Hoax? - Lunar Launches - Too Fast

[najak]

Greetings to all. 

I am an insane MLH guy, who is convinced that the most compelling science and logic indicate we didn't land humans on the moon.  And I am glad to be here among MLH skeptics, as Iron sharpens Iron.   My beliefs are sincere, as are yours - so I pray we have respectful and productive debate here.

I'll start out by presenting a fairly detailed analysis of ALL 3 of the Lunar Launches - Apollo 15, 16, and 17.  It is all contained in a google doc on OneDrive with supplemental images and work contained in some folders.

I believe this proof to be a slam dunk proof in favor of MLH.   Even the mighty Apollo is not permitted to "Break Physics".

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sJsIUlzdVF3brADa8YwR4XTg59mod-K2ct4jQCSKlyA/edit?usp=sharing

This gdoc (google doc) contains all of the links to my work, and the Spreadsheet showing the math.

Interestingly, as I was called to analyze the first 1 second of frames, to rebut the "initial fast impulse" claim that @Allan F had raised to me, not only did I find that the acceleration of this first second was near constant (at 2.54X too high) for the whole second, but then for the 2nd second, this acceleration dropped well BELOW the expected acceleration, and even went negative.

I did this extra analysis for Apollo 16, since it has the best resolution and a stable camera (no panning, so the Lander base stays right where it is).

I pulled these frames from NASA's published footage, and captured it in slow motion, then used VLC to verify EXACTLY 30 FPS - to confirm that the "seconds shown in YouTube player" exactly aligned to this 30 FPS source frame rate.

For example, for A16, the 7th frame (marked 0.20 seconds after ignition) starts showing 14 seconds in YouTube, and then the 37th frame is exactly where it starts second 15.   This is consistent.   A17 is the same, and for A15 it's 15 FPS.

All 3 show approximately the same type of error for the 1st second (2.5X or more), but I only did the 2nd second analysis as well as a 10 FPS analysis of Apollo 16, to study the "first 1 second acceleration evidence" - which appears to be near constant, while for the 2nd second, it abysmally drops well below the expected acceleration and even goes negative.

[najak]

I saw the other link here:
https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=655.0

With what appears me as an unsubstantiated claim here:
---
"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."
---

Can someone "source" this please.  When I look up the concepts of "Ignition Transient" it's a phase with LESS THRUST, not more.   I think this statement might be misconstruing the phrase "over pressured Ignition" - which is something that is BAD for thrust, as this just means "too much pressure in the ignition chamber" which interferes with it's thrust.  This doesn't equate to "more thrust" but instead "less thrust".

I believe this is because the "amount of pressure that might build up if the nozzle was fully sealed" (which it's not) - simply doesn't compensate for the gross loss of normal rocket thrust achieved by efficient ignition and unconstrained expulsion of exhaust.

Please source this better -- to prove that our true rocket science would indicate "higher thrust" at ignition, when only part of the fuel is even igniting.

[smartcooky]

It never ceases to amaze me how, every so often, a new hoax believer will come along, convinced they have found something that has never been seen before, and that their "discovery" will do what none have done before - debunk the moon landings.

Sadly, this is another example. All this stuff is old news... very old news. In fact its so old that, IIRC, even the Blunder From Down Under was arguing the ignition impulse crap more than 20 years ago. Those arguments failed then, and it will fail now.

Just a warning najak... this is not some forum like "Above Top Secret" or "Godlike Productions" where the members are mostly anonymous, poorly educated keyboard warriors who barely made it out of high school.  There are real, professional rocket scientists and aviation experts here, such as aerospace and aeronautical engineers. There are also professional engineers, technicians and mathematicians... many of us have degrees and certified qualifications in our chosen professions. If you try bullshitting, you will get your arse handed to you very, very quickly.

I will start the ball rolling by showing you a video, which explains not just that the moon landings were not faked, but that, with the technology profiles of the time, it would not have been possible to fake them. Thank you to the late S.G. Collins.

[najak]

@smartcooky - It's nice to meet you.   I'm aware of that debunk, about film technology, and for this debate, this is off-topic.   

So please stick with the debate at hand (Lunar Launch Speeds), of which I am unaware of a scientifically legitimate debunk here.   If you want to debate film-tech, please start a new thread.

I am here because I've heard there is a good group of minds involved.  100% integrity is my only goal.

If you have something that pertains to this "Lunar Launch Initial Acceleration", please pour it on.

[najak]

Najak wins this debate by FORFEIT.   Hurray!   Apollo didn't land humans on the moon.  Now you know.

[BertieSlack]

Najak wins this debate by FORFEIT.

Nope
https://web.archive.org/web/20170904033346/http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/LM-ascent.htm

[najak]

Nope
https://web.archive.org/web/20170904033346/http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/LM-ascent.htm

Ever wonder why you need to pull up something taken down by this guy 7 years ago??  Why doesn't he want this quote associated with him anymore?

" For the LM's ascent engine, the ignition transient lasted for about 350 milliseconds, during which stronger than normal thrust was produced."

===
Do the work.  Check the frames.  Do the math.  Each Apollo mission exhibited about 2.5X the predicted Thrust (or more) for a FULL SECOND (not just 350 msec).

I made conservative estimates, to avoid PNA scrutiny of my image analysis.  Most MLH theories estimate far more.

Braeunig withdrew this whole page and comment, because it tarnishes his reputation, as this claim is very bad science.   It's almost like a statement made by someone who has no idea about this science.

The "ignition transient" results in "higher than normal COMBUSTION pressure" along with more unburnt fuel, which results in LESS THRUST.

