the moon landing hoax and Columbia cover up

[MID]

Do you have The footage of NASA series WHEN WE LEFT THE EARTH ?

OK, Look, I do have this series...and I actually entertained you and watched the segment you refer to (damn it...).

It clearly illustrates the foam strike, as I've seen it a thousand times.

There is absolutely no evidence of a FOAM STRIKE AT LIFTOFF OR SHORTLY THEREAFTER. None. No NASA camera showed anything but the real foam strike, the one that occurred in the danger zone and which caused the damage which doomed Columbia.

No foam strike immediately following liftoff was likely, nor would it have been a problem.

Story Musgrave's comments referred to an RTLS abort, IF someone had seen it at recognized it for what it was. No one did. No one could've. After the foam strike, there was nothing...whatsoever, that could be done for the Columbia crew. Further, no one understood that until the investigation after the fact.

Now, I am sick and tired of saying something like that, as it hurts to an extent you can't understand, but it is TRUE.

You post here claiming there was some extraordinary event at liftoff on STS-107, when there wasn't. You claim it. You produce it. Show us the TV footage. You, by virtue of your thread title, are implying a cover up by NASA, based upon your alleged viewing of something that was portrayed in an Indian TV broadcast. You are also implying something similar in the case of Apollo.

You do so by producing tiny little statements that belie your lack of understanding about that which you speak, and I am still puzzled, based on your statements and your context, what your real purpose is here. I suspect that you have this feeling because one of the people aboard STS-107 was an American citizen born in India...which is no reason at all to conceive of such nonsense.

There was one foreign astronaut aboard, Ilan Ramon, an Israeli.

The rest were Americans.

I've heard nothing from an Israeli about a conspiracy.

In fact, the idea of a conspiracy or cover up concerning STS-107 is ludicrous to me...

If you want to argue that, produce something ...like that TV broadcast you say you saw. We don't need your letters to NASA. I'm sure mission management, who had been looking at more angles of the 107 launch than you could imagine, had already seen that nothing untoward occurred at liftoff, and weren't about to answer a frantic letter from someone about a danger they couldn't have seen.

There is nothing about Apollo and STS-107 (or 51L) that is not completely understood and verified scientifically.

[rajeev shagun]

Hi respective members-

When i joined this forum on 8th of June 2010 I thought this is very strict here, nobody can use such a world like ”I am sick of” or “you don’t understand anything” or “I am tired” etc. BUT I was wrong we can use any word here…can we? when I address you I am always respective to all of you,I know how to attack personally on people but I don’t do it here and won’t do it here.

I am here to debate, share, learn and let other people learn but if some member will keep using this kind of words, I afraid it will stop me debating here.

[Obviousman]

You could start learning by making sure you read the responses made to you. If you think there are problems, please say what they are. So far, the majority of what you have said has been wrong. Is it because of your source?

[MID]

Hi respective members-

When i joined this forum on 8th of June 2010 I thought this is very strict here, nobody can use such a world like ”I am sick of” or “you don’t understand anything” or “I am tired” etc. BUT I was wrong we can use any word here…can we?

You can use any word you want here.

You may find yourself in trouble for doing so in certain cases, however.

Now to address "You dont understand," I would say that the content of your posts clearly indicate that this is a fact.

That is not attacking you; it is pointing out the truth.

To address "I'm sick of, etc..." let's look at the statement where that was used again:

After the foam strike, there was nothing...whatsoever, that could be done for the Columbia crew. Further, no one understood that until the investigation after the fact.

Now, I am sick and tired of saying something like that, as it hurts to an extent you can't understand, but it is TRUE.

Do you understand what that means?

What I am sick of is having to repeat things about one of the most painful events in my life.

That is not an attack against you. It is a truth.

when I address you I am always respective to all of you,I know how to attack personally on people but I don’t do it here and won’t do it here.

I am here to debate, share, learn and let other people learn but if some member will keep using this kind of words, I afraid it will stop me debating here.

Information has been provided to you.

Questions have been asked of you.

You failed to ackowledge or address any of it.

You have not been attacked.

Your ideas have.

That is perfectly legitimate. If you cannot handle that, and you say you're here to debate, then I think you have a skewed idea regarding the term's definition.

You also said you're here to learn.

That is something that can certainly happen here, but again; you've ignored information provided you.

To wit: I told you you were mistaken when you referred to film taken inside the LM during the Apollo lunar landing approaches.

You responded:

Yehh…There is certainly footage available of Eagle’s in-side cabin activities during its power descent to so called moon surface and it was shot on celluloid film may be 16m.m

There was not any such film made...ever, on any Apollo mission.

I pointed out to you that you're mistaken.

You've failed to research the matter, and simply argued with me.

That's not healthy. I know more about this than you do, and I know for a fact that you're mistaken.

I asked you what your position really is.

You haven't responded.

You simply come up with these accusations of being attacked.

Your ideas are being assaulted, because they're wrong.

Here, you can learn why.

But you don't seem to want to.

Stop crying about things.

You want to learn something?

This is the place.

[rajeev shagun]

[Hello 4th time-

First we talk about the big piece of foam- The longer piece of insulation foam which came off from shuttle’s liquid fuel tank during lift-off ,Yes I have seen it on that day of launch 16 Jan 2003 (and I am sure thousands of other people must had seen it that day on Indian national TV “DOORDARSHAN” in the news that day)

I am 100%-100%-100% sure I saw it and heard the comment on it two times, if you don’t believe me then take me to lie detector machine and see what do you find or you can take me to front of firing-squad and aim the guns on my head, my answer will be the same!

I ask you again HAVE YOU SEEN THE LAUNCH OF COLUMBIA THAT DAY ON TV ? but none of you respond for this question, why do you avoid to answering this question ,please answer me!

I am not referring to the dramatization part of NASA’s series WHEN WE LEFT THE EARTH what I am talking about when they show Rick husband and his crew are taking their seats on cockpit and then they show the shuttle from media angel the angel of camera I have been talking about,then they show shuttle’s engines bells and then further solid booster’s explosive bolts explosion and final lift off now if you watch it after 14-15 seconds when they show footage from camera which was mounted under right wing may be on tank, facing towards sky- now you see a big jerk which shock whole wings and you do hear clearly the sound of strike or bang .i attached the pictures of thease video frames…one picture before the jerk and one during the jerk you see strange glow or light around the left wing’s area and hear the loud sound of some thing.

Please don’t say this footage is from different flight,If you say so then why they need to replace the original flight lift-off footage and use other flight’s lift-off footage stead??? Think about it with open mind please.

As Mr flyingSwan said “The external camera first flew on STS-112 in November 2002 few months before Columbia yahh…you are right Columbia flew 16 Jan 2003 and on this series WHEN WE LEFT THE EARTH they show these camera’s footage in Columbia’s lift-off.

As Mr Hazzard ask me to continue,Its give me the feelings that there are people who can stay cool during any debate and discussions.

Mr Agent said “they too need to prove their claim with hard evidence”…Does They mean NASA here ?

Mr Mid asked me what my position is, do you mean my profession and occupation?! Can I kindly ask yours before ?

I am again here to find out facts no matter you dig and find them or I dig and find them.

quote name=MID' date='15 June 2010 - 01:09 AM' timestamp='1276564185' post='3452969]

I'm not really sure what your point is in this thread.

You make a huge emphasis on STS-107, which is a well understood situation that has been fixed.

You also make a few references to Apollo technology that you don't understand...and I get the feeling you're claiming that somehow, there was a conspiracy and cover-up in the STS-107 case, and in the Apollo case.

There wasn't any such thing in either case.

You simply do not understand what happened to STS-107, and I have the feeling your understanding of Apollo is just as rudimentary.

Perhaps you should think about the fact that Dr. Chawla (PhD, Eng (Aerospace, U. of Co., 1988)) would be frowning on you for even suggesting such a thing...because she was fully aware that Apollo happened as advertised, and she wanted to be a part of that, God bless her...

[Obviousman]

[First we talk about the big piece of foam- The longer piece of insulation foam which came off from shuttle’s liquid fuel tank during lift-off ,Yes I have seen it on that day of launch 16 Jan 2003 (and I am sure thousands of other people must had seen it that day on Indian national TV “DOORDARSHAN” in the news that day) I am 100%-100%-100% sure I saw it and heard the comment on it two times, if you don’t believe me then take me to lie detector machine and see what do you find or you can take me to front of firing-squad and aim the guns on my head, my answer will be the same!

If you will not accept that there was NO footage that day which showed the foam strike, that it was only reviewed and shown AFTER the launch then yes, I'll ;lead the firing squad to rid the world of ignorance. This is not a quickly arrived at decision but one which has been determined after your refusal to accept fact. I sleep well at night knowing my decision.

I ask you again HAVE YOU SEEN THE LAUNCH OF COLUMBIA THAT DAY ON TV ? but none of you respond for this question, why do you avoid to answering this question ,please answer me!

I believe many of us have answered you many times times.

YES!

I am not referring to the dramatization part of NASA’s series WHEN WE LEFT THE EARTH what I am talking about when they show Rick husband and his crew are taking their seats on cockpit and then they show the shuttle from media angel the angel of camera I have been talking about,then they show shuttle’s engines bells and then further solid booster’s explosive bolts explosion and final lift off now if you watch it after 14-15 seconds when they show footage from camera which was mounted under right wing may be on tank, facing towards sky- now you see a big jerk which shock whole wings and you do hear clearly the sound of strike or bang .i attached the pictures of thease video frames…one picture before the jerk and one during the jerk you see strange glow or light around the left wing’s area and hear the loud sound of some thing.

These were only publicly available after the launch, not during, as they were taken with high speed or specialist cameras. Also, I disagree with what you are claiming happened in the footage. I have seen the post flight footage which shows the foam strike. There was NO audio associated with it - another indication that your are being fed disinformation or are being deceptive. The "glow" might have been the disintegration of the foam strike.

Please don’t say this footage is from different flight,If you say so then why they need to replace the original flight lift-off footage and use other flight’s lift-off footage stead??? Think about it with open mind please.

I only claim your so called "sources" do not match accepted fact. I think you need to accept that what what you saw was not the footage from that flight.

The only thing clear so far is that you show no evidence for your claims.

[rajeev shagun]

When Mr Mid answered about Lunar module’s nozzles that -why they look new and unused…Infect I was exactly expecting this kind of answer from you ,I know the complexity of LEM’s engines…I was sure you will counts me so many reasons like how different the radiator was or how different the metal of bell was. What I think that no matter how different the metal is there must be some effect can be seen on the surface after facing extreme heat and exhaust gases from nozzle

[flyingswan]

When Mr Mid answered about Lunar module’s nozzles that -why they look new and unused…Infect I was exactly expecting this kind of answer from you ,I know the complexity of LEM’s engines…I was sure you will counts me so many reasons like how different the radiator was or how different the metal of bell was. What I think that no matter how different the metal is there must be some effect can be seen on the surface after facing extreme heat and exhaust gases from nozzle

Check through the Apollo photographic record, eg AS11-40-5921 with shallow crater, discolouration and radial flow traces. Of course there are visible surface effects.

[Obviousman]

When Mr Mid answered about Lunar module’s nozzles that -why they look new and unused…Infect I was exactly expecting this kind of answer from you ,I know the complexity of LEM’s engines…I was sure you will counts me so many reasons like how different the radiator was or how different the metal of bell was. What I think that no matter how different the metal is there must be some effect can be seen on the surface after facing extreme heat and exhaust gases from nozzle

You asked:

About Lunar module exhaust nozzles, yes they weren’t made by shiny metal but what I meant that once you run the rocket engine no Metter where it is solid motor or liquid motor the nozzle looks used due to extreme heat of exhaust gases and yes I know bit about rocket engines because I do make solid motor rockets.

What do you think ?

The replies were:

The LM DPS engine bells were matte finished. They didn't shine.

My post:

You then changed the subject.

What do engine bells look like? it depend upon the engine. Here is the SSME during launch:

http://mm04.nasaimages.org/MediaManager/srvr?mediafile=/Size4/nasaNAS-9-NA/60327/0200213.jpg&userid=1&username=admin&resolution=4&servertype=JVA&cid=9&iid=nasaNAS&vcid=NA&usergroup=Marshall_-_nasa-9-Admin&profileid=41

http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/MEDIUM/GPN-2000-000055.jpg

Here are the engines post flight:

http://mm04.nasaimages.org/MediaManager/srvr?mediafile=/Size4/nasaNAS-5-NA/24408/GPN-2000-000802.jpg&userid=1&username=admin&resolution=4&servertype=JVA&cid=5&iid=nasaNAS&vcid=NA&usergroup=GRIN_-_NASA-5-Admin&profileid=21

http://galaxywire.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/sts-86-atlantis-landing-at-ksc-wallpaper.jpg

You have to prove there should be a noticeable difference between the LN nozzle pre-flight and post flight.

