An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

reply to post by numb99


Thank you, numb99!! That is right on point, and very concise!!

You mentioned gyroscopes....and that is a breakthrough observation, thanks for that!

For 'bigbrain'...even 40 years ago, we had gyroscopes to aid in not only SpaceCraft, but regualr airplanes as well....

Of course, today the 'gyroscopes' aren't mechanical anymore...we use laser 'gyros'...and, naturally, we also use GPS updating as well.

Here's how it works, even without GPS...when we power up an INS, it 'knows' where it is, based on an approximate Latitude, because it knows the rotation of the Earth. Of course, it (the INS) doesn't know the N/S Latitude, and cannot determine the Longiude, until entered by the user.

That is the old system...NOW we have GPS, which updates the INS...we actually call it IRS now (Inertial Reference System) as opposed to the old (Inertial Navigation System)...lots of alphabet soup used in the Aviation biz....we tend to know the shorthand, I try to unveil for clarity....

back to the OP...even forty years ago, avionics and Astronaut training was incredible...it, the avionics tech, eventually filtered down into the civilian side...the Astronauts of course, did their jobs, and did those jobs well....

Originally posted by numb99
...
All is possible thanks to the gyroscopes. Even back in WWII Hitler used them in the V2’s, and was controlled by a simple analog computer, primitive by late 60’s.

Are you talking about these fantastic machines?

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by _bigbrain_

What does that video have anything to do with the topic at hand??
I don't understand how you think this video advances your argument that we never went to the Moon.

If you are trying to imply that V2 rocket technology did not work, try telling that to the people of London and Antwerp who were the vitims of 3,000 successful V2 rocket attacks. One could argue whether or not the V2 was an efficient weapon, but you can't say that the rocket technology didn't work.

I suppose I could post YouTube videos of planes crashing, but that in no way negates the fact that planes DO fly.



[edit on 3/22/2008 by Soylent Green Is People]

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Thanks, SGIP, took the words right out of my mouth, and made electrons dance on the screen!

I suppose we could montage all of the USA and USSR rocket launch failures, in the early days of testing and experimentation too...let's throw in some automobiles too, just for fun.

Well, let's not and say we did, because it would not be pertinent to this thread, really.

The point of our discussion seems to be hinging, lately, on whether a spacecraft can be soft-landed while balancing on a force from an engine nozzle below. This, compared to a launch of said spacecraft.

Here's a very simple explanation, hopefully it will help...the stability of the vehicle, when there is a rocket providing a force at one end, the need to stabilize the vehicle is the same, whether it's launching or landing. There really is no difference...one may ASSUME that a rocket has an aerodynamic advantage, but that would be a bad assumption.

The five engine nozzles on the Saturn 5 could 'gimbal'. Just like the three main engines on today's Space Shuttle. On the LEM, on Apollo, the descent stage had a fixed engine nozzle, I believe, so attitude control was accomplished with the RCS nozzles. AND, everything required a solid Inertial Nav System platform...three gyroscopes oriented in three different axes, that could sense direction of motion, and automatically provide the pulses of thrust from the RCS nozzles (sixteen in all, four at each 'corner' of the LEM) to maintain stability. It is really that simple....well, not simple in design, but simple in its physics.

Hope this helps!

Originally posted by weedwhacker
...
On the LEM, on Apollo, the descent stage had a fixed engine nozzle, I believe, so attitude control was accomplished with the RCS nozzles. AND, everything required a solid Inertial Nav System platform...three gyroscopes oriented in three different axes, that could sense direction of motion, and automatically provide the pulses of thrust from the RCS nozzles (sixteen in all, four at each 'corner' of the LEM) to maintain stability. It is really that simple....well, not simple in design, but simple in its physics.

Yes, it is really that simple in its physics like to go to the moon.

You must simply build a Lunar Lander joined to a rocket and orbit round the moon.

Then you must simply unhook the Lander and land going backwards.

Then you must simply join to tha Lander with binoculars and reenter to the earth.

Then you must simply defende yourself from 2,800 °C due to friction with air. Aluminum capsule will be o.k. because aluminum boils at 2,500 °C.

It's so easy that you have done this 6 times in 3 years. What a pity that today you have lost all that simple technology and you are no longer able to go there.

The easiest thing you have to build is a rocket that can land going backwards like this:

www.youtube.com...

It is enough to suspend it to a crane to land it softly.

However LEM had a gimballed engine and 16 thrusters controlled by a powerful software used in playstation '69.

What a pity that lots of videos of LEM tested at Langley Crane have been lost.

Originally posted by _bigbrain_
Then you must simply defende yourself from 2,800 °C due to friction with air. Aluminum capsule will be o.k. because aluminum boils at 2,500 °C.

We've explained to you how the heat shield works. The material that it's made out of takes the heat, not the aluminum.

It's so easy that you have done this 6 times in 3 years. What a pity that today you have lost all that simple technology and you are no longer able to go there.

The technology has not been lost. The political will to do so has been lost, mostly because it's expensive. That's kind of why it was canceled early.

However LEM had a gimballed engine and 16 thrusters controlled by a powerful software used in playstation '69.

Please do share with us, the exact computational requirements for what a lunar lander would need then. You must know. I mean, according to you what they had wasn't enough, so you must know what is needed right?

What a pity that lots of videos of LEM tested at Langley Crane have been lost.

It hasn't been lost because, no LM was test at the Lunar Landing Research Facility. Got that? I'll repeat it again. No LM was ever tested at the Lunar Landing Research Facility. It's a simulator for the astronauts to get an idea of what 1/6th gravity is like.

reply to post by _bigbrain_


bigbrain, I see you're getting there, starting to understand what we've (patiently) been explaining for months. You still have a few misunderstandings, probably from bad data you may have read somewhere else.

I am happy you are taking time to learn, and increase your knowledge, and 'deny ignorance'!

Cheers.

just adding...regarding computers and their capabilities years ago...I was told, just a few months back, by the son of Bill Lear, who invented the LearJet, among other things, about how his father in the EARLY 1960s was developing Auto-Land systems for commercial jets. This was cutting-edge at the time, yet it worked. Don't you think NASA would have had access to very cutting-edge tech as well? BTW, most of the computing power needed for Mercury, Gemini and Apollo existed here on Earth...the onboard computers were antiquated by today's standards, but sufficient given the skills of the Astronauts, and the Ground Support! They made it look simple, yes...but to go into all of the details would take up too many pages, and much more than 10,000 characters in this post. If fact, to fully understand would take years of study....

[edit on 23-3-2008 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
...

I was told, just a few months back, by the son of Bill Lear, who invented the LearJet, among other things, about how his father in the EARLY 1960s was developing Auto-Land systems for commercial jets. This was cutting-edge at the time, yet it worked. Don't you think NASA would have had access to very cutting-edge tech as well?
...

Auto-land systems for commercial jets have nothing to share with VBS (Vertical Balancing Systems) that you need to put on a rocket that must land going backwards.

Airplanes don't have to land going backwards and move in the air. With wings, elevator, flaps and the other mobile surfaces they can easily slow down their speed without problems.

Airplanes can go forward straight on with smallest or no muvement of mobile surfaces.

A big piece of metal like this:





that doesn't move in the air and has a gimballed main engine + 16 thrusters that must balance it and keep it vertical, needs a fastest CPU, needs 10 Gb RAM, needs a powerful software able to process data that proceed from sensors and to send fastest and right informations to move correctly the fastest mechanical device that move the gimballed main engine and the 16 fastest valves of thrusters.

In fact that piece of metal tends to fall off in all directions at 360 degrees.
To test this simple fact, try to balance a glass on your forefinger.

There is no video of LEM tested at Langley crane because NASA engineers were not able to build such a rocket.

Don't say Langley crane was built to simulate 1/6 gravity.

To do that it was enough this crane truck:

Originally posted by _bigbrain_
...needs a fastest CPU, needs 10 Gb RAM, needs a powerful software able to process data...

I'd agree if we were talking about the latest bloated software from Microsoft. But the computers in the LM didn't have to worry about graphical user interfaces or anything you'd find in todays computers and operating systems. The Operating Systems and programs were coded much differently and more efficiently than the average programs you get today.

It's quite clear that you don't understand what the LM computer was like and what it needed to do exactly. You don't need a super fast CPU's (by todays standards) and 10 gb of RAM. That's ridiculous. Here are a few sites you should give a read, it might help.

The Lunar Module Computer
TALES FROM THE LUNAR MODULE GUIDANCE COMPUTER
Apollo LM DSKY Simulator
Clavius: lunar module stability

In fact that piece of metal tends to fall off in all directions at 360 degrees. To test this simple fact, try to balance a glass on your forefinger.

What do you need to be shown, that would convince you, that your example is nothing like how it was actually like to control the Lunar Module? You continue to say this over and over no matter how many times we tell you it's wrong. What convinces you, that you're right? Show me your evidence.

EDIT: Added the Clavius link.

[edit on 23-3-2008 by jra]

reply to post by _bigbrain_


Sorry bigbrain, jra beat me to it....but one last try, because we CARE about you, and want to make sure you get correct and factual knowledge.

Please pay close attention, as I use your analogy of balancing a drinking glass on your finger......

As I pointed out earlier, just a few posts up above....the idea of a rocket at launch "balancing" as you continue to insist is no different from any other spacecraft 'balancing' while....ahem, and I will drop to your level and say...."while landing backwards". Okay, there! I said it!!!

With all respect, you should drop this notion of 'landing backwards'....while I am trying to stay polite, it is just nonsense. Whether a spacecraft is balanced on a thrust vector strong enough to break free of the gravity well it is in, or whether it is using that thrust vector to make a soft landing, in any case the C/G is what matters. The Center of Thrust must provide a force directly through the Center of Gravity of the vehicle, when we are speaking of spacecraft. (Airplanes are slightly different, I'd be happy to explain, but not now, that's off topic!).

So, back to spacecraft. The engine, or engines, depending on design, provide the thrust. I hope you agree on this concept. NOW, the C/G is generally assumed, by DESIGN, to be somewhere in the center of the vehicle...(I'm talking now about Apollo...Space Shuttle is very different, obviously, so don't get confused...)

Look at the schematics of the LEM....A square descent stage, an ascent Stage with two Astronauts standing in basically the middle of the craft. Any minor variations from the C/G are easily, and automatically compensated for, and by, the RCS thrusters. Not only by computer control, but also by DIRECT control by the PILOT!!!! THIS is what you seem to miss, bigbrain!!!

The joystick that the pilot used to 'fly' the LEM interfaced with all 16 RCS thrusters. THAT is the equivalent of the control surfaces on an airplane...a machine designed to operate in an atmosphere. Since there is no atmosphere on the Moon, control surfaces of an airplane would be useless, obviously. Hence, the RCS thrusters....

Newton: Any force would provide an equal and opposite reaction to that force. I paraphrased, but it is so simple, maybe you never learned it. Small rockets...little nozzles...sixteen of them, as we have told you, four per cluster, at four points on the Ascent module....since, this was the vehicle to get them back to rendezvous, and while the entire LEM was attached to the descent module, the sixteen nozzles served the same purpose, that is, controlling the spacecraft during descent, and during ascent and maneuvering to dock with the CM.

Just wish to add, 'bigbrain'...we have been more than very patient with you. By 'we', I mean myself, and many, many others. This information is not secret, it is not ONLY for those 'in the know', it is basic science.

I ask you, I implore you!! PLEASE! Please, do not promote ignorance. DENY Ignorance!!!

What I mean by this last sentence is this: Damage can be done, to impressionable people, when they read stuff on the internet that is scientifically and factually in error. Someone told me, just last week, that after a standardized test of school children in the UK, most of them didn't know who Winston Churchill was, or worse...thought he was a fictional character!! This is astonishing, and heartbreaking.

bigbrain, I only wish, since this is so anonymous, I only wish to make sure we save at least one person from bad ideas, and provide a guidance into the light of knowledge......

[spelling]



[edit on 23-3-2008 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by _bigbrain_


OMG, '_bigbrain_'!!!!!

Do you not understand that I KNOW how airplanes fly?!?!?

I am trying to be polite, and courteous, since that is mandatory. BUT, there are times that try man's patience!!

One last time, one last attempt....the ability for a jet to Auto-Land requires a lot of things to happen at the same time, and these are contrtolled by computers, but are MONITORED by PILOTS! We don't just sit there and let the computer fly, every step of the way is a point where, if we see something in the system fail, we take over and reject the landing, if it's an Auto-Land scenario. What's more, there are TWO people involved, and procedures are strict, as to call-outs and procedure. ANYTHING out of the ordinary, and a Missed Approach is initated.

This would apply to the Apollo missions as well. They had Abort procedures. This is well documented.

MY POINT was...even before Apollo there were ONBOARD computers, in concert with the Radar Altimeter and INS to integrate adequately to land commercial jets, while the pilots monitored. This happens all the time today, of course, and you probably won't even know it, unless we tell you.

Actually, it is designed for landing in very low visibility conditions...but we must practice in clear VFR conditions, as well as in the Simulator, to maintain 'currency' in the procedure.....

So, when we are faced with 1000 RVR conditions, or lower, we are trained and practiced in the procedure.

Dontcha think Apollo Astronauts, who were also pilots, BTW, ALSO trained EXTENSIVELY, over and over and over and over again?!?!

_bigbrain_....I invite you to go take flying lessons....take a few months, get to know what is entailed...then come back and tell us how much you know about missions to the Moon....

Originally posted by _bigbrain_What a pity that lots of videos of LEM tested at Langley Crane have been lost.

As we have said many times, the actual LEM was never tested at Langley -- it was designed only to work in space. Even with the cables supporting 5/6 of its weight, the actual LEM would behave quite differently on Earth as it would in space. Langley was a low-gravity simulator only, not a LEM testing facility.

It is well known that the gantry sytem at the Langley Research Center was not a great simulation of flying the LEM, so that's why they developed the LLRV and LLTV craft to help train the astronauts in piloting a LEM.

So you ask: why not hook up the actual LEM to the wires and pulleys? As I said, the LEM would still not behave the same way (lateral movement in low gravity, for example, could not be simulated by simply hanging the LEM).

And consider the Space Shuttle. Why didn't they hang the Space Shuttle from the gantry so they could test its OMS/RCS thrusters (the ones that they use to move around in space)? According to your logic, the Space Shuttle must be a hoax because they never tested those thrusters in a fully built space shuttle hanging from wires.

Granted, they did do 2 or 3 test landings of a shuttle released from a 747 jet, but that test had nothing to do with the engines it would use in space...that test only tested the "Earth landing" part of the shuttle (in fact that test shuttle did not even have working engines). The first time those engines were used to independantly move an actual finished shuttle was the first time the shuttle was in space -- just like the LEM.

[edit on 3/24/2008 by Soylent Green Is People]

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

...
Langley was a low-gravity simulator only, not a LEM testing facility.
...

Then you say this biggest crane is only to simulate 1/6 gravity:





1 - How can you simulate 1/6 gravity suspended to a crane?
Have you seen that lander in the picture suspended to the crane?
If you are inside you are not experimenting with 1/6 gravity but with the normal gravity of the earth.

2 - It's not logic that you build such a biggest crane to suspend astronauts
with elastic cords to simulate 1/6 gravity.
That powerful and biggest structure had to be used to test LEM, but NASA engineers were not able to build a rocket able to land going backwards.

reply to post by _bigbrain_

As I said, the gantry crane at Langley was not exactly like being on the Moon, and astronauts' opinions have differed about how effective the training was thet they received there -- but it was one of the better "safe" simulators that they had. Astronauts would practice landing the LEM hung from the crane for a few weeks before moving on the the more dangerous LLTV. It's only logical to train them while being hung with wires before flying the LLTV's that had no such wires.

And if I understand you correctly, you are also arguing that the astronauts inside the LEM simulator would still feel the force of gravity -- but so what? They were learning to work the controls of the LEM. It wasn't too critical whether or not the astronaut inside the LEM felt like he weighed 80 kilos or 13 kilos. Sure -- it was important for the astronauts to also learn to work in low gravity, but that wasn't the point of this particular simulator.

If all you have left as evidence for your hoax theory is that it seems illogical to you that they would build this crane only for Moon landing training and research, then I think you have run out of arguments.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
...

Astronauts would practice landing the LEM hung from the crane for a few weeks before moving on the more dangerous LLTV.
...

What will you learn going up and down suspended to a crane?

reply to post by _bigbrain_

The same sort of thing any pilot learns from first working with a flight simulator -- the layout of the controls, what each control does, and how the craft will react to different control inputs. The advantage of the "crane" is that they can do these things in a relatively realistic environment, but still be safe to make mistakes -- even intentional mistakes so they could learn to get out of tough stituations.

I know these guys were test piltos and were probably eager to fly anything, but they weren't stupid enough to try to fly LLTV without first doing simulations on LEMS and Langley. These guys survived their early test piloting careers for a reason -- they were well-trained.


...so i see you HAVE run out of arguments.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
...

The same sort of thing any pilot learns from first working with a flight simulator -- the layout of the controls, what each control does, and how the craft will react to different control inputs.

...

What are you saying?
LEM, in your opinion, was a fake one.
How can you learn anyhing that doesn't react to your inputs?

[edit on 24-3-2008 by _bigbrain_]

Originally posted by _bigbrain_
What are you saying?
LEM, in your opinion, was a fake one.

Exactly...
LEMS at Langley was a flight simulator, not the real LEM
The LLRV was a filght simulator, not the real LEM
The LLTV was a flight simulator, not the real LEM

The real LEMs were designed to fly only in space and COULD NEVER be flown on Earth.

Originally posted by _bigbrain_
How can you learn anyhing that doesn't react to your inputs?

All of these "flying" flight simulators -- plus the kind that don't fly -- were designed to react to the astronaut's inputs as closely as possible to the way the real LEM would, just like any other flight simulator is designed to react just like the real thing.

And as I have said before, the Space Shuttle pilots don't learn how to fly the shuttle by flying the shuttle -- they learn in a plane that is designed to SIMULATE the way the shuttle would react to the pilot's inputs:

Shuttle Training Aircraft

Just like this modified jet was designed to train Space Shuttle pilots, the various LEM simulators were designed to train the Apollo LEM pilots.

Why is it so difficult to accept that the Langley crane was a flight simulator, and that the LLTV was a flight simulator that could "land going backward."

[edit on 3/24/2008 by Soylent Green Is People]

...

“All of these "flying" flight simulators -- plus the kind that don't fly -- were designed to react to the astronaut's inputs as closely as possible to the way the real LEM would, just like any other flight simulator is designed to react just like the real thing”.

...

Since fake LEMs were suspended to that biggest crane with cables, what abilities, what skills, what reflections, what maneuvers could astronauts learn? None.

It could be a good idea for children carousel. Children could enjoy very much moving joystick to go forward, backwards, on the right and on the left.

Since astronauts learnt to fly helicopters, why would they have to fly those stupid fake LEMs?

Talking about Space Shuttle, it flyes and lands like airplanes, therefore it has nothing to share with LEM, a rocket that must land vertically going backwards.

Also LLRV and LLTV have a structure totally different from LEM, they are the contrary of LEM.
LLRV and LLTV are wider than high. LEM is higher than wide.

It is no use to fly something totally different from what you will have to fly.

Since I think NASA engineers didn't build that biggest crane for their children, I am sure that they would test LEMs there but were not capable to build a rocket that was able to land vertically going backwards.

At 2007 Lunar Lander Challenge this is the most fantastic technology of LVGB rockets:

youtube.com...

Another illogical thing:

www.astronautix.com...

The lunar module continued its crazy gyrations across the lunar sky, and a warning light indicated that the inertial measuring unit really was about to reach its limits and go into gimbal lock. Stafford then took over in manual control, made a big pitch maneuver, and started working the attitude control switches. Snoopy finally calmed down..

At NASA there was a smart pilot, Stafford, that was able to fly LEM without computer.
Why did they send Armstrong to the Moon?

Originally posted by MickeyDee
I truly believe that we did land on the moon back in '69, and so should everybody else.
So to finally end all the speculation regaurding the landings, why on earth doesnt NASA use Hubble to photograph the landing sites?
We've seen the amazing things that Hubble can do, so im sure it could give us amazing pics of the lunar surface.

I do believe that the USA/NASA landed on the moon 6 times or what ever times it
was because the USSR was watching our NASA and would have alerted every-
one on Earth if we had not gone as we said we did. Also...where did all those MOON
rocks come from? Also how did the Laser ranging targets get on the moon?

As to using the HUBBLE telescope to take pictures of the MOON: The Hubble scope
is designed for DEEP SPACE photography and any photos taken with it would be out
of focus and appear blurred. (I read this somewhere.)

D.B.Landry
Houston,Texas