From: Lan Fleming <lfleming6.nul> Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 22:33:41 -0500 Fwd Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 05:50:22 -0400 Subject: Re: Armstrong On The Apollo 11 UFO - Fleming >From: James Smith <lunartravel.nul> >To: ufoupdates.nul >Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 11:13:30 -0400 (GMT-04:00) >Subject: Re: Armstrong On The Apollo 11 UFO >>From: Lan Fleming <lfleming6.nul> >>To: UFOUpdates <ufoupdates.nul> >>Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 15:13:22 -0500 >>Subject: Armstrong On The Apollo 11 UFO >>James Smith asked about the source of an assertion I made that >>Neil Armstrong had said that the object that he and the other >>Apollo 11 astronauts saw was ahead of the spacecraft. >Thanks for getting this text. >>"In Armstrong's mind today, there is still no doubt that what >>they all saw was a detached part of their own spacecraft. "We >>did watch a slow blinking light some substantial distance away >>from us. Mission Control eventually concluded - and I agree - >>that it was one of the Saturn LM adapter panels. These panels >>are enormous and would have been given a rotation in the process >>of their ejection from the S-IVB. The reflection from these >>panels would, therefore, be similar to blinking. I do not know >>why we did not see the other three panels, but I suspect that >>the one that was directly down from the Sun from us would have >>provided the brightest reflection." >The Sun would have been at an angle about 90 degrees from the >CSM flight path and assuming that the orientation of the CSM/S- >IVB at panel jettison was correct, one panel would have been >Sunward. One needs to check the attitude at jettison since we >have no reports of seeing the panels tumble away prior to >midcourse correction. That implies that Armstrong thought the object was also 90 degrees from the flight path in the direction opposite the sun. I don't see that would necessarily put it ahead of the spacecraft as the author said. >It is an excellent point about the other three panels. Although >they would have separated somewhat from each other, they surely >would have been within the field of view. >I do not buy the "brightest reflection" business. A tumbling >panel (which they all should have been) would be at some point a >good angle to reflect the sunlight significantly. These are not >specular reflections, they are only reflections of light from >"white" surfaces. Lambertian (non-specular) surfaces do reflect more light when the sun is at a higher angle relative to the surface, so Armstrong may have had a point there. >Another point that bothers me about the panel explanation is >that the CSM was in a flight mode (spinning normal to the >ecliptic) for a large part of translunar coast. Surely these >guys were looking out the windows (there was not all that much >to do at that time)and should have seen a blinking panel prior >to the incident. All they had to do was just keep looking out >the window and the flashing panels would have come into view. If >the CSM was pointing toward the Moon most of the trip, then I >could argue the panel would have been out of the field of view, >but the spinning flight mode rules this out and implies they >should have seen it earlier. I agree that the panels would have been visible 577 miles away from the spacecraft, but they would have appeared as pinpoints of light to the naked eye. Depending on the lighting, they might not have stood out well enough from the backround stars to have been noticed; I assume the stars would abe far more numerous viewed from space than from within the Earth's atmosphere, at least in light-polluted urban environments. Perhaps they didn't see the panels after docking with the LEM because the spacecraft was traveling nose-first, or some other orientation in which the view of the sky was more restricted before it was put into the passive thermal mode where its rotation gave the crew a 360 degree view of a large swath of the sky. >>"How the panel had kept up with the Apollo 11 spacecraft for over >>two days - and in fact, was out in front of it - was a simple >>matter of Newtonian physics. "When the SLA panels were ejected," >>Neil explains, "they had a very slight outward relative >>velocity, but their velocity along the flight path was >>essentially identical to that of the CSM-LM combination. The >>panels, therefore, having no atmospheric drag to slow them, >>traveled at the CSM-LM speed, but developed an ever-increasing >>lateral separation from it." >Yeah, they forgot about the midcourse firing. >>As can be seen in the above text, Armstrong doesn't explicitly >>say that the object they saw was ahead of the spacecraft; he >>only implies it was down sun from the spacecraft. It is the >>author, not Armstrong, who says that the panels were "out in >>front of" the spacecraft. But since this was an authorized >>biography, presumably Armstrong was the source of Hansen's >>explanation, which is incorrect. >>As a simple matter of Newtonian physics, the combined effects of >>the panel jettison velocity and the spacecraft's midcourse >>correction makes the preferred NASA explanation virtually >>impossible. >>At the distance of 577 miles computed by James Smith, the object >>could have been no more than a featureless dot, even under the >>magnification of the Apollo's 28-power telescope. >The "dot" aspect I do not know for sure, I have not tried to >simulate the telescopic situation. It does seem unlikely. But >I do not know the characteristics of the telescope. When STS >camera do extreme zooms (but are not focused) on Soyuz and other >distant orbiting objects, some pretty odd shapes occur. At a distance of 577 miles, a 21-foot long panel would subtend 0.024 minutes of arc. The sextant telescope had a 28X magnification, so the angular size would be 28 times greater through the telsecope: 0.7 arcminutes. The resolution limit of the human eye for distinguishing an object that is more than a pinpoint of light is about 1 arcminute, although I've seen numbers as low as 0.7 arcminutes. So as far as I can see, one of these SLA panels would appear to be little more than a dot. I'm no expert in optics, but I don't see how they could have seen any shape at all, weird or otherwise. (If David Rudiak is reading this thread, he should feel free to jump in here if I'm wrong about the optics). >>It could not >>have appeared to be shaped like an "open suitcase" as Armstrong >>described it in the post-flight debriefing, or any discernible >>shape at all. And of course, contrary to what the author >>implies, Buzz Aldrin, at least, seemed to orignally have had >>plenty of doubt that the object was an SLA panel because of its >>observed shape. >I have not tried to simulate the illumination conditions, >reflectivity/paint of the panel surfaces, panel orientation to >see if it can appear to be a "open suitcase". >>Those difficulties with the panel explanation notwithstanding, >>Armstrong's authorized biography says the object was an SLA >>panel, Aldrin's own book said it was an SLA panel, and Mission >>Control said it was an SLA panel, so that makes the panel >>explanation a 'fact' carved in stone, even though it's almost >>certainly wrong. >Okay, it seems wrong, and all these guys have for whatever >reason decided its a SLA panel. I still am not clear what one >can infer from this. We already know that the >government/authorities will always choose a prosaic explanation >first. If you rub their noses into how wrong they are, they will >simply come up with another one which you can't refute >adequately (e.g. debris from the CSM/LM). I still think it's important that the credibility of people in positions of authority needs to be called into question when their stories change with time, whether the authority is the U.S. Attorney General, who's had some problems with that recently, or a famous astronaut. I'd like to hear Buzz Aldrin explain why his story changed in the years since the Apollo 11 mission debriefing when he essentially rejected the panels as a likely explanation. By the way, it occurred to me that the midcourse correction you found out about could make some other source of debris from the CSM/LM less likely. Assuming that the object was something more than an ice particle, the only events that I can think of that would have generated any major debris would have been the separation of the spacecraft from the booster and docking with the LEM. The 485-mile downtrack distance between the panels and the spacecraft that you computed for the midcourse correction would also be the distance to any big chunks of debris left floating around near the booster after the transposition and docking, barring the off chance that the debris got a good kick in the downtrack direction from a thruster or explosive bolt. And whatever debris there was would have been a lot smaller than the SLA panels and even harder to see at that distance.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp