|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 26, 2010 7:05:06 GMT -4
Strangely I rotated AS17-134-20384 by 45 degrees to the left (84 is rotated about 35 degrees to the left and 87 about 10 degrees to the right) and the Earth and the mountain in both images line up pretty much perfectly. I have to wonder why you didn't bother doing this simple test yourself before posting. Why I didn't bother to make this simple test? I would have done it if it was making sense. This is 3D, this is not 2D. Could you show me your rotation on a picture, please? I'll also add that if you rotate, both the earth and the hill will rotate, they will not rotate independently one from another...unless the hill is really close. Do it yourself, that way you can't accuse me of cheating. Rotate one of the images so that the terminator of the Earth is the same in each image and then overlap the Earths and adjust the transparency. Look at how the line of the mountain looks, compare that to other images. The part of the mountain in 84 is behind Cernan's arm in 87, but it fits the shape of the mountain seen in other images.
|
|
|
Post by inquisitivemind on Oct 26, 2010 7:06:51 GMT -4
Can you explain me why on the photo of the LCM taken from the LEM on photo AS11-37-5445, the LCM is under the LEM (we see the moon behind the LCM) when it should be above, and why the LCM is vertical when it should be horizontal (it follows its orbit around the moon). There are really strange things in Apollo! The CM must point at the LM in order to dock and its orientation is independent of the orbit. Can you explain your assumptions that the CM should not be in this position or why its orientation is incorrect? Perhaps that information would help us give a more satisfactory answer. It would require a long explanation. I'm an aeronautician engineer, and I perfectly know how the LCM and the LEM must behave. The LCM follows his trajectory around the moon; it is a at a distance of approximatively 100 km from the moon, and goes at a speed of 6000km.h to resist the lunar attraction; it is always parallel to the moon surface, and has no reason to get oerpendicular to it. The lem starts its travel horizontal, and gives a thrust to decrease its horizontal speed which creates a centrifugal force which counters the lunar attraction, the LEM must also decrease its horizontal velocity because it must be nulled before reaching the moon; the LEM follows a parabolic trajectory allong which it slowly turns from horizontal from vertical, because, as its horizontal velocity decreases, its vertical velocity conversely increases, and it must also counter it, because it must also have nulled the vertical velocity before reaching the moon, and furthermore it must arrive vertical on the moon. You see, I know a bit on the subject. Some things we know on the Apollo photos are absolutely not reasonable, not physical at all. The LEM must not make brutal rotations, because it has a slow computer (2 second period for making the guidance computations - by the task SERVICER), and it could not control fast rotations.
|
|
|
Post by inquisitivemind on Oct 26, 2010 7:09:10 GMT -4
Do it yourself, that way you can't accuse me of cheating. Rotate one of the images so that the terminator of the Earth is the same in each image and then overlap the Earths and adjust the transparency. Look at how the line of the mountain looks, compare that to other images. The part of the mountain in 84 is behind Cernan's arm in 87, but it fits the shape of the mountain seen in other images. I don't accuse you of cheating, I don't even know what kind of test you are making, because I see no such test which would make sense. If you were showing me your test on a picture, I would better understand what you mean, and I could explain you your misconception.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Oct 26, 2010 7:09:34 GMT -4
I'm an aeronautician engineer, and I perfectly know how the LCM and the LEM must behave. The second part of your post shows why this claim isn't too credible. You have absolutely no idea of orbital dynamics. The attitude of a spacecraft is completely independent of its direction of travel. The LM separated from the CSM with the LM above the CSM because the CSM then moved to a lower orbit so that it would be ahead of the LM when the LM began its braking manoeuvre to begin descent.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 26, 2010 7:14:12 GMT -4
I'm an aeronautician engineer Liar. If you really were an aeronautician engineer you would know that spacecraft orientation and is independant of direction of travel, and that a spacecraft doesn't even have to travel in the direction of thrust its engine produces. You are a fraud who doesn't even know the Apollo craft abbreviations.
