|
Post by captain swoop on Mar 30, 2006 7:54:37 GMT -4
The radar can only tell how far from earth the spacecraft is and no way it can tell the bearing. That would be why they gave it the acronym for RAdio Direction And Ranging then ;D Actually, the name originally was a piece of misdirection: the first operational radar system (the British WWII Chain Home) had no directional capability at all; they were just built on the coast facing out (due to symmetry, they also faced "in" of course, which led to some tragic events when the filter circuitry failed). Once the ability to generate short-wavelength radio pulses was developed, it was feasible to construct steerable antennae, and the directional limitation was overcome. I would take you to task on this. Chain Home had 4 fixed transmitter masts and 4 fixed reciever masts, direction was obtained by the phase difference of the returning signal at the masts. Height was found by switching between two sets of transmitter arrays at 100 ft vertical spacing on the masts. Before being comissioned extensive calibration flights were flown around the stations at various ranges and heights. Each station had different characteristics depending on the shape of the landscape. All were situated with falling ground in the direction of transmission, this effected the shape of the signal 'lobe' which meant that each station had it's own height finding sig. for more info go to www.radarpages.com a site dedicated to RAF radar system and their history. I live a few miles from the site of the CH station at Danby Beacon in N Yorkshire and its later Chain Home Low station on the cliffs at Goldsborough. All the surface installations are now only foundations though. If there were no direction capability how could a fighter squadron be 'vectored' to intercept an incoming formation? Look up the 'Goniometer'
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Mar 30, 2006 8:07:41 GMT -4
I have to be honest. I have a lot of reading to do before I continue this discussion.I have to be honest and say I think that's the first time I recall anyone (who starts in the hoax camp) actually saying that. It makes a refreshing change. I hope that doesn't come across as patronising. It isn't meant to be. It's just that previous experience tends to involve people coming in declaring it was all 'obviously' faked, citing 'experts' like Rene, Sibrel or Kaysing, then totally ignoring the long, descriptive posts that refute their claims and insisting that it is 'obvious' that we are all blind sheep who have been suckered by the governments of the world. They furiously backtrack when cornered, and often lie outright about their earlier claims. I believe there were some links provided earlier, but some examples from memory from the past few months: Margamatix, when confronted with evidence that Sibrel is a liar, claimed never to have read or used Sibrel's arguments, despite having quoted them nearly verbatim, and even copying and pasting some of them. Stargazer posted an image of the Moon taken in gamma wavelengths, using it as evidence that the Moon is a 'searing radiation hell', but backtracked completely about that claim when I used the numbers from that same data to show that actually the radiation was not at lethal levels. Moon Man stubbornly refused to acknowledge the basic principle that a vacuum cannot have a temperature, and displayed a constant ignorance of thermodynamics despite having it patiently explained several times. Several posters have gone on about being banned because of their belief that Apollo was faked. When they were not banned from this forum for that reason they became abusive, or posted inappropriate or offensive material in a bid to get banned. When they were banned some of them were seen on other forums claiming they were banned because they refused to accept the reality of Apollo. You can see why I said your comment made a refrshing change, yes? Thanks to all for all your help.You're very welcome. It really is our pleasure. Contrary to the image some want to paint, this is not a forum populated by angry young men who want to simply attack anyone who doesn't think Apollo really happened. We genuinely enjoy discussing the subject, we all enjoy learning from each other, and we wouldn't be here if we didn't. I' really have to read more next time before I engage into argument with NASA engineers (at least some of you are close to that).You don't need to be a NASA engineer. If you have any understanding of engineering or physics NASA really does provide enough documentation to enable anyone to grasp the principles and details of virtually all its work. I'm not a rocket scientist, but thanks to material that is freely or commercially avalable about these things I can now draw you a reasonable scale cutaway diagram of a Saturn V with fuel lines, solid fuel retrorockets, engines, fuel tanks etc, as well as tell you which fuels were used in which stages and even how some parts were manufactured! There is vast amounts of information out there, and frankly it is information that many such as Rene, Sibrel or Kaysing do not (or did not in the case of the late Bill Kaysing) want you to go out and find for yourself because it absolutely will undermine their arguments. Still Rene's book sounds convincingIt is meant to sound convincing. That's how it sells. However, its target audience is the layman with little more than a passing interest in Apollo. Ironically, it was arguments about the landings being faked that fuelled my research into Apollo in the first place and led to me being convinced it really did happen. That is why I'll have to compare his claims with the official documentation and try to decide with my own brain who is telling the truth and who is not.I wish you luck. Don't hesitate to come back here for info or discussion. We're not only a good source of information, but a good directory of where to find information too. THANKS FOR WELCOMING ME ON THE BOARD.Once again you are very welcome. When I'm ready I'll start new thread with a discussion.We will look forward to it.
|
|
|
Post by captain swoop on Mar 30, 2006 9:15:30 GMT -4
According to Wikipedia it did. Although there was nothing as sophisticated as a counter involved: a washer on a screw thread making a circuit did the trick. Primitive, but good enough for the job in hand. Another interesting point in the article is how the Germans chose to believe reports provided by British counterintelligence over the radio transmission data from the missiles themselves: potentially saving lives as the V-1s fell short. German Intelligence didn't know that all their Agents had been 'Turned' and were feeding false reports back to them, they just reported that the bombs were over shooting and the Germans shortened the range. As far as I know the V1 didn't transmit any data.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 30, 2006 11:24:40 GMT -4
I have to be honest and say I think that's the first time I recall anyone (who starts in the hoax camp) actually saying that. It makes a refreshing change.
Amen.
Ong recanted a bit, but then backslid hard into holocaust denial.
It is indeed refreshing to see someone take a critical look at what he has read -- again, not in a patronizing way -- and admit as such to those who have opposed him.
And you'll notice the softening of tensions when that happens. Discussions can be more productive and less confrontational.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Mar 30, 2006 12:56:47 GMT -4
nasamoonedamerica,
I too would like to welcome you to the forum. I've been swamped with a project at work the last few days so I haven't had time to participate much in the discussion, but I've been lurking. Your apparent willingness to seek new information and reevaluate old information is commendable. I hope it is the start of a productive process that leads you to the truth.
Far too often hoax believers come here with their minds made up and simply ignore anything that doesn’t fit nicely into their preconceived beliefs. It is very frustrating for those who spend a great deal of time addressing the issues only to have their explanations dismissed with the wave of the hand for no reason other than it not being what the recipient wanted to hear. As long as you fairly consider what people here say and remain open minded, I think you will find the members of this forum friendly and helpful.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 31, 2006 4:32:55 GMT -4
I'd like to add a welcome too. I seem to have been swamped lately and it's all I can do to read through the posts, answering more than one or two is impossible.
I'll point out that like the others have said, rebuilding the Saturn V is really an impossible task. Parts of it have been so superseded that they just don't exist, for example, it used valves instead of transitors in polaces. As far as I understand, it would be just as impossible to build a new Space Shuttle currently too as most of the parts are no longer avalible.
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Mar 31, 2006 9:27:26 GMT -4
I hope he comes back as after twenty years of working with Engineers I'm yet to see one lose an argument. Unless of course the winner was writing the paycheck ;D
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Mar 31, 2006 9:47:30 GMT -4
Ah, well, that's just it - how many times have you heard any of us asserting the reality of Apollo called "paid debunkers"? As if every person competent to do a little research and a little high-school science (all that's necessary to debunk the great majority of "hoax" claims) are either afraid of losing our jobs (even though no one here works for NASA*) or is actually paid full-time to do nothing but defend the giant gubmint conspiracy.
*I do work on projects that are funded by NASA in my current job. Of course, if somehow I discovered that Apollo was a giant hoax, my righteous anger as an American, as a taxpayer, and as an engineer would compel me to reveal it. I'm well-paid, but I'd rake in a lot more dough in book deals, interviews, and talks in such a scenario. Not to mention the Nobel Prize I'd get for overturning several whacking great chunks of physics, which would be required to make the science fit the hoax claims.
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Mar 31, 2006 10:29:24 GMT -4
Oops, I wasn't inferring anything about pay from NASA or anything. I was only thinking of some blokes I worked with.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Mar 31, 2006 10:53:51 GMT -4
I would take you to task on this. Chain Home had 4 fixed transmitter masts and 4 fixed reciever masts, direction was obtained by the phase difference of the returning signal at the masts. Thanks for that: my original reading didn't say a lot on the matter, beyond that directional information was "extremely limited": which I appear to have exaggerated for rhetorical effect IIRC vectoring fighters was done on the basis of reports from whichever of the stations detected the raids, until they crossed the coast, at which point it was down to the Observer Corps. It's interesting that now some radars use phase once more to generate directional beams, rather than mechanically-scanned antennae...
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 31, 2006 10:59:32 GMT -4
Engineers tend to think very logically just as a matter of course, whether they've been trained in the formalisms or not. Logic to an engineer is like swimming to a sailor: if you don't learn to do it one way or another, your career options will be limited. Engineers tend to win arguments because they've done a lot of thinking before the argument starts.
Most engineers I know of have absolutely no desire at all to fake anything. Merely appearing to have succeeded is not satisfying at all. The joy of engineering is actually to have met and overcome the obstacles. And so the notion that thousands upon thousands of engineers consented to participate in a fake and then to keep it quiet for decades just grates against everything that engineering stands for philosophically.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Mar 31, 2006 11:10:14 GMT -4
And when you've had the privilege to meet and work with a number of the engineers who made Apollo possible, it also grates against everything you've learned about these guys personally.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Mar 31, 2006 11:50:49 GMT -4
Logic to an engineer is like swimming to a sailor: if you don't learn to do it one way or another, your career options will be limited. Wonderful analogy Jay, apart from one minor detail: historically sailors have usually been terrible swimmers, with very few of them ever bothering to learn how. It makes sense in a way: if you fall off a ship in mid-Atlantic the ability to swim isn't going to be a great help ;D
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 31, 2006 13:22:38 GMT -4
I knew someone was going to bring that up. The famed Capt. Cook probably would have survived much longer had he been able to swim.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 31, 2006 13:26:16 GMT -4
And when you've had the privilege to meet and work with a number of the engineers who made Apollo possible...
I learned my trade from Apollo engineers. Not only are they men and women of uncommon integrity, they are engineers of uncommon skill and tenacity. I have never seen any of them buckle to any display of professional shortcoming, laziness, or inattention. It is, in many ways, intimidating to be held accountable to such people for one's thoroughness.
|
|