|
|
Post by tedward on Jul 11, 2011 3:10:36 GMT -4
Just thought, was there an option to blast off if they run out of fuel on the landing? Makes sense after 10. No chance to get a defo fix on location.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jul 11, 2011 4:05:05 GMT -4
The deception was necessary because the technology to land did not exist. Fake it if ya' can't make it. If the technology to land did not exist, why was the deception necessary? |
|
|
|
Post by drewid on Jul 11, 2011 4:05:11 GMT -4
How can they remain in LEO:
They were tracked by independent (and indeed hostile) observatories all the way there and back.
Transmissions were tracked by amateur and professional radio operators all over the globe, (couldn't have been done on LEO)
|
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jul 11, 2011 4:13:51 GMT -4
Specifically, the Eagle did not land. Could it have landed? I do not know NASA did not have a lander that could land period. Interesting. Within seven minutes you go from not knowing to being quite certain of yourself. Bob has picked out a nugget from the swill. Which is it fattydash, do you not know, or do you know for sure? It cannot be both. I suggest that if you don't know, then you stop wasting your time and everyone elses. If NASA did not have a lander, the specifically, why was their LM not able to land astronauts on the lunar surface? Your gish gallop and handwaving has boiled down to answering a simple question. So let's hear you answer. |
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jul 11, 2011 6:00:05 GMT -4
Fattydash, apart from deomstrating a talent for verbosity, there are two main features your lengthy posts throw up that are the main points of contention.
Firstly, you claim that NASA's inability to make an internally coherent story is proof of fabrication, yet you fail to uphold that standard yourself. Earlier on, when challenged by an example of who would have to know the missions were faked, you said you thought the LM worked fine. In those two long posts you say both that the LM probably didn't work and that you are certain it didn't work. What is your actual position on the functionality of the LM?
Secondly you demonstrate clearly that you do not read, listen and understand anything that contradicts you. You have been told, repeatedly, how the navigational systems on the spacecraft worked. You have had it explained repeatedly to you that neither the CSM nor the LM needed to know their exact positions in order to effect a rendezvous, since they had equipment that allowed them to measure their actual relative locations once they were in flight, thus allowing them to rendezvous, and that orbital mechanics keeps both of them within an acceptable margin for these systems to operate effectively, and yet you cling to the notion that not only could they have located themselves precisely on the surface using the availbale equipment, but that they needed to for the mission to work. What is your source for that claim? Can you point to the pages of documentation that state that the two spacecraft must know each other's precise locations?
So, that all boils down to these simple and direct questions:
1: Did the hardware work or not? If it did not, what was it that did not work that would have precluded a real landing? If it did, why could they not make a real landing?
2: If it was all scripted, why was it scripted in such an amateurish way, yet could still fool the world?
|
|
|
|
Post by zakalwe on Jul 11, 2011 6:27:20 GMT -4
Just thought, was there an option to blast off if they run out of fuel on the landing? Makes sense after 10. No chance to get a defo fix on location. IIRC, below acertain height, an abort using the ascent stage (Fire-In-The-Hole) was not possible (the so-called dead man's zone), as the craft would have impacted before they could separate and fire the ascent stage. Cernan mentions it here: link |
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jul 11, 2011 7:35:16 GMT -4
Just a passing comment.. I have now lost the will to live... er I mean continue with reading, let alone contributing to these threads. Can I make the following suggestion (if not, don't read on  ).... A certain poster's modus operandi is to distract, divert, and scattergun topic after topic. There is *never* a full analysis of any one thing - s/he can't allow that to happen for very obvious reasons. (Does radiation ring a bell?) It's the same (mis)use of pseudo-'metastatistics' that the UFO crowd use, ie "look at all these sightings of UFOs!!! Thousands of them!! Ergo, there is something to this - there must be aliens.." The fact that just about every one of those UFO sightings, when properly analysed, is almost certainly something very ordinary and that there are at best only a few cases worthy of deep investigation, is irrelevant to these people - and it's how they make their money or get their ten minutes of fame, how they try to convince/fleece more of the gullible. It's exactly what is playing out here - the claimant never wants to stop and properly analyse each item on its merits... they just keep changing the subject and spraying the er.. drivel as far and wide as possible, changing topics whenever required. If there is one thing s/he is good at, that's it... And, I have to say, if you guys keep answering and debating every new scattergun topic s/he throws up, *without* making this person go back and address the initial flawed claims and getting him/her to admit they were wrong, this will go on forever. Anyway, I'm out. Those last walls of text/drivel did it for me. This is just ill-informed tripe, and at the moment everyone seems to be playing this pretender's game just as s/he wants. All that is just my opinion of course, but I'd ask you to at least consider it before you start debating the *next* topic that s/he moves to... And I guess I shouldn't just criticise - I should suggest how I think this could be handled better... well, here ya go: The 'certain poster' should simply be asked to pick their *very best 'evidence' that Apollo was faked. (He already has been asked this, but has ignored it, again, for obvious reasons.) Then that topic and that topic alone should be dissected in methodical detail. Whichever side is incorrect  needs to concede that before moving onto topic 2... After 2-3 topics or thereabouts, I think any person with intelligence will have made up their mind just how much of an expert the claimant actually is... |
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 11, 2011 8:11:38 GMT -4
For Luke,
I invite you to review the Apollo transcripts thoroughly. Landing coordinates for the P68 program Aldrin pretended to run were never generated and this is confirmed with absolute certainty in the many references given above, including that of Michael Collins. Please read that again Luke. Michael Collins did not know where his partners were, did not know 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E. As a matter of fact, Michael Collins himself stated in "Carrying the Fire" a book which many of the official story apologists simply love, that there is little to do but hope one might figure out with maps where Apollo astronauts may be found, based on descriptions of the terrain provided by the astronaut-actors.
