Yawn. Oh, look, the same old rhetorical stunts.
I surrender.
Except that the whole rest of your post is you
not surrendering, but instead restarting all your failed arguments. If you had truly intended to surrender, you would have ended your post there. Hence I infer that you're not surrendering, but just trying to soften criticism.
But to be clear, that MIT paper states plume deflectors can and will create serious stability issues under certain circumstances to the point it will go into "an uncontrollable spin". Yes, the MIT paper deals with a different situation...
The "certain circumstances" and "different situation" mentioned in the memo are so laughably remote that they didn't even come up during Apollo 13, the project's worst encounter with circumstance. It has been painstakingly explained to you how improbable those circumstances are, and it has been shown to you -- with a proof that attains mathematical rigor -- that the LM is suitably stable in all other circumstances, including under
manual control in the extreme failure modes mentioned in the memo.
It's clear by now that you simply don't have the mathematical understanding to determine to what extent this memo supports your belief. I think an honest person would have admitted he didn't understand the math, and would have conceded something to the people who do. I don't think you are an honest person. Instead you're simply trying to say that the memo must somehow still actually be as alarming as you need it to be, math be damned. An actual surrender would have said, "I confess I don't understand the math, but you seem to get it, so your opinion is probably better informed than mine."
...but I think it can be apply to other situations too.
Ignorant and wishful thinking. The mathematics that govern whether it can apply to other situations have been presented to you, and it's clear you don't understand. But rather than owning up to that, you double down on it as if your critics also must not know enough about the problem to be able to rationally say you're wrong.
You're wrong.
Having said this, this is only one paper by one person. They could be dead wrong on his conclusions.
This is
your source. You cited it as proof the lunar module would be uncontrollably unstable with the plume deflectors attached. You wrongly characterized it as a peer-reviewed paper, and you still can't seem to take responsibility for that mistake.
That said, your source was
thoroughly examined and determined by experts not to argue the conclusion you seem to have drawn from it. Further, the experts have shown you how your source actually
refutes the belief you intended it to support. It's not clear what you're trying to do, but it looks like you want to discredit the source because it turns out now not to support your belief. Wouldn't a more rational approach -- especially from a would-be plaintive capitulant -- be to say simply, "I guess I misunderstood the source?"
There are reasoned viewpoints by qualified individuals that appear to have differing opinions than the 'mainstream' viewpoint.
As usual, you are trying to convert the argument from being about facts, knowledge, and skill to being one about attractive or trendy modes of thinking. You optimistically thought you could start this thread out by showing how smart you were about space engineering and science, and how your knowledge of it would show that Apollo must have been a fake. Even recently you were still doing this, trying to bluff your way through a discussion of fluid dynamics. But then when you realized just how far in over your head you were, you had to quickly find a new way of being smart. And like every other conspiracy theorist before you, you played the, "I'm just a different thinker and thus smarter in a different way," card. Either way, it's about you stroking your fragile ego, not a legitimate search for the historical and mathematical truth. You get a different answer than the majority, therefore you must be special in a good way. Instead of just factually wrong.
You tipped your hand, too. You are trying to draw a contrast between "qualified individuals" and your critics here. I submit that I am
more qualified on the subject of spacecraft stability than the person who wrote that memo. How? Because the science on which it is based is well-understood by many people, including me and my colleagues. But more so, because in the decades between when the LM was designed and now, we've succeeded in creating linear models for many more of the physical effects that contribute to stability. I further submit that some of the other regulars here are at least competent, if not formally qualified. This is not a question of the experts versus ApolloHoax.
Chest-thumping aside, this is a problem in your whole approach here. Despite protesting that you respect your critics, you consistently fail to give them credit for knowledge and proficiency that they can demonstrate at will. (Again, I think this arises because this is an ego-reinforcement exercise for you, and you can't bear the thought that you're not the smartest guy in the room -- regardless of how you define "smart.") It simply doesn't enter into your thinking that you could actually be talking to people for whom linearized free-body dynamics are as familiar as a 10mm socket is to an auto mechanic. You don't see any of your critics as proficient or competent; all you see in them are the examples of complacent mainstream belief that conspiracy theorists demonize. You seem to have prejudicially rejected all the well-reasoned, factually fertile corrections of your critics as merely mindless support of majority convention, even if you don't understand it all. Until you disabuse yourself of that selfish fiction, you should expect continued mockery.
And no, your fervent, anti-mathematical desire that the conditions warned of in your memo should apply more generally than they do does not result in a case of the experts contradicting the mainstream. Your interpretation of the memo is not the expert's interpretation. As much as you want this to be about the oppressive mainstream beating down the free thinkers, this is really about you not knowing what you're talking about,
knowing that you don't know what you're talking about, and yet trying to bluff your way along anyway in hopes that someone will give you approval. None of your critics here will oblige that.
You claimed you would admit it when you were wrong. You've just amply proven that that was a lie.
...the VAB issues...
And there's the very predictable attempt to change the subject.
Obvious troll is obvious.
