Why go to all that "trouble" when satellites in Earth orbit can do the "job" better??
Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga
- Thread starter Patrick1000
- Start date
- Status
Why go to all that "trouble" when satellites in Earth orbit can do the "job" better??
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
A survivable complement of artificial stars.....
Another way to think about it Loss Leader. If the Russians were to have come at us with a first strike, they would aggressively go after our earth orbiting artificial stars with the assests commited in their intial preemptive launch. Whatever we have left after the first salvo hits is useless unless those strategic assets can be guided. The atmosphere would be a mess given the fallout from the the first rainbow of hits. One could not dependably "see" anything "up there".
Artificial stars on the moon and at libration points guarantees trackable/findable/depedable signals in the wake of a first strike so that one's surviving asests can be utilized. One would have to assume earth orbiting satellites would be aggressively targeted by the Russians and taken out in a first strike. They would be primary targets big time, with an overwhelming force of Soviet assests dedicated to their elimination right at the begining of strategic hostilities.
Another way to think about it Loss Leader. If the Russians were to have come at us with a first strike, they would aggressively go after our earth orbiting artificial stars with the assests commited in their intial preemptive launch. Whatever we have left after the first salvo hits is useless unless those strategic assets can be guided. The atmosphere would be a mess given the fallout from the the first rainbow of hits. One could not dependably "see" anything "up there".
Artificial stars on the moon and at libration points guarantees trackable/findable/depedable signals in the wake of a first strike so that one's surviving asests can be utilized. One would have to assume earth orbiting satellites would be aggressively targeted by the Russians and taken out in a first strike. They would be primary targets big time, with an overwhelming force of Soviet assests dedicated to their elimination right at the begining of strategic hostilities.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
I admit it's somewhat refreshing, Patrick, to see you at least acknowledge that there are open questions you need to answer, such as how an instrumented Moon would improve over, say, a network of artificial satellites.
But it's very sad to see that you just wait until those topics die a little, then go back and simply restate your original claim, as if the intervening rebuttals didn't exist.
Hasty generalization. You cite sources that discuss the militarization of space, but you are the one who generalizes the role of artificial satellites that to include the Moon in that capacity. Your sources actually say nothing whatsoever about militarizing the Moon, nor include it as a satellite for that purpose.
And no, "Space includes the Moon" does not fix your problem here. You are citing authors who discuss specific technology and programs in great detail, including specific missions, constraints, locations, and capability. Their lack of any discussion of the Moon for military purposes using those same criteria is a conspicuous omission in terms of your argument.
...which is disclaimed by its author as being speculative only and not a statement of U.S. defense policy.
Indeed. No one has ever argued otherwise. Artificial satellites were, are, and remain a very important part of the U.S. defense strategy. However, this does not include the Moon, which differs from artificial satellites in a number of important ways. Determining those important differences was part of your homework that you haven't yet completed. Why haven't you? It's been a question pending in your court for weeks and weeks now?
Here is a fun quote from Muolo's book that dispute your claim that Apollo was redirected toward military purposes:
Does Muolo believe that Apollo 11 landed a man on the Moon? Let's see:
http://cryptome.org/jya/sh/sh1.htm
Congratulations. You managed to find another author who disagrees entirely with you, and dishonestly try to rely on his authority for your claims.
You do realize that the Polaris guidance system was designed and built by the same group -- the Charles Draper team at MIT -- who designed and built the Apollo Guidance Computer. Remember them? Those same people you said didn't know anything about how to navigate by the stars?
Yes it is, and it makes it hard for you to keep claiming that Apollo navigation was impossible.
Doc Draper, the Father of Inertial Navigation, taught the instrumentation classes that a lot of the Mission Control guys had to take in college. Remember the photo of the PGNS chassis that I posted earlier? Doc Draper put one of those up on the roof of his building in Cambridge and made all the astronauts come up there to shoot the stars through the sextant, night after night, rain or shine.
Because you might need to fight a war when the Moon is on the other side of Earth, silly!
This from the guy who just got done telling us in no uncertain terms, and by no greater authority than my late friend and colleague Arthur C. Clarke, that we can track and guide lunar projectiles -- explicit impactors, even (i.e., guided missiles) -- to targets at lunar distance only ten feet wide.
Your claim is internally inconsistent and therefore cannot be true, by your own brand of logic.
No, it's the epitome of stupidity. What if your submarine was on the opposite side of the Earth than the Moon? Whoops!
Thanks for continuing to confirm that you don't really seem to know anything of value regarding celestial navigation.
That sounds to me like an admission that you currently don't have any such evidence. As such, like all conspiracy theorists, you draw your desired conclusion first and then try to backfill it with cherry-picked quotes mined from authors who certainly disagree with you.
Orbital period, for one. I gave you that one. Try to work out the rest of the reasons. There are many, and I know of at least two or three other posters in this thread besides me who can list many more reasons without even breathing hard.
Further, by your own vigorously argued evidence, a Moon base or a Lagrange point would not be out of reach.
All the arguments that have been made for using fleets of artificial satellites in defense applications are reasonably sound and most have been acted upon. Some of us have even been privileged enough to help act on them. But saying that what's good for an artificial satellite is also good for the Moon is simply an improper generalization.
Try to work out why.
But it's very sad to see that you just wait until those topics die a little, then go back and simply restate your original claim, as if the intervening rebuttals didn't exist.
Hasty generalization. You cite sources that discuss the militarization of space, but you are the one who generalizes the role of artificial satellites that to include the Moon in that capacity. Your sources actually say nothing whatsoever about militarizing the Moon, nor include it as a satellite for that purpose.
And no, "Space includes the Moon" does not fix your problem here. You are citing authors who discuss specific technology and programs in great detail, including specific missions, constraints, locations, and capability. Their lack of any discussion of the Moon for military purposes using those same criteria is a conspicuous omission in terms of your argument.
...which is disclaimed by its author as being speculative only and not a statement of U.S. defense policy.
Indeed. No one has ever argued otherwise. Artificial satellites were, are, and remain a very important part of the U.S. defense strategy. However, this does not include the Moon, which differs from artificial satellites in a number of important ways. Determining those important differences was part of your homework that you haven't yet completed. Why haven't you? It's been a question pending in your court for weeks and weeks now?
Here is a fun quote from Muolo's book that dispute your claim that Apollo was redirected toward military purposes:
"The Moon project, and the stepping stones that led to it, developed a momentum of their own which the Air Force could neither redirect nor reduce."
Does Muolo believe that Apollo 11 landed a man on the Moon? Let's see:
"Astronaut Neil Armstrong became the first man to set foot on the Moon. The Moon crew deployed a large number of scientific experiments and collected several pounds of rocks."
http://cryptome.org/jya/sh/sh1.htm
Congratulations. You managed to find another author who disagrees entirely with you, and dishonestly try to rely on his authority for your claims.
You do realize that the Polaris guidance system was designed and built by the same group -- the Charles Draper team at MIT -- who designed and built the Apollo Guidance Computer. Remember them? Those same people you said didn't know anything about how to navigate by the stars?
Yes it is, and it makes it hard for you to keep claiming that Apollo navigation was impossible.
Doc Draper, the Father of Inertial Navigation, taught the instrumentation classes that a lot of the Mission Control guys had to take in college. Remember the photo of the PGNS chassis that I posted earlier? Doc Draper put one of those up on the roof of his building in Cambridge and made all the astronauts come up there to shoot the stars through the sextant, night after night, rain or shine.
Because you might need to fight a war when the Moon is on the other side of Earth, silly!
This from the guy who just got done telling us in no uncertain terms, and by no greater authority than my late friend and colleague Arthur C. Clarke, that we can track and guide lunar projectiles -- explicit impactors, even (i.e., guided missiles) -- to targets at lunar distance only ten feet wide.
Your claim is internally inconsistent and therefore cannot be true, by your own brand of logic.
No, it's the epitome of stupidity. What if your submarine was on the opposite side of the Earth than the Moon? Whoops!
Thanks for continuing to confirm that you don't really seem to know anything of value regarding celestial navigation.
That sounds to me like an admission that you currently don't have any such evidence. As such, like all conspiracy theorists, you draw your desired conclusion first and then try to backfill it with cherry-picked quotes mined from authors who certainly disagree with you.
