Author Topic: Hoax? - Lunar Launches - Too Fast  (Read 4256 times)

Offline najak

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 515
Re: Hoax? - Lunar Launches - Too Fast
« Reply #15 on: November 25, 2024, 04:45:05 AM »
No. You just don't understand physics.
Just because Bob Braeunig's article is a few years old doesn't invalidate it. You have deliberately chosen to ignore the point that Bob made - that the high initial acceleration is due to the APS engine bell's proximity to the descent stage.
"Few years old" -- Nope.  The evidence is all on Wayback machine.
2009 - he posted the original article with no such claim at all.
2016 - he appended this article with some vague, unsupported statements showing ZERO math and no specifics, other than 350 msec for "high starting thrust" (which is FALSE - he's wrong).
2018 - He YANKED IT -- GONE!

His dumb bad-science statement was there for < 2 years, before being yanked -- over 7 years ago.  Never replaced.  No one ever saying this again.... why?  Because it was FALSE.

When rocket thrust is obstructed, the result is LESS THRUST, not More.  And if there happened to be an oddball "pop" as it broke a seal (which also didn't exist because it wasn't full sealed as this would be dangerous to introduce a sudden uncontrolled Pop)....   

Even if Braeunig hadn't retracted it - it is easily proven false, because the Images show a full 1.0 seconds of 2.5 Thrust!...  not just 350 msec?  Not just "until it broken the air tight seal" (which didn't exist).

And for the 2nd second, the acceleration dropped immediately to 0.6 m/s^2 (under half of what it should be) and the next 0.5 second acceleration goes NEGATIVE!...

So he probably retracted it once he realized that his lame/pseudo-science explanation didn't at all account for the acceleration it underwent.

Here's a Google AI response (lazy sourcing) - but I've seen this in actual publications too:
"a rocket actually produces more thrust further away from the ground, in space, because the lack of atmospheric pressure allows the exhaust gases to expand more freely, resulting in greater thrust."

So the constriction of exhaust, although it could possibly produce more "air pressure style lift" - it's more than counter balanced by the loss of normal rocket thrust.   We shouldn't ever expect the LM to accelerate MORE right after ignition.

===
You obviously do not understand physics.  You think it counts as "understanding physics via Parroting a retracted quote that confirms your false beliefs" -- this is not "understanding physics".

I have DETAILED physics simulation experience.

Now please -- see if you can find someone qualified to debate this topic...   I doubt you'll find anyone, because they know it's a losing battle.   You can't Break Physics -- and Apollo did exactly that, multiple times.

Online Zakalwe

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1613
Re: Hoax? - Lunar Launches - Too Fast
« Reply #16 on: November 25, 2024, 05:01:50 AM »
How much visible light comes from hypergols burning in a vacuum?
This one is a bit off topic, but I raised it, so will address it briefly.

We have a 1997 example of Titan IV which uses A-50+N2O4 for it's 2nd stage, firing at night from 550 miles away at 120 miles altitude (a virtual vacuum) and it's shining very bright.

Unlike the Launch-Too-Fast proof which is undeniably BREAKING PHYSICS, the issue of "should there be a bright light created by A50+N2O4 combustion at 1.5 meters away?" is not as easy to PROVE as FACT, but the evidence we have doesn't bode well for Apollo.

Here is the Knowledgebase Article I created for this topic, in draft format:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BOOv1rdzx_Vz-7lST0w0St4e1nfNEMktBN6U1i7e_3Y/edit?usp=sharing

Here's the image of Titan IV 550 miles away:


Thank you for the quick reply. Much appreciated.

Why do you think that an engine producing ~470kN of thrust would be a good comparison to an engine producing 16kN? Do you think that an engine producing 30 times the thrust would possibly be much brighter?

When you say that the Titan is "shining bright", what do you mean by that? Do you have any details on ISO, shutter times, recording medium, comparison to objects of known brightness?

Why would you think that a night time launch, viewed through an atmosphere, with cameras set to expose for a night time launch and using vastly different camera technologies would be comparable to a daytime launch viewed in a vacuum?

I think that on face value, your comparison is a bit like trying to draw equivalence between a lawnmower engine to a Formula 1 engine just because they burn the same fuel. Can you please try again and evidence why you expect there to be lots of visible light from an engine burning hypergols in a vacuum?
"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' " - Isaac Asimov

Offline TimberWolfAu

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 98
Re: Hoax? - Lunar Launches - Too Fast
« Reply #17 on: November 25, 2024, 05:12:01 AM »
Thank you for the correction.  I'm researching quickly what Google AI seems to be saying, but isn't telling me their sources.

Probably should have clicked on, and read, your source. It  quite clearly stated it was for the solid rockets of the STS.

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.

Why would I agree? You haven't shown that this wasn't the case, or that it is not possible. Looking at your GDocs, your only comment is "No", that's it. No comparison, no numbers we can look at, nothing. I get enough unsupported claims from Rasa.

Here's another PDF that shows thrust taking some time to build up.

...

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.

Except the graph you are looking at shows an initial build up to about 90% in about 0.02s, a drop to 60% in the next 0.02s, and then a rise to 100% before the 1s mark. So a sudden impulse, followed by a steady burn.

Here's another paper on Liquid Rocket engines, showing a build up of thrust:

...

From this point on, it becomes dishonest for PNA's to present Braeunig's unsupported, vague, and retracted claim as their "explanation" for how Apollo's AM launches were all approx 2.5X too fast.

Oh, how lovely, a generic graph with no details is your evidence of impulse, oh joy, well, colour me convinced.

And Braeunig's initial point was on the time to orbit for the ascent stage, NOT the immediate acceleration after launch. His later addition posed the possibility of an additional impulse from over pressure. And as you have previously established, possibility is all that maters, so no, we wont be dismissing Braeunig at all.

The final argument for "lower thrust at ignition" is provided by NASA's simulation of the "fire plume" for the first 0.7 seconds, which suddenly (and unrealistically) just disappears in a single frame, leaving behind a fully dark Lander base platform, as though the A-50 combustion just 1 meter above it isn't producing any light onto it...

Where have you established the camera's were at a sufficient height to see the top of the descent stage, and thus determine if they were lit up at all? In addition, how many lumens was being provided by the ascent engine, and would we expect to see a difference (capable of being picked up by the rover's camera) in the bright, daylight conditions?

We have a 1997 example of Titan IV which uses A-50+N2O4 for it's 2nd stage, firing at night from 550 miles away at 120 miles altitude (a virtual vacuum) and it's shining very bright.

And we're also looking up the business end of the rocket, and so we can see the ignition chamber. Just as we see up Challenger's arse when she pitches over, and can see the light from the ignition chamber.

Now, for me, I have some quick questions;
- Just looking through your Apollo 16 extract to start with, why are there frames missing? I've counted at least 9, might have been 12, fames that you don't have but I do, split in various locations across two to three seconds of footage.
- Where is your margin of error analysis? The footage is very pixelated when you try and nominate a point to measure from, either as a reference point or for determining the actual distance covered. Looking at frames I have pulled, this can be as much as ±3 pixels, and given (for me) the LM rises 55 to 56 pixels in 29 and 30 frames, this can be an error of almost 10% in the distance travelled. How have you accounted for this?
(For reference, I downloaded the Apollo 16 video you linked to and pulled 145 frames from about the 12s mark (just before we see evidence of the ignition being initiated ie the shift in the mylar of the descent stage)

Offline najak

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 515
Re: Hoax? - Lunar Launches - Too Fast
« Reply #18 on: November 25, 2024, 06:45:03 AM »
Thank you for the quick reply. Much appreciated.

Why do you think that an engine producing ~470kN of thrust would be a good comparison to an engine producing 16kN? Do you think that an engine producing 30 times the thrust would possibly be much brighter?

When you say that the Titan is "shining bright", what do you mean by that? Do you have any details on ISO, shutter times, recording medium, comparison to objects of known brightness?

Why would you think that a night time launch, viewed through an atmosphere, with cameras set to expose for a night time launch and using vastly different camera technologies would be comparable to a daytime launch viewed in a vacuum?

I think that on face value, your comparison is a bit like trying to draw equivalence between a lawnmower engine to a Formula 1 engine just because they burn the same fuel. Can you please try again and evidence why you expect there to be lots of visible light from an engine burning hypergols in a vacuum?
And thank you for engaging.

The proof that it should be brighter from 1.5 meters lies in the VERY BRIGHT late-burning fuel on the platform... super bright (before it unrealistically disappears instantly)...   So this is how bright A50+N2O4 burns from close up.... very easy to see in this setting.    But then suddenly -- there is NO SIMILAR BRIGHTNESS emitting from the Combustion Chamber, shining through the 5" throat.... 1.6 meters away.

This isn't (yet) a STRONG point for me -- but I find this "dark platform" to be "not bloody likely".

Note that the Titan IV is 550 miles away, vs. 0.1 of a mile --  so we're 5,500 times closer... vs. the "thrust ratio of 30x"...   So proportionately, we're about 180x closer!...

We should see a light on the platform from 1.5 meters away (funnily-- it SHOULD be 0.6 meters away, if they hadn't messed up the Launch acceleration so badly).

Online Zakalwe

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1613
Re: Hoax? - Lunar Launches - Too Fast
« Reply #19 on: November 25, 2024, 06:49:08 AM »


We should see a light on the platform from 1.5 meters away

Prove it.
"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' " - Isaac Asimov

Offline najak

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 515
Re: Hoax? - Lunar Launches - Too Fast
« Reply #20 on: November 25, 2024, 06:56:35 AM »
Now, for me, I have some quick questions;
- Just looking through your Apollo 16 extract to start with, why are there frames missing? I've counted at least 9, might have been 12, fames that you don't have but I do, split in various locations across two to three seconds of footage.
- Where is your margin of error analysis? The footage is very pixelated when you try and nominate a point to measure from, either as a reference point or for determining the actual distance covered. Looking at frames I have pulled, this can be as much as ±3 pixels, and given (for me) the LM rises 55 to 56 pixels in 29 and 30 frames, this can be an error of almost 10% in the distance travelled. How have you accounted for this?
(For reference, I downloaded the Apollo 16 video you linked to and pulled 145 frames from about the 12s mark (just before we see evidence of the ignition being initiated ie the shift in the mylar of the descent stage)

1. Are you keeping duplicate frames with no motion?  I've got a full 30 frames per second.   If I tossed any, it was because they were dupes, meaning that it was an issue on transference.   Do you see any missed frames in the 1st 1 second?    After 1 second, the motion blur gets to be more, so we cannot meaningfully analyze per frame motion, but need to look at larger intervals to help cancel out the motion blur.

2. I didn't do frame-to-frame analysis even for the 1st second, but instead broke it down to 10 FPS, so that it would cancel out the "pixel error" more.
For Apollo 16, I analyzed only frames:  0, 0.1 sec, 0.2, 0.3..... 1.0... then 1.2, 1.5, and 2.0  - because faster motion makes more blur.

Do you challenge the 1.0 second height?

Or for Apollo 16, do you challenge that 2nd second heights - which demonstrate a dramatic slowdown?

I've already made reading far more PNA-favorable than my MLH counter parts.   I don't think you can do much more, legitimately, to show less than DOUBLE the expected acceleration for the first second.

Offline najak

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 515
Re: Hoax? - Lunar Launches - Too Fast
« Reply #21 on: November 25, 2024, 06:59:14 AM »
Prove it.
I already said this can't be "proven" from the evidence we have, but it falls into "not bloody likely" - it makes no sense that the afterburner fuel was SO BRIGHT, but the same 3000 C burning inside the chamber isn't equally bright from 500'.

You are swallowing a "camel" here to hold to the Apollo Faith.   You are believing something "bloody unlikely" is all I can say.   Once enough of these pile up ... you might start to see the truth.

The spearhead of my proof here lies in the "Breaking of Physics" which can be proven.

Offline najak

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 515
Re: Hoax? - Lunar Launches - Too Fast
« Reply #22 on: November 25, 2024, 07:05:29 AM »
TimberWolfAu - it is very low integrity for you to hold to an UNSUPPORTED VAGUE STATEMENT made by one guy 8 years ago, who yanked this statement 7 years ago, and has NEVER replaced it (nor has ANYONE ELSE!).  Especially when all other evidence we have, indicates that liquid fuel rocket thrust takes time to build up.   And also that rockets that have blocked exhaust have LESS THRUST, not MORE.

We have zero examples of a rocket exhibiting more than FULL thrust in a state where it's running inefficiently, evidenced by the "unburned fuel on the platform" up to 0.8 seconds after ignition!

I'll see if I can email Braeunig for a comment.  I'm guessing he won't respond.  You can try too, since you are trying to stand on his shoulders here.  Ask him for "the math" or to source his conclusions better - IF he still holds these conclusions.

Offline TimberWolfAu

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 98
Re: Hoax? - Lunar Launches - Too Fast
« Reply #23 on: November 25, 2024, 10:50:43 AM »
1. Are you keeping duplicate frames with no motion?  I've got a full 30 frames per second.   If I tossed any, it was because they were dupes, meaning that it was an issue on transference.   Do you see any missed frames in the 1st 1 second?    After 1 second, the motion blur gets to be more, so we cannot meaningfully analyze per frame motion, but need to look at larger intervals to help cancel out the motion blur.

2. I didn't do frame-to-frame analysis even for the 1st second, but instead broke it down to 10 FPS, so that it would cancel out the "pixel error" more.
For Apollo 16, I analyzed only frames:  0, 0.1 sec, 0.2, 0.3..... 1.0... then 1.2, 1.5, and 2.0  - because faster motion makes more blur.


1. I've got every frame, no duplicates. I noticed that I had some frames that you didn't while comparing the ones I grabbed vs yours, and mine include motion. So now the question becomes; did you use your collected frames to create a motion capture that you compared timed results against? If not, then it doesn't matter, but if you did, then your results are off.

2. I didn't ask for a frame by frame analysis, I asked for your MoE analysis. As stated, I'm working with ±3 pixels, based on how pixelated the images are, when trying to establish a fixed point to determine distances from, how did you account for the blur when making your measurements? In short, I'm doubting the accuracy of your measurements.

And I'm not dignifying your other comment with a reply, beyond just pointing out that you swallow everything Rasa and Jarrah throw your way, yet they are repeatedly shown to be wrong at best and out right lying at worst, over and over again.

Online Mag40

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 470
Re: Hoax? - Lunar Launches - Too Fast
« Reply #24 on: November 25, 2024, 11:26:07 AM »
Old Lunar Launch thread:
https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=2015.0

And considerations that are never addressed.

Lunar liftoff Apollo 16 - pay attention to the camera view:



Footage, zoomed in, unbroken showing astronauts walking around the LM:


AT 3:10:00 Showing lunar activity prior to ingress, unbroken until launch. The footage is continuous despite youtube commentary frames.

Apollo 17 has the same thing only zoomed out and irrefutable, where Schmitt throws his geology hammer:



Then the lunar liftoff - identical background and unbroken transmission again:



I will state this categorically. If anyone looks at the footage before and during launch and says they aren't the same, they are lying. If anyone thinks NASA had the capability to manufacture fake activity around the LM they are delusional.

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3932
    • Clavius
Re: Lunar Launches - Too Fast
« Reply #25 on: November 25, 2024, 01:28:09 PM »
I saw the other link here:
https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=655.0

With what appears me as an unsubstantiated claim here:
---
"You get stronger-than-normal thrust during the ignition transient which, for the APS is about the first 350 milliseconds after ignition.  That can account for greater performance."
---

Can someone "source" this please.

The source is me. I'm a licensed professional engineer who has worked in aerospace for 30 years and has special expertise in Apollo era rocket technology and propulsion fluid dynamics.

Quote
When I look up the concepts of "Ignition Transient" it's a phase with LESS THRUST, not more.

Nope.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline najak

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 515
Re: Lunar Launches - Too Fast
« Reply #26 on: November 25, 2024, 04:30:27 PM »
The source is me. I'm a licensed professional engineer who has worked in aerospace for 30 years and has special expertise in Apollo era rocket technology and propulsion fluid dynamics.
Quote
When I look up the concepts of "Ignition Transient" it's a phase with LESS THRUST, not more.
Nope.
Nice to meet you JayUtah - thanks for chiming in.

Great show me your self-authored source from whom Braeunig obtained this source back in 2016?   There's got to be something public somewhere, from you, that he found.  Show it.

Since YOU are claiming to be the source of PNA information, sourcing YOURSELF - please show me some evidence of your credentials, including why Braeunig would use you as a reliable source in the first place.

Offline najak

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 515
Re: Hoax? - Lunar Launches - Too Fast
« Reply #27 on: November 25, 2024, 04:43:07 PM »
Old Lunar Launch thread:
https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=2015.0

I will state this categorically. If anyone looks at the footage before and during launch and says they aren't the same, they are lying. If anyone thinks NASA had the capability to manufacture fake activity around the LM they are delusional.
Thanks for the contribution.   Are you saying Apollo 16 has continuous footage from before the launch, that continues right into the launch?  I'd like to see that.

Is the point here that you are saying it's not possible for NASA to have created a model of the scene that replicated the larger LM/set?

My current/tentative theory is that the Launch uses a smaller model, not real.

For Apollo 17+ - we're only 5 years before Star Wars was released.  I don't find this tech to be IMPOSSIBLE to be used in secret by NASA a few years before it was used in the commercial world, do you?

What I do know -- is that these Launches BREAK PHYSICS, badly.  And I do know that this IS IMPOSSIBLE.


Offline najak

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 515
Re: Hoax? - Lunar Launches - Too Fast
« Reply #28 on: November 25, 2024, 04:51:54 PM »
1. I've got every frame, no duplicates. I noticed that I had some frames that you didn't while comparing the ones I grabbed vs yours, and mine include motion. So now the question becomes; did you use your collected frames to create a motion capture that you compared timed results against? If not, then it doesn't matter, but if you did, then your results are off.

2. I didn't ask for a frame by frame analysis, I asked for your MoE analysis. As stated, I'm working with ±3 pixels, based on how pixelated the images are, when trying to establish a fixed point to determine distances from, how did you account for the blur when making your measurements? In short, I'm doubting the accuracy of your measurements.

And I'm not dignifying your other comment with a reply, beyond just pointing out that you swallow everything Rasa and Jarrah throw your way, yet they are repeatedly shown to be wrong at best and out right lying at worst, over and over again.
I researched Braeunig, and he admits he has NO EXPERTISE AT ALL for rockets.  He's just an enthusiast.  That's it.
https://www.scss.tcd.ie/Stephen.Farrell/ipn/background/Braeunig/about.htm#:~:text=My%20name%20is%20Robert%20A,perhaps%20a%20model%20rocketry%20enthusiast.

So you relying upon Braeunig as the source for anything, especially since he yanked it down 7 years ago (probably due to scrutiny) -- is uber low integrity.   You should withdraw your reliance upon Braeunig as the source for anything meaningful -- especially for a vague unsourced unsupported claim that he pulled down.

Do you agree?

====
So what does this leave remaining - is the frame-by-frame analysis, along with tolerances - to show the extremes of what could be reality.   Also, I'll re-capture the frames from the source, to make any corrections if needed, or to resolve your claims that I missed some frames.

I appreciate your sincere involvement here.  This is why I came to this forum, hoping for some sincere/smart minds to engage.   You seem to be all that and a bag-o-chips.  Thank you.

Give me a day to re-run this analysis, along with my reference points used for each frame-to-frame image (will use multiple).

To help nullify the impact of "pixel errors" - instead of doing this at 10 FPS, I'll do it at 3 FPS... in great detail -- so we can find the Acceleration for each 1/3rd second interval...  And see if it's feasible to explain this with PHYSICS.


Offline najak

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 515
Re: Hoax? - Lunar Launches - Too Fast
« Reply #29 on: November 25, 2024, 05:02:29 PM »
@TimerWolfAu wrote: "[You just listen to Jarrah and Rasa]"..

Yes and No.  I believe Jarrah's claims appear quite substantiated by sourcing, math, and logic.  Perhaps you can show me his "biggest blunder" that he hasn't acknowledged.   And I'll give my own assessment of it.

As for Rasa, I disagree sharply with a lot that he concludes.   We're at odds, more than we are in agreement.

Jet Wintzer - same thing -- I don't know of a single proof he's made that I don't see "integrity failures".

Marcus Allen - seems to have some issues too, and dishonesty.  His "film outgassing" claim seems dishonest and insufficient.

Sibrel - one of the worst with regards to integrity.  However, his work made some decent contributions, such as the Deathbed confessions, as well as the Astronauts Gone Wild revelations that he obtained.  But otherwise, I cringe at a LOT of what he says.

Massimo/American Moon -- makes some good points, and others not.   I find this production to be a good composition, but with many flaws.

So for me -- Jarrah is currently the MLH source in whom I put the most trust, probably by a long shot.   Others I haven't evaluated yet.

But I became convinced we didn't land on the moon, Long before I knew who any of these guys were -- and did a considerable amount of my own independent research in a vacuum... I'll present more of this as we go along.