Conclusive Proof the Moon Landings were Faked

[najak]

#1: What you would like is largely irrelevant. Again, the LLTV is designed for simulation of a very specific part of the descent profile, not the entire thing from orbital descent.
#2: Because that is your layman's expectation of what it should look like, based on no understanding of the actual purpose of the vehicle.
#3: There are other rockets firing to simulate the DPS, and you can't see them because they don't generate a visible plume in steady state combustion in daylight.

#1: So where is their attempt to simulate the HARDER part, in going from horizontal orientation to angled, to upright.  Stopping a fast motion was never practiced?  Why?
Answer: Because they couldn't.

#2: The LM was top-heavy at landing -- so should have been the LLTV, as emulating the LM was their stated goal.  Why didn't they?
Answer: Because they couldn't.  It was already hard to control as it was.

#3: There are a few shots out that the SHOW the downward jets... quite powerful, and VERY WHITE.  They simply don't use them hardly at all.
Do you have any evidence to your claims of them using "invisible plumed alternate jets" for the other 17%?  You seem so certain.

[BertieSlack]

Additionally, I'd really like to see them demonstrate a maneuver closer to the one where they have to slow down a very fast horizontal motion. 

Historical truth really doesn't care about what you'd 'like to see.'

The lunar module started shedding forward velocity the moment the DPS engine started powered descent. That's around 11 minutes before landing. The braking phase reduced the velocity to around 430 feet per second. Ground speed at pitchover (controlled by the autopilot) was therefore not "very fast". Forward velocity when Armstrong took over manual control was around 70 feet per second.

[najak]

I love it. So now you think that you know more than the best test pilots the world had to offer? Such hubris.
Read about Armstrong's flying history and tell us again that you are in a position to comment.

If they weren't really going to land on the moon, they didn't need to practice these harder maneuvers - as they'd never have to do them.  And since they couldn't do these maneuvers, they just pretended like they were non-important.

In no world do you have dangerous difficult tasks to do, and then you prepare for these difficult tasks by only practicing the easy tasks, but never the hard ones.

Additionally, if you know your "real scenario" will involve a top-heavy module, with the pilots STANDING UP, well above the engine, looking out a 9" triangular window.... then you ALWAYS try to make the "simulation as close to reality as possible"....  But NOT if you aren't really going to do the hard tasks, then you cut corners and proclaim "I'm trained".

These maneuvers were never flight tested until humans were on board, out-of-site... and magically they worked fine every time.

[najak]

The lunar module started shedding forward velocity the moment the DPS engine started powered descent. That's around 11 minutes before landing. The braking phase reduced the velocity to around 430 feet per second. Ground speed at pitchover (controlled by the autopilot) was therefore not "very fast". Forward velocity when Armstrong took over manual control was around 70 feet per second.

Thanks for the details!

That's about 45 mph.   So they should be practicing this.

And the DPS - how did they validate it's operation ahead of time?  As it's slowing down... keeping balance is difficult...  why?  The RCS thrusters are NOT at the center of mass vertically.  They are above it.   Slowing down was an intricate process -- but where was this process ever flight tested before they went on the mission?

[Jason Thompson]

#1: So where is their attempt to simulate the HARDER part, in going from horizontal orientation to angled, to upright.

Who says that is the harder part? Answer: you do, because that's what you have decided based on clearly no actual understanding. Changing the orientation of a spacecraft is not complicated. Slowing it down is not complicated. Slowing it down to a landing in a specific place IS the hardest part.

Stopping a fast motion was never practiced?  Why?
Answer: Because they couldn't.

Answer: because that's not what the LLTV was designed for.

#2: The LM was top-heavy at landing -- so should have been the LLTV, as emulating the LM was their stated goal.  Why didn't they?

Because their goal was not 'make a perfect match for the LM', it was 'provide a simulation of a rocket powered descent in lower gravity to allow the astronauts to get accustomed to the different reactions and sensations of such. They were not simulating the exact vehicle.

#3: There are a few shots out that the SHOW the downward jets... quite powerful, and VERY WHITE.  They simply don't use them hardly at all.

Because, as I have already said, those are the attitude control jets, NOT the main descent engine rockets. Am I going to have to explain how the RCS system worked as well? It includes jets that fire to the sides, to the front and the back and vertically depending on the motion it is working to counter. That's why they are firing in short bursts. The main descent rockets are firing continuously, just as the DPS on the LM would be.

Do you have any evidence to your claims of them using "invisible plumed alternate jets" for the other 17%?  You seem so certain.

They are not 'alternate jets', they are the main descent rockets.

https://history.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/LLTV-952.html

As always, you fail to understand what the LLTV was intended to achieve and how it was designed, but that doesn't stop you looking at some video and declaring it inadequate.

[Jason Thompson]

And the DPS - how did they validate it's operation ahead of time?  As it's slowing down... keeping balance is difficult...  why?

For the last time, rockets do not 'balance' on the thrust. This is just you projecting your very limited understanding and deciding that what looks difficult to you must in fact be difficult.

The RCS thrusters are NOT at the center of mass vertically.  They are above it.

And? Do you know what a feedback system is?

Slowing down was an intricate process -- but where was this process ever flight tested before they went on the mission?

Apollo 5, 9 and 10 flight tested the LM. Apollo 11 WAS the final test.

[BertieSlack]

That's about 45 mph.   So they should be practicing this.

You've already been shown Armstrong doing exactly that.
BTW - you know the LM could have soft-landed without any pilot input at all, right? After pitchover, the commander could re-designate the exact landing spot the autopilot was headed toward if he wanted, and after he took manual control was basically just making sure they didn't land in a crater or on top of a pile of rocks.

Was there "something fishy" about the Chinese managing to soft-land ON THEIR VERY FIRST ATTEMPT. They had to slow down their unmanned spacecraft from 3,500mph. Wow, that number is so big and scary that I'm going to have to write out in full - THREE AND A HALF THOUSAND MILES AN HOUR!!!!!. And then......AND THEN...... they just plopped down on the lunar surface as light as a feather. HOW DID THEY DO THAT???  without a pilot!!!!!!!!!!

[bknight]

The lunar module started shedding forward velocity the moment the DPS engine started powered descent. That's around 11 minutes before landing. The braking phase reduced the velocity to around 430 feet per second. Ground speed at pitchover (controlled by the autopilot) was therefore not "very fast". Forward velocity when Armstrong took over manual control was around 70 feet per second.

Thanks for the details!

That's about 45 mph.   So they should be practicing this.

And the DPS - how did they validate it's operation ahead of time?  As it's slowing down... keeping balance is difficult...  why?  The RCS thrusters are NOT at the center of mass vertically.  They are above it.   Slowing down was an intricate process -- but where was this process ever flight tested before they went on the mission?

This is covered by in your words "incomplete code", The thrusters were coded to compensate any rotational thrust to keep the LM flying straight and narrow.  If you look back in the thread you will find a question that I asked the group about mission problems and you will find Jay's answer that A12 had lateral movements, that were code corrected after that flight.  Those dumb old programmers at MIT sure knew there coding way better than you.

[BertieSlack]

but where was this process ever flight tested before they went on the mission?

You know the Surveyor unmanned landers slowed down from 6,000mph to soft-land on the Moon, right?

[Bryanpoprobson]

You know the Surveyor unmanned landers slowed down from 6,000mph to soft-land on the Moon, right?

With one even doing a simulated lunar lift off.

[Mag40]

#2: The LM was top-heavy at landing -- so should have been the LLTV, as emulating the LM was their stated goal.  Why didn't they?
Answer: Because they couldn't.  It was already hard to control as it was.

