backtop

Print 57 comment(s) - last by MrPoletski.. on Jun 16 at 8:51 AM
Not quite the standard Haynes tear-down and rebuild

Haynes Manuals are well known amongst car buffs as an excellent reference source. Their series of Do-It-Yourself books are read by car enthusiasts and auto mechanics alike. While most books focus on the maintenance and repair of cars and motorcycles, they have produced a few manuals on other topics.

An observant reader has sent us a link to a manual that most people would have no practical use for -- the Haynes Manual for NASA's Apollo 11 spacecraft.  Only diagrams for Model Year 1969 were available, but there is a lot of information on the evolution and design of the Saturn V booster rockets, the CM-107 Command Module, the SM-107 Service Module, and the LM-5 Lunar Module.

There are also descriptions of the space suits worn by the three crewmembers and their special life support and communications systems. A lot of Apollo 11 mission details are also included - from launch procedures to Earth re-entry techniques.

It is no accident that the manual was released during the run-up to the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 mission. On the 20th of July 1969, astronaut Neil Armstrong became the first man to walk on the moon, inspiring millions of people around the world.

The Command Module which brought the Apollo 11 astronauts back to Earth is on public display in the central exhibition hall of the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C.

The last time humans walked on the moon was December 17, 1972, but there may be a return manned mission to the moon thanks to Project Orion and the Ares rocket. China, India, and Japan have also announced future missions to the moon.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
So pathetic
By therealnickdanger on 6/10/2009 6:50:16 AM , Rating: 5
What America did during that one decade was undeniably (IMO) the greatest human achievement on record. We landed and returned from another rock in space! WTF have we been doing since? I don't want to discount the other breakthroughs we've had since then, but I'm pretty sure that most people living through that period expected moon bases and moon hotels by now. Hell, I've grown up wondering why we haven't been to Mars yet!

While I despise government spending in general, I rarely have any dispute with spending on military/NASA. Few things give our country and our citizens more pride and more technological advancement than exploration beyond ourselves. If half of Obama's $7 trillion deficit ended up going toward a Mars mission, I would actually be OK with it! LOL




RE: So pathetic
By FITCamaro on 6/10/2009 7:26:44 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah at least we'd get some technological advancement out of it then. Instead of not knowing where it all went.


RE: So pathetic
By JMS3072 on 6/10/2009 7:38:15 AM , Rating: 2
The true irony is that as recently as when I was 8 (in 1999), we were still supposed to be on Mars by 2012. Think that's still happening? No way in hell.

The thing is, people need more than just the necessities. If Obama (or any President in the last 25 years, for that matter) actually put real money towards the space program, the country would be so much better off psychologically. Less money would be spent on welfare, etc., but the psychological effect of spending time on a world other than ours would be immense.

Just take a look at Neal Armstrong. In 1969, he became a proxy for all the Earth when he set foot on the Moon- "One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind." If the human race could get as entirely behind any person as we did Armstrong, certainly that would give each person a greater link to his fellow man- and a greater desire to do right by him.


RE: So pathetic
By MrPoletski on 6/10/2009 9:19:29 AM , Rating: 4
For mars, we really need a better propulsion system. Astronaughts would just go mad stuck in a tiny tin can for 6-9 months.

I work offshore, it's bad enough being on an oil rig with 150 other greasy old guys for 2 WEEKS, imagine being stuck in your bedroom with the same 3 or 4 guys for 6 months.

After a couple of weeks, it'd be like the thunderdome.


RE: So pathetic
By Belard on 6/10/2009 10:35:49 AM , Rating: 1
And that TRIP time is one way... and depending on the orbit, it can take even longer.

The concept of going to Mars anytime was stupid. I love space tech, it has brought is the microchip and Velcro to our sneakers. Science creates jobs and products. (Many people don't believe or understand that - they still think the Earth is flat)

But realistically, we don't have advanced enough tech to send humans to Mars and back... alive. To be honest, its pretty much a dead planet. We do NEED to learn how to travel to the stars (IMHO) and we'll need stepping stones to get there. But rocket tech as it stands now ain't going to cut it. Too much fuel, need food & water supplies, habitat, a functional lander, etc. A solar flare from the sun will pretty much toast them.

The earth's magnetic field protects us. A live crew spending about 1.5~2 years in space will most likely never make it back. Even if its a mixed crew of M & F (yeah, there will be sex) 6 people trapped in a small can will drive them batty... I think someone will PMS and say "I'm going out side to get away from YOU!" and open the hatch.

