You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
darcy , please elaborate
Yeah of course.
If I gave two shits. I don’t even give one.
But you give enough to reply, I’m touched.
I’m touched
indeed...
How so ditch jockey?
I remembered this which made me laugh at the time.
Dont forget NASA lost the moon rocks as well. How convenient!
How so ditch jockey
It's one of the three most likely hypotheses: you're a troll; you're being deliberately obtuse; you're touched (almost obsolete slang suggesting some kind of mental health issue).
I'm not saying this happened Martymac ..but how do you keep a couple of hundred people quiet who were in the know ..well one way to do it would be to pay them fortunes in the first place with a non disclosure agreement attached.. tied in with a very scary threat from a clandestine department of their government..
Feasible ? maybe ..maybe not but stranger things have happened .
cougar, not really. Are you saying the harrier was harder and that they employ a different type of thrust vectoring.
I'm saying - well, actually, I'm saying two things.
Firstly, they are two very different things. It's like arguing "why did we develop parachutes when we had skis?" Difficulty has nothing to do with it. They are very different things.
Secondly, you're seemingly wilfully ignoring other people's explanations. Not understanding science is fine. Attempting to refute science because you don't understand it is just dim. If you don't understand it, maybe consider deferring to the notion that people who do understand it know what they're talking about.
As I said, not a troll and not obtuse, just asking questions to get to the truth. If I don,t see it I will keep asking.
i thought he was referring to mental health. Funny how it’s alright to use that insult when it suits a person.
well one way to do it would be to pay them fortunes in the first place with a non disclosure agreement attached.. tied in with a very scary threat from a clandestine department of their government..
Met the government? Heard of Edward Snowdon, Wikileaks, USSR and the KGB?
At what point do the odds make it more likely that they did
No cougar, those two were thin and did not help me understand. My further question was valid and I await your response, the ski/ parachute analogy doesn’t help either although I understand your implication, surely the forces required for those transport methods are different?
The only way you get to understand is to ask questions if you are unsure of the argument presented. I have not refuted anything just asked more questions.
Dont forget NASA lost the moon rocks as well. How convenient!
They've lost a tiny percentage of rock samples (can't think why anyone might want to steal one), not all of them. Most of those lost were sent out as samples to places and never returned.
The only way you get to understand is to ask questions if you are unsure of the argument presented. I have not refuted anything just asked more questions.
There is, I used to want to understand everything and work out how and why but as I got older I worked out that there were some good experts out there who had this stuff figured out and I trust them.
No idea as to the odds Mike ..and like I said at the beginning of my post ..Im not saying that happened ..and also at the end with maybe / maybe not ..its just a different way of looking at things ..far fetched ..absolutely ..but then so was the idea of man ever walking on the moon ..<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span>
Edit : you believe everything you are told !?
cougar, not really. Are you saying the harrier was harder and that they employ a different type of thrust vectoring.
There have been quite a few attempts to create a jet aircraft that could transition from vertical to horizontal forward flight, and the P.1127/Kestrel/Harrier wasn’t the first to achieve a smooth transition from vertical to horizontal flight, but it was a British aircraft. The Russians tried it, using small jet nozzles on the wingtips, nose and tail. It was a failure. The Americans attempted their own, one a prop-driven aircraft that took off vertically, standing on its tail, with a large contra-rotating prop to propel it. It was a failure as well. It was Rolls Royce who solved the problem using swivelling nozzles on the side of the main jet engine to vector the jet exhaust out of the sides of the plane instead of at the trailing edge of the wings or the tail. This allowed the pilot to balance the jet on its exhaust on take off and landing, then smoothly transition to forward flight by simply swivelling the nozzles becwards. This allowed the plane to rotate while in hover, and fly backwards. The Americans did develop a technique they called ‘viffing’, vectoring in forward flight. This meant the plane could practically go straight up while flying forward at high speed.
Rockets, on the other hand, use the principle of light the blue touch paper and stand well back! Any ability to manoeuvre while in orbit or during landing is via vernier thrusters, small gas jets set in a cross on the sides of the space craft that allow fine tuning of the craft’s motion in zero gravity. This is where Sir Isaac Newton comes in, I believe it was he who formulated the principle of every action having an equal and opposite reaction; set of an explosion in a closed ended tube, the tube will fly off in the opposite reaction. This is how the lunar modules work, and the launch rockets. Simples! You don’t need to know physics to know how how a firework functions, NASA were just using sodding great fireworks.
The Shorts SC.1 VTOL aircraft actually used five jets, one for horizontal flight, four for vertical. It first flew in 1957!
That was linked to the article linked. I thought the exclamation made it clear I was not being serious.
The Russians have some as well. I find the idea that the rocks formed in a similar way to Earth and the implications for planetary development quite interesting, but each to their own.
The only way you get to understand is to ask questions if you are unsure of the argument presented. I have not refuted anything just asked more questions.
With all due respect, it seems that you're either unable or unwilling to understand.
If your question is "why did the US buy the Harrier when they already had VTOL technology" and the answers you were given are variously "they didn't have VTOL technology" / "the Harrier was being developed at the same time" / "the Harrier design was a joint design between the US and the UK" then I'm really not sure what else we can add. You're never going to get a satisfactory answer to your question because your opening premise is false.
the ski/ parachute analogy doesn’t help either although I understand your implication, surely the forces required for those transport methods are different?
Bingo, now we're getting somewhere.
That helps count zero. The ability to do it on another ‘planet’ must help with the development of makeing things go up and down in succession though?
No idea as to the odds Mike ..and like I said at the beginning of my post ..Im not saying that happened ..and also at the end with maybe / maybe not ..its just a different way of looking at things ..far fetched ..absolutely ..but then so was the idea of man ever walking on the moon ..
Yep you want to believe. keep adding may, could, might etc. Far fetched would be man invents the rocket, works out how to propel mass upwards, works out telemetry to fire a rocket across Europe before any advanced computer was invented.
We worked out the physics of moving object and have been keeping people living in a capsule in space for years now.
What bit of tech is beyond doing?
Like many of M.J. "moon rocks" o'Hara's students in the 70s I got to touch the moon and have a good look at thin sections. Spectacular they were. If they didn't get them from the moon I can't think of anywhere else they could have found them.
Bsims rocked up a month a go and has posted nothing but dross since. No-one is obliged to engage... .
Cougar,
i may not get a satisfactory answer, that’s how the world works. My pr3mise isn’t false . The Americans must have had knowledge of thrust vectoring on Earth from the lander testing, several others have supplied reasoning which makes sense and will allow me to research further.
i think you are confusing unable to understand with insufficient explanation and dont want to nderstand with really do want to understand.
Thanks educator.
Mike I’m not sure random facts and conjecture is actually helpful unless you really do understand in the first place.
Pick a subject, read the articles and the background and then come back with specific questions.
The ability to do it on another ‘planet’ must help with the development of makeing things go up and down in succession though?
Not entirely sure what point you’re making. Rockets were developed as weapons by the Chinese centuries ago, then used in the eighteenth century, the Congreve rocket, then Werner Von Braun developed the V2, which is where NASA got its technology from. Arthur C Clarke postulated the use of satellites orbiting the earth for scientific and reconnaissance purposes, the Clarke Orbit is named after him. Multi-stage rockets are just a development for getting shit higher up than low Earth orbit. From there, getting complicated shit out to the Moon and further is just scaling up the rockets, like Elon Musk is doing with his Falcon 9 launchers and the next BFR. It’s still just a question of lighting the blue touch paper on the bottom of a bunch of tubes stuffed with volatile substances and standing well back, it ain’t that complicated, complicated is the part where the science and engineering gets a satellite exactly where it’s supposed to be millions of miles away. That’s the really clever bit, that uses orbital gravity slings around planets to slingshot objects even further out into space. Everything else is just BF Fireworks.
The point I’m making is that they learnt how to makes thins go in set directions on command.
Trying to stay on topic:
The person most into conspiracy theories I've known in real life had a number of other issues that had nothing to do with educational attainment or even IQ. A thoroughly good bloke but socially a misfit with a mistrust of institutions. A moderate mistrust, an open mind, a propaganda detector and thinking for oneself are positive. Take them too far and they become a handicapping paranoia.
On social media there are the trolls who know what they're doing and get some kind of kick out of gratuitously winding people up, and then there are the ones who post on forums despite a conviction the whole world is against their absolute truths gleaned from a collection of dodgy sources and the stuff floating around in their heads which even they don't know where it comes from.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia
My pr3mise isn’t false .
Then there's nothing further I can add I'm afraid. You're comparing apples with oranges and going "why aren't these things the same?" The answer is, they aren't.
Are you saying that because they used a different source to generate thrust the vectoring cannot be compared?
I have not read the whole thread but amI not right in saying that a powerful optical telescope can see the stuff left on the moon by man? so you can actually see it with your own eyes?
Yes, there are pictures.
although the Martian face pictures weren’t that good - that’s another good conspiracy.
Sorry TJ, unfortunately we don't have telescopes that good:
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/how-to-see-all-six-apollo-moon-landing-sites/
Educator, was that aimed at me or just a general?
Are you saying that because I mentioned trolls on a forum you think that I think you might be a trolling? Or maybe "aimed at me" means I'm thrust vectoring you? Or whatever.
Just assume it was "general" and turn in for the night, it's that time and you'll sleep better.
You’ve made me paranoid now, I’ll never sleep.
Just saw a gl8mpse of the moon as I was looking at the pictures of astronaughts on the moon. How cool would being one of those guys be, you can think ‘ i’ve looked back from there’
Short film on the Lunar Lander Research Vehicle, program started in 1963. Plenty more films on Youtube.
do it on another ‘planet’ must help with the development of makeing things go up and down in succession
The moon lander didn't "fly" and land onto the moon in the way you're thinking. They went around it in smaller and smaller circles until they crashed into it softly enough so they would survive. It had nothing to do with controlled V/TOL flight. Besides why would the US go to all the trouble of producing an airplane that they knew we were designing and they had dibbs on if they wanted some? All the benefit, none of the risk
Guys, we are being trolled. Ignore him.
The lunar module had to do one thing, once.(Land and take off from the moon). The Harrier had to last many years. Completely different design requirements.
The lunar module was flown by some of the best test pilots of their generation. Harriers were flown by average (maybe a bit above average) pilots.
You cannot compere the two. I'm sure America could have designed their own version of the Harrier, but why when there was one already available? Compared to other US military planes, they didn't buy that many Harriers.
I was going to draw a line under my participation on this one with my final comment last night. However, 5plus8 really you are not.Thank you nickc and richmars for your posts.
I wonder what bsims real log in is?
I've never understood the comment that the moon landings "look fake". Look fake how exactly? Because back then we didn't get live colour 4G beamed into our living rooms?
yep, I know a woman educated to Doctorate level who firmly believes the Moon landings were faked.
....
(her course is arts based, so goes nowhere near the subject you’ll all be no doubt relived to hear)
The 'science' bit it moot really - the issue most moon landing fake theorists overlook isn't whether landing on the moon is/was possible but whether faking it was possible. The broadcast - that millions of people all over the world watched, for hours - was entirely impossible to fake with broadcasting technologies at the time. You could have faked a few seconds of moon footage (and people use Stanley Kubrick's '2001' as a contemporary example) but you couldn't have shown hour upon hour of un-cut broadcast. So whether or not a proper 'scientist' would believe in the moon-landings anyone who's done a bit 'Media Studies' wouldn't.
🙂
Religion was created not as an alternative view to science but as a method of controlling large populations…etc etc
Religion wasn't 'created' at all (unless you believe that everything was 'created' of course). Superstition is an entirely natural animal behaviour and, the last time I checked, we're animals. Dogs are superstitious, pigeons are superstitious and people are superstitious whether they align their superstitions within a shared tradition or not.
Let me know when your find out who my other log in is. I would like to know
I’ve never understood the comment that the moon landings “look fake”. Look fake how exactly? Because back then we didn’t get live colour 4G beamed into our living rooms?
One of the issues the footage and photographs have been published and re-published and re-published so many times that the 'evidence' that fake-spotters are pawing over are several generations of re-production old. It relies on knowing just enough about photography and light to think you know it all and spotting anomalies of light, shadow and reflection that prove artifice. But the artifacts that people grab upon as evidence of forgery are often artifacts of re-production - a photograph thats been transcribed into a press-print, thats been scanned, thats been converted to Jpeg, thats been Ken-Burns'd into Youtube video. All the vigorous 'research' these people do is sharing and re-sharing these images without leaving their bedroom - building bigger and bigger bodies of evidence without ever taking a trip to see the photograph itself.
Dogs are superstitious
This is true. Every time a black cat crosses the path of our dog she goes batshit mental.
pigeons are superstitious
Wooooah. I can’t just let that go by unquestioned. Really? They barely seem to have the processing power to avoid slow moving vehicles, but superstition? Shurley not.
https://www.livescience.com/14504-superstitions-evolutionary-basis-lucky-charms.html
https://www.livescience.com/8784-bird-brains-pigeons-gamble-humans.html
who knew!
Without picking on a particular poster, this seems to sum up everything:
Make it plausible and simple as I find physics dull.
Whether we're talking climate change, moon landings, Obama's birth certificate etc, there's always someone who cannot be bothered to invest x number of years of their life educating themselves in a particular area, learning about scientific methodology and critical, rational analysis but feels that their opinion is just as valid as established, peer reviewed fact. I refer to it as the Pruitt Phenomenon, there's political capital in conspiracy theories these days for whatever reason.
I do have a personal connection to the Apollo programme - my father was an aerospace engineer during the 1950s/60s and was offered a job at one of the American aerospace companies building one of the modules (I forget which, possibly Grumman) as a draughtsman/engineer. He didn't take up the offer, but several of his ex-colleagues did. Yes, the Apollo project was built, including the Saturn V rocket which a lucky few of my father's ex-colleagues personally witnessed launch. Yes, the Saturn eventually lifted Skylab into orbit (ask Australians if Skylab was real) and yes the Saturn eventually lifted an Apollo capsule and docking adaptor into low earth orbit so that it could rendezvous with a Soyuz in 1975. You'd think that if Apollo didn't exist then Alexi Leonov might have noticed.
Which brings me neatly to:
If the Americans built a VTOL system for the moon landing craft why did they have to buy the Harrier from Britain?
The Lunar Module used a rocket, which doesn't breathe air as the moon doesn't have any. Also, the LM was designed to operate in 20% gravity, which meant that it required less fuel and could carry it's own oxidiser (no air outside, remember) without being engineered to support itself in full Earth gravity because it didn't need to be. The LM also wasn't designed to carry weapons, manoeuvre at 7g, support the weight of a structure designed to manoeuvre at 7g without collapsing etc.
Actually, why am I trying to explain a straw man argument?
Actually, why am I trying to explain a straw man argument?
Just stop, he's a troll.
WTF are you bringing gansta moon mice into this?
Tiny clanger said " why don't you yanks take your junk home with you"
WTF are you bringing gansta moon mice into this?
Are we you going to be the one who tells them they’re not invited?
Jim'll'paint it is a pop culture hero!
Whether we’re talking climate change, moon landings, Obama’s birth certificate etc, there’s always someone who cannot be bothered to invest x number of years of their life educating themselves in a particular area, learning about scientific methodology and critical, rational analysis but feels that their opinion is just as valid as established, peer reviewed fact. I refer to it as the Pruitt Phenomenon, there’s political capital in conspiracy theories these days for whatever reason.
