Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[Sword_Of_Truth]

And your point is...?

 

[Patrick1000]

Apollo, Ranging Oceans, and the MOON

Not sure exactly why the moderator moved the last post to a new thread, but perfectly OK with me.

Just to make the point here with regard to my claim that Apollo 11 was an unmanned military Mission, the intention/objective of which was to plant an LRRR on the surface of the moon so that the great oceans could be ranged for the purpose of more accurately targeting ICBMs. As the Pacific Ocean is 11,000 miles across. It would require a satellite roughly 19,000 miles up to measure this great ocean's breadth. This is not technology we were in possession of at the time. We could not place a satellite in a 19,000 mile altitude orbit. Certainly not without everyone knowing what it was there for if we somehow could pull it off. On the other hand, we could place an LRRR 240,000 miles away on the lunar surface easily, with an unmanned craft, and this would provide a point from which the Pacific, Atlantic, anything really could be indirectly ranged/measured.

Distances so acquired in such ranging solutions would be utilized in the targeting of military objectives by US ICBMs. Turns out, the moon was the only satellite tall enough in 1969 that fit the bill. It was our only choice if we wanted to measure the transoceanic distances.

 

[TjW]

Satellite height and ranging.

If a satellite is 303 miles up, it can see and be seen for about 1,500 miles in either direction, 3,000 miles total, roughly the breadth of the Atlantic Ocean at its broadest, between the USA and North Africa.

The Pacific is much bigger, roughly 11,000 miles across where it is widest east to west at the equator. Near the International Dateline the Pacific is roughly 9,500 miles north to south. To see and be seen roughly 5,500 miles in either direction, equivalent to being able to range the Pacific Ocean, a satellite needs to be 18,900 miles above the surface of the Earth.

So by running through all of these considerations, especially as regards the Mighty Pacific, we are able to determine that the only way to satellite range and measure the transPacific breadth was by planting an LRRR on the moon. We couldn't do a satellite at 19,000 miles.
The moon was obviously the only way to go.

Yeah, except for those pesky geostationary satellites like Syncom 2 and Syncom 3, launched in 1963, which, being geosynchronous, were around 22,500 miles above the surface of the Earth.
This is why, even today, communications with China are routed through a communications system on the moon.

 

[Patrick1000]

If they wanted to range the great Oceans......

And your point is...?

If they wanted to range the great Oceans, they had to use the moon. It was the only thing high up enough to make the appropriate measurements. There were no other options.

 

[Patrick1000]

It is not the same kind of satellite

Yeah, except for those pesky geostationary satellites like Syncom 2 and Syncom 3, launched in 1963, which, being geosynchronous, were around 22,500 miles above the surface of the Earth.
This is why, even today, communications with China are routed through a communications system on the moon.

Those are not the same type of satellites. My point was not that they could not get a satellite orbiting at 19,000 miles, they had no satellite mountable laser reflector at the time. There was no "satellite laser ranging" that existed at the time. This is why they must use the moon. It is easy to do. Surveyor VII did it no sweat. Easier then sending men up there and no reason to actually risk men in a mission like this. And if they did, get a satellite with mounted reflector up at 19,000 miles, it may well have been observable as such, a part of a weapons system.

 

[dafydd]

Yawn. Boring troll is very boring.

 

[dafydd]

Another point.

If a satellite passes over Lick Observatory, it is hardly possible for someone to simultaneously range it from Japan if the satellite's orbit is low. The Japanese laser could not "see" the low flying satellite from such a, relative to Lick Observatory, westerly position. But if the moon is settled nicely over the Pacific ocean, one could range the moon from both banks and get a good measurement of the Pacific's distance.

Answer the liar question or be forever branded a coward. What do you want to be when you grow up?

 

[TjW]

Those are not the same type of satellites. My point was not that they could not get a satellite orbiting at 19,000 miles, they had no satellite mountable laser reflector at the time. There was no "satellite laser ranging" that existed at the time. This is why they must use the moon. It is easy to do. Surveyor VII did it no sweat. Easier then sending men up there and no reason to actually risk men in a mission like this. And if they did, get a satellite with mounted reflector up at 19,000 miles, it may well have been observable as such, a part of a weapons system.

Well, Intelsat2B, perched over the Pacific in 1967, was certainly observable. Signals were sent to and from it all the time, since it was a communications satellite.
How do you know it didn't also have a secret military payload of a retroreflector? Being ten times closer, it would reflect 100 times more laser power than a reflector on the moon. So the retroreflector array could have been ten times smaller than the lunar experiment (which, being man-deployable, wasn't all that big) and still returned ten times as much power.
Of course, measuring the time-of-flight and phase of the active communications signals they were already sending would have been a much simpler method of ranging than laser ranging, but if you just gotta have the latest thing and do it by laser, how can you prove there wasn't a military retroreflector on Intelsat?

