PDA

View Full Version : Moon landing - laser reflectors



David Simmons
2002-Jan-16, 03:29 AM
If the moon landings and the leaving of laser reflectors on the moon were hoaxes, this astronomer has sure been taken in. <a href="http://unisci.com/stories/20021/0115024.htm"> Accurate Moon Distance </a?

JayUtah
2002-Jan-16, 08:16 PM
Hoax believers do not question the existence of the laser reflectors on the moon. They claim these could have been deployed by unmanned spacecraft. The Russians deployed an unmanned spacecraft on the lunar surface which incorporated a laser reflector.

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Jan-16, 08:38 PM
When I give my Moon Hoax talk, someone always brings this up. I tell them that it is indeed possible to deploy unmanned retroreflectors, though the engineering would be difficult.

But this doesn't matter. The design differences between a man-deployable reflector and one that is automatic would be huge (one major example: the unmanned one would need to figure out how to point to the Earth, whereas a manned one could be pointed by hand). Had the missions been faked, the teams that designed and built the reflector would have seen the obvious differences in design. That means all those people would have had to keep quiet about the hoax, and that is ridiculous (many HBs claim that only a few people "at the top" were the conspirators, and underlings were kept in the dark; this argument clearly refutes that).

Donnie B.
2002-Jan-16, 08:49 PM
The problem is, for every argument like that, the HB can easily find a counterargument. For example: the reflectors actually sent weren't the ones that were made to be human-deployable; they just built those to carry on the illusion of manned landings. The ones that are really up there are different ones, and the people who built them didn't realize their purpose.

And so on, and so on...

JayUtah
2002-Jan-16, 09:24 PM
Nearly every example of actual physical evidence in favor of Apollo can be "explained" in terms of unmanned landings -- equipment deployment, sample retrieval, etc. As B.A. notes, the engineering would be non-trivial and there is the whole concealment issue. But the better refutation is the fact that engineering an automated system to do something is generally much more difficult than engineering something for use by a human to do the same thing.

It's quite easy to engineer a lawn mower, for example, but much more difficult to engineer a lawn mower that can mow your lawn without direct human intervention.

This is absolutely crucial to the hoax argument because the hoax theory is based on the premise that it was easier to fake the landing that to accomplish it. If it's more difficult to fake than to do it, just do it.

And to address B.A.'s point, the notion that only the very few top officials at NASA knew of the hoax is ludicrous and expresses just how ignorant the the hoax believers are about engineering on a large scale. Do they really think it's credible to claim that Grumman built the lunar module without knowing whether or not it was capable of landing on the moon?

A lot of people seem to think that NASA just handed these companies finished blueprints and said, "Here, build this," and they happily built it without knowing whether it was capable of accomplishing the claimed task. Let's get real. Much of the real expertise in Apollo was in the companies NASA hired. That's why you see people at the launch pad in coveralls with "Boeing" or "North American" or "Bendix" or "Grumman" logos on their backs.

The notion that hundreds of thousands of highly-trained, consummately experienced people were duped into building useless and non-functional technology is highly incredible, as is the assertion that a shadow organization of commensurate size and expertise was formed to falsify all the evidence, and there is zero evidence of that organization today.

Donnie B.
2002-Jan-16, 09:28 PM
On 2002-01-16 16:24, JayUtah wrote:
The notion that hundreds of thousands of highly-trained, consummately experienced people were duped into building useless and non-functional technology is highly incredible, as is the assertion that a shadow organization of commensurate size and expertise was formed to falsify all the evidence.


Of course it is. My point was, HB's are not going to accept that argument. If they had the slightest understanding of engineering they wouldn't be HB's to begin with!

JayUtah
2002-Jan-16, 10:30 PM
My point was, HB's are not going to accept that argument.

Or any argument. Thus debating with the die-hard hoax believers is fruitless. You will never win them over.

But there is another class of hoax believer: those who simply don't know enough about science and engineering to reject the hoax theory summarily.

If they had the slightest understanding of engineering they wouldn't be HB's to begin with!

