Conclusive Proof the Moon Landings were Faked

[Bryanpoprobson]

Von Braun's original Math indicated that we'd need 3 GIANT Rockets and Refuelings in order to get the CSM/LM to the moon.

Von Braun’s maths envisaged the direct ascent method not LOR, he fought against it originally. But in the end he actually said, it was the only way we could have done it. The LOR method was much more fuel efficient but more wasteful of material in that only the CM made it back. You really haven’t researched this well at all. It would have consisted of a single craft not a disposable LM.

[Jason Thompson]

SLS is 0.75 Mlbs lighter, but has 1.3 Mlbs more thrust power.
SaturnV has 7.5 Mlbs of thrust, but weighed 6.5 Mlbs at launch --  so only had 1 MLbs of excess thrust to accelerate or LIFT cargo.
SLS has 8.8 Mlbs of Thrust! and only weighs 5.75 Mlbs at launch! --  so it has 3.05 Mlbs of EXCESS Thrust to Accelerate and LIFT cargo.

But the SLS can only carry HALF the payload to the moon as the SaturnV.

The Saturn V was a three-stage rocket. The SLS is not. You need a lot more than just lift-off weight and first stage thrust to calculate payload capacity. The Russian N1 rocket generated 10 million pounds of thrust in its first stage but had lower payload capacity than the Saturn V. This literally is rocket science, and you don't understand it.

Von Braun's original Math indicated that we'd need 3 GIANT Rockets and Refuelings in order to get the CSM/LM to the moon.

What we settled for was a single half-sized SaturnV....  yeah, that should do the trick.

No, as has been very well documented if you bothered to look, the early assumptions were based on direct ascent or Earth orbit rendezvous models. Both of those assumed that everything needed for returning to Earth would land on the Moon. It was only when the concept of lunar obit rendezvous was explored that it became apparent this was not necessary and the vehicles could be smaller and lighter as a result, and that informed the design process for the CSM, the LM and the Saturn V. This is extensively documented, so you either haven't done anything in the way of research or else you are once again going to suggest it's a lie because it doesn't support your conclusion.

[Jason Thompson]

For Apollo, they skipped vital system/field testing for the AGC and for the pilots.

No, they didn't. You just don't know what the testing involved, or how such testing should be designed. The question about your qualifications is intended to delve into what experience you have specifically in developing space flight testing programs. I've done 'product development' as well, but it had nothing to do with space flight.

[najak]

Von Braun’s maths envisaged the direct ascent method not LOR, he fought against it originally. But in the end he actually said, it was the only way we could have done it. The LOR method was much more fuel efficient but more wasteful of material in that only the CM made it back. You really haven’t researched this well at all. It would have consisted of a single craft not a disposable LM.

I'm a rookie, and talking about the SaturnV is outside of my focal area.  But as I do my other research, I run across some things.

How do you explain this discrepancy between the SaturnV and the SLS?   SLS has 3.05 Mlbs of excess thrust to use for acceleration and lift -- vs. the SaturnV's 1 Mlbs... and since the SLS is 12% lighter - this extra Acceleration is 12% more effective on top of that.  But it's payload is only 1/2 that of the SaturnV?

I'm NOT proposing we didn't orbit the moon - but I am perplexed by what appears to be a glaring discrepancy.    Why did we get worse, instead of better?  And how does "triple the lift/acceleration" amount to 1/2 the load capacity? 

[najak]

No, they didn't. You just don't know what the testing involved, or how such testing should be designed. The question about your qualifications is intended to delve into what experience you have specifically in developing space flight testing programs. I've done 'product development' as well, but it had nothing to do with space flight.

So you KNOW they didn't skip this?  Since you seem qualified to judge this - please tell us how they verified the AGC+IMU+RCS+LM - was going to work in real life?

Why was it genius of them to skip any form of Flight Testing here on earth -- and instead have this combination tested for first time on the moon?

[Jason Thompson]

How do you explain this discrepancy between the SaturnV and the SLS?   SLS has 3.05 Mlbs of excess thrust to use for acceleration and lift -- vs. the SaturnV's 1 Mlbs... and since the SLS is 12% lighter - this extra Acceleration is 12% more effective on top of that.  But it's payload is only 1/2 that of the SaturnV?

I have explained this. You need more than lift-off thrust and weight to calculate the payload capacity. Once again, the Saturn V is a three-stage rocket, the SLS is not. The Russian N1 produced more lift-off thrust than the Saturn V but had a lower payload capacity. And you are also naively assuming improvement is inevitable, ignoring all other factors like cost, facilities, the fact that the SLS is based on existing shuttle tech rather than the purpose-built Saturn V...

You are using an oversimplified comparison and considering it evidence of something suspect rather than a gap in your understanding, which is the problem with literally all of your arguments so far.

[Jason Thompson]

So you KNOW they didn't skip this?  Since you seem qualified to judge this - please tell us how they verified the AGC+IMU+RCS+LM - was going to work in real life?

Not my burden of proof. You claim they 'skipped' something, but you have nothing to base that on other than you don't think they would have done it the way they did. Which is also absurd because you clearly have not actually researched what testing was done and why (and by 'researched' I don't mean 'googled for what I could find online').

And once again, the LM was flight tested three times before Apollo 11. Once without a crew and twice with. It worked.

[najak]

The Russian N1 rocket generated 10 million pounds of thrust in its first stage but had lower payload capacity than the Saturn V. This literally is rocket science, and you don't understand it.

The N1 is comparable to today's SLS.

Please explain to me how this N1 with more fuel, and FAR MORE (4X!!!!) LIFT/ACCELERATION at Launch - had a smaller lunar payload capacity?

N1 - 4Mlbs of excess Thrust for a 6 Mlbs rocket!   Massively more Lift/acceleration compared to the SaturnV.
It has more total Impulse too.

But was only rated for HALF the SaturnV payload capacity.

So explain this rocket science to me please.   How does 4x the acceleration with more total impulse - result in 1/2 the payload???

Perhaps we had Harry Potter in the control room casting the Leviosa spell.  Or Yoda?  Something seems very magical about our SaturnV.

[najak]

Not my burden of proof. You claim they 'skipped' something, but you have nothing to base that on other than you don't think they would have done it the way they did. Which is also absurd because you clearly have not actually researched what testing was done and why (and by 'researched' I don't mean 'googled for what I could find online').

This is why I find it a pity that THIS type of information is soft-suppressed by Google/YT/etc -- and ridiculed by the Apollogists.

I'd like a whole set of more-qualified people to view these comparisons - and explain it.

So far, I've not heard any decent explanations for how the SaturnV is the ONLY ROCKET EVER to be of this size, with the LEAST AMOUNT of acceleration/lift  - to be able to carry DOUBLE the payload to the moon in 1968-1972...   Today, we can only do half of this, with a super rocket that has much better specs than the SaturnV.

Do you smell any fish?

[Jason Thompson]

Please explain to me how this N1 with more fuel, and FAR MORE (4X!!!!) LIFT/ACCELERATION at Launch - had a smaller lunar payload capacity?

I've given you some pointers already. Like I said, this is literally rocket science, and you don't understand it. That is not evidence of something being suspect but of a gap in your understanding. Stop concentrating on weight and lift-off thrust, as I have now suggested three times, and think about the other elements that go into launching any payload to the Moon.

So explain this rocket science to me please.   How does 4x the acceleration with more total impulse - result in 1/2 the payload???

Perhaps we had Harry Potter in the control room casting the Leviosa spell.  Or Yoda?  Something seems very magical about our SaturnV.

Has it occurred to you that people would be far more willing to explain things to you if you dropped the sarcastic comments that make it clear that you have already decided the explanation is fakery rather than a genuine wish to learn?

