[geocentrism] Re: Earth and science
- From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 18:13:09 +0000 (GMT)
Neville J
From Neville Jones Sun Sep 2 15:54:19 2007
Having noted that, could you explain why Armstrong's one and only rehearsal in
the lunar lander, which ended in loss of control and his ejection within
seconds of his life, did not adhere to what you yourself claim is essential?
From Paul Deema Sun Mar 5 16:07:42 2006
This took me some time to unearth using Yahoo!'s pathetic search utility so
please read it carefully. Note especially that this is the second time I have
presented it specifically to you. (This is one of the stratagems long
recognised as a debating tactic used by fundamentalists and hoax claimants
alike -- pretend that it hasn't been explained previously. Your previous
question -- abbreviated -- is shown in Grey).
... LM... Armstrong ... eject just seconds ... one and only attempt ...'. I
know some of this forum believes there was only one flight of the landing
simulator, and I know also that these people are unlikely to accept NASA as a
truthful source, so you might be more kindly disposed to look at non-NASA data
here http://www.astronautix.com/craft/apoollrv.htm. Briefly, the first two of
five vehicles had amassed between them 205 flights before being shipped to
Houston for astronaut training. Of the five made and delivered, three crashed
in service (one while being piloted by Neal Armstrong). The short definition of
the cause of the crash was a failure in an attitude control motor. No
suggestion that this was Armstrong's only flight or even his first on this
site. Couldnt' be bothered searching further.
Also, from http://www.clavius.org/techlltv.html, I have extracted the text of
the answer to the typical Apollo Hoax claim -
"The lunar landing training vehicle (LLTV) was just like the lunar module, and
it was too unstable to fly. Neil Armstrong had to eject because he couldn't
control it."
Two vehicles were built to train the Apollo astronauts to fly the lunar module.
The Lunar Landing Research Vehicles (LLRV) was designed at NASA's Dryden Flight
Research Center. Bell Aircraft produced and delivered two of them to NASA. The
lessons learned from these vehicles were applied toward the more advanced Lunar
Lander Training Vehicles (LLTV), three of which were built.
LLRV no. 1, piloted by Neil Armstrong, crashed in May 1968 when the helium
pressurization system for the steering jets failed, leaving Armstrong no way to
control the vehicle. This was not because the vehicle was too unstable to
control, or because Armstrong was a poor pilot. This is like driving your car
down the freeway and having the steering wheel come off in your hands. You will
crash in that situation, and it's not because cars (in general) can't be
steered -- it's because a mechanical failure caused your car to lose control in
that particular instance.
There were two other crashes: two of the LLTVs crashed, one in December 1968
and the other in January 1971. These too were caused by technical failures.
They used state-of-the-art fly-by-wire technology, and it did not always work
perfectly. This is why the vehicles were equipped with ejection seats.
By April 1966 the LLRV had already performed more than 100 successful flights
(Fig. 2). Conspiracists generally refer only to Armstrong's crash and imply
that this was the typical outcome of an LLRV flight. On the contrary, the
typical outcome was a safe, successful landing. A fleet of experimental
aircraft that can perform hundreds of times over several years with only three
serious crashes is not inherently dangerous, unstable, or unflyable. To imply
otherwise is to ignore a great deal of fact.
It is important to understand that these vehicles were not built as prototypes
for the lunar module. A prototype is built to test the technology that will go
into the final version, whether everything fits together, and to determine how
it can be built on an assembly line. The LLTVs and LLRVs were built to
reproduce for the pilot, as best as could be determined in advance, the "feel"
of flying the lunar module using whatever ad hoc technology had to be included
to do that in an earth environment.
From the same post we have -
Also, since you first of all dismissed out of hand the monitor men that I
remarked upon, but now offer a very detailed explanation of their duties and
responsibilities, I was wondering whether you might invite the source of your
comments onto the forum, so that we may discuss it directly with him, rather
than having everything through a third party as it were?
Well I'd hardly dignify it with the adjective 'detailed', even less 'very
detailed'. It was an 'off the top of my head' regurgitation of part of a
documentary I watched on Discovery or National Geographic or some such within
the last month or so. My house is silent except for the sounds I make and the
TV helps to dispel that silence. I prefer to watch something from which I can
learn which helps in just these situations but I didn't record it or transcribe
it so if you prefer to doubt either my memory or my unbiased regurgitation,
then you may simply discount my statement. I note that you did not give
references when you presented the statement -
Each would write down something on his pad now and again. Probably numbers off
the screen. Each had been instructed to watch for a particular character string
and write down each occurrence of it.
Where did you become aware that they had been instructed to look for particular
character strings? More particularly, even if they had been so instructed, you
give no hint of why this is suspicious or menacing. Most people have pad and
pencil handy to make notes even in everyday life but more especially so if they
work from a desk, even more so if the desk involves operations. Why are you so
suspicious of everyone and everything I wonder? Yes, a computer would do it
more efficiently. One then has to ask -- bearing in mind the state of computer
technology in the 1960s -- was there sufficient computer power available to do
so? If there was, somebody in financial planning should have been invited to
seek employment elsewhere. Or it might just be that the operator was required
to make a judgement along with the observation. Computers are still not good at
that. As they were all engineers, my guess is that their most important
function was to report problems
to their section supervisor so that rapid action might be taken when required.
Pretty standard stuff really. You can see it in any control room -- railway
networks, power stations and power grid control centres etc etc.
Paul D
____________________________________________________________________________________
Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage.
http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.html
Other related posts:
