Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 7, 2011 13:04:14 GMT -4
why would one astronaut say one thing and another one say something else altogether? Different context, faulty recollection, etc.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 7, 2011 13:18:32 GMT -4
I most decidedly do not believe these books to be gospel. As one would expect given my position, I view them as rubbish It is always odd to me when people use sources they believe to be unreliable to support an argument. It goes like this, the books are rubbish because the moon missions were a hoax as we can see from the evidence presented in the books. A bit circular don't you think?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jul 7, 2011 13:31:00 GMT -4
I would imagine if one were on the surface of the moon and shielded from the sun's glare, one would see stars under a variety of circumstances regardless of the side one were on and regardless of the shielding mechanism. Apparently, many professional astronomers, including NASA'a own Eric Christian agree with that point. No one disputes that under certain circumstances, stars can be seen from the Moon, even the day side. I have already given my reference for the Christian quote/statement. So yes I agree and others with greater knowledge than I have as regards such matters of star visibility agree as well. (bolded for emphasis) That would include me. I have a degree in space physics, I am a longtime amateur astronomer and telescope operator, and I am a praticing space engineer with experience in manned mission planning and operations. I find the Apollo record with respect to stars believable. I most decidedly do not believe these books to be gospel. As one would expect given my position, I view them as rubbish, the Slayton book, the Lovell book and the rest of the pop books. I could not agree more, junk. the point is the books contain contradictions. why would one astronaut say one thing and another one say something else altogether? Heaven help you if you ever contradict yourself, ever, in any context, no matter how many years intervening. Because then you are are a liar. You're appealing to perfect consistency of records and recollections of various primacy, in various contexts, at various times. That's unrealistic and unsupportable. Your claim amounts to nothing more than your unreasonable expectations not being satisfied. Thus, the other problems with your claims - such as lack of evidence for a fake, as well as not dealing with the evidence for the missions' reality, are moot points.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 7, 2011 13:41:12 GMT -4
When the Titanic sunk, about half the eyewitnesses said it split in two first. The other half didn't report that at all. Does this mean that the Titanic never sank, or that it never existed in the first place? And that's just a start. Heck, there's a reason unsupported eyewitness testimony isn't sufficient for a conviction in any court. What's important is physical evidence--and people with the expertise to evaluate it. What we're getting here is that the physical evidence must be faked, because the eyewitness testimony contradicts in places. Pure ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by twik on Jul 7, 2011 14:39:50 GMT -4
Not to mention that, if I were running the conspiracy (so much more fun than running the Zoo), my first rule would be, "Let's get our stories straight, mmkay?" Hey, I had the money to build an entire fake aerospace industry, I should be able to hire a few continuity editors.
However, on BAUT, our multinymous correspondent's position was, if I understand it correctly, that the mistakes were put in to make it more realistic, which is how he knows from the mistakes that it wasn't real.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 7, 2011 23:24:29 GMT -4
Did NASA have any way to track the LM during landing at all? I am unaware of any. Both Apollo spacecraft were continually tracked whenever they were visible, but that doesn't necessarily mean that their positions were always precisely known. I explained in my longish post about Apollo tracking that the basic observable was the range and range-rate between ground station and spacecraft. This is not enough, by itself, to determine the spacecraft position as it could be anywhere on a sphere with a radius equal to the measured range. It took a series of measurements over time, a model of all the forces on the spacecraft, Newton's laws of motion and a fair bit of computer time to get the answer. (I have personal experience in this area. In 1983 I determined the orbit of an amateur radio satellite in a high earth orbit by processing ranging measurements with a computer program that I researched and wrote myself. When I fed my results back to NORAD, they quickly found it very close to where I had predicted it would be.) Recall that during Apollo 11 landing, Eagle performed a burn on the backside of the moon that dropped pericynthion to about 50,000' several hundred miles upstream (east) of the landing site where powered descent began 1/2 orbit later. As Eagle rounded the moon after the burn, the ground had just a few minutes to track and estimate its orbit to ensure that an overburn had not put Eagle on a collision course with the surface. As you can imagine, this was a nail-biter for the people involved. Fortunately, as Eagle rounded the limb of the moon, any error in velocity would be along the moon-earth line making such an error relatively easy to detect. But as Eagle approached its landing site and began powered descent, small position errors accumulated almost entirely in its downtrack direction. If you visualize the geometry, you can see how moving Eagle up and down its orbital track near the Sea of Tranquility on the center of the near side would have changed the measured range from earth only slightly. This is an example of a "geometric dilution of precision" that can affect the accuracy of any navigation system. Even GPS, as good as it usually is, can be affected by this problem when the satellites are non-optimally distributed around the sky.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jul 8, 2011 2:38:57 GMT -4
Jodrell tracked them all the way down.
|
|
|
Post by grmcdorman on Jul 8, 2011 10:03:47 GMT -4
Indeed, and according to accounts I've read online the data they collected even shows the change when Armstrong took over the the automated landing and basically flew horizontally for a while.
Of course, our HBs will say this is "too perfect".
