CHAPTER 1-S1 - BLACK OPS on the MOON & MARS

First let me say what this chapter is not about! It is not being published to try to convince anyone of anything. The facts are being laid out and everyone can make up their own mind about what they believe. What this chapter IS about is bringing to everyone's awareness the facts of the government sponsored space programs, so hopefully they will get interested enough to help support a true space program for and by the people! Let's start funding our own space program and quit funding the DOD/NASA military programs which are being propagandized as "civilian-scientific," programs. They are neither. And now a new "military" space program is being launched -- the manned flight to Mars. The main point of this first chapter is to show just a few of the unanswered questions, lies, confusion, conflicts, miss-information, etc. in the records of just one simple subject, the location of objects in Moon/Earth orbit, which as you will see is indicative of a black-op's program. How can the simple subject of the location of various objects in lunar orbit be filled with such controversy as this chapter will show?

Just a quick refresher of what this book is about. It is my firm belief based on known facts that there was no space race. At least not the kind we were told about. It will take a whole chapter to present my views on this. Here is the one question which led me to the truth about the supposed "space race."

	IF THERE WAS A "SPACE RACE" WHY HAS NOT A SINGLE PERSON FROM ANY OTHER COUNTRY, OTHER THEN THE USA, BEEN TO THE MOON, EVEN TO JUST GO AROUND IT?
	For instance why does a declassified document relate that Ness who worked for DOD/NASA-Goddard Space Flight Center presented a talk on the Moon and planets at KIEV, USSR in October, 1968? Two months before Apollo 8. Just one of hundreds of documents showing there was no race as we were told.
	If you dig deep enough you will always find that some high level DOD/NASA official was in the USSR just prior to every manned Apollo mission.

Most of the documents, photos, movies, etc. that were fed to the public as fodder, that were used for revealing the US space program, including the Apollo missions, as a civilian scientific program was not a true representation of what really happened during the 1960/70s. And it is very possible, even probable that one or more Apollo missions never even landed on the Moon. It is also very likely that some of the Apollo missions landed on the far side of the Moon. This book is being written to verify the above statements.

The Mercury/Gemini/Apollo space program was deliberately made to be boring so that most people would lose interest very quickly except for those rare times when some carefully crafted shows were put on so the money would continue to roll in. The two special shows were the Apollo 11 and 13 missions. They wanted the carefully crafted shows, or should I say missions, for the most part to be boring so people would not want to look at the specifics and the details of each mission to closely to see what was really going on. As a matter of fact most of the true details were originally classified. The US space program was and is pure military all the way through, and it was carefully crafted so the funding would be there, the profits would be made, and the people and politicians would think it was a civilian program. Follow the money. Do you really think this country spent $25-35 billion in 60s money for just a few pounds of Moon rocks, a few pictures, and a few maps? And no I have not missed the point at all, I am totally aware of spin-offs and politics.

When the DOD/NASA program was created it was sold to the American people as a "civilian" program. Just because nuclear missiles are not part of the program doesn't make it a "civilian" or "scientific" program.

By saying this was a civilian program they had an infinite number of ways to get things done, that they would not have been able to get funded if it had been called a military program.

Here is one of their perfect covers they used to hide what they were really doing. The "quarantine" program was a way to hide items and information from the public. Using this system they were able to bring items back from the Moon without anyone seeing what they were doing. More on this in another chapter.

Why should there be any conflicts in statements and publications concerning such a simple thing as where the parts of spacecrafts were and/or are located? Could it be that the people that were supposed to be in danger from these objects were never in a position to really be in any danger at all? These thousands of small conflicting facts like this help to shed the light on the true nature of Apollo. Another thing to keep in mind is that all of the information was coming from just one source that was well filtered by the PAO. Keep the masses confused, feed them conflicting information about everything, so they won’t know what is true anymore, and in their confusion they will eventually just believe anything they are told. The government wouldn't’t dare lie to the public would they?

Did you know most of the technical documents concerning the space program created during the time of the Apollo missions were classified or allowed to only go to certain companies or people high up in DOD/NASA such as the administrators? And most documents had restricted access unless specific permission was granted? Lots of information and photos were given to the public but the information behind the information was restricted therefore no one could verify if the information being given was true or not. Companies producing documentaries concerning Apollo, still to this day, must get some info declassified. I know this from firsthand, personnel experience. And many of the documents, recordings, and photos of the Apollo era are still classified and won’t be released. By the time some documents were de-classified the public’s interest had been focused and directed to other things, the space program had lost most of its entertainment value.

How many people do you know who care what happened during the Apollo missions? The public lost interest in the government space program when they finalized realized that you must be in the military or closely connected to it to be able to be an astronaut, and therefore they would never personally have a chance to go to space. This happened early in the Apollo missions but was revived when the Space Shuttle became operational, but the interest of the general public didn't’t last for very long when they realized the same thing was happening as happened in Apollo, and when the teacher died, everyone lost all hope then.

Any trip to the Moon has many unique hazards only associated with space flight; some of these hazards are radiation, biomedical problems far from home, micrometeorites, equipment malfunctions, and man made objects in space that might cause a collision. This chapter is going to look at just the rockets, spacecraft, and their parts, and analyze the conflicting information surrounding these hazards that were in the Apollo program.

During the Apollo program there were many objects in the space between the Earth and Moon and around the Moon itself that were a possible hazard to any space flights going to the Moon, here is a non-exclusive list of some of those objects.

I will use as some of my sources for this chapter information from the following places, but keep in mind this is not a complete list, because I don't reference all of the books, magazines, and newspapers that cover this subject. Documents from the sources below are good for any study of the location of spacecrafts and their parts, both those in orbit now and all the way back to Sputnik I. It takes some searching but the information can be found.

	Declassified Technical Memorandums, NORAD/ADCOM, from Colorado Springs, Colorado.
	The declassified, Orbital Debris Monitor Reports, FTD/OLAI, Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado.
	Declassified reports, USSPACECOM 1st Command and Control Squadron (1CACS), known as the 1st Space Control Squadron (1SPCS).
	Naval Network and Space Operations Command (formerly Naval Space Command).
	Declassified Reports from the Naval Space Surveillance Center, Dahlgren, Virginia.
	NRL Reports, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington.
	U. S. Space Surveillance Network (SSN).
	U. S. Space Surveillance Network radar (PARCS)
	US Army Ballistic Missile Command.
	US Air Force Space Command (AFSPC). Including the Transit Program Office.
	Marshall Space Flight Center, Alabama.
	UNOOSA
	DOD/NASA
	DOD/NASA Orbital Debris Program Office
	The Orbital Debris Quarterly News, Johnson Space Center.
	European Space Agency (ESA).
	Proceedings of the European Conferences on Space Debris.
	Proceedings of the US/Russian Space Surveillance Conferences.
	Proceedings of the International Conferences of Pacific Basin Societies.
	Proceedings of the European Conferences on Space Debris.
	Proceedings of the World Space Congresses.
	TRW Space Logs. TRW Space and Defense Sector, Redondo Beach, CA. These are now out of print, and all online sources have also been discontinued.
	McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company - West, Huntington Beach
	Technical Reports, Teledyne Brown Engineering (TBE), Colorado Springs
	Spacecraft Division, Aerojet-General Corporation.
	Kaman Sciences Corporation, Technical Reports.
	European Space Research Organization (ESRO).
	Pravda, Moscow
	Sovetskaya Rossiya, Moscow
	Journal of the British Interplanetary Society.
	Aviation Week and Space Technology.
	American Astronautical Society, Univelt.
	Icarus
	AIAA

The first thing that needs to be determined is whether in the vastness of space there is any real hazards that needs to be dealt with, or at least accounted for. And if there is a verifiable hazard how was this hazard dealt with?

Do spacecraft and their parts really create a hazard to space flight?

Let’s look at some of the literature. Here are a few comments from the sources listed above. Even though the statements below seem to just apply to the area around the Earth, many of the the statements about debris hazards still apply to the area between the Earth and the Moon and around the Moon itself.

“Since the first serious satellite fragmentation occurred in June, 1961 (which instantaneously increased the total Earth satellite population by more than 400%) the issue of space operations within the finite region of space around the Earth has been the subject of increasing interest and concern.”

“Large, manned space stations and the growing number of operational robotic satellites demand a better understanding of the hazards of the dynamic Earth satellite population.”

“A satellite breakup is the usually destructive disassociation of an orbital payload, rocket body, or structure, often with a wide range of ejecta velocities. A satellite breakup may be accidental or the result of intentional actions, e.g., due to a propulsion system malfunction or a space weapons test, respectively.”

“An anomalous event is the unplanned separation, usually at low velocity, of one or more detectable objects from a satellite which remains essentially intact. Anomalous events can be caused by material deterioration of items such as thermal blankets, protective shields, or solar panels.”

“As a general rule, a satellite breakup will produce considerably more debris, both trackable and non-trackable, than an anomalous event. From one perspective, satellite breakups may be viewed as a measure of the effects of man's activity on the environment, while anomalous events may be a measure of the effects of the environment on man-made objects."

“Mission-related, also known as operational, debris result from the intentional release of objects, usually in small numbers, during normal on-orbit operations. Objects ejected during the deployment, activation, and de-orbit of payloads and during manned operations are examples of mission-related debris. Usually, mission-related debris from a single launch are few in number, but extreme examples occasionally arise, such as the 200 objects from the Salyut 7 space station or the more than 140 objects from the Westford Needles experiment. Although mission-related debris represent a significant portion (approximately 13%) of all satellites in orbit today and therefore are a legitimate subject in the study of methods to retard the growth of the Earth satellite population, identification of the thousands of mission-related debris events is beyond the scope of this report.”
(Courtesy DOD/NASA)
(History of On-Orbit Satellite Fragmentation - Thirteenth Edition May 2004)

“The COMBO program supports NASA in each manned space mission, from pre-launch to re-entry. Before the launch the proposed spacecraft trajectory is analyzed to determine if satellites already orbiting the earth pose any potential danger of collision with the manned spacecraft. As soon as the manned spacecraft goes into orbit, the orbital parameters are calculated and processed to see if there has been any change from pre-launch calculations. This process is constantly repeated, and the information is provided to NASA’s mission control throughout each mission.”
…The nerve center of the space age is a Buck Rogers descendant of the War Room strongholds of World War II.”

(Major Samuel C. Beamer Commander, Det 8, 14th Missile Warning Squadron, ADC, Sept, 1973)

The first agreed upon resolution concerning the peaceful uses of outer space was passed by the United Nations in 1959. This resolution did not have the requirement for registration of space objects. Did you know the Soviet Union was the country that first submitted to the UN the proposal that all space activity must be used for peaceful purposes?
RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
1472 (XIV). International co-operation in the peaceful uses of outer space

(UN, 856th plenary meeting, 12 December 1959)

The second agreed upon resolution concerning the peaceful uses of outer space was passed by the United Nations in 1961. This resolution had the requirement for registration of space objects, in section B2. This resolution was the one quoted in most of the documents submitted to the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space during the time of the Apollo missions. The purpose of this resolution was so the various countries putting spacecrafts into orbit would know where all of the spacecrafts were and their orbits so they could avoid collisions. As expected, not all information was given in a timely manner, especially concerning military spacecraft. The treaty allowed for military astronauts but not spacecraft to be used for military purposes. As is well known thousands of spacecraft used for military purposes have been put into space. What is funny is to read the stated purposes for spacecraft that everyone knew were military. The US only had four categories for the use of a spacecraft, even a military one. The UN will be covered in more detail in another chapter relating to the history of DOD/NASA and the real purpose for the Apollo program. Reference all of the A/AC.105 reports to the UN.

These are the only purposes for anything being put into space by the USA as given to the UN.

Satellite Category
A. Development of space flight techniques and technology
B. Space research and exploration
C. Practical applications of space based technology
D. Non-functional objects

(inf001E - A/AC.105/INF.1 - 7 March 1962) (Document submitted by DOD/NASA to the UN)

RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
B-1721 (XVI). International co-operation in the peaceful uses of outer space.
The General Assembly, Believing that the United Nations should provide a focal point for international co-operation in the peaceful exploration and use of outer space,
1. Calls upon States launching objects into orbit or beyond to furnish information promptly to the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, through the Secretary-General, for the registration of launchings;
2. Requests the Secretary-General to maintain a public registry of the information furnished in accordance with paragraph 1 above;

(UN, 1085th plenary meeting, 20 December 1961)

“Increasing use of space has brought a new source of risk -- collisions between manmade objects. Given the high relative velocities of objects in space, even small untracked objects can damage critical sensors and spacecraft components…
The Center for Orbital and Reentry Debris Studies was established at The Aerospace Corporation to recognize the increasing significance of orbital debris and reentry hazards to space missions.”

(Center for Orbital and Reentry Debris Studies - The Aerospace Corporation)

“If you think space is so vast that all of this stuff shouldn't matter, think again. We have had close calls with shuttle missions, one of them returned with a cracked windshield from hitting something, and even the Hubble Space Telescope has been damaged.
The International Space Station has moved six times to miss large tracked objects since it has been in orbit, the space shuttle changed course more than eight times to avoid collision and operators of a German satellite were forced to fire onboard thrusters to miss oncoming debris.”

(We Even Have Space Pollution, James L. Donahue)

(Space Debris around the Earth) (Courtesy DOD/NASA)

(History of On-Orbit Satellite Fragmentation - Thirteenth Edition May 2004)
(Courtesy DOD/NASA)

(Space Shuttle STS-7 window pit) (Courtesy DOD/NASA)

(Satellite pit damage) (Courtesy DOD/NASA)

At the same time, the outpost's resident crew - U.S. astronaut Bill Shepherd and Russian cosmonauts Yuri Gidzenko and Sergei Krikalev - will be preparing for a crucial flurry of work required to power up lab computers and activate its cooling system.

The work must be completed in a mere four hours to make certain that humidity and condensation don't begin to build up in the lab, potentially damaging sensitive electronics gear.

The shuttle crew, meanwhile, started their day by dodging a bullet.

With an unidentified piece of orbital debris barreling toward the joined shuttle-station complex, Atlantis commander Cockrell carried out a series of unplanned jet thruster firings to boost the craft out of harm's way.

Radar tracking showed that the debris would sweep within 825 feet (250 meters) of the shuttle and the station if evasive action was not taken - or well within a closely guarded safety zone surrounding the outpost.

The thruster firings raised the altitude of the outpost by about one mile (1.6 kilometers), putting the station and Atlantis a safe distance from the path of the debris.

Space walk Sets Out to Anchor Destiny at Station
By Todd Halvorson
Cape Canaveral

BOULDER, Colorado -- In the latest reported instance of a space collision that created more debris in low Earth orbit, pieces of a U.S. and a Chinese rocket collided high above Earth. The orbital run-in involved a 31-year-old U.S. rocket body and a fragment from a more recently launched Chinese rocket stage.

According to the April issue of Orbital Debris Quarterly News, the collision occurred Jan. 17 at an altitude about 885 kilometers (550 miles) above the Earth's surface. That area of low Earth orbit has an above-average satellite population density.

The U.S. Surveillance Network detected the collision, according to the Quarterly, which is a publication of the NASA Orbital Debris Program Office at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas.

The collision involved a discarded U.S. Thor Burner 2A upper stage that was used to launch a satellite payload into Earth orbit back in 1974. The other piece was a fragment of the third stage of a Chinese CZ-4 launch vehicle that exploded in March 2000.

When the objects smacked into each other, analysis indicates that the orbits of both were slightly altered at the same time that three more chunks of debris -- large enough to be detected and cataloged -- were released from the U.S. rocket body.

Space Debris From U.S., Chinese Rockets Collided in January

By LEONARD DAVID
Space News Correspondent
posted: 25 April 2005

I could quote thousands of books and articles about the problem of space debris around the Earth but the subject of this report is about the area around the Moon. What about hazards of space debris in Moon orbits? There are very few articles on this subject. There have been spacecraft in Moon orbit testing the lunar space for the dangers of meteoroid debris. There have also been many other spacecraft in Moon orbit. So are there any writings concerning possible hazards to Apollo spacecraft in Moon orbit? Before we look into those records let’s first see just what orbits we are talking about.

Previous Section

Next Section