Lost Bird Proves Apollo Inauthenticity

[twik]

Does fatty need to get his sextant to find his way back to Post #11?

[Bob B.]

Jul 7, 2011 17:47:59 GMT -4 ka9q said:

I can hear 'fattydash' saying "How could Eagle possibly have landed and returned to Columbia given all this inaccurate tracking?"

Good question. The short answer was that absolute accuracy was not nearly as important as relative accuracy. Eagle had a landing radar that provided accurate measurements of altitude and velocity with respect to the moon. This was a critical piece of equipment for the actual landing, as the radio-tracking-based estimates were then typically several thousand feet off -- much too great when you need to know your altitude to a few feet or less. But it's important to remember that the landing radar could not determine -- nor did it need to determine -- the LM's absolute position on the moon.

To facilitate rendezvous Eagle and Columbia had several ways to track each other. Eagle had a rendezvous radar (the dish on top of its "nose") that operated through a transponder on Columbia. As a backup, Columbia could measure range and range rate to Eagle through the VHF voice radios, albeit less accurately than Eagle's rendezvous radar. And they could sight each other through the same optical instruments used to align the inertial reference platform.

It's important to understand that these were relative measurements. Eagle and Columbia could determine their positions relative to each other far more accurately than either could determine its position relative to the moon. But accurate relative measurements are what count in rendezvous.

This is the explanation I was ultimately hoping to get to when I asked fattydash the following question back in Post #10: "Why do you believe knowing a precise position was critical to return to Columbia?" Of course he never answered the question so I didn't get a chance to elaborate. Thanks for explaining it so clearly, ka9q.

[scooter]

And it was this very rendezvous radar, which Aldrin had activated as a (personal) contingency, that snarled up the computer and had the 12xx alarms going, IIRC.
Also, while they landed "long", I believe they were still "in plane" all the way down.

Apollo 11's mission was to "just" land on the Moon. It was Apollo 12's duty to make the pinpoint landing (which they did, much to Pete's glee!!).

[ka9q]

Yes, the rendezvous radar was involved in the Apollo 11 computer alarms during landing. But Buzz is sometimes unfairly accused of having made a mistake in turning it on. That was not the case; he turned it on because the checklist specified that it should be on, and that in turn was because Buzz had argued before the flight that it would be a good idea to have the rendezvous radar warmed up and ready to go in case of an abort.

There was no reason for him or anyone in mission planning to believe that this would cause a problem.

The problem turned out to be a simple error in the design of the hardware that the computer used to read back the pointing angles of the rendezvous antenna. Nowadays you'd use digital optical shaft encoders, but they didn't exist then. Apollo used now-obsolete devices called "synchros" that had been widely used since at least World War II for such things as remotely displaying the pointing angles of naval guns and feeding those angles to analog fire control computers.

Synchros were special AC motors that, when connected to each other and to a power supply, caused all the shafts to turn in unison when any one was turned. Apollo used them a little differently; instead of using a second synchro to display the antenna position on a console, a hardware circuit analyzed the AC signals from two synchros (one for each antenna axis) to determine its position.

This hardware circuit consisted of an A/D (analog to digital) converter that was used to measure the phase of the AC signals from the synchro windings. These phases corresponded to the physical position of the shaft.

But somebody goofed in the design. When you want to determine the phase of an AC signal, you need something to compare it with. In this case, the hardware should have used the 800 Hz AC supply to the synchros themselves. Instead, in the particular mode (SLEW) used during the descent to "park" the antenna in a fixed position, the computer hardware used a different 800 Hz AC supply that wasn't phase-locked with that supplying the synchros. Since these two references varied slightly with each other, the computer hardware falsely thought the antenna was dithering around slightly in position even though it was completely stationary.

Each small (apparent) motion of the antenna generated an interrupt to the computer, and the relative phasing of the motor and computer reference signals was such that this interrupt rate was extremely high. The result was that the computer spent more than the available idle time servicing these unnecessary interrupts and it fell behind performing its "real" tasks. So it sounded an alarm and restarted only those tasks considered most important, and it did this something like 5 times before Eagle was safely on the surface.

[scooter]

...and that's why NASA hired test pilots.
Thanks for the detailed explanation, ka9q. Awesome stuff...

[ka9q]

Jul 7, 2011 23:13:47 GMT -4 scooter said:

...and that's why NASA hired test pilots.
Thanks for the detailed explanation, ka9q. Awesome stuff...

It's all in that paper "Tales From The Lunar Module Guidance Computer" by Don Eyles.

There's so much detailed technical data on Apollo and it's so easily found on the Internet that the hoaxers really have no excuse for being unfamiliar with it.

And speaking for myself, the true story is so much more interesting and compelling than the hoaxers' lame fantasies.

[fattydash]

As regards to twik's question at reply # 11, I very much do not concede the Eagle or any other NASA sponsored craft could be anywhere near the moon. The Apollo 11 story is fraudulent,. It is theater.

With respect to NASA generally, it is most difficult to accept any statement made on their part with regard to those interesting days in the summer of 1969.

Consider the following. As above, I have expressed concern as to why the scientists at the Lick Observatory were unsuccessful in their attempts to find the Aldrin/Armstrong LRRR by way of bouncing a ruby red laser light off the moon's surface on 07/20/1969. From 07/20/1969 and for days after, the Lick scientists received not a single laser report from the moon's surface. The LRRR said to have been left by Armstrong/Aldrin was nowhere to be found.

Referring to the Apollo Post Launch Mission Operation Report No. M-932-69-11, one finds the following statement made on 07/24/1969;

"The Laser Ranging Retro-Reflector(LRRR) experiment is optimally designed for lunar night operation and has CONSEQUENTLY not yet been acquired by any laser ranging stations"(I have the Apogee Apollo 11 Mission Report book and am reading from page 221.)

NASA is claiming here that the retro-reflector alleged to have been left by the Apollo 11 crew was not found as of July 24th 1969 as the retro-reflector was said by NASA to be optimally designed for night operation. Keep in mind that the claim was made by NASA that essentially as soon as Aldrin/Armstrong set the thing down, for all intents and purposes, they were looking for the reflector right away, trying to find the thing with the Lick Observatory laser. The LRRR sought for was was not to be found on that evening of 07/20/1969. As a matter of record, it was not until 08/01/1969 that Lick Observatory scientists received a report from their lunar surface targeting efforts that suggested that they may have found the LRRR that Aldrin/Armstrong were alleged to have left.

NASA's explanation in the Apollo 11 Mission Report that the LRRR was not found because it was light out on 07/20/1969, cannot be the explanation. If one, utilizing appropriate software, Starry Night Pro 6 in my case, takes a look at the lunar surface on August the 1st 1969, the day the retro-reflector was said to have been first "found" by the Lick team, the sun sat at roughly 33 degrees above the horizon at 00:00 UTC on 08/01/1969 and dropped to 21 degrees at midnight that terrestrial day. So throughout the 08/01/1969 24 hour period, the "Tranquility Base site" remained in sunlight. The sun did not set on the moon during that particular light/dark cycle until roughly Earth day 08/03/1969 at 20:00. (All times in UTC. ) Your computer calculations based on software concerns may vary.

Regardless of these possible variations from software to software, the point stands. The sun was out on 08/01/1969, throughout the day, and so NASA's official Apollo 11 Mission Report explanation from 07/24/1969 as to why the retro-reflector alleged to have been left by Armstrong/Aldrin was not found on 07/20/1969 cannot be true. NASA is lying here and very directly, deliberately misleading.

NASA's credibility is further challenged when reviewing Donald A. Beattie's book, "Taking Science to the Moon". Beattie was a geologist and an integral member of the team developing the lunar experiments for the Apollo program. In the ebook version at location 2914, one finds Beattie's account of the situation on 07/20/1969. Collins is said by Beattie to have unsuccessfully attempted to locate the Eagle, and so by virtue of Collin's imaginary failed attempt, Houston likewise has no idea as to exactly where Tranquility Base might be.

According to Beattie, the LRRR and with it, "Tranquility Base" itself, was not "identified" until, 08/01/1969, and this, by virtue of the Apollo experimental scientists' passing along their best estimates of the Eagle's location. The Apollo lunar scientists' estimate of the location of the Eagle that never was had been based on photo analysis and flight data. Keep in mind , none of this is real.

In summary we may conclude NASA lies, NASA intentionally misrepresents the circumstances as regards the LRRR. First of all, given the device was said to have been "found" on 08/01/1969 by the Lick Observatory scientists, a time in which the sun was still shining on the lunar surface, shining as brightly as on 07/21/1969, the LRRR's not having been identified on the evening of Armstrong's landings has nothing to do with light/dark concerns as NASA states in the Mission Operation Report. It was light on the surface of the moon that day when NASA said the LRRR was found. Additionally, we find in reading Beattie that no one, not a single soul knew where the alleged LM, the Eagle, was on 07/21/1969, not even the alleged moonwalkers themselves knew where they were. As the "LRRR's location" was not determined until 08/01/1969, NASA is lying in every sense and in all circumstances where they indicate the LRRR was being looked for with the Lick laser. No one had any ideal where one might look for this imagined Eagle landing site until Beattie's team gave their suggestions to Lick based on flight data and photo analysis. The Lick team could not have possibly been targeting "Tranquility Base" on the evening of 07/20/1969 as the alleged astronauts that were alleged to have been on the surface of the moon, and Michael Collins alleged to have been in the CM overhead, and the real people in Houston, not to mention the real scientists at Lick, none of them, not a single soul knew where the alleged LM, the Eagle, had landed. It was not until 08/01/1969 that a laser report was received from the moon by the Lick scientists from 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E.

So nobody, not the alleged moonwalkers, not the alleged CM pilot, not the people in Houston, not the people at Lick, not a single soul "knew" where the Eagle was on the night of 07/20/1969 because the Eagle did not exist.

[gillianren]

What did the guys in the factory build, then?

[fattydash]

For Bob at # 10

I do not know much about rendezvous in space, can't say I have ever pulled one off, though Buzz Aldrin claims to have participated in a rendezvous or two.

Here is astronaut Aldrin from the Apollo 11 post flight press conference, referring to the CM/LM rendezvous;

"The surprising feature of this rendezvous,many of us were expecting a fairly large out-of-planeness, due to perhaps some misalignment in azimuth on the surface".

So it would appear according to Buzz that the more precisely the azimuth is aligned, the better things go as far as your rendezvous.

So the answer is very much yes according to Aldrin, precision in azimuth alignment is important, The better the alignment, the less the out-of-planeness . This per astronaut Aldrin.

[fattydash]

I assume they built LMs, but by all accounts, no one knew where the Eagle was on 07/20/1969. If the Lick people knew it was at lunar coordinates 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E then they would have targeted that site. But by all accounts, that site was not targeted until 08/01/1969.

The people in Houston did not know where the Eagle was. Michael Collins did not know where the Eagle was and Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong himself had no idea that the Eagle was located at lunar coordinates 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E.

This was the case as there was no Eagle flying even remotely in the vicinity. The closest LM would have been 240,000 miles away on planet Earth.

So they do build LMs. They build Eagles. They just did not fly them anywhere near the moon, no where near lunar coordinates 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E on 07/20/1969.

So where in the world were the Lick guys aiming that laser all night and who was telling them to shoot the thing, and where? There was not a soul in this scripted production with a single clue as to what was landing where. No one had a clue as to where the laser should be aimed. The astronauts sure did not try to collect and pass along the proper information. Absolutely no evidence for that. They could not have been real astronauts.

Apollo is charade. Were it real, the astronauts would have made the effort to locate themselves by sighting the sun, earth, planets and stars by way of altitude and azimuth. Once they "found themselves" they would cry, "fire the laser over here".

This is what authentic astronauts would do. Are there any reports whatsoever in the Apollo 11 transcript, Mission Report, Debriefing to this effect? No. This is all phony, very phony.

It is impossible to conceive that astronauts so lost on the surface of the moon would not try to find themselves, ergo, they are fake astronauts. The entire enterprise is fraudulent.

