A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » History
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Rabbit, run!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old January 30th 14, 04:56 AM posted to sci.space.history
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,176
Default Rabbit, run!

On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 8:27:13 PM UTC-8, bob haller wrote:
looks like rabbit has some issues, its warranty may be expired


It's very suspicious, as to how the China moon mission was so unprepared.

Have you uncovered any actual science from their moon mission (other than revised/doctored images)?
Ads
  #13  
Old January 30th 14, 06:38 PM posted to sci.space.history
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,176
Default Rabbit, run!

On Thursday, January 30, 2014 4:44:44 AM UTC-8, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,

says...



On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 8:27:13 PM UTC-8, bob haller wrote:


looks like rabbit has some issues, its warranty may be expired




It's very suspicious, as to how the China moon mission was so
unprepared.



Unprepared? Are you kidding? The fact that the mission actually landed

on the moon and the rover worked for a period of time indicates a level

of expertise (and financial investment) that's quite high. I'm quite

impressed with what they've accomplished.



Look at the moon race in the 60's for a comparison. Both the US and

U.S.S.R. had quite a string of failures of unmanned lunar probes.


Have you uncovered any actual science from their moon mission (other
than revised/doctored images)?



Like you're an expert! :-P

Jeff


I never suggested they didn't have a vastly superior lander (especially to anything we have), which to me proved just how good their MIC of fly-by-rocket stuff has become.

Of course any and all R&D pertaining to that sort of moon lander remains as a taboo/nondisclosure issue, so that our guys don't get to benefit from any of their superior capability.

Do you even know of anyone having access to the raw science of their mission, besides those badly revised 3rd or 4th hand modified images, of which they can't even explain to us how their CCD imagers working at 400+ K as having performed so nicely when none of our stuff can?

Is this why their extremely high temperature rated CCD imagers couldn't function when cooled down to below 200 K?

What is it about real objective science that you obviously place no value upon?

It's exactly as though no other missions ever made it to the surface of our physically dark, paramagnetic and naked moon, and thereby team China had no idea of what to expect.

What sort of outsider expertise does it take in order to comprehend surface temperatures, illumination levels (including planetshine) and those basic radiation readings?

Are we also to believe our moon is inert, monochromatic and not the least bit reactive to UV nor ionized?

Obviously you can't even deductively interpret those crappy media revised images, because dysfunctional 5th graders seem to know far more about using PhotoShop or whatever photo editing image interpreting than yourself. Are you suggesting that your education never got that far?



  #14  
Old January 30th 14, 08:52 PM posted to sci.space.history
Jeff Findley[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 411
Default Rabbit, run!

In article ,
says...

On Thursday, January 30, 2014 4:44:44 AM UTC-8, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,

says...



On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 8:27:13 PM UTC-8, bob haller wrote:


looks like rabbit has some issues, its warranty may be expired




It's very suspicious, as to how the China moon mission was so
unprepared.



Unprepared? Are you kidding? The fact that the mission actually landed

on the moon and the rover worked for a period of time indicates a level

of expertise (and financial investment) that's quite high. I'm quite

impressed with what they've accomplished.



Look at the moon race in the 60's for a comparison. Both the US and

U.S.S.R. had quite a string of failures of unmanned lunar probes.


Have you uncovered any actual science from their moon mission (other
than revised/doctored images)?



Like you're an expert! :-P

Jeff


I never suggested they didn't have a vastly superior lander (especially to anything we have), which to me proved just how good their MIC of fly-by-rocket stuff has become.

Of course any and all R&D pertaining to that sort of moon lander remains as a taboo/nondisclosure issue, so that our guys don't get to benefit from any of their superior capability.

Do you even know of anyone having access to the raw science of their mission, besides those badly revised 3rd or 4th hand modified images, of which they can't even explain to us how their CCD imagers working at 400+ K as having performed so nicely when none of our stuff can?

Is this why their extremely high temperature rated CCD imagers couldn't function when cooled down to below 200 K?


Ah yes, now I remember why I kill-filed you in the past. Goodbye you
ignorant git! Plonk!

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer
  #15  
Old January 30th 14, 09:50 PM posted to sci.space.history
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,176
Default Rabbit, run!

On Thursday, January 30, 2014 12:52:37 PM UTC-8, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,

says...



On Thursday, January 30, 2014 4:44:44 AM UTC-8, Jeff Findley wrote:


In article ,




says...







On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 8:27:13 PM UTC-8, bob haller wrote:




looks like rabbit has some issues, its warranty may be expired








It's very suspicious, as to how the China moon mission was so


unprepared.






Unprepared? Are you kidding? The fact that the mission actually landed




on the moon and the rover worked for a period of time indicates a level




of expertise (and financial investment) that's quite high. I'm quite




impressed with what they've accomplished.








Look at the moon race in the 60's for a comparison. Both the US and




U.S.S.R. had quite a string of failures of unmanned lunar probes.






Have you uncovered any actual science from their moon mission (other


than revised/doctored images)?






Like you're an expert! :-P




Jeff






I never suggested they didn't have a vastly superior lander (especially to anything we have), which to me proved just how good their MIC of fly-by-rocket stuff has become.




Of course any and all R&D pertaining to that sort of moon lander remains as a taboo/nondisclosure issue, so that our guys don't get to benefit from any of their superior capability.




Do you even know of anyone having access to the raw science of their mission, besides those badly revised 3rd or 4th hand modified images, of which they can't even explain to us how their CCD imagers working at 400+ K as having performed so nicely when none of our stuff can?




Is this why their extremely high temperature rated CCD imagers couldn't function when cooled down to below 200 K?




Ah yes, now I remember why I kill-filed you in the past. Goodbye you
ignorant git! Plonk!

Jeff


In other words, actual real honest to God science data doesn't actually matter to those of your kind.

No wonder our DARPA and NASA was nothing without their "Operation Paperclip" SS Nazi friends, that obviously you still worship.

What is it about the science obtained by a public-funded government that you feel isn't obligated as to being shared with the republic for which it stands?


  #16  
Old February 10th 14, 06:34 AM posted to sci.space.history
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default Rabbit, run!

well its feb 10th, the lander and rover should wake up right about now...

I do wonder why they designed the craft to stow its solar panels, every lander or rover I ever heard of deployed the panels permanetely after landing. wasnt spirit and opportunity built to expose the anels as soon as te air bag was deflated.

having to restow solar panels adds extra complexity and failure modes ......
  #17  
Old February 10th 14, 02:02 PM posted to sci.space.history
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default Rabbit, run!

On Monday, February 10, 2014 2:32:10 AM UTC-5, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:



well its feb 10th, the lander and rover should wake up right about now...




I do wonder why they designed the craft to stow its solar panels, every lander or rover I ever heard of deployed the panels permanetely after landing. wasnt spirit and opportunity built to expose the anels as soon as te air bag was deflated.




having to restow solar panels adds extra complexity and failure modes ......






The Moon is different. You get a long period of time with no

illumination and temperatures drop precipitously. The solar panels on

Jade Rabbit are part of the insulating system that keeps electronics

from freezing and being damaged during the long 'night'.



Lunar rovers of various designs frequently have compartments that

close for insulation purposes and often have internal heaters powered

from something other than solar power to keep them from 'dying' during

the 'night'.



--

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable

man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,

all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

--George Bernard Shaw


spirit and opportunity dont and neither did the old moon landers like surveyor.

it would likely e easier to have solar panels that arent complex. since moon dust is sticky and abrasive.
  #18  
Old February 10th 14, 07:47 PM posted to sci.space.history
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,176
Default Rabbit, run!

On Sunday, February 9, 2014 10:34:22 PM UTC-8, bob haller wrote:
well its feb 10th, the lander and rover should wake up right about now...



I do wonder why they designed the craft to stow its solar panels, every lander or rover I ever heard of deployed the panels permanetely after landing. wasnt spirit and opportunity built to expose the anels as soon as te air bag was deflated.



having to restow solar panels adds extra complexity and failure modes ......


After having been at least twice roasted to death, then essentially frozen to death and always getting clogged with highly ionized dust as well as radiated by all sorts of local, solar and cosmic dosages, it'll be lucky if much of anything works.

Apparently team Yutu had no idea of what to expect.



  #19  
Old February 11th 14, 09:44 PM posted to sci.space.history
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,176
Default Rabbit, run!

On Saturday, December 14, 2013 3:53:26 PM UTC-8, Fevric J. Glandules wrote:
Nice to see something moving on the lunar surface again.

Looking forward to the selfies.


From being twice frozen to death and about to get a third time roasted to death, as well as constantly radiated and tormented by ionized dust, doesn't exactly look good for Yutu or its lander.

Notice how the rover tracks vanish, shadows that simply do not match and how poorly the dynamic range of their CCD imagers operating at 400 k (260 F) can't seem to perform any better than Kodak film.
http://d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net...Ken-Kremer.jpg

Of course, not one iota of actual raw science from the China yutu or that of its lander has ever been offered. The best we ever got were of their media eyecandy infomercials composed of these 3rd and 4th hand modified images with no CCD imager or optical specs.

By the way, I still have numerous lunar samples of 3.5+ g/cm3 basalts that are highly paramagnetic and some of these samples every bit as hard as carbonado, compared to terrestrials basalt that seldom exceeds 3.1 g/cm3 and are barely a tenth as paramagnetic and clearly not formed as that of lunar basalt which solidified in a hard vacuum. No doubt our planet has several teratonnes of such highly paramagnetic basalt deposits as derived from our moon, because where else would most of that crater basalt crust material have gone, besides roughly a third as having been retained by the moon.
  #20  
Old February 12th 14, 10:45 PM posted to sci.space.history
Rick Jones
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 685
Default Rabbit, run!

Fevric J. Glandules wrote:
Nice to see something moving on the lunar surface again.
Looking forward to the selfies.


Alas, now it seems the reported death of the rabbit is no longer
greatly exaggerated:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/02..._conked_ out/

rick jones
--
web2.0 n, the dot.com reunion tour...
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...
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
First shoot your rabbit and skin it Peter Webb Astronomy Misc 1 September 9th 06 05:17 PM
Keep going and going...... like that Eveready's rabbit! G=EMC^2 Glazier Misc 0 December 16th 05 07:50 PM
Keep going and going...... like that Eveready's rabbit! Starlord Misc 1 December 12th 05 08:14 AM
Schroedinger's Rabbit |-|erc Misc 19 May 4th 04 10:11 AM
Rabbit on Mars! Gareth Slee History 26 February 10th 04 04:37 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.