...if you look closely at the photo (I recommend you download a hi resolution photo) I attached with the LM inserted in the Saturn stage you will see the undercarriage and legs do not resemble the LM in the photos seen in space or on the moon's surface.
Yet, having said this, it literally takes people using a back up camera and 360 degree visibility to back up out of their driveway
but we take it for granted the Apollo LM was able to operate drone like (moving up to 5000 ft per second) with 2 small side windows for visibility without incident. One just has to look at the DAC footage taken from these windows to understand things are not as straightforward as we think.
With regards to changes on the LM pre-flight, official documentation (what little there is) says all these changes occurred post roll out on the launch pad. Again, seems a bit odd
Moreover it demonstrates NASA took huge risk installing untested plume deflectors at the very last minute.
Yet there exists scholarly papers that suggest these plumes would create significant stability issues.
I would love for someone to show me a craft/vehicle in which it's engines thrust directly back onto its own body.
1. I echo the comments above about reversing out of a driveway. reversing cameras are a new thing. I've done it enough times to know the exact movements I need to make with the steering wheel and the speeds required, I'm pretty sure I could do it blindfold.
I don't have blinders on and I am sure there are reasonable answers to many of my concerns.
Those windows were in no way adequate, let alone ideal, in maneuvering that craft.
It was a complete miracle the crew did not perish.
...demonstrates people may have blinders on.
Again, just look at the DAC footage from these windows. You can't see directly below and your view is limited to maybe 15-20 percent of the horizon.
ie How do you maintain stability?
Hi Everyone, I appreciate your responses. And yes I am not a naïve guy who just wandered in. But I am not a "hunchbacked" either. To be honest I don't know what to think anymore. I don't have a agenda. But having immersed myself in the subject over the years, some things continue to nag at me. I don't have blinders on and I am sure there are reasonable answers to many of my concerns.
With regards to backing up in your driveway. I was just being a bit cynical to illustrate the visibility we require today. But to suggest, as some here have, that two small windows on the LM were adequate for the job shows people have certain predisposed views. Those windows were in no way adequate, let alone ideal, in maneuvering that craft. I would suggest, if we could, ask the crew of Apollo 17 if those windows were adequate. They literally landed 2 feet away from almost certain death. Not only did one pad land in a small crater, the entire craft missed a very large crater by 2 or 3 feet which would have resulted in the craft tumbling over and death. I am 100 percent certain they had no intention of landing that close. But they did because they had zero visibility below. It was a complete miracle the crew did not perish. If I were Cernan and Schmitt I would be irate that I was nearly killed because I was given a craft in which I am flying blind. So to suggest, on anyone's part, the LM's design regarding visibility isn't, at very least, a bit puzzling demonstrates people may have blinders on. Again, just look at the DAC footage from these windows. You can't see directly below and your view is limited to maybe 15-20 percent of the horizon.
With regards to LM pre-flight, I was hoping I would get an honest discussion about this. Literally someone said "I see the differences but I don't question them" I don't get it. Does no one care? I show a photo that explicitly shows a different looking LM already inserted in the Saturn stage, mated to the CM and being hoisted to be mated to a lower stage. Everything is different right down to the tape job on the ladder. And then there are the plume deflectors. The engine thrusts are pushing directly against the body of the craft. Does this not raise even the simplest of questions? ie How do you maintain stability??? Is there even one craft/ship/vehicle in existence in which its engines thrust back into itself??? I would love to have a good debate on this (rather than whether you need a back up camera in your driveway). (and btw onebigmonkey I see no documentation on how the plumes would work. There is documentation of them on the LM)
In my decidedly unprofessional experience, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to think things look odd, but sometimes, you do need to be one to understand why they're not.
And yet they go to the launch pad last second and add all this. It defies reason.
Concerning the RCS system the force is developed at the nozzle throat, not the deflectors. the exhaust will make a smaller force but the accelerometers would detect any motion not intended and fire thrusters to stop that movement. No problem or concern here unless the system stopped working which did not happen during the six landings.
It's not at all surprising to me that some work had to be done after the LM was encased in adaptor.
It's not at all surprising to me that some work had to be done after the LM was encased in adaptor.
It's absolutely standard. The notion that any vehicle and its payload are rolled out the launch pad with all the parts installed is laughably naive.
...but to even ask a question of the LM assembly during the mating operations without knowledge of the process is laughable.
I think people need to consider the deflector was 6 inches away from the nozzle and not 5 feet. To suggest the thrust would have little impact is a supposition I have seen nowhere (from a technical standpoint).
I don't have blinders on and I am sure there are reasonable answers to many of my concerns.
With regards to backing up in your driveway. I was just being a bit cynical to illustrate the visibility we require today.
But to suggest, as some here have, that two small windows on the LM were adequate for the job shows people have certain predisposed views.
They literally landed 2 feet away from almost certain death. Not only did one pad land in a small crater, the entire craft missed a very large crater by 2 or 3 feet which would have resulted in the craft tumbling over and death.
Again, just look at the DAC footage from these windows. You can't see directly below and your view is limited to maybe 15-20 percent of the horizon.
With regards to LM pre-flight, I was hoping I would get an honest discussion about this.
Literally someone said "I see the differences but I don't question them" I don't get it. Does no one care? I show a photo that explicitly shows a different looking LM already inserted in the Saturn stage, mated to the CM and being hoisted to be mated to a lower stage. Everything is different right down to the tape job on the ladder.
And then there are the plume deflectors. The engine thrusts are pushing directly against the body of the craft. Does this not raise even the simplest of questions? ie How do you maintain stability???
Is there even one craft/ship/vehicle in existence in which its engines thrust back into itself???
I would love to have a good debate on this
and btw onebigmonkey I see no documentation on how the plumes would work. There is documentation of them on the LM
I think people need to consider the deflector was 6 inches away from the nozzle and not 5 feet. To suggest the thrust would have little impact is a supposition I have seen nowhere (from a technical standpoint).
If the thrusts start to cause instability, the system may call for more thrusts in what will lead to an almost negative feedback loop.
I will dig up one of the MIT papers which suggests this is a real possibility short of perfect conditions.
Thanks to posters for taking the time to respond.
And yet they go to the launch pad last second and add all this. It defies reason.
Not necessarily - fiddly, sticky-outy bits like plume deflectors could easily be damaged during the mating process, so it makes sense to install them after mating is complete. Same with things like thermal blankets. Yeah, the workspace would have been cramped, but flying to the moon isn't for sissies.
Then you have all the protective wrappings that need to be there for transport and mating, but has to be removed before flight. It's not at all surprising to me that some work had to be done after the LM was encased in adaptor.
I think people need to consider the deflector was 6 inches away from the nozzle and not 5 feet. To suggest the thrust would have little impact is a supposition I have seen nowhere (from a technical standpoint).
It's not at all surprising to me that some work had to be done after the LM was encased in adaptor.
It's absolutely standard. The notion that any vehicle and its payload are rolled out the launch pad with all the parts installed is laughably naive.
I think people need to consider the deflector was 6 inches away from the nozzle and not 5 feet. To suggest the thrust would have little impact is a supposition I have seen nowhere (from a technical standpoint). And regarding the comments about the DAP, it is the partial reason why the craft may go into an uncontrollable spin. If the thrusts start to cause instability, the system may call for more thrusts in what will lead to an almost negative feedback loop. I will dig up one of the MIT papers which suggests this is a real possibility short of perfect conditions. Thanks to posters for taking the time to respond.
(Now sitting back and waiting for Jay to deliver full broadside on this one).
And btw, given we are on the subject of RCS engines, how did the RCS's nozzles not get torn off the Saturn on liftoff. The LM's RCS's were covered but the RCS's on the CM were completely exposed. Max Q is 14km up. That is a long way up for those small nozzle cups facing up not to get torn off. Even if they were not torn off, they could have been easily damaged or compromised. That seems quite the risk NASA took given the RCS's had no backups. Regards jr.
First I would like to point out I meant to say positive feedback loop not negative.
And for the poster who used a satellite photo to demonstrate there were no craters near the A17 LM
there are many high resolution photos of the A17 LM directly beside a crater at least 3-4 feet deep.
And one of its pads is actually in a smaller crater.
With regards to the deflectors, I still think people should not dismiss this issue.
As one poster rightly pointed out, because of the deflectors, stability required the engines to be fired in pairs.
It also needed to be perfectly balanced
Do you not think that would present a problem? Changing fuel, moving astronauts etc.
Also what if any of the RCS's failed?
And btw, given we are on the subject of RCS engines, how did the RCS's nozzles not get torn off the Saturn on liftoff. The LM's RCS's were covered but the RCS's on the CM were completely exposed. Max Q is 14km up. That is a long way up for those small nozzle cups facing up not to get torn off. Even if they were not torn off, they could have been easily damaged or compromised. That seems quite the risk NASA took given the RCS's had no backups. Regards jr.
And btw, given we are on the subject of RCS engines, how did the RCS's nozzles not get torn off the Saturn on liftoff. The LM's RCS's were covered but the RCS's on the CM were completely exposed. Max Q is 14km up. That is a long way up for those small nozzle cups facing up not to get torn off. Even if they were not torn off, they could have been easily damaged or compromised. That seems quite the risk NASA took given the RCS's had no backups. Regards jr.
Which is why they were under the boost protective cover (BPC). If you don't understand something, ask. Don't assume that the people who worked on Apollo were stupid or risk takers, or that you have discovered some inconsistent detail that proves it was fake.
I appreciate all the responses. And I understand everyone's convictions and their solid understanding on these subjects. And I respect everyone's position. First I would like to point out I meant to say positive feedback loop not negative. And for the poster who used a satellite photo to demonstrate there were no craters near the A17 LM, there are many high resolution photos of the A17 LM directly beside a crater at least 3-4 feet deep.
And for the poster who used a satellite photo to demonstrate there were no craters near the A17 LM, there are many high resolution photos of the A17 LM directly beside a crater at least 3-4 feet deep. And one of its pads is actually in a smaller crater. And not that everyone doesn't know, the entire Apollo photo catalogue is on Flickr.
Do you think that a rocket motor works by "pushing" against something?To be fair...
It also needed to be perfectly balanced (according to the MIT paper, which I will find). Do you not think that would present a problem? Changing fuel, moving astronauts etc.
Do you think that a rocket motor works by "pushing" against something?To be fair...
While it's true that a rocket doesn't work by pushing against surrounding objects with its plume, that assumes the surrounding objects aren't attached to the rocket itself. When they are, the effect is exactly the same as a hypothetical unobstructed rocket generating the same ultimate gas flows and directions. That's why Jay said that the deflectors generate a small inward force in the process of deflecting the plume outward.
It also needed to be perfectly balanced (according to the MIT paper, which I will find). Do you not think that would present a problem? Changing fuel, moving astronauts etc.
It's amazing how persistent this misconception has become. The same thing is true for nearly every rocket launched from the earth's surface, yet few people deny that those rockets are real and actually work.
That's why Jay said that the deflectors generate a small inward force in the process of deflecting the plume outward.
But that force is small, because much of the plume misses the deflector. And as Jay said, the deflection angle of the gas that does hit it is fairly small.
The CSM RCS quads were not under the BPC, being about a third of the way down the side of the service module.
However, that doesn't mean they can't simply be engineered to be tough enough to survive those forces. That's the kind of detail that years of design and testing fixes....
The CSM RCS quads were not under the BPC, being about a third of the way down the side of the service module.
...and within the zone of boundary layer separation, thus protecting them from the supersonic slipstream. The discontinuity where the conical command module becomes the cylindrical service module causes the boundary layer of air there to separate from the side of the service module. You can see this illustrated by condensation around the stack during transonic flight. The air in the immediate vicinity of the RCS quads is turbulent, not in laminar flow at high velocity.
You've never lived until you've had a shuttle-tile fight.
But they are solidly built from robust materials. They're not going to be the least bothered by aerodynamic buffeting on the way up.
Thank you, Jay, for another example of how 'just look at those things and where they are' is really not an adequate argument for any claims on performance.
And most of us here wouldn't expect them to be.
It's a variation on the 'inflexible pressurised spacesuit' argument: It fails because it requires us to believe that the designers and engineers who built the thing somehow forgot about some basic requirements of functionality during the course of the mission.
The CSM RCS quads were not under the BPC, being about a third of the way down the side of the service module.
...and within the zone of boundary layer separation, thus protecting them from the supersonic slipstream. The discontinuity where the conical command module becomes the cylindrical service module causes the boundary layer of air there to separate from the side of the service module. You can see this illustrated by condensation around the stack during transonic flight. The air in the immediate vicinity of the RCS quads is turbulent, not in laminar flow at high velocity.
Thank you, Jay, for another example of how 'just look at those things and where they are' is really not an adequate argument for any claims on performance.QuoteYou've never lived until you've had a shuttle-tile fight.
Right, where do I get leftover shuttle tiles from? I want this for my next office do!QuoteBut they are solidly built from robust materials. They're not going to be the least bothered by aerodynamic buffeting on the way up.
And most of us here wouldn't expect them to be. It's a variation on the 'inflexible pressurised spacesuit' argument: It fails because it requires us to believe that the designers and engineers who built the thing somehow forgot about some basic requirements of functionality during the course of the mission. In the spacesuit case, that the person in it would need to be able to walk, bend and hold things while wearing it pressurised, and in this case that the RCS quads be able to withstand whatever forces they would be subjected to during launch.
Hi, thanks again for the responses. But I have to say it is disheartening to see some responses. I am aware, myself included, we all have certain predispositions. But it is deflating to see immediate responses that clearly show no considered thought. I ask a simple (and I think reasonable ) question regarding RCS engines on the side of the CM. Immediately I am told they were covered. Are people not aware there are many photos on liftoff showing the exact opposite?
I can't even get anyone admit that Apollo 17 landed beside a crater. I have come to you guys because of your knowledge. In any event, I attached some photos to show the A17 LM beside the crater...
Hi, thanks again for the responses. But I have to say it is disheartening to see some responses. I am aware, myself included, we all have certain predispositions. But it is deflating to see immediate responses that clearly show no considered thought. I ask a simple (and I think reasonable ) question regarding RCS engines on the side of the CM. Immediately I am told they were covered. Are people not aware there are many photos on liftoff showing the exact opposite?
Which is why they were under the boost protective cover (BPC). If you don't understand something, ask. Don't assume that the people who worked on Apollo were stupid or risk takers, or that you have discovered some inconsistent detail that proves it was fake.
The CSM RCS quads were not under the BPC, being about a third of the way down the side of the service module.
However, that doesn't mean they can't simply be engineered to be tough enough to survive those forces. That's the kind of detail that years of design and testing fixes....
The CSM RCS quads were not under the BPC, being about a third of the way down the side of the service module.
However, that doesn't mean they can't simply be engineered to be tough enough to survive those forces. That's the kind of detail that years of design and testing fixes....
I can't even get anyone admit that Apollo 17 landed beside a crater. I have come to you guys because of your knowledge. In any event, I attached some photos to show the A17 LM beside the crater. And again, I am 100 percent certain that Cernan (or anyone for that matter) would not intentionally land that close to a crater. So either Cernan (or Schimitt?) is very bad pilot or their visibility was extremely impaired.
Hi VQ,
I think you need perspective to understand the size of the crater. The strut supporting the LM leg is 4 feet 10 inches off the ground. Are you suggesting the main descent engine nozzle coming down on the raised crater edge would not have created a significant, if not, catastrophic outcome?
I did not say the A17 mission was a fabrication because they would not have landed that close to the crater. What I did say however is the pictures I attached if examined with the other A17 photos (particularly EVA1) you will come to some unsettling conclusions.
Hi VQ,
I think you need perspective to understand the size of the crater. The strut supporting the LM leg is 4 feet 10 inches off the ground. Are you suggesting the main descent engine nozzle coming down on the raised crater edge would not have created a significant, if not, catastrophic outcome?
And I understand everyone's convictions and their solid understanding on these subjects.
And I respect everyone's position.
First I would like to point out I meant to say positive feedback loop not negative.
With regards to the deflectors, I still think people should not dismiss this issue.
As one poster rightly pointed out, because of the deflectors, stability required the engines to be fired in pairs.
It also needed to be perfectly balanced...
...according to the MIT paper, which I will find.
Do you not think that would present a problem? Changing fuel, moving astronauts etc.
Also what if any of the RCS's failed? They had failed prior to A11. Yet they had no backups on these 7 flights.
...how did the RCS's nozzles not get torn off the Saturn on liftoff.
...those small nozzle cups facing up not to get torn off.
Even if they were not torn off, they could have been easily damaged or compromised.
That seems quite the risk NASA took given the RCS's had no backups.
The fender I am referring to is a fender off the land rover not the LM.
background rocks and the hills
Hi bknight,
The fender I am referring to is a fender off the land rover not the LM. The fender is laying on the ground in the background slightly to the left of the LM leg.
I have attached another photo to help everyone along.
I believe a crater like the one seen in A17 could cause a significant issue.
I also believe a pilot would not deliberately land this close to a crater given a choice.
That says to me they had a visibility problem.
Others obviously feel differently. No big deal. Just wanted to point it out as example of what I believe is LM visibility problem.
Hi, thanks again for the responses. But I have to say it is disheartening to see some responses. I am aware, myself included, we all have certain predispositions. But it is deflating to see immediate responses that clearly show no considered thought. I ask a simple (and I think reasonable ) question regarding RCS engines on the side of the CM. Immediately I am told they were covered. Are people not aware there are many photos on liftoff showing the exact opposite?
I can't even get anyone admit that Apollo 17 landed beside a crater.
And again, I am 100 percent certain that Cernan (or anyone for that matter) would not intentionally land that close to a crater. So either Cernan (or Schimitt?) is very bad pilot or their visibility was extremely impaired.
People, (including many here I'm sure), would point out the engines were thrusting (including heat) directly on the lower stage of LM. That certainly would raise many questions.
That says to me they had a visibility problem. Others obviously feel differently. No big deal. Just wanted to point it out as example of what I believe is LM visibility problem.
Hi Guys,
I respect your opinions. I believe a crater like the one seen in A17 could cause a significant issue.
I also believe a pilot would not deliberately land this close to a crater given a choice.
That says to me they had a visibility problem. Others obviously feel differently. No big deal. Just wanted to point it out as example of what I believe is LM visibility problem.
I am actually interested in everyone's thoughts of those A17 photos. I reattached the first two I posted. I believe it shows everything you need to make a proper assessment of the legitimacy of A17 photos. Pay particular attention to the crater, the footprints in the foreground, the footprints in the background, background rocks and the hills, and especially the fender on the ground in the background (to the left of LM leg halfway back in the background). (And before anyone suggests that isn't a fender, there are many hi Res colour pics that show it to be a fender)
I appreciate well reasoned responses even if it goes against my thoughts.
While it is evident I have doubts about things, I never suggested the actual LM landings were hoaxed. I only pointed out that the LM seemed to have less than optimal visibility. Just an opinion.
Believe me, I am trying only to ask reasonable questions.
Humor me. Take a look at the Apollo 17 photos. This is ultimately what led me to the uncertainties/doubts I have now.
I only pointed out that the LM seemed to have less than optimal visibility. Just an opinion.
Believe me, I am trying only to ask reasonable questions.
Humor me. Take a look at the Apollo 17 photos. This is ultimately what led me to the uncertainties/doubts I have now.
Hi VQ,
I think you need perspective to understand the size of the crater. The strut supporting the LM leg is 4 feet 10 inches off the ground. Are you suggesting the main descent engine nozzle coming down on the raised crater edge would not have created a significant, if not, catastrophic outcome?
I did not say the A17 mission was a fabrication because they would not have landed that close to the crater. What I did say however is the pictures I attached if examined with the other A17 photos (particularly EVA1) you will come to some unsettling conclusions.
One poster did pose an interesting question regarding why NASA would have bothered adding deflectors if the whole thing is a fake. I gave that question some thought in the past. And I came to the conclusion, the alternative would have been worse. People, (including many here I'm sure), would point out the engines were thrusting (including heat) directly on the lower stage of LM. That certainly would raise many questions. They did it briefly without deflectors on prior missions but landing on the moon would bring a lot more eyes to the project.
And btw, given we are on the subject of RCS engines, how did the RCS's nozzles not get torn off the Saturn on liftoff. The LM's RCS's were covered but the RCS's on the CM were completely exposed. Max Q is 14km up. That is a long way up for those small nozzle cups facing up not to get torn off. Even if they were not torn off, they could have been easily damaged or compromised. That seems quite the risk NASA took given the RCS's had no backups. Regards jr.
Which is why they were under the boost protective cover (BPC). If you don't understand something, ask. Don't assume that the people who worked on Apollo were stupid or risk takers, or that you have discovered some inconsistent detail that proves it was fake.
The CSM RCS quads were not under the BPC, being about a third of the way down the side of the service module.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTIutbVddbNGezeX7Iupnt_-1-BkSqNrgLJQ7Q3IcYowgWQQoI)
However, that doesn't mean they can't simply be engineered to be tough enough to survive those forces. That's the kind of detail that years of design and testing fixes....
The RCS on the SM were a different matter
Hi jfb,
The third picture I attached shows the footpad (in a small crater) about 2-3 feet from the ridge of the much larger crater not 5-8 meters as you suggest.
The unsettling conclusions have nothing to do with the LM landing. It has to do with everything you see in those pics versus other photos from A17. (my recent posts give some direction on where to start to look.)
Jason, I understood the question to have been about the thrusters on the CM, which jr Knowing specified. These were under the BCF, I think.
The RCS on the SM were a different matter
That said the point is moot and my original observation remains: they did not land in that crater.
This is (I believe) the same feature in AS17-140-21373:
This is (I believe) the same feature in AS17-140-21373:
I just found that too. Not a fender. It appears in Jack's 4 o'clock LM pan before Gene went for a test drive. Maybe something Gene discarded when he ran over to Poppie after he came down the ladder. It's right next to his trail to Poppie.
117:11:30 Cernan: Jack, I'm out here. Oh, my golly! Unbelievable! Unbelievable; but is it bright in the Sun. (Pause) Okay! We landed in a very shallow depression. That's why we've got a slight pitch-up angle. (It's a) very shallow, dinner-plate-like, dish crater just about the width of the struts (meaning the total span of the landing gear). How you doing, Jack?
117:14:20 Cernan: There's a small little 1-meter crater right in front of us with a whole mess of glass right in the middle. That's right in front of the MESA, as a matter of fact. Right where I want to park the Rover. Jack, you're looking good.
117:15:05 Cernan: Who said this place was smooth? Oh, boy! There's a lot of local depressions here I didn't figure existed.
117:15:21 Cernan: Hey, Bob, I'm east of the LM now. I'm east of the LM, and the back strut of the LM is...Well, the LM straddles this crater I talked about, and that's where we get the pitch angle; the back strut is probably right down in the eastern one-third of that crater. Just a very subtle crater.
117:16:08 Schmitt: You landed in a crater!
117:21:50 Cernan: Yeah. I don't think there is any place you could land around here where you wouldn't have one foot(pad) in a crater.
By maintaining a little forward velocity Gene knew he wouldn't back into something he'd already flown over. You can har Jack reminding gene to nudge the LM forward as the approach the ground. The audio from the other missions contain many such reminders.
The site was re-dressed somewhat...
Please be gentle.
Hi Everyone,
Yes that is the object I am talking about. It is a fender. There are Hi-Res pics that show it clearly with both its color and proper shape. (it isn't completely curved as some people may think.) The thing I would note here is according to transcripts they lost the fender during EVA 1 and didn't recover it. It should also be pointed out there is another object between the two foot paths near the fender. (Apollo surface journal says they have no idea what it is) One should also note the photos that show the striped down LR going for an initial test drive (with the fender in background) has all four fenders intact at the end photo.
Keep all this in mind with the two pictures I have attached to this post. It is one of the landing site and another of EVA 1. They are slightly oriented differently (maybe 30 degrees) and one is taken from a higher vantage point. I have numbered certain features. (I would suggest using Hi-Res)
1. Small crater in front of subject crater. Notice the straight edge of the bottom of the crater created by the tire track. Also take note of patterns/rocks/shadows within this small crater.
2. Subject crater with smaller attached satellite crater to the left.
3. rock and shadow behind/left of satellite crater.
