Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[R.A.F.]

Well RAF, the SLBM issue, and more importantly the larger issues of submarines in general, have everything to do with the space program and Apollo in particular.

Irrelevant...why can't you address the images and Lunar samples?

I do not like this any more than you do RAF...

You know what I don't "like"? People who "dodge" this issue.

That and willful ignorance....


I am also at a loss to understand why someone so ignorant about the space program/apollo should be "controlling" the "issues" discussed here...NONE OF US CARE what you think about various, unrelated subjects.


Why can't you address the images/samples?...and how many times must I ask this question before I receive a rational answer??

 

[Patrick1000]

The point about the torpedo thing was to emphasize.....

You have already "introduced" us to the notion ad nauseum and shifting from SLBM to torpedoes does not magically reinvigorate your incredibly flawed Moon base premise.




With a 15 megaton warhead? Sure you can. Horseshoes and hand grenades and 15 megaton bombs.

And submarines don't surface to launch torpedoes.




Celestial navigation on the high seas is anything but "precise". It's accurate to 1 nautical mile during your morning and evening twilight sights if you're lucky. During the day the only bodies available is the Sun and Moon and the Moon is only up during daylight half of the time. If the Sun and Moon are available then you're lucky if your two line fix is accurate to 2 miles.





For those not wanting to remain willfully ignorant on this subject LORAN-C was also available from 1960, was much more accurate than celestial navigation, and was an all-weather 24 hour a day system. It was available to any submariner with one of the commercially sold receivers and easily hooked up to a retractable antenna mast.





But completely different methods for obtaining a fix. Satellite navigation wasn't available until well after Apollo.




A navigational fix requires 2 or more Lines of Position, the Line of Position being the fundamental unit of a fix, abbreviated LOP.

LOPs can be obtained from:

-A bearing taken to a charted object (as measured with a compass or RDF, two charted objects in line (two objects in line are called a "range" even though it has nothing to do with range)).
-The distance to an known object (celestial, radar, GPS, TRANSIT, stadimeter, horizontal sextant angle, telemeter marks, bobbing a light, etc).
-A hyperbolic line formed by the time difference or phase difference of a radionavigation system. This requires transmitters whose bearings to the receiver must be greater than 20^o (LORAN-C, OMEGA)
-a line of sounding on a chart obtained with a fathometer.

A minimum of two LOPs are required to get a fix. Optimally you wanted 3 or more. A 2 LOP fix is automatically rated as "poor" because you always want a third LOP as confirmation that one of those two LOPs was not a fluke.

Some systems combine bearings and ranges, like TACAN, but they are short-ranged and not very accurate. In systems like that the closer the receiver is to the transmitter the more accurate it is.

It is a common misconception amongst those not familiar with navigation that you could simply put "something" somewhere and it would magically tell you where you're at. Even GPS requires the receiver to measure the distance to a minimum of 4 GPS satellites to get a fix and those 4 satellites must be widely spread out over the dome of the sky to obtain an accurate fix. Two LOPs crossing at right angles is twice as accurate as two LOPs crossing at 30^o because of the simple geometry of errors inherent in all systems. You could put 4 transmitters on the Moon but their LOPs would cross at most a 0.4^o angle. Besides, the technology to make GPS-like systems feasible didn't exist until the late 1970s.

In other words, there is no way any navigation system on the Moon can provide an accurate fix. The most accurate radio direction finder is accurate to about 2^o. From the distance to the Moon your radio bearing could be off by the diameter of the Earth! So a radio bearing to a transmitter on the Moon is right out. Taking the bearing to the Moon with a periscope would be 20 times more accurate and does not require anything to be placed on the Moon but is still only accurate to 400 miles. That leaves a ranging system which can provide one and only one distance measurement, i.e. NOT a fix, only a single LOP, would require a thick book of tables for the minute by minute position of the Moon and would only be available during half of the day. It simply is not worth the trouble and cost.

As for the notion of reconnaissance from the Moon, the resolution of a camera is directly proportional to the distance between the camera and object. A camera on the Moon would have to have a lens 120 meters in diameter to match the resolution of a 0.1 meter diameter lens in a 200 mile orbit. So that idea is just stupid.