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jul 8, 2011 11:20:15 GMT -4
Fattydash: In post 80, page 6 you admitted that you didn't get The teacher's point, and in the next post, he said, "Exactly", meaning that you are right, you don't get it, and it continues to be obvious that you have never got it, so why don't you go back to post 29, page 2, and very carefully re-read the last two paragraphs? Note, with far more care than you did the first time, that Patrick Moore asked whether they could see stars IN the solar corona, and reinforced his meaning with "in spite of the glare". And Theteacher points out twice, for your benefit, that Collins couldn't recall seeing stars IN the corona. Do you understand? This wasn't the only instance when this was pointed out to you. KA9Q followed it up in post 33, page 3 and explained that a corona can obscure average stars. He also pointed out how you have reached a bogus conclusion about this, but, alas, you still don't seem to have got it and in that regard you are very much in the same intellectual league as most of your hoax-believing colleagues. And most of us here know what that is. Your gish-gallop and other behaviours are very much the same as theirs too. I have visited many doctors and specialists of varying competence ever since having a rugby accident in 1963, and I am so glad you are not my doctor, because, like so many old farts in western society I have hypertension, and because you make so many errors involving comprehension, logic, spelling and grammar ("per say"!), if you were my doctor I'm convinced you might prescribe me drugs for hypotension. In fact, like others here, I very much doubt that you are indeed a doctor and have been around since the 1960s, as you have indicated. However, I'm open to being convinced. It currently remains to be seen. And with your penchant for setting up sock puppets, I have to wonder if you are an honest person. Do you tell lies? One of the funniest errors you've made is your hyperbole in post 19, page 2:-- "they are excited at this moment" "How could anyone forget..." "It is a moment of supreme drama" "the drama is emphasized" "the stunning appearance of stars" "the astronauts' excitement" "Collins' great excitement" Come off it, sport! You rubbish other writers for not being accurate yet write your own particular nonsense over and over. Nearly all the early astronauts were the most intellectual, cool, calculating, unexciteable, undramatic people that Nasa could find. And apparently Armstrong was the coolest of the lot. You have also gone on incessantly about the Apollo 11 astronauts not seeing stars in cislunar space, as if they never did. May I suggest you re-read the transcripts? When he describes the corona, Armstrong also says: 02 23 59 20 CDR Houston, it's been a real change for us. Now we are able to see stars again and recognize constellations for the first time on the trip. It's - the sky is full of stars. Just like the nightside of Earth. But all the way here, we have only been able to see stars occasionally and perhaps through the monocular, but not recognize any star patterns.Also, all three of them get onto stars (from the onboard voice transcription): 00 00 46 45 CDR I can see some stars. Well, maybe I . . . 00 00 46 53 CMP Okay, again, looking through the telescope, I'm absolutely unable to tell if it's Nunki, but I have it in the sextant - so let's mark on it. 00 00 47 18 CMP . . . you guys would appreciate doing this with old G&N men. 00 00 47 24 CDR 0.01. 00 00 47 26 CMP 0.01, alright. - Shoot, I forget, I think that's gray Gienah. 00 00 47 29 CDR Cup of coffee around here later on when you get a little time. 00 00 47 34 LMP You like that, Neil? You want us to record that star?Do you get it? Nunki, or Sigma Sagittarii? Gienah? They DID see stars -- just not well. And exactly the same has happened to me when I've experimented with light- and dark-adaption. How about you? (Oh, and beware, some of those very early transcripts are riddled with errors.) You have also been told, over and over and over about the varying experiences astronauts had with dark adaption and visibility of stars. But you insist that instead of this, they are lying. You seem to lack comprehension. Have you ever heard of Occam's Razor? Honestly, I feel I have wasted my time writing this for you, but others might get something useful from it. Do read my favourite sayings below. They might help you.
|
|
|
Post by twik on Jul 8, 2011 12:30:36 GMT -4
It may be unfair to tax fattydasher with his statements from BAUT, but one brilliant argument there went like this.
FD: I would believe they were on the Moon if they had only photographed the stars, because such photographs could not be faked.
Reply: Here you go, uv star photography from Apollo 16.
FD: I believe those photographs were faked.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 8, 2011 13:00:31 GMT -4
It may be unfair to tax fattydasher with his statements from BAUT . . . . Somewhat. On the other hand, it's still evidence of his unwillingness to be intelligently engaged. What he's looking for is "I'd never considered that! You're right!" What he's getting is "Are you kidding me? Let's start listing the places you're wrong."
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 8, 2011 13:29:11 GMT -4
I've reached the end of my ability to deal civilly with fattydash. I just don't suffer trolls well. I'll read with interest those of you that continue to hammer fact and logic on him, but his complete failure to recognize the faults in his arguments have left me in the "can anyone really be that...." mode of thinking. To which I may start to respond with off topic personal references. So it is time to take a break from these discussions.
Faddyash is a hoax believer, but at least he has more knowledge of Apollo than most of the hoax believers we have had around here. It is just to bad that everything he knows is filtered through prejudgement to be force fitted into the belief that the missions were faked.
|
|
|
Post by drewid on Jul 8, 2011 13:52:49 GMT -4
Consistently swapping "altitude" for "attuitude" for instance, despite the red-lettered "yes I get it " post.
Trolling I reckon.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 8, 2011 18:36:48 GMT -4
For drewld, the attitude/altitude issue was cleared up. It relates to a different thread. But since you mention it here, I clearly indicate in that thread I wish my astronauts to make the appropriate azimuth and altitude measurements. There is no ambiguity. As of now, I have never made an appeal to attitude concerns.
The substance of all my posts in that thread deal with the astronauts finding themselves on the moon using their navigational gear and part of that would include making altitude and azimuth measurements of celestial bodies from the moon's surface. You brought this up out of thread here so I responded, but will not do so again.
If you wish to engage me in debate as regards the particulars of that issue, I welcome you to my thread about Eagle , the lost bird. See you there.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 8, 2011 18:42:31 GMT -4
I have read the debriefing reports several times for every single Apollo mission. In not one of the debriefing reports have I read dark/light adaptation concerns discussed intelligently. What concerns? No one has suggested that dark adaptation was the sole reason for Armstrong not seeing stars, being busy looking at the brightly lit moon is another, nor has anyone claimed that it was impossible to do so. It was a non problem so why would they discuss it at length or in depth
|
|