Hoax? - Lunar Launches - Too Fast

[najak]

A discussion you needlessly raised here.

thanks.

[JayUtah]

Do we have any design documents from NASA that show how this came together? I'm finding very limited blueprints.  Where is the rest?

Where did you look?

What do you mean by "with no fluid containment"?  (looked up the phrase with relation to rockets, and no hits)

Why do you assume that must be a term of art in rocketry? Are you an engineer? Do you know what a fluid is? Do you know what it means to contain one?

[najak]

#1: Where did you look?
#2: Why do you assume that must be a term of art in rocketry? Are you an engineer? Do you know what a fluid is? Do you know what it means to contain one?

#1: Google - can't find much so far.   Since you are a 20 year rookie, this should be an easy answer for you to direct others on "how to find NASA's design docs for the LM".

The MLH claim is that most of these documents were discarded, claiming that it required too much storage space.   I'm not seeing much evidence to disprove this claim.  Are you?  If so, where?

#2: "Fluid containment" - is vague.  "Which fluid?" (as in fluid dynamics, it also covers gases)   And "Contained by what?"   Please clarify what you mean by "with no fluid containment".

How is your math coming along to show how the AM's engine might have been able to produce a sustained/steady +72% of thrust output for 1 second -- consistently for each launch.

[JayUtah]

#1: Google - can't find much so far.

So, not much effort. Did you send any emails? Did you make any phone calls? Did you leave the house?

Since you are a 20 year rookie, this should be an easy answer for you to direct others...

Why is someone a "rookie" when they have 20 years of experience? Why does my experience in the field equate to the answer itself being easy? Those are not rationally connected. You claim to be very smart—off-the-charts performance on tests. You claim to have worked on high-end engineering projects connected to the military, involving possibly many contractors. Would Google be your only method of getting engineering information about your projects?

The MLH claim is that most of these documents were discarded, claiming that it required too much storage space.   I'm not seeing much evidence to disprove this claim.  Are you?  If so, where?

We covered the documentation issue in a separate thread before you arrived. How many drawings do you think were produced for the lunar module?

I mentioned a number of projects that reproduced the mechanical design of the lunar module. Did you look any of them up see what they used for their sources?

"Fluid containment" - is vague.  "Which fluid?" (as in fluid dynamics, it also covers gases)

What is the fluid we've been talking about for this entire thread? What fluid do you think is most relevant to rocket propulsion?

And "Contained by what?"

What contains fluids in rocketry?

How is your math coming along to show...

Glad you asked. Let's start with the initial conditions. The APS nozzle fairly touched the descent stage deck. But here's the fun part: the engine was canted forward 1.5°, which leaves a gap of approximately 0.81 inch between the aft lip of the nozzle and the descent stage deck. The nozzle is 31 inches in diameter. Get us started by computing the area of the aperture that exists between the APS nozzle and the descent stage deck. List any simplifying assumptions you make.

[najak]

#1: We covered the documentation issue in a separate thread before you arrived. How many drawings do you think were produced for the lunar module?
#2: Your quote: "Pressure thrust is surprisingly large, in general. And that's with no fluid containment."
#3: MATH: The APS nozzle fairly touched the descent stage deck. But here's the fun part: the engine was canted forward 1.5°, which leaves a gap of approximately 0.81 inch between the aft lip of the nozzle and the descent stage deck. The nozzle is 31 inches in diameter. Get us started by computing the area of the aperture that exists between the APS nozzle and the descent stage deck. List any simplifying assumptions you make.

#1: In short "A LOT!"   I answered your question just now in this single page document -- this is just a draft, off-the-cuff, for starters.   One source reported "100,000 cuFt of documentation!  We aren't a museum." to justify discarding nearly all of it.   So what's left?   At minimum, we should have kept a few thick binders of the detailed System and Component Designs.

#2: Please tell me what you mean by this suffixed statement, "and that's with no fluid containment".  Why did you add this on?

#3: 39.53 square-inches - is the answer to your math problem.

As a 20-year veteran of Apollo, you should already know the answer to MLH claim that "most docs were destroyed".   Where do YOU find these documents?

Did you pull your "1.5 degree canted" claim from this PDF?:
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/80642083.pdf

To finish this thought, it says why: "to optimize the thrust vector relative to the vehicle center-of-gravity location."

