ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: dwight on January 19, 2013, 09:35:33 AM
-
This is a new video which does an amazing job of explaining why the TV technology of the day was not up to faking a moon trip:
http://gizmodo.com/5977205/why-the-moon-landings-could-have-never-ever-been-faked-the-definitive-proof
Enjoy!
-
Interesting. I've wondered something similar, though I wasn't certain because I am somewhat ignorant of the video technology of the time.
Of course, some conspiracy theorists claim it was done with wire work as opposed to slow motion, but this has problems of its own.
-
That was great. His line about how differentiating the real from the imaginary puts the sapien in homo, is priceless.
-
That was great. His line about how differentiating the real from the imaginary puts the sapien in homo, is priceless.
Of course, someone at Gizmodo thought it was on anti-gay comment... sheesh.
The guy's editorial comments did annoy me a bit - I don't think spending the money to go to the moon was a waste. In fact, the waste was in going and then stopping. All that work and here we sit. It's like Columbus coming back to Spain with a few samples, a couple of drawings and saying "Don't bother going back - all I found was wilderness..."
-
The YouTube video of this has had it's comments disabled, which is a shame, as I'd like to see what the stupidheads of YouTube would make of it.
-
Are there any HB comebacks to this?
-
Are there any HB comebacks to this?
There were a few comments by hoax believers on the Gizmodo article, but not as many as there might have been a few years ago.
-
The YouTube video of this has had it's comments disabled, which is a shame, as I'd like to see what the stupidheads of YouTube would make of it.
If I was a betting man.....I'd say that would be why they have been disabled.
-
A wonderful debunk from somebody who obviously knows cinematography. But it could have been even stronger with just a little more physics. For example, he examines the notion that the Apollo 11 video at 10 fps was produced by playing back 30 fps film at 1/3 speed.
The actual ratio to simulate free fall in 1/6 g, is sqrt(6) = 2.45:1 or 1:0.408, but any change in speed messes up non-free-fall motions such as that of astronauts' limbs; you can't get them both right at the same time. Nor does scaling the film rate scale up the astronauts' muscles as would be required for them to move as they do.
His point about how phony government conspiracies like Apollo push aside the real ones was marvelous.
-
The guy's editorial comments did annoy me a bit - I don't think spending the money to go to the moon was a waste. In fact, the waste was in going and then stopping.
If you are referring to his "global dick-wagging contest" line, I didn't interpret it quite that way. When he says it, he's showing mostly military weaponry, not NASA hardware, though one shot is of a B-52 carrying the X-15.
But we have to be honest here; Apollo was part of a global dick-wagging contest between the USA and the USSR, even if we'd like to think it was something much more. Sometimes it's possible to do the right thing for the wrong reasons. And so it all came to an abrupt end, surprising only NASA and its supporters like us.
-
I particularly liked this comment, which I believe concisely sums up the HBs:
The problem was never incontrovertible evidence. Anyone with a firm grasp of logic and observation can figure out the truth. The people who choose not to believe are rejecting proof. They are making a decision that is in every way completely illogical. Offering more proof, or a better crafted argument is not going to make a person of this mindset change their mind, because the very foundation of their mindset is the rejection of proof. If you tell someone that two and two equals four, and they respond that no, it does not, you can try to demonstrate to them that two apples and two apples together equal four apples. If they reject that demonstration, showing them two oranges and two oranges added together equal four oranges will not change anything.
They are fundamentally broken human beings.
-
The guy's editorial comments did annoy me a bit - I don't think spending the money to go to the moon was a waste. In fact, the waste was in going and then stopping.
If you are referring to his "global dick-wagging contest" line, I didn't interpret it quite that way. When he says it, he's showing mostly military weaponry, not NASA hardware, though one shot is of a B-52 carrying the X-15.
But we have to be honest here; Apollo was part of a global dick-wagging contest between the USA and the USSR, even if we'd like to think it was something much more. Sometimes it's possible to do the right thing for the wrong reasons. And so it all came to an abrupt end, surprising only NASA and its supporters like us.
That didn't bother me because its fundamentally true. It's the notion that it was a waste to go to the moon. No, as I said, the waste was to go and then stop exploring.
We are becoming Homer's lotus eaters.
-
That was great. His line about how differentiating the real from the imaginary puts the sapien in homo, is priceless.
Of course, someone at Gizmodo thought it was on anti-gay comment... sheesh.
Oh well, there is one in every crowd. The Homo comment was a clever double entendre.
-
We are becoming Homer's lotus eaters.
If I didn't feel so good I might object to that statement. ;)
-
I note that about 3:15 in we get a quick scroll of Dave Cosnette's UFOs Aliens website. Oh, the nostalgia...
But yes, an excellent video. Thanks Dwight.
ETA: Ooh! I've just reached Earth (see left).
-
This is a new video which does an amazing job of explaining why the TV technology of the day was not up to faking a moon trip:
http://gizmodo.com/5977205/why-the-moon-landings-could-have-never-ever-been-faked-the-definitive-proof
Enjoy!
Devils advocate : What's to stop them videoing at normal speed and videoing the slowed playback on a good quality screen?
Obviously this doesn't solve the regolith and limb movement being out of balance with the vertical stuff etc. I suspect that the colour wheel artefacts would now look totally wrong, but would appreciate a more technical reason, as moonhoax believers may well argue this point.
-
Okay, I took note. I also took notes. Great video. Very clever. But he's not debunking anything. I say the guy is actually a HB and he suckered you people into watching his video by making you assume he's an anti-hoax advocate!!! (Yes, everything is a conspiracy.) If anyone is open-minded enough (not likely around here) to watch the video with that premise in mind, you'll get a completely different narrative. Try watching the video with the subtitle of "how the moon landing video was faked using a telecine." Most people wouldn't know what a telecine is. His whole point is to tell you how to use it to fake a moon landing.
Throughout the video he uses phrases like "I don't think so," and "I'm pretty sure..." and "I'm not totally sure." Clearly, he's not sure of anything. Or maybe he is?
"The U.S. government lies all the time about all kinds of things. If they haven't lied to you today, maybe they haven't had their coffee yet." Note that he's absolutely sure here.
"Did they fake going to the moon? No, I'm pretty sure they didn't, because they couldn't."
If they couldn't, why isn't he absolutely sure? That's a self-conflicting statement, and likely intentional, given his overall poise and demeanor. Remember, he just said the government lies to us all the time. He's telling you NASA lied!!!
The reason for that self-conflicting statement is because he knows exactly how they could have faked it, and thus the reason for the video. He goes on to tell you how they faked it, and he clearly knows what he's talking about. He says they would have had to use film, recorded at higher speed, then slowed down and converted to video using a telecine. The guy knows his stuff.
"If it wasn't slow motion, it couldn't have happened on earth, RIGHT?" He uses caps on this text display, "RIGHT?" Using caps here with a question mark indicates he's being sarcastic. Therefore, removing the sarcasm, you get, conversely, "if it was slow motion, then it all had to be done on earth."
"They did not have the technology to fake it on video."
I agree. They would have had to use film, then convert it to video.
I humbly await the onslaught of ad hominems.
-
Okay, I took note. I also took notes. Great video. Very clever. But he's not debunking anything. I say the guy is actually a HB and he suckered you people into watching his video by making you assume he's an anti-hoax advocate!!!
Did you actually watch the video or just imagine what might be like?
"If it wasn't slow motion, it couldn't have happened on earth, RIGHT?" He uses caps on this text display, "RIGHT?" Using caps here with a question mark indicates he's being sarcastic.
The use of a question mark indicates that he is asking a question.
They would have had to use film, then convert it to video.
He explains why they wouldn't use film in the video at 8:35 and onwards, if you've watched it you'd know.
I humbly await the onslaught of ad hominems.
There won't be because your appraisal is wrong.
-
Most people wouldn't know what a telecine is.
I do. It couldn't be faked using one.
They would have had to use film, then convert it to video.
Which would leave obvious artifacts. It wasn't done that way.
Film and video record their images in different ways, and play them back in different ways. That's true even without taking into account the different nature of the Apollo video from 'regular' video. Combining them leaves clear evidence of that combining. Evidence that is not present in the Apollo record.
I humbly await the onslaught of ad hominems.
Not an auspicious start.
-
If anyone is open-minded enough (not likely around here)
I humbly await the onslaught of ad hominems.
The irony......
-
"If it wasn't slow motion, it couldn't have happened on earth, RIGHT?" He uses caps on this text display, "RIGHT?" Using caps here with a question mark indicates he's being sarcastic. Therefore, removing the sarcasm, you get, conversely, "if it was slow motion, then it all had to be done on earth."
This is not correct logic. Reversing the original statement would be "if it was slow motion, it could have been done on earth". "Could have" doesn't reverse into "had to be".
-
I agree. They would have had to use film, then convert it to video.
Do you think the moon missions or their visual record was hoaxed? Perhaps an interesting discussion. Or are we taking differences in interpretation of the video. A boring subject.
-
I smell socks.
-
"If it wasn't slow motion, it couldn't have happened on earth, RIGHT?" He uses caps on this text display, "RIGHT?" Using caps here with a question mark indicates he's being sarcastic. Therefore, removing the sarcasm, you get, conversely, "if it was slow motion, then it all had to be done on earth."
This is not correct logic. Reversing the original statement would be "if it was slow motion, it could have been done on earth". "Could have" doesn't reverse into "had to be".
Fair enough. However, I can say "if it WAS slow motion, it couldn't have happened on the moon," (since being on the moon would negate the need for slow motion.)
-
So the next step is to prove that it was slow motion, isn't it?
-
Okay, I took note. I also took notes. Great video. Very clever. But he's not debunking anything. I say the guy is actually a HB and he suckered you people into watching his video by making you assume he's an anti-hoax advocate!!! (Yes, everything is a conspiracy.) If anyone is open-minded enough (not likely around here) to watch the video with that premise in mind, you'll get a completely different narrative. Try watching the video with the subtitle of "how the moon landing video was faked using a telecine." Most people wouldn't know what a telecine is. His whole point is to tell you how to use it to fake a moon landing.
Throughout the video he uses phrases like "I don't think so," and "I'm pretty sure..." and "I'm not totally sure." Clearly, he's not sure of anything. Or maybe he is?
"The U.S. government lies all the time about all kinds of things. If they haven't lied to you today, maybe they haven't had their coffee yet." Note that he's absolutely sure here.
"Did they fake going to the moon? No, I'm pretty sure they didn't, because they couldn't."
If they couldn't, why isn't he absolutely sure? That's a self-conflicting statement, and likely intentional, given his overall poise and demeanor. Remember, he just said the government lies to us all the time. He's telling you NASA lied!!!
The reason for that self-conflicting statement is because he knows exactly how they could have faked it, and thus the reason for the video. He goes on to tell you how they faked it, and he clearly knows what he's talking about. He says they would have had to use film, recorded at higher speed, then slowed down and converted to video using a telecine. The guy knows his stuff.
"If it wasn't slow motion, it couldn't have happened on earth, RIGHT?" He uses caps on this text display, "RIGHT?" Using caps here with a question mark indicates he's being sarcastic. Therefore, removing the sarcasm, you get, conversely, "if it was slow motion, then it all had to be done on earth."
"They did not have the technology to fake it on video."
I agree. They would have had to use film, then convert it to video.
I humbly await the onslaught of ad hominems.
Actually I contacted JS and he is most definitely convinced Apollo happened as advertised. Anyone with a minimal understanding of film/TV production techniues will know exactly that is his position. But then again, what would I know about the Apollo TV systems?
-
So the next step is to prove that it was slow motion, isn't it?
Yes and no. Good question, btw. There's a video on youtube where they take the mythbusters video with an astronaut jumping using a wire harness, and they slow it down 67%, and it matches up perfectly with a NASA video of an astronaut doing the same thing on the moon... which proves that it's easy to make a video that looks like you're on the moon using slow motion and a wire suspension. However, it doesn't PROVE that we didn't go to the moon, it only proves that the mythbusters are full of shit.
A bigger problem with the moon video is where the thing takes off from the moon and the camera follows it up. The problem is not that it couldn't be controlled from earth. The problem is saying it was controlled from earth, like that's the answer. I hope NASA didn't say that. The problem is that it would not have been controlled from earth. But the video is fake for another reason.
The reason I say no, the next step isn't proving it's slow motion, is because NASA made sure that can't happen by saying they no longer have the original video or telemetry tapes. Kinda like the "dog ate my homework" defense.
The proof is not in analyzing what NASA has provided, it's in what they haven't provided, and what they can't provide. If NASA wanted to make the hoax accusations go away, they'd provide the telemetry tapes and that would solve it once and for all. But it's not the video that I'd be interested in because they could hand me a tape with fake video on it. It has to do the the thing taking off from the moon and where it's going. I want to see the IMU data. They can't provide it because they don't have it.
-
The only tapes that were lost were from Apollo 11. All the other mission tapes, including the LM liftoff tapes made by the Lunar Rover, still exist.
A little bit of research by anyone interested in Apollo video would uncover that fact.
-
There's a video on youtube where they take the mythbusters video with an astronaut jumping using a wire harness, and they slow it down 67%, and it matches up perfectly with a NASA video of an astronaut doing the same thing on the moon...
How did you come to this conclusion and what did you do to quantify a "perfect" match?
The reason I say no, the next step isn't proving it's slow motion, is because NASA made sure that can't happen by saying they no longer have the original video or telemetry tapes.
What specific information is missing and since you haven't seen it how have you determined that it would be helpful?
-
A bigger problem with the moon video is where the thing takes off from the moon and the camera follows it up. The problem is not that it couldn't be controlled from earth. The problem is saying it was controlled from earth, like that's the answer. I hope NASA didn't say that. The problem is that it would not have been controlled from earth. But the video is fake for another reason.
Why is it a problem it was controlled from earth? Why shouldn't it be controlled from earth? Do you consider that impossible, and if yes, please provide proof to support that argument.
A clear answer with no handwaving would be appreciated.
-
There's a video on youtube where they take the mythbusters video with an astronaut jumping using a wire harness, and they slow it down 67%, and it matches up perfectly with a NASA video of an astronaut doing the same thing on the moon... which proves that it's easy to make a video that looks like you're on the moon using slow motion and a wire suspension. However, it doesn't PROVE that we didn't go to the moon, it only proves that the mythbusters are full of shit.
Wrong. It proves that Jarrah White will move the goalposts to attempt to make his theory fit the visual record. He basically takes a 2 second clip that he can roughly get to synch in with John Young's jump.....but fails to apply that to the entire EVA. There is a very salient part of mythbusters that he did not, and could not address. When Adam Savage moved under wire support, every time he moved forward, the wire dragged him backwards......resulting in a very jerky motion. I believe it is to do with his centre of gravity. Nowhere in any of the Apollo video record do we see any jerky motion....unavoidable with a wire support.
A bigger problem with the moon video is where the thing takes off from the moon and the camera follows it up. The problem is not that it couldn't be controlled from earth. The problem is saying it was controlled from earth, like that's the answer. I hope NASA didn't say that. The problem is that it would not have been controlled from earth. But the video is fake for another reason.
Very poor research. Ed Fendell simply delayed each of his commands aligned to an exactly timed launch, with a 2 second delay to account for the light speed, relay station and equipment response time.
The reason I say no, the next step isn't proving it's slow motion, is because NASA made sure that can't happen by saying they no longer have the original video or telemetry tapes. Kinda like the "dog ate my homework" defense.
If they were faked in the first place! Why admit it, and why not simply reproduce a set? Besides it was only on Apollo 11, they were overwritten......not lost.
If NASA wanted to make the hoax accusations go away, they'd provide the telemetry tapes and that would solve it once and for all.
Then knock yourself out, Apollo 12-17 are fully intact.
I want to see the IMU data. They can't provide it because they don't have it.
Please indicate what you would do with it.
-
A bigger problem with the moon video is where the thing takes off from the moon and the camera follows it up. The problem is not that it couldn't be controlled from earth.
Why not? Please explain.
-
Yes please do explain. I thought pages 187 thru 200 of "Live TV From the Moon" explained it so that even a layman would get it. What, having had those pages proofread by someone who doesn't speak english as a mother tongue.
Oh and I hope you realize just who you are taking on here with Apollo/NASA TV discussions...
-
Also, something that some of the fine folk here may not know is that each and every GCTA command which was uplinked to the LM/LRV was printed out at the tracking stations when received.
-
There's a video on youtube where they take the mythbusters video with an astronaut jumping using a wire harness, and they slow it down 67%, and it matches up perfectly with a NASA video of an astronaut doing the same thing on the moon...
How did you come to this conclusion and what did you do to quantify a "perfect" match?
I looked at it.
The reason I say no, the next step isn't proving it's slow motion, is because NASA made sure that can't happen by saying they no longer have the original video or telemetry tapes.
What specific information is missing and since you haven't seen it how have you determined that it would be helpful?
That would be the LEM IMU update using a theodolite and a survey point to convert to lunar units. The LEM doesn't know where it is or what it's alignment is on the moon, not the least of which was caused by Armstrong's manual landing of the vehicle. The big problem is that there's no survey marker because somebody would need to have been to the moon previously to put it there. Saturn 5 had a glass window with a poro prism so you could see the IMU and the center of inertial reference and tell the guidance computer where the IMU is located in geodetic earth coordinates (to 5 decimal places.) It takes a guy on the pad with a theodolite and a plumb bob. They do this repeatedly up to the moment of launch. When lifting off from the moon, both the LEM and the CM would need to be running on moon coordinates so that the CM (moving much faster than a speeding bullet) could tell the LEM it's coordinates and velocity (state vector). And the LEM would need moon coordinates to know how to maneuver for rendezvous using it's known position and alignment on the moon, and calculating the intercept point in moon coordinates. There's no way around it. They would not have been able to do an IMU alignment on the moon.
Some rockets still use the theodolite system prior to launch.
-
Yes please do explain. I thought pages 187 thru 200 of "Live TV From the Moon" explained it so that even a layman would get it. What, having had those pages proofread by someone who doesn't speak english as a mother tongue.
Oh and I hope you realize just who you are taking on here with Apollo/NASA TV discussions...
I've got 30 years in aerospace. I've worked at VAFB and KSC. I'll be fine. Maybe they will convince me and I'll sleep better.
-
I've got 30 years in aerospace. I've worked at VAFB and KSC.
In what capacity?
-
Whew, those socks are starting to reek!
Welcome back, fattydash. Enjoy your stay while it lasts.
-
I've got 30 years in aerospace. I've worked at VAFB and KSC.
In what capacity?
Engineer. I worked on space station guidance and control, too.
-
If anyone is open-minded enough (not likely around here).
Interesting that you would say something like this in your very first post...Been lurking long, or are you just a sock?
-
I've got 30 years in aerospace. I've worked at VAFB and KSC.
In what capacity?
Engineer. I worked on space station guidance and control, too.
Prove it.
-
Whew, those socks are starting to reek!
Welcome back, fattydash. Enjoy your stay while it lasts.
Without people like me, you've got nothing to talk about. Where'd you come up with "fattydash?" Something out of your 18th century dictionary?
-
Without sock puppets we have nothing to talk about??
-
So, sanchez...you are an engineer, yet you fail to comprehend how the rover TV was operated?
Rather insulting that you think we're that stupid.
-
Yes please do explain. I thought pages 187 thru 200 of "Live TV From the Moon" explained it so that even a layman would get it. What, having had those pages proofread by someone who doesn't speak english as a mother tongue.
Oh and I hope you realize just who you are taking on here with Apollo/NASA TV discussions...
I've got 30 years in aerospace. I've worked at VAFB and KSC. I'll be fine. Maybe they will convince me and I'll sleep better.
You must have missed the circa 200 memos explaining how the GCTA worked during your important tenure at KSC. Perhaps you were the gardener there?
-
You must have missed the circa 200 memos explaining how the GCTA worked during your important tenure at KSC.
Perhaps he was sick that day(s).
Perhaps you were the gardener there?
Now, now....no need to insult hard working gardeners, just because one has delusions of engineer-hood. :D
-
Engineer. I worked on space station guidance and control, too.
This reminds me of an old Bugs Bunny cartoon...
My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire...I own a mansion and a yacht.
-
There's a video on youtube where they take the mythbusters video with an astronaut jumping using a wire harness, and they slow it down 67%, and it matches up perfectly with a NASA video of an astronaut doing the same thing on the moon... which proves that it's easy to make a video that looks like you're on the moon using slow motion and a wire suspension.
Why would anyone try to fake lunar gravity using slow motion AND a wire harness? That would be like making a product that was a floor wax AND a dessert topping.
-
I've got 30 years in aerospace. I've worked at VAFB and KSC.
In what capacity?
Engineer. I worked on space station guidance and control, too.
Oh yeah? And yet you don't have a b@stard clue about how lunar rendezvous is achieved.
Can I recommend 'The Apollo Guidance Computer: Architecture and Operation'
By Frank O'Brien.
As an observation, no real engineer ever addresses other engineers in an aggressive and confrontational manner.
It isn't a court room and adversarial arguments don't carry any weight. If that is all you have then I'll get the platter ready for your posterior. Science, maths, chemistry and physics are the only currency here.
-
There's a video on youtube where they take the mythbusters video with an astronaut jumping using a wire harness, and they slow it down 67%, and it matches up perfectly with a NASA video of an astronaut doing the same thing on the moon... which proves that it's easy to make a video that looks like you're on the moon using slow motion and a wire suspension. However, it doesn't PROVE that we didn't go to the moon, it only proves that the mythbusters are full of shit.
Wrong. It proves that Jarrah White will move the goalposts to attempt to make his theory fit the visual record. He basically takes a 2 second clip that he can roughly get to synch in with John Young's jump.....but fails to apply that to the entire EVA. There is a very salient part of mythbusters that he did not, and could not address. When Adam Savage moved under wire support, every time he moved forward, the wire dragged him backwards......resulting in a very jerky motion. I believe it is to do with his centre of gravity. Nowhere in any of the Apollo video record do we see any jerky motion....unavoidable with a wire support.
A bigger problem with the moon video is where the thing takes off from the moon and the camera follows it up. The problem is not that it couldn't be controlled from earth. The problem is saying it was controlled from earth, like that's the answer. I hope NASA didn't say that. The problem is that it would not have been controlled from earth. But the video is fake for another reason.
Very poor research. Ed Fendell simply delayed each of his commands aligned to an exactly timed launch, with a 2 second delay to account for the light speed, relay station and equipment response time.
The reason I say no, the next step isn't proving it's slow motion, is because NASA made sure that can't happen by saying they no longer have the original video or telemetry tapes. Kinda like the "dog ate my homework" defense.
If they were faked in the first place! Why admit it, and why not simply reproduce a set? Besides it was only on Apollo 11, they were overwritten......not lost.
If NASA wanted to make the hoax accusations go away, they'd provide the telemetry tapes and that would solve it once and for all.
Then knock yourself out, Apollo 12-17 are fully intact.
I want to see the IMU data. They can't provide it because they don't have it.
Please indicate what you would do with it.
The mythbusters wire demo was designed not to work. It's completely lame. If you want to see somebody on a wire, here's a peter pan movie from 1960. She runs around and flies all over the place without being pulled back. (It's cued up.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=hJFtCfHDFfw#t=1488s
The problem with Ed Fendell is they didn't need Ed Fendell. The LEM should have sent a signal straight to the camera when the engine started, and the camera could have handled it from there. Do you really think a guy was sitting in mission control with a joystick just to work the camera for 2 seconds? Although, if you can get the telemetry uplink data for that mission, it would be in there. I'd need the the data design document to know where it is in the data stream.
I didn't know the other apollo telemetry was available. Not that they would give it to me. In fact, if NASA really went to the moon, and they gave me the telemetry, and they paid me, I'd prove they went to the moon and nobody could ever argue with it. In fact, if they didn't go to the moon, but they paid me, I'd still prove they went to the moon. (I might contact them.)
So, please send me the apollo LEM telemetry along with a machine to read it and I'll take a look at it. Also send me the guidance computer software design document along with the as-coded software document. Also send me the LEM design document. (I want to see the window for doing an IMU alignment, or how they otherwise did it.) I'd also want the mission constants and sequence of events documents for the LEM and CM. I'm not being facetious. If anybody could produce any one of these items, I'd be very impressed. I might even change my mind. The whole moon hoax thing would be a close call except that, as the video points out, the govt lies all the time.
-
There's a video on youtube where they take the mythbusters video with an astronaut jumping using a wire harness, and they slow it down 67%, and it matches up perfectly with a NASA video of an astronaut doing the same thing on the moon... which proves that it's easy to make a video that looks like you're on the moon using slow motion and a wire suspension.
Why would anyone try to fake lunar gravity using slow motion AND a wire harness? That would be like making a product that was a floor wax AND a dessert topping.
Billions of dollars in funding.
-
I've got 30 years in aerospace. I've worked at VAFB and KSC.
In what capacity?
Engineer. I worked on space station guidance and control, too.
Oh yeah? And yet you don't have a b@stard clue about how lunar rendezvous is achieved.
Can I recommend 'The Apollo Guidance Computer: Architecture and Operation'
By Frank O'Brien.
As an observation, no real engineer ever addresses other engineers in an aggressive and confrontational manner.
It isn't a court room and adversarial arguments don't carry any weight. If that is all you have then I'll get the platter ready for your posterior. Science, maths, chemistry and physics are the only currency here.
"As an observation, no real engineer ever addresses other engineers in an aggressive and confrontational manner." OMG, I am going to forward this to so many engineers. You have no idea how funny that is.
-
The problem with Ed Fendell is they didn't need Ed Fendell. The LEM should have sent a signal straight to the camera when the engine started, and the camera could have handled it from there. Do you really think a guy was sitting in mission control with a joystick just to work the camera for 2 seconds?
2 seconds? No, he was in Mission Control for hours at a time operating the camera on the EVAs of Apollo 15, 16 and 17. He was a real engineer, not like some people/socks I could mention.
-
"As an observation, no real engineer ever addresses other engineers in an aggressive and confrontational manner." OMG, I am going to forward this to so many engineers. You have no idea how funny that is.
As long as you're in e-mail mode, will you PM me your real name so I can confirm that you really worked at KSC?
-
The problem with Ed Fendell is they didn't need Ed Fendell.
Who operated the TV during the EVA's?
The LEM should have sent a signal straight to the camera when the engine started, and the camera could have handled it from there.
Since Ed was ALREADY OPERATING THE TV, it would be ignorant to assume that he didn't operate it during the liftoffs...and you call yourself an engineer...the union ought to come to your house and slap some sense into you.
Do you really think a guy was sitting in mission control with a joystick just to work the camera for 2 seconds?
...and through the HOURS of EVA's.
...if you can get the telemetry uplink data for that mission, it would be in there. I'd need the the data design document to know where it is in the data stream.
No one cares what you think you require...
I didn't know the other apollo telemetry was available.
So that would make you an "ignorant" engineer?
The rest of your post is just blah, blah, blah.
When will you be providing evidence of your engineering background?
-
I've got 30 years in aerospace. I've worked at VAFB and KSC.
In what capacity?
Engineer. I worked on space station guidance and control, too.
Why then do you refer to the spacecraft which landed on the Moon as a LEM?
-
There's a video on youtube where they take the mythbusters video with an astronaut jumping using a wire harness, and they slow it down 67%, and it matches up perfectly with a NASA video of an astronaut doing the same thing on the moon... which proves that it's easy to make a video that looks like you're on the moon using slow motion and a wire suspension.
Why would anyone try to fake lunar gravity using slow motion AND a wire harness? That would be like making a product that was a floor wax AND a dessert topping.
Billions of dollars in funding.
That whooshing sound you just heard was the point whizzing over your head.
-
I am going to forward this to so many engineers. You have no idea how funny that is.
Because it isn't funny pretending to be something you are not...
....not that you are fooling anyone here, of course.
-
Why then do you refer to the spacecraft which landed on the Moon as a LEM?
I didn't notice....nice job spotting that
That's how we know you are a fake...you use terminology no engineer would use...fact is, the only people who do use the term "LEM", are ignorant hoax believers.
Congratulations..you just debunked yourself. :D
-
I've got 30 years in aerospace. I've worked at VAFB and KSC.
In what capacity?
Engineer. I worked on space station guidance and control, too.
Oh yeah? And yet you don't have a b@stard clue about how lunar rendezvous is achieved.
Can I recommend 'The Apollo Guidance Computer: Architecture and Operation'
By Frank O'Brien.
As an observation, no real engineer ever addresses other engineers in an aggressive and confrontational manner.
