OT: Moon Landing

Apparently the reason for this single design this was financing, i.e. you had to spread federal money to all states and constituencies to get support from all senators and Congress representatives.

amdx wrote in news:qglf08$d2m$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

I always understood it to mean access to a ship (or 'boat').

The part everyone seems to have forgotten is that permission to board is always expected to be asked first.

We need to properly repel unwanted boarders as well.

I still say my Circus Cannon idea is good.

If you are worried about it being humane, we could give them a nice oxy addiction to ease the pain of the ejection and make it harder to get back too.

So long as there was a *very* long runway for them to land on.

I am reminded of the Specsavers advert in the UK.

Not sure Luton airport runway would be long enough though.

It was my impression video was transmitted as PCM digital data, recorded onto data tape. There was a slow scan TV viewer at stations which showed best quality. I would ask questions to one of the lead engineers, but have not emailed him lately to see if I'm wrong.

Greg

There are a lot of details on Honeysuckle Creek Tracking website.

Greg

I can't believe anyone is still on about this. I have analysed the situatio n and the bottom line is that because the world was watching to fake it the y would have had to spend more money than to actually do it. Kids had teles copes back then, and that includes in Russia. They would have loved to expo se any possibility of deception during the cold war.

The most powerful piece of evidence they have is debunked. It is not dispro ven but it is proven not to be proven. This is the waving of the flag when there is supposedly no atmosphere.

Now, why is there no atmosphere ? because of solar wind, the same reason a comet's tail ALWAYS points away from the sun. (or nearest star) If it can b low the atmosphere off of Mars it can move a piece of cloth.

There are conspiracy theories that are true, oh yeah, but this ain't one of them.

It is just too easy.

snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

You are an abject idiot. The flag was held by a stiff rod at the top.

There was no waving. There was no flapping. There was no faking.

Except for your birth certificate. Your parents faked that, because you were not born. You were shat.

There are still no optical telescopes on Earth that can resolve the lunar landing sites or spot an orbiter against the moons glare.

However, everybody and their dog with a decent receiver and a relatively high gain antenna was eavesdropping on the lunar command module comms. Including a high school in Kettering, England who were famous for it.

It was supported by a rigid rod along the top. Clearly visible in this picture. ISTR the flag initially very crumpled slowly straightened out. Basically as the fabric adjusted to being unfurled.

I hope the Chinese visit at least one Apollo site as tourists (not Apollo 11 though) and bring back a Hasselblad. Be interesting to see how well the red and blue pigments in the flag stand up to hard UV. They were apparently stock items made of nylon so probably won't have lasted very well in a hard vacuum (see other thread about plastics in vacuum).

Gravity still acts on the flag and so do Newtons laws. The thing behaves pretty much like a compound pendulum because of the rod at the top.

Comet tails do not always point away from the sun! The main white dust tail actually sits behind the comet along its recent trajectory. Only the ion and gas tail points directly away from the sun. The naked eye comet Hale-Bopp in 1996 showed this phenomena beautifully for months.

The distribution of dust along the orbit of periodic comets is what gives us predictable meteor showers Perseids next up on 11-13th August.

The thing that would have been impossible to fake was the rock samples they brought back with isotopic signatures and minerals not of this Earth. Russia grabbed some robotically a year later and both sets agree.

Pieces of moon rock and even bits of Mars fall to Earth from time to time and command a high price with some avid collectors (pricing science out of the market for highly sought after pieces sold at auction).

and couldn?t get solid fuel rockets working

showed them how to do it that the focus shifted

orld War, before that the US military rocket program was non existent

mity fuse

gn and build an atomic bomb"

make an atomic bomb, asked Lauritsen to go to Los Alamos, New Mexico, to as sist with the project. Lauritsen complied with the request."

at Los Alamos with Oppenheimer, participating inthe technical steerin g committee and in the scientific develop-ment work."

t seems a bit much to say he was a "key" person, unless there were dozens o r hundreds of "key persons".

um bomb and eventually brought in an explosives expert who was able to make that work. I would say *that* guy was a "key" person. George Kistiakowsk y

Someone else who was important but not well acknowledged...

