quilp Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 Dear Mods, Could this thread be merged with the Flat Earth thread so the three Mary's can argue on the same plane? Thankyou. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerrydandridge Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 Q: You need to spend more time hovering over your bedroom window in the fetal position,,,, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbie Bobster Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 is the iss showing the whole mass of the earth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted January 2, 2016 Author Share Posted January 2, 2016 is the iss showing the whole mass of the earth Quite! PGW, what do you think? How might it be estimated what "mass of the Earth" is visible from the ISS? What simplifications might be used? Genuinely, try answering your question yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alibaba Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 http://gizmodo.com/5787176/this-is-the-moon-and-the-earth-like-you-have-never-seen-them-before Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 yes china i was just asking you to clarify that that the edge we see on the iss footage is the actual edge of the whole mass of the earth. the iss footage is under scrutiny constantly. i follow what you are saying about the "shots" of the earth. they are not something a person can easily verify for themselves. back engineer the ratio and plug the numbers into the cgi, and anyone could produce similar images. it's not incontrovertible proof of a ball earth. it's supposedly composite images of "what the human eye would see". but it's not the proof of what a human eye can see. here on earth or in space. so it's understandable the diligaf and many others would fail to conceive how, a picture of a ball, is a ball, no matter how far away you are from it. until you go to the dark side of the moon of course!. i've never been convinced by those images. it's not a true perspective of how we perceive reality. just because our senses are spherical, does not mean the earth is. or anything else. i don't know either way but looking at the evidence is important, and once again it's good to learn more about the ball from you as we can rely on your knowledge as a marker to the discussion. x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerrydandridge Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 Perhaps the NASA budget has been cut, or they have developed a bendy metal airtight door for the ISS... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted March 9, 2016 Author Share Posted March 9, 2016 The Crew Lock isn't pressurized. The EV Hatch between the Crew Lock and space never has any pressure difference between its inner and outer surfaces. The EV Hatch isn't structural and is basically a cover to ensure nothing drifts away as the astronauts prepare in the unpressurized Crew Lock before moving fully outside. But nothing would persuade you that this is reasonable would it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerrydandridge Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 I would of expected an expensive piece of kit as the ISS is would of had a stronger cover/door than my wheelie bin does Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted March 9, 2016 Author Share Posted March 9, 2016 Why does it need to be strong? Strong = Heavy What you "expect" isn't a very good guide to the realities of engineering design in orbit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 Don't tell me he doesn't believe the ISS either. You can see the bloody thing pass over your head for Christs sake. I've even watched the shuttle rendezvous with it over the Island. He's something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerrydandridge Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 That is a fair comment, but why does its design give the appearance of a sturdy metal door, but it bends like thin plastic or even cardboard. Another thing is, if weight is a problem then why do they take up fancy dress costumes (yes the pop awards a couple of weeks ago for 1 example) and guitars and various other amusing props for the TV shows they put on, but skimp on a heavier door? The two doors behind this hatch would also have to be airtight... Why is weight a problem in near zero gravity, they built it in parts and assembled it up there didn't they. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 That is a fair comment, but why does its design give the appearance of a sturdy metal door, but it bends like thin plastic or even cardboard. Another thing is, if weight is a problem then why do they take up fancy dress costumes (yes the pop awards a couple of weeks ago for 1 example) and guitars and various other amusing props for the TV shows they put on, but skimp on a heavier door? The two doors behind this hatch would also have to be airtight... Why is weight a problem in near zero gravity, they built it in parts and assembled it up there didn't they. There's an informative article concerning vulnerable narcissist's in the Daily Mail, and how conspiracy theories are attractive to such people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted March 9, 2016 Author Share Posted March 9, 2016 Only in your imagination does the design give the appearance of a sturdy metal door - it is clearly fabric. Do you really not understand that every single gram of near-zero-gravity material has to be put onto a rocket, blasted 300 km up in the air and accelerated to a speed nearly 8 km/second. That is why keeping things light is important. Crews are allowed a weight limited Personal Preference Kit. As ever, I doubt you can be persuaded this is reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerrydandridge Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 "The contents of a PPK were limited to 20 separate items, with a total weight of 0.682 kilograms (1.5 pounds). The volume of a PPK must be contained in a 12.82 centimeters × 20.51 centimeters × 5.13 centimeters (5′′×8′′×2′′) bag provided by NASA. 2" With this in mind its good to know that Tim peak had planned and packed his brits award costume weeks earlier, and the guy that performed the David Bowie song had an inflatable guitar to squeeze into his PPK... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.