The issue of moon rocks is purely a matter for debate.
Not for geologists. They universally hold an informed belief that the Apollo samples are genuine pieces of the Moon collected
in situ by the astronauts.
If I accept the govt's assertion that the moon landings were real, I would use the same arguments as you.
It is not "the government's" assertion. It is the assertion of the relevant experts in the relevant industries. "Government" is a red herring.
However, given the number of lies and cover-ups engaged in by the govt, i.e., JFK, etc., I assert that the moon landings were fake.
I discussed why that's an illogical position to hold. You haven't acknowledged or rebutted it.
I also assert that the Soviet Union lied about bringing back their moon rocks and that they only had rocks from Antarctica, or Siberia, if anything.
Asked and answered. Repeating the same rebutted claim is fruitless.
It's safe to say the Russians were adept at political propaganda and would not have hesitated to lie about it.
Same red herring as above. You are trying to answer scientific arguments with political ones.
But if the govt gives a geologist a rock and says it's from the moon, the geologist will assume it's from the moon, having nothing to go on to prove otherwise.
10-year-old refuted argument based on layman's assumptions of how geologists work.
Moon rocks from Antarctica could be reconditioned to appear to have come from the moon.
Explain in detail how. Keep in mind that this claim has been put to practicing geologists who roundly laugh at it.
No university researcher would cast doubt on the moon rocks as that would make them lose their funding.
Supposition. You are offering a speculative excuse for why the evidence and expert testimony roundly contradict your beliefs. Pretending that your critics are financially or ideologically motivated is a sign of a religious belief held on faith.
Also, the leading scientific theory is that the moon is just a chunk of the earth that was blasted off a few billion years ago, so the composition of the moon rocks would be the same as earthly material.
Asked and answered. Repeating a refuted claim without addressing the refutation is a sign of a religious belief held on faith, not a rational conclusion based on logic and evidence.
Scientists would not be backing that theory if the alleged moon rocks were different in composition from rocks found on earth.
Are you actually aware of the theories and supporting evidence? No, you're just stabbing in the dark. Practicing geologists are able to explain in great detail how the Apollo samples resemble Earth minerals and in equally great detail how they differ in important ways that reveal a lunar origin.
One being is that there is no record of the LM being tested for ascent or descent on earth (that I know of.)
Why would that be a relevant test?
The only video I've seen was Armstrong parachuting to safety after losing control of the LLTV. And, regardless, the LLTV was not a LM.
Agreed, so why bring it up if not to simply trying to trump up some kind of controversy or contradiction?
I think NASA simply would not have attempted a moon landing with an untested LM...
Why do you assert the LM was "untested?" Can you describe the test program for the LM in any great detail? Do you realize that Apollo 11 was characterized as the final test flight? Apollo 12 was the first Apollo mission considered an operational mission.
...let alone have it work flawlessly 6 times.
Why do you assert it worked "flawlessly?"
First, you don't know exactly where you are on the moon due to the manual landing...
Asked and answered at length. Such knowledge was not required in order to use a standard multiple phase ascent and rendezvous technique, the kind that is standard practice. Again, you are simply trying to foist your layman's misconceptions and pretend they represent actual technique and practice. We are not fooled.
...meaning there could be no IMU update to moon coordinates.
The IMU is not updated to "moon coordinates." It is corrected to a space-fixed orientation. Or more precisely, the reference matrix between the stable member orientation and the space-fixed orientation is refined to account for drift.
The star finder was useless on the moon (my assertion) because the astronauts claimed they couldn't see stars with the naked eye.
They weren't using their naked eyes. They were using the optics.
That means they had to rely on radar to rendezvous with a speeding bullet.
Asked and answered repeatedly. The "speeding bullet" notion is the layman's misconception of how orbital rendezvous is accomplished. I explained at length how it is actually done. You clearly either don't care or you couldn't understand it. In any case, you're still wrong.
Getting to the exact orbit would be extremely difficult because the LM IMU did not have the inertial coordinates for the moon, they only had earth coordinates, and rough one's at that due to the gyro drift rate.
Asked and answered repeatedly.
Phased rendezvous does not require reaching an exact orbit on ascent, for the reasons already given.
The IMU doesn't have inertial coordinates either "for the moon" or "earth coordinates." You lack a basic understanding of how the IMU works in an overall space flight setting.
How do you lift off from an unknown location with an unknown bearing?
Asked and answered repeatedly. Ignoring the answer in favor of your layman's misconception is a sign of a religious belief taken on faith, not a rational conclusion based on study, facts, and expert understanding.
A Kalman filter takes time to settle out.
Why is a Kalman filter relevant to this problem?
While sitting on the moon, the moon is rotating, and that rotation is is being fed into the gyros.
No. You are attempting to force concepts cribbed from terrestrial gyroscopic navigation into a different problem. The LM IMU did not work like an airplane's grycompass. You're Googling for the wrong things.
You can't just land on the moon and take off 2.5 hours later and get into a perfect orbit.
Asked and answered. Insertion into a "perfect" orbit on ascent was not required, for the reasons already given and for the same reasons practiced today in any orbital rendezvous problem. Further, the LM was not on the surface for only 2.5 hours. You lack sufficient knowledge of the facts.
You could argue that they used dead reckoning and mid-course corrections in flight and flew to the dark side of the moon and used the star finder, but that's just smoke and mirrors.
Straw man. That's not the way it was done.
The least documented part of the mission, and the most complicated by far, is the rendezvous.
Correct in the sense that it was considered the most complicated. Incorrect in the sense that it is the "least documented." I know of two textbooks and at least three technical papers that discuss the different rendezvous scenarios in great depth. The mission reports detail how well each performed, and specify that the rendezvous problem was so well studied and practiced that later missions were able to use more sensitive and fuel-efficient forms.
Note that before every space shuttle mission (and every rocket launch) a very careful IMU alignment was done to earth coordinates.
And you still don't understand why that's the preferred method of recording fine IMU alignment
when launching from Earth. You don't yet understand that there are many other ways of fine-aligning an IMU.
They don't just rely on radar to get to the ISS.
Correct. As a matter of fact the shuttle IMU is aligned to space-fixed references
by star sighting.
None of this is definitive proof against a lunar ascent, but it explains the unlikelihood.
Nonsense. It proves only that you don't know what you're talking about. Which is why you believe one thing and why the unanimity of the aerospace industry believes something else. You are not the lone "engineer" who got it right. You are a crackpot trying to parlay some frantic Googling and a smattering of misapplied and misunderstood technical knowledge to trump up a pseudo-intellectual argument for what is obviously a religiously-held socio-political belief.
But there's no way for anyone to prove anything.
Nonsense. All the relevant evidence shows Apollo was real. This is the evidence that you and other hoax claimants frantically try to explain away with hypothetical supposition and pseudo-technical misunderstanding. Granted, much of that fools laymen, but you're not talking here to laymen.
You can slant an experiment to show anything you want.
Everything is hearsay.
Nonsense. You're talking to people who do this for a living and have real-world, hands-on experience.
[quote[NASA controls all of the information.[/quote]
Hogwash. The techniques for accomplishing the lunar landing and subsequent space missions were developed by the aerospace industry. They remain there, and have been extended and refined for subsequent commercial space operations.
The missions were infinitely easier to fake than conduct for real...
Nonsense. In 45 years
not one single author has managed to propose an end-to-end scenario for faking the entire Apollo record and produce even a scintilla of evidence to suggest it was done.
...and faking guaranteed 100% success, including faking Apollo 13 to make it look like everything wasn't a success.
Nonsense. What guarantee did your alleged hoaxsters and conspirators have that they wouldn't be discovered? Especially since the first hoax claims surfaced in print only a few years after the Apollo program ended?
No one can deny the govt had the means and the motive to fake it.
Begging the question. I deny both those claims strenuously. You're asking us to take such propositions on faith. I do not; I require them to be proven to me.
Regarding an AULIS pic I put up, after some graphic analysis I have come to the conclusion that the claim is unsubstantiated by the photos.
Congratulations, you have demonstrated your willingness to retract a claim. That is genuinely admirable. However for the rest of your argument you have simply restated your same misconceptions as if none of the intervening argument had taken place.
