|
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
"RD Sandman" wrote in message ... "Scout" wrote in : "Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 14.10.2011 18:37, schrieb Thomas Heger: Am 14.10.2011 02:22, schrieb RHF: On Oct 13, 11:48 am, Thomas wrote: Am 13.10.2011 06:34, schrieb John Smith: On 10/12/2011 2:11 PM, RHF wrote: On Oct 12, 11:43 am, Thomas wrote: Am 11.10.2011 18:50, schrieb SaPeIsMa: -- .. Now please - think about the Apollo mission and how the Americans got ripped off... TH TH, please tell us all just how the Apollo {Manned} Mission to the Moon and Back was a 'rip-off' . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program one does wonder . . . ~ RHF Usually I don't maintain threads about guns. I have more interest in the Apollo program and did my personal kind of 'research' on that subject. (Mainly reading articles, following links on the internet, watching films on YouTube and so forth). Than I discuss my findings in forums like this one. About the moon landing I have found a lot of inconsistencies within the pictures taken. My conclusion is, that these pictures were faked - not even particularly sophisticated. Since You most certainly don't trust me, I give you an example. (Only one) Look at this picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ap...unar_orbit.jpg It shows the lunar orbiter and the moon. Since there is no other choice, the photo was obviously taken from the landing module 'Eagle'. But the term 'orbiter' refers to the orbit, this vehicle keeps, while the lander lands. Landing zone is usually below the orbit, hence the lander cannot take photos from the orbiter with the moon in the back. Certainly it can. Depending on the orbits used, the lander can easily "descend" upon the orbiter. Indeed it is typical after undocking to go to a slightly higher orbit to allow the orbiting craft/station to pass under you (lower orbit being faster) until it clears the area, and then when you come up on the point to begin your de-orbit burn the area is clear, as no matter what you do at that point the other craft is only going to move further away from you. If you tried to go a lower orbit move ahead of the orbiting craft and then try to de-orbit the orbiting craft would be catching up to you as you slowed and if you accidently "ballooned up" a bit because your angle was slightly off....you could possibly even run into each other. Not a good thing. Nor do you want to wait forever for the gap to open up enough as your time in space is strictly limited. Safer to simply move a bit higher, let it pass under you and then there is no possibility of that occurring. And gee, while you're sitting there you snap a picture out the window and *poof* the planet/moon is in the background. SOB. So if this is your BEST evidence, then this is really going to blow your socks off. "The International Space Station photographed following separation from the Space Shuttle Endeavour in 2001." http://news.medinfo.ufl.edu/articles...scovery-prompt s-development-of-space-radiation-sensors/ Damn, is that the EARTH in the background? "Last August, the Space Shuttle Endeavour crew captured this shot of the International Space Station (ISS) against the backdrop of Planet Earth. " http://www.astronomy-pictures.net/na..._pictures.html Damn, there it is again. "International Space Station (ISS), March 2011, taken from the Space Shuttle Discovery after undocking at the end of its mission to the ISS" http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/395325/enlarge And again. Damn, one might even see this as a theme. "The international space station, shown here in a photo taken from the shuttle Discovery in June" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26441443/ So tell me does this mean the International Space Station is a fraud, or shall we simply consider the possibility that what you see as photographic flaws are really just a symptom of your ignorance of the mechanics of space flight? Scout....if he lived in the US he would be a 911 truther. He is purely looking for some conspiracy to believe in. That and showing he has absolutely NO capacity for research, investigation or critical thought. I bet I can give him something that will really blow his mind. In orbit you go faster to slow down, and slow down to go faster. That should make his head simply implode. :-P |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
On Oct 14, 4:18*pm, "Scout"
wrote: "Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 14.10.2011 18:46, schrieb Thomas Heger: Am 14.10.2011 18:37, schrieb Thomas Heger: Am 14.10.2011 02:22, schrieb RHF: On Oct 13, 11:48 am, Thomas wrote: Am 13.10.2011 06:34, schrieb John Smith: On 10/12/2011 2:11 PM, RHF wrote: On Oct 12, 11:43 am, Thomas wrote: Am 11.10.2011 18:50, schrieb SaPeIsMa: -- .. Now please - think about the Apollo mission and how the Americans got ripped off... TH TH, please tell us all just how the Apollo {Manned} Mission to the Moon and Back was a 'rip-off' . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program one does wonder . . . ~ RHF Usually I don't maintain threads about guns. I have more interest in the Apollo program and did my personal kind of 'research' on that subject.. (Mainly reading articles, following links on the internet, watching films on YouTube and so forth). Than I discuss my findings in forums like this one. About the moon landing I have found a lot of inconsistencies within the pictures taken. My conclusion is, that these pictures were faked - not even particularly sophisticated. Since You most certainly don't trust me, I give you an example. (Only one) Look at this picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ap...unar_orbit.jpg It shows the lunar orbiter and the moon. Since there is no other choice, the photo was obviously taken from the landing module 'Eagle'. But the term 'orbiter' refers to the orbit, this vehicle keeps, while the lander lands. Landing zone is usually below the orbit, hence the lander cannot take photos from the orbiter with the moon in the back. There are - of course - more anomalies within this single photo. to name a few: If the orbiter was such an elaborated piece of engineering and certainly very expensive. Why does it look like a tin can, Because it basically was a tin can. Weight is everything in space flight (particularly back then) and so you kept everything at the minimum possible weight. Thus the "tin can" appearance. with something glued upon ? E.g. the lettering 'United States' misses half of the 'A'. Because it probably was. If you notice there are a row of little dimples or bumps down the length of the module, and the decal is located over this row of dimples/bumps. If you look at the high res scan of it you can see this most clearly. http://next.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-88-11963HR.jpg Now, on launch the craft is subjected to rather significant air flow and turbulence. It seems quite probable that when the air pressure during launch pressed against the decal it stretched it into those dimples/bumps and the lettering (which was probably printed on) either flaked off, stretched out of shape or otherwise became lost/distorted. There are crosses, that should be all of the same size, but are not. They aren't the same size. The center and I believe the outer corners were oversized. The high res and uncropped photo link above. The conic tip would reflect only the surface and possibly the lander. Yep, so? But we see something different, because there seem to be something reflected, where darkness should be. You did note that the module is in a NOSE DOWN attitude? That's going to impact what is being reflected. The contrast of the orbiter seems much higher than on the surface, but the difference in luminosity should be greater on the surface (the surface should have higher contrast). That would depend on a number of items. Film, shutter speed, aperture, focal length, Heck it might even, gasp, be a different camera. I mean you are aware that they used a different camera on the surface than they did for the one they used for the in orbit shots? Indeed, consider for a second your own thoughts. Now would you get greater contrast with a moderately lit object against a brightly lit background. Or in an environment in which everything is subject to high illumination? Keeping in mind you're going to have to change shutter speed and/or aperture in order to keep from over exposing the film. Some of the rivets look like painted. Anyhow, 'rivets' wouldn't be the most durable joint. Actually a riveted joint is quite durable. Look at all the bridges a 100+ years old that were riveted. Further a rivet doesn't have the stress risers you find on a screw, and it has a larger effective cross sectional area. That means more strength in a lighter weight fastener. Remembering that every ounce matters. This metal piece near the conic tip looks rusty (?). If you mean the piece directly above the attitude jet. Yes, it does seem discolored. Bet you would be discolored too if subjected to the high temperature bursts of some rather nasty chemicals used in those thrusters.. I will simply note you apparently haven't even bothered to do an in-depth analysis of something you claim was faked. As such your conclusions seem based on ignorance more than because anything is wrong with the photos. Whole Lot of 'Rivets' in Aircraft . . . well at least until composite-structures became the norm. |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
Am 15.10.2011 02:05, schrieb Scout:
"RD Sandman" wrote in message ... "Scout" wrote in : "Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 14.10.2011 18:37, schrieb Thomas Heger: Am 14.10.2011 02:22, schrieb RHF: On Oct 13, 11:48 am, Thomas wrote: Am 13.10.2011 06:34, schrieb John Smith: On 10/12/2011 2:11 PM, RHF wrote: On Oct 12, 11:43 am, Thomas wrote: Am 11.10.2011 18:50, schrieb SaPeIsMa: -- .. Now please - think about the Apollo mission and how the Americans got ripped off... TH TH, please tell us all just how the Apollo {Manned} Mission to the Moon and Back was a 'rip-off' . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program one does wonder . . . ~ RHF Usually I don't maintain threads about guns. I have more interest in the Apollo program and did my personal kind of 'research' on that subject. (Mainly reading articles, following links on the internet, watching films on YouTube and so forth). Than I discuss my findings in forums like this one. About the moon landing I have found a lot of inconsistencies within the pictures taken. My conclusion is, that these pictures were faked - not even particularly sophisticated. Since You most certainly don't trust me, I give you an example. (Only one) Look at this picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ap...unar_orbit.jpg It shows the lunar orbiter and the moon. Since there is no other choice, the photo was obviously taken from the landing module 'Eagle'. But the term 'orbiter' refers to the orbit, this vehicle keeps, while the lander lands. Landing zone is usually below the orbit, hence the lander cannot take photos from the orbiter with the moon in the back. Certainly it can. Depending on the orbits used, the lander can easily "descend" upon the orbiter. Indeed it is typical after undocking to go to a slightly higher orbit to allow the orbiting craft/station to pass under you (lower orbit being faster) until it clears the area, and then when you come up on the point to begin your de-orbit burn the area is clear, as no matter what you do at that point the other craft is only going to move further away from you. If you tried to go a lower orbit move ahead of the orbiting craft and then try to de-orbit the orbiting craft would be catching up to you as you slowed and if you accidently "ballooned up" a bit because your angle was slightly off....you could possibly even run into each other. Not a good thing. Nor do you want to wait forever for the gap to open up enough as your time in space is strictly limited. Safer to simply move a bit higher, let it pass under you and then there is no possibility of that occurring. And gee, while you're sitting there you snap a picture out the window and *poof* the planet/moon is in the background. SOB. So if this is your BEST evidence, then this is really going to blow your socks off. "The International Space Station photographed following separation from the Space Shuttle Endeavour in 2001." http://news.medinfo.ufl.edu/articles...scovery-prompt s-development-of-space-radiation-sensors/ Damn, is that the EARTH in the background? "Last August, the Space Shuttle Endeavour crew captured this shot of the International Space Station (ISS) against the backdrop of Planet Earth. " http://www.astronomy-pictures.net/na..._pictures.html Damn, there it is again. "International Space Station (ISS), March 2011, taken from the Space Shuttle Discovery after undocking at the end of its mission to the ISS" http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/395325/enlarge And again. Damn, one might even see this as a theme. "The international space station, shown here in a photo taken from the shuttle Discovery in June" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26441443/ So tell me does this mean the International Space Station is a fraud, or shall we simply consider the possibility that what you see as photographic flaws are really just a symptom of your ignorance of the mechanics of space flight? Scout....if he lived in the US he would be a 911 truther. He is purely looking