True. The prominent hoax enthusiasts -- Kaysing, Rene, Sibrel, Percy, et al. -- all give the impression that they know what they're talking about. They appeal to the layman's intuitive (but often incorrect) understanding of complex subjects. But in fact they know little more than their intended audience. And so by pointing out inconsistencies such as this, we force the hoax theory ringleaders to tip their hands.

Remember that the ringleaders are in this for the notoriety, and to a lesser extent the money. Both of these require an audience, and if the audience is made to see the flimsy nature of the evidence, all you have left are those who would have believed the ringleaders no matter what the evidence says.

I have discovered there really is a sort of middle ground made up of people who don't normally go in for fringe beliefs but are taken in by the apparent solidity of the evidence.

ToSeek
2002-Jan-17, 02:38 PM
On 2002-01-16 16:24, JayUtah wrote:
As B.A. notes, the engineering would be non-trivial and there is the whole concealment issue. But the better refutation is the fact that engineering an automated system to do something is generally much more difficult than engineering something for use by a human to do the same thing.


I think it was Neil Armstrong who said it would be harder to fake it than to do it for real, and I'm inclined to agree with him once you consider all the factors and everyone who would either have to be deceived or to be in on it without revealing the fact.

2002-Jan-17, 05:20 PM
On 2002-01-17 09:38, ToSeek wrote: To 10:49 A.M.


On 2002-01-16 16:24, JayUtah wrote:
As B.A. notes, the engineering would be non-trivial and there is the whole concealment issue. But the better refutation is the fact that engineering an automated system to do something is generally much more difficult than engineering something for use by a human to do the same thing.


I think it was Neil Armstrong who said it would be harder to fake it than to do it for real, and I'm inclined to agree with him once you consider all the factors and everyone who would either have to be deceived or to be in on it without revealing the fact.
#######YYdddttttttttttttididsspp<-az--><-el->|==Range==|

Peter B
2002-Jan-18, 01:12 PM
The point is folks, you don't debunk Hoax Believers to convince the HBs they're wrong.

You do it to convince the people they talk to. They're the people who need to hear the holes in the HBs' arguments.

And judging by the number of pamphlets we Skeptics hand out at our stalls on this topic, there are plenty of people who are interested in hearing what we have to say.

JayUtah
2002-Jan-18, 04:23 PM
Yes, I realized the hard way that the true audience is the general public, not the hoax believers themselves. David Percy used to run a forum like this, but when enough of his arguments had been thoroughly trashed he simply got rid of and it pretended it never existed. You can still give feedback at his site, but only if it supports the hoax theory.

The allure of the hoax theory is the notion that if you believe it, you're somehow smarter than NASA. It's a vanity thing. They tried to fool you, but you weren't fooled. So in order to debunk the theory you just appeal to that same desire to be "in the know," only your audience learns some real rocket science instead.

Squirm
2002-Jan-18, 07:40 PM
The Bad Astronomer: Had the missions been faked, the teams that designed and built the reflector would have seen the obvious differences in design. That means all those people would have had to keep quiet about the hoax, and that is ridiculous

"We are in a strategic space race with the Russians, and we have been losing. The first man-made satellite to orbit the earth was named Sputnik. The first living creature in space was Laika. The first rocket to the moon carried a Red flag. The first photograph of the far side of the moon was made with a Soviet camera. If a man orbits earth his year his name will be Ivan. These are unpleasant facts that the Republican candidate would prefer us to forget. Control of space will be divided in the next decade. If the Soviets control space they can control earth, as in past centuries the nation that controlled the seas dominated the continents. This does not mean that the United States desires more rights in space than any other nation. But we cannot run second in this vital race. To insure peace and freedom, we must be first." John F. Kennedy.

My opinion is that anyone involved in a simulation/hoax would have believed in what they were doing. Perhaps they carried out secretive work under the impression a genuine lunar landing would be attempted at a later date? Perhaps "peace and freedom" was worth the risk? Perhaps they thought future generations would understand the seriousness of the situation and understand the desperate course of action they took? Perhaps.

Either way, it's not so ridiculous.


(many HBs claim that only a few people "at the top" were the conspirators, and underlings were kept in the dark; this argument clearly refutes that).

We simply refute the notion that over 250,000 employees would have had to be "in" on the secret and subsequently keep quiet. The number inferred from "only a few people at the top were the conspirators" is a relative one.

Kaptain K
2002-Jan-18, 10:44 PM
"Three people can keep a secret, only if two of them are dead."

Ben Franklin

The A-bomb was probably the most secret project in history. Within 24 hours of the first test, Truman received a congratulatory call from Stalin.

And you expect us to believe the moon hoax "secret" has lasted 30+ years?????
_________________
TANSTAAFL!



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kaptain K on 2002-01-18 17:50 ]</font>

Squirm
2002-Jan-18, 10:57 PM
"The best kept secrets are those that are still secret."

-- Robert F. Dunne.

AstroMike
2002-Jan-19, 12:30 AM
I don't think the Surveyor spacecraft deployed the Laser Ranging Retroreflectors (LRRRs). All but one of the Surveyors are located more than 20 miles from each Apollo landing site. Only Apollo 12 was about 180 meters away from Surveyor 3, but unfortunately did not carry a LRRR. Luna 17 and 21 did carry LRRRs, but Luna 17 is located at Mare Imbrium and Luna 21 at Mare Serenitatis.

Here is a great site: http://ilrs.gsfc.nasa.gov/lunar.html

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AstroMike on 2002-01-18 19:31 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AstroMike on 2002-01-18 19:44 ]</font>

Donnie B.
2002-Jan-19, 01:23 AM
On 2002-01-18 17:44, Kaptain K wrote:
The A-bomb was probably the most secret project in history. Within 24 hours of the first test, Truman received a congratulatory call from Stalin.


Er, you'd better check your history. Within 24 hours of the first test, Truman told Stalin that the US had developed a powerful new weapon. They were both at the Potsdam conference at the time.

However, your point is valid; Stalin already knew about the Bomb when Truman told him.

In my opinion, 'ridiculous' is not a strong enough word for the notion that a moon hoax could have held together for even a fraction of the time it (supposedly) has. In fact, it would probably have come out before the last fake mission was flown.

I'm curious, Squirm. Just how big do you think the conspiracy is? How many people were involved in faking the missions, and how many knew they were fake? Just an order-of-magnitude estimate is fine.

Oh, and were the Saturn V launches real? Or did everyone who witnessed them get fooled or lie about it?

David Simmons
2002-Jan-19, 01:57 AM
On 2002-01-18 14:40, Squirm wrote:

My opinion is that anyone involved in a simulation/hoax would have believed in what they were doing. Perhaps they carried out secretive work under the impression a genuine lunar landing would be attempted at a later date? Perhaps "peace and freedom" was worth the risk? Perhaps they thought future generations would understand the seriousness of the situation and understand the desperate course of action they took? Perhaps.

Either way, it's not so ridiculous.



The problem with your analysis is that it ignores human nature. Everyone on our side that was involved in planning the invasion of France during WW II believed in what they were doing also. Yet (and I think it was referred to in Cornelius Ryan's The Longest Day) a US Major or Lieutenant Colonel let slip in a bar a vital fact about the invasion because he was trying to impress some woman who had taken his fancy.

One of the prime ways that intelligence is gained is to hang around hangouts and listen to people boast about their important work.

