|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 08/18/2005 : 10:26:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by bigbrain
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?
They are called thrust chambers. Little bitty rocket nozzles which can be turned on and off.
C'mon. Say it with me. Thrust chambers.
quote:
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  
As has been pointed out several times before but you ardently refuse to listen, the craft you show is not the only one used for training.
Do try to keep up. |
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 : 10:32:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ktesibios
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.
Thanks ktesibios. Spoken much more clearly and eloquently than i could have mustered.
BigIdiot, it's quite clear to me that you've never actually produced work for any video houses or output facilities. Nor have you ever tried syncing up dialog for an animated character.
Your intellect is underwhelming. |
"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?" |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2005 : 10:32:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ktesibios
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. 
Dang, the Coke can got me. I was arguing comparing thrust systems (of which a Coke can has none) and added a reference to top heavy vs bottom heavy stability concerns.
Granted a rocket cannot "fall off" it's thrust. It is in practice like a Coke can with a piece of rebar welded to the bottom. It moves as one unit not independantly.
|
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 : 11:16:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
"... As has been pointed out several times before but you ardently refuse to listen, the craft you show is not the only one used for training ..."
Then show the others, please  |
"Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit" (Flattery gets friends, truth hatred)
Publius Terentius Afer, "Terence", Roman dramatist
|
|
|
|
sts60
Skeptic Friend
141 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2005 : 11:56:48 [Permalink]
|
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.
Exactly. Spacecraft electrical components aren't chosen for their sexiness (i.e., being the cutting edge of commercial state-of-the-art) as it is for, say, a gaming PC. It's chosen for its ability to work in space, including the criteria you mentioned such as temperature extremes, vacuum, and radiation tolerance.
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.
The solar-powered MERs each carry eight (IIRC) small radioisotope heaters to keep them alive through those cold Martian nights. Even solid-state circuitry doesn't do well with extreme temperature swings.
As for film, JayUtah has expounded in great detail about the use of film and film cameras during Apollo on apollohoax and Bad Astronomy BBs. Search for "Hasselbad" and "Estar" and you'll see what I mean.
|
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2005 : 12:20:05 [Permalink]
|
sts,
Off-topic, but what did you think of the Apollo 13 movie. I think it's a great movie from a movie standpoint, but...I liked Lovell's book much better.
And everytime I watch the movie, I can't stand:
1) How they piss on Jack Swigert's grave by making him look inept and a slacker.
2) How the mission doctor is made to look like a fool for requesting that the astronauts need to get some sleep ("Sleep's for sissies, these are red-blooded American heroes. Sleep is a luxury"). In the book, NASA knew the astronauts needed sleep to be at their optimum.
3) The portrayal of Mattingly as some over-anal perfectionist.
Mostly it's the denigration of Swigert that gets me. |
"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?" |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
|
|
sts60
Skeptic Friend
141 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2005 : 12:49:11 [Permalink]
|
Valiant Dancer,
as you pointed out there was more than one kind of trainer for the Lunar Module.
The Lunar Landing Research Vehicles (LLRVs) and Lunar Landing Training Vehicles (LLTVs) (aka the "Flying Bedsteads") were used to simulate 1/6 G powered landing, using a jet engine to offset 5/6 of the Earth's gravity. The hybrid configuration necessary for this made it something of a beast - not nearly as well-behaved as a real LM. Three were destroyed in crashes (the pilots all ejected safely), but well over a hundred successful flights had been made years before the Apollo 11 landing. I don't know the total number of flights made by LLRVs/LLTVs.
It should be emphasized, though, that these vehicles only simulated some of the dynamics the LM pilot would encounter, not the true flight behavior or systems of an LM. More about them at:
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/LLRV/HTML/index.html
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/apoollrv.htm
Also, typical HB claims about these vehicles are addressed at
http://www.clavius.org/techlltv.html
The Lunar Landing Research Facility at Langley, which used the crane referenced earlier in the thread, did the same thing using motors and pulleys. It, too, had no fidelity to the real LM, only to the low-gravity environment:
http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/butowsky4/space14.htm
Langley also used a crane system to simulate the docking of the CSM and LM:
http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/butowsky4/space15.htm
Higher-fidelity (in terms of systems and internal and/or external arrangements) were used to train the astronauts as well, such as flight simulators which projected an approaching lunar landscape in the windows much as today's aircraft simulators do. For example, see
http://images.ksc.nasa.gov/photos/1969/medium/KSC-69P-0260.jpg
for an example of an "internal" simulator (with Snoopy riding on top!)
and I believe this is the same unit:
http://www.cradleofaviation.org/exhibits/space/lm_simulator/sim.html
The camera-flying-over-a-model-landscape was used a lot in flight simulators. I've seen the same thing used to train USAF drone operators - and that dated back to the Vietnam War era.
