I have been reading a great deal on subs and sub technologies recently for obvious reasons.
The reason which is obvious to me is that you're still trying to trump up the semblance of an argument for an Instrumented Moon. You've already drawn your conclusion, and you're stlll trying to backfill a pseudoscientific argument for it using cherry-picked evidence and irrelevant sources. It hasn't yet occurred to you that instead of trying to bend, rip, twist, and warp the evidence to fit your belief, you should try to conform your belief to what the evidence demonstrates.
He has written a ton of books.
So has Deepak Chopra. That doesn't make him an undisputed medical authority, nor does it grant to a layman who cites him the proper knowledge to refute the combined knowledge and consensus of the medical community.
I think the two of them write well enough and more importantly have something to say.
They have
nothing to say regarding your specific claims. Absolutely nothing.
The 400,000 people who worked on Apollo have something to say to you too, Patrick. And their statement is entirely relevant. Too bad you don't pay as close attention to that.
And another problem is that you're not reading the book. You're reading
excerpts of it on Google Books. That got you into serious trouble before when all the parts that contradicted your beliefs were in the part Google chose not to excerpt for you. Even if you're not the one who redacted the source, you're still cherry-picking.
You can't Google your way to expertise, Patrick. You're still up against people who do these things for a living and who pretty much just laugh at your comical attempts to appear competent.
In chapter 5, "Soviet Nuclear Propelled Submarines", the authors discuss...
...a topic which has nothing to do with American submarines, American warfare, inertial navigation, satellites, the Moon, or Apollo.
The author's discuss the sub needing to surface immediately before launch to determine its precise location by stellar navigation.
And later you admit that this requirement existed only in the "early days," before SINS and long before Apollo. It has nothing to do with your claims.
What is so interesting about all of this is that the conception and development of said sub with a thermonuclear tipped torpedo begins very early on, around 1950.
In other words, two decades before Apollo. Why are you saying that Apollo would need to instrument the Moon to accommodate the requirements and limitations of two decades prior? You want to cite the K-3 submarine and the T-15 torpedo as examples of the need to constantly refer to the stars to navigate. But by 1970 hadn't that problem already been solved by other means?
In fact, doesn't your
Popular Science reference from a few days ago describe exactly the means that had been evolved in 1960 to do that? And that means had nothing to do with submarine stellar navigation, instrumenting the Moon, or artificial satellites. The miracle of the Polaris launch platform was provided by Doc Draper in the form of inertial navigation -- a technique that did not exist in that form in 1950 and as such would not necessarily have been contemplated by Soviet planners.
Why don't you quote from chapters 6, 7, and 8 of your book, that describe submarine design and warfare during the Apollo period? Is it because they describe a wholly different means of submarine navigation and launch procedures that don't fit your theory? Or is it because Google Books won't let you read those chapters.
See, Patrick? There's no substitute for actual knowledge. Would you want a surgeon working on your mother who had only been allowed to read two chapters of Gray's Anatomy?
So the star sighting business, the NEED FOR IT, is immediate. It is seen as necessary up front, right at the beginning of the Russian sub program. It's on everyone's mind. Even close to Pearl with a huge weapon, a thermonuclear bomb, you cannot simply sort of pretty much know where you are, surface and launch. You must precisely find yourself, and though later they would have alternative methods such as sea bottom mapping based location determination, early on in all of this, there was nothing but the stars to guide them.
None of this analysis is in your source. This is
your analysis. And since you have no training, experience, or demonstrable expertise in naval warfare, weaponeering, or navigation, it is summarily rejected.
If you had read the rest of the chapter, you would have learned that the T-15 torpedo and the associated single-weapon K-3 submarine platform were rejected by the Soviet Navy. The K-3 design was converted to an ordinary anti-shipping platform and deployed as the November-class attack boats, and the T-15 torpedo was discarded as unworkable.
In other words, the system your authors describe was never built and never operated. Its operational capability and requirements remained hypothetical. Therefore you cannot cite it as an example of an operational need. Further, even if it had been built, there is no reason to suppose that the stellar navigation contemplated by the early designers would necessarily have made it into production or been carried through eventual modifications through 1960 and 1970, the time when you say Apollo was instrumenting the Moon.
And stars sighting also means satellite sighting, same thing...
No, Patrick.
As has been explained to you at length, the way satellites are used in navigation is
entirely different than the way stars are used. You may consider them equivalent, but that's just your inexpertise at work. And so you don't get to pretend that evidence for stellar navigation is automatically evidence for satellite navigation, and that evidence for satellite navigation is automatically evidence for an instrumented Moon.
We reject all those assertions of equivalence, so feeding more evidence into one end of your contrived and invalid line of reasoning doesn't make the conclusion any more probable.
...ands as always, I would argue, making the moon a satellite by placing equipment on the moon and in libration points makes ever so ever so ever so much fabulous sense.....
Yes, that's right -- as
you would argue. Not your eminent sources, but
you, according to your own very limited understanding and biased intent.
Your source establishes
at the very most that the advance planners of one certain Soviet submarine that would deploy one particular weapon contemplated refining their position prior to launch according to means deemed reliable in 1950, two decades before Apollo. It has nothing to do with Americans. It has nothing to do with general navigation or other weapons systems. It has nothing to do with American naval tactics. It has nothing to with what technologies and capabilities existed two decades hence when Apollo was being deployed.
Further, your authors mention nothing about satellites or an instrumented Moon. They are completely silent on the subject, and so you have no idea whether your authors would endorse your claims or not. The alleged connection between the stellar fix employed to help launch the mega-torpedo and your wacky theory to land navigational aids on the Moon is entirely your invention.
In other words, your source is entirely irrelevant to your claims.
And as always your argument fails for the same reason it has done for every stellar-navigation scenario: artificial near-Earth satellites would
still be required in your scenario because the Moon and Lagrange points are still vulnerable to attack and not always visible from points on Earth, therefore largely useless. Therefore near-Earth satellites, which do the job so much better, safer, and cheaper than an instrumented Moon anyway, are
all that's required.
Until you address
that fundamental flaw in your reasoning, it doesn't matter what kooky ideas from the 1950s you dig up. Until you realize that satellite navigation is not equivalent to stellar navigation, you have no case. Until you realize that the Moon is not just a "better" satellite, you have no case.
The chain of implication
Stars --> Satellites --> Moon
is what we explicitly reject on a structural basis, not an evidentiary basis. So feeding evidence toward the "Stars" end of the line of reasoning does not result in credibility emerging from the "Moon" end. You're just defibrillating a corpse. If you want to show that the Moon had to be instrumented, you need to show evidence that directly applies to that end of your line of reasoning. We're not going to follow you along every new example of why stars were once needed as supposed evidence that the Moon was needed.
