1026 replies to this topic

[mcrom901]

lost_shaman, on 01 December 2011 - 09:29 AM, said:

It can be calculated.

Sightings of Apollo 11, and a Table Mountain photo, were reported in "Observations of Apollo 11", Sky and Telescope, November 1969, pp. 358-359. The Table Mountain 60-cm image is shown here, by courtesy of Jim Young. It is a 12-minute exposure (0512-0524 UT on 24 July, on the home stretch) with the spacecraft showing as the diagonal streak.

http://www.astr.ua.e...ace/apollo.html

[lost_shaman]

Pericynthion, on 29 November 2011 - 06:07 AM, said:

Besides, if the object was resolvable with the naked eye, then the view through the 28x sextant should have been VERY clear.  We don't see any indication of that in the crew comments though.  

That would only be true of a very large object at a large distance. A small object close by could easily be too close for the minimum distance of the optics resolution. The result would be an object that is out of focus in the optics at both the minimum and maximum magnifications. The crew comments that the object was always out of focus in the optics indicates it was small and close.

[mcrom901]

Rocket stages, usually hollow metal cylinders, tumble through the Earth's magnetic field. This generates eddy currents in the skin of the structure. The Earth's magnetic field acts on these currents which creates a torque on the rocket. Due to this torque the rotation will slowly decrease. It will also change the rotation from spinning (rotation about the long axis) to tumbling (rotation about the short axis). This is comparable to a toy top which spins slower due to the friction, and lays flatter.

http://www.satobs.or...umbleintro.html
http://www.satobs.or.../rottheory.html

[lost_shaman]

Pericynthion, on 01 December 2011 - 05:46 AM, said:

That's not quite correct. The letters on an eye chart are indeed intended to have an angle of 5 arcminutes for 20/20 vision, but to tell the letters apart, a person has to resolve the individual pieces of each letter which are only about 1 arcminute (reference). To distinguish a "B" from an "R" you have to resolve a much smaller piece of each letter. By definition, 20/10 vision means being able to resolve 30 arcseconds.

The best possible Human eye resolution is limited by diffraction. This is 25 arcseconds. At best this equates to a 12.5 arcsecond blur due to refraction while viewing an Edge. This is why a person with 20/10 vision can read the 2.5 arcminute letters.  The space between the letters is 30 arseconds. However you also have to count the width of the lines that make up the letters. When you do that, 2 lines and one space equal much more than 60 arcseconds.

Edited by lost_shaman, 02 December 2011 - 07:12 AM.

[booNyzarC]

Can I pipe in on this controversy?  I don't want to step on any toes or anything...

In my opinion (and it is totally opinion) I think that both sides seem to have valid arguments.  I'm impressed by the math provided which is presented in support of the notion that what they saw can't be explained by a panel.  But at the same time I agree that the testimony provided isn't as conclusive regarding what they purportedly saw with the naked eye as has been suggested.  Both interpretations are valid.  I personally steer more in the direction of them seeing a flash of light that they decided to look closer at with whatever they could utilize at the time.  But at the same time I openly admit that I couldn't possibly know for sure and that I'm basing that opinion on assumption and my own personal interpretation.

May I suggest a middle ground on this one?

We don't know and we never will.  I mean honestly, until ACME releases some kind of time machine or even a virtual viewer time machine, we simply won't know.  We can guess until we're blue in the face but it will still be guesswork on this particular case.

Don't mind me, I'm drunk tonight.  And really enjoying it...  been a while...

[DONTEATUS]

The drunk part is about as good as the  Alien parts flying around the Apollo  You can drink a lot before one see`s the cents in some of these threads.
Im going to sleep too and dream of Electric sheep.
until we get a Ride and a few E.T`s working with us to Fix our mess ITs time to Drink up !

[MID]

booNyzarC, on 03 December 2011 - 04:17 AM, said:

May I suggest a middle ground on this one?

We don't know and we never will.  I mean honestly, until ACME releases some kind of time machine or even a virtual viewer time machine, we simply won't know.  We can guess until we're blue in the face but it will still be guesswork on this particular case.

Don't mind me, I'm drunk tonight.  And really enjoying it...  been a while...

There ya go, booNy!
Precisely what I had indicated when I got tired of the opthamologic silliness that made this issue into a real crisis!

The drunk part helps too, then I don't have to contemplate why, yesterday morning at 06:33 EDT, I saw the ISS, in a great sighting, by the way, appearing above the NNW horizon and moving to the SSE, disappearing about 21 degrees above that horizon as the Sun ceased to reflect off of her surface....

...why I saw her when at a distance of 1276 miles from my location, when she was only 12 arc-seconds in size, maybe,  obviously below my ability to resolve her.   I don't have to contemplate why she disappeared 4 minutes later.  The Sun left her and I couldn't see her any more.   No reflected light.

The wine makes it all fine!   I don't have to sit there and wonder how the Apollo 11 crew could've seen something so small at hundreds of miles distance.  Angle of incidence = angle of reflection.  Sure they coulda seen it, reflecting.  

But you're right.  We don't and never will know if they did!

Maybe our suggestions will be taken to heart and the matter will fall where it fell 42 years ago...into the "who cares" file of insignifgicant stuff that had no bearing on what we were doing in space in July 1969!

  

[DONTEATUS]

In 1969  we at least had our hearts and minds on a noble Quest ! Now we need to Ramp it up again !

[lost_shaman]

MID, on 03 December 2011 - 04:38 PM, said:

There ya go, booNy!
Precisely what I had indicated when I got tired of the opthamologic silliness that made this issue into a real crisis!

The drunk part helps too, then I don't have to contemplate why, yesterday morning at 06:33 EDT, I saw the ISS, in a great sighting, by the way, appearing above the NNW horizon and moving to the SSE, disappearing about 21 degrees above that horizon as the Sun ceased to reflect off of her surface....

...why I saw her when at a distance of 1276 miles from my location, when she was only 12 arc-seconds in size, maybe,  obviously below my ability to resolve her.   I don't have to contemplate why she disappeared 4 minutes later.  The Sun left her and I couldn't see her any more.   No reflected light.

Hey MID,

You still seem to be confused. If you understand that you couldn't resolve the ISS then you surely you are able to understand that seeing the ISS isn't even comparable to what the Crew said they saw. An object close by near the resolution limit of their eye's.

MID, on 03 December 2011 - 04:38 PM, said:

The wine makes it all fine!   I don't have to sit there and wonder how the Apollo 11 crew could've seen something so small at hundreds of miles distance.  Angle of incidence = angle of reflection.  Sure they coulda seen it, reflecting.  

But you're right.  We don't and never will know if they did!

Maybe our suggestions will be taken to heart and the matter will fall where it fell 42 years ago...into the "who cares" file of insignifgicant stuff that had no bearing on what we were doing in space in July 1969!

  

If it was a piece of the spacecraft then it certainly has some bearing on "what we were doing"! The high potential for ruling out an SLA panel tells is it was likely from the CSM-LM just as Collin's suspected. This would clearly be somewhat relevant. As far as I'm concerned your irritable attitude towards any discussion that questions an SLA Panel boggles the mind.

Seriously, I don't understand why trying to rule out an SLA panel because it doesn't fit with what the Crew said they saw is a "crisis" as you suggest.

[MID]

lost_shaman, on 03 December 2011 - 10:51 PM, said:

Hey MID,

You still seem to be confused. If you understand that you couldn't resolve the ISS then you surely you are able to understand that seeing the ISS isn't even comparable to what the Crew said they saw. An object close by near the resolution limit of their eye's.

Someone's confused...

[lost_shaman]

MID, on 04 December 2011 - 12:03 AM, said:

Someone's confused...

Must be the Crew Huh? Since they failed to describe an SLA panel. Shame on them.  

[MID]

lost_shaman, on 03 December 2011 - 10:51 PM, said:

If it was a piece of the spacecraft then it certainly has some bearing on "what we were doing"!

If it was, it would've , maybe.  
What piece?

Quote

The high potential for ruling out an SLA panel tells is it was likely from the CSM-LM just as Collin's suspected. This would clearly be somewhat relevant.

"High potential", eh?  "Likely" from the spacecraft, eh?  "Would be" relevant?

I think you might be the only person that doesn't hear you.
Speculative terms.
"Maybe" you tell us:

What was it?
How likely was it that it fell off the spacecraft?
What was that relevance to the completely successful mission of Apollo 11?
Why didn't any of the people in the MOCR or the back rooms know about something falling off?

Quote

As far as I'm concerned your irritable attitude towards any discussion that questions an SLA Panel boggles the mind.

Sorry about the irritable attitude.
But it didn't have anything to do with questioning the idea that it was an SLA panel (who cares?), it was addressed at tyour high and mighty know -it-all  attitude, and your maddening insistence on ignoring the obvious that was piointed out to you.
  

Quote

Seriously, I don't understand why trying to rule out an SLA panel because it doesn't fit with what the Crew said they saw is a "crisis" as you suggest.

It's not a crisis.  It cannot be ruled out, any more than a piece of spac ecraft can be ruled in, and further, I'll repeat the bottom line:


We don't know what it was, and we never ever will, and it mattered not one jot, then, or now.

[MID]

lost_shaman, on 04 December 2011 - 12:18 AM, said:

Must be the Crew Huh? Since they failed to describe an SLA panel. Shame on them.  

I don't think they cared much either.

[lost_shaman]

MID, on 04 December 2011 - 12:19 AM, said:

If it was, it would've , maybe.  
What piece?



"High potential", eh?  "Likely" from the spacecraft, eh?  "Would be" relevant?

I think you might be the only person that doesn't hear you.
Speculative terms.
"Maybe" you tell us:

Yes, I used those words. Is that an issue?

MID, on 04 December 2011 - 12:19 AM, said:

What was it?
How likely was it that it fell off the spacecraft?
What was that relevance to the completely successful mission of Apollo 11?
Why didn't any of the people in the MOCR or the back rooms know about something falling off?

Why don't you answer your own questions?

I'll answer one that's relevant to my argument, It was highly likely that this was from the CSM-LM!

MID, on 04 December 2011 - 12:19 AM, said:

Sorry about the irritable attitude.
But it didn't have anything to do with questioning the idea that it was an SLA panel (who cares?), it was addressed at tyour high and mighty know -it-all  attitude, and your maddening insistence on ignoring the obvious that was piointed out to you.

Thank you for acknowledging that you have no legitimate rebuttal of my argument but rather you just don't like me.

[lost_shaman]

MID, on 04 December 2011 - 12:38 AM, said:

I don't think they cared much either.

They cared enough to describe it, and the description does not match an SLA panel.