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

[frenat]

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

So somebody on a random forum doesn't know and speculates and that prove what?  You still have no idea what you're talking about. 

[JayUtah]

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

...upon fail.

[Mag40]

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

Classic HB....find some random person who makes a comment that vaguely supports your ignorant claim....whilst studiously ignoring experts in the field who have already filled you in on your total lack of understanding.

Goodnightsnookiehokums1000dashtekelibonkers has been banned again here -
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php/141607-goodnights-Moon-Landing-Hoax-thread?p=2103888#post2103888

He makes the claim you make about the cameras, I think you have so much of this sockdoc puppet activity going on, that you probably forgot you made the claim here and not Baut/CQ!

[Noldi400]

I heard a guy named Jay on a radio show one time saying Apollo was real, but for some reason the video was fake.  Don't remember the last name.  Thought it might have been the same Jay by chance.  Guess not.

Guess not.  Now do you have anything material to say to the several posts here that effectively refute your claims and illustrate your deception and incompetence?

Weidner, I'd guess.

[RAF]

I think you have so much of this sockdoc puppet activity going on, that you probably forgot you made the claim here and not Baut/CQ!

That's why lying is a fools game...you have to remember all those lies.

[nomuse]

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

Why would you want to?

"Hey, I see Canopus!"

"What's it's RA and dec?"

"I dunno.  Looks high, left of the LM..." (squints, holds out thumb).


The point being, you want to know where it is with precision, relative to the axes of the navigational platform.  Which means you sight it.  Through optics.

[LunarOrbit]

Classic HB....find some random person who makes a comment that vaguely supports your ignorant claim....

And if you can't find someone who agrees with you, invent them.

[ka9q]

medium format film (with the paper backing) is much, much harder to load on the reel for a first-timer with no instruction whatsoever.

Uh, you're supposed to remove the paper backing before you put the film on the developing reel. 

Seriously, I always found the paper roll the easiest to load. You just unroll it in the dark, feel for and unpeel the small piece of adhesive tape holding the leading end of the film to the paper, and work the detached film onto the reel. I always liked that dim flash of light when unpeeling the tape.

35mm has no paper backing, but you had to use a can opener to ease the cap off the flat end of the cassette without bending it too badly or damaging the film inside. Adhesive tape was again used to hold the end of the film to the spool.

126 was the trickiest because of that damn plastic. Once you got the reel out, it was just like 120 film with the paper backing and tape.

Most of the developing reels I used were the plastic type with the little spring-loaded balls that acted as one-way drive latches to walk the film into the reel. They were easy to use unless the roll was very long, and then friction could make it difficult to work the last of the film onto the roll. Years later I learned how to use the simple metal reels. They were much trickier as you had to flex the film properly as you wrapped it onto the reel. If the film jumped the groove, it could contact the adjacent wrap and keep out the developing chemicals. It definitely helped to practice in the light with some ruined rolls first.

[cjameshuff]

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

I've previously suggested naming the Apollo 11 pile of lunar coprolites "Mount Sibrel", but perhaps our doctor friend is more deserving of the honor.

[Tanalia]

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.
...
The astrotrackers I worked on were heavy and bulky. NASA must have had a less massive version.

Irrelevant, Apollo did not use automatic astrotrackers due to size, weight, and power considerations, when the pilot(s) could do the necessary alignment checks and adjustments with far simpler equipment.

A typical system back then, such as used in the Hound Dog missile, would include a gyro about 2 feet across, and astrotracker optical assembly maybe 18" across, and a computer of similar size to handle it.

The Apollo IMU was basically a gyro one foot across.  A main part of the reduction was leaving out the fourth gimbal, and associated sensors and driver motors, used in most such system (including Gemini).  Although dropping the gimbal could lead to gimbal-lock (check out "a fourth gimbal for Christmas" at ALSJ), this could be avoided by some procedural changes, and the savings were considered well worth it.

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

And he is as wrong as you, though it's possible he was simply [mis]led to that conclusion by all the blatant question begging in your query.  Elevation was completely irrelevant, and as long as they were within maybe 100 miles of the planned landing site and could tell their orientation (such as the sun being in the east), they could make a suitable orbit to begin rendezvous.  Any precision beyond that, in terms of location, alignment, or relative position of the CSM, merely allowed for a better rendezvous.  Of course they would want the best data they could get, to save time and fuel, and, yes, for pride in a job well done, but also for improved safety margins in case any problems occurred.

You still cling to this absurd notion that extreme precision was needed for the ascent module to make a single shot to "hit" the CSM in orbit or something.  The reality is that's more like something you've probably seen in movies dozens of times -- someone jumping from one vehicle to another on the highway.  In this case, all they had to do at the start was get onto a [very wide] highway going in the right direction; once that was done, either vehicle (or both) could adjust their speed or lane until they got together.

[Chew]

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

What's wrong with using naturally-occurring navigation aids, like a crater? Call some crater the prime meridian, determine where it is at in relation to the Earth at time x, and you can determine where any point on the Moon is at any other time. Just like we do on Earth. The selection of the Greenwich observatory for the prime meridian was completely arbitrary. A long time ago most countries had their own prime meridians and each published their own almanacs based on their prime meridian. Did all sailors except sailors that originated from England get lost and run aground because they didn't reckon longitude from Greenwich? No. All that is required is that some position be defined and your clock is set to that time.

[ka9q]

(check out "a fourth gimbal for Christmas" at ALSJ)

Last year I asked Owen Garriott if he remembered this exchange. He didn't, but I'm not surprised as it was a long time ago.

Just as many Trek fans remember the plots and dialogue far better than the actors, many Apollo fans seem to remember the details better than the astronauts who were involved!

[ka9q]

as long as they were within maybe 100 miles of the planned landing site and could tell their orientation (such as the sun being in the east), they could make a suitable orbit to begin rendezvous.

Right, but it's even simpler than that.

Consider that the Apollo 11 LM and CSM were in a nearly equatorial orbit together before the landing, the surface stay was very brief, and the moon rotates very slowly. This meant the LM's landing site had to be very nearly in the CSM's orbital plane. So no matter where you actually land within this plane, you can get back to the CSM by simply continuing in the same direction you were going when you landed.

Nearly all of the error and uncertainty in the Apollo 11 landing site location was downrange along the track, and it was compensated for during rendezvous by simply adjusting the timing of the various burns, including liftoff. The information from the rendezvous radar that accurately measured the range and range-rate between the CSM and LM. The position of the moon underneath simply didn't matter.

[Glom]

You're funny, Alex. You've got practitioners telling you how it is and you choose instead to believe an anonymous self-confessed crank.

Why is it so hard to accept?

[onebigmonkey]

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

Your question was also interesting, as it was loaded with everything you wanted to hear given straight back at you. You got an answer from someone who repaired things that they didn't have in Apollo and couldn't have used. You do know it's possible to repair cars without being able to drive right?

A substantial part of the post-landing period, as I'm sure you know from your extensive research on the subject, was devoted to a) finding out where they were and b) programming the computer with the information it needed to get them back into orbit again.

If you read the transcripts and/or listen to the audio carefully, you can see they are doing the latter without having precise information about the former, but they do have a good idea thanks to the planning and training they put in beforehand. The CSM was passing overhead on a specific orbital path. The LM was going to launch and occupy that same orbital path. They know roughly where both vehicles are at all times. All they needed to know was when they had to launch so that the two vehicles would be in roughly the same space at same time. Any errors could be compensated for with adjustments in orbit. A four mile error on the ground is nothing when you consider the speeds involved in orbit.

I am not an engineer. I know very little about rocketry and orbital mechanics, but I can still work this out, what's so difficult? The three people involved knew an awful lot about it, as did the people helping them back on Earth. Why is it so difficult to comprehend that they might have been able to work it out too?

Unless, of course, you don't want to comprehend it and are desperately trying to avoid doing so.