|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 11, 2011 18:53:43 GMT -4
Jay seemed to accept the statement that the guidance system is the only means of determining landing coordinates given the circumstances under consideration.No I do not. Do not put words in my mouth. Do, however, answer my questions. "The guidance system" is not what you think it is. We've discussed a number of guidance programs: P12, P20, P57, and P68. Please tell me which program you're talking about. P68 is perfectly suitable for providing input to P12. P57 is for aligning the guidance platform while landed. As a side-effect it can identify the landed coordinates, but again only with a certain precision and accuracy. I grow weary of your evasion. I've had questions on the table for a number of days now: 1. What exactly about the LM prevents it from being a valid spacecraft? 2. You claim the ascent guidance was impossible because the notion of landed coordinates was too coarse. Please support this with actual evidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 11, 2011 19:18:22 GMT -4
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? Come to that, the use of Greenwich is kind of arbitrary, and for a long time, the French used Paris instead. Somehow, people were still able to travel from York to Marseillaise. |
|
|
|
Post by twik on Jul 11, 2011 20:07:57 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. Me, too. And I'm constantly wondering what Lick's Hamburgers have to do with it too. Maybe the conspirators met there for lunch? |
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 11, 2011 20:12:30 GMT -4
My piece provides more than an adequate case for the Eagle's not having been on the moon. No, it really doesn't. Pretending that you've made your case doesn't make it true. Or maybe the program was run but didn't provide good results. Let me make this absolutely clear: you do not get to tell people what questions they may ask you. You can evade them, your can refuse to answer them, but you DO NOT get to tell them they can't ask the questions. Having said that, continuously refusing to answer questions says a lot about the weakness of your argument. And disrespecting the members of this forum by evading their questions WILL get you banned. You're on really thin ice right now, fattydash. |
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jul 11, 2011 20:13:34 GMT -4
Just to connect the dots, Remington Steele (or, rather, Pierce Brosnan) was seen messing around at Arecibo....a well-known radio telescope...
|
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 11, 2011 20:42:01 GMT -4
I will not respond to such absurd comments on your part again Jason until those comments reflect a fundamental familiarity with the relevant references, in this case the navigational manual. Another way to say this Jason is that you cannot expect me to answer questions from you that demonstrate a lack of basic knowledge/understanding as regards the relevant piece of equipment. Please read the manual and you will see your statement above in an embarrassing light. |
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 11, 2011 21:16:01 GMT -4
For Lunar Orbit above,
You are absolute right LunarOrbit. Such attitude/behavior on my part serves no one, including myself. I was frustrated as is obvious from the context.
I apologize to Jason and to the forum. I meant no disrepesct.
Thanks for the post.
|
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 11, 2011 21:16:44 GMT -4
From the A11 mission report...(lots of interesting info in there)
Postlanding Spacecraft Operations
"The (LM) IMU was aligned three times during this period using each of the three available lunar surface alignment options. The alignments were satisfactory..."
"During the lunar surface stay, several unsuccessful attempts were made by the CMP to locate the lunar module through the sextant using sighting coordinates transmitted from the ground. Estimates of the landing coordinates were obtained from the lunar module computer, the the lunar surface gravity alignment of the platform, and the limited interpretation of the geographic features during descent."
This is where we can see the LM getting it's bearings straight. pitch, yaw, roll, heading. It's not until the pre-ascent area when they can briefly turn on the rendezvous radar to get some distance/range rate data vs the CSM coming overhead....which is when it was needed before departing the surface.
Am I interpreting this right?
|
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jul 11, 2011 23:53:32 GMT -4
Is it just me, or has anyone else lost interest?
Fattydash:
(1) Specifically, what technical reason did the US have for faking the Apollo moon landings?
(2) Given the technical reason you cite when answering question (1), can you provide quantitative evidence for your claim?
(3) How did NASA fake the video footage and still photography?
(4) How have 400 000+ people been kept quiet?
(5) The individuals that you cite, do they believe that the Apollo moon landings were hoaxed?
Others have asked different questions. I think you have met Jay, Bob B, ka9q, sts60 and Jason et al. All of them have a much greater working knowledge of Apollo than I. With respect to all of them, is it not time that you were specific and addressed their questions too? I think the issue of LM position co-ordinates when on the lunar surface is another question that you have avoided.
(6) Using you method, what are the errors associated with finding the position of the LM on the lunar surface?
(7) Why, as you contest, are precise co-ordinates of the LM on the lunar surface required for the LM/ CM rendevouz?
I think seven bulletised questions should give you some structure to answer outstanding questions without further faff.
|
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 12, 2011 0:47:49 GMT -4
I wanted to start this as a new thread, but LunarOrbit suggested that I had enough going on, and after pausing to think about it for a moment, I agree. So I will just paste the post here as it is relevant to the Lost Bird theme and speaks directly/answers directly in response to the many questions already posed to me as regards what was known about the astronauts' position and specifically in what detail, to what accuracy. Thanks for the comment on the other side LunarOrbit , I tend to agree with your point. It was well taken. From CAPCOM, Apollo 11 Transcript at 04 06 49 39 CC "Eagle, Houston. You loaded R2 wrong. We want 10254." Now how interesting is that!!!!!  Interesting, I'll say! Especially after one reads this in Flight International Magazine from 21 August 1969, from Angus McPherson's piece, "The Eagle's Roost"; "The last reading given on the Eagle DSKY(display key-board) before touchdown was Lat 0 41' 15" N, Long 23 26' 00" E" What a pity the CAPCOM and his colleagues knew what was on the Eagle DSKY and for some odd reason Neil and Buzz, for the life of them couldn't figure out where they were. Matter of fact, there was a whole squad of US Geological Survey people looking for the Eagle based on the description Armstrong and Aldrin were providing of the Hollywood terrain at "Tranquility Base". Perhaps the astronauts should have provided the US Geological Survey crew with a description of the DSKY in front of their noses instead of trying to describe the powder on the stage lot. Funny how lies always surface, even when you try and hide them on the moon. |
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 12, 2011 0:58:17 GMT -4
I wanted to start this as a new thread, but LunarOrbit suggested that I had enough going on...You do. Please answer Luke's questions in post #233 above yours. ...and speaks directly/answers directly in response to the many questions already posed to me as regards what was known about the astronauts' position...No it doesn't. It tries to raise a new line of reasoning while almost completely abandoning your others. If you want to retract a claim, by all means do so. But kindly don't change the subject. This isn't BAUT, and we have different rules here. But I recommend that you be compelled to answer Luke's questions in your next post as a condition of your further posting to this forum. The truth is not to be found by a Gish Gallop of whatever pops into your head. In the other thread you spoke kindly of the differential diagnosis, in which a number of hypothetical causes are posited to explain a given set of symptoms. Then further observations (e.g., lab tests) are conducted to rule in or out each hypothesis in turn. We use the same procedure in forensic engineering. You obviously are fond of that methodical approach when you're using it to beat Charles Berry over the head. Now please follow it as we methodically attempt to examine your evidence in detail. Do not swerve all over the rhetorical map in a frantic attempt to find something you think will stick.
|
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 12, 2011 1:08:42 GMT -4
For Jay
Sorry about the delay. Have a night job and then sleep in the day. Off now for a while so anxious to engage in a bit of healthy debate.
My claim as to why the lander could not perform a guided ascent is we have no evidence that Aldrin was able to determine lander coordinates for the Eagle. For that specific claim, I site again my point, previously well referenced as regards the whole slew of US Geological Survey people hunting for the landing site on a map based on descriptions given by Aldrin and Armstrong.
So I claim no powered ascent as coordinates were never obtained to orient the astronauts from a specific point of departure. I claim a specific point of departure would need to be known to achieve lunar rendezvous.
As regards my specific claim about needing coordinates, Aldrin states in the post 11 press conference that as regards the post landing rendezvous;
"The surprising feature of this rendezvous, many of us were expecting a a fairly large out-of-planeness, due to perhaps some misalignment in azimuth on the surface."
I contend if he did not have coordinates, then he did not have ANY azimuth measurement. So as above, the rendezvous could not possibly have occurred so smoothly.
"as
|
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 12, 2011 1:11:51 GMT -4
Question then for you Jay. If you do not accept my assertion that the guidance system's equipment would be the only method one could employ in obtaining coordinate measurements from the lunar surface, what would be the astronauts other option(s)? How does one determine one's lunar coordinates equipped with Neil and Buzz's stuff if the person is not allowed to use the lander's guidance equipment?
|
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 12, 2011 1:14:34 GMT -4
You may ask me questions when you have answered ours. Begin with Luke's questions in post #233, please. |
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 12, 2011 1:24:34 GMT -4
For Luke
1) they did not have a lander capable of measuring coordinates, my reference, US Geological Survey personal looking for them.
2)according to NASA the lunar coordinates at Tranquility Base were determined on 08/01/1969 and this determination did not include data from the LM guidance system
3)Stanley Kubrick type lot based stuff
4) almost everyone involved in the project believes it to be legit. I gave that excellent example of Donald Beattie above. He was always under the impression that the Lick observatory people learned of Tranquility's position based to a significant degree on on information he and his colleagues provided to Lick. that turned out to not be the case at all. Remington Stone(technician) and Joseph Wampler(scientist) were provided with the coordinates by personal who said they were calling from Houston on 07/20/1969. So if Beattie could be fooled, and he was smart, apparently not hard at all. they are legitimately designing and building this stuff. Why would anyone have occasion to suspect fraud except for the monkeys at the top?
5) The astronauts know it was hoaxed, everyone else I suspect believes it was legit.
6) not sure about that luke, do you mean playing with my starry night software or actually trying to do it on the moon with my scope?
7) I do not know exactly what precise would be, but per reference above as regards Aldrin's comment about the azimuth measurement, the measurements are important, relevant, the better made, the better one would do.
|
|
