Putin: Don't Mess With Nuclear Russia

[MongGrel]

I'm from Florida though, Gators don't like Bears.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiZPOgjslUQ

 

[sportage]

That damn blood red full moon a few months ago started all this shit.
But anyway, considering all the economic problems in the world of Putin, he's probably selling off his nukes to ISIS to raise a little much needed cashola.

 

[Sulaco]

If it was possible to post pics here i have a few that are just a must save...

Hope that Perknose or other moderators wont be too harsh because of the OT, i ll wait for a relevant one to have a good laugh with everybody, but i just wanted to post one or two for the fun, check the mistake if you wish :

http://apolloscam.atspace.co.uk/

End of OT

Thanks for not being afraid to truly advertise just what an uninformed, ignorant fool you are. Your honesty is appreciated, though not entirely necessary, as it's what we all had assumed anyway.

But good show! Your stupidity is pitiful!

 

[brycejones]

U.S. Ballistic Missile Defense System Intercept Against Multiple Missiles (Sep, 2013)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6IloNu5z4

Is only what is public I guess.

Are other things out there.

:sneaky:

Ballistic Missile Defense technologies are all ET in nature part of the plot to dehumanize the human race.

Shit sorry I just watched an Alex Jones video and lost my mind for a moment.

 

[Abwx]

Thanks for not being afraid to truly advertise just what an uninformed, ignorant fool you are. Your honesty is appreciated, though not entirely necessary, as it's what we all had assumed anyway.

But good show! Your stupidity is pitiful!

Yes, i m stupid to believe that this piece of junk traveled 400 000km...

 

[sandorski]

Yes, i m stupid to believe that this piece of junk traveled 400 000km...

It traveled that distance inside a stage of the Apollo rocket.

 

[Sulaco]

Yes, i m stupid to believe that this piece of junk traveled 400 000km...

"Omg! It looks weird and I'm COMPLETELY UNEDUCATED AND UNIFORMED about all things aeronautical and astronomical, so it CAN'T be true, because that's not what spaceships look like in Mass Effect!"

Seriously, shut up. You're an idiot. Because you don't have the education and background necessary to understand how funny-lookin' thangs work is about the worst possible reason as to why it can't.

Please. Post your educational aeronautical background, explain to us what each component's purpose is and why it cannot be succeed in such an environment. We're all waiting.

Until you can do that, you're making an utter fool of yourself.

 

[Abwx]

It traveled that distance inside a stage of the Apollo rocket.

Apparently they werent aware that there was other lunar modules orbiting around the moon....

"Omg! It looks weird and I'm COMPLETELY UNEDUCATED AND UNIFORMED about all things aeronautical and astronomical, so it CAN'T be true, because that's not what spaceships look like in Mass Effect!"

Seriously, shut up. You're an idiot. Because you don't have the education and background necessary to understand how funny-lookin' thangs work is about the worst possible reason as to why it can't.

Please. Post your educational aeronautical background, explain to us what each component's purpose is and why it cannot be succeed in such an environment. We're all waiting.

Until you can do that, you're making an utter fool of yourself.

The tone of your post is the one of someone that has no arguments and is thus relying in ad hominem attacks, now post your own credentials if ever you have any, anyway since you re using the term "idiot" it s right that only an idiot could call someone idiot without even checking what is his exact knowledge and then asking him what is his technical background...

But let see what is my knowledge, actualy i think that they used a rope to land the lunar module, that s the most logical way because landing using a rocket engine will create a lot of pressure on the ground and curiously there s not a single trace of dust in the relevants parts, so it s 100% sure that they used a rope, the only question remaining is if it was steel or kevlar made...

 

[Sulaco]

The tone of your post is the one of someone that has no arguments and is thus relying in ad hominem attacks, now post your own credentials if ever you have any, anyway since you re using the term "idiot" it s right that only an idiot could call someone idiot without even checking what is his exact knowledge and then asking him what is his technical background...

Except I'm not the one disputing this. Burden of proof (or hell, any worthwhile evidence) is on you, sunshine. You're the one saying that the lunar module is incapable of performing its intended functions, because you don't like the way it looks.

Sorry, that doesn't cut it. Again, you're ignorant. That's fine, but your refusal to see your own very serious technical limitations on this, and instead call out those who are infinitely more knowledgeable on this topic than you will ever be, makes you a braying jackass. And nothing more.

And again, you have nothing.

 

[Abwx]

Except I'm not the one disputing this. Burden of proof (or hell, any worthwhile evidence) is on you, sunshine. You're the one saying that the lunar module is incapable of performing its intended functions, because you don't like the way it looks.

Sorry, that doesn't cut it. Again, you're ignorant. That's fine, but your refusal to see your own very serious technical limitations on this, and instead call out those who are infinitely more knowledgeable on this topic than you will ever be, makes you a braying jackass. And nothing more.

And again, you have nothing.

You are right that i m ignorant of how an huge thrust will not create a little crater when landing, with everything around staying clean, i guess the Astronots were ordered to clean the mess...

 

[fskimospy]

You are right that i m ignorant of how an huge thrust will not create a little crater when landing, with everything around staying clean, i guess the Astronots were ordered to clean the mess...

Or the surface of the moon in a vacuum doesn't behave the same way as dirt does on earth. What's funny is that Neil Armstrong talks about the lack of a crater shortly after landing. In order for your insane conspiracy theory to be true apparently NASA thought there should be a crater but instead of spending 20 minutes digging one after all that expense they had their own man call it out on tape for the world to hear.

You are embarrassing yourself. Your arguments are basically that you don't like how the moon lander looked and that you don't understand why the surface of the moon and earth are different.

It's odd that people are so desperate to find a way to ignore perhaps the greatest technological achievement in the history of mankind.

To learn more : http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/LMcrater.htm

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yes, i m stupid to believe that this piece of junk traveled 400 000km...

I shouldn't bother, but you do realize that the "junk" isn't structural, but is reflective? You'd cook to death if exposed to the sunlight above the atmosphere. To compensate you can have an active cooling system which would be horrifically heavy and inefficient. There's no conductive or convective cooling so it would have to be entirely radiative and just how do you do that? Well just put some tin foil and bounce the majority of heat off the spacecraft to begin with, which pretty much is what they did. Why would any sane person insist that a technically impossible vehicle be built for pure show?

 

[1prophet]

I saw good resolutions pics of the so called lunar module, heck, that s quite a piece of garbage with badly jointed metalic and litteraly hammered plates, seriously, you think that this piece of metalic junk actualy landed on the moon..??

On the topic look like the US got the interests from the five billions it spent to stage a coup in Ukraine.

somehow that piece of junk did it 6 times and even carried one of these there

But keep believing that NASA fooled the world 6 times including the Soviet Union who were monitoring our transmissions from the moon and would have been more than happy to call bullshit if the moon landings were faked,

since it would have been propaganda gold for them used to discredit the USA during the height of the cold war.

Observers of all missions

The Soviet Union monitored the missions at their Space Transmissions Corps, which was "fully equipped with the latest intelligence-gathering and surveillance equipment."[6] Vasily Mishin, in an interview for the article "The Moon Programme That Faltered," describes how the Soviet Moon programme dwindled after the Apollo landing.[7]
The missions were tracked by radar from several countries on the way to the Moon and back.[8]

3rd parties that monitored and verified Apollo program

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-...Apollo_missions_tracked_by_non-NASA_personnel

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

In a similar vein the floorplan of my son's high school looks like an outline of this:

Yep. I went with him the other day to help him get his stuff to his locker and find his classrooms. The floorplan map looked a whole lot like it.

Coincidence? I don't think so...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

And another thing, from Google maps part of his school complex looks like a penis with balls.

 

[Abwx]

Or the surface of the moon in a vacuum doesn't behave the same way as dirt does on earth. What's funny is that Neil Armstrong talks about the lack of a crater shortly after landing. In order for your insane conspiracy theory to be true apparently NASA thought there should be a crater but instead of spending 20 minutes digging one after all that expense they had their own man call it out on tape for the world to hear.

You are embarrassing yourself. Your arguments are basically that you don't like how the moon lander looked and that you don't understand why the surface of the moon and earth are different.

It's odd that people are so desperate to find a way to ignore perhaps the greatest technological achievement in the history of mankind.

To learn more : http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/LMcrater.htm

In the vaccum everything that is left will fall down again, at an acceleration rate of about 1.5m/s^2 in the moon, as there s no atmosphere to sustain the smaller particles.

When landing a rocket engine compensate for the acceleration provided by the moon gravity, you can easily compute the necessary thrust to compensate for said 1.5m/s^2 acceleration, so when the thing land there s tons of pressure applied on the ground by the rocket engine stream, that s not only dust but rocks that are litteraly pushed away, besides i can tell you that you cant regulate the force applied by such engines, a rocket engine work at maximum power or doesnt work at all, ther s no mean to reduce its thrust let s say by a half and that s why 80% of the non inhabited landings on the moon ended in crashes, i guess that the appolo program simply challanged the laws of probability at a time where there wasnt as much technical means as currently.

Who took the picture.? :

 

[Jaskalas]

That would be a concern. However, I doubt the Ukraine would be stupid enough to attempt to try invading Russia without provocation.

Define invading Russia. Would that now be Kiev advancing on Eastern Ukraine or Crimea? I bet they're sorely tempted to do that if we mobilized in the area. Why not drag us in and fully commit to "victory"? You have to worry about how and what they think.

My thoughts are more defensive in nature. To protect Europe, the western half of Ukraine, and not allow Russia to freely advance further. Yet I'd also insist that Europe take the lead on its own defense. If they don't feel like it, then neither should we.

 

[Tombstone1881]

That site http://apolloscam.atspace.co.uk/ is a riot.

At first, I thought it was an Onion piece, but it appears that they actually want to be taken seriously.

My late grandmother went to her deathbed still believing that the Apollo landing was fake and that the whole thing was done in a Hollywood studio.

She also believed that the human body could not withstand the g-forces and pressure of travelling at a rate of a mile a minute or greater. I used to tease her about that. Anytime I drove her anywhere, I'd get up to 60mph and then ask her how she was feeling, if she was holding up ok.

 

[Abwx]

I shouldn't bother, but you do realize that the "junk" isn't structural, but is reflective? You'd cook to death if exposed to the sunlight above the atmosphere. To compensate you can have an active cooling system which would be horrifically heavy and inefficient. There's no conductive or convective cooling so it would have to be entirely radiative and just how do you do that? Well just put some tin foil and bounce the majority of heat off the spacecraft to begin with, which pretty much is what they did.

The solar energy is about 1400W/m^2 out of the atmosphere, there s no convection as you point it but the metallic parts will indeed have thermal conduction although lateral diffusion will be small given the thickness of the plates.

You can of course radiate this energy in the space but there s two limitations, one is that the white color of the plate surely help reflect part of the energy but the thing rotate on itself and the part that was exposed once on the dark will radiate very poorly as maximal radiation is possible only if the plates are dark but if done so they would also absorb the solar rays way better when exposed.

Also radiation is actualy low at our temperatures of interest that keep us alive, it increase with the temperature of the corpse but of course we cant have the thing at 500°C, do we...

I wont even talk about the high energy particles that are no more absorbed by the atmosphere wich at worst case provide us a protective shield whose density is 10.6 tons/m^2, that s about the same as a 1.3m metres thick shield of steel (1.06 kg/cm^2).

Why would any sane person insist that a technically impossible vehicle be built for pure show?

Good question, the answer is because in the very early 60s, at a time where the nasa had trouble lifting two rockets consecutively without crashes, a clueless scientificaly speaking president made a completely ridiculous promise to be on the moon in a few years.

The nasa knew that it would be much more easy to fake the event than to respect said inconsequential promise because they hadnt the necessary technology at all.

The most striking is that things that were totaly useless were done, for instance what is the use to create dozen of huge 3D drawings that accurately matched the lunar surface, do they thought that they could simulate a landing using those surfaces and other spheres..?
No, it would had been wasted time as it doesnt bring anything knowledge wise about the landing process unless the purpose was actualy to fake the landings, if you have an answer tell me what is the use of all this in respect of preparing a landing on the moon :

Enjoy :

http://apolloreality.atspace.co.uk/

 

[Abwx]

3rd parties that monitored and verified Apollo program

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-...Apollo_missions_tracked_by_non-NASA_personnel

Russians could intercept the communications but they had no mean to know if it was real or not, only a few years after the appollo program ended they finaly had the instrumentation to eventualy check if it was true or not but alas, the program opportunisticly ended early enough.

Also before going to the moon they were supposed to be orbiting a few time around the earth at a speed that is close to 10km/s.

