PDA

View Full Version : Saturn V upper stage



BenGun
2007-Mar-18, 11:21 AM
Hello,
I'm quite new to this but interested in explanations. Over here in the UK the Apollo hoax issue isn't as hotly contested as it appears to be in the USA. Nonetheless, it is a fascinating topic. Did we (you) really go to the moon?
I'm quite convinced, but the other day I ran into a bloke who seemed to be very much informed and was certain that we didn't. He told me about contradictions in photographs (an issue I believe has been settled long since) and doubted that the technology of the sixties was up to the reliability required for such a feat. It "sounded" plausible (my background is rather literature than technology) even if it is highly unlikely that such a hoax could be hidden for decades so I simply listened.
However, one point was very interesting. He claimed that he never got a satisfying answer to the following:


A couple of years ago, the third stage of the Staurn V was found to be circling Earth; the very third stage that sent Apollo to the moon. So how can it be that the third stage that pushed the lunar lander to the moon turned up in Earth's orbit?

According to him the best explanation is that the craft simply stayed in orbit to tape some floating astronauts (something you can't do with even the best slow-motion) and some days later returned back to earth. The astronauts had the proper bone-loss and brought some rocks with unusual properties along; enough facts to convince most people.

When I asked him about the Russions he shrugged it off. They were much to embarrassed (when it turned out that the technology of the sixties was incapable to deliver) to admit that they failed to realise in time that the moon landing was an unachievable goal. Questioning the landing would have amounted to an also-ran.

This didn't quite convince me but I didn't know what to reply. Any suggestions?

BenGun

BenGun
2007-Mar-18, 11:26 AM
It should read saturn V instead of staurn V upper stage.
Sorry for the typo
BenGun

Laguna
2007-Mar-18, 11:52 AM
I would guess he is talking about the S-IVB-507 of Apollo 12.
PhantomWolf talked about it in this post:
http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=948434&postcount=52

Jason Thompson
2007-Mar-18, 11:53 AM
A couple of years ago, the third stage of the Staurn V was found to be circling Earth; the very third stage that sent Apollo to the moon. So how can it be that the third stage that pushed the lunar lander to the moon turned up in Earth's orbit?

After the TLI burn (the one that sent Apollo to the Moon) the third stage was reignited to push it into a solar orbit, in order to get it well out of the way. Orbital mechanics dictated its path from then on. Since it started out somewhere near Earth orbit it will return to that distance from the sun, and it just so happened that thirty years later Earth was in the right place to meet it again and for its gravity to have an effect on the orbit of the stage.

Ask him where he thinks it's been all this time if it wasn't as I described. If it stayed in Earth orbit it would have been a naked eye object for the last thirty years.

gwiz
2007-Mar-18, 11:54 AM
Before the later missions when the upper stages were crashed into the moon as targets for the seismic instruments, they flew past the moon and on into either high earth orbits or solar orbits. The Apollo 12 stage that was recently rediscovered had done the latter. After years of orbiting the sun, it returned to the vicinity of earth and was recaptured, temporarily, into a high earth orbit. The tracking data fitted this scenario.

http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/j002e3a.html

SpitfireIX
2007-Mar-18, 11:59 AM
It should read saturn V instead of staurn V upper stage.

Welcome to the board, BenGun. You can edit your posts up to 24 hours after you make them, in order to correct typographical and other errors, or to reword unclear passages.

BenGun
2007-Mar-18, 02:52 PM
Thank you folks,
I didn't expect such a fast reply.
Did I get it right? The 3rd stage was recaptured by Earth because both (Earth and Saturn V) happened to be in the right place at the right time?
benGun

Dave J
2007-Mar-18, 03:34 PM
and the Moon, and the Sun...there are lots of forces tugging on it, albeit slight.
So the A12 SIVB has indeed settled in something of an Earth orbit, but it's a very, very big and very "eccentric" orbit...

Nowhere Man
2007-Mar-18, 03:43 PM
A couple of years ago, the third stage of the Saturn V was found to be circling Earth; the very third stage that sent Apollo to the moon. So how can it be that the third stage that pushed the lunar lander to the moon turned up in Earth's orbit?

My emphasis, as this seems to be saying that there was only one flight to the moon. Remind him (if he doesn't already know) that there were eight flights to the neighborhood of the moon.

Fred

Donnie B.
2007-Mar-18, 04:34 PM
My emphasis, as this seems to be saying that there was only one flight to the moon. Remind him (if he doesn't already know) that there were eight flights to the neighborhood of the moon.

FredMake that nine manned flights (and many more unmanned, of course). That's Apollo 8 and 10-17. Apollo 13 counts even though it never entered lunar orbit.

Donnie B.
2007-Mar-18, 04:44 PM
When I asked him about the Russions he shrugged it off. They were much to embarrassed (when it turned out that the technology of the sixties was incapable to deliver) to admit that they failed to realise in time that the moon landing was an unachievable goal. Questioning the landing would have amounted to an also-ran.Hi and welcome, BenGun.

If the Apollo CSM spacecraft had stayed in low Earth orbit it would have been a very visible naked-eye object. Ask your friend why nobody noticed it in the ten days or so it was supposedly there.

Ask him how geologists from around the world never questioned the authenticity of the lunar samples. Are they all so foolish as to fail to recognize the "unusual rocks" for what they were? Or are they all in on the hoax? Remind him that many of these geologists are NOT from the United States.

As for the Russians, well, I have to assume your friend is rather young. No one who was alive at the time would suggest the Soviets would have passed up the chance of exposing a hoax. And they would have detected it easily, as would anyone with the technical capacity to track the flights. Even amateurs in the US did that!

Finally, why would the hoaxers have repeated the hoax six times (and hoaxed one failure to boot)? The chances of its being detected would grow exponentially but there was nothing to be gained from repeated fake landings.

BenGun
2007-Mar-18, 06:23 PM
My emphasis, as this seems to be saying that there was only one flight to the moon. Remind him (if he doesn't already know) that there were eight flights to the neighborhood of the moon.

Fred

Nowhere Man, your answer doesn't lead anywhere. Don't belittle me! I KNOW that there have been several landings but that was not my point. It struck me rather odd that something on the way to the moon simply returned on its own.
However, Donnie B brought up a rather good objection. If the Saturn stage would have stayed in earth orbit, any astronomer (certainly one) would have spotted it (although there may be hoax believers who'd claim that it was crashed deliberately after the mission to get rid of the evidence).
But I don't understand Dave J. He claims:

and the Moon, and the Sun...there are lots of forces tugging on it, albeit slight.
So the A12 SIVB has indeed settled in something of an Earth orbit, but it's a very, very big and very "eccentric" orbit...
Does this mean that the upper stage is circling BOTH (?) Earth and the moon?
BenGun

publius
2007-Mar-18, 06:40 PM
Does this mean that the upper stage is circling BOTH (?) Earth and the moon?
BenGun

Here is a nice orbital plot of the "temporary capture" of that old S-IVB:

http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/j002e3/j002e3c.gif Warning: 2.1MB image

This the motion of the object relative to the earth-moon system. Note that it came in near the L1 point, circled around several times then went back out. This motion is entirely in agreement with laws of physics that apply to orbital mechanics.

Yes, something can "circle" both the earth and moon, but the orbits are very complex, not the simple modified 1-body problems of elementary mechanics.

-Richard

BenGun
2007-Mar-18, 06:53 PM
Here is a nice orbital plot of the "temporary capture" of that old S-IVB:

http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/j002e3/j002e3c.gif

This the motion of the object relative to the earth-moon system. Note that it came in near the L1 point, circled around several times then went back out. This motion is entirely in agreement with laws of physics that apply to orbital mechanics.

Yes, something can "circle" both the earth and moon, but the orbits are very complex, not the simple modified 1-body problems of elementary mechanics.

-Richard

Thanks Publius,
nice animation but is this real? I noticed that the object (named Joo23) in the animation did not come from Earth but from outer space. Now, I won't claim that this is an UFO, but it be interesting to learn why the object zig-zagged around whereas moon remained on its way.
BenGun

Nicolas
2007-Mar-18, 06:57 PM
It struck me rather odd that something on the way to the moon simply returned on its own.

