Space reentry vehicles, part 1

Part 1: ablation and the detached shock wave

part 2   (index)
 

(Update 3/9/2013: Please note I've updated my view of the detached shock wave since first writing this post.  I now accept that there is a detached shock wave in the sense of a bow shock, but it is not detached in the thermal sense, as claimed by NASA. More in part 5.)

===============================

Most meteoroids burn up almost immediately on entering earth's atmosphere.  The few larger ones that make it to the ground lose 95 - 99% of their mass.  The air around them gets so hot it disassociates to become plasma.  95% of the glowing streak of a meteor is hot air, not hot rock.  According to NASA the temperature of the leading face of ICBMs returning from space is "hotter than the surface of the sun", (5500C+).

Space reentry vehicles, part 2

Part 2: aerodynamics

part 1   (index)

Early on in the design of manned reentry vehicles it was realised that the huge heat and strain of reentry would destroy any protuberances such as wings, rudders etc.  This lead to the minimal design of spheres and cones:

Is space cold? Part 1

part 2

During Apollo 13 an explosion on the way to the moon damaged the service module, causing astronauts James Lovell, Jack Swigert, and Fred Haise to abort what would have been the third landing on the moon.  They came back to earth with the CM LEM and damaged SM.  The SM and LEM were jettisoned shortly before re-entering earth's atmosphere in the CM*.

Is space cold? Part 2

part 1

In part one it was suggested that an object in the sun at distances of earth orbit, or less, will be hot.  What about the case for the shade in space, is it cold? 

Some say that when the Apollo astronauts moved from light to shadow on the surface of the moon, they went from a hot 107C or so to a cold -170C in a matter of seconds.

Neil Armstrong on the surface of the moon during Apollo 11

The porous plate sublimator

Surviving the harsh lunar environment is apparently one of mankind's greatest engineering achievements. 

The space suit worn by the Apollo astronauts on the surface of the moon had to protect them from UV, X, and gamma-rays, heat, and solar flare radiation from the sun; cosmic rays; micro meteors; regulate humidity, carbon dioxide and oxygen; and maintain a pressurised layer of air.

Amazing life-saving suit technology: the state of the art in 1969.  The Apollo 11 suit.

Anthony Watts experiment to prove the greenhouse effect

Anthony Watts recently performed an experiment in an attempt to show that one can get free energy by putting a hot object in front a mirror.  

This was in an attempt to defend the theory of the greenhouse effect.  It was a noble and valient attempt I must say, and I'm glad he shared it with us.  But it was an attempt that was ultimately doomed to failure.

Bill Nye the unscience guy

The recent Oklahoma tornado is a top-ranked F5 one, although not as big as a 1999 one (see WUWT post here).

It's a shame to see this happening in the mainstream media, but CNN immediately seized upon the event to talk up the climate change angle.  Within hours of the latest Oklahoma tornado Piers Morgan and Bill Nye were linking it to climate change.

The terms now used are climate change and climate disruption.  The term global warming is apparently completely out of favour.

NASA Apollo moon landing faked 3

6)  Stage lights
7)  Objects reflected in visor  
8)  Flag waves in the wind


===================

6)   Stage lights

This is the original photo AS15 89 12015:

NASA's later version has the top portion snipped off:

NASA Apollo moon landing faked 2

Continuing on from part 1, here are three more points against the official story of the moon landing:

   

3)   Laminated photo on the surface of the moon

4)   Being picked up by suspending wire

5)   One astronaut has shadow twice as long as other


==================================


3)    Laminated photo on the surface of the moon

In my opinion this is one of the stronger points -- a real doozy for the Apollo faithful to explain away.

Apollo 16 photos AS16-117-18839, AS16-117-18840 and AS16-117-18841.

NASA Apollo moon landing faked 1

Each year that passes after the Apollo moon landings took place and we do not repeat this feat by returning man to the moon, shows that these missions were an anomaly rather than the new standard they were supposed to be.  

For example, why don't we just use the 1960's technology to go back to the moon and beyond, that seemed so easy from 1969 - 1972?  Why didn't the frontier of space really dawn for humanity as was promised during the 1950s and 60s?

Preview of posts to come on this blog

My blog posting has been lessened to a trickle due to my lapse of unemployment (that was about two years ago when I got a job), oh how I long for such unemployment again where I could post at will, (about two weeks per post) oh well.  I am not retired, so I have to work...

1) A cosmology of my own (built on others') where I claim that the outside of the sun is the hottest part; and that there is no thermonuclear core.  Sunspots are proof of the latter claim.

The Fallacy of the Greenhouse Effect 4

(Index)

In this part I rebut English/Irish physicist John Tyndall's claim to an atmospheric greenhouse effect.

In 1861 Tyndall presented a quantification of the EMR absorption of various gases in a lecture to the Royal Society of London [1].  Depicted in Fig 1 is a rig he worked on for several weeks.

Figure 1: Tyndall's Experiment

The Fallacy of the Greenhouse Effect 3

(Index)

In this part I rebut Joseph Fourier's 1827 paper Dissertation on the Temperature of the Terrestrial Globe and the Planetary Spaces, often attributed as being the first mention of an atmospheric greenhouse effect. 

Fourier does not in fact claim an atmospheric greenhouse effect for the earth; rather he offers a thought experiment that if our atmosphere were to have something like a layer of glass high in it, it would have a greenhouse effect.  The mention is very brief and the idea that such dense layers in the atmosphere could exist is not substantiated and is not pursued any further by Fourier, presumably because the notion is clearly unrealistic. 

Reasons why Germany lost WW2

After the war, during the Nuremberg War Trials, the court was shown a film of the German war machine in full production.  Bombs and airplanes being assembled on a production line; a nation revelling in its newfound military confidence.  The spectacle was not only reminiscent of Nazi-era propaganda movies, it probably consisted of them.

On seeing these films Hitler's right hand man, Herman Goering, laughed and expressed aloud proudly: what's wrong with that?  Indeed, why shouldn't a country have a strong military?  Germany's military had after all been eviscerated by the terms of the Versailles Treaty.   What's wrong?  Well it depends on what you do with that military.  A strong military should only be used only for defensive purposes, not offensive ones -- at least that's the Western narrative of WW2.