UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Mar > Mar 25

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

From: Lan Fleming <lfleming6.nul>
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 00:22:00 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 07:39:07 -0400
Subject: Re: An E-Mail To BadAstronomy On Apollo 11 UFO -

>From: Brad Sparks <RB47x.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 07:52:25 EDT
>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

>>>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.


>It's not that simple and not correct at all even as a
>"conditional" ("if") statement.

Actually, it _is_ that simple given the assumption that the
panel jettison velocity was the only factor, which turns out not
to be the case.

>Hence any delta-V between the Apollo and the SLA panels of about
>2.5 meters/sec or 5.6 mph would be reduced by a factor of how
>much of the 5.6 mph velocity is in the radial direction with
>respect to the earth, where gravity would slow it over the
>course of the long 2-1/2 day flight path to the moon's gravity

Your physics is wrong there. If two objects starting at the same
position are subjected to the same acceleration, A, but have
different initial velocities V1 and V2 in the direction of the
acceleration, their respective positions at time T are:

    D1 = V1*T + 1/2A*T~2 and
    D2 = V2*T + 1/2A*T^2

The difference in the objects' positions, D1 - D2 is (V1 -

That is an oversimplification since the accelerations wouldn't
be exactly equal and wouldn't be exactly in the same direction,
but it's a reasonable approximation. It is NOT incorrect.

>Even before the Mid-Course Correction at 26h45m there was an
>Apollo Separation (Evasive) Maneuver at 4h40m to get the Apollo
>crew away from the vicinity of the S-IVB third stage and its
>ejected SLA panels. Both rocket firings were described in NASA
>reports as "retrograde," thus slowing the Apollo down and both
>were roughly 20 ft/sec total velocity. Thus the minus sign (-)
>on the X axis velocity change of -14.19 ft/sec means retrograde.

The negative sign doesn't indicate retrograde motion. Velocities
and positions of NASA spacecraft are given in the M50 Earth-
centered inertial (ECI) coordinate system. The +X direction is
toward the position of the vernal equinox relative to the fixed
stars as of Jan 1, 1950, The +Z direction is toward the Earth's
north pole on the same date.


>The much more important Apollo-S-IVB Separation Maneuver at
>4h40m gave velocity increments of X = -9.76 ft/sec, Y = +14.94
>ft/sec, Z = +8.96 ft/sec.

If those are ECI Cartesian coordinates also, then the separation
maneuver delta-V direction in polar coordinates was declination
26.7, right ascension 123.2. The Cartesian coordinates Smith
gave for the midcourse correction are equivalent to a
declination 21.3 RA 137.1. I don't know the direction the
spacecraft was traveling at those times, but the delta-Vs for
both maneuvers were in similar directions in the ECI system.

If the midcourse correction delta-V was in the direction the
spacecraft was already traveling, then the delta-V for the
separation maneuver probably was, too. I'd be surprised if it
were retrograde. We'd need the ECI values for the spacecraft
velocities at the times of the maneuvers as well as the
coordinates of the delta-Vs know for sure whether the delta-Vs
were prograde or retrograde. This maneuver is a factor that we
overlooked, but if it wasn't a retrograde maneuver, it would
have put the panels farther behind the spacecraft.

As for your theory that the object could have been Mylar from
the LM, I understand how an RCS rocket might be responsible for
moving debris to a new position where the astronauts would see
it, but I still don't see that any event occurred that would
have knocked something off the LM in the first place. A command
module thruster _might_ impinge directly on the LM, but I would
think they designed the spacecraft to avoid any significant RCS
impingement on the LM for obvious reasons.

On some other things you brought up, the information you gleaned
from the Condon Report about the visibility of objects in space
is interesting. I'm puzzled by the differences in the panel
jettison speeds you got earlier and what other documents

Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast



[ 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