UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Mar > Mar 28

Re: An E-Mail To BadAstronomy On Apollo 11 UFO -

From: Lan Fleming <lfleming5.nul>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 22:04:03 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 08:24:11 -0400
Subject: Re: An E-Mail To BadAstronomy On Apollo 11 UFO -


>From: Brad Sparks <RB47x.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 05:26:29 EDT
>Subject: Re: An E-Mail To BadAstronomy On Apollo 11 UFO

<snip>

>Velocity changes from
>maneuvers in that report in Table 7-II Trajectory Parameters are
>related to what is designated the "Space-fixed Velocity" changes
>in the "body-centered, inertial reference coordinate system. "
>(PDF p. 93). But when the report tabulates the maneuvers with X,
>Y and Z components in Table 8.6-II Maneuver Summary a footnote
>states that "Velocities are in earth- or moon-centered inertial
>coordinates; velocity residuals are in body coordinates."

Yes, and the velocities stated are in earth-centered inertial
coordinates, just like I said they were. Will you at least
concede that much?

Nobody is being "dogmatic" here, so what's your point in
attacking that strawman? When the decrease in gravitational
acceleration with distance is taken into account, the distances
between the faster object and the slower object are greater than
they would be when assuming a constant acceleration. I did a
simulation for the the midcourse correction given the velocity
and altitude in the mission report. The difference after 48
hours is more than 900 miles, so the estimate  of 400 miles
arrived at by assuming a constant acceleration was too
conservative. (The simulation I did considered only radial
velocity, whichs isn't too bad an assumption for the midcourse
correction because the velocity was mostly radial with respect
to the Earth at that time.)

>Also note that the misfirings of the attitude control jets for
>up to 2 hours was what had probably dislodged the metallized
>Mylar, not some normal routine situation.

Possbibly, maybe, but what basis do you have to claim that it is
probable? There were firings of RCS thrusters throughout the
mission before and after the sighting of this object, many of
which would be as likely as any other firing to dislodge
something from the lunar lander. Designing the spacecraft so
that there would be sufficiently forceful impingement of RCS
exhaust upon the lunar lander to dislodge something would seem
to be a very poor and potentially lethal decision.



Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

See:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/


[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com