|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 11, 2011 15:48:21 GMT -4
For Scooter above. That point about why the LM guidance is the only available means of determining coordinates was thoroughly covered in my response to Jay in #179 as well as in
#125/#126.
If you care to object to the points I made in my response to Jay at #179, by all means. Please have at it.
Jay seemed to accept the statement that the guidance system is the only means of determining landing coordinates given the circumstances under consideration.
If you see things otherwise, please tell me what methods you would employ in determining the coordinates of your LM sans MIT guidance tools. Direct question scooter.
|
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 11, 2011 15:48:45 GMT -4
Imagine fattydash reporting that after a trip to Las Vegas he'd been stranded in the middle of the desert, out of gas. His car doesn't have Onstar, and he doesn't own a GPS. He was on a back road, so there was no cell phone coverage. The electrical system in his car failed, so he couldn't use the headlights to look for mile markers. He had absolutely no idea where he was, other than that he was somewhere in central Nevada.
Therefore, his car was never capable of working, he could not possibly have been in the desert as he claimed, and he couldn't have gotten home from there anyway. The obvious contradictions in his story would prove this.
|
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 11, 2011 15:50:41 GMT -4
That point about why the LM guidance is the only available means of determining coordinates You haven't a clue how LM guidance and navigation worked. You've made that clear. Please go off and read the references, this time making an honest attempt to learn the material instead of just mining quotes that you think you can use out of context to support your ridiculous claims. Our patience is wearing thin. |
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jul 11, 2011 15:51:07 GMT -4
So what have I acumilated today. The lander landed as stated and they aquired (at a later date) a return on the laser on an experiment not required for mission success, that success that is land, grab some rocks, get off. Plus some rather interesting snippets into the workings of the process and equipment.
No change then.
How did theyfake it fattydash? Still zero on the input there.
|
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 11, 2011 15:54:04 GMT -4
This point was well covered in my post at #126, but since you brought it up again, let's go through the details so there is no confusion. Oh, there's confusion all right. Just not on our part. |
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jul 11, 2011 16:01:33 GMT -4
At the time of Armstrong and Aldrin's moonwalk, the NASA personal in Houston monitoring/directly communicating with Armstrong claimed they did not know the coordinates of the landing site.
Hairsplitting. The location was known with acceptable accuracy. Again, if you think otherwise, you may provide your quantitaive analysis refuting the mission planning.
NASA's official claim was that it was not until after the astronauts had returned from the moon and that photos and flight data had been analyzed by Apollo scientists that some rough determination could be made of Tranquility Base's coordinates given the information provided by these analyses of photos and flight data....
Wrong. A "rough" determination of the landing site location was determined before they ever touched down, and this was determined - as I've already explained to you - by a combination of orbital mechanics and the dynamics of powered flight, together with the capabilities of the LM itself. By the time they lifted off, the position had been refined to within less than 1/4 km from the exact position.
The inconsistency and incoherence in the official NASA narrative becomes apparent when looking at materials outside of NASA documents properEveryone interested in this stuff should read the Stone article. This is the second time I have discussed it at length, in detail here on this forum, so obviously I believe it is important....
And you're wrong, because you're trying to inflate an offline science investigation into some sort of vital mission function. Which it was not. It wasn't needed for the primary mission objective (landing and return). It wasn't part of the detailed test objectives - all the crew had to do was set up the LRRR, and no callouts in the flight plan or the DTOs required lasing from the ground while the crew was there. You're incorrectly representing the operational importance of the ranging experiment in order to trump up its initial difficulties as something sinister, but I have actual space mission operational experience and am not fooled - nor, for that matter, is anyone else on this board.
I will give you credit, though, for being (AFAIK) the first hoax believer to make this claim. I guess that's some sort of achievement.
...I also would like to encourage the reader to review my post at #126 for another reason. I discuss there evidence for possible tampering with Stone's original article.
Let's go to the tape, shall we?