Space travel needs to get cheaper and new ways to move a space-craft. Perhaps some form of anti-gravity. Once something like that WORKS, whats to keep you from going very very fast? Imagine this. You have an Anti-grave ship on the Earth... you tell it to "remove" itself from the gravity of Earth (somehow) and in the right direction. The Earth would quickly zip-away instantly as it continues its orbit around the sun.

We can safely go to mars when:
A) Each one-way trip takes 3~7 days. (No short cuts near the sun = death)
B) If speed is possible, then a crew of 3~5 will do.
C) Its cheap enough to have 3+ space craft with the ability. (A rescue craft needs to be ready)

Otherwise, we'd have to build a HUGE ship with a larger crew of 20 with many rooms. (to prevent going batty), grows food and be self-contained to survive at least 3 years.

Otherwise, the robotic probes & rovers we've been sending have been doing an excellent job. They run on batteries, nuke and or solar power. No life support hardware, no space used up for living creatures, no support supplies and of course no toilet to worry about.


RE: So pathetic
By ice456789 on 6/10/2009 12:18:38 PM , Rating: 2
I think I saw on a show that to get there might take 9 months, but to get back would take 3 years because it would take that long for the orbits to align with your ship again.

About your anti-grav engine; I don't really think gravity is the problem. It is a very weak force. For example... all the gravity of the entire Earth is working to pull this pen down, and yet I can overcome all that gravity without any strain whatsoever with one finger.

The bigger problems are cosmic and solar radiation, and other matter in space. The Earth keeps us safe from all that, and also astronauts in lower orbit. But once you get out of the protective shield, you open yourself up to a world of hurt. We have no way of shielding a ship from the kind of cosmic radiation they might experience in such a trip, and no way to shield it from micrometeors that travel faster than bullets into the ship. You may find that your astronauts were roasted and full of holes.

Stephen Hawking has famously said that it is very unlikely that humans will ever visit even the outer planets of the solar system because of these reasons.


RE: So pathetic
By Souka on 6/10/2009 7:13:07 PM , Rating: 2
actually I seem to recall an article about shielding from solar storms posted here on Daily Tech a few weeks ago.

Something about the size, weight, and power consumption of a regular microwave...but only needed to be used when solar wind/storms were to hit a spacecraft... not sure, but it generated a magnetic/ionic field for the shielding, but don't quote me...


RE: So pathetic
By Lastfreethinker on 6/10/2009 1:22:42 PM , Rating: 3
No offense Belard, but it is that kind of thinking that has us still stuck on a SINGLE planet. NASA wants to build a space elevator when in reality that is so far off and so very expensive that is completely prohibitive...not to mention that the materials needed to construct something like that (don't forget the cable would have to be so large it could wrap around the earth 3+ times) that the raw materials would have to come from the asteroid belt. NASA spent millions coming up with a way to write in space...the Russians used a pencil. NASA will never get anywhere if they keep thinking they way they do.

If NASA actually had the kind of people working for it today that it had in the 1950s and 60s we would already have manned flights to the outer planets maybe even a research station on Europa or Titan. Mars would be in the stages of colonization and we would be mining asteroids for Materials.

The means of propulsion is already there, a Plasma Engine would be able to continually accelerate to Mars thus cutting the travel time to a third (3 months). Also the time for a round trip to Mars is something on the order of 2-3 years, this is using chemical rockets btw. The reason for the length is not the return trip but rather the time the team will spend on Mars. To go to Mars, land, stay overnight and then come back is completely moronic. If it takes you 9 months to get to a place you stay for as long as possible. By the time the crew is coming home Mars and Earth will be in perfect alignment for a return trip home.

Getting into space isn't hard it is just not cost effective with the way we do it right now (remember you only have to go 7 miles per second to reach escape velocity). The Shuttle was a HORRIBLE idea, the reusable solid rocket boosters were more expensive then if they were just throw aways. To get into orbit cheaply is very simple. You take a giant tank of hydrogen and put a crew capsule and/or a cargo capsule, you then shoot this SSO (Single Stage to Orbit) vehicle into space. Having arrived in space at a FRACTION of the current cost, you then open the giant tank of hydrogen point the opening at the sun and let the remaining hydrogen boil off (it just a much lower boiling point). You now have a great place to start building a space station on or use it to add to the space station already created by previous launches. The great thing about this is you are putting building materials in orbit at NO extra cost. You can use (we will call them hubs) these hubs to create spacecraft, spacestations, build a colony on the moon, and even further out. Since everything you take with you will be usable.

Return of materials from things like the Asteroid Belt, Moon, Mars or any other place is actually very simple. Aim it at where the earth will be when it arrives and give it a push (you could this with gauss rifles, little disposable rockets anything really) You would have raw materials coming into Earth so cheap that sending a letter today would considered highway robbery [that is a bit of hyperbole, but you get my point ;)].

The only thing that is really prohibitive about making a Spaceship as large as say...The Sears Tower is the cost to launch from the surface of the Earth. Using the SSOs above you could create a huge spacecraft in lunar orbit, refuel it from the mining operations on the Moon and Launch it. No fighting Earth's Gravity to just get into orbit.

If NASA was taking applications right now for a flight to Mars that would take 3 years or more I would sign up in a heartbeat without any qualms. I am not afraid of a longer journey, I am afraid of us never making that journey.


RE: So pathetic
By Lastfreethinker on 6/10/2009 1:36:15 PM , Rating: 1
As for Solar Radiation you have a couple solutions, the cheapest and simplest solution is a giant aquarium the water will act as a shield against the radiation and allow for the crew to have a more varied diet by allowing fish to come along at no extra cost.

The second is a sort of bomb shelter, the crew gets a warning from solar observitories and/or ones on the ship itself the crew runs into this radiation shelter until the storm is gone.

Magnets are also a great solution to use to create and artificial Magnetic pole. The Magnets would be able to act like Earths Magnetic field and shield the crew from Solar Radiation. I cannot recall what type of engine it was, I believe the Plasama but I could be wrong would actually create it's own magnetic field to shield the Crew.

Those solutions above assume you want to travel 24/7, you could also plan your trips for seasons of the least solar activity to minimize the chances of radiation.

I also forgot the simpliest form of space travel we have Project Orion (the 1950s and 60s version not this stupid modern one)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclea...

While not useable for Earth to Orbit it would be extremely effective for getting around in space. Especially if we can make fusion.


RE: So pathetic
By ice456789 on 6/10/2009 2:15:15 PM , Rating: 2
So your solution is a magnetic bomb-shelter fishbowl ship with a big engine? I'll give you points for creativity.

As for the magnets, nothing feasible could create a magnetic field strong enough to do anything at all vs. the dangers of the cosmos. Lets say somehow you could miniaturize the magnets from a particle accelerator to somehow fit on your ship... all you've done is make your ship a target to any metallic meteors that get near it. You'll actually make it much more dangerous to be in the vehicle with the magnets.

For the bomb-shelter, the whole ship would have to be made out of it. Anything not contained in it would be likely to be obliterated (like the engines for example). If it was that easy, it would have already been done. It's about as feasible as suggesting that passenger airliners should be made out of the black box.

As to the fishbowl, let me suggest an experiment. Take a glass fishbowl, put a goldfish in it, and put it in the microwave. How's the fish doing? Even if we assume (incorrectly) that water is a shield to all types of radiation, as soon as the water starts absorbing rads it would heat up. When that water boils, your enclosed fishbowl will explode. If you make a way to vent the steam, you'll quickly find that you have an empty fishbowl because all the water will be vaporized. This would make for unhappy fish, but at least the astronauts would not have to cook them. Too bad the astronauts will be dead. :)


RE: So pathetic
By maven81 on 6/10/2009 2:27:30 PM , Rating: 2
I think you're overstating the danger. Consider that we have spacecraft built in the 70s who's electronics have survived decades of radiation exposure, including close passes to large sources like Jupiter and Saturn. Granted chips aren't going to be as sensitive to radiation as humans, and JPL used radiation hardened chips, but I have no doubt that lethal levels of radiation would have fried those systems.


RE: So pathetic
By Lastfreethinker on 6/10/2009 4:24:53 PM , Rating: 2
Do you really know what you are talking about? This would not be like walking around with a giant electromagnet seeing what you can pick up. You are extending these things far enough out to create a similar field like we have on Earth. Also as I stated depending on the Engine you can have it as a built-in defense. You could even combine that with an ablative shield of ice.

The bomb shelter would not have to be the whole ship a small compartment big enough for the crew is all you need. If the engines or other systems where vulnerable then simple shielding would only be needed over them, that is if they would even be effected. The Organics inside the craft are the most vulnerable.

The fishbowl is a perfectly viable solution. Your idea of the microwave is completely wrong. The amount of water and shielding would be large enough to dissipate any heat. I am not talking about a tiny fraction of water with a HUGE concentration of microwaves.

You are greatly overstating the amount of radiation the astronauts would be exposed to, not to mention the duration. If you they were to travel during a time of Solar Inactivity they would hardly ever have to use any of the systems devised. You also seem to think they won't have any advanced warning.


RE: So pathetic
By MrPoletski on 6/16/2009 8:51:38 AM , Rating: 2
This is frontier physics but...

I think it's true:)

A lump of matter creates a gravity field around it, just like a lump of charge creates an electric field.

Now to create a *magnetic* field you must move that charge.

To experience a force on an electron due to this magnetic field you must move the charge in relation to the magnetic field.

Well I think Gravity is the same. A lump of matter creates the charge and if you move the matter you create a gravity-magnetic field. Or a gravitmagnaetic field, or a gravitonic field.. or whatever you get my point.

Observation of this field would be very difficult because of how weak it would be, but I think we could observe it with our own planet, which is spinning. If this field exists then we should be able to observe it coming out of our planet like our earth was a funny shaped solenoid coil. BUT, we are orbiting with earth and hence are not moving in relation to this field as we sit on earth so don't experience it.

Isn't it odd though, that every single planet in our solar system bar venus orbits int he same direction. The one planet that doesn't also spins the other way . If the sun was producing a gravitomagnetic field, it would be virtually parallel where we experience it. Our spinning planet would be forced to align with this field and it does(more or less, its had billions of years and it's not a strong force).

If this field did not exist then the gyroscopic effect tells us the spinning object should line up with the gravitational field it is in. So a planets spinning axis should be perpendicular to the suns surface much like a spinning tops axis is perpedicular to the earths surface. On the whole, this is not the case. I think uranus has a spinning axis near perpendicular to the suns surface but that also has an unusually strong magnetic field and is not very dense. It has been postulated a collision caused this to happen. All the rest of the planets orbit less than 30 degrees off a parallel axis (uranus is 97.7 degrees).

We should be able to observe this field if we spin a toroid shape fast enough. It would have to be very dense and spun at near relativistic speeds however.

But I think this field is the future when it comes to propulsion.


RE: So pathetic
By jon1003 on 6/10/2009 8:06:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
NASA spent millions coming up with a way to write in space...the Russians used a pencil.


Hey freethinker, maybe you should look up some FACTS before you regurgitate completely false crap that gets posted and proved wrong in every NASA thread.

http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp


RE: So pathetic
By Lastfreethinker on 6/10/2009 8:44:18 PM , Rating: 2
My apologizes, I couldn't recall the exact amount.

FYI you the only thing you 'proved' wrong so far was that I was off by half a million in my estimate of the development costs of the Zero-G Pen.


RE: So pathetic
By Belard on 6/10/2009 11:30:43 PM , Rating: 2
No, it proved that you were wrong believe in what is called an "urban myth". http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/urban%20myt...

NASA didn't spend a dime on R&D for the pens. The Pencils were used because there wasn't a pen that worked in space - both NASA and Russia were VERY happy have the "space pen" because of the PROBLEMS with pencils in space that made them dangerous.

Ignoring facts, eh? Earth is not flat, Santa isn't real.


RE: So pathetic
By Lastfreethinker on 6/11/2009 1:06:35 AM , Rating: 2
Wow is my face read. L2Read. You still need to address the other parts.


RE: So pathetic
By Belard on 6/11/2009 2:47:20 PM , Rating: 2
*WHAT* other parts are there to TALK about?

Your "myth" was that NASA spent millions to develop a pen. You were wrong. We used Pencils, you were corrected.

Nothing else.


RE: So pathetic
By Belard on 6/11/2009 12:30:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
No offense Belard, but it is that kind of thinking that has us still stuck on a SINGLE planet


No offense actually taken. I was throwing something out there. I am not a scientist. But there are problems with our current tech. And even 40 years after the first lunar landing - Our tech is more advance in many ways, but yeah - what we had in the 60s was AMAZING. So much, that we were expecting a future like Space:1999 and 2001.

As someone posted here and another has corrected... there wouldn't be a 3~6month trip to Mars and then a 2 year return trip because of its orbit. No, A Rocket-tech ship would leave for the closest point/shortest trip in both ways. It would be safer to stay on Mars for a year than be in space for a year.

My concept of Anti-gravity was not a ship in relationship with the Earth. But of a concept of a Working Anti-Grav SHOULD mean that the device/ship isn't effected by the Earth Gravity. In that the Earth moves at about 18.4Miles Per Sec (66,000 MPH)... Voyagers are moving a bit slower than that. But even at such SLOOOW Speeds, its still about a 2~3 month trip to/from Mars at the closest point.

The Shuttle was a "good idea", keep in mind IT IS 1970s tech. Design BEFORE the Atari 2600 and AppleII computers. But its maintenance kills the advantage of re-usable. But it does HOLD up to 7+ people and does more than transport people. But we have quite a few number of private Space companies now, so advancement in space tech can hopefully advance.

You talk about sending materials from the Asteroid Belt and sending back to Earth... okay, how are we supposed to get there (cheaply / safely) and catch good rocks... and then fire them back at Earth and not SCREW up and end up crashing it into the Earth (a bad thing).

We will be ready to go to Mars when we can build a ship that can travel very fast. A few days... not months.


RE: So pathetic
By Lastfreethinker on 6/11/2009 1:27:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You talk about sending materials from the Asteroid Belt and sending back to Earth... okay, how are we supposed to get there (cheaply / safely) and catch good rocks... and then fire them back at Earth and not SCREW up and end up crashing it into the Earth (a bad thing).


I admit I was a bit vague but you just aim for the ocean, with the distances we are talking about in space, not to mention the speeds of objects are relative constants is very easy to hit the ocean. Please understand I am not talking about pushing an Earth Killer in our direction. If you were apprehensive about the stuff even hitting the ocean matching velocities of these object isn't out of the question. Since you just have to push them.

quote:
We will be ready to go to Mars when we can build a ship that can travel very fast. A few days... not months.


9 month for the distances we are talking about IS fast when considering the distances involved. 3 months is just a hop skip and a jump. If we waited for everything to be fast we wouldn't have gotten any where.

I am sorry but I cannot take a wait and see approach when it comes to exploration.

quote:
The Shuttle was a "good idea", keep in mind IT IS 1970s tech. Design BEFORE the Atari 2600 and AppleII computers. But its maintenance kills the advantage of re-usable. But it does HOLD up to 7+ people and does more than transport people. But we have quite a few number of private Space companies now, so advancement in space tech can hopefully advance.


I will give you that it was a great design considering what they had to work with. The Shuttle was a bad idea because it stalled NASA for decades, they went the wrong route and we call been paying for.


RE: So pathetic
By ClownPuncher on 6/10/2009 11:51:33 AM , Rating: 2
For a chance to go to Mars, I would put up with alot. After all, walking on Mars is alot cooler than working on an oil rig.


RE: So pathetic
By nixoofta on 6/10/2009 1:17:58 PM , Rating: 4
Sure,...you say that now,...but you fall asleep, "somebody" floats a turd over your face and tickles your nose...

:P


RE: So pathetic
By maven81 on 6/10/2009 2:07:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Astronaughts would just go mad stuck in a tiny tin can for 6-9 months.

You do realize that Astronauts and Cosmonauts have manned space stations for far longer then that right? I don't remember the exact number now, but the record is over a year for sure.
Now you might argue that at least they have constant communication and a view of the earth out their porthole, but I would point out that crews of nuclear submarines could go months without surfacing and don't have either of those things.
Not only that but these sort of "isolation" tests have been done already, and more are in the works. As far as I know no one went postal.


RE: So pathetic
By SoCalBoomer on 6/10/2009 2:41:32 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget those who do long-distance sailboat racing. What, 12-15 guys stuck on a pretty small boat for weeks on end. . .

I've read some articles on privacy and creating the illusion of privacy when you don't actually have any. It used yacht racing as a perfect example - and subs are another - you don't really have any privacy, but there are ways to create the illusion of it, which is enough.


RE: So pathetic
By Sulphademus on 6/10/2009 4:24:34 PM , Rating: 2
If they can get semi decent ping times to the WoW servers half the travel time will be eaten up right there =P

Gotta agree with OP sentiment though, $1,000,000,000,000 going to something cool but with no immediate practicality is better than $1,000,000,000,000 vanishing into thin air and no one telling us where.


RE: So pathetic
By Souka on 6/10/2009 7:16:09 PM , Rating: 2
or spent on a war in Iraq that didn't need to happen...

and the additional $1,000,000,000,000 that'll likely be spent over the next 10? years as a result...


RE: So pathetic
By Lastfreethinker on 6/10/2009 7:26:56 PM , Rating: 2
For the love of god. Saddam bet and lost, he thought he could scare people into giving him what he wanted by pretending to have biological and chemical weapons. The US acted thinking he had them and kicked his sorry ass. Now a whole country is free from that tyrant. SHUT UP and get a new god damn whipping boy.


RE: So pathetic
By ice456789 on 6/10/2009 8:08:04 PM , Rating: 2
Well at least we agree on that! :)


RE: So pathetic
By Belard on 6/10/2009 11:46:26 PM , Rating: 2
.... er? What?

Actually, unlike the LIARS of Team Bush, Saddam did say "he didn't have WMDs" And *IF* you care to LOOK IT UP on Newsreports (not by FIXnews), you will SEE the video of the UN Experts that were ALLOWED by Saddam to locate WMDs. Team Bush said (basiclly) "GET OUT! We're going to be dropping bombs next week"

The USA went to war bsaed on LIES because Cheney/Bush wanted a war with Iraw (A bigger target). And as we're finding out now, Cheney had pushed for torture to get prisoners, such as those in Gitmo "admit the Iraq connection" for which there is no proof of such a thing.

Yes, Saddam was an EVIL dictator. But Iraq was not a threat to us. AlQadia and Taliban were not elemenated... no, now there are more terrorist because we killed the wrong dog.

Islamic countries don't want westerners on their land. They are almost impossible to reason with because of their cultural differences (which many of modern countries don't agree with). Yeah, the Turks needed to be freed, the whole country needed to be freed - but they also have to want it... and with anywhere from 300,000~1+ million dead Iraqis by the "war", that doesn't exactly spread good-will.

And we have over 4000 DEAD AMERICANS based on BUSHES LIES!


RE: So pathetic
By Lastfreethinker on 6/11/2009 1:12:49 AM , Rating: 2
Sigh, I am very truly sorry for you, and your grammar teacher. There is no amount of evidence I could ever give to show you the truth.


RE: So pathetic
By Belard on 6/11/2009 8:11:59 PM , Rating: 2
Evidence? Theres plenty of EVIDENCE. Yeah, not much from FOX is facts, we know that.

YOU said that Saddam pretended to have weapons. And that the USA acted on his actions and intel which resulted in the USA invading another country - preemptive.

- Saddam said he didn't have WMD anymore. (yes he did at one point).
- The UN was conducting searching.
- The UN pulled out because of Warning by Bush about us starting a ware with Iraq.
- No WMDs were found.
- So the 4000+ dead Americans is fictional?
- Cheney himself said Iraq had nothing to so with 9/11.
- Torture is illegal
- Torture was authorized by the white house.
- So I'm wrong that Saddam is a dictator?
- The USA didn't go into Iraq to "liberate" them. That came later when "uh...no weapons, lets spin this".
- It doesn't matter what the West does, Islamics will always be at war with each other... over religion.
- To a degree, Saddam did play around with the US/UN. But it takes intelligence to not do something STUPID as starting a war "because Saddam tried to kill my daddy".


RE: So pathetic
By Lastfreethinker on 6/12/2009 6:52:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:

- Saddam said he didn't have WMD anymore. (yes he did at one point).
- The UN was conducting searching. - The UN pulled out because of Warning by Bush about us starting a ware with Iraq.
- No WMDs were found. - So the 4000+ dead Americans is fictional?
- Cheney himself said Iraq had nothing to so with 9/11. - Torture is illegal
- Torture was authorized by the white house.
- So I'm wrong that Saddam is a dictator?
- The USA didn't go into Iraq to "liberate" them. That came later when "uh...no weapons, lets spin this".
- It doesn't matter what the West does, Islamics will always be at war with each other... over religion.
- To a degree, Saddam did play around with the US/UN. But it takes intelligence to not do something STUPID as starting a war "because Saddam tried to kill my daddy".


Yes a Dictator said he didn't have WMDs while he was playing like he did. OMG a Dictator lie say it isn't so!

The UN orginally pulled out because they were kicked out and were blocked numerous times by Shaddam from inspecting areas they were LEGALLY REQUIRED to access by treaty.

No one said they where attacking Iraq because they were connected with 9/11. They were attacking Iraq because they were not upholding to the Treaty signed AFTER Kuwait, the US went in after the UN did not do what is supposed by ENFORCING said Treaty. That is ok anyhow, the UN has been going down hill for decades now.

First let me get something straight with you. Torture is not Illegal in the sense you think it is. It is bared by treaty in which the signers of that treaty agree to not commit torture.

The US does not and never will commit torture not just because of the political stigma but rather because of its ineffectivenes a means of information extraction. Waterboarding is an issue with many people as is playing Brittney Spears 24/7, in all honestly I think playing the Brittney Spears was worse but they weren't torture. Sleep deprivation has always been considered an excellent means of making someone compliant.

The US never went into Germany to liberate the Jews in the consentration camps either, it was a side effect I hope you know that. I never said we went to liberate them, we went to remove a man who USED WMDs before and seemed to have them still. In the process we were able to Liberate an oppressed people. Also don't you think that everyone knew that REMOVING Saddam would free the Iraqis? I think it would...

You are absolutely correct, Islam has always had violence in its past and it is never going to get better while dictators and theocracies run the countries.

It was in jest and after a LONG list of other reasons to go after Saddam. Quite frankly if anyone tried to kill a member of my family...well they wouldn't exist at all.

As for the dead. Those men and women died knowing full well what can happen and not only that, most or all of them would tell you right now they gladly gave up their lives to defend both their country and the people of Iraq (My cousin and a number of his friends have told me this, and have signed up for a number of tours for just that reason). I would like to leave you with this quote

quote:
"It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived." - General George S. Patton, Jr


After this I can say no more that would even possibly sway you as I know even the above will not sink in.


RE: So pathetic
By Belard on 6/11/2009 12:41:10 AM , Rating: 2
Theres a bit of a difference between being in a SUB or the ISS / MIR in which YOU know that you are close to home. A Sub and raise to the surface and when needed it, a few days you could be in port... or on the ISS, an escape capsule is ready to go and they could be home in hours. You can SEE home (not in the SUB of course).

But traveling to Mars for months? If a problem happens 1/2 way to Mars in which they have hours or maybe days to be rescued... well, they're getting to Mars Dead. Turning around would take forever... if possible. Look at Apollo 13 as an example. Yeah they were about half way there... but the moon was close enough to send them back. They almost died because of many failures of the space crafts and hardware performing actions that weren't designed for. It is simply amazing that they lived due to talent people on the ground and those in the space craft. Blowing an O2 tank to Mars on a 3 month outgoing trip with NO way to return for about a year or two... result = death.

Mars is a dead planet. There isn't any good reason to send men to Mars anytime soon. Going to the Moon is a good idea... we use that to improve space tech and hopefully make it cheaper.

Now, if Mars was an Earth Like planet (too bad it isn't) that would allow humans to walk about without a space suit, by George, we'd be there by now. But yeah, you need to wear a Martian-Space suit since the dust would damage our bulky space-suits. Mar's has incompatible AIR, Air-pressure, temperature and life-substaning materials.


RE: So pathetic
By cheetah2k on 6/10/2009 9:52:13 PM , Rating: 2
If I was stuck in a tin can with a young SigHorny Weaver for 6 months, I think I'd be just fine ;-D


RE: So pathetic
By mattclary on 6/10/2009 9:27:25 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Less money would be spent on welfare, etc.


Unfortunately, our politicians have honed the art of vote purchasing, so don't look for "social" programs to be cut in the near future.


RE: So pathetic
By ThePooBurner on 6/10/2009 11:54:28 AM , Rating: 2
You say that as though we've actually been to the moon.


RE: So pathetic
By Lastfreethinker on 6/10/2009 1:37:41 PM , Rating: 2
Please tell me you are joking.


RE: So pathetic
By ThePooBurner on 6/11/2009 2:44:48 PM , Rating: 2
Please show me irrefutable proof we have been on the moon.


RE: So pathetic
By goz314 on 6/10/2009 1:35:51 PM , Rating: 2
So, you're OK with the government spending trillions of dollars on military and space hardware, where indeed billions of it gets wasted, because it makes you feel proud? LOL!


RE: So pathetic
By SpaceJumper on 6/10/2009 2:48:41 PM , Rating: 2
The Moon has He3 (Helium 3), the Moon has more energy than the whole earth. Human can use the He3 to power nuclear power plant on the Moon without any nuclear waste and go to Mars with the same fuel. The possibility is huge. Let's see what country can reach to the Moon first.


What the...
By n0b0dykn0ws on 6/10/2009 8:14:42 AM , Rating: 2
Okay. I give.

Why is on Haynes UK site, but not the US site?

n0b0dykn0ws




RE: What the...
By djc208 on 6/10/2009 8:25:25 AM , Rating: 2
I was just wondering the same thing.

Maybe the UK still has a few around as NASA hand-me downs. They're probably hoping for leftover shuttles now too.


RE: What the...
By pmely on 6/10/2009 8:26:11 AM , Rating: 2
It's available on Amazon for pre-order - expected release date is 11/1/09.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-al...


RE: What the...
By Mitch101 on 6/10/2009 10:05:33 AM , Rating: 2
This is all fine and dandy but what if your the owner of a 1969 Apollo 11 Moon Rover your still out of luck. :(

Good thing there are no parking tickets where I left it. ;)


RE: What the...
By Shadowself on 6/10/2009 10:45:38 AM , Rating: 2
There was no Apollo 11 moon rover. That came in later missions.


RE: What the...
By Mitch101 on 6/10/2009 11:53:35 AM , Rating: 2
I looked it up and you are correct. I had always thought there was an Apollo 11 rover that was left in orbit. I blame my history teacher.


RE: What the...
By Belard on 6/10/2009 11:51:49 PM , Rating: 2
True... but since its STILL about the Lunar missions, it would have been cool to have 5~8 pages about the changes from the original LLM and the version that carried the moon buggy.


RE: What the...
By chris2618 on 6/10/2009 10:39:04 AM , Rating: 2
Its an British company


"Houston... we have a problem"
By Amiga500 on 6/10/2009 7:28:56 AM , Rating: 4
Tom Hanks: "It says here to unbolt the 4 M12 bolts and the cover should come loose freely... I've unbolted them but the damn thing still won't come off, even after I put the jimmie-bar to it!"

Houston: "Ahh yes, there is an intermediate step not covered, you need to unscrew the 3 studs at the bottom of the assembly, then it should come off"




By Bender 123 on 6/10/2009 9:25:47 AM , Rating: 3
"Apollo, this is Houston...You may need to squirt a little WD-40 around the edges to loosen the seal. Spray, wait ten minutes for it to penetrate and attempt to rotate the seal slowly."

"Houston, this is Apollo. We lost the staw on the spray can..."


By MrPickins on 6/10/2009 11:08:49 AM , Rating: 2
Shoulda got the Chilton manual...


RE: "Houston... we have a problem"
By maven81 on 6/10/2009 2:17:20 PM , Rating: 2
Heh wasn't the last Hubble servicing mission fun?

"there's this black thing next to the green thing... uh..."
"Ok I'm pressing the button but nothing is happening. try again... ok turn this way, push the button... nothing... Oh for Pete's sake!"
(I'm doing this from memory but Massimino definitely did the "oh for Pete's sake" rant.


Excellent Reference?
By randomposter on 6/10/2009 11:04:15 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Haynes Manuals are well known amongst car buffs as an excellent reference source.

I'm gonna take issue with the very first sentence in the summary. I've owned lots of cars over the years and lots of Haynes manuals. Early on, they were a decent reference that seemed to cover most of the major components and systems. But more recently Haynes has turned to crap. There are large gaps in what is covered, which generally leaves me turning to Google and wondering why I bothered buying a Haynes manual in the first place.




RE: Excellent Reference?
By Belard on 6/11/2009 2:07:12 PM , Rating: 2
Because in the OLD days before the INTERNET, we used books and such manuals were key to doing car repairs.

When I work on my car, I look up the HOW TOs on the Internet as well. And get different ways to attack the same problems, get more photos and drawings, etc. Places like Autozone include online how-to as well.


In the Shadow of the Moon
By TennesseeTony on 6/10/2009 6:22:16 AM , Rating: 2
If you find this interesting, you should definitely rent and watch the movie In the Shadow of the Moon.




Haynes automotive manuals
By KorruptioN on 6/10/2009 10:58:36 AM , Rating: 2
step 1: Remove the transmission.
step 2: ...
step 3: Installation is the reverse of removal.




By themelon on 6/10/2009 12:20:22 PM , Rating: 2
I came across this many years ago and spent many hours reading. Very facinating account of the whole Apollo/Mercury/Gemini time period.

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4204/cover.html

It's called Moonport: A History of Apollo Launch Facilities and Operations




"So if you want to save the planet, feel free to drive your Hummer. Just avoid the drive thru line at McDonalds." -- Michael Asher











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki