9781
Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon shrimp data
« on: December 14, 2013, 04:40:46 PM »
Also:
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
While I agree that the space walk videos were highly suspect, calling them a controversy is pretty off-base.
OH THE... outrage???
Stop the presses! Youtube commenters and conspiracy theorist websites alike are in an uproar over China's alleged fake space walks.
Nobody really cares.
China posts fake rocket launch story
CHINA'S leading Xinhua news agency reported the successful flight of the Shenzhou VII - complete with detailed dialogue between the astronauts - hours before the nation's third-ever manned space mission had even lifted off.
On Thursday morning, Xinhua posted a story on its website saying the Shenzhou capsule had been successfully tracked flying over the Pacific Ocean even though the rocket and its three astronauts had not yet been launched.
The article, dated September 27, described the rocket in flight, complete with a sharply detailed dialogue between the three astronauts.
Excerpts are below:
"After this order, signal lights all were switched on, various data show up on rows of screens, hundreds of technicians staring at the screens, without missing any slightest changes ...
"One minute to go!' 'Changjiang No.1 found the target! ...
"The firm voice of the controller broke the silence of the whole ship. Now, the target is captured 12 seconds ahead of the predicted time ...
"The air pressure in the cabin is normal!
"Ten minutes later, the ship disappears below the horizon. Warm clapping and excited cheering breaks the night sky, echoing across the silent Pacific Ocean."
An editor at Xinhau told AFP that the story had been posted due to a technical problem.
"We dealt with it after we had found it," the editor said.
The Shenzhou VII was launched from the Jiuquan Satellite Launch Centre in northwestern China shorlty after 9pm (AEST) Thursday.
The mission, expected to last three to four days, is devoted almost entirely to the execution of the spacewalk, and is expected to help China master the technology for docking two orbiters to create the country's first orbiting space station in the next few years.
Did you expect the paparazzi to be there to photograph the landing or something?
Also: http://english.cntv.cn/special/lunarmission/index.shtml
I think that you are using a creative definition for the word "technology". As I have clearly shown, liquid fuel rocket engine technology is available to the public. Of course the specific components vary depending on the fuel/oxidizer combination and the overall size of the engine, but the fundamental technology itself is essentially the same from a small reaction control thruster to to the mighty F-1B. Generally, the biggest obstacle to building liquid fuel rockets is the actual manufacturing of the engine components, which requires some pretty high precision tools.
Gasoline and car engines are available to the public. However, this does not imply that you can take a consumer car engine, 'scale up', and achieve 400mph or 800mph. Your theory that all engines are the same and it was only a matter of NASA 'scaling up' is absurd. As requirements grow to achieve escape velocity, and as fuel and chassis weight increases, it becomes a substantially different situation requiring a substantially different technology.
There are plenty of internal combustion powered cars that can achieve over 400mph. The theory behind engines is the same. The Technology differs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel-driven_land_speed_record
I am glad you agree. It is not the same technology.
Technology differs = Different Technology
if you look at the second on the list (the goldenrod) you'll note it IS exactly the same technology.
4 Chrysler hemi V8 engines, naturally aspirated, 409mph.
I think that you are using a creative definition for the word "technology". As I have clearly shown, liquid fuel rocket engine technology is available to the public. Of course the specific components vary depending on the fuel/oxidizer combination and the overall size of the engine, but the fundamental technology itself is essentially the same from a small reaction control thruster to to the mighty F-1B. Generally, the biggest obstacle to building liquid fuel rockets is the actual manufacturing of the engine components, which requires some pretty high precision tools.
Gasoline and car engines are available to the public. However, this does not imply that you can take a consumer car engine, 'scale up', and achieve 400mph or 800mph. Your theory that all engines are the same and it was only a matter of NASA 'scaling up' is absurd. As requirements grow to achieve escape velocity, and as fuel and chassis weight increases, it becomes a substantially different situation requiring a substantially different technology.
There are plenty of internal combustion powered cars that can achieve over 400mph. The theory behind engines is the same. The Technology differs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel-driven_land_speed_record
Military airspace starts at 65,000 feet.Citation please.
since that's above the service ceiling of most aircraft I suspect it's a made up figure, even Concorde wasn't rated past 60,000.
Now the blackbird's been decommissioned I'm not sure the military has anything save the U2 that flies that high.
I think that you are using a creative definition for the word "technology". As I have clearly shown, liquid fuel rocket engine technology is available to the public. Of course the specific components vary depending on the fuel/oxidizer combination and the overall size of the engine, but the fundamental technology itself is essentially the same from a small reaction control thruster to to the mighty F-1B. Generally, the biggest obstacle to building liquid fuel rockets is the actual manufacturing of the engine components, which requires some pretty high precision tools.
This is incorrect. The blueprints for the Saturn V are not available because they were destroyed during a routine NASA housecleaning (though I imagine that explanation will seem like part of the conspiracy to some). With all of the advances in technology since the late '60's, you wouldn't really want to duplicate one anyways.
"High-Power rockets in the United States, are only federally regulated in their flight guidelines by the FAA"
the FAA, because they regulate pretty much anything big that flies, they're not a fan of you flying stuff into planes, it makes for depressing headlines.
All you need is a license, a flight plan and proof your contraption is safe, same as a helicopter, plane, or zeppelin.
The plans for NASA's specific rockets are kept confidential yes, but then are the plans for pretty much all commercial craft, that doesn't mean other people can't build planes, helicopters or rockets. You just can't build the governments specific rockets (unless you can somehow reverse engineer one).
You're right Tom, liquid fuel rocket engine technology is super-duper-tippy-top-hush-hush-secret.Would you care to cite this law, please? To the best of my knowledge, rocket engines above a certain thrust level are regulated, but the technology itself not secret.
Just as you said, rockets past a certain threshold are restricted. See the wikipedia page on Model Rocket Motor Classification. Anything past O requires government oversight.
Since the engines in these professional rockets operate differently, it constitutes a different rocket technology. The Saturn V rocket (A U class rocket) isn't using the same engine design as an O class rocket available to hobbiests. O class rockets are typically solid state or hybrid engines, while the Saturn V's rocket engine is a specially designed liquid rocket with special fuel injector pumps, heat exchangers, turbines, pressure tranducers, etc. -- all researched to a tune of many millions of dollars. It was not a matter of taking a high powered model rocket motor and scaling up.
The blueprints for the custom development of the Saturn V rocket engine are not available to the public, locked away as a state secret.
http://heroicrelics.org/info/f-1/f-1-supp.html
http://hackaday.com/2011/09/01/engine-hacks-liquid-fuel-amateur-rocket-roundup/
http://www.gramlich.net/projects/rocket/
http://store.fastcommerce.com/SystemeSolaire/liquid-propellant-rocket-kit-ff8081811928eb610119331daa8d6729-p.html
BTW, the space shuttle's Solid Rocket Boosters and several ICBMs and IRBMs use similar solid rocket technology that amateur rocket enthusiasts use.
I don't think I've seen anything that fully describes the purpose of the FES (I could be barking up the wrong tree here). What's its guiding principle, it's vision?
Honestly I'd rather have something liek that, but the guys are so busy, its not a priority.http://library.tfes.org/library/samuel_rowbotham_-_earth_not_a_globe.pdfCan you post the link on the home page? Just for ease of finding ENaG link. Also this other link is not a PDF, shorter download time, and easier to use.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm
I never said that Daniel does anything unique. I'm just saying that he is the one that brought the FES back to life. As I recall, Wilmore and John Davis have their own FESes as well. If you want this to be another FES, then that's fine. Just don't claim that this is the one and only FES and don't dismiss Daniel's place in FES history. After all, if it wasn't for Daniel, then there wouldn't be any FES for you to splinter from.
That's no use for Twitter because Twitter is 140 characters if memory serves me correcty.
It's cheaper than martial law?
Plus I suspect people in government quite like movies too.