Najak wins this debate by FORFEIT.
NopeEver 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?
https://web.archive.org/web/20170904033346/http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/LM-ascent.htm
NopeIt's ironic that you tell me to "do the work", while you parrot a withdrawn and provably FALSE statement made by Braeunig is your secret wisdom.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170904033346/http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/LM-ascent.htm
Why are you comparing the solid rocket motors of the STS to the liquid rocket of the Apollo LM ascent stage?Thank you for the correction. I'm researching quickly what Google AI seems to be saying, but isn't telling me their sources.
Apollo BROKE PHYSICS.No. You just don't understand physics.
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...
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.
No. You just don't understand physics."Few years old" -- Nope. The evidence is all on Wayback machine.
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.
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 (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BOOv1rdzx_Vz-7lST0w0St4e1nfNEMktBN6U1i7e_3Y/edit?usp=sharing)
Here's the image of Titan IV 550 miles away:
(https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2016.0;attach=1192)
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.
...
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.
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.
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...
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.
Thank you for the quick reply. Much appreciated.And thank you for engaging.
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?
We should see a light on the platform from 1.5 meters away
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)
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'.
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.
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.
When I look up the concepts of "Ignition Transient" it's a phase with LESS THRUST, not more.
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.Nice to meet you JayUtah - thanks for chiming in.QuoteWhen I look up the concepts of "Ignition Transient" it's a phase with LESS THRUST, not more.Nope.
Old Lunar Launch thread: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.
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.
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.I researched Braeunig, and he admits he has NO EXPERTISE AT ALL for rockets. He's just an enthusiast. That's it.
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.
Great, show me your...
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.
What is your training and/or professional experience in engineering?I've been a 3D physics enthusiast since age 13, trying to get my C64 to produce a physics simulation to enable 3D Asteroids game. Later in life, started my own company that provided 3D realistic simulation environments for clients - I integrated the Bullet Physics engine, and debugged it, when it failed. We did some free-floating object simulations, trying to stabilize it with accelerations -- very complex.
I've been a 3D physics enthusiast since age 13...
Now please prove your credentials, as you are using yourself as the ONLY SOURCE for rocket thrust claims, that are contrary to every other paper/example I can find.
That's a very long-winded way of saying you have no training or professional experience as an engineer.You asked about professional experience with "rocketry/physics" - which is limited to enthusiasm in youth, but 3D free-floating physics simulation at age 40 for a couple years was professional experience.
Pushy, aren't we?
You dismiss Bob Braeunig as a mere "enthusiast," when in fact that's all you are—and somehow qualified to sit in judgment upon everyone. What did you do to ascertain that Jarrah White has the appropriate training and experience for you to put so much trust in him?
You asked about professional experience with "rocketry/physics" - which is limited to enthusiasm in youth, but 3D free-floating physics simulation at age 40 for a couple years was professional experience.
Rose-Human Inst. of Tech for Elec Engineering 1992, Masters of Computer engineering, Syracuse Univ 1995, 3.75 GPA.
Worked for...
I've tested off the charts all of my life for aptitude. I see things that most don't see.
Your turn, show me your credentials.
Your bar needs to be MUCH HIGHER, given that you are selling yourself as an "expert SOURCE" - qualified to declare Rocketry truths that are not commensurate what is seemingly all other papers available on the topic.
I dismiss Braeunig as an "EXPERT SOURCE" -- as HE DOES THIS HIMSELF.
If you were as smart/experienced as you are trying to mysteriously sell yourself here - you'd also have a huge issue with PNA's using Braeunig as a SOURCE.
...especially since he yanked his only statement 7 yrs ago...
...and when he made it, it was vague and fully unsupported...
I sensing you are all mystery backed by fluff.
1. Braeunig's Vague/unsupported and retracted statement from a self-declared "average guy" with no expertise.
My #1 reason for doubting your (JayUtah's) own integrity as an "expert source" is based on a presumption that you haven't corrected your friends for using Braeunig as an expert source.
What I do know -- is that these Launches BREAK PHYSICS, badly. And I do know that this IS IMPOSSIBLE.
Hello, najak. I'm the moderator of this form. I was asked by multiple members to approve your account, and I will allow you to continue for as long as they can tolerate you, but you should be aware that my patience for people who exhibit the Dunning-Kruger effect is not what it used to be. I will not put up with arrogance for long.Thanks for the kind interjection here, and thank you for hosting.
I would suggest you show the members of this forum some respect. They have been involved in these discussions for 20+ years, and there is very little that you can bring that they haven't seen before.
...It couldn't possibly be that your understanding of physics is insufficient... nope, it's everyone else who is wrong. ::)
Your assessment of my trustworthiness is based on whether I agree with your hasty opinion? Ha ha!The red flag for me regarding your true qualification is that Braeunig would make such a bold unique (and vague) claim without ANY math support, or sourcing. And then your believing this explanation was "good" rather than "critically lacking". This is the "Rocket Science" part of the proof, where it gets more complex. But he did it without ANY math, and no sourcing. And he's the "main source" for people here. And you don't see a problem with this.
The red flag for me regarding your true qualification is...
And then your believing this explanation was "good" rather than "critically lacking".
This is the "Rocket Science" part of the proof, where it gets more complex.
Please impress me.
Of all the MLH video sources, Jarrah's seem to have the most integrity, because they are sourced and seem to contain valid scientific rationale
I present Jarrah's videos, and then look for rebuttals from PNA's... based on how this pans out, is how I vet Jarrah.
So far, his presentations have seemed fairly solid.
When I present Jarrah's video/link - I'm sharing a "source presentation of a point that I (currently) find to be seemingly accurate". I invite you to rebut, and prove his conclusions wrong. From this, I can vet his conclusions and integrity better.
But for Braeunig, he made a vague bold unique statement with NO sourcing or math. He's a proclaimed non-expert - so why should we treat his retracted unsourced/unsupported statement as "Truth".. as many PNAs have done.
Answer: I don't know. But if you point me to an article/paper, I'll bet I can "Learn".
But I am qualified to do the basic physics parts, such as "what is the average acceleration of the LM in the 1st second" -- calculating this "average acceleration" is NOT rocket science -- it's basic physics.
You claim to "know this answer" - so great. I'm listening. Teach me. Source it. Show the math.
Did you ask him about what happened at IMDb?Yes, and Jarrah showed me his side of the story with screenshots. His integrity still looks good to me. No one has given me adequate reason to believe differently. He also showed me some information on you.
I am trying to focus on a few simpler proofs now, which do not go beyond my fairly strong understanding of physics.
For example, if the LM rises 1.9 meters within the first 1.0 seconds, vs. 0.7 meters, it's simple and accurate physics to calculate that the "average acceleration for this 1 second window was 3.8 m/s^2, vs. the expected 1.5 m/s^2". THIS is basic physics.
If there isn't a viable scientific explanation for the added 2.3 m/s^2 of acceleration - then Apollo BROKE PHYSICS.
Do you suggest otherwise?
Yes. Logic alone says it's more likely that your calculations and measurements are wrong than it is that every scientist on Earth who has ever even heard of Apollo has either failed to realize that it was faked or is in on a massive unsustainable cover up. To believe that you alone figured it out when all of the smartest humans on Earth have not been able to do so over the last 50 years is so unbelievably arrogant that it's silly.Your mode of arguing here appears to me as disingenuous, because I know you are smarter than your argument style seems to indicate. Listen to your hyperbole that is far from realistic.
2. Once a few "whackos" got ahold of the materials, and started analyzing it, identifying inconsistencies -- NASA did considerable "cover-up" (modifying materials that were online).
3. Most smart people have "other things to do"
5. If you want to be employed in the non-commercial field of Moon Studies, etc -- you'll mostly be tied to govt' grants. You won't get funded if you bite the hand that feeds you.
6. Face it, those who do go into moon studies, aren't the cream of the crop minds. They also would be VERY disappointed to find out that Apollo was fake. People don't set out to disprove that which makes them happy.
Since I assume you are smart, I question whether or not you are funded by Apollo to have the stance you have now, using this mode of arguing that is unfair and filled with hyperbole.
I do appreciate your forum here, but I question either your bias, or possibly your motivations. I assume you are beyond smart-enough to realize the truth in what I wrote above... and that arguing as you just did, is disingenuous.
Do you disagree?
Yes, and Jarrah showed me his side of the story with screenshots.
His integrity still looks good to me. No one has given me adequate reason to believe differently. He also showed me some information on you.
How about if instead we just focus on the matter at hand...
Since showing me some links to back up your claims would be easy, but you won't do it, this naturally leads me to the conclusion that there's no such paper/article online that details how this 460kN AM engine produced over 1000kN of thrust for one full second. Let me know if you find one, I'll be happy to read it.
When people DO dig into this math, it turns to show the mistakes NASA made when they faked it.
It's also hard to show the LM didn't work, when they threw out 99% of the Design/Test docs for it! Gone..
And hard to show the other mess-ups when they Lost All Telemetry data and the non-broadcast video. All we have are audio feeds now.
So your arguing here doesn't appear genuine. You surely know the stuff I just said above, but ignore it when you argue in favor of Apollo.
* * *
Since I assume you are smart, I question whether or not you are funded by Apollo to have the stance you have now, using this mode of arguing that is unfair and filled with hyperbole.
And the part I find amusing, is that you don't even seem to be aware of this, even down to your commenting on how "Apollo breaks physics", it doesn't seem to occur to you that your numbers/methodology may be at fault, hence my comments on missing frames, margin of error, your reference points etc. Hell, if I made a post last night in another group with some fun maths (rough % chance of being hit my a meteoroid on the lunar surface), and I still triple checked everything and asked people to double check my calcs.I know I'm intellectually arrogant, just as a body builder would proclaim that he's stronger than 99%+ of others. My test scores and academic/professional performance without trying hard - justifies my confidence. I realize the impact it has on others. But I am only trying to thwart off the nonsensical arguments that only demonstrate a lack of grasping even basic physics concepts. This pollutes the thread. It would be like this body builder saying "Please, only serious challenges...." without anyone saying "quit being arrogant" - because muscle strength comparisons are easier to see and measure.
I know I'm intellectually arrogant, just as a body builder would proclaim that he's stronger than 99%+ of others. My test scores and academic/professional performance without trying hard - justifies my confidence.
But I am only trying to thwart off the nonsensical arguments that only demonstrate a lack of grasping even basic physics concepts.
I believe I know my limits here -- basic physics is the thrust of my arguments.
I'm not pretending I know so much about "Rocket Science", which is why I'm asking those who supposedly do - to present rebuttals based on Rocket Science, in order to justify the BASIC PHYSICS RESPONSE of the LM in the 1st second.
So far, I've got nothing from anyone here -- indicating the lack of the existence of such a rebuttal (as I suspected). I'd love to be proven wrong.
The papers from which you took some of your diagrams early in the thread actually summarize the field reasonably well. There's also several chapters in Sutton and Biblarz that—put together—help you arrive at why the rated steady-state thrust of a rocket engine won't necessarily give you a reliable engineering parameter in all cases.You wrote: "won't necessarily give you a reliable engineering parameter in all cases"
No. You insist that only basic physics must be considered in evaluating the evidence. As soon as the physics goes over your head, you switch to bluff and bluster.Are you suggesting that the complexities of "Rocket Science" are able to BREAK SIMPLE PHYSICS in a closed-system? (AM vs. Moon Surface w/gravity)
And it's been shown how that's not sufficient to address the problem.
somehow be ideologically compromised.
THANK YOU FOR A RESPONSE!
Where in these papers/references do you find grounds to conclude that...
Since you've dealt with this question for 20 years, how have you explained it in the past? (or others explained it) -- So far, I've seen zero attempts at a scientifically founded explanation.
Are you suggesting that the complexities of "Rocket Science" are able to BREAK SIMPLE PHYSICS in a closed-system?
Please give us the gist of what such a rebuttal might look like.
Asked and answered. You simply dismiss that gist according to irrelevant and dishonest criteria.Your answer is "it's too complex to explain" with no specifics other than "transients can produce some variance". Yes, there is variance.
Your answer is "it's too complex to explain" with no specifics other than "transients can produce some variance". Yes, there is variance.
But we're talking about CONSISTENT STEADY PROLONGED VARIANCE for ALL 3 Launches. One Second is a LONG time, for the types of variance discussed with "transient performance at launch".
Please attempt to describe (and source) where there is ANY claim in rocket science that this transient behavior can produce a prolonged 2.5x output, while spitting out unburnt fuel right after ignition.
It seems you can't...
No amount of "Rocket Science complexity/variance" can Break Newton's 2nd Law in the context of a closed-system (at least not measurably at these speeds).
Are you really suggesting that the average Thrust for 1st second was NOT ~1200 kN average, while the motion curve indicates clearly ~1200 kN of near steady force?
If there were a reliable way to obtain 2.5X thrust output at launch - this would be astonishing, big news - clearly stated. But we have nothing of the sort, do we?
1. Apollo did not require or rely upon any momentary thrust excitations.Great, thanks for adding some specifics. I am gleaning the following:
2. Your ongoing desire to downplay, sidestep, or reimagine the actual behavior of rocket engines doesn't change reality.
3. Momentary additional thrust produced by confining the exhaust to develop a higher proportion of pressure thrust has historically been something we have gone to great lengths to avoid or minimize, since it poses a back-pressure hazard to the engine itself. Thus the "fire in the hole" configuration for the APS was a matter of some concern in the design. Demonstrating that ignition was safe under those circumstance was a major mission goal of Apollo 5. Any momentary performance improvement or degradation is irrelevant in the overall operation of the system.
There was no intention of making use of start-up transients for Apollo AM. As usual, they were trying to minimize the amount of impact.
I'm not trying to reimagine anything here.
I'm not saying "the motion is explained by Newton's 2nd law"; I'm saying it's CONSTRAINED to obey this law... the explanation of the acting forces is the Rocket Science.
So far, there have been zero indications given that Rocket Science is even TRYING to explain at sustained 1 second steady 2.5X thrust output with the inefficiency unburned fuel for the first 0.8 seconds.
Again, Apollo, the same as most of similar contexts, is trying to minimize these less predictable transients. So surely they weren't planning on a setup that produces 2.5X the rated thrust resulting from transients.
FYI. Jarrah is watching this forum, and posted a heated response to you in the MLH Facebook group.Yes, and Jarrah showed me his side of the story with screenshots.I'm sure he's quite anxious to present a rosy picture of what happened there. What happened is that while trying to show that Apollo's radiation protection was inadequate, he argued himself into a corner from which he could not extract himself. At the time, he did not know calculus and it became obvious that he could not work through the space weather data properly. That ended with one of the long, profanity-laden rants for which he used to be so justly infamous. Then Jarrah deleted all his posts there, so that no one else could follow the real argument. Since then he has routinely lied about it.
FYI. Jarrah is watching this forum, and posted a heated response to you in the MLH Facebook group.
No, that's a complete departure from real physics. No one law constrains a system so as to preclude the parallel effects of other laws.Are you suggesting that this AM is launching with an apparent 2.5X acceleration without actually having a 2.5X Net Force acting on it?
Are you suggesting that this AM is launching with an apparent 2.5X acceleration without actually having a 2.5X Net Force acting on it?
Actually no, I'm saying that plugging simplistic numbers into Newton's second law to produce your expectations is naive. The separate notion that some "basic physics" law must always fully govern or constrain observable behavior is an academic disagreement.Newton's 2nd Law IS SIMPLISTIC. You have to plug in a NET FORCE.
What other Force Actors am I missing?
This is why I like "protagonists" in my research -- the scrutiny helps me to weed out my mistakes.
Jarrah posted a link to the IMDB forum you mentioned, his threads are still visible. The only messages of his deleted were deleted by the administrator. His screenshots show this, but you continue to claim otherwise. On what evidence do you present your assumptions as fact?FYI. Jarrah is watching this forum, and posted a heated response to you in the MLH Facebook group.Good for him.
All those that aren't the rated thrust of the engine. Additional pressure thrust produced by containing the exhaust is one of those. Fluctuations in thrust that arise from combustion instability is another.Great those are the only two I've ever heard proposed. Got any other ideas?
Agreed. Whether discussion provides a correction directly or leads you to correct yourself, good faith debate is profitable.This is the first statement you've made where I felt some warmth, rather than your disdain. Thank you for this.
Jarrah posted a link to the IMDB forum you mentioned, his threads are still visible.
Great those are the only two I've ever heard proposed. Got any other ideas?
For these two, can you estimate...
This is the first statement you've made where I felt some warmth, rather than your disdain. Thank you for this.
No rush. I hope you enjoy your holiday. :)QuoteFor these two, can you estimate...Not without work that I won't be disposed to do until after the holiday. Pressure thrust is surprisingly large, in general. And that's with no fluid containment.
Jarrah posted a link to the IMDB forum you mentioned, his threads are still visible. The only messages of his deleted were deleted by the administrator. His screenshots show this, but you continue to claim otherwise. On what evidence do you present your assumptions as fact?Hearsay. Screenshots show only what was captured after the event. Years and years ago, too long to remember exactly when, there was an archived version of the discussion. TBFDU was extremely rude post after post and appeared to be unable to correctly answer all the points being asked of him. He clearly threw his toys out of the pram.
I'm not liking to pollute this thread, but am addressing this sub-thread that you raised above.Jarrah posted a link to the IMDB forum you mentioned, his threads are still visible.
The IMDb forums were discontinued and removed in 2017. Here is our contemporaneous discussion of the last time this issue was raised.
https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=759.0
FYI, I chatted with Jarrah about this.Did you now.
This appears to be from 2005, when Jarrah was like 20? I was a different person when I was 20. We grow and change a lot in our 20's. and 30's... and start to brittle up after 40.FYI, I chatted with Jarrah about this.Did you now.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130321060652/http://tech.dir.groups.yahoo.com:80/group/apollo-hoax/message/224?threaded=1&var=1
This appears to be from 2005, when Jarrah was like 20? I was a different person when I was 20.He was 25.
We grow and change a lot in our 20's. and 30's... and start to brittle up after 40.So the rudeness he exhibits as standard suddenly went away did it? It was there for that IMDB exchange and equally distasteful!
Let's get back on topic now please.The topic has been resolved. You have had it explained to you in simple terms by an expert. Your failure to be able to understand it from lack of expertise and real-world experience is the issue.
@TimberWolfAu:
How long before you are ready to continue with your analysis of my 2nd round of Apollo 16 work. I presented "best attempted image analysis motion" and also the "worst case, assuming some error" - and the worst case still shows 2.36x the rated thrust. (vs. 2.57x)
I'm interested to know your feedback and thoughts on this. And thank you again for your involvement and work here.
The topic has been resolved. You have had it explained to you in simple terms by an expert. Your failure to be able to understand it from lack of expertise and real-world experience is the issue.Not explained yet. This is now in progress, to be done after our USA Thanksgiving Holiday weekend.
As I've said before, this is a hobby, and not even one I spend a lot of time on. IF I get to it, then I will get to it when I get to it.If the idea of Apollo makes you happy, then you should probably consider not validating the work, so that you can maintain your faith that brings you happiness. :)
As we've seen, your idea of "certainty" isn't connected to reality. You just "say something", then think it's true because you said it. Trump taught you well. :)You and TBFDU must have studied at the same school of "diplomacy". Your childish retorts are very tedious.
You and TBFDU must have studied at the same school of "diplomacy". Your childish retorts are very tedious.My retort was just honest, and well-earned by you, with your certainty of the PLSS hitting the flag, then announcing your victory - despite having literally no evidence to support your 100% certain conclusion. You have to admit that this is Trumpish behavior, no? It's OK -- most Americans voted for him. President is supposed to be a role model right?
My retort was just honest, and well-earned by you, with your certainty of the PLSS hitting the flag, then announcing your victory - despite having literally no evidence to support your 100% certain conclusion. You have to admit that this is Trumpish behavior, no? It's OK -- most Americans voted for him. President is supposed to be a role model right?I'm English and I would rather eat my own vomit than vote for that man. Maybe you should stop your own posturing. You're losing badly on all these debates whether you are man enough to admit it or not.
We all make mistakes. But if you can't admit you even made a mistake... then Trump would be proud of you.
I'm English and I would rather eat my own vomit than vote for that man. Maybe you should stop your own posturing. You're losing badly on all these debates whether you are man enough to admit it or not.Yeah, I'm not a Trump fan either -- but also not a fan of "the System" of which Harris was their puppet. So I'm neutral on these politics because I despised both options for different reasons. Trump is like a spoiled man-baby, who has exhibited selfish/narcissistic motives his whole life.
Yeah, I'm not a Trump fan either -- but also not a fan of "the System" of which Harris was their puppet. So I'm neutral on these politics because I despised both options for different reasons. Trump is like a spoiled man-baby, who has exhibited selfish/narcissistic motives his whole life.Friction. What are you even doing? Talking about Trump, obfuscating dragged surface material with friction, obsessing over an error already admitted to the person who highlighted it. Certainly not to the person who crows about it like a child.
So do you admit your mistake about the PLSS "hitting the flag; argument done; victory declared" ??? If not, then in this way, you are like Trump.
Also - you'll soon need to be admitting that your "falling Dust" line of arguing misses a VERY CRITICAL concept -- "the vacuum effect" which is significant when dealing with a big/wide boot. The fact that we have dust rising WITH the bottom of the boot at all, is a sure sign of vacuum. Remove this suction, and the dust beneath the boot stays put (mostly). But if it rises WITH THE BOOT (despite having no force beneath it to launch it) -- is a sure sign that it was "pulled upwards by the vacuum" -- and therefore will stay close to the boot all the way up, until the boot loses velocity, and thus the vacuum force quickly dissipates, allowing the dust to fall -- which then falls at a MUCH FASTER rate than the astronaut.
Once you incorporate this - you can concede another mistake. There is no shame in these mistakes, as your underlying conclusions agree with the vast majority of smart people on earth. You are in good company.
Friction. What are you even doing? Talking about Trump, obfuscating dragged surface material with friction, obsessing over an error already admitted to the person who highlighted it. Certainly not to the person who crows about it like a child.Winding down the "sand vacuum" discussion here - as we have an appropriate thread for that topic. Let's discuss it there.
Winding down the "sand vacuum" discussion here - as we have an appropriate thread for that topic. Let's discuss it there.A discussion you needlessly raised here.
A discussion you needlessly raised here.thanks.
Do we have any design documents from NASA that show how this came together? I'm finding very limited blueprints. Where is the rest?
What do you mean by "with no fluid containment"? (looked up the phrase with relation to rockets, and no hits)
#1: Where did you look?#1: Google - can't find much so far. Since you are a 20 year rookie, this should be an easy answer for you to direct others on "how to find NASA's design docs for the LM".
#2: Why do you assume that must be a term of art in rocketry? Are you an engineer? Do you know what a fluid is? Do you know what it means to contain one?
#1: Google - can't find much so far.
Since you are a 20 year rookie, this should be an easy answer for you to direct others...
The MLH claim is that most of these documents were discarded, claiming that it required too much storage space. I'm not seeing much evidence to disprove this claim. Are you? If so, where?
"Fluid containment" - is vague. "Which fluid?" (as in fluid dynamics, it also covers gases)
And "Contained by what?"
How is your math coming along to show...
#1: We covered the documentation issue in a separate thread before you arrived. How many drawings do you think were produced for the lunar module?#1: In short "A LOT!" I answered your question just now in this single page document -- this is just a draft, off-the-cuff, for starters. One source reported "100,000 cuFt of documentation! We aren't a museum." to justify discarding nearly all of it. So what's left? At minimum, we should have kept a few thick binders of the detailed System and Component Designs.
#2: Your quote: "Pressure thrust is surprisingly large, in general. And that's with no fluid containment."
#3: MATH: The APS nozzle fairly touched the descent stage deck. But here's the fun part: the engine was canted forward 1.5°, which leaves a gap of approximately 0.81 inch between the aft lip of the nozzle and the descent stage deck. The nozzle is 31 inches in diameter. Get us started by computing the area of the aperture that exists between the APS nozzle and the descent stage deck. List any simplifying assumptions you make.
In short "A LOT!"
At minimum, we should have kept a few thick binders of the detailed System and Component Designs.
Please tell me what you mean by this suffixed statement, "and that's with no fluid containment". Why did you add this on?
39.53 square-inches - is the answer to your math problem.
This seems to indicate that the center of gravity for the LM wasn't exactly "straight up/middle", but dealing with an offset?
Have you found ANYWHERE to suggest that at launch with more constrained exhaust, that the expected result is "significantly MORE NET Thrust?" All places I find, say it should be "LESS", and that if any transients occur...
#1: So what's next? You are the one claiming that a rocket can produce a steady +72% thrust for a full second. This is your counter - so tell me your next step.Quote39.53 square-inches - is the answer to your math problem.#1: Correct. Why do we need to know this?
#2: A constrained exhaust has nothing to do with an ignition transient.
So what's next?
You are the one claiming that a rocket can produce a steady +72% thrust for a full second.
This is your counter - so tell me your next step.
That's not what Braeunig's 2017 claim said...
He used Constrained/sealed thrust a primary explanation for the big boost in thrust.
You are doing a "dance/dodge/delay" here to avoid revealing that you cannot make this proof, nor anything like it.[/b]
#1: Bob Braeunig knows the difference between an ignition transient and the momentary increase in pressure thrust that occurs from a partially occluded exhaust. They are not the same thing. An ignition transient occurs under all conditions, even with nothing in the vicinity of the nozzle exit. Augmented pressure thrust occurs only to the extent that something blocks the exhaust.
#2: Do you really think you're the first person to come here with a half-baked quantitative claim
#3: Obviously the only way you'll buy into an estimate of the additional sources of thrust is if (a) you understand the method, and (b) you agree that the method is accurate enough to support the findings. Now you claim you have off-the-charts intelligence, but strangely you seem uninterested in the actual nuts and bolts of rocketry. We're going to fix that as we go, and you'll get to demonstrate some of that professed brainpower.
Handed your arse again eh najak! You don't seem to understand the rules and the processes of skepticism that are used here najak.I think I'm seeing "your rules here". I make a solid Physics/Math proof, backed by the evidence. I'm not the first to note this, or admit this evidence. Even Braeunig admitted it, and for 2 years tried to defend it with a vague and unsupported answer. So the evidence is clear.
Otherwise, I will call this one "done" - unrefuted
And we will continue to have an "Unaccounted for +72% of steady thrust for the first full second."
Handed your arse again eh najak! You don't seem to understand the rules and the processes of skepticism that are used here najak.I think I'm seeing "your rules here". I make a solid Physics/Math proof, backed by the evidence. I'm not the first to note this, or admit this evidence. Even Braeunig admitted it, and for 2 years tried to defend it with a vague and unsupported answer. So the evidence is clear.
And it's also clear that this evidence/claim remains Un-Refuted.
But the rules here, at least for you and a few others is to then always say "we won, you lost!" No one here will criticize you for making this fully illogical claim.
If you can offer a valid refutation for the claim I'm making here, please do. But if one cannot be offered up - this counts as a win for me.
I made this claim saying "this appears irrefutable and has yet to be refuted." And this still seems to be the case.
Show me which post you posted the appropriate formula, and the calculations YOU made using that formula, and your explanation for how your results apply. NOT someone else's work, YOUR work!From the start of this thread, my work as ALL been shown within this online doc, which references a spreadsheet, as well as the folders where I show all of my Frame Captures, the KRITA file (free graphics tool so that anyone can see my project file, for free) - and check my work.
Show me which post you posted the appropriate formula, and the calculations YOU made using that formula, and your explanation for how your results apply. NOT someone else's work, YOUR work!From the start of this thread, my work as ALL been shown within this online doc, which references a spreadsheet, as well as the folders where I show all of my Frame Captures, the KRITA file (free graphics tool so that anyone can see my project file, for free) - and check my work.
The math for Newtonian physics is High school physics. Even if the "causes of acceleration are Rocket Science" in the end, the Ascent Module must comply with Newtonian physics.... The "Rocket Science part" simply contributes a "NET force" (or set of forces) which then feed into the Newtonian equations.
In this analysis, I've been very generous to the Apollogist mindset on my estimates, to avoid time/effort wasted on "contention with my measurements".
The end result is +72% (EXTRA/ABOVE the rating) thrust upwards -- which means the system is delivering 172% of the rated engine thrust - steadily for a full 1 second. This same anomally is consistent for all 3 launches, so it's not a fluke.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sJsIUlzdVF3brADa8YwR4XTg59mod-K2ct4jQCSKlyA/edit?tab=t.0 (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sJsIUlzdVF3brADa8YwR4XTg59mod-K2ct4jQCSKlyA/edit?tab=t.0)
It's important to note that even the Apollogists who deal with this issue are not daring to deny this added acceleration. Such as Braeunig had posted some vague suggested reasons for this extra acceleration.
I've simply put a method and numbers to it, so that it's very specific. Braeunig (smartly) removed his prior explanation, because it was unfounded/unsubstantiated, and goes against what most other articles have said about the "net result on thrust when the rocket engine is too close to the ground". Even if Pressure Thrust increases, it is ususally MORE-THAN-OFFSET by a reduction in Momentum thrust -- resulting in LESS NET THRUST (not more).
So the generalized "expected result" during this launch, should more likely BE LESS, NOT MORE... But that's just generally speaking.
JayUTAH claims to have the awesome ability of demonstrating mathematically that a steady 172% of the rated engine thrust for a full second - is expected, or likely, or even possible... Since it happens 3 for 3, it shouldn't be a FLUKE. This should be "expected behavior".
OR... they simply messed up the simulation, and weren't thinking about 2000+ technology enabling us to analyze this much more easily, and for more people with easy access (online) and with online groups, so that collaborations can be done, to help things be more efficient.
If NASA did not anticipate such accelerations then how did they give Ed Fendel the time and camera pitch to keep the LM in the frame with a tie delay? You really are bad at this#1: Bob Braeunig knows the difference between an ignition transient and the momentary increase in pressure thrust that occurs from a partially occluded exhaust. They are not the same thing. An ignition transient occurs under all conditions, even with nothing in the vicinity of the nozzle exit. Augmented pressure thrust occurs only to the extent that something blocks the exhaust.
#2: Do you really think you're the first person to come here with a half-baked quantitative claim
#3: Obviously the only way you'll buy into an estimate of the additional sources of thrust is if (a) you understand the method, and (b) you agree that the method is accurate enough to support the findings. Now you claim you have off-the-charts intelligence, but strangely you seem uninterested in the actual nuts and bolts of rocketry. We're going to fix that as we go, and you'll get to demonstrate some of that professed brainpower.
#1: Braenig quote:
"On start-up, the gas pressure at the nozzle exit rose to higher than normal values due to the constricted flow of exhaust gas. This produced a high degree of transient pressure thrust just at the moment of liftoff. Once the LM climbed high enough that the exhaust could flow from the nozzle unrestricted, the pressure and thrust fell to nominal levels."
#2: No - this particular claim of 2.5X+ the expected NET acceleration is decades old, and STILL unrefuted. Braeunig's own simulation indicated an expected 0.7 meter rise for the first 1 second, not 1.8 meters.
Apollogists keep saying "it's been debunked!" - but it's not. Even now, you cannot show me where this has been debunked.
Why is it that you need to do "new work" to debunk a 40 year old claim? Just point me to the others who've debunked this acceleration dilemma. Otherwise, you've confirmed my suspicion -- "this stands un-refuted".
#3: Start with showing me "here's where/how this was debunked before" and we can go from there.
Otherwise, I will call this one "done" - unrefuted. And we will continue to have an "Unaccounted for +72% of steady thrust for the first full second." Score for MLH.
Braenig quote:
"On start-up, the gas pressure at the nozzle exit rose to higher than normal values due to the constricted flow of exhaust gas. This produced a high degree of transient pressure thrust just at the moment of liftoff. Once the LM climbed high enough that the exhaust could flow from the nozzle unrestricted, the pressure and thrust fell to nominal levels."
No - this particular claim of 2.5X+ the expected NET acceleration is decades old, and STILL unrefuted. Braeunig's own simulation indicated an expected 0.7 meter rise for the first 1 second, not 1.8 meters.
Apollogists keep saying "it's been debunked!" - but it's not. Even now, you cannot show me where this has been debunked.
Why is it that you need to do "new work" to debunk a 40 year old claim? Just point me to the others who've debunked this acceleration dilemma. Otherwise, you've confirmed my suspicion -- "this stands un-refuted".
The math for Newtonian physics is High school physics.
In this analysis, I've been very generous to the Apollogist mindset on my estimates, to avoid time/effort wasted on "contention with my measurements".
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sJsIUlzdVF3brADa8YwR4XTg59mod-K2ct4jQCSKlyA/edit?tab=t.0 (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sJsIUlzdVF3brADa8YwR4XTg59mod-K2ct4jQCSKlyA/edit?tab=t.0)
Such as Braeunig had posted some vague suggested reasons for this extra acceleration.
Braeunig (smartly) removed his prior explanation, because it was unfounded/unsubstantiated...
JayUTAH claims to have the awesome ability of demonstrating mathematically that a steady 172% of the rated engine thrust for a full second - is expected, or likely, or even possible.
...for more people with easy access (online) and with online groups, so that collaborations can be done, to help things be more efficient.
I think I'm seeing "your rules here". I make a solid Physics/Math proof, backed by the evidence.
Even Braeunig admitted it, and for 2 years tried to defend it with a vague and unsupported answer. So the evidence is clear.
And it's also clear that this evidence/claim remains Un-Refuted.
But the rules here, at least for you and a few others is to then always say "we won, you lost!" No one here will criticize you for making this fully illogical claim.
Your whole methodology lacks rigor, and your whole measurement basis is flawed and fraught with massive errors. For this reason, everything from page 2 to page 16 inclusive of your alleged "proof" document can be summarily dismissed.Thank you for the correction on Apollo 16. Do you have a reference for this?
The phenomena you didn't consider in formulating your expectations have been identified to you. Your unwillingness to believe in them does not make you right.After 40+ years, since this unrealistic/unexpected acceleration was first brought to light, until now - there has been no presentation of a theory (backed by science/math) to substantiate the claim that "these other factors could produce the added 72% of boost steadily for 1 full second".
You still provided no error analysis and actually had to correct your claim because you initially did it wrong. Now is not a good time for you to demand that you simply must be correct.False. I have sufficient error analysis, to show what is "negligible" (and so can be omitted from the math analysis) as well as "the impact of image analysis errors".
Why is that?? Why doesn't this presentation already exist?
Ball is in your court, if you want to finally be the ONE who can present a scientifically justified refutation.
As for your derogatory insinuations about me maintaining "my own conclusions of the debate" -- have you taken a look at your own 'clavius' website???
Google/YouTube/FB will all generally suppress anything I have to say -- falsely calling it misinformation.
So you are correct, "no they aren't too afraid of us independent scientists" - because our attempts to reach people are grossly suppressed by Google/YT/FB/etc. The whole system is against MLH, such that it hides the "good points" and promotes the "terrible arguments".
Based on the Strawman technique, only there's no one around telling them the good arguments.What bollocks. There are no good arguments.
THIS is the mechanism by which Apollo maintains "the faith" for the vast majority.A pathetic, inaccurate and dishonest claim. The mechanism is maintained by a measure of evidence that is orders of magnitude beyond required. I have seen Apollo enthusiasts over the years finding astonishing consistency at every level. Every time we get one of these armchair detective claims, little tidbits of information turn up that add to the vast body of evidence. I'm sure TBFDU has "briefed" you on little paths for obfuscation on a whole number of things. THIS is how people who don't understand the myriad of subjects or have any skills/intent to verify them get suckered in by the HB claims.
It is dishonest, and skewed.That's you.
A scientifically justified conclusion has been presented. Overpressure due to nozzle occlusion is a scientific fact. Ignition transients are scientific and historical fact. As soon as I started taking you through a detailed quantitative explanation, you balked and declared victory because you didn't expect to be held accountable for any part of it. We left off at setting up the initial conditions as a static pressure question involving a partially enclosed vessel into which a compressible fluid is to be injected.I didn't ask for it to be "simple", just that it "exists" - can you point to me where such a scientific article exists? Apollogists, even now, have been quoting Braeunig's vague statements as proof, even though he took it down 7 years ago. It's ALL THEY HAVE TO GO ON.
Instead you spend 4 posts trying to be mysterious in a stalling type of way - because you don't have a good answer here.
I love that JayUtah is endeavouring to get you to invest some proper research on the rocket ascent. You just don't get it.I get it quite clearly. Perhaps YOU can show me ANY science article which indicates that they can justify the added 72% of boost for the first 1 second...
Jay isn't trying to be mysterious, and he isn't stalling because he doesn't have the answer. He is testing you to see if you're capable of figuring it out, and so far you're failing.This isn't just MY question. It's a 40 year claim -- STILL UNREFUTED. Prove me wrong?
I didn't ask for it to be "simple", just that it "exists" - can you point to me where such a scientific article exists?
It's ALL THEY HAVE TO GO ON.
Just say what YOU THINK it's important, and move on to the next step.
I know fluid dynamics well enough, and if I'm deficient, I'll catch up with whatever proof you make.
So until ANYONE can do such a thing, I will ACCURATELY INDICATE within my document that this specific point stands fully Unrefuted. (no "attempts" even exist anymore)
...went off about needing a weight-and-balance chart: something utterly irrelevant to spacecraft.How do you believe they could calculate the "required RCS thrust time" without knowing the Weight/Balance/Inertia information?
How do you believe they could calculate the "required RCS thrust time" without knowing the Weight/Balance/Inertia information?
How would they be able to predict the impact of "variance in the thrust output/timing of each RCS thruster"?
This is MANDATORY BASIC CORE information they'd have to derive, share, and use for Attitude Control system.
I hinted that the initial conditions would be a static pressure problem in which a compressible fluid is introduced into a partially closed vessel. The fact that you can't even venture a guess at what any of the next steps should be in the process indicates you don't know what you're asking for. Maybe the inflow mass flow rate? Maybe the compressibility of the combustion products?Move forward more quickly. Your manner is designed to stall, and drag it out. Just make your proof (which no one else seems to be able to do) - then it can be assessed.
I get it quite clearly. Perhaps YOU can show me ANY science article which indicates that they can justify the added 72% of boost for the first 1 second...
He's stalling here for a reason.
You are safe within an echo chamber here.
You wouldn't last 2 seconds in the realm of friends that I keep.
I'd like to see that changed.
Move forward more quickly.
The direction you were headed in, has to do with "Pressure Force".
Your math needs to account other gaps in the platform... were they any? How much gap?
Where is the top level document that simply "states it" (e.g. 40 square inches of gap to allow more exhaust to escape on ignition).
#1: What makes you think that was something they calculated, or needed to calculate?#1/2: What makes you think it's not? Do you think the AGC/DAC are going to fire the thrusters without at least having a "predicted estimate" for acceleration impact?
#2: What makes you think it needed to be predicted on the fly in order to achieve attitudinal control?
#3: Or so you think, because apparently you're unable to conceive of any way to do it that transcends your basic-only concept of physics. The LM's digital autopilot (DAP) is one of the most copiously documented features, right down to the program code being available on GitHub. Not surprisingly, it doesn't work by timing the RCS firings ahead of time, or by deriving control moments from a static understanding of the LM's aggregate mass properties. You simply assume you know how it works, or should work, and imagine that everything that doesn't fit that understanding must be a cause for suspicion.
What makes you think it's not?
Do you think the AGC/DAC are going to fire the thrusters without at least having a "predicted estimate" for acceleration impact?
I said "Pressure Force" - in this case that pressure can be considered "Static pressure" because the object pushing back is the stationary platform. Is this not what you are about to "calculate?" (the collective pressure at Nozzle exit - then Newtons law indicates that equal force is pushing up on the AM. Is this NOT where you are headed with this?QuoteThe direction you were headed in, has to do with "Pressure Force".No. This has nothing to do with pressure thrust. That's a problem of static pressure at the exit plane, irrelevant to anything that might be occluding or partially occluding the engine nozzle.?..
It seems that your "knowledge" doesn't match that of the Apollo flight journal:QuoteDo you think the AGC/DAC are going to fire the thrusters without at least having a "predicted estimate" for acceleration impact?Yes. In fact, I not only think so, I know so.
I said "Pressure Force" - in this case...
...(the collective pressure at Nozzle exit - then Newtons law indicates that equal force is pushing up on the AM. Is this NOT where you are headed with this?
So let's quickly calculate this estimated "Static Pressure Force" - and lets' move on.
You'll also need to figure out the "Loss of Momentum Thrust", unless you are suggesting that it's constant and not impacted by "blocking the escape of exhaust".
When I look up the concepts of "Ignition Transient" it's a phase with LESS THRUST, not more. I think this statement might be misconstruing the phrase "over pressured Ignition"...
Braeunig (smartly) removed his prior explanation, because it was unfounded/unsubstantiated, and goes against what most other articles have said about the "net result on thrust when the rocket engine is too close to the ground". Even if Pressure Thrust increases, it is ususally MORE-THAN-OFFSET by a reduction in Momentum thrust -- resulting in LESS NET THRUST (not more).
It seems that your "knowledge" doesn't match that of the Apollo flight journal...
....In the time you spend writing, you could have just done some ballpark math to derive what you believe are the ballpark contributors that boosted acceleration. To date, after 40 years, there still exists no such presentation (that anyone here seems aware of) -- so this is exciting new ground. Perhaps we can name it after you -- the only one to be able to do this.
In the time you spend writing, you could have just done some ballpark math to derive what you believe are the ballpark contributors that boosted acceleration.
I'm just one person. My education is not your concern here.
#1: your ongoing insistence that the answer must be simple, or simply arrived at..
#2: You have made many claims to having off-the-charts intelligence...
#3: We have identified the components of thrust that likely acted over the first second of flight. I am taking them one at a time, applying a defensible estimation procedure, and engaging you along the way in order to ensure the sincerity of your interest and your eventual buy-in to the findings. If we introduce a compressible fluid at a known mass flow rate into a vessel that has an aperture of known size, what will happen?
Be as complex as you like. But in the end, it MUST ALSO satisfy Newtonian math too.
I don't think the question is fully qualified.
It seems like "existing pressure of the liquid"
"forward pressure" and "flow rate" need to be known to figure out if the liquid will either compress or expand.
You also have to know the "existing pressure inside the aperture" and what is beyond it? Was it previously closed, then opened?
Or at least make HALF your proof about the "static pressure" contributor - and present it. Then you can see if I'm keeping up or not.
#1: The ultimate answer is not required to submit to your limited understanding.#1: My "limited understanding" says "the AM's acceleration can be used to determine the NET FORCE acting on it". Do you really disagree with this?
#2: Well, we're talking about vacuum both inside and outside the vessel until the fluid begins to fill the vessel. We propose a fixed mass flow rate into the vessel, but the flow out of the vessel is determined by the fluid properties and the area of the aperture through which it flows. Since it's flowing out into space, and we're just estimating, we can assume an infinitely capacious vacuum into which the fluid flows. Ignore forward pressure for now.
My "limited understanding" says "the AM's acceleration can be used to determine the NET FORCE acting on it". Do you really disagree with this?
OK, so the fluid will expand, likely into gas form.
Quickly it should reach steady state.
Starting out, portions of this fuel will be expelled from the nozzle before it's burned.
Transient behaviors can vary, as it reaches steady state. Pressure against the front of the ignition chamber as well as the exhaust cone, is known as "Pressure Thrust"
The Momentum Thrust is calculated by "fuel flow rate * exhaust velocity"..
So what's next?
....This is the most inefficient method of working together. You ask questions, then get pedantic about terms I use. Your goal here doesn't seem to be "teaching" but to try and establish yourself as "the authority" while you point to "rookie mistakes" in my terminology to discredit me. This is your game plan, so not playing it.
This is the most inefficient method of working together. You ask questions, then get pedantic about terms I use.
This is your game plan, so not playing it.
So as it stands, even the "renown Apollo experts" are unaware of such a proof. I'll document it as such.
But in my analysis of the AM launch - I did NOT apply this concept. I kept it the SAME, 15600 Newtons starting immediately at ignition. It was you who seem to think that we're going to be able to find a way to prove that other factors could have contributed 72% more boost for a full 1 second. Despite no one else seeming to be able to do this in the last 40 years.Can you show the math you used, it was simple high school physics you said, I can't find it anywhere in your documents; only some numbers. I'm bad at physics.
Can you show the math you used, it was simple high school physics you said, I can't find it anywhere in your documents; only some numbers. I'm bad at physics.Sure, it's in this spreadsheet, that is linked from the main doc. Also the main doc links the folder where I have the Frame Caps, and KRITA projects and MP4's.
I made a claim that "all other references I could find tend to say that Thrust at Launch...
This would be similar to the AM trying to launch when almost sealed to the Lander base, which constricts exhaust outflow.
I have seen no references that talk about Thrust being MORE at Launch as a result of these types of Exhaust restrictions.
I didn't provide these references because I thought this was COMMON KNOWLEDGE, especially for someone with unassailable knowledge like you.
But in my analysis of the AM launch - I did NOT apply this concept. I kept it the SAME, 15600 Newtons starting immediately at ignition.
For example, the rigid/jerky/snapstop motion of the Apollo 11 AM before rendezvous - is extremely unrealistic, and I'd say impossible.
Old Lunar Launch thread:Requoting this - najak did the HB-two-step and claimed it was faked somehow because Star Wars was made 5yrs later.
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.
Did you actually think you were watching that rendezvous sequence at the original frame rate?29.97 FPS was the Camera spec, and also preserved in these AM Launches. Then I compared the A17 Launch Audio Recording to align the "Ignition" vs. "Pitch over" statements - so see that the time scale between audio and video were the same.... giving an independent source for "timing validation".
I say again, anyone who looks at that and simply tries to claim it is faked is delusional. When you watch this on a large screen, such as a smart TV, you can see Schmitt throwing his hammer and it glints in the sky a short while after. So yes. I am saying that in 1972 nobody could manufacture an absolutely identical set with humans on that then, in continuous footage magically became the "lunar launch set".You are free to make this claim.
29.97 FPS was the Camera spec...
If JayUTAH wants to become the FIRST to do what no others before have done - then have at it. Do your best. I'll reassess my statement after he makes his First-Ever presentation.
The camera spec for the A16/17 Launches was 29.97 FPS. I know the Rendezvous footages were 6 FPS, which enabled them to film for 15 minutes instead of 3.8 minutes.29.97 FPS was the Camera spec...You were asked about the rendezvous footage that you say is impossibly jerky. The rendezvous footage was captured on the Maurer 16 mm film camera at 6 fps. Most film-to-video transfers simply copy frame for frame and thus are sped up by a factor of approximately 5.
I know the Rendezvous footages were 6 FPS, which enabled them to film for 15 minutes instead of 3.8 minutes.
Again you're simply demanding that the answer be given according to your rules. I have explained my reasons for not doing that. I take it you have un-resigned from the thread. However we are still bogged down in remediating your befuddled understanding for how rockets work. Any answer I give, and any way I give it, will be ineffective until you can demonstrate a proper understanding of the problem.I'm not demanding anything. I'm simply documenting the "absence" of such a presentation. If you don't want to provide this "first time ever gift to the world" using your unassailable credentials, please do so. You will be debunking a currently non-debunked 40+ year MLH claim. We can give you a medal. Please do it, for the sake of humanity.
That explains why they appear jerky to you. You're seeing the action sped up.Correct, this makes them look extra jerky. But this is a DIFFERENT TOPIC. I plan to present this to you soon, within context of a dedicated thread.
OMG, he's playing HB Bingo! Where's the card, we need to get it out!That explains why they appear jerky to you. You're seeing the action sped up.Correct, this makes them look extra jerky. But this is a DIFFERENT TOPIC. I plan to present this to you soon, within context of a dedicated thread.
And you are free to run away from it with hand waving and unscientific bollocks. To claim that those two scenes are different and that one has had astronauts added is just stupid beyond words. It's exactly what HBs do, they cry fake at things that are just obviously not fake.I say again, anyone who looks at that and simply tries to claim it is faked is delusional. When you watch this on a large screen, such as a smart TV, you can see Schmitt throwing his hammer and it glints in the sky a short while after. So yes. I am saying that in 1972 nobody could manufacture an absolutely identical set with humans on that then, in continuous footage magically became the "lunar launch set".You are free to make this claim.
Likewise, I'm saying that:Instead of posturing like the character Golum in LOTR, just before he falls into the lava, why don't you drop your attitude and learn from an expert. Your whole claim of some sort of equilibrium in this series of debates is horrifically misguided. You are finding these piddly little things "wrong" with what you see and think they outweigh the vast body of evidence across every aspect of every mission.
I'm not demanding anything. I'm simply documenting the "absence" of such a presentation.
OMG, he's playing HB Bingo! Where's the card, we need to get it out!
As we can see, even a weak/invalid argument works even for smart people, when that argument helps confirm their beliefs.
@Allan Folmerson - promised me smart scientific minds here. So far, I'm not sensing it. Where are the good scientists here, who understand high school physics concepts, at minimum?
I'm not sensing any "secret wisdom" yet. Your logic skills seem insufficient for this debate.
Can you summon someone with a sufficient science background? I really feel like I came knocking at the door, and the children have answered the door. I just want to say "can you go get your dad for me?"
I really really want to talk with someone who's qualified for this debate. You simply aren't it. It's ok -- most aren't. I'm hoping that someone here is qualified. Please summon them.
Is there anyone here who think there is any integrity in defending this "spun circles" explanation? We can put an "I suck at physics" dunce cap on them.
The smartest guys will avoid me, because they don't want to fight this losing battle. They can't defend Apollo Breaking Physics.
Again, it seems I'm dealing with people here who do not understand basic simple high school physics. Do I really need to make a physics-proof for you, for you to understand this? This is basic high school physics concept. Please learn this math/physics, before commenting on physics topics.
@Allen F - you promised me "smart scientific minds" here. Please summon them, ASAP.
I suspect the smartest minds are staying out of this, because it's a losing battle for them. Apollo is "breaking physics" here, which is impossible.
Did you ever take Physics in school? What was your grade? You seem to have no grasp of the basics.
@Kiwi -- please save these guys. Can you say something intelligent here? I didn't come here to berate people for being bad at science -- I came here for intelligent debate -- and so far finding no one with an adequate skillset in physics or logic. I want a smart debate with competent science minds.
So as you advised, Mr. Scientist, it's time to change your hypothesis/theory, to match the actual evidence.
Correct, this makes them look extra jerky.
But this is a DIFFERENT TOPIC.
It was "off topic" and as with other things "brought up that are off topic" you shut them down, and push them to an appropriate thread. This is a BIG presentation, and I can understand why you'd not want to provide a separate thread for discussing it.QuoteBut this is a DIFFERENT TOPIC.Sure, but you brought it up in this thread.
It was "off topic" and as with other things "brought up that are off topic" you shut them down, and push them to an appropriate thread. This is a BIG presentation, and I can understand why you'd not want to provide a separate thread for discussing it.
This MLH claim is 40+ years old, and has NEVER been answered - in ANY particular way. That is what I'm documenting.I'm not demanding anything. I'm simply documenting the "absence" of such a presentation.You're "documenting" the purported absence of a response in the particular way you insist the question be answered...
You brought it up in this thread. It's being discussed in this thread. No one but you is declaring it off-topic. No one is trying to move it to a separate thread.I'm the OP. This is off-topic. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH "LUNAR LAUNCHES - TOO FAST".
You brought it up in this thread. It's being discussed in this thread. No one but you is declaring it off-topic. No one is trying to move it to a separate thread.I'm the OP. This is off-topic. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH "LUNAR LAUNCHES - TOO FAST".
You apparently find this topic very interesting... so why would you be so opposed (scared?) to allow a new thread to cover it?
This MLH claim is 40+ years old, and has NEVER been answered - in ANY particular way.
That is what I'm documenting.
Please give the world this gift, that ONLY YOU can do -- apparently. .. so you claim.
My thesis in this Thread is complete - and remains UNCHALLENGED...
You apparently find this topic very interesting... so why would you be so opposed (scared?) to allow a new thread to cover it?
Yes, he did think he was watching it at the correct frame rate.Did you actually think you were watching that rendezvous sequence at the original frame rate?29.97 FPS was the Camera spec, and also preserved in these AM Launches.
So yes, we have good reason to believe that those who transferred this to the video we see today did so "reliably" and correctly maintaining the original timing.
No.
You were asked about the rendezvous footage that you say is impossibly jerky. The rendezvous footage was captured on the Maurer 16 mm film camera at 6 fps. Most film-to-video transfers simply copy frame for frame and thus are sped up by a factor of approximately 5.
I know the Rendezvous footages were 6 FPS, which enabled them to film for 15 minutes instead of 3.8 minutes.
That explains why they appear jerky to you. You're seeing the action sped up.
That explains why they appear jerky to you. You're seeing the action sped up.Correct, this makes them look extra jerky. But this is a DIFFERENT TOPIC. I plan to present this to you soon, within context of a dedicated thread.
Because there is no need to do so. You made the claims in this thread, and they can continue to be discussed in this thread. You claim to be able to discern and render judgment on the smoothness of original motion from a film record captured at 6 fps. You seem reluctant to explain how you are able to do that.Not reluctant. It's just off-topic.
You're not the moderator. I am. I'm allowing it because it has already been discussed in this thread, including BY YOU the OP.I've answered it now as "I misspoke, I don't have a conclusion about the smoothness of this motion."
Errm yes he did suddenly know. Went off to google it and all is well.I verified the source 29.97 FPS DURING my analysis. 30 FPS for A16/17 and 15 FPS for A15. Then for A17 verified the time scaling by comparing it against the associated audio clip. I wasn't the first to do this -- I simply redid what I've seen others do -- to make sure their presentation was accurate.
So here's my answer for now -- "I don't know what I was talking about, I misspoke."
Then that should have been your answer when it was first brought up, not a procedural tap dance to avoid having to say that.I concede your point.
"I don't know what I was talking about, I misspoke."
However if we start a new thread, I can look into it, to address this ENTIRELY SEPARATE TOPIC.
In your new thread, will you provide examples of these 16mm film cameras that shoot Ektachrome at 29.97 fps? I've never seen one.29.97 FPS SSTV transmission was used for AM Launch filming - 15, 16, 17.
Not sure how you came to understand that I was confused between the FPS rates for the two completely different events.
Because the claim that the rendezvous footage looks "jerky" has been made many times, always by people who didn't realize the footage was taken at 6 fps and is being viewed at a higher (standard) frame rate. And because when asked about the frame rate, you started talking about the irrelevant 29.97 fps frame rate of the liftoff video. You pretty much stated your confusion out loud. Since you started waffling once you were told the actual frame rate, it's reasonable to conclude you made the same mistake as everyone else who has made the claim you made about the rendezvous footage; then you wisely chose to retract the claim.Wrong. Although my original smart buddies (engineering managers at this time, one a huge NASA nerd with the Leggos, shirts, posters) with whom I started this journey BEGAN with this rendezvous footage - and my first impression WAS as you said ... He corrected me RIGHT OFF THE BAT - "that's 6 FPS x 4!". So that was corrected over 8 weeks ago, within my first week of obsession.
Yes, he did think he was watching it at the correct frame rate.Did you actually think you were watching that rendezvous sequence at the original frame rate?29.97 FPS was the Camera spec, and also preserved in these AM Launches.
So yes, we have good reason to believe that those who transferred this to the video we see today did so "reliably" and correctly maintaining the original timing.No.
You were asked about the rendezvous footage that you say is impossibly jerky. The rendezvous footage was captured on the Maurer 16 mm film camera at 6 fps. Most film-to-video transfers simply copy frame for frame and thus are sped up by a factor of approximately 5.I know the Rendezvous footages were 6 FPS, which enabled them to film for 15 minutes instead of 3.8 minutes.
That explains why they appear jerky to you. You're seeing the action sped up.That explains why they appear jerky to you. You're seeing the action sped up.Correct, this makes them look extra jerky. But this is a DIFFERENT TOPIC. I plan to present this to you soon, within context of a dedicated thread.
Errm yes he did suddenly know. Went off to google it and all is well.
Oh, so turns out he knew all along and was just messing with us.Because the claim that the rendezvous footage looks "jerky" has been made many times, always by people who didn't realize the footage was taken at 6 fps and is being viewed at a higher (standard) frame rate. And because when asked about the frame rate, you started talking about the irrelevant 29.97 fps frame rate of the liftoff video. You pretty much stated your confusion out loud. Since you started waffling once you were told the actual frame rate, it's reasonable to conclude you made the same mistake as everyone else who has made the claim you made about the rendezvous footage; then you wisely chose to retract the claim.Wrong. Although my original smart buddies (engineering managers at this time, one a huge NASA nerd with the Leggos, shirts, posters) with whom I started this journey BEGAN with this rendezvous footage - and my first impression WAS as you said ... He corrected me RIGHT OFF THE BAT - "that's 6 FPS x 4!". So that was corrected over 8 weeks ago, within my first week of obsession.
Oh, so turns out he knew all along and was just messing with us.[/size]Not "messing with you", I just made a statement based upon an incomplete pre-analysis. It was a premature statement using a "1 msec fidelity requirement" estimate without appropriate backing. I do not YET have sufficient grounds for making this statement. The 6 FPS vs 24 FPS wasn't part of this; that was just someone's assumption that I was unaware.
Not "messing with you", I just made a statement based upon an incomplete pre-analysis. It was a premature statement using a "1 msec fidelity requirement" estimate without appropriate backing. I do not YET have sufficient grounds for making this statement. The 6 FPS vs 24 FPS wasn't part of this; that was just someone's assumption that I was unaware.Yet that doesn't fit with what you subsequently claimed.
Are you a nice person in real life? Has life treated you poorly? Does insulting me give you a dopamine boost? Adrenaline? Do you hate me?Yes, no, no, no and no. If you think that I am insulting you, what does that make your 2 dozen or so arrival statements - crowing about how nobody knew what they were talking about.
Thank you for the correction on Apollo 16. Do you have a reference for this?
Your understanding of "math/tolerances" is just enough to sounds smart while being entirely wrong on your results. Or, giving you benefit of the doubt, you were just rushed, and so moving forward, we'll see how well you respond to discussions of this analysis in more detail.
The 500' vs 300' range changes the "angular error" from this "ignored factor" from 0.14 pixels to 0.3 pixels max. This makes very little impact on overall analysis. It remains "mostly negligible" and I excluded it for simplicity, not because I cannot "do the math and correct for it".
The height of the Rover/camera -- also plays a small role here, so we can be off by a considerable amount on estimates, and still have almost no impact on the final analysis results (because if there is angular skew here, then it impacts BOTH the AM Height calculation and the Rise calculation by nearly the same amount!). This has LESS impact than does my wrong estimation for Apollo 16 camera distance, which was also negligible.
Your claim of "distortion" (vertical vs. horizontal) - is a good concern that I have not yet accounted for. Because we're dealing with known geometries here, we can calculate the amount of distortion going on here -- and I will add this to the analysis. And then will modify the results accordingly.
Yes, no, no, no, and DEFINITELY NO -- I LOVE people who disagree with me. It's who I prefer to hang with.QuoteAre you a nice person in real life? Has life treated you poorly? Does insulting me give you a dopamine boost? Adrenaline? Do you hate me?Yes, no, no, no and no. If you think that I am insulting you, what does that make your 2 dozen or so arrival statements - crowing about how nobody knew what they were talking about.
Are you a nice person in real life? Has life treated you poorly? Does insulting everyone give you a dopamine boost? Adrenaline? Do you hate people who disagree with you?
...I'm pasting your whole note to the bottom of the current doc for reference. When I'm done, we can compare our analyses.
Give me a few days to catch up on these revisions.
Not "messing with you", I just made a statement based upon an incomplete pre-analysis. It was a premature statement using a "1 msec fidelity requirement" estimate without appropriate backing. I do not YET have sufficient grounds for making this statement. The 6 FPS vs 24 FPS wasn't part of this; that was just someone's assumption that I was unaware.
Are you a nice person in real life? Has life treated you poorly? Does insulting me give you a dopamine boost? Adrenaline? Do you hate me?
But I did show up with a lack of patience from a mismatch of expectations. If I could do this over - I'd be nicer from the onset. So please accept my apologies now.
Basically "100% integrity" or this kind of crap:As we can see, even a weak/invalid argument works even for smart people, when that argument helps confirm their beliefs.
@Allan Folmerson - promised me smart scientific minds here. So far, I'm not sensing it. Where are the good scientists here, who understand high school physics concepts, at minimum?I'm not sensing any "secret wisdom" yet. Your logic skills seem insufficient for this debate.Can you summon someone with a sufficient science background? I really feel like I came knocking at the door, and the children have answered the door. I just want to say "can you go get your dad for me?"
I really really want to talk with someone who's qualified for this debate. You simply aren't it. It's ok -- most aren't. I'm hoping that someone here is qualified. Please summon them.Is there anyone here who think there is any integrity in defending this "spun circles" explanation? We can put an "I suck at physics" dunce cap on them.
The smartest guys will avoid me, because they don't want to fight this losing battle. They can't defend Apollo Breaking Physics.Again, it seems I'm dealing with people here who do not understand basic simple high school physics. Do I really need to make a physics-proof for you, for you to understand this? This is basic high school physics concept. Please learn this math/physics, before commenting on physics topics.
@Allen F - you promised me "smart scientific minds" here. Please summon them, ASAP.
I suspect the smartest minds are staying out of this, because it's a losing battle for them. Apollo is "breaking physics" here, which is impossible.Did you ever take Physics in school? What was your grade? You seem to have no grasp of the basics.
@Kiwi -- please save these guys. Can you say something intelligent here? I didn't come here to berate people for being bad at science -- I came here for intelligent debate -- and so far finding no one with an adequate skillset in physics or logic. I want a smart debate with competent science minds.So as you advised, Mr. Scientist, it's time to change your hypothesis/theory, to match the actual evidence.
Be sure to incorporate the errors you made interpreting the sources you cited regarding thrust, and the ongoing misleading use of graphs you grabbed from sources whose context doesn't support your use.For these references on Solid-Fuel rocketry, if I keep them, I will note the appropriate disclaimer. If you can provide more applicable references to replace them - I'll use those instead.
The Dunning-Kruger is strong in najak!.. but not you or anyone else here... just me. Got it. I'm the witch.
For these references on Solid-Fuel rocketry, if I keep them, I will note the appropriate disclaimer. If you can provide more applicable references to replace them - I'll use those instead.
Does it make more sense now why I'm taking the thrust estimates step by step?The ABSENCE of such an application of rocket science to debunk this "Launches to Fast" claim, is good enough for me.
Why is it always someone else's job to do the homework to correct your ignorance?I don't claim my ignorance here, but you do. So it's your claim that I'm ignorant - so support it, so that I can assess your claim and evidence, then adjust accordingly.
The ABSENCE of such an application of rocket science to debunk this "Launches to Fast" claim, is good enough for me.
Does this make more sense now on why I don't want to go down some long path, with the notion that I'm going to do "groundbreaking work in Rocket science"?
I don't claim my ignorance here, but you do. So it's your claim that I'm ignorant - so support it, so that I can assess your claim and evidence, then adjust accordingly.
You posted your sources. I explained why they don't say what you think they said. I posted additional sources that contradicted your claims. You haven't addressed any of that.Please show me the sources that you claim I have missed. I'll be sure to record them.
Please show me the sources that you claim I have missed. I'll be sure to record them.
#1: ...the LM doesn't do what you think it should do.#1: LM acceleration indicates 27,000 kN NET upward force, steadily for 1 second. We currently have NO THEORIES that explain this.
#2: You're not doing groundbreaking work. You're doing remedial work. You refuse to learn what's necessary to understand why your claim fails, so no one should care what you think.
#3: But who cares what's good enough for you? You're just one person.
I don't care about your document. I asked you what sources you consulted to support your belief that thrust would always be diminished at launch. You posted three elementary websites and a Google AI reference. I responded to that in depth. You lately asked me on what basis I concluded that your claims were made in ignorance. That is the basis.So you didn't provide me any sources? Above you said that you did.
LM acceleration indicates 27,000 kN NET upward force, steadily for 1 second. We currently have NO THEORIES that explain this.
So prove this point for "the many".
But I believe you simply "can't" which is why you "won't" -- the same as all others before you.
So you didn't provide me any sources? Above you said that you did.
I already provided the sources. What you do with them is your business. So far you don't even seem to realize they exist.You provided me with no such sources is my current claim. You made the claim of other sources - but then refuse to substantiate.
This is a 40+ year claim, current UNDEBUNKED. This is for the "many" - I'm sure all of the Apollogists here would like to be able to honestly declare "ALL MLH claims have been Debunked", when clearly, here is one that has NOT.QuoteSo prove this point for "the many".You don't represent "the many." And no, you're not going to succeed at baiting me into your standard procedure: set a bunch of heinous tasks for everyone else...
This is for the "many"
It doesn't take a genius to see the real reason for dodging this.
You provided me with no such sources is my current claim. You made the claim of other sources - but then refuse to substantiate.
This was YOUR ARGUMENT. "It's not just YOU, but many". Now you disagree... so that you can recuse yourself from this embarrassment.This is for the "many"No.
najak, why haven't you figured out yet that Jay IS NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU A SHORT ANSWER.I HAVE FIGURED THIS OUT.
You haven't figured out squat. I wouldn't pretend to post for Jay, he knows more about Apollo than I. And it would be presumptuous.najak, why haven't you figured out yet that Jay IS NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU A SHORT ANSWER.I HAVE FIGURED THIS OUT.
Why haven't you figured out his REAL reason for recusing himself from creating this FIRST EVER Apollogy?
This was YOUR ARGUMENT.
...this embarrassment.
This is a 40+ year old claim, that REMAINS NON-DEBUNKED.
Why haven't you figured out his REAL reason for recusing himself from creating this FIRST EVER Apollogy?
This is a 40+ year old claim, that REMAINS NON-DEBUNKED. The Apollogy that "ALL hoax claims have been debunked" is FALSE. This one remains undebunked.
I'd like to hear a poll of those reading to see who still thinks that YOU are the one who can finally debunk this 40+ year old MLH claim.
This is a 40+ year old claim, that REMAINS NON-DEBUNKED. The Apollogy that "ALL hoax claims have been debunked" is FALSE. This one remains undebunked.
I'd like to hear a poll of those reading to see who still thinks that YOU are the one who can finally debunk this 40+ year old MLH claim.
In the last day, above, you wrote:This was YOUR ARGUMENT.Show me where I made any such argument.
"But who cares what's good enough for you? You're just one person. ...that would apply to the whole world.... so why does it hold for everyone else?"
It remains UNDEBUNKED.
If you COULD debunk it, you WOULD.
According to the definition of Debunk: "expose the falseness or hollowness of "It remains UNDEBUNKED.According to whom?
Where is this presentation that "exposes the falseness" of this claim?
After the "apology" najak still demonstrates this wilful ignorance and misguided arrogance.Where is this presentation that "exposes the falseness" of this claim?
In this thread, until you finally revealed that your objections to it were based on lessons for kids instead of actual science.
Fix that.
Personally I would jump at the chance of a 1 on 1 tutorial.SWEET! Do it, do it. Change the world. Become the first ever to present a valid DEBUNK of this MLH claim.
SWEET! Do it, do it. Change the world. Become the first ever to present a valid DEBUNK of this MLH claim.
But don't get your hopes up -- Jay is likely bluffing. I've seen it too many times before.
Would a "valid debunk of this MLH claim" result in you or any other hoax believer transitioning to a supporter of NASA and the Apollo missions? Or would you simply move on to the next best conspiracy claim while remaining obstinate?I could ask you the same thing. If Jay fails to be able to debunk this acceleration, as has everyone else - will you become a MLH believer? Apollo cannot Break Physics.
"I'll consider the alleged acceleration anomaly to be sufficiently explained when _________________, at which time I will ___________ a moon landing ______________ ".
Perhaps you'll contradict my expectations.
I could ask you the same thing. If Jay fails to be able to debunk this acceleration, as has everyone else - will you become a MLH believer? Apollo cannot Break Physics.
In the end, it's a gray scale. Every bit of evidence sways us (or not -- as it seems for many). It's not binary; at least not for me. My % conviction would change...
And I would LOVE to change sides. The world needs more of this.
For me, Physics/Science is the most compelling arguments.
I trust science/physics that can be witnessed and measured.
When I see someone saying "this is real" then shows me something that breaks physics -- I place a lot of weight on that breakage.
For me, Physics/Science is the most compelling arguments.
"The maximum allowable combustion chamber pressure during start transients was 177 percent of the nominal combustion-chamber pressure." C.E. Humphries, R.E. Taylor. Apollo Experience Report - Ascent Propulsion System, NASA Technical Note TN D-7082 (Houston, TX: 1973), p. 2.It seems to me that a 177 percent of nominal thrust would generally provide for accelerations beyond the normal thrust conditions. This alone presents najak with an answer why the accelerations appeared to be too high, because they were higher.
It seems to me that a 177 percent of nominal thrust would generally provide for accelerations beyond the normal thrust conditions. This alone presents najak with an answer why the accelerations appeared to be too high, because they were higher.
But don't get your hopes up -- Jay is likely bluffing. I've seen it too many times before.Ahaaa - BINGO! He's "new" to the forum but "knows" all about JayUtah.
Ok, I guess I stepped too far, but as you stated there will be an increased thrust for a few seconds, but not necessarily 177%, something lower but above nominal thrust.Thank you for correcting yourself. Unlike others here, I won't "rub your nose in it" - because I view this debate as "white boarding" - where corrected mistakes are simply forgotten.
The 177%, AFAIK, has more to do with "max stress" before the hardware might break... and ensuring that transients don't deliver any "breaking impulses."
These impulses are very short (like a hammer blow) - and since "time is nearly zero" - the impact they have on acceleration is also mostly negligible...
Typically when "exhaust is blocked" causing the chamber to build up "pressure" it constricts the outflow of exhaust - and thus decreases "Momentum Thrust" -- which is the "good thrust" from which of the thrust is typically derived.
Even if there is some sort of "POP" at the start...
By how much, and why? Isn't it true that you would simply continue down the path you're on now, without so much as a pause for self-reflection?NOPE. If Jay can provide a valid proof for the 1-full-second of added thrust, I'll be floored. Will give me GREAT PAUSE -- and gleefully so. When I change positions on something, I do so PROUDLY -- because as I said, "people changing sides/positions based on new info" is FAR TOO RARE. I would be honored and glad to be able to do this -- but I need Justification.
....You won't make this proof, because you CAN'T. It's not MY CLAIM -- but a 40+ year famous MLH Claim that remains UNDEBUNKED.
But they are asking you to do this for them - they WANT TO SEE IT.. The WHOLE WORLD WANTS TO SEE IT..
If you think so, then you had better address those corrections I reminded you of today.So I went back, pasted your "wisdom" into the final pages of the Doc - and answered them there. Read the doc for the full response:
First one says "NO", 2nd says "YES"... alongside spouting some stuff that is general "true/sourced" -- but this Yes/No answer/conclusion --- totally unreliable.
So do not EVER rely on Google AI for "conclusions" -- but only "clues" about what to google next in order to find the true sources it's using.
Typically when "exhaust is blocked" causing the chamber to build up "pressure" it constricts the outflow of exhaust - and thus decreases "Momentum Thrust" -- which is the "good thrust" from which [most] of the thrust is typically derived.
Answer: "In a vacuum, pressure thrust does not contribute to a rocket's thrust at all, as there is no ambient pressure to create a pressure differential; therefore, the thrust of a rocket in a vacuum is entirely due to the momentum of the expelled exhaust gases which is achieved through the high velocity of the ejected gas, not pressure differences."
===
This didn't sound right to me...
Answer: "Yes, for rockets, the pressure thrust is significantly greater in a vacuum compared to an atmosphere because there is no ambient pressure to oppose the expanding exhaust gases, allowing for more efficient expulsion and therefore greater thrust; essentially, a rocket works better in space due to the lack of air resistance."
So I went back, pasted your "wisdom" into the final pages of the Doc - and answered them there. Read the doc for the full response:
The Law of Conservation of Energy also applies...
So which claim are you suggesting:
1. The engine only operates at 60% efficiency in steady state?
Where are you getting this figure?My first answer was Draft #1. Now I've made a 2nd draft with more clarity, as my 1st draft didn't clarify "heat" produced in combustion - a necessary waste.
Apollo Ascent Engine converts about 60% of the combustion energy into Kinetic energy, and the other 40% mostly into Heat.
So which claim are you suggesting:
The engine can convert the other 40% of heat energy into Kinetic energy...
...
For reference, @LunarOrbit and @Mag40, and anyone who wants to know the truth about Google AI related to Science, as I was searching for articles regarding "Pressure Thrust in vacuum vs. atmosphere"... I simply asked the same type of question in two different browsers, and got the EXACT OPPOSITE answer from Google AI. So when I say "never use Google AI as a reference" -it's because it's stupid. It only provides you "some clues", but the conclusions can be completely wrong.There's a reason we have the phrase "it's not rocket science". It is extremely complex. As JayUtah has told you, neither of those answers are correct. But your extremely bad analogous comparison needs quantifying. On the one hand I asked AI to help you to understand your appalling physics failures, where you reconciled soil rising with a jumper to some suction-cup/vacuum explanation and then when realising how dumb that was you moved on to a force that isn't even a propelling one. AI is quite able to gleam how physics works in such simple circumstances - you though, not so much.
So do not EVER rely on Google AI for "conclusions" -- but only "clues" about what to google next in order to find the true sources it's using.
But I could be way off, I'm not a rocket engineer after all, just some thoughts.Your analogy involved biology -- living creatures and complex types of physics which can involve elastic rebounding (spring-like actions) that transfer the energy from the fall back into a rise.
Not all thrust is from the kinetic energy of the exhaust. If you had paid attention to anything I've said in the past 24 hours, you'd realize this.Yet ALL THRUST in this context must be derived from Fuel Combustion. And since we're not just talking about a 1-time fluke Impulse, because it's a full 1-second of steady double-acceleration, we're talking about SERIOUS ENERGY CREATION.
At minimum, Jay is claiming he can to "use complex logic to explain how this context Breaks the Law of Conservation of Energy".
There's a reason we have the phrase "it's not rocket science". It is extremely complex. As JayUtah has told you, neither of those answers are correct. But your extremely bad analogous comparison needs quantifying. On the one hand I asked AI to help you to understand your appalling physics failures, where you reconciled soil rising with a jumper to some suction-cup/vacuum explanation and then when realising how dumb that was you moved on to a force that isn't even a propelling one. AI is quite able to gleam how physics works in such simple circumstances - you though, not so much.Let's make this clear. Even for what you THINK are simple situations, such as "pushing a cart", there is a MUCH MORE COMPLEX MOLECULAR SCIENCE beneath it all. We are Trillions of wonderful atom and molecules. When you THINK you are simply touching the cart - it's truly a VERY COMPLEX reaction between the molecules/atoms in your hand, and those of the cart. Trillions of interactions are happening with this simple push.
Quit behaving like some prima-donna and take your rocket science lessons.
We can add strawman fallacies to the other ones you keep employing.Are you suggesting that my claim is "strawman"?
Yet ALL THRUST in this context must be derived from Fuel Combustion.
If you had paid more attention in high school physics, you'd realize that what you are claiming to be able to do - isn't possible (i.e. creating new energy).
You won't debunk this, because you CAN'T. I don't believe you are uneducated enough to truly believe that you can, which implies bad things about your honesty/integrity/motivations.
We can add strawman fallacies to the other ones you keep employing.Are you suggesting that my claim is "strawman"?
In my world, Jay appears to be what we call a "poser"...
Even the mighty Jay cannot teach someone how to Create New Energy.
You are stating that JayUtah is making a claim that he is not.Are you saying that Jay was not claiming he can explain-away this +72% acceleration-force with rocket science beyond my comprehension? (i.e. DEBUNK my claim about "Acceleration Too Fast")
Are you saying that Jay was not claiming he can explain-away this +72% acceleration-force with rocket science beyond my comprehension?
If he understood high school physics, he'd have realized from the onset, that this isn't solvable. No amount of "thrust/combustion science" can "create New Energy", which is what this amounts to.
Want to talk energy? Okay, write out your energy balance equations and let's get started.Sure, let's talk energy. The first step of good engineering is to view the forest before the trees. View it from 50,000 feet first.
Suddenly this time-waster "knows" things. Is he trying to get banned so he doesn't have to face his failures?But don't get your hopes up -- Jay is likely bluffing. I've seen it too many times before.Ahaaa - BINGO! He's "new" to the forum but "knows" all about JayUtah.
Sure, let's talk energy. The first step of good engineering is to view the forest before the trees.
No, the first step is to write the energy balance equations and assure ourselves that all the proper terms are there. You're just repeating your vague handwaving.No, the FIRST STEP in engineering is to ensure you are solving the right problem.
No, the FIRST STEP in engineering is to ensure you are solving the right problem.
What makes you think this is the right problem to solve, in attempting to DEBUNK (or address) this 40+ year famous MLH claim?
Suddenly this time-waster "knows" things. Is he trying to get banned so he doesn't have to face his failures?Getting banned is the last thing I want here. I've giving an honest assessment about the foundational laws of physics, and demonstrating how Jay is implying we can break (or ignore) these laws and basics, because "complexity" - which seems to be the foundation of his disguise.
...demonstrating how Jay is implying we can break (or ignore) these laws and basics, because "complexity" - which seems to be the foundation of his disguise.
Because every problem that involves conservation of energy begins with the energy balance equation, to phrase the problem as a formulated conservation. Why is this not obvious to someone who claims his passion is Newtonian physics?Good engineers know how to "start simple" before delving into the weeds. We already know the nominal energy output of this combustion. And it's deficient. It's not the path that will solve this problem. Simple unbreakable logic reveals this, but this eludes you entirely.
Why spend time trying to prove you can break simple physics?...demonstrating how Jay is implying we can break (or ignore) these laws and basics, because "complexity" - which seems to be the foundation of his disguise.
I make no such claim, implication, or insinuation. Your failure to understand the rebuttal is a direct result of your misunderstanding of elements you apparently do not wish to consider. You allude to simple principles of elementary physics, but you ignore all that contributes to the values represented in those relationships.
Good engineers know how to "start simple" before delving into the weeds.
We already know the nominal energy output of this combustion. And it's deficient.
It's not the path that will solve this problem.
You won't, because if you did, it would unsurprisingly reveal what high school physics students already know - "you cannot create new energy" (in this isolated closed-system context).
Good engineers know how to "start simple" before delving into the weeds.That discards you then.
We already know the nominal energy output of this combustion. And it's deficient. It's not the path that will solve this problem. Simple unbreakable logic reveals this, but this eludes you entirely.We know that you are flannelling. "Nominal" energy you say?
Is there anyone here who does NOT want to see you make this proof? It's not just me, but many.I want you to quit being a coward and answer the question(s). I am happy that you are being held to account for ignorant assertions before you get educated.
Why spend time trying to prove you can break simple physics?
So quit stalling and do it. You think this is the answer -- so prove it.
This isn't MY CLAIM - it's 40+ years old.
We already know the nominal energy output of this combustion. And it's deficient. It's not the path that will solve this problem. Simple unbreakable logic reveals this, but this eludes you entirely.WE know that you aren't paying attention. Do you even know what nominal means?
Here's a start. It doesn't directly address thrust, but it does address the proxy value of chamber pressure. "The maximum allowable combustion chamber pressure during start transients was 177 percent of the nominal combustion-chamber pressure." C.E. Humphries, R.E. Taylor. Apollo Experience Report - Ascent Propulsion System, NASA Technical Note TN D-7082 (Houston, TX: 1973), p. 2. You maintain that thrust is uniformly lower during ignition transients. But from your own sources: "Single engines or different engines of the same design also exhibit variations of thrust input, and consequently have significant differences in thrust-buildup curves. As discussed in Section 2.1.4, the usual procedure is to conduct many static firings to establish the statistical nature of the ignition thrust input." Transient Loads from Thrust Excitation. NASA Space Vehicle Design Criteria, NASA SP-8030, p. 2. The reference says, "Data for obtaining dynamic input curves of thrust buildup and thrust decay should be obtained directly from static firings of the actual engines, with care taken to correct the data for test-stand motion." (internal references omitted) Id. p. 15. There's no one-size-fits-all concept of ignition transient.
Could it possibly be that you've already written out the energy balance equation and figured out where all that "extra" energy is coming from?If that were the case, why would I be daring you to simply show it?
WE know that you aren't paying attention. Do you even know what nominal means?I use it to mean "rated power", "steady state power", when it's running efficiently in a vacuum. I haven't seen any "ignition curves" yet that demonstrate the engine producing MORE thrust than the "rated" (aka nominal) thrust. Ignition is usually LESS efficient, not MORE.... from what I've seen. If Jay knows otherwise and isn't sharing his sources -- that's on him.
Here's some top-level math:Says who?
The predicted Energy output for this rocket engine while still launching (moving slowly) is about 15,600 N * 0.7 meters == 11,000 Joules.OK. Let me "dazzle" you. Your top-level math multiplied two different values for nominal and your claim of observed but.... not by the same duration. Should you wish to compare the two you should multiply the second value by the same duration.
The energy we witness being output is instead: 26,800 N * 1.8 meters == 48,000 Joules (4x+ what is predicted, also predictable by the speed being 2X as much, which means the kinetic energy of the AM after 1 second is > 4X the predicted)
You clearly have something in mind that would explain how this rocket engine produced more than QUADRUPLE the predicted energy output for this first full second.
OK. Let me "dazzle" you. Your top-level math multiplied two different values for nominal and your claim of observed but.... not by the same duration. Should you wish to compare the two you should multiply the second value by the same duration.You've missed the fundamental equation here for translating force into energy -- it's multiplied by DISTANCE not time.
You've missed the fundamental equation here for translating force into energy -- it's multiplied by DISTANCE not time.Dazzle everyone by showing how you deduced the times.
https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/beginners-guide-to-aeronautics/work/ (https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/beginners-guide-to-aeronautics/work/)
Don't fret. Even Jay seems to be struggling with these simpler concepts.Sheer arrogance from the guy who thought a "suction-cup effect" drew sand up from the surface during a jump.
Can we confirm that you have no photogrammetry experience? Your estimate based on "computing" distances and time without any rectification being shown.I *do* have some professional photogrammetry experience. In one of our Military contracts, of which I was the lead, we were tasked with translating sets of Satellite imagery into 3D models of trees and buildings. Our input was a "set of images" taken by aircraft or satellite, from known coordinates, and the Time Of Day (allowing us to calculate the angle of incidence of the sun). It isn't too hard.
Sheer arrogance from the guy who thought a "suction-cup effect" drew sand up from the surface during a jump.The "suction cup effect" was a hypothesis based upon a REAL phenomenon. In a 14 PSI atmosphere, it plays a role only to the effect that the dust compaction has a form of air-tightness to it.
Why spend time trying to prove you can break simple physics?...demonstrating how Jay is implying we can break (or ignore) these laws and basics, because "complexity" - which seems to be the foundation of his disguise.
I make no such claim, implication, or insinuation. Your failure to understand the rebuttal is a direct result of your misunderstanding of elements you apparently do not wish to consider. You allude to simple principles of elementary physics, but you ignore all that contributes to the values represented in those relationships.
If in billiards a ball hits a ball with perfect energy transference, but the 2nd ball takes off with 2X the energy of the first... and all you know is "this was filmed" and "it breaks physics"... you don't say "let's delve into what was going on at the molecular level of pool balls", despite this being a 40+ year old issue, that no one before you has been able to DEBUNK. You are simply wasting time -- or in your case "stalling".
So quit stalling and do it. You think this is the answer -- so prove it. This isn't MY CLAIM - it's 40+ years old. And until you DEBUNK THIS -- Apollogists cannot HONESTLY claim to have Debunked all MLH claims.
Quit stalling and just do it already.
Now I suggest you stop whining and stamping you feet, and get to work completing the tasks Jay is asking you to. Its clear there will be no further progress until you do.I can say with certainty that your assessment of my physics and math skills is inaccurate.
The ball is in YOUR court.
And your "bone-headed" final conclusion is a force that is an attractive one and not a propelling one. Even IF the whole thing was dragged up by the boot, it's at the same gravitational freefall. However it isn't being dragged, the parabola you turned and fled from, is nowhere near the bottom of his boots, but between them.Sheer arrogance from the guy who thought a "suction-cup effect" drew sand up from the surface during a jump.The "suction cup effect" was a hypothesis based upon a REAL phenomenon. In a 14 PSI atmosphere, it plays a role only to the effect that the dust compaction has a form of air-tightness to it.
If you place a flat lid on top of water.... then lift it really fast -- the water comes up with it.... this is due, in part, to the vacuum seal that is being broken. With tightly packed tiny particles, the same form of "Vacuum seal" could also exist.
Just because I dropped this hypothesis in favor of "adhesion" doesn't mean it's a bone-headed unfounded hypothesis. It just means I think it's better/easier to call it "adhesion", which is caused by a COLLECTION of various factors... The forces that "hold it to together" we call "adhesion" -- which can include "surface tension" (14 PSI pressing from one side, vs. lower air pressure beneath the surface). "Surface Tension" is the main (and only?) cause of the Suction Cup effect.
You are the one who is stalling. You're in Our House now - you're not going to be allowed to come in and start dictating how things are done.Sorry, I accidentally bumped your post off of the current page.
Jay is asking you to complete certain tasks so that he can correctly gauge what your level of understanding is. Its become pretty clear so far that your level of physics understanding is barely that of an average schoolboy, your maths skills are average at best, and that you do not have any real idea how a rocket engine works beyond "the fuel goes in here, and the thrust comes out here" . And no matter what you claim about being here to learn, it fairly obvious you have come here with your own preconceived conclusions, and are totally resistant to learning anything that might trouble those conclusions.
Its hard enough teaching a child who thinks they already know everything; its even harder when that child stamps their feet and throws a tantrum when teachers tell them things they don't want to hear.
Now I suggest you stop whining and stamping you feet, and get to work completing the tasks Jay is asking you to. Its clear there will be no further progress until you do.
The ball is in YOUR court.
#1: .."bone-headed" final conclusion is a force that is an attractive one and not a propelling one.My debate time with you is a lot like time spent with an old friend of mine, who didn't do so well in school, but he was convinced that I was boneheaded for telling him my reasons for not accepting the Bible as God's One True Word. No matter what I said, I was "boneheaded". It was fruitless.
#2: Even IF the whole thing was dragged up by the boot, it's at the same gravitational freefall. However it isn't being dragged,
#3: the parabola you turned and fled from, is nowhere near the bottom of his boots, but between them.
#1: .."bone-headed" final conclusion is a force that is an attractive one and not a propelling one.My debate time with you is a lot like time spent with an old friend of mine, who didn't do so well in school, but he was convinced that I was boneheaded for telling him my reasons for not accepting the Bible as God's One True Word. No matter what I said, I was "boneheaded". It was fruitless.
#2: Even IF the whole thing was dragged up by the boot, it's at the same gravitational freefall. However it isn't being dragged,
#3: the parabola you turned and fled from, is nowhere near the bottom of his boots, but between them.
#1: Only on earth can the "suction" force add to the "adhesion"... Suction vs. propulsion produces the same result - in cases like this, is easier on the brain to simply deal with suction/adhesion as a "pulling force"...
#2: On earth, where astronaut is being partially lifted by a cable, while the dust is not -- Therefore, on earth, the dust is trying to fall away from the boot the WHOLE TIME -- but if adhesion holds it tight, this force is "pulling it" along AFTER Launch - -therefore not a plain/vanilla parabola.
#3: For John Young's case, IF we assume that the video you have is legit (given that it does NOT match that of the one NASA links to) -- we HAVE OBVIOUS PROOF that at the START of the jump, there is a thick cloud of dust that is LEADING THE BOOT -- it was LAUNCHED FASTER.... so it would be expected to rise more. The other factor at work, if on earth, is atmosphere... perhaps the reason that it's so faint (and NOT VISIBLE AT ALL ON THE NASA LINK) -- is that it's just the lighter/smaller dust particles!... this too can only happen on Earth.
===
Seriously, please find a better way to spend your time. There is no fruit to be born here between us - at least not in the form of debate.
Keep these discussions in the appropriate thread, please.Noted. I would love that to happen but unfortunately he fled the thread.
SpaceX is more exciting for me -- because I am among those who realize that Artemis will be truly our FIRST time to make this great/daunting achievement of landing humans on the moon.
The energy balance equation simple says - "starting energy equates to final energy". This must always hold true.
And since we KNOW the output/efficiency of the rocket in steady state...
The predicted Energy output for this rocket engine while still launching (moving slowly) is about 15,600 N * 0.7 meters == 11,000 Joules.
You clearly have something in mind that would explain how this rocket engine produced more than QUADRUPLE the predicted energy output for this first full second.
So let's hear it. Dazzle us.
Do you think SpaceX will claim to be the first to land humans on the Moon when time comes?Yes. GenX/Y/Z won't want to dirty their hands with propagating a Lie, especially when it erroneously detracts from the magnitude of the accomplishment.
Thank you.Do you think SpaceX will claim to be the first to land humans on the Moon when time comes?Yes.
Yes. GenX/Y/Z won't want to dirty their hands with propagating a Lie, especially when it erroneously detracts from the magnitude of the accomplishment.
For reference, @LunarOrbit and @Mag40, and anyone who wants to know the truth about Google AI related to Science, as I was searching for articles regarding "Pressure Thrust in vacuum vs. atmosphere"... I simply asked the same type of question in two different browsers, and got the EXACT OPPOSITE answer from Google AI. So when I say "never use Google AI as a reference" -it's because it's stupid. It only provides you "some clues", but the conclusions can be completely wrong.
By how much, and why? Isn't it true that you would simply continue down the path you're on now, without so much as a pause for self-reflection?NOPE. If Jay can provide a valid proof for the 1-full-second of added thrust, I'll be floored. Will give me GREAT PAUSE -- and gleefully so. When I change positions on something, I do so PROUDLY
They see how religion is believed, yet if you simply read the bible, without bias, it provides you with all the evidence you need that Yahweh is a evil sadistic narcissistic hypocrite. Yet 2.5 Billion people don't see it that way. What does this tell them? Creating a false belief is easy so long as people WANT to believe it, and you present it confidently.Yes. GenX/Y/Z won't want to dirty their hands with propagating a Lie, especially when it erroneously detracts from the magnitude of the accomplishment.The consequences for being caught in such a huge lie would be embarrassing and damaging to the reputation of the United States. Why would they try to lie about something if they were 100% guaranteed to get caught?
If there was some obstacle preventing NASA from going to the Moon it would have been easier to just come right out and admit it then.
I'm not saying Google AI answers should be trusted 100% all of the time. But simply dismissing them without explaining why you think they are wrong is no different than me dismissing everything you say simply because it comes from a source I don't trust (ie. Jarrah White).If you ONLY have Google AI as your source - it's not better than just saying "I think XYZ with NO SUPPORT." It does not deserve an answer. Google AI can only be Supplemental in nature, or mostly is just good for "giving you clues on what to search for" -- because the phrases it uses -- comes from other sources -- but you need to find those sources to see if AI interpreted it correctly.
If someone provides you with an answer to one of your questions, and you don't trust their source, that's fine. But you don't get to declare them wrong without explaining why.
I don't believe you.Fine, don't. Are you saying that "Broken Physics" would influence your beliefs? Or are you just a black pot, hoping I'm a black kettle so that you aren't alone in being this way?
Thank you.I find your terseness, mysterious and alluring. Now I want to know what you are really thinking. Teach me teacher. :)
They see how religion is believed, yet if you simply read the bible, without bias, it provides you with all the evidence you need that Yahweh is a evil sadistic narcissistic hypocrite. Yet 2.5 Billion people don't see it that way. What does this tell them? Creating a false belief is easy so long as people WANT to believe it, and you present it confidently.Yes. GenX/Y/Z won't want to dirty their hands with propagating a Lie, especially when it erroneously detracts from the magnitude of the accomplishment.The consequences for being caught in such a huge lie would be embarrassing and damaging to the reputation of the United States. Why would they try to lie about something if they were 100% guaranteed to get caught?
If there was some obstacle preventing NASA from going to the Moon it would have been easier to just come right out and admit it then.
And in the end, they have a "valid excuse" - they were "trying to win a Cold War" - to "deceive the Russians"
#1: This isn't a 2000 year old story that can't be verified. The Apollo decent modules are still on the Moon, or they aren't. Other countries, including those that are hostile towards the United States, can and have verified Apollo. There is no way to maintain the lie, therefore it makes no logical sense to even try.I have a lot to say, but not on this very specific thread, where we are awaiting Jay to "debunk" the thesis I've made here. We need a new thread, devoted to "why would we have lied?", and "how could we", and "Russia"... each deserves it's own thread - because there are many theses surrounding each separate sub-topic.
#2: If there was some sort of obstacle that makes going to the Moon impossible, the Russians would have encountered it, too. At that point they would have known the United States was lying. The US knew Russia was trying to get to the Moon too, and likely would have discovered the same obstacle they did. Therefore, there would be no reason to lie about it.
I have a lot to say, but not on this very specific thread, where we are awaiting Jay to "debunk" the thesis I've made here.
"Basic physics" is not just throwing out words like "conservation of energy" as if they were magic spells.Conservation of Energy is not "a word" -- it's a basic LAW - that cannot be broken.
"Basic physics" is not just throwing out words like "conservation of energy" as if they were magic spells. I gave you hint to get you started. Do you need another?And "Rocket Science" is not just "words that equate to MAGIC" giving you the right to dismiss the fundamental/foundational laws of Basic Physics.
{EC} = {EM} + {Heat*}
Heat* = Heat + {other stuff not mechanical}
Rocket efficiency is a ratio of:
Efficiency = EM / EC, which for this AM is about 60%.
This means that (approximately at steady state):
EM = 0.6 * EC and
Heat* = 0.4 EC
I am making the following simplifying assumption, between Launch vs. Steady State.
* * *
Heat* is about the same.
The "combustion formula" terms you are wanting to "delve into" simply "DROP OUT" of the solution.
...Your whole dance here can be summarized by this analogy.
I've just shown how "what you want to focus on -- DROPS OUT" --- makes no difference to the final solution.
I believe you won't prove otherwise, because you CAN'T.
Your whole dance here can be summarized by this analogy.
You are trying to insert irrelevant complexity where none is needed.
I've seen this tactic before, and it most often conducted by people who are trying to hide the simple truth.
#1: Heat has to live in something. In rocketry, what does the heat live in that you get from this equation?
#2: No, they don't. They're still there. You just believe you can ignore them. What if you couldn't?
#3: You keep limiting your examination of the problem to steady state, but this is not steady state. This is what happens before the rocket reaches steady state and ideal conditions.
Or perhaps we're just getting you one step closer to figuring it out on your own.40+ years, this famous MLH claim has stood, NON-DEBUNKED.
I think you DON'T because you CAN'T. You can take me down these "windy paths of complexity" but none will enable you to disprove the fundamental laws of Physics.Your bolded and repetitive posturing is getting real tedious now. Answer his questions and get educated. You are the one stalling here and have nothing to lose!
So -- if you think you really CAN - prove it. You'll be the FIRST EVER... and be famous.
Your bolded and repetitive posturing is getting real tedious now. Answer his questions and get educated. You are the one stalling here and have nothing to lose!I know his tactic, as we just saw again -- I answer, and he responds with a dozen pedantic questions, trying to paint the picture (which all here will believe) that he's smarter than me... and therefore must be right. He'll continue to do this, until I rightfully wear out - while his followers think this equates to victory.
The exhaust, mostly.
For a time, it'll also be heating up the hardware (chamber, nozzle) - until those reach steady state.
Show that we can't.
Pre-Steady-State, from what I've seen, is WORSE efficiency than Steady-State...
So make this proof 1 step at a time.
But as a good engineer would, START by showing the top level approach that you plan to take here.
Instead of saying "there are other things" - great say what they are.
I know his tactic, as we just saw again -- I answer, and he responds with a dozen pedantic questions, trying to paint the picture (which all here will believe) that he's smarter than me...
#1: That's how most engines work.
#2: The contribution of the pressure term increases in vacuum.
#3: What if the mechanical arrangement of rocket and surroundings briefly created a kind of cylinder with the spacecraft as a kind of piston?
Then let's proceed with your proof of how this fuel combustion can induce Piston-like thrust for the rocket... (or however you want to term it)Piston like? Exhaust bell is within an enclosed area. The thrust of the rocket is impacting the upper deck of the descent stage and the enclosed area for the bell. Newton's third law.
Piston like? Exhaust bell is within an enclosed area. The thrust of the rocket is impacting the upper deck of the descent stage and the enclosed area for the bell. Newton's third law.Well Pistons are enclosed inside of a tube, so not "the same" in that way... but the analogy was drawn above to combustion engines. So am just going with this analogy.. I'm not nick-picking it. Does it seem like I am?
Well Pistons are enclosed inside of a tube, so not "the same" in that way... but the analogy was drawn above to combustion engines. So am just going with this analogy.. I'm not nick-picking it. Does it seem like I am?I don't want to interrupt the flow of this thread. Piston "like" - the piston being the exhaust bell inside its enclosed area. Newton's 3rd law being not just what happens with the rocket but what expanding into an enclosed place does.
I don't want to interrupt the flow of this thread. Piston "like" - the piston being the exhaust bell inside its enclosed area. Newton's 3rd law being not just what happens with the rocket but what expanding into an enclosed place does.It sounds like we're all in agreement here about Pistons and Newtons 3rd law, and that a similar effect would also apply to the rocket bell, in the case of "obstructing the nozzle exit" (either partial or complete).
...@JayUTAH: I'm trying to find the "energy released per mass unit" for Aerozine-50. I'm seeing a Google AI answer, but without any source links that confirm it. Where do you find this reference/info?
That any assistance?Thanks for trying. I found that one, and the word Joule/MJ/KJ exists nowhere.. Lots of equations but no quantities that I could find.
I know his tactic, as we just saw again -- I answer, and he responds with a dozen pedantic questions, trying to paint the picture (which all here will believe) that he's smarter than me...
...My preliminary conclusion here is that for this context, "Conservation of Energy Law" is not easy to prove because there is an IMMENSE amount of energy in Combustion, and at Launch, < 0.2% of this energy is being transferred into the AM mechanical energy, we'd just need to increase this to 0.3% -- so there's simply far too much Combustion energy here to be concerned with "Did we create any new energy?"
Sadly, you do not appear to be learning anything!!Socratic method has it's place. This is not one of them, at least not for "pure Socratic method" - because I'd learn a hell of a lot faster from him just stating what he knows and thinks. We could be through it in MINUTES, instead of DAYS.
...My learning here, no thanks to Jay (as he could have simply said this in 5 seconds and it would have stuck) is that when a rocket engine is claimed to be about 60% efficient... this means "steady state" and indicates the amount of "Mechanical energy transferred into BOTH the Rocket and the Fuel"... not just the rocket.
My preliminary conclusion here is that for this context, "Conservation of Energy Law" is not easy to prove because there is an IMMENSE amount of energy in Combustion, and at Launch, < 0.2% of this energy is being transferred into the AM mechanical energy, we'd just need to increase this to 0.3% ..... blah blah blah.
My preliminary conclusion here is that for this context, "Conservation of Energy Law" is not easy to prove because there is an IMMENSE amount of energy in Combustion, and at Launch, < 0.2% of this energy is being transferred into the AM mechanical energy, we'd just need to increase this to 0.3% ..... blah blah blah.
What exactly are you hoping to accomplish with all this pearl-clutching and gesticulation? Is your best-case scenario a "draw", or have you dreamt up some scenario in which you score an imagined win against the scary, wretched hive of Apollo supporters?
Describe what a victory looks like to you. Will a Rhode Island-sized gaggle of fence-sitters be converted to Moon Landing Flerfs, or will the ratio remain as-is? I'm curious why someone like you expends so much energy and time in the weeds defending your wrongthink.
He's just playing pigeon chess!
What exactly are you hoping to accomplish with all this pearl-clutching and gesticulation? Is your best-case scenario a "draw", or have you dreamt up some scenario in which you score an imagined win against the scary, wretched hive of Apollo supporters?My recent rants above: I'm identifying the unproductive nature of what Jay is calling "teaching", but rather is designed to produce "reasons to discredit me later (or now)". So rather than having real discussions, the focus will be on "but look at a how wrong you were" - which is non-productive to truth - and only productive for posturing later. So when it happens, I'll have called it out ahead of time.
Describe what a victory looks like to you. Will a Rhode Island-sized gaggle of fence-sitters be converted to Moon Landing Flerfs, or will the ratio remain as-is? I'm curious why someone like you expends so much energy and time in the weeds defending your wrongthink.
It's feeling more and more like he's just trying to get a free education at Jay's expense.I'm dealing in non-debunked MLH claims here. This "Lunar Launch too Fast" remains non-debunked... If Jay doesn't want to debunk it, it remains undebunked.
He's just playing pigeon chess!Are you a good aeronautical engineer? Your maturity level here doesn't reflect it. Are you young? old? Single? Grumpy? Or you just like sports - and smack talk?
The only thing being debunked here are your credentials as a "good Rocket scientist".
You seem to want to "hide out in complexity" where your true aptitude for good Rocket Science, can remain conceal, mired in mystery..
I know he knows the Rocket Science concepts better - so share them.If you spent less time doing that above and just took the steps suggested, we could all be out of here for Christmas.
Are you a good aeronautical engineer? Your maturity level here doesn't reflect it. Are you young? old? Single? Grumpy? Or you just like sports - and smack talk?
I'm here with genuine interest, wanting to get to the bottom of the MLH claims for which I genuinely think are "non-debunked". If you are as smart as you think/say - you should have realized this by now.
If you spent less time doing that above and just took the steps suggested, we could all be out of here for Christmas.You are being nice now. It looks good on you.
You are being nice now. It looks good on you.Don't do that, it always comes across as patronising. I have no interest in your asides. What doesn't look good on you is your failure to resolve threads. You know which one!
If Jay had corrected my premise regarding the "Law of Conservation of Energy"Cobblers. You got the chance and the motivation to work it out for yourself and that is the kind of learning that sticks.
Jay is dragging this out - it takes a lot longer for him to try and question me to death -- than it would to "just provide this FIRST EVER proof" that is lacking in the world.YOU are dragging it out. Where's the energy balance?
Or it remains undebunked, as it's always been.I haven't yet had the time or inclination to check your document assessments, but did you really use Youtube with god knows what generation of media it is using? Apollo 15 is a narrow view. Apollo 16 has debris everywhere and Apollo 17 has a steady zoom out a split second before launch, your level of accuracy is questionable. I'm sure there is a surge at launch and I've already said what it could relate to. You didn't seen to notice.
#1: Cobblers. You got the chance and the motivation to work it out for yourself and that is the kind of learning that sticks.#1: Nope. I spent hours learning something that should have taken seconds, simply because I didn't think I was "missing something easy but vital". It was a case of: "Oh ooops -- most of the mechanical energy from combustion at launch goes into the Exhaust, not the AM." This was not about "teaching" but "posturing".
#2: YOU are dragging it out. Where's the energy balance?
If Jay had corrected my premise regarding the "Law of Conservation of Energy"...Or, putting the accountability where it actually belongs, if you hadn't dug in your heels and insisted that you were right despite being told that you were likely making mistakes, maybe you would have more quickly answered Jay's questions and helped you both figure out where your errors were and more efficiently get to the information you're looking for.
Oh really? If you're just noting the alleged* absence of the proof then why did you spend pages belligerently insisting that such a proof is impossible and that Jay is an imposter?
This is work for an experienced professional. I'm only here to note the absence of such a proof, even after 40+ years that this claim has stood.
It's not even google, it's right here, 10 years ago:Oh really? If you're just noting the alleged* absence of the proof then why did you spend pages belligerently insisting that such a proof is impossible and that Jay is an imposter?
This is work for an experienced professional. I'm only here to note the absence of such a proof, even after 40+ years that this claim has stood.
*How certain are you there is no proof? I don't believe you've interrogated your own assumptions about the framework of the problem, and how far beyond Google have you searched for an answer?*
It's not even google, it's right here, 10 years ago:Oh really? If you're just noting the alleged* absence of the proof then why did you spend pages belligerently insisting that such a proof is impossible and that Jay is an imposter?
This is work for an experienced professional. I'm only here to note the absence of such a proof, even after 40+ years that this claim has stood.
*How certain are you there is no proof? I don't believe you've interrogated your own assumptions about the framework of the problem, and how far beyond Google have you searched for an answer?*
https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=655.0
Specifically, in this post by Bob. BThat is an UN-supported claim. No math, no analysis...
https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=655.msg37834#msg37834
Oh really? If you're just noting the alleged* absence of the proof then why did you spend pages belligerently insisting that such a proof is impossible and that Jay is an imposter?"Professional" - This was a loaded statement. Jay can prove he's professional, by being the first to produce an Apollogist explanation for the actual 1-second steady acceleration of the AM.
*How certain are you there is no proof? I don't believe you've interrogated your own assumptions about the framework of the problem, and how far beyond Google have you searched for an answer?*
Socratic method is best employed AFTER someone has demonstrated the inability to learn a concept. It is NOT APPROPRIATE for use in conveying simple theories or pointing out "you missed something there" (which would have been immediately well-received).As a professional educator, I am qualified to assess that pedagogy should be added to the increasingly long list of subjects in which you have no idea what you're talking about.
He should just "say what he knows" - because, by FAR, this would be the fastest way forward.After having the egregious error in your assumptions confirmed, I would think you would learn a bit of humility and start to approach Jay's questions with a bit more compliance. Apparently your pride is more important to you than truth.
But, I believe "He won't, because he Can't". I'd love to see him prove me wrong.
#1: As a professional educator, I am qualified to assess that pedagogy should be added to the increasingly long list of subjects in which you have no idea what you're talking about.
#2: After having the egregious error in your assumptions confirmed, I would think you would learn a bit of humility and start to approach Jay's questions with a bit more compliance. Apparently your pride is more important to you than truth.
I'm getting pissy, because Jay is choosing to "posture/stall/hide" rather than simply be productive and make this proof that he says is doable. I'm on his side here...
You're accusing genuine American heroes, patriots, pilots and engineers of being despicable liars. You are definitely NOT on the same side as Jay, or anyone else here who acknowledges the monumental accomplishments of NASA's Apollo program.Even if we didn't land men on the moon, they are all Patriots, carrying the burden of secrecy about a celebrated public narrative. This was an operation run by the DoD, with the "excuse" of "fooling the Russians"... even if their excuse was disingenuous. The Astronauts are all Patriotic military men, except one - and he's a patriot too. If they had spilled-the-beans, it would have been Treason. We "won a war" without firing a shot. Kudos.
You diminish those great men and women with your narcissistic claptrap.
Even if we didn't land men on the moon, they are all Patriots, carrying the burden of secrecy about a celebrated public narrative. This was an operation run by the DoD, with the "excuse" of "fooling the Russians"... even if their excuse was disingenuous. The Astronauts are all Patriotic military men, except one - and he's a patriot too. If they had spilled-the-beans, it would have been Treason. We "won a war" without firing a shot. Kudos.
To be sure they went, I'm looking at the most compelling proofs that they didn't so that I can weigh them, see if they stand. I won't find many good answers inside MLH forums, only here where there is extreme resistance.
Why don't you try looking at the whole thing and understanding it? The amount of stuff published about Apollo (and the rest of the space program, which you simply cannot ignore for the context it provides) is vast. Most Apollo deniers in my experience don't look at it because it is also complex and they lack the ability to understand it, or the willingness to try. A few questions or things you can't understand in there don't invalidate the rest. Your use of the word 'compelling' is informative, since it implies a preference for arguments that appeal to your preference rather than an objective analysis.The administration style of this forum doesn't bode well for the Apollogist cause, as it appears they find the need to wield admin powers to enforce bias. I have certain things that are big in my mind, which I am not even allowed to discuss on their own threads, where they'd belong.
Not sure if you are Christian or Muslim.
Neither, and discussion of religion is not even remotely applicable to discussion of an historical and technological event such as landing men on the Moon.It is because if you talk to Christians, they might even tell you that Jesus is more historically factual than Apollo.
Neither, and discussion of religion is not even remotely applicable to discussion of an historical and technological event such as landing men on the Moon.It is because if you talk to Christians, they might even tell you that Jesus is more historically factual than Apollo.
I'm getting pissy...
#1: If a student of yours is trying to make a proof, but is simply omitting a simple, but crucial concept -- do you deliberately let them go on and on for a long time - THEN tell them about it, after they've made a fool of themselves? Or do you simply "offer the correction as you notice it" so that they can benefit from the "2nd set of eyes" much more quickly, and start being more productive quicker? I'd like to know which type of teacher you are.I don't believe you're qualified to assess my pedagogy, but regardless, it depends on the circumstances. If I'm confident the student understand the material and made a small error, I would correct them in the moment. If I'm less confident in their comprehension, I might let them work through it for two principle reasons. First, it gives them the opportunity to discover their own error, which is a good opportunity for me to reassess their understanding of the concept in general. Second, it gives me an opportunity to try to understand their error in the full context of the problem so I can try to better understand their thought process and help them most efficiently by targeting their specific needs once we get to breaking down their work. Making mistakes doesn't make someone look foolish, by the way, it's how we learn. What makes us look foolish is how we present our work and how we handle being corrected.
#2: I admitted I was wrong, based on MY FINDINGS; I corrected myself, and was pissed because I'm certain that Jay saw my error a day earlier. His motives are not well-meaning "teaching". He's trying to win a debate here, not solve a problem.I agree that Jay may have seen that specific error much earlier, but you make so many that he may legitimately not have been certain which error or errors you were making. I don't believe your assessments of his motives are accurate. My read on the whole exchange is that Jay is actually interested in showing you how to find the answer rather than just providing it.
I'm trying to solve a problem. Figure out if there is ANY VIABLE SCIENTIFIC explanation for the AM accelerations being 2.5X too fast.What is your objection to a "Teacher-student" relationship with someone who is a qualified expert in their field and you are a self-proclaimed rookie? An intellectually honest person would be grateful that someone is investing time and energy to help them understand this complex material.
I'm getting pissy, because Jay is choosing to "posture/stall/hide" rather than simply be productive and make this proof that he says is doable. I'm on his side here... but I'm not going to play this game of "Teacher-student" especially where his goals with me are non-genuine -- his primary motive is NOT my education.
Didn't you already acknowledge there is a lot more energy in the system than you had anticipated? Why are you right back to where you started? And why won't you just go through the steps with Jay and see what's waiting for you at the end? The only person I see stalling is you.I'm WELL AHEAD of Jay right now -- awaiting his "next steps". He started out asking "what is the aperture of the exit". Now that it's established that approaching this from a "Conservation of Energy" standpoint is silly - we have to go down the path of "fluid dynamics" -- in this case -- "Pressure vs Resistance vs Air Flow".
There isn't that much work to be done here. The generalized (and generally accurate enough) model for the fluid dynamics involved in "static pressure buildup" are fairly simple. Simple equations can produce "accurate enough conclusions".I'm getting pissy...Maybe you should take a break then.
Even if we didn't land men on the moon, they are all Patriots
I have several big issues to settle here. I've gotten through 4 so far.
#1: But still liars according to you, right? And therefore lesser life forms.#1: Nope. They were most definitely Patriots, and I believe the Lie was a burden they bore (part gain, but with sacrifice). I don't proclaim that "life would have been better had they just admitted defeat." Better is better, and I don't regret how things went.
#2: How much has your acknowledgement of the historical reality of Apollo increased as a result?
@JayUTAH - it's been 3 days since your last response. Can you chime in with a few words?
Paying attention when you're given information isn't really your thing, is it?I've got a lot coming at me.. What did I miss?
@JayUTAH - it's been 3 days since your last response. Can you chime in with a few words?@JayUTAH - please give us some sort of update or progress report? I'd like to know if you are working on this at all? ETA?
@JayUTAH - it's been 3 days since your last response. Can you chime in with a few words?
I'm back from having spent three days unexpectedly in Seattle on business. Give me a bit to catch up on the thread, which—after some skimming—appears to be about ninety percent arrogant posturing from you and about ten percent you continuing to attempt to learn science.Welcome back. Looking forward to your insight.
Welcome back. Looking forward to your insight.
@JayUTAH:
@Jay - you could have
Jay isn't...
The proof that Jay needs to make now...
If Jay had...
Jay is...
But if Jay will do it...
@JayUTAH - so do you
Jay can prove he's professional, by...
I'm getting pissy, because Jay...
@JayUTAH - Yoohoo. Coming back any time soon?
Jay hasn't solved...
* * *
If this is not the case, Jay should...
Or if not -- Jay, the expert -- should...
* * *
I'm awaiting next Steps from Jay...
@JayUTAH - yoohoo.
@JayUTAH - it's been 3 days since your last response.
@JayUTAH - please give us some sort of update or progress report? I'd like to know if you are working on this at all? ETA?
Welcome back. Looking forward to your insight.
I know his tactic, as we just saw again -- I answer, and he responds with a dozen pedantic questions, trying to paint the picture (which all here will believe) that he's smarter than me... and therefore must be right.
* * *
It hasn't been debunked, because it cannot be debunked. And Jay either knows this (and is deceiving you) or he's not as smart as you all think he is.
Jay isn't dumb enough to be this "bad of a teacher"... it's a clear posturing maneuver.
I'm identifying the unproductive nature of what Jay is calling "teaching", but rather is designed to produce "reasons to discredit me later (or now)". So rather than having real discussions, the focus will be on "but look at a how wrong you were" - which is non-productive to truth - and only productive for posturing later.
Are you a good aeronautical engineer? Your maturity level here doesn't reflect it. Are you young? old? Single? Grumpy? Or you just like sports - and smack talk?
Jay is dragging this out - it takes a lot longer for him to try and question me to death -- than it would to "just provide this FIRST EVER proof" that is lacking in the world.
I do believe [Jay]'s got some professional experience. But my life experience is that he's giving off the signs of being one who seeks to elevate themself above what is actually realistic.
When Jay said knowing the "Inertial Moment" of the LM/AM is "utterly irrelevant" - he exposed IGNORANCE. He later called it an "optimization" -- no, it's "Crucial" - therefore Apollo cares VERY DEEPLY about this calculation, to generate the best-possible "initial guess" in an environment where "high speed feedback loops are slower and problematic".
This made HIM look bad. It's why he doesn't answer questions...
But, I believe "He won't, because he Can't". I'd love to see him prove me wrong.
Now say you find 10 major flaws in the Bible - what seem to be huge to you. But you aren't allowed to raise these issues among the Christians.
Welcome back. Looking forward to your insight.
My "tactic" is called the Socratic method of teaching. I can just tell you what's what, but history has shown that you will just sidestep it, ignore it, and move on to the next knee-jerk claim. Instead I'm helping you teach yourself.
@Jay - you could have easily said this in 5 seconds, and I would have learned it just as well with 100x less time. I suspect your goal is to "school me", not "teach me".
If Jay had corrected my premise regarding the "Law of Conservation of Energy", I would have conceded on that instantly...
I spent hours learning something that should have taken seconds, simply because I didn't think I was "missing something easy but vital".
Ever since I realized my stupid "Conservation of Energy" wildcard was a dud, I've spent time going down the more complex path (would have done this sooner with a small correction).
Or if not -- Jay, the expert -- should simply say "you ALSO need to add in this other factor/concept"... and I will.
It's feeling more and more like he's just trying to get a free education at Jay's expense.
If the guy had any integrity he'd provide his address so Jay could invoice him for tutoring services.
I am a teacher, and one of the challenges of the profession is identifying exactly where in a complex process a student is having a misunderstanding. There are a lot of different ways to reach even the same wrong answer sometimes, and finding the exact issue is an important step toward providing the targeted instruction that will lead the student to the most thorough understanding.
Socratic method is best employed AFTER someone has demonstrated the inability to learn a concept. It is NOT APPROPRIATE for use in conveying simple theories or pointing out "you missed something there" (which would have been immediately well-received). So using it as your FIRST METHOD - is simply for "avoidance and posturing".
If a student of yours is trying to make a proof, but is simply omitting a simple, but crucial concept -- do you deliberately let them go on and on for a long time - THEN tell them about it, after they've made a fool of themselves? Or do you simply "offer the correction as you notice it" so that they can benefit from the "2nd set of eyes" much more quickly, and start being more productive quicker? I'd like to know which type of teacher you are.
I corrected myself, and was pissed because I'm certain that Jay saw my error a day earlier. His motives are not well-meaning "teaching". He's trying to win a debate here, not solve a problem.
So which claim are you suggesting:
1. The engine only operates at 60% efficiency in steady state?
2. Or that we can Break the Law of Conservation of Energy
I made a claim that "all other references I could find tend to say that Thrust at Launch is LOWER due to the exhaust being constrained...
First, it gives them the opportunity to discover their own error, which is a good opportunity for me to reassess their understanding of the concept in general. Second, it gives me an opportunity to try to understand their error in the full context of the problem so I can try to better understand their thought process and help them most efficiently by targeting their specific needs once we get to breaking down their work.
I agree that Jay may have seen that specific error much earlier, but you make so many that he may legitimately not have been certain which error or errors you were making. I don't believe your assessments of his motives are accurate. My read on the whole exchange is that Jay is actually interested in showing you how to find the answer rather than just providing it.
What is your objection to a "Teacher-student" relationship with someone who is a qualified expert in their field and you are a self-proclaimed rookie? An intellectually honest person would be grateful that someone is investing time and energy to help them understand this complex material.
I care very little for the "rocket science" I'm learning now as it presents no gains for me in my life.
* * *
If you think I want to Learn Rocket Science at the lowest levels, you haven't been reading my posts.
I'm far less enthralled with "the Moon and Space" than I am with "the manner in which govt's establish control over the people, manufacture narratives, and make use of propaganda, legally, for these purposes -- simply by tying it to a war effort or national threat".
Physics is important to me, and I want to discuss it, to completion (where both sides have said their piece, leaving not much else to be said).
I'd think the professionals could simply plug this into a 3D simulation, and have it spit out the predicted results -- Fluid Dynamics Rocket engine CAD, package of some sort.
Something like this:
https://info.thermoanalytics.com/rapid-flow-cfd-software (https://info.thermoanalytics.com/rapid-flow-cfd-software)
@JayUTAH - so do you have some professional Fluid Dynamic software to help model this?
I don't know what principles to apply for the various factors and concerns at play here, to do any meaningful calculations.
The basics of fluid dynamics are fairly easy...
This is work for an experienced professional.
najak, I'm curious how you became a CT? What initiated it in your past? Have you ever considered that you are wrong? Or has your hard headed conviction that "I'm right no matter what anyone shows me" bars any one from showing proofs that you are wrong, but it does not matter to you, because "you are right".bknight - thank you for asking..
.... much good stuff...Thank you for the detailed response.
Who knows, maybe I'm wrong. If so, I'll proudly admit it
"If we really went to the moon, then anyone who says otherwise is an idiot" - Bart SibrelI couldn't find this quote from him, only 2nd-hand sources. So I'll withhold judging Bart for yet another thing, until I know he said it, and the context. I already hold a general disdain for Bart.
6x in a row -- no problem.I corrected you on this point once before, and here you are repeating it again. They didn't land six times "in a row". They landed twice in a row, and then 4 times in a row. You don't get to dismiss Apollo 13's existence just because it doesn't fit your narrative.
I corrected you on this point once before, and here you are repeating it again. They didn't land six times "in a row". They landed twice in a row, and then 4 times in a row. You don't get to dismiss Apollo 13's existence just because it doesn't fit your narrative.Thanks. My "6x in a row no issue" is an abbreviation. Thanks for keeping me honest on it.
I expect to not see this mischaracterization from you again.
Did they ever lose comm's? Tip over? Miss their mark by more than a few miles? (all 3 failures were experienced by Odysseus in 2024)
Thanks. My "6x in a row no issue" is an abbreviation. Thanks for keeping me honest on it.
I will try to upgrade it to "6x in a row, no significant issues"What qualifies you to determine if the issues were significant, and what criteria are you using for your definition? Near aborts (a dangerous option) on A11, A14, and A16 would seem to be significant to me. Is there something you know that I don't that trivializes those issues?
-- because I'm talking here about the "attempted landing/ascents"... Apollo 13 didn't "attempt" this part. When I speak of this, I am specifically referring to the Landing/Ascent attempts. Apollo 13 didn't attempt it. So I'm not talking about "6 full missions in a row" just "6 successful attempts at landing/ascent".I can understand and accept that defense of 6 in a row in this context.
I say "Significant", because they "hit their marks" (which I think they did within a few miles EVERY TIME) -- which is a big deal given that they started from a speed of almost 1 mile/second horizontally.So another example of you dismissing the efforts and competence of a large number of people based on your personal incredulity.
