PDA

View Full Version : Flag on the Moon



odysseus0101
2001-Dec-02, 09:32 PM
It is my understanding that one can actually see at least one American flag on the Moon. If this information is accurate (alas, I have no telescope) then how might this flag have been delivered to the Moon and deployed if no human ever went there?

James
2001-Dec-02, 10:40 PM
I highly doubt that we can see a little American flag on the moon. If we cannot even see the landing sites themselves, how could we see an American flag?

Assuming that we could, considering that the Moon has no atmosphere to help deploy the flag, I wonder how that would happen, too.

TinFoilHat
2001-Dec-03, 12:05 AM
You can only see the flag if you go to the moon in person.

No telescope on the earth has enough resolving power to see the flags on the moon. Even the Hubble telescope can't do that.

David Simmons
2001-Dec-03, 04:42 AM
On 2001-12-02 19:05, TinFoilHat wrote:
You can only see the flag if you go to the moon in person.


And probably not then either. I suspect the strong ultr-violet radiation and the high and low temperature extremes have demolished it long since.

The Bad Astronomer
2001-Dec-03, 04:44 AM
Here is my answer to people who email me about using a 'scope to view the Apollo artifacts:

It won't work. The problem is resolution. There is an upper limit to how well a telescope can see objects depending on their size. Even for Hubble, at the distance of the Moon it cannot clearly see objects less than about 100 meters across. Nothing we left
on the Moon is anywhere near that big, so all you would see is a collection of dots, which would prove nothing!

There is a way, though: wait for the local sunrise or sunset at the landing site. That way, the lunar module would cast a long
shadow, possibly long enough to see. That wouldn't prove anything, but it lends support. Still, I doubt Hubble will ever do this. Time on Hubble is hotly fought over (see
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/badhst.html) and I don't see the people running the 'scope letting someone use up precious
time to prove that we went to the Moon, when no scientist seriously doubts it in the first place! It might be possible to do this from the ground, though. I would need to think about it and figure out if the shadow is really visible or not. It's a neat idea.

David Hall
2001-Dec-03, 10:13 AM
On 2001-12-02 23:44, The Bad Astronomer wrote:
I would need to think about it and figure out if the shadow is really visible or not. It's a neat idea.


There are already a couple of photos of lander shadows. They've been posted here before. But they were taken from command modules orbiting the moon during the Apollo missions.

There's also the Clementine image of the ground disturbances of the Apollo 15 landing site. (Note, the link doesn't mention it, but I believe it is NOT a visible light photo.)

http://www.tass-survey.org/richmond/answers/lunar_lander.html

Silas
2001-Dec-03, 04:32 PM
On 2001-12-02 23:42, David Simmons wrote:


On 2001-12-02 19:05, TinFoilHat wrote:
You can only see the flag if you go to the moon in person.


And probably not then either. I suspect the strong ultr-violet radiation and the high and low temperature extremes have demolished it long since.


That's the most depressing thing I've read all day... I guess I sort of had the illusion in my mind that the entire site would be preserved intact (until some meteorite -- or luneorite -- or whatever -- smacked into it, which certainly has to happen sooner or later...)

Silas

2001-Dec-03, 07:48 PM
I was hoping about reflective laser scans of the moon surface, but if there's nothing left...

David Simmons
2001-Dec-04, 01:30 AM
On 2001-12-03 11:32, Silas wrote:


On 2001-12-02 23:42, David Simmons wrote:

And probably not then either. I suspect the strong ultr-violet radiation and the high and low temperature extremes have demolished it long since.


That's the most depressing thing I've read all day... I guess I sort of had the illusion in my mind that the entire site would be preserved intact (until some meteorite -- or luneorite -- or whatever -- smacked into it, which certainly has to happen sooner or later...)

Silas



I expect the metal parts are still there. And maybe some cloth. But it surely won't look like the US flag. Ultra violet fades colors fairly rapidly, even filtered through the atmosphere of the earth.

Blue seems to be particularly hard to "fix" to cloth so it won't fade. And I think that red isn't all that much better.

Nothing lasts forever.

odysseus0101
2001-Dec-04, 03:08 AM
Thanks very much for the replies to my original message! The idea about reflective laser scans is particularly interesting, but I would imagine that such scans would be subject to the same conspiracy theories as the landing itself. That is, the government or some major university would have to perform the scan...

Kizarvexis
2001-Dec-04, 11:54 PM
On 2001-12-03 14:48, Gambit wrote:
I was hoping about reflective laser scans of the moon surface, but if there's nothing left...


Do you mean sweeping a laser across the moon to try and get a topographic map that would show a lander? If so, I don't think a laser would provide that kind of detail. Check out the following site about measuring the distance to the moon using a laser.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/expmoon/Apollo11/A11_Experiments_LRRR.html

Particulary this paragraph.

"Laser beams are used because they remain tightly focused for large distances. Nevertheless, there is enough dispersion of the beam that it is about 7 kilometers in diameter when it reaches the Moon and 20 kilometers in diameter when it returns to Earth. Because of this very weak signal, observations are made for several hours at a time. By averaging the signal for this period, the distance to the Moon can be measured to an accuracy of about 3 centimeters (the average distance from the Earth to the Moon is about 385,000 kilometers)."

There is also a neat pic of the laser at the top of the page.

The Rat
2001-Dec-05, 02:48 PM
On 2001-12-03 22:08, odysseus0101 wrote:
...I would imagine that such scans would be subject to the same conspiracy theories as the landing itself. That is, the government or some major university would have to perform the scan...


You must be new to this area of debate, and I envy your innocence. Those of us who have fought this battle for ages can all attest to the fact that the hoax believers will never accept any contrary evidence, no matter how authoritative it may be. Their minds are made up, and cannot be changed. There are some absolutes in this universe, and the pig-headed intransigence of hoax believers is one of them.

But you've taken a good first step in your path to enlightenment by coming to one of the best possible boards with which to fight these lying fools. Welcome.

JayUtah
2001-Dec-06, 10:40 PM
There's also the Clementine image of the ground disturbances of the Apollo 15 landing site. (Note, the link doesn't mention it, but I believe it is NOT a visible light photo.)

This photo was brought to public attention by an article on Space.com. The researchers cited in that article have confirmed that the photo is not a visible light photo, but is a "phase angle" image. This is produced by applying digital image processing techiques to a series of photographs in different wavelengths taken of the same area of the lunar surface.

Other photographs and astronaut testimony agree that the DPS-disturbed lunar regolith is lighter than the surrounding area to the naked eye.

Johnno
2002-Jan-10, 08:08 AM
Hey peeps, just browsing (nothing to do right now), thought Id add my 5 cents.

if you want to view small stuff on the moon, send a satellite into orbit, and take a few pics. of course they'll have to be spy satellite quality if you'd do it today.

hubble has a resolution of 270 ft per pixel when photographing the moon.

but hey, get a spy satellite and send it into lunar orbit, with 1cm resolution you'd even see the flagpole /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

so aim for the apollo 11 landing site, the knocked their flag down...

JayUtah
2002-Jan-10, 12:58 PM
The resolving power of the HST has been discussed. Another limit of the HST is its stabilization system. A very ingeneous system keeps the spacecraft aimed in the same direction to within a very small fraction of a degree during the exposure. Unfortunately this is unsuitable for photographing the moon which, in HST's estimation, is right in front of its face. The HST is moving along its orbit at 17,000 mph and this motion blurs the image. What is needed is a system more like that used on KH spy satellites which rotates the spacecraft ever so slightly during the exposure. The HST has taken a few photographs of the moon, but nothing that compares to the photos taken in orbit by Apollo command module pilots.

The analogy is to a passenger in a moving vehicle. Distant objects appear fixed. He does not have to move his head to see them. But to continue looking at objects just off the roadway, he must turn his head as the car passes them.

I own a flag made by the same company which supplied the flags (via a retail outlet) to NASA for deployment on the moon. They're not hard to come by. But they are, however, quite sensitive to sunlight. The colors fade, and the material itself -- nylon fabric -- undergoes a chemical breakdown. If you use nylon or Dacron sails on your boat, the manufacturer will sternly warn you to keep the sails inside their covers when not set.

The pig-headedness of the conspiracy theorists is, of course, legendary. But on this particular point there is some confusion among other people. I have heard it said on a number of occasions that the visibility from earth of Apollo remnants has proven the success of the missions.

Matherly
2002-Jan-10, 01:21 PM
On 2001-12-05 09:48, The Rat wrote:
You must be new to this area of debate, and I envy your innocence. Those of us who have fought this battle for ages can all attest to the fact that the hoax believers will never accept any contrary evidence, no matter how authoritative it may be.

Um, Rat. I think that was his point. He's saying the evidence would not be believed specifically because it would have to come from an 'authority' (in this case the guvment or the "intellectual elite"

JayUtah
2002-Jan-10, 04:19 PM
Both points are probably valid. The conspiracists categorically reject anything coming from a government source, or from anything receiving government funding, and in extreme cases anyone with professional or academic credentials that qualifies them to comment intelligently on the hoax theory. This pretty much eliminates any potential source of contrary evidence.

If the conspiracists are true to form they'll respond to the eventual discovery of Apollo remnants in one or both of two ways: categorical dismissal of the discovery based on alleged bias, or extension of the hypothesis to account for the discovery.

The former is easy to accomplish because it is hard to examine the lunar surface in sufficient detail without the intervention of agencies likely to arouse the conspiracist's suspicion.

The latter is easy to accomplish because the entire hoax theory case is based on nothing but conjecture. If someone discovers Apollo remnants on the lunar surface, they can simply claim that NASA used unmanned rockets to place the debris there shortly before the "discovery". They've already postulated a series of highly improbable occurrences. Why stop there?

The contention that the conspiracists always find some way to get around contrary evidence without dealing with it is still quite valid. The categorical rejection of government sources is just a common technique to accomplish that. If the conspiracists remain true to form, I'd expect them to do whatever it takes to justify their conclusion in their own minds.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-01-10 11:22 ]</font>

ToSeek
2002-Jan-10, 05:26 PM
What's fun is that there are conspiracists who think that the Moon landings were a hoax, and there are other conspiracists who think we already have military bases on Mars. I'd like to lock some of each in a room together to see what happens!

JayUtah
2002-Jan-10, 10:24 PM
We already have the Bill Kaysing crowd (those who believe Apollo did not land on the moon) versus the Richard Hoagland crowd (those who believe the Apollo landings succeeded, but found artificial constructs there and covered it up). Check out http://www.lunaranomalies.com/, the site run by Hoagland's gang that debunks the Kaysing-esque theorists.

What's amazing is that Hoagland's researchers are amazingly resourceful. Steve Troy found conclusive proof of the origin of the infamous "C" rock. He actually found the print with the hair fiber contamination on it. And their discussion of the radiation issue is the most thorough I've seen published on the net. These people are tenacious and quite good at undermining the conclusions of Kaysing, David Percy, Ralph Rene, and other "we never went" enthusiasts.

But it's so disappointing to seem them go off the deep end and engage in speculative correlations a la Piper a.k.a. Seethruart. Troy says he sees Roman arches and other precise geometries in the orbital photographs of the moon's surface. And of course they stubbornly insist that the lens flares occasionally seen on EVA photographs are really reflections of large crystal or glass structures.

It's okay with me if people want to believe the moon was once inhabited by intelligent creatures who built wonderful things. But it's baffling to see someone with a vast array of resources at his command and an excellent grasp of reason and argumentation to make such an off-the-wall assertion based on such blatantly flimsy evidence.

You never can tell about some people.

ToSeek
2002-Jan-11, 01:02 PM
On 2002-01-10 17:24, JayUtah wrote:

But it's so disappointing to seem them go off the deep end and engage in speculative correlations a la Piper a.k.a. Seethruart. Troy says he sees Roman arches and other precise geometries in the orbital photographs of the moon's surface. And of course they stubbornly insist that the lens flares occasionally seen on EVA photographs are really reflections of large crystal or glass structures.



I particularly like their insistence that NASA times everything according to the positions of certain stars over certain locations, never realizing that with all the stars, positions, and locations they consider significant, it's a virtual certainty that something is going to line up.

JayUtah
2002-Jan-11, 01:45 PM
Right, that's what's sometimes called the "confirmation bias". That is, if you're predisposed to believe that something significant exists in what you're studying, you'll keep looking (and frequently lowering your standards) until you find it.

There's a big difference in investigations that try to see if something exists, and investigations that try to confirm the existence of something already believed to exist. In the former, coming up empty means that the thing you're looking for doesn't exist. In the latter, coming up empty means you're not trying hard enough.

