|
Post by scooter on Jul 8, 2011 0:15:26 GMT -4
OK...I got a question for the real "geeks" out there...
Is there such a thing as a "geolunar" orbit that would allow a single satellite to relay transmissions from the far side of the Moon to Earth? Perhaps something of a lunar version of the Molnaya (sp) orbit? Or a "way out there" Earth orbit? I've played with it on Orbiter, and the danged Earth gravity, needless to say, messes it up.
Meanwhile, that was painful, as he drifted from his "technical" review to the rants about Apollo 1, Baron, et al....
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 7, 2011 23:26:40 GMT -4
The HBs still believe that space is the sole domain of the governments of spacefaring nations...they cannot conceive that there are a lot of privately manufactured, owned, launched and operated satellites up there. Strictly regulated, yes, but still privately owned.
There's no government monopoly on knowledge of the space environment.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 7, 2011 23:13:47 GMT -4
...and that's why NASA hired test pilots. Thanks for the detailed explanation, ka9q. Awesome stuff...
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 7, 2011 23:06:12 GMT -4
<Walter Cronkite voice> ...and that's the way it was... <WC voice off>
...very well put, kaq9 et al.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 7, 2011 22:45:44 GMT -4
Sorry that Jay had to make a return under such miserable conditions. I trust the unsubstantiated accusation will be retracted, which would be the right thing to do...in the name of "getting along". It's the intelligent, civil thing to do, don't you think?
photo919, the premise of the hoax theory demands that the astronauts, and untold thousands of others, lied about the Apollo program. This alone starts any discussion on a very adversarial footing, ill suited to "getting along". Whereas the position of the HBs is that the "Apollo people" are scoundrels, liars, murderers, government operatives, etc, our position is that the HBs are simply wrong in their beliefs. And, yes, there are some hoax proponents who deserve special scorn for not only unfounded claims, but their specific criminal accusations. There is no "getting along" with such individuals.
"Simply wrong"...this might involve something as simple as misunderstanding or misreading something...a perfectly understandable situation, considering the technical complexity of the endeavor. But so many are blindly driven to disprove the legacy of Apollo that they go to great pains to find an "apparent" disconnect in the evidence to try to prove their point.
This involves many techniques..."cherrypicking" is a favorite, finding one small statement that seems to contradict another, or the official account. HBs often find quotes, sometimes even interview experts and get "sound bite" statements that seem to make a trip to the Moon impossible. Without exception, when interviewing these experts and gathering their "data", they never ask the real question..."so, based on what you're saying, the Apollo landings were impossible, correct?" Because the answer would be no. This dishonest process is typical...they usually extract quotes completely out of context. Sometimes understanding the context of a comment requires research. But they never ask their sources the real question. Why not? What are they afraid of? It's obvious they know exactly what they are doing.
They prey on those who have no understanding of the complex technicalities, and depend on the readers' ignorance, relying on the likelyhood that their audience won't be bothered to actually do some work to investigate things more thoroughly, maybe learn some science and physics. It's a sad commentary on today's "I want it NOW" culture. Apollo cannot be understood with a bullet points presentation. The hoaxers depend on this shallow mentality, and their many impatient HB followers just follow along.
So, "getting along"...there is no "middle ground" in this debate. One side is right and the other side is wrong. We can remain civil, often with moderator "encouragement", but this is a devisive subject, and the discussion will be vigorous, and sometimes very heated.
...and that's how I see it...
Dave
eta...
"Playing Dumb with their Eyes" "Lost Bird Proves Apollo Inauthenticity" "Medical Concern Proves Apollo Bogus" and finally... "Can't We All Get Along"
the defense rests, your Honor...
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 7, 2011 21:51:43 GMT -4
And it was this very rendezvous radar, which Aldrin had activated as a (personal) contingency, that snarled up the computer and had the 12xx alarms going, IIRC. Also, while they landed "long", I believe they were still "in plane" all the way down.
Apollo 11's mission was to "just" land on the Moon. It was Apollo 12's duty to make the pinpoint landing (which they did, much to Pete's glee!!).
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 7, 2011 20:18:05 GMT -4
Hey Bob, check out this MIT video, search, "Computer for Apollo 1965"-science reporter TV series. the MIT eggheads claim the sextant-computer system can determine position. your thoughts? thanks! The LM wasn't equipped with a sextant; only the CM had that. The LM had an Alignment Optical Telescope (AOT) only, which was used for alignment of the inertial platform. Furthermore, the AOT read angles to an accuracy of only 0.02 degrees, which is insufficient to provide the precision you think the LM was capable of. EDIT Sighting on Earth features as described in that video from the distance of the Moon with an angle accuracy of only 0.02-degree gives a position error of 134 kilometers. Even if they could interpolate to an accuracy of 0.01-degree, that still means they couldn’t measure position any better than 67 km. The position of the LM was already known to far greater precision than this. The error ellipse for landing was something like +/– 8 km east-west and +/– 2 km north-south of the target point, and the LM landed within this ellipse, though long of the target. Nice work, Bob B. Somehow I think fatty will not get it, and keep on with his azimuth and altitude (sic) thing...oh well, he's in his happy place it seems...quite pleased with himself.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 7, 2011 18:26:40 GMT -4
Yahoo groups is fabricated? Really? the whole thread?
Not really...that's just the dark side of Mr White...no fabrication necessary.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 7, 2011 17:01:23 GMT -4
altitudes and azimuths...okaaayyy. I think echnaton is probably right...this is becoming a polluted forum.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 7, 2011 13:35:02 GMT -4
I think the LM design is fine. One of my favorite books of all time was/is Mike Gray's "Angle of Attack". LM...check. Completely capable of doing it's mission of safely transporting two astronauts to and from the surface, and housing them safely in the interim. OK, how about the radiation environment...was that the show stopper? Was it the searing radiation hell of the VAB, or the cislunar solar/gamma radiation? Was the CM/suits not up to protecting the astronauts? Trying to find the smoking gun that required the hoaxing of the flights...
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 7, 2011 12:41:21 GMT -4
Yeah, you're just calling every one of them bald faced liars...and that's ok?
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 7, 2011 12:37:28 GMT -4
FattyDash...what is the difference in magnitude of a given star between an earthbound observation and one taken in space?
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 7, 2011 12:34:46 GMT -4
Good points Bob. I would encourage reading that relatively brief section of the book for oneself. There is not all that much there, not long. To reiterate, the context is debunking. This is the focus of that section, this is the context. Interpret the statement anyway you like, but the authors are addressing their concerns with regard to hoax myths here and in particular, the myth about the absence of stars. Read the book. The context itself is in no way ambiguous, however one may view the authors' effectiveness in addressing the myth of no stars in the moonscape photos. It is not a technical reconstruction of what happened. It is not an official account of events. FD, you are taking this book as some sort of gospel...which is just silly. I have "Lost Moon" here...(aka "Apollo 13"). Co-authored by Lovell. I am finding errors, so I can automatically discount the reality of the flight? I don't think so...
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 7, 2011 12:25:40 GMT -4
precisely what reports have you read that lead you to this conclusion. FD? Have you access to ALL the documentation? Have you corresponded with the flight surgeons? Have you spoken to ANY NASA flight surgeons? You argue from incredulity, which is not reasonable for a person of your alleged expertise.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 7, 2011 11:56:22 GMT -4
This has always been a sticking point....what insurmountable issue demanded faking the missions? Was it radiation? The engineering of the huge booster? (Kaysing's dumping the "fake" Saturn V in the "South Atlantic", after taking off on a 70-something degree azimuth...never have figured that one out!!) Alien defense emplacements on the lunar surface?
Why did they need to fake it? I have yet to see a "cause" for the alleged hoax that hasn't been totally debunked.
And, of course, fattydash doesn't like the LM design. Maybe if it had cool fins and stuff...
|
|