forthethrillofitall, I repeat that Eagle was never lost in any fundamental sense of the word. The location was always known by multiple means to be within a few nautical miles of the target point. [fattydash/Patrick1000/DoctorTea/etc. initially denied that multiple means existed, then changed his story without acknowledging his error after others pointed this out.]
More importantly, the Apollo 11 mission had one primary objective - to "perform a manned lunar landing and return" - and the LM was always able to perform the necessary liftoff and rendezvous with Columbia.
fattydash/Patrick1000/DoctorTea/etc. simply does not know what he is talking about. Nor does he have any interest in learning, since he refuses to accept correction from people who do understand the subject. His grasp of the underlying concepts is nil, and he has repeatedly lied about both his claims and himself. Moreover, by his own standard - "inconsistent, and therefore untrue" - he must be wrong, since he has changed his story so many times. He has also contradicted himself numerous other times without even realizing it, out of both ignorance and his modus operandi of simply making things up while changing the subject to avoid correction.
I find it puzzling you would choose to endorse such an inept and dishonest troll - especially a coward who shovels out childish insults and brags about how he'd take apart this or that Apollo hero in a one-on-one debate, then runs away when presented with the opportunity. Of course, that is your choice, but repeating his error-filled, inconsistent fantasies doesn't make them any more correct, or even remotely plausible.
I assumed 19 miles per degree as a rough approximation just to give me a genereal sense for how close the 2 sets of coordinates were.
Error analysis, please? Oh, that's right -- you don't know how to do any of those.
That is not lost.
"Lost" is your word, whether posting as Fattydash or as whatever you're calling yourself now. "Found" is another. You use these as black-and-white concepts, which you define conveniently and variously to fall on the wrong side of whatever question you need to come out wrong from time to time. It's nothing more than a word game.
There are two stories. One story with the eagle lost and one story with the eagle found.
No, just one equivocation. You refuse to see this problem the way the people did who operated this system. They're thinking in continuous terms of precisions, error analysis, and tolerances for various different applications, while you're trying to make everything fit two simultaneously indistinct and rigid categories.
This is what one would expect with a hoax...
Where did you learn to fake Moon landing missions? Is there a school for that somewhere? If not, why should your expectations be the gold standard?
I have concluded from running these and other numbers for myself that this OP is on to something.
How cute of you to pretend there was any sort of rigor associated with your wild handwaving claims. "Me and my girlfriends know all about science, even though we aren't actual scientists." Really, Patrick? Have we stooped to blatant equivocation now?
Post by LunarOrbit on Feb 14, 2012 21:34:17 GMT -4
I think I've let the charade go on long enough (and I suspect many people would say it was too long).
"Forthethrillofital", you aren't fooling anyone. We know you're just another sockpuppet of Fattydash (the man with a million names). I've allowed you to post here despite it being against the rules to rejoin the forum after being banned. But since you aren't going to provide anything new I don't see the point in allowing you to continue posting.
Last Edit: Feb 14, 2012 21:35:04 GMT -4 by LunarOrbit
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 15, 2012 17:24:52 GMT -4
I could give him some things to do. What with working a full time job (till the end of next month ), writing a novel, learning PHP and Python, learning to use Blender and Maya, redesigning my Apollo site, job hunting, and house work, I hardly have time to fit in my gaming.
It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
"On two occasions, I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
I stay in this hoax "debate" only because I learn so much (and meet some pretty knowledgeable people) while debunking the hoax arguments. I certainly know I'll never change any hoaxers' minds with logic and facts because they didn't arrive at their original positions through logic and facts. That's what I least understand about hoaxers; like most people I really enjoy learning, but they seem to learn little or nothing -- so what's their point?
So, in that theme of turning lemons into lemonade, I'm getting curious about the error sources in the early estimates of Eagle's landed position. I suppose I should comb through the mission report for these, but if Jay or Bob B. (or anyone else) have any insights or pointers to specific discussions they'd be appreciated.
As I understand it, the initial sources of location information were these:
The two onboard guidance systems' (PGNS and AGS) open-loop estimates, produced by their normal state vector integration routines (updated every 2 seconds on the PGNS?). During powered flight, they would include accelerometer readings. (I'm not sure but I think the PGNS uses the accelerometers on the IMU platform while the AGS reads body accelerometers and converts them to inertial space by reference to the backup, strap-down gyros.)
Here the potential error sources are many: in the last uplinked orbital state vector; in the moon's gravity model; in determining inertial attitude; in the accelerometers. All accumulate over time. Eagle was the first LM to fly below 50,000' so it would have been especially sensitive to errors in the local gravity field.
MSFN (ground) Doppler tracking (and ranging, I assume) during the landing. How can this work accurately during powered flight given the extra unknowns of engine thrust and direction that have to be solved for, not just the six state vector values?
Rendezvous radar tracking of the CSM by the LM relative to the ground estimates of the CSM state vector. This was probably the most accurate method, but when was it done? I know the rendezvous radar was in standby during the landing since it was the indirect cause of the computer alarms, so this would not have provided a landed position until it was turned on during a later CSM pass.
Crew descriptions of surface landmarks during the landing and after, especially Neil's call that they would be landing long plus his description of what turned out to be West Crater. The problem here was that the terrain was so nondescript.
TV images during the EVA, though again there probably weren't any usable landmarks.
I suppose that a truly definitive position wasn't available until after the crew returned with their films and after the LRRR had been acquired by ground telescopes.
Edit: Another possible way to determine landed position was by star sightings and the local gravity vector, but I doubt that was very accurate.
Sigh. There was an unforseen advantage in keeping the Master of Socks here. The faux-naif voice he was putting on while last here didn't allow him to spout the same arrogant, insulting, walls of text. But now that he no longer has to pretend to be Mary, Queen of Socks, he is free to go back to his bad old ways.