Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[Patrick1000]

Communication Moon Relay

This was the post that tipped me over into subscribing, what advantages as a military platform? It's simply too distant to make a decent observation or weapons platform. Perhaps Patrick/Doc/Highgain would care to enlighten us as to how big a telescope you would need on the moon to match the resolution of the Keyhole satellites?

Yes in the 50s the US military had plans for a military moonbase but those weren't much more than pipe-dreams that crumbled in the face of the technical realities of getting to the moon. By the 60s they had given up on the moon were focused on earth orbit with the MOL, Blue Gemini, etc. Plans which also came to nothing as satellites filled the projected roles and Apollo became the overriding priority.

Of course the overriding objection is that if it were so valuable why did the US scrap Apollo and the Saturn V in favour of the STS that bound them to low Earth orbit? Why was it decades before NASA sent so much as a probe to the moon again?

From Wikipedia's "Communication Moon Relay"


"The Communication Moon Relay project (also known as simply Moon Relay, or, alternatively, Operation Moon Bounce) was a telecommunication project carried out by the United States Navy. Its objective was to develop a secure and reliable method of wireless communication by using the Moon as a natural communications satellite - a technique known as EME (Earth-Moon-Earth) communications. Most of the project's work took place during the 1950s at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory. Operation Moon Relay was spun off from a classified military espionage program known as Passive Moon Relay (PAMOR)....

With the PAMOR project requiring a larger antenna, the Stump Neck antenna was pushed into service for testing whether communication via the Moon was possible. This marked the emergence of the Moon Relay as a separate project. Test transmissions between Stump Neck and Washington, DC were carried out; the first satellite transmission of voice occurred on July 24, 1954. These were followed by the first transcontinental test of the system on November 20, 1955; the receiving site was the U.S. Navy Electronics Laboratory in San Diego, California. After corrections to reduce signal loss, the transmissions were extended to Wahiawa, Hawaii.

The Navy received the new system favorably. A Navy contract for the project soon followed the successful tests, and, among other things, it was recommended that American submarines use Moon-reflection paths for communications to shore.

The Moon Relay project was soon transferred to the Communications Section of the Radar Division of the Naval Research Laboratory. Under this department, the system was upgraded to use the ultra high frequency (UHF) band. The experimental system was transformed into a fully operational lunar relay system linking Hawaii with Washington, DC, which became functional in 1959. The new system was officially inaugurated in January 1960, when Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Arleigh Burke sent a message to Commander, Pacific Fleet Felix Stump using the system.

The finished system used two sets of transmitters at Annapolis, Maryland and the Opana Radar Site in Hawaii and two sets of receivers at Cheltenham, Maryland and Wahiawa, Hawaii. It was later expanded to accommodate ship-to-shore transmissions to and from the USS Oxford (AGTR-1).

The Moon Relay system became obsolete in the later 1960s as the Navy implemented its artificial satellite communication system. However, the information gleaned from the project in fact made the later artificial system possible. Additionally, the equipment used in the Communications Moon Relay project was of much use to U.S. Navy astronomers, as they used it to examine the Moon when the Moon was not in a position conducive to radio transmission. Although relatively short-lived, the Moon Relay served as a bridge to modern American military satellite systems."


So there you have it Garrison, the moon indeed was used as a passive relay station for American radio transmissions. Of course the program did not end there in 1960. We were only told that it did.

Welcome to our forum by the way!

 

[Patrick1000]

Many advantages, the most obvious, the other guys cannot knock it out.

This was the post that tipped me over into subscribing, what advantages as a military platform? It's simply too distant to make a decent observation or weapons platform. Perhaps Patrick/Doc/Highgain would care to enlighten us as to how big a telescope you would need on the moon to match the resolution of the Keyhole satellites?

