Author NASA Moon photos  (Read 1046 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

NASA Moon photos
« on: December 17, 2016, 10:30:17 AM »
This is fascinating stuff. Analogue once again trumping digital. From the 60's.


http://www.kcra.com/article/rogue-scientists-revive-lost-moon-photos-inside-abandoned-mcdonalds-1/8470923

Re: NASA Moon photos
« Reply #1 on: December 17, 2016, 10:50:32 AM »

Re: NASA Moon photos
« Reply #2 on: December 18, 2016, 12:10:03 AM »
Did it trump digital?  I read that the results "approached" digital results.   Digital anything is either a 1 or a 0, not so for analogue.

Cool story regardless.  There is so much cool stuff just sitting in storage deteriorating away.  Lots of cool stuff has come out of the Soviet Union about their Moon attempts with the 4 N-1 rockets that failed, each using 30 NK-15 rockets per each 1st stage. Compared to the USA Saturn V that used 5 huge F-1 rockets.  For the 5th N-1 flight the updated NK-33 engines were to be used, but after the 4th crash, the Moon project was ordered destroyed, but a couple hundred of these NK-33 engines were squirreled away.  Aerojet bought a few and renamed them their AJ-26 which last flew on the ORB-3 flight October 2014 which launched from Wallops Virginia and exploded and fell back onto the pad.  A new 12 million dollar space suit was detsroyed before it reached the ISS amoungst a couple hundred million dollars of other loss.   They dropped the AJ-26 from the new Antares 200  and Antares 300 rocket and will be using the proven Russian RD-181.

peace
Hog


Re: NASA Moon photos
« Reply #3 on: December 18, 2016, 01:27:09 PM »
Did it trump digital?  I read that the results "approached" digital results.   Digital anything is either a 1 or a 0, not so for analogue.


Exactly. A wet photographic print from a slow film will be better than digital original, because it isn't 0 or 1. It will have the infinite sub divisions within the spaces between 0 and 1. This based on same lens, lighting, exposure etc.

Same goes for music too.

Re: NASA Moon photos
« Reply #4 on: December 18, 2016, 01:36:23 PM »
Cool story, it makes you wonder how many other government agencies, contractors, PPPs, research grants etc could "do with less" and still complete a project or study? And how thorough whatever approving authority really looks at the numbers or pushes back on the $ amounts "needed."
 
JPL said $6 million.
Wingo got NASA approval to try at a budget of $120,000.

Re: NASA Moon photos
« Reply #5 on: December 18, 2016, 01:38:58 PM »

Re: NASA Moon photos
« Reply #6 on: December 18, 2016, 02:10:44 PM »
Cool story, it makes you wonder how many other government agencies, contractors, PPPs, research grants etc could "do with less" and still complete a project or study? And how thorough whatever approving authority really looks at the numbers or pushes back on the $ amounts "needed."
 
JPL said $6 million.
Wingo got NASA approval to try at a budget of $120,000.

JPL are like any other company that doesn't want the hassle. I've worked at places where silly quotes have been put to clients to avoid doing the job if involved a great deal of pre-amble before the job itself was tackled.

Re: NASA Moon photos
« Reply #7 on: December 18, 2016, 02:12:31 PM »


Go on then Jacky; tell the audience about the technical features of that optic? No referring to notes or the internet now.  D'ya hear?  :)

Re: NASA Moon photos
« Reply #8 on: December 18, 2016, 02:32:04 PM »
Did it trump digital?  I read that the results "approached" digital results.   Digital anything is either a 1 or a 0, not so for analogue.

Cool story regardless.  There is so much cool stuff just sitting in storage deteriorating away.  Lots of cool stuff has come out of the Soviet Union about their Moon attempts with the 4 N-1 rockets that failed, each using 30 NK-15 rockets per each 1st stage. Compared to the USA Saturn V that used 5 huge F-1 rockets.  For the 5th N-1 flight the updated NK-33 engines were to be used, but after the 4th crash, the Moon project was ordered destroyed, but a couple hundred of these NK-33 engines were squirreled away.  Aerojet bought a few and renamed them their AJ-26 which last flew on the ORB-3 flight October 2014 which launched from Wallops Virginia and exploded and fell back onto the pad.  A new 12 million dollar space suit was detsroyed before it reached the ISS amoungst a couple hundred million dollars of other loss.   They dropped the AJ-26 from the new Antares 200  and Antares 300 rocket and will be using the proven Russian RD-181.

peace
Hog

My guess there is less than you think, both documents/data/information and hardware.  It surprised me how cavalier those in positions of authority can be when deciding what's kept and what's disposed of.  In the early 1990, our acquisition engineering directorate was getting ready to move to new digs, a beautiful new, state of the art complex.  The down side was the new complex had significantly less storage and filing space than the old building.  I watched us throw out thousands of feet of files (correspondence, test reports, briefings, mishap reports, photographs/negatives/film, specifications etc.), as well as at least a ton of hardware (test items, prototypes, demonstration hardware etc). 

The criteria for deciding what was kept vice pitched was largely delegated down to the division level, and therefore wasn't consistent across the directorate.  Our boss said get rid of any document/files produced prior to 1980, anything associated with any aircraft the USAF was not (then) currently flying, or for which our organization was no longer the cognizant USAF engineering authority.  The hardware was pitched with far less guidance, almost indiscriminately.  And who do you suppose was tasked with weeding out of what to keep/pitch?  The youngest, most inexperienced engineers we had.  The metrics used to track the process was feet (of files) and pounds (of hardware).

No question we pitched a lot of stuff that was not value added or redundant (like mishaps reports on F-80s going back to the late 40s), but we also got rid of stuff that could have been useful to ALCs, FMS customers, using commands, even the USAF Museum.  I saw similar actions throughout my career, so I always get a chuckle when I hear some of the conspiracy theory types talk about the mysteriously missing files and such when detailing the unsatisfactory results of their FOIA requests.  At least some of those have less to do with hiding something than with some GS-7 or 2Lt deciding years prior the data requested was not worth keeping.

Re: NASA Moon photos
« Reply #9 on: December 18, 2016, 03:01:00 PM »
It surprised me how cavalier those in positions of authority can be when deciding what's kept and what's disposed of. [...] Our boss said get rid of any document/files produced prior to 1980, anything associated with any aircraft the USAF was not (then) currently flying, or for which our organization was no longer the cognizant USAF engineering authority.


Re: NASA Moon photos
« Reply #10 on: December 18, 2016, 03:21:05 PM »


If only you actually knew stuff other than post yt videos. Imagine the possibiliies.

Re: NASA Moon photos
« Reply #11 on: December 23, 2016, 04:09:00 AM »
Did it trump digital?  I read that the results "approached" digital results.   Digital anything is either a 1 or a 0, not so for analogue.

Cool story regardless.  There is so much cool stuff just sitting in storage deteriorating away.  Lots of cool stuff has come out of the Soviet Union about their Moon attempts with the 4 N-1 rockets that failed, each using 30 NK-15 rockets per each 1st stage. Compared to the USA Saturn V that used 5 huge F-1 rockets.  For the 5th N-1 flight the updated NK-33 engines were to be used, but after the 4th crash, the Moon project was ordered destroyed, but a couple hundred of these NK-33 engines were squirreled away.  Aerojet bought a few and renamed them their AJ-26 which last flew on the ORB-3 flight October 2014 which launched from Wallops Virginia and exploded and fell back onto the pad.  A new 12 million dollar space suit was detsroyed before it reached the ISS amoungst a couple hundred million dollars of other loss.   They dropped the AJ-26 from the new Antares 200  and Antares 300 rocket and will be using the proven Russian RD-181.

peace
Hog




Re: NASA Moon photos
« Reply #12 on: December 23, 2016, 04:53:30 AM »
Did it trump digital?  I read that the results "approached" digital results.   Digital anything is either a 1 or a 0, not so for analogue.

Cool story regardless.  There is so much cool stuff just sitting in storage deteriorating away.  Lots of cool stuff has come out of the Soviet Union about their Moon attempts with the 4 N-1 rockets that failed, each using 30 NK-15 rockets per each 1st stage. Compared to the USA Saturn V that used 5 huge F-1 rockets.  For the 5th N-1 flight the updated NK-33 engines were to be used, but after the 4th crash, the Moon project was ordered destroyed, but a couple hundred of these NK-33 engines were squirreled away.  Aerojet bought a few and renamed them their AJ-26 which last flew on the ORB-3 flight October 2014 which launched from Wallops Virginia and exploded and fell back onto the pad.  A new 12 million dollar space suit was detsroyed before it reached the ISS amoungst a couple hundred million dollars of other loss.   They dropped the AJ-26 from the new Antares 200  and Antares 300 rocket and will be using the proven Russian RD-181.

peace
Hog


Re: NASA Moon photos
« Reply #13 on: December 23, 2016, 08:56:44 AM »

It must be exhausting to be you.  You are like a poop-flinging monkey on meth.  I know that is my opinion but I am certain it is not a singular one.

Re: NASA Moon photos
« Reply #14 on: December 23, 2016, 09:06:30 AM »
What are the characteristics of the person you imagine me to be that sound tiring to you? Tell us all about it. Compare notes.


Re: NASA Moon photos
« Reply #15 on: December 23, 2016, 09:46:48 AM »
What are the characteristics of the person you imagine me to be that sound tiring to you? Tell us all about it. Compare notes.



Its only an opinion, but I think he means it must be tiring being you, because you have nothing to say but fill the space with pictures, giffs and links you've trawled off the net. You don't actually know much, have no thoughts to impart, or even show acknowledgement of others, other than to make a weak attempt at some perverse humour known only to you.

But work on it. Stay off the narcs and booze, and eat more oily fish. Now. Do it now.

Re: NASA Moon photos
« Reply #16 on: December 23, 2016, 11:30:17 AM »
Its only an opinion, but I think he means it must be tiring being you, because you have nothing to say but fill the space with pictures, giffs and links you've trawled off the net. You don't actually know much, have no thoughts to impart, or even show acknowledgement of others, other than to make a weak attempt at some perverse humour known only to you.

But work on it. Stay off the narcs and booze, and eat more oily fish. Now. Do it now.

Re: NASA Moon photos
« Reply #17 on: December 23, 2016, 02:10:00 PM »
What are the characteristics of the person you imagine me to be that sound tiring to you?
I don't imagine anything.  I see you constantly making the same tired old posts about your favorite conspiracies in nearly every thread.  You are entitled to your opinions,  they even makes me rethink my position on occasion, but do you need to repeatedly post the same idea over and over?  I'd like to think that you are trying to make some clever observation about the current post-truth period we are experiencing, but that sort of subtlety seems beyond you and started well before.

As far as your implication that the moon landings were faked by Kubrick, I see a much more likely scenario.  We all know that Kubrick was super smart and a perfectionist.  Such a perfectionist would never have signed on to a project where such crappy television coverage was shown.  It would have killed him.  I think the imagery in The Shining was acknowledgment of the rumors and his way to troll conspiracy theorists.  Feel free to disagree but if you feel you must respond remember, be specific.

Re: NASA Moon photos
« Reply #18 on: December 23, 2016, 06:16:35 PM »
they even makes me rethink my position on occasion,
but do you need to repeatedly post the same idea over and over?

... how can it become a cliché otherwise?


I'd like to think that you are trying to make some clever observation about the current post-truth period we are experiencing, but that sort of subtlety seems beyond you and started well before.



Everyone's a critic.


I think the imagery in The Shining was acknowledgment of the rumors and his way to troll conspiracy theorists.  Feel free to disagree but if you feel you must respond remember, be specific.

Okay. How did he get the camera, and why do you find that plausible?

Re: NASA Moon photos
« Reply #19 on: December 23, 2016, 06:21:41 PM »
... how can it become a cliché otherwise?

Everyone's a critic.


Okay. How did he get the camera, and why do you find that plausible?
Thanks, it was nice to see your Forum Flair Secret (FFS) in action.

Re: NASA Moon photos
« Reply #20 on: December 23, 2016, 06:39:39 PM »
Step one: a deflection. Do we need to continue this charade? I've got a lodge meeting to get to in less than an hour.

Re: NASA Moon photos
« Reply #21 on: December 23, 2016, 06:43:11 PM »
Its only an opinion, but I think he means it must be tiring being you, because you have nothing to say but fill the space with pictures, giffs and links you've trawled off the net. You don't actually know much, have no thoughts to impart, or even show acknowledgement of others, other than to make a weak attempt at some perverse humour known only to you.

But work on it. Stay off the narcs and booze, and eat more oily fish. Now. Do it now.

I still prefer it to your constant alarmist blather.  ;)

Re: NASA Moon photos
« Reply #22 on: December 23, 2016, 06:45:23 PM »
Step one: a deflection. Do we need to continue this charade? I've got a lodge meeting to get to in less than an hour.
As long as our dealings are on the square.

Re: NASA Moon photos
« Reply #23 on: December 23, 2016, 06:50:21 PM »
Look, I'll tell you on the level--I don't mind that they're not telling the public the truth about the brain slugs.

So far.

Re: NASA Moon photos
« Reply #24 on: December 23, 2016, 06:54:39 PM »
Look, I'll tell you on the level--I don't mind that they're not telling the public the truth about the brain slugs.

So far.

Oooh! The same kind they used in The Wrath of Khan?  :D


Re: NASA Moon photos
« Reply #25 on: December 23, 2016, 06:59:52 PM »
Well, any kind.

Re: NASA Moon photos
« Reply #26 on: December 25, 2016, 02:06:50 AM »
"They put creatures in our bodies."

peace
Hog

Re: NASA Moon photos
« Reply #27 on: December 25, 2016, 03:22:06 AM »


In case you havent seen it, here is the video called "The Engine That Came In From the Cold".  The old NK-15 replacement, the NK-33 to be used on the newer version of the Soviet N-1 Moon rocket, of which 20 NK-33's were slightly altered and renamed the AJ-26. 
It's too bad the AJ-26 had that failure back in 2014 during the ORB-3 CRS Cygnus/Antares-100 mission out of Wallops.  2 AJ-26's running at 108% output 734,000lb(f) at sea level and 814,000 lb(F) in vacuum.  The 2 Russian RD-191 engines which are named RD-181 for Export to the USA have the advantage of an extra 100,000lb(f) over the NK-33/AJ-26 engines. This extra thrust caused Orbital to drop the Antares 100 series rocket, concentrate on the Antares 200 series rocket with the new RD-181 engines and Enhanced Cygnus cargo vehicle. Due to the fact that the Antares 200 series rocket was designed fot AJ-26 thrust levels, the new RD-181s will run underthrottled.  Then once the upgraded Antares-300 series rocket comes on line, the RD-181 will be able to be run at full thrust.
Orbital/ATK was going to re-engine and update the Antares rocket, but instead of 2018 or so, they moved it up to 2016.  The accident merely sped up the upgrading.
ORB-OA4 with a Cygnus atop a ULA Atlas 5 launcher was successful, OA-5 and OA-7 will fly atop the new Antares 230 with the newer RD-181 engines and OA-6 will ride up on 2nd ULA Atlas 5.  The reason for the 2nd Atlas 5 launcher is that with the 2nd Atlas rocket Orbital Sciences can use the extra upmass capability to complete its payload/upmass to ISS in 3 more(2 Antares 230's and 1 Atlas-5 for missions OA6, OA-5 and OA-7)missions rather than 4  more missions using its own Antares rockets.

At least Wallops in now launching again, and the upgraded Antares 200 with 2 RD-181's(down throttled) along with the Enhanced Cygnus vehicle and the upgraded Castor XL 2nd stage.  Whenever an enhanced Cygnus vehicle is launched, a Castor XL 2nd stage must be used.  The Castor XL 2nd stage was launched (for the 1st time) with a Standard Cygnus in October 2014 when the 1st stage had an issue and eploded 6 seconds after liftoff.

NK-33 AJ-26 video


Orb-3 explosion and fall back to pad, this was the 5th flight of Antares


view from camera at the pad  The solid propellant from the CASTOR=XL upperstage burned quite hot for many minutes after the RUD(Rapid Unepected Disassembly)


peace
Hog

Re: NASA Moon photos
« Reply #28 on: December 25, 2016, 09:28:38 AM »
2,998 days elapsed between Kennedy's speech that jump-started the Apollo program and the first Apollo landing.

Do you think he might have been thinking about it two days before? Asking for a friend.

Re: NASA Moon photos
« Reply #29 on: December 25, 2016, 09:40:14 AM »
2,998 days elapsed between Kennedy's speech that jump-started the Apollo program and the first Apollo landing.

Do you think he might have been thinking about it two days before? Asking for a friend.

You don't have any friends. So the question is moot.