The sad thing is that I try to have an open mind. I believe it's quite possible that there's life out there, and probably intelligent life too. But just because I reject the poorly-conceived arguments that earth has been visited by these space aliens, I get labelled a "closed-minded skeptic". It's hard to convince people that there's no advantage in being so "open-minded" that your brain falls out.

Squirm
2002-Jan-11, 03:28 PM
The one thing these guys have in common is that their efforts deflect attention away from, discredit or dilute the moon hoax theory. In Hoagland's case, the sudden and inexplicable deterioration from sound judgment to "someone pass me a straightjacket" baffles even Jay.

See-thru-art is not only discrediting the theory but he also made a concerted effort to undermine the debates that frequently ensue -- of which, I was surprised at the amount of time and effort Jay continually expended on him. Of course, Seethruart may secretly be going for the Turner Prize (he'd probably win it, too!), though I very much doubt it.

There are a few others besides. Some follow a pattern whereby they analyse various bits of topography and outline (http://www.geocities.com/bradguth/images/guth-venus-180-info.jpg) what they perceive to be secret or lost civilizations. In nearly every case I have encountered they take a swipe at NASA or touch on the hoax theory -- in some cases both. I have heard from two such people in the last month alone, both wanting me to link to their web site, and vise versa.

I think not.

JayUtah
2002-Jan-11, 09:21 PM
I was surprised at the amount of time and effort Jay continually expended on him.

Well, I don't talk to him anymore. I believe I've seen the complete catalogue of his replies. I stuck with it for so long because sometimes people just need a particular approach from an oppenent before the flaw in their argument "clicks". So I tried a variety of approaches.

There is so much individuality among parties to this debate that sometimes it defies categorization.

johnwitts
2002-Jan-11, 11:05 PM
Jay, I must note here that you spent an enormous amount of effort on Seethruman. If you'd have put as much effort and patience into a project to make a new propulsion system, we'd all be able to drive our cars to the Moon to check for ourselves, and only use about $5.00 of fuel. It seems to have worked though. He's gone away. Maybe he's turned totally invisible?

JayUtah
2002-Jan-12, 03:24 PM
If I did that, according to the conspiracy theories, the world energy cartel would do away with me. If you ask me, we don't need more efficient cars. We need fast food that tastes good and is non-fattening. That's where I'm focusing my efforts right now.

Squirm
2002-Jan-18, 07:41 PM
Jay: If I did that, according to the conspiracy theories, the world energy cartel would do away with me. If you ask me, we don't need more efficient cars.

Yes we do. And it certainly wouldn't surprise me if such a conspiracy did exist! Gas and electric powered motor vehicles capable of 70mph are demonstrably real, yet we are still pumping out a cocktail of poisonous emissions into our atmosphere every day, and why? The alarming number of children who suffer as a direct consequence bears witness to our selfishness and stupidity.

Would you swap your stylish and capable Ford Explorer for something less attractive, Jay?


We reap what we sow.

SeanF
2002-Jan-18, 07:55 PM
On 2002-01-18 14:41, Squirm wrote:
Jay: If I did that, according to the conspiracy theories, the world energy cartel would do away with me. If you ask me, we don't need more efficient cars.

Yes we do. And it certainly wouldn't surprise me if such a conspiracy did exist!


Hmm . . . the "world energy cartel" would, by definition, include the electric companies as well as the gasoline providers, wouldn't it? What do the gas people hold over the electric people that they would go along with this "conspiracy" to prevent us from buying more of their electricity to run our cars?



Gas and electric powered motor vehicles capable of 70mph are demonstrably real, yet we are still pumping out a cocktail of poisonous emissions into our atmosphere every day, and why? The alarming number of children who suffer as a direct consequence bears witness to our selfishness and stupidity.

Would you swap your stylish and capable Ford Explorer for something less attractive, Jay?


We reap what we sow.


A reference to "our stupidity" and a direct question to whether Jay would want a "less attractive" vehicle*. Could you be saying that the reason the auto manufacturers don't sell electric/hybrid cars is because (gasp!) the customers won't buy them?

And that's a "conspiracy"?

*(Care to explain why electric or hybrid vehicles are necessarily "less attractive" than gas-burners?)

ToSeek
2002-Jan-18, 08:21 PM
We just bought a hybrid electric for my wife in December (a Honda Insight). I put 210 highway miles on it for a trip a few weeks ago and got 67 mpg.

Squirm
2002-Jan-18, 08:30 PM
SeanF: Hmm . . . the "world energy cartel" would, by definition, include the electric companies as well as the gasoline providers, wouldn't it? What do the gas people hold over the electric people that they would go along with this "conspiracy" to prevent us from buying more of their electricity to run our cars?

Please allow me to rephrase that to: "it wouldn't surprise me if a conspiracy of sorts did exist".

Could you be saying that the reason the auto manufacturers don't sell electric/hybrid cars is because (gasp!) the customers won't buy them?

No. Changing the publics commonly held perception [of cool] would be an obstacle for them to overcome, but that shouldn't stand in the way of sweeping change.


Care to explain why electric or hybrid vehicles are necessarily "less attractive" than gas-burners?

Because in most cases their outer body is constructed from lightweight polyesters and they are prone to looking somewhat flimsy. And they generally don't make a mean sound when you increase the revs, either. Some people will definitely have a problem with that, and they will inevitably pour scorn on them. But again, this shouldn't halt progress. In the UK the maximum speed limit is 70mph (not so sure what it is over there in the USA?) so why we require something considerably faster (Emergency Services excluded) is beyond me.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Squirm on 2002-01-18 15:32 ]</font>

SeanF
2002-Jan-18, 08:43 PM
On 2002-01-18 15:30, Squirm wrote:

Could you be saying that the reason the auto manufacturers don't sell electric/hybrid cars is because (gasp!) the customers won't buy them?

No. Changing the publics commonly held perception [of cool] would be an obstacle for them to overcome, but that shouldn't stand in the way of sweeping change.


Oh, of course it should (or would, anyway). As long as the people would rather buy gas-powered cars, the auto manufacturers can't just stop selling them and switch over to electric. They'd go out of business.



Care to explain why electric or hybrid vehicles are necessarily "less attractive" than gas-burners?

Because in most cases their outer body is constructed from lightweight polyesters and they are prone to looking somewhat flimsy. And they generally don't make a mean sound when you increase the revs, either. Some people will definitely have a problem with that, and they will inevitably pour scorn on them. But again, this shouldn't halt progress. In the UK the maximum speed limit is 70mph (not so sure what it is over there in the USA?) so why we require something considerably faster (Emergency Services excluded) is beyond me.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Squirm on 2002-01-18 15:32 ]</font>


Actually, most car bodies are made out of light-weight plastics these days anyway. The "revving engine" sound is certainly a valid point. Most of the "revvers," though, are going to be the folks with manual transmissions -- and I just heard the other day that while only about 11% of cars in America have manual trannies, 90% of those in England do. 'zat true?

The max federal speed limit in the US is 75mph. Sometimes, though, you need to use your own vehicle in "emergency services" (rushing someone to the hospital, etc.). Saying that only the "authorities" need fast cars is a little like saying only the "authorities" need guns, and a lot of us here in the States don't cotton much to that idea, either! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

We're getting way off any astronomy topics, though, so . . .

johnwitts
2002-Jan-18, 11:05 PM
I got a Fiat with CVT. It doesn't change gear ever, it just alters the ration constantly. In the UK, we don't generally drive auto's. Petrol (GAS) is a lot more expensive here than in the US, so we're more careful with it. Autos are unnecessarily 'lavish'. Anyway, back to my car. Nobody likes CVT's. They sound wrong, they feel wrong, they react wrong. Because my car is a CVT auto, and not a normal coggy one, my insurance is actually a lot cheaper than a manual. I love it. It is easier to drive than a manual, does more MPG, despite the official figures, accelerates faster, despite the official figures, and is so smooth to drive. There's none of this jerking you get with a normal auto. This car is similar to it's manual version, except for the CVT. Yet the manual version was quite popular. Initial reactions from all those who have driven it has been 'YUK', and initial reactions usually dominate.
Fiat are soon to bring out a turbo diesel CVT model capable of 100mph and 100 mpg. That may persuade a few, if it doesn't look like a potato. I'm also trying to work out how feasable it would be to use a gas turbine with a CVT instead of a piston engine. Jay?

charliemac
2002-Jan-27, 10:58 PM
On 2001-12-02 19:05, TinFoilHat wrote:
You can only see the flag if you go to the moon in person.

No telescope on the earth has enough resolving power to see the flags on the moon. Even the Hubble telescope can't do that.




I have been to the moon. I went on one of NASA's rockets just like Armstrong, Aldrin etc.

DaveC
2002-Feb-01, 09:14 PM
johnwitts: I'm also trying to work out how feasible it would be to use a gas turbine with a CVT instead of a piston engine.

John, Chrysler experimented with a commercial turbine engine for automobiles 38 years ago. Check this out:

http://www.autospeed.com/A_0764/P_1/article.html

The cost was quite high - although probably mainly because of the limited production. In the end, the turbine engine had two problems - it couldn't meet evolving emission control standards and it wasn't capable of getting good fuel mileage. It could burn almost any hydrocarbon, though which may have compensated for that.
The engine was coupled to a normal three speed automatic transmission after a reduction gear train. I drove one briefly and found it quite responsive for a big car with a relatively small (130 HP) engine. The sound was a fairly quiet whine - which didn't appeal to my teenage desire to hear a big throbbing V8 when I stomped the pedal.
My Dad's friend at the Chrysler dealership drove the car for a few months and loved it.
No CVT though. Not sure the turbine engine would fit in a "Fiat Uno".

johnwitts
2002-Feb-01, 11:33 PM
My Uno has only half that power, so the engine would only need to be small. Not bad for 38 years ago. Imagine what it would be like now with 38 years worth of development. One of the advantages of this system over conventional autos and manuals is the smoothness of the acceleration. I get this with my CVT, a constant smooth acceleration with none of the bumps and lurches you get with an auto, or the pauses in acceleration you get with a manual. The engine is held at the revs required for maximum power, instead of the revs moving up and down in and out of the powerband. It's always in the right gear for the conditions. It's a joy to drive. My next car will certainly contain a CVT, probably one of the newer electronically controlled jobbies, with the manual steps, should I ever feel the need to use them. Fiat do a 7 speed CVT for the Punto, and I may try one of these. Trouble is, I think they may have kept the 'steps' in the fully automatic mode, which would spoil things a bit. Seems like a backwards step to me. When I was talking to a guy from the company that makes these transmissions, he said that customer demand had provoked the changes, so that it felt like a proper gearbox. Just goes to show how public perception can impact on an engineering ideal.

DaveC
2002-Feb-11, 08:07 PM
The Chrysler Turbine was indeed smooth. The engine had a very flat torque curve and pulled evenly from a stop to its top speed of over 100 mph. I doubt that even 38 years of additional development would likely overcome the fuel economy problem, though. Turbine engines are most efficient when the speed of the vehicle is high enough to force air into the intake. The vehicle version needed a relatively much larger compressor fan than a jet aircraft would have. This sapped a lot of the engine's power.
Interesting comments on Fiat's direction with the transmission. People are accustomed to a certain sound and feel in their vehicles. I guess with a completely computer controlled CVT and engine management system, a little hesitation could be programmed into the engine at the "shift points" to make it feel like the transmission was shifting. I bet people would pay extra for that feature - just like I'd pay extra to have my car's engine throb like a 7 litre V8.

johnwitts
2002-Feb-11, 09:40 PM
The exhaust lost a spacer last week, and it sounded great. Maybe you could drill some holes in your downpipe.

DaveC
2002-Feb-12, 04:01 PM
"Maybe you could drill some holes in your downpipe."

At the risk of having BA remove this stuff 'cause it has nothing to do with lunar conspiracies ---- I have a broken exhaust manifold stud on my 6 cylinder Nissan, and although it makes a bit more noise than it should, it just isn't the same.

I remember someone theorizing years back that the North American car industry designed the exhaust system on their V8 cars to resonate at a frequency that was comparable to a slightly elevated heart rate. The theory was that the engine noise caused a resonance that made the driver's heart speed up - basically causing a feeling of excitement every time he or she started the car. I don't know if I believe that, but I do know that driving one of the old V8 cars from the 60's or early 70's causes a euphoria that I don't feel in other cars - even though my modern V6 would blow the doors off most of the V8 cars from that era. It may just be a guy thing.

johnwitts
2002-Feb-12, 09:40 PM
I don't know if I believe that, but I do know that driving one of the old V8 cars from the 60's or early 70's causes a euphoria that I don't feel in other cars - even though my modern V6 would blow the doors off most of the V8 cars from that era. It may just be a guy thing.

