Fake Earth illusion - footage from Apollo 11, 1969

Originally posted by telescopeAl
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

I proved Apollo was a hoax. Because I proved the hoax in general then this video too is a hoax. The video cannot be real if the astronauts cannot navigate to the moon. Ding dong the wicked witch is dead.

Thank you.

With the last few posts, there is only one thing that you have proven, and it's because of your writing style:

"Ding dong the wicked witch is dead"

You can't help yourself can you? You come up with what you think is some sort of catch phrase, and then you can't stop using it for several posts, over and over.

Out of all the other Moon Hoaxers that post here on ATS, there was only one member that would do that. And he's been banned. He's been banned over, and over, and over (and I think he needs some serious help because this type of obsession can't be healthy for anyone).

He was also notorious for trying to manipulating threads, cherry picking what questions he would answer (because he didn't have answers for the other questions, etc). So I think there is something you have proven quite well in your last few posts.

By the way: 400k km is spitting distance, and you have not shown anywhere that "astronauts refuse to talk about it."

All we have is your word. And that's not good enough. You'll have to do better than that.

And change your writing style while your at it. You keep giving yourself away.

Originally posted by telescopeAl
reply to post by Gibborium

 

Of course we can reach the moon. Rangers were essentially ballistic missiles, no fancy guidance. Surveyors landed.

Sorry but you shoot yourself in BOTH feet with that line what would be different about getting a probe safely to the Moon and landing it and an Apollo mission

You cant just take aim fire and get a probe safely on the surface

reply to post by wmd_2008

Thank you WMD, that was my point exactly. My Post

There is empirical evidence that we have traversed parts of our solar system successfully. We didn't just blast stuff into space and hope for the best, ie: projectile trajectory. But rather, very intelligent people studied, preplanned, and took into account things like star aberration.

Originally posted by telescopeAl
reply to post by DJW001

 

The Apollo computer was not programmed to do this calculation.

You sir are a liar. DJW001 just showed you the subroutine used by the Colossus software to correct for stellar aberration. It WAS computed by the apollo guidance computer. You know this to be true now, DJW001 proved it, so by continuing to deny it and pretend that you've proven Apollo to be a hoax when you know better, you are lying.

The vector a which is used by the IMU alignment programs to correct the stored star vectors for aberration of light is determined as follows:
a=(Vc-Ves)/c
(5.13. 7)

www.ibiblio.org...

Originally posted by telescopeAl
reply to post by DJW001

 

In this case of your Apollo 11 you do not know where and how your spaceship is moving because you do not have its precise attitude.

Wrong. Apollo's guidance systems persistently maintained state vectors for the vehicle at all times thanks to the IMU. These state vectors could also be (and were) updated with telemetry from the ground.

He's been banned.

Don't worry, he'll be back. Again.

reply to post by ngchunter


I think the poster was trying to point out that regardless of the ground's ability to track the craft the ship's attitude could not reliably be determined throughout the course of the trip. Knowing the state vector; position and velocity, that does not mean you can accurately navigate and guide the ship. I can track a probe knowing its state vector with the greatest accurately as it misses the moon by 50,000 kilometers. This does not mean I can navigate and guide the probe so it won't miss the moon by 50,000 kilometers. I think this was the poster's point. As to the validity of the aberration matter itself and the ? if that is enough to derail Apollo, I defer to to the "experts". I for one am rather keen on the premise. Looking at the NASA paper, you can't help but want to read more.

reply to post by marcomichael

I think the poster was trying to point out that regardless of the ground's ability to track the craft the ship's attitude could not reliably be determined throughout the course of the trip.

The poster was wrong, of course. between ground tracking an inertial guidance, the ship's position and velocity were well known. The inertial guidance system would also be able to determine the ship's attitude. The optical system was essentially a "back-up." By the poster's own admission, the aberration due to the crafts motion was only about 20 arc-seconds. One arc-second is one sixtieth of one arc-minute. One arc-minute is one sixtieth of a degree. In other words, the error introduced by stellar aberration would be about 1/18 of a degree. Fortunately, the Apollo computer could compensate for this in a subroutine. (It involved a Kalman Filter, which I am about as eager to explain as vector transformations in spherical trigonometry.) Short answer: the error introduced by stellar aberration was very close to the systematic error inherent in an optical system operated by human beings. It was not the primary means of navigation.

Knowing the state vector; position and velocity, that does not mean you can accurately navigate and guide the ship.

What else would be required, other than some means to alter the course?

Edit to add:

Looking at the NASA paper, you can't help but want to read more.

Yes, it's a pity that Patrick, erm, TelescopeAI, linked to such a poor scan. It's almost as though he didn't want people to be able to read the whole thing. Here is a link to a much more legible scan:

ia600600.us.archive.org...

reply to post by DJW001


Don't have a dog in this fight, not yet anyway. I'm on the Apollo fence. But you are mistaken about the ground's ability to assess attitude. Please check your facts,www.apollosaturn.com.... The only way the attitude of the Apollo CMs and LMs could be checked was by way of star sightings. Sighting data would be telemetered to the ground and the ground would then send shaft and trunion angles back up to the sspaceships, but the IMUs were never aligned by way of ground tracking information. That goes for accerometer data as well. They could not use that to determine attitude.

20 arcseconds for a circle of 240,000 miles radius works out to (2)(3.14)(240,000)=1,507,200/360=4187/60=69.7/60=1.162 X 20 = 23 miles. So I really do not understand, at least not at this point, how it is that an aberrative error of 20 arcseconds is going to take the ship so far off course. It seems trivial to me. So on that account I would have to whole heartedly agree with those that believe this is not a meaningful problem for the Apollo navigation scheme. On the other hand the broader point about how the platform was said to have been aligned was by way of star sightings only. There is no ambiguity there.

Good thread by the way!

reply to post by touchdowntrojans

But you are mistaken about the ground's ability to assess attitude.

I didn't say that the ground could determine attitude, did I, Patrick?

reply to post by ngchunter


Such an important point and there seems to be so much confusion about it, seems worth repeating my point in a slightly different way; NASA claimed that determinining an Apollo ship's state vector was most accurately done from the ground with the tracking dishes. But the dishes have absolutely no way to check the accuracy of the ship's attitude. The astronauts aligned the IMU(at least checked it) with their scanning telescope, sextant and AGC. Obtaining values for a state vector and a platform alignment are 2 different things entirely. The former can be done from the ground without any astronaut input. The latter cannot. The IMU alignment is checked in space. IMU alignment must entail star sightings. Otherwise to say one has done it is meaningless. How can you align a platform without reference to your star standard? Once the sightings are made, the ground is given that data and based on the astronauts' work shaft and trunion angles may be sent up. But this is not at all the same as saying the shaft and trunion angles were determined from the state vector. Such a statement would be and is nonsensical. No need to say more, but looks like this is a huge stumbling block for so many here. I wonder why?

reply to post by touchdowntrojans

Such an important point and there seems to be so much confusion about it, seems worth repeating my point in a slightly different way; NASA claimed that determinining an Apollo ship's state vector was most accurately done from the ground with the tracking dishes. But the dishes have absolutely no way to check the accuracy of the ship's attitude. The astronauts aligned the IMU(at least checked it) with their scanning telescope, sextant and AGC. Obtaining values for a state vector and a platform alignment are 2 different things entirely. The former can be done from the ground without any astronaut input. The latter cannot. The IMU alignment is checked in space. IMU alignment must entail star sightings. Otherwise to say one has done it is meaningless. How can you align a platform without reference to your star standard? Once the sightings are made, the ground is given that data and based on the astronauts' work shaft and trunion angles may be sent up. But this is not at all the same as saying the shaft and trunion angles were determined from the state vector. Such a statement would be and is nonsensical. No need to say more, but looks like this is a huge stumbling block for so many here. I wonder why?

Back away from the strawman, Patrick. No-one ever said that ground tracking could determine the craft's attitude. The attitude does require optical sighting, either by a human being or a computer. Even a human being can determine a star's position to within a fraction of a degree, close enough for operational purposes. The paper you cited made the point that human error would make it difficult to determine the state vector, not the attitude. Incidentally, only morons sit on the fence on certain topics. Are you quite sure the Earth isn't flat, or are you still sitting on the fence?

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by marcomichael

 

By the poster's own admission, the aberration due to the crafts motion was only about 20 arc-seconds. One arc-second is one sixtieth of one arc-minute. One arc-minute is one sixtieth of a degree. In other words, the error introduced by stellar aberration would be about 1/18 of a degree.

Should that not be 1/180 of a degree

reply to post by wmd_2008

Should that not be 1/180 of a degree

Yes, I dropped a zero in my head.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Should that not be 1/180 of a degree

Yes, I dropped a zero in my head.

I hope you find it, you don't want a spare zero floating about you never know were it will end up

On this site as an excuse for the Moon Hoax would be likely

reply to post by wmd_2008


An arsecond is 1/3600 of a degree. So amounts to a little over a curved mile of real estate when dealing with a circle of 240,000 miles radius.

reply to post by telescopeAl


It seems like not enough to matter telescopeAl, 20 arcseconds. Or even 50. I read the NASA paper but don't really understand it. Could you please explain to me why this tiny little bit of a mistake would throw the spaceship off by such a significant amount. Thank you!

reply to post by touchdowntrojans

An arsecond is 1/3600 of a degree. So amounts to a little over a curved mile of real estate when dealing with a circle of 240,000 miles radius.

Since the surface area of the Moon is 14.6 million square miles, I'd say that is good enough to allow for dead reckoning on arrival! In any event, as has been pointed out, the sextant was used mostly to determine the craft's attitude, not velocity or location.

reply to post by Mystic Vibes


I don't really think people "prove" anything right or wrong. How can you prove aberration wouldn't be important if 20 arcseconds worth of error threw your ship off course? Aberration can account for 20 arcseconds worth of error(or more if you were flying toward the moon). So it seems to me Mystic Vibes it has more to do with the interpretation of facts. What I experience now is this sense that a lot of times there is this appeal to authority from the they really landed side while the pressing challenges come from the hoax side. The defense is authoritative but not in an evidentiary sense. There is this growing sense on my part that the really landed side will cave at some point with the pressure constant and mounting and as far as I can see, valid. Let's see what happens. Almost too exciting really.

reply to post by DJW001


I agree. I think the aberration error argument cannot be valid unless I can be shown something more significant quantity wise in terms of an anticipated amount of "miss".