|
Typo
Jun 22, 2009 9:51:03 GMT -4
Post by graham2001 on Jun 22, 2009 9:51:03 GMT -4
www.clavius.org/bibcoke.htmlemphasize the Western Australian's should be: emphasize the West Australian's Similarly copies of The Western Australian dating should be: The West Australian dating See the newspapers website The West Australian
|
|
|
Post by graham2001 on May 7, 2009 10:40:20 GMT -4
Thanks Laurel for posting this one here, I'd totally missed this thread. The song is one of my favorites too I'm not so fussed about the mixing of the footage, the video is after all a tribute to the entire program and at least he put the footage in the right order. Anyone got any idea just which mission footage/photographs were used? The only ones that came to my head right away is the LM launch from Apollo 17, the shot of Armstrong et al in their quarantine box, the jump salute from Apollo 16 and possibly some of the unscheduled footage from Apollo 11.
|
|
|
Post by graham2001 on May 6, 2009 21:07:18 GMT -4
I was watching an Apollo 'Fanvid' on YouTube and suddenly realized that there is evidence against one of the more annoying HB claims, the one which said that the lunar footage was shot at half-speed to fake low-g, contained in it.
At one point in the video (which I've linked to below) you see sped up footage of astronauts on the lunar surface. Just check out the segment that runs from 03:11 to 03:26.
|
|
|
Post by graham2001 on Apr 10, 2009 19:59:03 GMT -4
And not even a very good fake. Shortly after the first 'staging' footage is a scene that purports to have been taken from inside the interstage between the S-Ic & S-II, NASA never placed cameras in that location.
|
|
|
Post by graham2001 on Apr 10, 2009 8:50:27 GMT -4
Someone on Youtube has put together a synopsis of the 'Apollo 20' footage here. There is some in-flight footage that I'd like someone to confirm. There is interstage separation between an S-Ic & SII that looks nothing like the Apollo 6 footage. Any idea which mission it came from? Also amongst the comments is the following: Anyone heard of this guy?
|
|
|
Post by graham2001 on Dec 18, 2008 12:24:31 GMT -4
Thought I'd just post an update on my attempts to simulate the mission. Somewhere I got something wrong and ended up doing a flypast of the lunar surface. It's back to the drawing board for this would be lunar explorer. Interestingly enough using the Orbiter flight simulator to run a mission based on NASA's own simulation results (In this case for an Apollo 11 mission targeted for Sinus Medii.) everything went remarkably smoothly. If anyone can point me to a listing of lunar launch opportunities for 1976 I would be very happy.
|
|
|
Post by graham2001 on Oct 9, 2008 8:59:23 GMT -4
The radiation argument doesn't make sense because why would NASA try to lie about something that is out of their control? They can't deny that the radiation exists and they can't stop other countries from studying it and discovering the lie. If NASA lied about the radiation then it would only be a matter or time before someone realized it... so why would NASA fake the moon landings if there was something that could so easily give it away? And then of course there are later lunar flybys such as AsiaSat 3. This was communications satellite placed into the wrong orbit by a malfunctioning launch vehicle. ( AsiaSat3 at NASA) To salvage the satellite the manufacturers used an Apollo derived trajectory to loop the spacecraft around the moon twice so that it could be inserted into the correct geostationary orbit. If NASA had been lying about the radiation levels or for that matter the Apollo flights then the technique would not have worked.
|
|
|
Post by graham2001 on Oct 3, 2008 12:22:26 GMT -4
It turns out that there is a launch window opening up around 22:20 on the 16th of August 1976 (Universal Time) eg the 17th of August (PST). Tha's some interesting software if it has the Earth rotating east-to-west. ;D 22:20 16 Aug 76 UT is 15:20 16 Aug 76 PDT. California is on Daylight Savings Time in August. The time would be 14:20 if it was PST. Apologies, I may have used the wrong settings with my time conversion software.
|
|
|
Post by graham2001 on Oct 3, 2008 12:20:27 GMT -4
The above launch time may or may be viable, I have not been able to get the Earth-Moon flight time below 128hrs which is about 5 days to the moon on a mission length of no more than 12-14 days.
Still have not reached the Moon yet.
Even in a computer sim with time compression these things take time.
|
|
|
Post by graham2001 on Oct 1, 2008 20:01:56 GMT -4
I've been using the Orbiter spaceflight simulator to see if it was possible to launch towards to moon on the 16th of August 1976.
It turns out that there is a launch window opening up around 22:20 on the 16th of August 1976 (Universal Time) eg the 17th of August (PST).
However it appears to push available fuel to the limits (at least on the S-IVb).
When/if I reach the moon I'll be able to see just how visible the landing site was.
|
|
|
Post by graham2001 on Aug 21, 2008 20:31:29 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by graham2001 on Jul 7, 2008 11:24:43 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by graham2001 on May 29, 2008 13:09:09 GMT -4
Apollo was only scheduled up through 20 anyway. That means 1973 or 1974 at the latest. But the Apollo-type command module wasn't originally intended to go away entirely. Although the method used for the two Blocks of CSM was intended to get it to production quickly, there were plans for follow-on missions and mission types that would have used the CSM. Skylab was one; and in fact the Orion's first job will also be as an ISS personnel ferry. The Skylab CSMs were built slightly differently to accommodate their missions. Had the space shuttle not been funded, I'm certain a Block III CSM, redesigned for partial reuse, would have been attractive. North American looked at the concept before the launch of the first Apollo spacecraft. They examined one of the early Apollo test CMs (Spacecraft 011) to see just what damage the re-entry/water landing would cause and considered a renovation technically feasible. This 1966 report(27mb), gives some idea what they were planning to do. CMs would either be refurbished so they could be used again or converted into orbital laboratories. It's not clear just how many times they thought a CM could be refurbished, but I'm guessing it would have been no more than once per CM after the first flight.
|
|
|
Post by graham2001 on Oct 9, 2005 11:57:03 GMT -4
While not a response directly to either of the points above, it is interesting to note that in the latest (Aug 2005) issue of Fortean Times, the regular conspiracy 'spot' did a report on the 9/11 conspiracy movement and noted that those behind it appear to have paid no attention to the fact that refutations have been presented to all their major claims.
Rather they just keep trotting them out and ignore the counter-arguements, something the internet makes very easy to do.
Much like the Moon Hoax crowd really...
|
|
|
Post by graham2001 on Dec 23, 2007 19:25:06 GMT -4
Thanks!
|
|