PDA

View Full Version : Cosmic Dave's 32 questions



JayUtah
2002-Jun-03, 02:23 AM
See http://www.clavius.org/bibdave32.html

AstroMike
2002-Jun-03, 02:52 AM
In case you're wondering Jay, the Clementine probe had a resolution of 125-250 m/pixels (http://wwwflag.wr.usgs.gov/USGSFlag/Space/clementine/clementine.html).

Otherwise, rock on! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

Kaptain K
2002-Jun-03, 03:05 AM
Well, Dave?

We're waiting.

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-03, 03:20 AM
Nice piece of work, Jay! Suppose you'll be getting any more "legal" emails? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

David Hall
2002-Jun-03, 03:55 AM
Nice work Jay.

But for question 9 you should address the second "C" on the ground as well. Your page on the C rock does not cover that.

Andrew
2002-Jun-03, 03:55 AM
Re: Question No. 4.

Aside from the fact that Dave's paragraph is contradictory in the extreme, he aslo says that he's found evidence for the ignition transient in only one LM lift-off.
For anyone interested, the same phenomenon is also visible in the Apollo 16 LM lift-off footage (Dave's footage is Apollo 17).

Apollo 16 LM lift-off (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/ktclips/ap16_16_Orion_liftoff.rm)

JayUtah
2002-Jun-03, 04:11 AM
But for question 9 you should address the second "C" on the ground as well.

Right, thanks for the reminder. It's now on the "to do" list.

Basically I think it's there, but it's not necessarily a "C". It's just a curved feature. If you assume everything in that photo that looks like a letter or numeral really is that letter or numeral, you can find like half a dozen letters in the dirt there.

The notion that it's a "C" to mark the centerline of the stage is absolute crap. I've been in theater since I was wearing befooted pajamas, and I've never seen that done that way. Plus, there's no need to mark the centerline of a film set because there is no centerline.

Alan G. Archer
2002-Jun-03, 09:49 AM
Well done, Jay!

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-03, 02:15 PM
On the point of the LRV camera tracking the LM ascent (point 22) wasn't it also true that it took Ed Fendell two previous tries on Apollo 15 and 16 to finally get the shot perfect on 17?

Peter B
2002-Jun-03, 02:54 PM
Jay

Excellent work.

With regard to point 18 (internal pressure of the suits), I understand the internal pressure was only around 3.7 psi, rather than the 5 mentioned by Dave.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-03, 03:06 PM
From the Earth to the Moon tells the story of Ed Fendell like that, but I think it's been overstated.

And yes, the suit pressure was around 3.5 psia. Thanks for pointing that out.

cosmicdave
2002-Jun-03, 07:18 PM
JayUtah,
Heres your answers, and a few I have for you. Your questions or accusations are in speech marks.

‘Skeptics don't say there aren't any stars visible in space. They say there should be no stars visible from the surface of the moon’.

What’s the difference between aren’t and should not be?

‘The "official photos" Dave reproduces showing alleged stars are the low-quality JSC scans that have white specks everywhere as a result of the hurried scanning process.’

And on several of the examples I have on my site the ‘white specks’ as you call them are in exactly the same configuration in the sky, even though the camera is panning across the horizon. This rules out blemishes on the lens or within the film.

‘ The astronauts were not affected by this environment because they pre-breathed with oxygen to purge the nitrogen out of their bloodstreams prior to doffing their helmets inside the spacecraft.’

This does not apply to the Apollo 13 missions because they had a limited supply of Oxygen.
Photos taken of the lunar surface directly beneath the descent engine show it to have been swept and scoured. However, there is no justification for arguing that the dust for any appreciable radius around the engine nozzle would have all been blown away. Recall that the foot of the ladder is some fifteen feet (five meters) away from the exhaust nozzle.
So the dust didn’t blow very far away, but it also didn’t land inside the landing pads either… interesting!
Contrary to having "turned the tables" on skeptics, Dave has once again tried to have his cake and eat it too. He says the lack of flame is suspicious, and simultaneously the presence of the flame is suspicious. He should decide whether a flame is visible or not so that he can get straight what is supposed to be suspicious.
Ok, so lets go with the appearance of a flame argument. You guys reckon that no flame should be seen, so why is one evident in many ascents from the Moon?
In fact, this is quite good evidence of the progressive nature of Apollo technology. Television coverage was not strictly required in order to accomplish the landing on time, and so high-quality television for lunar EVA was deferred in its development until later in the program.
In fact during the early minutes of the first Apollo 11 EVA the picture quality changes dramatically. Why?
This is a natural feature of contour on the lunar surface. It is not always possible to distinguish by color or shading the crests of intervening hills.
This comment would be fine, except for the fact that the background soil is of a completely different shade to the foreground and that is why such a distinct ‘join’ can be seen. Also several different backgrounds from different missions have the same features and size, even though the sites are allegedly several km away from each other.
Skeptics say no such thing. In fact, shadows in sunlight should be expected to appear parallel in photography only under very special circumstances. In all other cases they will appear to converge or diverge.
Actually those sceptics are on this very group and told me about the two light sources around Christmas time. Your own members came up with this theory, so if it’s wrong you can blame them. You maybe able to find these facts on this board, I have looked myself but believe that perhaps BA discards threads after a certain time?
It wasn't extended until after splashdown. It was in its retracted position during re-entry
So how did they communicate with Houston if the aerial was down?
The lunar module was tested successfully numerous times in vacuum chambers to verify its pressure integrity. It was tested in space on Apollos 5, 9, and 10 prior to the first landing. Every aircraft or spacecraft has a first flight test, and it's always a white-knuckle flight, but to say the LM was untested is absolutely false.
You’re missing the point. The wording I used is ‘Who would dare risk using the LEM on the Moon when it was never, ever tested successfully?’ The LEM was never successfully landed anywhere until it landed on the Moon. Prove me wrong! I seem to remember Armstrong almost being killed on one of the attempts made.
In regards to the ability to jump, within 1/6th gravity it would be an easier task to jump than here on Earth, jeez, even guys on Earth can jump 6 feet or above.
‘None of these extremely powerful solar events occurred during any of the missions. The events experienced by Apollo’s 14 and 16 were quite mild.’
More luck than judgement considering that there is no way of knowing when solar flares will erupt. In fact midway through the Apollo years the sunspot cycle was at its 11 year cycle high and was one of the highest recorded on record.
‘Further, the plans for the Soviet lunar spacecraft do not include two meters of shielding.’
And they didn’t go either!
‘No, they shouldn't have. Nickel porous plate sublimators are among the most common devices used in space engineering.’
So where did all that used up oxygen go?
In your Technology communications page you claim:
The practice of wearing a lead vest essentially allows you to undergo as many dental x-rays as you need without worrying about cumulative exposure.
And Astronauts during the Apollo missions were living in these radiation conditions continually. With no apparent affect to their health?

‘One man's opinion of the timetable shouldn't necessarily take precedence over those who had more information available.’
Really, even though that man was to be a guinea pig on Apollo 1 and basically put his life in NASA’s hands?
‘Command Module 012 has been in the custody of the United States government since early 1967. If they had really wanted to destroy it, it wouldn't have been too difficult.’
But how many people have seen it? You say that it’s in the custody of the United States Government… in a locked vault or on general display? Why destroy it? If the Government doesn’t want anyone to see something in their possession then they will find ways to make sure that the evidence stays covered up. Have you seen it?
‘Conspiracists interpret words like "more dangerous" and "hazardous" as if they somehow mean "instantly deadly", which they do not.’
If I was using a detergent to clean something and the instructions on the back of the container said ‘hazardous to health if swallowed’ do you think I would drink it? Or would you like to prove your point? Hazardous in my dictionary does mean life threatening.
The Apollo Guidance Computer was not intended to be a general purpose computer. It was designed to fulfill its specific mission, and did so.
My current car has an onboard computer of around 64mb. All it does is read the temperature, speedo, mph and have electric windows etc. Obviously the Apollo craft had a lot more gadgetry to them. Even a calculator has more memory than 32k and considering that the computer aboard the Apollo was used for making calculations, how do you suggest that such a small memory computer could cope with the task?
‘Neither the Hubble Space Telescope nor the Clementine probe has the required optical resolution to see objects on the lunar surface as small as the Apollo hardware.’
You better get in touch with NASA if you believe this because they have released images of the Apollo hardware, both on motion film and still photos - or are you calling them liars?
To my question 30 on my site which states ‘ In the year 2002 NASA does not have the technology to land any man, or woman on the Moon, and return them safely to Earth.’
You answer: ‘This does not prove it did not have the technology to do it in 1969. These are not skills and equipment on the same level as riding a bike or building a birdhouse. These are design and construction techniques which are highly specialized, and if not needed are not undertaken.’
But you’re the one who tells me that you have so many thousands of documents on the Apollo missions – What’s stopping them looking at the old blueprints? Oh yes of course I forgot, they destroyed most of them… doh! How stupid. Surely these highly qualified scientists can work from a simple plan – can’t they? And surely things can be learned from the Apollo missions that would help with flights to Mars and other space related missions. On the one hand your telling me that Schools and Universities are shown Apollo related stuff to learn from and in the next breath that NASA don’t bother to use it themselves… odd?
‘NASA's mission has changed. It has also been drastically scaled back. If there were a mandate to maintain and use such technology, there is plenty of design and manufacturing capability to undertake it. Space exploration simply requires different skills and materials, and must operate on a different set of resources.’
The budget Congress agreed to, part of a larger budget bill that funds the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development as well as various independent agencies, gives NASA $14.8 billion for fiscal year 2002, which started October 1. This is about $300 million more than what the Senate, closely following the budget proposal by President Bush, approved, but is about $150 million less than what the House approved. NASA received $14.3 billion in fiscal year 2001. The whole Apollo project cost an estimated $25 billion. So NASA would have more than that amount in just 2 years. Why do they have to cut back on resources?
‘The footage as shown in Bart Sibrel's video is cut up and rendered incoherent, and the voiceover makes it difficult to hear what the astronauts are saying.’
That’s a very convenient way of wriggling out of having to answer to firm evidence that you believe us hoax believers could not uncover. I thought that someone on here said that all NASA footage was released in the mid 70s? obviously that rule didn’t apply to this footage. What else has NASA got tucked away in the vaults?
‘Congress provided no funding for the storage and archive of the detailed design documentation. The private companies who had custody of it did not have the funds nor the desire to archive materials that required an inconveniently large building in which to house it. They are for-profit companies, not museums. Thus the detailed documentation was regretfully discarded while the basic documentation was preserved.’
Oh how convenient, and you don’t think this is suspect? If this were the situation in the UK there would be a national outcry if our Government dared to destroy evidence of a piece of our History of such great significance. Why didn’t NASA offer the documents to a private buyer?
THAT’S YOUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED AND HERES A FEW MORE THAT’S ON YOUR SITE WHICH I WOULD LIKE AN ANSWER TO:
As seen from earth, an Apollo spacecraft on a translunar trajectory would always be in roughly the same direction as the moon.
This strengthens my argument that the position of the Apollo craft could not successfully be worked out by radio ham operators
‘It's not as easy to hide a satellite as Sibrel believes.’
Perhaps you could tell this to China who only recently discovered a huge American spy satellite watching over them.
I think I have more than responded to my critics with very a very valid response.
Thanks,
CosmicDave

Tomblvd
2002-Jun-03, 07:35 PM
On 2002-06-03 15:18, cosmicdave wrote:

Actually those sceptics are on this very group and told me about the two light sources around Christmas time. Your own members came up with this theory, so if it?s wrong you can blame them. You maybe able to find these facts on this board, I have looked myself but believe that perhaps BA discards threads after a certain time?



I have been on this website for a long time and I have never seen a post that stated shadows were caused by earthshine.

I have seen discussions on this board where the fill lighting in shadows was speculated to be from earthshine, but that has been ruled out due to the intense light reflected from the moon's surface.

However, even if someone did make that statement on this board, why do you keep going back to it? Nobody has repeated it, and it is not on either BA or Clavius. You are hanging your hat on one post which may or may not even exist.

So to put and end to this, nobody here on the BA discussion board says that earthshine has ANY effect on casting shadows.

Tomblvd
2002-Jun-03, 07:48 PM
As seen from earth, an Apollo spacecraft on a translunar trajectory would always be in roughly the same direction as the moon.
This strengthens my argument that the position of the Apollo craft could not successfully be worked out by radio ham operators




You can't just say that "it strenghtens your argument", you must tell us why. Please discuss the technique of using doppler shift to track a spacecraft and how being in one spot in the sky makes that difficult.

You have the incredibly annoying habit of making completely unsubstantiated statements and passing them off as fact.

Do you know what doppler shift is?



Perhaps you could tell this to China who only recently discovered a huge American spy satellite watching over them.

What in heavens name are you talking about? You have to at least give us a link of something!


I think I have more than responded to my critics with very a very valid response.


Making up responses is not "responding to critics". NONE of your answers have any references to them. You make a statement about not being able to track Apollo, but give no evidence, while we posted the relevant information from numerous sources.

You also make completely false claims, like Clementine and Hubble have imaged the Apollo hardware on the moon. This is completely false. If it weren't, it would end the hoax speculation.

You'll have to do much better than that, with references.

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-03, 08:18 PM
On 2002-06-03 15:18, cosmicdave wrote:

Oh how convenient, and you don’t think this is suspect? If this were the situation in the UK there would be a national outcry if our Government dared to destroy evidence of a piece of our History of such great significance. Why didn’t NASA offer the documents to a private buyer?

Well that's cool. The next time the Yankee Air Force is looking to acquire design specs of the de Havilland Comet for it's library and gets told by de Havilland and Bombardier that these documents don't exist anymore we can just warn them about the public outcry in the UK if they don't caugh up what we're looking for.

I don't think you have a clue as to how many documents you're talking about and what the cost of storing them would be. Private contractors weren't going to do it without public funding. Taxpayers in this country got tired of funding the missions themselves after they had accomplished their goal, think they were going to fund a couple of Indiana Jones-style warehouses just to store, catalog and maintain a bunch of obscure documents most of them wouldn't understand anyways?

(corr. sp)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: pvtpylot on 2002-06-03 17:44 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-Jun-03, 09:14 PM
What’s the difference between aren’t and should not be?

That's not the difference I delineated. The difference between seeing stars in space (e.g., from earth orbit) and seeing stars on the lunar surface. When you figure out what the difference is, you'll have your answer.

This rules out blemishes on the lens or within the film.

I did not say that had to be on the lens or within the film. The process of producing those photos for web publishing entailed many possible sources of dust contamination, e.g., scanner bezels. The JSC scans were produced hurriedly as thumbnails.

You say they're stars, although you can supply no proof for that. And in fact, your assertion that they are the same between photos despite a different camera angle is good evidence that they are not stars. It is very strong evidence that it is contamination in the optical path during some process.

It looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, and flies like a duck. Yet you say it's a squid.

This does not apply to the Apollo 13 missions because they had a limited supply of Oxygen.

Irrelevant to the point, which we have covered elsewhere in any case.

Ok, so lets go with the appearance of a flame argument.

Is this a concession, or is it for the sake of argument?

You guys reckon that no flame should be seen, so why is one evident in many ascents from the Moon?

That's simplistic. That's not what we claim. You want to break this down into a black and white, either-or situation, when it has been painstakingly explained to you that this it is not binary determination. You simply refuse to take it into account.

If there is to be a visible plume from an Aerozine engine -- and there isn't always one -- that plume will occur at the ignition transient, which is the exact instant you've captured in your video frame. If you play the rest of the video, the plume instantly goes away.

The problem in your argument is that you're trying to have it both ways. If you say that a plume is visible, that refutes your own argument where you say the absence of a plume is suspicious. You've subverted your own support.

This comment would be fine, except for the fact that the background soil is of a completely different shade to the foreground and that is why such a distinct ‘join’ can be seen.

No. The argument that there is a contour feature is based on evidence other than apparent color. You claim to have read http://www.clavius.org/shadlen.html where this was explained in great detail. Apparently you didn't read it carefully enough.

Also several different backgrounds from different missions have the same features and size, even though the sites are allegedly several km away from each other.

I require an example.

Actually those sceptics are on this very group and told me about the two light sources around Christmas time.

All the posts have been retained on this board since October 2001. Please point to the thread in which this conversation took place.

Your own members came up with this theory, so if it’s wrong you can blame them.

No. I am not asking you to address some other person's answers. I am asking you to address my answers. You have a singular talent for trying to shift responsibility for your statements. You are employing what logicians call a "straw man", trying to argue against a weaker objection that what is mounted. Please either support your statements or withdrawn them.

So how did they communicate with Houston if the aerial was down?

VHF communications are impossible during re-entry anyway due to the ionization layer that builds up around the spacecraft. The antenna was lowered just prior to re-entry and then extended again after splashdown.

You’re missing the point. The wording I used is ‘Who would dare risk using the LEM on the Moon when it was never, ever tested successfully?’

No, you're missing the point. I don't agree with your assertion that the LM was not tested successfully.

The LEM was never successfully landed anywhere until it landed on the Moon.

The LM was designed to land on the moon. Its structure, engines, and landing gear were designed for that task. How could such a vehicle have been landed anywhere else? It came as close as it needed to on Apollo 10 to verify that the landing systems would indeed work.

You argue that the actual touchdown as the sine qua non of a successful test. How and where did you become an expert on the flight test of spacecraft? If you're not an expert, why should we trust your opinion of what constitutes a successful spacecraft test?

I seem to remember Armstrong almost being killed on one of the attempts made.

Armstrong ejected from the Lunar Lander Training Vehicle shortly before it crashed. Two of the five such vehicles were lost in crashes. The cause of Armstrong's crash was determined to be a leak which exhausted his manuevering fuel, making it impossible for him to steer the vehicle. Hundreds of successful test and training flights were made in these training vehicles without incident.

What's your point?

In regards to the ability to jump, within 1/6th gravity it would be an easier task to jump than here on Earth

Granted, but your argument is that the absence of such leaping is suspicious. This is an affirmed consequent. You claim they didn't do it because they couldn't do it. When in fact there were other reasons why they perhaps didn't want to do it. Leaping about on the lunar surface frequently led to loss of balance. There is some excellent footage of this on the Apollo Archive if you'd care to examine it.

Your argument rests on your assumption that if they could have, they necessarily would have. I don't agree.

even guys on Earth can jump 6 feet or above.

Then I challenge you to find an athlete who can replicate, in earth gravity, Neil Armstrong's leap up to the top of the LM ladder at the end of the Apollo 11 EVA.

More luck than judgement considering that there is no way of knowing when solar flares will erupt.

Agreed. However the probability of encountering an injurious solar event during an Apollo mission was actually less than the probability that the booster would explode on the pad killing them all instantly.

If you argue that the use of statistical probability to avoid solar events was insufficient to provide an adequate safety margin, I will require you to provide a statistical probability argument to support that. I do not accept handwaving on matters such as this.

In fact midway through the Apollo years the sunspot cycle was at its 11 year cycle high and was one of the highest recorded on record.

And all the solar events that occurred during that solar cycle were duly recorded and measured by several different organizations and countries. If you believe that a first-magnitude solar event occurred during an Apollo mission, please provide documentation.

And they didn’t go either!

Irrelevant. They produced a spacecraft design they believed would survive the cislunar environment. Please explain why the Soviet designs mention nothing of the massive radiation shields you say were necessary.

So where did all that used up oxygen go?

You have absolutely no clue how the space suits function. The sublimators are for cooling. It's a closed loop.

The oxygen is combined with carbon in the astronauts' bodies and released into the space suit gas loop as carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide is absorbed by lithium hydroxide in the PLSS.

And Astronauts during the Apollo missions were living in these radiation conditions continually.

No, I do not agree that astronauts were living in the same conditions as persist during a dental x-ray. This has been my point throughout. You have provided absolutely no quantitative evidence of the x-ray conditions in cislunar space, or estimates of absorbed dose, or estimates of biological effects. You simply wave your hands and say it would be dangerous.

I am engineer. I want numbers.

Protection in dental x-rays is intended to produce an effectively zero dose in your blood-forming organs, meaning that you do not have to keep track of how many such x-rays you receive over a year to see whether you're approaching a dangerous dose.

Really, even though that man was to be a guinea pig on Apollo 1 and basically put his life in NASA’s hands?

That circumstance has nothing to do with whether Gus Grissom was in possession of the relavant information and expertise to say whether the entire Apollo program was on track or not. Your statement has nothing to do with your argument. You wish to argue that Gus Grissom's estimate of ten years is the authoritative estimate. Your statement establishes interest, but not authority.

But how many people have seen it?

Irrelevant to your argument. You claim NASA tried to destroy the Apollo 1 capsule on a number of occasions. I want to know why it's so difficult to destroy an item that's in one's custody.

In short, you have provided no evidence that NASA attempted to destroy the Apollo 1 capsule, and the assertion is preposterous on its merits.

Hazardous in my dictionary does mean life threatening.

Irrelevant. You have provided no quantitative data to support any of your arguments regarding radiation. I don't care what your dictionary says. If you don't have numbers, and the ability to correctly interpret them, you don't have an argument.

My current car has an onboard computer of around 64mb.

And if the same technology had been available to Apollo, their computer would have been larger and more powerful. The comparison to modern computers is largely invalid. The question is not whether the Apollo computer is equivalent to some other computer. The question is whether the Apollo computer is adequate for the tasks assigned to it.

Can you give any expert testimony as to whether the Apollo computer was not capable of performing the tasks it was asked to perform?

Obviously the Apollo craft had a lot more gadgetry to them.

Perhaps. Does your car regularly communicate with large mainframes in order to maintain proper operation? Or is your car's computer required to manage all those tasks on its own? Do you have any explicit input to your car's computer, or is it simply a "black box" to you?

Perhaps your car's computer is trying to solve different problems than an Apollo spacecraft computer.

That brings up another point. The bit of the car you can see in my shadow photos does not have a computer. If your car requires a 64MB computer in order to operate, someone could argue that my car, which has no computer at all, could not possibly operate. You make the common mistake that just because we solve certain problems with computers today, those problems had no solution before the application of computers.

how do you suggest that such a small memory computer could cope with the task?

In your highly expert opinion, how much computer memory is required to solve the problem of spacecraft guidance? What are the memory requirements for an embedded system as opposed to a general purpose system? What other measures of computer performance might be applicable to the problem of spacecraft guidance?

You better get in touch with NASA if you believe this because they have released images of the Apollo hardware, both on motion film and still photos - or are you calling them liars?

That was not your question, nor was that my answer. Your question stated that it should be possible for "a very powerful telescope" or the Clementine probe to have taken pictures of the Apollo hardware. I took the liberty of using the Hubble as the quintessential example of "a very powerful telescope" (arguably the most powerful available). And I pointed out that neither aspect of your scenario was possible.

You're now changing horses and saying that NASA has released photos and film of the Apollo hardware. That is true, it having been taken from the Apollo command module and some from the ascending lunar module, not either of the pieces of technology you mentioned.

You are trying to change the argument.

But you’re the one who tells me that you have so many thousands of documents on the Apollo missions – What’s stopping them looking at the old blueprints?

I don't claim to have every document, and I specifically stated that many of them were destroyed. In any case, having documents which describe the technology is not the same as having the technology in hand.

Future attempts to reach the moon will likely build upon various Apollo concepts, but will not simply reuse the same hardware. Nothing prevents engineers from looking at the design documents from Apollo, filling in the gaps, and producing the Apollo spacecraft again. But this is not what they would prefer to do. They would prefer to incorporate the advances learned in space technology since Apollo.

And the acquisition of the technology is not the chief impediment to returning to the moon. NASA lacks any mandate from the public to do so.

Surely these highly qualified scientists can work from a simple plan – can’t they?

Why do you assume spacecraft are designed according to "a simple plan"? I have participated in the design of spacecraft. You have not. I'll keep my own counsel about what is possible in that industry.

On the one hand your telling me that Schools and Universities are shown Apollo related stuff to learn from and in the next breath that NASA don’t bother to use it themselves… odd?

No, again you're trying to simplify away important differences. Studying some crucial aspect of Apollo technology is not equivalent to being able to reproduce it for use again on a whim.

The space shuttle main engines were designed according to many of the same principles as the Rocketdyne F-1. We still use the F-1 to help understand the SSMEs, and we use the SSME design as a springboard for newer technologies.

The point with regard to using Apollo technology as teaching aids is that if this technology did not work as advertised, the people studying it would discover this. And technology built on that as a predecessor would not work either.

You want to equate widespread familiarity with Apollo technology to the capacity to yank a lever tomorrow and have an actual, functioning lunar module pop out.

The whole Apollo project cost an estimated $25 billion.

In 1960 dollars. You do understand inflation, don't you?

So NASA would have more than that amount in just 2 years.

But "that much" these days won't buy you a moon landing program. And that's if NASA completely shut down all of its other operations and concentrated solely on returning to the moon. That's impractical.

Why do they have to cut back on resources?

NASA must work within the budget and mandate established by Congress. Congress has not authorized funds for returning to the moon, nor authorized that as a valid expenditure of any funds currently in NASA's possession.

You are grossly oversimplifying the factors that affect a national space program.

That’s a very convenient way of wriggling out of having to answer to firm evidence that you believe us hoax believers could not uncover.

Not at all. I simply point out that Bart Sibrel has gone to great lengths to make it difficult for you to see what's really happening in his footage. If it really is what he says it is, it shouldn't require his heavy editing and commentary. Since I have seen the footage without the benefit of Sibrel's commentary, I am free to form my own opinion of what it represents. I have also consulted with both astronauts and ground personnel to get a more educated interpretation.

There is nothing whatosever in the footage that says the astronauts are about to falsify an in-transit telecast from low-earth orbit. Everything that's in there is fully consistent with what NASA says it is: a rehearsal for a telecast that hadn't been discussed prior to departure.

You seem fully converted to Bart Sibrel's interpretation of this footage. And it is his interpretatiion. Have you considered at all any other possible explanation?

I thought that someone on here said that all NASA footage was released in the mid 70s? obviously that rule didn’t apply to this footage.

Completely specious. That it was first published in the 1990s does not prove it was not previously available.

What else has NASA got tucked away in the vaults?

I don't know. Speculation is your bag.

Oh how convenient, and you don’t think this is suspect?

No, I don't, because unlike you I have experience in the aerospace industry. I know about their document retention policies. Whether you think it's "convenient" or not is irrelevant. If you believe the materials were destroyed to keep them from being examined too closely, then it is your responsibility to prove exactly that proposition.

If this were the situation in the UK there would be a national outcry

Well bully for you. You can't cry fraud just because, in your infinite wisdom, you would have done it differently.

Why didn’t NASA offer the documents to a private buyer?

The documents that were held by NASA are in the National Archives and have been available for inspection for decades. This is only a very small portion of the total documentation produced for Apollo. The vast majority of the documentation is the part-specific paperwork I mentioned earlier. That documentation is held by the contractor (by U.S. law) and is largely useless once the spacecraft have been used (and in some cases, destroyed). That is the documentation which has been destroyed.

Conspiracy theorists, who do not understand the first thing about documentation in public engineering, are aghast at any destruction of documents, regardless of their historical significant.

This strengthens my argument that the position of the Apollo craft could not successfully be worked out by radio ham operators

False. S-band receiving antennas must be precisely aligned.

Perhaps you could tell this to China who only recently discovered a huge American spy satellite watching over them.

Hogwash. Reconaissance satellites are continuously in various altitude orbits at high inclinations, passing over most of the earth's surface at any one time. It is impossible according to orbital mechanics to make a recon satellite "hover" over some particular part of the earth.

I think I have more than responded to my critics with very a very valid response.

No, I'm very unsatisfied. You have, in many cases, simply tried to change the subject or throw irrelevant topics into the discussion. For the rest you have simply provided handwaving.

Further, you did not respond to several of my answers. Does that mean you concede those arguments?


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-06-03 17:26 ]</font>

Silas
2002-Jun-03, 09:42 PM
On 2002-06-03 15:18, cosmicdave wrote:
. . . In your Technology communications page you claim:
The practice of wearing a lead vest essentially allows you to undergo as many dental x-rays as you need without worrying about cumulative exposure.
And Astronauts during the Apollo missions were living in these radiation conditions continually. With no apparent affect to their health?
. . .


The hull of the command module is thicker than a dental x-ray vest; can you tell us how much radiation it absorbs?

I have to side with Jay Utah on this: you keep making these statements with no consideration at all for even the simplest facts, and you *never* acknowledge your errors.

It is this latter non-responsiveness that is irksome.

I'm not a scientist, although I've got some decent education in the basics. There are a lot of things I simply don't know. Sometimes, I have mistaken assumptions. Just one example: I had thought that the Command Module, returning from the Moon, entered a stable circular orbit around the earth, then de-orbited for splashdown. Jay and others were kind enough to tell me that I was wrong. I didn't argue back. I didn't say, "But they must have had to, or else it couldn't work!" I didn't say, "But if that's true, then gravity has to push, not pull!" I didn't even say, "Oh, yeah, were you there?" I said, "Oh! Thanks for setting me straight."

I'd rather learn the truth than labor under an error. Do you really love your errors so much that you won't let go of them?

(Yo, Jay: how much thicker *was* the hull of the CM than a typical dentist's x-ray vest? Largely aluminum, yes? I know that aluminum is good at stopping some kinds of radiation -- for instance, the Canadian Destroyers Yukon, Mackenzie, and Q'Appelle were built with aluminum superstructures to resist fallout during an atomic war.)

Silas

dasi
2002-Jun-03, 09:50 PM
cosmicdave wrote:

"The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory."

"Even a calculator has more memory than 32k and considering that the computer aboard the Apollo was used for making calculations, how do you suggest that such a small memory computer could cope with the task?"

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/ap15fj/compessay.htm

http://home.planet.nl/~faase009/Ha_Apollo.html

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/computers/contents.html

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/computers/Ch2-5.html

Disabuse yourself.

dasi

Silas
2002-Jun-03, 10:42 PM
dasi: thanks for the links! Wow, that takes me back! I haven't thought about individual "flip flops" in a long, long time!

("You had ones and zeroes? You had it easy! In my day, we had to whittle our own ones from maple wood and cut sections of lead tubing for zeroes! And a fifteen bit word! Hanh! Luxury! We had a four bit word! We could code ten digits and six letters! It made sending flames over the email hard as the dickens!")

Silas

johnwitts
2002-Jun-03, 11:59 PM
Cosmic Dave seems to be posting the same stuff in two topic sections. Jay's debunked it here, and I've had a go in the 'Very Laughable Topic' section.

Divide and conquer?

PS, we said mostly the same things! Go Jay and John!!!

cosmicdave
2002-Jun-04, 01:42 AM
'So to put and end to this, nobody here on the BA discussion board says that earthshine has ANY effect on casting shadows.'

So now that you disagree with a statement made previously on this board you accuse me of being wrong? It certainly was a different story around a year ago. As 'The Rat', I seem to remember that he was part of the debate.

'You can't just say that "it strenghtens your argument", you must tell us why. Please discuss the technique of using doppler shift to track a spacecraft and how being in one spot in the sky makes that difficult.'

If an object is moving away from you in near enough a straight line how can you predict how far it is simply by using ham radio? You cant.

in response to JayUtah:

'I did not say that had to be on the lens or within the film. The process of producing those photos for web publishing entailed many possible sources of dust contamination, e.g., scanner bezels. The JSC scans were produced hurriedly as thumbnails.'

Provide me the evidence that proves that the marks on several slides on my site are printing marks and not stars.

'Irrelevant to the point, which we have covered elsewhere in any case.'

When you cannot give a decent answer why do you always claim that what I say is irrelevant, more like you don't know the answer me thinks.

the flame arguement...Is this a concession, or is it for the sake of argument?

What do you think? Sake of argument perhaps?

'and there isn't always one (a flame)'

Why not? an engine needs a power source to work, why would we see a flame in some cases and not others?

I haven't claimed to read clavius at all, only parts of it. Another misquote.

'I require an example.' (of similar mountain ranges appearing on seperate missions).

If you haven't seen these pictures on HB sites then I suggest that you haven't been doing your homework. This is one of the main accusations for pro-hoax believers.

'All the posts have been retained on this board since October 2001. Please point to the thread in which this conversation took place.'

Well i cant find it if they are. Perhaps you can, seeming that you've hung out here for so long... or ask 'The Rat'. Finding these posts will support my statements about Earthshine 100%

'I don't agree with your assertion that the LM was not tested successfully.'

Face the facts, it wasn't

'It came as close as it needed to on Apollo 10 to verify that the landing systems would indeed work.'

50,000 ft is hardly close enough for a craft to test if it could land or not.

'How and where did you become an expert on the flight test of spacecraft?'

Getting a bit techy now. Perhaps I'm getting close?

'I seem to remember Armstrong almost being killed on one of the attempts made.' - whats my point?

Crash safety, would you buy a car that had not had any safety crash tests done on it in the environment that it was intended to be used?

'Neil Armstrong's leap up to the top of the LM ladder at the end of the Apollo 11 EVA.'

I haven't seen thios footage, please post a link.

'If you argue that the use of statistical probability to avoid solar events was insufficient to provide an adequate safety margin, I will require you to provide a statistical probability argument to support that.'

Could science predict where lighting is going to strike? NO! Same arguement applies to solar flares, you cannot predict the unpredictable, even if your the most qualified scientist in the World.

'If you believe that a first-magnitude solar event occurred during an Apollo mission, please provide documentation.'

I didn't say that, your making things up as you go along now.

'Please explain why the Soviet designs mention nothing of the massive radiation shields you say were necessary.'

As you would term it, this is irrelevant because they didn't go, so the thickness of the shielding makes no difference. Strike one CD!

'You have provided absolutely no quantitative evidence of the x-ray conditions in cislunar space, or estimates of absorbed dose, or estimates of biological effects.'

Perhaps I should dig up the radiation test results on 'Fred' that dummy used on the Shuttle last year - if they're available that is.

'That circumstance has nothing to do with whether Gus Grissom was in possession of the relavant information and expertise to say whether the entire Apollo program was on track or not.'

Actually, the tragic events of Apollo 1 completely confirmed Grissoms fears that NASA were trying to rush things. The film footage of the event is your evidence. How do you know that Grissom had no information of the Apollo schedule. Did you ask him?

'Irrelevant to your argument. You claim NASA tried to destroy the Apollo 1 capsule on a number of occasions.'

You brought up the arguement about certain craft being in NASA's possession not me. I have not made any claims that NASA tried to destroy the Apollo 1, where did you get that one from? But as you mention it, NASA destroyed it anyway.

Your starting to accuse me of allegations that I have not made.

'Does your car regularly communicate with large mainframes in order to maintain proper operation?'

Yes its called a computer tune-up - do you not have that in the States?

'Do you have any explicit input to your car's computer'

Yes I can set the time, speed restriction alert, temperature in C or F, see how many MPG I am doing, how much MPG I have done since I last filled up, average speed on the journey or change my radio frequencies and store them with it. Quite a few things really.

'You're now changing horses and saying that NASA has released photos and film of the Apollo hardware. That is true, it having been taken from the Apollo command module and some from the ascending lunar module, not either of the pieces of technology you mentioned.'

Your totally wrong and I have you big time here. On April 1st 2002, the Sky at Night on the BBC showed pictures taken from the Clementine probe which allegedly show one of the Apollo landing areas. I was also on NASA's site last month and found film evidence of another landing area which I believe was taken aboard the Clementine.(99% sure but will check this out to be certain). HJP Arnold made a comment on it on the show. The footage preceeded to bob up and down as it went over the site. So your completely wrong!

'Nothing prevents engineers from looking at the design documents from Apollo'

Other than some of them being destroyed perhaps?

'In 1960 dollars. You do understand inflation, don't you?'

Over the same period as the Apollo missions (Apollo 1 was launched in 1967) that would be 6 years and that doesnt include the years of budget taken to make the first craft and test it. 6 x $14.3 Billion would equal almost $86 billion. This means that over the same time scale of the Apollo flights, not including any further budget increases within that time, NASA could accumulate over 3 times as much money than they needed for the original Apollo missions. Argueing that NASA would be cash strapped in unrealistic.

'There is nothing whatosever in the footage that says the astronauts are about to falsify an in-transit telecast from low-earth orbit.'

Thats a matter of opinion.

'Speculation is your bag.'

No, speculating what you think I said seems to be your bag baby!

'Well bully for you. You can't cry fraud just because, in your infinite wisdom, you would have done it differently.'

Oh I forgot, America really doesn't have much of a history does it - that's why the UK has so many US tourists every year, to experience a bit of it.

'False. S-band receiving antennas must be precisely aligned.'

On a craft that you yourself on your own site says does not hardly move on its way to the Moon. That would hardly be difficult to tune into would it?

'Hogwash. Reconaissance satellites are continuously in various altitude orbits at high inclinations, passing over most of the earth's surface at any one time'

See the other forum for the article if you dont believe me.

'Further, you did not respond to several of my answers. Does that mean you concede those arguments?'

I'll return this accusation back your way as you seem to be doing your fare share of question dodging.

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-04, 02:22 AM
I think it's fairly obvious by now that cosmicdave is just getting off on the attention at this point. He's not even trying to make coherent debate any longer, just a childish game of contridiction. He's not going to be swayed by anything that's said or presented here. He's just trying to ruffle some feathers, and it's pretty clear he doesn't care in the slightest what's actually written in response to his posts. Pathetic, but whatever, it's his life.

Ian R
2002-Jun-04, 02:55 AM
On 2002-06-03 21:42, cosmicdave wrote:
'I require an example.' (of similar mountain ranges appearing on seperate missions).

If you haven't seen these pictures on HB sites then I suggest that you haven't been doing your homework. This is one of the main accusations for pro-hoax believers.

No, the accusation made by most pro-hoax websites is that there are many pictures from a SINGLE particular Apollo mission that apparently show the same mountains in the background, yet the foreground is completely different. This is supposed to be evidence of a fake backdrop being used to falsify the EVA photographs and TV footage.

However, you are arguing that the SAME mountain range alledgedly appears in pictures taken on TWO different Apollo missions. This is a claim which no one on this board appears to have seen before, so we would be interested in reviewing any pictures or video footage that supports this particular allegation.

Peter B
2002-Jun-04, 04:57 AM
cosmicdave said: "Over the same period as the Apollo missions (Apollo 1 was launched in 1967) that would be 6 years and that doesnt include the years of budget taken to make the first craft and test it. 6 x $14.3 Billion would equal almost $86 billion. This means that over the same time scale of the Apollo flights, not including any further budget increases within that time, NASA could accumulate over 3 times as much money than they needed for the original Apollo missions. Argueing that NASA would be cash strapped in unrealistic."

Dave

Once again you’ve sidestepped the issue of inflation. So I’m going to explain it for the benefit of you and other people who may happen to read this thread.

According to my dictionary, inflation is a substantial rise in prices due to an undue expansion in money supply or credit. Of course, the consequence of inflation is that the same number of dollars will buy you a smaller amount of stuff than before. For example, I remember that back in the late 1970s, a dollar would buy you a little over 3 litres of petrol (gasoline for you Yanks). These days, you’ll get little more than 1 litre of petrol from a dollar.

So when people talk about the Moon landings costing $25 billion in 1960s money, they’re talking about dollars which bought a lot more then than they do now. Since then, inflation would have cut the purchasing power of most Western currencies by around ¾, or even more. In other words, what you could buy for $25 billion back then would cost you at least $100 billion now.

Given that NASA’s budget is supposed to be around $14 billion a year, it would take about 7 years to fund Apollo these days, assuming it funded absolutely nothing else. Of course, at the time NASA was involved in Apollo, it was also involved in many other projects, such as the Mariner spacecraft which flew by Mars and Venus, planning for the upcoming Viking missions, meteorology or communications. I don’t know much about NASA’s budget back then, but I’d be curious to see some figures showing what proportion of NASA’s budget went to Apollo.

In conclusion, you can't compare NASA's budget these days with the cost of the Apollo program, because they use dollars of completely different values.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-04, 06:42 AM
If an object is moving away from you in near enough a straight line how can you predict how far it is simply by using ham radio? You cant.

You can compute how fast it is moving. If you know the dynamics of the translunar trajectory, and you have located its signal according to celestial coordinates, you know where it should be.

You vaguely wave your hands and say it's impossible for amateurs to have tracked Apollo. You're really skimping on details here. These people are making specific claims, and providing evidence of their achievement. They can also demostrate skill in tracking manmade celestial objects.

You, on the other hand, can't seem to demonstrate any appreciable knowledge about how to track objects in space.

Provide me the evidence that proves that the marks on several slides on my site are printing marks and not stars.

No, that's not how it works. You have made the assertion that they are stars. You are therefore responsible for proving they are stars. You may not state a proposition and then assume it's true until disproven, while supplying no proof yourself.

You have provided absolutely no evidence that they are stars. You have merely stated it axiomatically. If there were no other possibilities, I might give you the benefit of the doubt. But there are other possibilities -- namely contamination from a known hurried scanning process -- therefore you must prove that your hypothesis is the best possibility. In order to do that you must provide more evidence than a mere claim.

When you cannot give a decent answer why do you always claim that what I say is irrelevant, more like you don't know the answer me thinks.

I say "irrelevant" when the statements you make have nothing to do with the point under discussion. That happens a lot with you. I'm not about to follow you down every tangential path you propose to take. I'm trying to keep you on one subject long enough to examine the point to completion.

Why not? an engine needs a power source to work, why would we see a flame in some cases and not others?

Because the flame is invisible in some cases and not in others. Combustion characteristics are determined by propellant and by the size and shape of various components of the engine and by the pressurization technique.

I haven't claimed to read clavius at all, only parts of it. Another misquote.

False. You specifically claimed to have read the exact page in question. Your words were, "I checked out JayUtah's site by the way and didn't see any reconstructions of the shadows with natural light... just a few old Apollo photos and a simulation with tubes." (2002-06-02 15:48: http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=1364&forum=3&start=150)

The page you describe is http://www.clavius.org/shadlen.html to which you had been referred by Andrew in his post on 2002-05-31 12:07, and at the bottom of which is the detailed description of the evidence proving the lunar terrain is varied down-sun of the flag.

If you haven't seen these pictures on HB sites then I suggest that you haven't been doing your homework.

There are hundreds of pictures on hoax believer sites. I require the identification of specific one(s) that demonstrate a specific claim. I don't accept vague references as an argument.

Finding these posts will support my statements about Earthshine 100%

I agree. And your inability to find them denies you that support.

However, I'm quite concerned that you are far more interested in trying to make your opponents look silly than you are in providing clear and logical arguments for your own points. I'm not interested in your ability to nit-pick through past arguments.

Face the facts, it wasn't

You have not stated any facts. You have only given your uninformed opinion that it was not tested sufficiently. I do not accept you as an expert in spacecraft testing.

50,000 ft is hardly close enough for a craft to test if it could land or not.

... in your highly expert opinion.

Getting a bit techy now. Perhaps I'm getting close?

No, you're getting desperate. You have given an opinion which is only appropriately rendered by an expert. I am an expert. You are not. I will trust my opinion over yours.

Crash safety, would you buy a car that had not had any safety crash tests done on it in the environment that it was intended to be used?

Irrelevant. Apollo was known and acknowledged to be experimental technology and thus carried various known risks. Commensurately it was to be used only by those who agreed to the risk and who were considered the world's experts in operating experimental flying technology. Comparison to well-tested consumer technology intended to be operated by anyone is invalid.

I haven't seen this footage, please post a link.

The link was posted in my original answer to this point. It's becoming clear you pay little attention to the arguments presented against your points. That makes it rather pointless for me or anyone else to attempt to address them.

If you have not seen the Apollo 11 EVA, which is only two and half hours long, then I'm skeptical that you have seen any appreciable portion of the other, much lengthier EVA footage. I therefore submit that you have not made the appropriate investigation to be able to claim no feats of lunar gravity gymnastics appear.

Could science predict where lighting is going to strike? NO! Same arguement applies to solar flares, you cannot predict the unpredictable, even if your the most qualified scientist in the World.

False. Statistical probability is exactly the science of using past occurrences to estimate the probability of future ocurrences. It is well within the ability of statistical probability to determine the probability of a solar event occurring in a certain direction during a given two-week period.

The fact that statistical probability may be a closed book to you does not mean it is a closed book to everyone else. But it does mean that you are unqualified to make any quantitative statement regarding the risk of solar events during any given period.

And as a matter of fact, I can predict where lightning will likely strike. It's the when that's iffy.

I didn't say that, your making things up as you go along now.

I don't understand, then. You admit that no serious solar event actually occurred during any Apollo mission. You don't have the mathematical expertise to say just how risky it was. Yet you cite this as evidence that Apollo was falsified. That's a non sequitur.

As you would term it, this is irrelevant because they didn't go, so the thickness of the shielding makes no difference. Strike one CD!

It is not irrelevant. The Soviets engineered a spacecraft they, by their own claims, fully intended to use to send a crew to the moon and to land a man upon it. Neither their prototypes nor their design mentions anything about vast amounts of radiation shielding. Those items would need to be incorporated at the very earliest design stages. They were well past that stage when their project was terminated.

Perhaps I should dig up the radiation test results on 'Fred' that dummy used on the Shuttle last year - if they're available that is.

That data will not describe the radiation environment of cislunar space.

Actually, the tragic events of Apollo 1 completely confirmed Grissoms fears that NASA were trying to rush things.

That is not the assertion. You argued Grissom said the project was "ten years" from landing on the moon, and this was the basis of your argument that NASA's completion of it prior to 1970 was suspicious.

It is acknowledged by all parties that NASA was trying to rush things. You, however, made a specific, different assertion.

You continue to speak melodramatically about the Apollo 1 tragedy while completely ignoring the evidentiary requirement of your point.

How do you know that Grissom had no information of the Apollo schedule.

I did not claim Grissom had "no" information. I said Grissom cannot be assumed to have the most authoritative knowledge of the entire Apollo schedule. The statement you attribute to him would require such knowledge in order to be considered an expert opinion in contrast to other expert opinions.

And since you are the one claiming his "ten year" estimate is authoritative, it is your responsibility to demonstrate (not merely suggest) that he indeed had more information about Apollo project status than other people at NASA whose job it was to manage the project, and whose estimates disagree with Grissom's.

I have not made any claims that NASA tried to destroy the Apollo 1, where did you get that one from?

From your Question #26: "The Apollo 1 fire of January 27, 1967, killed what would have been the first crew to walk on the Moon just days after the commander, Gus Grissom, held an unapproved press conference complaining that they were at least ten years, not two, from reaching the Moon. The dead man's own son, who is a seasoned pilot himself, has in his possession forensic evidence personally retrieved from the charred spacecraft (that the government has tried to destroy on two or more occasions)." (emphasis added)

It appears you are trying to claim the government attempted to destroy the spacecraft. If you are instead claiming that the government tried to destroy Grissom's evidence, then I suggest you word your phrase in parentheses to more clearly describe what exactly you believe was about to be destroyed.

Your starting to accuse me of allegations that I have not made.

No, I'm accusing you of allegations you have appeared to make. If I have misunderstood your argument it is your responsibility to clarify and restate it before proceeding.

Yes I can set the time, speed restriction alert ...

Granted, all that. My point still remains: You can't seem to demonstrate beyond vague handwaving why the Apollo guidance computer was not sufficient to its task.

Your totally wrong and I have you big time here. On April 1st 2002, the Sky at Night on the BBC showed pictures taken from the Clementine probe which allegedly show one of the Apollo landing areas.

I know of the Clementine photo which shows alleged soil disturbance around the Apollo 15 landing site. If this is the photo you refer to, then it does not satisfy your condition because it does not show the actual equipment. Hoax beleivers have rejected it as evidence of a lunar landing. Therefore I do not cite this as evidence that the landing sites have been photographed, because there is no evidence that the disturbance was caused by an Apollo spacecraft. I believe it's likely to have been so caused, but I have no proof.

There may be additional photos I have not yet seen, which have been released in the past couple of months. If these photos show Apollo equipment then I presume that will answer your Question #29.

Argueing that NASA would be cash strapped in unrealistic.

You appear to be almost totally ignorant of the principles of public finance in the United States. NASA cannot simply do with its budget whatever it wishes.

Thats a matter of opinion.

Correct. And if it comes down to a matter of the viewer's opinion then it is hardly the smoking gun you and Bart Sibrel say it is. Since hoax believers will naturally interpret it to be consistent with their predetermined hypothesis, there is no evidentiary basis.

Oh I forgot, America really doesn't have much of a history does it?

Irrelevant and insulting. The needs of historical preservation regarding Apollo have been met, or are being met. The documents that have been destroyed have largely no historical significance.

On a craft that you yourself on your own site says does not hardly move on its way to the Moon.

That is not the assertion made on my site. A satellite in low earth orbit transits the sky from any one point of view on earth in a matter of a very few minutes, or seconds in some cases. A craft on a translunar trajectory would still appear to move in the sky, but it would not transit the sky in the same manner as a low-orbiting satellite. It would remain within its ephemerides for hours at a time, not minutes or seconds.

See the other forum for the article if you dont believe me.

I dispute the claims of the article.

It is clear you have no intention of backing up your claims. It is clear you have little if any required knowledge for the claims you make. It is clear you have not paid very close attention to any of the rebuttals made against your assertions. It is clear your modus operandi here is to attempt to fabricate the appearance of divisiveness and uncertainty in the futile believe it will lend your statements some credibility. I assure you it does not.

I have no desire to participate in a debate wherein the opponent cares almost nothing for supporting his own statements and is intent solely on nit-picking and winning rhetorical brownie points. I have exercised monumental patience with you over the past several days.

This is my last posting directly to you until you demonstrate the willingness and ability to participate in the intellectual process, not merely hijack it for your own amusement.

Jovianboy
2002-Jun-04, 06:45 AM
On 2002-06-03 21:42, cosmicdave wrote/quoted:

"If you believe that a first-magnitude solar event occurred during an Apollo mission, please provide documentation."

I didn't say that, your making things up as you go along now.



Not quite. The statement in quotation marks is clearly a logical follow-up request in response to your loaded statement from a little way up this same thread (in your "answers for JayUtah") -

"In fact midway through the Apollo years the sunspot cycle was at its 11 year cycle high and was one of the highest on recorded record."

Please feel free to point out that you never actually stated that a first-magnitude solar event took place during a mission (nobody claimed you said that anyway). However, if you acknowledge that no major event occurred, what relevance does the peak in the sunspot cycle have to your standpoint? Are you arguing that the possibility that an event might have happened and might have been fatal to the astronauts somehow implies that the Apollo missions were faked? Please explain your reasoning. From where I'm sitting this is all irrelevant because such an event DIDN'T HAPPEN.

And is your "one of the highest on recorded record" peak of any real significance anyway? Have a look at this link. Observe the graph showing sunspot activity during the twentieth century. Have a look at whatever area of the graph you consider to be "midway through the Apollo years". There certainly is a peak during the late 1960s, but it is clearly dwarfed by the preceding and following peaks. A red-herring, Dave.

http://www.sunblock99.org.uk/sb99/people/KMacpher/cycle.html

Dave, from my reading of this and the other thread, it seems that either you are altering and denying your arguments to dodge the issues (and therefore being intellectually dishonest), or you are confused about your own standpoint (in which case I suggest you are a few Bradys short of a bunch). Which is it?

JB

(edits to add to second and last paragraph)

_________________
"Nowhere in all space or on a thousand worlds will there be men to share our loneliness..."

- Loren Eisely, "The Immense Journey" 1956

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jovianboy on 2002-06-04 03:16 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jovianboy on 2002-06-04 03:29 ]</font>

Hauteden
2002-Jun-04, 07:41 AM
On 2002-06-03 21:42, cosmicdave wrote:
Over the same period as the Apollo missions (Apollo 1 was launched in 1967) that would be 6 years and that doesnt include the years of budget taken to make the first craft and test it. 6 x $14.3 Billion would equal almost $86 billion. This means that over the same time scale of the Apollo flights, not including any further budget increases within that time, NASA could accumulate over 3 times as much money than they needed for the original Apollo missions. Argueing that NASA would be cash strapped in unrealistic.




On 2002-06-04 00:57, Peter B wrote:
Once again you’ve sidestepped the issue of inflation. So I’m going to explain it for the benefit of you and other people who may happen to read this thread.

... when people talk about the Moon landings costing $25 billion in 1960s money, they’re talking about dollars which bought a lot more then than they do now. Since then, inflation would have cut the purchasing power of most Western currencies by around ¾, or even more. In other words, what you could buy for $25 billion back then would cost you at least $100 billion now.



Just thought I would chime in a bit with a link:
Inflation Calculator (http://www.westegg.com/inflation/)

As it turns out PeterB estimate is just a bit off. $25 Billion 1967 Dollars would be $131,244,423,118.03 2001 Dollars, according to the link provided.

Hauteden

sts60
2002-Jun-04, 01:38 PM
JayUtah wrote:

It looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, and flies like a duck. Yet you say it's a squid.

I'm sick of Jay's smug assertions from his self-appointed throne as "expert". Landing on the water is hazardous. Who would dare to do such a thing without it being proven safe first? He'd have to be quackers to attempt it!

Therefore, it's not a duck, but a squid!

P.S. The Russians abandoned their duck effort after being unable to make one fly with the required two feet of feather-shielding all round it.

sts60
2002-Jun-04, 02:30 PM
Cosmicdave,

let's try to iterate to convergence on just one thing.

You apparently disbelieve that the Apollo Guidance Computer could have performed its tasks with its relatively small memory.

(Note: the AGC had a "fixed memory" of about 36,864 [15-bit]words with an erasable memory... of 2,048 words, quoting from the Apollo Flight Journal at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/ap15fj/compessay.htm ).

I have written spacecraft control code, on a computer about 20 years newer but with not much more memory than the AGC. It is my professional opinion that the AGC could indeed have performed exactly the tasks it was supposed to do. It is also the opinion of other experts on this forum, and that of the historical record. Publically-accessible information on the Web, provided in the previous page of this topic, explains the hardware, software, and development process in great detail.

What evidence do you have that the AGC computer was insufficient for its stated goals? If you can provide none, then we should disregard your claim as nothing more than an argument from personal incredulity.

While we're at it, what would convince you that the AGC was, at least in principle, capable of performing its stated task?


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sts60 on 2002-06-04 10:41 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sts60 on 2002-06-04 11:09 ]</font>

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-04, 02:37 PM
On 2002-06-04 09:38, sts60 wrote:

I'm sick of Jay's smug assertions from his self-appointed throne as "expert". Landing on the water is hazardous. Who would dare to do such a thing without it being proven safe first? He'd have to be quackers to attempt it!

They're called "Test pilots". Almost all the astronauts were test pilots and long before they ever joined NASA they made their living being the first to do things in new machinery.