(post 126) More interesting than the bit Remington Stone tells us about mixing up "15" and "50" is that in the article from the University of California Observatories web site, the east-west coordinate is wrong. Tranquility Base is 23 26 00 E not 23 26 00 W. Also, the font is different from the body of the rest of the text, the font for the coordinates. Take an interesting look for yourselves brothers and sisters. It would appear that Mr. Stone's coordinates have been tampered with. Just speculation, but more likely than not true. We can tell from the context of the article that they were shooting in the right place for the most part from the get go. They were not 46 degrees off east-west wise. It is possible that Stone wrote west when he meant east, but seems unlikely as the coordinates as presented in the article are in this different font. The substance of my argument does not depend on this point at all. I just bring it up as it is so suspicious. The article appears to have been altered by someone other than Stone after it was written.
In other words, your "evidence" - which you yourself called "speculation" - is a font difference, and a typo which (a) is obviously wrong and (b) made no actual difference at the time, anyway - in an informal document typed up on an airliner the better part of four decades later. Nothing could better indicate your obsession with seeing a conspiracy.
|
|
|
|
Post by zakalwe on Jul 11, 2011 16:16:06 GMT -4
I refer the reader back to those posts and would like to point out that I find it rather curious, remarkable really, that zakalwe claims to have discovered something I discussed in far greater depth than he did, and I did it some 68 posts back. Neither curious or remarkable. I think that I must have lost the will to live after you quoted Shakespeare ad naseum  So Zakalwe, direct question for you, How about you responding to some of the direct questions that you have yet to answer? So Zakalwe, direct question for you, how is it that according to NASA's official account, supported in all their relevant documents and also supported by the personal memoirs of the NASA scientists involved in the project on the Houston end such as Beattie, how is it possible that their official claim was/is that Tranquility Base was not discovered until 08/01/1969 owing to Lick's having been provided with helpful photo and flight data and yet in striking contrast, Remington Stone states the Lick people were given the numbers 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E on the evening of the moon landing, at the very time that Michael Collins was saying he did not know the coordinates of Tranquility Base, at the very same time NASA had the US geological Survey guys looking for the location of Armstrong and Aldrin by virtue of matching moon maps with descriptions, at the very same time the astronauts themselves claimed they did not know their coordinates? This is a direct question. I gave excellent references for all of these claims back in my post at #125 and #126. Go on then, I'll take the bait. The Eagle did a final correction to P57 at GET 123:18. CAPCOM confirms the detent position on the AOT and also advises the alignment stars to use. Eagle retorts that the Sun is obscuring detent 5, and partially detent 6. They can confirm location by picking up Venus on the edge of the FOV in detent 6. At GET 123:28 CAPCOM states that they have "a fairly high confidence that we know the position of the LM". At GET 124:48 CAPCOM relays to Columbia "we have the latest position of Tranquility Base", "...A step west of West Crater". The landing site was about 60 metres away from this crater. So, in contrast to your assertion, the LM position was known prior to 01/08/69. Sources: Apollo 11 TranscriptsApollo 11 TimelineApollo 11 Landing Site |
|
|
|
Post by twik on Jul 11, 2011 16:36:38 GMT -4
By the time they lifted off, the position had been refined to within less than 1/4 km from the exact position. To put that in perspective, that's within 250 yards of something that's nearly a quarter of a million miles distant. Sounds pretty precise to me. Speaking of which, can Fattydash explain why, if it was faked, they didn't just announce that they'd found the LLLR first thing? With all the thousands of people who would have to be bribed/coerced, they couldn't have had someone stare at a screen and announce, "Oh, there they are!"? I'm pretty sure the reporters wouldn't have known any different. Why did they have to wait to announce that they'd located the array that had (in fattydash's version) been already placed by unmanned probe? |
|
|
|
Post by zakalwe on Jul 11, 2011 16:39:35 GMT -4
Speaking of which, can Fattydash explain why, if it was faked, they didn't just announce that they'd found the LLLR first thing? With all the thousands of people who would have to be bribed/coerced, they couldn't have had someone stare at a screen and announce, "Oh, there they are!"? I'm pretty sure the reporters wouldn't have known any different. Why did they have to wait to announce that they'd located the array that had (in fattydash's version) been already placed by unmanned probe? Classic HB position? Take one tiny piece that they cannot explain (using their explanations), or that may have some discrepancies that they believe point to an error, and ignore the masses of other verified evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jul 11, 2011 16:52:53 GMT -4
