UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Mar > Mar 2

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

From: James Smith <lunartravel.nul>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 17:01:57 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 09:02:05 -0500
Subject: Re: An E-Mail To BadAstronomy On Apollo 11 UFO -

>From: Lan Fleming <lfleming6.nul>
>To: UFOUpdates <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 21:55:24 -0600
>Subject: Re: An E-Mail To BadAstronomy On Apollo 11 UFO

>>From: James Smith <lunartravel.nul>
>>Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:07:35 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Subject: Re: An E-Mail To BadAstronomy On Apollo 11 UFO

>>>From: Lan Fleming <lfleming6.nul>
>>>To: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates.nul>
>>>Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 11:56:11 -0600
>>>Subject: An E-Mail To BadAstronomy On Apollo 11 UFO


>>>If the panels were traveling at a speed of 2.5 m/s relative to
>>>the Apollo spacecraft, the distance between the panels and the
>>>spacecraft would have been about 517 km, or 320 miles after
>>>that amount of time.

>>I don't think its so easy to deduce anything like this.

>True. That's why I made it a conditional statement, not a deduction.

>>The panels are jettisoned while the spacecraft is still close enough
>>to Earth to have the effects of the atmosphere enter into it. So
>>you need to account for that.

>I doubt atmospheric drag was a factor. The panels and the
>spacecraft were traveling at escape velocity. The Apollo 9
>mission never left Earth orbit, which is why the panels fell
>back to Earth. I'm sure that the SLA panels on the Apollo 11
>mission traveled roughly in the same direction as the
>spacecraft, although at a different speed that could have (but
>not necssarily did) put them far away from the spacecraft at
>the time of the object's sighting.

I agree about the atmospheric drag not being a major effect. You
are right about Apollo 9, I don't know how I missed that it was
an Earth-only flight. However, the reason I was misled was that
in reading the Apollo 10 recontact analysis document it
mentioned that the analysis for the Apollo 9 SLA panels was
applicable for Apollo 10, which was not really right.

>>Then there is the matter of midcourse correction. How does that
>>affect the position of the panels? Maybe it improves it or maybe
>>worsens it.

>Yes, but I haven't seen anything to suggest that NASA or anyone
>else knows for sure.

The Apollo 11 mission report states that the midcourse
correction occurred at 26 hr 45 min and was an increase of
velocity of 20.9 ft/sec. This appears to be fairly close to the
direction of motion (velocity change along X axis =-14.19
ft/sec, Y axis= +13.17 ft/sec, Z axis=+7.56 ft/sec in the earth
centered interial coordinate system). So we can basically assume
that the spacecraft sped up by 20.9 ft/sec. The crew sighted the
UFO at 60 hr 49 min. So the total time which the SLA and CSM
diverge from the midcourse correction is about 34 hr and 4 min
or 122640 seconds. 20.9 ft/sec over this time period gives
2563176 ft or 421 nautical miles/485 statute miles/781 km.

This does not include the divergence due to the jettison
velocity which at best is supposed to be 8 ft/sec. The SLA
panel jettison occurs at roughly 3 hr 17 min giving 57 hr and
32 min of travel time (207120 sec). For 8ft/sec over this time
period gives 1656960 ft/272nautical miles/314 statute miles/

Combining the two axes/dimensions of divergence provides
a total distance of the SLA panels from the CSM of 577 statute

So it was far behind them. Now given the size of 22 m^2 area, it
would likely have a visual magnitude well within the human eye's
ability to see (3-4) so would have appeared as a bright dot with
the eye (similar to rocket bodies seen from the ground by sky
watchers). Yet the crew debrief clearly states, "Aldrin: Of
course, we were seeing all sorts of little objects GOING BY at
the various dumps and then we happened to see THIS ONE BRIGHTER
OBJECT GOING BY (my emphasis). We couldn't think of anything
else it could be other than the S-IVB. We looked at it through
the monocular and it seemed to have a bit of an L-shape to it."

So this really completely rules out the SLA panels because there
was no way for the panels to PASS the command module (in either
direction). The panels, due to the midcourse correction have
caused the panels to be left far behind. Their jettison speed
could never match/exceed the mid course velocity change.

I also checked the S-IVB distance (I found the trajectory
coordinates in a publication) and it is about 9000 miles away
(and behind) the command module at the sighting time.

Therefore, the UFO sighting remains an unknown, although I think
it is likely the same kind of debris seen around Shuttles/ISS,
namely tiny stuff. I have watched alot of the video of Apollo
and they had alot of debris during parts of the missions.

>As I said before, what I find most interesing about this case is
>that Alrdin changed his story. During the debriefing after the
>return to Earth, he seems to have ruled out the possibility that
>the object was one of the SLA panels for the very logical reason
>that their shape didn't match the shape of the object he saw.

>None of these views match the description of the L-shaped object
>that Aldrin described or the "open suitcase" that Armstrong
>described it.

Yes, I agree it is unlikely an SLA panel on these grounds too.

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

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com