PDA

View Full Version : The Moon Landing Hoax show is definitely over



solomarineris
2009-Jul-31, 02:34 PM
I had this little nagging doubt, for which I was viciously attacked, (which is fine, I wouldn't take any doubts away if I could then).
The pictures of artifacts, Rover tracks we left behind is unmistakable, it is as factual as it gets.
Personally my doubts (5%) were justified, when I heard hair-rising, close calls in every Moon voyage courageous astronauts attempted, delivered.
I don't believe in luck, prayer or anything extraordinary, beyond human capability but this whole Apollo Moon project was riddled with good luck after good luck, (I am grateful for it).
In today's strict NASA standards, Apollo program would never allowed to take shape. Personally I am glad that we didn't have those checks/balances otherwise we'd never land the Moon.
Over the weekend I went to Space Center (one of the perks I have living in Houston), it is like a kindergarten there, fun for the kids, they do a great job appealing to future generations but artifacts were the reason why I visited; spacesuits, moonrocks. A15 Command Module was something to see; all those burned marks seemed fresh.
But nothing prepares you to digest Saturn5 image, it is beyond anything I could visualize, Ive seen before her restoration. She is as beautiful as any Spaceship I've seen in Sci-Fi fantasy movies or TV. If you go there hoping to see pictures, you need a fisheye lens to get whole spaceship, even then, no lens does adequate job IMHO, I'm sure professional photographers can do a better job than me;
http://www.flickr.com/photos/75285265@N00/?find=quinlansolo%40sbcglobal.net
If you enthusiasts haven't seen her, you won't know what you are missing.

ginnie
2009-Jul-31, 02:47 PM
beyond human capability but this whole Apollo Moon project was riddled with good luck after good luck, (I am grateful for it).
Do you have some good examples of this?

Swift
2009-Jul-31, 03:02 PM
I don't believe in luck, prayer or anything extraordinary, beyond human capability but this whole Apollo Moon project was riddled with good luck after good luck, (I am grateful for it).

I suspect that the astronauts of Apollo 1 and Apollo 13 would not agree with that statement.

But, if I understand correctly, you now completely believe that the landings were not hoaxed. Good for you.

KaiYeves
2009-Jul-31, 03:27 PM
Yes, I agree that everyone should have the experience of seeing a Saturn V.

solomarineris
2009-Jul-31, 05:27 PM
Do you have some good examples of this?
Yes I do;
1# If you went to NASA today with the same Apollo Mission print in your hand & time frame they would look at you like a lunatic.
2# Apollo 11 developed a hydrogen leak day before, imagine what a spark could do.
3#Somebody even circulated a memo warning them the ejection module would never work because 2 seconds would not be enough to get Astro's out of harms way. An explosion would devour whole thing in less than a second
4# Some guys were working 20+ hours every day, imagine the burn-out
5# Computers were amazingly primitive, Mission Control had mainframes laid all over the place, most of them were useless and the ones worked would not equal to a laptops intelligence.
6#Sapacecraft itself had computer intelligence less equal to Casio wristwatch I am wearing today. Can you imagine playing an Atari 800 game on it? The car I am driving daily basis has manyfolds more computing power.

But they did it, what a feat to accomplish. Do I care what kinda limitations they had, it looks even more fantastic
I got this information
Skeptics Guide #209 - Jul 22 2009 podcast Most of these guys are physicians, they had numerous interviews with Phil Plait. Just do your independent research.

To me nothing diminishes, takes away what they have accomplished.
It is the greatest human story, perhaps equaled by Columbus' voyage to discovering of Americas.

solomarineris
2009-Jul-31, 05:33 PM
I suspect that the astronauts of Apollo 1 and Apollo 13 would not agree with that statement.
But, if I understand correctly, you now completely believe that the landings were not hoaxed. Good for you.
Comeon, swift, cut me some slack. I don't go to bed with these conspiratorial stories, this whole mission was too perfect, too good with the exception of #13, even then we didn't lose those guys. It was as good ending as any Star Trek Movie.

Orbital pictures were great, if any of you guys come across bizarre explanations of hoaxers let me know. It would be entertaining to raed.

tofu
2009-Jul-31, 05:49 PM
1# If you went to NASA today with the same Apollo Mission print in your hand & time frame they would look at you like a lunatic.

On the other hand, if you went to NASA today with the same mission plan, and you had a check to pay for it, I think they would deliver.


6#Sapacecraft itself had computer intelligence less equal to Casio wristwatch I am wearing today. Can you imagine playing an Atari 800 game on it? The car I am driving daily basis has manyfolds more computing power.

Yeah, I hear that a lot, but I have a graduate degree in the field and I don't have the same reaction to descriptions of the computers or the tasks they performed. I mean, ginnie ask you to provide examples of luck, and I just don't think that using the computers they used constitutes luck.

Swift
2009-Jul-31, 05:50 PM
Comeon, swift, cut me some slack.
OK, now I'm confused as to what you are saying / claiming.

What do you mean by "The Moon landing hoax show is definitely over"? Are you claiming there is no proof of a hoax, or are you claiming it was so perfect that it proves it was a hoax? I am genuinely confused.

NEOWatcher
2009-Jul-31, 06:19 PM
Yes I do;
Of course, by todays standards some of those things are inconceivable only because we have learned to live with the better technology.
1# If you went to NASA today with the same Apollo Mission print in your hand & time frame they would look at you like a lunatic.
Yes; they would. But back then, they risk was a lot more acceptable, not only for the sake of the program, but general attitudes in general. Just think of the OSHA regulations that has arisen since then.
Heck, just about everyone smoked then (said in a light tone).

2# Apollo 11 developed a hydrogen leak day before, imagine what a spark could do.
Those happen today...Although, for A-11, it was a unique fix (just freeze some water to the leak).
3#Somebody even circulated a memo warning them the ejection module would never work because 2 seconds would not be enough to get Astro's out of harms way. An explosion would devour whole thing in less than a second
It seems as though I heard a modern version of that lately :whistle:

4# Some guys were working 20+ hours every day, imagine the burn-out
Yes; that one is impressive. Although; they were all young and probably working with a high adrenalin level.

5# Computers were amazingly primitive, Mission Control had mainframes laid all over the place, most of them were useless and the ones worked would not equal to a laptops intelligence.
They didn't have to do much. Some monitoring, some recording. No GUI interface, no graphics. Just a few calculations. You'd be surprised what a simple little computer can do.

6#Sapacecraft itself had computer intelligence less equal to Casio wristwatch I am wearing today. Can you imagine playing an Atari 800 game on it? The car I am driving daily basis has manyfolds more computing power.
Same as 5, but a Model-T was driven daily without any kind of computer power. Heck; It probably ran with no power at all as long as you got something from the generator to the coil.


To me nothing diminishes, takes away what they have accomplished.
Yes; Even though I picked on your statements, it doesn't mean that it's any less amazing.

Larry Jacks
2009-Jul-31, 06:21 PM
Senaca said that “Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.” That is applicable to Apollo.

There were glitches on every one of those moon flights. Instead of luck, they had good people on board the spacecraft and on the ground who trained hard and worked hard to overcome the problems. They took huge risks - ones I doubt NASA has the guts to accept today - and achieved great things.

Larry Jacks
2009-Jul-31, 06:28 PM
5# Computers were amazingly primitive, Mission Control had mainframes laid all over the place, most of them were useless and the ones worked would not equal to a laptops intelligence.
6#Sapacecraft itself had computer intelligence less equal to Casio wristwatch I am wearing today. Can you imagine playing an Atari 800 game on it? The car I am driving daily basis has manyfolds more computing power.

Most of the critical computations were conducted ahead of time on the ground, not in real-time. They had weeks or even months to get those calculations right. Those computers, while primitive by today's standards, were state of the art back then. There's also another factor to consider - instead of depending on raw computer power to accomplish tasks, the engineers and astronauts used a lot of gray matter. For example, the computers on board the Apollo spacecraft had a user interface that's horrible by today's standards but the astronauts did enough training that they were able to operate them efficiently. As for the mission control computers, the biggest thing most of them were doing during a mission were decommutating the telemetry screen and displaying the data as well as performing some more of less real-time navigation checks. That doesn't require a lot of computer power.

Glom
2009-Jul-31, 06:33 PM
They didn't have to do much. Some monitoring, some recording. No GUI interface, no graphics. Just a few calculations. You'd be surprised what a simple little computer can do.

