't know that number (time_ engine)

Maybe 100 seconds (???)

makes:
delta v = 1.6 m/s²*100 s=160 m/s

What gives a rough estimate for the final velocity of the landers
ascending stage of
v_end = 1440 m/s.

Now the orbital velocity had to be compared. But I don't have the data
and actually I'm too lazy to find them out. But usual orbits should be
a little less than escape velocity, what is
v_orbit_escape = 2380 m/s.

V_end is a rough estimate ('thumb times pi'). For better calculations
someone with more experience in rocket science is needed.

I cannot even tell you, if the ascent stage is fast enough or not. But
my intuition tells me, it is not.


IOW, you don't know what the hell you're talking about, and you're too
lazy to do the work needed to find out if what you think actually has
merit or is simply bat **** crazy.


I haven't claimed to be a rocket scientist. I'm totally happy with an
rough estimate. I could do it better, for sure, but do not want.

What you have isn't even a rought estimate that applies. You simply threw
some stuff up there, came up with some answers, but didn't use the data from
the apollo program, which it should be noted I was even nice enough to lead
you to by the hand, much less show that the results produced proved that a
landing and take-off physically could not occur given those conditions. You
simply flopped around trying to put together an argument.

Free hint: If you're going to say someone else is lying, then you need to
make sure you have your ducks in a row and can PROVE IT.

All you've shown is that you are an empty headed conspiracy theorist, with
lots of notions, but no facts, no proof, and from all evidence absolutely NO
desire to find out what the facts really are.

snip