Stars of Kryptonite....
Just how many bytes do you think it would take to catalog the 100 brightest stars? And why would you consider so few bytes to be "large"?
"vantage"??? Bwahahahaha! Do you have any idea how little the closest star to us would change its position if viewed from the Earth and viewed from the Moon? This is right along the ignorant claims that NASA didn't include stars in the lunar surface pictures because astronomers would be able to tell the stars weren't in the proper position as viewed from the Moon.
Stars! Stars that were about 30% brighter than viewed from the surface of the Earth because the Earth's atmosphere absorbs about 30% of the star light reaching the surface (minus optics losses).
Nonsense.
This nonsense again???
How do you think ships check the errors of their gyros when out of sight of land? By sighting celestial objects and comparing the calculated bearing to the bearing obtained with an alidade or periscope. If you know your approximate position and exact time you can use the Nautical Almanac and a Sight Reduction Table to calculate the bearing to any of the listed celestial bodies (the 57 "navigational stars", Polaris, the Sun, the Moon, and Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. This is what an alidade looks like:
[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/cfNja.png[/qimg]
Chapter 17 of the American Practical Navigator aka "Bowditch" aka the Navigator's Bible has the procedure. The entire book in PDF is available for download for free here:
http://msi.nga.mil/NGAPortal/MSI.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=msi_portal_page_62&pubCode=0002
Here is a screen cap of the first page for those who know I know what I'm talking about and don't want to read the whole chapter:
Is there anything in Chapter 17 that says you cannot use celestial bodies to determine gyro error?
There is plenty of evidence that there was in NASA's Technical Reports Server including the tests conducted on the systems.
Polaris flew for 30 minutes and Apollo for 10 days so the comparison is extremely poor.
The Lunar Orbiters you have grossly been citing as proof that Apollo was hoaxed used star trackers.
D'oh!
Ill-informed speculation.
Bwahahahaha! Dude! The
nearest star outside our Solar System is 25 trillion miles away. Twenty five trillion miles. That is a 2 and a 5 followed by 12 zeroes. 25,000,000,000,000. Miles.
That is ~100 million times farther than the Moon.
Dude! Learn a lot more about the universe you live in.
Absolutely no way except the way man has done it for millenia: by using their eyes and identifying the pattern of brighter and dimmer stars. Then there is the method of telling your scope where to point and then looking through the scope.
So you are admitting the Lunar Orbiters were hoaxed too?
It was tested on Earth and it was tested on Apollo 7!!!
Which is why that had a sextant installed.
More layman ignorance without supporting evidence.
See above. Star trackers had already been used on numerous unmanned probes. The Apollo sextant was tested on Earth. Why would it need to be tested in space? Does zero-g and a vacuum somehow change the fact that there are 360° in a circle, 60' in a degree, and 60" in a minute of arc?
Remainder of your ignorant repetitive childish rant deleted.
You totally miss the point Matt, it has nothing to do with star position.....
Stars of Kryptonite
Of course the stars do not change position. There is absolutely positively no appreciable parallax under the circumstances. So we are in complete agreement there.
The problem has to do with being able to identify a star as unique, and do so without a modern computer map guiding one.
We are able to see 6,000 stars from the surface of the earth with the naked eye, give or take. 3,000 from each side of the equator. I was just surfing on the big Island of Hawaii. I went up to Mauna Kea for the first time to see the Keck Observatory Domes and the other great scopes 14,000 feet up on that mountain. The guide asked our tour group what were the reasons the viewing was so excellent from Mauna Kea. He said I was the first person to get it "all correct" as my answer included a reference to the equatorial location allowing for visibility of both southern and northern hemisphere stars.
Star visibility decreases with increasing order of magnitude. Let's use this simple chart as a reference for this discussion;
http://www.stargazing.net/david/constel/howmanystars.html
One notes based on this chart's data that there are 8,768 stars at magnitude 6 or lower. Magnitude 6 is the limit of unaided eye star visibility. On the clearest of all nights, without any light pollution, one is able to see most of those 8,700 stars. To see stars dimmer requires a scope to increase aperture/light collection(and in the case of terrestrial viewing, to thin out the atmospheric light, but this latter point need not concern us here).
For each increase in magnitude(decrease in visibility) there are approximately 3 times as many stars visible. So if we go from magnitude 6 to 7, 26,533 stars are available for viewing if we have the equipment to collect enough light from those dimmer objects to render them visible. Going from magnitude 7 to magnitude 8, we have 77,627 stars viewable were we to have the right/adequate scope/light collector.
Now Matt, please note from my same reference, with an aperture of two inches, one is already at magnitude 10, at least theoretically. Let's be conservative however and call it 9.
With a telescope of aperture 2 inches 217,689 are well within the theoretical capabilities of the scope. At 3 inches, a scope takes us to magnitude 11 in terms of theoretical capability. Let's call it magnitude 10 to play it safe. That gives 626,833 stars visible theoretically were we able to view all magnitude 10 objects and lower.
The stars in their constellations are known to us by the company they keep, known by virtue of the geometric context of their very constellations. Once one leaves the earth and views the "sky" through an Apollo sextant, many many many many more stars will theoretically be visible depending on conditions. If one looks down or cross sun or at the sky from the moon's unlit side, and one is fully dark adapted, depending on the sextant's aperture (which I have yet to find details as regards to), one would theoretically be able to see, 20,000....or perhaps even 200,000 or even more stars. In an Apollo craft with no computer map, a genuine astronaut would be lost in that star field. "Where is Orion??????" There would be no way to tell because there would be 4 times as many stars in its field. It would not be obvious at all which were the brightest. You actually would not be able to find Orion without some type of special training educating you as to how the additional stars would be accounted for, which ones the non Orion stars were as you WOULD NEVER HAVE SEEN SOME OF THEM BEFORE. These "new and unfamiliar stars" would need to be mapped, loaded into your computer so as they would be amenable in flight to being uniquely identified and discerned by way of the computer. As an observing astronaut, there would be absolutely no way you could do this.
Looking towards the sun, towards the brightly lit earth, or with light reflecting and interfering with visibility, or under conditions of incomplete adaptation, you might see even less than magnitude 6 stars. This is what the Apollo astronauts actually claimed was the case. But say you are looking at Rigel under such conditions because the angle is good there at "Rigel", there happens to be better viewing in that direction. In this one LOCAL FIELD you might see magnitude 8 stars because of the sextant's increased aperture. So though there is a paucity of stars overall, such might well NOT be the case in the field upon which you are sighting.
Say now you are up there and only 12 stars TOTAL are sightable and the computer sends you to what it thinks is Rigel. You only see this one star in your field. Outside of the context of a constellation, you cannot tell this is Rigel.
Recall back a ways when I pointed out that Worden was lying about seeing so many stars on the back side of the moon. He said there that no stars were uniquely discernable because so very many could be seen. I pointed out that this probably would indeed be the case, certainly if one were looking through the sextant, at least tens of thousands of stars would be visible and easily so under those conditions, even with a 2 inch aperture scope which the sextant I imagine was at least. So Worden right there was/is caught in a BIG LIE as he was describing what he knew should be the case. From our end we too know this would have to be the case, but at the same time could not have been for Worden, as were he in such circumstances, his guidance system would not work.
I'll go over this point in nauseating detail in posts to come matt as I learn more about the scanning scope and sextant specs. I even own my own sextant now and am learning to sight stars. It is fun. More importantly, this is a huge issue in Apollo Fraud studies generally and a vulnerability of the official story that is easily exploited by those of us seeking to hammer home the truth of fraud.
Armstrong denies stars for many many reasons. STARLIGHT OF KRYPTONITE FOR OUR NOT SO VERY SUPERMEN.....
Of course the stars do not move matt. But one would see an unpredictable number of them once out in the wild black yonder of cislunar space. The astronauts had no maps, no skills. The three ding dongs had but a lie to guide them. You'll never find 00 43' 53" north and 23 38' 51" armed with that.....
Sorry boys, but these dudes are busted big big big BIG TIME.....