It isn't a court room and adversarial arguments don't carry any weight. If that is all you have then I'll get the platter ready for your posterior. Science, maths, chemistry and physics are the only currency here.
I have no clue how a lunar rendezvous is achieved? Either does NASA.
-
Still waiting for the PM, Mr. Engineer.
-
Why then do you refer to the spacecraft which landed on the Moon as a LEM?
I didn't notice....nice job spotting that
That's how we know you are a fake...you use terminology no engineer would use...fact is, the only people who do use the term "LEM", are ignorant hoax believers.
Congratulations..you just debunked yourself. :D
From wikipedia:
The Apollo Lunar Module (LM), also known as the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM), was the lander portion of the Apollo spacecraft built for the US Apollo program by Grumman to carry a crew of two from lunar orbit to the surface and back. Six such craft successfully landed on the Moon between 1969–1972.
-
I have no clue how a lunar rendezvous is achieved?
Then you are lying about being an engineer...simple as that...
Why must you lie in order to prove that Apollo was faked?
-
Why then do you refer to the spacecraft which landed on the Moon as a LEM?
I didn't notice....nice job spotting that
That's how we know you are a fake...you use terminology no engineer would use...fact is, the only people who do use the term "LEM", are ignorant hoax believers.
Congratulations..you just debunked yourself. :D
From wikipedia:
Is that where you received your engineering degree??...from Wikipedia?
-
Thanks for pointing out that little mistake in Wikipedia. I've fixed it.
-
From the same Wikipedia page: "Over the course of its development, the name was officially changed to Lunar Module (LM), eliminating the word "excursion" (emphasis mine). According to George Low, Manager of the Apollo Spacecraft Program Office, this was because NASA was afraid that the word "excursion" might lend a frivolous note to Apollo."
Why doesn't an important engineer like yourself use the official term?
-
Lets get something straight, sanchez....absolutely no one here thinks you are an engineer, so you might as well drop the "act".
-
Why would anyone try to fake lunar gravity using slow motion AND a wire harness?
This was He Who Must Not Be Named's rationalization for the results of the Mythbusters' separate experiments with slow motion and wire supports. He harangued Adam Savage at a conference about it, and he even got miffed that the Mythbusters hadn't consulted him in advance (as THE 'grandson of the Apollo hoax theory') as to what the 'proper' theories were.
All very funny.
-
The Wiki article also says that "Six such craft successfully landed on the Moon between 1969–1972."
-
From the same Wikipedia page: "Over the course of its development, the name was officially changed to Lunar Module (LM), eliminating the word "excursion" (emphasis mine). According to George Low, Manager of the Apollo Spacecraft Program Office, this was because NASA was afraid that the word "excursion" might lend a frivolous note to Apollo."
Why doesn't an important engineer like yourself use the official term?
Why doesn't an important engineer like yourself use the official term?
Such an obvious, lame mistake...if this is the quality of hoax believer we're getting now, the Moon hoax believers are indeed a dying breed.
Really, really lame...
-
So, um, Alex, what about your claim that All of the Apollo telemetry tapes were lost?
-
I've got 30 years in aerospace. I've worked at VAFB and KSC.
In what capacity?
Engineer. I worked on space station guidance and control, too.
Oh yeah? And yet you don't have a b@stard clue about how lunar rendezvous is achieved.
Can I recommend 'The Apollo Guidance Computer: Architecture and Operation'
By Frank O'Brien.
As an observation, no real engineer ever addresses other engineers in an aggressive and confrontational manner.
It isn't a court room and adversarial arguments don't carry any weight. If that is all you have then I'll get the platter ready for your posterior. Science, maths, chemistry and physics are the only currency here.
I have no clue how a lunar rendezvous is achieved? Either does NASA.
So you have read the book about the AGC already? Specifically p287 onwards, the chapter on Lunar Orbit Rendezvous. So we look forward to your scientific rebuttal. Will you be holding a symposium where you will present your work? Or publishing a paper under your own name.
Neither I'm guessing.
-
"As an observation, no real engineer ever addresses other engineers in an aggressive and confrontational manner." OMG, I am going to forward this to so many engineers. You have no idea how funny that is.
As long as you're in e-mail mode, will you PM me your real name so I can confirm that you really worked at KSC?
You wouldn't be able to confirm anything. You don't have access to that kind of information. It was technically Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. It's where the Air Force launch pads are. I didn't work for NASA, I was on an Air Force contract.
-
The problem with Ed Fendell is they didn't need Ed Fendell. The LEM should have sent a signal straight to the camera when the engine started, and the camera could have handled it from there. Do you really think a guy was sitting in mission control with a joystick just to work the camera for 2 seconds? Although, if you can get the telemetry uplink data for that mission, it would be in there. I'd need the the data design document to know where it is in the data stream.
So you were at KSC yet never picked up that Ed was pushing lit buttons on a panel rather than using a joystick? And he was doing it for nearly all the 3 EVA durations? Again, how did you get that mixed up and missed? - he even wrote a widely circulated memo describing exactl what he was doing.
For the data stream printouts, try asking one of the ex engineers at the relevant stations.
-
You wouldn't be able to confirm anything. You don't have access to that kind of information. It was technically Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. It's where the Air Force launch pads are. I didn't work for NASA, I was on an Air Force contract.
I worked in the aerospace industry at Cape Canaveral for NASA as well. Although technically I was actually just a passenger in a 747 and I wasn't at the Cape, I was just at Mascot Airport, and it wasn't NASA but Sydney Aquarium I worked for. Still all I said was true.
-
[That would be the LEM IMU update
I notice that your reply had nothing to do with my questions of your knowledge of the video. It was remarkable familiar little rant though.
-
If you want to see somebody on a wire, here's a peter pan movie from 1960. She runs around and flies all over the place without being pulled back. (It's cued up.)
And now you are straying into MY field, Doc.
Nonsense. Idiotic. No theatrical "wire" system does dang-all UNTIL the slack is pulled in. Then the actor's movements become almost entirely controlled by the fly crew, and by inertia.
I've done Peter Pan twice at major regional theaters. Once with Flying by Foy, once with ZFX. I had the opportunity to chat at some length with the chief rigger during the installation of the latter, and he described the tools available at that time (which was decades after the Apollo missions).
With the most elaborate system they had then, you almost had three axes of motion of the pick point, and the actor had two axes of motion in relation to the pick point. Not usually done this way on Broadway except for the "flying over the audience" gag; because an upstage-downstage travel gets in the way of pretty much every drop and electric you have over the stage.
The normal rig is a traveling head and a single pick point. Used cleverly, this can give the illusion of a flight from any point to any point...but it is achieved through carefully choreographed motions of the head and full use of inertia and geometry to create the various flights. (As in; a typical gag is to have the actor walk to a point upstage of the track, then fly them; as soon as they are in the air they will swing downstage, and by timing it carefully you drop them back down to the stage at the furthest point of their swing.)
The only way a theatrical system could give an illusion of constant lower weight is if it was carefully choreographed to every single moment of the actor's travel, the actor was further restricted in the paths they could take...and trying to take the inertia out of the swings would be an absolute nightmare. No such system would ever have evolved the lunar bunny hop we see in the Apollo footage.
Put it this way -- no feature film has EVER tried (with the possible exception of those films specifically made to celebrate the Apollo program).
Do you really think a guy was sitting in mission control with a joystick just to work the camera for 2 seconds?
Do some research some time.
He didn't sit down for that moment, at that moment. Stupid, stupid, stupid. The camera was remote-controlled for the duration of the EVA full stop.
So, please send me the apollo LEM telemetry along with a machine to read it and I'll take a look at it.
Aye, there's the rub. Hoaxies love coming up with what they fondly hope are impossible goal posts, don't they?
In your world, of course, only the original 2" tape could POSSIBLY do. Apparently we haven't the faintest idea what Ptolemy ever wrote, because no-one has the original copy of the Almagest.
-
You don't have access to that kind of information.
A "secret" engineer....hoo boy.
At least tell us a lie that might possibily be true...this lie ain't working for ya.
-
You wouldn't be able to confirm anything. You don't have access to that kind of information. It was technically Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. It's where the Air Force launch pads are. I didn't work for NASA, I was on an Air Force contract.
I worked in the aerospace industry at Cape Canaveral for NASA as well. Although technically I was actually just a passenger in a 747 and I wasn't at the Cape, I was just at Mascot Airport, and it wasn't NASA but Sydney Aquarium I worked for. Still all I said was true.
I was the first man on the Sun, but I got a hotfoot, and had to come home...
What?...this isn't the "can you tell the biggest lie" thread?
Someone should tell sanchez.
-
In fact, if NASA really went to the moon, and they gave me the telemetry, and they paid me, I'd prove they went to the moon and nobody could ever argue with it.
Sadly not true. There are always ignorant people on the internet who deny all the evidence. Why, some of them even lie and claim to be engineers, despite obviously knowing nothing about engineering!
-
You wouldn't be able to confirm anything. You don't have access to that kind of information. It was technically Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. It's where the Air Force launch pads are. I didn't work for NASA, I was on an Air Force contract.
Interesting. I worked out of AE and S when I was at the Cape, and a number of other buildings (as well as 39A and B) on the KSC side. So you were a contractor? Who did you work for? What did you do?
I'm a little confused, though, since you said you worked on ISS GNC, but you then said you were working on the Cape side on a USAF contract... How exactly did that work?
Oh, and welcome to the board.
-
That would be the LEM IMU update using a theodolite and a survey point to convert to lunar units. The LEM doesn't know where it is or what it's alignment is on the moon, not the least of which was caused by Armstrong's manual landing of the vehicle. The big problem is that there's no survey marker because somebody would need to have been to the moon previously to put it there. Saturn 5 had a glass window with a poro prism so you could see the IMU and the center of inertial reference and tell the guidance computer where the IMU is located in geodetic earth coordinates (to 5 decimal places.) It takes a guy on the pad with a theodolite and a plumb bob. They do this repeatedly up to the moment of launch. When lifting off from the moon, both the LEM and the CM would need to be running on moon coordinates so that the CM (moving much faster than a speeding bullet) could tell the LEM it's coordinates and velocity (state vector). And the LEM would need moon coordinates to know how to maneuver for rendezvous using it's known position and alignment on the moon, and calculating the intercept point in moon coordinates. There's no way around it. They would not have been able to do an IMU alignment on the moon.
Blimey...this all sounds familiar, now doesn't it? ::)
What's your thoughts on the Lunar Laser Ranging Reflector and the Lick Observatory??? ;) ;) (don't bother with a response....we already know it)
-
Blimey...this all sounds familiar, now doesn't it? ::)
Is "alexsanchez" one of the "thousand names" then?
-
It's all good fun, but is there direct evidence this actually a sock puppet?
I admit the MO is certainly similar, but any actual proof?
-
It's all good fun, but is there direct evidence this actually a sock puppet?
I admit the MO is certainly similar, but any actual proof?
There's this saying about ducks...... ;)
BTW, I have just viewed the Gizmodo video for the first time.
Its excellent.
It hammers the final nails into the HB coffin without even getting into any argument.. it just shows, as most people my age realise, that there was simply no way to fake the Apollo landings... the required video technology just did not exist at that time.
-
But as sanchez tells us they would have had to use film rather than video, but as Sg tells us in there video, you encounter a list of problems which make that impossible. But then again I never worked at KSC while actually being in the air force in Cape Canaveral, so who know what shenanigans were involved.
-
This is a new video which does an amazing job of explaining why the TV technology of the day was not up to faking a moon trip:
http://gizmodo.com/5977205/why-the-moon-landings-could-have-never-ever-been-faked-the-definitive-proof
Enjoy!
Devils advocate : What's to stop them videoing at normal speed and videoing the slowed playback on a good quality screen?
Obviously this doesn't solve the regolith and limb movement being out of balance with the vertical stuff etc. I suspect that the colour wheel artefacts would now look totally wrong, but would appreciate a more technical reason, as moonhoax believers may well argue this point.
With all the socking my little question got lost......can somebody answer it? This is right up your street Dwight.....I would love to read your input on it. :D
-
There's a video on youtube where they take the mythbusters video with an astronaut jumping using a wire harness, and they slow it down 67%, and it matches up perfectly with a NASA video of an astronaut doing the same thing on the moon... which proves that it's easy to make a video that looks like you're on the moon using slow motion and a wire suspension. However, it doesn't PROVE that we didn't go to the moon, it only proves that the mythbusters are full of shit.
Wrong. It proves that Jarrah White will move the goalposts to attempt to make his theory fit the visual record. He basically takes a 2 second clip that he can roughly get to synch in with John Young's jump.....but fails to apply that to the entire EVA. There is a very salient part of mythbusters that he did not, and could not address. When Adam Savage moved under wire support, every time he moved forward, the wire dragged him backwards......resulting in a very jerky motion. I believe it is to do with his centre of gravity. Nowhere in any of the Apollo video record do we see any jerky motion....unavoidable with a wire support.
A bigger problem with the moon video is where the thing takes off from the moon and the camera follows it up. The problem is not that it couldn't be controlled from earth. The problem is saying it was controlled from earth, like that's the answer. I hope NASA didn't say that. The problem is that it would not have been controlled from earth. But the video is fake for another reason.
Very poor research. Ed Fendell simply delayed each of his commands aligned to an exactly timed launch, with a 2 second delay to account for the light speed, relay station and equipment response time.
The reason I say no, the next step isn't proving it's slow motion, is because NASA made sure that can't happen by saying they no longer have the original video or telemetry tapes. Kinda like the "dog ate my homework" defense.
If they were faked in the first place! Why admit it, and why not simply reproduce a set? Besides it was only on Apollo 11, they were overwritten......not lost.
If NASA wanted to make the hoax accusations go away, they'd provide the telemetry tapes and that would solve it once and for all.
Then knock yourself out, Apollo 12-17 are fully intact.
I want to see the IMU data. They can't provide it because they don't have it.
Please indicate what you would do with it.
The mythbusters wire demo was designed not to work. It's completely lame. If you want to see somebody on a wire, here's a peter pan movie from 1960. She runs around and flies all over the place without being pulled back. (It's cued up.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=hJFtCfHDFfw#t=1488s
That is a nonsensical response......you show me a girl in complete suspension swinging like a pendulum? She runs around under normal gravity but there are multiple wires to combat the problem with excess swinging. Fail.
You didn't address the centre of gravity problem with a single vertical wire.......please do so. Then you can explain how they didn't get the wires tangled up during the course of crossing over.....further......explain how they managed to rig wires up, hundreds of yards up big hills.
-
Hi Alex
Are you actually going to provide evidence to back up your claims, or just keep repeating word for word your comments on You Tube (which appear to be arguments from personal incredulity and, as such, have no weight)?
-
Alex
You haven't answered my first question. Do you think the moon missions were faked or do you think the video record was faked? Until you actually say what it is you are claiming, you are just trolling.
-
There's a video on youtube where they take the mythbusters video with an astronaut jumping using a wire harness, and they slow it down 67%, and it matches up perfectly with a NASA video of an astronaut doing the same thing on the moon.
Except it doesn't match up perfectly at all. The only time the motions of the guy in the suit in the Mythbusters episode matches with the guy on the Moon is during the 'vomit comet' exercise where they simulat 1/6th gravity in a diving plane.
A bigger problem with the moon video is where the thing takes off from the moon and the camera follows it up. The problem is not that it couldn't be controlled from earth. The problem is saying it was controlled from earth, like that's the answer. I hope NASA didn't say that.
You hope? Was the basic research needed to say that's exactly what they do say and what they did beyond you?
The problem is that it would not have been controlled from earth.
Why not?
The reason I say no, the next step isn't proving it's slow motion, is because NASA made sure that can't happen by saying they no longer have the original video or telemetry tapes. Kinda like the "dog ate my homework" defense.
That is only true for Apollo 11. What about the five other landings? Or the orbital video from other missions?
The proof is not in analyzing what NASA has provided,
Yes it is. No serious investigation draws conclusions from what is not available before first analysing what is available.
If NASA wanted to make the hoax accusations go away, they'd provide the telemetry tapes and that would solve it once and for all.
Standard conspiracy theorist rhetoric. NASA's 'only' way to prove something is always to provide something they don't have. You will please explain why the tens of thousands of pictures, hour upon hour of TV and film footage, piles of rock and soil samples, surviving hardware, personal testimonies, millions of pages of documentation and so on are inadequate. And 'it could be fake' is NOT an adequate reason for dismissing it. Prove that it was faked or else it stands as evidence in favour of the landings being genuine.
But it's not the video that I'd be interested in because they could hand me a tape with fake video on it.
As I said, prove it.
-
Devils advocate : What's to stop them videoing at normal speed and videoing the slowed playback on a good quality screen?
Obviously this doesn't solve the regolith and limb movement being out of balance with the vertical stuff etc. I suspect that the colour wheel artifacts would now look totally wrong, but would appreciate a more technical reason, as moonhoax believers may well argue this point.
You now have the problem of synchronizing the frame rates of the two videos. Keeping the frame rates of the two videos synchronized for 143 minutes with "steam driven" 1969 video technology is out of the question; I'd say impossible. There is bound to be drift, and this would lead to a black horizontal bar slowly creeping up or down the screen. As soon as that appears, the game's up.
Try videoing your TV screen to get an idea of what I mean
Now lets assume that somehow, you have managed to exactly synchronise the screen and camera frame rates, and you can keep them that way for 143 minutes. You will run into another problem. A TV picture (in the US) is made up of 525 lines. These lines will appear on the playback screen. When you video that screen, the camera will be using 525 lines as well. If you don't have the camera exactly square and aligned with the playback screen in X, Y and Z axis, you will get interference patterns forming, and if you don't have the sizing of the picture exactly right, so that every one of the 525 lines on the playback screen, coincides exactly with every one of the 525 lines on the camera, you are going to get obvious line pairs on the final result. There is an awful lot of "exactly" needed here!
Finally, if you manage all of this perfectly, you are going to run into yet another problem. Screens in 1969 were all CRTs, and they had something called phosphor persistence; great for smoothing out the picture for watching, but not so great if you are trying to video tape the screen.
-
The mythbusters wire demo was designed not to work. It's completely lame.
But according to your two earlier comments on it, it did work, and produced a 'perfect' match for an astronaut in the Apollo footage. Explain the discrepancy in your arguments.
The problem with Ed Fendell is they didn't need Ed Fendell. The LEM should have sent a signal straight to the camera when the engine started, and the camera could have handled it from there.
Uh-huh. And for the remaining hours of EVA from all three missions with a rover-mounted camera, some of which occurred in places without a direct line of sight to the LM?
Do you really think a guy was sitting in mission control with a joystick just to work the camera for 2 seconds?
No. If you think that's even close to representing what is supposed to be happening with the liftoff footage it is your research that is lacking. I know Ed Fendell was in Mission Control pushing buttons for hours on three Apollo missions, operating the camera on all the EVAs.
-
I have no clue how a lunar rendezvous is achieved? Either does NASA.
Actually they do, and there have been innumerable books and documents on the subject published. Many of which you can now find without even getting off your backside if you just search online for them.
You know, when research could only be done by finding books and visiting libraries, I could forgive this kind of poor research. What's your excuse for not even trying now you have the internet at your fingertips and could find half the information your arguments are lacking by just googling it?
-
You wouldn't be able to confirm anything. You don't have access to that kind of information.
Employment history is one of the easiest things to confirm. But if you're so sure she won't be able to anyway, why don't you give Laurel the information she requested?
-
Devils advocate : What's to stop them videoing at normal speed and videoing the slowed playback on a good quality screen?
Obviously this doesn't solve the regolith and limb movement being out of balance with the vertical stuff etc. I suspect that the colour wheel artifacts would now look totally wrong, but would appreciate a more technical reason, as moonhoax believers may well argue this point.
You now have the problem of synchronizing the frame rates of the two videos. Keeping the frame rates of the two videos synchronized for 143 minutes with "steam driven" 1969 video technology is out of the question; I'd say impossible. There is bound to be drift, and this would lead to a black horizontal bar slowly creeping up or down the screen. As soon as that appears, the game's up.
Try videoing your TV screen to get an idea of what I mean
Now lets assume that somehow, you have managed to exactly synchronise the screen and camera frame rates, and you can keep them that way for 143 minutes. You will run into another problem. A TV picture (in the US) is made up of 525 lines. These lines will appear on the playback screen. When you video that screen, the camera will be using 525 lines as well. If you don't have the camera exactly square and aligned with the playback screen in X, Y and Z axis, you will get interference patterns forming, and if you don't have the sizing of the picture exactly right, so that every one of the 525 lines on the playback screen, coincides exactly with every one of the 525 lines on the camera, you are going to get obvious line pairs on the final result. There is an awful lot of "exactly" needed here!
Finally, if you manage all of this perfectly, you are going to run into yet another problem. Screens in 1969 were all CRTs, and they had something called phosphor persistence; great for smoothing out the picture for watching, but not so great if you are trying to video tape the screen.
Brilliant answer....thank you very much!
-
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3fKzL0HfJp4C&pg=PA287&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
It just so happens that there is a extract on orbital rendezvous from the book I recommended on apollo guidance systems.
Your statement that Nasa didn't have a clue on how to perform a lunar rendezvous is either a barefaced egregious lie or wilfull ignorance of the first order.
-
That would be the LEM IMU update using a theodolite and a survey point to convert to lunar units. The LEM doesn't know where it is or what it's alignment is on the moon, not the least of which was caused by Armstrong's manual landing of the vehicle. The big problem is that there's no survey marker because somebody would need to have been to the moon previously to put it there. Saturn 5 had a glass window with a poro prism so you could see the IMU and the center of inertial reference and tell the guidance computer where the IMU is located in geodetic earth coordinates (to 5 decimal places.) It takes a guy on the pad with a theodolite and a plumb bob. They do this repeatedly up to the moment of launch. When lifting off from the moon, both the LEM and the CM would need to be running on moon coordinates so that the CM (moving much faster than a speeding bullet) could tell the LEM it's coordinates and velocity (state vector). And the LEM would need moon coordinates to know how to maneuver for rendezvous using it's known position and alignment on the moon, and calculating the intercept point in moon coordinates. There's no way around it. They would not have been able to do an IMU alignment on the moon.
Blimey...this all sounds familiar, now doesn't it? ::)
What's your thoughts on the Lunar Laser Ranging Reflector and the Lick Observatory??? ;) ;) (don't bother with a response....we already know it)
No, I insist on answering. The laser reflector has to be one of NASA's funniest jokes on the sheeple.
1) the Russian's were bouncing lasers off the moon before Apollo 11.
2) when you shoot a laser to the moon, the beam is affected by the atmosphere and only 1/30,000,000 of the light hits the reflector
3) on return to earth, only 1/30,000,000 of the reflected light can hit the detector,
4) the beam coming back to earth is spread across an area of over 63 square miles
5) the amount of light hitting the detector on earth from the moon reflector is 1 divided by 30 million divided by 30 million.
6) how do you point the laser at the moon reflector when you can't see anything that small on the moon?
7) if all that works, you're still only getting a couple photons coming in. How do you know your couple photons from the 50 million ambient photons coming from the very bright moon? A photon is a photon.
8) it's a total joke.
http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/basics.html
-
1) the Russian's were bouncing lasers off the moon before Apollo 11.
So explain why you get much more returned photons when the laser is aimed at the retroreflector. The rest is explained in the link you give.
6) how do you point the laser at the moon reflector when you can't see anything that small on the moon?
As the link you give explains, the beam hitting the moon is some 2 miles in diameter. You don't need to point it exactly to the retroreflector.
7) if all that works, you're still only getting a couple photons coming in. How do you know your couple photons from the 50 million ambient photons coming from the very bright moon? A photon is a photon.
By using a large number of pulses, and doing statistical analysis on the results. An analogy: You go to a shooting range, and see someone taking one shot, hitting the bulls-eye. How can you tell whether it was skill, or just luck?
-
4) the beam coming back to earth is spread across an area of over 63 square miles
The website you linked to says a ten mile wide footprint. That means the beam has a footprint a couple of miles wide by the time it reaches the Moon.
6) how do you point the laser at the moon reflector when you can't see anything that small on the moon?
It was placed in a known location, and the beam has a much wider footprint. It doesn't have to be aimed with 1 metre accuracy.
A photon is a photon.
Uh, no. If that was true you would only see in black and white. If you know the photon wavelength you can isolate it from the rest quite easily, and if you integrate it over time you'll find a peak emerging from the random noise. This is basic physics.
-
1) the Russian's were bouncing lasers off the moon before Apollo 11.
So it's possible.
2) when you shoot a laser to the moon, the beam is affected by the atmosphere and only 1/30,000,000 of the light hits the reflector
3) on return to earth, only 1/30,000,000 of the reflected light can hit the detector,
4) the beam coming back to earth is spread across an area of over 63 square miles
5) the amount of light hitting the detector on earth from the moon reflector is 1 divided by 30 million divided by 30 million.
6) how do you point the laser at the moon reflector when you can't see anything that small on the moon?
You only have to get the reflector within the width of the beam at the moon, and that accuracy is easy with a telescope.
7) if all that works, you're still only getting a couple photons coming in. How do you know your couple photons from the 50 million ambient photons coming from the very bright moon? A photon is a photon.
Apart from the technique mentioned in your link, have you considered using the reflector when it's in darkness?
8) it's a total joke.
http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/basics.html
So why do astronomers spend their professional lives doing it?
-
The reason I say no, the next step isn't proving it's slow motion, is because NASA made sure that can't happen by saying they no longer have the original video or telemetry tapes.
They do have the original video. The telemetry tapes were reluctantly erased in order to accommodate new data.
Kinda like the "dog ate my homework" defense.
And if the telemetry tapes were unavailable due to foreseeable loss or carelessness, that would work. Instead they are unavailable because of a conscious decision about resource management made in the face of looming threats to lose data from ongoing missions for lack of storage media.
If NASA wanted to make the hoax accusations go away, they'd provide the telemetry tapes and that would solve it once and for all.
Interesting that only after NASA announced that the Apollo 11 telemetry tapes had been erased and reused did any of the hoax claimants decide that was the important bit of evidence that would exonerate NASA. Strange that up until that announcement, the existing video footage was considered perfectly good enough for discussion. Seems like your judgment of what is essential evidence seems guided purely by what you know not to be available. I call shenanigans.
-
Yes, you can get a return from the moon without using a reflector.
MIT also did in their delightfully named Luna See (http://www.k3pgp.org/lasereme.htm) program.
But there is differences. For one, it is less accurate. The reflector on the moon is in an exact position, while the photons from a non reflector shot could be at any part in the terrain where the beam hit, which could be a pretty wide variation in altitude, meaning you can't measure the distance as exactly. Two, the signal is stronger since retro-reflectors bounce almost all incoming light right back in the direction it came from, as opposed to the rather diffuse reflection from the lunar surface.
Moreover, this diffuse reflection can be potentially picked up anywhere in the world the moon is over the horizon as opposed to the much smaller return footprint for a retroreflector according to this source (http://www.k3pgp.org/Notebook/Mlrs/mlrs_targets.htm).
Once again, alexsanchez, you have shown gross ignorance about the very things you claim expertise, and this is coming from someone whose education in science is best described as interested amateur.
-
1) the Russian's were bouncing lasers off the moon before Apollo 11.
And were they getting back the same number of photons of the appropriate wavelength as they were from their own retroreflectors?
2) when you shoot a laser to the moon, the beam is affected by the atmosphere and only 1/30,000,000 of the light hits the reflector
3) on return to earth, only 1/30,000,000 of the reflected light can hit the detector,
4) the beam coming back to earth is spread across an area of over 63 square miles
5) the amount of light hitting the detector on earth from the moon reflector is 1 divided by 30 million divided by 30 million.
That's why it's important to return as many photons as possible by eliminating the attenuation and scatter of the lunar surface itself.
6) how do you point the laser at the moon reflector when you can't see anything that small on the moon?
Gee, how does an airline pilot aim his airplane at London from New York when London is too small and too far away to be seen from that distance. Geez, are you really asking that stupid a question?
7) if all that works, you're still only getting a couple photons coming in. How do you know your couple photons from the 50 million ambient photons coming from the very bright moon? A photon is a photon.
If you knew the actual properties of photons, you'd realize first how ridiculous your claim is, and second how they distinguished the photons of interest from the others.
8) it's a total joke.
Then go away quietly and leave alone the people who do what you can't figure out how to do.
-
one of NASA's funniest jokes on the sheeple.
The ad hominem attack is noted.
1) the Russian's were bouncing lasers off the moon before Apollo 11.
And? The Americans also were doing the same. Please explain the difference in pre and post LLR results.
2) when you shoot a laser to the moon, the beam is affected by the atmosphere and only 1/30,000,000 of the light hits the reflector
3) on return to earth, only 1/30,000,000 of the reflected light can hit the detector,
So what? What is your contention? How sensitive is the receiver? Or are you just begging the question?
4) the beam coming back to earth is spread across an area of over 63 square miles
67, actually.
Again, so what if it is? What is your contention?
5) the amount of light hitting the detector on earth from the moon reflector is 1 divided by 30 million divided by 30 million.
Argument from incredulity.
There's 300 quadrillion photons in each outgoing pulse.
Again, so what? Is it your contention that the receiving equipment cannot detect the returning photons??
6) how do you point the laser at the moon reflector when you can't see anything that small on the moon?
Argument from incredulity.
As you have pointed out, the beam diverges. Which means that you don't need pinpoint accuracy.
7) if all that works, you're still only getting a couple photons coming in. How do you know your couple photons from the 50 million ambient photons coming from the very bright moon? A photon is a photon.
Argument from ignorance
You are saying that because YOU don't know how it was done that it cannot be done. The Universe is almost certainly totally oblivious to what you know and think, and yet it still goes about it's merry business.
8) it's a total joke.
Not really. But what IS funny is someone demanding that the Universe works according to their understanding...
<edited to correct schpellung speeling spelling errors :( :( >
-
You wouldn't be able to confirm anything. You don't have access to that kind of information.
Of course I do. I verify contract employment for classified projects all the time.
I was on an Air Force contract.
Contract number, please.
-
the 50 million ambient photons coming from the very bright moon?
Do you really think that a full Moon only reflects 50 million photons??? ??? ??? ???
-
I have no clue how a lunar rendezvous is achieved? Either does NASA.
Actually they do, and there have been innumerable books and documents on the subject published. Many of which you can now find without even getting off your backside if you just search online for them.
You know, when research could only be done by finding books and visiting libraries, I could forgive this kind of poor research. What's your excuse for not even trying now you have the internet at your fingertips and could find half the information your arguments are lacking by just googling it?
Great. Why don't you tell us how they did it? Or just paste a link here? I don't work for you.
-
Great. Why don't you tell us how they did it? Or just paste a link here? I don't work for you.
It's there for anyone with a brain to find. Beside, we all know that if you were to be presented with such information, you would do one or more of the following:
- Not acknowledge it
- Claim it's impossible
- Make up some patently absurd pseudo science as to why it wouldn't work
- Regurgitate the usual HB tripe
Anyone care to add any more to the above?
Also, don't lie about being an engineer or working for NASA because you're not.
-
@mr sanchez That much is blatantly obvious. It seems we are continually supplying you with information you ought to have known already.
-
You wouldn't be able to confirm anything. You don't have access to that kind of information.
Of course I do. I verify contract employment for classified projects all the time.
I was on an Air Force contract.
Contract number, please.
Jeez... that was 10 years ago. Let me think.... ahh can't remember the numbers. It started with a one I think. Damn. Damn. Damn. Just can't remember. You know you really are a special kind of moron? CDC Cyber replacement, and FOV-1.
-
Great. Why don't you tell us how they did it? Or just paste a link here? I don't work for you.
It's there for anyone with a brain to find. Beside, we all know that if you were to be presented with such information you'd do one or more of the following:
- Not acknowledge it
- Claim it's impossible
[li]Regurgitate the usual tripe that HBs
[/li][/list]
Also, don't lie about being an engineer or working for NASA because you're not.
Have you figured out how they did the IMU alignment on the moon? If you can't find the answer, then they didn't do it, and they didn't go to the moon. End of story.
-
I humbly await the onslaught of ad hominems.
You know you really are a special kind of moron?
The point is clear....
can you not make your point without resorting to childish name-calling??
And I fortell that this is going to figure highly in your immediate future.....
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/3D-printed-ban-hammer.jpg)
-
Great. Why don't you tell us how they did it? Or just paste a link here? I don't work for you.
It's there for anyone with a brain to find. Beside, we all know that if you were to be presented with such information you'd do one or more of the following:
- Not acknowledge it
- Claim it's impossible
[li]Regurgitate the usual tripe that HBs
[/li][/list]
Also, don't lie about being an engineer or working for NASA because you're not.
Have you figured out how they did the IMU alignment on the moon? If you can't find the answer, then they didn't do it, and they didn't go to the moon. End of story.
Stop moving the goal posts Mr Engineer. Just because you don't understand how they did it, doesn't mean it's impossible.
Do you not know how LOR was accomplished? If you don't just say so. Also, I know you won't give a direct answer to this question.
-
Great. Why don't you tell us how they did it? Or just paste a link here? I don't work for you.
When did it become anyone's job on here to educate people?
It's your contention that Lunar rendezvous could not take place. It's your burden of proof.
-
(http://memeorama.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Obvious-Troll-Is-Obvious-Meme.jpg)
-
@mr sanchez That much is blatantly obvious. It seems we are continually supplying you with information you ought to have known already.
You giving me information? Wow, that's funny. What do I owe you for that? Hey... tell me about that IMU alignment on the moon they didn't do. They couldn't get back without it. I've gotcha there!!! You haven't been hit with that one before, have you? Now you're stuck. You're all stuck.
-
@mr sanchez That much is blatantly obvious. It seems we are continually supplying you with information you ought to have known already.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f3/Tin_foil_hat_2.jpg)
-
You know you really are a special kind of moron?
...and what was it you posted in your very first post about ad hom attacks?
-
Mr Engineer, you didn't answer my question about whether you understand how LOR works. All you need to do is answer YES or NO.
-
Yeah you know where I told you that Fendell used a panel not a joystick, or when it was noted that it's LM not LEM, you know clanger type errors that kinda dampen your champagne and fireworks show celebrating that you "got us".
Oh and I'm still discussing your fundamental errors in the GCTA in case the mention of Fendell threw you.
-
Stopped answering questions and started insulting people. The behaviour of an engineer, alright. One who worked for NASA or something.
-
That would be the LEM IMU update using a theodolite and a survey point to convert to lunar units.
No, that's not required.
The LEM doesn't know where it is or what it's alignment is on the moon...
It doesn't need to know where it is on the Moon to any great degree of accuracy. The IMU alignment is to correct for IMU drift, not to establish the launch site location and spacecraft orientation.
The big problem is that there's no survey marker because somebody would need to have been to the moon previously to put it there. Saturn 5 had a glass window with a poro prism so you could see the IMU and the center of inertial reference and tell the guidance computer where the IMU is located in geodetic earth coordinates (to 5 decimal places.) It takes a guy on the pad with a theodolite and a plumb bob. They do this repeatedly up to the moment of launch.
And that's how you confirm IMU alignment when you're launching from Earth during the daytime. What makes you think that's the only way it can be done?
When lifting off from the moon, both the LEM and the CM would need to be running on moon coordinates so that the CM (moving much faster than a speeding bullet) could tell the LEM it's coordinates and velocity (state vector).
No, that's not how it was done. That's the hard way to do it. After the LM lifts off, the only thing that matters is the vector from LM to CM and the velocity along that vector. It does not matter in the least what lunar surface coordinates the LM left from. The CM does not need to "tell" the LM its "coordinates and [relative] velocity state"; the LM is perfectly capable of acquiring that information itself via rendezvous radar.
Clear you are unaware of how orbital rendezvous really works and the basic principles of terminal guidance. How you can claim to be a rocket engineer is beyond me. You're completely clueless.
And the LEM would need moon coordinates to know how to maneuver for rendezvous using it's known position and alignment on the moon, and calculating the intercept point in moon coordinates. There's no way around it. They would not have been able to do an IMU alignment on the moon.
No, that's not how it was done. You suggest that orbital rendezvous is a one-shot deal that depends heavily on terrestrial coordinates. In fact orbital rendezvous is a stepwise procedure using terminal guidance procedures that are completely removed from terrestrial launch conditions.
Some rockets still use the theodolite system prior to launch.
And some do not. So why do you suggest that's the only way to align an IMU?
You come here pretending to be an engineer familiar with launch operations, but clearly you aren't. You fail to understand basic physics, and have no clue how launch operations, guidance, and navigation are actually done. You can't even demonstrate a competent knowledge of how Apollo claimed to do it. You base your argument solely on your patently false claim to be an engineer, arguing from some semblance of personal knowledge and expertise. You seem to believe we should accept your claim to expertise a priori as a given fact. That's not how it works. Instead we look at the ignorant arguments you make and from them conclude that you can't possibly be a competent engineer.
-
Hey... tell me about that IMU alignment on the moon they didn't do. They couldn't get back without it.
No, that's your ignorant misunderstanding of the problem.
You haven't been hit with that one before, have you?
Now how would you possibly know that? That was on the previous incarnation of this forum.
Now you're stuck. You're all stuck.
No, the poster who proposed it wallowed around for a bit in the same pool of ignorance you find yourself in, ultimately admitted he was wrong about the LM guidance, then self-destructed in a flurry of spam and insults for which he was eventually banned. He then fled to JREF where he made the same argument, was confronted by the same refutations, made threats toward the JREF management and was subsequently banned. He now spends an unhealthy amount of time trying to create sock puppets and obsessively arguing the same claims.
Wanna talk about Borman's poop now?
-
You giving me information? Wow, that's funny. What do I owe you for that? Hey... tell me about that IMU alignment on the moon they didn't do. They couldn't get back without it. I've gotcha there!!! You haven't been hit with that one before, have you? Now you're stuck. You're all stuck.
You know what you owe the people who answered your questions? Common courtesy. Act like an adult, not a child. Admit that you're lying about being an engineer or provide the information that shows that you are. There are people here who know more about Apollo than you know about anything, and you haven't "gotten" anyone. You think your stupid mewling can trump their reasoned displays of evidence, because you have only ever interacted with people who don't know what they're talking about--or else you have continually ignored the people who do. Or, you know, you're a sad, pathetic little liar who thinks that getting a rise out of intelligent people shows that you're smart.
I'd love to have an intelligent, reasonable discussion with a hoax believer who can be taught. However, all the ones who can be taught stop being hoax believers.
-
Great. Why don't you tell us how they did it? Or just paste a link here? I don't work for you.
When did it become anyone's job on here to educate people?
It's your contention that Lunar rendezvous could not take place. It's your burden of proof.
No, the burden of proof is on you. For over 100,000 years, nobody went to the moon. One day, the govt says we went to the moon. 40 years later, nobody else has been to the moon. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We didn't go to the moon because it wasn't possible to do an IMU alignment to moon coordinates to get back from the moon. The LM/LEM would have had geodetic (earth) coordinates in it's GC. The LEM didn't know where it was on the moon. It didn't know what it's alignment was to the moon. It didn't know where the CM was in relation to the LEM. And you couldn't do an IMU alignment on the moon because there was no survey marker there!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survey_marker
-
Have you figured out how they did the IMU alignment on the moon? If you can't find the answer, then they didn't do it, and they didn't go to the moon. End of story.
I have evaluated your engineering "expertise" and have determined that you are talking out your hiney.
In other words, no one here cares what your ignorant opinion is.
why don't you take this crap where it belongs...somewhere like godlikeproductions.
-
We didn't go to the moon because it wasn't possible to do an IMU alignment to moon coordinates to get back from the moon.
And that's where the burden of proof shifts to you. Your ignorance of how space navigation is actually done does not satisfy that burden.
-
Hey... tell me about that IMU alignment on the moon they didn't do. They couldn't get back without it.
No, that's your ignorant misunderstanding of the problem.
You haven't been hit with that one before, have you?
Now how would you possibly know that? That was on the previous incarnation of this forum.
Now you're stuck. You're all stuck.
No, the poster who proposed it wallowed around for a bit in the same pool of ignorance you find yourself in, ultimately admitted he was wrong about the LM guidance, then self-destructed in a flurry of spam and insults for which he was eventually banned. He then fled to JREF where he made the same argument, was confronted by the same refutations, made threats toward the JREF management and was subsequently banned. He now spends an unhealthy amount of time trying to create sock puppets and obsessively arguing the same claims.
Wanna talk about Borman's poop now?
When was I wrong about the LM guidance?
-
http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=720&sid=0c4bd2fdb50b96e54fc4acd7f964cad1&start=450#p2374617
"I worked on the ISS for a short while. They had a full scale mockup of it in the lobby. Another building on site housed a huge swimming pool with lots of windows for astronaut "training." Wait a minute... you don't think... nahhhh!!!"
http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=720&start=420#p2373665
"The ISS is real. I worked on it at McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing) which became the prime contractor after Rockwell. Put it this way, they put something up there, which is no great feat.
With that said, are there people up there? They could be lying about that, although it's in low earth orbit, so people could live up there. But, when I worked on it (as a software engineer,) it was a total basket case of a project. It was a dumping ground for incompetent engineers (I was only on loan temporarily waiting for another project to start up.) The software at the time was Ada and the CASE tool was Matrix-X from HP for automatic code generation with a drag and drop interface. It was a POS. The test platform was the size of a refrigerator, and was used by all countries involved. The in-circuit emulator (ICE) had a socket on the front for the i386 chip, but there was never a chip in there because the ICE didn't work, so you had to use the software emulator which barely worked. The only thing you had for debugging was breakpoints. No single stepping or variable tracing. You had to use print statements to see anything. Before I got off the project I heard they were talking about switching to C++ (although apparently they stayed with Ada.) They also had a full mockup of the ISS for people to come see. I worked in beautiful building in Huntington Beach, CA. At the time I worked on it, I was thinking the thing would never fly.
The space shuttle is real, too. I was at Patrick AFB (next to the Kennedy Space Center - KSC) walking out to the parking lot before leaving the next morning for a work assignment in the Virgin Islands. The Columbia lifted off just as I was walking out. It was so bright I could feel the heat on my face. A week later I was on the highest peak in St. Thomas at a radar station eating a donut because all work was stopped as the range resources were in use for the return of the Columbia. We were listening to the live feed from all the radar operators around the country. We suddenly heard the KSC operator frantically asking the other radar stations if they had the target. White Sands said no, Johnson Space Center said no. We turned on CNN and a few minutes later they said the Columbia had been lost somewhere over Texas. It was very poignant. I saw it go up, and I heard it disappear in real time.
As far as the Mars landing... it's fake. Apollo was filmed by Stanley Kubrick. Yuri Gagarin was never in space. I do think the Ruskies had the first man in space, but he died, so they said it was Gagarin. That's why the USSR never said Apollo was fake. Gagarin was a national hero."
He gets about ???
-
When was I wrong about the LM guidance?
Well, right off the bat, you referred to the LM as the LEM.
That was a dead givaway that you were clueless
-
When was I wrong about the LM guidance?
So you admit to being the banned poster Patrick Tekeli of San Fransisco, posting here as a sock puppet in flagrant violation of forum rules?
-
Hi again, alexsanchez.
I've got 30 years in aerospace. I've worked at VAFB and KSC.
In what capacity?
Engineer. I worked on space station guidance and control, too.
So you worked at Vandenberg and KSC, as an engineer, and did ISS G&C...
You wouldn't be able to confirm anything. You don't have access to that kind of information. It was technically Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. It's where the Air Force launch pads are. I didn't work for NASA, I was on an Air Force contract.
... Except you actually worked on the Cape side...
You wouldn't be able to confirm anything. You don't have access to that kind of information.
Of course I do. I verify contract employment for classified projects all the time.I was on an Air Force contract.
Contract number, please.
Jeez... that was 10 years ago. Let me think.... ahh can't remember the numbers. It started with a one I think. Damn. Damn. Damn. Just can't remember. You know you really are a special kind of moron? CDC Cyber replacement, and FOV-1.
... and you did computer replacement and something to do with FOV-1 - I have to admit I'm drawing a blank on the latter, would you mind filling me in on what that was and what you did? Are you referring to the range safety system?
And since you may have missed my earlier post (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=342.msg10352#msg10352) in this busy thread, I just thought I'd ask again how the station GNC fits into your stated work.
-
When was I wrong about the LM guidance?
Well, right off the bat, you referred to the LM as the LEM.
That was a dead givaway that you were clueless
On that note, I'm outta here. LEM vs LM? You're serious, aren't you? Wow!!! I guess I am clueless. Goodbye. And good luck solving the problem about the IMU alignment on the moon. Until you solve it, you didn't go to the moon. And you won't solve it because it didn't happen. Sayonara.
-
On that note, I'm outta here. LEM vs LM? You're serious, aren't you? Wow!!! I guess I am clueless. Goodbye. And good luck solving the problem about the IMU alignment on the moon. Until you solve it, you didn't go to the moon. And you won't solve it because it didn't happen. Sayonara.
No, don't go. Argue with Heiwa about the ISS when he gets back......I'll get some popcorn in and we can all laugh at the pair of you.
-
No, the burden of proof is on you. For over 100,000 years, nobody went to the moon. One day, the govt says we went to the moon. 40 years later, nobody else has been to the moon. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
The most nonsensical thing you've posted so far (and that's going some).
For over 3.5 million years of human evolution no-one invented motor cars. is it your contention that auto-mobiles are fake too?
It didn't know where the CM was in relation to the LEM. And you couldn't do an IMU alignment on the moon because there was no survey marker there!!!
Why do you think that the LM (not the LEM as you insist on calling it) needed to know where the CSM was when on the surface?
-
And good luck solving the problem about the IMU alignment on the moon. Until you solve it, you didn't go to the moon. And you won't solve it because it didn't happen. Sayonara.
So your leaving before being banned? How "brave" of you.
Like I previously posted...no one here cares what your ignorant opinion is.
-
That would be the LEM IMU update using a theodolite and a survey point to convert to lunar units. The LEM doesn't know where it is or what it's alignment is on the moon, not the least of which was caused by Armstrong's manual landing of the vehicle. The big problem is that there's no survey marker because somebody would need to have been to the moon previously to put it there. Saturn 5 had a glass window with a poro prism so you could see the IMU and the center of inertial reference and tell the guidance computer where the IMU is located in geodetic earth coordinates (to 5 decimal places.) It takes a guy on the pad with a theodolite and a plumb bob. They do this repeatedly up to the moment of launch. When lifting off from the moon, both the LEM and the CM would need to be running on moon coordinates so that the CM (moving much faster than a speeding bullet) could tell the LEM it's coordinates and velocity (state vector). And the LEM would need moon coordinates to know how to maneuver for rendezvous using it's known position and alignment on the moon, and calculating the intercept point in moon coordinates. There's no way around it. They would not have been able to do an IMU alignment on the moon.
Blimey...this all sounds familiar, now doesn't it? ::)
What's your thoughts on the Lunar Laser Ranging Reflector and the Lick Observatory??? ;) ;) (don't bother with a response....we already know it)
No, I insist on answering. The laser reflector has to be one of NASA's funniest jokes on the sheeple.
1) the Russian's were bouncing lasers off the moon before Apollo 11.
2) when you shoot a laser to the moon, the beam is affected by the atmosphere and only 1/30,000,000 of the light hits the reflector
3) on return to earth, only 1/30,000,000 of the reflected light can hit the detector,
4) the beam coming back to earth is spread across an area of over 63 square miles
5) the amount of light hitting the detector on earth from the moon reflector is 1 divided by 30 million divided by 30 million.
6) how do you point the laser at the moon reflector when you can't see anything that small on the moon?
7) if all that works, you're still only getting a couple photons coming in. How do you know your couple photons from the 50 million ambient photons coming from the very bright moon? A photon is a photon.
8) it's a total joke.
http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/basics.html
Because they couldn't possibly have photons of a certain frequency. Yes, you can bounce a laser without a reflector but the return is weaker and more diffuse. With the reflector it is much more precise.
-
When was I wrong about the LM guidance?
Well, right off the bat, you referred to the LM as the LEM.
That was a dead givaway that you were clueless
On that note, I'm outta here. LEM vs LM? You're serious, aren't you? Wow!!! I guess I am clueless. Goodbye. And good luck solving the problem about the IMU alignment on the moon. Until you solve it, you didn't go to the moon. And you won't solve it because it didn't happen. Sayonara.
Translation: Darn! Outed again! I'm taking my toys and going home! You guys are mean!
-
On that note, I'm outta here. LEM vs LM? You're serious, aren't you? Wow!!! I guess I am clueless. Goodbye. And good luck solving the problem about the IMU alignment on the moon. Until you solve it, you didn't go to the moon. And you won't solve it because it didn't happen. Sayonara.
I feel disappointed by the quality of this flounce. I expected better.
-
Oh well, I guess Alex didn't have much flounce per ounce. I denounce his account on all counts.
-
On that note, I'm outta here. LEM vs LM? You're serious, aren't you? Wow!!! I guess I am clueless. Goodbye. And good luck solving the problem about the IMU alignment on the moon. Until you solve it, you didn't go to the moon. And you won't solve it because it didn't happen. Sayonara.
Aaaand the Golden Flounce Award goes to...
(http://www.google.co.uk/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://imagemacros.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/golden_flounce.jpg?w=720&sa=X&ei=4NT-UOmPCLHs0gXMqoHwDA&ved=0CAkQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNE2E6zCwH4NxnBUyCAH-DRZPKgf-A)
C'mon Alex/Fattydash/PatrickT don't go. We were having such fun.....
-
Oh come now, gold? Bronze at best. ::)
-
On that note, I'm outta here.
Yikes! Caught red-handed, were you?
And good luck solving the problem about the IMU alignment on the moon.
Any reason you don't feel like paying attention to the solution as actually documented and actually used? Any reason your ignorance should be considered the gold standard?
-
And good luck solving the problem about the IMU alignment on the moon
You must be one of those really, really stupid hoax believers that think there is no gravity on the Moon because the LM's IMU was aligned using, wait for it........ gravity!
Yes, there is gravity on the Moon. And the accelerometers in the IMU can measure it! Throw gyroscopes into the equation and the IMU can determine which way is down. Using the AOT to sight a star allowed alignment in all three axes.
-
6) how do you point the laser at the moon reflector when you can't see anything that small on the moon?
Your personal incredulity is not persuasive. Many people have personally witnessed it done at the McDonald Observatory in West Texas and other locations. One way is to use your telescope control system. Tell it to center on a certain place on the moon. Its internal model of the sky can understand where the moon is and the servos will move the scope. I've seen this done with amateur and small professional telescopes. The computing power needed is trivial.
7) if all that works, you're still only getting a couple photons coming in. How do you know your couple photons from the 50 million ambient photons coming from the very bright moon? A photon is a photon.
Your personal incredulity is not persuasive. When photons of the expected characteristics are detected in statistically significant amounts at the expected time following a laser pulse directed at the reflectors, they are reflected from the moon. If you have another hypothesis to explain the experimental results, we are all ears.
-
C'mon Alex/Fattydash/PatrickT don't go. We were having such fun.....
Given his "history" here, I doubt we've seen the last of him...
-
And for the third time for you to ignore read this book
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3fKzL0HfJp4C&pg=PA287&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
It explains all about lunar rendezvous and that extract should be a sizeable revalation as to how it was done. Of course it involves reading and comprehension. So probably best you ignore it so you can continue claiming that no one can tell you how it was done. Stick to mending bicycles.
-
C'mon Alex/Fattydash/PatrickT don't go. We were having such fun.....
Given his "history" here, I doubt we've seen the last of him...
It's funny, isn't it? You would have thought that he'd have grown out of playing knock-a-door-run when he was about 8?
Strange individual...
-
Oh come now, gold? Bronze at best. ::)
There's not been that much competition lately. Heiwa seems to have given up posting (stealth flounce???), even though he was logged on today. Eternidad's flounce was rubbish.
Flouncing aint what it used to be. The quality's been poor since DAKDAK imploded in such spectacular fashion....
-
And good luck solving the problem about the IMU alignment on the moon
You must be one of those really, really stupid hoax believers that think there is no gravity on the Moon because the LM's IMU was aligned using, wait for it........ gravity!
Yes, there is gravity on the Moon. And the accelerometers in the IMU can measure it! Throw gyroscopes into the equation and the IMU can determine which way is down. Using the AOT to sight a star allowed alignment in all three axes.
Oh don't tell him about P57. After all it's secret and Nasa haven't documented any of this. Accelerometers on the moon! Whatever next?
-
Oh come now, gold? Bronze at best. ::)
There's not been that much competition lately. Heiwa seems to have given up posting (stealth flounce???), even though he was logged on today. Eternidad's flounce was rubbish.
Flouncing aint what it used to be. The quality's been poor since DAKDAK imploded in such spectacular fashion....
To be fair, DAKDAK did create a new high water mark of low scum tactics.
The new forum makes such flounces impossible now, so we literally will never see his like again.
-
Oh well, I guess Alex didn't have much flounce per ounce. I denounce his account on all counts.
Cute, but don't give up your day job just yet. ;)
-
His departure kinda reminds of the scene in Poltergeist when the house implodes on itself.
-
1) the Russian's were bouncing lasers off the moon before Apollo 11.
2) when you shoot a laser to the moon, the beam is affected by the atmosphere and only 1/30,000,000 of the light hits the reflector
3) on return to earth, only 1/30,000,000 of the reflected light can hit the detector,
4) the beam coming back to earth is spread across an area of over 63 square miles
5) the amount of light hitting the detector on earth from the moon reflector is 1 divided by 30 million divided by 30 million.
6) how do you point the laser at the moon reflector when you can't see anything that small on the moon?
7) if all that works, you're still only getting a couple photons coming in. How do you know your couple photons from the 50 million ambient photons coming from the very bright moon? A photon is a photon.
8) it's a total joke.
http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/basics.html
Holy Cow! You claim to be an engineer, and you don't understand how LLR works?
6) how do you point the laser at the moon reflector when you can't see anything that small on the moon?
You can point it because you KNOW where the astronaut put it, and the telescope can be pointed accurately at any predefined point in the sky with an accuracy of a few arc-seconds.
7) if all that works, you're still only getting a couple photons coming in. How do you know your couple photons from the 50 million ambient photons coming from the very bright moon? A photon is a photon.
In simple terms, the observer looks at;
â–º a time period window just a few milliseconds wide when they expect the return pulse to come back after it has been fired (well call that T1.
â–º a time period window of identical width when no return pulse is expected (we'll call that T2).
They count the number of photons in each window, and then subtract the number received during T2 from the number received during T1. The difference is the number of photos received from the reflector. This sequence is repeated many hundreds if not thousands of times, and during which there will be a consistent difference between T1 and T2
-
I'm just trying to figure out how he worked ISS "guidance and control" when his cited work experience sounds like "computer repairman on USAF facilities". I guess we'll never know since he flounced off.
-
No, I insist on answering. The laser reflector has to be one of NASA's funniest jokes on the sheeple.
1) the Russian's were bouncing lasers off the moon before Apollo 11.
2) when you shoot a laser to the moon, the beam is affected by the atmosphere and only 1/30,000,000 of the light hits the reflector
3) on return to earth, only 1/30,000,000 of the reflected light can hit the detector,
4) the beam coming back to earth is spread across an area of over 63 square miles
5) the amount of light hitting the detector on earth from the moon reflector is 1 divided by 30 million divided by 30 million.
6) how do you point the laser at the moon reflector when you can't see anything that small on the moon?
7) if all that works, you're still only getting a couple photons coming in. How do you know your couple photons from the 50 million ambient photons coming from the very bright moon? A photon is a photon.
8) it's a total joke.
http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/basics.html
And you claim to be an engineer?!
-
the 50 million ambient photons coming from the very bright moon?
Do you really think that a full Moon only reflects 50 million photons??? ??? ??? ???
I'm reminded of a panel from a Marvel comic in the 70's; the supervillian fires his raygun and laughs "Not even YOU can withstand the force of a trillion concentrated molecules!"
-
I'm just trying to figure out how he worked ISS "guidance and control" when his cited work experience sounds like "computer repairman on USAF facilities". I guess we'll never know since he flounced off.
What I find amusing is how people don't realize that error can be distinctive.
There are only a few ways to correctly understand something. There are innumerable ways to misunderstand something. That is, there is one right answer and an infinite number of wrong answers. So when someone comes along who has a particular brand of misunderstanding, and someone else comes along who has the exact same misunderstanding, how are we to believe that they aren't the same person? Some misunderstandings are like a fingerprint.
Now conversely while I was an educator, I encountered common misunderstandings. That is, when the truth tends to be counterintuitive, the same common mistake is made by nearly all beginning students. They rely on intuition, which gives them the same wrong answer. For example, when confronted with the "speed up to slow down" paradox in orbital mechanics, most students intuitively believe "speed up to speed up." It fits with their intuitive (and even educated) understanding of the world.
But in something such as spacecraft guidance the field of ignorant error is wide open. When fattydash comes along and says, "I'm a doctor, but I believe you need to know the exact position of the LM on the lunar surface in order to solve the orbital rendezvous problem," that's a fairly unique error. No one else before or since (except as follows) makes that error. You can see the broken model at work in his head. So when some other guy comes along and says, "I'm a USAF rocket engineer and I believe you need to know the exact position of the LM on the lunar surface to solve the rendezvous problem," the parsimonious explanation it's that it's the liar Patrick back to up the stakes on the same broken understanding. It's not a question of the theory being right or wrong. It's clearly wrong; the successful rendezvous does not depend on a precision liftoff from the lunar surface. It's a question of the chances of two different people being wrong in the same exact way, and the coincidence of the second claimant wanting people to think he's more expert than the previous claimant.
-
All these pretengineers are making my head spin....spouting nonsense...then performing the flounce-return-flounce routine.
-
No, the burden of proof is on you. For over 100,000 years, nobody went to the moon. One day, the govt says we went to the moon.
For 13 billion years no-one breathed air. For as much as 4 billion years there was life on Earth but it still didn't have lungs. Then one day, a mere 400 MYA, creatures started breathing. How ludicrous!
40 years later, nobody else has been to the moon.
Look up the interval between Amundsen and Scott, and Amundsen-Scott (South Pole Station).
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We didn't go to the moon because it wasn't possible to do an IMU alignment to moon coordinates to get back from the moon.
Why would you need to know where the MOON was in order to navigate back to EARTH?
The LM/LEM would have had geodetic (earth) coordinates in it's GC. The LEM didn't know where it was on the moon. It didn't know what it's alignment was to the moon. It didn't know where the CM was in relation to the LEM. And you couldn't do an IMU alignment on the moon because there was no survey marker there!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survey_marker
Here's a question for you to ponder. Go to some remote location, say, the top of most peaks. Look for the survey market (many of them have them).
How did it get there?
According to you, a complex instrument package and a couple of highly-skilled, trained people are COMPLETELY INCAPABLE of placing such a marker.
So how did ANY marker get placed, ANYWHERE in the world?
You've got a real chicken-egg problem here.
(I'm also reminded of an experience the Apache Point observatory had during their "APOLLO" set of LRRR experiments. They'd done all the math, all the compensation, but the data didn't agree with the charted location of the observatory. Until they discovered what was essentially a paperwork error -- the "zero" location of the observatory from the original survey was actually located out in the parking lot.)
-
Oh well, I guess Alex didn't have much flounce per ounce. I denounce his account on all counts.
Thank you, Mr. Geissel!
-
Oh well, I guess Alex didn't have much flounce per ounce. I denounce his account on all counts.
Thank you, Mr. Geissel!
I was actually more channelling Tigger at first, but then it kind of got away from me ;D
-
To be fair, DAKDAK did create a new high water mark of low scum tactics.
The new forum makes such flounces impossible now, so we literally will never see his like again.
DAKDAK was on the new forum. :) You are confusing him with Playdor, the guy who got Proboards to wipe his posts.
-
Doh!
Yeah,sorry. Playdor will always be the high scum mark for flounces to me.
-
<nostalgic sigh> I guess that HBs just aint what they used to be.</nostalgic sigh>
-
Amen to that brother.
-
I feel a song coming on. Give me that old time believer....
-
Oh come now, gold? Bronze at best. ::)
There's not been that much competition lately. Heiwa seems to have given up posting (stealth flounce???), even though he was logged on today. Eternidad's flounce was rubbish.
Flouncing aint what it used to be. The quality's been poor since DAKDAK imploded in such spectacular fashion....
To be fair, DAKDAK did create a new high water mark of low scum tactics.
The new forum makes such flounces impossible now, so we literally will never see his like again.
Oh, the self-deletion orgy? That was pretty impressive.
-
According to you, a complex instrument package and a couple of highly-skilled, trained people are COMPLETELY INCAPABLE of placing such a marker.
Especially when one of them has a Doctorate from fergoshsakes MIT based on a thesis titled ""Line-of-sight Guidance Techniques for Manned Orbital Rendezvous"...
... nah. Just a couple of airhead jet-jockeys.
Ed. for: Yeah, I can't spell either.
-
Remember (Christmas by Harry Nilsson)
"Long ago,far away,life was clear;close your eyes...
"Remember,"is a place from long ago;
"Remember",filled with ev'rything you know.
Remember,when you're sad and feeling down; remember,turn around.
Remember,life is just a memory.
Remember,close your eyes and you can see.
Remember think of all that life can be; remember.
Dream,love is only in a dream;remember.
Remember,life is never as it seems;dream...
Dream,love is only in a dream;remember.
Remember,life is never as it seems;dream...
Long ago,far away,life was clear;close your eyes"
although given the amount of pretendgineers to be frequenting this board with their flounces,
I'd say "Your Breakin' My Heart" is more fitting here. Although I cant really reprint the lyrics here...
-
When it comes to HBs...
Just Go Away (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-KH2WI4Gzw)
"You got a big mouth and I'm happy to see
Your foot is firmly entrenched where a molar should be..."
-
If anyone is open-minded enough (not likely around here)
You know you really are a special kind of moron? CDC Cyber replacement, and FOV-1.
Yes, genius, I have another stupid argument for you.
Enough with the insults. This is your only warning. If it continues I'll add you to the moderation list which means I'll have to approve your posts before they appear in the forum.
-
I'm glad to see qualified engineers like alexsanchez here putting forth proof that the Apollo Lunar Landing was a hoax. And to see an entire forum questioning the truth about fake Apollo Lunar Landing. Keep up the good work guys !
-
I'm glad to see qualified engineers like alexsanchez here putting forth proof that the Apollo Lunar Landing was a hoax. And to see an entire forum questioning the truth about fake Apollo Lunar Landing. Keep up the good work guys !
Huh???
-
If it continues I'll add you to the moderation list which means I'll have to approve your posts before they appear in the forum.
What a marvelous idea...:D
-
I'm glad to see qualified engineers like alexsanchez here putting forth proof that the Apollo Lunar Landing was a hoax. And to see an entire forum questioning the truth about fake Apollo Lunar Landing. Keep up the good work guys !
First, alexsanchez has not proven anything. Second, he is not a qualified engineer but rather a liar. Third, the majority of the forum knows the landings happened and those who question it are in the extreme minority.
-
I'm glad to see qualified engineers like alexsanchez here putting forth proof that the Apollo Lunar Landing was a hoax. And to see an entire forum questioning the truth about fake Apollo Lunar Landing. Keep up the good work guys !
And you have a nice day too.
-
Have you figured out how they did the IMU alignment on the moon? If you can't find the answer, then they didn't do it, and they didn't go to the moon. End of story.
Well, I'm convinced.....anyhow you can't always believe what you see on TV and I "saw" the moon landing on TV.....hahahah..... They should get you back at NASA now to help sort this mess out now Alex.
-
Have you figured out how they did the IMU alignment on the moon? If you can't find the answer, then they didn't do it, and they didn't go to the moon. End of story.
The case you are presenting is a false dilemma.
It has been shown that a pinpoint precise alignment was not necessary to achieve docking. it has also been shown that the location of the LM (note, not LEM) could be verified using the inbuilt alignment optics.
Finally, even if a precise IMU alignment was required, you cannot declare that the whole endeavour was a fake based on Inanimate Carbon Rod's ability or inability to explain it to you.
For information, here is an article on how the AOT was used to verify the inertial measurement of the stable member:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/aot.htm
-
Indeed. Teaching is a two way endeavour. If you are too ignorant or incompetent to understand the answers, it is not entirely the teacher's fault.
-
Anybody else smell socks? The smell is so bad is seems like even the socks are wearing socks!
-
Wow, he's even pulling up socks to defend him now. Does he think we're all blind to what he is doing?
-
Socks?? You mean sellaman is really sanchez who is really [insert name here] et al????
No way! The disguises they are wearing these days are soooo good. No really, they are.
-
Manufacturing ones own cheering section. How pathetic.
-
Wow, he's even pulling up socks to defend him now. Does he think we're all blind to what he is doing?
If the shoe fits.....
-
Well, I'm convinced...
Your threshold for accepting unevidenced extraordinary claims is practically ZERO.
..anyhow you can't always believe what you see on TV and I "saw" the moon landing on TV.....hahahah....
You can't always believe what you read on the internet...because some people lie.
They should get you back at NASA now to help sort this mess out now Alex.
Well, there is no "mess", other than ignorant people thinking that the Apollo landings were faked.
...also sanchez has never worked for NASA in any kind of "engineer' capacity.
-
Socks?? You mean sellaman is really sanchez who is really [insert name here] et al????
No way! The disguises they are wearing these days are soooo good. No really, they are.
Actually, there's an alexsanchez account on YouTube that exists since 2011:
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAV77YS4FiJZVEbkx4cBPSA
So it is unlikely that he's a sockpuppet. The style doesn't seem to match, too, as well as the arguments.
Now, Sellaman can be a sock of alexsanchez, a buddy of his who came from under the same rock (e.g. incoming link on another forum), or a sock of Dr. Socks. I guess only a moderator can check this.
-
I'm glad to see qualified engineers like alexsanchez...
Nope.
-
Socks?? You mean sellaman is really sanchez who is really [insert name here] et al????
No way! The disguises they are wearing these days are soooo good. No really, they are.
Actually, there's an alexsanchez account on YouTube that exists since 2011:
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAV77YS4FiJZVEbkx4cBPSA
So it is unlikely that he's a sockpuppet. The style doesn't seem to match, too, as well as the arguments.
Now, Sellaman can be a sock of alexsanchez, a buddy of his who came from under the same rock (e.g. incoming link on another forum), or a sock of Dr. Socks. I guess only a moderator can check this.
I dunno. Sellaman has extensive Facebook and other social media presence going back some years.
-
He may or may not be a sock puppet, but he could still be attempted Astroturfing.
-
Gee...I'm me ...Albert Sellaman ...check my web site on my profile...I'm not alexsanchez. >:(
-
check my web site on my profile
I didn't see a link in the profile, can you post it here?
-
Gee...I'm me ...Albert Sellaman ...check my web site on my profile...I'm not alexsanchez. >:(
we just find it very interesting that sanchez was getting his hat handed to him, and "suddenly" you show up to "defend" him...very interesting, indeed...
...and it certainly does not inspire confidence in your reasoning abilities that you think sanchez IN ANY WAY has a rational point to make.
-
...check my web site on my profile...
No website in your profile...
-
It's the Earth icon between the PM and Profile icons.
-
Thanks, Chew.
-
One of your art pieces has this quote from Julian Assange;
Learn how the world works. Challenge the statements, actions and intentions of those who seek to control us behind the facades of democracy and monarchy.
Is that the framework for your beliefs about the Apollo missions? If you mean to be questioning authority, you are not doing that. Apollo is not a fact because the government says it is. It is a fact because there is a vast array of physical evidence and documentation that clearly supports the conclusion that the missions were real. Denial of historical facts is not challenging authority.
-
It's the Earth icon between the PM and Profile icons.
Thanks...I did not know that...
...and "ouch" for my last post. :)
-
Gee...I'm me ...Albert Sellaman ...check my web site on my profile...I'm not alexsanchez. >:(
Very well, that seems fair enough to take on its face. Want to explain how you concluded that alexsanchez was a qualified engineer and that his critics weren't? For example, do you know him? Do you yourself know anything about engineering such that you would be able to tell when someone is really speaking from expertise or whether he is just faking it?
Look at it from our point of view. Someone shows up here, claims to be an engineer, makes classic layman's mistakes instead, and upon solely that basis of claims to expertise tries to tell the world that the most well-studied feat in aeronautical engineering was a hoax. Then someone else shows up a very short time later and abruptly does almost nothing but to endorse the previous poster's claim to expertise. If you take a step back, isn't that something you yourself would consider ripe for a challenge?
-
I'm glad to see qualified engineers like alexsanchez here putting forth proof that the Apollo Lunar Landing was a hoax. And to see an entire forum questioning the truth about fake Apollo Lunar Landing. Keep up the good work guys !
A wild HB appears! The plot thickens.
(http://images.persephonemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/gw-itcrowdmosspopcorn.gif)
/Waits intently
-
Albert, would you be so kind as to tell us:
1. What *your* background in engineering/space (or any) science/any related discipline is?
2. What, in your opinion, is the very best, most compelling piece of evidence that Apollo was faked?
3. Are you willing to discuss/debate that compelling evidence in a logical fashion, using cites, references and proper analysis?
4. Have you ever been (badly) wrong, and acknowledged it?
I'm happy to answer all those questions first, if you like.
-
One of your art pieces has this quote from Julian Assange;
Learn how the world works. Challenge the statements, actions and intentions of those who seek to control us behind the facades of democracy and monarchy.
Is that the framework for your beliefs about the Apollo missions? If you mean to be questioning authority, you are not doing that. Apollo is not a fact because the government says it is. It is a fact because there is a vast array of physical evidence and documentation that clearly supports the conclusion that the missions were real. Denial of historical facts is not challenging authority.
Considering that the average hoaxie seems to mindlessly believe any patent nonsense and the biggest falsehoods as long as they are presented on garish websites with an anti-establishment smell "saving the sheeple" is exactly what we are trying to do here.
They're just sheeple of a different colour than the regular ones.
And indeed, attacking the Ebil Gubmint(tm) on the one thing they prolly didn't do is an effective way to marginalise yourself.
Now here's a juicy Conspiracy Theory for you: the more outrageous CTs are invented and promoted by Gubmint agents to lead the bewildered but angry masses on a wild goose chase, effectively neutralising them as politically relevant.
[/not serious]
-
Considering that the average hoaxie seems to mindlessly believe any patent nonsense and the biggest falsehoods as long as they are presented on garish websites with an anti-establishment smell
I have this picture of a hoax believer, that they imagine themselves to be like Assange, except for the part where he actually goes out and to do the work needed to show what specific things governments are hiding. And also the part where he has to live in one room at the Ecuadorian embassy.
-
Indeed. Teaching is a two way endeavour. If you are too ignorant or incompetent to understand the answers, it is not entirely the teacher's fault.
Especially when the student, for whatever reason, is determined to remain willfully ignorant and denies that he understands the answers even when he does.
