SS Brotherhood of the Bell: The Nazis’ Incredible Secret Technology by Joseph P. Farrell
Authors: Joseph P. Farrell
Ads: Link
point really was exactly what Von Braun told Time magazine, namely, 43,495 miles. 171 Yet, prior to the Time article, and according “to the majority of references” the old Newtonian figure was still being used to calculate the neutral point. 172
The question is of prime importance, since either figure for the neutral point gives very different gravities for the Moon, and consequently, very different trajectories for any craft going there, and, more importantly, very different fuel and thrust requirements for any rocket-powered craft lifting off from the lunar surface, such as the LEM (Lunar Excursion Module). Obviously, this also raises a significant set of questions. “Is it not interesting,” Bennett and Percy ask, “that no sources agree on the exact distance of the Moon’s orbital path?” 173 Moreover, in order to trajectory any craft to the Moon, both NASA and the Soviets would have had to know this average distance “to the last inch,’. So why is it so difficult for NASA to confirm some set figure? “Why is the Earth/Moon centre-to-centre distance missing from the published Apollo information? Where one can find the craft’s trajectory, the Earth/Moon distance is often missing or vague. Where one can locate the Earth/Moon distance, the craft’s trajectory is often missing or vague.” 174 To confound matters even further, “space experts at NASA or elsewhere, do not state whether they are using planetary surface-to-surface or centre-to-centre measurements. Nor do they always state whether they are using nautical miles or statute miles. Nor do they stick to any one system.” 175 In short, “ the only consistency in the Earth/Moon measurement scenario is the inconsistency of the data emanating from official sources.” 176
Percy and Bennett’s way out of this impasse is to posit that the 23,900 mile figure – the Newtonian figure – is correct, and that the figure revealed by Von Braun to Time magazine is the “experienced” neutral point. Their reasons for doing so are plain:
NASA and the Soviets used the Moon’s 1/6G as part of the calculations for their successful slingshot manoeuvres around the Moon and also for the calculations relating to energy requirements for their crash lander and soft lander probes, including those that actually returned samples to the then Soviet Union. If the evaluation of the lunar gravity had been incorrect, then surely none of these manoeuvres would have been successful. 177
But what if the reverse was true?
It hardly stands to reason that Von Braun was “resigned” from NASA for having made a whopping mistake in his interview to Time. Nor does it stand to reason that he was “resigned” from NASA for having deliberately lied to Time. The only scenario that makes sense is that he was forced to resign because he revealed something that he should not have.
If one assumes that the 43,495 mile neutral point was accurate and not merely an “experienced” neutral point as Bennett and Percy would have it, then this raises a number of significant points:
1. This neutral point calculation was clearly made much earlier in both the Soviet and American space programs than it was publicly revealed by Von Braun. If, as Bennett and Percy state, the Newtonian figure had been used for early probes, these would have either crashed into the Moon or careened off into space. Telemetry data would have eventually given scientists a correct neutral point calculation.
2. But this raises a new question. For the above scenario to have occurred, then probes would have had to have been launched to the Moon much earlier than the public record shows. The question thus is, when was the 43,495 mile neutral point figure actually known, and who discovered it?
3. The Time magazine neutral point also raises another signal difficulty, and that is that with a neutral point of 43,495 miles, the gravity of the Moon would be a whopping 60% that of the Earth! 178 As Bennett and Percy rightly
The question is of prime importance, since either figure for the neutral point gives very different gravities for the Moon, and consequently, very different trajectories for any craft going there, and, more importantly, very different fuel and thrust requirements for any rocket-powered craft lifting off from the lunar surface, such as the LEM (Lunar Excursion Module). Obviously, this also raises a significant set of questions. “Is it not interesting,” Bennett and Percy ask, “that no sources agree on the exact distance of the Moon’s orbital path?” 173 Moreover, in order to trajectory any craft to the Moon, both NASA and the Soviets would have had to know this average distance “to the last inch,’. So why is it so difficult for NASA to confirm some set figure? “Why is the Earth/Moon centre-to-centre distance missing from the published Apollo information? Where one can find the craft’s trajectory, the Earth/Moon distance is often missing or vague. Where one can locate the Earth/Moon distance, the craft’s trajectory is often missing or vague.” 174 To confound matters even further, “space experts at NASA or elsewhere, do not state whether they are using planetary surface-to-surface or centre-to-centre measurements. Nor do they always state whether they are using nautical miles or statute miles. Nor do they stick to any one system.” 175 In short, “ the only consistency in the Earth/Moon measurement scenario is the inconsistency of the data emanating from official sources.” 176
Percy and Bennett’s way out of this impasse is to posit that the 23,900 mile figure – the Newtonian figure – is correct, and that the figure revealed by Von Braun to Time magazine is the “experienced” neutral point. Their reasons for doing so are plain:
NASA and the Soviets used the Moon’s 1/6G as part of the calculations for their successful slingshot manoeuvres around the Moon and also for the calculations relating to energy requirements for their crash lander and soft lander probes, including those that actually returned samples to the then Soviet Union. If the evaluation of the lunar gravity had been incorrect, then surely none of these manoeuvres would have been successful. 177
But what if the reverse was true?
It hardly stands to reason that Von Braun was “resigned” from NASA for having made a whopping mistake in his interview to Time. Nor does it stand to reason that he was “resigned” from NASA for having deliberately lied to Time. The only scenario that makes sense is that he was forced to resign because he revealed something that he should not have.
If one assumes that the 43,495 mile neutral point was accurate and not merely an “experienced” neutral point as Bennett and Percy would have it, then this raises a number of significant points:
1. This neutral point calculation was clearly made much earlier in both the Soviet and American space programs than it was publicly revealed by Von Braun. If, as Bennett and Percy state, the Newtonian figure had been used for early probes, these would have either crashed into the Moon or careened off into space. Telemetry data would have eventually given scientists a correct neutral point calculation.
2. But this raises a new question. For the above scenario to have occurred, then probes would have had to have been launched to the Moon much earlier than the public record shows. The question thus is, when was the 43,495 mile neutral point figure actually known, and who discovered it?
3. The Time magazine neutral point also raises another signal difficulty, and that is that with a neutral point of 43,495 miles, the gravity of the Moon would be a whopping 60% that of the Earth! 178 As Bennett and Percy rightly
Similar Books