If very many people working on a "simulated moon landing" knew that it was "simulated" some of them surely couldn't have kept their mouths shut.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David Simmons on 2002-01-18 20:58 ]</font>

2002-Jan-20, 05:15 PM
1 Enron? remember? I think the sequil,
2 {ei Senate et all}'s just as bogus as
3 the origional. It was a foney decoy 1
4 For now i'll just say Oregon's PGE
5 and take the Fifth. 2-1-20 10:15 A.M.
perhaps you notice its still January 20, 2002
well the Jan options expired Friday Thus Feb
skip_CRAP_cut2_CHASE (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=465&forum=1&23#20020312.8:46)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HUb' on 2002-05-21 09:58 ]</font>

2002-Jan-28, 08:29 AM
[quote]
On 2002-01-17 12:20, HUb' wrote:
[quote]
Ok for reasons of my own i `poise that

the unified truth

can be considered equal to

the recprical of the funding
#######YYdddttttttttttttididsspp<-az--><-el->|==Range==|
000010302027708024195320-000202600000001432465105885181

amsppro
2002-Dec-21, 09:52 AM
Since I have direct (although secondhand) knowledge of the events that caused Kaysing to write the moon hoax book, I should post that info here.

This is what was told to me by a person who was there when BK told this story: "I had a friend who worked at NASA Ames. He got laid off and was very angry at NASA. He knew I was a writer and asked me if I could write a nasty book about NASA, say, for instance, like they never landed anyone on the Moon."

Of course this is only a recollection of the story as it was told to me. The person who told me this story was and is a firm adherent none-the-less to BK's assertions about a hoax.

BK was a tech writer for Rocketdyne. He knew they were having trouble with the Saturn V engines, but he did not have the privilege (as I did) of witnessing the many successful firings of these monstrous mechanisms at Hunstville. He claimed they put Atlas engines INSIDE the big monsters for a SFX display kind of liftoff. He thereby showed some ignorance of the dynamics of rocket nozzle expansion processes.Expanding from an Atlas Sised nozzle into a Saturn V nozzle would cause a tremendous drop in thrust, even to the point of neutralizing it completely!

2002-Dec-21, 11:52 AM
<a name="2-12-21.WW2"> page= 2-12-21.WW2 aka which way2Earth
On 2002-12-21 04:52, amsppro wrote:
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=311&forum=3
http://almagest.as.utexas.edu/~rlr/mlrs.html
3 Glad someOne rePushed this thread
It got me thinking about the direction to Earth From 11
<a name="2-12-21.Lnk"> line= 2-12-21.Lnk
My conclusion became the Sun was about 11 degrees
7 Above Eastern Lunar horizion. But where was Earth?
as I recall the Antennas & Laser setups pointed Az 11S of west Ele 90 mnus 69 deg vert or at 21 Up? {just guessing}

cable
2002-Dec-21, 03:41 PM
On 2002-01-16 15:16, JayUtah wrote:
Hoax believers do not question the existence of the laser reflectors on the moon. They claim these could have been deployed by unmanned spacecraft. The Russians deployed an unmanned spacecraft on the lunar surface which incorporated a laser reflector.


Here's another claim by HB on reflectors at french forum:

( translation)

" the angles must be of an extraordinary precision, an quasi-atomic precision. In 1969? Science fiction. Nothing can be also perfect. And the effect of the temperature on the cubic reflectors. Imagine the variations in temperatures. Imagine the effects on materials. Imagine the angles. Yes, of the large science fiction. There is not only that. There is also light distortion . I.e. that what one sees in the sky is an image of the past. When you look at the moon, you see it such as it was one second ago, because of his distance. Therefore, if you emit towards one of these reflectors, you are ensured to miss it. Even if the ray strikes reflectors installed on moon, it can never return to you, quite simply because of the movement of the planets .... "

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Dec-21, 03:49 PM
On 2002-12-21 10:41, cable wrote:
When you look at the moon, you see it such as it was one second ago, because of his distance. Therefore, if you emit towards one of these reflectors, you are ensured to miss it. Even if the ray strikes reflectors installed on moon, it can never return to you, quite simply because of the movement of the planets .... "

Same thing happens to me when I'm looking for my dog with a flashlight. Cons*rn limits on the speed of light, anyway!

JimO
2002-Dec-21, 04:20 PM
French HB: "When you look at the moon, you see it such as it was one second ago, because of his distance. Therefore, if you emit towards one of these reflectors, you are ensured to miss it. "

OK, let's do the math, with the 'guesstimate' that the laser beam sent from Earth will be, say, one mile wide on the Moon.

Moon circles Earth in 30 days, or goes 12 degrees per day, or 0.5 degrees per hour, or in one second goes 1/3600 of that much.

0.5 degrees per hour is one lunar diameter per hour, both from simple trig (use sin a = a for small a) and from observation against nearby stars.

That's 2000 miles per hour relative to background.

1/3600 of that is about half a mile, in one second.

Now, how do we demonstrate that the laser beam really is a mile (or more) in diameter?

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Dec-21, 04:30 PM
Unnecessary. Here's a trick I use with my dog. I don't even look at the flashlight. If I can only see the front half of my dog, I move the light backwards. If I can only see the back half, I move the light forwards. I don't have to do any math--the feedback is enough.

Same with the laser reflectors, we can just point the light so that the reflection returns to us--no matter how fast the dog is!

cable
2002-Dec-21, 05:16 PM
Now, how do we demonstrate that the laser beam really is a mile (or more) in diameter?


I do know, that a laser beam is slightly divergent.
ie. if it's 1 mm diam. on earth, it may become some kms in diam. on moon surface.

Laser Jock
2002-Dec-21, 05:34 PM
On 2002-12-21 12:16, cable wrote:


Now, how do we demonstrate that the laser beam really is a mile (or more) in diameter?


I do know, that a laser beam is slightly divergent.
ie. if it's 1 mm diam. on earth, it may become some kms in diam. on moon surface.


You are correct that laser beams diverge as they propagate. Laser beams are highly directional, much more so than any other beam of light, but they still diverge. The exact equation for the beam diameter is:

w(z) = w_0*sqrt(1 + (z*lambda/(pi*w_0^2)^2 )

where w_0 is the beam diameter to begin with, lambda is the wavelength of light, and z is the propagation distance. For a spot on the moon, you can approximate this as:

w(z) = z*lambda/(pi*w_0)

So we can see that the beam diameter on the moon depends inversely on the beam diameter on Earth. It may seem counter-intuitive, but we want to fire a large beam from a telescope on Earth so it won't be too large when it gets to the moon.

cable
2002-Dec-21, 05:44 PM
so reflector is going to send back a very small portion of photons we sent to moon. and that 's going to diverge as it gets back to earth.
we end up with fiew photons or no photons at all. hard to detect.

Glom
2002-Dec-21, 05:50 PM
Wow, Cable.

You only joined last week and already you've got your Bad Apprenticeship. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif

Glom
2002-Dec-21, 05:56 PM
On 2002-12-21 12:44, cable wrote:
so reflector is going to send back a very small portion of photons we sent to moon. and that 's going to diverge as it gets back to earth.
we end up with fiew photons or no photons at all. hard to detect.


I think we have quite an aptitude for detecting the very insignificant. Of course, we could increase the frequency of the laser light to help increase the efficiency. From LaserJock's eqn, an in crease in frequency (or in other words, a decrease in wavelength (lambda)) would mean a drop in w(z). So the LRRR would return more of the light and we would detect more.

X-ray lasers probably would be extremely hard to run though. They would require a lot of energy. Also, would that light get absorbed by the atmosphere on the way out and on the way back?

Laser Jock
2002-Dec-21, 06:02 PM
On 2002-12-21 12:44, cable wrote:
so reflector is going to send back a very small portion of photons we sent to moon. and that 's going to diverge as it gets back to earth.
we end up with fiew photons or no photons at all. hard to detect.


It's not that hard. Detecting a single photon with a photo-multiplier tube is done all the time. You just fire lots of pulses, and take lots of data.

Laser Jock
2002-Dec-21, 06:13 PM
On 2002-12-21 12:56, Glom wrote:
[quote]

I think we have quite an aptitude for detecting the very insignificant. Of course, we could increase the frequency of the laser light to help increase the efficiency. From LaserJock's eqn, an in crease in frequency (or in other words, a decrease in wavelength (lambda)) would mean a drop in w(z). So the LRRR would return more of the light and we would detect more.

X-ray lasers probably would be extremely hard to run though. They would require a lot of energy. Also, would that light get absorbed by the atmosphere on the way out and on the way back?


X-rays are probably a bad idea for several reasons. Yes they may be absorbed in the atmophere, but they are also harder to generate. You can get a lot more photons in a visible or near-ir pulse with present technology. Also, x-rays might not be reflected by the LRRR. If I had a pick of any laser I wanted to do this type of experiment, I would probably choose a Ti:Sapphire laser/regenerative amplifier that produces ~100 femtosecond pulses at 800 nm (deep red color). If I could get better than 50% conversion effeciency, I would double the frequency with a second harmonic crystal to get 400 nm which will not diverge as much.

Glom
2002-Dec-21, 06:22 PM
Also, x-rays might not be reflected by the LRRR.

Fair point. A couple of weaks ago I went to an interview at University College London where they are involved in X-ray astronomy. The professor said that the can't focus X-rays in the same way as visible light. Something about the incident angle needing to be more acute.

cable
2002-Dec-21, 06:46 PM
It may seem counter-intuitive, but we want to fire a large beam from a telescope on Earth so it won't be too large when it gets to the moon.


if we narrow the beam on moon , we may miss the reflector.
does it need special telescope ( High precision) to point that tiny reflector ??

cable
2002-Dec-21, 06:50 PM
On 2002-12-21 12:50, Glom wrote:
Wow, Cable.

You only joined last week and already you've got your Bad Apprenticeship. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif

Glom,
the tric is , u start as HB. ask stupid and naive questions. then evolve into anti-HB within a week. i's as simple. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Laser Jock
2002-Dec-21, 07:04 PM
On 2002-12-21 13:46, cable wrote:

if we narrow the beam on moon , we may miss the reflector.
does it need special telescope ( High precision) to point that tiny reflector ??


The beam will still be a couple of kilometers wide (from atmospheric distortion) when it gets to the moon, so you won't miss the reflectors. Also, you don't have to worry about carefully aligning the LRRR. That's the wonderful thing about corner-cubes; no matter what direction the beam comes from it returns in the same direction. What I mean is if you hold one at arms length, close one eye, and tilt it at diffenent angles, you will always be able to see a reflection of your open eye. Compare this with an ordinary mirror that you have to have at just the right angle to see your open eye. The astronauts just had to point the LRRR in the general direction of Earth.

Glom
2002-Dec-21, 10:55 PM
Glom,
the tric is , u start as HB. ask stupid and naive questions. then evolve into anti-HB within a week. i's as simple. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif


The thing I want to know is did you know you were asking stupid and naive questions and were trolling, or were you sincere and realised you were asking stupid and naive questions because of what the posters responded?

Gramma loreto
2002-Dec-23, 01:39 AM
I touched on this subject in this thread (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=1728&forum=3) some time back. Laser Jock's experience appears to exceed mine but I'll summarize anyway.

Lunar ranging experiments don't rely on raw beam divergence to get a usable laser footprint on the Moon's surface. When the laser beam is directed through a telescope, it acts as a beam expander. The laser target designators I maintained in the Air Force utilize the same technique to illuminate ground targets for accurate ranging and bomb guidance. IIRC, the laser footprint on the Moon's surface winds up being about 4 miles in diameter.

Botiemaster
2002-Dec-23, 09:27 AM
Knowing there are laser beams attached to the moon, one must wonder where are our [Dr.Evil] sharks with frickin laser beams attached to their heads.[/Dr.Evil]

cable
2002-Dec-23, 09:50 AM
On 2002-12-22 20:39, Gramma loreto wrote:
I touched on this subject in this thread (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=1728&forum=3) some time back. Laser Jock's experience appears to exceed mine but I'll summarize anyway.

Lunar ranging experiments don't rely on raw beam divergence to get a usable laser footprint on the Moon's surface. When the laser beam is directed through a telescope, it acts as a beam expander. The laser target designators I maintained in the Air Force utilize the same technique to illuminate ground targets for accurate ranging and bomb guidance. IIRC, the laser footprint on the Moon's surface winds up being about 4 miles in diameter.


HB objection:
" to send beam back to where it came from, at this big distance ( ca. 400 000 Km ), reflector must have an extremely high angular/polishing precision .... that we can't do."

any comment on this point ?

Glom
2002-Dec-23, 11:14 AM
HB objection:
" to send beam back to where it came from, at this big distance ( ca. 400 000 Km ), reflector must have an extremely high angular/polishing precision .... that we can't do."

any comment on this point ?


Actually, compared to some of the things we do, that is remarkably easy. HST and other telescopes must have huge precision in staying locked on their targets. The manufacture of these telescopes also required enormous precision. Remember, COSTAR was needed on HST because the primary mirror was to shallow by one fiftieth the width of a human hair. What may seem as huge amounts of precision to the layman is used all the time.

My comment on this to a conspiracist would be that once again they are simply completely ignorant of what their talking about.

Good on you, Cable, for keeping us thinking. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

Laser Jock
2002-Dec-23, 01:37 PM
On 2002-12-23 06:14, Glom wrote:

My comment on this to a conspiracist would be that once again they are simply completely ignorant of what their talking about.



Agreed. Constructing optics with atomic precision is hard but possible. However, given the properties of corner-cubes, I'm not convinced that such precision would even be necessary.

ToSeek
2002-Dec-23, 05:15 PM
On 2002-12-21 13:22, Glom wrote:


Also, x-rays might not be reflected by the LRRR.

Fair point. A couple of weaks ago I went to an interview at University College London where they are involved in X-ray astronomy. The professor said that the can't focus X-rays in the same way as visible light. Something about the incident angle needing to be more acute.


The mirrors on the Chandra X-ray telescope (http://chandra.harvard.edu/resources/illustrations/mirrorcompQ-421.html) are almost like concentric barrels for just that reason.

Gramma loreto
2002-Dec-23, 06:46 PM
On 2002-12-23 04:50, cable wrote:
HB objection:
" to send beam back to where it came from, at this big distance ( ca. 400 000 Km ), reflector must have an extremely high angular/polishing precision .... that we can't do."

any comment on this point ?
Well first, I would as the HBer in question to provide some sort of justification and figures for the supposedly required precision. Then, while he's handwaving over that, I'd ask why can't we do it? If an amateur astronomer can go out to his/her garage and hand polish a telescope mirror to 1/10 wave accuracy (or better), why can't a high-tech manufacturer exceed that by leaps and bounds? To support that objection, the HBer first must scientifically define the accuracy he claims is required, then prove such accuracy is beyond current manufacturing technology.

2002-Dec-24, 11:51 PM
<a name="JD2452633.LED"> page JD2452633.LED aka Led
On 2002-12-23 13:46, Gramma loreto wrote:
well?if a path to the "accurate" range data
would show up in this thread
besides UT
http://almagest.as.utexas.edu/~rlr/mlrs.html
I shure would compare Moons range to My perigee /Apogee range figures
any comment on those point s?
4:02 P.M.

JackC
2002-Dec-31, 06:31 PM
On 2002-12-21 11:20, JimO wrote:

Now, how do we demonstrate that the laser beam really is a mile (or more) in diameter?


This site may offer sufficient data to fill in the holes. Seems you might have been a little on the narrow side, Jim!

http://www.bga.com/~cfb/Using_Lunar_Retroreflectors.html

Salient points:

# Diameter of Laser Spot on Moon = 7 Kilometers
# Diameter of Retroreflector Spot on Earth = 20 Kilometers

BTW: Saw you quite frequently on an older Nova on the ISS a few nights ago (actually, my TiVo got it from who-knows-when). Neat to see you in person after reading you for years, and now reading you here!

