Hoax? - Lunar Launches - Too Fast

[najak]

Greetings to all. 

I am an insane MLH guy, who is convinced that the most compelling science and logic indicate we didn't land humans on the moon.  And I am glad to be here among MLH skeptics, as Iron sharpens Iron.   My beliefs are sincere, as are yours - so I pray we have respectful and productive debate here.

I'll start out by presenting a fairly detailed analysis of ALL 3 of the Lunar Launches - Apollo 15, 16, and 17.  It is all contained in a google doc on OneDrive with supplemental images and work contained in some folders.

I believe this proof to be a slam dunk proof in favor of MLH.   Even the mighty Apollo is not permitted to "Break Physics".

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sJsIUlzdVF3brADa8YwR4XTg59mod-K2ct4jQCSKlyA/edit?usp=sharing

This gdoc (google doc) contains all of the links to my work, and the Spreadsheet showing the math.

Interestingly, as I was called to analyze the first 1 second of frames, to rebut the "initial fast impulse" claim that @Allan F had raised to me, not only did I find that the acceleration of this first second was near constant (at 2.54X too high) for the whole second, but then for the 2nd second, this acceleration dropped well BELOW the expected acceleration, and even went negative.

I did this extra analysis for Apollo 16, since it has the best resolution and a stable camera (no panning, so the Lander base stays right where it is).

I pulled these frames from NASA's published footage, and captured it in slow motion, then used VLC to verify EXACTLY 30 FPS - to confirm that the "seconds shown in YouTube player" exactly aligned to this 30 FPS source frame rate.

For example, for A16, the 7th frame (marked 0.20 seconds after ignition) starts showing 14 seconds in YouTube, and then the 37th frame is exactly where it starts second 15.   This is consistent.   A17 is the same, and for A15 it's 15 FPS.

All 3 show approximately the same type of error for the 1st second (2.5X or more), but I only did the 2nd second analysis as well as a 10 FPS analysis of Apollo 16, to study the "first 1 second acceleration evidence" - which appears to be near constant, while for the 2nd second, it abysmally drops well below the expected acceleration and even goes negative.

[najak]

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.   I think this statement might be misconstruing the phrase "over pressured Ignition" - which is something that is BAD for thrust, as this just means "too much pressure in the ignition chamber" which interferes with it's thrust.  This doesn't equate to "more thrust" but instead "less thrust".

I believe this is because the "amount of pressure that might build up if the nozzle was fully sealed" (which it's not) - simply doesn't compensate for the gross loss of normal rocket thrust achieved by efficient ignition and unconstrained expulsion of exhaust.

Please source this better -- to prove that our true rocket science would indicate "higher thrust" at ignition, when only part of the fuel is even igniting.

[smartcooky]

It never ceases to amaze me how, every so often, a new hoax believer will come along, convinced they have found something that has never been seen before, and that their "discovery" will do what none have done before - debunk the moon landings.

Sadly, this is another example. All this stuff is old news... very old news. In fact its so old that, IIRC, even the Blunder From Down Under was arguing the ignition impulse crap more than 20 years ago. Those arguments failed then, and it will fail now.

Just a warning najak... this is not some forum like "Above Top Secret" or "Godlike Productions" where the members are mostly anonymous, poorly educated keyboard warriors who barely made it out of high school.  There are real, professional rocket scientists and aviation experts here, such as aerospace and aeronautical engineers. There are also professional engineers, technicians and mathematicians... many of us have degrees and certified qualifications in our chosen professions. If you try bullshitting, you will get your arse handed to you very, very quickly.

I will start the ball rolling by showing you a video, which explains not just that the moon landings were not faked, but that, with the technology profiles of the time, it would not have been possible to fake them. Thank you to the late S.G. Collins.

[najak]

@smartcooky - It's nice to meet you.   I'm aware of that debunk, about film technology, and for this debate, this is off-topic.   

So please stick with the debate at hand (Lunar Launch Speeds), of which I am unaware of a scientifically legitimate debunk here.   If you want to debate film-tech, please start a new thread.

I am here because I've heard there is a good group of minds involved.  100% integrity is my only goal.

If you have something that pertains to this "Lunar Launch Initial Acceleration", please pour it on.