RCH: Explorer I and Antigravity?

[HypothesisTesting]

The intrepid imagination of RCH at work again: on 8-21 CTC 4 hr. appearance he
discusses the "strange" case of Explorer I:

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/...van_allen.html

(good historical picture of those halcyon days)

Evidently Explorer I had a 30% higher orbit than could be explained by rocket science of the day. RCH hypothesizes that a "cover up" took place whereby von Braun figured out that "antigravity" was responsible for this; and took steps to secretly correspond with top physicists of 1958-60 period.

Any alternative explanations

[Lepton]

The intrepid imagination of RCH at work again: on 8-21 CTC 4 hr. appearance he
discusses the "strange" case of Explorer I:

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/...van_allen.html

(good historical picture of those halcyon days)

Evidently Explorer I had a 30% higher orbit than could be explained by rocket science of the day. RCH hypothesizes that a "cover up" took place whereby von Braun figured out that "antigravity" was responsible for this; and took steps to secretly correspond with top physicists of 1958-60 period.

Any alternative explanations

Why was the orbit 30% too high? I mean where does the data say that?

[KaiYeves]

Silly RCH. Everyone knows the antigravity formula is in a silver jewlery box at the bottom of Lake Geneva.
(If you haven't read the novel The Flight of the Silver Turtle, that joke won't make any sense.)

[JonClarke]

What is the evidence that Explorer I went into an unexpected orbit?

Jon

[Laguna]

What is the evidence that Explorer I went into an unexpected orbit?

Jon

Evidence? Since when does RCH need evidence for his claims?

[JonClarke]

Evidence? Since when does RCH need evidence for his claims?

Often he starts with something, no matter how flimsy. There is a Vking image of a mesa that looks a bit like a face, etc.

So did Explorer I end up in an unexpected orbit? Or is the sole contact with reality the fact that there was a satellite called Explorer I (like the sole contact with reality of RCH's Pathfinder claims is that were really was a lander called Pathfinder).

Jon

[HypothesisTesting]

It seems like flimsy evidence. Evidently, von Braun's crew had made a calculation of the orbital period of 100 minutes, and the only antenna to detect Explorer was in California. When the Calif. station didn't get a signal on time, the team didn't know what had happened. After many minutes delay, the signal was reacquired. On this, RCH thinks that the orbit was 30% higher.
He says he has evidence that von Braun corresponded with physicists about antigravity after that, so presto, there's his link.

At this point, he's said so many things, I really can't follow what exactly he's saying about the overall "Dark Mission"

What is the evidence that Explorer I went into an unexpected orbit?

Jon

[tpeterson06]

Yeah I recently read that article that he has posted on his website. Good ol Richard, ...always the alternative explaination for every oppourtunity!

I remember years ago, when RCH used to have a free blog on his site. It was great to be able to directly debate with his true believers. I recall many a exchange with them when RCH was pushing the whole Mars "face" and "Tom Corbett viewmaster" theories.

It is interesting to note that eventually, he had to stop offering this blog service because so many good questions were being asked/answered that threatened continued sales of his Monuments book.

[JayUtah]

The same happened to David Percy. His various attempts at hosting feedback seemed to produce too many uncomfortable questions, so he simply sits back and collects the checks.

[novaderrik]

if the had discovered antigravity with the very first launch of a satellite, then why did they have to build the Saturn V to fake the moon landings?

[lek]

if the had discovered antigravity with the very first launch of a satellite, then why did they have to build the Saturn V to fake the moon landings?

To cover up the antigravity ofc

[Rue]

RCH hypothesizes that a "cover up" took place whereby von Braun figured out that "antigravity" was responsible for this; and took steps to secretly correspond with top physicists of 1958-60 period.

Remnants of a civilization on the moon, fossils on Mars, anti-gravity, ...why do all these great discoveries require a "cover up"?

[slang]

Remnants of a civilization on the moon, fossils on Mars, anti-gravity, ...why do all these great discoveries require a "cover up"?

Ask his publisher. Or his accountant.

[KaiYeves]

Evidence? Since when does RCH need evidence for his claims?

Oooh, burned.

[gwiz]

Basically, to get an apogee 30% higher than planned doesn't mean that the rocket over-performed by 30%, anymore than the orbital period being 15% more means a 15% overperformance. The important factor with a rocket is the velocity, which was about 1.5% higher than planned, a much less impressive figure to attribute to antigravity rather than engineering margin of error.

NB. Does RCH explain why Sputnik 1 had a lower than expected orbit?

[HypothesisTesting]

Basically, to get an apogee 30% higher than planned doesn't mean that the rocket over-performed by 30%, anymore than the orbital period being 15% more means a 15% overperformance. The important factor with a rocket is the velocity, which was about 1.5% higher than planned, a much less impressive figure to attribute to antigravity rather than engineering margin of error.

NB. Does RCH explain why Sputnik 1 had a lower than expected orbit?

Agreed.

I don't see why RCH makes mountains out of mole hills with everything. When I heard of this unexpected delay in orbit for Explorer I, the first thing that occured to me was: this was a pioneering rocket, couldn't they be a little unsure about some of the engineering parameters? He immediately jumps to some exotic explanation for everything.

And I'm tired of hearing some of these maverick people claiming that Newtonian/Einsteinian gravity theory isn't sufficient. Ok, maybe for cosmology, we need a supersymmetry theory ; but for "simple" rocketry in the solar system, certainly Einstein's theory of general relativity is adequate, if not undergraduate level Newtonian dynamics.

[djellison]

What RCH is saying is that the Explorer 1 launch had to be utterly perfect to within a fraction of a percent of the designed trajectory, despite no succesfull orbital launch by the USA ever before.....and that anything else is a massive conspiracy to hide anti-gravity. Of course, how and why this conspiracy has spread to include every single attempt to launch things into space for the past 50 years, including commercial enterprises such as Lockheed and Boeing, Ariane, the vehicles out of Japan, India, Russia, China. He talks about the involvement of 'spin'.... how about the spun 3rd stages of Delta II rockets or the Atlas V that put NH on it's way to Pluto - exceptionally accurate trajectories.

Still waiting for that analysis of the face. His detailed analysis has been 'coming soon' for 18 months

He is a liar, a fraud, a ripoff merchant and a very very good salesman.

[Swift]

He is a liar, a fraud, a ripoff merchant and a very very good salesman.

I'm sorry, I disagree. I think he is only a mediocre salesman.

[Joe Boy]

He looks kind of slick, like an aging car salesman. Whatever happened to that face on mars he was selling. Looked like a mountain to me and nothing more and I'm somewhat suseptable to martian pics. That was ludicrous to say the least.

[JonClarke]

Basically, to get an apogee 30% higher than planned doesn't mean that the rocket over-performed by 30%, anymore than the orbital period being 15% more means a 15% overperformance. The important factor with a rocket is the velocity, which was about 1.5% higher than planned, a much less impressive figure to attribute to antigravity rather than engineering margin of error.

NB. Does RCH explain why Sputnik 1 had a lower than expected orbit?

Is the 1.5% excess velocity what you calculate is neccessary to get a 300 km higher apogee, or is there independent confirmation that the rocket over-performed by this amount?

Otherwise all we have is a delay in signal acquistion which might be due to a dozen factors.

Jon

[PhantomWolf]

Explorer 1's rocket burned longer than expected resulting in a more eliptical orbit. It had nothing to do with anti-gravity, just rocket fuel.

[JayUtah]

One typically inserts at periapsis. That is, the instant the engine shuts off, the orbit is determined; and that instant frequently corresponds to the lowest-altitude of the orbit. Excess velocity at periapsis results in a higher apoapsis, often to a substantial degree.

[Grand_Lunar]

I don't see why RCH makes mountains out of mole hills with everything.

If he didn't, he wouldn't have anything to sell, now would he?

[gwiz]

Is the 1.5% excess velocity what you calculate is neccessary to get a 300 km higher apogee, or is there independent confirmation that the rocket over-performed by this amount?

Otherwise all we have is a delay in signal acquistion which might be due to a dozen factors.

Jon

I took the "30% higher" as referring to the difference in planned to attained apogee altitude, 600 km in the case of Explorer 1, and calculated the delta-v to make that 600 km difference.

[HypothesisTesting]

One typically inserts at periapsis. That is, the instant the engine shuts off, the orbit is determined; and that instant frequently corresponds to the lowest-altitude of the orbit.

Thanks, that helps me get a handle on the physics. Closer to surface of earth, as the potential energy decreases in free fall, the kinetic energy (velocity) increases, and vice versa. In orbit, the perigee point would be the minimum potential energy point, and the maximum velocity point. After engines are cut off at this point, the rocket would just "coast" upward to the apogee where the potential energy is maximum and velocity is minimum.

Excess velocity at periapsis results in a higher apoapsis, often to a substantial degree.

This would explain why the orbit of Explorer was higher than expected. Obviously the rocket had a larger velocity than expected at insertion point, maybe because it burned longer than expected, or the rockets produced a little more thrust than expected (I wouldn't doubt in those days things were a little uncertain).

[JonClarke]

Explorer 1's rocket burned longer than expected resulting in a more eliptical orbit. It had nothing to do with anti-gravity, just rocket fuel.

do you know which stage it was? And have a good source?

Thanks

Jon

[Larry Jacks]

Here's some info on the Jupiter C which was derived from the Redstone rocket. It doesn't say which stage "over performed", though. The second and third stages were clusters of Sergeant rocket motors (11 for the 2nd stage and 3 for the 3rd stage). Those motors burned for 6.5 seconds. The Explorer 1 satellite had a final solid rocket motor built in. Just before burnout, the satellite was reportedly accelerating with a force of 70Gs.

Here's some background on Explorer I:

An agonizing wait ensued for real proof. There was no radio signal at the predicted acquisition time; “We were miserable,” von Braun wrote. Relief finally came at 117 minutes after launch, when a JPL tracking rig at Borrego Springs, Calif., picked up the first signals. The Jupiter-C had overperformed, giving Explorer such a boost that its orbit was higher than planned, with a perigee of 224 miles and an apogee of 1,575 miles. The satellite thus had a commensurately longer period: 115 minutes.

[JayUtah]

After engines are cut off at this point, the rocket would just "coast" upward to the apogee where the potential energy is maximum and velocity is minimum.

Exactly correct. And often an additional maneuver is performed at apogee to circularize or otherwise adjust the orbit.

But to address Hoagland, it's sufficient to realize that any small error at cut-off will compound into a larger error at apogee. Hoagland focuses on the apogee altitude error because it's the largest number, and one that doesn't seem to the layman probably to have arisen by accident. Either through ignorance or neglect he doesn't inform his audience that such a "big" number is the error that is allowed to accumulate over time from a potentially small error.

Imagine seeing your desired parking stall clear across the parking lot. The rules are that you can drive and steer your car over a distance of only ten or fifteen meters, after which you must let the car coast into the stall without steering. Unless your car's alignment is very well tuned and unless your estimates of speed and steering were perfect, your car might fail to make it to the stall; or it might hit one of the cars on either side.

Now imagine explaining this to the nice officer who wants to know why you hit the other car squarely in the rear. Can't you drive? You'd have to explain that it was really only a fraction of a degree's error in your initial steering, or a slight misalignment of your tires.

[djellison]

Yes - at no point does Hoagland look at inaccuracies in pointing and the trajctory, and the fact that there was almost certainly a slight over-performance in the rocket by design, and a slight underperformance from a guidance point of view. Of course, such frivolities would shatter his entire story. He is well aware of them - but he can't make money of the truth - he just makes money from lies and misinformation.

Doug

[tpeterson06]

Hey all,

Has anyone here read Hoagland's "Dark Mission" book? I'm certainly not a advocate of his, in fact years ago, I was one of the most vocal skeptics/debaters on his site back when he offered a free forum. ( btw: He later shut that free access forum down due to the good questions being raised! )

I'm just curious about any skeptic's take on his latest book, as according to the books description, he had several NASA insiders to support his ideas. Did he address his Explorer I theories in that book?