Hoax? - Lunar Launches - Too Fast

[bknight]

#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.

If NASA did not anticipate such accelerations then how did they give Ed Fendel the time and camera pitch to keep the LM in the frame with a tie delay?  You really are bad at this

[JayUtah]

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."

Yes, that's the claim of overpressure exhaust deriving from the nozzle being up against something, in this case the descent stage deck. That's the first thing we're going to estimate because it's something susceptible to ordinary fluid mechanics. But it is not the same as an ignition transient. Bob mentions that too. You don't need anything partially blocking the exhaust in order to have an ignition transient. As soon as I'm one step into the estimation of one, you started bringing up elements of the other in an attempt to sidestep it. You don't know what you're talking about.

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.

Bob says very plainly that he did not attempt to incorporate startup conditions into his model. He was trying to show that the engine and fuel load of the ascent stage was sufficient to reach orbit.

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

The factors you did not consider have been outlined to you. You asked for a quantitative estimate of their effects. And as soon as the math gets just a little bit outside your "basic physics only!" demand, you plug your ears and claim victory.

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".

The phenomena you didn't consider in formulating your expectations have been identified to you. Your unwillingness to believe in them does not make you right.

[JayUtah]

The math for Newtonian physics is High school physics.

But the potential sources of additional thrust at liftoff are not. And as soon as you realize you can't just use the engine's rated thrust as you would in a some high school toy question, you are all of a sudden unwilling or unable to follow along.

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".

You still provided no error analysis and actually had to correct your claim because you initially did it wrong. Now is not a good time for you to demand that you simply must be correct.

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

You claim you're being generous to your critics, but this document still contains your attempt to sidestep the question of ignition transience by including data from irrelevant rocket types and purely illustrative graphs that you dishonestly purport to reflect actual data. Someone reading your document might conclude that you successfully rebutted the explanation, while someone reading this thread might conclude that you simply Googled a bunch of irrelevant stuff because you don't know what you're talking about. It's curious that you feel the need to maintain your own version of this debate that looks like you won.

Such as Braeunig had posted some vague suggested reasons for this extra acceleration.

His reasons are not vague. They relate to actual known performance of rocket engines. It's physics. But because it's not high school physics, you aren't interested. But it's perfectly reasonable to wonder what the magnitude of those effects might be and estimate them.

Braeunig (smartly) removed his prior explanation, because it was unfounded/unsubstantiated...

No. That is not why he removed his rocketry pages.

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.

I made no such claim, and this is the second time I've asked you to show me where I did. You asked for a quantitative estimate of the effect, and I agreed to provide it. But I'm not going to provide it on your terms, so that you can just sidestep it as you have every other elaboration. You'll have to invest in the method so that we know your request was sincere.

...for more people with easy access (online) and with online groups, so that collaborations can be done, to help things be more efficient.

Yes, everyone fears you super-genius armchair detectives.

[JayUtah]

I think I'm seeing "your rules here".   I make a solid Physics/Math proof, backed by the evidence.

You made a claim and provided what you hoped would be quantitatively solid evidence, but you botched it originally and had to revise it. And you have still provided no error analysis for data that clearly needs it.

Even Braeunig admitted it, and for 2 years tried to defend it with a vague and unsupported answer.  So the evidence is clear.

No. The rebuttal has always been that both factors apply: it is problematic to extract accurate data from the available footage, and that conspiracy theorists ignore the non-simple elements of rocket propulsion. Just because one chooses to address one factor alone does not necessarily mean he has abandoned the other.

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

According to whom? Explanations have been provided, but you simply don't want to consider them.

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.

That's a bold claim coming from someone who is maintaining his own version of this debate in a separate place, solely within his control.

[najak]

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.

Thank you for the correction on Apollo 16.  Do you have a reference for this?

Your understanding of "math/tolerances" is just enough to sounds smart while being entirely wrong on your results.  Or, giving you benefit of the doubt, you were just rushed, and so moving forward, we'll see how well you respond to discussions of this analysis in more detail.

The 500' vs 300' range changes the "angular error" from this "ignored factor" from 0.14 pixels to 0.3 pixels max.  This makes very little impact on overall analysis.  It remains "mostly negligible" and I excluded it for simplicity, not because I cannot "do the math and correct for it".