The point about the torpedo thing was to emphasize that the Russians viewed star sightings for submarine weapon launch of any type as essential from the get go. This is 1950 matt, nuke subs don't exist yet, not even approved by Stalin yet, and the ship's advocates recognize they must sight stars to hit targets whether with an SLBM or even if they are sitting only 16 miles away with a torpedo. It is an important and VERY VALID POINT!

 

[R.A.F.]

I am sure the truth of this horrible reality is beginning to sink in and register now for some of the more thoughtful and open minded of the readers that review my posts.

So if we are only open-minded, we will understand that Apollo didn't happen??

One more time, although I shouldn't have to say it...NO ONE HERE AGREES WITH YOU!!


If you really think you are convincing others that Apollo didn't happen based on your arguments, then think again...your arguments are simply not convincing to anyone familiar with Apollo.


You continue to be wrong, wrong, wrong....oh, and wrong...

 

[Patrick1000]

Your first point, about the proximity of the satellite is INCORRECT!!!!....

No. The satellite has to be above the horizon to be able for a receiver to receive its signal. That requires the satellite to be relatively close to the receiver.




Startling to you maybe. Humdrum to everybody else.





But only so long as those satellites transmitted special signals at precise frequencies and the party of interest had a specially designed receiver to receive those special signals and a processor to compute a fix and inputs like ship's heading and speed to correct the received Doppler shift on a moving vessel.





The range to the satellite was computed by the receiver. That was the basis for the fix: calculating the range to a satellite of known position.





Hardly. But more importantly the low orbit was required to develop sufficient Doppler shift to compute a fix. A NAVSAT passing by at 17,000 mph could generate a fix with an accuracy of 200 meters. How fast does the Moon approach and recede from a position on the Earth? Only a few mph at most. At pericynthion and apocynthion it neither approaches nor recedes and so it develops zero Doppler shift at those significantly long times of the lunar month.





Hence the reason they were EMP hardened.




But objects on the Moon or at L-points generate a neglible Doppler shift. The miniscule Doppler shift they do generate will not develop the variation in its measured pattern required for a fix in less than a week. No one is going to wait around for a week to get a poor quality fix when they could use the TRANSIT system which was already functional by the time Apollo 11 landed on the moon.




Watch LEO satellites from 240,000 miles away? That is beyond absurd.





With the aforementioned 120 meter diameter lens? That is just silly.




Sorry, no. The Moon will not develop the required Doppler shift and shift variation necessary for Doppler satellite navigation.

We have so thoroughly debunked your Moon navigation and reconnaissance claim I am starting to feel embarrassed for you. Please move on to something else.

Your first point, about the proximity of the satellite is INCORRECT!!!!!! Satellites can be remote, 240,000 miles away as a matter of fact, on the moon, sitting in libration points. Now you can locate yourself any time, any place any where. AND your system cannot be taken out so easily,. This IS WHAT APOLLO WAS ABOUT matt.

 

[R.A.F.]

It is an important and VERY VALID POINT!

Only in your mind...please address the images and returned samples.

 

[R.A.F.]

Your first point, about the proximity of the satellite is INCORRECT!!!!!! Satellites can be remote, 240,000 miles away as a matter of fact, on the moon, sitting in libration points. Now you can locate yourself any time, any place any where. AND your system cannot be taken out so easily,. This IS WHAT APOLLO WAS ABOUT matt.

Nope...sorry...you continue to be wrong...

 

[Loss Leader]

The point about the torpedo thing was to emphasize that the Russians viewed star sightings for submarine weapon launch of any type as essential from the get go. This is 1950 matt, nuke subs don't exist yet, not even approved by Stalin yet, and the ship's advocates recognize they must sight stars to hit targets whether with an SLBM or even if they are sitting only 16 miles away with a torpedo. It is an important and VERY VALID POINT!

NO, IT'S NOT!

You have not demonstrated what Soviet beliefs about their submarine needs in 1950 have to do with American technology twenty years later.

In 1991, my sister was working very hard in math. She had tutors and did math problems day and night. She frequently said that math was the most important thing in her life.

Are we to infer that today, my sister is a great mathematician? Or that math has any importance in her life at al? Or that she enjoys math problems?

We would be wrong to do so. My sister was in grave danger of failing math and not graduating from high school. She studied it because she had to and stopped as soon as she got her degree. She never took another math course.

Now, what can my sister's story tell us about 8my8 love of math? Even less.

You want us to care about what soviets thought in 1950 in order to show what Americans thought in 1970. It's a useless charade. Every aspect of the problem has changed in those 20 years.

Or are you still rocking that Nirvanah t-shirt from your cousin's grunge phase?

AND your system cannot be taken out so easily,. This IS WHAT APOLLO WAS ABOUT matt.

I have often thought but have not mentioned how silly such a strategy is. The moon may be far away, but it has two great drawbacks that LEO and GEO satellities do not - gravity and dust.

The nation that wants to destroy instruments on the moon hardly needs to send heavy nuclear weapons or even bombs of any kind. Amy old junk could be flung at the moon. They may be kilometers off the target, but they'll kick up an impressive amount of dust that with disperse (kinetically, there's no wind) and fall back to the moon.

All military assets will be coated with dust at least, making them useless. Because the moon is strategically useless.

 

[Patrick1000]

Sure I did, the Americans and Soviets do the exact same things....

NO, IT'S NOT!

You have not demonstrated what Soviet beliefs about their submarine needs in 1950 have to do with American technology twenty years later.

In 1991, my sister was working very hard in math. She had tutors and did math problems day and night. She frequently said that math was the most important thing in her life.

Are we to infer that today, my sister is a great mathematician? Or that math has any importance in her life at al? Or that she enjoys math problems?

We would be wrong to do so. My sister was in grave danger of failing math and not graduating from high school. She studied it because she had to and stopped as soon as she got her degree. She never took another math course.

Now, what can my sister's story tell us about 8my8 love of math? Even less.

You want us to care about what soviets thought in 1950 in order to show what Americans thought in 1970. It's a useless charade. Every aspect of the problem has changed in those 20 years.

Or are you still rocking that Nirvanah t-shirt from your cousin's grunge phase?





I have often thought but have not mentioned how silly such a strategy is. The moon may be far away, but it has two great drawbacks that LEO and GEO satellities do not - gravity and dust.

The nation that wants to destroy instruments on the moon hardly needs to send heavy nuclear weapons or even bombs of any kind. Amy old junk could be flung at the moon. They may be kilometers off the target, but they'll kick up an impressive amount of dust that with disperse (kinetically, there's no wind) and fall back to the moon.

All military assets will be coated with dust at least, making them useless. Because the moon is strategically useless.

Sure I did, the Americans and Soviets do the exact same things...

I already presented those articles from the American pop science magazines that featured bits about our sighting satellites instead of stars for our missile launches, our SLBM/Polaris launches. Se above. I can present a lot more of this stuff from the American end. I have tons of it. I posted the Soviet stuff as according to these authors, it was the torpedo routine that sold Stalin on the idea of nuclear subs. Very interesting if true and probably was/is true. This thing is taking us to all kinds of interesting places, at least I think so.....

 

[JayUtah]

The point about the torpedo thing was to emphasize that the Russians viewed star sightings for submarine weapon launch of any type as essential from the get go.

No, that's not what your source said. That's what you inappropriately generalized from one sentence out of an entire book, most of which you did not read.

 

[JayUtah]

Your first point, about the proximity of the satellite is INCORRECT!!!!!!

Hardly. He's spot-on. You really don't understand any of this, do you?

Satellites can be remote, 240,000 miles away as a matter of fact, on the moon, sitting in libration points.

But they are useless there for the purposes you envision, for the reasons Matt gave you. You are now simply denying basic laws of physics.

Now you can locate yourself any time, any place any where.

No, you can't. You still need line of sight, and in your case an absurd amount of time to build up a Doppler solution.

Cheaper and better solutions existed at the time.

AND your system cannot be taken out so easily.

We already rejected your analysis of vulnerability as hopelessly naive. Besides, you already conceded that lunar and Lagrange installations were vulnerable. You don't get to undo that concession just because it's now inconvenient for you.

This IS WHAT APOLLO WAS ABOUT matt.

No, Apollo was about sending pilots and scientists to the Moon. That's were all the evidence points. That's what all the properly-qualified people believe.

And you've offered absolutely nothing to the contrary except for a layman's fantasy.

 

[matt.tansy]

Your first point, about the proximity of the satellite is INCORRECT!!!!!! Satellites can be remote, 240,000 miles away as a matter of fact, on the moon, sitting in libration points. Now you can locate yourself any time, any place any where.

No, you can't. You were very fond of mentioning "doppler analysis" in your post I quoted yet you are completely ignoring the fact that a transmitter on the Moon or at an L-point will barely generate any Doppler shift. The big factor in doppler satellite navigation is receiving and analyzing both the up shift and down shift as the satellite approaches, passes, and recedes from the receiver. The Moon/L-point will only do that twice a lunar month: before, during and after each pericynthion and apocynthion and it will take a week of recording the signals to properly define the shift slope. It simply will not work.

 

[Patrick1000]

Pretty dang reliable source I'd say......

No, that's not what your source said. That's what you inappropriately generalized from one sentence out of an entire book, most of which you did not read.

Pretty dang reliable source I'd say......Especially given the Americans are doing the exact same thing with respect to the SLBM launches, sighting stars/SATELLITES!

 

[Patrick1000]

Not true Jay, I think you had better sit down and take 3 deep breaths Jay.....

Hardly. He's spot-on. You really don't understand any of this, do you?



But they are useless there for the purposes you envision, for the reasons Matt gave you. You are now simply denying basic laws of physics.



No, you can't. You still need line of sight, and in your case an absurd amount of time to build up a Doppler solution.

Cheaper and better solutions existed at the time.



We already rejected your analysis of vulnerability as hopelessly naive. Besides, you already conceded that lunar and Lagrange installations were vulnerable. You don't get to undo that concession just because it's now inconvenient for you.



No, Apollo was about sending pilots and scientists to the Moon. That's were all the evidence points. That's what all the properly-qualified people believe.

And you've offered absolutely nothing to the contrary except for a layman's fantasy.

Not true Jay, I think you had better sit down and take 3 deep breaths. I am so so so not kidding................

I am about to remind you of something you already know. However, this time when you here it from me in the context of my recent posts and the ensuing responses from you yourself and matt, the facts will send you a reeling. Another one of those moments that will in essence prove to be historic, as that history of Apollo would then be told in earnest, told for the first time really, The fraud of those words, "One Giant Step...." gives way to the following..............

How is it that the Ranger craft, the Surveyor craft, the fraudulent(meaning unmanned) Apollo craft are tracked Jay? By way of Doppler analysis Jay.....By way of Doppler analysis... Now... nervous yet?.... Bet you are....

We all know that by 1965, the Ranger crafts' positions could be determined to within a distance of a few feet from 240,000 miles away. Using Doppler analysis, the Ranger craft's NASA determined positions were known that well, FEET!!!!! sobering sobering sobering....... This is a point so very NOT! in dispute. This is per NASA's own data. Nervous? Bet you are......

Just as in the general case mentioned above, this type of tracking analysis is not monodirectional, it works both ways. If one knows where Ranger is Jay..... Yes indeed, one can flip it around and know where a receiver on earth is relative to Ranger. So, signals received from 240,000 miles away from a known "orbiter" with a well defined ephemeris could be used in the determination of the location of a receiver located on the planet earth.

If you can located Ranger to within a few feet based on Doppler tracking from earth, well then, you can locate yourself on that same earth using a receiver sensitive to a Ranger like transmitter/lunar distant satellite that is transmitting from a well defined tracked and marked ephemeris. If Ranger, Surveyor and "Apollo" unmanned ships can be tracked from earth, then signals received from lunar distant satellites can similarly be used, and they were, for locating receivers on the earth once the sending device's/the transmitter's ephemeris was fully worked out.

Startling really Jay, and ever so ever so ever so true.

Apollo is FAKE......

 

[Patrick1000]

For the sake of clarity......

