Deconstructing Apollo 20

[VQ]

This response seems unmerited by the post to which it is directed. Mebbe have a cup of tea and then reread it to see if it could be interpreted in a way that was not arrogant or insulting? I didn't pick up either from Abaddon's post.

Nope... A couple of days later and I'm still angry about it. It seems to me that there's an undertone here of "let's attack a hoax nut" first, before anything else. I asked to be given information I could learn from. Instead, I got a rather smug lecture on not "falling for claims in spite of what's posted here." So far, to be honest, all that was posted was just statements. There was no initial effort to provide any source material, no suggestions for places to find further information, and no "well, here's how to calculate what you're looking for"

As I've indicated, I am not a mathematical person. I am not a science-educated person. I am an historian, and professor of history. I don't know how to do advanced math, beyond basic algebra. So when I asked for additional information, I felt it reasonable to expect something other than "because we said so".

I am not seeing attacks, and no one has called you a "nut". Your skin seems too thin here.

Moving to the positive, as a historian you are probably better qualified than most to locate and peruse primary source material related to these claims. The more technical-minded of us might be more able/willing to help in providing assistance with a specific question or interpreting a specific source.

[nomuse]

All this talk of the roar and the light of a launch being experienced as a significant event many miles away reminds me of Ray Bradbury's very short tale "Rocket Summer."

[Ishkabibble]

Never let it be said...
http://history.nasa.gov/ap10fj/pdf/as-505-postflight-trajectory.pdf

Be warned. It is not light reading material.

The diagram on page 70 is precisely what I was looking for, and in conjunction with the text on page 23, I now have a way to create a physical "map" of where the stages impacted. I couldn't find this, but it's likely because I had no idea how to construct search terms with limited vocabulary on the subject. Now that I have it, it gives me more search terms to use, and I can probably find the same documents from each of the next six launches.

Thank you very much! This is precisely what I was looking for from the beginning! And you weren't kidding. Whooo, that stuff's not for the faint of heart!

I don't know if I did the calculations correctly, but these are the figures I came up with, and they don't seem wildly out of place. I'll have someone from the math department tell me if I did this right, or if there's an easier way to do it than I did it.

Impact of S1C for Apollo 11: Launch bearing from KSC: 75.58°- Distance from launch point: 660.4 km/356.6 nm

It's not going to be a hell of a lot of fun for me doing this twice each for ten flights, but I have to have the figures so I can plot the same lines of bearing and distances from Vandenberg. Then again, I might just do the four most widely spaced ones for each stage, and average them all together. Would that method be "scientifically accurate" enough?

Heck, if this works out the way I am envisioning it, I might write an article that can be added to the database here. Who knows?

[VQ]

Impact of S1C for Apollo 11: Launch bearing from KSC: 75.58°- Distance from launch point: 660.4 km/356.6 nm

It's not going to be a hell of a lot of fun for me doing this twice each for ten flights, but I have to have the figures so I can plot the same lines of bearing and distances from Vandenberg. Then again, I might just do the four most widely spaced ones for each stage, and average them all together. Would that method be "scientifically accurate" enough?

Heck, if this works out the way I am envisioning it, I might write an article that can be added to the database here. Who knows?

What is the intended end product from this study? Locations where the S1C would have landed if launched from Vandenberg into the historical orbits? Because Vandenberg is further north than Canaveral, none of the historical Apollo inclinations (28.5-32.6°) could have been achieved from Vandenberg (minimum inclination 51°).

Put another way, if you launch from Vandenberg with the same azimuth as from Canaveral, you end up in a quite different orbit.

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-20_Ascent_Data.htm
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-21_Earth_Orbit_Data.htm

[ka9q]

Actually, the minimum inclination reachable from VAFB (without a dogleg) is about 34.5 degrees -- the latitude of the launch site. That's with a due east launch over land. The minimum safe inclination is about 51 degrees.

[smartcooky]

Impact of S1C for Apollo 11: Launch bearing from KSC: 75.58°- Distance from launch point: 660.4 km/356.6 nm

It's not going to be a hell of a lot of fun for me doing this twice each for ten flights, but I have to have the figures so I can plot the same lines of bearing and distances from Vandenberg. Then again, I might just do the four most widely spaced ones for each stage, and average them all together. Would that method be "scientifically accurate" enough?

Heck, if this works out the way I am envisioning it, I might write an article that can be added to the database here. Who knows?

What is the intended end product from this study? Locations where the S1C would have landed if launched from Vandenberg into the historical orbits? Because Vandenberg is further north than Canaveral, none of the historical Apollo inclinations (28.5-32.6°) could have been achieved from Vandenberg (minimum inclination 51°).

Put another way, if you launch from Vandenberg with the same azimuth as from Canaveral, you end up in a quite different orbit.

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-20_Ascent_Data.htm
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-21_Earth_Orbit_Data.htm

If I understand what Ishkabibble is trying to do here, I don't think any of that is really relevant, because he's not talking about the known historical Apollo missions, he's debunking the claim that a "souper seekrit" Apollo mission was launched from VAFB some time after A17 in 1972.

It should be possible to work out a launch to send a Saturn V from VAFB into an orbit from which it can execute a TLI burn and head off for a lunar landing. Once that is achieved, you should then be able to calculate how far downrange the S1C would impact (which would certainly be on land) and then point to an absence of evidence of any such impact to debunk the claim.

[Ishkabibble]

If I understand what Ishkabibble is trying to do here, I don't think any of that is really relevant, because he's not talking about the known historical Apollo missions, he's debunking the claim that a "souper seekrit" Apollo mission was launched from VAFB some time after A17 in 1972.

It should be possible to work out a launch to send a Saturn V from VAFB into an orbit from which it can execute a TLI burn and head off for a lunar landing. Once that is achieved, you should then be able to calculate how far downrange the S1C would impact (which would certainly be on land) and then point to an absence of evidence of any such impact to debunk the claim.

Well, I had to get with some grad student (I swear, she looked like she was about 14) to do the math on this, since it was waaaaaay beyond me (and her impatience with my explanation showed) but we (read that she) figured out only from the launch point of KSC pad 39-A and the published impact points of the S-IC and S-II stages (why didn't anyone tell me about the "Apollo by the numbers" web page?) transposing the KSC coordinates to the largest pad at Vandenberg, two points where the stages would impact. It didn't occur to either one of us that the base orbits would be different because of the latitude difference (I have never claimed to know anything about orbital mechanics, and it shows) but we did find the two points that would be the average impact points from all 10 manned Saturn V launches.

They are:

S-IC: 19.83 miles southeast of Grand Canyon West airport (34°44′35″N, 077°11′33″W on Google Earth)
S-II: 115.63 miles south east of the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse (35°51′22″N, 113°30′06″W on Google Earth)

Given the huge amounts of populated areas beneath the trajectories along these tracks, it is absolutely impossible that anyone would even allow the launch of a vehicle with that much explosive potential. Which is just about the most obvious statement I think I have ever made. Of course, some hoax nut would say that it had to be a "sooper seekrit rockit that nobody knows exists" or some such thing. But being able to publish these sets of coordinates would demonstrate clearly to hoax nuts that the actual facts don't support their narrative. Of course, that's never mattered, but we fight false information with facts, right?

[VQ]

Actually, the minimum inclination reachable from VAFB (without a dogleg) is about 34.5 degrees -- the latitude of the launch site. That's with a due east launch over land. The minimum safe inclination is about 51 degrees.

That makes sense, thanks for the correction. I should have thought of that given that I live way north of VAFB but south of the 51st parallel.

[gwiz]

Relevant to this thread, here's a compilation of all the observations, mostly by the general population, of the Soyuz launch last month:
http://satobs.org/seesat_ref/misc/Soyuz_launch_4.pdf

[beedarko]

My father was a stage magician, and I inherited. Both he and I found Copperfield to be irritating in extremis. Both of us much preferred illusions which could be performed right under your nose. This "bigger is better" malarkey annoyed the bejeebers out of both of us.

I was part of his "13" illusion several years back, after which I found myself crammed into what was essentially a broom closet with him and the other 12 participants. Copperfield was literally pressed up against me as he warned us all not to reveal the secret.  A rather surreal evening to be sure.   

[Kiwi]

...why didn't anyone tell me about the "Apollo by the numbers" web page?

[Shoots hand up.] I did, back in October 2007 -- a little while before you joined ApolloHoax.
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/thread/1356/apollo-numbers

I recently thought of re-posting the links here, but don't really have time right now to check that they all still work.  Any other members who can check some?

Of course, some hoax nut would say that it had to be a "sooper seekrit rockit that nobody knows exists"

If so, it obviously had to also be extremely quiet, so ask them if, perhaps, NASA had powered it with bottled space-pixie farts.

...

(With apologies to JayUtah for pinching one of his many quips.)

[Abaddon]

<snip for brevity>
(why didn't anyone tell me about the "Apollo by the numbers" web page?)

See, that happens. When one is familiar with such sources over years, it becomes "de riguer" to assume that everyone is (bar the HB loons, of course).

Yourself, not being a HB Loon, I assumed you were familiar with it. Wrongly as it turns out, for which I apologise.

In any event, there are wholesale buckets of actual data on every aspect of Apollo which I or anyone else would be happy to link you to. Personally, I am familiar with lots of it, but even that "lots" is only a fraction of what is available.

[Ishkabibble]

On another forum regarding another topic, there is a very close-knit group of people who have been with the forum almost from the beginning. Most of  us old-timers there have pretty much read, seen, and heard it all. However, from time to time, a total "newb" will come in, and ask a question that has been answered so many times, one could recite the answer without even thinking about it. Many of the old-timers have little to no patience, (some have even less) and are very disdainful and almost hostile to certain newb questions. I posted the old joke about the two elderly prisoners who had been in jail for so long that they had told each other all the jokes they knew so much, they merely would say the number and elicit cackling from their cellmate.

To make a long story short (too late, I know) the forum owner there was forced to send out an IM to all of the old-timers to remind them that we were newbs once too, and to not bite their little heads off so quickly.

Now, rest assured that I am in no way attempting to draw a parallel to anything that happens on this forum, but it is a wise bunch of folks who can keep in the back of their minds that not everyone else knows what they themselves know.

I would like to know more about the orbital inclinations (explained in a way that I can get, since I'm so mathematically deficient) and also the seismological data that might well be very useful in the future. If anyone has the information and the patience to discuss it with me, I'd appreciate it.

As I was perusing the Apollo by the Numbers site (and yes, all the links I looked at in the ToC all worked!) I was thunderstruck at the sheer volume of information. This is precisely what is meant when it is said that the hoax nuts never have a comprehensive tale of how the thing was pulled off, because they do not have any of the evidence that NASA has. Just once, just one time, I'd like some hoax nut to say "man, I had no idea all that was available. I guess I've been fooled, eh?" and acknowledge once and for all that with the massive amount of information available, that it could not have been a hoax. Problem is, they all would say all that data is fake too.

Thanks for all the assistance, and my apologies for the kerfluffle earlier on. It grates me to no end to have someone seem to patronize me, and while I still feel like I was being lectured to, I would prefer that the event had never taken place.

[ka9q]

I posted the old joke about the two elderly prisoners who had been in jail for so long that they had told each other all the jokes they knew so much, they merely would say the number and elicit cackling from their cellmate.

You left off the rest of the joke.

A new prisoner arrives. Some time later he says "32" but his cellmates don't laugh.

"Why didn't you laugh?"
"You didn't tell it right."

[ka9q]

I would like to know more about the orbital inclinations

The inclination of an orbit is the angle at which the spacecraft crosses the equator. If the spacecraft flies continuously over the equator in an eastbound direction its inclination is zero. If it flies over it at right angles so that it also passes over both poles once per orbit, then its inclination is 90 degrees. If it flies continuously over the equator in a westbound direction, its inclination is 180 degrees.

The inclination of an orbit is determined by the latitude of the launch site and the direction the rocket flies from the launch pad (the launch azimuth). If the launch is due east, the inclination is equal to the (absolute value) of the launch site's latitude. Any other direction can only increase the inclination.

Geostationary communications satellites have zero orbital inclination. There are only two ways to reach such orbits: by launching from a site directly on the equator, as the company Sea Launch did, or to perform a "plane change" maneuver when the spacecraft crosses the equator. The latter can require a lot of extra propellant when the original inclination is high. This gives a considerable advantage to low latitude launch sites such as Kourou, French Guiana (5 degrees N) or the ocean spots used by Sea Launch.