What's mean't by "mining it" in Apollo14 mission transcript?

[aussiebloke]

G' Day Folks
G' Day Smersh.

Had to go shopping today so went on to the local library and managed to get a copy of "First Man: The life of Neil Armstrong" by James R Hansen.

When Aldrin mentions "sticking cards on panels in front of us" they are only 139,000 nautical miles out still on their way it was referring to putting on a show which lasted thirty six minutes Aldrin needed cues, Neil didn't.

It is on page 425.

"Aldrin notes they went to great lengths to make it look that way the fact is they were carefully planned in advance and for me the exact words were written down on little cards stuck on to the panel in front of us.

They are talking about the antics they got up to entertain the viewers to make it look improvised.

Thanks for that link JonClarke.

Better go, I feel a need to go to the dike. :lol:
Cheers Aussiebloke

 

[JonClarke]

[On another matter, the video posted by Aussiebloke also claims that the voice transmissions heard by the public were "scripted," with "the exact words written down on little cards stuck in the panel in front of us." This is said to have been mentioned by Buzz Aldrin in the book "First Man: The Life of Neil A. Armstrong." This can easily be checked out of course - does anyone here have a copy of this book who can confirm, please? Thanks.

Got it, it is on page 425. The full paragraph is quite enlightening, it reads:

Fir thirty six minutes the astronauts put on a show. The model of spontenaity, Collins disavowed the use of cue cards, Aldrin did a few zero-g push-ups, and Neil even stood on his head, (Collins: "Neil's standing on his head again. He's trying to make me nervous.") Head chef Collins alsodemonstated how to make chicken stew whern travelling at a speed of 4,400 feet per second. Neil relates that most of the telecast seemed improvised but Aldrin notes that "we went to great lengths" to make it look that way. "The fact is they were carefully planned in advanceand for me the exact words were written downob little cards stuck onto the panel in front of us." Neil used no written aids, having thought through what he wanted to do and say only shortly before the TV transmission.

So the sinister overtones of a "scripted" transmission turns out to be simply prior planning and one astronaut opting to use cue cards.

Typical conspiracist straw clutching. In amazes me that people will read through and entire book like this and then take little quotes out of context to support their loony views and miss the big picture. they choke at gnats and swallow camels.

 

[JonClarke]

Sorry for the overlap - I started my post before Aussiebloke but posted it after.

 

[Smersh]

FYI - I have just edited my op to correct my posting of the transcript as pointed out earlier by JonClarke.

Smersh, you've done a nice job of posting this question so that it clearly merits consideration and further study. Although I tend to believe that we are being visited by aliens, I never believed there was anything on the moon that would provide evidence. I think it's more likely they would set up shop here on Earth, perhaps under water. However, this does make me more open to the possibility of non-human activity on the moon, and I'll be sure to stay tuned to see how this thread develops. If I come across anything relevant, I'll share it here.

ramparts, I liked the cheese joke. I was going to follow with a lesbian comment, but Smersh ruined it!

Thanks FlatEarth and yes, please do post anything you may find (unless it concerns allegations that there are lesbians on the moon, of course ... )

This is my point though. NASA have considered it important enough and have taken the time to post the transcripts and transfer them into pdf files, so why not the voice recordings - afer 40 years as well? With the advent of the internet (that came along after the missions) it just leads to suspicion and accusations of not being open. Also, the more open with the public they are, I would have thought the better chance they would have of getting the government funding they need.

This is of course a "If I were emperor of the world" argument things would be this way. Of course we are not, instead the NASA management makes its own decisions based on its priorities. We are not talking about scientific or technical data data here, but archane archival material. Would it be nice to have the log of the USS Nautilus on its voyage under the Arctic ice available on line, but we don't. It would also be nice to have the line book of 800 squadron FAA from the campagign in Norway in 1940. One day it may, but it is not a priority. Putting this material on line is not a simple exercise. It takes time, money, labour, and consumes storage space. Unless it has actually been lost or misfiled such can be physically obtained from various arcives, it just takes effort or work. For example, I did some researech on the Battle of Calabria in 1940. I was able to obtain copies of the action and navigation logs of the HMAS Voyager but not those of HMAS Sydney (which apparently no longer exist) ...

We're talking about one of the greatest (if not THE greatest) achievements in the history of mankind here, not the Battle of Neasden or the invention of the paper clip. And we've just had the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11. If the voice recordings are still available I would have thought they would have been put online long ago, along with the transcripts that NASA DID spend time and money on providing. Oh well, maybe NASA have had other priorities for allocation of their public funds, such as the lavish parties they've thrown in the past ...

... Had to go shopping today so went on to the local library and managed to get a copy of "First Man: The life of Neil Armstrong" by James R Hansen.

When Aldrin mentions "sticking cards on panels in front of us" they are only 139,000 nautical miles out still on their way it was referring to putting on a show which lasted thirty six minutes Aldrin needed cues, Neil didn't.

It is on page 425.

"Aldrin notes they went to great lengths to make it look that way the fact is they were carefully planned in advance and for me the exact words were written down on little cards stuck on to the panel in front of us.

They are talking about the antics they got up to entertain the viewers to make it look improvised ...

Thanks a lot Aussiebloke and good work. And thanks to you too Jon for searching for it and finding it as well. The video makers obviously chose to ignore the "36 minute show" part and quote the book totally out of context (as I suspected might be the case, which was why I was hoping somebody who had the book could confirm.)

... Better go, I feel a need to go to the dike. :lol:
Cheers Aussiebloke

:lol:

 

[CalliArcale]

We're talking about one of the greatest (if not THE greatest) achievements in the history of mankind here, not the Battle of Neasden or the invention of the paper clip. And we've just had the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11. If the voice recordings are still available I would have thought they would have been put online long ago, along with the transcripts that NASA DID spend time and money on providing.

I believe transcripts are available for all of the missions; any American citizen should be able to obtain them through an FOIA request. (Not sure if FOIA compels them to respond to foreign requests, but they'd probably respond anyway as long as it's reasonable -- i.e. doesn't involve photocopying the complete works of William Shakespeare.) I expect the original recordings are similarly available.

Why hasn't NASA posted them all on the web? Well, you have to remember that NASA isn't some monolithic entity; it's a government agency. That means there's plenty of bureaucracy, and also a tendency to avoid anything new or unusual. NASA was an early adopter of Internet technology, as far as government agencies go (it's even got a YouTube channel now) but it's still a government agency, and those tend to be slow to add any new things.

. . . except when some individual with a particular passion decides to realize something like this. The only thing really preventing NASA from posting all this stuff is the absence of someone within the agency with a passion to do it and the time to set it all up.

It was just such an individual who created the Planetary Photojournal, one of the most awesomely awesome websites that NASA operates. I forget the guy's name, but he knew NASA was obliged to make all the data available to the public anyway, and he thought it would be neat to put together a website that consolidated press release photos from all the unmanned missions (with "unmanned" defined somewhat loosely; there are images from various payloads carried in the Shuttle's payload bay, such as the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission). So he did. And he had the foresight to make it easy for mission teams to upload their material to it, which means that they all quickly adopted it.

A few program managers on various unmanned missions also got bees in their bonnet inspiring them to do cool things with their data. Michael Malin deserves a lot of the credit for encouraging mission controllers to post images from their spacecraft onto the web even if they hadn't been cleaned up yet; he created a website to host all raw MOC images from Mars Global Surveyor. There was skepticism; older program managers were concerned it would waste valuable time to have to process images and post them on the web, but Malin proved them wrong, demonstrating that the process was easily automated, and the result made the public extremely happy -- and also reduced the burden of responding to FOIA requests. Now it's pretty darn near standard practice to post all your raw images on the Web, practically as soon as you get them.

But these are for missions which are active; there is budget, and the person responsible for getting the pictures put up is the person who has to look at them anyway to make sure they came down okay. There's no such budget for old missions, which means it's less likely someone will feel motivated to go and do the work. Especially since that old stuff isn't kept in some nice, convenient digital format. It has to be digitized, which means a bit more work. And bit by bit, folks are doing it. Some are within NASA; others are outside NASA and operating by means of FOIA requests. But since there's no particular urgency, who knows when it might get done?

It's not so much that NASA doesn't want to do it; it's that nobody within NASA is particular interested in doing it at this time. When it does someday happen, it will likely be the brainchild of a single motivated individual, probably someone willing to work on it in their free time.

In the meantime, if you want to fill that void, you can: request the data. NASA may charge a fee to cover duplication and shipping costs; that's pretty normal. But it's otherwise free.

 

[aphh]

Otherwise come up with a billion if you want LRO resolution images

It would cost a billion only if done by a public service office. I'm thinking more along the lines of SpaceX providing Falcon9 as the booster and SpaceDev building the orbiter/lander part of the mission.

The orbiter would orbit the moon, make a few lapses and take photos of places of interest. Then land on Copernicus crater and take photos all the way down.

The price tag of this mission is in the millions, not billions or even hundred millions.

 

[JonClarke]

Otherwise come up with a billion if you want LRO resolution images

It would cost a billion only if done by a public service office. I'm thinking more along the lines of SpaceX providing Falcon9 as the booster and SpaceDev building the orbiter/lander part of the mission.

The orbiter would orbit the moon, make a few lapses and take photos of places of interest. Then land on Copernicus crater and take photos all the way down.

The price tag of this mission is in the millions, not billions or even hundred millions.

The billion dollar statement was assuming you wanted to fly a LRO equivalent. As what you are proposing to do is very different, it will have to be costed very differently. So some questions for you.

The orbiter would orbit the moon, make a few lapses and take photos of places of interest. How many cameras do you want, operating in what wavelengths, with what resolution? What altitude orbit do you want, and what inclination? How many "lapses" would be needed to take photos of places of interest? Do you want to carry any other instruments? if so, what?

Then land on Copernicus crater and take photos all the way down. Do you want to soft land or have an impact probe? How many cameras do you want, operating in what wavelengths, with what resolution? What other instruments do you want on board? If a soft lander, what do you want it to do?

Do you really want to have the spaceraft orbit the Moon and then land, or do you want it to release a lander, or can the lander be flown separately from the orbiter?

All up costs of government and non goverment satellites on the same mission are in the same league, ~$450,000 a kg for Quickbird, $340,000 per kg for Landsat 7.

Don't hold your breath for SpaceX making launch costs much cheaper anyway. Costs are still nebulous, but are shaping up to be much higher than their PR department has stated. For example under COTS they charge $133 million to send 2.5 tonnes to the ISS using Falcon 9/Dragon, whereas Russia can send 2.6 tonnes to the ISS for $40 million with Soyuz and Progress. If you want a cheap launch I suggest we look at Indian, Chinese, or Russian launchers.

 

[CalliArcale]

Even so, I'm still really hopeful somebody is gonna claim the Google Lunar X Prize in the not-tremendously-distant future. ;-) That involves a lunar landing.

 

[netarch]

Even so, I'm still really hopeful somebody is gonna claim the Google Lunar X Prize in the not-tremendously-distant future. ;-) That involves a lunar landing.

How about we send aphh to get those snapshots himself?

Sorry - that was a bit mean, wasn't it? :?

Seriously, though - here's Google's synopsis of it:

"The Google Lunar X PRIZE is a $30 million international competition to safely land a robot on the surface of the Moon, travel 500 meters over the lunar surface, and send images and data back to the Earth. Teams must be at least 90% privately funded and must be registered to compete by December 31, 2010. The first team to land on the Moon and complete the mission objectives will be awarded $20 million; the full first prize is available until December 31, 2012. After that date, the first prize will drop to $15 million. The second team to do so will be awarded $5 million. Another $5 million will awarded in bonus prizes. The final deadline for winning the prize is December 31, 2014."

Only a little more than 3 years left to wind the big prize, 5 years for the smaller one. And the mission is going to cost anyone way more than $30 million dollars. Let's hope that some other backers will step up to the plate and help fund some of the development costs.

Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Carlos Slim Helú, Larry Ellison - come on, guys! Help advance mankind!

And just to keep this thread on track: what was meant by "mining it"?

03 12 23 37 CMP High Sun. That's one right down there; Just shows how it dominates the whole photograph. Just an extremely bright crater. Sun angle Just isn't high enough for you to see it here .... Yes, they're mining it [?], I think.

03 12 23 58 CDR What's the name of that one?

03 12 23 59 CMP It has no name. I've called it the Bright One. This is Langemak that we're Just going over right
down here.

03 12 24 39 CDR It's got to be fairly fresh, too.

03 12 2h(sic) 42 CMP Yes. It's a very bright crater.

Well, there's almost 20 seconds of silence between the first and second transmissions, and since "mining it" was probably garbled, it seems we're missing some further context here, and the lost portion of the transmission would have probably shed some light on it. If the transmissions were analog, there would probably be some information buried in the signal, but my understanding was that the radios digitized voice before transmission. It still may be possible to do some fancy digital-domain processing if the original binary data still exists somewhere, but that would cost money...

 

[a_lost_packet_]

....There is little concrete evidence that any activity ever took place on the surface of the Moon, though, so there is no reason to get carried away. For now. Just wanted to provide some food for thought.

Still starving...

 

[a_lost_packet_]

While I'm not intimately familiar with the subject, I don't see why "data mining" can't be considered as an interpretation for "mining it" in the transcript. "Minding it." could also have similar interpretations. ie: Paying attention to it.

 

[JonClarke]

While I'm not intimately familiar with the subject, I don't see why "data mining" can't be considered as an interpretation for "mining it" in the transcript. "Minding it." could also have similar interpretations. ie: Paying attention to it.

"Data mining" is a very new term I think, I very much doubt it existed in 1971.

 

[JonClarke]

Well, there's almost 20 seconds of silence between the first and second transmissions, and since "mining it" was probably garbled, it seems we're missing some further context here, and the lost portion of the transmission would have probably shed some light on it. If the transmissions were analog, there would probably be some information buried in the signal, but my understanding was that the radios digitized voice before transmission. It still may be possible to do some fancy digital-domain processing if the original binary data still exists somewhere, but that would cost money...

First of all, these are not transmissions, they are onboard recordings. It is hard to get a transmission from the farside of the Moon, which is where they were at the time.

Second, a 20 second gap does not seem unusual when the crew were busy looking out the window making observations. Many examples of similar or longer gaps can be found. For example:

03 10 07 49 LMP Not quite - Yes. Almost 10 minutes; 9 minutes and 20 seconds. Did you find the location?

36 seconds

03 10 08 15 CMP Okay.

22 seconds

03 10 08 37 CMP Oh, brother ....

14 seconds

03 10 08 51 CMP Okay, there are the Loveletts. See, right straight over your head, there's two craters that got sort
of - You have to look - You can probably see them out your window, Ed. The two complete craters with the ridges in the bottom? Yes.

21 seconds

03 10 09 12 LMP Yes.

 

[JonClarke]

....There is little concrete evidence that any activity ever took place on the surface of the Moon, though, so there is no reason to get carried away. For now. Just wanted to provide some food for thought.

Still starving...

There is of course the whole record of rocks sampled on the lunar surface, such as the Genesis rock.

There are before and after photos, transcipts, video of the discovery (http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15.html from 145:42:10), photos of the rock back on Earth (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... s_Rock.jpg) and hundreds of scientific papers on its makeup and significance http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q= ... =all&hl=en

 

[JonClarke]

....There is little concrete evidence that any activity ever took place on the surface of the Moon, though, so there is no reason to get carried away. For now. Just wanted to provide some food for thought.

Tens of thousands of images, hours of video footage, thousands of pages of transcript, millions of pages of documentation for every possible aspect, tonnes of hardware, the memories of near half a million people round the world who look part and you say that there is littel concrete evidence? Food for laughter more like.!

So not only do you claim six Apollo misions were fake but all the unmanned missions were as well? Lunas 9, 13, 16, 20, 23, 24, Lunokhod 1 and 2, and Surveyors 1, 3, 5 and 6 all faked?

You do know we have ~400 kg of lunar rocks to hand? And that they have been studied by scientists round the world?

How do you think we got them without Apollo (and Luna) - telekenisis?

 

[Smersh]

I believe transcripts are available for all of the missions; any American citizen should be able to obtain them through an FOIA request. (Not sure if FOIA compels them to respond to foreign requests, but they'd probably respond anyway as long as it's reasonable -- i.e. doesn't involve photocopying the complete works of William Shakespeare.) I expect the original recordings are similarly available l ...

Hi Calli, the typed transcripts for all the missions from Mercury, up to and including Apollo are all available in pdf format here:

http://www11.jsc.nasa.gov/history/missi ... cripts.htm

However, the voice recordings have not (yet) been made available. I doubt I would be able to put in an FOIA request for the recordings as I'm not a US citizen, but I don't know if anyone from the US has ever filed a request.

... Why hasn't NASA posted them all on the web? Well, you have to remember that NASA isn't some monolithic entity; it's a government agency. That means there's plenty of bureaucracy, and also a tendency to avoid anything new or unusual. NASA was an early adopter of Internet technology, as far as government agencies go (it's even got a YouTube channel now) but it's still a government agency, and those tend to be slow to add any new things ...

Yes, having worked for a large company, British Airways, for 28 years before I retired, some of which was when BA was publicly owned I know what you mean, and what the bureaucracy can be like. Smaller, private organisastions do seem to work more efficiently!

. . . except when some individual with a particular passion decides to realize something like this. The only thing really preventing NASA from posting all this stuff is the absence of someone within the agency with a passion to do it and the time to set it all up ...

NASA have already set up the archives and history site that Jon linked and the archive that I just linked, so it does look like there is at least somebody within their organisation that has the passion to do it. I really do feel though, that if the voice recordings are still available they should make the effort to put them online because, as I said earlier it would show openess to the public, who pay NASA's salaries through taxes. It also wouldn't do any harm to their cause for further government funding I would have thought, particularly as reports are suggesting that the Ares 1X project might be in danger because of lack of funds.

... It was just such an individual who created the Planetary Photojournal, one of the most awesomely awesome websites that NASA operates. I forget the guy's name, but he knew NASA was obliged to make all the data available to the public anyway, and he thought it would be neat to put together a website that consolidated press release photos from all the unmanned missions (with "unmanned" defined somewhat loosely; there are images from various payloads carried in the Shuttle's payload bay, such as the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission). So he did. And he had the foresight to make it easy for mission teams to upload their material to it, which means that they all quickly adopted it.

A few program managers on various unmanned missions also got bees in their bonnet inspiring them to do cool things with their data. Michael Malin deserves a lot of the credit for encouraging mission controllers to post images from their spacecraft onto the web even if they hadn't been cleaned up yet; he created a website to host all raw MOC images from Mars Global Surveyor. There was skepticism; older program managers were concerned it would waste valuable time to have to process images and post them on the web, but Malin proved them wrong, demonstrating that the process was easily automated, and the result made the public extremely happy -- and also reduced the burden of responding to FOIA requests. Now it's pretty darn near standard practice to post all your raw images on the Web, practically as soon as you get them ...

Absolutely! And what I said earlier about the reaons why the mission voice recordings should be made available.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

While I'm not intimately familiar with the subject, I don't see why "data mining" can't be considered as an interpretation for "mining it" in the transcript. "Minding it." could also have similar interpretations. ie: Paying attention to it.

"Data mining" is a very new term I think, I very much doubt it existed in 1971.

Data mining IS a new term.

But, "mining something for information" is not so much of a new phrase. I should have used that expression instead of "data mining" to illustrate what I meant.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

..You do know we have ~400 kg of lunar rocks to hand? And that they have been studied by scientists round the world?

How do you think we got them without Apollo (and Luna) - telekenisis?

Most woos deny that the moon rocks are genuine. They're either lab created rocks or something someone dug up out of their backyard as far as they're concerned. The same goes with any photographs or any other records, for that matter, detailing any Moon mission. It's as if by some strange guilt-by-association logic, anything connected with any Moon mission is immediately suspect and off the chart for consideration as evidence because, after all, it's all a hoax....

 

[JonClarke]

Absolutely! And what I said earlier about the reaons why the mission voice recordings should be made available.

But images and other data are a very different issue than voice recordings. We have voice recordings for all the moon walks and other critical phases, we have transcripts of the rest. What is actually gained in knowledge from web access to the remaining recordings that isn't available from transcripts?

 

[JonClarke]

..You do know we have ~400 kg of lunar rocks to hand? And that they have been studied by scientists round the world?

How do you think we got them without Apollo (and Luna) - telekenisis?

Most woos deny that the moon rocks are genuine. They're either lab created rocks or something someone dug up out of their backyard as far as they're concerned. The same goes with any photographs or any other records, for that matter, detailing any Moon mission. It's as if by some strange guilt-by-association logic, anything connected with any Moon mission is immediately suspect and off the chart for consideration as evidence because, after all, it's all a hoax....

I know that. But I want to see how far down the denial line aphh is prepared to go. Whether he recognises that these rocks are genuinely lunar or thinks they are fakes or from someplace else. If they are lunar then how did we get them if there is little concrete evidence for any activity every took place If not, then how he explains their unique compositions, ages, modification etc. shown by researchers from many institutions.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Again, aphh does not dispute that the moon landings occurred. He just thinks the photos were doctored.

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

I believe I read that aphh was open to the idea that the photos may not be doctored but he thought the "evidence" weighed in against that. Assuming I've understood this correctly I'm curious as to what kind of proof would aphh accept to show the photos are as claimed and not doctored ?

 

[SpeedFreek]

03 12 23 08 - CMP - It's got one of the biggest central peaks around. It's a very unusual crater. But there are some dark areas in it that Farouk has gone on record as saying they are dikes.

03 12 23 37 - CMP - High sun. That's one right down there; just shows how it dominates the whole photograph. Just an extremely bright crater. Sun angle just isn't high enough for you to see it here. ...There are shadows across it... Yes, they're hiding[?] it, I think.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

...There is little concrete evidence that any activity ever took place on the surface of the Moon, though, so there is no reason to get carried away. For now. Just wanted to provide some food for thought.

Edit - QUESTION WITHDRAWN

(However, statement will remain as noted.)

 

[MeteorWayne]

aphh has clearly stated a dozen times that he believes the landings occurred. Can we please stop accusing him of that???