|
Post by ajv on Jul 19, 2011 3:38:27 GMT -4
I'm afraid I haven't bothered following the details of Fattydash's argument but perhaps I can help out with Bob's query:
122:51:36 Evans: Roger. LM ascent Pad: TIG, 124:22:00.00; Noun 76, 55349, 00322, plus 0017; DEDA 47, plus 37104, minus 70470, plus 58604, plus 56936. [...] Bob B: Now I admit I don’t know what all that gibberish means without doing a bit more research
This is a LM Ascent PAD. The figures correspond to:
Ascent Time of Ignition: +124:22:00.00
Noun 76 Insertion Target - desired horizontal velocity (at insertion): +5534.9 ft/s - desired vertical velocity (at insertion): +32.2 ft/s - cross-range distance (at insertion): +1.7 nautical miles
The next four are AGS addresses:
DEDA 047 Sine of azimuth angle: +0.48645 *** INCORRECT - see below *** DEDA 053 Cosine of azimuth angle: -0.88452 *** INCORRECT - see below *** DEDA (225/226) "a" (semi-major axis?) at insertion (lower/upper) limit: +5860400 ft = 964.50 nautical mile (the surface checklist has a handwritten note "same" about the two addresses) DEDA 231 Radial distance of launch site: +5693600 ft = 937.05 nautical mile
Did Fattydash work out the LM position from that?
Edited to mark the azimuth angle values as incorrect.
|
|
|
Post by capricorn1 on Jul 19, 2011 5:34:10 GMT -4
I'm afraid I haven't bothered following the details of Fattydash's argument but perhaps I can help out with Bob's query: 122:51:36 Evans: Roger. LM ascent Pad: TIG, 124:22:00.00; Noun 76, 55349, 00322, plus 0017; DEDA 47, plus 37104, minus 70470, plus 58604, plus 56936. [...] Bob B: Now I admit I don’t know what all that gibberish means without doing a bit more researchThis is a LM Ascent PAD. The figures correspond to: Ascent Time of Ignition: +124:22:00.00Noun 76 Insertion Target - desired horizontal velocity (at insertion): +5534.9 ft/s - desired vertical velocity (at insertion): +32.2 ft/s - cross-range distance (at insertion): +1.7 nautical miles The next four are AGS addresses: DEDA 047 Sine of azimuth angle: +0.48645DEDA 053 Cosine of azimuth angle: -0.88452DEDA (225/226) "a" (semi-major axis?) at insertion (lower/upper) limit: +5860400 ft = 964.50 nautical mile (the surface checklist has a handwritten note "same" about the two addresses) DEDA 231 Radial distance of launch site: +5693600 ft = 937.05 nautical mile Did Fattydash work out the LM position from that? Yes he did. He used 55349, 00322, plus 0017. This is what he wrote............. As per my previous post, 76 above refers to location. The Latitude is .55349 PLUS the cross range of .17 gives .72349 degrees north and we convert to the more familiar N 00 43 24. Again, as above, we find ourselves very close to the planned north latitude of N 00 43 56. As a matter of fact, we are only 32 seconds of arc away. That amounts to roughly 660 feet. Pretty good I would say, were it true. Remember US Geological Survey is looking for Armstrong. For the east coordinate we have 3.22, but this is a longitude so we double it and get, 6.44 degrees. We then add to that our cross range of 17 for a total of 23.44. We then write this coordinate of Armstrong's in the more familiar E 23 26 24. So why does he think NOUN 76 refers to location?
|
|
|
Post by capricorn1 on Jul 19, 2011 6:15:01 GMT -4
So why does he think NOUN 76 refers to location? Ok, this theory is officially busted. Apollo 12........... Intrepid landed in the Ocean of Storms at 03 11 51S and 23 23 07WApollo 12 on the surface gave this readout to CAPCOM....... Noun 76, 5535.0, 0037.0, plus 000.2In Apollo 11, they quoted the 2 figures as 5 digits. In Apollo 12, they quoted 4 and one decimal. Using FD's methodolgy....................... 55350 then becomes 55550 (adding the plus 000.2 figure)....... Becomes 00 33 20N (or S with minus). Moving the decimal one place makes no difference. Next "coordinate". 0037.0 then becomes 0074.0 (ie. doubling it) then it becomes 7.40 ............ Becomes 07 24 00E (or West with minus).Moving the decimal one place ......just gives 74 degrees or 0.7 degrees. NOUN 76 is nothing to do with the position readouts - certainly not on Apollo 12.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 19, 2011 8:20:21 GMT -4
I'm afraid I haven't bothered following the details of Fattydash's argument but perhaps I can help out with Bob's query: 122:51:36 Evans: Roger. LM ascent Pad: TIG, 124:22:00.00; Noun 76, 55349, 00322, plus 0017; DEDA 47, plus 37104, minus 70470, plus 58604, plus 56936. [...] Bob B: Now I admit I don’t know what all that gibberish means without doing a bit more researchThis is a LM Ascent PAD. The figures correspond to: Ascent Time of Ignition: +124:22:00.00Noun 76 Insertion Target - desired horizontal velocity (at insertion): +5534.9 ft/s - desired vertical velocity (at insertion): +32.2 ft/s - cross-range distance (at insertion): +1.7 nautical miles The next four are AGS addresses: DEDA 047 Sine of azimuth angle: +0.48645DEDA 053 Cosine of azimuth angle: -0.88452DEDA (225/226) "a" (semi-major axis?) at insertion (lower/upper) limit: +5860400 ft = 964.50 nautical mile (the surface checklist has a handwritten note "same" about the two addresses) DEDA 231 Radial distance of launch site: +5693600 ft = 937.05 nautical mile Wow, that's great, ajv. Thanks. So it's now official, Fattydash didn't know what he was talking about. (EDIT) Question, How do you get DEDA 047 Sine of azimuth angle: +0.48645DEDA 053 Cosine of azimuth angle: -0.88452from DEDA 47, plus 37104, minus 70470 ?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 19, 2011 9:26:15 GMT -4
NOUN 76 is nothing to do with the position readouts - certainly not on Apollo 12. Also note that in my LM ascent simulation (Apollo 17), the horizontal and vertical velocities at orbit insertion are 5534.5 ft/s and 33.9 ft/s respectively. These numbers compare very favorably with 5534.9 & 32.2 for Apollo 11 and 5535.0 & 37.0 for Apollo 12. This is pretty solid confirmation that the numbers are velocities and not positions.
|
|
|
Post by ajv on Jul 19, 2011 17:02:51 GMT -4
Question, How do you get DEDA 047 Sine of azimuth angle: +0.48645DEDA 053 Cosine of azimuth angle: -0.88452from DEDA 47, plus 37104, minus 70470 ? Mea culpa. The trig values are rubbish. The PAD values are signed octal representing a fraction. However, I have misconverted them because there is a 1 bit scaling factor for those trig values in the AGS and a 2's complement conversion which I didn't take into account. +371048 = + 011 111 001 000 1002
This is actually a fraction but also shift 1 bit +0 . 11 111 001 000 1002 Then convert to decimal +0.97290010 The second value is negative so we have to handle the 2's complement conversion too -704708 = - 111 000 100 111 0002
2's complement because of the negative - 000 111 011 001 0002 Shift by 1 bit - 0 . 00 111 011 001 0002 Then convert to decimal -0.23095710 This conversion is based on Section 6.1 and Table 6-2 of the LM/AGS Operating Manual - Flight Program 6. DEDA 047 Sine of azimuth angle: +371048 = +0.972900 DEDA 053 Cosine of azimuth angle: -704708 = -0.230957
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 19, 2011 17:28:05 GMT -4
You're also apparently denying the Genesis and Stardust missons by NASA - which went far beyond the Moon and returned to Earth - as well as the Japanese Haybusa. And just to add a few more: STEREO-A and -B are in separate solar orbits after a complicated (and IMHO rather impressive) application of orbital mechanics involving the moon. They were launched together and then maneuvered into very slightly different trajectories toward the moon. When they separately encountered the moon, each was flung completely out of the earth-moon system in a separate direction: one in the direction of the earth's travel around the sun and one against that direction. NASA (and the Japanese, Indians, Russians and Europeans) most definitely do know how to navigate cislunar space.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jul 19, 2011 17:39:47 GMT -4
And just to add a few more: STEREO-A and -B are in separate solar orbits after a complicated (and IMHO rather impressive) application of orbital mechanics involving the moon. It's all explained at this link here, along with some QuickTime movies. stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov/orbit.shtml
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 19, 2011 17:57:04 GMT -4
And just to add a few more: STEREO-A and -B are in separate solar orbits after a complicated (and IMHO rather impressive) application of orbital mechanics involving the moon. It's all explained at this link here, along with some QuickTime movies. stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov/orbit.shtmlThat's pretty cool how B used a second encounter with the Moon to get it up to escape velocity.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 19, 2011 18:10:22 GMT -4
Just in case anyone is still interested, page 5-15 of the Apollo 11 mission report gives no less than eight estimates of the lunar landing position, each determined at a different time and by a different method. The sources were:
the primary onboard guidance system (0.649N 23.46E lunar radius 937.17 mi);
the abort (backup) onboard guidance system (0.639N 23.44E 937.56 mi);
the powered flight processor (0.631N 23.47E 936.74 mi);
the alignment optical telescope, i.e., star sightings by the crew (0.523N 23.42E);
the rendezvous radar tracking the CSM in its known orbit (0.636N 23.50E 937.13 mi);
reconstructed accelerometer readings, presumably doing what the guidance system does but with more accurate information (0.647N 23.505E 937.14 mi);
the originally targeted landing point (0.691N 23.72E 937.05 mi);
and finally the definitive position based on surface photography (0.647N 23.505E).
And making things even more complicated, it had been noted during Apollo 10 that their map coordinate system was slightly in error: +2 min 25 sec in latitude and -4 deg 17 sec in longitude.
Given all these uncertainties I think it would have been much more suspicious if Lick had acquired the LRRR that very first night!
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 19, 2011 18:57:21 GMT -4
Even though Fattydash didn't learn anything and ended up getting banned, this was a good thread. I learned a lot.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 19, 2011 18:59:08 GMT -4
That's pretty cool how B used a second encounter with the Moon to get it up to escape velocity. Yes. I think these games of interplanetary billiards are practically jaw-dropping. And now it's almost routine.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 19, 2011 19:09:56 GMT -4
DEDA 047 Sine of azimuth angle: +371048 = +0.972900 DEDA 053 Cosine of azimuth angle: -704708 = -0.230957 And I note that summing the squares of these numbers gives 0.9998755, acceptably close to 1. These numbers correspond to an angle of 103.369 deg. We know they launched Eagle almost due west, so they must use a different convention for launch azimuth than we use on earth (measured clockwise from north, looking down at the launch site). I forget, what was the inclination of Columbia's lunar orbit?
|
|
vigilantnight
Mercury
BANNED (sock puppet of "fattydash")
Posts: 1
|
Post by vigilantnight on Jul 19, 2011 22:45:02 GMT -4
At the risk of starting WWIII, or worse yet, getting banned ourselves, my wife Lucinda and I would like to offer the following.
For the last week and a half, we giggled ourselves to sleep reading fatty's ridiculous tirades. Neither of us know anything at all about science, so please doin't ban us or worse yet, ask us to defend this thread. But my wife did point something out to me that made a great deal of sense. She said, "Bob, the fact that all these people are finding evidence of NASA's dealing with very specific precise coordinates, while at the same time, there is this documentation of the people in Houston not being able to find the astronauts as fatty argues in his quoting the astronaut Michael Collins in Collins' own book, in his quoting the author Chaikin and so forth and so on back in post #125, well that proves fatty's point. See Bob! They pretended the astronauts were lost and the whole time they had the numbers". Then my wife said even though she at first thought the fatty guy a nut, now she believes he may be some sort of weird genious. I think that is riculous of course, but she's entitled.
Lucinda then went on to argue that there was nothing to suggest any of those opposing fatty in the debate had read his references. I really couldn't argue with that either. For the sake of getting one last good giggle out of this, she suggested we post here the text from the article from the University of California and also the text from the magazine Science . In the UC article the laser targeter does confirm they got the exact coordinates on 07/20/69. He says that the delay in finding the reflector had to do with software, and the last point seems confirmed in the Science article by the scientists working on the project. At least best a couple giggling nuts can tell.
So here goes Lucinda, take cover, incoming!
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 19, 2011 22:50:50 GMT -4
|
|