I have said this before, I am not one of the Apollo-related experts on this forum and I do not mind making errors and getting them corrected. Having said that, how is this comedian still spouting his Bart Sibrel claim when he's had it corrected a few times? The LM was designed by a huge team of fantastic engineers at Grumman and is highly regarded in engineering circles.

https://moonhoaxdebunked.blogspot.com/2017/07/712-how-could-lunar-module-be-so-stable.html

[najak]

#1: because that's not what the LLTV was designed for.
#2: "not top heavy?" ::Because their goal was not 'make a perfect match for the LM'
#3: ...NOT the main descent engine rockets.  "Invisible plumes..."
They are not 'alternate jets', they are the main descent rockets.

#1: If he had to slow it down from 45 mph to 0 mph -- why not simulate that?   Not important?  Don't need the practice?

#2: Why not try to make it "more like the LM?"  Wouldn't that be better?
Why not put them in the standing position several meters ABOVE the engine, looking through tiny windows?

Stopping a top-heavy vehicle going 45 mph - was never practiced.   Ever.   Their first times doing it was the 6 Landings... and they weren't even sweating it.  No signs of "I'm never going to see my kid again, if we have one mess-up."

Their lack of even TRYING to simulate the real environment with this LLTV is unrealistic, especially given the fatal consequences of just a minor lapse in attitude control.

#3: Looking at the LLTV schematic, I see no place for the jet that were supposed to provide 17% of the thrust.  Where is this jet?  What type of fuel does it use?

[najak]

And? Do you know what a feedback system is?

Yep, programmed several.  One mechanical.  They require fast/accurate feedback with the capability to respond quickly and precisely with the needed response.

This LLTV topic deserves it's own thread.

[najak]

Was there "something fishy" about the Chinese managing to soft-land ON THEIR VERY FIRST ATTEMPT. They had to slow down their unmanned spacecraft from 3,500mph. Wow, that number is so big and scary that I'm going to have to write out in full - THREE AND A HALF THOUSAND MILES AN HOUR!!!!!. And then......AND THEN...... they just plopped down on the lunar surface as light as a feather. HOW DID THEY DO THAT???  without a pilot!!!!!!!!!!

They did it in 2019 right?   1000x+ the fidelity.   A million+ times the processing power and speed of feedback loops.   So this is at least believable.

But even the Odysseus 2024 fell over -- even with this tech that operates far better than human control.   We have tech that can land a Starship from free fall... humans can't do this.

And for the LM -- there was NO PRACTICE for the pilots to gauge the response of this top-heavy vehicle while looking through 9" triangular windows, standing up.   No problem.

[Jason Thompson]

#1: If he had to slow it down from 45 mph to 0 mph -- why not simulate that?   Not important?  Don't need the practice?

The entire landing WAS simulated, in the LM simulator. The LLTV was specifically designed to provide some degree of simulation of the final approach and landing. That is all it was intended for, and NASA isn't under any obligation to make their simulators to what you consider the necessary degree.

#2: Why not try to make it "more like the LM?"  Wouldn't that be better?
Why not put them in the standing position several meters ABOVE the engine, looking through tiny windows?

Because that's unnecessarily complex for what the LLTV was trying to achieve. It was adequate for the stated aim. You don't get to come along decades later and say it was inadequate because it doesn't meet your layman's expectations of how you think it should have been done.

Their lack of even TRYING to simulate the real environment with this LLTV is unrealistic

To you. So what?

especially given the fatal consequences of just a minor lapse in attitude control.

Usual hyperbole. Attitude control was under the control of the automatic system, and the system was tested by the time of the landing. Your suggestion that the astronauts should have sounded tense ignores the fact most of these guys were test pilots and combat pilots before Apollo. They had plenty of experience of potentially fatal situations, and they come through them by remaining calm and collected. Your inability to fathom that counts for very little.

#3: Looking at the LLTV schematic, I see no place for the jet that were supposed to provide 17% of the thrust.  Where is this jet?  What type of fuel does it use?

Read that site I linked to and look at all the images that are also linked in that article. I told you I'm not spoon feeding you.

'This thing doesn't look like I expect it to' is not evidence of anything suspect, especially when you clearly have no actual idea of how it worked.