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

[raven]

I see Patrick/fattydash/goodnightsnookums/alexsanchez has been banned (again) from cosmoquest for being a sock puppet.  He did leave with the hilarious accusation that apollo 14 was a fake because the astronauts couldn't have found their way back to the lm without knowing their position by the stars. I suppose following their footprints on a rock that had never been inhabited for 4 billion years could have led them anywhere!  Much better to bring a theodolite and a plumb line.  I think it is marvellous that he is bringing his 'expertise' to the problem of orbital rendezvous.

Wow, he really did not think that one through.

[Echnaton]

Wow, he really did not think that one through.

He ran out of his even slightly plausible claims a long ago and is now exclusively exercising his obsession with trolling.

[BazBear]

I see Patrick/fattydash/goodnightsnookums/alexsanchez has been banned (again) from cosmoquest for being a sock puppet.

It looks like he's back at JREF with a sock named littleelvira.

[sts60]

And his latest coprophilic sock-puppet on JREF is suspended en route to a ban.

Patrick, why do you keep lying to sign up all these sock-puppets?   Isn't that awfully hypocritical of you, given how much you claim other people are lying?

And do you think you're actually fooling anybody?  At all?

[Abaddon]

And his latest coprophilic sock-puppet on JREF is suspended en route to a ban.

Patrick, why do you keep lying to sign up all these sock-puppets?   Isn't that awfully hypocritical of you, given how much you claim other people are lying?

And do you think you're actually fooling anybody?  At all?

Meh, JREF spotted it last time, CQ spotted it this time. Let's have a race for who will spot it next time.

[dwight]

So what's the deal with all these pseudo-engineers huffing off?? I was under the impression their arguments were worth fighting for? Amateurs alright.

[alexsanchez]

Heh.  So they probably don't take sightings on Rigel Kent!

As a matter of fact, no they don't. It wasn't on the list of Apollo guide stars despite its brightness, and I haven't heard of star trackers using it either. The yearly parallax and the fact that it's a double (or maybe triple) star probably both contribute to that.

As I understand it (Jay, correct me if I'm wrong), the two stars traditionally used with star trackers were Canopus and Sirius. They're not as far apart as you'd like (90 degrees would be ideal) nor is Sirius all that far away but they're both bright and easy to spot.

Nowadays more stars are used, and in some cases entire star field images are looked up in a catalog, which is pretty neat.

I posted a question on a physics forum about IMU alignment and using a star finder. 
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=46824.new#new

The response was interesting:

"About that same time, I was trained to repair astrotrackers for USAF. Using a best known attitude from various other instruments, like magnetic compass and gyroscopic stable platform, the astrotracker would find a guide star in its telescope. A spinning radial raster would generate a signal indicating which direction the telescope needed to look to center on the guide star. Once it locked onto the guide star, it became the new best known attitude reference.

Back then, they still used mechanical gyroscopes. Nowadays, the gyros are electronic with no moving parts. The astrotrackers I worked on were heavy and bulky. NASA must have had a less massive version.

Also, I think NASA must have dropped some navigation aids on the lunar surface before they attempted any manned landings."

This person thinks they would have needed some additional equipment to have performed a liftoff and rendezvous.  Note that a magnetic compass on the moon would have been useless as the moon only has local magnetic fields.  Also, how do you use a star finder when you can't see stars with the naked eye?
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_the_moon_have_a_magnetic_field

[RAF]

This person thinks they would have needed some additional equipment to have performed a liftoff and rendezvous.

So what...he is wrong...end of story.

[Jason Thompson]

This person thinks they would have needed some additional equipment to have performed a liftoff and rendezvous.

So what?

Why don't you understand the staggeringly simple fact that the way the liftoff and rendezvous were accomplished is VERY well documented? Who cares what some other random person you asked about it on another messageboard thinks was done?

Also, how do you use a star finder when you can't see stars with the naked eye?

You CAN see stars with the naked eye on the moon, provided you allow your eyes to adapt to local conditions, as several astronauts attested. This means not having the brightly lit lunar surface or cabin interior in your field of view so your eyes can adapt to see the stars. In other words, exactly the kind of conditions the optics on the spacecraft allowed. Both the CSM and the LM had what was in efect a one-power telescope. It did not magnify the image but did allow the astronauts to sight stars and confirm the attitude of the spacecraft.

This is, again, a very well documented condition.

[JayUtah]

I posted a question on a physics forum...

Physicists are not engineers.  You have three or more practicing engineers telling you multiple times how it's done.  This is not a technique that's a one-off mystery for Apollo.  This is what is practiced by commercial spacefarers daily.

This person thinks they would have needed some additional equipment to have performed a liftoff and rendezvous.

That person doesn't know what he's talking about.  The Apollo procedure was well documented in the professional literature.  This guy you've suddenly decided is some kind of authority apparently doesn't know about any of it.  You've been given the correct answers.  You can't seem to understand or address them.

Also, how do you use a star finder when you can't see stars with the naked eye?

You use the star finder, a.k.a. the Alignment Optical Telescope.

When you're finishing flinging straw men about, deal with the actual answers you've received.

[Jason Thompson]

Alex, once again, do you understand that liftoff and rendezvous were separate elements with their own set of engineering solutions?

[Echnaton]

"NASA must have had a less massive version.

Also, I think NASA must have dropped some navigation aids on the lunar surface before they attempted any manned landings."

Alex, what do you think of people who just parrot anonymous third party speculation?

[Echnaton]

Alex,

Did you read the bio for your corespondent?

66 years old, living on So-shallow Security in western Washing, USA. Asperger syndrome, was not recognize in my day, so I lacked the special attention some of us get nowadays. Back then, we were just misfits. Despite a genius IQ, I did poorly in school, earning only half a pair of assoshit arse dungarees (AA degree). If my model ever becomes mainstream, they will have to award me a PhD, like they did for Einstein, so they can say only PhDs are smart enough to think outside the box. You can find the naked-scientist discussion of my Fractal Foam Model of Universes in the New Theories forum.

He is a guy with an imagination and a chip on his shoulder but states no experience relevant to the problem in question.

[JayUtah]

...but states no experience relevant to the problem in question.

He doesn't even state any experience relevant to the problem he's describing, which is a vastly different problem than the Apollo lunar surface IMU alignment.  Fail upon fail.

[Captain Swoop]

But, importantly, Alexsanchez thinks what is stated supports his position.