for some conspiracy to believe in. Actually you can be a 'truther' and live outside the USA. I did some sort of 'research' on 9-11, too. Actually I have an own 'theory', that circles around flight 93. There seems to be a plot. This is the picture - or story- that was intended, but not achieved. Actually Mr.Bush messed it up (in my assumption). It goes like this: I call it a 'dance of planes and falling skyscrapers'. The original plot was, that north tower gets hit, south tower gets hit, pentagon gets hit. South tower falls down, flight 93 hits building 7, north tower falls down, building 7 falls down. (South tower had to fall first, because building 7 is behind it). Instead the flight was delayed and Mr. President so perplexed, that he had to think about a solution very hard (and for several minutes). Than he gave order to shoot down the plane, what was promptly done. Flight 93 was apparently approaching Indean Lake Airpark, but didn't. make it there and fell in parts into the Indean Lake. Later on the WTC 7 fell without a hit. Actually I don't like the term 'truther'. And I don't like the term 'conspiracy theory', but these phrases are commonly used. I think, if the government does does something illegal, than this isn't a conspiracy. Its just illegal. That and showing he has absolutely NO capacity for research, investigation or critical thought. I bet I can give him something that will really blow his mind. In orbit you go faster to slow down, and slow down to go faster. The decline from orbit is a difficult subject, too. Imagine a space capsule in Moon orbit. There is no air. To land and to stop the craft in horizontal movement, you need to fire the engine in reverse thrust (against flight direction). This is not seen on any of the films or pictures. And it is - of course - difficult and fuel consuming. The opposite is even more difficult and that is to restart and making the rendezvous with the orbiter. This is next to impossible, because there is no assistance from the ground, helping to correct the flight path (nobody there, on moon surface). And completely impossible is, to store the needed fuel in a single craft. (No gas station there, neither). TH |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
"Scout" wrote in
: "RD Sandman" wrote in message ... "Scout" wrote in : "Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 14.10.2011 18:37, schrieb Thomas Heger: Am 14.10.2011 02:22, schrieb RHF: On Oct 13, 11:48 am, Thomas wrote: Am 13.10.2011 06:34, schrieb John Smith: On 10/12/2011 2:11 PM, RHF wrote: On Oct 12, 11:43 am, Thomas wrote: Am 11.10.2011 18:50, schrieb SaPeIsMa: -- .. Now please - think about the Apollo mission and how the Americans got ripped off... TH TH, please tell us all just how the Apollo {Manned} Mission to the Moon and Back was a 'rip-off' . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program one does wonder . . . ~ RHF Usually I don't maintain threads about guns. I have more interest in the Apollo program and did my personal kind of 'research' on that subject. (Mainly reading articles, following links on the internet, watching films on YouTube and so forth). Than I discuss my findings in forums like this one. About the moon landing I have found a lot of inconsistencies within the pictures taken. My conclusion is, that these pictures were faked - not even particularly sophisticated. Since You most certainly don't trust me, I give you an example. (Only one) Look at this picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ap...unar_orbit.jpg It shows the lunar orbiter and the moon. Since there is no other choice, the photo was obviously taken from the landing module 'Eagle'. But the term 'orbiter' refers to the orbit, this vehicle keeps, while the lander lands. Landing zone is usually below the orbit, hence the lander cannot take photos from the orbiter with the moon in the back. Certainly it can. Depending on the orbits used, the lander can easily "descend" upon the orbiter. Indeed it is typical after undocking to go to a slightly higher orbit to allow the orbiting craft/station to pass under you (lower orbit being faster) until it clears the area, and then when you come up on the point to begin your de-orbit burn the area is clear, as no matter what you do at that point the other craft is only going to move further away from you. If you tried to go a lower orbit move ahead of the orbiting craft and then try to de-orbit the orbiting craft would be catching up to you as you slowed and if you accidently "ballooned up" a bit because your angle was slightly off....you could possibly even run into each other. Not a good thing. Nor do you want to wait forever for the gap to open up enough as your time in space is strictly limited. Safer to simply move a bit higher, let it pass under you and then there is no possibility of that occurring. And gee, while you're sitting there you snap a picture out the window and *poof* the planet/moon is in the background. SOB. So if this is your BEST evidence, then this is really going to blow your socks off. "The International Space Station photographed following separation from the Space Shuttle Endeavour in 2001." http://news.medinfo.ufl.edu/articles...discovery-prom pt s-development-of-space-radiation-sensors/ Damn, is that the EARTH in the background? "Last August, the Space Shuttle Endeavour crew captured this shot of the International Space Station (ISS) against the backdrop of Planet Earth. " http://www.astronomy-pictures.net/na..._pictures.html Damn, there it is again. "International Space Station (ISS), March 2011, taken from the Space Shuttle Discovery after undocking at the end of its mission to the ISS" http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/395325/enlarge And again. Damn, one might even see this as a theme. "The international space station, shown here in a photo taken from the shuttle Discovery in June" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26441443/ So tell me does this mean the International Space Station is a fraud, or shall we simply consider the possibility that what you see as photographic flaws are really just a symptom of your ignorance of the mechanics of space flight? Scout....if he lived in the US he would be a 911 truther. He is purely looking for some conspiracy to believe in. That and showing he has absolutely NO capacity for research, investigation or critical thought. I bet I can give him something that will really blow his mind. In orbit you go faster to slow down, and slow down to go faster. Surprisingly, that works. That should make his head simply implode. :-P -- 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 ...
Thomas Heger wrote in
: Am 15.10.2011 02:05, schrieb Scout: "RD Sandman" wrote in message ... "Scout" wrote in : "Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 14.10.2011 18:37, schrieb Thomas Heger: Am 14.10.2011 02:22, schrieb RHF: On Oct 13, 11:48 am, Thomas wrote: Am 13.10.2011 06:34, schrieb John Smith: On 10/12/2011 2:11 PM, RHF wrote: On Oct 12, 11:43 am, Thomas wrote: Am 11.10.2011 18:50, schrieb SaPeIsMa: -- .. Now please - think about the Apollo mission and how the Americans got ripped off... TH TH, please tell us all just how the Apollo {Manned} Mission to the Moon and Back was a 'rip-off' . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program one does wonder . . . ~ RHF Usually I don't maintain threads about guns. I have more interest in the Apollo program and did my personal kind of 'research' on that subject. (Mainly reading articles, following links on the internet, watching films on YouTube and so forth). Than I discuss my findings in forums like this one. About the moon landing I have found a lot of inconsistencies within the pictures taken. My conclusion is, that these pictures were faked - not even particularly sophisticated. Since You most certainly don't trust me, I give you an example. (Only one) Look at this picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ap...unar_orbit.jpg It shows the lunar orbiter and the moon. Since there is no other choice, the photo was obviously taken from the landing module 'Eagle'. But the term 'orbiter' refers to the orbit, this vehicle keeps, while the lander lands. Landing zone is usually below the orbit, hence the lander cannot take photos from the orbiter with the moon in the back. Certainly it can. Depending on the orbits used, the lander can easily "descend" upon the orbiter. Indeed it is typical after undocking to go to a slightly higher orbit to allow the orbiting craft/station to pass under you (lower orbit being faster) until it clears the area, and then when you come up on the point to begin your de-orbit burn the area is clear, as no matter what you do at that point the other craft is only going to move further away from you. If you tried to go a lower orbit move ahead of the orbiting craft and then try to de-orbit the orbiting craft would be catching up to you as you slowed and if you accidently "ballooned up" a bit because your angle was slightly off....you could possibly even run into each other. Not a good thing. Nor do you want to wait forever for the gap to open up enough as your time in space is strictly limited. Safer to simply move a bit higher, let it pass under you and then there is no possibility of that occurring. And gee, while you're sitting there you snap a picture out the window and *poof* the planet/moon is in the background. SOB. So if this is your BEST evidence, then this is really going to blow your socks off. "The International Space Station photographed following separation from the Space Shuttle Endeavour in 2001." http://news.medinfo.ufl.edu/articles...-discovery-pro mpt s-development-of-space-radiation-sensors/ Damn, is that the EARTH in the background? "Last August, the Space Shuttle Endeavour crew captured this shot of the International Space Station (ISS) against the backdrop of Planet Earth. " http://www.astronomy-pictures.net/na..._pictures.html Damn, there it is again. "International Space Station (ISS), March 2011, taken from the Space Shuttle Discovery after undocking at the end of its mission to the ISS" http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/395325/enlarge And again. Damn, one might even see this as a theme. "The international space station, shown here in a photo taken from the shuttle Discovery in June" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26441443/ So tell me does this mean the International Space Station is a fraud, or shall we simply consider the possibility that what you see as photographic flaws are really just a symptom of your ignorance of the mechanics of space flight? Scout....if he lived in the US he would be a 911 truther. He is purely looking for some conspiracy to believe in. Actually you can be a 'truther' and live outside the USA. I did some sort of 'research' on 9-11, too. Actually I have an own 'theory', that circles around flight 93. There seems to be a plot. This is the picture - or story- that was intended, but not achieved. Actually Mr.Bush messed it up (in my assumption). It goes like this: I call it a 'dance of planes and falling skyscrapers'. The original plot was, that north tower gets hit, south tower gets hit, pentagon gets hit. South tower falls down, flight 93 hits building 7, north tower falls down, building 7 falls down. (South tower had to fall first, because building 7 is behind it). Actually, the South tower fell first because there was more building for that weakened structure to support. Instead the flight was delayed and Mr. President so perplexed, that he had to think about a solution very hard (and for several minutes). Than he gave order to shoot down the plane, what was promptly done. Flight 93 was apparently approaching Indean Lake Airpark, but didn't. make it there and fell in parts into the Indean Lake. Actually, no, it didn't. Later on the WTC 7 fell without a hit. That's not true either. It just wasn't hit by an airliner. It was hit by debris. Actually I don't like the term 'truther'. And I don't like the term 'conspiracy theory', but these phrases are commonly used. I really don't give a damn if you like it or not. I think, if the government does does something illegal, than this isn't a conspiracy. Its just illegal. You can rest easy then, since it didn't happen. I would suggest that you read Debunking 9/11 by Popular Mechanics. They not only goes through all the major conspiracy claims but has executive summaries of the actual reports, in addition to URLs where you can read, at your heart's content, all 10,000 pages of them. That and showing he has absolutely NO capacity for research, investigation or critical thought. I bet I can give him something that will really blow his mind. In orbit you go faster to slow down, and slow down to go faster. The decline from orbit is a difficult subject, too. Imagine a space capsule in Moon orbit. There is no air. To land and to stop the craft in horizontal movement, you need to fire the engine in reverse thrust (against flight direction). This is not seen on any of the films or pictures. And it is - of course - difficult and fuel consuming. The opposite is even more difficult and that is to restart and making the rendezvous with the orbiter. This is next to impossible, because there is no assistance from the ground, helping to correct the flight path (nobody there, on moon surface). And completely impossible is, to store the needed fuel in a single craft. (No gas station there, neither). TH -- 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 ...
RD Sandman wrote:
"Scout" wrote in : "RD Sandman" wrote in message . .. "Scout" wrote in : "Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 14.10.2011 18:37, schrieb Thomas Heger: Am 14.10.2011 02:22, schrieb RHF: On Oct 13, 11:48 am, Thomas wrote: Am 13.10.2011 06:34, schrieb John Smith: On 10/12/2011 2:11 PM, RHF wrote: On Oct 12, 11:43 am, Thomas wrote: Am 11.10.2011 18:50, schrieb SaPeIsMa: -- .. Now please - think about the Apollo mission and how the Americans got ripped off... TH TH, please tell us all just how the Apollo {Manned} Mission to the Moon and Back was a 'rip-off' . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program one does wonder . . . ~ RHF Usually I don't maintain threads about guns. I have more interest in the Apollo program and did my personal kind of 'research' on that subject. (Mainly reading articles, following links on the internet, watching films on YouTube and so forth). Than I discuss my findings in forums like this one. About the moon landing I have found a lot of inconsistencies within the pictures taken. My conclusion is, that these pictures were faked - not even particularly sophisticated. Since You most certainly don't trust me, I give you an example. (Only one) Look at this picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ap...unar_orbit.jpg It shows the lunar orbiter and the moon. Since there is no other choice, the photo was obviously taken from the landing module 'Eagle'. But the term 'orbiter' refers to the orbit, this vehicle keeps, while the lander lands. Landing zone is usually below the orbit, hence the lander cannot take photos from the orbiter with the moon in the back. Certainly it can. Depending on the orbits used, the lander can easily "descend" upon the orbiter. Indeed it is typical after undocking to go to a slightly higher orbit to allow the orbiting craft/station to pass under you (lower orbit being faster) until it clears the area, and then when you come up on the point to begin your de-orbit burn the area is clear, as no matter what you do at that point the other craft is only going to move further away from you. If you tried to go a lower orbit move ahead of the orbiting craft and then try to de-orbit the orbiting craft would be catching up to you as you slowed and if you accidently "ballooned up" a bit because your angle was slightly off....you could possibly even run into each other. Not a good thing. Nor do you want to wait forever for the gap to open up enough as your time in space is strictly limited. Safer to simply move a bit higher, let it pass under you and then there is no possibility of that occurring. And gee, while you're sitting there you snap a picture out the window and *poof* the planet/moon is in the background. SOB. So if this is your BEST evidence, then this is really going to blow your socks off. "The International Space Station photographed following separation from the Space Shuttle Endeavour in 2001." http://news.medinfo.ufl.edu/articles...discovery-prom pt s-development-of-space-radiation-sensors/ Damn, is that the EARTH in the background? "Last August, the Space Shuttle Endeavour crew captured this shot of the International Space Station (ISS) against the backdrop of Planet Earth. " http://www.astronomy-pictures.net/na..._pictures.html Damn, there it is again. "International Space Station (ISS), March 2011, taken from the Space Shuttle Discovery after undocking at the end of its mission to the ISS" http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/395325/enlarge And again. Damn, one might even see this as a theme. "The international space station, shown here in a photo taken from the shuttle Discovery in June" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26441443/ So tell me does this mean the International Space Station is a fraud, or shall we simply consider the possibility that what you see as photographic flaws are really just a symptom of your ignorance of the mechanics of space flight? Scout....if he lived in the US he would be a 911 truther. He is purely looking for some conspiracy to believe in. That and showing he has absolutely NO capacity for research, investigation or critical thought. I bet I can give him something that will really blow his mind. In orbit you go faster to slow down, and slow down to go faster. Surprisingly, that works. But which way gives better MPG's? :o |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
Luke Gower wrote in :
RD Sandman wrote: "Scout" wrote in : "RD Sandman" wrote in message .. . "Scout" wrote in : "Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 14.10.2011 18:37, schrieb Thomas Heger: Am 14.10.2011 02:22, schrieb RHF: On Oct 13, 11:48 am, Thomas wrote: Am 13.10.2011 06:34, schrieb John Smith: On 10/12/2011 2:11 PM, RHF wrote: On Oct 12, 11:43 am, Thomas wrote: Am 11.10.2011 18:50, schrieb SaPeIsMa: -- .. Now please - think about the Apollo mission and how the Americans got ripped off... TH TH, please tell us all just how the Apollo {Manned} Mission to the Moon and Back was a 'rip-off' . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program one does wonder . . . ~ RHF Usually I don't maintain threads about guns. I have more interest in the Apollo program and did my personal kind of 'research' on that subject. (Mainly reading articles, following links on the internet, watching films on YouTube and so forth). Than I discuss my findings in forums like this one. About the moon landing I have found a lot of inconsistencies within the pictures taken. My conclusion is, that these pictures were faked - not even particularly sophisticated. Since You most certainly don't trust me, I give you an example. (Only one) Look at this picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ap...unar_orbit.jpg It shows the lunar orbiter and the moon. Since there is no other choice, the photo was obviously taken from the landing module 'Eagle'. But the term 'orbiter' refers to the orbit, this vehicle keeps, while the lander lands. Landing zone is usually below the orbit, hence the lander cannot take photos from the orbiter with the moon in the back. Certainly it can. Depending on the orbits used, the lander can easily "descend" upon the orbiter. Indeed it is typical after undocking to go to a slightly higher orbit to allow the orbiting craft/station to pass under you (lower orbit being faster) until it clears the area, and then when you come up on the point to begin your de-orbit burn the area is clear, as no matter what you do at that point the other craft is only going to move further away from you. If you tried to go a lower orbit move ahead of the orbiting craft and then try to de-orbit the orbiting craft would be catching up to you as you slowed and if you accidently "ballooned up" a bit because your angle was slightly off....you could possibly even run into each other. Not a good thing. Nor do you want to wait forever for the gap to open up enough as your time in space is strictly limited. Safer to simply move a bit higher, let it pass under you and then there is no possibility of that occurring. And gee, while you're sitting there you snap a picture out the window and *poof* the planet/moon is in the background. SOB. So if this is your BEST evidence, then this is really going to blow your socks off. "The International Space Station photographed following separation from the Space Shuttle Endeavour in 2001." http://news.medinfo.ufl.edu/articles...mbi-discovery- prom pt s-development-of-space-radiation-sensors/ Damn, is that the EARTH in the background? "Last August, the Space Shuttle Endeavour crew captured this shot of the International Space Station (ISS) against the backdrop of Planet Earth. " http://www.astronomy-pictures.net/na..._pictures.html Damn, there it is again. "International Space Station (ISS), March 2011, taken from the Space Shuttle Discovery after undocking at the end of its mission to the ISS" http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/395325/enlarge And again. Damn, one might even see this as a theme. "The international space station, shown here in a photo taken from the shuttle Discovery in June" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26441443/ So tell me does this mean the International Space Station is a fraud, or shall we simply consider the possibility that what you see as photographic flaws are really just a symptom of your ignorance of the mechanics of space flight? Scout....if he lived in the US he would be a 911 truther. He is purely looking for some conspiracy to believe in. That and showing he has absolutely NO capacity for research, investigation or critical thought. I bet I can give him something that will really blow his mind. In orbit you go faster to slow down, and slow down to go faster. Surprisingly, that works. But which way gives better MPG's? :o In this case, that would be OPV (Orbits Per Volt). -- 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 ...
"Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 14.10.2011 18:37, schrieb Thomas Heger: Am 14.10.2011 02:22, schrieb RHF: On Oct 13, 11:48 am, Thomas wrote: Am 13.10.2011 06:34, schrieb John Smith: On 10/12/2011 2:11 PM, RHF wrote: On Oct 12, 11:43 am, Thomas wrote: Am 11.10.2011 18:50, schrieb SaPeIsMa: -- .. Now please - think about the Apollo mission and how the Americans got ripped off... TH TH, please tell us all just how the Apollo {Manned} Mission to the Moon and Back was a 'rip-off' . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program one does wonder . . . ~ RHF Usually I don't maintain threads about guns. I have more interest in the Apollo program and did my personal kind of 'research' on that subject. (Mainly reading articles, following links on the internet, watching films on YouTube and so forth). Than I discuss my findings in forums like this one. About the moon landing I have found a lot of inconsistencies within the pictures taken. My conclusion is, that these pictures were faked - not even particularly sophisticated. Since You most certainly don't trust me, I give you an example. (Only one) Look at this picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ap...unar_orbit.jpg It shows the lunar orbiter and the moon. Since there is no other choice, the photo was obviously taken from the landing module 'Eagle'. But the term 'orbiter' refers to the orbit, this vehicle keeps, while the lander lands. Landing zone is usually below the orbit, hence the lander cannot take photos from the orbiter with the moon in the back. So basically you're claiming that since the person putting the label on did not necessarily have a good grasp of teminology, the photo is a fake ? This is the kind of stupidity that is so typical of the conspiracy nuts |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
"Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 15.10.2011 02:05, schrieb Scout: "RD Sandman" wrote in message ... "Scout" wrote in : "Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 14.10.2011 18:37, schrieb Thomas Heger: Am 14.10.2011 02:22, schrieb RHF: On Oct 13, 11:48 am, Thomas wrote: Am 13.10.2011 06:34, schrieb John Smith: On 10/12/2011 2:11 PM, RHF wrote: On Oct 12, 11:43 am, Thomas wrote: Am 11.10.2011 18:50, schrieb SaPeIsMa: -- .. Now please - think about the Apollo mission and how the Americans got ripped off... TH TH, please tell us all just how the Apollo {Manned} Mission to the Moon and Back was a 'rip-off' . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program one does wonder . . . ~ RHF Usually I don't maintain threads about guns. I have more interest in the Apollo program and did my personal kind of 'research' on that subject. (Mainly reading articles, following links on the internet, watching films on YouTube and so forth). Than I discuss my findings in forums like this one. About the moon landing I have found a lot of inconsistencies within the pictures taken. My conclusion is, that these pictures were faked - not even particularly sophisticated. Since You most certainly don't trust me, I give you an example. (Only one) Look at this picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ap...unar_orbit.jpg It shows the lunar orbiter and the moon. Since there is no other choice, the photo was obviously taken from the landing module 'Eagle'. But the term 'orbiter' refers to the orbit, this vehicle keeps, while the lander lands. Landing zone is usually below the orbit, hence the lander cannot take photos from the orbiter with the moon in the back. Certainly it can. Depending on the orbits used, the lander can easily "descend" upon the orbiter. Indeed it is typical after undocking to go to a slightly higher orbit to allow the orbiting craft/station to pass under you (lower orbit being faster) until it clears the area, and then when you come up on the point to begin your de-orbit burn the area is clear, as no matter what you do at that point the other craft is only going to move further away from you. If you tried to go a lower orbit move ahead of the orbiting craft and then try to de-orbit the orbiting craft would be catching up to you as you slowed and if you accidently "ballooned up" a bit because your angle was slightly off....you could possibly even run into each other. Not a good thing. Nor do you want to wait forever for the gap to open up enough as your time in space is strictly limited. Safer to simply move a bit higher, let it pass under you and then there is no possibility of that occurring. And gee, while you're sitting there you snap a picture out the window and *poof* the planet/moon is in the background. SOB. So if this is your BEST evidence, then this is really going to blow your socks off. "The International Space Station photographed following separation from the Space Shuttle Endeavour in 2001." http://news.medinfo.ufl.edu/articles...scovery-prompt s-development-of-space-radiation-sensors/ Damn, is that the EARTH in the background? "Last August, the Space Shuttle Endeavour crew captured this shot of the International Space Station (ISS) against the backdrop of Planet Earth. " http://www.astronomy-pictures.net/na..._pictures.html Damn, there it is again. "International Space Station (ISS), March 2011, taken from the Space Shuttle Discovery after undocking at the end of its mission to the ISS" http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/395325/enlarge And again. Damn, one might even see this as a theme. "The international space station, shown here in a photo taken from the shuttle Discovery in June" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26441443/ So tell me does this mean the International Space Station is a fraud, or shall we simply consider the possibility that what you see as photographic flaws are really just a symptom of your ignorance of the mechanics of space flight? Scout....if he lived in the US he would be a 911 truther. He is purely looking for some conspiracy to believe in. Actually you can be a 'truther' and live outside the USA. I did some sort of 'research' on 9-11, too. Actually I have an own 'theory', that circles around flight 93. There seems to be a plot. This is the picture - or story- that was intended, but not achieved. Actually Mr.Bush messed it up (in my assumption). It goes like this: I call it a 'dance of planes and falling skyscrapers'. The original plot was, that north tower gets hit, south tower gets hit, pentagon gets hit. South tower falls down, flight 93 hits building 7, north tower falls down, building 7 falls down. (South tower had to fall first, because building 7 is behind it). Instead the flight was delayed and Mr. President so perplexed, that he had to think about a solution very hard (and for several minutes). Than he gave order to shoot down the plane, what was promptly done. Flight 93 was apparently approaching Indean Lake Airpark, but didn't. make it there and fell in parts into the Indean Lake. Later on the WTC 7 fell without a hit. yawn And naturally you have some evidence to support this supposition? You can also explain the bulging walls and other sides of structural collapse noted prior to the building's collapse? Actually I don't like the term 'truther'. And I don't like the term 'conspiracy theory', but these phrases are commonly used. I think, if the government does does something illegal, than this isn't a conspiracy. Its just illegal. That and showing he has absolutely NO capacity for research, investigation or critical thought. I bet I can give him something that will really blow his mind. In orbit you go faster to slow down, and slow down to go faster. The decline from orbit is a difficult subject, too. Imagine a space capsule in Moon orbit. There is no air. To land and to stop the craft in horizontal movement, you need to fire the engine in reverse thrust (against flight direction). This is not seen on any of the films or pictures. Well, let's see. The people in the lander are going to be strapped down and all they could take a picture of in any event would be a view out the front of the lander. The orbiter meanwhile is now ahead of the lander and the moment you fired the engines on the lander would rapidly move away. Short of a really high power telephoto, you couldn't take a meaningful picture of the lander from the orbiter during the de-orbit burn, nor any particular reason to do so. After all I doubt some moron may years in the future would contend the whole thing was faked simply because they didn't take a picture just for him. And it is - of course - difficult and fuel consuming. Yep, which is why weight was such an issue. The opposite is even more difficult and that is to restart and making the rendezvous with the orbiter. No more than any of the other times that spacecraft have met up in space, and from the moon it would actually be easier since you would have no air currents to throw you off your course during launch. This is next to impossible, because there is no assistance from the ground, helping to correct the flight path (nobody there, on moon surface). Don't need it. One craft knows exactly where they are, the other knows where they are, the rest is just math. And completely impossible is, to store the needed fuel in a single craft. (No gas station there, neither). Actually with the small gravity well of the moon and no atmosphere it's quite possible. See the gravity well of the Earth is some 22 TIMES greater than is the gravity well of the moon. Here's a nice video with graphics to explain this to you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBQHtF3WhMw Further the lander doesn't even have to climb all the way out of that well. It only has to reach a very low orbit to meet up with the orbiter which then provides the rest of the thrust needed to return to Earth. Heck, the orbiter's orbit was generally so low that it would have been within the atmosphere around the Earth. But since the moon has no atmosphere you could orbit at almost any height, as shown by the recent orbits just 13 miles up (ie 69,000 feet) below the service ceiling of many military aircraft. So combine a shallow gravity well, with low orbit and what do you have? Answer - you need very little delta V to land or launch for said orbit around a body without an atmosphere. Once again, I will simply note that all you are showing is your ignorance of the mechanics of space flight, not any flaws in what NASA did, or didn't do. |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
