Russia to build a mine on the moon

[Hyperspeed]

hppacito: You're entering risky territory here...

:-D :-D :-D

I tried the moon conspiracy theory and was mauled to within an inch of my life!

On the subject of laser reflection however, I watched some guy in the supermarket scanning barcodes and wondered how exactly does the laser 'read'?

Is there a seperate diode in there with 'read' in mind, angled so as to receive the reflected beam out of the main laser... or does the laser pulse (send-receive-send-receive)?

:-)

[hppacito]

I tried the moon conspiracy theory and was mauled to within an inch of my life!

Yes, yes, I read the whole thread, but I still believe they didn't. We will see.

Those bar code scanners has a laser emitting diode, a mirror (sometimes a real mirror, I mean glass with metallic coating, other times a polished metal plate.

The beam is reflected in the mirror and thus projected to the scan area. The mirror moves in a between certain angle to project the beam over a surface. Old models (10 yrs or so) used motors to move the mirror. Newer models, otoh, use an electromagnet to force magnetic attraction-repulsion over the metal plate, and so move it, and (they) can do it faster.

The bar-code to scan reflects the light over a linear ccd, where as you know, you get back where the light was reflected and where not.

(Most Symbol models work like that).

There are some other without laser, just with a row of leds and a linear CCD. Those are far cheaper, but also have a fixed read length.

The ones that have just one led and one photo-transistor are the optical pens.

If you modulate the laser beam you can recover your information after some hops (reflections), that is not a problem !

[Tigger]

hppacito wrote:

btw. I also don't believe they put a foot on the moon. Why they where unable recently ?.

Can you explain when you think we tried to recently, apparently a bunch of us missed it.  If you dont believe we made it to the moon, you're an idiot, and you need to explain which Apollo mission began the fake, theres a fairly comprehensive list on the front of this thread.

On the other hand with the dispersion a laser has, how is that something arrives to the moon and comes back ?, maybe that mirror arry is really big :-?

5 Reasons we know we went to the Moon

Under reason 5 above, you can find out all about the Arrays, how they are used, and how they work.
      -Tig

[PMC]

I grew up slightly too late to see the glories of the Apollo project.

Such a monumental undertaking cost the US government $100bn+ during the 60s and whatever the shady objectives of cold war one-upmanship or the dark past of some of the participants it was the last good thing that humanity did.

The fact that no-one's been back since is because the Apollo project was unsustainable, hugely expensive and had little potential for resulting in a permanant manned presence in space.  The same reason exists why it took forty four years (1961 - 2005) between a state funded manned spaceflight and the very first privately funded venture.

My own father was approached during the design of Apollo (his field is instrumentation), as were many hundreds of British engineers.  Apollo was designed from the ground up, each piece of wire, each rivet and each moving part (numbering into the millions) was designed by a human being, in Imperial mesurements and in the space of a few brief years.

Hoax my ass.

[Hyperspeed]

[X-Files theme tune]

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm

[/X-Files theme tune]

Interesting the bit:
"In a television program about the hoax theory, Fox Entertainment Group listed the deaths of 10 astronauts and of two civilians related to the manned spaceflight program as having possibly been killings as part of a coverup."

Maybe what the engineers were working on was in fact the ICBMs...

:-D

[PMC]

ICBMs were in existence long before manned spaceflight.  Soviet Sputnik/Vostock craft were put into orbit by adapted ICBMs and US Titan rockets were also built for launching nuclear warheads - indeed, German V2 rockets can be considered the grand-daddy of the mighty Saturn V.

With a 100 tonne payload, the Saturn V was more than capable of putting something in orbit around the moon.

[Hyperspeed]

100 tonnes? That's pretty amazing...

I'm sure I read the Arianne 5 and those Boeing/Mcdonald Douglas rockets can go as far as 10 tonnes.

What do the modern Russian ones carry?

What I found interesting about the Space Shuttle was that when they test the engines there is so much hydrogen released that the test site generates it's own rainclouds!

:-D

Britain should never have scrapped it's Blue Lightning program in the 60s. I only discovered a few months back that we had launched 600 'Skylark' rockets filled with God knows what from a secret site in Denmark... better if we'd sent a man into space rather than given the clowns at MI6 a better looking glass.

[PMC]

I'd have to say that the Saturn V was the technological achievement of the last century and for once something so awe inspiring wasn't built with the express aim of killing other human beings.

I recall a quote in "Moondust" saying that even if the Saturn V had a 99% reliability rating of all it's components at launch, as many as 3000 would be expected to fail!

That suck a massive device managed a 100% success rate of all it's most vital componets a grant total of 11 times (Apollo missions 8 - 17) plus the Apollo/Soyuz linkup is frankly staggering.

A good number of British scientists worked on both Saturn and Apollo too.

[Hyperspeed]

by PMC:
A good number of British scientists worked on both Saturn and Apollo too.

A bad number of Nazi scientists worked on them also. And I doubt they were doing it out of the goodness of their hearts...

:-D

I must say that a great deal of the suspicion that falls on NASA is due to the generals who wield the whip. They 'contain' information on grounds of national security when it could be of vital interest to mankind.

NASA should be a public limited company in the spirit of Wall Street where people can buy shares in missions. Not some federal military quango who's better ideas get poached for weapons systems.

[PMC]

Hyperspeed wrote:

A bad number of Nazi scientists worked on them also. And I doubt they were doing it out of the goodness of their hearts...

The many British (and Canadian) scientists and Aerospace engineers working on Apollo were there because the USA had systematically applied political pressure to the goverment of the UK to dismantle Britain's aircraft industries.  The Brits - like the Germans also - were there because they were out of a job.

Yes, some of the German scientists were unapologetic Nazis, but not all.  It would be churlish to tar all of the German scientists with the Nazi tag as membership of the SS and Nazi party was required in order to gain career advancement furing the war.  

I must say that a great deal of the suspicion that falls on NASA is due to the generals who wield the whip. They 'contain' information on grounds of national security when it could be of vital interest to mankind.

NASA should be a public limited company in the spirit of Wall Street where people can buy shares in missions. Not some federal military quango who's better ideas get poached for weapons systems.

NASA is a civillian agency, but is constrained by the military and politics too.  Remember the shuttle? The early concepts were far removed from what we actually got - not because the technology wasn't there but because the shuttle's design was subject to certain military criteria too.  How do you think that many of the USA's more sophisticated Spy Sats got there?  

Similarly, NASA's work in advanced aerodynamics also pays dividends for the military too.

Despite the cynicism and the fact that out of twelve men who walked there, only one was a boda fide scientist ("Jack" Schmitt) the moon landings remain for the finest hour of mankind for the last half century - and briefly re-ignited the spirit of adventure in humanity that's become so jaded thanks to a culture of cynicism, litigation and mean mindedness.  For that I'd happily pay my share of the $12 per head that Apollo supposedly cost the American taxpayer.

[Hyperspeed]

Hrrm, agreed on all points...

... except I have this feeling in the back of my mind that NASA's budget comes from the USAF. Not sure.

I remember seeing a lot of NASA experiments that involved rockets hung under the B52, radio controlled passenger airliners, jumbo jets with huge laser generators and even talk of using the new generation of space shuttle to drop solid metal bombs from orbit (they wouldn't need explosives due to the velocity they'd be travelling at!).

Then there's this 'Jet Propulsion Laboratory' thing and the fact that shuttle pilots train in the airforce...

I wonder why the Russians never kept their cloned Shuttle going though and how many times it flew (if at all!).

I saw a TV documentary once where the Concorde designers decoyed the Russian espionage by substituting the formula for Concorde's tyres for the recipe for chewing gum.

They still managed to make 'Concordski' though...

;-)

[Tigger]

Hyperspeed wrote:
Hrrm, agreed on all points...

... except I have this feeling in the back of my mind that NASA's budget comes from the USAF. Not sure.

No, NASA has its own budget.

Then there's this 'Jet Propulsion Laboratory' thing and the fact that shuttle pilots train in the airforce...

JPL was founded as part of California Institute of Technology in the 1930s and is a NASA labratory and the shuttle pilots arent trained by the Air Force.  Given the candidates for shuttle pilot need over 1000 hours of jet flight time most have spent some time in the Air Force or Navy (the most likely place for a US citizen to get 1000 hours of flight time piloting a jet).  
     

I wonder why the Russians never kept their cloned Shuttle going though and how many times it flew (if at all!).

Burn threw on the first flight (unmanned) it never flew again.  
    -Tig

[Hyperspeed]

by Tigger:
No, NASA has its own budget.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/nasa

"The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), which was established in 1958 [1], is the agency responsible for the public space program of the United States of America. It is also responsible for long-term civilian and military aerospace research."

So it has it's own budget yet "is also responsible for... military aerospace research"

Hmmm... a "civilian agency" conducting military research... isn't that was Cyberdyne Systems did before it let Skynet do the dirty work?

:-D

I bet most of the Pentagon spy satellites have been launched under the auspices of 'global warming research' or 'gathering information on solar activity'.

There seems to be underlying aggresion in government run space agencies. Only yesterday Israel launched a spy satellite (surprisingly from a Russian rocket) to spy on Iran. Japan launched a spy satellite to keep an eye on North Korea and the US sends spy satellites to watch everyone.

Britain just enjoys making more craters on Mars, France likes a good 'ol fireworks party...

Noone seems to be doing anything particularly interesting these days - and by that I mean MANNED!

Bring on private space exploration, the garage built orbiters!

[Turambar]

[jkirk]

btw. I also don't believe they put a foot on the moon. Why they where unable recently ?.

Money

why we never tried to go back?
we didn't find any klingons.  ;-)

[Hyperspeed]

Turambar: That cat looks suspiciously like Maximillion from The Black Hole!



:-D