Conclusive Proof the Moon Landings were Faked

[najak]

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

It's an easy method.   Got a link to his Saturn V result?  I'd like to compare my results to his.

And then do it for the SLS -- to compare.  That's where my concern lies.  At this point, I can't imagine how the Saturn's trajectory beats the SLS... but I haven't completed the spreadsheet yet.

Maybe it's all fine... or maybe it's not.

[Jason Thompson]

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.

Oops, yes indeed you are correct. Burn time should indeed be 168 seconds.

[Zakalwe]

Please detail your experience on designing flight test programs for cutting edge space programs.
 I'm sure you must have loads, otherwise it would appear that you are posting another load of speculative nonsense based on woefully poor knowledge.

I've been the lead for various product developments, in electronics and software.  You don't skip "system/field testing", and you almost NEVER had things succeed the first time - you plan in "issue reporting" and recycle, and retest.

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

The first system/field test was on the moon.  While Skipping any attempts to do it here.

This is just plain Product Development sense.  But they were in a hurry - schedule-driven... skipping steps.   

I agree with Alan Bean, quote: “No way!  It’s too many unknowns!  We couldn’t possibly do that!  There’s no way!”

So, for brevity, you have absolutely zero experience in designing or running test programs for cutting edge spaceflight. Gotcha.
So AGAIN you have been caught out posting speculative nonsense about a field that you have no knowledge or experience in. As I said, the Dunnings-Kruger effect is very obviously at work here.

In the case of the Dunning–Kruger effect, this applies mainly to people with low skill in a specific area trying to evaluate their competence within this area. The systematic error concerns their tendency to greatly overestimate their competence, i.e. to see themselves as more skilled than they are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect?wprov=sfla1

That describes your efforts to a T. You constantly assume that some level of expertise is directly transferable to another completely unrelated field
 At the same time you vastly underestimate the complexity of the issue.

[Zakalwe]

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

The first system/field test was on the moon.  While Skipping any attempts to do it here.

Bullshit.
Apollo 7,8,9 and 10 tested those systems. Apollo 11 tested the final part of the flight profile right down to touchdown.

[BertieSlack]

It's an easy method.   Got a link to his Saturn V result?  I'd like to compare my results to his.

You post your results here, and then I'll post the link.

[najak]

That describes your efforts to a T. You constantly assume that some level of expertise is directly transferable to another completely unrelated field
 At the same time you vastly underestimate the complexity of the issue.

Possibly.  But I believe Braenig's SIMPLE spreadsheet solution predicts performance reasonably well - even with Jay's approval, in general.

Why? Because just because Rocket's are involved, doesn't mean it can't also be modeled with Newtonian math, just as Braeunig did.

In the end, after all the "rocket sciency complex stuff is done" the end result is a "NET THRUST" - which then fits cleanly into Newtonian equations.

At "Steady state" (achieved fairly quickly, well-enough) - the modeling is fairly simple --   I'll do this up for the SLS, and SaturnV (to compare against Braeunig), and see how it turns out.

I might be eating my own foot ... or I might not.

Dunning Kruger applies heavily, IMO, to politics -- where everyone thinks they know "what's best for the nation/economy/etc" -- but we don't.

You might think "Electrical Engineering is very complex" - as parts of it are...   but a LOT of it boils down to "Volts = Amps * Resistance"...  for parallel or serial circuits.  I learned this in 7th grade, and won a science fair for it.   Normal algebra is all it takes.   Just like Newtonian physics.

And even the inside the wires, the trillions of electron interactions going on -- there is a lot of complexity, and reflections and inefficiencies --  but that ALL DROPS OUT (99.9%) for MANY cases.

If you were trying to prove something wrong that I didn't want you to prove wrong -- I'd take an approach like Jay - make you dig into differential equations and imaginary numbers to determine the transmission line qualities of the various wires... and the conductance of the wire material, etc...    And look for ways to discredit you -- so that we'd not have to finish the proof.

  This is what has been happening on the other thread.

Static Pressure Thrust boils down to some simple equations to provide a "good enough estimate" - such that we can quickly determine if "Static Pressure Thrust" has any chance of explaining the 2.5x higher than normal acceleration we're seeing for the first full second.

I predict he'll find a way to prevent us from getting to the end of this road, doing his best to make it sound way more complicated than it needs to be (to get a 90%+ accurate enough result).

[najak]

Bullshit.
Apollo 7,8,9 and 10 tested those systems. Apollo 11 tested the final part of the flight profile right down to touchdown.

I'm talking about "the landing part" here.

And if you'll note - those tests generally all "just worked" - so that they could progress to the next milestone quickly, without any significant rework.

This type of success "first try" isn't seen in other industries.  But NASA was a "well oiled machine, like no other" -- unless you ask Thomas Baron, RIP.

[Zakalwe]

Tedious irrelevance snipped

You know jack about testing cutting-edge aeronautical programs, yet you feel OK to waltz in demanding that it should be done this way or that. All t.your flannel can't cover up for your complete ignorance in this field.

[Zakalwe]

Bullshit.
Apollo 7,8,9 and 10 tested those systems. Apollo 11 tested the final part of the flight profile right down to touchdown.

I'm talking about "the landing part" here.

And if you'll note - those tests generally all "just worked" - so that they could progress to the next milestone quickly, without any significant rework.

This type of success "first try" isn't seen in other industries.  But NASA was a "well oiled machine, like no other" -- unless you ask Thomas Baron, RIP.

11 was the test of the landing. If it didn't work, then 12 would have been up.

Baron? We've already closed the book on that. You haven't seen the report so you cannot draw anything from it. Elderberries and hamsters, remember?

[Peter B]

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.

LOL, it's funny watching you patiently explain aspects of rocket science to actual rocket scientists...

[najak]

LOL, it's funny watching you patiently explain aspects of rocket science to actual rocket scientists...

Who all that has responded so far here is an actual "Rocket Scientist"?

The toughest parts of Rocket science isn't modeling the "acceleration from a known Thrust".  Once the thrust is stated - the impact on the rocket for that instant can be modeled as Newtonian, unless you are dealing with velocities that near the speed of light, and you start screwing with time/mass/etc/relativity.

Why do you think Braeunig could produce a reasonable trajectory estimation using a spreadsheet with algebraic math?

[najak]

Baron? We've already closed the book on that. You haven't seen the report so you cannot draw anything from it. Elderberries and hamsters, remember?

And why is it that we've not seen this 500-page report?  Why is it that we don't even hear NASA or congress making a deal of "where did it go?"  Instead, the NASA site's SUMMARY STILL proclaims it to have NEVER EXISTED.

And you don't smell fish.  You are stunning.

[Jason Thompson]

The toughest parts of Rocket science isn't...

And as you're not a rocket scientist, why should we accept your statements about what the 'toughest part' is or isn't?

[Bryanpoprobson]

And if you'll note - those tests generally all "just worked" - so that they could progress to the next milestone quickly, without any significant rework.

This type of success "first try" isn't seen in other industries.  But NASA was a "well oiled machine, like no other"

I love this particular bollocks, there were issues in these tests, for instance; On Apollo 10 The LM went into an uncontrolled spin during the Ascent stage. This is why Apollo had this staged approach, to check each phase and as stated by another, even Apollo 11 was the first test landing (although this is contested by some).

[Zakalwe]

Baron? We've already closed the book on that. You haven't seen the report so you cannot draw anything from it. Elderberries and hamsters, remember?

And why is it that we've not seen this 500-page report?  Why is it that we don't even hear NASA or congress making a deal of "where did it go?"  Instead, the NASA site's SUMMARY STILL proclaims it to have NEVER EXISTED.

And you don't smell fish.  You are stunning.

Only elderberries and hamsters.
And huge piles of horseshit.