Lovell and Shepard Star Sighting Contradiction Proves Navigation Bogus and Apollo Inauthenticity

reply to post by decisively

There's been a lot of discussion concerning what you can see through the scanning telescope as far as recognizing stars and constellations. During the early part of the flight I could not see anything through the scanning telescope that I could recognize, for instance - a constellation. I could see several stars, but I couldn't pinpoint them because I didn't know the surrounding stars. As long as we did not move the spacecraft around, got some distance from the earth and its light, it was possible to see constellations in the scanning telescope
.
Several factors are involved here. One, of course, is that you must become dark-adapted. You must be dark-adapted before you can see stars. When you first look through the scanning telescope, you see nothing but blackness.

A second factor is the spacecraft attitude with relationship to the sun and/or the earth and the moon. When we're close to the earth and we're maneuvering near the earth, there's enough reflected light in the scanning telescope to make stars not visible in the scanning telescope. This is very similar to earth orbital flights. As we moved away from the earth, about halfway between the earth and the moon or a little bit less, it was very easy to see constellations or stars in the dark areas of the sky. As soon as we got close to the sun then sun shafting was very noticeable, and light in the sextant was noticeable and the 'stars are washed out. Then we had to rely on the auto optics to pinpoint the proper star, which we could easily, see in the sextant. I had no problem in almost any attitude seeing stars. in the sextant, the bright ones. But I did have a hard time identifying the stars in the scanning telescope.

He is talking about reflections in the optic, but that doesn't matter, because:

The use of Program 30 and Program 21 in determining pericynthian altitude seemed to work quite well. Depending on the accuracy of our state vector, we could determine very closely what the ground determination of our pericynthian altitude was.

www.ibiblio.org...

All this discussion of what Apollo astronauts could or could not see is futile and pointless. Edgar Mitchell said that the stars were 10 times brighter in space, and he could see them even though the rotation of the module to retain thermal equilibrium meant that the Sun rotated past the portholes once every few minutes, which would make all the dark adaptation talk nonsense. So was he lying, and if so, then why should we believe what ANY of the astronauts, or NASA says? The only way to answer the question of what is visible is to find out what is visible NOW, and that SHOULD be very straightforward. We have skilled astronauts and all kinds of cameras and lenses in orbit NOW, so use them to prove that stars, planets, the Moon, and even the Sun are visible from the ISS.
I have used Celestia to place my viewpoint from close to the ISS, looking outwards to deep space, and it is quite obvious that if there are any windows/portholes facing away from the Earth, that is, NOT having the limb of the Earth in view or PROVABLY just out of view, then the Sun, Moon and planets, and conjunctions, should all be easily visible. Now I have just downloaded the high-res 3d model from NASA to try and find out where the portholes are, and then I can locate myself INSIDE the ISS, and see what is visible. If NASA says there are no portholes that you can see the Sun through, then that sounds insane, but it is still no argument, as on an EVA they have a 360 degree view. And you don't need a long time exposure to view the Sun should the ridiculous argument about how fast the ISS is moving and motion blur be brought up.
James Oberg, on another ATS thread, stated quite clearly that there were lots of portholes with optically perfect glass that pointed in various directions, and I don't believe that NONE of them would offer a view of Mercury or Mars or the Moon at some time or other, but requests to NASA for a picture to be taken get no response, and threads I have started on the major astronomy or science Forum sites are locked or even deleted when I start getting too close to the bone. No replies, or locked threads does not provide proof positive of anything, but if it doesn't raise anyones suspicions, they must be dead from the neck up. And then there are those Forum members who must be paid obfuscators, there just to turn any scientific examination into a farce of conflicting opinion and sniping, and ATS is no different in that respect. It would require enough people willing to E-Mail NASA with the same or similar questions about the lack of images from the ISS to perhaps get a response, so anyone who is serious about getting to the answers should get on it right away, instead of repeating the same old same old personal opinions.

reply to post by GaryN

All this discussion of what Apollo astronauts could or could not see is futile and pointless. Edgar Mitchell said that the stars were 10 times brighter in space, and he could see them even though the rotation of the module to retain thermal equilibrium meant that the Sun rotated past the portholes once every few minutes, which would make all the dark adaptation talk nonsense. So was he lying, and if so, then why should we believe what ANY of the astronauts, or NASA says?

He was waxing poetic. Here is what he actually said in an interview for an, erm, open minded reporter:

We were oriented in what’s called a barbeque mode. Every two minutes, we rotated one full 360- degree turn, so the earth, the moon, the sun, and a whole panoply of heaven and stars came to the window.


Suddenly I remembered from my earlier training in astronomy that the stars in the universe are furnaces for all matter. That was good intellectual knowledge, but all of sudden it was personal knowledge. I began to see that the molecules of my body, and the molecules of the spacecraft, and the molecules of my partners’ bodies had all been prototyped in some ancient generation of stars. It was, “those are my molecules in those stars.” And those thoughts were accompanied by a state of bliss and ecstasy. It was visceral. It was wow.


It hit me pretty heavy that, “It’s all interconnected.” I knew something powerful was going on and I wondered what it was.

site.consciouscreativity.com... rmat=pdf

This is not an objective description of visual observing conditions in space, it is a poetic expression of a profoundly moving conversion experience. He didn't see the stars any more than the stars are actually furnaces.

The only way to answer the question of what is visible is to find out what is visible NOW, and that SHOULD be very straightforward. We have skilled astronauts and all kinds of cameras and lenses in orbit NOW, so use them to prove that stars, planets, the Moon, and even the Sun are visible from the ISS.

I'll leave it to you to puzzle out why sometimes you can see stars and sometimes you can't. Also why everything moves so quickly:

reply to post by DJW001

He was waxing poetic. Here is what he actually said in an interview for an, erm, open minded reporter:

Why listen to a middle man, why not listen to the man himself, in his own words? In the first 2 minutes of this vid, he quite clearly states he saw the stars, the Sun and Moon, both on the way out, and the way back. Why would he have had a mystical, spiritual experience if there was nothing visible, if it was pitch black?
www.youtube.com...

As for the ISS vids, you are again showing me things visible through the Earths atmosphere/ionosphere, which I know is correct. Find me something looking AWAY from the Earth. Find me a picture of a waxing or waning crescent Moon, complete with Earthshine, like I can see from Earth. And these don't meet my criteria.
www.nasa.gov...
www.nasa.gov...

Here are some images I captured from Celestia showing a view mostly from the Earth facing side of the ISS, and from different angles so you can see that surely one of the portholes or windows must have a view of the Sun, Moon and planets at some time. Or maybe the engineers said "Gee, we never thought to put windows looking out into space on the ISS, but maybe on ISS2 well consider it."
picasaweb.google.com...

Originally posted by decisively
reply to post by choos

 

Read all of what Lovell says in the deberiefing about navigating. Too much to be quoted in full here, but in sum, when Lovell sighted a star, he did so with solid confidence, Shepard, not so. As such, given Shepard's lack of confidence, we may conclude all of Apollo fraudulent, not because Shepard REALLY LACKED CONFIDENCE, but rather, he did not understand his own ruse well enough to finesse the star sighting business so that it was even marginally credible. We can dismiss him as an Apollo astronuaut, BOOM!!! , immediately after reading the above referenced critical comments of his as they betray the views of a man in space who would not know his attitude . Not OK. Shepard is so identified as a fraud and so too is all of Apollo identified as fraudulent.

he may have done so far from earth's light as well as giving himself time to get dark adapted, as he would have planned for it since star navigation is one of his forte's.

shepard does not feel the need to sight stars with the scanning scope as he has full confidence in the computer to point optics at the right star. lovell uses the computer programs too.

they both say if you want to sight star you need to be fully dark adapted. you using shepard's lack of confidence as proof of a fake apollo mission is bunk, as ALL astronauts had full confidence in the computer.. even lovell.

reply to post by GaryN

Why listen to a middle man, why not listen to the man himself, in his own words? In the first 2 minutes of this vid, he quite clearly states he saw the stars, the Sun and Moon, both on the way out, and the way back. Why would he have had a mystical, spiritual experience if there was nothing visible, if it was pitch black?
www.youtube.com...

No-one's saying that he couldn't see stars. He just couldn't see stars unless his eyes were dark adapted, which means he couldn't see them if the Earth or Sun were visible.

As for the ISS vids, you are again showing me things visible through the Earths atmosphere/ionosphere, which I know is correct. Find me something looking AWAY from the Earth. Find me a picture of a waxing or waning crescent Moon, complete with Earthshine, like I can see from Earth. And these don't meet my criteria.

Why don't those photos meet your criteria? They were taken outside of Earth's atmosphere. If you were to set the exposure so that you could see earthshine on the Moon's dark side, the illuminated side would be overexposed.

Originally posted by GaryN
reply to post by DJW001

 

Why listen to a middle man, why not listen to the man himself, in his own words? In the first minutes of this vid, he quite clearly states he saw the stars, the Sun and Moon, both on the way out, and the way back. Why would he have had a mystical, spiritual experience if there was nothing visible, if it was pitch black?

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by GaryN

 

We were oriented in what’s called a barbeque mode. Every two minutes, we rotated one full 360- degree turn, so the earth, the moon, the sun, and a whole panoply of heaven and stars came to the window.

Suddenly I remembered from my earlier training in astronomy that the stars in the universe are furnaces for all matter. That was good intellectual knowledge, but all of sudden it was personal knowledge. I began to see that the molecules of my body, and the molecules of the spacecraft, and the molecules of my partners’ bodies had all been prototyped in some ancient generation of stars. It was, “those are my molecules in those stars.” And those thoughts were accompanied by a state of bliss and ecstasy. It was visceral. It was wow.

It hit me pretty heavy that, “It’s all interconnected.” I knew something powerful was going on and I wondered what it was.

The NASA clown Edgar rotated 360 degrees every 2 minutes, so he saw the haven and was on drugs since then seeing many UFOs.

This is just one of irrefutable proofs of the Apollo mooning, called Passive Thermal Control commonly known "barbecue astronots mode".

reply to post by bokonon2010

The NASA clown Edgar rotated 360 degrees every 2 minutes, so he saw the haven and was on drugs since then seeing many UFOs.

I don't follow you.

This is just one of irrefutable proofs of the Apollo mooning, called Passive Thermal Control commonly known "barbecue astronots mode".

Yes, they rolled the spacecraft. How does that prove Apollo wasn't real?

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by bokonon2010

 

The NASA clown Edgar rotated 360 degrees every 2 minutes, so he saw the haven and was on drugs since then seeing many UFOs.

I don't follow you.

Try to rotate 360 degrees every 2 minutes, watching NASA Apollo clowns.

This is just one of irrefutable proofs of the Apollo mooning, called Passive Thermal Control commonly known "barbecue astronots mode".

Yes, they rolled the spacecraft. How does that prove Apollo wasn't real?

Who are they, when and how they rotated the can with astronots? - link to the NASA sources.

reply to post by bokonon2010

Who are they, when and how they rotated the can with astronots? - link to the NASA sources.

I think this report from MIT anticipates your line of argument:

Requirement: For long periods of coasting flight, provide passive thermal control by implementing a "barbeque mode" -- a very slow rotation (one revolution per ten minutes or slower) about the spacecraft roll axis and with the desired roll axis direction fixed in space.

Design provided: An attitude control mode that used the reaction control jets to establish the initial desired angular velocity, and then as needed to maintain the spacecraft attitude close to the rotating desired attitude associated with the desired constant angular velocity vector along the roll axis with a fixed direction in space.

In-Flight Performance: There was a slight dynamic imbalance because the moment of inertia principal axes were not precisely aligned with the spacecraft axes. Active torquing was required to maintain the spacecraft attitude close to the desired rotating attitude. While the fuel consumption was thought to be acceptable, nevertheless the astronauts complained that the banging of a jet every minute or so made it impossible for them to sleep. NASA asked us at M.I.T. what to do?

First suggestion: Our first suggestion was to turn off the active automatic attitude control (no jet firings) after the initial desired angular velocity was established. It was hoped that the subsequent free-body motion would be reasonably close to the desired spinning motion. The astronauts gave this a try, but the subsequent wandering of the roll axis away from its desired azimuth and elevation were deemed too large. What else to try?

Second suggestion: Bill Widnall suggested that what was needed was to get the angular momentum vector much closer to the principal axis nearest to the roll axis and that this could be accomplished by not using the active attitude control mode to establish a precise roll angular velocity but rather by using the rotational hand controller to command a pure torque about the roll axis. The induced angular momentum vector would be aligned with that torque impulse. This worked very well. In the subsequent free-body motion the roll axis deviation away from its desired orientation was acceptably small and the astronauts got their sleep.

ocw.mit.edu...

What if Shepard lost the platform altogether and had to use the scanning scope to find the stars, find their attitude

reply to post by choos


What would Shepard do if he lost his platform. He would not be able to use the sextant then as the computer would have by definition lost the stars. what then ?

reply to post by decisively


spend time getting dark adapted and reading the star charts and pointing the optics at the position the stars should be and try to sight some stars.. just like lovell. he can do it, he never says its impossible, just certain conditions need to be met in order to sight stars manually.

reply to post by decisively

What would Shepard do if he lost his platform. He would not be able to use the sextant then as the computer would have by definition lost the stars. what then ?

They would upload the data from the terrestrial tracking network. Duh.

reply to post by bokonon2010


bokonon, it is 360 degrees every 20 minutes/18 degrees per minute/3 tenths of a degree per second, or 1080 degrees/3 spins per hour. It is fairly slow. The PAO for Apollo 15 here(history.nasa.gov...);


"This is Apollo Control at 66 hours, 1 minute. Apollo 15, at present time, continuing at its Passive Thermal Control mode and the crew [are] about 4 hours away from the scheduled time of awakening. In the Passive Thermal Control mode, the spacecraft is rotating about its longitudinal axis at the rate of about 3 revolutions per hour to maintain uniform exposure to the Sun and the proper thermal control of the spacecraft."

reply to post by DJW001

One Must align an Apollo IMU/Platform, either that of the LM or CM, from the Apollo spaceship itself. Data cannot be uploaded in the event a P51 must be run. If the platform needs to be realigned from scratch, the ground cannot help. Only the astronauts can see the constellations.

No, incorrect DJW001,

One cannot align an IMU/platform from the earth. This they MUST DO FROM SPACE.

This is not a bad description of how they would allegedly go about doing a P51 on the LM, i.e. aligning the LM platform from scratch were they to lose it.

books.google.com...,+IMU+must+be+aligned+from+space,+apollo&source=bl&ots=cF3UakuYjK&sig=ZIKI 2E6vT78srqHqzI1WCawGSGo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Ize8T6CQCsGeiALo9tH6DQ&ved=0CFoQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=Platform%2C%20IMU%20must%20be%20aligned%20from%20space%2C%2 0apollo&f=false

Note, no input from the earth/ground/Houston is involved here. The same would be true for aligning the CM platform in the event of needing to run a P51 on such an imagined Command Module ship.

This is why Shepard's gaffe constitutes a fatal error in understanding on his part and so exposes the Apollo optics/guidance/navigation system as presented by the astronauts as untenable logistically.

As such, we conclude once again, all of Apollo is fraudulent.

reply to post by decisively


shepard says you just need to be dark adapted if you want to use the optics manually....

how is that contradictory?? just because he isnt dark adapted he cant be 100% sure by checking the optics which is a waste of time and a small confidence boost.. but he already has full confidence that the computer will point it at the right star, its not like the stars are going to be moving anywhere.

Mighty bold of you to presume to know what Arch-PERP and low level Thespian Alan Shepard thinks

reply to post by choos


No, incorrect.

This is what Shepard said, Apollo 14 debriefing Section 7;

"One general comment about these sextant star checks that we ran. And that has to do what Stu commented about the P51 failure. The way things are planned and the way it’s run in the CMS, there’s no question about the fact where the star is because there is either enough dark adaptation or the star ball is bright enough in the CMS so that you get a good cross check on the actual star identification through the telescope prior to looking at it through the sextant. "During the case of the flight, in almost every case, neither are you dark adapted, nor are you in a position where you have time to get dark adapted and positively identify the star through the telescope because of the external lighting and particles. So about all you can do in that one is let the optics drive and if there is a star in there you assume its the right one and take a whack at it and see if it meets the rules. If your platform's good enough to sight the star, what's the sense of doing it ? Or if you really think you need a star check, then allow yourself enough time in the flight plan to positively identify it, which means BEING DARK ADAPTED, no urine dumps and so on. So, although we passed the star checks in every case, it's the kind of thing that gives you a little confidence but not one we could positively say, "Okay this is star so and so", like you can do in the simulator. "


Shepard does not have full confidence, he has only a LITTLE CONFIDENCE. He said, and I quote again;


"So, although we passed the star checks in every case, it's the kind of thing that gives you a little confidence but not one we could positively say, "Okay this is star so and so, " like you can do in the simulator. " "

He also said that he did not know it was the right one, but rather said;

"So about all you can do in that one is let the optics drive and if there is a star in there you assume its the right one and take a whack at it and see if it meets the rules."

First of all, he is only in possession of a "little confidence" and so we may confirm this is not a moon excursion. His confidence in the platform alignment must be supreme. Shepard has been found out as the astronaut fraud and low level incompetent thespian that he is, and along with Shepard, all of Apollo is proven fraudulent here.

Next point, he is not allowed to "assume" anything. He must independently confirm the star is the correct one, independently confirm any given star is indeed star "so and so". and he does this by finding the star within the context of a visible, well identifiable constellation. He cannot "assume" anything. He is not allowed to take any "whacks" as he seems to be fond of saying.

As Shepard did "assume", as he did "take a whack", as he is unsure of what a genuine astronaut would say, we have yet again identified him as a pretend astronaut and an incompetent thespian to boot. To the back of the acting class for you Alan Shepard, and of course, never to the moon, not even in a simulator do you seem to know what to do.

Originally posted by decisively
reply to post by bokonon2010

 

bokonon, it is 360 degrees every 20 minutes/18 degrees per minute/3 tenths of a degree per second, or 1080 degrees/3 spins per hour. It is fairly slow. The PAO for Apollo 15 here(history.nasa.gov...);

"This is Apollo Control at 66 hours, 1 minute. Apollo 15, at present time, continuing at its Passive Thermal Control mode and the crew [are] about 4 hours away from the scheduled time of awakening. In the Passive Thermal Control mode, the spacecraft is rotating about its longitudinal axis at the rate of about 3 revolutions per hour to maintain uniform exposure to the Sun and the proper thermal control of the spacecraft."

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Anyone who does not believe in the rotation 360 degrees every 2 minutes
of the honored US astronot en.wikipedia.org... [Doctor of Science degree in Aeronautics and Astronautics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology],

should be educated by NASA that the other brave Apollo astronots revolved even faster:

The Apollo Lunar Module and Command and Service Modules had a PTC of one revolution per minute. The vehicles rotated about a common centerline.

er.jsc.nasa.gov...

reply to post by decisively


first you are misinterpreting what he is saying.. he does not have a little confidence, he is saying that it gives you a little EXTRA confidence, that is what is implied. all astronauts had full confidence in the auto optics.. sighting stars manually just gave a little extra confidence.. they all say similar things. think about the difference between these two sentences:

"it's the kind of thing that gives you a little confidence."
"it's the kind of thing that gives you little confidence."

he didnt feel the need to do manual star checks when auto optics was already so good at it, manual star checks only give you extra confidence.

houston will know whether the refsmmat is acceptable or not they will always know this. if the refsmmat is acceptable than the computer will have no trouble finding stars itself. IMU realign are done regularly for a reason.

Thanks for that choos, that's reassuring, I'll call my mom now and tell her she didn't get ripped off after all...

reply to post by choos


How 'bout running a P51, is he confident in that, ol' Al ?