I've read it speculated that the US planned to grab Salyut 7 at some point with the Shuttle, it would've probably just barely fit in the payload bay, maybe so but I'm not sure of how much intelligence interest a pretty aging design of Soviet space station would've provided at that point, I would think the DoD/NRO would've been most interested in their optics capabilities and also some of the satellites that had small liquid metal-cooled fission reactors onboard

Yeah, NASA had a previously-existing contracts with the NRO/DoD to provide some amount of military flights, likely signed off on by folks who weren't even involved by the time the thing started flying regularly.

Even before the Challenger accident the DoD had concluded they weren't particularly interested in using the Shuttle routinely for their payloads, it was clear NASA could never hit the turnaround times required to make it financially viable.

Yeah it'd be very nice to simultaneously have human astronauts in space that can patch up a satellite which isn't working properly after launch and also leverage economy of scale of 50-80 flights per year, but the Shuttle flights never got close to the kind of turn-around time (I think the most they flew in a year was 9, in '85) and didn't offer much advantage over just accepting the risk of launching a pricey satellite on a dumb booster and hope for the best

Removing the main engines from the orbiter entirely and just having maneuvering engines on it, and lofting it with a big dumb Saturn V-like booster with lox/kerosene lower stages was the approach the Soviets took with Buran, and probably would've been a fairly rugged and relatively low-cost system had the program continued.

Back in '74 or whenever they thought they could save some $$$ by making the SSMEs reusable along with the SRBs and only discarding a relatively cheap external tank instead of the whole booster with the main engines still attached.

Yeah maybe would've been cheaper if they were hitting 50 flights a year but when averaging only a half-dozen they never hit the cost to flight ratio to save anything doing that. The soviets had the benefit of some hindsight observation and while they may have been "communist" they could definitely ballpark the Shuttle's maintenance costs vs. turn-around time and run the accounting on that and come to the conclusion NASA was not saving any cash by trying to make as much as possible re-usable, on less than 10 flights a year.

It all sounds good on paper, man, but NASA received bids from four different companies, IIRC one of them maybe it was Lockheed's involved a ramjet, NASA rejected that stuff not because they thought they were bad designs intellectually but just on complexity and cost vis a vis 1975 technology.

North American's design was taken because they thought North American's was the KISS-est that could accomplish the requirements (including above mentioned NRO contract obligation) and they had the most realistic cost projections which were still way off.

I think SDI might have scared politicians in the SU who didn't have an engineering or science background in the same way that certain US politicians who didn't have an engineering or science background were enamored with it; I don't know how much it actually worried the Soviet military leadership/defense engineering industry. Pragmatically speaking the Shuttle was a real thing with real military capability that existed already and SDI was and still is mostly fantasy-land stuff.

The Buran was designed from the outset to have autonomous flight and landing capability and be able to go ahead and launch in freezing cold and atrocious weather not at all like southern Florida.

The first launch was in terrible weather conditions they didn't scrub anything just fly it, guys:

Eh, actually the Soviets were probably too far into the development process by 1981 to gain much resusability design guidance from looking at the US program, the Soviet project started earlier than I had thought, in 1974.

Don't need runways (artist's conception):

And the Dow is down a quarter point.

They showed it. They thought it was prof positive but it was not. That flag DID move and it did it for the same reasone there is not atmosphere on Mars.

They shat better than your Parents punk, ten paces, come on bitch. We'll see who is left.

Teleporting works instantly anywhere in "artists concention".

Avoids all that tedious landing shuttle craft in Star Trek.

The video was slow scan but not as slow scan as the amateur radio operators use. That is indeed more like a slideshow, and this had several frames per second at low resolution.

I think it was analog on the way down, maybe then it was digitized to be written to data tape. However, it was displayed on a CRT tube (with long persistence) with a TV camera in front that output it as NTSC video and that was sent around the world and recorded by TV stations.

There are lots of recordings of this NTSC signal but unfortunately the recording of the original slowscan signal (which today could have been converted to digital at a higher quality than via the CRT->CAMERA conversion done back in the day) has been lost.

A short fragment of the event exists on film, which is of better quality than the NTSC recording. And of course many recordings on film made by the crew themselves exists.

Note that quite often people claim to "remember" that they saw the moon landing live on TV, however this was never transmitted live on TV. It was audio only. The first steps on the surface were transmitted live, the landing itself was recorded on film, taken back to earth, developed, and shown only later.

They also make spacecraft boosters, and crew modules that can carry passengers that can land upright nowadays u know:

Description of the scan converter :

Cheers

Klaus