"Gray Guest" wrote in message 4.100... "Scout" wrote in : "Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 14.10.2011 18:46, schrieb Thomas Heger: Am 14.10.2011 18:37, schrieb Thomas Heger: Am 14.10.2011 02:22, schrieb RHF: On Oct 13, 11:48 am, Thomas wrote: Am 13.10.2011 06:34, schrieb John Smith: On 10/12/2011 2:11 PM, RHF wrote: On Oct 12, 11:43 am, Thomas wrote: Am 11.10.2011 18:50, schrieb SaPeIsMa: -- .. Now please - think about the Apollo mission and how the Americans got ripped off... TH TH, please tell us all just how the Apollo {Manned} Mission to the Moon and Back was a 'rip-off' . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program one does wonder . . . ~ RHF Usually I don't maintain threads about guns. I have more interest in the Apollo program and did my personal kind of 'research' on that subject. (Mainly reading articles, following links on the internet, watching films on YouTube and so forth). Than I discuss my findings in forums like this one. About the moon landing I have found a lot of inconsistencies within the pictures taken. My conclusion is, that these pictures were faked - not even particularly sophisticated. Since You most certainly don't trust me, I give you an example. (Only one) Look at this picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ap...unar_orbit.jpg It shows the lunar orbiter and the moon. Since there is no other choice, the photo was obviously taken from the landing module 'Eagle'. But the term 'orbiter' refers to the orbit, this vehicle keeps, while the lander lands. Landing zone is usually below the orbit, hence the lander cannot take photos from the orbiter with the moon in the back. There are - of course - more anomalies within this single photo. to name a few: If the orbiter was such an elaborated piece of engineering and certainly very expensive. Why does it look like a tin can, Because it basically was a tin can. Weight is everything in space flight (particularly back then) and so you kept everything at the minimum possible weight. Thus the "tin can" appearance. with something glued upon ? E.g. the lettering 'United States' misses half of the 'A'. Because it probably was. If you notice there are a row of little dimples or bumps down the length of the module, and the decal is located over this row of dimples/bumps. If you look at the high res scan of it you can see this most clearly. http://next.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-88-11963HR.jpg Now, on launch the craft is subjected to rather significant air flow and turbulence. It seems quite probable that when the air pressure during launch pressed against the decal it stretched it into those dimples/bumps and the lettering (which was probably printed on) either flaked off, stretched out of shape or otherwise became lost/distorted. There are crosses, that should be all of the same size, but are not. They aren't the same size. The center and I believe the outer corners were oversized. The high res and uncropped photo link above. The conic tip would reflect only the surface and possibly the lander. Yep, so? But we see something different, because there seem to be something reflected, where darkness should be. You did note that the module is in a NOSE DOWN attitude? That's going to impact what is being reflected. The contrast of the orbiter seems much higher than on the surface, but the difference in luminosity should be greater on the surface (the surface should have higher contrast). That would depend on a number of items. Film, shutter speed, aperture, focal length, Heck it might even, gasp, be a different camera. I mean you are aware that they used a different camera on the surface than they did for the one they used for the in orbit shots? Indeed, consider for a second your own thoughts. Now would you get greater contrast with a moderately lit object against a brightly lit background. Or in an environment in which everything is subject to high illumination? Keeping in mind you're going to have to change shutter speed and/or aperture in order to keep from over exposing the film. Some of the rivets look like painted. Anyhow, 'rivets' wouldn't be the most durable joint. Actually a riveted joint is quite durable. Look at all the bridges a 100+ years old that were riveted. Further a rivet doesn't have the stress risers you find on a screw, and it has a larger effective cross sectional area. That means more strength in a lighter weight fastener. Remembering that every ounce matters. This metal piece near the conic tip looks rusty (?). If you mean the piece directly above the attitude jet. Yes, it does seem discolored. Bet you would be discolored too if subjected to the high temperature bursts of some rather nasty chemicals used in those thrusters. I will simply note you apparently haven't even bothered to do an in-depth analysis of something you claim was faked. As such your conclusions seem based on ignorance more than because anything is wrong with the photos. You know how Flying Fortresses look like what they are called when they are marching across the sky amid puffs of smoke? I've been in one. On takeoff and in flight. Most aircraft are tin cans. It was scary how loud the engines were through the tin aluminum fuselage. And I got to ride up front for a bit. Unnerving sitting in the big plxy bubble imagining FW flying in wing breast shooting at you at a closing rate of north of 600+ MPH. Very, very few airplanes were built, designed to be flying armored cars. A Junkers purpose built trench strafer in the first WW. The Sturmovik in WWII And the modern day A-10. Anything else that was bullet resistant it was an accident. Most aircraft you can puncture with a Philips screwdriver. Yep, on the apollo missions some metal used to contain the cabin pressure was no thicker than aluminum foil. It was all they needed, and every ounce was critical given how much fuel it took to get an ounce into orbit much less to the moon and back. |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
"RD Sandman" wrote in message ... "Scout" wrote in : "RD Sandman" wrote in message ... "Scout" wrote in : "Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 14.10.2011 18:37, schrieb Thomas Heger: Am 14.10.2011 02:22, schrieb RHF: On Oct 13, 11:48 am, Thomas wrote: Am 13.10.2011 06:34, schrieb John Smith: On 10/12/2011 2:11 PM, RHF wrote: On Oct 12, 11:43 am, Thomas wrote: Am 11.10.2011 18:50, schrieb SaPeIsMa: -- .. Now please - think about the Apollo mission and how the Americans got ripped off... TH TH, please tell us all just how the Apollo {Manned} Mission to the Moon and Back was a 'rip-off' . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program one does wonder . . . ~ RHF Usually I don't maintain threads about guns. I have more interest in the Apollo program and did my personal kind of 'research' on that subject. (Mainly reading articles, following links on the internet, watching films on YouTube and so forth). Than I discuss my findings in forums like this one. About the moon landing I have found a lot of inconsistencies within the pictures taken. My conclusion is, that these pictures were faked - not even particularly sophisticated. Since You most certainly don't trust me, I give you an example. (Only one) Look at this picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ap...unar_orbit.jpg It shows the lunar orbiter and the moon. Since there is no other choice, the photo was obviously taken from the landing module 'Eagle'. But the term 'orbiter' refers to the orbit, this vehicle keeps, while the lander lands. Landing zone is usually below the orbit, hence the lander cannot take photos from the orbiter with the moon in the back. Certainly it can. Depending on the orbits used, the lander can easily "descend" upon the orbiter. Indeed it is typical after undocking to go to a slightly higher orbit to allow the orbiting craft/station to pass under you (lower orbit being faster) until it clears the area, and then when you come up on the point to begin your de-orbit burn the area is clear, as no matter what you do at that point the other craft is only going to move further away from you. If you tried to go a lower orbit move ahead of the orbiting craft and then try to de-orbit the orbiting craft would be catching up to you as you slowed and if you accidently "ballooned up" a bit because your angle was slightly off....you could possibly even run into each other. Not a good thing. Nor do you want to wait forever for the gap to open up enough as your time in space is strictly limited. Safer to simply move a bit higher, let it pass under you and then there is no possibility of that occurring. And gee, while you're sitting there you snap a picture out the window and *poof* the planet/moon is in the background. SOB. So if this is your BEST evidence, then this is really going to blow your socks off. "The International Space Station photographed following separation from the Space Shuttle Endeavour in 2001." http://news.medinfo.ufl.edu/articles...discovery-prom pt s-development-of-space-radiation-sensors/ Damn, is that the EARTH in the background? "Last August, the Space Shuttle Endeavour crew captured this shot of the International Space Station (ISS) against the backdrop of Planet Earth. " http://www.astronomy-pictures.net/na..._pictures.html Damn, there it is again. "International Space Station (ISS), March 2011, taken from the Space Shuttle Discovery after undocking at the end of its mission to the ISS" http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/395325/enlarge And again. Damn, one might even see this as a theme. "The international space station, shown here in a photo taken from the shuttle Discovery in June" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26441443/ So tell me does this mean the International Space Station is a fraud, or shall we simply consider the possibility that what you see as photographic flaws are really just a symptom of your ignorance of the mechanics of space flight? Scout....if he lived in the US he would be a 911 truther. He is purely looking for some conspiracy to believe in. That and showing he has absolutely NO capacity for research, investigation or critical thought. I bet I can give him something that will really blow his mind. In orbit you go faster to slow down, and slow down to go faster. Surprisingly, that works. Which? The orbital mechanics or blowing his mind with it? That should make his head simply implode. :-P -- 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 ...
"Luke Gower" wrote in message ... RD Sandman wrote: "Scout" wrote in : "RD Sandman" wrote in message .. . "Scout" wrote in : "Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 14.10.2011 18:37, schrieb Thomas Heger: Am 14.10.2011 02:22, schrieb RHF: On Oct 13, 11:48 am, Thomas wrote: Am 13.10.2011 06:34, schrieb John Smith: On 10/12/2011 2:11 PM, RHF wrote: On Oct 12, 11:43 am, Thomas wrote: Am 11.10.2011 18:50, schrieb SaPeIsMa: -- .. Now please - think about the Apollo mission and how the Americans got ripped off... TH TH, please tell us all just how the Apollo {Manned} Mission to the Moon and Back was a 'rip-off' . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program one does wonder . . . ~ RHF Usually I don't maintain threads about guns. I have more interest in the Apollo program and did my personal kind of 'research' on that subject. (Mainly reading articles, following links on the internet, watching films on YouTube and so forth). Than I discuss my findings in forums like this one. About the moon landing I have found a lot of inconsistencies within the pictures taken. My conclusion is, that these pictures were faked - not even particularly sophisticated. Since You most certainly don't trust me, I give you an example. (Only one) Look at this picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ap...unar_orbit.jpg It shows the lunar orbiter and the moon. Since there is no other choice, the photo was obviously taken from the landing module 'Eagle'. But the term 'orbiter' refers to the orbit, this vehicle keeps, while the lander lands. Landing zone is usually below the orbit, hence the lander cannot take photos from the orbiter with the moon in the back. Certainly it can. Depending on the orbits used, the lander can easily "descend" upon the orbiter. Indeed it is typical after undocking to go to a slightly higher orbit to allow the orbiting craft/station to pass under you (lower orbit being faster) until it clears the area, and then when you come up on the point to begin your de-orbit burn the area is clear, as no matter what you do at that point the other craft is only going to move further away from you. If you tried to go a lower orbit move ahead of the orbiting craft and then try to de-orbit the orbiting craft would be catching up to you as you slowed and if you accidently "ballooned up" a bit because your angle was slightly off....you could possibly even run into each other. Not a good thing. Nor do you want to wait forever for the gap to open up enough as your time in space is strictly limited. Safer to simply move a bit higher, let it pass under you and then there is no possibility of that occurring. And gee, while you're sitting there you snap a picture out the window and *poof* the planet/moon is in the background. SOB. So if this is your BEST evidence, then this is really going to blow your socks off. "The International Space Station photographed following separation from the Space Shuttle Endeavour in 2001." http://news.medinfo.ufl.edu/articles...discovery-prom pt s-development-of-space-radiation-sensors/ Damn, is that the EARTH in the background? "Last August, the Space Shuttle Endeavour crew captured this shot of the International Space Station (ISS) against the backdrop of Planet Earth. " http://www.astronomy-pictures.net/na..._pictures.html Damn, there it is again. "International Space Station (ISS), March 2011, taken from the Space Shuttle Discovery after undocking at the end of its mission to the ISS" http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/395325/enlarge And again. Damn, one might even see this as a theme. "The international space station, shown here in a photo taken from the shuttle Discovery in June" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26441443/ So tell me does this mean the International Space Station is a fraud, or shall we simply consider the possibility that what you see as photographic flaws are really just a symptom of your ignorance of the mechanics of space flight? Scout....if he lived in the US he would be a 911 truther. He is purely looking for some conspiracy to believe in. That and showing he has absolutely NO capacity for research, investigation or critical thought. I bet I can give him something that will really blow his mind. In orbit you go faster to slow down, and slow down to go faster. Surprisingly, that works. But which way gives better MPG's? Actually the higher orbit would give you better MPG since you would survive for more orbits thus your cumulative distance covered for the fuel used increases..... Look at voyager....now that's MPG..... :-) |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
"Scout" wrote in news:j7cs0v
: "RD Sandman" wrote in message ... "Scout" wrote in : "RD Sandman" wrote in message ... "Scout" wrote in : "Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 14.10.2011 18:37, schrieb Thomas Heger: Am 14.10.2011 02:22, schrieb RHF: On Oct 13, 11:48 am, Thomas wrote: Am 13.10.2011 06:34, schrieb John Smith: On 10/12/2011 2:11 PM, RHF wrote: On Oct 12, 11:43 am, Thomas wrote: Am 11.10.2011 18:50, schrieb SaPeIsMa: -- .. Now please - think about the Apollo mission and how the Americans got ripped off... TH TH, please tell us all just how the Apollo {Manned} Mission to the Moon and Back was a 'rip-off' . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program one does wonder . . . ~ RHF Usually I don't maintain threads about guns. I have more interest in the Apollo program and did my personal kind of 'research' on that subject. (Mainly reading articles, following links on the internet, watching films on YouTube and so forth). Than I discuss my findings in forums like this one. About the moon landing I have found a lot of inconsistencies within the pictures taken. My conclusion is, that these pictures were faked - not even particularly sophisticated. Since You most certainly don't trust me, I give you an example. (Only one) Look at this picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ap...unar_orbit.jpg It shows the lunar orbiter and the moon. Since there is no other choice, the photo was obviously taken from the landing module 'Eagle'. But the term 'orbiter' refers to the orbit, this vehicle keeps, while the lander lands. Landing zone is usually below the orbit, hence the lander cannot take photos from the orbiter with the moon in the back. Certainly it can. Depending on the orbits used, the lander can easily "descend" upon the orbiter. Indeed it is typical after undocking to go to a slightly higher orbit to allow the orbiting craft/station to pass under you (lower orbit being faster) until it clears the area, and then when you come up on the point to begin your de-orbit burn the area is clear, as no matter what you do at that point the other craft is only going to move further away from you. If you tried to go a lower orbit move ahead of the orbiting craft and then try to de-orbit the orbiting craft would be catching up to you as you slowed and if you accidently "ballooned up" a bit because your angle was slightly off....you could possibly even run into each other. Not a good thing. Nor do you want to wait forever for the gap to open up enough as your time in space is strictly limited. Safer to simply move a bit higher, let it pass under you and then there is no possibility of that occurring. And gee, while you're sitting there you snap a picture out the window and *poof* the planet/moon is in the background. SOB. So if this is your BEST evidence, then this is really going to blow your socks off. "The International Space Station photographed following separation from the Space Shuttle Endeavour in 2001." http://news.medinfo.ufl.edu/articles...mbi-discovery- prom pt s-development-of-space-radiation-sensors/ Damn, is that the EARTH in the background? "Last August, the Space Shuttle Endeavour crew captured this shot of the International Space Station (ISS) against the backdrop of Planet Earth. " http://www.astronomy-pictures.net/na..._pictures.html Damn, there it is again. "International Space Station (ISS), March 2011, taken from the Space Shuttle Discovery after undocking at the end of its mission to the ISS" http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/395325/enlarge And again. Damn, one might even see this as a theme. "The international space station, shown here in a photo taken from the shuttle Discovery in June" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26441443/ So tell me does this mean the International Space Station is a fraud, or shall we simply consider the possibility that what you see as photographic flaws are really just a symptom of your ignorance of the mechanics of space flight? Scout....if he lived in the US he would be a 911 truther. He is purely looking for some conspiracy to believe in. That and showing he has absolutely NO capacity for research, investigation or critical thought. I bet I can give him something that will really blow his mind. In orbit you go faster to slow down, and slow down to go faster. Surprisingly, that works. Which? The orbital mechanics or blowing his mind with it? Perhaps, a twofer. -- 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 15.10.2011 21:23, schrieb SaPeIsMa:
... Since You most certainly don't trust me, I give you an example. (Only one) Look at this picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ap...unar_orbit.jpg It shows the lunar orbiter and the moon. Since there is no other choice, the photo was obviously taken from the landing module 'Eagle'. But the term 'orbiter' refers to the orbit, this vehicle keeps, while the lander lands. Landing zone is usually below the orbit, hence the lander cannot take photos from the orbiter with the moon in the back. So basically you're claiming that since the person putting the label on did not necessarily have a good grasp of teminology, the photo is a fake ? 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'. ) But you Americans could start to think about this question: if it was in fact a fake, than certainly a few bucks were redirected into dark channels, but who has them and what purpose are they used for? It's a LOT of money, that is (apparently) stolen from American taxpayers. Is that a particular patriotic behaviour? Certainly not. There were a few other developments in the 60'th worth to mention: JFK assassination, 'hippies', Vietnam war ... And there was - much later - 9-11. If that was a fake, too, than that wouldn't qualify as very patriotic neither. Don't know, how to put all these pieces together and it's actually not my business, but I suggest you Americans try to do that. TH |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
"Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 15.10.2011 21:23, schrieb SaPeIsMa: .. Since You most certainly don't trust me, I give you an example. (Only one) Look at this picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ap...unar_orbit.jpg It shows the lunar orbiter and the moon. Since there is no other choice, the photo was obviously taken from the landing module 'Eagle'. But the term 'orbiter' refers to the orbit, this vehicle keeps, while the lander lands. Landing zone is usually below the orbit, hence the lander cannot take photos from the orbiter with the moon in the back. So basically you're claiming that since the person putting the label on did not necessarily have a good grasp of teminology, the photo is a fake ? 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'. ) But you Americans could start to think about this question: if it was in fact a fake, than certainly a few bucks were redirected into dark channels, but who has them and what purpose are they used for? Who gives a ****, until you establish solid evidence that it actually occurred, not some hypothetical "if". |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
Thomas Heger wrote in :
Do you hear the term "bat**** crazy" being whispered behind your back often? If not, listen harder. -- Words of wisdom What does not kill you... probably didn't cause enough tissue damage. |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
"Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 15.10.2011 21:23, schrieb SaPeIsMa: .. Since You most certainly don't trust me, I give you an example. (Only one) Look at this picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ap...unar_orbit.jpg It shows the lunar orbiter and the moon. Since there is no other choice, the photo was obviously taken from the landing module 'Eagle'. But the term 'orbiter' refers to the orbit, this vehicle keeps, while the lander lands. Landing zone is usually below the orbit, hence the lander cannot take photos from the orbiter with the moon in the back. So basically you're claiming that since the person putting the label on did not necessarily have a good grasp of teminology, the photo is a fake ? 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'. ) But you Americans could start to think about this question: if it was in fact a fake, than certainly a few bucks were redirected into dark channels, but who has them and what purpose are they used for? It's a LOT of money, that is (apparently) stolen from American taxpayers. Is that a particular patriotic behaviour? Certainly not. There were a few other developments in the 60'th worth to mention: JFK assassination, 'hippies', Vietnam war ... And there was - much later - 9-11. If that was a fake, too, than that wouldn't qualify as very patriotic neither. Don't know, how to put all these pieces together and it's actually not my business, but I suggest you Americans try to do that. You just proved that you qualify for the moniker "conspiracy nut" The other word for that is "idiot" |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
