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.

 

Vaporizing the Bolshoi

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 02:37 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


you are misunderstanding me..

why am i telling you that the trajectories will be well known? this includes location and time? why did i tell you that celestial bodies and stars will be well known prior to launch of any ballistic missile?

the IMU guides the missile.. the known variables (such as missile location and time planets location sun location star location moon location horizon) are there to fine tune the IMU for guidance.

these fine tunes are periodic and not neccesarily constant, there is no need for constant correction of the IMU.. the IMU is inherently very accurate.




posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 02:40 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


they have star locations in its memory as well as magnitude.. they have sun and moon locations either in the launch control software or in the missiles own memory.

ofcourse the trident has to acquire real time stars.. what do you think the auto star tracking does?? the preprogrammed part is when they work out the trajectory of the missile.. the missile needs to know where to point the optics to find the most visible star

you are soo not understanding what im saying.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by decisively

What you are arguing is no different from arguing that the Apollo ships in theory would have been capable of finding the moon without the optical systems they were alleged to have employed for fine aligning their imagined platforms.
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: systems> missiles, are>were

edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: added "modern"


Optics were not required...in fact they really were not necessary except as a back up.


As the 60s proceeded, fears of deliberate interference faded, and radio
navigation got better and better as it was used extensively for unmanned
spacecraft. By having the spacecraft essentially echo back a radio signal
from the ground, distance and direction could be determined quite
precisely. (Determining direction was done indirectly, by measuring the
relative velocity between the ground station and the spacecraft using
Doppler shift, and then watching how that changed as the Earth rotated.)

In the end, complete on-board optical navigation was no longer thought a
high priority, and the ability to fly a full landing mission that way was
sacrificed when program memory got tight in the onboard computer. Radio
navigation, with the computing done on the ground and the results sent up
by voice, was the normal method. Optical navigation was retained as an
emergency backup, for aborts only, with some simplifications (notably,
sighting on Earth's horizon rather than on landmarks).

Both methods were tested on Apollo 8. Optical-navigation accuracy started
out good, deteriorated as the spacecraft got farther from Earth, and then
improved again as it got closer to the Moon. By the time the crew was
setting up for lunar orbit insertion, optical and radio navigation data
agreed so closely that it was not clear which one was better, and the
radio data was sent up for the maneuver only because the flight plan said
so and following it was simpler than changing it. Results from the return
leg of the flight were similar.
yarchive.net...


There's this thing called math....it's a wonderful tool indeed.
edit on 6-4-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 02:47 AM
link   

It's a theater dude, what do you think I was making reference to ?

reply to post by sputniksteve
 



en.wikipedia.org...

The point, if I may be so bold as to be so bold, why would one want to vaporize Sviatoslav Richter ?

Very cool dude, one of my faves;

en.wikipedia.org...

Or why would the Ruskies want to take out Van the MAN !!!!!;

en.wikipedia.org...

Ever hear the Van the MAN story about the 1958 International Tchaikovsky Competition ? Richter was a judge. I think Richter scored Van the MAN 100 out of 10 or something like that. Least that's the way i heard the story told a few times.

Wicked cool those boys.







posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by paradox
 

Ditto for the imaginary Apollo ships



No , incorrect, we employ optics on our modern missiles, they very much were and are required or we would not use them.

Ditto for the imaginary Apollo ships.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 02:57 AM
link   
reply to post by choos
 

Peddling Malarkey



Oh really now, you know all this ? How well informed. Let's see you cough up a single reference featuring this malarkey that you are peddling.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 02:59 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


www.google.com...=one page&q=automatic%20celestial%20navigation&f=false

patent for auto-star tracking.



Inertial guidance. The simplest principle for guidance is the law of inertia. In aiming a basketball at a basket, an attempt is made to give the ball a trajectory that will terminate in the basket. However, once the ball is released, the shooter has no further control over it. If he has aimed incorrectly, or if the ball is touched by another person, it will miss the bas-ket. However, it is possible for the ball to be incorrectly aimed and then have another person touch it to change its course so it will hit the basket. In this case, the second player has provided a form of guidance. The inertial guidance system sup-plies the intermediate push to get the missile back on the proper trajectory. The inertial guidance method is used for the same purpose as the preset method and is actually a refinement of that method. The inertially guided missile also receives programmed informa-tion prior to launch. Although there is no electromagnetic contact between the launching site and the missile after launch, the missile is able to make corrections to its flight path with amazing precision, controlling the flight path with accelerometers that are mounted on a gyro-stabilized platform. All in-flight accelerations are continuously measured by this arrangement, and the missile attitude control generates corresponding correction signals to maintain the proper trajectory. The use of inertial guidance takes much of the guesswork out of long-range missile delivery. The unpredictable outside forces working on the missile are continuously sensed by the accelerometers. The genera-ted solution enables the missile to continuously correct its flight path. The inertial method has proved far more reliable than any other long-range guidance method developed to date.
Celestial Reference. A celestial navigation guidance system is a system designed for a predetermined path in which the missile course is adjusted continuously by reference to fixed stars. The system is based on the known apparent positions of stars or other celestial bodies with respect to a point on the surface of the earth at a given time. Navigation by fixed stars and the sun is highly desirable for long-range missiles since its accuracy is not dependent on range. The missile must be provided with a horizontal or a vertical reference to the earth, automatic star-tracking telescopes to determine star elevation angles with respect to the reference, a time base, and navigational star tables mechanically or electrically recorded. A computer in the missile continuously compares star observations with the time base and the navigational tables to determine the missile's present position. From this, the proper signals are computed to steer the missile correctly toward the target. The missile must carry all this complicated equipment and must fly above the clouds to assure star visibility. Celestial guidance (also called stellar guidance) was used for the Mariner (unmanned spacecraft) interplanetary mission to the vicinity of Mars and Venus. ICBM and SLBM systems at present use celestial guidance.

www.fas.org...



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by decisively
reply to post by paradox
 

Ditto for the imaginary Apollo ships



No , incorrect, we employ optics on our modern missiles, they very much were and are required or we would not use them.

Ditto for the imaginary Apollo ships.


Read the part I quoted you on.

You are saying it was not possible for the Apollos to "find the moon" without optics.

I then proceeded to prove you wrong, because they navigated primarily via radio from math done on the ground, as explained in the very first paragraph. Optics were not needed for Apollo to reach the moon. They were only there as an emergency back up. You are incorrect, but I have noticed that you never admit when you are wrong. You simply make up more excuses, or change subjects.
edit on 6-4-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 03:02 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


the trident's primary guidance comes from the IMU


It is an Inertial Guidance System with an additional Star-Sighting system, which is used to correct small position and velocity errors that result from launch condition uncertainties due to the sub navigation system errors and some errors that have accrued by the guidance system during the flight due to imperfect instrument calibration. GPS has been used on some test flights but is assumed not to be available for a real mission. The fire control system was designed and continues to be maintained by General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems.

en.wikipedia.org...(missile)



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 03:04 AM
link   
reply to post by choos
 


The missile location is known at sea only to the degree that the BOOMER can find itself. 60s vintage BOOMERS employed Stark Draper Lab IMUs/platforms, so they say. TRANSIT was available in those days, satellite/doppler based positioning system based on the ideal of a reverse Sputnik ephemeris solution.

It's important NOT TO BUY INTO EVERYTHING WE ARE TOLD AS REGARDS THIS EQUIPMENT , WHAT WAS USED/EMPLOYED WHEN.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 03:05 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


So NASA was involved with the space program in order to make better missiles in order to destroy a opera and ballet company?

Come on now, you don't seriously think we are that stupid do you? Of course I think you were referring to the Soviets in general. You thought it was a clever way to say it though and gave you some kind of heir of elegance by using a Russian sounding word. We have all seen you use this word before now so lets not play stupid on this one OK?

I know again I am playing the semantics game with you right, but your arrogance in the way you side step these little things and ask us to give you the benefit of the doubt when you show us time and time again you don't deserve it is appalling not to mention tiring.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


so you going to ignore all the evidence that was provided.. and carry on with your ignorance and feign superiority again?

the tridents navigation was not even celestial navigationally based.. its IMU based with celestial nagivation as help..

unless you want to post your malarkey evidence that says otherwise?



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by choos
 

Show us a reference



What kind of nonsense are you spewing ? So what ? Of course the missile is primarily dependent on a platform. So what ?

The missile sights stars, YES OR NO ? YES !!!! How is that done ? You do not know, and that is my point.

You run on about how such and such is the case. Let's see a reference as to HOW EXACTLY A MISSILE/SLBM DECIDES ON A STAR, FINDS THAT STAR, SIGHTS/TRACKS THE STAR AND CORRECTS THE BIRD'S REAL-TIME TRAJECTORY BASED ON THIS DATA. If you do not have explicit, WELL REFERENCED answers, chill. I for one am not interested in your unsubstantiated full on empty jive proposals.

I am looking for the SOLUTION, the actual SOLUTION. How is it that military people claim their birds decide on and find stars ? I am not interested in your conjectures. Show us a reference. If you do not have one, then you really have nothing to say on this important issue, now do you ?



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 03:19 AM
link   
reply to post by choos
 

The CLUE is in fact our ignorance as regards the sighting system



I do not feign superiority, I admit ignorance and that is the point. We are told the birds decide on, find, and track stars. In so doing, the trajectories of SLBMs are modified in real time.

I admit ignorance and my point is, that because we do not know how this is done, there is an element of the system WELL HIDDEN FROM US.

Apollo served as a cover for the development of this well hidden component.
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: comma



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 03:20 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


www.google.com...=one page&q=automatic%20celestial%20navigation&f=false

once again a patent for AUTOMATIC CELESTIAL NAVIGATION CONTROL SYSTEM

the IMU will know the missiles attitude at all times.. the launch crew have already planned its flight path and flight time..

now if attitude is known, star location is known as well as apparent magnitude, sun location is known, moon location is known, horizon is known relative to time, celestial body locations are known.. than why is it completely impossible for the computer (either onboard or pre-launch) to work out which navigational aid (celestial sightings) to use in order to refine the IMU?



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by choos
 

Respectfully call this nonsense



You've got to be kidding ? You are claiming we put this "system" into our early star sighting SLBMs ?

I would respectfully disagree and respectfully call this nonsense.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


BS in all of your threads you are speaking in a superior tone.. like everyone else is beneath you.. what was the point of claiming to be a champion navigator?? why say working out the coordinates were simple? why claim to be a doctor? why say chemical equations were so simple?

you are and have always been feigning superiority.. its like you have small man syndrome.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 03:24 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


something similar yes.


Celestial Reference. A celestial navigation guidance system is a system designed for a predetermined path in which the missile course is adjusted continuously by reference to fixed stars. The system is based on the known apparent positions of stars or other celestial bodies with respect to a point on the surface of the earth at a given time. Navigation by fixed stars and the sun is highly desirable for long-range missiles since its accuracy is not dependent on range. The missile must be provided with a horizontal or a vertical reference to the earth, automatic star-tracking telescopes to determine star elevation angles with respect to the reference, a time base, and navigational star tables mechanically or electrically recorded. A computer in the missile continuously compares star observations with the time base and the navigational tables to determine the missile's present position. From this, the proper signals are computed to steer the missile correctly toward the target. The missile must carry all this complicated equipment and must fly above the clouds to assure star visibility. Celestial guidance (also called stellar guidance) was used for the Mariner (unmanned spacecraft) interplanetary mission to the vicinity of Mars and Venus. ICBM and SLBM systems at present use celestial guidance.

www.fas.org...

basic principles of autonomous celestial navigation.
edit on 4-6-2012 by choos because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-6-2012 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Just to be specific

reply to post by choos
 


Your silly system, just for openers, would have no way of selecting a star given the lat/long the BOOMER was at. A system needs to be able to decide based on location, time of day, time of year, target, what star will be tracked. This system of yours has NOTHING as regards those concerns, and so it would be rejected by the US NAVY as more than woefully inadequate.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 03:28 AM
link   
reply to post by choos
 


So, what does this nonsense have to do with our question ? We want specifics, what star, based on location, time, season, target ? This is irrelevant, your posting, absolutely irrelevant.
edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: added "?"



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join