Merged: Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[ApolloGnomon]

Originally Posted by nomuse

A quick back-of-the-envelope indicates the total Delta-V of the S-IVb is under 12,000 MPH. That's a fair bit shy of your 25,000 MPH bootlegger reverse.

I haven't even bothered diving into the stupid bootlegger abort scenario because he doesn't even have the basic parameters right. His quoted reference (he doesn't own the book, by the way, he's looking at a google books reference ) is not a "primary source" but a layman's level work.

this diagram is from NASA's press release documents -- a set of lovely drawings showing basic schematics of various aspects of the flight. The time-critical abort looks like an about-face maneuver, but there's no analysis of delta-v and it's not to scale.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Di..._MSC_Jun66.jpg

The flight plan for every mission included constantly updated scenarios, where FIDO fed the current data back to the computer to get new trajectories. Every time they made an ullage burn, stopped the BBQ roll for tv transmission or made a course correction burn the entire rest of the mission was recalculated including refiguring direct abort and free return trajectories.

http://klabs.org/history/apollo_expe...t_planning.pdf

Planning for the next generation of missions is making use of the volumes of data generated by Apollo --
http://drum.lib.umd.edu/bitstream/19...i-umd-4138.pdf

[ApolloGnomon]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

I just looked up the Command/Service module on Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_...Service_Module

It says the maximum delta V was 2,800 m/s. That's 6,263 miles per hour.

I checked here - http://nassp.sourceforge.net/wiki/SPS - in case I misunderstood the terminology, but it confirms that the service module's engine, the SPS, "provides the impulse for all velocity changes (ΔVs) throughout a mission".

So that implies to me that the SPS was capable of changing the CSM's velocity by a total of 6,236 miles per hour. In other words, it hadn't nearly enough fuel to slow the craft to a stop from 25,000 mph in one direction let alone accelerate it to 25,000 mph in another direction.

Patrick, are you quite sure you didn't miss off a vital part from your quotation? Something along the lines of "...but it couldn't do that, because there wasn't enough fuel"? Any help you can provide in explaining this discrepancy would be gratefully received.

The initial speed of TLI coast was just under 25000mph, but gradually decelerated until the craft came into the moon's sphere of influence, then began accelerating again.

[ApolloGnomon]

Here's the original Apollo 8 press kit http://www.siamoandatisullaluna.com/...o8PressKit.pdf

[ApolloGnomon]

And here's the "owner's manual" for teh Service Propulsion System:
http://history.nasa.gov/afj/aoh/aoh-v1-2-04-sps.pdf

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

We are just working from opposite ends.

Originally Posted by sts60

No, we're not.

Well, since he doesn't state the thing that he believes you two are on opposite ends of, I like to imagine that it's an ignorance-knowledge scale where he's clearly—and by his own admission—on the ignorance end and people like you are on the opposite end.

Somehow he thinks those positions are equivalent, though.

[ApolloGnomon]

Quote:

At about 55 hours and 40 minutes into the flight, the crew of Apollo 8 became the first humans to enter the gravitational sphere of influence of another celestial body.[18] In other words, the effect of the Moon's gravitational force on Apollo 8 became stronger than that of the Earth. At the time it happened, Apollo 8 was 38,759 miles (62,377 km) from the Moon and had a speed of 3,990 ft/s (1,220 m/s) relative to the Moon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_...e_of_influence

[ApolloGnomon]

From here out I will engage Patrick100 from the perspective of the following assumption set: He's a high school kid who's found a silly playtoy to occupy dull moments of his summer break. But he may have the capacity to learn.

Thus, I will defy the usual JREF culture and attempt to be informative rather than just snarky and mean. Not sayin' I won't be snarky, but I'll try to frame my rudeness with relevant links and facts.

I don't give a crap what everyone else thinks.

So, I'll wait a bit for the breakfast shift at McD's to end . . .

[Ranb]

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

You are late to the party Ranb and do not understand the point of debate. It had nothing to do with a CSM stopping on a dime. The point of contention was whether or not an abort option existed. I presented a reference from NASA and one from Lovell's book showing the option did exist.

Then you should not suggest that the CSM could turn on a dime. Why not enlighten us on the CSM capabilities?

Ranb

[Gorgonian]

Originally Posted by ApolloGnomon

Not sayin' I won't be snarky

So, I'll wait a bit for the breakfast shift at McD's to end . . .