The height of the Rover/camera -- also plays a small role here, so we can be off by a considerable amount on estimates, and still have almost no impact on the final analysis results (because if there is angular skew here, then it impacts BOTH the AM Height calculation and the Rise calculation by nearly the same amount!).   This has LESS impact than does my wrong estimation for Apollo 16 camera distance, which was also negligible.

===
Your claim of "distortion" (vertical vs. horizontal) - is a good concern that I have not yet accounted for.    Because we're dealing with known geometries here, we can calculate the amount of distortion going on here -- and I will add this to the analysis.   And then will modify the results accordingly.    Thank you for this contribution to the analysis.

[najak]

The phenomena you didn't consider in formulating your expectations have been identified to you. Your unwillingness to believe in them does not make you right.

After 40+ years, since this unrealistic/unexpected acceleration was first brought to light, until now - there has been no presentation of a theory (backed by science/math) to substantiate the claim that "these other factors could produce the added 72% of boost steadily for 1 full second".

I bring this up here -- "this has never been debunked" - and then you pretend like we need to do "new work, never presented before in these 40 years".   Why is that??   Why doesn't this presentation already exist?

If you were to answer it, like you say you can, please do -- it's not just "MY QUESTION", but a 40 year question, which remains unanswered - unrefuted.

So if you still CAN'T make this presentation, that no one else has made in the last 40 years -- I'm going to rightfully conclude, "this cannot be refuted".

Ball is in your court, if you want to finally be the ONE who can present a scientifically justified refutation.

As for your derogatory insinuations about me maintaining "my own conclusions of the debate" -- have you taken a look at your own 'clavius' website???

And you have the mainstream-support advantage.  Google/YouTube/FB will all generally suppress anything I have to say -- falsely calling it misinformation.   

So you are correct, "no they aren't too afraid of us independent scientists" - because our attempts to reach people are grossly suppressed by Google/YT/FB/etc.  The whole system is against MLH, such that it hides the "good points" and promotes the "terrible arguments".

Just as @ApolloEnthusiast shared his "skepticism story" - he questioned, and then researched - and what did Google lead him to??  All of the bad/debunked MLH arguments -- which at first might sound compelling, but once you dig into them a bit - they fall apart.... and you end up with another Apollogist, for the wrong reasons...   Based on the Strawman technique, only there's no one around telling them the good arguments.   THIS is the mechanism by which Apollo maintains "the faith" for the vast majority.  It is dishonest, and skewed.

[najak]

You still provided no error analysis and actually had to correct your claim because you initially did it wrong. Now is not a good time for you to demand that you simply must be correct.

False.  I have sufficient error analysis, to show what is "negligible" (and so can be omitted from the math analysis) as well as "the impact of image analysis errors".

Since I'm working alone, some "botching" along the way is expected -- but THIS is a living document.  I corrected the botch, so that my analysis maintains Integrity.

I will now also be adding in the analysis of "aspect ratio skew", and if non-negligible, will include this impact into the results.

[JayUtah]

Why is that??   Why doesn't this presentation already exist?

You demand that the answer be simple. It is not. Rockets do not behave the way someone limited to high school physics thinks they do. You were told about the phenomena you did not consider, but you are unwilling to credit them. Instead you demand more and more, with your demands becoming less and less evidently sincere.

Ball is in your court, if you want to finally be the ONE who can present a scientifically justified refutation.

A scientifically justified conclusion has been presented. Overpressure due to nozzle occlusion is a scientific fact. Ignition transients are scientific and historical fact. As soon as I started taking you through a detailed quantitative explanation, you balked and declared victory because you didn't expect to be held accountable for any part of it. We left off at setting up the initial conditions as a static pressure question involving a partially enclosed vessel into which a compressible fluid is to be injected.

As for your derogatory insinuations about me maintaining "my own conclusions of the debate" -- have you taken a look at your own 'clavius' website???

I wrote the vast bulk of that web site before joining this forum. It is not an attempt to reformulate or selectively quote debates held here. In fact, when this forum became available, I specifically linked to it from there and said that anyone who disputed what I had written on my site could come raise that objection or question here and that I would answer it. A section of this forum remains dedicated to that purpose.

I find it difficult to see how that compares with your selective reproduction of this debate. Someone reading my site will know that there is a place where they can raise questions with its author, and that the resulting discussion will take place publicly. Where do you provide anything similar? How will someone reading your document know that it arose from a debate you had elsewhere? How will someone be able to check that your reporting is accurate?

Google/YouTube/FB will all generally suppress anything I have to say -- falsely calling it misinformation.

You'll have to take that up with them. I want to know why you're presenting a different version of this debate in a medium only you control.

So you are correct, "no they aren't too afraid of us independent scientists" - because our attempts to reach people are grossly suppressed by Google/YT/FB/etc.  The whole system is against MLH, such that it hides the "good points" and promotes the "terrible arguments".

Right, it's someone else's fault that your arguments can't get a toehold. It can't possibly be because you don't know what you're talking about.

[Mag40]

Based on the Strawman technique, only there's no one around telling them the good arguments.

What bollocks. There are no good arguments.   

THIS is the mechanism by which Apollo maintains "the faith" for the vast majority.

A pathetic, inaccurate and dishonest claim. The mechanism is maintained by a measure of evidence that is orders of magnitude beyond required. I have seen Apollo enthusiasts over the years finding astonishing consistency at every level. Every time we get one of these armchair detective claims, little tidbits of information turn up that add to the vast body of evidence. I'm sure TBFDU has "briefed" you on little paths for obfuscation on a whole number of things. THIS is how people who don't understand the myriad of subjects or have any skills/intent to verify them get suckered in by the HB claims.

It is dishonest, and skewed.

That's you.

There's about a dozen lines of claim by you going on here and you are getting your arse handed to you on most of them. I love that JayUtah is endeavouring to get you to invest some proper research on the rocket ascent. You just don't get it. You've been told about several significant factors by an industry expert and an historical expert on Apollo.

Instead of taking the opportunity to educate yourself, you dig in like some impatient arse, proclaiming victory and hand waving away things given to you to help you understand.

I have no doubt that you will be completely unable to concede anything. You remember where I said the PLSS hit the flag, got proven wrong - I made the unusual mistake (for me) of crowing about it. I still have no problem in admitting the error. You however have made my crowing episode into an art-form. So much so that the loss of face you probably associate with any admission and with probably your Facebook HB "peers" watching, will mean you just evade, obfuscate and ultimately flounce, rather than concede the bloody obvious.

Everyone here knows why you won't concede on gravity related evidence. Just one thing and the case is closed. This you know and it's why you've clammed up after your useless physics failures.

[najak]

A scientifically justified conclusion has been presented. Overpressure due to nozzle occlusion is a scientific fact. Ignition transients are scientific and historical fact. As soon as I started taking you through a detailed quantitative explanation, you balked and declared victory because you didn't expect to be held accountable for any part of it. We left off at setting up the initial conditions as a static pressure question involving a partially enclosed vessel into which a compressible fluid is to be injected.

I didn't ask for it to be "simple", just that it "exists" - can you point to me where such a scientific article exists?  Apollogists, even now, have been quoting Braeunig's vague statements as proof, even though he took it down 7 years ago.   It's ALL THEY HAVE TO GO ON.

If you want to lay out your process for proving something - great do it.  Tell me the steps you want me to follow - but not in the "slow/stalling" manner in which you do it.  You couldn't have just said "canted up 1.5 degrees yields 59.3 sqIn gap for exhaust to escape at ignition"...    Why take 4 posts just to get to this - and then instead of moving on to the next step you say "why is this important?" - Just say what YOU THINK it's important, and move on to the next step.

Your explanation so far should have been simple:
"It was canted at 1.5 deg, producing 59.3 sqIn of gap for the exhaust to escape at ignition.  ... the move on -- USE that 59.3 sqIn in your next step.."  I know fluid dynamics well enough, and if I'm deficient, I'll catch up with whatever proof you make.

Instead you spend 4 posts trying to be mysterious in a stalling type of way - because you don't have a good answer here.   So you mean to occlude/disguise it by NEVER GIVING THE PROOF -- which NO ONE HAS EVER GIVEN.

Show the proof, and I'll comment..  Then you can judge from there whether or not it "went above my head."   This proof isn't just a niche proof for "just me" -- but would become the ONLY PROOF that has ever existed.

Ball is in your court to do what NO ONE ELSE HAS EVER BEEN ABLE TO DO IN THE LAST 40 YEARS -- show a valid scientific explanation for this steady 1 second of 72% added thrust.

