Re: Spacecraft Sound Levels
- From: "Brad Guth" <ieisbradguth@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 17 Sep 2005 08:44:38 -0700
Because "sci.space.tech" is strictly another officially moderated (NASA
damage control) group, thus the truth obviously can't be contributed,
in which case I'll have to repost this into the "sci.space.history"
portion of the original topic/author.
Ken Webster and otherwise on behalf of Bob Martin (Spacecraft Sound
Levels: Engine Noise),
According to these not always so nice NASA/usenet rusemasters, there
never is a sound of thrusters from within any of their craft. That's
actually always been a wee bit hard to believe, especially since we're
talking about at least 5 psi (better than 0.3 bar) of ambient cabin
atmosphere and of various rocket engines plus internal auxiliary
components having to be attached to that craft, in that you'd have to
think such items might have to be rather noisy, that is unless your
ears are situated within a vacuum and thus you're quite dead.
Thus decades long after the fact, it's clear that we're never going to
hear for ourselves as to what the truth really is about spacecraft
cabin sounds and noise levels.
However, we're being told to believe that such lack of any engine noise
must be why there's no live sound tracks obtained from anything
associated within ISS, shuttle or of those spendy Apollo missions.
Simply a waste of time and technology, or perhaps too gosh darn spendy
and apparently way to much extra weight and energy consumption as to
include any sort of cabin audio recording technology that might have at
the time consumed 10 whole watts of energy if doing such things in the
old magnetic tape way, as otherwise only a fraction of a watt as of the
last decade.
This must also be why for all these decades there has been no camera,
as of the last decade 0.0003 lux B&W w/auto-iris as an external camera
(now there's even a color 0.0003 lux version Model KPC-650 of 1.2 watt)
that are never sharing publicly accessible images from space, not even
at one frame per second. Apparently we wouldn't want to be consuming
all of perhaps 5 watts (including the video frame storage) of energy on
behalf of confusing folks with those pesky stars and nearby moving
items that might have any of those pesky UV energy signatures as having
been indirectly obtained by David Sereda, plus his offering us new
ideas and notions of UV energy, of video images that had to be
forcefully extracted away from NASA. For best impact on this one,
you'll really need to obtain a copy of his video tapes:
http://www.ufonasa.com
Even a terrestrial application via telescope is certainly worth of
knocking your socks off, however most of the UV spectrum has been
moderated or entirely eliminated by the atmosphere of Earth. This
example is of what an amateur Ultima 11 SCT telescope captured
http://www.aaobc.com/pc164.html
This 0.0003 lux camera obtained photo (4-23--LUNAR0023) is interesting
in that it's given us another typical look-see at the larger as clearly
suggesting an icy proto-moon as having been impacted by perhaps another
large icy orb, then of somewhat newer and much smaller skip impacts of
two or more bounces which clearly indicates something quite interesting
as to the relatively soft surface composition of the moon.
http://www.aaobc.com/pc164/4-23--LUNAR0023.jpg
Image 4-23--LUNAR0018 is that of an even much larger ice impact zone
upon an icy proto-moon, with loads of other icy secondary impacts, plus
having the usual numbers of the much newer and most likely those of a
non icy format, whereas these smaller craters having a diameter/depth
ratio suggesting that perhaps neither surface had any initial ice
involvement.
http://www.aaobc.com/pc164/4-23--LUNAR0018.jpg
Their club (Amateur Astronomers Of Beaver County) even has one of those
nifty entro score, so that means they know exactly what they're doing:
http://www.aaobc.com/
Of course as of not so recently there's been high resolution 2/3" CCD
0.0001 lux cameras that have been off the shelf, and certanly always
along with a UV spectrum capable lens to boot, that is unless you
intentionally wanted to exclude such UV spectrum photons with an
approprate optical filter. There's actually plenty of fairly common
optics that are notorious for their high UV transmission, although
specialized glass that's obviously quite pure can manage to efficiently
pass 250 nm, the Cerco UV lens
(http://www.sodern.com/pdf/leaflet%20F28%20june%2004.pdf) offers an
example of one that's suitable from 220 nm to 620 nm
~
Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & 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
War is war, thus "in war there are no rules" - In fact, war has been
the very reason of having to deal with the likes of others that haven't
been playing by whatever rules, such as GW Bush.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Do Republicians support NASA more than Democrats in the US?
- Next by Date: Re: Rukhnama In Space
- Previous by thread: Did the Voskhod have an airlock?
- Next by thread: Re: Spacecraft Sound Levels
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
