Moongate The NASA/Military Cover-Up
by William L. Brian II
PREFACE
Moongate is a non-fictional account derived from unclassified sources of information including official government publications, NASA photographs and movies, news articles, and numerous books by authorities in various fields. The idea for Moongate germinated from observations made by several individuals who detected discrepancies in space program activities and findings. An extensive search for evidence was made to verify that a cover-up occurred. The amount of evidence far exceeded initial expectations and produced startling conclusions about the real space program.
Many aspects of the space program are mathematically and conceptually analyzed to verify the cover-up from a scientific standpoint. Moongate is written for the layman and scientist alike, with mathematical calculations included in the appendices. It contains many color photographs and footnoted references.
Although absolute certainty cannot be given about the details of the cover-up, the evidence demonstrates that either the contentions are true, or portions of the Apollo Moon landings were staged. It seems probable that the landings really occurred; however, the true circumstances surrounding the Apollo missions and related discoveries were carefully suppressed from the public.... William L. Brian II
1
THE NASA-MILITARY CONNECTION
The NASA space program to put men on the Moon was supposedly an unclassified, civilian effort. However, evidence will be provided throughout this book that the military had almost complete control over it and that many of the NASA findings were withheld from the public.
The history of rocket development and early satellite efforts will now be reviewed to show the military's involvement in the space program and events leading to the creation of NASA. Germany developed the V-2 rocket and used it with limited success against England toward the end of World War II. The United States acquired the majority of German rocket scientists and engineers, including Wernher von Braun, and most of Germany's rocket hardware. Russia also managed to obtain German rocket personnel and pursued the technological development of rockets with great enthusiasm and success. The postwar years ushered in the "cold war" and the threat of nuclear war by the superpowers. The rocket was then developed to its high level of sophistication to carry nuclear bombs to strategic targets thousands of miles away. Typically, the threat of annihilation seems to be the greatest stimulus to expend large dollar amounts on research and development, and the rocket was no exception.
The confiscated German rocket information included plans for Earth satellites and multi-staged rockets which would have eventually been fired at North America from Europe if the conflict continued. This caused speculation on the future of warfare and provided incentive for development of an advanced rocket technology. However, the United States did not seriously engage in rocket research until the hydrogen bomb was developed in 1952 and until the discovery was made in 1953 that the Russians were well along in developing rocket missiles. Supposedly, the latter discovery caused the U.S. Government to reverse its previous position on the importance of the ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missile). In 1953, the Russians tested their own Hbomb, and in 1954 a policy was approved by the National Security Council to prioritize ICBM development. By that time, the Russians had already designed an oversized carrier rocket to deliver the heavy A-bomb. It had excess capacity for the lighter H-bomb and Soviet scientists supposedly suggested that it could be used to launch satellites into orbit.
The U.S. had anticipated the Soviet idea of artificial satellites in an Army Air Force satellite study conducted in 1946 called Project Rand. Project Rand was staff by a consultant group managed by Douglas Aircraft Company. Their report was entitled Preliminary Design of an Experimental World-Circling Spaceship. Included in the report were a consideration of the technical feasibility, the political and psychological effects of it as a weapon, its use as a surveillance and communication device, and a demonstration of U.S. technological superiority. Since the Germans had already thought of it, the Rand Report and the Russian plan cannot be considered original. In actuality, the U.S. and Russia merely extended German plans, all in the interest of military supremacy.
In 1946, the Navy and Army Air Force conducted independent missile studies. A second Project Rand study published in 1947 gave more detailed specifications for a three-stage rocket to put satellites into orbit. This study also indicated some of the support technology areas which needed additional development. Included were guidance and flight control, orbital attitude control, ground-space communications, and auxiliary power sources. Essentially, the primary need was for miniature computers and solar energy power supplies which were not available then. In 1947, the Secretary of Defense was added to the cabinet and the Research and Development Board (RDB) was placed under the Department of Defense. The RDB postponed the decision of which military branch would develop and deploy long range missiles. Through 1948, the Navy continued their satellite research activity while the Air Force discontinued theirs. The first public announcement of the satellite program was included in the Report of the Secretary of Defense in 1948. In The History of Rocket Technology, written in 1964, Cargill Hall states:
Forrestal's early veiled announcement of the U.S. satellite program caused a great deal of consternation among those working on the satellite project in the United States in 1949 and who were trying to preserve its aspect of secrecy. . . . After this occurrence, no official reference in open literature was made to an American satellite effort until November 1954, when the Department of Defense, in a terse two-sentence comment, reported that studies continued to be made in the Earth Satellite Vehicle Program. The statement, approved by Secretary of Defense Charles Wilson, was issued after an earlier press conference statement by the Secretary that he was unaware of an American Satellite program.1
The Department of Defense budgeted over $1 billion for missile programs in 1952 which nearly equaled the sum of expenditures over the previous five years. This was spent primarily on short range, surface-to-surface, and air defense missiles. However, the Army was working on a larger missile under the direction of Dr. Wern-her von Braun who was then the technical director of the Army Ordnance Guided Missiles Development Group. In 1951, he proposed the building of a 7,000-ton satellite rocket. Supposedly the military was not interested in satellites, so U.S. scientists tried to get civilian agencies to promote a satellite program. Soviet participation in scientific conferences in 1954-1955 gave U.S. scientists the impression that Russia was involved in a vigorous space program. In 1955, the White House announced that plans had been approved for an Earth-circling satellite for scientific observations. It seems that most of the public was never aware that Secretary of Defense Forrestal announced the U.S. satellite program in 1948.
