Re: Why was it cold in Apollo 13?
- From: "Brad Guth" <ieisbradguth@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 28 Aug 2005 17:06:04 -0700
Ian,
Since I've imposed far more than my fair share of those unanswerable or
rather nondisclosure/taboo rated questions as pertaining to manned
space travel, Venus and of the Sirius star system, then perhaps within
this latest form of my being in another topic banishment mode is where
I'll independently reach out as to help other honest folks to
reconsider, as to the degree of our being so profoundly snookered by
them metaphorically dirty rotten Russians...
I'm thinking it doesn't actually much matter as to how hot or cold you
are if it's all nothing but an orchestrated task of hocus-pocus smoke
and mirrors. Actually hot or cold isn't any significant robotic
limitation that can't be sufficiently surmounted.
Before them Russians go about their intensions of mining the moon, of
which I have no doubts they'll be accomplishing that task before us,
though I do believe the first essential task at hand is that folks have
to get there (at least robotically), as having avoided impacting and
thus vaporising or even sinking deep out of sight upon arrival, then
manage as to survive and return with whatever. However, not for
mentioning upon whatever supposed manned landers that don't seem to
exist, might I ask as to what Russian fly-by-rocket landers existed or
will soon exist?
How the heck did them damn tricky Russians manage all of it in the mid
70s without their ever once documenting upon any portion of their R&D
and prototype proof-testing (poor sketches of little or no specific
design and engineering specifics. and of whatever visual mockups don't
count for all that much). Was Ye-8 and of their do-everything robotic
land rover strictly a pair of those as-built contraptions that never
had a minutes worth of phase by phase R&D proof-testing, much less film
documenting as to such?
http://www.planetary.org/learn/missions/moonmissions.html#luna23
USSR Luna 23/24 Ye-8 (essentially were one-way tickets to ride that
instantly sank out of sight) Mass: 5600~5800 kg + robotic rover =
10,900 kg (apparently this doesn't even include whatever rocket fuel it
took getting that amount of mass safely down onto the deck)
http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/mwade/craft/lunye85m.htm
http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/mwade/craft/lunaye8.htm
"The lander and rover together weighed 1814 kg on the lunar surface" X
6 = 10,884 kg.
I believe the 4~6 m2 worth of landing pads and whatever comprehensive
base surface contact area wasn't sufficient for such a AI/robotic
controlled soft-landing worth perhaps 1814 kg = 454 kg/m2 (better than
twice the surface contact area of what our much larger landers had to
work with, indicating somewhat an inch worth of pad depression).
If I've gotten that combined mass incorrectly stated, in that case we
may be talking about merely 302 lunar kg, whereas the issue of sinkage
out of sight factor as due to such extremely poor surface tension, or
perhaps lack of moon-dust buoyancy, was even much worse off than I'd
previously calculated if that were based upon the same amount of
landing contact surface area.
Even though our NASA still has nothing of any R&D sorts of their
fly-by-rocket lander, much less of any robotic/AI fly-by-rocket lander
capability, not so much as even per existing on their drawing boards
nor within any computer flight simulator models, thus oddly when them
Russians that were supposedly the sole perpetrators in that supposed
cold-war with us, as I'm fairly certain they were trying their level
best as to impress upon the entire world that certainly included the
rest of us American heathens, as to how gosh darn good they'd had
become at all of this moon-race/space-race stuff is exactly where it
seems there's just a wee bit too much hocus pocus worth of our mutual
cloak and daggers worth of smoke and mirrors to deal with, as for
either of us not having a stitch worth of any engineering work or
workmanship as saved, nor of any functioning R&D prototypes, not even
as merely recorded on 16 mm movie film as to appropriately demonstrate
squat, not to mention as to infomercial hype as per having so easily
proved once and for all as to the Russian fly-by-rocket expertise that
was supposedly bar none far superior to that of ours. So, what the hell
ever happened to all of that Russian talent, expertise and those
essential R&D prototypes?
I'm guessing that by having all of that proof positive and the actual
prototype technology that could have been so easily and so otherwise
independently verified, as well as having been first hand demonstrated
to our hearts content, was asking too much of them Russians that were
literally freezing and starving themselves to death, as to actually
flaunt all of that superiority in our imperialist faces.
~
Life on Venus, Township w/Bridge and ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
"In war there are no rules" - Brad Guth
.
- References:
- Why was it cold in Apollo 13?
- From: Ian
- Why was it cold in Apollo 13?
- Prev by Date: Re: Mars rover Spirit at summit
- Next by Date: Re: Gus' Mercury suit in limbo
- Previous by thread: Re: Why was it cold in Apollo 13?
- Next by thread: Jules Verne ATV question
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
