ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Reality of Apollo => Topic started by: smartcooky on December 06, 2015, 01:43:57 AM
-
http://scitechdaily.com/lunar-reconnaissance-orbiter-reveals-apollo-16-booster-rocket-impact-site/
-
Doesn't the moon have somewhat similar acoustic characteristics as the Earth's. It seems like a triangular location using all the seismic monitors from the other missions could have at least narrowed the search area.
-
Doesn't the moon have somewhat similar acoustic characteristics as the Earth's. It seems like a triangular location using all the seismic monitors from the other missions could have at least narrowed the search area.
Even if it did, I'm not sure you could pinpoint the location of a surface of a minor seismic event within a few km unless the sensors were really close. To get accurate locations of seismic epicentres on Earth requires accurate knowledge of the Earth's sub-surface structure (different types of structures have different transmission characteristics) . I'm not sure we have that for the Moon yet.
30km accuracy rather than 7km means that the search area is about 18 times larger. When you are already looking for a needle in a haystack, another 17 haystacks is not going to make things easy.
-
From the data acquired during the previous impacts time versus distance should have been calculable.
Remember that the Navy's sonar arrays were able to proximate the locations of two submarine accidents several thousand miles away, yes I know that water and the Lunar surface are far different.
A13 S-IVB impact was recorded by A12 at a distance seismic station 135 km. The rest were recorded
http://news.discovery.com/space/history-of-space/what-happened-to-all-the-saturn-v-rocket-stages-140116.htm.
Seems like simple analysis would have give a more precise location, but I'm speculating.
-
From the data acquired during the previous impacts time versus distance should have been calculable.
Remember that the Navy's sonar arrays were able to proximate the locations of two submarine accidents several thousand miles away, yes I know that water and the Lunar surface are far different.
A13 S-IVB impact was recorded by A12 at a distance seismic station 135 km. The rest were recorded
http://news.discovery.com/space/history-of-space/what-happened-to-all-the-saturn-v-rocket-stages-140116.htm.
To be fair, the article did say that the locations were "poorly known". That might be within the tolerance of the method used?
Seems like simple analysis would have give a more precise location, but I'm speculating.
The fact that some of the best brains on the planet were unable to precisely locate the impact site probably means that your conclusion is incorrect. Don't you think that they would have carried out simple analysis first? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
-
The fact that some of the best brains on the planet were unable to precisely locate the impact site probably means that your conclusion is incorrect. Don't you think that they would have carried out simple analysis first? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
To be fair, you're assuming that they did just that. I don't know if they did or not.
-
LRO was launched in June 2009. By October that year, it had found the Apollo 14 booster impact site, and the Apollo 13 impact site was found and photographed by March 2010. A15 and A17 were found by the end of 2011. It took another four years to find this last one.
Here is probably a good part of the reason why it has taken so long.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo_impact.html
*A malfunction resulted in premature loss of tracking data for the Apollo 16 SIVB.
Time, location, and impact energy are estimates based on interpretation of seismic data.
Uncertainty in the Apollo 16 impact time is about 4 seconds.
Uncertainty in the Apollo 16 impact location is about 0.7 deg. latitude, 0.3 deg. longitude.
(The impact location estimated based on tracking prior to signal loss is 2.24 N, 24.49 W)
It appears their estimated location was not far out
Apollo 16’s S-IVB stage is on Mare Insularum, about 160 miles southwest of Copernicus Crater (more precisely: 1.921 degrees north, 335.377 degrees east, minus 1,104 meters elevation).
By my calculation, they were out by 0.26° in longitude and 0.319° latitude.
-
LRO was launched in June 2009. By October that year, it had found the Apollo 14 booster impact site, and the Apollo 13 impact site was found and photographed by March 2010. A15 and A17 were found by the end of 2011. It took another four years to find this last one.
Here is probably a good part of the reason why it has taken so long.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo_impact.html
*A malfunction resulted in premature loss of tracking data for the Apollo 16 SIVB.
Time, location, and impact energy are estimates based on interpretation of seismic data.
Uncertainty in the Apollo 16 impact time is about 4 seconds.
Uncertainty in the Apollo 16 impact location is about 0.7 deg. latitude, 0.3 deg. longitude.
