Conclusive Proof the Moon Landings were Faked

[najak]

1. So you need the moment of inertia to prove your claim?
2. I don't believe. That's your proof?

1. No.  This is needed to help the AGC+IMU+DAC to do their job more effectively.   Without it -- it makes this "bleeding edge tech" even more impossible for 1960's.   So I'm wondering where this is accounted for.
2. Proving "it doesn't exist" is harder to do.  I've looked at the AGC code for a few hours - most of what I found looked crude/rudimentary, and similar to algorithms I'd put into a programmable calculator.  So we should also then see programs for calculating this inertial moment as well, as a function of time and engine firing time.  I didn't find this.   So if someone did find it -- that's easier to prove "hey I found it" vs. "I searched and didn't find it".

Later I may do a deeper dive into the AGC code.  But even then, I'll run into the issue of "no matter how much I search/do" it'll never satisfy the TD's mandate of "you still haven't proven it doesn't exist"... so it would be a lot of work for no fruit.   Their code is tedious, and since we can't run/debug it within the system - that leaves us only to use "inspection" as the proof.   Not so compelling for non-programmers.   So lots of work, without much hope for fruit/results.   Thus I only spent a couple of hours in this code so far -- looking for keywords in the comments to locate various algorithms.

[najak]

Seriously? I learned how to calculate horizontal and vertical components of a force acting at an angle in school. Any thrust angled even slightly upwards has a component working in opposition to the downward pull of gravity.

Seriously.  This is getting into Rigid-Body physics.  Try to balance a basket-ball on your finger at an angle... try to keep it's balance by simply pushing through the center of mass. What happens?  You have to accelerate it a LOT to maintain it's balance and even move your finger laterally (not possible with the LM).

Now imagine you have to do this with an untested RCS system (in this context), with (AFAIK) a 2-second update interval, using IMU inputs alone.

I think I'll include this demo into the 3D Lunar Physics app I've started.   I can allow you to toggle the Center-of-Thrust low-mid-high, and see how it impact the stability of this pitched LM with gravity acting on it.

[najak]

The LM was designed for purpose by engineers working at Grumman, not NASA. Neither engine was built by NASA either.
I suggest you actually read this and try to (for once!) dispense with your crazy confirmation bias:
https://www.clavius.org/scale.html

(The site is safe, I believe it needs a certificate for the httpS part.)

His article lost me at "Quality control officers from NASA must meticulously inspect the work."

Like the did for NA for A1?   And then lose the 500-page QC/QA incident report, and now denying it's existence?  We're talking about a QA system here that didn't even recognize what MANY non-scientists already know about "Pure Oxygen" ... and they stuck them into a capsule with 15+ PSI of it, along with electronics, and flammable products.... and a door that was KNOWN to be unsafe.

Compartmentalization allowed Theranos, even post-2010 to conduct an all out CRIMINAL SCAM without the employees knowing...  And only got caught because they were "CRIMINALS". ... while for the USA Military/CIA -- they ARE THE LAW...    Compartmentalization does wonders for keeping employees unaware of the big picture.

Thomas Baron's 55-page report summary gives us a pretty good idea of the "well-oiled machine" that was Apollo:

• Lack of coordination between people in responsible positions.
  Lack of communication between almost everyone.
  The fact that people in responsible positions did not take many of the problems seriously.
  Engineers operating equipment instead of technical people.
  Many technicians do not know their job. This is partly due to the fact that they are constantly shifted from one job to another.
  People are lax when it comes to safety.
  People are lax when it comes to maintaining cleanliness levels.
  We do not make a large enough effort to enforce the PQCP.
  People do not get an official tie-in time period.
  We do not maintain proper work and systems records.
  NAA does not give the working force a feeling of accomplishment.
  There is not one procedure that I can remember that was completed without a deviation, either written or oral.
  Allowing ill practices to continue when the Company is aware of them.
  The constant transfer of QC and technical types of people to different types of tasks. Many of the techs will tell the QC man that they have never done that type of job before, or used that type of equipment before. This is one of the most prevalent problems NAA has.
  

Taken from here:
https://www.nasa.gov/history/Apollo204/barron.html

Same page where this NASA site DENIES THE 500-page report ever EXISTED.

Smell fish?

[JayUtah]

In this case, it MATTERS VERY MUCH the relative location of the Center-of-Thrust.

Not in the way you think.

If Above the LM COM, then this thrust would REDUCE the amount of RCS force required to maintain attitude/pitch.   If "Exactly AT the COM", then RCS itself could be mostly passive..   But if BELOW the COM, then the Gravity becomes a DESTABILIZING FORCE, against which the RCS must constantly counter-act!

No, you're conflating the length of the thrust moment arm with the orientation of the moment arm in a gravitational reference frame. Yes, a shorter moment arm will reduce the effect of off-axis thrust irrespective of gravity. However, it does not make a difference if the moment arm extends downward or upward, even in the presence of gravity. So long as the engine is fixed to the spacecraft, gravity acting on the center of mass will never be a passive stabilization factor. Under those conditions, a rocket cannot "hang" from its thrust any more than it can "balance" on it. You seem to be trading the broomstick fallacy for the pendulum fallacy. The rocketry principle you're trying to hand wave your way around has been a known fact for a hundred years.

Seriously.  This is getting into Rigid-Body physics.

...which is a well-studied problem that you're getting wrong.

Try to balance a basket-ball on your finger at an angle...

Broomstick fallacy, only with a ball instead of a broomstick.

I think I'll include this demo into the 3D Lunar Physics app I've started.

Sure, knock yourself out. The world will enjoy watching you insist that the most common fallacy we have to dispel for beginning rocketry students is still somehow governing physics.

[JayUtah]

Their code is tedious, and since we can't run/debug it within the system...

The popular space simulator Orbiter was adapted to use the AGC in its Apollo 11 landing simulator and has been flown several times to a successful landing using the actual reconstructed AGC and a gate-equivalent FPGA version running Luminary. Your insinuation that no one outside of Apollo has run this code is simply factually false.

...that leaves us only to use "inspection" as the proof.   Not so compelling for non-programmers.

First, don't assume the people here are non-programmers. Second, what do you say to the programmers who have spent more than just a few hours with this code inspecting it and find nothing missing or wrong with it?

Thus I only spent a couple of hours in this code so far -- looking for keywords in the comments to locate various algorithms.

As we've discovered, what you expect to find in something hasn't been a good yardstick for what is actually needed.

You don't get to start from the presumption that you're an expert. You don't get to presume whatever expertise you have is superior to that of others who have tackled this problem. You don't get to assume that the people in this forum are not qualified to adjudicate the reliability of any expert opinion you might wish to offer.

[Luke Pemberton]

1. No.  This is needed to help the AGC+IMU+DAC to do their job more effectively.   Without it -- it makes this "bleeding edge tech" even more impossible for 1960's. So I'm wondering where this is accounted for.

The moment of inertia and a discarded document is something you have seized upon as a smoking gun. Did that document ever exist? Of course, if you took some time to understand how the LM was designed, where the main mass was situated and how the inertial measurement systems worked then it wouldn't be such a mystery. But of course, now your mistake of the top heavy LM has been discredited and Jay has provided you with the correct term to use when referring to moments you have moved the focus of your argument. As I explained to you with the Jarrah 1 = 1 debacle, this is how conspiracism always unfolds. A discredited argument, a regroup, followed by a new line of approach with snippets of new information gleaned from the discussion.

A quick perusal over the AGC code and dismissing it as crude doesn't really cut the mustard either. The idea that the code had to be elaborate and complex is misguided too, it's often based upon a fallacy of false equivalence with modem computing. It is also a slur to the brilliance of Margaret Hamilton who is recognised as a pioneer of software engineering. I believe you have also been told on another thread that people have demonstrated the AGC code does exactly what it says on the tin. In any case, why does the code need to be complex to guide a space craft?

2. Proving "it doesn't exist" is harder to do.

You missed my point. 'I don't believe' is not a standard of proof.

[najak]

Try to balance a basket-ball on your finger at an angle...

Broomstick fallacy, only with a ball instead of a broomstick.

Nope.  In the ball analogy, you are ALWAYS pushing towards the Center-of-Mass (COM)..  For the Broomstick, once it pitches, the force is NOT pushing at the center-of-mass.   With your finger you are changing the direction of force to always be at the COM.  So it's very similar to the LM situation.

I'll create the physics demo in short time, and capture the result in video capture.

And I do accept your potential correction about the "location of the center of thrust" not making a difference on angular stability.   In the simple model, there is sense to this, in that neither force is exerting an angular acceleration on the rigid body.

I believe you are correct, and I thank you for this correction.  I consider this a "small miss" that you easily corrected.

This a bit mind-bending.   Because there's a stability advantage for a helicopter to have it's rotors above it...  so to reconcile why the same concept doesn't apply at all to a rocket engine is a bit perplexing.   Care to shed more light on this?

The simplified concept logic would indicate that maintaining attitude/balance for a 300' rocket is the same as doing it for flat disk.   Would you affirm or refute this derived conclusion?

[najak]

You missed my point. 'I don't believe' is not a standard of proof.

I recognize the lack of weight for "I don't believe".. it simply tells you my current understanding.

The things we DO KNOW - are that the LM had no Proof-of-Concept (POC) for this TRIO doing auto-pilot.   None.

The "I believe" comments are in ADDITION to this.  It simple means I haven't seen positive proof to indicate the opposite.  It's "in limbo".  Positive proof would remove this "added source of doubt".

[Luke Pemberton]

I recognize the lack of weight for "I don't believe".. it simply tells you my current understanding.

It simply tells you my current lack of understanding.

There, I've corrected if for you.

[Luke Pemberton]

Nope. In the ball analogy, you are ALWAYS pushing towards the Center-of-Mass (COM)

It's that same stability problem as the broomstick. Just another object with a different moment of inertia.

[Jason Thompson]

Seriously? I learned how to calculate horizontal and vertical components of a force acting at an angle in school. Any thrust angled even slightly upwards has a component working in opposition to the downward pull of gravity.

Seriously.  This is getting into Rigid-Body physics.  Try to balance a basket-ball on your finger at an angle... try to keep it's balance by simply pushing through the center of mass.

Not what I was referring to at all. I was specifically addressing your statement that thrust at an angle is not countering gravity. Every angled thrust has a vertical component, and if the angle is even slightly upwards that thrust is working against gravity to some degree.

Now imagine you have to do this with an untested RCS system (in this context),

Not untested. 'Not used during a landing' is not equivalent.

with (AFAIK) a 2-second update interval,

Again I ask, do you think this '2-second update interval' (wherever you are getting that figure from) means it takes 2 seconds to respond to an input?

I think I'll include this demo into the 3D Lunar Physics app I've started.

I really question your ability to accurately program such an App, and in any case there are plenty of simulator apps and software packages already available, some of which actually use the AGC code.

[JayUtah]

With your finger you are changing the direction of force to always be at the COM.  So it's very similar to the LM situation.

I don't see how. If you presume an RCS solution, the RCS doesn't have any more heinous a job to do if thrust is always directed through the center of mass. If you presume a thrust-vectored solution, then rotating the ball by adding a tangential force is the same regardless of where on the ball you apply it. Now if you add gravity, the object will fall faster in some thrust orientations than in others, but that's a different problem. Not only can you decouple them, you must do so in order to understand what's happening.

I'll create the physics demo in short time, and capture the result in video capture.

How do you plan to assure us that you won't simply be illustrating your misconception? Why not just write down the physics?

And I do accept your potential correction about the "location of the center of thrust" not making a difference on angular stability.   In the simple model, there is sense to this, in that neither force is exerting an angular acceleration on the rigid body.

I believe you are correct, and I thank you for this correction.  I consider this a "small miss" that you easily corrected.

Funny how every time you're caught making a glaring elementary mistake, it's somehow inconsequential.

This a bit mind-bending.   Because there's a stability advantage for a helicopter to have its rotors above it.

Aerodynamic factors for stability do not apply. You can unbend your mind by not trying to argue by analogy and not interpolating irrelevant factors. Just do the math.

The simplified concept logic would indicate that maintaining attitude/balance for a 300' rocket is the same as doing it for flat disk.   Would you affirm or refute this derived conclusion?

The problem has never stopped being only about moment arms, thrust vectors, and moment of inertia. Stick to those tools and you'll be able to solve all the problems.

[Jason Thompson]

Nope.  In the ball analogy, you are ALWAYS pushing towards the Center-of-Mass (COM).

How do you reach that conclusion? It is just as possible for the COM to be displaced from the vector of thrust with a ball as it is for a broomstick, because the two are not connected.

This a bit mind-bending.   Because there's a stability advantage for a helicopter to have it's rotors above it...  so to reconcile why the same concept doesn't apply at all to a rocket engine is a bit perplexing.   Care to shed more light on this?

I'm going to hazard a guess that it has something to do with a rocket expelling fuel out a nozzle to generate lift while a helicopter moves the surrounding air to do it. Given that they are two entirely different modes of action it really shouldn't be too hard to surmise the effects might be different. And in any case there's a bloody good reason not to have the rotors on the bottom of a helicopter, connected to objects or people getting out of it....

[najak]

I don't see how. If you presume an RCS solution, the RCS doesn't have any more heinous a job to do if thrust is always directed through the center of mass. If you presume a thrust-vectored solution, then rotating the ball by adding a tangential force is the same regardless of where on the ball you apply it. Now if you add gravity, the object will fall faster in some thrust orientations than in others, but that's a different problem. Not only can you decouple them, you must do so in order to understand what's happening.

I understand now your reason for calling these the same.  In the non-gimballed-engine case, there is NOTHING the engine can do to fix the attitude pitch.... all it can do is impact whether or not it changes altitude, but at the cost of horizontal acceleration.   Attitude adjustments for both cases always falls back onto the RCS system.  So the "finger on ball" case misses the mark on being a good analogy.  Thank you for the "early correction".

[JayUtah]

I recognize the lack of weight for "I don't believe".. it simply tells you my current understanding.

Your current level of understanding continues to hover somewhere around "beginning student"—one with poor classroom manners. I'm constantly having to introduce you to the elementary concepts and correct your all-too-typical misconceptions of them.

The things we DO KNOW - are that the LM had no Proof-of-Concept (POC) for this TRIO doing auto-pilot.   None.

No, "we" don't know any such thing. All we observe is a lay person with delusions of grandeur and a poor understanding of the relevant practices trying to foist nonsensical requirements onto a historic project that has been knowledgeably accepted for decades. Your expectations are not some gold standard.

Positive proof would remove this "added source of doubt".

Your doubt is your own problem. That some people are volunteering to correct you is not an acknowledgement of any obligatory burden of proof to do so. You are not important. Your doubts have been brought up by others and addressed many times over. You will not become the next Edward Snowden by treading through a well-trodden pile of manure.