Range zero
- Mission clock · hours:minutes:seconds
- 000:00:00.00
- UTC calculated from that mission clock
- 1969-07-16 13:32:00.000 UTC
The mission clock begins. Liftoff is separately listed 0.63 seconds later.
BABYLON · FOLLOW THE EVIDENCEEarth to Moon.
Earth to Moon.
And home again.
Follow Apollo 11 through the atmosphere, engine burns, radio observations and return. Inspect the records, reproduce the arithmetic and see where the evidence still needs work.
Follow the journey ↗Inspect the ascent ↗Try the calculations ↗Check outside observations ↗Read the dose trail ↗What did we uncover? ↗Open the investigation map ↗NASA records request ↗
22 SELECTED EVENTS11 ASCENT STATES5 FINDINGS TO FOLLOW
A reported result, a direct recording and a calculation have different roles. This study combines source review and reproducible checks; a full flight reconstruction remains open.
Follow each change in the journey.
GET zero is 1969-07-16T13:32:00Z. UTC values are calculated from printed GET; source GMT columns are rounded/truncated to whole seconds. Decimal digits are source precision, not uncertainty estimates.
Open all 22 event records
| Event | GET | Calculated UTC |
|---|---|---|
| Range zero | 000:00:00.00 | 1969-07-16T13:32:00.000Z |
| Liftoff | 000:00:00.63 | 1969-07-16T13:32:00.630Z |
| Maximum aerodynamic pressure | 000:01:23.0 | 1969-07-16T13:33:23.000Z |
| First stage cutoff | 000:02:41.63 | 1969-07-16T13:34:41.630Z |
| Earth orbit | 000:11:49.33 | 1969-07-16T13:43:49.330Z |
| Moon-bound burn begins | 002:44:16.2 | 1969-07-16T16:16:16.200Z |
| Moon-bound burn ends | 002:50:03.03 | 1969-07-16T16:22:03.030Z |
| Injection state | 002:50:13.03 | 1969-07-16T16:22:13.030Z |
| Extract the lunar module | 003:17:04.6 | 1969-07-16T16:49:04.600Z |
| Outbound correction | 026:44:58.64 | 1969-07-17T16:16:58.640Z |
| Slow into lunar orbit | 075:49:50.37 | 1969-07-19T17:21:50.370Z |
| Lunar orbit burn ends | 075:55:47.90 | 1969-07-19T17:27:47.900Z |
| Powered descent | 102:33:05.01 | 1969-07-20T20:05:05.010Z |
| Eagle lands | 102:45:39.9 | 1969-07-20T20:17:39.900Z |
| Descent engine cutoff | 102:45:41.40 | 1969-07-20T20:17:41.400Z |
| Leave the lunar surface | 124:22:00.79 | 1969-07-21T17:54:00.790Z |
| Lunar ascent burn ends | 124:29:15.67 | 1969-07-21T18:01:15.670Z |
| Start the return burn | 135:23:42.28 | 1969-07-22T04:55:42.280Z |
| Return burn ends | 135:26:13.69 | 1969-07-22T04:58:13.690Z |
| Return correction | 150:29:57.4 | 1969-07-22T20:01:57.400Z |
| Atmospheric entry interface | 195:03:05.7 | 1969-07-24T16:35:05.700Z |
| Splashdown | 195:18:35 | 1969-07-24T16:50:35.000Z |
What does “speed” mean here?
The ascent table distinguishes Earth-fixed and space-fixed velocities. At liftoff, the space-fixed value already includes motion associated with Earth’s rotation. Air-relative velocity is a third quantity; wind matters when calculating aerodynamic loads.
Original altitude units are nautical miles; 1 n mi = 1.852 km. Speed conversion uses 1 ft = 0.3048 m. Asterisked source events supply command times only. Reference-surface definitions must be aligned before comparing this altitude column with orbital apogee/perigee values. The selected table does not attach statistical error bars to these rows.
Four calculations you can inspect.
A 346.83-second departure burn
02:50:03.03 − 02:44:16.20 = 346.83 seconds.
The listed scalar speed increase is 3,050.47 m/s. This subtraction is not the vector engine impulse: direction and gravity change during the burn.
Cutoff and injection are different states
Injection is listed 10 seconds later, with a scalar speed 6.919 m/s lower. Comparing those two numbers as simultaneous would create a false discrepancy.
Can the propellant change the speed?
The preflight mass table gives approximately 294,600 lb at restart and 133,600 lb at second cutoff: mass ratio 2.205. Change the assumed specific impulse below.
Ideal change in velocity at the learning default: 3,257.01 m/s.
Ideal change in velocity = Isp × 9.80665 × ln(initial mass / final mass).
420 s is a learning assumption, not a retrieved AS-506 engine measurement. The masses are approximate preflight values. This is not an as-flown propellant closure or a comparison of equivalent quantities with the scalar speed increase above. Chemical rockets carry an oxidizer and exchange momentum with their exhaust.
Will this simplified path reach lunar distance?
Use the reported injection speed and flight-path angle in an Earth-only, spherical approximation. Choose a reference radius from Earth’s centre.
Earth-only model reaches the reference radius in about 68.04 hours.
Specific energy = speed² / 2 − GM / radius. Elliptical time follows Kepler’s equation.
Inputs, assumptions and comparison
Input speed 10.83429888 km/s; flight-path angle 7.367°; radius approximated as 6378.1366 + 180.581 × 1.852 = 6712.572612 km. Earth GM = 398600.435507 km³/s². The model omits the Moon, Sun, midcourse burns and Earth’s nonspherical gravity. The historical altitude datum has not been independently reconciled.
The reported interval from injection to lunar-orbit burn start is 72.994 hours. Crossing an arbitrary reference radius and arriving at the moving Moon’s orbit-insertion point are different events. Their roughly five-hour difference is not a measured prediction residual. This is a reachability illustration, not a reconstructed Apollo trajectory.
How much motion energy is involved?
The entry table reports a space-fixed speed of 11.032 km/s. Inspect the kinetic energy per kilogram at a selected speed.
60.85 MJ/kg of kinetic energy in the selected reference frame.
Kinetic energy per unit mass = speed² / 2.
This is a mechanical energy scale, not heat deposited in the shield. Atmospheric-relative speed, density, chemistry, geometry and the entry path are needed for heat flux and total heating. High thermospheric particle temperature alone does not determine spacecraft heating. The mission report’s entry trajectory is partly reconstructed from incomplete telemetry.
What could a receiver measure?
At an assumed 2.2 GHz, recession of 100 m/s gives about −733.84 Hz.
One-way, low-speed Doppler shift ≈ −carrier frequency × recession speed / light speed.
At an illustrative range of 384,400 km, vacuum light time is 1.282 seconds one way, or 2.564 seconds round trip before hardware delays.
The 2.2 GHz carrier is a teaching choice, not a calibrated Jodrell frequency. A coherent two-way link needs its uplink, turnaround ratio and station motion. The light-time example is not a delay extracted from an Apollo recording.
How does the simple model compare?
Propagate the reported injection state using only spherical Earth gravity, then compare with the later NASA table. The initial row matches by construction. This tests our simple calculation against reported states; it is not validation by an outside observer.
| Event / GET | Reported altitude km | Reported space-fixed speed km/s | Radius difference km | Speed difference m/s |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Translunar injection002:50:13.03 | 334.44 | 10.8343 | +0.00 | -0.00 |
| CSM separated from S-IVB003:15:23.0 | 7,065.73 | 7.6086 | -0.45 | +1.96 |
| CSM docked with LM/S-IVB003:24:03.7 | 9,848.20 | 6.9075 | +4.87 | +1.52 |
| CSM/LM evasive maneuver ignition004:40:01.72 | 30,781.72 | 4.4745 | +24.32 | +4.26 |
| CSM/LM evasive maneuver cutoff004:40:04.65 | 30,793.76 | 4.4693 | +24.11 | +8.68 |
| Midcourse correction ignition026:44:58.64 | 202,748.26 | 1.5316 | +1360.85 | +19.86 |
| Midcourse correction cutoff026:45:01.77 | 202,751.77 | 1.5270 | +1362.06 | +24.41 |
At the first separation state, about 25 minutes after injection, the radius difference is −0.45 km and the speed difference is +1.96 m/s. At outbound correction ignition, almost 24 hours after injection, they are about +1,361 km and +19.86 m/s.
The baseline omits the evasive burn, the Sun, lunar gravity and other forces. It adds the same JPL equatorial reference radius to the source altitude column for both initialization and comparison; the historical altitude datum is not independently reconciled. These differences mix omitted physics, input approximations and source precision. They are not uncertainty-normalized measurement residuals. Small early differences do not establish the accuracy of the full Moon journey.
Follow the signal beyond one institution.
Jodrell Bank · United Kingdom
The observatory preserves its own Eagle frequency chart and an interpretation of descent and landing. It explicitly identifies early jumps as receiver adjustments. We inspected the image; no calibrated speed series has been extracted.
What is still needed: numerical chart scales, absolute UTC alignment, receiver tuning and oscillator records, and transmitter/coherence information. A single Doppler trace measures one component of motion; it cannot alone establish a complete three-dimensional trajectory or crew activity.
Parkes / CSIRO · Australia
CSIRO describes direct reception and its television handover after the first 8½ minutes. Parkes was a participating receiver in the communications operation, not an entirely independent mission.
What is still needed: original receiving logs, pointing records, frequency/ranging data and station clocks for a numerical cross-station comparison. The history page supports reception history; it is not raw radio data.
Three witnesses must address the same claim.
NASA mission analysis, a separately operated Doppler receiver and another receiving station offer different checks. They are not three complete independent reproductions. For a claimed velocity discrepancy, compare calibrated time-tagged measurements with a common prediction and reference frame.
Follow the radiation numbers without blending them.
Different stages of evidence
- Final uncorrected personal totals · mission report p.161
- 0.25 / 0.26 / 0.28 rad
- Separate belt instrument · integrated skin / depth
- 0.11 / 0.08 rad
- Later crew-average skin assessment · Bailey Table 2
- 0.18 rad = 1.8 mGy
These are not interchangeable measurements. The passive TLD average is a different measurement from the personal meter totals. Calibration and integration records remain to be traced. No statistical uncertainty is specified for these extracted values.
Inspect the six transcribed readout rows
| GET / location | Commander | Command Module Pilot | Lunar Module Pilot |
|---|---|---|---|
| 011:18:08Translunar coast (TLC), first readout after belt passage | 11002 → 0.02 | 10002 → 0.02 | 09003 → 0.03 |
| 036:05:49TLC | 11005 → 0.05 | 10006 → 0.06 | 09007 → 0.07 |
| 084:38:21Lunar orbit | 11012 → 0.12 | 10013 → 0.13 | 09015 → 0.15 |
| 112:48:40Lunar orbit | Not reported | 10016 → 0.16 | Not reported |
| 112:59:39Lunar surface | 11014 → 0.14 | Not reported | 09018 → 0.18 |
| 159:49:10Last readout prior to belt passage | 11020 → 0.20 | 10022 → 0.22 | 09024 → 0.24 |
Codes begin with an instrument identifier; only the final three digits encode hundredths of a rad. The source has too few Apollo 11 readings to estimate separate phase-specific dose rates reliably. These selected rows end before return belt passage; they are not the final personal totals.
Bailey reports that no major solar-particle event occurred during the Apollo missions. That historical outcome does not remove solar-event risk or establish the safety of a much longer stay. A rad is absorbed dose; conversion to a biological dose in sieverts requires radiation and tissue information.
Five findings, with their evidence boundaries.
The discarded service module did not skip out as predicted
The report combines C-band radar, crew sightings and aircraft film. It attributes low net separation speed to a possible instability involving propellant sloshing, and records changed controller timing beginning with Apollo 13.
We reviewed the report’s analysis, not the raw radar or aircraft film. The slosh calculation has not been independently rerun. This concerns disposal of the service module, not loss of the crew capsule.
Next evidence: Obtain the radar time series, aircraft-film timing and the original separation/slosh model; compare predicted and observed paths with uncertainties.
Entry was not recorded as one complete telemetry stream
Printed p.79 says the onboard telemetry recorder was inoperative during entry. Communications blackout and limited aircraft reception left gaps; a postflight reconstructed trajectory was combined with the available observations.
Reported entry values should be labelled reconstructed. This gap does not by itself invalidate the trajectory, and it prevents claiming a complete raw-record reproduction here.
Next evidence: The EMS scroll, ARIA packet records, simulation configuration and uncertainty analysis used by the now-located 70-FM-30 entry report.
Raw dosimeters and the final dose assessment have different numbers
The mission report lists preliminary uncorrected personal readings of 0.25, 0.26 and 0.28 rad and a separate VABD result. TN D-7080 identifies the later 0.18-rad mission value as an average of passive TLD readings; Atwell supplies another cumulative VABD comparison.
These are different instruments and possibly different integration intervals. The passive TLD average is not a demonstrated correction of each personal meter. Calibration and reduction records remain untraced in this review.
Next evidence: Technical calibration and integration records for the individual instrument types and mission-specific readout/reduction files.
A historical chart needs its calibration
Jodrell Bank identifies receiver adjustments in the early jumps and interprets the later trace as descent and landing. Its public image was inspected, but the image does not supply legible numerical axis labels, an absolute start time or a receiver calibration record.
We cannot responsibly derive an absolute speed curve or a timed NASA-minus-Jodrell residual from these pixels. Doppler measures line-of-sight motion and also depends on receiver/reference behaviour.
Next evidence: Obtain chart speed, frequency scale, exact UTC interval, receiver tuning history and transmitter/coherence information.
Engine cutoff and injection are ten seconds apart
The orbit table gives 35,568.3 ft/s at cutoff; the translunar table gives 35,545.6 ft/s at injection ten seconds later. These are two states at different times, not two simultaneous speed measurements.
The scalar decrease is 6.919 m/s. Reconstructing its full physical budget requires the state vector, forces and engine tailoff, not subtraction alone.
Next evidence: Compare both time-tagged state vectors within one propagation model.
The disposal anomaly has a documented proposed engineering explanation. The calibration and telemetry gaps identify work to do. None of these findings supplies evidence of a material ceiling or, by itself, invalidates the lunar journey.
From a question to a record we can test.
Open a research track to see what we have, what remains untraced, who may hold the next record and what would let us test it. Every track stays linked to its sources.
- 01 · LocateIdentify the exact report, file or instrument.
- 02 · PreserveKeep its date, version, custody and access conditions.
- 03 · ReproduceAlign clocks, units, calibration and assumptions.
- 04 · CompareTest a separate observation and report uncertainty.
Two gaps narrowed by this search.
The Earth-entry analysis is available through a working mirror. The passive-dosimeter basis of the 0.18-rad mission value is also documented. Those are records found, not unanswered questions to repeat to NASA.
Showing 8 of 8 tracks.
Rebuild Earth re-entry from its surviving measurements
70-FM-30 identifies ARIA aircraft downlink, recovery data and the Entry Monitor System (EMS) scroll as inputs. Its reconstruction adjusts the 21-day best-estimate flight-path angle by −0.043° and fits selected entry observations.
Inspect the gap, records request and test
- Missing from our review
- The complete EMS scan, time-tagged ARIA packets, exact simulation input deck and a propagated uncertainty budget have not been obtained in this review.
- Next existing records to locate
- Locate those input records, their timing/calibration descriptions, the Apollo Reentry Simulation configuration and any later revisions of 70-FM-30. Ask which observations constrained the fit and which supplied a separate check.
- What would let us test the claim?
- Reproduce the published fit, propagate measurement/model uncertainty and compare held-out observations in the same units and reference frame.
- Custodian route to confirm
- NASA History → responsible JSC archive or records custodian. Purdue identifies a physical report copy; its catalogue is not a raw-data inventory.
Keep personal meters, passive dosimeters and belt sensors distinct
TN D-7080 defines the mission dose as an average of passive thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) readings. The Apollo 11 value is 0.18 rad. Atwell later compares TLD, computed VABD and measured VABD results.
Inspect the gap, records request and test
- Missing from our review
- Individual passive-dosimeter results, instrument corrections, integration intervals and the relationship to the mission report’s preliminary readings remain untraced here.
- Next existing records to locate
- Identify existing instrument calibration, readout/reduction and final mission dosimetry reports. Request non-identifying technical records; protected medical records are unnecessary.
- What would let us test the claim?
- Compare instruments only after aligning quantity, location, shielding, interval and calibration. The TLD average is not automatically a corrected personal-meter total.
- Custodian route to confirm
- NASA History → JSC radiation/dosimetry records custodian; UHCL Archives can advise whether relevant historical series are held.
Find the numerical trajectory behind the summary tables
NASA-CR-108349’s foreword identifies a separate Volume II listing the 45-day best-estimate trajectory in NASA Apollo Trajectory format. Volume I describes reconstruction methods and appendix leads.
Inspect the gap, records request and test
- Missing from our review
- The Volume II numerical listing, machine-readable successor, revision history and complete observation lineage have not been obtained. Its 1970 request address is historical.
- Next existing records to locate
- Locate Volume II and its current custodian, NAT format/coordinate/time definitions, version identifiers, uncertainty records and any surviving measurement files. Link as-flown burn and propellant records separately.
- What would let us test the claim?
- Replace the Earth-only teaching model with a documented full-force trajectory and compare equivalent event states. Do not treat an omitted-force difference as a measured anomaly.
- Custodian route to confirm
- NASA History → JSC trajectory-data custodian; UHCL is a catalogue-routing lead, not a confirmed holder of Volume II.
Match radiation exposure to the actual belt passages
Historical radiation reports describe trajectory, shielding and instrument directionality as inputs to exposure analysis. Atwell’s comparison includes calculated as well as measured doses.
Inspect the gap, records request and test
- Missing from our review
- An aligned Apollo 11 trajectory, attitude/shield map, contemporaneous particle spectra and complete dose-rate time series have not been assembled here.
- Next existing records to locate
- Identify the exact belt model versions, particle measurements, instrument acceptance/calibration, spacecraft shielding model and outbound/return dose-rate records used for Apollo 11.
- What would let us test the claim?
- Integrate predicted dose along each passage and compare against time-matched sensors with uncertainty. A mission-total dose alone cannot locate where every increment occurred.
- Custodian route to confirm
- NASA History → JSC radiation and trajectory custodians; then the original environmental-data repository named in their records.
Separate entry energy from measured heat-shield performance
TN D-7564 documents design verification through ground and flight tests and tabulates operational entry conditions. Earlier test flights and their calorimeters are not measurements made aboard Apollo 11.
Inspect the gap, records request and test
- Missing from our review
- An Apollo 11-specific inventory of functioning thermal sensors, returned-shield inspection measurements and their uncertainties is not yet in this review.
- Next existing records to locate
- Locate the CM-107 postflight thermal-protection report, channel availability and calibration, reconstructed heating inputs, and returned-shield char/recession or inspection records. Ask explicitly if a quantity was modeled rather than instrumented.
- What would let us test the claim?
- Compare predicted heating with available flight/physical inspection evidence. Mechanical kinetic energy per kilogram is not the absorbed heat flux or total heat-shield load.
- Custodian route to confirm
- NASA History → JSC thermal-protection and spacecraft postflight-analysis custodian.
Trace the service-module disposal anomaly to its engineering follow-up
The mission report discusses radar, crew observations and aircraft imagery for the service module’s unexpected return path, a proposed propellant-slosh mechanism and controller changes for later missions.
Inspect the gap, records request and test
- Missing from our review
- The full slosh/control analysis, original radar and film timing, and the later verification/closure record have not been assembled here.
- Next existing records to locate
- Locate the specific anomaly investigation, controller change authorization, underlying observations and subsequent mission test or verification results.
- What would let us test the claim?
- Check whether one dynamics model reproduces the observations and whether the changed controller removes the predicted instability. Keep the discarded module separate from the crew capsule.
- Custodian route to confirm
- NASA History → JSC spacecraft systems/anomaly records custodian.
Align outside radio observations with the reported flight
Jodrell Bank preserves an Eagle frequency chart and identifies receiver adjustments. CSIRO documents Parkes reception. Their evidence roles differ; Parkes participated in the communications operation.
Inspect the gap, records request and test
- Missing from our review
- Numerical chart calibration, UTC/clock corrections, receiver tuning, station coordinates and complete original logs have not been matched to a common prediction here.
- Next existing records to locate
- Ask NASA for the relevant link/transponder definitions and tracking-product catalogue. Ask each observatory separately for its own chart/log calibration and access conditions; NASA cannot supply an outside archive’s holdings by assumption.
- What would let us test the claim?
- Predict station-relative Doppler/range with the correct one-way or coherent two-way model, align clocks and fit residuals with instrument errors.
- Custodian route to confirm
- NASA History for NASA records; Jodrell Bank/University of Manchester and CSIRO for their separately held observations. Observatory emails are not part of the current draft.
Follow the modern reconstruction of the lunar landing
NASA/TM-20220007267 reconstructs final lunar descent using digitized historical plots, least-squares methods and Kalman filtering. The paper discusses plot resolution, kinematic inconsistencies and analyst-selected filter tuning.
Inspect the gap, records request and test
- Missing from our review
- The digitized samples, adjusted points, estimator settings, code and final numerical trajectories have not been obtained here. This is a different phase from Earth re-entry.
- Next existing records to locate
- Locate the report’s supporting research files and an authoritative record-by-record account of unavailable inputs. Its introductory references about missing tapes concern lunar TV and do not establish the loss of every trajectory record.
- What would let us test the claim?
- Repeat the published processing and test sensitivity to digitization, timing, interpolation and filter assumptions. Compare with other surviving landing measurements.
- Custodian route to confirm
- NASA History → Langley report authors/data custodian for this technical memorandum; historical source plots remain separately identified.
Eight Apollo 11 investigation tracks. This is a reviewed public-source map, not a census of all NASA holdings or a completed flight reconstruction. Unobtained means absent from this review; it does not establish loss, withholding or a physical anomaly.
What the entry reconstruction actually compared.
Manders used the EMS scroll and limited ARIA aircraft downlink. The report adjusted the entry angle from −6.480° to −6.523° and selected an atmospheric model and aerodynamic parameters to improve the fit. A fitted result needs its inputs and sensitivity tests before we can independently reproduce it.
| Quantity | Source “actual” | Reconstructed | Model − source | Unit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| First maximum load factor | 6.73 | 6.74 | +0.01 | g |
| Speed at first maximum | 31,810 | 31,776 | -34 | ft/s · EMS |
| First minimum load factor | 0.48 | 0.60 | +0.12 | g |
| Speed at first minimum | 20,500 | 20,257 | -243 | ft/s · EMS |
| Second maximum load factor | 6.00 | 6.00 | +0.00 | g |
| Speed at second maximum | 12,390 | 13,070 | +680 | ft/s · EMS |
“Actual” is the report’s label for values read from the EMS trace. These are fitting comparisons, not held-out validation or uncertainty-normalized residuals. Peak load values elsewhere must be reconciled by sensor, processing and definition before comparing them. The selected table gives no formal error bars.
The 0.18-rad number has an instrument history.
TN D-7080 identifies the mission-level value as an average of passive TLD readings. It reports variation among individual readings associated with shielding and crew location. This establishes the kind of measurement; it does not turn the average into a personal-meter correction.
| Passive TLD skin | Computed VABD sensor 1 | Computed VABD sensor 2 | Measured VABD sensor 1 | Measured VABD sensor 2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.18 | 0.21 | 0.19 | 0.20 | 0.18 |
VABD sensor 1 and 2 shield thicknesses are 0.23 and 6.34 g/cm² of aluminum. The source table labels cumulative values; these are not automatically the same interval as the earlier 0.11/0.08-rad mission-report values. We still need the underlying integration and calibration records. No uncertainty is supplied in this row.
Ask for the next identifiable records.
UHCL reply received · NASA clarification pending
Catalogue and custodian inquiry: numerical trajectory listing, entry reconstruction inputs and technical dosimetry records.
The initial inquiry was sent on 12 November 2026. UHCL replied with access-policy and staffing limits; custody and release status of the requested files remain unconfirmed. Babylon’s public response records four clarification questions for NASA.
NASA History Office
history@mail.nasa.gov is NASA’s published history research contact. The 12 November inquiry asks for links, catalogue identifiers and the responsible technical or archival custodian.
UHCL Archives
archives@uhcl.edu is copied as an archive-routing contact. UHCL replied on 12 November with NASA-imposed access and reproduction rules plus staff-capacity limits. The specific files remain unconfirmed; the governing memorandum and item-level release rules still need clarification.
The three priority questions in the sent inquiry
- Where is the Volume II, 45-day best-estimate trajectory listing and its format/version documentation?
- Which EMS/ARIA source records, simulation inputs and uncertainty analyses support 70-FM-30?
- Which technical instrument-reduction records explain the preliminary personal/VABD readings alongside the passive TLD mission average and later cumulative comparison?
If catalogue routing cannot identify the records, a narrowly described request for existing agency records can use NASA’s FOIA process. No formal FOIA request, paid reproduction or fee authorization has been submitted for this map.
This is a dated research snapshot, not a live inbox. The initial send and UHCL response were verified in the correspondence thread. New replies will be reviewed and summarized before a status changes.
Open the records. Repeat the checks.
Reviewed 11 November 2026. Original reports and the outside chart remain at their institutions. Downloads here contain selected factual records, source roles, calculation inputs and open questions.
- NASA · Apollo 11 event timeline ↗
Retrospective mission compilation; selected event times, not a raw telemetry stream · Selected exact event labels; GET baseline 16 July 1969 13:32:00 UTC
- NASA · ascent phase table ↗
Reported ascent states in two reference frames · 11 ascent events; asterisk marks command time only
- NASA · Earth orbit phase table ↗
Reported parking orbit and second-burn states · Ignition 25,560.2 ft/s; cutoff 35,568.3 ft/s
- NASA · translunar phase table ↗
Reported post-cutoff state · 002:50:13.03; 180.581 n mi; 35,545.6 ft/s; flight-path angle 7.367 degrees
- NASA · Apollo 11 Mission Report, SP-238 ↗
Postflight engineering report; original analytical source · Printed p.79 / PDF p.91: entry; printed p.161 / PDF p.173: doses; printed pp.185–187 / PDF pp.197–199: service-module anomaly
- NASA · AS-506 technical information summary ↗
Preflight design/planning document, 25 June 1969 · Printed p.38 / PDF p.39: approximate mass table; PDF pp.65–67: restart and propellant system
- NASA · Radiation Protection and Instrumentation ↗
J. Vernon Bailey, Biomedical Results of Apollo, 1975; retrospective dose assessment · Printed pp.111–112 / PDF pp.7–8: instruments, variability and Table 2
- Apollo Lunar Surface Journal · transcribed radiation readouts ↗
Later transcription/compilation of crew readouts, not downloaded original voice tapes · Apollo 11: six selected timestamped rows. Last three digits represent hundredths of a rad
- Jodrell Bank · Eagle lander chart ↗
Separate receiving observatory, University of Manchester · Chart and observatory interpretation inspected; original image lacks readable numerical axis labels
- CSIRO · Parkes reception of Apollo 11 ↗
Another receiving institution; a participant in the NASA communications operation · CSIRO reception history and handover. No raw IQ data retrieved
- NASA · gravity, mechanics and propulsion ↗
Explanatory reference for momentum and the ideal rocket equation · Rocket and Rocket Equation sections; unrelated historical text is not used
- NASA Ames · entry heating explanation ↗
