UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Mar > Mar 7

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

From: James Smith <lunartravel.nul>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 16:51:23 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
Fwd Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 07:56:23 -0500
Subject: Re: An E-Mail To BadAstronomy On Apollo 11 UFO -

>From: Lan Fleming <lfleming6.nul>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 10:59:21 -0600
>Subject: Re: An E-Mail To BadAstronomy On Apollo 11 UFO

>>From: James Smith <lunartravel.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 16:15:35 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
>>Subject: Re: An E-Mail To BadAstronomy On Apollo 11 UFO


>>>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.

>They may have decided on the 45-degree angle after Apollo 9 and
>before Apollo 11, since they did a lot of experimenting during
>the program. The panels weren't detached from the booster at all
>during Apollo 7, but Wally Schirra complained that the panels
>were flexing too much, posing a danger to the spacecraft when it
>docked with the LEM during the transposition maneuver.

Apollo 7 did not have a lunar module. They just pretended it was
there to simulate docking. They had been planning on jettisoning
the panels prior to Apollo 7 (March 1968).

>>>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 don't know about the Apollo 15 reference, but the standard
method was to release the panels at 90 degrees. Later, it showed
that up to 130 degrees from the x axis of the S-IVB was
possible. But certainly 45 degrees was not a desired or planned
angle to jettison them. Now if the S-IVB was pitched at an angle
then you may get some forward velocity on some panels depending
on the pitch angle and the panel angle.

>>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".

>In the book _First Man_ Neil Armstrong gave his own version of
>the panel explanation. He said one of the panels was off to one
>side but had gotten sligthly ahead of the spacecraft at a
>position where it would reflect a large amount of sunlight. But
>Armstrong was speaking from memory years after the mission. He
>was also recollecting how they knew at the time the object was
>probably one of the SLA panels but didn't want to say anything
>that would excite the "UFO nuts" at the time. That seems to be a
>rather odd explanation, since if they knew it was a booster
>panel and had just told that to mission control, the UFO nuts
>wouldn't have gotten terribly excited. In any case, the
>debriefing transcript indicated that Aldrin had already
>considered and rejected the SLA panel explanation at the time
>and that Armstrong didn't object, so he seems to have
>misremembered what they knew and didn't know at the time. So
>perhaps Armstrong's memory was innaccurate on the position of
>the object relative to the spacecraft, too.

No way could it be _ahead_ of the spacecraft after midcourse

>>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.

>That's an interesting point. If the spacecraft had been rotating
>a full 360 every 20 minutes, it seems to me if it were a piece
>of debris from the spacecraft itself, they should have been able
>to observe its progress as it moved away from them and concluded
>it had originated from the spacecraft. They also should have
>been able to discern its shape without using the telescop when
>it was closer to them. I'm not saying that proves anything,
>though, since they just might not have been paying enough
>attention to have noticed a piece of debris when it was closer
>to the spacecraft.

Depending on the size/mass of the debris, wouldn't centrifugal
motion move it away from the CSM? It would certainly help if the
astronauts could have given better data on where the object was
(toward Earth or toward the Moon, which axis the apparent
movement of the object was going..along the CSM rotation axis or
along the direction of motion axis). Without these, it is hard
to get too excited about this astronaut observation.

[ 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