This seems to indicate that the center of gravity for the LM wasn't exactly "straight up/middle", but dealing with an offset?

Have you found ANYWHERE to suggest that at launch with more constrained exhaust, that the expected result is "significantly MORE NET Thrust?"  All places I find, say it should be "LESS", and that if any transients occur, they'll be very quick -- not anything close to 1 full second, nor anything close to +72% thrust.


Since this "too much thrust at takeoff" claim has been around for decades, and I'm told "it's OLD NEWS - we debunked that decades ago" -- the debunk for this ought to be "already done".  But it still doesn't exist, because Apollo can't Break Physics, and a rocket engine cannot produce +72% thrust at launch while spitting out unburned fuel.

[JayUtah]

In short "A LOT!"

How many?

At minimum, we should have kept a few thick binders of the detailed System and Component Designs.

Why would you think they come in binders?

Please tell me what you mean by this suffixed statement, "and that's with no fluid containment".  Why did you add this on?

Because when the expansion of a compressible fluid is constrained, physics happens.

39.53 square-inches - is the answer to your math problem.

Correct. Why do we need to know this?

This seems to indicate that the center of gravity for the LM wasn't exactly "straight up/middle", but dealing with an offset?

That's correct. That's correct for literally all spacecraft. There is no reason to suppose the center of mass for a vehicle must also be the geometric centroid.

Have you found ANYWHERE to suggest that at launch with more constrained exhaust, that the expected result is "significantly MORE NET Thrust?" All places I find, say it should be "LESS", and that if any transients occur...

A constrained exhaust has nothing to do with an ignition transient.

[najak]

39.53 square-inches - is the answer to your math problem.

#1: Correct. Why do we need to know this?
#2: A constrained exhaust has nothing to do with an ignition transient.

#1: So what's next?  You are the one claiming that a rocket can produce  a steady +72% thrust for a full second.   This is your counter - so tell me your next step.

#2: That's not what Braeunig's 2017 claim said.  He used Constrained/sealed thrust a primary explanation for the big boost in thrust.

So make your proof.   You are doing a "dance/dodge/delay" here to avoid revealing that you cannot make this proof, nor anything like it.

[JayUtah]

So what's next?

What's next is you tell me why I need to know the area of an aperture in a pseudo-vessel into which we are going to inject a compressible fluid at a steady mass flow rate. You say you have off-the-charts intelligence. Tell us why you think it would be helpful to know that in the context of estimating the magnitude of the additional thrust in the "fire in the hole" ignition scenario.

You are the one claiming that a rocket can produce  a steady +72% thrust for a full second.

I made no such affirmative claim. You are the one insisting that only the rated thrust of the ascent engine must be considered when evaluating flight conditions, because you seem to believe the answer must always and only be simple. Two factors have been explained to you that you did not previously consider, which you are falling all over yourself trying to find a reason to ignore. There is also a third factor: the shock wave that rebounded from the descent stage deck. You asked if I would estimate the magnitude of those first two effects, and I agreed to do so. However, I'm not going to simply go away, do a bunch of work on my own, and present you with a number.

This is your counter - so tell me your next step.

We're not finished setting up the initial conditions. The next step will be to estimate the other conditions. But I'm not just going to spoon-feed you the answer so you can brush it off and move on. If I give you the hint that this is a static pressure question, does that help?

That's not what Braeunig's 2017 claim said...

Bob Braeunig knows the difference between an ignition transient and the momentary increase in pressure thrust that occurs from a partially occluded exhaust. They are not the same thing. An ignition transient occurs under all conditions, even with nothing in the vicinity of the nozzle exit. Augmented pressure thrust occurs only to the extent that something blocks the exhaust.

He used Constrained/sealed thrust a primary explanation for the big boost in thrust.

He mentions both effects, but he did not quantify either one. You're trying to handwave away the principles by which one operates by harking back to what you naively and desperately tried to discover about the other.

You are doing a "dance/dodge/delay" here to avoid revealing that you cannot make this proof, nor anything like it.[/b]

Ha ha! Do you really think you're the first person to come here with a half-baked quantitative claim and try to shift the burden of rigor onto everyone else? People like Bob Braeunig put in a enormous amount of correct work on his rocketry pages only to have you (and all those who came before him) brush him off with a single-sentence, "He admits he's not qualified! So there!"

Obviously the only way you'll buy into an estimate of the additional sources of thrust is if (a) you understand the method, and (b) you agree that the method is accurate enough to support the findings. Now you claim you have off-the-charts intelligence, but strangely you seem uninterested in the actual nuts and bolts of rocketry. We're going to fix that as we go, and you'll get to demonstrate some of that professed brainpower.

[smartcooky]

Handed your arse again eh najak! You don't seem to understand the rules and the processes of skepticism that are used here najak.

When you make a claim, any claim, you will be expected to provide evidence to support that claim. Since many of the hoax claims with regard to Apollo involve Aerospace Engineering, and Physics, and to some extend, fluid dynamics, it is necessarily going to involve a lot of mathematics as well. This is work that YOU must do, and you cannot just come up with numbers, you must show HOW you reached those numbers - as they say in High School tests and examinations, "show your working"

This forum is not like Godlike Productions or Aulis or Above Top Secret or any of the other conspiracy theorist echo chambers you might find on the web. There are actual specialists here with real expertise. Jay Utah is a certified Aerospace Engineer, bknight is an Engineer (civil IIRC), STS60 is (I think) a payload integration specialist, and I am a certified Aeronautical Engineer with 20 years experience in military aviation. We will NOT do your work for you, and you will not fool us with your BS - we will catch you out if you lie.

In your initial posts here, you claimed that you were here to learn, and I gave you the benefit of the doubt. But you have already clearly demonstrated that you are unwilling to learn.

If you fail to provide evidence to support your claims, you will not be taken seriously
If you fail to show your working, you will not be taken seriously
If you try to handwave away facts and evidence provided by others, you will not be taken seriously
If you fail to follow up when someone debunks one of your claims,  you will not be taken seriously
 

[najak]

#1: Bob Braeunig knows the difference between an ignition transient and the momentary increase in pressure thrust that occurs from a partially occluded exhaust. They are not the same thing. An ignition transient occurs under all conditions, even with nothing in the vicinity of the nozzle exit. Augmented pressure thrust occurs only to the extent that something blocks the exhaust.

#2: Do you really think you're the first person to come here with a half-baked quantitative claim

#3: Obviously the only way you'll buy into an estimate of the additional sources of thrust is if (a) you understand the method, and (b) you agree that the method is accurate enough to support the findings. Now you claim you have off-the-charts intelligence, but strangely you seem uninterested in the actual nuts and bolts of rocketry. We're going to fix that as we go, and you'll get to demonstrate some of that professed brainpower.

#1: Braenig quote:
"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."

#2: No - this particular claim of 2.5X+ the expected NET acceleration is decades old, and STILL unrefuted.  Braeunig's own simulation indicated an expected 0.7 meter rise for the first 1 second, not 1.8 meters.

Apollogists keep saying "it's been debunked!" - but it's not.  Even now, you cannot show me where this has been debunked.

Why is it that you need to do "new work" to debunk a 40 year old claim?  Just point me to the others who've debunked this acceleration dilemma.  Otherwise, you've confirmed my suspicion -- "this stands un-refuted".

#3: Start with showing me "here's where/how this was debunked before" and we can go from there.

Otherwise, I will call this one "done" - unrefuted.  And we will continue to have an "Unaccounted for +72% of steady thrust for the first full second."  Score for MLH.

[najak]

Handed your arse again eh najak! You don't seem to understand the rules and the processes of skepticism that are used here najak.

I think I'm seeing "your rules here".   I make a solid Physics/Math proof, backed by the evidence.   I'm not the first to note this, or admit this evidence.  Even Braeunig admitted it, and for 2 years tried to defend it with a vague and unsupported answer.  So the evidence is clear.

And it's also clear that this evidence/claim remains Un-Refuted.

But the rules here, at least for you and a few others is to then always say "we won, you lost!"  No one here will criticize you for making this fully illogical claim.

If you can offer a valid refutation for the claim I'm making here, please do.  But if one cannot be offered up - this counts as a win for me.   

I made this claim saying "this appears irrefutable and has yet to be refuted."  And this still seems to be the case.

[smartcooky]

Otherwise, I will call this one "done" - unrefuted

Only in your own mind

And we will continue to have an "Unaccounted for +72% of steady thrust for the first full second."

Show us the calculations YOU did to establish that...

1. The Saturn V did actually accelerate at only 72% of its optimum thrust, and

2. That this thrust level was maintained throughout its launch, sufficient that it could not have got to orbit.

... and NO figures Googled from other sources. Do the work yourself - show your working. If you fail to do this, I will call this one "done" - debunked, and your claim dismissed because you cannot, or refuse to, provide supporting evidence.

[smartcooky]

Handed your arse again eh najak! You don't seem to understand the rules and the processes of skepticism that are used here najak.

I think I'm seeing "your rules here".   I make a solid Physics/Math proof, backed by the evidence.   I'm not the first to note this, or admit this evidence.  Even Braeunig admitted it, and for 2 years tried to defend it with a vague and unsupported answer.  So the evidence is clear.

And it's also clear that this evidence/claim remains Un-Refuted.

But the rules here, at least for you and a few others is to then always say "we won, you lost!"  No one here will criticize you for making this fully illogical claim.

If you can offer a valid refutation for the claim I'm making here, please do.  But if one cannot be offered up - this counts as a win for me.   

I made this claim saying "this appears irrefutable and has yet to be refuted."  And this still seems to be the case.

Show me which post you posted the appropriate formula, and the calculations YOU made using that formula, and your explanation for how your results apply. NOT someone else's work, YOUR work!

[najak]

Show me which post you posted the appropriate formula, and the calculations YOU made using that formula, and your explanation for how your results apply. NOT someone else's work, YOUR work!

From the start of this thread, my work as ALL been shown within this online doc, which references a spreadsheet, as well as the folders where I show all of my Frame Captures, the KRITA file (free graphics tool so that anyone can see my project file, for free) - and check my work.

The math for Newtonian physics is High school physics.   Even if the "causes of acceleration are Rocket Science" in the end, the Ascent Module must comply with Newtonian physics....   The "Rocket Science part" simply contributes a "NET force" (or set of forces) which then feed into the Newtonian equations.

In this analysis, I've been very generous to the Apollogist mindset on my estimates, to avoid time/effort wasted on "contention with my measurements".

The end result is +72% (EXTRA/ABOVE the rating) thrust upwards -- which means the system is delivering 172% of the rated engine thrust - steadily for a full 1 second.   This same anomally is consistent for all 3 launches, so it's not a fluke.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sJsIUlzdVF3brADa8YwR4XTg59mod-K2ct4jQCSKlyA/edit?tab=t.0

It's important to note that even the Apollogists who deal with this issue are not daring to deny this added acceleration.   Such as Braeunig had posted some vague suggested reasons for this extra acceleration.

I've simply put a method and numbers to it, so that it's very specific.   Braeunig (smartly) removed his prior explanation, because it was unfounded/unsubstantiated, and goes against what most other articles have said about the "net result on thrust when the rocket engine is too close to the ground".      Even if Pressure Thrust increases, it is ususally MORE-THAN-OFFSET by a reduction in Momentum thrust -- resulting in LESS NET THRUST (not more). 

So the generalized "expected result" during this launch, should more likely BE LESS, NOT MORE...   But that's just generally speaking.

JayUTAH claims to have the awesome ability of demonstrating mathematically that a steady 172% of the rated engine thrust for a full second - is expected, or likely, or even possible...   Since it happens 3 for 3, it shouldn't be a FLUKE.  This should be "expected behavior".

OR... they simply messed up the simulation, and weren't thinking about 2000+ technology enabling us to analyze this much more easily, and for more people with easy access (online) and with online groups, so that collaborations can be done, to help things be more efficient.

[smartcooky]

Show me which post you posted the appropriate formula, and the calculations YOU made using that formula, and your explanation for how your results apply. NOT someone else's work, YOUR work!

From the start of this thread, my work as ALL been shown within this online doc, which references a spreadsheet, as well as the folders where I show all of my Frame Captures, the KRITA file (free graphics tool so that anyone can see my project file, for free) - and check my work.

The math for Newtonian physics is High school physics.   Even if the "causes of acceleration are Rocket Science" in the end, the Ascent Module must comply with Newtonian physics....   The "Rocket Science part" simply contributes a "NET force" (or set of forces) which then feed into the Newtonian equations.

In this analysis, I've been very generous to the Apollogist mindset on my estimates, to avoid time/effort wasted on "contention with my measurements".

The end result is +72% (EXTRA/ABOVE the rating) thrust upwards -- which means the system is delivering 172% of the rated engine thrust - steadily for a full 1 second.   This same anomally is consistent for all 3 launches, so it's not a fluke.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sJsIUlzdVF3brADa8YwR4XTg59mod-K2ct4jQCSKlyA/edit?tab=t.0

It's important to note that even the Apollogists who deal with this issue are not daring to deny this added acceleration.   Such as Braeunig had posted some vague suggested reasons for this extra acceleration.

I've simply put a method and numbers to it, so that it's very specific.   Braeunig (smartly) removed his prior explanation, because it was unfounded/unsubstantiated, and goes against what most other articles have said about the "net result on thrust when the rocket engine is too close to the ground".      Even if Pressure Thrust increases, it is ususally MORE-THAN-OFFSET by a reduction in Momentum thrust -- resulting in LESS NET THRUST (not more). 

So the generalized "expected result" during this launch, should more likely BE LESS, NOT MORE...   But that's just generally speaking.

JayUTAH claims to have the awesome ability of demonstrating mathematically that a steady 172% of the rated engine thrust for a full second - is expected, or likely, or even possible...   Since it happens 3 for 3, it shouldn't be a FLUKE.  This should be "expected behavior".

OR... they simply messed up the simulation, and weren't thinking about 2000+ technology enabling us to analyze this much more easily, and for more people with easy access (online) and with online groups, so that collaborations can be done, to help things be more efficient.

Oh, this is absolutely hilarious!

1. You are using YouTube frames, with a time stamp resolution of ±1 second to time an event in which the frame of reference in which you can take your "measurements" was only three seconds long (because after three seconds, there is nothing in the background of the ascent stage you can use to gauge acceleration rates). At an absolute minimum, your error bars are in the order of  ±25%, so any measurements you take, even if accurate (which they cannot possibly be as I will explain in 2. below) you will not be able to gain any meaningful figures. 

2. All your measurements of the LM are taken at an unknown angle, which you claim to measure within fractions of a degree, off a blurry image that you don't know is square or not. 1960s and 70s video cameras were notorious for lens distortions (both "barrel" and "pincushion") as well as raster distortion causes by the scan rate of the image when objects are moving in the field of view - particularly when they are moving vertically as they are here. You haven't accounted for any of this (because there simply is no way to do so without having the specifications for the LR camera lens).

3. Your assumptions
"Camera is positioned 150 meters away, at 1 meter above ground"
Wrong:
For Apollo 16, Young parked the Rover 300 feet east of the LM 300 feet is 91.4 metres
For Apollo 15, David Scott, parked the Rover a short unspecified distance from the LM (less than was the case for Apollo 16)
For Apollo 17, Eugene Cernan parked the Rover about 518 feet from the LM. This is 158m and the closest to your assumptions, but its still wrong with a 6% error. It was also parked on uneven ground.

... so you have introduced more error bars (±6% to ±30%) to your measurements.

"Assumed that ground level at Camera is SAME"
Nope, you cannot assume that. Considering that you claim to be measuring angles down to fractions of a degree, a difference of a metre or two up or down way will make a big difference to the camera angle at only 90 to 158 metres away

"AM bottom starts at 3 meters above ground.  (top of the base)
"AM is about 3 meters tall."
"About" is not a precise figure.. You are introducing even more errors now

"AM bottom/top, therefore are 2 and 5 meters above the camera.
The Camera View angle starts out at: 0.8 deg (bottom) & 1.9 deg (top).
After 1 second, Camera view angle is: 1.5 deg (bottom) & 2.7 deg (top)
The Arc Angle of AM Top motion is 0.8 deg.
Given that your basis for the camera height is flawed, these figures are both unreliable and unverifiable


Your whole methodology lacks rigor, and your whole measurement basis is flawed and fraught with massive errors. For this reason, everything from page 2 to page 16 inclusive of your alleged "proof" document can be summarily dismissed.
‎
‎