[mrbusdriver]

rajeev, perhaps you could tell us accurately how long after liftoff you saw/heard this strike on the alleged media coverage. The actual foam strike occurred about 82 seconds after liftoff. Perhaps you saw/heard something else at an earlier time?

There are several things coming off the stack right after liftoff, like the RCS cover papers (designed with aerodynamic scoops to make them pull away within seconds). They won't cause any damage, they're just Tyvek paper.

And, again, the strike occurred miles away from the launch site, and there was no onboard SRB/ET cameras on that flight to film the strike. The only cameras that got any decent views of it were the long range cameras which were NOT transmitting live, and were only reviewed after the launch.

I have no idea what you were watching live...

[rajeev shagun]

Hi-

Now i am able to sand you the camera which was mounted on the tank facing towards sky,footage's

image which had been taking on 13 seconds after the Columbia's lift-off.

Now you can compare image on 13sec. and image on 15 sec.! do you see the difference

and i know this footage is post flight stuff for public but because i can not see the media ang

If you will not accept that there was NO footage that day which showed the foam strike, that it was only reviewed and shown AFTER the launch then yes, I'll ;lead the firing squad to rid the world of ignorance. This is not a quickly arrived at decision but one which has been determined after your refusal to accept fact. I sleep well at night knowing my decision.

I believe many of us have answered you many times times.

YES!

These were only publicly available after the launch, not during, as they were taken with high speed or specialist cameras. Also, I disagree with what you are claiming happened in the footage. I have seen the post flight footage which shows the foam strike. There was NO audio associated with it - another indication that your are being fed disinformation or are being deceptive. The "glow" might have been the disintegration of the foam strike.

I only claim your so called "sources" do not match accepted fact. I think you need to accept that what what you saw was not the footage from that flight.

The only thing clear so far is that you show no evidence for your claims.

[rajeev shagun]

Hi- There was a technical problem,there are two same images had been sent (on 13 sec.after lift-off

of Columbia)on 15 sec.image i have uploaded today so please do not confuse please compare that

image with one of this image

[rajeev shagun]

hiMrbusdriver-

i roughly can say it must be between 20 sec. from lift off,and it was media engel view

and i saw it clearly it was long ,soft piece of foam,top of it news here started with this

sentence" there was a problem during the launch...piece of foam came off but launch was okay.

hat

the size was scary to me biggest among all foam i ever seen,thats why i was sure of total doom

on reentry.

[MID]

Hello 4th time-

First we talk about the big piece of foam- The longer piece of insulation foam which came off from shuttle’s liquid fuel tank during lift-off ,Yes I have seen it on that day of launch 16 Jan 2003 (and I am sure thousands of other people must had seen it that day on Indian national TV “DOORDARSHAN” in the news that day)

I am 100%-100%-100% sure I saw it and heard the comment on it two times, if you don’t believe me then take me to lie detector machine and see what do you find or you can take me to front of firing-squad and aim the guns on my head, my answer will be the same!

I ask you again HAVE YOU SEEN THE LAUNCH OF COLUMBIA THAT DAY ON TV ? but none of you respond for this question, why do you avoid to answering this question ,please answer me!

I am not referring to the dramatization part of NASA’s series WHEN WE LEFT THE EARTH what I am talking about when they show Rick husband and his crew are taking their seats on cockpit and then they show the shuttle from media angel the angel of camera I have been talking about,then they show shuttle’s engines bells and then further solid booster’s explosive bolts explosion and final lift off now if you watch it after 14-15 seconds when they show footage from camera which was mounted under right wing may be on tank, facing towards sky- now you see a big jerk which shock whole wings and you do hear clearly the sound of strike or bang .i attached the pictures of thease video frames…one picture before the jerk and one during the jerk you see strange glow or light around the left wing’s area and hear the loud sound of some thing.

Please don’t say this footage is from different flight,If you say so then why they need to replace the original flight lift-off footage and use other flight’s lift-off footage stead??? Think about it with open mind please.

Ok, look...I'm about to show how incorrect you are.

I know what you're talking about. I also know you say you saw a big chunk of something hit the orbiter, and a sound.

You didn't see, or hear any such thing (those videos have no sound recording capability). I'm going to tell you what you saw. As to what you heard, you're imagining something...

First of all, I'm going to tell you that you are indeed looking at film from ANOTHER SHUTTLE FLIGHT. You're looking at video from the aft right SRM camera of another mission, which was used here to dramatize the launch of Columbia with some more recent views from flights that had them. It's a typical journalistic device when making documentary films. I will prove that to you below. Further, the film shown in the production is not synched to the actual timeline...another journalistic license item...

But for now, I will tell you what you saw in that sequence.

You saw the shock wave come over the orbiter as it broke the sound barrier (the vapor cone enveloping the orbiter's forward fuselage is the hint here). You did not see any debris. You saw something typical on many shuttle flight (and many prior to the Shuttle). This typically occurs between 30 and 40 seconds into the flight, not at 14 to 15 seconds (which is further proof that the video representation shown are not STS-107s).

Now:

The view that you were looking at of the tower clear segment (the right wing) is from an aft looking SRM camera. You will note that the vehicle enters its roll program (to position the vehicle for pitch onto the propweer inclination for the orbit planned), and you see it rolling left. Just look at it...closely.

The proof of my contention is this:

COLUMBIA, ON THE STS-107 MISSION...ROLLED RIGHT.

Case closed. It's from another flight.

Knowledgeable people have told tou there were no such views on STS-107.

I know you asked not to be told this footage was from a different flight.

Unfortunately, it's obvious that it was...for reasons explained.

You also keep asking if we saw the launch on TV.

I already told you I saw the launch. I saw it from every camera angle NASA has.

There was no huge piece of debris that struck her at liftoff...or any time until 81.6 seconds into the flight, and no one could see that when it happened.

As Mr flyingSwan said “The external camera first flew on STS-112 in November 2002 few months before Columbia yahh…you are right Columbia flew 16 Jan 2003 and on this series WHEN WE LEFT THE EARTH they show these camera’s footage in Columbia’s lift-off.

No, as you saw above, the camera views are from a different mission. STS-107 had no such views.

And even if it did...those views are never seen live. They are only processed days after launch when the SRMs get back to the Cape.

And, we would have known long before de-orbit that we had a serious crisis and everything would have changed in a heartbeat. No one knew the extent of the damage, because there were no such views to be seen.

Mr Agent said “they too need to prove their claim with hard evidence”…Does They mean NASA here ?

No. It means you.

And you can't do that, because you are mistaken in this matter.

Mr Mid asked me what my position is, do you mean my profession and occupation?! Can I kindly ask yours before ?

No, you may not ask.

I meant WHAT IS YOUR POINT HERE IN BRINGING UP ALL THESE LITTLE THINGS ABOUT APOLLO?

We already can clearly see that you're mistaken about STS-107.

What's Apollo have to do with it?

That's what I clearly meant.

Care to answer?

I am again here to find out facts no matter you dig and find them or I dig and find them.

Well, OK.

I, and others did provide you with the facts.

You should have found them by now.

They've been provided to you repeatedly.

Above, you have clear proof that you are mistaken about what you contend...

[MID]

Hi-

Now i am able to sand you the camera which was mounted on the tank facing towards sky,footage's

image which had been taking on 13 seconds after the Columbia's lift-off.

rajeev...

There was and is no ET camera that faces the sky. The ET camera faces AFT.

We have that one, two views from each SRM, and two views from the ET intertank area which are pointed at the SRMs.

STS-107 had none of these devices.

[rajeev shagun]

Hello Dear Members-

Now I am developing serious doubts about NASA…

As dear Mid conformed that the footage from ET camera facing towards sky, showed in NASA series WHEN WE LEFT THE EARTH in between Columbia’s lift-off footage is not even from STS-107… great !

Please keep your mind open (if none of you affiliated with NASA) Why they had to bother to find different flight footage from different time and dramatized this launch footage. Wasn’t it is easy for them to put original STS-107’s lift-off footage stead? Why?

When I talk about huge piece of insulation foam I and thousand of other people saw(Indian national TV DOORDARSHAN was telecasting it on national news for 1 billion people) during the launch of Columbia STS-107, I am honest in this matter…I repeat…what I saw was-the huge piece of foam coming off from shuttle’s tank and second or two seconds later shuttle’s left wing passed over it …I did not see the strike…

Yahh I could see that when it was passing under the wing it vibrated like it touched the surface of wing…so I did not see or heard the strike(as you keep reminding me) but because the size was extremely big that’s scared me of damaging some tiles.

The foam was as tall as that (if my memory is not bad) even it was passing behind the wing you might be able to see both ends top and bottom same time.

If you think DOORDARSHAN has started to act like NASA…like switching footages then I do have a request-

Can you find out which flight this footage was from? hope we will reach on some conclusions.

When you said that there is no footage available of LEM’s in side cabin activities…

I was watching over and over this part of documentary “Days that shook the world”

(I had doubt on it earlier as well) they shows real interior of LEM with all switches and controls ,real suit ,just arm of the astronaut most of time some time face but may be dramatization but the fact is how do you difference between real and dramatization when half of Apollo footage looks like dramatization

1.Rolling of Eagle in moon’s orbit after separating from CM look s like it was shot in studio. The still image is attached here.

2.Can you kindly explain me when Eagle is starting it’s power descent to the moon surface and CM is should be higher altitude wise then in the attached image how can you see the entire moon surface in background of CM it looks like that Eagle is higher then CM?

3. the Third image is from Eagle’s interior you see the hand of Neil on throttle control…Is it real or it is a dramatization ?(these all three images are from documentary

“DAYS THAT SHOOK THE WORLD"

[rajeev shagun]

Hi mid-

I forgot to reply, about what is my point to bring all small things about apollos...

because i am soon going to write an article about it and i do not want to make mistake there

so better clarified before here.

[mrbusdriver]

These sort of documentaries usually use film footage that involve actors in spacesuits, inside spacecraft mockups, to demonstrate different parts of the flight. There's nothing dishonest about it, as it is very easy to tell such "simulation" from real footage. Same thing with launch footage, where they may take short clips from different launches (that don't show a different shuttle name). It's just to add detail to the sequence, that's all.

The pics of the CM below the LM...this was taken shortly after undocking. Not long after the picture was taken, there was a separation maneuver, which took the LM some distance away from the CM before it made it's final descent burn. Still, the LM was at roughly the same altitude as the CM when it started it's descent. Whether it was above or below the CM when it thrusted makes little difference, so long as they know their altitude.

[mrbusdriver]

Hi mid-

I forgot to reply, about what is my point to bring all small things about apollos...

because i am soon going to write an article about it and i do not want to make mistake there

so better clarified before here.

I certainly hope your article doesn't include statements similar to "it looks like it was shot in a studio"...such statements are meaningless, and simply expose a certain mindset of the author.

[MID]

Hello Dear Members-

Now I am developing serious doubts about NASA…

As dear Mid conformed that the footage from ET camera facing towards sky, showed in NASA series WHEN WE LEFT THE EARTH in between Columbia’s lift-off footage is not even from STS-107… great !

Please keep your mind open (if none of you affiliated with NASA) Why they had to bother to find different flight footage from different time and dramatized this launch footage. Wasn’t it is easy for them to put original STS-107’s lift-off footage stead? Why?

OK, I'm glad we got that cleared up.

I explained that using other more detailed footage is a typical artistic license thing that film makers use all the time. The footage was chosen because it shows detail that was unavailable on the 107 launch, and it serves to visually drmatize the situation by providing dynamic, interesting film.

You responded to me in a subsequent post:

Hi mid-

I forgot to reply, about what is my point to bring all small things about apollos...

because i am soon going to write an article about it and i do not want to make mistake there

so better clarified before here.

Ok, so you want to be a journalist and write an article.

It is best to realize that journalism uses dramatic device to draw readers in and hook them. Tag lines that often have little to do with the substance of an article, headlines that are questions designed to make the reader think there's an answer to it in the article (which there never really is), etc...in much the same way as visual journalists dramatize events like spaceflight with footage, and radio communication that is not from the flight being portrayed and/or is out of synch with events. It's all for dramatic effect.

The educated eye clearly sees these things, and fully realized what he or she is looking at or reading.

That's what was involved, and has been involved in virtually every single documentary regarding spaceflight.

That's why the device was used by the Discovery Channel in the Columbia disaster dramatization, and why it is also used in the documentary you speak to in the "Days That Shook The World" documentary.

It's common journalistic license.

Unfortunately, it misleads many people. But it does garner viewership...

When you said that there is no footage available of LEM’s in side cabin activities…

I was watching over and over this part of documentary “Days that shook the world”

(I had doubt on it earlier as well) they shows real interior of LEM with all switches and controls ,real suit ,just arm of the astronaut most of time some time face but may be dramatization but the fact is how do you difference between real and dramatization when half of Apollo footage looks like dramatization

1.Rolling of Eagle in moon’s orbit after separating from CM look s like it was shot in studio. The still image is attached here.

2.Can you kindly explain me when Eagle is starting it’s power descent to the moon surface and CM is should be higher altitude wise then in the attached image how can you see the entire moon surface in background of CM it looks like that Eagle is higher then CM?

3. the Third image is from Eagle’s interior you see the hand of Neil on throttle control…Is it real or it is a dramatization ?(these all three images are from documentary

“DAYS THAT SHOOK THE WORLD"

I will answer all of your question above a little later.

Right now I am a little pressed for time.

[rajeev shagun]

hi mrbusdriver-

that i exactly meant if the Eagle and CM were in prallel situation then how come moon's surface

doesn't appear beside of CM ?what i mean that we should see the curved edge of moon even earht

is too big in diameter wise but you see in earth orbit this curve.it appears in this picture

that moon is behind the CM but not under or above though both craft were vertical to the moon

surface.

[mrbusdriver]

In the CM photo, the LM is looking down on the CM, with the Moon behind it. It appears that the shadow to the left is the edge of the window, blocking part of the view. I don't think that's the black of space there.

Part of the sepatation maneuver was to align the two docked ctaft with the direction of travel, to avoid any lateral errors in their course being caused in the separation. (even a foot or two per second introduced laterally could introduce big errors at the landing point). They undocked in the "orbital plane". It's likely this shot was taken some minutes after undocking, when the CM maneuvered under the LM during the visual inspection.

There's nothing odd in this photo...

Edited June 19, 2010 by mrbusdriver

[MID]

When you said that there is no footage available of LEM’s in side cabin activities…

I was watching over and over this part of documentary “Days that shook the world”

(I had doubt on it earlier as well) they shows real interior of LEM with all switches and controls ,real suit ,just arm of the astronaut most of time some time face but may be dramatization but the fact is how do you difference between real and dramatization when half of Apollo footage looks like dramatization

OK, here we go--

1.Rolling of Eagle in moon’s orbit after separating from CM look s like it was shot in studio. The still image is attached here.

I think the answer to this question is somewhat obvious, rajeev.

It looks like it was shot in a studio because it looks like it to you.

To my eye, it looks like a perfectly normal sequence of yawing motion taken from Columbia. There is nothing but the nominal maneuvering, at relatively soft rates, that was prescribed for this particular maneuver.

The fact is, the decent material that you've likely seen in movies and on television productions is based upon what has been observed in real footage.

It's not the other way around.

I speculate that you saw alot of space oriented reproductions in movies or on TV before you saw this real footage. A more accurate statement would be that the studio produced stuff looks like Apollo footage!

There's not much more I can say about that one...

2.Can you kindly explain me when Eagle is starting it’s power descent to the moon surface and CM is should be higher altitude wise then in the attached image how can you see the entire moon surface in background of CM it looks like that Eagle is higher then CM?

That is an excellent question!

I see that there was an assumption you used to formulate this one, which you wrote in your message to Mr. B...

that i exactly meant if the Eagle and CM were in prallel situation then how come moon's surface

doesn't appear beside of CM ?

This is going to be a little tricky, maybe.

I think you're implying that the two spacecraft were moving along the same orbital path around the Moon, and that they should be in front of or behind (as the case may be)each other, or perhaps along side each other at the same altitude. Thus, you assume the lunar surface should be visible along side and below them both.

First of all, I should point out that this photo was not taken when Eagle was beginning its powered descent to the surface.

This image was shot from Eagle, obviously, shortly after the two spacecraft had separated a but from each other after undocking ( Eagle was quite some ways off, and about 50 miles below Columbia when she began her descent).

At this point in the timeline, both spacecraft were in an approximately 60 NM high orbit together. The reasons they're in that particular orientation are numerous.

As you can see, Eagle is, in relation to the lunar surface, about 100-150 feet "above" Columbia, and Columbia is pointed nose-up, as-it-were, in relation to the surface.

This represents the undocking attitude of the two spacecraft (attitude means basically...the way you're pointing).

In space...on orbit, or where-ever, you can be in any attitude deemed necessary...pointing up, down, to the side, forwards, or backwards in relation to the direction you're moving. You can do this because there's no air out there.

Now, that being understood, particular attitudes are established in the flight plan for certain maneuvers. These attitudes are all preplanned and have a purpose. In this case, the attitude that Eagle and Columbia undocked at was useful for aligning the Abort Guidance System aboard the LM (the backup guidance system), it provided adequate communications and data transmission between both spacecraft and Houston (Mission Control needed to see both spacecraft's data) when they came around from the back side of the Moon (where undocking took place), and it provided a good visual platform for Mike Collins, who was charged with inspecting Eagle visually, and photographing and filming her.

With Eagle "above" Columbia, there was no interference from the lunar surface which would play with photography...just a black background with a sunlit subject.

As to the landing, yes, Eagle was considerably lower than Columbia when the executed PDI (Powered Descent Initiation). A while after this picture you show was taken, Columbia moved away from Eagle, and Eagle executed a descent orbit burn, which placed her in a lower orbit than Columbia's 60 mile circular orbit. Eagle's orbit after DOI was about 47 x 9 miles, and she began her descent to the lunar surface at the low point, around 9 miles above the surface.

3. the Third image is from Eagle’s interior you see the hand of Neil on throttle control…Is it real or it is a dramatization ?(these all three images are from documentary

“DAYS THAT SHOOK THE WORLD"

I will say that it appears that the photograph is real, but it is not of Eagle's interior.

As I previously indicated, there was no camera behind the crew which could make film, or take stills of the crew inside. The LM was small inside, and the area behind the crew was packed with equipment. The only camera inside Eagle that was running during descent was the 16mm DAC (Data Aquisition Camera), which was pointed out the right hand window of the LM, and down toward the lower half of her, so as to film the approach and landing...outside shots.

What you're looking at is a picture of the gloved hand of an astronaut on an authentic ACA (Attitude Controller Assembly), which is substantiated by the 4 on the panel immediately to the right of the ACA. Panel 4 was the Commanders DSKY (Display and Keyboard), which was his computer controller assembly.

The Throttle (actually called the TTCA (Thrust/Translation Controller Assembly)) was on the left side of the Commander and Pilot. The ACA controlled the attitude of the LM.

This picture was taken inside this thing:

That is a lunar module simulator.

Go up those steps, go in through the door, and you're essentially inside a duplicate of the LM, with functional controls, film projectors to simulate the view out the windows , and computer interfaces. This is where the process was simulated and rehearsed countless times. All switches and controls worked just like in the real thing, and the instruments responded, as well as the views out the windows of the simulator, with reasonable reproductions of what you'd actually see out the windows of the real thing.

These simulations were done in shirtsleeves early on, and in suits later on still...

Here's a picture of Neil in the LM simulator on 19 June 1969:

And, in the latter simulations...the full simulations, with Mission Control, helmets and gloves were worn.

Now, You will note that someone was able to take the picture of Neil in the simulator from the area AFT of the pilot's position.

This is because the whole area is empty of equipment and there's an access-way there for the people to get in and out through the door in the back. People could go in there and film them, or take photos, which is what you're looking at in the photo you posted.

There's no such area for anyone to be taking photos in the actual LM.

Further, it certainly wasn't the LMP (Lunar Module Pilot). He was exceedingly busy during the LM operations from his position to the right of the Commander. He monitored the displays and computer inputs during the descent. The Commander was paying attention out his windows and was flying the craft.

I hope these explanations answer your questions.

[mrbusdriver]

Thanks MID, well put.

Orbital mechanics are very strange...speed up to slow down, and vice versa...

That Columbia was above or below the LM at that point wasn't really an issue, as they (or one of them) could maneuver to keep the two together for as long as needed. Only after small inputs separated the two did the LM make the initial descent burn to lower the low point of it's orbit in preparation for landing.

This photo was taken a full orbit, maybe a tad more, prior to landing.

[Obviousman]

Didn't I answer the question regarding the LM being above the CSM in a previous post? I know someone raised it and I explained why (though not as eloquently as MID) but can't remember if it was on this board or another forum.