It depends on what you consider "returned". It's not like it is in low earth orbit or even remotely circular orbit, never mind stable orbit (see animation, it was just a short visit). The stage departed from the vicinity of the earth. Without large forces applied to it, it was bound to more or less return some time.

R.A.F.
2007-Mar-18, 07:05 PM
Nowhere Man, your answer doesn't lead anywhere. Don't belittle me! I KNOW that there have been several landings...

Hmmm...I don't see how Nowhere Man was belittleing anyone. (based on the "remind him if he doesn't know already.")


It struck me rather odd that something on the way to the moon simply returned on its own.

It struck you as odd?? In the OP you stated that "He claimed that he never got a satisfying answer to the following..."

So are we now talking about your beliefs or his beliefs??

Grashtel
2007-Mar-18, 07:42 PM
Here is a nice orbital plot of the "temporary capture" of that old S-IVB:

http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/j002e3/j002e3c.gif

You really should warn people when posting a link to a 2.1 meg image, it almost killed Firefox on my machine.

gwiz
2007-Mar-18, 07:42 PM
If it helps to visualise the situation, in the time between 1969 and 2002 the stage was in its own orbit about the sun, slightly inside that of the earth and hence with a slightly shorter "year". It thus moved ahead of the earth, with the distance increasing until it was on the other side of the sun, at which point it can be considered to be catching the earth from behind. As it eventually came around to lap the earth, it passed close enough for the combined gravitational fields of earth, moon and sun to take it into that six-orbit earth-centred trajectory before going back out to its solar orbit.

publius
2007-Mar-18, 08:01 PM
You really should warn people when posting a link to a 2.1 meg image, it almost killed Firefox on my machine.

Sorry, I've got a 3Mbps cable moden connection and I didn't even notice how big it was.

-Richard

Jason Thompson
2007-Mar-18, 08:28 PM
Don't belittle me! I KNOW that there have been several landings but that was not my point.

Nowehere Man was not belittling you or or anyone else. It is not unknown for hoax believers to come along who don't even know that there was more than one lunar landing, and your use of the singular in relaying what your friend said made the response perfectly valid. Additionally this was directed at your friend, not you.


It struck me rather odd that something on the way to the moon simply returned on its own.

Firstly, the stage was not on its way to the Moon. Once the LM had been extracted the S-IVB stage was shot off in an entirely different direction.

Secondly, it is not at all uncommon for things on the way to the Moon to come back on their own. It's called a free-return trajectory.


If the Saturn stage would have stayed in earth orbit, any astronomer (certainly one) would have spotted it

It wouldn't need to be an astronomer. The S-IVB stage is huge, and mostly white. It would be visible to anyone who hapened to look up at the right moment, and its size would mean it would have to be catalogued to avoid the possibility of running into it with another satellite later on.


Does this mean that the upper stage is circling BOTH (?) Earth and the moon?

No, just that everything has a gravitational effect on the orbit of the stage. It mainly is affected by the Sun, but as it wanders closer to the Earth/Moon system those bodies will also have an effect, depending on their relative distance. In a large Earth orbit the Moon will probably have some perturbing effects on the motion of the stage, which is possibly one reason it was later re-ejected from Earth orbit.

publius
2007-Mar-18, 08:29 PM
Note how that orbit can be roughly described. It comes in, and makes several rough highly precessing ellipses, then flys back out close to where it first came in.

-Richard

BenGun
2007-Mar-18, 08:59 PM
Guys,
it's getting late on this side of the Atlantic. Thanks a lot for answering. Even if I'm not certain to have understood everything of the physics involved I feel more confidend to reply when I ever meet a moon hoax believer again.
BenGun

PhantomWolf
2007-Mar-18, 09:28 PM
Hi Ben, sorry for being a little late to the topic here, I'm on the other side of the world to you.

The object that was sighted in 2003 was never conclusively proven to be the Apollo 12 booster, but they are pretty sure about it. When it was "found" was never a naked eye object, so that shows how far out it was, in fact it was reported at first as "Earth's new Moon" and was thought to be a captured asteroid. It was only when spectrum analysis was done on the reflected light from it that it was discovered that it was coated in Titanium Oxide, the stuff they used in the Apollo era paint to make it white. It was this discovery that lead to the belief it was one of the Saturn IVB's.