 

[Patrick1000]

Best way to think of it

Without getting bogged down in discussions of satellite technology, best way to think of this, best way because it is very much true, if you range a satellite at 20,000 miles from the earth with a ruby laser, everyone knows you are up to ocean measuring and ICBM targeting. It's obvious and undeniable. Better to at least pretend you are doing something else like ranging the moon. Especially if you can get people to swallow the notion it is a "peaceful" non military operation.

 

[Patrick1000]

If you range an artificial satellite, everyone knows what you are up to

To top it all off, if you range an artificial satellite, everyone knows what you are up to, measuring ocean distances and targeting cities and other military objectives with ICBMs.

On the other hand, if you put the reflector on the moon, at least you have this "fig leaf", you can cover your embarrassment by saying you are ranging the moon and it is a peaceful manned mission. Neither of which is true of course. The Russians know it, but they are doing the same stuff, just like with the subs.

It is cat and mouse, this time in outer space.

 

[MG1962]

No Patrick you are wrong

 

[Patrick1000]

No Weapons in Space?! That's no fun!

Here is something from the Arms Control Association,

http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/outerspace;

"The 1967 Outer Space Treaty bans the stationing of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in outer space, prohibits military activities on celestial bodies, and details legally binding rules governing the peaceful exploration and use of space. Ninety-nine countries are states-parties to the treaty, while another 26 have signed it but have not yet completed ratification."


And here is more from the same site, pay close attention to the third point below;


"The treaty's key arms control provisions are in Article IV. States-parties commit not to:
• Place in orbit around the Earth or other celestial bodies any nuclear weapons or objects carrying WMD.
• Install WMD on celestial bodies or station WMD in outer space in any other manner.
• Establish military bases or installations, test "any type of weapons," or conduct military exercises on the moon and other celestial bodies."


and finally;

"The United States and Soviet Union submitted separate draft outer space treaties to the UN General Assembly in June 1966. A mutually agreed treaty text was worked out over the next six months, and the UN General Assembly gave its approval of the treaty on December 19, 1966. The treaty opened for signature in Washington, Moscow, and London on January 27, 1967 and entered into force October 10, 1967."

We'd rather say one thing and do another. Apollo was our "cover". Relatively speaking, intelligence agencies of many countries I am sure could put 2 and 2 together; Germany, France, China, Russia, Israel, England. If they didn't know right away, I am sure it did not take them long.

 

[Laton]

Satellites carrying remote sensing platforms (including cameras) were first launched into orbit during the early 1960's. Cameras and other sensors that were more than able to accurately measure the size of the oceans

 

[GlennB]

Without getting bogged down in discussions of satellite technology, best way to think of this, best way because it is very much true, if you range a satellite at 20,000 miles from the earth with a ruby laser, everyone knows you are up to ocean measuring and ICBM targeting. It's obvious and undeniable. Better to at least pretend you are doing something else like ranging the moon. Especially if you can get people to swallow the notion it is a "peaceful" non military operation.

Only in your fevered imagination would placing a laser reflector on the moon be considered a 'military' mission and in need of a cover story.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Patrick, supposing what you say is true - and I am neither for or against it - it doesn't really explain why anyone would want to fake a manned mission since putting a reflector on the moon can be carried out unmanned (as you point out) and is a perfectly legitimate cover (as you also point out).

In other areas the USA seemed fairly blase about making sure their ICBM systems worked properly. As I was reading recently

According to the minutely prepared plans of the Strategic Air Command, an impending Soviet attack would have prompted the missile siloes in North Dakota to open, and the ICBMs to arc towards Moscow and kindred targets. The four test launches actually attempted all failed, whereupon the SAC gave up testing. Was it badly designed equipment, human incompetence, defense contractor venality or conspiracy?

According to my handlers the entire missile gap/arms race was all a big ruse to make lots of fissible materials in anycase. Although sometimes my handlers do tell me lies in case the Illuminati decide to capture and torture me.

 

[TjW]

Well, actually, everybody wouldn't. Because it's ten times closer, the laser spot is ten times narrower when it intercepts the satellite. The spot on its return is 100 times narrower than a spot returning from the moon round trip. So you'd have to be in the spot, and looking at the satellite with a large telescope (though not as large as the telescope at Lick) What are the odds?

And if someone happens to catch you carefully measuring the distance from hither to yon, so what? That's not war, that's science. Accurate maps certainly have military uses, but mapmaking, in general, is seen as a peaceful occupation. Is the USSR likely to blow up a communications satellite because it's being used to make accurate maps?

Or better yet, don't do it that way.
Send normal radio communications through the satellite, and measure the time of flight with several different ground stations that can all see the satellite. That will give you a 3D fix on the satellite position. It would work sort of like GPS, but in reverse. Multiple known-location ground stations determining an undetermined satellite location instead of multiple known-orbit satellites determining an undetermined ground location. With enough ground stations, there can be unknown distances between some of the ground stations, and the calculations will determine those distances too.

Think of the advantages: No military payload to degrade the performance of the satellite. Nothing for a spy to find, should one chance upon the satellite blueprints. No need to involve an observatory. Billions of dollars in a fake moon landing cover story saved to buy more ships, tanks, planes, and --dare I say it-- higher pay for the military. What's not to love?

 

[TjW]

Duplicate post

 

[nomuse]

Without getting bogged down in discussions of satellite technology, best way to think of this, best way because it is very much true, if you range a satellite at 20,000 miles from the earth with a ruby laser, everyone knows you are up to ocean measuring and ICBM targeting. It's obvious and undeniable. Better to at least pretend you are doing something else like ranging the moon. Especially if you can get people to swallow the notion it is a "peaceful" non military operation.

Of course, why didn't I think of that! We'll just tell the Soviets we have no interest in aiming our missiles at anything within their borders. They'll totally believe that.

Um...Captain Powers, are you still there? Oh, drat. I think he's gone off in that plane of his again...

 

[drewid]

HIDING THE BIRD

On page 5 of the Apollo 11 Mission Report's Section 5, we find the report's authors referring us to figure 5-3. In the second paragraph of the section quoted, the report's authors state there was a 20,000 foot down range error existing at the time of powered descent initiation.

Here is the relevant Mission Report citation;

"Figure 5-B contains histories of altitude compared with altitude- rate from the primary and abort guidance systems and from the Network powered flight processor. The altitude difference existing between the primary system and the Network at powered descent initiation can be ob- served in this figure. All three sources are initialized to the primary guidance state vector at powered descent initiation. The primary system, however, is updated by the landing radar, and the abort guidance system is not. As indicated in the figure, the altitude readouts from both systems gradually diverge so as to indicate a lower altitude for the primary system until the abort system was manually updated with altitude data from the primary system.
The powered flight processor data reflect both the altitude and downrange errors existing in the primary system at powered descent initiation. The radial velocity error is directly proportional to the downrange position error such that a 1000-foot downrange error will cause a 1-ft/sec radial velocity error. Therefore, the 20 000-foot downrange error existing at powered descent initiation was also reflected as a 20-ft/sec radial velocity residual. This error is apparent on the figure in the altitude region near 27 000 feet, where an error of approximately 20 ft/sec is evident. The primary-system altitude error in existence at powered descent initiation manifests itself at touchdown when the powered flight processor indicates a landing altitude below the lunar surface. Figure 5-4 contains a similar comparison of lateral velocity from the three sources. Again, the divergence noted in the final phases in the abort guidance system data was caused by a lack of radar updates."

Also, we note as a consequence, not only has a downrange error/adjustment become an issue, but a radial error of 20 feet per second must be taken into account. So the Eagle will not only land long, but also land left, or more precisely, land south of the originally targeted 0.731 north. Obviously, the Eagle cannot land if it is drifting south at 20 feet per second, it will break its legs off. But let's assume for the whole way down, the Eagle is drifting south 20 feet per second above and beyond the anticipated.

Patrick, this is wrong, therefore the rest of your "calculations" are wrong.
Can you see why? The answer is in front of you.

 

[Patrick1000]

Another idea to kick around....

Perhaps not so very far fetched given all we know already, another idea for a military application to kick around.

Say instead of just the reflector array, the vehicle that delivers the mirror also has a camera, just like Surveyor VII. If a ballistic missile submarine had an argon laser, 1 watt will due. It could surface and target the camera. The camera recording the the ship's position will now be known with great precision, as the argon laser's angle of trajectory provides the equivalent of this unique distance solution. This would be sort of a "high art high form of the old and still sometimes used lunar navigation method", a one time competitor to finding oneself by way of a chronometer/clock. Conventional telescope ranging the reflector simultaneously would add the numbers to complete a solution. Now you have a ballistic missile sub on the open sea that has "found itself" with the greatest precision. This ship could then target an unfriendly military site with an accuracy not enjoyed prior to the institution of Apollo's LRRR system.