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

[Jason Thompson]

You should be nice to me.

You need to earn that now.

I'm the one trying to get you off the moon.

Given your total lack of demonstrable expertise on the subject, I'm bloody glad I'm not sitting on the moon with a dwindling oxygen supply waiting for you to get me off it!

I'm not regurgitating nonsense.  My nonsense (IMU alignment) is original.

Really? That's odd, because I saw exactly the same argument here:

http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=3203

But that wasn't written by anyone called 'alexsanchez'. So we'll take that as either a lie or an admission that you are in fact that same person we all suspected you were some time ago. Neither of those is a good thing for you to be crowing about.

And knock off the 'projection' crap. Your inability to answer the actual questions asked of you is noted yet again. You really are quite tedious.

By the way, if you aren't sure if the RCS can be fired while the ascent engine is going, I suggest you look up the term 'pitchover'. You might even see it being done if you look at the Apollo 17 acent video. How do you think that was achieved if not by using the RCS to pitch the LM during ascent?

And while we're here:

What are your qualifications?

Do you know where Stanley Kubrick lived and worked during the Apollo program?

[sts60]

How about 3 decimal places in feet, since the CM is only 60 miles up? If you're off by a hair, it turns into miles down range.

No.  It's hard to imagine where to begin addressing all the fail[ure] in this statement.

First, three decimal places in feet is 0.001 foot or 0.012 inch, or about 3 sheets of cheap laser printer paper (ca. 0.004 inch per page).  Do you really think rockets launched from Earth are routinely placed on the launch pad to that precision?  Do you really think the have to be?  Do you honestly think through these claims before you make them?

No, it was never a requirement to fix the launch position of any space vehicle to that precision, no matter its mission or destination.  You're just pulling numbers out of your orifice because you have no clue what you're talking about and want to sound impressive.  Laymen think everything in aerospace has to be established to absurd tolerances.  Some things yes.  It takes an engineer to know which.  Laymen just apply absurd requirements across the board.

Second, ...

I think we have a lock for Post Of The Thread award.  Andromeda, take note!

[Jason Thompson]

Thanks Jay. Corrected a few of my own layman's misconceptions there.

Of course I'm not claiming to be an engineer, so...

[JayUtah]

You should be nice to me.

We are.  We are tolerating your abusive and condescending behavior with reasonably good measure of restraint.  You are hardly distinguishable from a petulant teenager.  Don't be surprised when you are treated as such by adults.

I'm the one trying to get you off the moon.

No, you patently have no clue what you're talking about, as has been amply demonstrated.  What you're doing is a lot of handwaving and ignorant guesswork trying to build yourself up as some authority in the field, for no purpose other than to ridicule and insult the people who do, and have done, what you cannot seem to understand.  There is nothing lofty or praiseworthy or skillful in anything you've done here so far.  You're simply yet another ignorant layman arrogantly trying to pretend you've outsmarted NASA -- but who ultimately cannot walk the walk.

I'm not regurgitating nonsense.

Manifestly yes.  We even know exactly which nonsense you're regurgitating and where it comes from.

My nonsense (IMU alignment) is original.

No.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=216531
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=3203

I understand your discomfort with originality.

Guess again.  The discomfort is from your arrogance coupled with your willful dishonesty.  Is this how you think educated adults are meant to behave?  Grow up.

Sheeple?  Moi?  That's called "projecting."

Guess again.  We went through this and I showed how projection really applies to this thread.  For the second time now you have mentioned the subject without being able to refute my post on it.  Therefore I conclude you cannot.

[nomuse]

It seems to me that infusing a rock with radiation would, if anything,  make a rock appear to be younger,  not older.

[HB]Not when using government top secret particle beam weapon technology![/HB] 

Don't forget "scalar."

I always wanted to ask one of them if they'd stand behind a "scalar" machine gun.  We know the bullets are traveling at high speed, but we have no way of determining which way they will go...

[Halcyon Dayz, FCD]

You should be nice to me.

Why?

You've been lying to us from day one.

I'm the one trying to get you off the moon.

You are the one spouting ignorant nonsense.
IF you had any interrest in learning the truth about Apollo you would have learned about Apollo.
You would not use confabulations as your basis for speculation.

I'm not regurgitating nonsense.

Yes, you are.

My nonsense (IMU alignment) is original.

Heard it before.

I understand your discomfort with originality.

"Originality" is useless if it gets wrong results.

People here are trying to educate you.
You refuse to learn.
You are NOT interrested in the truth.

Sheeple?  Moi?

Oui.

That's called "projecting."

It's an observation.

Hoaxies, to the man, and woman, just crib their talking points from youchube and garishly coloured websites.
They do not critically examine these points, they do not research these points, they rarely actually understand these points.
They just happen to match their worldview so there must be something to them.
And like good little spambots proselytizing for the cult of unreason they unsanitarily regurgitate these brainfarts all over the good tableware.