So until ANYONE can do such a thing, I will ACCURATELY INDICATE within my document that this specific point stands fully Unrefuted.   (no "attempts" even exist anymore)

[LunarOrbit]

Instead you spend 4 posts trying to be mysterious in a stalling type of way - because you don't have a good answer here.

Jay isn't trying to be mysterious, and he isn't stalling because he doesn't have the answer. He is testing you to see if you're capable of figuring it out, and so far you're failing.

[najak]

I love that JayUtah is endeavouring to get you to invest some proper research on the rocket ascent. You just don't get it.

I get it quite clearly.  Perhaps YOU can show me ANY science article which indicates that they can justify the added 72% of boost for the first 1 second...

This is 40+ year old issue...  STILL UNANSWERED.

If JayUTAH is smarter than the rest -- lets see it.  The ball is in his court.

He's stalling here for a reason.   And just as you "think he handed me my arse", is exactly how Apollogy came to exist.   People simply WANTED TO BELIEVE IT... and we unable to see the mistakes/issues... just as you witness this interaction between Jay and I -- and draw these illogical conclusions.

You are safe within an echo chamber here.  You wouldn't last 2 seconds in the realm of friends that I keep.  Here you are safe to make illogical conclusions and bad hypothesis and declare victory -  no one here will correct you.  This is an echo chamber.   I'd like to see that changed.

[najak]

Jay isn't trying to be mysterious, and he isn't stalling because he doesn't have the answer. He is testing you to see if you're capable of figuring it out, and so far you're failing.

This isn't just MY question.  It's a 40 year claim -- STILL UNREFUTED.  Prove me wrong?

You seriously think that Jay ha the ability to do what no one else has been able to do in the last 40 years?

[JayUtah]

I didn't ask for it to be "simple", just that it "exists" - can you point to me where such a scientific article exists?

Now it has to be an "article." You keep trying to dictate what you will accept as proof based on what was missing from what was already provided. We gave you hints about how you could find large amounts of LM documentation—people who had used it successfully to repair and re-engineer LM components. You didn't bite. And when someone finally spoon-fed it to you, you ignored it and went off about needing a weight-and-balance chart: something utterly irrelevant to spacecraft. You demanded some kind of master dimensioned drawing. Whatever is provided, you'll just make up something else that you ignorantly represent to be the sine qua non.

It's ALL THEY HAVE TO GO ON.

Well, no, there's the whole realm of rocket science that you confess you don't know and can't be bothered to learn. You imagine that the LM documentation should amount to a "few stacks of boxes" or that they should have kept some "binders" of the most critical design drawings. That's a comically ignorant understanding of how the LM was designed, or indeed how any aerospace engineering project happened in the days of paper. You simply have no idea what you're talking about, but you demand that you must somehow be one of the few enlightened people who understand that it was all ersatz.

Just say what YOU THINK it's important, and move on to the next step.

Asked and answered. You have sidestepped everything that's been spoon-fed to you. I'm following a process designed to test the sincerity of your question and your likely ability to understand and accept the answer. I hinted that the initial conditions would be a static pressure problem in which a compressible fluid is introduced into a partially closed vessel. The fact that you can't even venture a guess at what any of the next steps should be in the process indicates you don't know what you're asking for. Maybe the inflow mass flow rate? Maybe the compressibility of the combustion products?

I know fluid dynamics well enough, and if I'm deficient, I'll catch up with whatever proof you make.

No, that's not consistent with how you've so far approached topics you don't understand. Every previous time I've tried to introduce the required complexity, you've balked because it didn't fit your desired simplistic understanding. So we're not going to do it the way you dictate, the way you've used so far to keep the ball in everyone else's court and just dismiss whatever is presented.

So until ANYONE can do such a thing, I will ACCURATELY INDICATE within my document that this specific point stands fully Unrefuted.   (no "attempts" even exist anymore)

And that's my point. You maintain a separate document that says what you desperately want to be the takeaway from this debate, not what's actually happening.

[najak]

...went off about needing a weight-and-balance chart: something utterly irrelevant to spacecraft.

How do you believe they could calculate the "required RCS thrust time" without knowing the Weight/Balance/Inertia information? 

How would they be able to predict the impact of "variance in the thrust output/timing of each RCS thruster"?

This is MANDATORY BASIC CORE information they'd have to derive, share, and use for Attitude Control system.  But you find it "utterly irrelevant"?