-
I have no clue how a lunar rendezvous is achieved? Either does NASA.
Your inability to work it out makes no difference to what happened or not. Your ignorance does not mean that everyone in the world is also as ignorant.
Also, is it your contention that an orbital rendezvous is impossible? Or just that a Lunar orbital rendezvous is impossible?
If orbital rendezvous was (in your opinion) impossible, is it still now impossible? If so, please explain the Space Shuttle rendezvousing with satellites? Also explain the Hubble repair missions. And the ISS?? What about the Russian space program and MIR? Are SpaceX also faking it with their Dragon capsule?
If orbital rendezvous was impossible at the time of the Apollo program, then please explain the Gemini rendezvous missions. Or are you also contending that the Gemini program was also a fake? If so, explain the launches and the Agena target vehicle launches. You will also have to explain the Apollo/Soyuz rendezvous and Skylab. When DID orbital rendezvous become possible in your version of history????
If it is your contention that Earth orbital rendezvous is possible but Lunar orbital rendezvous is impossible, then please explain why. What is unique about rendezvousing around the Moon that only applies there (apart from the obvious distance from Earth and the difference in orbited bodies).
-
If orbital rendezvous was impossible at the time of the Apollo program, then please explain the Gemini rendezvous missions. Or are you also contending that the Gemini program was also a fake? If so, explain the launches and the Agena target vehicle launches. You will also have to explain the Apollo/Soyuz rendezvous and Skylab. When DID orbital rendezvous become possible in your version of history????
Don't forget that the Soviets performed their first true rendezvous in October 1968 (Soyuz 3 with unmanned Soyuz 2). And the joint Soyuz 4/5 mission performed the first docking of two piloted spacecraft in January 1969.
-
If orbital rendezvous was impossible at the time of the Apollo program, then please explain the Gemini rendezvous missions. Or are you also contending that the Gemini program was also a fake? If so, explain the launches and the Agena target vehicle launches. You will also have to explain the Apollo/Soyuz rendezvous and Skylab. When DID orbital rendezvous become possible in your version of history????
Don't forget that the Soviets performed their first true rendezvous in October 1968 (Soyuz 3 with unmanned Soyuz 2). And the joint Soyuz 4/5 mission performed the first docking of two piloted spacecraft in January 1969.
Of course.
I wasn't implying that this was an exhaustive list.
Here's an interesting thought...why does the HB bandwagon tend to focus on the US space program? They never seem to claim that the Soviet's program was faked. If anyone had the government clout to fake anything, it was the Soviets.
-
I think in great part to the fact the information is not so readily flowing for it. Look at how no (or nearly no) HB approaches ASTP or Skylab with the same fury as they do Apollo. The video downlinks are to be found but not collected in one place like ALSJ or AFJ. In the case of SL and ASTP the vehicles were identical to those used on Apollo, yet there is very little "hoaxery" mentioned.
-
anyhow you can't always believe what you see on TV and I "saw" the moon landing on TV.....hahahah.....
So, if I turn on the weather channel, and it says it's cold out today, I should wear my flipflops?
I think this shows the typical conspiracist mindset - it doesn't matter what the topic is, if it's "mainstream," they will immediately doubt it, because that makes them feel so much smarter than everyone else.
Sellaman, do you believe everything you read on internet message boards? If not, why do you believe that alexsanchez has any engineering credentials at all? If you believe he does, what evidence do you base this on, other than he supports a conspiracy theory that appeals to you?
-
I think in great part to the fact the information is not so readily flowing for it. Look at how no (or nearly no) HB approaches ASTP or Skylab with the same fury as they do Apollo. The video downlinks are to be found but not collected in one place like ALSJ or AFJ. In the case of SL and ASTP the vehicles were identical to those used on Apollo, yet there is very little "hoaxery" mentioned.
Probably because the majority of them have no idea about ASTP. If you use Eternidad195 as an example, she just regurgitated Jack White's rubbish without doing an iota of research. I think that she is pretty typical of the "mainstream" hoaxie..they have such a desire to scream "hoax" that they peddle the same old guff without doing an iota of research. Hence they know nothing about programs like ASTP or Apollo Applications. It's probably the same reason why people like Alexsanchez is so adamant that orbital rendezvous is impossible in Apollo, yet they aren't aware of Gemini. They seem totally unaware of Gemini or Mercury. They probably think that the whole thing started with Apollo, which probably is why some of them might think that doing everything that Apollo accomplished in a decade is impossible....they are unaware that Apollo stood on the shoulders of the Gemini test program, that developed most of the key components of Apollo.
Lets face it...if any "normal" human being spent an afternoon with Wikipedia looking into the standard hoaxie arguments, then they'd rapidly come across Clavius.org, the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal and here. They'd soon find enough evidence to go "hmmm, this hoax argument might be BS". Yet you get jokers like Alexsanchez, DAKDAK, Eternidad195 turning up, spouting their regurgitated claptrap and getting a good smacking for their efforts.
-
Well, I might be smacked down for daring to say this, but I actually prefer Skylab to Apollo. I think what they achieved on that program, given the budget they had, far outshined anything on Apollo.
-
Pete Conrad said his Skylab flight, not Apollo 12, was the high point of his career.
-
Well, it was an impressive piece of bodging, but it could not have been done for nearly that expense if Apollo had not existed to provide things like the Saturn V, the LM, and the CSM. Valuable experience on EVA repair was also gained, however inadvertently.
It would have been nice if other parts of the Apollo Applications Program had gone forward, especially the flyby of Venus.
I have one question though. I know they replaced the fuel cells with batteries because the cryogenic oxygen and hydrogen would have escaped during such long duration missions, but what did they do then for breathing air on the trip up and and, most importantly, back down?
-
Well, I might be smacked down for daring to say this, but I actually prefer Skylab to Apollo. I think what they achieved on that program, given the budget they had, far outshined anything on Apollo.
They achieved loads on a very tight budget, in comparison to the $billions spent on Apollo.
Having said that, Apollo was and is the only manned project to get properly into deep space....everything else has been in LEO. It's like we ran briefly out onto our driveway and ever since then we've been content to play on our doorstep. Meanwhile, the Universe is driving past our gate every day.....
-
Pete Conrad said his Skylab flight, not Apollo 12, was the high point of his career.
I'm not surprised, much as Armstrong considered his X-15 experience more valuable and rewarding than Apollo. Participants often have a different perspective than spectators. Conrad's Skylab mission required skill, resourcefulness, adaptiveness, innovation, and judgment. His Apollo mission was, not to diminish it, pretty by-the-book.
-
You know, I just realized a curious thing - you constantly get HB's sneering things like "you just believe what the government tells you"; yet I don't think I've ever heard anyone justify their acceptance of the Apollo record by saying anything like "the government/NASA says it happened, so it must be true". Surely that must be one of the longest lived straw-man arguments in recent history.
Here's an interesting thought...why does the HB bandwagon tend to focus on the US space program? They never seem to claim that the Soviet's program was faked. If anyone had the government clout to fake anything, it was the Soviets.
Actually, there's a CT that Gagarin's flight was a hoax - at least one book ( Gagarin: A Cosmic Lie, Istvin Nemere 1990) has been published on the subject. Some HBs say that this is why the USSR didn't blow the whistle on Apollo; for some incomprehensible reason the US and Soviets were partners in the whole space travel hoax.
-
What I like to bring up when that particular theory is broached is that the USSR *did* lie about Gagarin's flight, initially claiming he landed with his craft as per the rules set forth at the time that a human orbiting flight had to end with the participant landing with their vehicle to qualify.
If Gagarin's flight was totally fake, that embarrassing truth would also be a lie. Why make up a lie that would be just as potentially humiliating as what conspiracy theorists claim is the truth.
-
I have no clue how a lunar rendezvous is achieved? Either does NASA.
I am baffled how someone representing themselves as a veteran aerospace engineer - especially someone claiming to have GNC experience - could make such a frankly ignorant claim.
The below is a small sample of reports and analyses freely available online - no exertion needed.
NASA TM-111236, Enchanted rendezvous: John C. Houbolt and the genesis of the lunar-orbit rendezvous concept (http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19960014824)
E. Aldrin doctoral thesis, Line-of-sight guidance techniques for manned orbital rendezvous (http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/12652)
NASA TM-X-65026, Visibility and optical tracking studies for the concentric flight plan of lunar orbit rendezvous (http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19700026420)
NASA CR-154207, Lunar orbit rendezvous reference trajectory data package. Volume 1: Apollo error analysis. Description of procedures and computer programs (http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19790072443)
This is one of many volumes on this topic; for example, see also
NASA CR-136969, Lunar orbit rendezvous reference trajectory data package: Analysis of LOR ascent maneuvers with plane change (http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19740073753)
NASA TM-X-65130, Study of Earth Orbit Simulation of Lunar Orbit Rendezvous (http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19700076093)
NASA TN-D-1623, A Parametric Investigation of the Lunar-Orbit-Rendezvous Scheme (http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19630005428)
NASA TM-74736, Manned lunar-landing through use of lunar-orbit rendezvous, Volume 1 (http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19780070033) and Volume 2 (http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19780070033)
NASA TM-X-64487, Apollo rendezvous with command module active (http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19700026435)
NASATN-D-7388, Apollo experience report: Evolution of the rendezvous-maneuver plan for the lunar-landing missions (http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19730021150)
You said you worked on space station guidance and control. What exactly did you do, and for whom?
-
I think they have to claim that the Soviet space program was at least mostly true because they think (without really understanding the issues at hand) that it makes the US space program look incompetent. If they were so flawed, how come they got good enough to beat the Soviets to the Moon, huh? Huh? The fact that it only takes about two minutes of research to show how it happened is just more evidence that few HBs ever do two minutes of research. Presumably, most of the ones who do go, "Oh. Well, I guess we landed on the Moon, then."
-
I am baffled how someone representing themselves as a veteran aerospace engineer - especially someone claiming to have GNC experience - could make such a frankly ignorant claim.
When you're out of ammunition, fix bayonets and charge. Similarly the gambit for the conspiracy theorist who has been caught pretending to be an engineer is to amplify the boldness until it's time for the flounce. He still probably believes he can get a few people to believe he knows enough about what he's talking about to give him benefit of the doubt.
I know you're answering with strictly NASA materials because the challenge was thrown that NASA didn't know about them. But taking it to the opposite extreme, the notion that no one knows how to accomplish and orbital rendezvous is literally ignorant. One doesn't have to go to NASA to learn it; it's in all the textbooks, and the same principles are followed in commercial endeavors. It's provably correct in how it follows from first principles in basic physics, and it's demonstrably correct in how it's done by people who aren't NASA. It's literally as ignorant as saying that calculus must be fake and no one knows how to do it, and if NASA claims to know how to do calculus they're wrong. It's the sort of claim you make if your starting premise is that NASA is evil.
This is the layman's intuitive concept of the relationship among knowledge, NASA, and the rest of the world. Most layman believe that NASA is the fount of all knowledge regarding space, and that people who purport to operate in space do so dumbly only because NASA tells them how and could convincingly lie to them if necessary. Hence in this model, "orbital rendezvous" is a mystery no one knows about, and NASA claims to have accomplished it by means only NASA knows, and which might in fact turn out to be totally bogus if examined by anyone else.
The "black box" model of NASA is laughably comical to anyone who actually works in aerospace. There you realize just how much NASA depends on the aerospace industry (and associated academic institutions) to spoon-feed them technology, innovation, and operational equipment and know-how. NASA is primarily a funding agency, with the actual work being carried out by industry and academia. And these industrial and academic partners do the same sort of work for commercial clients. The industry, collectively, and the academic partners, also collectively, hold the repository of operational space flight experience. They employ it for NASA, just as they employ it for others. Orbital rendezvous works for NASA because it works for everyone else, and there's no hiding it.
-
But taking it to the opposite extreme, the notion that no one knows how to accomplish and orbital rendezvous is literally ignorant.
Hey, having studied the matter as a layman for a while now, and practiced on simulations, even I know how to do that. And if know the current orbital elements, it's totally irrelevant where either launched from.
Obviously I couldn't do it as quickly and accurately as an actual working engineer like Jay, and nowhere near as well as astronauts who practice for hours on end, but the process isn't mysterious, just hard to execute.
-
This is the layman's intuitive concept of the relationship among knowledge, NASA, and the rest of the world. Most layman believe that NASA is the fount of all knowledge regarding space,
That is absolutely true. I routinely field questions such as "Why did NASA decide Pluto is not a planet?" and "What proof do NASA have for the Big Bang?".
-
This is the layman's intuitive concept of the relationship among knowledge, NASA, and the rest of the world. Most layman believe that NASA is the fount of all knowledge regarding space,
That is absolutely true. I routinely field questions such as "Why did NASA decide Pluto is not a planet?" and "What proof do NASA have for the Big Bang?".
There are so many things wrong with that question you could write a fair-sized book trying to unpack it.
-
When I was at alexsanchez's alleged old turf last year (KSC) I was actually struck by how open everybody was to questions and the like. No matter who I spoke with there was never a "cant tell you that" or shifty dogs looking slyly left to right [Simpsons reference].
-
I have one question though. I know they replaced the fuel cells with batteries because the cryogenic oxygen and hydrogen would have escaped during such long duration missions, but what did they do then for breathing air on the trip up and and, most importantly, back down?
The problem wasn't that the reactants would escape their tanks, but that they couldn't carry enough to operate the fuel cells at minimum power for the entire Skylab stay, and the Apollo SM fuel cells couldn't be shut down and restarted in flight.
So the logical thing to do was to operate the fuel cells until the hydrogen was depleted (which came in handy during the first visit before the one remaining workshop panel was deployed), then shut them down to preserve the remaining oxygen for breathing during the trip home. The CM also had a "surge tank" to store oxygen between SM jettison and splashdown.
-
The "black box" model of NASA is laughably comical to anyone who actually works in aerospace. There you realize just how much NASA depends on the aerospace industry (and associated academic institutions) to spoon-feed them technology, innovation, and operational equipment and know-how.
It's a two-way street. In my career working for a UK aerospace company, we always had access to NASA technical reports, including ones that their contractor companies prepared for them. There were numerous occasions when I personally made use of this data.
-
Thank you, ka9q, that clarifies things considerably. :)
-
Just seen a new one: http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AiwpwetccNM4z1ts8a5tTCQlT31G;_ylv=3?qid=20130124211011AAnAoAK