Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[JayUtah]

Your bias is in asking people who have no idea what they're talking about.

Indeed. The "OMG!! Lightning!" argument is still just that, no matter how many of one's friends agree. It's not quantitatively wrong, it's qualitatively wrong.

If we're going to take a poll, a good one in this case would be to ask members of AIAA whether they agree or disagree with the decision to continue the Apollo 12 flight.

Airliners are irrelevant. One's friends are irrelevant. One's "common sense" is irrelevant. In the grand scheme of things, even Apollo 12 is irrelevant -- even if it could be characterized as extremely reckless to have sent them on their way, that doesn't prove fraud. Stupid decisions are made all the time in real-life events.

Conspiracy theorists love to wallow down in the insignificant, subjective details of some particular claim. They debate points they think they can win, not points that actually matter.

 

[sts60]

Having worked on military space applications - specifically, missile warning and tracking, and the attendant application of communication - I find very amusing the notion that the military would find using the Moon, or any of the Earth-Moon Lagrangian points, superior to the use of Earth-orbiting* satellites. Quite apart from the fact that there is full and consistent multimodal evidence for the civilian Apollo program, and exactly none for a military program of the sort Patrick1000/fattydash/DoctorTea/etc. keeps trying to claim.

Without any evidence, with no expertise in any of the relevant areas of knowledge, and with no one who actually understands the subject who actually agrees with him, he's left waving his hands about "common sense", and claiming that of course his friends agree with him. However, it doesn't really matter whether a majority of his colleagues at the deep-fryer and drive-through register agree with him; actual industry practice is not determined by polling the uninformed.

 

[PetersCreek]

OMG!!!!! You have got to admit the lightning thing is great Jay.....

Try it out on people. Ask your engineering friends the question, "if a plane was struck by lightning on the way up out of NYC..... even if everything checked out OK here in 2011, would it be allowed to go on to Paris?" See what they say.

When I ask my friends I get about 90%, "no bring the plane back down and check it out if you have the opportunity" and 10% say, "well it would depend".

Not kidding. Maybe I am introducing some bias given the way I am asking the question. Perhaps I'll design an unambiguously unbiased questionnaire.

Even though trying to compare civil aviation procedures to NASA's flight rules for Apollo is yet another case of apples to oranges, I figured what the heck, I'll play. I polled six coworkers during my lunch break, all of them certified air traffic control specialists assigned to terminal ATC facilities—either an air traffic control tower or terminal radar approach control (TRACON). I posed the follow scenario to them:

Immediately after departure, the flight crew of a commercial airliner with passengers onboard reports a lightning strike. They also report that there is no apparent damage or malfunction resulting from the strike.

I then asked them two questions:

1. Based on that scenario, would you order the aircraft to land?

2. Do you have the authority to order the aircraft to land?

All of them answered "no" to both questions.

So, exactly who do you think is going to order the aircraft to land?

 

[Patrick1000]

How about the visibility of the stars as determined by the AOT........?

Everyone else understands that there is a difference between the astronauts descriptions of the widely varying range of magnitude of stars visible to the naked eye in the different conditions they encountered and the visibility of stars using the sextant. Why don't you get it? Only because it shoots your claims down in flames.



Your stubborn refusal to see reality staring you in the face has become too tedious to be laughable. The invention of admiring friends and "underground threads" is slightly funny, though. Tragic, but funny.

OK Jack by the hedge, how about the visibility of the stars as determined by the AOT........?

I own a copy of the LUNAR EXCURSION MODULE FAMILIARIZATION MANUAL. This document's publication date is January 15 1964.

In the first paragraph of section 3-28, LEM GUIDANCE COMPUTER, one reads that the LEM GUIDANCE COMPUTER (LGC) aligns the stable member of the Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU). Now the AOT is the optic that lunar astronauts employ to sight stars and so inform the LGC how the IMU is to be aligned, what IMU adjustments if any, need to be made. That is, in addition to gravitational measurements, the computer employs star sighting data obtained by way of AOT sightings to align the IMU.

Now let's consult the Apollo 11 Mission Report and check out just how accurate that star sighting turned out to be. In table 5-IV, the Landing Site Coordinate Table, one notes that the AOT determined LM landing coordinates were 0.523 north and 23.42 east. The raw, uncorrected(trajectory to LAM-2 Map) "true coordinates as determined by photo analysis were 0.647 north and 23.505 east. The trajectory to LAM-2 Map corrected figures are 0.687 north and 23.435 east.

Granted landing coordinates are not the same as attitude determination, and IMU alignment per se. However, and critically so, this data, with or without the correction factor considerations show that the AOT sighting missed the north coordinate by anywhere from at best; 0.687 minus 0.563 degrees or 0.124 degrees, to at worst; 0.687 minus 0.523 degrees or 0.164 degrees. In either case, best or worst scenario, well over a tenth of a degree too far south.

Let's do a rough calculation. The sine of 0.124 degrees is 0.00216. So they fly up 60 miles to meet Collins. With this as a rough calculation (60 miles X 0.00216) they would be at least the equivalent of 0.1296 miles to the south/out of plane as far as the IMU alignment is concerned. That is 684 feet.

Now granted, it is a bit of apples and oranges, with it being landing site coordinates and IMU alignment concerns, but the IMU settings would be derived from this well off north coordinate figure, and were the Eagle launch real, this would without question result in a huge problem that would amplify as any attempted rendezvous activity progressed.

More evidence for fraud, plain and simple.....

It would be interesting to look at the raw data and see how exactly the IMU was adjusted before launch.

Real data regarding this interesting question may be difficult if not impossible to come by.

 

[Loss Leader]

and were the Eagle launch real, this would without question result in a huge problem that would amplify as any attempted rendezvous activity progressed.

Hi, Patrick. I just wanted to say that I was really impressed with the mathematical rigor of your post until I read the above section.

Once again, you've taken a couple of real facts and then drawn a conclusion based on nothing other than your imagination. How do you define "huge problem" in this circumstance? What evidence do you have that it would have been a huge problem? What evidence do you have that the LM and CM would have found themselves too far away to rendezvous? What was the maximum distance outside the orbital plane that the LM and CM could close without difficulty? Is the error you're describing along the orbital plane? Perpendicular to it? If the error is along the plane, does that make it easier to compensate for?

You say you've found a huge problem. Let's agree that you've presented evidence that the LM's position was subject to some uncorrectible, unknowable error. You've still presented no evidence that this error was something unexpected, intractable, fatal, or even worrisome.

I'm sure you've made other errors, but I'd appreciate if you addressed this one. It seems to contan a common logical mistake that runs through much of your analysis

 

[R.A.F.]

Conspiracy theorists love to wallow down in the insignificant, subjective details of some particular claim. They debate points they think they can win, not points that actually matter.

Which is exactly the reason why Patrick so steadfastly ignores the thousand of images taken on the surface and then hundred of pounds of returned Lunar samples. He considers those facts unimportant, because he has no argument against those facts, and he knows it.

It most certainly is a conscious effort to ignore inconvenient truths.

 

[R.A.F.]

More evidence for fraud, plain and simple...

No Patrick...you have presented no evidence of fraud, so please stop "declaring" victory...

Edited by LashL: 

Moderated thread.

 

[JayUtah]

OK Jack by the hedge, how about the visibility of the stars as determined by the AOT........?

Changing horses.

JbtH is talking about the CM sextant, which is the instrument you were discussing up to this point. Now you've changed horses to talk about the AOT, which is a different instrument.

JbtH is talking about the apparent magnitude of guide stars, which was a big part of your discussion up until this point. Now you've given us a lengthy distraction that has nothing to do with stellar magnitude.

Fail.

I own a copy of the LUNAR EXCURSION MODULE FAMILIARIZATION MANUAL. This document's publication date is January 15 1964.

Where would you say 1964 falls in terms of Apollo LM development? Toward the beginning? Toward the end? Do you have a feeling for how many revisions in equipment and procedures occurred between 1964 and 1969 when the LM was first flown with a human crew?

Now the AOT is the optic that lunar astronauts employ to sight stars...

...and has nothing to do with any of the instruments in any of the technology you've discussed up to this point.

You claim to have read Frank O'Brien's book, so I wonder how could you have missed where he writes, "Several differences drove the CM sextant and the LM AOT design down two entirely different paths" (p. 206). To bring up the LM AOT in a discussion about the CM sextant suggests deepening unfamiliarity with the subject.

Now let's consult the Apollo 11 Mission Report and check out just how accurate that star sighting turned out to be.

And back to the table. Do you really think the same argument that was unconvincing six months ago due to your unwillingness to learn cartography has really suddenly acquired new credibility?

Granted landing coordinates are not the same as attitude determination, and IMU alignment per se.

Agreed. You're mixing two only tangentially-related concepts.

However, and critically so, this data, with or without the correction factor considerations show that the AOT sighting missed the north coordinate by anywhere from at best; 0.687 minus 0.563 degrees or 0.124 degrees, to at worst; 0.687 minus 0.523 degrees or 0.164 degrees.

Yes. And why? Because the AOT was a unity power scope, while the CM sextant was a 28X scope. It's a less precise instrument. Duh. And the entire Apollo mission plan understood that this was a less precise instrument and compensated for it using other parts of the system.

That is 684 feet.

And should that come to be the case, is there some reason why the planned rendezvous closure process can't accommodate that?

You seem to forget that Apollo was designed as a system. You want to put unreasonable burdens on specific parts of the system, as if they each had sole responsibility. Engineers know better than to manage criticality that way.

Now granted, it is a bit of apples and oranges, with it being landing site coordinates and IMU alignment concerns...

Indeed. You're following an admittedly red herring in order to distract from the prevailing discussion. Neither here nor there.

this would without question result in a huge problem that would amplify as any attempted rendezvous activity progressed.

You're not qualified to make that judgment, and you admit knowing that the two concepts you deal with here are largely unrelated.

Real data regarding this interesting question may be difficult if not impossible to come by.

And irrelevant. Stop trying to make it seem like the world is conspiring to keep you from proving Apollo is a fraud. You admit this is a red herring, so drop it and get back to the real questions.

Instead please tell us whether you've actually operated any sort of vehicle that relies on inertial guidance. The world is waiting for your answer to that question, Patrick. Why do you instead waste time on questions you yourself admit have no value?

 

[Andy_Ross]

On the subject of tracking Subs and Launching Missiles.

I served on AS Frigates in the North Atlantinc in the COld War.

We knew where Soviet boats were. They had to come past NATO Sonobuoys to get out into open ocean, the USSR didn't have any coastline onto open ocean that wasn't covered. We were updated with positions and spent some of our time tracking them.
As modern Nuclear boats were faster than surface ships we relied on our Helicopter or an Ikara Missile to deliver torpedos or if things got real serious and we had to stop Soviet Missile sub a Helicopter dropped Nuclear Depth Bomb.

RN Polaris and Trident Boats have sealed orders for the Captain written by the Prime Minister. If things got hot they were to open the orders. One of the very first things a new PM has to do is sit and write his orders. Only he knows what is in the envelope until it is opened.
It was 'leaked' that both Thatcher and Major gave ordrs not to launch.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Forgot to add HMS Vanguard a Royal Navy Trident boat collided under water with the French Missile boat the Triomphant in 2009.

Neither boat detected the other.

 

[matt.tansy]

Granted landing coordinates are not the same as attitude determination, and IMU alignment per se. However, and critically so, this data, with or without the correction factor considerations show that the AOT sighting missed the north coordinate by anywhere from at best; 0.687 minus 0.563 degrees or 0.124 degrees, to at worst; 0.687 minus 0.523 degrees or 0.164 degrees. In either case, best or worst scenario, well over a tenth of a degree too far south.

Let's do a rough calculation. The sine of 0.124 degrees is 0.00216. So they fly up 60 miles to meet Collins.

WHAT? Is that how you think it works??? The LM just shoots straight up to the CM??? No. Just no.

All things being equal, the error would be multiplied by the distance from the center of the Moon to the CM, about 1838 km. In your worst case above it would translate to an out of plane error of 5.2 km.

With this as a rough calculation (60 miles X 0.00216) they would be at least the equivalent of 0.1296 miles to the south/out of plane as far as the IMU alignment is concerned. That is 684 feet.

Now granted, it is a bit of apples and oranges, with it being landing site coordinates and IMU alignment concerns, but the IMU settings would be derived from this well off north coordinate figure, and were the Eagle launch real, this would without question result in a huge problem

"huge" being a relative term, of course. Huge for you, an actual pre-planned part of the rendezvous procedure for everybody else.

This comment harkens back to your ridiculous "threading the needle" caricature of Lunar Orbit Rendezvous. The rendezvous was a long, drawn out procedure to gradually reduce closing velocity and correct for errors. It was not critically dependent on initial launch position. During the rendezvous procedure several maneuvers are conducted and each maneuver can correct for out of plane error and a dedicated out of plane correction maneuver is written into the procedure.

that would amplify as any attempted rendezvous activity progressed.

Actually, the error would only decrease. The distance between two spacecraft in two equal orbits differing only by their inclination angles would vary between zero km and 5.3 km with two minima and two maxima during each orbit.

I've asked you countless times to compute the maximum crosstrack error (i.e. out of plane error) that the LM's delta-v budget would allow and you have been unable to answer the question. So how much delta-v is required to correct a 0.164^o out of plane error? Since many lurkers are here to learn about the Apollo program I shall not keep them in suspense. Click the spoiler for The SHOCKING Answer!!1!

4.7 m/s.

That's it?

Yes, that's it. A piddling 4.7 m/s. That's less than a one second burn of the APS.

 

[Patrick1000]

Excellent points Loss Leader......Excellent points.....

Hi, Patrick. I just wanted to say that I was really impressed with the mathematical rigor of your post until I read the above section.

Once again, you've taken a couple of real facts and then drawn a conclusion based on nothing other than your imagination. How do you define "huge problem" in this circumstance? What evidence do you have that it would have been a huge problem? What evidence do you have that the LM and CM would have found themselves too far away to rendezvous? What was the maximum distance outside the orbital plane that the LM and CM could close without difficulty? Is the error you're describing along the orbital plane? Perpendicular to it? If the error is along the plane, does that make it easier to compensate for?

You say you've found a huge problem. Let's agree that you've presented evidence that the LM's position was subject to some uncorrectible, unknowable error. You've still presented no evidence that this error was something unexpected, intractable, fatal, or even worrisome.

I'm sure you've made other errors, but I'd appreciate if you addressed this one. It seems to contan a common logical mistake that runs through much of your analysis

Excellent points Loss Leader......Excellent points.....

First of all, I was careful to emphasize the difference between aligning the platform and determining the landing site coordinates. This is a rehash of course, but just so we are clear here, I do want to go ahead and rehash.

The landing site data was derived from the AOT numbers, and those AOT numbers look well off from the PNGS, AGS, rendezvous radar and photo determined numbers. The latter 4 solutions were all close to the "true" coordinates, and as best one can tell, the photo numbers are the numbers that actually define the "true" landing site coordinates, perhaps with some verification from the first successful LRRR targeting.

So one may do a rough estimate of the LM trajectory. That is, were the platformed "aimed" such that the launch would be reflective of a platform alignment corresponding to a north coordinate of 0.563 degrees. That yields an angle difference of 0.124 from the "true" landing site north coordinate of 0.687 . If we use the uncorrected AOT number we have an AOT north coordinate of 0.523 and a 0.164 degree discrepancy. Launching the LM pitched 0.124 degrees south would put the moonwalkers 600 feet plus out of plane employing my simplified approach as above. If I use 0.164 degrees, I would get 0.00286 as the sine of that angle, then X 60 miles would give 0.1716 miles out of plane, roughly 900 feet.

Now one does not know Loss Leader what in fact the real "out of plane" figures would be, because again, it is a bit apples and oranges, and one needs to look at how the AOT data would translate into IMU adjustment figures. But let's say this is ballpark, 600 to 900 feet. That's HUGE, way too far, way way way to far without making an out of plane adjustment. Rendezvous cannot occur unless there is NO ANGLE, ZERO ANGLE between the planes. Now could one correct for this? Sure, but there is consistant mention by the astronauts and technical people writing the official documents that there were no out of plane concerns, no out of plane problems.

So being off plane wise by 600-900 is huge if one does not correct for it, and look for yourself Loss Leader, read the Mission Report and the debriefing and so forth. Look anywhere that mention is made verbally/written in prose of the question as regardds the out of plane issue, and every resource one references says there were no out of plane concerns, everything was hunky dory.

We may conclude, given this internal incoherence, that this story is not true, the LM take off story and if the LM take off story is true, all of Apollo must be bogus big big big time. A huge problem for absolute sure.

 

[JayUtah]

First of all, I was careful to emphasize the difference between aligning the platform and determining the landing site coordinates.

Repeating your admission of irrelevancy doesn't help your case.

I do want to go ahead and rehash.

All you do is rehash. You don't address refutations.

So one may do a rough estimate of the LM trajectory.

You think there's a single ascent trajectory. You think the LM launches upward in one fell swoop and must "land" in orbit at or near the CSM in one impulse. In other words, what you think you know about orbital rendezvous is almost exactly the opposite of what orbital rendezvous really entails.

For six months you've been trying to portray LM ascent and rendezvous as some sort of precarious process in which everything at every step had to go exactly right or the mission was disastrously endangered. In other words -- your typical straw-man approach.

Rendezvous cannot occur unless there is NO ANGLE, ZERO ANGLE between the planes.

Absolutely false. Every orbital rendezvous has dispersions. A 200-meter dispersion at insertion is negligible, easily accommodated during terminal approach.

Now could one correct for this?

By a one-second engine burn.

...that there were no out of plane concerns, no out of plane problems.

Yes. When qualified people are telling you that the dispersions are well within tolerances, that's what you should listen to. Instead you say things like...

So being off plane wise by 600-900 is huge if one does not correct for it...

Simply wrong. You suggest that this cannot be accommodated in the rendezvous profile. That's just plain wrong. Not a difference of opinion -- just wrong. You don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.

Loss Leader, Patrick's trigonometry alludes to a homegrown attempt to model an orbit. It's simply not at all correct. It's so far off real orbital mechanics, he hasn't even followed the elementary rule of orbits -- that they must contain the primary's center of mass.

We may conclude, given this internal incoherence, that this story is not true...

Thousands of experts in orbital mechanics and spacecraft dynamics unanimously differ. What do you have to say to that?

 

[slyjoe]

...snip

Now one does not know Loss Leader what in fact the real "out of plane" figures would be, because again, it is a bit apples and oranges, and one needs to look at how the AOT data would translate into IMU adjustment figures. But let's say this is ballpark, 600 to 900 feet. That's HUGE, way too far, way way way to far without making an out of plane adjustment. Rendezvous cannot occur unless there is NO ANGLE, ZERO ANGLE between the planes. Now could one correct for this? Sure, but there is consistant mention by the astronauts and technical people writing the official documents that there were no out of plane concerns, no out of plane problems.

..snip

Once again you are tossing around non-engineering terms - such as "huge". You won't provide what is meant by "huge". This is dishonest. You also equate "no concerns, no problems" with "absolutely zero angle between the planes".

Why do you think there was a planned plane correction 1:30 into the ascent? You are making way too many assumptions about what is required at LM ignition compared to what is required hours later.

 

[matt.tansy]

So being off plane wise by 600-900 is huge if one does not correct for it, and look for yourself Loss Leader, read the Mission Report and the debriefing and so forth. Look anywhere that mention is made verbally/written in prose of the question as regardds the out of plane issue, and every resource one references says there were no out of plane concerns, everything was hunky dory.

I already told you the latitude error, which you've repeatedly and improperly been calling the "north coordinate", would be measured from the center of the Moon, not the surface, and so the out of plane error would be 5.2 km, not 900 feet. And the latitude error does directly translate into the out-of-plane error because both use the center of the Moon as the origin.

But ok, fine. Let's play with your "huge" 900 foot out-of-plane error. Can you figure out what velocity change would be needed to correct for that? Of course, you can't. So I'll do you yet another favor and tell everybody. It's 0.25 m/s. To correct that would require the small RCS jets to fire for 0.7 seconds. 0.7 seconds!

The out-of-plane correction burn that was scheduled into the rendezvous procedure would only have been performed if a velocity change of 5 ft/s was required to align the orbits. So even your exaggerated scenario doesn't meet the criteria for the out-of-plane maneuver.

 

[nomuse]

Yes, you are right, it's apples and oranges. You have a maths degree, and you think you can specify an angle with a unit of distance?

Spacecraft don't fly distances. They fly velocities. The question is almost never "how far is it?" but "what is the magnitude of the vector change necessary to match with it?"

 

[Patrick1000]

Not quite apples 'n' oranges though as we all know.....

Yes, you are right, it's apples and oranges. You have a maths degree, and you think you can specify an angle with a unit of distance?

Spacecraft don't fly distances. They fly velocities. The question is almost never "how far is it?" but "what is the magnitude of the vector change necessary to match with it?"

Not quite apples 'n' oranges though as we all know.....landing coordinates and IMU alignments, not unrelated , not unrelated at all........

That is one BIG FAT DISCREPANCY nomuse, a big fat discrepancy that I shall be investigating and fully exploiting in my proof of Apollo fraudulence.

They are pointing that thang, that "spaceship" in the wrong direction nomuse, and sure, my initial presentation is a rough guess as to what one is dealing with here. Rough guesses notwithstanding, the NASA boys are off target nomuse, and in a bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad way. I shall now endeavor to find out what the real consequences would have been were any of this bogus scenario real.

This looks to be another good one.........

 

[tsig]

Even though trying to compare civil aviation procedures to NASA's flight rules for Apollo is yet another case of apples to oranges, I figured what the heck, I'll play. I polled six coworkers during my lunch break, all of them certified air traffic control specialists assigned to terminal ATC facilities—either an air traffic control tower or terminal radar approach control (TRACON). I posed the follow scenario to them:

Immediately after departure, the flight crew of a commercial airliner with passengers onboard reports a lightning strike. They also report that there is no apparent damage or malfunction resulting from the strike.

I then asked them two questions:

1. Based on that scenario, would you order the aircraft to land?

2. Do you have the authority to order the aircraft to land?

All of them answered "no" to both questions.

So, exactly who do you think is going to order the aircraft to land?

They're not called 'pilot in command' for nothing. Ultimately all decisions are in the hand of the person that has their hand on the controls, be it an aircraft or a spacecraft.

 

[Patrick1000]

I guess the Irish guys are more thoughtful than opur guys.....

They're not called 'pilot in command' for nothing. Ultimately all decisions are in the hand of the person that has their hand on the controls, be it an aircraft or a spacecraft.

I guess the Irish guys are more thoughtful/sensible than our guys.....

Check out Washington's Office of Aviation Research's General Aviation Lightning Strike Report and Protection Level Study;

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=..._ciMDA&usg=AFQjCNF6dcmhfkT_XMcP3oJYCQXbGY9Syw

The report features the statement; "a lightning strike can impose severe damage to critical and essential systems of any aircraft".

I'd take that to mean a space ship too, wouldn't you !!!!!! ??????

The document also features the statement; " a lightning strike on an aircraft could impose severe damage to critical and essential systems of the aircraft".

I'd say that would apply to a space ship too, wouldn't you tsig?

The larger issue is that this is not an airplane. It is a spaceship, albeit a pretended one, and it is a pretended spaceship pretending to be going to the moon. And as lightning CAN cause severe damage, and as this damage could not be adequately assessed via telemetry and astronaut visuals, Apollo can only be very very very very very fake........

 

[JayUtah]

Not quite apples 'n' oranges though as we all know...

Make up your mind. First theyr'e apples and oranges, then not. Sheesh.

...the NASA boys are off target nomuse, and in a bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad way.

You have no qualifications in orbital mechanics. None. Further, your description of the LM ascent profile is simply as wrong as it can be. You don't really understand what a rendezvous consists of. You don't seem to understand that it's composed of different phases, the transitions between which allow for correcting errors that arise in previous phases. As I've already said, you conceive of the LM ascent in straw-man fashion, where no error was tolerable.

Instead, NASA understood that the LM ascent was not a precise thing. Basically the LM was expected to reach some orbit, from which a rendezvous with the CSM could be arranged. This allowed for minor out-of-plane errors. Plus, the nature of multi-step rendezvous makes landing site coordinates and ascent timing largely irrelevant.

I shall now endeavor to find out what the real consequences would have been were any of this bogus scenario real.

What makes you think you're even remotely qualified to do so?

As I said, thousands of fully qualified spaecraft dynamics experts knowingly accept the LM ascent profile as stated. Who are you to dispute them? Seriously!