| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Roger roger@ . " |
| Date: |
30 Jun 2004 11:06:14 AM |
| Object: |
lying little tommie runs away -- again... |
Lying little tommie, embarrassed by zir penchant for swallowing whole
crackpot conspiracy theories, has run away from the following thread
in yet another lame attempt to pretend zie did not get zir head handed
to him (reinforcing once again the advice that zie has been given time
and again: research *first*, think about it realistically, *then*
post)
<repost>
In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be XC-A1CB-880-9 wrote
in message <10d6ajmcld0e4bf@corp.supernews.com>:
Facts that make Steve run..Walz thinks we went to the moon.
is there *no* subject on which you are afraid to demonstrate your
ignorance, lying little tommie?
(1) How did Apollo get through the Van Allen Belt Steve?
Radiation is a big problem when it comes to space travel and the Earth's
magnetic field concentrates this radiation into the Van Allen belts that
surround the Earth.
What, exactly, are those concentrations? Verifiable citation to a
reliable authority only, please.
No matter what, the Apollo crafts had to go through
these belts and there was no way the Apollo crafts could afford to take all
the weight of lead shielding with them..
Given thick the VA belts are, and the amount of time the spacecraft
spent actually exposed to them, how much shielding of what sort would
be required? Again, show your work.
They could not have survived travelling through the Van Allen Belt without
suffering from radiation sickness, or death, without a 6 feet thick solid
lead shield.
How did you come up with this figure?
(2) Where are the stars?
Why are there no stars in the sky in the photographs taken from the lunar
surface?
"Pretend for a moment you are an astronaut on the surface of the Moon.
You want to take a picture of your fellow space traveler. The Sun is
low off the horizon, since all the lunar landings were done at local
morning. How do you set your camera? The lunar landscape is brightly
lit by the Sun, of course, and your friend is wearing a white
spacesuit also brilliantly lit by the Sun. To take a picture of a
bright object with a bright background, you need to set the exposure
time to be fast, and close down the aperture setting too; that's like
the pupil in your eye constricting to let less light in when you walk
outside on a sunny day.
So the picture you take is set for bright objects. Stars are faint
objects! In the fast exposure, they simply do not have time to
register on the film. It has nothing to do with the sky being black or
the lack of air, it's just a matter of exposure time. If you were to
go outside here on Earth on the darkest night imaginable and take a
picture with the *exact same camera settings the astronauts used*, you
won't see any stars!"
from http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html, emphasis
theirs.
In fact, this site discusses the television show lying little tommie
appears to accept as truth.
Research *first*, think about it a bit, *then* post, lying little
tommie...
(3) The video shows Neil Armstrong climbing down the ladder and stepping
onto the surface. If he was supposed to be the first man on the Moon, who
took the video?
Because, of course, there is no such thing as a remotely controlled
camera...
(4) They didn't have the computer technology in those days to get to the
Moon and back. Recentley China said: "The technology to get to the moon
could come within the next ten years.
China did, huh? On what basis did they make this claim, assuming
you're not just lying about it?
Questions Steve won't answer
Why does the American flag appear to be blowing in a breeze?
In the vacuum of space this should not be possible.
http://www.astrocentral.co.uk/flag.jpg
"The answer is, it isn't waving. It looks like that because of the way
the flag was deployed. The flag hangs from a horizontal rod which
telescopes out from the vertical one. In Apollo 11, they couldn't get
the rod to extend completely, so the flag didn't get stretched fully.
It has a ripple in it, like a curtain that is not fully closed. In
later flights, the astronauts didn't fully deploy it on purpose
because they liked the way it looked. In other words, the flag looks
like it is waving because the astronauts wanted it to look that way.
Ironically, they did their job too well. It appears to have fooled a
lot of people into thinking it waved"
Ibid.
Why is there no blast crater?
When the lunar module landed it should have made a large crater.
http://www.astrocentral.co.uk/belowlm.jpg
"When someone driving a car pulls into a parking spot, do they do it
at 100 kilometers per hour? Of course not. They slow down first,
easing off the accelerator. The astronauts did the same thing. Sure,
the rocket on the lander was capable of 10,000 pounds of thrust, but
they had a throttle. They fired the rocket hard to deorbit and slow
enough to land on the Moon, but they didn't need to thrust that hard
as they approached the lunar surface; they throttled down to about
3000 pounds of thrust.
Now here comes a little bit of math: the engine nozzle was about 54
inches across (from the Encyclopaedia Astronautica), which means it
had an area of 2300 square inches. That in turn means that the thrust
generated a pressure of only about 1.5 pounds per square inch! That's
not a lot of pressure. Moreover, in a vacuum, the exhaust from a
rocket spreads out very rapidly. On Earth, the air in our atmosphere
constrains the thrust of a rocket into a narrow column, which is why
you get long flames and columns of smoke from the back of a rocket. In
a vacuum, no air means the exhaust spreads out even more, lowering the
pressure. That's why there's no blast crater! Three thousand pounds of
thrust sounds like a lot, but it was so spread out it was actually
rather gentle."
Again, my thanks to Philip Plait over at Bad Astronomy
http://www.badastronomy.com for his succinct rebuttals to lying little
tommie's nonsense.
</repost>
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
