PDA

View Full Version : Question for cosmicdave



Martian Jim
2002-Jun-07, 06:20 PM
someone may have asked you this already, but how did they make low gravity in the filming?

if the astronouts had strings pulls them up and down as they were walking you would have seen them. dont say they did it on the vomit comit, because:

1) it was not invented
2) it would have to be very big (i.e 1 mile square)
3) it would have run out of fuel in a short time
4)it would have hit the ground after a while,
espcially if the footage is more than a comits average dive time

Martian Jim
2002-Jun-07, 06:21 PM
dont say they had a anti grav manchine the martians gave them because:

1)us martians never give away technology to smelly humans

2) that type of technollgy would save nasa alot of money. instead of having to spend millions of dollars sending shuttles into space to do zero g experiments they could just easly do it on the ground

3) if they did, just imagine what the commerical benifits would be?
you could pick up a 2 ton box with your bare hand and place it on a shelf, without having to use a forklift truck.
so the goverment would have made it commercial

4) it was the cold war. if the goverment had told everyone about this device the russians would have been made to look like fools as the americans have better technology

Kaptain K
2002-Jun-07, 07:07 PM
...you could pick up a 2 ton box with your bare hand...
Yeah, but!

The box still has an inertial mass of 2 tons. Good way to get someone seriously hurt, if not killed.

"Hey! Frank, catch". JoeBob gives 2 ton weightless box a good firm shove.

Frank turns around, just in time to be made very thin between 2 ton box and concrete wall! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_evil.gif

Unless, of course, your anti-gravity machine also negates inertial mass. In that case, you run up against SR. i.e. Objects (like photons) with zero rest mass move at the speed of light, and your 2 ton box immediately departs for parts unknown at "c", as soon as you switch on the AG device (See "Billiard Ball" by Isaac Asimov.).

traztx
2002-Jun-07, 07:15 PM
Don't be ridiculous! Why spend all that money on anti-gravity technology when all they needed was to paint the strings with ACME invisible ink?

--Tom

DaveC
2002-Jun-07, 07:31 PM
On 2002-06-07 15:15, traztx wrote:
Don't be ridiculous! Why spend all that money on anti-gravity technology when all they needed was to paint the strings with ACME invisible ink?

--Tom


Great - another Roadrunner fan! So you should know that there is no gravity unless you look down and realize you have run past the edge of the cliff. Antigravity technology wasn't needed - the astronauts only had to make sure they looked down 1/6 of the time. Bingo - lunar gravity.

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-07, 07:47 PM
On 2002-06-07 14:20, Martian Jim wrote:
someone may have asked you this already, but how did they make low gravity in the filming?

if the astronouts had strings pulls them up and down as they were walking you would have seen them. dont say they did it on the vomit comit, because:

1) it was not invented


Actually, Jim, the KC-135A was used for Apollo training.

http://jsc-aircraft-ops.jsc.nasa.gov/kc135/history.html

Silas
2002-Jun-07, 09:39 PM
On 2002-06-07 15:07, Kaptain K wrote:
The box still has an inertial mass of 2 tons. Good way to get someone seriously hurt, if not killed.

"Hey! Frank, catch". JoeBob gives 2 ton weightless box a good firm shove.

Frank turns around, just in time to be made very thin between 2 ton box and concrete wall!.

Well, no, actually the 2 ton box only has "a good firm shove" worth of energy, so Frank will just get a little, harmless squeeze -- almost exactly as if JoeBob had given *him* a shove into the wall.

(The danger in such a situation is with getting fingers caught between large, slow-moving masses...)

Silas

JayUtah
2002-Jun-07, 10:01 PM
The Vomit Comet was used by the Apollo astronauts for accustomization both to zero gravity and to one-sixth gravity. But of course you only get 20-30 seconds of the effect and the fuselage is quite small, so it can't have been effectively used to simulate the Apollo telecasts or EVAs.

cosmicdave
2002-Jun-08, 02:27 PM
If you cared to check my site, you'll see that I have covered the subject of gravity and the use of wires, and if wires were not used, I guess I could fire back with, 'how did they simulate the landings in training then if they didn't use a low gravity environment?

also check out the feather and hammer experiment on my site... that was done in low gravity too.

Oh and to inform you all... The Us Government is working on anti gravity craft as we speak, and I have the papers to prove it!

cosmicdave
2002-Jun-08, 02:29 PM
Oh yeah, perhaps in the future NASA will be using solar sailing to run their craft?

Johnno
2002-Jun-08, 02:49 PM
"If you cared to check my site, you'll see that I have covered the subject of gravity and the use of wires"

How do you attach wires to soil? it will behave differently in 1G and 1/6th G.


"and if wires were not used, I guess I could fire back with, 'how did they simulate the landings in training then if they didn't use a low gravity environment?"

I guess you havent researched apollo enough to know then.
They managed to simulate a low gravity 'enviroment' on the astronauts and their equipment, but not large enough to hold the rover and allow it to drive around. How did they fake the rover's 'rooster tails'?

Martian Jim
2002-Jun-08, 06:04 PM
Oh and to inform you all... The Us Government is working on anti gravity craft as we speak, and I have the papers to prove it



lol, that has got to be the most funnyiest thing i have ever heard from a HB.

papers are not proof, because they can be made up on a computer, any computer in fact.


_________________
<marquee> the guy that has come from mars, for no reason (no reason, or you think for no reason......) </Marquee>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Martian Jim on 2002-06-08 14:06 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-Jun-09, 02:40 PM
The claim of proof papers is especially humorous after the Majestik fiasco. The papers were shown to have been typed on the typewriter of a modern UFO enthusiast and Harry Truman's signature had been cut and pasted from another document. And of course the UFO crowd says this is the "disinformationist" story put forth by government stooges in order to discredit them. They just can't get over the notion that they got caught inexpertly forging their evidence.

Then there is always good old Bob Lazar, the self-employed photo finisher with delusions of grandeur. He had a good run a while back, but has been rather conclusively shown to be a fraud. Oh, yes, I forgot -- the government has been hurriedly trying to "disinform" the public about the inconsistencies in Lazar's own claims.

You also have to be careful about what is meant by "anti-gravity device". I've been told of a number of so-called anti-gravity devices and when I studied the design I found that they were not intended to be "anti-gravity" in the sense of manipulating the physical manifestation or mechanism of gravity, but rather simply generating a force (e.g., magnetism) to oppose gravity. Not really the same thing. Well, unless you consider a helicopter to be an anti-gravity device.

Now I'm sure someone, somewhere, is researching the mechanism of gravity under a government grant. A very large percentage of science in the U.S. (for whatever purpose) is funded by the government. But that doesn't mean they're secretly engineering anti-gravity vehicles in remote places. Big difference.

Martian Jim
2002-Jun-10, 09:55 AM
back to the original question, how did they do it then?
Johnno pointed out something to say that stings could not work. perhaps they used(jedi style) the force (/jedi style)

Martian Jim
2002-Jun-10, 10:00 AM
cosmic dave, for being nauty boy i will smack you with my herring /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif


http://198.64.129.160/message/graemlins/fish.gif





_________________
<marquee> the guy that has come from mars, for no reason (no reason, or you think for no reason......) </Marquee>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Martian Jim on 2002-06-10 06:01 ]</font>

cosmicdave
2002-Jun-10, 10:21 AM
'papers are not proof, because they can be made up on a computer, any computer in fact.'

So does that means that you don't neccessarily believe all the papers released by NASA then?

Do a websearch for Lockheed X22A

cosmicdave
2002-Jun-10, 10:24 AM
Actually, the rooster feather has been quite satisfactorily explained on the documentaries and books I have. The dust that emerges from the wheels should not shoot in an arc at all as we see in the footage because of the absence of air and atmosphere. It should have in fact dropped straight down after the wheel had expelled the dust.

kucharek
2002-Jun-10, 11:01 AM
On 2002-06-10 06:24, cosmicdave wrote:
Actually, the rooster feather has been quite satisfactorily explained on the documentaries and books I have. The dust that emerges from the wheels should not shoot in an arc at all as we see in the footage because of the absence of air and atmosphere. It should have in fact dropped straight down after the wheel had expelled the dust.

Do you want to say that on the Moon, everything you throw away should drop straight down when it leaves your hand? Everything you throw on the moon will follow a perfect parabola, as no air resistance slows it down. When the dust gets off the wheel, it has - depending at which point it leaves - a nice backward/upward velocity vector.

2002-Jun-10, 11:26 AM
Dense^5th ?

Martian Jim
2002-Jun-10, 12:22 PM
if something was to drop straight down if put into by force (thrown) there would have to be a very strong gravitiational field.

so youre telling us the moon has 3 times more gravity than earth?

also the lak of air would make it fly longer.

so why would it just "fall down" instantly?

SpacedOut
2002-Jun-10, 02:11 PM
On 2002-06-10 07:26, HUb' wrote:
Dense^5th ?


HUb' - If I understand your post - ABSOLUTLY!

DaveC
2002-Jun-10, 02:21 PM
I've made a note that this is the date on which I first fully understood one of HUb''s posts and saw how it related directly to the thread. I could be wrong, though!

JayUtah
2002-Jun-10, 02:28 PM
It should have in fact dropped straight down after the wheel had expelled the dust.


Yeah, this from the "master physicist" David Percy who can't even compute a distributed static load. I know. I asked him.

You need a different explanation. The dust ballistics are exactly what you would expect on the moon and can't be duplicated in an atmosphere. Besides, I'm not asking David Percy -- I'm asking you.

jrkeller
2002-Jun-10, 02:45 PM
Jay,

You completed ignored that the fact that Newton's Laws don't apply to the moon or to any HB.

DaveC
2002-Jun-10, 02:54 PM
I spent part of this past weekend watching a friend's son doing what we call mud bog racing in a honkin' big 4x4 truck. "Racing" isn't a very accurate term - the vehicles probably didn't exceed 20 mph - but what struck me was the way the clumps of mud and water launched off the spinning rear wheels of the trucks and followed obvious ballistic arches to the ground. Looked a lot like the behavior of the lunar dust on the Apollo missions, although the chunks of mud were much larger. Given that this is a clear demonstration of how flung material behaves in a gravitational field where atmospheric effects are minimal, I wonder how Cosmic Dave concludes that the lunar dust would be expected to go straight up and straight down immediately. Maybe he needs to pay attention to simple things he can observe right here on earth that will help him understand physical phenomena.

Added by edit:

jrkeller said: "You completed ignored that the fact that Newton's Laws don't apply to the moon or to any HB"

My post and yours crossed, so I didn't consider the inaplicability of Newton's laws to the lunar environment. Never mind /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DaveC on 2002-06-10 10:58 ]</font>

Jim
2002-Jun-10, 03:01 PM
On 2002-06-10 10:54, DaveC wrote:
I spent part of this past weekend watching a friend's son doing what we call mud bog racing ... the clumps of mud and water launched off the spinning rear wheels of the trucks and followed obvious ballistic arches to the ground. Looked a lot like the behavior of the lunar dust on the Apollo missions ... a clear demonstration of how flung material behaves in a gravitational field where atmospheric effects are minimal, I wonder how Cosmic Dave concludes that the lunar dust would be expected to go straight up and straight down immediately. ...

The "arching mud" is a dead giveaway. The race you were "watching" was faked.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-10, 03:03 PM
You completed ignored that the fact that Newton's Laws don't apply to the moon or to any HB.

