Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[Tomblvd]

Communication was critical with Apollo, and if out, the boys might well be dead.

Please tell us specifically HOW!

And you are (purposely?) ignoring Jay's evisceration of your "autopilot" idiocy in post 4472.

 

[yog_sothoth]

You missed Miller's and my ultimate point. If you miss Moscow by a mile it may be important, depending. Submarine launched missiles of 60 vintage were primarily targeting cities because they were not accurate enough to hit other things, targets requiring high accuracy to ensure a "kill". If you miss a hardened ICBM silo by a mile, you may well have missed altogether. Your opponent's missile may survive.

They dealt with the inaccuracy by targeting sites with many very large bombs. Sites would not have one warhead launched at it, it would have several. Also, big hydrogen bombs made the "Close Enough" range pretty big. The soviets had less accurate missiles, so they used bigger bombs.

Now that missiles are more accurate the gargantuan bombs are out of style.

 

[Patrick1000]

Tomblvd, the Apollo ships were navigated via uplinked commands to the system

Along with many other things, you never got around to telling us exactly why continuous communication was even necessary.

Tomblvd, the Apollo ships were navigated primarily via uplinked commands(from earth) to the system, to the Apollo guidance computer. The astronauts supposedly could fly the thing without help from the ground if need be, though that would be somewhat iffy.

There were situations Tomblvd where ground communication would be essential. For example, with Apollo 11, the flight officer in charge of providing a solution for the launch from the lunar surface on 07/21/1969, H. David Reed, did not know the coordinates of the Eagle's landing site when he came on duty. He had to downlink data from the Eagle's rendezvous radar to find the ship. As such, if there was no communication then, there would have been no launch solution and so the astronauts would have died.

So, sometimes the communication would be plus/minus important, and sometimes absolutely critical. Obviously, were you sending guys to the moon, you would do everything you could to ensure the system was effective, redundant up the wazoo, and secure. Only makes sense.

 

[JayUtah]

...surprised that you of all people would float such a lame excuse for a bogus communication system.

You're not qualified to judge whether it's "bogus" or not. And based on your claims, it's clear you don't understand how it was intended to work.

This is not about astronauts being macho...

Yes it is, very much so. One premise of your argument is that a certain standard of safety should have been achieved and maintained, but wasn't. However, tolerance for risk very much depends on the willingness of the crews to give informed consent to the mission.

In essence, you want us to have to prove that Apollo was perfectly safe. It wasn't, and no one is claiming that it was or should have been.

You have the burden of proof for your claims of necessary reliability.

...it is simply about how one would go about providing the requisite redundancy

You haven't shown than any redundancy is requisite. That is, you've simply declared that if the network wasn't as robust as you seem to think it should have been, this would have been somehow fatal to the astronauts.

...but the Apollo ships employed them.

But did not require them. My car employs a GPS system which aids in navigation, but it does not require such a system.

...but in the case of the Apollo 11 lunar launch circumstance, they did not know where the Eagle was...

Asked and answered. You lost the argument where you tried to argue that a more accurate LM position was required in order to navigate the spacecraft.

..a launch solution a' la that of H. David Reed's, never could have been provided and the astronauts would have died.

Reed's solution was not required. Further, the failure you envision in the MSFN would simply have delayed the formulation of that solution. It didn't make it impossible. You have a completely distorted idea of the inherent reliability of the network.

 

[JayUtah]

We were not paying Lindbergh $30,000,000,000 to cross the Atlantic.

We weren't paying the Apollo astronauts that much either.

You keep mentioning this bogus figure. Have you at last decided to address your budget error?

The orders to the ship for flying from points A to B to C were sent via the communication system.

Of course not. The Apollo spacecraft had two independent guidance and navigation systems that could be operated completely autonomously from ground control, and had sufficient means onboard to update the state vector during both cruise and accelerated flight, and to realign the platforms if necessary.

I could go on and on, but I shan't.

I recommend that you do. Because you're running smack against the primary design criteria for Apollo, and that was the ability to operate successfully if contact were lost with the ground for an extended period. You don't get to wave your hands and magically establish a new mission requirement that constant contact be maintained with the ground.

Communication was critical with Apollo, and if out, the boys might well be dead.

You keep saying this, but you can't say precisely how. You're blowing smoke.

Lindbergh, to his credit, took his own chances.

So did the Apollo astronauts, but you seem unwilling to give them their due.

 

[Patrick1000]

It would seem matt, that the dishes did not do a very good job.

P.S. The 9 meter dishes were used to track Apollo at the Moon at the same time as the bigger dishes and their data was fed to the MSFN in case a big dish lost comms. The MSFN was very redundant.

It would seem matt, that the dishes did not do a very good job.

I just finished reading Hamish Lindsay's book, TRACKING APOLLO TO THE MOON. The book features a foreword by Christopher Kraft in which Lindsay and his book are strongly endorsed. Neil Armstrong's "SPIRIT OF APOLLO" blurb appears as a sort of preface. This is a quote drawn from the Astronauts' joint session address, 16 September 1969.

As many reading this forum are probably aware, Lindsay was a tracking technician and tracking data processor at the renowned Honeysuckle Creek Station in Australia. Lindsay worked all of the Apollo Missions.

In Lindsay's fascinating and informative book he says that after the Eagle landed, the mapping people working at the Houston based Mapping Sciences Laboratory were sweating it out looking for the Eagle on their huge lunar maps. According to Lindsay, Armstrong and Aldrin were not able to provide anything of significance to the map readers that was viewed as helpful in terms of identifying the landing site position.

Tracking data was also examined per Lindsay in an effort to find the Eagle. Get this, according to Lindsay, the Honeysuckle Apollo tracking guru, between studying the maps and the tracking data, the experts were able to do no better than estimate the Eagle's position within an eight kilometer radius. That figure of course translates to 5 miles and corroborates H. David Reed's claim that none of the landing site coordinate solutions available to him were within 25,000 feet/4.7 miles of his rendezvous radar in reverse solution/estimate.

According to Lindsay, it wasn't until they were halfway home, recall the $64,000 question, that the Eagle's position was pinpointed by way of a chance remark bay Armstrong.

Now that doesn't sound too good to me matt.

 

[Patrick1000]

Not sure what you are referring to regarding the autopilot issue.

Please tell us specifically HOW!

And you are (purposely?) ignoring Jay's evisceration of your "autopilot" idiocy in post 4472.

Not sure what you are referring to regarding the autopilot issue Tomblvd.

The Smithsonian article I referenced is quite good. In that article, it is clearly stated that the Grumman engineers thought there was a good chance that the Apollo 17 LM was going to land without piloting assistance and win them(the engineers) a case of champagne in their wager against the Grumman test pilots. Plain and straight forward enough.

The article also makes reference to Lovell's indicating he had planned to auto land/not "assist" with the piloting of Apollo 13 (with respect to the LM landing). This is all per the article. It is not coming from me.

I did not write the Smithsonian article, so this issue hardly merits further discussion on my part. If Jay disagrees with the Smithsonian article's author, fine. I have no quarrel with the fact that Jay wants to disagree. My point is only that such a view, Jay's, is at odds with the views of the Grumman engineers and Lovell himself.

Obviously, as I believe all of Apollo is fraudulent, my view is men were not involved in the landings period.

Hope that clarifies my views for you Tomblvd.

 

[Patrick1000]

Why the LAM-2 coordinates matt?

P.S. The 9 meter dishes were used to track Apollo at the Moon at the same time as the bigger dishes and their data was fed to the MSFN in case a big dish lost comms. The MSFN was very redundant.

Seems funny to me matt, that if they were tracking the Eagle so well with all of these dishes, they didn't have accurate, and even more significantly, "appropriately referenced coordinates" to give Michael Collins in his search for the Eagle.

They were giving Collins the LAM-2 map coordinates matt, for example they gave Collins P 0.2 and 6.3 . But Collins would had to have had loaded those numbers into the computer for the sextant to track and find said coordinates on the lunar surface.

Why would they do that, tell Collins the coordinates in the LAM-2 latitude/longitude format instead of decimal degrees? The Apollo Guidance Computer does not understand P 0.2 and 6.3 . As such, the LAM-2 latitude/longitude convention doesn't make any sense. Wouldn't make sense to the guidance computer, that's for sure. The computer was never programmed matt to deal with LAM-2 coordinates. So the fact these coordinates, so referenced, e.g. P 0.2 / 6.3, are being exchanged between the CapCom and Collins, means that the hunt for the Eagle, the entire hunt, was fraudulent. This, as these coordinates are meaningless as far as the Apollo Guidance Computer/sextant system goes.

The Apollo Guidance Computer was programmed to read coordinates in decimal degrees. This is how the system was designed and set up to run. This small point proves Apollo 11 fraud, and proves it quite well.

 

[Patrick1000]

Maybe they are after all Garrison, none of this stuff seems to work

That would be everyone minus you.

Maybe they are after all Garrison, none of this stuff seems to work.

Were you aware that Apollo 5 was a failure as well. Just reading the details again in Lindsay's TRACKING APOLLO TO THE MOON book. Unbelievable!!!!

Lindsay says this Saturn 1B was to have launched Grissom and crew. So it winds up being unmanned, and good thing too!

At least one of the goals of the flight was to test the lunar module descent engines in space. Once in earth orbit, the computer was said to have started the descent engine, but the engine shut down after 4 seconds of operation.

The ascent stage was boosted away from the landing frame and spun around wildly once separated and free.

These were deemed computer errors, but his is really getting ridiculous. One failed launch after another.

Know what I mean?

 

[Tomblvd]

There were situations Tomblvd where ground communication would be essential.

"Situations"?

Your backtrack from implying continuous communication was necessary is duly noted.

 

[Tomblvd]

Not sure what you are referring to regarding the autopilot issue Tomblvd.

The Smithsonian article I referenced is quite good. In that article, it is clearly stated that the Grumman engineers thought there was a good chance that the Apollo 17 LM was going to land without piloting assistance and win them(the engineers) a case of champagne in their wager against the Grumman test pilots. Plain and straight forward enough.

The article also makes reference to Lovell's indicating he had planned to auto land/not "assist" with the piloting of Apollo 13 (with respect to the LM landing). This is all per the article. It is not coming from me.

I did not write the Smithsonian article, so this issue hardly merits further discussion on my part. If Jay disagrees with the Smithsonian article's author, fine. I have no quarrel with the fact that Jay wants to disagree. My point is only that such a view, Jay's, is at odds with the views of the Grumman engineers and Lovell himself.

Obviously, as I believe all of Apollo is fraudulent, my view is men were not involved in the landings period.

Hope that clarifies my views for you Tomblvd.

It only "clarifies" you don't know what you are talking about.

What, specifically, was this bet in reference to? What was the autopilot, from what you know, supposed to do? You've been spoon-fed exactly what things the autopilot was responsible for, and it isn't what you think. You are reading an article in a non-technical publication and putting your own spin on it.

The Boeing 747 I was in last week has an autopilot, but I wouldn't want it to land the plane. It is only there to perform specific tasks. Not be a "robot pilot".

How about this, since this is such a straightforward issue for you, put it to bed with supporting links from more technical sources.

 

[matt.tansy]

It would seem matt, that the dishes did not do a very good job.

You are trying to avoid the fact that you were wrong on the redundancy of the MSFN tracking capability by shifting to the accuracy of the tracking system. Good luck with that.

 

[Patrick1000]

Tomblvd, with all due respect......

"Situations"?

Your backtrack from implying continuous communication was necessary is duly noted.

Tomblvd, with all due respect, one cannot even contemplate a lunar landing without having absolute confidence that the communication system will be effective and reliable. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous, and to ignore the obvious point, that men's lives are at stake under such circumstances, is to miss what it is that makes manned missions so difficult generally.

Backtracking from what? What on this earth or in the heavens might you mean by that statement? The Apollo communication system reliability wise was a flat out joke. AND! I personally do not believe that astronauts could fly those tin cans for a variety of reasons independently. That said, I brought up the Apollo 11 launch form the lunar surface, and I'll mention now Apollo 13 in addition, to emphasize why one needs absolute confidence in the communication system 24/7. One would never have known when talking to the astronauts would be absolutely critical.

Remember what Richard Feynman said about NASA administrators when he investigated the Challenger disaster Tomblvd? If you cannot recall, I shall remind you. He said the upper level administrators, these are aerospace engineers now, people at the level that Mueller and Low were at in the 1960s, Feynman said that they did not understand fundamental physical principles well, F=MA type stuff, let alone rocketry. He ascribed the Challenger failure in large part to this IGNORANCE. These guys consistently overestimated what they were capable of, and as such, underestimated the risk of death to the astronauts flying on all NASA missions up to the time of his investigation. This, because these decision makers didn't have a clue as to what the dangers of space flight were. Matter of fact, Feynman didn't think they even understood basic physics. Don't believe me?, read his book and other writings about the Challenger tragedy. And again, Feynmann's criticisms were directed toward higher level decision makers. The lower level engineers, the guys designing things, building things, programming things, they were competent, quite good Feynman thought.

Read Feynman's writing about about the Challenger disaster Tomblvd, it will rock your world, and you'll never view NASA with anything remotely resembling confidence ever again.

 

[Patrick1000]

Please read the Smithsonian article again.

It only "clarifies" you don't know what you are talking about.

What, specifically, was this bet in reference to? What was the autopilot, from what you know, supposed to do? You've been spoon-fed exactly what things the autopilot was responsible for, and it isn't what you think. You are reading an article in a non-technical publication and putting your own spin on it.

The Boeing 747 I was in last week has an autopilot, but I wouldn't want it to land the plane. It is only there to perform specific tasks. Not be a "robot pilot".

How about this, since this is such a straightforward issue for you, put it to bed with supporting links from more technical sources.

Please read the September 1 2001 Smithsonian article again.

http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/the_bug.html

Note that during the Apollo 17 landing, 300 feet from touchdown, the LM was still being guided by the autopilot and the Grumann engineers, having made a bet with the Grumman pilots that the Eagle would be allowed to autopilot land at least once before Apollo concluded, thought this, the last landing, would win them the case of champagne which was what had been wagered. The pilots had argued the Apollo astronauts would never allow the LM to land by way of auto pilot. It wasn't that the autopilot wasn't in their estimation effective/capable. It was just that astronauts were pilots, and a pilot's inclination would be to land a LM himself.

Look at the Smithsonian article Tomblvd, go to the article's page five, count down to the sixth paragraph. There it says that Lovell was going to allow the PGNS to land the LM if the Apollo 13 LM was headed by autopilot toward what in Lovell's estimation was a safe landing site.

It doesn't get any more clear. Read the article. It is there in black and white. The PGNS/Autopilot system could land the LM on its own. Hands free, no astronaut input necessary, and as it turned out Tomblvd, that is what happened after all isn't it.

 

[Patrick1000]

I didn't back off, the system is flat out not redundant.

You are trying to avoid the fact that you were wrong on the redundancy of the MSFN tracking capability by shifting to the accuracy of the tracking system. Good luck with that.

I didn't back off, the system is flat out not redundant. There was no back up for the Madrid to Houston link for example, as I have already pointed out. AND, so far, my understanding is that one of the big Madrid dishes "tracked" the CM and, the other "tracked" the LM. I am still investigating this aspect, but as best I can tell so far, if a Mardrid dish went out, the Eagle or the CM would be lost, communication wise.

There is no question, if the Madrid Houston link went out, there was no back up, NONE!

 

[Patrick1000]

You are missing the point yog........

They dealt with the inaccuracy by targeting sites with many very large bombs. Sites would not have one warhead launched at it, it would have several. Also, big hydrogen bombs made the "Close Enough" range pretty big. The soviets had less accurate missiles, so they used bigger bombs.

Now that missiles are more accurate the gargantuan bombs are out of style.

You are missing the point yog........

Regardless of what you think, the nuclear weaponeers like Jerry Miller were interested in accuracy, and as far as they were concerned, missing a Russian silo by a mile, was MISSING IT BY A MILE.

You are arguing that Miller and cohorts were not interested in improved geodesy and the associated improved ICBM targeting that came with it. You are arguing this point when Miller is writing in his book that this is simply not the case. Improved geodesy was important to Miller, and the reason that it was important, was it brought with it improved targeting accuracy. Then, in your post, you go on to imply in some sense this was MY point, Patrick1000's, and not Millers', the point that improved geodesy and its associated improved ICBM targeting accuracy was not important to Miller and his colleagues.

Miller helped to prepare the national nuclear target list and the infamous SINGLE INTEGRATED OPERATIONAL PLAN, the comprehensive algorithm to strike, or return a strike, against the Soviets under any given set of circumstances. To argue this point with a man like Miller seems absurd to me yog. I really do not understand where you are coming from with this to be honest.

Argue with Miller yog. He is the expert. He has pretty good credentials wouldn't you say? If Miller says that 60s era ICBM targeting was unsatisfactory and that the road to targeting improvement was by way of better geodetics, then I buy in to his version of things yog, Miller's, and not yours. I view him as the expert and not you. AND, if you have a difference of opinion with Miller's view, I would simply like to emphasize that you are differing with a bona fide expert. My views are irrelevant here. I side with Miller because he is the acknowledged expert.

 

[JayUtah]

Not sure what you are referring to regarding the autopilot issue Tomblvd.

Really? You don't know? Then I suggest you go back and read the linked article again, where I describe in very small detail exactly what happens in the autopilot between the PDI maneuver and touchdown, and how the "autopilot" to which you refer actually worked.

I told you before, you're fumbling your way through an secondary-source article in a popular magazine while I'm reading the actual LM design documents and the actual LM computer programs. Which of us do you think is using the more reliable source?

The Smithsonian article I referenced is quite good.

It is. Too bad you don't understand it.

In that article, it is clearly stated that the Grumman engineers thought there was a good chance that the Apollo 17 LM was going to land without piloting assistance...

No. "Without piloting assistance" is your interpretation. That's not what the article actually says. In fact, the article explicitly states that certain operations were always the pilot's job. You missed that part, even after I quoted it for you.

This is all per the article. It is not coming from me.

The interpretation that "autopilot" means "no human pilot required" is 100% yours. As I said when you first brought up this point, you've gotten a certain idea in your head about what "autopilot" means, and based on those assumptions -- not the well-documented facts -- you've come to the conclusion that the LM didn't need a human pilot.

Sorry, you don't get to blame the Smithsonian author or me for your ignorant misinterpretations and technical errors.

I did not write the Smithsonian article, so this issue hardly merits further discussion on my part.

Evasion noted. Everyone else here can see that you've been shot down on yet another pseudo-technical claim, but you're hoping it will fade quickly. That's why you were in such a hurry to change subjects and talk about the MSFN. You realize that there were people here who know vastly more about spacecraft than you do.

If Jay disagrees with the Smithsonian article's author, fine.

I don't disagree with the Smithsonian article. I disagree with you. You're the one trying to use that article to show that the LM needed no human pilot on board. But as usual, you misrepresent and misinterpret your secondary sources.

I told you exactly how the statements quoted in the Smithsonian article fit into the LM operation -- specifically the premature termination of P64 in favor of manual control through P66. I'm fine with the author. I'm not fine with your misuse of it, and that's 100% your fault.

I have no quarrel with the fact that Jay wants to disagree.

That's the problem. Once someone exposes your colossal errors you have no further quarrel at all. You hope is that your errors fade into distant memory. You make an outrageous, ignorant claim, have your head handed to you, and then dart off in a new direction -- all the while patting yourself on the back for how clever and smart you think you are.

My point is only that such a view, Jay's, is at odds with the views of the Grumman engineers and Lovell himself.

When last I talked to Jim Lovell (about a year ago) he was quite satisfied with my understanding of how the lunar module worked. And I've conversed at length with Frank O'Brien, one of the most widely quoted Grumman engineers who worked on the lunar module. He recently completed a lengthy book on the operation of the Apollo autopilots and computers.

You can certainly try to make it seem like I don't know what I'm talking about, or that my interpretation is somehow at odds with the experts. But you'll find that I am one of the experts, and generally well recognized as such in the community of legitimate Apollo scholars. How amusing that we've come back to the same old point: why do all the qualified experts agree with me and not with you?