Yes in the 50s the US military had plans for a military moonbase but those weren't much more than pipe-dreams that crumbled in the face of the technical realities of getting to the moon. By the 60s they had given up on the moon were focused on earth orbit with the MOL, Blue Gemini, etc. Plans which also came to nothing as satellites filled the projected roles and Apollo became the overriding priority.

Of course the overriding objection is that if it were so valuable why did the US scrap Apollo and the Saturn V in favour of the STS that bound them to low Earth orbit? Why was it decades before NASA sent so much as a probe to the moon again?

Many advantages, the most obvious, the other guys cannot knock it out.

 

[Kiwi9]

...what advantages as a military platform? It's simply too distant to make a decent observation or weapons platform...

Exactly:

Manawatu Daily Times, Saturday 22 March 1958, page 7
Plea against programme of "Buck Rogers stunts"
Scientists urge peaceful use of space travel technologies
(Received 10 p.m.) Los Angeles, March 21
Dr Lloyd Dubridge, president of the California Institute of Technology said yesterday it was "utter nonsense" to regard the moon as the ultimate military base for launching of weapons on earth targets.
Dr Dubridge, addressing the opening session of the 1958 Western space age conference, urged against permitting the United States space programme to develop into a "wild programme of Buck Rogers' stunts and insane pseudo-military expeditions." He urged instead "conducting a bold and exciting programme of research and exploration."
Dr Dubridge listed three primary reasons that would discount the military advantages of the moon, despite statements to the contrary by "some military generals who ought to know better." A hydrogen warhead, plus men and equipment, would have to be transported 240,000 miles "just to shoot it 240,000 miles back to earth when the target is only 5000 miles away in the first place." It would take a warhead five days to reach the earth because of space factors. "The war might be over by then. An intercontinental ballistic missile can reach any target on earth in 20 minutes."
"If we have rockets good enough to land men and equipment on the moon, the enemy will surely have ones good enough to put a hydrogen bomb at the same spot."
Dr Dubridge, whose jet propulsion laboratory at the institute played a major role in developing the United States satellite Explorer I, added: — "Either people will land on the moon for peaceful purposes by mutual agreement — or else we will surely launch the nuclear war here on earth which we are all trying to avoid."
He said he thought that the challenge of the space age was to see "whether we can use the great new technologies of space travel for peaceful and scientific purposes — conducting a bold and exciting programme of research and exploration."

Patrick1000: I have been patiently waiting since 5 September for you to provide an answer to post 2079, and Drewid, I, and others have reminded you of it a number of times. Please do answer.

You don't seem to be convincing anyone at this forum. You might like to try another forum which I think goes under the name of Godlike Productions. Don't be too concerned about the title -- when I last looked a good few years ago it was rather ungodly. There, you might become a cult figure with your theories and achieve a considerable amount of approval. Perhaps even hero-worship. It is also a place where the
Dunning-Kruger Effect is much in evidence, so you should feel quite at home there.

 

[mercatormac]

Many advantages, the most obvious, the other guys cannot knock it out.

Do you know how the SMART 1 mission ended Patrick?
If SMART 1 were impacted onto an LRRR, would the LRRR still work afterwards?

 

[mercatormac]

Many advantages, the most obvious, the other guys cannot knock it out.

This is an LRO picture of the impact site of a Saturn IV-B on the moon. Do you think an LRRR/Secret military laser station would work after such an impact?

 

[Patrick1000]

Patience!

Exactly:




Patrick1000: I have been patiently waiting since 5 September for you to provide an answer to post 2079, and Drewid, I, and others have reminded you of it a number of times. Please do answer.

You don't seem to be convincing anyone at this forum. You might like to try another forum which I think goes under the name of Godlike Productions. Don't be too concerned about the title -- when I last looked a good few years ago it was rather ungodly. There, you might become a cult figure with your theories and achieve a considerable amount of approval. Perhaps even hero-worship. It is also a place where the Dunning-Kruger Effect is much in evidence, so you should feel quite at home there.

"When Alekhine recognizes the weakness in his position he has a tendency to become very aggressive. Patient defence is not for him if he can see the slightest chance of creating an attack. Yet sound strategy often demands that you submit to the opponent's will so as to strengthen your weaknesses and get rid of defects in your game."

 

[Patrick1000]

The Apollo 11 LRRR has been working since 07/21/1969 UTC

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_505564e6c994a8ae17.jpg[/qimg]
This is an LRO picture of the impact site of a Saturn IV-B on the moon. Do you think an LRRR/Secret military laser station would work after such an impact?

The Apollo 11 LRRR has worked and continues to work since it was "placed on 07/21/1969 UTC". Proof is in the space pudding, not to mention the TANG. Just ask the guys and gals who continue to range the thing.

 

[mercatormac]

Many advantages, the most obvious, the other guys cannot knock it out.

The Apollo 11 LRRR has worked and continues to work since it was "placed on 07/21/1969 UTC". Proof is in the space pudding, not to mention the TANG. Just ask the guys and gals who continue to range the thing.

If SMART 1 were impacted onto an LRRR, would the LRRR still work afterwards?

 

[drewid]

"A player some time ago asked me to give him some advice for average players, and I asked him of what sort, and what did he find was the general weakness. He said that some players are very aggressive and others are not aggressive at all. Both are wrong, but if you have to be one of the two, it is much better to be very aggressive."



[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/516144e6c63f3c16e6.jpg[/qimg]

And it's sooo much funnier when you're proven wrong.

 

[yog_sothoth]

Does it not bother certain people that you need more than one point to guide anything, and the one point is extra useless if it moves around? ICBMs use inertial navigation. You don't want such things relying on signals from satellites and whatnot, as the Soviets/Russians could have/can destroy the satellites giving off the signal any time they want. Russia has very nice heavy lift rockets and can knock out anything we can put up.

Also, if there is some sort of 1960's era beacon broadcasting with 1960's technology on the moon, it should be very easy to detect today.

 

[drewid]

And it's sooo much funnier when you're proven wrong.

The pictures and quotes are pretty funny though. For a 53 year old doctor (cough) you're doing a good impression of a desperate adolescent poseur.

Keep it up.

 

[Garrison]

Operation Moon Relay was spun off from a classified military espionage program known as Passive Moon Relay (PAMOR)....

Do you understand what they mean by 'passive relay'? It means they simply bounced signals off the moon, all the hardware was Earth bound. If you are just going to repost chunks of Wikipedia articles you could at least have clicked on the link embedded on the page on the subject of 'EME earth-moon-earth' and tried to actually understand instead of just cutting and pasting.

So there you have it Garrison, the moon indeed was used as a passive relay station for American radio transmissions. Of course the program did not end there in 1960. We were only told that it did.

Welcome to our forum by the way!

And as I've pointed out even if it had been continued(which it was not because of the overwhelming superiority of satellite based systems) it in no way required hardware on the moon. BTW It isn't your forum, and please don't pretend we haven't crossed paths before, I'm the same Garrison from BAUT.

 

[Garrison]

Many advantages, the most obvious, the other guys cannot knock it out.

Well since as others have pointed out that's simply not true please list those 'many' other advantages.

If the moon had serious military potential it wouldn't be nearly 40 years since the last time man landed there...

 

[matt.tansy]

Since the school year started, Dr. Socks only posts pictures; 1) in the morning and afternoon on the weekends; 2) in the evenings on the weekdays.

 

[Patrick1000]

Sure it is different from simple passive bouncing

Do you understand what they mean by 'passive relay'? It means they simply bounced signals off the moon, all the hardware was Earth bound. If you are just going to repost chunks of Wikipedia articles you could at least have clicked on the link embedded on the page on the subject of 'EME earth-moon-earth' and tried to actually understand instead of just cutting and pasting.



And as I've pointed out even if it had been continued(which it was not because of the overwhelming superiority of satellite based systems) it in no way required hardware on the moon. BTW It isn't your forum, and please don't pretend we haven't crossed paths before, I'm the same Garrison from BAUT.

The Apollo LRRR project is much more complex than simple passive electromagnetic radiation bouncing for communication Garrison. With an LRRR alone, one can measure the distances across oceans as Professor Wampler pointed out. Also, as mentioned previously, the Gaussian Gravitational Constant, coefficients j and K were not known with any appreciable degree of precision in the late 1950s. Studying gravity by way of the earth moon system would have provided these numbers. The Earth's rotation could be measured with greater accuracy and applied to Coriolis effect calculations, and this is only the tip of the spaceberg.

Don't believe we have met, but if we have, sorry I forgot you.

 

[Patrick1000]

Greater coverage

Well since as others have pointed out that's simply not true please list those 'many' other advantages.

If the moon had serious military potential it wouldn't be nearly 40 years since the last time man landed there...

The moon has access to 1/2 the Earth from a single, slow moving, remote and hard to reach vantage point. One can move and hide receivers/emitters on the surface of the moon( rovers). You cannot hide conventional satellites.

 

[Garrison]

The Apollo LRRR project is much more complex than simple passive electromagnetic radiation bouncing for communication Garrison. With an LRRR alone one can measure the distances across oceans as Professor Wampler pointed out. Also, as mentioned previously, the Gaussian Gravitational Constant, coefficients j and K were not known with any appreciable degree of precision in the late 1950s. Studying gravity by way of the earth moon system would have provided these numbers. The Earth's rotation could be measured with greater accuracy and applied to Coriolis effect calculations, and this is only the tip of the spaceberg.

Don't believe we have met, but if we have, sorry I forgot you.

None of the things you have described, assuming any of them had any merit, provide any reason to hoax the Apollo landings, if anything they would just provide extra incentive to put men on the spot, especially given the problems the Soviets had with their remotely controlled efforts.

Oh and don't worry about forgetting me, I mean you've forgotten to answer any number of questions asked of you so why would I expect you to be any better with names?

 

[Patrick1000]

But we know they did hoax the landings.

None of the things you have described, assuming any of them had any merit, provide any reason to hoax the Apollo landings, if anything they would just provide extra incentive to put men on the spot, especially given the problems the Soviets had with their remotely controlled efforts.

Oh and don't worry about forgetting me, I mean you've forgotten to answer any number of questions asked of you so why would I expect you to be any better with names?

But we have proof that they did hoax the landings. The telemetry is fraudulent. As such is the case, we assume manned missions were not feasible. Also, even if they were, the goal is instrumenting the moon, why risk the men? Anyway, we know they are not manned, the telemetry is bogus. We have already proven that. "We" meaning my friends and I have proven it. I am not counting you guys on the other side.

 

[Patrick1000]

See my #2367 for a quick proof of phony baloney telemetry.

None of the things you have described, assuming any of them had any merit, provide any reason to hoax the Apollo landings, if anything they would just provide extra incentive to put men on the spot, especially given the problems the Soviets had with their remotely controlled efforts.

Oh and don't worry about forgetting me, I mean you've forgotten to answer any number of questions asked of you so why would I expect you to be any better with names?

See my #2367 for a quick proof of phony baloney telemetry.

 

[Garrison]

The moon has access to 1/2 the Earth from a single, slow moving, remote and hard to reach vantage point.

Half the Earth? I do hope you aren't implying that the they could only see one face of the Earth from the moon?

Here's the thing it's only hard to reach if your opponent doesn't already have hardware there. By you own statements the Soviets were quite capable of putting hardware on the moon, so why not put a bomb on a Lunakhod? Or put a well placed 'mapping satellite' in orbit as a contingency? Or are you now proposing that those clever Soviets are too stupid to form any plan to counter some military moon operation by the US?

Oh and are you conceding the whole thing about POMAR was completely specious as it involved no lunar hardware?