Indeed

[Ranb]

Patrick1000,

You have much to say about Reed and how his words purposively support your conclusion that the moon Apollo moon landings were faked. Your methods greatly resemble those the truthers use when they trot out FBI evidence to support their theory that the WTC was a CD, but ignore other FBI evidence that the collapse was caused by collision and fire.

So is Reed going to agree with you that Apollo was faked? Does Reed have anything else to say that does not support your conclusions? Why not contact him to let him know how you are using his work to show that he is a fraud. I'm sure he would be happy to hear from a kid who is trying to learn more about the space program that he helped build.

Ranb

[Patrick1000]

I do have a bit more to say with respect to last evening's comedy. Certainly, nomuse's fine performance in his role as "embarrassment control specialist" can't go without his receiving some honors. I mean the guy is on beeper call, 24/7, ever ready to save his colleagues' rumps when they've stepped in Borman poop. But I am here to debate Apollo first and foremost, so let's leave my honoring nomuse and his efforts of last evening to a future time in another post. I'd like to take a quick look instead at a "funny" feature in the original Apollo 11 Technical Crew Report.

Here indeed is a gem of a find. Let's take a look at some astronaut chit-chat from the original version of the Apollo 11 Technical Crew Debriefing. Who knows, perhaps this document has a "ghost writer" too, Just like Jim Lovell's silly tale, APOLLO 13(subtitled "MY WEEK LONG DRIFT THROUGH CISLUNAR SPACE IN A FAKE ICEBOX"). Be that as it may, I trust the ever vigilant nomuse won't object to my use of this critically important NASA publication in proving Apollo to be 99.999 % charade, 0.001 % technical mumbo jumbo.

Shall we drop in on the boys at section 8-18 of the original Apollo 11 Technical Crew Debriefing Report? Here, our Eagle Scouts in training, fresh as can be, having showered and shaved post their 9 day effort to score the highly coveted "NASA Acting Merit Badge", begin to discuss a bit of a problem they'd had with the readout on the lunar module DEDA. The DEDA of course being the Abort Guidance System's readout window. A quote from the report;

"Aldrin: Let's see, there was one funny thing that I don't think we've mentioned. It was pretty minor. One of the strokes on the DEDA was not illuminated. Each character is made up of all these different strokes. One missing was in the middle character, and it would leave you in a position where you couldn't tell whether it was a three or a nine. I didn't realize at the time that there was any room for confusion. Later, in looking at some numbers, you could not really tell whether in fact that was a three or a nine.

Yes. You just need that one stroke to close it, and it becomes a nine. I got the bottom one. With this particular one missing, there was some doubt as to exactly what you had. That's true of any digit on any of those electrical switch displays.

Collins: Remember, we had one of those in the EMS.

Armstrong: Yes, that's right. Fortunately, the simulators usually got some out and you got used to putting up with that. But, it's a problem that really could get to you sometime if you misinterpret that number.

Aldrin: We missed putting the AGS time in there. We missed by 15 centiseconds hitting it right on, which I thought was very close. We did even better than that when we updated at 120 hours. "


So here we have a situation in which our favorite principals are discussing a problem with the readout on their DEDA. Of course it's not all that much of a major a problem. Actually, per Buzz, "pretty minor" really this business with not being able to read the DEDA. When the numbers in the window of the lunar module backup guidance system readout can't dependably be determined it really is no big deal. After all, the abort guidance system is only the system that double checks the primary system's function/performance and is also the lunar module guidance system that would be employed were an actual emergent abort be required on the occasion of distressed LM rescue. So when discussing the malfunction of the DEDA/readout on this rather trivial and unimportant system, the abort guidance system, we really shouldn't find ourselves being surprised at all by Aldrin's minimizing this trivial and "pretty minor" issue. I mean after all, when your life is on the line 240,000 miles away, who really cares about vital equipment performance?

"pretty minor", who can argue with Buzz's assessment there? He's the guy working on the NASA merit badge after all. If we can't trust his sense as to what might or might not be important in a situation like this, who now can we trust?

The interesting thing about the above passage from the Apollo 11 Technical Crew Debriefing is that it doesn't appear at all in the debriefing's more recent republication. If one looks at the NASA authorized Apollo 11 Technical Crew Debriefing Report republication, for example in the collection of NASA authorized reports published by Apogee, compiled from the NASA archives and edited by Robert Godwin, well I'll be a space monkey's great uncle, we see that these comments by Aldrin simply do not appear. I guess that little ol' problem with the readout out was so very "pretty minor" that it made no sense for that meticulous record fanatic Robert Godwin to include those minor comments of Aldrin's about such a minor problem in the republication of such an importantly minor document.

Of course, on the other hand, some smart aleck might have the temerity to suggest they're trying to hide something, like maybe the numbers in their records are not what they are supposed to be and so they make up this bogus story about the DEDA so that they can claim the fake numbers they have with respect to something or another, a trajectory for example, though trajectory need not be the case, actually do make sense.

Piloting a space ship is serious business. Obviously, saying "pretty minor" to not being able to read the abort guidance system's DEDA is "VERY BOGUS". So we have a case here of astronaut lying. Lying no less about something so very important that they're willing to risk major exposure/vulnerability by deleting the statement from the clearly DOCTORED/REDACTED Apollo 11 Technical Crew Debriefing Report republication.

My oh my, how those astronauts do lie.

[Patrick1000]

Ranb,

I doubt Reed would ever see Apollo as faked. The chance of him seeing the light is remote. He is in a sense too integral. Who wants to feel that you've been jacked to such an insane degree?

I have never considered writing to Reed. My friends and I have written long separate letters to the Apollo 11 astronauts individually. I believe 11 or 12 of us each sent individual letters to Armstrong , Collins and Aldrin. My letters were very long and I never heard back from any of the astronauts.

[ApolloGnomon]

1) citations, please

2) what's your point of contention? How does the above relate in any way to your over all claims?

[X]

I have a serious question, Patrick100 (if you're serious, which I rather doubt):

Why would NASA include such obvious fakery as Borman's illness, the lading site location issue and the buggy display if they so obviously proved the whole thing a fake? Why would NASA script those issues at all? Why not have more "realistic" problems to be overcome?

[Patrick1000]

For Ranb at #393 above. I don't suggest the CM can turn on a dime. I suggested and then showed NASA has a section in their Apollo 8 prelaunch report that indicates a translunar coast abort was an option in their mission whether one believes those missions to be fake or real. I typed the very words from Jim Lovell's book that discuss this option as well.

Why would I believe the thing can tun on a dime Ranb? I don't think it ever hit cislunar space.

Please check the posts leading up to my postings of the NASA reference and Lovell reference. The point of contention was whether direct aborts were contingencies of the Apollo missions. The technical details were and are of no matter to me, especially given my general perspective that the whole thing is fake.

Again, review the posts.

Finally, as you can see, I am moving on. If you all want to discuss abort contingencies be my guest. I do have a few final comments for nomuse and the others about the sociology of last night's comedy. But I care not go down the road we did with the telescope magnification issue. I prefer to debate the fraud. I will return to the Borman poop matter later once the poop particles have settled.

Ciao!

[nomuse]

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

For Ranb at #393 above. I don't suggest the CM can turn on a dime. I suggested and then showed NASA has a section in their Apollo 8 prelaunch report that indicates a translunar coast abort was an option in their mission whether one believes those missions to be fake or real. I typed the very words from Jim Lovell's book that discuss this option as well.

Why would I believe the thing can tun on a dime Ranb? I don't think it ever hit cislunar space.

Please check the posts leading up to my postings of the NASA reference and Lovell reference. The point of contention was whether direct aborts were contingencies of the Apollo missions. The technical details were and are of no matter to me, especially given my general perspective that the whole thing is fake.

Again, review the posts.

Finally, as you can see, I am moving on. If you all want to discuss abort contingencies be my guest. I do have a few final comments for nomuse and the others about the sociology of last night's comedy. But I care not go down the road we did with the telescope magnification issue. I prefer to debate the fraud. I will return to the Borman poop matter later once the poop particles have settled.

Ciao!

You are playing the same game as always. You say "The green sky has clouds in it."

Other posters point out the sky isn't green.

You go into giant walls of text defending the position that the sky has clouds in it.

The posters attempt to explain they do not disagree about clouds, they never had any problem with clouds, they were specifically questioning your usage of the term "green."

You begin lying openly, claiming you never, ever said "green" in the first place. Then you post again about clouds and declare victory.

[Patrick1000]

X, the poop stuff, any details, are believed by script writers, writers in general, writers of any ilk, to make a story line more credible. Stuff like that would be anticipated. A writer would expect the poop were he or she reading this as script. If you are reading it as a scientist, you think, "why the poop?".

They tried to make the thing more "realistic". Pretty dumb, given the fallout.

[Patrick1000]

Fine nomuse, let's move on. If you have a comment to make about Aldrin's lying please do so. Otherwise you are free to go until one of your colleagues yet again steps in it.

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

X, the poop stuff, any details, are believed by script writers, writers in general, writers of any ilk, to make a story line more credible. Stuff like that would be anticipated. A writer would expect the poop were he or she reading this as script. If you are reading it as a scientist, you think, "why the poop?".

They tried to make the thing more "realistic". Pretty dumb, given the fallout.

Dear me, you have yet to provide any evidence, reasoning, or logic as to why the "hoaxers" would include such a thing.

Why not just do it perfectly? Why include such a random event?

So he got the runs, BFD.

It is documented, yet you claim this is proof of a "Hoax".

If the aim was to conceal the hoax, such data would not be in the public domain.

Do you not recognise the nonsense that they deliberately put this fact in the PD is evidence for a hoax, but is instead evidence for the reality of the Apollo missions?

Is it so hard for you to see honesty?

[X]

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

X, the poop stuff, any details, are believed by script writers, writers in general, writers of any ilk, to make a story line more credible. Stuff like that would be anticipated. A writer would expect the poop were he or she reading this as script. If you are reading it as a scientist, you think, "why the poop?".

They tried to make the thing more "realistic". Pretty dumb, given the fallout.

Yeah, I didn't think you were being serious.

[nomuse]

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

X, the poop stuff, any details, are believed by script writers, writers in general, writers of any ilk, to make a story line more credible. Stuff like that would be anticipated. A writer would expect the poop were he or she reading this as script. If you are reading it as a scientist, you think, "why the poop?".

They tried to make the thing more "realistic". Pretty dumb, given the fallout.

And yet, when they describe the TLI burn (two for the non-free-return trajectories) they apparently talked to enough scientists to get the details right. When they describe lunar geology, same. Telecommunications, same.

For that matter, there are multiple papers on the physiological findings of humans in space; tables of changes in bone density, white blood cell counts, plotted heart rates over the missions. And of course accurate tracking of consumables including oxygen, water, CO2 scrubbing, even (if you look) totals for waste.

So they DID have doctors they could consult with while writing the script. Were they sick the day Apollo 8 was scripted? And why just them, when a dozen other professionals were in the room concocting a narrative that stands up to scrutiny from professionals in the field TODAY?

[nomuse]

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

Fine nomuse, let's move on. If you have a comment to make about Aldrin's lying please do so. Otherwise you are free to go until one of your colleagues yet again steps in it.

I don't take that "Paid Shill" insult lightly.

If you had the ability of a clam you'd see my posting schedule bore no relation to where you were in any of your rambling monologues.

I do this for amusement. And because, like the cartoon goes, I have a really hard time with gross untruths being promulgated right under my nose.

[Patrick1000]

ApolloG,

Lying and covering up, as is the case here with the above Aldrin reference means Aldrin is simply not credible. He is lying, about what happened in July of 1969, where were the thing true, there would be no reason to lie. AND, the fact that the quote exposing him as lying has been removed from the republication of the report means the perpetrators past and present, don't want you to know about this lying and Aldrin's lack of credibility.

[Patrick1000]

Fine nomuse, split. i care not. I imagine your colleagues will not care, nor do I.

[Patrick1000]

AND nomuse, my statement about your inappropriate use of the word "WE" stands. Not that you care.

[sts60]

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

...Here indeed is a gem of a find. Let's take a look at some astronaut chit-chat from the original version of the Apollo 11 Technical Crew Debriefing.

...The interesting thing about the above passage from the Apollo 11 Technical Crew Debriefing is that it doesn't appear at all in the debriefing's more recent republication...

...Lying no less about something so very important that they're willing to risk major exposure/vulnerability by deleting the statement from the clearly DOCTORED/REDACTED Apollo 11 Technical Crew Debriefing Report republication....

(bolding mine)

There are three versions of the crew debrief at the ALSJ site hosted by NASA: the original scanned format in sections, a text-converted PDF, and a pure HTML version. The statement is found in all three:

Quote:

8.2.16 AGS Activation, Self-Test, Calibration, and Alignment

Aldrin
... Let's see, there was one funny thing that I don't think we've mentioned. It was pretty minor. One of the strokes on the DEDA was not illuminated. Each character is made up of all these different strokes. The one missing was in the middle character, and it would leave you in a position where you couldn't tell whether it was a three or a nine. I didn't realize at the time that there was any room for confusion. Later, in looking at some numbers, you could not really tell whether in fact that was a three or a nine.

Armstrong
Yes. You just need that one stroke to close it, and it becomes a nine.

Collins
I got the bottom one.

Aldrin
With this particular one missing, there was some doubt as to exactly what you had.

Armstrong
That's true of any digit on any of those electrical switch displays.

Collins
Remember, we had one of those in the EMS.

Armstrong
Yes, that's right. Fortunately, the simulators usually got some out and you got used to putting up with that. But, it's a problem that really could get to you some time if you misinterpret that number.

Aldrin
We missed putting the AGS time in there. We missed by 15 centiseconds hitting it right on, which I thought was very close. We did even better than that when we updated at 120 hours.

Poor fattydash. One would think that a few of his army of super-sock-friends could use some of their mad research skillz to help him out. Hey, I admit it's a lot of work; it took me at least 30 seconds to find these "doctored/redacted" copies online at both NASA and non-NASA sites.

Seriously, though, this shows rather clearly the poor guy's fixation on quote-mining and appeals to ignorance and ridicule (not to mention his inability to understand how sourcing works in research). He doesn't understand the topic, but he thinks by playing up some routine passage from a technical discussion and using scare quotes he will gain some traction. It's just embarrassing, though, when he trips over himself like this in his haste to claim a cover-up.

[JohnG]

Originally Posted by JohnG

Is it your contention that the conspirators invented the embarrassing and wildly unpleasant diarrhea incident to lend their supposedly far-fetched tale a sort of gritty verisimilitude? Do you think the concern was that the average man on the street would read about the Apollo missions and think to himself, "yeah I'll buy surviving the Van Allen belt and all that other stuff that to my ignorant mind might seem suspicious, but the accounts all seem to omit mentions of diarrrea and that for me is a major red flag"?

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

X, the poop stuff, any details, are believed by script writers, writers in general, writers of any ilk, to make a story line more credible. Stuff like that would be anticipated. A writer would expect the poop were he or she reading this as script. If you are reading it as a scientist, you think, "why the poop?".

They tried to make the thing more "realistic". Pretty dumb, given the fallout.

So...that's a "yes", then?

Why invent something so embarrassing in a such a disgusting "TMI" sort of way? Surely there's other, equally effective, yet far less nauseating ways to "make a story line more credible"? Could you tell us again exactly why you find "poop=fraud" such a logical slam-dunk?

[Patrick1000]

sts,

Of course the original copy has the 8-18 Aldrin quote as stated and of course it is found on the internet. The point was that the Aldrin quote is missing from the REPUBLICATIONS such as that edited by Robert Godwin and published by Apogee.

Now if you purchased an Apollo 11 Mission Report collection by Apogee , the Godwin edit, AND you showed me that had the stuff that I claim was removed in there, I would say, "wow sts, you got me". But you will find that is not the case. Please check the publication I mentioned. you will not find the Aldrin quote in there. It has been removed intentionally by Godwin at the behest of the keepers of the lies.

And again, of course you found the lie/quote in the original publication. Where do you think I found it?

[Patrick1000]

OH yes sts, please keep in mind these republications are NASA authorized. And we can see why, authorized with a very special reason in mind.

[Patrick1000]

WOW!!!, it is true sts. I did find the quote in another section of my Apogee publication. Not in 8-18. So i do withdraw my claim about the Apogee publication. However, the point about Aldrin's lying stands. Of course a DEDA reading "3" instead of "9" or "9" instead of "3" would be a major concern and not a "pretty minor" thing. The statement by Aldrin is clearly a lie. That said, i was incorrect in my suggestion it was being covered up by removing it from the Apogee publication. It is in there, under a different heading than the original 8-18.

[nomuse]

Bull. Without seeing the actual document you conveniently have the only copy of, I can't tell if the entire thing has been edited for brevity or clarity. Or if you are simply mistaken.

Since the UNedited versions of the document are available in the original scans from the NASA website, it is clear that nothing is being officially hidden.

Okay, let me amend that. It may be hidden from people with really poor research skills.

[nomuse]

Cross-post.

[Erock]

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

OH yes sts, please keep in mind these republications are NASA authorized. And we can see why, authorized with a very special reason in mind.

What a load of old cobblers.

The use of the word 'edited' gives a clue to the book. Since I have not the time, money or inclination to buy something freely available in great detail to 99.999999% of people interested in such a thing (ie. not interested in buying that book), I fail to see how this stunning irrelevant piece of poop is even worth the effort it took to read it.

I am calling you out on that NOUN 76 issue YOU raised at apollohoax, where you did your victory dance and told everybody how smart you were.

It is clearly the same writing style, excessive verbosity, patronising tone and 'humourous' overtones about the nature of what you have discovered.


So, deny it - who cares. Say you are this multi-gifted individual, multi-qualified part of a team of internet 'investigators' challenging Apollo - who cares.

Who were handed your butt, you know it, I know it, and anybody who compares the multiple sock puppet posts knows it.

[nomuse]

Oh, but you forget, Doctor Socks and his chess club (of radar technicians in China?) are all posting through a $3,000 natural-language software program that turns concise, polite posts into identical patronizing, disorganized, attempted-humor-filled walls of text.

I have a friend who spent two years in the development of natural-language tools for an online text-based role-playing game. He and I would be fascinated to learn the name of this phantom software.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by nomuse

...He and I would be fascinated to learn the name of this phantom software.

I suspect it's still a bit buggy. The condescending and simperingly over-polite tone seems to be breaking down lately.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by nomuse

He and I would be fascinated to learn the name of this phantom software.

I found it. It's called FantasyWare. The current version is 44.55.21.7777

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

I <snip>

*yawn*

[ApolloGnomon]

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

WOW!!!, it is true sts. I did find the quote in another section of my Apogee publication. Not in 8-18. So i do withdraw my claim about the Apogee publication. However, the point about Aldrin's lying stands. Of course a DEDA reading "3" instead of "9" or "9" instead of "3" would be a major concern and not a "pretty minor" thing. The statement by Aldrin is clearly a lie. That said, i was incorrect in my suggestion it was being covered up by removing it from the Apogee publication. It is in there, under a different heading than the original 8-18.

Thanks for being man enough to admit a mistake. That's highly unusual among conspiracy theorists.

That said, I have some questions regarding your qualified apology:
1) In what way would it be a "major concern?"

2) What would have happened if the error had not been detected?

3) Was this error during a test flight corrected for later missions?

4) How does this count as a "lie" by Aldrin?

[Erock]

Originally Posted by patrick1000

Original claim

I want to nail you down about this. You keep doing it on multiple forums, so perhaps you can stop tip toeing about and tell everybody how the laser reflector arrived on the Moon. The Apollo 11 craft put them there, or some mystery invisible take off rocket did?

You see, from where I'm standing, your claim is internally inconsistent in the most extreme way possible.

Your claim has to be an unmanned mission placed them there, as I cannot imagine that even you with your non-scientific bias would suggest that it isn't actually there. Only somebody with the sheer stupidity of Jarrah White would make that ignorant claim

So I want to ask you some very simple questions.

If NASA has the capability of determining the exact position of a laser reflector on the Moon, how exactly could it do that? The same telemetry data used for a manned landing plus onsite analysis, would be used for any unmanned landing.

If they knew the position of a supposed unmanned laser.....

Why then would it invent such a convoluted account concerning the 'Lost Bird' if it already had a laser in place?

If NASA did not have a laser in place, how then could they give LICK exact co-ordinates that (though didn't work due to Earth positioning errors) turned out to be exactly where future laser ended up?

You appear to have some sort of contradiction here, perhaps you should explain your whole theory for all to see.


p.s. The 'dodgy script' scenario ain't cutting it.

[nomuse]

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

Speak for yourself nomuse. Don't pull that bogus jive on me. Look at the posts of others. Knock off the WE stuff. You may say "I nomuse" didn't deny the abort option. The others did. Sorry 'bout that, but my messages weren't for you. THEY WERE FOR THE OTHERS WHO DID DENY THE ABORT OPTION. And quit trying to defend them. Let them fight their own battles, you embarrass them all the more.

Quote ANYONE from this thread who said abort was impossible. I think you will find that most of the posters who made a statement on the matter made a QUALIFIED statement. Most of the statements took the form "...the abort scenario as Patrick describes it."

This is another cloudy green sky. The majority of the posters on this thread have agreed that there were abort scenarios, including the minimum-time return. What they, and I, have objected to is the characterization of stopping dead in space from 25,000 MPH (please, please, learn to use m/s like the rest of us!) and accelerating to 25,000 MPH in the other direction (a delta-V of 50,000 MPH).

"We" is appropriate and justified.