You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Another innovation of the Pegasus engine was that the Low pressure spool and high pressure spools of the engine contra-rotated, this canceled out any rotational forces from the rotating parts of the engine and negated the need for any sort of tail rotor type of mechanism to counter the gyroscopic reaction forces of the engine when manoeuvring in the hover.
Interesting stuff. I grew up at Wittering when 1 squadron were flying Harriers from there and I didn't know that.
Yeah I defer to your physics knoweldge, mine is ummm ad hoc at that level, I'm happy working with newtonian for my everyday life. When you want to make sense of it all, look up Feynman.
Yeah I defer to your physics knoweldge, mine is ummm ad hoc at that level, I’m happy working with newtonian for my everyday life.
So was I as a Civil Engineer. Physics is less wrong than most other options.
You’re asking the same questions over and over from a basis of incorrect assumptions and then ignoring the explanations that myself and many others have given you. If you didn’t learn “one of these things is not like the others” from Sesame Street then it’s difficult to know what else to tell you.
I have a vague recollection of another member who did exactly the same thing on almost identical subjects...
Its not that mad .. I think some of the pictures were a bit too good..
Compared to what? The transmitted film was pretty poor, but that was stretching the limits of the technology back then. The stills, on the other hand, were taken with Hasselblad medium format 6x6 cameras, which is as good as stills film gets. The cameras are still on the moon, worth a fortune to collectors...
Digital scans of the original negatives are on-line, and show amazing detail that was lost when the prints were made and copies made of those.
Some ace pics here and one amusing one:
Befoer you get carried away go get your convex ski goggles and hava look at the the refection of you nearest and dearest in them.
It’s a shame that links to the Express (news)paper.
Can we have a proper link to someone who can string a sentence together without some “outrage” and “it’s all immigrants taking your jobs y’no” please, ta.
I have a vague recollection of another member who did exactly the same thing on almost identical subjects…
Oh? Who's that then?
-------------------------------------------------
When I said
I totally disagree with this hence my theory requiring science education. Arts and social “science” require no understanding of logic and proof, they do logic, but many don’t get it.
-------------------------------------------------
how did you arrive at such a generalisation?
doesnt seem very scientific or logical.
did you make some kind of careful, detailed observations?
i was never a 'faker', but the problem in the mainstream media was that no valid argument was presented against the 'van-allen' belt radiation danger.
this created such an impasse for joe public that all the rest of the 'evidence' against the moon landings started to look plausible.
it was only recently that someone on YouTube piped up with "different kind of radiation"
aaaaah! if only someone had raised that forty years ago:)
but knowledge of radiation seems like a fairly specialised branch of science, so it's hard to determine if an unscientific background makes you gullible.
the real question is why NASA air-brushed a lot of their photographs of the moon. Spooky!!!
the real question is why NASA air-brushed a lot of their photographs of the moon. Spooky!!!
Proof, please. Direct digital high-resolution scans of the original negatives brought back by the astronauts are available on-line. I’ve seen quite a few of the photos of the lunar landings, I’ve done airbrush re-touching of photos and Photoshop retouching, and airbrush work, on photos of the sort NASA have would be very noticeable. I’ve never heard of anyone, outside of the conspiracy cults, talk about re-touched lunar photos.
Oh? Who’s that then?
Honestly? I truly cannot remember, I have a notoriously poor memory for names, which has proved awkward when it was my sister-in-law’s name I forgot one day. When I was round her and my brother’s house... 😱
Moon pics were retouched but not to con people:
https://io9.gizmodo.com/5938190/why-its-so-hard-to-find-photos-of-neil-armstrong-on-the-moon
're-touching' of moon photos...documentary on netflix...probably 'redacted' by now, lol.
tho, I think that the problem with the whole moon hoax debate was that each sides arguments weren't very well articulated from the start*
And nasa kind of dropped the ball by not publishing a bestselling book in the 1970's, denouncing the hoaxers.
apart from the van-Allen stuff, most of the rest of the arguments were concerned with a basic understanding of photography (where are the stars?)
*as they appeared in popular culture.
Honestly? I truly cannot remember,
'They' must be on to you
i was never a ‘faker’, but the problem in the mainstream media was that no valid argument was presented against the ‘van-allen’ belt radiation danger.
I tohught this had been done so many times it was completely debunked?
https://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/apollo-rocketed-through-van-allen-belts#page-3
https://gizmodo.com/van-allen-belt-mystery-solved-with-student-built-satell-1821252545
Compared to what? The transmitted film was pretty poor, but that was stretching the limits of the technology back then. The stills, on the other hand, were taken with Hasselblad medium format 6×6 cameras, which is as good as stills film gets. The cameras are still on the moon, worth a fortune to collectors…
Its not the quality it’s the fact that they didn’t have viewfinders and some of the iconic ones are just so good.
I’m not really arguing they’re fake btw or the landings but the USA really needed good pics and sometimes strange things happen when people need a win.
Cheers for the heads up that the originals are online I’m gonna have a gander.
‘They’ must be on to you
🤣 It’s only names I really have problems with.
re: the lunar photos, it was a while ago there was a feature about them I read via Flipboard, and looking at them on my pad I’m pretty sure you can see some stars, but only the very brightest, for very good reasons that it’s a bit difficult to explain, and the conspiracy nuts can’t, or won’t, understand.
Just did a quick google, and there’s 8400 on Flickr:
https://www.theverge.com/2015/10/2/9442951/nasa-apollo-moon-mission-photos-flickr
A bit more background:
https://www.space.com/30791-nasa-apollo-moon-photos-online.html