4. Distinctive shaped rock/shadow to the right of what appears an indentation. Second picture same distinctive rock but now a rock has been added above the indentation. Also note the foot trail behind.
5. In one pic it is an indentation, in the other a large rock has been added.
6.Large rock. Same in both.
7. In one picture it is a set a tire tracks. (including a tire track in the foreground up against the subject crater). In the second photo, it is foot tracks that seem to follow a very similar path. Note the zig zag around rock six. Also if you are wondering about the two visible craters beside the number 7 in the one photo and not the other. They are there. If you download the hi-res pic they show up clearly even from the lower vantage point of photo. (you can see them somewhat even on this pic, directly below the number 6)
8. In one photo it shows an indentation. In The other photo, two rocks have been added. Take note of the foot prints around these two rocks.
Not marked. but should be noted are the Hills in the background.
I have many more photos to show the similarities. (These photos are AS17-134-20437 and AS17-147-22514.) But, to me, it appears EVA 1 was done first and then the landing site. The site was re-dressed somewhat and the tire tracks were just literally walked over. What are the odds of the tire tracks and foot paths having such similar characteristics? (Btw,There are some good photos of the foot print trails out by rock 6. Take a look at the amount of shoe prints.)
What are people's thoughts? Please be gentle.
I realize they are suppose to be from two different sites. But it doesn't change the fact, if you look carefully at the photos I attached something doesn't appear right.
Please download the hi-res pics and look for your self. ...[Y]ou want to investigate further.
Hi Everyone,
Yes that is the object I am talking about. It is a fender. There are Hi-Res pics that show it clearly with both its color and proper shape. (it isn't completely curved as some people may think.) The thing I would note here is according to transcripts they lost the fender during EVA 1 and didn't recover it. It should also be pointed out there is another object between the two foot paths near the fender. (Apollo surface journal says they have no idea what it is) One should also note the photos that show the striped down LR going for an initial test drive (with the fender in background) has all four fenders intact at the end photo.
Keep all this in mind with the two pictures I have attached to this post. It is one of the landing site and another of EVA 1. They are slightly oriented differently (maybe 30 degrees) and one is taken from a higher vantage point. I have numbered certain features. (I would suggest using Hi-Res)
1. Small crater in front of subject crater. Notice the straight edge of the bottom of the crater created by the tire track. Also take note of patterns/rocks/shadows within this small crater.
2. Subject crater with smaller attached satellite crater to the left.
3. rock and shadow behind/left of satellite crater.
4. Distinctive shaped rock/shadow to the right of what appears an indentation. Second picture same distinctive rock but now a rock has been added above the indentation. Also note the foot trail behind.
5. In one pic it is an indentation, in the other a large rock has been added.
6.Large rock. Same in both.
7. In one picture it is a set a tire tracks. (including a tire track in the foreground up against the subject crater). In the second photo, it is foot tracks that seem to follow a very similar path. Note the zig zag around rock six. Also if you are wondering about the two visible craters beside the number 7 in the one photo and not the other. They are there. If you download the hi-res pic they show up clearly even from the lower vantage point of photo. (you can see them somewhat even on this pic, directly below the number 6)
8. In one photo it shows an indentation. In The other photo, two rocks have been added. Take note of the foot prints around these two rocks.
Not marked. but should be noted are the Hills in the background.
I have many more photos to show the similarities. (These photos are AS17-134-20437 and AS17-147-22514.) But, to me, it appears EVA 1 was done first and then the landing site. The site was re-dressed somewhat and the tire tracks were just literally walked over. What are the odds of the tire tracks and foot paths having such similar characteristics? (Btw,There are some good photos of the foot print trails out by rock 6. Take a look at the amount of shoe prints.)
What are people's thoughts? Please be gentle.
I understand you are scepticism.
...make you want to dig a bit deeper.
It did me.
Hi OneBigMonkey,
Yes, I have all the pans. I realize they are suppose to be from two different sites. But it doesn't change the fact, if you look carefully at the photos I attached something doesn't appear right. Please download the hi-res pics and look for your self. The three craters in the foreground (the main crater, the attached satellite crater and the crater in front of the main crater), alone should give you pause and at least make you want to investigate further.
Yes, I have all the pans. I realize they are suppose to be from two different sites. But it doesn't change the fact, if you look carefully at the photos I attached something doesn't appear right.
In reply #91 I posted two pics in which I have highlighted/numbered similar features.
Just look at the three craters in the foreground of each pic and go from there.
Hi Jason,
In reply #91 I posted two pics in which I have highlighted/numbered similar features. Just look at the three craters in the foreground of each pic and go from there.
I hesitate to say anything at the risk of being seen as crackpot...
It looks very vivid and the colors look off.
Again don't destroy me.
I am just pointing out how evidence might not always be fully trust worthy.
...pretty good.
...fairly static.
I will leave it to another day to explain what I think is going on.
As some posters have pointed out, we need to stick to one topic at a time.
The images are from completely different locations. The location of the first photograph you posted can be seen in the panorama that contains the second - here it is with the same rock identified amongst the tracks leading to Poppie crater:
(https://i.imgur.com/9kZlen1.jpg)
Hi Bknight,
I am glad you see the fender.
Hi OneBigMonkey,
I hesitate to say anything at the risk of being seen as crackpot,
but if there is something to what I am saying then why would that far off picture of the LM "exist"in which you point out the rock? If, even if it is a million to one, the EVA and LM site are one in the same then could that not be some Matte painting? Look at how the LM looks. It looks very vivid and the colors look off. Again don't destroy me. I am just pointing out how evidence might not always be fully trust worthy.
I am not quite sure about what you are trying to show with the pair comparison. They were shot from significantly different angles and height. Even then, despite what you are saying, they actually line up pretty good. I think you are being confused by the dark band of land just below the hills. If you follow the footprints/tracks out to where they disappear in background you will see it is darker band of ground/hill that changes. You see this transition from flat ground to hills/horizon in many pics particularly the later missions. That band changes everything else remains fairly static. I will leave it to another day to explain what I think is going on. I rather concentrate on the comparisons between the two sites for now. As some posters have pointed out, we need to stick to one topic at a time.
Hi Bknight,
I am glad you see the fender. The location and timing is problematic. The fender was lost supposedly during EVA SEP location. The fender you see is at the LM site. And the fender is on the ground prior to the rover being driven. There are photos prior to the rover taking the test drive showing the fender on the ground.(no tire tracks anywhere) And there are photos of the fender on the ground during test drive in which the rover still had all its fenders after the test drive.
Hi Bknight,
I am glad you see the fender.
It's not a fender.
Jay et al, I am just trying to respect other people's beliefs.
Clearly, as you can see, I am not part of "the band".
I know I don't have a monopoly on truth. But neither does anyone else.
I must be stupid to have these doubts. But there are things that keep nagging at me.
If you want to brand me a hoaxer, fine.
But I am here because you guys, if anybody, will give a reason(able) rebuttal.
Has anybody done an comparison analysis of the small crater directly in front of the large crater in the two site pics?
Hi OneBigMonkey,
I hesitate to say anything at the risk of being seen as crackpot, but if there is something to what I am saying then why would that far off picture of the LM "exist"in which you point out the rock? If, even if it is a million to one, the EVA and LM site are one in the same then could that not be some Matte painting? Look at how the LM looks. It looks very vivid and the colors look off. Again don't destroy me. I am just pointing out how evidence might not always be fully trust worthy.
I am not quite sure about what you are trying to show with the pair comparison. They were shot from significantly different angles and height. Even then, despite what you are saying, they actually line up pretty good. I think you are being confused by the dark band of land just below the hills. If you follow the footprints/tracks out to where they disappear in background you will see it is darker band of ground/hill that changes. You see this transition from flat ground to hills/horizon in many pics particularly the later missions. That band changes everything else remains fairly static. I will leave it to another day to explain what I think is going on. I rather concentrate on the comparisons between the two sites for now. As some posters have pointed out, we need to stick to one topic at a time.
I think you are being a bit unfair with me...
You don't back that statement up with anything.
I am fine with that.
To me, this all about fruitful discourse.
I don't profess to have your level of knowledge on some things.
But I can hold my own on other things.
Hi Jay,
I think you are being a bit unfair with me regarding demonstrating a high burden of proof.
I not critical of you when you state certain things without support. For instances, regarding the RCS nozzles you stated the nozzles were "within the zone of boundary layer separation, thus protecting them from the supersonic slipstream. The discontinuity where the conical command module becomes the cylindrical service module causes the boundary layer of air there to separate from the side of the service module. You can see this illustrated by condensation around the stack during transonic flight. The air in the immediate vicinity of the RCS quads is turbulent, not in laminar flow at high velocity." You don't back that statement up with anything.
I am fine with that. But it is helpful to me as it gives me some direction to an answer. (of course, I haven't found documentation yet of the Saturn that shows this but no biggie). To me, this all about fruitful discourse. I am not demanding concrete proof on things, just ideas and thoughts. And Given some of your answers, I don't profess to have your level of knowledge on some things. But I can hold my own on other things. Thanks.
Hi Everyone,No, you are incorrect, or too hard headed to read and understand. The pan was taken while Gene was testing the rover.
...
BKnight, with regards to the fender. Either you attached the wrong pic, or you are proving my point. The pic you attached are not tire tracks beside the fender, they are foot prints. The fender is no where near any tire tracks. In fact, the documentation states this pic is prior to rover rollout.
...
...I am not regurgitating drivel from the internet. That's a start.
And not that I want to open up another kettle of fish, but take a look at that LR final resting spot photo AS17-143-21932 . It makes no sense. Both back wheels are off the ground. One wheel is larger than the other. No tire threads behind the back tires. And the rear axels are in complete different directions. And the upper part of the rear right antenna is showing a profile that can only be seen from directly below. I am sure someone will say foreshortening. But if they understand foreshortening, they will know this can't cause these things to happen.
I wonder why?
...As far as the LRO pics go, yes it is hard to dispute this recent evidence (unless there has been tampering) that shows proof of these landings. Having said this, I still have nagging concerns on some things.
And not that I want to open up another kettle of fish, but take a look at that LR final resting spot photo AS17-143-21932 . It makes no sense. Both back wheels are off the ground.
One wheel is larger than the other.
No tire threads behind the back tires.
And the rear axels are in complete different directions.
And the upper part of the rear right antenna is showing a profile that can only be seen from directly below.
I am sure someone will say foreshortening. But if they understand foreshortening, they will know this can't cause these things to happen.
Hi Jay, Obviousman, Peter B,
Peter B, The answer is simple. She moved two of her work days in the week till after Thursday. And with regards to your comments about the preponderance of evidence, it is mainly from government sources. And as we have all come to know, governments can and have done some crazy, even unspeakable things.
Jay et al, I am not quite sure why everyone spends all their time questioning my motives and intentions and not addressing the issues I have laid out? And It is actually Jay who seems very quiet regarding my questions about A17 EVA/LM site comparisons/fenders etc. I don't think he has made a direct comment about of any this. But that is fine. He doesn't need to, if he doesn't want. I just wish the thread didn't get cluttered up with 'you are a hoaxer, reveal yourself' stuff. I like to stick to the meat and potatoes of things and have a fruitful dialectic dialogue with others.
Jay et al, I am not quite sure why everyone spends all their time questioning my motives and intentions...
...and not addressing the issues I have laid out?
And It is actually Jay who seems very quiet regarding my questions about A17 EVA/LM...
He doesn't need to, if he doesn't want.
I just wish the thread didn't get cluttered up with 'you are a hoaxer, reveal yourself' stuff.
I like to stick to the meat and potatoes of things and have a fruitful dialectic dialogue with others.
The left tire is at least thirty percent bigger than the right. How is that possible if the pic is taken from this distance?
The left tire is at least thirty percent bigger than the right. How is that possible if the pic is taken from this distance?
I'll tell you how it's possible if you concede you were mistaken about the plume deflectors and the RCS.
Hi Peter B,
The left tire is at least thirty percent bigger than the right. How is that possible if the pic is taken from this distance? Download the hi resolution photo of the LR pic. Zoom into the rear wheels. Both tires are off the ground. Not only will you will see there are no tire tracks but there a footprints instead (especially right tire) I have also attached a marked photo pointing to the rear axels. One is pointing outwards and the other is much smaller pointing inwards. With regards to the rear antenna (the name escapes me) the antenna normally looks flat. ie the wires are flat, horizontal. The only way you can see this design is from below.
Hi Jay, Obviousman, Peter B,
Peter B, The answer is simple. She moved two of her work days in the week till after Thursday.
And with regards to your comments about the preponderance of evidence, it is mainly from government sources. And as we have all come to know, governments can and have done some crazy, even unspeakable things.
Hi Peter B,
The left tire is at least thirty percent bigger than the right.
How is that possible if the pic is taken from this distance?
Download the hi resolution photo of the LR pic. Zoom into the rear wheels. Both tires are off the ground.
Not only will you will see there are no tire tracks but there a footprints instead (especially right tire)...
...I have also attached a marked photo pointing to the rear axels. One is pointing outwards and the other is much smaller pointing inwards.
With regards to the rear antenna (the name escapes me) the antenna normally looks flat. ie the wires are flat, horizontal. The only way you can see this design is from below.
Hi Peter B,
The left tire is at least thirty percent bigger than the right. How is that possible if the pic is taken from this distance? Download the hi resolution photo of the LR pic. Zoom into the rear wheels. Both tires are off the ground. Not only will you will see there are no tire tracks but there a footprints instead (especially right tire) I have also attached a marked photo pointing to the rear axels. One is pointing outwards and the other is much smaller pointing inwards. With regards to the rear antenna (the name escapes me) the antenna normally looks flat. ie the wires are flat, horizontal. The only way you can see this design is from below.
Hi Jason,
In reply #91 I posted two pics in which I have highlighted/numbered similar features. Just look at the three craters in the foreground of each pic and go from there.
Hi OneBigMonkey,
You are comparing the wrong two things. The pics on the right are correct. That is the small crater in front of the larger crater. The pics on the left look like the rock formation I numbered NO 3. I numbered the small crater no.1 in the comparison photos.
The left tire is at least thirty percent bigger than the right. How is that possible if the pic is taken from this distance?How did you come up with the 30% figure? The angles, positions and presence of fenders makes measurement a bit tricky, but my best, and most generous estimate is 20%, and more realistically it's about 17%.
Download the hi resolution photo of the LR pic. Zoom into the rear wheels. Both tires are off the ground. Not only will you will see there are no tire tracks but there a footprints instead (especially right tire)I'd disagree that both are off the ground. Looking closely at the original image, the right wheel appears to be in solid contact with the surface. Again, the angles make it difficult to properly identify tracks, but careful examination of the original shows partial tracks leading to the parking spot. There are many, many images in the record for multiple missions which show that the astronauts walked over rover tracks, messing them up - do you think they should have thought "Hey, we want to preserve these tracks for future generations, better not walk on them!"?
I have also attached a marked photo pointing to the rear axels. One is pointing outwards and the other is much smaller pointing inwards.Again, this is partly due to angles and perspective, and partly due to the construction of the suspension system. As you note, the left wheel appears to be off the ground, so the suspension is unloaded. The information on the suspension, and indeed the whole LRV design and construction, is readily available, and an interesting read (well, to me anyway).
With regards to the rear antenna (the name escapes me) the antenna normally looks flat. ie the wires are flat, horizontal. The only way you can see this design is from below.Hmmm, indeed, it makes you wonder... ;)
Hi Peter B,
The left tire is at least thirty percent bigger than the right. How is that possible if the pic is taken from this distance?
Download the hi resolution photo of the LR pic. Zoom into the rear wheels. Both tires are off the ground.
Not only will you will see there are no tire tracks but there a footprints instead (especially right tire)
I have also attached a marked photo pointing to the rear axels. One is pointing outwards and the other is much smaller pointing inwards.
With regards to the rear antenna (the name escapes me) the antenna normally looks flat. ie the wires are flat, horizontal. The only way you can see this design is from below.
Hi Bknight,
I have attached AS17-143-21932. It shows the LR in its final resting spot. They removed the other fender end for whatever reason. The fender is clearly not rounded like people tend to suggest. It is like the "fender" found on the ground in those pictures. I have reattached those photos again. These photos look very much like the fender in AS17-143-21932.
And not that I want to open up another kettle of fish, but take a look at that LR final resting spot photo AS17-143-21932 . It makes no sense. Both back wheels are off the ground.
One wheel is larger than the other.
No tire threads behind the back tires.
And the rear axels are in complete different directions.
And the upper part of the rear right antenna is showing a profile that can only be seen from directly below. I am sure someone will say foreshortening. But if they understand foreshortening, they will know this can't cause these things to happen.I don't understand your logic "that can only be seen from directly below" from below would be looking through the vehicle?
Thanks OBM - that matches my approx. 17% figure pretty closely (and I may have been erring on the side of caution).Hi Peter B,
The left tire is at least thirty percent bigger than the right. How is that possible if the pic is taken from this distance?
Not by actually taking measurements they aren't. You can't see the entirety of the wheel but you can see the entirety of the fender. In your image photoshop's measuring tool says that fender measures 38.6 v 32.8 - around 15% wider on our left. Meauring from the top of highest point of the fender to the ground we get 109.2 versus 92.7 - again a difference of around 15%. Making actual measurements doesn't support your bare assertion.
Hi Peter B,
The left tire is at least thirty percent bigger than the right. How is that possible if the pic is taken from this distance? Download the hi resolution photo of the LR pic. Zoom into the rear wheels. Both tires are off the ground. Not only will you will see there are no tire tracks but there a footprints instead (especially right tire) I have also attached a marked photo pointing to the rear axels. One is pointing outwards and the other is much smaller pointing inwards. With regards to the rear antenna (the name escapes me) the antenna normally looks flat. ie the wires are flat, horizontal. The only way you can see this design is from below.
Okay, I'll bite. How IS it possible?
Indeed, I'm trying to imagine two guys in the scenery shop. "Hey, Jerry," says one to the other. "Know what would be funny? Let's make one of these wheels, like, a whole lot bigger than the other." How would a vehicle built with one wheel bigger than the others contribute in any way to a convincing hoax?
Are these the same two guys that labelled the rocks with letters, but ran out of serial numbers after they reached Z? ???
I like to stick to the meat and potatoes of things and have a fruitful dialectic dialogue with others.
Are these the same two guys that labelled the rocks with letters, but ran out of serial numbers after they reached Z? ???
Probably. I never figured out some of these claims. "This doesn't look like I expect it to, and somehow vaguely that means it was hoaxed." Okay, I get that a person can't immediately figure out whats going on there, but how does what you think it looks like make sense according to how someone would create a hoax? Not making sense in one context doesn't automatically make it make sense in some other arbitrary context. In the broader sense, "I'm just curious and have these vague doubts and suspicions" somehow always goes first to "It must have been a hoax." No, it's not reasonable or sensible that this is the first place a person goes, and the place he keeps returning to. One simply might not know some obscure, relevant fact, or might not understand something he can easily be taught. "Will someone please tell me?" sounds sensible at first glance, but then when the rejoinder is "No, I'm going to stick with my original doubts and fears" or "You can't back that up" (i.e., "I could easily verify this, but I won't") then the disguise just isn't convincing anymore. The people who attempt these stealth approaches always seem to think it's working.
Are these the same two guys that labelled the rocks with letters, but ran out of serials after they reached Z? ???
Not to mention lifting a vehicle with wheels all over the set rather than push it around...
Hi jfb,
The third picture I attached shows the footpad (in a small crater) about 2-3 feet from the ridge of the much larger crater not 5-8 meters as you suggest.
The unsettling conclusions have nothing to do with the LM landing. It has to do with everything you see in those pics versus other photos from A17. (my recent posts give some direction on where to start to look.)
If the wheel actually isn't bigger, then it just looks bigger. And there are well-understood reasons why something might just look bigger in a photograph.
If the wheel actually isn't bigger, then it just looks bigger. And there are well-understood reasons why something might just look bigger in a photograph.
(https://i.redd.it/4ib8ss4rh0p11.jpg)
The left tire is at least thirty percent bigger than the right. How is that possible if the pic is taken from this distance?
It's weird - he has the exact same problems with perspective as hunchbacked, but doesn't have the same spelling mistakes as him. I wonder why?
The left tire is at least thirty percent bigger than the right. How is that possible if the pic is taken from this distance?
It takes some belief in your own position to seriously postulate that someone would build a Rover (even for a hoax scenario) with one wheel bigger than the other.
Hi Jay,
I never suggested the actual LM landings were hoaxed.
But, to me, it appears EVA 1 was done first and then the landing site. The site was re-dressed somewhat and the tire tracks were just literally walked over.
Hi Peter B,
The left tire is at least thirty percent bigger than the right. How is that possible if the pic is taken from this distance? Download the hi resolution photo of the LR pic. Zoom into the rear wheels. Both tires are off the ground. Not only will you will see there are no tire tracks but there a footprints instead (especially right tire) I have also attached a marked photo pointing to the rear axels. One is pointing outwards and the other is much smaller pointing inwards. With regards to the rear antenna (the name escapes me) the antenna normally looks flat. ie the wires are flat, horizontal. The only way you can see this design is from below.
Hi Peter B,
The left tire is at least thirty percent bigger than the right. How is that possible if the pic is taken from this distance? Download the hi resolution photo of the LR pic. Zoom into the rear wheels. Both tires are off the ground. Not only will you will see there are no tire tracks but there a footprints instead (especially right tire) I have also attached a marked photo pointing to the rear axels. One is pointing outwards and the other is much smaller pointing inwards. With regards to the rear antenna (the name escapes me) the antenna normally looks flat. ie the wires are flat, horizontal. The only way you can see this design is from below.
I wish that people would learn at least a little photography before attempting to analyze photographs.
I wish that people would learn at least a little photography before attempting to analyze photographs.
I wish that people would learn at least a little photography before attempting to analyze photographs.
I wish that people would learn at least a little photography before attempting to analyze photographs.
Talking to me or Jr?
I wish that people would learn at least a little photography before attempting to analyze photographs.
Talking to me or Jr?
Obviously to the person who thinks, that for some arcane reason that someone would put rear tires of two different sizes on a LRV, and that EVEN IF THEY DID, it was somehow proof of a hoax.
Probably. I never figured out some of these claims.
. How can they even begin to dismiss the collective knowledge of so many with such sweeping arrogance?
I wish that people would learn at least a little photography before attempting to analyze photographs.
Wheels in different directions (All four LRV wheels were independently steered)
And again I am not sure why everyone response's revolve around side topics that are somewhat meaningless.
A normal pic will show a horizontal ie flat part near the top.
So the photo could be a composite and not as Jay satirically it was created by a couple of guys sitting around building a Rover with a bigger tire.
...In any event, I don't really care about this.
I am not quite sure what the purpose of this forum is? Forums should be about debate.
...that make feel the visuals are less than authentic.
To bounce thoughts off you guys. Not to get belittled.
Why is it so easy to ignore the "meat and potatoes" and rather question character and mock others who thoughts may not be same as your own?
I think the questions I have asked in this thread have been reasonable and nor naïve.
I asked why the engines thrusted back into the craft and if the deflectors would cause stability issues. Again reasonable.
I have asked why NASA would expose a small engine nozzle to the forces of liftoff. That seems reasonable to me.
I am just literally looking for answers.
It won't be the first time I am wrong.
You tapdance pretty good, son.
I know this means a lot to many people.
We have good natured debates all the time but nobody takes anything personally.
Hi Everyone,
A couple of things. And again I am not sure why everyone response's revolve around side topics that are somewhat meaningless.
If you want me to admit I am guilty of introducing side topics. I guess I am.
And if Jay wants me to admit that people have given plausible explanations for some of the questions I have asked. Sure.
Can we just move on?
A couple of things. And again I am not sure why everyone response's revolve around side topics that are somewhat meaningless.As already mentioned by others, it's because you keep introducing them (and do so again below). Personally, I'm still not sure what your main topic is. What your main question or perceived problem is. Maybe if you could state clearly and concisely exactly what point you would like people to explain or discuss, it would stop the off-topic ramblings.
… all I was trying to show is the shape of the fender and how it is very similar to...
It has a profile that can only be seen from below. A normal pic will show...
...the place where the photo seems to have be taken from seems wrong.