Additionally, even if you wanted to claim his "singular lone withdrawn quote" as truth -- it simply does NOT align to what is shown by the Launch film frames.... which are 2.5X the thrust for a FULL SECOND.

Additionally, the image analysis done for Apollo 16 - shows that after this 1 second of "2.5X too much thrust" was followed by 1 second of extreme drop off of acceleration to less than HALF of what it should be, and even when NEGATIVE.

This NASA simulation is so BAD - it's a undeniable smoking gun that it was faked.  Even the mighty Apollo cannot Break Physics.  Which is what we're seeing here.

I believe there's a reason the "heavy hitters" on this site are avoiding this topic.   It is UNDEFENDABLE.   Because you can't BREAK PHYSICS so badly as was done here... all 3 launches.

Please show me the math "not-withdrawn".   I would be surprised if Braeunig himself isn't now a HB, assuming he's a smart as people think he is.

Him trying to explain this 1-second of 2.5X thrust with a "non-backed, no-math presumption that 350 msec of increased Combustion pressure with unburnt fuel, would explain what we see for these launches".

I believe they're about to spill the beans, but looking for a way to do it with minimal fallout... ideally with a "good spin" such as "Awesome!  Gen X/Y/Z will FINALLY do what the Boomers could only fake doing."

[najak]

Nope
https://web.archive.org/web/20170904033346/http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/LM-ascent.htm

It's ironic that you tell me to "do the work", while you parrot a withdrawn and provably FALSE statement made by Braeunig is your secret wisdom.

Here's a PDF from NASA directly that refutes this ENTIRELY.  The first 350 msec have REDUCED thrust! (but with higher combustion chamber pressure).

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19920006646

The direct PDF link is here:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19920006646/downloads/19920006646.pdf

And here is a pair of graphs on the last page of this PDF:


Left side - shows Thrust taking about 0.5 second to reach full thrust.
Right side - shows how around 0.15 seconds after ignition, the combustion chamber pressure spikes, then normalizes by 0.5 second mark.

Braeunig's statement, assuming he's very smart, demonstrates just how dumb Confirmation Bias can influence the apparent intelligence of even the smartest.   He finally figured out his flaw, and withdrew it silently.  But this doesn't stop PNA's from using it, thinking it's True and Factual.

Hopefully, you'll spread the word to tell PNA's to stop using this false claim.  It's undeniably false.

[TimberWolfAu]

Why are you comparing the solid rocket motors of the STS to the liquid rocket of the Apollo LM ascent stage?

[najak]

Why are you comparing the solid rocket motors of the STS to the liquid rocket of the Apollo LM ascent stage?

Thank you for the correction.  I'm researching quickly what Google AI seems to be saying, but isn't telling me their sources.

I assume you agree that the "350 msec increase in thrust pressure" from Braeunig was bogus (or if/when it does happen, is near negligible), and that no one else is saying this, or has ever said this.

Here's another PDF that shows thrust taking some time to build up.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19710014805/downloads/19710014805.pdf

With a graph for liquid hypergolic fuels that again shows a build up of thrust, but this article doesn't cover "Combustion chamber pressure" which I believe is what Braeunig was confusing with thrust pressure.

[najak]

Here's another paper on Liquid Rocket engines, showing a build up of thrust:

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20140002716/downloads/20140002716.pdf

From this point on, it becomes dishonest for PNA's to present Braeunig's unsupported, vague, and retracted claim as their "explanation" for how Apollo's AM launches were all approx 2.5X too fast.


With this generalized graph on page 7:

[najak]

The final argument for "lower thrust at ignition" is provided by NASA's simulation of the "fire plume" for the first 0.7 seconds, which suddenly (and unrealistically) just disappears in a single frame, leaving behind a fully dark Lander base platform, as though the A-50 combustion just 1 meter above it isn't producing any light onto it...

But when you see this "fire plume" that represents NASA's belief that there is "unburned fuel" that ejects from the nozzle.   This marks INEFFICIENCY, which is also associated with LESS thrust, not more.

I think this concludes well enough the full rebutting of the attempted "Braeunig rebuttal".

The issue stands fully unrebutted -- Apollo BROKE PHYSICS.

[BertieSlack]

Apollo BROKE PHYSICS.

No. You just don't understand physics.
Just because Bob Braeunig's article is a few years old doesn't invalidate it. You have deliberately chosen to ignore the point that Bob made - that the high initial acceleration is due to the APS engine bell's proximity to the descent stage.

[Zakalwe]

leaving behind a fully dark Lander base platform, as though the A-50 combustion just 1 meter above it isn't producing any light onto it...

How much visible light comes from hypergols burning in a vacuum?

[najak]

How much visible light comes from hypergols burning in a vacuum?

This one is a bit off topic, but I raised it, so will address it briefly.

We have a 1997 example of Titan IV which uses A-50+N2O4 for it's 2nd stage, firing at night from 550 miles away at 120 miles altitude (a virtual vacuum) and it's shining very bright.

Unlike the Launch-Too-Fast proof which is undeniably BREAKING PHYSICS, the issue of "should there be a bright light created by A50+N2O4 combustion at 1.5 meters away?" is not as easy to PROVE as FACT, but the evidence we have doesn't bode well for Apollo.

Here is the Knowledgebase Article I created for this topic, in draft format:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BOOv1rdzx_Vz-7lST0w0St4e1nfNEMktBN6U1i7e_3Y/edit?usp=sharing

Here's the image of Titan IV 550 miles away: