What is this spacecraft ?

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 13:14:25 -0500, Pat Flannery
wrote:


Which brings up a interesting question: can you use pneumatic tires on
the moon?

....Personally, I think the answer is "Yes, but...", for reasons that
just begin with your comment:

After a while the tire in shadow is going to get a lot cooler than the
one in sunlight, and the pressure in it is going to drop pretty
precipitously.

....Remember we're also dealing with a vacuum as opposed to 14.5psi,
which is going to add an additional amount of excess strain on the
tires at their two weakest points: the sidewalls, and the seal between
tire and hub. Hit a rock the wrong way, and BANG, which explains
more about why the Rovers went with wire wheels as opposed to the
weight savings excuse.

Still, you have to admit those wire tires were rather well designed...

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

OM wrote:
...Remember we're also dealing with a vacuum as opposed to 14.5psi,
which is going to add an additional amount of excess strain on the
tires at their two weakest points:

Yeah, but if we pressurize the car tires to 34.5 psi over ambient
pressure, and then remove the 14.5 psi to make up for the fact they are
in vacuum, we end up with the same strain on the tires at 20 psi on the
Moon as they would have on Earth.
Henry's observation about finding materials that maintain their
flexibility at the varying temperatures is a tougher nut to crack.
Maybe an innertube of a fairly lightweight material (Mylar?) that can
maintain pressure integrity and flexibility at varying temperatures
could be placed inside of some sort of woven fabric outer tire that
would form the structure of the tire and support the pressure of the
innertube, like in a bicycle tire.

the sidewalls, and the seal between
tire and hub. Hit a rock the wrong way, and BANG, which explains
more about why the Rovers went with wire wheels as opposed to the
weight savings excuse.

Still, you have to admit those wire tires were rather well designed...


Yep, they didn't look particularly cheap or low tech.
Anyway, it's just a thought problem; the LRV's metallic wire
non-pneumatic tires seemed to work just fine.

Pat

Henry Spencer wrote:
A more difficult problem is likely to be finding materials that will
handle the vacuum and the temperature extremes, while remaining strong
and flexible.

Is the problem space all that much different from say a suit glove?

rick jones
--
denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance, rebirth...
where do you want to be today?
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

On Jul 14, 2:30 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
Dave Michelson wrote:

Now for the big question. Why didn't Major Matt Mason have one of
these? Given the year and the origins of MMM's other early accessories,
this one seems like a natural.

Because he had his Uni-Tred Space Hauler:http://majormattmason.net/6346.htm
(That worked really slick BTW).

Pat

Personally, I loved Major Mason's Space Crawler. I guess in those
days the effect on the kidneys of riding the contraption were a small
price to pay.

Take care . . .

John

On Jul 13, 7:15 am, "capcom" capcomavirerchez@mamnadoopointfr wrote:
Hi, I m looking for information on this "spacecartf" display at huntsville
space Camp.

http://www.capcomespace.net/MolabHuntsville_mini.JPG

--
Cordialement,

Didier "Capcom" Capdevilawww.capcomespace.nethttp://didier.capdevila.free.fr/

Instead of that silly old item of our mutually perpetrated cold-war,
what's this off-world spacecraft all about?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rc7mkHtuLOs
As I'd said before about this extremely weird and very artificial
looking item which seems in fact quite old if not ancient looking, but
otherwise at least offering an interesting notion to ponder, and
especially attractive since I believe ETs and variously complex DNA
had utilized our icy proto-moon on behalf of having survived their
interstellar trek. However, the very best of our NASA still does not
have such proven fly-by-rocket expertise (robotic or manned), nor have
we the required rad-hard DNA or any of that totally nonreactive/
(spectrum insensitive) Kodak film that supposedly had such hocus-pocus
**** poor DR(dynamic range) in that somehow it couldn't possibly have
recorded Venus (even though Venus should by rights have been there and
having been a brighter little speck of an item than any similar
optical speck of Earth). Go figure.

It seems that faith of one sort or another is what got us into most
wars as well as this never-ending energy and GW fiasco in the first
place, and it's faith that's puppeteering on behalf of sustaining each
of their status quo mindsets at all cost. Therefore, any possible
revision of the past, present or future simply isn't allowed, no
matters what. The anti antigravity cultism is simply another portion
of that swarm like mindset that's willing to kill even their own kind
in order to keep those various Old Testament lids on tight.

Global warming has extensively to do with the lithobraking arrival of
our moon as of roughly 12,000 BP. However, on the behalf of various
lord/wizard/spook/mole/rusemaster (aka official Usenet naysayers),
I'll gladly say the following again and again, with as much honest
love and affection as I can muster in spite of the mainstream gauntlet
of flak that's sustaining their status quo.

Truth has always been in the swarm cultivated eye of the beholder, as
well as it's also why we've got to live with the swarm mindset of our
supposedly having walked on that physically dark and unavoidably
anticathode nasty moon of ours, while all of that time Venus remained
invisible as to any possible rad-hard Kodak moment to boot.

Carl Sagan's constructive yaysayism was correct, in that there's
endless possibilities of complex and even intelligent other life
within the Universe. Unfortunately, the local realm of this crazy but
otherwise vast universe seems rather unusually taboo/nondisclosure
rated, whereas the regular laws of physics that pertain to our
terrestrial existence seem not to apply to other local planets or
moons, especially if there's anything faith-based taken into
consideration.

Somehow, not even the honestly deductive interpretations on behalf of
any exploration obtained image, especially if it's derived from a
proper composite made of 36 radar looks or confirming exposures per
pixel, is simply not allowed no matters what those interpretations
have to offer, as not even the perfectly natural planetology of such a
geothermally active and thus newish planet such as Venus can be openly
shared without such topics taking on the lethal gauntlet of all that's
faith-based and/or ulterior motivated past the point of no return.
It's as though whatever laws of physics, the science of planetology
and even biology that works on behalf of interpreting our terrestrial
existence simply can not be applied on behalf of any other planet or
moon (including our own moon that's simply need-to-know or entirely
off-limits to anything except the NASA/Apollo holy grail). We can't
even honestly contemplate utilizing our moon's L1, much less the
relocation of our moon to Earth's L1, or forbid having anything to do
with establishing POOF City at Venus L2(VL2) as our first truly
interplanetary depot/gateway.

It seems our one and only viable alternative is to accept the past,
present and future as having been interpreted and thus scripted by the
faith-based mindset or swarm like intelligence, that's clearly
unwilling to look or even allow of others to look outside their
mainstream status quo box. This leaves us with the one and only
global domination options of war upon war until the last of whatever
dissenting mindset has been eliminated. Being that we'll all have to
accept whatever the upper most 0.1% of humanity has to say (or else),
doesn't exactly leave all that many of us off of their NO FLY list.

The ongoing swarm like manipulations of physics as having been made or
otherwise forced to suit their faith-based interpretations of science,
is simply the exposed tip of their badly polluted iceberg that's
clearly melting rather nicely before our typically dumbfounded eyes.

Those in charge of our mainstream media and especially of public
textbooks and science journals that are permitted to exist are also
those in charge of having established our past, present and future,
that no matters what has to reinforce upon all that came before.
Therefore, revisionism of any kind simply is not allowed, regardless
of the truths or replicated scientific evidence that gets presented.
Only of whatever allows the past to remain unchanged is permitted, and
even that much usually has to conform to the prevailing faith-based
mindset of those in charge.

In other words, Carl Sagan would have to agree that it's far better to
hide or exclude whatever truth(s), and/or to essentially lie your butt
off than to rock thy mainstream status quo good ship LOLLIPOP,
especially if that ship has a Jewish captain.

How am I doing so far?
- Brad Guth

John wrote:
Personally, I loved Major Mason's Space Crawler. I guess in those
days the effect on the kidneys of riding the contraption were a small
price to pay.


Yeah, the approach to the wheels on that was odd, to say the least.

Pat

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 18:25:33 -0500, Pat Flannery
wrote:

John wrote:
Personally, I loved Major Mason's Space Crawler. I guess in those
days the effect on the kidneys of riding the contraption were a small
price to pay.

Yeah, the approach to the wheels on that was odd, to say the least.

....Not at the time the concept was first painted. There were questions
about just how deep the craters were, and whether or not Tommy Gold's
bull**** claims about "quickdust" pits were valid. The Crawler's legs
were demonstrated not only by the Mattel toy, but by small-scale
mockups to be a fairly good design for dealing with such terrain; the
legs were long enough to deal with tall crater lips and deep dust
issues, while the feet would provide the proper traction *and* reduce
penetration in "quickdust" much in the same way a snowshoe acts upon
snow.

On the other hand, that dragging tail doesn't seem all that
efficient...

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

And the "ALIEN SPACESHIP ON THE MOON flyover bef. landing APOLLO 20"
is still a topic that's off-limits?

Actually, it seems that most aything associated with our physically
dark and naked anticathode moon (including its salt) is entirely taboo/
nondisclosure rated, as is its L1 being need-to-know.
- Brad Guth

It was 23 Jul 2007, when John commented:

On Jul 14, 2:30 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
Dave Michelson wrote:

Now for the big question. Why didn't Major Matt Mason have one of
these? Given the year and the origins of MMM's other early
accessories, this one seems like a natural.

Because he had his Uni-Tred Space
Hauler:http://majormattmason.net/6346.htm (That worked really slick BTW).

Pat

Personally, I loved Major Mason's Space Crawler. I guess in those
days the effect on the kidneys of riding the contraption were a small
price to pay.

Well, hey, you've travelled across space in a tin can for umpty-ump miles,
your whole life depends on a couple of tin cans loaded with explosive
chemicals and built by the lowest bidder on a gummint contract. You just
dropped half that hardware on a foreign planet. And the same hardware has
to get you home again.

Your kidneys are the least of your worries. Might be nice if you can get
your kidneys back to earth again.

--
grizzly at grizzly dot podzone dot org
Podcast http://grizzly.libsyn.com
The Life and Times of a Minor Local Celebrity
Promo http://media.libsyn.com/media/grizzly/grizprom.mp3