IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: E&T Maagzine
Topic Summary: Did we get to the moon?
Created On: 25 January 2011 10:35 AM
Status: Read Only
Related E&T article: Building the Moon rocket
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
<< 1 2 3 Previous Last unread
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 18 February 2011 09:49 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jencam

Posts: 608
Joined: 06 May 2007

Originally posted by: StewartTaylorThe political/military/secret service achievement would have been the cover-up of the conspiracy if there had been no landing.


Of course they can cover up. Common Purpose has existed since 1985 but was covered up by the UK government until only 5 or 6 years ago.
 18 February 2011 05:27 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



dvaidr

Posts: 519
Joined: 08 June 2003

Originally posted by: rogerbryant

I think that the same view applies to a cover up. There would have to be a political will for a cover up, but there would also have to be a lot of clever science and engineering to convince other technologically capable observers (especially the Russians) that these signals and images were comming from the moon.



Best regards



Roger


But they had clever science and engineering, insomuch that they, (John Wayne, Frank Sinatra et al), could get to moon. I would hazard a guess that it would be a heck of a lot easier to make a dodgy film in the Nevada desert than it would be getting to the moon; the latter, being real clever science and engineering!
 24 February 2011 03:33 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



dvaidr

Posts: 519
Joined: 08 June 2003

I've just been looking at the moon on Google Earth and was watching some of the you tube video links of when the landed on the moon and erected, (a very flappy), US flag. I couldn't help but notice the amount of sand/dust which they kicked up and which returned to the moon's surface very quickly, as if gravity had assisted. Can someone explain to me ho this is possible? (Sorry, my O level Physics is a bit rusty)
 25 February 2011 08:18 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



rogerbryant

Posts: 865
Joined: 19 July 2002

The Moon has gravity, but this is less than the Earth's gravity (1/6th?).
If you produce a dust cloud on the Earth the dust is pulled back down by gravity but the motion is resisted by the atmosphere (dust particles collide with air molecules, Brownian motion and all that). On the Moon there is a lower force of gravity to pull the dust particles back to the surface but there is almost no atmosphere to resist this motion so it is not unreasonable that dust clouds could settle in similar times on the Earth and on the Moon.

Best regards

Roger
 25 February 2011 08:44 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



dvaidr

Posts: 519
Joined: 08 June 2003

The plot thins.....
 11 March 2011 03:20 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



dvaidr

Posts: 519
Joined: 08 June 2003

Jake, I'm still awaiting this hard maths to filter through...........
 14 April 2011 05:32 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



dvaidr

Posts: 519
Joined: 08 June 2003

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...Hy55xn4&feature=share

At 0.40 watch the hammer and then the feather. The puppet master got it slightly wrong, methinks! Oh Dear! It will out one day.
 14 April 2011 09:35 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jakegreenland

Posts: 66
Joined: 04 May 2009

Originally posted by: dvaidr

Jake, I'm still awaiting this hard maths to filter through...........


Rule 14 of the internet applies here!

-------------------------
Jake Greenland, CEng MIET.
CCIE #22595
 14 April 2011 12:31 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



dvaidr

Posts: 519
Joined: 08 June 2003

Originally posted by: jakegreenland

Originally posted by: dvaidr



Jake, I'm still awaiting this hard maths to filter through...........




Rule 14 of the internet applies here!


Sorry, I'm just an Enjuneer. Pray, tell us what that is. Even better though would be said, hard maths to study.....
 15 April 2011 12:12 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



ectophile

Posts: 542
Joined: 17 September 2001

I guess he means this: Urban Dictionary: rule 14

-------------------------
S P Barker BSc PhD MIET
 15 April 2011 12:16 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



ectophile

Posts: 542
Joined: 17 September 2001

Originally posted by: dvaidr

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...4&feature=share



At 0.40 watch the hammer and then the feather. The puppet master got it slightly wrong, methinks! Oh Dear! It will out one day.


Watch very closely. He moves his thumb (at the back), while keeping his finger (at the front) steady. He's just twitching the feather between his finger and thumb, so it moves up and down.

No big deal.

-------------------------
S P Barker BSc PhD MIET
 15 April 2011 05:29 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



dvaidr

Posts: 519
Joined: 08 June 2003

Originally posted by: jakegreenland

Originally posted by: dvaidr



Jake, I'm still awaiting this hard maths to filter through...........




Rule 14 of the internet applies here!


That's the second time I've been called a troll on the forums, so it must be true. Nevertheless this troll would like to know what maths you allude to. So, if you wouldn't mind, let the world see the hard maths please. You made the statement, now qualify it. We're all debating here. We all have opinions here. I'm just trying to think what the hard maths might have been; 3D vectoring, fractal geometry, Bayesian image processing...........or perhaps it was just slide rule maths with a more than a little hope.

Cough up for the troll.
 19 April 2011 07:29 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



dvaidr

Posts: 519
Joined: 08 June 2003

Jake. I'm so very disappointed that you have decided to keep the 'hard maths' to yourself. I feel sure that the engineering community would be better for it, had you decided to publish the 'hard maths'.

Call me cynical, but perhaps said hard maths weren't that hard afterall and the slide rule did come into play; not that I'm criticising the good old slide rule. It does logs n that.

Rule No. 14 of the engineering community at large - don't make claims you can't substantiate.

Rule No. 14A of the engineering community at large - debate, argue criticise and opine, but never ever get personal. You could end up in very deep water.
 20 April 2011 11:11 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



amillar

Posts: 1918
Joined: 28 May 2002

Purely in the interest of bringing this rather fruitless part of the discussion to an end (ok, I am an optimist) Jake's posting was:

Originally posted by: jakegreenland
The link does indeed provide subjectivity [well the second one at least, the first provides hard maths which you can reproduce yourself along with referenced publications] but the subjectivity it provides should point you to the correct branches of science you can investigate to prove or disprove it for yourself.


i.e. he is referring to the "first link" in his previous postinghttp://www.wwheaton.com/waw/mad/mad19.html which does itself include references.

And no, I don't intend to follow up the maths and do it myself because a) it's sunny, b) life's too short and c) I know enough people who were involved in the space program to not see any point in following this further. Although it is annoying to see their hard work and excellent engineering being dismissed as a hoax, but I'll let those involved fight their own battles (although again I suspect "life's too short" will come into effect from their part as well).

-------------------------
Andy Millar CEng MIET CMgr MCMI

http://www.linkedin.com/in/millarandy

"The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress." Joseph Joubert
 20 April 2011 02:40 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



dvaidr

Posts: 519
Joined: 08 June 2003

Originally posted by: amillar

Purely in the interest of bringing this rather fruitless part of the discussion to an end (ok, I am an optimist) Jake's posting was:



Originally posted by: jakegreenland

The link does indeed provide subjectivity [well the second one at least, the first provides hard maths which you can reproduce yourself along with referenced publications] but the subjectivity it provides should point you to the correct branches of science you can investigate to prove or disprove it for yourself.




i.e. he is referring to the "first link" in his previous postinghttp://www.wwheaton.com/waw/mad/mad19.html which does itself include references.



And no, I don't intend to follow up the maths and do it myself because a) it's sunny, b) life's too short and c) I know enough people who were involved in the space program to not see any point in following this further. Although it is annoying to see their hard work and excellent engineering being dismissed as a hoax, but I'll let those involved fight their own battles (although again I suspect "life's too short" will come into effect from their part as well).


Andy, the link doesn't give us a good look at those hard maths. Ok it has in at one 9x3=27 astronauts and I admit, I was never any good at the nine times table, but I was hoping to see far more than this.

A Professional Engineer, making claims needs to be able to substantiate them. I'm still waiting for said hard maths to filter through.

As Enjuneers, we can't just walk away from the car crash.

Come on Jake. Let us in on the secret of the hard maths!
 20 April 2011 03:09 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jakegreenland

Posts: 66
Joined: 04 May 2009

I've said this on another thread you chased me over on already so I'll repeat it here.

I am uninterested in what you think, who you are or what you think of me. Basically I don't care and am uninterested in arguing with you any furthur on the matter. If you wish to attempt to continue and elucidate a response then feel free - you won't be getting one.

-------------------------
Jake Greenland, CEng MIET.
CCIE #22595
 20 April 2011 03:30 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



dvaidr

Posts: 519
Joined: 08 June 2003

Hmmmm. Nuff said, honourable enjuneer.....
 20 April 2011 07:01 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



dvaidr

Posts: 519
Joined: 08 June 2003

Originally posted by: jakegreenland

I've said this on another thread you chased me over on already so I'll repeat it here.



I am uninterested in what you think, who you are or what you think of me. Basically I don't care and am uninterested in arguing with you any furthur on the matter. If you wish to attempt to continue and elucidate a response then feel free - you won't be getting one.




Just a final say on the matter. Make sure you know what your words mean and how to use them, before you choose to do so on the forum. .
IET » Savoy Place Virtual Club » E&T Maagzine

<< 1 2 3 Previous Last unread
Topic Tools Topic Tools
Statistics

See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.