|
Post by Data Cable on Aug 21, 2008 1:47:48 GMT -4
Wow, another thread that leaps to multiple pages while I'm away for a single shift. Plug doors are safer, to be sure. Unless, of course, you need to, say, pull it open in a hurry against the excessive pressure produced by a cabin fire. The LLTV was powered by a downward facing jet engine. Just to clear up the conflicting answers (lest Mr. Lear hold them against us) the LLxV's used jet engines to produce thrust equal to 5/6 of the vehicle's weight, thus "simulating" a 1/6G landing environment. The actual maneuvering was handled by rockets. Ah. So then he meant the CM simulator wasn't going to the moon in 2 years; it wasn't even going to the moon in 10 years. Pleace cite your source for Grissom stating that anything wasn't going to the moon in 2 or 10 years.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Aug 21, 2008 2:23:48 GMT -4
Johnlear said:
G'day John, and welcome to Apollohoax.
If that statement was true, the Moon's atmosphere would be visible from here on Earth. It would affect the appearance of stars from behind the Moon.
What's your evidence for the Moon having an atmosphere?
Edit to add: I see Grashtel beat me to it.
|
|
|
Post by cos on Aug 21, 2008 7:55:55 GMT -4
Can I just say, so what if Grissom said what is alleged (but a source would be nice). I have worked on many software and engineering projects and felt exasperated at some point. On my first technical lead I even said that the deadlines were not achievable but I was wrong. Experience has taught me that once you get organised, nail the requirements down and all head in the right direction, things that a month ago seemed impossible can start to come together quickly. Grissom wasn't responsible for delivering the systems but he was at the apex of the results and would have experienced numerous problems. A throwaway remark born out of understandable frustration proves absolutely nothing. Been there, done that.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Aug 21, 2008 8:13:02 GMT -4
I am curious as to what the effects would be according to Pari Spolter. That is what should we be seeing now. That is, where would the mars orbiter really be according the the aforementioned person? To be honest a lot of it is above my head (the maths side of it) but not the meaning. I think. And no, not about to buy the book.
Should we not be able to observe the effects down here and verify them without the use of satellites and moons, even down in the murky world of the atom?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Aug 21, 2008 8:45:35 GMT -4
Gus hung a lemon over 204 and stated: "This thing ain't going to the moon in 2 years; this thing ain't going to the moon in 10 years." "Man will not fly for 50 years" - Wilbur Wright to his brother Orville, 1901.So, John, do you believe the airplane was a hoax as well just because Wilbur made this statement during a moment of frustration?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 21, 2008 9:00:29 GMT -4
Can I just say, so what if Grissom said what is alleged (but a source would be nice).
The sentiment is Grissomesque enough; Gus was fairly uncompromising when it came to the quality of the engineering he was being asked to fly. However, the wording attributed here to him is stronger than is normal for him and thus raises eyebrows. And it seems as if John wishes to apply its sentiment in every instance that touches Grissom or Apollo.
A throwaway remark born out of understandable frustration proves absolutely nothing.
Hence we must know where and when he said it, if indeed he did, so that we can inform our own judgment whether it may have been a carefully considered remark or a brief outburst of frustration.
|
|
|
Post by dmundt on Aug 21, 2008 9:01:48 GMT -4
The surface of the moon appears to have a remarkable lack of weathering, as it appears in my telescope. Mars has less atmosphere than the moon, according to you, John. Yet Mars exhibits quite a bit of weathering. Or have all the probes to Mars been faked, too? I guess they would have to be faked, as we have no way of figuring out how to plot a proper trajectory to get them to Mars -- what with our limited understanding of how gravity works.
I am not attempting to sound rude, but these ideas don't stand up to the least bit of analysis.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 21, 2008 9:47:33 GMT -4
I am not attempting to sound rude, but these ideas don't stand up to the least bit of analysis.
Nor will I be rude, but I will be insistent.
The navigation and operation of geostationary satellites is a multibillion-dollar global private industry. It has nothing to do with government coverups or mainstream scientists protecting a hegemony. It's just people trying to do business with other people.
To plop such a spacecraft into its assigned orbital station requires the computation of orbital transfers in several steps, all of which must consider the strength of the Moon's gravity as a perturbing factor. If the value of this perturbing factor is really 0.64 G when it is being used in computation as only 0.16 G, there will be a notable and disastrous error in the maneuver. There will be a loss of mission, and insurance money changes hands.
Insurance people are very reluctant to pay $200 million indemnity without an investigation into why such a thing occurred. The notion that the strength of the Moon's gravity can have been computed wrong all these years is simply as laughable as it can possibly be.
While Bob B. may have an interest in how Spolter arrived at such a wrong conclusion, I do not. Spolter's conclusion is observed to be wrong. Trying to distract to the argument she presents in favor of it does no good.
There is no point to considering further any argument that relies upon the Moon's gravity "really" being 64% of Earth's.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Aug 21, 2008 10:12:33 GMT -4
To plop such a spacecraft into its assigned orbital station requires the computation of orbital transfers in several steps, all of which must consider the strength of the Moon's gravity as a perturbing factor. If the value of this perturbing factor is really 0.64 G when it is being used in computation as only 0.16 G, there will be a notable and disastrous error in the maneuver. There will be a loss of mission, and insurance money changes hands. Luni-solar perturbations to satellite orbits were studied by Desmond King-Hele and others at the Royal Aircraft Establishment in the 1970s. This enabled them to predict orbital lifetimes for satellites in highly elliptical orbits. If you get the prediction wrong, the orbit is perturbed to rapidly lower its perigee into the atmosphere, bringing the mission to a premature close. This is a major factor in mission planning, and using the accepted value for the moon's gravity has delivered the right answers for decades.
|
|
|
Post by dmundt on Aug 21, 2008 10:28:59 GMT -4
John, I think our goal here is to convince you that Spolter is wrong. Here is my attempt: Here is the story of Asiasat 3: From NASA: Asiasat 3 was a communications satellite, launched by the Russians for Asia Satellite Telecommunications Company, that ended up in an incorrect orbit after a failure of the Blok DM3 upper stage. Because of the improper second firing of the Blok DM3, the satellite ended up in a useless 203 x 36,000- kilometer orbit and was written off as a loss by Asiasat. Insurance underwriters subsequently signed an agreement with Hughes Global Systems (who also built the satellite) to salvage the vehicle and bring it to its originally intended geostationary orbit by using as little propellant as possible.
Using eleven carefully planned burns beginning 12 April 1998, controllers raised the orbit's apogee to 321,000 kilometers. Then, with the twelfth firing on 7 May 1998, the spacecraft was sent on a nine-day round trip around the Moon, approaching as close as 6,200 kilometers to its surface on 13 May. Using this gravity assist, Asiasat 3 hurtled back into a usable orbit. By 16 May 1998, perigee had been raised to 42,000 kilometers and inclination reduced from 51� to 18�.
A second circumlunar mission began on 1 June and culminated in a 34,300-kilometer flyby of the Moon. After four more engine firings, the satellite was finally in a 24-hour orbit by 17 June 1998, above 153�. The satellite, now owned by Hughes, has been renamed HGS 1. solarsystem.nasa.gov/missions/profile.cfm?Sort=Alpha&Alias=Asiasat%203%2FHGS%201&Letter=A&Display=ReadMoreHere is the order from the FCC authorizing the transfer of Asiasat 3/HGS-1 to PanAmSat for commercial operation (as PAS 22) : www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/International/Orders/1999/da992220.txtIf our understanding of gravity is not correct, none of the above could have happened. Do you think this was a hoax?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Aug 21, 2008 10:50:19 GMT -4
While Bob B. may have an interest in how Spolter arrived at such a wrong conclusion... I am finding her technobabble to be somewhat amusing. It seems that she may have simply taken some centuries old formulae, rearranged them in slight-of-hand fashion, and then redefined force and energy to have newly invented units of measure. Interestingly, the 0.64 g surface gravity of the Moon is the same thing that Newton's law of universal gravitation predicts when one uses the same mistaken assumptions as Spolter. Spolter hasn't provided anything new, she's just using bad numbers. As we know, Kepler's third law expresses the relationship between period and distance for all bodies orbiting the same primary. For instance, if you know the period and semimajor axis of one planet orbiting a star, we can predict the period of all other planets if their semimajor axes are know (or the semimajor axes if the periods are know). If, however, there are no existing planets to observe, we cannot determine from Kepler what the period of a planet would be if we were to place one there. Kepler's law requires that there already be something in orbit that we can observe and measure. I'm curious about Spolter methodology for determining the period of a satellite around a planet with no existing satellites, assuming we know something about the planet itself. John, are you familiar enough with Spolter's method to answer the following question? We have a planet with a radius of 5,000 km. We directly measure the acceleration of a falling body at the planet's surface to be 7 m/s 2. A satellite is in orbit around the planet at a distance (semimajor axis) of 100,000 km. What is the orbital period of the satellite? I'd really like to see the solution to this.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Aug 21, 2008 11:04:25 GMT -4
John, I think our goal here is to convince you that Spolter is wrong. From what I can tell, Spolter's calculation that the Moon's surface gravity is 0.64 Earth stems from the fact she's using bad data to start with. Newton's laws produce the same result if we start with the same bad data. In fact, I think Spolter may actually be using Newton's universal gravitation and doesn't even know it. She's just bastardized it so bad that she thinks she's discovered something new. At least that's my current working hypothesis.
|
|
|
Post by AstroSmurf on Aug 21, 2008 11:24:25 GMT -4
And unsurprisingly, the LM would not be able to reach orbit if the Moon had 64% of Earth's surface gravity. Indeed, it wouldn't have been able to lift off in the first place, as the fully-fueled ascent stage only manages about 1/3 G.
Good thing those physicists got it right then...
|
|
|
Post by johnlear on Aug 21, 2008 11:33:22 GMT -4
There is no de facto "neutral point." The transfer orbit was a patched conic derivative which did not rely upon that formulation. ...leading to concepts which have easy algebraic formulations, but no relevance to any real-world operations. Frame captures are here on my site: www.clavius.org/gravleap.htmlBut your evidence is only hearsay that NASA characterized the location of those coordinates. Just because Bill Kaysing says NASA has said something doesn't necessarily mean that NASA really said it. There is no aerosol behavior in the entrainment regime. Explain the linear striations in AS11-40-5918, -5920, and -5921. Explain the discoloration in AS11-40-5921. First, the rocket engines on the LLRV and LLTV were hydrogen peroxide monopropellant engines, not hypergolic bipropellant engines.... (blah, blah, blah) Where is the evidence that Thomas Baron was murdered? Name the fourth astronaut who died in the Apollo 1 fire. Above I computed the acceleration load as increasing from 0.17 G and having a theoretical maximum of 0.68 G. Please either show how this computation is in error, or explain why two-thirds normal Earth gravity would be considered taxing. JayUtah, first let me say how much I appreciate your participation in this thread. Your knowledge is far beyond what I could ever hope to learn. And your attention to specifics is without equal. I am hereby awarding you the John Lear Millennium Award for ApolloHoax Debunking with Oak Leaf Cluster. I can frankly say that I never hought I would see the equal to Jim Oberg in obfusctory prose but you, my friend, have ten times the ability that Oberg only dreamed of. That said, nothing you have cited or attempted to obscure or avoided completely fails to change my opinion one whit that Apollo was the greatest hoax, the most complex illusion and the best magic act in the history of mankind. Your attempt to dismiss the 'Neutral point' with sentences such as, "The transfer orbit was a patched conic derivative which did not rely upon that formulation," might impress your fellow debunkees but Jay, a neutral point between planets is a neutral point. And the inverse square law remains the inverse square law. No tap dance, no ballet plies, glissades or pirouettes, no fancy hippity-hops, ducks and dodges or dipsy doodles can change that. Your photos under the rocket are without any kind of evidence of the thrust needed to land the Lunar Lander either in linear striations or discolorations. Your obfuscatory attempt to explain the lack of dust on the lander pads, "there is no aerosol behavior in the entrainment regime" did make me smile though. Your 582 word, 12 paragraph rebuttal to my statement about Neil's practice lander, which I had already conceded I was in error, while thorough, was unnecessary. Your almost invisible 'Astronaut Leap to Third Step' has to be the most unconvincing example of one sixth gravity I have ever looked at. Your continued reference to Bill Kaysing as my sole source of material is without foundation. I have an extensive library of Apollo and Lunar Lander books. And it is from these books that I cite stories of Thomas Baron, Gus Grissom and others. Also I am afraid your computations of the acceleration on takeoff were using one sixth gravity. The gravity on the moon is at least 64% that of earth. But either way I would still be looking for a chair after 3 hours and 40 minutes. Again JayUtah, whoever you may be or represent, my heartiest congratulations to you as the First Recipient of the John Lear Millennium Award for ApolloHoax Debunking With Oak Leaf cluster.
|
|
|
Post by johnlear on Aug 21, 2008 11:39:31 GMT -4
Here is a photo of the moon taken by Mike Deegan at Mike's Astroimaging www.freewebs.com/mikesastroimaging/ last year. In the photo below, almost at the western limb about 9:30 you can see a blue glow which is Aristarchus: Below, is an enlargement of Aristarchus: Below, another enlargement. Aristarchus is approximately 26 miles in diameter. Below, another enlargement rotated 90 degrees counter clockwise. Below is an extreme closeup of Aristarchus rotated approximately 110 degrees counter-clockwise from the original photo. You can see what appears to be a raised hexagonal shape with what appears to be large arches the most obvious of which is at the 6 o'clock position. One nuclear physicist on viewing the photo told us that the blue glow was similar to the Čerenkov radiation.
|
|