|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jul 11, 2011 11:59:54 GMT -4
With all due respect Jay, I humbly beg to differ. Bull. There isn't an ounce of humility in your posts here. An intersting assertion, given that, according to you: So, you are claiming simultaneously that the LIck Observatory provided NASA with the exact co-ordinates after finding the LRRR with their laser and that NASA provided the Lick Observatory team with the co-ordinates so they could target the laser. Which is it? Not in question. Direct question to you, for the umpteenth time: with what degree of precision could the astronauts on the surface define their own position with the equipment they had? To what degree of precision are those co-ordinates necessary? Please show us the reference that says the known errors were show-stoppers for a successful liftoff and rendezvous. The above posts demonstrate only that you can read and quote mine. They do not demonstrate any understanding or even critical anaytical skills, since you seem utterly oblivious to the fact that you contradict yourself on several occasions, most recently in the example I have just provided. You claim to be a doctor, a physician. That does not require qualifications in engineering. Several people here are engineers, and have qualifications they are quite happy to share to demonstrate said proficiency in the relevant fields. |
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 11, 2011 12:03:58 GMT -4
PS How presumptuous of you Jay to say anything at all as regards my background in engineering. You do not know me. But your abilities are evident from your writings. |
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Jul 11, 2011 12:04:02 GMT -4
PS How presumptuous of you Jay to say anything at all as regards my background in engineering. You do not know me. Oh? Are you an engineer as well as a doctor? Please enlighten us. |
|
|
|
Post by fiveonit on Jul 11, 2011 12:12:00 GMT -4
For Jay With all due respect Jay, I humbly beg to differ. If you were a qualified aerospace engineer, there would be no need to beg. Well aren't we full of ourselves? So you're a doctor AND an aerospace engineer?? Me thinks the lot of us need to start pulling our pant legs up. It's starting to get pretty deep in here! I agree with one point... we don't know you because you have yet to post your credentials! Now why would that be..... Hmmmmmmmm??? |
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 11, 2011 12:12:12 GMT -4
For Jay
1) Obviously I am a confident person. Is that a problem for you?
2)Remington Stone targeted the laser at Lick Jay. NASA gave Stone the coordinates. Read the reference please at the University of California Observatories web site.
3) very good according to Flight international magazine. I already referenced this Jay and so same point to you as Jason, these facts have been established. According to Flight International, see above, as Armstrong was landing the LM he saw on the DSKY 00 41 15 N 23 26 00 E. Pretty dang good and it sure beats working with a sextant 60 miles up. Again to emphasize Jay. This point has been made. The Flight International reference was way back there. I won't answer that question again if you do not mind.
4) The degree of precision is that of the system itself. Whether the ascent and rendezvous will be successful is another matter, but that system is ALL anybody has to work with.
5) I again beg to differ Jay. Your last two posts show a simple lack of knowledge as regards the basic facts of the events in question. The Remington Stone issue above is one case in point.
6) I am a doctor among other things. And my personal life is not a topic for debate here. Please confine your comments to a discussion of the facts.
Thank you for your post.
|
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Jul 11, 2011 12:14:02 GMT -4
You brought up your personal life by referencing your alleged background in engineering. If you don't want people asking questions about your posts, don't post them in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by twik on Jul 11, 2011 12:18:52 GMT -4
Since fattydasher previously said he was a doctor who works in the aerospace industry, I would have assumed he'd mentioned that he was also an engineer. Since that's somewhat relevant.
|
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 11, 2011 12:23:03 GMT -4
I would like him to answer one simple question for me, though he doesn't even seem to be reading my posts anymore.
Why didn't the LM work? What was wrong with it? Why couldn't it land on the Moon?
I'd also like to know how he knows when the entire aerospace community disagrees with him, and I'd like to know how he thinks they faked the sheer number of things which would have had to have been faked, but I'll settle for that. He says there wasn't a working LM; what was wrong with it?
