Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch

[nomuse]

Hi Alan F

Don't say I don't help you guys. Here is some bedtime reading for you. I have a lot more places to get docs. Happy Reading.

https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/Documents/

A reminder;

Most of us here have been reading up on Apollo for a decade or more. Some of us work professionally in the aerospace industry. You aren't finding docs none of us have seen or couldn't find on our own.

What you are doing, is explaining what exactly it is you read that gave you the coobadoodly ideas you've been presenting here.

[jr Knowing]

Hi Von_Smith

You would have to ask NASA. But to be clear, the paper doesn't say they won't work, just that there is significant risk using them. Also what would have been the alternative? You had engines thrusting directly onto the lower part of the LM. That certainly would have raised questions on how that was possible without creating perhaps catastrophic issues for the craft. So stick with the deflectors and hope no one questions it?

[jr Knowing]

Nomuse,

I was responding to a poster who asked for help.

[nomuse]

Why would NASA put plume deflectors on Apollo 12, then?  This memo came out three weeks before Apollo 12's launch, meaning that from this point forward the deflectors would no longer serve the purpose of convincing engineers that the missions were legit, right?  Since those same engineers were supposedly now convinced that the deflectors were bad?

Yeah, it's a variation on Jay's "Hire that astronomer, then!"

If a good engineer could see there was something suspicious about the design, then it behooves you to, well, hire a good engineer to design it in the first place.

I'm convinced this is entirely a problem of ego. The average hoax believer is fine with "anomalies" that are so obvious anyone can see them (anyone but paid dis-informants and of course brainwashed sheeple). Some hoax believers, however, aren't satisfied with that. They want "anomalies" that only they personally are smart enough to have noticed.

[JayUtah]

I was responding to a poster who asked for help.

He was asking for accountability.

[JayUtah]

You would have to ask NASA.

And NASA asks me, because I'm the kind of person NASA would hire if it wanted a working spaceship.  Why won't you listen to me?

But to be clear, the paper doesn't say they won't work, just that there is significant risk using them.

You're not a competent analyst of risk.  You don't understand the underlying mechanisms.

So stick with the deflectors and hope no one questions it?

Or stick with the deflectors (which correct a problem with the common case) and address the problems the deflectors raise (which, in your memo, arise only in uncommon cases).

[JayUtah]

I'm convinced this is entirely a problem of ego. The average hoax believer ... wants "anomalies" that only they personally are smart enough to have noticed.

Jr Knowing has gone over fully into ego-reinforcement mode.  Note how most of his posts lately are just crowing about what a great researcher he is, how he has to "help" his critics, and how he's the one who's winning the debate by producing documents.  Incidentally this is where the Internet Keyboard Warriors differ from serious researchers.  They define success by how many links they can produce, not how well they can understand the concepts.  While they frantically Google, I can pretty much teach these concepts from memory.

[Von_Smith]

Hi Von_Smith

You would have to ask NASA. But to be clear, the paper doesn't say they won't work, just that there is significant risk using them. Also what would have been the alternative? You had engines thrusting directly onto the lower part of the LM. That certainly would have raised questions on how that was possible without creating perhaps catastrophic issues for the craft. So stick with the deflectors and hope no one questions it?

But that's just it:  according to you, somebody already *had* questioned it.  Your answer makes no sense; why would NASA assume that engineers in the audience would be savvy enough to perceive a need for plume deflectors and at the same time too dumb to work out the stability problems their own engineers had already worked out?  Why not instead fake a new feature that solves both problems?

[nomuse]

Yeah. When I ask someone to explain, when I see a link I wonder if they can think for themselves. When that link is to a video I wonder if they can think.

[Jason Thompson]

The fact is I am the only person who has provided any documentation regarding the workings of the deflectors.

Providing the documentation is one thing. Understanding it is another.

I find it comical on how everyone has twisted this MIT paper to mean nothing.

Please show us where we have 'twisted' the memo rather than pointing out some pretty significant caveats.

And once again, do you understand the difference between a paper and a memo? This is not trivial.

And to suggest that these conclusions have no bearing to the LM flying solo (detached from the CSM). If anything, it is even more problematic for the LM operating solo.

The graph in that memo specifically contradicts that assertion.

Atleast the CSM-LM had the ability of disabling the LM RCS’s if there is a failure or mismatch power issue ( ie one RCS operating at 50 percent of the opposite RCS) and rely on the CSM RCS’s.

No, the stacked vehicle only ever used the RCS on the service module in normal flight. It did not have to 'disable' the LM RCS because they were only intended to be used when the LM was flying solo.

(That is what happen with Apollo 13, I have the report)

If you have the report how are you making such a fundamental error in fact? On Apollo 13 the CSM was shut down and the LM RCS used to control attitude when required. This is the only time the LM RCS was used to control the stacked vehicle, and it wasn't done by automatic control.

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, it won't, for reasons already explained.

[Jason Thompson]

Hi Von_Smith

You would have to ask NASA.

No, we're asking you, because you are the one claiming it was a problem.

But to be clear, the paper doesn't say they won't work, just that there is significant risk using them.

Under a very specific cet of circumstances that are extremely unlikely to occur. It also illustrates how the problem can be avoided by manual crew intervention. If you disagree with that statement then tell us why.

Also what would have been the alternative? You had engines thrusting directly onto the lower part of the LM.

Once again, prove this was an issue, and address the response you got to your request for an example of any other vehcle that does this kind of thing.

That certainly would have raised questions on how that was possible without creating perhaps catastrophic issues for the craft.

No, it wouldn't, for reasons already explained in this thread.

[Jason Thompson]

Hi Alan F

Don't say I don't help you guys. Here is some bedtime reading for you. I have a lot more places to get docs. Happy Reading.

https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/Documents/

No, when someone asks you for a specific book you don't point to a library.

If you want honest debate, as you claim, then answer questions properly.

[onebigmonkey]

Careful jr, your slip's showing. You've subtly shifted to "you may not have looked at these photos properly" to "I know more than you".

You don't.

The paper does not support your position either that there is a problem with the deflectors or that there is an adequate documentation and research on them. Like each of your vaguely hinted at claims, there is no substance here.

Still waiting for you to provide support for the unnecessary side issue you introduced about the fender, and the fact that the photographs I posted showing that the actual fender and the objects in the Apollo images you posted  look nothing like each other.

[Allan F]

Hi Alan F

Don't say I don't help you guys. Here is some bedtime reading for you. I have a lot more places to get docs. Happy Reading.

https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/Documents/

Obviously, you can't answer the question. That means YOU didn't find it. Somebody spoonfed it to you. What was that persons motivation? To make you look ... silly?

[Jason Thompson]

Like each of your vaguely hinted at claims, there is no substance here.

Actually there's quite a bit of substance, but none of it supports his claim. It takes either huge chutzpah or simple incompetence to claim something supports an argument when that something, besides all the rest that has been pointed out already, includes a mathematical equation that can be applied.

So, go on, jr, show us you understand the subject by using that equation. It allows you to figure out under exactly what conditions a positive feedback loop leading to uncontrollable spinning would arise with automatic control systems in the event of a failure of a jet. Apply it to the undocked LM. You know the LM dimensions so you can easily calculate a possible range of the values D₁ and D₂ and see what effect this has on M_+X.