|
|
|
zaphod beeblebrox
New Member
15 Posts |
 Posted - 08/17/2005 : 17:47:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by bigbrain
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
"... You're right, it's not a crane at all. The first image (2000-001281) is of the Langley drop test facility. Here's the full description:The Langley drop test facility where aircraft crashes can be simulated. The grid screen at the left of the facility is used as a backdrop for the impacts to allow engineers to measure angles and impact speeds. This facility was originally built to test a lunar lander simulator. The second image (link quoted above) is a multiple-exposure of a test.
And the question to you, bigbrain, is "so what?"
Then facts have gone this way (as I said in a previous post:
Kennedy says: "we must go to the Moon"
"NASA's buffoons" band sets to work and builds this tramp-rocket (TR)
http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/SMALL/GPN-2000-001110.jpg
Then they build this biggest crane
http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/SMALL/GPN-2000-001287.jpg
to test if their TR can land like an helicopter
http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/SMALL/GPN-2000-001281.jpg
They see that unfortunately their TR can land like an helicopter only if they keep it by the crane because when they burn rocket engine it falls down in any direction at 360 degrees
Kennedy says: "damn and blast you!"
Kennedy and "NASA's buffoons" band decide to make a film about lunar landing  
Kennedy says nothing because he is dead.
Oh Valiant Dancer it's a well known fact that the Kennedy assassination was just a big hoax
 |
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so. ~Douglas Adams |
 |
|
|
Dry_vby
Skeptic Friend
Australia
249 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2005 : 18:00:49 [Permalink]
|
Yeah, according to the movie "Bubba Ho-tep" he's in an old folks home with Elvis, trying to hunt down the mummy:
http://www.tribute.ca/synopsis.asp?m_id=8200 |
"I'll go along with the charade
Until I can think my way out.
I know it was all a big joke
Whatever it was about."
Bob Dylan
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2005 : 23:46:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
FIFTH STATEMENT: YOU GO TO MARS AND TO SATURN TO DEMONSTRATE YOUR POWER AND YOUR SUPERIORITY TO ALL THE WORLD. THEN YOU SHOULD FILM (AT 30 FRAMES PER SECOND) MARS AND SATURN RAISING OUT OF THE DARKNESS OF UNIVERSE WHILE YOU ARE GOING MORE AND MORE CLOSER TO THEM. IT WOULD BE A FANTASTIC SIGHT THAT WOULD DEMONSTRATE YOUR POWER, YOUR SUPERIORITY.
Film runs at 24 fps, 30 fps is used in computer animation, video tape runs at 27.76 fps (If I recall correctly). This is why, when transferring film to video and computer animations to video requires that you watch for dropped frames. I'm uncertain how filming at 30 fps bears any relation to the reality or unreality of the NASA missions.
quote:
Their TR lands like a harrier in full hover mode using vectored thrust and thanks to engineering works as tested and practiced.
Hey Val, you know there was a reason we affectionately called the Harrier the Scarrier. If the wing wasn't properly aligned (it was removed for maintenance) or the engines weren't tuned with each other properly it would flip on take off. Yeah, it works as advertised, most of the time. That and those idiots from Yuma never would tie their aircraft down when the Santa Ana's would blow. It was rather interesting coming in for early crew one morning to find a Scarrier parked in the nose of one of our A-6E's. Apparently, it wasn't parked there the night previous. |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2005 : 04:52:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by bigbrain
Tell us, dear Fripp, since you are so intelligent, why NASA's buffoons built this biggest crane before going to the Moon?
http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/SMALL/GPN-2000-001287.jpg
Sorry. Never claimed that I was "so intelligent". Nor do I call the vastly-more-educated-and-experienced NASA engineers "buffoons".
You find easy to ask questions but hard to answer any. At last count, there at least 7 or 8 questions asked of you that you've ignored. |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2005 : 05:10:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by bigbrain
FIFTH STATEMENT: YOU GO TO MARS AND TO SATURN TO DEMONSTRATE YOUR POWER AND YOUR SUPERIORITY TO ALL THE WORLD. THEN YOU SHOULD FILM (AT 30 FRAMES PER SECOND) MARS AND SATURN RAISING OUT OF THE DARKNESS OF UNIVERSE WHILE YOU ARE GOING MORE AND MORE CLOSER TO THEM. IT WOULD BE A FANTASTIC SIGHT THAT WOULD DEMONSTRATE YOUR POWER, YOUR SUPERIORITY.
WHY DON'T YOU MAKE THESE FILMS OF EXTRAORDINARY BEAUTY AND WHY DO YOU MAKE UGLY MOVIES WITH TONS OF STONES MADE BY FISHEYE LENS AND FEW FRAMES PER SECOND LIKE FILMS OF 1900?
Without an iota of research, I will take a stab at this (not to convince or sway you, but just to further discredit you).
I would assume that NASA doesn't film at 24 fps (normal film speed) because of weight considerations. My film knowledge is a bit rusty (I was once a film major and worked on several films) but an off-the-shelf film reel maybe can film 10-15 minutes non-stop. Barring NASA from customizing a longer-take reel, whose going to change reels?
There are also weight considerations with carrying all this film, ostensibly with accusation that NASA (and the US) is trying the "assert their superiority" to the world. Uhhh, stupid, they are asserting their technical prowess merely by sending the probes out and receiving info back. They are also asserting their technical prowess because boneheads like you can't fathom that achievement.
Fisheye lenses: That's so EVERYTHING stays in focus. The wonderful thing about fisheye lenses is that their DOF is infinite. It's hard to have someone worried about focus-pulling on an unmanned probe.
Simple question BigIdiot: what's DOF?
For someone who claims to have 3D program background (I, personally, have worked on Maya (back when it was PowerAnimator), 3D Studio Max, Lightwave, Cinema 4D, etc.) it's amazing how little you know about the filming process. Video does NOT run at 30 fps. It runs at 29.97 fps. If you don't think this is an important distinction, run a video at 29.97 and it's soundtrack at 30 fps. In ten seconds, they are so out of sync it's comical. BTW, I saw that little render you provided with the rainbow Saturns floating over a lake. If that's your work, please find another avocation. |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
sts60
Skeptic Friend
141 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2005 : 06:19:00 [Permalink]
|
I would assume that NASA doesn't film at 24 fps (normal film speed) because of weight considerations. My film knowledge is a bit rusty (I was once a film major and worked on several films) but an off-the-shelf film reel maybe can film 10-15 minutes non-stop. Barring NASA from customizing a longer-take reel, whose going to change reels?
Fripp, you're right that weight (well, mass) is an important consideration.
Of course, nobody uses film movie cameras in space anymore, AFAIK. It's all video. (And that's just for manned missions anyway. Old spy satellites used to eject film canisters to be picked up on the fly by aircraft, but that was a long time ago.)
But now imagine putting a video camera on board an interplanetary probe. That means more mass, and mass is usually the most precious commodity (in terms of minimizing it) on a deep-space vehicle. Not only the mass of the camera itself, but of all the extra capability you need for it: more power (electrical power to run it, thermal power to keep it alive), logic to control it, data handling, and let's not forget the extra bandwidth to transmit the imagery - a lot of bandwidth for a video camera, even with all the fancy compression. More bandwidth means more power and mass, too.
Why would you do it? Imagine a spacecraft crusing towards Mars, taking video imagery. How exactly do you expect the image to change over thousands of frames? It just doesn't. Things don't change that fast when you're approaching, or circling, a planet. And, given that no mobile life forms are likely elsewhere in this solar system, the same goes for when you're on a planet (although one of the current Mars rovers did snap several frames of a passing dust devil - see http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/spotlight/20050325.html). It would be an incredible waste of resources, and no mission designer would consider it for a second.