Sputnik I was fired on October 4, 1957 and Congressional investigations into the U.S. missile and satellite program followed. Typically, the "surprise" efforts of Sputnik I were forecast by Project Rand in 1946, yet the U.S. Congress and public were not involved until 1957. This is representative of the secrecy of the military in their operations and of the delay in information reaching the public.
A lot of publicity was drummed up for Project Vanguard which was to have its first launching in 1957. Unfortunately, Vanguard I blew up on the launch pad at Cape Canaveral on December 6, 1957. However, in Huntsville, Alabama on January 31, 1958, Wernher von The NASA-Military Connection 23 Braun and his rocket team successfully sent Explorer I into orbit using the Jupiter C rocket.
NASA was created on October 1, 1958 to coordinate national space activities as a result of President Eisenhower's April 2 message to Congress. One of the urgent reasons given to expand the space program was to take full advantage of the military potential of space. NASA was to administer the "civilian" space science and exploration program.
The lengthy Congressional investigations into the "missile gap" served to convince Congress of the importance in keeping up with the Russians. However, it seems that the aspect of enhancement of national prestige was more appealing to politicians than the military potential of space. In addition, the background of politicians does not generally lend itself to an appreciation of scientific research and space exploration. Therefore, the space race aspect of the space program was emphasized because it was something to which the politicians could relate. It also served as a means for building up the momentum which would be needed to finance the expensive space program. The "civilian" space program was really set up to take emphasis off the military aspect of the project and to develop technology for military applications at the same time. By maintaining a quasi-civilian organization like NASA, public financial support could be gained and the work could be accomplished more efficiently.
Concerning the Defense Department's involvement, Ralph Lapp stated the following in Man and Space— The Next Decade, written in 1961:
The Defense Department did have a legitimate stake in the satellite field. There was a military requirement for orbital devices that could perform communications and reconnaissance missions .... the development of the Atlas ICBM with its 360,000-pound thrust gave the Defense Department the potential of boosting heavier payloads into space. . . . Naturally, the reconnaissance or "spy" satellite program was highly classified. This fact, together with the military secrecy attached to ICBM rockets which would be used for civilian applications, added complexity to the emergency U.S. space program.
A purely peacetime civilian space activity could be conducted most effectively and most efficiently if all details of the work could be kept unclassified. . . .
Unfortunately, it seemed, even space science was to have two antipodal aspects.
In one respect, it seemed that the new U.S. space agency would have a clear field, unfettered by military bonds. The Pentagon saw no need for spaceships or for the huge rocket engines needed to power them. This was to prove a lucky break for the civilian space program, even though it later developed that there could be military applications for very high-thrust rockets.2 It is important to note that the military continued with its own efforts in satellites and missiles throughout the peak era of NASA and into the present. Although NASA is only a fraction of its former size, the military is as strong as ever. It continues to utilize the "civilian" research and development information and hardware developed through the space program for its own secret projects.
The funding of top secret military projects can be easily camouflaged by other unclassified projects. Components and parts needed for secret projects can be ordered one at a time from different manufacturers and charged to a dummy or decoy project. The parts can be assembled in secret and the manufacturers never know what the end product is. An expensive decoy project can be used to generate the funds and to develop the technology for highly sophisticated secret projects at the same time. The NASA space program to put men on the Moon provided the military with such a decoy project.
Military secrecy related to research and development of weapons has existed for a long time. The government's rationale for this policy of total secrecy has been to maintain superiority over the enemy. A side effect is that the public is automatically kept in complete ignorance of what the military is doing, so a great deal of horrifying research can be carried out without public interference. Secrecy is deemed necessary for survival and the public is always kept many years behind the latest research findings and technological developments. When secret information is finally released, the government is always quick to explain that the defense imperative required total secrecy for our protection.
To silence top secret research participants, secrecy acts can be used. If the secrecy acts are breached, the violator can be judged to be insane and committed to a mental institution, be sent to prison, be paid to keep quiet, or perhaps meet with an unfortunate accident if all other persuasions fail. Since the author has signed no secrecy agreements with anyone, he is under no obligations. If he merely points out what already exists in the available, unclassified literature, the government can only accuse him of idle speculation or remain silent. If a smear campaign ensues, it will not come as a surprise. The government has had a lot of experience in this area and has practically unlimited resources and government agencies to carry it out.
In the remainder of this book, it will be made painfully apparent to the reader that the military was in constant control of the entire NASA space program. It will be shown that much of the NASA-related information was highly classified. The public was only given enough information to convince most of them that men had landed on the Moon. The majority of details and discoveries regarding the project were carefully suppressed.
It is interesting to analyze the people who want to develop the military potential of space. Some of these undoubtedly have the "mega-death" type of mentality. They seek better and better methods to destroy life, that is, more efficient methods, always developing strategies and weapons which are superior to the enemy's strategies and weapons. They would exploit the military potential of the Moon as soon as the technology were available. Eventually, other planets would become military outposts. Finally, artificial battle stations, like those seen in the movie Star Wars, would be constructed. However, if advanced intelligences exist in the universe which are superior to Earth men, the militarists will eventually meet their match in outer space. Evidence will be presented later that this may have already happened.
In closing this chapter, it has been suggested that NASA and the military suppressed new discoveries and findings of the space program. If the cover-up had been totally successful, this book could not have been written. When thousands of people are involved in a project the size of the space program for many years, airtight security would be nearly impossible. In addition, a number of individuals are basically honest and want to tell the truth, in spite of pressures to remain silent.
Chapter 2 delves into a fundamental law defined by Isaac Newton in 1666 concerning gravity. It will be shown that this law was found to be incorrect when applied to planetary bodies. Consequently, the first attempts to explore the Moon with space probes produced unexpected results.
2
LUNAR GRAVITY THEORY PRIOR TO MOON PROBES
According to conventional science, the Moon has only one-sixth of the Earth's surface gravity. Sir Isaac Newton formulated the Law of Universal Gravitation in 1666 which led to this conclusion. This famous law states that the gravitational pull of one body on another body depends on the product of the masses of the two bodies. Therefore, a planet such as the Earth will attract another object with a certain force. The law also states that the gravitational force decreases as the distance away from a planet increases. The further out in space an object is from the Earth or Moon, the less pull or tug is exerted on it.
Newton discovered that gravity decreases away from the surface of the Earth in the same way light intensity diminishes away from a light source. Only one-fourth as much light illuminates a given surface area 200 feet from a light source as compared to 100 feet. Similarly, at 300 feet only one-ninth as much is received as compared to 100 feet. This rapid drop-off follows the inverse-square law.
Near the Earth's surface, objects fall with an acceleration of 32.2 feet per second every second. Therefore, as each second goes by, an object will gain in speed by 32.2 feet per second. It will continue to accelerate until it reaches a constant speed because of air resistance.
In moving away from the Earth's surface, an observer will find that at an altitude of 3,960 miles, or two radii from the Earth's center, the gravitational pull has been reduced by a factor of four, just as in the light example. At this altitude, bodies have only one-fourth of their surface weight; therefore, a 200-pound man would weigh only 50 pounds. Furthermore, he would be accelerated at one-fourth the surface rate, or 8 feet per second every second, and it would take him twice as long to fall a given distance starting from rest.
Moving out to a distance of three Earth radii from the center, or 7,920 miles from the surface, the force of gravity decreases to one-ninth of the surface value. The 200-pound man would now weigh only 22 pounds, and would only be falling 3.6 feet per second faster after every second of fall.
At the distance of the Moon, the force exerted by the Earth is only 1/3,600 the value on the Earth's surface. Therefore, the Moon should only be falling toward the Earth 32.2/3,600 feet per second faster every second. It would soon crash into the Earth if it were not slowly rotating about the Earth every 27 days or so. This orbit, or rotation, is what keeps it from falling. Man-made satellites orbit the Earth in the same way the Moon does. However, since they are usually much closer to the Earth than the Moon, the Earth's pull is significantly stronger on them and they must travel much faster to continue orbiting. The Moon moves around the Earth at a speed of about 2,300 miles per hour, while a satellite 100 miles above the Earth must travel nearly 17,500 miles per hour.
Newton's analysis of gravitation was devised from the observation of the orbiting Moon and objects falling on the Earth. Until similar experiments are performed on planetary bodies like the Moon, the exact values of their surface gravities cannot be determined. Newton could not even determine the Moon's mass to predict the Moon's force of attraction on other objects. Its mass was later calculated to be about one-eighty-second (1/82) of the Earth's by observing how much the Earth moves around the common center of rotation of the Earth and Moon. In turn, the Moon's derived mass and the Earth's predicted mass were used to calculate the Moon's surface gravity which came out to be one-sixth of Earth's. Since the Moon is a much smaller body than Earth, it did not seem unreasonable to scientists that it should have a correspondingly smaller surface gravity.
