Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

Status
Not open for further replies.
Marion King Hubbard's Apollo, Peak Oil and the Mystery of Tranquility Base

Just kiddin'.................!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Last edited:
Patrick1000 said:
the LM transponder's being "read", would be doing nothing less that MARKING THE EAGLE'S POINT OF REST.

So the LM should have its transponder on during a landing,
Click to expand...

Got a part number for that LM transponder, or a schematic, or anything,
for the actual LM that was built?


Flail, one more for Patrick's wall of wrong.
 
The Realities of Simulation

Gene Kranz was fond of saying that the Apollo Program "simulated missions" used in drilling the flight officers of Mission Control TRENCH fame were so very good, so very very realistic that the flight officers couldn't tell the difference between real "Apollo missions" and drill simulations run to practice for the "real thing". Geeeeeeee, I wonder why.
 
Last edited:
Patrick1000 said:
Gene Kranz was fond of saying that the flight officers in the TRENCH there at Mission Control couldn't tell the difference between the real "Apollo missions" and the drill simulations they ran to practice for the "real missions". Geeeeeeee, I wonder why.
Click to expand...
Er ... because they'd designed and engineered the simulations that way, as you'd expect?! Your sarcasm's very telling P1K, and hardly serves to help your case. If only you could see how adept you are at undermining your own arguments, like the rest of us can.
 
Patrick1000 said:
Gene Kranz was fond of saying that the flight officers in the TRENCH there at Mission Control couldn't tell the difference between the real "Apollo missions" and the drill simulations they ran to practice for the "real missions". Geeeeeeee, I wonder why.
Click to expand...
Pick me! Pick me! I know the answer! (That's three so far.)

Because NASA knew this was a high-risk undertaking with enormous implications for success ... and failure. So they were meticulous, painstaking, thorough, detailed, committed and professional. Nothing was left to chance that couldn't be anticipated and planned for. One would rather be surprised and, frankly, disappointed if the practice sessions did not presage the actual event right down to the sweat on every ball and ovary in the room.
 
And those very same controllers say that the sims were realistic but they could tell the difference between a sim and the real thing.

(Some even said the real thing was easier!)
 
This is what one controller said about the claims:

"You're right,the simulations were good but far from being perfect and they always required some kluges that Pete Klapach or others had to fix each time we ran a simulation. The data flow paths were different and sequencing of data from the tracking sites, pre-processed into 2.4 kbps or I believe later 4.8 kbps bit streams. We did elaborate checkouts of these paths from the bird to a spot on our displays or event lights. The tracking sites knew where their antennas were pointed and when they had data, etc, etc, etc.

These questioners must think that we are stupid (hundreds of us that is). The data was recorded, archived and analyzed by dozens of engineers. Don't they know that it was US who conducted simulations, so we would be "fooling ourselves". By the way, why did not the Soviets expose us as phoneys? Everyone knows that we were in a race with the Soviets. Would they not have made that a high priority? This to me is the ultimate proof that we went to the moon. They tracked our launches and I am sure other operations."
 
I've participated in simulations in the backrooms in the MCC, both in the old Payload MPSR and in the new(er) POCC. While there are some parts of the simulation that are very realistic, there are always details that are different from the real thing, and overall the simulation can always be distinguished from the real thing.

Granted, mine were Shuttle-era simulations, but that only means with information technology considerably more advanced than Apollo, you still can't fool the controllers and backroom guys. Anybody who claims so is simply ignorant of how mission operations and the underlying technology work and assumes wrongly that everyone else is as dumb as they are.

I also second the controller's remarks about the tracking networks and the large numbers of personnel involved in them, from countries around the world. They tracked Apollo missions to, from, and around the Moon, and commanded and received telemetry from the ALSEP experiments for the better part of eight years. Hoax believers claiming that such operations and science data could be faked are ignorant and incapable nobodies claiming that everyone else is as inept as they are. Fortunately, that's not the case, but I feel kind of sorry for them.
 
Patrick1000 said:
We all know for a fact that the whole 1202 Eagle program alarm charade was about the fraudsters figuring out a way to have trajectory people someway, somehow ignore the LM's transponder's being "tracked".
Click to expand...

We don't know any such thing because it is total rubbish. The software was written by MIT, so you would have to include them in your list of people that have lied about Apollo for the last 42 years.

My understanding is that the 1202 alarms occured because the computer was repeatedly processing the rendezvous radar data, due to incorrectly set switches. The real problem was every time a 1201 or 1202 alarm appeared the computer rebooted. By any modern standard the limitations of the computer used are staggering. It had ~72KB of ROM and a miniscule 4K of RAM.

Please see:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11.1201-pa.html

for more detail.
 
Last edited:
It Would Seem These Are the Real "STAR WARS"

It would seem these are the real "STAR WARS". And it would also seem, that at so long last, they have finally begun in earnest. So have they not?
 
Last edited:
Phil Plait just blogged about a video comparing A11 descent footage with Google Moon data, created by a person with the handle GoneToPlaid:


From Dr. Plait's blog:
This won’t convince people who think NASA faked the landings, of course, nor do I really care. What I do care about is how this brings home what the astronauts did all those decades ago.
Click to expand...
 
Patrick1000 said:
Gene Kranz was fond of saying that the Apollo Program "simulated missions" used in drilling the flight officers of Mission Control TRENCH fame were so very good, so very very realistic that the flight officers couldn't tell the difference between real "Apollo missions" and drill simulations run to practice for the "real thing". Geeeeeeee, I wonder why.
Click to expand...

So you don't understand the need to practice for the landings??

How can anyone be that ignorant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom