Today's first test flight of the Orion spacecraft, launched by a Delta IV heavy, was a complete success in every respect. Well done, chaps.
Richard Hoagland, guesting on his girlfriend's awful internet radio show, went into hyperbole mode even before the flight was over. "This changes everything," he gushed. "It will save the world." Just as I was thinking his narration of the test flight -- officially designated EFT-1 -- was reasonably accurate, however, he revealed his ignorance once again by looking forward to the days when Orion will take men to the Moon to rediscover the technology of that ancient Lunar civilization he dreams about. The one destination Orion does not have is the surface of the Moon -- the Augustine Commission plus President Obama (well, his advisers, anyway) nixed that.
Orion is all that we have left of the cancelled Constellation Project, and it will eventually be launched on the all-new Space Launch System toward asteroids and the planet Mars.
I'm just bummed that we'll have to wait until September 2018 for the next Orion flight -- a trip around the Moon and back designated EM-1. Even then, it will not be manned. The manned asteroid rendezvous is projected for 2021-ish. But, you never know -- if the Chinese start doing very visible things with men (and women) on the Moon, the US Congress might have an epiphany.
Update 12/6:
Hoagland took it up a notch by appearing in the news segment of Coast to Coast AM last night. Evidently the slight feud between Hoagland and Noory is over, and we can look forward to more bullshitnote 1. Last night he took most of his allotted time recounting how a 22-year-old Hoagland attended a NASA press conference in January 1967 and got to ask The Great Von Braun a question. Just as he had earlier on the freedomslips show, he misinformed the audience about Orion's mission, and made the crazy statement that Orion was the technology of the 22nd century. Dear Richard: The 22nd century is 86 years away. Nothing will be left to show for Orion by 2100. I promise you.
Since I'm annoyed that he got back on the air, I'll nit-pick by saying that his reference to the mighty Saturn V rocket was wrong, too. A January 1967 press conference at the Cape would have been about AS-204, later designated Apollo 1 -- the tragic mission that killed Gus Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffee in an oxygen firenote 2. The rocket was a Saturn 1B, not a V.
================================================
[1] Specifically, bullshit about comet 67P Churyumov–Gerasimenko. Hoagland said he would blow Noory's mind with his revelations about what Rosetta's cameras revealed. Here we go again -- Nike sneakers, apartment blocks, motels....
[2] Hoagland himself would, many years later, make the inexcusable claim that the AS-204 fire was no accident, but something contrived by NASA management. His evidence? Astrology.
19 comments:
Hoagland could very well turn out to be right. There is plenty of time to make that trip around the Moon a manned mission to land.
Well, that's exactly what I mean by the Congress epiphany. NASA could not possibly undertake the enormous cost of converting EM-1 to a manned landing at its projected funding level through 2016, which is when the conversion process would have to start _at_the_very_latest_.
It was definitively wrong of Hoagland to give Robin Falkov's audience (all six of them) the impression that the lunar surface is part of Orion's mission plans.
Hoagland likes to foment riots. If he can shape public expectation that Orion is sending a landing party to the Moon, and NASA reneges on Hoagland's allusions, then the public will make life Hell for NASA, so that NASA will prove Hoagland to be right.
LOL. If that's his intention, then all I can say is that launching his campaign on freedomslips internet radio is a VERY, VERY SMALL START.
Actually, I take it back. There really isn't time to convert EM-1 to a manned lunar landing. Orion itself cannot land, let alone take off again. Design of a lunar module would have to have been fully funded already, and be in pre-production. Astronauts would already have to be in training, which they are not. So no.
Updated. RCH on C2C.
Hoagnald mentioned that he was at Cape Canaveral in January, 1967 where he asked a question of Vern Von Braun.
Coast To Coast AM, December 5, 2014, Space Command Project
NASA indicates that the former NAZI scientist was in Antarctica on the 7th. How frequent were flights back then, to and from Antarctica?
http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/vonbraun/photo/13.html
Exploring Antarctica (1967)
Intrigued by exploration in space and on Earth, Dr. Von Braun participated in an expedition to Antarctica.
This photo was made on or about January 7, 1967.
Hoagland says that at a large press conference, where reporters only had pens and paper, at Cape Canaveral in January of 1967, where he was invited to witness the first all up test of the Saturn 5 rocket with the attached, Apollo Command and Service Module, he asked a question of Werner Von Braun, the recording of which can be found at the NASA television archives.
First of all, the place was named Cape Kennedy at the time, and NASA indicated that Dr Von Braun was in Antarctica that month.
Furthermore, Hoagland made mention that he was prepared to escape to safety by running out to the parking lot and duck under a car, as the rocket could potentially explode with the force of a three kiloton nuclear bomb.
Neither he nor Noory said anything about the tragic disaster that did in fact occur during that test.
Speaking of Hoagland, I am surprised he has not declared that this does not represent ancient symbols on Mars that have something to do with torsion physics.
http://cnet4.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2014/12/04/9be0c283-a289-4a13-9e0d-6f43a2f068cc/resize/770x578/7194344964469bd1b9ec2f44ef877893/marsisland.jpg
Thanks Mulvaney. As Don Davis (the space artist) never tires of saying, there's more than enough beauty and genuine scientific interest in Mars imagery, without needing the wild speculations of the "anomalists."
A nitpick regarding Expat's comment on RCH's logic:
"..the crazy statement that Orion was the technology of the 22nd century".
Well, to be fair RCH did not say that between 10.00 and 10.40. It seems more like he was trying out some analogy regarding laying the groundwork, like Eisenhower, Kennedy & NASA did for the 21st century and all its technology in terms of communication and all the present high-tech in space and consumer world (which is somewhat debatable overall but okay). His statement was actually "today's flight is the beginning of the 22nd century". Which I suppose is meant as some kind of rebirth of NASA or its aims, potentially - "if they follow through". Like Orion's recovery in some of the ancient myths, as I'm sure RCH will point out soon (you read it first here :). The biggest surprise here is how RCH now shifts from short-term predictions on immanent disclosures to long range global visions on the 22nd century instead. I suppose that is safer territory!
Dee
Comment by novvak disallowed. Re-post of someone else's FB comment. Treats a 1999 event as though news.
Sorry.
Why do you link Hoagland's page here, when it links to the same article which you disallow? True, it's a dead link, so I posted the back up copy from The Internet Archive.
What you erroneously refer to as Astrology, is Masonic symbolism inspired by Astrology, that Hoagland uses to ascribe motive for the crime alleged in the article you disallow.
lib7.htm is not a dead link.
The link you posted is to a 1999 news piece which you treated as though it were news today. It's FIFTEEN YEARS OLD, Novvak.
So far as I'm concerned, any exposition that purports to explain human events by reference to the position of celestial bodies is astrology. If you say it's Masonic symbolism, you may possibly be correct -- but that does not make it any more valid. Hoagland's uncritical acceptance of the allegation is disgusting.
Here's the true situation. Betty Grissom made the original allegation at a time when she was engaged in litigation with NASA over her husband's death. Scott Grissom could not very well take a public position contrary to that of his Mother, could he?
Hoagland say that what matters is that the Owls at NASA believe in the magical power of Masonic symbolism and that they act accordingly.
The link to the news article about Scott Grissom FROM lib7.html is dead, and THAT is what you didn't want people to read.
Did Betty win?
Furthermore, YOU are the one who posted the link to an old page of Hoagland's in the first place.
I recommend this BBC doucmentary to all those who are inclined to give credence to Richard Hoagland's revolting accusation.
Run the video from 17:48-27.16. Pay attention to the testimony of:
Rocco Petrone, Launch Director,
Dale Myers, Apollo Contract Manager,
James Webb, NASA Administrator,
George Low, Manager of the Apollo Spacecraft Program Office.
These are senior NASA Management officials. The very people Hoagland says are murderers. Does that strike you as in any way credible??????
Betty Grissom's lawsuit was settled out of court for $350,000.000, which in 1971 had the same buying power as more than $2M today.
Several comments from Novvak disallowed. Comment flooding, repetitive.....
Post a Comment