The point where a space vehicle enters the predominant attractive zone of the Moon's gravity is called the neutral point. It is the region in space where the Earth's force of attraction equals the Moon's force of attraction. Since the Moon is smaller and supposedly has a smaller surface gravity, the neutral point should be quite close to the Moon. In fact, if it is assumed that the Moon has one-sixth of the Earth's surface gravity, the neutral point is calculated to be about nine-tenths of the distance between the Earth and the Moon. The average distance to the Moon is about 239,000 miles, hence this places the neutral point approximately 23,900 miles from the Moon's center. To show the reader that this neutral point distance has been predicted and calculated time and time again by astronautical scientists and engineers for many years, a series of references will be given.
In the book Principles of Astronautics, written in 1965, a fellow of the British Interplanetary Society, M. Vertregt, gave the calculated neutral point value as follows:
At a distance of 346000 km (215000 miles) from the Earth and 38000 km (23600 miles) from the Moon, at what is called the "neutral point" N, the attraction exerted by the Earth is equal to that exerted by the Moon.1
In Exploration of the Moon written in 1966 by an astronomer, Franklyn M. Branley, the neutral point is listed as 20,000 miles from the Moon or 220,000 miles from the Earth.2
In U.S. on the Moon written by U.S. News & World Report in 1969, the neutral point distance is again displayed as 22,000 miles from the surface of the Moon.3 In The Mathematics of Space Exploration written in 1965, Myrl H. Ahrendt calculated the neutral point using Newton's Gravitation Law and the Moon's mass expressed as 1/83 of the Earth's mass. His conclusion, assuming a Moon to Earth distance of 239,000 miles was:
. . . the neutral point is about 23,900 miles from the Moon, at a point almost precisely nine-tenths of the distance to the Moon.4
Still another derivation of 23,800 miles was made by John A. Eisele in 1967 in Astrodynamics, Rockets, Satellites, and Space Travel, assuming the Moon's mean distance of 238,857 miles.5 He assumed a ratio of Earth to Moon masses of 81.56.
Within the topic "Space Travel" in the 1961 edition of Collier's Encyclopedia, the following is stated:
. . . there must come a point where the two pulls are equally strong and where they balance each other. This point lies about 23,500 miles from the surface of the moon.6 The 1960 printing of the Encyclopaedia Britannica states the following within the topic "Interplanetary Exploration":
... the so-called "neutral point" between Earth and Moon. This is a fictitious station on the Earth-Moon axis (about 19 Moon radii from the Moon), beyond which the Moon's gravitational pull is stronger than the Earth's.7 Nineteen Moon radii equals 20,520 miles from the Moon.
It is probably evident to the reader that minor differences exist between these values. This is due to slightly different assumptions of the Earth to Moon distance and ratio of Earth to Moon masses. An analysis of how much this neutral point distance should vary, depending on the Earth to Moon distance, gives the results shown below. This assumes that the distances are measured from the Earth's center to the Moon's center.
Total Distance Center to Center Earth to Neutral Point Moon to Neutral Point (miles) (miles) (miles)
252,710 227,517 25,193
238,885 215,070 23,815
221,463 199,385 22,078
In any case, the range of neutral point distances to the Moon's center will be between 22,078 and 25,193 miles with the assumption that the Moon has one-sixth of Earth's surface gravity. Since so many people and organizations have stated the neutral point distance within a close range, there seems to be no question as to where it is. To satisfy the technically minded reader, the complete derivation of the neutral point distances shown above is presented in Appendix A.
The reader is reminded that the above neutral point distances were based upon Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. In addition, most of the writers who referenced them were probably unaware of space program findings regarding the neutral point's real location. As mentioned previously, only by observing falling or orbiting bodies in the Moon's vicinity could the actual neutral point distance, hence the Moon's true gravity, be determined. This information could have been available to NASA or the Russians as early as 1959 from the first Moon probes. If Moon probes successfully orbited and landed prior to 1969, the actual neutral point distance should have been available to the public. If it were published, there would be an exact method of determining the Moon's surface gravity.