By the time they lifted off, the position had been refined to within less than 1/4 km from the exact position. To put that in perspective, that's within 250 yards of something that's nearly a quarter of a million miles distant. Sounds pretty precise to me. Well, yes, except at that point the quarter-million miles don't enter into it; only the orbit of the CSM and the LM's relative position. The first was known quite well, the second was known plenty well enough for a rendezvous. [Speaking of which, can Fattydash explain why, if it was faked, they didn't just announce that they'd found the LLLR first thing? With all the thousands of people who would have to be bribed/coerced, they couldn't have had someone stare at a screen and announce, "Oh, there they are!"? I'm pretty sure the reporters wouldn't have known any different. Why did they have to wait to announce that they'd located the array that had (in fattydash's version) been already placed by unmanned probe? Because in the hoax-believer mind, the more convoluted and counterintuitive a conspiracy, the more convincing it is. |
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 11, 2011 17:13:08 GMT -4
Does anyone else have a momentary glitch where they wonder what Remington Steele had to do with Apollo?
No? Just me? Good to know.
|
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jul 11, 2011 17:48:04 GMT -4
I'm only on page 4 and I'm already lost. Not about the technical details (Local normal vector to gravity...cool! Makes complete sense when you think about it!) but about what Doctor Klaw was thinking. How is it that this entire hoax gets planned out and nobody thought of picking a set of surface coordinates? What, did no-one have a topo map and a dart board handy?
I can not imagine a hoax scenario in which the location of the landing would not have been pre-determined.
(Okay...I can imagine one, but I'll detail it later if it seems appropriate.)
Also...has it been brought up yet in the thread that there is no Greenwich on the Moon? That there are several different coordinate systems in use, each linked to absolute position by different approximations?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 11, 2011 17:53:41 GMT -4
I'm only on page 4 and I'm already lost. His 12,000 word work of fiction on page 9 may explain it for you. |
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 11, 2011 18:21:56 GMT -4
As a matter of fact, NASA's official claim was that it was not until after the astronauts had returned from the moon and that photos and flight data had been analyzed by Apollo scientists that some rough determination could be made of Tranquility Base's coordinates given the information provided by these analyses of photos and flight data. That version of events is strongly supported by NASA's own Apollo experimental scientist Donald Beattie, who writes in his book "Taking Science to the Moon" that the discovery of Tranquility Base at coordinates 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E was dependent on this photographic and flight data analysis. Beattie was involved in that, the finding of Tranquility base AFTER THE ASTRONAUTS RETURNED. OK, this one really got me. I am wondering how the position could be determined by Beattie from lunar surface photos when there was no one on the surface to take the photos he used? By your description of the hoax containment given earlier, he would not have known of the deception, thus did the work and published this book in good faith. Or do you count him as one of the hoaxers and if so why? So where did the photos used to make a determination of location come from? What evidence do you have for your explanation. |
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jul 11, 2011 18:36:56 GMT -4
Okay...I got through the book report. Very, very Dave McGowan; lots of poetry, lots of "and now I'll prove it," but very little actual material. Could probably boil his entire case down to a paragraph and if he was a better writer (or, rather, one more interested in honesty than in emotionally swaying his audience) he'd have lead with said paragraph.
Anyhow...so his entire reason for not having a pre-determined coordinate for the hoax was an ill-timed Soviet spacecraft with ill-defined (but near-magical) capabilities that could have blown the whistle. Unlike, that is, all the OTHER times the Soviets chose to turn a blind eye towards the ongoing hoax.
I hesitate to even ask, but has he attempted to define what instruments would be necessary to either find an LRRR or, worse, to spot an Apollo craft, from lunar orbit? And has he any idea what the Soviets actually claimed was on their probe?
|
|
