OT: Moon Landing

On Sunday, July 14, 2019 at 1:05:59 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 16:46:26 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in
news:sommie5s8dufbtmk37pu6clsqvamcout36@4ax.com:

On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 09:13:51 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, July 14, 2019 at 9:59:05 AM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Gentlemen,

As we approach the 50th anniversary of the 'first manned moon
landing' as it were, I'm just wondering what proportion of the
group believe the whole thing was just an elaborate hoax for
whatever reason?

It might as well have been. Either real or hoax, nothing came of
it. Just more circus for the nitwits, and nerd welfare of course.



It was real enough, but expensive, dangerous, and useless. Like
the ISS.

"Exploring space" is an oxymoron.



You would not even have had this forum to state that stupid shit
in, much less the device on which to do it.

Manned spaceflight did not contribute to usenet. I can't think of
anything useful that manned spaceflight has provided us. It cost a
fortune and killed some good people. The moon rocks could have been
gathered by a robot, and weren't very interesting anyhow. A lot of
moon rocks have been lost.

We could have funded some serious science for the cost of each shuttle
flight.

Scratch-resistant lenses
A sunglasses manufacturer called Foster Grant first licensed a NASA technology for scratch-resistant lenses, developed for protecting space equipment from scratching in space, especially helmet visors.[

Space blanket
So-called space blankets, developed in 1964 for the space program

3D foods printing
BeeHex developed 3D food printing systems for pizza and later desserts and icings following an SBIR grant that began as a NASA-funded project.

Fire-resistant reinforcement
Built and designed by Avco Corporation, the Apollo heat shield was coated with a material whose purpose was to burn and thus dissipate energy during reentry while charring, to form a protective coating to block heat penetration. NASA subsequently funded Avco's development of other applications of the heat shield, such as fire-retardant paints and foams for aircraft, which led to an intumescent epoxy material, which expands in volume when exposed to heat or flames, acting as an insulating barrier and dissipating heat through burn-off. Further innovations include steel coatings devised to make high-rise buildings and public structures safer by swelling to provide a tough and stable insulating layer over the steel for up to 4 hours of fire protection, ultimately to slow building collapse and provide more time for escape.

Firefighting equipment
Firefighting equipment in the United States is based on lightweight materials developed for the U.S. Space Program. NASA and the National Bureau of Standards created a lightweight breathing system including face mask, frame, harness, and air bottle

Enriched baby food
Commercially available infant formulas now contain a nutritional enrichment ingredient that traces its existence to NASA-sponsored research on bread mold as a recycling agent for long-duration space travel. The substance, formulated into the products life’sDHA and life’sARA and based on microalgae, can be found in over 90% of the infant formulas sold in the United States, and are added to infant formulas in over 65 other countries..

Portable cordless vacuums
For the Apollo space mission, NASA required a portable, self-contained drill capable of extracting core samples from below the lunar surface. Black & Decker was tasked with the job, and developed a computer program to optimize the design of the drill's motor and ensure minimal power consumption. That computer program led to the development of a cordless miniature vacuum cleaner called the DustBuster.

Freeze drying
In planning for the long-duration Apollo missions, NASA conducted extensive research into space food. One of the techniques developed in 1938 by NestlĂŠ was freeze drying. In the United States, Action Products later commercialized this technique for other foods, concentrating on snack food resulting in products like Space ice cream.

Air-scrubbers
Based on a discovery made in the 1990s at the Wisconsin Center for Space Automation and Robotics where Researchers, with the help of the Space Product Development Program at Marshall Space Flight Center, were trying to find a way to eliminate ethylene that accumulates around plants growing in spacecraft and then found a solution: light-induced oxidation. When UV light hits titanium dioxide, it frees electrons that turn oxygen and moisture into charged particles that oxidize air contaminants such as volatile organic compounds, turning them into carbon dioxide and water. This air scrubber also eliminates other airborne organic compounds and neutralized bacteria, viruses, and molds.

Water purification
NASA engineers are collaborating with qualified companies to develop systems intended to sustain the astronauts living on the International Space Station and future Moon and space missions. This system turns wastewater from respiration, sweat, and urine into drinkable water. By combining the benefits of chemical adsorption, ion exchange, and ultra-filtration processes, this technology can yield safe, drinkable water from the most challenging sources, such as in underdeveloped regions where well water may be heavily contaminated.

Pollution remediation
NASA's microencapsulating technology enabled the creation of a "Petroleum Remediation Product," which safely cleans petroleum-based pollutants from water.

Remotely controlled ovens
Embedded Web Technology (EWT) software—originally developed by NASA for use by astronauts operating experiments on the International Space Station

Food safety
Faced with the problem of how and what to feed an astronaut in a sealed capsule under weightless conditions while planning for human spaceflight, NASA enlisted the aid of The Pillsbury Company to address two principal concerns: eliminating crumbs of food that might contaminate the spacecraft's atmosphere and sensitive instruments, and assuring absolute absence of disease-producing bacteria and toxins. Pillsbury developed the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) concept to address NASA's second concern.

Smoke detectors - NASA's connection to the modern smoke detector is that it developed one with adjustable sensitivity as part of the Skylab project; this development helps with nuisance tripping.

--

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
 
On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 14:00:56 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 23:23:02 +0300, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 13:07:39 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 14:03:28 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 7/14/19 1:19 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 13:13:00 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 7/14/19 1:05 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 16:46:26 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in
news:sommie5s8dufbtmk37pu6clsqvamcout36@4ax.com:

On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 09:13:51 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, July 14, 2019 at 9:59:05 AM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Gentlemen,

As we approach the 50th anniversary of the 'first manned moon
landing' as it were, I'm just wondering what proportion of the
group believe the whole thing was just an elaborate hoax for
whatever reason?

It might as well have been. Either real or hoax, nothing came of
it. Just more circus for the nitwits, and nerd welfare of course.



It was real enough, but expensive, dangerous, and useless. Like
the ISS.

"Exploring space" is an oxymoron.



You would not even have had this forum to state that stupid shit
in, much less the device on which to do it.

Manned spaceflight did not contribute to usenet. I can't think of
anything useful that manned spaceflight has provided us. It cost a
fortune and killed some good people. The moon rocks could have been
gathered by a robot, and weren't very interesting anyhow. A lot of
moon rocks have been lost.

We could have funded some serious science for the cost of each shuttle
flight.



do not know if I am reading John Larkin or left-wing extremist rhetoric.
What have u done with the real JL??

What has manned spaceflight accomplished? Dollars and deaths. Spam in
a can.

Sure, astronauts repaired Hubble. But we could have launched scores
Hubbles and built scores of world-class radio telescopes for the cost
of the ISS, and killed no-one in the process.



Space flight, like high-energy physics, is primarily a cultural
activity. (Space flight also has a strong military dimension.)


But manned space flight? The Pentagon hasn't been very interested in
that.

What was the MOL project (a Gemini capsule on top of a 3 m diameter
space laboratory to be launched by Titan III M) ?

An idea that was never implemented. Both the US and Soviet military
considered and cancelled manned spaceflight programs. Both realized
that unmanned spacecraft made more sense for them.

The Soviets had the Almaz (a.k.a Salyut 2/3/5) military space
stations. At least one had a 23 mm cannon, apparently for self
defense:)


Why did the Shuttle have such huge return load capacity other than
returning a military space laboratory ?

Must have been a mistake, since it never did return such a lab.

The Spacelab concept was similar. It was taking down for
reconfiguration / rebuilding between missions. t would have made more
sense to send up a new lab for each mission.

The LDEF material testing spacecraft was one of the few missions, in
which a heavy load really needed to be returned for result analysis..

>The entire Shuttle program was a mistake.

Agreed.
 
On 2019-07-15, Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, July 14, 2019 at 4:15:21 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 17:28:33 +0000 (UTC),

Disagree. The Internet was inevitable.

"Inevitable"? Perhaps, but that doesn't mean it would have been created the way it was. What if Bill Gates had been the one to invent it?

We'd all be using Compuserve or Fidonet or something like that instead if he had.

--
When I tried casting out nines I made a hash of it.
 
On 15/7/19 10:12 am, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 15/7/19 9:23 am, Michael Terrell wrote:
On Sunday, July 14, 2019 at 11:32:44 AM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 7/14/2019 8:59 AM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Gentlemen,

As we approach the 50th anniversary of the 'first manned moon
landing' as
it were, I'm just wondering what proportion of the group believe the
whole thing was just an elaborate hoax for whatever reason?
    The question is just to stupid to entertain.
   But I have to ad, this morning I saw the seamstresses from Platex
even
got in on the hoax of sewing moon suits together.
     I was about 14 then and my mom let me stay up late to watch it.
I remember how crummy the video was.

The video was slow scan, due to the transmit power requirements.
Higher bandwidth required more power than was available.

They sent ten frames per second, 320 lines. It was scan-converted for
TV. In those days the scan conversion was a camera pointed at a picture
tube.

<https://www.sacbee.com/news/nation-world/article232663442.html>

Clifford Heath
 
On 14/07/2019 17:42, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 09:13:51 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, July 14, 2019 at 9:59:05 AM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Gentlemen,

As we approach the 50th anniversary of the 'first manned moon
landing' as it were, I'm just wondering what proportion of the
group believe the whole thing was just an elaborate hoax for
whatever reason?

Hopefully there is no-one here who doubts it actually happened.
This is a sci.* group after all - NOT alt.conspiracy.wing-nut

It might as well have been. Either real or hoax, nothing came of
it. Just more circus for the nitwits, and nerd welfare of course.

It was real enough, but expensive, dangerous, and useless. Like the
ISS.

It was a very good example of NASA making something that was right on
the borders of what was possible happen. We did get some pristine lunar
rock samples out of it that are still yielding science even today.

Shame they managed to lose the plans for the Saturn V.

> "Exploring space" is an oxymoron.

Whilst I am inclined to agree that now there are powerful robotic probes
there is less reason for manned space flight then ever there are some
things that humans still do better than machines. But when Apollo 11
went to the moon computers and robotic was in its infancy. They really
had no option but to send the very best test pilots to pull it off.

The men who flew the Apollo missions were incredibly brave and
brilliantly focussed at getting the job done safely even when the
hardware and landscape was fighting against them.

Russians tried a robotic probe as a spoiler even while Apollo 11 was on
the surface but Luna 15 crash landed. Luna 16 worked the next year.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/20/newsid_4092000/4092669.stm

It was interesting to see Fred Hoyle making the same argument against
manned space flight and in favour of robotics on the BBC back then. BBC
have dug out a lot of archive footage for this 50th anniversary.

The Apollo moon shot inspired a generation of people to go into science
and engineering, just as the famous Spassky - Fischer chess match in
Reykjavik inspired a generation of new chess players. I doubt there is
anyone alive who saw it that was not mesmerised by the Earth rise over
the barren hostile lunar surface from Apollo 8 that Christmas.

One interesting side effect of the Apollo programme is that automotive
seals no longer weep their vital fluids onto your drive. Packed glands
were simply not good enough in the vacuum of space and mechanical seals
won out big time. ISTR Chesterton seals did well out of it.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
 
On 14/07/2019 16:41, bitrex wrote:
On 7/14/19 11:32 AM, amdx wrote:
On 7/14/2019 8:59 AM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Gentlemen,

As we approach the 50th anniversary of the 'first manned moon
landing' as
it were, I'm just wondering what proportion of the group believe the
whole thing was just an elaborate hoax for whatever reason?



   The question is just to stupid to entertain.
  But I have to ad, this morning I saw the seamstresses from Platex
even got in on the hoax of sewing moon suits together.
    I was about 14 then and my mom let me stay up late to watch it.
I remember how crummy the video was.

                                        Mikek


An interesting argument I've seen against there being any kind of fakery
going on is that the video processing technology to take the video
footage of astronauts on some set somewhere jumping around, and
seamlessly process it to slow it down to make it look like they were in
a lower gravity environment, or process all that video to remove some
kind of harness they were using on the set, like they do with CGI
editing now in films, didn't exist in 1969.

Actually they could do quite a decent job of filming things faster to
simulate the appearance of lower gravity. Dimensional analysis was
routinely used to get scale model behaviour right in film work.
Thunderbirds being the canonical example of state of the art back then.

2001 a space odyssey also demonstrated what was possible at the limits
of stop motion photography if you were prepared to spend 3 years filming
a sequence that would last less than ten minutes in real time.
and developing a supercomputer with mid 1960s technology that could do
that kind of seamless video DSP might have been possible, but the cost
and labor required would have approached the budget required for the
moon shot

Stanley Kubrick's 2001 film came out shortly before the moon landings,
but since he was using just about all the most talented special effects
people there was no-one left for NASA to hire for special effects.

As an aside it is amusing to watch the TV props and animated diagrams of
the 1950's and 60's on the archive footage. Some are little more than
pieces of cardboard being pulled or pushed erratically on a blackboard.

The Apollo 8 badge with the transfer orbit on as the 8 was inspired!

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
 
On 14/07/2019 19:47, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 13:59:01 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
curd@notformail.com> wrote:

Gentlemen,

As we approach the 50th anniversary of the 'first manned moon landing' as
it were, I'm just wondering what proportion of the group believe the
whole thing was just an elaborate hoax for whatever reason?

There is one thing that speaks against a hoax is that when the Soviets
noticed that they are going to loose the Moon race, they would have
tried to discredit any US results.

The Soviets as well as some radio amateurs in different places of the
Earth were able to directly receive transmissions from the Apollo
space crafts.

In order to fake it, you at least need an (unmanned) transponder on
lunar orbit and the surface of the Moon to get the continuously
changing dopplers right.

Those that claims it was a hoax assumes that the only signal source
was through NASA, while there were other independent receivers.

Both sides routinely monitored each others space craft telemetry.
Jodrell Bank sometimes found itself doing this fairly often and they
sometimes had big scoops too which annoyed the Russians somewhat.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/lost-tapes-reveal-how-jodrell-15499925


--
Regards,
Martin Brown
 
On 15/07/19 10:23, Martin Brown wrote:
On 14/07/2019 19:47, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 13:59:01 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
curd@notformail.com> wrote:

Gentlemen,

As we approach the 50th anniversary of the 'first manned moon landing' as
it were, I'm just wondering what proportion of the group believe the
whole thing was just an elaborate hoax for whatever reason?

There is one thing that speaks against a hoax is that when the Soviets
noticed that they are going to loose the Moon race, they would have
tried to discredit any US results.

The Soviets as well as some radio amateurs in different places of the
Earth were able to directly receive transmissions from the Apollo
space crafts.

In order to fake it, you at least need an (unmanned) transponder on
lunar orbit and the surface of the Moon to get the continuously
changing dopplers right.

Those that claims it was a hoax assumes that the only signal source
was through NASA, while there were other  independent receivers.

Both sides routinely monitored each others space craft telemetry. Jodrell Bank
sometimes found itself doing this fairly often and they sometimes had big scoops
too which annoyed the Russians somewhat.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/lost-tapes-reveal-how-jodrell-15499925

Kettering Grammar School had a surprisingly good track
record in that respect: *schoolchildren* announced
the existence of the Plesetsk launch site (cf Baikonur).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-36027407
https://spacecentre.co.uk/blog-post/kettering-radio-group/

They also tracked the Apollo craft to the moon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettering_Grammar_School
 
On 14/07/2019 14:59, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Gentlemen,

As we approach the 50th anniversary of the 'first manned moon landing' as
it were, I'm just wondering what proportion of the group believe the
whole thing was just an elaborate hoax for whatever reason?
NASA paid Hollywood to make the video. However it was filmed on location
on the Moon since nowhere on Earth looked lunar enough. The step from
the ladder took 8 takes as the actor playing Armstrong kept fluffing his
lines and slipped off the ladder twice. Each time the Moon dust had to
be raked to remove the boot prints.

A friend who worked for Kodak at the time told me this, so it must be true.

Brian

--
Brian

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
 
On Sunday, July 14, 2019 at 10:05:59 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

The moon rocks could have been
gathered by a robot, and weren't very interesting anyhow. A lot of
moon rocks have been lost.

Oh, no, they were VERY interesting; those rocks prove that a bit over 1% of Earth's
mass was knocked loose gigayears ago, and is floating in the sky, under the name
Luna.

Maybe the search for balls of rock whizzing near our planet is worth spending some
real effort... we don't ever want to take another hit like that.

As for 'lost', that's just a bookkeeping error. There are boxes in forgotten places,
and some pilfering, and some bad handwriting or typos. Those thingsl always happen.
 
On Sunday, July 14, 2019 at 3:59:05 PM UTC+2, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Gentlemen,

As we approach the 50th anniversary of the 'first manned moon landing' as
it were, I'm just wondering what proportion of the group believe the
whole thing was just an elaborate hoax for whatever reason?

Is Cursitor Doom a not-particularly-elaborate hoax?

I'm tolrably convinced that the Moon landing was real. I was finishing writing my Ph.D. thesis at the time and had the TV set on, so watched it live - if not all that attentively.

There's going to be an IEEE Milestone plaque on the Australian radio telelscope that happened to carry most of the TV signal from the first landing.

The most recent NSW IEEE newsletter has a couple of pages on the subject (which was a pig to edit).

http://sites.ieee.org/nsw/files/2019/07/Circuit_July_2019v1.pdf

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
On 15/07/2019 11:00, whit3rd wrote:
On Sunday, July 14, 2019 at 10:05:59 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

The moon rocks could have been
gathered by a robot, and weren't very interesting anyhow. A lot of
moon rocks have been lost.

Not so much lost as stolen and replaced by common terrestrial basalt by
unscrupulous dealers and slightly dodgy museum curators. Collectors will
pay very good money for rare extra terrestrial specimens like Moon rock
and meteorites. The market distortions make science more difficult.
Oh, no, they were VERY interesting; those rocks prove that a bit over 1% of Earth's
mass was knocked loose gigayears ago, and is floating in the sky, under the name
Luna.

Maybe the search for balls of rock whizzing near our planet is worth spending some
real effort... we don't ever want to take another hit like that.

There already is an automated program that picks up almost everything
that gets close enough to be a worry. There has hardly been a human
skywatcher discovered comet in the past decade. They are all named
detection system/year/letter now. Pan-STarrs gets about half of all the
new comet/asteroid discoveries these days.

https://panstarrs.ifa.hawaii.edu/pswww/?page_id=156

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-STARRS
As for 'lost', that's just a bookkeeping error. There are boxes in forgotten places,
and some pilfering, and some bad handwriting or typos. Those thingsl always happen.

Especially when there are collectors willing to pay serious money.

The theft/swapping of sample often only shows up when the "moon" rocks
are taken for analysis with the latest techniques.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
 
On Monday, July 15, 2019 at 4:02:57 AM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 15/7/19 10:12 am, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 15/7/19 9:23 am, Michael Terrell wrote:
On Sunday, July 14, 2019 at 11:32:44 AM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 7/14/2019 8:59 AM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Gentlemen,

As we approach the 50th anniversary of the 'first manned moon
landing' as
it were, I'm just wondering what proportion of the group believe the
whole thing was just an elaborate hoax for whatever reason?
    The question is just to stupid to entertain.
   But I have to ad, this morning I saw the seamstresses from Platex
even
got in on the hoax of sewing moon suits together.
     I was about 14 then and my mom let me stay up late to watch it.
I remember how crummy the video was.

The video was slow scan, due to the transmit power requirements.
Higher bandwidth required more power than was available.

They sent ten frames per second, 320 lines. It was scan-converted for
TV. In those days the scan conversion was a camera pointed at a picture
tube.

https://www.sacbee.com/news/nation-world/article232663442.html

It was a little more complex than that. Scan converters were generally rack mounted units designed to maintain proper alignment of the monitor and camera. Since the signal was FM, it was likely 30KHz wide audio channel, given the time frame.

It was recorded onto a Telemetry logging recorder, which was also FM. The 70 MHz IF from the Telemetry receivers IF was recorded on broadband logging recorders, for archival, or later processing of the individual channels.

I was a Broadcast engineer a couple of years later at a monochrome TV station, using equipment built in the lat '60s and 1970.

I worked in Telemetry at Microdyne. They were formed a few years after this mission, by former employees of Defense Electronics who was likely the supplier of the Telemetry equipment for that mission. They left, because they had a better design, that their bosses weren't interested in. They were still committed to their huge, tube based product line and not interested in their solid state, modular design. I left Microdyne in 2001, and NASA was still using some early Microdyne equipment that had been in continuous service for 30+ years without any problems.
 
On Sunday, July 14, 2019 at 9:59:05 AM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Gentlemen,

As we approach the 50th anniversary of the 'first manned moon landing' as
it were, I'm just wondering what proportion of the group believe the
whole thing was just an elaborate hoax for whatever reason?



--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

I am surprised that this topic is still being debated and discredited. Yea, none of this every happened. Tesla never imagined 3 phase, Edison never invented the phonograph (eveyone knows the RCA dog did it while scratching around his food dish), Stalin and Hitler never murdered millions of ppl (they were just beamed up by the Romulans), Columbus never discovered "the new world'...(it was just some small island over the horizon from Spain) and he had 5 ships instead of 3 (he tried to implement a multiple redundant approach but the queen wouldn't spend the $s) and we are all in one big alien experiment to evaluate human 'behavior' all constructed in the Matrix...and boy this streak really tastes good but I know I am not really eating it....
Everyone knows it is all fake news...the dim bulb in the white house said so!
So now that all that 'history' (or is it *really* history????) is out of the way, we can all move on to more important and eminently more useful things like ensuring we have our morning coffee or tea, and contemplate the usefulness of the fuzz in our navel.
Sometimes I think 'human intelligence' is an oxymoron....

wow, those that can, do, those that can't, blabber....
Unbelievable, after 50 years....
J
 
On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 15:05:01 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 15/07/2019 14:53, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 03:00:14 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Sunday, July 14, 2019 at 10:05:59 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

The moon rocks could have been
gathered by a robot, and weren't very interesting anyhow. A lot of
moon rocks have been lost.

Oh, no, they were VERY interesting; those rocks prove that a bit over 1% of Earth's
mass was knocked loose gigayears ago, and is floating in the sky, under the name
Luna.

That is one theory. But we didn't need men in spacesuits to get some
samples. I submit that VERY interesting wasn't worth the cost in
dollars or lives or lost opportunities.

Perhaps not, but it helped make the USA population feel a lot better
after the shock of having Sputnik in orbit going bleep-bleep-bleep a
decade earlier. The moon race was a better idea than some of the US
military wing nuts who wanted to detonate a nuclear device there.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/9707686/US-planned-to-blow-up-a-nuclear-bomb-on-the-Moon.html

That would have been cool.

The men who trained as astronauts and went to the moon were volunteers
taken from elite military flight training schools. I think you under
estimate quite how attention grabbing it was at the time. People
followed the news avidly to see how it developed from Apollo 8 onwards.

I remember it.

Apollo 13 likewise grabbed the world's attention as they nursed a broken
spacecraft back to Earth with some Rube-Goldberg repaired contraptions
made from all the bits they had with them. After that people got bored.

Exactly. It was a very expensive cheap thrill.




--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics
 
On 15/07/2019 10:51, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 15/07/19 10:23, Martin Brown wrote:
On 14/07/2019 19:47, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

Those that claims it was a hoax assumes that the only signal source
was through NASA, while there were other  independent receivers.

Both sides routinely monitored each others space craft telemetry.
Jodrell Bank sometimes found itself doing this fairly often and they
sometimes had big scoops too which annoyed the Russians somewhat.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/lost-tapes-reveal-how-jodrell-15499925

Kettering Grammar School had a surprisingly good track
record in that respect: *schoolchildren* announced
the existence of the Plesetsk launch site (cf Baikonur).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-36027407
https://spacecentre.co.uk/blog-post/kettering-radio-group/

They also tracked the Apollo craft to the moon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettering_Grammar_School

Strictly it was their physics teacher and chemistry teacher (a radio
Ham) who built the gear to get the school children interested in
science. Back then you could do exciting dangerous science experiments
in schools involving high voltages, explosives and fireworks.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettering_Grammar_School#Space_research

My own school had a particularly inspiring biology teacher who ran the
science club. Our bias was therefore on interesting rare animals
(anything that wasn't actually deadly that turned up at the docks).

I still recall watching a Maxwell's spur arcing and sparking as it spun
through a pool of mercury flicking tiny droplets along the bench.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
 
On 15/07/2019 14:53, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 03:00:14 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Sunday, July 14, 2019 at 10:05:59 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

The moon rocks could have been
gathered by a robot, and weren't very interesting anyhow. A lot of
moon rocks have been lost.

Oh, no, they were VERY interesting; those rocks prove that a bit over 1% of Earth's
mass was knocked loose gigayears ago, and is floating in the sky, under the name
Luna.

That is one theory. But we didn't need men in spacesuits to get some
samples. I submit that VERY interesting wasn't worth the cost in
dollars or lives or lost opportunities.

Perhaps not, but it helped make the USA population feel a lot better
after the shock of having Sputnik in orbit going bleep-bleep-bleep a
decade earlier. The moon race was a better idea than some of the US
military wing nuts who wanted to detonate a nuclear device there.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/9707686/US-planned-to-blow-up-a-nuclear-bomb-on-the-Moon.html

The men who trained as astronauts and went to the moon were volunteers
taken from elite military flight training schools. I think you under
estimate quite how attention grabbing it was at the time. People
followed the news avidly to see how it developed from Apollo 8 onwards.

Apollo 13 likewise grabbed the world's attention as they nursed a broken
spacecraft back to Earth with some Rube-Goldberg repaired contraptions
made from all the bits they had with them. After that people got bored.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
 
On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 10:59:38 +0100, Brian Howie <nospam@b-howie.co.uk>
wrote:

On 14/07/2019 14:59, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Gentlemen,

As we approach the 50th anniversary of the 'first manned moon landing' as
it were, I'm just wondering what proportion of the group believe the
whole thing was just an elaborate hoax for whatever reason?



NASA paid Hollywood to make the video. However it was filmed on location
on the Moon since nowhere on Earth looked lunar enough. The step from
the ladder took 8 takes as the actor playing Armstrong kept fluffing his
lines and slipped off the ladder twice. Each time the Moon dust had to
be raked to remove the boot prints.

A friend who worked for Kodak at the time told me this, so it must be true.

Brian

Moon dust turns out to be very nasty stuff.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics
 
On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 03:00:14 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Sunday, July 14, 2019 at 10:05:59 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

The moon rocks could have been
gathered by a robot, and weren't very interesting anyhow. A lot of
moon rocks have been lost.

Oh, no, they were VERY interesting; those rocks prove that a bit over 1% of Earth's
mass was knocked loose gigayears ago, and is floating in the sky, under the name
Luna.

That is one theory. But we didn't need men in spacesuits to get some
samples. I submit that VERY interesting wasn't worth the cost in
dollars or lives or lost opportunities.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics
 
On 15/07/19 15:05, Martin Brown wrote:
On 15/07/2019 10:51, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 15/07/19 10:23, Martin Brown wrote:
On 14/07/2019 19:47, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

Those that claims it was a hoax assumes that the only signal source
was through NASA, while there were other  independent receivers.

Both sides routinely monitored each others space craft telemetry. Jodrell
Bank sometimes found itself doing this fairly often and they sometimes had
big scoops too which annoyed the Russians somewhat.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/lost-tapes-reveal-how-jodrell-15499925


Kettering Grammar School had a surprisingly good track
record in that respect: *schoolchildren* announced
the existence of the Plesetsk launch site (cf Baikonur).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-36027407
https://spacecentre.co.uk/blog-post/kettering-radio-group/

They also tracked the Apollo craft to the moon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettering_Grammar_School

Strictly it was their physics teacher and chemistry teacher (a radio Ham) who
built the gear to get the school children interested in science.

The distinction is, um, blurry, I agree :)


Back then you
could do exciting dangerous science experiments in schools involving high
voltages, explosives and fireworks.

And we did.

Being given (not handed!) bits of Na and K to put in water,
conc sulphuric acid on sugar, potassium cyanide (with a
warning not to flush it down the sink with acid), and no
week was complete without at least one "squeaky pop" :)

In physics one of my friends found his watch was noticeably
more radioactive than the school's most radioactive source.

And then there was the demo of detonating stoichiometric
mixtures of gasses, in the Royal Institution :)



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettering_Grammar_School#Space_research

My own school had a particularly inspiring biology teacher who ran the science
club. Our bias was therefore on interesting rare animals (anything that wasn't
actually deadly that turned up at the docks).

I still recall watching a Maxwell's spur arcing and sparking as it spun through
a pool of mercury flicking tiny droplets along the bench.

Yes, playing with liquid Hg was fun.

As a glider pilot instructor mentioned in conjunction
with teaching kids (inc. my daughter) to fly, "back
then you expected to lose a few".
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top