Based on what your saying about the navigation problems we had no worries about ICBM's of that era, actually strikng their targets since the same navigation was used for reentry. The basics of navigation was in place long before man ever made the dream of fight a reality. The day man could determine the path of the stars in the heavens in advance, we had the basics in place

There's a grassy knoll on the moon?

That explains where Alan Sheppard's golfball went(into the rough).

The requirements for the manned mission to the moon are still an order of difficulty greater than the those carried out today either by the US, Soviet Union or the European Space Agency. The complexity of the maneuvers each space vehicle CSM and LEM had to perform would even task the control systems engineer today even with all the computational power available along with a much improved understanding of the software requirements and software tools available. As I described in the previous post, the failure of the Apollo project was due to the limitations of the 1960s technology. Digital Control systems theory for sampled embedded digital controllers were not sufficiently advanced at the time. This is evident in the recently released scientific Apollo papers published at the link on my previous post. During the 1960's computer technology improved exponentially with computers being developed by Eliot Automation for the British Aerospace Corporation TSR2 (1964-65) project being technology far in advance of the Apollo AGC. The Apollo computer specification was born out of the technology five years earlier. They were stuck with this computer because it was embedded completely into the Apollo system. By 1967-69 even commercially available PDPs were more computationally powerful. By the 1974 the HP65 hand held calculators were approaching the computational power of the Apollo AGC. The planetary space probes you mention which have successfully landing on mars etc were not manned, they did not have to return, they did not use star navigation because they did not have to return, they did not require a human life support system, they were designed in the 1970s, their trajectories were essentially ballistic because the Centre of Gravity is easier to define and a lot of them failed. All successful manned space vehicles have operated only in a ballistic Low Earth Orbit below the Van Allen radiation belt.

The comparison between the Concorde Project and the Apollo project was to show that highly complex projects take many years of in flight development testing working systems and finding where the maximums of the flight envelope are. The Apollo project was an order of magnitude more complex but apparently worked first time i.e. 5 million components worked in harmony first time. This has a very low order of engineering probability. Its a bit like building your own computer from the dozen or so parts i.e. motherboard, PSU etc then switching it on and viola, we have lift off!! We must also remember this is before the days of finite element analysis and engineering computer modeling. We must also remember that 5 contractors worked on the major sub assemblies. Even the management of the document control would have been a complete nightmare. This is why the engineers who turned up the voltage on the Apollo AGC probably did not know this would cause a disaster in a pure oxygen environment. I suspect the time constraints on the whole project (political pressure to beat the damned Russians to the moon before the end of the decade), the inevitable screw ups, poor communication between the contractors would have made the whole Apollo project unworkable.

The only aircraft I know off which could intercept a Concorde would be an English Electric (BAC) Lightning (1960s). The pilot of the SR-71 would still be sitting on the ground waiting for the refrigerator connected his space suit to kick in while the ground crew top up the fuel which had leaked out overnight. Official Secret - BAC Lightning versus Locheed SR71 race over the Atlantic - SR71 lost. Something to do with the in flight refueling. The Lightning was being refueled at 65,000 feet by an RAF Victor Tanker, the SR71 was being forced to refuel at 38,000 by a USAF KC135. Guess that made all the difference. Concorde required no in flight refueling as the rock stars sipped champagne at Mach 2.05.



Sorry just found this picture - Superb

NASA could have at least left some stars in the moon landing pictures. But I guess some smart nerdy navigator who has some knowledge of star navigation would have been able to work out where the moon shot pictures were actually taken from. Somewhere just north of Las Vegas maybe!! The computer program Starry Night Beginner is very useful. It allows you to calculate all the star positions at the time and location of the Apollo landings on the moon, maybe NASA can put the stars back.

There any many more anomalies in the NASA photographs, Cross hairs appearing behind equipment in the foreground, incorrect shadow angles (again can be computed using Starry Night Beginner),diverging shadows indicating a close by lighting source not one 93 million miles away, multiple lighting sources, lack of moon dust on the LEM leg pads, lack of blast crater under the rocket motor of the LEM, Flags waving in the wind (but no atmosphere), etc, etc

Hope this helps.

