Show Posts
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.
Changes in lighting and atmospheric conditions will change how things look when you photograph them
Lets go back to the overexposure explanation. How is this rocket "overexposed" if much of it is in the shade:Simple. It's the rocket exhaust plume reflecting off of the booster.How can you tell it is in shade? Rockets are launched when the sky is clear so your notion seems exceedingly unlikely.
Nearly the entirety of the rocket is in shade except for the far left side where the sun is coming in.
How can you tell it is in shade? Rockets are launched when the sky is clear so your notion seems exceedingly unlikely.
Nearly the entirety of the rocket is in shade except for the far left side where the sun is coming in.
The Apollo missions passed through the belts very quickly and through an area of low concentration. Maybe they want to test for prolonged exposure?
If NASA were keeping its story straight, it should be claiming that the radiation belts are safe for any man or machine.When did NASA claim that the Van Allen belts are "safe for any man or machine"?Yes, claiming that electronics need "further testing" is contradictory too. Your idea that NASA knows the belts are safe for humans but thinks it is not safe for computer chips is in opposition to NASA's previous claims of having sent many unmanned ships through the belts when conducing exploration of the solar system. Did they forget about those? They have been claiming to have developed the electronics shielding technologies to handle that for many years now. Either way, whether the speaker is talking about man or machine, the segment goes against the official story.No, NASA did not "forget" about those other unmanned craft, it's just that those other unmanned craft are not Orion. The Orion capsule has different mission objectives than those other unmanned craft and therefore must be tested separately. If anything, Orion is probably being tested to a much higher safety standard than unmanned craft.
They can't even get their story straight.
Listen carefully at around 3:36 to where the one of their engineers says: "We must solve this problem before we send people through this region of space” (the Van Allen radiation belt).
Cheery-picking quotes is not the same as reading carefully. What the video actually says:
"My name is Kelly Smith, and I work on navigation and guidance for Orion...Before we can send astronauts into space on Orion, we have to test all of its systems, and there’s only one way to know if we got it right; fly it in space.
[...]
As we get further away from Earth, we’ll pass through the Vann Allan Belts, an area of dangerous radiation. Radiation like this can harm the guidance systems, onboard computers, or other electronics on Orion. Naturally, we have to pass through this danger zone twice, once up and once back. But Orion has protection, shielding will be put to the test as the vehicle cuts through the waves of radiation. Sensors aboard will record radiation levels for scientists to study. We must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of Space."
The video is clearly describing a danger to the onboard electronics and not to the astronauts themselves.
The Apollo missions marked the first event where humans traveled through the Van Allen belts, which was one of several radiation hazards known by mission planners.[29] The astronauts had low exposure in the Van Allen belts due to the short period of time spent flying through them.[30] The command module's inner structure was an aluminum "sandwich" consisting of a welded aluminium inner skin, a thermally bonded honeycomb core, and a thin aluminium "face sheet". The steel honeycomb core and outer face sheets were thermally bonded to the inner skin.
In fact, the astronauts' overall exposure was dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission to mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy), much less than the standard of 5 rem (50 mSv) per year set by the United States Atomic Energy Commission for people who work with radioactivity.
How can you tell it is in shade? Rockets are launched when the sky is clear so your notion seems exceedingly unlikely.
As far as the radiation belts are concerned, back in the day they were a lot more blasé about safety of crew because of less understanding of the dangers maybe (they were still making and wearing radioactive glo'watches at this time), probably more to do with winning the "space race" over-riding individual welfare.
So now your position is that NASA is outright lying with fake science claims that are intended to deceive? That's rich.
Wow you got that from what I said? You continue to amaze Thomas.QuoteI did consider it. But the white image is in shade, and overexposure from sun doesn't make sense. There are also some black scratches on the craft's white body in the lower left hand area of the image that are wiped off in the next scene.
Overexposure. From. The sun. Doesn't. Make. Sense. Ok!
You may have noticed that this video was prone to hyperbole? Dramatic music, bold language. I submit that they overstate the problems or make them seem more sweeping than they actually are in order to make the video more exciting for a largely uneducated public.
In regards to your weird comment about the paint job, did you consider common photographic phenomena like (over)exposure?
It is a physical effect.Just to clear things up...
If person A is looking toward the horizon, but is maintaining a level line of sight, does the ground physically slope upward, gaining elevation, to intersect person A's line of sight?
If another person "B" is at that distant point and looking toward person A, does the ground physically slope upward from them so also so that the horizon where person A is located is also intersecting their line of sight?
It seems Tom, that you are starting to realize that different camera angles and different lenses can cause different perspectives.
Fun video by a NASA astronaut sharing a lot of information and pictures and videos from the International Space Station
I think that Rama is still waiting for you to show how a dime on the ground can block someone's view of an elephant.It is a physical effect. When snipers point at objects in the distance they never aim below it. That is not a known sniping tactic.Tom, snipers (and pretty much anyone who shoots just about any kind of gun) is compensating for the trajectory of the round, not for perspective.
Right, there is no such thing as compensating for perspective. The sniper trusts that what he sees is a straight line path to his target.
It must be explained then, by Rama Set, why when we look into the distance we are looking into an illusion where things are not where they appear.
It is a physical effect. When snipers point at objects in the distance they never aim below it. That is not a known sniping tactic.Tom, snipers (and pretty much anyone who shoots just about any kind of gun) is compensating for the trajectory of the round, not for perspective.
So the Earth is concave? Have you measured the level of the horizon with a theodolite? Is the same true when you are on top of a skyscraper? I don't know where you are going with this.
Rowbotham has measured the horizon with a theodolite.
What theodolite did he use and how accurate is it? When standing on the ground the horizon is only 0.02 degrees below eye level. What was the topography where he made the measurement? Did anyone else corroborate this?QuoteYou are saying that the ground is flat and level, when this is clearly not the case. I see the lands slope upwards to my eye level.
Well this is obviously a tromp d'oeuil and I hope you can admit that. Why does the ascension cease at the horizon instead of continuing upwards? Clearly because the ground is not ascending in fact.
The lands are ascending via perspective, and this has physical consequences. Go back to the multicolored box example. The angle of the box changed in relation to you the further you got from it, until it was facing you head on. The angle of the light rays from the box changed as the distance was increased.
If something is now 90 degrees from the ground, straight ahead of you, those light rays are coming in parallel to the ground.
If we are in a room and hold a laser pointer up to the level of our eye and shine it at a wall at exactly 90 degrees from nadir (straight down), are those rays not arriving parallel to the ground? It stands therefore, that when looking across the horizon, if a body is 90 degrees from nadir, on top of the ascending earth horizon in the distance, those rays are also arriving parallel to the ground.
Your ideas that perspective does not apply to light are simply wrong. If something is straight ahead and facing you, its light is being broadcasted from that side you see.
Another example. Imagine we had a very large and powerful laser pointer resting on the ground. It is turned on and beaming a very narrow light beam right close along the surface. When we are standing next to the laser pointer we are looking down at it. But it is possible to get that laser pointer to shine on our face, directly into our eyes, by simply walking away from it (in the direction of the beam) until such a distance that the laser pointer is on the horizon and we are looking at it from its side. The straight beam of light, which is being broadcasted right near the flat surface, is now in our eyes. Since you agree with the multicolored box example, you must logically agree with this as well, which illustrates the matter succinctly.
I disagree with most of this. You seem to think that perspective is an actual physical effect rather than a consequence of the limitations of our sensory apparatus and cognitive processing. Please tell me I have misunderstood you. Please.