Which one was really a process of elimination. 13-17's were all impacted into the lunar surface, so that left 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12's. 8, 9, 10 and 11's all entered good and stable solar orbits so it was determined that these were unlikely. That left Apollo 12's, which due to it's problematic start was a very good candidate.

The Apollo 12 Saturn IVB suffered a control failure during its fail burn. After the crew extracted the LM from the Saturn IVB, the stage was meant to move away from the Stack, then initiate two burns which would take it into Solar orbit, as 8, 9, 10 and 11's all had. Instead with the failure on the second of these burns, it entered an erratic and very elongated orbit about both the Earth and the moon and stayed in it for a number of years vanishing in the late 70's after being flung out into solar orbit. Because of this it is believed that its solar orbit intersects our own and so about every 25-30 years we'll be in the right place that we will capture it once more, it will do a few loops about us over a few months and then return once more to solar orbit (unless it finally hits either us or the moon.)

So to answer the question of whether its discovery in 2003 was proof that they stayed in LEO.... no it doesn't because of how far away they were. Ironically it doesn't prove they didn't either, since on Apollo 9 this is exactly what happened (9 was the first manned Test of the LM and was done in Earth Orbit in case the crew had to be rescued.) The Saturn IVB Booster was sent into solar orbit by doing a dry run of the LTO and then pushing it out into solar orbit with an additional burn. However the argument that they did this for the later missions falls over quickly when it is pointed out that the stack was a very visible object in the night sky, brighter than the ISS or shuttle today, and people were looking for it, tracking it with telescopes, even taking images. Had the stack still been in Earth orbit, it would have been obvious to anyone watching, and they were. Since the days of Sputnik 1, space watching become a big thing, mush bigger then it is today when only a few people know the thrill of spotting an Iridium Flare or the ISS as it traverses across the sky only to wink out as it passes through the terminator of the Earth's shadow.

I hope that helps you.

Nowhere Man
2007-Mar-19, 12:00 AM
Make that nine manned flights (and many more unmanned, of course). That's Apollo 8 and 10-17. Apollo 13 counts even though it never entered lunar orbit.
Yeah, I re-counted after I hit the road, and came up with nine. I just got back home.

But the point is, there was more than one Apollo mission to the moon. Some HBs don't get that.

Fred

Nowhere Man
2007-Mar-19, 12:07 AM
Nowehere Man was not belittling you or or anyone else. It is not unknown for hoax believers to come along who don't even know that there was more than one lunar landing, and your use of the singular in relaying what your friend said made the response perfectly valid. Additionally this was directed at your friend, not you.
What he said. Thank you, Jason.

Fred

publius
2007-Mar-19, 01:26 AM
Thanks Publius,
nice animation but is this real? I noticed that the object (named Joo23) in the animation did not come from Earth but from outer space. Now, I won't claim that this is an UFO, but it be interesting to learn why the object zig-zagged around whereas moon remained on its way.
BenGun


Everything there is consistent with the laws of orbital mechanics. The moon (earth-moon) system is in a stable orbital configuration. The moon has gravity, the earth has gravity. And then there is the big ol' sun out there. The motion of little hunk of mass, such as the S-IVB, depends on all three of those. That's what makes that rather complicated little trajectory.

Most of the time, that S-IVB is in an independent solar orbit. But every once in a while, it gets close enough to the earth-moon system to interact and pull on of those little shows.

There is nothing there but the known, expected laws of physics being followed to a 'T' by that S-IVB.

-Richard

Nicolas
2007-Mar-19, 08:46 AM
For further reference, the sun is on the left of that animation. The S-IVB is not coming just from "outer space", it's coming from a sun orbit close to earth's orbit, and catching up with the earth. It gets caught in earths gravity field, orbits the eart a few times, then its gravity vector is such that its component away from earth is larger than escape velocity, and off it goes back into its sun orbit, ahead of earth. Ths scene will repeat itself in the future, as said, until it hits the earth or the moon. (which won't cause any trouble either case)

Larry Jacks
2007-Mar-19, 03:31 PM
That animation is very cool. I only wish it had a way to pause it and play it at a slower speed. It appears that J002E3 passes L1 and has its orbit perturbed by the Earth's gravitational influence. Around June 20, 2002, J002E3 comes close to the moon which perturbs the orbit even more. It ends up in a highly eliptical orbit around the Earth until about the first of June, 2003 when its orbit is perturbed by coming too close to the moon once again. That lunar encounter gave it enough of a slingshot to escape Earth orbit.

This just goes to show how tricky the calculations of NEOs that pass close to the Earth can be. Their orbits can be seriously perturbed by the Earth's gravity and even more so if the moon happens to be close by. This can make predicting the NEO's trajectory after the encounter more challenging, especially for small objects.

JayUtah
2007-Mar-19, 05:03 PM
This just goes to show how tricky the calculations of NEOs that pass close to the Earth can be.

Semi-tricky.

Introductory orbital mechanics involves the two-body problem. That can be studied using closed-form mathematics. Anything beyond two bodies usually requires iterative mathematics. And iterative in this case is a placeholder word that means Extremely expensive computers chugging through solutions and consuming $2,000 of electricity a day to do it.

For some problems we consider the restricted three-body problem. That is, when the mass of one body (e.g., a spaceship or a booster stage) is insignificant compared to the mass of the other two (e.g., planets and moons) then the orbits of the two massive bodies are considered unperturbed by the small body. So the massive bodies' orbits are computed in closed form as a two-body problem and the small body's path is solved iteratively.

For other problems, such as plotting orbits of asteroids and Kuiper Belt objects, we have to use the full n-body method because those objects interact with each other as gravitational peers.

Nicolas
2007-Mar-19, 06:18 PM
That animation is very cool. I only wish it had a way to pause it and play it at a slower speed. It appears that J002E3 passes L1 and has its orbit perturbed by the Earth's gravitational influence. Around June 20, 2002, J002E3 comes close to the moon which perturbs the orbit even more. It ends up in a highly eliptical orbit around the Earth until about the first of June, 2003 when its orbit is perturbed by coming too close to the moon once again. That lunar encounter gave it enough of a slingshot to escape Earth orbit.

This just goes to show how tricky the calculations of NEOs that pass close to the Earth can be. Their orbits can be seriously perturbed by the Earth's gravity and even more so if the moon happens to be close by. This can make predicting the NEO's trajectory after the encounter more challenging, especially for small objects.

I'm not sure the moon was of major influence to the orbits seen in that animation. Didn't it slingshot back out of earth orbit due to the orientation of the final ellipse? The animation goes quite fast, I can't really see where the moon is and how the trajectory evolves around it. It certainly is quite close to the stage when these changes happen, but I don't know to what extent it is relevant.

Also note that this animation keeps the earth staionary, hence it doesn't correctly depict the solar orbit of the stage. Not like that matters for its proximity to the moon, it's just a remark.

publius
2007-Mar-19, 07:14 PM
Also note that this animation keeps the earth staionary, hence it doesn't correctly depict the solar orbit of the stage. Not like that matters for its proximity to the moon, it's just a remark.

If you look closely at the animation, you'll see the little white line that indicates the earth's solar path is "wiggling" a bit as the animation runs. That lead me to believe that the actual plot was barycentric inertial, but the "viewing window" just zoomed in and followed the earth along that white line, keeping the axes corotating with the earth's orbit. That gives the same visual effect as doing it from an earth-centered frame, but you'll see the white line wiggling. If you just pulled back enough and stop moving the window, you'd see the whole shebang going around the sun.

-Richard

JayUtah
2007-Mar-19, 07:43 PM
I'm not sure the moon was of major influence to the orbits seen in that animation. Didn't it slingshot back out of earth orbit due to the orientation of the final ellipse?

I don't believe so. The object was in a somewhat metastable orbit around Earth, albeit highly precessional. It seemed indeed to be shallowing, and that was probably due to solar perturbance. I doubt such an orbit would have become any more stable, nor remained Earth-centered for more than a month. But things really happened when it made the close pass at the Moon, so my money's on its having been tossed out of Earth orbit by the Moon.

Also note that this animation keeps the earth staionary, hence it doesn't correctly depict the solar orbit of the stage.

Yes, that would confuse someone who isn't familiar with the solar component of the orbit.

Gillianren
2007-Mar-19, 10:21 PM
Thanks to whichever mod fixed the thread title!

Maksutov
2007-Mar-20, 08:01 AM
This just goes to show how tricky the calculations of NEOs that pass close to the Earth can be.

Semi-tricky.

Introductory orbital mechanics involves the two-body problem. That can be studied using closed-form mathematics. Anything beyond two bodies usually requires iterative mathematics. And iterative in this case is a placeholder word that means Extremely expensive computers chugging through solutions and consuming $2,000 of electricity a day to do it.

For some problems we consider the restricted three-body problem. That is, when the mass of one body (e.g., a spaceship or a booster stage) is insignificant compared to the mass of the other two (e.g., planets and moons) then the orbits of the two massive bodies are considered unperturbed by the small body. So the massive bodies' orbits are computed in closed form as a two-body problem and the small body's path is solved iteratively.

For other problems, such as plotting orbits of asteroids and Kuiper Belt objects, we have to use the full n-body method because those objects interact with each other as gravitational peers.Jay, that's irritating. I did three+ body orbitals at Columbia back in 1969, using the mainframe. It's hard to believe that, with all the new computing power we've obtained since then, such a simple equation could soak up so much current computing time.

Or is it a case where the accuracy of the parameters/results has tightened?

:think:

JayUtah
2007-Mar-20, 01:51 PM
The accuracy has tightened, the perturbations are more important, and the orbits are becoming more complex and daring. The long runs are mostly for Kuiper Belt objects -- there was a paper presented in about 2002 or 2003 in Baltimore that described a new parallel-processing algorithm for it.

publius
2007-Mar-20, 09:33 PM
Jay, that's irritating. I did three+ body orbitals at Columbia back in 1969, using the mainframe. It's hard to believe that, with all the new computing power we've obtained since then, such a simple equation could soak up so much current computing time.

Or is it a case where the accuracy of the parameters/results has tightened?

:think:

That is just Newton. Do it with GR, and whooo boy. Well, there's no need for GR for most of this stuff, thankfully. GR is notorious for stretching numerical techiques to the breaking point. Look at some of the recent strong field simulation of neutron star and black hole mergers and your jaw will drop.

-Richard

mike alexander
2007-Mar-21, 12:16 AM
BenGun wrote:


nice animation but is this real? I noticed that the object (named Joo23) in the animation did not come from Earth but from outer space. Now, I won't claim that this is an UFO, but it be interesting to learn why the object zig-zagged around whereas moon remained on its way.

By the way, I like your signature.

I may have missed something here, but you seemed to be asking why the moon affected the path of the object but not vice versa.

The answer is that the mass of the moon is so huge that the tiny tug the object gives it is completely unnoticeable, just as all the satellites going round the earth don't affect its path in any detectable way.

Irishman
2007-Mar-21, 06:59 PM
BenGun said:
Thanks Publius,
nice animation but is this real? I noticed that the object (named Joo23) in the animation did not come from Earth but from outer space. Now, I won't claim that this is an UFO, but it be interesting to learn why the object zig-zagged around whereas moon remained on its way.

mike alexander answers the question. The animation distorts the scale of the objects to each other. Object J0023 is tiny compared to the Earth and Moon. Note that the Moon dot actually appears larger than the Earth dot - not very scale accurate there, either.

If you're standing on a bathroom scale and a fly lands on you, you will not register a blip on the scale.


JayUtah said:
I'm not sure the moon was of major influence to the orbits seen in that animation. Didn't it slingshot back out of earth orbit due to the orientation of the final ellipse?

I don't believe so. The object was in a somewhat metastable orbit around Earth, albeit highly precessional. It seemed indeed to be shallowing, and that was probably due to solar perturbance. I doubt such an orbit would have become any more stable, nor remained Earth-centered for more than a month. But things really happened when it made the close pass at the Moon, so my money's on its having been tossed out of Earth orbit by the Moon.

It is difficult to perceive differences in motion caused purely by the Moon rather than by the Earth/Moon pair. I try looking for changes in speed or direction specifically when the Moon is closer compared to the Earth. Anything that upsets the smooth curve motion of a regular ellipse.

To my eye, the first ellipse is very egg-shaped and smooth, with the highest loop (I forget apogee and perigee). The second ellipse is a bit fatter and lower, the third is higher again almost matching the first ellipse. The third is also lopsided. The fourth is lower, the fifth still lower, and the sixth even lower. At the end of the sixth ellipse, the object approaches the Moon in it's path, and it turns and passes between the Earth and Moon and ejects from the system. To my eye, the speed is also enhanced by that approach, though that could be a trick because of the inherent Kepler Law speed increase on close approach to the Earth/Moon. However, the curve change seems significant to me. To my eye, the reason the object ejects is because of the momentum slingshot from close chase of the Moon. Otherwise, I would expect the pattern of precessing declining ellipses to have continued. IANA Orbital Mechanic -YMMV.

publiusr
2007-Apr-27, 09:30 PM
I would guess he is talking about the S-IVB-507 of Apollo 12.
PhantomWolf talked about it in this post:
http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=948434&postcount=52


It'd be nice if it could be used for cycler assembly at some point.

cjl
2007-Apr-28, 01:06 AM
The lunar proximity looks critical to the orbit in several ways. The final ejection especially - it appears to have come around just behind the moon, and caught a slingshot effect that catapulted it out of the system.

mugaliens
2007-Apr-29, 09:24 PM
I think the underlying fact here is the validity of the missions. It's clear we propelled and recovered astronauts to and from a gravity well that's six times stronger than that of the Moon. Why is it, then, that so many people find it impossible to believe that we were somehow unable to go the last 17% of the way, or that we weren't able to be in space so long when just a couple years later both ourselves and the Russians set space longevity records many times that of what was required for the Apollo missions?

Some people need to have their heads examined because, apparently, facts are unable to pass beyond the barriers of either their eyes or their ears.

Grashtel
2007-Apr-29, 09:43 PM
Some people need to have their heads examined because, apparently, facts are unable to pass beyond the barriers of either their eyes or their ears.
Too true, and not just Apollo Hoax believers either unfortunately.

cudachaser
2007-Apr-29, 10:15 PM
I worked for NASA for 32 years. I can dispel the myth that we didn't go to the moon. I witnessed the behemoth Saturn V rockets lift off, knew many of the astronauts and was quite familiar with the flight plans.

Creating this event in Hollywood is a farce

BTW...the filming of Tora Tora Tora cost something on the order of 25X the cost of the actual invasion

SpitfireIX
2007-Apr-30, 01:30 AM
BTW...the filming of Tora Tora Tora cost something on the order of 25X the cost of the actual invasion

The Japanese didn't invade Pearl Harbor; they merely attacked military installations with carrier-based aircraft. Your point is interesting; however, I'm not certain the comparison is completely valid.

andreaandrea
2007-May-13, 01:14 PM
Which one was really a process of elimination. 13-17's were all impacted into the lunar surface, so that left 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12's. 8, 9, 10 and 11's all entered good and stable solar orbits so it was determined that these were unlikely. ... the stage was meant to move away from the Stack, then initiate two burns which would take it into Solar orbit, as 8, 9, 10 and 11's all had.
Hello friens, I'm new in the Forum.
I'm found of Apollo 11 Mission, and in Celerstia community http://shatters.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11011&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 I'm in a three member team working to make a 3D Apollo 11 absolutely real flight reconstruction.
For this we need to know what exactly happened to the Apollo 11 Saturn S-IVB third stage.
From the quoted script it looks that it was sent in solar orbit, but I have not yet found a document affirming it (pay attention, I found it in the flight check list, but not in AFTER flight documents, so I have still some doubt on what really happened. :confused:
Someone can address me to an official document that could eliminate any doubt?
Thanks a lot, appreciated.
Bye

Andrea :)