Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[Patrick1000]

matt recommended the movie, the one I allegedly plagiarized.....

So that error of using metres instead of feet compounded your previous errors of using 15 tons when you should have used 7 and using earth gravity where you should have used lunar? But still "for the most part correct"? You're plainly a believer in generous approximation.

Also, if your "spelling everything out for me" involves your recommending a movie for me to watch to see if I can glean your intended meaning, maybe we'd better drop that approach.

matt recommended the movie, the one I allegedly plagiarized.....

OPERATION LUNE by William Karel, check it out, very good.....

 

[Patrick1000]

OK, this is very surprising Gene Kranz has made my provisional list of fraud insiders

I had for the most part thought Kranz was clean, but now I know almost certainly otherwise.

I was watching NASA A RETROSPECTIVE disc 3, the part on Apollo 13. This is all NASA's own material. 7 minutes and 20 seconds or so into the Apollo 13 section, Kranz says even though there is a problem with the Apollo 13 command module, they have the LM and they can count on the lander to get the astronauts most of the rest of the way home.

This is BEFORE any formal decision is made to move the astronauts into the LM, BEFORE any technical assessment has been made with respect to the LM's capabilities.

So here in this regard, we have Gene Kranz, absolutely unqualified to make any determination about such matters, cluing us in on the "script" as it will play out well before the alleged problem for the alleged cislunar ship has even been assessed.

Kranz knows the script BEFORE!!!! the play. He is more likely than not, an Apollo Program Fraud insider. I will add him to my ever growing list of perps. Counting all of the astronauts, I must have 40 or maybe even 50 perps by now. I'll make a new list soon and post it.

 

[Loss Leader]

So here in this regard, we have Gene Kranz, absolutely unqualified to make any determination about such matters,

Exactly what do you think the job of a Flight Director is?

 

[Patrick1000]

The AOT Cannot Sight Stars In Cislunar Space Proves Apollo Inauthenticity..

During the "Apollo 13 Mission", the astronauts get into the LM Aquarius and are alleged to have used its guidance system to help get them home. As such, they would have had to have had to align its inertial platform using the AOT. This cannot be done in cislunar space. How is it that they could sight the stars as needed and align the platform? The Aquarius was not set up for that....... One may conclude the Apollo 13 Mission to be 10 plus bogus! Make that 13 plus bogus!!!!

 

[Patrick1000]

Its not to make any kind of determination as to how well the Lander can navigate....

Exactly what do you think the job of a Flight Director is?

Its not to make any kind of determination as to how well the Lander can navigate, guide itself through cislunar space. Kranz is full of it and is a perp. I nailed him........

 

[abaddon]

I had for the most part thought Kranz was clean, but now I know almost certainly otherwise.

I was watching NASA A RETROSPECTIVE disc 3, the part on Apollo 13. This is all NASA's own material. 7 minutes and 20 seconds or so into the Apollo 13 section, Kranz says even though there is a problem with the Apollo 13 command module, they have the LM and they can count on the lander to get the astronauts most of the rest of the way home.

This is BEFORE any formal decision is made to move the astronauts into the LM, BEFORE any technical assessment has been made with respect to the LM's capabilities.

So here in this regard, we have Gene Kranz, absolutely unqualified to make any determination about such matters, cluing us in on the "script" as it will play out well before the alleged problem for the alleged cislunar ship has even been assessed.

Kranz knows the script BEFORE!!!! the play. He is more likely than not, an Apollo Program Fraud insider. I will add him to my ever growing list of perps. Counting all of the astronauts, I must have 40 or maybe even 50 perps by now. I'll make a new list soon and post it.

Once again, you have skipped all of the questions asked, and jumped, nay merrily leapt, to a different subject.

Oh, dear.

 

[Loss Leader]

Exactly what do you think the job of a Flight Director is?

Its not to make any kind of determination as to how well the Lander can navigate, guide itself through cislunar space.

What evidence do you have for your belief that this is not the job of a Flight Director?

 

[SUSpilot]

I had for the most part thought Kranz was clean, but now I know almost certainly otherwise.

I was watching NASA A RETROSPECTIVE disc 3, the part on Apollo 13. This is all NASA's own material. 7 minutes and 20 seconds or so into the Apollo 13 section, Kranz says even though there is a problem with the Apollo 13 command module, they have the LM and they can count on the lander to get the astronauts most of the rest of the way home.

This is BEFORE any formal decision is made to move the astronauts into the LM, BEFORE any technical assessment has been made with respect to the LM's capabilities.

So here in this regard, we have Gene Kranz, absolutely unqualified to make any determination about such matters, cluing us in on the "script" as it will play out well before the alleged problem for the alleged cislunar ship has even been assessed.

Kranz knows the script BEFORE!!!! the play. He is more likely than not, an Apollo Program Fraud insider. I will add him to my ever growing list of perps. Counting all of the astronauts, I must have 40 or maybe even 50 perps by now. I'll make a new list soon and post it.

So, the fall back position is to do nothing and squander time and resources?

In addition to the fact that I have no respect for your "expertise" in the various fields where you claim such (you never did answer me in two different threads as to the difference between turning a bicycle and an aircraft), I'd pay good money to see you confront Gene Kranz directly with this gem. I've met him, and I don't think you'd come out well.

 

[SpitfireIX]

This is BEFORE any formal decision is made to move the astronauts into the LM

How is stating that an action is possible before a decision is made to take that action suspicious?

BEFORE any technical assessment has been made with respect to the LM's capabilities.

Why do you assume that this hadn't been done beforehand?

So here in this regard, we have Gene Kranz, absolutely unqualified to make any determination about such matters . . .

Stundie.

 

[SUSpilot]

During the "Apollo 13 Mission", the astronauts get into the LM Aquarius and are alleged to have used its guidance system to help get them home. As such, they would have had to have had to align its inertial platform using the AOT. This cannot be done in cislunar space. How is it that they could sight the stars as needed and align the platform? The Aquarius was not set up for that....... One may conclude the Apollo 13 Mission to be 10 plus bogus! Make that 13 plus bogus!!!!

Nope.

I don't have the source handy, but there was a way to convert the numbers present in the AGCS and enter them into the same computer in the LM.

I do believe that I've seen this in multiple sources, the latest being Digital Apollo.

 

[JayUtah]

Its not to make any kind of determination as to how well the Lander can navigate, guide itself through cislunar space. Kranz is full of it and is a perp. I nailed him........

False. The job of a flight director at NASA is to make any decision and take any action he deems proper for the safety of the crew and the success of the mission. That is the actual job description.

In other words, the flight director is the closest thing there is to an absolute monarch.

 

[JayUtah]

During the "Apollo 13 Mission", the astronauts get into the LM Aquarius and are alleged to have used its guidance system to help get them home. As such, they would have had to have had to align its inertial platform using the AOT.

No, that is not the proper procedure in this case. The alignment was performed using the REFSMMAT transfer procedure, which is just as well documented as the AOT optical alignment procedure.

One may conclude the Apollo 13 Mission to be 10 plus bogus! Make that 13 plus bogus!!!!

No, one may conclude (if he hasn't already) that you really know very little about the Apollo missions and how to fly a spaceship.

You were asked how many INS-guided vehicles you have personally operated. Why do you continue ignoring that question?

 

[Patrick1000]

He is a perp Suspilot. Live with it. Kranz would not last an hour in a debate over this issue. He is now officially busted. He is actually one of the better actors I would say. I would never have guessed until stumbling across such hard evidence.

 

[Patrick1000]

You are most decidedly incorrect Jay.......

No, that is not the proper procedure in this case. The alignment was performed using the REFSMMAT transfer procedure, which is just as well documented as the AOT optical alignment procedure.



No, one may conclude (if he hasn't already) that you really know very little about the Apollo missions and how to fly a spaceship.

You were asked how many INS-guided vehicles you have personally operated. Why do you continue ignoring that question?

You are most decidedly incorrect Jay.......Regardless as to how the Aquarius' IMU was alleged to have been initially aligned, whether by way of REFSMMAT transfer, divine intervention, FIAT SCRIPT, or otherwise, once the platform was initially aligned, the Command Module was powered down and from that time on, until the power was kicked back on, the Aquarius guided the ship.

'Now you can argue all you like that the ground did the guiding, but the Aquarius IMU had to be aligned by its own AOT. After the initial transfer of data from the CM to Aquarius, there was no opportunity for IMU realignment by way of transfer.

At the time the astronauts were initially alleged to have climbed into the Aquarius, they still had a long way to go to get back home and the IMU would of course drift, drift the whole way "back to earth".

As such, with a powered down CM and no way to directly realign the Aquarius IMU, the platform would have drifted and the astronauts would never have made it back to earth. As they did make it back to earth, we may conclude with absolute unmitigated metaphysical certitude that the Apollo 13 Mission was fraudulent.

So the Borman illness invalidates all Apollo, but I have also uncovered "isolated issues" with Apollo 11 (Lost Bird), Apollo 12 (Impotent Lightning), Apollo 13 ( Blind Aquarius) that reenforce and confirm all the more the fraudulence of these ever so bogus missions.

Shall we move on to number 14? I already have begun to bust Duke's chops with regard to his bogus lines about navigating pretend ship # 16.

 

[sts60]

If memory serves, the crushable aluminum honeycomb cartridges in the landing struts were good for about 10 fps, but that assumes a flat, four-point touchdown.

Yes, according to NASA TN D-6850, Apollo Experience Report – Lunar Module Landing Gear Subsystem.

Up to 7 ft/s vertical descent rate, the gear was rated for a 4 ft/s horizontal component. This diminshed up to the maximum rated vertical rate of 10 ft/s. There were other constraints on the evenness of the terrain.

For a maximum vertical rate of v = 10 ft/s, v = at gives
t = (10ft/s)/(32ft/s² / 6) = 1.9 s of free drop (from a hover), so s = 1/2 at² gives
s = 1/2 (32 ft/s² / 6)(1.9s)² = roughly a 10 ft drop in lunar gravity, again assuming the vehicle started from a hover.

The LM landing gear design included a 1.35 ultimate factor of safety. Note that a ground strike of the DPS skirt was considered tolerable.

 

[matt.tansy]

During the "Apollo 13 Mission", the astronauts get into the LM Aquarius and are alleged to have used its guidance system to help get them home. As such, they would have had to have had to align its inertial platform using the AOT.

The AOT was used to align the LM's IMUs before landing, after landing (using the local vertical instead of a second star), after liftoff, and during the rendezvous procedure. The clever way of avoiding the complexity of the CSM sextant the developers came up for making an optical system for the LM is explained here: Alignment Optical Telescope (AOT)

The LM guidance system could be aligned manually using the CSM guidance system. This was how the LM PGNCS was aligned before undocking. The coordinate conversion method is described here: Apollo 10 Flight Journal - Day 4 part 16: Rest and Preparation for Solo Ops.

Search for text "095:00:03".

This cannot be done in cislunar space.

Citation needed.

How is it that they could sight the stars as needed and align the platform?

By using the procedures and equipment made for Apollo.

The Aquarius was not set up for that.......

Reams of documentation freely available to the public proves that claim is wrong.

One may conclude the Apollo 13 Mission to be 10 plus bogus

One may, but one would be an idiot to make that claim based on the false evidence you have presented.

 

[nomuse]

Its not to make any kind of determination as to how well the Lander can navigate, guide itself through cislunar space. Kranz is full of it and is a perp. I nailed him........

If I might jump in: it was a known emergency scenario (called the "Lifeboat" scenario.) Gene knew about it just as he knew about the "fire in the hole" scenario for a near-surface abort using the ascent engine while the lander components were still coupled. It is exactly his business to know about some of the options available for emergencies.

 

[R.A.F.]

...Kranz says even though there is a problem with the Apollo 13 command module, they have the LM and they can count on the lander to get the astronauts most of the rest of the way home.

This is BEFORE any formal decision is made to move the astronauts into the LM...

Yes, that is true..

...BEFORE any technical assessment has been made with respect to the LM's capabilities.

Prove it...prove that there was not any "LM lifeboat assessment" made before the flight or withdraw that claim.

 

[Spindrift]

@Patrick1000: Thanks for this. It explains why Rockwell never paid the Grumman towing fee of $312K. There was no towing.

 

[JayUtah]

At the time the astronauts were initially alleged to have climbed into the Aquarius, they still had a long way to go to get back home and the IMU would of course drift, drift the whole way "back to earth".

After the PC+2 burn, the LM computer and IMU were shut down. Sir Isaac Newton guided the stack back to Earth. That is one of the most commonly known facts about the Apollo 13 mission, necessitating that the corridor-control burn later be done with manual control, leading to a well-documented seat-of-the-pants trick that has been a swapped story for decades among professional navigators.

This is what you couldn't figure out about the difference between Apollo inertial guidance and all those irrelevant examples you cited.

Shall we move on to number 14?

You don't seem to be letting the facts slow you down any, so tick whatever counter makes you happy.