They also performed all 6 rendezvous without notable hiccup. Right?I would have to look to be certain, but going with this assumption, why would you expect problems with orbital rendezvous? They'd been doing it successfully since the Gemini program. A9 and A10 also proved the rendezvous techniques in both Earth and Lunar orbit.
1967 - They couldn't even talk between 3 local buildings. 1969 - it was all magically better. Right on Time to make JFK a prophet.Why do you think a communication issue in a machine that had design problems is some kind of barrier to all of the other facets of equipment needed? Why do you find it so hard to imagine that the deaths of 3 of the astronauts didn't motivate people to do better? This isn't the great point you think it is.
If it's not in a hoax video that he's deemed credible, apparently based on what sounds right to his ear rather than any responsible vetting, then it is certain he is unfamiliar with it.
Did they ever lose comm's? Tip over? Miss their mark by more than a few miles? (all 3 failures were experienced by Odysseus in 2024)
Yes, yes and yes.
Not very good at the old research bit, are you?
If it's not in a hoax video that he's deemed credible, apparently based on what sounds right to his ear rather than any responsible vetting, then it is certain he is unfamiliar with it.
Thank you for the detailed response.You're welcome. The bottom line is that there's no useful shortcut to answering these questions, or even to arrive at a ballpark estimate. NASA cared only that the ascent motor wouldn't explode, and their primary method of determining that it wouldn't was empirical measurement and testing. That's the easiest way when you have the actual hardware on hand. They didn't care about exceeding rated thrust at launch. They only levied the standard requirement that 90% thrust occur within a certain time.
Moving forward, lets Keep things simple where feasible, until there is need for delving into complexity. And start with indicating your "overall approach", rather than just asking me a question about a specific step, without telling me the "general approach". It helps a student if they know "the approach" you have in mind.When I and others tried that, you mounted a bunch of knee-jerk objections from positions of ignorance that you expected to sidestep the necessary complexity that you didn't understand and decide the problem all on its own. So no. I will not change my approach and I have told you why.
I wish from the start, you had simply said:I'm not interested in your ability to imagine an alternate universe where you have been a diligent and honest student and where you understood the foundational concepts ab initio.
Here are two things I'm asking from you:
1. A50 combustion energy... should be well-known... I just can't find it anywhere. But Hydrazine is easy to find, 19 MJ/kg.
| Reactant | Molecular Weight (g mol-1) | ΔfH°gas (kJ mol-1) | ΔfH°liquid (kJ mol-1) | ||
| hydrazine N2H4 | 32.0452 | 95.35 | 50.63 | ||
| UDMH (CH3)2N2H2 | 60.0983 | 83.3 ± 3.6 | 48.3 ± 3.6 | ||
| (di)nitrogen tetroxide N204 | 92.0110 | 9.08 | -19.56 |
2. Confirmation of my method for estimating MAX average Nozzle pressure as a function of "lift-off distance" assuming a max sustained-Chamber pressure of 130 psia.
Did they ever lose comm's? Tip over? Miss their mark by more than a few miles? (all 3 failures were experienced by Odysseus in 2024)1. Was not Apollo 11's 4 mile miss the only one who missed by more than a mile?
Yes, yes and yes.
#1: ....Are the reactions 100% successful? Is there such a thing as a combustion efficiency coefficient?#1: Aerozine50 + N2O4 already has a known rating for expected combustion energy per kg. If you know this answer - just answer it. It'll take you 5 seconds, and I'll trust you.
#2: Short answer: no. But I don't have time today to dive into it. We'll do that right and make sure you get credit for the parts you got right.
Did they ever lose comm's? Tip over? Miss their mark by more than a few miles? (all 3 failures were experienced by Odysseus in 2024)1. Was not Apollo 11's 4 mile miss the only one who missed by more than a mile?
Yes, yes and yes.
2. When did they lose comms during landing? Odysseus lost it for 10 minutes+, and was unable to tell it's own horizontal speed!... ever wonder why?
3. Tip OVER? Which ones tipped over?
In comparison to Odysseus 2024 -- Apollo landings were rather uneventful.
Go and research it. It's not my responsibility to educate random eejits on the Internet.You made a statement that there were significant issues with all 3.
Go and research it. It's not my responsibility to educate random eejits on the Internet.You made a statement that there were significant issues with all 3.
All landings, except for A11 were 0.5 km or less from their marks. A11 off by 4 miles. None were significant. They all landed without much (or any) horizontal motion... unless Odysseus which had such bad visibility that it couldn't even tell it was moving horizontally... way too much dust, would explain it. Way more than was reported by Apollo... But Odysseus is tight lipped, and AFAIK, has only shared a few lower rez photos, and NOTHING from their descent, to explain why they lose comms and the ability to discern horizontal velocity. Dust would explain it.
...
...
And the Soviets succeeded twice out of some 13 attempts (uh oh, spooky 13 again) with the Luna program, and NASA 5 out of 7 with Surveyor program. The first Vikram lander from ISRO failed too. In fact, only the CNSA Chang'e program has an unmanned landing rate of 100%.
Guess it looks like having a manned lander is a benefit.
And the Soviets succeeded twice out of some 13 attempts (uh oh, spooky 13 again) with the Luna program, and NASA 5 out of 7 with Surveyor program. The first Vikram lander from ISRO failed too. In fact, only the CNSA Chang'e program has an unmanned landing rate of 100%.
Guess it looks like having a manned lander is a benefit.
Tight lipped...Yep. See how many actual photos or footage you can find from them from the actual lunar module. I've found 3. All low-rez.
https://www.intuitivemachines.com/im-1
Guess it looks like having a manned lander is a benefit.Especially when it's faked... I only see evidence of Armstrong practicing with the LLTV... and here we have a few 2-minute or less clips of it tightly cropped doing almost nothing, without context to prove it can even travel a straight line... This LLTV was flat, and not working as advertised (the jet engine was only supposed to provide 83% lift, not 100%... but they always had it at 100%).
Tight lipped...Yep. See how many actual photos or footage you can find from them from the actual lunar module. I've found 3. All low-rez.
https://www.intuitivemachines.com/im-1
Where is the footage or photos from the module during the descent? Why did their horizontal velocity detection totally fail? And comms, totally fail... what are their answers, and were is the footage and photos? 10 months...
What, if anything, has any of this to do with the Apollo missions?Because if Apollo didn't land, then their presentation of the Lunar Surface model/conditions was likely wrong. I believe it was critically wrong.
Because if Apollo didn't land, then their presentation of the Lunar Surface model/conditions was likely wrong.They did, it is proven. Your piddling little threads have thus far proven diddly squat, except that you lack the "100% integrity" you were aiming for. You continue to divert this thread off topic.
I believe it was critically wrong.Your belief is confirmation-bias-driven bollocks.
NASA/SpaceX now proclaim the surface is 3-4 meters+ thick of Unconsolidated Regolith. So if this results in a LOT MORE DUST -
For what other reason would they NOT be sharing ANY good photos or footage from the lander?? How the hell did they not know their horizontal velocity? Way too much dust - would explain it.
I refer to this 2019 article.NASA/SpaceX now proclaim the surface is 3-4 meters+ thick of Unconsolidated Regolith. So if this results in a LOT MORE DUST -I suspect you're not understanding what this means. Are you expecting metres of dust?
....This should all be in a separate thread. Clearly there is interest to discuss other matters. The overlord will not allow it, as he misrepresents my defense of the "8 flag motions".
....This should all be in a separate thread. Clearly there is interest to discuss other matters. The overlord will not allow it, as he misrepresents my defense of the "8 flag motions".
If you keep taking your current threads off topic I will lock them too. Make a list of things you want to discuss for after you have satisfactorily concluded the current threads.OTHERS are taking these off topic... we don't have anywhere else to discuss good topics that interest them.
But you don't like that the ones I've opened so far -- simply don't look so good for the Apollogy. So it's time to shut me down.
The last defense of the coward "They had to ban me on Apollohoax". As if this is somehow a badge of honour."Coward" - really? Any logic behind that? What am I cowering away from?
I refer to this 2019 article.
Why would there be an abrupt "hardness?" What hardened it all of a sudden at 2-3" deep?
Do you know? I don't.
I'll rephrase this for you @Mag40...I refer to this 2019 article.
Why would there be an abrupt "hardness?" What hardened it all of a sudden at 2-3" deep?
Do you know? I don't.
I'll rephrase this for you @Mag40...I refer to this 2019 article.
Why would there be an abrupt "hardness?" What hardened it all of a sudden at 2-3" deep?
Do you know? I don't.
I am unaware of any viable Apollogist hypothesis that would explain this "cementing" especially so close to the surface, and consistently.
This should be made into it's own thread -- so that Apollogists can step forward with some science to refute this claim. As they still want to claim "All MLH theories have been debunked."
#1: Compaction and friction.#1: source of friction? Compaction is usually the result of weather/rain and biological processes/decay. None of this happens on the moon. Think Sahara desert -- deep sand.
#2: Go find yourself a fresh volcanic debris field and try ramming a flag pole in it. Let us know how you get on.
I SIMPLY WANT TO TALK ABOUT MORE THINGS. The old ones are weeks old, and well attended and defended.Some denied with ridiculous reasons given. Others just denied due to your expectations not being met of how things happen in a vacuum / low gravity. Many just evaded.
So I'm being silenced on any new topics, where they can be discussed in a meaningful focused manner.Go on, give us all a hint as to your next "new" topic.
#1: source of friction? Compaction is usually the result of weather/rain and biological processes/decay. None of this happens on the moon. Think Sahara desert -- deep sand.Really? Smooth Sahara sand? I gave you a link to a very long article. Maybe you should go away and read it, learn something. The regolith is very jagged particulate, subject to vast numbers of lunar quakes, gravity and weight of above material. It also becomes more settled as it very slightly expands/compacts from solar infra-red.
#2: Volcanos stopped eruption over 1 Billion years ago -- and during this last Billion years, 1000 meters deep of new Dust settled on the moon... so all volcanic rocks/bed should be very very deep.
But for Apollo - the cemented layer started at 2-3" consistently... with few exceptions.
#1: Compaction and friction.#1: source of friction? Compaction is usually the result of weather/rain and biological processes/decay. None of this happens on the moon. Think Sahara desert -- deep sand.
#2: Go find yourself a fresh volcanic debris field and try ramming a flag pole in it. Let us know how you get on.
#2: Volcanos stopped eruption over 1 Billion years ago -- and during this last Billion years, 1000 meters deep of new Dust settled on the moon... so all volcanic rocks/bed should be very very deep.
But for Apollo - the cemented layer started at 2-3" consistently... with few exceptions.
Aerozine50 + N2O4 already has a known rating for expected combustion energy per kg. If you know this answer - just answer it. It'll take you 5 seconds, and I'll trust you.
you've demonstrated you don't trust the answers I just hand youYou think if you tell me the heat of combustion for A50+N2O4 that I won't trust it? Test it -- see if I believe you.
#1: Compaction from the mass of material above a given layer, friction between particles under that mass.#1: Moon dust hardness level is close to quartz.. Doesn't cement together under a few inches of dust.
#2: Volcanos: Not on Earth they didn't. Fresh volcanic ash is a very good substitute.
#3: But for Apollo - the cemented layer started at 2-3" consistently... with few exceptions.
#1: Compaction from the mass of material above a given layer, friction between particles under that mass.#1: Moon dust hardness level is close to quartz.. Doesn't cement together under a few inches of dust.
#2: Volcanos: Not on Earth they didn't. Fresh volcanic ash is a very good substitute.
#3: But for Apollo - the cemented layer started at 2-3" consistently... with few exceptions.
#2: Why you talking earth? I'm saying there should be little-to-no volcanic rock on the surface of the moon -- 1 Billion years ago, these stopped on the moon.. then 1000 meters of dust fell on top of it.
#3: Apollo 11 - when Armstrong is scooping stuff up. When he's pounding in the flag. Many instance of scooping, taking samples. Do some homework here. Many examples of the "sudden hardness" happening a specific level (not just sporadic "oops I hit a rock").
8" was the deepest I've seen where they didn't hit some sudden resistance, but these cases were rare. Even so - there should be no "sudden resistance" -- we don't have sedimentation layers or antyhing -- just vanilla Quartz-like small unconsolidated dust/particles -- finer than play sand. Nothing to cement it.
But for Apollo - the cemented layer started at 2-3" consistently... with few exceptions.
But for Apollo - the cemented layer started at 2-3" consistently... with few exceptions.
If you can't be bothered to read the paper "Principal scientific results of the Surveyor 3 mission" published in June 1968, let me cherry-pick a quote for you from the abstract:
"Soil strength and density increase significantly at depths of a few centimeters."
You are stalling to get to the end of this road - because you know you cannot give a reasonable refute to these Launch acceleration behaviors for the full 1 second.Troll posturing again. Are you still at school?
Saying you think I won't believe you when you simply tell us the A50 combustion energy - is ludicrous. It's stalling, because the end of this road we're on, ends very badly for the Apollogy.
I have defended ALL of my threads so far. And drawn reasonable conclusions.
Example: 8 Flag movements has "no viable Apollogist hypothesis to explain it" -- you terminated this thread saying "he won't defend it" - but you STILL no one can provide a viable hypothesis that THEY are willing to defend... NONE. ZERO.
Your overlord conclusions
But you don't like that the ones I've opened so far -- simply don't look so good for the Apollogy. So it's time to shut me down.
The other members of the forum provided you with very reasonable explanations to your claim which you merely ignored or dismissed. Your response is nothing more than "you are wrong because I said so". That is what I mean when I say you refuse to defend your claims. Stubbornly refusing to accept any explanation that contradicts your belief is not a valid defence.They presented a few NON-VIABLE hypotheses - which they DID NOT defend... I raised the issues with their hypotheses - and they simply backed off.
I have provided proof that the LM and crew were on the Moon, so "they left the door open" is nonsense. Infact all you have presented are idle speculations. Then you hand wave anything that shows were you are in correct or throw in a bit of HB to obfuscate.The other members of the forum provided you with very reasonable explanations to your claim which you merely ignored or dismissed. Your response is nothing more than "you are wrong because I said so". That is what I mean when I say you refuse to defend your claims. Stubbornly refusing to accept any explanation that contradicts your belief is not a valid defence.They presented a few NON-VIABLE hypotheses - which they DID NOT defend... I raised the issues with their hypotheses - and they simply backed off.
There remains NO VIABLE explanation for the 8 flag movements, especially the ones where it's being pushed towards the LM.
For 8-flag motions - Show me even ONE hypothesis that was DEFENDED.. they didn't even attempt the defense, because there was no defense. The few hypotheses presented were critically flawed so badly that the person who made the proposal would not even try to defend it.
I have provided proof that the LM and crew were on the Moon, so "they left the door open" is nonsense. Infact all you have presented are idle speculations. Then you hand wave anything that shows were yo are in correct or throw in a bit of HB to obfuscate.During these 175-seconds, they had been inside already for 15+ minutes... A couple minutes AFTER these flag motions they start tossing out the bags.
The other members of the forum provided you with very reasonable explanations to your claim...They presented a few NON-VIABLE hypotheses - which they DID NOT defend... I raised the issues with their hypotheses - and they simply backed off.
Says you. Like I said, you dismiss their explanations as "non-viable" but you do not provide a viable counter-argument to explain WHY they are wrong. You are basically saying they are wrong because you say so. That is not satisfactory.Says Physics. They are *so* wrong that so far, no one has bothered to even try to defend against my rebuttals to their critically flawed proposals.
Says Physics. They are *so* wrong that so far, no one has bothered to even try to defend against my rebuttals to their critically flawed proposals.
Name ONE -- one viable hypothesis that can be reasonably defended, to explain this 175-second episode. Just one.
I will let someone more knowledgeable of physics than me educate you. All I know is that the hoax theory makes no logical sense at all.Until then, my claim remains intact. For being a such a long and solid claim - why does there not yet exist a valid debunking? You should just be able to "reference someone's post" -- but we cannot, because such a post doesn't seem to exist.. because there's no good way with moon physics to explain it.
I will let someone more knowledgeable of physics than me educate you. All I know is that the hoax theory makes no logical sense at all.Until then, my claim remains intact.
For being a such a long and solid claim - why does there not yet exist a valid debunking?
And lets move on - I have more "unchallenged stuff" in my head now - and would make for good new threads.
No, you have other unfinished business to attend to first.He keeps running away from this thread below. He dips in, avoids questions, offers ridiculous, poor-observational answers and then flounces:
#1: No, until then your claim remains unproven. You've made a claim, there have been reasonable explanations for why your claim is wrong, and you have provided no counter-argument or any experts who support your claim. Therefore you have failed to make your case and there remains no reason to throw away our history books.#1: My claim is that there exists no known viable physics explanation for the flag motions. If my claim is wrong - show me JUST ONE.
#2: You have been debunked. You don't get to declare the arguments made by others invalid, you have to prove it.
that you're too hard headed to accept any argument that contradicts you.
#1: My claim is that there exists no known viable physics explanation for the flag motions. If my claim is wrong - show me JUST ONE.Yeah? You first! Show how "some bloke left the door open" during the only instances where gas was being ejected from the LM during depressurisation. Explain how this made these movements! Logic of a toaster.
#2: The people who made those claims won't even defend them. Name one that has been defended, and still stands the scrutiny that I have provided.All of mine in your idiotic sand-too-fast thread.
Yeah? You first! Show how "some bloke left the door open" during the only instances where gas was being ejected from the LM during depressurisation. Explain how this made these movements! Logic of a toaster.My claim is no longer "therefore it was a hoax". I've conceded to not connect any dots.
My ONLY remaining claim for the Flag motion is that there exists no known viable hypothesis to explain all of these motions. That's it. I've conceded the rest.
My my remaining claim, is accurate. If not - show me the one viable claim that I'm missing.
Interior atmosphere of the LM being vented in the direction of the flag. There we go, one perfectly viable hypothesis.I believe you know physics well enough to also realize this is non-viable. To be "viable" it must be capable of explaining all 8 movements; at best, yours could explain four... assuming that the actual pressure from such venting was substantial 8 meters away (with the source being 2 ounces/sec oxygen released into a vacuum, in all directions -- isn't promising). But it totally fails to explain the 4 times it was "pushed" onto the screen.
Yet you keep posturing this as though it means something! "100% integrity"?Yeah? You first! Show how "some bloke left the door open" during the only instances where gas was being ejected from the LM during depressurisation. Explain how this made these movements! Logic of a toaster.My claim is no longer "therefore it was a hoax". I've conceded to not connect any dots.
My ONLY remaining claim for the Flag motion is that there exists no known viable hypothesis to explain all of these motions. That's it. I've conceded the rest. My my remaining claim, is accurate. If not - show me the one viable claim that I'm missing.
Interior atmosphere of the LM being vented in the direction of the flag.
There we go, one perfectly viable hypothesis.
A lot more viable than 'it was filmed in a studio'.
and fully address the counter claims.Explain how some eejit leaving the door open works better than the LM depressurisation, bearing in mind that flag movement happened in all cases.
I believe you know physics well enoughI don't believe you do.
But it totally fails to explain the 4 times it was "pushed" onto the screen.Flagpole moved.
Explain how some eejit leaving the door open works better than the LM depressurisation, bearing in mind that flag movement happened in all cases.I've agreed to concede that this doesn't mean it was a hoax. Simply that there exists no viable physics explanation for the 8 flag movements. This remains an accurate assessment of this situation.
I asked before if you'd like to defend this one - and you didn't want to. I even did YOUR WORK FOR YOU.QuoteBut it totally fails to explain the 4 times it was "pushed" onto the screen.Flagpole moved.
... formulas...Alright, took another stab at it, but am not getting the right answers, because this method produces 31 MJ/kg for Hydrazine which is 50% too high.
I believe you know physics well enough to also realize this is non-viable. To be "viable" it must be capable of explaining all 8 movements; at best, yours could explain four... assuming that the actual pressure from such venting was substantial 8 meters away (with the source being 2 ounces/sec oxygen released into a vacuum, in all directions -- isn't promising). But it totally fails to explain the 4 times it was "pushed" onto the screen.
If you disagree, please explain.
I don't care what you have bloody "agreed on", explain your theory on how it moved.Explain how some eejit leaving the door open works better than the LM depressurisation, bearing in mind that flag movement happened in all cases.I've agreed to concede that this doesn't mean it was a hoax. Simply that there exists no viable physics explanation for the 8 flag movements. This remains an accurate assessment of this situation.
Simple; flags 'wave'.OK - now watch the video again, and see if your hypothesis remains viable.
The flag is pushed away from the LM, then it swings back. The motion is only checked by gravity and the 'stiffness' of the flag itself.
I don't care what you have bloody "agreed on", explain your theory on how it moved.I've changed my theory ONLY to this --
My theory is you can't explain it with the idiotic "bloke left the door open" theory that defies logic and reason. You simply lack any integrity to admit that the explanation given has more credence. The only time the flag moves, it occurs during depressurisation.I don't care what you have bloody "agreed on", explain your theory on how it moved.I've changed my theory ONLY to this --
"These 8 flag motions currently have no viable physics explanation within the lunar context."
This should be YOUR theory too, given that no one here can seem to refute it. If a refutation exists, please show it.
Alright, took another stab at it, but am not getting the right answers, because this method produces 31 MJ/kg for Hydrazine which is 50% too high.That is almost certainly my fault. I gave you the wrong molecular formula for the hydrazine reaction. It should be
Haven't done this since college 32 years ago...I assure you the laws of thermodynamics haven't changed.
...nor do I find it particularly interesting...Irrelevant. It applies to your claim. Your claim is that (1) you observe the spacecraft in the video to rise according to a certain velocity profile, and (2) that this cannot be explained by the operation of a thermodynamic engine of a certain type and design. Why do you think you're obliged to supply suitable rigor for one leg of your claim but not the other? You initially went into a fair amount of detail on (1), even catching your own error. But your treatment of (2) has been to cite one parameter of rocketry and largely dismiss all other discussion with what amounts to yelling "Nuh-unh!" and shifting the burden of proof.
...especially since the value I seek should already be well-known, via real-world testing.Then why couldn't you just look it up? It may surprise you, but there is no Big Book of Answers that you can simply look up whatever question might pop into your head. First, calorimetry is not a slam-dunk. It's very hard to do correctly, which is why a lot of the commonly used numbers are remeasured every few decades. Second, calorimetry is dangerous, especially with high-energy, hard-to-handle substances like these fuels. Third, we don't have to perform literally every conceivable chemical reaction and measure it under every set of circumstances in order to figure out what we're doing. Analytical thermochemistry still exists because we still need it.
Your claim that you don't think I'd believe you if you state the A50 Heat of Combustion is non-credible.I just gave you a good reason not to trust me—I might make a mistake. Had I simply handed you a number, you might have just used it without wondering how it was arrived at, or without having any way of catching my error. This is why we go step by step, in lock-step, and show the work.
Please move this along.Asked and answered.
People are waiting for you to show us where you are headed with all of this.Who are you speaking for?
Once we have a properly framed idea of the enthalpy in a thermodynamic engine, the next step is to reason carefully about how that can be harnessed to do work. As before, there's a simplistic model that holds for some standard, ongoing conditions. And then—since this is a non-canonical portion of the engine's operation—we might have to think of ways to reason about those nonstandard conditions.I corrected the spreadsheet math for your corrections, and still not getting 19.5 MJ for hydrazine, so this basic method doesn't seem sufficient. But you see -- I'm simply "trusting the industry result for Hydrazine" - this is 100% fine.
My thesis here is simply this --Jay is being very kind to humor you, but the correct way to write this is, "Over the past 40 years, we are unaware of any documented and well supported claim that the Ascent Module acceleration was ever higher than would be expected under all of the circumstances present at the time."
"Over the past 40 years, we are unaware any viable physics theory that would explain the steady/consistent high acceleration of the Ascent Modules for the first full 1-second."
This theory currently stands unrefuted.
Let's move your theory along here to see if you can offer a refute for this famous MLH claim that has stood for 40+ years.
What's next?
I corrected the spreadsheet math for your corrections, and still not getting 19.5 MJ for hydrazine...Why would you expect to? That figure is for a different reaction.
so this basic method doesn't seem sufficient.Or you're doing it wrong. This is literally the first week of Thermo 101.
Near the start, you claimed there was ONE main contributor to thrust that I was missing -- "Static Pressure".Where did I even slightly imply that this was the only effect we'd need to consider? That's one effect you didn't think about. There are others, and I mentioned them. But in your haste to blunder onwards you're stumbling over those foundational principles I mentioned. Stop trying to short-circuit the process. Final warning.
This theory currently stands unrefuted.No. It remains unexplained. You don't get to assume your desired conclusion by default and demand that everyone else do all the heavy lifting.
If you apply yourself, maybe you could be the first person in 40+ years to show conclusively that there was something anomalous in the acceleration.The claim of the steady acceleration at launch being well-above the rocket's own ratings - has been UNCONTESTED.
Because I'm ALSO doing the math for Hydrazine + N2O4 combustion... and getting a different-than-published-ratings result (15% too low).I corrected the spreadsheet math for your corrections, and still not getting 19.5 MJ for hydrazine...Why would you expect to? That figure is for a different reaction.
Where did I even slightly imply that this was the only effect we'd need to consider? That's one effect you didn't think about. There are others, and I mentioned them.I checked through our 30 pages here, and see no such mention of "other significant contributors".
Ignition transients? The "piston-effect" from the reaction of the APS Bell inside the descent stage housing?Where did I even slightly imply that this was the only effect we'd need to consider? That's one effect you didn't think about. There are others, and I mentioned them.I checked through our 30 pages here, and see no such mention of "other significant contributors".
Please indicate for us what other types of significant contributors you think need to also be considered?
#1: Ignition transients?
#2: The "piston-effect" from the reaction of the APS Bell inside the descent stage housing?
#3: Also, and I am very much a layman for rocketry, have you considered the initial phase-change of the propellant in any equation?
When Jay said "nope" for this, I'm guessing you just ignored him. Sometimes transients are unavoidable.#1: Ignition transients?
#2: The "piston-effect" from the reaction of the APS Bell inside the descent stage housing?
#3: Also, and I am very much a layman for rocketry, have you considered the initial phase-change of the propellant in any equation?
Thanks for the notes/suggestions:
#1: "Transients" - the ones that produce "more thrust for very short duration" are considered bad... usually results in oscillation -- so a heavy impulse of acceleration is followed by a drop off, then followed by another hard hit, etc... as the fuel feed comes in at 170 psia for the AM -- so as you vary the combustion chamber psia - it largely influences the fuel feed.. and can get nasty, even dangerous. So engineers try to minimize these oscillations. Also the overall, these transients don't usually result in an "average increase in boost", but is usually less, or close to a wash out.
#2: "piston-effect" - this is what we're doing NOW. The static pressure contributor *is* the piston-effect contributor (except we're not inside of a sealed tube, as in our case the gap opens quickly, thus eliminating most of this effect after it's 12" off the ground).Static pressure occurs inside the combustion chamber and exit static pressure is not related to any short impedance to exhaust.
#3: "phase-change" - from liquid to gas before combustion... I believe this is part of the assumption already for the "rated rocket power". If for some reason, some liquid fuel/oxidizer stays a liquid as it's ejected from the chamber -- this is an inefficiency, resulting in less thrust, not more.That's what you believe is it? You have been told and I duly noted the inference, that rated power is for atmospheric pressure.
You have been told and I duly noted the inference, that rated power is for atmospheric pressure.So you are claiming that the "rated power" specified for the LM/AM engines is for "earth's atmosphere", not a vacuum?
Typo - rated "energy", for the propellant.You have been told and I duly noted the inference, that rated power is for atmospheric pressure.So you are claiming that the "rated power" specified for the LM/AM engines is for "earth's atmosphere", not a vacuum?
Static pressure occurs inside the combustion chamber and exit static pressure is not related to any short impedance to exhaust.Check that again. The static pressure we're looking at is measured at "the exit of the nozzle". Then Newton's 3rd law applies.... It's the Nozzle's static pressure that is used to calculate this extra Lift.
It is possible that the acceleration was higher than normal, although I haven't seen the methodology for determining that definitively. What is completely missing is any kind of rigor in ruling out all of the possible explanations for this acceleration under the circumstances present in the moment.If you apply yourself, maybe you could be the first person in 40+ years to show conclusively that there was something anomalous in the acceleration.The claim of the steady acceleration at launch being well-above the rocket's own ratings - has been UNCONTESTED.
The only counter-claim that anyone seems to know about, came from Braenig - who's refutation was not "we didn't accelerate that fast" but to try and explain this anomaly via vague science -- transients and static pressure effect. He pulled down his vague refutation 7 years ago -- and still this seems to be the only quote I've seen from Apollogists to refute.
So the claim of "higher-than-normal acceleration" is simply not contested. And a viable/mathematical explanation of this acceleration boost has yet to be given.
Try again.
#1: It is possible that the acceleration was higher than normal, although I haven't seen the methodology for determining that definitively. What is completely missing is any kind of rigor in ruling out all of the possible explanations for this acceleration under the circumstances present in the moment.#1: Check my doc, others have these too. It contains image analysis that demonstrates this conservatively. Most others who do this analysis come up with HIGHER acceleration than I do. I did this on purpose to eliminate the "you're exaggerating the acceleration!" claims... because these conservative analysis still show 2.5X the normal acceleration for these engines.
#2: Jay is being kind to humor you, but this is the responsibility of the claimant, in this case, you.
But this one -- 40+ years old -- STILL has not been debunked.Wrong. The claim has not been quantified as his been pointed out to you. The gist of it being a motion during take-off has not been explained to the people least likely to ever understand it. Not found in the "40+ year old claim" are any of the early steps you are being drip-fed (by JayUtah) to deduce and eliminate potential causes - let alone the final steps which you have no idea about. No. Not for the HB community is that going to happen.
If this could have been refuted, it would have been --- just like all of the others that were refuted.Bollocks. Show me an HB rocket engineer! That being the entry level to understand the issue.
Now, would you be so kind as to stop stalling and get the hell on with this. I can't wait for the next steps in this process. Whilst I don't 100% understand them, they are gold dust for those who would like a grounding in the subject - and boy, that so includes you!I've completed my part. Did the Heat Combustion calculations, and got some results. But without Jay saying "why is this needed".
You say "Jay isn't going to do your work"... but he's spending a heck of a lot MORE effort doing this the very slow way. More work - to get it done slower. This is how you behave when you don't want to get to the end of the road.
This is like when Eugene on the TWD sabotaged the bus so they couldn't reach DC. He didn't want to get there.
I love this comment.
You say "Jay isn't going to do your work"... but he's spending a heck of a lot MORE effort doing this the very slow way. More work - to get it done slower. This is how you behave when you don't want to get to the end of the road.
This is like when Eugene on the TWD sabotaged the bus so they couldn't reach DC. He didn't want to get there.
It's more than a little unfair to blame the teacher for the student being a slow learner....
#2: Jay is being kind to humor you, but this is the responsibility of the claimant, in this case, you.#2: Since it's impossible to prove "we didn't miss anything" (can't fully prove a negative), we can address all identified viable/significant contributors to thrust.
In what world is Jay's behavior here considered "good teaching"? Or "good engineering"?
In what world is Jay's behavior here considered "good teaching"? Or "good engineering"?In a world where you get a renowned expert walk you through your blunders.
Top level view comes first. "What do you plan to do?" and "What candidates do we foresee as being contributors?" Then "how do you plan to do it?" Then you start taking your steps. When asked questions about details, you answer as best as you can. This is what it looks like to be a good teacher and engineer.My god is there no end to the bloke's arrogance. Not only is he taking a situation and distorting to the bullshit hoax because he doesn't understand rocketry, now he's posturing about how he should be bloody educated!
But if you don't want to get to the end of the road, and want to stall and slow things down -- then obscurity is your friend.Stop trolling. When you get to the end of this road two things should happen but I suspect only one. You will get your arse handed to you again and two you won't withdraw this stupid claim.
In what world is Jay's behavior here considered "good teaching"? Or "good engineering"?You've already established that pedagogy is something you're not competent to critique. Stop biting the hand that feeds you and take the free education you're being graciously given in spite of your arrogance and lack of gratitude.
Top level view comes first. "What do you plan to do?" and "What candidates do we foresee as being contributors?"
Then "how do you plan to do it?"
Then you start taking your steps.
When asked questions about details, you answer as best as you can.
This is what it looks like to be a good teacher and engineer.
But if you don't want to get to the end of the road, and want to stall and slow things down -- then obscurity is your friend.
Because I'm ALSO doing the math for Hydrazine + N2O4 combustion... and getting a different-than-published-ratings result (15% too low).The only "published figure" you've cited is the 19.5 MJ/kg figure that is the standard heat of combustion. That's for the reaction between hydrazine and atmospheric oxygen under standard conditions (298 K and one atmosphere of pressure). The reaction between hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide is expected to have a different change in enthalpy because the oxidizer is not free oxygen—it's an oxygen-bound compound.
Now it has finally fallen into place. You're just now starting to grapple with the extremely basic principle that different reactions among different reactants produce different changes in enthalpy!Nope. I know this. The equations are obvious. I was trying to compare it to a "known result" and when I found this #, I thought it was combining with N2O4, not atmospheric oxygen.
Nope. I know this. The equations are obvious. I was trying to compare it to a "known result" and when I found this #, I thought it was combining with N2O4, not atmospheric oxygen.
A simple mistake, easy to spot and correct.
You've already established that pedagogy is something you're not competent to critique. Stop biting the hand that feeds you and take the free education you're being graciously given in spite of your arrogance and lack of gratitude.Unclog your nose, so you can smell the fish. He's doing all he can do to discredit me, and find excuses to stall.
Nope. I know this. The equations are obvious. I was trying to compare it to a "known result" and when I found this #, I thought it was combining with N2O4, not atmospheric oxygen.19.4 MJ/kg for O2 - was just LOOKED UP. For popular combustion formulas - these #'s are already known.
No, it's a vastly wrong conceptual error. The notion that you can just "look up" the important figures is something you've belabored for pages.
So - I've calculated 23 MJ/kg -- how close is this to the # you calculate or have in mind?
He's doing all he can do to discredit me, and find excuses to stall.
This isn't even MY CLAIM...
Unclog your nose, so you can smell the fish. He's doing all he can do to discredit me, and find excuses to stall.You're doing more than anyone on this board to discredit yourself.
This isn't even MY CLAIM -- it's a 40 year claim of 2.5x the normal acceleration -- that remains fully NON-DEBUNKED.Continually stating this falsehood will/does not make it true. But by all means continue to embarrass yourself.
All conceivable "significant contributors to acceleration" are being considered here in this claim.If that were a fact, you would have already solved the problem and debunked yourself.
He doesn't want to make progress here - because it's going to turn out bad for Clavius.You are the one who is making this longer than it needs to be. You know it is simple to say I don't understand it.
Ever watch the TWD? Remember when Eugene sabotaged the bus on the way to DC?? He didn't want to be found out, so he stalled them.The last statement is just obfuscation on your part.
Your goal is to stall this, because the end of the road, looks bad for the Apollogy.Oh do shut up with this endless childish posturing. You're not on Facebook now amongst the ignorant.
This claim has stood 40+ years without debunk.. because it can't be debunked.Who first made this claim 40 years ago? Did they provide rocket equations to dispute it? Or did they jump up and down like a five-year old throwing their toys on the floor in a huff?
19.4 MJ/kg for O2 - was just LOOKED UP. For popular combustion formulas - these #'s are already known.
So - I've calculated 23 MJ/kg
how close is this to the # you calculate or have in mind?
I checked through our 30 pages here, and see no such mention of "other significant contributors"
He couldn't possibly do anything more to discredit you than you've done yourself. I've been correcting your extremely poor research and discussion habits for weeks now and it hasn't even made a dent with you. You're a fraud and con man. I sincerely hope that you will learn how to productively participate in discussions like these, but failing that, I would settle for you to just admit that the conspiracy theory is fun for you and you don't want to give it up. Either way, just stop wasting everyone's time.You've already established that pedagogy is something you're not competent to critique. Stop biting the hand that feeds you and take the free education you're being graciously given in spite of your arrogance and lack of gratitude.Unclog your nose, so you can smell the fish. He's doing all he can do to discredit me, and find excuses to stall.
Thank you.I checked through our 30 pages here, and see no such mention of "other significant contributors"https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=2016.msg58227#msg58227
Kg of A50 only. I believe this AM is burning about 2 kg/sec at steady state, correct?QuoteSo - I've calculated 23 MJ/kgWhat's included in your kilogram?
Kg of A50 only. I believe this AM is burning about 2 kg/sec at steady state, correct?@JayUTAH, yoohoo... what's the next step?
So if this approach provides an accurate prediction of combustion energy, then we're dealing with about 46 MJ/sec of energy output.
Please confirm or correct, and let's move on. What are you going to do with this result?
That's not how it works.Kg of A50 only. I believe this AM is burning about 2 kg/sec at steady state, correct?@JayUTAH, yoohoo... what's the next step?
So if this approach provides an accurate prediction of combustion energy, then we're dealing with about 46 MJ/sec of energy output.
Please confirm or correct, and let's move on. What are you going to do with this result?
@JayUTAH, yoohoo... what's the next step?
Got anything else to add to this list?
* * *
Also for the "Shock wave" concept - please describe in better detail the nature of this contributor. Are you suggesting the platform bends and then snaps-back?
* * *
Is there any more to this theory than the above?
The question has had an answer two hours ago, 12/31/2024 1056 CDT.
Obviously the second guy hasn't visited this site.The question has had an answer two hours ago, 12/31/2024 1056 CDT.
I had to lol @ the 2nd guy who suggested he visit Jay's site, and even provided a link. 8)
The question has had an answer two hours ago, 12/31/2024 1056 CDT.
I believe that I mentioned in the thread a couple of times, that the engineers at NASA knew all this and gave Fendell a table of camera angles to be at specific times. It was not breaking physics because they knew more physics than najak knows.
But thanks for the expansion of the answer and since those integrals are nasty, I won't even bother to attempt them.
Before my vacation and shortly after my banning, I completed the Static Pressure Analysis spreadsheet.
I posted my conclusion on Facebook, Dec 22nd. This wasn't a difficult proof, and only required Fluid-Dynamics (first week) type math to make this proof.
Jay you have a smoke-screen manner of making something not-so-difficult sound as complex/difficult as possible, to slow down the process. I could have completed this work along ago with a few-minute explanation. Either you really really stink at teaching, or were simply trying to slow down the process keeping it stuck in the mud.
My question on Stack-Exchange had NOTHING to do with takeoff.
I could teach someone with decent high school trig/calculus skills how to calculate the "theoretical thrust" from this special-case static pressure thrust at take-off.
Then as it gets further from the ground, this transitions to Steady state (close enough) above 33 cm. But by this point, the Static Pressure Thrust has provided enough EARLY acceleration to help explain the full second.
This thread can be closed as "Sufficiently Debunked" ... at least for non-rocket-scientists. It's possible that a skeptical rocket scientist might disagree with my conclusion.
But for me, this proof is done. I concede, this acceleration rate does NOT appear to be proof of a Faked Landing.
For reference, here is the spreadsheet showing the maximum Static Pressure Thrust concept, coupled with the force exerted at the top of the combustion chamber.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qYtfrOghTwQ-C3sxMIerEGokdxFqFdM32_NX-TmpELs/edit?usp=sharing (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qYtfrOghTwQ-C3sxMIerEGokdxFqFdM32_NX-TmpELs/edit?usp=sharing)
This Static Pressure concept adds enough early acceleration to produce a result that is close enough. This topic has been concluded.
An important aspect to this signal. At any given time, there was always fluid motion. The buffering system repeated the respective color fields, but motion was always live, per se. The buffered fields present themselves as the "confetti" artifacts when fast motion is present. It is not possible to remove "redundant" frames, as there are none. If you attempt to remove fields/frames, you are removing the fluid 30 fps motion.
This Static Pressure concept adds enough early acceleration to produce a result that is close enough.
This topic has been concluded.
Remember, before Newton could properly express the mathematics that describe physics, he had to invent calculus to do it. (Yes, yes, Leibniz.)
Physics is applied calculus...
And then refigured my 30 FPS screenshots trying to make it work for the ApollogyThree launches of Apollo ascent stages, from the lunar surface. All videoed from their respective lunar rover cameras and as far as anyone watching was concerned, absolutely no need to even do this. It's almost as though it was authentic and they weren't worried 50+ years later that some internet nobody would be jumping up and down for 30 pages of hoohah, making ignorant, uninformed claims about it!
This thread can be closed as "Sufficiently Debunked" ... at least for non-rocket-scientists. It's possible that a skeptical rocket scientist might disagree with my conclusion. But for me, this proof is done. I concede, this acceleration rate does NOT appear to be proof of a Faked Landing.All the non rocket scientists already knew this! Imagine how massively less of an arse you would have looked had you raised the issue as a neutral without the posturing and goading?
I warned you that if you tried to BS people here, that you would be found out and handed your arse.
Hint 1: The nozzle isn't the only thing that exhaust gas static pressure is acting against in this problem, and therefore not the only thing that must be included in the integral.
Hint 2: There are photographs showing a reflected shock wave from the ascent engine plume during LM staging tests in a vacuum. Can shock waves exist in a vacuum?
If you look more closely, the first two photos are descent testing and the last two photos are ascent staging tests in which the APS plume interacts with the descent stage deck in a way that we really try to avoid in general.
I am ONLY looking at Hoax theories which can be proven by non-specialists. There are cases where Apollo breaks SIMPLE PHYSICS - and these are my focus.You have identified none that do that!
Even as a Non-ApollogistPathetic and childish name calling.
I wouldn't waste their time and everyone else's in a campaign to discredit them.You never had the credit in the first place. Had you conducted yourself like a reasonable adult you would have fared far better. Nobody cares about "discrediting" you, that's your ego being bruised.
I ask the Salem magistrates for permission to bring up my next pieces of evidence for discussion.You have open questions that you are cowardly avoiding in the "sand too fast" thread. I would suggest insulting the site-owner as not a great way to protect your pram toys.
. I am ONLY looking at Hoax theories which can be proven by non-specialists. There are cases where Apollo breaks SIMPLE PHYSICS - and these are my focus.
8 Flag Motions while they are inside the LM. This one remains currently NON-DEBUNKED. There remains NO VIABLE EXPLANATION for this simple Physics setup, to explain the 5 slow-steady movements onto the screen, and then held there for many seconds. No chaos. No pendulum. No explainable force that could push that flag onto the screen in this manner, and hold it there.I am ONLY looking at Hoax theories which can be proven by non-specialists. There are cases where Apollo breaks SIMPLE PHYSICS - and these are my focus.You have identified none that do that!
Pathetic and childish name calling.
Simple Physics = Newtonian style physics. Stuff they teach in High school Physics, or freshman year college.. I am ONLY looking at Hoax theories which can be proven by non-specialists. There are cases where Apollo breaks SIMPLE PHYSICS - and these are my focus.Simple physics - is there any other kind of physics? Hard physics, robust physics, physics with hard math, physics with abstract math?
What do you construe as breaking simple physics?
My question on Stack Exchange is related to another thread - not started yet - and maybe never started.That doesn't stop the answer you received there from applying to your claims in this thread.
This topic is concluded here because in the end Rocket Science cannot break Newtonian physics within the context of a slow-moving closed system, nor the Law of Conservation of Energy. I started this topic with two missed concepts - thanks to there being NO SUPPORTED DEBUNK of this issue to date.You started this thread pretending to be an expert and belittling anyone who disagreed with you, no matter how well supported their argument. I taught you one new concept in rocketry, which took many pages thanks to your arrogance and bluster. Now you've decided that this one new thing you learned fully explains what you see in the video, so you've concocted yet another straw man around it that you can pretend maintains your illusion of genius. And now you're trying to preclude any further discussion and forge ahead with your Gish gallop to avoid having that illusion challenged.
Static Pressure Thrust is a SPECIAL CASE in rocket science...No, it isn't.
...that applies to this Ascent Module, approximated by SIMPLE FLUID DYNAMICS, simple algebraic equations.No.
I am not interested in MARGINAL cases. This is now a marginal case.It was always a marginal case, which you claimed had to be considered anomalous because it could not be explained in terms of your existing understanding, which was limited to simplifications of nominal cases. You don't get to pretend 30-odd pages later that you were never interested in the topic you raised. Your newfound disinterest is better explained by a realization that you're in over your head and that you desperately want to move on to fresh bluster.
We've entered the realm where only a rocket scientist could invalidate this launch acceleration, by stating that my "approximations of early acceleration" are invalid/unrealistic.That happened.
At this point, the thread is concluded.No, at this point you're trying to resign from the debate in a way that saves face and absolves you from having to demonstrate actual competence in the face of continued examination.
It wasn't hard. Didn't require a deep knowledge of rocket science... only Fluid Dynamics 101 (Week #1), algebra, trig, and basic calculus. Easy stuff for an engineer/scientist.You evidently don't care whether Apollo was real or not. You clearly don't care whether you got the right answer according to a physically correct method. All you care about is that you can continue to pretend you're the smartest guy in the room. We know you know you're not, hence your humble pleading in a forum you thought we wouldn't see.
I concede, that from my standpoint, this is NOT proof of the hoax.Why do you think that's all anyone should care about? For the bulk of this thread you've been baiting me into spoon-feeding you the answer under the pretense that we would reap honor and glory for having finally explained a vexing, long-standing anomaly. Now that you're on the illusory side of that explanation, it's suddenly unimportant to get it right.
I have other matters to bring up next. And now that I know the Salem-Witch-Trial manner of the magistrates in charge, I'll conduct my future threads accordingly.You're not being judged unfairly. Stop whining.
I ask the Salem magistrates to bring up my next pieces of evidence for discussion.
Apollogist itself is fully neutral, and a fortunate similarity in words to accurately describe what most people here are -- Apollo Apologists.
So once it was established/shown that Static Pressure Force (the result of more complex fluid dynamics/etc) was enough to provide the EARLY acceleration that accounts well-enough for this first 1-full-second of launch motion -- this thread is now complete.Your thrust model is not correct.
Static Pressure Force is a SIMPLE CONCEPT...No, you've just treated it simplistically and cobbled up something that gives you a number you can pretend to be happy with.
End of thread. Nothing else to discuss.Except for the parts you're leaving out because you don't seem to know about them or understand how they work. You're not interested in the right answer; you're simply trying to jump through the hoops you think will let you move on to your next ignorant song and dance.
I am surprised that with how simple this was to debunk...No, you're not the smartest guy in the room.
I'd be happy to donate my work here as that foundation for debunk. Make it known. Knowledge is good. Spread it around.Your method is incorrect and you have been told as much by two qualified experts. No, you haven't contributed anything valuable to the field.
I can help you here. It's a very deliberate and offensive characterisation that goes back some 17 years when sceptics were organised on YouTube.Thanks for the clarification. What neutral term would you prefer to be called?
I posted my very first comment on a YouTube hoax video, and within 30 minutes there was a pile on, orchestrated and co-ordinated by Duane Damon and another character. I was called a paedophile because in their minds Apollo, a mythological Greek God, was a paedophile. The term Apollogist, while a play on words, has a deeper meaning to the YouTube sceptics.
That's fine. Do nothing with it. Publish your own. Until then, I am already satisfied that such an Apollogy is feasible. Prior to MY work, I saw no sufficient debunk. If you wish to debunk it PROPERLY, go for it -- I'll read and spread your conclusions. I want others to know that this is "debunked". Unlike you, my goal is to save time and embarrassment for others.QuoteI'd be happy to donate my work here as that foundation for debunk. Make it known. Knowledge is good. Spread it around.Your method is incorrect and you have been told as much by two qualified experts. No, you haven't contributed anything valuable to the field.
Simple Physics = Newtonian style physics. Stuff they teach in High school Physics, or freshman year college.
Simple Physics = Newtonian style physics. Stuff they teach in High school Physics, or freshman year college.
Non-simple physics gets into Relativity -- relationships between mass, time, velocity, energy, waves, etc.... Or Quantum Physics is also non-simple.
I can help you here. It's a very deliberate and offensive characterisation that goes back some 17 years when sceptics were organised on YouTube.Thanks for the clarification. What neutral term would you prefer to be called?
I posted my very first comment on a YouTube hoax video, and within 30 minutes there was a pile on, orchestrated and co-ordinated by Duane Damon and another character. I was called a paedophile because in their minds Apollo, a mythological Greek God, was a paedophile. The term Apollogist, while a play on words, has a deeper meaning to the YouTube sceptics.
I'd prefer "HB" be changed to "MLS" - Moon Landing Skeptic. Neutral and accurate.
I want smart minds here to meaningfully discuss, debate, and make progress on the Hoax Theories. If they are debunkable, I want to see them debunked... quickly.They've been debunked. You have absolutely nothing new. You ignore evidence and offer absurd replies, you have unanswered questions in the dust thread. I get the feeling your eagerness to promote rehashed bollocks will not be granted until you start answering open and honest questions.
Prior to MY work...No. You had to be dragged kicking and screaming to basic concepts, which you continue to misunderstand. You are not an unsung genius, and you have not solved the problem you raised in this thread. Your claim to have solved the problem with "simple fluid dynamics" is still an open issue. Your unwillingness to participate in ascertaining the correctness of that solution does not amount to a justification for closing the door on it.
The reason I invited A McKelvey (from the stack exchange) here, was to get more physics-minded people here to look at the Hoax Claims -- such as the 9 Flag movements from A14, or the A12 Rendezvous flinging dish pendulum.But you neglected to tell him you were the one claiming Apollo is a hoax, and that you are likely trying to deceive him into giving you ammunition to support that claim. At best, when you present yourself there with, "Someone please help me, I don't know what I'm doing," and then try here to resume your desired image as a physics master, it rather gives away the plot.
I want smart minds here to meaningfully discuss, debate, and make progress on the Hoax Theories. If they are debunkable, I want to see them debunked... quickly.The people here are smart enough to address your claims. Your claims are neither new nor particularly vexing, and do not require additional "progress" to see through. You are neither as smart nor as important as you seem to think you are, nor do you seem to be altruistically motivated.
I have other matters to bring up next. And now that I know the Salem-Witch-Trial manner of the magistrates in charge, I'll conduct my future threads accordingly.
I ask the Salem magistrates for permission to bring up my next pieces of evidence for discussion.
There are cases where Apollo breaks SIMPLE PHYSICS - and these are my focus.
Hi everyone, I've been loosely following this from the sidelines, but I'll give my best given that lack of depth I have read into this discussion.
The color-sequential cameras operated at 30 frames per second, and were, essentially, black and white cameras, with the Red, Blue, Green color-wheel providing the color information for each field sequentially. And here goes the explanation I did in "Live TV From the Moon".
....
If you attempt to remove fields/frames, you are removing the fluid 30 fps motion.
Fascinating stuff. I've gone down a bit of a rabbit hole of television fields and conversion myself over the years thanks to being a Doctor Who fan and reading about the various formats we have finished early episodes in and how they were made (stored or suppressed field telerecordings, film inserts transferred to videotape masters, out of phase inserts, etc.). All of which means I get twitchy if anyone starts on a simple 'it was a 30fps frame rate' when talking about anything other than an original film recording and playback!
I'm not a big Dr Who fan, sorry. I was when I was a kid, but one episode scared me and I never picked it up again. :) I wanted to share that anecdote.
You can call me Luke and I can you najak.We need terms to describe the two generalized sides of this debate: Moon Landing Believers vs Skeptics. Those who generally believe we landed, vs. those who generally think we didn't.
Got anything to address the 9 Flag motions of A14? This one stands undebunked. Specifically, what could cause those 5 subtle slow movements onto the screen, with a significant hold time?There are cases where Apollo breaks SIMPLE PHYSICS - and these are my focus.
No, there are not. There are cases where your understanding of the physics doesn't chime with what you see. In such cases by far the simplest explanation is that YOU DON'T FULLY GRASP THE PHYSICS OR THE SITUATION.
Your arguments are along the lines of people insisting on that old chestnut that it's impossible for bumblebees to fly because the aerodynamics don't work. The aerodynamics ALWAYS worked (as is evident from the fact they demonstrably do fly), it was just that for a long time we didn't fully understand exactly how a bumblebee's wings actually moved in flight. The vast majority of people understood that there was a gap in their understanding, not that bumblebees 'broke physics' somehow.
I'm not a big Dr Who fan, sorry. I was when I was a kid, but one episode scared me and I never picked it up again. :) I wanted to share that anecdote.
I'm intrigued, which one was it?
Apollogist is a cool name. If I believed the landings were real, I'd be glad to go by this name.
You can call me Luke and I can you najak.We need terms to describe the two generalized sides of this debate: Moon Landing Believers vs Skeptics. Those who generally believe we landed, vs. those who generally think we didn't.
Apollogist is a cool name. If I believed the landings were real, I'd be glad to go by this name.
I am sure that it was an episode with Tom Baker, and someone aged really quickly and/or became a skeleton. I am not confusing this with Indian Jones, as I remember being sat in the front room in Burntwood.
Newtonian style physics is taught well beyond 1st year at college. Which is rather the point Jay is making. There is a whole set of physics and math that is taught in STEM subjects at Masters Level and into professional life that is Newtonian. It's just the underlying math gets harder and involves calculus and linear algebra.BUT.. Newtonian physics is pretty much the ONLY thing taught to high schoolers and Physics 101 in college. If a Hoax Theory requires math/science beyond the basics, this disqualifies it for being the type of claim that I would champion. So the more complex Newtonian physics, is also out-of-scope, of what I'd call Simple Physics. -- F = MA, and E = F * D, etc.
I am sure that it was an episode with Tom Baker, and someone aged really quickly and/or became a skeleton. I am not confusing this with Indian Jones, as I remember being sat in the front room in Burntwood.
That sounds like 'City of Death', and more specifically the cliffhanger to Part Three, in which Professor Kerensky gets caught in his own time experiment by the villain of the piece and ages to a skeleton right before the closing credits crash in. That was broadcast around October 1979 (I was born mid-way through that serial!).
I told you that insulting me and calling me names is no way to get what you want. You will show me and the other members of the forum respect or you will be banned permanently.I'm only providing what seems to me as an accurate analogy of how these forums are run. I cannot conclude a thread unless I concede to a preset conclusion. That's how the Salem Witch Trials were run. Also the same as how the Central Park 5 were interrogated/harassed, until they confessed to crimes they didn't commit. If I don't agree with you, I cannot bring up any new threads.
You have other threads to conclude properly first. But to be perfectly honest, I'm not really interested in anything else you have to say. Go start a blog.
I told you that insulting me and calling me names is no way to get what you want. You will show me and the other members of the forum respect or you will be banned permanently.I'm only providing what seems to me as an accurate analogy of how these forums are run. I cannot conclude a thread unless I concede to a preset conclusion. That's how the Salem Witch Trials were run. Also the same as how the Central Park 5 were interrogated/harassed, until they confessed to crimes they didn't commit. If I don't agree with you, I cannot bring up any new threads.
You have other threads to conclude properly first. But to be perfectly honest, I'm not really interested in anything else you have to say. Go start a blog.
Also, the only unresolved thread now is the Apollo 12 Dish Flinging incident. Otherwise, all others are resolved:
1. Lunar Launches Too Fast -- conceded, this is not proof. It can be explained.
2. Sand Falls Too Fast -- conceded, this is too ambiguous, given the poor resolution of footage, and limitations on single-lens photographs.
3. 8 Flag Motions Unexplained -- this one Stands Non-Debunked, and people simply stopped trying to defend the Apollogy - because it holds no weight. No viable explanation exists, that anyone here seems aware of. You closed this, with an erroneous conclusion that I wouldn't discuss this anymore -- when the obvious truth is that NO ONE ELSE would discuss it with me. It currently stands firmly NON-DEBUNKED.
===
So from 4 threads to 1.. It's time to introduce a few new topics for discussion.
BUT.. Newtonian physics is pretty much the ONLY thing taught to high schoolers and Physics 101 in college.What you learn in beginning classes is chiefly Newtonian physics, but it isn't all of Newton's physics. The evidence in this forum and elsewhere supports the explanation that your issues with Apollo are the result of your not knowing enough Newtonian physics—and in the larger sense, not knowing enough of other kinds of things that affect your claims. You aren't justified in discouraging belief in things that cannot be explained by subsets and simplifications aimed at beginners, or that fail to manifest themselves in your lazy research.
If a Hoax Theory requires math/science beyond the basics, this disqualifies it for being the type of claim that I would champion.But in actual argument you put the cart before the horse and insist that the only solutions you will accept as a refutation for claims made from ignorance—claims foisted as reversals of the burden of proof—are those that appeal to simplified concepts that you already understand. Now you've gone so far as to champion an incorrect solution simply because it appeals to your limited understanding, doesn't require you to learn or understand what actually is happening, and gives you an excuse to publicly stroke your ego. The issue is not that the LM liftoff has fallen out of scope; it's that you've tried to shoehorn it into a scope you can grasp—and that for the purpose of maintaining the illusion of competence if not outright superiority.
If Rocket science can't justify the "net force output" - then simple physics shows the failure. In this case, Static Pressure Thrust at takeoff, suffices to provide a feasible explanation for the added early acceleration. And if it doesn't, then it requires too much complexity to make this route meaningful.No amount of handwaving justifies accepting a wrongly reasoned method, including handwaving to the effect that the number it produces falls in the same ballpark as your expectation. No amount of failure on anyone's part to imagine what might have happened justifies concluding that someone somewhere is faking something. And yes, investigating happenstance occurrences will almost always eventually outstrip even the best investigator's ability to obtain discriminating facts for some nuance. The parsimonious path in that case is not to assume the worst as you have done.
Also, the only unresolved thread now is the Apollo 12 Dish Flinging incident.Logic of a toaster. The dish doesn't comport with the motion of the LM, were it in gravity! It stops moving even as the LM carries on turning and when it does a massive right-directional yaw. You ignored this!
2. Sand Falls Too Fast -- conceded, this is too ambiguous, given the poor resolution of footage, and limitations on single-lens photographs.I will call you that which you demonstrably are. Cowardly evading questions back at you. Nobody cares about your concessions when you run away from things that you cannot answer honestly, let alone explain. The answers given by you in that thread are just obfuscation.
Do you want to say goodbye?No. But I do want this forum to be managed with neutrality, as it should be. You can insult me all you want, but preventing me from bringing up other hoax claims - demonstrates both bias and fear.
...preventing me from bringing up other hoax claims - demonstrates both bias and fear.
Read my explanation again - I believe it was motorized (or had braking mechanism)... during "forced tracking" was in neutral, but put back into gear at the very end of the pendulum settling. Thus it was locked into that position from that point forward.Also, the only unresolved thread now is the Apollo 12 Dish Flinging incident.Logic of a toaster. The dish doesn't comport with the motion of the LM, were it in gravity! It stops moving even as the LM carries on turning and when it does a massive right-directional yaw. You ignored this!
BUT.. Newtonian physics is pretty much the ONLY thing taught to high schoolers and Physics 101 in college.
If a Hoax Theory requires math/science beyond the basics, this disqualifies it for being the type of claim that I would champion. So the more complex Newtonian physics, is also out-of-scope, of what I'd call Simple Physics. -- F = MA, and E = F * D, etc.
If Rocket science can't justify the "net force output" - then simple physics shows the failure.
No. You've demonstrated a disposition to Gish-gallop your way out of discomfort. You're simply being prevented from employing a well-known method of evasion.Gish Gallop is when someone avoids the rebuttal/concession of bad points.... and in so avoiding this rebuttal, leave a less-informed audience to believe that "maybe those points are valid".
Gish Gallop is when someone avoids the rebuttal/concession of bad points....No. A Gish gallop is when a claimant presents a flurry of arguments, none of which he is prepared to support in adequate detail and among which he can switch when things get rough for any one of them. The overall aim is to convey a false impression that there is a lot of evidence in support of a claim, relying on the perception of quantity over quality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
No, simple physics does not show the failure. Applying physics without the prerequisite understanding of of calculus and its relationship to Newtonian physics is the failure. Stockton Rush thought he could apply simple ideas. Say no more.First off, I took and aced Calculus I & II at Rose-Hulman Inst. of Tech. Then went on to Differential Equations I & II, and Linear Algebra. A's in all.
If there was NO STATIC PRESSURE component - I believe this would have been slam-dunk proof of the hoax. I could have been made aware of this with a few paragraphs of good faith teaching.
You may think you have resolved all your threads, but you have simply declared victory in all of them and departed the field, refusing to engage in any further debate. If that is your notion of a resolution, then there is no point in allowing you raise new topics that will likely end up the same way."Declared Victory in ALL of them".