I believe many of the photos/films display things that make feel the visuals are less than authentic."Feelings" and "beliefs" (and what exactly is a "normal picture"?) have been shown time and again to be very poor guides to what is real and what is imagined. This applies in all walks of life, not just when discussing the Apollo landings.
I think the questions I have asked in this thread have been reasonable and nor naïve. I have asked why the flag changed orientation. That's reasonable. I asked why the LM inserted into the Saturn stage looked different. Again reasonable. I asked why the engines thrusted back into the craft and if the deflectors would cause stability issues. Again reasonable. I have asked why NASA would expose a small engine nozzle to the forces of liftoff. That seems reasonable to me. I have asked why certain A17 site locations seem similar. Reasonable (but so far no response). I am just literally looking for answers. If they don't fit with my way of thinking. So be it. It won't be the first time I am wrong.There's nothing wrong with asking questions - even stupid questions can be worthwhile. The problem arises when, having had the questions answered extensively, with supporting evidence, and with references, the questioner dismisses the answer and moves on to yet another vague supposition...
Hi Everyone,
A couple of things. And again I am not sure why everyone response's revolve around side topics that are somewhat meaningless.
With regards to the government. If everyone feels that governments are not capable of duping the people and getting away with it. I will leave you with just one quote from a former President. And you can debate it with him. From his autobiography, he states
"Just a month before, Apollo 11 astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong had left their colleague, Michael Collins, aboard spaceship Columbia and walked on the moon...The old carpenter asked me if I really believed it happened. I said sure, I saw it on television. He disagreed; he said that he didn't believe it for a minute, that 'them television fellers' could make things look real that weren't. Back then, I thought he was a crank. During my eight years in Washington, I saw some things on TV that made me wonder if he wasn't ahead of his time “ Bill Clinton 2004.
Now I am not suggesting here Clinton is saying that the Landings were fake but it is clear, given his time in Washington, he believes the wool is being pulled over people's faces with regards to government actions. And it is also unclear why he would use the Moon Landings to make this point. It is 2004, he would know full well of the debate around this topic and this would only muddy the waters more particularly since he doesn't qualify the Carpenters statement about the Landings were dubious as being wrong but his thoughts on Government/media as being right. It doesn't make a lot of sense. Can you imagine if he used JFK assignation to make his point? Anyways I have no interest in debating this. Just trying to point out governments can literally get away with murder.
With regards to the Lunar Rover pic. Again, all I was trying to show is the shape of the fender and how it is very similar to the "object" seen in the background of LM site. But everyone has ignored this and has instead decided to focus on suggesting I am a buffoon to suggest the photo appears odd. I made a simple comment.
I also suggested that given where the photo appears to have taken from, it could not be foreshortening. I did not say it could not be foreshortening. But I am suggesting that photo had to be taken close and from the rear left end of the Rover. And to support this, I said one only has to look at the rear right "antenna". It has a profile that can only be seen from below. A normal pic will show a horizontal ie flat part near the top. (I have attached a pic from the same mission showing how the antenna looks if the photo is taken normally. Notice how you cannot see how the design of the flat part is constructed. On the foreshortened photo, you can see it clearly.) So if it is a foreshortened photo, the place where the photo seems to have be taken from seems wrong.
So the photo could be a composite and not as Jay satirically it was created by a couple of guys sitting around building a Rover with a bigger tire.
In any event, I don't really care about this. If I am wrong, I am wrong. No biggie.
My main point was to show what the shape of a rover fender looks like. I believe I have done this. (I have reattached the photos again to hopefully ignite a more fruitful discussion.)
I am not quite sure what the purpose of this forum is? Forums should be about debate. I realize we all have our beliefs. I believe one of the posters asked me where I fall in my beliefs. I'll be honest, it is the photos which have brought me here. I believe many of the photos/films display things that make feel the visuals are less than authentic. Does that make the landings fake? Not necessarily but more likely. And that's why I am here. To bounce thoughts off you guys. Not to get belittled. I can do that for you up front. Odds are, probability wise, I am completely out to lunch. I already know that. But I still have questions.
To that point, I don't think anyone has address my contention the LM site and the EVA site maybe the same location other than OneBigMonkey.
(his post I will address separately) Why is it so easy to ignore the "meat and potatoes" and rather question character and mock others who thoughts may not be same as your own? I think the questions I have asked in this thread have been reasonable and nor naïve. I have asked why the flag changed orientation. That's reasonable. I asked why the LM inserted into the Saturn stage looked different. Again reasonable. I asked why the engines thrusted back into the craft and if the deflectors would cause stability issues. Again reasonable. I have asked why NASA would expose a small engine nozzle to the forces of liftoff. That seems reasonable to me. I have asked why certain A17 site locations seem similar. Reasonable (but so far no response). I am just literally looking for answers. If they don't fit with my way of thinking. So be it. It won't be the first time I am wrong.
Hi Everyone,
A couple of things. And again I am not sure why everyone response's revolve around side topics that are somewhat meaningless.
With regards to the government. If everyone feels that governments are not capable of duping the people and getting away with it. I will leave you with just one quote from a former President.
Just trying to point out governments can literally get away with murder.
So the photo could be a composite and not as Jay satirically it was created by a couple of guys sitting around building a Rover with a bigger tire.
In any event, I don't really care about this.
If I am wrong, I am wrong. No biggie.
I believe many of the photos/films display things that make feel the visuals are less than authentic. Does that make the landings fake? Not necessarily but more likely. And that's why I am here. To bounce thoughts off you guys. Not to get belittled. I can do that for you up front. Odds are, probability wise, I am completely out to lunch. I already know that. But I still have questions.
To that point, I don't think anyone has address my contention the LM site and the EVA site maybe the same location other than OneBigMonkey. (his post I will address separately) Why is it so easy to ignore the "meat and potatoes" and rather question character and mock others who thoughts may not be same as your own?
I think the questions I have asked in this thread have been reasonable and nor naïve.
I have asked why the flag changed orientation. That's reasonable.
I asked why the LM inserted into the Saturn stage looked different. Again reasonable.
I asked why the engines thrusted back into the craft and if the deflectors would cause stability issues. Again reasonable.
I have asked why NASA would expose a small engine nozzle to the forces of liftoff. That seems reasonable to me.
I have asked why certain A17 site locations seem similar. Reasonable (but so far no response).
I am just literally looking for answers.
and you have failed to produce the MIT paper you claimed as evidence that the RCS was easily knocked into an unstable positive feedback loop. Where is it?
and you have failed to produce the MIT paper you claimed as evidence that the RCS was easily knocked into an unstable positive feedback loop. Where is it?
Indeed. Where is it?
Assuming (s)he produces it then we can see if it's relevant, says what (s)he thinks that it says and has been reviewed. Just because its an "MIT paper" doesn't imply that it's correct.
and you have failed to produce the MIT paper you claimed as evidence that the RCS was easily knocked into an unstable positive feedback loop. Where is it?
Indeed. Where is it?
Assuming (s)he produces it then we can see if it's relevant, says what (s)he thinks that it says and has been reviewed. Just because its an "MIT paper" doesn't imply that it's correct.
It also doesn't imply that it has been properly understood. There may well be a scholarly paper that discusses the possibility of instability in an RCS system, because arising instability is a potential problem in absolutely any control system from a spacecraft RCS to riding a bike. Pointing out that the problem exists and saying it is an insurmountable problem requiring absolutely perfect conditions, and that any deviation must inevitably lead to a disastrous loss of control, are two different things, however.
I await jr producing the paper so we can see what it actually says.
Wheels in different directions (All four LRV wheels were independently steered)
All four independently powered, yes. Steering was pairwise, front and back. Front and rear pairs could be independently enabled, though.
Indeed, take for instance the combustion instability of the F-1 engines. It was noted and the engineers worked long and tedious hours without the benefit of supercomputers modeling to solve the problem and allow them to work.Don't military ordnance people like to say that there's no problem that can't be solved with a suitable application of high explosives?
Indeed, take for instance the combustion instability of the F-1 engines. It was noted and the engineers worked long and tedious hours without the benefit of supercomputers modeling to solve the problem and allow them to work.Don't military ordnance people like to say that there's no problem that can't be solved with a suitable application of high explosives?
Wheels in different directions (All four LRV wheels were independently steered)
All four independently powered, yes. Steering was pairwise, front and back. Front and rear pairs could be independently enabled, though.
Can I just check something about the steering, though.
My understanding is that on ordinary cars here on Earth, when you turn the steering wheel, the front wheels turn by a slightly different amount given that the wheel on the inside of the turn has a slightly smaller radius to traverse. Is that so?
Was this the case with the lunar rover? After all, I understand the rover had a tighter turning circle than cars here on Earth, so the effect described above would be more pronounced.
Given that the rover in the photo JR Knowing linked seems to have stopped while turning, that would suggest to me that the rear wheels would logically not be parallel, but out of parallel by perhaps 10-20 degrees.
Hi Everyone,
A couple of things. And again I am not sure why everyone response's revolve around side topics that are somewhat meaningless.
If you do not want people's responses to include 'side topics' then stop bringing them up. The responses have only been to things you bring to the discussion, so quit whining about it and own your agency in this discussion instead of dancing around it and casting it off when it becomes inconvenient to you to admit you were wrong.
...QuoteIn any event, I don't really care about this.
Then why even mention it? If you want this discussion to avoid 'meaningless side topics' then don't bring them up in the first place. You're still doing it now.
...QuoteI am just literally looking for answers.
You're getting them. The next step is for you to acknowledge them, not brush them under the carpet as 'no biggie'.
Once again, you are playing a big part in how this discussion progresses. You've had this explained to you several times now, so if you want to have a debate then have a debate. Engage with the answers, don't dismiss them and say 'well it still doesn't look right to me'. How much would be required for you to admit your ideas about how it 'should' look are wrong, and that this might just mean your entire conclusion is also wrong?
Just because its an "MIT paper" doesn't imply that it's correct.
As already mentioned by others, it's because you keep introducing [side topics] (and do so again below).
Hi Von_Smith,
At the risk of adding one more meaningless post. My first post tonight was in response to a few days of posts aimed at me talking about the government and the foreshortened Rover. I made it clear in that post that we are off topic and need to get back on track. And the posts since then (including yours)? All off topic. I get it. If you want me to admit I am guilty of introducing side topics. I guess I am. And if Jay wants me to admit that people have given plausible explanations for some of the questions I have asked. Sure.
Can we just move on? Lets focus on the topics and I will do my best to keep on topic.
You also mention that questioning the moon landings is akin to "smearing one of humanity's great engineering achievement". I get that. That is why I try to tread lightly. I know this means a lot to many people.
Just because its an "MIT paper" doesn't imply that it's correct.
Since it was MIT who designed the system, I'd stipulate that the paper -- taken as a whole -- is almost certainly correct. The Charles Stark Draper lab produced a host of written materials discussing the theory and practice of three-axis control as it related to Apollo spacecraft. And why shouldn't they? They're academics, the premier academic institution for this sort of thing.
Agreed, but jr Knowing's claim appeared to be little more than a claim from authority. Until we know what the "MIT paper" actually was then I'd just dismiss it, especially in light of the individuals inability to grasp simple concepts.
Agreed, but jr Knowing's claim appeared to be little more than a claim from authority. Until we know what the "MIT paper" actually was then I'd just dismiss it, especially in light of the individuals inability to grasp simple concepts.
No argument here. I want merely to finely slice between two ideas. I'm happy to accept MIT as an authority on the Apollo guidance system. That's not the objection. But without more information, I'm not willing to accept vague references to that authority as proof that plume deflectors would have presented a stability problem. I know they won't. Nor do other vague references establish the claim that the guidance problem is precarious. I know it isn't. If Jr is getting that from any paper he reads from MIT on the Apollo guidance system, then he isn't understanding it. We have to see the actual paper in order to determine how he misconceived it.
Hi Everyone,
Here is one of the MIT documents. I will try to dig up the much more in depth paper.
To be clear it states
"Due to the presence of jet plume deflectors on the LM descent
stage, the use of +X thrusting LM jets for pitch or roll attitude control
of the CSM-docked configuration will" "cause a
serious control instability"
Further it goes onto state that less than ideal conditions will lead to a positive feedback loop that will cause
"the vehicle will spin uncontrollably
in the counter clockwise direction."
Everything I have said is here.
I guess all you guys need to argue with MIT and not me.
Further one of the more in depth papers I read (I will try to dig up) lays it out even more explicitly stating ideal conditions consisting of weight balance, thrust balance and proper timing are requirements to ensure the craft doesn't become unstable.
Now can we move on and maybe give me a little respect. Thanks
"Due to the presence of jet plume deflectors on the LM descent stage, the use of +X thrusting LM jets for pitch or roll attitude control of the CSM-docked configuration will" [important detail omitted] "cause aserious control instability"
Further it goes onto state that less than ideal conditions will lead to a positive feedback loop that will cause
"the vehicle will spin uncontrollably in the counter clockwise direction."
Everything I have said is here.
I guess all you guys need to argue with MIT and not me.
Now can we move on and maybe give me a little respect. Thanks
Hi Everyone,
Here is one of the MIT documents. I will try to dig up the much more in depth paper. To be clear it states
"Due to the presence of jet plume deflectors on the LM descent
stage, the use of +X thrusting LM jets for pitch or roll attitude control
of the CSM-docked configuration will" "cause a
serious control instability"
Further it goes onto state that less than ideal conditions will lead to a positive feedback loop that will cause
"the vehicle will spin uncontrollably
in the counter clockwise direction."
Everything I have said is here. I guess all you guys need to argue with MIT and not me. Further one of the more in depth papers I read (I will try to dig up) lays it out even more explicitly stating ideal conditions consisting of weight balance, thrust balance and proper timing are requirements to ensure the craft doesn't become unstable.
Now can we move on and maybe give me a little respect. Thanks
https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/Documents/LUM117_text.pdf
It was also written after Apollo 11 landed.
The question is not if it happens but if it can be dealt with. This memo covers just that.
if any -X thrusting jets have failed off or have been disabled.
Here is one of the MIT documents. I will try to dig up the much more in depth paper. To be clear it states
"Due to the presence of jet plume deflectors on the LM descent
stage, the use of +X thrusting LM jets for pitch or roll attitude control
of the CSM-docked configuration will" "cause a
serious control instability"
...Sorry - I didn't have much respect for your approach to "questioning the record" up to now. With this display I have even less for you going forward...
Now can we move on and maybe give me a little respect.
<snip>
Now can we move on and maybe give me a little respect. Thanks
https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/Documents/LUM117_text.pdf
As a complete non-rocket scientist, can I take a wild stab in the dark that important bit that was deliberately omitted was
It's like Cooper writing up a service memo for how to take home one's newly-purchased armchair in a Mini.
the author specifies this to apply only to the CSM-docked flight using the LM autopilot.
Where in the missions was the CSM/LM stack controlled by the LM RCS?
I'm pretty sure that the LM DAP could be operated in three modes- CSM+Ascent stage, Ascent+Descent stages stacked and Ascent stage only.
No matter how ridiculous the hoaxie claim, the conversation usually branches off into something really interesting. There's always something new to learn.
The fact is I am the only person who has provided any documentation regarding the workings of the deflectors.
I find it comical on how everyone has twisted this MIT paper to mean nothing.
And to suggest that these conclusions have no bearing to the LM flying solo (detached from the CSM).
If anything, it is even more problematic for the LM operating solo.
But with the LM operating alone there is no backup if there is a failure or mismatch of power between two opposite thrusters and that will result in serious stability issues.
Just the fact they had no RCS backups, let alone the deflector issue, it sure seems luck was on their side.
Oh, that's explained in another "paper."
Hi Allan F,
I have done my research. I know you guys like to think others have no idea about things. The fact is I am the only person who has provided any documentation regarding the workings of the deflectors.
I find it comical on how everyone has twisted this MIT paper to mean nothing. And to suggest that these conclusions have no bearing to the LM flying solo (detached from the CSM). If anything, it is even more problematic for the LM operating solo. Atleast the CSM-LM had the ability of disabling the LM RCS’s if there is a failure or mismatch power issue ( ie one RCS operating at 50 percent of the opposite RCS) and rely on the CSM RCS’s. (That is what happen with Apollo 13, I have the report) But with the LM operating alone there is no backup if there is a failure or mismatch of power between two opposite thrusters and that will result in serious stability issues. And another MIT paper (which I will dig up) not only confirms this but it also asserts for the LM to remain stable the craft must be equally balanced to ensure the plumes don’t create an uncontrollable craft. It was concluded that the LM with deflectors could only maintain stability under optimum specific conditions. I would say the LM missions were very fortunate. Just the fact they had no RCS backups, let alone the deflector issue, it sure seems luck was on their side.
https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/Documents/
Hi Allan F,
I have done my research. I know you guys like to think others have no idea about things. The fact is I am the only person who has provided any documentation regarding the workings of the deflectors.
I find it comical on how everyone has twisted this MIT paper to mean nothing. And to suggest that these conclusions have no bearing to the LM flying solo (detached from the CSM). If anything, it is even more problematic for the LM operating solo. Atleast the CSM-LM had the ability of disabling the LM RCS’s if there is a failure or mismatch power issue ( ie one RCS operating at 50 percent of the opposite RCS) and rely on the CSM RCS’s. (That is what happen with Apollo 13, I have the report) But with the LM operating alone there is no backup if there is a failure or mismatch of power between two opposite thrusters and that will result in serious stability issues. And another MIT paper (which I will dig up) not only confirms this but it also asserts for the LM to remain stable the craft must be equally balanced to ensure the plumes don’t create an uncontrollable craft. It was concluded that the LM with deflectors could only maintain stability under optimum specific conditions. I would say the LM missions were very fortunate. Just the fact they had no RCS backups, let alone the deflector issue, it sure seems luck was on their side.
Hi Alan F
Don't say I don't help you guys. Here is some bedtime reading for you. I have a lot more places to get docs. Happy Reading.
https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/Documents/
Why would NASA put plume deflectors on Apollo 12, then? This memo came out three weeks before Apollo 12's launch, meaning that from this point forward the deflectors would no longer serve the purpose of convincing engineers that the missions were legit, right? Since those same engineers were supposedly now convinced that the deflectors were bad?
I was responding to a poster who asked for help.
You would have to ask NASA.
But to be clear, the paper doesn't say they won't work, just that there is significant risk using them.
So stick with the deflectors and hope no one questions it?
I'm convinced this is entirely a problem of ego. The average hoax believer ... wants "anomalies" that only they personally are smart enough to have noticed.
Hi Von_Smith
You would have to ask NASA. But to be clear, the paper doesn't say they won't work, just that there is significant risk using them. Also what would have been the alternative? You had engines thrusting directly onto the lower part of the LM. That certainly would have raised questions on how that was possible without creating perhaps catastrophic issues for the craft. So stick with the deflectors and hope no one questions it?
The fact is I am the only person who has provided any documentation regarding the workings of the deflectors.
I find it comical on how everyone has twisted this MIT paper to mean nothing.
And to suggest that these conclusions have no bearing to the LM flying solo (detached from the CSM). If anything, it is even more problematic for the LM operating solo.
Atleast the CSM-LM had the ability of disabling the LM RCS’s if there is a failure or mismatch power issue ( ie one RCS operating at 50 percent of the opposite RCS) and rely on the CSM RCS’s.
(That is what happen with Apollo 13, I have the report)
But with the LM operating alone there is no backup if there is a failure or mismatch of power between two opposite thrusters and that will result in serious stability issues.
Hi Von_Smith
You would have to ask NASA.
But to be clear, the paper doesn't say they won't work, just that there is significant risk using them.
Also what would have been the alternative? You had engines thrusting directly onto the lower part of the LM.
That certainly would have raised questions on how that was possible without creating perhaps catastrophic issues for the craft.
Hi Alan F
Don't say I don't help you guys. Here is some bedtime reading for you. I have a lot more places to get docs. Happy Reading.
https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/Documents/
Hi Alan F
Don't say I don't help you guys. Here is some bedtime reading for you. I have a lot more places to get docs. Happy Reading.
https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/Documents/
Like each of your vaguely hinted at claims, there is no substance here.
Hi Alan F
Don't say I don't help you guys. Here is some bedtime reading for you. I have a lot more places to get docs. Happy Reading.
https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/Documents/
Wheels in different directions (All four LRV wheels were independently steered)
All four independently powered, yes. Steering was pairwise, front and back. Front and rear pairs could be independently enabled, though.
Can I just check something about the steering, though.
My understanding is that on ordinary cars here on Earth, when you turn the steering wheel, the front wheels turn by a slightly different amount given that the wheel on the inside of the turn has a slightly smaller radius to traverse. Is that so?
Was this the case with the lunar rover? After all, I understand the rover had a tighter turning circle than cars here on Earth, so the effect described above would be more pronounced.
Given that the rover in the photo JR Knowing linked seems to have stopped while turning, that would suggest to me that the rear wheels would logically not be parallel, but out of parallel by perhaps 10-20 degrees.
Yes.
Ackerman steering geometry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ackermann_steering_geometry
or even just understanding the memo they have ...Oh, that's explained in another "paper."
What did you expect from someone who's evidently incapable of admitting error.
Providing the documentation is one thing. Understanding it is another.
And once again, do you understand the difference between a paper and a memo? This is not trivial.
On Apollo 13 ... wasn't done by automatic control.
Under a very specific cet of circumstances that are extremely unlikely to occur.
It also illustrates how the problem can be avoided by manual crew intervention.
Careful jr, your slip's showing. You've subtly shifted to "you may not have looked at these photos properly" to "I know more than you".
The paper does not support your position...
Hi Jay,
Believe it or not, I just realized who you are and your background.
But you have to realize, from an Apollo supporter standpoint, it is very hard defending something with facts that has a dearth of supporting evidence.
For instance, it is one thing to say the nozzle on the RCS will not get rip off on takeoff because the air flow, while turbulent, will not be powerful enough to do damage. Sounds reasonable enough but you offer no supporting evidence.
The Lunar Module is perhaps the greatest flying machine humanity has ever witnessed, never seen before, never seen since. A 36000 pound (6000 pound on moon) rocket ship/drone/hovercraft capable of going from 5000 feet per second to a hovering drone in little time in a gravity based environment. Again, if we dumb things right down, as my very own child has asked, why are we not using that drone to go to Hawaii for Spring break now? Given it is 50 years later, it is an obvious and very simple question that I have seen no Apollo supporter adequately answer.
Why, in part, because there is no supporting technical documentation for this technical marvel.
What? It took 6-7 years with 60's technology to go from scratch to have a manned drone winging around the moon at 5000 feet per second. And now, 50 years later?
It is obvious to me, someone like Pettitt is coming up with bizarre rationalizations instead of confronting the elephant in the room issue.
It is almost as if what some say here should be self evident to everyone.
Now I am sure you are going to say you are not defending your position but defending the facts as you continually tend to point out. Fair enough. But you have to realize, from an Apollo supporter standpoint, it is very hard defending something with facts that has a dearth of supporting evidence. And that is the problem with the Apollo project.
. For instance, it is one thing to say the nozzle on the RCS will not get rip off on takeoff because the air flow, while turbulent, will not be powerful enough to do damage. Sounds reasonable enough but you offer no supporting evidence. If I said that, there would be 20 posts demanding I show a PHD dissertation on it.
Yes there are many generalized docs but little technical info on the actual workings of many things.
Case in point, we can dumb down things to some of the big elephants in the room in which even a child may ask about.
The Lunar Module is perhaps the greatest flying machine humanity has ever witnessed, never seen before, never seen since. A 36000 pound (6000 pound on moon) rocket ship/drone/hovercraft capable of going from 5000 feet per second to a hovering drone in little time in a gravity based environment. Again, if we dumb things right down, as my very own child has asked, why are we not using that drone to go to Hawaii for Spring break now?
There is. As before, you don't know where, or haven't bothered, to find it. And if it was put in front of you you wouldn't be able to understand it.
... there is no supporting technical documentation for this technical marvel.
But, as some (very qualified) surmise, we lost it.
As before, we can add a failure to understand the burden of proof to the growing list of things that you don't understand. Your extraordinary claim = your extraordinary proof.
My point here is not about this "elephant in the room" issue. It is just to point out that many here demand supporting proofs from others yet show little supporting evidence for their own suppositions. It is almost as if what some say here should be self evident to everyone. It doesn't work like that if one is asking others for supporting evidence to support their claim. It is a two way street.
And hopefully we can get back on track.
Hi Jay,
Believe it or not, I just realized who you are and your background. That now helps explain why you and others are so suspicious and paranoid. Call me naïve, I did not know I was walking into a hornets nest. I didn't walk in here to stir things up. Literally, one of my buddies who is really into space travel (I mentioned before), suggested I checkout this website to bounce some of my ideas off. Believe me I am not here to get a rise out of jerking you guys around. I have to respect your dogged persistence over the years defending your position. It does take a lot of patience dealing with people like myself.
Now I am sure you are going to say you are not defending your position but defending the facts as you continually tend to point out. Fair enough. But you have to realize, from an Apollo supporter standpoint, it is very hard defending something with facts that has a dearth of supporting evidence. And that is the problem with the Apollo project. And I have seen that with Apollo supporters and I see that in your answers. For instance, it is one thing to say the nozzle on the RCS will not get rip off on takeoff because the air flow, while turbulent, will not be powerful enough to do damage. Sounds reasonable enough but you offer no supporting evidence. If I said that, there would be 20 posts demanding I show a PHD dissertation on it. But that is problem with Apollo supporters, there is little supporting evidence to back their assertions. Yes there are many generalized docs but little technical info on the actual workings of many things. Case in point, we can dumb down things to some of the big elephants in the room in which even a child may ask about. Since we are talking about the LM in this thread, lets talk LM.
The Lunar Module is perhaps the greatest flying machine humanity has ever witnessed, never seen before, never seen since. A 36000 pound (6000 pound on moon) rocket ship/drone/hovercraft capable of going from 5000 feet per second to a hovering drone in little time in a gravity based environment. Again, if we dumb things right down, as my very own child has asked, why are we not using that drone to go to Hawaii for Spring break now? Given it is 50 years later, it is an obvious and very simple question that I have seen no Apollo supporter adequately answer. Why, in part, because there is no supporting technical documentation for this technical marvel. If so, giddy up. Window seat please. It has gotten to the point, (as I am sure you guys know), someone like Astronaut Pettitt (longest serving Astronaut and probably more qualified than anybody on this forum) rationalizes things by suggesting they lost the technology and it takes a long time to get it back. Uh? What? It took 6-7 years with 60's technology to go from scratch to have a manned drone winging around the moon at 5000 feet per second. And now, 50 years later? The proof is in the pudding. Nothing close. It is obvious to me, someone like Pettitt is coming up with bizarre rationalizations instead of confronting the elephant in the room issue. This should give pause to everyone. This supposed technology was not only in the hands of NASA but many commercial contractors. One would think our world would look a whole lot different today. It is a crying shame that this technology has not been implemented in this world. But, as some (very qualified) surmise, we lost it.
My point here is not about this "elephant in the room" issue. It is just to point out that many here demand supporting proofs from others yet show little supporting evidence for their own suppositions. It is almost as if what some say here should be self evident to everyone. It doesn't work like that if one is asking others for supporting evidence to support their claim. It is a two way street.
I would like to thank OneBigMonkey (I also just realized I have been on his website too) for actually responding to my questions unlike almost everyone else. I will use another post to respond to your posts. And hopefully we can get back on track.
Jr
and now, 50 years later? The proof is in the pudding. Nothing close.
That now helps explain why you and others are so suspicious and paranoid.
It does take a lot of patience dealing with people like myself.
...it is very hard defending something with facts that has a dearth of supporting evidence.
Sounds reasonable enough but you offer no supporting evidence.
But that is problem with Apollo supporters, there is little supporting evidence to back their assertions. Yes there are many generalized docs but little technical info on the actual workings of many things.
The Lunar Module is perhaps the greatest flying machine humanity has ever witnessed, never seen before, never seen since.
...my very own child has asked, why are we not using that drone to go to Hawaii for Spring break now? Given it is 50 years later, it is an obvious and very simple question that I have seen no Apollo supporter adequately answer.
Why, in part, because there is no supporting technical documentation for this technical marvel.
...by suggesting they lost the technology and it takes a long time to get it back.
Uh? What? It took 6-7 years with 60's technology to go from scratch to have a manned drone winging around the moon at 5000 feet per second.
And now, 50 years later?
This should give pause to everyone.
This supposed technology was not only in the hands of NASA but many commercial contractors.
One would think our world would look a whole lot different today.
It is a crying shame that this technology has not been implemented in this world.
It is just to point out that many here demand supporting proofs from others yet show little supporting evidence for their own suppositions.
But that is problem with Apollo supporters, there is little supporting evidence to back their assertions. Yes there are many generalized docs but little technical info on the actual workings of many things.On the contrary, there is extensive technical documentation on almost every aspect of the Apollo programme. Everything from the mighty F1 engines, to the ingenious Guidance Computer (AGC), to the trivial but essential CM cabin lighting system, and even the procedures for dealing with human waste in space!... If you want details on any particular aspect of the mission, it's pretty much all available online, and if you ask politely, someone might even point you at a particular document.
It has gotten to the point, (as I am sure you guys know), someone like Astronaut Pettitt (longest serving Astronaut and probably more qualified than anybody on this forum) rationalizes things by suggesting they lost the technology and it takes a long time to get it back. Uh? What? It took 6-7 years with 60's technology to go from scratch to have a manned drone winging around the moon at 5000 feet per second. And now, 50 years later?Don Pettit has been quoted out of context repeatedly on this. He perhaps used unfortunate phrasing, but the technology hasn't been "lost" - it has become outdated and expensive. With modern technology, materials, and engineering, we could develop lunar-capable spacecraft, and we could put humans on the Moon again, but somebody is going to have to pick up the bill for it.
I will have a much fuller response soon
…It's only been 15 years since the last flight of Concorde, which was our last supersonic passenger aircraft. You might ask why we don't have lots of newer and better supersonic transports whizzing all over the earth. You might wonder why we can't just fire up the production lines and start cranking out Concordes again.
And now, 50 years later?
The Lunar Module is perhaps the greatest flying machine humanity has ever witnessed, never seen before, never seen since. A 36000 pound (6000 pound on moon) rocket ship/drone/hovercraft capable of going from 5000 feet per second to a hovering drone in little time in a gravity based environment. Again, if we dumb things right down, as my very own child has asked, why are we not using that drone to go to Hawaii for Spring break now?
Given it is 50 years later, it is an obvious and very simple question that I have seen no Apollo supporter adequately answer. Why, in part, because there is no supporting technical documentation for this technical marvel.
If so, giddy up. Window seat please. It has gotten to the point, (as I am sure you guys know), someone like Astronaut Pettitt (longest serving Astronaut and probably more qualified than anybody on this forum) rationalizes things by suggesting they lost the technology and it takes a long time to get it back. Uh? What? It took 6-7 years with 60's technology to go from scratch to have a manned drone winging around the moon at 5000 feet per second. And now, 50 years later? The proof is in the pudding. Nothing close.
It is obvious to me, someone like Pettitt is coming up with bizarre rationalizations instead of confronting the elephant in the room issue.
This should give pause to everyone. This supposed technology was not only in the hands of NASA but many commercial contractors. One would think our world would look a whole lot different today. It is a crying shame that this technology has not been implemented in this world. But, as some (very qualified) surmise, we lost it.
My point here is not about this "elephant in the room" issue. It is just to point out that many here demand supporting proofs from others yet show little supporting evidence for their own suppositions. It is almost as if what some say here should be self evident to everyone. It doesn't work like that if one is asking others for supporting evidence to support their claim. It is a two way street.
I would like to thank OneBigMonkey (I also just realized I have been on his website too) for actually responding to my questions unlike almost everyone else. I will use another post to respond to your posts. And hopefully we can get back on track.
Jr
Jay Dr. Ed Mitchell was the Apollo 14 LMP, Stu Roosa was the CMP and the infamous Alan Sheppard was CDR, IIRC.
Jay Dr. Ed Mitchell was the Apollo 14 LMP, Stu Roosa was the CMP and the infamous Alan Sheppard was CDR, IIRC.
Did I type CMP? Yes, I meant LMP. And there's only one P in Shepard. ;D
Obligatory Stu Roosa story: in the MQF Stu had the top bunk. Ed said he fell out of it one night, all the way to the floor.
Now I am sure you are going to say you are not defending your position but defending the facts as you continually tend to point out. Fair enough. But you have to realize, from an Apollo supporter standpoint, it is very hard defending something with facts that has a dearth of supporting evidence. And that is the problem with the Apollo project. And I have seen that with Apollo supporters and I see that in your answers. For instance, it is one thing to say the nozzle on the RCS will not get rip off on takeoff because the air flow, while turbulent, will not be powerful enough to do damage. Sounds reasonable enough but you offer no supporting evidence. If I said that, there would be 20 posts demanding I show a PHD dissertation on it. But that is problem with Apollo supporters, there is little supporting evidence to back their assertions. Yes there are many generalized docs but little technical info on the actual workings of many things. Case in point, we can dumb down things to some of the big elephants in the room in which even a child may ask about. Since we are talking about the LM in this thread, lets talk LM.
I'd hazard a guess that you've read less than 1% of the documents there...
I'd hazard a guess that you've read less than 1% of the documents there...
...or anything except the one document he linked to.
I sometimes think of myself as the Official Non-Expert around here. Goodness knows I haven't read much original Apollo documentation and wouldn't understand it if I did. (I think I've told the story of Why Gillian Doesn't Know Physics Despite Taking It In High School before, but here it is again--my physics teacher in high school had two heart attacks in November. For the next two months, we had a substitute whose doctorate was in theatre and spent the class period doing things like discussing European architecture and playing board games. Then we had a two-week stretch with a Cal Tech teacher, or TA, or something, who mostly tried to teach us over our heads. When my actual teacher returned, my whole class--none of whom really cared about physics so much as we did about having it on our transcript for college applications--decided it was our job to make sure our teacher didn't exert himself too much and put in as little actual work as we could get away with to encourage him to take our class period easy as well. To the point of having regular in-class potlucks.) I simply don't have the background.
What I do have is an understanding of how "experts" work. When someone can demonstrate ability in a field and says, "My expertise in this field is enough for me to know that [thing] is valid," I know to trust them rather than say, "Well, it still doesn't look right to me, so it must be wrong." Something about the fluid dynamics doesn't make sense to me? Well, of course it doesn't! What do I know from fluid dynamics?
That said, of course, I do have a certain understanding of some of the non-STEM issues involved, such as the Cold War context and certain of the psychological aspects, including Buzz Aldrin's depression. Though who was it who said I don't know as much about film as I think I do, when I provided a detailed explanation of why Kubrick would've been about the worst possible choice to direct Apollo missions?
...this gem - The Apollo News Reference (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LM_%20NewsReference_%28267_pp%29.pdf)
I think t was Pete Conrad talking to Alan Bean after they had lifted off the Moon, "Is this all there is?", or words to that effect. What is left after a tremendous mission? Probably why Buzz had depression. Maybe more of them that either didn't make the headlines or wasn't as bad.
...and within the zone of boundary layer separation, thus protecting them from the supersonic slipstream. The discontinuity where the conical command module becomes the cylindrical service module causes the boundary layer of air there to separate from the side of the service module. You can see this illustrated by condensation around the stack during transonic flight. The air in the immediate vicinity of the RCS quads is turbulent, not in laminar flow at high velocity.
This is an example of how many design factors contribute to where RCS jets can be located in a design, and underscoring that there is no "magical" placement for them such that any other position or configuration is dangerous or useless. You can never place or configure RCS jets such that they have mission-wide optimal dynamics. Thus no actual spacecraft design tries, nor relies on this being the case.
Hi ka9q,
The AOH manuals are descriptive and operational in nature and not designed to be technical in nature. (Hence the name Apollo Operations) Tells me what things are and how to use them, it gives very little insight into the actual background/understanding/proofs of the technical aspects. (I have had these too for years. )
Hi ka9q,Actually, the subsystems volumes go into quite a bit of technical detail. Ready for your test?
The AOH manuals are descriptive and operational in nature and not designed to be technical in nature. (Hence the name Apollo Operations) Tells me what things are and how to use them, it gives very little insight into the actual background/understanding/proofs of the technical aspects. (I have had these too for years. )
I was saying they had to be fired in pairs to maintain stability.
In terms of post flight memos, are you talking about the one that makes the comment "apparently" (as if how was that possible?) with regards to the RCS engine use?
There is never going to be a document that explains exactly...
The documents you find will be ones in which people experienced in a field -- with its standard methods, with its history -- can construct, analyze, and otherwise communicate intents and discoveries about devices and procedures.
This is also why the idea of a hoax is so ludicrous. The effect Jay describes isn't kept in a special NASA book they can edit to their convenience. It is the same damned book used by people who are making things which you can sit in and go to LA with.
Actually, the subsystems volumes go into quite a bit of technical detail.
Ready for your test?
I'm also asking you to reconcile your claim that the memo you referred us to substantiates your belief that the LM would be less stable in solo flight than, as the memo descxribed, with the CSM docked, because of the plume deflectors. The memo contains mathematics that cover all possible cases. I'm asking you to solve the mathematics for LM solo flight and thus prove your case.
The Bellcomm library goes into excruciating detail.
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.
Yeah this is another variation of a well worn theme:
[...]
And so on in ever decreasing circles...
However, I am more than capable of solving the simple equation M+X = 89D1 - 59D2 for the available ranges of D1 and D2 that will a) fit within the dimensions of the LM and b) result in the negative M+X that leads to a control instability for an automated attitude control system.
The level of detail contained in the various archives about the broad moon landing program is unprecedented in history.
Yeah this is another variation of a well worn theme:
[...]
And so on in ever decreasing circles...
Indeed. No matter what document is produced, it will lack some property that the claimant will have newly decided is essential to understanding the Apollo program fully and answering all the questions of authenticity that a critic could possibly conceive. This is why, for the time being, I'm sticking to the documents at the one site our claimant has identified. We all know other sources exist. All his concerns so far regarding the RCS can be answered from documents residing there. If he is unable to find them or interpret them, then we will have our answer to the question of whether his standards of documentation are rationally informed.
...
Believe it or not, I just realized who you are and your background. That now helps explain why you and others are so suspicious and paranoid.
Call me naïve
I did not know I was walking into a hornets nest.
I didn't walk in here to stir things up.
I would like to thank OneBigMonkey (I also just realized I have been on his website too) for actually responding to my questions unlike almost everyone else. I will use another post to respond to your posts. And hopefully we can get back on track.
Actually, the subsystems volumes go into quite a bit of technical detail.
Actually, the subsystems volumes go into quite a bit of technical detail.
And how. Earlier I was sort of handwaving the RCS control logic, because the detail is tedious and hard to convey accurately in text alone. The operations handbooks have the actual circuit diagrams, for Finagle's sake. I should stress that I could build the Apollo RCS control logic using only the information in that source, and from general expertise in aerospace-type control systems (i.e., what voltages apply, what component ratings, etc.). This is adequate technical documentation. Full technical documentation beyond that would specify only things that could be reliably inferred by someone skilled in the art.
Now that you have the circuits, could you employ 3-D printing to build the actual nozzle(s)?
Now that you have the circuits, could you employ 3-D printing to build the actual nozzle(s)?Not quite the same, but SpaceX has been 3D printing valves and nozzles for a number of years now. The nozzles for the SuperSraco engine is a printed object, complete with cooling chambers.
Parts with difficult cavities have always been difficult to obtain by subtractive or composite means. The F-1 nozzles were built up from the individual tubes and furnace-brazed into a single piece. The reject rate was very hight. Ducted impellers such as for propellant pumps were another nightmare to make from traditional machining techniques. They were extremely difficult to machine even with 5-axis numerically-controlled mills. Those impellers have to be built to extremely precise tolerances, and out of extremely robust materials. Additive manufacturing has transformed aerospace. And this is why we don't built stuff the same way we designed it in the 1960s.
But to solve the equation for different mass properties requires only a teenager's understanding of algebra and geometry.
This is what we're asking Jr Knowing to do.
His claim that the plume deflectors made the LM less stable under solo flight than with the CSM attached is soundly refuted from his own sources
Even the most innumerate of humans probably knows how a cheater bar works, or simply that it works. If you've got Cletus pulling on a wrench in one direction, and his son Bubba pulling the other way on a long cheater bar attached to the wrench, the cheater bar can become so long that Bubba's weaker pull oustrips Cletus pulling harder on a shorter moment arm.
Hi jfb,And now you are trolling.
I think you are confused by the Apollo News Reference. I have had this for years. Its not a technical manual. It is PR written, for the most part, in layman terms to explain things to the public. (The manual even states that) You can't build anything with this. Instructions for Ikea products are even better than this. (which isn't saying much) This perfectly illustrates the misconception out there regarding the "wealth of information" that people think is out there explaining the principles and details of the various Apollo systems and devices.
I think all you guys make some reasonable points.
In any event, I think people are only fooling themselves that all this technology is explainable with scientific verification. People I think rely as much on belief and faith, then a solid technical foundation that this technology operated as advertised. I know others disagree...
I respect and acknowledge you have valid points.
Hi Everyone,
I think all you guys make some reasonable points.
Hi Everyone,
I think all you guys make some reasonable points. But, if 50 years later, we are left to reverse engineer most things there is something wrong. It is absolutely troubling that the technical insights for many things are lacking. I would love to see, for instance, the technical workings/insights of how the PLSS/spacesuit functions, ie battery components, environment systems, breathing systems (a re-circulating CO-2 scrubber ?) and the how the suit remains a closed environment. All these aspects have huge applicable uses for us today.
You do realize that spacesuits are still used today, right? It isn't just Apollo.
Or is it your position that *all* EVAs are fake?
I think all you guys make some reasonable points.So are you willing to concede that you were wrong on any specific topics? Or enter into a rational discussion on them?
But, if 50 years later, we are left to reverse engineer most things there is something wrong. It is absolutely troubling that the technical insights for many things are lacking.Do you actually know what "reverse engineering" means? And have you read any of the posts since your last visit which show just how much detailed technical documentation is available for almost every aspect of the Apollo programme? You certainly aren't giving the impression that you've understood anything said to you.
I would love to see, for instance, the technical workings/insights of how the PLSS/spacesuit functions, ie battery components, environment systems, breathing systems (a re-circulating CO-2 scrubber ?) and the how the suit remains a closed environment. All these aspects have huge applicable uses for us today.Again, all of this in formation is available, if you take the time to look for it. And do you think today's space suits were developed without any reference to previous designs? Do you not think the Apollo era systems were improved and adapted over the years?
It's hilarious. JR seems unaware that the very same suits remain in use and documentaries have been made that go down to the individual doing the stitching for the actual suits.Hi Everyone,
I think all you guys make some reasonable points. But, if 50 years later, we are left to reverse engineer most things there is something wrong. It is absolutely troubling that the technical insights for many things are lacking. I would love to see, for instance, the technical workings/insights of how the PLSS/spacesuit functions, ie battery components, environment systems, breathing systems (a re-circulating CO-2 scrubber ?) and the how the suit remains a closed environment. All these aspects have huge applicable uses for us today.
You do realize that spacesuits are still used today, right? It isn't just Apollo.
Or is it your position that *all* EVAs are fake?
That was Neil Baker...the bloke that went postal, threatens to shoot up Santa Barbara Uni, made bomb threats and spent a long period of time in a mental hospital. He was a vicious anti-Semite too.Neil Baker? I feel like I’ve heard that name before but I’m not sure who he is.. is he a conspiracist or something?
He was a wonky member here. He bought a ban and some "help".That was Neil Baker...the bloke that went postal, threatens to shoot up Santa Barbara Uni, made bomb threats and spent a long period of time in a mental hospital. He was a vicious anti-Semite too.Neil Baker? I feel like I’ve heard that name before but I’m not sure who he is.. is he a conspiracist or something?
That was Neil Baker...the bloke that went postal, threatens to shoot up Santa Barbara Uni, made bomb threats and spent a long period of time in a mental hospital. He was a vicious anti-Semite too.Neil Baker? I feel like I’ve heard that name before but I’m not sure who he is.. is he a conspiracist or something?
Oh, and he believed any reference to the sublimator dated to only a certain date. Then I linked to NASA's page on them from the Wayback machine. I don't think he ever gave any solid reply to that.
https://www.independent.com/news/2013/dec/12/former-ucsb-employee-neil-baker-sentenced-probatio/?amp=amp
Yes. He believes that the PLSS, specifically the sublimator, could not work. He's also a Holocaust denier and all round nasty piece of work.
Not quite the same, but SpaceX has been 3D printing valves and nozzles for a number of years now.As well as lots of other objects. One of the stops on the Hawthorne plant tour (I've been there twice) is their "titanium 3D printer". There is a collection of small parts (mostly gears) for you to examine. Impressive.
I would love to see, for instance, the technical workings/insights of how the PLSS/spacesuit functions, ie battery components, environment systems, breathing systems (a re-circulating CO-2 scrubber ?) and the how the suit remains a closed environment.Ask and ye shall receive. Go to
All these aspects have huge applicable uses for us today. Just understanding how the materials/components worked to create that durable battery that was able to operate in 1969 would be invaluable.Apollo/Saturn batteries used silver-zinc chemistry, which has long been an aerospace standard. Maybe, just maybe, you can speculate as to why they're not more widely used outside that industry. (Hint: look at the first word in the name.)
Sooo...you are trying to tell us that space suits don't work? The ISS astronauts would be interested to know that.
Let's not follow the gish-gallop.
I would love to see....
Hi Jay,
Believe it or not, I just realized who you are and your background. That now helps explain why you and others are so suspicious and paranoid. Call me naïve, I did not know I was walking into a hornets nest. I didn't walk in here to stir things up. Literally, one of my buddies who is really into space travel (I mentioned before), suggested I checkout this website to bounce some of my ideas off. Believe me I am not here to get a rise out of jerking you guys around. I have to respect your dogged persistence over the years defending your position. It does take a lot of patience dealing with people like myself...
We probably know more about the actual scandals that are part of the history of Apollo than you do (as well as the stunning achievements) such as:
- The decision to locate Mission Control in Houston;
- The process which determined that Mission Control would use IBM computers; and
- The process by which North American won the contract for the construction of the Apollo CSM.
If that wasn't enough, here is only documented astronaut attempting to use a space suit in a vacuum chamber prior to the Apollo missions. He does a face plant within 10 seconds because of just one loose tube.Please tell us how a failure in a testing procedure means that something couldn't be done? Most would look at this and say, maybe they learned something from this. Something like how to make better attachments for hoses so it doesn't happen in space?
Heck, pressure suits (the ancestors of modern space suits) date back to the mid 30's, thanks to a one-eyed aviation pioneer by the name of Wiley Post.If that wasn't enough, here is only documented astronaut attempting to use a space suit in a vacuum chamber prior to the Apollo missions. He does a face plant within 10 seconds because of just one loose tube.Please tell us how a failure in a testing procedure means that something couldn't be done? Most would look at this and say, maybe they learned something from this. Something like how to make better attachments for hoses so it doesn't happen in space?
BTW, are you contending that there have been no astronaut space walks. Neither the Soviets or NASA could do that in the sixties? What about high altitude test pilots in the sixties?
This is getting tedious now.
We've moved on to another variant on the "gee it kinda looks funny" theme, that of "I would be really scared on the moon, these guys aren't so it must be fake".
There are quite a few other occupations where people involved are operating close to the boundaries, and where equipment failure or mis-operation could be fatal. Things like saturation diving, mining, forestry, fishing etc. all have high rates of injury and death, but we don't see anyone claiming they're "fake jobs - nobody would ever take those risks".This is getting tedious now.
We've moved on to another variant on the "gee it kinda looks funny" theme, that of "I would be really scared on the moon, these guys aren't so it must be fake".
Yes, it's the standard 'they're always one tiny ittle mishap from grisly death' argument. It's an absurd exaggeration of reaity. Yes, they were in an inherently hositle environment that would kill them in seconds, but for heavens' sake, the engineers designing and building the hardware knew that and designed and built the hardware appropriately to make these 'tiny mishaps' very unlikely and to mitigate their effects as far as possible.
Hi Everyone,
I would love to see, for instance, the technical workings/insights of how the PLSS/spacesuit functions, ie battery components, environment systems, breathing systems (a re-circulating CO-2 scrubber ?) and the how the suit remains a closed environment.
Do you actually know what "reverse engineering" means?
You certainly aren't giving the impression that you've understood anything said to you.
Nah, it's pretty clear we're sheeple. We can't really know what we think we know; we're just too trusting of the official word. Therefore it will take a "woke" someone like Jr Knowing to free us from the shackles of our misplaced faith.
It's about starting with a classic design to save time, money, and effort. Very few designs these days are clean-sheet designs, often for defensible reasons.
The RCS thing was a new one on me and I learned some stuff.
Not a lot of deviation from the script this time. Pity. The RCS thing was a new one on me and I learned some stuff.
I'm calling the first flounce within 48 hours of now.
I've asked a few HB's that if the missions were faked, why didn't they simply use something for the lunar lander that people would have expected it to look like instead of something that even the astronauts admit to having doubts about when they first see it?
I've asked a few HB's that if the missions were faked, why didn't they simply use something for the lunar lander that people would have expected it to look like instead of something that even the astronauts admit to having doubts about when they first see it?
Bingo. The public expected an aerodynamic single stage to moon ship with seats and a hull so thick that bullets would bounce off it. If Apollo was fake, it would have been far easier to deliver that fantasy spacecraft than what they came up with.
We seem to have forgotten the spindly XD-1 Discovery in favor of the AA Valley Forge (filmed on a decomissioned aircraft carrier),
Bingo. The public expected an aerodynamic single stage to moon ship with seats and a hull so thick that bullets would bounce off it. If Apollo was fake, it would have been far easier to deliver that fantasy spacecraft than what they came up with.
From a certain simplistic point of view, it was an aluminum balloon.
Well, joined in August, lurked for three months, de-lurked and posted a bucket of crap, re-lurked.Not a lot of deviation from the script this time. Pity. The RCS thing was a new one on me and I learned some stuff.
I'm calling the first flounce within 48 hours of now.
I think that he's already stealth flouncing as he's been on every day watching his ass getting whooped.
(https://imagemacros.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/flounce2.jpg)
Well, joined in August, lurked for three months, de-lurked and posted a bucket of crap, re-lurked.Not a lot of deviation from the script this time. Pity. The RCS thing was a new one on me and I learned some stuff.
I'm calling the first flounce within 48 hours of now.
I think that he's already stealth flouncing as he's been on every day watching his ass getting whooped.
(https://imagemacros.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/flounce2.jpg)
Next step in the play book is suicide by mod. Time will tell.
On the sixth day of flouncemas I OCD'd to me,Speaking of which, is Duane still actve?
Six galloping Gishes
Five Duane Damannns!
Four Jarrahs yapping
Three David Percy's
Two talking heads
And a strawman in a pear tree.
On the sixth day of flouncemas I OCD'd to me,Speaking of which, is Duane still actve?
Six galloping Gishes
Five Duane Damannns!
Four Jarrahs yapping
Three David Percy's
Two talking heads
And a strawman in a pear tree.
Didn't know that. Last I saw of him was on EF.On the sixth day of flouncemas I OCD'd to me,Speaking of which, is Duane still actve?
Six galloping Gishes
Five Duane Damannns!
Four Jarrahs yapping
Three David Percy's
Two talking heads
And a strawman in a pear tree.
Passed away 2013
On the sixth day of flouncemas I OCD'd to me,Speaking of which, is Duane still actve?
Six galloping Gishes
Five Duane Damannns!
Four Jarrahs yapping
Three David Percy's
Two talking heads
And a strawman in a pear tree.
Passed away 2013
Well, joined in August, lurked for three months, de-lurked and posted a bucket of crap, re-lurked.Not a lot of deviation from the script this time. Pity. The RCS thing was a new one on me and I learned some stuff.
I'm calling the first flounce within 48 hours of now.
I think that he's already stealth flouncing as he's been on every day watching his ass getting whooped.
(https://imagemacros.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/flounce2.jpg)
Next step in the play book is suicide by mod. Time will tell.
*clanking three RCS engine bells together* jr Knowinnng! Come out to pla-ay!
He has many more gifts (ideas)
He has many more gifts (ideas)
To bounce
He has many more gifts (ideas)
Start a new thread and stick to one thought per thread, unless closely associated.
Science and engineering called. They want a refund.
Start a new thread and stick to one thought per thread, unless closely associated.
Yeah. Most hoax-believers are quite incapable of doing that and our current chew-toy didn't do it. Apollos 11 and 17 in one thread.
Can he improve? Does he have the brains? Can he answer all questions in a timely manner?
Merry Christmas to everyone too, and a big thankyou to LunarOrbit for another year in an excellent forum.
Three-and-a-half-hours of Christmas Day have already passed in my part of the planet.
Oh, please no. Multiple threads just gives them more ways to put off responding.
Oh, please no. Multiple threads just gives them more ways to put off responding.
I agree. Multiple threads each with its own topic is hardly more accountable than one thread that allows a Gish gallop. On the topic of stability and reaction control, I suspect he's brought it to closure in his own mind by saying that we have "reasonable points," but that we're still laboring under the yoke of faith. The latter gives him room to continue believing he is terribly enlightened on the intellectual dimension and still therefore justified in lecturing to us sheeple. But what really happened is that it was proven to him using his own sources that he is flat out wrong. Spacecraft guidance is a ruthlessly mathematical pursuit, and he failed the math. Not only can he not support his specific affirmative claims using the math from his sources (or from any of the sources I named), but he cannot see how the math in his sources actually proves him wrong. His failure to acknowledge either that he his wrong, or that he lacks the skill to see how others can know he's wrong, is egregious. On any topic, when someone is simply unwilling to face facts, there is no point following him to another topic. There is no reason to suppose it won't just turn out the same way.
Did any of the RCS thruster quads fail on any mission?
Did any of the RCS thruster quads fail on any mission?
ETA: Sorry to have thrown a hornets nest into the forum, I just thought that it would be easier to track and debunk each idea, but if the gallery wants all in one, then so be it.
An RCS engine failed, I believe, twice prior to A11.
On the sixth day of flouncemas I OCD'd to me,Speaking of which, is Duane still actve?
Six galloping Gishes
Five Duane Damannns!
Four Jarrahs yapping
Three David Percy's
Two talking heads
And a strawman in a pear tree.
Passed away 2013
I believe I chatted with him in 2015 or 2016 on YT. Still had the Moon chip on his shoulder and he still didn't like most of the guys on EF. I guess those guys were too hard on him attempting to point out how wrong he was/is. He told me everything about me that was on my profile, so could read still.
On the sixth day of flouncemas I OCD'd to me,Speaking of which, is Duane still actve?
Six galloping Gishes
Five Duane Damannns!
Four Jarrahs yapping
Three David Percy's
Two talking heads
And a strawman in a pear tree.
Passed away 2013
I believe I chatted with him in 2015 or 2016 on YT. Still had the Moon chip on his shoulder and he still didn't like most of the guys on EF. I guess those guys were too hard on him attempting to point out how wrong he was/is. He told me everything about me that was on my profile, so could read still.
2013 is supported on many sites. Obituary here https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/sandiegouniontribune/obituary.aspx?n=duane-t-gish&pid=163795335
An RCS engine failed, I believe, twice prior to A11.
Can you be more specific? I've been through all the anomaly-report sections for the mission reports from Apollos 4 through 10. While there are various indications of anomalies in the RCS systems, I see no mention of failure in an RCS jet itself.
I was referring to Duane Daman(s?) from EF, not Mr. Gish.On the sixth day of flouncemas I OCD'd to me,Speaking of which, is Duane still actve?
Six galloping Gishes
Five Duane Damannns!
Four Jarrahs yapping
Three David Percy's
Two talking heads
And a strawman in a pear tree.
Passed away 2013
I believe I chatted with him in 2015 or 2016 on YT. Still had the Moon chip on his shoulder and he still didn't like most of the guys on EF. I guess those guys were too hard on him attempting to point out how wrong he was/is. He told me everything about me that was on my profile, so could read still.
2013 is supported on many sites. Obituary here https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/sandiegouniontribune/obituary.aspx?n=duane-t-gish&pid=163795335
An RCS engine failed, I believe, twice prior to A11.
Can you be more specific? I've been through all the anomaly-report sections for the mission reports from Apollos 4 through 10. While there are various indications of anomalies in the RCS systems, I see no mention of failure in an RCS jet itself.
I found the Apollo 5 Anomaly in the mission report:
"After abort staging, excessive RCS thruster firings occurred because the LM Digital Autopilot was controlling the RCS firings based on the unstaged, fully-loaded LM mass. Proper vehicle mass update ground commands were not sent. This anomaly caused unplanned RCS propellant depletion, early RCS switch-over to the APS propellant tanks, ruptured RCS fuel tank bladder, temperature redline exceedances on quads 1 and 3 and failure of the No. 4-up thruster."
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19700024869
See anomalies 2.1.2 and 2.1.12.
So the problem was not during normal operation of the RCS system, but rather because a control error caused excessive use of the RCS.
So the problem was not during normal operation of the RCS system, but rather because a control error caused excessive use of the RCS.
The equivalent of blowing a redlined car engine. When that happens, it's operator error, not the engine's fault.
Happy Holidays Everyone,
I checked and I believe I was thinking about Apollo 5 and 9 having significant issues with the RCS's. But looking at the Experience Report it appears the most significant issues/anomalies were with the earlier (unmanned) missions. This report goes through many of the RCS mission anomalies right up to Apollo 11 (which btw had an 18 minute partial failure) It should be noted A11 was the only mission to that time to employ deflectors. It would interesting to know how some of these prior (less significant) anomalies would have had on a ship with deflectors. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730017174.pdf
Merry Christmas
Happy Holidays Everyone,
I checked and I believe I was thinking about Apollo 5 and 9 having significant issues with the RCS's. But looking at the Experience Report it appears the most significant issues/anomalies were with the earlier (unmanned) missions.
It should be noted A11 was the only mission to that time to employ deflectors. It would interesting to know how some of these prior (less significant) anomalies would have had on a ship with deflectors.
Happy Holidays Everyone,
I checked and I believe I was thinking about Apollo 5 and 9 having significant issues with the RCS's. But looking at the Experience Report it appears the most significant issues/anomalies were with the earlier (unmanned) missions. This report goes through many of the RCS mission anomalies right up to Apollo 11 (which btw had an 18 minute partial failure) It should be noted A11 was the only mission to that time to employ deflectors. It would interesting to know how some of these prior (less significant) anomalies would have had on a ship with deflectors. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730017174.pdf
Merry Christmas
Happy Holidays Everyone,
I checked and I believe I was thinking about Apollo 5 and 9 having significant issues with the RCS's. But looking at the Experience Report it appears the most significant issues/anomalies were with the earlier (unmanned) missions. This report goes through many of the RCS mission anomalies right up to Apollo 11 (which btw had an 18 minute partial failure) It should be noted A11 was the only mission to that time to employ deflectors. It would interesting to know how some of these prior (less significant) anomalies would have had on a ship with deflectors. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730017174.pdf
Merry Christmas
Define 'significant'.
Can you please explain how post-mission reports that identify issues that were corrected during the missions somehow means that the missions didn't happen?
...with the earlier (unmanned) missions.
It should be noted A11 was the only mission to that time to employ deflectors. It would interesting to know how some of these prior (less significant) anomalies would have had on a ship with deflectors.
Happy Holidays Everyone,
I checked and I believe I was thinking about Apollo 5 and 9 having significant issues with the RCS's. But looking at the Experience Report it appears the most significant issues/anomalies were with the earlier (unmanned) missions. This report goes through many of the RCS mission anomalies right up to Apollo 11 (which btw had an 18 minute partial failure) It should be noted A11 was the only mission to that time to employ deflectors. It would interesting to know how some of these prior (less significant) anomalies would have had on a ship with deflectors. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730017174.pdf
Merry Christmas
Define 'significant'.
Can you please explain how post-mission reports that identify issues that were corrected during the missions somehow means that the missions didn't happen?
Have you realised that that the RCS issues identified in the report you linked to were not on the LM?
The question that was asked by a poster was "did any RCS fail on any mission"? (Not on an LM.)
...you believe, according to the government, the inflation rate...
And to answer some posters, just because something exists or stated doesn't mean it is true, right, or correct.
Now you can use this statement to decide, entirely arbitrarily, which sources you accept and which you don't.
However, the fact remains that you brought up a document as evidence for your assertion that the plume deflectors rendered the LM unstable which in fact mathematcially proves exactly the opposite.
Man, you guys are a tough bunch.
It wasn't even my intention to argue more about the RCS's.
My point was why would NASA risk this even if there was a slight chance of problems?
And yes, according to Apollo documentation, there was not a complete absolute failure of an RCS engine.
However, according to Apollo documentation, there were partial failures and a myriad of problems during the RCS development.
Even Apollo 11 had an 18 minute partial failure. Again, using Jay's analogy, I for sure would not want to lose my steering for 18 minutes down a desolate, dark road.
And as for the deflectors, if you examine some of the early anomalies (such as certain engines running at sub par performance), it would raise certain concerns of the ability of the ship remaining stable...
And to be clear, documentation states the deflectors were somehow securely attached on the launchpad and not during Assembly/mating process. Added weight and changing the steering dynamics all literally last second, not to mention re-wrapping the ship in new insulation. I guess it is plausible.)
Again, I am not looking to argue.
And it is plausible, albeit questionable (in my mind), that LM's (untested) makeover could have occurred on the launchpad.
Man, you guys are a tough bunch. :)
It wasn't even my intention to argue more about the RCS's. Just trying to help out another poster with some info. Yes the CSM RCS's cones were not ripped off on liftoff according to Apollo documentation. My point was why would NASA risk this even if there was a slight chance of problems? It would not be the first time a rocket hasn't remained intact through launch. And yes, according to Apollo documentation, there was not a complete absolute failure of an RCS engine. However, according to Apollo documentation, there were partial failures and a myriad of problems during the RCS development. Even Apollo 11 had an 18 minute partial failure. Again, using Jay's analogy, I for sure would not want to lose my steering for 18 minutes down a desolate, dark road.
And as for the deflectors, if you examine some of the early anomalies (such as certain engines running at sub par performance), it would raise certain concerns of the ability of the ship remaining stable through its mission with the addition of these (untested A11) deflectors. (and before anyone questions whether they were tested for A11, documentation (what little there is) states NASA decided to go with the deflectors untested because testing would have meant postponing the launch for 6 weeks and bringing LM back to Production and Assembly. Seems unbelievable to me but it is the only answer to how those deflectors showed up after Saturn mating. And to be clear, documentation states the deflectors were somehow securely attached on the launchpad and not during Assembly/mating process. Added weight and changing the steering dynamics all literally last second, not to mention re-wrapping the ship in new insulation. I guess it is plausible.)
Again, I am not looking to argue. I have agreed that, according to NASA, no RCS cones were ripped off on liftoff, and there were no complete RCS failures. And it is plausible, albeit questionable (in my mind), that LM's (untested) makeover could have occurred on the launchpad.
I was just tempted to post something in response to Jay...
Jay, I will leave it at this.
You seem to question the importance of RCS’s...
...suggesting they are not used that often in that, for instance, an 18 minute failure isn’t critical.
16.2.12 Thrust Chamber Pressure SwitchesThe switch used to monitor the quad 2 aft-firing engine (A2A) exhibited a low response to jet driver commands during most of the mission. During an 18-minute period just prior to terminal phase initiation, the switch failed to respond to seven consecutive minimum impulse commands. This resulted in a master alarm and a thruster warning flag, which were reset by the crew. The engine operated normally, and the switch failure had no effect on the mission. The crew did not attempt any investigative procedures to determine whether the engine had actually failed. A section drawing of the switch is shown in figure 16-18.
This failure was the first of its type to be observed in flight or in ground testing. The switch closing response (time of jet driver "on" command to switch closure) appeared to increase from an average of about 15 to 20 milliseconds during station-keeping to 25 to 30 milliseconds at the time of failure. Normal switch closing response is 10 to 12 milliseconds based on ground test results . The closing response remained at the 25- to 3o-millisecond level following the failure, and the switch continued to fail to respond to some minimum impulse commands. The switch opening time (time from jet driver "off" command to switch opening) appeared to be normal throughout the mission. In view of these results, it appears that the most probable cause of the switch failure was particulate contamination in the inlet passage of the switch. Contamination in this area would reduce the flow rate of chamber gases into the diaphragm cavity, thereby reducing the switch closing response. However, the contamination would not necessarily affect switch opening response since normal chamber pressure tailoff requires about 30 to 40 milliseconds to decrease from about 30 psia to the normal switch opening pressure of about 4 psia. The 30- to 40-millisecond time would probably be sufficient to allow the gases in the diaphragm cavity to vent such that the switch would open normally.
The crews for future missions will be briefed to recognize and handle similar situations.
Man, you guys are a tough bunch. :)
It wasn't even my intention to argue more about the RCS's. Just trying to help out another poster with some info. Yes the CSM RCS's cones were not ripped off on liftoff according to Apollo documentation.
My point was why would NASA risk this even if there was a slight chance of problems? It would not be the first time a rocket hasn't remained intact through launch.
I for sure would not want to lose my steering for 18 minutes down a desolate, dark road.
And as for the deflectors, if you examine some of the early anomalies (such as certain engines running at sub par performance), it would raise certain concerns of the ability of the ship remaining stable through its mission with the addition of these (untested A11) deflectors.
And to be clear, documentation states the deflectors were somehow securely attached on the launchpad and not during Assembly/mating process.
Added weight...
...and changing the steering dynamics all literally last second, not to mention re-wrapping the ship in new insulation. I guess it is plausible.
Again, I am not looking to argue. I have agreed that, according to NASA, no RCS cones were ripped off on liftoff, and there were no complete RCS failures. And it is plausible, albeit questionable (in my mind), that LM's (untested) makeover could have occurred on the launchpad.
"According to Apollo documentation"? What's that supposed to mean?
Maybe not, but let's make the analogy relevant. What would you do if a warning light came on each time you used an electrical system in your car when you were only a few miles from your Winnebago...
In any case, do the maths...
Why add the word "somehow"?
Yeah, but do you accept that the reason no RCS cones were ripped off on liftoff is our understanding of a concept which also applies to ships and aircraft, and other rockets apart from the Saturn V? In other words, do you accept that this is a concept with general application in science and technology, rather than some obscure bit of engineering tricked up just for Apollo?
Maybe not, but let's make the analogy relevant. What would you do if a warning light came on each time you used an electrical system in your car when you were only a few miles from your Winnebago, and if your car failed totally you could still phone your friend in the Winnebago to drive to you?
Man, you guys are a tough bunch. :)
Man, you guys are a tough bunch. :)
Yes the CSM RCS's cones were not ripped off on liftoff according to Apollo documentation. My point was why would NASA risk this even if there was a slight chance of problems?
It would not be the first time a rocket hasn't remained intact through launch.
And yes, according to Apollo documentation, there was not a complete absolute failure of an RCS engine. However, according to Apollo documentation, there were partial failures and a myriad of problems during the RCS development.
Even Apollo 11 had an 18 minute partial failure.
Again, using Jay's analogy, I for sure would not want to lose my steering for 18 minutes down a desolate, dark road.
And as for the deflectors, if you examine some of the early anomalies (such as certain engines running at sub par performance), it would raise certain concerns of the ability of the ship remaining stable through its mission with the addition of these (untested A11) deflectors.
And to be clear, documentation states the deflectors were somehow securely attached on the launchpad and not during Assembly/mating process.
Added weight and changing the steering dynamics all literally last second
Every time I'm about drive across a bridge or walk onto a boat or aeroplane I think about it in a similar way. Don't you?
Man, you guys are a tough bunch. :)
Man, you guys are a tough bunch. :)
If you thought you were going to turn up here with something you thought you had found, and that everyone here was going to be amazed and go "Wow, that's amazing, we never thought of that" then you have come to the wrong forum - try Godlike Productions, Aulis or Above Top Secret for that sort of fawning sycophancy.
Unlike those forums which consist mostly of the ignorant and the stupid, and people who claim qualifications but have none, THIS forum actually has, among its members Physics and Mathematics Professors, Aerospace, Aeronautical, Electronics and Avionics Engineers, Photographers and at least one payload integration engineer, i.e. actual rocket scientists; that is people who actually work on real rockets or at the very least, work on some of the systems used in real rockets.
We're a tough bunch because we are very well versed and very experienced in our respective trades - an amateur is going to have to be very clever and very intelligent to slip one past us. We're also a tough bunch because most of us have seen it all before.
Don't forget geologists!
Yes. But that's a natural requirement for the professions many of us are in.
As has already been pointed out, you evidently know nothing of risk management. There is always a 'slight chance' of problems.
The question is whether it warrants any action to further mitigate that chance.
It had an intermittent failure over an 18 minute period of one component of the RCS system.
Again, I am not looking to argue. I have agreed that, according to NASA, no RCS cones were ripped off on liftoff, and there were no complete RCS failures. And it is plausible, albeit questionable (in my mind), that LM's (untested) makeover could have occurred on the launchpad.
Or the slightly more aggressive, "Wow, you guys take everything so seriously. Don't you know how to have fun?"
Another one is 'everything went so flawlessly, how was that possible?' and 'How could they be so reckless with so many problems with the vehicles?' Actually, don't we have a whole stickied thread of conspiracy theorist contradictions?Or the slightly more aggressive, "Wow, you guys take everything so seriously. Don't you know how to have fun?"
This will almost inevitably be followed by "how dare the astronauts have joked around and shot golf balls and so forth on the Moon! That was serious."
And once again, please show us how your evidence supports your claim that steering dynamics of the LM in solo flight were significantly altered by the addition of plume defelctors, or at least altered such that instability was a real concern.
Again, here is the equation you brought to the table:
M+X = 89D1 - 59D2
The instability that leads to a positive feedback loop is only present when M+X is negative, as stated in the memo. You agree with that, yes?
Anyway, unlike many of the fine people, I am not an engineer or scientist. I do not claim to have any particular skill with math; if anything its below average, but I can still research as well as I can and ask questions from people who do this stuff for a living. I can also point out when hoax proponents make outright lies in their claims. I have learned so much on this forum, and I can say the fine people of this forum are polite and articulate. They only get snarky when some hot stuff pulls out the well (well!) trodden claims and try to pretend they have found something earth shattering.
Here's a question I'd like answered by jr Knowing: What is even the point of faking it? If you pull it off, it's a major propaganda coup, but the USSR would have been the very hardest to fool, as they had their own failed moon landing program and an extensive and very successful unmanned lunar exploration program. It's basically the first rule of any successful scammer: know your mark. If the US realized they couldn't pull it off, why not focus on other things, like the USSR did with space stations and Venusian exploration after the explosive failure of the N1 rocket. If the USSR realized the moon landings were fake, which, from their knowledge they would most certainly have, they would have every motivation to trumpet it to the world as their own propaganda coup.
Man, you guys are a tough bunch. :)
If you thought you were going to turn up here with something you thought you had found, and that everyone here was going to be amazed and go "Wow, that's amazing, we never thought of that" then you have come to the wrong forum - try Godlike Productions, Aulis or Above Top Secret for that sort of fawning sycophancy.
Unlike those forums which consist mostly of the ignorant and the stupid, and people who claim qualifications but have none, THIS forum actually has, among its members Physics and Mathematics Professors, Aerospace, Aeronautical, Electronics and Avionics Engineers, Photographers and at least one payload integration engineer, i.e. actual rocket scientists; that is people who actually work on real rockets or at the very least, work on some of the systems used in real rockets.
We're a tough bunch because we are very well versed and very experienced in our respective trades - an amateur is going to have to be very clever and very intelligent to slip one past us. We're also a tough bunch because most of us have seen it all before.
Don't forget geologists!
He's trying to set the stage for a drama in which we're all just good ol' boys sitting around, having a few beers, and talking about space. In that scenario the conversation should be light and congenial, not confrontational.I can only speak of my own experience with my own personal friends who have technical and degreed qualifications. When we sit around and discuss such subjects, although the mood IS light and congenial, there is NOTHING we like better than to show there is a fallacy in one or more of one another's views/ideas/statements. We don't just pat each other on the back and follow some imaginary "official" doctrine. We imagine. postulate and debate what is and what could be. Although beer's influence and flights of fancy are integral components of the evening, logic and scientific facts are what ultimately rule. If, when conclusively shown their failure(s) in such a debate, any one of us acted as immature and boneheaded as JRK (I do believe his initials are a hint) has, we would be rightfully ostracized. It takes a little personal integrity to admit one's mistake(s). My good friends have that quality. JRK has shown no inkling of such, to date.
And once again, please show us how your evidence supports your claim that steering dynamics of the LM in solo flight were significantly altered by the addition of plume defelctors, or at least altered such that instability was a real concern.
Again, here is the equation you brought to the table:
M+X = 89D1 - 59D2
The instability that leads to a positive feedback loop is only present when M+X is negative, as stated in the memo. You agree with that, yes?
I don't think he does. Which is to say I don't get the impression he thinks one can compute stability, or that it makes sense to do so. I don't think he considers free-body dynamics to be a computable regime. This is something I run into all the time with hoax claimants trying to bluff their way through specialized knowledge. They usually don't know what's possible. Their extrapolation from intuition usually goes down the wrong path.
It's a mathematical expression of how we observe the universe to work.This one sentence sums up the scientific and engineering approach which HBs and conspiracy theorists often have problems understanding. It doesn't matter whether it's LM stability, orbital mechanics, radiation exposures, or onward to flat earth and Planet X conspiracies, the mathematical models can be used to demonstrate when the beliefs are wrong (or right!) and what the effects of various changes to the parameters would have.
An average, neutral person (whatever the heck either of those are supposed to mean), when presented with a top-level claim/rebuttal about the purported Apollo Hoax, will realize one is better constructed, better supported, and more probable than the other. "There should have been stars!" "Film has a dynamic range."
And once again, please show us how your evidence supports your claim that steering dynamics of the LM in solo flight were significantly altered by the addition of plume defelctors, or at least altered such that instability was a real concern.
Again, here is the equation you brought to the table:
M+X = 89D1 - 59D2
The instability that leads to a positive feedback loop is only present when M+X is negative, as stated in the memo. You agree with that, yes?
…
And in his version, one can never know whether one has achieved stability except by demonstration flight. The problem is solvable practically, but not prescriptively. This is why we keep pushing the math under his nose and he just keeps trying to figure out how it applies. It hasn't sunk in that there is a formalized model for this, and that math solves the problem in the abstract, not just individual cases. He hasn't figured out that engineers can know there will be no stability problem (or, as in the memo, that a certain curious condition will arise in remote circumstances) by working it out on paper. He doesn't see how math solves what he thinks is a purely practical problem. The plume deflectors weren't flight-tested, so in his limited pseudo-engineering world they were untried.
We generalize the problem of free-body dynamics for most practical purposes using what's called a linearized state-space model. It's "linearized" in the sense that all the familiar Newtonian elements of the problem are represented as entities in linear algebra -- matrices and vectors. More accurately, many elements of the problem are matrix- or vector-valued functions of some other variable such as time. It's a "state space" in that it's a vector space of all possible inputs, outputs, and states (and their derivatives) that a system can be in, as represented in linear algebra terms. Ironically, the state-space class of mathematical solutions is also used in econometrics.
The beauty of such a system is that all possible effects are correctly modeled using a homogeneous (and small) vocabulary. You can abstract concepts like body axes and control axes -- and in the LM's case the control axes don't even have to be orthogonal (at right angles). Everything boils down to multiplying vectors and matrices. That's what linear algebra is for. A layman is probably not going to stumble onto this by himself. He was either taught it and thereby understands its power and simplicity, or else his concept of the quantitative nature of the problem is likely to be a bewildering melange of special-case formulations that would quickly become intractable for such a problem as controlling a spacecraft. In this system, the center of mass not being at the center of the control axes isn't a problem, because it's never assumed to be. Transforming between body axes and control axes is straightforward and never omitted. There are no special cases to consider. And the transformation can even be a time-parameterized function (or a function of some other variable such as fuel-on-board) with no loss of elegance.
With these techniques, the additional effect of plume impingement on the deflector simply becomes another vector in the problem, no different than the direct effect of the jet itself. It has discoverable, deducible physical properties, and these properties can be modeled easily in the language of linearized state spaces. The equation above is merely a matrix multiplication rendered out in its scalar decomposition. The fact that it also works out to be the definition of toque (a quantity of force acting a distance from the center of mass) is intentional. Torque is not some contrived concept. It's a mathematical expression of how we observe the universe to work. The algebraic equivalence between the basic expression of the concept and the model we use validates the model.
Apparently unaware of this, Jr not-Knowing figures that the engineers who came up with the plume deflector had no way to determine its effect on the control problem before flight. And in his world of perfectly-balanced jets and perfectly-located centers of mass and idealized structure, any disruption is disastrous. And if we can't see this, then we're just not at his level of understanding. (Well, that's true. But not in the way he wants.) The central theorem of state-space dynamics is not that a system rests at equilibrium or returns to it unaided, but rather than a system can be driven to a desired state deterministically. The whole science of control theory would be obviated entirely if everything worked the way Jr Knowing imagined it does.
And that same misconception is behind the bravado with which he insinuates that we can't know that we're right and that he's wrong. Yes! Yes, we can! The same math by which the engineers originally determined the effect of the plume deflectors and predicted its feedback loop in extraordinary circumstances works just as well for us in determining that no possible location of the LM's center of mass in solo flight reverses the relevant moment. No, we aren't just gullible or brainwashed. I know what I know. I know why I know it. I know that it works because I see it work. It's not just a thing I read, or a thing someone told me. And I'm not alone. These are common techniques, widely known and broadly applicable. Jr's ignorance of them doesn't make them invalid, doesn't make them go away, and doesn't make him the insightful genius he hopes to play.
I assume engineers have a way of identifying that point.
The hoaxie that drills down, moving the goal posts or outright changing the character of their claim or throwing up all sorts of chaff in an attempt to find wriggle room.
Btw, do you have a copy of that exchange?
Btw, do you have a copy of that exchange?
I don't, and I understand it's gone entirely from IMDB now.
If the hoaxers have such a film stock to get the latter images... they should give Kodak and call and the will receive a blank cheque!An average, neutral person (whatever the heck either of those are supposed to mean), when presented with a top-level claim/rebuttal about the purported Apollo Hoax, will realize one is better constructed, better supported, and more probable than the other. "There should have been stars!" "Film has a dynamic range."
Its a matter of expectations...
If the astronauts came back from the moon and showed me this photograph they took there with a film camera...
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/l3xu7fr47yiwkoq/LunarNoStars.png?raw=1)
...I would have no reason to believe there was anything wrong. As a photographer and photo processor, I would expect such a photograph to look like this, given the known dynamic range of film stock. However, if they show me this photograph...
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/pprt6oom2kxt4g7/LunarStars.png?raw=1)
... and claim it was taken on the moon, and I will become deeply suspicious. I will want to know where they obtained a film with such an enormous dynamic range; a film characteristic that has so far been impossible to obtain.
I assume engineers have a way of identifying that point.
We do; it's called a deadline. ;D
All seriousness aside, no we don't. In fact, that's one of my interview questions for engineering managers. It's a trick question in a sense because unqualified candidates think they have a universal answer. We quip that a project in design engineering has two phases: too early to tell, and too late to do anything about it. There is no hard-and-fast point where you markedly shift the approach. Analysis at the beginning of a project is proven to have the greatest effect on cost and complexity, but it happens before enough of the problem has been explored to really know what to analyze. It's the manager's job to break the "analysis paralysis" that occurs from trying to reason conclusively with too little data, and then to get the ball rolling.
The "correct" answer to the LM's problem that the plume deflectors were added to solve would have been to take the LM back to its conceptual mechanical design stage and weigh more heavily the jet duty cycle with its thermal effects. Then the jets could have been positioned to avoid thermal loads on structure over the firing times it became apparent later were wanted for mission planning. But then you would have had just another set of problems that arose from that systemic arrangement that weren't present in the LM that flew. The urge to analyze extensively follows the natural urge to find an optimal solution. In any significant engineering problem there simply does not exist an optimal solution. The engineer and author Henry Petroski coined the term "satisficing" to address this. Engineering problem spaces are defined by opposing variables that are always in conflict, always in tension. A solution for these variables is ever only "good enough."QuoteThe hoaxie that drills down, moving the goal posts or outright changing the character of their claim or throwing up all sorts of chaff in an attempt to find wriggle room.
Which they will eventually find, since no engineering survives all conceivable criticism. But the key is to determine at what level you've found something that merits criticism and how consequential that is to questions like that of authenticity.
I assume engineers have a way of identifying that point.
We do; it's called a deadline. ;D
All seriousness aside, no we don't. In fact, that's one of my interview questions for engineering managers. It's a trick question in a sense because unqualified candidates think they have a universal answer. We quip that a project in design engineering has two phases: too early to tell, and too late to do anything about it. There is no hard-and-fast point where you markedly shift the approach. Analysis at the beginning of a project is proven to have the greatest effect on cost and complexity, but it happens before enough of the problem has been explored to really know what to analyze. It's the manager's job to break the "analysis paralysis" that occurs from trying to reason conclusively with too little data, and then to get the ball rolling.
The "correct" answer to the LM's problem that the plume deflectors were added to solve would have been to take the LM back to its conceptual mechanical design stage and weigh more heavily the jet duty cycle with its thermal effects. Then the jets could have been positioned to avoid thermal loads on structure over the firing times it became apparent later were wanted for mission planning. But then you would have had just another set of problems that arose from that systemic arrangement that weren't present in the LM that flew. The urge to analyze extensively follows the natural urge to find an optimal solution. In any significant engineering problem there simply does not exist an optimal solution. The engineer and author Henry Petroski coined the term "satisficing" to address this. Engineering problem spaces are defined by opposing variables that are always in conflict, always in tension. A solution for these variables is ever only "good enough."QuoteThe hoaxie that drills down, moving the goal posts or outright changing the character of their claim or throwing up all sorts of chaff in an attempt to find wriggle room.
Which they will eventually find, since no engineering survives all conceivable criticism. But the key is to determine at what level you've found something that merits criticism and how consequential that is to questions like that of authenticity.
In reading this answer, I'm reminded again of Murray & Cox's description of Joe Shea's approach to managing the design of the Apollo and Saturn spacecraft. He used as his maxim that "The good is the enemy of the better", and kept encouraging the engineers to settle for designing a component/system/whatever which was good enough for the job requirement, not perfect.
The particular example they gave was of one unnamed company whose engineers were designing a part which had to pass a humidity test. The engineers got so caught up in the process that they felt the best way to prove they'd be able to pass the humidity test was to make the part survive being immersed in water. However this was proving complex and taking up valuable time, and Shea was startled to discover that in all this design, test and redesign they'd never actually subjected the part to a humidity test...
Btw, do you have a copy of that exchange?
I don't, and I understand it's gone entirely from IMDB now.
Jay
Can you remember what year this was, and what section the discussion was in?
Did you use jayutah or some other username?
What username was the blunder using?
I am prepared to have a trawl through some internet archives to see if I can find it, but I would like some kind of starting point.
Btw, do you have a copy of that exchange?
I don't, and I understand it's gone entirely from IMDB now.
Jay
Can you remember what year this was, and what section the discussion was in?
Did you use jayutah or some other username?
What username was the blunder using?
I am prepared to have a trawl through some internet archives to see if I can find it, but I would like some kind of starting point.
Here is the dead link -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446557/board/flat/133905495
Btw, do you have a copy of that exchange?
I don't, and I understand it's gone entirely from IMDB now.
Jay
Can you remember what year this was, and what section the discussion was in?
Did you use jayutah or some other username?
What username was the blunder using?
I am prepared to have a trawl through some internet archives to see if I can find it, but I would like some kind of starting point.
Here is the dead link -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446557/board/flat/133905495
Good find, thanks. The only thing I'm sure of is that I did not use JayUtah as my user name for that debate. I don't remember what I did use.
Is this that bingo moment?
Ah, Good the first link you gave was just to IMDB, not the forums. Reading the first brought back memories from my first reading. the Blunder was in rare but consistent error prone statements.Btw, do you have a copy of that exchange?
I don't, and I understand it's gone entirely from IMDB now.
Jay
Can you remember what year this was, and what section the discussion was in?
Did you use jayutah or some other username?
What username was the blunder using?
I am prepared to have a trawl through some internet archives to see if I can find it, but I would like some kind of starting point.
Here is the dead link -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446557/board/flat/133905495
Good find, thanks. The only thing I'm sure of is that I did not use JayUtah as my user name for that debate. I don't remember what I did use.
Is this that bingo moment?
Archive -
https://moviechat.org/tt0446557/A-Funny-Thing-Happened-on-the-Way-to-the-Moon#discover
Two large threads -
https://moviechat.org/tt0446557/A-Funny-Thing-Happened-on-the-Way-to-the-Moon/58c7698a6b51e905f686f522/Could-this-be-one-of-the-most-under-appreciated-films-of-its-time
https://moviechat.org/tt0446557/A-Funny-Thing-Happened-on-the-Way-to-the-Moon/58c7698b6b51e905f686f654/I-dont-know-I-just-dont-know
Adding:
https://web.archive.org/web/http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446557/board
Just had a quick read through of it and I think some of it is missing or maybe Blunderboy deleted more of his responses since the last time I read it? Certainly does show the type of character he is. Anyway, great to see it's not lost forever.
Just had a quick read through of it and I think some of it is missing or maybe Blunderboy deleted more of his responses since the last time I read it? Certainly does show the type of character he is. Anyway, great to see it's not lost forever.
Its difficult to follow though because the formatting has been removed...its not easy to see where the quotes belong
Just had a quick read through of it and I think some of it is missing or maybe Blunderboy deleted more of his responses since the last time I read it? Certainly does show the type of character he is. Anyway, great to see it's not lost forever.
Its difficult to follow though because the formatting has been removed...its not easy to see where the quotes belong
The last supplied link actually brings you to the way it originally looked:
https://web.archive.org/web/http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446557/board
Just had a quick read through of it and I think some of it is missing or maybe Blunderboy deleted more of his responses since the last time I read it? Certainly does show the type of character he is. Anyway, great to see it's not lost forever.
In reading the last link I find most of page 9 and 10 are not in existence in way back, unless my web is screwing up. Did any one else have any luck with those last two pages?
Anyway, unlike many of the fine people, I am not an engineer or scientist. I do not claim to have any particular skill with math; if anything its below average, but I can still research as well as I can and ask questions from people who do this stuff for a living. I can also point out when hoax proponents make outright lies in their claims. I have learned so much on this forum, and I can say the fine people of this forum are polite and articulate. They only get snarky when some hot stuff pulls out the well (well!) trodden claims and try to pretend they have found something earth shattering.
I'd put myself in the same category as Raven. I'm also not an engineer or scientist, but I did enough maths and science at school that I can understand most of the maths discussed here and can follow the rest even if I can't do the maths myself.
I've also been investigating hoax claims for about 20 years, so I'm also wearily familiar with plenty of claims that visitors here think they're the first to bring to our attention.
Having said that, there are still plenty of cases where I learn something new. But in almost every case, it's learning something new about the reality of Apollo, and only occasionally a new hoax claim I haven't heard before.QuoteHere's a question I'd like answered by jr Knowing: What is even the point of faking it? If you pull it off, it's a major propaganda coup, but the USSR would have been the very hardest to fool, as they had their own failed moon landing program and an extensive and very successful unmanned lunar exploration program. It's basically the first rule of any successful scammer: know your mark. If the US realized they couldn't pull it off, why not focus on other things, like the USSR did with space stations and Venusian exploration after the explosive failure of the N1 rocket. If the USSR realized the moon landings were fake, which, from their knowledge they would most certainly have, they would have every motivation to trumpet it to the world as their own propaganda coup.
Yes, something important to understand here - the Russians/Soviets were the masters of fakery and misdirection. In the case of their military forces, the term was maskirovka, but they applied the concept broadly, including in their space program. This was because they recognised both the propaganda value of the space program and the ease with which they could exploit it.
Therefore, the Russians never announced their launches ahead of time. This allowed them to cover up their launch failures, giving them the appearance of a 100% launch success rate when the American failures were there for all to see.
It worked in other ways too: they might make a bland statement about a mission objective, and let the Western media draw whatever excessive implications they wished; so when they announced that Vostoks 3 and 4 would approach to within a few kilometres of each other, Western media assumed the Soviets had worked out how to do a rendezvous in space, which they hadn't...but it played into the image of the Soviet lead in the Space Race.
But almost the biggest success of the Soviet space program was convincing people in the West that they hadn't been racing the Americans throughout the 1960s to get men on the Moon. They successfully pushed the line that all they'd ever been interested in was unmanned exploration of the Moon because it was cheaper and safer. Sure, it was cheaper and safer, but they had certainly been racing the Americans to put actual people on the Moon, and only really gave up when they couldn't make their N1 rocket work.
Now NASA knew most of this, and some of their knowledge of what the Soviets were actually up to influenced some of their decisions. For example, knowing the Soviets had a very large rocket on a launch pad played a part in convincing them to send Apollo 8 to the Moon in December 1968.
But the fact that NASA could see at least part way through the Soviet deceptions also meant they'd have had a good idea that they'd have no hope of getting away with a fake themselves. And in the propaganda context of the Cold War, being caught faking something would be worse than not attempting it at all (which is why the Soviets exploited the propaganda value of what they did, rather than faking anything themselves). (Apart from which, the Americans were quite confident they could go to the Moon.)
So the only options with regard to sending men to the Moon was either (a) don't attempt it (the Soviet decision), or (b) actually do it (the American decision). Option (c), faking it, simply wasn't a viable option.
Those who think a moon-landing hoax is plausible make a mistake that is as common as it is peculiar: They assume that attempting an actual manned moon-landing has a large possibility of failure, but that executing a hoax would somehow be automatically successful.
This makes no sense.
Well now, you guys are making the standard mistake of assuming the hoax believers apply any kind of logical reasoning or critical thinking when coming up with their nonsense.
Those who think a moon-landing hoax is plausible make a mistake that is as common as it is peculiar: They assume that attempting an actual manned moon-landing has a large possibility of failure, but that executing a hoax would somehow be automatically successful.
This makes no sense.
Not only that, but a hoax would be 100% guaranteed to be found out, and at the time of Apollo the chances were pretty high that it could have been found out very soon indeed.
I mean, the co-ordinates of the landings were and are public knowledge. Any hoax that didn't result in leaving clearly used Apollo descent stages, along with the footprints, science kit, bags of rubbish and all the other stuff documented in the photos, would be guaranteed to be uncovered as soon as anyone revisited the sites, which they will. (And never mind that the fake scenery would also have to match the real moon sites, down to the pebble!)
What kind of idiot would sign off on a hoax that would ensure that one day, the USA would be uncovered as a total laughing stock?
Not only that, but a hoax would be 100% guaranteed to be found out, and at the time of Apollo the chances were pretty high that it could have been found out very soon indeed.
...part of the reason why the people here are a tough crowd.
Quote from: JayUtah(Windley)
800209 80024 0531-0536 -21 -48 SN 16648 00010 1
Can you tell me what the unshielded skin dose of this event would have been?
Since I didn't take any space courses and I don't know what the answer might be. Nether did the Blunder="Let's see given that this one only lasted for 5minutes, I'd say 8.33rem."
So what is the answer and how is it calculated. If one does not want the calculation on the forum PM me.
Speaking of He That Shall Not Be Named, Jay Any answer to my question?
As am I … I think I know the reason for locating in Houston, but I am most curious as to all of them. Even when you know or think you know, you will ALWAYS learn something new!!
We probably know more about the actual scandals that are part of the history of Apollo than you do (as well as the stunning achievements) such as:
- The decision to locate Mission Control in Houston;
- The process which determined that Mission Control would use IBM computers; and
- The process by which North American won the contract for the construction of the Apollo CSM.
Now I'm curious. Care to spin those real NASA scandals off into their separate thread? I'd like to learn more.
She may not be much to look at, but she's fast.From a certain simplistic point of view, it was an aluminum balloon.
What would that make the Falcon, other than a rust bucket?
I always wondered where 'Gish Gallop' came from. Never realized it was named after someone.On the sixth day of flouncemas I OCD'd to me,Speaking of which, is Duane still actve?
Six galloping Gishes
Five Duane Damannns!
Four Jarrahs yapping
Three David Percy's
Two talking heads
And a strawman in a pear tree.
Passed away 2013
I believe I chatted with him in 2015 or 2016 on YT. Still had the Moon chip on his shoulder and he still didn't like most of the guys on EF. I guess those guys were too hard on him attempting to point out how wrong he was/is. He told me everything about me that was on my profile, so could read still.
2013 is supported on many sites. Obituary here https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/sandiegouniontribune/obituary.aspx?n=duane-t-gish&pid=163795335
Speaking of He That Shall Not Be Named, Jay Any answer to my question?
Sorry, I didn't see it. It's a trick question. The data gives you only the peak measurement; to compute the dose you would need to integrate a finer-grained measurement over time and energy, using calculus to obtain the fluence over those variables. Naturally you would have to include the attenuation factor of the spacecraft hull. The right answer should have been, "There isn't enough information in this table to determine that." This is why we measure radiation exposure for human astronauts instead of trying to compute it. He failed the test by not knowing what data and mathematical techniques were needed to answer the question, and whether he had/knew them.
Does NOAA gather and post a more complete set of data that can be evaluated, instead of just peak values?
As am I … I think I know the reason for locating in Houston, but I am most curious as to all of them. Even when you know or think you know, you will ALWAYS learn something new!!
See, I grew up in Texas (well, I am still here … cause why leave? :D) and I didn't know much of that.
As am I … I think I know the reason for locating in Houston, but I am most curious as to all of them. Even when you know or think you know, you will ALWAYS learn something new!!
Here is the version I know:
LBJ was put in charge of the process because he knew how to wheel and deal in Congress as well as anyone. He knew that to get approval, the program needed to be spread around. California already had plenty of aerospace to benefit. New York had its own aerospace industry and lousy weather. Alabama had the Redstone Arsenal where rockets were being developed. Florida was the only place for a launch complex. Texas made the obvious place politically for the Manned Space headquarters. AND it was LBJ's home state.
The location near Houston:
Exxon (actually the predecessor by name) had a large land development south of Houston and needed some industry to lure people southeast of Houston while the Gulf freeway was under construction. The development business was, I think, mostly an offshoot of the relative tax incentives of the time. Exxon offered the land to LBJ for free.
Any politician with his salt, and LBJ was a salty guy, wouldn't look this gift horse in its mouth. A corporation or a person cannot give a gift like this to the government. So, a deal was worked out for Exxon to give the land to Rice University without encumbrance. Rice then donated the land to the government. It was not in the City of Houston at the time. Houston and Texas are very forward looking and welcomed the investment and jobs.
Clear Lake had plenty of benefits for NASA. A huge tract of flat grazing land. Cheap new housing to move government employees into. Close proximity to Ellington Air Force base. Proximity to a major city with a good international airport. Good year-round weather so you could count on astronauts flying in and out and training at Ellington without problems. LBJ was bosom buddies with the big local engineering and construction companies that could get things done fast without the complications of building in California or bribery needed in New York real estate. (Not that LBJ was above a bit of bribery when needed.)
I'm sure the White House made many promises for unrelated programs in many other states to get the votes needed for Congressional approval in the normal horse trading that goes on in government. There are undoubtedly more details to this that didn’t make it into the papers. I don’t know what Rice U got out of it directly except perhaps the famous Kennedy “Why does Rice play Texas?” speech. But as a the major research university in the state they must have welcomed it on their back yard.
BTW, after Kennedy made his speech at Rice Stadium, he went on a tour of the Manned Space Flight Center. Since the Clear Lake campus was under construction, the center was housed in pre-existing industrial buildings. This is where he did the tour. https://goo.gl/maps/TE2B5WbUxLT2
This was the headquarters building. Now the offices of the Houston Parks Department. https://goo.gl/maps/JYksHdbS84F2
I wonder if they have any memorabilia in the building? Perhaps some stuff that had been tucked away in a storage closet they found and have displayed … I know, I'll just show up and ask them to show me the NASA stuff from the 1960's … :D
Here is the discussion of this "critical" failure in the LM.Quote from: Apollo 11 Mission Report, pp. 16-18f16.2.12 Thrust Chamber Pressure SwitchesThe switch used to monitor the quad 2 aft-firing engine (A2A) exhibited a low response to jet driver commands during most of the mission. During an 18-minute period just prior to terminal phase initiation, the switch failed to respond to seven consecutive minimum impulse commands. This resulted in a master alarm and a thruster warning flag, which were reset by the crew. The engine operated normally, and the switch failure had no effect on the mission. The crew did not attempt any investigative procedures to determine whether the engine had actually failed. A section drawing of the switch is shown in figure 16-18.
This failure was the first of its type to be observed in flight or in ground testing. The switch closing response (time of jet driver "on" command to switch closure) appeared to increase from an average of about 15 to 20 milliseconds during station-keeping to 25 to 30 milliseconds at the time of failure. Normal switch closing response is 10 to 12 milliseconds based on ground test results . The closing response remained at the 25- to 3o-millisecond level following the failure, and the switch continued to fail to respond to some minimum impulse commands. The switch opening time (time from jet driver "off" command to switch opening) appeared to be normal throughout the mission. In view of these results, it appears that the most probable cause of the switch failure was particulate contamination in the inlet passage of the switch. Contamination in this area would reduce the flow rate of chamber gases into the diaphragm cavity, thereby reducing the switch closing response. However, the contamination would not necessarily affect switch opening response since normal chamber pressure tailoff requires about 30 to 40 milliseconds to decrease from about 30 psia to the normal switch opening pressure of about 4 psia. The 30- to 40-millisecond time would probably be sufficient to allow the gases in the diaphragm cavity to vent such that the switch would open normally.
The crews for future missions will be briefed to recognize and handle similar situations.
Now I'm going to explain to you everything that's wrong with your analysis of the problem.
1. Jet A2A is for yaw control only. It could fail permanently and entirely, and the ability of the LM to maintain yaw control would not be affected. Its pitch and roll control would be unaffected, and were unaffected by this anomaly. (Note that the report specifically says this failure had no effect on the mission.)
2. The failure was not of the RCS system as a whole, but was isolated to a single jet that was fully redundant.
3. The failure did not last 18 minutes in the sense that the ship was out of control for 18 minutes. The data say that a failure was indicated seven discrete times within a given 18-minute period defined by mission phases.
4. The failure was not with the jet, but with the chamber pressure sensor monitoring the operation of the jet. Its only job is to provide a signal to the computer that the jet has responded as commanded. The jet was, in fact, firing. The worst-case outcome if this failure had become permanent would have been a false-positive signal to the RCS logic of a jet failure. The A2A jet can be lost without any effect on the mission, and actual jet failure can be diagnosed by other means, providing for the crew to override the false indication.
5. The failure was simply a sluggishness in the response of the sensor. This matters only in minimum-impulse mode, also called pulse-mode. In this mode the jets are pulsed for only a few milliseconds as a means of fine-grained attitude control. This is consistent with observations from earlier in the mission where the indicator had been sluggish. In longer RCS burns the sensor functioned adequately.
Now go back and re-examine your fretful, panicky analogy to losing steering on a dark, desolate road. Isn't it about time you just admit you really don't understand the engineering behind these spacecraft, and that you're just plain wrong?
Thank you for this. I love to learn new things and you have helped immensely.
I wonder if they have any memorabilia in the building? Perhaps some stuff that had been tucked away in a storage closet they found and have displayed … I know, I'll just show up and ask them to show me the NASA stuff from the 1960's … :D
I don't know how many owners or tenants have gone through the building since NASA moved out. I doubt NASA made a lot of changes in the building because they new it was a temporary arrangement. Similarly, because to the short tennenancy and moving to a much larger facility, they likely hadn't accumulated much stuff to leave behind in the closets. Just my guess. And If I had been the next tennent, I'd have scoured the place for souvenirs.
BTW here's a photo of the NASA headquarters opening and the opening celebration when the Houston Park's Department took over. It's doesn't show anything other than that it is the same sign frame.
(https://i.imgur.com/H4tKdFs.png)
Yep. I called a stealth flounce a few pages back.
Another willfully ignorant intellectual coward bites the dust.
FTFY.Yep. I called a stealth flounce a few pages back.
Another willfully ignorant intellectual coward bites the dust.
...or has figured out believes that he needs to wait longer before trying to come back and change the subject.
FTFY.Yep. I called a stealth flounce a few pages back.
Another willfully ignorant intellectual coward bites the dust.
...or has figured out believes that he needs to wait longer before trying to come back and change the subject.
I know none of us, and you in particular, would let him get away with that game.
* Off topic: ISF has 'strikeout' tags; apparently they're not available here? (Looks like it must be a phpBB extension, not a standard code).
Yes! Thank you; it's of course different than other BB implementations. ("Nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from" :D )FTFY.Yep. I called a stealth flounce a few pages back.
Another willfully ignorant intellectual coward bites the dust.
...or has figured out believes that he needs to wait longer before trying to come back and change the subject.
I know none of us, and you in particular, would let him get away with that game.
* Off topic: ISF has 'strikeout' tags; apparently they're not available here? (Looks like it must be a phpBB extension, not a standard code).Are these what you're looking for?
Hi Jay,
Actually it is not quite the way I saw it when I watched the movie. I thought the flow separation occurs part way down the Service Module and the RCS are right at the top of the module. I would think there would be a lot of turbulence right where the RCS's are located. Here is the Apollo 11 trailer, check around the 55 second mark. As you can see the air flow bows out part way down the silver SM section.
<snip>
I thought
I would think
but it does seem unusual
I thought
The legs are different, the undercarriage and sides are different,I have to ask....you do realise that the legs are folded in to fit into the LM storage area? And that they were extended after the CSM/LM stack performed a successful LOI?
I thought the flow separation occurs part way down the Service Module...
I would think there would be a lot of turbulence right where the RCS's are located.
As you can see the air flow bows out part way down the silver SM section.
Also, btw check out the 1 minute mark of the trailer. It shows the LM being transported from production to mating. It is almost unrecognizable versus the LM we see in space. The legs are different, the undercarriage and sides are different, the ladder is wrapped differently and there are no plume deflectors.
...but it does seem unusual to make all these literally last minute changes and add all this additional weight.
Insisting it is suspect that the LM looks different between stacking and landing, despite being shown the apparatus and documentation relating to work done on the pad after stacking.
Insisiting it is suspect that the RCS quads on the service module are exposed even after being informed of why they were not at risk of being damaged by airflow during take-off.
Failing to acknowledge the difference between a paper and a memo
Failing, after several times of saying you had it, to provide a 'more detailed' paper that you say proves the RCS system required perfect balance to operate correctly.
Failing to address the clear and evident fact that the memo you used to support your argument that the plume deflectors introduce instability actually says exactly the opposite for all but one very unlikely scenario.
Getting mixed up between LM and CSM RCS systems used on Apollo 13.
And I have good eyesight.
I am looking at it on a 55 inch 4K screen right now.
That’s not my opinion, that is a fact.
Hi Jay,
Actually it is not quite the way I saw it when I watched the movie. I thought the flow separation occurs part way down the Service Module and the RCS are right at the top of the module. I would think there would be a lot of turbulence right where the RCS's are located. Here is the Apollo 11 trailer, check around the 55 second mark. As you can see the air flow bows out part way down the silver SM section.
Also, btw check out the 1 minute mark of the trailer. It shows the LM being transported from production to mating. It is almost unrecognizable versus the LM we see in space. The legs are different, the undercarriage and sides are different, the ladder is wrapped differently and there are no plume deflectors. And yes there is some minimal documentation, mainly third party and after the fact, that suggests the LM got a complete makeover on the launch pad. Maybe so, but it does seem unusual to make all these literally last minute changes and add all this additional weight. I thought they were offering $50000 bonuses to the manufacturers to eliminate one pound of weight and here they go tacking on a bunch a weight post production.
Finally, what you see in the clip is an LM being carried along, Where do you see it say that it's being taken to the final mating? Are you absolutely certain that is the Apollo 11 LM?
There are photos and video with documentation.
Should I go on?
Actually it is not quite the way I saw it when I watched the movie. I thought the flow separation occurs part way down the Service Module and the RCS are right at the top of the module.
I would think there would be a lot of turbulence right where the RCS's are located.
And yes there is some minimal documentation, mainly third party and after the fact, that suggests the LM got a complete makeover on the launch pad.
Maybe so, but it does seem unusual to make all these literally last minute changes and add all this additional weight.
I thought they were offering $50000 bonuses to the manufacturers to eliminate one pound of weight and here they go tacking on a bunch a weight post production.
Hi Jay,
Is that all you got? My credentials are stellar, so I am right?
You seem to concede that the air flow seems to have the appearance it starts part way down the SM but it really starts higher up at the CM-SM joint.
I would think the most obvious answer here, is the bowing of the air flow is actually being caused by the RCS’s protruding out and disrupting the airflow. Not saying I am right or wrong but just saying it could be a reasonable assumption.
Is that all you got? My credentials are stellar, so I am right?
You seem to concede that the air flow seems to have the appearance it starts part way down the SM...
I would think the most obvious answer here...
Not saying I am right or wrong...
...but just saying it could be a reasonable assumption.
But Of course, admitting to this would compromise your argument, would it not? But nothing to worry about, I don’t have your credentials to back that up.
I think you need to look more closely to the photos. The legs, for instance, were not even wrapped part way up the leg pre flight. And wrapping post flight is different colour and material. Take a close up of the ladder. Wrapped completely different pre vs post. The undercarriage is also wrapped differently etc etc. Plus the plume deflectors were added. Should I go on?
...you are literally trying to tell a qualified and experienced person he is wrong about a fundamental element of his job.
Maybe so, but it does seem unusual to make all these literally last minute changes and add all this additional weight. I thought they were offering $50000 bonuses to the manufacturers to eliminate one pound of weight and here they go tacking on a bunch a weight post production.
The weight reduction was an important part of the LM development...
the Saturn V engines were up-rated during their development which allowed more payload and this was passed on to Grumman as well as the fact that they would need to modify the design to allow for the possible inclusion of a proposed lunar rover or jet packs to enhance exploration.
The weight reduction was an important part of the LM development...
And it's important to realize that eliminated weight that could be safely lost. It isn't to eliminate weight at all costs, but at an acceptable cost.
Hi Onebigmonkey,
100 percent that is the Apollo 11 LM. There are photos and video with documentation. This is not a random as Jay suggests. At the start of this thread, the very first post, I attached the NASA photo that accompanys this video. Further I attached a NASA photo of the LM already inserted in the sleeve being hoisted up to mates to the Saturn stage. They did not change in appearance.
I think you need to look more closely to the photos. The legs, for instance, were not even wrapped part way up the leg pre flight. And wrapping post flight is different colour and material. Take a close up of the ladder. Wrapped completely different pre vs post. The undercarriage is also wrapped differently etc etc. Plus the plume deflectors were added. Should I go on?
other external items were added after mating.
other external items were added after mating.
Internal items too. There is no "rule" that says the vehicle is immune or exempt from further work after rollout. In fact, there's a whole service structure -- a major piece of engineering -- that was built to facilitate work that was planned to take place after rollout. One for the space shuttle too, although it worked differently. The LM design calls for a half-dozen or so pyrotechnical items to facilitate its staging. For various safety and mission-assurance reasons, you always wait until the last minute to install the pyros. You design your ship and the supporting equipment to allow access to those pyros after assembly and integration, but before launch. To install the umbilical guillotine, for example, you had to reach under the forward-hatch porch, but it was designed so you could do it while the LM was enshrouded in the SLA, on the pad, the morning of liftoff.
Jr Knowing is simply making up new "rules" for how to build and operate spacecraft and then expecting the industry to obey him.
I thought they were offering $50000 bonuses to the manufacturers to eliminate one pound of weight and here they go tacking on a bunch a weight post production.
I can't get beyond "if it was fake, why would they do something you claim proves it was fake?" Because if all this is a proof the missions were faked, it's so obvious. This isn't hidden. This isn't revealed after extensive effort, because it's quite clear no effort has been expended to understand the Apollo missions. This is a whole bunch of readily available information. So either NASA was spectacularly bad at faking a Moon mission yet somehow fooled everyone who had a reason to want to make NASA look bad at the time or else the whole idea that it proves a hoax is based on faulty expectations. Now, I ask you--which is the more logical answer?
Though I expect jr Knowing to ignore me again.
In fact, there's a whole service structure -- a major piece of engineering -- that was built to facilitate work that was planned to take place after rollout.
For various safety and mission-assurance reasons, you always wait until the last minute to install the pyros.
SNIP
It doesn't look right, therefore it is fake.
I don't understand it, therefore it is fake.
Take your pick.
Indeed, I made this point way back on page 2 of this thread, complete with a picture illustrating that this service structure is even bigger than the umbilical tower (not to get at you for pointing it out again, some thirty pages later I'm not expecting everyone to remember that!)
What, you don't want your vehicle full of explosives while it's in the assembly building or rolling out to the pad? It's health and safety gone mad, I tells ya! :)
It doesn't look right, therefore it is fake.
I don't understand it, therefore it is fake.
Take your pick.
<snip for brevity>
There was no presumption whatsoever that rollout ended all the installation, adjustment, and repair activity in all parts of the vehicle. For Jr Knowing to keep presuming this is, at this point, just plain absurd.
For situations like the staging and range safety charges, the explosives must be built into the structures they are meant to sever and can't be charged easily on the pad. But the detonators for them aren't present until just prior to launch.
If there are mandatory post-rollout activities, then the notion that the rolled-out configuration of the vehicle is somehow inviolate is immediately a non-starter.
It speaks to the notion that people like to understand the world around them, and largely the world doesn't present them with problems they can't reason through. If you accept that, then it's not hard to extend it to mean that everything you observe should have a simple enough explanation.
It speaks to the notion that people like to understand the world around them, and largely the world doesn't present them with problems they can't reason through. If you accept that, then it's not hard to extend it to mean that everything you observe should have a simple enough explanation.
Being a scientist, this I think is the key point. People do like to understand the world around them, but people can satisfy themselves with different levels of understanding. I took my desire to understand into the biological realms, primarily. I'm a biochemist. I deal with things on the molecular scale that explain why I can, say, mix a blood plasma sample from a person with a bunch of liquids in a plastic plate that will create a colour change that allows me to say that person has a particular illness. I chose to deepend my understanding via years of academic study and professional experience, and continuing interest in the developments in the field. On the other hand, I am happy to be typing this on a computer with a touchscreen and wi-fi and be blissfully ignorant of precisely how this thing works, whether that be the semiconductor quantum physics that makes the little magic black boxes with metal legs on that green board with copper lines all over it work, or the complex software coding that makes all this stuff do what I tell it to through tapping on this alphanumeric keypad or running my finger over the screen.
There is nothing wrong with this selective depth of understanding. There is far too much in the world for anyone to have a good depth of understanding of all of it. The difference comes in what I do with those different levels of knowledge. If someone wants my views on the subject of biochemistry I can talk quite a lot about it and be reaosnably confident that I am right (though open to correction or double checking). If someone wants my opinion on how to build a computer, I would have to decline and point to someone else I know who is more knowledgeable. With a conspiracist mindset, however, I'd insist I could build one because I read a book once and can google up some advice, and then I'd blame the operator when it failed because it must be right because my understanding is obviously enough, so if reality fails to behave as I expect some external force must explain it.
I can't get beyond "if it was fake, why would they do something you claim proves it was fake?" Because if all this is a proof the missions were faked, it's so obvious. This isn't hidden. This isn't revealed after extensive effort, because it's quite clear no effort has been expended to understand the Apollo missions. This is a whole bunch of readily available information. So either NASA was spectacularly bad at faking a Moon mission yet somehow fooled everyone who had a reason to want to make NASA look bad at the time or else the whole idea that it proves a hoax is based on faulty expectations. Now, I ask you--which is the more logical answer?
Though I expect jr Knowing to ignore me again.
What you say...
Hi Gillianren,
What you say does make sense if you believe people in this world operate as one expects. But this world doesn't always operate this way. Overt, blatant, caught on film actions of governments such as the Saudi murder of the Washington Post columnist or literally 40 Mossad agents conspiring to kill a Hamas leader in a hotel barely creates a peep from governments even unfriendly governments. Why is that? And that is overt, blatant actions, what about less obvious actions? Hmmm... Hell you can have a complete genocide of millions of Rwandans and all countries become blind, deaf and dumb. To this day, you would probably be hard pressed to find even get 1 American in 100 that can tell you that Rwanda is even a country let alone the atrocity that went on. And you wonder how 6 or 7 fake manned flights to the moon might have been glossed over by other countries? Not saying it happened but countries, don't kid yourself, operate in ways we will never understand. So remember when Russia states they didn't shoot that Ukrainian passenger airline out of the air, they really didn't, wink wink, nudge nudge because the US government would have been all over them.
Just to be clear...
I am not part of some flat earth, ufo loving, conspiracy bat crazy brigade.
I am just ... looking to have a dialectic discourse on some questions I have.
Whether the landings were real or not really don't mean much in the end.
It is not going to change our lives one way or another.
I just find it a fascinating subject.
And I am not here to crush people's love of the subject or their idols.
But even today, with reams of information at people's fingertips countries are able to "bury" anything if they really want to.
And when that happens, people are left at the fringes to mumble about what they believe is really going on.
And getting back to the 60's, do you know the networks did not have a direct f[ed to the moon landings? They literally had to record the footage off a video monitor...
I am not trying to wind you up. Dial it back, please.
I get your passion and your frustration of guys like me.
I want it to be a healthy debate where we can still have a beer together at the end of the day.
Sometimes people will just agree to disagree on things. That's life.
I love to debate ( as you can see :) )
but I want it to be a healthy debate where we can still have a beer together at the end of the day.
Sometimes people will just agree to disagree on things. That's life.
Truth to me is always a moving target. What is true today, might not be true tomorrow. Creationist vs evolutionist. Atheism vs religion. Science vs science fiction.
In other words, nobody has a monopoly on truth. And one's views should be tempered with that thought. And if you follow that, as I do, I never take anything so serious it clouds my judgement and empathy about others and their thoughts.
No, you don't. Or rather you don't understand where debate is appropriate and where it is not. Moral and ethical and political issues are open for debate. The facts around the physics of space flight, fluid dynamics, engineering and other such Apollo-related subjects that you started this discussion on are not.
No-one is interested in having a beer with you. And you have been told how a healty debate works. One element of it involves conceding where you have made errors of facts, or where you are challenged to support your assertions but cannot. Neither of those has been forthcoming from you in any significant manner.
Designers of things like the LM don't 'agree to disagree' on the physics of how it works. Reality doesn't allow that.
Waffle. Get back to dealig with the questions directly put to you.
Hi Jay,
Just to be clear I am not part of some flat earth, ufo loving, conspiracy bat crazy brigade. I am just a polite, peaceful Canadian :) looking to have a dialectic discourse on some questions I have.
Jay,Yes you are. Your problem is that you did not expect the vast range of subject matter expertise here.
I am not trying to wind you up.
Dial it back, please.Facts are facts. One cannot dial them back, nor big them up. They are facts.
Its not worth it. Its not like we are on National TV debating. It is a conversation with like only 10 of us talking among ourselves.It is worth it. This here is one of the top hits for Apollo Hoax malarkey. We collectively have a responsibility to ensure BS like yours does not go unchallenged. What is it you actually want? You want us to "dial it back" so that you can create the illusion that there even is a debate. Well, no soup for you. There is no debate.
I get your passion and your frustration of guys like me.Frustrated? No. More astonished that anyone could possibly be so disconnected from reality.
But I am meaningless in the end.Yup.
I love to debate ( as you can see :) ) but I want it to be a healthy debate where we can still have a beer together at the end of the day. Sometimes people will just agree to disagree on things. That's life.There is nothing healthy about propagating lies and I would not share anything with anyone who willingly does so.
Truth to me is always a moving target. What is true today, might not be true tomorrow. Creationist vs evolutionist. Atheism vs religion. Science vs science fiction. Or put another way, in the immortal words of Captain Kirk himself,"all science is science fiction". In other words, nobody has a monopoly on truth. And one's views should be tempered with that thought. And if you follow that, as I do, I never take anything so serious it clouds my judgement and empathy about others and their thoughts. Regards JR.Good grief. Your philosophical source is Star Trek.
Well, since I'm also Canadian I feel the only appropriate thing to do is to apologize to everybody here for my fellow countrymen's discourteous, dishonest behavior and blatant trolling as well as his refusal to answer most questions put to him plus his obvious inability to admit to being wrong about most of his pet theories that have been blown out of the water.
Also, btw check out the 1 minute mark of the trailer. It shows the LM being transported from production to mating. It is almost unrecognizable versus the LM we see in space. The legs are different...You forgot to mention all those little red tags fluttering from various parts on the LM in the VAB that aren't on the lunar surface. Do you consider that a revealing "problem" too?
Yes, the legs look 'different'. They were designed to unfold and lock into the landing position since they wouldn't fit in the adapter attached to the third stage of the Saturn V otherwise. Someone with an even cursory knowledge of Apollo would know that, but I am not at all surprised you didn't jr Knowing.
As a fellow Canadian, I am ashamed at your behaviour. You may try to distance yourself from the spam bot we have gotten recently, but your attempts at 'logic' are just as fallacious as there's.
"Hypergolic," but dramatic either way. [emoji16]
"Hypergolic," but dramatic either way. [emoji16]
Autocorrect strikes again!
"Hypergolic," but dramatic either way. [emoji16]
Autocorrect strikes again!
Don't you just hat that?
It'd blow his tiny mind if he learned that they installed pyros to cut holes in the SLA to provide emergency egress for the crew working in the SLA if there was a hyperbolic spill.I've been studying Apollo for years and never knew this. Learn something new every day, even things that happened a half century ago.
It'd blow his tiny mind if he learned that they installed pyros to cut holes in the SLA to provide emergency egress for the crew working in the SLA if there was a hyperbolic spill.I've been studying Apollo for years and never knew this. Learn something new every day, even things that happened a half century ago.
When were the LM and CSM fueled? I know that in the uncrewed spacecraft world propellant loading is done as late as possible. The crews who actually do the loading wear pressurized "SCAPE" suits to protect them in case of a leak, and everyone else is evacuated. Fuel and oxidizer are loaded on separate days, just in case some gets out and lingers in the area.
Once the tanks are loaded everyone treats it as a live bomb, carries a gas mask, and practices evacuation drills. Staff are constantly sniffing around with gas detectors. Somewhere I have pictures of some friends jumping into the emergency chute from the top of the Ariane V gantry in Kourou during one of those drills.
When were the LM and CSM fueled?
Once the tanks are loaded everyone treats it as a live bomb, carries a gas mask, and practices evacuation drills.
Somewhere I have pictures of some friends jumping into the emergency chute from the top of the Ariane V gantry in Kourou during one of those drills.
you need a spill chucker....
And getting back to the 60's, do you know the networks did not have a direct feed to the moon landings? They literally had to record the footage off a video monitor. Talk about access to information.
It'd blow his tiny mind if he learned that they installed pyros to cut holes in the SLA to provide emergency egress for the crew working in the SLA if there was a hyperbolic spill.I've been studying Apollo for years and never knew this. Learn something new every day, even things that happened a half century ago.
When were the LM and CSM fueled? I know that in the uncrewed spacecraft world propellant loading is done as late as possible. The crews who actually do the loading wear pressurized "SCAPE" suits to protect them in case of a leak, and everyone else is evacuated. Fuel and oxidizer are loaded on separate days, just in case some gets out and lingers in the area.
Once the tanks are loaded everyone treats it as a live bomb, carries a gas mask, and practices evacuation drills. Staff are constantly sniffing around with gas detectors. Somewhere I have pictures of some friends jumping into the emergency chute from the top of the Ariane V gantry in Kourou during one of those drills.
Hi VQ,
Judging by your comments you are youngster who wasn't around in the 60's and 70's. Yes, it is probably much harder to pull the wool over peoples eye's now than it was then. Access to information for the average individual (even country) is like night and day compared to 50 years ago. But even today, with reams of information at people's fingertips countries are able to "bury" anything if they really want to.
Others would rather put down people for having different views on things then them.you're sidestepping the point. Your "different view on" the stability of the lunar module means precisely nothing. Your feelings are absolutely irrelevant in the face of how we know the behavior of free bodies to be governed. Your "view" is not entitled to any respect, because it simply contradicts facts. Nor does friendliness enter the picture. No one is being inappropriately unfriendly for pointing out that your special-snowflake beliefs are contradicted by facts. On this point you're pretending to be an engineer. Engineering does not accommodate your feelings, your pretense to out-of-the-box thinking, your privilege of remaining ignorant, or your irrelevant references to Rwandan refugees. You either know free-body dynamics, or you don't.
I have attempted to answer people's questions.the evidence does not show this to be the case. We can cite many other examples in this thread and others where you simply refuse to answer questions. This is why your critics rightly take you to task for changing the subject rather that continuing to debate the points on the table, and why you have been appropriately restricted from doing so.
I have responded nearly 100 times in those threads.--in an apparent ploy to assure us that you are debating in good faith. But you are being assured in turn that the behavior I outline above speaks far louder than your self-serving protests. You are not arguing the matter of LM stability in good faith, and you are being treated appropriately.
I have only so much time in a day.
I have been respectful and courteous to everyone.
And to be quite honest I feel I am being held to a higher standard.--yes, you're being held to a standard far higher than, "My view is valid, no matter what you all think or why." You're being held to the standard that universally applies to questions of stability in spacecraft. If you are unable to meet that standard, then the universe doesn't care. If you think those standards should not apply to your claims, you're simply factually wrong. If you think everything "somehow" still works out in a way that validates your suspicions, you're just asking people to give approval to your ignorance. You are not being treated unfairly.
I have been respectful and courteous to everyone.we can properly cite the above behavior as evidence to the contrary. Ignoring the evidence and expertise that others bring to bear is not respectful or courteous. It's presumptuous, arrogant, and rude. Even when the topics involve some degree of judgment, such as whether it's a good idea to add things to a spacecraft just before flight, you prefer your own inexperienced and uninformed "different view of things," rather than give proper respect to the people who do those things for a living and who are volunteering their time and effort to give you the benefit of their hard-won experience. No one is obliged to respect your opinion just because you have one.
But I am also smart enough and realistic enough to admit, as I admitted to Jay, that I am probably 99 percent likely wrong.are flatly contradicted by the evidence of your participation. As I've outlined, you won't admit error even when you are certainly wrong. You simply avoid the question, and beg everyone just to be friendly. In a few cases you even resort to outright fabrication in order to maintain your "different view" in contravention of the facts. You lately assure us that it must "obviously" be the SM RCS quads themselves that are causing visible flow separation, even though you previously admitted you didn't know the science. You're asking us, for the sake of preserving your snowflake beliefs, to agree that you suddenly became an expert in flow separation and can offer authoritative interpretations of evidence, over and above those presented and defended by people who have had to demonstrate actual expertise.
Frankly, to me, claiming the Apollo record is hoaxed is itself discourteous.I agree with this 100%. It is one thing to state that you don't understand how it could have been done, and to genuinely ask questions with an honest intent to learn.
It is another thing entirely to make a ridiculous claim like this without presenting extraordinary evidence supporting that claim, which of course, never happens.
The thing I tell people who claim it was all shot on a soundstage is to provide evidence for that soundstage - pictures of it in development, financial records, employment records, something. These things don't get built for free, money has to change hands somehow. You have to hire people to build it, to work it. Equipment has to be purchased and maintained. That income has to be reported for tax purposes.And this is precisely where a hoax of this magnitude would inevitably fall apart. Even if it were possible to convincingly fake a moon landing, how could anyone possibly hide the resources, both human and material, necessary to perpetrate it? It takes hardly any research to find an enormous list of much smaller conspiracies, with far fewer people involved, that fall apart within weeks or maybe months at best. It's been 50 years without any hint of the sound stage, contractors, crew, or equipment that would need to exist to validate the claim of hoax.
That's where HBs need to be looking, not at the imagery.
The simple fact is, we literally do not have the technology to fake the hoax as it is documented. The combination of film, photography, and physical evidence is not possible to fake and is considerably more complicated than just, you know, going to the Moon.
The simple fact is, we literally do not have the technology to fake the hoax as it is documented. The combination of film, photography, and physical evidence is not possible to fake and is considerably more complicated than just, you know, going to the Moon.
Searing radiation hell that no space agency corroborates, or, in Jr knowing's case, bonking into that solid firmament, no doubt.The simple fact is, we literally do not have the technology to fake the hoax as it is documented. The combination of film, photography, and physical evidence is not possible to fake and is considerably more complicated than just, you know, going to the Moon.
And yet this does not stop several hoax believers from arguing that NASA could do it because they had access to unlimited funds and secret tech. Why that makes it impossible to use such funds and tech to go to the Moon I don't know....
Well, congratulations, you win at basic human decency. Here's your ticker tape parade...
Now, I agree that being polite and level headed in discussions on contentious topic is valuable skill, but it doesn't change facts.
Come on, Jr. Prove you're actually as honest and virtuous as you proclaim yourself to be. Close out this topic like a man.Wait a minute, do we know for a fact that gender even exists among trolls?
Come on, Jr. Prove you're actually as honest and virtuous as you proclaim yourself to be. Close out this topic like a man.Wait a minute, do we know for a fact that gender even exists among trolls?
All right, Jr. Let's momentarily table everything except LM stability with the plume deflectors added. It's not the original topic of the thread, but it's the topic on which I think we've reached the clearest moment of truth.
You told us there was a "paper" that proved the LM was unacceptably unstable with the plume deflectors attached. Specifically you told us that an unacceptable feedback mode would arise. You also specifically invoked the special nature of a "paper" in conveying, via such exercises as peer review, a sense of rigor and reliability in its findings. You then produced this document.
The first thing we noticed is that it was not a paper (as scientists use the term, and as you intended it to be received) but rather a technical memo circulated among the usual suspects. (Circuit memos were the 1960s equivalent of today's email chain.) At that point you needed to have conceded that the document did not convey the degree of authority you purported. But you did not. You asserted, without evidence, that you must have been thinking of some other documentary source, which you still have not produced. No critic is obliged to consider evidence that the proponent merely imagines exists. Further, we who know the science are skeptical such a document exists because we can ascertain via other means that the conclusion you purport that it reaches is precluded by other facts.
One of those facts is clearly presented in the document you did produce. The dynamic properties of any freely moving and rotating vehicle are strictly governed by Newton's laws of motion. Those laws can be considered quantitatively by linear algebra, which provides a way to represent various rotational phenomena as vectors and matrices. (Tensors too, in many cases, but we don't need that just yet.) The forces that arise naturally, and which we apply artificially, can be modeled as "linearized" elements (i.e., rendered as the constructs over which linear algebra is defined). This includes the effect of plume deflectors. It's not a mystery. This is what the memo has done. While the memo deals specifically with the case of the docked CSM-LM, it refers to mass properties in a way that applies also to the LM alone in all cases -- namely the location, direction, and strength of the force supplied by the plume deflector. That is invariant. What varies in the problem is where the rigid-body center of mass lies. The physical arrangement of any body limits where the center of mass can lie. That in turn limits the extent and orientation of moment vectors. This is as mathematically rigorous and inarguable as 1+1=2.
Linearized dynamics problems are not unique to spacecraft engineering, or even to engineering in general. But they are not commonly taught in general education. We do not expect a layman to have experienced them. Therefore you can be forgiven for not knowing this technique exists, and for not understanding how it works. But you should have conceded that you didn't understand the relevant topics. But instead of doing that, you just double down on your claim. If you don't understand how the mathematics work, and specifically how they constrain where the center of mass can be in order to result in positive feedback, say so. Don't keep avoiding the issue and riding the current of ambiguity. And don't keep whining about an improper standard of proof. If your claim is submissible to a mathematically rigorous level of modeling, then that is the standard that applies regardless of your desires otherwise. Your ignorance of the standard or your inability to meet it don't somehow let you off the hook. You don't get to reject the standard just because it rejects your desired belief.
You tried a handwaving rejoinder (i.e., lots of performance but no substance) alluding to what you felt was the inherent fragility of any free body's dynamic behavior, and of the reliability of the Apollo RCS system. The former simply doubles down on your "different view" without addressing any of the contravening fact. The latter was thoroughly investigated from the documented engineering responses to the occurrence. We discovered that you egregiously misrepresented both the nature of the RCS failures and their ability to present a hazard and affect mission success. This is excusable by itself, since it involves equipment and principles of operation that are not common knowledge. If you don't understand the engineering implications of what you read then you should concede as much, especially when corrected by professional practitioners who do know the equipment. But you did not. Further statements from the trove your memo was drawn from cast doubts upon your interpretation. These were brought to your attention, but you simply ignored them as if they didn't exist.
Not knowing things such as (a) what a "paper" is, (b) the difference between positive and negative feedback, (c) what mathematics and physics govern free-body stability, (d) how to read and properly interpret technical material, (e) what other principles and facts are presented in your sources -- all that poses a problem. Your incidental behavior in these debates cannot fail to persuade your critics to create an interpretational canon for your case. Your critics will apprehend that you really don't know what you're talking about, but that you are easily willing to bluff; that you are more interested in promoting your belief than in discovering the truth. This canon inevitably colors how they receive your statements, even those you fully intend to be innocent and forthright. All your pleas for lenience and your complaints against your critics will be heard under that canon and, as you have seen, dismissed as mere posturing. You don't get to engage in that sort of behavior and then ask not to have to deal with its consequences. If you want congenial home, don't [expletive] the bed.
The quantitative stability of the LM is a ruthless matter of fact. Your "different view" to the contrary is irrelevant. You need to warm up to the notion that things you might have an opinion on are, to the contrary, matters of discernible fact -- and that your concerns really do have objectively discoverable right and wrong answers. The items in boldface above need special attention from you. The answer could legitimately be, "I guess I don't understand the math well enough to defend my belief, so I withdraw the claim." You don't get to pretend that your ignorance is a safe position from which to rationally continue believing something. If you can't address the math -- and it's clear you can't -- then you have to actually admit that you're wrong. You have no reason to ask for friendly debate from others if you are unwilling to do that in this case. Ignorance of fact is simply not a valid point of view.
Come on, Jr. Prove you're actually as honest and virtuous as you proclaim yourself to be. Close out this topic like a man.
142:03:49 Conrad: Lift-Off.
142:03:50 Conrad: And away we go.
142:03:52 Bean: Boy, did it fire.
142:03:55 Conrad: Yawing? Looks pretty good
142:03:56 Bean: [Garble] our descent stage - holding on.
142:03:58 Conrad: Looks good. ALSEP looks good.
142:04:01 Bean: [Garble] It didn't get the ALSEP.
Public Affairs Office - "Looking good."
142:04:03 Carr: Intrepid, Houston. Copy ignition; guidance looks good.
142:04:06 Conrad: Pitchover's looking good. Okay. Boy, you sure do [garble].
Public Affairs Office - "316 feet above the lunar surface."
142:04:15 Bean: Nice and quiet, isn't it?
142:04:16 Conrad: Firing like I don't know what.
142:04:18 Conrad: Mark.
142:04:19 Conrad: Thirty seconds. Thirty seconds; 177, 984.6, and out at 1900 feet.
Public Affairs Office - "1,594 feet above the lunar surface."
142:04:28 Bean: That's pretty good.
142:04:29 Conrad: We're on our way.
142:04:30 Bean: And at 1 minute, yaw right 20, Pete.
142:04:32 Conrad: Okay.
Public Affairs Office - "Velocity building up now, 264 feet per second."
142:04:38 Bean: Boy, there's that.
Public Affairs Office - "Coming up on 1 minute."
142:04:43 Conrad: Say again? Pitch program looks good.
142:04:50 Bean: Kind of wobbles around up here [garble].
142:04:51 Conrad: [Garble].
142:04:52 Carr: Intrepid, Houston. Looking good at 1 minute.
142:04:57 Conrad: Okay. We've yawed right 20. Keeping right down the pike.
142:05:02 Bean: Okay.
142:05:04 Conrad: What a nice...
142:05:05 Bean: Both tank pressures look good, Pete.
142:05:06 Conrad: What a nice ride!
142:05:07 Bean: RCS, right in there.
Public Affairs Office - "That's Conrad reporting they're going right down the pike."
142:05:10 Conrad: Yes.
142:05:11 Bean: Sure jumps every time those thrusters fire.
142:05:13 Conrad: Yes.
142:05:14 Bean: Flies smooth.[Garble] part of it.
142:05:20 Conrad: Mark, 1 plus 30, 745, 156. We're out at 9000 feet.
Public Affairs Office - "Presently 9000 feet above the lunar surface."
142:05:32 Bean: Too jumpy.
142:05:36 Conrad: Okay. It's just changing CG.
142:05:38 Bean: I know it. It's still smooth.
Delivering factually bankrupt speculation and supercilious opinions coated in counterfeit sugar doesn't do it for me. That's just the Dolores Umbridge version of politeness.
Good point. Regardless, I wondered whether the phrase sounded sexist. "...like a man" to me means something regardless of gender, but it could be considered inherently stereotypical. The sentiment I wish to express is to rise to the occasion, regardless of hardship. Apologies if anyone is offended.
Not offended, but I'd suggest not using it. Perhaps "an adult" would be a better version?
Hi Everyone,
Here is one of the MIT documents.
I will try to dig up the much more in depth paper.
To be clear it states
"Due to the presence of jet plume deflectors on the LM descent
stage, the use of +X thrusting LM jets for pitch or roll attitude control
of the CSM-docked configuration will" "cause a
serious control instability"
Further it goes onto state that less than ideal conditions will lead to a positive feedback loop that will cause
"the vehicle will spin uncontrollably
in the counter clockwise direction."
I'm actually surprised that JRK made such a blatant attempt to misrepresent the contents of the memo, since it was pretty much certain that it would be examined in detail. However, it's not an uncommon tactic for hoax-believers.QuoteTo be clear it states
"Due to the presence of jet plume deflectors on the LM descent
stage, the use of +X thrusting LM jets for pitch or roll attitude control
of the CSM-docked configuration will" "cause a
serious control instability"
This is what it actually states, and I have highlighted the bits you failed to quote:
Due to the presence of jet plume deflectors on the LM descent stage, the use of +X thrusting LM jets for pitch or roll control will, for some mass loadings, cause a serious control instability if any -X thrusting jets have failed off or been disabled.
Why did you snip those out of your quote?
I have attached an image of the text from the memo as well.
The memo includes a diagram (also attached) and a very simple mathematical equation to describe the circumstances where this instability will arise. The equation is:Unfortunately JRK seems to avoid doing any kind of calculation, even one as simple as this, which leads me to suspect his understanding of maths and physics is very limited. I've pointed out to him that the science and engineering beats any "feelings" and "expectations" every time, and challenged him to produce some mathematical basis for his claims, but I don't expect to ever see a response.
M+X = (89lb)D1 - (59lb)D2
M+X is the net rotational moment (clockwise in relation to the diagram) around the centre of gravity caused by a jet plume from the RCS jet on the left side of the diagram that impinges on the plume deflector, assuming the one on the right is not working. Treating the spacecraft stack as vertical with respect to the LM (so the CSM is 'on top of' the LM) D1 is the horizontal distance between the centre of gravity and the RCS nozzle (essentially half the width of the LM and to all intents and purposes a constant in this equation), and D2 is the vertical height of the centre of gravity above the plane of plume impingement on the deflector. Because of the changing fuel and consumable loads of the two vehicles during the mission, D2 is the variable.
It can be seen that if D2 is long enough then the result for M+X can be negative. In this case the spacecraft stack will actually rotate in the opposite direction than intended. Under automatic control of course the system would try to compensate by firing the jet more and hence increasing the rotation in the wrong direction.
JR, do you understand that the memo is referring to the stacked spacecratf only?
Do you understand that the instability only occurs if a -X jet is not working or has been disabled?
Do you understand that this instability only occurs under automatic control?
Now we can do a little bit of mathematics ourselves. If:
M+X = 89D1 - 59D2
It follows that M+X is negative (the condition under which the control instability occurs) only if 59D2 > 89D1. This can be re-written as D2 > (89/59)D1. 89/59 is near enough 90/60, or 1.5, so M+X is only negative where D2 > 1.5D1.
JR, do you accept that or not, and if not why not?
JR claims that this control instability must be worse for the LM in solo flight, but you can see from the mathematics that instability only occurs when the centre of gravity lies more than 1.5 times the horizontal radius of the LM RCS system above the plane of impingement of the jet plume on the deflector. This places it above the docking hatch of the LM, so you can see that this instability can only occur with the CSM docked.
I'm actually surprised that JRK made such a blatant attempt to misrepresent the contents of the memo[.]
I've pointed out to him that the science and engineering beats any "feelings" and "expectations" every time...
I suspect that's also the reason for the Gish-gallop - he's very quickly out of his depth on any topic, so has to keep changing tack.
Because the ultimate goal is ego reinforcement. He has to show that his "different thinking" method and layman's observation get the right answer on at least something. When he fails to keep the discourse steered in the direction of "common sense" observation and intuition, he has to abandon that ship and try again.
And if he can prove himself right on one thing, he can convince himself he is right about the others.
An excellent post, thank you.Quote"Due to the presence of jet plume deflectors on the LM descent
stage, the use of +X thrusting LM jets for pitch or roll attitude control
of the CSM-docked configuration will" "cause a
serious control instability"
This is what it actually states, and I have highlighted the bits you failed to quote:
Due to the presence of jet plume deflectors on the LM descent stage, the use of +X thrusting LM jets for pitch or roll control will, for some mass loadings, cause a serious control instability if any -X thrusting jets have failed off or been disabled.
Why did you snip those out of your quote?
I wasn't offended.Come on, Jr. Prove you're actually as honest and virtuous as you proclaim yourself to be. Close out this topic like a man.Wait a minute, do we know for a fact that gender even exists among trolls?
Good point. Regardless, I wondered whether the phrase sounded sexist. "...like a man" to me means something regardless of gender, but it could be considered inherently stereotypical. The sentiment I wish to express is to rise to the occasion, regardless of hardship. Apologies if anyone is offended.
Yep, there it is. Thanks!
Nevertheless, I do pay attention to such detail.
My eldest daughter is now my eldest son and I am a volunteer on the transgender family support lines.
One of my bugbears is that pronouns fundamentally do not matter so stop getting hung up on those or so I try to tell them. Or explain to them as best I can.
You're quite welcome! I may not contribute much to the engineering end of the conversation, but I've got 42 years' experience in being female!
Hi Jay,
I surrender. But to be clear, that MIT paper states plume deflectors can and will create serious stability issues under certain circumstances to the point it will go into "an uncontrollable spin". Yes, the MIT paper deals with a different situation but I think it can be apply to other situations too. Having said this, this is only one paper by one person. They could be dead wrong on his conclusions. But that is not the point. There are reasoned viewpoints by qualified individuals that appear to have differing opinions than the 'mainstream' viewpoint. Case in point, I can dredge up numerous papers from a contingent of qualified people prior to the Apollo missions (and after) who felt the VAB issues were and are insurmountable. But obviously they are wrong because the missions went off without any hitches regarding the VAB's. But that is not the same thing as proof. Just because we are told it occurred doesn't mean it is true or verified. Otherwise, yes, Moses did part the Red Sea, inflation has only been 1 percent a year for the last decade, and eggs are good for you (or not) (I am not looking to go down the VAB, religion, government, health rabbit holes. These are just examples to show things are not always black and white). JR
He didn't "surrender". Immediately after "surrendering" he misrepresented the MIT memo as a paper again, restated exactly what he had previously and incorrectly claimed was in the memo, and went on a diatribe about non-mainstream viewpoints being valid because of unnamed papers by unnamed authors that we must accept are qualified and relevant for reasons.
By his definition of "surrender" Pickett surrendered to the Union forces at Gettysburg...
Hi Jay,
I surrender. But to be clear, that MIT paper states plume deflectors can and will create serious stability issues under certain circumstances to the point it will go into "an uncontrollable spin".
Yes, the MIT paper deals with a different situation but I think it can be apply to other situations too.
Having said this, this is only one paper by one person. They could be dead wrong on his conclusions.
But that is not the point.
There are reasoned viewpoints by qualified individuals that appear to have differing opinions than the 'mainstream' viewpoint.
Case in point, I can dredge up numerous papers from a contingent of qualified people prior to the Apollo missions (and after) who felt the VAB issues were and are insurmountable.
But obviously they are wrong because the missions went off without any hitches regarding the VAB's.
But that is not the same thing as proof.
Just because we are told it occurred doesn't mean it is true or verified.
Otherwise, yes, Moses did part the Red Sea, inflation has only been 1 percent a year for the last decade, and eggs are good for you (or not) (I am not looking to go down the VAB, religion, government, health rabbit holes. These are just examples to show things are not always black and white). JR
I surrender.
But to be clear, that MIT paper states plume deflectors can and will create serious stability issues under certain circumstances to the point it will go into "an uncontrollable spin". Yes, the MIT paper deals with a different situation...
...but I think it can be apply to other situations too.
Having said this, this is only one paper by one person. They could be dead wrong on his conclusions.
There are reasoned viewpoints by qualified individuals that appear to have differing opinions than the 'mainstream' viewpoint.
...the VAB issues...
Let's see if there are any modern qualified people who think the VAB 'issues' are insurmountable .
What you think is irrelevant outside your skull. Either show that it applies or admit that you are thrashing about in waters where you are totally out of your depth.
but I think it can be apply to other situations too.
He didn't "surrender". Immediately after "surrendering" he misrepresented the MIT memo as a paper again, restated exactly what he had previously and incorrectly claimed was in the memo, and went on a diatribe about non-mainstream viewpoints being valid because of unnamed papers by unnamed authors that we must accept are qualified and relevant for reasons.
By his definition of "surrender" Pickett surrendered to the Union forces at Gettysburg...
For just a fleeting moment, I thought he was talking about the Vehicle Assembly Building, which could actually have been referring back to the original topic of this thread, after all.
Hi Jay,
I surrender.
But to be clear, that MIT paper
states plume deflectors can and will create serious stability issues under certain circumstances
to the point it will go into "an uncontrollable spin".
Yes, the MIT paper
deals with a different situation but I think it can be apply to other situations too.
Having said this, this is only one paper by one person. They could be dead wrong on his conclusions.
But that is not the point.
Case in point, I can dredge up numerous papers
(I am not looking to go down the VAB, religion, government, health rabbit holes. These are just examples to show things are not always black and white)
Yes, but you presented it without including those circumstances. Why?
Yes, but you presented it without including those circumstances. Why?
If memory serves, he actually redacted the quotes to omit the references to special circumstances. Am I getting that right?
QuoteTo be clear it states
"Due to the presence of jet plume deflectors on the LM descent
stage, the use of +X thrusting LM jets for pitch or roll attitude control
of the CSM-docked configuration will" "cause a
serious control instability"
This is what it actually states, and I have highlighted the bits you failed to quote:
Due to the presence of jet plume deflectors on the LM descent stage, the use of +X thrusting LM jets for pitch or roll control will, for some mass loadings, cause a serious control instability if any -X thrusting jets have failed off or been disabled.
Yes.
Reminds me of video from some of our equally morally and intellectually bankrupt old 'friends' which claim the Earth in the spacecraft window was a cutout or transparency, but juuuust manage to leave out parts where it slips out of view of the window, something a transparency or cutout simply couldn't do.Yes.
Thanks. For me that materially changes the moral calculation. It suggests a deliberate attempt to mislead. It's one thing not to understand the technical details and therefore not understand what conclusions can reasonably follow. It's quite another thing to recognize the conditional statements that must be excised in order to convert a specific warning to an illusion of general applicability. That's not different thinking; that's just lying. Jr Knowing isn't being oppressed because of his different view; he's being rightly held accountable for deliberate attempts to deceive.
Yes.
Thanks. For me that materially changes the moral calculation. It suggests a deliberate attempt to mislead.
Whatever shall he do?
JR, I took you through the mathematical equation and its significance earlier. Either admit you don't understand it, use it to prove your point, or concede that it shows you to be in error.
This is physics, not opinion, not debate.
It is applying literally centuries-old knowledge of force and rotation to the (then) new spacecraft systems.