An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
Calculation :
The difference between actual attitude and desired attitude [ degrees ] generates a given gimball vector required to correct the yaw
This is – a quite simple if X , then Y calculation
Outputs :
New gimbal angle [ actuators ]
New thrust [ throttle positions ]

What a gross mistake.

If you are piloting an airplane, you must only control: 1 - pitch, 2 - roll, 3 - yaw.

But a piece of metal thrusted from the bottom (LEM) is not an airplane.
For this reason, if you are piloting a piece of metal, you must control infinite pitches, infinite rolls, infinite yaws.
You should have infinite gyros and infinite powerful computers able to control these infinite attitudes.

LEM was controlled by a ridiculous computer of 2k RAM and you are saying it was o.k.

YOU ARE MORE AND MORE RIDICULOUS THAN LEM.

[edit on 1-4-2007 by bigbrain]


Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 1-4-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

That's where YOU are wrong. Do you even KNOW what pitch, roll, and yaw are, or are you just repeating terms? In a vertical decent you only use TWO control axis, not all three. Pitch is nose up and down. Roll is wings up and down. Yaw is nose from side to side. All yaw would do is rotate the LEM in a circle and wouldn't do anything from a control perspective.

You don't understand anything about aerodinamics.

The airplane goes forward and not backwards.
The airplane has a normal horizontal attitude.
The airplane has wings in a normal horizontal attitude.

A piece of metal can go in all directions, then it has infinite pitch attitudes, infinite roll attitudes and infinite yaw attitudes.

If a piece of metal thrusted from the bottom wants to land going backwards, it will fall off in infinite directions at 360 degrees.

You could control it with infinite gyros and powerful computers able to send right corrections to keep that piece of metal vertical but this is impossible even today.

Rockets are difficult to drive also when they go farward. In fact no probe has arrived on Mars, no probe has arrived on Saturn, no probe has hit a comet.

It is impossible to control them if you try to make them going backwards.


[edit on 1-4-2007 by bigbrain]

Im with chakotay! I also agree our technology is more than capable, however there must be other agendas at work here. DISINFORMATION.

bigbrain, if you're talking about a plane in level flight, then YES, you have all three forces in effect. If you're talking about a craft in VERTICAL flight then you only have TWO forces in effect. ANY flying craft is going to have at least pitch and yaw for control, and most have roll as well. It doesn't matter if it's a plane in level flight or a LEM landing on the moon. It's the same principle.

And rockets are NOT hard to control going forward. They've been flying rockets and hitting targets since the 1940s. The German V1 and V2 program was essentially a rocket, and shortly after that they developed ICBMs. Or is that a lie too? Because an ICBM would need a decent computer system too to be able to fly halfway around the world and hit a certain point without anyone steering it.

[edit on 4/1/2007 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
bigbrain, if you're talking about a plane in level flight, then YES, you have all three forces in effect. If you're talking about a craft in VERTICAL flight then you only have TWO forces in effect...

What a gross mistake.

Read carefully these articles:
www.horizonhobby.com...

Then learn to fly and pilot a real plane making torque roll.

It would be easy, "then you only have TWO forces in effect"

After a little time you could make torque roll with a plane thrusted from the bottom.

Nobody can do it, but "you only have TWO forces in effect"

[edit on 2-4-2007 by bigbrain]

And a torque roll is COMPLETELY different from a simple ROLL. If you're in vertical flight, and you turn the stick like you were trying to do a simple turn, without pulling back, your plane is just going to start to rotate around its axis. However, since you're CLIMBING on the vertical axis, you're just going to spin 360 degrees until you stop it. A torque roll relies on elevators and rudder to perform. A simple aileron turn with no elevator or rudder involvement is going to simply spin you around. You can do the same thing in level flight as well. It's called an aileron roll, or a snap roll. The plane simply snaps around the long axis without much change to the direction of flight.

After a little time you could make torque roll or simply hovering with a plane thrusted from the bottom.

Nobody can do it, but "you only have TWO forces in effect"



[edit on 2-4-2007 by bigbrain]

Now THERE'S an intelligent response. What, run out of things to argue, so you're just going to start spouting nonsense?

Originally posted by Zaphod58
...
However, since you're CLIMBING on the vertical axis, you're just going to spin 360 degrees until you stop it. A torque roll relies on elevators and rudder to perform. A simple aileron turn with no elevator or rudder involvement is going to simply spin you around
...

It's very very difficult for RC pilots to perform torque roll or just hovering.

But you talk like an expert, for you torque roll and hovering are very easy.
You must only control rudder, elevator, ailerons and throttle.

LEM, that ugly piece of metal, was thrusted from the bottom, a plane from the top like helicopters.

RC pilots can perform hovering and torque roll because they are outside the plane.

Take a real aerobatic plane, pilot it seated inside it.
YOU CAN DO IT, YOU ARE AN EXPERT. "THERE ARE ONLY TWO FORCES IN EFFECT".

YOU PROVOKE LAUGHTER, DEAR FRIEND

And you're trying to compare two completely different things, and make it sound like they're the same. They're NOT. I'm talking about simply ROTATING around the axis. That is NOT a torque roll. Obviously you're not going to see a LEM doing a torque roll. You're also COMPLETELY misunderstanding what I'm saying. The third force is still there, you're not removing it completely. It's simply a matter of it not affecting the vehicle as it would in level flight.

To understand completely which forces affect LEM, do this simple thing:
take a coke can and try to keep it vertical on your finger tip.

It will try to fall off in all directions at 360 degrees, like LEM thrusted from the bottom.

Nobody, seated inside a piece of metal thrusted from the bottom, could keep it vertical above all when velocity is close to zero.

Don't you understand or are you simulating?

[edit on 3-4-2007 by bigbrain]

And the thrust for LEM was not ONLY coming from the bottom. It had positional jets located all the way around to keep it level, and move it from side to side.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
And the thrust for LEM was not ONLY coming from the bottom. It had positional jets located all the way around to keep it level, and move it from side to side.

Are you talking about these ridiculous damp vaporizers?




NASA buffoons have done another nonsense.
Why do these advices spray also up and down?

What a gross mistake.

Uh, so that you only have to put one control thruster for two or even three control inputs? I wouldn't say they made a mistake at all, but did something that makes perfect sense. By having a rocket with two, three, or even four exhaust vents, you can thrust up, down, or sideways while at the same time saving the weight of having to put four separate controllers on the outside of the ship.

Look at this image




NASA buffoons are totally stupid: in this image also helicopter is faked.
MAIN BLADES ARE TOTALLY STILL.

Because it's a PICTURE. In these things called "pictures" things that are moving, are stopped and put onto film.

I guess all these are fake too then?

Originally posted by bigbrain
Look at this image




NASA buffoons are totally stupid: in this image also helicopter is faked.
MAIN BLADES ARE TOTALLY STILL.

Wow... just wow... I really don't know what to say to that except, get a camera and learn how it works! If you take a picture on a bright sunny day with a fast shutter speed, the blades on a helicopter will look still. Just search for pictures of helicopters, you'll find many like that.

Originally posted by bigbrain
To understand completely which forces affect LEM, do this simple thing:
take a coke can and try to keep it vertical on your finger tip.

It will try to fall off in all directions at 360 degrees, like LEM thrusted from the bottom.

That's nothing like what it's like to control the LM. Why would it fall to one of the sides? And like Zaphod58 pointed out, there are thrusters near the top to change its rotation.

NASA buffoons have done another nonsense.
Why do these advices spray also up and down?

Hmmm maybe when they need to dock and undock from the Command module? I guess you didn't think of that eh? Well it's good that those silly "buffoons" at NASA did.

Face it "bigbrain", you lack a proper understanding on this subject and I suggest you take some time and learn how it works. Ask yourself this. If there were something wrong with the design, why has no other engineer or scientist from anywhere else in the world pointed it out? Why are you the only one here who seems to have an issue with the LM, but no one else? Perhaps (and you are) in error.

Originally posted by jra
...
If there were something wrong with the design, why has no other engineer or scientist from anywhere else in the world pointed it out? Why are you the only one here who seems to have an issue with the LM, but no one else? Perhaps (and you are) in error.
...

After the strange collapse of Twin Towers no engineer or scientist anywhere else in the world pointed out that two powerful skyscrapers could not collapse that way.
Now many people think Twin Towers were demolished with explosives.

30 years after this ridiculous thing



we could see this video made in 1993

video.google.com...

and this video too

video.google.com...

Why are these videos out of focus and inside the fog? they seem faked. Don't you think so?

Look at this image



Have you ever seen a bihorned helicopter?

HA, HA, HA





[edit on 4-4-2007 by bigbrain]

You mean like this one?









HH-43B Husky:

The "Huskie" was used primarily for crash rescue and aircraft fire-fighting. It was in use with the U.S. Navy when delivery of the H-43As to the USAF Tactical Air Command began in November 1958. Delivery of the -B series began in June 1959. In mid-1962, the USAF changed the H-43 designation to HH-43 to reflect the aircraft's rescue role. The final USAF version was the HH-43F with engine modifications for improved performance.

www.patioculture.net...

And oh look! It even flew in the 1960s when they were testing the Apollo ships.