Conclusive Proof the Moon Landings were Faked

[najak]

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.
[/quote]
This'll be a good test for the Unity3D physics engine... see what it shows.  My goal is NEVER to "show me to be right"... I'm trying to ALWAYS show what "is right".

Admittedly, my base understanding of the concept of "balancing on a center column of thrust" appears wrong.  I would expect the physics simulation to confirm this concept.

Thank you again.

[Jason Thompson]

Admittedly, my base understanding of the concept of "balancing on a center column of thrust" appears wrong.

Oh, finally!

[Mag40]

Admittedly, my base understanding of the concept of "balancing on a center column of thrust" appears wrong.  I would expect the physics simulation to confirm this concept.
Thank you again.

It's cool to admit errors, we all  make them, but come on! It's not just that is it! You're blundering into the science of rocketry and arguing with an acknowledged industry expert. You're making statements about the LM flight capabilities from a position of obvious ignorance.

[Mag40]

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.

This is meaningless rhetoric. The article questions the scale of the conspiracy and you side-step this with a complacency error, during a meticulous testing regime!

Smell fish?

I smell evasion of the premise of the article.

Now, which one applies out of those. If none, explain fully how it works. Factor in every NASA employee since, every major engineering expert and basically so many scientists it becomes totally insane.

[JayUtah]

So the "finger on ball" case misses the mark on being a good analogy.  Thank you for the "early correction".

You're welcome.

If you want to see some truly elegant followups to problems like this, find Marcel Sidi's Spacecraft Dynamics & Control. It presents a holistic approach in linearized free-body dynamics. Even if you don't understand much or any of it, the takeaway is that if you properly model the problem, solutions you never thought tractable (e.g., fuel slosh) can be tackled. The magic to appreciate in his approach is that the same formulation can be used to express an astonishing variety of physical phenomena, whereupon the solutions collapse to a surprisingly minimal vocabulary. That's what it was like to be an Apollo engineer.

Admittedly, my base understanding of the concept of "balancing on a center column of thrust" appears wrong.  I would expect the physics simulation to confirm this concept.

Learn it the way that seems best for you. Not to put too fine a point on it, but if your simulation doesn't agree, then debug the simulation. This is a solid enough nugget of knowledge in rigid-body dynamics that it can be the yardstick against which to measure program code, not the other way round.

Thank you again.

You're welcome again. And having fulfilled my instructor's duties for today, I will probably not be available for the rest of the day and probably not at all tomorrow.

[najak]

It's cool to admit errors, we all  make them, but come on! It's not just that is it! You're blundering into the science of rocketry and arguing with an acknowledged industry expert. You're making statements about the LM flight capabilities from a position of obvious ignorance.

I came here for the correction, scrutiny, and learning.   The revelation with "Lunar Launch too Fast" was humbling.  I was very certain of this one when I started.  I'm VERY GLAD to have been corrected.

There are some things, like the 8-flag-motions that are SIMPLE CONTEXT -- no rocket science.  There are other reasons for my current MLH belief, which are also NOT rocket science.

My bias tells me they are strong arguments, but my experience says to not trust them too much unless they've been scrutinized.  I find little scrutiny within the MLH echo chambers... as the whole mindset within that chamber is biased towards believing things that support MLH.   Likewise, the same effect is going on here.   And Likewise -- BOTH groups think they are the TD's and the others are defending a Lie.

So bringing the groups together is a good thing.

[Mag40]

So bringing the groups together is a good thing.

Nope. I refer you to the highly accurate and relevant signature of Jason Thompson:

"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

[Luke Pemberton]

Very magnanimous najak, and refreshing. The debate here can be vociferous but this is refreshing for once.

[Zakalwe]

Admittedly, my base understanding of the concept of "balancing on a center column of thrust" appears wrong.  I would expect the physics simulation to confirm this concept.

Thank you again.

And it only took a mere 46 pages! See what I mean when I called you a slow learner?

[BertieSlack]

They reprogrammed the AGC to work as a fly-by-wire system for a military jet.

I gave najak a clue about that further up the thread but he seems to have missed it.