Chapel Bell theories?

[Donnie B.]

As most regulars here know, one part of the Apollo record seems to be somewhat mysterious, and may still be classified: the "Chapel Bell" experiment.

While it appears to concern the measurement of the impact of spent Saturn IV-B stages into the Moon, no one seems to be quite sure why it was done, and especially, why it was classified.

I'm starting this thread to open a forum for speculation, theories, and (maybe eventually) hard information about Chapel Bell.

Here's my theory of why it was (and maybe still is) classified.

I propose that the Pentagon was concerned about space-based weapons of the "high velocity impactor" variety -- such as those often described in science fiction (Starship Troopers is one example). I suspect that the military types wanted to know just how much threat this kind of attack would pose.

By impacting something (a Saturn stage) on a benign target (the uninhabited Moon), we have a clean experiment, uncomplicated by any worries about damage on the Earth or the complicating factor of atmospheric drag.

The main problem I see with this theory is that it's not really very useful information. After all, it's pretty easy to calculate the energy released by an impactor of mass m moving at velocity v, and Chapel Bell wouldn't demonstrate much more than that.

So, any other ideas out there?

[Humphrey]

I don;t really know alot about this, but could they of been testing some technoloy that manuvered the stage to hit the moon?

[Bob B.]

Do you know on which Apollo mission the Chapel Bell experiment was carried out? I assume it was one of the later missions so that they could measure the impact using seismometers already on the moon.

I guess the name "Chapel Bell" implies something to do with the impact and the resulting vibrations.

[Jack Higgins]

Weird, I never realised this part of the Apollo missions was classified! All I ever heard about it was that, since Apollo 11 & 12 placed seismic monitoring stations on the surface, these impacts provided "moonquake" data, where the precise location & force of the impact was known. This let us find out about the composition of the lunar interior. The same thing has been done on earth with nuclear blasts, I think...

Donnie's idea probably explains why they were classified, though.

[Jack Higgins]

Bob- the Saturn IV-B booster was crashed on Apollos 13-17, and the lunar ascent module on Apollos 12, 14, 15 & 17.

[aporetic_r]

Just to try and work through the situation a bit more... How much extra trouble did NASA have to go through to crash all this stuff? In what appears to me an order of increasing difficulty:

Was it going to crash anyway, and they simply let it do so while monitoring it with equipment they had along for the ride anyway;

Did they direct its inevitable crash to some particular spot, and monitor it with equipment they had anyway;

Did they direct its crash, and bring along special equipment specifically for monitoring it;

Did they have to do anything extra to make it crash, and monitor it with equipment they had for other purposes anyway;

Did they to something extra to make it crash, and bring along special equipment specifically in order to monitor it?

Aporetic

[Rift]

you mean you guys don't like this 'theory'?

http://objective.jesussave.us/moon.html

lol

sorry couldn't resist :P

[Donnie B.]

you mean you guys don't like this 'theory'?

http://objective.jesussave.us/moon.html

lol

sorry couldn't resist :P
#-o :lol:
Oh my goodness... how wonderfully loopy!

[Donnie B.]

Just to try and work through the situation a bit more... How much extra trouble did NASA have to go through to crash all this stuff?
Aporetic
In my (admittedly spotty) understanding, NASA used existing seismometers from previous missions to collect the data. The stages were deliberately steered into trajectories that would cause them to impact the Moon, using existing hardware on the stages (RCS on the ascent stages, ullage motors and possibly remaining fuel in the SIV-**).

Perhaps it was these steering techniques that were the reason they were classified, rather than the experiments themselves.

[freddo]

My friend showed me that again the other week, and was quite disappointed when I mentioned it was a parody. :cry:

[JayUtah]

I doubt the steering techniques were classified. The S-IVB-300 APS is well documented.

[jrkeller]

Looking at the Apollo 14 Objectives (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_14b_Objectives.htm), it appears as an operational test. Apollo 15-17 have the same objectives list.

[jrkeller]

Has anyone tried the Freedom on Information Act?

[Demigrog]

How about this one: the US military was worried about eventual Soviet moon bases, and wanted to see if they could accurately use a Saturn IVb as a cruise missile to take one out. The seismology would either be unrelated or a red herring.

[JayUtah]

Has anyone tried the Freedom on Information Act?

It's on my list. No, really.

[TrAI]

Do you know on which Apollo mission the Chapel Bell experiment was carried out? I assume it was one of the later missions so that they could measure the impact using seismometers already on the moon.

I guess the name "Chapel Bell" implies something to do with the impact and the resulting vibrations.

Hmmm, maybe... Though it is quite common for the names of classified operations to be misleading... It wouldn't do to keep something classified if the name implies what the operation is about...

[Bob B.]

Hmmm, maybe... Though it is quite common for the names of classified operations to be misleading... It wouldn't do to keep something classified if the name implies what the operation is about...

It occured to me, right after I submitted my message, that the name "Chapel Bell" could have been a cover.

Is the prevailing thought here that (1) Chapel Bell was a legitimate scientific experiment with a secondary military purpose, thus it's classification, or (2) the entire experiment had a covert military purpose. Furthermore, was the experiment classified on all missions or just some missions.

[JayUtah]

I don't know of any Chapel Bell experiment that was unclassified at the time. As I said, I don't know whether it remains classified today.

It's also common for classified (and unclassified) projects to be more subtle, boring, and indirect than speculated. It would not surprise me to learn that Chapel Bell had nothing to do with using any part of the Saturn V directly as a weapon and more to do with simply understanding more about collisions and seismic responses. It's also common for things to be classified simply so you don't know what direction someone's thinking, not because there's any specific, practical danger.

[aporetic_r]

It's also common for things to be classified simply so you don't know what direction someone's thinking, not because there's any specific, practical danger.

Last night the thought occurred to me that maybe they just figured they'd have a small public relations problem with the whole 'crashing big chunks of stuff into the moon' thing. By classifying it, one keeps such potentially sensitive public relations matters out of the spotlight.

Aporetic

[Nanoda]

Well, it sure didn't go over very well when Carl Sagan revealed the U.S. Air Force wanted to nuke the moon. (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/051400-02.htm)

[Astronot]

Well, it sure didn't go over very well when Carl Sagan revealed the U.S. Air Force wanted to nuke the moon. (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/051400-02.htm)
The physicists quoted, Dr Leonard Reiffel, makes some errors early in the article.


The explosion would obviously be best on the dark side of the moon and the theory was that if the bomb exploded on the edge of the moon, the mushroom cloud would be illuminated by the sun.

1) There is no dark side of the moon, though he could mean the shaded side of the moon.

2) A mushroom cloud is caused by rising hot gasses and suspended particles interacting with the atmosphere, on the moon there would be no mushroom cloud.

3) If the explosion was on the shaded side of the moon, any cloud would naturally be in shade and not illuminated by the sun.

This article appears to be a republication of an article from the British paper The Observer that featured an interview Dr. Reiffel. Not an actual interview by the Common Dreams News Center. These kind of mistakes lead me to be skeptical of the articles overall accuracy.

[Nanoda]

Well, it sure didn't go over very well when Carl Sagan revealed the U.S. Air Force wanted to nuke the moon. (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/051400-02.htm)
The physicists quoted, Dr Leonard Reiffel, makes some errors early in the article.

Well, in my defence I only skimmed it; I just wanted a relevant link for my post. Searching for "Carl Sagan", "nuclear" and "moon" will get you tonnes of other links.

[tofu]

The physicists quoted, Dr Leonard Reiffel, makes some errors early in the article.

I guess he wrote that as a layman's explanation. The way I read it, they were planning to detonate the nuke on the Moon's night side so that the initial flash could be seen on Earth. The also wanted the detonation near the terminator so that the plume of lunar dust it stirred up would be immediately visible (presumably to the naked eye). I imagine they also wanted the plume to be seen in silhouette instead of from above, so that it would seem to rise above the moon not unlike a solar flare. So that'd mean they'd need to target a spot on the near side close to the apparent edge.

It could have been fairly spectacular actually, although I agree it seems morally wrong somehow. Could Chapel Bell have been a related project? Maybe they made a few impacts and observed the size of the plume through telescopes as a way of searching for the best impact spot. Even if they never actually proceeded to detonate a nuke, they could be ready if the Soviets did. If the Soviets picked some random spot and fired a missile at it, they might announce to the world "we are conducting a test, take a look at the moon" and of course everyone would be suitably impressed. But then, three days later the US could say "yeah, that was a good idea, we are going to conduct our own test" but since the US had better target information their plume would have been twice as big and therefore much more impressive.

[Graham2001]

Has anyone tried the Freedom on Information Act?

It's on my list. No, really.

Any progress on this?

[Extravoice]

It's also common for classified (and unclassified) projects to be more subtle, boring, and indirect than speculated. It would not surprise me to learn that Chapel Bell had nothing to do with using any part of the Saturn V directly as a weapon and more to do with simply understanding more about collisions and seismic responses.

Early in my career, I worked on a few classified projects (none had anything to do with spaceflight). The names were specifically chosen such that they had nothing to do with the actual technology involved. If you want to keep a secret, the last thing you want to do is give it away with the project name! As an example, nobody would have associated "Manhattan" with the construction of an atomic bomb.

[Taks]

i've also worked on several that were related... hit or miss, it all depends on the contractor in charge of the name. there is little rhyme or reason.
taks

[PhantomWolf]

Early in my career, I worked on a few classified projects (none had anything to do with spaceflight). The names were specifically chosen such that they had nothing to do with the actual technology involved. If you want to keep a secret, the last thing you want to do is give it away with the project name! As an example, nobody would have associated "Manhattan" with the construction of an atomic bomb.

Funnily enough sometimes the name of the project, or the ideas stick.

In WW1 the first Mobile Armoured Attack Vehicles were produced under the guise of being Water Tanks.

[JayUtah]

Except when politicians choose the code names: Operation Just Cause, etc. Might as well say, "Operation Please Trust Me I Know What I'm Doing".

[PhantomWolf]

Except when politicians choose the code names: Operation Just Cause, etc. Might as well say, "Operation Please Trust Me I Know What I'm Doing".

Well yeah I guess that would fit the totally opposite from the name idea, I mean, when has a politician ever known what they were doing?

[ToSeek]

you mean you guys don't like this 'theory'?

http://objective.jesussave.us/moon.html

lol

sorry couldn't resist :P

My office filter blocks that site on account of "pornography." :o

[Astronot]

you mean you guys don't like this 'theory'?

http://objective.jesussave.us/moon.html

lol

sorry couldn't resist :P

My office filter blocks that site on account of "pornography." :o

The Objective Ministries site is down. No doubt due to doctrinal differences with the hosting company again, perhaps having to do with the size of the bill. While waiting for them to get a new host, you can still by your very own Anti-Triclavianist shirt or a Radical Abstinence thong from Café Press, if you feel the need.

[TheCritic-at-Arms]

As most regulars here know, one part of the Apollo record seems to be somewhat mysterious, and may still be classified: the "Chapel Bell" experiment.

While it appears to concern the measurement of the impact of spent Saturn IV-B stages into the Moon, no one seems to be quite sure why it was done, and especially, why it was classified.


The "Why was it done?" was probably to get a twofer -- first, to get rid of a potentially dangerous, large, massive assembly which otherwise would have gone into either Lunar or Earth orbit, and the second to let the geo backrooms get a look at a known-quantity seismic shock, the same way they run shock trucks all over the place checking underground rock structures here.

Why it was classified is because the data and collection/analysis methods might have had some military value.

[Count Zero]

...let the geo backrooms get a look at a known-quantity seismic shock, the same way they run shock trucks all over the place checking underground rock structures here.

They got good data on the moon's internal structure (core size & density, etc.)


Why it was classified is because the data and collection/analysis methods might have had some military value.

I imagine that some of the analysis techniques would be useful for measuring foreign underground nuclear tests.

[scotsman]

One other though - I did come across proposal to use ICBM's as kinetic weapons, remove the warheads , and simply use the kinetic energy of a upper stage to do the damage.

The proposal was made as a result of studies looking into the possibility of attacking targets buried in mountains , without risking a nuclear exchange . OK this paper was written many years after Apollo, but perhaps some thinging along these lines had started in the 60's

[Maksutov]

I don't know of any Chapel Bell experiment that was unclassified at the time. As I said, I don't know whether it remains classified today.

It's also common for classified (and unclassified) projects to be more subtle, boring, and indirect than speculated. It would not surprise me to learn that Chapel Bell had nothing to do with using any part of the Saturn V directly as a weapon and more to do with simply understanding more about collisions and seismic responses. It's also common for things to be classified simply so you don't know what direction someone's thinking, not because there's any specific, practical danger.
As a former classifier, I know from the "inside" how the process works, and the variables it's subject to. I always made sure I understood technically what I was classifying. If I didn't I'd hand it off to someone who did. But for many classifiers, if what they were reviewing was a bit beyond their comprehension, the tendency, especially if there was a backlog, was to classify the material as CRD, at a minimum, even if it appeared to deserve only NOFORN or UNCLASSIFIED. The old "better safe than sorry" rule.

It wouldn't surprise me a bit if this is what happened, on some level of classification, to the "Chapel Bell" experiments.

[JayUtah]

A gentleman by the name of Scott Wenger is helping me with various inquiries regarding Chapel Bell. His FOIA request at NASA yielded no relevant documents; it's purely a DoD operation. Unfortunately as of yet NASA does not know which DoD office has/had jurisdiction over it. The search continues.

[Graham2001]

A gentleman by the name of Scott Wenger is helping me with various inquiries regarding Chapel Bell. His FOIA request at NASA yielded no relevant documents; it's purely a DoD operation. Unfortunately as of yet NASA does not know which DoD office has/had jurisdiction over it. The search continues.

This is starting to get interesting... What were they doing up there?

[Gillianren]

Except when politicians choose the code names: Operation Just Cause, etc. Might as well say, "Operation Please Trust Me I Know What I'm Doing".

I've always suspected there was an apostrophe missing--it was intended to be Operation Just 'Cause. just as we read his father's lips wrong; he really said "no nude Texans."

[JayUtah]

We have statements from NASA and from some individual crew members that Chapel Bell required no flight crew involvement. The astronauts do not know what Chapel Bell was. Therefore we theorize it had only to do with the launch vehicle. Since MSFC was not involved, we theorize it did not involve the engineering or instrumentation of the vehicle and therefore is a matter of flight dynamics. It may be something as inoccuous as performance metrics for the Saturn V with the intent of adapting it to use as an ICBM. Since it is now known that DoD was very interested at that time in kinetic energy weapons, some people have put two and two together and suggested the S-IVB impact was intended to study the effects of high-energy booster impacts. However, that theory suffers because you cannot apply lunar impact data to Earth impact scenarios. Chapel Bell remains a true mystery. I am due to call Scott sometime this week, and we may decide on a plan of action for engaging the Pentagon on this matter.

[sts60]

Jay, if you need anyone in the D.C. area to go somewhere to physically pick stuff up, let us know. Not that I can just barge into the Pentagon whenever I feel like it :D but in the event that stuff must be photocopied in place or picked up in person, I'd find an extra couple of hours.

[Donnie B.]

"Engage the Pentagon"... the very phrase sends chills up my spine... 8-[

[Graham2001]

Has 'engaging the Pentagon' yielded any further clues to the nature of Chapel Bell?

[phunk]

As most regulars here know, one part of the Apollo record seems to be somewhat mysterious, and may still be classified: the "Chapel Bell" experiment.

While it appears to concern the measurement of the impact of spent Saturn IV-B stages into the Moon, no one seems to be quite sure why it was done, and especially, why it was classified.

I'm starting this thread to open a forum for speculation, theories, and (maybe eventually) hard information about Chapel Bell.

Here's my theory of why it was (and maybe still is) classified.

I propose that the Pentagon was concerned about space-based weapons of the "high velocity impactor" variety -- such as those often described in science fiction (Starship Troopers is one example). I suspect that the military types wanted to know just how much threat this kind of attack would pose.

By impacting something (a Saturn stage) on a benign target (the uninhabited Moon), we have a clean experiment, uncomplicated by any worries about damage on the Earth or the complicating factor of atmospheric drag.

The main problem I see with this theory is that it's not really very useful information. After all, it's pretty easy to calculate the energy released by an impactor of mass m moving at velocity v, and Chapel Bell wouldn't demonstrate much more than that.

So, any other ideas out there?

The problem with this is that the impactor they tested with wouldn't survive reentry in earth's atmosphere, so the data is mostly irrelevant in terms of an impact weapon.

[Tog]

I'd like to throw some wild speculation into the ring. Mostly toungue in cheek, but still may be worth a thought.

Is it possible that it was classified for no other reason than to make the Soviets wonder what we were up to; as part of a psychological ploy in the Cold War?:shifty:

[alexgarden]

Part 12 of the Apollo 14 Mission Report (Assessment of Mission Objectives) states the following:



In addition to the spacecraft and lunar surface objectives, the following two launch vehicle objectives were assigned and completed:

a. Impact the expended S-IVB/instrumentation unit on the lunar surface under nominal flight profile conditions.
b. Make a postflight determination of the S-IVB /instrument at ion unit point of impact within 5 kilometers and the time of impact within one second.


And further...



The Apollo 13 S-IVB impact crater area was photographed using the electric Hasselblad 70-mm camera with the 500-mm lens as a substitute for the inoperable lunax topographic camera.

Continued...



The other six tests were performed for the Department of Defense and the Kennedy Space Center. These tests are designated as follows.

a. Chapel Bell (classified Department of Defense test)

b. Radar Skin Tracking

c. Ionospheric Disturbance from Missiles

d. Acoustic Measurement of Missile Exhaust Noise

e. Army Acoustic Test

f. Long-Focal-Length Optical System

[Smacklug]

Oh man, this is getting intense!

Seriously, it seems like they were testing various aspects of kinetic weaponry.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I don't know about "intense", but it is kind of interesting.

[gwiz]

According to "Apollo by the Numbers", Chapel Bell was an "operational test" on Apollos 14 through 17. Each mission also had further DoD tests similar to the Apollo 14 list. The only other data I've found was in the Apollo 17 mission report which said that Chapel Bell and the radar skin tracking were "active" while the other tests were not.

My guess is that Chapel Bell was some sort of classified tracking system (new type of radar? lidar?) that used the Apollo launches or re-entries as calibration targets.

[Graham2001]

I'm bumping this old thread because this is one of the more interesting 'mysteries' about the Apollo program.

I'm also curious as to what progress has been made (if any) in the FOI requests relating to this?

[Fazor]

Perhapse they weren't testing the weapon, but the ability of the seizmographs at collecting data about kinectic weapon impacts? Like, "could someone tell the difference between us using this and a small quake?". I dunno.

[Graham2001]

Perhapse they weren't testing the weapon, but the ability of the seizmographs at collecting data about kinectic weapon impacts? Like, "could someone tell the difference between us using this and a small quake?". I dunno.

The DoD did do some testing along those lines but it was more concerned with finding 'concealed' nuclear tests, program codename was Vela Uniform (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vela_Uniform), they did things like set nukes off during earthquakes to see what it did to the seismic signals generated by the weapon.

[Irishman]

Astronot said:
The physicists quoted, Dr Leonard Reiffel, makes some errors early in the article.


