Conclusive Proof the Moon Landings were Faked

[BertieSlack]

We'll soon find out.

We already know.

[najak]

So the the LM was not "top-heavy" as he claimed? 

Not sure you point here.  Do you think the LM was NOT top-heavy?

[najak]

I must modify an earlier statement about the exhaust being steady state combustion. The descent rockets and the RCS were both monopropellant hydrogen peroxide motors, which use the rapid catalysed decomposition of hydrogen peroxide to generate thrust. There is no combustion involved.

OK -- so then the exhaust is super thick white - can't miss it.

Only we almost NEVER ever see it...   what does this tell you?

[Jason Thompson]

So the the LM was not "top-heavy" as he claimed? 

Not sure you point here.  Do you think the LM was NOT top-heavy?

The point is not whether the LM was 'top heavy', but that it is very obviously NOT as top heavy as any other launch vehicle. Even your own estimates put the centre of mass only a couple of feet above the descent engine, and it has a lot of mass distributed to the sides of that. Most rockets have virtually none of the mass to the sides of the engines and a centre of mass tens of feet higher. They work, so why should the LM have any particular difficulty? As the article says, the LM has an inherently more stable mass distribution.

[Jason Thompson]

I must modify an earlier statement about the exhaust being steady state combustion. The descent rockets and the RCS were both monopropellant hydrogen peroxide motors, which use the rapid catalysed decomposition of hydrogen peroxide to generate thrust. There is no combustion involved.

OK -- so then the exhaust is super thick white - can't miss it.

No, the initial burst is thick white steam (hence why we see the RCS firings, as they are short pulses) but once it's a steady process the exhaust is transparent.

[Bryanpoprobson]

If it turns out to be 70% as good - this too will bode well for Apollogists.

You’ve been warned off that particular insult more than once by LunarOrbit.

[LunarOrbit]

It's a shame I can't start any new threads - there are so many separate big topics we are touching on here -- in a splintered/meandered fashion.

Here's one I'd like to EXPLORE.

If you keep trying to circumvent my moderation by starting new topics within existing threads I will impose even stricter restrictions on you that will require your posts to be approved by me before they appear in the forum.

[Peter B]

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"?

Would it matter if I named names? You have no problems with labelling anyone disagreeing with you as a liar.

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?

Just visit his website and you'll see.

[TimberWolfAu]

Any expert who works for or with NASA, no matter how thin the relationship, is a paid shill and can't be trusted.

I had one person telling me I was a paid shill because the person who ran/wrote an astronomy course I took had once worked for NASA. That was it.

[najak]

The point is not whether the LM was 'top heavy', but that it is very obviously NOT as top heavy as any other launch vehicle. Even your own estimates put the centre of mass only a couple of feet above the descent engine, and it has a lot of mass distributed to the sides of that. Most rockets have virtually none of the mass to the sides of the engines and a centre of mass tens of feet higher. They work, so why should the LM have any particular difficulty? As the article says, the LM has an inherently more stable mass distribution.

LM was considerably more top heavy than the LLTV -- why purposefully avoid making your "simulation vehicle the same as the real thing" unless the real thing was simply "too difficult to fly" -- the LLTV was hard-enough as is.   Weren't we trying to "simulate as best as possible the REAL deal?"   Yet we cut short on some things, making LLTV practice very different than LM practice.

Rockets also don't have to start at a tilt and bring themselves upright  (until Elon's starships which are awesome).

Rockets, once they get moving, have aerodynamics to keep them straight -- like an arrow.   So for rockets, the advantage of atmosphere is very stabilizing.... before they get moving, they are MUCH less stable and at risk of falling over (as many have).

[najak]

No, the initial burst is thick white steam (hence why we see the RCS firings, as they are short pulses) but once it's a steady process the exhaust is transparent.

Got any science references to back up this claim?

Do you know the chemical reaction used for Hydrogen peroxide here?  And the heat generated?

Why in most videos do we never see this "burst of white" from the descent jets?   If there's to be an initial burst as it starts -- why do many of the videos have NONE of this?

[najak]

If you keep trying to circumvent my moderation by starting new topics within existing threads I will impose even stricter restrictions on you that will require your posts to be approved by me before they appear in the forum.

My other threads are all completed, except for the "Launch acceleration" - which is mostly done too, waiting on Jay.

You are holding me hostage to not talking at all, because my points "make too much sense" and you don't want people to see them.

We're now having a productive chat about Saturn V vs. SLS/N1, and the LLTV.   Because you give us no other place to chat.

CAN SOMEONE ELSE CREATE A TOPICAL THREAD??   Pick a topic that is actually debatable -- not a stupid one.  And then we can have interesting discussions.   LLTV, and SaturnV are decent topics.

But also - Moon Dust and Surface is a GREAT topic - as the Apollo program modeled these very inaccurately, IMO.

[najak]

#1: Would it matter if I named names? You have no problems with labelling anyone disagreeing with you as a liar.
#2: Why do you think Braeunig could produce a reasonable trajectory estimation using a spreadsheet with algebraic math?

#1: Yep, it matters if people have professional qualifications.  Mine are related to "complex product development" for "Cummins Engines"...  Complex, yet compared to Apollo - very simple.   And in no industry do you skip the vital testing.   Apollo didn't even try to make the LLTV "more like the LM" as they surely could have had them stand-up with feet 3' above the jet engine, look through a 9" window, and pile some mass on top.   This would have better approximated the real deal.   And since the magical AGC was never flight tested, even as a POC - this is a stunningly obvious miss.

For me, these gaping holes in the LLTV vs LM program - propelled me quickly into accepting the possibility of the "Landing hoax".  That combined with Apollo 1, the accelerated schedule of clumping steps together -- and the rigid/snap-stop motion of the Apollo 11 rendezvous.   This was my starting point where I crossed-over from 50/50 to 70/30..


#2: He did it for AM, and was lauded as a fairly good simulation of the results.    Do you think it CANNOT produce an accurate result?

The results use simple algebraic equations - -for Thrust, Mass, and Drag.  (on the moon, no drag) -- and some knowledge of the advertised pitch angle as it rises and leans over to go into orbit.   

[najak]

I had one person telling me I was a paid shill because the person who ran/wrote an astronomy course I took had once worked for NASA. That was it.

The ones who get substantial earnings are of course more suspect. If they turn on NASA, they lose a LOT of money.  To boot, part of their contract likely contains NDA lingo, making them liable to lawsuit if they ever turned on NASA afterwards...   and they wouldn't be "heroes" for doing so - instead they would easily discredited by a world largely resistant to having their world views shattered.  This is simply how human group think (and religion) work.   It's a defense mechanism.

[Zakalwe]

#1: Would it matter if I named names? You have no problems with labelling anyone disagreeing with you as a liar.
#2: Why do you think Braeunig could produce a reasonable trajectory estimation using a spreadsheet with algebraic math?

#1: Yep, it matters if people have professional qualifications.  Mine are related to "complex product development" for "Cummins Engines"...  Complex, yet compared to Apollo - very simple.   And in no industry do you skip the vital testing.   Apollo didn't even try to make the LLTV "more like the LM" as they surely could have had them stand-up with feet 3' above the jet engine, look through a 9" window, and pile some mass on top.   This would have better approximated the real deal.   And since the magical AGC was never flight tested, even as a POC - this is a stunningly obvious miss.

For me, these gaping holes in the LLTV vs LM program - propelled me quickly into accepting the possibility of the "Landing hoax".  That combined with Apollo 1, the accelerated schedule of clumping steps together -- and the rigid/snap-stop motion of the Apollo 11 rendezvous.   This was my starting point where I crossed-over from 50/50 to 70/30..


#2: He did it for AM, and was lauded as a fairly good simulation of the results.    Do you think it CANNOT produce an accurate result?

The results use simple algebraic equations - -for Thrust, Mass, and Drag.  (on the moon, no drag) -- and some knowledge of the advertised pitch angle as it rises and leans over to go into orbit.

You have ZERO knowledge or experience in conducting test flight regimes for cutting edge aeronautical or space programs, so please STFU with the "they should have done it this way"  bollocks.
ADMIT that the problem is your complete lack of experience and knowledge and not an issue with the LLTV/LLTV.