Still imagers are used because they do everything you need (and provide higher image quality than video anyway). There are plenty of images taken during the cruise phase as spacecraft approach their targets. The images are deeply impressive; just beautiful, really, seeing the destination loom up out of the darkness.
Fisheye lenses: That's so EVERYTHING stays in focus. The wonderful thing about fisheye lenses is that their DOF is infinite. It's hard to have someone worried about focus-pulling on an unmanned probe.
The really wide field cameras on the MERs (Mars Exploration Rovers) are used for navigation/hazard avoidance, not for scientific or PR imagery. See http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/spacecraft_rover_eyes.html for details. |
| Edited by - sts60 on 08/18/2005 06:21:04 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2005 : 06:30:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by bigbrain
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
"... The "Tramp rocket" pilots like a harrier jump jet, not a helicopter ..."
What are you saying?
A harrier jump jet is completely different from TR 
Hi all
it's bed time for me and my girl 
I'm saying that the Harrier uses a more complex version of what the LM used. The whole thing you keep missing is distribution of weight. The LM was bottom heavy. A full Coke Can is top heavy. There is no wind on the moon, nor is there as much gravity. Then theres the whole footprint issue. Like the car commercial says. Wider is better.
However, one must compare apples to apples by means of propulsion. You have compared a helicopter (top heavy) to the LM (bottom heavy). Rotored aircraft (helicopter) with rocket propulsion (LM). The Harrier is more similar to the LM than a helicopter. And it's also usually a bad idea to thrust a rocket from the top, it tends to damage the vehicle it's powering.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2005 : 07:52:55 [Permalink]
|
sts60,
Thanks for your info and insight. Since I am doing most of this at work, I don't have the luxury of extensive research.
Your info on the equipment reminded of an article I had read that for one of the Martian landers (you know, the ones that didn't land on Mars), NASA chose a PowerPC 601 processor. This processor is several generations removed from the power hog, more-heat-per-sq-inch-than-a-hot-plate processors most of are using to roam the internet. But the 601 was chosen because of it's low power requirements, and it's ability to withstand extreme environmental conditions.
You pointed out something else I had not considered, heat. Film has a very narrow comfort zone and thus, must be kept constantly warm--another huge power expenditure.
Again, I think all of us are learning more even if BigIdiot is not. |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
bigbrain
BANNED
409 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2005 : 08:46:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sts60
"... Actually, the LM was probably easier to land than a Harrier, which has two nozzles to the LM's single gimballed engine/bell, wings and empennage sticking out (think moment arms), and of course full Earth gravity and winds, billowing dust, etc. to deal with. The LM had a low center of gravity, a nice wide footprint, less gravitational acceleration to deal with, and none of the aerodynamic or environmental distractions ..."
No, dear friend sts60
go here please
http://www.technologystudent.com/culture1/harr1.htm
“...The Harriers most famous feature is its vertical take off and landing capability. Although the Harrier has one jet engine (The Pegasus) it has FOUR NOZZLES that direct the jet engine thrust downwards for vertical lift. (Diagram 1)…”
YOU KNOW HARRIERS ARE VERY DIFFICULT TO FLY
If the four jets of the Harrier were close to center of gravity, it would be enough a little variation of the thrust of one jet to cause a big change as regards the vertical attitude.
Since the four jets of the Harrier are far from center of gravity, a little variation of the thrust of one jet can only cause a little change as regards the vertical attitude.
If you consider the LM like an Harrier with the four jets just in the center of gravity, you should understand very well that a little variation of the thrust of one virtual jet would cause a biggest change as regards the vertical attitude, and the LM would become uncontrollable.
WHY DON'T YOU WANT TO ADMIT THAT LM CAN'T LAND LIKE A HELICOPTER OR LIKE A HARRIER?
MOREOVER (I like this word as “Therefore”) LLRV IS TOO DIFFERENT FROM LM.