The ramifications of finding a neutral point distance greater than the 20,000 to 25,000-mile distances referenced above will now be considered. It was shown how gravity falls off with distance away from the Earth's surface. The Moon displays the same behavior as the Earth. Therefore, the Moon's gravitational pull 1,080 miles above its surface (two radii from the Moon's center) would be one-fourth the surface value. Similarly, at three Moon radii, 2,160 miles above the surface, the force would be one-ninth the surface value. With this concept in mind, the reader can see that if the real neutral point distance from the Moon's surface were considerably greater than 25,000 miles, the Moon's surface gravity would have to be much greater than the predicted value of one-sixth of the Earth's surface gravity. This would imply that Newton's Law of Gravitation does not hold for bodies of planetary size. It would also imply that NASA and the military have been suppressing information on the true nature of Moon gravity.
Clearly, this neutral point distance had to have been exactly determined if astronauts were to land safely on the Moon. This could only be determined experimentally and a history of this discovery will be presented in the next chapter.
3
THE NEUTRAL POINT DISCREPANCY
A lunar probe or spacecraft launched from the Earth will continuously lose velocity until it reaches the neutral point due to the Earth's gravitational pull. However, after it passes the neutral point, the Moon's pull becomes stronger and it begins to accelerate, increasing in velocity. It must have the proper trajectory to assume a lunar orbit or to score a direct hit.
The need for an accurate measurement of the Moon's gravity, hence the precise neutral point distance, was pointed out by Hugh Odishaw, Executive Director of the United States National Committee for the IGY (International Geophysical Year). He presented a report in 1958 to all member nations of the IGY entitled "Basic Objectives of a Continuing Program of Scientific Research in Outer Space."1 In it he indicated that estimates of the Moon's mass at that time were based on observations of the motions of asteroids and the Earth's polar axis. The uncertainty attributed to the Moon's mass was given as 0.3 percent which was great enough to affect lunar rocket trajectories. Accordingly, Odishaw indicated the desirability of determining the Moon's mass more precisely in early Moon experiments. This could be accomplished by tracking the rocket as it approached the Moon and deriving the Moon's pull at each point of the trajectory, hence the surface gravity.
By now, the reader probably realizes how much difficulty NASA and the Russians would have had in sending successful Moon probes, even if they knew the exact position of the neutral point. If the neutral point, hence the Moon's gravitational pull, deviated considerably from the predicted value derived from Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, a series of failures would be expected in attempts to send successful lunar probes. It is also reasonable to conclude that a discovery of a significant difference in the expected Moon gravity would require many more years of reprogramming, rocket design, lunar probe design, and so on. The time required for people to readjust their thinking patterns would also be significant, especially after nearly 300 years of education and training in the gravitational concepts of Isaac Newton. In the style of the Department of Defense, it should also be expected that suppression of the new findings would occur. Keeping these ideas in mind, along with the conventional idea of the position of the neutral point from the Moon, the history of lunar probes will be reviewed.
The Moon was chosen as the first target for exploration because it is the closest celestial body to the Earth. Russia was the first nation to send a successful lunar probe, called Luna 1, on January 2, 1959. It flew within 4,660 miles of the surface and broadcast information back to Earth after traveling into space. The U.S. had made three unsuccessful attempts with Pioneers 1, 2, and 3 in 1958 before achieving a fly-by 37,300 miles from the surface several months after Luna 1.
Luna 2 was launched on September 12, 1959 and became the first lunar probe to hit the Moon, sending back signals before impact. Luna 3 was launched October 4, 1959 and circled behind the Moon, approaching within 4,372 miles. It sent back pictures of the far side. Significantly, the Russian program for exploration of the Moon came to a stop for four years following the Luna 3 lunar probe! All of the Luna shots were tracked with radar to collect trajectory and gravitational data. As previously mentioned, the trajectory of an object in the Moon's vicinity enables the surface gravity to be calculated which in turn enables the neutral point to be calculated. If the findings deviated from the expected ones, it would probably require years to reassess and re-engineer future Moon probes. A soft-landing would require a much larger launch vehicle and a great deal more fuel if the gravity were a lot higher than expected.
Russia's secrecy concerning its space program is well known. Therefore, the U.S. may not have benefited from information obtained by Russian Moon probes. According to Ralph Lapp in Man and Space—The Next Decade:
. . . the Soviets clamped tight secrecy over their rockets, never once releasing a photograph of a launching. Moreover, the Russian scientists were slow in making their data available to the scientific community.2 In addition, the U.S. Pioneer 4 fly-by at 37,300 miles may not have been close enough to the Moon to enable NASA engineers to determine the true nature of lunar gravity. At any rate, subsequent Ranger missions indicated that the U.S. was having many problems in achieving successful Moon shots.
The first Rangers carried seismometers in spherical containers designed to withstand the impact of landings. Unfortunately, Ranger 3, launched on January 26, 1962, missed its target completely and went into a solar orbit. Ranger 4 hit the Moon on April 23, but did not send back any useful information. Ranger 5 was launched on October 18 and missed the Moon by 450 miles; however, it was tracked for over eight hours. Further launches were put off until 1964 and the entire program was reorganized.
It is significant that all Ranger missions after number 5 were designed only to take pictures because of the difficulty in achieving a semi-hard landing with the seismometer package. The seismometer was encased in a 30-inch balsa wood ball which was to be slowed up sufficiently by retrorockets to hit the surface at 150 miles per hour and still survive. It was designed to be able to impact granite at 200 miles per hour and continue to operate. If the Moon had only one-sixth of Earth's surface gravity, then perhaps the seismometer packages would have survived. However, if lunar gravity were much more than expected, a successful landing without big enough retro-rockets for braking would be impossible. Evidently, Ranger scientists anticipated that the weak one-sixth gravity would keep the velocity of impact down to a low enough level. Since they eliminated the package from further missions and delayed these missions for almost a year-and-a-half, perhaps they learned something new about the Moon's gravity.
After Russia's four years of silence, Luna 4 was launched on April 2, 1963. It flew within 5,300 miles of the Moon. The purpose of this probe was never revealed except for a brief announcement that:
. . . experiments and measurements which were conducted ... are completed. Radio communication with the spacecraft will continue for a few more days.3 It is probable that the need for detailed gravity data was behind the mission. Soft-landings could not be successful without this information.
The U.S. launched Ranger 6 on January 30, 1964 and the electrical system was allegedly burned out when the cameras were accidentally turned on during the flight, hence no pictures were sent. After supposedly redesigning the system to eliminate this danger, Ranger 7 was launched on July 28. It was successful and sent back thousands of pictures. Ranger 8 was launched on February 17, 1965 and Ranger 9 was launched on March 21, 1965. Both were successful and some of the Ranger 9 pictures were broadcast on television.
The Russians attempted a soft-landing with Luna 5 on May 9, 1964, but it crashed at full speed. Luna 6 was launched on June 8 but missed the Moon, while Luna 7 crashed because the retro-rockets supposedly fired too soon. Luna 8 was sent up on December 3 and also crashed. Luna 9 landed successfully on the Moon on February 3, 1966.
The U.S. soft-landing program was called Surveyor and began in 1960. In 1962 a decision was made to trim the weight of Surveyor by more than 300 pounds, with many experiments abandoned. The reason given was problems with the proposed Atlas Centaur second stage. Surveyor's scheduled 1963 launch date passed and it was not even close to being ready. The project costs were running ten times the original estimates and "troubles" forced one delay after another. A Congressional inquiry was made and the House Committee on Science and Astronautics found fault with the management practices of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), NASA, and the prime contractor, Hughes Aircraft. In We Reach the Moon, John Noble Wilford gave an account of the Surveyor difficulties.4 It seems JPL officials conceded that they initially underestimated the difficulty of the project. One official admitted that the project was not given enough support in the earlier days and that they were overconfident in their ability to do things. It is probably more than coincidental that the Ranger 5 failure on October 18, 1962 resulted in the abandonment of the seismometer package and a significant delay in future Ranger missions due to the difficulty in a semi-hard landing. The Surveyor Program was delayed for 28 months from its schedule and Surveyor 1 did not soft-land on the Moon until June 2, 1966. Photo 1 shows Apollo 12 astronaut Alan Bean standing next to Surveyor 3 which landed April 20, 1967 inside a crater in Oceanus Procellarum. The Apollo 12 Lunar Module is in the background on the rim of the crater.
The U.S. effort to orbit the Moon using lunar probes began August 17, 1958 with Atlas Able 1. It missed the Moon as did the next two attempts. A decision was then made to build a larger spacecraft and to use the Atlas Agena D as the carrier. It appears that a larger rocket was necessary to carry a larger payload which may have consisted of fuel used in braking the proposed orbiter. This would be necessary to reduce the velocity of the satellite so that it could achieve an orbit. Again, it seems more than coincidental that the project to orbit the Moon, which began in 1958, was postponed until 1964 when the Boeing Company began work on the Lunar Orbiter Project.
The Russians managed to place Luna 10 into orbit around the Moon on April 3, 1966 after having successfully softlanded with Luna 9 on February 3, 1966. It appears that substantial retro-rocket braking was required for orbit insertion as well as soft-landing. At any rate, both were accomplished a short time apart. U.S. Lunar Orbiter 1 successfully went into lunar orbit on August 14, 1966. Lunar Orbiter 5 was sent crashing into the Moon on January 31, 1968 after a successful mission. These missions photographed over 99 percent of the Moon and led to the discovery of lunar mascons, or increases in the Moon's surface gravity in certain areas. These mascons will be discussed in more detail later.
