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?
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
I still think it is the bees knees, if that means good.....
I still think it is the bees knees(does that mean good? hope so), the moon as military satellite Jay, best platform possible, .....I was clear previously, I mentioned a system of satellites, with the moon as a key, if not THE key base. It's beautiful in a way when you think about it, if you were a military guy you'd just love it......
I still think it is the bees knees(does that mean good? hope so), the moon as military satellite Jay, best platform possible, .....I was clear previously, I mentioned a system of satellites, with the moon as a key, if not THE key base. It's beautiful in a way when you think about it, if you were a military guy you'd just love it......
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
Yes and no.......
Yes and no.......Those systems were/are good for finding oneself, but aligning a platform, determining a machine's attitude, is a different kettle of fish altogether Loss Leader....
Yes and no.......Those systems were/are good for finding oneself, but aligning a platform, determining a machine's attitude, is a different kettle of fish altogether Loss Leader....
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
So, the US successfully launched a missile from underwater in 1960.
Patrick, are you seriously contending that we deployed an entire class of submarines with nuclear weapons almost a decade before we could aim them?
How confident were the developers of the Polaris that it could hit its target under any launch condition?
What navigational limitations did the Polaris have when first deployed?
What navigational limitations did our land-based ICBMs have when first deployed?
Do you consider these to be relevant questions?
Patrick, are you seriously contending that we deployed an entire class of submarines with nuclear weapons almost a decade before we could aim them?
How confident were the developers of the Polaris that it could hit its target under any launch condition?
What navigational limitations did the Polaris have when first deployed?
What navigational limitations did our land-based ICBMs have when first deployed?
Do you consider these to be relevant questions?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Yes, it means a good thing. And the fact that you still think it's a good primary platform after all that's been said is just further evidence to me (and probably to everyone else) that you really have no idea what you're talking about and don't care to listen to contrary facts.
Uh, the military already rejected it as a stupid idea. Where were you?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
You still seem burdened by the delusion that these inertial platforms must be frequently (nay, perhaps even constantly) calibrated by other means. Do you realize that ships, submarines, and airplanes navigated quite accurately and successfully long before there were artificial satellites?
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
Of course I am going to be learning as I go......
Of course I am going to be "learning as I go" Tomblvd......I am new to Apollo, only 6 months in really, perhaps a bit more. That said, I am quite good with physics, maths and know a bit of engineering as well, so I learn quickly as must be obvious to many of the eavesdroppers. That is not to say I have not been wrong and wrong in big ways from time to time, but my theory in general is SOLID, big time......
Mine is the first fully robust theory of Apollo fraud, replete with mechanism, motive/goals, and proof of fraudulence per se to boot. My analysis is flat out historic, as surprising as this is to me. What can I say? No one has achieved what I have, and my research is entirely independent, beginning with my stumbling upon the phony Neil Armstrong Patrick Moore 1970 BBC interview in which Armstrong infamously intoned, "NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS.........."
It is ever so ever so ever so clear that I am correct with regard to my perspective in broad outline, but some of my ideas, some of the "details" that I present, shall be proven to be incorrect. This is of course inevitable. New details will surface and these will be shown to fill in gaps as I progress and tell Apollo's story.
That said, in broad outline, my general view, Apollo was an unmanned program in which American military interests planted reconnaissance/surveillance/tracking/target assets on the moon and in other positions such as at earth moon system libration points will be vindicated absolutely. There is no question as regards this.
My recent "discovery" as it were, for want of a better term, that the AGC's protocol for sighting stars was logistically untenable, will be as time goes on, recognized as THE SINGLE MOST SIGNIFICANT EVENT IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE FRAUDULENT APOLLO PROGRAM.
Of these matters, there is, will be, absolutely no question.....
Of course I am going to be "learning as I go" Tomblvd......I am new to Apollo, only 6 months in really, perhaps a bit more. That said, I am quite good with physics, maths and know a bit of engineering as well, so I learn quickly as must be obvious to many of the eavesdroppers. That is not to say I have not been wrong and wrong in big ways from time to time, but my theory in general is SOLID, big time......
Mine is the first fully robust theory of Apollo fraud, replete with mechanism, motive/goals, and proof of fraudulence per se to boot. My analysis is flat out historic, as surprising as this is to me. What can I say? No one has achieved what I have, and my research is entirely independent, beginning with my stumbling upon the phony Neil Armstrong Patrick Moore 1970 BBC interview in which Armstrong infamously intoned, "NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS.........."