|
|
|
Post by inquisitivemind on Oct 26, 2010 7:14:42 GMT -4
I'm an aeronautician engineer, and I perfectly know how the LCM and the LEM must behave. The second part of your post shows why this claim isn't too credible. You have absolutely no idea of orbital dynamics. The attitude of a spacecraft is completely independent of its direction of travel. The point is that the LCM has absolutely no reason to change its attitude, because the LEM must start horizontal, and also arrive horizontal on its way back from the moon. The fact that the LCM would change its attitude would complicate the task of the LEM, and would not simplify it at all.
|
|
|
Post by carpediem on Oct 26, 2010 7:14:57 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 26, 2010 7:16:20 GMT -4
Do it yourself, that way you can't accuse me of cheating. Rotate one of the images so that the terminator of the Earth is the same in each image and then overlap the Earths and adjust the transparency. Look at how the line of the mountain looks, compare that to other images. The part of the mountain in 84 is behind Cernan's arm in 87, but it fits the shape of the mountain seen in other images. I don't accuse you of cheating, I don't even know what kind of test you are making, because I see no such test which would make sense. If you were showing me your test on a picture, I would better understand what you mean, and I could explain you your misconception. I have explained in detail how to do it, if you can't figure it out from that you have no business attempting to analyse photos.
|
|
|
Post by inquisitivemind on Oct 26, 2010 7:22:46 GMT -4
I have explained in detail how to do it, if you can't figure it out from that you have no business attempting to analyse photos. Your "detailed" explanation is not clear at all. You seem to think that it's possible to rotate the earth and the hill independently, but it's not true at all. If you show me a picture, I may understand what you mean, but for moment your "detailed" explanation makes no sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by inquisitivemind on Oct 26, 2010 7:23:19 GMT -4
Yes, I am. How did you guess?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 26, 2010 7:25:42 GMT -4
I have explained in detail how to do it, if you can't figure it out from that you have no business attempting to analyse photos. Your "detailed" explanation is not clear at all. You seem to think that it's possible to rotate the earth and the hill independently, but it's not true at all. If you show me a picture, I may understand what you mean, but for moment your "detailed" explanation makes no sense to me. Where did I say rotate the Earth and mountain independently? I said rotate one of the images by 45 degrees, and place the Earths over each other so they are in the same spot.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Oct 26, 2010 7:28:00 GMT -4
The LCM follows his trajectory around the moon; it is a at a distance of approximatively 100 km from the moon, and goes at a speed of 6000km.h to resist the lunar attraction; it is always parallel to the moon surface, and has no reason to get oerpendicular to it. The orientation is irrelevant to the orbit except when firing the engine. The CSM can point nose forward, up, down or sideways to the direction of travel. I am unsure what you mean by "reason." The orientation is the result of mission requirements, that is reason enough.. If the CSM were in the position shown in the photo and not rotating, it would be horizontal to the surface in about 30 minutes because its orbit would take it a quarter of the way around the moon. I'm an aeronautician engineer.... Good, that should lead to some interesting conversations when the engineers that post here wake up. I look forward to reading your insights.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 26, 2010 7:31:08 GMT -4
Since it seems some are totally incapable of doing basic image rotatations, here is the resulting image.
|
|
|
Post by inquisitivemind on Oct 26, 2010 7:31:54 GMT -4
Where did I say rotate the Earth and mountain independently? I said rotate one of the images by 45 degrees, and place the Earths over each other so they are in the same spot. In your explanation, you are moving only the earth; but the hill will move as much, and the earth will still be above the same point of the hill. You are considering the hill as a decor which would always be at the same place on the photo, independently of the way you move the camera, but it also moves with the moves of the camera, not only the earth.
|
|
|
Post by drewid on Oct 26, 2010 7:33:21 GMT -4
Distant hill, read up on parallax
|
|