Apollo Discussions > The Hoax Theory
Hoax? - Lunar Launches - Too Fast
BertieSlack:
--- Quote from: najak on November 24, 2024, 07:39:53 AM ---Najak wins this debate by FORFEIT.
--- End quote ---
Nope
https://web.archive.org/web/20170904033346/http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/LM-ascent.htm
najak:
--- Quote from: BertieSlack on November 24, 2024, 08:06:55 AM ---Nope
https://web.archive.org/web/20170904033346/http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/LM-ascent.htm
--- End quote ---
Ever wonder why you need to pull up something taken down by this guy 7 years ago?? Why doesn't he want this quote associated with him anymore?
" For the LM's ascent engine, the ignition transient lasted for about 350 milliseconds, during which stronger than normal thrust was produced."
===
Do the work. Check the frames. Do the math. Each Apollo mission exhibited about 2.5X the predicted Thrust (or more) for a FULL SECOND (not just 350 msec).
I made conservative estimates, to avoid PNA scrutiny of my image analysis. Most MLH theories estimate far more.
Braeunig withdrew this whole page and comment, because it tarnishes his reputation, as this claim is very bad science. It's almost like a statement made by someone who has no idea about this science.
The "ignition transient" results in "higher than normal COMBUSTION pressure" along with more unburnt fuel, which results in LESS THRUST.
Additionally, even if you wanted to claim his "singular lone withdrawn quote" as truth -- it simply does NOT align to what is shown by the Launch film frames.... which are 2.5X the thrust for a FULL SECOND.
Additionally, the image analysis done for Apollo 16 - shows that after this 1 second of "2.5X too much thrust" was followed by 1 second of extreme drop off of acceleration to less than HALF of what it should be, and even when NEGATIVE.
This NASA simulation is so BAD - it's a undeniable smoking gun that it was faked. Even the mighty Apollo cannot Break Physics. Which is what we're seeing here.
I believe there's a reason the "heavy hitters" on this site are avoiding this topic. It is UNDEFENDABLE. Because you can't BREAK PHYSICS so badly as was done here... all 3 launches.
Please show me the math "not-withdrawn". I would be surprised if Braeunig himself isn't now a HB, assuming he's a smart as people think he is.
Him trying to explain this 1-second of 2.5X thrust with a "non-backed, no-math presumption that 350 msec of increased Combustion pressure with unburnt fuel, would explain what we see for these launches".
I believe they're about to spill the beans, but looking for a way to do it with minimal fallout... ideally with a "good spin" such as "Awesome! Gen X/Y/Z will FINALLY do what the Boomers could only fake doing."
najak:
--- Quote from: BertieSlack on November 24, 2024, 08:06:55 AM ---Nope
https://web.archive.org/web/20170904033346/http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/LM-ascent.htm
--- End quote ---
It's ironic that you tell me to "do the work", while you parrot a withdrawn and provably FALSE statement made by Braeunig is your secret wisdom.
Here's a PDF from NASA directly that refutes this ENTIRELY. The first 350 msec have REDUCED thrust! (but with higher combustion chamber pressure).
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19920006646
The direct PDF link is here:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19920006646/downloads/19920006646.pdf
And here is a pair of graphs on the last page of this PDF:
Left side - shows Thrust taking about 0.5 second to reach full thrust.
Right side - shows how around 0.15 seconds after ignition, the combustion chamber pressure spikes, then normalizes by 0.5 second mark.
Braeunig's statement, assuming he's very smart, demonstrates just how dumb Confirmation Bias can influence the apparent intelligence of even the smartest. He finally figured out his flaw, and withdrew it silently. But this doesn't stop PNA's from using it, thinking it's True and Factual.
Hopefully, you'll spread the word to tell PNA's to stop using this false claim. It's undeniably false.
TimberWolfAu:
Why are you comparing the solid rocket motors of the STS to the liquid rocket of the Apollo LM ascent stage?
najak:
--- Quote from: TimberWolfAu on November 25, 2024, 12:24:11 AM ---Why are you comparing the solid rocket motors of the STS to the liquid rocket of the Apollo LM ascent stage?
--- End quote ---
Thank you for the correction. I'm researching quickly what Google AI seems to be saying, but isn't telling me their sources.
I assume you agree that the "350 msec increase in thrust pressure" from Braeunig was bogus (or if/when it does happen, is near negligible), and that no one else is saying this, or has ever said this.
Here's another PDF that shows thrust taking some time to build up.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19710014805/downloads/19710014805.pdf
With a graph for liquid hypergolic fuels that again shows a build up of thrust, but this article doesn't cover "Combustion chamber pressure" which I believe is what Braeunig was confusing with thrust pressure.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version