It is ever so ever so ever so clear that I am correct with regard to my perspective in broad outline, but some of my ideas, some of the "details" that I present, shall be proven to be incorrect. This is of course inevitable. New details will surface and these will be shown to fill in gaps as I progress and tell Apollo's story.
That said, in broad outline, my general view, Apollo was an unmanned program in which American military interests planted reconnaissance/surveillance/tracking/target assets on the moon and in other positions such as at earth moon system libration points will be vindicated absolutely. There is no question as regards this.
My recent "discovery" as it were, for want of a better term, that the AGC's protocol for sighting stars was logistically untenable, will be as time goes on, recognized as THE SINGLE MOST SIGNIFICANT EVENT IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE FRAUDULENT APOLLO PROGRAM.
Of these matters, there is, will be, absolutely no question.....
Last edited:
matt.tansy
Muse
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2007
- Messages
- 991
Incorrect. The ship's INS is always kept within certain operational parameters so you may fire on short notice. In fact, you can't reset (i.e. re-align) your INS while you are using it to align the missiles INS (a procedure that can take up to 20 minutes) because it would screw up the missiles' INS and you would have to re-start the procedure. Part of the ship-to-missile communication procedure involved inhibiting the ship's INS from being able to be reset. INS were designed to go up to a month without the need to be reset. They are kept running and frequently reset while in port.
The only time you shut down your INS was when going into a shipyard for an overhaul.
Satellite navigation is more accurate than celestial navigation so it would be used regardless of time of day. Satellite navigation, prior to GPS, used the TRANSIT system: satellites 600 miles high in polar orbits. But those satellites passed within view at intervals between 30 minutes and 2 hours. You would not wait around for a satellite pass to reset your INS before you started shooting missiles.
Besides, there were other methods of fixing ship's position besides satellites and celestial.
Tomblvd
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2007
- Messages
- 821
THAT is painfully apparent.
No. As you have proven many times you are woefully inadequate when it comes to the technical side of things (among other things as well).
Really? When? Links please?
How can you say your "theory" is solid when you admit you don't have the evidence yet?
*****snip an almost pathological amount of self-congratulation*****
To the Moderator: How long do we have to be subjected to Patrick's excessive (and empty) boasting? This self back-patting is as useless and offensive as the personal jabs that are being edited out of the thread. No?
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
You are not being subjected to anything. You choose to read this thread and you choose to respond. All you have to do is ignore the thread and you no longer have to read pathalogical amounts of boasting.
On the other side of the equation, Patrick1000 is the only poster arguing against the Apollo missions. While editing out personal attacks on him does little to stop the flow of the thread, editing Patrick would essentially kill it. Thus, the continuation of the thread requires a bit of a deft hand.as far as moderation goes.
However, all posters should understand that if they are not advancing their arguments, their posts will not pass moderation or will be edited before being put through,
Furthermore, some moderators may become so concerned about the mental health of an individual poster that they find it cruel to allow that individual to continue to participate. There may come a time when that happens here, especially as it seems that one poster is rapidly unspooling.
As I have significantly participated in this thread, I would excuse myself from such a decision.
On the other side of the equation, Patrick1000 is the only poster arguing against the Apollo missions. While editing out personal attacks on him does little to stop the flow of the thread, editing Patrick would essentially kill it. Thus, the continuation of the thread requires a bit of a deft hand.as far as moderation goes.
However, all posters should understand that if they are not advancing their arguments, their posts will not pass moderation or will be edited before being put through,
Furthermore, some moderators may become so concerned about the mental health of an individual poster that they find it cruel to allow that individual to continue to participate. There may come a time when that happens here, especially as it seems that one poster is rapidly unspooling.
As I have significantly participated in this thread, I would excuse myself from such a decision.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: Loss Leader
Not as a mod:
Patrick - Is it your contention that there is or was ever a time when a US ballistic missile sub did not know its location and bearing?
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
Bulliten of Atomic Scientists June 1986 says otherwise.....
Bulletin of Atomic Scientists June 1986 says otherwise.....
From the article, MISSILE ACCURACY, AN ARMS CONTROL OPPORTUNITY, page 13, the author states that because BOOMERS/Ballistic Missile Submarines have long patrol times, even the very best of systems cannot maintain the missile in a launch ready state without frequent external updates. The author speculated that GPS would be of help in this regard. Again, this article was written in 1986. Its main point with regard to the subject of this thread is that frequent external updates were ESSENTIAL.
http://books.google.com/books?id=oQ...&resnum=4&ved=0CEIQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false
Bulletin of Atomic Scientists June 1986 says otherwise.....
From the article, MISSILE ACCURACY, AN ARMS CONTROL OPPORTUNITY, page 13, the author states that because BOOMERS/Ballistic Missile Submarines have long patrol times, even the very best of systems cannot maintain the missile in a launch ready state without frequent external updates. The author speculated that GPS would be of help in this regard. Again, this article was written in 1986. Its main point with regard to the subject of this thread is that frequent external updates were ESSENTIAL.
http://books.google.com/books?id=oQ...&resnum=4&ved=0CEIQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false
WHAAAT?!
Do you have the foggiest idea how an inertial guidance system works?
Apparently, it is impossible to use on, say, nuclear submarines, or aircraft, or....heck, I can't find any limit to the list here. Of craft that do very well with an inertial guidance system but don't have the need for the craft itself to be rigidly aligned at all times!!
sts60
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2007
- Messages
- 4,107
Bolding mine.
No, it's painfully dishonest.
Writing as "fattydash" over on AH (thread: "Re: Can We Get Along?", 7 Jul 2011, 10:38am):
No, it's painfully dishonest.
Writing as "fattydash" over on AH (thread: "Re: Can We Get Along?", 7 Jul 2011, 10:38am):
fattydash/Patrick1000 said:
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
Mighty tall order.......
Mighty tall order.......
At the tale end of a Popular Science, May 1958 article, QUICK TRIGGER MISSILE, the author claims the missile's guidance system must know EXACTLY where it is for the launch to be successful in terms of providing the requisite accuracy.
http://books.google.com/books?id=xi...age&q=polaris missile guidance system&f=false
Mighty tall order.......
At the tale end of a Popular Science, May 1958 article, QUICK TRIGGER MISSILE, the author claims the missile's guidance system must know EXACTLY where it is for the launch to be successful in terms of providing the requisite accuracy.
http://books.google.com/books?id=xi...age&q=polaris missile guidance system&f=false
matt.tansy
Muse
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2007
- Messages
- 991
No, it doesn't state otherwise. Once again you are taking a non-specific term and defining it to your narrow definition so you won't have to admit you're wrong. The article didn't define "frequent". Is it once an hour, once a day, once a week, once a month?
The article never mentions the ship's INS has to be reset prior to spinning up the missiles, which was your ridiculously incorrect premise.
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 21,469
But he, like you, fails to quantify just how "exactly" the position must be known in order to destroy the intended target with a 6 megaton explosion.
You haven't demonstrated that there was a problem which needed addressing, let alone that equipment placed on the moon would be the sensible way to solve it.
(The same magazine has a fun article talking about collecting samples of moonrock by dropping a nuke on the surface and flying through the dust plume. This feat to be achieved in the mid-1970s, with a view to a manned landing by the year 2000.)
matt.tansy
Muse
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2007
- Messages
- 991
Yes it is and the tall order was met. They are incredibly complex machines. Each ESGN suite consisted of 2 Inertial Measuring Units (IMU) and the IMUs would fail about three times a year. One IMU costs a quarter of a million dollars. The gyros spin at about 2500 RPS. That is revolutions per second. The gyros were 1 cm beryllium balls milled to within 25 millionths of an inch. It takes 3 days to spin up, thermally equalize, and stabilize an ESGN.
This isn't the first time you've been caught quote-mining, Dr. Socks. The very next sentence says, "SINS, which has been tested in a year of voyages by a special vessel called the Compass Island, can give the geographical coordinates of a spot beneath the waves as precisely as if it were a street corner in your hometown."
Now pray tell, what navigation system was in place in 1958 to provide that accuracy.
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
Ballistic missile sub no.....
Ballistic missile sub no.....
Then again, my reading on subs is not all that extensive, not yet anyway. I do recall in my reading about the Nautilus' voyage under the cap to the North Pole that there were problems with the famous boat's inertial platform. But I am not positive, and do not recall the specifics regarding that case/situation. They were not frankly lost, but there were navigational problems in that regard. If you are curious, I could review my materials on the Nautilus and give you those specifics. As I recall, It was somewhat interesting to me, piqued my curiosity as regards sub navigation.
Obviously, the Apollo subject matter has carried me generally into the world of missile subs, so I'll be reading more and more about sub navigation, sub guidance, and the alignment of sub SLBM platforms as time goes on. The references I gave earlier on in the thread from popular magazines I thought were fairly solid, the ones about satellites being used as navigational stars for the obvious reason that a genuine star might not be conveniently sightable, especially during the day time. If I do turn up anything with regard to your question specifically, to the effect that a sub had gotten itself flat out lost, I'll bring it to the attention of the the forum members here.
My claim is that sub platform drift is not inconsequential and alignments need to be made from time to time. In some cases, alignments would have to be made just before launch given the concerns unique to the sub situation. For example, the missile bucks and broncs as it frees itself from the sea, wiggling this way and that to find and then fully engage the the air. The inertial platform is maintained through these sea wrestling machinations and the weapon, so freed, finds its true course once in the air expressly because platform orientation is so marvelously well maintained.
That said, given the unusual circumstances, any consequences of platform alignment imprecision will be magnified some in the special SLBM case. A platform cannot be shaken about with absolute impunity. There will be some negative fallout, accuracy consequences realized. As such, things need to be squared up as best they can be before a SLBM launch.
Ballistic missile sub no.....
Then again, my reading on subs is not all that extensive, not yet anyway. I do recall in my reading about the Nautilus' voyage under the cap to the North Pole that there were problems with the famous boat's inertial platform. But I am not positive, and do not recall the specifics regarding that case/situation. They were not frankly lost, but there were navigational problems in that regard. If you are curious, I could review my materials on the Nautilus and give you those specifics. As I recall, It was somewhat interesting to me, piqued my curiosity as regards sub navigation.
Obviously, the Apollo subject matter has carried me generally into the world of missile subs, so I'll be reading more and more about sub navigation, sub guidance, and the alignment of sub SLBM platforms as time goes on. The references I gave earlier on in the thread from popular magazines I thought were fairly solid, the ones about satellites being used as navigational stars for the obvious reason that a genuine star might not be conveniently sightable, especially during the day time. If I do turn up anything with regard to your question specifically, to the effect that a sub had gotten itself flat out lost, I'll bring it to the attention of the the forum members here.
My claim is that sub platform drift is not inconsequential and alignments need to be made from time to time. In some cases, alignments would have to be made just before launch given the concerns unique to the sub situation. For example, the missile bucks and broncs as it frees itself from the sea, wiggling this way and that to find and then fully engage the the air. The inertial platform is maintained through these sea wrestling machinations and the weapon, so freed, finds its true course once in the air expressly because platform orientation is so marvelously well maintained.
That said, given the unusual circumstances, any consequences of platform alignment imprecision will be magnified some in the special SLBM case. A platform cannot be shaken about with absolute impunity. There will be some negative fallout, accuracy consequences realized. As such, things need to be squared up as best they can be before a SLBM launch.
Last edited by a moderator:
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
Though my claim applies perhaps most significantly to SLBMs...
Though my claim applies perhaps most significantly to SLBMs Loss Leader, land based ICBMs also require platform alignment checks prior to launch. Again I would refer the interested to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists Publication from June 1986;
http://books.google.com/books?id=oQ...&resnum=4&ved=0CEIQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false
On page 13 the author reminds us that a SLBM's accuracy is not solely dependent on the missile's intrinsic accuracy per se, the submarine's navigation system must find itself and supply the missile with the weapon's initial ever so critical data. The sub's system, like the missiles' is inertial. Nevertheless, "reasonably frequent external updates are essential". How would such a reasonably frequent update be made? Well by the only way possible, by way of a star sighting(s), whether that be of a genuine or artificial/satellite star(s).
The authors go on to point out, also on page 13, that in the case of fixed silo land based missiles, initial position and velocity are better known than is the case with the SLBMs and the subs that tote them. That said, the correct prelaunch alignment of the platform must be ensured. A small error here can easily mean a large target miss. This is explicitly stated by the authors. The authors go on further to state that in the case of early missiles the alignment process was painstakingly done by hand. It was a "manual task". By 1986 it had become automated in some cases to some degree, but was not fool proof. What is not explicitly discussed by the authors in this article is the method of platform alignment. It is celestial, done by way of sighting stars, stars genuine, or stars artificial/satellite emitters, and that is whether the sightings are done manually, or by way of an automated method. This is the only method available. This is what it means to align a platform. It means to synch it with the stars/satellites. And sink the birds with gravity as well !!!, but we shall get to the gravity points later.
So with sea based SLBM or with ground based ICBMs Loss Leader, in either case, the platform alignment is critical. It must be done not infrequently at sea, and must be done prelaunch extremely precisely for the land based ICBMs to find their targets. As such star synchronization cannot be reliably be done with native stars 24/7, satellites are used as well to help the platforms find themselves.
I'll cover the issue of gravity synchronization, alignment in later posts dedicated to that particular aspect of alignment concerns/difficulties.
My basic contention is that some of these artificial signals, artificial starlight, in fact came from, comes from the moon. In later posts, I shall argue how the gravitational geodetic data may well have come from Apollo's military moon work as well.
Though my claim applies perhaps most significantly to SLBMs Loss Leader, land based ICBMs also require platform alignment checks prior to launch. Again I would refer the interested to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists Publication from June 1986;
http://books.google.com/books?id=oQ...&resnum=4&ved=0CEIQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false
On page 13 the author reminds us that a SLBM's accuracy is not solely dependent on the missile's intrinsic accuracy per se, the submarine's navigation system must find itself and supply the missile with the weapon's initial ever so critical data. The sub's system, like the missiles' is inertial. Nevertheless, "reasonably frequent external updates are essential". How would such a reasonably frequent update be made? Well by the only way possible, by way of a star sighting(s), whether that be of a genuine or artificial/satellite star(s).
The authors go on to point out, also on page 13, that in the case of fixed silo land based missiles, initial position and velocity are better known than is the case with the SLBMs and the subs that tote them. That said, the correct prelaunch alignment of the platform must be ensured. A small error here can easily mean a large target miss. This is explicitly stated by the authors. The authors go on further to state that in the case of early missiles the alignment process was painstakingly done by hand. It was a "manual task". By 1986 it had become automated in some cases to some degree, but was not fool proof. What is not explicitly discussed by the authors in this article is the method of platform alignment. It is celestial, done by way of sighting stars, stars genuine, or stars artificial/satellite emitters, and that is whether the sightings are done manually, or by way of an automated method. This is the only method available. This is what it means to align a platform. It means to synch it with the stars/satellites. And sink the birds with gravity as well !!!, but we shall get to the gravity points later.
So with sea based SLBM or with ground based ICBMs Loss Leader, in either case, the platform alignment is critical. It must be done not infrequently at sea, and must be done prelaunch extremely precisely for the land based ICBMs to find their targets. As such star synchronization cannot be reliably be done with native stars 24/7, satellites are used as well to help the platforms find themselves.
I'll cover the issue of gravity synchronization, alignment in later posts dedicated to that particular aspect of alignment concerns/difficulties.
My basic contention is that some of these artificial signals, artificial starlight, in fact came from, comes from the moon. In later posts, I shall argue how the gravitational geodetic data may well have come from Apollo's military moon work as well.
Last edited by a moderator:
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Matt is writing from Groton, CT. Patrick, in case that location isn't familiar to you, there is one thing that Groton is famous for, and it's not their shoe industry. When someone who lives in Groton starts telling you about how nuclear submarines and their armaments work, you had better pay attention.
...who is a professor of sociology writing in a pacifist-leaning, non-technical public policy magazine. Really? Is this the source you think successfully contradicts a professional submariner?
No, in the author's words "reasonably frequent" (emphasis added). How frequent is that, Patrick? Every hour? Every day? Every month? Why did you leave out that qualifier?
And I wonder how you missed where the author wrote two pages earlier (p. 11), "The central point about inertial guidance is that it is fundamentally self-contained. It does not rely upon external inputs such as radio signals or star sightings (though these can supplement an inertial system)" (emphasis added).
Does your author think Apollo was real? Yes! (p. 14). He describes Apollo as a second-generation intertial guidance system with a nominal drift rate of 0.01 degree per hour. So in the 23 minutes you say Al Worden wouldn't have been able to see the stars to "navigate," the platform will have drifted about 0.004 degree. Please list and document an Apollo procedure that the CSM would have to undertake while in lunar orbit with a landed crew that requires greater than that precision from the IMU.
How long at that rate, according to your author, would it take the Apollo IMU to drift so far that the guide stars will no longer be in the sextant field of view? Eighty hours! Yes, after the initial platform alignment, the astronauts could fly all the way to the Moon without having to pull their heads away from the sextant eyepiece and exclaim, "Dude, where's my star?"
...as forward-looking speculation by a non-expert author on a technical subject in a non-technical publication intended for a lay audience. The author is not describing a system that then existed, but what he believed might come to exist as newer strategic missiles came to be designed and deployed. Further, you seem to have skipped the entire second half of the article where the author describes the advent of third-generation inertial systems.
I wonder why you continue to rely exclusively on popular sources while you're talking to professional engineers and relevant technicians. Isn't that a little like bringing a noodle to a knife fight? You cite non-technical sources, and then you try to fill in the technical gaps yourself. Do you see how that wouldn't work?
No, read the article again. He's not talking about any specific system. That's why he isn't giving out any specific numbers here, as he does elsewhere when discussing actual existing platforms.
He's simply showing the relationship between the accuracy of the missile and the precision of the navigational start point. He's not saying anything like, "Today's missiles require frequent INS updates." No, he just got done explaining in layman's terms how basic missile guidance works. Then in this paragraph he adds the factor of launching from a mobile platform, where accuracy in the platform position affects overall missile accuracy. He says that to achieve "extremely high accuracy," that can be achieved in his opinion by "frequent external updates."
All this does is to qualitatively connect a certain expectation to a certain requirement. It doesn't make a case for how much accuracy is achievable or desired, nor how frequent an update would therefore be necessary or practical. Not one single operational detail is provided. Matt, who is experienced in these matters, is providing you with the operational details, but you disregard him.
Simply showing a putative cause and effect doesn't quantify either one. You are trying to use this article to quantify "frequent" updates, but it refuses to do so. Instead of listening to the college professor who sits at his desk all day and writes articles on how to disarm the world, why don't you pay attention to the guy who stands watch on submarines and operates the guidance and navigation systems.
And now we're going for a 60-year-old article in another popular magazine?
"Exactly" to what precision? With what tolerance? Those are the important questions if you're an engineer, and your article here doesn't give you any help either. You have nothing here that says how frequently, if at all, the submarine's guidance system has to be updated in order to achieve its mission requirements.
It's also rather disingenuous of you to split this hair without going on to quote the next paragraph in which your author reports that the problem is solved by using submarine inertial navigation. You leave it hanging as if we don't know how to solve the problem.
So one again your author disagrees: he says that as of 1958, the submarine is capable of starting the missile off with a good set of launch site coordinates.
And frankly, I think it's absolutely hilarious that both the articles you cite go on to either mention or discuss in great depth the work of Charles S. Draper, who designed the Apollo guidance system. He is the undisputed master of inertial navigation and all that must be done to maintain its accuracy, and his work on Apollo was extremely well documented.
So on the one hand there is the father and grand engineer of an entire important science telling us he build a machine to successfully navigate to the Moon. And on the other hand there is Patrick from California, who "knows a little engineering" and has determined infallibly that it can't have worked. What's wrong with this picture?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
You're so not an engineer. "Cannot allow" the Saturn V's "independent" system to perform alignment duties?
Where to begin?
First, every INS has to get its initial conditions somehow. Some, such as for aircraft or marine use, can boostrap their initial conditions. Others have to be spoon-fed it for various reasons.
The ones we use on rockets have to be spoon-fed, because they aren't meant to navigate in an Earth environment. For Earth navigation, gimballed INS platforms have to be kept aligned with local horizontal and vertical, so that their accelerometers stay aligned with the cardinal directions of the vehicle's reference frame. That means they have to actively compensate for the vehicle's motion over the spherical Earth, and for the Earth's rotation, by driving their gimbals in teeny steps constantly. This is not the same as gyrocompassing, which can leave the platform unaligned.
Similarly we want a launch vehicle to start its flight with its accelerometers aligned properly to the vehicle axes. But after the vehicle leaves the ground, it's its own animal in inertial space and doesn't need any further relative reference to the ground, such as in terrestrial gyronavigation. It's headed for space.
Yes if we were to align the platform hours before launch, it would have disaligned to a useless position by launch time. And we could conceivably wait to do any alignment until a few seconds before launch. But for mechanical reasons we inch the platform along periodically rather than do a sweeping realignment. It turns out to be more accurate to move the platform in small steps.
