• 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.
To add to the diurnally-growing list of things Patrick1000 is wrong about:

-thinks "radian" is the name for the degree-minute-seconds format.
-thinks the CSM had a radar.
-thinks the MSFN tracked the CSM at the Moon and the LM on the Moon with radar.
-map datums
 
matt.tansy said:
To add to the diurnally-growing list of things Patrick1000 is wrong about:

-thinks "radian" is the name for the degree-minute-seconds format.
-thinks the CSM had a radar.
-thinks the MSFN tracked the CSM at the Moon and the LM on the Moon with radar.
-map datums
Click to expand...

I had a list, it grew to 30 items before being shuffled off to AAH.

Probable P1K reported it, because it outlined all the things he didn't know.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7602474
 
ApolloGnomon, many people have commented the only reason they're reading this thread is to learn about the Apollo program. Why don't you tell them about the origin of your username? I have a suspicion but I'd like you to confirm it. Is it from the LRV navigation system?
 
Lightening Fraud!

Great point!

If you think about this, even with the John Aaron trick getting Apollo 12 ostensibly squared away, would anybody in their right mind risk going forward with a mission like that?

Say it's not fake as we all know it really to be now, but imagine just for a moment in a childlike make believe way that the Apollo 12 Mission is real. Let's pretend and see how it should go.

The thing gets hit by lightening. This is a moon landing mission. Men's lives are at risk, at stake, big time. Aaron tells Bean what to do and the ship seems OK by telemetry assessment. Are you as a flight director, or Apollo Program director, seriously going to allow the thing to go forward? How do you know after the thing is hit by lightening that there is not some relatively subtle problem, relatively subtle in terms of being detectable by way of telemetry data assessment, or a problem that is not telemetry testable at all, say a mechanical/structural problem? Lightening could cause that, easily. Now you are going to go forward with a moon landing? No way! The thing is fake, Apollo 12, has to be fake right there.

The decision to continue a trip after the simulated Apollo 12 lightening strike is simply not credible. You would abort the mission in the sense that you would bring the astronauts home as quickly and as safely as possible, without landing them. The landing would expose them to increased risk based on possible damage sustained by the lightening strike that was simply not detectable by way of telemetry data analysis. The equipment must all be working perfectly to carry out LOI, DOI, landing, ascent, lunar orbital rendezvous.

Could one be sure after the lightening strike that there were no problems with the mechanical function, electrical function of the LM and command module so that all their complicated procedures/functions could be carried out? No!, of course not!

Apollo 12 is fake, right there, even without the stumbling bumbling ruse of the stumbling bumbling Alan Bean breaking the simulated camera by pointing at the simulated sun.
 
Last edited:
Patrick1000 said:
I am a scientist of not insignificant abilities.
Click to expand...
This statement is wrong. Just as wrong as the following.

matt.tansy said:
To add to the diurnally-growing list of things Patrick1000 is wrong about:

-thinks "radian" is the name for the degree-minute-seconds format.
-thinks the CSM had a radar.
-thinks the MSFN tracked the CSM at the Moon and the LM on the Moon with radar.
-map datums
Click to expand...

and also
Gets the calculations for K and Au backwards.
Thinks radial means lateral as applied to description of an orbit.
Thinks residual instrumentation error is real velocity.
Click to expand...

Among many others.

This is why your credibility is shot.

Why should anybody bother reading your posts?
Seriously?
 
Last edited:
Patrick1000 said:
The decision to continue a trip after the simulated Apollo 12 lightening strike is simply not credible. You would abort the mission in the sense that you would bring the astronauts home as quickly and as safely as possible, without landing them.
Click to expand...
The major concern everybody had was if the lightning had damaged the CSM's heat shield. If that was damaged the astronaut would die on re-entry. This was discussed in NASA headquarters, the MOCR, and onboard the spacecraft. The general consensus was that if the heat shield was damaged they were gonna die anyway so they might as well head for the Moon.
 
Patrick1000 said:
...
Click to expand...

...would anybody in their right mind risk going forward with a mission like that?

Yes. And before you present another wall of ignorant text, please explain exactly what your professional and academic qualifications are in regards to space launches. Sorry, but unless you can demonstrate some actual experience in operating a spacecraft, I don't think the world is compelled to give a rat's hiney what you personally would do in some situation.

The thing gets hit by lightening. This is a moon landing mission. Men's lives are at risk, at stake, big time.

Airliners get hit by lightning all the time without needing to make an emergency landing. In that case there are more lives at risk, and the lives in question have booked routine passage expecting the air carrier to take all due precautions.

In the case of Apollo, the crews were highly trained, highly experienced test pilots who had been informed of the risk, were knowledgeable in the risk assessment, and who were accustomed to flying dangerous missions voluntarily.

Are you as a flight director, or Apollo Program director, seriously going to allow the thing to go forward?

Absolutely yes.

