|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Our moon is hot, Venus is not
"Wayne Throop" wrote in message
Well... no, actually that's not quite what it means, but at least I know what you mean; you mean the moon reflects comparatively little light, and venus comparatively more. Thanks. Venus is nearly 8 fold more visually reflective than our moon (it's especially a whole lot more reflective yet if going for those near-UV and UV-a spectrums, of which our moon is really ****-poor at reflecting such spectrums, and Venus gets 2600+ w/m2 to work with, as opposed to 1350 w/m2 that hits our physically dark moon). To the unfiltered Kodak eye (as well as external to our atmosphere), that vibrant orb of Venus is actually a seriously bright little item, although so is the Sirius star/solar system. If your camera and film is so pathetic that you can't manage to have easily recorded Venus, then you can't otherwise have recorded that physically dark lunar surface. - Brad Guth -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Our moon is hot, Venus is not
Brad Guth wrote: "Jordan" wrote in message ups.com Ok, Brad, then how did the ten astronauts who actually walked on Luna's surface, two of whom stayed there for about an Earth-day, survive their experience unharmed? If the radiation levels were as high as you're claiming, I doubt that they would have lived long enough to return to the Earth, yet several of them are still alive today, decades later! - Jordan Sorry, I have absolutely no honest idea as to how such folks ever walked on our moon and lived as 100% unscaved as to telling us about it. First of all, they had no such viable fly-by-rocket lander, therefore just getting to/from that physically dark sucker is still in the works of getting R&D applied, as not even a viable test prototype seems to exist, and that goes for those AI/robotic Russian landers as well. What are you talking about? They landed using the Lunar Excursion Module, which had an engine powerful enough to let it fly _on Earth_, which is where it was originally tested! So, why don't you folks and all-knowing wizards impress the rest of us village idiots by way of telling and showing us how such a daunting task was accomplish, and without using anything from your NASA/Apollo koran. The easiest explanation, given the differences between what was said on the sites you referenced and what you claimed, is that you've confused your units of radiation. And no, I'm _not_ going to ignore the data gathered by the only organization that ever carried out Lunar landings -- that would be insane. - Jordan |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Our moon is hot, Venus is not
Wayne Throop wrote: :: How about you show any of your claims to be true without referencing :: anything at all from NASA? : "Brad Guth" : Already been there and done that. Where the heck have you folks been : all of these years? How about just one claim that struck my curiosity. You recently mentioned that "the moon is dark". How do you establish that, since I can look up in the sky and see that it is not dark. Indeed, to photograph the moon from here, and see any of its features, I found I needed to use basic daylight exposure. F16 at one over the film speed, more or less approximately. So, what you mean "dark", kemosabe? How dark, how do you know, and why didn't my camera know? I'm pretty sure NASA hasn't been jiggering the settings on my camera. Indeed, that struck me as rather odd too, since the Apollo missions all landed in daylight, Luna orbits the Sun at the same distance that the Earth does (*), and Luna actually has a rather high albedo by the standards of airless bodies. I also wonder how NASA spoofed the folks in Australia that picked up the transmissions from the moon directly. I saw interviews with actual people from the radio telescope. Hm... no, nevermind that one; doubtless NASA just chased them all down and bribed them, or replaced them with pod people or something; there were only a few people actually working at the telescope personally. But I do still wonder why I should not believe the evidence of my own eyes. So wait, Brad is actually claiming that nobody ever landed on the Moon? - Jordan (*) Technically speaking, Luna does not primarily orbit the Earth; Luna and the Earth both primarily orbit the Sun in a braided orbit, as a double planet. - Jordan |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Our moon is hot, Venus is not
Brad Guth wrote: "Wayne Throop" wrote in message Well... no, actually that's not quite what it means, but at least I know what you mean; you mean the moon reflects comparatively little light, and venus comparatively more. Thanks. Venus is nearly 8 fold more visually reflective than our moon (it's especially a whole lot more reflective yet if going for those near-UV and UV-a spectrums, of which our moon is really ****-poor at reflecting such spectrums, and Venus gets 2600+ w/m2 to work with, as opposed to 1350 w/m2 that hits our physically dark moon). To the unfiltered Kodak eye (as well as external to our atmosphere), that vibrant orb of Venus is actually a seriously bright little item, although so is the Sirius star/solar system. Venus is both closer to the Sun and has a higher albedo (reflectivity) than does Luna. Earth has a higher albedo than Luna. However, Luna is certainly bright enough to allow its surface to be seen by the pilot of a LEM, as the photographs taken from the LEM's clearly indicate. For that matter, even if it weren't, there are a number of obvious solutions to the problem of landing a spacecraft under poor lighting conditions, ranging from radars to starlight scopes to simply mounting floodlights on the spacecraft. So I don't see what you're going on about. - Jordan |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Our moon is hot, Venus is not
Jordan wrote:
What are you talking about? They landed using the Lunar Excursion Module, which had an engine powerful enough to let it fly _on Earth_, which is where it was originally tested! No, the LEM was not flown on Earth. It was flown in Earth orbit, but not on Earth. What you're probably thinking of was the Lunar Landing Research Vehicle, which was created to help train the astronauts to land the LEM on the Moon. But it was not the LEM. Mind you, Brad Guth is still bat****, but not for that reason. -- Erik Max Francis && && http://www.alcyone.com/max/ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && AIM erikmaxfrancis I like young girls. Their stories are shorter. -- Thomas McGuane |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Our moon is hot, Venus is not
Erik Max Francis wrote: Jordan wrote: What are you talking about? They landed using the Lunar Excursion Module, which had an engine powerful enough to let it fly _on Earth_, which is where it was originally tested! No, the LEM was not flown on Earth. It was flown in Earth orbit, but not on Earth. What you're probably thinking of was the Lunar Landing Research Vehicle, which was created to help train the astronauts to land the LEM on the Moon. But it was not the LEM. Oh, ok, I didn't realize that. Did the LLRV have a more powerful engine but analogous control systems then? - Jordan |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Our moon is hot, Venus is not
Jordan wrote:
Oh, ok, I didn't realize that. Did the LLRV have a more powerful engine but analogous control systems then? Similar in the sense of attitude control, yes. It maintained the proper attitude while they could maneuver it around, the same way that the LEM would. -- Erik Max Francis && && http://www.alcyone.com/max/ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && AIM erikmaxfrancis Performing in front of a live audience is like a feeling of shock. -- Sade Adu |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Our moon is hot, Venus is not
In article om,
Jordan wrote: Oh, ok, I didn't realize that. Did the LLRV have a more powerful engine but analogous control systems then? Sort of: It had a gimballed jet engine which lifted 5/6 of the vehicle, in simulation mode always oriented vertically (but it could lift all of it). This way reduced gravity was simulated with its pair of (no place for a single) rocket engines giving the same vertical rates as on the moon. -- Urban Fredriksson http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/ Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Our moon is hot, Venus is not
"Jordan" wrote in message ups.com... So wait, Brad is actually claiming that nobody ever landed on the Moon? Among other things, yes. - Jordan |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Our moon is hot, Venus is not
Rand Simberg wrote:
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 09:47:55 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Mark L. Fergerson" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: So, why don't you folks and all-knowing wizards impress the rest of us village idiots by way of telling and showing us how such a daunting task was accomplish, and without using anything from your NASA/Apollo koran. Kinda difficult to do that without referencing NASA. How about you show any of your claims to be true without referencing anything at all from NASA? Brad is nuts. Please don't encourage him. Just killfile him. Yes, I know; I was just making sure he'd reject a reality check. Mark L. Fergerson |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Space Calendar - January 28, 2005 | [email protected] | History | 1 | January 31st 05 09:33 AM |
Space Calendar - December 23, 2004 | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | December 23rd 04 04:03 PM |
Space Calendar - December 23, 2004 | [email protected] | History | 0 | December 23rd 04 04:03 PM |
Space Calendar - January 27, 2004 | Ron | Astronomy Misc | 7 | January 29th 04 09:29 PM |
Space Calendar - September 28, 2003 | Ron Baalke | History | 0 | September 28th 03 08:00 AM |