why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?

[Noldi400]

OK, thx, Jay and others who answered about the LM - that's about what I thought, but I just started wondering.

Jay, what was the name of the program you did the desert photography segment for a few years back? I was looking for it the other day and couldn't remember.

Speaking of programs, has anyone else ever seen a video called Apollo 12 Uncensored ? It was some informal interviews with the AS-12 crew done around 1996 and was pretty hilarious in spots.

But more to the point, that's the kind of thing that adds yet another (non-technical, non-scientific) brick to the wall of Apollo truth; would an evile gubment agency allow three old farts heroes to ramble on in front of a video camera, not knowing what they might blurt out in an unguarded moment?

[LunarOrbit]

Alex, this wire claim was debunked on the old board about eight years ago. Next?
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=608&page=1

I see the guy who argued for it was banned.

Yes, he was... for posting images of someone who had been executed.

[Noldi400]

raven:

Well. Gordon Cooper did something like that, rather the reverse actually, to deorbit his Faith 7 capsule. This is just my layman's conjecture, but it would not surprise me.

Actually, I thought of that while I was typing that post. Not taking anything away from Gordo - he was some helluva pilot - but he only had to hold attitude for a few seconds while the retros fired. That's a far cry from several minutes of guiding a busted spacecraft near the ground.

Fair enough, not an engineer.
There was also the Lunar Escape Systems, probably about the most bare bones thing ever designed to put a human into orbit around any celestial body.

Yeah, me neither. The question was probably my laymannishness showing.

That LES is something - right up there with the briefly contemplated circumlunar Gemini shot.

[Bob B.]

Alex, this wire claim was debunked on the old board about eight years ago. Next?
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=608&page=1

I see the guy who argued for it was banned.

And here's the explanation why...

http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=announce&thread=1401&page=1#37313

[JayUtah]

Right (and thanks for the PGNS correction, I wasn't sure about that).

I always remember it as "not the way you think it should be spelled."

By pushing the stick beyond a certain angle the computer was bypassed and the corresponding engine valves were directly actuated.

Yes, there's control hardover.  But I recall there's also a mode where the RCS control logic could be switched into the hand controller signals.

You owe it to yourself to read MITs papers on LM control.  The LM control axes were not orthogonal.  This lead to an overgeneralized control system.  By overgeneralized I don't mean overdesigned; I mean that the control laws as implemented are more general than they would be in, say, a launch vehicle.

The high-order logic for the ascent was open-loop.  It simply fed precomputed attitude vectors to the DAP at fixed time intervals.  The DAP translates those set points into attitude errors and rates, then gave high-order attitude corrections according to the resolution algorithm, to return the LM to the proper attitude.  The attitude corrections translate to RCS jet commands.  That is, the RCS controller is told to "roll" but the actual jet firings are determined by the RCS jet logic.  That indirection is meant to accommodate RCS jet failure.  So "roll" has a nominal jet firing sequence, but "roll" under partial RCS failure might be an alternate set of jet commands.  IIRC, you could couple the hand controllers directly into the RCS controller.

Wow, I had not known there were any suborbital rescue options.

Strictly there weren't.  But one of the 17 contingency plans called for a low-altitude intercept with the CSM as the active vehicle.  It was meant for early APS cutoff or APS failure.

Keep in mind that since the Moon doesn't have an atmosphere, the perilune could be six inches off the surface and it would still work.  But the APS had enough delta-v to get to any number of wacky orbits, however the trick is to keep the perilune at a postive altitude.  Not an easy task under manual control with no attitude, velocity, or altitude reference.

[frenat]

If I have any other questions I know where to come.

I have a question for you. Actually, I have several, but this one is forefront. Why the sudden change?

While I still maintain it was possible to fake, there's adequate argument to maintain that it wasn't.  There's still a few things I want to check out though.

You are going to attempt a fringe reset, right?

Please explain this clip.  The astronaut is clearly hoisted up while trying to stand up.  (it's cued at 2:05)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Zz9Bzi_GyD0#t=125s

You can see the astronaut getting up has he left hand on the arm of the other.  What is supposed to be so hard about that?

[frenat]

Alex, this wire claim was debunked on the old board about eight years ago. Next?
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=608&page=1

I see the guy who argued for it was banned.

he was banned because he was a troll that couldn't follow simple rules of the forum, NOT because he argued for that clip.

[Laurel]

OK, thx, Jay and others who answered about the LM - that's about what I thought, but I just started wondering.

Jay, what was the name of the program you did the desert photography segment for a few years back? I was looking for it the other day and couldn't remember.

Speaking of programs, has anyone else ever seen a video called Apollo 12 Uncensored ? It was some informal interviews with the AS-12 crew done around 1996 and was pretty hilarious in spots.

But more to the point, that's the kind of thing that adds yet another (non-technical, non-scientific) brick to the wall of Apollo truth; would an evile gubment agency allow three old farts heroes to ramble on in front of a video camera, not knowing what they might blurt out in an unguarded moment?

The Apollo 12 interview sounds like something I would enjoy. I laughed out loud reading the interviews with Conrad and Bean in the ALSJ.

[gillianren]

For heaven's sake, why is there this ridiculous insistence that we ban HBs out of hand around here?  (By "we," of course, I mean "LO."  But close enough.)  Heck, I'm not sure if Turbonium ever actually got banned.  Certainly if everyone who espoused a conspiracist position were banned, the conversations wouldn't last as long as they do!

[Abaddon]

Alex, this wire claim was debunked on the old board about eight years ago. Next?
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=608&page=1

I see the guy who argued for it was banned.

Not because of his belief in a hoax.

Now, I have posted my real name, a patent in my name and my accreditation as a real engineer. Why is it that you cannot? What are you afraid of?

[smartcooky]

For all his foolishness, alexsanchez got me thinking about a question I'm hoping Jay or some of the other aerospace expert types here can answer.

Assume that Eagle had some kind of catastrophic computer/electronic failure.  Would it be possible for a human being with Neil Armstrong's level of skill and training, assuming that the absolutely essential systems were still somewhat functional, to manually lift off and get into an orbit from which Collins could maneuver to a rendezvous?

One of the experts on here may know for sure, but I'm betting that either Armstrong or Aldrin could have done all the necessary calculations to give them the best chance of a successful docking, using only a pen and paper, including lift off time, burn time, and the timeline for pitchover and then manually flown the the LM into an orbit sufficiently close to have a chance of a successful LOR.

Of course, Mission Control would likely have done all the for them.

[Bob B.]

Certainly if everyone who espoused a conspiracist position were banned, the conversations wouldn't last as long as they do!

Margamatix was an active member of the old forum for four months and made 403 posts before he was banned.  He had ample time and freedom to express his views.

[JayUtah]

The ascent is a little more involved.

"Pitchover" is the beginning of a programmed set of attitudes that gradually deflect from the local vertical, aimed downrange, at various timed intervals designed to optimally achieve the proper altitude, direction, and downrange velocity.  Prior to pitchover, the program is "go straight up."  That's the terrain avoidance maneuver.  If the pilot had a working "eight ball" (and it could be zeroed manually) then Mission Control could read him a series of pitch angles to fly.

Aldrin could probably have computed a line-of-sight rendezvous, as he did with Gemini.  And yes, that's why he was on the Apollo 11 mission.  His nickname was "Dr. Rendezvous."

[LunarOrbit]

Certainly if everyone who espoused a conspiracist position were banned, the conversations wouldn't last as long as they do!

Margamatix was an active member of the old forum for four months and made 403 posts before he was banned.  He had ample time and freedom to express his views.

I even allowed him to post as several sockpuppets after his initial ban. I will bend over backwards to give hoax believers a chance. If they get banned it's usually because they tried very hard to provoke me.

[Chew]

Right (and thanks for the PGNS correction, I wasn't sure about that).

I always remember it as "not the way you think it should be spelled."

I could never remember it, so for a while I had it in my MyWords Firefox add-on.