The above analysis of lunar probes indicates that the U.S. and Russia probably had a clear picture of the nature of lunar gravity as early as 1959. However, it is a certainty that both countries learned how to work with lunar gravity and make soft-landings by 1966. This date is important in light of information on lunar gravity to be presented next.
The reader has been kept in suspense concerning suggestions that Moon gravity might deviate from the predicted value of one-sixth of Earth's. This was necessary to provide background information needed to make a proper evaluation. The analysis will now focus on the position of the neutral point, as given to the public by various writers and organizations, subsequent to lunar probes. Ultimately, the source of the information is probably NASA. In reference to Apollo 11, Time magazine gave the following neutral point information in the July 25, 1969 issue:
At a point 43,495 miles from the moon, lunar gravity exerted a force equal to the gravity of the earth, then some 200,000 miles distant.5
The reader might be surprised concerning this statement since the neutral point distances presented in Chapter 2 were all 20,000 to 25,000 miles from the Moon. It might seem that Time has made an error; therefore, other sources will be pursued to verify this figure.
In the 1969 edition of History of Rocketry & Space Travel by Wernher von Braun and Frederick I. Ordway III, the following statement is made concerning Apollo 11:
The approach to the Moon was so precise that the midcourse correction scheduled for 8:26 a.m. (EDT) on the 19th was canceled. At a distance of 43,495 miles from the Moon, Apollo 11 passed the so-called "neutral" point, beyond which the Lunar gravitational field dominated that of Earth. Consequently, the spacecraft, which had been gradually losing speed on its long coast away from Earth, now began to accelerate.6
Note that the precision of the flight was so great that the mid-course correction was not needed. In addition, the neutral point distance is given to the nearest mile and agrees exactly with the value given previously by Time magazine.
Another reputable source is the Encyclopaedia Britannica. This organization generally publishes information which is accepted by orthodox scientists. Therefore, their claim for the neutral point distance should be in close agreement with Wernher von Braun. In reference to Apollo 11, the Britannica stated the following in the 1973 printing within the topic "Space Exploration":
Consideration of the actual dynamics of the Apollo trajectory will review the statements made above. The Apollo 11 spacecraft had been in Earth orbit at 118.5 mi. altitude, traveling at 17,427 mph. By firing the rocket motor at the exact moment when the spacecraft was precisely aligned along the proper trajectory, the velocity was increased to 24,200 mph. Because the Earth's gravitational pull continued to act upon the spacecraft during its two and three-quarters day (64 hr.) journey toward the Moon, the spacecraft velocity, with respect to the Earth, dwindled to 2,040 mph at a distance of 39,000 mi. from the Moon. At this point lunar gravitational attraction became greater than the Earth's and the spacecraft commenced accelerating as it swung toward and around the far side of the Moon, reaching a speed of 5,225 mph. By firing the spacecraft rocket propulsion system the velocity was reduced to 3,680 mph and the spacecraft entered an elliptical orbit about the Moon.7 Here the distance is 39,000 miles which is still close to the values given by Time magazine and von Braun. The reader may recall that in Chapter 2 reference was made to the 1960 printing of the Encyclopaedia Britannica which listed the neutral point distance as 19 Moon radii, or 20,520 miles, from the Moon. In this case, the distance discrepancy is between different printings of the same source.
In We Reach the Moon, Wilford indicated that the spacecraft entered the lunar sphere of gravitational influence about 38,900 miles from the Moon.8
In Footprints on the Moon written in 1969 by the Writers and Editors of the Associated Press, the neutral point is described as follows:
Friday, Day Three of the mission, found Apollo 11 at the apex of that long gravitational hill between earth and the moon. At 1:12 p.m. EDT, the nose-to-nose spaceships passed the milestone where the moon's gravity becomes the more important influence. The astronauts were 214,000 miles from earth, only 38,000 miles from their rendezvous with the moon, leading their target like a hunter leads a duck.9 The reader may already recognize the inconsistencies between the quoted figures which vary between 38,000 and 43,495 miles. Many different values are given with varying degrees of precision, yet they still lie within a range which is radically different from pre-Apollo calculations. There is no way to get around the discrepancy between the conventional, pre-Apollo distances of 20,000 to 25,000 miles, and the post-Apollo range of 38,000 to 43,495 miles.
Even though the Earth to Moon distance varies between 221,463 and 252,710 miles, and spacecraft do not travel on a straight line between the Earth and Moon, this still does not explain the neutral point distance discrepancy. The logical conclusion is that the latest neutral point information reached the general public at about the time of the first Apollo lunar landing in 1969, even though it was determined as far back as 1959 from early lunar probes. Clearly, this discrepancy has not been pointed out to the public until now. To this day, the status quo of science and government alludes to the one-sixth gravity of the lunar surface, representative of a neutral point less than 25,193 miles from the Moon. Therefore, the neutral point discrepancy and its implications must be investigated.