This is me and I claim my £5. There's no such thing as moon landings, end of. Its a political conspiracy. In addition, you need to start adding together all things NASA. Why are there no more Space shuttles? No, its not money, there's loads of that that can be printed. How come we haven't gone a leap beyond Smartphones? Why has mobile tech stalled? Why aren't we quickly awash with electric cars even though the have nth of the computing need of an iPhone? Its because we beyond the pinnacle of publicly aware developed Alien technology from Roswell thats why, and on our own we are capable of nothing else.
There I said it.
Why are there no more Space shuttles?
Because they got a bit explody. Also, they were costing a fortune.
How come we haven’t gone a leap beyond Smartphones? Why has mobile tech stalled?
What would you actually want? My current phone is more powerful than a laptop of a few years ago.
on our own we are capable of nothing else.
So nothing was developed before the 1950's?
I think I have just been trolled.
Also, IF that’s actually true, how on earth do you keep a couple of hundred media types, who crave fame and money, quiet
In theory if you got a bunch of "true patriots" you might be able to pull that off. The main problem I see is that I cant see how the USSR could be fooled and it would have been a dream PR occasion for them.
Why are there no more Space shuttles? No, its not money, there’s loads of that that can be printed.
Yeah that normally goes down well. There is no political will for it.
How come we haven’t gone a leap beyond Smartphones?
Like what? There are various things being worked on. Main drawback currently are batteries
Why aren’t we quickly awash with electric cars even though the have nth of the computing need of an iPhone?
In what way?
Its because we beyond the pinnacle of publicly aware developed Alien technology from Roswell thats why, and on our own we are capable of nothing else.
Glad you said it.
Not that believe a word of it mind.
There is plenty of tech developments in modern life that far supersede even the simplest of IT tech from 10years ago, never mind 15... and you work in that industry so you must understand even the basic SDLC employed developments.
Its all about Political will, Governemnt funded space programmes fell flat when the Shuttle kept killing its astronauts.. printing money wasn’t the limiting factor, it was the political will of producing a space vehicle for what was back then a highly controversial subject.
If your view is “Aliens gave us all the current tech, and humans have been unable to supersede” any then I think you should have a chat with one of the major players in the high tech industry.. for thier POV.
What will you do with your virtual £5 ?
You have an interesting viewpoint, not one I would have given you credit for.
Dissonance (and someone else, earlier)
yes, maybe you could keep some people quiet, for a while, but hundreds of attention seeking filmmakers? I’m doubtful tbh.
not for 50 years anyway.
As you picked my posts, I will reply.
If you can’t explain something simply, so that anyone can understand the basics as a starting point for them you don’t understand the subject as well as you think.
I was not refuting anything, therefore it wasn’t straw man.
Thanks for your other points.
bsims
i know theres been a lot of back and forth, but your original question was:
If the Americans built a VTOL system for the moon landing craft why did they have to buy the Harrier from Britain? Genuine question, no one i have ever asked has been able to give me a decent answer, all I get is something about more cost effective. (which would be unusual for the US military, they like tech in house)
You seem to be implying that the Americans were not able to create a working vtol system to land on the moon.
Here is the wikipedia article about the test bed vehicle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Landing_Research_Vehicle
and here is video of it flying (the most popular video is one of it being destroyed in a test while being flown by Neil Armstrong but it had flown successfully many times before).
So bearing in mind that you've (hopefully) just read an article about the device you claim could not exist, and seen a video of it flying. What was your point?
You have an interesting viewpoint, not one I would have given you credit for
I'm not sure whether to be flattered or insulted 🙂
I was trolling above, but on that particular point there is part of me that believes it. There plenty of conjecture yet also evidence to show that there were technological leaps and bounds not associated with financial or political will. I don't have the time to search for an post links now, but there was recorded leaked conversations, and documents about "communications devices" within about 5 years of Roswell of which the description matches an iPhone. Its long been rumoured that the (mainly US) military harbor alien technology propulsion systems and have used them (UFO's) and they/NASA have gradually understood, used and leaked other component parts. Coupled with our own science, we've moved on with tech in some industries that far outweighs others.
My quip about Cars is correct - we went from talking through a wire to iPhone X in the space of time its taken to make a Sinclair C5 a bit bigger. Wtf? Surely at that pace of development for something thats seen as fundamental to our environment we should all being driving them now. But wait - politically the oil industry needs to remain, or is it that we just don't know how to migrate a fundamental technology from comms to vehicular use? Oh but we do, because we have Tesla, then other crappy imitations which in a strange parallel to the telecoms story, the original iPhone release sees one organisation light years ahead of others until replication allows them to catch up. Vis a Vis, was Jobs/Musk leaked some technology by design?
Yeah I’ve seen the videos and referred to them, not said they don’t exist. The question I asked is self explanatory. Some posters have been able to add detail to a possible answer.
I have asked why could they not make one for an aircraft and the viewpoints are procurement/ different kind of vtol/ one not vtol/ different scenario.
The divide I claim does not exist is an American only designed and made vstol aircraft in service. Which seems odd given the tech and money they had to throw at it.
I have read the sr 71 was signed off accidentally by Congress ( who thought they were getting a different plane) which if actually true shows how much money was available to defence projects.
It's time to play … "troll or stupid"…
Vis a Vis, was Jobs/Musk leaked some technology by design?
Leaving aside the accuracy of your claims (you do seem to be buying into PR hype). Who exactly would be "leaking" that technology?
If you can’t explain something simply, so that anyone can understand the basics as a starting point for them you don’t understand the subject as well as you think.
Okaaaay, one has a jet engine, which sucks in air, mixes it with aviation fuel and also has these little itty bitty wings on each side..actually why should I dumb down for someone who cannot tell the difference between a Harrier jump jet and the Lunar Module? Go and read the Junior Encyclopaedia of Space.
I was not refuting anything, therefore it wasn’t straw man.
Are you currently sitting in an industrial unit in the vicinity of St Petersburg BTW? It would explain a great many things.
Who exactly would be “leaking” that technology?
Well if we all knew that....
But we all know that governments & media are used to dictate to us, who's to say that whats available to the public isn't dictated by a higher power, all it politicians, masons, aliens, Rameses the 3rd, the WI who knows...]
No we work from home now.
So are you saying thrust vectoring varies according to the fuel used or the laws of motion vary according to the fuel used?
So bearing in mind that you’ve (hopefully) just read an article about the device you claim could not exist, and seen a video of it flying. What was your point?
I think the point is that the flying bedstead isn't a VTOL fighter aircraft.
People really shouldn't need it explaining that aeroplanes and spacecraft aren't the same thing.
Its all getting a bit Father Dougal
Richmtb, are you saying the the Earth is governed by different laws of physics?
Nice straw-manning there.
I'm not able to translate this into Russian for you, but here you go:
I prefer the term straw mannery,
I’m a contractor from Laos so I don’t speak Russian
This might help:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrier_Jump_Jet
No I'm saying aeroplanes and spacecraft are different, they are designed for completely different jobs in complete different environmnents. What they are doing looks superficially similar but its actually not. The universal nature of physical laws is utterly irrelevant if you are describing different things.
"No Dougal, this cow is small those are far away"
Also saying "are you saying" and then saying something I didn't say is a fairly basic logical fallacy.
It might even have a name
I'm amazed that you read the technical document and have calculated the corresponding thrust to lift ratios allowing for gravitational differences so quickly. I doff my cap.
I like that scene, makes me laugh. Still doesn’t change the fact that thrust vectoring is thrust vectoring.
richmtb, you are saying that because you imply that the method of going up and down is different, not the same through different generation methods.
pjm - I ve got my st Petersburg team on it.
The point I’m making is they had most of the tech and knowledge and then didn’t take the next step, as most seem to be saying the jet version is harder. Had they done a us harrier the lander would have been better, no?
do you think the us was unable to generate enough thrust with a jet engine or was it the transition as wobbiscott suggested?
The LM had Velcro carpet, excellent, I might email my question to NASA.