|
Post by scooter on Jul 16, 2011 12:36:27 GMT -4
Maybe (assumed) credibility by (supposed) association?
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 16, 2011 12:33:52 GMT -4
What's with the finger in the ear thing??? Gads! Sometimes I wish they'd never invented internet cameras, what a waste of bandwidth this is.
Going to Jarrah for "review"...blind leading the blind. I just wish this kid would open a physics book. Thankfully for the future, there are those who do...
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 15, 2011 11:12:44 GMT -4
For people who don't feel like sitting through a YouTube video or aren't able to watch YouTube from their current computers, could you sum up your argument, please? I covered 13 minutes of that jump. Basically lunar gravity analysis. Lunar regolith analysis. Photographic anomalies. Jarrah White's helping me smooth out two errors I made. When I get the video re-uploaded with the files he sent me, it should add more content. Basically an analysis of the jump to see if it was fake. Which it was... Hey Vincent, How about you run this by your science teacher, call it a "vetting". Get their input. Lunar regolith...Hmmmm, curious as to which particle you chose to measure for trajectory and time aloft. Measuring an indistinct cloud on a lousy quality video is a rather inaccurate test to say the least. It was rather entertaining to see you jumping around in your foyer...hope the neighborhood kids weren't watching...
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 14, 2011 17:59:02 GMT -4
Utterly bizzare....so, did he bring up anything new? I got through a paragraph or so and gave up. I hope his horrifying use of lots of words isn't meant to somehow impress/intimidate...
I'll just watch for now.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 12, 2011 3:10:53 GMT -4
fatty Does Science magazine admit the landings are fake? Lick Observatory? Any of the sources you so ignorantly cherrypick from?
You haven't understood a single (carefully crafted) post here, your agenda has you completely blinded to actually understanding anything you're reading.
Never seen such a thing in my life...right up there with moonman...
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 11, 2011 21:16:44 GMT -4
From the A11 mission report...(lots of interesting info in there)
Postlanding Spacecraft Operations
"The (LM) IMU was aligned three times during this period using each of the three available lunar surface alignment options. The alignments were satisfactory..."
"During the lunar surface stay, several unsuccessful attempts were made by the CMP to locate the lunar module through the sextant using sighting coordinates transmitted from the ground. Estimates of the landing coordinates were obtained from the lunar module computer, the the lunar surface gravity alignment of the platform, and the limited interpretation of the geographic features during descent."
This is where we can see the LM getting it's bearings straight. pitch, yaw, roll, heading. It's not until the pre-ascent area when they can briefly turn on the rendezvous radar to get some distance/range rate data vs the CSM coming overhead....which is when it was needed before departing the surface.
Am I interpreting this right?
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 11, 2011 14:03:17 GMT -4
real nice find, zakalwe
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 11, 2011 13:51:10 GMT -4
fattydash, why haven't you gone to Lick to sort all this out. Surely they will agree with you and you can fill us in on their explanation of things. I'm sure thay have quite a bit of saved information from those days.
You haven't, and won't. Why not?
But t is rather fascinating to watch folks take your arguments apart....like watching a train wreck. Now, I have a small fraction of the knowledge base of a lot of folks here. Difference between you andI is that I can read and learn. I don't go through websites looking for a tidbit of data that seems to support something. I try to look at everything. Spaceflight is amazing stuff, and some of it is extremely counterintuitive. You need to speed up to slow down, you need to thrust up to go down...everything behaves strangely up there, and it's all completely understandable with great precision.
Orbital mechanics do not demand a precise location to get into a decent orbit for rendezvous. Efficiency wise, sure, it's great. But for the relatively small margin of error A-11 was dealing with, it wasn't a significant factor. Nothing some tweaking once on orbit couldn't fix. While Apollo 11's precise location wasn't known, they were close enough for the liftoff and initial orbit to be quite sufficient for rendezvous.
It's some rocket science, sure, but I'm living proof that a pretty average person can get a decent understanding of it. You just haven't tried. Take those hoax blinders off, it's fascinating stuff.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 11, 2011 9:19:33 GMT -4
Does anyone know the effective magnigication of the eyepiece which Mike Collins was using when searching the surface for Eagle?
For fattydash, The LM was not "lost". They knew they had landed a bit long, but were very close to their landing course, so there was no significant lateral deviation (inclination).
Once airborne, they could lock on and see what small corrections would be needed to adjust their trajectory once on orbit (they didn't suddenly meet up with the CSM upon reaching orbit, there was a bit of a "chase" before they got close). These adjustments would tweak their approach and closure on the CSM. Any inclination adjustments (very minor) would also be made once on orbit. These corrections would take care of any tiny errors in course that came from the uncertainty of the LM's exact surface location. So, once airborne, it became just another rendevous problem, like any other done in the space program. The relatively small uncertainty in the LMs surface location was not a real issue for the rendezvous to follow. They knew where each other were precisely at that point, and work out any small errors. Orbital mechanics...neat stuff.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 10, 2011 23:24:34 GMT -4
Well, you got ONE thing right.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 9, 2011 0:00:12 GMT -4
Appreciate the link, L.O....very nice.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 8, 2011 22:32:37 GMT -4
chrtz...thx for the comic relief. Thet was terrific.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 8, 2011 17:31:00 GMT -4
Fatty, you have no credible evidence at all that would indicate any astronaut is lying about flying to the Moon. Your impressions and "if I ran the zoo" nonsense is not evidence. No evidence of a hoax, no evidence of a national security operation.
Meanwhile, the scientific community worldwide has gleaned enormous amounts of data from the samples returned from the manned flight...something robotics simply could not accomplish.
Your feigned respect for Armstrong, et al, is getting old. Believe what you want...but the facts and evidence are very much against you.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 8, 2011 11:25:23 GMT -4
fattydash,
You live near the Lick Observatory. The do give public tours. Why not take a tour and ask some of these questions?
Being a doctor, you could probably arrange a get together with some of the scientists, where you could present your ideas and questions? You know, some one-on-one with those who do this stuff a lot.
Or will you be like all the other HBs and simply cherrypick the information you think supports your case and run away from/ignore any other, real, evidence?
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 8, 2011 1:22:51 GMT -4
It's late evening here in the Rockies, and I've turned on NASA TV to watch/sleep through the last shuttle countdown...if the weather cooperates. We've seen how the launch team can react almost instantaneously to sudden "go" conditions, so they might get her off in the morning. The RSS is retracted, and she stands bathed in the spotlights...one last time. Cliches abound, again.
Whenever she launches, this is it. Things will be very different after this shuttle launches.
What happens to LC39 after this? When will "we" launch folks into space again? Who will launch them? Lots of questions, but right now, there's a mission to fly.
Go Atlantis.
|
|