Conclusive Proof the Moon Landings were Faked

[Mag40]

It seems to me that the MLH claim is essentially TRUE -- they discarded CRITICAL DESIGN documents that contain the top level crucial results/specs.

Go back to my links page. Go to the Archive website. The two boxes of many have nearly 4000 pages scanned.
In addition the virtual AGC page has an astonishing number of references and downloadable documents.
https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/ElectroMechanical.html#LEM_Engineering_Drawings&gsc.tab=0
There is no way you have looked over these in any depth. Once again you are playing this pathetic hand-waving game demonstrating a complete lack of this "100% integrity" you claim to be offering.

I would LOVE to be proven wrong here.  I would LOVE to see the detailed blueprints with measurements, as well as the Weight/balance/Inertial results.

Bollocks. You've been proven wrong many times and you just wriggle, obfuscate and offer petty diversion.

[JayUtah]

In addition the virtual AGC page has an astonishing number of references and downloadable documents.
https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/ElectroMechanical.html#LEM_Engineering_Drawings&gsc.tab=0

Mike Stewart's contribution. Early on I dropped his name as someone who has been enormously successful at re-engineering Apollo systems using cast-off and scavenged hardware and the original documentation. It's very hard to look him up without running into the ibiblio.org site. So when someone says they looked diligently for LM designs and couldn't find many, that's a tell-tale.

There is no way you have looked over these in any depth.

Another indicator of the lack of sincerity. As soon as a giant tranche of documents was revealed, the claim switches immediately to, "But these certain critical documents are missing, therefore still fake." And in this case, the "critical" documents don't even apply to spacecraft. Weight-and-balance forms are for airplanes and other things that fly in air. So we're back to the same, "Unless every scrap of paper was preserved, it's fake," claim—sure proof that the claimant has never been within 10 miles of a major engineering project and can't meaningfully comment on whether other people did it right.

Even if you don't understand what the drawings are meant to convey, the cross references are telling. In the Stewart tranche there are many references to other drawings. Note the serial portions: they're up past 58,000—that's fifty-eight thousand drawings (typically ANSI D or ANSI E sheets) just for one spacecraft revision (the preceding number, generally 280 for that model LM). And you don't typically roll them up. They're kept flat in large map cases.

[najak]

Mike Stewart's contribution. Early on I dropped his name as someone who has been enormously successful at re-engineering Apollo systems using cast-off and scavenged hardware and the original documentation.

Mike Steward -  It appears to me that all he's done here is  reconstruct the AGC itself. I have reviewed the AGC software github (at the beggining).  As a life long software engineer, I don't find this code "capable", but also realize that "proving this to non-software people" is futile.  So I went on to things that can be proven via Newtonian physics.

I've love to find just ONE document for LM that shows the "Moment of Inertia" calculations/sheet for the LM and AM...   specifically important is how it varies with fuel mass.  This will also indicate the "Center of Mass" along XYZ axes... which changes, with fuel loss, stowage mass, humans.  And there is an amount of sloshing that happens with humans/equipment and fuel (unless the baffles were perfect at removing this).

As A15 said, it's CRITICAL to know this ahead of time -- because the BEST WAY to control a Differential-Control system is to ALSO KNOW the "predicted response".. so that your first shot can "get you pretty close".

The firing of the RCS thrusters requires fidelity down to the 1 msec....  which is hard to do, since the ignition process itself appears to be close to 10 msec... Awaiting feedback from the IMU (which has error and lag) - is too slow for good control.   You have to "fire your best shot" (based on the calculations the incorporate Intertial moments) - and then when the IMU tells you "you're off" -- you won't be that far off, and then can make ANOTHER CALCULATED ATTEMPT to adjust for this error -- Predicted vs. Actual.

We did the "balance a broomstick" laboratory in college.  You ALWAYS want to know "expected/predicted response to the input you are inserting into the system".

I'm not getting the sense that you know as much as everyone here thinks you do.

My "circle of friends" isn't the "MLH guys"...   My circle are top-tier engineers, graduating from a near-MIT-caliber college, who are aerospace and mechanical engineers.

I'm the only "dumb one" among them willing to spend so much time on a thing that offers "no personal/financial payback".  I'm here because I value "truth" and am convinced that Apollo didn't land men on the moon.

[Mag40]

So I went on to things that can be proven via Newtonian physics.

Oh please! You've demonstrated a complete ineptitude with this.

I'm not getting the sense that you know as much as everyone here thinks you do.

I'm getting the sense that you are the one completely out of their depth. You exited the comfort of bleedin' Facebook and the gaggle of hoax claimants and arrived here expecting to bluster your way through. You have been found seriously wanting. A "Newtonian physicist" who doesn't understand what free flight is!

My "circle of friends" isn't the "MLH guys"...   My circle are top-tier engineers, graduating from a near-MIT-caliber college, who are aerospace and mechanical engineers.

Bollocks.

I'm the only "dumb one" among them willing to spend so much time on a thing that offers "no personal/financial payback".  I'm here because I value "truth" and am convinced that Apollo didn't land men on the moon.

Your conviction heavily relies on your ability to hide from things that disprove it. I'm not even one of the "heavy hitters" around here. There's quite a large number who have not even posted. But just a few small clips of video have handed you your arse. The "100% integrity" bit awaits.

[bknight]

It occurrs to me that you suffer from "If I ran the zoo" fallacy.

Only to the extent of saying things like this.   "If I ran the zoo, I would..."
1. Not put the predators and prey together.
2. I would feed the animals regularly.
3. I would keep them caged to prevent people from being hurt.

Just the obvious stuff -- like when you spend Billions to design an LM to do the IMPOSSIBLE -- super complex!... Lots of time/money invested.  Then just "throw away your R&D as though it's not worth a few boxes for storage of the most vital design docs?"   

No other technology has EVER DONE THIS...  Only Apollo - and Apollogists don't bat an eye.

Every other zoo keeper EVER, wouldn't have discarded the materials that explain "how it all worked", "how it was built", "how it was tested/verified".

And a museum, would have gladly taken this off their hands.  Or NASA.   Except -- it was "evidence AGAINST them" - so they did what has otherwise NEVER been done before - destroy it.

Really?  How did the Chinese land multiple spacecraft on the Moon if it is impossible?  And those weren't manned but robot vehicles. 
You take document management to new lows.
And by the phrase if I ran the zoo, means to us that you wish to make the rules for everything and if they don't meet your criteria, then those destroting documents are preserving a secret.  The records of Apollo are in the end not the means.

[JayUtah]

Mike Steward -  It appears to me that all he's done here is reconstruct the AGC itself.

Yes, he "merely" restored an AGC to full functionality that he found on a trash heap, using only his knowledge of engineering and the documents he obtained that described how it worked and how it interfaced with the rest of the spacecraft you say doesn't work. And he filmed the whole thing so you can see how he did it.

As a life long software engineer, I don't find this code "capable", but also realize that "proving this to non-software people" is futile.

Try us. Why would you assume that the people here are not capable of entertaining a discussion about software? If that's your core competency, why would you eschew that and go instead for things that are clearly outside your ken?

As A15 said, it's CRITICAL to know this ahead of time -- because the BEST WAY to control a Differential-Control system is to ALSO KNOW the "predicted response".. so that your first shot can "get you pretty close".

That's an optimization, not a criticality.

We did the "balance a broomstick" laboratory in college.

Which is ironically known not to be a correct model of the attitudinal stability problem.

I'm not getting the sense that you know as much as everyone here thinks you do.

And how many actual spacecraft have you worked on?

My "circle of friends" isn't the "MLH guys"...   My circle are top-tier engineers, graduating from a near-MIT-caliber college, who are aerospace and mechanical engineers.

And how many of them can provide scientifically valid reasons for why the Moon landings were faked? Or do they all belong to the "religion" of Apollo that you imagine?

I'm the only "dumb one" among them willing to spend so much time on a thing that offers "no personal/financial payback".  I'm here because I value "truth" and am convinced that Apollo didn't land men on the moon.

No, I really don't see any evidence that you are interested in the truth, nor do I accept the tacit inference that your MIT buddies would agree with you if only they would take the time to listen.

[najak]

#1: That's an optimization, not a criticality.
#2: Which is ironically known not to be a correct model of the attitudinal stability problem.

#1: It's critical for Apollo, aiming to minimize fuel.  You said it was NOT useful at all.
#2: Correct, the broomstick is MUCH easier.   LM had to do this in 2.5 dimensions (while balancing descent at an angle) and while having ZERO constraints, no hinges, no stabilizing forces at all.  The Broomstick was a fair challenge... while the LM task was 100x harder...  Yet we did it just fine in 1969.

[JayUtah]

I've love to find just ONE document for LM that shows the "Moment of Inertia" calculations/sheet for the LM and AM[/b]...   specifically important is how it varies with fuel mass.

There is no "sheet" because real rocket scientists understand that these values are dynamic, and therefore that proper control cannot depend on nailing them down. The envelope for center of mass is very large, and you can see evidence of some of the efforts to provide passive control by—for example—placing one of the ascent stage propellant tanks farther outboard than the other. Passive stability is not the heinous problem you seem to imagine.

And there is an amount of sloshing that happens with humans/equipment and fuel (unless the baffles were perfect at removing this).

Yes, liquid slosh is modeled in the linearized free body dynamics that applies here. That was more a problem for the descent, but the problem was limited to not being able to accurately measure propellant levels.

The firing of the RCS thrusters requires fidelity down to the 1 msec....

According to whom?

...which is hard to do, since the ignition process itself appears to be close to 10 msec...

But in your mind this somehow affected only the lunar module? Not the CSM?

Awaiting feedback from the IMU (which has error and lag) - is too slow for good control.   You have to "fire your best shot" (based on the calculations the incorporate Intertial moments) - and then when the IMU tells you "you're off" -- you won't be that far off, and then can make ANOTHER CALCULATED ATTEMPT to adjust for this error -- Predicted vs. Actual.

This is necessary no matter what you do. Every method produces "residuals" that must be nulled. You can't seem to make up your mind about which sources of error are unacceptable and which are simply part of the problem, and what is critical versus what is optimal.

[JayUtah]

It's critical for Apollo, aiming to minimize fuel.

That is not the overriding concern, nor does it eliminate error to the point of not requiring dealing with residuals.

You said it was NOT useful at all.

I said it was not required to solve the guidance problem. It remains an optimization.

Correct, the broomstick is MUCH easier.

False.

The broomstick problem is harder because the angle of the corrective moment changes as the broomstick tilts, and in fact becomes more pronounced and requiring greater finesse and a dynamically adaptive solution. In a spacecraft, the moment remains the same and can be expressed in simpler control laws. Newton does not approve of your reasoning.

[najak]

#1: According to whom?

#1: What fidelity is required per YOU - the 20+ year expert on Apollo.   You should know this one.  Tell us.

[JayUtah]

What fidelity is required per YOU...

No, it doesn't work that way. You claimed that effective control of the lunar module requires controlling the duration of RCS jet firing to a precision of 1 ms. What is your source for that claim?

[najak]

No, it doesn't work that way. You claimed that effective control of the lunar module requires controlling the duration of RCS jet firing to a precision of 1 ms. What is your source for that claim?

My claim is me, but I could be wrong.  So consider this statement "pending more validation".  I've only done a preliminary analysis so far.

You claim intimate knowledge of this stuff, 20+ years - what is the timing fidelity required for the LM/AM maintain sufficient Attitude control?

[JayUtah]

My claim is me, but I could be wrong.

So you just made it up. Got it.

You claim intimate knowledge of this stuff, 20+ years - what is the timing fidelity required for the LM/AM maintain sufficient Attitude control?

No, it does not work that way.

Your approach here is to allege from a position of (claimed) unassailable intelligence and "100% integrity" that certain elements of Apollo are impossible according to "basic physics," and then to challenge your critics to explain them if they can. And if they do not satisfy you or jump through your hoops, then you declare that your claim is unrefuted. But your critics are under no obligation to address stuff you just make up. And you just poured a whole lot of cold water on your claim to "100% integrity." Shame on you.

[najak]

#1: So you just made it up. Got it.
#2: No, it does not work that way.
#3: Your approach here is to allege from a position of (claimed) unassailable intelligence and "100% integrity" that certain elements of Apollo are impossible..

#1: I did some considerable analysis using math, and made an estimate.   When questioned, I clarified, and call it "pending".
#2: Because you don't know the answer -- you could have typed "10 msec" quicker than what you typed, but you chose to dodge....

#3: "Unassailable" - not even close.  I'm not the one waving around my statement -- made ONCE... you are.  I said that (and overstated it) as a resume.  Just because I scored at the top of most tests, doesn't make me unassailable ... just puts me at the top in aptitude, if the tests are accurate.

"100% Integrity" - this is my END GOAL.  The process of getting there can be bumpy and error-prone.  It's a process.  And part of this process is to go up against RESISTANCE - which is why I'm here.

Unfortunately, you won't give answers to document.  Answers that SHOULD already exist or be easy... but you dodge and stall, reducing your usefulness in helping to develop higher integrity conclusions.

I think your dodging is a way of hiding that you aren't as knowledgeable as people here think.  For example, you called "W&B and Inertia concepts" as "Utterly useless for the LM/AM".  Yet it's utterly important... vital.  Otherwise, you can end up with an undamped/unstable control system, and for sure, less efficient and lower fidelity.  But to YOU, it's "Utterly Useless" - this is revealing for someone who assures us of their unassailable knowledge of rocketry and such.

[JayUtah]

I did some considerable analysis using math, and made an estimate.

Present the math.

Because you don't know the answer...

No, because reversing the burden of proof is always wrong.

...you could have typed "10 msec" quicker than what you typed, but you chose to dodge....

No, I chose to be faithful to the truth. As a matter of historical fact, the RCS jets were never fired at an interval of less than 10 ms, but to what precision that occurred or could have occurred remains unknown. Further, to say, "That's what happened," is not the same as saying, "That's what is required." That would be circular reasoning in the context of addressing your claim. It's your burden to show that the smallest purported interval is insufficient to have achieved effective attitudinal control. If you cannot, you should withdraw the claim.

You concede that most of Apollo worked, but then claim that the LM could not have worked. You claim that the attitudinal control purported for the LM is not credible. But you don't seem concerned that the CSM used the same RCS jets (fewer, in fact) and the same basic control laws. How do you reconcile that one example apparently worked, and another nearly identical example apparently did not?

"100% Integrity" - this is my END GOAL.  The process of getting there can be bumpy and error-prone.  It's a process.  And part of this process is to go up against RESISTANCE - which is why I'm here.

No, you seem to be here in order to reinforce the illusion that you're the smartest one in the room and that the only objections to your claims must be "religious."

Unfortunately, you won't give answers to document.

No one is required to address claims you just make up.

Answers that SHOULD already exist or be easy...

No, you don't get to assume that there is a pat documented answer for every question that crosses your mind.

...but you dodge and stall, reducing your usefulness in helping to develop higher integrity conclusions.

Refusing to be baited into accepting a reversed burden of proof is not disingenuous. You will learn integrity better by being compelled to confront the assumptions underlying your beliefs. That is not achieved by pretending everyone except you must supply rigor.

I think your dodging is a way of hiding that you aren't as knowledgeable as people here think.

If you say so. Or it may be a practiced response to people who habitually reverse the burden of proof as a way of avoiding accountability for their affirmative claims.

For example, you called "W&B and Inertia concepts" as "Utterly useless for the LM/AM".  Yet it's utterly important... vital.

Asked and answered. I gave you a thorough explanation of why weight-and-balance is irrelevant to spaceships and exactly how moment of inertia (not just "inertia") factored into the compromise solution Apollo used. You didn't address it. You just complained that I had written so much instead of jumping through your hoops on a different point.

But to YOU, it's "Utterly Useless"

I made no such claim. Second time correcting you on that point. Weight-and-balance as they derive from aeronautics is irrelevant to spaceships. Moment of inertia is useful as an optimization to the basic solution, but it is not essential to solving the problem and does not achieve a damped solution under the auspices of the other sources of error.

this is revealing for someone who assures us of their unassailable knowledge of rocketry and such.

I made no such claim.