Hoax? - Lunar Launches - Too Fast

[JayUtah]

Great, show me your...

Pushy, aren't we?

[JayUtah]

Yes and No.  I believe Jarrah's claims appear quite substantiated by sourcing, math, and logic.  Perhaps you can show me his "biggest blunder" that he hasn't acknowledged.

Ask him about what happened at IMDb. Also, since you seem so eager to pry into private lives, what did you do to ensure that Jarrah has any training or experience in aerospace engineering?

What is your training and/or professional experience in engineering?

[najak]

What is your training and/or professional experience in engineering?

I've been a 3D physics enthusiast since age 13, trying to get my C64 to produce a physics simulation to enable 3D Asteroids game.   Later in life, started my own company that provided 3D realistic simulation environments for clients - I integrated the Bullet Physics engine, and debugged it, when it failed.   We did some free-floating object simulations, trying to stabilize it with accelerations -- very complex.

It was the claim of "Lunar descent to Landing, followed by Ascent back to perfectly timed/aligned rendezvous" that first hit me as Impossible.   The AGC had never even been flight tested with any real system (except for a few times out-of-sight in space, where NASA said -- "worked first try").     AGC should have been integrated with the LLTV to demonstrate the ability to auto-pilot a real vehicle that at least partly resembled the LM.

From there, studied other things - and as it I went it got even more unbelievable.

For example, the rigid/jerky/snapstop motion of the Apollo 11 AM before rendezvous - is extremely unrealistic, and I'd say impossible.  If you compare this performance to the CST100 when undocking (easier task) -- the Apollo 11's performance is 50x+ better....  not believable.

I have a mound of proofs to present, but am pacing myself here, keeping it to a few topics at once.

Now please prove your credentials, as you are using yourself as the ONLY SOURCE for rocket thrust claims, that are contrary to every other paper/example I can find.

[JayUtah]

I've been a 3D physics enthusiast since age 13...

That's a very long-winded way of saying you have no training or professional experience as an engineer.

Now please prove your credentials, as you are using yourself as the ONLY SOURCE for rocket thrust claims, that are contrary to every other paper/example I can find.

Pushy, aren't we?

You dismiss Bob Braeunig as a mere "enthusiast," when in fact that's all you are—and somehow qualified to sit in judgment upon everyone. What did you do to ascertain that Jarrah White has the appropriate training and experience for you to put so much trust in him?

[najak]

That's a very long-winded way of saying you have no training or professional experience as an engineer.
Pushy, aren't we?
You dismiss Bob Braeunig as a mere "enthusiast," when in fact that's all you are—and somehow qualified to sit in judgment upon everyone. What did you do to ascertain that Jarrah White has the appropriate training and experience for you to put so much trust in him?

You asked about professional experience with "rocketry/physics" - which is limited to enthusiasm in youth, but 3D free-floating physics simulation at age 40 for a couple years was professional experience.

I was Valedictorian of 250 students in high school, and graduated in the top 10% from "Rose-Human Inst. of Tech" with BS in Elec Engineering 1992, then a Masters of Computer engineering, Syracuse Univ 1995, 3.75 GPA.   Worked for Lockheed Martin on the Seawolf Submarine Sonar System for a few years, doing FFD processing to locate objects in 3d from sonar arrays (high end math).  Been doing various forms of engineering, and mostly software that requires a lot of math, graphics, and 3D representations ever since.   Created Military Simulations in 3D for the Army R&D officer training, for a few years.   I've tested off the charts all of my life for aptitude.   I see things that most don't see.

Your turn, show me your credentials.   

Your bar needs to be MUCH HIGHER, given that you are selling yourself as an "expert SOURCE" - qualified to declare Rocketry truths that are not commensurate what is seemingly all other papers available on the topic.

I dismiss Braeunig as an "EXPERT SOURCE" -- as HE DOES THIS HIMSELF.   Yet we have PNA's (Pro-Nasa Advocates) reliant upon him as an EXPERT SOURCE.

