UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Mar > Mar 27

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

From: Lan Fleming <lfleming5.nul>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 13:51:51 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 07:23:43 -0400
Subject: Re: An E-Mail To BadAstronomy On Apollo 11 UFO -

>From: James Smith <lunartravel.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 11:37:06 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
>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

>>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.
>>But the SLA panel ejection may also have been retrograde too,
>>according to the 75-90-degree ejection angle figures I was given
>>by NASA flight engineers (see above).

>I have to agree with Lan about the coordinate system being Earth
>Centered Inertial and not body (CSM) centered as you seem to
>think it is. Thus the -X is not really retrograde.

On checking Starry NIght, the Moon's position was dec 6 degrees,
RA 143 degrees on 7/16/69. The velocity changes for the
separation maneuver (dec 26.7, RA 123.2) and the midcourse
correction (dec 21.3 RA 137.1) were both in the general
direction of the moon, so it appears that neither maneuver was
retrograde. There's still this evasive maneuver that Brad Sparks
pointed out that we don't know anything about. It might have
been sufficient to put the spacecraft closer to the panels, but
I would suppose an evasive maneuver would have the opposite

>>See analysis above. With so many confusing factors to consider
>>one cannot really be dogmatic in asserting that "the" SLA panels
>>were "all" X miles away and thus could not possibly have been
>>visible at the time of the Apollo 11 astronauts' sighting. If I
>>have missed some additional dynamics factor then all these
>>results might change again.
>Yeah, gravity does play a role and really should be
>considered if you want an accurate assessment.

You'd need it for more precise assessments, but I think it can
be ignored for the purpose of testing the notion that an SLA
panel was close enough for the astranauts to have discerned its
shape through their 28X telescope. As I pointed out in my last
message, the gravitational acceleration term cancels out,
assuming that the spacecraft and the panel were subjected to the
same gravitational forces. It would only be a factor if they
were so far apart that there would have been major differences
in the magnitudes and directions of the gravtational forces that
they experiencing, in which case there would be no question at
all that the panels couldn't have been seen by the astronauts.

>>At 8:17:55 PM (59h45m55s GET) ground control notified the Apollo
>>crew that their PTC rotation was wrong, strangely off 20 degrees
>>in pitch angle, and may need to be done all over again - meaning
>>more RCS (Reaction Control System) rockets automatically firing
>>at different angles to get just the right rotation. If not
>>corrected right away it would result in the RCS jets continually
>>firing off and on trying to adjust it, using up vital propellant
>>and keeping the astronauts awake with the noise. The original
>>PTC was established at around 6:40 PM. The new PTC rotation mode
>>was successfully established at around 8:40 PM. The object
>>sighting began around 9:00 PM.

>Interesting observation.

>Perhaps an examination of imagery of the CSM/LM can identify
>missing mylar. They took alot of pictures of the LM on the lunar

If only a small strip of Mylar was removed, the photographs
might not even show it. But this does seem to be a possibility
that you can't really rule out. Maybe a relatively gentle puff
of exhaust gases from a thruster would be enough to dislodge a
piece of mylar from the LM that was already loose, but certainly
not enough force to rip something off that was firmly attached.

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