[gillianren]

You don't even know enough to know that only one LM was called the Eagle, do you?

[tedward]

OK fattydash. What was wrong with the Saturn V then? Somewhere in here your claim starts. Did they lift off? Was the LM up to task, what is it?

[drewid]

Jul 8, 2011 1:57:38 GMT -4 fattydash said:

I assume they built LMs, but by all accounts, no one knew where the Eagle was on 07/20/1969. If the Lick people knew it was at lunar coordinates 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E then they would have targeted that site. But by all accounts, that site was not targeted until 08/01/1969.

The people in Houston did not know where the Eagle was. Michael Collins did not know where the Eagle was and Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong himself had no idea that the Eagle was located at lunar coordinates 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E.

This was the case as there was no Eagle flying even remotely in the vicinity. The closest LM would have been 240,000 miles away on planet Earth.

So they do build LMs. They build Eagles. They just did not fly them anywhere near the moon, no where near lunar coordinates 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E on 07/20/1969.

So where in the world were the Lick guys aiming that laser all night and who was telling them to shoot the thing, and where? There was not a soul in this scripted production with a single clue as to what was landing where. No one had a clue as to where the laser should be aimed. The astronauts sure did not try to collect and pass along the proper information. Absolutely no evidence for that. They could not have been real astronauts.

Apollo is charade. Were it real, the astronauts would have made the effort to locate themselves by sighting the sun, earth, planets and stars by way of altitude and azimuth. Once they "found themselves" they would cry, "fire the laser over here".

This is what authentic astronauts would do. Are there any reports whatsoever in the Apollo 11 transcript, Mission Report, Debriefing to this effect? No. This is all phony, very phony.

It is impossible to conceive that astronauts so lost on the surface of the moon would not try to find themselves, ergo, they are fake astronauts. The entire enterprise is fraudulent.

The Lick team not finding the rangefinder at first attempt is not surprising. You seem to be expecting some sort of strong visible Star Wars laser return, whereas it's just a few photons that make it back.

You also seem to be hanging on to the strange notion that a laser doesn't diverge, whereas , as has already been pointed out, the laser spot would cover an area of several square miles by the time it reached the lunar surface.

Just because the process is optimal at night, doesn't mean it can't be done during the day, it just means it is less optimal and may take a large number of attempts.

Remember you are looking for a few photons that match the laser you fired. It's harder to pull that out of the background noise during the day.

[tedward]

There is an interview on line with one of the observers that makes for interesting reading. I have not checked it as it is beyond my knowledge of the situation. There is also another explanation on the Apache Point web site that I have read up on in the past but the nubbin here is fattydash is piling a lot of words into one small part of the operation.

Somewhere he must have an idea where he thinks it was faked from there on. Same with the medical claim, I see a lot of hot air and no substance. Where does it begin for him, start there I think. His premiss lacks depth so far.


Edit The explanation on the Apache Point site is the method I should say, not to do with 1969.

[Jason Thompson]

Jul 8, 2011 1:57:38 GMT -4 fattydash said:

Were it real, the astronauts would have made the effort to locate themselves by sighting the sun, earth, planets and stars by way of altitude and azimuth.

1: Why? Was their precise location of such huge significance that it required them to devote a substantial amount of time to finding it rather than, say, sampling the lunar surface and environment, which was their actual goal?

2: How much precision can you get for your own location by measuring positions of stars and the Earth and Sun? Can you locate yourself to within, say, one square mile, by using such information?

It is impossible to conceive that astronauts so lost on the surface of the moon would not try to find themselves,

They were not that lost. They knew where they were to within a few square miles, but the LM was only 9 metres across at its widest. That's a small pinprick to find in a wide area. They also knew that, due to orbital mechanics, they came in from a particular orbital plane and they would go back up into a particular orbital plane which would be well within the margin of error for a rendezvous to be performed.

You seem to think that they needed to know exactly where they were in order to actually do anything, and a small loss of position would ruin their whole flight. Why?

And you still have not answered the question: If all the hardware worked, what was their reason for faking it?