If you were as smart/experienced as you are trying to mysteriously sell yourself here - you'd also have a huge issue with PNA's using Braeunig as a SOURCE... especially since he yanked his only statement 7 yrs ago, and when he made it, it was vague and fully unsupported...

So did you correct any of your PNA friends for low-integrity by using Braeunig as a SOURCE?

I sensing you are all mystery backed by fluff.   I'd be glad for you to prove me wrong.   I'd prefer you be smart with adequate credentials to be a Rocket-science source, but that seems unlikely from the signs you are giving off so far.   I'd be pleased to be wrong about you.

[najak]

@JayUtah - I hope I'm wrong about you.   But the little evidence I have from you, isn't boding well.  Please prove me wrong.

I have drafted a 15 page KB (knowledgebase) document on this topic so far:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sJsIUlzdVF3brADa8YwR4XTg59mod-K2ct4jQCSKlyA/edit?usp=sharing
[EDIT - corrected this link]

It's a living document attempting to have a comprehensive coverage of this topic as a whole.

So far, there only seems to be two rebuttals:

1. Braeunig's Vague/unsupported and retracted statement from a self-declared "average guy" with no expertise.

2. TimerWolfAu - questions my frame image analysis.  GOOD concern.  I aim to alleviate this within the next day by redoing my work, in more detail, to show how I estimated AM motion, frame-to-frame.


My #1 reason for doubting your (JayUtah's) own integrity as an "expert source" is based on a presumption that you haven't corrected your friends for using Braeunig as an expert source.  Here is an accurate assessment of Braeunig as an expert source:

• Not Expert -  Braeunig is nowhere close to an “expert source”.
  Retracted 2018 - Statement retracted in 2018.
  Vague/Unsupported - Statement was vague, unsupported
  Contrary - contradicts all other legit articles we can find.
  Inaccurate - as 2.5x acceleration lasted 1000 msec, vs. 350 msec.
  Inaccurate - 2nd second was also NOT CONSISTENT (acceleration dropped below 0).
  

Why haven't you corrected them for using an invalid source as their proof?

Now I'm off to address TimerWolfAu's legitimate concern (#2 above).

[JayUtah]

You asked about professional experience with "rocketry/physics" - which is limited to enthusiasm in youth, but 3D free-floating physics simulation at age 40 for a couple years was professional experience.

How many actual flying machines have you helped design?

Rose-Human Inst. of Tech for Elec Engineering 1992, Masters of Computer engineering, Syracuse Univ 1995, 3.75 GPA.

Yet you give us howlers like saying the AGC should have been tested on the LLTV. That indicates you don't know what either of those things actually did.

Worked for...

Yet the mistakes you make in this thread are consistent with someone just frantically Googling for answers, trying to stay a step ahead. You tried to compare ignition transients between entirely different kinds of rocket motors. You tried to present generalized, illustrative graphs from a document that plainly told you that you need to measure the transients in any particular design. You conflated thrust excitation with ignition transients. And you threw out a purely illustrative graph from a discussion on the integration of impulse as if it were real data.

I've tested off the charts all of my life for aptitude. I see things that most don't see.

Yes, you're only the zillionth claimant to come to this forum claiming to be uncommonly smart, yet making elementary mistakes.

Your turn, show me your credentials.

You haven't shown any credentials. You've just made a bunch of boastful claims that aren't consistent with your demonstrated ability.

Your bar needs to be MUCH HIGHER, given that you are selling yourself as an "expert SOURCE" - qualified to declare Rocketry truths that are not commensurate what is seemingly all other papers available on the topic.

"Seemingly," because you evidently don't understand what you're reading and whether it's actually relevant.

I dismiss Braeunig as an "EXPERT SOURCE" -- as HE DOES THIS HIMSELF.

No, he's just being careful. Braeunig is a civil engineer. He is being careful to say that he did not specialize in aerospace engineering. That's an important disclaimer in the engineering world. That doesn't mean he was uninformed or incorrect. In the several years that Bob and I worked together on Apollo history projects, I never caught a mistake in his work.

If you were as smart/experienced as you are trying to mysteriously sell yourself here - you'd also have a huge issue with PNA's using Braeunig as a SOURCE.

I don't, because I can personally adjudicate his expertise and draw my own conclusions about how proficient he is, despite his disclaimer.

...especially since he yanked his only statement 7 yrs ago...

I know why he took his pages down. Do you?

...and when he made it, it was vague and fully unsupported...

According to whom?

I sensing you are all mystery backed by fluff.

Sure, whatever you say. The rigor with which you want to vet sources seems to vary only according to whether the source supports the hoax theory. What did you do to ascertain that Jarrah White—whom you regard as proficient and trustworthy—is either of those things? Did you dig as deeply into his background as you're trying to do with people here?

[JayUtah]

1. Braeunig's Vague/unsupported and retracted statement from a self-declared "average guy" with no expertise.

Braeunig is a licensed civil engineer. He's not an "average guy," no matter what you read on his web page. I have worked extensively with him on Apollo-related projects, and I can draw my own conclusion about his expertise in space engineering.

My #1 reason for doubting your (JayUtah's) own integrity as an "expert source" is based on a presumption that you haven't corrected your friends for using Braeunig as an expert source.

Your assessment of my trustworthiness is based on whether I agree with your hasty opinion? Ha ha!

[LunarOrbit]

Hello, najak. I'm the moderator of this form. I was asked by multiple members to approve your account, and I will allow you to continue for as long as they can tolerate you, but you should be aware that my patience for people who exhibit the Dunning-Kruger effect is not what it used to be. I will not put up with arrogance for long.

I would suggest you show the members of this forum some respect. They have been involved in these discussions for 20+ years, and there is very little that you can bring that they haven't seen before.

What I do know -- is that these Launches BREAK PHYSICS, badly.  And I do know that this IS IMPOSSIBLE.

It couldn't possibly be that your understanding of physics is insufficient... nope, it's everyone else who is wrong. 

[najak]

Hello, najak. I'm the moderator of this form. I was asked by multiple members to approve your account, and I will allow you to continue for as long as they can tolerate you, but you should be aware that my patience for people who exhibit the Dunning-Kruger effect is not what it used to be. I will not put up with arrogance for long.
I would suggest you show the members of this forum some respect. They have been involved in these discussions for 20+ years, and there is very little that you can bring that they haven't seen before.
...It couldn't possibly be that your understanding of physics is insufficient... nope, it's everyone else who is wrong. 

Thanks for the kind interjection here, and thank you for hosting.

The whole reason I came to this forum was to help dispel my Confirmation Bias... by spending time here, rather than within an Echo Chamber.   I am here, because my errors are corrected - and thus I can learn.

I am trying to focus on a few simpler proofs now, which do not go beyond my fairly strong understanding of physics.

For example, if the LM rises 1.9 meters within the first 1.0 seconds, vs. 0.7 meters, it's simple and accurate physics to calculate that the "average acceleration for this 1 second window was 3.8 m/s^2, vs. the expected 1.5 m/s^2".  THIS is basic physics. 

If there isn't a viable scientific explanation for the added 2.3 m/s^2 of acceleration - then Apollo BROKE PHYSICS.

Do you suggest otherwise?

Since the members here here have 20 years of experience, and have seen this before, I'd certainly expect to see something SUBSTANTIAL to defend the current faith of Apollo.   If you have something, please share it. 

I'm eagerly awaiting.  And thank you again, for hosting this forum.

[najak]

Your assessment of my trustworthiness is based on whether I agree with your hasty opinion? Ha ha!

The red flag for me regarding your true qualification is that Braeunig would make such a bold unique (and vague) claim without ANY math support, or sourcing.   And then your believing this explanation was "good" rather than "critically lacking".  This is the "Rocket Science" part of the proof, where it gets more complex.  But he did it without ANY math, and no sourcing.  And he's the "main source" for people here.  And you don't see a problem with this.

I will be pleased to have you prove me wrong.  Since I've proposed "nothing new to you", this answer should be well-supported and in your back pocket.   And it deserves to be "online" somewhere, no?

Please impress me.

[JayUtah]

The red flag for me regarding your true qualification is...

...not what you claim it is. You keep avoiding the question of what you did to vet Jarrah White. The answer, obviously, is that you didn't. You have a double standard for authority depending on whether that authority agrees with your preconception, hence your demand that people jump through your hoops is disingenuous.

You're doing the same thing every conspiracy theorist does. When faced with something technical that you can't bluff or bluster your way around, you pivot to considering the "integrity" of who's talking. I'm not trustworthy unless I capitulate to your opinion.

And then your believing this explanation was "good" rather than "critically lacking".

Bob is a member of this forum, or was. Many of us know him. Many of us have worked with him. Many of us are competent to know whether his claims have merit. You've been here all of—what?—a week, and already you think you have his number. You read some of the meta information from his introductory page and on that basis alone you feel you can categorically dismiss him. Worse, you think you can categorically dismiss everyone else based on whether they agree with your impromptu opinion of Braeunig. You're not here to talk about the science or the facts. You're here to cobble up reasons to ignore anyone who has good reasons to disagree with you.

This is the "Rocket Science" part of the proof, where it gets more complex.

So far, your rocket science in this thread is incompetent for the reasons I explained. I don't consider you qualified to judge whether I or Bob Braeunig knows what he's talking about. I don't consider you qualified to judge whether Jarrah White or any of the other conspiracy theorists you're relying upon knows what he's talking about.

Please impress me.

I'm not here to impress you. But I'll test you.

Say I have three liquid-fueled rocket motors with different injectors: direct injection, a pintle injector, and a baffled doublet injector plate. Rank them in order of susceptibility to ignition transient and explain why.

[najak]

@JayUTAH:

Of all the MLH video sources, Jarrah's seem to have the most integrity, because they are sourced and seem to contain valid scientific rationale -- they ALSO USE OTHER SOURCES, which are expert or more authoritative.  This is not the same as using Jarrah as "the source."

I present Jarrah's videos, and then look for rebuttals from PNA's...  based on how this pans out, is how I vet Jarrah.  So far, his presentations have seemed fairly solid.  Such that even SG Collins responded to him by changing his own stance.

In contrast, I find many other MLH source that I've encountered to have issues with integrity.  Example: Jet Wintzer, despite my agreement with his final conclusions, I find him to be batting 0% for making a presentation without also demonstrating failed integrity.   Sibrel, also exhibits major issues with integrity and logic skills.

When I present Jarrah's video/link - I'm sharing a "source presentation of a point that I (currently) find to be seemingly accurate".  I invite you to rebut, and prove his conclusions wrong.  From this, I can vet his conclusions and integrity better.

==
But for Braeunig, he made a vague bold unique statement with NO sourcing or math.   He's a proclaimed non-expert - so why should we treat his retracted unsourced/unsupported statement as "Truth".. as many PNAs have done.

==
Your question: "Say I have three liquid-fueled rocket motors with different injectors: direct injection, a pintle injector, and a doublet injector plate. Rank them in order of susceptibility to ignition transient and explain why."

Answer: I don't know.  But if you point me to an article/paper, I'll bet I can "Learn".   I'm not claiming MYSELF AS THE SOURCE OF ROCKET SCIENCE.  But I am qualified to do the basic physics parts, such as "what is the average acceleration of the LM in the 1st second" -- calculating this "average acceleration" is NOT rocket science -- it's basic physics.   

How to explain how a rocket thrust could end up producing 2.5X the rated thrust for 1 full second at launch -- is ROCKET SCIENCE.

You claim to "know this answer" - so great.  I'm listening.  Teach me.  Source it.  Show the math.    At this point, I don't think a legit explanation exists, but would love to see you prove me wrong.

This should be easy for you, right?   Why is it not as simple as pointing to another thread where it was answered.   I've looked, and can find no such threads or articles.

[JayUtah]

Of all the MLH video sources, Jarrah's seem to have the most integrity, because they are sourced and seem to contain valid scientific rationale

According to whom? Did you ask him about what happened at IMDb? How do you know he accurately represents his sources? How do you know he actually understands what those sources say? Do you know his academic and professional qualifications?

I present Jarrah's videos, and then look for rebuttals from PNA's...  based on how this pans out, is how I vet Jarrah.

That's lazy. Your approach equates to taking his word at face value and then placing a burden upon others whom you've decided to categorically mistrust.

So far, his presentations have seemed fairly solid.

According to whom? By what criteria?

When I present Jarrah's video/link - I'm sharing a "source presentation of a point that I (currently) find to be seemingly accurate".  I invite you to rebut, and prove his conclusions wrong.  From this, I can vet his conclusions and integrity better.

What did you do to test his claims, sources, and methods? What you're telling me is that you trust him implicitly and distrust his critics implicitly.

But for Braeunig, he made a vague bold unique statement with NO sourcing or math.   He's a proclaimed non-expert - so why should we treat his retracted unsourced/unsupported statement as "Truth".. as many PNAs have done.

You haven't listened to a word I've said.

Answer: I don't know.  But if you point me to an article/paper, I'll bet I can "Learn".

There is no "article or paper" than spoon-feeds you the answer you need to know to determine whether ignition characteristics might contribute to your "Apollo breaks physics!" handwaving. There are no easy answers that you can Google, no pat answers dreamed up by Google AI.

But I am qualified to do the basic physics parts, such as "what is the average acceleration of the LM in the 1st second" -- calculating this "average acceleration" is NOT rocket science -- it's basic physics.

You're evidently not qualified to know whether your "basic physics" model accurately accommodates all the relevant principles and thus whether the yardstick against which you're measuring the observations is valid.

You claim to "know this answer" - so great.  I'm listening.  Teach me.  Source it.  Show the math.

No. At this point you want an answer that still accepts all your begged questions. I've shown you one way in which that doesn't hold. Would you like another?

[najak]

@TimberWolfAu - wrote:
"Now, for me, I have some quick questions;
- Just looking through your Apollo 16 extract to start with, why are there frames missing? I've counted at least 9, might have been 12, fames that you don't have but I do, split in various locations across two to three seconds of footage.
- Where is your margin of error analysis? The footage is very pixelated when you try and nominate a point to measure from, either as a reference point or for determining the actual distance covered. Looking at frames I have pulled, this can be as much as ±3 pixels, and given (for me) the LM rises 55 to 56 pixels in 29 and 30 frames, this can be an error of almost 10% in the distance travelled. How have you accounted for this?
(For reference, I downloaded the Apollo 16 video you linked to and pulled 145 frames from about the 12s mark (just before we see evidence of the ignition being initiated ie the shift in the mylar of the descent stage)
"
===
I just re-reviewed my work, and get the same result on Frame Captures images. Here's the result:

1. My Google Drive was missing frames 013 and 017  (but I had these locally, and neither were part of the 10 FPS analysis, as they were intermediates).
FIXED -- I added them back.

2. After 1.3 seconds,  I started grabbing only every 3rd frame (10 FPS equivalent) -- by this time, it was so blurry that the intermediates were of less Use..  I have them, just didn't name them with the "##" name or upload them.    Do you think these are needed for a valid analysis, I'll copy 'em up if you think so.

====
TIMING -- if you look at the 30 FPS frames, you'll notice that 020.png is the FIRST frame where the YouTube timer turns to "14 seconds"... and then it changes to "15 seconds" EXACTLY on the frame named "120.png"... indicating a accurate 30 FPS frame rate, where each of these frames shows motion.

===
If you still notice some discrepancy, please name at least ONE specific frame that you think I'm missing (show the image)...

NEXT -- I'm going to redo the Image Motion Analysis, and show my reference points, side by side, with pixel measurements.

I'll upgrade my spreadsheet to show the impact of the tolerances defined.

For this exercise, I'm only going to examine the first 1 second of Apollo 16 launch.  We can do more later.