They did not have a LM that could land on the moon.Hogwash. I am a professional, practicing engineer. Part of what I do for a living is to design and construct spacecraft control systems, including guidance. I have made an extensive study of the Apollo lunar module including inspecting flight articles.
I will not tolerate handwaving on this point. Please explain in your own words
exactly why the lunar module could not have operated as claimed. This is a point on which all the qualified experts clearly and soundly dispute your belief, so you are clearly on the hook to show why your understanding of the lunar module's alleged deficiency is so much better than that of the world's aerospace industry.
Aldrin SAID he ran a P68 program. This program generates the coordinates of a lander's position were a lander to be on the moon.But you are completely ignorant of
how those coordinates are generated. I've got the program code for P68 in Luminary 099 (Apollo 11) open in another window as I write this. P68 simply displays on the DSKY the surface coordinates produced by the open-loop dead-reckoning models in P63, P64, and P66.
These derived coordinates were known at the time to be inaccurate because the LM's guidance algorithms in 099 had not fully accounted for all the forces that affected the descent orbit.
This is why Armstrong did not arrive at the expected landing site and had to fly manually to find a safe landing area. The LM computer continued to integrate the accelerations, but it was dead-reckoning from stored coordinates that were obviously not the true coordinates. So the coordinates generated by P68 were known to reflect error generated from then unaccounted factors.
No lunar coordinates were generated and so the Eagle did not land.Non sequitur. Coordinates were generated, but the coordinates from P68 were known to be inaccurate and therefore largely useless. They served only as a starting point for further search.
Just because the guidance system did not function fully as expected does not provide evidence that the mission was fabricated.
Could the Eagle have landed on the moon and not run a P68 program which would generate the lander's position?Yes.
Also, I emphasized the introduction to my piece was one possible scenario.If you expect those scenarios to be taken seriously, you must defend them. If you cannot, you must retract them.
There are others and I clearly stated my example represented simply a way to begin in terms of getting at Apollo's truth.Your approach is not aimed at getting at truth by any scientifically defensible means. Your approach is that of a lawyer. The lawyer builds a case for a desired outcome. He may attempt several different arguments and several unrelated lines of reasoning, all aimed at buttressing belief in a certain proposition.
You're not progressing
toward truth. You're progressing
away from a propsition you've decided for other reasons is not something you want to believe. If you predetermine that Apollo cannot be real, then there are innumerable directions in which you can run
away from that belief. This is why your "search" lacks coherence and effect. You're clearly following an "anything but Apollo" strategy, and you're stymied time and again when each of your haphazard directions lacks evidentiary merit. This is why you must constantly declared certain topics off-limits.
Each claim is provided along with strong support, mostly by way of NASA's own documents.What you deem "strong" support is only handwaving. You have no clue what it takes to prove a proposition in the face of reasonable scrutiny. You obviously have no background in science.
And you demonstrate no understanding of those documents, nor any desire or ability to learn from professional practitioners of the sciences those documents describe. You simply want your interpretation to be accepted without question.
His character and abilities are hardly to be challenged.But your interpretation is. You make the common hoax proponent's mistake of assuming that the eminent authors you quote agree with your ignorant intepretation of their writings and the conclusions you naively draw from them.
...because the site's location had to be determined by way of photo and flight data analysis. However, all members of the Lick team were aware that NASA had provided them with the Tranquility LRRR location...But not to the required precision. The ground-based laser is not simply a flashlight that can be played across the lunar surface until a return is generated. The P68 coordinates contained significant error, well outside the precision required by the Lick lasers to properly hit the LRRR.
I only brought it up to stress we actually know nothing about it.You may know nothing about it, but in the field of aerospace engineering it is one of the most well-studied vehicles ever built. You may continue to profess ignorance, but it is yours alone. I know a great deal about the lunar module, and so do many of the people to whom you are now speaking. In addition, a great deal more professional engineers, scientists, and technicians know much about the lunar module, and they all agree it was capable of performing its mission.
It did not land on the moon and additionally, never flew here.You've provided absolutely no proof of this assertion, which
if they did land and did run a P68 program from the Eagle on the surface of the moon, why were no landing coordinates generated?Asked an answered. P68 merely generates the final result of dead-reckoning. At the time both flight and ground crews knew those results were wrong. P68 contained no logic to close the control loop and determine the site coordinates empirically. It merely derived its idea of them from the navigation algorithms.
Let's debate the facts.As soon as you provide some, we will debate them.
And no, you don't get to pick and choose which parts of this discussion you will pay attention to. Kindly answer all the questions that are put to you. Your claim = your responsibility. Time to put up or shut up.