The ultimate training sessions, of course, had to be done in the flight tests leading up to and including Apollo 11 - each of which increasingly pushed the flight envelope of the LM. (The actual flight characteristics of the LM, of course, could only be tested by flying it in space, and above and onto the Moon, since it could not be tested in a 1-G environment.)
|
|
|
|
bigbrain
BANNED
409 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2005 : 12:52:11 [Permalink]
|
Is this a forum for skeptic (incredulous) persons or not?
It's not possible nobody thinks like me.
Where are those persons that think Americans never went to the Moon?
Originally posted by Fripp
"... I, personally, have worked on Maya (back when it was PowerAnimator), 3D Studio Max, Lightwave, Cinema 4D, etc... "
Since you are an expert, do you think this image is real?
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpegMod/PIA06193_modest.jpg
In this image NASA's buffons have used "ray traced shadows" and then shadows are not realistic, are too clear
Do you agree?
|
"Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit" (Flattery gets friends, truth hatred)
Publius Terentius Afer, "Terence", Roman dramatist
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2005 : 12:56:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by bigbrain
Is this a forum for skeptic (incredulous) persons or not?
It's not possible nobody thinks like me.
Where are those persons that think Americans never went to the Moon?
You are not a skeptic. You do not know what a skeptic is.
The people who believe the US never went to the moon are not Skeptics and would not belong to this forum.
The people who believe in the hoax are the same type of people who believe the earth is flat.
So do you admit your assertation about the LM training was incorrect, or will you once again move to yet another stupid assertation of some crackpot bullshit?
|
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 08/18/2005 12:57:54 |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2005 : 12:57:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by bigbrain
Originally posted by Fripp
"... I, personally, have worked on Maya (back when it was PowerAnimator), 3D Studio Max, Lightwave, Cinema 4D, etc... "
Since you are an expert, do you think this image is real?
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpegMod/PIA06193_modest.jpg
Hey stupid, where in that quote did I make a claim to be an expert? I'm not the video pro who thinks that video moves at 30 fps. I see that you've shut up about that as well.
And yes, I do think it's real. |
"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?" |
|
|
|
ktesibios
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2005 : 12:59:24 [Permalink]
|
Val, top-heavy versus bottom heavy is also meaningless in this context.
Imagine that the engine's center of thrust is located x meters above the craft's center of mass, the magnitude of the thrust vector is y N and the direction of the thrust vector is cockeyed by z degrees.
The angular acceleration this produces will have exactly the same magnitude as if the center of thrust is x meters below the center of mass, the magnitude of the thrust vector is y N and the direction of the thrust vector is cockeyed by z degrees.
The only thing that will differ is the direction of the rotation, which will be opposite in the two cases.
bigmouth's trouble lies in insisting on seeing things in terms of Earthbound analogies, which just don't apply to stuff in free fall. |
"The Republican agenda is to turn the United States into a third-world shithole." -P.Z.Myers |
|
|
|
sts60
Skeptic Friend
141 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2005 : 13:01:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fripp
sts,
Off-topic, but what did you think of the Apollo 13 movie. I think it's a great movie from a movie standpoint, but...I liked Lovell's book much better.
And everytime I watch the movie, I can't stand:
1) How they piss on Jack Swigert's grave by making him look inept and a slacker.
2) How the mission doctor is made to look like a fool for requesting that the astronauts need to get some sleep ("Sleep's for sissies, these are red-blooded American heroes. Sleep is a luxury"). In the book, NASA knew the astronauts needed sleep to be at their optimum.
3) The portrayal of Mattingly as some over-anal perfectionist.
Mostly it's the denigration of Swigert that gets me.
(Shrug) What can you say - it's Hollywood.
People are compressed into individual characters - Ken Mattingly, for example, wasn't CAPCOM during reentry.
Things are dramatized - nobody was hollering and arguing. Listen to the real air-to-ground audio, or read some of Jim Lovell's comments, and you'll see what I mean.
Characteristics and reactions have to be "punched up" for the screen. Things like you mentioned. I didn't think Mattingly or Swigert came off badly in the film as seen by the average moviegoer. Just human, you know?
But, yeah, there were some annoying Hollywoodisms. The way the flight surgeon's recommendations were portrayed didn't ring true. The idea that a backup CM pilot would be struggling at that point in the game was silly. (Remember the movie The Hunt for Red October - can you imagine a Navy nuke sonar man yelling "What do I do?" when they get a contact?) Perhaps most irksome was the way they made the Grumman guy look like a tool. The book Lost Moon tells of the Grumman manager getting to their plant after being notified of the emergency, only to find the parking lot jammed with damned near every employee coming in to help however they can. (No, I've never had anything to do with Grumman.)
That said, it's still one of the better, and more accurate, space movies I've seen. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2005 : 13:20:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by bigbrain
Is this a forum for skeptic (incredulous) persons or not?
It's not possible nobody thinks like me.
Where are those persons that think Americans never went to the Moon?
Right here.
http://www.aros.net/~gzero/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
bigbrain
BANNED
409 Posts |
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
