Hoax? - Lunar Launches - Too Fast

[LunarOrbit]

1. OK, I'll call you TD's - Truth Defenders.  And you can call me an LD - Lie Defender.

Sure, no problem. After all, you are defending the lie the the Moon landings were faked.

2. I'm working on providing some proof, but you aren't allowing it.  Why not allow it?

I allowed it, but then you abused my patience and lost it.

You have been been told why you can't start new threads.

[LunarOrbit]

I may start my own forums.

Ok then. Have fun.

[JayUtah]

Right, no one is obliged.  Who is forcing anyone to engage?  I find this interesting, as do some others.  Thus the forum and volunteer participation.

Your explanation for why people don't want to engage you the way you demand to be engaged is that they are fearful, biased, and under some religious spell. If I don't snap to attention when you @at me with a yoo-hoo, you claim I must be hiding from you. When people see you playing those games, they rightly doubt whether your interest is in the facts or the physics.

[najak]

...

These are your people here.  Enjoy Salem.   I've been silenced because I'm not a believer.  Everything I think is of the devil here.  Yeah, they sure seem decent to me too.

[JayUtah]

I've been silenced because I'm not a believer.

No, you've been challenged effectively because your claims lack merit. Your participation has been restricted because you behave badly. The "silenced for my views" angle is so very tired.

[najak]

...your claims lack merit.

Not all claims. Two stand, awaiting a viable explanation from the TD's.   And for the claims that did lack merit, I conceded.  If viable refutations can be provided for the other two, I'll concede here as well.

[TimberWolfAu]

Rasa's FB group, reached 40K+ members -- then was hijacked by hackers -- and now permeated with BAD Hoax Theories --

Bwahahaaaaa

Rasa made the mistake of giving the wrong person admin privileges, and they used them against him. There was no "hacking", only Rasa not being able to admit to his stupidity, so it must, as always, have been the work of THEM, trying to stop him.

Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

[Bryanpoprobson]

These are your people here.  Enjoy Salem.   I've been silenced because I'm not a believer.  Everything I think is of the devil here.  Yeah, they sure seem decent to me too.

Whereas the forum on Facebook you champion is a virtuous one. After I argued Dr (ha ha) Rasa into a corner, he accused me of being a P*phile and then banned ME for being abusive. What a lovely forum that is..

[Mag40]

After all that posturing, all that patronising, endless insistence that he knew what he was doing and the "smartest" person ever, the final conclusion, which we were all already aware of has been conceded (albeit with some glaring omissions - that I would love JayUtah to finalise).

These are quotes from the 10 year old thread pointed out to najak early in this discussion:

You get stronger-than-normal thrust during the ignition transient which, for the APS is about the first 350 milliseconds after ignition.  That can account for greater performance.  Also, don't trust your estimates too much, especially from that TV.

..... it should also be noted that the for a brief period after ignition, the exhaust was trapped between the descent and ascent stages.  This would have exerted an additional pressure on the ascent stage, causing it to accelerate faster than expected for that first second.

Bob, we've considered that but I think there's some question how best to quantify it.  It becomes a constricted flow problem combined with a leak-rate problem, and I think it's tractable but I would have to derive the aperture form factor in terms of a circumferential opening.  But in general, yes you'd get a certain high degree of transient pressure thrust just at the initial climbout.

Bob Braeunig - Archive excerpt:
"So why does the lunar module rise off its launch platform at a seemingly greater than expected acceleration? There are two main contributing factors that come into play.

First, when a rocket engine is fired, there is a brief period, called the ignition transient, during which extreme conditions can occur, such as high pressure and temperature peaks. For the LM's ascent engine, the ignition transient lasted for about 350 milliseconds, during which stronger than normal thrust was produced.

The second factor can be seen in the illustration to the right-bottom. Notice that the exit of the ascent engine nozzle sat tight against the upper deck of the descent stage. On start-up, the gas pressure at the nozzle exit rose to higher than normal values due to the constricted flow of exhaust gas. This produced a high degree of transient pressure thrust just at the moment of liftoff. Once the LM climbed high enough that the exhaust could flow from the nozzle unrestricted, the pressure and thrust fell to nominal levels.

These factors combined to give the ascent stage a brief but significant spike in thrust immediately after engine ignition. This extra "kick" caused the LM to jump off the launch platform, attaining greater altitude and speed within the first second of flight than otherwise possible, and producing the faster than expected initial climbout observed in the Apollo 17 video. As explained, this was only a transitory condition, after which the LM's acceleration was consistent with the steady-state operation of its ascent engine.

Also be advised that time measurements made from Internet-posted videos should be considered suspect. Most of these videos have gone through format and framerate conversions of unknown type and origin. These manipulations can change the playback speed, rendering the videos unreliable for making time and velocity measurements."

---------------------------------

I want to point out something quite significant that has had an utterly useless "explanation" provided. The whole Apollo 17 launch seen was part of continued footage from the moment the rover was parked. It involved considerable activity in and around the LM with the identical background. Schmitt throws a hammer and we even see it glint as it reaches zenith.

I cannot understand how any reasonable person can look at that and not see how ridiculous it would be to fake that in 1972.

[Luke Pemberton]

These are your people here.

They are not my people. They are their own people with independent minds, and many are vastly more qualified than me to speak about Apollo. We have engineers and enthusiasts here. The engineers speak for themselves. The knowledge of our enthusiasts is mind boggling.

I've been silenced because I'm not a believer.

You've not been silenced, you've been allowed to start multiple threads. I know you were issued a short ban. There are forums where even the slightest indiscretion would see a ban, and in those forums commenting on moderator decisions would invoke a warning. I won't speak for LO, but I am sure he will explain your ban to you. I am guessing it has nothing to do with your beliefs.

LO is a fair moderator. There is evidence here that he has allowed threads to run and run, despite contravention of rules. I have said to you that this forum is Socratic in nature. If any proposal of foul play is made you will be questioned about the veracity of your claim. The nature of this process is to elicit your true understanding and experience. It's your viva voce. You want to be a peer, then show you have a grasp of the problem to be a peer.

Everything I think is of the devil here. Yeah, they sure seem decent to me too.

Don't be so dramatic. As explained above, everything you think of is challenged and questioned. You provided a spreadsheet analysis, and it was explained to you why this approach is wrong. Wrong from several aspects. You've been given hints, links and the correct mathematical approach; but you clung to applying F = ma to a video and then did some back-pedalling, bemoaning that you had arrived at the correct solution by yourself and that the teaching here was terrible. You've even had it explained why you can't use the video to analyse the motion. That last point alone should be enough for your 'oh' moment.

[Mag40]

...your claims lack merit.

Not all claims. Two stand, awaiting a viable explanation from the TD's.   And for the claims that did lack merit, I conceded.  If viable refutations can be provided for the other two, I'll concede here as well.

You do realise that debate works both ways don't you? You present your claim, it get answered then counter-claim. you've run away from counter claims in the dust thread, are you going to do the same here?

I detailed one of them above where we see astronauts walking around the identical LM and backdrop on Apollo 17. Well, it didn't occur to me that Apollo 16 would also provide such clear and obvious evidence. But oh does it ever!

Activity around the final rover spot and camera zooms to LM - astronaut approaches LM:
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a16/a16v.1704507.mpg

This is the one - activity around the LM that if najak says is faked, then it shows he really is delusional:
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a16/a16v.1704820.mpg

Static camera activity continues:
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a16/a16v.1705138.mpg

[LunarOrbit]

...your claims lack merit.

Not all claims. Two stand, awaiting a viable explanation from the TD's.   And for the claims that did lack merit, I conceded.  If viable refutations can be provided for the other two, I'll concede here as well.

Those two lack merit too, you're just not capable of accepting it yet.

[najak]

Whereas the forum on Facebook you champion is a virtuous one. After I argued Dr (ha ha) Rasa into a corner, he accused me of being a P*phile and then banned ME for being abusive. What a lovely forum that is..

There is currently no good place for debate.  Like Lunar Orbit here, Rasa also uses his home-court advantage to employ biases in favor of MLH.  I would argue that theirs is "more warranted" because the MLH is in the scant minority right now, with all corporations working against us (i.e. Google/YT/NVIDIA/etc), using slimy tactics to "hide the good MLH arguments" while "promoting ONLY MLH debunks + Flat Earth Promotion" (to associate MLH with flat earth in most people's minds, as well as to try and convert anyone prone to believe conspiracy theories into believing a false hoax (flat earth) or to believe in MLH for "wrongful reasons".

It amazes me that TD's (Truth Defenders) need to employ these same biased tactics to prevent neutral grounds for this debate, especially since they are in the vast majority, have NASA/corporate/govt backing galore, and firmly believe their case is bullet proof....  so why the bias?   Why not allow these discussions?

One thing Google will NOT show you is the 8 Flag Motions, among others.   I wish to give some light to the MLH claims that hold weight.

Rasa and I are often at-odds with each other, in disagreement over what qualifies as "good evidence".  And as I read MLH books and watch videos, the majority of what I find is critically flawed.

So my goal is to figure out "what is good evidence, and what is not".

I have a list I'd like to go through in the context of "MLH skeptics" who are biased in the other direction, to see which claims can withstand the scrutiny.

I would think a "self assured" group of TD's wouldn't work to prevent this....   unless they are paid by NASA to only be a "facade of Hoax theory discussion"... another place for people to come and ONLY FIND BAD ARGUMENTS.   Because NASA/govt doesn't want people to see "good arguments", period.

I have two arguments outstanding that seem like GOOD arguments...  8 flag motions, and the Apollo 12 Dish flinging.   I have MORE -- but am being silenced by the biased management of this forum.

[Jason Thompson]

Stop whining about being silenced and have the discussions you claim to want. People have responded to your points so deal with that instead of posting walls of text about how badly you’re being treated and suggesting were paid shills for NASA.

[najak]

Those two lack merit too, you're just not capable of accepting it yet.

For the 8 flag motions - please tell me where my claim is "lacking merit".   There are still ZERO counter-claims that anyone will even try to defend under scrutiny.  This one remains fully undebunked, for an extremely simple context of Flags Untouched in a vacuum -- being gently pushed towards the LM and held there for up to 15 seconds at a time.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KnnsXE97fKJZ-CJYv7j_G9eVdgwW960LUeOCGz5uarE/edit?usp=sharing