Lost Bird Proves Apollo Inauthenticity

page: 6
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Tranquility Truant, PART ONE




Here I'll provide a beautiful proof of Apollo Inauthenticity by way of QUANTITATIVELY addressing the question, "According to the Apollo 11 Mission Report, what were the distances between the selenographic coordinate solutions for the Eagle's possible landing site locations as determined by each of the various REAL-TIME methods said to have been employed; MSFN, PNGS, AGS and rendezvous radar ? "

Another proof of Apollo fraudulence will be provided by answering a corollary question, " According to the Apollo 11 Mission Report, what was the distance between the selenographic coordinate solutions given for the Eagle's landing site by each of the various REAL-TIME methods employed; MSFN, PNGS, AGS, rendezvous radar AND Tranquility Base, as the latter site came to be selenographically identified in the Apollo era as 0.6875 north and 23.43 east ? "

This is by far one of this thread's heretofore most important posts.

A while back, in one of my other threads, I encouraged ATS Apollo enthusiasts to go to the Apollo 11 Mission Report Table 5-iV and take a look at the real time solutions provided there. I then suggested motivated historians go one step further and do the simple Pythagorean based calculations that yield the distances that separate each of the Eagle landing site solutions. I posted that recommendation as a response to a PluPerfect post in my Highly Speculative Thread, "Neil Armstrong, Talk About Transparent, PooPoos Apollo Fraud , Then Proceeds to Go All Ballistic"


www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This pair of "NO INCORRECT" posts appeared 05/29/2012, and now that almost a week has passed, I think this has been more than enough time to have allowed anybody suitable motivated to have a go for themselves. The calculations are so straightforward, it makes little sense to think one could be "influenced" by me , but I still thought it important to let the problem sit , just to be sure those that were going to give it a shot did so without seeing my work first. I'll now present the solution.

THE EAGLE REAL-TIME LANDING SITE SOLUTIONS

Go to the Apollo 11 Mission Report Table 5-IV. This table is found on page 5-15;


We are interested in the REAL-TIME solutions, the one's available to the flight officers and "astronauts" while Armstrong and Aldrin were alleged to have actually been on the surface of the moon.

These Apollo 11 Mission Report Table 5-IV solutions are;

1) Primary guidance onboard vector (PNGS) ; 0.649 N and 23.46 E

2) Abort guidance onboard vector (AGS) ; 0.639 N and 23.44 E

3) Powered Flight Processor (MSFN) ; 0.631 N and 23.47 E

4) Alignment Optical Telescope (AOT) ; 0.523 N and 23.42 E

5) Rendezvous Radar ; 0.636 N and 23.50 E

As we are interested in quantifying the H. David Reed/Apollo 11 Mission Report contradiction, we can leave out the AOT calculations for now. We'll have occasion to return to this particular solution, but for now, we want to be working with what Reed himself, the Eagle launch FIDO, had to work with.

As emphasized in earlier posts, the Apollo 11 Mission Report Table 5-IV features several footnotes. Footnote (a) is quite relevant here and reads ;

"Following the Apollo 10 mission, a difference was noted (from the landmark tracking results) between the trajectory coordinate system and the coordinate system on the reference map. In order to reference trajectory values to the l:100 000 scale Lunar Map ORB-II-6 (lO0), dated December 1967, correction factors of plus 2'25" in latitude and minus 4'17" in longitude must be applied to the trajectory values."

As we are not only interested here in determining the distances between the alternative selenographic coordinate solutions, but want to answer our corollary question as well, a question which asks, "what is the distance between the PNGS solution and Tranquility Base solution, the AGS and Tranquility Base solutions, MSFN and Tranquility Base solutions, and reverse rendezvous radar solution and Tranquility Base solution, and since the then official Tranquility Base location was indeed map referenced at 0.6875 N and 23.433 E, we want to work with correction factor adjusted PNGS, AGS, MSFN and rendezvous radar solutions.

The correction factor issue is an easy one to deal with. As mention in prior posts, adding 2' 25" to the north coordinate is the same as adding 0.04 degrees in our decimal degrees notion here. Subtracting 4' 17" from the east coordinate is the same as subtracting 0.07 degrees in the decimal degrees notation.