Orbital period, for one. I gave you that one. Try to work out the rest of the reasons. There are many, and I know of at least two or three other posters in this thread besides me who can list many more reasons without even breathing hard.
Further, by your own vigorously argued evidence, a Moon base or a Lagrange point would not be out of reach.
All the arguments that have been made for using fleets of artificial satellites in defense applications are reasonably sound and most have been acted upon. Some of us have even been privileged enough to help act on them. But saying that what's good for an artificial satellite is also good for the Moon is simply an improper generalization.
Try to work out why.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
At first you tried to argue that the Moon alone was sufficient. Now you're trying to tell us that yes, you need other spacecraft in other positions to make up for the shortcomings of the Moon. That's a step in the right direction. And perhaps if you stop resisting the facts and start listening to the experts, you'll realize why further steps in the right direction lead you to where everyone else is standing.
No, not "unstable" -- just unstable. You don't get to pretend the constraints of the problem are something they are not.
ROFLMAO! You have absolutely no idea why those Lagrange points are unstable, do you?
Drive a stake into the ground and round off the apex. Now balance a basketball on top of it without any other assistance. See how long it takes for the basketball to "drift" away from the apex.
The Lagrange point as "place where the gravity and orbital forces cancel" does not equate to "place where I can put a spacecraft." You mean you managed to get a "maths" degree without studying the properties of tensor fields?
The Moon has line-of-sight problems and orbital-period problems, hence cannot be used as an instrument platform. So you augment them with the Lagrange points.
But the Lagrange points have stability problems (even the stable ones). So you augment them with a constellation of artificial satellites.
Indeed. And that's exactly the system that is in place and has worked fine for decades.
But you concede that you can't do it with the Moon and/or the Lagrange points either. You concede that you'd need to augment the system with artificial satellites. And when you realize that you need artificial satellites to make your idea work, you realize that artificial satellites are all you need to make your idea work. They themselves are the answer, not the Moon mumbo jumbo.
And then you can see how we came up with those ideas decades ago and built them, and that's what your authors are talking about -- not some silly, physically doomed plan to instrument the Moon.
Neil Armstrong was a civilian during Apollo. So here again, all the evidence says one thing, but you decide to believe something else. Surprise, surprise.
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
One more way to think of how it was way way way better....
One more way to think of how it was/is way way way better to have such remote artificial stars in place as additional assets to one's having ONLY more conventional "local" earth orbiting assets...
Consider this Loss Leader, say the situation was asymmetric, which I do not believe it was or is. But let's assume for the moment, for the sake of argument, the Russians had space assets limited to a bit more than 20,000 some odd miles out in geosynchronous orbit, and say they have a few other assets a bit further out, but still in what we would consider more or less "local/relatively near" orbit. We could sight and track those geosynchronous satellites using the satellites' own signals as targeting beacons. Even if the satellites shut down, once sighted/targeted as a star, albeit momentarily, locked by our rocket, unless the thing can maneuver, it would be dead dead dead. It may take an hour to reach a satellite so far away in geosynchronous orbit, but it would be dead nonetheless, and an hour's time is still well within the time frame of a strategic war waged by the then, 60s vintage, Super Powers.
On the other hand, in this asymmetric hypothetical, we, the USA, has assets on the moon and in libration points that cannot be taken out so readily. Go after those, and assuming you can find them, assuming they are not mobile, it will take days to reach them. A strategic war would be over by then.
Planting assets so far away, guarantees their use throughout the duration of a strategic war. So so so much better than earth orbiters ALONE Loss Leader.
This is speculative of course, but Apollo may additionally have been about probing Soviet space based asset vulnerabilities. Say the Soviets had an emitter located at Tranquility base, or floating in a libration point, we could have landed a nuke right next to it. When WWIII broke out, if it broke out, we'd send a signal and set the thing off, eliminating the Soviet lunar/space based distant asset, and in so doing, blind their subs, deprive them of the ability to readily align their ICBM and SLBM platforms from artificial stars out of reach, at least temporarily out of reach as ours would be in this asymmetric hypothetical scenario.
Finally, it is important to note Loss Leader that the lunar and moon based and libration point assets should not be thought of as instead of low earth orbiting assets, but as important complements to those more "conventional" low orbiting space assets.
One more way to think of how it was/is way way way better to have such remote artificial stars in place as additional assets to one's having ONLY more conventional "local" earth orbiting assets...
Consider this Loss Leader, say the situation was asymmetric, which I do not believe it was or is. But let's assume for the moment, for the sake of argument, the Russians had space assets limited to a bit more than 20,000 some odd miles out in geosynchronous orbit, and say they have a few other assets a bit further out, but still in what we would consider more or less "local/relatively near" orbit. We could sight and track those geosynchronous satellites using the satellites' own signals as targeting beacons. Even if the satellites shut down, once sighted/targeted as a star, albeit momentarily, locked by our rocket, unless the thing can maneuver, it would be dead dead dead. It may take an hour to reach a satellite so far away in geosynchronous orbit, but it would be dead nonetheless, and an hour's time is still well within the time frame of a strategic war waged by the then, 60s vintage, Super Powers.
On the other hand, in this asymmetric hypothetical, we, the USA, has assets on the moon and in libration points that cannot be taken out so readily. Go after those, and assuming you can find them, assuming they are not mobile, it will take days to reach them. A strategic war would be over by then.
Planting assets so far away, guarantees their use throughout the duration of a strategic war. So so so much better than earth orbiters ALONE Loss Leader.
This is speculative of course, but Apollo may additionally have been about probing Soviet space based asset vulnerabilities. Say the Soviets had an emitter located at Tranquility base, or floating in a libration point, we could have landed a nuke right next to it. When WWIII broke out, if it broke out, we'd send a signal and set the thing off, eliminating the Soviet lunar/space based distant asset, and in so doing, blind their subs, deprive them of the ability to readily align their ICBM and SLBM platforms from artificial stars out of reach, at least temporarily out of reach as ours would be in this asymmetric hypothetical scenario.
Finally, it is important to note Loss Leader that the lunar and moon based and libration point assets should not be thought of as instead of low earth orbiting assets, but as important complements to those more "conventional" low orbiting space assets.
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
So ... um ... what's the marginal cost of building one more nuclear missile to make up for the lack of navigational precision?
What's the marginal cost of building a slightly higher yield warhead to compensate for the mile or two navigational drift of inertial guidance?
What's the marginal cost of sending one more bomb by airplane or building one more land base which, being a fixed distance from its target, is easier to navigate from?
Now how does that compare to the costs of whatever the heck your plan is?
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
My response to your question RAF is well covered in my last several posts...
My response to your question RAF is well covered in my last several posts...
A moon plus libration position constellation of artificial stars should be viewed not instead of, but as a complement to more "conventional" lower flying satellites. They, the more distant artificial stars, offer great great advantages. Again, please see my posts above for details.
My response to your question RAF is well covered in my last several posts...
A moon plus libration position constellation of artificial stars should be viewed not instead of, but as a complement to more "conventional" lower flying satellites. They, the more distant artificial stars, offer great great advantages. Again, please see my posts above for details.
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
Which is why, if we created such assets, the Russians would have to attack them preemptively. It's exactly the same as letting Iran have a nuclear reactor. The danger to everyone is so great, nobody can afford to wait for war. We have to keep Iran from having the capability now, long before war.
The moment the US gets a decisive upper hand in a nuclear war is the moment the US attacks. So, the Soviets could never afford to let us gain that upper hand.
If the Soviets thought we could destroy their missile guidance systems while keeping our own, they would have to fight us immediately.
Nuclear strategy hasn't been about "winning" a nuclear war since the 1950's. If you read any of your sources honestly, you would know that.
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
Marginal cost of building another nuke has nothing to do with this...
The marginal cost of building another nuke has nothing to do with this...
One flat out could not align the platforms with the requisite accuracy without the aforementioned system in place, especially as regards the subs and their SLBMs. The subs themselves would be submerged when the order for launch came through. They must go up and get a star sighting, native/authentic star or artificial. Otherwise, the weapons would be useless. The only way the sub captains can do this reliably is by way of an artificial star. Counting on "Polaris" being readable is not practical, not likely to pan out in most situations.
And, my system as described has post first strike survivablility inherent in its logistics. It cannot be taken out by means of a first strike, unless the Russians themselves have parked nuclear assets next to our own lunar and libration point assets.
Your alternative "solution" Loss Leader is noted as a valiant attempt to save NASA's credibility, but I must reject it for these all too obvious reasons.
The marginal cost of building another nuke has nothing to do with this...
One flat out could not align the platforms with the requisite accuracy without the aforementioned system in place, especially as regards the subs and their SLBMs. The subs themselves would be submerged when the order for launch came through. They must go up and get a star sighting, native/authentic star or artificial. Otherwise, the weapons would be useless. The only way the sub captains can do this reliably is by way of an artificial star. Counting on "Polaris" being readable is not practical, not likely to pan out in most situations.
And, my system as described has post first strike survivablility inherent in its logistics. It cannot be taken out by means of a first strike, unless the Russians themselves have parked nuclear assets next to our own lunar and libration point assets.
Your alternative "solution" Loss Leader is noted as a valiant attempt to save NASA's credibility, but I must reject it for these all too obvious reasons.
Last edited:
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
Yes and no Loss Leader.....
Yes and no Loss Leader.....
Though my perspective in general outline is of course correct, and obviously so, many of the details are yet to be filled in. We do not know the exact nature of the Soviet and American assets then and now present on the moon or in libration positions, not to mention the details regarding assets floating in lower positions.
It may well be that given the realities, hopefully we can tease these out in more detail, preemption was not, is not, a good option.
Also, these guys were/are crazy, but perhaps not that crazy. I mean, do you really want to vaporize Mikhail Baryshnikov?
Yes and no Loss Leader.....
Though my perspective in general outline is of course correct, and obviously so, many of the details are yet to be filled in. We do not know the exact nature of the Soviet and American assets then and now present on the moon or in libration positions, not to mention the details regarding assets floating in lower positions.
It may well be that given the realities, hopefully we can tease these out in more detail, preemption was not, is not, a good option.
Also, these guys were/are crazy, but perhaps not that crazy. I mean, do you really want to vaporize Mikhail Baryshnikov?
Last edited:
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
The stars have been in place for quite some time.
No, they don't go get a navigation fix after receiving a launch order.
Your system is a sitting duck, as explained weeks ago, confirmed by you, and reiterated this morning. That's why the Air Force thought about it for about a day, then considered other options.
There's only one person in this thread with a credibility problem, and I assure you it isn't Loss Leader or NASA.
Translation: I can't think of any reason why my system is better.
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
Of course my "theory" will become more complete Jay as I learn more....
Of course my "theory" will become more complete Jay as I learn more....
I find it sort of silly that you object to my "adding" the libration points as obvious posts for military equipment planting.
I had not even known about these until I read about them recently, especially in the context of some authors suggesting how ideal they would be as sites for communications satellites.
There is much I do not know and will learn as I go along. Making mistakes as I discover where I was/am wrong, and so having to "remove" elements of my theory, and then discovering new exciting things, and so appropriately amending my theory to reflect my new knowledge.
I have only been at this 6 months or so. In a year, my theory will look of course similar in general outline Jay, as it is as you know, quite on target in terms of its broad perspective. That said, many details will have been filled in by then, new ones, just as my libration point argument, assuming it holds up, is a new and important point which I am making now....
Of course my "theory" will become more complete Jay as I learn more....
I find it sort of silly that you object to my "adding" the libration points as obvious posts for military equipment planting.
I had not even known about these until I read about them recently, especially in the context of some authors suggesting how ideal they would be as sites for communications satellites.
There is much I do not know and will learn as I go along. Making mistakes as I discover where I was/am wrong, and so having to "remove" elements of my theory, and then discovering new exciting things, and so appropriately amending my theory to reflect my new knowledge.
I have only been at this 6 months or so. In a year, my theory will look of course similar in general outline Jay, as it is as you know, quite on target in terms of its broad perspective. That said, many details will have been filled in by then, new ones, just as my libration point argument, assuming it holds up, is a new and important point which I am making now....
matt.tansy
Muse
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2007
- Messages
- 991
SLBM's inertial navigation system is aligned to the ship's inertial navigation system, this includes heading, roll, pitch, depth, latitude, longitude, and speed data. A missile must know which way it is pointing if it is going to fly to its target. The star-tracker is used once the missile is above the atmosphere.
I operated numerous inertial navigation systems and fed missiles this data while I was in the Navy (SINS, ESGN, RLGN).
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Changing horses.
Originally you said the Moon was the bee's knees of celestial military support. Then you had to fall back and add the Lagrange points in order to cover up the shortcomings of the Moon. Then you had to fall back to adding artificial satellites to shore up the failings in the Moon-plus-Lagrange theory.
Now you've devolved into saying that the satellites themselves bear the lion's share, and the Moon-Lagrange system would just augment that. Yeah, that's why we told you we didn't need the Moon-Lagrange system, and that's what you're authors are trying to tell you.
None that you've been able to substantiate, and not without significant shortcomings that you can only solve by resorting back to the satellites we actually use.
And please see our posts for refutation.
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
Patrick -
Would it be at all helpful for the SLBMs to have an entire network of low-frequency radio emitters spread across the globe whereby a sub might triangulate its position without surfacing?
Would it be at all helpful for the SLBMs to have an entire network of low-frequency radio emitters spread across the globe whereby a sub might triangulate its position without surfacing?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
The pros generally gather evidence first, then draw their conclusions.
I find it silly because by doing so, you demonstrate you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about, with math or physics. You glom onto them as some sort of salvation for your beliefs before you even do your homework.
Yes, we know how uninformed you are about all this space and engineering stuff. Except, of course, that Lagrange was a famous mathematician, and you claim to have a "maths" degree or some such. Lagrange points are covered by about chapter 3 or 4 in any reasonably good celestial mechanics texts. How can you have escaped ever reading one of those before, yet be so confident that Apollo was faked? Oh, right -- you rely on "common sense," and your "common sense" didn't tell you about certain facts of the universe that weren't immediately obvious. What else do you think might not be covered by your "common sense?" Maybe things that highly-trained, well-experience professionals know? Gee, maybe those people aren't dishonest or deluded all along, as you claimed.
Try to work out why we aren't use them for that.
I've been a space engineer for 25 years. Which one of us do think already knows enough to tell how valid your claims are?
There you go again, assuming that we all secretly "know" that you're right.
Read my lips: You Don't Know What You're Taking About.
The problem is that you've already drawn your conclusions and stated your belief. To promise us that sometime in the future there will be evidence behind it is tantamount to admitting that you're just making all this up as you go.
I suppose there's not much more you can do today to put your foot in your mouth, but you tend to surprise us along those lines.
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
One needs to align the missile platforms in the day before a launch.....
One needs to align the missile platforms in the day time before a launch Captain_Swoop.
They have to do this with the Apollo Saturn Vs and with ICBMs as well Captain_Swoop. The missiles and Rockets cannot see stars until they get up over the atmosphere in the day anyway. So to align a platform in the day one needs artificial stars.......
One needs to align the missile platforms in the day time before a launch Captain_Swoop.
They have to do this with the Apollo Saturn Vs and with ICBMs as well Captain_Swoop. The missiles and Rockets cannot see stars until they get up over the atmosphere in the day anyway. So to align a platform in the day one needs artificial stars.......
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
In the Clancy book Submarine, the Subs "come up", to cop a peek Matt....
Agreed, AND, the sub needs to raise its "antenna" to find out exactly where it is and align its own platform and that of its missiles for a SLBM launch.
The subs sight stars, genuine and artificial to find themselves, to align their platforms. During the day time, artificial stars, satellites are used matt.
I agree with you 100% here.....
Agreed, AND, the sub needs to raise its "antenna" to find out exactly where it is and align its own platform and that of its missiles for a SLBM launch.
The subs sight stars, genuine and artificial to find themselves, to align their platforms. During the day time, artificial stars, satellites are used matt.
I agree with you 100% here.....
Tomblvd
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2007
- Messages
- 821
It is very telling that Patrick writes this without a hint of irony.
Pat, why do you think your "learn as you go" strategy is to be believed over people who have real world expertise in this exact subject matter?
- Status