From: James Smith <lunartravel.nul> Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 16:15:35 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Fwd Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 09:39:03 -0500 Subject: Re: An E-Mail To BadAstronomy On Apollo 11 UFO - >From: Lan Fleming <lfleming6.nul> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates.nul> >Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 20:04:47 -0600 >Subject: Re: An E-Mail To BadAstronomy On Apollo 11 UFO >>From: James Smith <lunartravel.nul> >>To: ufoupdates.nul >>Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 17:01:57 -0500 (GMT-05:00) >>Subject: Re: An E-Mail To BadAstronomy On Apollo 11 UFO ><snip> >>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/ >>505km. >>Combining the two axes/dimensions of divergence provides >>a total distance of the SLA panels from the CSM of 577 statute >>miles/930km! >I was kind of surprised that you computed a distance that large. >But I see that the Apollo 9 document implies that the panels >were jettisoned at an angle of about 90 degrees from the booster >axis, which would give the distance you cited. Yes, this is what I assumed, although I do not find anywhere in the Apollo 11 papers what angle they jettisoned it at. >The Apollo 15 >article I referenced indicated that the panels were jettisoned >when they were rotated on their hinges 45 degrees from the >booster axis, so I assumed that they were ejected at that same >angle to avoid a large part of the force of the springs just >causing the panels to tumble rather than move away from the >spacecraft. If the panels were ejected at a 45 degree angle, >they would have had a forward velocity component. Even if that >assumption is correct, the panels would still have ended up >about 265 miles downtrack from the spacecraft due to the >midcourse correction maneuver. And they would have beenat a >cross-track distance 221 miles away from the spacecraft for a >total distance of about 340 miles. That's still a bit more than >my original guesstimate. It would also put the panels behind the >spacecraft, while the UFO was sighted in the forward direction. I do not see where it is stated that the UFO was sighted in the forward direction. They said it was tumbling and that it was "going by". But the odd thing I just noticed in the Mission report is that during the time the object was sighted, the spacecraft was in passive thermal control mode. This meant that the positive longitudinal axis of the spacecraft was pointed toward the ecliptic north Pole and spinning along the axis at a rate of 0.3 deg/sec. So they _could_ see an object behind them. But the problem is now the interpretation of "going by". If the object is behind them then it can surely appear to be going by since the spacecraft is rolling on its x axis slowly. I wonder if someone can ask them this.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp