1963 replies to this topic

[MID]

turbonium, on 23 September 2012 - 09:18 AM, said:

I'm wrong? You are aware that I'm quoting NASA on this?

And so, you're really claiming that NASA is wrong?

Perhaps you should tell them about it, since they've obviously been under the impression that the station was buit for Apollo missions, the past 40 years!!

I'm thinking this statement was put here under some aberrant influence (I mean, other than the normal aberrant influence of your mind)...

You didn't quote anyone.
You mentioned a "station" allegedly built for Apollo missions, the past 40 years."  


Maybe try again with that one, turb.  It's worthless as it exists...

Edited by MID, 23 September 2012 - 04:42 PM.

[DONTEATUS]

skyeagle409, on 23 September 2012 - 05:52 AM, said:

I will pass on your greeting and I am glad you were able to come down and meet with him. I want to fly him to the Houston Flight Center next year so he can reminisce his experience on the Apollo 14 recovery team because whenever I bring up his experience, his eyes brighten up enough to where he can light up the state of Texas!!

. After all of these years, I am still in amazement at the Saturn rockets that boosted the Apollo astronauts to the moon and the technology involved and yet, there are those who can't believe we went to the moon despite the overwhelming evidence, but then again, there are those who still believe the earth is flat despite the overwhelming evidence.

Where would this world be right now if it wasn't for NASA?

Thats a Fact ! Sky ! And we need to do that Every time Ive walked along that SatV laying on its side its make your head spin ! What a Monster !

[shaddow134]

DONTEATUS, on 23 September 2012 - 05:07 PM, said:

Thats a Fact ! Sky ! And we need to do that Every time Ive walked along that SatV laying on its side its make your head spin ! What a Monster !

Awesome engineering,13 Saturn V's launched from Kennedy with no loss of payload or lives and still the only space vehicle to carry Astronauts beyond low Earth orbit...

[Obviousman]

turbonium, on 23 September 2012 - 09:18 AM, said:

I'm wrong? You are aware that I'm quoting NASA on this?

And so, you're really claiming that NASA is wrong?

Perhaps you should tell them about it, since they've obviously been under the impression that the station was buit for Apollo missions, the past 40 years!!

I'm now sure you must have learning or comprehension difficulties. I said:

"Although the stations were built to support the Apollo programme, the facilities were managed by the Australian government (specifically the then Department of Supply) and the majority of people who manned it worked for the Australian government or private industry (e.g. Collins Radio, AWA, etc)."

What I have said in no way contradicts the NASA source you quoted. What it contradicts is your interpretation of what it said (as usual). It says one thing and you claim it says another.

You claim NASA controlled the stations; you have been proven wrong. Accept it and move on.

[turbonium]

Obviousman, on 24 September 2012 - 07:08 AM, said:

I'm now sure you must have learning or comprehension difficulties. I said:

"Although the stations were built to support the Apollo programme, the facilities were managed by the Australian government (specifically the then Department of Supply) and the majority of people who manned it worked for the Australian government or private industry (e.g. Collins Radio, AWA, etc)."

What I have said in no way contradicts the NASA source you quoted. What it contradicts is your interpretation of what it said (as usual). It says one thing and you claim it says another.

You claim NASA controlled the stations; you have been proven wrong. Accept it and move on.

NASA did control the stations.

Who do you think the Australians worked for? The Australian government? No, they worked for NASA. It was NASA's project, it was NASA who hired them. It was NASA's equipment. It was NASA who trained them on operating that equipment. It was NASA who instructed the Australians in managing the facility - for NASA.

You seem to think the personnel are not working for NASA because they are Australians. The reality is they are working for NASA.

NASA decided who manages the Apollo tracking stations. The staff was doing what NASA trained them to do.

The reason NASA hires Australians is because the US and Australian governments had an agreement (treaty) to employ Australians as much as possible. This made it look like a joint US-Australian venture, rather than a wholly foreign (US) intrusion. As this document notes...

  http://ntrs.nasa.gov..._1975002909.pdf .  


NASA controls the Apollo tracking stations,

Edited by turbonium, 24 September 2012 - 09:51 AM.

[Obviousman]

turbonium, on 24 September 2012 - 09:14 AM, said:

NASA did control the stations.

Who do you think the Australians worked for? The Australian government? No, they worked for NASA. It was NASA's project, it was NASA who hired them. It was NASA's equipment. It was NASA who trained them on operating that equipment. It was NASA who instructed the Australians in managing the facility - for NASA.

You seem to think the personnel are not working for NASA because they are Australians. The reality is they are working for NASA.

NASA decides who manages the Apollo tracking stations. The staff is doing what NASA trains them to do.  


NASA controls the Apollo tracking stations,

It's that comprehension problem again. You must have totally misunderstood it when I posted:

"DoS would operate the future Australian stations with Australian contractors under the oversight of a DoS Station Director similar to non-Australian stations that had American contractors under a NASA Station Director. Thus, Australia became unique amongst the co-operating nations in not having a NASA officer overseeing the station."
You must have also missed where I posted that the majority of the people did NOT work for NASA.

For instance, AWA did a big recruiting drive - including the UK - to get the necessary skilled personnel to man and operate Carnarvon.

Indeed, prior to Carnavon even being built NASA briefed the Australian government that "...it envisaged the continuation of the existing with DoS, as the co-operating agency, but expressed a strong preference that the proposed new stations should be manned and operated by Australian industry. In NASA's view the new space projects would require a flexibility and quick response to short-term staffing arrangements not always easy to achieve under Australian Public Service arrangements...".
(Also from 'Cararvon and Apollo')


Try reading posts slower, look up big words if you don't understand them.

[turbonium]

MID, on 23 September 2012 - 04:33 PM, said:

You'll not be able to see the ...uh...."haloing" visible around all the craters, as you were shown above...because it's often difficult to perceive the subtle, micro laer shifting that occurs in the unusal soil of  the Moon, which of course is micro-fine dust and has glass content and can cause long distance disturbance to be seen, dependent on lighting.

This has all been explained to you before, but I'll try to keep this as simple as possible:

Regolith is ALIEN SOIL, which is located in an ALIEN ENVIRONMENT, and is produced by ALIEN EFFECTS.

Sand is also micro-fine and has glass content. So your claim fails.

[skyeagle409]

turbonium, on 24 September 2012 - 10:04 AM, said:

Sand is also micro-fine and has glass content. So your claim fails.

MID is correct, and you continue to ignore the facts he has placed before you. In fact, you have shown a desire to ignore facts and evidence that others have placed before you as well.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Lets apply the samelogic turbonium has just used to another situation.

A duck has two legs and contains carbon.

turbonium has two legs and contains carbon.

Therefore a duck and turbonium are the same thing.

This statement is obviously false.

[MID]

turbonium, on 24 September 2012 - 10:04 AM, said:

Sand is also micro-fine and has glass content. So your claim fails.

No, sand is not microfine like regolith.  It is also not structured in any way like the self-adherent lunar soil is.
So, your comment, born again from lack of knowledge, fails...

[DONTEATUS]

Waspie_Dwarf, on 24 September 2012 - 06:39 PM, said:

Lets apply the samelogic turbonium has just used to another situation.

A duck has two legs and contains carbon.

turbonium has two legs and contains carbon.

Therefore a duck and turbonium are the same thing.

This statement is obviously false.

Now that in a Duck egg is the best physicis If seen in here in a long time ! Great one Waspie ! The Vogon`s are going to ask you to be a Leader amoungst Leaders !
Keep-em-comming !
As for the thread Its hard not to enjoy them when there so Funny !

[DONTEATUS]

MID, on 24 September 2012 - 08:10 PM, said:

No, sand is not microfine like regolith.  It is also not structured in any way like the self-adherent lunar soil is.
So, your comment, born again from lack of knowledge, fails...

Mid turboman has never been to the Moon to even See the Buggie races ! We kicked up a lot of moon dust and ground it to a fine,fine microfine dust,you member?
Dont you remember?LoL!

[MID]

DONTEATUS, on 24 September 2012 - 10:21 PM, said:

Mid turboman has never been to the Moon to even See the Buggie races ! We kicked up a lot of moon dust and ground it to a fine,fine microfine dust,you member?
Dont you remember?LoL!

[RaptorBites]

Waspie_Dwarf, on 24 September 2012 - 06:39 PM, said:

Lets apply the samelogic turbonium has just used to another situation.

A duck has two legs and contains carbon.

turbonium has two legs and contains carbon.

Therefore a duck and turbonium are the same thing.

This statement is obviously false.

I spit out my coffee all over my desk Waspie.

Congratz

[MID]

RaptorBites, on 25 September 2012 - 12:07 AM, said:

I spit out my coffee all over my desk Waspie.

Congratz