Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[R.A.F.]

...if there is no appreciable parallax then why bring up the topic of there being no cislunar star charts? No I think that again you have been caught in a mistake and again you simply can't acknowledge it.

Spot on, Garrison....another error that Patrick refuses to take responsibility for.

 

[matt.tansy]

I think what Patrick is saying here is that they are trying to find out where THEY are by finding a star. You are describing how to find the STAR based on knowing where you are. If it really was the case that we couldn't tell a 1st magnitude star from a 16th magnitude star because they all look the same, he'd have a point. Maybe. But, of course, we can.

Never give Patrick the benefit of the doubt. You may assume there could be no possible way he meant what he wrote because it is just so wrong and he must have meant something else but we have learned he really does mean what he writes. Patrick is claiming you can't tell a bright star from a dim star when looking through a telescope. As bizarre and absurd that notion is to us if you go through the thread you will find lots of examples of Patrick displaying his profound misunderstanding of the simplest physical laws. Did you read the stuff he wrote about the Doppler effect? He thinks it indicates an object's total velocity, not just the approaching/receding velocity.

 

[Loss Leader]

I'm going to stop doing math if nobody appreciates it.

 

[matt.tansy]

I'm going to stop doing math if nobody appreciates it.

Stick with law. We'll do the math.

 

[nomuse]

I'm going to apologize for following Patrick down the rabbit hole again. As interesting as the question is, whether you can recognize constellations under a number of different viewing conditions (um...yes!) has little to do with whether you can line up your target star in a system like Apollo.

Assume worst case. Assume a bad drift and uncertainty about the amount and direction; enough that you are unsure which star within the viewing circle will be yours. Well...it will be the brighter, isolated star, with the neighbors you are used to seeing; a visual binary at 2:00, a lone orange star at 7:00, a triangle of bright stars near the edge of the viewable area.

The way Patrick describes it, you'd think you'd either have to measure the visual magnitude, or take a spectrogram.

 

[matt.tansy]

An old primer on space navigation. This is part 1 of 2.

 

[R.A.F.]

I'm going to stop doing math if nobody appreciates it.

I appreciate it.

 

[Obviousman]

I'm sorry, but has anyone pointed out that some aircraft like the SR-71 used a star tracker to update their inertial guidance platforms?

By the way, is Patrick qualified in astronavigation?

Hands up those qualified in astronavigation.

(Raises hand)

 

[haibut]

I'm going to stop doing math if nobody appreciates it.

I was enjoying it

 

[matt.tansy]

P.S. Part 2 shows how the Apollo scanning telescope was used in conjunction with the sextant. If you rotated the scanning telescope reticle the sextant also rotated.

Video link starts at the relevant time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=7__r0pCd_Po#t=317s

 

[Patrick1000]

Of course we have been over that .......

I'm sorry, but has anyone pointed out that some aircraft like the SR-71 used a star tracker to update their inertial guidance platforms?

By the way, is Patrick qualified in astronavigation?

Hands up those qualified in astronavigation.

(Raises hand)

Of course we have been over that in some detail, though I'll be covering the SR system in greater detail in future posts Obviousman, as there is so much more to say.

By the way, the modern small computer was not born of Apollo, it was a child of the American ICBM/SLBM programs. The first small sophisticated digital computers were built for and installed in ICBMs and SLBMs.

Actually, the first functional missile equipped with star-inertial guidance was a Russian missile that was deployed in 1973.

The US did not deploy such a missile(functional star-inertailly guided bird) until 6 years later I believe.

Flying an SR-71 is not flying an Apollo my friend. Star-inertial guidance it would seem, at least for rockets was not a mature technology until well post Apollo.

I saw an SR-71 at the US Air Force museum in Dayton last year by the way. Off topic Obviousman a bit, but do you know what impressed me the most at that museum? The size of a B-52. UNBELIEVABLE. I HAD NO NO NO IDEA. VERY COOL.

Anyway, the SR-71 point is a great one. I actually began reading on that in April when I first got into this and again, will have much more to say about its relevance.

again, GREAT POINT!!!!!

 

[JayUtah]

I'm going to stop doing math if nobody appreciates it.

Aw, if you did that then I'd have to vow to stop misusing legal terms.

 

[theprestige]

I'm sorry, but has anyone pointed out that some aircraft like the SR-71 used a star tracker to update their inertial guidance platforms?

By the way, is Patrick qualified in astronavigation?

Hands up those qualified in astronavigation.

(Raises hand)

I think Patrick brought it up originally, and then Jay considered it at length and in detail. He examined similarities and differences between the Apollo and Blackbird systems, and reviewed the implications for Patrick's theory (spoiler: not good).