SpacedOut
2002-Jun-04, 02:45 PM
STS60 – The USSR obviously used the wrong kind of feathers. LOL

BTW – the link to the AGC info is:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/ap15fj/compessay.htm


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SpacedOut on 2002-06-04 10:52 ]</font>

SpacedOut
2002-Jun-04, 02:52 PM
One more thing on the programming of the AGC – with all of the “bloatware” being used today and the power of most PC’s - the average person never thinks about writing tight code. I’d bet the developers of today’s satellites still do however, although its probably not as critical as it was back then.

I would imagine if you could go back and look at how the AGC code was developed, you’d find that they probably spent as much time keeping it tight as they did writing it in the first place.

Tomblvd
2002-Jun-04, 02:57 PM
You apparently disbelieve that the Apollo Guidance Computer could have performed its tasks with its relatively small memory.

(Note: the AGC had a "fixed memory" of about 36,864 [15-bit]words with an erasable memory... of 2,048 words, quoting from the Apollo Flight Journal at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/ap15fj/compessay.htm).



One of the points made a few months ago bears repeating, someone correct me if I'm wrong. All of the computations performed by the guidance computer could have been done, and, in fact, have been done with slide rules. The trajectory computations are very straightforward. The computer just allowed these computations to be made much quicker, and more importantly, without the risk of error.

Given the very limited scope of the task, the amount of memory (not even a true measure of computing power anyway) is more than adequate.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tomblvd on 2002-06-04 10:58 ]</font>

cosmicdave
2002-Jun-04, 03:15 PM
JayUtah,
I'm glad that your not going to write anymore things because neither am I.

I present this group with what I would consider to be very good evidence and yet you all have a very hard time accepting it.

A very good example is the Spy Satellite article that was posted on another forum. The article was written by none other than James Oberg, who is closely tied to NASA. If you have the knowledge that you claim to have, you would know who this guy is. If you don't believe him then I can truly see why you don't believe me either. Mr Oberg is one of NASA's biggest voices against conspiracy theories in the past - especially the STS-75 Tether incident.

You seem to have a very narrowminded view and it comes as no surprise now why you haven't taken anything on board what I've said in the past or class my comments as 'irrelevant'. You expect me to show you evidence and then don't believe it, telling me that I should go and read up on things, when in fact it is you who needs to get more clued up on things happening at this present time and not in the early 70s.

Its very, very obvious to me that you really are not up to scratch with whats happening in the 'here and now' at all. If your so clued up on NASA, why didn't you know about the Clementine pictures of one of the Apollo sites? You speculate to what the pictures probably show, without even seeing them and only claim to know about them after I bring your attention to them.

To answer the question asked of me about the solution to testing the Apollo on the Moons surface before landing. Why couldn't NASA have remotely landed it first? They can remotely land a probe on Mars surface so why not the Moon?

I said in an earlier post 'If an object is moving away from you in near enough a straight line how can you predict how far it is simply by using ham radio? You cant.

To which you replied 'You can compute how fast it is moving. If you know the dynamics of the translunar trajectory, and you have located its signal according to celestial coordinates, you know where it should be'.

That does not answer my question of how far away it is, only its speed. As I said in an earlier post, the only way of finding out a radio signals exact location is by triangulation, but you haven't commented on that.

You also show ignorance regarding Satellites. In the UK our TV satellite is situated at 19.2 degrees East. Now if this satellite is going around the Earth every few minutes how do you suggest that we pick up a signal from it when its over Australia? How do you also suggest that our static satellite dishes pick up a signal if the satellite is passing across the sky?

My claim that a spy satellite could be positioned above a country is completely valid and I suggest you go and check out http://brianday.best.vwh.net/sat.htm
where it states 'Satellites in geosynchronous (also known as geostationary) orbits move about the Earth in equatorial orbits with altitudes near 22,300 miles high. At this altitude, a satellite's orbital velocity matches the angular velocity of Earth's rotation. Such a satellite will be parked above a given spot on the ground. '

Check this out to educate yourself. You'll find that there are two different types of satellites up their in space.'

There you go, a reference that checks out and which proves all the 'experts' on here wrong.

This is one of the reasons why this will be my last post because it is obvious to me that you really aren't as educated on all things space related as you wish me to believe.

Quote: 'You have made the assertion that they are stars. You are therefore responsible for proving they are stars. You may not state a proposition and then assume it's true until disproven, while supplying no proof yourself.'

It is you who doesn't believe they are stars, so its your task to prove me wrong, in the same way that you have challenged me to prove NASA footage is wrong. Stop switching the rules.

I have both pictures and moving footage of white specks in the sky which I believe are stars. The moving footage alone proves your theory of spots caused by processing to be incorrect. If spots caused by damage whilst being processed were the cause the spots would be static in one part of the film. But we see that the 'stars' stay static in the sky as the camera pans from left to right, thus ruling out damage to the film.

I have a photocopier here which shows small specks when I copy a letter or document. however, those dots stay in one place and don't move over the page, no matter how many copies of different documents I make. Look again at the photos on my site and you will see that your supposed printing error dots are moving all over the place.

The star pictures are also the most valid reason why I claim that the members here are contradicting each other. some of you say they shouldn't appear and some of you say they should. So which is it?

Qoute 'Because the flame is invisible in some cases and not in others'

Why? this should not be. Thats like saying an air balloon sometimes produces a flame and sometimes not when its turned on.

I said: 'I haven't claimed to read clavius at all, only parts of it. Another misquote.'

You reply: "Your words were, "I checked out JayUtah's site by the way and didn't see any reconstructions of the shadows with natural light... just a few old Apollo photos and a simulation with tubes."

They both mean the same thing 'Checked out means looked at, not thoroughly read all your site'. You really do like to pick at the littlest of things that I can prove is false. Also you say description, no picture exists there to prove your point.

And while were on this point of picture examples, you haven't even bothered to respond to my comment about the angle you had to place the cardboard to get the desired shadow effects on the pegs.

Quote: 'There are hundreds of pictures on hoax believer sites. I require the identification of specific one(s) that demonstrate a specific claim. I don't accept vague references as an argument.'

Now your being stubborn. From all the posts I've read on here having a dig at all the other HBers sites, I know very well that you know about the pictures I am talking about. You don't have to really act stupid, because your doing a pretty good job of it already.

'Finding these posts will support my statements about Earthshine 100%'

Your refusal to understand my comments are frustrating. I explained that I couldn't find them but said to contact 'The Rat' as he was part of the debate. Obviously you haven't bothered to ask him. Since then I have read the post by TBA about having to delete posts soon (and that was posted last October). Is it any clearer now why my posts cannot be found? I said that this might be the case, but as usual you didn't believe me. Oh well, its your loss.

I said: '50,000 ft is hardly close enough for a craft to test if it could land or not.'

you said '... in your highly expert opinion.'

I don't need to be an expert to know that hovering at 50,000ft above the lunar surface can tell anyone how a craft will land. That's like saying we tested how safe a car was in a crash by driving it within 50,000ft of the wall that would test how the safety aspect stood up to the brunt of the crash. Just a crazy statement that holds no water whatsoever.

'I am an expert.'

An 'ex is a has been and a 'spurt' is a jet of water under pressure. You are not an expert on landing the Apollo 11 craft! You have worked on a few rockets (but have not shown any evidence of this). How does that make you anymore an expert on testing the landing capability of the Apollo more than me when as I have stated and stand by my statement that it was never successfully tested on the Moon until it landed during Apollo 11. You or anyone else cannot dispute this, but have a hard time accepting this fact.

I said 'Crash safety, would you buy a car that had not had any safety crash tests done on it in the environment that it was intended to be used?'

You said: Irrelevant.

Yet another answer which skips the proposition. I'll answer this for you 'Unless you are an idiot you wouldn't get into the car'.

'If you have not seen the Apollo 11 EVA, which is only two and half hours long, then I'm skeptical that you have seen any appreciable portion of the other, much lengthier EVA footage.'

Another assumption on your part which is false and presumes incorrectly.

On the Grissom Apollo 1 tragedy. You need to learn to understand what is written. Its obvious to me what the paragraph suggests. It means that evidence that would prove some type of foul play has been confiscated. This is an allegation made by Grissom's own son.

'If this is the photo you refer to, then it does not satisfy your condition because it does not show the actual equipment.'

Not according to HJP Arnold and Patrick Moore. They say it does. But it seems that you have alot of different opinions to those people who work for or at NASA, the very same people who you expect me to believe?

On one of the other many forums here discussing my posts you say that a simulation of how shadows appear on many Apollo photos cannot be created with natural light and only artificial lighting. Thankyou, that is all I needed to know.

I asked 'Could science predict where lighting is going to strike? NO! Same arguement applies to solar flares, you cannot predict the unpredictable, even if your the most qualified scientist in the World.'

To which you replied (snip) 'It's the when that's iffy'

It took you 7 lines of conjecture before you unwittingly answered my question. NASA could not predict when solar flares would erupt.

Thankyou, no need to carry on this conversation any further because you just confirmed my belief that your just stabbing in the dark and are blind to much new evidence that has recently surfaced.


Thanks for the discussion and good luck with your beliefs.

Dave C. (CosmicDave)

PS: Perhaps you could notify other members of the board about this final Email as I see that BA has stopped the other discussion - Have I really thrown the cat amongst the pigeons?

Or is that the same reason why he didn't go head to head with Sibrel the first time on radio? Wasn't he convinced of his own evidence enough to stand up to a fight?

sts60
2002-Jun-04, 03:21 PM
pvtpylot, i was attempting humor on 1st post. some people believe i never reached it /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

SpacedOut, thanks for the fixed tip, and roger your comments on coding. The links dasi posted had some great stuff on the development process and the necessary for lean, mean code.

CJSF
2002-Jun-04, 03:23 PM
If your so clued up on NASA, why didn't you know about the Clementine pictures of one of the Apollo sites?


You arrogant [self-censored]. You specifically stated that Hubble and Clementine imaged Apollo HARDWARE which they DID NOT.



Jay (?):
‘Neither the Hubble Space Telescope nor the Clementine probe has the required optical resolution to see objects on the lunar surface as small as the Apollo hardware.’

ComicDave: You better get in touch with NASA if you believe this because they have released images of the Apollo hardware, both on motion film and still photos - or are you calling them liars?


NO ONE denies that Clementine imaged the area of an Apollo moon landing. You SPECIFICALLY said that the images were taken OF THE HARDWARE.

THIS IS NOT TRUE.

You are an abhorrently arrogant man. So many of us, in all aspects of EXPERTISE, either through formal education or "hands-on" experience have tried to present to you why the "evidence" you put forth is suspect, plain wrong, or illogical.

Yet you persist that we are ALL liars? That we are ALL unintelligent puppet-morons?

You, "sir", are a sad case. I'd pity you if I thought thinking about you was worth that much.

Sorry, BA, if this is too harsh and gets me banned. I just can not BELIEVE the gall of some people.

I'd ask you to LEAVE "Cosmic" Dave, but that's not my place and would likely just give you and more of your ken fuel to say you are poor opressed truth seekers.

You disgust me.

CJSF



_________________
"Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never,
ever get it out."
-Thomas Cardinal Wolsey (1471-1530)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Christopher Ferro on 2002-06-04 11:24 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Christopher Ferro on 2002-06-04 11:47 ]</font>

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-04, 03:26 PM
On 2002-06-04 11:21, sts60 wrote:
pvtpylot, i was attempting humor on 1st post. some people believe i never reached it /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Y'know, I stared at that thing for five minutes trying to figure out if it was sarcastic or serious. I finally decided when in doubt take it at face value...oops /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif My apologies...

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-04, 03:40 PM
On 2002-06-04 11:15, cosmicdave wrote:
JayUtah,
I'm glad that your not going to write anymore things because neither am I.

Sure was an awfully long post for someone who wasn't going to write anymore, wasn't it? I did find the part at the end where he tries to sucker BA into the "debate" rather entertaining. Let's face it, folks, ole' cd was never here to debate as most of us define the word. He just wanted play escape and evade long enough to get the last word in so he can run back to his UFO buddies and brag about how he bested the experts on this board.

Donnie B.
2002-Jun-04, 03:54 PM
On 2002-06-04 10:37, pvtpylot wrote:


On 2002-06-04 09:38, sts60 wrote:

I'm sick of Jay's smug assertions from his self-appointed throne as "expert". Landing on the water is hazardous. Who would dare to do such a thing without it being proven safe first? He'd have to be quackers to attempt it!

They're called "Test pilots". Almost all the astronauts were test pilots and long before they ever joined NASA they made their living being the first to do things in new machinery.

Are you inplying that the Apollo astronauts were all ducks?

That'll be news to Mrs. Lovell...

(pvt, I think you missed that little tongue boring a hole in STS's cheek...)

sts60
2002-Jun-04, 03:55 PM
Poor Cosmicdave. Like other HBs, his argument style is identical to that of Holocaust deniers (no, I'm not calling anyone a N*zi, so don't call Godwin on me) and most Creationists. Really, the psychology of these people is far more interesting than any of their bogus "evidence".

I suggest next time we get the usual "wall of noise" post from an HB, we try to address just one point at a time. HBs and the like use the sheer number of arguments to lay a smokescreen. It would be interesting to see if we could get one to actually stick to the point, or rather, a point. Not that I have my hopes up /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Tomblvd
2002-Jun-04, 03:56 PM
That does not answer my question of how far away it is, only its speed. As I said in an earlier post, the only way of finding out a radio signals exact location is by triangulation, but you haven't commented on that.



"As you said"? why on earth should we just take your word for this? You have provided no evidence you back up you opinion. The web, however, is chock full of sites devoted to the tracking of apollo, if you would just look for them (hint: enter "doppler shift" and "apollo" in a serch engine).


That does not answer my question of how far away it is, only its speed.

Ummm, since we know how fast radio signal travel, you can tell how far away something is by measuring the delay in the signal.



However, your point, even if it were true is invalid because what we are mainly concerned about is where the spacecraft is in relation to the moon. Since the S Band antennas are so directionally sensitive, if it is pointed even a degree off target, you wouldn't recieve the signal.

Tomblvd
2002-Jun-04, 04:01 PM
Thankyou, no need to carry on this conversation any further because you just confirmed my belief that your just stabbing in the dark and are blind to much new evidence that has recently surfaced.


This from a person who has footage on his site claimed to be from the rover's video camera when the video camera is IN THE FOOTAGE itself! Can you say, DUH?

CD, in a world of dim bulbs, you are a veritable BLACK HOLE.

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-04, 04:28 PM
On 2002-06-04 11:54, Donnie B. wrote:

Are you inplying that the Apollo astronauts were all ducks?

That'll be news to Mrs. Lovell...

(pvt, I think you missed that little tongue boring a hole in STS's cheek...)

LOL, yeah, I got it after STS pointed it out to me. And yes, I feel dense /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif Just a bad case of HB-related paranoid stress, I guess...

Tomblvd
2002-Jun-04, 04:52 PM
Anybody seen Johnno? (Figuratively, I mean)

He just loves beating the daylights out of cosmicdave every now and then. Too bad he missed out this time.

Art Vandelay
2002-Jun-04, 06:10 PM
Wow, that last post from Cosmic Dave was really something, wasn't it? It sounds like he knows everything about almost anything that has to do with Apollo. Still, it's hard to take seriously someone who says Jesus appeared to him on his car's windshield. Now, if he had said Elvis, then maybe...

JayUtah
2002-Jun-04, 06:20 PM
I'm glad that your not going to write anymore things because neither am I.

Sorry, but your parting shot is simply too arrogant, presumptive, and ignorant to pass up. We'll see if this is my last post. Rest assured I have little desire to attempt to educate you further.

I present this group with what I would consider to be very good evidence and yet you all have a very hard time accepting it.

We don't consider your evidence to be good. And we have tried patiently to explain why, but you are obviously not interested.

Further, you have made many more assertions than are supported by your evidence. When we have asked for evidence of these unsupported assertions, you have flatly refused to supply it.

The article was written by none other than James Oberg, who is closely tied to NASA.

I don't care if it was written by the ghost of Wernher von Braun. Too many things don't add up in the article. Therefore I dispute it. The alleged size of the object is far larger than a spy satellite. And yes, we can infer the size of those satellites from the equipment used to launch them, and from various other means. Further, the alleged orbit is inconsistent with a spy satellite.

This is part of your problem. You simply look at names and assume what they say is correct. You don't do any checking on your own. Just because it appears in print doesn't mean it's true or accurate.

You seem to have a very narrowminded view and it comes as no surprise now why you haven't taken anything on board what I've said in the past ...

Requiring some semblance of proof prior to agreeing to a proposition is not narrowminded.

You expect me to show you evidence and then don't believe it

Just because you show it to me doesn't mean I promise not to find anything wrong with it. But we can't discuss it at all until you show it.

If your so clued up on NASA, why didn't you know about the Clementine pictures of one of the Apollo sites?

Of course I know about the photo at the Apollo 15 landing site. It was discussed quite heavily amongst Apollo historians. But hoax believers do not accept it as evidence of a landing. And I agree, it is not conclusive evidence.

Why couldn't NASA have remotely landed it first?

Why would they have needed to? You still operate from your assumption that your methods and theory of spacecraft testing are somehow valid. I don't agree with your assumption.

No aircraft today are test-flown by remote control prior to their first flight by a human. There are reasons for this, but I doubt you'd be interested in hearing them.

That does not answer my question of how far away it is, only its speed.

If you understood trajectories, you'd understand that speed gives you location. Further, there is dead reckoning. From a known starting point, direction and speed give you location.

As I said in an earlier post, the only way of finding out a radio signals exact location is by triangulation, but you haven't commented on that.

Not directly. I said it was naive and asked you to describe your expertise in spacecraft tracking. You didn't and obviously don't intent to. Your opinion of what is possible and impossible in spacecraft tracking means very little to me.

You also show ignorance regarding satellites.

Hardly. Until just a few months ago, they were my job.

In the UK our TV satellite is situated at 19.2 degrees East.

At an altitude of ... ?

Now if this satellite is going around the Earth every few minutes

I said transits occurred for low earth orbit satellites, such as where you say the command module was, and where the TETR-A satellite was. I did not say this was true for all satellites. It is true only for the ones you had hitherto proposed. Now that you are bringing up geosynchronous satellites, the rules change.

My claim that a spy satellite could be positioned above a country is completely valid

No, it is not.

'Satellites in geosynchronous (also known as geostationary) orbits ...

Incorrect. Geostationary is a subset of geosynchronous. In other words, an orbit can be geosynchronous without being geostationary. A geosynchronous orbit is one whose period is equivalent to the rotational period of its primary. A geostationary orbit is a circular geosynchronous orbit with a zero inclination, rendering the altitude and azimuth of the satellite constant from a point on earth.

... move about the Earth in equatorial orbits with altitudes near 22,300 miles high.

... far beyond the altitude at which a spy satellite is useful. Spy satellites operate at altitudes of approximately 150 nautical miles. This is how they achieve their remarkable resolution.

You'll find that there are two different types of satellites up their in space.'

No. If you're classifying satellites by the characteristics of their orbits, there is an infinite number of types of satellites up there in space. And you don't seem to know much about any of them.

There you go, a reference that checks out and which proves all the 'experts' on here wrong.

No, it's a reference which has nothing to do with spy satellites, got a basic fact wrong, and illustrates only your inability to read, understand, and apply what you read to what you think.

...it is obvious to me that you really aren't as educated on all things space related as you wish me to believe.

LOL!

It is you who doesn't believe they are stars, so its your task to prove me wrong,

No. That's not how proof works. Propositions are not true unless proven false.

Stop switching the rules.

I'm not switching the rules. You assert they're stars; prove they're stars. I'm not asserting they aren't stars. I'm simply saying your claim, without evidence, is unconvincing. There is a big difference between the failure to establish a proposition and the establishment of its converse. You have failed to establish your propisition. That does not mean I assert the converse.

My argument regarding the video is not that there are no stars in it, but that I don't yet see a feature in it that to me resembles stars. But I admit that may be because I'm not looking in the right place, so I have suspended judgment pending additional clarification.

I have both pictures and moving footage of white specks in the sky which I believe are stars.

Good for you. I don't believe that. If you wish to establish that your belief is correct, present evidence. And rest assured I will examine the strength of that evidence. But I can't until you present it.

The moving footage alone proves your theory of spots caused by processing to be incorrect.

It wasn't clear in that part of the discussion that you were referring to your six-second video and not your poor-quality photos. I was under the impression you were talking about the stars in your photo, and so supplied an argument intended for that set of evidence. I did not mean for it to apply to the video. I believe we're on the same page now.

I agree that scanner contamination would not apply to the video. That does not rule out other artifacts, but it would require artifacts of a different type and origin.

some of you say they shouldn't appear and some of you say they should.

You're confusing two different subjects. You still have not come to terms with my answer to your first question. Seeing (and photographing) stars from the lunar surface is not identical to seeing them from earth orbit. You persist in ignoring the pertinent differences.

Why? this should not be.

Your opinion of what should and should not be is of little value. I have explained this numerous times.

Different propellants combust with different visible characteristics.

Within the same propellant type, small rockets generally don't produce visible transients while large rockets do. Because of fluctuating bipropellant ratios during startup, transients produce visible flames that are not found in steady-state operation.

Pump-fed rockets generally have longer transients due to fluctuations inherent to pump spool-up.

This is the last time I will attempt to explain this to you. Don't bring this up again until you are prepared to discuss the operation of rocket engines in terms other than irrelevant analogies.

That's like saying an air balloon sometimes produces a flame and sometimes not when its turned on.

No, it's nothing like saying that.

They both mean the same thing 'Checked out means looked at, not thoroughly read all your site'.

Nevertheless the answer to your question was on that page. I sent you there with the understanding that you would read the page and thereby acquire the answer. You chose not to. Then later you misrepresented my argument in a way that would have been hard to do had you actually read it.

I have no patience for people who refuse to read answers they ask for.

Also you say description, no picture exists there to prove your point.

Completely false. Figures 11, 12, and 13 illustrate my argument that there is a variation in lunar terrain down-sun of the flag. Even after all this you still have not read the page!

And while were on this point of picture examples, you haven't even bothered to respond to my comment about the angle you had to place the cardboard to get the desired shadow effects on the pegs.

That's because the answer appears in the description of the first photograph, which you obviously did not bother to read. Another poster tried to bring this to your attention, but you obviously didn't notice it then either.

The Apollo 11 sun elevation was about 10 degrees. The sun elevation when I took the photographs was some 55-60 degrees. Since clouds were threatening to move in again, and since you had made a second demand for such evidence, I had to make do with the prevailng sun elevation. In order to reduce that sun elevation to the required 10 degrees, the apparatus must be tilted some 45-50 degrees, as was done. This makes the sun angle approximately 10 degrees with respect to the "local" horizontal against which the shadows were measured. I do not argue that the lunar terrain is tilted to that extreme.

Now someone who knows how shadows are actually cast would recognize this as a legitimate compensational step. You have shown repeatedly that you don't understand any of the shadow evidence that's put before you.

Now your being stubborn.

No, I'm not. I'm simply asking you to identify one or more specific pictures which illustrate the exact point you're trying to make, so that there can be no confusion over what specific anomaly is intended and what specific lighting or optical principles might apply.

Why is this too much to ask?

I know very well that you know about the pictures I am talking about.

No, I don't. There are hundreds of pictures out there, and dozens of them that refer to various aspects of parallax and apparent distance. You aren't specific about which parallax effect you mean, so I'm simply asking you to find a photo or series of photos and show me what you believe is wrong with that.

I'm trying to preclude the unpleasant feature of this debate wherein you make a vague argument, I assume you mean some specific thing by that, get it wrong, and then you jump down my throat saying I'm misstating your argument.

It's becoming clear that you want your arguments to be vague and misinterpreted, because it provides you with the only thing you really seek: evidence you can spin toward the proposition that we're confused.

I explained that I couldn't find them but said to contact 'The Rat' as he was part of the debate. Obviously you haven't bothered to ask him.

It's not my responsibility to provide evidence for your assertions.

Oh well, its your loss.

No, it's yours. You have no evidence to support your assertion.

I don't need to be an expert to know that hovering at 50,000ft above the lunar surface can tell anyone how a craft will land.

I submit that you do. If you are not a test pilot or an aeronautical engineer then I submit you are not qualified to determine what constitutes a sufficient flight test, or overall testing plan.

You are not an expert on landing the Apollo 11 craft!

That's debatable. I'm reasonably sure I know more about it that you do. What would you like to know?

How does that make you anymore an expert on testing the landing capability of the Apollo

Because I know how spacecraft are tested. I know how other products are tested. I know how quality control people use precise methodologies to avoid wasting time, money, and effort testing things that don't need to be tested in separate steps. After Apollo 10 the next step in the testing process was to attempt an actual landing. This was done on Apollo 11, whose only ironclad mission requirement was to land and takeoff again safely.

I have stated and stand by my statement that it was never successfully tested on the Moon until it landed during Apollo 11.

But this is based on your personal definition of a "successfull test". You don't seem to realize that we may have valid reasons for not accepting your definition.

You or anyone else cannot dispute this, but have a hard time accepting this fact.

It is not a fact. It has always been, and still remains, your opinion. You are not qualified to evaluate the sufficiency of a spacecraft test program.

You can't seem to make up your mind. You say that you yourself don't need to be an expert to determine that the LM test procedures were deficient. But then you try to argue that I'm not an expert in landing the LM and so I have no business trying to talk about testing the LM. Which is it?

Yet another answer which skips the proposition.

No, I pointed out in an entire paragraph why your analogy doesn't apply to your point. I am not required to "take the bait" of irrelevant analogies.

Comparing the testing of consumer products to the testing of experimental special-purpose technology is invalid.

But I shall employ your analogy to make a point. You argue that a consumer product such as a car is rigorously tested before it can be used by the intended customer. Who designs those tests? Is it merely laymen with no special knowledge of how cars are built, or the principles of physics that apply to collisions? Or is it highly qualified scientists with detailed understanding of physics and of the construction of the car?

Would you ride in a car whose test plan had been devised by someone who tested only what he thought was obvious, based on no special understanding of the principles involved? Or would you want your car to be tested by someone who tested what was obvious based on years of education and experience. Things which are obvious to people with vast experience and understanding are not necessarily obvious to those who don't have them.

And since physics and engineering are frequently counterintuitive, things which the layman supposes to be obvious test points may not be informative when analyzed with the appropriate methdologies.

In other words, you tout automotive testing as a reasonable yardstick without realizing that it shows just how important it is for qualified people to plan and conduct those tests. If mere unqualified "common sense" were necessary to develop a test procedure, then automotive firms could simply hire anyone at $40,000 to do the job. They wouldn't have to hire an engineer at $90,000 or $100,000 a year to do it. They obtain that expertise because that expertise is required.

Now in light of this, why should your opinion of LM testing hold any water?

Another assumption on your part which is false and presumes incorrectly.

If I interpret this remark correctly, then, you represent that you have seen the entire Apollo 11 EVA. Then you should have no problem discussing Neil Armstrong's leap up the LM ladder.

Its obvious to me what the paragraph suggests.

Perhaps because you wrote it and therefore know what it means. To a different reader your meaning may not be obvious.

From your garbled clarification it is apparent that you intended the parenthetical to refer to the evidence, not to the spacecraft itself. If so, then I agree my comments about the custody of the Apollo 1 spacecraft are irrelevant.

As for the evidence, I'll take your word for it that it has been confiscated from Grissom. Since Grissom is accusing NASA of murder, don't you think the organization accused of such a crime would be entitled to examine the evidence against it? It is, after all, NASA's property.

Not according to HJP Arnold and Patrick Moore.

Then your question is satsified.

The Clementine photo I've discussed which shows the Apollo 15 landing site does not show any equipment.

But it seems that you have alot of different opinions ...

Attempting to depict uncertainty will not make it magically appear. Nor will it prove you are correct.

For example, you say the blue glow on Apollo 13 is the earth seen through the window. Hypothetically one person here may say it's the reflection of the cabin lights off the glass. Another may say it's scatter from contamination.

In your mode of thinking, you point out that they are two different explanations, therefore we are confused. It doesn't matter to you that both explanations can be correct and contribute to the effect. I don't say that you have made this exact argument, but it is an argument of the type that you would make.

Now suppose hypothetically someone comes along and proves that it can't be cabin reflection (say, by showing the effect with all the cabin lights turned out), and someone else proves it can't be scatter (say, by showing empirically that light wouldn't have scattered that way).

Now in your mind, having our two hypotheses shot down, or at least seriously questioned, would somehow proves your point. It doesn't work that way. Proving what it isn't doesn't prove what it is, unless the proposition is by nature boolean.

Example:

I hear a crash from my bedroom and run in to find a potted plant broken on the floor. I postulate the theory that space aliens from the planet Krouton landed, broke into my room, upset my plant, and left without a trace. My friend postulates that my cat upset the plant. But I point out that the cat was with me at the time I heard the crash. Does this mean I can assert as fact my Kroutonian hypothesis? No, of course not. I would still have to prove that the planet Krouton actually existed and is inhabited, that its inhabitants came to earth, that they actually did upset my plant.

Now you may argue that I've presented an absurd situation. That's on purpose. In fact, an infinite number of absurd hypotheses can be formulated to explain my plant's demise. And the method of proof outlined above, which you use extensively, does not distinguish between them. The point of a logical process or an investigative process is to distinguish hypotheses -- to accept some and throw others away.

Similarly with your insistence on counterproof. Because there is, in the universe, an infinite number of false propositions which cannot be disproved, it is not a useful method of reasoning to state a proposition and announce that is fact unless it can be proven. You cannot demonstrate that your hypothesis is one of those false ones which lacks a proof.

Therefore the burden of proof is always upon the person who asserts the proposition. Logic is the principle of arriving at reliable conclusion. The absence of proof for the converse does not provide reliable proof.

On one of the other many forums here discussing my posts you say that a simulation of how shadows appear on many Apollo photos cannot be created with natural light and only artificial lighting.

I was in a hurry and typed the wrong thing. I've added a correction while leaving the error in place to provide context and avoid charges of revisionism. Thanks to you and to Jovianboy for noticing the error.

But I notice that you don't hesitate to take liberties with my statement in order to amplify it for your purposes. I said, "The point, quite bluntly stated, is that you can't reproduce the Apollo photo using natural light." I didn't explicitly state the converse, as you have implied. Nor did I extend my statement to "many Apollo photos," as you say. I quite intentionally limited to this particular photo.

Thankyou, that is all I needed to know.

Of course. You certainly wouldn't want any context or anything to go with that, or any explanation for why I apparently said something out of character. It's obvious you're just here to acquire ammunition for your site, to create the appearance of uncertainty or contradiction so you can try to make it look like you know what you're talking about by comparison.

It took you 7 lines of conjecture before you unwittingly answered my question.

I didn't unwitting answered it. I wittingly answered it. First, I do not agree with your analogy that lightning strikes and solar events present an identical predictive problem. That was the premise on which your argument was based.

Second, my answer was the lengthy reference to statistical probability, the principles of which adequately answer your question. You completely ignored it.

NASA could not predict when solar flares would erupt.

But that is not the same problem as predicting whether it is likely one will erupt in a given direction on a given sequence of days.

Let's add prediction to the long list of subjects you pretend to understand, but know nothing about.

Thankyou, no need to carry on this conversation any further because you just confirmed my belief ...

I highly doubt you needed this conversation to confirm any belief of yours. In fact, your beliefs have remained almost completely invariant throughout this entire discussion, despite the wealth of information uncovered.

But it's obvious you were hoping, by means of selective quotation and deliberate obtuseness, to harvest a new set of perceived inconsistencies in your opponents' statements (despite that you couldn't document any of your prior ones) and that we will no doubt be treated, in short order, to a new paragraph at your site in which you will clumsily attempt to summarize and characterize our arguments, splitting more hairs than a barber.

What baffles me is that you seem to honestly believe this procedure establishes fact.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-06-04 14:49 ]</font>

DaveC
2002-Jun-04, 07:56 PM
Just so everyone is clear, I am not, nor have I ever been cosmicdave. I haven't posted to any of these threads with cosmicdave's incoherent rambling because I've been away for the past week. Besides, I'm not really into whipping a defenseless puppy.
Does anyone have any idea who this character is? His style of "debate" rings a lot like Slime AKA C.C. AKA Carrot Cruncher AKA .... etc. After a while one starts to form the impression that there is a single digit number of ardent HBs who create their apparent numerical strength by using several screen names in the mistaken belief that their case is strengthened by the number of supporters. Too bad they don't give the same weight to evidence and logic.

SpacedOut
2002-Jun-04, 08:12 PM
Supposedly he’s - Dave Cosnette webmaster of the Cosmic Conspiracies' (http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html) website.

But you never know.

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-04, 08:47 PM
On 2002-06-04 14:20, JayUtah wrote:

What baffles me is that you seem to honestly believe this procedure establishes fact.

That's because you care about facts and take pride in getting them right. What cosmicdave cares about is his status as a self-styled "authority" in the UFO community and the attention he gets because of it.

What's funny is that if you do a search for "Dave Cosnette" on Google it seems that one of his claims to fame amongst his own peers is that he has been accused of copyright theft and headline grabbing for the sake of increasing his site's hit count. Here's the URL:

http://www.100megsfree4.com/farshores/ncc2.htm

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-04, 08:49 PM
On 2002-06-04 15:56, DaveC wrote:
Just so everyone is clear, I am not, nor have I ever been cosmicdave.

I don't know, maybe we should take a blood sample and put a hot needle in it just to make sure you're human...
/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

Silas
2002-Jun-04, 09:27 PM
On 2002-06-04 15:56, DaveC wrote:
Just so everyone is clear, I am not, nor have I ever been cosmicdave.

Not to worry; there's no way anyone could mistake either one of you for the other.

(However, there are, like, drugs, dude, that might help you to, like, y'know, become Cosmic! Like? Y'know?)

(Me, I just get high on life, and America...)

Silas

JayUtah
2002-Jun-04, 09:29 PM
What cosmicdave cares about is his status as a self-styled "authority" in the UFO community and the attention he gets because of it.

If he wants to be an authority in the UFO community I have no problem with it. Just so long as he doesn't think that magically gives him any kind of expertise in actual space travel. I feel sorry for someone who has to accumulate celebrity by misquoting and misrepresenting other people.

Tomblvd
2002-Jun-04, 09:47 PM
Jay, a question. Is it not true that a satellite in geosynchronous orbit is not visible to the naked eye or binoculars? If that is true, we can be assured the satellite found by the Japanese astronomers was moving in relation to the ground.

I will iterate again that the article supports out contention that you cannot "hide" a spacecraft in orbit, simply because these astronomers were able to pick this one out from all the debris that is already up there.

CD also seems to be leaning toward saying that the CM was hidden by being put in geosynchronous orbit. This also wouldn't work because that puts it smack in the middle of the "deadly" Van Allen belts.

johnwitts
2002-Jun-04, 10:17 PM
I'm sure Cosmic Dave won't go outside during a thunderstorm for fear of being struck by lightning. LOL.

San Francisco is well overdue for an earthquake. Why does anyone go there?

JayUtah
2002-Jun-04, 10:39 PM
Is it not true that a satellite in geosynchronous orbit is not visible to the naked eye or binoculars?

True. A spy satellite is about 60 feet long (possibly shorter, but no longer). Put one of those in a geosynchronous orbit and it's like trying to see a penny from 31 miles away.

Seeing a spy satellite in its customary orbit is like seeing that same penny from 1,100 feet away. Still pretty hard to see.

The important fact is that satellites are reflective. That's why you can see them. But from geosynchronous orbit the good ol' inverse square law takes over. A satellite in geosynchronous orbit will be 0.0046% as bright as the same satellite in low earth orbit.

This also wouldn't work because that puts it smack in the middle of the "deadly" Van Allen belts.

But C. Dave is far more interested in trying to make us look foolish than in actually understanding physical principles.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-04, 10:42 PM
While we're on this subject, a lot of the "pulsing" UFO sightings are discarded booster segments in orbit, tumbling end over end.

Silas
2002-Jun-04, 11:25 PM
On 2002-06-04 18:42, JayUtah wrote:
While we're on this subject, a lot of the "pulsing" UFO sightings are discarded booster segments in orbit, tumbling end over end.



Cool! You mean that there have been UFO sightings coincident with major launches? How humiliating!

Here in San Diego, we often can see those lovely, weird, kinked vapor trails left from rocket launches from Vandenberg. They're eerie, and kinky, and quite pretty. And every doggone time, someone freaks out and insists that they're of otherworldly origin.

How do we win? My mother used to sit out on the front porch in the evening, and watch the stars. She insisted that she could see UFOs making maneuvers that could not be explained by aircraft. I never could see them, which led her to wonder about a "skeptical effect." You know: people who are dubious will not see the same phenomenon as those who have a truly "open mind."

We must all do our best...

Silas

JayUtah
2002-Jun-05, 02:21 AM
You mean that there have been UFO sightings coincident with major launches?

No, these are booster segments that have been jettisoned at a high enough altitude that they go into orbit. They're up there for months or years. Almost all of them tumble, and if they happen to catch the light they look like a pulsating object moving across the sky.

And every doggone time, someone freaks out and insists that they're of otherworldly origin.

My opinion is that there's enough weird stuff in the sky caused by normal stuff that we don't need to leap immediately to an extraterrestrial conclusion.

How do we win?

We don't, so we redefine victory. Victory is simply providing a well-reasoned, documented alternative response, whether or not any specific person believes it.

people who are dubious will not see the same phenomenon as those who have a truly "open mind."

Seems like a good line of reasonining, doesn't it? Well, in most cases that apply to conspiracy theories, it's hogwash. Most conspiracy theorists say you have to have an open mind, but when you get right down to it they only want your mind to be open far enough to accept their conclusions. If you open it any further, to the extent of questioning their conclusions, they tend to get angry.

Unfortunately we still live in the land of superstition. We still have buildings with no thirtenth floor. We still look askance at black cats. (I own two.) We still cross our fingers, pull the petals off of flowers, avoid swalling our chewing gum, and dutifully wait for an hour after eating before we go in swimming.

Now in practice most of these foibles are harmless. But it's the mindset that we allow to develop that becomes harmful.

I was very impressed with some of the statements the Bad Astronomer made in his debate with Bart Sibrel on the subject of science and scientific inquiry. What a lot of people don't realize is that the progression of science is based quite firmly on the notion that conclusions are supposed to be questioned.

I argue that scientists (and by extension anyone who aspires to that mode of thought) are quite open-minded. When a scientist observes something that contradicts prevailing theory, and the observation is verified to be correct, the scientist immediately questions the theory. There are hundreds of scientific journals. Most of the papers in those journals exist only to question prevailing theory. The daily travail of science is self-examination, the admission that what is accepted may not be fully correct.

Contrast this with conspiracy theory belief. It bears a striking resemblance to religion. (Being a religious person myself I bear no malice toward religion, but I have to point out that religious knowledge is acquired differently than scientific knowledge.) In a religion, knowledge is dispensed from an infallible authority and is presumed complete and correct as dispensed.

In short, it is considered poor taste for a religious adherent to question the doctrine. Thus when some fact appears to contradict religious knowledge, adherents naturally conclude there must be something wrong with the fact. And so all manner of conjectural argumentation is brought into play to erode the significance of the fact.

Now the reconciliation of science and religion is beyond what I want to accomplish here. But I believe the conspiracy theory phenomenon resembles a religion in the sense that belief is established a priori as a matter of philosophy or suggestion, not as a matter of conclusion pursuant to evidence.

The central tenet of conspiracism is that the wielders of power -- overt, covert or merely postulated -- engage in a wholesale program of deception and disinformation in order to exploit and subjugate the general population. This manifests itself in the several conspiracy theories: Apollo, JFK, 9/11, and so forth. But they're just appendages to the central doctrine of government corruption, deception, and untrustworthiness.

When the facts appear to contradict the doctrine, the doctrine is not questioned. The conspiracist focuses on undermining the fact -- chiefly with speculation and pseudoscience. If the fact cannot be undermined, a different argument supporting the doctrine is put forward, employing different facts and different sciences. This is why you see conspiracists jumping from topic to topic without ever conceding. They're trying to defend their kernel of belief, deploying whatever argument they think will protect it. There is no attempt whatsoever to get at the actual truth. The actual truth is irrelevant; protection of the belief is paramount.

But you can see why the conspiracists are so happy and comfortable with their conjectural arguments. They aren't looking to find reliable support for a conclusion. They're looking for an "out", and excuse to continue their desired beliefs in the face of inconvenient facts. In Cosmic Dave's case, his excuse is the apparent confusion here on the board -- whether it happens naturally or whether he has to create it or whether it's just a figment of his imagination. The key is that he really wants to believe in his theory, but he also wants a pseudo-intellectual post-justification for his beliefs. Any excuse to continue that belief is sufficient.

Moon hoax believers are quite satisfied with the notion that just maybe it was all done on a soundstage, and just maybe NASA wasn't up to the task, and just maybe the photographs were all falsified. They don't need full-blown proof, just an excuse for why the evidence just maybe doesn't apply to their beliefs. They need some possible way -- however farfetched or conjectural -- for their pre-existing beliefs to remain plausible to them.

Very infrequently is the conspiracist doctrine successfully challenged. The migration from the "thousands of errors" to "thousands of whistle-blows" is an example. In general, the doctrine remains unchanged and must be defended by whatever pseudo-intellectual means present themselves.

Is this ringing a bell with anyone?


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-06-04 22:29 ]</font>

sts60
2002-Jun-05, 03:09 AM
Is this ringing a bell with anyone?

Sure, with anyone who's ever debated (most) creationists. (raises hand) Or, from what bits I've seen, anyone who's argued with Holocaust revisionists. Or, as Jay or someone mentioned, fluoridation-haters. Or JFK conspiracists, or "Philadelphia experiment" believers. Or, well, you get the idea.

Heck, it happens with many sports fans - it's happened with me /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif Of course the referees conspired to rob us.

The real job is to try to educate those who are just misled, not those who Know The Truth (tm). Not that we shouldn't challenge the latter, as politely as possible (though I confess to being a might tetchy with CD myself).

I just want to try the idea of focusing from the start on just one of the usual scattershot of arguments the next HB will toss out. Stay focused on it like a laser, and keep them in the kill zone until they quit in frustration at being unable to get the "wall of noise" going.

"I'm sorry, Celestial Sam, but before we go on to discussing points 2 through 300, you really need to address exactly why you think a satellite in Earth orbit could imitate a spacecraft in a cislunar trajectory."

Jovianboy
2002-Jun-05, 03:39 AM
On 2002-06-04 16:47, pvtpylot wrote:


On 2002-06-04 14:20, JayUtah wrote:

What baffles me is that you seem to honestly believe this procedure establishes fact.

That's because you care about facts and take pride in getting them right. What cosmicdave cares about is his status as a self-styled "authority" in the UFO community and the attention he gets because of it.

What's funny is that if you do a search for "Dave Cosnette" on Google it seems that one of his claims to fame amongst his own peers is that he has been accused of copyright theft and headline grabbing for the sake of increasing his site's hit count. Here's the URL:

http://www.100megsfree4.com/farshores/ncc2.htm


Good stuff pvtpylot. What I find particularly paradoxical is this quotation by cosmicdave in the link provided:

"What was it that Stanton Friedman said? 'Don't bother me with the facts, my mind's made up!'."

LOL! Talk about pots and black kettles! This quote is a precise description of cosmicdave's psychology!

JayUtah explains the concept in more detail:

"This is why you see conspiracists jumping from topic to topic without ever conceding. They're trying to defend their kernel of belief, deploying whatever argument they think will protect it. There is no attempt whatsoever to get at the actual truth. The actual truth is irrelevant; protection of the belief is paramount." (from the preceding post)

There is, however, one other significant problem with cosmicdave. I suspect his inability to engage in a logical debate is based upon his obvious difficulties with the written English language. I am not slinging ad hominems here: while it is possible that he is deliberately not reading responses to his posts properly, I think it is more likely that his reading comprehension skills are woeful.

In addition, his knowledge of the space sciences is clearly next to nil. Here's an example of one of Jay's attempts to educate our poor Dave:

Cosmicdave: "Satellites in geosynchronous (also known as geostationary) orbits ..."

JayUtah: "Incorrect. Geostationary is a subset of geosynchronous. In other words, an orbit can be geosynchronous without being geostationary. A geosynchronous orbit is one whose period is equivalent to the rotational period of its primary. A geostationary orbit is a circular geosynchronous orbit with a zero inclination, rendering the altitude and azimuth of the satellite constant from a point on earth."

That certainly helped me to understand the definitions better, but cosmicdave? Sorry Jay, but you probably lost him after the first sentence.

Oh, and while I'm on the subject of communication skills, I JUST HAVE TO MENTION THIS as it's been really BUGGING ME from the beginning:

Dave! Among your numerous grammatical and spelling errors this one is the most common, and the most annoying: you constantly abbreviate "you are" to "your". The contraction of "you are" is YOU'RE!

Right, that feels better...

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-05, 04:44 AM
On 2002-06-04 23:39, Jovianboy wrote:
In addition, his knowledge of the space sciences is clearly next to nil. Here's an example of one of Jay's attempts to educate our poor Dave:

Cosmicdave: "Satellites in geosynchronous (also known as geostationary) orbits ..."

JayUtah: "Incorrect. Geostationary is a subset of geosynchronous. In other words, an orbit can be geosynchronous without being geostationary. A geosynchronous orbit is one whose period is equivalent to the rotational period of its primary. A geostationary orbit is a circular geosynchronous orbit with a zero inclination, rendering the altitude and azimuth of the satellite constant from a point on earth."

That certainly helped me to understand the definitions better, but cosmicdave? Sorry Jay, but you probably lost him after the first sentence.

Good points all, Jove. Thing is, I firmly believe that one doesn't need to be a professional scientist in order to understand the scientific method. I would present James Randi (http://www.randi.org) as a perfect example. The guy's a magician by trade, but a terror to the pseudoscientific community. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif However, you have to want to learn. I've asked this forum before for a more lay explanation to things I didn't clearly understand and found them to be more than accommodating. Sometimes to the point where I've been embarrased about the amount of people's time given to providing me an answer.

Comic...er, sorry, cosmicdave had no desire to learn a thing here. His sole purpose was to try and make a show of upstaging the experts for the benefit of his little group. Fortunately, when I say "little" I'm not kidding. His bulletin board has had maybe two dozen posts in the last three months. And that's counting Ian R.'s posts trying to get him back over here to present his evidence. Maybe his lack of an audience proves there's hope yet? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

(corr. sp.)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: pvtpylot on 2002-06-05 01:34 ]</font>

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-05, 05:10 AM
On 2002-06-04 23:39, Jovianboy wrote:

There is, however, one other significant problem with cosmicdave. I suspect his inability to engage in a logical debate is based upon his obvious difficulties with the written English language. I am not slinging ad hominems here: while it is possible that he is deliberately not reading responses to his posts properly, I think it is more likely that his reading comprehension skills are woeful.

Another thing I noticed is how rushed and harried his posts were getting when he was trying to keep up with Jay, but then how much more legible and polished (and nasty) his last post was when he thought Jay wasn't going to respond. I got the very distinct impression that he felt he had "won" and he just couldn't resist what was in his mind a gloating victory speech. I guess that just bolsters the point that he was playing by a different set of standards.

(corr. grammer)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: pvtpylot on 2002-06-05 01:12 ]</font>

Jovianboy
2002-Jun-05, 07:41 AM
On 2002-06-05 00:44, pvtpylot wrote:
I firmly believe that one doesn't need to be a professional scientist in order to understand the scientific method.


I totally agree. I'm a layman myself, and yet I always try to view every piece of information with a critical mindset, combined with whatever relevant knowledge I can obtain and comprehend. I'm not sure that people like CosDave are capable of that kind of mental discipline, however.

Cheers,

JB

cosmicdave
2002-Jun-05, 12:17 PM
Thought I'd just give one last shot.

JayUtah Quote:'I have no patience for people who refuse to read answers they ask for.'

Back at ya!

My 'little group' by the way counts to 145 thousands hits. A bit more than this little group of back patters.

Nice to see Jay's still got the knack of saying he knew about satellites all along, even though he made his glaring mistake earlier. Its easy to agree with the answer once you've been told... Satellite Expert? - not!

Incidentally, if the groups belief in light scattering being able to make a black sky appear blue, why do we not see this if looking out from a bright room through windows at night? Always seems to be black to me?

Tha Tha That's all folks

Baaaaa......

SpacedOut
2002-Jun-05, 12:42 PM
On 2002-06-05 08:17, cosmicdave wrote:
Incidentally, if the groups belief in light scattering being able to make a black sky appear blue, why do we not see this if looking out from a bright room through windows at night? Always seems to be black to me?


Ah, Dave – I wish you would read the thread. No one except you said the image outside the window was blue. The response to you was that the window looked blue because of sun light or cabin light scattering off of the glass and/or substances on the glass. It was you that maintained that the blue was actually the earth.

Please, I beg you, at least pay attention to what you post, even if you can’t follow the responses!

[spelling]


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SpacedOut on 2002-06-05 08:43 ]</font>

johnwitts
2002-Jun-05, 12:43 PM
Unless you have a big spotlight outside shining on the glass at an angle. Then you can't see the sky. (I've got a big patio light, so I see this effect every night).

infocusinc
2002-Jun-05, 01:24 PM
WOW! Cosmic Dave latest post is a true gem. Only in the mind of a CT can utter defeat be turned into victory. Jays post on the mindset of a ct is so right on the mark. CD shows us how it works. I wonder if CD knows Jack White? Two peas in a pod.

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-05, 01:53 PM
On 2002-06-05 08:17, cosmicdave wrote:
My 'little group' by the way counts to 145 thousands hits. A bit more than this little group of back patters.

140,000 of which are likely accounted for by the 50 or so popup ads one is forced to fight through during the course of getting a post on your "forum".

Glad to see you at last dropped the pretense of truly debating any issues, though. Name calling suits you better.

Jim
2002-Jun-05, 02:21 PM
My 'little group' by the way counts to 145 thousands hits. A bit more than this little group of back patters.

"Hits" do not necessarily equate to individuals; typically a Hit Counter registers how many times any pages on your site are accessed.

And "Hits" certainly do not equate to agreement with what your site presents.

Also, Hit Counters are date-dependent, counting hits since they were placed on a site, and can be "adjusted" to start anywhere you want.

BTW, where do you get your information on hits to the BA? I can't find the Hit Counter.

Nice to see Jay's still got the knack of saying he knew about satellites all along, even though he made his glaring mistake earlier. Its easy to agree with the answer once you've been told... Satellite Expert? - not!

Jay has been displaying his considerable knowledge of satellite dynamics for quite some time here. I don't know what you mean specifically, but my guess is that (once again) you have misread or misapplied an answer.

When you ask a specific question and get a specific answer, you should not then revise the question and point out that the answer is (now) wrong.

Incidentally, if the groups belief in light scattering being able to make a black sky appear blue, why do we not see this if looking out from a bright room through windows at night? Always seems to be black to me?

As mentioned by Spaced, it isn't the "sky" that is tinted blue, it's the window. This is due to sunlight being scattered by the window and giving a blue tint to the view through it. Unless your home's windows have the same construction as Apollo's - double paned, new gasketing/sealant which gives the outgassing effects, etc - you won't see this. And you certainly won't see it at night when there is no sunlight to scatter.

Oh, but during the day - when the sun is up - you will notice this scattering effect. It makes the sky appear blue, even though air is transparently colorless. This is similar to the effect with the Apollo's windows.

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-05, 02:40 PM
On 2002-06-05 10:21, Jim wrote:
My 'little group' by the way counts to 145 thousands hits. A bit more than this little group of back patters.

"Hits" do not necessarily equate to individuals; typically a Hit Counter registers how many times any pages on your site are accessed.

In fact, cd's claim is even more misleading then that. Every hit counter I've ever installed is based on server hits. Images, servlets, popup ads, server-side JavaScripts, anything on a page that requires a seperate call to the server results in a new "hit". That's why Internet advertisers dropped hits as a relevent reference for determining rates several years ago.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-05, 03:23 PM
Nice to see Jay's still got the knack of saying he knew about satellites all along, even though he made his glaring mistake earlier.

"Glaring mistake"? You haven't gotten one thing right on the subject of orbital mechanics yet. The only reason you labor under the delusion that I don't know anything about space is that you're too ignorant about it to know when you're wrong.

Interesting that you had to come back and attempt to gloat, but you won't answer any of the substantive issues I and others raised about those various orbits and how they apply to your argument. You go on for days about low-earth orbits, and then you suddenly change horses and bring up irrelevancies of geosynchronous and geostationary orbits (which you got wrong in the process). Why do you think abruptly changing the subject and trying to equate two rather dissimilar concepts somehow makes you a genius?

You may be able to fool your little UFO club, but we can surely tell that you're faking it. It appears my assessment of you is pretty close to the mark. You care very little for the actual arguments you make, so long as you can spin the discussion to make it seem to your friends like Dave Cosnette is the smartest guy in the world.

Incidentally, if the groups belief in light scattering being able to make a black sky appear blue

No, once again you either fail or refuse to understand what scatter is.

Perform the following experiment:

1. Wait until daylight.
2. Go outside.
3. Look up.
4. Note the color of the sky.

You just made a black sky look blue. Any astronomer or physicist you consult will assure you it's due to scatter.

why do we not see this if looking out from a bright room through windows at night?

First of all, I doubt your windows are of the same composition as the Apollo windows, nor have the same coatings.

Second, since it's at night, the sun is illuminating some other part of the earth and is therefore not available to shine in through your window. You can't see much potential scatter from interior lights if you're also on the interior.

Third, you've forgotten part of the original explanation, which was that the film's response to wavelength is nonlinear. In order to fully duplicate the effect you'd have to take a picture through your window with the proper type of film. Direct observation is not necessarily equivalent.

I'm glad you're back and are reading this thread. That means you've seen that the quote you lifted from the other thread regarding duplicating an Apollo photograph in various types of light, was in fact a misstatement which I have corrected. You are therefore advised that it does not now (nor did not at the time) represent my belief and so if you represent otherwise in any public context, you will be guilty of outright deception.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-05, 04:25 PM
Let's just see what kind of satellite expert Cosmic Dave is. Here are some questions for you, Dave. They should be easy for you.

1. What is the orbital velocity of a 4,000 kg satellite in geostationary orbit?

2. Name a satellite which is in geosynchronous, but not geostationary, orbit. Also, name a satellite which is in geostationary, but not geosychronous orbit.

3. During insertion in geostationary orbit, why does the COP manuever come after the transfer manuever?

4. Two satellites are to be place in a circular low earth orbit at exactly the same altitude. One has a mass of 1,000 kg. The other has a mass of 3,000 kg. Which one must orbit faster in order to retain its orbit?

5. What is meant by "orbital inclination"?

6. What are the two nodes of an orbit?

7. Name two methods for circularizing an elliptical orbit.

8. What is the relationship of an orbit's major axis to its period?

I know many of you know the answers to these questions. Let Dave figure them out, if he dares.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-06-05 13:28 ]</font>

CJSF
2002-Jun-05, 04:29 PM
On 2002-06-05 12:25, JayUtah wrote:
Let's just see what kind of satellite expert Cosmic Dave is. Here are some questions for you, Dave. They should be easy for you.


And please tell us how you figured it out (what sources or equations you used).

CJSF

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-05, 05:04 PM
After a reasonable wait for cosmicdave can you post the correct answers so I can see how I did?

JayUtah
2002-Jun-05, 05:36 PM
Sure, I'll post the answers. Just let me know when you think we've given C. Dave enough time.

sts60
2002-Jun-05, 05:40 PM
Hi Dave, welcome back! I'm also still hoping to hear a reply as to exactly why the Apollo Guidance Computer couldn't have done exactly what it was claimed to do.

For your convenience, here again are some relevant bookmarks with lots of material on the AGC, which were posted earlier by dasi:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/ap15fj/compessay.htm
http://home.planet.nl/~faase009/Ha_Apollo.html
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/computers/contents.html
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/computers/Ch2-5.html

If you are unwilling to defend this argument, perhaps you should remove it from your list. If you are willing, I'm looking forward to hearing your argument.

LunarOrbit
2002-Jun-05, 09:30 PM
Nice to see Jay's still got the knack of saying he knew about satellites all along, even though he made his glaring mistake earlier.

Cosmicdave, you need to go back and look at some older posts made by Jay... I'm certain he has discussed geosyncronous satellites on numerous occassions. You are not the first person here to mention them.

I find it funny that you are even using geosyncronous satellites as evidence, since they prove NASA is telling the truth.

If Apollo hid in geosyncronous orbit the astronauts would be exposed to the Van Allen radiation for longer than they would if they just passed through it on the way to the Moon. Also, if the radiation is as deadly as you think satellites wouldn't be able to function in that orbit.

As far as the Apollo blueprints/documentation is concerned, NASA didn't really need to keep it all. If they want to go back to the Moon using the same technology as Apollo they would only need to reverse engineer the existing LM's, CM's, Saturn rockets, space suits, and rovers that are currently collecting dust in museums.

But of course NASA won't use 1960's technology to return to the Moon, they'll start from scratch using more modern technology.

johnwitts
2002-Jun-05, 09:35 PM
Sure, I'll post the answers. Just let me know when you think we've given C. Dave enough time.

OK, that's enough time. Let's hear the answers.

Or am I being just a little impatient? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

JayUtah
2002-Jun-05, 10:52 PM
I'm certain he has discussed geosyncronous satellites on numerous occassions.

Whether I have or not is largely irrelevant. The question is the degree to which the characteristics of a geostationary orbit apply to a low earth orbit and the various applications of it that C. Dave has proposed.

I find it funny that you are even using geosyncronous satellites as evidence, since they prove NASA is telling the truth.

I'm not entirely sure C. Dave intends his statements regarding geostationary orbits to apply to any specific argument. He seems only to want to use it as some kind of proof that I don't know what I'm talking about.

This was all about whether the object seen above Japan was a spy satellite. The article he posted as evidence says the object was visible in a certain area of the sky. An object in low earth orbit cannot be stationary in the sky. C. Dave brought up that it is indeed possible to have a satellite remain stationary in the sky. And so overly pleased was he with this revelation that he now considers his knowledge of orbital mechanics superior to mine.

Unfortunately in his misplaced glee, he has neglected some salient facts. First, that in order to achieve a geostationary orbit, the spacecraft has to be a hundred times farther from earth than any existing reconnaissance satellite. Second, in order for something to be visible to the naked eye from earth at that altitude, it would have to be monumentally huge.

C. Dave wants you to believe that I didn't know about geostationary orbits and so all of this has come as a surprise to me. He thinks he's found some sort of smoking gun. But in fact I correctly regard geostationary satellites as irrelevant to anything having to do with spying, hence not a credible solution to his Japanese UFO dilemma. C. Dave says, "Ha! You didn't know about this." I say, "I didn't mention it because it's irrelevant to the problem."

As you have no doubt seen, C. Dave has a tremendous problem with relevance.

If Apollo hid in geosyncronous orbit the astronauts would be exposed to the Van Allen radiation for longer than they would if they just passed through it on the way to the Moon.

Not just for longer, but also at a constant exposure profile.

Going through the Van Allen belts presents a steady increase in exposure, peaking at a certain point, and then a falloff as you exit. The integral of this curve is the total dosage. Basic calculus demonstrates the difference between this profile and the flat curve of a continued presence in the danger zone. If that level of constant exposure is greater than about half the level of momentary peak exposure, you will actually receive a greater dose for the same amount of time.

You are quite correct that putting a manned spacecraft in a geostationary orbit for up to two weeks presents a much more difficult radiation problem than simply making a round trip across them.

sts60
2002-Jun-05, 11:10 PM
And if even if the astronauts had jumped into some secret hidey-hole before T-0, and all the signals were relayed through some unmanned satellite, that *still* wouldn't have worked, because you cannot fake an object heading to the Moon with one orbiting the Earth. Orbital mechanics don't allow it.

BTW, in "contact" James Woods' character accuses the astronomers of faking an extraterrestrial signal this way. Uh-uh.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-05, 11:32 PM
... you cannot fake an object heading to the Moon with one orbiting the Earth. Orbital mechanics don't allow it.

Ooh, don't let any astrodynamicists hear you say that! They'll point out (correctly) that a translunar trajectory is an orbit around the earth. It just doesn't go all the way around.

But the basic point of your post is absolutely correct. Geostationary orbit is not the same orbit as a translunar trajectory. The only way to make a signal seem like it's coming from a translunar trajectory is to put the transmitter on an actual translunar trajectory. Of course then you have get that transmitter to behave dynamically exactly like a CSM, put itself into lunar orbit, and get it back.

Now considering that lots of important manuevers required to produce that behavior -- LOI-1, ROI, TEI -- had to occur on the far side of the moon (out of radio contact) that rules out remote control. And you can't argue for automation because then you have to answer why it's impossible to produce the claimed AGC, but possible to produce a computer that could do much, much more -- fly the mission completely by itself without any human pilots.

sts60
2002-Jun-06, 12:52 AM
Yeah, I did gloss over that it's still technically an Earth orbit. I guess C-dave could enlighten me further /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Not to make it sound like a mutual-backslapping society here, but Jay, you did very neatly tie several points together there (trajectory <-> far side guidance <-> AGC). There is no way out of that bind without admitting that people were on board and/or the AGC did its job.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sts60 on 2002-06-05 20:54 ]</font>

johnwitts
2002-Jun-06, 01:26 AM
To further the point about the AGC, would the CSM be able to enter and leave Earth orbit, and reenter the atmosphere without a good functioning Guidance Computer. After all, holding the CSM in alignment while its SPS fired is little different to holding a LM upright, or at whatever angle you choose. It's then not too difficult to have those angles change in response to time, altitude, velocity, etc.

Or what about getting the Saturn V to orbit in the first place? This is esentially a descent run backwards, with the added extras of staging and air buffetting to worry about. Same problem.

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-06, 01:45 AM
On 2002-06-05 21:26, johnwitts wrote:
To further the point about the AGC, would the CSM be able to enter and leave Earth orbit, and reenter the atmosphere without a good functioning Guidance Computer. After all, holding the CSM in alignment while its SPS fired is little different to holding a LM upright, or at whatever angle you choose. It's then not too difficult to have those angles change in response to time, altitude, velocity, etc.

Or what about getting the Saturn V to orbit in the first place? This is esentially a descent run backwards, with the added extras of staging and air buffetting to worry about. Same problem.

I'm curious, though. If the AGC would have been required how did they do the above for Gemini and Mercury?

Jovianboy
2002-Jun-06, 03:24 AM
Regarding Jay's questions for cosmicdave: You all know what CD is probably doing right now, don't you? Well, if he hasn't ignored the questions and given up, I would suggest he has probably printed them out/saved them and is currently seeking the answers from a qualified person (he won't be able to find answers in any text because that requires an understanding of terminology and methods of calculation, which of course he doesn't have). It might have been a good idea to impose a time limit. Then again, if he posts someone else's answers we will certainly notice the difference. Dave isn't that well-known for his literary skills of self-expression.

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-06, 03:51 AM
On 2002-06-05 23:24, Jovianboy wrote:
Regarding Jay's questions for cosmicdave: You all know what CD is probably doing right now, don't you? Well, if he hasn't ignored the questions and given up, I would suggest he has probably printed them out/saved them and is currently seeking the answers from a qualified person (he won't be able to find answers in any text because that requires an understanding of terminology and methods of calculation, which of course he doesn't have). It might have been a good idea to impose a time limit. Then again, if he posts someone else's answers we will certainly notice the difference. Dave isn't that well-known for his literary skills of self-expression.


I'll bet my firstborn son (18 and on summer vacation so no great loss of useful labor around here /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif) that he'll never try and answer all those questions. He'll claim to his disciples that there's no point in even trying, that we would only argue with him and never admit it even if he did get them right.

(corr. sp.)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: pvtpylot on 2002-06-05 23:57 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-Jun-06, 05:27 AM
Some of the answers can simply be looked up. Some give the appearance of being just look-ups but in fact require understanding of the concepts in order to avoid novice pitfalls. That's the difference between someone who actually knows the concepts and someone who merely cuts and pastes from the web. One of them can be answered simply with a brief qualitative answer, but a complete answer would require him to look it up in one of the standard orbital mechanics texts, or derive it from first principles.

These are not simple questions to answer correctly if you're trying to crash-learn the concepts, but they are child's play to someone who has seriously studied astrodynamics.

Jovianboy
2002-Jun-06, 09:38 AM
Yeah, I see what you mean. Some just require definitions, like questions 5 and 6. Those shouldn't be too challenging, even for him. But could he answer them in his own words? I doubt it.

Cheers,

JB

Andrew
2002-Jun-06, 06:10 PM
This photo shows the scattering effect of the windows quite well:

"Blue sky" (http://www.lunatrick.com/20128795.jpg)

The link is to the site discussed in the thread Perhaps The Worst Moon Hoax Site Yet.

I wonder what Cosmic Dave thinks of this.

I couldn't find this picture on ALSJ so I'm forced to use the link to the Hoax Site, therefore I don't think I can display the image on this forum.

Tomblvd
2002-Jun-06, 06:27 PM
I wonder what Cosmic Dave thinks of this.





A more accurate question would be "I wonder how Cosimc Dave will reflexively react to this?"

His posts prove conclusively that CD doesn't "think" about this stuff at all.

cosmicdave
2002-Jun-06, 07:21 PM
What relevance would me answering the satellite questions make?
Someone on here said that my claim that a large spy satellite which had been spotted spying over Japan was false and that satellites could not possibly stay stationary over one country.

Ill remind you of what was said.

First of all JayUtah commented that ‘It's not as easy to hide a satellite as Sibrel believes.’

To which I replied :'Perhaps you could tell this to China who only recently discovered a huge American spy satellite watching over them.'

Jay Utah came back with:'Hogwash. Reconaissance satellites are continuously in various altitude orbits at high inclinations, passing over most of the earth's surface at any one time. It is impossible according to orbital mechanics to make a recon satellite "hover" over some particular part of the earth.'

And someone else commented that it would be impossible to position a satellite over one country.

To prove my point and inform you all of the event I not only posted an article by a someone who has worked with NASA in the past, relating to the story, I also posted a link (which I copied and pasted part of) to illustrate that I was in fact correct in believing that a satellite could stay in orbit above a particular spot.

The problem that you pointed out was actually a mistake about geostationary/geosynchronous satellites on the site that I linked to and not my own.

You can hardly accuse me of not answering this particular question.

I have now written to Mr. Oberg to explain further and hope to receive a reply soon.

I hope you'll take his word for it more than mine. check out his website at http://www.jamesoberg.com/


Thankyou

CosmicDave

JayUtah
2002-Jun-06, 07:48 PM
What relevance would me answering the satellite questions make?

It would substantiate your claim that you actually know something about satellites and orbits.

Someone on here said that my claim that a large spy satellite which had been spotted spying over Japan was false and that satellites could not possibly stay stationary over one country.

No, that spy satellites could not possibly do that. The statement you quote from me clearly establishes that.

... I also posted a link (which I copied and pasted part of) to illustrate that I was in fact correct in believing that a satellite could stay in orbit above a particular spot.

You started talking about spy satellites and then tried to support your statement with evidence that has nothing to do with spy satellites. And if were able to answer the questions I put to you (which you obviously can't) you would know why your examples were irrelevant. But you can't, so you don't.

The problem that you pointed out was actually a mistake about geostationary/geosynchronous satellites on the site that I linked to and not my own.

But you didn't catch the mistake. You reproduced it as if it were God's own truth about satellites. In fact you can't tell which of your sources are reliable and which are not. This is the hallmark of someone dabbling in matters he doesn't understand.

I hope you'll take his word for it more than mine.

But our argument is not with him; it's with you. And you -- not Mr. Oberg -- are the one putting on airs and pretending you know more about these topics than we. Therefore it is from you that we demand explanations.

You have a habit of reproducing other people's arguments without really understanding them. You pretend that parroting them makes you seem intelligent. But as soon as you run into a little trouble from people who do understand those arguments, and in fact know why they're wrong, you try to shift responsibility elsewhere.

You're no different than any of the other conspiracy theorists who tout their iron-clad proof of this or that, but when you ask them a few simple questions to test their knowledge, then out come the excuses why they don't have to submit to such tests. There are those reading here who have in their possession my answers to these questions and who can vouch for my ability to answer them and discuss them (and any others) to any required degree of detail.

You, sir, are a complete fraud and it's been made painfully apparent here. The eight questions I asked you would have taken you less than ten minutes to answer if you really knew anything about satellites or orbital mechanics. And had you been able to answer them, few people would have had cause to further question your expertise. But apparently you prefer to be suspected as a charlatan rather than open your mouth and remove all doubt.

I say put up or shut up.

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-06, 08:04 PM
On 2002-06-06 15:21, cosmicdave wrote:
I have now written to Mr. Oberg to explain further and hope to receive a reply soon.

I hope you'll take his word for it more than mine. check out his website at http://www.jamesoberg.com/

After having a look about Mr. Oberg's page I can only hope you included a link to your site in your message.
/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Silas
2002-Jun-06, 08:35 PM
NO Satellite can maintain position over Japan (without constantly using up maneuvering fuel, and that would run out mighty quick.) Japan is completely north of the equator. Geostationary satellites must remain above a spot *on* the equator, and geosynchronous satellites must balance their time north and south of the equator (a ground trace would look something like the figure-8 of the analemma.)

(Andre Norton, if memory serves, wrote a science fiction novel entitled "World of Three Rings." One cover artist obligingly drew a picture of a world with three separate Saturn-like rings -- stacked parallel to one another like pancakes. This is, unfortunately, wholly impossible!)

Silas

cosmicdave
2002-Jun-06, 08:40 PM
Yes, me and Mr Oberg have had our differences in the past. But, just because we may not have agreed then does not mean that I will just fob off everything he has to say in the future, which seems to be the case with you and me.

This arguement just seems to be going around and around in circles because I drop a little information and then someone says, 'hang on a minute, prove it'. So, off I go, I find an article to answer the persons accusation that satellites cannot hover over a particular place. Then I post an article by a highly qualified person who works in the aerospace industry to substantiate my claim of the spy satellite over Japan, and you still say that I am a fraud.

I want to say at this point by the way that at no point did I or the article I posted mention that the satellite was hovering, it was someone on here who said that a satellite couldn't hover, hence why I posted the article about geostational satellites. The two are unrelated.

I have NEVER claimed that I am a satellite expert, but know from my little knowledge that satellites can stay stationary as is common in the use of TV satellites (of which I commented). It is JayUtah's theory that someone cannot comment if they don't work in that field which is complete crap. I said that a spy satellite had been spotted spying on Japan and I'm then accused of lying.

This is not a lie and I have posted the evidence.

I said 'Perhaps you could tell this to China who only recently discovered a huge American spy satellite watching over them.'

This is the first part of the article again so read it carefully.
_______________________________
Okayama - A group of japanese astronomers watching the heavens around the clock to spot any sign of huge asteroids and comets apparently found an undisclosed spy satellite, they announced Thursday.

The unidentified object was spotted at the Japan Spaceguard Association's observation center in Bisei, Okayama prefecture, in december last year.

Officials of the association said they have since studied a list of over 8,000 man-made objects in space compiled by the north american aerospace defense command (norad), but it was not registered despite its massive size -- the satellite has a diameter of 50 meters.

Aerospace engineering specialist Nobuo Nakatomi said the object was likely to be a spy satellite.
_____________________________

I hope that this fully explains what has happened during this particular subject and that you can see that I have, once again, been misquoted or misunderstood.


Cheers,

Cosmic Dave

cosmicdave
2002-Jun-06, 08:44 PM
Silas,
How does Japan receive satellite TV then if satellites cannot stay stationary above it?

Think about it.

I hope someone on here is going to take him to task like they have me.

sts60
2002-Jun-06, 08:46 PM
[Re c-dave on japanese TV] The satellites aren't above Japan. They're approximately above the equator, and any dish in Japan looking at these birds is looking up and south. The southernmost island in the Japanese chain is roughly 29 deg. North.

[Re the triple-ring planet]Yeah, and in that movie, "Pitch Black", they show a planet with a beautiful (and quite impossible) double-stack ring.

cosmicdave, if you don't want to answer Jay's questions to help establish your bona fides, would you care to answer my one single question about your claim on the AGC?

Yes, me and Mr Oberg have had our differences in the past...
I like that. "The President and I have had our differences in the past..." If pressed, I can come up with a list of other major figures with which I have had differences /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sts60 on 2002-06-06 17:32 ]</font>

CJSF
2002-Jun-06, 08:48 PM
On 2002-06-06 16:44, cosmicdave wrote:
Silas,
How does Japan receive satellite TV then if satellites cannot stay stationary above it?

Think about it.

I hope someone on here is going to take him to task like they have me.


Because the satellite IS NOT hovering over Japan! It is over the equator, but is at such a high altitude, it has an entire hemisphere in it's line of sight. Sure, near the edge of the hemisphere the signal won't be as clear as it would be at nadir.

Jeezzzzzzzz

You really really do NOT get it, do you?

CJSF

Firefox
2002-Jun-06, 08:48 PM
I would assume a satellite at equatorial GSO would be able to receive and transmit signals from a place as far north as Japan, considering GSOs have to be placed farther out. There wouldn't be a problem with line-to-site.


Adam

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-06, 09:10 PM
On 2002-06-06 16:44, cosmicdave wrote:
Silas,
How does Japan receive satellite TV then if satellites cannot stay stationary above it?

Think about it.

I hope someone on here is going to take him to task like they have me.

Why? He's right, as you would have learned if you had listened to the answers people here were giving you rather than playing a childish game of contridiction and evasion.

cosmicdave
2002-Jun-06, 09:21 PM
Now answer the post above...
I don't see anyone coming forward and agreeing that you all misread what I had to say.

Thats all for now, I haven't the time to stay on here all night and answer questions that you probably wont believe anyway.

Goodnight.

Tomblvd
2002-Jun-06, 09:42 PM
On 2002-06-06 17:21, cosmicdave wrote:
Now answer the post above...
I don't see anyone coming forward and agreeing that you all misread what I had to say.

Thats all for now, I haven't the time to stay on here all night and answer questions that you probably wont believe anyway.

Goodnight.


CD, you have this annoying habit of dragging the discussion, kicking and screaming, away from the topic at hand when you are stuck.

Allow me to drag it back.

You and your ilk say humans cannot travel beyond the Van Allen belts. Because of this and other factors, NASA decided to fake the lunar landings by leaving the astronauts in orbit during the flight. However, we then point out that it would impossible to put something as large as the CM into orbit without it being seen.

You then come up with "proof" that something can be hidden in orbit, a news article that states Japanese astronomers have found a spy statellite in orbit, the launch of which was never reported.

My first thought is that your article proves our point, in that a secret spy satellite is discovered in orbit, easily seen in binoculars, no less.

But then you launch into a lenghty diversion discussing geosynchronous satellites (incorrectly), but never coming back to the original problem, which is, how to hide the CM in orbit.

So now the ball is in your court. All you have to do is tell us how NASA hid the spacecraft.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tomblvd on 2002-06-06 17:45 ]</font>

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-06, 10:39 PM
On 2002-06-06 16:40, cosmicdave wrote:
Yes, me and Mr Oberg have had our differences in the past.

Yeah, I just bet you have.

BTW, did anyone else notice that Mr. Oberg had "Bad Astronomy" as the third listing on his links page? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Donnie B.
2002-Jun-06, 10:48 PM
On 2002-06-05 21:26, johnwitts wrote:
...
Or what about getting the Saturn V to orbit in the first place? This is esentially a descent run backwards, with the added extras of staging and air buffetting to worry about. Same problem.

Hi, John,

Gotta quibble a bit here.

First, the Saturn 5 did in fact have its own independent guidance system (though I don't know if it used a computer exactly like the AGC or some other approach). The S-V did in fact control its own flight from liftoff to orbit without the need for ground control (though the controllers could intervene and override if necessary). The first couple S-V launches were unmanned and got themselves into orbit just fine (despite the fact that they had some serious engine problems on the second and third stages).

Second, the launch of a booster from pad to orbit is most definitely *not* a descent run backwards, except in the trivial sense of "running the film backwards". Not, that is, unless you can figure out a way for the booster to steadily fill its fuel tanks as it descends!

But I undestand that you were referring specifically to the problem of guidance. I submit that the S-V had more than enough "intelligence" to control its attitude and trajectory during launch, but I wouldn't try to argue that this is a problem equivalent to performing a landing.

sts60
2002-Jun-06, 11:09 PM
JayUtah:It's not as easy to hide a satellite as Sibrel believes.
cosmicdave: Perhaps you could tell this to China who only recently discovered a huge American spy satellite watching over them.
cosmicdave:
'Can you please provide the reference for this?'

I Received this info on Email about a month ago. It was actually over Japan and not China as I first thought, pretty close though. Heres an article about it wrote by none other than the infamous James Oberg...
OK, looked around and found the source article. It was not written by James Oberg, but as far as I can tell was from the newspaper Manichi Shimbun, April 4:
http://mdn.mainichi.co.jp/news/archive/200204/04/20020404p2a00m0dm024000c.html

This article claims a "diameter" of 50 meters, which is ridculous. A satellite might have a solar array span around that big, though.

- If the bird is "visible in the southeast sky", then it is a geosynchronous satellite.
- If they didn't just make a mistake with a commercial comsat, or some sort of weather satellite, then it could be a secret bird.
- It's not an imager if it's a classified bird in geosynchronous orbit. It could theoretically be a sigint (doubtful), or perhaps an IR warning satellite like DSP.
- At best, cosmicdave's assertion that it is "watching over" Japan (he corrected himself, then switched back and forth in later posts) is a funny way to say it. A geosynchronous bird "watches over" a big chunk of longitudinal hemisphere, not just one little island chain.
Jay:Hogwash. Reconaissance satellites are continuously in various altitude orbits at high inclinations, passing over most of the earth's surface at any one time. It is impossible according to orbital mechanics to make a recon satellite "hover" over some particular part of the earth.
cosmicdave:Someone on here said that my claim that a large spy satellite which had been spotted spying over Japan was false and that satellites could not possibly stay stationary over one country.
(... recap of quotes...)

And someone else commented that it would be impossible to position a satellite over one country.Jay pointed out that reconnaisance satellites (a term which generally refers to high-resolution imagers) are moving in low orbits. To someone unfamiliar with satellite operations, I concede this might sound like "satellites can't stay over one spot". In any case, this satellite is not really over Japan. But let's move on.
cosmicdave:To prove my point and inform you all of the event I not only posted an article by a someone who has worked with NASA in the past, relating to the story, I also posted a link (which I copied and pasted part of) to illustrate that I was in fact correct in believing that a satellite could stay in orbit above a particular spot.

The problem that you pointed out was actually a mistake about geostationary/geosynchronous satellites on the site that I linked to and not my own.

You can hardly accuse me of not answering this particular question.

I have now written to Mr. Oberg to explain further and hope to receive a reply soon.Well, the article wasn't by someone who worked with NASA in the past; it wasn't written by James Oberg. A satellite can't stay in orbit over any particular spot, only ones over the equator (roughly speaking).

Cosmicdave, you incorporated the quoted article into your argument. It's not nice to blame your source for a mistake. And, in fact, the article didn't make any explicit mistakes of fact other than the "50 meters" figure.

Yes, you did answer the question, after a fashion.
cosmicdave:Yes, me and Mr Oberg have had our differences in the past. But, just because we may not have agreed then does not mean that I will just fob off everything he has to say in the future, which seems to be the case with you and me.

This arguement just seems to be going around and around in circles because I drop a little information and then someone says, 'hang on a minute, prove it'. So, off I go, I find an article to answer the persons accusation that satellites cannot hover over a particular place. Then I post an article by a highly qualified person who works in the aerospace industry to substantiate my claim of the spy satellite over Japan, and you still say that I am a fraud.

I want to say at this point by the way that at no point did I or the article I posted mention that the satellite was hovering, it was someone on here who said that a satellite couldn't hover, hence why I posted the article about geostational satellites. The two are unrelated..."Geostationary", not "geostational". But that's not the same thing as "geosynchronous". Anyway, to repeat, the article was not by James Oberg as you alleged, and the satellite wasn't really over Japan.

No one here has called you a fraud. But your arguments and knowledge of the topic are faulty.
cosmicdave:I have NEVER claimed that I am a satellite expert, but know from my little knowledge that satellites can stay stationary as is common in the use of TV satellites (of which I commented). It is JayUtah's theory that someone cannot comment if they don't work in that field which is complete crap. I said that a spy satellite had been spotted spying on Japan and I'm then accused of lying.

This is not a lie and I have posted the evidence.You have repeatedly belittled the knowledge of people who are for-real satellite experts. This tends to come across as someone who thinks they know better, i.e., who thinks they themselves are a bigger expert.

Jay has not said that people can't comment if they don't work in a field. But he has pretty much said that people need to know what they're talking about if they dispute an expert's opinion on a technical matter in that expert's field.

Your post about the satellite isn't a lie, but the article doesn't really support your contention that the bird is "spying on Japan". Maybe it is, but what I've read about it suggests that at most it's gathering signals or looking for launches over a vast region, far larger than Japan.

Going back to what started it all:
cosmicdave brought up the "spy satellite" as support for the notion that Apollo radio transmissions were faked by an Earth-orbiting (non-translunar, Jay!) satellite. We have pointed out that that is physically impossible. So whether or not it's easy to "hide" a satellite in LEO, or GEO, is a moot point anyway.

cosmicdave, now that I have answered your post per your request: Do you now understand that Apollo radio signals could not have been faked by such a satellite?


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sts60 on 2002-06-06 19:21 ]</font>

Aodoi
2002-Jun-06, 11:12 PM
How odd. Most HBs seem obstinate and incorrect, but this is the first one I can recall who actually seemed incapable of grasping simple concepts. The rest of them at least argue that physics is wrong or something that lends an air of internal consistency.

CD seems like he's honestly too stupid to understand.

I apologize for what would be ad hominem in a debate. But this isn't a debate. It's really quite painful to read.

I now find myself wondering... I'd assumed HBs were simply deluded or misinformed. I surely did not know how to answer all their arguments prior to coming to this site. I hadn't considered the possibility that some of them are simply incapable of learning.

What a depressing thought.

(Ss this is rather un-astronomy related, feel free to delete it if it is deemed inappropriate. I will do so myself if others (besides CD) wish.)

johnwitts
2002-Jun-06, 11:12 PM
Donnie B., I know, I know. Maybe I should have said similar problem. The similarity is that the vehicle was to follow a predefined path. The guidance system of the Saturn V also have to control 11 different engines, staging, avoiding the tower, wind sheer, etc. It also had to correct for premature engine shutdowns, plus various abort modes. Nobody seems to question that the Saturn V could get to orbit, even the HB's. With this complex system, the SIVB plus the CSM and LM had to get to a certain height, at a certain speed and in a certain direction. Add to this the complexity of having to respond to the lightening fuel load, and it's no mean feat.

The AGC on the LM had to control a single engine, following a predetermined path, allow for fuel use, conpensate for fuel 'slosh' (on 11), and arrive somewhere near the lunar surface with enough fuel to land and not too fast. All this with no wind sheer, and minimal abort options (basically, cut loose the descent stage and haul a** back to orbit). To my mind, getting a Saturn V into orbit automatically (which the HBs admit is possible) is much more difficult than landing on the Moon with the help of the AGC.

Silas
2002-Jun-06, 11:53 PM
On 2002-06-06 19:12, Aodoi wrote:
I apologize for what would be ad hominem in a debate. But this isn't a debate. It's really quite painful to read.


While it is a touch ad hominem, it's true...

In terms of general rhetoric, there are lots of ways to be wrong. Since I spend a lot of time doing exactly that (i.e., being wrong) I've found the best approach is to admit it, apologize, learn the lesson, and move on.

That is morally difficult for some people; instead of attributing it to stupidity, I think it should be seen as a moral stance. Sort of like John Wayne never backing down from a gunfight in a movie...

I was once in a political discussion where someone said that a candidate had won a "majority." In fact, it had been a plurality. No big deal, right? The guy refused to accept his error. He went down fighting. No dictionary citation, no political resource, no one's word was good enough. He was actually trying to redefine the word to his own meaning rather than merely acknowledge a trivial error, for which anyone would readily have forgiven him.

It doesn't have much to do with astronomy, or even science, but it is at the heart of civil debate, and it also cuts very deep into the issue of the role of public discourse in the pursuit of truth.

Our good host, the Bad Astronomer, has banned people for saying, "You fool," but never for posting foolish ideas. The former is moderation; the latter is mere censorship.

(By the way, the world is flat. Just thought you'd like to know...) (grin!)

Silas

sts60
2002-Jun-07, 12:41 AM
cosmicdave,

back on the locked thread you told me to go look up your explanation as to why the guidance computer could not have done its stated job. Sorry, but I missed that initially. Since then, I have looked on your site, and this is what I found:

28) In 1969 computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256k, and this was housed in a large air conditioned building. In 2002 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing, and that does not include the memory required to take off again once landed. The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That's the equivalent of a simple calculator.

This is not an explanation, but rather a statement of personal incredulity. This is inadequate for convincing those of us with actual flight computer experience. Do you actually have an explanation on your site, or anywhere else, that I missed?

johnwitts
2002-Jun-07, 01:02 AM
28) In 1969 computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256k, and this was housed in a large air conditioned building. In 2002 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing, and that does not include the memory required to take off again once landed. The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That's the equivalent of a simple calculator.

A Moon landing simulator, such as the excelent EL3D, uses lots of computer power because it's having to simulated the environment and the hardware as well. Look at driving sims. They require loads of memory and a fast vid card, because all the terrain and the behaviour of the car has to be generated by the computer, as well as any 'control' software. My own car has no computer. The engine is made of metal. It makes it's own noise. The steering wheel is connected to the front wheels mechanically. Cables operate the throttle. Hydraulics operate the brakes. My own mid eared computer supplies the navigational data. The landscape I drive through is supplied by an outside contractor.

This is one of CDs sillier arguments.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-07, 01:44 AM
I find an article to answer the persons accusation that satellites cannot hover over a particular place.

I said reconnaissance satellites cannot hover over a particular place. Your article talks about a completely different type of satellite. You cannot seem to demonstrate that you know the difference between them and why they're different. As usual, you're simply pulling up something you think is relevant, but which has nothing to do with what you're talking about.

Then I post an article by a highly qualified person who works in the aerospace industry ...

You have no idea what his qualifications are, and you wouldn't answer my questions regarding them. U.S. reconnaissance satellite technology is some of the most closely guarded technology that exists. Yet some guy over Japan is all of a sudden an expert in it? How did he acquire his expertise?

Further, just about the only thing that we know about those satellites is their size and mass. And that doesn't resemble the description.

Further, the "expert" gives an opinion which is thoroughly disproven by every single orbital mechanics textbook that exists, and principles of physics that go back to Kepler!

Had you been thinking critically and had you known anything about the sciences involved, you would have been able to evaluate the reliability of this "expert's" opinion. Not only do you seem uninterested in thinking critically yourself, you seem uninterested when other people try to do it for you.

... at no point did I or the article I posted mention that the satellite was hovering

The article said specifically that the object could be seen with binoculars or the naked eye in a certain specific place in the night sky. You don't say something is in a certain place if it's whipping from one horizon to another in a matter of two or three minutes.

Further, the whole issue arose from your argument that a low-earth-orbiting satellite could be made to appear in the same place in the sky, and that the command module could orbit unseen.

Further, you still haven't told us how something in geostationary orbit can be seen from earth.

You're simply in way over your head here, and it's time to admit that you really don't know what you're talking about. E.g.,

I have NEVER claimed that I am a satellite expert, but know from my little knowledge ...

From your "little knowledge" you presume to pass judgment on whether anyone else is a satellite expert. That's pure arrogance, and it brands you a crackpot.

And you don't seem very interested in acquiring any more knowledge about satellites or orbits, yet you insist on talking about them and insisting that you're right.

It is JayUtah's theory that someone cannot comment if they don't work in that field which is complete crap.

I'll be the judge of what is and is not my theory, thank you.

I have no problem with you commenting on whatever you want. I have a problem with you treating people arrogantly when they take issue with your frequently ignorant statements, and with simply insisting that you're right despite all educational efforts to point out your mistakes.

I have a problem with you calling others' knowledge and expertise into question when you aren't qualified to judge them.

As I said, I will be happy to explain anything you want about these topics, so long as you refrain from your arrogance and from simply trying to "score" off me.

I said 'Perhaps you could tell this to China who only recently discovered a huge American spy satellite watching over them.'

But the "this" you're talking about is the general subject of orbital mechanics and trajectory as it relates to how the Apollo missions may have been falsified, and the specific subject of whether you can hide something in orbit.

Then it turns out the evidentiary value of this entire statement turns out to hinge upon one person's opinion which makes no sense. And when we tried to explain to you why it made no sense, you went off on your little tantrum about how little you thought I or anyone else here knew about satellites.

I hope that this fully explains what has happened during this particular subject and that you can see that I have, once again, been misquoted or misunderstood.

It does not fully explain anything. It only supplies a revisionist attempt at an excuse for your arrogant behavior. You questioned my understanding and expertise, when now by your own admission we discover that you are the one who has little expertise. I think an apology from you is in order.

Since you admit to knowing little about satellites, I do not accept any of your arguments regarding whether any sort of orbiting unmanned spacecraft could be or was used as a communications relay. I reject your argument that the CM could have remained unnoticed in low earth orbit.

If you would like to supply arguments to support these claims, I will hear them.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-07, 01:53 AM
How does Japan receive satellite TV then if satellites cannot stay stationary above it?

Research the answers to questions 1, 5, and 8 and you'll have your answer.

Think about it.

I assure you I have expended considerable thought toward this problem.

I hope someone on here is going to take him to task like they have me.

I assure you I am taken to task here when I am wrong. This is what separates we "skeptics" from conspiracy theorists. You like to call us a bunch of back-patters, but in fact we quite happily find mistakes in each other's statements and arguments.

However in this case I am not wrong.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-07, 01:57 AM
I haven't the time to stay on here all night and answer questions that you probably wont believe anyway.

Well, I understand taking the night off. I myself took a nice brisk hike up in the mountains. It's not so much that you don't post much. It's what you choose to say when you do post.

You'll find people here will believe you if:

1. you provide clear, well-reasoned, logical arguments for your points,

2. you refrain from arrogance (and I will do the same),

3. you make a clear distinction between what is your opinion and what you believe can be shown objectively,

4. you respect the expertise of your opponents,

5. you accept the possibility that your statements may be proven wrong.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-07, 02:08 AM
First, the Saturn 5 did in fact have its own independent guidance system (though I don't know if it used a computer exactly like the AGC or some other approach).

Some other approach. The LVDC was a digital computer which operated through a series of controllers to manage things like flight dynamics, environment, and staging.

It was not generally considered a good idea to slave the Saturn V to the Apollo spacecraft guidance system because the Saturn V design presumed it would operate also with "dumb" payloads.

The LVDC is a major improvement over prior rockets in trimming the development schedule. The computer and its sensors and telemetry could essentially carry on a conversation with ground computers and this greatly simplified diagnosing problems.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-07, 03:11 AM
This article claims a "diameter" of 50 meters, which is ridculous. A satellite might have a solar array span around that big, though.

Not really. The "wings" on the Boeing 601HP -- the current workhorse of the comsat industry -- are 26 meters from tip to tip.

The biggest reconnaissance satellite uses an AFP-5500 bus/chassis to house the KH-11 optical system. Based on photogrammetric measurements of the shipping container, it can be no longer than 43 feet, and based on photogrammetric measurements of the payload shrouds during launch it can be no longer than 48 feet. (This is obviously unreliable data since the manufacturer will confirm only very rough statistics on the APF chassis.)

If the bird is "visible in the southeast sky", then it is a geosynchronous satellite.

And therefore too far away to see with either binoculars or the naked eye. This begs the question of whether it's a satellite at all.

To someone unfamiliar with satellite operations, I concede this might sound like "satellites can't stay over one spot".

Agreed, but I chose my words carefully in order to accurately represent my intent. It was clear C. Dave intended to discuss a recon satellite, and I made a specific assertion about recon satellites. C. Dave ignored my careful wording and brought up an irrelevant counter-example. That would have been a simple mistake, easily corrected. But C. Dave chose to carry his argument further and verbally hop around with glee at the belief he had outsmarted me.

It's not nice to blame your source for a mistake.

Except that I did quote his excerpt in a manner which might indicate I believed it came from him. As I've explained, I know it was from an external source. But we know it was not a reliable source because it got a simple fact wrong. In turn, C. Dave did not catch the error, meaning he wouldn't necessarily have known whether an external site on this subject was authoritative or relevant.

No one here has called you a fraud.

Not true. I called him both a fraud and a charlatan. I regret the ad hominem sentiment and apologize for any offense. By that statement I meant simply that I believe C. Dave is pretending to be something he's not. He wants to be perceived as some kind of expert or authority on matters involving Apollo, when he clearly is not. Further, he demonstrates no small animosity toward genuine expertise, and this behavior could be interpreted as intentional concealment.

Jay has not said that people can't comment if they don't work in a field. But he has pretty much said that people need to know what they're talking about if they dispute an expert's opinion on a technical matter in that expert's field.

Thank you. I'm glad my "theory" is apparent to at least one other person.

So whether or not it's easy to "hide" a satellite in LEO, or GEO, is a moot point anyway.

Well, yes and no. It's irrelevant to the point of whether a spaceborne relay could have been used. It's not irrelevant to whether the CM with the astronauts in it could have been in low earth orbit, hence the blue glow.

Jovianboy
2002-Jun-07, 03:32 AM
In his post dated 2002-06-06 16:40, Cosmicdave wrote:

"geostational satellites"

Good grief. Not only does he know NOTHING about satellites and orbits, he can't even get the terminology right. That other bit about Japanese TV was priceless. He just digs a bigger hole for himself every time he postulates nonsensical garbage like that. Dave, you seem to be on an endless quest to parade your ignorance in front of the entire board and anyone else who might be reading. You are clearly a man of incomparable stupidity. Guys, maybe it's time we washed our hands of this babbling waste of cyberspace. (apologies BA, if this is too harsh - but this guy is getting really tedious).

JB

(edited to add date of quote and corr. sp)
_________________
"Nowhere in all space or on a thousand worlds will there be men to share our loneliness..."

- Loren Eisely, "The Immense Journey" 1956


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jovianboy on 2002-06-07 00:01 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-Jun-07, 03:57 AM
Back to computers, eh?

(Quoting C. Dave)
In 1969 computer chips had not been invented.

Depends on what you mean by "computer chips". Integrated circuits were invented at about the same time Kennedy issued his challenge to go to the moon. By 1965 they were a product line you could order out of a catalogue. By 1968 commercial computers made from integrated circuits were easily available. In fact, by 1969 the AGC was no longer state of the art. That's because manrated computer designs have to be frozen early for testing.

The maximum computer memory was 256k

No. The IBM 360 could have as much as a megabyte. In any case, this is largely irrelevant because a guidance computer doesn't need a lot of RAM. The program is not stored in RAM, and only needs RAM to hold the state vector and any intermediate results that can't be stored in registers or in the ALU.

The Polaris Mark II digital guidance computer (1961) had 12 words of RAM. Not kilobytes, not megabytes -- 12 14-bit words. It worked just fine and was entrusted with the guidance of a nuclear warhead.

and this was housed in a large air conditioned building.

Not in a building, but in a room. And if you walk through that room and look at what those big boxes are for, you'll find that most of them have nothing to do with a guidance computer. Those boxes are disk and tape drives for storing and reading back large amounts of data, controllers, printers, and various input/output devices.

The aforementioned Polaris Mark II is smaller than my laptop.

I remember writing programs on punch cards in Fortran on a 4-megabyte machine, uphill in the snow both ways. I can vouch for what we could make those beasts do.

In 2002 a top of the range computer ...

... is completely irrelevant to the problem of guidance computers. Comparing special-purpose and general-purpose computers is worse than apples and oranges.

requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing

Thanks to overly complicated operating systems and wasteful programming practices. Not to mention the demand from users for photo-realistic, texture-mapped simulation.

This question can be dismissed simply on the basis that realistically simulating a dynamics problem in full whiz-bang mode is much more difficult than controlling an actual spacecraft in the actual dynamics situation.

In any case, it's completely backwards to say "it takes" 64 MB to support a lunar landing simulation. It's more accurate to say the programmers of today's lunar landing simulations know their programs will be running on a machines with around 64 MB of memory. Today's computers are much more powerful, and so today's software developers add more bells and whistles.

It takes many megabytes to run Microsoft Office, but I can remember doing similar tasks on personal computers that could have no more that 640 KB of main memory. The programs then were primitive in comparison, but that's not the issue. We got by -- that was the issue. The features of the software were dictated by the features of the hardware.

I've been doing a lot recently with microcontrolled embedded systems. We can cram a great deal of functionality into a very small amount of memory by ommitting irrelevancies like scanner drivers, AOL Instant Messenger, MS Windows, and the host of other cruft that clogs the typical home system.

that does not include the memory required to take off again once landed.

But would that have required, say, twice as much memory? No, of course not. Maybe a smidge more. More likely the programmer simply didn't want to program an ascent because the descent took long enough.

The entire argument smacks of someone who doesn't really know much about computers. Laymen have a real problem trying to characterize the performance of their computers in meaningful and accurate terms. They believe things like a 32 MB computer is only half as "powerful" as a 64 MB computer. Or that they can directly compare the performance of an X MHz PowerPC and and X MHz Pentium by comapring the megahertzage.

The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That's the equivalent of a simple calculator.

No, a "simple calculator" is the four-function beast I bought in 1973 for $100. Today's calculators and PDAs have huge memory sizes and sophisticated programming, but again we're talking about apples and oranges.

The final AGC model had 36,864 words of read-only "rope" memory and 2,048 words of magnetic core RAM. (A word had 15 significant bits.) It was built with about 5,000 integrated circuits.

This configuration is very consistent with the design of an embedded system, and with a digital autopilot specifically. You want lots of ROM to hold the program, and just enough RAM to hold intermediate results.

Now I have a printed copy of the AGC source code, and I can verify that it does what it says it does and that it would fit in 36 K words.

C. Dave will have to prove to me that what I can see with my own eyes is wrong.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-06-09 21:58 ]</font>

Silas
2002-Jun-07, 04:32 AM
No, a "simple calculator" is the four-function beast I bought in 1973 for $100. Today's calculators and PDAs have huge memory sizes and sophisticated programming, but again we're talking about apples and oranges.


Oh, man, you're taking me back! 1973, a TI calculator, with a Square Root function! I was in heaven!

I used it to simulate orbits, using the very, very simplest model of duplicating the previous velocity vector and adding a gravity vector. I drew the niftiest little ellipses and occasional hyperbolas.

Our cosmic correspondent could do better with a four-banger with square root, and an honest approach to the facts, than with the entire resources of the internet and a closed mind.

BTW, I think I know most of the answers to your quiz on orbits, but there were a couple of questions that I might have gotten wrong. Post the answers, please!

Silas

JayUtah
2002-Jun-07, 05:50 AM
Okay, C. Dave has indicated he has but a "little knowledge" of satellites and doesn't appear to want to tackle my questions. I guess that means we can roll out the answers now for those of you playing at home.

1. What is the orbital velocity of a 4,000 kg satellite in geostationary orbit?

First, disregard the mass -- it's a decoy fact and doesn't affect the answer. But the notion that it does matter is one of the common mistakes made by novices. If the mass of satellites in identical orbits affected the velocity, all those communication satellites, all with different masses, would be bumping into each other.

There are a couple of ways you can compute the answer. By far the easiest is to note that it's a circular orbit with a known size and period. It's basic circular motion.

Now there are two gotchas in this problem. At first you'd be tempted to compute the circumference of a circle whose radius is 22,236 miles and divide that by 24 hours.

Unfortunately the magic number of 22,236 miles is the altitude of the orbit above the earth's surface, not its radius. To get the radius of the circle you have to add the equatorial radius of the earth, generally 3,693 miles for a grand total of 26,199 miles. The circumference is 164,613 miles, to the nearest mile.

So divide by 24 hours, right?

Not quite. That's a solar day, the amount of time in which the earth rotates to the same position relative to the direction of the sun. But because the earth scoots along its orbit about a degree in that time, a solar day is actually about 361&deg; of rotation.

If you measure the rotation relative to a distant star, you get closer to the amount of time it takes for exactly 360&deg; of rotation. And that's the measurement you're after. You want the satellite's orbit to exactly match the actual rotation of the earth, not the rotation we perceive from its surface relative to the sun.

A sidereal day (the true rotation) is about 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds long, or 23.9344 hours. Thus the orbital velocity of any satellite in geostationary orbit is 6,877.67 miles per hour.

2. Name a satellite which is in geosynchronous, but not geostationary, orbit. Also, name a satellite which is in geostationary, but not geosychronous orbit.

There are dozens and dozens of satellites in geosynchronous but not geostationary orbits. Most notably are the NASA TDRS satellites. This was a simple matter of looking something up and knowing it when you see it.

The second part of the question is a trick question, obviously. All anyone had to do to answer this one correctly was pay attention to my prior post where geostationary was defined as a subset of geosynchronous. Therefore there can't possibly be -- by definition -- a geostationary satellite that is not also geosynchronous.

3. During insertion in geostationary orbit, why does the COP manuever come after the transfer manuever?

Launching a satellite into geostationary orbit from, say, the Kennedy Space Center involves first boosting the satellite into a parking orbit, transferring to an orbit of appropriate altitude, circularizing that orbit, and then shifting the plane of the orbit to be coincident with the equator. In modern launches some of these steps can be combined. But you still have to know what each step accomplishes.

Theoretically you could do the "change-of-plane" (COP) while in the parking orbit, then transfer out to geosynchronous altitude and circularize. Novices will intuitively select to do it that way, but it's bad.

The foremost rule of orbital mechanics is that altitude and velocity are very strictly connected. Kepler's third law covers this. The lower the orbit the faster the orbital velocity.

Two different orbital planes will intersect at a line, and that line will intersect the initial orbit (parking orbit in this case) at two points (see below). You change planes at one of these points by simply burning the engine to adjust the velocity vector at that point so that it now lies in the desired orbital plane.

You can do this with simple velocity vectors. If you launch into a 32&deg; parking orbit from KSC and want to go into equatorial orbit, the starting vector points up (or possibly down) at 32&deg; and the desired velocity vector would be of that same magnitude, but at a 0&deg; angle. Subtract the vectors and that gives you the direction of the velocity change.

Now in a parking orbit of around 17,000 mph (at typical shuttle altitude) a plane change of 32&deg; would require a correction vector with a magnitude of about 9,000 mph.

If you wait until you're out in geosynchronous orbit and circularized, the same plane change to geostationary orbit would require a burn of only 3,791 mph magnitude.

So the answer is that you do the burns in that order because the COP will then require only about a third the fuel as doing it in parking orbit.

4. Two satellites are to be place in a circular low earth orbit at exactly the same altitude. One has a mass of 1,000 kg. The other has a mass of 3,000 kg. Which one must orbit faster in order to retain its orbit?

Another trick question, but one easily answered by anyone who has made any reasonably serious study of orbits. The mass of the orbiter does not determine its velocity, only its altitude. The answer is that they will orbit at exactly the same velocity.

The issue of altitude versus velocity is a key concept in understanding why LEO orbiters cannot "hover".

5. What is meant by "orbital inclination"?

We have already used this concept in connection with the change-of-plane discussion. Every orbit lies in a plane that passes through the center of mass of its primary. It cannot be otherwise.

The inclination of an orbit is the angle that its plane forms with a reference plane that also passes through the primary's center of mass. For earth orbits we use the earth's equator as the reference plane.

The latitude of the launch site determines the minimum inclination of the initial orbit. By launching due east you establish an orbit whose inclination is identical to the latitude of the launch site. Varying the azimuth north or south increases the inclination in both cases. If you want a smaller inclination you must do a plane change after the orbit is established.

At least one KH-11 reconnaissance satellite is in a 97.1&deg; orbit. It may seem odd to have an inclination greater than 90 degrees, but this indicates a retrograde orbit. Spy satellites orbit "backwards".

The ISS is in a 59&deg; orbit so that it can be reached easily from Russian launch sites, which are at a higher latitude. This requires a northeastern launch trajectory when the space shuttle rendezvouses with it. (Bonus question: Why wouldn't a southeastern shuttle launch trajectory work?)

The inclination and altitude determine the satellite's ground track, which in turn determines the ephemerides (risings and settings) visible from some point on earth. An LEO orbiter that passed over Japan would be in a fairly high inclination orbit. Geostationary satellites are in an orbit of zero inclination.

6. What are the two nodes of an orbit?

Again, we have already used this concept. Two different orbital planes intersect at a line, and that line intersects the orbit at two points. Those are the nodes. There is an "ascending node" and a "descending node", depending on the direction of the passage through the reference plane.

The nodes are important because there is obviously an infinite number of orbits of a particular inclination. Inclination and the direction of the nodes are two of the parameters used to describe orbits uniquely.

7. Name two methods for circularizing an elliptical orbit.

1. Posigrade in-plane manuever at apoapsis (the "apogee kick").

2. Retrograde in-plane manuever at periapsis.

The choice depends on which apsis is at the desired orbital altitude. The magnitude of the manuever is that required to produce a delta-v computed from the actual velocity at that point and the theoretical velocity of a circular orbit with that altitude.

8. What is the relationship of an orbit's major axis to its period?

We have answered this above. Kepler's third law strictly relates an orbit's altitude to its period. The major axis (radius, in the case of circular orbits) relates to the altitude. That would have been a sufficient answer.

The exact formula is

P = ( ( 2 * pi ) / sqrt( mu ) ) * a^(3/2)

where P is the period, a is the semi-major axis (one-half the major axis), pi is the customary value, and mu is the gravitational parameter of the earth: its mass times G, the universal gravitation constant.

So how did everyone do?

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-07, 06:21 AM
On 2002-06-07 01:50, JayUtah wrote:

So how did everyone do?

Better then I expected to. Nos. two, four, five and six right and two questions wrong (nos. one and eight) that I'm kicking myself for.

Thanks for that! Very well explained and I learned quite a bit.

M_Welander
2002-Jun-07, 12:36 PM
I correctly spotted the trick question part of 1, 2 and 4. I could not answer 3 since I did not know what a COP was (although I'm certain it would have been possible to look it up). 5 and 6 I could answer. I knew the concepts of 7 but did not know the correct terms. The math in 1 and 8 I unfortunately didn't spend any time on.

I must admit I first laughted when I read the trick parts of your questions, thinking how fun it would be if cosmicdave tried to answer them!

David Hall
2002-Jun-07, 01:23 PM
My score was similar to Welander's, in that I mostly got the concepts but didn't have the terms or the energy to really go look them up.

I screwed up on #6 though as I was thinking of the two focal points of an elipse. If I had remembered the words "ascending" or "descending" in relation to nodes I would have gotten it right.

So, I'd say I got about 3&frac12;. Pretty good for someone with no technical experience, I think. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

infocusinc
2002-Jun-07, 03:35 PM
I took the test and was clueless! Thanks for the laymans explanation Jay for folks like me.

Silas
2002-Jun-07, 03:38 PM
I didn't know from COP, so I blew #3. I think I might have gotten it right if I'd known the term, but...maybe not...

For #6, I was half right: I knew the ascending node, but I thought the other node was the angle toward periapsis. I was thinking of the seven classical orbital elements, and if you know the ascending node, you can derive the descending node, so the two are really "only one" orbital element.

5 1/2 out of seven! Beam me up, Scotty!

Silas

sts60
2002-Jun-07, 04:13 PM
Me:This article claims a "diameter" of 50 meters, which is ridculous. A satellite might have a solar array span around that big, though.
JayUtah:Not really. The "wings" on the Boeing 601HP -- the current workhorse of the comsat industry -- are 26 meters from tip to tip. (Then discusses size of KH-11 satellite, less than 50 feet..
Thanks for the correction on the SAs. Looking at sketches (via FAS website) of sigint birds like Trumpet, I think that the deployable antenna might be 50 m or even bigger, though. Still doesn't change the fact that the spacecraft itself (if it exists) isn't 50m in any dimension, on which we agree.

Me:If the bird is "visible in the southeast sky", then it is a geosynchronous satellite.
JayUtah:And therefore too far away to see with either binoculars or the naked eye. This begs the question of whether it's a satellite at all.True - they claimed they caught it with a 1 m Spaceguard scope, which I suppose is possible. It's also possible, at least without further information (which doesn't seem forthcoming), that the original claim is bogus. I don't remember why the eye/binocular question came up - was this supposed to be "hideable" back in '69?
Me:It's not nice to blame your source for a mistake.
JayUtah:Except that I did quote his excerpt in a manner which might indicate I believed it came from him. As I've explained, I know it was from an external source. But we know it was not a reliable source because it got a simple fact wrong. In turn, C. Dave did not catch the error, meaning he wouldn't necessarily have known whether an external site on this subject was authoritative or relevant.OK, we all stand corrected; or I should say at least I know when I'm corrected /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif
Me:No one here has called you (referring to c-dave)a fraud.
JayUtah:Not true. I called him both a fraud and a charlatan. I regret the ad hominem sentiment and apologize for any offense. By that statement I meant simply that I believe C. Dave is pretending to be something he's not. He wants to be perceived as some kind of expert or authority on matters involving Apollo, when he clearly is not. Further, he demonstrates no small animosity toward genuine expertise, and this behavior could be interpreted as intentional concealment.My error regarding the statement.
Me:So whether or not it's easy to "hide" a satellite in LEO, or GEO, is a moot point anyway.
JayUtah:Well, yes and no. It's irrelevant to the point of whether a spaceborne relay could have been used. It's not irrelevant to whether the CM with the astronauts in it could have been in low earth orbit, hence the blue glow.I was referring to the former, but my assertion, as you point out, does not hold for the latter issue.

Now, cosmicdave, please note that JayUtah did not just "pat me on the back", but pointed out some errors I made. And I acknowledged those errors. And you know what? It didn't hurt a bit. This is how rational discourse and scientific inquiry is supposed to work.

You have a choice. You can acknowledge that getting corrected is an OK thing to happen; that we here on BA give and take correction as a way of furthering our understanding of astronomy and space topics; and that, hey, it won't hurt you to participate in the process. Or you can run off to your web site and claim this as "evidence" we are confused in our evil efforts to hoodwink the courageous iconoclasts who refuse to be taken in by that bad ol' gummint's vast conspiracy, and you can refuse to consider any counterargument.

If it's the former, welcome aboard! If it's the latter, well, I can't help you.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sts60 on 2002-06-07 12:18 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-Jun-07, 05:11 PM
Sorry about the COP, folks. I feel bad that some of you would have answered that if I hadn't been so jargonesque. My fault.

Nobody went for the bonus question? Or maybe it's buried too deep in the text.

The ISS, for example, is in a 59&deg; orbit. KSC passes through that orbital plane twice a day, once "ascending" and once "descending". The two minutes or so on either side of the transit form the launch window for the space shuttle that will rendesvous with it. The shuttle launches on a northeasterly trajectory just as its launch site passes through the plane. That puts the shuttle in the same plane as the station. Then it's a simple matter of in-plane rendezvous.

So if there are two launch windows every day, why does the shuttle only exploit one of them?

You can't launch the space shuttle on a southeasterly azimuth because that will drop the external tank over a populated area, which is generally considered poor manners. (Sorry about Skylab, Aussies.) With the northeasterly trajectory, the ET falls in the Indian Ocean or thereabouts.

Jim
2002-Jun-07, 05:23 PM
So how did everyone do?

Oh, I don't think we're so petty here we have to keep score, are we?

(Are you sure "orbital inclination" isn't how inclined an object is to go into orbit?)

Anyway, thanks, Jay, for a very interesting post. I now know almost enough about satellite orbital mechanics to go out and launch my own.

...almost.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jim on 2002-06-07 13:25 ]</font>

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-07, 05:48 PM
On 2002-06-07 13:11, JayUtah wrote:
You can't launch the space shuttle on a southeasterly azimuth because that will drop the external tank over a populated area, which is generally considered poor manners. (Sorry about Skylab, Aussies.) With the northeasterly trajectory, the ET falls in the Indian Ocean or thereabouts.

Never occured to me to look on the ground for the answer to that one. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

SeanF
2002-Jun-07, 08:13 PM
On 2002-06-07 13:48, pvtpylot wrote:


On 2002-06-07 13:11, JayUtah wrote:
You can't launch the space shuttle on a southeasterly azimuth because that will drop the external tank over a populated area, which is generally considered poor manners. (Sorry about Skylab, Aussies.) With the northeasterly trajectory, the ET falls in the Indian Ocean or thereabouts.

Never occured to me to look on the ground for the answer to that one. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif


I wanted to call a foul on Jay for that one - I don't think it's fair to ask why a southeasterly launch "wouldn't work" when there's just an undesirable side-effect.

The shuttle'd still get to the ISS, wouldn't it? The orbital mechanics still work?

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

[I had absolutely no problem with the "trick questions" in the original quiz, though - but I caught those!] /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

_________________
SeanF

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SeanF on 2002-06-07 16:13 ]</font>

Silas
2002-Jun-07, 10:34 PM
On 2002-06-07 01:50, JayUtah wrote:

7. Name two methods for circularizing an elliptical orbit.

1. Posigrade in-plane manuever at apoapsis (the "apogee kick").

2. Retrograde in-plane manuever at periapsis.

The choice depends on which apsis is at the desired orbital altitude. The magnitude of the manuever is that required to produce a delta-v computed from the actual velocity at that point and the theoretical velocity of a circular orbit with that altitude.


I didn't exactly get this one wrong...but I didn't answer it exactly the way you did...

I only know of *one* way to circularize an elliptical orbit: to change the velocity vector to that expected in a circular orbit.

You can do it at *any* point in the orbit.

Silas

cosmicdave
2002-Jun-08, 02:12 PM
'The entire argument smacks of someone who doesn't really know much about computers.'

Another stab in the dark. I've been building my own computers since 1990. Still... your the expert right!

JayUtah
2002-Jun-08, 02:25 PM
I don't believe anything you say anymore, Dave.

A lot of people here have lots of specific experience with flight computers and other special purpose embedded systems. You have given us no indication that you understand the special considerations put into any of these things. As I said, I have the AGC source and I can verify that (a) it does what it was purported to do, and (b) that it is suitable to the hardware provided.

Perhaps you'd like to describe in detail the AGC hardware, giving such details as:

1. The processor architecture.

2. The instruction format.

3. The physical form factor for the ROM rope.

4. The clock cycle time.

5. What type of integrated circuits was used in its construction.

6. Its power consumption.

I'm just not playing the game anymore where you claim expertise and then give vague, handwaving explanations which leave much to be desired.

You claim the AGC was not up to the tasks it was expected to perform. Put up or shut up.

SpacedOut
2002-Jun-08, 02:27 PM
On 2002-06-08 10:12, cosmicdave wrote:
'The entire argument smacks of someone who doesn't really know much about computers.'

Another stab in the dark. I've been building my own computers since 1990. Still... your the expert right!


C. Dave – If you are really such an expert on Computers, then please answer two questions:

Why do you equate memory with computing power?

Why couldn’t the AGC work?

Just remember before answering, there are members of this board who have been building electronic computers / controllers at least a decade before 1990, and many of us have been writing code of one sort or another for a good deal longer than that.

Have you ever seen a Hollerith card? (sorry about the sarcasm)

[Oops – to me too long to compose – Jay beat me to it]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SpacedOut on 2002-06-08 10:29 ]</font>

cosmicdave
2002-Jun-08, 03:03 PM
' I don't believe anything you say anymore, Dave.'

So that will save me the bother of explaining your questions. You still won't believe a word I say.

Goodbye...

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-08, 03:08 PM
On 2002-06-08 10:12, cosmicdave wrote:
'The entire argument smacks of someone who doesn't really know much about computers.'

Another stab in the dark. I've been building my own computers since 1990. Still... your the expert right!

If by "building my own computers" you mean running down to the local computer store and buying a motherboard, video card, hard drive, memory and slapping them in a case over the course of an afternoon and then installing MS Windows (yech!) or the like, that's very laudible. But, if that's the case you should also be bright enough to know that that kind of experience has nothing to do with designing and building the AGC, or any other purpose-built embedded-type system.

I've been assembling personal computer components since 1978 and have been writing code on them for about as long. And, while that may allow me to understand the theory of the AGC, I'm certainly not qualified to make any judgement on what it can or cannot do. That being the case, cosmic, I think I can safely dismiss your statements out of hand if "building my own computers" is your only claim to fame, unless you have some other qualifications to present?

(sp.)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: pvtpylot on 2002-06-08 11:09 ]</font>

Gramma loreto
2002-Jun-08, 07:03 PM
On 2002-06-08 10:12, cosmicdave wrote:
'The entire argument smacks of someone who doesn't really know much about computers.'

Another stab in the dark. I've been building my own computers since 1990. Still... your the expert right!


Big stinking deal. I've been involved with computers since 1981. I learned 6502/6510 assembly code on the Commodore VIC20...and even built RAM expansion and an external device controller for it. But that and my PC experience since does not qualify me to make judgements about what the AGC could or could not do. Additionally, I have 12 years experience maintaining Air Force fighter avionics...including inertial navigation, fire control, and laser target designator computers. In spite of that I'm still not qualified to specifically say what the AGC was or was not capable of.

That being said, my experience does equip me with the ability to distinguish reasonable technical assertions made by an apparent expert from the woefully uninformed rubbish that you've spouted.

Aside to Jay: I can, in my own way, relate to how tight code can be. Before I expanded the RAM, I wrote some pretty ambitious programs in BASIC and assembly in that VIC20's whopping 3Kb. Economy is a must and arriving at an elegant solution is very satisfying.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-08, 09:49 PM
Additionally, I have 12 years experience maintaining Air Force fighter avionics...including inertial navigation, fire control, and laser target designator computers. In spite of that I'm still not qualified to specifically say what the AGC was or was not capable of.

Don't sell yourself too short. The AGC design was successfully adapted for aircraft use.

Aside to Jay: I can, in my own way, relate to how tight code can be.

Software engineering is very different now than it was in the 1960s. Today's architects, designers, and coders work in a completely different environment with entirely different constraints.

Today's software projects are millions of lines of code that are revised every six months or so. Projects back then were very small in terms on lines of code, and they had years to develop this software. A year alone was spent on the digital autopilot code. Several papers were published on it. The time was not spent adding feature after feature and animated menus and little talking paper clips. It was trying to bum the last few extraneous instructions out of the code.

It really is a generation gap. Those who did this in the 1950s and 1960s are amazed at what is possible with computers today, because they programmed right down on the hardware, savoring every bit. They knew their software. Those who do it now are amazed at what was done back then, because nowadays machine size and power coupled with breakneck development cycles allow them to use wasteful programming practices that simply wouldn't have been tolerated back then.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-08, 10:08 PM
So that will save me the bother of explaining your questions. You still won't believe a word I say.

Since you haven't quoted any computer experts regarding the alleged incapacity of the AGC, I presume that you drew this conclusion all by yourself. And since you have now claimed to be a computer expert yourself, this won't be one of those situations where you quote a bunch of irrelevant stuff and then say, "I never said I was an expert," or where you will defer to someone else when the going gets rough.

But here's the problem. Since you are the computer expert, and you aren't simply repeating evidence given by someone else, your opinion on whether the AGC is up to its task depends on how well you know what its tasks were, and how well you know how that particular type of computer could perform those tasks. It also depends on your skill at evaluating the performance of computers. Your argument rests on those points, and nothing else.

So I'm afraid you don't have the luxury of simply claiming to be a computer expert without giving us a demonstration of your knowledge of these special-purpose computers of the 1960s.

Facetiously you said, "You're the expert," referring to me. Ironically I am considered an expert in the design, construction, and operation of the Apollo Guidance Computer. And as I said, I'll be willing to discuss it in any detail with you -- one expert to another.

Since your argument rests quite squarely on whether or not you personally are an expert in the AGC, it is in your best interest to answer the various questions put to you about it. That would demonstrate that you understand how it was built and what it was intended for, and it would also support your opinion that it wouldn't have worked.

But on the other hand, if what I suspect is true, you are pretending to be a computer expert just as you pretended to be a satellite expert and just as you pretended to be a photo interpretation expert. And now that I'm calling your bluff, you are scrambling for excuses not to try to demonstrate your prowess understanding the AGC, because you know that just about anybody here could argue rings around you on that subject.

So once again it comes down to whether "Cosmic" Dave Cosnette will put his money where his mouth is, or whether he will run away. So far the answer seems to be, "run away".

johnwitts
2002-Jun-08, 10:53 PM
Jay, the guy who wrote EL3D ( http://www.wright-flyer.net/desertaviation/eagle/ ) claims that he has used the AGC source code as a reference to how the LM flew. I think he just built the rest of the sim around that code. If so, that would demonstrate that the code, and hence the AGC, was up to the task. Otherwise, the LM on EL3D wouldn't be so easy to land.

Do you have a copy of the source code that you could post here, and explainations of what the various 'subroutines', if they apply, actually did? That way, some of us ameteur programmers could at least see if it looked like something that could be used to control a spacecraft.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: johnwitts on 2002-06-08 18:54 ]</font>

M_Welander
2002-Jun-08, 11:02 PM
I'm a professional programmer. Of course, I haven't even touched anything remotely similar to the computer in question here, but I can assure you that everything that has been said sounds completely reasonable.

Just because we have bigger and in some ways better computers today, doesn't mean we programmers of this generation are always lazy. In fact, even today we try to squeze the last clock cyckle out of the processor for certain CPU intensive subroutines. I've sometimes spend days on fifty lines of assembler code to make it fast and efficient enough to be used. Because of my knowledge and experience of this, and my basic knowledge of the Apollo computer, I can say with great confidence that as far as I can tell, it could do what it was said to do.

johnwitts
2002-Jun-08, 11:04 PM
Still, it would be nice to be talked through the code. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

M_Welander
2002-Jun-08, 11:08 PM
Very true. Although I have no idea if I or anyone else will be able to read it.

johnwitts
2002-Jun-08, 11:16 PM
We'll have to learn AGC code. There must be a reference somewhere, probably on a shelf at Jay's house. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif

JayUtah
2002-Jun-08, 11:48 PM
John, I don't have the code in a form that makes it easy to post here. Besides, it is quite a chunk of code. I have no problem, however, typing in and posting certain key segments of code so that you can see what's going on.

Mattias, for the past few years I too have been a professional programmer, since most of my work has dealt with software and not with mechanical systems. My thesis was on certain new software techniques to support mechanical design of assemblies. My comments are certainly not geared toward saying that today's programmers are lazy. In fact, the team I have most recently led has concentrated on correct, compact software solutions for embedded communication and control systems.

As I said, it's more accurate to say that the conditions under which programmers are required to work today are very different than the conditions years ago. I'm not saying that size and efficiency is is unimportant anymore. I know for a fact that it is. But it's not as important as it used to be. A typical software company today wouldn't spend four months shrinking their code by 4% as a matter of standard procedure. Their competitors would steal their market. So most software people accept a certain degree of suboptimal programming in order to be first to market.

Although all computer scientists learn some assembly language, very few of them end up programming significantly in it during their careers. Most of the significant coding these days is being done in high-level languages on reasonably capable machines running complex operating systems. This is so very different from many embedded systems.

Aerospace places greater emphasis on reliability than on sheer computing power. Whenever someone tells me their laptop has more computing power than the computer in (name your aircraft), I usually say, "Put your laptop in a paint shaker in a freezer, then cycle the power every two seconds." I'm sure some laptops today might be able to do that, but the point is that a superfast computer does you no good if the acoustic loading of launch killed it.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-08, 11:51 PM
We'll have to learn AGC code.

Not a problem. If you already know any other assembly language you will be able to understand enough of what's going on.

Would there be interest in a Clavius page on AGC programming?

M_Welander
2002-Jun-08, 11:55 PM
You're completely right, of course. When I write a program, about 99.9% of the code is written in a high level language. The remaining 0.1% can however take up as much as 90% of the execution time, and thus benefits from assembler optimization.

In the old days, and in some embedded system today, 100% of the code is highly optimized assembler, simply because you just couldn't fit the program in the computer otherwise.

So, I agree with you completely. I did not want to imply that you thought programmers of today are lazy, I merely wanted to show that even though we program in a completely different way today than during the Apollo era, we are still capable of understanding how a highly advanced program can be made to work on very limited hardware.

Silas
2002-Jun-09, 12:05 AM
I learned programming on HP programmable calculators. I have an impression that these are fairly comparable to the computers on the Apollo spacecraft. And, yeah, TIGHT code is absolutely vital when you have an instruction register of only 150 lines!

Today, for a living, I write database reports for a large manufacturing business. I absolutely LOVE the luxury of being able to write extensive comments.

(One of the side-effects of having lots and lots of memory is -- Easter Eggs! I confess to the sin of having fun with my programs, at the complete expense of space. For instance, most of the reports I write have password protection: I have a routine that looks for the most common cusswords -- the usual "F" words -- and responds, "Watch Your Language, Please!" when it catches one. I also have a routine that automatically writes "Season's Greetings" on the screen in the last week of December.)

This is the Golden Age!

Silas

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-09, 01:17 AM
I think there's also the fact that today's programmers work in a much larger and more compartmentalized environment, and that causes a lot of dead code. For instance, if I'm working on the data model classes I'll dutifully write an accessor method for each instance called for in the project plan knowing that it's quite likely that by the time the project is completed some of those instances won't ever get touched. Unless we're over our target system requirements we won't take the time to go back in and clean that up. It also sometimes happens that we'll write methods into classes for future versions of our software in order to consolidate time on our projects in the future. As Jay says, it's a totally different set of priorities today. Time is money, and money rules. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Salvius
2002-Jun-10, 06:06 PM
I was rather amused by the bit about "In 2002 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing." Amused, because apparently the author's knowledge of computer simulations doesn't extend back to 1987, when a lunar mission simulator was released for the C64 (see http://www.lemon64.com/?mainurl=http%3A//www.lemon64.com/games/details.php%3FID%3D124 for details). The C64 had, of course, 64KB of memory (if that were all that was important). Twice the memory of the "alleged" AGC, but then the C64 had to display graphics and synthesize voices, in addition to simulating the mission.

The point being, don't confuse what is possible now with what was required at the time.

SpacedOut
2002-Jun-10, 07:18 PM
From the “One Giant Leap: The Apollo Guidance Computer” article at Dr. Dobbs Journal (http://www.ddj.com/documents/s=1494/ddj0006hc/) is a statement I find very appropriate to this discussion:


At that time, integrated circuits were rudimentary (perhaps an AND gate or two per chip) and very expensive—Texas Instruments, for example, was selling such ICs to the military for about $1000 each. Like so many projects, hindsight reveals a complexity not appreciated at the time. Eldon Hall, lead designer of the AGC, notes that if they "...had known what they learned later, or had a complete set of specifications been available... they probably would have concluded that there was no solution with the technology of the early sixties."


To rephrase, “We didn’t focus on the fact that it was an enormous task, we just went out and did it”. Much like the rest of the Apollo project.

I’m a bit surprised that the HB crowd hasn’t tried to paraphrase it to show that Mr. Hall stated that the AGC couldn’t have been developed with 60’s technology.

johnwitts
2002-Jun-10, 07:21 PM
I’m a bit surprised that the HB crowd hasn’t tried to paraphrase it to show that Mr. Hall stated that the AGC couldn’t have been developed with 60’s technology.

They probably will now. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

SpacedOut
2002-Jun-10, 07:40 PM
Oh sure, put it on my shoulders! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif

Slightly off topic, I am not really familiar with “rope core memory”. Based on what little I could find on the web, it is similar to normal “ferrite core RAM” but hard-wired with the program code. How was this memory manufactured?

JayUtah
2002-Jun-10, 08:31 PM
Gee, we learned in Boy Scouts how to make a rope! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

It's not too different from ferrite core memory, except that it's not magnetic. Each little core functions like a little transformer. You weave address and sense wires through the cores. If a sense wire bypasses the core, that's a zero for that address. If it goes through the core, that's a one. When you're done wiring it with all the little wires, they look like ropes.

The wiring sequence for the sense wires was determined by a computer tape generated by the cross-assembler running on a Honeywell 800 or an IBM 360. Raytheon and others would use this "object file" to generate commands to the weaving machines, whether to include or bypass a particular core.

Donnie B.
2002-Jun-10, 09:53 PM
Now that's what I call firmware!

Isn't it interesting that one of the most recent of sophisticated technologies (space travel) relied on one of the earliest (Jacqard looms)?

Makes me very grateful for my little BP Microsystems ROM programmer.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-10, 10:34 PM
It's obviously a very special application of the term "hardwired". For software developers it presented a nightmare. Since rope fabrication was complicated and time-consuming, the software had to be completed and verified prior to fabrication. Any errors discovered after the fabrication process could not be corrected. In fact, some Apollo missions flew with bugs in the software, which were duly documented and the astronauts trained around them.

This is in stark contrast to the method of software extension and correction employed today. Needless to say, Microsoft and its infinite array of periodic bug-fix updates would not survive long having to work under the AGC software constraints.

SpacedOut
2002-Jun-11, 11:00 AM
Thanks Jay!

I had never really thought much about how the actual source code was stored, I just assumed it was in standard core memory. Now I understand the difference between the two and why rope core was used. Talk about radiation,static discharge, power surge, etc. hardened. What about EMP hardened?

Were all of the AGC modules programmed with the same source code? (I only ask this because the article I mentioned above links to a sample of the source code (http://www.ddj.com/documents/s=1494/ddj0006hc/0101hc001f1.htm) with a date of Dec. 19, 1969)

Also, I think this question has been answered but my memory is going – were the CM and LM AGC’s the same?

[added italicized]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SpacedOut on 2002-06-11 08:45 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-Jun-11, 03:24 PM
I had never really thought much about how the actual source code was stored

To be scrupulously accurate, the source code never left earth. The object code (i.e., the assembled machine instructions) was hardwired into the rope.

Talk about radiation,static discharge, power surge, etc. hardened.

Actually the hardware designers were most worried about condensation and leakage from the ECS.

Since Cosmic Dave seems a bit comatose lately I can cheat and answer one of the questions I put to him. The rope was a frame two or three inches by six inches containing a grid of the nickel-iron cores. The address and sense wires were woven through it to make a pretty, pseudo-random crosshatch pattern. After verification, this assembly was potted, or encased in plastic.

This potting procedure was standard for all the elements of the computer. For the logic elements the pins and wires were welded (not soldered or wire-wrapped) to make the connections. Then the logic "sticks" were potted.

The potting provides thermal conductivity to carry heat away from the components. It also provides mechanical shock protection and environmental isolation. Imagine taking your video card and dipping it in melted plastic so that just the card edge connector is left.

The core memory was similarly potted, but it took a long time to find a potting material that wouldn't distress the delicate connections.

These potted elements formed "sticks" of plastic with pins at the bottom. The sticks were bolted into a backplane and the entire assembled computer was sealed in a sturdy aluminum frame. You could literally have thrown the entire computer off a six-story building onto concrete and it wouldn't have skipped a beat. (Try that with your laptop.)

What about EMP hardened?

I don't think nuclear detonation survivability was a requirement. The procedure for surviving solar particle events was to turn the SPS toward the event and hope for the best.

Were all of the AGC modules programmed with the same source code?

No. Colossus and Luminary were adapted as needed for each mission. And of course there were bug fixes.

were the CM and LM AGC’s the same?

Hardware, yes. Operating system, yes. Mission software, no. Colossus (C for command module) was the program for the command module and Luminary (L for lunar module) was the program for the lunar module.

The operating system was a priority-driven multitasking (i.e., not round-robin like Linux) OS that could handle a handful of very short jobs in a "waitlist" for real-time processing and another handful of longer jobs in the "executive" queue. A portion of the 2K words of erasable memory were allocated to each active job. "Pinball," the user interface, was the noun-verb system you've seen described.

SpacedOut
2002-Jun-11, 04:16 PM
On 2002-06-11 11:24, JayUtah wrote:
I had never really thought much about how the actual source code was stored

To be scrupulously accurate, the source code never left earth. The object code (i.e., the assembled machine instructions) was hardwired into the rope.


You’re absolutely correct – not enough coffee before posting - my Assembly Language Prof. would have deducted lots of points for that one. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif

Thanks for all the info.

Some additional questions.

How long did it take to get the actual Mission code into the AGC’s? Specifically, I’m wondering about Apollo 14. I’m assuming they were already training for their original mission when Apollo 13 launched and then their mission was changed to the Fra Mauro mission some 8 months prior to launch.

Also, were actual AGC’s used in the in the simulators?

P.S.
Probably should move this to the AGC Computer Details (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=1469&forum=3&15) thread.

[added P.S.]


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SpacedOut on 2002-06-11 12:50 ]</font>

cosmicdave
2002-Jun-11, 07:02 PM
Hey JayUtaha and the group,
As I said, I was no satellite expert, but wrote to one anyway to see if he could answer your questions. Here is his reply and to the questions and also one which I posed myself at the bottom.... interesting answer!

> 1. What is the orbital velocity of a 4,000 kg satellite in geostationary orbit?

The orbital velocity of any satellite in geostationary orbit is 3074.6 m/s. The
mass is not relevant for this calculation.

Radius of orbit is 42,164 km and each orbit takes 23 hr 56 min 4.1 s to
complete.

> 2. Name a satellite which is in geosynchronous, but not geostationary, orbit. Also, name a satellite which is in geostationary, but not geosychronous orbit.

Tricky question this. The problem is that geosynchronous does not have a single,
generally accepted definition. A geosynchronous orbit is usually taken to be one that has a 24 hour orbit. Some people also include all orbits which are
synchronised in some way to the rotation of the earth, for example 12 hr or 8 hr
orbits or 48 hr orbits.

The simplest types of satellite which are geosynchronous but not geostationary
are old geostationary satellites which have run out of station keeping fuel and
which are allowed to have non-zero inclinations. Eutelsat I F4 was an example of this type of satellite - I think it had an orbital inclination of about 5
degrees - though I am not sure it is still in service.

Most people would say that all geostationary satellites are geosynchronous and so the second part of the question has no answer.

> 3. During insertion in geostationary orbit, why does the COP manuever come after the transfer manuever?

I'm not familiar with the term COP - do you mean the operation to change orbital
planes?

> 4. Two satellites are to be place in a circular low earth orbit at exactly the same altitude. One has a mass of 1,000 kg. The other has a mass of 3,000kg. Which one must orbit faster in order to retain its orbit?

Two satellites in exactly the same circular orbit must have the same orbital velocity and so must be orbiting at the same speed. A low earth orbiting satellite will, however, be subject to a low level of atmospheric drag - even the vacuum of space isn't a perfect vacuum - which will slowly cause its orbit to decay. Normally you would expect a satellite with lower mass to decay faster but this is not always the case. To prevent an orbit degrading it is necessary to give the orbit a boost, usually by firing small thrusters, every so often, but this only compensates for the loss of orbital speed due to atmospheric drag.

> 5. What is meant by "orbital inclination"?

This is the angle between the plane of the earth's equator and the plane of the
satellite's orbit.

> 6. What are the two nodes of an orbit?

A satellite's orbit intersects the plane of the earth's equator at two points called nodes. One node is when the satellite moves from south to north of the plane of the equator - this is the ascending node. The other is when the satellite moves from north to south of the plane of the equator -this is the descending node.

> 7. Name two methods for circularizing an elliptical orbit.

The most common method is to fire a rocket motor when the satellite is either at
apogee or perigee (most distant or closest to the earth) along the direction of
travel in its orbit. Usually the motor is fired once for several minutes.
Whether the motor is fired at apogee or perigee depends on the relationship
between the original and final orbits. It is also possible to split the apogee
(for example) firing between several orbits on consecutive apogees, making the orbit more and more circular each time the motor is fired.

An alternative method is to fire a very low thrust motor - such as an ion thruster - continuously for a very long time so that the orbit slowly becomes more and more circular. This is effectively what is currently being done with the European Space Agency's Artemis satellite which was put in the wrong, elliptical, orbit as a result of a launcher malfunction. The satellite is fortunately equipped with a xenon ion propulsion unit originally intended for station keeping. The thruster is being fired continuously for over a year to circularise its orbit and then to raise it to the correct geostationary
altitude.

> 8. What is the relationship of an orbit's major axis to its period?

The square of the period is proportional to the cube of the semi major axis.

> Also would you know what actually would cause the black sky outside of a space craft to appear blue if you viewed it through the windows when the craft is actually in deep space?

I've got no idea why this happens. Sorry. I didn't even realise it did happen.

Hope this is useful.

Regards

Mike Armstrong-Smith

cosmicdave
2002-Jun-11, 07:13 PM
I've been misinterpreted again. I said I had built my own computers. I didn't say I was a computer programmer. Although having said that, I have built my own site including the flash banner on the intro page. Somebody guessed right on here about me building my own pc's. Not from scratch though.

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-11, 07:21 PM
On 2002-06-11 15:13, cosmicdave wrote:
I've been misinterpreted again. I said I had built my own computers. I didn't say I was a computer programmer. Although having said that, I have built my own site including the flash banner on the intro page. Somebody guessed right on here about me building my own pc's. Not from scratch though.

I beg to differ. I believe I interpreted you quite correctly when I stated that having assembled some PC parts you believed you were qualified to provide a claim about the AGC's capability to perform it's mission, or lack thereof. You still have not provided any data to corroborate that claim other than your own unrelated computer experience and vague comparisons to today's computers. Do you have any other evidence to present?

Jim
2002-Jun-11, 08:08 PM
As I said, I was no satellite expert, but wrote to one anyway to see if he could answer your questions. Here is his reply and to the questions and also one which I posed myself at the bottom.... interesting answer!

...

> Also would you know what actually would cause the black sky outside of a space craft to appear blue if you viewed it through the windows when the craft is actually in deep space?

I've got no idea why this happens. Sorry. I didn't even realise it did happen.

Non-sequitir alert!

You sent Jay's questions to a "satellite expert" for his answers (Which match Jay's. Gosh, maybe Jay really knows this subject?) then pose your own question to him. Why his unfamiliarity with the answer - or even the question - should be of interest is beyond me.

Just because someone is an expert at orbital mechanics and/or orbiting satellites does not mean he knows squat about manned spaceflight. AFAIK, most geosynchronous/geostationary satellites do not have windows.

Jim
2002-Jun-11, 08:15 PM
On 2002-06-11 15:13, cosmicdave wrote:
I've been misinterpreted again. I said I had built my own computers. I didn't say I was a computer programmer. Although having said that, I have built my own site including the flash banner on the intro page. Somebody guessed right on here about me building my own pc's. Not from scratch though.
/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif


Uh, being able to "program" a Web page does not make you a "programming expert." Even if you throw in flash banners.

I provide the coding for three Web sites, none of which requires knowledge of Fortran, C++, or even Visual Basic. In fact, there are several sites on the Web that will provide hints, tips, tutorials and (cut-and-paste) samples for html and java coding.

You can also use a WYSIWYG editor which requires no knowledge of html or java at all. In fact, you can write your page in Word and have it converted to html.

What was your point?

JayUtah
2002-Jun-11, 09:45 PM
As I said, I was no satellite expert, but wrote to one anyway to see if he could answer your questions.

Um, the purpose of the questions was not to have some known expert answer them, but to have you answer them. Since you've already admitted to a lack of expertise in satellites the answers to the questions, which I have already provided, are irrelevant.

What would be interesting, however, is to have your expert comment on some of your arguments regarding orbits and astrodynamics. Since the answers to these questions, which you seem to accept since they come from an expert of your choosing, tend to undermine your various arguments for comm relays and the position of the CM in orbit, you may wish to revise your arguments.

I've got no idea why this happens. Sorry. I didn't even realise it did happen.

Since this is a question of optics and the physics of light, why don't you ask an expert in one of those fields? I already have: an expert of more than forty years' experience in the physics of EM radiation. He answered the question immediately without uncertainty.

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-12, 04:29 AM
On 2002-06-11 16:15, Jim wrote:
Uh, being able to "program" a Web page does not make you a "programming expert." Even if you throw in flash banners.

Of course, even if cd had written his own HTML, written his own ActionScript for his Flash, or even coded his own classes for his Java applets, and to be fair I'm not saying he didn't, the question would still remain; how does any of that knowledge relate to the AGC or qualify one to make a judgement of it's capabilities?

Cosmic dave clearly threw out his supposed hardware expertise to try and give his claims about the AGC's inadequacy some legitimacy without having to provide any real evidence. The question he still evades is what verifiable data (not anecdotal comparisons) shows that the AGC couldn't have done what it is claimed to have done? Beyond the fact that he's not an expert on 60s computer designs, Cd's computer resume is irrelevant to that question, I think.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-12, 04:37 AM
I've been misinterpreted again. I said I had built my own computers. I didn't say I
was a computer programmer.

No, you haven't been misrepresented, but I have. I said, "The entire argument smacks of someone who doesn't really know much about computers." I did not direct that assessment at programming ability, as you seem to have understood. The rest of that paragraph specifically mentioned aspects of hardware configuration such as memory size and processor performance, subjects which laymen typically fail to correctly understand.

You specifically responded, "I've been building my own computers since 1990." Obviously your remark was intended as a rebuttal of my overall assessment and not as some expression of your alleged programming capability. You're the one changing horses here.

But since you mention it, I take it you've conceded that you are not a programmer. Would I be correct in predicting that if I were to give you a section of Colossus code and ask you what it does, you'd be unable to explain it?

Although having said that, I have built my own site including the flash banner on the intro page.

Congratulations. So do you, or do you not, claim to be a programmer?

Please answer the following question directly: Do you claim to have the required computer-related knowledge and experience to support the allegations you make on your site about the Apollo guidance computer?

Somebody guessed right on here about me building my own pc's. Not from scratch though.

So then your hardware experience is limited to assembling consumer-oriented, prepackaged components according to the manufacturer's instructions. Do you have any education or experience in sequential logic design?

I repeat my argument. You have cited no recognized experts in computer science to support your contention that the AGC was not sufficient to perform its assigned task. Your statements regarding your own expertise are evasive and ambiguous. Yet you seem to argue that you have sufficient expertise, and that this forms a plausible basis for your argument.

Either you have the required expertise to discuss your allegations regarding the AGC at the expert level, in which case I propose such a discussion since I dispute your findings. Or you don't have the required expertise to support your position, in which case your opinion of the AGC is insufficient to prove anything.

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Jun-12, 04:41 AM
On 2002-06-12 00:37, JayUtah wrote:

But since you mention it, I take it you've conceded that you are not a programmer. Would I be correct in predicting that if I were to give you a section of Colossus code and ask you what it does, you'd be unable to explain it?


Well, I am a programmer by anyone's definition: 10+ years of IDL code (an image language) as well as some years of Fortran, HTML, etc.

Yet I would not be able to make heads or tails of a C code, and have never heard of Colossus code.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-12, 04:54 AM
Uh, being able to "program" a Web page does not make you a "programming expert."

One does not "program" a web page unless one makes significant use of a structured language such as Java or Javascript. Writing HTML is not programming.

Here's what his Apollo page has to say about how it was written:

meta content="MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" name="GENERATOR"

And here's what the index page says about who created it:

meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 4.0"

Typing a bunch of stuff into a window and clicking "Save As Web Page" does not constitute programming in any form. Using the features of Macromedia's Flash authoring tools does not constitute programming.

Cosmic dave clearly threw out his supposed hardware expertise to try and give his claims about the AGC's inadequacy some legitimacy without having to provide any real evidence.

That may suffice for his little UFO club, but it does not fly here, nor in the real world. Bluffs are cheerfully called here.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-12, 05:11 AM
Well, I am a programmer by anyone's definition: 10+ years of IDL code (an image language)

I don't know anything about IDL, but I'll take your word for it.

as well as some years of Fortran

That's quite sufficient.

HTML

As I mentioned, I don't consider writing HTML to be programming, although I agree it enforces a certain syntax which must be learned and adhered to.

Programming, in my opinion, includes the notion of algorithmic process (sequence, iteration, condition), the notion of semantics, and the notions of scope and binding. HTML doesn't require that, but Fortran does. Java does, and so does Javascript in non-trivial amounts.

These and others are the skills I believe are required to examine AGC coding and extract meaningful information. In addition, certain techniques particular to embedded systems would be required. And certain techniques used specifically on the AGC would have to be understood and applied.

... and have never heard of Colossus code.

Colossus is not a programming language, but rather the name of the mission-specific chunk of software running on the command module's computer. The source listing is in AGC assembly language. It would be reasonably meaningful to anyone who had used another CPU's assembly language.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-06-12 01:12 ]</font>

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-12, 05:51 AM
On 2002-06-12 00:54, JayUtah wrote:
One does not "program" a web page unless one makes significant use of a structured language such as Java or Javascript. Writing HTML is not programming.

I know some that would claim Javascript isn't programming either. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

In any case it really wouldn't matter if his site boasted a Swing/JDBC interface to the UFO worldwide database that he'd written himself. It still wouldn't qualify him to pass judgement on his own on the AGC. I write ObjectiveC and Java for a living (whoopteedo). That maybe qualifies me to spot a ridiculous claim (i.e. "The Apollo Guidance Computer also provided a dandy MPEG-2 decoder for the astronaut's in-flight entertainment"), but I doubt I would even recognize AGC code for what it was if you showed it to me. Hence, while I may in one sense be considered a computer "expert" the AGC is not my field and I'm not qualified in the slightest to rate its claimed capability.

That is the exact point that cd doesn't get with his claims to PC skill or his comparisons of the AGC to a modern computer or simulation: The one has absolutely nothing to do with the other. It's like trying to compare your car with the crawler. While it can be argued that they're both a means of transportation an expert on one is not automatically an expert on the other, and performance comparisons between the two are absurd.

(spelling)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: pvtpylot on 2002-06-12 02:10 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-Jun-12, 06:28 AM
I know some that would claim Javascript isn't programming either.

True. As it is frequently used, it would not really be considered programming. But it can be so used. Ironically the embedded solutions I was talking about earlier once included a Javascript interpreter engineered by people we hired away from Netscape, where Javascript was invented. I have seen extensive use of Javascript as a serious high-level programming language, but I questioned the wisdom of getting it anywhere close to an embedded system.

It still wouldn't qualify him to pass judgement on his own on the AGC.

I agree.

I doubt I would even recognize AGC code for what it was if you showed it to me.

If you understand any assembly language you would be able to pick out meaningful portions of AGC code. All assembly languages share some common features.

The core concept of assembly language programming is that one must understand the machine architecture in order to make any headway. You can program in C or Java or Fortran or any one of a number of common languages without knowing the capabilities of the CPU or other elements of hardware. Not so with assembly language.

If I had to solve a problem in assembly language using the AGC and the same problem in assembly language on the IBM 3090, the programs would look pretty different. Not just because the CPUs offer different operations, but because I would have to structure the computation differently to account for the differences in registers, etc.

M_Welander
2002-Jun-12, 10:49 AM
I've looked at the JPEG of the AGC source code listing, and it does look completely reasonable. It looks very much like typical assembler language code for dealing with some kind of vectors. More than that, I really can't tell, since I haven't seen the entire source code, and I don't know the specification of the instruction set of the computer. I can only base my judgment on the similaritis between this architecture and those I've looked at before (x86, 68K, PPC, Z80 and whatever-CPU-was-used-in-the-C64), and from that I can say that either this is a fake done so seriously it might actually work, or it might just be the real thing.

I agree, HTML is not programming, even if you type the tags manually. While it's a computer language by all definitions, it's not a general purpose language, and it's not programming.

Oh, and don't mix up JavaScript, JScript and ECMAScript, please. Leads to all kinds of trouble... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

I've heard of IDL. I've never used it, nor have I used Fortran, but both are tightly integrated with NASA's SPICE package which I've used quite a lot, so I think I know a bit about what it is, and so they most certainly qualify as programming languages.

SpacedOut
2002-Jun-12, 11:18 AM
On 2002-06-12 06:49, M_Welander wrote:
I've looked at the JPEG of the AGC source code listing, and it does look completely reasonable. It looks very much like typical assembler language code for dealing with some kind of vectors. More than that, I really can't tell, since I haven't seen the entire source code, and I don't know the specification of the instruction set of the computer. I can only base my judgment on the similaritis between this architecture and those I've looked at before (x86, 68K, PPC, Z80 and whatever-CPU-was-used-in-the-C64), and from that I can say that either this is a fake done so seriously it might actually work, or it might just be the real thing.


Beyond several high level (compiled or interpretive) languages, I’ve also worked with x86 and 68xx assemblers and have to agree with M_Welander – what little bit of code is shown in the JPEG looks authentic – If the HB crowd is correct and its fake, I guess its possible they just stumbled on a guidance system!

JayUtah
2002-Jun-12, 02:43 PM
Oh, and don't mix up JavaScript, JScript and ECMAScript, please. Leads to all kinds of trouble... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

And don't confuse Java with JavaScript. Even worse.

... nor have I used Fortran

Wow! A holder of an advanced computer science degree who has never used Fortran! Believe me, that's a good thing because Fortran isn't a good thing. As one of my (engineering) professors put it, "Fortran is the computer language for people with real problems."

I'll put together a tutorial for AGC assembly. It's a bit non-straightforward since the assembly listings include mnemonics for pseudo instructions that aren't obvious, and the AGC relied heavily on such "interpreted" instructions.

sts60
2002-Jun-12, 03:40 PM
Wow! A holder of an advanced computer science degree who has never used Fortran! Believe me, that's a good thing because Fortran isn't a good thing. As one of my (engineering) professors put it, "Fortran is the computer language for people with real problems."
Hey! Hey! Don't you go layin' smack on FORTRAN! Just because I haven't written anything in FORTRAN in, oh, 20 years, doesn't mean I don't still have a soft spot in my heart for it. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

SpacedOut
2002-Jun-12, 03:50 PM
On 2002-06-12 11:40, sts60 wrote:
Hey! Hey! Don't you go layin' smack on FORTRAN! Just because I haven't written anything in FORTRAN in, oh, 20 years, doesn't mean I don't still have a soft spot in my heart for it. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

If is a soft spot – are you sure is not in you head? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

Its been 25 years for me and still not long enough!

Silas
2002-Jun-12, 04:14 PM
On 2002-06-12 11:40, sts60 wrote:
Hey! Hey! Don't you go layin' smack on FORTRAN! Just because I haven't written anything in FORTRAN in, oh, 20 years, doesn't mean I don't still have a soft spot in my heart for it. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif


Tell it brother! Amen! I put in two years of Fortran in college (on an IBM 1130, on punch-cards) and loved every minute of it! I was programming maze-solving automata (with and without the use of 'snail-trails.') Ah, the salad days of youth!

Silas

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-12, 04:25 PM
On 2002-06-12 02:28, JayUtah wrote:

If you understand any assembly language you would be able to pick out meaningful portions of AGC code. All assembly languages share some common features.

Well, let's just say that "been forcibly exposed to" and "understanding" are two very different concepts and leave it at that /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif Still, it would be interesting to see what I could comprehend of it... To address a question you posed elsewhere I would be very interested in an AGC area on Clavius.

(spelling)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: pvtpylot on 2002-06-12 13:00 ]</font>

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-12, 04:33 PM
On 2002-06-12 06:49, M_Welander wrote:
Oh, and don't mix up JavaScript, JScript and ECMAScript, please. Leads to all kinds of trouble... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Isn't JavaScript 1.3 ECMA compliant now? Thought I read something about that a while ago.

Never used it, but if JScript works as well as Microsoft's JVM I'm sure you'd mix it up only once and never, ever make that mistake again!
/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

JayUtah
2002-Jun-12, 04:42 PM
I know people who still use Fortran -- happily. There are even "structured" versions of Fortran. My first computer program was in Fortran on punch cards for an IBM 370, and so were many of my subsequent programs. And we had to use IBM's JCL, which is a truly blecherous piece of crud.

There are two problems with Fortran which make it undesirable from a purist point of view. First, although a structure can be imposed upon it, it is not inherent to the language. That means "bad" GO TO's and jumping into the middle of loops and other constructs. Luckily that's considered bad Fortran these days.

(Regarding the unconditional transfer of control, the "go-to", I do not side with the purists who dismiss it as a violation of structured programming. On the contrary, I argue it can greatly improve the comprehension of code in certain circumstances.)

The second problem is Fortran's rather fluid syntax. Unlike modern programming languages, Fortran cannot be expressed as a context-free grammar. This is theoretical computerese for saying that language parsers cannot be automatically generated for Fortran as they can for other languages, meaning every Fortran compiler must be hand-crafted. This leads to ambiguities in the interpretation of the syntax, ambiguities that are mostly resolved in other languages by the grammar.

Along with this comes the really scary way in which different early Fortran compilers handled errors. The classic example is the intended loop

<pre>
DO 100 I=1.10
(whatever)
100 CONTINUE
</pre>

The dot between the 1 and the 10 was supposed to be a comma, indicating iteration from 1 to 10. However, at least one major Fortran compiler ignored the spaces and translated it as the assignment

<pre>
DO100I=1.10
</pre>

assigning the variable "DO100I" (implicitly declared as a floating point value) the decimal value 1.1. Needless to say the loop did not iterate, but simply fell through.

Things like that make computer scientists cringe, and so they supported Fortran in their curricula only for the sake of obstinate engineers who didn't want to have to recode all their stuff in a modern language.

But as a matter of historical fact, most of the support code for Apollo was written in Fortran.

frenchy
2002-Jun-12, 11:17 PM
I am one of those writing in fortran happily. The vast majority of stellar physics (and all stellar evolution) codes I have seen are in fortran. (And no I am not that old...)
So my take is that 'real science' is made with fortran. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

JayUtah
2002-Jun-13, 12:10 AM
The vast majority of stellar physics (and all stellar evolution) codes I have seen are in fortran. (And no I am not that old...)

You may not be, but I'll bet the code is. The science and engineering code base is in Fortran because it was originally written in Fortran when that was the language of choice, and it has been carefully debugged over a long period of time. And there's lots of it. Don't fix it if it ain't broke, eh?

frenchy
2002-Jun-13, 12:24 AM
You may not be, but I'll bet the code is. The science and engineering code base is in Fortran because it was originally written in Fortran when that was the language of choice, and it has been carefully debugged over a long period of time. And there's lots of it. Don't fix it if it ain't broke, eh?

Quite true of course but it also means that people like me working with those codes, supposedly adding physics but mostly adding bugs to them, work in fortran and as result program in fortran when developping original code (Of course there is the odd black sheep insisting on using C or some of those other new gadgets).
I guess it is a cultural thing like measuring dimensions and mass of stars in centimeters and grams.
Who said scientists were rational?

Geo3gh
2002-Jun-13, 12:28 AM
This is probably uncalled for, and definite continuing the off-topic direction of this thread, but I couldn't resist sharing the Hacker's Dictionary entry for FORTRAN.

http://pebbles.eps.mcgill.ca/jargon/jargon.html#Fortrash

Fortrash /for'trash/ n.

Hackerism for the FORTRAN (FORmula TRANslator) language, referring to its primitive design, gross and irregular syntax, limited control constructs, and slippery, exception-filled semantics.

sts60
2002-Jun-13, 01:38 AM
cosmicdave,

before we wandered down the happy path of FORTRAN memories, there were a couple of challenges back on page 7 or so of this thread:

1. What specific evidence do you have that the AGC could not have done its job? If you do not have any, do you retract this claim?

2. The blue glow is compatible with sunshine's interaction with optical characteristics of the CM window, and can be observed at times when the Earth was not visible in the window. Do you dispute this? If so, why? If not, do you retract your claim that the CM/LM stayed in low Earth orbit?

3. Do you understand that the apparent path of the Apollo spacecraft was quite different than that of a LEO spacecraft? And, therefore, the Apollo spacecraft was *not* in LEO during the entire mission as alleged?

It's been fun shooting the breeze, cosmicdave, but it's time to stand and deliver. And, remember, "I was wrong about xxx" is a perfectly good answer.

WHarris
2002-Jun-13, 11:56 AM
On 2002-06-12 12:42, JayUtah wrote:
There are two problems with Fortran which make it undesirable from a purist point of view. First, although a structure can be imposed upon it, it is not inherent to the language. That means "bad" GO TO's and jumping into the middle of loops and other constructs. Luckily that's considered bad Fortran these days.

GO TOs and ENTRYs have been the bane of my existence. They're a real pain to have around when you're trying to translate the code into another programming language, such as C/C++. Fortunately, we cleaned those all out of the FORTRAN code we used for MICA 1.x.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-13, 10:44 PM
1. What specific evidence do you have that the AGC could not have done its job? If you do not have any, do you retract this claim?

As well as specific, the evidence must also be relevant.

The blue glow ...

Mr. Cosnette's original claim was that no one had provided an answer for the blue glow. At this point it is no longer truthful to say an answer has not been provided. Mr. Cosnette may not like the answer. He may not agree with it. But the truth is that he has acknowledged that an answer has been given.

Do you understand that the apparent path of the Apollo spacecraft was quite different than that of a LEO spacecraft?

Now that he has shown he can consult with outside experts regarding orbital mechanics, I'm sure he will have no excuse for getting any orbit topics wrong. As I said, I wonder if he has asked his expert whether his theories are plausible.

Last night I and some friends watched the ISS fly overhead in low earth orbit. It was brighter than Venus at times and most definitely moving. The entire sky transit took about four minutes. Really hard to miss.

patrioticamerican
2003-Jan-16, 03:18 AM
You moon hoax-sters really need to get a life! You're absolutely disgusting. If you truly believe the moon landings were a hoax then you're total morons. But my opinion is that you're really not that stupid, and that you're only in it for the notoriety and the "money for nothing". I'm sure people enjoy arguing with you, but I say why bother. You're too stupid to listen to reason, and you're too stupid to understand science. If HST or Clementine HAD the resolving power to photograph the lunar landers, you'd just say they were fake. Buzz Aldrin had the perfect response to you morons - a perfectly placed right hook! You moon hoax-sters are a pathetic disgrace, and a total insult to all those great people that worked for the manned spaceflight program in the 60's. Their acheivements were truly remarkable. You traitors can go peddle your moronic, pathetic crap to the Jerry Springer nation.

Ad Hominid
2003-Jan-16, 03:41 AM
On 2003-01-15 22:18, patrioticamerican wrote:
You moon hoax-sters really need to get a life! You're absolutely disgusting. If you truly believe the moon landings were a hoax then you're total morons. But my opinion is that you're really not that stupid, and that you're only in it for the notoriety and the "money for nothing". I'm sure people enjoy arguing with you, but I say why bother. You're too stupid to listen to reason, and you're too stupid to understand science. If HST or Clementine HAD the resolving power to photograph the lunar landers, you'd just say they were fake. Buzz Aldrin had the perfect response to you morons - a perfectly placed right hook! You moon hoax-sters are a pathetic disgrace, and a total insult to all those great people that worked for the manned spaceflight program in the 60's. Their acheivements were truly remarkable. You traitors can go peddle your moronic, pathetic crap to the Jerry Springer nation.

You are possibly in violation of at least several of the BA's rules, PA. I can certainly understand the sentiment, however. There are very good reasons for the rules here, mainly having to do with the presence of children and the nature of the BA's work, but they need not pertain everywhere. I know of a couple of message boards where the rules are somewhat less stringent, and where moon hoaxers are regularly given the thrashing they so richly deserve:
<a href=http://pub97.ezboard.com/bnuclearspace>Nuclear Space online community</a>
ufoolishness</s> ufology (http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/forum.asp?FORUM_ID=19>Skeptic)

Donnie B.
2003-Jan-16, 03:44 AM
Oh, and one more thing, PA... your rant is misdirected anyway. Virtually all the "regulars" here on the BABB are staunchly in the anti-hoax camp.

David Hall
2003-Jan-16, 06:43 AM
I'm with the others. The sentiment is right, but the tone is a bit harsh for this forum. We try to keep it polite here at least.

But money is not the only, and probably not the biggest, motivation for hoax believers. Distrust and paranoia, a psychological need for recognition, and religious and other beliefs have as much to do with it. There's definitely a huckster attitude involved, but really I doubt these people are getting rich over it.

Jim
2003-Jan-16, 06:34 PM
So, why did PA reach back seven months to find a thread to use for his (so far one-and-only) rant? Uh, post?

Glom
2003-Jan-16, 06:38 PM
This is a Cosmic Dave thread and therefore worth bringing up at all possible opportunities.

I understand the emotions that prompted such a post, but I take wisdom from JayUtah and others who show we don't need rants, we've got logic on our side.

The Bad Astronomer
2003-Jan-16, 08:16 PM
patrioticamerican, while many of the people here may agree with you, I strongly urge you to read the FAQ, linked at the top of every page here. I will not tolerate personal attacks.

patrioticamerican
2003-Jan-17, 02:44 AM
Hi folks,

Sorry I got so carried away with my post, uh, yes rant, but as you can obviously tell those people (moon landing hoax-sters) make my blood boil. As I said, I think Buzz Aldrin's reponse to "those people" was great and right on the mark. I stumbled onto this site by accident - I did a Yahoo search for Clementine photos, and what did I get but a page full of links to REALLY bad astronomy (moon hoax-sters, Hoaglund, and the like) and it really disgusted me. What bothers me the most is that there's a lot of gullible, ignorant people out there that will believe everything they read, and to me it is an incredible insult to this great country and the awesome achievements of Apollo that "those people" are pushing that garbage.

Anyway, I'll try to lighten up! Keep up the good work.

JayUtah
2003-Jan-17, 04:02 AM
I can understand how half-truths and misconceptions masquerading as some higher wisdom can provoke unkind feelings. But we have to be the voice of reason, and that sometimes means staying calm in the face of irrationality.

Donnie B.
2003-Jan-17, 05:56 PM
On 2003-01-16 23:02, JayUtah wrote:
...But we have to be the voice of reason, and that sometimes means staying calm in the face of irrationality.

Not that we always succeed in that... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

patrioticamerican
2003-Jan-18, 02:36 AM
By the way, I know the name calling, et. al., is not allowed on this board. But I'm the type that believes in calling a spade a spade, and not pussyfooting around when it comes to defending something that I really believe in - something that really means a lot to me. If some feel my post was a bit harsh, that's fine, we're all entitled to our opinions, unless it's sedition. But I stand by everything I said because that's how I feel. The people that propagate that garbage truly are a disgrace to their country, and they really should know that. I'm curious to know what motivates them to believe (if they really do) in such malicious nonsense.

Glom
2003-Jan-18, 01:04 PM
By the way, I know the name calling, et. al., is not allowed on this board.


Nobody seems to have a problem with me calling Bill Kaysing, the Dark Lord. The problem comes when personal attacks are made to people, who are posting on the board.



But I'm the type that believes in calling a spade a spade,


That's why we use many terms to describe the spades. Jay coined the term conspiracist. We use to use the term hoax believer (HB) to describe them, although that was thrown into doubt when we weren't sure if all the conspiracists were HBs or jsut bilkers. So the term hoax proponent (HP) came up. Also, something about calling them twinkies.



But I stand by everything I said because that's how I feel. The people that propagate that garbage truly are a disgrace to their country, and they really should know that.


You think you're annoyed? Try this site (http://www.geocities.com/nasascam).

This particular thread was one about a famous troll (http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html) who succeded in giving us all heart problems. When they spout circularities and tautologies and straw men and fail to realise they shouldn't be doing this, we want to... er... be unkind.

Particularly angering is when they declare themselves the self-appointed epxerts of all related fields and think that they know better than people who actually have proper qualifications. I can't imagine anything more insulting than Ralph Rene, who has not a degree to speak of, declaring himself to be a physicist and then saying that proper physicists are wrong.



I'm curious to know what motivates them to believe (if they really do) in such malicious nonsense.


Try here (http://www.clavius.org/why.html).

Some people are naturally paranoid. Others have religious reasons, some I've encountered outside the US just like feeling they're being anti-American.

patrioticamerican
2003-Jan-21, 03:16 AM
Thanks for the info. Hopefully, the "lunartic fringe" will always remain a very insignificant part of the populace, and will continue to dwindle as intelligence and reason triumph over ignorance and paranoia. Despite a lot of evidence to the contrary, hopefully we're moving in that direction!