ASTRONAUTS WOULD HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO LEARN TO FLY LM TRAINING WITH LLRV
|
"Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit" (Flattery gets friends, truth hatred)
Publius Terentius Afer, "Terence", Roman dramatist
|
| Edited by - bigbrain on 08/18/2005 08:52:00 |
|
|
|
bigbrain
BANNED
409 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2005 : 09:05:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sts60
"... But now imagine putting a video camera on board an interplanetary probe. That means more mass, and mass is usually the most precious commodity (in terms of minimizing it) on a deep-space vehicle. Not only the mass of the camera itself, but of all the extra capability you need for it: more power (electrical power to run it, thermal power to keep it alive), logic to control it, data handling, and let's not forget the extra bandwidth to transmit the imagery - a lot of bandwidth for a video camera, even with all the fancy compression. More bandwidth means more power and mass, too..."
What is a little more weight in comparison with the beauty of a video that shows Mars and Saturn raising out of the darkness of universe, before slightly illuminated by the sun and after, when the probe is going more and more closer to those planets, the fantastic sight of their variegated atmospheres full of gradations, tones, shadows, nuances 
|
"Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit" (Flattery gets friends, truth hatred)
Publius Terentius Afer, "Terence", Roman dramatist
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2005 : 09:07:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by bigbrain
Originally posted by sts60
"... Actually, the LM was probably easier to land than a Harrier, which has two nozzles to the LM's single gimballed engine/bell, wings and empennage sticking out (think moment arms), and of course full Earth gravity and winds, billowing dust, etc. to deal with. The LM had a low center of gravity, a nice wide footprint, less gravitational acceleration to deal with, and none of the aerodynamic or environmental distractions ..."
No, dear friend sts60
go here please
http://www.technologystudent.com/culture1/harr1.htm
“...The Harriers most famous feature is its vertical take off and landing capability. Although the Harrier has one jet engine (The Pegasus) it has FOUR NOZZLES that direct the jet engine thrust downwards for vertical lift. (Diagram 1)…”
YOU KNOW HARRIERS ARE VERY DIFFICULT TO FLY
If the four jets of the Harrier were close to center of gravity, it would be enough a little variation of the thrust of one jet to cause a big change as regards the vertical attitude.
Since the four jets of the Harrier are far from center of gravity, a little variation of the thrust of one jet can only cause a little change as regards the vertical attitude.
If you consider the LM like an Harrier with the four jets just in the center of gravity, you should understand very well that a little variation of the thrust of one virtual jet would cause a biggest change as regards the vertical attitude, and the LM would become uncontrollable.
WHY DON'T YOU WANT TO ADMIT THAT LM CAN'T LAND LIKE A HELICOPTER OR LIKE A HARRIER?
MOREOVER (I like this word as “Therefore”) LLRV IS TOO DIFFERENT FROM LM.
ASTRONAUTS WOULD HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO LEARN TO FLY LM TRAINING WITH LLRV
And yet you constantly ignore the smaller thrusters located on the top of the unit for lateral motion.
Check out page 16 of this file. It clearly shows no less than 4 thrusting modules near the top of the LM. It uses these smaller thrusters for gentle course corrections and stability control as well as the gimballed engine not operating as you suggest.
Page 17 gives a better picture and lables the thrust modules as thrust chamber assembly clusters.
The schematics is for LM 10 and were written in 1970.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LM10HandbookVol1.pdf
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
bigbrain
BANNED
409 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2005 : 09:11:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Fripp
"... For someone who claims to have 3D program background (I, personally, have worked on Maya (back when it was PowerAnimator), 3D Studio Max, Lightwave, Cinema 4D, etc.) it's amazing how little you know about the filming process. Video does NOT run at 30 fps. It runs at 29.97 fps. If you don't think this is an important distinction, run a video at 29.97 and it's soundtrack at 30 fps. In ten seconds, they are so out of sync it's comical. BTW, I saw that little render you provided with the rainbow Saturns floating over a lake. If that's your work, please find another avocation ..."
If you enter in "Options" of these softwares you will be able to see:
30 fps and not 29.97 fps
|
"Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit" (Flattery gets friends, truth hatred)
Publius Terentius Afer, "Terence", Roman dramatist
|
|
|
|
ktesibios
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2005 : 09:23:50 [Permalink]
|
Val, it isn't just that bigmouth is comparing apples to Flainian Pobble Beads, it's that his entire analogy is invalid.
When you balance a Coke can on your finger, the finger and the can are in two separate inertial frames of reference, which can move with respect to each other. In a spacecraft, the engine and the rest of the craft are in the same frame of reference- a completely different situation. A rocket doesn't stand on its thrust the way a man stands on a ladder, and it can't fall off of its thrust the way the man can fall off the ladder.
If the thrust vector passes through the craft's center of mass, it will produce pure translational motion, that is, the craft will accelerate along a straight line. If the thrust is off-center, in addition to producing motion in translation, it will cause the craft to start rotating around its center of mass. The angular acceleration will be equal to the applied moment divided by the craft's moment of inertia.
The presence or absence of an external gravitational field, or the craft's velocity relative to some other object has no effect on this. It will work the same in Earth orbit, Lunar orbit, on the way to Saturn or halfway to Alpha Centauri.
This was explained to bigmouth over and over on the Apollohoax forum, to no more effect than the Moon's gravity had on the LM's stability.
The fact that he's determined not to get it doesn't oblige us to play "fetch" with his red herrings.  |
"The Republican agenda is to turn the United States into a third-world shithole." -P.Z.Myers |
|
|
|
bigbrain
BANNED
409 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2005 : 09:24:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
"... Check out page 16 of this file. It clearly shows no less than 4 thrusting modules near the top of the LM. It uses these smaller thrusters for gentle course corrections and stability control as well as the gimballed engine not operating as you suggest ..."
What are those ridiculous trumpets?
OVER AND OVER, OVER AND OVER, I REPEAT
You must land on the moon with this
http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/SMALL/GPN-2000-001210.jpg
and then you learn to land with this
http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/SMALL/GPN-2000-000215.jpg
Then you are an idiot |
"Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit" (Flattery gets friends, truth hatred)
Publius Terentius Afer, "Terence", Roman dramatist
|
|
|
|
ktesibios
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2005 : 09:47:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by bigbrain
If you enter in "Options" of these softwares you will be able to see:
30 fps and not 29.97 fps
The frame rate for NTSC color video (the standard used on the North American continent) is 29.97 fps. The frame rate for the original black and white video standard is 30 fps. The NTSC pulled the frame rate down to 29.97 to avoid an interference problem between the 3.58 MHz chroma subcarrier and the 4.5 MHz sound carrierused for broadcast TV transmission.
Over the last 15 years or so I've done a lot of sessions involving synchronizing audio and video recorders, or MIDI sequencers or hard disk recorders to audio and video tape. I wish I had a sawbuck for every time I had to sort out a problem caused by a 29.97/30 fps conflict created by some MIDI programmer or recording engineer who didn't friggin' well pay attention to what the timecode frame rate on the master was.
And it would be nice to add a little gratuity for every software package or sync box I've encountered whose makers couldn't be arsed to deal explicitly with the difference between the color and B&W frame rates and between the drop-frame and non-drop timecode formats.
It would surprise me not at all to discover that some video editing packages suffer from the same neglect. In my experience, the best way to learn video people about timecode synchronization would be with a large, nail-studded stick. 
bigmouth is fortunate to live in Europe, where everything- color, black and white, EBU timecode- runs at 25 fps and nobody ever needed a drop-frame format to make the TC reader read the same as clock-on-the-wall time. |
"The Republican agenda is to turn the United States into a third-world shithole." -P.Z.Myers |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