|
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 11, 2011 12:26:55 GMT -4
They learned lunar landing coordinates, lunar position coordinates are required to run the P12, ascent program.P12 is an open-loop guidance program designed simply to get the LM to a rudimentary rendezvous orbit with the minimum of complexity and fuss. In the world of this particular navigational device, one MUST know one's point of origin, location reference, to instruct the navigational program to guide one to a new position...No. "This particular device," meaning P12, is exceptionally forgiving of initial conditions because all it does is pitch the LM at various preprogrammed intervals in order to get it to a roughly-defined orbit. It is not even aiming for a new position in space. Open-loop, in this case, means literally "fly this vector for so many seconds, then fly another vector for so many seconds...," and so forth until you've reached a certain velocity. That vector is derived from the landing coordinates and a rudimentary terrain model of the lunar surface maintained on Earth. The terrain model has only mile-square resolution, so there's no point in generating P68 coordinates that are more precise than a mile, for ascent guidance purposes. In other words, the P12 programmers knew they couldn't expect highly reliable input, so their hand-off to P20 didn't promise much. Basically P12 put the ascent module in some suitable orbit -- any orbit. That's appropriate for open-loop control. Open-loop control doesn't measure the environment as part of its operation. It has the disadvantage of sometimes being very wrong. (This is why you see sprinkler systems running during a rainstorm.) But it has the advantage of being very simple and foolproof. ...as data for programming the navigational system to guide the LM to the CM.No. The ascent occurs in two phases. The first phase is P12, the open-loop ascent program that simply gets the LM to some orbit. The second phase is P20, which is a closed-loop guidance model based on orbital rendezvous principles. P12 does not require precise landing coordinates. Nor, in fact, can it even use precise coordinates. All it does is operate the APS while rotating the spacecraft through a predetermined set of space-fixed vectors. It needs the landing coordinates in order to derive the proper space-fixed vectors, but those coordinates can be several miles off and still produce space-fixed vectors that, when flown by the DAP under APS accelerated flight, will place the ascent stage in some suitable orbit. The farther off the initial point, the less suitable the orbit. But P12 is a rock-solid warhorse with a blindly stupid algorithm that can't practically fail. P20 doesn't require landing coordinates at all. P20 has no concept that the LM was ever on any surface. All P20 knows how to do is reconcile two vehicles for rendezvous given periodic observations of the vehicles' relative positions and velocities. So P20 takes the "some orbit -- any orbit" generated by P12 and produces a rendezvous solution in terms of impulses along the line of sight. It can tolerate a very wide range of initial orbits. This is how real engineers work. They don't try to come up with some complicated end-to-end solution that has brittle initial conditions and a thousand ways to fail. They divide the problem up into sets of simpler solutions. Your comment at #163 demonstrates your lack of familiarity with the relevant literature, the navigational manual.Hogwash. Your entire line of reasoning demonstrates your total ignorance of lunar module design and operation, guidance system design and operation, guidance principles, and control theory in general. From beginning to end you make all the classic layman's mistakes. You have absolutely no business trying to talk down to people here for their lack of understanding. You are clueless. You just haven't realized yet that we all recognize just how clueless you are. I will not respond to such absurd comments on your part again Jason until those comments reflect a fundamental familiarity...Blah blah blah. Sorry, you don't get to pretend to be an expert on this question. You would be floundering in my beginner's control theory class. And since you're the one proposing that you're right and everyone else is wrong, you don't have the luxury of picking and choosing which questions you will answer.
|
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 11, 2011 12:35:35 GMT -4
With all due respect Jay, I humbly beg to differ.Nothing about you is humble. You're intensely arrogant. As regards the LM's navigational/guidance system, the only means of determining the guidance system's own coordinates from the surface of the moon, is by way of the system's own star sighting/alignment provision...No. And so according to NASA's own accounting, they have no real time coordinate determining capabilities.Unnecessary for ascent guidance. The precision determination of the landing site was for other, non-critical concerns. Direct question for you Jay...Answer my questions first. You have claimed the LM wouldn't work. Please tell me exactly why. They are not in dispute...Your interpretation of them is in dispute. But you're too arrogant to suppose that your interpretation needs to be examined. I appear to be the ONLY member of this forum with any knowledge of these important Apollo program issues.No, you're the only one buying into your delusion. I am a well-known, quoted expert on Apollo. You're an anonymous liar. PS How presumptuous of you Jay to say anything at all as regards my background in engineering.
You do not know me.I am not presuming. I am observing that you demonstrate ignorance on the relevant engineering points. You seem to think this forum is populated with laymen only. That is not the case. You're being called out by practicing professionals, and you will either toe the line or you will retract.
|
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 11, 2011 12:44:55 GMT -4
Obviously I am a confident person. Is that a problem for you?Only when confidence is a euphemism for arrogance. You don't know what you're talking about, and you're trying to compensate for it with bluster. Confidence is a product of proficiency, which you do not have. I won't answer that question again if you do not mind.I didn't ask that question, and I don't recognize your authority to determine what questions are appropriate. The degree of precision is that of the system itself.You confuse precision with accuracy. Whether the ascent and rendezvous will be successful is another matter, but that system is ALL anybody has to work with.You have claimed that ascent and rendezvous would not have worked because the location of the LM was not known until after the mission. We are investigating that line of reasoning. Your last two posts show a simple lack of knowledge as regards the basic facts of the events in question. The Remington Stone issue above is one case in point.You bring up Lick and Stone to distract from your erroneous claims regarding the operation of the ascent and descent guidance systems. You have proposed that these could not have operated on Apollo 11 as claimed, hence the mission was fraudulent. You are being questioned on your understanding of how those systems worked, versus how they were actually known to have worked. I am a doctor among other things.Obviously you are not. You may prove your claim by stating your full name, your NPI, and the institution at which you practice medicine. No other evidence will be accepted. Put up or shut up. And my personal life is not a topic for debate here.Establishing your claimed credentials is not an intrusion into your personal life.
|
|
|
|
Post by capricorn1 on Jul 11, 2011 13:24:41 GMT -4
Always there is a contention, but never the implication.
The implication is that NASA deliberately overshot their landing site, faked the overload of the radar, had no understanding of their own systems, and didn't realise that in future times........ antipodean "doctors/engineers" could possibly know more than they did and realise that it was all in fact a sham, because they couldn't land a craft where the laser team were expecting them to be.
They were so incompetent...... that by doing this, they would expose the hoax, because clever HBs would be able to see how they couldn't perform their rendezvous.
In fact, the lasers would work eventually, but let's forget about that part.
Sounds kind of far fetched to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by zakalwe on Jul 11, 2011 13:25:04 GMT -4
1) flight data and photo analysis, which it should be emphasized was very much in and of itself not adequate. It was not until the laser at Lick successfully targeted the LRRR that Tranquility Base's coordinates were discovered. Given Houston's abilities were not real time, and given they were inadequate, necessitating the help of the Lick laser to find 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E, we can conclude that Houston's capabilities of locating the LM in real time with any reasonable degree of accuracy are quite literally nonexistent. Furthermore, as regards the identification of 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E, I would direct you to Remington Stone's account of the events at Lick observatory on the evening of 07/20/1969. He targeted the laser. I referenced the relevant source above. Mr. Stone clearly stated they had the coordinates 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E given to them on the evening of 07/20/1969 and this testimony of Mr. Stone is hardly in question. Given this fact, the photo analysis and flight data analysis NASA claimed to be helpful in finding Tranquility Base was never used. The scientists at Lick already had the coordinates. Given that additional fact, we can conclude Houston had absolutely no ability to provide meaningful information in determining Tranquility Base's location. They provided flight and photo analysis data over a week after the event in question, and the Lick staff had absolutely no use for this data. Houston's real time coordinate determining capabilities are zilch. Their contribution a week and a half after the alleged landing were irrelevant to the observatory's determination of the LRRR's position. The Lick obs did not get a fix on the LRR on the first evening. There was a communication breakdown (based on a Texas drawl!) which meant that they got the incorrect location on the first night. Details of Remington Stone's interview are here: LINKThe location of Eagle was determined by Aldrin and Armstrong using a star chart and observations made using the Alignment Optical Telescope. The star chart was sold at a Bonhams auction in 2009. In a letter written by Aldrin, he states "that Neil Armstrong and I used to determine our precise location just after we made history's first lunar landing on July 20, 1969" and later in the same letter "We used this star chart in conjunction with our Alignment Optical Telescope (AOT). Neil logged over 30 measurements in our LM Data Card Book that I provided while using the AOT. Those circular areas on the chart overlay showed the AOT's field of view when moved to one of the six positions known as detents. We did a series of dual star sightings using the AOT and this chart, then keyed in that information recorded in the LM Data Card Book while performing the P57 alignment procedures as define in our guidance dictionary" (Source: here Bonhams "The Space Sale" lot #167) <Edit> Corrected error in URL link |
|
|
|
Post by zakalwe on Jul 11, 2011 13:32:45 GMT -4
Further to my post above, Remington Stone also confirms in his letter dated 1st May 2007 (linked to in my previous post) "The astronauts soon determined their precise location on the moon and radioed that information to Mission Control in Houston".
Funny isn't it, that fattydash's use of Remington Stone's name leads to a link where Mr. Stone confirms that the astronauts did locate their position. I'd call that ironic....
|
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 11, 2011 13:51:10 GMT -4
fattydash, why haven't you gone to Lick to sort all this out. Surely they will agree with you and you can fill us in on their explanation of things. I'm sure thay have quite a bit of saved information from those days.
You haven't, and won't. Why not?
But t is rather fascinating to watch folks take your arguments apart....like watching a train wreck. Now, I have a small fraction of the knowledge base of a lot of folks here. Difference between you andI is that I can read and learn. I don't go through websites looking for a tidbit of data that seems to support something. I try to look at everything. Spaceflight is amazing stuff, and some of it is extremely counterintuitive. You need to speed up to slow down, you need to thrust up to go down...everything behaves strangely up there, and it's all completely understandable with great precision.
Orbital mechanics do not demand a precise location to get into a decent orbit for rendezvous. Efficiency wise, sure, it's great. But for the relatively small margin of error A-11 was dealing with, it wasn't a significant factor. Nothing some tweaking once on orbit couldn't fix. While Apollo 11's precise location wasn't known, they were close enough for the liftoff and initial orbit to be quite sufficient for rendezvous.
It's some rocket science, sure, but I'm living proof that a pretty average person can get a decent understanding of it. You just haven't tried. Take those hoax blinders off, it's fascinating stuff.
|
|