... and that becoming a hoax believer automatically makes one an expert in physics.

I'm serious: David Percy, of the British Interplanetary Society and noted author on the means of space travel, was unable to compute the static load of an astronaut on the lunar surface. Apparently the units of "pounds per square inch" meant nothing to him, nor suggested a means of computation.

It's no wonder he (or Mary Bennett) still believes the LM descent engine must have been firing at 10,000 lbf while hovering over the lunar surface. And these are the people who claim to possess "irrefutable" and "incontrovertible" proof that the moon landings were faked.

Mr. Cosnette's blind faith in such monumental ignorance suggests he too is all thumbs when it comes to discussing matters of Newtonian physics, ballistics, and the behavior of objects flying through the (absence of) air.

Should have fallen straight down to the lunar surface, eh, Mr. Cosnette? Let's try an easy question. Let's say a particle of dust is ejected from under the LRV's tire at an angle of 45° relative to the lunar surface, and a velocity of 3 meters per second along its angle of departure, also relative to the lunar surface. Assume, hypothetically, a flat and level surface. How far away from its point of ejection will that particle land?

How about a clump of dust particles in a similar situation, all with velocities of 3 meters per second, but with trajectories that vary from 40° to 60°? How far behind will the nearest particle fall? The farthest?

Well, Mr. Cosnette? Should they all just fall straight to the surface?


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-06-10 11:22 ]</font>

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-10, 03:19 PM
On 2002-06-10 06:24, cosmicdave wrote:
Actually, the rooster feather has been quite satisfactorily explained on the documentaries and books I have. The dust that emerges from the wheels should not shoot in an arc at all as we see in the footage because of the absence of air and atmosphere. It should have in fact dropped straight down after the wheel had expelled the dust.

Well that's just silly. If that were the case then orbits shouldn't work either.

DaveC
2002-Jun-10, 03:20 PM
On 2002-06-10 11:01, Jim wrote:

The "arching mud" is a dead giveaway. The race you were "watching" was faked.



Darn - I thought I had something there! I guess the "victory beers" that Keith and I shared with his son were fake, too. I sure imagined they tasted good on a hot Saturday afternoon though.

Gramma loreto
2002-Jun-10, 03:50 PM
On 2002-06-10 06:24, cosmicdave wrote:
The dust that emerges from the wheels should not shoot in an arc at all as we see in the footage because of the absence of air and atmosphere. It should have in fact dropped straight down after the wheel had expelled the dust.


Senor Tartaglia must be rolling in his grave.

sts60
2002-Jun-10, 04:49 PM
The dust that emerges from the wheels should not shoot in an arc at all as we see in the footage because of the absence of air and atmosphere. It should have in fact dropped straight down after the wheel had expelled the dust.BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

[Snork][giggle]

Thanks, Dave, that was the best one yet!
Oh, man! ROTFLMAO!

Thank God I wasn't drinking coffee when I read that!



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sts60 on 2002-06-10 12:50 ]</font>

jumbo
2002-Jun-11, 11:44 AM
I think this is a great example of HB physics at work. The dust falls back down because of the lack of atmosphere?? Hmm so no atmospheric drag=high resistance now Following that kind of logic and extrapolating wildly i guess we could get our planes to fly further and faster if they flew through treacle.

Martian Jim
2002-Jun-11, 11:52 AM
i think cosmic catastrophy is not an earthling, his not clever enough.

i think he came from jupiter, just wanting to try his luck at chatting on a board.

anyway

so c.d, are you going to back your claims then?

jumbo
2002-Jun-11, 11:57 AM
Doesn`t the straight up and falling straight down work only if the dust is ejected vertically from the rovers wheels. Do the HB types think that this is the case?? Or is it a misunderstanding of the motion of the particles ejected at say 45 degrees?

SpacedOut
2002-Jun-11, 12:26 PM
Saw a great saying on a tee shirt:

“Don’t let your mind wander – Its much too small to be outside by itself.”