Your question as to why the lander could not land is absurd, but since you ask. It demonstrably was not a functional lander at all. Please see my references for support of this. Perhaps Aldrin and Armstrong would care to try again, though I think not.
Direct question for you Luke, if they landed, why does Michael Collins not know the coordinates of the site generated by Aldrin's running the P68 function?
Direct question Luke, can a rendezvous be carried out between a LM and CM without lunar positional coordinates.
Thank you for your response.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jul 11, 2011 8:48:11 GMT -4
The questions are for you to answer, fattydash. What exactly does the P68 program actually do, and to what level of precision, and does a rendezvous require those co-ordinates? If you do not know the answers to those questions, and cannot demonstrate that you do know them and back them up, you have NO basis for your claims.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jul 11, 2011 9:02:34 GMT -4
Furthermore, if the LM did not work then the people who built it knew that, which adds several hundred people to your list of people who needed to be in the know, as well as the people who carried out the Apollo 5, 9 and 10 missions, all three of which involved testing the LM.
|
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jul 11, 2011 9:05:57 GMT -4
Just thought, was there an option to blast off if they run out of fuel on the landing? Makes sense after 10. No chance to get a defo fix on location. IIRC, below acertain height, an abort using the ascent stage (Fire-In-The-Hole) was not possible (the so-called dead man's zone), as the craft would have impacted before they could separate and fire the ascent stage. Cernan mentions it here: linkOK, Ta. Welcome BTW. I was not sure at what point they could or could not do it past the 10 testing. |
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jul 11, 2011 9:10:10 GMT -4
And one more for you, since you declined to answer the question when it was previously asked:
The level of precision in those co-ordinates. The circumference of the Moon is 10,920 km. In a circle there are 360 degfrees, made up of 60 arcminutes. That's 21600 arcminutes. Each of those is made of 60 arcseconds. That's a total of 1,296,000 arc seconds. Since the landing site was approximately on the equator, we'll assume then that 10,920 / 1,296,000 gives us the length in km of one arcsecond on the lunar surface at the landing site.
That gives us one arcsecond equal to 8.4 metres. So, an object in a region described by coordinates given to within one arcsecond sits in a square 8.4 metres across each side. That is in fact smaller than the total area described by the square made by the LM footpads. That also means that the landing site coordinates and the LRRR coordinates, to that level of precision, are different. Now, do you maintain that the equipment on the LM was capable of locating the spacecraft to that level of precision, and that that level of precision was required for a successful rendezvous? If so, what are your sources for such a claim?
|
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jul 11, 2011 9:13:05 GMT -4
Direct question Thank you for your response. Snippy snip snip for the stance, please excuse me Jason Thompson I am finding this a bit rich. Are we asking direct questions now? Well, I say we, there are several on your door step now before you start levelling them back. How did they fake it in LEO or on the earth. I could add its a direct question but I do not expect you to answer the question directly, but it does follow your reasoning so must have crossed your thinking. Before you go too far I think we can rule out LEO. Or do you propose that it was? |
|
|
|
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 Jason Thompson on Jul 11, 2011 9:22:50 GMT -4
You are excused, tedward.  And scooter, save your breath. Fattydash seems to have this fantasy notion that orbital rendezvous is performed by doing some nifty maths on the ground, then pressing a button and following a course that takes you right to your target. He can't seem to grasp the idea of an active update method where you go roughly in the right direction and tweak your course using direct measurements of your actual position in real time. |
|
)....
needs to concede that before moving onto topic 2... After 2-3 topics or thereabouts, I think any person with intelligence will have made up their mind just how much of an expert the claimant actually is...