In the example above with regard to Ranger tracking, it is important to note one could not simply send electromagnetic signals from a Ranger probe to a ground base on earth and in so doing determine the ground base's location. Rather, through a series of Doppler based measurements made on a Ranger like probe parked in a libration point, or a surveyor like probe parked on the moon itself, one could arrive at a very accurate ephemeris for that libration point parked probe or for the moon itself instrumented with such a probe, and not simply the moon itself, but an ephemeris describing the movement of that ONE SURVEYOR LIKE POINT on the moon, as it moves about the earth. With such an ephemeris in hand , then one could move on to do the earth based receiver location studies, determine the location of a receiver on the earth simply by analyzing Doppler data from a receiver with a well defined ephemeris at a distance of 240,000 miles.

So the point, to be clear is that Doppler data, if it can be used to find the Ranger and measure its velocity and distance from us on earth, is data good enough to yield a receiver's location on the earth once such a satellite's ephemeris is well determined, even if that satellite be 240,000 miles away.

 

[JayUtah]

I think you had better sit down and take 3 deep breaths. I am so so so not kidding...

I think you had better read Roger Bate's book Fundamentals of Astrodynamics, that I've referred you to three times now. I am so not kidding.

How is it that [spacecraft are tracked?] By way of Doppler analysis... Now... nervous yet?.... Bet you are....

Kindly leave behind the patronizing tone.

We all know that by 1965, the Ranger crafts' positions could be determined to within a distance of a few feet...

No. The landing site was determined to that accuracy, using tools that included Doppler shift to determine the orbital trajectory. I covered this in great depth over two lengthy posts, and you largely ignored it at the time. In fact, if you had read my post and understood it, you'd realize why the patronizing tone of your post today does not work in your favor.

If Ranger, Surveyor and "Apollo" unmanned ships can be tracked from earth, then signals received from lunar distant satellites can similarly be used...

Wow, if you really think that's how "Doppler analysis" works, you really know less about it than I thought. If you don't realize how the Ranger spacecraft at lunar distance, approaching the Moon just prior to impact, is utterly unlike the Moon itself at lunar distance in terms of Doppler profile, then you are in for a rude awakening.

Okay here's your problem.

A spacecraft is orbiting the Moon in a circular retrograde orbit with a period of 2.75 hours. It emits a radio beacon signal at 2.500 GHz. Compute its Doppler-shifted frequency at AOS and LOS as observed from an Earth station where the Moon is at its zenith. Similarly, a lunar surface station emits its own beacon signal at 2.375 GHz. Compute its Doppler shifted frequency as observed from the same Earth station at AOS and LOS of the orbiting spacecraft. You may simplify the problem by assuming the observer lies in the plane of the spacecraft's orbit, and that Earth's rotation is not a factor.

Please provide the answers and show all your work. Time to put up or shut up.

 

[JayUtah]

In the example above with regard to Ranger tracking, it is important to note one could not simply send electromagnetic signals from a Ranger probe to a ground base on earth and in so doing determine the ground base's location.

Then here's an interesting followup question for you. Let's say you're the technician responsible for tracking radar. Under what conditions, if any, does the rotation of the Earth need to be accounted for in the computations?

Rather, through a series of Doppler based measurements made on a Ranger like probe parked in a libration point...

More followup questions:

1. What is the period of a 3-hour halo orbit around the Earth-Moon L2 point?

2. What effect, if any, would such a halo orbit have on the Doppler profile of a spacecraft in such an orbit, as it relates to Doppler-based navigation from Earth?

So the point, to be clear is that Doppler data, if it can be used to find the Ranger and measure its velocity...

True or false? Doppler analysis as used in tracking measures the spacecraft's velocity along its orbital path.

even if that satellite be 240,000 miles away.

A satellite 240,000 miles away does not have the same usefulness as one in a 150 nautical mile high orbit, for navigation purposes, using the Doppler principle applied to an emitter. Kepler knew why. Do you? We're about to find out.

 

[matt.tansy]

Oh. My. God.

Ranger was tracked with huge highly directional radio dish antenna with very narrow beam widths and highly accurate signal pointing abilities. Multiple stations spread across the Earth tracked Ranger allowing for triangulation. Ranger transmitted ranging signals to the Deep Space Network. Tracking required two-way communication. Most importantly for your repeated and ignorant use of the term "Doppler analysis", Ranger was moving very fast away from the Earth and could generate a Doppler shift. The Moon moves tangentially, i.e. sideways for those who don't understand big words, only approaching or receding very, very slowly. Only the component of an object's movement away or towards the observer will develop a Doppler shift. An object revolving around you at 1000 mph and remaining at the same distance will have zero Doppler shift.

Your source for the accuracy of the Ranger tracking was a science fiction author writing a story for the popular press, not NASA. You probably confused the "few feet" tracking accuracy with the resolution of the photographs transmitted by the Rangers. Show us the NASA report for the tracking accuracy. Until you do the claim remains void.

This shows a Deep Space Network dish antenna and a November class submarine to scale. Where do you suggest they mount the dish?

 

[Loss Leader]

This shows a Deep Space Network dish antenna and a November class submarine to scale. Where do you suggest they mount the dish?

In the spirit of Matt's post, here's a picture showing the Redstone, Atlas and Titan rockets to scale against the Saturn V. Atlas rockets could put a nuclear warhead anywhere on the planet. Titans were large enough to lift two men into orbit with supplies for two weeks. Atlas rockets sent the Ranger probes to the moon. So, why did NASA need a Saturn V for your imagined missions?

 

[sts60]

So Patrick1000/fattydash/DoctorTea/newyorkmary/etc. is really saying that the Doppler signature from a Ranger vehicle in free-fall towards impact on the Moon and that from an Apollo LM in a powered, pilot-controlled descent are about the same thing? HAHAHAHA! That's priceless.*

That's what you get when you try to sound all sciencey, but don't know what you're talking about. Doppler ranging from an object essentially stationary with respect to the receiver LOS.

Another thing you get, when you simply are making it all up as you go along, is contradicting yourself again - claiming that Apollo's position could be precisely determined by "Doppler analysis", after you start out by claiming that no such method was even used for position determination! Because that is what Patrick1000/fattydash/DoctorTea/newyorkmary/etc. did.

"Inconsistent, and therefore untrue". His words, not mine.


*OK, maybe saying you could range through the Earth to a satellite is even more priceless.

 

[Patrick1000]

Anybody can pick up a radio signal from the moon matt......

Oh. My. God.

Ranger was tracked with huge highly directional radio dish antenna with very narrow beam widths and highly accurate signal pointing abilities. Multiple stations spread across the Earth tracked Ranger allowing for triangulation. Ranger transmitted ranging signals to the Deep Space Network. Tracking required two-way communication. Most importantly for your repeated and ignorant use of the term "Doppler analysis", Ranger was moving very fast away from the Earth and could generate a Doppler shift. The Moon moves tangentially, i.e. sideways for those who don't understand big words, only approaching or receding very, very slowly. Only the component of an object's movement away or towards the observer will develop a Doppler shift. An object revolving around you at 1000 mph and remaining at the same distance will have zero Doppler shift.

Your source for the accuracy of the Ranger tracking was a science fiction author writing a story for the popular press, not NASA. You probably confused the "few feet" tracking accuracy with the resolution of the photographs transmitted by the Rangers. Show us the NASA report for the tracking accuracy. Until you do the claim remains void.

This shows a Deep Space Network dish antenna and a November class submarine to scale. Where do you suggest they mount the dish?

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/UmdWK.gif[/qimg]

Anybody can pick up a radio signal from the moon matt......

Once the ephemeris is worked out, the only thing they are looking at is the Doppler shift.

Think of the Navy's moon bounce, from Hawaii to the moon to D.C. the radio signal would go. They did not need a big dish for that. The beauty of this type of locating system is that the ephemeris is worked out before hand. Once you have that down, then all you need is the Doppler shift figure and the location can be determined. One need not know the range or anything else, just how much the signal wavelength has shifted due to the motion of the emitter. So anything can pick up a radio signal from a Range like probe matt. This is not "tracking in reverse". It is simply picking up the signal and seeing what the wavelength is doing due to the motion. BEAUTIFUL!