A gathering and discussion area for the Hollywood Investigator's (and Weekly Universe's) hugely vast family of readers to gather and discuss the shocking articles in America's favorite family newspapers!!!
Steve writes, "Clavius actually just made my point. Thanks. He says in the year 2005 we can't get a satellite to the moon for many reason. But in the year 1969 we had people walking on it."
No, you're changing horses. In 1969 we didn't have the Keyhole satellite series, but we did have the Saturn V booster. In 2005 we no longer have the Saturn V, but we have the Keyhole. Your question was why we don't (or haven't) put spy satellites into lunar orbit. The answer is because historically the satellite and the booster did not simultaneously exist.
The Saturn V was scrapped in favor of the space shuttle, which in retrospect is seen as an unwise decision. However, at the time it was felt that the space shuttle would better fulfill our long term space needs, and Congress allowed only for one of the two systems. After Apollo the public was no longer interested in moon missions and decided not to fund them. Therefore the vehicle developed for those moon missions went out of production.
Steve writes, "Next about the 'computations'. Why dirty it up."
Because the computations are the proof of your claim. You have made a claim that relies upon computation to determine whether or not the claim is true. I have asked you to perform the basic version of the computation that would be needed to support your claim. You've essentially admitted that you can't do it and likely don't know how. Thus it is apparent that you yourself don't know whether your claim is true; you're just guessing and asking others to believe your guess.
Steve writes, "It's simple physics."
No. Without the computation it's not any kind of physics at all -- simple or complex. You're trying to appeal to physics and yet sidestep the physics.
Steve writes, "Tie a kleenex behind a rock to form a parachute and throw it 70mph through the air."
Why a Kleenex? Does a Kleenex have proportionally more or less tensile strength than parachute fabric? That would make a difference, so please compute it.
Why 70 mph? Why not 30 or 300? Does drag increase linearly or quadratically with velocity? Do you know? No, of course you don't. So why should we believe you when you say the parachute would have disintegrated?
Further, you left out altitude entirely. Drag is proportional to the density of the fluid through which the motion occurs. The denser the air, the more drag on the parachute. If we did your experiment at sea level and again at 30,000 meters (where the air is much thinner) would we get the same result?
Had you researched how to perform those calculations and had you done them, you would have realized the factors that apply to your problem. And you would have understood the actual quantities involved, not your guesses.
Steve writes, "Now multiply both the speed and mass by a factor of 10000 at least."
A minute ago you said you didn't need to do computations. Now you're doing them, just with made-up numbers. Why 10,000? Why not 100,000 or 5? You want to use numbers in your argument, but you don't want to explain how you got them. You're simply continuing to fake it.
Steve writes, "This is what strain would be on the parachutes. Get it? It would disintigrate..."
But you don't know what the strain on the parachute would be. You don't know how to compute the drag on a parachute. You don't even know what the important physical factors are when computing the drag for a parachute. You simply wave your hands wildly and throw out a bunch of arbitrary numbers that have nothing to do with the actual problem.
If you had computed the drag on the parachute, then you could have compared that value to the tensile strength of the parachute fabric. If the drag exceeds the tensile strength, the fabric will rip. If it doesn't, the fabric won't.
Steve writes, "This is grade one logic."
No, it isn't. I taught formal logic at the college level. What you're doing falls under the fallacy of "begging the question." You state your conclusion and then you simply "beg" people to accept it. You don't provide any reason or argument or logic to support it. You have simply declared that the parachute will disintegrate and go on to imply that it's given, or obvious.
No. The claim that the Apollo re-entry parachutes would tear is a testable claim, and you have declined to test it. We therefore rejecte it.
Steve writes, "You don't need Einstein quantum convoluted math."
No, you don't. You need only very simple math. I asked you to compute one small drag problem, and you couldn't do it. The formula contains only three terms, and I gave you the terms. You couldn't solve it, showing that you lack the technical skills to support your technical arguments.