It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

page: 96
377
<< 93  94  95    97  98  99 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
And fine, I dont care you if you think the dirt only went sideways. Where in the pictures is there proof of that!?
You keep making these claims of science but you cant even show it having happened.
So where can I OBSERVE your claims?

You are the one that is trying to debunk the moon landings by saying the dust particles should have started to billow upwards in a vaccuum and on to the pads. Why don't YOU show us where we can observe this magical phenomenon? There have already been pretty good explanations in this topic about how particles behave in a vaccuum and why your claims are false.

You can't just point at something, scream "Impossible!!" and leave it at that. The burden of proof extends to you, too. Not just to your opponents.

Why should the particles start to billow upwards in a vaccuum and where can we observe this?




posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Here:




posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by FoosM
Another point is, in order for the regolith to even travel it would have to elevate above the ground. If it didnt, if it rolled across the ground, we should have seen radiating lines emanating from below the LM. Where is there evidence of soil displacement and build up in the photographic record or in the videos?



no soil disturbance.


I just love how you used the worst photo you could find. Do you seriously expect to see anything in a 396 × 473 image taken ~5m away from the LM? You could at the very least, pretend to put a bit of effort in your image searches.

But then you might have stumbled across images like this, that show that the regolith was blown out radially from under the LM. And we all know you don't want that.


AS11-40-5858
AS11-40-5920
AS11-40-5921

Here is a link to the 16mm DAC footage of Apollo 11 LM landing, for anyone who hasn't seen it.

vimeo.com...



Those images you posted simply support those who believe Apollo was a sham.
I dont see a crater, or displacement of regolith. Where is the build up? Where are the tracks from rocks being rolled or jettisoned from below the LM?

What you are have there looks like somebody took a broom and swept away footprints from the production crew.





Have you forgot the LM descent IS not vertical there was also FORWARD MOVEMENT.

If you LOOK at the picture YOU CAN SEE evidence of radial marks


Some facts for you re weight ,mass,thrust, gravity,photography etc so educate yourself a little by looking here.

www.clavius.org...



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by MacAnkka
There are tens of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands, of pages of Apollo-related techincal documentation, tests, predictions and assumptions spanning over a decade worked on by thousands of scientists and engineers.

------
Yes and their predictions, tests and assumptions contradict the so called result

The deadly effects of the VA BELT
The lunar crater that would swallow a craft.
Everthing that was an issue with space travel to the moon suddenly became a non issue based on what? And now the fake landings are being used as proof of evidence?
Thats circular logic.



When a rational person sees a mistake or a contradicion in this huge jumble of data, he would consider a number of possible reasons for this, like maybe the mistake is based on incorrect base data. Or maybe the test was simply flawed? Maybe some new information came to light later? Maybe the guy who wrote it was just flat out wrong?
What does a hoaxer see? Proof of a conspiracy! It's absurd.
-------
No its not. Not when you consider the source of the information, the context of the information, and the reason for its existence.



So, the contractor for the Lunar Excursion Module does some tests in 1965 that seems to indicate the possibility of debris flying everywhere during lunar landing.
-----
Thats right, and what did they base that information on?
Did they not know the moon had no atmosphere?
Did they not know the moon had 1/6th gravity of Earth?
Did they not have any idea how much thrust would be required to land a LM on the moon? Did they not take photos of the moon? Send probes?


Then, in 1969, when the LEM actually lands on the moon, none of that happens.
-----
Allegedly landed.


Which is the more plausible conclusion?
a)The tests were based on bad assumptions, the parameters were off, or something similiar.
b)The moon landing was a hoax.
Considering that they're knowledge of the moon was rather limited in 1965,
----
And in 4 years they knew everything about it?
They knew everything about the surface of the moon, the VA belts, cosmic radiation, micrometorites. Well they better have because they only had 4 years to put in production equipment, simulations and training to go land on the moon. We cant even do that now in 20 years!



it's pretty reasonable to assume that maybe, just maybe, they might have done something wrong back then with their tests. I prefer the conclusion a) and I'd wager a guess that most rational people would, too.
------
Based upon your logic, If they based their equipment, simulations, and training on their tests, then how could anything have gone right?
Being wrong before they left would have ensured death to the astronauts.



Oh look, a document from 1972 ( ntrs.nasa.gov... ) is inconsistent with a document from 1965! Could this be proof of a cover-up? Or is it more likely that between those seven years, they actually learned something new and their old assumptions were proven wrong? I'm betting on the latter.
------
Im betting if they faked the landing, any document thereafter was written to support & cover-up the hoax.




I think it's silly to sat that that group of mistake-prone people with conflicting opinions would be capable of pulling off one of the biggest conspiracies of all time and keeping it secret for all this time
-----
Yet you believe these same people to pull of a moonlanding?

And guess what, many people dont believe we landed on the moon, so they have not kept it secret. There were already suspicions back in the early '70s.

But even if somebody confessed, would you honestly believe them?
I mean, who would have to confess for you to change your mind?



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by lestweforget
Most people discussing this topic fall into one of two catagories, either; Its too hard to fake it or its too hard to make it. Most comments i read whilst interesting didnt convince me either way. The most compelling fact that i have heard is how did they endure 5 mins exposure to the Van Allen radiation belts in those flimsy suits and capsule let alone the estimated 3 hours it would take at their estimated speed? If someone could explain some of it at least i would appreciate it!


Lestweforget, could you explain the term 'flimsy' in this context? Do you know what the materials and thicknesses were? And how much they reduced the radiation? If not, why did you say that? Will you now stick around and watch the radiation explanation with an open mind, and then admit you were wrong, if that is proven? As mentioned, a very important diagram was posted a page or so back (by me) - do you accept that is a correct representation of the VAB's, and have you anything to add in the way of referenced evidence, before I proceed?

Will you apologise if your statements are shown to be wrong, even misleading?


ppk55, when will you be posting those slow motion videos you promised?

And did I see ppk55 accuse another poster of sockpuppeting?
I suggest he report the post... And will he apologise if shown to be wrong?

Has FoosM ever apologised for any of his delib 'errors'?

Anyone noticing any trends amongst apollo deniers?



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by MacAnkka

Originally posted by FoosM
And fine, I dont care you if you think the dirt only went sideways. Where in the pictures is there proof of that!?
You keep making these claims of science but you cant even show it having happened.
So where can I OBSERVE your claims?

You are the one that is trying to debunk the moon landings by saying the dust particles should have started to billow upwards in a vaccuum and on to the pads. Why don't YOU show us where we can observe this magical phenomenon? There have already been pretty good explanations in this topic about how particles behave in a vaccuum and why your claims are false.

You can't just point at something, scream "Impossible!!" and leave it at that. The burden of proof extends to you, too. Not just to your opponents.

Why should the particles start to billow upwards in a vaccuum and where can we observe this?


Where did I say lunar dust should billow?



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM
 


Here:



And this proves what exactly?
That the engine thrust cant roll small rocks away?



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Where did I say lunar dust should billow?

You were arguing that the lunar dust would get on top of the landing pad things, weren't you? I couldn't really think of a better word to use for describing the movement required from the dust to get on top of those pads, so I used the word billow.


The deadly effects of the VA BELT
The lunar crater that would swallow a craft.
Everthing that was an issue with space travel to the moon suddenly became a non issue based on what?

There were a lot of fears and worst-case-cenarios thrown around. Most of them were proven baseless and others were deemed implausible enough.


No its not. Not when you consider the source of the information, the context of the information, and the reason for its existence.

And I'm arguing you really do not understand the context.



Thats right, and what did they base that information on?
Did they not know the moon had no atmosphere?
Did they not know the moon had 1/6th gravity of Earth?
Did they not have any idea how much thrust would be required to land a LM on the moon? Did they not take photos of the moon? Send probes?

They still had NO idea of the composition of the ground in 1965. No idea how fine the top layer was. No idea how deep the top layer was. No idea what was underneath the top layer. The first NASA lander, Surveyor 1, landed in 1966 and the soviet probe that landed before it didin't have any kind of instruments to measure anything useful on the surface.


And in 4 years they knew everything about it?

Ofcourse they didn't know everything about it! But they did know enough to dare to risk it.

They knew everything about the surface of the moon

Nope, but the Surveyors 1-6 gave a decent enough image.

the VA belts, cosmic radiation, micrometorites.

I think the radiation has been covered pretty well in this topic. In any case, they really werent 100% sure. The Apollo 8 was the first to actually test it in action, when they went in to lunar orbit.

Oh, and micrometeoroids were not much of a threat. It wasn't that hard to figure out for them.


Well they better have because they only had 4 years to put in production equipment, simulations and training to go land on the moon.

Now that's just silly. They started the program in 1960 based on their assumptions. When they're assumptions were proven wrong, they adapted on the way. They didn't start all the way from scratch every single time something new came up.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 06:56 PM
link   

We cant even do that now in 20 years!

That's probably the most silliest of all arguments against moon landings.

Getting to the moon isn't that hard in the grand scheme of things.

The biggest problems are financial and the fact that we don't have a launch vehicle to get us to the moon anymore. The huge NASA budget and the ingeniousness of Von Braun gave us the Saturn V rocket, which is still the most powerful launch vehicle EVER.

That thing was a huge moneysink and it was killed when Nixon decided to focus NASA's efforts in to low earth orbit: the space shuttle, in other words (And the only reason for that instead of killing the whole manned space program was that the space shuttle was promised to be jointly operated by USAF to plant and retrieve spy satellites in to polar orbit. Crazy Nixon...)

Without another huge launch vehicle like the Saturn V, getting to the moon is a LOT harder. We've been focusing on LEO for so long. Not to mention the fact that NASA's budget is a small fraction of the one it had in the '60s. It wouldn't be hard to engineer the spacecrafts needed to get to moon, but it would require a ton of money, money that NASA doesn't have.

And don't even try to pull the "let's get the old blueprints and use those!" argument. You'd still have to manufacture those things and many of the parts used then are no longer availabe. The electronics would still have to be created again. And make sure the crafts actually work. It would be cheaper to start all over again.


Based upon your logic, If they based their equipment, simulations, and training on their tests, then how could anything have gone right?
Being wrong before they left would have ensured death to the astronauts.

The only wrong conclusion from that test was that the landing engine might cause debris to be thrown everywhere. That's why they wanted the Apollo missions to cut the engines early. How does that ensure their deaths?

Besides, they did try to create everything as flexible as possible and they did everything in small increments and improved on what they learned.

Apollo 5: does the LEM work in earth orbit?
Apollo 8: can we get to lunar orbit?
Apollo 10: can we use the LEM in lunar orbit?
Apollo 11: can we actually land on the moon?


Yet you believe these same people to pull of a moonlanding?

You still seem to think moon landing is some miraculously impossible thing. I certainly consider it a lot more easier than hoaxing it and keeping it a secret.

Besides. What would you actually need?
-You need a big rocket, like the Saturn V. We had those. You can't deny that unless you are willing to debate the skylab missions were fake, too, among many other things.
-You'd need the command/service module. They were built, unless you are willing to say all of those constructors were in on it, too. And we had them by the 1970's for sure. Unless you are once again willing to debate the reality of the joint russian Apollo-Soyuz mission and skylab missions.
-You need the lunar excursion module. We had those, unless you are willing to say we never built them.

[edit: clarification]
My point is we managed to build a ALL of the stuff needed and the C/SM and Saturn can be proven to have been useful and working outside of the apollo program. We did all that but didn't land?

And there were a lot of idiotic and stupid mistakes. They rushed a lot and it cost 3 lives and they were damn near close losing another three with Apollo 13.


But even if somebody confessed, would you honestly believe them?
I mean, who would have to confess for you to change your mind?

I'd believe any one of the astonauts that (allegedly) went to the moon, any of the astronauts that worked as CAPCOM during the missions and any of the flight directors that worked during the missions. Any of the higher up NASA people of that time.

Anyone else is up to debate.

------
Now I'm off to sleep. It's way past midnight in here already...


[edit on 8-6-2010 by MacAnkka]



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Originally posted by FoosM
And this proves what exactly?


Gee, how many eye rolls does THAT deserve?

Let's take a short trip into recent memory lane:



Originally psoted by FoosM
So how did Aldrin see "dust" from 40 feet in the air. How far along the horizon would that dust have to travel before he could see it from his window?



Errmmm...that's what the video from the DAC shows. Looky, looky. At your nice little graphic there? Good contribution...see the camera? That thing, pointed out the right-hand window...labeled 'sequence camera'?** You DO realize that the Astronauts were standing, and looking right out those triangular windows. Don't you?


The DAC had just about the same view**. Forgot to add...if you listen vewwwy, vewwwy carefully you can hear Aldrin, and the 'shadow' mentioned....lo and behold, and then you can SEE it, too! Imagine that! **Almost like you were standing right next to him.


And fine, I dont care you if you think the dirt only went sideways. Where in the pictures is there proof of that!?


[ibid]


You keep making these claims of science but you cant even show it having happened.
So where can I OBSERVE your claims?


I?? I keep making claims? Oh, that's a good one!
Oh, yes indeed...a real knee-slapper, that is....




[edit on 8 June 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by FoosM
Another point is, in order for the regolith to even travel it would have to elevate above the ground. If it didnt, if it rolled across the ground, we should have seen radiating lines emanating from below the LM. Where is there evidence of soil displacement and build up in the photographic record or in the videos?



no soil disturbance.


I just love how you used the worst photo you could find. Do you seriously expect to see anything in a 396 × 473 image taken ~5m away from the LM? You could at the very least, pretend to put a bit of effort in your image searches.

But then you might have stumbled across images like this, that show that the regolith was blown out radially from under the LM. And we all know you don't want that.


AS11-40-5858
AS11-40-5920
AS11-40-5921

Here is a link to the 16mm DAC footage of Apollo 11 LM landing, for anyone who hasn't seen it.

vimeo.com...



Those images you posted simply support those who believe Apollo was a sham.
I dont see a crater, or displacement of regolith. Where is the build up? Where are the tracks from rocks being rolled or jettisoned from below the LM?

What you are have there looks like somebody took a broom and swept away footprints from the production crew.





Have you forgot the LM descent IS not vertical there was also FORWARD MOVEMENT.

If you LOOK at the picture YOU CAN SEE evidence of radial marks



No you dont,
Where do you see it. Point it out.
I have asked this several times.

what I see are pebbles and stones under the engine nozzle.
No discoloration, no build up dirt.
Just clean ground.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 01:48 AM
link   
Really?? and where's your sources to your clains ?? I'll be waiting for 1 source for each of your claims below..




Originally posted by MacAnkka

Originally posted by FoosM
Where did I say lunar dust should billow?

You were arguing that the lunar dust would get on top of the landing pad things, weren't you? I couldn't really think of a better word to use for describing the movement required from the dust to get on top of those pads, so I used the word billow.


The deadly effects of the VA BELT
The lunar crater that would swallow a craft.
Everthing that was an issue with space travel to the moon suddenly became a non issue based on what?

There were a lot of fears and worst-case-cenarios thrown around. Most of them were proven baseless and others were deemed implausible enough.


No its not. Not when you consider the source of the information, the context of the information, and the reason for its existence.

And I'm arguing you really do not understand the context.



Thats right, and what did they base that information on?
Did they not know the moon had no atmosphere?
Did they not know the moon had 1/6th gravity of Earth?
Did they not have any idea how much thrust would be required to land a LM on the moon? Did they not take photos of the moon? Send probes?

They still had NO idea of the composition of the ground in 1965. No idea how fine the top layer was. No idea how deep the top layer was. No idea what was underneath the top layer. The first NASA lander, Surveyor 1, landed in 1966 and the soviet probe that landed before it didin't have any kind of instruments to measure anything useful on the surface.


And in 4 years they knew everything about it?

Ofcourse they didn't know everything about it! But they did know enough to dare to risk it.

They knew everything about the surface of the moon

Nope, but the Surveyors 1-6 gave a decent enough image.

the VA belts, cosmic radiation, micrometorites.

I think the radiation has been covered pretty well in this topic. In any case, they really werent 100% sure. The Apollo 8 was the first to actually test it in action, when they went in to lunar orbit.

Oh, and micrometeoroids were not much of a threat. It wasn't that hard to figure out for them.


Well they better have because they only had 4 years to put in production equipment, simulations and training to go land on the moon.

Now that's just silly. They started the program in 1960 based on their assumptions. When they're assumptions were proven wrong, they adapted on the way. They didn't start all the way from scratch every single time something new came up.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo
Really?? and where's your sources to your clains ?? I'll be waiting for 1 source for each of your claims below..

Yeah, there were no sources. Sorry about that. It was late and my motivation was low, I was already seriously wondering why I even bother posting anyhting. That glass of whiskey might have affected the writing, too, now that I think of it...

Anyways, sources, sources...


Originally posted by MacAnkka[...]You were arguing that the lunar dust would get on top of the landing pad things, weren't you? [...]

Do you want a dictionary reference for the word billow or what?



[...]Everthing that was an issue with space travel to the moon suddenly became a non issue based on what?

There were a lot of fears and worst-case-cenarios thrown around. Most of them were proven baseless and others were deemed implausible enough.