The CSM was affected, but the Saturn V launch vehicle was not. The launch vehicle was in control and was flying normally under power. In that situation: absolutely yes, you continue the ascent as planned. This is because ascent under power is a high-energy, changing-stage condition. In contrast, orbit is a low-energy, steady-state condition. "Aborting to orbit" is far preferable to trying to abort under power. If the launch vehicle is sound and can deliver the spacecraft to a stable orbit, then an abort may be decided subsequently, and would occur in the form of an SPS de-orbit, which is a far safer thing than an LES abort.

How do you know after the thing is hit by lightening that there is not some relatively subtle problem...

Because there's no indication of any. How do you know, getting into your car, that there isn't today some subtle unindicated failure waiting to kill you? Real flight directors differ from your hysterical caricature by basing their decisions on actual data, not on unsubstantiated suspicion.

Lightening could cause that, easily.

The normal operation of the launch vehicle could also cause any of that too. By your logic every launch would need to be aborted -- not just for the indication of failure, but for the suspicion of some unindicated failure.

You would abort the mission in the sense that you would bring the astronauts home as quickly and as safely as possible...

Nope. You don't abort during powered ascent unless it is the launch vehicle that is at fault. An LES abort is extremely dangerous. You attempt it only when the alternative is certain, immediate death.

The equipment that was affected by the lightning strike was redundant. Two units were provided, where only one was needed. There was a perfectly good signal conditioner ready to be used.

You err in assuming there was no way to validate the spacecraft for the remainder of the mission. In fact that's why the mission profile always called for an Earth parking orbit prior to TLI.

The equipment must all be working perfectly to carry out LOI, DOI, landing, ascent, lunar orbital rendezvous.

Hogwash. The Apollo system was designed specifically for redundancy so as not to require a perfect spacecraft in order to fly a successful mission. In fact all Apollo missions except for Apollo 17 encountered a significant failure. A significant number of airliner flights encounter a failure of one kind or another. Aerospace engineering is precisely the art of engineering for graceful degradation.

You have no clue what you're talking about.

Apollo 12 is fake, right there...

Nope. Once again you've amply proven that you will shoot your mouth off ignorantly about things you don't even vaguely understand.
 
matt.tansy said:
ApolloGnomon, many people have commented the only reason they're reading this thread is to learn about the Apollo program. Why don't you tell them about the origin of your username? I have a suspicion but I'd like you to confirm it. Is it from the LRV navigation system?
Click to expand...

Nope.

"The gnomon is the part of a sundial that casts the shadow. Gnomon (γνώμων) is an ancient Greek word meaning "indicator", "one who discerns," or "that which reveals.""
los wikis

In the Apollo program a gnomon device was included for the photo analysts to make sense of the photographs of a strange environment.

http://next.nasa.gov/alsj/tools/judy55.gif
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo16/hires/as16-114-18412.jpg

The upright on some missions (but not all, they all used different versions for some reason) served as a pivoting plumb to indicate vertical direction. A grey scale was on one leg to allow the photo analysts (and geologists) to determine how dark/light the soil was in any given photo. Later missions also included color bars.

I chose the name because it's a really dumb joke. Say my name and think "Jamaican accent."
 
JayUtah said:
..
Click to expand...

"Patrick": The funny thing is that I made these same basic points a gajillion posts ago, not as someone that is a real rocket scientist, as Jay is, but as someone that understands risk management and can apply critical thinking to a problem. If I can figure it out, you can, too.

That's not to sell Jay, and our other real experts, short. In my response, I was focused on abort to orbit, since my gestalt is "it the plane's climbing, don't quit." As Jay pointed out, systems redundancy and failing gracefully are key to any form of flight.

So, in addition to the other questions from me you won't answer, I'll add another: based on your logic, isn't it true that I should never take someone that has never flown a plane before up on their first lesson? After all, I have no idea how they'll react or what they'll do, do I? Why, our very lives might be in danger!
 
JayUtah said:
Nope. Once again you've amply proven that you will shoot your mouth off ignorantly about things you don't even vaguely understand.
Click to expand...

This particular HB and his ignorant incredulity isn't really worth your time and expertise, Jay, although it was interesting to see his reaction to your posts--it appears your reputation has preceded you ;)
 
Patrick1000 said:
Great point!

If you think about this, even with the John Aaron trick getting Apollo 12 ostensibly squared away, would anybody in their right mind risk going forward with a mission like that?

Say it's not fake as we all know it really to be now, but imagine just for a moment in a childlike make believe way that the Apollo 12 Mission is real. Let's pretend and see how it should go.

The thing gets hit by lightening. This is a moon landing mission. Men's lives are at risk, at stake, big time. Aaron tells Bean what to do and the ship seems OK by telemetry assessment. Are you as a flight director, or Apollo Program director, seriously going to allow the thing to go forward? How do you know after the thing is hit by lightening that there is not some relatively subtle problem, relatively subtle in terms of being detectable by way of telemetry data assessment, or a problem that is not telemetry testable at all, say a mechanical/structural problem? Lightening could cause that, easily. Now you are going to go forward with a moon landing? No way! The thing is fake, Apollo 12, has to be fake right there.

The decision to continue a trip after the simulated Apollo 12 lightening strike is simply not credible. You would abort the mission in the sense that you would bring the astronauts home as quickly and as safely as possible, without landing them. The landing would expose them to increased risk based on possible damage sustained by the lightening strike that was simply not detectable by way of telemetry data analysis. The equipment must all be working perfectly to carry out LOI, DOI, landing, ascent, lunar orbital rendezvous.

Could one be sure after the lightening strike that there were no problems with the mechanical function, electrical function of the LM and command module so that all their complicated procedures/functions could be carried out? No!, of course not!

Apollo 12 is fake, right there, even without the stumbling bumbling ruse of the stumbling bumbling Alan Bean breaking the simulated camera by pointing at the simulated sun.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what would happen if the spacecraft was hit by lightening. I seem to recall most of it was painted white anyhow. Maybe bleach out the remaining colors?
 
matt.tansy said:
Oh.

A gnomon, called the SSD (Sun Shadow Device), was also used as a method of determining true heading for the LRV.

http://next.nasa.gov/alsj/lrvf1-22.jpg


The LRV handbook: http://next.nasa.gov/alsj/lrvhand.html discusses its navigation in detail.
Click to expand...

You have just accomplished something no hoax believer has ever managed: to teach me something about the Apollo program I didn't know. Not that I know everything, just that the HB's know an order of magnitude less.

Using the sun's shadow in lieu of a compass makes a lot of sense. I've read quite a bit of the LRV handbook, but always limiting my attention to the power and mechanical systems.

Thanks!
 
Heh. Elegant. Since the sun was always going to be from the same direction, and it wasn't like it was going to set any time soon!
 
ApolloGnomon said:
You have just accomplished something no hoax believer has ever managed: to teach me something about the Apollo program I didn't know.
Click to expand...



Ha!

More LRV navigation info for the lurkes:

The LRV was equipped with a "directional gyro". Directional gyros are not north self-seeking. They need to be reset occasionally and that was the purpose of the Sun Shadow Device. The LRV also had roll and pitch indicators. The Sun's shadow angle, as read with the SSD, and roll and pitch angles were radioed up to mission control who would then compute the LRV's true heading. The astronauts would then slew the directional gyro to the computed heading.

A gyroscopic compass on the Earth has one gimbal ring weighted so the rotation of the Earth will cause it to seek true north. Gyroscopic compasses also weigh a lot more than a directional gyro so that's probably why they chose it for the LRV.

The navigation subsystem also computed the bearing and range to the LM using the directional gyro and odometer reading. This would tell the astronauts where the LM was in case the LRV died and they had to walk back.
 
Last edited:
SUSpilot said:
...
Click to expand...
...but as someone that understands risk management and can apply critical thinking to a problem.

The part of being a pilot that involves critical thinking and risk management is the same part of being a rocket scientist that involves those things. In flight school the first thing they tell you to do when something goes wrong is, fly the plane. The first thing the Apollo 12 crew did when lightning struck was, fly the plane.

In my response, I was focused on abort to orbit, since my gestalt is "it the plane's climbing, don't quit."

Indeed. If you can climb to 9,000 feet and stay there happily for quite some time, you can work out what your problem is, if any. I'd rather troubleshoot at 9,000 feet than at 900 feet were some sudden failure means I have only seconds to figure it out, stay in control, and find a safe ending. A worst-case plummet from 900 feet makes you just as dead as one from 9,000 feet.

And always maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground reach up and smite thee. Flying high and fast when in doubt seems counterintuitive, but there are good reasons for it. Speed keeps your airplane in good dynamic form, and altitude gives you time to work out problems when gravity decides it's going to reassert itself.

The ten minutes or so of the typical boost to orbit is full of thermal and aerodynamic stress, mechanical stress, huge propulsive energies, and so forth. Changing that equation by ejecting or invoking a high-energy escape maneuver is risky. Laymen don't understand that there is considerable risk to all these contingency plans.

Orbit is safe. The spacecraft can stay in orbit essentially indefinitely while people have time to gather data, explore alternatives, and decide what to do. Aaron's quick thinking and Bean's knowledge of the cockpit restored the spacecraft to a stable state. Once in a stable state, the ground and flight crews had time to determine that the spacecraft was also in a safe state.

All that had really happened was that some circuit breakers had tripped on the fuel cells. Without the fuel cells, the batteries couldn't keep up with the high-demand electrical load and the instrumentation gave wonky readings under low-voltage, low-current conditions. Once full power was restored by closing the breakers, the mission could proceed.

But of course they had the luxury of being in a stable parking orbit in which they could stay as long as needed while running checks. They could have been up there for two weeks if necessary. Orbits are stable. You don't risk a fiery launch-escape scenario unless the launch vehicle is clearly breaking up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom