Memorial Day 2018




13 thoughts on “Memorial Day 2018

  1. Such an emotional array!
    Battleship board games, elegant parties and happy faces.
    1973–Nixon was President. Secretariat was horse.
    Beautiful memories.

  2. Pingback: Memorial Day 2018 | Reaction Times

  3. Great compilation! Great to see you writing again as well Porter, you’re one of the best stylists on the interwebs, IMHO.

  4. R.I.P. Royal Robbins, pioneer of terra incognito.
    Beautiful array of images, evoking many emotions, quick in turn.
    Had to slow down for my own sake.

  5. Very interesting, thank you. Of course, most of it means little to me, since I grew up in South Africa without TV. However, I found that shot of the moon landing especially interesting.

    I don’t know if you’re familiar with a site called “Wagging the Moondoggie”. He argues that the moon landings were a hoax. He argues from the point of view of a photographer, and claims there are inconsistencies in the photos. Some of his arguments are obviously spurious – e.g. he says at one point that light always reflects back to its source. If that were true, we couldn’t see the moon at all. He says that, since there is no atmosphere to diffuse light, things in shadow should be invisible; but he is discounting reflected light.

    However… the fifth photo down at the link gave me pause. It shows the lunar surface directly under the lander. It’s completely undisturbed. They just landed a rocket there, and left no mark? A hairdrier would have left more traces.

    Now, the photo you published here looks different. Parts of that surface actually look as if they’re scoured free of dust down to bare rock, but it’s hard to see. I’m still confused (unconvinced, one way or the other), but it’s one more data point.


    • I’m not sure if it was the moon doggie site or an imitator, but I read through most of the brief against the moon landing (including Van Allen belts and thrust x mass). Then I read another site that purported to rebut each of those allegations. I think it’s an interesting and fun debate, but I haven’t personally put the thought into being an informed participant.

    • From memory, the thrust from the lander was something like 5 pounds per square inch. Hardly a rock-scouring blast.

      Lets calculate:

      Not counting the nozzle extension the diameter of the nozzle was 34 inches. This gives a nozzle area of 3040 square inches.

      Total thrust is 10,000 pounds max. It ran at between 10 and 60% of that. Let’s assume 60%. 6000 lb / 3000 square inches gives 2 psi pressure at the outlet. At landing time the thrust was probably less than this.

      Is 2 PSI pressure going to blast the moon clean? I think not, especially if there is not atmosphere to push around. It may have been as low as 1 psi at the outlet, and maybe 1/2 psi at the surface. It would be an interesting calculation. So even less than the 5 psi I remembered.

      How did I do?

      An objection might be that this thrust sounds too low, but gravity on the moon is 1/6 of the Earth. Multiply specified engine thrust by 6 to get 36,000 pounds thrust from a similar engine built for an Earth landing. That sounds reasonable to me.

      Maybe Apollo 11 was faked, but the evidence I’ve seen is total nonsense.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s