Hoax? - Lunar Launches - Too Fast

[najak]

Did you ask him about what happened at IMDb?

Yes, and Jarrah showed me his side of the story with screenshots.  His integrity still looks good to me.  No one has given me adequate reason to believe differently.  He also showed me some information on you.

How about if instead we just focus on the matter at hand -- "Lunar Launch Acceleration appears to be more than double the Rocket ratings."

Since showing me some links to back up your claims would be easy, but you won't do it, this naturally leads me to the conclusion that there's no such paper/article online that details how this 460kN AM engine produced over 1000kN of thrust for one full second.   Let me know if you find one, I'll be happy to read it.

===
In the meantime, am plugging through image analysis, to satisfy the reasonable doubts of TimberWolfAu.

[LunarOrbit]

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?

Yes. Logic alone says it's more likely that your calculations and measurements are wrong than it is that every scientist on Earth who has ever even heard of Apollo has either failed to realize that it was faked or is in on a massive unsustainable cover up. To believe that you alone figured it out when all of the smartest humans on Earth have not been able to do so over the last 50 years is so unbelievably arrogant that it's silly.

The hoax theory makes zero sense. Faking the Moon landings would be 100% guaranteed to fail, and the consequences for being exposed would be disastrous. It would be pointless and stupid to even try. It would be easier to just come out and say "Look... I know we promised to send men to the Moon by the end of the decade, but we discovered that it's not possible."

Consider the possibility that you are wrong. Just try it.

[najak]

@TimberWolfAu - DONE.

I redid the more precise analysis of Apollo 16, two frames:   0.0 seconds and 1.0 seconds after ignition.

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


This time I used 3 reference points on the AM itself, rather than estimating the "start location on the platform".

This method allows very little error.  You can check my work.  The net result is 99% the same as my first analysis.

1st result:  2.575X too much thrust
2nd Result:  2.571X too much thrust

I already gave PNA the advantage by assuming full thrust began one the frame before we see any visible sign of Ignition.   Delaying this 1 frame would have made it about 6% worse for PNA, which would have been reasonable, but I didn't do it.

I then added in the maximum reasonable pixel error in favor of PNA (4 pixels height of AM, and 2.333 pixels of error on average reference point motion).  Both are overkill, but lets assume they're real.  This worst case result still shows 2.358X too much thrust.  Well over double, for an entire second.

===
There you go -- ball is in your court.  Do you see any mistakes in my work?  Come up with a different result?

Even the mighty Apollo is not allowed to Break Physics.

[najak]

Yes. Logic alone says it's more likely that your calculations and measurements are wrong than it is that every scientist on Earth who has ever even heard of Apollo has either failed to realize that it was faked or is in on a massive unsustainable cover up. To believe that you alone figured it out when all of the smartest humans on Earth have not been able to do so over the last 50 years is so unbelievably arrogant that it's silly.

Your mode of arguing here appears to me as disingenuous, because I know you are smarter than your argument style seems to indicate.   Listen to your hyperbole that is far from realistic.

As follows:
1. Internet didn't start showing up the NASA video/photo evidence until about 2000.
2. Once a few "whackos" got ahold of the materials, and started analyzing it, identifying inconsistencies -- NASA did considerable "cover-up" (modifying materials that were online).
3. Most smart people have "other things to do" - There is NO PERSONAL GAIN in being an Apollo Atheist.   You have to be a masochist, a party pooper, and willing to be an outcast - and expend a LOT of valuable time on it.  Almost nobody qualifies for this job.
4. There are VERY few doing this "validation" work.
5. If you want to be employed in the non-commercial field of Moon Studies, etc -- you'll mostly be tied to govt' grants.  You won't get funded if you bite the hand that feeds you.
6. Face it, those who do go into moon studies, aren't the cream of the crop minds.   They also would be VERY disappointed to find out that Apollo was fake.   People don't set out to disprove that which makes them happy.

So your statement of "50 years" is exaggerated by double.  And "Every scientist who has ever heard of Apollo" - this is silly.  I was one such scientist for MOST OF MY LIFE -- hearing of Apollo, and VALIDATING APOLLO - are VERY VERY DIFFERENT.   Almost NO ONE VALIDATES APOLLO...   Google tells them they are stupid to even try, at every turn.

If you Google "Moon Hoax Documentaries" - all you get are 100's of links to "debunking the Moon Hoax idiots, and Flat Earthers"...  That's it. So you question Apollo - and start with a few searches, and after an hour of watching videos -- you are convinced Hoax Believers are all wrong and idiots...  But you NEVER get to see the GOOD ARGUMENTS -- such as "Lunar Launches were Too Fast" -- this cannot be debunked.

===
Today's planet has 2.5 Billion Christians who believe the very likely myth that Jesus was God in the Flesh... and that the Bible is the One True Word of God.
While 1.5 Billion Muslims believe in a similar way about Mohammad and Quran.

Both cannot be true -- and these have been believed for hundreds of years.   No amount of arguing or showing flaws in their book will turn a believer away.   People generally believe what they want.

This is how it works for Apollo as well.  Apollo is the super Universalist Religion of Mankind.  No Hell.  Everyone wins, by believing a good thing about ourselves.

===
When people DO dig into this math, it turns to show the mistakes NASA made when they faked it.

Show me ONE smart scientist who has done Frame Image Analysis on Apollo 15 - 17, and determined that they didn't Break Physics by at LEAST double???

And still, no one here can show any evidence that some miraculous quality of Rocket engines can permit them to spit out unburned fuel for 0.8 seconds at Launch while producing a near constant 2.5X the max thrust..

It's also hard to show the LM didn't work, when they threw out 99% of the Design/Test docs for it!  Gone..

And hard to show the other mess-ups when they Lost All Telemetry data and the non-broadcast video.   All we have are audio feeds now.

===
So your arguing here doesn't appear genuine.  You surely know the stuff I just said above, but ignore it when you argue in favor of Apollo.  Why not also claim that "400,000 people couldn't have lied" (the other extremely disingenuous argument many have made).

Since I assume you are smart, I question whether or not you are funded by Apollo to have the stance you have now, using this mode of arguing that is unfair and filled with hyperbole.

I do appreciate your forum here, but I question either your bias, or possibly your motivations.   I assume you are beyond smart-enough to realize the truth in what I wrote above... and that arguing as you just did, is disingenuous.

Do you disagree?

[TimberWolfAu]

2. Once a few "whackos" got ahold of the materials, and started analyzing it, identifying inconsistencies -- NASA did considerable "cover-up" (modifying materials that were online).

Speculation. Please provide evidence of these materials that have been modified? Are you referring to Rasa's conspiracy that NASA took down all the photos and photoshopped them? Is there some reason why, with the advancement in scanning and online storage space, that they wouldn't upload better, more clearer images? And as for the Photoshop claims, how else were they supposed to get pictures of physical photos/transparencies into a digital format if they didn't scan and save them, via an appropriate program, like Photoshop?

3. Most smart people have "other things to do"

Indeed they do. As for me, one of humanities 'regular' people, this is a hobby, an interesting one, but a hobby none the less. Should NASA come out tomorrow and say Apollo was fake (with supporting evidence), then I would find that just as interesting, since I would be interested to learn how they managed to fool all those scientists and engineers who have spent the past 50+ years using data and details from Apollo (including that 'lost' telemetry data), yet none of them could find any errors between what their tests/research told them and what Apollo told them.

5. If you want to be employed in the non-commercial field of Moon Studies, etc -- you'll mostly be tied to govt' grants.  You won't get funded if you bite the hand that feeds you.

Like those aforementioned people who have been working with data from Apollo for over 50 years, and in all this time no one has noticed any discrepancies? Not only that, they publish works that other people use, and let's be honest, in the field of scientific research, all you have is your research and reputation, so what benefit do they get out of lying or falsifying data to make Apollo look real?

6. Face it, those who do go into moon studies, aren't the cream of the crop minds.   They also would be VERY disappointed to find out that Apollo was fake.   People don't set out to disprove that which makes them happy.

I know it's been commented on already, but are you even aware of how breath takingly arrogant you come across in all your threads? I mean, how fortunate are we all here to bask in your presence, since we are clearly not the "cream of the crop"? For reference, I PM'd LunarOrbit on your request to join, as I know he doesn't check every day. I figured you would at least be polite, new location and all that, and drop a lot of the chip-on-your-shoulder you seem to be carrying, since you're no longer in front of the hoaxer crowed on FB and could relax I guess. Apparently not, though.

And the part I find amusing, is that you don't even seem to be aware of this, even down to your commenting on how "Apollo breaks physics", it doesn't seem to occur to you that your numbers/methodology may be at fault, hence my comments on missing frames, margin of error, your reference points etc. Hell, if I made a post last night in another group with some fun maths (rough % chance of being hit my a meteoroid on the lunar surface), and I still triple checked everything and asked people to double check my calcs.

As for people not wanting to disprove what makes them happy, this is the essence of good science. One of the first things to be considered with any new, or even existing idea, is how can it be falsified. Feth, falsifying things is what science does best. And the common attitude amongst scientists and researchers I have spoken with, across various fields, is that the idea of being wrong means there is more to learn, that it is far more interesting to be wrong as you learn even more.

Since I assume you are smart, I question whether or not you are funded by Apollo to have the stance you have now, using this mode of arguing that is unfair and filled with hyperbole.

I do appreciate your forum here, but I question either your bias, or possibly your motivations.   I assume you are beyond smart-enough to realize the truth in what I wrote above... and that arguing as you just did, is disingenuous.

Do you disagree?

Aaannndd there it is. *sigh* The only possible reason that people don't agree with you is because they are paid to. You claim others here, and elsewhere, are disingenuous, yet you pull this BS? Methinks someone should be taking a very long look in a mirror.

[JayUtah]

Yes, and Jarrah showed me his side of the story with screenshots.

I'm sure he's quite anxious to present a rosy picture of what happened there. What happened is that while trying to show that Apollo's radiation protection was inadequate, he argued himself into a corner from which he could not extract himself. At the time, he did not know calculus and it became obvious that he could not work through the space weather data properly. That ended with one of the long, profanity-laden rants for which he used to be so justly infamous. Then Jarrah deleted all his posts there, so that no one else could follow the real argument. Since then he has routinely lied about it.

His integrity still looks good to me.  No one has given me adequate reason to believe differently.  He also showed me some information on you.

Yes, he's been personally obsessed with me for many years, up to and including accusing me of sabotaging his computer. That's your hero.

How about if instead we just focus on the matter at hand...

The matter at hand is hopelessly confused with the matter of who you consider an authority on the subject and why. You've made that clear for us now.

Since showing me some links to back up your claims would be easy, but you won't do it, this naturally leads me to the conclusion that there's no such paper/article online that details how this 460kN AM engine produced over 1000kN of thrust for one full second.   Let me know if you find one, I'll be happy to read it.

Straw man. There is no "one weird trick" that answers your specific objection. And you still want an answer that accepts all your begged questions and homegrown analysis. You tell us how your intelligence tests off the charts, but as soon as one real-world problem goes past high school physics, you cry foul.

The papers from which you took some of your diagrams early in the thread actually summarize the field reasonably well. There's also several chapters in Sutton and Biblarz that—put together—help you arrive at why the rated steady-state thrust of a rocket engine won't necessarily give you a reliable engineering parameter in all cases.

[JayUtah]

When people DO dig into this math, it turns to show the mistakes NASA made when they faked it.

But then your explanation for why ostensibly qualified people don't accept those allegedly well-reasoned presentations is that they must somehow be ideologically, morally, or financially compromised. It's never that the presentations ultimately fail on the merits.

It's also hard to show the LM didn't work, when they threw out 99% of the Design/Test docs for it!  Gone..

Tell me you've never worked on an aerospace project without telling me.

No one keeps test documents after the vehicle exits service. As for design documents, I haven't found anyone yet who can't find design information about the lunar module that they want for whatever project. Scott Sullivan reproduced the entire LM down to the nuts and bolts in digital CAD and published it in a book. Sure, answering some specific question might take time to integrate information from various sources, but that's just the nature of engineering.

The team led by Marc Verdiell and Mike Stewart restored to full function an actual Apollo guidance computer from a scrap heap. Along the way they used many documents held by NASA and its contractors. They got these because they actually went to look for them, rather than sit at their desks and Google for a while before throwing up their hands in resignation. But the point is that the documents exist. A bunch of private citizens set out on a project to rebuild and test Apollo, and found sufficient technical materials to do so.

And hard to show the other mess-ups when they Lost All Telemetry data and the non-broadcast video.   All we have are audio feeds now.

We discussed that before you arrived.

So your arguing here doesn't appear genuine. You surely know the stuff I just said above, but ignore it when you argue in favor of Apollo.
* * *
Since I assume you are smart, I question whether or not you are funded by Apollo to have the stance you have now, using this mode of arguing that is unfair and filled with hyperbole.

"You're biased unless you agree with all my assumptions, begged questions, and inferences." Ha ha! When people accuse you of arrogance, this is what they're talking about.

You seem somewhat concerned about the possible sources of error in your presentation. I haven't looked at your image analysis yet, which is why I haven't commented on it. I hope to have time to do that today, after which I'm off to California for the holiday and I won't resume this discussion until next week.

But you aren't very concerned about the more insidious possible sources of error. You say you're here to learn and to be corrected if necessary. But as soon as someone tells you something about rockets that complicates your thinking, you go into damage-control mode to evade it. You bring in all sorts of irrelevant material which you obviously just Googled for hastily and haven't read. When that bites you, then you demand a narrowly tailored, pat correction. You concede you might be wrong, but only if the correction takes the particular form you dictate. You don't want the error to be that it takes many years of practice and of absorbing the material to be able to investigate some things knowledgeably. As soon as high school physics seems like it's not enough, you just want the next easy step. Your ongoing mantra, "Not even the mighty Apollo can break physics," begs the question that your challenge is facially correct—your personal expectations are not tantamount to "the laws of physics."

All this comes back to what LunarOrbit said. The likelihood that all of Apollo is wrong pales in comparison to the likelihood that the nuances of various problems escape all the various armchair detectives hanging out in the sparse corners of the Internet. In my experience, the various armchair detectives are not interested in what really happened so much as they are interested in showing everyone how clever they are.

[najak]

And the part I find amusing, is that you don't even seem to be aware of this, even down to your commenting on how "Apollo breaks physics", it doesn't seem to occur to you that your numbers/methodology may be at fault, hence my comments on missing frames, margin of error, your reference points etc. Hell, if I made a post last night in another group with some fun maths (rough % chance of being hit my a meteoroid on the lunar surface), and I still triple checked everything and asked people to double check my calcs.

I know I'm intellectually arrogant, just as a body builder would proclaim that he's stronger than 99%+ of others.  My test scores and academic/professional performance without trying hard - justifies my confidence.  I realize the impact it has on others.  But I am only trying to thwart off the nonsensical arguments that only demonstrate a lack of grasping even basic physics concepts.   This pollutes the thread.  It would be like this body builder saying "Please, only serious challenges...." without anyone saying "quit being arrogant" - because muscle strength comparisons are easier to see and measure.

In other fields of "personal strengths" it's easier to discern "strong from weak", but when it comes to science-logic - those without the skills are easily fooled into thinking they have the skills (Dunning-Kruger).  I believe I know my limits here -- basic physics is the thrust of my arguments...     I'm not pretending I know so much about "Rocket Science", which is why I'm asking those who supposedly do - to present rebuttals based on Rocket Science, in order to justify the BASIC PHYSICS RESPONSE of the LM in the 1st second.

Example: Rocket rated for 460 kN, delivers a full second of 1200 kN at Launch with unburnt fuel on the pad (which is usually associated with LESS thrust, not MOR); I'm simply asking for the veterans here to show me the valid rebuttal, that supposedly has been around for 20 years.   So far, I've got nothing from anyone here -- indicating the lack of the existence of such a rebuttal (as I suspected).  I'd love to be proven wrong.


===
I find YOUR tone and approach very good.  The best on this forum that I've seen so far.

You grasp scientific concepts, measurements, impact of deviations/error/tolerance, etc...   You are capable of contributing to the actual debate.

I would love to do some of this work with you in private chat, to make faster progress without cluttering up the forum with detailed texts, that hold no future "reading value" for an audience.

I'd like to keep this forum more "On Point" - less verbosity, more meat/conclusions.   Which we can reach in private, then present back the results.

[najak]

@TimberWolfAu - I'm trying to PM you now.

[JayUtah]

I know I'm intellectually arrogant, just as a body builder would proclaim that he's stronger than 99%+ of others.  My test scores and academic/professional performance without trying hard - justifies my confidence.

No, it doesn't.

But I am only trying to thwart off the nonsensical arguments that only demonstrate a lack of grasping even basic physics concepts.

No. You insist that only basic physics must be considered in evaluating the evidence. As soon as the physics goes over your head, you switch to bluff and bluster.

I believe I know my limits here -- basic physics is the thrust of my arguments.

And it's been shown how that's not sufficient to address the problem.

I'm not pretending I know so much about "Rocket Science", which is why I'm asking those who supposedly do - to present rebuttals based on Rocket Science, in order to justify the BASIC PHYSICS RESPONSE of the LM in the 1st second.

Again, you demand answers that fit within your assumptions and preconceptions, and categorically deny whatever you aren't able to understand. When a bigger, more complex picture was put to you, you frantically Googled up a bunch of irrelevant stuff and declared yourself still to be smarter than everyone else and would continue to be until some specific kind of rebuttal could be presented.

So far, I've got nothing from anyone here -- indicating the lack of the existence of such a rebuttal (as I suspected).  I'd love to be proven wrong.

No, you just don't like the rebuttals you were given because they require you to admit that high school physics isn't enough. And so you've resorted to some fairly typical ways to dismiss them, e.g., that your critics must somehow be ideologically compromised.

[najak]

The papers from which you took some of your diagrams early in the thread actually summarize the field reasonably well. There's also several chapters in Sutton and Biblarz that—put together—help you arrive at why the rated steady-state thrust of a rocket engine won't necessarily give you a reliable engineering parameter in all cases.

You wrote: "won't necessarily give you a reliable engineering parameter in all cases"

THANK YOU FOR A RESPONSE!

For Sutton/Biblarz, I'm guessing you are referring to this book, yes?
https://www.amazon.com/Rocket-Propulsion-Elements-George-Sutton/dp/1118753658

Where in these papers/references do you find grounds to conclude that:
--
460 kN rocket can produced 1 full second of near-steady 1200 kN Thrust?   (2.5x)   Any cases where the thrust rating is exceeded, is far less than "DOUBLE" and also amounts to a very quick impulse (< 50 msec).... like when a hammer hits a nail...  It's not a prolonged boost.
--

Since you've dealt with this question for 20 years, how have you explained it in the past? (or others explained it) --  So far, I've seen zero attempts at a scientifically founded explanation.

Please indicate the gist of this answer...

[najak]

No. You insist that only basic physics must be considered in evaluating the evidence. As soon as the physics goes over your head, you switch to bluff and bluster.
And it's been shown how that's not sufficient to address the problem.
somehow be ideologically compromised.

Are you suggesting that the complexities of "Rocket Science" are able to BREAK SIMPLE PHYSICS in a closed-system?   (AM vs. Moon Surface w/gravity)

Are you suggesting that a 1.8 meter steady rise in 1 second, can be achieved via any other means than a "Average Net Acceleration of 3.6 m/s^2)"??

The vague/retracted/unsupported statement from Braeunig didn't even attempt a valid explanation for 2.5X Thrust for a full 1 second interval.

If Rocket Science/etc cannot justify 2.5X thrust for 1-full-second - then that leaves this MLH Claim Un-rebutted.

Please give us the gist of what such a rebuttal might look like.  I would think that an astonishing anomally where rocket thrust achieves 2.5X thrust with unburnt fuel, would gain a lot of attention, and be easy to find.

[JayUtah]

THANK YOU FOR A RESPONSE!

What makes you think that you haven't all along been given the answer that the rated thrust for an engine is not what dictates its behavior in all cases? In your rush to claim no one understands "basic physics" you've completely ignored that what everyone is actually telling you is that plugging simple numbers into Newton's second law isn't expected to model all the evident behavior.

Where in these papers/references do you find grounds to conclude that...

And you're still just begging the same old questions and demanding the same carefully-tailored rebuttals.

Since you've dealt with this question for 20 years, how have you explained it in the past? (or others explained it) --  So far, I've seen zero attempts at a scientifically founded explanation.

By noting that ignition transients are an inherent function of rocket engines and that local conditions near the nozzle affect effective thrust. You seem proud of your unwillingness to learn rocket science, and flustered that the answer might required it. No, no one is obliged to try to boil down complex fluid phenomena to satisfy your desire for a simple answer that fits within your assumptions.

I asked you about the difference injector design makes in the ignition transient because that's material to the problem. And also because you can't just Google for the answer. The answer is a synthesis of many things learned over many years from study and practice in many contexts. In a word: expertise.

[JayUtah]

Are you suggesting that the complexities of "Rocket Science" are able to BREAK SIMPLE PHYSICS in a closed-system?

As I've said several times, I'm showing that your desire to simplify the problem down to Newton's second law is naive and results in naive expectations. You then attribute the real world's failure to meet your expectations as some sort of nefarious scheme to deceive people.

Please give us the gist of what such a rebuttal might look like.

Asked and answered. You simply dismiss that gist according to irrelevant and dishonest criteria.

[najak]

Asked and answered. You simply dismiss that gist according to irrelevant and dishonest criteria.

Your answer is "it's too complex to explain" with no specifics other than "transients can produce some variance".   Yes, there is variance.

But we're talking about CONSISTENT STEADY PROLONGED UBER-EXTREME VARIANCE for ALL 3 Launches.

Please attempt to describe (and source) where there is ANY claim in rocket science that this transient behavior can produce a prolonged 2.5x output, while spitting out unburnt fuel right after ignition.

It seems you can't, making it obvious that there simply is NOT a valid scientific explanation for this supposed Physics Phenomenon.  It simply BREAKS PHYSICS.

No amount of "Rocket Science complexity/variance" can Break Newton's 2nd Law in the context of a closed-system (at least not measurably at these speeds).

Are you really suggesting that the average Thrust for 1st second was NOT ~1200 kN average, while the motion curve indicates clearly ~1200 kN of near steady force?

If there were a reliable way to obtain 2.5X thrust output at launch - this would be astonishing, big news - clearly stated.   But we have nothing of the sort, do we?