Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[Patrick1000]

Zombie Rendezvous

Dramatic license.

Being off by 5 miles was no big deal. Even if it was all out of plane error it would not be a big deal. After obtaining orbit and burning into the Constant Delta Height orbit the LM tracked the CSM on radar and when the parameters were appropriate the LM did another burn to climb to the CSM's altitude for final rendezvous and docking.

The delta v required to reach orbit was 1853 m/s. If they had to correct for an out of plane error that would require a 100 m/s delta v it would have been combined with the ascent delta v using Pythagoras's Theorem: [1853² + 100²]^.5 = 1855.7. So only an additional delta v of 2.7 m/s could correct for a needed 100 m/s correction if done during the ascent.

Doesn't look like the FIDO here agrees with you Matt. Here's David Reed again;

"I remember taking my headset off and walking up to the Flight Director, Milt Windler to explain the situation. We only used that kind of face to face communication when we had a serious problem such as this. I detailed the problem as best we knew it and the process that we’d have to follow to get the data we needed, and why we had to start a rev early to finish the calculations and then find the critical lift-off time for lunar launch."

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 (ebook Locations 5657-5662).

Sounds like a big deal to me Matt. David Reed is telling ya' he doesn't take his headset off except for big deals. Do you know more about orbital Zombie rendezvous maneuvers than the Apollo Program's lead FIDO?

I don't think so Matt.


This is enough of a big deal that H. David Reed "does't want to go through that again", doesn't want to go through the "no big deal". Here is H. David Reed yet again;

"We were actually over 25,000 feet from the nearest of the other five choices we had! At 5,000-fps orbital velocity of the CSM that could have been up to a ten second error in liftoff. That would have meant we’d need a LOT of RCS (reaction control system fuel) to play catch up or slow down in a rather abnormal (I don’t recall training for this one) rendezvous situation. I was assigned the descent phase for Apollo XII and I wasn’t about to go through that again."

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 (ebook Locations 5670-5675).

25,000 feet from the nearest of the other five choices, sounds from reading the above that David Reed thought this more than a "little deal". Guess it would be more likely than not a big deal actually Matt, since ol' David "wasn't about to go through that again".

And finally, and most importantly, NASA, the Shyster, and the trajectory tricksters, thought it a big deal enough to change the landing site coordinate numbers that they showed H. David Reed that morning, 07/21/1969, and list entirely different numbers in the Apollo 11 Simulated Mission Report. According to that report, the primary onboard guidance vector solution after correcting for the trajectory to map consideration, is 0.689 N and 23.39 E, 0.75 miles from Tranquility Base. The AGS solution is 0.679 N and 23.37 E, 1.13 miles from Tranquility Base. The powered flight processor solution listed in the Apollo 11 Simulated Mission Report was 0.671 N and 23.40 E, 0.64 miles from "Tranquility Base". Looks like a lot closer than 25,000 feet to me Matt, closer than 25,000 feet to Reed's excellent solution. Matter of fact, Reed's rendezvous radar solution and the powered flight processor solution listed in the Mission Simulation Report are only 0.575 miles away from one another, or 3036 feet.

Everyone can check in with SUSpilot on how to do these simple calculations. It would seem that he has finally got the hang of it.

So according to NASA's own Shyster doctored records, Reed's solution and the powered flight processor solution are not 25,000 or more feet/4.73 or more miles, but rather, 3036 feet give or take/0.575 miles from the launch FIDO's rendezvous radar solution. And additionally, the real-time solutions for the PNGS, AGS and powered flight processor given in the Apollo 11 Mission Simulation Report ARE very close together, and so unlike the numbers that David Reed saw on the morning of 07/21/1969, these Mission Simulation Report numbers DO AGREE with one another.

So Matt here is wrong. 25,000 feet is a BIG DEAL, big enough for NASA to doctor their records.

Were it not a big deal as Matt contends, then the numbers, the various landing site coordinate solutions available to David Reed on the morning of 07/21/1969, would have appeared in the Mission Simulation Report as they were given to David Reed that morning, all at least 25,000 feet distant from his rendezvous radar solution. As mentioned numerous times previously, we may confidently conclude from this simple little exercise that the trajectory data, LM landing site coordinates, as presented in the Apollo 11 Mission Simulation Report table 5-IV are fraudulent. Now that SUSpilot is capable of calculating the distance differences between the various landing site coordinate solutions for your own "official story side", I am sure your colleague there Matt, will be more than happy to verify all of this for you.

Diagnosis; Contrary to Matt's claim, 25,000 feet from Reed's rendezvous radar solution IS A BIG DEAL, OTHERWISE THE APOLLO 11 MISSION SIMULATION REPORT WOULD HAVE LISTED UNDOCTORED REAL TIME COORDINATE SOLUTIONS FOR THE SIMULATED LM LANDING SITE.

FAKE TELEMETRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FAKE MISSION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Punishment; Matt has to be tutored by SUSpilot in using a simple pythagorean solution in determining the difference in distance between the various landing site coordinate solutions presented in the Apollo 11 Mission Simulation Report. In this way, Matt too will learn that these Mission Simulation Report LM landing site coordinate numbers are other than those presented to FIDO H. David Reed on the morning of 07/21/1969, and Matt will come to know the Mission Simulation Report as the fraudulent document that it is, fraudulent in that it contains "fabricated" LM landing site coordinate figures. Matt will go on to conclude with metaphysical certainty that the entirety of the Apollo 11 Mission is fraudulent as well. By "fraudulent", Matt will mean the Apollo 11 Mission Simulation did not include a manned landing.

This report from Matt, clearly showing all of his calculations, is due by Saturday noon. Please turn this assignment in Matt to Patrick1000's Punishment Monitor, Sister Mary Super Nova. Failure to comply with this punishment aspect of your Apollo 11 Mission Simulation education will result Matt in your receiving 8 score cracks across the fanny from the Big Headed Sweaty Glassy Eyed Ph.D Zombie with a metal slide rule. The Zombie breathing quite heavily the whole time.

 

[drewid]

Apollo 11 mission report, footnote to table 5-IV Lunar landing coordinates

Footnotes

a Following the Apollo 10 mission, a difference was noted (from the
landmark tracking results) between the trajectory coordinate system and
the coordinate system on the reference map. In order to reference trajectory values to the 1:100 000 scale Lunar Map ORB-II-6 (100), dated
December 1967, correction factors of plus 2'25" in latitude and minus
4'17" in longitude must be applied to the trajectory values.

b All latitude values are corrected for the estimated out-of-plane
position error at powered descent initiation.

 

[Kiwi9]

Here ya' go Kiwi9.......

Reed worked with SELECT and DYNAMICS to determine the geometry of, and ignition time for, the Eagle launch and its return to the CSM.

He claimed it should have been a "piece of cake really", that is, were he to have had the landing coordinates and a solid ephemeris on the CSM.

Not having the former, he determined the Eagle/CSM relation by way of running a rendezvous radar solution in reverse. Having done that, he had the requisite "relative geometry" and could make a recommendation for the simulated mission's launch time as well.

The Eagle to Columbia simulated rendezvous went off without a hitch, thanks to Reed.

How'd I do Kiwi9?

Very badly, considering how simple it was and how long it took -- I first asked you for this in post 2079 and there were multiple requests for an answer.

However, I do thank you for gracing me with an response at long, long last. I am truly grateful for your munificence.

Now, just one more request. Again, in your own words, please relate your understanding of how the rendezvous radar was turned on.

 

[Kiwi9]

Again I ask where did Armstrong say it was impossible to see stars rather than just that he didn't see any during his mission? Are you trying to pretend that his use of the word 'we' in some statement is meant to encompass all the lunar astronauts rather than just the crew of Apollo 11?

Just one small "beware" about this, although it doesn't apply in this case:-- Armstrong regularly used the royal "we," as noted by Eric Jones in the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal:

102:42:35 Duke: Roger.

<Snip>

[Readers should note that only Neil is looking out the window. As mentioned previously, Buzz has his attention focused entirely on the computer. Neil's use of 'we' in this context is consistent with his general tendency to deflect attention from himself, even in situations like the Technical Debrief where the only people present were his crewmates, other astronauts, and various engineers.]

 

[River Song]

Or a Brit. The posting times fit for uk/western Europe, but not for India.

He uses the america meaning of fanny though. In england fanny is a much cruder word.

 

[drewid]

He uses the america meaning of fanny though. In england fanny is a much cruder word.

And he's used "keister" as well before now, which is unknown in the uk

 

[Patrick1000]

How Many Thespians Does It Take To Land A "LM Simulator"

Absolutely fascinating, and very nicely explained, for a novice like I.


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?!

I suspect you may be more than an amateur Southwind17, or at the very least, not have had your powers of critical thinking softened by mainstream think. Regardless, go to the ALSJ and watch the LM ascent and descent 16mm films and ask yourself if it seems reasonable for someone to make the claim that by watching those videos the landing site coordinates could be determined with great accuracy? That is, within tens of feet?


By the way Southwind, do you know how many thespians it takes to land a LM simulator? TWO, one to pretend to "fly" the simulator, and one to really turn into a Ph.D Zombie.

 

[Kiwi9]

...Unless I'm mistaken, the LM couldn't be manoeuvred during descent in the sense that a helicopter can, i.e. hover. Was there not a limited amount of manoeuvreability available within the constraints of a committed descent? If so, to have to select a suitable spot within a general terrain of major craters, boulders, slopes and hills, and within, presumably, an essentially pre-set time limit commencing from a point where the surface conditions are sufficiently discernible with the naked eye (which would be at what altitiude, roughly, 25m at best, say?) seems somewhat risky to me, to say the least. Actually, how, exactly, did they observe the surface conditions immediately beneath the LM during the final few metres of descent?

Southwind17, do you read the Apollo Lunar Surface Journals? They have incredible detail about landing the lunar modules.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/frame.html

Armstrong selected his landing area at about 160 feet altitude, at 102:44:29. Before 25 metres, the ground was becoming difficult to see because of dust flying out from the rocket blast.

102:45:17 Aldrin: 40 feet, down 2 1/2. Picking up some dust.

[Armstrong, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "I first noticed that we were, in fact, disturbing the dust on the surface when we were something less than 100 feet; we were beginning to get a transparent sheet of moving dust that obscured visibility a little bit. As we got lower, the visibility continued to decrease. I don't think that the (visual) altitude determination was severely hurt by this blowing dust; but the thing that was confusing to me was that it was hard to pick out what your lateral and downrange velocities were, because you were seeing a lot of moving dust that you had to look through to pick up the stationary rocks and base your translational velocity decisions on that. I found that to be quite difficult. I spent more time trying to arrest translational velocity than I thought would be necessary."]

102:45:21 Aldrin: 30 feet, 2 1/2 down. (Garbled) shadow.

 

[drewid]

(By the way Patrick, translational means sideways)

 

[Kiwi9]

...go to the ALSJ and watch the LM ascent and descent 16mm films and ask yourself if it seems reasonable for someone to make the claim that by watching those videos the landing site coordinates could be determined with great accuracy? That is, within tens of feet?

Watching the descent film on a real TV screen from a DVD, and not on the internet, I find it perfectly reasonable that the coordinates could be verified, not determined by that method. They had already been determined with a high degree of accuracy by the geologists, and the landing film merely confirmed their determination.

Firstly, the film would have been watched on as large a screen as possible. It is also probable that prints would have been made from individual frames for analysis. There were also plenty of orbital and surface photographs to help in the examination, along with descriptions by Armstrong and Aldrin.

While West Crater (the one which Armstrong manually overflew) does not show in the film, I can certainly see the boulder field on its northern side. East (or Little West) Crater also shows clearly in the film, and its identification can be confirmed from the photos Neil Armstrong took of its interior after he deployed and photographed the LRRR.

There are other features I could identify in the landing film, such as Boot Hill, Maskelyne W, and Sidewinder Rille -- see below.

Just because Patrick1000 is so ignorant, incredulous and doubtful about the moonlandings does not mean that others cannot identify things in the landing film, particularly people like the geologists and map experts whose job it was to do such things.

By the way, P1K, why do you imply that anyone claims to have accurately determined the LM's landing coordinates from the ascent film? The camera wasn't turned on until some time after liftoff, so I would say it was not possible. Besides, it is much harder to identify surface features in the ascent film than in the landing film because of the delay.

Just more of your ignorance, confusion and incorrect assumptions, huh?

Here are identifications I made from the descent film excerpt in the film, "The Footage We Loved But Couldn't Use" which is on the DVD of the movie, "The Dish."

0:41:51 Boot Hill (National Geographic, Dec 1969, p752), 30 degrees 20 minutes east, 0 degrees 40 minutes north, 45km south of Maskelyne
0:41:58 Maskelyne W, 29 degrees 10 minutes east, 0 degrees 50 minutes north
0:42:06 Sidewinder Rille 28 degrees 20 minutes east, 0 degrees 40 minutes north
0:42:26 View on the right side of the LM
0:42:47 West Crater rocks
0:43:00 East Crater

 

[excaza]

(By the way Patrick, translational means sideways)

By translational, I'm going to assume you mean Spanish-English coordinates. Based on my English-French calculations of the motion of the LM, there is no way the landing could have happened on the spot calculated using the Spanish-English grid on the map.

 

[SUSpilot]

Wonder what else I have been writing about that is important and true, but simply hasn't registered. Hmmmmmmmm!

There isn't much you've written that is either. Picking out anything worthwhile in your long-winded, snarky posts is rather like trying to find a needle in a haystack.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Picking out anything worthwhile in your long-winded, snarky posts is rather like trying to find a needle in a haystack.

Harder than spotting the LM from 60 miles up with the CM sextant.

 

[Multivac]

, about the epic mission of the Apollo 11 simulator "Columbinot", children did not have such good resources. They might actually believe that an observer could not dark adapt and look out the windows, maybe even when trying to crack a window to escape the simulated stench, and not see stars.

I'm currently reading Carrying The Fire, could you please tell me which page this statement is made on. Thanks.

Patrick1000: could you please provide the page number for these claims as I would really like to read the statements you are refering to. Thanks.

 

[frenat]

It did maneuver like a helicopter. The Reaction Control System could translate the LM left, right, forward, backwards, up and down, as well as rotate it in along any axis. Rotating away from the perpendicular would cause the LM to move in that direction.

Which is exactly why their training also consisted of helicopter practice.

 

[Kiwi9]

I really do feel silly now.

Hooray! That really is excellent news. At long last you've felt something that we've known and tried in vain to tell you all along. Congratulations! It must have been quite an epiphany for you to stumble over such an important truth.

Do ensure that you don't do what Churchill said: Most men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and continue on as if nothing had happened. -- Winston Churchill

By the way, I thanked and praised you in post 3283, but you haven't replied to my small request:

"Now, just one more request. Again, in your own words, please relate your understanding of how the rendezvous radar was turned on."

 

[matt.tansy]

Already debunked nonsense

Almost everything Reed said is wrong. A 5 mile position uncertainty is trivial. No additional RCS would be expended in "playing catch up". I have proved how minute the fuel expenditure would be to correct for an out of plane error. I have proved a 5 mile error in downrange position would only require 12 minutes of Constant Delta Height to correct. Everybody but you who has read it understands it is not a big problem. Good luck convincing them.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Dioes anyone know how long after the events Reed's contribution to the book was written?

 

[drewid]

I want to know when they discovered the out of plane error, and what time Reed turned up for work, was he on the maroon team?

 

[Patrick1000]

Incredible detail!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Southwind17, do you read the Apollo Lunar Surface Journals? They have incredible detail about landing the lunar modules.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/frame.html

Armstrong selected his landing area at about 160 feet altitude, at 102:44:29. Before 25 metres, the ground was becoming difficult to see because of dust flying out from the rocket blast.

Yeah Southwind17, real cool incredible detail, like this here Aldrin quote with regard to the "landing";

"Aldrin - "Somewhere, we had a state vector (three-axis position and velocity) update because of the tracking data that Houston got once we came around. But, how that happened and whether we were aware of it, I don't remember. I know that a lot of people got credit for developing the tracking filter that allowed them to do that. That neat capability contributed to the accuracy of our touchdown, even though nobody knew (exactly) where we were."

See the incredible detail there Southwind17? Aldrin says, "even though nobody knew where we were", cuz' he's kinda' lost up there on the NASA make believe moon. Then the editor makes it all the more cool and detailed by helping the dumb shmuck get oriented a bit. The editor adds "(exactly)" there, just to be sure you know Aldrin has a Ph.D or whatever "degree" it was he pulled out of a Corn Flakes Box that day.

It's not like anyone doesn't really want you to know about the Corn Flake Ph.D's lack of simulated awareness with respect to his simulated location on Mother Earth's Closest Luminary or anything like that Southwind17. It's just good solid ol' fashion 1960s style made up bogus detail, bogus detail "after the fact". An expression Neil likes to use too by the way, "after the fact". The "after the fact maneuver" is part of the astronauts' "rendezvous with a big rip off repertoire", very helpful when you'r trying to scam my mom out of $130,000,000,000. You know, bring my mom and the rest of the All American dumb suckers TOGETHER, TOGETHER SO THEY WOULD BE NO LESS THAN ONE, ONE with the experience of being fleeced, bilked, had, made, conned, lied too, fooled, embarrassed, used. It's a very spiritual experience Southwind17, being fleeced like that you know.