It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: choos
told you already, to test the survivability of the life support system onboard the spacecraft..
originally posted by: choos
because they want to know more about the VAB maybe?? or do you think they know absolutely everything and dont need to know any more about it??
originally posted by: turbonium1
No, because surface images which show the area, and well beyond it, would show any changes over the whole area, as well.
I've asked you to try and replicate this on Earth, and show me any other example of it on Earth, because you have nothing to support your argument.
This means you have to create an area of disturbance, on the ground, and not see it on the ground, anywhere, yet it can be seen from high above it...
originally posted by: turbonium1
originally posted by: choos
told you already, to test the survivability of the life support system onboard the spacecraft..
To know if prolonged weightlessness was safe for humans..
They didn't know radiation was safe for humans, beyond LEO, either.
You said they knew all about the VAB, before Apollo. And over 40 years later, they just 'want to know more'??
They now say it's not at all like they always believed it to be!
originally posted by: choos
you just cant get your head around what viewing distance can do can you??
heres an example:
random sunrise pic, im going to use photoshop and zoom into the green area note you can easily make out where the horizon is.
but zoom right in
and the horizon becomes difficult to see. the simple concept you have failed to understand for several months already.
originally posted by: turbonium1
originally posted by: choos
you just cant get your head around what viewing distance can do can you??
heres an example:
random sunrise pic, im going to use photoshop and zoom into the green area note you can easily make out where the horizon is.
but zoom right in
and the horizon becomes difficult to see. the simple concept you have failed to understand for several months already.
Not again!
I'm talking about a physical feature, you claim to exist, on the lunar surface. Not a horizon seen at sunrise.
The area is estimated to be about 500 m long, and about 300 m wide, perhaps less.
You claimed this is a physical disturbance of lunar soil, which was caused by an Apollo lunar lander.
You're the one who is claiming it is a physical feature, therefore.
But you're trying to compare it to a sunset horizon, or lake reflections, instead of an actual, physical feature.
originally posted by: choos
no i said they knew enough about it to get around it. you are the one claiming they knew everything about the VAB which is why you find it weird they need to continue studying it.
originally posted by: turbonium1
originally posted by: choos
no i said they knew enough about it to get around it. you are the one claiming they knew everything about the VAB which is why you find it weird they need to continue studying it.
I don't recall any documents on avoiding the VAB, so what are your source(s)?
I recall only one document, briefly mentioning the issue...
They say the VAB cannot be avoided, in fact.
The astronauts must go fast as possible, through the belts, to minimize the hazards within!!
And your source(s) ?
originally posted by: choos
I've shown you how differences between viewing distances can make something easy/difficult to see, but you missed the point again.. not surprising.
originally posted by: choos
no one claimed they avoided the VAB that is YOUR OWN MISUNDERSTANDING, of which there are many.
i am saying they knew enough about the VAB to get around that hurdle. ie. they know the dense areas they know the thinner areas, they knew the trajectory that would be required to minimise exposure to a safe enough level
originally posted by: turbonium1
No.
Here is the point, once again..
There are two areas, one is disturbed soil, and one is undisturbed soil...
Because we have Images which show that there are, indeed, two distinct areas.
That's how we find any sort of distinction...
Images that include both of the areas show this distinction.
originally posted by: turbonium1
I suppose you have no sources to support your claim, right?
As for knowing where it's denser, and less dense, within the VAB...it's less dense at the fringes, more dense inside...go figure!!
So what did they understand about the VAB, anyway?
They assumed the VAB was a very slow, unchanging environment...
It's the very opposite, in fact. It is constantly changing, fast moving...
It's denser at one moment, and not dense the next moment, so they knew squat about where/when it's safe, or not safe...
Think it through, now...
originally posted by: turbonium1
If they didn't even understand the very nature of this environment, which they didn't, then it's ridiculous to believe they knew it was safe for humans!
You guess they were just 'lucky', no doubt!!
originally posted by: choos
originally posted by: turbonium1
No.
Here is the point, once again..
There are two areas, one is disturbed soil, and one is undisturbed soil...
Because we have Images which show that there are, indeed, two distinct areas.
That's how we find any sort of distinction...
Images that include both of the areas show this distinction.
and here is the point you are missing yet again..
the reflective difference in the soil gradually occurs over a large area.. do you undertand what the word fade means?
originally posted by: choos
originally posted by: turbonium1
If they didn't even understand the very nature of this environment, which they didn't, then it's ridiculous to believe they knew it was safe for humans!
You guess they were just 'lucky', no doubt!!
they did understand the nature of it, they just underestimated how it changes in certain circumstances..
does it change from safe to unsafe??
how fast does it change?? days/hours/seconds??
does the entire shape of the VAB change or does the flux and densities change??
originally posted by: choos
originally posted by: turbonium1
If they didn't even understand the very nature of this environment, which they didn't, then it's ridiculous to believe they knew it was safe for humans!
You guess they were just 'lucky', no doubt!!
they did understand the nature of it, they just underestimated how it changes in certain circumstances..
does it change from safe to unsafe??
how fast does it change?? days/hours/seconds??
does the entire shape of the VAB change or does the flux and densities change??
quantify your beliefs..
its like you heard that ants can hold upto 20x their weight.. and then you go off saying the world is doomed because of how strong ants are..
but when you realise that ants weigh about 5mg it puts your perspective out of whack.
so how about you get to quantifying your beliefs?