Artemis II

Got some time to watch the shuttle vid. Excellent! IRIG-B, spooling up high speed film, HD takes me back. Film is a PITA! And you find out if you effed up a week later. Digital has far surpassed in performance now. Exposure and grainyness was the major problem. If you watch carefully you see the IRIG LEDs change brightness from the auto exposure they rigged up. I once tried to track an "object" ahem through a smaller catadioptic lense - aaaaah(buzzer) wrong answer!

Whoever jigged the autoiris did a great job and even so there's argument to be made for duplicating shots at +/- bracketing to enable details in the shot. But ya gotta draw the line somewhere.

Great post, really enjoyed it. :)
 
I've watched that shuttle video probably 3 times. Love hearing the stats they talk about too... How far away those cameras are, sizes of the lenses, speed of the film, etc... Not to mention the stats about the shuttle...12" fuel lines!, volume used, acceleration and speeds...
 
I wonder if the folks who think we didn't go up there have ever checked the math. I would be a lot more inclined to believe we didn't go to the moon if you could show me mathematically that it's not possible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATH
Math is not the strong suit of disbelievers. You can flummox them into simpleton gibberish with a lot less than rocket science. Math is advanced quantitative reasoning - again not a strong suit.

If you really want to cause a trigger try to eek out some Hawking vs Einstein fine points and watch the smoke. Astrophysics and quantum physics.
 
Boomslang said:
"ECREE"

-Sagan
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, what this comes down to is a discussion where both sides are saying this same thing at each other, and knows with certainty that their logic is solid, and the other is delusional, falling for a fabricated narrative devoid of any rational basis.

Unfortunately, only one can be correct in such a discussion.
 
Matias said:
Unfortunately, what this comes down to is a discussion where both sides are saying this same thing at each other, and knows with certainty that their logic is solid, and the other is delusional, falling for a fabricated narrative devoid of any rational basis.

Unfortunately, only one can be correct in such a discussion.
Click to expand...
At the same time, one side is backed by scientific evidence, witnesses, and repeated endeavors. Meanwhile, the other side has YouTube videos of people yelling at the camera.
 
To be honest, I don't really care if you believe it happened or not. What's more sad to me is that you don't WANT to believe.

The whole space race, us vs them, or whatever other agenda you think is the reason to fake everything. That's all irrelevant. That's for the power brokers and those who obsess over them.

Believe it for the wonderment of it all. To think that we, as a species, are capable of setting foot on another world or looking down upon our own.

It's the next step of our expansion. At some point in our history someone was the first to cross the river, or climb over the mountains, or land on an island, or Just. Keep. Going.

Never knowing if it could be done, only that it's something that should be done, if only to show that it could be done.

Be excited for that and dream a little.
 
common sense goes a long way where science falls short... When Trump first asked NASA to put a man back on the moon at the beginning of his first term, they said, "give us 17 years." He said "make it ten." When the Chinese announced they were going to put a man on the moon in 2011, their target was 2034.

In 2019 Artemis was directed to put a man on the moon by 2024. It took 7 years to just do a fly by (if you believe that really happened)... Now imagine if you will how much more complicated and technically cahllenging ti would be to actually get a moon lander to land on the moon, Take back off from the moon, reconnect with an orbiting spaceship and break free of the moon's gravity to pilot back to earth, after having to heat and cool the lander and provide the space suits necessary for moon walking.

We're 7 years from 2019, and all we can do is a fly-by... With all the advancements in technology since the 1960s, how could they have put down a moon lander and walked on the moon in 8 years when all we can do is a fly-by in 7? That's a reasonable question... and to look for answers we must go to the plans... all the plans and the engineering for the original Apollo moon missions... We must look at how they designed the suits. How they built the lander and how they linked back up with the orbiting ship. How they heated and cooled the lander. We must study what they did in the 1960s and use modern technology to improve upon it. BUT WE CAN'T.... BECAUSE NONE OF THE PLANS EXIST... NONE... It all got lost.... as did all the original video footage... lost... imagine that....

How stupid can you be? That's the real wonder here.
 
The plans are in your local library under light reading with a special sign saying bonus free book for adversarial countries who present valid ID when borrowing these materials, also see the librarian for your free unlimited photocopying card. You also get an extra discount on your airline ticket if you can show that you're dutifully carrying your copies home.

After all, what justification could there be for keeping expensively gained, militarily advantageous technology protected or secret? Next thing you know someone's going to propose a concept trade secrets for business knowledge protection.

Maybe there's limited explanations out there that don't give away the game. Hint the answer is yes and they're very enlightening. You can even buy some Apollo hardware and run it. Probably because it's not militarily sensitive anymore, for a long time now. Go glass 1/2 full and research the old tech I'm sure it would be rewarding. Even if you don't get all the blueprints.

I once crossed the information sensitivity line in a phone call to the company that made the Mars lander airbags "I can't tell you that, that would be giving away our secret sauce" oops! Younger me.
 
Bart_ said:
The plans are in your local library under light reading with a special sign saying bonus free book for adversarial countries who present valid ID when borrowing these materials, also see the librarian for your free unlimited photocopying card. You also get an extra discount on your airline ticket if you can show that you're dutifully carrying your copies home.

After all, what justification could there be for keeping expensively gained, militarily advantageous technology protected or secret? Next thing you know someone's going to propose a concept trade secrets for business knowledge protection.

Maybe there's limited explanations out there that don't give away the game. Hint the answer is yes and they're very enlightening. You can even buy some Apollo hardware and run it. Probably because it's not militarily sensitive anymore, for a long time now. Go glass 1/2 full and research the old tech I'm sure it would be rewarding. Even if you don't get all the blueprints.

I once crossed the information sensitivity line in a phone call to the company that made the Mars lander airbags "I can't tell you that, that would be giving away our secret sauce" oops! Younger me.
Click to expand...
I had a high school chemistry teacher, retired research chemist who held an amazing number of patents for new plastics (can we say tooth-colored fillings and soft contact lenses?), who was involved in some of the moon missions. He and his lab actually made the golf balls Alan Shepherd hit on the moon.

He told a few us some of his stories, that one was very secret at the time, but 35 years later I would say it didn't matter so much that he told us.
 
Reach said:
I had a high school chemistry teacher, retired research chemist who held an amazing number of patents for new plastics (can we say tooth-colored fillings and soft contact lenses?), who was involved in some of the moon missions. He and his lab actually made the golf balls Alan Shepherd hit on the moon.

He told a few us some of his stories, that one was very secret at the time, but 35 years later I would say it didn't matter so much that he told us.
Click to expand...
I had a client t g at was a chemistry professor.. he had 27 patents.. a total geek. As hecwas writing me the check, we got to talking. Hd told me that him.sndbhis scientist buddies had been studying the subject and there was no significant warming and to the extent there was, carbon dioxide had nothing to do with it. Carbon dioxide just makes the llants grow better etc..

I replied that that was all oil industry funded propaganda... He assured me that no..absolutely not. he was working with a group of independent scientists. I walked away thinking he must be crazy, but the way he was talking sure sounded like he knew it. Call it intuition. I just recognized that he was speaking the truth. But it didn't make sense... we all went to see Al Gores movie. And we all had heard a million times that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere were causing global warming... how could thecword of one chemistry geek counter thecweught of that constant barage of what turned out to be propaganda...

A MONTH LATER THE CLIMATEGATE EMAILS GOT HACKED....
 
Daniel said:
I walked away thinking he must be crazy, but the way he was talking sure sounded like he knew it. Call it intuition. I just recognized that he was speaking the truth.
Click to expand...
So you just blindly believed someone and their claims with zero evidence? Did he have any peer reviewed papers or research that he could share? Did he even have a YouTube video?
 
Boomslang said:
So you just blindly believed someone and their claims with zero evidence? Did he have any peer reviewed papers or research that he could share? Did he even have a YouTube video?
Click to expand...
He said, "I just recognized that he was speaking the truth". The thing you gotta realize is that he can recognize the truth, and obviously not many of us can. He's just better than us, and when we start recognizing that he is speaking the truth, we'll be able to recieve of his wisdom fully. Embrace your saviour Boomslang.
 
Matias said:
He said, "I just recognized that he was speaking the truth". The thing you gotta realize is that he can recognize the truth, and obviously not many of us can. He's just better than us, and when we start recognizing that he is speaking the truth, we'll be able to recieve of his wisdom fully. Embrace your saviour Boomslang.
Click to expand...
I just hope he hasn't procreated.
 
Boomslang said:
So you just blindly believed someone and their claims with zero evidence? Did he have any peer reviewed papers or research that he could share? Did he even have a YouTube video?
Click to expand...
are you familiar with the climategate emails? Do you know that climate scientists conspired to hide data that did not fit their model of man-made climate change? Do you understand how the international data on climate was collected, and withheld, and who controlled the secret logarithms used to produce the data needed to study climate science? Do you know about how the peer review process was manipulated to prevent the publication of any scientists' work that suggested that climate change was a natural process? Do you understand how all the models promoted by climate alarmists failed to produce accurate predictions? Are you familiar with the work of Judith Curry? Of course not.. as usual, you don't know much. You just act like you do.
 
And of course the climategate emails are not the only example we have of scientists at the highest level in their fields conspiring to hide the truth from the public's eye... When I hear some naive kid say "I believe in science", I just laugh.

I reported last week for RealClearInvestigations that the federal government had quietly removed University of North Carolina virologist Ralph Baric from all his NIH grants; UNC also placed Baric on leave. A senior HHS official, who reviewed the government’s classified material, told me that UNC is terrified the public will learn that they were complicit in starting the COVID pandemic.
“Baric designed the gun,” he said. “But the Chinese built it, and then they pulled the trigger.”
That same day, the Department of Justice indicted Tony Fauci’s senior advisor, David Morens, for concealing federal records concerning funding for virus research during the COVID pandemic. The indictment listed Peter Daszak of EcoHealth Alliance as “CO-CONSPIRATOR 1” and Boston University virologist Gerald Keusch as “CO-CONSPIRATOR 2.”
Last month, I reported on newly unearthed emails that show Morens, Daszak, and Keusch plotted against me for writing a 2021 investigation for the BMJ that concluded virologists had conspired in a misinformation campaign to cover up a possible Wuhan lab accident as the COVID pandemic’s cause.
[td]
​
[/td]​
In emails discussing me and my 2021 article, Keusch asked Morens and Daszak if they knew how to get in contact with former BMJ editor Peter Smith to complain. Daszak emailed back that contacting the BMJ about me was “a really good move” as my reporting was “pretty offensive stuff.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom