Recent Posts

31

General Discussion / SpaceX no longer reliable.

« Last post by Ranb on June 06, 2025, 06:34:18 AM »

Elon Musk says SpaceX could begin 'decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft' after Trump threat to cancel contracts
https://www.space.com/space-exploration/elon-musks-says-spacex-could-begin-decommissioning-its-dragon-spacecraft-after-trump-threat-to-cancel-contracts

"In light of the President’s statement about cancellation of my government contracts, @SpaceX will begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft immediately," Musk posted on X, which he bought back in 2022, when it was still called Twitter.

32

General Discussion / Re: The Trump Presidency

« Last post by Peter B on June 05, 2025, 07:46:26 AM »

TIFO that Saturday 14 June 2025 is No Kings Day.

I have no intention of encouraging people in the USA to go to protests which could have unpleasant consequences for them. But still, I thought I'd at least mention it.

33

The Hoax Theory / Re: Apollo 16 UV equipment

« Last post by onebigmonkey on May 20, 2025, 03:18:11 PM »

This is exclusively command module photography, so yes there was a 60mm lens for lunar surface EVA, but this session used the 80mm and 105mm lenses.

34

General Discussion / Re: The Trump Presidency

« Last post by Bop on May 20, 2025, 12:31:38 AM »

We had an outstanding result here in Australia after our federal election- with the Labor (leftwing) party getting  record number of seats over the Libs coalition (rightwing) firmly putting any 'trump style' political shenanigans  from the Libs side to rest....
Not only winning a second term in office, but ending up with a majority government to boot...

35

The Hoax Theory / Re: Apollo 16 UV equipment

« Last post by Allan F on May 18, 2025, 05:56:19 PM »

Just a question: Wasn't it a 60mm lens on the EVA Hasselblad? Along with the 250mm. I believe there was an 80mm lens used exclusively in the CM for IVA.

36

The Hoax Theory / Apollo 16 UV equipment

« Last post by onebigmonkey on May 16, 2025, 03:56:09 AM »

This could have gone in the 'Reality of Apollo' forum, but it's a query that addresses a hoax claim so...

An article has appeared on Aulis:

https://www.aulis.com/incon16.htm

where the change in angular size of Earth in two photographs is too great for lenses used, ergo fake, blah blah blah.

The superb Dave McKeegan has done an excellent demolition of the claim here:

In a nutshell, the hoax claimant clearly hasn't spotted that a 105mm UV lens was used as well as the usual 80 and 250mm ones, despite this being recorded in the photography index, press kit and other reports.

During several UV sequences, one camera had a UV lens and filter sett attached. UV photographs were taken using the different filters, then the UV film magazine swapped out and a colour one used with the same lens for comparison.

The exception is AS16-118-18889, which does not have a companion UV image set, does not have a distinctive haze around Earth, and is also missing a feature from the photographs (see the red outlined object in the attachment), which appears in all photographs taken with the 105mm lens. The 105mm lens is used again for AS16-118-18890 to 18891. The photography index suggests 18889 was taken with the 105mm lens, but it wouldn't be the first time that such a document was mistaken. The movment of the continents and clouds towards the terminator suggests between around 35 minutes has elapsed between 18888 and 18889. There are no comments from the crew about the process.

The UV photography was carried out through a specific window of the CM, which was redesigned for the purpose so as not to eliminate UV light. All the UV images, and their colour companions, feature this. I think either the 105mm lens was removed for the 10 hours or so between UV photography sessions, or magazine 118 was used in a different camera for that one photograph.

My theory for the feature in the UV lens images is that it is some part of the filter wheel attached to the lens, which is why it is absent from AS16-118-18889. Does anyone have any documentation showing that assembly?

I've made some changes to my page on this part of the mission to incorporate it:

https://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/CATM2/A16/02/a16_day02.html

37

General Discussion / Re: The Trump Presidency

« Last post by Peter B on May 12, 2025, 07:23:20 PM »

My seat? It's too early to be sure, but our Teal candidate looks like she's won. And as a Teal voter I have to say I'm pretty happy with that result.

Well, dang it. She lost, but it was mighty close: a margin of 350 votes out of about 101,000 votes cast. In other words, she got 49.83% of the vote after preference distribution.

38

General Discussion / Re: The Trump Presidency

« Last post by Allan F on May 11, 2025, 04:30:21 PM »

Most likely, they aren't really caring about religion, as long as they can get their fingers in the cookie jar - either as personal power gains or money in one form or another. I fail to understand how they can't see their future getting destroyed when they hitch their wagon to that train.

39

General Discussion / Re: The Trump Presidency

« Last post by Peter B on May 09, 2025, 07:46:06 PM »

The election of the new Pope has brought home to me once again something I see in Trump supporters and the Trump inner circle that I can't quite put into words, so perhaps someone can distill my muddled thoughts into an organised concept...

A large number of Trump supporters are conservative Protestant Christians who make negative statements about people who don't belong to their specific version of faith; they dislike atheists and Muslims, many hate Jews, and many seem to believe Catholics aren't Christians. Yet many people in the inner circle of Trump supporters and promoters seem to be atheist (or at best cultural Christians who don't go to church) like Trump and Musk, Jewish (Laura Loomer, Ben Shapiro and Jared Kushner) or Catholic (Steve Bannon and JD Vance).

I'm fascinated that these Inner Circle people seem to be able to base their political views on their religious views, without those disparate religious views causing clashes within the circle.

I suppose it's like a concept I've used to discuss historical events with my kids - that religion matters until it doesn't (and doesn't matter until it does). To use a compact example, the Siege of Constantinople in 1453 is often naively presented as a microcosm of Christianity versus Islam: Christian Constantinople defending itself against Muslim Ottoman attack; yet the Ottoman armies included many Christians, such as the Serbian miners who were paid good money to dig under the walls of the city; and the defenders of the city included a cousin of the Ottoman sultan and his retinue. So, the Catholic and Orthodox defenders could snipe at each other about their religion, while ignoring the presence of Muslim fellow-defenders; and Ottoman imams could whip up the majority of the Ottoman army into a religious frenzy, while ignoring the Christian miners chiselling away beneath them.

Trump's supporters seem to include a mix of (a) people who seem genuinely unaware of the different religious persuasions of the people who mobilise them, and (b) a smaller number of people who seem to be aware of these inconsistencies but seem to be able to allow it to not matter to them. It makes me wonder exactly what the religious convictions of the people in group (b) really are: are they pragmatic, cynical, or in awe of the mysterious workings of God?

Occasionally conflicts related to this come to the surface, such as JD Vance being publicly unhappy at Trump supporters saying racist things about his wife. On other occasions the inconsistencies arise over time but people don't seem to notice, such as some Trump supporters cheering the deaths of Jewish people in the original Hamas attack in 2023 and other Trump supporters cheering the subsequent deaths of Palestinians at the hands of Israel. But it never seems to be serious enough to fracture the coalition of his supporters.

This ability to keep this coalition together seems to be Trump's superpower. But I have to say the ability of his supporters to cheer what he says today while forgetting they cheered at him saying the opposite yesterday is giving me serious "1984" vibes.

40

General Discussion / Re: The Trump Presidency

« Last post by Obviousman on May 04, 2025, 06:31:13 PM »

Well said! And if we are to be fair, you should also say "... that motherfucker Clive Palmer....

That TOP party is nothing but One Nation in a yellow wrapper.

Anyway, it was a resounding rejection of Trump-style politics.