On Oct 14, 10:06*am, (J R) wrote:
Germany likes to bragg about the quality of German Ore/steel.But, the highest quality of Iron Ore was from the French Briery (spelling?) Iron Ore in France.World War Two era. When I was in boot camp at Fort Gordon,Georgia in 1962, there was a guy whos last name was Spangler.He was always bragging about German steel. Fort Bragg is Bragging every day. cuhulin And I always thought the better grades of iron ore was found in Sweden... |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
Thomas Heger wrote in
: Am 15.10.2011 21:23, schrieb SaPeIsMa: .. Since You most certainly don't trust me, I give you an example. (Only one) Look at this picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ap...unar_orbit.jpg It shows the lunar orbiter and the moon. Since there is no other choice, the photo was obviously taken from the landing module 'Eagle'. But the term 'orbiter' refers to the orbit, this vehicle keeps, while the lander lands. Landing zone is usually below the orbit, hence the lander cannot take photos from the orbiter with the moon in the back. So basically you're claiming that since the person putting the label on did not necessarily have a good grasp of teminology, the photo is a fake ? 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'. ) But you Americans could start to think about this question: if it was in fact a fake, than certainly a few bucks were redirected into dark channels, but who has them and what purpose are they used for? It's a LOT of money, that is (apparently) stolen from American taxpayers. Is that a particular patriotic behaviour? Certainly not. There were a few other developments in the 60'th worth to mention: JFK assassination, 'hippies', Vietnam war ... And there was - much later - 9-11. If that was a fake, too, than that wouldn't qualify as very patriotic neither. Don't know, how to put all these pieces together and it's actually not my business, but I suggest you Americans try to do that. TH 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 have. -- 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 15.10.2011 22:46, schrieb Scout:
"Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 15.10.2011 02:05, schrieb Scout: "RD Sandman" wrote in message ... "Scout" wrote in : "Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 14.10.2011 18:37, schrieb Thomas Heger: Am 14.10.2011 02:22, schrieb RHF: On Oct 13, 11:48 am, Thomas wrote: Am 13.10.2011 06:34, schrieb John Smith: On 10/12/2011 2:11 PM, RHF wrote: On Oct 12, 11:43 am, Thomas wrote: Am 11.10.2011 18:50, schrieb SaPeIsMa: -- .. Now please - think about the Apollo mission and how the Americans got ripped off... TH TH, please tell us all just how the Apollo {Manned} Mission to the Moon and Back was a 'rip-off' . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program one does wonder . . . ~ RHF Usually I don't maintain threads about guns. I have more interest in the Apollo program and did my personal kind of 'research' on that subject. (Mainly reading articles, following links on the internet, watching films on YouTube and so forth). Than I discuss my findings in forums like this one. About the moon landing I have found a lot of inconsistencies within the pictures taken. My conclusion is, that these pictures were faked - not even particularly sophisticated. Since You most certainly don't trust me, I give you an example. (Only one) Look at this picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ap...unar_orbit.jpg It shows the lunar orbiter and the moon. Since there is no other choice, the photo was obviously taken from the landing module 'Eagle'. But the term 'orbiter' refers to the orbit, this vehicle keeps, while the lander lands. Landing zone is usually below the orbit, hence the lander cannot take photos from the orbiter with the moon in the back. Certainly it can. Depending on the orbits used, the lander can easily "descend" upon the orbiter. Indeed it is typical after undocking to go to a slightly higher orbit to allow the orbiting craft/station to pass under you (lower orbit being faster) until it clears the area, and then when you come up on the point to begin your de-orbit burn the area is clear, as no matter what you do at that point the other craft is only going to move further away from you. If you tried to go a lower orbit move ahead of the orbiting craft and then try to de-orbit the orbiting craft would be catching up to you as you slowed and if you accidently "ballooned up" a bit because your angle was slightly off....you could possibly even run into each other. Not a good thing. Nor do you want to wait forever for the gap to open up enough as your time in space is strictly limited. Safer to simply move a bit higher, let it pass under you and then there is no possibility of that occurring. And gee, while you're sitting there you snap a picture out the window and *poof* the planet/moon is in the background. SOB. So if this is your BEST evidence, then this is really going to blow your socks off. "The International Space Station photographed following separation from the Space Shuttle Endeavour in 2001." http://news.medinfo.ufl.edu/articles...scovery-prompt s-development-of-space-radiation-sensors/ Damn, is that the EARTH in the background? "Last August, the Space Shuttle Endeavour crew captured this shot of the International Space Station (ISS) against the backdrop of Planet Earth. " http://www.astronomy-pictures.net/na..._pictures.html Damn, there it is again. "International Space Station (ISS), March 2011, taken from the Space Shuttle Discovery after undocking at the end of its mission to the ISS" http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/395325/enlarge And again. Damn, one might even see this as a theme. "The international space station, shown here in a photo taken from the shuttle Discovery in June" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26441443/ So tell me does this mean the International Space Station is a fraud, or shall we simply consider the possibility that what you see as photographic flaws are really just a symptom of your ignorance of the mechanics of space flight? Scout....if he lived in the US he would be a 911 truther. He is purely looking for some conspiracy to believe in. Actually you can be a 'truther' and live outside the USA. I did some sort of 'research' on 9-11, too. Actually I have an own 'theory', that circles around flight 93. There seems to be a plot. This is the picture - or story- that was intended, but not achieved. Actually Mr.Bush messed it up (in my assumption). It goes like this: I call it a 'dance of planes and falling skyscrapers'. The original plot was, that north tower gets hit, south tower gets hit, pentagon gets hit. South tower falls down, flight 93 hits building 7, north tower falls down, building 7 falls down. (South tower had to fall first, because building 7 is behind it). Instead the flight was delayed and Mr. President so perplexed, that he had to think about a solution very hard (and for several minutes). Than he gave order to shoot down the plane, what was promptly done. Flight 93 was apparently approaching Indean Lake Airpark, but didn't. make it there and fell in parts into the Indean Lake. Later on the WTC 7 fell without a hit. yawn And naturally you have some evidence to support this supposition? You can also explain the bulging walls and other sides of structural collapse noted prior to the building's collapse? Actually I don't like the term 'truther'. And I don't like the term 'conspiracy theory', but these phrases are commonly used. I think, if the government does does something illegal, than this isn't a conspiracy. Its just illegal. That and showing he has absolutely NO capacity for research, investigation or critical thought. I bet I can give him something that will really blow his mind. In orbit you go faster to slow down, and slow down to go faster. The decline from orbit is a difficult subject, too. Imagine a space capsule in Moon orbit. There is no air. To land and to stop the craft in horizontal movement, you need to fire the engine in reverse thrust (against flight direction). This is not seen on any of the films or pictures. Well, let's see. The people in the lander are going to be strapped down and all they could take a picture of in any event would be a view out the front of the lander. The orbiter meanwhile is now ahead of the lander and the moment you fired the engines on the lander would rapidly move away. Short of a really high power telephoto, you couldn't take a meaningful picture of the lander from the orbiter during the de-orbit burn, nor any particular reason to do so. After all I doubt some moron may years in the future would contend the whole thing was faked simply because they didn't take a picture just for him. And it is - of course - difficult and fuel consuming. Yep, which is why weight was such an issue. The opposite is even more difficult and that is to restart and making the rendezvous with the orbiter. No more than any of the other times that spacecraft have met up in space, and from the moon it would actually be easier since you would have no air currents to throw you off your course during launch. This is next to impossible, because there is no assistance from the ground, helping to correct the flight path (nobody there, on moon surface). Don't need it. One craft knows exactly where they are, the other knows where they are, the rest is just math. 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 difficult. And completely impossible is, to store the needed fuel in a single craft. (No gas station there, neither). Actually with the small gravity well of the moon and no atmosphere it's quite possible. See the gravity well of the Earth is some 22 TIMES greater than is the gravity well of the moon. Here's a nice video with graphics to explain this to you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBQHtF3WhMw Further the lander doesn't even have to climb all the way out of that well. It only has to reach a very low orbit to meet up with the orbiter which then provides the rest of the thrust needed to return to Earth. Heck, the orbiter's orbit was generally so low that it would have been within the atmosphere around the Earth. But since the moon has no atmosphere you could orbit at almost any height, as shown by the recent orbits just 13 miles up (ie 69,000 feet) below the service ceiling of many military aircraft. So combine a shallow gravity well, with low orbit and what do you have? Answer - you need very little delta V to land or launch for said orbit around a body without an atmosphere. Once again, I will simply note that all you are showing is your ignorance of the mechanics of space flight, not any flaws in what NASA did, or didn't do. Actually the gravity on Moon is very low. Agreed.. But you make the same mistake as the NASA guys. That is messing up 'inertia' and 'weight'. In Germany we had pounds before, but now use the SI-system of units. With this it is more easy to see: Weight is measured in Newton (in lbs. in the US) and mass in kilograms (in lbs. in the US). To accelerate a mass to a certain speed, the needed energy does not depend on weight, but on mass and the needed velocity. That velocity is orbital speed for the moon's gravitational field. 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. TH |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
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'. ) ... Don't know, how to put all these pieces together and it's actually not my business, but I suggest you Americans try to do that. TH 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 have. I don't think so, because the people in the world act in a different manners than you think. Knowledge follow an exponential curve. This means, a certain idea is passed to - say - two (different) friends per day - and so forth. The idea spreads relatively slowly. But the last half of the Earth is covered in a day. (Not quite, but as simplification) So certain ideas are not visible for a very long time, but this doesn't mean, they are not there. Only they are not visible. But if the ideas have their own value and are is some respect 'better' (as explanation), than they sooner or later outrun the competitors. 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. The 'truthers' will inevitably outrun official fairy tails, because truth has advantages in explaining things. TH |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
"Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 15.10.2011 22:46, schrieb Scout: "Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 15.10.2011 02:05, schrieb Scout: "RD Sandman" wrote in message ... "Scout" wrote in : "Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 14.10.2011 18:37, schrieb Thomas Heger: Am 14.10.2011 02:22, schrieb RHF: On Oct 13, 11:48 am, Thomas wrote: Am 13.10.2011 06:34, schrieb John Smith: On 10/12/2011 2:11 PM, RHF wrote: On Oct 12, 11:43 am, Thomas wrote: Am 11.10.2011 18:50, schrieb SaPeIsMa: -- .. Now please - think about the Apollo mission and how the Americans got ripped off... TH TH, please tell us all just how the Apollo {Manned} Mission to the Moon and Back was a 'rip-off' . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program one does wonder . . . ~ RHF Usually I don't maintain threads about guns. I have more interest in the Apollo program and did my personal kind of 'research' on that subject. (Mainly reading articles, following links on the internet, watching films on YouTube and so forth). Than I discuss my findings in forums like this one. About the moon landing I have found a lot of inconsistencies within the pictures taken. My conclusion is, that these pictures were faked - not even particularly sophisticated. Since You most certainly don't trust me, I give you an example. (Only one) Look at this picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ap...unar_orbit.jpg It shows the lunar orbiter and the moon. Since there is no other choice, the photo was obviously taken from the landing module 'Eagle'. But the term 'orbiter' refers to the orbit, this vehicle keeps, while the lander lands. Landing zone is usually below the orbit, hence the lander cannot take photos from the orbiter with the moon in the back. Certainly it can. Depending on the orbits used, the lander can easily "descend" upon the orbiter. Indeed it is typical after undocking to go to a slightly higher orbit to allow the orbiting craft/station to pass under you (lower orbit being faster) until it clears the area, and then when you come up on the point to begin your de-orbit burn the area is clear, as no matter what you do at that point the other craft is only going to move further away from you. If you tried to go a lower orbit move ahead of the orbiting craft and then try to de-orbit the orbiting craft would be catching up to you as you slowed and if you accidently "ballooned up" a bit because your angle was slightly off....you could possibly even run into each other. Not a good thing. Nor do you want to wait forever for the gap to open up enough as your time in space is strictly limited. Safer to simply move a bit higher, let it pass under you and then there is no possibility of that occurring. And gee, while you're sitting there you snap a picture out the window and *poof* the planet/moon is in the background. SOB. So if this is your BEST evidence, then this is really going to blow your socks off. "The International Space Station photographed following separation from the Space Shuttle Endeavour in 2001." http://news.medinfo.ufl.edu/articles...scovery-prompt s-development-of-space-radiation-sensors/ Damn, is that the EARTH in the background? "Last August, the Space Shuttle Endeavour crew captured this shot of the International Space Station (ISS) against the backdrop of Planet Earth. " http://www.astronomy-pictures.net/na..._pictures.html Damn, there it is again. "International Space Station (ISS), March 2011, taken from the Space Shuttle Discovery after undocking at the end of its mission to the ISS" http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/395325/enlarge And again. Damn, one might even see this as a theme. "The international space station, shown here in a photo taken from the shuttle Discovery in June" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26441443/ So tell me does this mean the International Space Station is a fraud, or shall we simply consider the possibility that what you see as photographic flaws are really just a symptom of your ignorance of the mechanics of space flight? Scout....if he lived in the US he would be a 911 truther. He is purely looking for some conspiracy to believe in. Actually you can be a 'truther' and live outside the USA. I did some sort of 'research' on 9-11, too. Actually I have an own 'theory', that circles around flight 93. There seems to be a plot. This is the picture - or story- that was intended, but not achieved. Actually Mr.Bush messed it up (in my assumption). It goes like this: I call it a 'dance of planes and falling skyscrapers'. The original plot was, that north tower gets hit, south tower gets hit, pentagon gets hit. South tower falls down, flight 93 hits building 7, north tower falls down, building 7 falls down. (South tower had to fall first, because building 7 is behind it). Instead the flight was delayed and Mr. President so perplexed, that he had to think about a solution very hard (and for several minutes). Than he gave order to shoot down the plane, what was promptly done. Flight 93 was apparently approaching Indean Lake Airpark, but didn't. make it there and fell in parts into the Indean Lake. Later on the WTC 7 fell without a hit. yawn And naturally you have some evidence to support this supposition? You can also explain the bulging walls and other sides of structural collapse noted prior to the building's collapse? Actually I don't like the term 'truther'. And I don't like the term 'conspiracy theory', but these phrases are commonly used. I think, if the government does does something illegal, than this isn't a conspiracy. Its just illegal. That and showing he has absolutely NO capacity for research, investigation or critical thought. I bet I can give him something that will really blow his mind. In orbit you go faster to slow down, and slow down to go faster. The decline from orbit is a difficult subject, too. Imagine a space capsule in Moon orbit. There is no air. To land and to stop the craft in horizontal movement, you need to fire the engine in reverse thrust (against flight direction). This is not seen on any of the films or pictures. Well, let's see. The people in the lander are going to be strapped down and all they could take a picture of in any event would be a view out the front of the lander. The orbiter meanwhile is now ahead of the lander and the moment you fired the engines on the lander would rapidly move away. Short of a really high power telephoto, you couldn't take a meaningful picture of the lander from the orbiter during the de-orbit burn, nor any particular reason to do so. After all I doubt some moron may years in the future would contend the whole thing was faked simply because they didn't take a picture just for him. And it is - of course - difficult and fuel consuming. Yep, which is why weight was such an issue. The opposite is even more difficult and that is to restart and making the rendezvous with the orbiter. No more than any of the other times that spacecraft have met up in space, and from the moon it would actually be easier since you would have no air currents to throw you off your course during launch. This is next to impossible, because there is no assistance from the ground, helping to correct the flight path (nobody there, on moon surface). Don't need it. One craft knows exactly where they are, the other knows where they are, the rest is just math. 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 clearly up to the job. 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 difficult. Not really. Apollo 13 proved that all they needed was one fixed point in space...and the Earth itself provided that. Sorry, but the bulk of the work was predone, the only thing they had to deal with was the final adjustments once they got within visual range. And completely impossible is, to store the needed fuel in a single craft. (No gas station there, neither). Actually with the small gravity well of the moon and no atmosphere it's quite possible. See the gravity well of the Earth is some 22 TIMES greater than is the gravity well of the moon. Here's a nice video with graphics to explain this to you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBQHtF3WhMw Further the lander doesn't even have to climb all the way out of that well. It only has to reach a very low orbit to meet up with the orbiter which then provides the rest of the thrust needed to return to Earth. Heck, the orbiter's orbit was generally so low that it would have been within the atmosphere around the Earth. But since the moon has no atmosphere you could orbit at almost any height, as shown by the recent orbits just 13 miles up (ie 69,000 feet) below the service ceiling of many military aircraft. So combine a shallow gravity well, with low orbit and what do you have? Answer - you need very little delta V to land or launch for said orbit around a body without an atmosphere. Once again, I will simply note that all you are showing is your ignorance of the mechanics of space flight, not any flaws in what NASA did, or didn't do. Actually the gravity on Moon is very low. Agreed.. Not very low, just low. However, the gravity well is MUCH lower than the Earth's. But you make the same mistake as the NASA guys. That is messing up 'inertia' and 'weight'. Who brought up either term? oh, that's right, we're into you inventing strawmen. In Germany we had pounds before, but now use the SI-system of units. With this it is more easy to see: Weight is measured in Newton (in lbs. in the US) and mass in kilograms (in lbs. in the US). To accelerate a mass to a certain speed, the needed energy does not depend on weight, but on mass and the needed velocity. That velocity is orbital speed for the moon's gravitational field. yawn I haven't said anything else. Are you trying to talk so much that people will miss when you don't refute the fact pointed out to you? 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 |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
Thomas Heger 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'. ) .. Don't know, how to put all these pieces together and it's actually not my business, but I suggest you Americans try to do that. TH 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 have. I don't think so, because the people in the world act in a different manners than you think. Perhaps, perhaps not. You don't know what I think. Knowledge follow an exponential curve. This means, a certain idea is passed to - say - two (different) friends per day - and so forth. The idea spreads relatively slowly. But the last half of the Earth is covered in a day. (Not quite, but as simplification) My point was that your "truther" ideas are not unique to you, and in most cases, didn't even start with you. So certain ideas are not visible for a very long time, but this doesn't mean, they are not there. Only they are not visible. No one has claimed any different. 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. -- 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 ...
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. -- Words of wisdom What does not kill you... probably didn't cause enough tissue damage. |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
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/sē*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. Greetings Thomas |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
"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. |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
"SaPeIsMa" wrote in message
.. . 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. I remember when the mainframe group where I worked were jealous that they had to run a compile overnight, but the "PC" group did ours with a simple press of the "F5" key. :-) |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
On Oct 17, 4:08*pm, "SaPeIsMa" wrote:
"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. Dollar-Tree Store has 8-Digit Calculators with Memory Recall and Square Root for... -you-got-it-!-just-a-buck- One Dollar [$1] |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
"Tom S." wrote in message ... "SaPeIsMa" wrote in message .. . 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. I remember when the mainframe group where I worked were jealous that they had to run a compile overnight, but the "PC" group did ours with a simple press of the "F5" key. :-) That was also true of the "mini" computers like the PDP series. Although many ran compiled software like COBOL and FORTRAN, some ran interpreted software, like BASIC, APL, etc In many cases, there were libraries of compiled routines that could be called, and the interpreted portions were simple the main logic like making a series of calls to compiled routines. I also remember the territorial fights between the mainframe, mini, and desktop crowds.. I spent a lot of time as a consultant mediating separation of tasks and responsibilities to optimize operations. |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
"RHF" wrote in message ... On Oct 17, 4:08 pm, "SaPeIsMa" wrote: "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. Dollar-Tree Store has 8-Digit Calculators with Memory Recall and Square Root for... -you-got-it-!-just-a-buck- One Dollar [$1] . I was in Engineering School in the Early seventies. My Texas Instrument calculator cost me over $1000 at about 40% MSRPl because I was a "loss leader" sale. I was not allowed to use during my exams, because it would have been unfair to those who couldn't afford buying one. Slide rules or Log Tables only. |
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/sē*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/sē*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/sē*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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:54 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com