(The impact location estimated based on tracking prior to signal loss is 2.24 N, 24.49 W)
It appears their estimated location was not far out
Apollo 16’s S-IVB stage is on Mare Insularum, about 160 miles southwest of Copernicus Crater (more precisely: 1.921 degrees north, 335.377 degrees east, minus 1,104 meters elevation).
By my calculation, they were out by 0.26° in longitude and 0.319° latitude.
Thanks, I stand corrected.
-
That's correct, the S-band transponder on the Apollo 16 S-IVB was lost at 97,799 seconds for unknown reasons. The telemetry subcarrier was turned off much earlier in the flight but the carrier was left on for Doppler tracking and it should have stayed on until lunar impact.
This was several days before it reached the moon, so the impact point had to be projected from earlier tracking data only. That was less accurate than for other missions where the transponders worked until impact.
-
On the subject of impact craters, I spent some time looking for the Apollo 14 SIV-B impact site after reading that Apollo 16's Panoramic Camera had found it http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2009/2149.html
Turns out Chandrayaan also did a partial image of the impact crater:
(http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/pancam/wpimages/wpfb2bb3a3_05_06.jpg)
-
On the subject of impact craters, I spent some time looking for the Apollo 14 SIV-B impact site after reading that Apollo 16's Panoramic Camera had found it http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2009/2149.html
Turns out Chandrayaan also did a partial image of the impact crater:
(http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/pancam/wpimages/wpfb2bb3a3_05_06.jpg)
Towards the lower center or left?
-
I've noticed that the artificial craters are most conspicuous in the noontime pictures when the natural craters become almost invisible. The artificial craters are very bright, but they all look much the same at lower sun angles. I wonder why this is so?
-
The more reflective surfaces of the metal versus the regolith, probably.
-
On the subject of impact craters, I spent some time looking for the Apollo 14 SIV-B impact site after reading that Apollo 16's Panoramic Camera had found it http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2009/2149.html
Turns out Chandrayaan also did a partial image of the impact crater:
(http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/pancam/wpimages/wpfb2bb3a3_05_06.jpg)
Towards the lower center or left?
It's left of centre at the top - you can see the dark material spreading out, made more obvious where crater rims have shielded the existing surface from impact debris.
-
On the subject of impact craters, I spent some time looking for the Apollo 14 SIV-B impact site after reading that Apollo 16's Panoramic Camera had found it http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2009/2149.html
Turns out Chandrayaan also did a partial image of the impact crater:
(http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/pancam/wpimages/wpfb2bb3a3_05_06.jpg)
Towards the lower center or left?
It's left of centre at the top - you can see the dark material spreading out, made more obvious where crater rims have shielded the existing surface from impact debris.
I was way off as the lower two sites looked brighter than the upper ones. I'm obviously general Lunar location challenged. :)
-
The more reflective surfaces of the metal versus the regolith, probably.
I doubt the metal is still anywhere near the crater, given the very large energy released in such a small volume. The 'rays' are secondary impacts of lunar material thrown out by the primary impact.
-
The more reflective surfaces of the metal versus the regolith, probably.
I doubt the metal is still anywhere near the crater, given the very large energy released in such a small volume. The 'rays' are secondary impacts of lunar material thrown out by the primary impact.
Why do you suspect that outcome? From looking at crash site there is a lot of material at the impact site with debris radiating from the impact site. Even with less gravity, there should be material left at the impact.
-
Why do you suspect that outcome? From looking at crash site there is a lot of material at the impact site with debris radiating from the impact site. Even with less gravity, there should be material left at the impact.
Any object that hits the moon from beyond lunar orbit must do so with at least lunar escape velocity (2.38 km/s). The S-IVBs hit with roughly 2.5-2.6 km/s. That makes the specific energy almost equal to the chemical energy of TNT; in other words, the impact of a 16 ton S-IVB released about as much energy as the detonation of about 11 tonnes of TNT. That would certainly vaporize the stage and produce an expanding fireball. Some of the energy would then excavate and eject lunar material, most of it at suborbital velocities to fall back to the surface as visible crater rays. The mass of this material would be considerably greater than the mass of the stage itself, so even if the latter were to quickly condense and fall back along with the excavated lunar material, it would comprise only a small fraction of the total.
Besides, many young natural craters have well defined rays even when they're carved by stony meteoroids; those rays are well known to be secondary impacts from ejected lunar material.
-
Why do you suspect that outcome? From looking at crash site there is a lot of material at the impact site with debris radiating from the impact site. Even with less gravity, there should be material left at the impact.
Any object that hits the moon from beyond lunar orbit must do so with at least lunar escape velocity (2.38 km/s). The S-IVBs hit with roughly 2.5-2.6 km/s. That makes the specific energy almost equal to the chemical energy of TNT; in other words, the impact of a 16 ton S-IVB released about as much energy as the detonation of about 11 tonnes of TNT. That would certainly vaporize the stage and produce an expanding fireball. Some of the energy would then excavate and eject lunar material, most of it at suborbital velocities to fall back to the surface as visible crater rays. The mass of this material would be considerably greater than the mass of the stage itself, so even if the latter were to quickly condense and fall back along with the excavated lunar material, it would comprise only a small fraction of the total.
Besides, many young natural craters have well defined rays even when they're carved by stony meteoroids; those rays are well known to be secondary impacts from ejected lunar material.
I can't argue with figures
-
Yeah, the velocities involved in collisions in space (or on the airless moon) are well beyond ordinary human experience, so intuition is not a good guide as to what happens. (That was one of the many things about the movie Gravity that really bugged me. Space debris is not that dense, but it's generally much smaller and moves much faster. Bullets are much slower, but you still don't see them coming.)
Anyway, the usual impact speed of a meteoroid on the moon is probably well above escape velocity, more like 30 km/s, the orbital speed of the earth/moon system around the sun. At those velocities, each gram of impactor is something like 100 grams of TNT since energy goes as velocity squared. Since the impactor buries itself under a thin layer of regolith and then stops, the effect is almost exactly like a shallow sub-surface explosion of a very powerful explosive -- more powerful than any chemical explosive known (but still nothing like a nuclear explosion.)
-
While we're on the subject of impact sites, has anyone ever found a definitive LRO image of Apollo 14's 'Antares' impact location? I've been trying to track down impact sites in Apollo photographs and this one is a bit of a conundrum.
The Apollo 14 PSR gives a location for the impact based on triangulating results from the seismic stations left behind of -3.42 -19.67 and helpfully includes a labelled photograph.
However, the coordinates of the location given on the diagram are nowhere near what it is pointing to, which is more like -3.72 -21.46!
Here's the picture from my own copy of it, as the online ones aren't that great:
(http://i66.tinypic.com/20uq449.jpg)
So, there's the first bit of confusion.
The second bit of confusion comes from the Apollo 16 PSR, which also discusses man made impacts, and shows what it claims is a detail of the Antares' impact as seen in Metric Image AS16-M-2512. Here's a section of it from the ASU's site rotated to match the view in the PSR. The quote from the PSR says "The Apollo 14 LM ascent stage impact location showing dark ejecta blanket at large phase angle".
(http://i66.tinypic.com/2vb2dkk.jpg)
The PSR isn't specific, but from the way the image is presented I believe it is referring to the impact crater in that I've outlined with a red square, and whose co-ordinates roughly match those given. The problem is that I think it very unlikely that this is Antares.
When you look at the LRO's shots on that area there aren't any high quality views (that I've found) that are helpful. Chandrayaan covers the area reasonably well, and here is it's view of that precise area:
(http://i65.tinypic.com/2wcmliv.jpg)
By looking at the locations of the other craters in the Apollo 16 Metric camera image, I believe that the crater it is picking out is the bright and obviously fresh impact crater, complete with dark rays just off the centre line of the image. Here's the same area of the Metric image, stretched and rotated to compensate for the angle and compared with the same location in Chandrayaan so you can check my logic!
(http://i63.tinypic.com/52jeh0.jpg)
The problem with this crater is that is 50 metres across, and a report I read suggested 4m +/-2 was more likely.
More importantly, it can also be seen in an Apollo 12 photograph (AS12-54-8087). Here's the relevant bit of that Apollo 12 image covering the same area, with some level adjustment and sharpening:
(http://i66.tinypic.com/j7b5mx.jpg)
The dark smudge in Chandrayaan's photo west of the bright crater is also discernible and is actually a shallow crater, as is more obvious on this LRO image:
(http://i64.tinypic.com/34ypbfr.jpg)
The cross marks the location of the bright impact crater.
I also think that while the Panoramic Camera might have been able to resolve a 4m crater, I think it's a stretch to suggest the Metric camera could resolve that level of detail, particularly at that angle!
Or am I looking at the wrong crater again?
-
Yes, 50m is too big for an ascent stage. That's about the size of an S-IVB impact crater, and the S-IVB is both heavier and faster moving than an ascent stage.
If you do find LRO images of the area, try to find one taken at a high sun elevation (a low phase angle when seen from overhead). Fresh craters and their rays appear very bright and old ones are very low in contrast, so it should stand out. The LM ascent stages also hit at extremely shallow angles so their craters and their ejecta blankets should be distinctly asymmetric, with most of the ejecta to the west of the crater.
-
http://scitechdaily.com/lunar-reconnaissance-orbiter-reveals-apollo-16-booster-rocket-impact-site/
Our old friend Hunchbacked has made a schoolboy error with this news:
Oops.
-
Hunchbacked is actually a whistle-blower for the hoax community. After all, anyone with only half a working brain would realise that he has completely cocked up here by confusing the booster with the ascent module. Such an obvious and glaring mistake can only be the work of a whistle-blower desperately trying to send a signal out to the world that the hoax story is a sham. He's clearly under threat from the leaders of the hoax community and cannot come straight out and declare the whole thing a sham. Jarrah is probably watching his every move and will force Hunchbacked to listen to endless loops of his whining nasal voice if he catches poor old Hunchie spilling the beans.
Watch any of Hunchbacked's videos. There are loads of glaring errors that anyone with a working intellact will spot. The dude is clearly signalling for help here and trying to blow the whole hoax story. The Illuminati of the hoax world are on to him though.....
::) ::) :o :o ;D ;D ;D
-
Our old friend Hunchbacked has made a schoolboy error with this news:
Oops.
Yes, mistaking a big S-IVB for a much smaller lunar module ascent stage is the sort of error we can expect from some hoax-believers.
But has Hunchy also made another schoolboy error with the following statement in his video at 0:56?
This deorbit command was consisting in thrusting the engine so to create deceleration which decreases the orbital speed enough to make the lunar module crash into the moon instead of flying around it.
His English is poor and I'm not familiar with how exactly the deorbit burns were performed (could someone here please enlighten us?), but I do know that when an orbiting body comes closer to the body it is orbiting, it's orbital speed increases. It doesn't decrease as Hunchbacked claims.
To me, he seems to be talking as if the LM was flying in an atmosphere and eventually flew too slowly for the atmosphere to hold it up.
-
He also says that the Lunar module "could have indefinitely orbited the Moon". I'm not sure that that is correct either...the mascons had a big impact on orbit stability didn't they?
-
Yes, the mascons would have pertubed the orbit near equator enough for the ascent stage to have crashed within a few weeks. There are stable orbits around the moon, but they have higher inclinations.
-
http://scitechdaily.com/lunar-reconnaissance-orbiter-reveals-apollo-16-booster-rocket-impact-site/
Our old friend Hunchbacked has made a schoolboy error with this news:
Oops.
The video has been taken down already.
-
http://scitechdaily.com/lunar-reconnaissance-orbiter-reveals-apollo-16-booster-rocket-impact-site/
Our old friend Hunchbacked has made a schoolboy error with this news:
Oops.
The video has been taken down already.
I didn't think that it would last long.
I have downloaded a copy if anyone wants to point and laugh.
-
Upload it somewhere as I would like to view it.
-
The lunacy never ends. Before he deleted the video, Hunchie added these comments:
Then, if it is the S-IVB, it is still more delirious; explain me how the S-IVB which separated near earth's orbit managed to crash on the moon.The lunar module still crashed on the moon, it is only the way it crashed which is abnormal, but there is no way that the S-IVB might have crashed on the moon.
hunchbacked
11:46
OK, for me it could only be the impact of the jettisoned lunar module, I had never imagined it could be the impact of a part of the Saturn rocket.I'll work on this new information.
He never "imagined" that it could have been the booster?? Perhaps if he had actually read the report then he wouldn't have to rely on his imagination. but then, he wouldn't be a hoaxie then, would he?
So even when he has been shown to be incorrect he does a quick two-step, throws the hoax bus into reverse and then deletes the original video. And they are the ones to bleat about censorship!
-
Upload it somewhere as I would like to view it.
https://app.box.com/s/pxglewzy55jry6tgbtjt1zx9lhmaie2c
-
Thanks I'll watch it later and post my thoughts.
-
I think he also needs to look at what the seismometer's LPX, LPY and LPZ axes actually mean, and look at the images of the Apollo 16 landing site which clearly show the LM next to a crater.
-
Hunchbacked is actually a whistle-blower for the hoax community. After all, anyone with only half a working brain would realise that he has completely cocked up here by confusing the booster with the ascent module. Such an obvious and glaring mistake can only be the work of a whistle-blower desperately trying to send a signal out to the world that the hoax story is a sham. He's clearly under threat from the leaders of the hoax community and cannot come straight out and declare the whole thing a sham. Jarrah is probably watching his every move and will force Hunchbacked to listen to endless loops of his whining nasal voice if he catches poor old Hunchie spilling the beans.
Watch any of Hunchbacked's videos. There are loads of glaring errors that anyone with a working intellact will spot. The dude is clearly signalling for help here and trying to blow the whole hoax story. The Illuminati of the hoax world are on to him though.....
::) ::) :o :o ;D ;D ;D
After viewing many videos and having some communications via YT, I don't get the same feeling about him. IMO, he does best when attempting to BS the viewer with technical details that would overwhelm the novice. His poorer attempts are based around images/TV where he does present a rather myopic belief in those imageries. He does take some of the imagery out of context, cropping, and/or sped up to "prove" his position. Again the novice doesn't have or take the time to attempt to rebut his videos. I know ka9q has commented on his electronics BS
-
Hunchbacked is actually a whistle-blower for the hoax community.
::) ::) :o :o ;D ;D ;D
After viewing many videos and having some communications via YT, I don't get the same feeling about him.
Erm, I admit that my humour doesn't always appeal to many and my attempts at blatant sarcasm might not come across well, but for the record, I was being sarcastic. ;)
The guy is a doofus and he's been caught (again) sucking his thumb with his pants down round his ankles. If the hoax "community" has a Ralph Wiggum, then it'll be Hunchbacked.
(http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/23960847.jpg)
-
Hunchbacked is actually a whistle-blower for the hoax community.
::) ::) :o :o ;D ;D ;D
After viewing many videos and having some communications via YT, I don't get the same feeling about him.
Erm, I admit that my humour doesn't always appeal to many and my attempts at blatant sarcasm might not come across well, but for the record, I was being sarcastic. ;)
The guy is a doofus and he's been caught (again) sucking his thumb with his pants down round his ankles. If the hoax "community" has a Ralph Wiggum, then it'll be Hunchbacked.
(http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/23960847.jpg)
My bad I didn't pick up on the sarcasm, your explanation is close to my observations of him.
-
Well after viewing the video, I can only second the thoughts of those posted earlier, the mistake of the SIV-B:LM ascent stage identification error. The crater give more of a vertical impact sense opposed to a sideways impact. The impact crater is much larger than the LM would have made. I think it would take a great deal of time to find the LM crater not knowing exactly where to look and its size. Look how long it took to find the SIV-B crater.
I did a search but could not find any seismogram of the LM impact, did anybody find anything about it? The estimate of 1 year in orbit is/was only an estimate, and the mascons on the moon could have perturbed the orbit more/less than estimated.
In short another failed effort by hunch, but that won't stop him from posting more nonsense, IMO
-
He's uploaded a new version. He's now claiming that it's impossible to deliberately crash the S-IVb.
-
He's uploaded a new version. He's now claiming that it's impossible to deliberately crash the S-IVb.
He's a real "well qualified engineer" to state this preposterous statement.
-
He's uploaded a new version. He's now claiming that it's impossible to deliberately crash the S-IVb.
How did he come up with this one?
Is there some magic barrier over the moon which would make it bounce off?
-
He thinks they were all put into a solar orbit trajectory, therefore it would be impossible to crash one into the moon. No idea where he latched onto that. Probably attributing the procedures used on a different mission and applying it to 16 or something. He likes to do that.
-
So it's impossible to deliberately put an object on a precise trajectory that will intercept the moon, but it is possible to deliberately put an object on a precise trajectory that doesn't?
-
So it's impossible to deliberately put an object on a precise trajectory that will intercept the moon, but it is possible to deliberately put an object on a precise trajectory that doesn't?
Go figure! :)