As for the LM, you've demonstrated on quite a number of occasions that you don't know how it worked. You're the one who doesn't know what Lovell and Grumman are talking about. You've been corrected frequently, and even (finally) admitted your errors. This is one of those times when you should do so.

Obviously, as I believe all of Apollo is fraudulent, my view is men were not involved in the landings period.

Wow, when you shoot yourself in the foot you blow your whole leg off. You stomp and whine when people don't accept your interpretation of some article in a popular magazine, telling us that these noted authorities can't be contradicted, but then you write it all off as a big lie. If Lovell never really intended to land an LM anyway, why does it matter how he says he was or wasn't going to do it?

Sts60 has pointed out your many contradictions, but this is the first time you've made one and admitted to it in the same post. Way to go.

 

[JayUtah]

Were you aware that Apollo 5 was a failure as well.

Wow, yet another change of subject.

Once in earth orbit, the computer was said to have started the descent engine, but the engine shut down after 4 seconds of operation.

Because it had been short-fueled for the test. It was the short-fueling that caused the problem, not a failure per se of the LM.

These were deemed computer errors, but his is really getting ridiculous.

You're not qualified to make that judgment.

One failed launch after another.

The LM test was not a launch.

 

[JayUtah]

Tomblvd, the Apollo ships were navigated primarily via uplinked commands(from earth) to the system, to the Apollo guidance computer.

No. They were navigated primarily by onboard logic. Since MSFN updates were available, they were employed to refine the pads for each burn.

The astronauts supposedly could fly the thing without help from the ground if need be, though that would be somewhat iffy.

And there's the admission of defeat, although you forgot to say, "Sorry, I was wrong."

Yes, when MSFN was available and working, Apollo operations were made easier and safer. That's why the MSFN was built. Your claim was that without MSFN -- even for a few hours -- the crew would be in mortal danger. Now you admit that it only makes things "iffy."

You think that because something was used (because it was available), it was therefore indispensable. That's a common mistake for a non-engineer to make.

There were situations Tomblvd where ground communication would be essential. For example, with Apollo 11, the flight officer in charge of providing a solution for the launch from the lunar surface on 07/21/1969, H. David Reed...

No. Reed's solution was improvised at the time. You cannot therefore say it was "essential." Reed used the data available, which included MSFN. That doesn't make MSFN a Criticality 1 item. Just because something was used that was available doesn't make it abstractly indispensable.

As such, if there was no communication then, there would have been no launch solution and so the astronauts would have died.

False. The Apollo 11 crew did not need Reed's data in order to perform a successful ascent and rendezvous.

So, sometimes the communication would be plus/minus important, and sometimes absolutely critical.

You haven't shown a single valid instance where it was so critical that a loss of signal for a few hours would be fatal.

Obviously, were you sending guys to the moon, you would do...

Begging the question.

Only makes sense.

"It's fake because I say it's fake."

 

[JayUtah]

The Boeing 747 I was in last week has an autopilot, but I wouldn't want it to land the plane. It is only there to perform specific tasks. Not be a "robot pilot".

Indeed I'm very familiar with Boeing autopilots. It does not compensate for a missing pilot. It will not take off, fly the plane, and land it without pilot assistance. Autopilot designers are smarter than that.

There were two primary reasons why P64 turned over the LM to manual control at an altitude of 200 feet. First is the inaccuracy of both dead reckoning methods and radar altimetry. The LM stops flying itself when it thinks it's 200 feet above the surface. That's in case it's up to 200 feet off. The dead-reckoning method is subject to tolerance buildup, and the radar altimetry is subject to short-term range gating and surface scatter.

The second reason is that the dead-reckoning database contained contour data at only a mile-by-mile resolution. With each mile's entry, there could be significant unaccounted contour. The LM stopped 200 feet high in case there was a tall ridge or crater rim that the coarse surface model didn't report.

The LM autopilot was "smart" enough to tell the pilot, "I've taken you from orbit all the way down to (what I think is) 200 feet altitude with only residual horizontals. Since I can't actually see the surface, it's your job to land us on a nice flat spot. We'll go into manual control as soon as you press the PRO button."