The fact is I am the only person who has provided any documentation regarding the workings of the deflectors.
You dredged up a memo where it was mentioned in connection with an unlikely scenario and pretended it was something it clearly isn't. I gave you a complete and correct analysis of the plume deflectors and their stability effects days ago, which you simply discarded.
I find it comical on how everyone has twisted this MIT paper to mean nothing.
You blatantly misrepresented the memo.
And to suggest that these conclusions have no bearing to the LM flying solo (detached from the CSM).
Because they don't. If you had actually understood the memo, you would have seen that the entire scenario rests on the vehicle center of mass being highly eccentric. This cannot be the case with the LM flying alone.
If anything, it is even more problematic for the LM operating solo.
No, you don't know what you're talking about. And you specifically edited away the qualifying statements from your quotes, where your source contradicts what you're now trying to make of it. You specifically tried to make the statements seem more general than they plainly were. Hence you are even more egregiously dishonest than I originally believed.
But with the LM operating alone there is no backup if there is a failure or mismatch of power between two opposite thrusters and that will result in serious stability issues.
No. I covered this at length earlier. You entirely ignored it, and I suspect you still don't understand it.
Just the fact they had no RCS backups, let alone the deflector issue, it sure seems luck was on their side.
No, I covered at length the issue of "backups," and you did not respond. Now you're just repeating already-debunked nonsense and trying to insist that we accept your willful ignorance as if it's some kind of authority.
