Hoax? - Lunar Launches - Too Fast

[ApolloEnthusiast]

For MLH, it's more like a crime investigation,

The Apollo project is built on science and engineering. If you can't formulate arguments against it in that realm then it follows that there is no crime to investigate.

the detective's main tool is to "look for holes in the story".   

You're not a detective, and the only holes are the giant gaps in your understanding. I realize it must be fun to imagine you're main character in a crime novel, using only your wits to unravel the elaborate conspiracy the villains have perpetrated. But something every Sherlock Holmes knock-off has in common is they get the facts right, and those facts lead them to the right answer. You are attempting to rush directly to the end without getting any of the actual facts correct.

When there are holes, they have to theorize other storylines that accommodate those holes,

Sure, but you haven't correctly identified any holes. When a given explanation isn't consistent with all of the facts, then you may need to speculate about explanations that will be fully consistent.

It is not appropriate, however, to start speculating when the problem is gaps in your understanding of the facts or when you haven't gathered all of the pertinent information.

We have tried from the beginning to alert you to the flaws in your process and you have pressed on undeterred continually repeating the same procedural errors. There are reasons for the protocols in organized discussion, and one of them is to prevent someone, like you for example, from creating and presenting ideas that are flawed at the foundation.

[Jason Thompson]

For MLH, it's more like a crime investigation, dealing with deception... "testimonies that aren't honest or complete" -- the detective's main tool is to "look for holes in the story".

But first there is evidence of a crime, which has to stand up to scrutiny. Like I said, you can concoct a story in which I murdered someone because I have the means, motive and opportunity (I used to use my wife in this analogy until she joined the forum, noticed how often I used it and asked if she should be worried!  ), but unless you can prove the victim is actually dead it's worthless.

So it is here. Unless you can provide evidence that the record is faked, arguing how it might be so is pointless.

When a detective concocts a story to explain holes in the defendant's story, they don't go to a judge with those holes, they look for evidence their concocted scenario is true. That's the step you are utterly failing to grasp here, and why your arguments are not even slightly on a par with the conclusion that Apollo was genuine.

[Jason Thompson]

Correct... but the rationale for examining this evidence is more like criminal investigation.  This behavior is highly unlikely in the presented normal context.   Noting the behavior that is consistent with the MLH theory (signs of gravity) makes it a piece evidence for MLH, for which the best rebuttal is what you explained.   So we present BOTH sides for this evidence, and MOVE ON.

No, we do not. There are not two sides here, however much you seek to create such a situation. The default position is that Apollo happened unless you can prove otherwise using evidence, not creating a scenario. This is also a fundamental tenet of criminal investigation, which you seek to compare this to: the defendant is innocent unless proven guilty.

Did I murder someone or not? Unless there is actual evidence I did, then the position is no I did not, however compelling your fabricated scenario of how things might have happened if I WAS a murderer might be.

[Mag40]

Correct... but the rationale for examining this evidence is more like criminal investigation.  This behavior is highly unlikely in the presented normal context.   Noting the behavior that is consistent with the MLH theory (signs of gravity) makes it a piece evidence for MLH, for which the best rebuttal is what you explained.   So we present BOTH sides for this evidence, and MOVE ON.  This thread is dead, complete, with nothing new to be said.

That is just bollocks. You know and everyone her knows that your overall weight of knowledge on the Apollo missions is appallingly low.

Compared to many here, I reckon I'm at around 40% and that has taken considerable effort. A long time ago I was of the opinion it didn't happen, so clueless was I that I didn't even know about things like the rocks or surface experiments. As I looked into it, it became clear that there was an ever increasing case that it most certainly did occur. I was not tied in to my belief, it was just a suspicion.

You have a major problem. You are completely locked into this confirmation bias. If you were to approach every detail with some sort of neutrality and with more objectivity, your knee-jerk denial removed!, that would be a far better way to conduct yourself.

I get that the people here don't want to see more such claims - which is why no one else is encouraging LO to allow some new threads with new content -- instead of beating these dead horses.

Not true. It's not the claims at all. It's the repetition and your very bad attitude. You simply are oblivious to how badly you have come across. How can you possibly stand there lecturing people who have complex knowledge of the machinery when you clearly just read some of it?

I urge LunarOrbit not to kick you out just yet and I urge you to apologise for the "Salem witch" comment (which appeared to tip the scales) and ask for one more chance. I'm ok with a bit of debate, not because I find your comments or observations helpful, but because every time without fail there are new aspects of Apollo I get to find out about.

Nobody expects any HB to suddenly reverse direction but there's ways of disagreeing about things that involve more diplomacy than you are currently exhibiting. This thread is not done by far.

Why don't you work with JayUtah and let him put this claim 100% to bed. An absence of firm evidence is ok but nothing beats irrefutable. Your hurry to blast into more threads is bizarre - this is 50+ years old, it's not going anywhere.

Ah well, I tried. The only disappointment is that the discussions stimulated new rebuttal for me to digest. Maybe if JayUtah has time he can walk us through a little more of the resolution to this that was so sadly missed by najak.

[JayUtah]

I'll save the gory numerical details for an updated Clavius page at some future date.

Note how Bob and I discussed gas trapped between the ascent and descent stage. Najak's conceptual error was assuming that was limited to what was happening only beneath the nozzle. When I hinted that you had to think outside the box when integrating

𝐹=∫ 𝑃_𝑥 𝑑𝐴,

what I mean is that you have to integrate 𝑃_𝑥 over the entire underside of the ascent stage. I doubt it would be uniform, but the point is that there's a whole lot of 𝐴 for it to act against. Now his thrust model is all kinds of wrong too, but the reason you want to know the thermodynamics of the exhaust from first principles and the initial gap through which it's escaping (i.e., the "leak-rate" in my conversation with Bob) is that this gives you a basis for estimating the initial static pressure of the entire region of gas that's semi-trapped between the stages—not just under the nozzle. The photographs of the shock wave during ascent testing assure us that enough of a "bubble" of exhaust gas remains at a density sufficient to support wave propagation during the one second or so following ignition. It's not just immediately disappearing into vacuum. It's easy to hand wave the rest and say that's just a quantification exercise. But in fact that quantification is the aforementioned "nasty integral" and will take a fairly fun bit of math(s).

With apologies to Bob and to the world, I think we'll have to take ignition transient off the table. The more carefully I watch the ascent video, the more convinced I am that the APS engine has reached "steady state" by the time the ascent stage is cut loose. I add the cautionary quote marks because it's questionable whether any sort of nominal steady state operation is possible with the ascent stage engine that close to the descent stage deck. I originally estimated the ignition transient for this motor at about 350 ms, and the design requirements give the standard 90%-thrust deadline as something like 450 ms. (It's generally okay if a transient spike greater than 100% occurs later, so long as once having reached 90% thrust by the required time, the thrust does not then fall below 90%.) It looks like the ascent stage might be still attached through all those ballpark timings.

Also to that point, I've found the documentation for the launch sequencing up in my attic. When I get some time, I can sit down and map out the sequence and timings from APS valve actuation to the pyrotechnical let-go. Contrary to Najak's believe, no, there is never any one concise document that by itself answers some question that someone might come up with. But from watching what looks like transient exhaust plumes in the videos, I won't be surprised if the sequencing confirms that any thrust spikes due to ignition occur before the ascent stage is cut loose.

[Luke Pemberton]

Note how Bob and I discussed gas trapped between the ascent and descent stage. Najak's conceptual error was assuming that was limited to what was happening only beneath the nozzle. When I hinted that you had to think outside the box when integrating

𝐹=∫ 𝑃_𝑥 𝑑𝐴,

what I mean is that you have to integrate 𝑃_𝑥 over the entire underside of the ascent stage.

I'm not a rocket engineer but once I saw the integral and dug out the pictures of the ascent stage being tested, the penny dropped in my mind with a great big clang. Couple this with your question, 'can a shockwave even occur in space?', his simple Newtonian spreadsheet model using a video with the added complication of framerate conversion was going to fall over.

It is incredible just how many times they take a video or still, claim this is evidence for their handwaving 'this is a feasible' argument, and ignore the 'but this is your starting point' rebuttal.