Let me elucidate a bit more on where we stand in this thread, given contributions in other threads by Jr Knowing and his critics. Gillianren appropriately pointed out that no, we aren't obliged to agree-to-disagree amicably when the matter at hand can be factually resolved. So what are the facts here?
It is a fact that the stability of any free body is governed by the laws of free-body dynamics. Notice I say the
laws. To science, that means something. The
law of gravity states that between two or more particles of a given mass there will exist a rigorously quantifiable force of attraction between them. This law is inviolate; it
always predicts the outcome. Now in physics there are plenty of
theories for the mechanism by which this behavior arises. And as with all theories, there is plenty of well-argued disagreement on which, if any of them, might hold. But a theory is different than a law. Scientific law is about observable, quantifiable facts.
The specific application of the laws of free-body dynamics to the lunar module are well known and indisputable. They govern what the effect of the plume deflectors will be, in a rigorously quantifiable way. They govern what the natural stability of the spacecraft would be, absent any inputs from the RCS jets. They govern the behavior of the lunar module in cases where the RCS doesn't work properly -- again, all in rigorously quantifiable ways. What's important to realize is that no amount of intuition or personal perspective -- no matter how "differently" formulated -- changes the behavior predictable by the laws of free-body motion. The spacecraft doesn't move in a differently evaluable way just because it "looks" ungainly, or because a claimant is not conversant with the relevant principles. To Jr Knowing :--
When you writeOthers would rather put down people for having different views on things then them.
you're sidestepping the point. Your "different view on" the stability of the lunar module means precisely nothing. Your feelings are absolutely irrelevant in the face of how we know the behavior of free bodies to be governed. Your "view" is not entitled to any respect, because it simply contradicts facts. Nor does friendliness enter the picture. No one is being inappropriately unfriendly for pointing out that your special-snowflake beliefs are contradicted by facts. On this point you're pretending to be an engineer. Engineering does not accommodate your feelings, your pretense to out-of-the-box thinking, your privilege of remaining ignorant, or your irrelevant references to Rwandan refugees. You either know free-body dynamics, or you don't.It is a fact that there exists a certain document from Apollo history. It is stipulated to describe one of several possible effects of the LM autopilot operating the LM RCS with the CSM attached, in a degraded mode. That document has been presented as evidence. It is
not a fact that Jr's interpretation of that document is correct when he says it undermines the general stability of the lunar module. Those of us who better know what the document describes have pointed out the limited effect its findings have. It
is a fact that document author presents an equation derived from free-body law that supports his rationale. It is a further fact that correct algebraic evaluation of that law proves the LM cannot have the generalized stability problem Jr Knowing has insisted would be the case. Again, merely having a "different view" from others doesn't make facts go away. Jr's "view" is expressible in mathematical form, although he has not chosen to do so. The presented evidence includes elements of what such a representation would look like. This lets us determine with mathematical rigor whether Jr's "view" is supported by the evidence he presents in favor of it. It does not, and Jr Knowing has been invited to submit a reconciliation, but will not. To Jr Knowing :--
Despite your believe that--I have attempted to answer people's questions.
the evidence does not show this to be the case. We can cite many other examples in this thread and others where you simply refuse to answer questions. This is why your critics rightly take you to task for changing the subject rather that continuing to debate the points on the table, and why you have been appropriately restricted from doing so.
In a larger sense, you make statements such as--I have responded nearly 100 times in those threads.
I have only so much time in a day.
I have been respectful and courteous to everyone.
--in an apparent ploy to assure us that you are debating in good faith. But you are being assured in turn that the behavior I outline above speaks far louder than your self-serving protests. You are not arguing the matter of LM stability in good faith, and you are being treated appropriately.
On the question--And to be quite honest I feel I am being held to a higher standard.
--yes, you're being held to a standard far higher than, "My view is valid, no matter what you all think or why." You're being held to the standard that universally applies to questions of stability in spacecraft. If you are unable to meet that standard, then the universe doesn't care. If you think those standards should not apply to your claims, you're simply factually wrong. If you think everything "somehow" still works out in a way that validates your suspicions, you're just asking people to give approval to your ignorance. You are not being treated unfairly.Other issues in this thread include the difference in appearance of the LM during the various stages of its preparation for flight. What is
not a fact is the premise that it should have been considered "complete" at any time prior to seeing it fly. Reams of evidence has been presented that roundly refute that, yet Jr Knowing simply restates his original claims as if nothing had intervened. Several references were made to what
are the facts, presented, explained, and documented by one of the noted authorities on the subject of preparing rockets for launch, and who worked personally on the Apollo project. Jr cannot reconcile any of his ill-informed expectations with that, and rather chooses not to try.
Another issue was the SM reaction control jets during the Saturn V ascent. What is
not a fact is the expectation that such a feature would invariably have suffered loss or damage as the result of aerodynamic forces. Again, the laws of science tell us that a flow possessing certain given properties will separate from the boundary of discontinuous geometries, at the points of discontinuity. What is a fact is that the Saturn V rocket produces the conditions under which this will happen. What is
not a fact is that the condensation that sometimes accompanies and evinces flow separation necessarily occurs across the full extent of separation. It may not even be present at all. Many other facts arise from the laws of fluid flow, which are entirely consistent with the flow separating a the CM-SM boundary and extending the length of the SM, and thus placing the RCS quads in the lee. As I qualified engineer, I am certified to speak with expert knowledge on those and other principles that relate to my profession. Unlike many other professions, I am legally liable for the correctness of my understanding when properly offered. Jr Knowing, on the other hand, confessed that this was not something he readily understood. To Jr Knowing :--
When you writeI have been respectful and courteous to everyone.
we can properly cite the above behavior as evidence to the contrary. Ignoring the evidence and expertise that others bring to bear is not respectful or courteous. It's presumptuous, arrogant, and rude. Even when the topics involve some degree of judgment, such as whether it's a good idea to add things to a spacecraft just before flight, you prefer your own inexperienced and uninformed "different view of things," rather than give proper respect to the people who do those things for a living and who are volunteering their time and effort to give you the benefit of their hard-won experience. No one is obliged to respect your opinion just because you have one.
Moreover, statements likeBut I am also smart enough and realistic enough to admit, as I admitted to Jay, that I am probably 99 percent likely wrong.
are flatly contradicted by the evidence of your participation. As I've outlined, you won't admit error even when you are certainly wrong. You simply avoid the question, and beg everyone just to be friendly. In a few cases you even resort to outright fabrication in order to maintain your "different view" in contravention of the facts. You lately assure us that it must "obviously" be the SM RCS quads themselves that are causing visible flow separation, even though you previously admitted you didn't know the science. You're asking us, for the sake of preserving your snowflake beliefs, to agree that you suddenly became an expert in flow separation and can offer authoritative interpretations of evidence, over and above those presented and defended by people who have had to demonstrate actual expertise.
No, Jr Knowing. You are not entitled to keep getting away with the same tired stunts over and over again, the same protests of innocence and persecution, and the same wanton hubris you've brought to every thread. You are not entitled to respect for your "different view" if it runs counter to fact. You are not entitled to simply abandon debates you're losing without consequences that might include being laughed at.Let's see if Jr Knowing is able to reconcile his claims of LM stability with the mathematics presented in his own evidence.
