Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
My point is not that it cannot be done....
My point is not that it cannot be done Jay....
Of course it seems very reasonable that were any of this real, the active participant, the LM, could in fact "fly over" to the command module. My claim is not that this is impossible, it is that nowhere is a plane change discussed in the official records. They hide it, lie about its necessity(by omission) under the circumstances.
It is not simply 600 feet away Jay, the two birds are not in the same orbit, and were this thing real, we would see/find a discussion of this in the NASA documents; Voice Transcript, Mission Report, Press Conference Transcript. However, we do not read such an account in these documents, nowhere can it be found, and so one may confidently conclude the Apollo 11 Mission to be fraudulent.
At 05 02 53 26, the CapCom informs Armstrong that the crossrange, north/south distance from Collins' orbit, is 0017, or seventeen hundredths of a degree.
The AOT, per the Apollo 11 Mission Report Landing Site Coordinate Table 5-IV, has the Eagle at 0.523 north, or with the correction factor, 0.563 north. That puts Collins at 0.693 which is ALMOST EXACTLY the lunar module targeted north coordinate of 0.691 as also listed in the Apollo 11 Mission Landing Site Coordinate Table 5-IV. Now, if one takes into account the correction factors, 0.563 north plus the cross range of 0.17 gives 0.733. Converting to degrees/minutes/seconds yields; 00 43' 58", and as all recall, the targeted site north coordinate per the Apollo 11 Mission Report page 5-6 is 00 43' 53".
So according to the Apollo 11 mission Report, they knew exactly where the Eagle was, and knew this in multiple, contradictory and internally incoherent senses. Here, in the sense referenced specifically in this post, the LM landing site is located at 0.523 north and 23.42 east. The former north coordinate being 0.17 degrees south of the targeted site. As both the cross range figure of 0.17 degrees as given by the capcom in the transcript record and the AOT determined landing site coordinates are known in real-time within the Apollo 11 Mission's narrative, and since these figures add to give the targeted lunar lattitude of 00 43' 53 for all intents and purposes EXACTLY, differing by 5 seconds of arc or 138 feet, one may conclude that in this one of several mutually inconsistent and internally incoherent versions of landing site occurrences appearing in the Apollo 11 narrative by way of official douments, in this case the Apollo 11 Mision Report and Apollo 11 Voice Transcript, that the Eagle's position, contrary to the official story, was known and know quite accurately, and furthermore, that its position south of Collins' alleged track was known and known quite accurately. As these simple facts differ from the official narrative's mainstream telling, a telling characterized by a feature in which Collins, Houston and the moonwalkers themselves are all unaware of the landing site coordinates and the coordinates' relationship to Collins' track, one may conclude such an inconsistency, such an internal incoherence , such a bold faced DOCUMENTED LIE! means one and one thing only, THE APOLLO 11 MISSION FRONT TO BACK IS A BOGUS FRAQUDULENT CHARADE, Bernie Medoff in outer space, replete with a public rip off provision and a "so what" shrug of the shoulders in the wake of the heinous fallout.
Edited by Gaspode:Edited for moderated thread.
Yes. That's why one ship will simply fly 600 feet over to the other one. Duh.
Yes. That's because a terminal error of 600 feet would be considered a direct hit.
For you to declare victory after repeating your colossal blunder from months ago merits one of these:
I assure you I've read NASA's documents on lunar orbit rendezvous and the LM control systems many, many times. Clearly you have not, because they describe a model of orbital operations that bears no resemblance whatsoever to anything you've stated or alluded to here.
Please do "explore" that. You pretty much just lost any credibility that you might have had that you know anything about how space works.
Wow. Just ... wow.
Actually we prefer a 10,000 foot "miss." You want the last nautical mile or two after TPI to be terminal maneuvering and braking, not an orbital coast that may result in inadvertent contact. Anything within about 2 nautical miles at is considered a direct hit.
And as others have noted, you seem to persist in the error of thinking that rendezvous and docking was a one-shot deal determined entirely by initial conditions. That's as absolutely wrong as it can possibly be, and if you had really read NASA's documents you would know this.
NASA expected significant dispersions from the lunar orbit insertion maneuver. That's why the rendezvous process was formulated stepwise, and why that's still the way we conduct orbital rendezvous today.
Further, the rendezvous process provides for several terminal rendezvous and docking attempts. It's not, nor ever was, a one-shot deal. Your concept of orbital rendezvous as a do-or-die one-time engine burn, lobbing the LM on a trajectory that has to intersect the CSM exactly the first time, is about as comically far off the mark as it can be.
And you know this. You've had the process explained to you in depth, and admitted at the time that it answered your dilemma. Why you choose to revisit it now is disappointing, but frankly expected.
The "top?" What part of an orbit is that? Are you actually assuming that an orbit's apoapsis and its anti-nodes are the same thing? Please take class or something!
No, orbital rendezvous is exactly not like a pass-fail test. It is exactly the opposite. It is a multi-step processes that allows accumulated errors and dispersions to be detected and corrected in an adaptively converging solution, with little or no time pressure involved.
While you claim to know "some engineering," you continually demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of some of its core principles, the one in this case being the idea of a tolerance. On an unadjusted grading scale, both a score of 92% and one of 100% qualify as an A letter-grade. 92 percent is "good enough." The guy who gets 92% gets the same outcome as the guy who gets 100%, but the former has more time to drink beer and chase girls.
Terminal phase insertion has a nominal distance of 2 miles, plus an RCS tolerance of many more miles. That is, a "hit" is to reach altitude within two miles of your docking target. Several miles out at the antinode is annoying but manageable. Alignment begins to occur at 600 feet, which is considered equivalent to a final approach.
If your TPI burn parks you at 2 miles out, you got an A. If it parks you 11 miles out, guess what -- you still got an A. That's the idea of a tolerance, and until you wrap your mind around it you won't be convincing any engineers that you know anything about their profession.
You do that. While you're at it, you can also investigate whether a brush is useful for applying paint, and whether there's some way to prevent air from rushing out of a balloon neck once it has been inflated.
No it isn't irrelevant. It's the question Loss Leader asked you to study and answer. Almost every spacecraft has a delta-v capacity. If you're arguing that the Apollo spacecraft can't have docked for such a great error, you are responsible for quantifying the error and showing the corresponding limit that is exceeded.
Real world machines have a tolerance to accommodate varying performance. The Apollo spacecraft was no exception.
The explicit out-of-plane correction maneuver was planned in case the plane error grew to be several degrees or more. For fractions of a degree, it's handled during ascent guidance simply by yawing into the correct plane. But when the error becomes too great, a separate maneuver is done at apoapsis. It's done there because a plane-correction maneuver is a pure delta-v maneuver, and the spacecraft's velocity is slowest at that point. Ironically it's more fuel-efficient to wait and correct the plane errors later, another counterintuitive aspect of space flight.
That's right. None was necessary and none was carried out. You're the only one who seems to think one was necessary, but only because you don't know the first thing about orbital mechanics or spacecraft dynamics, and so you're making up a bunch of properties and requirements that, in your naive understanding, might seem to be true, but which simply are not.
You're acting literally like a "surgeon" who has never studied anatomy and never seen the inside of an organism.
My point is not that it cannot be done Jay....
Of course it seems very reasonable that were any of this real, the active participant, the LM, could in fact "fly over" to the command module. My claim is not that this is impossible, it is that nowhere is a plane change discussed in the official records. They hide it, lie about its necessity(by omission) under the circumstances.
It is not simply 600 feet away Jay, the two birds are not in the same orbit, and were this thing real, we would see/find a discussion of this in the NASA documents; Voice Transcript, Mission Report, Press Conference Transcript. However, we do not read such an account in these documents, nowhere can it be found, and so one may confidently conclude the Apollo 11 Mission to be fraudulent.
At 05 02 53 26, the CapCom informs Armstrong that the crossrange, north/south distance from Collins' orbit, is 0017, or seventeen hundredths of a degree.
The AOT, per the Apollo 11 Mission Report Landing Site Coordinate Table 5-IV, has the Eagle at 0.523 north, or with the correction factor, 0.563 north. That puts Collins at 0.693 which is ALMOST EXACTLY the lunar module targeted north coordinate of 0.691 as also listed in the Apollo 11 Mission Landing Site Coordinate Table 5-IV. Now, if one takes into account the correction factors, 0.563 north plus the cross range of 0.17 gives 0.733. Converting to degrees/minutes/seconds yields; 00 43' 58", and as all recall, the targeted site north coordinate per the Apollo 11 Mission Report page 5-6 is 00 43' 53".
So according to the Apollo 11 mission Report, they knew exactly where the Eagle was, and knew this in multiple, contradictory and internally incoherent senses. Here, in the sense referenced specifically in this post, the LM landing site is located at 0.523 north and 23.42 east. The former north coordinate being 0.17 degrees south of the targeted site. As both the cross range figure of 0.17 degrees as given by the capcom in the transcript record and the AOT determined landing site coordinates are known in real-time within the Apollo 11 Mission's narrative, and since these figures add to give the targeted lunar lattitude of 00 43' 53 for all intents and purposes EXACTLY, differing by 5 seconds of arc or 138 feet, one may conclude that in this one of several mutually inconsistent and internally incoherent versions of landing site occurrences appearing in the Apollo 11 narrative by way of official douments, in this case the Apollo 11 Mision Report and Apollo 11 Voice Transcript, that the Eagle's position, contrary to the official story, was known and know quite accurately, and furthermore, that its position south of Collins' alleged track was known and known quite accurately. As these simple facts differ from the official narrative's mainstream telling, a telling characterized by a feature in which Collins, Houston and the moonwalkers themselves are all unaware of the landing site coordinates and the coordinates' relationship to Collins' track, one may conclude such an inconsistency, such an internal incoherence , such a bold faced DOCUMENTED LIE! means one and one thing only, THE APOLLO 11 MISSION FRONT TO BACK IS A BOGUS FRAQUDULENT CHARADE, Bernie Medoff in outer space, replete with a public rip off provision and a "so what" shrug of the shoulders in the wake of the heinous fallout.
Last edited by a moderator:
