Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[JayUtah]

Our instrumented moon is but one "satellite" in a grand system

Nope. As you admit, it takes a flotilla of artificial satellites to make your "instrumented Moon" idea work. And then it only takes a moment's though to realize that the flotilla of artificial spacecraft are all that's required. And that's exactly what your authors describe, and that's exactly what has been used.

...but what a ONE it is.

Indeed. No other Earth satellite is so singularly useless for the purposes you describe.

Of course you've been asked several times to discuss this at the technical level, but you steadfastly ignore any such challenge. You'd rather post walls of homespun verbiage to distract from your inability to answer your critics. You just make bald assertions regarding the supposed unique value and unassailability of the Moon, ignoring all examples to the contrary.

You cannot measure gravity with earth orbiting satellites Jay as you can studying the earth moon sytem by way of an LRRR.

Hogwash.

The LRRR measures essentially one value: the distance between Earth and Moon. That is a factor of many things, only one of which is the aggregate force of Earth's gravity. The Sun's gravity perturbs the Moon's orbit to a degree orders of magnitude more pronounced than any Earth mascons exhibit at lunar distance.

If you want to understand the shape of Earth's gravity field, that's best studied from low Earth orbit, because that's where the subtle differences in gravity -- which manifest themselves in small changes in the velocity of orbiting spacecraft, and of changes in orbital inclination -- are the most pronounced and therefore the most measurable. Gravity strength varies according to the inverse square of the distance, remember.

Earth's equatorial bulge constitutes one whopping mascon. Maybe you can explain why operators of low-altitude, high-inclination orbits have to account for this, while operators of high-altitude orbits do not.

Yes, you're talking to people here who have actually had to deal with and solve these problems. Your bluster fails.

One needs a very accurate measurement of gravity's strength in order to convert the Bolshoi Ballet Company into a high energy plasma Jay.

I'm not sure what ballet or plasma has to do with this discussion, except possibly as two more subjects you don't know anything about.

Yes, there are many applications for which one would need very accurate measurements of Earth's gravity, especially mascons. And you don't measure it from a quarter million miles away and expect it to be accurate. You can't detect such things as mascons from that distance any more than you can count the chocolate chips in a milkshake from across the street.

Where did you get your engineering degree? Oh, that's right; you don't have one of those.

There is nothing like instrumenting the moon my friend, in terms of 1960 vintage ICBM work anyhoo.

Right, there's nothing like it. No other vantage point in space would present so many problems while simultaneously failing so epically to solve the needs you say attend ICBM rocketry. No other installation would be so incapable of Earth observation, while also being so a vulnerable target.

I suggest you try Bate, et al., Fundamentals of Astrodynamics from the early 1970s. It discusses not only the practicality of cislunar operations, but also the physical and mathematical problems with transcontinental rocket trajectories. And it was actually written as a textbook for Air Force missilemen. Funny how it fails to mention the usefulness of the Moon, and manages to derive everything it needs from other sources.

God only knows what else they were doing up there.

I'll take that as an admission that you certainly don't. And that much has been clear from the start.

As for me, I'll stick with the version of the events for which there is the most evidence, widely accepted by people with demonstrable relevant expertise. You clearly give no one any reason to think you have a better story.

Edited by Gaspode: 

Edited for moderated thread.

The moon is what amounts to an unmanned military base/platform. That is pretty much what it amounts to Jay.

Maybe in your fertile imagination, but you still haven't answered any of my questions or provided any proof.

We run it from here. Very cool on some levels I think.

What does cool have to do with truth?

Anyhoo, pretty dumb to try and keep it secret now that everything is so insanely obvious with regard to what they were and are up to.

"Insanely obvious?" I must have missed the part where you provided proof. You can't even divide two numbers properly.

I ain't paying for this stuff any more...

Given your amply demonstrated ignorance of how budgets work, you obviously don't know what you're paying for now.

 

[Patrick1000]

I Caught Two More Perps SusPilot, You Just Gotta' Read This Bro!

Would you mind providing a link or other evidence is such support? I tried Googling "Patrick1000 Apollo Hoax" and couldn't find anything relavent that didn't circle back here. There was one German body building site with a "Patrick1000", but I doubt that was you and it was aout steroids, anyway. Perhaps the support you're receiving is for another nom de plume?

Look, when someone who couldn't hold a candle to Jay's qualifications can see the errors you're making and can point them out, you really are standing on thin ice.

I Caught Two More Perps SusPilot, You Just Gotta' Read This Bro!

For the time being SusPilot, I'll keep my private messages private. There perhaps will be a time when I shall share with some the details of the positive feedback I have received. You will be quite surprised to learn who my "fans"/supporters are. But I am a long ways off from doing this type of thing. It is distracting you know.

At breakfast time this morning I was sipping OJ and plotting a course for the day. As Apollo is always on my mind, I had a book which I was flipping through, A. Bowdoin Van Riper's ROCKETS AND MISSILES, subtitled, "The Life Story of a Technology". The book was published in 2004 by Johns Hopkins University Press.

Reading van Riper's section entitled "Rockets to the Moon", I came across some information that provides nothing less than vacuum sealed proof of Apollo Program fraud.

According to van Ripper, Apollo 4 (November 9 1967) was the first Saturn V test flight. The unmanned spacecraft and all three stages of the rocket, per van Ripper, performed flawlessly and the mission was termed a brilliant success. January of 1968 saw the Apollo 5 mission succeed as well. This involved the launch of an unmanned LM by way not of a Saturn V, but rather, by way of a Saturn IB. The Apollo flight successes were short lived however, as things changed quite a bit with Apollo 6. It was a far from a successful mission. Studying these Apollo 6 related events of April 4 1968 and those subsequent to it, events culminating in the simulated Apollo 8 Mission to the moon, leaves little doubt in one's mind that the entire Apollo Program was fraudulent, fraudulent in the sense first and foremost that the big flights were unmanned, and we also learn through the study of the Apollo 6 associated events that George Mueller, Associate Administrator of NASA's Office of Manned Space Flight, and George Low, Manager of the Apollo Spacecraft Program Office were both major league fraud perps/players.

Get a load of this SusPilot, after I give you the skinny on Apollo Missions 6,7,8, you yourself will be singing my praises and private messaging me with an inquiry as to how one, meaning you SusPilot, might be able to get on board the Patrick1000 Apollo Fraud Train. Here's what went down.

Apollo 6 was an unmanned Saturn V launch taking place on 4 April 1968. Two minutes into the flight, the rocket starts to "pogo", like a pogo stick and hence the term. The rocket violently oscillates at a frequency of 5 to 6 bounces per second! Each "pogo" characterized by a, now get this, TEN G FORCE. Two tenths of a second later, TEN Gs BOOM! in the opposite direction, and on and on for a total of ten seconds. That is 50-60 bounces, two TEN G pops per bounce, 100-120 jolts of your life over 10 seconds time. That was the rocket's first stage. The second stage performed well. The third stage flew erratically, and furthermore, its guidance system was unable to correct the rocket's trajectory/course problem. The third stage shut down as it was supposed to but FAILED TO RESTART when the controllers tried to turn the engine back on in the context of a planned restart to simulate a translunar injection burn for the moon.

So at this point, NASA's experience with the Saturn V is one flawless , brilliant, performance in the context of Apollo 4, and subsequent to that, the Apollo 6 fiasco with the pogoing first stage, and the non performing third stage, a stage that flew off course and failed to restart in the setting of a translunar injection burn simulation. Sobering to say the least. Most would agree, these guys were a light year from ready.

Engineers, so the story goes, felt they understood all three Apollo 6 problems, the pogoing, the erratic flying with failure of the system to course correct, and the failure of the third stage engine to restart. They set about to correct the problems, and one would expect of course they'd try again. I mean it only makes sense right? Do an unmanned trial of the Saturn V again, seeing as astronauts could easily be killed pogoing about, or flying off course, or being stuck in a command module with a nonfunctional rocket engine. Well, none of this occurred. They never ran another unmanned Saturn V trial despite the Apollo 6 debacle.

