So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?

[ka9q]

I discovered later (and wrote a thesis on it) that the eye-mind-hand phenomenon is pretty real.  People whose product relies on high levels of spatial reasoning do better at their jobs when they can demonstrate basic competence at 2D drawing such as was classically taught to engineers and architects.

I've never been all that good at freehand drawing of views of 3D physical objects, artificial or natural (e.g., people) probably because I hated art class and had exactly 1 semester of engineering graphics way back in high school.

But I can certainly draw electronic schematics, algorithm flow charts, memory layouts and many other abstract concepts, and I've done it almost every day for several decades. Would you still hire me as an EE and computer person rather than a MechE? :-)

[Sus_pilot]

I remember using Drafting Linen as a youngster. It makes fantastic sails for model ships these days.

I should get my 30-inch model of USS Constitution out of the attic and try that.  I'm just amazed that I can hold 100-year-old drawings in my hand and they look as crisp and fresh as the day they were drawn.  In contrast to CAD, which lasts only as long as the next software revision.

Can you imagine an entire working career just drawing bolt heads and screw threads?

Yeah but some of those guys were proud of how fast they could crank that stuff out.

I had a couple of school friends who went in to drawing offices and that's what they did all day. I suppose as your career went on you get more important things to do.

That is true, and engineers don't draw in general.  However the belief during my education was that an engineer who can't draw isn't really worth much.  I quickly came to realize that.  CAD aside, the best engineers I've seen (and architects too, for that matter) were those who could freehand a passable drawing as they went.  I discovered later (and wrote a thesis on it) that the eye-mind-hand phenomenon is pretty real.  People whose product relies on high levels of spatial reasoning do better at their jobs when they can demonstrate basic competence at 2D drawing such as was classically taught to engineers and architects.

I have to remember which Apollo history that told of this person, but wasn't there someone at Langley that was famous for turning out better free-hand drawings then a draftsman could render on the drawing board?

[Peter B]

I remember using Drafting Linen as a youngster. It makes fantastic sails for model ships these days.

I should get my 30-inch model of USS Constitution out of the attic and try that.  I'm just amazed that I can hold 100-year-old drawings in my hand and they look as crisp and fresh as the day they were drawn.  In contrast to CAD, which lasts only as long as the next software revision.

Can you imagine an entire working career just drawing bolt heads and screw threads?

Yeah but some of those guys were proud of how fast they could crank that stuff out.

I had a couple of school friends who went in to drawing offices and that's what they did all day. I suppose as your career went on you get more important things to do.

That is true, and engineers don't draw in general.  However the belief during my education was that an engineer who can't draw isn't really worth much.  I quickly came to realize that.  CAD aside, the best engineers I've seen (and architects too, for that matter) were those who could freehand a passable drawing as they went.  I discovered later (and wrote a thesis on it) that the eye-mind-hand phenomenon is pretty real.  People whose product relies on high levels of spatial reasoning do better at their jobs when they can demonstrate basic competence at 2D drawing such as was classically taught to engineers and architects.

I have to remember which Apollo history that told of this person, but wasn't there someone at Langley that was famous for turning out better free-hand drawings then a draftsman could render on the drawing board?

Sounds like Murray and Cox's description of Caldwell Johnson.

[JayUtah]

I did Technical Drawing at school from Year 8 to Year 10 back in the early 1980s. We did most of our work with pencils on paper, but in Year 10 we got to do some work with pens on some other sort of material which we could only use one side of. Would this have been acetate or polyester drafting film?

Yes.  It's textured on one side to accept drawing media.

...the draftsman apparently didn't need to do much more than copy what I'd prepared.

That's impressive!  I still draw for relaxation.

[gwiz]

Incidentally, at the start of Year 8 I had to choose between doing TD and Latin. I wanted to do both but they were on the same stream, and it was very hard making a selection. On the upside, the skills I learned in TD are still with me: when I drew up plans for an extension for our house, the draftsman apparently didn't need to do much more than copy what I'd prepared.