Maybe it's because 60's and 70's V8 cars had 60's and 70's brakes? And 60's and 70's handling? You felt more excitement because it was intrinsically more dangerous. Also, with modern cars, they are designed to be smoother and quieter. My friend and I both owned the same model car a few years back. We both had Fiat X1/9's, a nice little mid engined two seater with a targa roof. His was newer than mine. Hence his had better brakes and steering (less 'loose'), and the doors fit better (less rust). Mine had also had most of the sound insulation removed during a bout of body repairs, and I never got round to putting it back. His was smooth and quiet, went round corners like it was on rails, stopped on a sixpence, went like the clappers. Mine was so noisy with the unsound deadened engine just behind your left ear that you couldn't hear the radio, or the passenger screaming, the brakes pulled to the right, the engine had nasty flat spots, the tyres wouldn't grip because the suspension had too much play. In short, mine was a wreck (I know, I know, just like the Uno!). Get this. He preferred driving mine because it felt faster and was much more enjoyable to drive. He sold his not long after driving mine, said it was boring. Yet in every measurable way, his was better. It just didn't feel as good.

So, here's my advice. Take the Nissan, remove the rear silencer and replace it with a bit of pipe, replace the brake fluid with water, put 5 degrees of tow-in on the front wheels, remove all the sound proofing, let 10 psi out of your tyres, and drive with your windows open. Better still, take the doors off. Then you may reclaim some of the feelings you got when you drove the older V8's.

Disclaimer: I accept no responsibility for any accidents caused by daft folks following the stupid advice in this post. DO NOT modify your car in any of the suggested ways. It is dangerous and stupid. Even if it is fun.

Kaptain K
2002-Feb-12, 11:38 PM
I agree completely that the fun of a car is directly proportional to visceral experience. The most fun I ever had driving a car was in my '56 Austin Healey 100-4. Big (2.7 liter) whompin' four that started as a tractor engine. 4 speed with overdrive on 3&4. Drum brakes all around. Plug in side curtains. Canvas top that was such a ***** to erect (and did so little to keep out the elements) that it wasn't worth the bother.
A friend had a AH 3000. All around better car. Smooth and powerful 3 liter 6. Front disk brakes. Roll up windows. Removable hardtop. It would "smoke" mine in every category, but we both preferred driving mine!

_________________
TANSTAAFL!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kaptain K on 2002-02-12 18:39 ]</font>

DaveC
2002-Feb-13, 02:50 PM
OK OK I give up. The thrill obviously is related to the challenge of driving the vehicle. I never had one of those early British sports cars. Closest I got was a Nissan 280Z which was a pretty refined car for its day. I still have it stored in my garage awaiting time and money to do a complete restoration. (It was the typical early Japanese rust bucket, although mechanically still very sound.)

Just to obliquely get back to the topic of this thread, I had a little American flag sticker on the back because I used to live right near a border crossing into the US that I used often and found that the New York State Troopers went easier on me for speeding when they saw the flag. It is now all faded and tattered, much like I expect the moon flags will be.

JayUtah
2002-Feb-13, 03:22 PM
The flags are the standard Annin 3x5 nylon flags that anyone can buy at a department store. They weren't even obtained on contract; some JSC administrative assistant just went down to Montgomery Ward on her lunch break and bought them.

Nylon is a great material for weight. Cotton flags would have weighed too much and been too bulky. But as with most polymers, the intermolecular bonds are affected by ultraviolet light. After 30 years' exposure to ultraviolet, the flag fabric is likely to very weak. Sadly we know that Apollo 11's flag is lying in the dust at Tranquility Base. But those that are still standing might be too flimsy to hold up their own weight, or they might disintegrate the instant a future astronaut disturbs them.

DaveC
2002-Feb-18, 01:47 PM
"But those that are still standing might be too flimsy to hold up their own weight, or they might disintegrate the instant a future astronaut disturbs them."

Or presumably the first time a breeze blows across Area 51? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Feb-18, 01:59 PM
Hey, let the guy talk



On 2002-01-27 17:58, charliemac wrote:
I have been to the moon. I went on one of NASA's rockets just like Armstrong, Aldrin etc.


Is your middle name Moss? (http://mailbox.univie.ac.at/~prillih3/astronauts/mainpage.html)