Lovell and Shepard Star Sighting Contradiction Proves Navigation Bogus and Apollo Inauthenticity

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 15 2012 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


this affected the scanning telescope ONLY.. the scanning telescope was a wide view one power scope the sextant is a narrow field 28 power scope particles around the spacecraft will move more readily and easily distinguished in the sextant as opposed to the scanning telescope.




posted on May, 15 2012 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by choos
 


Yes and no,

Yes, were any of this true, you would need to use the scanning telescope to find a star in a constellation and so sight it with confidence, but no, you could NOT use it in cislunar space while carrying a LM according to Ken Mattingly because of all the particles floating around. From the earth to the moon, almost that whole way anyhow, Ken Mattingly says the scanning telescope is USELESS. Read his words again. He is decidedly unambiguous.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

In considerations of these facts, one my conclude Apollo unambiguously fraudulent.



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


he is saying because he is not dark adapted and due to the waste dumps the scanning telescope is not reliable in finding constellations. its a wide view one power scope. so stars and floating ice particles look similar. this is why they suggest you DO NOT DO A WASTE DUMP before trying to sight stars while dark adapted. but this was never the case as it was never needed.

everyone is saying the SCANNING TELESCOPE is useless, but everyone is also saying the SEXTANT HAD NO PROBLEMS. sighting stars with the sextant was of no concern to anyone.



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by choos
 


No, incorrect

Incorrect in that my point is that if the platform is lost, and so the sextant is of no use as we would be dealing with a P51 and not a P52 program/activity, Ken Mattingly's FACT that his telescope is useless in cislunar space means that should the astronauts have ever so lost the platform in such a context, both scopes would be USELESS and the astronauts would die. Thankfully, none of this was real.

The computer can only help you choos if it has a sense as to where the stars are to begin with. In the special case to which I am referring, the complete loss of platform in cislunar space, the computer knows not where the platform is, knows not where the stars are. This is what it means to lose the platform. the computer loses the stars. The sextant loses the stars, in the sense that the computer drives the sextant. As such, were you to ask the Apollo Guidance Computer where Sirius was in such a circumstance, the sextant would have no star to offer, not a meaningful choice anyway.

Apollo is fraudulent....



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by choos
 



Incorrect


Incorrect in the sense that the sextant is of no use on the occasion of complete platform loss, which is indeed the special circumstance to which I have been explicitly referring.



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


WHAT frigging NONSENSE:


Incorrect in the sense that the sextant is of no use on the occasion of complete platform loss, which is indeed the special circumstance to which I have been explicitly referring.


Has NOTHING I'VE told you sunk in, yet???

(ETA)...in case you haven't figured it out yet, you might try to "Pull Off" this BS on others, but a pilot, like myself? Nah! I can see your BS from mies away......).......especially, ESPECIALLY on this latest tack.......so full of FAIL....when you grow up into adulthood, it will haunt you, because SOMEONE here will eventually track back......BET on it! (Won't be me!!! I couldn't care less.....as long as you continue to make a fool of yourself, I'm "happy"....)

edit on Tue 15 May 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 01:41 AM
link   
@choos



.. he is talking about the scanning telescope, you know, the wide view one-power telescope used to identify constellations, this had lighting issues. the sextant is a narrow field 28 power scope, it did not have any lighting issues it was able to spot stars easily without being dark adapted.


I'm going by a piece on this site, I'd think they know their stuff.




Navigation during the Apollo missions was conducted almost entirely by radar from the ground accompanied by calculations from the ground computers with lesser help from the onboard computer. The sextant and the techniques for using it were seen as an almost useless backup system by the time the missions to the Moon actually flew.


fer3.com...



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



The onboard star charts, together with a valid launch reference matrix in the computer, helped appreciably and permitted use of indicated attitudes (trunnion and shaft angles) to locate stars. The stars Rigel and Sirius were used for the platform orientation. Once the platform was aligned, the navigation sightings using auto optics were no problem.

history.nasa.gov...

no need to use the scanning telescope. which is exactly was mattingly done.
edit on 15-5-2012 by choos because: (no reason given)


using a valid launch refsmmat and trunnion and shaft angles... eureka found star in sextant, ofcourse its a little more complicated than that.. if you've seen the calculations involved.. but this is basically what the P52 program does for the astronauts.
edit on 15-5-2012 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 01:47 AM
link   
reply to post by GaryN
 


yes i know, the scopes were quite redundant, the P52 program automatically finds the stars and puts the star in the sextants view, nearly right in the middle. they still need to use the sextant and refine the adjustments to torque the IMU.

but using the scanning telescope was redundant.. decisively is saying that it must be used and it was impossible to use, when its not, since its only a backup system and requires them to be fully dark adapted and have had no recent waste dumps.
edit on 15-5-2012 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 02:53 AM
link   
reply to post by choos
 


No, incorrect

The scanning scope is not redundant. According to the Apollo narrative, generally speaking, one could not see the constellations in the Apollo sextant, only in the scanning telescope. As such, when the sextant presented a star to an astronaut, the astronaut would then confirm its identity by marking it. This confirmation based on the astronaut's confidence in the auto optics, which means his confidence in the computer.

The Apollo Guidance Computer's sense of platform IS its sense of stars. There is no difference. The Apollo Guidance computer knows the platform to be so aligned by virtue of how in "its mind" the stars are believed to be related to the ship. The computer sees the sip's attitude in terms of the geometry of the stars about it, and as such, when doing a P52, the computer draws on this sense of relationship, ship to surrounding stars if you will, and so then presents a star to the astronaut given this, the computer's sense of where the star should be given the computer's understanding of ship attitude/platform, at any given time.

The scanning scope is not redundant. The scanning scope does not present one with the star Rigel. The sextant presents Rigel and the astronaut confirms the star given the astronaut's trust in the auto optics. In the case of the telescope, the astronaut SCANS and finds the constellation Orion, of which Rigel is a member. Rigel is then so identified by the astronaut INDEPENDENT of computer assistance.

Equivalently, the computer does not know the constellation Orion. It only knows Rigel, and the computer knows Rigel only as well as the platform is aligned. On the other hand, a genuine astronaut would know both Orion and Rigel. The former by virtue of its characteristic pattern/geometry and its relation to other constellations, the later by virtue of its position within the constellation Orion.

The Sextant and scanning telescope are not redundant. If I need to realign my platform from scratch, I MUST begin with the scanning telescope, assuming that I can see stars through it, this because the sextant literally has nothing to offer. The platform is lost, and so with it, the computer's sense as to where Rigel is and how to turn in order to present the star to me.
edit on 15-5-2012 by decisively because: spelling
edit on 15-5-2012 by decisively because: comma
edit on 15-5-2012 by decisively because: added "the astronaut"
edit on 15-5-2012 by decisively because: added "the constellation"
edit on 15-5-2012 by decisively because: spelling
edit on 15-5-2012 by decisively because: computer>platform



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 03:22 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


the scanning telescope was made redundant by the computer..

many refsmmat's are predefined before flight and stored in the computer. trunnion and shaft angle are either on the star chart, stored in the memory or given by mission control. with this the scanning telescope IS NOT NEEDED, the sextant will be pointed right at the star by running the P52 program.

this method had no light issues of the scanning telescope, therefore saving immense amounts of valuable time, this is what makes the scanning telescope redundant. its purpose is for backup purposes, should everything fail.

the computer is aware of its current attitude referenced to the refsmmat. changing the refsmmat will not change the stars position nor will the spacecrafts attitude change, the only thing that changes is the refsmmat. the coputer still knows exactly where the star is and points optics (sextant and scanning scope) right at it.

the scanning telescope is NOT needed, its only for redundancy.
edit on 15-5-2012 by choos because: (no reason given)
edit on 15-5-2012 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 04:13 AM
link   
reply to post by choos
 


With all due respect, you make no sense choos.

Go out tonight and look at the sky. If you do not see the constellation Orion, can you tell me you see the star Rigel nevertheless ?
edit on 15-5-2012 by decisively because: spelling



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 05:27 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


the IMU doesnt drift much, its like less than 1 degree per 6-9hours. there is a reason why in aviation they are still using mechanical gyroscopes. even in an airbus which is mostly all electronic these days.

the computer only keeps track of where rigel is with reference to the refsmmat. it also keeps a record of changes in attitude by the IMU. once the spacecrafts attitude is kept steady it can now point its sights at rigel, it can do this by working out the spacecrafts attitude relative to the refsmmat than it works out the trunnion and shaft angle from the refsmmat and than it moves the sights to view rigel.

the astronaut than fine tunes the miss if it is not exact trying to get "all-balls" pushes a button to note where rigel is relative to the IMU orientation it does it again on another star and now it has the orientation of the entire galaxy relative to the IMU, now it compares the difference of the IMU orientation to the refsmmatt and if there is a discrepancy it is fixed by torqueing the IMU.

there is a reason why they constantly do these P52's.
edit on 15-5-2012 by choos because: (no reason given)
edit on 15-5-2012 by choos because: (no reason given)


p.s. whether or not i can see rigel does not matter, because if for some reason they cant see rigel, they have another 36 or so stars to sight. the sextants narrow field 28 power scope will see some if not all of them.
edit on 15-5-2012 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



The Apollo Guidance Computer's sense of platform IS its sense of stars. There is no difference. The Apollo Guidance computer knows the platform to be so aligned by virtue of how in "its mind" the stars are believed to be related to the ship. The computer sees the sip's attitude in terms of the geometry of the stars about it, and as such, when doing a P52, the computer draws on this sense of relationship, ship to surrounding stars if you will, and so then presents a star to the astronaut given this, the computer's sense of where the star should be given the computer's understanding of ship attitude/platform, at any given time.


You are anthropomorphising. The gyroscopes are mechanical, they do not think, they respond to the basic laws of physics. The sensors that measure the gyros' attitude are electrical, they can make no decisions. The computer does not think, visualize or perform any operation outside of its extremely simple programming. Unless a sudden power loss interrupts the functioning of this system, it can only perform in precisely the manner it is programmed. It was not HAL 9000.



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 05:54 AM
link   

My point stands and stands well irrespective of your views as regards my choice in its presentation

reply to post by DJW001
 


Both Alan Shepard and Ken Mattingly by their own admissions were in possession of Apollo CM optical/computer/guidance/navigation equipment that did not allow for effective running of a P51 program. This, as stars in both cases could not be confidently sighted under the circumstance of platform loss.

One may conclude that Apollo is frauulent as one must be able to sight stars under such circumstances with absolute acuuracy.
edit on 15-5-2012 by decisively because: spelling



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 06:01 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



Both Alan Shepard and Ken Mattingly by their own admissions were in possession of Apollo CM optical/computer/guidance/navigation equipment that did not allow for effective running of a P51 program. This, as stars in both cases could not be confidently sighted under the circumstance of platform loss.


False. The astronauts could be highly confident in the operation of the computer. The sextant was oriented towards bright stars in an extremely narrow field of vision; the odds of the wrong star being there are, literally, astronomical. As has been pointed out, even if the platform crashed entirely, doppler tracking from the ground would be adequate for determining the craft's location; the sextant would be useful only for establishing its attitude.



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by decisively

My point stands and stands well irrespective of your views as regards my choice in its presentation

reply to post by DJW001
 


Both Alan Shepard and Ken Mattingly by their own admissions were in possession of Apollo CM optical/computer/guidance/navigation equipment that did not allow for effective running of a P51 program. This, as stars in both cases could not be confidently sighted under the circumstance of platform loss.

One may conclude that Apollo is frauulent as one must be able to sight stars under such circumstances with absolute acuuracy.
edit on 15-5-2012 by decisively because: spelling


hmmm.. you dont get it do you??

all astronauts had full confidence in the computer finding stars, the sextant had no trouble seeing stars, it was quite clear. the scanning telescope is redundant, as use of P52 was simply more efficient.

if they wanted to they could have used the scanning scope but that will waste a lot of time, as you need to be dark adapted and you cannot have done a waste dump before hand or it will interfere with the sights. IF they had planned to use the scanning scope, than they would have allowed time to get dark adapted in order to use it. but since it was inefficient, use of P52 was planned over using the scanning scope. there is no fraud here. only you have misunderstood the context and than ran too wild with it.
edit on 15-5-2012 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by choos
 


Why have the scanning scope ? Please professor lay it out here. What pray tell was its purpose ?



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


told you, its for back up.



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by decisively
reply to post by choos
 


Why have the scanning scope ? Please professor lay it out here. What pray tell was its purpose ?


You haven't explained to us how NASA put those probes on target to Mars and Venus since they didn't have astronauts looking through scanning scpoes.

Redundancy is whats it's all about.





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join