They are mindless sheeple.
They just happen to be sheeple of a non-standard colour.

[Donnie B.]

I think this thread is starting to exhibit a bit too much bullet-on-bullet violence.  Let's keep it clean, okay?

Jay, that bit about "almost aborted a launch in flight" jumped out at me too.  Well, did they or didn't they?  An abort isn't exactly a judgment call.  There are parameters and limits.  If the trajectory passes outside a limit, it's an abort, otherwise not.  So what does "almost aborted" even mean?  Only that the trajectory came closer to a limit than was intended.  So since the launch wasn't aborted, gosh, I guess things don't have to be absolutely perfect for the mission to be a success.  You can tolerate some error and still be okay!

After all, I'm pretty sure they didn't diagnose the software bug, fix it, and upload the corrected firmware to the rocket in flight, amirite?

[gillianren]

A great man once said, or maybe it was Pee Wee Herman, "I know you are but what am I?"

Grammatically, this would be better rendered as "A great man, or maybe it was Pee Wee Herman, once said . . . ."

I would also argue that the singular of "sheeple" is "sherson," so Alex, don't be such a sherson.  Stop citing Jack White; it only makes you look foolish.  Don't claim your arguments are original; they're not.  Unless you are confessing to sock puppetry, you are not the first person to use them.  Even if you were, who cares?  What matters is not if the argument is original or not.  What matters is if it is right.  Hint--it isn't.

[alexsanchez]

anybody figure out how to do a lunar rendezvous without an IMU alignment yet?  I'm looking into that.  I know that's a touchy subject.

It's not a touchy subject.  Everyone but you knows how to do it, and how it was done.  Don't pretend your ignorance on the subject is anyone's problem but yours.

Did Apollo 11 go to the moon and land while still faking the video?

[nomuse]

How about 3 decimal places in feet, since the CM is only 60 miles up? If you're off by a hair, it turns into miles down range.

No.  It's hard to imagine where to begin addressing all the fail[ure] in this statement.

First, three decimal places in feet is 0.001 foot or 0.012 inch, or about 3 sheets of cheap laser printer paper (ca. 0.004 inch per page).  Do you really think rockets launched from Earth are routinely placed on the launch pad to that precision?  Do you really think the have to be?  Do you honestly think through these claims before you make them?

Wow.  My math hat was NOT on when he first wrote this.  I'd guess the thermal expansion of the Saturn V stack was greater than that.  Much greater.  Heck, that sounds within the range for subsidence and rebound over the rainy season.

Optical measurement in a stationary LM is possible to 0.02° (with astronauts demonstrating interpolation ability to near 0.01°) using the AOT.  The pre-launch IMU alignment procedure uses three factors, although theoretically only two factors are required to achieve suitable alignment.  These are combinations of gravity measurements and celestial sightings.  Three factors are used to allow one factor to be grossly in error; only two of the factors have to work.  Today's off-the-shelf automatic star trackers achieve 3-10 arcseconds (0.0008-0.0027°) of precision, now finer than most IMU resolutions.

Heh.  So they probably don't take sightings on Rigel Kent!  Although I suppose the tracker could compensate for the date of observation as well... (makes me want to turn over a bill and start scribbling to see what other numbers come within range at that degree of accuracy!)

(And scribble it would be...my math hat barely made it out of algebra.)

[JayUtah]

Did Apollo 11 go to the moon and land while still faking the video?

Was this post meant to have a point?

[JayUtah]

I'd guess the thermal expansion of the Saturn V stack was greater than that.  Much greater.

Yes.  Also, wiggling around in your couch in the CM would cause the tip of the LES to sway by more than that amount.

Although I suppose the tracker could compensate for the date of observation as well...

No, but they're not meant to last longer than about 10 years.

The top-of-the-line models give you 3-arcsecond precision at 10 Hz.  That's pretty good.  For some applications I wouldn't even need a separate IMU.

[alexsanchez]

Did Apollo 11 go to the moon and land while still faking the video?

Was this post meant to have a point?

Asking what you think.

[Echnaton]

My nonsense (IMU alignment) is original.

First of all, you obviously have not done a sufficient prior art search to back your originality claim.  Secondly novel ignorance is still ignorance.

[Jason Thompson]

Did Apollo 11 go to the moon and land while still faking the video?

Begging the question.

Apollo 11 did go to the moon and land, and did not fake the video.

But instead of asking questions, why don't you answer some instead?

What are your qualifications?

Do you know where Stanley Kubrick lived and worked during the time you say he was faking Apollo?

Do you have any response at all to the numerous replies to your absurd comments about IMU alignment precision?