Viewing 40 posts - 161 through 200 (of 257 total)
  • Moon landing conspiracy theorists and science educational attainment.
  • Premier Icon swanny853
    Full Member

    Still doesn’t change the fact that thrust vectoring is thrust vectoring.

    I can thrust vector my car exhaust to provide more or less downforce as required but that doesn’t mean I can successfully build a vtol aircraft to fulfil a complex mission profile, at a price that suits the government of the day and meets the prevailing wants of the air force procurement staff at the time.

    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?

    They made a jet/rocket version, as someone else has linked to, the LLRV. Taking test rig technology and turning it into a working combat aircraft is not a simple matter. And no, there is probably not that much that doing one would have improved the other. Some technology transfer, maybe, but as has been said several times before, these are very different problems. Air breathing engine vs rocket, very different atmospheres and gravity, very different tasks to perform.

    do you think the us was unable to generate enough thrust with a jet engine or was it the transition as wobbiscott suggested?

    They did have some versions over the years that almost got it, see XV4, XFV12 for examples. As did the French and the Russians, Mirage IIIV and Yak 38 as examples. Basically, VTOL is a really hard thing to do well enough to work for a combat aircraft. Making a VTOL aircraft is not the hard part so much as making a VTOL aircraft the is useful in combat. The harrier just happened to be one that hit the sweet spot.

    Premier Icon bsims
    Free Member

    Your car exhaust isn’t designed for vtol though.

    So you are saying that overcoming gravity and slowing forward momentum whist maintaining stability is harder than doing it in low gravity and having to thrust vector in nearly all directions to maintain stability in controlled descent?

    Premier Icon richmtb
    Full Member

    Your car exhaust isn’t designed for vtol though.

    Neither was the Lunar Module.  Your misconception is that is doing the the same job as a Harrier

    Premier Icon bsims
    Free Member

    I see, what was it designed for?

    Premier Icon swanny853
    Full Member

    Your car exhaust isn’t designed for vtol though.

    Thrust vectoring is thrust vectoring though, right?

    Premier Icon bsims
    Free Member

    Very good, do you have an answer for my question?

    Premier Icon swanny853
    Full Member

    Which one? Seriously though, I’m struggling to work out what you;re getting at- you’ve posited that being able to do thrust vectoring/steering of a vertically landing vehicle of some sort in one particular set of circumstances must have some relevance to doing the same with a completely different vehicle in a completely different set of circumstances. Many people have given you answers as to why the two scenarios are very different problems. I gave you an (admittedly silly) example of the extreme of your statement that ‘thrust vectoring is thrust vectoring’ to highlight what an odd point it is and yet as far as I can tell you’re asking the same question of ‘why is it different’ again, with no attention paid to the answers people have already given you.

    Premier Icon nickc
    Full Member

    The lunar landing module isn’t a V/STOL aircraft. It was designed to decay orbit around a low gravity rock until it literally bumped into it. It was ‘controlled’ in the sense that they could (slightly) adjust the speed and direction “a bit” but it’s not an “aircraft” in any sense of the word. There really wasn’t much to actually design, it mostly relies on physics.

    Premier Icon Cougar
    Full Member

    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.

    Ironically, it’s not that simple.  No matter how good a barman you might be, you can’t pour a pint into a half pint pot.

    Premier Icon bsims
    Free Member

    Swanny, 8 posts up I asked which you thought was harder.

    so nick you are sayingin relation to that question, that it is easier to control an object to perform vertical movement on the moon?

    Premier Icon swanny853
    Full Member

    Swanny, 8 posts up I asked which you thought was harder.

    OK. Honestly? I don’t know. They are really different problems. If I was going to go out on a limb I’d say that the systems level engineering to make the harrier work as a combat aircraft (as opposed to just making a flying engine) might have been trickier, but that’s probably because I understand it better. It might equally be that (made up example alert) they solved a load of intricate technology problems around making extra lightweight rocket nozzles for the lander. They are really different problems.

    If you’re then going to make a statement of ‘well, they could do one why didn’t they do the other’ then it’s rather missing the point.

    Premier Icon bsims
    Free Member

    Thanks

    Premier Icon gobuchul
    Free Member

    It was the US Marines that wanted the Harrier. Not the Army or Navy.

    It was not popular with others as they wanted “proper” fast jets. The Navy didn’t want little carriers, they wanted, massive Super Carriers, which the Harrier doesn’t need but F15s do.

    It was more the lack of political interest in developing something that could be seen as a threat to their “core business”.

    Also, any VTOL aircraft is a compromise, why compromise if you don’t need to?

    It wasn’t any lack of engineering capability that stopped the US from building their own.

    Premier Icon bikebouy
    Free Member

    I’m not sure whether to be flattered or insulted

    @kryton

    Neither really, certainly not an insult.. I think I know your online persona well enough to never make such a judgement.

    Just (from my point of view) a little odd comment you made regarding the tech and lack of progression. Working in that vast industry I wouldn’t have though those thoughts would have even entered your mind. Good to have a different POV though.

    FWIW I believe the human race either had assistance from Aliens, or there were a few transported here by accident and passed on thier knowledge and skills and thereby the human race developed far quicker that we would have if left alone. Obvs I’ve no proof when/if/why nor how, but there was a giant leap in human development from early man to the age where we made tools etc.

    Premier Icon bsims
    Free Member

    I understand all of that gobuchul, it just seems strange that the us didn’t do it in house for a major division of its military.

    cougar, you can pour 1 pint into a 1/2 pint glass, the customer needs to drink it in two easier to swallow measures.

    Premier Icon neilwheel
    Free Member

    Dance, little monkeys, dance!

    Premier Icon mikewsmith
    Free Member

    The bigger question is why did people not notice the moon people landing here first. Makes you think

    Premier Icon bsims
    Free Member

    Fly my pretties!

    Premier Icon bsims
    Free Member

    The moon people got a cloaking device from the Klingons. Because they couldn’t develop their own from low visibility space ship paint.

    Premier Icon deadlydarcy
    Free Member

    I think too many kids give up any kind of education in the sciences too early.

    Premier Icon Cougar
    Full Member

    If you’re then going to make a statement of ‘well, they could do one why didn’t they do the other’ then it’s rather missing the point.

    The other thing here is that this is possibly a false premise.  @bsims’ original question IIRC was something like “why did the US have to buy the Harrier, why couldn’t they just make their own?”  It’s entirely possible – likely even – that they could have made their own with sufficient investment into research & development and manufacturing.  But why bother if they could just pick up the phone to Hawker Siddey and go, “yeah, it’s America here, could we buy a hundred of your planes please?  Love and kisses kkthxbi.”

    Premier Icon bsims
    Free Member

    They gave up on grammer too.

    Premier Icon thejesmonddingo
    Free Member

    Stop feeding the attention whore,and the thread will die a nice peaceful death.

    Premier Icon eat_the_pudding
    Free Member

    bsims

    This is like a discussion about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

    There are pretty well defined documents and popular biographies explaining the invention of the engine which was the heart of the Harrier. It was invented and developed in the UK and was a unique solution to a previously intractable problem.

    I answered your original question which implied that the US couldn’t have developed a vertical landing system by showing you pictures and video  of the vertical landing system they invented.

    Now you’ve changed the thrust of the conversation to a discussion of why the Harrier was bought and the engineering difficulties of disparate unrelated systems.

    Why don’t you:

    a) Decide what historical fact confuses you the most.

    b) Clearly articulate a question that people can answer.

    c) Stop moving the goalposts like a big trolly troll.

    Premier Icon Cougar
    Full Member

    cougar, you can pour 1 pint into a 1/2 pint glass, the customer needs to drink it in two easier to swallow measures.

    … which is precisely the problem.  The customer ain’t doing no drinking, he’s just sitting there asking for more beer.

    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.

    https://xkcd.com/1133/

    Premier Icon Cougar
    Full Member

    Now you’ve changed the thrust of the conversation

    I like what you did there.

    Premier Icon poah
    Free Member

    No but I have lots of experience proof reading science and social science PHDs,

    yet you constantly write it as PHD rather than the correct PhD lol

    Premier Icon poah
    Free Member

    bsims
    <div class=”bbp-author-role”>
    <div>Member</div>
    </div>
    <div class=”bbp-reply-content”>

    I understand all of that gobuchul, it just seems strange that the us didn’t do it in house for a major division of its military.

    </div>

    cost

    Premier Icon bsims
    Free Member

    Eat the pudding, the main point was always why they bought it, not that they couldn’t make a lander.

    Thanks for everyone’s opinions.

    Premier Icon thejesmonddingo
    Free Member

    And back under the bridge.

    Premier Icon bsims
    Free Member

    Cool come back, my thanks were genuine to the people who took the time to post detailed replies.

    Premier Icon deadlydarcy
    Free Member

    Decide what historical fact confuses you the most.

    Quite a few by the looks of it.

    Premier Icon richmars
    Full Member

    I don’t think anyone is saying the US couldn’t have developed their own version of the Harrier, they just chose not to. Party, I would guess, because it was used by a small part of the US armed service. They bought a few hundred. That sounds a lot, but at the same time they were buying over 5000 F4’s and 1000’s of other types.

    Why spend time and money for such a small requirement.

    Premier Icon CountZero
    Full Member

    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.

    But the SR-71 was not a defence project! It was built for the CIA, and flown by spooks, the whole thing was paid for by off-the-books funding and built by Lockheed’s Skunk Works, they had to develop entire new engineering and manufacturing technology in order to actually make the bloody thing, because they were using a metal that had never been used before, titanium, and had to work out how to make the tools in order to work the material before they could make the airframe, an airframe that had to function at very high temperatures, which meant it had to expand, which meant the full tanks leaked like a sieve while on the ground, but the engines were designed to burn a fuel that would not ignite when exposed to a naked flame. It was only later when the Air Force found out about the plane that they started chucking their toys out of the pram and demanded their share of this whizzy new toy to play with. The SR-71 was a truly extraordinary aircraft, unmatched in its performance, and unlikely to be equalled. There was even an attempt to build a fighter version, the YF-12A, sort of hyper-Lightning, but the bloody thing was just too fast, a turn started over London took it out over Paris before coming back over London. If you can find a copy, there’s a book that covers the development, called ‘Skunk Works’, which is about the history of the place, and the amazing man responsible for designing the Blackbird and many others.

    Premier Icon Kryton57
    Full Member

    Working in that vast industry

    I sell it, doesn’t mean I understand it*

    Likewise I to am an advocate of alien intervention.  I find myself fascinated by things like ancient Egypt, Inca & Greek mythology, and technological peaks.  I find it very arrogant to think we are a lone intelligent species.  To which end I once had an argument on here on the basis of alternative life forms, in that we are arrogant enough to believe our scientific leaders have found the mathematical or scientific rules for everything.    I don’t thing so.  There may be and and probably is other beings in a form we can’t even comprehend.

    Ever read the Lensman series?   Loved that.

    Lets lets just hope they aren’t reading this (potential TOTY) thread though, they’ll be ROFLing even more than usual…

    *maybe a little.

    Premier Icon slowoldman
    Full Member

    we are arrogant enough to believe our scientific leaders have found the mathematical or scientific rules for everything.

    What nonsense.

    Premier Icon Cougar
    Full Member

    I find it very arrogant to think we are a lone intelligent species.

    As do I.  As a dyed-in-the-wool sceptic I’m reasonably confident that there’s other life out there.  It’s statistically highly likely.

    As for the rest of your post though, my opinion is that it’s mince.

    Premier Icon Kryton57
    Full Member

    Why Cougar?  Have you irrefutable proof to the opposite?

    I’m willing to bet not.

    Premier Icon maccruiskeen
    Full Member

    Why are there no more Space shuttles?

    Why are there no more Renault 9s? They were launched in 1981 too. And what are Bucks Fizz doing these days? Or Peter Sutcliffe. Makes you think

    Premier Icon dissonance
    Full Member

    I find it very arrogant to think we are a lone intelligent species.

    Who is proposing that? Assuming by intelligent you mean human type (as opposed to corvids etc)  given the size of the universe the odds are probably in favour. Although the age of the universe, eg they may have risen and died out, and the uncertainty of what are the chances of life developing makes it uncertain. That is, however, why money has been invested in trying to see if there are any detectable signals. I think you are confusing scepticism about UFOs and the broader question about life elsewhere.

    in that we are arrogant enough to believe our scientific leaders have found the mathematical or scientific rules for everything.

    To quote Dara Ó Briain.

    “Science knows it doesn’t know everything; otherwise, it’d stop. But just because science doesn’t know everything doesn’t mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale most appeals to you.”

Viewing 40 posts - 161 through 200 (of 257 total)

The topic ‘Moon landing conspiracy theorists and science educational attainment.’ is closed to new replies.