Originally Posted by Dr Leonard Reiffel
The explosion would obviously be best on the dark side of the moon and the theory was that if the bomb exploded on the edge of the moon, the mushroom cloud would be illuminated by the sun.

1) There is no dark side of the moon, though he could mean the shaded side of the moon.

2) A mushroom cloud is caused by rising hot gasses and suspended particles interacting with the atmosphere, on the moon there would be no mushroom cloud.

3) If the explosion was on the shaded side of the moon, any cloud would naturally be in shade and not illuminated by the sun.

This article appears to be a republication of an article from the British paper The Observer that featured an interview Dr. Reiffel. Not an actual interview by the Common Dreams News Center. These kind of mistakes lead me to be skeptical of the articles overall accuracy.


1) I think you're being overly critical over a choice of wording that is perhaps a little sloppy given some general misconceptions about the Moon. I think he means "non-illuminated".

2) The mushroom cloud statement may be fair. It wouldn't be mushroom shaped, though there would be a cloud of debris, and I think that is what he was referring to. I agree with tofu he was aiming for a lay audience, who would expect a nuclear bomb to have a mushroom cloud.

3) If the blast was near the terminator, then the cloud would be illuminated by sunlight as the cloud rose above the shadow line, just like satellites are visible to Earth's surface shortly after sunset because they are high enough to be in sunlight while the surface is in darkness.

I think there's only one possible valid criticism there.


PhantomWolf said:
Funnily enough sometimes the name of the project, or the ideas stick.

Example of unintended similarity - the Unabomber.

UNABOM was the code name generated by computer to be a unique identifier with no inherent meaning. However, the final syllable coincidentally sounds like the word for an explosive device, and the case it was applied to related to a person (or persons) using explosive devices, so when the name became public it quickly morphed in the collective mindset to be related.


JayUtah said:
Except when politicians choose the code names: Operation Just Cause, etc. Might as well say, "Operation Please Trust Me I Know What I'm Doing".

Yes, that's not so much a "code name" as a "title for the operation so we have something to call it to the media". Code names are pretty useless when you're announcing them to the media.


TheCritic-at-Arms said:
The "Why was it done?" was probably to get a twofer -- first, to get rid of a potentially dangerous, large, massive assembly which otherwise would have gone into either Lunar or Earth orbit, and the second to let the geo backrooms get a look at a known-quantity seismic shock, the same way they run shock trucks all over the place checking underground rock structures here.

I think there's some confusion here. We don't know what "Chapel Bell" was testing. It seems to me that NASA had a big object to get rid of and decided to slam it into the Moon rather than keep watching out for it. The DoD used this decision for reasons of their own, which are classified. The impact and seismic results are not classified. They have been announced and studied publicly. So whatever Chapel Bell was about, it was probably utilizing the existing plan rather than directing the plan. There may have been target selection involved, but JayUtah provides statements that there was no crew involvement and no instrumentation. Therefore, it is about flight dynamics or sensing. According to qwiz, there was an active element to the test. Ergo, that points us to some sort of sensing equipment.


Gillianren said:
I've always suspected there was an apostrophe missing--it was intended to be Operation Just 'Cause.

:D

[Graham2001]

Time for the annual bump.

Any news/progress on the FOI request that was made in relation to the Chapel Bell experiment?

[hhEb09'1]

Example of unintended similarity - the Unabomber.

UNABOM was the code name generated by computer to be a unique identifier with no inherent meaning. However, the final syllable coincidentally sounds like the word for an explosive device, and the case it was applied to related to a person (or persons) using explosive devices, so when the name became public it quickly morphed in the collective mindset to be related.I know Keith posted this a few months back, but I thought the name UNABOM was not just nonsense--in fact, this wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unabomber) pretty much repeats the story that I always heard, that it was short for "University and Airline Bomber". Are there other versions?

[Irishman]

Interesting. I would swear I read that somewhere, but of course I can't remember now where I came up with that. Hmph. A quick online search gives near unanimous support to the UNiversity and Airline BOMber origin.

Now I don't have a good example for my original point. *pout*

[mugaliens]

Well, here's what I found on the ATS (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread283572/pg1) website:

1. A link to the Apollo 15 Mission Report (http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AP15MR.DOC)

2. The following "explanation:"

"Chapel Bell" was with regard to their having similar usage
of transponder deployments as situated within the mutual gravity-well
(EM-L2/ME-L1 nullification zone), intended as accommodating their
S-Band-->Microwave transponders that were easily deployed…

Such S-Band-->microwave transponders as afforded by their relatively
small - Chapel Bell - deployments would have been nearly impossible for
others to have detected and, as such providing all of the necessary
directional signal capability along with wherever the required delay of
microwave data needed to get transmitted from that zone so as to appear
as if such were coming from near or even on the moon. Thus even the
best of Russian and/or amateur tracking and/or via whatever methods
would not have {been capable of detecting the signals}.

ME-L1 is roughly 58~64,000 km away from the moon, thus so close that it
would be nearly impossible for ground radar to have detected such a
small item unless you were fully aware of the exact transponder
frequencies and timing or coded bytes or even analog data easily hidden
within the gauntlet of S-Band radar signals that everyone fully
expected to being targeted at the moon.

[vonmazur]

"Abby Chapel Bell" was Art Bell's cat, who died a few years ago, he talked about it on his show. There must be a conspiracy somewhere here....

Seriously, Do we not remember the big debate among (what I guess we call now), exogeologists about the active vulcanism vs. impact therories and the big deal over whether or not the moon has/had an Iron core??? I vaguely remember at the time, some of the scientists thought the moon's craters were volcanic in origin...So I suspect crashing the rocket booster into the moon, would give them some seismic data about the core, etc etc...Perhaps something else was also done, that they are still keeping secret....

Dale in Ala

[Neverfly]

"Abby Chapel Bell" was Art Bell's cat, who died a few years ago, he talked about it on his show. There must be a conspiracy somewhere here....

(snip)

Dale in Ala

I can't believe you guys havn't figured it out yet.

Obviously they were wiping out alien bases and artifacts. Sadly, they missed one... and it has made its debut on BAUT in this thread.
http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/63298-ancient-spaceship-moon-interesting-geology-feature.html

[jrkeller]

Maybe Chapel or Bell are the names of the designers/researchers of this project.