Some how I thought that appropriate /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

jumbo
2002-Jun-11, 02:30 PM
How about always keep an open mind..but not so open your brains fall out.
When i first heard of the lunar hoax and the alleged faking of eva film i did wonder but it was the rovers rooster tails that convined me the hoax argument i had heard was incorrect.
A little side note: I looked on amazon.co.uk for a copy of dark moon, in the section marked people who bought this book also bought: the top of the list was a certain tolkein book which is a great work of fantasy.

DaveC
2002-Jun-13, 01:43 AM
To me the behaviour of the lunar dust was always the most compelling piece of evidence available to any layman that the films/videos truly documented activity on the moon.
All the other stuff - rocks, working spacecraft, delayed communications, tracking of the Apollo craft to the moon either rely on expert opinion/observation, or can be "explained" in a way that the average person might accept. But the dust! It's so easy for any of us to do our own earthbound experiments to show that isn't how dust behaves in an atmosphere at 1g. The A16 "Grand Prix" should nail it for anyone who takes the time to watch it and really observe what they see. Can't do that feat with wires and altered film speed.

AstroMike
2002-Jun-13, 05:09 AM
Here's an excellent video (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/a15v_1653131.mpg) of Dave Scott tripping on a rock showing the dust behavior.

Peter B
2002-Jun-13, 07:20 AM
Hoo! Cool video!

Can you tell us when in the mission it occurs?

dasi
2002-Jun-13, 10:09 AM
> Can you tell us when in the mission it occurs?

a15v_1653131.mpeg

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15.rille.html#1653131

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: dasi on 2002-06-13 06:32 ]</font>

David Hall
2002-Jun-13, 02:44 PM
I've always loved this one. If you ever wanted to know how to stand up on the Moon, let Charlie Duke show you how. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

Duke uses the self-recording penetrometer (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a16/a16v_1491136.mpg)

I got it from this site. Lots of good clips here: http://www.apolloarchive.com/

JayUtah
2002-Jun-13, 04:05 PM
I guess I could fire back with, 'how did they simulate the landings in training then if they didn't use a low gravity environment?

I don't think anyone here has addressed this question.

It depends on what you mean by "the landings". The actual touchdown of the lunar module was quite accurately simulated both in the Link trainers and in the LLTV. Since the landing is a pure Newtonian physics problem, it's easily simulated in real time on a computer with a few elementary equations. The lack of atmosphere actually makes it an easier problem than the equivalent one on earth.

The LLTV used a large jet engine to negate 5/6 of the vehicle's earth weight and allow the astronaut pilot to feel its behavior under somewhat accurate conditions.

Lunar surface EVA training did not attempt to fully simulate the environment because it would have been impossible to do so. It was correctly predicted that the space suit would be the factor most likely to inhibit EVA operation, not the diminished gravity. And so the astronauts practiced in earth gravity with the equipment they would use. They also underwent dexterity training in vacuum chambers to become accustomed to how the suits would function when fully inflated.

Mobility training for diminished gravity involved both an inclined plane against which the astronaut was suspended pendulum-like, and ascents in the Vomit Comet with flatter parabolas to produce 1/6 instead of weightlessness. Other training techniques included a suspension rig and a deep water tank. These were used to train the astronauts in how to walk in the moon's gravity.

Your argument seems to be, "They must have a way to fake it, otherwise how could the training have been accomplished?" The answer, quite frankly, is that they didn't have a way to fake it, so they did the best they could for training.

Martian Jim
2002-Jun-17, 01:56 PM
they could train by doing it under water.

now your going to come up with a theory that the "moon hoax" was done under water /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

JayUtah
2002-Jun-17, 03:01 PM
The problem with underwater training is that the viscosity of the water makes it harder to move.

And have you ever kicked up a cloud of silt underwater? Kinda makes the rover Grand Prix a little murky.