• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

Status
Not open for further replies.
I mean why bother studying any of this stuff from the manual?

Why bother studying how real scientists would go about locating an orbiting command module or finding themselves on the surface of a planet?
Or bother finding out how to find out where one is anywhere in the universe?

It is not a requirement of science that everyone descend to your level of intellect.


Boy oh boy did I ever feel silly after I spent all that time studying NASA's own stuff and learning how to find things in space, learning about the importance of Julian and Besselian "systems".

You should not feel silly. You should be deeply embarassed at your utter failure to accept when you are wrong, and to comprehend data when it is spoonfed to you, and your pattern of lies.

Then you guys told me about the map, and I did go to the original(copy) of the voice transcript recording, and sure enough, both the cap com and Michael Collins say "Juliett" as plain as you ever want to hear it in a recording of a simulated conversation taking place over a simulated 240,000 miles.
Some researcher you are that you were unable to find the map, and then unable to understand Cartesian geometry.


So must be the case that Shyster did use the map.

Perhaps he did,citation please.

To be honest now, I don't think Shyster would understand that manual of NASA's, the Guidance/Flight Mechanics/Trajectory Manual, very complicated stuff.

Why not? It's fairly simple math.

Easier just to have Neil and the Glassy Eyed Ph.D Zombie look out of the window there at Space Mountain in Orlando,

And back to insults P1K goes, as usual.

tell you some hokey jive and then take out your map and mark whatever place you like. In this case where an LRRR is parked.

Everyone knows where it is. Except you.

Makes a lot more sense to me. A lot easier. Took me 2 or 3 weeks to get through that stupid manual. This way, one just makes up whatever he or she likes. I mean it's not as though any of this is real anyway.

And once again, you assume the conclusion without evidence.
 
How is THIS not lost SUSpilot? (just a gentile reminder)

Sure, why not? Watching you flail is kind of entertaining. Btw, you really should be getting some sleep, rather than posting at 0300 on the sub-continent.

.

Let's see. They were somewhere along the track of their orbit around the Moon, on the Sea of Tranquility. They weren't sure of where they were within a few nautical miles. That is not "lost"; that is not having a precise position. That's a huge difference.



Since the problem is one of timing, that is launching at the right moment to match orbits with the CSM with the least expenditure of fuel, as long as you're on the same orbital plane as the CSM, it doesn't matter at all where you are. All you need is a good datum using the CSM to figure out the launch window. The single most elegant solution was to use the rendezvous radar and back into the answer.



Please Don't ever speak for me again. They weren't lost as in not knowing where they were. They had a somewhat imprecise location on the Moon. Speaking for myself, as long as consumables weren't critical, taking time to things the right way is the correct answer. That is what is drilled into every pilot's head from the start. And if you're unsure of your position, the worst thing you can do is rush to a solution. That's why Reed was unhappy, in fact; before going with the radar solution, his worst case scenario was to burn a lot of fuel to match orbits, which he had to consider as a real possibility.



No, find your position relative to the other spacecraft and you can execute an economical rendezvous. As for cramped? Spend some time with me in IMC on a bumpy night in a Cessna 172. I'll show you cramped.



It was real. As for your existence, I'm not so sure...

How SUSpilot, is the Eagle not lost may I ask? I won't speak for you. Obviously, I am inviting you to speak for yourself here.

"Apollo Simulations" Flight Director Glynn Lunney wrote of H. David Reed in FROM THE TRENCH OF MISSION CONTROL TO THE CRATERS OF THE MOON;

"Dave Reed was the experienced hand at the Lunar Module, and the leader of the Trench team at FIDO."

Maurice Kennedy; Charles Deiterich III; William Stoval; William Boone III; Glynn S. Lunney; H. David Reed; Jerry C. Bostick (2011-05-13). From The Trench of Mission Control to the Craters of The Moon (E-book Locations 4056-4057).

THE LEADER OF THE TRENCH TEAM AT FIDO, if I may be so bold SUSpilot to bold Flight Director Lunney's ringing endorsement of Reed.

So is Lunney wrong SUSpilot? Is Reed really a nincompoop? He only had the most important job of anyone with respect to Apollo's first simulated LM launch from the lunar surface.

Reed wrote that the PNGS, AGS, Powered Fight/MSFN, maps/photos, targeted site determined coordinates, all of the coordinate solutions available to him that morning when he walked into work were 4 and a half miles at best from what ultimately proved to be the landing site. How is Reed wrong SUSpilot? How is it that the Eagle is not lost? They wouldn't and didn't initiate a simulated launch with the "spacecraft" 4.5 miles out of plane now did they? Matter of fact, as the phony story goes, the two ships were right in plane, didn't need to correct for that at all, not a bit.

So it would seem that Reed would be correct when he wrote that 25,000 feet, 4.73 miles give or take, that would matter, would make a big and very important difference in the simulated LM launch solution, because after all, they didn't execute such a 4.5 mile out of plane simulated launch now did they? They were right in plane, now weren't they?

If the Eagle was not "lost" SUSpilot, why even bother to have Reed solve for its relationship to the command module? Close enough according to you isn't it? Wasn't lost so that must be close enough, 4 and a half miles from the plane where Collins picked it up in the Apollo 11 LM launch simulation on 07/21/1969.

So what gives SUSpilot? Reed says the Eagle's position was not known well enough to effect a successful launch. Lunney says he was THE LEADER OF THE TRENCH TEAM AT FIDO. Do you know more than H. David Reed about this stuff SUSpilot?

I don't think so. The Eagle was lost whether you admit it or not. Reed did, effectively anyway, admitted that the Eagle was "lost", and turned around and "found it, found the "LM simulator" that is, with his reverse rendezvous radar solution.
 
Last edited:
<question dodging waffle cut>

So I guess you're trying to gallop past that whole imaginary 'Julian System' thing eh? You've invented an entire fictitious co-ordinate system out of a ignorant misunderstanding of the use of the word 'Juliet' and then expect any further posts to be taken remotely seriously, are you truly that stupid or just that arrogant?
 
<snip pointless babble>

This is becoming your MO.

Insert buzz words into your screeds, like "simulated", "simulator", "fake" or "faked" into your wall of text, as if it lends an air of legitimacy to your delusion.

You have yet to provide any reason to believe any fakery was involved, You have been found out on your lack of knowledge, you have been found out on your lies, and you have embarrased yourself on this very thread multiple times.

Why should anyone give you any credibility?
 
So I guess you're trying to gallop past that whole imaginary 'Julian System' thing eh? You've invented an entire fictitious co-ordinate system out of a ignorant misunderstanding of the use of the word 'Juliet' and then expect any further posts to be taken remotely seriously, are you truly that stupid or just that arrogant?

The word "Gish" springs to mind.
 
This is becoming your MO.

Insert buzz words into your screeds, like "simulated", "simulator", "fake" or "faked" into your wall of text, as if it lends an air of legitimacy to your delusion.

You have yet to provide any reason to believe any fakery was involved, You have been found out on your lack of knowledge, you have been found out on your lies, and you have embarrased yourself on this very thread multiple times.

Why should anyone give you any credibility?

He also keeps singling out other posters to jump on with questions and demands they do various bits of research, trying to shift the burden of proof in a thoroughly hypocritical way.
 
He also keeps singling out other posters to jump on with questions and demands they do various bits of research, trying to shift the burden of proof in a thoroughly hypocritical way.


Yes, it is amusing how the kid uses old, well worn debating techniques as though we had never seen them before.
 
Reed did, effectively anyway, admitted that the Eagle was "lost", and turned around and "found it, found the "LM simulator" that is, with his reverse rendezvous radar solution.

Reed did not say lost
You put words into his mouth
your lies catch you out
 
How SUSpilot, is the Eagle not lost may I ask? I won't speak for you. Obviously, I am inviting you to speak for yourself here.

Well, I did once, already, but I'm waiting for a massive batch job to finish here at the office, so...

It wasn't lost. The LM's precise position wasn't known*. In fact, that is what H.David Reed said in the book. Further, it was never really did establish the position until after the fact. Hence, Reed's marvelously elegant solution to figure out the position relative to the Columbia. For what it's worth, using the same table you cite in the post-mission analysis, I come up with a distance of roughly 1,200 feet between the position derived by the rendezvous radar and the photo analysis, using http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/tools/lunardistancecalc/.

As to you saying I know more than Reed, et al? Not hardly. I'm just agreeing with what they wrote.

-------------
*Just what level of precision is necessary? If they had to set the launch window on the basis of selinography alone, what was the error tolerance? Reed was not happy with a possibility of a 25,000 error, but was that within the fuel margins?
 
Reed was not happy with a possibility of a 25,000 error, but was that within the fuel margins?



It's not a question of fuel margins, only a question of when to lift-off and/or how long to stay in the Constant Delta Height orbit, as described in my haiku above. After lift-off the Ascent Module would circularize its orbit to 24 km below the CSM. At that height difference the Ascent Module would gain on the CSM at 10 meters per second.

The Apollo Flight Journal has an excellent article about Lunar Orbit Rendezvous, the method chosen by NASA for the Lunar mission: http://history.nasa.gov/afj/loressay.htm
 
It's not a question of fuel margins, only a question of when to lift-off and/or how long to stay in the Constant Delta Height orbit, as described in my haiku above. After lift-off the Ascent Module would circularize its orbit to 24 km below the CSM. At that height difference the Ascent Module would gain on the CSM at 10 meters per second.

The Apollo Flight Journal has an excellent article about Lunar Orbit Rendezvous, the method chosen by NASA for the Lunar mission: http://history.nasa.gov/afj/loressay.htm

Just as well they went LOR, if they had gone with Direct Ascent they would still have been working on it today. :)
 
I said 1200 feet a million years ago.

Well, I did once, already, but I'm waiting for a massive batch job to finish here at the office, so...

It wasn't lost. The LM's precise position wasn't known*. In fact, that is what H.David Reed said in the book. Further, it was never really did establish the position until after the fact. Hence, Reed's marvelously elegant solution to figure out the position relative to the Columbia. For what it's worth, using the same table you cite in the post-mission analysis, I come up with a distance of roughly 1,200 feet between the position derived by the rendezvous radar and the photo analysis, using http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/tools/lunardistancecalc/.

As to you saying I know more than Reed, et al? Not hardly. I'm just agreeing with what they wrote.

-------------
*Just what level of precision is necessary? If they had to set the launch window on the basis of selinography alone, what was the error tolerance? Reed was not happy with a possibility of a 25,000 error, but was that within the fuel margins?

What, are you supposed to be telling me something SUSpilot? I came up with 1200 feet, distance between Reed's rendezvous radar solution and 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east a million years ago. Well, perhaps that is a bit of an exaggeration, 2000 posts ago anyway.

I also covered the distance between the simulated Eagle landing site and all of the other fabricated solutions listed in the Apollo 11 Mission Script/Report. I refer you again to my post at # 1178. You are hardly telling me anything mate.


Diagnosis; poor reading comprehension

Punishment; SUSpilot must copy my post #1178 by hand 100 times and submit to Patrick1000's punishment monitor, Sister Mary Super Nova, by 8 am tomorrow.
 
Last edited:
I really do feel silly now. I had gone through all that time and trouble studying NASA's own manuals, documents on reference frames for space travel, finding things in space. I read almost all of NASA'S, "THE GUIDANCE , FLIGHT MECHANICS AND TRAJECTORY OPTIMIZATION REPORT".

http://psas.pdx.edu/RocketScience/N...ANICS_AND_TRAJECTORY_OPTIMIZATION_Volume1.pdf

It's not as though the Julian Date issue is of little importance to trajectory and navigational specialists or anything. (page 88)

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_516144e7b62bf198ed.png[/qimg]

Credit where it's due, that's quite a nice catch there by Patrick. OK it's nothing to do with "Juliet", but NASA were indeed using Julian dates as far back as 1968.

I only hope that, if he really does read as much of this documentation as he claims, then it will eventually become obvious to him (if it hasn't already) that Apollo was completely real.
 
Credit where it's due, that's quite a nice catch there by Patrick.


Indeed, credit was due yesterday.

The Julian date is used for computing astronomical positions because one needs to be able to plug in how many days between an epoch and a desired time into a computer and using Julian dates is much, much easier than trying to do the same calculations by plugging in years, months, and days.

In other words, P1K deserves no credit.
 
The Apollo Flight Journal has an excellent article about Lunar Orbit Rendezvous, the method chosen by NASA for the Lunar mission: http://history.nasa.gov/afj/loressay.htm
Absolutely fascinating, and very nicely explained, for a novice like I.

Here are Neil's descriptions of the landing site. From the Voice Transcript;

TIME: 04:07:03:55

"Armstrong: The area out the left-hand window is a relatively level plain cratered with a fairly large number of craters of the five-to-fifty-foot variety, and some ridges that are small, twenty, thirty feet high, I would guess, and literally thousands of little, one-and two-foot craters around the area. We see some angular blocks out several hundred feet in front of us that are probably two feet in size and have angular edges. There is a hill in view, just about on the ground track ahead of us. Difficult to estimate, but might be a half a mile or a mile.

04:07:04:54 CapCom: Roger, Tranquility. We copy, over.

04:07:05:02 Collins: Sounds like it looks a lot better than it did yesterday at that very low Sun angle. It looked rough as a [corn] cob then.

04:07:05:11 Armstrong: It really was rough, Mike. Over the targeted landing area, it was extremely rough, cratered, and large numbers of rocks that were probably—some, many—larger than five or ten feet in size……"


And later during the simulated EVA;


Time: 05 03 10 32


"CDR I suspect this boulder field may have some of its (TRANQ) origin with this large sharp-edged rocky rim crater that we passed over at final descent. Now yesterday I said that was about the size of a football field, and I have to admit it was a little - little hard to measure coming in. But I thought that it might just fit in the Astro- dome as we came by it. And the rocks in the vicinity of the - of this rocky rim crater are much larger than these in this area. Some are 10 feet or so and perhaps bigger, and they are very thickly populated out to about one crater diameter beyond the crater rim. Beyond that, there is some diminishing, and even out in this area the blocks seem to run out in rows with irregular patterns, and then there are paths between them where there are considerably less surface evidence of hard rocks. Over."
Jeez - I have to say, again as a novice(!), based on this transcription I can't help concluding that the LM landing was a massively high risk proposition. How on earth (or should a say 'moon'!) did they all get themselves comfortable with the seemingly less-than-remote possibility of catastrophic consequences of encountering an obstacle or highly unfavourable terrain?!
 
Jeez - I have to say, again as a novice(!), based on this transcription I can't help concluding that the LM landing was a massively high risk proposition. How on earth (or should a say 'moon'!) did they all get themselves comfortable with the seemingly less-than-remote possibility of catastrophic consequences of encountering an obstacle or highly unfavourable terrain?!


Armstrong practiced flying the Lunar Landing Research Vehicle which simulated flying the LM in Moon gravity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom