[geocentrism] Re: navigation to the moon
- From: "Robert Bennett" <robert.bennett@xxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 22:31:42 -0500
1)The first problem is epistemological. The statement of faith says:
Since almost all secular astronomical data now originates from NASA, we
are entitled to seriously question the motives and objectives of that
organization.
Yet NASA's use of navigation by the stars is supported by citing a NASA
employee ......
NASA themselves maintain their navigation by the stars. There are direct
quotes from Buzz Aldrin.......
NASA's integrity is challenged, yet support is claimed from that same
dubious source. Are NASA's statements credible or not? If only some are,
which ones? And why just those?
2)
anything fired toward the Moon would be going the wrong way and would
therefore just smash into it; capsules could only be smashed against the
Moon when launched as they were. The Moon is simply going the opposite way
to what we are taught. If the Moon is at the distance
claimed, then in a geostatic cosmos, it is travelling E->W at 61,200 mph.
The spaceship would be doing something like 2,300 mph W->E
This is hard to interpret; it seems to imply that the initial vertical
launch of a Moon rocket could not be varied after launch - so the vertical
radial direction must be maintained during the flight. How else to explain
the invariant 2,300 mph easterly speed?
Well, the engines are gimballed to steer the rocket after launch; the Moon's
speed can be attained because there is no resistance to motion in space and
only the last stage of the spacecraft is being accelerated. Retro rockets
actually have to be used to slow the craft for lunar orbit insertion, where
it is then co-moving with the Moon. A lunar lander is then sent down from
orbit.
NASA doesn't claim that the Moon rocket travels directly from Earth to Moon.
See the Apollo trajectory diagram below.
Which parts of this explanation are acceptable depends on the answer to 1).
3)
The stars are not stationary, but are rotating diurnally about the World.
The stars are not stationary, but are rotating diurnally about the World.
NASA could not have navigated to the Moon if the stars were moving.
The conclusion drawn from the Buzz Aldrin quotes is that NASA uses the stars
to navigate to the Moon, based on readings from the astronauts' space
sextant.
It's fruitful here to note the following edited section of the Apollo Flight
Journal: http://history.nasa.gov/ap08fj/03day1_green_sep.htm : 004:53:02
to 004:54:18
............................................................................
............................................................................
....................
004:53:02 Anders: Roger. We'll start P23.
[Comm break.]
[It is one of the beautiful truisms of Apollo that each voyage was, to some
extent, guided across the sea of space by the same stars that the great
explorers navigated by for hundreds of years before. It is the unchanging
nature of the stars, at least as far as the journeys of humans are
concerned, that make them so suitable in the role of guidance and
navigation.]
[Apollo's system for navigating by the stars was developed at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) under contract from NASA.
Derived from systems already implemented in intercontinental missiles and
circumnavigating submarines, it uses a gyroscopically stabilised platform to
measure orientation and acceleration, and thus velocity and position. Given
a known starting point, it can derive a knowledge of all subsequent
movements due to powered flight. Then, in the realm of interplanetary
travel, where gravity rules and spacecraft coast along on free-fall
trajectories, the computer can calculate the spacecraft's flight path, given
a knowledge of celestial bodies like the Earth and Moon and their
gravitational effects. However, there must be a means of checking that the
correct trajectory is being followed. Small errors early in a flight path
tend to mount as the great distances are traversed.]
[Apollo was originally conceived in the distrustful early years of the Cold
War when it seemed to the designers that there was every chance the Soviet
Union might try jamming any radio communications between the ground and a
Moon-bound spacecraft. Also, in the early 1960s, techniques for Earth-based
tracking of Moon-bound spacecraft were in their infancy. It was considered
that navigation would be a crew task. By the time Apollo 8 came to launch,
experience had been gained in ground-based radio and radar tracking with the
flights of the Ranger, Surveyor and Lunar Orbiter probes. Tracking from
Earth became the prime navigation method. However, navigation sightings
carried out by the crew would provide a cross-check of the trajectory and
provide a backup in case the crew lost radio contact with the ground. Apollo
8 is NASA's first opportunity to prove that onboard celestial navigation
works. ....]
[Brinkley, from 2001 interview - "What immediate new concerns would somebody
like yourself have, let's just say that you're a pilot, a top-flight pilot
would have about leaving Earth's immediate gravitational influence? What
would frighten a pilot about that?"]
[Armstrong, from 2001 interview - "Well, I suppose that everyone would have
concerns, but I don't know that they'd all be the same. People would worry
about different things. I remember that one of the things that I was
concerned with at the time was whether our navigation was sufficiently
accurate, that we could, in fact, devise a trajectory that would get us
around the Moon at the right distance without, say, hitting the Moon on the
back side or something like that, and if we lost communication with Earth,
for whatever reason, could we navigate by ourselves using celestial
navigation. We thought we could, but these were undemonstrated skills."]
[Brinkley, from 2001 interview - "That's something to think about.
[Laughter]"]
[Ambrose, from 2001 interview - "You've got me thinking about - [unaware
that navigation is carried out using dedicated inbuilt optical instruments]
you didn't have a very big window to look out of to do celestial
navigation."]
[Armstrong, from 2001 interview - "NASA's probably the only organization in
history that's been sold a one-power telescope. And that's what we used for
doing the sextant shots and doing the star shots."]
[The Command Module Pilot is the navigator on board Apollo. It is his
responsibility to make sightings with the sextant that help define where the
spacecraft is, how fast it is travelling and where it is headed. Jim is the
first human to demonstrate this technique in what is essentially a test of
Apollo's navigational abilities. He uses Program 23 in the computer to
achieve this and the result is a more accurate state vector and a better
idea of whether they will arrive at their destination as they expect.]
[Imagine the Earth-Moon system with an Apollo spacecraft one day out from
Earth:-
The spacecraft is coasting along on a trajectory which depends on the engine
burns that propelled it earlier in the flight. At any particular moment in
time, the spacecraft will be in a certain position and it will have a
certain velocity. If the trajectory were any different, the position and
velocity at the same moment in time would be different. Therefore, position
is one of the parameters dependant on their trajectory and measuring it will
help pin down the true nature of their flight path. An indirect way of
measuring position is to measure the angle between a star and the horizon of
the Earth or Moon. The exact value of this angle at a particular moment in
time is entirely dependant on their trajectory. Were the trajectory to be
substantially different, the angle would also be different.]
[Since the trajectory is defined by the state vector (i.e. their position
and velocity at a particular time) the computer can use an Earth/star angle
or a Moon/star angle to calculate a current state vector. Multiple sightings
are used to refine the vector by averaging out the errors inherent in the
measurement.]
[Once he gets past some initial calibration problems, Jim will make 11
separate measurements in this, his first tranche of P23 sightings. He will
measure the angle between Canopus (Alpha Carinae) and that part of Earth's
horizon nearest the star. .....]
[Jim Lovell in correspondence with Journal contributor Dave Hardin - "As
best as I can recall these Earth horizon sightings were to determine how
navigations could determine the actual or surmised Earth's horizon. The idea
was to place the sextant's cross hair on the horizon over a period of
sightings. The resulting surmised horizon would then be used for horizon -
star navigation (similar to shipboard navigation). Actually the Apollo
flights relied on the ground to navigate and keep track of our position. The
navigation basically used only star sighting to correct the drift of the
guidance gyros. At a long distance in our Apollo flights, the atmosphere was
insignificant. I placed the center of the crosshair of the sextant directly
on the Earth's horizon. In Gemini flights the atmosphere represents about a
half of degree and this has to be factored in when taking sightings."]
004:54:18 Anders: Houston. Apollo 8 with a PRD reading.
............................................................................
..
What's made clear here is that :
a.. the star-sightings by the astronaut's were a back-up to the primary
tracking system from Earth, in case it failed, or as a check on any drift in
the primary system. NASA used radar tracking by ground stations around the
world to navigate Apollo.
b.. The star sighting was a single momentary event, not an extended
observation, so the motion of the stars (or the lack thereof), would not be
relevant.
We conclude that
a.. In an HC system the change in angle between the star and the Earth's
horizon(limb) would be due to the Earth's motion.
b.. In a GC system the change in angle between the star and the Earth's
horizon(limb) would be due to the star's motion.
Which parts of this explanation are acceptable again depends on the answer
to 1).
AMDG,
Robert
> -----Original Message-----
> From: geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Dr. Neville Jones
> Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 4:26 PM
> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Virtual/created reality?
>
>
> It has been a few days now, so hopefully most of you will have
> had a bit of time to consider the Apollo Moon claims. Just to
> recap, I maintain that a Biblical, non-moving World cannot be
> maintained if it turns out that NASA put men on the Moon. Philip,
> in particular, took up the gauntlet on this one.
>
> We need now to move on, which means that we need to reach a
> consensus of opinion on this issue. Hence, I ask Philip directly,
> what do you now think about the two points that I originally made:
>
> 1. That capsules could only be smashed against the Moon when
> launched as they were;
> 2. That NASA could not have navigated to the Moon if the stars
> were moving?
>
> Neville.
>
> Philip <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Paint shop Pro is an excellent program. I have played with
> altering pics at times. You can actually move and duplicate
> pixels. For example an object on the floor can be replaced with
> pixels from the surrounding floor. Not covered, replaced... as if
> it never was there. The mind boggles...A picture is no longer a
> gaurantee of the reality.
> Philip.
>
> ---------------------------------
> ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
>
>
>
Other related posts:
