posted on May, 21 2012 @ 05:50 AM
reply to post by decisively
"During the case of the flight, in almost every case, neither are you dark adapted, nor are you in a position where you have time to get dark
adapted and positively identify the star through the telescope because of the external lighting and particles.
So about all you can do in that one
is let the optics drive and if there is a star in there you assume its the right one and take a whack at it and see if it meets the rules. If your
platform's good enough to sight the star, what's the sense of doing it ? Or if you really think you need a star check, then allow yourself
enough time in the flight plan to positively identify it, which means BEING DARK ADAPRTED, no urine dumps and so on.
"During the early part of the flight I could not see anything through the scanning telescope that I could recognize, for instance - a constellation. I
could see several stars, but I couldn't pinpoint them because I didn't know the surrounding stars. As long as we did not move the spacecraft around,
got some distance from the earth and its light, it was possible to see constellations in the scanning telescope. Several factors are involved here.
One, of course, is that you must become dark-adapted. You must be dark-adapted before you can see stars. When you first look through the
scanning telescope, you see nothing but blackness.
how are these contradictory??
shepard says if you want to use the scanning scope you need to allow yourself time to get dark adapted and no urine dumps.
lovell says if you want to use the scanning scope you must be dark adapted (which takes time) otherwise you will only see blackness.
they are both saying the same thing when it comes to sighting stars with the scanning scope... the difference is lovell planned for himself to get
dark adapted since optical navigation is one of his favourite methods. so than how is this contradictory?
edit on 21-5-2012 by choos because:
(no reason given)
edit on 21-5-2012 by choos because: (no reason given)