Was the Apollo 11 Saturn V Seriously Underpowered?
Two scientific studies of the velocity achieved by the Saturn V
Russian scientist Stanislav Pokrovsky PhD has carried out a series of rocket speed estimates and reached the conclusion that the Apollo 11 mission could not have flown to the Moon.
In the first paper [PDF1] the author concludes that the velocity achieved by the Apollo 11 Saturn V was significantly lower than that required to satisfy the stated flight plan to propel the mission to the surface of the Moon. A further study a year later [PDF 2] concludes that no more than 28 tons, including the Apollo 11 craft, could have been placed into lunar orbit. (Significantly less than the 46 tons capacity claimed by NASA.)
Stanislav Pokrovsky has verified the filming speed of the of 24 frames per second (fps) used in the studies against known physical processes, such as the firing time of the retro-rockets, and has confirmed that this timing is in accordance with a filming rate of 24 fps.
These calculations are a direct and independent method of measuring the Saturn V rocket speed and the speed estimates can be used to further analyse the actual rocket performance. Moreover, his final calculations were obtained from three independent and mutually inter-relating methods.
The conclusions established in Pokrovsky’s two papers, combined with the ongoing research into the validity of the Apollo still photographs and TV coverage, add a further dimension to continuing discussions regarding the veracity of the official Apollo record.
Pokrovsky’s findings also confirm previous claims – made by science writer Bill Kaysing and space rocket and propulsion engineer William (Bill) Wood – both of whom have independently asserted that the Saturn V could not have operated as claimed, and therefore could not have delivered NASA’s stated lift capability.
Indeed, the assessments obtained by Pokrovsky suggest that any credibility with regard to the published NASA data concerning the Apollo 11 Saturn V is out of the question.
Download Pokrovsky PDF1 Pokrovsky PDF2
Note: These are rather large files please allow for download time
Was the Apollo 11 Saturn V Seriously Underpowered?
This article has been challenged, read the rebuttal Next Page
Comments on the investigation into the Saturn V
by Dietrich von Schmausen
First of all, I am not qualified to attest to the validity of the mathematical conclusions presented in these papers, however notwithstanding all previous Apollo mission arguments both pro and con, and affording fair-minded consideration of both:
IF the conclusions reached in these papers are valid, then other events related to the Apollo 11 mission become more confounded – since a rocket was launched and a payload did achieve orbit around the Moon (as alleged by others).
AND If these calculations are correct: The astronauts would have needed to stay behind so that a (stripped down) robotic mission vehicle could be deployed to the Moon.
THEREFORE IF in fact the Saturn V was incapable of delivering the ‘full’ payload, it is conceivable that a ‘robotic’ mission would weigh less if:
1. It carried no water.
2. It carried no oxygen tanks.
3. It carried no crew.
4. It carried no spare suits.
5. It carried no food.
6. It carried no emergency supplies.
7. It carried no cabin seats.
8. It carried no golf club, hammer or feather.
9. It carried less fuel (fuel expenditure requirements for vehicle thrust to weight ratio having been decreased and no ascent fuel required for the LM).
10. It carried no cameras or film!
Basically, if anything needed by a manned mission, including the crew was eliminated, Voila! Huston, we have a lighter payload.
Furthermore, if my suppositions are wrong: it is still possible that the astronauts credited with the missions never actually went. Others may have gone in their place in order to ensure the survival of the ‘heroes’. And if this were true: if anyone actually went to the Moon, I don’t believe that they ever left the LM. Opening the LM and venturing onto the lunar surface would have presented too great an opportunity for catastrophic mission failure. A failure which might then force the reality of a Capricorn One scenario.
Consider the stark difference between the apparent carefree attitudes of the astronauts frolicking on the Moon, to the activities of Navy Salvage and Repair Divers.
The astronauts often demonstrated frivolous behavior, jumping, hopping along, singing ditties and wisecracking. They appeared to be happily tranquilized or totally unconcerned for their personal safety, when in fact any lapse in judgment or freak happenstance could result in either immediate death or injury with absolutely no hope of rescue. They did not exhibit behavior commensurate with the extreme nature of their situation. Navy Salvage and Repair Divers practice maximum discipline and show a serious attitude while working under very similar conditions. Although in this regard there was a significant difference: These divers are tethered to safety lines, the astronauts were not!
Since I believe that the lunar surface photographic records were ALL ‘Promotional Fabrications’, until I see further unequivocal evidence of a ‘real mission’ I speculate the following:
a. The entire mission record was pre-recorded during LEO ‘practice’ missions including filming the Earth from the command module by using a distant image of the Earth taped to a cabin window.
b. The LEM, sensors, laser markers and other instruments were deployed robotically. This could account for tracks ‘supposedly’ photographed by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter [LRO] and claimed to be those of the Modular Equipment Transporter.
c. Pre-recorded mission events were transmitted to Earth from a robotic package delivered to the Moon’s surface.
Conspiracy of thousands – or only a few?
How could so many people be coerced into such a grand deception? The very nature of the program allowed for ‘classified program compartmentalization’. e.g: A technician at mission control would never have had access to the launch area or any area used to ‘prep’ the astronauts, nor would any manufacturer of mission components of any category. Materials, recordings, fuel, and a myriad of logistical supplies were ferried to and fro on a daily basis without question.
All the while the general public and the majority of the mission employees all witnessed the same set of events (closed circuit television of the mission prep and launch).
When repudiating that the entire mission was staged, few have considered the part of the show where the magician leads his pretty assistant into the magic box and she slips out the back – the pre-launch activities. Also, if one were to reduce the field of witnesses to those ‘hands on’ individuals (escorting astronauts, assisting with physical pre-launch activities or collecting and disseminating final mission data to the public, then the ‘number of conspirators’ would decrease dramatically.
The average person is often limited by his or her failure to break the bonds of parental guidance. We are conditioned from birth not to challenge or dispute the proclamations of the ‘parent’. Parents were always right and ‘punished’ disobedience; to most people an employer or a minion of their government replaces the parent. Someone who has broken the parental bond however, can either challenge any would-be master, or decide to accept reward for keeping silent without guilt; those who have not broken their parental bonds will stubbornly stand by and support their current ‘parental representative’ regardless of their moral position.
Dietrich von Schmausen
Aulis Online, July 2011
Professor Colin Rourke