I'll rewrite the Apollo 11 mission Report REAL-TIME Eagle landing site solutions now taking these correction factors into consideration. From each north coordinate I add 0.04 degrees. For the east coordinates, I subtract 0.07 degrees.
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: spacing
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: spacing
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: we'll > i'll
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: various> possible, added "various" elsewhere
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: added "have allowed "
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: spacing
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: i>1




posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Tranquility Truant , PART TWO



So, here are the solutions so corrected;

1) PNGS ; 0.689 N and 23.39 E
2) AGS ; 0.679 N and 23.37 E
3) MSFN ; 0.671 N and 23.40 E
4) rendezvous radar ; 0.676 N and 23.43 E

We've left out the AOT solution, as Reed did not work with it, but we of course want to list here the ultimately determined official Tranquility Base site which is NOT a real time solution. It was announced publicly as 0.6875 N and 23.433 E on 08/01/1969 , the day the Apollo 11 Tranquility Base LRRR was first successful targeted by the Lick Observatory team.

Now we are set to go to work. Recall the remarkable account given by H. David Reed, the Eagle launch FIDO regarding what he was told the morning of 07/21/1969. Here is H. David Reed from his chapter in the book, FROM THE TRENCH OF MISSION CONTROL TO THE CRATERS OF THE MOON;

"After Apollo XI landed, as the World celebrated and sipped champagne, I slept in preparation for my shift prior to lunar launch. I would work with SELECT and DYNAMICS to get all the relative geometry down and work out the correct ignition time for return to the CSM.Piece of cake really. All we needed were landing site coordinates and a solid ephemeris on the CSM. I sat down at the console for that prelaunch shift and was debriefed by the previous team to complete hand-off. I probably had my second cup of coffee by then and got on the loop to SELECT to get the best landing site. I remember asking SELECT what he had for landing site coordinates. I’ll never forget his answer when he said, “take your pick FIDO!” I also remember not reacting too positively to his offer. He explained that we had five different sites. He said “we have MSFN(tracking radars), PNGS (primary LM guidance computer), AGS(backup LM guidance computer), the targeted landing site and, oh yes, the geologist have determined yet another site based upon the crew’s description of the landscape and correlating that with orbiter photos”. No two of these were even close to each other. It was the DYNAMICS computer controller, Pete Williams who catalyzed the solution. He said that if we only had rendezvous radar tracking data from the LM on the CSM we could work the problem backward. After all, we knew where the CSM was and the problem was a relative one between the CSM and the LM, not actually requiring latitude and longitude. To do this we would need to have the rendezvous radar (RR) turned on in the LM one revolution earlier than planned. Only two more passes of the CSM remained before Ascent ignition, before we had to have a solution to this problem! I remember taking my headset off and walking up to the Flight Director, Milt Windler to explain the situation. We only used that kind of face to face communication when we had a serious problem such as this. I detailed the problem as best we knew it and the process that we’d have to follow to get the data we needed, and why we had to start a rev early to finish the calculations and then find the critical lift-off time for lunar launch. I recall the CapCom instructing Buzz Aldrin that we needed him to perform the RR check early but I don’t believe that CapCom explained why, just another check was all. Shaft & trunnion angles were passed up to aid acquisition. Right on time as the CSM cleared the horizon we began seeing data. We counted the agonizing minutes as the telemetry came flowing in until the CSM was receding. Now we had the data we needed to run the problem (a rendezvous problem in reverse) and get the correct liftoff time*. And that’s what we used. Later we would find out just where were we on the surface. We were actually over 25,000 feet from the nearest of the other five choices we had! At 5,000-fps orbital velocity of the CSM that could have been up to a ten second error in liftoff. That would have meant we’d need a LOT of RCS (reaction control system fuel) to play catch up or slow down in a rather abnormal (I don’t recall training for this one) rendezvous situation."

So I believe it's safe to call Reed's testimony here unimpeachable. He was the launch FIDO after all, the man entrusted with the awesome responsibility(were any of this true) of providing a launch/trajectory solution given the Eagle/Columbia dynamic relationship so that the Eagle would rise from the lunar surface and find its partner in lunar orbit.
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: spacing



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Tranquility Truant, PART THREE



Before I do my calculation, let's review the incontrovertible FACTS as related in this unimpeachable testimony by Eagle launch FIDO Reed;

1) To derive this solution, according to Reed himself, all they "needed were landing site coordinates and a solid ephemeris on the CSM."

2) They had the latter, they knew where the CM was and could predict where it would be, but they did not have reliable landing site coordinates. Reed said that his SELECT Officer explained that they "had five different sites". SELECT said to Reed that “we have MSFN(tracking radars), PNGS (primary LM guidance computer), AGS(backup LM guidance computer), the targeted landing site and, oh yes, the geologist have determined yet another site based upon the crew’s description of the landscape and correlating that with orbiter photos”. No two of these were even close to each other.

3) As the solutions provided to FIDO Reed did not agree with one another, Reed could not work with them. He could not use the numbers to solve for a launch solution to bring Armstrong and Aldrin back together with Collins. Only if the solutions had agreed could the numbers have been trusted, and as a matter of fact, Reed says at the end of this section;

"Later we would find out just where were we on the surface. We were actually over 25,000 feet from the nearest of the other five choices we had! "

That's Reed's exclamation mark not mine !!!!! So Reed is telling us here that later, when they found out just where they were, Tranquility Base at 0.6875 N and 23.43 E, the MSFN, PNGS and AGS solutions for the Eagle landing site given to Reed on the morning of 07/21/1969 were not only not anywhere near to one another, but in addition, each solution was AT LEAST 25,000 feet or 4.7 miles from the Tranquility Base coordinates as they would ultimately be determined at 0.6875 N and 23. 433 E .

So we are very clear as regards our FACTS now. Let's see if the Apollo 11 Mission Report Table 5-IV numbers corroborate Reed's telling of the story, his unimpeachable, incontrovertible telling of the real-time Eagle landing site coordinate solution story as he came to anxiously experience it first hand as the situation's KEY PLAYER on the morning of 07/21/1969

To solve for the distances between the landing site options, one simply determines the difference between the north coordinates and squares that, adds that squared difference to the square of the difference between the east coordinates, and then takes the square root of that sum of squared differences, a simply pythagorean solution. We'll start with the Apollo 11 Mission Report PNGS solution and calculate its distance from the AGS, MSFN, and official Tranquility Base solutions. The Rendezvous radar solution was calculated right before the launch, and so for our purposes here, we are really only interested in how far it was/is from the Tranquility base official solution at 0.6875 and 23.433 E.
PNGS/AGS distance difference in degrees is square root of (0.01 squared + 0.02 squared) = square root of (0.0001 + 0.0004) = square root of 0.0005 = 0.0224. The moon's circumference at the equator is 6,784 miles. So each degree covers 18.84 miles and 0.0224 degrees would cover .42 miles, 2229 feet. VERY CLOSE !!!

I'll move on, no longer any need to show my work, you can do the same and check my results.

PNGS/MSFN distance = 0.02 degrees = 0.38 miles or 1990 feet

PNGS/Tranquility Base official = 0.04 degrees = 0.754 miles or 3979 feet

Let's move on to the AGS set of solutions. We already have our PNGS number , .42 miles or 2229 feet

AGS/MSFN distance = 0.031 degrees = 0.59 miles or 3115 feet

AGS/Tranquility Base official distance = 0.063 degrees = 1.19 miles or 6267 feet

For the MSFN solution we already have PNGS distance = 0.38 miles or 1990 feet

For the AGS so;union we already have AGS distance = 0.59 miles or 3115 feet

And now for the MSFN/Tranquility Base official I find distance = .04 degrees = 0.754 miles = 3979 feet.

For the rendezvous radar solution/Tranquility Base official distance we have 0.0115 degrees or 0.217 miles or 1145 feet or 382 yards or 349 meters.

So , how do these Apollo 11 Mission Report numbers support or contradict the H. David Reed telling of the story ? Let's look at Reed's final comment. Here he is once again from his chapter in FROM THE TRENCH OF MISSION CONTROL TO THE CRATERS OF THE MOON;

"Later we would find out just where were we on the surface. We were actually over 25,000 feet from the nearest of the other five choices we had! "

The Mission Report numbers could not be more inconsistent with Reed's telling of the story, and this inconsistency proves the Apollo 11 Mission Report without question to be bogus, full on no question fraudulent.

PNGS solution as listed in the Mission Report is 3979 feet from Tranquility Base, NOT 25,000 or more feet from the same.
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: spacing , caps
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: added "be"
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: added "N"
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: apostrophe
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: added "determines the difference between the north coordinates and squares that, adds that difference to the square of the difference between the east coordinates, and then takes the square root of that sum of squared differences,"
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: added "squared"
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: spelling, spacing



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Tranquility Truant , PART FOUR



So on the morning of 07/21/1969 H. David Reed was provided with a PNGS solution that was at least more than SIX TIMES AS FAR AWAY FROM TRANQUILITY BASE as the PNGS solution published in the Apollo 11 Mission Report.

The Mission Report AGS solution is 6267 feet from Tranquility Base. As such, on the morning of 07/21/1969 H. David Reed was provided with an AGS solution that was at least more than FOUR TIMES AS FAR AWAY FROM TRANQUILITY BASE as the AGS solution published in the Apollo 11 Mission Report.

Finally, from the above, we may also conclude that on the morning of 07/21/1969 David Reed was provided with an MSFN solution that was at least more than SIX TIMES AS FAR AWAY FROM TRANQUILITY BASE as the MSFN solution published in the Apollo 11 Mission Report.

As the PNGS and AGS and MSFN solutions are real time solutions, one may conclude with absolute certainty that THIS IS ALL CONTRIVED, MADE UP FRAUDULENT. One cannot have the MSFN REAL-TIME Eagle landing site solution both at the very least 25,000 feet from the ultimately determined official Eagle landing site at Tranquility Base (0.6875 N and 23.433 E ) and 3979 feet distant from those same coordinates ; 0.6875 N and 23.433 E. It is one or the other. THE SOLUTION WAS/IS REAL-TIME, AND AS SUCH, IT IS BY DEFINITION IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE SOLUTION TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH BOTH SETS OF NUMBERS, 3979 feet from Tranquility Base and 25,000 feet OR MORE from Tranquility Base.

Another point, Reed was told none of the real-time solutions were close to one another AND he was later to learn each solution was at least 25,000 feet from the ultimately determined official Tranquility base site at 0.6875 N and 23.433 E. As it turns out, nothing could have been further from the truth, were any of this real, and were there any truth to the figures as reported in the Apollo 11 Mission Report. As above , we find there that the PNGS/MSFN solutions were 0.38 miles apart, 1990 feet !!! The farthest distance, one from the other, was the AGS/MSFN distance and that was/is only 0.59 miles. The Apollo 11 Mission Report Published MSFN, and Reed's reverse rendezvous radar solution are 0.03 degrees or 0.57 miles apart, 2984 feet. IF THEY GAVE REED THOSE APOLLO 11 MISSION REPORT PUBLISHED LANDING SITE COORDINATES INSTEAD OF PROVIDING HIM HIS SELECT OFFICER AND HIS DYNAMICS OFFICER WITH FRAUDULENT, AND CONTRIVED FIGURES roughly 5 miles from these, a reverse radar solution would not have been needed , not required. For the pourposes of the launch, the MSFN Apollo 11 Mission Report published 0.671 N and 23.40 E would have worked perfectly well for Reed, just as well , or nearly so as his reverse radar calculated 0.676 N and 23.43 E.

edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: spacing
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: caps



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Tranquility Truant, PART FIVE



A few critical points before concluding this extremely important LOST BIRD subtopic, THE REED/APOLLO 11 MISSION REPORT COORDINATE SOLUTION CONTRADICTION.

1) All serious students of Apollo History should study this issue with great care and go through these calculations on their own, preferably more than once. You want to OWN THIS STUFF IN AN ABSOLUTE SENSE. It is concrete and incontrovertible evidence of Apollo Fraudulence as Reed's testimony is unimpeachable. The contradiction is not amenable to NASA shenanigans wiggle room wise. The numbers speak for themselves and cannot be changed. This is an absolute proof of Apollo Inauthenticity grounded in NASA's own data, PUBLISHED/PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATA.

2) NASA's presenting landing site coordinates, multiple targeted landing sites, and the silly nonsense with the correction factors is more likely than not part of an intentional effort to confuse . Make it a little more difficult for the non careful student of Apollo to do what I just did do, use NASA's own numbers here to nail them and nail them right good, show everybody how exactly it was they went about pretending they did not know where their spaceship was, and at the same time, sort of knowing where it was.

3) Emil Schiesser, the mathematician and trajectory specialist was the one responsible for all of this. He keeps track of and publishes the numbers. He works at the highest level above Reed. Reed is NOT NOT NOT a PERP. Schiesser created this. Keep in mind, the way you make this fraud WORK is to have REED BELIEVE HE IS DOING ALL THIS STUFF, SOLVING FOR THIS AND THAT. REED BUYS IN HOOK LINE AND EVER LOVING SINKER. AN IMPORTANT ANECDOTE IS CREATED AND REED PUSHES THAT THROUGH HIS LIFETIME WITH HIS EVERY TELLING OF THIS "DRAMATIC STORY" GIVING PHONY LIFE TO APOLLO'S BOGUS TRUTH.

4) In Reed's "TRENCH" book chapter, there is a footnote emphasizing a reverse radar solution had NEVER been done before, again emphasizing for Reed, there was every reason going into this, every expectation that he would solve simply by way of being provided the coordinates when he walked in that am, 07/21/1969. The fact that he was blindsided like this, is of course proof of Apollo inauthenticity. If they did not expect to know where the bird would land, they of course would have drilled for this before. VERY PHONY, TRANSPARENTLY PHONY.


5) Pete Williams is the DYNAMICS OFFICER that suggested the reverse rendezvous radar solution. As it was wholly new, had never been done before, never been drilled before per Reed's book, we may ultimately discover Williams to be a PERP. That said, we need to be careful with unjust accusations. Keep in mind, those that suggest or produce "solutions" to the bogus Apollo SCRIPT problems, like this problem dealing with the Eagle as a LOST BIRD, these people are PERPS. Now Williams may have been TOLD BY SCHIESSER TO TELL REED TO DO THIS. Williams may be clean, then again perhaps not so.

6) This rather complex hiding of the Eagle landing site coordinates ESPECIALLY FROM PEOPLE LIKE REED, was needed to prevent flight officers, not to mention other Apollo workers like the McDonald Observatory Staff from not finding the Eagle where it was supposed to be. It was imperative to HIDE THE EAGLE WHILE THE ASTRONAUTS WERE SUPPOSED TO BE ON THE MOON. Were the landing site's location known before the astronauts "left the surface of the moon", it would have been quite possible that the fraud would have been busted, the astronauts found out as "Tranquility truant", right then and there.

edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: spacing
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: caps
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: added "'s"
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: removed period
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: spacing



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Not to take away from your 'Lick Laser' post but I find it pretty interesting that a show on Science Channel called 'The Planets' actually did a segment on NASA and the moon conflict with the Russians. They said in order to train the astronauts to walk the moon they blew up desert land in Arizona and created the exact look of the Sea of Tranquility. They showed photos of both and it was amazingly exact. This was a little tidbit I never knew about and has me really thinking about whether we really landed on the moon in 1969.

Thanks for listening.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by texasgirl
 


Link?:


They said in order to train the astronauts to walk the moon they blew up desert land in Arizona and created the exact look of the Sea of Tranquility. They showed photos of both and it was amazingly exact. This was a little tidbit I never knew about and has me really thinking about whether we really landed on the moon in 1969.


By "amazingly exact", what does that mean?

Oh, and merely adding a few craters in an Arizona desert does not re-create the color, nor texture, of the Lunar regolith.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



This pair of "NO INCORRECT" posts appeared 05/29/2012, and now that almost a week has passed, I think this has been more than enough time to have allowed anybody suitable motivated to have a go for themselves. The calculations are so straightforward, it makes little sense to think one could be "influenced" by me , but I still thought it important to let the problem sit , just to be sure those that were going to give it a shot did so without seeing my work first. I'll now present the solution.


As I pointed out, there is no point in doing all that arithmetic unless we know that all the coordinates are in the same system, that is, MEP or PA:

pds-imaging.jpl.nasa.gov...

You have had over a week to answer this simple question. In that time you have not done so, but instead have made increasingly bizarre posts, frequently including videos like this one:



Furthermore, as I pointed out at the time, each set of coordinates was determined by methods that had their own idiosyncratic systematic errors. Without a uniform, properly benchmarked coordinate system and disparate methods of determining the LM's location, it is not to be expected that the figures would be identical. In fact, the lack of a single result is strong evidence that it is real data collected in the real world, rather than arbitrary data "cooked up"for a fictitious scenario. I think Wittgenstein would agree that the real world is a messy place.
edit on 4-6-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by PluPerfect
 


I am looking for it online. This was a show I saw on tv. They said it looked 'amazingly exact', not me. Both pictures were in black and white, I'll admit. I just found it interesting since this was something I never knew they did. Ever see the movie 'Wag the Dog'?



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by texasgirl
 


Thank you texasgirl, I'll look into to your story and let you know if I turn up anything in addition.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



Thank you texasgirl, I'll look into to your story and let you know if I turn up anything in addition.


Here you go:

library.nau.edu...

Doesn't look much like any particular landing site to me. But what do I know? You're thrice as intelligent and learned as I am, remember?



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


It was made in 1999. The Planets- Moon Education. I recorded it so I at least have that info. for you. It's mainly about our race against Russia to land a person on the moon.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   

The importance of corroboration



It's critical to keep in mind that NASA guidance/navigation/control personnel alleged they way they knew their system's were on target, for example knew that the LM PNGS was working properly, was to cross check the data , INCLUDING THE LANDING SITE DATA with the data of the other systems, AGS and MSFN.

MSFN was alleged to be the most accurate. PNGS has a platform that "floats", the ship is alleged to move about the platform. The AGS platform is STRAPPED ON, does not float.

You'll hear for example the astronauts comment that the PNGS and AGS are in agreement. The data they see is the same/close . This is how they can tell the data is accurate. Ditto for the MSFN data. If it is corroborated by the PNGS, the numbers are the same , they know the systems are working well.

For those unaware, MSFN is what most of us think of when we imagine a tracking system, giant earth based dishes sending and receiving data.

The suggestion that the systems would operate differently, employ different coordinate systems or systems that could not be converted essentially instantaneously by the large servers/computers with which they worked is beyond ridiculous. You would not know if your data was accurate. The only way to know that the PNGS is giving you good numbers is to see if the numbers match up with the AGS and MSFN numbers.

So of course the real time solutions are grounded in the same coordinate system. IT IS CRITICAL, REAL-TIME remember. How do you know what you see is to be trusted ? It matches up.

And indeed this was Reed's whole point, the landing site solutions they were provided were disparate, and as such, were not reliable.

edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: spelling
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: added "guidance/navigation/control personnel"
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: comma, added "knew that"
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: spelling
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: caps
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: removed were X 2, added "were"



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by texasgirl
 


Thanks again, with see what I can find.....



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



You'll hear for example the astronauts comment that the PNGS and AGS are in agreement. The data they see is the same/close .


Within what tolerance? What was the exact margin of error? More importantly, how does each of these figures map on to the surface of the Moon? It is one thing to pinpoint an object in space, another to transform that location into a coordinate system. By the way, which coordinate system were they using again? (Hint: they had to use a correction to plot it on their map. You said so yourself, while quoting Reed.)



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


Hi,
Apologies if I fail to make a point with this equation;

I'm confused about the guys being able to see the 'source' of the laser if they are anywhere within the 'shaded areas'?

I really don't understand myself sometimes.

HGD
edit on (6/4/1212 by loveguy because: "puz"



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by loveguy
 


I am having trouble understanding your question loveguy. Please help me a bit more if you could.

You seem to be saying something like " I understand the astronauts might have been expected to see the McDonald argon laser when they were on the moon, but that may NOT necessarily have been the case were they standing in the shade ."

Is that it, or something like that ? You may need to kind of spell it out a little for me if you can.

thanks ........



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 09:32 PM
link   

A little something about MSFN, AGS and PNGS. Also, The importance of the AGS



For those unaware, the Apollo ships were alleged to have been navigated and guided from earth by way of the Manned Space Flight Network.

en.wikipedia.org...

Typically when asked what is the difference between navigation and guidance, aeronautic specialists will say something like, "navigation answers WHERE AM I, and guidance answers WHERE AM I GOING."

Figuring out where the Apollo ships were and where they were going was allegedly done by the earth based MSFN.

