Im extremely dissapointed in you forum!!

[User22]

Alizée would look great in a space suit...nevermind, something more breathable and...

Edit:

Originally Posted by Azhiri

Now to put my mod gloves back on, I don't want this to get ugly - no more name-calling or insults to personal intelligence, that's silly and we're all bigger and better than that.

But I no can addiply 8" + toontwy centimurderers.

Looks like I'm dee excerption

But seriously, FRA, I love you.

Rocketry is awesome, hence why I am an Amateur Rocketeer:

[Future Raptor Ace]

Originally Posted by Aaronius31

Alizée would look great in a space suit...nevermind, something more breathable and...

Edit:



But I no can addiply 8" + toontwy centimurderers.

Looks like I'm dee excerption

But seriously, FRA, I love you.

Rocketry is awesome, hence why I am an Amateur Rocketeer:

LOL well she was in a G-suit and I found it sexy!


I wub you more Aron And in the words of Stephen Colbert .. "its not a contest but im winning!"
Yeah rocketry is amazing!

Edit:

Originally Posted by Junkmale

Ah..the Lockheed Starfighter.....
Brought this to mind :-)

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/kzNg23XVyEM" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="420"></iframe>

I forgot to respond to this lol. I was a little creeped out at first, the guys voice is so soft and just creepy lol. He sounds like HAL 9000 ... all I need him to say is "I can allow you to do that sir!" Overall funny video, thanks for sharing.

[Corsaire]

Azhiri,

I have discussed such issues with dozens if not hundreds of people through the years, both in real life and on the Internet. From the novice to the experienced and knowledgeable, I have received my fair share of insults and abuse. I suppose one has to expect that sort of reaction when holding inconceivable and unpopular views. You are amongst the very few who have ever acknowledged the that one has to brave to hold such opinions. Evidently, conformity is always the easiest standpoint to adopt because all the resources are on your side. Teachers will want to teach to you, people you meet will most likely agree with most everything you say, all the official information you will research will be in accordance with your views, the News on TV will make sense, people on Internet forums will be friendlier... basically, your everyday experience will be much more pleasant and comforting. When you choose to challenge consensus, you are in for quite an abuse. Still, human history has shown, again and again, that anti-conformism can be a valid and very fruitful endeavour. But it can be quite destructive too, that is the nature of the beast. Thanks for your open mind, as always.

As for your father’s opinion, I suppose you have provided it as is and this is possibly not something you would like to discuss in much more details. I will just say that I do not agree with his assessment about the limited amount of money that was available during the Apollo program years. The NASA budget went up to about 4,5% of the federal budget at that time, a colossal sum. Also, the fact that faking parts of the missions would have been more expensive, well, I am not sure that would be the case but it would be hard to debate without much data to support either view. About the unbelievable turn-around, in 2.5 years, from a program and an organisation that were in disarray to what some claim is the greatest achievement in human history, with all respect to your father’s opinion, I simply think this is a Hollywood script. Most people are fixated on the fact that the crew died in a freak accident and most believe that all that was needed to be done was to fix a few things here and there. This is not what is documented by some of the most relevant people involved at the time, including the crew (mainly Grissom) and the Flight Director. The accident was just an event which exposed the fact that the program was in a state of disarray. I already posted quotes concerning this and there are plenty more to be found.

My last point is about your description of Neil’s accomplishments. It is interesting because I believe it would fit exactly that of thousands if not millions of men and women who have risked their lives for a cause bigger than themselves. The only difference is that you and l will never know their names. Neil Armstrong could have been the bravest and the most capable of all the people who were on the frontlines of all the battles you can image and he would still be unknown. I tend to judge people for their specific achievements and I truly believe Neil only did what is job required, and it happened to include some risk for his life (which might have been way overestimated since, according to the official version, all the astronauts that walked on, or orbited the moon did apparently return alive. So, we have a 0% fatality rate ). **Edit: So, I do not understand why he would deserve so much more respect and admiration than any other courageous and dedicated man or woman who has performed his/her duties and, even died while doing so. If being a good and generous person who performs his/her job well (or even above expectation) while knowingly risking his/her life deserves all this attention, I guess we should have a few more of these RIP threads.**


FRA,

I never wrote that you had made typing, spelling or grammatical errors, I said that you did not provide a shred of any decent organised and logical reply to anything I have posted so far, and that you were wrong about quite a few NASA program historical facts *. You refuse to organise your thoughts and you refuse to provide documented evidence for anything you post, so, where did you expect this discussion to go?

I would suggest that in the future, you spend less time trying to find out what other people don’t know and more time verifying what you think you know.

Concerning the moon rocks, Soviet Luna unmanned missions did, supposedly, bring back rock samples from the moon and that simple fact refutes the claim that any rock allegedly collected on the moon has to have had been collected by a man. You might argue that the quantities collected by unmanned missions were a very small fraction of what the Apollo missions allegedly brought back, but, that is not the point. The point is in the previous sentence. I guess you will now entertain me with more irrelevant details of some heroic deeds from some more heroes of yours, but that is not the point. You might argue that thousands of geologist claimed to have analysed Apollo collected rocks (and that some of them are too massive to have been returned by Luna) and that thousands of scientific papers have been published describing their unique properties (which are different from moon rocks found on Earth – lunar meteorites), but that still is not the point. Maybe one of your dear professor told you that Neil gave him a lunar rock? Still not the point. I think what I mean to say is that you are arguing without ever getting the point.

I think I will now give up on hoping to engage in a proper debate with you. You can certainly have your thread back now.

* Just so you know I wasn't bluffing, one of your most rudimentary mistakes was when you asserted that : "He risked his life and almost lost it, he landed on the moon with only 17-25 seconds left of fuel due to a failure in the lunar guidance computer!"

I already told you why you were wrong about the calculated risk Neil was taking, but just in that sentence, there was more. The legend (and your 15000$ a year education) say that the computer failed, but Margaret H. Hamilton (and the free Wikipedia) say it worked rather well:

Five minutes into the descent burn, and 6,000 feet (1,800 m) above the surface of the Moon, the LM navigation and guidance computer distracted the crew with the first of several unexpected "1202" and "1201" program alarms. Inside Mission Control Center in Houston, Texas, computer engineer Jack Garman told guidance officer Steve Bales it was safe to continue the descent and this was relayed to the crew. The program alarms indicated "executive overflows", meaning the guidance computer could not complete all of its tasks in real time and had to postpone some of them.[14]

In a letter to Datamation, March 1, 1971, Margaret H. Hamilton, Director of Apollo Flight Computer Programming MIT Draper Laboratory, Cambridge, Massachusetts, stated: “Due to an error in the checklist manual, the rendezvous radar switch was placed in the wrong position. This caused it to send erroneous signals to the computer. The result was that the computer was being asked to perform all of its normal functions for landing while receiving an extra load of spurious data which used up 15% of its time. The computer (or rather the software in it) was smart enough to recognize that it was being asked to perform more tasks than it should be performing. It then sent out an alarm, which meant to the astronaut, I'm overloaded with more tasks than I should be doing at this time and I'm going to keep only the more important tasks; i.e., the ones needed for landing...Actually, the computer was programmed to do more than recognize error conditions. A complete set of recovery programs was incorporated into the software. The software's action, in this case, was to eliminate lower priority tasks and re-establish the more important ones...If the computer hadn't recognized this problem and taken recovery action, I doubt if Apollo 11 would have been the successful moon landing it was”.

[Future Raptor Ace]

Originally Posted by Corsaire

Azhiri,

I have discussed such issues with dozens if not hundreds of people through the years, both in real life and on the Internet. From the novice to the experienced and knowledgeable, I have received my fair share of insults and abuse. I suppose one has to expect that sort of reaction when holding inconceivable and unpopular views. You are amongst the very few who have ever acknowledged the that one has to brave to hold such opinions. Evidently, conformity is always the easiest standpoint to adopt because all the resources are on your side. Teachers will want to teach to you, people you meet will most likely agree with most everything you say, all the official information you will research will be in accordance with your views, the News on TV will make sense, people on Internet forums will be friendlier... basically, your everyday experience will be much more pleasant and comforting. When you choose to challenge consensus, you are in for quite an abuse. Still, human history has shown, again and again, that anti-conformism can be a valid and very fruitful endeavour. But it can be quite destructive too, that is the nature of the beast. Thanks for your open mind, as always.

As for your father’s opinion, I suppose you have provided it as is and this is possibly not something you would like to discuss in much more details. I will just say that I do not agree with his assessment about the limited amount of money that was available during the Apollo program years. The NASA budget went up to about 4,5% of the federal budget at that time, a colossal sum. Also, the fact that faking parts of the missions would have been more expensive, well, I am not sure that would be the case but it would be hard to debate without much data to support either view. About the unbelievable turn-around, in 2.5 years, from a program and an organisation that were in disarray to what some claim is the greatest achievement in human history, with all respect to your father’s opinion, I simply think this is a Hollywood script. Most people are fixated on the fact that the crew died in a freak accident and most believe that all that was needed to be done was to fix a few things here and there. This is not what is documented by some of the most relevant people involved at the time, including the crew (mainly Grissom) and the Flight Director. The accident was just an event which exposed the fact that the program was in a state of disarray. I already posted quotes concerning this and there are plenty more to be found.

My last point is about your description of Neil’s accomplishments. It is interesting because I believe it would fit exactly that of thousands if not millions of men and women who have risked their lives for a cause bigger than themselves. The only difference is that you and l will never know their names. Neil Armstrong could have been the bravest and the most capable of all the people who were on the frontlines of all the battles you can image and he would still be unknown. I tend to judge people for their specific achievements and I truly believe Neil only did what is job required, and it happened to include some risk for his life (which might have been way overestimated since, according to the official version, all the astronauts that walked on, or orbited the moon did apparently return alive. So, we have a 0% fatality rate ). **Edit: So, I do not understand why he would deserve so much more respect and admiration than any other courageous and dedicated man or woman who has performed his/her duties and, even died while doing so. If being a good and generous person who performs his/her job well (or even above expectation) while knowingly risking his/her life deserves all this attention, I guess we should have a few more of these RIP threads.**


FRA,

I never wrote that you had made typing, spelling or grammatical errors, I said that you did not provide a shred of any decent organised and logical reply to anything I have posted so far, and that you were wrong about quite a few NASA program historical facts *. You refuse to organise your thoughts and you refuse to provide documented evidence for anything you post, so, where did you expect this discussion to go?

I would suggest that in the future, you spend less time trying to find out what other people don’t know and more time verifying what you think you know.

Concerning the moon rocks, Soviet Luna unmanned missions did, supposedly, bring back rock samples from the moon and that simple fact refutes the claim that any rock allegedly collected on the moon has to have had been collected by a man. You might argue that the quantities collected by unmanned missions were a very small fraction of what the Apollo missions allegedly brought back, but, that is not the point. The point is in the previous sentence. I guess you will now entertain me with more irrelevant details of some heroic deeds from some more heroes of yours, but that is not the point. You might argue that thousands of geologist claimed to have analysed Apollo collected rocks (and that some of them are too massive to have been returned by Luna) and that thousands of scientific papers have been published describing their unique properties (which are different from moon rocks found on Earth – lunar meteorites), but that still is not the point. Maybe one of your dear professor told you that Neil gave him a lunar rock? Still not the point. I think what I mean to say is that you are arguing without ever getting the point.

I think I will now give up on hoping to engage in a proper debate with you. You can certainly have your thread back now.

* Just so you know I wasn't bluffing, one of your most rudimentary mistakes was when you asserted that : "He risked his life and almost lost it, he landed on the moon with only 17-25 seconds left of fuel due to a failure in the lunar guidance computer!"

I already told you why you were wrong about the calculated risk Neil was taking, but just in that sentence, there was more. The legend (and your 15000$ a year education) say that the computer failed, but Margaret H. Hamilton (and the free Wikipedia) say it worked rather well:

Five minutes into the descent burn, and 6,000 feet (1,800 m) above the surface of the Moon, the LM navigation and guidance computer distracted the crew with the first of several unexpected "1202" and "1201" program alarms. Inside Mission Control Center in Houston, Texas, computer engineer Jack Garman told guidance officer Steve Bales it was safe to continue the descent and this was relayed to the crew. The program alarms indicated "executive overflows", meaning the guidance computer could not complete all of its tasks in real time and had to postpone some of them.[14]

In a letter to Datamation, March 1, 1971, Margaret H. Hamilton, Director of Apollo Flight Computer Programming MIT Draper Laboratory, Cambridge, Massachusetts, stated: “Due to an error in the checklist manual, the rendezvous radar switch was placed in the wrong position. This caused it to send erroneous signals to the computer. The result was that the computer was being asked to perform all of its normal functions for landing while receiving an extra load of spurious data which used up 15% of its time. The computer (or rather the software in it) was smart enough to recognize that it was being asked to perform more tasks than it should be performing. It then sent out an alarm, which meant to the astronaut, I'm overloaded with more tasks than I should be doing at this time and I'm going to keep only the more important tasks; i.e., the ones needed for landing...Actually, the computer was programmed to do more than recognize error conditions. A complete set of recovery programs was incorporated into the software. The software's action, in this case, was to eliminate lower priority tasks and re-establish the more important ones...If the computer hadn't recognized this problem and taken recovery action, I doubt if Apollo 11 would have been the successful moon landing it was”.

What you said about the flight computer is not correct, it did fail! I will explain this to you as simply as I can ... the flight computer had the Eagle landing towards a giant crater which would have been bad (LEM needed a nice flat place to land) so Neil maneuvered Eagle to find a new landing spot. The computer than became over loaded because it had to do too many calculations per second. It for it had to re-account for a new trajectory, a new landing velocity, a new target spot, chaining fuel levels etc. .. everything was dynamic all at once! The computers warning lights then came on all the while Buzz was calling out the fuel level. Neil then switched off the flight computer and flew the Eagle manually in which he landed on 17-25 seconds left of fuel. The funny thing is your reference that you provided says a simplified version of what I just said ... it is funny that you dont understand your own reference!
Im sure you read popular mechanics ...
http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...n-mars/4318170

* Neil Armstrong, commander, Apollo 11: Prior to igniting the lunar module's descent engine to initiate the trajectory toward the lunar surface, I had been timing our angular rate over the craters on the surface below to calculate our altitude. I noted that, at ignition, we were somewhat west of our intended starting location. I inferred that our entire trajectory and landing point would be somewhat west of our planned landing spot.

* Aldrin: We got the first 1202 alarm. So we look at each other, and we know it's in the guidance and navigation dictionary, but rather than try and get it out while the module is making a powered descent, Neil asked them what's the reading on the 1202 alarm. Then we got a 1201.

* Charlie Duke, astronaut, capsule communicator (CAPCOM), White Team, Mission Control: I was shocked. Actually, "stunned" is a better word. I started reaching for my guidance and navigation checklist to see what a 1201 and a 1202 was. And, of course, Steve Bales knew immediately and didn't hesitate very long to say, "We're go on those alarms, Flight."

* Kranz: Dick Koos, our simulation supervisor, gave us the 1201 and 1202 alarms. Steve [Bales] had never seen this before. During the simulation, they had an abort, which was his call.

* Garman: Gene Kranz sat us all down and said, "I want you to figure out every possible alarm code that can happen in flight so that we're prepared." In those days, there was no such thing as desktop computers. So I wrote down all the alarm codes on a sheet of grid paper, with crib notes on what they meant and what our response should be. And I stuck it under the plexiglass of the console I was to sit at. And, lo and behold, one of them--well, a couple of them--popped up during the actual landing.

* Eyles: What led to [the alarms] was an obscure mismatch deep in the electronics--two signals that should have been locked together in phase were only locked together in frequency. That hardware glitch involved the rendezvous radar, which really wasn't needed during the descent to the moon.

* Ward: The computer was simply saying, "Hey, I've got more than I can handle, but I'm gonna do the important things, so don't worry about it."

* Armstrong: The powered descent was the most challenging segment of the flight. The systems were heavily loaded, the margins were slim, and this would be the first time that the entire descent strategy would be fully tested. A decade earlier, while I was flying in the X-15 program, we learned, surprisingly, that all the pilots, while flying the X-15, had heart rates between 145 and 185. It reflected the mental intensity appropriate for a challenging situation. The Apollo data seemed to correlate well with our prior experience.

* Carlton: I had a stopwatch. I'm looking at it, and at the same time I'm looking at the altitude, and I can see it's still a long way down. I didn't know it, but the guys were flying over a crater. We call up 30 seconds. I'm thinking there's no way we're going to make it.

Read more: Apollo 11 Moon Landing - The Untold Story of NASA’s Apollo 11 Moon Mission - Popular Mechanics

As you can see you are wrong and have no idea what you are talking about then have the nerve to tell me im wrong lol! This is going to be my problem when going to industry ... arguing with non engineers lol! You guys think you know something because you think your logic to be intuitive and or you know some basic facts about something but in reality the real world can be counter-intuitive on a regular basis. Then when we explain to you and talk to you like an engineer you do not understand and or miss-understand what we wrote. To make matters worse when we talk to you on a simple non technical basis you feel we are over simplifying it for you and ask for more technical details. Overall I just cant stand talking to non engineers about engineering problems and I hope I never have to do it in the work place
I hope they have someone like this for me to talk to
<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/RAY27NU1Jog" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>

[Corsaire]

Originally Posted by Future Raptor Ace

What you said about the flight computer is not correct, it did fail! I will explain this to you as simply as I can ... the flight computer had the Eagle landing towards a giant crater which would have been bad (LEM needed a nice flat place to land) so Neil maneuvered Eagle to find a new landing spot. The computer than became over loaded because it had to do too many calculations per second. It for it had to re-account for a new trajectory, a new landing velocity, a new target spot, chaining fuel levels etc. .. everything was dynamic all at once! The computers warning lights then came on all the while Buzz was calling out the fuel level. Neil then switched off the flight computer and flew the Eagle manually in which he landed on 17-25 seconds left of fuel. The funny thing is your reference that you provided says a simplified version of what I just said ... it is funny that you dont understand your own reference!
Im sure you read popular mechanics ...
http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...n-mars/4318170

Read more: Apollo 11 Moon Landing - The Untold Story of NASA’s Apollo 11 Moon Mission - Popular Mechanics

As you can see you are wrong and have no idea what you are talking about then have the nerve to tell me im wrong lol! This is going to be my problem when going to industry ... arguing with non engineers lol! You guys think you know something because you think your logic to be intuitive and or you know some basic facts about something but in reality the real world can be counter-intuitive on a regular basis. Then when we explain to you and talk to you like an engineer you do not understand and or miss-understand what we wrote. To make matters worse when we talk to you on a simple non technical basis you feel we are over simplifying it for you and ask for more technical details. Overall I just cant stand talking to non engineers about engineering problems and I hope I never have to do it in the work place

Since you made an effort to address a specific point and added “documentation”, I will try to help you a little. First, you should preferably get your documentation from official sources with some context because you don’t seem to be able to analyse the information properly on your own. I quoted Margaret H. Hamilton, Director of Apollo Flight Computer Programming MIT Draper Laboratory, Cambridge, Massachusetts and you show up with a “knuckle-biting” story from Popular Mechanics. Are you even serious? Is your young brother or maybe a senile uncle using your computer while you are busy getting your 15000$ a year education?

You are a person who would rather be right at all cost, than admit to be a little ignorant about certain issues. You are also doing a disservice to the very NASA personal and NASA program that you are claiming to admire, while condemning others for not caring enough. You can try to fool people on AAm, but you are not fooling me. You actually have no clue what you are talking about. The guidance computer functioned extremely well and that was crucial to the alleged successful Apollo 11 landing. This is clearly stated by our friend, Margaret, and you should go read it again in my last message.

A computer generating an error message does not mean that it failed. In this case, it was the Rendezvous Radar Switch that shouldn’t have been left on ‘AUTO’ and so it provided too many useless instructions (it was not after Neil’s intervention as you seem to think so). This overloaded the program which then generated the error codes to alert the crew that it was dropping some lower priority tasks. The program was designed to do just that. Basically, you can question the logics behind programming such a procedure, but that is not a failure of the program itself. The computer was just doing its job flawlessly. It was not immediately clear what those messages were, but after a while, it was deemed by mission control to not be a cause for major concerned. It is only after this that the landing target was determined to be unsatisfactory and that Neil took over some of the tasks to land in a location that he considered was safer. Here, there are a dozen accounts and retelling of what actually happened, but the thing that is clear is that Neil never landed in a complete manual mode (although he might have switched to that mode for a while, but it is unlikely) as he took over some tasks while the computer was still performing the others. Again, Neil decided to override some of the computer’s tasks, it does not mean that the computer failed catastrophically as you seem to think. The point is that the computer was still needed for landing as you don't seem to understand. Do you actually comprehend the tasks that were needed to be processed? If you go to the proper sources, you will get all the confirmations of everything I wrote, which refutes your inane out of order and undocumented description.

Here is Buzz teaching you a few very basic things about computers (listen to the last 30s, that is the important part for your understanding):
http://www.history.com/videos/buzz-a...ters-on-apollo

Here, Buzz fails to even mention your catastrophic computer failure part of your Hollywood script:
http://www.history.com/videos/diffic...ng-on-the-moon

Here is more information about the reason the error codes were generated. You might want to read a little (and watch less movies), since you were not aware about the fact that it was caused by the Rendezvous Radar Switch and not by Neil's take over of some of the tasks. There is also the part about why it is not a computer failure, as you wrongly believe, even after being corrected:

Originally Posted by http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11.1201-fm.html

I remember bumping into one of our M.I.T. engineers, George Silver, who was usually at our office at Cape Kennedy. George had been involved in and witnessed many pre-flight tests. I asked him in frustration if he had ever seen the Apollo Guidance Computer run slowly and under what conditions. To my surprise and rather matter of fact, he said he had. He called it "cycle stealing" and he said it can occur when the I/O system keeps looking for data. He had seen it when the Rendezvous Radar Switch was on (in the AUTO position) and the computer was looking for radar data. He asked "the Switch isn't on, is it?" "Why would it be on for Descent, it's meant for Ascent?"

I rushed upstairs and suggested we look at the telemetry data. Some of the M.I.T engineers found the telemetry print out, found the correct 16-bit packed word, found the correct bit, and... yikes!!!, the bit was ON. Why was it on? It had to be set in that position by an astronaut. We looked at the 4 inch thick book of astronaut procedures and there it was -- they were supposed to put in on (in the AUTO position) prior to Descent. The computer had been looking for radar data. If the astronauts were trained this way, why had this effort never shown during training sessions? (I later found out that such training was for procedures only and the Switch was never connected to a real computer.)

But there was no time now for analyses or reflections. We called Houston and delivered the cause and solution. The final countdown to Ascent was proceeding. Just before ignition, and the last message sent to the astronauts, Glenn Lunney, the Flight Director, calmly told the astronauts to "please put the Rendezvous Radar Switch in the Manual position".

The Ascent and flight proceeded without incident.

Software Engineering Postscript

The Apollo program took some heat for this "software error" that almost caused Apollo 11 to abort. At M.I.T., we always thought and most would still maintain that the system operated as designed and saved the flight. We used a priority driven executive, rather than a round robin, FIFO, or table division executive. We provided for overload, or loss of computer speed, by continuing to execute the highest priority jobs. Those jobs (tasks) that fell off the queue were of lowest priority, perhaps a display refresh or some other non-essential procedure. Had we demanded computer time for every schedule task, then time would have run out, tasks would have overlapped, data would be confused and out of sync, and the flight would have been lost. Interestingly, this experience so influenced NASA's Jack Gorman and other NASA and Intermetrics software engineers, that we fought long and hard to retain a priority, asynchronous executive for Shuttle as manifested in the HAL/S language.

Now, you should go ask Buzz why that Rendezvous Radar Switch was left to AUTO. He has explained why and he knows that in the circumstances, it was a mistake. That is if this whole fairy tail of a moon landing actually did happen.

I suppose you will bury all this pertinent information in more “knuckle-biting” babble as soon as you can so that anyone still reading this (sure) will not be bothered to check your deficient logic, but I suppose this is the advantage you get when you post crap about Apollo missions on an Alizée forum.

[Future Raptor Ace]

Shows how much you know, Popular Mechanics is used often as a source on many engineering peer reviewed journals! Quit while you are behind you are making a fool of yourself! Also you saw who said the quotations I quoted ... so we can sit here all day long dick measuring on the internet but truth be told you don't know more than Neil, you don't know more than Buzz, you don't know more than Gene Kranz, and you sure as hell don't know more than me!
I am going to put those quotes up on this page too so everyone can see what a fool you are!
http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...n-mars/4318170

* Neil Armstrong, commander, Apollo 11: Prior to igniting the lunar module's descent engine to initiate the trajectory toward the lunar surface, I had been timing our angular rate over the craters on the surface below to calculate our altitude. I noted that, at ignition, we were somewhat west of our intended starting location. I inferred that our entire trajectory and landing point would be somewhat west of our planned landing spot.

* Aldrin: We got the first 1202 alarm. So we look at each other, and we know it's in the guidance and navigation dictionary, but rather than try and get it out while the module is making a powered descent, Neil asked them what's the reading on the 1202 alarm. Then we got a 1201.

* Charlie Duke, astronaut, capsule communicator (CAPCOM), White Team, Mission Control: I was shocked. Actually, "stunned" is a better word. I started reaching for my guidance and navigation checklist to see what a 1201 and a 1202 was. And, of course, Steve Bales knew immediately and didn't hesitate very long to say, "We're go on those alarms, Flight."

* Kranz: Dick Koos, our simulation supervisor, gave us the 1201 and 1202 alarms. Steve [Bales] had never seen this before. During the simulation, they had an abort, which was his call.

* Garman: Gene Kranz sat us all down and said, "I want you to figure out every possible alarm code that can happen in flight so that we're prepared." In those days, there was no such thing as desktop computers. So I wrote down all the alarm codes on a sheet of grid paper, with crib notes on what they meant and what our response should be. And I stuck it under the plexiglass of the console I was to sit at. And, lo and behold, one of them--well, a couple of them--popped up during the actual landing.

* Eyles: What led to [the alarms] was an obscure mismatch deep in the electronics--two signals that should have been locked together in phase were only locked together in frequency. That hardware glitch involved the rendezvous radar, which really wasn't needed during the descent to the moon.

* Ward: The computer was simply saying, "Hey, I've got more than I can handle, but I'm gonna do the important things, so don't worry about it."

* Armstrong: The powered descent was the most challenging segment of the flight. The systems were heavily loaded, the margins were slim, and this would be the first time that the entire descent strategy would be fully tested. A decade earlier, while I was flying in the X-15 program, we learned, surprisingly, that all the pilots, while flying the X-15, had heart rates between 145 and 185. It reflected the mental intensity appropriate for a challenging situation. The Apollo data seemed to correlate well with our prior experience.

* Carlton: I had a stopwatch. I'm looking at it, and at the same time I'm looking at the altitude, and I can see it's still a long way down. I didn't know it, but the guys were flying over a crater. We call up 30 seconds. I'm thinking there's no way we're going to make it.

Also watch this, maybe you can argue with these great men too and tell them how they are also wrong lol!

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/rqQW-tmQRos" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>

And don't be mad at the other members because I made a fool out of you (no you made a fool out of yourself) and now you are the laughing stock of anyone who reads this thread! You know im an Aerospace Engineer and very passionate about this field and I warned you i would make a fool out of you and now that I did you seem to be putting this forum down ... you feel like a big boy? Next time when someone tells you they are actually a near expert on a subject (and you knew I wasn't bullshitting) you should head the warning and not try to argue. By the way your last post is bullshit just like your others! Go watch Bart Sibrel, you seem to be just as smart and informed as him!

[Corsaire]

Originally Posted by Future Raptor Ace

Shows how much you know, Popular Mechanics is used often as a source on many engineering peer reviewed journals!

Popular Mechanics is a joke:
“Popular Mechanics features regular sections on automotive, home, outdoors, science, and technology topics. A recurring column is "Jay Leno's Garage" featuring observations by the famed late-night talk show host and vehicle enthusiast.”

PM’s chief-editor is Jim Meigs, a notorious moron. PM is not peer-reviewed itself, so, basically, any clown can publish there. Go ahead and build your carrier to come on that sort of documentation if you want, I would advise not to.

Originally Posted by Future Raptor Ace

Quit while you are behind you are making a fool you of yourself! Also you saw who said the quotations I quoted ... so we can sit here all day long dick measuring on the internet but truth be told you don't know more than Neil, you don't know more than Buzz, you don't know more than Gene Kranz, and you sure as hell don't know more than me!

So, ultimately, this is what this is all this is about, right? You and your heroes. Sure.

Originally Posted by Future Raptor Ace

And dont be mad at the other members because I made a fool out of you (no you made a fool out of yourself) and now you are the laughing stock of anyone who reads this thread!....

Mad at other members? I am having quite a good time in this thread, so far. I see no problem with other members. Just problems with your "knuckle-biting" Apollo stories.

Originally Posted by Future Raptor Ace

Go watch Bart Sibrel, you seem to be just as smart and informed as him!

You must love that piece of anthology, don't you:



Bart is a nutcase, but those highly trained NASA astronauts who can face any situation with calm and restrain seem a little out of control too:
http://vimeo.com/24508433



Seriously now, you should really stop a minute and reflect on what just happened in this thread. That would be beneficial to you.

Good luck with your career.


Edit:

Originally Posted by lefty12357

To quote Azhiri,
"I don't want this to get ugly - no more name-calling or insults to personal intelligence, that's silly and we're all bigger and better than that."

Come on, guys. Please refrain from the personal insults during your discussion. You are not making your arguments any more convincing by doing so.

Not to worry lefty. I am done here. Sorry if this was a little more of a chore to monitor.