[Bryanpoprobson]

The Saturn V was more efficient and had a lower dry weight than the N1 which had a cluster of 30 less efficient engines. Plus the fuel used for Saturn was more efficient than the kerosene O2 mix used on the N1. You do like to compare apples and oranges don’t you?

As with Jason’s reply above. Cut the crap.

[Jason Thompson]

Please explain to me how this N1 with more fuel, and FAR MORE (4X!!!!) LIFT/ACCELERATION at Launch - had a smaller lunar payload capacity?

OK, here are some numbers for you, which took me all of two minutes to dredge up. The first stages of the Saturn V and the N1 (the ones that actually generate that liftoff thrust) compare thus:

Saturn V S-IC stage dry mass: 303,000lb
N1 block A dry mass: 423,000lb

Saturn V S-IC propellant mass: 4,578,000lb
N1 block A propellant mass: 3,858,000lb

Saturn V S-IC burn duration: 263 seconds
N1 block A burn duration: 113 seconds

So the N1 burns through less fuel in less than half the time in its first stage flight, accelerating a heavier dry mass and heavier upper stages. It then continues using the same kerosene/LOX combination in all the other stages, while the Saturn V upper stages used the more efficient liquid hydrogen/LOX combination*. Additionally the design of the N1 was staggeringly inefficient, with a conical outer wall containing spherical fuel tanks. The Saturn V fuel tanks were the body of the rocket (and the upper stages did away with any intertank void such as those between the fuel and LOX tanks in the first stage by using a common bulkhead to separate fuel and LOX), and so a greater proportion of the fully fuelled mass was fuel compared to the N1.

*The difference in mass between liquid hydrogen and kerosene is something you have also failed to take into account when simply declaring the N1 had 'more fuel'. It may have had more fuel by mass but that's not a good comparison.

[najak]

The Saturn V was more efficient and had a lower dry weight than the N1 which had a cluster of 30 less efficient engines. Plus the fuel used for Saturn was more efficient than the kerosene O2 mix used on the N1. You do like to compare apples and oranges don’t you?

I'll do some math on this and create a spreadsheet to show the predicted result for each rocket (just as Braeunig did for the AM - this is a valid approach, where the only significant deviation occurs during launch transients).

You call SaturnV "more efficient" -- but the MOST (by far) inefficient thing you can do with a rocket launch is "take a long time to get closer to orbit" -- because as you enter orbit and leave the air resistance behind -- you don't have to spend ANY fuel maintaining your current altitude...

The SaturnV spends a LOT longer in these non-ideal circumstances of having to fight-gravity.   Imagine if it produced 1 Mlbs less thrust -- what would happen?  I would sit there going NOWHERE -but burning a ton of fuel while going nowhere...

Ideally- you get past this inefficient mode of operation as quickly as possible.  (which is accomplished better by the SLS and N1 by producing 2.5x to 3x more acceleration from the onset, while the SaturnV barely has enough thrust to overcome it's own weight at launch)

This is why I find the SaturnV claimed of "double-the-load" to be suspect.

I'll create a spreadsheet, and see what it looks like.

[najak]

OK, here are some numbers for you, which took me all of two minutes to dredge up. The first stages of the Saturn V and the N1 (the ones that actually generate that liftoff thrust) compare thus:

Here's the SaturnV specs I'm looking at for 1969 - -are these wrong?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V

It shows stage one burns for just 168 seconds. -- specific impulse is what you quoted - which is a hard-to-wrap-your-head-around number... but is NOT "burn time" as you noted.

Don't worry, my name isn't Jay - I won't rub your nose in it, and tell you that I can't give you any "answers" because you wouldn't believe them.

If I was Jay, I'd be leading you along, getting you to madly defend your claims - looking like a fool - for as long as I could -- to discredit you.



I recognize a simple mistake when I see one.  Which is all you did here.

[BertieSlack]

just as Braeunig did for the AM - this is a valid approach........

You know Bob did it for the Saturn V too, right?