This would be several pages back by now; I apologize for not digging up the posts themselves.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I'm sorry, but has anyone pointed out that some aircraft like the SR-71 used a star tracker to update their inertial guidance platforms?

Yes. A quick search reminds me Frenat did so a couple of times (#2569, #4664) and Multivac pointed out that the system is described by Michael Collins in a book which Patrick claims to have read (#4669).

Patrick even joined in with his wall of text on the topic (#4737) which Jay helpfully corrected (#4755, #4758 etc).

 

[Garrison]

Of course we have been over that in some detail, though I'll be covering the SR system in greater detail in future posts Obviousman, as there is so much more to say.

By the way, the modern small computer was not born of Apollo, it was a child of the American ICBM/SLBM programs. The first small sophisticated digital computers were built for and installed in ICBMs and SLBMs.

Actually, the first functional missile equipped with star-inertial guidance was a Russian missile that was deployed in 1973.

The US did not deploy such a missile(functional star-inertailly guided bird) until 6 years later I believe.

Flying an SR-71 is not flying an Apollo my friend. Star-inertial guidance it would seem, at least for rockets was not a mature technology until well post Apollo.

I saw an SR-71 at the US Air Force museum in Dayton last year by the way. Off topic Obviousman a bit, but do you know what impressed me the most at that museum? The size of a B-52. UNBELIEVABLE. I HAD NO NO NO IDEA. VERY COOL.

Anyway, the SR-71 point is a great one. I actually began reading on that in April when I first got into this and again, will have much more to say about its relevance.

again, GREAT POINT!!!!!

Three points here:

1) Again you quote a post and ignore a pertinent question, this case:

By the way, is Patrick qualified in astronavigation?

2) You again try to pretend the post was somehow intended to support you when it did the opposite.

3)You still haven't explained how NASA got all those moon rocks and core samples if there was no manned Apollo, and by explained I mean offered evidence, not simply wildly speculated.

 

[JayUtah]

Of course we have been over that in some detail...

No, I went over it in some detail. You simply tried to argue, on the basis of the ANS experience, that the Apollo guidance system would need to constantly update its position via stellar fixes, otherwise it would be completely useless. Once I showed everyone how egregiously you cherry-picked your source, you dropped the subject.

...though I'll be covering the SR system in greater detail in future posts Obviousman, as there is so much more to say.

Your walls of text lead few to conclude that you don't have much to say. The problem is that what you say doesn't bear any resemblance to reality or adult discourse. You still haven't figured out that the topics you're just now starting to explore are what some of us do for a living, and have done for decades. Yet for some strange reason you still believe that your stumbling forays into these topics have already proven that the Apollo missions were fake, and that after four decades you alone possess the necessary "common sense" to reveal this to the world.

By the way, the modern small computer was not born of Apollo, it was a child of the American ICBM/SLBM programs.

Yes, we told you this ages ago. Here you go again, regurgitating information we presented in rebuttal as if you are now trying to play teacher.

The Draper lab produced all those early guidance systems. That's why, when it came to deciding who was going to produce Apollo technology, the guidance system was single-sourced to MIT much to IBM's chagrin. There simply was no question that Charles Draper's team at MIT would design and build the guidance system. And these are the same people you told us earlier wouldn't possibly know what they were doing -- just little trained monkeys doing exactly what NASA told them to do.

Flying an SR-71 is not flying an Apollo my friend.

Again, we told you this when you first brought up the ANS. You were trying desperately to argue that the requirements and limitations of the SR-71's system should also hold for Apollo. How amusing now to see you flip-flop on that point.

Star-inertial guidance it would seem, at least for rockets was not a mature technology until well post Apollo.

You're not qualified to make that judgment.

I saw an SR-71 at the US Air Force museum in Dayton last year by the way. [...] The size of a B-52. UNBELIEVABLE. I HAD NO NO NO IDEA. VERY COOL.

Thanks, I think it's very cute that you admire in museums the technology I've worked on as an engineer. I've seen skeletons in a museum. Does that make me a doctor?

Anyway, the SR-71 point is a great one.

Yes, it is. Too bad you're following a predictable conspiracy-theorist pattern in addressing it: When backed into a corner, you change the subject. Then weeks later after everyone has forgotten what your specific claims were, you revisit the topic and regurgitate your critics' statements as if they were your own profound wisdom. It affords you the tactic of conceding the point without having to admit to it. It's very, very dishonest.

And why did you ignore the question about your qualifications in astronavigation? I'll underscore it: I want to know exactly what your professional qualifications are in this type of navigation. And I asked you weeks ago, when you stumbled through this topic the first time, to disclose whether you have ever operated an INS-guided vehicle before. Now that you've brought this subject around again, please answer that too.

 

[Patrick1000]

I forgot to mention here that in addition to the ICBMs/SLBMs....

Of course we have been over that in some detail, though I'll be covering the SR system in greater detail in future posts Obviousman, as there is so much more to say.

By the way, the modern small computer was not born of Apollo, it was a child of the American ICBM/SLBM programs. The first small sophisticated digital computers were built for and installed in ICBMs and SLBMs.

Actually, the first functional missile equipped with star-inertial guidance was a Russian missile that was deployed in 1973.

The US did not deploy such a missile(functional star-inertailly guided bird) until 6 years later I believe.

Flying an SR-71 is not flying an Apollo my friend. Star-inertial guidance it would seem, at least for rockets was not a mature technology until well post Apollo.

I saw an SR-71 at the US Air Force museum in Dayton last year by the way. Off topic Obviousman a bit, but do you know what impressed me the most at that museum? The size of a B-52. UNBELIEVABLE. I HAD NO NO NO IDEA. VERY COOL.

Anyway, the SR-71 point is a great one. I actually began reading on that in April when I first got into this and again, will have much more to say about its relevance.

again, GREAT POINT!!!!!

I forgot to mention here that in addition to the ICBMs/SLBMs, the first SSBNs(nuclear ballistic missile subs) of the George Washington vintage(1960) had small computers as components of their inertial guidance systems.

One of the things that came out of the NASA Apollo fantasy was that the Apollo Guidance Computer was this OH WOW MAN THIS COMPUTER IS SO SMALL SMALL SMALL PHYSICALLY AND SO OVER THE TOP NEW AND INNOVATIVE AND CAPABLE jive. They want us to buy into this nothing that Apollo was synonymous with the development of the modern small computer so that their are no associated military connotations connected to the development of the small modern computer. Of course that is bull.

The 41 For Freedom, the first and perhaps greatest American Nuclear Ballistic Missile Fleet was built 1958 to 1965 and included boats of the George Washington, Ethan Allen, Lafayette, James Madison, and Benjamin Franklin classes. The boats all packed Draper inertial guidance units, three on each ship to be exact, thus improving guidance. COMPUTERS of course were/are needed in such boats to read and implement the inertial system's data..


Stellar-Inertial Guidance of the sophisticated uni-star type employed in the more sophisticated Trident Missiles(much later development, these missiles were produced well after the 1960s) required that a large computerized star chart/map be maintained inside of the boat so as a so called "near-optimum" star always would be available to the missile guidance system for sighting after launch. The Soviets employed a system in which 2/multiple stars were sighted. The first Soviet star sighter was deployed in 1973 and the first American in 1979, long after the fraudulent Apollo missions.

Were an Apollo space ship to be actually able to FIND THE MOON, such a comprehensive computerized star chart would of course be a requisite. Not only that, the computer would have to be programmed to understand what stars could and could not be seen under any given set of circumstances as star visibility would change greatly depending on whether a genuine Apollo ship was in earth orbit, cislunar space or lunar orbit and what the ship's attitude was in relation to the sunlight and earthlight.

We probably have the sophistication to create such a chart now, though unmanned flights would be necessary for condition assessment and so forth. At the time of the Apollo missions, Draper's gadget couldn't have guided an Apollo capsule around the block let alone around the moon. The Apollo Guidance Computer needed something akin to a space ship version of the computerized star chart they pack in the then and present day Trident Missile carrying subs. Amazing is it not?, the truth about this? Apollo was a full decade prior to the creation of the first such GENUINE computerized star chart for use in a submarine. The Apollo ships of course did not have adequate star identification capabilities, nor were the Apollo astronauts capable of dealing with this stuff, handling sophisticated star sighting duties. Have you ever read Charlie Duke's book? It is so FUNNY! He couldn't find the Big Dipper even if you gave him all night on the top of Mauna Kea on the clearest night in the history of the planet.. He is so DENSE!!!!! that one is, BOY IS HE EVER......

I have been reading extensively on this subject and for the most part will use MacKenzie's INVENTING ACCURACY and Refuto's EVOLUTION OF US SEA-BASED NUCLEAR MISSILE DETERRENT: WARFIGHTING CAPABILITIES.

I'd recommend both books. Much is in the public domain despite the sensitive nature of the subject.

 

[R.A.F.]

Patrick, what evidence would it take to convince you that you are wrong?

Stop dodging the question...

 

[JayUtah]

One of the things that came out of the NASA Apollo fantasy was that the Apollo Guidance Computer was this OH WOW MAN THIS COMPUTER IS SO SMALL SMALL SMALL PHYSICALLY AND SO OVER THE TOP NEW AND INNOVATIVE AND CAPABLE jive.

Please give a reference for this claim. Are you now going to claim to be a computer expert?

Of course that is bull.

Nonsense. Small computers such as the PDP-11 were in the commercial market at the beginning of the Apollo operational period. and these were clearly superior architectures in the same rough volume and mass footprints. By the end of the operational Apollo period hobby computers such as the Altair were widely available in the same footprint.

Given the ability of the dedicated hobbyist to work with computers of comparable capability continuously from 1975 to the present, and the sheer volume of information on the Apollo guidance computer, the notion that the Apollo computer-controlled guidance system wouldn't have worked is frankly one of the most ignorant beliefs that can persist. It is one of the "high technology" pieces of Apollo that is thoroughly accessible to anyone today with even very modest means and understanding.

The boats all packed Draper inertial guidance units, three on each ship to be exact...

And each Apollo module had two such units.

...COMPUTERS of course were/are needed in such boats to read and implement the inertial system's data.

Yes, I recently helped restore and refurbish one of those computers for educational use. So when the Draper lab builds a computer for an ICBM guidance system you say how wonderful it is. When the same lab builds a similar computer for Apollo, you call it fraud. The difference, obviously, is that you're predisposed to reject Apollo -- it's a knee jerk for you, not a carefully considered conclusion.

Were an Apollo space ship to be actually able to FIND THE MOON, such a comprehensive computerized star chart would of course be a requisite.

A catalogue of more than 30 such stars was provided.

Not only that, the computer would have to be programmed to understand what stars could and could not be seen under any given set of circumstances...

No. You're the only one who believes that stars suddenly become unfindable. There is no need to burden a computer with your disbelief.

...as star visibility would change greatly depending on whether a genuine Apollo ship was in earth orbit, cislunar space or lunar orbit

Not in the way you think. Further, while in orbit the AGC/LGC could use landmarks.

...and what the ship's attitude was in relation to the sunlight and earthlight.

That effect was accounted for in the Apollo star references. Further, you have consistently failed to consider the effects of a restricted field of view on the visibility of stars through the sextant.

We probably have the sophistication to create such a chart now...

You're not qualified to judge the capability of the relevant industries.

...though unmanned flights would be necessary for condition assessment and so forth.

You have absolutely no clue how extensively astronavigation is used today in unmanned spaceflight, do you?

At the time of the Apollo missions, Draper's gadget couldn't have guided an Apollo capsule around the block let alone around the moon.

You aren't qualified to make that judgment. All the experts unanimously disagree with you, and you have proven that they are much smarter than you.

...nor were the Apollo astronauts capable of dealing with this stuff, handling sophisticated star sighting duties.

You're the only one who has proven incapable of understanding stellar navigation. Draper himself trained the Apollo astronauts and vouched for their skill, despite self-effacing memoir incidents to the contrary. And your sources consider Draper the leading authority on the subject. Therefore once again your sources thoroughly disagree with you.

 

[JayUtah]

I have been reading extensively on this subject and for the most part will use MacKenzie's INVENTING ACCURACY and Refuto's EVOLUTION OF US SEA-BASED NUCLEAR MISSILE DETERRENT: WARFIGHTING CAPABILITIES.

Do you mean the few excerpts you can read on Google Books? Why is it that you quote only from books you can get on Google Books, and only from those parts that Google Books decides to give you? You've already been bitten at least twice by failing to consider the parts of those works you couldn't click on for free.

You seem to be trying to impress us with all the materials you're allegedly devouring on this topic, but what it appears you're doing is Googling for ammunition without really attempting to understand. Your understanding seems more fueled by that which you can access quickly and cheaply, and less by what is considered authoritative and comprehensive.

I'd recommend both books.

Why especially do you recommend McKenzie? He's a sociology professor who seems to write on nuclear weapons only from the point of view of advocating pacifism. Do the engineers and operators of this technology consider him an authority? How do you deal with the fact that MacKenzie is on record stating his belief that Apollo was real?

Why especially do you recommend Refuto? His training is in business management and international relations. His c.v. lists only IT project management experience. The book you so highly recommend is self-published and therefore not professionally edited or peer reviewed.

On the other hand, you have direct access to a number of people who work actively in this field and who are trying to instruct you. Why do you so actively resist their point of view?

Much is in the public domain despite the sensitive nature of the subject.

Then it must not be that sensitive. Sorry, no cloak and dagger here.

But consider that your sources -- clearly outsiders to the technology world in which these systems arose -- are merely glossing. From Jane's to Aviation Week, there are many public sources of general knowledge on aerospace technology. One can assemble that into 300 pages or so of aggregated text without delving into any technical details or displaying much if any technical understanding.

Now consider that these convenience sources are being interpreted by someone with a long track history of selective quotation and misinterpretation. Do you really think what you've proposed here is a recipe for success?