One thing they cannot do from the earth though is determine in which direction the nose of the spaceship is pointing, how the spaceship is "tilted"/oriented.They call this the spaceship's ATTITUDE. To figure this out, the Apollo astronauts allegedly had to sight stars very accurately. If you know where a star is with respect to the nose and the tail of the spaceship, then one knows the direction the nose and tail are pointing, their orientation relative to the star. This is what it means to know the ATTITUDE, way in which the the spaceship is pointed . Because from a practical standpoint, the star never moves (it really does move, but it is so so so so far away that for all intents and purposes it is still) sighting stars is not only the best way to know the ATTITUDE, it is sort of the only way, because by definition, ATTITUDE is orientation in space, and orientation makes no sense without the stars as reference. Stars define the here and there of space. There is no up or down, east or west, just a space-time field populated by stars.

Each of the Apollo mission component ships had a PRIMARY NAVIGATION AND GUIDANCE SYSTEM (PNGS) which featured as a component something called a PLATFORM. The PLATFORM was the entity that was aligned with the stars to determine the ATTITUDE. Using the PNGS, the astronauts could theoretically fly the Apollo spaceships themselves, without any help from the MSFN. When Apollo 8 went around the moon, that was the Christmas thing where they did the Genesis reading stuff, part of the goal of the mission was to compare the MSFN(guiding and navigating from earth) with PNGS(guiding and navigating from right there in the spaceship). Making a long story short, MSFN was as good or better than PNGS, or so the story went, and that is how it came to be the PNGS served mostly as a back up system, with the EXCEPTION OF ALIGNING THE PLATFORM STUFF. THE GUYS ON EARTH CANNOT DO THAT. IT MUST BE DONE FROM SPACE.

If you think about it for a minute though, to a significant degree, you have to have both. There must be redundancy. The only way to check to see how the MSFN is doing in some sense is to measure its performance against that of another system doing the same thing. So in this way, there is quality control, REALITY CONTROL. They did other things too, but this was a big part of it, checking for accuracy in the systems by way of comparing the data given by one system vs that of another redundant but mechanistically different system . If they matched, then both were presumed in some sense to be doing a good job.

On the lunar lander, MSFN tracks/supports the little bird, and the lander of course has its own PNGS with its own PLATFORM that can only be aligned from space, cannot be aligned from earth. By the way, the PNGS platform does not turn with the ships, it floats in the same place, maintains the same orientation, like a compass needle does here on earth. You move the compass about, but the needle stays true, always pointing magnetic north. The PNGS PLATFORM uses a different "system" to do the same thing. As such, the space ships can move all over the place, but the needle stays true to the ATTITUDE it had when last aligned.

The lander ALSO had a so called ABORT GUIDANCE SYSTEM (AGS) as well as the PNGS. This was a back up navigation/guidance system that would take over in an emergency and get the lander back up to Michael Collins immediately if there was an abort. The AGS did not have a floating compass needle like PLATFORM as a piece of hardware employed to determine the lander's ATTITUDE. The AGS system did not float but was as they say, "STRAPPED DOWN", attached right to the lander. It turns out less frills makes more sense for this type of thing, the emergency , ABORT type system.

So all 3 systems served as cross checks on one another, and you can see why they have to be speaking the EXACT same language. If you are in a spaceship descending to the surface of the moon, or are on the surface of the moon and hit the panic button, the ABORT button, for the AGS to get you immediately back to Michael Collins, you better be dang sure the AGS is using the same coordinate system as the MSFN system, or one that can be translated INSTANTLY, because Michael Collins and the guys on earth are MSFN oriented/system based. If the coordinate systems yielded different REAL-TIME solutions, the AGS is no good.

This is why H. David Reed was so flipped out when he came to work 07/21/1969. He is supposed to get the coordinates and NOTHING MATCHED !
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: period, spacing
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: added "by way of comparing the data given by one system vs the other. If they matched, then both were presumed in some sense to be doing a good job."
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: other > another redundant but mechanistically different system



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Doubled and so removed
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: doubled and so removed



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Why can't we just look at the moon with a telescope and see the landing sight , mirrors, footprints, and flag?
If we can see into the Big Bang, I don't understand why we can't look at our own moon.





new topics
top topics
 
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join