Second, this is not a platform drift. There is one kind of alignment required to correct for the bias in gyroscopes, their tendency not to stay exactly perfectly oriented in inertial space. They will drift ever so slightly over time, leading to accumulated errors in dead reckoning.
The operation to align the Saturn V's platform seconds before launch was not because of any inherent flaw or property of inertial navigation, or of the workmanship and accuracy of the Saturn V's IMU, but simply because the rocket was constantly moving.
All rockets are susceptible to this. Hence we give a final platform alignment to a gimballed IMU seconds before launch on any rocket. Except now with strapdown systems, we can simply do it mathematically. But for gimballed systems a final, last-second alignment has always been needed.
No, this does not support your contention that INS platforms always require frequent alignment. This particular source of disalignment requires a last-second update, and we do it in steps as an optimization, not a requirement.
Third, the Schuler effect means that the actual correction to platform orientation is non-trivial for most terrestrial latitudes. To build it into a rocket as an onboard system is pretty silly, considering it's useless the moment the rocket's engine ignites. As something that ceases to be useful the instant the rocket leaves the ground, the Earth-rotation calibration system stays on the ground -- where it can be used incidentally for another rocket. There's no requirement that the alignment system for this particular phenomenon be collocated with the platform. It can be any practical distance away; you just need longer wires.
"Cannot allow" is misleading. It makes it seem like the guidance platform is struggling with some intractable problem, when in fact the task in question has simply been properly offloaded to ground support.
"Independent" suggests that correction for this phenomenon ought to be part of the system itself. In fact, it's useless when the system is operating, and the Saturn V platform needs no further drift compensation. Unlike the long-term navigation systems, the Saturn V's need only work for a couple of hours. Then it is discarded.
Actually a submarine would have to come to periscope depth under your scenario to shoot either stars or satellites. So your system provides no advantage to the submarine. And that's why we use a combination of INS calibration techniques, some of which can operate while submerged and have nothing at all to do with instrumenting the Moon.
As for the missiles themselves, they sight stars at the end of the boost phase when they're near the apex of their half-orbit, in space. Basically by the same method used in the SR-71.
For the uninitiated, an ICBM or SLBM mission consists of three phases, a boost phase accomplished by the first stage(s) of the rocket (hence the legacy name "booster" for any general rocket), a midcourse phase in which a secondary propulsion and guidance system sends each warhead on its programmed trajectory from orbit, and a terminal phase where the warhead enters the atmosphere and explodes over its target.
With old single-warhead missiles, the middle phase was unpowered; the booster was required to insert the warhead into its proper ballistic velocity state. In Polaris and later systems, the midcourse sustainer engine and onboard guidance and control system aimed and detached each warhead reentry vehicle off the bus along a separate ballistic trajectory.
Before doing so, it can use star sighting in orbit to correct any dispersions in its platform, whether they arose from booster dispersion or submarine position errors. This is the part that Donald MacKenzie apparently didn't know about when he wrote his article. Basically this strategy partially decouples missile accuracy from submarine navigational accuracy.
And we use this same procedure today for peaceful commercial launches. The payload deployment stage is able to correct for any accumulated dispersions during the ascent, before sending the mission on to its final trajectory or orbit.
...which, for any given submarine, has line of sight for only a few hours each day.
...which are mostly unstable and cannot accommodate a spacecraft.
...which need we've demonstrated will almost always be, because of the unaddressed shortcomings in your Moon-Lagrange theory, and why this is the only part of your theory that actually makes any sense and upon which we naturally therefore rely.
Nope, that's not how it works. The missile gets its reference "at a moment's notice" from the submarine, whose own reference is always kept within certain tolerances. In modern times, the missile can then correct itself for boost dispersion at a trajectory-optimal time, thus freeing the submarine from the need to maintain a very high tolerance fix at all times.
Yes, because you manufactured your straw man for no other reason than to be frightening. It's a good thing the real Navy doesn't have to do it that way, or understand the problem as poorly as you do.
Um, the very obvious alternative explanation for things is that you don't know what you're talking about, and you're inventing "problems" and ineffectual "solutions" to correspond to your beliefs, not to real life. You still can't reconcile your theory with your own arguments, much less with the facts or with the concerted opinions of qualified experts.
By your own standard: inconsistent and therefore untrue.
- Status