I'm not going to search the NASA archives for their documents for their final solutions and thoughts to EVERY single one bad case scenario they imagined. I don't care about this topic enough to do that.



[...]

And I'm arguing you really do not understand the context.

What kind of a source do you want for this?



Thats right, and what did they base that information on?
Did they not know the moon had no atmosphere?
[...]

They still had NO idea of the [...]

I'll grant you that they did have some idea, their guesses and estimations. But nothing conclusive.

here's an article about the surveyors:
nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...
The first one landed in 1966

Some info about the russian luna missions:
www.lpi.usra.edu...

Notice that the only one that actually got to the surface before 1965 was Luna 2, which was:
nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...
... nothing more than a controlled crash landing.



And in 4 years they knew everything about it?

[...] they did know enough to dare to risk it.

Every single source relating to the fact that they decided to risk it relates to the Apollo 11 mission, so what's the point of even trying to post a source?


They knew everything about the surface of the moon

Nope, but the Surveyors 1-6 gave a decent enough image.

Are you denying the surveyors gave a decent enough image of moon?



[...] radiation, micrometorites.

I think the radiation has been covered pretty well in this topic.[...]
micrometeoroids were not much of a threat.

These both have been discussed before and I have nothing more to add.


Well they better have because they only had 4 years [...]

[...]They started the program in 1960 based on their assumptions. [...]They didn't start all the way from scratch every single time something new came up.
Here's some nice text for you:

Thus by the end of 1960 NASA had the elements of a comprehensive space program in place.

www.hq.nasa.gov...

The idea started in the late '50s. I'll grant you that the actual apollo program was officially started in 1961.

If you want to give me a reference to the fact that they didn't start from scratch every time something new came up... Well no offence, but isn't that kinda obvious?



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 03:57 AM
link   
Komodo, if you want to be taken seriously here (and I suspect you may not, but whatever) if you DISPUTE a claim it is best for you to actually explain why, RATHER THAN SIMPLY WASTE BANDWIDTH by reposting a pile of text without a single useful comment.

In the spirit of doing just that, allow me to support a couple of MacAnkka's points at random...


And I'm arguing you really do not understand the context.

Komodo, have you not noticed where FoosM has been shown to NOT understand context, and/or deliberately misuse it? Try here. Do you condone such misinformation?


They still had NO idea of the composition of the ground in 1965.

Here are some histories:
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...
Komodo, feel free to point out the missions that were able to determine the composition of the lunar surface before 1965.

May I ask why you would entertain the idea of posting here if you don't even know basic lunar exploration history?



I think the radiation has been covered pretty well in this topic.

Try here, here, here and of course the rest of my analysis, here and here is underway... I note, Komodo, you haven't contributed yet?


The Apollo 8 was the first to actually test it in action, when they went in to lunar orbit.

I'm curious, Komodo - do you dispute that Apollo 8 went into lunar orbit?

Just a yes or no will be fine, but of course you will need to cite proof. Fair is fair, RIGHT? So.... is it now ok for me to go back through your posts, and ask for your cites for everything you have said?

Edit for clarity - my comments are directed at Komodo, but the quotes (that I'm agreeing with and citing references for..) are from MacAnkka.

[edit on 9-6-2010 by CHRLZ]

[edit on 9-6-2010 by CHRLZ]



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 05:17 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


wow.. using that same ol' arguement again eh
Well, you don't take anyone serious reguardless the FACTS they may present .. so .. yea.. Im not really listening to you so.. have a nice day ..



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 05:19 AM
link   
www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...




Some questionable stuff on this site but here is the truth...






posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Where did I say lunar dust should billow?


Erm...

FoosM quoted, then said:


The Lunar Module's descent engine blew out high-velocity lunar particles that strafed the landscape.

You would think some of that would have hit the struts of the landing pads and would have collected in those pads.


To further support his mental picture of the dust, FoosM also quoted this (out of context, as usual):

they have determined the shape of the blowing dust clouds under the LM


And finally, he said:

Aldrin stated he saw dust being picked up some 40 feet in the air (did it billow?).


So no, he never said or implied it billowed, uh-uh, no way, not at all..



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo
reply to post by CHRLZ
 

wow.. using that same ol' arguement again eh
Well, you don't take anyone serious reguardless the FACTS they may present .. so .. yea.. Im not really listening to you so.. have a nice day ..


Master debating there, Komodo. Loosely translates to:

"Lalalalalala, got my fingers in my ears.'

Thank you for your admission that you simply can't provide any sensible debate.

And the radiation information will continue, and your absence will not be noticed... Others are listening.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 06:13 AM
link   
I found another one of Jarrah's videos really interesting.

In part 17 of the Moonfaker Radioactive Anomaly videos ... there's some great interviews.



Here we have retired space shuttle pilot James van Hoften saying "You can put up very thick walls and they won't protect you from that" speaking about cosmic rays, including radiation and solar particles.

He's the one who was on the shuttle when they passed the 500km barrier.

He commented 'What the heck was that?' after seeing what appeared to him as a white laser passing quickly through his eyes.

Even Alan Bean talks about the light flashes in this video. However he says 'not on his mission because they hadn't been discovered yet'


There's also an interview with Buzz Aldrin about this.

Also, the national research council (which seem like a bunch of pretty smart people) sites.nationalacademies.org... say
cosmic rays are so dangerous and so poorly understood that people are unlikely to get to Mars or even the MOON until better ways are found to protect astronauts.

The interviews alone with the astronauts are worth listening to.

edit: spelling + more content

I also found this comment interesting from the reuters article.

Adding more shielding can make spacecraft too heavy and is too expensive, added the report from the council, one of the independent National Academies of Science that advises the federal government.

while researching I found this interesting link as well
www.africaresource.com...

[edit on 9-6-2010 by ppk55]



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 06:53 AM
link   
Some more supporting information that will be the groundwork for the ongoing radiation analysis...

The next thing I propose to do is to look carefully at the path taken by the Apollo missions as they left orbit, and headed for the Moon. Again for expediency, and as the first mission is the most obvious choice for such an analysis, let's point out the facts that are available for Apollo 11. (I'll happily deal with the other missions later.)

The point at which the CSM's engines were fired to take Apollo out of orbit and on to a path to intercept the Moon is known as the TLI - Trans Lunar Injection. As I mentioned before, a great way to look at this, along with the other stages of the journey, may be found here:

www.nasm.si.edu...

May I remind visitors to that page that the poster is from *before* the Apollo missions, so the timings are simple guesstimates for a 'pretend' mission. Oh, and it's obviously NOT to scale, but my diagrams WILL be.

Now, the TLI also placed the CSM into its path through/around the Van Allen Belts. Essentially, it put the CSM onto a very elliptical earth orbit, that would eventually intercept with the Moon and allow it to be 'dropped' into orbit by another small trajectory change. All of this can be calculated mathematically using standard equations and sets of basic trajectory data.

For anyone who wants to plunge into rocket science
there 's a very good explanation of the equations here. They can be verified easily, and the full calculations are a little out of scope for this forum -I'm long-winded enough...


The Apollo trajectory figures are also very well known, and as far as I am aware are not in dispute - indeed, the path of the spacecraft was watched by many keen observers who do this sort of stuff as a hobby, so they have been verified many times.. Just search on "Apollo by the numbers" to see what I mean. I have already posted a link to the TLI data:
history.nasa.gov...
And the complete "Apollo By the Numbers" reference can be found at many locations, eg the original Nasa source (sort-of-) starts here:
history.nasa.gov...

I am happy to hear objections to this data, and the accepted Apollo 11 trajectory after TLI, but you had better have some references to show exactly how it is incorrect, given its extensive historical provenance, telescope observations, etc.

Anyway, how does this allow us to see the path through the Van Allen belts, as the first part of the analysis? I'm glad you asked.

Firstly, we create a table of positional data from the (verifiable) trajectory factors using the equations referred to above. Secondly, because neither the trajectory or the Van Allen belts are perfectly aligned 'vertically', we need to 'tilt' the path to get an accurate side-on 2d view of the 3d situation.

That's why I mentioned the geomagnetic north pole data for 1969 earlier, because we need to use that to tilt the path so we can see the true trajectory relative to the VAB.
Again, it's all verifiable at numerous sources, eg that geomagnetic data can be found at odd places like this.

The only reason I'm using NASA for the trajectory information is because they are clearly the prime source for that information.

So before I continue on to look at the path in detail, again, I will pause for a while to see if any deniers wish to provide contradictory references to what I am doing, or to offer suggestions on what I am forgetting, or doing wrongly... Of course ANYONE is welcome to add, subtract or correct the information I'm posting, but please make sure it is CITED.


As they say - "Never enter a battle of wits half-armed..."



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 93  94  95    97  98  99 >>

log in

join