Apollo 7 was the first of the manned Apollo flights, and went well sending astronauts into earth orbit. However, a Saturn V was not used, a Saturn IB, a tried and true, old reliable booster was the powering agent.

So it is time for Apollo 8. What would you do? Well, I for one would run an unmanned test on the Saturn V, a check to be sure the Apollo 6 disaster did not recur and kill three more astronauts and result, more likely than not, in the shelving of the whole ridiculous program. What do George Mueller(a systems engineer with big time experience in ballistic missile design) and George Low recommend? Why a trip to the moon of course!!!!!!

FRAUD my friends, writ large across these very heavens above our very heads. This is proof positive Apollo is theater and not science. Sending 3 guys to the moon by way of a Saturn V that has only been field tested twice, the last test resulting in nothing less than abject disaster.

It's fake SusPilot, the whole thing. I just proved it right there. You wouldn't get into that rocket, I wouldn't, and neither would any "real astronauts". Way too dangerous. One can only cringe with embarrassment as these facts are revealed and the stack of confirmed perpetrators grows, yet somehow does not surprise.

Low, Mueller, Bales, Garmin, Aaron, Phillips, Schiesser/Shyster and a penciled in Houbolt.

What's your email SusPilot?…… I'll shoot you a registration form for the Patrick 1000 Apollo Fraud Club.

 

[Patrick1000]

"pogo confusion???????"

With reference to my previous post about the Apollo 6 problems, I read in the Apollo 6 Mission Report that the pogoing effect was measured at a strength of +/- 0.6 Gs. I wonder why van Ripper reported in his book 10 Gs?

Even 0.6 Gs exceeds the craft's 0.25 G design criteria.

According to David Woods in his book HOW APOLLO FLEW TO THE MOON, the Apollo 6 pogoing experience "would have nearly shaken a crew senseless".

It gets even more interesting. According to Woods, the Huntsville rocketeers wanted Houston to tell them whether or not a crew could have withstood the vibration levels on Apollo 6. If the answer was "yes", well then Apollo 5 could me "manned" regardless. George Low was said to have informed Saturn V Program Manager Arthur Rudolph that the pogo oscillations experienced by Apollo 6 would NOT have been "tolerated" by a crew. I guess that means they would have died, or something super bad anyway would have happened.

 

[Patrick1000]

More On The Severity Of The Apollo 6 Pogoing Effect

Catherine Bly Cox and Charles Murray wrote in their book APOLLO that the pogo vibrations were "vicious", occurring at a frequency of 5 or 6 cycles per second and providing stresses on the order of plus or minus 10 Gs.

 

[twinstead]

Damn, Patrick. You'd think that since they were faking it anyway, they would have reported less "vicious" vibrations so as not to make intrepid Apollo hoax investigators like you suspicious, huh?

What were they thinking?

 

[Patrick1000]

I Was In Error, Apollo 6's 2nd Stage Also Malfunctioned

In one of my just previous posts, I mentioned the Apollo 6 second stage performed without incident. That was incorrect. As it turned out, two of stage 2's complement of five engines shut down prematurely. As such, the orbit achieved was not the orbit desired.

So in summary, in the case of Apollo 6, all 3 stages of the rocket malfunctioned;

Stage 1) pogoing of sufficient severity that it would injure astronauts and perhaps damage a ship in such a way that were the craft to "survive" the trip into earth orbit with living astronauts, its functionality with regard to a journey to the moon would be questionable at best.

Stage 2) Premature shut down of two out of five engines resulting in the need to employ the 3rd stage engine along with the remaining functional stage 2 engines to achieve suboptimal earth orbit.

Stage 3) "Erratic flying" with inability of the guidance system to correct the trajectory. Also, the third stage engine failed to restart for the critical simulation of the simulated translunar injection burn.

Can anyone believe this!? All this going on and the next launch of a Saturn V, Apollo 8, is with "live" astronauts?

Why didn't they test the system again unmanned?

Fraud my friends fraud, writ with rocket smoke across the heavens, fraud!!!!

 

[Patrick1000]

The point is Twinstead, the meat of the program, the unmanned aspect is fine

Damn, Patrick. You'd think that since they were faking it anyway, they would have reported less "vicious" vibrations so as not to make intrepid Apollo hoax investigators like you suspicious, huh?

What were they thinking?

The point is twinstead, the meat of the program, the unmanned aspect is fine. They are methodically working toward landing instruments on the moon, such as LRRRs to aid in their ICBM programs(launch and detection) as well as aid in their reconnaissance and surveillance programs.

Apollo 8 is that unmanned test of the Saturn V that one would indeed expect. It never was to be manned to begin with, but now they have to pretend it would be OK to put these guys in the spaceship when obviously no one would were any of this real.

During the Apollo 6 trial, the Apollo 8 unmanned dry run, the stage 3 engine did not fire for the simulated translunar injection simulation burn twinstead! The guidance system FAILED! on Apollo 6. So of course Apollo 8 was unmanned. It couldn't be anything but.

Fraud case now proof positive proven.

This is now actually getting to be pretty easy.

Apollo is no longer the hall of mirrors it once was for so many of us, so much is so very evident now, clearly fraudulent it is, all of it, unreflected phoniness plain as the light of a long lunar day.

 

[JayUtah]

Catherine Bly Cox and Charles Murray wrote in their book APOLLO that the pogo vibrations were "vicious", occurring at a frequency of 5 or 6 cycles per second and providing stresses on the order of plus or minus 10 Gs.

+/- 10 g for the vibration itself, not for the loads imparted to the hypothetical crew. If you knew anything about engineering, you'd know that the magnitudes of acoustic loading are typically reported in gravities, which don't necessarily equate to g-loading experienced at the macro level. Here you go again, talking about things you don't understand.

 

[Patrick1000]

They cannot deny the problems twinstead, the problems are real

Damn, Patrick. You'd think that since they were faking it anyway, they would have reported less "vicious" vibrations so as not to make intrepid Apollo hoax investigators like you suspicious, huh?

What were they thinking?

They cannot deny the problems twinstead, the problems are real. the majority of the fight officers and engineers are not perpetrators twinstead. they know what happened, they know about the problems, they were the ones dealing with them. As such, the problems cannot be denied.

But they can say the problems have been solved for Apollo 8 and continue on with the phony manned schedule, playing it by ear such as things go or do not go well.

Get it?

 

[JayUtah]

Can anyone believe this!?

Yes. Every single qualified rocket scientist believes this. You've given us nothing but your personal incredulity, which we've discovered to be woefully uninformed.

I struggle to determine why someone with such a demonstrably poor grasp of the facts surrounding rocketry and manned space flight programs should suddenly expect his personal judgment to be the gold standard of propriety. Do you really disrespect your readers that much?

Why didn't they test the system again unmanned?

I'm sorry, where did you get your aerospace engineering degree again?

Do you really think an all-up flight test is required for engineers to know whether they've likely solved certain specific problems? Once the root causes of failures are known, and ground tests can be devised for them (that didn't previously exist), you can have more faith in a successful flight test. Just because you can't figure out a way to engineer a rocket doesn't mean others can't.

The Apollo 8 mission was not an operational mission. It was a test flight. The crew was intimately familiar with the risks. They chose to go anyway. That's what test pilots do.

 

[JayUtah]

I Caught Two More Perps SusPilot, You Just Gotta' Read This Bro!

Really? Another wall of text, another subject you'll get woefully wrong and whose criticism you'll again dutifully ignore?

I can't imagine we'll ever see any answers to our questions regarding your laughable budgetary "analysis." And I don't imagine we'll get answers to our questions about your militarization claims. You've simply ignored them for far too long for it to be simply an oversight.

The Saturn V rocket is the the most studied launch vehicle in history. The entire world's aerospace industry considers it not only a legitimate, authentic flying machine but probably one of the most beautifully engineered rockets the world has seen to date.

Yet somehow we're supposed to believe that someone who has yet to master basic arithmetic division and who can't tell the difference between a degree and a radian has suddenly stumbled upon its terrible secret?

If the Saturn V was simply part of the public front, and never actually flew, then why do you think the alleged hoaxsters would invent a history for it that would seem so implausible? Why wouldn't they invent a successful rocket out of whole cloth?

If the Saturn V was part of your wacky theory to militarize the Moon, then how do these allegedly disastrous vibration problems allow for your theory to work? Your theory here requires a working Saturn V too.

Sts60 has noticed several other contradictions in your claims. You don't have a coherent story. You don't have a clue. You don't have anything except a bunch of ignorant knee-jerk responses to little tidbits you read here and there. You take one, wrap it in a wall of puerile text, and present it -- never to revisit the ideas again.

 

[JayUtah]

They cannot deny the problems twinstead, the problems are real.

Your interpretation of them is not.

they were the ones dealing with them.

And as such they dealt with them. If it is your judgment that the way in which they were dealt with was improper, it's your burden to show that your judgment is based on something more than ignorant intuition. If you want to pit your judgment against that of professional aerospace engineers, you need more than just your say-so.

 

[Garrison]

Patrick1000 you failed miserably at simple maths with your Apollo budget fiasco, which was just latest in a long line of cringe worthy mistakes, so why would you expect to be taken seriously over anything as complex as rocket engineering?

 

[frenat]

It's fake SusPilot, the whole thing. I just proved it right there. You wouldn't get into that rocket, I wouldn't, and neither would any "real astronauts". Way too dangerous. One can only cringe with embarrassment as these facts are revealed and the stack of confirmed perpetrators grows, yet somehow does not surprise.

You've proved nothing. Engineers aren't as stupid as you seem to think they are.

 

[SUSpilot]

I Caught Two More Perps SusPilot, You Just Gotta' Read This Bro![

I have one brother. You are not him. Please don't ever refer to me as such, even in slang.

Get a load of this SusPilot, after I give you the skinny on Apollo Missions 6,7,8, you yourself will be singing my praises and private messaging me with an inquiry as to how one, meaning you SusPilot, might be able to get on board the Patrick1000 Apollo Fraud Train.

I've read the same material. I am beyond convinced that you are utterly wrong in your conclusions.

It's fake SusPilot, the whole thing. I just proved it right there. You wouldn't get into that rocket, I wouldn't, and neither would any "real astronauts". Way too dangerous. One can only cringe with embarrassment as these facts are revealed and the stack of confirmed perpetrators grows, yet somehow does not surprise.

No, you haven't proven anything.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Why didn't they test the system again unmanned?

How many times was the Space Shuttle tested unmanned? How about Concorde? The B787? The A380?

 

[rambaldi]

Why didn't they test the system again unmanned?

When was the first unmanned test flight of the A380?

 

[Patrick1000]

These simple facts will make an HBer out of you yet Jay

Yes. Every single qualified rocket scientist believes this. You've given us nothing but your personal incredulity, which we've discovered to be woefully uninformed.

I struggle to determine why someone with such a demonstrably poor grasp of the facts surrounding rocketry and manned space flight programs should suddenly expect his personal judgment to be the gold standard of propriety. Do you really disrespect your readers that much?



I'm sorry, where did you get your aerospace engineering degree again?

Do you really think an all-up flight test is required for engineers to know whether they've likely solved certain specific problems? Once the root causes of failures are known, and ground tests can be devised for them (that didn't previously exist), you can have more faith in a successful flight test. Just because you can't figure out a way to engineer a rocket doesn't mean others can't.

The Apollo 8 mission was not an operational mission. It was a test flight. The crew was intimately familiar with the risks. They chose to go anyway. That's what test pilots do.

These simple facts will make an HBer out of you yet Jay. It is never too late my friend.

From the Associated Press article that appeared in the Dallas Morning News and carried by other papers as well, 5 April 1968, regarding the failed Apollo 6 Saturn V mission.

The article plainly states "that three of the 5 primary engines failed aboard the Saturn V". Samuel Phillips was quoted as saying, "The objective of having a propulsion system function properly on each stage was not met".

The article also said, "The Saturn V super rocket hurled a 132 ton satellite into the wrong orbit….casting doubt whether the rocket is ready to launch astronauts".

Should there be any doubt? I mean, is this thing even remotely ready? It flat out does not work. It failed, and abysmally so.

There is more! Samuel Phillips was also quoted as saying that if the flight had been intended to propel astronauts to the moon however "we would have had to conduct an alternative mission in earth orbit".

Well you can say that again Samuel, pretty hard to get to the moon if the command module engine that is supposed to burn you there does not ignite. Oh!!!!, not to mention that little concern about once your having arrived, and then are ready to go, split the moon, the engine has got to fire to get you home. Guess you are right Samuel, you really can't just simple up and fly a space ship anywhere now can you, not without a motor anyway?

Here's the best and most incriminating part of the 04/05/1968 Associated press article on this farce(Caps mine) The article said, "IF IT HAD(Saturn V, Apollo 6) PERFORMED AS FLAWLESSLY AS THE FIRST SUPER-ROCKET MISSION LAST NOVEMBER 9, NASA WAS PREPARED TO SKIP A THIRD UNMANNED TEST AND GO DIRECTLY TO MANNED SATURN V FLIGHTS".

But it didn't perform flawlessly Jay, matter of fact, the performance stunk to high Holy Heaven, you know, that part of cislunar space where Holy Roller pretend astronauts read from Genesis.

So there we have have it, the original plan was to go to manned flights IF Apollo 6 performed well, but we have these as our Apollo 6 flight results;

1) pogoing bad enough to injure spacemen

2) stage 2 engines shutting off early leading to inappropriate/unplanned trajectory and orbit

3) guidance system failing to correct errant course

4) failure of the command module engine to restart, restarting needed for translunar injection burn, and most importantly, the burn needed to return astronauts to the earth from a lunar orbit

So of course one would test the Saturn V again and not risk astronauts' lives. But NASA did not, they pretended to put astronauts into whatever it was they launched as Apollo 8. In a very real sense, we can now see one cannot be sure this equipment is what they claim it to be. Regardless, the fact Apollo 8 was advertised and carried out/simulated as a bona fide flight to the moon with 3 preachers aboard, proves Apollo fraudulent, the entire program, the whole bogus NASA kit and caboodle, right there, BOOM!, it is all FAKE, and confirmed so!

 

[Andy_Ross]

Patrick1000

Why do you hink that many hundreds of thousands of engineers and scientists with the relevant knowledge and experience in Aerospace Engineering over the last 40 yers from all around the world think that Apollo was real?

 

[R.A.F.]

During the Apollo 6 trial, the Apollo 8 unmanned dry run, the stage 3 engine did not fire for the simulated translunar injection simulation burn twinstead! The guidance system FAILED! on Apollo 6. So of course Apollo 8 was unmanned. It couldn't be anything but.

I can understand how the uninformed layperson might have been "scared" to fly a vehicle where the "risk" was as great as Apollo 8, but that is entirely irrelevant...because these were highly trained and skilled test pilots. It was their job to take risks to expand our "frontiers of knowledge".

That you would continually insult those heroes (yes, HEROES) says everything we need to know about you, and your irrelevancy regarding space related discussions.

Fraud case now proof positive proven.

No, you don't get to "declare victory".

This is now actually getting to be pretty easy.

If it is "'so easy" then you should be able to discuss this subject by providing evidence...not spouting your personal incredulity.

Apollo is no longer the hall of mirrors it once was for so many of us...

Only those who are willfully ignorant...the rest of us understand what a grand achievement Apollo was.

Posting to an internet discussion board will not change that...no, not at all.

...so much is so very evident now, clearly fraudulent it is, all of it, unreflected phoniness plain as the light of a long lunar day.

Talk is cheap...why don't you prove your assertions??