That is something I can appreciate. When I have written programmes, getting them to do calculations are the easy bit (like when I used to play with rocket launches or orbital mechanics). The hard bit was making the programmes look good.

Glom
2009-Jul-31, 06:37 PM
I suspect that the astronauts of Apollo 1 and Apollo 13 would not agree with that statement.

I'm sure Apollo 12 would have considered its luck what with getting struck by lightning on launch too. I bet the crew of Apollo 14 couldn't believe their luck getting lumbered with the rubbish MET that they ended up having to carry all the way to not quite Cone Crater.

NEOWatcher
2009-Jul-31, 06:43 PM
Even the word "luck" can be thrown around too easily.

Consider the phrase "It's lucky that I knew that."

Is that really luck, or a product of related knowledge.

I can think of two of those where the knowledge was "little known".
1) what's a 1202 alarm?
2) On From the Earth to the Moon they depicted (I think Bean) an astronaut "luckily" realizing the needed switch was above his head.

LaurelHS
2009-Jul-31, 07:04 PM
Even the word "luck" can be thrown around too easily.

Consider the phrase "It's lucky that I knew that."

Is that really luck, or a product of related knowledge.

I can think of two of those where the knowledge was "little known".
1) what's a 1202 alarm?
2) On From the Earth to the Moon they depicted (I think Bean) an astronaut "luckily" realizing the needed switch was above his head.

With the 1201 and 1202 alarms, you could say it was 'lucky' that Steve Bales had been through a simulation on July 5 in which the landing was erroneously aborted because of a computer program alarm, so he studied carefully to make sure he knew which alarms required an abort and which didn't. (Chapter 15 of Failure Is Not An Option).

Yes, Alan Bean was the one who knew what "SCE to Aux" meant and this is portrayed in From The Earth To The Moon; I was just watching that episode last week. :) Of course, this was right after EECOM John Aaron 'luckily' remembered the command from a simulation that took place months before.

Dave J
2009-Jul-31, 07:04 PM
Even the word "luck" can be thrown around too easily.

2) On From the Earth to the Moon they depicted (I think Bean) an astronaut "luckily" realizing the needed switch was above his head.

...and the ground controller that remembered the "SCE to AUX" switch throw from one of hundreds of sim runs...

Gawdzilla
2009-Jul-31, 07:11 PM
Comeon, swift, cut me some slack. I don't go to bed with these conspiratorial stories, this whole mission was too perfect, too good with the exception of #13, even then we didn't lose those guys. It was as good ending as any Star Trek Movie.

I got a very good piece of advice once, "Just because you can't do it does mean it can't be done."

R.A.F.
2009-Jul-31, 07:25 PM
...cut me some slack.

Post rationally and that will come...


I had this little nagging doubt, for which I was viciously attacked...

"Viciously"?...I think not...


Personally my doubts (5%) were justified...

No...those "doubts" were not justified.

JayUtah
2009-Jul-31, 08:09 PM
...

1# If you went to NASA today with the same Apollo Mission print in your hand & time frame they would look at you like a lunatic.

Supposition. In fact NASA is very proud of Apollo. The aerospace engineering community looks at Apollo as their best work and their finest hour. Much of the work being done today to return to the Moon is looking at the Apollo machinery. For example, my friend works on the team designing the new LES. Guess whose LES they're using as an example?

2# Apollo 11 developed a hydrogen leak day before, imagine what a spark could do.

First, a hydrogen leak is not nearly as dangerous as people imagine. Hydrogen disperses relatively rapidly. It's only dangerous when enclosed and allowed to accumulate.

Second, hydrogen safety protocols are not confined to preventing leaks. In fact, hydrogen being such a small molecule and therefore difficult to seal in, leaks are inevitable. Thus hydrogen safety assumes that leaks will develop. Hydrogen safety is a multi-pronged approach with many redundancies, therefore pointing to a failure of one prong does not immediately signal an unforeseen or especially dangerous condition.

3#Somebody even circulated a memo warning them the ejection module would never work...

And ejection seats sometimes don't save the lives of pilots either, nor airbags the lives of drivers. To misrepresent the risk would be dishonest. However, not to provide some chance of a means of escape, if it were at all possible, would be immoral. In the tragic case of a booster explosion, maximizing the crew's survival potential is a legitimate engineering goal, even if it cannot be extended to 100 percent.

4# Some guys were working 20+ hours every day, imagine the burn-out

That's a legitimate point. Our understanding of the interpersonal and social cost of Apollo was very late in coming. Crash projects are not new to the aerospace industry, but Apollo was a lengthy one.

5# Computers were amazingly primitive...

Irrelevant. Just because we rely on computers more and more these days doesn't mean it was impossible to build spacecraft before them. Modern plastics make medical surgery highly advanced. Yet complex scientific surgery was performed a hundred years before synthetic plastics.

Yes, it would be impossible to build spacecraft the way we do today, using computers from the 1960s. But in the 1960s they built spacecraft using different methods that didn't require extensive computing power.

6#Sapacecraft itself had computer intelligence less equal to Casio wristwatch I am wearing today.

Irrelevant. The computer was assigned no more work than it could perform. Your statement is common among those who don't understand why and how we use computers. There was a time before computers, and there was a time when computers were comparatively slow and stupid. 50 years from now computers will be faster, smaller, and more capable. Does that mean it's valid for those people to question everything we did in 2009?

Showing that technology advances over time is not tantamount to proving that a certain historical achievement is questionable or fortuitous.

ginnie
2009-Jul-31, 08:11 PM
1# If you went to NASA today with the same Apollo Mission print in your hand & time frame they would look at you like a lunatic.
I don't know how you can compare the state of the world in the sixties to that of today. The cold war and the relations between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. had a lot to do with the development of the Apollo program.

2# Apollo 11 developed a hydrogen leak day before, imagine what a spark could do.
Are you saying its "lucky" that there wasn't a spark? May it was "unlucky" that there was a hydrogen leak?

3#Somebody even circulated a memo warning them the ejection module would never work because 2 seconds would not be enough to get Astro's out of harms way. An explosion would devour whole thing in less than a second
Details on this? An explosion where? Maybe under certain circumstances the launch escape system would not be effective - but you NASA still tried to do the best they could, and were much more careful than the Soviets were.
4# Some guys were working 20+ hours every day, imagine the burn-out
Maybe so, but was that really every day? And what were they doing? Doctors routinely have long days like that.

5# Computers were amazingly primitive, Mission Control had mainframes laid all over the place, most of them were useless and the ones worked would not equal to a laptops intelligence.
A computer only needs to do you need it to do.

6#Sapacecraft itself had computer intelligence less equal to Casio wristwatch I am wearing today. Can you imagine playing an Atari 800 game on it? The car I am driving daily basis has manyfolds more computing power.
Why would the astronauts be playing Atari computer games? The Apollo Guidance Computer for instance, wasn't meant to play an Atari game.
And todays programs are extremely bloated because memory is cheap and everyone wants all the bells and whistles - even unnecessary ones...

ginnie
2009-Jul-31, 08:15 PM
Showing that technology advances over time is not tantamount to proving that a certain historical achievement is questionable or fortuitous.
Here is a great example - the map on the left was charted by James Cook in 1775 without a computer - the map on the right is from Google, using satellite imagery.
http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb184/ginniegatrit/nfld.jpg

Gawdzilla
2009-Jul-31, 08:24 PM
3#Somebody even circulated a memo warning them the ejection module would never work because 2 seconds would not be enough to get Astro's out of harms way. An explosion would devour whole thing in less than a second

I wonder if "somebody" knew what they were talking about? I checked to see if "somebody" worked at NASA, and yep, there is definitely "somebody" working there. So I guess "somebody" is right. Or something.

Glom
2009-Jul-31, 08:25 PM
And todays programs are extremely bloated because memory is cheap and everyone wants all the bells and whistles - even unnecessary ones...

Yeah. I bet the AGC had to make do without list validations in its spreadsheets. I don't know how the astronauts coped, but then that's what their training was for.

JayUtah
2009-Jul-31, 08:28 PM
...

Is that really luck, or a product of related knowledge.

Fortune favors the prepared.

1) what's a 1202 alarm?

When the 1202 program alarm was telemetered and reported subsequently by Aldrin, Steven Bales' voice can be clearly heard over the controller's loop: "That's the same thing we had." He's referring to a simulator run that had occurred only a few days prior to launch in which he had been thrown a 1202 alarm and had wrongly decided to call an abort.

In this case, Bales knew what to do, knew that he knew what to do, and made the right decision. Subsequent analysis of that and the related 1201 program alarm completely justified Bales' call to continue the landing. One alarm described a condition in which the real-time execution loop could not complete its list of assigned duties fast enough. The other alarm described an inability to assign a block of erasable storage to a program segment. In each case, the affected programs were low-priority programs that could afford not to be run, and the crew and controllers almost immediately diagnosed what was causing the overload result and determined not to enter into those conditions.

2) On From the Earth to the Moon they depicted (I think Bean) an astronaut "luckily" realizing the needed switch was above his head.

Already covered.

These items both illustrate that careful preparation improves the chance of mission success. Training the crew to perform complex tasks, understand the behavior of the machinery, and think adaptively is no different than engineering a fail-safe or redundant system. Both techniques deterministically and intentionally improve the overall ability of the system to cope with unexpected circumstances and avoid disaster.

NGCHunter
2009-Jul-31, 08:35 PM
3#Somebody even circulated a memo warning them the ejection module would never work...

And ejection seats sometimes don't save the lives of pilots either, nor airbags the lives of drivers. To misrepresent the risk would be dishonest. However, not to provide some chance of a means of escape, if it were at all possible, would be immoral. In the tragic case of a booster explosion, maximizing the crew's survival potential is a legitimate engineering goal, even if it cannot be extended to 100 percent.

Well said, but I'd like to add to that the simple fact that not all booster failures involve "rapid unscheduled disassembly." For example, one or more engine failures early in the ascent would be deadly without the launch escape tower system. Another example would be a pad emergency where there's not enough time to extract the crew through the normal means.

Van Rijn
2009-Jul-31, 08:47 PM
6#Sapacecraft itself had computer intelligence less equal to Casio wristwatch I am wearing today. Can you imagine playing an Atari 800 game on it? The car I am driving daily basis has manyfolds more computing power.


I've programmed computers substantially less powerful than the AGC. For some embedded applications, microcontrollers with less RAM, ROM and speed are still being used. It really depends on the application.

By the way, the Atari 800 was an early example of a home computer with coprocessors to take some of the graphics and sound processing load off the 6502 CPU. The point is that it was designed for these things, since it was important for its market and use. The AGC didn't need fancy graphics or sounds, so it wasn't designed to do these things.

slang
2009-Jul-31, 09:13 PM
I suspect that the astronauts of [...] Apollo 13 would not agree with that statement.

Heh, reread Robinson Crusoe.. lamenting his bad luck to be marooned on an island, later realizing how lucky he is, despite all hardship, to still be alive, he alone of his crew. It's all a matter of perspective, isn't it? Bad things happen, all we can do is try our best to prevent them.

Donnie B.
2009-Jul-31, 09:22 PM
Yeah. I bet the AGC had to make do without list validations in its spreadsheets. I don't know how the astronauts coped, but then that's what their training was for.
No animated GIFs, either... just static icons ;)

Glom
2009-Jul-31, 09:41 PM
No animated GIFs, either... just static icons ;)

I bet The Big Bang Theory being played in the background could only be in standard definition as well.

cjameshuff
2009-Jul-31, 11:31 PM
I've programmed computers substantially less powerful than the AGC. For some embedded applications, microcontrollers with less RAM, ROM and speed are still being used. It really depends on the application.

Several actually don't have any RAM, just a handful of working registers. It's common in the 8-bit world to only have a few hundred bytes of RAM, and quite often a program will fill several kilobytes of flash or ROM without being limited by that. Resource requirements are very, very different for embedded control systems.

You can accomplish a lot with less than a kilobyte of code and a handful of state...and since much of that is often setup, the second kilobyte counts even more. I've got an ATMega32 on my desk right now, 32 KB flash and 2048 bytes RAM...this is fairly large for an 8-bit microcontroller, I picked it so I wouldn't have to worry about RAM or code space while tinkering, not for a mass-produced product. The AGC had 36K words of ROM and 2K words of RAM, 15 data bits and a parity bit each...roughly double the program and data memory. It was certainly slower, but you could pack a lot of functionality into that space, and it didn't need a lot of speed to do the things it was used for. (Most of the time. It did get a bit overworked during landing when that rendezvous radar wasn't turned off, but it handled that gracefully.)

Larry Jacks
2009-Jul-31, 11:56 PM
The DSCS-III satellites that I used to control had a radiation hardened version of the PDP-11 processor with 2K of RAM. That was sufficient to control the satellite's attitude, all of the automatic functions like momentum wheel unloads, and the beam forming networks for the 2 multibeam transmitter and 1 multibeam receiver antenna arrays. There was enough RAM left over to implement a RAM-patch capability that allow programmers to develop workarounds for hardware and software problems. The first DSCS-III was launched in 1982, so it essentially used late 1970s technology. The last one was launched a year or two ago. They made a lot of upgrades to the satellite but for all I know, it still used the same computer setup. A good programmer can do a lot with a little RAM when pressed by operational needs.

solomarineris
2009-Aug-01, 02:27 AM
Swift
What do you mean by "The Moon landing hoax show is definitely over"?
I mean It is over for me to entertain any doubts in my mind, I meant as a personal affirmation, after seeing the pictures of Orbiter.

solomarineris
2009-Aug-01, 02:38 AM
Yes; Even though I picked on your statements, it doesn't mean that it's any less amazing.
I didn't take it other way, the points I was making entirely copied from various podcasts, scientists point of view.
I am just elated that we finally delivered coup de grāce, on hoax baloney.
My only regret is that I was too young to enjoy the whole process and the next landing adventure I'll have less than fifty/fifty chance to witness.
You mark my word; forty years ago we took one step, on next landing phase we will take ten steps to equal that one step, we will be more cautious and hesitant.

solomarineris
2009-Aug-01, 02:49 AM
On the other hand, if you went to NASA today with the same mission plan, and you had a check to pay for it, I think they would deliver.
I have to disagree you on that; no amount of money would entice NASA to take risks anymore.
OTOH if you'd give that check to Richard Branson types they'd fly you first thing.

Yeah, I hear that a lot, but I have a graduate degree in the field and I don't have the same reaction to descriptions of the computers or the tasks they performed. I mean, ginnie ask you to provide examples of luck, and I just don't think that using the computers they used constitutes luck.
As I've said I don't believe in luck, I am on computers over ten hours every day but if I know one tenth of what you know about programming I'd consider that as compliment.
Look at human history of achievements, we always created great feats with so less, this shouldn't surprise me but it does.
I mean look at our combative nature, an underdog ragtag team of American Hockey guys beats Russians. Achievement is in us, I wish we had set it free forty years ago.

solomarineris
2009-Aug-01, 05:15 AM
Here is a great example - the map on the left was charted by James Cook in 1775 without a computer - the map on the right is from Google, using satellite imagery.
http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb184/ginniegatrit/nfld.jpg

ginnie
This is a great example, it seems breathtakingly accurate.
There's another map, called Piri Reis map, from 14/15thC, which depicts South American Coastline with amazing accuracy.
How do you think they created these maps?

JayUtah
2009-Aug-01, 06:18 AM
Several actually don't have any RAM, just a handful of working registers.

As I've mentioned before, I had a college assignment to build a guidance system using only six words of erasable storage. It can be done.

KA9Q
2009-Aug-01, 12:53 PM
You can actually download and run a full-blown emulator of the Apollo Guidance Computer, running actual flight software (though they don't have a complete library of every single mission because some of it has been hard to find). Play with it a while and you begin to understand the key to how they were able to do so much with so little computing power: The user interface is crude beyond words to describe to today's average nontechnical computer user.

But the astronauts were anything but average nontechnical computer users. For years before a mission they'd rehearsed extremely detailed procedures for just about every eventuality. Although it wasn't actually required to fly a spacecraft, some of the astronauts knew as much about certain subsystems as the engineers who designed them.

For example, many important computer steps involved either displaying or writing the raw contents of certain computer memory locations. My favorite example occurs during the Apollo 11 landing. If you listen to Buzz Aldrin's chatter immediately after landing (when he says "Contact light!") you'll hear him say "413 is in". That referred to manually patching octal location 413 in the Abort Guidance Section computer memory with a value to tell it that the LM had landed.

Can you imagine a computer system -- especially one so obviously critical to safety of life -- requiring such arcane and error-prone actions of its users today? Of course not, and there'd be no reason to tolerate it. The AGS computer (which was even more primitive than the main computer) evidently lacked enough memory to hold a routine to determine automatically when the LM landed, so the designers kicked it up to the operator. They had no choice. Today we do.

The Apollo computers had precious few safeguards against operator error; in fact one of the things that really hit me when I first studied the CSM control panel was how easy it would have been to kill yourself by throwing the wrong switch (e.g., SM SEP) at the wrong time. You really, really had to know what you were doing, and that's why those guys trained constantly for years for functions that, if they were lucky, they'd never have to perform (like an abort). Today we expect control computers to be as autonomous as possible, to bother the human operator only when absolutely necessary, and especially to guard against operator mistakes that might have very serious consequences. That takes a LOT more to provide in the way of both hardware and software.

Glom
2009-Aug-01, 01:53 PM
in fact one of the things that really hit me when I first studied the CSM control panel was how easy it would have been to kill yourself by throwing the wrong switch (e.g., SM SEP) at the wrong time.

The SM SEP switch was guarded though so it shouldn't be accidentally triggered.

ginnie
2009-Aug-01, 03:26 PM
ginnie
This is a great example, it seems breathtakingly accurate.
There's another map, called Piri Reis map, from 14/15thC, which depicts South American Coastline with amazing accuracy.
How do you think they created these maps?

While the Piri Reis map is a beautiful map, its not as accurate as its reputation has made it out to be - you just need to look at the region from approximately the Carribean to where Newfoundland would be. Compare that with Waldseemullers map of 1507 which represents the Carribean much more accurately. Also the Piri Reis map is not the 14th/15 century but was compiled in 1513. Piri Reis compiled about 20 or more maps to create his. Indeed, some places are even duplicated. What most people take as being Antartica on the bottom of the map is actually the southern tip of South America, unless possibly Antartica is hot and inhabited by snakes!

I think its funny that I find web sites calling it a 15th century map while acknowledging that it is dated 919 A.H. (in the Islamic calendar), which corresponds to 1513 AD - on the map itself. That makes it 16th century...

Another beautiful world map in the Cantino world chart from 1502, which again is more accurate in places than the Piri Reis map.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/CantinoPlanisphere.png

One of the most controversial maps is the Vinland map.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinland_map
Whether it is a forgery or not, I don't know. But being from Newfoundland myself, I would like to think it is authentic but that's just wishful thinking on my part. The map is so crude as to be of no use to any navigator.

solomarineris
2009-Aug-01, 04:39 PM
ginnie;1542038]While the Piri Reis map is a beautiful map, its not as accurate as its reputation has made it out to be - you just need to look at the region from approximately the Carribean to where Newfoundland would be. Compare that with Waldseemullers map of 1507 which represents the Carribean much more accurately. Also the Piri Reis map is not the 14th/15 century but was compiled in 1513. Piri Reis compiled about 20 or more maps to create his. Indeed, some places are even duplicated. What most people take as being Antartica on the bottom of the map is actually the southern tip of South America, unless possibly Antartica is hot and inhabited by snakes!

ginnie
Thanks, great maps.
I do have a basic question to you.
How could they be so precise without the aid of an aerial shot? What guided them to draw coastlines so good?
What is your opinion?

solomarineris
2009-Aug-01, 04:43 PM
R.A.F.;1541589]Post rationally and that will come...
I like my rationality the way it is
"Viciously"?...I think not...
Why else one moderator would ban me if somebody wasn't vicious.
It could me too.
No...those "doubts" were not justified.
My doubts are mine, I wouldn't leave the house without them. They served me well. I wouldn't change a thing about it.
You are entitled to your opinion.

captain swoop
2009-Aug-01, 04:48 PM
I do have a basic question to you.
How could they be so precise without the aid of an aerial shot? What guided them to draw coastlines so good?
What is your opinion?


triangulation. How do you think any map was drawn before aerial photography? Admiralty Charts have been very accurate for a few centuries.
All over the uk there are 'Trig Points' (http://www.jeremyp.net/trigpoint/index.php)a trig point is a concrete post set on a high point such as a hill with a metal disc inset in the top which you can put your theodolite in. The trig point is at an accurately surveyed and documented position so you can survey relative to one or more trig points.

ginnie
2009-Aug-01, 05:13 PM
ginnie;1542038]While the Piri Reis map is a beautiful map, its not as accurate as its reputation has made it out to be - you just need to look at the region from approximately the Carribean to where Newfoundland would be. Compare that with Waldseemullers map of 1507 which represents the Carribean much more accurately. Also the Piri Reis map is not the 14th/15 century but was compiled in 1513. Piri Reis compiled about 20 or more maps to create his. Indeed, some places are even duplicated. What most people take as being Antartica on the bottom of the map is actually the southern tip of South America, unless possibly Antartica is hot and inhabited by snakes!

ginnie
Thanks, great maps.
I do have a basic question to you.
How could they be so precise without the aid of an aerial shot? What guided them to draw coastlines so good?
What is your opinion?
I'd have to do research on that, but if you examine a lot of older maps some are accurate and some are wildly inaccurate. For example, Southern California was often depicted as an island for many years and of course, it isn't.
This is the John Speed map of the Americas form 1627. It was the first map to show California as an island. For a few years after that many other cartographers displayed California that way - there was much copying done then.
https://www.raremaps.com/maps/medium/7318.jpg

If you look at maps throughout the ages, you can see that as knowledge spread and the world was explored more maps did get better. James Cook's map are extremely accurate, but of course he spent many years travelling the seas to chart them.

solomarineris
2009-Aug-01, 05:43 PM
triangulation. How do you think any map was drawn before aerial photography? Admiralty Charts have been very accurate for a few centuries.
All over the uk there are 'Trig Points' (http://www.jeremyp.net/trigpoint/index.php)a trig point is a concrete post set on a high point such as a hill with a metal disc inset in the top which you can put your theodolite in. The trig point is at an accurately surveyed and documented position so you can survey relative to one or more trig points.

I know next to nothing about triangulation (I will study it).
Is this how Europeans undertook those harsh trips to Andes and Peru in 17 or 18th Century to measure Earths circumference?

Gawdzilla
2009-Aug-01, 05:52 PM
triangulation. How do you think any map was drawn before aerial photography? Admiralty Charts have been very accurate for a few centuries.
All over the uk there are 'Trig Points' (http://www.jeremyp.net/trigpoint/index.php)a trig point is a concrete post set on a high point such as a hill with a metal disc inset in the top which you can put your theodolite in. The trig point is at an accurately surveyed and documented position so you can survey relative to one or more trig points.

Concur. I have a report from a survey team working on charting Chesapeake Bay, that describes the techniques in all too great a deal. :sad: (URL on request.)

solomarineris
2009-Aug-01, 05:56 PM
Concur. I have a report from a survey team working on charting Chesapeake Bay, that describes the techniques in all too great a deal. :sad: (URL on request.)

Could you please post the URL
Thanks.

Gawdzilla
2009-Aug-01, 08:59 PM
Could you please post the URL
Thanks.

Secretary of the Navy Annual Report for 1834. (http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/USN/1834/AnnRpt1834.html) Search for "Q." to go straight to the material in question.

JonClarke
2009-Aug-01, 11:24 PM
triangulation. How do you think any map was drawn before aerial photography? Admiralty Charts have been very accurate for a few centuries.
All over the uk there are 'Trig Points' (http://www.jeremyp.net/trigpoint/index.php)a trig point is a concrete post set on a high point such as a hill with a metal disc inset in the top which you can put your theodolite in. The trig point is at an accurately surveyed and documented position so you can survey relative to one or more trig points.

Cook was a brilliant hydrographer at the start of the tranformation of cartography from a rule of thumb business into science. He used triangulation with a plane table, astronomical fixes from shore stations, piano wires to establish accurate distances for baselines, later these were suplemented the chronometer. These technolgies had an impact in their day as great as GPS in ours.

Jon

Swift
2009-Aug-02, 03:18 AM
I've moved the Chariots of the Gods stuff to its own thread in Life in Space. If this is going to turn into a big cartography discussion, we should move that elsewhere too

solomarineris
2009-Aug-02, 04:24 AM
I've moved the Chariots of the Gods stuff to its own thread in Life in Space. If this is going to turn into a big cartography discussion, we should move that elsewhere too
I think I'm fine with the information. Great input as always
Thanks