PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-11-28, 09:54:24
News: If you have a suggestion or need for a new board title, please PM the Admins.
Please remember to keep topics and posts of the FE or casual nature. :)

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6
Author Topic: Deceptions of NASA  (Read 17045 times)

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
Deary deary me, Brad; have I transgressed? Please let me know if I have.

No comment
« Last Edit: 2021-02-28, 17:24:49 by TinMan »


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
I think that sort of attack goes beyond "reasonable", don't you agree Brad?


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
I think that sort of attack goes beyond "reasonable", don't you agree Brad?

No,not really when you look at what he has said to muDped in the past.
Also believe a few members sent him a PM saying he was a bit over the top.

But as it seems everyone is easily offended these day's,i retracted my comment.
So much for the tough skin hey
Must be only us aussies that have it.


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1579
I think that sort of attack goes beyond "reasonable", don't you agree Brad?

Is this addressed to me?


If so, Brad says of me in #73 "You don't need to post facts or truth,as everything you say is correct-hey?"

I reply with as statement to say "when and where?". What else should I say?

I go to some trouble NOT to post statements as facts unless I know where to go to substantiate. If I have failed, I say again: when and where? Tell me and I'l do my best to fix it.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1579

Also believe a few members sent him a PM saying he was a bit over the top.


Untrue. Grumage has criticised me and I took notice of him. That's all.
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Is this addressed to me?

No, it was for Brad, and he changed the post (thanks Brad, and thanks for taking the higher road ).



---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 345
Fair enough. We will never know. But mudped's belief that 9/11 wiped out data cannot be right because the Pentagon knows full well that they would be the No.1 target in any nuclear attack. They would have provision.


And:
Quote from: JimBoot on 2021-02-27, 04:19:23
paul rummy had to testify to congress about it. It was headlines the day before the planes hit. You should be able to find his testimony. I watched it on the evening news. I have no interest searching for it tho. Not my argument :)

What I am saying is that any evidence evidence was probably NOT lost in the 9/11 events.

So your evidence is that it was "probably" not lost??   LOL

There is a lot of evidence if you do enough research and aren't afraid to go down the rabbit hole.   Even our own Physics Professor here has built a good case about the 911 scenario being a major cover up as to what actually brought down the twin towers.   


Beyond this I suspect as often happens around full Moon that people here and on many forums get extra agitated.   I stand back and just feel it's not worth arguing about the Moon landing as there are more important things to deal with.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1579
So your evidence is that it was "probably" not lost??   LOL


I have no evidence.

But since the building would have been the Soviets No. 1 target, it seems improbable beyond measurement that the DOD would not have asumed the total destruction of the Pentagon and everytrhing within 20 miles or so.
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 345
Not wanting to get into all this except to point out just something quick I noticed Brad - you posted this video implying the hair in the ISS video is faked:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIjNfZbUYu8&t=31s

Did you not notice the droplets of liquid floating up out of the squeeze pack she is putting on her hair?   They are floating .... so even if this was an inverted image they would not float but would shoot upwards (downwards if you think it is an inverted image).   It would seem your zeal for disbelief in NASA is blinding you to some obvious things.   

   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
So your evidence is that it was "probably" not lost??   LOL

There is a lot of evidence if you do enough research and aren't afraid to go down the rabbit hole.   Even our own Physics Professor here has built a good case about the 911 scenario being a major cover up as to what actually brought down the twin towers.   


Beyond this I suspect as often happens around full Moon that people here and on many forums get extra agitated.   I stand back and just feel it's not worth arguing about the Moon landing as there are more important things to deal with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-GppBpUeYg


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 453
I have voiced my concerns and opinion,and now-yes,it is water under the bridge.

I also wish to convey my apologies to you PW in relations to comments i made in this thread to you.
We all have our ideal's and our belief's,but some time's i should keep them to my self.
I retract my comments about you being blind to the truth.


Brad

Brad,
You of all people should know that I am not easily triggered.  We have both had to deal with abusive and foul mouthed posters in the past, and you know it is rare, if ever, that I allow myself to fall into any emotional rabbit holes.  However, being accused of having somehow attempted to "trap" you was a bit too much.  I used to be an ardent supporter, with high hopes for you.

So I too apologize to you if my posts were becoming a bit too personal in nature.  But please believe me, they were my responses to a feeling of disappointment and dismay, and not based on anything one might consider as anger, which is only a fool's playground.

"Ideals" and "truths" are more times than not rooted in a world based on opinions.  And although more suited to philosophers, I also allow myself to drift off into such a world on occasion,  ideally in the shade of a tree on a warm sunny day.

However, I live in a fact based reality, with facts that are derived from research, collected data, observation and experimental results.  As we are likely to never have all the data regarding any given subject, all conclusions based on a given data set are weighted for probability.  Sadly, this is my life, oft times necessary for the work or research that I am doing at any given time, but it is also a world with less clutter and noise, and without the endless rabbit holes of wild, misleading, and unsupported claims.

As but one example, you presented an old video of the LEM doing roll maneuvers.

You look at that video and say it was impossible," everyone knows there should be inertial drift!"  Therefore, its a fake and it is additional proof that "everything NASA" is somehow a lie, complete with never ending rabbit holes.  Why did they fake that?  Why did they lie?  What are they hiding?  Who would  commit such a fraud?  How large is the group of conspirators involved?  And on and on and on. 

I, on the other hand, watched that clip and got to experience a feeling of awe at what the reaction control system (RCS) of the LEM could do when servo-locked to a mechanical gyro.  The amount of engineering and development that went into developing the RCS from Mercury through Apollo was quite the achievement.  The RCS thrusters evolved over many years with various monopropellants, such as hydrogen peroxide over platinum, to hypergolic mixes such as hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide compounds being used.  But the greatest challenge was always related to precision control of RCS thruster pulse width and timing accuracy, which over the years led to incredibly precise valves and actuators.  Consider researching the system a bit, I myself lived through those times...     

In your posted video, although the actual rate (speed) may be off a small amount due to the various frame rates used during the copying to various formats, the fact that the LEM could "stop on a dime" is exactly what it was designed to do.  And it was almost exclusively achieved with analog technology.  Moreso than flying the LEM, the RCS was flying the gyro.  A command is given for x degrees of rotation at a given rate, and the RCS, servo locked to the gyro, would follow that command with extreme precision.  Why you would think that a well designed (critically damped) servo system should have noticeable undershoot, overshoot or drift is beyond me.  If you were to look into the operation and design of the RCS, servo locked to antique mechanical gyros (which were built to a precision that would still amaze anyone today), you too could allow yourself to experience a "wow moment" and an appreciation for what it took to achieve such precision.

Today, millions of servo locked systems are in operation all over the world, 'round the clock, and yet no one sees their precision as somehow being fake.  Today gain and damping are mostly all handled in the digital realm, with analog filters and non-linear gain stages replaced with digital signal processing techniques.  But, in its day, the RCS on the LEM was state of the art, and built to a mechanical and analog precision no one would bother with today.  It is much easier to reference a digital lookup table of calibration errors to get the same precision through digital means.

My disappointment and dismay arises when I see someone call out something very real, and a great technological achievement, as somehow being fake based solely on their lack of understanding of what it is they are actually watching.  It is an insult to the scientists and engineers of the past that gave their best to create the systems and technology that allow what is being watched to be accomplished.  Even more, the seemingly ever growing number of people that apparently follow along like sheep and believe these false claims of fakery, are also cheated out of a wow moment and a possible learning experience that may actually steer them toward great accomplishments of their own, instead of a bunch of meaningless and never ending rabbit holes.

In the "olden days" of my younger years, defense and aerospace companies used to auction off pallets of surplus equipment sparking the advent of surplus stores.  Some of the technology and state of the art analog components one could purchase on the cheap in those days were truly amazing.  You could buy a used, flight rated gyro for 20 bucks.  When opened, the quality of construction would amaze anyone.  The ball bearing servo pots alone, with their incredible linearity, tolerance, and low Tc were themselves a sight to behold, and a veritable work of art.  The mechanical workings of a gyro were second to none, making Swiss watches crude by comparison.  The surplus components, mechanical and electronic, from those days was truly incredible, and only further reinforced the precision and engineering of the day.  Any really old guys around here know of what I speak.  Today, almost everything is disabled, sold for scrap only, and prohibited from resale.  Bummer.

Sadly, I feel disappointment and dismay as more recent generations no longer play with the chemistry sets, tinker toys, cloud chambers, and the cast off gyros of my youth.  Its all video games, smart phones, and this damned internet nowadays.  I surely don't think people spreading false information based on ignorance and faulty logic to gullible people who find it much easier to "believe" than it is to make an effort to actually "learn", is going to somehow make the future a brighter place.

PW
« Last Edit: 2021-02-28, 19:59:24 by picowatt »
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1579

In the "olden days" of my younger years, defense and aerospace companies used to auction off pallets of surplus equipment sparking the advent of surplus stores.  Some of the technology and state of the art analog components one could purchase on the cheap in those days were truly amazing.  You could buy a used, flight rated gyro for 20 bucks.  When opened, the quality of construction would amaze anyone.  The ball bearing servo pots alone, with their incredible linearity, tolerance, and low Tc were themselves a sight to behold, and a veritable work of art.  The mechanical workings of a gyro were second to none, making Swiss watches crude by comparison.  The surplus components, mechanical and electronic, from those days was truly incredible, and only further reinforced the precision and engineering of the day.  Any really old guys around here know of what I speak.  Today, almost everything is disabled, sold for scrap only, and prohibited from resale.  Bummer.


These dealers can still be found but one needs to look further. There are people breaking sophisticated fairly recent mil aircraft for spares. You should be able to pick up a pretty neat artifical horizon although the more recent have all glass displays.
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 453
These dealers can still be found but one needs to look further. There are people breaking sophisticated fairly recent mil aircraft for spares. You should be able to pick up a pretty neat artifical horizon although the more recent have all glass displays.

That is probably so, and most aircraft have at least one artificial horizon of the "steam gauge" variety (as they are jokingly referred to) as a backup, but the mil spec through hole components are difficult or impossible to find, and nothing recent is built to the standards of the past.  The "build quality" in the analog world determined precision, so the build quality back then was pretty incredible, and readily available as surplus.

Off topic, but related to defense related high tech, anyone who hasn't read Arthur C. Clark's very short story "Superiority" should give it a read. 

http://www.mayofamily.com/RLM/txt_Clarke_Superiority.html

PW
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Cool story.  O0

What might be learned from this?


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 453
Cool story.  O0

What might be learned from this?

Sometimes larger numbers of low cost, low tech hardware are a better way to go than small numbers of barely affordable and unreliable high tech equipment.

And of course, the ultimate lesson, let's just not start any wars!

PW

Added:  Oh, and don't get stuck in a jail cell with someone you despise!
« Last Edit: 2021-02-28, 23:56:31 by picowatt »
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Yes.

And I did enjoy that twist!

...It didn't sound like that arrangement was going to last...

And perhaps one more moral of the story, the ol': No good deed goes unpunished.


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 453
Yes.

And I did enjoy that twist!

...I didn't sound like that arrangement was going to last...

And perhaps one more moral of the story, the ol': No good deed goes unpunished.

I read that story many years ago.  As old age continues to creep up and memory fades, I mentioned the basic story to someone while we were discussing recent defense hardware.  For the life of me I could not recall the title or whether it was Clark or Asimov.  Took me some time to find it again.

All in all, it seemed rather foretelling (and best of all, they used lots of tubes!)

PW.

OH, and don't worry, given more time and money, we can surely engineer our way out of that problem...
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 453
.99

I don't exactly know why, but I think it should be required reading.  Perhaps when teaching the KISS principle.

Good to see you climb out of your hidey hole every now and then!

PW
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
It's been all work and no play for a while, so nice to have a break and see what's going on.  :)


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3055
There are many, many things that we do not know to some degree or even entirely .

Some have even opined that there are some things that we will never know when referring to historical events.

But we shall indeed have all of those things made known to us.

Everything that has transpired upon Planet Earth has been recorded.

At a Future Time all of that knowledge will be made available to us.  In order that we may learn the Full and Complete Truth.

The Watchers are keeping track of every little detail.



---------------------------
For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 453
It's been all work and no play for a while, so nice to have a break and see what's going on.  :)

Well it brings joy to my heart to see you "out and about"!

It's pretty much the same for me, a bit bored with work, a little bit stuck regarding one of my personal experiments, and throw in some "just coming out of winter" cabin fever, and it was time for a break.

Thought I'd peruse the forums for a spell to see what's going on.

PW

 
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
Brad,
You of all people should know that I am not easily triggered.  We have both had to deal with abusive and foul mouthed posters in the past, and you know it is rare, if ever, that I allow myself to fall into any emotional rabbit holes.  However, being accused of having somehow attempted to "trap" you was a bit too much.  I used to be an ardent supporter, with high hopes for you.

So I too apologize to you if my posts were becoming a bit too personal in nature.  But please believe me, they were my responses to a feeling of disappointment and dismay, and not based on anything one might consider as anger, which is only a fool's playground.

"Ideals" and "truths" are more times than not rooted in a world based on opinions.  And although more suited to philosophers, I also allow myself to drift off into such a world on occasion,  ideally in the shade of a tree on a warm sunny day.

However, I live in a fact based reality, with facts that are derived from research, collected data, observation and experimental results.  As we are likely to never have all the data regarding any given subject, all conclusions based on a given data set are weighted for probability.  Sadly, this is my life, oft times necessary for the work or research that I am doing at any given time, but it is also a world with less clutter and noise, and without the endless rabbit holes of wild, misleading, and unsupported claims.

As but one example, you presented an old video of the LEM doing roll maneuvers.

You look at that video and say it was impossible," everyone knows there should be inertial drift!"  Therefore, its a fake and it is additional proof that "everything NASA" is somehow a lie, complete with never ending rabbit holes.  Why did they fake that?  Why did they lie?  What are they hiding?  Who would  commit such a fraud?  How large is the group of conspirators involved?  And on and on and on. 

I, on the other hand, watched that clip and got to experience a feeling of awe at what the reaction control system (RCS) of the LEM could do when servo-locked to a mechanical gyro.  The amount of engineering and development that went into developing the RCS from Mercury through Apollo was quite the achievement.  The RCS thrusters evolved over many years with various monopropellants, such as hydrogen peroxide over platinum, to hypergolic mixes such as hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide compounds being used.  But the greatest challenge was always related to precision control of RCS thruster pulse width and timing accuracy, which over the years led to incredibly precise valves and actuators.  Consider researching the system a bit, I myself lived through those times...     

In your posted video, although the actual rate (speed) may be off a small amount due to the various frame rates used during the copying to various formats, the fact that the LEM could "stop on a dime" is exactly what it was designed to do.  And it was almost exclusively achieved with analog technology.  Moreso than flying the LEM, the RCS was flying the gyro.  A command is given for x degrees of rotation at a given rate, and the RCS, servo locked to the gyro, would follow that command with extreme precision.  Why you would think that a well designed (critically damped) servo system should have noticeable undershoot, overshoot or drift is beyond me.  If you were to look into the operation and design of the RCS, servo locked to antique mechanical gyros (which were built to a precision that would still amaze anyone today), you too could allow yourself to experience a "wow moment" and an appreciation for what it took to achieve such precision.

Today, millions of servo locked systems are in operation all over the world, 'round the clock, and yet no one sees their precision as somehow being fake.  Today gain and damping are mostly all handled in the digital realm, with analog filters and non-linear gain stages replaced with digital signal processing techniques.  But, in its day, the RCS on the LEM was state of the art, and built to a mechanical and analog precision no one would bother with today.  It is much easier to reference a digital lookup table of calibration errors to get the same precision through digital means.

My disappointment and dismay arises when I see someone call out something very real, and a great technological achievement, as somehow being fake based solely on their lack of understanding of what it is they are actually watching.  It is an insult to the scientists and engineers of the past that gave their best to create the systems and technology that allow what is being watched to be accomplished.  Even more, the seemingly ever growing number of people that apparently follow along like sheep and believe these false claims of fakery, are also cheated out of a wow moment and a possible learning experience that may actually steer them toward great accomplishments of their own, instead of a bunch of meaningless and never ending rabbit holes.

In the "olden days" of my younger years, defense and aerospace companies used to auction off pallets of surplus equipment sparking the advent of surplus stores.  Some of the technology and state of the art analog components one could purchase on the cheap in those days were truly amazing.  You could buy a used, flight rated gyro for 20 bucks.  When opened, the quality of construction would amaze anyone.  The ball bearing servo pots alone, with their incredible linearity, tolerance, and low Tc were themselves a sight to behold, and a veritable work of art.  The mechanical workings of a gyro were second to none, making Swiss watches crude by comparison.  The surplus components, mechanical and electronic, from those days was truly incredible, and only further reinforced the precision and engineering of the day.  Any really old guys around here know of what I speak.  Today, almost everything is disabled, sold for scrap only, and prohibited from resale.  Bummer.

Sadly, I feel disappointment and dismay as more recent generations no longer play with the chemistry sets, tinker toys, cloud chambers, and the cast off gyros of my youth.  Its all video games, smart phones, and this damned internet nowadays.  I surely don't think people spreading false information based on ignorance and faulty logic to gullible people who find it much easier to "believe" than it is to make an effort to actually "learn", is going to somehow make the future a brighter place.

PW

Reading up on the gyro system,it would seem that it is to small to achieve the results seen,as in stopping a mass that large instantly like that. The gyro seems to be more for stabilization,not maneuvering.

Then there is also the question of being able to see stars in space and from the moon.
The video i posted has the apollo 11 crew saying that they could not see stars from the moon,nor in the space between the moon and earth. This is also backed up by other NASA employees and scientist.
In that same video,we hear from many other astronauts and scientist,and they say you can see the stars from space and from the surface of the moon -and very clearly--even during the day. Not sure how you have a day in space?.

It is hard to do things using the scientific method when you have the same group of people(NASA) telling to opposite stories.
So the other scientific method is to look at light it self,and when you do that you find that the stars should be well visible anywhere in space as long as you are not looking directly at a light source,such as the sun,as there is no light pollution in space,and light travels in straight line in the vacuum of space.

So it is hard to believe an entity where half say one thing,and the other half say the other.


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3948
tExB=qr
NASA is an administration of the US gov...totally controlled.
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 453
Reading up on the gyro system,it would seem that it is to small to achieve the results seen,as in stopping a mass that large instantly like that. The gyro seems to be more for stabilization,not maneuvering.

Perhaps you are confusing this gyro system with the gyros of days gone by when large, quite massive gyro rotors, were used to stabilize ships directly on a single axis via their spinning mass, or the control moment gyros on the likes of the ISS, Hubble, and many other satellites, used to control orientation via the acceleration and deceleration of a spinning mass.  These are not the types of gyros we are discussing with regard to the LEM.

The LEM gyros were fairly small, as were most aerospace, aviation, and defense related gyros of the day, and mounted in a sealed housing.  Those applications needed smaller and lighter gyros, so they used a smaller rotor spinning at rather amazing rates.  The "simple" ones I played with back then were in black crinkle painted housings 6 inches or so in diameter and about 8-9 inches high.  The end where the rotor was mounted was often dome shaped.  So, on the outside they were just black housing with a multi-pin connector for an interface.  Some of them were a bit fancier and actually used air bearings on the rotor for faster rotor spin rates, but those guys were very pricey and more complicated to play with.  They were often fed from compressed gas cylinders and most often found in missile and torpedo applications where the required run times were short but precision and small size and weight was paramount.  Many gyros also had provisions for presetting or resetting the rotor position to some starting position or to cancel out small amounts of long term drift.  Today we use laser based gyros with no moving parts.  Where's the fun in that.

In any case, the gyro was just a sensor.  All the gyro did was provide a signal based on a fixed reference in space (the spinning rotor).  The "signal" back then was just a voltage developed via the wiper of a precision servo pot attached to each gyro axis.  The pots had a fixed reference voltage across them and the wiper provided the position related voltage to the outside world.  Power for the spin motor was fed through the same connector, or through a separate connector on some models.  Inside was a marvel of precision mechanical engineering.

The LEM's RCS used an analog system which was fed the voltage from the servo pot wiper on a given gyro axis.  If a 30 degree rotation meant rotating the spacecraft until the servo pot wiper now read 5 volts, the RCS thrusters would fire away in short bursts to apply the needed torque to get the spacecraft rotating at a commanded rate, using the rate of change of the servo pot signal to determine and track the desired rate.  As the servo pot voltage indicated approach to the final position, the RCS thrusters on the opposing side would begin pulsing as the final position was approached until rotation was stopped.

What makes it look so rock solid is that all servo systems, even modern ones in robotic arms for example, have to be tuned for minimal undershoot, overshoot and drift.  There is always a bit of settling time, like a small ring on the edge of a square wave, and this must be damped and well controlled, using analog filters back then, and DSP techniques today.  The RCS managed the required precision and damping, as commanded by the analog "computer", by pulsing opposing thrusters at varying time and pulse widths to achieve very minute and precise position control.  When it was all said and done, the spacecraft always remained locked to some commanded orientation as sensed by the fixed in space rotor of the gyro.

It really was a cool system and it really could "stop on a dime" just as seen in the video, and I have just scratched the surface as to how those gyros operated.  It happens in space today as well.  What good is any RCS if it cant control undershoot, overshoot, and drift, and "stop on a dime"?  And like I said, there are plenty of Earthbound systems performing similar feats of "magic" everyday.

PW

   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1579

The LEM's RCS used an analog system which was fed the voltage from the servo pot wiper on a given gyro axis.  If a 30 degree rotation meant rotating the spacecraft until the servo pot wiper now read 5 volts...

This is very interesting.

But you are replying to someone who belives the entire space program is faked on a Hollywood sound stage with green screens.
   
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-11-28, 09:54:24