Engineering explanation and ground-test facility information · Question about spacecraft windows and shock heating
- JPL · astrodynamic parameters ↗
Published constants for our illustrative calculations · Earth GM 398600.435507 km³/s²; vacuum light speed 299792458 m/s
- JPL · planetary physical parameters ↗
Reference equatorial radius; not a historical Apollo navigation datum · Earth equatorial radius 6378.1366 km
- Manders · Apollo 11 Entry Postflight Analysis · 70-FM-30 ↗
NASA-authored technical analysis, working Apollo Flight Journal mirror; report and relevant sections inspected · 20 February 1970 · printed pp.1, 3, 5–8, 11–12; PDF pp.7–12, 15–16
- Apollo mission 11 trajectory reconstruction · Volume I · NASA-CR-108349 ↗
Public NASA contractor analysis; foreword, reconstruction methods and appendix leads inspected · 16 March 1970 · printed p.iii and pp.7-1–7-2; PDF pp.3, 12–13
- English, Benson, Bailey and Barnes · Protection Against Radiation · TN D-7080 ↗
Historical instrument and mission-dose methodology; not current medical guidance · March 1973 · Table I and instrument discussion, printed pp.3–4; PDF pp.7–8
- Atwell · Dosimetry in the Manned Space Program · 1979 proceedings ↗
Later published comparison of calculated and measured instrument doses; table visually checked · NASA-TM-81061, Vol.2 · printed pp.124–126; Table III p.126 / PDF p.138; individual paper catalogue 19800016193
- Miller and colleagues · Final Descent Trajectory Reconstruction · NASA/TM-20220007267 ↗
Modern reconstruction from digitized historical plots; analysis of lunar landing, not Earth entry · August 2022 · printed pp.5–7, 10–12; PDF pp.9–11, 14–16
- Pavlosky and St. Leger · Thermal Protection Subsystem · TN D-7564 ↗
Program-level design and flight-test synthesis; historical context, not raw Apollo 11 heat-flux measurements · January 1974 · Table III p.12 / PDF p.16; test discussion pp.11–12, 15–16
- Graves and Harpold · Mission Planning for Apollo Entry · TN D-6725 ↗
Public entry-planning context; Apollo 11 targeting and Apollo 10 postflight analysis are distinct · March 1972 · abstract and report scope inspected
- Purdue Archives · catalogue record for 70-FM-30 ↗
Physical-copy finding aid; does not itself supply underlying measurements or reproduction permission · Neil A. Armstrong papers, MSA 5 · Box 76, Folder 6 · record dated 20 February 1970
- Apollo 11 Telemetry Data Recordings: A Final Report · catalogue ↗
Catalogue abstract concerns lunar television recordings; full report not retrieved here · NTRS 20110011709 · catalogue publication date 1 January 2010; no downloadable file listed at review
- NASA History Office · research contact ↗
Current institutional routing contact, checked 11 November 2026 · Contact Us · history@mail.nasa.gov
- UHCL Archives · contact and collections ↗
Institutional archives contact, checked 11 November 2026 · archives@uhcl.edu; holding a specific requested dataset is not yet confirmed
- UHCL Archives · access and research conditions ↗
Current access conditions for NASA materials; check directly before arranging access · Onsite US-citizen access restrictions stated for NASA materials; additional restrictions and appointments apply
- NASA · FOIA guidance ↗
Fallback process for reasonably described existing agency records, not a request for new analysis · One request can be routed through Headquarters; no FOIA request or paid order has been filed for this map
Learning in the Light
In Babylon, the Father’s light opens perspective, learning and a chosen next step. Your worth remains intact. Every person is sovereign, with dignity, freedom and room to grow.
Read the learning principle ↗Follow Starship Flight 4 through two returns
Compare the operator account, dated FAA records and outside infrasound observations, with a propagation-delay lesson and explicit research gaps.
Follow Starship Flight 4 through two returns ↗The reply, the restrictions and our open response.
UHCL has answered our Apollo records inquiry with access-policy and staffing limits. Track the documented barriers, the unconfirmed holdings and four precise questions to NASA.