When providing the necessary thrust to escape this orbit they will end at the liberation speed that is slightly more than the cited value, that s the speed at wich they will approach the moon but they have no brakes and they must pass close enough that the moon gravity (wich accelerated them further in the approach phase) can capture them but rememeber , too close and they will crash at its surface and if too far they ll end in the far space but then the necessary speed to sustain an orbit at a 40km altitude over the moon is only 1.5km/s , how was the speed reduced since they cant approach more than the maximum altitude of the moon mountains wich is iirc about 20km and more, i guess that it s the most obsured part that need no explanations as the majority of us dont master the basic equations of motion and gravity laws.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

By the way, I never thanked you for your description of the moon landing "hoax". That was delightfully insane.

Oh man, I need to search for that. Moon landing hoaxes are my FAVORITE conspiracy theory and a source of nearly endless entertainment.

 

[k3n]

You think any of this is even remotely new ?

Just the same ole from years ago starting up again.

Some of the Russian stuff is a bit below cutting edge these days though I guess.

You've probably never heard of the Topol M, and the development of the PAK-DA.

Intersting doc about the supersonic Tu-160 blackjack: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdHP-lbWUqg, though I will mention these planes are in desperate need of avionics upgrade.

 

[fskimospy]

In the vaccum everything that is left will fall down again, at an acceleration rate of about 1.5m/s^2 in the moon, as there s no atmosphere to sustain the smaller particles.

When landing a rocket engine compensate for the acceleration provided by the moon gravity, you can easily compute the necessary thrust to compensate for said 1.5m/s^2 acceleration, so when the thing land there s tons of pressure applied on the ground by the rocket engine stream, that s not only dust but rocks that are litteraly pushed away, besides i can tell you that you cant regulate the force applied by such engines, a rocket engine work at maximum power or doesnt work at all, ther s no mean to reduce its thrust let s say by a half and that s why 80% of the non inhabited landings on the moon ended in crashes, i guess that the appolo program simply challanged the laws of probability at a time where there wasnt as much technical means as currently.

Who took the picture.? :

You have a lot of basic facts wrong. The descent engine most certainly did not work at full power or not at all. Use common sense and your head. How the hell would you land something with an engine that was either off or at blast off pressure?

To learn more about the descent engine read here:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_Propulsion_System

It's also quite clear you didn't read the mathematical analysis of the physics of the moon landing that I linked for you earlier.

You've been duped by some people who are either highly insane or highly dishonest. I strongly suggest you educate yourself.

 

[Meghan54]

You've been duped by some people who are either highly insane or highly dishonest. I strongly suggest you educate yourself.

Trying to educate anyone caught up in believing some of these conspiracy theories, esp. like the moon landings, will be an exercise in utter futility. They don't want facts, only to believe that "they" are lying to us and "their" ultimate goal is WORLD DOMINATION!

The nutters just desperately want and need to believe this crap--it gives them some sort of "power" they lack in real life, like the "power" that they see the "truth" that everyone else doesn't.

It's sad, really.

 

[Abwx]

It's also quite clear you didn't read the mathematical analysis of the physics of the moon landing that I linked for you earlier.

You've been duped by some people who are either highly insane or highly dishonest. I strongly suggest you educate yourself.

I bolded the relevant term of your post.

So you think that i have trouble dealing with a few polynomials and a basic integral but i guess that you re the duped ones because you didnt realize how the guy did set the initial conditions to yield a pitifully biaised result...

In his calculation he assumed that all the engine kinetic energy is transfered to a few cm of soil, he say 51.82 kg.

What he doesnt say is that if all the kinetic energy is transfered to this said soil mass that imply that thoses 51.82kg of soil are ejected at 1000m/s, wich is wrong as for such an irrealistic scenario to occur you ll have to block the dust from escaping and then release it suddenly once it has accumulated the 89% of the 26 megajoules he s talking about, this also imply that the particles are not colliding together in their motion, of course, wich is a total travesty of scientifical protocols....

But even if i grant him the benefit of the doubt he doesnt negate that dust is ejected at high speed , so with nearby dust ejected at 1000m/s the foot of the module will still look like this ? :

It's sad, really.

What is sad is that the majority of humanity has no real scientifical training to the slightest, i thought like you before i started calculating the things by myself rather than to rely on phony computations like the one provided, unwillingly i guess, by Eskimopsy.