The Moon's surface gravity was calculated with the new figures presented above using the standard inverse-square law technique. Since the radii of the Earth and Moon, the neutral point distance, and the Earth's surface gravity are known, the Moon's surface gravity is easily determined. The technique does not require a knowledge of the Moon's mass or the Earth's mass as Newton's Law of Gravitation does. The only aspect of Newton's Law of Gravitation which seems to be valid at this time is the inverse-square law nature of gravity. Therefore, since the Earth's pull equals the Moon's pull at the neutral point, the inverse-square law enables the pull of gravity at the Moon's surface to be determined. The technical derivation is presented in Appendix B. The result is that the Moon's surface gravity is 64 percent of the Earth's surface gravity, not the one-sixth or 16.7-percent value predicted by Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation!
When the reader stops to consider that the 43,495-mile figure represents the measured value of the neutral point distance supplied to us by official sources, an annoying paradox arises: Why would experts release this information and continue to refer to the Moon's one-sixth gravity condition, ignoring all the pre-Apollo references to the neutral point distance of less than 25,000 miles?
Additional information to come suggests that the Moon's gravity might even be higher than 64 percent of Earth's. In consideration of what appears to be a cover-up, and the sensitivity of the neutral point distance to slight variations in lunar gravity, NASA could have easily given the public understated figures. If the neutral point is 43,495 miles from the Moon, the surface gravity is 64 percent of Earth's. Shifting the neutral point out 8,500 miles to around 52,000 miles from the Moon has the effect of increasing the Moon's surface gravity to the same value as Earth's.
The discrepancies to be discussed in Chapter 4 involve the orbital period of spaceships around the Moon and velocities attained by spaceships reaching the Moon from the neutral point. The publicized period and velocity values are not supportive of a 43,495-mile neutral point distance from the Moon. They support the old neutral point distances and the Moon's weak one-sixth gravity. Therefore, official information is inconsistent and contradictory, indicating a cover-up. The question is why the real neutral point distance leaked out. Did some of the NASA people try to sabotage the cover-up?
next
https://exploringrealhistory.blogspot.com/2021/02/part-2-moongate-nasamilitary-cover.html
DISCREPANCIES IN SPACECRAFT VELOCITIES,
FLIGHT TIMES, AND FUEL REQUIREMENTS 43s
About the Author: William L. Brian II is an engineer who has worked in a writing and editing capacity in private industry. He received B.S. and M.S. degrees in Nuclear Engineering from Oregon State University in 1970 and 1972, plus an M.B.A. from Portland State University in 1976. Although not considered an expert in the space sciences, he has the mathematical and conceptual skills to verify the cover-up from a scientific standpoint
FOOTNOTES
CHAPTER 1
1. Eugene M. Emme, ed., The History of Rocket Technology, (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1964), p. 86.
2. Ralph E. Lapp, Man and Space—The Next Decade, (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1961), p. 44.
CHAPTER 2
1. M. Vertregt, Principles of Astronautics, (New York: Elsevier Publishing Company, 1965), p. 135.
2. Franklyn M. Branley, Exploration of the Moon, (Garden City, New York: The Natural History Press, 1966), p. 53.
3. U.S. on the Moon, (Washington: U.S. News & World Report, 1969), p. 37.
4. Myrl H. Ahrendt, The Mathematics of Space Exploration, (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1965), p. 55.
5. John A. Eisele, Astrodynamics, Rockets, Satellites, and Space Travel, (Washington: The National Book Company of America, 1967), p. 350.
6. Collier's Encyclopedia, 1961 ed., s.v. "Space Travel," p. 544.
7. Encyclopaedia Britannica, 14th ed., 1960, s.v. "Interplanetary Exploration," p. 530c.
CHAPTER 3
1. Martin Caidin, The Moon: New World for Men, (Indianapolis, Indiana: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1963), p. 111.
2. Ralph E. Lapp, Man and Space—The Next Decade, (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1961), p. 51.
3. Wernher von Braun and Frederick I. Ordway III, History of Rocketry & Space Travel, (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1969), p. 191.
4. John Noble Wilford, We Reach the Moon, (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1969), p. 95.
5. "The Moon—A Giant Leap For Mankind," Time, July 25, 1969, p. 14.
6. Braun and Ordway, History of Rocketry & Space Travel, p. 238.
7. Encyclopaedia Britannica, 14th ed., 1973, s.v. "Space Exploration," p. 1045.
8. Wilford, We Reach the Moon, p. 54.
9. The Writers and Editors of the Associated Press with Manuscript by John Barbour, Footprints on the Moon, (The Associated Press, 1969), p. 201.
FAIR USE NOTICE
No comments:
Post a Comment