[JonClarke]

"Chapel Bell" was with regard to their having similar usage
of transponder deployments as situated within the mutual gravity-well
(EM-L2/ME-L1 nullification zone), intended as accommodating their
S-Band-->Microwave transponders that were easily deployed…

Such S-Band-->microwave transponders as afforded by their relatively
small - Chapel Bell - deployments would have been nearly impossible for
others to have detected and, as such providing all of the necessary
directional signal capability along with wherever the required delay of
microwave data needed to get transmitted from that zone so as to appear
as if such were coming from near or even on the moon. Thus even the
best of Russian and/or amateur tracking and/or via whatever methods
would not have {been capable of detecting the signals}.

ME-L1 is roughly 58~64,000 km away from the moon, thus so close that it
would be nearly impossible for ground radar to have detected such a
small item unless you were fully aware of the exact transponder
frequencies and timing or coded bytes or even analog data easily hidden
within the gauntlet of S-Band radar signals that everyone fully
expected to being targeted at the moon.

Am I right in saying that in english this means that Chapel Bell placed small satellites into the ME - L1 position to to test S-band communications while masked by Apollo mission transmissions?

If so, how does this square with earlier information that it was a passive experiment?

Jon

[Graham2001]

Am I right in saying that in english this means that Chapel Bell placed small satellites into the ME - L1 position to to test S-band communications while masked by Apollo mission transmissions?

If so, how does this square with earlier information that it was a passive experiment?

Jon

It does not seem to, more to the point, the only satellites released by Apollo into any kind of orbit were the sub-satellites released by Apollo's 15-17. These were stored in the SIM bay, and there was not enough room for anything else to go in those locations.

[JonClarke]

How about something carried by the S-IVB? We know that the astronauts played no role in the experiment, which would also eliminate it being located in the SM.

Jon

[Obviousman]

When was the last FOIA request done regarding the CHAPEL BELL experiments?

[JayUtah]

About a year and a half ago.

[Graham2001]

How about something carried by the S-IVB? We know that the astronauts played no role in the experiment, which would also eliminate it being located in the SM.

Jon

Could be, but it would depend on just where, on the S-IVb you're thinking of. I'm not sure that there was enough room to fit anything into the space the LM was stored in during launch. Anywhere else and it would have had to have been built into the stage during construction.

Then there is the matter of spacecraft power, I'm not sure how long the batteries on an S-IVb would last, though I know they had tracking beacons fitted for use with the lunar impact experiments that were carried out on Apollo 13-17.

During Apollo 13 one of the problems they had after transferring to the LM was keeping in touch with Earth because the tracking beacon on the S-IVb used the same frequency as the LM radio signal, they managed to command the beacon to change frequency but the problem was only finally resolved when the S-IVb hit the moon.

[Graham2001]

About a year and a half ago.

I'm guessing that there was no response in triplicate?

[JonClarke]

Could be, but it would depend on just where, on the S-IVb you're thinking of. I'm not sure that there was enough room to fit anything into the space the LM was stored in during launch. Anywhere else and it would have had to have been built into the stage during construction.

How about inside the faring at the top? We don't know how big the experiment package was, at this stage, and whether it was fixed to the SIVB or ejected from it.


Then there is the matter of spacecraft power, I'm not sure how long the batteries on an S-IVb would last, though I know they had tracking beacons fitted for use with the lunar impact experiments that were carried out on Apollo 13-17.

How long was the experiment to last? Minutes? Hours? Days? How power was required? We don't know at this stage.

If the experiment was located on the SIVB then from what you say it had to have been low power, of short duration and quite small.

Jon

[Graham2001]

How about inside the faring at the top? We don't know how big the experiment package was, at this stage, and whether it was fixed to the SIVB or ejected from it.

I've got several NASA planning documents pertaining to the S-IVb offline, I'll look through those and see what I come up with in that regards.

FWIW though I should add that spacecraft guidance was provided by an IBM built Instrument Unit (Wikipeidia Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V_Instrument_Unit)) it's possible but unlikely that something as built into the IU for those particular rockets, in which case it would feed off the IU power supply (4*28V (dc) Silver Zinc oxide batteries) which was separate from the launch vehicle power supply (S-IVb 3*28V (dc) silver zinc & 1*56v (dc) Silver/Zinc Oxide battery).

As for just how much power there was after completing the final propulsive maneuver (to set up the lunar impact) and for how long it lasted I cannot be sure, but on Apollo 17 the power on the S-IVb lasted some 86+ hours as telemetry was still being received up to the moment of lunar impact. On Apollo 16 S-IVb telemetry was lost at 29 hours after launch, while on Apollo 15 telemetry was again received until impact about 80hrs after launch.

I'll be trying to run down just what was transmitting and how much power it used, I suspect it was just a simple 'beep - beep', but until I've looked into it I won't say any more.

Edit: I've run down a list of all the transmitters on the S-IVb and Instrument Unit and it turns out I was wrong it was not a simple 'beep-beep' signal after all.

The S-IVb had only one transmitter which was for vehicle telemetry and transmitted on 258.8 Mhz.

The Instrument unit on the other hand had two radar transponders which transmitted on 5765 Mhz. There were also two VHF telemetry transmitters, transmitting on 245.3 Mhz & 250.2 Mhz respectively. Finally there was the Command/Communications transmitter which broadcast on 2282.5 Mhz, this is the transmitter that caused problems on Apollo 13 since it used the same frequencies as the LM radio.

[Graham2001]

We have statements from NASA and from some individual crew members that Chapel Bell required no flight crew involvement.

That is not to say that astronauts might not have been involved in some quasi-classified operations if history had turned out differently.

There is an article at the Space Review that discusses a contingency mission (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1010/1) for Apollo 17 that would have seen it use the SIM bay cameras on parts of China and the then Soviet Union if they had failed to leave Earth orbit.

What is truly fascinating about this is that NASA(!) came up with the idea, not the intelligence community.

[Fazor]

You know, if it wasn't for the "no flight crew involvement", I'd wonder if the point of Chapel Bell was not to ram stuff into the moon, but instead to see how well the drunken flight crews (http://www.bautforum.com/space-exploration/62625-drunk-astronauts-allowed-shuttle.html?highlight=astronaut+drunk) that were allowed on board could navigate landing probes. Hmm... :think:

...just kidding, obviously.

[JayUtah]

I'm guessing that there was no response in triplicate?

I didn't make the request; it was by a guy whose special interest is Chapel Bell and who keeps me informed of anything new he discovers. He said he got a step closer, but didn't elaborate.

The art of FOIA requests is knowing what to ask for. It's not as if you can say, "Tell me what you know about it." So it really does require dogged attention and several follow-up requests to get everything that's gettable.

[gwiz]

How about inside the faring at the top? We don't know how big the experiment package was, at this stage, and whether it was fixed to the SIVB or ejected from it.
One of the later Skylab launches carried a scientific experiment in the S-IVB instrument unit. Here's a link:
http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/heasarc/missions/skylab.html

[Graham2001]

One of the later Skylab launches carried a scientific experiment in the S-IVB instrument unit. Here's a link:
http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/heasarc/missions/skylab.html

Thanks for finding that, it at least shows that it was possible to fit extra instrumentation to the IU prior to launch. Here's a link to a picture showing the experiment mounted to the IU: http://mix.msfc.nasa.gov/IMAGES/MEDIUM/0101998.jpg

While this is slightly off topic, I also found a document discussing mounting an earlier version of this experiment (S-027) to the IU of the Skylab orbital workshop. Here is a link to that report: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19790072930_1979072930.pdf

[JonClarke]

So putting this together with the earlier post from mugaliens, could the SIVB ay any point have released small sub satellites that would pass through or be captured by EM-L1 or L2? Much small and simple could a simple test satellite of microwave communications from there be?

Jon

[Graham2001]

So putting this together with the earlier post from mugaliens, could the SIVB ay any point have released small sub satellites that would pass through or be captured by EM-L1 or L2? Much small and simple could a simple test satellite of microwave communications from there be?

Jon

I don't think that there is, any such satellite would have to have been carried beneath the LM and launched some time between the separation of the LM/CSM stack and the establishment of the passive thermal roll (which sometimes degenerated into a tumble) that the S-IVb was placed in after the final targeting burn was carried out.

More to the point, what mechanism was used to launch the satellite and get it clear of the path of the S-IVb?

[JonClarke]

Well, if the SIV was on a course to take it through the L points, a simple spring should suffice to carry the prosulated satellites clear of the S-IVB stage. The S-IVB could then change its course to impact on the Moon.

Jon

[Graham2001]

Before we go any further with this particular line of discussion, I thought that I'd add some links to the NASA reports covering the operations of the Saturn V's used for Apollo 14-17.

All of these reports are about 30mb in size and the scanning quality is somewhat variable.

Apollo 14 Saturn V Report (http://klabs.org/history/history_docs/jsc_t/apollo_14_saturn_v.pdf)

Apollo 15 Saturn V Report (http://klabs.org/history/history_docs/jsc_t/apollo_15_saturn_v.pdf)

Apollo 16 Saturn V Report (http://klabs.org/history/history_docs/jsc_t/apollo_16_saturn_v.pdf)

Apollo 17 Saturn V Report (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730025089_1973025089.pdf)

[KA9Q]

The Instrument unit on the other hand had two radar transponders which transmitted on 5765 Mhz. There were also two VHF telemetry transmitters, transmitting on 245.3 Mhz & 250.2 Mhz respectively. Finally there was the Command/Communications transmitter which broadcast on 2282.5 Mhz, this is the transmitter that caused problems on Apollo 13 since it used the same frequencies as the LM radio.

The S-band transmitter on 2282.5 MHz was the Unified S-Band (USB) transponder. There was one each on the S-IVB IU, the CSM and the LM. It provided all communications and tracking at lunar distances. USB tracking provided orbit solutions for the lunar module from AOS after descent orbit insertion to the start of powered descent, so it was quite good. So it was all that was needed to track the S-IVB/IU all the way to lunar impact. The impact was set up shortly after TLI by venting the fuel/lox tanks and burning its APS thrusters to depletion, so there was no opportunity for a mid-course correction. That's why they didn't hit their exact targets.

And yes, the IU and LM shared frequency assignments. Normally this wasn't a problem since the S-IVB had impacted or swung around and away from the moon when the LM was fired up in lunar orbit. On Apollo 13 this caused problems, but the guys on the ground were able to work around it. The channel could not be changed, but as a "coherent transponder" the downlink frequency was a precise ratio of the uplink frequency (240/221, to be exact). So the ground had Apollo 13 turn off its transponder momentarily while they steered the uplink to the IU off frequency so its downlink would move off frequency. Then, while holding the IU off-frequency with one transmitter, they reacquired the LM transponder with a second, on-channel transmitter.

Eventually, of course, the SIV-B hit the moon and solved the problem. Still, this was the kind of quick thinking that made 13 a "successful failure".

[ArchAdmiral]

According to Jeffrey Richelson's book THE WIZARDS OF LANGLEY, Chapel Bell was the code name of a joint CIA-ONR prototype Over-The-Horizon radar that could detect missile launches up to 3100 miles away by bouncing radar pulses off the ionosphere. Operational CIA radars based on CHAPEL BELL were EARTHLING in Pakistan (1961-65) and CHECKROTE in Taiwan (1966-??). The USAF operated two similar OTH radar systems, Project 440-L (1968-??) and Project 441-L COBRA MIST (1971-72). The remains of COBRA MIST are still visible on GoogleEarth near Orfordness, England.

The prototype must have been operating in the late 1950s and the only possible test targets then would have been launches from Cape Canaveral. Since most Office of Naval Research sites are near Washington, probably CHAPEL BELL looked south from there toward Florida.

Clearly if CHAPEL BELL were still operating during the Apollo era, the military would want to measure the signature of the Saturn V launches to calibrate their overseas systems against future big missiles (e. g. N-1). The experiment would involve no crew participation and no extra hardware installed on the missile. Probably NASA's role was was limited to checking that the radar pulses would not interfere with any electronics on the booster or spacecraft.

Richelson's book is full of interesting info about US monitoring of Soviet missiles and spacecraft.

[JayUtah]

Very interesting indeed. Each Saturn V ascent trajectory was, of course, precisely known. A radar track of an ascending Saturn V could be compared against its guidance telemetry to calibrate and test the accuracy of the system.

[gwiz]

My guess is that Chapel Bell was some sort of classified tracking system (new type of radar? lidar?) that used the Apollo launches or re-entries as calibration targets.
Not a bad guess, then.

[JonClarke]

According to Jeffrey Richelson's book THE WIZARDS OF LANGLEY, Chapel Bell was the code name of a joint CIA-ONR prototype Over-The-Horizon radar that could detect missile launches up to 3100 miles away by bouncing radar pulses off the ionosphere. Operational CIA radars based on CHAPEL BELL were EARTHLING in Pakistan (1961-65) and CHECKROTE in Taiwan (1966-??). The USAF operated two similar OTH radar systems, Project 440-L (1968-??) and Project 441-L COBRA MIST (1971-72). The remains of COBRA MIST are still visible on GoogleEarth near Orfordness, England.

The prototype must have been operating in the late 1950s and the only possible test targets then would have been launches from Cape Canaveral. Since most Office of Naval Research sites are near Washington, probably CHAPEL BELL looked south from there toward Florida.

Clearly if CHAPEL BELL were still operating during the Apollo era, the military would want to measure the signature of the Saturn V launches to calibrate their overseas systems against future big missiles (e. g. N-1). The experiment would involve no crew participation and no extra hardware installed on the missile. Probably NASA's role was was limited to checking that the radar pulses would not interfere with any electronics on the booster or spacecraft.

Richelson's book is full of interesting info about US monitoring of Soviet missiles and spacecraft.

Very interesting! Can we consider the CHAPEL BELL mystery solved?

Jon

[Neverfly]

Very interesting! Can we consider the CHAPEL BELL mystery solved?

Jon
No.

It just doesn't sound Complicatedly Evil enough to be plausible.

[Obviousman]

Very interesting information, but I wonder if it is correct. OTHR would not require the approval - or cooperation - of NASA to be conducted. I realise that there have been suggestions that it may have been due to not wanting interfere with spacecraft systems but I really can't see this being a concern. It may very well have been involved in a test, but I don't think it would recorded in NASA documentation.

FWIW, I think the question of what CHAPEL BELL was / is remains open.


According to Jeffrey Richelson's book THE WIZARDS OF LANGLEY, Chapel Bell was the code name of a joint CIA-ONR prototype Over-The-Horizon radar that could detect missile launches up to 3100 miles away by bouncing radar pulses off the ionosphere. Operational CIA radars based on CHAPEL BELL were EARTHLING in Pakistan (1961-65) and CHECKROTE in Taiwan (1966-??). The USAF operated two similar OTH radar systems, Project 440-L (1968-??) and Project 441-L COBRA MIST (1971-72). The remains of COBRA MIST are still visible on GoogleEarth near Orfordness, England.

The prototype must have been operating in the late 1950s and the only possible test targets then would have been launches from Cape Canaveral. Since most Office of Naval Research sites are near Washington, probably CHAPEL BELL looked south from there toward Florida.

Clearly if CHAPEL BELL were still operating during the Apollo era, the military would want to measure the signature of the Saturn V launches to calibrate their overseas systems against future big missiles (e. g. N-1). The experiment would involve no crew participation and no extra hardware installed on the missile. Probably NASA's role was was limited to checking that the radar pulses would not interfere with any electronics on the booster or spacecraft.

Richelson's book is full of interesting info about US monitoring of Soviet missiles and spacecraft.

[slang]

Very interesting information, but I wonder if it is correct.

At least it might enable a better aimed FOIA request.

[Jason Thompson]

Very interesting information, but I wonder if it is correct. OTHR would not require the approval - or cooperation - of NASA to be conducted. I realise that there have been suggestions that it may have been due to not wanting interfere with spacecraft systems but I really can't see this being a concern. It may very well have been involved in a test, but I don't think it would recorded in NASA documentation.

Unless they wanted more precise information about trajectory than was available via press releases and such like? I know nothing about it, but would it not be possible that they wanted NASA's precise telemetry on the flight to orbit to see just how good their system really was at tracking a moving missile and predicting its flight path?

[Donnie B.]

Not a bad guess, then.

Hey, don't sprain your arm patting yourself on the back! ;)

Seriously, though, yeah.

[stutefish]

Unless they wanted more precise information about trajectory than was available via press releases and such like? I know nothing about it, but would it not be possible that they wanted NASA's precise telemetry on the flight to orbit to see just how good their system really was at tracking a moving missile and predicting its flight path?
This is how I figure it, too. You're testing a new RADAR system. Do you send some guy down to Cape Kennedy with a walkie-talkie, and have him guesstimate the launch time and trajectory to compare against your instrument returns? Or do you have a good, long sit-down with the mission controllers, and make sure you have the most precise and accurate launch data possible? I mean, at the very least, you're going to want to cross-reference your data with the data coming off the guidance instruments onboard the target, right? And for that, you need full NASA cooperation.

[Obviousman]

NASA co-operation yes, but knowledge? I don't think so. If you need the data, you ask for it. A simple inter-agency request. NASA has no need to know the purpose of the test - or that a test is even being conducted.

I think that considering the secrecy that OTHR would have rated in those days, NASA would not have been made aware of the purpose of the data request. If they had queried the request, it could have been said it was for verification of NORAD tracking systems, maintaining compartmentalisation.

Pure speculation, but I think a very possible scenario.

[stutefish]

I never said the military would explain to NASA the reason for their interest. They could just as easily have told NASA, "we have an interest in your flight profiles and navigational telemetry. The reason for our interest is classified, but your cooperation is commanded by the appropriate authorities. Please put all the relevant details into this folder marked CHAPEL BELL for filing purposes, and send it on over to us. Thanks."

[Obviousman]

I never said the military would explain to NASA the reason for their interest. They could just as easily have told NASA, "we have an interest in your flight profiles and navigational telemetry. The reason for our interest is classified, but your cooperation is commanded by the appropriate authorities. Please put all the relevant details into this folder marked CHAPEL BELL for filing purposes, and send it on over to us. Thanks."

Good point. IMO they would not have said anything at all, not even the project name, but you may very well be right.

[Graham2001]

Very interesting! Can we consider the CHAPEL BELL mystery solved?

Jon

No, but it is certainly an interesting possibility, the authors sources should be checked out first.

One other thing that should be eliminated is the chance that the codename was recycled and that there is no connection between the CHAPEL BELL OTH and the CHAPEL BELL carried out during the Apollo missions.

[ArchAdmiral]

I have located a site in the D.C. area that may be the remains of the CHAPEL BELL Over-The-Horizon radar at lat 38.764 / long -77.116. If you subtract 30 years of tree growth, the ground plan is very similar to the abandoned Air Force OTH-B radar sites in Maine and California. The paved strip that probably was the antenna array is oriented just east of Cape Canaveral.

This site (called Hybla Valley) was a Naval Research Laboratory base used for antenna research and spacecraft tracking. After the Navy stopped using it, the local government took it over as a public park called Huntly Meadows. There is still a Coast Guard base to the SW with a highly secure building. (If you scan off further in that direction, you will find the big KH-11 spy satellite downlink antennas at Fort Belvoir.)

[Graham2001]

Time for another Bump.

Any news on the FOI requests for this?

[slang]

Wouldn't that be a nice Apollo 11 Anniversary present?

[Graham2001]

Wouldn't that be a nice Apollo 11 Anniversary present?

It would have been.

[Obviousman]

Has anyone asked any of the astronauts who were on those missions? They might know, if they were briefed. Otherwise a FOIA request seems to be the answer.

[Extracelestial]

As most regulars here know, one part of the Apollo record seems to be somewhat mysterious, and may still be classified: the "Chapel Bell" experiment.

While it appears to concern the measurement of the impact of spent Saturn IV-B stages into the Moon, no one seems to be quite sure why it was done, and especially, why it was classified.

I'm starting this thread to open a forum for speculation, theories, and (maybe eventually) hard information about Chapel Bell.

Here's my theory of why it was (and maybe still is) classified.

I propose that the Pentagon was concerned about space-based weapons of the "high velocity impactor" variety -- such as those often described in science fiction (Starship Troopers is one example). I suspect that the military types wanted to know just how much threat this kind of attack would pose.

By impacting something (a Saturn stage) on a benign target (the uninhabited Moon), we have a clean experiment, uncomplicated by any worries about damage on the Earth or the complicating factor of atmospheric drag.

The main problem I see with this theory is that it's not really very useful information. After all, it's pretty easy to calculate the energy released by an impactor of mass m moving at velocity v, and Chapel Bell wouldn't demonstrate much more than that.

So, any other ideas out there?

Hello Donnie,

I have a problem with your presumption that it might have been around the weight and velocity of the upper stage. Some "impactors" have already nicked the moons surface before NASA and their Russian counterparts managed to perform a soft landing. Apart from seismic data there would be little to be learn (in terms of yield) at a distance of 380000 km.
And seismic tests doesn't appear to be of vital concern for the DOE.
Maybe this test is around the radar cross section of the Saturn's upper stage at lunar distance. Perhaps it is comparable to that of a conventional ABM (I don't have that data) coming in over the pole (the Saturn going round the bend) at a given speed so they could check their mathematical models.

Ex

[Donnie B.]

Well, that's the thing about classified experiments, isn't it? We don't know what they entailed.

The nearly 100 posts in this thread can attest to that.

I'm not married to any particular hypothesis, just curious about one of the few remaining mysteries from the Apollo era.

[JayUtah]

Has anyone asked any of the astronauts who were on those missions?

Yes. None of the pertinent crews knows what it was. The uniform answer is, "It had to do with the launch vehicle and we weren't concerned with it."

[dgavin]

The impacts were staged for a more mundane reason then military. Seismic readings. The reason this technology was classified is that seismic readings on earth can be used to detect nuclear weapons testing, as well as underground silo missle launches.

The prevelence of webicorders these days has made keeping weapon detection seismograph readings secret, rather impractical if not impossible.

[Sam5]

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_16b_Objectives.htm



"Operational Tests - Manned Spacecraft Center and U. S. Department of Defense



1. Chapel Bell (classified, Department of Defense test).



2. Radar skin tracking.



3. Ionospheric disturbance from missiles.



4. Acoustic measurement of missile exhaust noise.



5. Army acoustic test.



6. Long‑focal‑length optical system.



7. Sonic boom measurement."

[aerovoid]

Last night the thought occurred to me that maybe they just figured they'd have a small public relations problem with the whole 'crashing big chunks of stuff into the moon' thing. By classifying it, one keeps such potentially sensitive public relations matters out of the spotlight.

I had to kind of laugh at this, as it seems like an incredibly plausible explanation. Just looking at all the overreactions that I've seen from some people in regards to the LCROSS mission. Of course it didn't help that so many news sites used some rather over-sensationalized headlines like, "NASA to bomb the Moon".

I didn't realize that these experiments were classified though. I thought it was simply for getting seismic readings.

[Kristoff]

Project Chapel Bell is simply standard operating procedure to create a geophysical model of a subterrainian surface. On earth, the initial shock wave is created through controlled blasts or by using thumpers, which are trucks which thump the ground in unison. The oil industry uses these in almost all the regions where geophyicists collect data on subsurface geology. Of course, on the moon, the simplest way to create the shock wave was to crash some useless rocket hardware into the surface to create the initial wave. Seismometers then picked up the data as acoustic waves reflected and refracted at varying rates on the various underground lithological layers.

[JayUtah]

...

Project Chapel Bell is simply standard operating procedure to create a geophysical model of a subterrainian surface.

Do you know for a fact that this was the intended purpose of the Chapel Bell portion of the Apollo missions? Or are you speculating that Chapel Bell refers to a standard petrochemical survey method?

[Obviousman]

Has anyone found out anything more? Has anyone lodged a FOIA request?

So far, IMHO the Chapel Bell / OTHR relationship seems to be the most logical.

[Obviousman]

This has turned up: a FOIA request from Mr Scott Wenger (the same person whom Jay previously mentioned):

http://www.private-files.com/documents/declassified/chapel_bell/chapel_bell_abstract.pdf

Although a 1966 abstract, it once again ties in with the OTHR theory.

[Obviousman]

bump

[Graham2001]

Thanks for the bump, it's been a while since I visited the forum and I missed the link to the abstract when it first appeared.

Your right about what the abstract implies. It specifically mentions tracking the exhaust from the S-IVb stage of AS-201 (Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AS-201)), the military uses of such a technique are obvious.

[Tensor]

Hey guys, I found this (http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=AD0373294) while doing a quick search. It seems this was just recently (Aug 2010) declassified. It mentions the tests for the SA-5 and SA-6 launches and the tracking of them by direct radars and mentions the applications to OTHR. Interestingly, it also mentions the Electro-Physics Laboratories that are mentioned in the Abstract of the above link.

[Obviousman]

Yeah, I'm prepared to call 'case closed' on this. The CHAPEL BELL Apollo experiments were OTHR tracking.

[Donnie B.]

A couple things stood out for me in that report.

First, it's listed as "Chapel Bell Report #65", but it's from 1966 (SA-5 and SA-6 were Saturn I launches) which is well before the end of the program. These experiments generated a LOT of reports.

Second, the report discusses the tracking of the "flame return", and never once mentions returns from the stages themselves. Apparently, what they're tracking isn't the vehicle proper but the ionized gases in the exhaust plume. I would not have guessed that.

I have to wonder -- did these experiments yield any enhancements in missile tracking technology? For instance, did they provide the basis for discrimination algorithms that could tell actual missile launches from other signals, or even to tell one type of missile from another based only on the OHD signature?

I agree, though, that the mystery of Chapel Bell seems to be solved. Unless, of course, this is all a sophisticated disinformation campaign to hide the truth about Elvis!