I always seem to find peace in the wilderness. On the other hand one of the guys I work with LOVES to cite the dangers of the wild (and I suppose illuminate his bravery for exposing himself to them). He sees Nature as the Enemy. I don't. It's dangerous and deserves respect, but to hear him speak it's downright out to get us. It's good to be prepared and exercise caution. I don't see nature as something to "battle", however.

I'm not sure why so many people seem to love to focus on the danger.

Seriously, dude. Get help!


-Blast, who weeps for the future

I guess insofar as what is the fastest production aircraft, it depends on how you define fast. If you say that going from point a to point b in the shortest period of time is the fastest, then perhaps the SR-71, under the conditions you cited, did not get there as quickly as the Lightning. On the other hand, top speed would definitely go to the SR-71. I would say it is about twice as fast as the Lightning ever was, from a top velocity perspective. Unfortunately I cannot say what the top velocity for either craft is, because that is still classified.

Of course, the world record for maximum velocity of a production craft is, or at least was last time I looked, the Challenger, which clocked an impressive Mach 26 at altitude. That is unclassified.

I reckon the only way to convince a skeptic is to send them there and let them see for themselves. According to the mission logs, there was plenty of equipment left behind. Then again, if you went and discovered the truth, one way or another, there would be plenty of skeptics out there who would say you never went, that it is just another hoax.

That is a paradox.

This is too easy. No stars visible in the photos? That's because the camera speed is set fast. Cross hairs appearing behind equipment in the foreground? That's what happens when you photograph a white object using a black crosshair and overexpose it. Incorrect/diverging shadow angles? A matter of perspective. Shadow angles can look different at different distances. Lack of moon dust on the LEM leg pads? Not sure what you're getting at here. I'm sure there was plenty prior to dustoff (sorry about the pun). Lack of blast crater? That's because in a vacuum the blast effects are spread out much wider than in atmosphere. Flags waving in the wind (but no atmosphere)? There is no wind on the moon. The flag was mounted on a vertical pole and the top connected by a horizontal pole. When the astronaut moves it, it "waves".

You seem unaware that conditions are very different on the moon. Fortunately the NASA engineers were well aware of that fact. That allowed the USA to achieve the preeminent peacetime achievment of the 20th Century. May I suggest the following website:
Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy.
He is a physicist who cuts through the moon hoax nonsense with clear, easy to understand language.

The Concorde was a beautiful achievement, but I guess I'm just not as impressed with champaigne as you are. In a New York to Los Angeles race I'd take a stretch limo over a Top Fuel Dragster as well, but I'd never mistake the limo's rather pedestrian velocities for "performance". Same with the Concorde vs. the SR-71.

Re Norad - Mythical Creatures

Again thanks for the response but I think that we may be boring others on the forum but I am enjoying the debate.

The main reason I did not initially want to get into a debate about the NASA photographs is because of the Photoshop effect. The original source negatives are unavailable for scrutiny by independent examination. What we have to go on are the officially images posted on the website at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/ image library.

I have looked through all the carefully edited photographs and what is striking is the lack of information which would place the astronauts at the following landing site

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11.html
Landing site: Sea of Tranquility.
Landing Coordinates: 0.67409 degrees North, 23.47298 degrees East
(Source: National Space Science Data Center)

that is except for the possibility of the photo shown at

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903HR.jpg

see notes below from NASA website.

In addition to investigations of the intrinsic characteristics of the Spot, it is necessary to verify that geometric factors are all correct. A check of Starry Night shows that, at 0414 UT on 21 July 1969, Earth was 59.5 degrees above the western Tranquility horizon at an azimuth of 270.6. The sun was 14.3 degrees above eastern horizon at an azimuth of about 88.1 degrees. Consequently, an image of Earth, if any, would be near the line of Buzz's shadow at a place on the visor where a vertical tangent to the visor surface is tilted back about 30 degrees. A labeled detail from AS11-40-5875 ( 74k ) shows that this condition is met near the top of the visor.

The information in the notes is actually quite revealing. It confirms the starry night analysis I performed more than 2 years ago and now NASA it appears have accepted the Starry Night model. But of course this information is used to counter the argument put forward by conspiracy theory hoax believers (These people are generally regarded as sad lonely liberals who would believe anything, which would suit their own views of the world).

I have sampled enough of the officially released photographs and have performed the following analysis. Using Photoshop I have inverted the image to get back to a Negative state. I have then tried to detect any information in the photograph in the Blackened Sky (now completely white). Apart from one or two multi pixel anomalies (usually about 2-8 pixels in size) there is no data in the black sky. RGB gives 255,255,255 over the whole sky views for all the released photographs. I can only assume this data has been deliberately removed by NASA. This has ensured that no star referencing can be made which could be at odds to the Starry Night model. The stars were removed many years ago, a sudden re-appearance would cause too many problems today. Any photographer who has scanned old negatives knows that the main problem is noise, dirt and fading. There is no noise on black sky areas. As for Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy pages (Phil Plait was a NASA employee at one point, I was aware of this site prior to your link) has done a fine job of presenting information to counter the hoax theory using simplified language. I believe that Phil Plait is an astronomer. He is not an engineer, I suspect he knows very little about control systems engineering and has some physics knowledge. His attitude is extremely condescending. The first issue of stars not being captured on film is dubious so say the least. This would lead into a technical discussion about the camera qualities i.e. single or multipoint exposure metering, lens qualities etc and the film stock of the period in 1969. Apparently there also is no fogging of the film due to radiation effects.

70mm Hasselblad Electric Camera (this was a commercially available camera)
The standard lens is an 80 mm f/2.8, and 250 mm f/4 and 500 mm f/8 telephoto lenses are provided for photography of distant objects
Viewing angle of 38 degrees by 38 degrees for the 80 mm and 13degrees by 13 degrees for the 250mm lens.

To summarize, If some photographs of the stars using a slightly longer exposure (the view of the stars from the moon would have been utterly spectacular - you can ask Phil Plait about that one) had been deliberately attempted by the astronauts then this whole issue would have been settled many, many years ago. I am sure someone at NASA would have realized this so as to prove the astronauts were actually there. These star mapping photos do not appear in the official record.

I have also attempted to look at the sun shadow angles, this is difficult to do with the NASA photographs, but in all the photographs were I have attempted this the sun angles are always higher than they should be for the Astronauts EVA

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5872HR.jpg
Sun angle is measured at 31 to 32 degrees + or - 7 degrees computed from the Solar Wind collector device.

We must remember that

EVA at begins At 2:56 UTC on July 21 Suns angular seperation from horizon is 13 degrees 40 minutes (data obtained from Starry Night)
EVA ends after 2hrs 31 minute which would be 05:27 UTC suns angular separation from horizon is 14 degrees 54 minutes (data obtained from Starry Night)

Therefore the sun angles in the NASA photographic Library are at least one standard deviation statistically from the Starry Night Model.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5917HR.jpg no dust in the LEM leg pad, this should be covered in dust no matter what Phil Plait says. Try standing a few feet away behind one engine of a Lear jet. That apparently only has a few pounds/square inch static pressure also.

The main problem is that electronic imaging, can be so deceptive. It can allow the complete manipulation of the truth.

Do you like my amplifier - It is a mythical creature - it only exists in the imagination of my computer - its extraordinary how computers have advanced since the Apollo AGC.



Can you see me in the reflection of the first valve - Only Joking.

I can agree with that but now I fear we are simply talking past each other, so I'm going to let it drop. Now I'm off to get a nice refreshing glass of Tang.

Perhaps this (hijacked) topic would be better served here?

Conspiracy Theory Forum

Search that forum....the Apollo horse has been flogged....and FLOGGED there.