Do you want to say goodbye?No. But I do want this forum to be managed with neutrality, as it should be. You can insult me all you want, but preventing me from bringing up other hoax claims - demonstrates both bias and fear.
I've concluded all but ONE now, so it's time to bring up 2 more... have 3 active threads at a time, is a reasonable/throttled approach.
"rejected": A post which only existed for 2 years, then yanked down 7 years ago.... with NO NUMERICAL ANALYSIS. NONE. And by a guy who claimed to be "an ordinary guy". So pardon me for not taking his few-sentences of unsupported text as gospel.If there was NO STATIC PRESSURE component - I believe this would have been slam-dunk proof of the hoax. I could have been made aware of this with a few paragraphs of good faith teaching.No. You rejected Bob Braeunig's claim to that effect categorically on page 1 of this thread. That it's taken us 30 pages of remedial physics to convince you against your will that such a thing exists is not a sin you get to lay at your teachers' feet. That you've concocted a physically broken argument to justify your reversal does not entitle you to crow about your skill, knowledge, and forthrightness.
This thread -- I've conceded failure.
So pardon me for not taking his few-sentences of unsupported text as gospel.
1. You appear to be incapable of accepting that it is your interpretation of the information that is wrong and not everyone else's.1. Did I NOT concede HERE that the Lunar Launch Acceleration is NOT proof of the hoax? Did I NOT concede that "Sand Falls Too Fast" is ambiguous enough to allow for other people's opinions?
2. You have been repeatedly asked to stop calling people names like "apollogists".
3. You have been repeatedly given answers to your claims, which you repeatedly dismissed or ignored.
4. until the claim was resolved to everyone's satisfaction,
5. And let's be clear: I am not required to tolerate anyone that I don't like. I pay for this forum, and I'm not going to pay to be insulted.
First off, I took and aced Calculus I & II at Rose-Hulman Inst. of Tech. Then went on to Differential Equations I & II, and Linear Algebra. A's in all.
Here's my claim - if the Ascent module demonstrates a uniform acceleration of 4 m/s^2 for 1 second, then the Net Force on the Ascent Module can be calculated using F = m * a. If the Mass is 5000 kg, then the NET force must be 20,000 Newtons. So subtracting 1.62 m/s^2 for lunar gravity can yield the NET THRUST.
1. Did I NOT concede HERE that the Lunar Launch Acceleration is NOT proof of the hoax?You did, but you think that should end all discussion. In the course of making that concession, you made new claims that deserve scrutiny: namely that you have a physically valid model to explain the LM liftoff observation (despite evidence that you don't), and that no one here contributed to your understanding of the problem and instead impeded it. Just because you're no longer willing to draw the conclusion that this anomaly is best explained by a hoax doesn't mean we are prevented from questioning your revised conclusions including that this supposed anomaly is best explained by your model.
...if NASA isn't already (they should be).No, we're not paid shills.
I gave you credit for 5-minutes-worth of help.This thread -- I've conceded failure.No. You conceded the hoax hypothesis, but you redefined victory to mean having come up with a physically valid explanation ostensibly on your own, without anyone's help here—and indeed allegedly despite their interference.
No, we're not paid shills.
It would have gone like this:I'm not interested in your alternative universe fantasy.
I derived MOST of this from you simply pointing me at the "aperture of exiting the Nozzle". That's about ALL YOU DID.No, you don't get to blame me for your having come up with a model full of mistakes. As I said, you habitually want to get out ahead of the discussion. That results in straw-man claims that I have to painfully unravel.
Are you a Bad Teacher? Or purposefully slowing down the process? You spent weeks to help me accomplish what could have been said in 5 minutes (shown above).No, you don't get to presume you've been a good faith student.
That's great. I really enjoyed partial differential equations, very useful in Lagrange multipliers but also essential for waves...I forgot almost ALL of differential equations. It was useful for me in math that involved Communications/Signals, where imaginary numbers had a role. I graduated 1992, and went right into programming, my true love. 3D math, along with Physics Simulations is my new domain for math. (Quaternions are weird, and matrices) Global conversions from Lat/Lg to Lambert or Mercator projections is also something I've dealt a lot with. Not much beyond that since 1992.
But m is a function of time, and F is non-linear, so you need to know the different components of force and integrate them. Immediately this presents an issue of direction and a time component. You cannot apply F = ma in a simple high school manner, with F being a constant and m being a constant. That's the bottom line.Correct. My preferred method of doing this is via a spreadsheet (or 3D simulation) - where it's simple Newtonian physics model (NET force) samples at 1000 frames-per-second, and produces a realistic-enough result. In this brute force manner, I'm able to simplify the top-level math involved in deriving answers.
This site and Jay are providing NASA a service. They should be paid for their work.No, we're not paid shills.I get a free stamp on my 'get a free Gregg's coffee card' for each post.
My preferred method of doing this is via a spreadsheet (or 3D simulation) - where it's simple Newtonian physics model (NET force) samples at 1000 frames-per-second, and produces a realistic-enough result.Assuming the physics embodied in the spreadsheet values and formulas are correct. You seem to be using the notion that your result approximates your expectations as a validation that your model is physically correct.
In this brute force manner, I'm able to simplify the top-level math involved in deriving answers.That's not a substitute for understanding why calculus is needed to accurately describe the physical behavior. Further, as we discovered in the case of a simple thermodynamics problem, your spreadsheets are haphazard, hard to follow, and thus hard to validate as appropriate expressions of problems and solutions.
Before inserting the "Static Pressure" thrust component, things looked very bad for Apollo.No. Before you learned a few things about rocketry that you previously didn't know, things looked bad for you. They still look bad because you're not finished learning. You're neither as smart nor as important as you seem to think you are.
I'd like to get your feedback on the other 2 threads.This is what I mean when I say you're Gish galloping.
If this forum were Neutral - it would work against NASA/Apollo.
I do suspect that certain key individuals might be subsidized.
Otherwise, I'm not understanding the irrational levels of bias I see here
This site and Jay are providing NASA a service. They should be paid for their work.No, that's not how hobbies work.
If this forum were Neutral - it would work against NASA/Apollo.No, that's not how neutrality works.
I do suspect that certain key individuals might be subsidized.No, there is no NASA-funded conspiracy to discredit you.
Otherwise, I'm not understanding the irrational levels of bias I see here...You've shown no evidence of bias on the part of anyone here, irrational or otherwise. That people disagree with you with good reason is not bias.
...because NASA doesn't want the general public aware of the non-debunked stuff.... such as 8 flag movements, or the A12 Dish flinging. You won't find EITHER of these in the "top 10 hoax theories debunked" - for a reason.No, you're not important. If you want to be the next Edward Snowden, you need to have the kind of evidence he had and not just example after example of your personal failure to understand how things work.
I forgot almost ALL of differential equations. It was useful for me in math that involved Communications/Signals, where imaginary numbers had a role.
Correct. My preferred method of doing this is via a spreadsheet (or 3D simulation) - where it's simple Newtonian physics model (NET force) samples at 1000 frames-per-second, and produces a realistic-enough result. In this brute force manner, I'm able to simplify the top-level math involved in deriving answers.
1. You appear to be incapable of accepting that it is your interpretation of the information that is wrong and not everyone else's.1. Did I NOT concede HERE that the Lunar Launch Acceleration is NOT proof of the hoax? Did I NOT concede that "Sand Falls Too Fast" is ambiguous enough to allow for other people's opinions?
2. You have been repeatedly asked to stop calling people names like "apollogists".
3. You have been repeatedly given answers to your claims, which you repeatedly dismissed or ignored.
4. until the claim was resolved to everyone's satisfaction,
5. And let's be clear: I am not required to tolerate anyone that I don't like. I pay for this forum, and I'm not going to pay to be insulted.
2. "Apollogist" - please tell me what you'd like to be called, and I'll do it. Are you going to mandate that people like me not be called "HB's"?
3. "Given Answers - ignored/dismissed" - As have BOTH side. It's called Debate. BOTH sides give answers, and in the end, the debaters walk away with some disagreements. Which means they are BOTH dismissing the "answers" given by the other side. This is how debates ALWAYS work. Except for the Salem Witch Trials - where only one present conclusion is mandated.
4. "Everyone's Satisfaction" -- even if that "satisfaction" REQUIRES me to concede to something that I do not agree with? This is like putting the witch on trial, and she cannot be saved from death unless she confesses to being a Witch... because that's the ONLY admission that "satisfies" the court.
Tell me where to send you some money to pay for this forum. What is it costing you? I'll help you bear that cost burden, if NASA isn't already (they should be).
If this forum were Neutral - it would work against NASA/Apollo. So maintaining the bias is a service to NASA, and deserves payment.
I do suspect that certain key individuals might be subsidized. Otherwise, I'm not understanding the irrational levels of bias I see here
No Gish Gallop, because Gish Gallop relies upon NOT REACHING A CONCLUSION -- making a claim, but then changing the subject with intent of NEVER resolving the claim you made -- leaving some viewers with ONLY ONE SIDE OF THE CLAIM, never cross-examined to conclusion. We've completed this thread. Conclusion and CONSENSUS has been reached -- there is no longer ANYONE HERE who believes this "Lunar Launch Too Fast" claim holds weight to prove a hoax. No one.QuoteI'd like to get your feedback on the other 2 threads.This is what I mean when I say you're Gish galloping.
No Gish Gallop, because Gish Gallop relies upon NOT REACHING A CONCLUSION...No, per the commonly accepted definition I provided.
And there is no one here who wants to learn more about the complexities of transient behavior analysis during rocket engine ignition where the nozzle output is mostly blocked. No one.Irrelevant. You made a testable claim and it will continue to be tested. Anyone who isn't interest in the discussion is free to ignore it.
I'd like to hear your rebuttal for the 9 flag movements of A14, as this thread has now reached it's end.This thread is not over just because you say it is. Baiting me to switch to one of the many other subjects you've raised is exactly how the Gish gallop works to avoid accountability on any one issue.
Pretend you are an ordinary person wanting to find out "why do some people question the moon landing", then turn to Google/YT and see what you can find. Nothing but "debunking of strawmen", almost entirely. It's near impossible to find a video produced by someone other than Sibrel (the worst of the skeptics), who actually believes we didn't land on the moon.If this forum were Neutral - it would work against NASA/Apollo.That is literally contradictory. If this site were neutral it would take a side? Seriously?
Google/YT/etc are all complicit in HIDING the good Moon Landing Hoax materials from the general public.
1. Therefore, the topics have not been satisfactorily resolved.
2. HB = Hoax Believer. It is not offensive to be called a believer of something if you are in fact a believer of that thing.
3. No. No one gets to unilaterally declare victory.
4. People have provided reasonable explanations for every single one of your claims, to the best of their ability. You have never disproven their explanations, you have only ever dismissed them.
IMO - it's US vs. THEM ... and y'all may be fighting for the wrong side here.What a troll.
As with this thread here -- Static Pressure Thrust seems to me as good evidence which can adequately disarm the claim I was making. I proved it myself, and declared defeat.
What a troll.
Gish Gallop:No Gish Gallop, because Gish Gallop relies upon NOT REACHING A CONCLUSION...No, per the commonly accepted definition I provided.
Irrelevant. You made a testable claim and it will continue to be tested. Anyone who isn't interest in the discussion is free to ignore it.Except me? I've admitted defeat. If you want to prove my testable claim false, please do, and I'll likely accept your explanation fully.
This thread is not over just because you say it is. Baiting me to switch to one of the many other subjects you've raised is exactly how the Gish gallop works to avoid accountability on any one issue.This thread is OVER because there is NO ONE LEFT TO DEFEND THE ORIGINAL CLAIM.... that person now agrees that the original claim has sufficiently been debunked, or is most likely easy-to-debunk even if the accuracy of my current debunk is flawed.
You conceded one conclusion only to replace it with a different one and declare victory on that point. It's still a testable claim and if you aren't willing to participate in the test then you aren't finished with the thread.OK - I concede too on my 2nd point. I do NOT defend my own counter argument to my claim. For ME it works well enough, but that's where it ends.
So yes, working at 1000 fps would be that infinitesimal change. But the video you have does not work at that level. That is one reason your analysis is flawed.You seem to be both very smart and nice. Thank you for that and for engaging.
Honestly, Jay is a decent guy; as are all the others here - apart from LO, he's a real pain ;). Ask the question and think about the answer. We're a good bunch with the same day to day issues as everyone else. There is no us and them.
For ME it works well enough, but that's where it ends."Works for me" has nothing to do with its objective correctness. If you want to convince me you no longer have faith in the objective correctness your proposed method, then remove it from publication and issue an explicit retraction.
If you want to PROPERLY create a counter-argument to my original claim - be my guestYou don't get to tell me how "properly" to challenge your claims. If you're willing to continue to be educated on the basis of the estimations you asked for, you can show that by doing such things as fixing your thermodynamics homework and we can continue where we left off, or engaging with the hints I gave you recently. As I have repeatedly told you, I will not provide a solution that you do not buy into as we go.
There is NO ONE HERE LEFT to defend ANY CLAIMS related to the Lunar Launches.If you are no longer claiming that you have a physically valid explanation for the LM ascent you observe, then you should retract any public claims to that effect. Otherwise it's fair to assume this is just another insincere rhetorical evasion.
Now please engage in a thread where you cannot escape to the obscurities of "rocket science". I'd like to see how you do there.I'm not interested in indulging your sick fixation with me personally. When I am convinced your apparent obsession is inconsequential, I may engage you on other points.
I'm simply here to do EXACTLY THAT -- figure out which Apollo Hoax claims can be debunked, vs. which ones cannot (at least by the people here).Whilst ignoring counter claims that prove motion on the lunar surface you have evaded.
Surely you can sense the unfair treatment I'm receiving here, mostly because I'm a Skeptic of Apollo.Well, 1/ you aren't being treated unfairly and 2/ any objectionable issues you have can be better explained by you acting like an arse and 3/ poor old you.
Surely you can sense the unfair treatment I'm receiving here, mostly because I'm a Skeptic of Apollo.You are not being treated unfairly. You are generally unprepared to support your claims with evidence and generally unwilling to engage criticism of the evidence you do provide. You categorically dismiss reasonable statements from others and constantly try to shift your burden of proof. You are abrasive, arrogant, obsessive, and evasive.
Perhaps I should have disguised myself as an Apollogist who was dealing with "difficult questions and wanted to know how to Debunk X, Y, and Z".Other hoax claimants have attempted that approach and were quickly discovered. It should be noted that you had no problem appearing in another forum effectively disguised as an Apollo defender, but were also told there that you were making mistakes. Maybe you should consider that you aren't as proficient as you believe, and that this is the explanation for your ongoing difficulties—not some vast conspiracy to discredit you.
I purposefully came to the place where I believed I could find the best chance of debunking these claims.You came here insisting that you were the smartest person in the room and arrogantly disrespecting anyone who didn't take your say-so as fact. You aren't entitled to a presumption of good faith. You aren't entitled to expect others to indulge your bad behavior.
A couple weeks ago, I updated my document, page 1 and title, as shown here:For ME it works well enough, but that's where it ends."Works for me" has nothing to do with its objective correctness. If you want to convince me you no longer have faith in the objective correctness your proposed method, then remove it from publication and issue an explicit retraction.
1. 3 of 4 topics are fully resolved. There is nothing left to be done with them.
2. HB, is far too generic, to include the "Round Earth Hoax", etc, etc.... I am only skeptical of the Moon Landing.
You surely believe the "Gulf of Tonkin" was a hoax... as they all admit it. This attack that got us into Vietnam was known to be false. As was the Bush-era WMD evidence -- another Hoax. So certainly you are a "HB" too, since you believe in at least ONE hoax.
Apollogist shouldn't threaten ANYONE. Apologist is a neutral term, where the apologists themselves self-identify with this term.
If you insist that it's so awful and hurts peoples' feelings - please do tell me a short term to describe "those who defend the evidences of the Apollo Moon Landings"?
3. You have MANY members here unilaterally declaring victory over me.
1. How about "truth defenders". Or "reality advocates"? Or maybe "the rational people"?1. Non-neutral. That would be akin to labeling me as the "Lie defender", "Fantasy Advocates" and "Irrational people".
2. If you fail to prove the Apollo moon landings were faked you have lost by default.
A couple weeks ago, I updated my document, page 1 and title, as shown here:No, this is the same shell game you've been trying here all day without success. The claim you have retracted in this statement is the claim that a hoax best explains the LM ascent. That's not the same as retracting the claim that you have singlehandedly created a physically correct model that better explains it. If it is still your published belief that you have a physically correct model, then that is still on the table to be challenged here. If you don't want it challenged on the grounds that you no longer believe in its objective correctness, retract that.
* * *
For a couple weeks, this claim has been retracted.
Teacher may I now be excused from this thread?Apparently not.
Why would you assume that "mainstream narratives are true by default"?Asked and answered. In history, a claim of fabrication, fraud, or inauthenticity bears the burden of proof. Aside from that, the Apollo narrative is not held simply because it is mainstream but because there is a wealth of evidence supporting its authenticity—evidence you've been unable to impeach. If we weren't compelled by epistemology to take it as the null hypothesis in a fraud claim, we would be compelled to consider it the established and unimpeached conclusion by virtue of the weight of evidence in favor of it.
If they hadn't blown-the-whistle on the Gulf of Tonkin - this would be the mainstream narrative, whether or not someone could prove it was faked evidence. 250K drafted young men died for this fake evidence, approved by LBJ - the Apollo President.Apples and oranges. You keep comparing your claims to those made by people who were able to provide testable evidence that then passed the test. All you have is a recitation of things you don't understand.
So lets investigate them.You're not raising any new issues. No one is obliged to let you lead them around by the nose in well-traveled paths.
No, this is the same shell game you've been trying here all day without success. The claim you have retracted in this statement is the claim that a hoax best explains the LM ascent. That's not the same as retracting the claim that you have singlehandedly created a physically correct model that better explains it. If it is still your published belief that you have a physically correct model, then that is still on the table to be challenged here. If you don't want it challenged on the grounds that you no longer believe in its objective correctness, retract that.My statement contained ample indications of "uncertainty".
Right, no one is obliged. Who is forcing anyone to engage? I find this interesting, as do some others. Thus the forum and volunteer participation.QuoteSo lets investigate them.You're not raising any new issues. No one is obliged to let you lead them around by the nose in well-traveled paths.
1. Non-neutral. That would be akin to labeling me as the "Lie defender", "Fantasy Advocates" and "Irrational people".
How about "Hoax Deniers"-- HD's. Since the context here is "Apollo" - then HB and HD are the simple neutral two-sides of the debate.
2. Then if you fail to prove the Landings actually happened, you have lost by default.
Why would you assume that "mainstream narratives are true by default"?
I'd like very much to complete my assessments of various MLH evidences. I find them compelling.
Isn't that the point of a forum and debate? Hear both sides; let the audience then decide.
Apples and oranges. You keep comparing your claims to those made by people who were able to provide testable evidence that then passed the test. All you have is a recitation of things you don't understand.8 flag motions in a vacuum -- appears to be currently unexplained, and possibly unexplainable. And so far, not seeing anyone here who can refute this claim. It's doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that on the moon there is nothing on the other side of the flag to push it towards the LM... yet something does.
Apples and oranges. You keep comparing your claims to those made by people who were able to provide testable evidence that then passed the test. All you have is a recitation of things you don't understand.8 flag motions in a vacuum -- appears to be currently unexplained, and possibly unexplainable. And so far, not seeing anyone here who can refute this claim. It's doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that on the moon there is nothing on the other side of the flag to push it towards the LM... yet something does.
1. The truth isn't neutral. Not all opinions are equal and I won't pretend that they are just to make you feel important.
2. Until you provide me with equally overwhelming proof that Apollo was faked, the default status quo is that Apollo really happened.
3. Yes, we tried that with you. It didn't work out. All we got in return for our efforts was your dismissal of them. You aren't worth our time.
My statement contained ample indications of "uncertainty".Your statement is the same mealy-mouthed double-speak by which you've "conceded" every other point. You still hold out hope that someone smarter than you will agree with you. While you concede you aren't a rocket scientist, you're still insinuating that you've hit upon a viable "static pressure thrust" model. That's an equivocation.
8 flag motions in a vacuum...Not even remotely connected to the point.
Off topic. Last warning.Jay brought it up -- my other posts, saying I was only ranting about things I didn't understand. This one was an APPROVED THREAD.
1. OK, I'll call you TD's - Truth Defenders. And you can call me an LD - Lie Defender.
2. I'm working on providing some proof, but you aren't allowing it. Why not allow it?
I may start my own forums.
Right, no one is obliged. Who is forcing anyone to engage? I find this interesting, as do some others. Thus the forum and volunteer participation.Your explanation for why people don't want to engage you the way you demand to be engaged is that they are fearful, biased, and under some religious spell. If I don't snap to attention when you @at me with a yoo-hoo, you claim I must be hiding from you. When people see you playing those games, they rightly doubt whether your interest is in the facts or the physics.
...These are your people here. Enjoy Salem. I've been silenced because I'm not a believer. Everything I think is of the devil here. Yeah, they sure seem decent to me too.
I've been silenced because I'm not a believer.No, you've been challenged effectively because your claims lack merit. Your participation has been restricted because you behave badly. The "silenced for my views" angle is so very tired.
...your claims lack merit.Not all claims. Two stand, awaiting a viable explanation from the TD's. And for the claims that did lack merit, I conceded. If viable refutations can be provided for the other two, I'll concede here as well.
Rasa's FB group, reached 40K+ members -- then was hijacked by hackers -- and now permeated with BAD Hoax Theories --
These are your people here. Enjoy Salem. I've been silenced because I'm not a believer. Everything I think is of the devil here. Yeah, they sure seem decent to me too.
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. Also, don't trust your estimates too much, especially from that TV.
..... it should also be noted that the for a brief period after ignition, the exhaust was trapped between the descent and ascent stages. This would have exerted an additional pressure on the ascent stage, causing it to accelerate faster than expected for that first second.
Bob, we've considered that but I think there's some question how best to quantify it. It becomes a constricted flow problem combined with a leak-rate problem, and I think it's tractable but I would have to derive the aperture form factor in terms of a circumferential opening. But in general, yes you'd get a certain high degree of transient pressure thrust just at the initial climbout.
These are your people here.
I've been silenced because I'm not a believer.
Everything I think is of the devil here. Yeah, they sure seem decent to me too.
You do realise that debate works both ways don't you? You present your claim, it get answered then counter-claim. you've run away from counter claims in the dust thread, are you going to do the same here?...your claims lack merit.Not all claims. Two stand, awaiting a viable explanation from the TD's. And for the claims that did lack merit, I conceded. If viable refutations can be provided for the other two, I'll concede here as well.
...your claims lack merit.Not all claims. Two stand, awaiting a viable explanation from the TD's. And for the claims that did lack merit, I conceded. If viable refutations can be provided for the other two, I'll concede here as well.
Whereas the forum on Facebook you champion is a virtuous one. After I argued Dr (ha ha) Rasa into a corner, he accused me of being a P*phile and then banned ME for being abusive. What a lovely forum that is..There is currently no good place for debate. Like Lunar Orbit here, Rasa also uses his home-court advantage to employ biases in favor of MLH. I would argue that theirs is "more warranted" because the MLH is in the scant minority right now, with all corporations working against us (i.e. Google/YT/NVIDIA/etc), using slimy tactics to "hide the good MLH arguments" while "promoting ONLY MLH debunks + Flat Earth Promotion" (to associate MLH with flat earth in most people's minds, as well as to try and convert anyone prone to believe conspiracy theories into believing a false hoax (flat earth) or to believe in MLH for "wrongful reasons".
Those two lack merit too, you're just not capable of accepting it yet.For the 8 flag motions - please tell me where my claim is "lacking merit". There are still ZERO counter-claims that anyone will even try to defend under scrutiny. This one remains fully undebunked, for an extremely simple context of Flags Untouched in a vacuum -- being gently pushed towards the LM and held there for up to 15 seconds at a time.
Stop whining about being silenced and have the discussions you claim to want. People have responded to your points so deal with that instead of posting walls of text about how badly you’re being treated and suggesting were paid shills for NASA.3 of the 4 topics have been brought to full closure.
I have more threads to raise, which may have a good chance of also being non-debunkable... which either makes LO uneasy, or breaks a contract he has with NASA. I can't figure out the reason for this insecurity associated with Apollo... I even have the mandate to call you TD's (Truth Defenders)... how does this look to you? Neutral, or biased?
I have two arguments outstanding that seem like GOOD arguments... 8 flag motions, and the Apollo 12 Dish flinging. I have MORE -- but am being silenced by the biased management of this forum.
Those two lack merit too, you're just not capable of accepting it yet.For the 8 flag motions - please tell me where my claim is "lacking merit". There are still ZERO counter-claims that anyone will even try to defend under scrutiny. This one remains fully undebunked, for an extremely simple context of Flags Untouched in a vacuum -- being gently pushed towards the LM and held there for up to 15 seconds at a time.
I believe the explanation that the flag movements coincide with venting from the LM makes sense. You have provided no counter argument to satisfactorily dispute it, you have merely dismissed it as "not viable".If you want to stand by this, under scrutiny, please re-open the thread which pertains to this, and we can discuss. That thread went off topic (like this one), because NOBODY would stand by their claim under scrutiny.
You want to flood the forum with so many claims that it makes us look incapable of disputing them all... so I'm putting the brakes on.I joined Nov 22nd, made 5 threads total-- and you put the brakes on, Nov 24th.. 6 weeks ago.
I have unlocked the flag thread. Defend your claim and stay on topic, or I will lock it again.Thank you. But if no one wants to discuss it, I'd recommend leaving it open - but just not talking about anything else.
You want to flood the forum with so many claims that it makes us look incapable of disputing them all... so I'm putting the brakes on.I joined Nov 22nd, made 5 threads total-- and you put the brakes on, Nov 24th.. 6 weeks ago.
I'd like to introduce a couple more threads, and drive them to completion, as we have with the prior ones. I have legitimate sincere desire for TRUTH here... not a meaningless Gish Gallop. I HATE bad arguments, and makes me sick when I see MLH videos/links using bad arguments (which is the majority of them).
So I'm only trying to investigate the ones that I truly/sincerely think might hold weight.
Speaking of "off track" - -can we consider THIS thread "concluded" as well? Leave it open, in case someone much later wants to comment, but for now, there is no more discussion to be had. I have withdrawn my claim that the Lunar Launches are Too Fast.Coward. You ran away from the dust thread and now you want to avoid rebuttal to your now crappy claims on this thread!
I want to point out something quite significant that has had an utterly useless "explanation" provided. The whole Apollo 17 launch seen was part of continued footage from the moment the rover was parked. It involved considerable activity in and around the LM with the identical background. Schmitt throws a hammer and we even see it glint as it reaches zenith.
I cannot understand how any reasonable person can look at that and not see how ridiculous it would be to fake that in 1972.
You do realise that debate works both ways don't you? You present your claim, it get answered then counter-claim. you've run away from counter claims in the dust thread, are you going to do the same here?
I detailed one of them above where we see astronauts walking around the identical LM and backdrop on Apollo 17. Well, it didn't occur to me that Apollo 16 would also provide such clear and obvious evidence. But oh does it ever!
Activity around the final rover spot and camera zooms to LM - astronaut approaches LM:
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a16/a16v.1704507.mpg
This is the one - activity around the LM that if najak says is faked, then it shows he really is delusional:
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a16/a16v.1704820.mpg
Static camera activity continues:
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a16/a16v.1705138.mpg
Like Lunar Orbit here, Rasa also uses his home-court advantage to employ biases in favor of MLH.
Rasa is nothing like LO. I have yet to see anyone here say that they have had posts/comments deleted, simply because they showed where LO (or someone else posting) was wrong. Rasa, however, and the other mods, routinely hide/delete comments/posts that show they are incorrect in their statements. Even something as simple as Rasa claiming person X is in a photo, when in reality it was person Y, comments correcting him will get removed.No comment. :) Rasa and I haven't always been on the best of terms, as he threatened to ban me a few times as well, for correcting the way they truth TD's (Truth Defenders!).
Pretend you are an ordinary person wanting to find out "why do some people question the moon landing", then turn to Google/YT and see what you can find.This is easy for me. When I first encountered the idea that the Moon landings had been faked, I didn't feel I had enough information to draw a conclusion in either direction. So I researched. I quickly found the absence of good evidence for the hoax to which you allude. Absence of evidence, however, is not evidence of absence, so I decided to vet the evidence I could find in support of the Apollo program. A great deal of it was over my head, so I had to do a lot of research in a number of different fields to be sure that what I was seeing was accurate. I had to brush up on my calculus and physics, I learned a great deal about geology, radiation, engineering, etc. It took months, and while I lack any professional qualifications, I learned enough to recognize that things I was reading were verifiably true. I was also willing to find materials that weren't available on the internet to assist my research.
But if you look up Flat Earth - you'll find PLENTY of videos by people who actually believe the Earth is Flat -- AND also don't think we went to the moon.I spent a great deal of time engaging with flat earthers (far too much time, tbh) and trying to identify and correct their errors. I know you're too close to the problem to see this, but your arguments are not fundamentally different in structure or scope than theirs.
So why is it easy to find PRO "Flat Earth videos", but NOT for "Moon Landing Hoax"??? In my view, there is a distinct difference between the two -- the first one, Flat Earth, is FALSE, and therefore not a threat to our government and societal world view. The 2nd one -- is different.This is catastrophically poor reasoning. As usual, you have reached a conclusion, sought any scrap of support for it, no matter how flimsy, discarded anything that doesn't confirm your assumptions, and proceeded to base even worse conclusions on that initial assumption.
And so, it's TRUE that for this forum to be NEUTRAL would work AGAINST NASA...
No Gish Gallop, because Gish Gallop relies upon NOT REACHING A CONCLUSION -- making a claim, but then changing the subject with intent of NEVER resolving the claim you made -- leaving some viewers with ONLY ONE SIDE OF THE CLAIM, never cross-examined to conclusion. We've completed this thread. Conclusion and CONSENSUS has been reached -- there is no longer ANYONE HERE who believes this "Lunar Launch Too Fast" claim holds weight to prove a hoax. No one.We'll add Gish Gallop to the increasingly extensive list of things you don't understand. You haven't made 5 separate claims. You've made the single claim that the Moon landings were faked. You've introduced 5 separate threads that you believe are evidence of that claim. Each time you are cornered in one, you attempt to redirect to one that you mistakenly believe gives you surer footing. Your interest in presenting more poorly vetted evidence (which is also likely riddled with errors) is part of the Gish Gallop technique.
1. Attempting to debunk the supporting evidence would be even more valuable for proving a hoax claim...
2. Gish Gallop... Each time you are cornered in one, you attempt to redirect to one that you mistakenly believe gives you surer footing.
No, presenting badly vetted, cherry picked ideas rife with misinformation to support your assumption that the Moon landings were faked is why you're here. I told you very shortly after you arrived here that Apollo would never be disproven by minutiae that doesn't look right to you. Look at the engineering that went in to the LM and explain specifically why it could not have done what it was designed and built to do. Look at the geological information regarding the Moon rocks and try to explain why literally every geologist is mistaken about their lunar origin.1. Attempting to debunk the supporting evidence would be even more valuable for proving a hoax claim...
2. Gish Gallop... Each time you are cornered in one, you attempt to redirect to one that you mistakenly believe gives you surer footing.
1. Attempting to debunk supporting evidence is why I'm here. If I didn't want to see it debunked, I'd stay in an echo chamber where people are nice to me.
2. Gish gallop is when you do NOT discuss things to conclusion... on purpose.Again, it's clear you don't really understand, so I'll try to make it more clear. Gish Gallop is when you attempt to support a claim with an overwhelming amount of arguments, regardless of whether those arguments are strong, or even correct.
I'm stating individual pieces of evidence that I believe have NOT been debunked and I'm trying to see if they CAN BE DEBUNKED... thus I'm here.How can you even pretend to be looking for any kind of truth when you have exerted zero effort to discover the truth for yourself? You have repeatedly been caught presenting things as fact that were wrong. You should have vetted all of this before you ever brought it here.
When one is debunked, I concede, as I should.Your "concessions", such as they are, make it clear that your pride is much more important to you than any truth. You equivocate where possible, or simply claim that there's no answer in either direction. While you have acknowledged when certain aspects of what you've presented have been factually incorrect, you have never once accepted factual rebuttal.
There is a SERIES OF EVIDENCE that, in my view, seem to support MLH - and at this point, I don't know for sure which ones are true vs. not.There is exactly zero evidence that supports MLH. There are a number of anomalies that you don't understand and have, for whatever reason, decided that you may assume the Moon landings were faked. You don't know the difference between which ones are true or not because you haven't done any meaningful research.
But there are ones that remain, which should be discussed. But currently aren't permitted.They are permitted. You aren't permitted to continue with your current pattern of presenting piles of nonsense to support your presupposition that the Moon landings are fake.
Again, it's clear you don't really understand, so I'll try to make it more clear. Gish Gallop is when you attempt to support a claim with an overwhelming amount of arguments, regardless of whether those arguments are strong, or even correct.You wrote: "STRONG":
You aren't permitted to continue with your current pattern of presenting piles of nonsense...8 flag motions, still has no viable explanation for the motions towards the LM. This is a true claim, not nonsense.
Are you seriously going to quibble about the word choice of "strong" vs. "true, correct, or reasonable"? Do you think that any or all of those qualifiers may also apply to an argument that is described as strong? Are you so desperate to save face that you're resorting to this level of semantic gymnastics to avoid conceding?Again, it's clear you don't really understand, so I'll try to make it more clear. Gish Gallop is when you attempt to support a claim with an overwhelming amount of arguments, regardless of whether those arguments are strong, or even correct.You wrote: "STRONG":
You can argue with the dictionary and Wikipedia on this one.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/gish-gallop (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/gish-gallop)
"a style of arguing in which someone tries to win a debate (= a political, etc. discussion) by using so many different arguments so quickly that their opponent cannot answer them, although these arguments may not be true, correct, or reasonable"
I'm NOT trying to win the MLH debate here. I'm trying to figure out which claims of MLH are solid, ambiguous, skewed, overstated, or entirely false.Oh, really? So when you repeatedly, and in multiple threads, claimed "even the Mighty Apollo can't break physics", this was just an exploration ideas?
Gish Gallop RELIES upon not providing time for the arguments to be scrutinized/cross-examined... That's never been my goal for ANY of these.Then why have you consistently tried to shift topics when you start getting cornered in a thread? If it's not one of your other threads, it's nonsense about the Cold War, or JFK/RFK, or Baron. You do this every single time you're presented with information for which you don't have a counter.
8 flag motions, still has no viable explanation for the motions towards the LM. This is a true claim, not nonsense.You've been told repeatedly that the LM depressurization was responsible for any flag movements not directly caused by the astronauts. Your unwillingness to accept that doesn't make it nonviable. You are not the judge or arbiter of any of this, and your acceptance or rejection is utterly inconsequential to literally everyone on the planet except for you.
Sometimes a thousand smaller but true/compelling details CAN make a case.Not if there are a million large, true, and compelling details for the other side. You have been so bogged down trying to pass off these minutiae that you haven't even bothered to examine the overwhelming mountains of evidence that show beyond doubt it was authentic.
@najak - https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=2016.msg59691#msg59691
Pretend you are an ordinary person wanting to find out "why do some people question the moon landing", then turn to Google/YT and see what you can find.
But if you look up Flat Earth - you'll find PLENTY of videos by people who actually believe the Earth is Flat -- AND also don't think we went to the moon.
So why is it easy to find PRO "Flat Earth videos", but NOT for "Moon Landing Hoax"???
Come over to that thread and make your stand then. It's off-topic here. If you haven't noticed, there STILL is ZERO viable explanations for the 5 movements TOWARD the LM. We can discuss it more in the other thread if you still aren't realizing this. You told me that in your search for Apollo truth, you brushed up on your physics -- lets see if you can use those skills to give a viable explanation. F=ma.Quote8 flag motions, still has no viable explanation for the motions towards the LM. This is a true claim, not nonsense.You've been told repeatedly that the LM depressurization was responsible for any flag movements not directly caused by the astronauts. Your unwillingness to accept that doesn't make it nonviable. You are not the judge or arbiter of any of this, and your acceptance or rejection is utterly inconsequential to literally everyone on the planet except for you.
I think because many of the moon landing hoax proponents either given up because it no longer generates the attention they were looking for, and others have moved on to also thinking the Earth is flat due to crank magnetismNope. As interest has grown, the anti-NASA videos have become hidden.
comfy with your OPINION that they have been hidden? Yet to see any proof of that. And even if they are, at BEST it shows only that private websites have a bias. There are still plenty of other sites that push the hoax nonsense.I think because many of the moon landing hoax proponents either given up because it no longer generates the attention they were looking for, and others have moved on to also thinking the Earth is flat due to crank magnetismNope. As interest has grown, the anti-NASA videos have become hidden.
Type this into google, and see what you get: "Videos that show how the moon landing was a hoax"
Nothing but anti-MLH. Some titles LOOK like they might be pro-MLH, but they aren't. If interest in proving MLH has died out, then so would "debating them" -- yet ONLY the pro-MLH videos are now soft-censored from the public finding the reasonable arguments -- such as A12 Dish flinging, the Hammering making Sounds, and the 8 flag motions of A14.
Google/YT has determined the truth for us all. Are you comfy with that?
If you don't stop with the background off topic complaining, I'm guessing you will be kicked out. Now yet again - address the counter-evidence against your failed/aborted ignorant claim.@najak - https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=2016.msg59691#msg59691
Najak - pull your finger out of your backside and address counter argument properly!
What kind of scientist ignores evidence they don't like? You can see astronauts moving around the same LM from the same Rover viewpoint, continuous footage, same background - identical.
And all you come out with was some speculative crap about Star Wars.
If you don't stop with the background off topic complaining, I'm guessing you will be kicked out. Now yet again - address the counter-evidence against your failed/aborted ignorant claim.Be specific -- I see a big post with a lot of full mpg links, no time stamps, no details. There's nothing to rebut, because you make no claims.
Be specific -- I see a big post with a lot of full mpg links, no time stamps, no details. There's nothing to rebut, because you make no claims.Your thread details something relating to the launches of the Lunar Modules. You failed spectacularly to prove the premise that this is some sort of fabricated launch.
Does this have to do with the Acceleration of the Lunar Module? If not, and you think these are important, create a thread because they are off-topic.Bollocks. It directly relates to the premise of this thread. Address it please. Only instead of some crap about special effects, show some actual honesty and look at it without the confirmation bias.
Bollocks. It directly relates to the premise of this thread. Address it please. Only instead of some crap about special effects, show some actual honesty and look at it without the confirmation bias.So provide me a fresh/clean post, that shows a videos with time stamp/window, and more detail, and I'll address.
Pay attention. IT WAS DEPRESSURIZATION FROM THE LM. There's no point in one more person telling you in that thread if you still haven't understood it.Come over to that thread and make your stand then. It's off-topic here. If you haven't noticed, there STILL is ZERO viable explanations for the 5 movements TOWARD the LM. We can discuss it more in the other thread if you still aren't realizing this.Quote8 flag motions, still has no viable explanation for the motions towards the LM. This is a true claim, not nonsense.You've been told repeatedly that the LM depressurization was responsible for any flag movements not directly caused by the astronauts. Your unwillingness to accept that doesn't make it nonviable. You are not the judge or arbiter of any of this, and your acceptance or rejection is utterly inconsequential to literally everyone on the planet except for you.
You told me that in your search for Apollo truth, you brushed up on your physics -- lets see if you can use those skills to give a viable explanation. F=ma.No, I won't be indulging your desire to shift the burden of proof. The LM depressurization explanation requires the Moon, an LM, and astronauts all things documented to be present in multiple ways.
I want to point out something quite significant that has had an utterly useless "explanation" provided. The whole Apollo 17 launch seen was part of continued footage from the moment the rover was parked. It involved considerable activity in and around the LM with the identical background. Schmitt throws a hammer and we even see it glint as it reaches zenith.
I cannot understand how any reasonable person can look at that and not see how ridiculous it would be to fake that in 1972.
I cannot understand how any reasonable person can look at that and not see how ridiculous it would be to fake that in 1972.
"rejected": A post which only existed for 2 years, then yanked down 7 years ago.... with NO NUMERICAL ANALYSIS. NONE. And by a guy who claimed to be "an ordinary guy". So pardon me for not taking his few-sentences of unsupported text as gospel.If there was NO STATIC PRESSURE component - I believe this would have been slam-dunk proof of the hoax. I could have been made aware of this with a few paragraphs of good faith teaching.No. You rejected Bob Braeunig's claim to that effect categorically on page 1 of this thread. That it's taken us 30 pages of remedial physics to convince you against your will that such a thing exists is not a sin you get to lay at your teachers' feet. That you've concocted a physically broken argument to justify your reversal does not entitle you to crow about your skill, knowledge, and forthrightness.
"Unsupported text"?
I earlier suggested you should visit Bob's site. Can I assume from this statement that you haven't visited his site?
I look at it and think how brave they were and how incredible the whole Apollo Program was to get them there and back.I look at it, currently, and feel sorry for the burden carried by that astronauts who carried more conscience about lying - such as Armstrong.. and subversively Aldrin (alcoholism, life fell apart)... In my view, they were told "Failure is not an option; the engineers have failed. Now WE, the military, have to finish-their-job for them." Patriotically, they did their duty and held to their oaths. I don't look down on the astronauts, nor the engineers. This was an IMPOSSIBLE task in that era. As we're seeing now... 20 years+, and still slipping schedule with 1000x more fidelity of tech... PLUS supposedly being able to build upon the success of Apollo. Yet we STILL can't launch anything to the moon more than 60,000 lbs, just over HALF of what SaturnV claimed to have done (with minimal flight testing or validations). Shouldn't we, by now, be able to at least MATCH this? Instead, we're talking with Artemis about "15 refuelings in earth orbit" just to get there with double the load.
I detailed one of them above where we see astronauts walking around the identical LM and backdrop on Apollo 17. Well, it didn't occur to me that Apollo 16 would also provide such clear and obvious evidence. But oh does it ever!So you are saying that these two scenes are impossible to fake? Left side is when astronauts were walking around... then MANY CUTS LATER... we see the LM launch (right side).
I look at it and think how brave they were and how incredible the whole Apollo Program was to get them there and back.
So there is no shame for these engineers. Valiant attempt, and lots of new tech progress as a result, especially for rocketry, orbital mechanics, space-related stuff, and computing.
So there is no shame for these engineers. Valiant attempt, and lots of new tech progress as a result, especially for rocketry, orbital mechanics, space-related stuff, and computing.
So a leap in technology, but the things they built and coded didn't work. ???Yes, leaps in tech. But "landing humans on the moon" was the big stopper. Some MLH argue that we never left LOE - as even NOW, our most powerful rocket, SLS, STILL can only lift 55% of the SaturnV load. And Artemis' best plan for landing double the load (220klbs) is "15 refuelings".
The footage all around the launch has camera pans, zooms and matching terrain exactly. Just imagine how much hassle and effort as NASA moved into the fifth/sixth (totally unnecessary) landings and increased footage and risk dramatically with staging a launch from the Moon. Occam must be turning in his grave at this apopalling logic vacuum being demonstrated.When dealing with "human deception on a high budget with high stakes" -- Occam isn't as applicable.
that's my beliefNobody gives a crap about your belief. Another thread where you show pure ignorance of rocket technology.
When dealing with "human deception on a high budget with high stakes" -- Occam isn't as applicable.Magic budget noted. No mention of the increasing numbers needed just for these needless lunar videos.
For example, JFK's assassination...Pathetic comparison, orders of magnitude less complicated.
If Bay of Pigs...You have made that point previously - another pathetic comparison.
"get out over his skis" as we say here in Utah
When dealing with "human deception on a high budget with high stakes" -- Occam isn't as applicable.But you're begging the question of human deception when the purpose of Occam's razor is to properly place such a hypothesis in perspective.
"Unsupported text"?
I earlier suggested you should visit Bob's site. Can I assume from this statement that you haven't visited his site?
Bob didn't provide any estimate of the magnitude of the effect of gas partially trapped between the stages. We left it at discussing and agreeing on a method to determine it, but no one carried it out because (as you can see) it's fairly involved...[Najak] has gone to comical lengths to assure us the subject needs no further elaboration since he has withdrawn the claim that LM liftoff performance is evidence of a hoax.
LOL, it's funny watching you patiently explain aspects of rocket science to actual rocket scientists...Najak replied (Reply #550):
...Why do you think Braeunig could produce a reasonable trajectory estimation using a spreadsheet with algebraic math?At Reply #577 I invited Najak:
Just visit his website and you'll see.
I have discussed with Bob concerning the velocity profile of the Saturn V, A11. One attribute I will add about Bob's work, he is meticulous. And he did not pull his web page down because the Blunder posted a different set of radiation numbers than what Bob had, he pulled it for personal resons."Unsupported text"?
I earlier suggested you should visit Bob's site. Can I assume from this statement that you haven't visited his site?
Bob didn't provide any estimate of the magnitude of the effect of gas partially trapped between the stages. We left it at discussing and agreeing on a method to determine it, but no one carried it out because (as you can see) it's fairly involved...[Najak] has gone to comical lengths to assure us the subject needs no further elaboration since he has withdrawn the claim that LM liftoff performance is evidence of a hoax.
I absolutely get this. I was wanting to call out Najak for his casual rejection of Bob's knowledge of the topic. Back on 19 December in the 'Conclusive Proof' thread I made this comment (Reply #549):QuoteLOL, it's funny watching you patiently explain aspects of rocket science to actual rocket scientists...Najak replied (Reply #550):Quote...Why do you think Braeunig could produce a reasonable trajectory estimation using a spreadsheet with algebraic math?At Reply #577 I invited Najak:QuoteJust visit his website and you'll see.
I've visited Bob's website and I'm blown away by the comprehensiveness of his explanation of rocketry and orbital mechanics. And while I can't find it, I remember the accuracy of the 2D animation he created of an Apollo free-return trajectory.
This is why, when I saw Najak's throwaway characterisation in this thread of Bob's website as "unsupported text", I was annoyed enough to remind him of our earlier conversation.
So, Najak, do you stand by your characterisation of Bob's website as "unsupported text"?
I look at it, currently, and feel sorry for the burden carried by that astronauts who carried more conscience about lying - such as Armstrong.. and subversively Aldrin (alcoholism, life fell apart)... In my view, they were told "Failure is not an option; the engineers have failed. Now WE, the military, have to finish-their-job for them." Patriotically, they did their duty and held to their oaths. I don't look down on the astronauts, nor the engineers. This was an IMPOSSIBLE task in that era.
As we're seeing now... 20 years+, and still slipping schedule with 1000x more fidelity of tech... PLUS supposedly being able to build upon the success of Apollo. Yet we STILL can't launch anything to the moon more than 60,000 lbs, just over HALF of what SaturnV claimed to have done (with minimal flight testing or validations). Shouldn't we, by now, be able to at least MATCH this? Instead, we're talking with Artemis about "15 refuelings in earth orbit" just to get there with double the load.
So there is no shame for these engineers. Valiant attempt, and lots of new tech progress as a result, especially for rocketry, orbital mechanics, space-related stuff, and computing. There is no shame for the Patriotic military men who kept their oath for sake of national interests. And it's above my pay grade to criticize the world leaders -- we can view govt as good or bad, for various reasons. And thus things that promote "better govt confidence" will likewise be good or bad. Was the boost in human morale in that day-age justification for the hoax? The Russian-USA space alliance worth it?
The continued confidence that permitted the Space Shuttle to continue (as Apollo's announced failure may have caused NASA to lose all budget). Astronauts keeping their oath, were also protecting the future of NASA - our ability to continue towards space tech. Lots of good reasons for the lie.
So, Najak, do you stand by your characterisation of Bob's website as "unsupported text"?Yes. It was unsupported. Unsupported does not mean "false", it just means unsupported. So for a long-standing claim with no numerically-supported-debunk, this claim remained undebunked. I realize my own self-debunk is not fully correct, but provides enough of an estimate for a component I didn't imagine to be much (mostly because no one ever supported it with a numeric-based analysis) - that I consider this "debunked enough" - as I can now imagine the full-debunk will suffice.
And you still haven't demonstrated that Apollo needed to be faked. Please provide evidence that Apollo needed to be faked.I've LOVE to do that. But it's multi-faceted, and LO won't allow it.
And you still haven't demonstrated that Apollo needed to be faked. Please provide evidence that Apollo needed to be faked.I've LOVE to do that. But it's multi-faceted, and LO won't allow it.
The only person stopping you from moving on to new topics is you. As long as you keep dismissing good explanations for your claims as "not viable" you're telling us there is still work to be done.Salem.Witch.Trials - also were run this way. Your idea of "good explanations" is one-sided... if I do not agree with you, then I'm not allowed to post more threads.
I am not resistant to learning here. Never have been. People confused my approach, "strong stick man", with unwavering conviction. I don't dig my heels in when new information or logic is presented,You must have zero self awareness. The impression you have of yourself has absolutely nothing in common with the impression the rest of the world has of you.
This process isn't science/engineering as much as it is "detective work", which relies a lot more on behaviors/motives/means/patterns to create your theories. Then you try to see if you can make the shoe fit.This is not how rational people do things. You don't start with a conclusion and then see if you can gather data that makes it seem real. You gather information and allow the conclusion to follow naturally from the analysis of the data. If you are trying to "make the shoe fit" you're doing it completely backwards.
I'd really appreciate the chance to talk through the rest of the items on my list, to see which ones hold water, which ones don't.Let's just skip the list and go right to the end. None of the items on your list hold water. Any speculation that attempts to deny reality will be inherently false. And despite that, nothing anyone can say or do will change your mind about any of them. If someone flew you to the Moon right now and showed you the actual landing sites you would almost certainly say that they were planted there after the fact in order to preserve the lie.
The only person stopping you from moving on to new topics is you. As long as you keep dismissing good explanations for your claims as "not viable" you're telling us there is still work to be done.Salem.Witch.Trials - also were run this way. Your idea of "good explanations" is one-sided... if I do not agree with you, then I'm not allowed to post more threads.
BUT, I HAVE conceded THIS THREAD LONG AGO... fully accepted that my claim was NON-VIABLE. So may I create a new thread, to honor my "good behavior"?
This process isn't science/engineering as much as it is "detective work", which relies a lot more on behaviors/motives/means/patterns to create your theories. Then you try to see if you can make the shoe fit.
QuoteThis process isn't science/engineering as much as it is "detective work", which relies a lot more on behaviors/motives/means/patterns to create your theories. Then you try to see if you can make the shoe fit.
No, that really isn't how logic and reasoning work. Either Apollo happened as advertised or it didn't. Your approach is akin to expending huge amounts of time on establishing if I have the means, motive and opportunity to murder someone and trying to convict me before taking the steps of establishing if the alleged victim is actually dead in the first place.
...I will purposefully discount the weight of NASA/historic claims and Moon-Science Claims, as I believe it's possible that NASA has maintained control of "Scientific Consensus" for this field. (which is true, if MLH is true)
First, regarding your claim that “NASA has maintained control of the scientific consensus for this field”, you (once again) haven’t provided any evidence for this.
Second, you don’t get to a priori dismiss evidence supporting a claim, solely on the basis that if the claim were false then the supporting evidence would consequently be false. That’s a circular argument.
“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you should disregard the CCTV video of my client punching the victim, because if he’s innocent then this video must be fake.”
QuoteThis process isn't science/engineering as much as it is "detective work", which relies a lot more on behaviors/motives/means/patterns to create your theories. Then you try to see if you can make the shoe fit.
No, that really isn't how logic and reasoning work. Either Apollo happened as advertised or it didn't. Your approach is akin to expending huge amounts of time on establishing if I have the means, motive and opportunity to murder someone and trying to convict me before taking the steps of establishing if the alleged victim is actually dead in the first place.
No, that really isn't how logic and reasoning work. Either Apollo happened as advertised or it didn't. Your approach is akin to expending huge amounts of time on establishing if I have the means, motive and opportunity to murder someone and trying to convict me before taking the steps of establishing if the alleged victim is actually dead in the first place.For MLH, it's more like a crime investigation, dealing with deception... "testimonies that aren't honest or complete" -- the detective's main tool is to "look for holes in the story". When there are holes, they have to theorize other storylines that accommodate those holes, and use means/motive as a key contributor to imagining what the actual truth might be... then it's iterative. In science, we aren't dealing with "human deception" -- but rather repeatable, measurable behavior - which is "honest".
Meant to add this when I posted, but also if your arguments relate to how the equipment worked, whether it be a steerable S-band antenna, the LLTV, the AGC, then it very much IS science/engineering.Correct... but the rationale for examining this evidence is more like criminal investigation. This behavior is highly unlikely in the presented normal context. Noting the behavior that is consistent with the MLH theory (signs of gravity) makes it a piece evidence for MLH, for which the best rebuttal is what you explained. So we present BOTH sides for this evidence, and MOVE ON. This thread is dead, complete, with nothing new to be said.
Correct... but the rationale for examining this evidence is more like criminal investigation. This behavior is highly unlikely in the presented normal context. Noting the behavior that is consistent with the MLH theory (signs of gravity) makes it a piece evidence for MLH, for which the best rebuttal is what you explained. So we present BOTH sides for this evidence, and MOVE ON. This thread is dead, complete, with nothing new to be said.That is just bollocks. You know and everyone her knows that your overall weight of knowledge on the Apollo missions is appallingly low.
I get that the people here don't want to see more such claims - which is why no one else is encouraging LO to allow some new threads with new content -- instead of beating these dead horses.Not true. It's not the claims at all. It's the repetition and your very bad attitude. You simply are oblivious to how badly you have come across. How can you possibly stand there lecturing people who have complex knowledge of the machinery when you clearly just read some of it?
For MLH, it's more like a crime investigation,The Apollo project is built on science and engineering. If you can't formulate arguments against it in that realm then it follows that there is no crime to investigate.
the detective's main tool is to "look for holes in the story".You're not a detective, and the only holes are the giant gaps in your understanding. I realize it must be fun to imagine you're main character in a crime novel, using only your wits to unravel the elaborate conspiracy the villains have perpetrated. But something every Sherlock Holmes knock-off has in common is they get the facts right, and those facts lead them to the right answer. You are attempting to rush directly to the end without getting any of the actual facts correct.
When there are holes, they have to theorize other storylines that accommodate those holes,Sure, but you haven't correctly identified any holes. When a given explanation isn't consistent with all of the facts, then you may need to speculate about explanations that will be fully consistent.
For MLH, it's more like a crime investigation, dealing with deception... "testimonies that aren't honest or complete" -- the detective's main tool is to "look for holes in the story".
Correct... but the rationale for examining this evidence is more like criminal investigation. This behavior is highly unlikely in the presented normal context. Noting the behavior that is consistent with the MLH theory (signs of gravity) makes it a piece evidence for MLH, for which the best rebuttal is what you explained. So we present BOTH sides for this evidence, and MOVE ON.
Ah well, I tried. The only disappointment is that the discussions stimulated new rebuttal for me to digest. Maybe if JayUtah has time he can walk us through a little more of the resolution to this that was so sadly missed by najak.Correct... but the rationale for examining this evidence is more like criminal investigation. This behavior is highly unlikely in the presented normal context. Noting the behavior that is consistent with the MLH theory (signs of gravity) makes it a piece evidence for MLH, for which the best rebuttal is what you explained. So we present BOTH sides for this evidence, and MOVE ON. This thread is dead, complete, with nothing new to be said.That is just bollocks. You know and everyone her knows that your overall weight of knowledge on the Apollo missions is appallingly low.
Compared to many here, I reckon I'm at around 40% and that has taken considerable effort. A long time ago I was of the opinion it didn't happen, so clueless was I that I didn't even know about things like the rocks or surface experiments. As I looked into it, it became clear that there was an ever increasing case that it most certainly did occur. I was not tied in to my belief, it was just a suspicion.
You have a major problem. You are completely locked into this confirmation bias. If you were to approach every detail with some sort of neutrality and with more objectivity, your knee-jerk denial removed!, that would be a far better way to conduct yourself.QuoteI get that the people here don't want to see more such claims - which is why no one else is encouraging LO to allow some new threads with new content -- instead of beating these dead horses.Not true. It's not the claims at all. It's the repetition and your very bad attitude. You simply are oblivious to how badly you have come across. How can you possibly stand there lecturing people who have complex knowledge of the machinery when you clearly just read some of it?
I urge LunarOrbit not to kick you out just yet and I urge you to apologise for the "Salem witch" comment (which appeared to tip the scales) and ask for one more chance. I'm ok with a bit of debate, not because I find your comments or observations helpful, but because every time without fail there are new aspects of Apollo I get to find out about.
Nobody expects any HB to suddenly reverse direction but there's ways of disagreeing about things that involve more diplomacy than you are currently exhibiting. This thread is not done by far.
Why don't you work with JayUtah and let him put this claim 100% to bed. An absence of firm evidence is ok but nothing beats irrefutable. Your hurry to blast into more threads is bizarre - this is 50+ years old, it's not going anywhere.
Note how Bob and I discussed gas trapped between the ascent and descent stage. Najak's conceptual error was assuming that was limited to what was happening only beneath the nozzle. When I hinted that you had to think outside the box when integrating𝐹=∫ 𝑃𝑥 𝑑𝐴,what I mean is that you have to integrate 𝑃𝑥 over the entire underside of the ascent stage.
I'll save the gory numerical details for an updated Clavius page at some future date.I don't remember nor have I looked but did the Ascent stage have an accelerometer in it or was that too much weight?
Note how Bob and I discussed gas trapped between the ascent and descent stage. Najak's conceptual error was assuming that was limited to what was happening only beneath the nozzle. When I hinted that you had to think outside the box when integrating𝐹=∫ 𝑃𝑥 𝑑𝐴,what I mean is that you have to integrate 𝑃𝑥 over the entire underside of the ascent stage. I doubt it would be uniform, but the point is that there's a whole lot of 𝐴 for it to act against. Now his thrust model is all kinds of wrong too, but the reason you want to know the thermodynamics of the exhaust from first principles and the initial gap through which it's escaping (i.e., the "leak-rate" in my conversation with Bob) is that this gives you a basis for estimating the initial static pressure of the entire region of gas that's semi-trapped between the stages—not just under the nozzle. The photographs of the shock wave during ascent testing assure us that enough of a "bubble" of exhaust gas remains at a density sufficient to support wave propagation during the one second or so following ignition. It's not just immediately disappearing into vacuum. It's easy to hand wave the rest and say that's just a quantification exercise. But in fact that quantification is the aforementioned "nasty integral" and will take a fairly fun bit of math(s).
With apologies to Bob and to the world, I think we'll have to take ignition transient off the table. The more carefully I watch the ascent video, the more convinced I am that the APS engine has reached "steady state" by the time the ascent stage is cut loose. I add the cautionary quote marks because it's questionable whether any sort of nominal steady state operation is possible with the ascent stage engine that close to the descent stage deck. I originally estimated the ignition transient for this motor at about 350 ms, and the design requirements give the standard 90%-thrust deadline as something like 450 ms. (It's generally okay if a transient spike greater than 100% occurs later, so long as once having reached 90% thrust by the required time, the thrust does not then fall below 90%.) It looks like the ascent stage might be still attached through all those ballpark timings.
Also to that point, I've found the documentation for the launch sequencing up in my attic. When I get some time, I can sit down and map out the sequence and timings from APS valve actuation to the pyrotechnical let-go. Contrary to Najak's believe, no, there is never any one concise document that by itself answers some question that someone might come up with. But from watching what looks like transient exhaust plumes in the videos, I won't be surprised if the sequencing confirms that any thrust spikes due to ignition occur before the ascent stage is cut loose.
I don't remember nor have I looked but did the Ascent stage have an accelerometer in it or was that too much weight?The LM's IMU was in the cockpit overhead, connected to the alignment scope. It had a full set of 3 accelerometers. The IMUs were the same model for the CSM and the LM.
That being said, and I Googled and it indicated the acceleration was 1.7 m/sec. That is obviously at near steady state, but was there any publication that listed a spike in acceleration at lift off?I don't remember nor have I looked but did the Ascent stage have an accelerometer in it or was that too much weight?The LM's IMU was in the cockpit overhead, connected to the alignment scope. It had a full set of 3 accelerometers. The IMUs were the same model for the CSM and the LM.