My school didn't offer technical drawing, so I did it to O-Level standard at evening class.  Came in handy when, having got my college place to do engineering, they said it was conditional on my passing the Mechanical Drawing Qualifying Exam.  There was more technical drawing to come during the first year at college.

I'm inclined to agree with Jay that it's very useful for an engineer to have the skill.

[sts60]

I have to remember which Apollo history that told of this person, but wasn't there someone at Langley that was famous for turning out better free-hand drawings then a draftsman could render on the drawing board?

Sounds like Murray and Cox's description of Caldwell Johnson.

Somewhere in my piles of papers - I hope I still have it - is a little freehand sketch of CC's he drew when we were working on an upgrade to a Shuttle middeck experiment.  It's a little masterpiece of design clarity.  I also have a framed lithograph of his original concept drawing of the Mercury capsule: practical design with a dash of Jules Verne.

I wish I could draw like that.  I was a pedestrian drafting student waaaay back in high school.

[Chew]

The latest Conspiracy Skeptic Podcast is about Heiwa. It's only a ~50 minute podcast so they could only touch on about 1% of his legacy.

[Allan F]

Now you've done it. You made me read some of his website. I hope he is better at nautical stuff than all the other things he write about. 4 points out of 10 for the nice words he uses, 0 points out of 10 for the way they are put together. How can a man, claiming to be educated in any field recquring more than basic math, write such drivel?

[scooter]

I womdered what/who this "heiwa" thing was...boy, what a shindig.
Gives a new definition to "incredible".
What a piece of work...I need to go through this thread...patience of saints...

[Noldi400]

The latest Conspiracy Skeptic Podcast is about Heiwa. It's only a ~50 minute podcast so they could only touch on about 1% of his legacy.

Thank you for the link. I laughed myself silly on this one.

[JayUtah]

I hope he is better at nautical stuff than all the other things he write about.

He is not.  If you think his performance here was dismal, wait until you see professional seafarers, ship masters, and sailors tear into him.

[Allan F]

I hope he is better at nautical stuff than all the other things he write about.

He is not.  If you think his performance here was dismal, wait until you see professional seafarers, ship masters, and sailors tear into him.

Is he really a professional in what he claims to be? I find it so hard to believe.

[JayUtah]

Is he really a professional in what he claims to be? I find it so hard to believe.

He sort of was, up until about 15 years ago.  He does hold the degree he claims, and he has been professionally employed in the marine shipping industry.  On his c.v. the only engineering role listed is that of service in the Swedish Navy in 1970, which would have been his first job out of college.  From 1971 to 1999 he seems to have held jobs for marine insurance companies as an inspector of ship damage, though he does not seem to have been involved in ship building directly.  However, assessing damage done to large hulls does require engineering knowledge.

From 2000 onward his verifiable professional activity is limited to his self-employment company, which in turn seems to do little more than publish his conspiracy theories.  It is safe to say he has no creditable professional activity for the past 13 years.

And yes, it is difficult to believe that someone who displays such an egregious misunderstanding of the behavior of the physical world could ever have been any sort of engineer.

[Noldi400]

And yes, it is difficult to believe that someone who displays such an egregious misunderstanding of the behavior of the physical world could ever have been any sort of engineer.

Speaking of which, I don't know whether you keep any kind of eye on him but Hunchbacked just put up a video over at YT entitled "Debunking Clavius Moon Base".

He talks about... well, nothing new; shadows, LM instability, Earthside tracking, visor reflections, etc.

One thing he does get right is that if the DPS failed during the approach phase the LM would crash (well, if it was below 60 meters alt or so).

Or, in his words:

This video shows that Clavius, in spite of his reputation, has many misconceptions, and a miscomprehension of Apollo technology. I show points that Clavius failed to see, and which fragilize his debunk of the moon hoax.

So how does it feel to be fragilized? Do you get fries with that?   

[qt]

So how does it feel to be fragilized? Do you get fries with that?   

Is that what happens to the LM if the DPS fails?

After all these years, I'm still struggling with the finer points of English . . .