Jack

[Edit: D'oh! I didn't realise there was a second page to this thread following JimO's initial post! I haven't read all yet, but it looks like the actual collimation issue was answered quickly. Sorry!! - Jack]
_________________
Eschew Obfuscation

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JackC on 2002-12-31 13:34 ]</font>

2003-Jan-02, 06:05 AM
<a name="3-1-01.ss"> page= 3-1-01.ss aka Same story
On 2002-12-24 18:51, HUb' wrote: To HUb'





http://almagest.as.utexas.edu/~rlr/mlrs.html

1 source of Questionable data / No Charts or Graphs
nd definatly NO
long term {100,000yr} orbitals depictions?

Irishman
2003-Jan-03, 08:47 AM
Squirm said:

My opinion is that anyone involved in a simulation/hoax would have believed in what they were doing. Perhaps they carried out secretive work under the impression a genuine lunar landing would be attempted at a later date? Perhaps "peace and freedom" was worth the risk? Perhaps they thought future generations would understand the seriousness of the situation and understand the desperate course of action they took? Perhaps.

That's a lot of "perhaps". To disprove Apollo, or prove it a hoax, you must do more than just offer perhaps. You must provide evidence that supports the perhaps.

Assume we go with perhaps, for the sake of argument. They believed in the cause, they were somehow persuaded that faking a lunar mission (or a dozen missions with six landings and a near disaster) was somehow more important to the American people, the status of the U.S. in the world, and perhaps world peace. Why did none of them ever become disillusioned? The hoax believers make a big point out of Robert Baron. Here is a man who firmly believed in the importance of space, and firmly believed in the necessity of safety, and felt safety was not being properly observed. So he spoke up. How come nobody within the conspiracy didn't face a similar crisis of conscience, and blow the whistle? If not prior to Apollo 11, why not after the Space Shuttle was built? How come nobody has come forward now that the Soviets are gone, the Russians are in dire economic straits, there's no global competition for status, and no need to maintain the secret? Global peace no longer hangs in the balance of whether we got to the moon or not. Shouldn't there be someone who comes out with a "Now it can be told"? No death bed confessions, no secrets buried in Wills to be told after they died to set the record straight?


We simply refute the notion that over 250,000 employees would have had to be "in" on the secret and subsequently keep quiet. The number inferred from "only a few people at the top were the conspirators" is a relative one.

Please outline for us a scenario of how many people would have to be aware of the hoax, and how many could be duped along with the rest of the world. You don't have to know precise numbers, ballpark figures are fine. You can categorize groups of people as you see fit (i.e. NASA bigwigs, astronauts, mission control workers in front rooms vs. back rooms, engineers building real hardware vs. engineers building hardware that doesn't have to actually work, etc.) I would like to see a plausible scenario that addresses these points. Not just a generic "some indefinite small number were in on it and the rest were duped, too". That won't work. Outline your scenario for us.

cable, a question for you. What exactly was it that convinced you? A particular argument? An attitude? The ability to provide documents/information you didn't know existed? Technical detail in responses? Something else? I'm curious what worked and why. Also, were you a staunch hoax believer, or just someone who saw some arguments and claims by HBers that sounded plausible and convincing?

2003-Jan-04, 12:56 PM
<a name=""> page= aka
On 2003-01-03 03:47, Irishman wrote:
Squirm said:
4:57 A.M. HUb's po.tic#January 4, 2003
so yeah, time to enter the race once again
for "HOUSE" .. now let me thin.. My chart
for OR.pop will look like
:::/| a fifty % population
:/::- decrease in x years
-:::: preferably Xilled to
maybe Mars maybe Stars .& maybe farther than that
now back to my other Jokes
**.b
ok ok back to KOunt'N JD2452644
page updated 5:56 P.M. PST January 4, 2003 News story CH6 "Baker City"

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HUb' on 2003-01-04 20:46 ]</font>

AstroGman
2003-Jan-15, 09:09 PM
Got another thing to add,During the Apollo 15 test firing in 1970 in Slidell, Louisiana,The Ground shook 35 miles away in Bay St Louis ,Missippi to the point to where officials in that town thought that there was an earthquake.So in spite of the troubles,they still made it Senor Kooksing!!